[Ghoser777]

So I usually like talking about politics and national/international issues, but I always find the debates turn into giant pissing contents instead of means for reaching agreement. It's always annoyed me that instead of having rational debates where facts are presented and the evidence is weighed, we instead have emotional fights where predetermined notions of what is true rules the day. When a new piece of information is brought up that doesn't agree with your line of thought, it automatically must be flawed for a hundred different generic reasons.

So here's what I've always wanted to do, but I don't know if I'll ever have the time to even get something like this started - I'd like to make a website that actually outlines and cross references all the arguments for and against a topic. I'm envisioning kind of a three or four column format, with all arguments for a position on the left, counter arguments on the right (formatted so you can see which are applied to the original arguments), counter-counter arguments in the next column, and potentially counter-counter-counter arguments in the last column (if you ever did high school debate, I'm kind of envisioning a flow). Citations for studies, quotes, etc would be presented. I wouldn't run it as a wiki - I don't know if a general populace of posters would behave well enough. It would be a monumental task, but myself and some group of other people would set up the topics and take emails for contributors. It would be our job to remove the silliness and format the arguments in a way that presents the idea in a rational way.

So what do you guys think? Is this a pipe dream that would never work? I'd love for this to work for presidential debates. Have the two candidates present their arguments and have the commentator organize the responses in a way so that viewers can view on their TV screen or on he internet how the different arguments clash and what their citations are.

[lpkmckenna]

Yes, laying it out in a chart will solve everything.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Ghoser777 

So I usually like talking about politics and national/international issues
[citation needed] but I always find the debates turn into giant pissing contents instead of means for reaching agreement. It's always annoyed me that instead of having rational debates where facts are presented and the evidence is weighed, we instead have emotional fights where predetermined notions of what is true rules the day. When a new piece of information is brought up [citation needed]that doesn't agree with your line of thought, it automatically must be flawed for a hundred different generic reasons.

That's just it. Most ideals aren't founded on information, but emotion and presupposition. A presupposition fed by emotional bias cannot be reasoned with using facts. Instead, "you're a poop-butt, stinky face" rules the day.

So here's what I've always wanted to do, but I don't know if I'll ever have the time to even get something like this started [citation needed]- I'd like to make a website that actually outlines and cross references all the arguments for and against a topic. I'm envisioning kind of a three or four column format, with all arguments for a position on the left, counter arguments on the right (formatted so you can see which are applied to the original arguments), counter-counter arguments in the next column, and potentially counter-counter-counter arguments in the last column (if you ever did high school debate, I'm kind of envisioning a flow). Citations for studies, quotes, etc would be presented. I wouldn't run it as a wiki - I don't know if a general populace of posters would behave well enough. [citation needed] It would be a monumental task, but myself and some group of other people would set up the topics and take emails for contributors. It would be our job to remove the silliness and format the arguments in a way that presents the idea in a rational way.

How do you select the panel that accepts and edits these arguments?

So what do you guys think? Is this a pipe dream that would never work? I'd love for this to work for presidential debates. Have the two candidates present their arguments and have the commentator organize the responses in a way so that viewers can view on their TV screen or on he internet how the different arguments clash and what their citations are.

I don't see how this is any less useful than the host of other blogs accepting and making arguments. I say get some space and go for it. If you need anything at all, let me know.

[Ghoser777]

Yeah, I know putting it all in a chart won't stop people from making stupid decisions. But I also think it would be nice to see a resource that is more about debate than talking points. It would be a good reference for someone to find out information about an already hashed out topic. And if someone is open minded enough, maybe they can see and appreciate that there are usually more than one side to a debate.

[red rocket]

I think this is completely impossible.

There's no such thing as ‘just the facts’. Politics consist predominantly of ideologically charged verbiage, deception and spin, if you strip away all the BS, there's nothing left to hold people's interest. Facts without context are meaningless to the common man.

[TETENAL]

"Just the facts" is not politics. "Just the facts" is science. Politics is to decide what to do to change those facts (or make sure they stay the way they are). And there is no way to objectively deduce this from facts.

[Ghoser777]

Originally Posted by red rocket 

I think this is completely impossible.

There's no such thing as ‘just the facts’. Politics consist predominantly of ideologically charged verbiage, deception and spin, if you strip away all the BS, there's nothing left to hold people's interest. Facts without context are meaningless to the common man.

I don't think you give the common man enough credit.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

"Just the facts" is not politics. "Just the facts" is science. Politics is to decide what to do to change those facts (or make sure they stay the way they are). And there is no way to objectively deduce this from facts.

If it seems like logic and reasoning can't be applied to action, that's just because it isn't done often enough. The idea here (at least as I see it) isn't just to list facts, but to help you analyze arguments. I agree that I'd like better criteria for how our policies are formed than "Wow, Obama sounds so distinguished, and I'd really like to support a black dude."

