Orphaned/Sandbox/Guidelines for Good Discussion and Debate

The purpose of these techniques is to ensure that conversations are interesting, informative, worthwhile and pleasant for all concerned. It just so happens that this is the general tone we're aiming for in OTC - the discourse in a Renaissance salon, as opposed to, say, the discourse in a schoolyard.

Stay on topic.
Should go without saying, really. OTC threads are supposed to be on-topic. Derailing is not only frowned upon, but actually prohibited in the forum rules.

When starting a thread in OTC, you may choose to specify that the thread is intended for conversation of a particular nature. In this case, attempts to change the nature of the thread, for example, to introduce a debate, will be regarded as off-topic.

Deviations from the topic into words pertaining to the topic are a special case; see below for more information.

Be clear.
If you are making an honest point, you should not be speaking in riddles. This achieves nothing other than confusing the other people in the thread, and may even cause you to be mistaken for a troll. If you make an ambiguous statement, and your opponent misinterprets it, you have failed to get your point across.

This also means that it's a very good idea to explain your points. If you make an argument, you should be prepared to back it up. This is not only more persuasive than making unsupported assertions, but also more interesting for all concerned. It's also a way of putting your money where your mouth is - after all, if you can't explain your assertions, how do you know that they are right?

Related to this, if somebody fails to understand one of your posts, do not simply repeat it; instead, explain your meaning. If they wanted you to repeat yourself, they could have reread your prior post. Consider the possibility that you were not sufficiently clear the first time, even if your post seems perfectly clear to you.

Build upon your points and address those of other people.
A good conversation is not a one-sided thing, and circular debates are boring. In order to keep conversations interesting, address and expand upon the posts made by both other tropers and yourself. If something has been said already, it doesn't need to be said again. Repeating something will not convince a rational human being who wasn't convinced the first time it was said; it is simply annoying.

Refrain from making assumptions about other tropers' unstated views.
Making assumptions about other people's opinions is annoying, rather rude, and a waste of time for all concerned. If you make assumptions about another troper's stance on an issue, even if they really do appear to be a typical conservative/antitheist/materialist/electrophysiologist/whatever, you run the risk of wasting everybody's time pouring your energy into disproving a claim that nobody made, a completely unproductive exercise and often frustrating for all concerned.

In particular, if another troper makes what appears to be an insulting generalisation, it's not a good idea to treat it as a personal attack. Generalisations, while often poor form due to their lack of clarity, are not the same as directed insults, and treating them as such may result in a misinterpretation of your fellow tropers' views and cause tempers to flare.

If you disagree with somebody, do so politely.
It's to be expected that, in a conversation, different tropers will have different perspectives to contribute. If everybody thought the same as one another, the world would be a very dull place and discussions would likely be short and predictable. However, while you are welcome to express an opinion, please refrain from insulting other tropers who feel differently, which invariably erodes patiences and sours the mood. It also tends to sidetrack conversations into some incredibly stupid arguments.

An attack on a person, rather than an argument that person made, is a logical fallacy (Ad Hominem, if you were wondering). A statement is not necessarily wrong just because the person saying it is a filthy, puppy-kicking hypocrite. If Alice claims that 1+1=2 and Alice writes really shitty fanfiction, that doesn't mean that 1+1≠2.

Note that this also applies to external sources. It's perfectly reasonable to say that a source appears to be written with an agenda in mind and that you are consequently sceptical. It's less reasonable to ignore a source on the grounds that the person cited is an asshole.

Clarify your terms and seek to understand your opponent's (but avoid semantic derails).
Semantics may be important to a discussion. It may be vital, when two tropers use particular words in different ways, for those tropers to explain their use of those terms, in order to avoid talking past one another, or worse, badly misinterpreting one another. This enables both parties to address the claims actually being made, rather than simply talking across one another.

However, actual semantic derails are best avoided. A semantic derail is a discussion of the meaning of the words which pertain to a topic, rather than a discussion of the topic itself. As with all derails, a semantic derail is off-topic, and therefore obstructive and prohibited in OTC. If a semantic disagreement arises, simply clarify what you mean, and move on. Once both parties understand one another, you can proceed with the actual conversation with no further quibbling over the definitions of words.

Rule of thumb: If you're defining the word as you're using it, it's legitimate clarification. If you're talking about why the other guy is using a word wrong, it's a semantics derail, and if you're ignoring the definition of a word a person has given and accusing them of making a claim they aren't actually making, that's also a derail.

Fallacy-Dropping
Logical Fallacies are faulty reasoning, and if an opponent is making a fallacious argument, it may appear reasonable to call them out on it. However, simply calling out the names of fallacies may be seen as obnoxious and obstructs the discussion. Dismissing a post altogether because you believe it contains a fallacious argument is similarly obstructive and rude (you also run the risk of impaling yourself on your own sword). Also beware of calling a fallacy incorrectly. The terms "Ad Hominem" and "Strawman Fallacy", in particular, are frequently misused.

A fallacy is neither subjective nor nebulous. If you've spotted a real fallacy, you should be able to explain why your opponent's argument is incorrect, and this is generally preferable to calling out the name of a fallacy. If you can't explain what's wrong with it, it probably isn't a fallacy.

Inflammatory Analogies
An inflammatory analogy is essentially poor wording. The use of a controversial comparison to invoke a strong emotional response is disruptive and may jeopardise the acceptance or understanding of an otherwise logically sound statement.

The most common example of this is the Nazi comparison, a.k.a. Godwin's Law. If X is wrong and Hitler did X, it is seldom necessary to mention the latter. Unless the reason X is wrong is because Hitler did it, the fact that he did is irrelevant and will achieve nothing other than souring the mood.

Compare the Rule of Cautious Editing Judgement, which is related.

Me Too
Each post in a conversation should, ideally, contribute something new to that conversation. Unless the fact that you hold a particular opinion is in some way relevant to the topic, a post consisting solely of "Me too." or "^ This." adds absolutely nothing.

This also applies to posts consisting solely of a quotation and "Quoted for truth." or something along those lines.

Link: Discuss
Ideally, an OP should indicate that some level of thought has gone into a discussion. An OP should not consist solely of:



Thoughts?

The Echo Chamber Effect
A disadvantage of many forums, and this one is certainly not an exception, is the tendency of certain views to dominate and stifle other perspectives. For example, if no poster in OTC is prepared to offer a sophisticated counter-argument to a particular claim, a poster who reads OTC regularly may accept that claim as true, even if strong counter-arguments to the claim exist - because any poster prepared to offer such a counter-argument has been driven away by atmosphere of the board which is openly hostile to their mindset. Over time, this can create a positive feedback loop, causing threads to become increasingly homogenous, repetitive, and hostile towards outside views.

An echo chamber can be difficult to break out of (being by its very nature a problem with a group, rather than an individual), but can be combated by reading and referencing a variety of sources with differing viewpoints, by assessing posts made on the forums carefully and critically, and by remaining polite and open-minded when encountering a poster whose opinion on a subject differs substantially from your own.