Difference between revisions of "Issuepedia:Arguing"

Latest revision as of 11:25, 29 August 2017

About

Unlike other reference projects, Issuepedia welcomes statements of personal opinion.

However:

Any opinion is an assertion of fact.
Any assertion may be challenged.
A challenged assertion that is not defended with a rational argument based on acceptable evidence need not be taken seriously.

Also, attempts to undermine other debaters by use of logical fallacies and other rhetorical deceptions will be called out.

Details

/guidelines: more specifics on how to keep a debate productive
/trust: heuristics for managing bad faith

Basics

1. /assertions: An assertion that has not been challenged may be assumed to be true.

2. /challenges: When an assertion is challenged,

2a. if it remains undefended, it must be assumed to be false.

2b. responsibility for resolving a challenge rests with the person who made the assertion.

3. /clarity of arguments: Responsibility for making an argument clear lies on the arguer, not the respondent.

For more specifics, see:

/guidelines: valid and invalid argumentation techniques

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+[[category:help]]
 ==About==
-[[category:help]]Unlike other reference projects, Issuepedia welcomes personal [[opinion]].
+Unlike other reference projects, Issuepedia welcomes statements of personal [[opinion]].
-However, opinions without good [[argument]]s behind them will probably be shredded or at least questioned. Attempts to undermine other debaters by use of [[logical fallacies]] and other [[rhetorical deception]]s will be called out.
+However:
+* Any [[opinion]] is an [[assertion]] of [[fact]].
+* Any assertion may be challenged.
+* A challenged assertion that is not defended with a [[rational]] argument based on acceptable [[evidence]] need not be taken seriously.
-''I have cross-posted these guidelines to [[lwwiki:User:Woozle/debate guidelines|LessWrong wiki]] in hope of sparking further refinement. --[[User:Woozle|Woozle]] 15:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)''
+Also, attempts to undermine other debaters by use of [[logical fallacies]] and other [[rhetorical deception]]s will be called out.
-==Guidelines==
-[[File:Our-Discussion.jpg|thumb|related guidelines from a different source]]
-The following are informal guidelines for engaging in debate; see [[project:Structured Debate]] for a more formal set of rules.
-===things to do===
-When arguing against another person's statements:
+==Details==
-* DO '''address the ''substance''''' of the argument you are disputing.
+* [[/guidelines]]: more specifics on how to keep a debate productive
-* DO '''be clear''' about what you're trying to say.
+* [[/trust]]: heuristics for managing bad faith
-* DO '''take a position''' before [[position dancing|attacking the positions of others]].
-* DO '''offer arguments''':
-** for why the other debater's statements are unlikely to be true.
-** to support what you think is correct.
-* DO '''respond to every point you wish to oppose'''.
-** Failure to respond to a point does not make it untrue.
-** If a point remains unanswered, it is reasonable to consider it true.
-* DO '''draw attention to any unanswered points'''.
-** Others may assume or erroneously believe that unanswered points have actually been defeated.
-===things to avoid===
-It generally '''does not strengthen your position''' if you:
-* ...[[ad hominem|attack the other person's credibility]] (expertise, credentials, personal habits, age, affiliations, etc.).
-* ...[[straw man|attack things the other person didn't actually say]].
-* ...attempt to [[emotional argument|emotionally manipulate]] the other person or the audience.
-* ...attempt to [[guilt by association|associate the other person's views with shameful actions they do not support]].
-* ...use vague statements in place of a clear argument.
-* ...simply [[argument by contradiction|contradict]] the other person without any further substantiation.
-* ...cite a work of myth or [[scripture]] as an authority on factual matters.
-* ...misrepresent other people's arguments.
-* ...attack positions taken by others [[position dancing|without taking a clear position yourself]].
-** No position is perfectly correct; the challenge is to find the position that is the ''least wrong''
-* ...tell the other person to "go look it up yourself" when asked for evidence. If you do not provide a specific source, this is an indication that you do not actually have the evidence you claim to have.
-[[media:Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement.svg|This]] is relevant, but I can't get the thumbnail to render properly. Statements higher on this hierarchy generally trump lower ones.
+==Basics==
+:1. '''[[/assertion]]s''': An assertion that has not been [[/challenge|challenge]]d may be assumed to be true.
+:2. '''[[/challenge]]s''': When an assertion is challenged,
+::2a. [[/challenge/undefended|if it remains undefended]], it must be assumed to be false.
+::2b. [[/challenge/responsibility|responsibility]] for resolving a challenge rests with the person who made the assertion.
+:3. '''[[/clarity]] of arguments''': Responsibility for making an argument clear lies ''on the arguer'', not the respondent.
-===source accuracy===
+For more specifics, see:
-When disputing the accuracy of a source, or of an argument based upon a fact stated in a source:
+* [[/guidelines]]: valid and invalid argumentation techniques
-* DON'T simply claim that the source is unreliable.
-* DON'T simply claim that the fact is wrong.
-* DO '''identify better sources'''.
-* DO '''offer correct information'''.
-===source dependency===
-When outside material contains extensive information relevant to your argument:
-* '''Spell out the point it makes''' &ndash; rather than expecting others to read it. ('''No required reading.''')
-** Otherwise you are counting on your opponent to not only ''understand'' it but ''agree with you'' as to its applicability to the discussion.
-** If you can't defend your own point in your own words, then perhaps you don't understand what you're arguing -- or perhaps you don't understand what you're arguing against, and are hoping that something somewhere in the required reading will suffice as a rebuttal. ('''Sources are not arguments.''' Claiming that a source makes your point is not the same as making your point. '''No throwing stuff at the wall''' and hoping something sticks.)
-** Pasting quotes is acceptable, but summaries are better -- especially if written to be specific about the matter under discussion.
-** If the source's argument is complicated, state the conclusion it draws and summarize the general nature of the arguments used. You need to give others at least enough of a basis upon which to frame further counters (or, hopefully, questions).
-===other ground rules===
-These are rules where the existence of a rule probably matters more than which way the rule goes.
-* If person A makes an assertion and person B challenges it, then it is A's turn to produce evidence defending their assertion.
-** In other words, you don't need to have your evidence together in order to challenge an assertion.
-** One possible exception might be a negative assertion ("there's no such thing as..."), since this can be particularly difficult to prove.

Difference between revisions of "Issuepedia:Arguing"

Latest revision as of 11:25, 29 August 2017

About

Details

Basics

Navigation menu

Search