a little something I threw together -->
Internet: Serious Business
So, you've decided to venture into the Serious Discussion forum. Perhaps you saw a topic that piqued your interest, or maybe you had an idea you wanted to discuss, or you're just curiously checking it out, or you clicked on the link by accident. Whatever your reasons, there are a few things you're going to want to know first before you get started. It is important that you pay careful attention to these things and heed them well.
Serious discussion can be quite entertaining, as well as enlightening, but it isn't very hard to make it no fun for everybody. If you're really not careful, you might make it hard for people to ever take you seriously—and how can you have a serious discussion if no one takes you seriously?
The first thing you should do is read the
Serious Discussion Rules. Although you might think you already understand them (they are pretty much based on common sense) you should take note of the fact that rules in the Serious Discussion forum are taken much more seriously than they are anywhere else. While chaos, disorder, and silliness are often overlooked and even welcome in places like the General Chit-Chat or Clan forums, they are not welcome here. Remember: this forum is serious business.
However, even after you've read the rules, there are a lot of things about serious discussion that you might not understand. In order to make sure that the discussion goes smoothly for everyone, you should follow some basic guidelines. If everyone follows these guidelines then we can ensure that everyone can have an entertaining and enlightening experience here in the Serious Discussion forum.
First of all, respect is key.
Everyone has different opinions and beliefs. Nowhere is this simple universal truth more evident than here in the Serious Discussion forum. Debates happen when two people argue differing opinions. Sometimes, debates can get pretty heated. There's nothing inherently wrong with a heated debate—in fact, they are often the ones that have the most impact in increasing the amount of understanding between people on both sides of the debate.
However, no matter how heated a debate gets, it is important to remember that your opponents are people who deserve just as much respect as you do. Even if you think, or
know, that they're "wrong" and you're "right," you should still treat them with respect. Attack their argument, not their person. Don't insult them—all that does is weaken your own argument and make other people less willing to have a reasonable debate with you.
Second of all, clarity is key.
When you form an argument, it is important to make sure that everyone can clearly understand everything that you're saying. It would be quite the shame to hold a back-and-forth debate with someone only to find later on that you were debating entirely different subjects and perhaps actually agreed with each other the whole time.
In order to make sure you're clearly understood by everyone, you should always use proper English grammar, spelling, punctuation, and sentence structure. If no one can read your argument, no one is going to understand it. If English isn't your first language, or you were never very good at it, have someone who is good at English look over your arguments and correct them before you post them—or just don't bother. No one is going to want to try to form a counterargument against it if they can't even read it.
Also make sure to clarify any ambiguous terms. A lot of words can have multiple dictionary definitions and if you and your opponent are using different definitions of the same word, you can get quite confused. Define any terms which are important to your argument, even if you think the definition of the term should be common knowledge. If the term can be misunderstood, and if misunderstanding it could lead to a completely different understanding of your argument, provide a simple and concise definition, either in your own words or quoted from another source.
Another thing to remember about dictionary definitions of terms is that no definition is necessarily more "right" than another. Try not to get into an argument of semantics. Instead of arguing why your definition is more correct than another, simply make it clear what definition you are using. It isn't right and it isn't wrong, it's just the one you're choosing to use in your argument. Although do be careful to make sure the definitions you use are at least recognized by some significant amount of people, in order to avoid confusion; it should be in some dictionary somewhere.
Also try to make sure that you are consistent in how you define terms, and make sure you understand how other people are defining terms as well. Don't reply to an argument using one definition when you know the argument you're replying to is using a different definition. If you do that, you are debating against an argument that your opponent doesn't actually support (called a straw man argument, see
An Introduction to the Nature of Fallacies).
While definitions are generally considered subjective and often change meaning with context, many terms have technical definitions that are universally recognized by certain authorities. Deviating from these definitions in a serious debate will do nothing but confuse other people. Some words even have multiple technical definitions, depending on the field of knowledge using it.
For instance, the word "organic" has multiple definitions. In the field of organic chemistry, the word refers to any compound containing the element carbon. In the field of biology, "organic" refers to matter from living or once-living organisms. Thus, it can mean "related to carbon" or "related to life." However, the definition that most people probably understand is neither of these. In agriculture, "organic" refers to food grown following specific requirements, usually limiting the amount of synthetic substances used in the process.
