Sherdog D&S Debate Series

[Sinister]

If someone were to moderate and/or fact-check a debate, it'd be preferential that they be non-biased, and idealistically have no real opinion on the subject at all. That said, it may be an extreme act of futility to debate on something that science has yet to even agree upon, or begin to agree upon, or look at comprehensively. These debates, even among the most educated, have a tendency to turn into what would be considered empirical perspectives mixed in with what are called "facts" being tossed around along with a lot of slander. That's already been done here quite enough.

[Seriously-Dead]

Originally Posted by Sinister

If someone were to moderate and/or fact-check a debate, it'd be preferential that they be non-biased, and idealistically have no real opinion on the subject at all. That said, it may be an extreme act of futility to debate on something that science has yet to even agree upon, or begin to agree upon, or look at comprehensively. These debates, even among the most educated, have a tendency to turn into what would be considered empirical perspectives mixed in with what are called "facts" being tossed around along with a lot of slander. That's already been done here quite enough.

I would consider myself fairly unbiased in regards to the efficacy of low carb dieting. I definitely think it's a good option sometimes. Mind you, I complete disagree with the brand of science many of it's proponents advocate (ie: evils of insulin), but considering both sides of the argument often completely misinterpret endo research, I'd like to think I might serve as a good fact checker in those regards. I think if we have a debate on efficacy, necessity, and application of low-carb dieting, I could remain relatively unbiased.

I don't think it's futile. Debates fuel knowledge, or at least the pursuit of it, most of the time.

[hardheart]

Isn't this what we do here? Some posts are educational. Some posts are controversial and spark debate.

The biggest problem I see on this forum, and no offense to those that do it, are the "well, that study is bullshit because one of the researches is the cousin of an investor from...blah" or other such shit. It seems that we've run into the problem of being too good at debate. We no longer respect the science. When posed with a study that counters our point, instead of reading the study, and looking at what it says, we all immediately leap to find ways to invalidate why the study means dick all and is therefore irrelevant.

TLDR: we do this already, making it official would serve to discourage the open discourse that already happens

[Sinister]

Originally Posted by Seriously-Dead

I would consider myself fairly unbiased in regards to the efficacy of low carb dieting. I definitely think it's a good option sometimes. Mind you, I complete disagree with the brand of science many of it's proponents advocate (ie: evils of insulin), but considering both sides of the argument often completely misinterpret endo research, I'd like to think I might serve as a good fact checker in those regards. I think if we have a debate on efficacy, necessity, and application of low-carb dieting, I could remain relatively unbiased.

I don't think it's futile. Debates fuel knowledge, or at least the pursuit of it, most of the time.

I'm not so certain. There have been numerous times where you've portrayed a quite clear perspective on one particular side of the fence. For optimal moderation of debate, it would best serve to have someone on no side of the fence. That being said, its for the same reason that I myself wouldn't even want to do the job considering many people around here believe they know how I feel about the issue. Whether they are correct or not doesn't matter. What would become questionable to them is my interpretation of data. "He's saying ______ because he believes _____." That already happens a lot as it is. And it's a tiring and often fruitless endeavor to fall into the realm of one trying to prove how smart they are as opposed to discussing the subject at hand.

I agree with hardheart. There's already more than enough debate about this subject. Hell half the threads of a person simply asking a question about low-carb nutrition becomes that debate. It's gone on for longer than a year already. At this juncture there's more than enough info floating around that people can make their own decision.

[mtruitt76]

Originally Posted by Sinister

I'm not so certain. There have been numerous times where you've portrayed a quite clear perspective on one particular side of the fence. For optimal moderation of debate, it would best serve to have someone on no side of the fence. That being said, its for the same reason that I myself wouldn't even want to do the job considering many people around here believe they know how I feel about the issue. Whether they are correct or not doesn't matter. What would become questionable to them is my interpretation of data. "He's saying ______ because he believes _____." That already happens a lot as it is. And it's a tiring and often fruitless endeavor to fall into the realm of one trying to prove how smart they are as opposed to discussing the subject at hand.

You can have an opinion on the subject and still be objective when it comes to fact checking. I for one feel SD would serve as a fine moderator. Not all sides of the fence are equally valid and anyone who is completely neutral in all regards would not have the intellectual capacity or the educational knowledge to moderate the debate.

[Seriously-Dead]

Originally Posted by Sinister

I'm not so certain. There have been numerous times where you've portrayed a quite clear perspective on one particular side of the fence. For optimal moderation of debate, it would best serve to have someone on no side of the fence. That being said, its for the same reason that I myself wouldn't even want to do the job considering many people around here believe they know how I feel about the issue. Whether they are correct or not doesn't matter. What would become questionable to them is my interpretation of data. "He's saying ______ because he believes _____." That already happens a lot as it is. And it's a tiring and often fruitless endeavor to fall into the realm of one trying to prove how smart they are as opposed to discussing the subject at hand.

I agree with hardheart. There's already more than enough debate about this subject. Hell half the threads of a person simply asking a question about low-carb nutrition becomes that debate. It's gone on for longer than a year already. At this juncture there's more than enough info floating around that people can make their own decision.

Ideally I would not even have much of a role in the debate, and would likely just serve to keep people on topic and using credible sources. I think you're over-estimating the role of moderator. If it comes down to it and no one wants to trust me, maybe I'll just jump into the debate?

Also, I disagree, people challenge low-carb ideology in this forum all the time, but these threads hardly become the equivalent of an organized debate with people actually posting references to back up their viewpoint. Also, it would be nice to get every educated low carber vs. every educated anti low carber together to hash things out once in for all, instead of it being fractionalized. But if you and Nemesis and whoever else vehemently supports low-carb dieting don't want to engage in an organized debate, this all doesn't matter anyways, 'cause then it'll never happen.

[hardheart]

Originally Posted by mtruitt76

You can have an opinion on the subject and still be objective when it comes to fact checking.

No. So many times, no. If you have an opinion you can not be objective, that's the point.

SD, while consistently one of the most valuable posters on this site, is one of the most strongly opinionated and least objective people here. We don't need a debate series because we do it already all over the place.

[mtruitt76]

Originally Posted by hardheart

No. So many times, no. If you have an opinion you can not be objective, that's the point.

SD, while consistently one of the most valuable posters on this site, is one of the most strongly opinionated and least objective people here. We don't need a debate series because we do it already all over the place.

Hate to say it but, it happens all the time. I may not like the rain, but I can objectively tell you if it is raining or not.

A person can be neutral in a debate and objective in terms of fact checking.

You must watch a lot of Fox News, to be so confused on these concepts. (this last part is a dig for you being so abrasive all the time)

[HillRaiser]

I say we first debate the merits of debating, and then go from there.

Seriously though, I don't really see what the point of being opposed to this idea is. It's not like it not being done perfectly means no good will come of it.

It's also sort of a joke to dismiss the idea as something that happens around here regularly. Arguing happens here regularly, not so much debating. At least in a thread dedicated to reaching well-informed conclusions we could impose a standard of communication a little differently.

[Modern Warrior1]

Originally Posted by HillRaiser

I say we first debate the merits of debating, and then go from there.

Seriously though, I don't really see what the point of being opposed to this idea is. It's not like it not being done perfectly means no good will come of it.

It's also sort of a joke to dismiss the idea as something that happens around here regularly. Arguing happens here regularly, not so much debating. At least in a thread dedicated to reaching well-informed conclusions we could impose a standard of communication a little differently.

This man speaks wisely. This is not a life or death situation. It can't hurt to try.