[Dork.]

It could work if you solicit articles from partisans asking for a basic explanation of their arguments, and do some minor editing to make the articles as even-handed as possible. Instead of looking for basic facts, you would be looking for basic arguments that contain facts that can be verified (and point out things that sound like facts, but really aren't).

It's more difficult for some issues than others, though. Gay Marriage is a good example. I did a Google Search for "arguments against Gay Marriage", and came up with these ten arguments from James Dobson. Here's one of them:

Argument #2
The introduction of legalized gay marriages will lead inexorably to polygamy and other alternatives to one-man, one-woman unions.

In Utah, polygamist Tom Green, who claims five wives, is citing Lawrence v. Texas as the legal authority for his appeal. This past January, a Salt Lake City civil rights attorney filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of another couple wanting to engage in legal polygamy. Their justification? Lawrence v. Texas.

The ACLU of Utah has actually suggested that the state will "have to step up to prove that a polygamous relationship is detrimental to society"-as opposed to the polygamists having to prove that plural marriage is not harmful to the culture. Do you see how the game is played? Despite 5,000 years of history, the burden now rests on you and me to prove that polygamy is unhealthy. The ACLU went on to say that the nuclear family "may not be necessarily the best model." Indeed, Justice Antonin Scalia warned of this likelihood in his statement for the minority in the Lawrence case.10 It took less than six months for his prediction to become reality.

While there are actual facts in this argument -- The ACLU in Utah probably did say the things he says they did -- the argument is in no way persuasive to people who don't already agree that same-sex marriage is unnatural. It will be hard to document this issue the way you would like to, with arguments and counter-arguments, because it's not based on facts to begin with, it's based on belief.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

It's more difficult for some issues than others, though. Gay Marriage is a good example. I did a Google Search for "arguments against Gay Marriage", and came up with these ten arguments from James Dobson. Here's one of them:

This argument relies on a formal logical fallacy. It might be worthwhile, without actually getting into counterarguments, just to point out where such fallacies exist. I think that's a large part of why this argument is unconvincing to people who don't already agree with the author.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

If it seems like logic and reasoning can't be applied to action, that's just because it isn't done often enough.

No, I think TETENAL hit the nail on the head. There are tons of examples of where science and reasoning are applied to policy, but those examples aren't interesting enough to be considered "politics," because people don't disagree on them. For example, modeling the solar system heavily influences things like official timekeeping and adding however many milliseconds to the year from time to time. The areas we consider "politics" are ones where there is disagreement on the implications of the facts, because there is disagreement on the value judgments of the outcomes. Is being gay "wrong, but tolerated," or "should" it be on the same level as everyone else? Is smoking so bad for you that banning it should be more important than your personal freedom to make bad decisions? These are in no way questions of facts, only values. The facts themselves aren't in dispute, so much as what our goals are and how we can reach them based on those facts.

[BRussell]

Oh but disputes about facts have a huge influence on politics. Is global warming real or a false conspiracy? Does cutting taxes raise revenues? Are there nukes in Iraq? Is the US health care system the best in the world? Many basic political questions are empirical in nature. People can still disagree on courses of action even if they agree on the facts, but more often than not people seem to throw away the facts rather than disagreeing on other grounds.

[Uncle Skeleton]

In most cases that seem like they're about facts, they're more about values and the weight of some values over others.

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Is global warming real or a false conspiracy?

Is our certainty about global warming strong enough to justify action, and how much action? If actions to curb global warming didn't have costs, this wouldn't be an issue. But the fact is they do, and so the level of certainty has to be weighed against what we are willing to spend on it. What we are willing to spend is a value judgment.

Are there nukes in Iraq?

Is the information we have about nukes in Iraq enough to justify "playing it safe" by invading? If there's even 1% chance of nukes in Iraq, some people's values say we need to take action. In this case, not only are the potential negatives and positive weighted differently, but people's value judgment of which road is "the safe road" is different.

Is the US health care system the best in the world?

Best by what measure? Lightest on taxes? Least "communist?" Is more equitable health care "worth it" to succumb to the socialist menace and pay higher taxes?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Oh but disputes about facts have a huge influence on politics. Is global warming real or a false conspiracy? Does cutting taxes raise revenues? Are there nukes in Iraq? Is the US health care system the best in the world? Many basic political questions are empirical in nature. People can still disagree on courses of action even if they agree on the facts, but more often than not people seem to throw away the facts rather than disagreeing on other grounds.

Missing in the above is any notion of grey.

