Difference between revisions of "Issuepedia:Arguing/clarity"
(Created page with "'''Rule''': Responsibility for making an argument clear lies ''on the arguer'', not the respondent. ==Justification== Past experience suggests that if we allow any contradicti...") |
(part of the corollary is actually further explanation of the justification) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
==Justification== | ==Justification== | ||
Past experience suggests that if we allow any contradiction to suspend a position until the contradiction to be fully analyzed, this leaves the door wide open for [[spaghetti-throwing]] operations, e.g. arguments based on incorrect facts or bad reasoning where a great deal of time must be spent in research or analysis in order to figure out where they are wrong. | Past experience suggests that if we allow any contradiction to suspend a position until the contradiction to be fully analyzed, this leaves the door wide open for [[spaghetti-throwing]] operations, e.g. arguments based on incorrect facts or bad reasoning where a great deal of time must be spent in research or analysis in order to figure out where they are wrong. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Links are useful as sources and for more detail, and essays can help convey a deeper understanding of the point being made, but requiring people to read and understand them (and derive their relevance to the argument) leaves too large a security hole in the process of rational discourse. It would basically be an invitation for [[discussion trolling|trolling]]. | ||
==Corollary== | ==Corollary== | ||
| − | This is also the basis of the "no required reading" | + | This is also the basis of the "no required reading" (aka "no bookstops") rule. |
Revision as of 14:31, 27 January 2013
Rule: Responsibility for making an argument clear lies on the arguer, not the respondent.
Justification
Past experience suggests that if we allow any contradiction to suspend a position until the contradiction to be fully analyzed, this leaves the door wide open for spaghetti-throwing operations, e.g. arguments based on incorrect facts or bad reasoning where a great deal of time must be spent in research or analysis in order to figure out where they are wrong.
Links are useful as sources and for more detail, and essays can help convey a deeper understanding of the point being made, but requiring people to read and understand them (and derive their relevance to the argument) leaves too large a security hole in the process of rational discourse. It would basically be an invitation for trolling.
Corollary
This is also the basis of the "no required reading" (aka "no bookstops") rule.