Issuepedia:Arguing

About

Unlike other reference projects, Issuepedia welcomes 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, evidence-based argument need not be taken seriously.

Also, attempts to undermine other debaters by use of logical fallacies and other rhetorical deceptions will be called out.

I have cross-posted these guidelines to LessWrong wiki in hope of sparking further refinement. --Woozle 15:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Guidelines

related guidelines from a different source

The following are informal guidelines for engaging in debate; see project:Structured Debate for a more formal set of rules.

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 before 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
• ...tell the other person to "go look it up yourself" when asked for evidence. If you do not provide a specific source, this is an indication that you do not actually have the evidence you claim to have.

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

source accuracy

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.

source dependency

When outside material contains extensive information relevant to your argument:

• Spell out the point it makes – rather than expecting others to read it. (No required reading.)
  • Otherwise you are counting on your opponent to not only understand it but agree with you as to its applicability to the discussion.
  • If you can't defend your own point in your own words, 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. (Sources are not arguments. Claiming that a source makes your point is not the same as making your point. No throwing stuff at the wall and hoping something sticks.)
  • Pasting quotes is acceptable, but summaries are better -- especially if written to be specific about the matter under discussion.
  • If the source's argument is complicated, state the conclusion it draws and summarize the general nature of the arguments used. You need to give others at least enough of a basis upon which to frame further counters (or, hopefully, questions).

other ground rules

These are rules where the existence of a rule probably matters more than which way the rule goes.

• If person A makes an assertion and person B challenges it, then it is A's turn to produce evidence defending their assertion.
  • In other words, you don't need to have your evidence together in order to challenge an assertion.
  • One possible exception might be a negative assertion ("there's no such thing as..."), since this can be particularly difficult to prove.