Report, edit, etc...Posted by Nozomu on 2005-08-11 at 11:51:32
This thread is just a primer for people who don't know how to debate. That is, construct an argument. The main purpose of this thread is to provide members with the tools they need so they don't have to resort to flaming to make their opinions known. I feel that just a little bit of knowledge in this field can go a long way towards improving the quality of debate on this sub-forum.
Constructing an argument (from this site):
Now, I don't expect everybody here to present your arguments quite so formally. I do, however, feel that a quick once-over of this guidline when posting a new topic will greatly improve your arguments and improve the general quality of debate here.
Oh, yeah, also check out these logical fallacies. Don't fall prey to any of these and you'll have a sound argument, which is hopefully what you're shooting for when you post here.
===========================================
===========================================
Hey, mods, delete this bottom part if you do decide to pin this. Which you should do, by the way.
Constructing an argument (from this site):
QUOTE
As critical thinkers, we should be equipped with the necessary intellectual skills to test the strength of an argument to see where it collapses. Critical thinking helps us build a complex case, especially in those situations where more than one answer is plausible.
* Introduction: State your thesis.
o Don't mistakenly provide a topic instead of a thesis.
=- Topic: "Public safety in Eau Claire." (far too vague for a thesis)
=- Thesis: "The City of Eau Claire should install additional lights on Water Street."
o Don't waste your reader's time by arguing an overly simple thesis.
=- "Drug abuse is a bad thing." (By definition, "abuse" is bad.)
=- "Just as student athletes must regularly submit to drug testing, student scholars should also prove that they are drug-free in order to enroll in college." (A much more complex issue, and therefore a much more interesting argument.)
* Narration: Think of this as "quick background."
o Provide context or background information that lays the foundation for your argument. What is at stake? Why are you bothering to argue it?
o This section should be brief and subtle.
=- Do not treat this section as an opportunity to puff up the size of your paper.
=- If you overstate your case here, your reader will be more likely to reject your arguments.
* Stating Your Thesis: Confirmation: Lay out the evidence that supports the position you wish to defend.
o Assemble all the supporting evidence.
o Divide your argument into main points and sub-points. Provide an overview to ensure the reader knows how you plan to proceed.
o Present and defend each point in turn. Quote experts, cite facts, define criteria, analyze data, provide examples.
* Handling the Opposition: Refutation and Concession. Present a thorough summary of opposing arguments that refute the claims you want to make. If you are writing an academic paper, or if you simply want to be as thorough as you can, you should quote experts, cite facts, analyze trends, give examples, and, in short, work just as hard in this section as you did when laying out your supporting evidence. .
o State the opposing argument fairly and thoroughly.
o It is not sufficient to spend two pages confirming your thesis, and then pretend to introduce an opposing argument by writing, "Some people hold a different opinion; however, those people are stupid/racist/sexist/anarchists/left-wingers/right-wingers/fence-sitters/brainwashed."
o For each opposing point you raise, you must either refute or concede.
=- Refutation: You present enough additional evidence to counter the opposing claim.
=- Concession: You admit that the opposing claim is valid; however, you demonstrate how it is possible to accept it without rejecting your whole argument.
* Summation: Not a simple repetition, but an amplification.
o You should address the refutations and concessions you have made, showing how slight modifications in your original claim easily handle even the strongest opposition.
o At the same time, you show that your thesis, as you originally proposed it, is really the best solution to the problem.
* Introduction: State your thesis.
o Don't mistakenly provide a topic instead of a thesis.
=- Topic: "Public safety in Eau Claire." (far too vague for a thesis)
=- Thesis: "The City of Eau Claire should install additional lights on Water Street."
o Don't waste your reader's time by arguing an overly simple thesis.
=- "Drug abuse is a bad thing." (By definition, "abuse" is bad.)
=- "Just as student athletes must regularly submit to drug testing, student scholars should also prove that they are drug-free in order to enroll in college." (A much more complex issue, and therefore a much more interesting argument.)
* Narration: Think of this as "quick background."
o Provide context or background information that lays the foundation for your argument. What is at stake? Why are you bothering to argue it?
o This section should be brief and subtle.
=- Do not treat this section as an opportunity to puff up the size of your paper.
=- If you overstate your case here, your reader will be more likely to reject your arguments.
