Twenty Two Years And Counting.
ChatterBank1 min ago
News: Rules Of Debate
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
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
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by AB Editor. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Eye - I always hang about the news section although I don't post much. There was a few days of bickering, of questions not being answered because people were too busy questioning the questioner...
I was going to ask a question the other day but decided it was pointless as everyone seemed to be too bust ripping AOG to shreds.
I would guess that's what the Ed was reading as well...
I've said it loads of times now...without AOG this section would be dull.
I was going to ask a question the other day but decided it was pointless as everyone seemed to be too bust ripping AOG to shreds.
I would guess that's what the Ed was reading as well...
I've said it loads of times now...without AOG this section would be dull.
JNO ///!: 47% of statistics are just made up anyway.///
What an absolute crock of ***** - its 31% of statistics that are made up as anyone would know if they had one iota of common sense.
Your mother was obviously French and your father Spanish to come out with garbage like that.
I am sick and tired of your constant whining and sniping. I am entitled to my opinion - I remember when we had free speech in this country. I bet you must enjoy knitting you horrible little person. Bloody do gooders do my head in.
And you put an exclamation mark at the beginning of the sentence - what was the point of that you illiterate fool. If you can't use the Queen's English, get out of the country.
End of
p.s. what do I win for breaking the most rules?
What an absolute crock of ***** - its 31% of statistics that are made up as anyone would know if they had one iota of common sense.
Your mother was obviously French and your father Spanish to come out with garbage like that.
I am sick and tired of your constant whining and sniping. I am entitled to my opinion - I remember when we had free speech in this country. I bet you must enjoy knitting you horrible little person. Bloody do gooders do my head in.
And you put an exclamation mark at the beginning of the sentence - what was the point of that you illiterate fool. If you can't use the Queen's English, get out of the country.
End of
p.s. what do I win for breaking the most rules?
"No one is talking about hard and fast rules kromo, just guidelines "
In the context of a debate-based forum, you'll often find one guidelines are agreed on they're usually regularly invoked to set the tone of argument. This thread is meant for discussion of those, so I'm attacking what I think is the assumption underlying your suggestion.
"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)"
I agree, but that's not what the rule says. Of course anecdotal evidence shouldn't be suppressed - it's evidence, and therefore it's valuable. But it needs corroborating at the very least and also I'd argue it needs to be substantiated with something else (whatever that something else may be). It really doesn't count for much on its own.
In the context of a debate-based forum, you'll often find one guidelines are agreed on they're usually regularly invoked to set the tone of argument. This thread is meant for discussion of those, so I'm attacking what I think is the assumption underlying your suggestion.
"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)"
I agree, but that's not what the rule says. Of course anecdotal evidence shouldn't be suppressed - it's evidence, and therefore it's valuable. But it needs corroborating at the very least and also I'd argue it needs to be substantiated with something else (whatever that something else may be). It really doesn't count for much on its own.
Kromo...the debate about "anecdotal evidence" and statistics is quite interesting and I do accept totally your line of thought and opinion.
However.....let us take something that has happened just this week.
Statistics from the Dept of Fisheries tell us that 90% of the cod has been depleted due to overfishing. .....that is a statistical fact.
Fishermen however say that this is nonsense, as the size of the fish and of the catch remains the same......anecdotal.
Who would you believe?.....Statistical or anecdotal evidence?
However.....let us take something that has happened just this week.
Statistics from the Dept of Fisheries tell us that 90% of the cod has been depleted due to overfishing. .....that is a statistical fact.
Fishermen however say that this is nonsense, as the size of the fish and of the catch remains the same......anecdotal.
Who would you believe?.....Statistical or anecdotal evidence?
Let us be careful; statistics can lie, Squad - in this one that you quote, what are we talking about? 90 per cent of where?; UK Waters, the North Sea, the UK Atlantic, off Cornwall, or the cod I have swimming in my bath?
anecdotal evidence can help underpin an argument
this site should promote well-reasoned argument and debate and that means a healthy mix of fact and anecdotes - in the courts they call it factual evidence and circumstantial.....not that AB is a court, though, sometimes, I do wonder about its kangaroo nature.
anecdotal evidence can help underpin an argument
this site should promote well-reasoned argument and debate and that means a healthy mix of fact and anecdotes - in the courts they call it factual evidence and circumstantial.....not that AB is a court, though, sometimes, I do wonder about its kangaroo nature.
