Difference between revisions of "Issuepedia:Arguing"

From Issuepedia
m (+catg: help)
(revamp inpired by twit on BlagHag)
Line 4: Line 4:
  
 
==Guidelines==
 
==Guidelines==
* '''Be clear''' about what you're trying to claim; vague implications reek of attempted manipulation, however well-intended it may be.
+
When arguing against another person's statements:
* If a fact is in contention, you will need a good argument to support your take on it.
+
* DO '''address the ''substance''''' of the argument you are disputing.
 +
* DO '''be clear''' about what you're trying to say.
 +
* DO take a clear position (rather than just attacking positions stated by others).
 +
* DO offer arguments for why the other debater's statements are unlikely to be true.
 +
* DO offer arguments to support what you think is correct.
  
When arguing against something someone else has said:
+
It generally '''does not strengthen your position''' if you:
 +
* ...[[ad hominem|attack the other person's credibility]] (expertise, credentials, personal habits, age).
 +
* ...[[straw man|attack things the other person didn't actually say]].
 +
* ...attempt to [[emotional argument|emotionally manipulate]] the other person.
 +
* ...make veiled references  or vague statements intended to [[guilt by association|associate the other person's views with shameful actions they do not support]].
 +
* ...simply contradict the other person without any further substantiation.
 +
* ...cite a work of myth or [[scripture]] as an authority on how the world actually operates.
 +
* ...misrepresent other people's arguments.
 +
* ...attack positions taken by others without taking a clear position yourself. (No position is perfectly correct; the challenge is to find the position that is the ''least wrong''.)
 +
 
 +
===Sourced Information===
 +
When disputing the accuracy of a source, or of an argument based upon a fact stated in a source:
 
* DON'T simply claim that the source is unreliable.
 
* DON'T simply claim that the source is unreliable.
* DON'T [[ad hominem|attack the other debater's credibility]] (expertise, credentials, personal habits).
+
* DON'T simply claim that the fact is wrong.
* DO '''address the ''substance''''' of the argument you are disputing.
 
 
* DO find other sources which have more accurate information.
 
* 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.
* 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.
 

Revision as of 17:31, 25 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

When arguing against another person's statements:

  • DO address the substance of the argument you are disputing.
  • DO be clear about what you're trying to say.
  • DO take a clear position (rather than just attacking positions stated by others).
  • DO offer arguments for why the other debater's statements are unlikely to be true.
  • DO offer arguments to support what you think is correct.

It generally does not strengthen your position if you:

Sourced Information

When disputing the accuracy of a source, or of an argument based upon a fact stated in a source:

  • DON'T simply claim that the source is unreliable.
  • DON'T simply claim that the fact is wrong.
  • DO find other sources which have more accurate information.
  • DO offer corrected information.