None of these definitions is more correct than the other, except when used in specific contexts. Hence, if you use the word "organic," you should make it clear which one you mean. The best way to do this, without going out of your way to define it, is to use the proper context. If you're talking about food, it should be clear what you mean when you say "organic." So if you're using the definition that most people think of when talking about "organic food," you probably don't have to define it; but if you're using another definition, make that clear.
If anyone ever asks you to elaborate or clarify, do so. If you need someone to elaborate or clarify, ask them. For a list of commonly used technical definitions of terms, see the Glossary of Terms at the end of this document. Make sure you understand the context that various terms are used in, so you can understand other people as well as they understand you. If you don't understand an argument, you can't form a proper counterargument.
Third of all, knowing how to form an argument is key.
Now, you could easily get by in the Serious Discussion forum the same way you do everywhere else; simply posting your opinions and perhaps occasionally commenting on a few other people's opinions. But if that's all you do, you're really missing out on half the fun. You can't get into any real debate with nothing but a few small opinions. You need information, data, facts, sources, and logic. This guide will attempt to teach you how to form a basic argument, enough to get by in most of the discussions here. Remember that practice makes perfect, and reading through the arguments of other skilled debaters can help you become more skilled yourself.
First of all, every argument is based on some sort of opinion. If you don't hold an opinion on a topic, it's hard to care about it either way. If you don't care either way, it's difficult to come up with a good argument. It's not impossible—debating an argument you don't necessarily agree with or hold an opinion on is called "playing devil's advocate," or just arguing for the sake of argument, and can help people work out their own arguments, especially when there isn't anyone who properly disagrees with them.
Once you have your opinion, or the presumed opinion that you will be debating as if you held, you can begin to form your argument. It's not as simple as just stating what your opinion is. You have to elaborate on why you hold that opinion and why you think it is the right opinion. Opinions are usually based on both facts and logic. For instance, if it is your opinion that the Earth is round, you can back that opinion up with facts. If it is your opinion that marijuana should be legalized, you can back that opinion up with logic. Try to provide some of each, if possible.
Examples -
A badly formed argument: "I think that the Earth is round."
This argument lacks any sort of reasoning or fact. All it does is state the speaker's opinion. It provides no rationality for why the speaker thinks their opinion is correct and provides no points that can be argued against.
A better formed argument: "I think that the Earth is round. Just watch as a boat disappears over the horizon—if the Earth was flat, you would be able to see it for much longer. It disappears from view because the curvature of the Earth obscures it. Also, in the third century BC, Eratosthenes was able to use the sun to calculate the circumference of the Earth within 1% accuracy."
This argument backs up the speaker's opinion using both logic and facts.
Although it is possible to debate without ever needing to provide any sources, using only logic and common knowledge to back up your arguments, it often helps if you can provide more specific data in your arguments. If you make any factual claims, it is possible someone will try to contest them. Often times, facts are common knowledge and don't need to be sourced. Either everyone knows the information already, or it's very easy to look up.
For instance, you wouldn't have to provide a source if in your argument you said "the temperature of the surface of the Sun is 5,778 Kelvin" or "Rutherford B. Hayes was the 19th President of the United States of America." Now, if someone did ask you for a source, you should provide one for them, just to keep the argument moving, but generally if someone isn't sure about this sort of information they will look it up themselves; assuming it really is common knowledge, it shouldn't be hard to find.
Other information, however, isn't so common. If this is the case, or if you suspect that someone might try to contest your claim, provide a source or have one ready in case they ask. While it might seem to you that anyone debating the subject should know the information already, often this might not be the case and you should provide a source anyway. If someone contests your claim and you aren't able to back it up with anything, usually they will assume that it holds no truth and they will just ignore it, thus ruining your argument.
Try to avoid making factual claims if you don't have a source to provide. Such claims are often based entirely on stereotypes and opinions and if you attempt to pass them off as fact you make a very serious error. If you don't have a source for a claim you want to make and can't find one, reevaluate the claim to make sure it actually is a fact. It might make sense to you to say "Women just don't drive as well as men do," but you should make sure that this claim is based on fact rather than opinion or stereotype. You might find that, in fact, the exact opposite is true (
Women drivers? They).
Examples -
A badly sourced argument: "The percentage of nonreligion in the United States has been increasing. Therefore, ..."
This argument makes a claim and then does not provide any source for it. The claim is not common knowledge and might not be easy to look up. While it might be the case that no one disagrees with or contests the claim, hence making a source unnecessary, it is just as possible that someone will ask the speaker to provide a source in order to validate the claim. If the speaker is unable to do so, the claim becomes invalid and no one is likely to take it seriously—even if it is entirely true.
