Ashiel
2010-02-28, 03:49 AM
Having engaged in several debates on these boards and others, I believe it has come time to try and define what I feel are a few good guidelines for carrying on discussions and debates in a confrontational or disagreement environment. Also, I want a thread I can link to in my signature, rather than breaking my signature open with a way-to-long character count in spoiler tags.
EDIT: Also, I'm not saying everyone should follow these rules. It will however help people know how I will be debating with them at a glance; as well as help them know how I will view their given styles.
I give you Ashiel's Rules of Engagement v1.0
Here is a few tips. I'm not an expert at public speaking or anything, but these are some things I try to get my little brother to remember at all times:
If you say something and it is contestable, or is contested, provide evidence. Be ready to provide proof and/or sources and formulas to showcase this information. Avoid anecdotal evidence when possible (unless expressing it merely as an off-comment separate from your points). If possible, try to use mathematics to show things in a debate; as 1+1=2 is both difficult to contest, and it lends credibility (assuming your math isn't horribly off).
Avoid exaggerations, hyperbole, and gross analogies. Exceptions should be spelled out, such as "It's hyperbole but" or "a more extreme example would be", and so on. Used properly, these tools can be used to drive home the point. Used improperly and you'll hit your thumb and discredit yourself in the eyes of both opponents and onlookers.
Conversation - especially debates - are like a dueling ring. To garner respect for yourself and for your points, you must be clean and respectful. Dishonest tricks such as using straw-man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man) tactics, ad hominem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem), or the fictitious Chewbacca Defense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_defense), are the debating equivalents to throwing sand in someone's eyes and sucker punching. Using these methods will not only discredit you as a debater and conversationalist, but also as a person. Additionally, they will only make you look like a fool to those who possess actual knowledge of the subject. Additionally, such dirty actions can be used as references by your opponents to show your inexperience and discredit you. At this point, the gloves are off and you're about to get beaten down by someone who has more experience and skill than you - who is also now angry that you stooped to dirty tricks in your match.
Don't attempt to ignore the subject matter. It may be difficult to address all of it at once, but try to break it down. Never ignore it. Never attempt to side-step it. If you missed something, and they call you on it, address it immediately. Continuing to side-step or ignore evidence will continue to ruin your credibility, and be annoying for everyone. The worst case scenario would be to take something and re-present it as something that it is not/was not to begin with. It's dishonesty that is visible to anyone who views it. Your honor is your life. Loose it and you've lost your credibility.
As noted before, don't resort to Ad hominem attacks. Don't resort to name calling, or try to imply things about your peers in an attempt to discredit their points, views, or positions. Use facts, not attacks.
Should someone continue to dishonor the discussion and their peers, feel free to call them on it. If someone is continually crossing the line, let them know that you are aware of it and let others be made aware. Do not, however, fall into a name calling contest. Continue to debate cleanly. If you feel you must return some spite (and it is hard to resist when someone is continually engaging in dishonest action), try to return it as cleanly as possible. This is usually just done by calling them on it, or letting them know that you're loosing patience with their foolishness. If you are at this point then they are likely breaking many of above rules, and merely demanding that they either step up and provide evidence or stop side-stepping or stand down will press their hand. If they cannot, then they break by default. You've won.
If you cannot provide ample evidence, or cannot properly debate the subject - make it known that your comments are merely anecdotal or personal. If someone disagrees, withdraw until you have further evidence. If someone has bested you, keep your honor and merely stand down. It is better to be wrong or invalidated and have engaged in a clean conversation/debate than to discredit and disgrace yourself. I've stood down on many occasions if I couldn't gain ground. Headbutting contests are for dinosaurs. Just recently I stood down on a subject concerning a book I read (non-RPG related), with a rather vocal and belligerent friend of mine. It was better that I concede to his incorrect statements, as I had nothing to prove them incorrect with. However, having pulled out my copy of the book in question, I proved the case I would have argued previously but was ill equipped to do so. Should he have been correct, I would have accepted that. Arguing on principle is rarely a good idea - or a respectable one.
