Is flaming a valid part of debate?

[Rasputin]

Kolotha and I had a debate about this recently, but I thought it would be much more interesting to get other people's opinions. This is NOT an attack on FFF policy, instead, I’m discussing the generally accepted policy on a large portion of discussion boards on the Internet to ban any type of flaming. Personally, up to a point, I think it is a valid part of debate discussion. Here's why:

1. The definition of flaming is loosely defined.

Officially, on FFF and most other forums on the internet, it is anything that makes another member feel inferior. The form of flaming people don’t like are unjustified, personal attacks on someone’s character rather than their ideas. However, the definition of "personal attack" is rather loosely defined- stating what YOU think about someone else is often considered flaming even though it may be completely accurate. Saying "I don't like any of your posts" may be completely accurate, and is completely different that saying "Your posts suck". One is a valid opinion, the other is slander. Yet I have seen members banned just for saying "I don't like the job you're doing" to a mod, even if that statement was completely accurate. If it is impossible to refute an opinion, such as those above, there should be few limits on when they should be posted, especially in a debate forum.

2. Flaming someone is NOT the same thing as calling them “inferior”.

If someone posts a comment “i think g0d is stoop1d cauSe h3 decided To create jEsus befOre peopLe could takE pictures lolz”, and someone responds by calling him idiotic, that does NOT mean the fore-mentioned poster is any less worthy of living than the person who responded. In fact, if we take into consideration the definition of “idiotic” from www.dictionary.com - “senselessly foolish or stupid”, the statement seems fairly accurate. The poster was acting foolish by posting with enough grammatical mistakes to make readers automatically biased against any statements he would make, and he was acting senselessly by trying to use a debated section of history as absolute fact and THEN use it against the very religion that puts forth this section of history in the first place. It’s generally accepted, then, that the hypothetical poster was acting foolish AND senseless, so the statement becomes an accurate description based on logical evidence, not an “unjustified flame”. Nowhere in this definition does it say anything about “who is a better person.”

Calling him idiotic, in this case, is useful for several reasons: it discourages others from making the same obvious mistake, it alerts the offending poster that he HAS made a mistake and should modify his behavior if he wants to have any respect on the debate forum, and it drives off the weak debaters who are too “sensitive” to any kind of criticism (the kind that will never accomplish anything in serious debate anyways). This, in the end, allows the responder to save time by not having to deal with trivial responses, and it allows him to deal with only the most valid arguments that would occur in a formal debate. It is simply a tool for removing unneeded arguments, not a meaningless attack on someone’s identity.

3. Unjustifiable flames DO backfire.

If someone flames me, I simply give them the definition of the word they used and ask them to prove EXACTLY why they used that word in the first place. When they can’t back it up they appear, to put it kindly, “idiotic”. Now, this doesn’t mean that we should simply TOLERATE this kind of behavior, it instead means if you get flamed, a correct response it to either see if you actually are doing something wrong OR to use it as a tool to crush a weak argument in a debate. You can compare flaming to a bow and arrow- if they know when to shoot, they can be great tools, but if they have no idea how to aim, you can run up and hack him to pieces with your sword.

See what I’m saying here? There is no reason for saying flaming is wrong if it is justified and accurate in meaning. Heck, it benefits the debate more than hurts it. Of course, then you have people like Koloth who think flaming contributes nothing to a debate- but I think I’ve talked enough for now. What are your thoughts?

 

[Tristis Miles]

Agreed, flaming is quite useful in debates and often times necessary, not to mention it adds more interest and emotion to things.

When I "flame," my aim is to get the subject to think more about what they're saying as well as the topic at hand, rather than the readily assumed conclusion that I'm attacking the poster personally. Over time, if you do it well, the goal is achieved and the result breeds a better poster/debater. Respect is earned.

As you've said, the sensitive debaters get weeded out. This is a good thing, as it strengthens the debate and allows focus on the topic versus some annoying, whining poster who can't support their opinion with solid facts/statements.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather check out a hot debate than one with misguided repetitiveness and spam all over it.

 

[Guardian of Selfhood]

It's a very contentious area. On the whole I see flaming as something to be avoided if possible and it should definitely be a last resort thing. Valid criticism of others is perfectly fine. Debating is fine (as long as it is kept totally civil). But bitchiness (pardon my English) and petiness are not acceptable under any circumstances and should be avoided at all costs.

However, I do agree that flaming is loosely-defined, and quite often you do get some unscrupulous moderators (of course, I am not talking about the mods of these forums; you guys are wonderful!), who will quite often bend the definition of flaming to their own advantage, just so they can get someone they dislike kicked out of the forums. I do agree that unprovoked, vicious attacks on individuals, without good reason, is wrong though. That kind of animal-like behaviour makes me feel sick.

Criticism is fine in small doses, but I hate it when someone does nothing else but constantly criticise people; it's like they're out for blood almost. I just can't understand people who do nothing but criticise on forums.

If we were to take the definition of flaming as something like ''online aggression'' or ''unprovoked, aggressive attacks on other members of a forum/chatroom'' then I think flaming under those circumstances is fine. Debating and criticism are okay though; providing they are kept clean. But all too often people with different ideologies who come from different cultures, age groups, religions (or even non-religions) are brought together in an online environment which creates plenty of opportunity for conflict. Debates quickly spiral out of control and degenerate into petty arguments and fighting. QUite often, we need mods to keep things under control, but what happens when the mods get sucked in themselves and become just as bad as the original squabblers?