- Is Global Warming real or a false conspiracy?
A; Grey. There are warming and cooling periods and a host of contributors of varying degrees and at various times. Global climate is generally cyclical. The recent warming patterns have not exceeded what has been established through vast amounts of evidence of natural variability for at least the last 10,000 years. The indictments of "false conspiracies" only work if you're willing to acknowledge them on all sides of the debate. It is not enough to scream "oil industry" while ignoring the fact that GE has funneled in more lobbying dollars than all the oil interests combined to protect a buy-up of carbon credits awaiting sale. Any effective lie will be littered with truth.

- Does cutting taxes raise revenues?
A; Grey. Tax increases raise revenue, but illustrate diminishing returns at a given point. A tax rate that is too high will in fact decrease revenues therefore, a tax cut can raise revenues. The single largest contribution has and always will be a robust economy.

- Are there nukes in Iraq?
A; Grey. There were in fact documented nuclear weapons programs in Iraq. You do not have nukes without a blueprint on building them. They had the blueprint. A major concern was the sale of these programs to other rogue nations.

- Is the US healthcare system the best in the US?
A; Grey. It depends on the procedure you seek, the complexity of that issue, and the amount of resources you have available to address it.

Too often, a political argument is framed as either black or white when in reality there's a whole bunch of grey. The grey is the detailed, factual, boring part of the political discourse and gets washed over. Instead we are left with the screaming zealots arguing black against the screaming zealots arguing white.

[Apemanblues]

All issues have grey areas, but some issues are not as grey as certain people would like you to think they are.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Apemanblues 

All issues have grey areas, but some issues are not as grey as certain people would like you to think they are.

This is true also and falls under; "any effective lie will be littered with truths".

[BRussell]

ebuddy and Uncle Skelton: I definitely agree that there aren't simple yes/no answers to the questions I posed. But still, they are empirical questions. They have complex answers, to be sure, but all empirical questions do. My point is that matters of fact do play a role in politics. It seemed that others above suggested that they don't.

[Uncle Skeleton]

No I don't think they are empirical questions. I think that empirical questions get used by both sides for two reasons, and neither of those reasons are productive or get to the real issue, they're just distractions. 1, the people arguing don't realize that the disagreement is over values not facts, and this makes them think the other side is disagreeing because they don't know the facts, so they try to correct this by pushing the facts. This is futile because these facts don't matter to the other side which has different values, and therefore puts importance on completely different facts. 2, people think that having facts on their side strengthens it, so they present their case for their value system by finding facts which support it. Facts are much easier to put into words than values. Facts can be proven right or wrong. So there is an understandable urge to tie one's wagon to a fact (which you know you can prove) rather than an ideal which is by its nature unprovable, in hopes that by proving your fact you can implicate the "accuracy" of your value system, if there can be such a thing.

[BRussell]

Well they are empirical questions. I don't see how you can say they're not. What I think you're saying is that people let their opinions bias their views of empirical questions, which I completely agree with. But to say that there are no such things as facts and only values exist - that I completely disagree with.

My points:

1. Even if people agree on facts, they can still differ on values and conclusions and policies. For example, people can accept the same essential science on global warming but have totally different policy views.

2. But debates about facts are an important part of politics. For example, people can debate about what's going to happen to the climate and the earth in the future. But at some point it's also fair to say that someone is stating something that is either consistent or inconsistent with basic and accepted expert knowledge.

[Uncle Skeleton]

I'm not saying there's no such thing as facts, I'm saying that the issues we argue over aren't them. The most very basic premise may be factually indisputable (such as "the earth has been warming" or "embryonic stem cells are alive"), but once you stray from that (like "SUVs are the problem" or "embryos are people") not only are the facts no longer clear, but values are imposed (for example the value that global warming is a problem, or the nature of what is a person). The values aspect is more important than the facts. You can't evaluate the meaning of the facts until you know what values you're trying to service. To insist on "Just the facts," or even to emphasize facts over values, is to doom the debate to failure and bickering.

No matter which side you're on, the "other side" isn't composed entirely of liars and idiots. If you think that the issues are empirical, then I can't see how you can agree with that statement. And if you don't agree with that statement, then I think that is the real problem with America: the failure of each side to see the other with respect. You have to admit at some point that the other side might be right, and that you might actually learn something from them. Otherwise how can you ever expect them to feel the same about you?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I'm not saying there's no such thing as facts, I'm saying that the issues we argue over aren't them. The most very basic premise may be factually indisputable (such as "the earth has been warming" or "embryonic stem cells are alive"), but once you stray from that (like "SUVs are the problem" or "embryos are people") not only are the facts no longer clear, but values are imposed (for example the value that global warming is a problem, or the nature of what is a person). The values aspect is more important than the facts. You can't evaluate the meaning of the facts until you know what values you're trying to service. To insist on "Just the facts," or even to emphasize facts over values, is to doom the debate to failure and bickering.

I don't think the idea is to make up people's minds for them; it's to help them research the facts so they can make up their own minds.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Maybe I didn't emphasize this part enough: "not only are the facts no longer clear..."