Ten rules of argumentation

Non-humorous, I'm afraid. The following ten rules have been put forward for reasonable discussion:

• Freedom rule. Parties must not prevent each other from advancing standpoints or from casting doubt on standpoints.
  
• Burden of proof rule. A party that advances a standpoint is obliged to defend it if asked by the other party to do so.
  
• Standpoint rule. A party’s attack on a standpoint must relate to
  the standpoint that has indeed been advanced by the other party.
  
• Relevance rule. A party may defend a standpoint only by advancing argumentation relating to that standpoint.
  
• Unexpressed premise rule. A party may not disown a premise that has
  been left implicit by that party, or falsely present something as a
  premise that has been left unexpressed by the other party.
  
• Starting point rule. A party may not falsely present a premise as
  an accepted starting point nor deny a premise representing an accepted
  starting point.
  
• Argument scheme rule. A party may not regard a standpoint as
  conclusively defended if the defense does not take place by means of an
  appropriate argumentation scheme that is correctly applied.
  
• Validity rule. A party may only use arguments in its argumentation
  that are logically valid or capable of being validated by making
  explicit one or more unexpressed premises
  
• Closure rule. A failed defense of a standpoint must result in the
  party that put forward the standpoint retracting it and a conclusive
  defense of the standpoint must result in the other party retracting its
  doubt about the standpoint.
  
• Usage rule. A party must not use formulations that are
  insufficiently clear or confusingly ambiguous and a party must
  interpret the other party’s formulations as carefully and accurately as
  possible.
  

Any comments?

Do I have to use all ten rules in my response?

What are the penalties?

What is meant by 'formulations' in #10 ?

I like these rules. My favourite is the Closure rule. Maybe because it's the one least used ?

I'm glad you posted this in the Valve/exhaust/get it off your chest forum.

Is stringvest ****** the **** out of ye over on p.ie or what?

Kate P wrote:

Do I have to use all ten rules in my response?

Nah - I don't think I've actually advanced a standpoint as such. I just sort of admire those rules, and I think that a lot of them are implicitly recognised on forums:

For example:

1. people don't take kindly to not being allowed to cast doubt on what someone claims

2. people feel that you should defend your claims, not just say "take it or leave it"

3. no straw man arguments - people have to deal with the actual claims being made, not attack something they pretend the other person is saying

4. you can't just drag any old rubbish into the discussion and pretend it supports your claims

5. if you're arguing that people should have fewer kids in order to reduce the world population, you have to be able to defend the premise that reducing world population is a good thing - but people can't pretend that you're claiming killing people is good if you haven't said that

6. you can't pretend that 'everyone agrees' that reducing populaiton is a good thing in order to avoid point 5

7. you can't claim to have successfully defended your claim when you haven't

8. only logical arguments allowed

9. if you can't defend your claim you should retract it

10. you mustn't present your arguments in a deliberately ambiguous or confusing way.

I'd be a little bit tempted by occasional threads in which all rules apply, and the moderators referee, but it's quite a bit of work.

I like the burden of proof rule. Not a whole lot of that going on over at p.ie

It's very Wittgensteinian - the earlier Wittgenstein.

unaligned wrote:

I like the burden of proof rule. Not a whole lot of that going on over at p.ie

I think that reflects at least partly p.ie's 'eminence'. People use it as a vehicle for propaganda - and the rule in propaganda is just like advertising: repetition, repetition, repetition.

ibis wrote:

unaligned wrote:

I like the burden of proof rule. Not a whole lot of that going on over at p.ie

I think that reflects at least partly p.ie's 'eminence'. People use it as a vehicle for propaganda - and the rule in propaganda is just like advertising: repetition, repetition, repetition.

Well put ibis. Couldn't agree more.

unaligned wrote:

ibis wrote:

unaligned wrote:

I like the burden of proof rule. Not a whole lot of that going on over at p.ie

I think that reflects at least partly p.ie's 'eminence'. People use it as a vehicle for propaganda - and the rule in propaganda is just like advertising: repetition, repetition, repetition.

Well put ibis. Couldn't agree more.

