Archive:Summaries of policy arguments: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Larry Sanger
No edit summary
imported>Larry Sanger
(→‎The rules for summarizing policy arguments: Making a few more rules explicit)
Line 6: Line 6:
# Our purpose here is to summarize and standardize arguments--not to argue niggling and idiosyncratic points that would be irrelevant outside the context of a particular person-to-person exchange.  In other words, we are dealing with a relatively "universal" question and we are summing up "universal" arguments on each side.
# Our purpose here is to summarize and standardize arguments--not to argue niggling and idiosyncratic points that would be irrelevant outside the context of a particular person-to-person exchange.  In other words, we are dealing with a relatively "universal" question and we are summing up "universal" arguments on each side.
# In designing the structure for our debate, simplicity is best: one side presents an argument; the other side presents a reply; there can, in addition, be a rebuttal and counter-rebuttal, but try to avoid this and don't iterate "downward" any further.
# In designing the structure for our debate, simplicity is best: one side presents an argument; the other side presents a reply; there can, in addition, be a rebuttal and counter-rebuttal, but try to avoid this and don't iterate "downward" any further.
# These must be excellent, largely fallacy-free formulations of the arguments.
# As to format, always use headings to summarize arguments (do not ''simply'' write "Argument," for example), and precede these headings as follows:
#* Top level: Affirmative or Negative
#* First level: Argument
#* Second level: Reply
#* Third level: Rebuttal
#* Fourth level: Counter-rebuttal
#* There is no fifth level.
# These must be excellent, largely fallacy-free formulations of the arguments.  This means, among other things, that replies must specifically address the merits of an argument to which it is a reply.  One may not simply repeat an irrelevant different argument as a reply to a given argument.
# Consider [[CZ:Should we permit or disallow commercial use of CZ-originated articles?|this page]] a style template.  Begin "affirmative" and "negative" sections with top-level headings (one =).
# Consider [[CZ:Should we permit or disallow commercial use of CZ-originated articles?|this page]] a style template.  Begin "affirmative" and "negative" sections with top-level headings (one =).
# We will learn/settle on more rules as we go.  Note, some ideas about how to proceed are given on this [http://www.textop.org/wiki/index.php?title=How_to_construct_a_debate_summary old Textop wiki page.]  See also [http://www.debatepedia.com Debatepedia.]
# We will learn/settle on more rules as we go.  Note, some ideas about how to proceed are given on this [http://www.textop.org/wiki/index.php?title=How_to_construct_a_debate_summary old Textop wiki page.]  See also [http://www.debatepedia.com Debatepedia.]

Revision as of 09:17, 15 September 2007

Citizendium Communication
Workgroups | Discussion forum | For non-members | Twitter

|width=10% align=center style="background:#F5F5F5"|  |}

Generally, Citizendium policy discussion takes place on the Forums, not the wiki. But we might occasionally find it useful to summarize and standardize some arguments on different sides of a controversial Citizendium policy issue--and for that, the wiki will be useful.

The rules for summarizing policy arguments

  1. Our purpose here is to summarize and standardize arguments--not to argue niggling and idiosyncratic points that would be irrelevant outside the context of a particular person-to-person exchange. In other words, we are dealing with a relatively "universal" question and we are summing up "universal" arguments on each side.
  2. In designing the structure for our debate, simplicity is best: one side presents an argument; the other side presents a reply; there can, in addition, be a rebuttal and counter-rebuttal, but try to avoid this and don't iterate "downward" any further.
  3. As to format, always use headings to summarize arguments (do not simply write "Argument," for example), and precede these headings as follows:
    • Top level: Affirmative or Negative
    • First level: Argument
    • Second level: Reply
    • Third level: Rebuttal
    • Fourth level: Counter-rebuttal
    • There is no fifth level.
  4. These must be excellent, largely fallacy-free formulations of the arguments. This means, among other things, that replies must specifically address the merits of an argument to which it is a reply. One may not simply repeat an irrelevant different argument as a reply to a given argument.
  5. Consider this page a style template. Begin "affirmative" and "negative" sections with top-level headings (one =).
  6. We will learn/settle on more rules as we go. Note, some ideas about how to proceed are given on this old Textop wiki page. See also Debatepedia.

The issues

License

Constabulary

Retrieved from "https://citizendium.org/wiki/index.php?title=Archive:Summaries_of_policy_arguments&oldid=169885"