A better sourced argument: "According to the ARIS (American Religious Identification Survey), nonreligion in the United States has been increasing. In 1990 the percentage of people who identified with having no religion was 8.2, while in 2008 it was 15. Source: http://b27.cc.trincoll.edu/weblogs/AmericanReligionSurvey-ARIS/reports/p1a_belong.htm"
This argument makes a claim and then immediately provides a link to the source. This way, in case anyone disbelieves the claim, they can easily look it up and see what facts the claim is based on. The data used in the claim comes right from the graph at the very top of the page the link leads too. Now, just as how not having a source does not necessarily make a claim untrue, having one does not necessarily mean the argument is correct.
It is important to pick reliable sources. While it is easy to invalidate a claim that doesn't provide a source, it is just as easy to invalidate a claim that uses an insufficient source. Being able to tell the difference between a reliable source and an unreliable one can be difficult. First of all, it's important that a source makes clear where all the data it presents comes from. If the source uses data that it did not collect itself, it should provide a clear citation to the source it takes the data from, that way it is clear the source isn't just making information up.
You should also check to make sure that the source of your information is not marked by some obvious bias or ulterior motive. Although that does not necessarily invalidate the information it provides, it might cause some doubt about whether or not the information is reliable. Whether or not the information is true, this doubt might lead some people to ignore it and ask for a more reliable source.
On the topic of sources, one question always comes up. What about Wikipedia? Without getting into a big discussion about it here, Wikipedia is generally pretty accurate. It is maintained by a very large community which actively seeks to make sure every article provides only sourced information. Although anyone can edit most of the pages on Wikipedia, such vandalism is usually quickly noticed and reverted.
In any case, people will complain if you base your argument on a Wikipedia article. While it can be useful for providing good and accurate general information (like the temperature of the Sun's surface, above) try to find more direct sources for less common or more specific information. A good thing to take note of is that most Wikipedia pages include a list of links to other websites for related information, and all Wikipedia pages have a list of sources for their information.
You can't form a proper argument without some sort of logic. Logic is the study of reasoning. If you want to form an argument, you have to do some sort of reasoning. To do that, you have to use logic. You use logic all the time, usually unconsciously. When you decide to take the bus to school instead of driving, because it will save you money, you're using logic. When you decide to walk instead, in order to get some exercise, you're using logic. When you decide not to stick your hand on a hot griddle because the heat will burn your hand, you're using logic.
Using logic is easy. It's a simple matter of stating your argument and then giving the reason why. Don't touch the griddle
because it will burn your hand. Buildings with lightly-colored roofs save energy on heating
because the light color absorbs less sunlight. Censorship is wrong
because it violates freedom of speech.
Of course, just using logic isn't good enough. You can't form a sensible argument without using logic, but you can form an incorrect one. Logic simply makes your argument possible to follow and debate against. Without it, all you have is nonsense. With logic, you have an argument—but not necessary a good or true one. In order to understand how to properly use logic, you need to know how
not to use it. Make sure you understand and avoid logical fallacies (again, see
An Introduction to the Nature of Fallacies).
Fourth of all, forming a counterargument is key.
Even after you've followed all the previous steps and successfully formed an argument, you are only halfway through. It's not a discussion if you post your argument and leave. Someone is probably going to respond to your argument and perhaps form a counterargument against it. This is the beginning of a debate.
Once someone has formed a counterargument against your argument, or once someone has posted an argument that you want to counter, you'll have to respond by forming a counterargument of your own. In doing so, make sure you follow all the previous guidelines and then move on to the following guidelines.
Respond to every point. A well-formed argument is built of many different points. If you don't respond to a point, your opponent might accuse you of ignoring them. Indeed, not responding to a certain point makes it look like you're trying to avoid it, perhaps because you cannot think of any way to counter it. If this is true, feel free to admit it—you can't be right all of the time, and sometimes someone makes a point you just can't argue with.
But otherwise, you should make sure to address all the points in the argument you are countering. Along with that, don't address any points that are not mentioned in the argument you are countering. If you address points your opponent didn't make, you're attacking an argument your opponent didn't form—a straw man argument. Sometimes you might address a point because you assume your opponent holds a certain position, even if they never explicitly stated so. Try to avoid doing this.
--> still needs some work.
08-01-2010, 07:45 PM
