News: Rules Of Debate

[AB Editor]

Good Afternoon,

It seems a few of you are getting a little ruffled around the boa. I wondered if we could agree on some basic guidelines for debating in the News section of the AnswerBank.

Here's what I have to start with:

1. If you present a statistic, back it up - If you can't, expect to have the statistic dismissed.

2. Silence is not evidence - Just because someone hasn't condemmned the actions of someone or other in a news story doesn't mean they support them. Do not assert as much.

3. To further point 2: Only work with what people say - not what they haven't.

4. No personal attacks - However, "sledging" style "banter" should be taken with good grace.

5. Anecdotal Evidence - If you have experiences of one thing, please accept that other either may not have or have had opposing experiences. It is likely that neither are invalid.

6. No on likes a whiner - if someone disagrees with you, I suggest you absorb the comments and compose a well thought out rebuttal. Do not whine about how you're being bullied/attacked or similar, it makes for very boring reading.

Further suggestions?

I'll write this up properly once we've had a chance to talk about it.


All the best,

Spare Ed

[NazNomad]

11. Don't waste your time reporting posts/threads that are quite obviously just a racist rant. it's in News, so apparently acceptable behaviour.

[Mick-Talbot]

I agree Naz.
News seems to be the place to be, if you want to get away with murder.

[AB Editor]

//News seems to be the place to be, if you want to get away with murder.//

No, not really.

Naz, it is always better to have a single distasteful opinion soundly put into perspective by various reasonable parties than to reaffirm that the originator is being censored/gagged/stifled and so on by removing their contributions.

All the best,

Spare Ed

[andy-hughes]

I posted on the 'Anti-AOG' thread before i read this - obviously I should have waited before wading in ... LOL!

[jno]

!: 47% of statistics are just made up anyway.

[NazNomad]

"Naz, it is always better to have a single distasteful opinion soundly put into perspective by various reasonable parties than to reaffirm that the originator is being censored/gagged/stifled and so on by removing their contributions".

How many times per individual?

[sir.prize]

More rules? My 'ead hurts!

[mike11111]

My point about silence, Ed, was that in a court of law, under certain circumstances, it CAN be adduced as evidence of guilt, as is shown by the routine police caution upon arrest.

[andy-hughes]

mike 11111 - that's one of the differences between a court of law and an on-line debate site - let's not get too carried away here!

[ummmm]

But Naz, they are just opinions.

[Dris]

lol jno.

[naomi24]

//it is always better to have a single distasteful opinion soundly put into perspective by various reasonable parties than to reaffirm that the originator is being censored/gagged/stifled and so on by removing their contributions. //

I agree. Hiding a problem or denying it exists doesn't resolve it.

[mike11111]

Andy, my point exactly, which I have been trying in vain to convey.

[andy-hughes]

Sorry to appear to nitpick here mike 11111 - your point about the police caution surely refers to anything a suspect might say - which can be used in evidence. You cannot assume, much less convict someone, because they decline to speak.

[AB Editor]

Maybe the most recent police initiative is "It's always the quiet ones"?

Mike, what do you feel is unnecessary in the above list?

Spare

[mike11111]

Two points:
1 Andy, you are way out of date. The final part of the caution reads, "...but it may harm your defence if you do not mention now something which you later rely on in court".
2 To the Ed. I don't really object to anything, apart from the nagging feeling that if I don't do exactly as Nanny says I will be whipped soundly and sent to bed with no supper.

[sir.prize]

Ed, moderating is one thing., but I am definitely with NazNomad here

///it is always better to have a single distasteful opinion soundly put into perspective by various reasonable parties than to reaffirm that the originator is being censored/gagged/stifled and so on by removing their contributions". ///

And you must admit, the rules of the site are now becoming tome-like.

[andy-hughes]

mike 11111 - I stand corrected. Thanks.

[Kromovaracun]

I like everything you've got up there Spare Ed - Nice job! I would've certainly suggested no.5 had you not put it up yourself.

R1, I take issue with one of your suggested rules:

". Do not post irrelevencies to the argument and take leaps of illogic "

First part is fine, but the second part assumes that logic should be a part of every argument. This might seem like a no-brainer, but when you're dealing with something that doesn't behave in a logical way (i.e. society) then it's perfectly valid to make an argument that isn't necessarily based on logic (but is based on something else, like practicality or possibly morality or whatever you want to base it on, which itself can be contested in the course of an argument).