[debate] debate guidelines -- first batch

[Alan Light]

Well, it has been kind of quiet since the suggested guidelines were published.

I feel like I have been largely responsible for these suggested guidelines, as I know I can get off-focus and a bit pedantic at times.  I also tend to forget that not everyone is a native English speaker - though in fairness, everyone posting here is writing well enough that it is not obvious.

I should note that the way my brain works and processes information is based more on a coherentist model than foundationalist.  I know most of y'all haven't studied epistemology (the study of how we know what we know), so here's a link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coherentism

This is not exactly the norm, and while it does have some advantages, the chief disadvantage is that it can seem quite perplexing to someone who thinks in a more linear manner.

So, even when I stay in focus it often seems out of focus to others.

This is also one reason why I prefer informal debates to formal ones - formal debates seem far too restrictive to me..  They often preclude the introduction of points and data that seem important to me.

That said, I will try to keep my mind from wandering so much in future debates.  I hope I haven't killed this group.



Alan Light


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://whitestar.linuxbox.org/pipermail/debate/attachments/20090507/83800db1/attachment.htm>