As i just said on another thread, I think example and demonstration is the best way of raising the standard of debate. A group dynamics person in a lecture recently showed how increasing numbers of written rules are often a sign of a dysfunctional organisation. Thats not to say that the exercise of exploring what makes for a constructive debate is not well worth doing.

You're making good points alright cactus.

What happens those rules when people start to debate homosexuality, nationalism, religion?

Auditor #9 wrote:

You're making good points alright cactus.

What happens those rules when people start to debate homosexuality, nationalism, religion?

Then the trolls come and we sword them dead.

Kate P wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

You're making good points alright cactus.

What happens those rules when people start to debate homosexuality, nationalism, religion?

Then the trolls come and we sword them dead.

And stand triumphantly over their corpses, as my daughter likes to do, with sword held high.

I think 'sword' and 'dead' make great verbs that should be used more often.

My nephew (4) was telling me great stories the other day about how a mouse who bit into his sandwich was deaded by the tiger that lives under my dresser. Then of course, he sworded the tiger and all was well.

We can hire him in (and pay him in Mars Bars and cranberry juice - don't ask) when the baddies come along.

So Ibis, my belief is that if you would just continue to kindly execute the rules in your own posts in the MN fora, we will all absorb the principles of good debate into our innermost being. All will be well.

cactus flower wrote:

So Ibis, my belief is that if you would just continue to kindly execute the rules in your own posts in the MN fora, we will all absorb the principles of good debate into our innermost being. All will be well.

Hmm. And rule 11, of course, covers the use and abuse of sarcasm:

Sarcasm rule. A party must not use formulations that are likely to lead to excessive temptation on another poster's part to engage in sarcasm or cheap wit. When this does occur, the party of the second part shall be forgiven by the party of the first part after a decent interval.

ibis wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

So Ibis, my belief is that if you would just continue to kindly execute the rules in your own posts in the MN fora, we will all absorb the principles of good debate into our innermost being. All will be well.

Hmm. And rule 11, of course, covers the use and abuse of sarcasm:

Sarcasm rule. A party must not use formulations that are likely to lead to excessive temptation on another poster's part to engage in sarcasm or cheap wit. When this does occur, the party of the second part shall be forgiven by the party of the first part after a decent interval.

What about a short fuse rule, for when people mistake a genuine compliment for sarcasm?

cactus flower wrote:

ibis wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

So Ibis, my belief is that if you would just continue to kindly execute the rules in your own posts in the MN fora, we will all absorb the principles of good debate into our innermost being. All will be well.

Hmm. And rule 11, of course, covers the use and abuse of sarcasm:

Sarcasm rule. A party must not use formulations that are likely to lead to excessive temptation on another poster's part to engage in sarcasm or cheap wit. When this does occur, the party of the second part shall be forgiven by the party of the first part after a decent interval.

What about a short fuse rule, for when people mistake a genuine compliment for sarcasm?

Oh, no - I was referring to my earlier sarcasm! And apologising, in a circumlocutory sort of a way.

Do any of these rules relate to personal attacks being used in an argument? I've read through them a few times and I can't see where that fits in with them. Perhaps a twelfth rule something along the lines of:

12.Debate and discussion must focus on the subject at hand. Insulting, demeaning or bringing into dis-repute any other poster in the course of such debate and discussion does not add to the validity of your argument. In fact, resorts to above mentioned behavior produces quite the opposite effect.

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

Do any of these rules relate to personal attacks being used in an argument? I've read through them a few times and I can't see where that fits in with them. Perhaps a twelfth rule something along the lines of:

12.Debate and discussion must focus on the subject at hand. Insulting, demeaning or bringing into dis-repute any other poster in the course of such debate and discussion does not add to the validity of your argument. In fact, resorts to above mentioned behavior produces quite the opposite effect.

It would be covered implicitly by rules 3 and 4, which also cover straw men. Also, of course, an direct ad hominem is a logical fallacy in its own right.

ibis wrote:

Non-humorous, I'm afraid. The following ten rules have been put forward for reasonable discussion:

• Freedom rule. Parties must not prevent each other from advancing standpoints or from casting doubt on standpoints.
  
