Do threads require conflict?

[newguy1234]

I once got fed up with someone's debating and stuffed them with the idea that they are just addicted to conflict and unable to control it. Do threads require some form of conflict to stay active?

We may not be able to recognize certain types of conflict but I'm sure for the most part we can identify conflict in most active threads and threads that blow up and get big. Isn't that just the same human nature that perpetuates war?

If everyone agrees won't this thread fizzle out? And if many disagree it will blow up?

[lastcardcharlie]

Are you equating disagreement with conflict?

Don't be so gloomy. After all it's not that awful. Like the fella says, in Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock.

[Clue]

I sort of agree with OP in that readers are more likely to become posters if they think they can prove some one ITT wrong. I would say this leads to conflict/disagreement

For some reason people seem to be less likely to post in agreement with OP, and then proceed to give evidence, or proceed to expound the ideas in OP. Also answering a question is less likely, unless doing so proves some one wrong

For example If you created an OP like:

"Hey guys, I was thinking that run-off voting would be great to have in the US. It would give more power to third parties, without 'throwing away' anyone's vote. What do you think?"

This might generate some responses, but this OP would work better IMO:

"Hey guys, a friend of mine was going on and on about run-off voting. It's retarded though, why would we use something like that? Our system has worked perfectly for 200+ years. We didn't get to be the most powerful nation on Earth by copying random **** other countries do. I told this dumbass I'd create a thread here to prove to him no one else will agree with him, lol"

[newguy1234]

Originally Posted by lastcardcharlie

Are you equating disagreement with conflict?

To some degree I think so yes.

Originally Posted by Clue

I sort of agree with OP in that readers are more likely to become posters if they think they can prove some one ITT wrong. I would say this leads to conflict/disagreement

For some reason people seem to be less likely to post in agreement with OP, and then proceed to give evidence, or proceed to expound the ideas in OP. Also answering a question is less likely, unless doing so proves some one wrong

For example If you created an OP like:

"Hey guys, I was thinking that run-off voting would be great to have in the US. It would give more power to third parties, without 'throwing away' anyone's vote. What do you think?"

This might generate some responses, but this OP would work better IMO:

"Hey guys, a friend of mine was going on and on about run-off voting. It's retarded though, why would we use something like that? Our system has worked perfectly for 200+ years. We didn't get to be the most powerful nation on Earth by copying random **** other countries do. I told this dumbass I'd create a thread here to prove to him no one else will agree with him, lol"

Exactly, so I think we can question whether debate goes anywhere or just fosters conflict.

[Clue]

The way I see it, is if both parties have at some point asserted they are correct and the other is wrong, 95%+ of the time the debate is doomed to be unproductive. I think this is because of ego

If one side is unsure, and is asking for clarification or to be enlightened, that has a much better chance of going anywhere

[newguy1234]

If everyone agrees with me then this thread should not sustain, If everyone disagrees with me, then according to them this thread should not sustain?

[Clue]

? I don't follow

[Zeno]

This belows in ATF (about the forums) if anywhere. Not here. Thread Closed