British Expatriate Network

Who know how to have a good discussion, when even though the topic gets heated, we don't consider it an argument?

How come when you try and put a spanner in the works to an American (don't know if this would be the majority or not, just seems that way at times), they seem to believe that you are either causing trouble or causing an argument. Instead of showing another side to a point.

Why is it that they can't debate? Is it only the British who can debate? I don't think it is because I have met other 'foreigners' to this country who can give good debates and they have been brilliant even though we have received some wierd looks from other people - but I have never yet been able to have a debate with an American. Not a good one anyway.

I have even had a professor who tried to put a debate in the class once and told you which side you had to take - I loved it, but I ended up being the only one who was doing the talking and putting the point forward because the stand we had to take was that women should be oppressed and stomped on because they need keeping in their place! o My side would not join in at all!

Which is very odd because they actually seem to teach debating in the schools.
You'd think they would be used to it.
Maybe they feel threatened by a foreigner being on the other end of the arguement.

I think perhaps it stems from taking oneself too seriously? Obviously nobody on your team believed in what they were saying, as you yourself didn't. Therefore they were unwilling to put that position across, even though they knew it was only an exercise in debate.

I don't know if it is only the Brits that can do this though. I work with a lot of people from various parts of the world and I can have a light hearted political discussion with them which sometimes ends up in a piss-take of sorts. However, I can't see the same thing happening with an American. I can understand this because I am a foreigner and nobody wants some foreigner coming to their country and making fun of it. However funny their political leaders are. wink

I wouldn't say the people I know were threatened by there being a foreigner involved because there are always foreigners here - lots of them. And even when you get just Americans together they don't seem to do it like we can :wink:

I know they have debating in schools, but are they like the debating teams in other countries? Or are they very restricted?

From what I have seen of formal debates in this country, they are nothing like formal debates in the UK.

I agree - I get along fine with my American friends but I sometimes think it's all a bit "blah" because there's no banter, and no discussion - just anecdotal conversation. I am the queen of anecdotes, but I also love a good banter or discussion.

Aye, tis sad but true, there's no crack here. Haway!

I've had this experience sooo many time over here, and sometimes with well educated people who argue for a living (i.e. other lawyers).

There seem to be some things you just can't debate, or are off limits. My comments on the board about the POA in Schools being Stalinist is a good example. No matter how politely I put it or to what lengths I go to explain reasonably my view - it is just beyond the pale. Likewise pretty much any mention of Israel that suggests, no matter how mildly, that the Palestinians might have a point, causes complete appoplexy. Atheism is another that can be entertaining.

Contrast to my experience in London, where I lived close to Stamford Hill, had Orthodox Jewish neighbours and colleagues and political candidates, (whose campaigns I ran) and could debate Israel without rancour or abuse (and learn a great deal in the process).

I don't know why it is the way here, I suspect that for all their *freedons* - really the old Stalinist indoctrination kicks in for most and when you pierce that they don't know how to deal with it.

Of course there are exceptions. My Partner, who of course lived in London for some time, is such an exception and I think she has learnt the art of *winding up* her compatriots D

Thats 'cos they call it a wrench here :wink: :wink:

(Sorry Ben, couldn't resist that :D )

Horrible isn't it? And it stems to not being able to force accountability upon politicians. Pray tell why is it bias to ask whether the Social Security proposals are complete tosh? Why are American Presidents treated as if they are royalty?

As for being just British, I have alot of friends from India, Pakistan, and the Middle East, and they are superb at it.

Of course things like this don't help... don't like those pesky press conferences, then just stuff the press corps with flunkies :evil:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washin..._scrutiny/

Good post, case in point. I tried to have a discussion with an idiot, sorry , Mormon here. I posed the question that most people are in jail because of drug related offences, so why don't we try a pilot program where they are treated for their addiction rather than being put in jail, where they can improve their criminal skillls and never vote again (another post subject).

Ohh myyy goddd, you would have thought I'd have said that Jesus was a pimp and really liked small boys, instead of considered argument I got a right tongue lashing about God, guilt, punishment, more God, more guilt, they're not chosen, they're damned.

Jesus, why don't we just shoot everyone who can't bake a loaf of bread!!

See, this leads me to questions of perceived media bias. The other day I listened to NPR's ombudsman field allegations from both Left and Right on how biased the station is. And it has only reaffirmed a few positions I've been at for about 6 months to a year now.

Bias at a particular news organization? So what. What difference does it make if the New York Times might be biased one way, or Fox News the other? As long as everyone is being honest and doing the job correctly then what's the big deal? New York Times news dept asking if the new budget is crap - so? Isn't that a fair position and argument? Why is not agreeing unnacceptable? Newsweek taking an ideological position on something? Yeah - and? Stuffing press conferences with flunkies - intolerable. I really believe there's a difference between hard journalism (biased or not - who cares) and bad journalism. Which is why I think it's perfectly fair for the BBC to hammer people on the legitimacy of a war, and still think that parts of the Hutton Inquiry were spot on. Do I think the BBC has a bias? Sure, at times. Does it matter? Not one iota. Reminds me of a comment another presenter on NPR made that she is accused of bias because she doesn't argue FOR conservative positions. Eh?! When did bias become not making an argument someone else believes in? How is NPR biased because it isn't like Fox News? Why is a story/argument fair if it has 2 commentators each on the left and right? And who says fair means anything? Why is it not true that the deficit isn't going to be smaller if Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting says it, but true if The Heritage Foundation says so.

Which brings us full circle - why the hell is it wrong to argue against something again? How is that rude?

I mentioned it in another thread but the President wears two hats and sadly, one is Head of State. This is and probably has been manipulated for years to blur the lines so that the constituents are supposed to give him a break, because of his lofty position as almost-King.

I think it fails and the blurring of the lines needs to be cleared up as soon as possible. He's not a King, he's a politically elected official who fills in for the lack of a real Head of State and should always be fair game when the situation warrants it.

Almost King! - Bush thinks he's 'Almost God"! :wink:

Perhaps but he does defer to a higher deity publically on occasions - and I don't mean Karl Rove wink