If anyone thinks something should be amended or added, lemme know. It would be nice to have a set of standards and guidelines to go by or assume by default; especially with the frequency of debates and heated discussions that arise on message boards such as these. :smallsmile:
Logical Fallacies Listings
To further set the bar, Iceforge and Kurald Galain have presented a list of logical fallacies to avoid when conversing or debating about a subject. Each of these logical fallacies hurt your credibility and make you appear foolish; when carrying on a conversation or debate, these mistakes should be avoided.
Logical Fallacies (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/)
Often used Logical Fallacies are
"Appeal to Authority"
1. Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
2. Person A makes claim C about subject S.
3. Therefore, C is true.
"Appeal to Belief"
1. Most people believe that a claim, X, is true
2. Therefore X is true
-Closely related to "Appeal to Popularity"
1. Most people approve of X (have favorable emotions towards X)
2. Therefore X is true
"Ignoring a Common Cause"
1. When we see A we also see B
2. Therefore, A causes B
Which ignores the possibility that B causes A or unknown variable C causes both A and B
Appeal to Consequences of a Belief
1. X is true because if people did not accept X as being true then there would be negative consequences.
2. X is false because if people did not accept X as being false, then there would be negative consequences.
3. X is true because accepting that X is true has positive consequences.
4. X is false because accepting that X is false has positive consequences.
5. I wish that X were true, therefore X is true
6. I wish that X were false, therefore X is false
And, of course, the ever-popular "Straw Man"
1. Person A claims X.
2. Y is false, where Y is usually a misinterpretation or exaggeration of X.
3. Therefore, person A is wrong.
And since this is an RPG forum, there's also the "Oberoni Fallacy", which is actually a form of Straw Man.
1. Rule A has problem X.
2. It is easy to solve problem X through houseruling.
3. Therefore rule A doesn't have problem X.
As well as the less common "Stormwind Fallacy", a subset of the "False Dichotomy" fallacy.
1. Person A belongs to group X.
2. Group X is different from group Y.
3. Therefore person A doesn't belong to group Y.
And this variation on the Appeal To Authority also often applies to roleplaying gamers,
1. Rule A can be interpreted in several ways.
2. I prefer interpretation X, which tends to correspond to the interpretation that makes my character more powerful.
3. Therefore interprertation X is RAW, and every other interpretation is a houserule.
EDIT: Also, I'm not saying everyone should follow these rules. It will however help people know how I will be debating with them at a glance; as well as help them know how I will view their given styles.
I give you Ashiel's Rules of Engagement v1.0
Here is a few tips. I'm not an expert at public speaking or anything, but these are some things I try to get my little brother to remember at all times:
If you say something and it is contestable, or is contested, provide evidence. Be ready to provide proof and/or sources and formulas to showcase this information. Avoid anecdotal evidence when possible (unless expressing it merely as an off-comment separate from your points). If possible, try to use mathematics to show things in a debate; as 1+1=2 is both difficult to contest, and it lends credibility (assuming your math isn't horribly off).
Avoid exaggerations, hyperbole, and gross analogies. Exceptions should be spelled out, such as "It's hyperbole but" or "a more extreme example would be", and so on. Used properly, these tools can be used to drive home the point. Used improperly and you'll hit your thumb and discredit yourself in the eyes of both opponents and onlookers.
Conversation - especially debates - are like a dueling ring. To garner respect for yourself and for your points, you must be clean and respectful. Dishonest tricks such as using straw-man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man) tactics, ad hominem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem), or the fictitious Chewbacca Defense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_defense), are the debating equivalents to throwing sand in someone's eyes and sucker punching. Using these methods will not only discredit you as a debater and conversationalist, but also as a person. Additionally, they will only make you look like a fool to those who possess actual knowledge of the subject. Additionally, such dirty actions can be used as references by your opponents to show your inexperience and discredit you. At this point, the gloves are off and you're about to get beaten down by someone who has more experience and skill than you - who is also now angry that you stooped to dirty tricks in your match.
Don't attempt to ignore the subject matter. It may be difficult to address all of it at once, but try to break it down. Never ignore it. Never attempt to side-step it. If you missed something, and they call you on it, address it immediately. Continuing to side-step or ignore evidence will continue to ruin your credibility, and be annoying for everyone. The worst case scenario would be to take something and re-present it as something that it is not/was not to begin with. It's dishonesty that is visible to anyone who views it. Your honor is your life. Loose it and you've lost your credibility.
