Difference between revisions of "Issuepedia:Arguing"

Revision as of 01:30, 10 September 2010

About

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

things to do

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 position (rather than just 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:

...attack the other person's credibility (expertise, credentials, personal habits, age, affiliations, etc.).
...attack things the other person didn't actually say.
...attempt to emotionally manipulate the other person or the audience.
...attempt to associate the other person's views with shameful actions they do not support.
...use vague statements in place of a clear argument.
...simply 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 without taking a clear position yourself.
- No position is perfectly correct; the challenge is to find the position that is the least wrong.

This is relevant, but I can't get the thumbnail to render properly. Statements higher on this hierarchy generally trump lower ones.

using sources

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 identify better sources.
DO offer correct information.
DO summarize the content of any referenced material if it is not obvious, rather than expecting others to read it and understand its applicability to the discussion. (No required reading.)
- If you can't defend your own point within the context of the current discussion, 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.
- In-context quotes are acceptable, but summaries are better -- especially if written to be specific about the matter under discussion.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-[[category:help]]Unlike other reference projects, Issuepedia welcomes personal opinion.
+==About==
+[[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 [[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.
 ==Guidelines==
+===things to do===
 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 '''take a position''' (rather than just [[position dancing|attacking the positions of others]]).
-* DO offer arguments for why the other debater's statements are unlikely to be true.
+* DO '''offer arguments''':
-* DO offer arguments to support what you think is correct.
+** 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).
+* ...[[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.
+* ...attempt to [[emotional argument|emotionally manipulate]] the other person or the audience.
-* ...make veiled references  or vague statements intended to [[guilt by association|associate the other person's views with shameful actions they do not support]].
+* ...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 contradict the other person without any further substantiation.
-* ...cite a work of myth or [[scripture]] as an authority on how the world actually operates.
+* ...cite a work of myth or [[scripture]] as an authority on factual matters.
 * ...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''.)
+* ...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''.
 [[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.
-===Sourced Information===
+===using sources===
 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 '''identify better sources'''.
-* DO offer corrected information.
+* DO '''offer correct information'''.
+* DO summarize the content of any referenced material if it is not obvious, rather than expecting others to read it and understand its applicability to the discussion. ('''No required reading'''.)
+** If you can't defend your own point within the context of the current discussion, 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.
+** In-context quotes are acceptable, but summaries are better -- especially if written to be specific about the matter under discussion.