Difference between revisions of "Issuepedia:Arguing"

From Issuepedia
(hierarchy of disagreement diagram (link))
(/trust)
 
(26 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
[[category:help]]Unlike other reference projects, Issuepedia welcomes personal opinion.
+
[[category:help]]
 +
==About==
 +
Unlike other reference projects, Issuepedia welcomes statements of 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:
 +
* 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.
  
==Guidelines==
+
Also, attempts to undermine other debaters by use of [[logical fallacies]] and other [[rhetorical deception]]s will be called out.
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:
+
==Details==
* ...[[ad hominem|attack the other person's credibility]] (expertise, credentials, personal habits, age).
+
* [[/guidelines]]: more specifics on how to keep a debate productive
* ...[[straw man|attack things the other person didn't actually say]].
+
* [[/trust]]: heuristics for managing bad faith
* ...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''.)
 
  
[[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==
===Sourced Information===
+
:1. '''[[/assertion]]s''': An assertion that has not been [[/challenge|challenge]]d may be assumed to be true.
When disputing the accuracy of a source, or of an argument based upon a fact stated in a source:
+
:2. '''[[/challenge]]s''': When an assertion is challenged,
* DON'T simply claim that the source is unreliable.
+
::2a. [[/challenge/undefended|if it remains undefended]], it must be assumed to be false.
* DON'T simply claim that the fact is wrong.
+
::2b. [[/challenge/responsibility|responsibility]] for resolving a challenge rests with the person who made the assertion.
* DO find other sources which have more accurate information.
+
:3. '''[[/clarity]] of arguments''': Responsibility for making an argument clear lies ''on the arguer'', not the respondent.
* DO offer corrected information.
+
 
 +
For more specifics, see:
 +
* [[/guidelines]]: valid and invalid argumentation techniques

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