Structured debate/rules/plaintext - Revision history

Woozle: post-move tweaks

2013-01-18T16:00:41Z

post-move tweaks

Woozle: Woozle moved page Structured Debate/v2012.06 to Structured debate/rules/plaintext without leaving a redirect: post-import reorganizing

2013-01-18T15:58:42Z

Woozle moved page Structured Debate/v2012.06 to Structured debate/rules/plaintext without leaving a redirect: post-import reorganizing

Woozle: 8 revisions: more pages that should be here

2013-01-18T14:32:01Z

8 revisions: more pages that should be here

Woozle: /* Practical Example */ another excess question mark

2012-07-06T21:39:02Z

Practical Example: another excess question mark

Woozle: /* Practical Example */ excess question mark

2012-07-06T21:38:19Z

Practical Example: excess question mark

Woozle: two more keywords for step 1

2012-07-06T21:35:53Z

two more keywords for step 1

Woozle: practical example: welfare

2012-07-02T01:51:06Z

practical example: welfare

Woozle: "DISPUTED"

2012-06-30T22:46:13Z

"DISPUTED"

Woozle: alternative numbering

2012-06-30T22:36:45Z

alternative numbering

Woozle at 12:41, 28 June 2012

2012-06-28T12:41:13Z

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-This is an attempt to specify a set of rules by which [[../v2010.03|these rules]] might be implemented within a non-threaded discussion environment, without any special assistance from software.
+This is an attempt to specify a set of refinements by which the [[../|rules]] of [[structured debate]] might be manually implemented &ndash; i.e. without any special assistance from software &ndash; within a non-threaded discussion environment.
-Those rules can be summarized as:
+The rules of structured debate can be summarized as:
 * Any claim that has been neither challenged (i.e. somebody says they disagree with it) nor rebutted (someone has posted a conpoint) shall be considered TRUE.

@@ Line 66: / Line 66: @@
 :CLAIM 2: All welfare is bad.
-:PRO 2.1: Any kind of welfare rewards people for avoiding work.?
+:PRO 2.1: Any kind of welfare rewards people for avoiding work.
 :PRO 2.1.1: If there is no incentive to work, people will not work.
 :CON 2.1.1.1: This is not the same thing as rewarding people for not working.

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:38, 6 July 2012
Line 86:		Line 86:
	:CLAIM 2 DISPUTED.		:CLAIM 2 DISPUTED.

−	I'll stipulate that SUB 2.2.1 is true.?	+	I'll stipulate that SUB 2.2.1 is true.

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 ==Rules of Non-Threaded Engagement==
-: '''1.''' Every paragraph that is to be considered part of the formal debate must be prefixed by one of these words: "CLAIM", "PRO", or "CON", followed by an index number.
+: '''1.''' Every paragraph that is to be considered part of the formal debate must be prefixed by one of these words: "CLAIM", "PRO", "CON", "SUB", or "MODIFY", followed by an index number.
 : '''2.''' For a CLAIM, the index number is an integer. These should start with (and increment by) 1 -- e.g. "CLAIM 1" would be the first, "CLAIM 2" would be the next, etc.
 : '''3.''' For each PRO or CON, the index number is based on the index number of the parent (i.e. the point to which it is responding), plus a decimal followed by an integer. These should also start with (and increment by) one.

@@ Line 21: / Line 21: @@
 '''Alternative numbering''': If each thread is devoted to a single claim, then the numbering can start with the response points, e.g. "CLAIM" would be answered by "PRO 1" and/or "CON 1", etc.
-===Example===
+===Theoretical Example===
 : CLAIM 1: Socrates is mortal.
 : PRO 1.1: Socrates is a man, and men are mortal.
@@ Line 60: / Line 60: @@
 : CON 1.1.1.1.1 REFUTED.
 : CLAIM 1 AFFIRMED.

← Older revision	Revision as of 15:58, 18 January 2013
(No difference)

← Older revision	Revision as of 14:32, 18 January 2013
(No difference)

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 : '''4.''' When a PRO or CON point depends on the truth of a set of statements, each of these statements should be prefixed by "SUB" followed by an index number (following the same numbering rules as PRO and CON).
 : '''5.''' When the state of a CLAIM is changed due to a CON point, either participant may note this by saying "CLAIM ''n'' REFUTED" or "CLAIM ''n'' AFFIRMED".
 : '''6.''' When a participant disagrees about the structure of another participant's argument, they should start with "MODIFY ''n''" where ''n'' is the index number of a mis-structured element. The explanation of the change can be in plain English, but should be followed by a restatement of any points or sub-points that need modification.
 :* If one or more participants find that they can't agree over logical structure, it may be necessary to abandon the argument; where possible, though, the debate should end with a restatement of each side's position. It may then be possible to have another debate starting from one or both of those claims.

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 : '''4.''' When a PRO or CON point depends on the truth of a set of statements, each of these statements should be prefixed by "SUB" followed by an index number (following the same numbering rules as PRO and CON).
 : '''5.''' When the state of a CLAIM is changed due to a CON point, either participant may note this by saying "CLAIM ''n'' REFUTED" or "CLAIM ''n'' AFFIRMED".
-Where possible, the words "CLAIM", "PRO", "CON", "AFFIRMED" and "REFUTED" should be formatted in such a way as to stand out. If they cannot be '''bolfaced''' or highlighted using color, then being written in all-capitals (as here) should suffice.
+Where possible, the words "CLAIM", "PRO", "CON", "AFFIRMED", "REFUTED", and "MODIFY" should be formatted in such a way as to stand out. If they cannot be '''bolfaced''' or highlighted using color, then being written in all-capitals (as here) should suffice.
 ===Example===
 : CLAIM 1: Socrates is mortal.
@@ Line 20: / Line 23: @@
 : SUB 1.1.1: Socrates is a man.
 : SUB 1.1.2: Men are mortal.
-: CON 1.1.1.1: Socrates is a God, and Gods are not mortal.
+: CON 1.1.1.1: Socrates is a god.
 : CLAIM 1 REFUTED.
 : ("Gods are not mortal" is undisputed.)
 : PRO 1.1.1.1.1.1: There is no evidence that Socrates is a God.
 : CLAIM 1 AFFIRMED.
-Note that it doesn't matter which "side" any participant is on;  either may break down the arguments of the other (as in the CON side thinking they have scored a point with 1.1.1.1, and then the other person coming along and showing that this isn't true).
+How this might appear in a comment thread:
-Problems will arise when one side or the other uses bad logic to structure their argument; I need to work out a system for dealing with this.
+'''Alice says:'''