Archive:Summaries of policy arguments: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Larry Sanger No edit summary |
imported>Larry Sanger |
||
Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
#* Fourth level: Counter-rebuttal | #* Fourth level: Counter-rebuttal | ||
#* There is no fifth level. | #* There is no fifth level. | ||
# These must be excellent, largely fallacy-free formulations of the arguments. This means, among other things, that replies must specifically address the merits of | # These must be excellent, largely fallacy-free formulations of the arguments. This means, among other things, that replies must specifically address the merits of the argument to which it is a reply. In other words, replies must be ''responsive;'' one may not simply repeat an irrelevant different argument as a reply to a given argument. | ||
# Consider [[CZ:Should we permit or disallow commercial use of CZ-originated articles?|this page]] a style template. Begin "affirmative" and "negative" sections with top-level headings (one =). | # Consider [[CZ:Should we permit or disallow commercial use of CZ-originated articles?|this page]] a style template. Begin "affirmative" and "negative" sections with top-level headings (one =). | ||
# We will learn/settle on more rules as we go. Note, some ideas about how to proceed are given on this [http://www.textop.org/wiki/index.php?title=How_to_construct_a_debate_summary old Textop wiki page.] See also [http://www.debatepedia.com Debatepedia.] | # We will learn/settle on more rules as we go. Note, some ideas about how to proceed are given on this [http://www.textop.org/wiki/index.php?title=How_to_construct_a_debate_summary old Textop wiki page.] See also [http://www.debatepedia.com Debatepedia.] |
Revision as of 09:38, 15 September 2007
Citizendium Communication | ||
---|---|---|
Workgroups | Discussion forum | For non-members | Twitter |
|width=10% align=center style="background:#F5F5F5"| |}
Generally, Citizendium policy discussion takes place on the Forums, not the wiki. But we might occasionally find it useful to summarize and standardize some arguments on different sides of a controversial Citizendium policy issue--and for that, the wiki will be useful.
The issues
License
- Should we permit or disallow commercial use of CZ-originated articles?
- Should we use GFDL or CC-by-sa for CZ-originated articles?
- Should authors share copyright with the Citizendium Foundation?
Constabulary
The rules for summarizing policy arguments
- Our purpose here is to summarize and standardize arguments--not to argue niggling and idiosyncratic points that would be irrelevant outside the context of a particular person-to-person exchange. In other words, we are dealing with a relatively "universal" question and we are summing up "universal" arguments on each side.
- In designing the structure for our debate, simplicity is best: one side presents an argument; the other side presents a reply; there can, in addition, be a rebuttal and counter-rebuttal, but try to avoid this and don't iterate "downward" any further.
- As to format, always use headings to summarize arguments (do not simply write "Argument," for example), and precede these headings as follows:
- Top level: Affirmative or Negative
- First level: Argument
- Second level: Reply
- Third level: Rebuttal
- Fourth level: Counter-rebuttal
- There is no fifth level.
- These must be excellent, largely fallacy-free formulations of the arguments. This means, among other things, that replies must specifically address the merits of the argument to which it is a reply. In other words, replies must be responsive; one may not simply repeat an irrelevant different argument as a reply to a given argument.
- Consider this page a style template. Begin "affirmative" and "negative" sections with top-level headings (one =).
- We will learn/settle on more rules as we go. Note, some ideas about how to proceed are given on this old Textop wiki page. See also Debatepedia.