[Noitartst]

I would like to see an audience, were I debating, take offense, and git in the face of someone who's just refused to answer a question I've asked, and ride him ragged.

Why? Well, I daresay I'm not asking someone to agree with me, but rather apply social pressure on the debate to keep it focused on the matter at hand, and keep it diverging from the crux of my inquiry.

I've gotten into too many arguments, online and otherwise, criticizing the nature of the response but it's wound me up in a self-defeating circle. However, when an outside observer does it, at least in the one time I experimented with it, I got better results, and think I'm on to something.

Keep in mind, I'm not talking about a partisan observer, but one that's willing to lambaste whosoever for simply evading the teeth of a question--does that make sense?

I hope so; I'm looking for someone to be my critic, jumping in and verbally scourging whoever's not answering the question properly.

Any takers?

[labenedict]

I have found that while in an online discussion, and the chatter does not wish to answer the question at hand, no ammount of prodding will entice him or her to answer. I do not know how this would work (or not work) in a live debate.

[Noitartst]

I really hope that's not too much to ask. The problem, repeatedly, I've found, is that it seems like I'm the only one who notices when my opponent evades. Shares my sense of outrage, or if not outrage, at least thinks it wrong, or a refuge of the weak. Forget referees. Forget rules. I just want to know if others see what I think I see, and I think I see a lot of evasion in the replies.

Is it too much to ask the audience to rebuke the evader? To boo the bum off the stage? Expose to shame? I think not, I really do. Maybe that would could for nothing, but I think enough of that booing would potentially forge a morphological field of changed behavior.

Call me a dreamer, or crazed, but I don't think asking others willing to take bad behavior to task is a waste of time.

Of course I'd liked to be cheered--who doesn't--but I'd rather you evaluating my questions to to if my opponent evaded. Frankly, applauding my questions would be counter-productive to genuine discussion of the issues, anyways. No, don't be my fan, friend--be a jackal baying for blood instead, sifting to who's replying to the question asked in good faith, and who's not, lighting into the transgressors. Hey, you spare me no favors either if don't tear into me either if I don't deserve it, so keep that in mind.

In way, what I'm trying to hanmmer my opponents with questions so hard--so ti9ghtly formulated, they wince, but I can't finish 'em off alone for that. I carrion-piranhas, forces of the swarm ideological rigor. I can wound, spread their blood in the water, but others must pick up the trail, bring 'em bay, and then the end comes callin'.

A fan merely hardens positions, but carrion, they hold the potential to game change dialogue, or at so my theory goes.

Do you even know what I'm talking about friend? At the very least, I hope you're getting an inkling of it. Basically, I ask questions. Ask yourself: WHat did he say? Was he getting at? My opponent replies. Ask yourself: Did he answer the question? Was he answering it vaguely, i.e., not answering it at all? Was that intentional? ANd then, if you see fit, well, pounce.

I'm trying to set up a social dynamic, see? I'm betting that if debaters know the audience will swarm 'em like wolves if they get sloppy, they will make sure they won't be, and when we're discussing tense, emotionally charged topics, that has the potential to keep the conversation on course. Most audiences, though, are partisan, reinforcing a negative dynamic, but at the same time, audiences can work wonders in creating beneficent ones--or at least that's my theory.

So often, frustration takes the form of my opponent stating something unequivocally (I live for such moments) and I respond with a pointed, detailed question, to which the reply is little more than a reaffirmation of the recklessly unequivocal statement. My adversary claims he's responded (and of course, he hasn't) and the conversation spins sideways.

Reaffirming a statement in the wake of a question is detestable, and yes, a "waste," but interruption it ain't. It disrupts me, given that I'm prepared to respond to whatever way my prey responds, but restating the statement which elicited the question is quite redundant, isn't it? It's elliptical, and strident audience disapproval of such displays, methinks, would carry ever so in curtailing them.

What I'm giving the audience is a chance to evaluate, and judge, my opponent's credibility as an ideological spokesman: In context, is he evading? If so, how? Is it intentional, or does he not know any better? Think of it--by forcing him to field so many questions, I'm effectively whittling his social standing to zero, which I deem a victory, assuming, of course, that the audience is monitoring such matters.

I just hope that makes sense.