should intellectual debates be allowed in the CR?

It seems the intellectual threads get a good number of deleted posts because someone or another is offended (as you said.)

This intellectual topic is way beyond my comprehension. So let me state my opinion..

“We should utilize proper respectful debating skills:

challenge the belief but not the believer…”

There is a mitzvah to stand up and defend aggressively the kavod of gedolim; to belittle apikursos; to shame ovdei avodah zara. Unfortunately, that mitzvah is often applicable here in the CR.

Dolt

Well said, Jothar. I would say the skew to the left even in the CR (and certainly elsewhere online) is a lot more than just slight.

I dont think the skew is left or right. Rather, those smart enough, know to stay away from anonymous online forums.

“It is a pleasure to read so many opinions from well informed Jews, the sources, arguments and texts used to represent differing ideas are informative and stimulating.”

I never knew apikorsus is considered to be well-informed. Furthermore, opinions that don’t reflect halacha are quite problematic and have no place in judaism. Additionally, that one can find such heretical ideas stimulating seems extremely dangerous.

“Part of being Jewish is debate and opinion, without it we lose our intellectual heritage and genetic makeup.”

Debate and opinion bound by the dictums and axioms of halacha, yes. Openly agnostic toward gedolim and shulchan aruch, not so much. In fact, it is probably more accutrate to say that such “debates” serve only to undermine authentic judaism and weaken the mesorah.

“As a mother of girls and boys attending Sem and Yeshiva, the ability of my kids to debate and question is something of crucial importance to their spiritual growth.”

True, but not in an unregulated vaccuum.

I’m not quite sure what the heir to the ming dynasty is trying to say. Probably because I am from the portion of the population who are not smart enough to know to avoid anonymous forums.

His abba is a shatya

I mentioned this thread to someone I believe can be called an intellectual. He commented. Intellectuals don’t debate, they discuss. Intellectual debate, he feels is an oxymoron (with emphasis on moron).

ok. heres the deal. there are a few simple rules to debate.

1) you debate to exchange ideas. the win/lose factor is incidental. a debate is not an argument. it is simply the exchange of opposing ideas in a respectful manner.

2) you don’t debate to change another person. if you’re assuming that winning a debate will result in the other party immediately changing their mind on their views…you’ve already lost.

3) debate is impersonal. you must remain dispassionate and keep your distance while debating. never let the topic of the debate or the content get personal. doesnt matter what the topic is. if you let a debate get personal it becomes an argument not a debate and you lose your focus. taking a debate personally is an automatic loss.

4) you are not talking AT each other you are talking TO each other. therefore, you need to grant certain terms before teh debate begins so that you are both on the same page. for example (and this by the way is the BEST example) if you have an atheist and an orthodox jew on the point of debating bechira…the atheist must grant, for the sake of debate, that god exists. otherwise you wind up somewhere halfway through the debate with something along the lines of “oh well your point is invalid because god doesnt exist” which terminates the debate right there because that is a pointless debate. if you are unwilling to grant certain terms to set the stage of the debate…then dont debate.

5) you need to understand your opponents position. i debate many people about many things and one thing that always serves my well is my ability to fully understand their position before i open my mouth. this is important because A) you need to understand what you are answering before you answer otherwise it is an argument not a debate and B) you need to be able to anticipate any possible argument that your opponent uses. if you refuse to even understand your opponent’s position then dont bother debating. youve already lost.

so how does this apply here? well its problematic. for example goyish music (please dont turn this thread into a specific debate im just usoing this as an example) what invariably happens is something along the lines of

A: goyish music should be allowed…i see no problems with it whos with me!

B: but there is so much znus and disgusting language and stuff in those songs

A: but this song over here is perfectly clean. no romance no sex no violence no swearing…whats teh problem

and right there is where the thread should end becuase if you bring an isolated sample from a larger sample to the table…then teh debate becomes about nitpicking and that’s never acceptable. what ends up happening is a 10 page argument where A and B essentially come to the conclusion that they basically agree…and everyone;s time was wasted. meanwhile youve had name calling…lashon hara…etc.

anyway…thats how its done. take it or leave it…but thats why we have no intellectual debate here.