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

[mike11111]

jno. I showed your previous response re translating into Yiddish and vice versa to Klingon friend of mine and he informed me that it made perfect sense to him.

[jno]

that's a relief - now all you have to do is translate it into Kromovaracun and the job is done.

[R1Geezer]

well guys perhaps an example will help:

whenever we discuss smoking in public places someone will always bring up the fact that it brings in tax revenue, totally irrelevant and not even true, ie smoking is not a net contributor.

See what I mean "leap of illogic", Irrelevant etc

[modeller]

No. 1 It is impossible to back up most statistics . As statisticians dont agree amongst themselves anyway. Also how to define a statistic. I might consider 90% of our MPs are self serving crooks but I can't prove it . It may be 89% or 91%.
I might go further and say that it applies to a particular party but I can't back it up. , but it is a valid opinion
No 4 The use of foul language covered up with two letters fore and aft ..........has little value in a news discussion. It only bebases the writer.

[R1Geezer]

abso-kin-lutely modeller!

[woofgang]

I think that refutations of statistics should be supported too (ahem) R1geezer (ahem)

[Sqad]

ED


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

This is total nonsense. You are assuming that statistics are true facts....they may well be, but only at the time and the statistics may be based on fallacious information...e.g Dr.Wakefield..association of MMR and Autism.
I could find a link that would support or undermine a particular "fact" and from reliable sources.

Do NOT dismiss personal experience or anecdotes as inferior to "links" and one must learn to question, not accept, ALL links.

I am not a great believer in the value of links for the above reasons, but value personal experience and to some extent anecdotal evidence.

[tamborine]

Are jokes allowed on all faiths or just christian & jewish ?

[Ankou]

'anecdotal evidence' that is almost paradoxical.

one would pay little heed to the claim 'my granny smoked 60 fags, and drank 2 bottles of whiskey everyday of her life and still lived until she was 112' as evidence that smoking and drinking is not harmful and can in fact lead to life extension.

i suspect the life and habits of granny will not be presented or debated much in gerontology research circles.

[Sqad]

Ankou....I agree BUT

<<<'my granny smoked 60 fags, and drank 2 bottles of whiskey everyday of her life and still lived until she was 112' as evidence that smoking and drinking is not harmful and can in fact lead to life extension. <<<

So, dont dismiss this anecdotal evidence......why did grannie live until she was 112?
Worth investigating?

[Ankou]

she probably had nothing of any particular value in her estate or will.

[Sqad]

Ankou...LOL.

I agree, but I just want to get over to our ED, that a statistic backed up by a link is not necessarily a fact and to assume this is dangerous.

[Kromovaracun]

"I am not a great believer in the value of links for the above reasons, but value personal experience and to some extent anecdotal evidence. "

Anecdotal evidence typically covers one thing or one particular set of experiences happening to one person in one time at one place - they're valuable for demonstration purposes but they can't underpin an argument.

For instance, I am well aware that my personal experience is radically different to an awful lot of other people in the country, so therefore don't use it as a basis for judgement when there's other evidence available because I think that would be highly blinkered. Likewise, just because my experience has gone a certain way, I don't necessarily have the right to speak for the people who live around me in my area (but it obviously depends what I'm talking about).

The reliability of statistics is also flawed - no evidence is ever perfect. But it really does depend hugely on the source/method. Providing you can reference them, it's up to people to critically assess their sources and make judgements as to their reliability. This doesn't just apply statistics - it applies to all forms of research or evidence, really. That's what academics do.

[Kromovaracun]

R1: I think I understand what you're getting at, but it doesn't really belong into a thread about rules. If something's irrelevant in an argument, it's usually not too hard for others to demonstrate it is in the course of their argument - that's a part of whatever debate is happening.

If you make a rule out of it, then the assumption underlying it (I think) is that arguments have to be based on logic, which simply doesn't work with every topic.

[eyethenkyew]

Doesn't anyone else feel that this is all a bit ridiculous and patronising? There are already meant to be "Site Rules" on AB, so why is my favourite section, News, being singled out for what amounts to a children's charter of what is acceptable and what's not? Acceptable, that is, according to the Ed who we all know is always right, as has been pointed out on numerous occasions.

It would be fair to say that the vast majority of News contributors are adults? Judging by the topics debated? Why, therefore, are we being singled out for "extra rules"? Are we not "adult enough" to interpret comments by other contributors in our own way?

I guess my comments will put me firmly into the Ed's "whiner" category?

[NazNomad]

"Are we not "adult enough" to interpret comments by other contributors in our own way? "

The answer's in the question.

[AB Editor]

Re: Statistics - I know, they don't prove anything necessarily. I may change it to "claims" - i.e. please back up all claims with evidence.

Re: Adults - If you're debating in an adult way then you'll not have to worry about these guidelines.

Re: "Why News?" I think it probably applies to any "debate" centred area of AB - R&S for example, so it is wider reaching that just your favourite area of the site.

Thanks for your input everyone - and keep your ideas coming.

I'll be presenting a better worded version to you all at some point next week.

Spare Ed

[R1Geezer]

No one is talking about hard and fast rules kromo, just guidelines

[eyethenkyew]

Ed,

Thanks, but I don't "worry about these guidelines", I merely question the necessity for additional superfluous rules when there are dozens of them enshrined within AB in the first place? Given that those already are extremely detailed and comprehensive, what else could you possibly add which could be construed as new, different or even necessary.

Seems to me like this is more an exercise in giving yourself something to do rather than bringing anything new to the table?

Don't take my remarks "the wrong way" - I'm only trying to be objective.

[Sqad]

Kromo
<<For instance, I am well aware that my personal experience is radically different to an awful lot of other people in the country, so therefore don't use it as a basis for judgement when there's other evidence available because I think that would be highly blinkered<<

I agree, but I cannot accept that anecdotal evidence should be "suppressed" on the grounds that it is "blinkered".......it is a statement of fact as seen by the person.......who knows, that statement(opinion) may turn out to be correct, despite "evidence" to the contrary.

I agree totally with your 4th paragraph.and the rest of your post.

.