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.
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:
- ...attack the other person's credibility (expertise, credentials, personal habits, age).
- ...attack things the other person didn't actually say.
- ...attempt to emotionally manipulate the other person.
- ...make veiled references or vague statements intended to 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.)
This is relevant, but I can't get the thumbnail to render properly. Statements higher on this hierarchy generally trump lower ones.
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.