Difference between revisions of "Issuepedia:Arguing"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(some rephrasing) |
m (+catg: help) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | Unlike other reference projects, Issuepedia welcomes personal opinion. | + | [[category:help]]Unlike other reference projects, Issuepedia welcomes personal opinion. |
However, opinions without good arguments 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, opinions without good arguments 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. | ||
Revision as of 17:21, 13 June 2010
Unlike other reference projects, Issuepedia welcomes personal opinion.
However, opinions without good arguments behind them will probably be shredded or at least questioned. Attempts to undermine other debaters by use of logical fallacies and other rhetorical deceptions will be called out.
Guidelines
- Be clear about what you're trying to claim; vague implications reek of attempted manipulation, however well-intended it may be.
- If a fact is in contention, you will need a good argument to support your take on it.
When arguing against something someone else has said:
- DON'T simply claim that the source is unreliable.
- DON'T attack the other debater's credibility (expertise, credentials, personal habits).
- DO address the substance of the argument you are disputing.
- DO find other sources which have more accurate information.
- DO offer arguments for why the what they said cannot be true.
- DO offer corrected information (not "you're wrong" but "the correct information is...", preferably with one or more sources).
- DO offer arguments to support what you think is correct.