• Burden of proof rule. A party that advances a standpoint is obliged to defend it if asked by the other party to do so.
  
• Standpoint rule. A party’s attack on a standpoint must relate to the standpoint that has indeed been advanced by the other party.
  
• Relevance rule. A party may defend a standpoint only by advancing argumentation relating to that standpoint.
  
• Unexpressed premise rule. A party may not disown a premise that has been left implicit by that party, or falsely present something as a premise that has been left unexpressed by the other party.
  
• Starting point rule. A party may not falsely present a premise as an accepted starting point nor deny a premise representing an accepted starting point.
  
• Argument scheme rule. A party may not regard a standpoint as conclusively defended if the defense does not take place by means of an appropriate argumentation scheme that is correctly applied.
  
• Validity rule. A party may only use arguments in its argumentation that are logically valid or capable of being validated by making explicit one or more unexpressed premises
  
• Closure rule. A failed defense of a standpoint must result in the party that put forward the standpoint retracting it and a conclusive defense of the standpoint must result in the other party retracting its
  doubt about the standpoint.
  
• Usage rule. A party must not use formulations that are insufficiently clear or confusingly ambiguous and a party must interpret the other party’s formulations as carefully and accurately as possible.
  

Any comments?

I suppose the assumption is that the rules apply to debate where two parties hold opposing views which is only a subset of a broader category of discussions isn't it? Other discussions might be more enquiries involving a lot of speculation as in the one here at present on how many people the planet can hold, or how to make Ireland more competitive. Would you think that these enquiries have more rules over and above these ones? Because I find that if someone puts a standpoint forward I will research it but I may not come to a conclusion because of lack of data or knowledge or because you've reached the borders of speculation and have to wait for events or data to emerge. In debates on global warming I try to take both/either side and it ends up that you have to dig for data and do research... still the rules above apply within that too I suppose which are no harm at all and are always implicitly understood by good debaters.

In my opinion the rules are not, and could never be, rules. They are principles. They suggest a framework for constructive engagement in debate. They could be pretty well summarised as "Stick to the point, and prove your point.

Our entire life experience surely teaches us that they (the 'rules' of engagement in debate) are an ideal to aspire to and are constantly breached to a lesser or greater extent. I could find many academic peer reviewed papers that breach one or more of them. If applied in P.ie the site would be virtually vacant.

The 'rules' as listed are perhaps less suited to enquiry and exploration, in which, as Auditor says, there may not be ready answers to important questions and where proofs may not be conclusive. Speculative discussion, hypothesising and putting up "devil's advocate" positions for testing can look messy and unstructured but can be the ground out of which new ideas and understanding can emerge. These ideas should first be tested against evidence and then be subject to an iterative process of refinement.

If the rules were rules, I would add another one, which is that rules should not be used to batter a person over the head as an alternative to engaging in the discussion.

Also, I think 'rule' three needs to take precedence over 'rule' one, if a discussion is to maintain its coherence.

Kate P wrote:

I think 'sword' and 'dead' make great verbs that should be used more often.

My nephew (4) was telling me great stories the other day about how a mouse who bit into his sandwich was deaded by the tiger that lives under my dresser. Then of course, he sworded the tiger and all was well.

We can hire him in (and pay him in Mars Bars and cranberry juice - don't ask) when the baddies come along.

I think you have a poet on your hands.

I wouldn't be in favour of any of these rules.
reasons:
- First and foremost, people might beat others over the head with these rules.
- not all posts deserve or need an answer.
- every post should stand on its own two feet. If you are making a point and not just contradicting somebody else then you won't need a reply.
- writing a post that demands an answer is a skill. If it is not answered then everybody can see it.
- it is bad manners and counter-productive to require somebody to admit they are wrong. If you point out a factual inaccuracy and you are not refuted then that should be enough.
- people are busy and don't have time to comply with rules which require them to post certain things such as acknowledgements or replies.
- I don't like rules per se.
I think we are all doing ok as is with the good will and manners that people are displaying in their posts.