Subject: [lojban] nature of debate (was: RE: Re: Why we should cancel the vote or all vote NO (was RE: Official Statement- LLG Board approves new baseline policy

From: "And Rosta" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 02:47:53 -0000

Robin:
> On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 02:03:15AM -0000, And Rosta wrote:
> > > On Sun, Dec 01, 2002 at 11:23:20PM -0000, And Rosta wrote:
> > > > My view is that the debate must go on long enough for all arguments 
> > > > and counterarguments to be raised. 
> > > 
> > > BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!
> > 
> > I'm curious to know what the funny aspect is. I don't take offense at
> > your amusement, but I am a little bemused 
> 
> In one post you say that we should argue to January 
> 
> In this one you say we should argue until we're done 
> 
> Based upon lojbanic history, the latter is larger than the former 
> 
> In fact, I'd say it's larger by a countably infinite number of days 
> 
> If that doesn't strike you as humorous, I don't think I can explain it 

Thanks for explaining. There's a serious point here, though. For one
thing, the quoted remark pertained to the BF procedures, not to
the hypothetical Policy consultation. But more importantly, debates
that drag on and on don't drag on because new arguments and 
counterarguments keep on getting raised. They drag on partly because
the nature of email means we forget what has been said, but -- and
this is the key point -- mainly because people restate the same
arguments over and over again. (That is not silly, because political
debate requires each side to keep its end up.) In jboske debates we
generally quite quickly get to a point where all arguments and
counterarguments have been raised. That doesn't of itself lead to
consensus, but it's important for people to realize that rational
debate involving arguments that the protagonists can all agree are
right or wrong does not drag on interminably. It's significant that
many jboske debates (which tend to be rationalist, compared to the
more ideological debates that happen on lojban list) tend to peter
out in agreement. Contrast this with what must be the longest running
debate on Lojban list, between me & Lojbab, which has been going on
for getting on for a dozen years now. No new arguments and 
counterarguments are being raised; rather Lojbab endlessly restates
an extremist Naturalist/Conservative position and I endlessly
restate an extremist Formalist/Progressivist position.

So debates that are not purely ideological need two phases, ideally.
A first phase for all the arguments to be raised. And a second
phase to force people to reach some kind of consensus position.
Nick has got the second phase well-thought out, but I wanted to
urge him to give the first phase a bit more scope.

--And.