Guidelines

Take Note!

A football game requires rules.  Rules are there to maintain and encourage positive interaction.  Without rules, life and interaction becomes haphazard, chaotic, and incoherent.  We lose sight of the goal. Rules maintain order structure and add meaningfulness to discussions.  With this in mind, I have presented guidelines that are focused on bringing out positive interaction between parties.  In this I hope will be a springboard for further, positive interaction.

1. Basic Model of Debate
• In any debate there is the claimant and attacker.
• The claimant makes a claim, he argues "X" is true.  In order for us to interact with the claim, the claimant has to agree that simply stating "X" is true is to simply state that this is his/her own personal preference.  Anyone is perfectly entitled to state it (with in reason, and doesn't impact on others), but as it stands; no matter how much embellishment, how much you believe it, no matter how many times you state it, it doesn't change its veracity.  It needs to be proved with logical deduction or some proof-text that both parties can agree on.
• If both parties disagree on the text, then the veracity of statement "X" is a moot point.  It remains unverified until both parties can agree on the proof-text in question.
• The proof text has to prove that "X" is true, if the proof-text simply states that "X" is true, it is the same as the person stating it.
• A majority of people stating that it "X" is true is not a proof that it is true, it simply shows that there are many like-minded individuals.
• The veracity of "X" can be an a priori statement, but this needs to be clarified.  Often a priori statements are not entirely a priori, only one aspect or one part is really a priori.  Simply stating that "X" is an a priori given, is not necessarily true, even if you think so.
2.  Definitions
• Debating effectively means that both parties have to agree on the same basic terms.
• There is no debate if two parties disagree on the fundamentals of the basis for "X".
• Definitions need to be spelled out clearly, or referred to on online dictionaries or philosophical dictionaries - out-dated, infrequent and non-standard definitions are unacceptable - this has to be for the sake of clarity, unless an alternative is offered that both parties can accept.
3. Standards of Evidence and Proof
• Agreeing on a standard of evidence is necessary to ensure clearly thought out logic and reasoning.
• Proof is not an absolute requirement.  Thus no-one expects to have 100% absolute proof, but we assume that was is reasonable, fair, most likely to be as the relevant assertion and if the evidence points to the most likely conclusion, one should be willing to accept it, even if it is not 100% absolutely known.
• However, if it is not known to the degree that it falls in the realm of 45-55% known, we have to reasonably assume that it is not acceptable as most likely, nor is it possible.  We have a right to reject the logical basis of such reason and proof when it falls into the 45-55% likelihood range.
4. Straw-man
• Presenting a position that the other side doesn't hold of is a straw-man, especially if you use that and then show why it is wrong.
• Let the other side present their view, or work out what their position is.  Don't make up a position and then knock it down since this is a logical fallacy and doesn't achieve anything except to strengthen the other position.
5. A Point of Logic
• People are built with an innate desire to seek the truth.  This maybe hampered by other considerations such as emotional, psychological, mental or physical needs, changes or effects that happen to us.  Normal, sane intellectually honest, emotionally stable, well-rounded people appreciate truth and reject falsehood.  People who are not emotionally stable or psychologically stable tend to have a warped sense of the truth for varying reasons and to varying degrees.
• We have an innate sense of logic. Ask someone why 1 = 1 or why this statement is false: 1 = 2, and they have a hard time proving it, but they nonetheless have an innate sense that these are axioms that are self-evident.
• Logic and reason - the standards of proof, evidence and logical deduction are functions of reality and how we live in society.  These should not deferred on the grounds that they don't apply in the realm of morality or spirituality.
• "Mysteries", illogical proofs, things we don't understand (at some level), are not relevant to the basis of proof.
6.  The Burden of Proof
• The burden of proof is always on the claimant's position.  He stated "X", thus it is his/her job to prove that it is true.
• If the attacker argues, he has to show why "X" is not true, given that the claimant has already made a reasonable case for "X".  The attacker doesn't have to provide alternatives.  When the Attacker necessarily makes a new position, then he has to present a good reason for why his position is true.
7. Circular Reasoning
• Circular reasoning occurs when the reason that is given for some claim "X" is predicated on the very fact that "X" is true.
• Sometimes however, if X is false then Y becomes false, and we already know that Y is true based on some other reasoning: this is not circular, because I'm using the external evidence of Y to show that if Y is necessarily true, then X has to be true, even though Y is predicated on X being true.
8. Relevance
• There is a topic, stick to it.  What you say has to directly relate to the topic/discussion at hand.  There is no point to add material, long textual treatises, long comments, long citations, quotes etc. that offer little except to distract the reader from the main point.
• It is better to quote a little, use a link if the reader requires more, and make the point clearly and succinctly.  Any comments etc. that are off-topic or veer off-topic will be deleted, without prior warning, at the discretion of the moderator(s).
9. Avoiding the Topic
• This is related to point 5. (Relevance).  The Topic is as stated, and the claimant in an effort to prove his/her position, points to another topic or discussion that is irrelevant or difficult to relate to the current topic.  This is avoiding the topic or avoiding the issue. This really does nothing to elevate the topic but rather simply obfuscates the point. 
10. Prejudice and Bias
• Prejudice and Bias are fact of reality.  We all have bias, it is the way we function and relate to the world.  Bias is not necessarily a bad thing.  We can approach a topic or discussion with our own views and be swayed against those views or shown that the views are indeed correct.  It is the weight of the evidence given that the evidence is logical, sound and relevant, that should warrant change.
11. Citation
• A link to a website (except a link to a Scriptural reference), need not require further analysis, however, websites often provide incomplete, irrelevant, out-of-date, inaccurate material (this includes Wikipedia and other informational sites).
• Biblical references require citation.  Readers should be aware that the same scriptural passage cited in one Bible, is not necessarily the same in another - the verse numbering is altered in various editions.
• Citations to books require the full title, author (and or editor), publication date, publisher, and page references (as is the standard in academia).
• Do not quote the full chapter or range of verses or lists of specific verses, rather summarize the main point, offer one or two key citations, and if the reader seeks more, provide a website or blog.
12. Ad Hominem
• Ad Hominem is an attack on the character or nature of a person, e.g. "John Doe is stupid." It belittles the person and detracts from the debate and point of discussion.  Ad Hominem is a serious breach of character and good faith, and will be dealt with strictly.
13. Language
• The use of language is our means to communicate, this is an online forum, and I like to approach it in a dignified, respectful manner.  Rude, hateful, coarse speech as well as curses, swearing and any inappropriate language (including language that incites others) will be removed without recourse, you maybe banned at the discretion of the moderator(s) without warning.
14. General Guidelines
• Links to other sites, advertising, spamming, trolling, inciting and goading will be dealt with on an ad hoc basis, at the moderator(s) discretion.  Obviously these kinds of approaches cause anger, and do not promote honest and fair dialogue.