Issuepedia:Filing Room/to file/2013

From Issuepedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

2023 .. 2022 .. 2021 .. 2020 .. 2019 .. 2018 .. 2017 .. 2016 .. 2015 .. 2014 .. 2013 .. 2012 .. 2011 .. 2010 .. 2009 .. 2008 .. 2007


Resources in Iran (A Case Study in Isfahan)]



At 00:04 local time early on Monday, Denmark produced enough energy from wind power to satisfy the whole country's electricity demand.










Alternative definitions

  • Capitalism: the idea that those who work the least should benefit the most
  • Property: a state-enforced monopoly on the use of land
  • Employee (n): income dependent
  • Tax loophole (n): wealth entitlement
  • maybe these can be adapted:
    • freedom: allowing corporations and banks to pollute the environment and steal from the middle class
    • traditional values: women and gays are second-class citizens
    • entitlements: not earned benefits that you've paid into your entire life, but disincentives that magically make you lazy

Rules for online debate, in a nutshell:

Links point to web pages. The web pages contain arguments. (An argument is one or more statements showing a logical connection between a given set of evidence and a given conclusion.)

You may accept the arguments as valid, or you may criticize them for using either bad logic or incorrect starting facts.

If you make either of these criticisms, then we either have to (a) accept that the page's argument is invalid, or (b) show how _your_ criticism (which is also an argument) is invalid, using the same criteria (bad logic or incorrect facts).

These rules are symmetrical; you can present evidence from web sites as well, and the same process applies.

It's considered good form to summarize the argument -- or, more to the point, the specific _applicable_ argument(s) one wants to highlight -- from a linked web page when one posts it.

It doesn't negate your argument if you _don't_ do this, but in my view if person A posts a link, person B asks for a synopsis (summary of the argument), and person A refuses to provide one, then that does seriously weaken person A's position.

slightly shorter

An argument is a logical statement starting from one or more premises and reaching a conclusion.

As such, any argument may be criticized on the basis of either (a) starting from false premises or (b) using faulty logic.

This technique constitutes a first-pass rationality test.

If two articles contradict each other and yet both pass the first-pass test, then it may be necessary to see where they differ and seek further evidence to resolve the discrepancy.

The same rule applies if an otherwise-rational article disagrees with your own beliefs.?