Rules of Debate

This thread isn't meant to be debated. Others can reply if they have questions or other relevant guidelines.It isn't meant to be formal "rules" for this forum either. It is merely a list of guidelines for debate to be used when the claim arises that others do not understand or are not following the "rules of debate".After reading thru Willowtree's claim of others not following the "rules of debate" found here:http://EvC Forum: Willowtree's Scientific Evidence against Evolution -->EvC Forum: Willowtree's Scientific Evidence against EvolutionI thought I'd show the thread to my own resident expert on debate, my daughter, who has debated at state level in all forms and levels of debate. When she was done laughing, she sat down and helped me write down these "guidelines".1. Everything is debatable if one side or another disputes the other side's argument. Nothing is assumed if there is evidence against it.2. Evidence must be from a credible source, credible meaning an expert in the field which they are attempting to debate. (meaning, a lawyer isn't considered an expert in biology, a geologist isn't an expert in cosmology, a pediatrician isn't an expert in neurosurgery)3. Courtesy is a priority. Frustration, while looked down upon, is generally understood. Blatant nastiness, name-calling, whining, and wrongful accusations will basically lose you the round, as it proves to others that you are unable to rationally debate your side.4. Quote mining will get you black listed as far as formal debate goes. All of your sources will then seem uncredible, as your opponents cannot trust you.5. Statistics can weigh greatly in certain forms of debate. To prove statistics wrong, you must offer evidence against the statistics, the source of the statistics, or the method used obtaining them. To prove them misleading, you must have evidence backing up your accusation. If they say "the atheist world view is automatically included in the scientific evidence embraced by neo-Darwinism" all you must do is prove that there is one person that this doesn't fit. If they say "most..." then the other side has to bring up statistics that show a majority doesn't follow this, such as "78.7% of the population...".6. Evidence MUST be cited.Of course there are many more rules that apply to formal debate, though they tend to apply more to spoken debate.------------------
Asgara
"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato

I think it might be useful to define quote mining.Some might think this is simply using quotes from a source. Additionally someone might call it quote mining if the quote used is shown to be wrong or flawed.I think it is specifically:Taking a quote and manipulating it in some way to make it appear to be saying or supporting something that the individual being quoted did not mean, say or believe.There will be different levels of this and sometimes there may be some uncertainty as to whether something is actually quote mining.Lifting something out of context and trying to imply that pronoun antecdents are different than actually is the case is quote mining.Using elipses to remove qualifications to a position isn't as bad as using them to change the whole meaning but is still dishonest.Quoting an expression of a problem with a position and not carrying on to note that the problem is discussed and dealt with is quote mining.However, lifting a quote by an biologist who says that there is a great deal of uncertainty about the origin of life is probably not quote mining. Somehow suggesting that this means that the biologist is supporting a 6 day creation would be (unless the biolgist actually was )------------------
Common sense isn't

I would add that running off because your feelings have been hurt does not constitute "winning" the debate.It is fair, if the nastiness continues to stop responding to that poster. But to blanket everyone because of the offences of one isn't an excuse to run and hide.In any case, if a post critizes a particular point that does not constitute name calling. Even saying a piece of logic is flawed, wrong or stupid does not count as name calling. As long as it is directed at the contents of the post not the poster.------------------
Common sense isn't

Thanks Ned darlin',I made the "assumption" that all understand what quote mining is, but that is blatantly not the case in many of our threads.------------------
Asgara
"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato

It may be that there are individuals on both sides that aren't clear on what it is. Does anyone have anything to add?

double post ...[This message has been edited by JonF, 12-21-2003]

This one makes me a bit uncomfortable, but I'm not sure how best to reword the parenthesized part. I would definitely replace every "isn't an expert" with "isn't necessarily a credible source". Someone can be a credible source in a field in which they have no formal qualifications (e.g. I'm a definitely a credible mechanical design engineer, with a BSME and MSME from MIT and 30 years experience, but IMHO I'm also a credible source on radioisotope dating) but that doesn't cover the possibility that appropriate qualifications do not automatically confer credibility (e.g. a biologist may not be a credible source on biology; I have a particular individual, not a poster on this board, in mind). Distinguishing a credible source from a non-credible source is non-trivial, is far more than enumerating qualifications, and often requires some knowledge of the field in question.Perhaps the person who offers himself or others as a credible source is responsible for establishing credibility if that credibility is questioned.

You have a good point JonF. One could argue that worrying about the credibility of the source is starting to cross over into "arguement form authority" I suppose.How about this thought:
The nature of the data and the arguement is generally more important than the actual authority being invoked. However, if a source has been shown to be wrong or dishonest on a number of issues it is acceptable to suggest that that source is no longer "credible".However, how well does this handle the extreme cases? If we were talking to an expert in statistical analysis, quantum physics (or, very pertinently, an astrophysicists) it may well be that no one else is able to do more than agree based on the pure authority involved.

I agree, good point.If a source is going to be accepted as an authority, then reasons for this authority are important, but as always the data is what is important.I think in my "guidelines" as presented by my daughter, the point concerning expert opinions is based on the establishment of expertise. There are those trained in a particular field, but have been working in another field for years.I hereby edit my guidelines to make clear that data outweighs authority, and established expertise in a particular field outweighs wishful thinking. ------------------
Asgara
"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato

I wrote a fairly lengthy rebuttal of specific quote mining on this forum (in some now-no-doubt-long-lost-thread). The overall definition I came up with was: There are, of course, a number of variations on this theme. From the basic omission of explanatory sentences to the use of un-verifiable secondary or tertiary sources to quite creative selection or omission of key words. One quote that was making the creationist rounds for awhile started with a sentence that began on page 2 of the cited reference, then used ellipses to jump almost 20 additional pages to conclude the sentence. Truly the world's record on skipping explanatory material. Needless to say, the missing material contained information that was quite opposite to the creationist's "interpretation" of what the scientist was discussing.