Why does everyone feed into the anti-debate environment on YA?

Question

Look at almost any post that includes the word "liberal" or "conservative" in it. You'll find exactly what I'm talking about. It doesn't matter who posts it. For the most part, what you'll be seeing is a lot of backhanded arguments about how one side is stupid, or made up of Nazis, or full of socialists, tree-huggers, close-minded idiots, or corporate lapdogs. You'll see someone argue how that group hates America, or the poor, or minorities, or health care in general, or animals, or whatever. And the responses will always tend to feed into it.
What's the goal of all this? Can't we have a reasoned debate about it? At least give reasons for these vast claims of debauchery and wrongdoing, it'd be nice to know how and why you think this way. I'm reaching out to others online to find out what they've seen because there's no way this is getting solved soon. Is this just me seeing all this, or has debate gone the way of the Dodo?

Answer 1

The simple reason is because to completely explain an issue in politically correct detail would require paragraphs of text that no one would read through. So it's easier to just drag someone's party through the mud and try to make a quick point than have a reasoned debate.

Plus we're debating politics. At the highest level of government, there are no "right answers", it's majority rule to determine policy and there are many factors, some of which are a conflict of interest (such as lobbyists) that go into making decisions that shouldn't even be there.

Political debate has no basis, even when attempted correctly it devolves to simple talking points and posture.

Answer 2

I try to take people down with facts - but sometimes I do slip up or get p/o and go on a rant- some people attack me when I do cut and pastes from websites -they hate the facts -two things I have learned never give a republican a cnn source -never give a democrat a fox source -they will shut down and not listen - you tube gets shot down too but if you watch the video sometimes its from fox cnn msnbc abc cbs pbs bbc so I find that a very invalid argument that you tube is an invalid source its actualty usually a source for a source -

Answer 3

I think the first response sums it up. Opinions pass for truth, and it's all the fault of the other party, and we don't need to debate whether or not the matters we are discussing are even legitimate concerns of the Federal government under the Constitution in the first place.

Answer 4

that is the way some people debate, sadly.

I'm not innocent though. If I see enough anti-whatever, I'll post an answer too. Though it's usually more about Bush than about the Repubs or cons.

And I use words like "some", "many", "a few"... I do try not to generalize.

Answer 5

For starters.. the format is not set up for debate. It's a single entry per person, so there can be no back and forth.

Answer 6

I have a system in here.

If the question is a legitimate question, I give a legitimate answer.

If the question is clearly spiked, I take it as serioulsy as it deserves.

Most questions are the second kind.

Answer 7

"Everyone" does not feed into the anti-debate environment (do you?).

Only the partisans do this. It may seem like everyone but it is not.

Answer 8

I think your first answer is a good example. Marxist politics.

Answer 9

It is easier to slander the beliefs of others and only the top contributors actually write in intelligent ways without insulting people.

Answer 10

There's debate here???