Principles of Serious Discussion

[Kimonio]

This post by Kimonio was thumbed up by: 3

Maaaaarrrrriiiiio (February 5th, 2017, 6:15 pm) • Nuclear_Blaze (April 24th, 2016, 2:04 pm) • Supershroom (November 30th, 2015, 2:35 am)

[Supershroom]

That's some cool stuff here. Once this is finished, I guess we can make this a sticky and graveyard the "Less BS more serious" topic.

[Charcoal]

How would a person that can't express themselves very well go about avoiding logical fallacies or a messy argument?
Also, when is it okay to actually crack a joke on Serious Discussion from time to time? Maybe to cheer someone up?

I hope this isn't too many questions for you.

[Raz]

How would a person that can't express themselves very well go about avoiding logical fallacies or a messy argument?

I don't think whatever Shad is working on should be followed strictly. All I have to say is try your best. I (if you couldn't tell) have my own struggles forming a concise argument.

Also, when is it okay to actually crack a joke on Serious Discussion from time to time? Maybe to cheer someone up?

I don't think Serious DIscussion should be taken too literally, being not serious is fine as long as you're not ♥♥♥♥ (which is a very broad term). Just use common sense.

[Kimonio]

^This. This is more like a handbook or syllabus if anything. Rather than institute an instance of marshal law or restrict humor entirely, the ideal premise of the guide itself is to explain what is okay and what isn't.

For example, if there was an argument about whether apples are better than bananas, it would be more reasonable to say "I believe apples are better because ______" and give an explanation of your stance. What wouldn't be reasonable is to just say "I hate apples, bananas are better." and leave it at that. Humorwise, there are many grey areas, and I've found many sites and forums hate jokes altogether, because they believe it can deter the topic of conversation, or is off-topic in general. If done modestly, though, or integrated appropriately, humor can be a analogical tool or a means of brightening the conversation from whatever dark abyss it's fallen into.

Logical fallacies are a whole different topic, though, and everyone commits them. The main key is to avoid the main ones that pop up commonly. It's hard to really give an example, because there are so many. Basically, I can only explain in a fictional script.

Person A: I do not support abortion.
Person B: Why so?
Person A: It goes against my views and it's wrong, regardless of what you think.
Person B: Yes, but there are several instances where abortion can be applicable and necessary. *lists off several*
Person A: So you're saying you support murder?
Person B: I am not saying I support murder at all, I'm saying there are reasons why we it may be necessary or optional.
Person A: But _____ is more important, why aren't you worried about that? Do you care more about this?


It's vague, but I highlighted the phrases that were fallacies in red. The first one is a fallacy, but can be hard to interpret on its own. When applied to the latter highlight, then you are able to find there are two conjunctive fallacies: burden of proof and no true scotsman. The latter is rare, whereas the former is common, but essentially Person A does not give a valid explanation nor cited evidence to support their claim, while also claiming purity and unarguable reason to defend their stance. The third is ad hominem/strawman and this one pops up A LOT in debates, especially when one party is backed in a corner and afraid to admit they're wrong or ignorant. Fourth, we have a loaded question, in which Person A attempts to slander Person B by turning the blame around to avoid giving proof concluding Person B's stance is wrong, usually due to lack thereof.

---

The main thing to remember is that nobody is right, and nobody is wrong. Everyone's reasons are correct and incorrect at the same time, depending on how they are applied. But the only feasible way to understand and interpret one's stance is to explain their stance in a reasonable, civil manner. If you purposely attack, you make yourself an ♥♥♥, but if you keep a cool head, you'll find your opponent can relate to you far better than former.

[darthbrowser]

Umm, is this thread needed?

What I mean is that I haven't seen any recent uncivil behavior in the SD forum. Maybe I just haven't been looking at the right threads, but this really doesn't seem necessary. It seems everyone behaves well already.

Furthermore, this seems a bit too draconian. Many of the current threads in SD are rather personal, things like Vesoralla's "What have you learned today?" or MoD's recent "Time to make it official." These rules assume that Serious Discussion is always about pure academic debates, and even in the threads where that is the point....as I said, everyone already behaves maturely.

Some clarification would be appreciated.

[Oranjui]

"Rules for Debates"
"Rules for Discussions"

As stated above, they're just guidelines, anyway. I don't think they're necessarily going to be enforced, but it's encouraged that people follow them when they participate in debates or discussions (which does not necessarily include more personal topics) for everyone's sake--all parties benefit.

By no means is this thread needed. I don't even know exactly what prompted its posting. But I think that it's nice to have a reference for people to look back so that we can make the world a more rational place.

---

Also, I know we talked about this in chat already, but https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ is a pretty good resource on logical fallacies.

[NanTheDark]

If I were to add something, it would be the following: please read the whole post/topic before answering to it. If you are going to answer to something based only on the first sentence or the thread's title, please don't do that.

[Doram]

Well, Suyo's "Less BS" post was needed at one point, so I guess, it's needed enough. Certainly yes, things are civilized right now, but that doesn't mean that this forum never sees drama. Besides, it's a better worded explanation of what is expected than that post. I agree that it's not necessarily meant to restrict stuff to academic debates, but expressing yourself clearly and respecting others' opinions go as far with how their day was as it does with their views on education. Also, yes, we DO have a lot of VERY serious conversation in here, and it's fine for that to be spelled out to the newbies as they trickle in. We'll probably see more traffic as LL CH3 comes out, and until then, this place hasn't died yet. I think it's a good idea that we have something to help the newbies out, and something to point to when people misbehave. That's why I gave the OK for this. Besides, it isn't stickied yet, and we have a chance to discuss if this is really what we want, and if so, does it need any improvement. Let's have the conversation.

EDIT:
And in the course of that discussion, I have a question. Where are we drawing the line between discussions and debates, and/or should we merge the two lists into one list?

EDIT2:
I also put some of the most common argumentative phrases I've seen in the Glossary.

[Supershroom]

Basically, Suyo's topic just gave a PSA at a moment where some people didn't follow the rules for SD. Now we have a clear explicit listing of this you shall do and things you shall definitely not do unless you want to earn a warning. Therefore I don't think we need this stickied anymore and this is our new sticky. It can be unstickied or go to the graveyard. There does not need to be a concrete motive to write something like this. It is always appreciated in all times.

Like for all topics about "rules" and "principles", there's a bit of room for freedom of interpretation. These shall not give us a burden we can't carry. But whenever we feel uncomfortable with a discussion or with what we want to post, we can look here. That's nice.