That happened to me when I belonged to this other forum. I kept getting into arguments with people. I tried to keep the whole thing civil, and I bent over backwards to accomadate them. I kept apologising to them for little things, yet I still kept getting attacked viciously by the other rabid forum users for no apparent reason. The moderators were just as childish and brainless as the other forums users. When one of them finally banned me he said to me ''you need to go and get laid''! Exactly how petty and immature can these people get!

I think forums should be run by committees of moderators who are all equal in status and have equal powers. If one of them wants to ban a forum member, he/she should have to debate it with other forum members first before he/she makes an arbitrary decision. I think online democracy is the best way forward.

 

[Tristis Miles]

Though valid criticism is often viewed as "flaming" for the mere fact that whatever was said is against them. "Bitchiness" and "pettiness" are different things from flaming altogether, in my opinion. A flamer isn't necessarily exploring being a "bitch" and the subject to the "flame" is most likely swelling with pettiness (narrow-mindedness.) If they can't take the criticism, they shouldn't be there in the first place. Debates are expected environments of intense discussion, so if you're not prepared to support yourself, don't go in there in the first place.

Flames in debate topics are, 99 times out of 100, provoked and with good reason behind them. But you're right, the various forums have different stats - it's up to the members and staff. View how they are before venturing into a debate topic - it'll spare you a lot of chaos. As you've said, staff may be corrupt and you may get ganged up upon by immature wads of debaters. In this case, just don't debate with them - get out of there - because it's no use trying to have an intelligent conversation with idiots such as those who plainly don't know how. Therefore it's not the flaming that's the issue, but the flamer themselves.

 

[Archangel]

I think "flaming" is a very usefull tool when used in the context of a debate. Its almost needed in certain debates as like previously said to weed out ones that dont have strong opinions. It also adds to the topic at hand, by challenging the other poster to think and defend themselves or the subject they have posted. When done right, based soley on facts, it can also end debates when the opposing party realizes they where wrong and have lost.

But I aslo feel that flaming based on ones personal issues (noob, girl/guy, attitude, likes or dislikes) that have nothing to do with the debate at hand is no more than to make the "flamer" feel better about themselves or to make the target feel inferior. This kind of flaming can be boring to watch and has no point.


On this site I feel that I can't say anything bad about anything. For example I don't like Ashe or Penelo from FFXII. But every time I state this in discussion I have to put IMO or not talk about how I feel that they are just week characters. Why? because it may hurt someones feelings or upset a fan of these two. There not even real!! If I don't like fictional characters I feel I should have the right to have a damn flame thrower aimed at them. It doesn't target anyone real so wheres the foul?? But I play nice because I do like this forum alot and its not a real big issue to me. But it would be fun to just once torch those two.


As far as the rule of "no flaming" there is alot of gray area there. One being someones opinion on what flaming is or isn't and two whether it was used to hurt or to prove a point. I commend the mods that have to make these choices and like already stated some are better at it than others. In the end everyone has or will be flamed on at some point. Bottom line is even if your right or wrong you shouldn't care what someone else thinks of you. Each person is different and if everyone always got along we would all be bored out of our minds.

 

[OmniscientOnus]

I do not believe that flaming is an any way acceptable in a debate. To help clarify, I am coming from the position that flaming is defined as an attack on a specific member, or group of members, rather than on an idea or argument itself. There is no reason to flame another member of a forum, despite his or her inability to properly debate.

Instead of flaming a poor debater, they should be guided. For example, a person who posts a comment such as the one Adamant gave ("i think g0d is stoop1d cauSe h3 decided To create jEsus befOre peopLe could takE pictures lolz") should not be personally criticized, but informed that this kind of behavior, and unnecessary banter, does not belong in the debate forums. If he or she does not change his or her behavior, simply ban them from the debate sections. However, we cannot disregard that this may very well be the poster's true beliefs. We must explain to them that if they truly believe this, then they must back it up with an explanation of sorts. There is nothing more useless in a debate than a poster who brings nothing but undefined, impetuous, ideas to the table.

One must remember that debating is a game in and of itself. I, for one, am tired of feeling the way that Sever Off mentions:

But every time I state this in discussion I have to put IMO or not talk about how I feel that they are just week characters. Why? because it may hust someones feelings or upset a fan of these two.

In a debate you should not have to protect your opinions by clearly stating that they are, in fact, your opinions. When you present your argument to the debate, it should already be clearly understood that you are speaking on your opinions, unless you state that what you are presenting is a fact, or another person's opinions.

In a proper debate there is a certain amount of tension to be expected. After all, most debaters are bringing their own beliefs and ideas out for everyone to see and understand. Therefore, when the other side speaks their own, conflicting opinions, the first party is normally going to feel a little upset that their beliefs and ideas are being cut down, or thrown aside.

In order to be a good debater, you have to set aside those feelings and broaden your outlook on the subject. After all, what good is a debate if you know ahead of time that you are absolutely final on your point? In a debate one person, or group, is attempting to sway an other's point of view to match their own. One must understand that this type of criticism, or outright bashing of one's ideas (if need be), is not, and should not be, considered flaming. One cannot get all "huffy-puffy" just because someone else is stating ideas or opinions that go against their current ones.