User:Woozle/debate guidelines

Note

This is a proposed set of guidelines for text-oriented debating (e.g. chat, forums, etc.).

Most of these guidelines were written for less rationally-oriented contexts than LessWrong, so may not be needed here -- but it seems like a good idea to leave them in anyway.

This list was adapted from Issuepedia, which releases it under a Creative Commons license.

Proposed Guidelines for Rational Debate

things to do

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 position (rather than just attacking the positions of others).
• DO offer arguments:
  • for why the other debater's statements are unlikely to be true.
  • to support what you think is correct.
• DO respond to every point you wish to oppose.
  • Failure to respond to a point does not make it untrue.
  • If a point remains unanswered, it is reasonable to consider it true.
• DO draw attention to any unanswered points.
  • Others may assume or erroneously believe that unanswered points have actually been defeated.

things to avoid

It generally does not strengthen your position if you:

• ...attack the other person's credibility (expertise, credentials, personal habits, age, affiliations, etc.).
• ...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 factual matters.
• ...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.)

using sources

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.
• DO summarize the content of any referenced material if it is not obvious, rather than expecting others to read it and understand its applicability to the discussion. (No required reading.)
  • If you can't defend your own point within the context of the current discussion, then perhaps you don't understand what you're arguing -- or perhaps you don't understand what you're arguing against, and are hoping that something somewhere in the required reading will suffice as a rebuttal.
  • In-context quotes are acceptable, but summaries are better -- especially if written to be specific about the matter under discussion.

There will probably be some disagreement over "no required reading". Perhaps a set of "required canon" is a reasonable exception to make for any given area of discussion. As long as the canon is agreed on in advance, then its bookstop capability can't be abused as easily -- anyone venturing into advanced areas of discussion will know in advance what materials they should be familiar with before proposing new ideas.

Ultimately, it would be preferable to have a catalog of claims -- in which each claim was linked to the arguments proving or defeating it -- so that instead of saying "go read this", a more-experienced debater could simply look up any claim needing defeat or defense and then paste the appropriate argument(s) into the discussion (perhaps with a link, as a hint that "you're exploring well-trodden ground").