* Stating Your Thesis: Confirmation: Lay out the evidence that supports the position you wish to defend.
o Assemble all the supporting evidence.
o Divide your argument into main points and sub-points. Provide an overview to ensure the reader knows how you plan to proceed.
o Present and defend each point in turn. Quote experts, cite facts, define criteria, analyze data, provide examples.
* Handling the Opposition: Refutation and Concession. Present a thorough summary of opposing arguments that refute the claims you want to make. If you are writing an academic paper, or if you simply want to be as thorough as you can, you should quote experts, cite facts, analyze trends, give examples, and, in short, work just as hard in this section as you did when laying out your supporting evidence. .
o State the opposing argument fairly and thoroughly.
o It is not sufficient to spend two pages confirming your thesis, and then pretend to introduce an opposing argument by writing, "Some people hold a different opinion; however, those people are stupid/racist/sexist/anarchists/left-wingers/right-wingers/fence-sitters/brainwashed."
o For each opposing point you raise, you must either refute or concede.
=- Refutation: You present enough additional evidence to counter the opposing claim.
=- Concession: You admit that the opposing claim is valid; however, you demonstrate how it is possible to accept it without rejecting your whole argument.
* Summation: Not a simple repetition, but an amplification.
o You should address the refutations and concessions you have made, showing how slight modifications in your original claim easily handle even the strongest opposition.
o At the same time, you show that your thesis, as you originally proposed it, is really the best solution to the problem.
Now, I don't expect everybody here to present your arguments quite so formally. I do, however, feel that a quick once-over of this guidline when posting a new topic will greatly improve your arguments and improve the general quality of debate here.
Oh, yeah, also check out these logical fallacies. Don't fall prey to any of these and you'll have a sound argument, which is hopefully what you're shooting for when you post here.
===========================================
===========================================
Hey, mods, delete this bottom part if you do decide to pin this. Which you should do, by the way.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by MapUnprotector on 2005-08-11 at 12:31:13
I think this is a good thread. I had an idea for this, mainly to post the logical fallacies.
CheeZe gave me this link which explains some logical fallacies as well.
CheeZe gave me this link which explains some logical fallacies as well.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by ihatett_da_hated on 2005-08-11 at 12:38:22
Nice list. But they should add another fallacy on here as well:
It's the Everything's a Fallacy fallacy.
For example, people ofen hold back from directly saying beliefs that they know will harm them if others know, but it's obvious that they think them. For example, some leftists will say, "The world can't afford the rich", and then I'll ask, "Why do you hate them so much? Are you jealous?". Then, that person will go on a rampage saying that I'm committing a fallacy by putting words in his/her mouth, when it's god damned obvious that it's true.
It's the Everything's a Fallacy fallacy.
For example, people ofen hold back from directly saying beliefs that they know will harm them if others know, but it's obvious that they think them. For example, some leftists will say, "The world can't afford the rich", and then I'll ask, "Why do you hate them so much? Are you jealous?". Then, that person will go on a rampage saying that I'm committing a fallacy by putting words in his/her mouth, when it's god damned obvious that it's true.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by CaptainWill on 2005-08-11 at 12:42:24
I'd advise against turning this topic into another left vs right argument.
Perhaps the topic should be locked and stickied when a mod walks this way.
Perhaps the topic should be locked and stickied when a mod walks this way.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Merrell on 2005-08-11 at 12:49:32
QUOTE(CaptainWill @ Aug 11 2005, 12:42 PM)
I'd advise against turning this topic into another left vs right argument.
Perhaps the topic should be locked and stickied when a mod walks this way.
[right][snapback]284988[/snapback][/right]
Perhaps the topic should be locked and stickied when a mod walks this way.
[right][snapback]284988[/snapback][/right]
Thats what the topic starter was hoping for.. isn't it obvious? "Read before posting!"
I am going to laugh when it slowly goes down the list..
Report, edit, etc...Posted by CaptainWill on 2005-08-11 at 13:09:54
QUOTE(MrrLL @ Aug 11 2005, 04:49 PM)
Thats what the topic starter was hoping for.. isn't it obvious? "Read before posting!"
I am going to laugh when it slowly goes down the list..
[right][snapback]285002[/snapback][/right]
I am going to laugh when it slowly goes down the list..
[right][snapback]285002[/snapback][/right]
Yeah, I just read the bottom of his post...
Report, edit, etc...Posted by CheeZe on 2005-08-11 at 13:14:50
The mods think this stuff is biased and refused to pin it. I've already asked Kame. 
