Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
fnord

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


                                                               

Iraq debate board

 a discussion board about the Iraq war on nytimes or cnn where logical arguments would be voted to the top
  (+4, -7)
(+4, -7) 		  [vote for,
against]

so the forum would look something like slashdot's, where arguments get voted into visibility based on their relevancy. I could see this getting really interesting if it had a big enough readership. The quality would actually get higher with more posts rather than get polluted like most message boards. Logical arguments, made in public, it would be amazing.
—kerryoco, Aug 17 2007

U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum http://www.uspoliti...line.com/indexf.php
[ldischler, Aug 18 2007]

urbandictionary.com http://www.urbandic...p?term=o+rly&page=1
[bnip, Sep 08 2007]

Please log in.
If you're not logged in, you can see what this page looks like, but you will not be able to add anything.
Short name, e.g., Bob's Coffee
Destination URL. E.g., https://www.coffee.com/
Description (displayed with the short name and URL.)






       I smell another unproductive "what is half-baked?" argument coming...
—globaltourniquet, Aug 17 2007
   

       I'd love to have such a system, I just don't have a clue how to enforce "logic".   

       How do you prevent people from voting for (a) their friends (b) funny people (c) people who merely share their (irrational) opinions?
—jutta, Aug 17 2007
   

       How would you know that a vote had been cast on grounds of logic? Also, what makes you think that the logical arguments would be the popular ones?
—pertinax, Aug 17 2007
   

       o/t sorry, there is some chat at the moment about all religions referring to God as Allah (an arabic word for God) I cannot see the christians really going ahead with this at all. I propose calling him something new like - marshmallow.
—po, Aug 17 2007
   

       One man's fallacy is another man's faith
—globaltourniquet, Aug 17 2007
   

       // I just don't have a clue how to enforce "logic".   

       Easy: Autocratically, with force, authority, and withering self indignation. Don't spend time worrying whether it's actually logical, believe in yourself and everyone will follow like sheep. Hey, that's how the Iraq war started
—TheLightsAreOnBut, Aug 17 2007
   

       Anyway, we'll win this war soon - we have marshmallow on our side.
—wagster, Aug 17 2007
   

       Iraq Debate - Bored. bone
—xenzag, Aug 17 2007
   

       //what on earth is it?//   

       A good point.
—theleopard, Aug 17 2007
   

       You've obviously not seen me iron...
—theleopard, Aug 17 2007
   

       You could sit on the Ironic Board.
—xenzag, Aug 17 2007
   

       Marshmallow is cute, but Christians like wine so how about --Marsallah?
—xandram, Aug 17 2007
   

       That's for the Indian debate board, Shirley? As in, "Shall I have the Jalfrezi or the Chicken Tikka Marsallah?"
—theleopard, Aug 17 2007
   

       Not all Christians love the wine [xandram] (at least not openly). Some do the communion thing with white bread and water.
—Galbinus_Caeli, Aug 17 2007
   

       Some think the "wine" was unfermented grape juice. Others think the covenants changed more recently to disallow alcohol. Still others would say "Stop getting your logic all over my faith".
—Galbinus_Caeli, Aug 17 2007
   

       It was just a generalization. I didn't mean they all liked drinking wine, though I have watched priests who really seem to enjoy that early morning nip..
(no offense to any religion, I just enjoy word-play)
—xandram, Aug 17 2007
   

       [Anathema Device], you copied the list of other ideas in this category (up there, top right) as well as this idea's header.
—imaginality, Aug 17 2007
   

       // Easy: Autocratically, with force, authority, and withering self indignation. Don't spend time worrying whether it's actually logical, believe in yourself and everyone will follow like sheep.   

       Except for the last bit, that's pretty much how this site is run, too.
—jutta, Aug 17 2007
   

       baaa
—po, Aug 17 2007
   

       Hey, did you just see a shepherd go by here?
—normzone, Aug 18 2007
   

       It's little po beep.
—wagster, Aug 18 2007
   

       The holy trinity will be henceforth named the Mallow, the Choccy and the Holy Toast, collectively known as S'mores.
—marklar, Aug 19 2007
   

       maybe beating a dead horse, but.... just read all the posts and I'm still excited about it. Main objection seems to be that it would be like most message boards.. cluttered and irrational. I'm envisioning millions of patriotic American and Iraqi citizens checking this message board everyday though. I mean, it would be on nytimes.com, and I know EVERYBODY checks that daily... And a voting process where the most popular arguments, and the most popular, relevant objections would surface to visibility. I have changed - from 'logical' to 'popular'. Popular is more interesting.   

       this would be vastly different from political forum sombody posted... that would look like a database compared to what I'm envisioning. This would be parsed down so 10 year olds could understand it.   

       I'll stop for now and prepare for the next round of beatings. anyone?
—kerryoco, Sep 03 2007
   

       Ok. Let's start with //millions of patriotic American and Iraqi citizens checking this message board everyday though. I mean, it would be on nytimes.com, and I know EVERYBODY checks that daily... //.   

       How many Iraqis have internet access? How many speak English? How many read the NY Times? I mean, I'm English and I've haven't been there once.   

       How's about putting it on the Al Sabah website?
—wagster, Sep 03 2007
   

       how would you get new stuff in if you have all the populer stuff at the top? no one would wwant to post anything thats not going to get read by somone.
—F_R_O_G, Sep 03 2007
   

       Heh! I presume you meant a random subatomic event?
—wagster, Sep 03 2007
   

       [+] I'm envisioning something like urbandictionary.com (link), where one can vote correct definitions upward in the ranking and vote incorrect ones downward (and it somehow doesn't let you "stuff the ballot box," at least not too easily). It's satisfying to vote, and the results are helpful to the information-seeking reader. Although the issues aren't so black-and-white in a political debate, it would still be useful, in my opinion.
—bnip, Sep 08 2007
   

       As far as "how to enforce 'logic,'" one doesn't. People vote freely, and in the long run, if a lot of people vote, good arguments would probably tend to rise and bad ones would probably tend to sink. If they don't, they don't. (One should take the rankings with a grain of salt.) But that's that's all I think kerryoco meant by logical arguments being voted to the top.   

       Being able to vote might also cut down on the number of "me, too!" and "ditto!" comments on discussion boards.
—bnip, Sep 08 2007
   

       Discussion boards like this would be more suitable for local politics. Many people who could understand and are affected by the issues follow only in a peripheral, desultory way. Such boards would have fewer participants and be easier to keep up with. Also, the participants in such a board would have a much greater chance of influencing the issue in question.
—bungston, Sep 08 2007
   


 

back: main index
business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle