Difference between revisions of "Issuepedia:Arguing"

From Issuepedia
(major revamp, inspired by trying to copy it to LessWrong)
(/trust)
 
(25 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 +
[[category:help]]
 
==About==
 
==About==
[[category:help]]Unlike other reference projects, Issuepedia welcomes personal [[opinion]].
+
Unlike other reference projects, Issuepedia welcomes statements of personal [[opinion]].
  
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.
+
However:
==Guidelines==
+
* Any [[opinion]] is an [[assertion]] of [[fact]].
===things to do===
+
* Any assertion may be challenged.
When arguing against another person's statements:
+
* A challenged assertion that is not defended with a [[rational]] argument based on acceptable [[evidence]] need not be taken seriously.
* 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 [[position dancing|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:
 
* ...[[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 or the audience.
 
* ...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 factual matters.
 
* ...misrepresent other people's arguments.
 
* ...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.
+
Also, attempts to undermine other debaters by use of [[logical fallacies]] and other [[rhetorical deception]]s will be called out.
===using sources===
+
 
When disputing the accuracy of a source, or of an argument based upon a fact stated in a source:
+
==Details==
* DON'T simply claim that the source is unreliable.
+
* [[/guidelines]]: more specifics on how to keep a debate productive
* DON'T simply claim that the fact is wrong.
+
* [[/trust]]: heuristics for managing bad faith
* DO '''identify better sources'''.
+
 
* DO '''offer correct information'''.
+
==Basics==
* 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'''.)
+
:1. '''[[/assertion]]s''': An assertion that has not been [[/challenge|challenge]]d may be assumed to be true.
** 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.
+
:2. '''[[/challenge]]s''': When an assertion is challenged,
** In-context quotes are acceptable, but summaries are better -- especially if written to be specific about the matter under discussion.
+
::2a. [[/challenge/undefended|if it remains undefended]], it must be assumed to be false.
 +
::2b. [[/challenge/responsibility|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

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