Report, edit, etc...Posted by MapUnprotector on 2005-08-11 at 13:46:39
QUOTE(ihatett_da_hated @ Aug 11 2005, 12:38 PM)
Nice list. But they should add another fallacy on here as well:
It's the Everything's a Fallacy fallacy.
For example, people ofen hold back from directly saying beliefs that they know will harm them if others know, but it's obvious that they think them. For example, some leftists will say, "The world can't afford the rich", and then I'll ask, "Why do you hate them so much? Are you jealous?". Then, that person will go on a rampage saying that I'm committing a fallacy by putting words in his/her mouth, when it's god damned obvious that it's true.
[right][snapback]284985[/snapback][/right]
It's the Everything's a Fallacy fallacy.
For example, people ofen hold back from directly saying beliefs that they know will harm them if others know, but it's obvious that they think them. For example, some leftists will say, "The world can't afford the rich", and then I'll ask, "Why do you hate them so much? Are you jealous?". Then, that person will go on a rampage saying that I'm committing a fallacy by putting words in his/her mouth, when it's god damned obvious that it's true.
[right][snapback]284985[/snapback][/right]
If you actually read the list I think you would see what's a logical fallacy and what isn't. Also those logical fallacies make a lot of sense.
And no, if a person is smart enough to know what fallacies are, they won't go "OMG you commited a fallacy!" They will ignore it and just win the argument using actual evidence and good arguments. Except most of the people at SEN read someone who has just made a fallacy and think it's a good argument.
I don't see how this stuff is biased at all. It's just a set of guidelines people should follow to have a good debate.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by EzDay281 on 2005-08-11 at 15:29:59
Maybe because part of Christian-Fundamentalist belief is that logic cannot be applied to God(Him being omnipotent and such), and since the point of that guide is to help people argue logicaly, it's biased against Christian-Fund. so on.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by CaptainWill on 2005-08-11 at 16:01:37
You can't have a debate without logic. I think people should leave their gods at the door as well as their ego.
Unless it's a religious topic, of course.
Unless it's a religious topic, of course.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Infested-Jerk on 2005-08-11 at 18:26:11
Um, didn't over 100 peaople die in wasco texas because of some fantical religious movement in teh early 90's?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by MapUnprotector on 2005-08-11 at 18:44:35
QUOTE(EzDay281 @ Aug 11 2005, 03:29 PM)
Maybe because part of Christian-Fundamentalist belief is that logic cannot be applied to God(Him being omnipotent and such), and since the point of that guide is to help people argue logicaly, it's biased against Christian-Fund. so on.
[right][snapback]285178[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]285178[/snapback][/right]
So what if logic can't be applied to God? What does that have to do with anything? How do you argue something without using logic?
And by the way, if anyone read the link in that I posted they would see:
QUOTE
Firstly, logical reasoning is not an absolute law which governs the universe. Many times in the past, people have concluded that because something is logically impossible (given the science of the day), it must be impossible, period. It was also believed at one time that Euclidean geometry was a universal law; it is, after all, logically consistent. Again, we now know that the rules of Euclidean geometry are not universal.
And I believe that Christians do try to use "logic" to prove god exists. The site just uses atheist examples against christian arguments, but the examples of fallacies are still correct.
And btw, what Nozomu posted isn't just "logic", it's a guideline for constructing an argument. There's nothing biased against that, infact it would probably help anyone who constructed it like that because it would make more sense.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Nozomu on 2005-08-11 at 18:49:02
This is biased? I guess our educational system is biased too, in favor of this thing called the "scientific method". You know, the concept that created the computer you type on and the microwave in which you cook your food. If someone is unable to construct an argument towards, say, the existence of God, then how can they claim He exists? To show that logic can apply in nonsecular debate and to play devil's advocate towards myself at the same time, here's an example of a sound argument claiming that the universe had a cause. Using logic, no less. First, we make two assumptions. The first is that, say, the beginning of the universe was an event. Then, we make the assumption that every event has a cause. Using this mighty power of logic, we can then draw the conclusion that the universe had a cause. Wow. Was that so hard?
I just made this to help people debate instead of just flaming back and forth, which has apparently become the norm in my absence. But maybe that's unavoidable with this crowd.
I just made this to help people debate instead of just flaming back and forth, which has apparently become the norm in my absence. But maybe that's unavoidable with this crowd.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by CheeZe on 2005-08-11 at 18:51:13
I'll take this to Yoshi. It does seem that the mods here are in favor of one side rather than the neutral side.