As noted before, don't resort to Ad hominem attacks. Don't resort to name calling, or try to imply things about your peers in an attempt to discredit their points, views, or positions. Use facts, not attacks.
Should someone continue to dishonor the discussion and their peers, feel free to call them on it. If someone is continually crossing the line, let them know that you are aware of it and let others be made aware. Do not, however, fall into a name calling contest. Continue to debate cleanly. If you feel you must return some spite (and it is hard to resist when someone is continually engaging in dishonest action), try to return it as cleanly as possible. This is usually just done by calling them on it, or letting them know that you're loosing patience with their foolishness. If you are at this point then they are likely breaking many of above rules, and merely demanding that they either step up and provide evidence or stop side-stepping or stand down will press their hand. If they cannot, then they break by default. You've won.
If you cannot provide ample evidence, or cannot properly debate the subject - make it known that your comments are merely anecdotal or personal. If someone disagrees, withdraw until you have further evidence. If someone has bested you, keep your honor and merely stand down. It is better to be wrong or invalidated and have engaged in a clean conversation/debate than to discredit and disgrace yourself. I've stood down on many occasions if I couldn't gain ground. Headbutting contests are for dinosaurs. Just recently I stood down on a subject concerning a book I read (non-RPG related), with a rather vocal and belligerent friend of mine. It was better that I concede to his incorrect statements, as I had nothing to prove them incorrect with. However, having pulled out my copy of the book in question, I proved the case I would have argued previously but was ill equipped to do so. Should he have been correct, I would have accepted that. Arguing on principle is rarely a good idea - or a respectable one.
If anyone thinks something should be amended or added, lemme know. It would be nice to have a set of standards and guidelines to go by or assume by default; especially with the frequency of debates and heated discussions that arise on message boards such as these. :smallsmile:
Logical Fallacies Listings
To further set the bar, Iceforge and Kurald Galain have presented a list of logical fallacies to avoid when conversing or debating about a subject. Each of these logical fallacies hurt your credibility and make you appear foolish; when carrying on a conversation or debate, these mistakes should be avoided.
Logical Fallacies (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/)
Often used Logical Fallacies are
"Appeal to Authority"
1. Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
2. Person A makes claim C about subject S.
3. Therefore, C is true.
"Appeal to Belief"
1. Most people believe that a claim, X, is true
2. Therefore X is true
-Closely related to "Appeal to Popularity"
1. Most people approve of X (have favorable emotions towards X)
2. Therefore X is true
"Ignoring a Common Cause"
1. When we see A we also see B
2. Therefore, A causes B
Which ignores the possibility that B causes A or unknown variable C causes both A and B
Appeal to Consequences of a Belief
1. X is true because if people did not accept X as being true then there would be negative consequences.
2. X is false because if people did not accept X as being false, then there would be negative consequences.
3. X is true because accepting that X is true has positive consequences.
4. X is false because accepting that X is false has positive consequences.
5. I wish that X were true, therefore X is true
6. I wish that X were false, therefore X is false
And, of course, the ever-popular "Straw Man"
1. Person A claims X.
2. Y is false, where Y is usually a misinterpretation or exaggeration of X.
3. Therefore, person A is wrong.
And since this is an RPG forum, there's also the "Oberoni Fallacy", which is actually a form of Straw Man.
1. Rule A has problem X.
2. It is easy to solve problem X through houseruling.
3. Therefore rule A doesn't have problem X.
As well as the less common "Stormwind Fallacy", a subset of the "False Dichotomy" fallacy.
1. Person A belongs to group X.
2. Group X is different from group Y.
3. Therefore person A doesn't belong to group Y.
And this variation on the Appeal To Authority also often applies to roleplaying gamers,
1. Rule A can be interpreted in several ways.
2. I prefer interpretation X, which tends to correspond to the interpretation that makes my character more powerful.
3. Therefore interprertation X is RAW, and every other interpretation is a houserule.