Sqad: Without wishing to appear evasive, I'd read as thoroughly into both sources of information as I'm capable of before siding with either. But you did ask me a direct question, so just based on what you've told me, the direct answer to it is that I'd side with the statistical evidence without dismissing the anecdotal, on the assumption that further investigation would explain the disparity.
What the Ed's rule however suggests is that I shouldn't assume that fishing is the same as it's ever been just because (some?) fishermen say it is. If I believe what they're saying, I need to defend it by proving exactly what's wrong to claims to the contrary (and to be fair exactly the same thing should apply to statistical evidence so perhaps there should be something in the guidelines applying similar standards to that).
What the Ed's rule however suggests is that I shouldn't assume that fishing is the same as it's ever been just because (some?) fishermen say it is. If I believe what they're saying, I need to defend it by proving exactly what's wrong to claims to the contrary (and to be fair exactly the same thing should apply to statistical evidence so perhaps there should be something in the guidelines applying similar standards to that).
Having been invited to add my tuppence worth on the subject of zapping questions, may I suggest the Editorial team take a quick glance at the content of 'zappable' threads in the more serious topics before pressing the red button? Sometimes trolls inadvertently post good questions that attract intelligent discussion and well researched answers - and it's such a waste of a poster's time, effort, and brains when all that work disappears in an instant for no reason other than the original poster is not welcome on AB. He may be well rid of, but I would venture to suggest that his question might be worth retaining.
"No personal attacks - However, "sledging" style "banter" should be taken with good grace."
The "Sledging" metaphor was unknown to me until I saw the Ed's cricket link. As cricket is the most opaque and arcane waste of time, in my opinion, I'm not surprised that that minority term rang no bells.
Ad hominem ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem ) seems to be what was intended. To say, for example, that the Minister's new plan for funding schools in Britain has no validity because both he and his offspring were educated at public schools, is ad hominem. Extend this to say, for example, that Twinkletopos (AB contributor) can't say that the winner of the Golden Globe deserved it because they (Twinkletopos) are a fat bottomed chav with no brain cells.
Good grace? Wasn't he some sort of cricketer? In the interests of fair play, surely both personal insults and fallacious pseudo logic, like ad hominem, should be discouraged.
The "Sledging" metaphor was unknown to me until I saw the Ed's cricket link. As cricket is the most opaque and arcane waste of time, in my opinion, I'm not surprised that that minority term rang no bells.
Ad hominem ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem ) seems to be what was intended. To say, for example, that the Minister's new plan for funding schools in Britain has no validity because both he and his offspring were educated at public schools, is ad hominem. Extend this to say, for example, that Twinkletopos (AB contributor) can't say that the winner of the Golden Globe deserved it because they (Twinkletopos) are a fat bottomed chav with no brain cells.
Good grace? Wasn't he some sort of cricketer? In the interests of fair play, surely both personal insults and fallacious pseudo logic, like ad hominem, should be discouraged.
"To say, for example, that the Minister's new plan for funding schools in Britain has no validity because both he and his offspring were educated at public schools, is ad hominem."
Up to a point; but it may also be legitimate criticism, if it suggests that the minister has no personal experience of the state schooling that most of the country gets. Perhaps the criticism is justified, perhaps it isn't, but there's a pretty good prima facie case for making it.
Saying that the plan lacks validity because the minister is an idiot is more truly ad hominem.
Up to a point; but it may also be legitimate criticism, if it suggests that the minister has no personal experience of the state schooling that most of the country gets. Perhaps the criticism is justified, perhaps it isn't, but there's a pretty good prima facie case for making it.
Saying that the plan lacks validity because the minister is an idiot is more truly ad hominem.