Here's the original thing I sent to Kame awhile ago:
It deals with all the fallacies, not how to construct an arguement which is what Nozomu has. So it fits each other very well.
Here's the original thing I sent to Kame awhile ago:
It deals with all the fallacies, not how to construct an arguement which is what Nozomu has. So it fits each other very well.
QUOTE
Serious discussion arguements are low quality. Is it possible to put these links in the stickies or another place to encourage people to at least try to read before arguing?
If people are willing to put the time and effort into reading them (I doubt most of them will, but I think some are willing to read it for better understanding), the quality of arguements presented (as well as those refuted) should greatly improve.
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
--More focused on Religion. It does have a very nice introduction to the basics of logic and how to come up with conclusions correctly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy
http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/toc.php
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/
--Giving examples and showing why it's wrong to do certain type of arguements. Connections are usually used from everyday examples.
If people are willing to put the time and effort into reading them (I doubt most of them will, but I think some are willing to read it for better understanding), the quality of arguements presented (as well as those refuted) should greatly improve.
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
--More focused on Religion. It does have a very nice introduction to the basics of logic and how to come up with conclusions correctly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy
http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/toc.php
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/
--Giving examples and showing why it's wrong to do certain type of arguements. Connections are usually used from everyday examples.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Nozomu on 2005-08-11 at 18:54:38
Maybe instead of this topic we should make a "Debate Resources" topic, and just add to it whenever we find more useful stuff like what you posted, Cheeze.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by MapUnprotector on 2005-08-11 at 18:58:37
Or I think there should be 2 pinned topics, one for Constructing an argument, and one for a list of logical fallacies.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Chef on 2005-08-11 at 23:45:21
QUOTE
Maybe instead of this topic we should make a "Debate Resources" topic, and just add to it whenever we find more useful stuff like what you posted, Cheeze.
I tried that once, it was spammed and I locked it. Moderation is too slow for a topic like that.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by MapUnprotector on 2005-08-11 at 23:56:17
Yea I remember that topic, too bad it was locked, I think you should have locked it after you finished it, then waited for it to get stickied.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Nozomu on 2005-08-12 at 08:11:06
But locking it would make it disappear quite fast, and if there's any hope of people learning from it, it would help to see it at the top of the page.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Mini Moose 2707 on 2005-08-12 at 10:56:16
I won't pin this, but I'll take the links from here and put it in my pinned thread. Now, what was this about me being too slow?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Kame on 2005-08-12 at 11:29:13
Yoshi didn't want to pin something along these lines when psychotemplar made a thread simuliar. But its your call.
At least add this if you're pinning links: http://www.religioustolerance.org/
At least add this if you're pinning links: http://www.religioustolerance.org/
Report, edit, etc...Posted by MapUnprotector on 2005-08-12 at 12:43:15
QUOTE(Nozomu @ Aug 12 2005, 08:11 AM)
But locking it would make it disappear quite fast, and if there's any hope of people learning from it, it would help to see it at the top of the page.
[right][snapback]285928[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]285928[/snapback][/right]
No, I mean you lock it, then pin it.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Nozomu on 2005-08-12 at 12:50:58
I don't see what that site has to do with debate, FK. It looks more like a resource for discussion material, which isn't at all what this thread is about.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Chef on 2005-08-12 at 13:47:02
QUOTE
Now, what was this about me being too slow?
http://www.staredit.net/index.php?showtopic=18714&hl=debate
I reported the posts, nothing was done, it was clear people didn't feel like, you know, actually saying something related to the topic. Had I left it open you'd have had another 5 beuatiful pages of spam.
QUOTE
At least add this if you're pinning links: http://www.religioustolerance.org/
If you pin that, I think people will just ignore all the other links with it... anyone like me at least, that link looks like a long read of bias BS designed to make zealous religious people feel good about themselves. But hey, what do I know?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Kame on 2005-08-12 at 13:49:55
QUOTE(Nozomu @ Aug 12 2005, 09:50 AM)
I don't see what that site has to do with debate, FK. It looks more like a resource for discussion material, which isn't at all what this thread is about.
[right][snapback]286040[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]286040[/snapback][/right]
One of the most frustrating things I run across (not necessarily on this forum) is that people don't know the difference between paganism and wiccanism. There has also in the past been discussion about other world religons, and people had to drop out of it because they didn't know anything about the religons. That's a resource to quite a few religons. That is all.