Debate talk:Society, economics, and politics

Guidelines
We should try to keep the names and descriptions of our topics as neutral as possible; the space below the topics is the place for your opinions. That format seemed to work well enough in the former locations of this discussion. Also, I'm not going to add topics in any particular order. Just add new stuff to the end. OneForLogic 20:45, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

For now, I don't plan to bring over old comments. I'm not going to exactly reproduce the topics of the old discussion; I think that some of them are small things that could be covered under a broader topic, like "PETA", "experimentation on animals", and "dogfighting", all falling under the new topic, "Animal cruelty". Bringing over the old comments from "PETA" and "Dogfighting" wouldn't really make sense in that case. OneForLogic 20:57, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

Ok, so why would this appear under little "d" on the debates category page? What's that mean I did wrong when I made the page? And can an admin fix it? OneForLogic 22:17, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
 * This article is a bunch of crap. Please to keep one issue to itself.  And, also, "live" links to WP are not exactly "smart" since they will vary from day to day.  Hence, I deleted them.  ħ uman  00:48, 8 August 2008 (EDT)
 * I think the topic presentation could be improved to make each one a single punchy question: Is global arming caused by human activity and do we have an obligation do do something about it?; and "Should public prayer be mandated by the state?" With a note for non-Americans about what the issue is; and What limits, if any, should be placed on smokers right to smoke?; and so on.--Bobbing up 02:52, 8 August 2008 (EDT)
 * Let me rephrase my earlier comment: This version is a disaster, and does ot reasonably introduce topics for discussion. I MOVE TO DELETE DUE TO EPIC FAIL.  ħ uman  03:15, 8 August 2008 (EDT)
 * I propose that we rename it to Debate: Life, The Universe and Everything just so we don't leave anything out. [[Image:jollyfish.gif|25px]]Genghis   03:21, 8 August 2008 (EDT)
 * At the risk of making a very obvious gag: Once you've said "42" there's no more to say.--Bobbing up 10:31, 8 August 2008 (EDT)
 * That's another solution, I guess. As opposed to renaming it " ", as in gone. This debate suckzors. We can do better.  ħ uman  03:31, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

What's wrong with linking to WP? Established articles are generally fairly stable, and all of these are well established articles. Those were just for reference, if anyone wanted to read a little before posting something. OneForLogic 09:31, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

If it makes you feel better, Human, I'd enjoy having a more drawn out discussion of some of these topics, particularly the economic topics like business related legislation and taxation in general, as it appears that I'm much more conservative in my economics than most of you are. I do also think that the low effort, drive-by, drop-a-few-lines, and move on approach to discussing our positions was very interesting (and easy), if only because it helped me notice our differences on economic principles and such. I would not support condensing any debate all the way to "yes/no" format, as Damo suggests (on the other talk page), partially because most of my positions, at least, cannot be simplified to a simple yes or no. Few things are that simple, no matter how cleverly phrased your "yes/no" questions are. OneForLogic 10:49, 8 August 2008 (EDT)
 * Yes, the debate that Rem started was fun to read, because of the way a host of people rapidly added their thoughts in short comments. Some of the issues raised, I think, as you suggest, deserve their own pages, because people might want to (or seem to) have much more to say.  Although, I guess it's hard to figure which those are, exactly, and if any of them should be grouped together (helmets and seat belts?).  Of course, the way most of our debate pages get started is on another page, and after three or four screens of back and forth, someone cuts and pastes the discussion to the debate space.  ħ uman  14:49, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

I've noticed that. And you're right that nothing is happening on this page, so I currently have no objection to having it deleted. If it doesn't pop up somewhere else, I'll probably start a debate specifically on economic policies and positions sometime over the weekend. OneForLogic 16:30, 8 August 2008 (EDT)
 * Hint: The best way to "start a debate" is to get into a debate, ideally with more than one other person, on some (appropriate) talk page somewhere. If it takes off, then move it to its own page.  Otherwise, as you have seen, they tend to just sit around gathering dust - mostly because no one is/was invested in getting the ball rolling.  But go ahead and do whatever you want.  Second hint: If you create a "virgin" debate page, tell as many people as you can about it to get the ball rolling.  And a suggestion, lastly - you know the whole issue of how to word the debate topic/description?  It might make sense to have a line that says "Don't start yet until we hammer out the wording on the talk page."  Then when the wording is considered appropriate, fire the starting gun ;)  ħ uman  16:48, 8 August 2008 (EDT)