runouw.com

Welcome to Serious Discussion.
This forum is where any mature topics of interest go, whether it be debates, news stories, or philosophical and logical discussions. This is not a forum for you to play games, pull out memes, or act less than that of an older teen. You are expected to abide by the rules at all time, while offering constructive posts at the same time in topics designating and asking so. This forum operates on a separate plane than the others, meaning that while you can be relaxed in most threads, here you need to offer some form of response or argument, and at least a short explanation as to why you feel such.

Please note that this applies equally to a number of kinds of topics, from serious discussions about personal issues you are facing, to serious discussions about issues the world is facing.

To explain this more thoroughly, we have set up a few guides and guidelines below. Click the labeled link to be taken to the topic of your choice.

---

|Rules||Glossary||Index||Sources|

---

Rules and Suggestive Guidelines
Rules for Debates

1. Come prepared
   _{Before starting an argument, think carefully about what it is you are arguing about and what it is you want. What do you really want from this argument? Do you want the other person to just understand your point of view? Or are you seeking a tangible result?}
   
2. Craft your argument
   _{A cluttered response is a failure. Not only that, but it wastes time when your opponent has to decipher your riddle of an argument just to combat it. Misinterpretation is one thing, but refusal to respect those in discussion is not.}
   
3. Plan your counterpoints
   _{Nobody likes a logical fallacy, and this is where a lot of people tend to slip up. Plan beforehand if you can, and have sources lined up to gather your rebuttals. If A+B=C, why would you combat it by saying that because D-C=B, C must be A?}

Rules for Discussions

1. Be respectful
   _{Nobody likes a jackass. Granted, this is human nature, and we may be prone to be angered or triggered based upon our past or personality, but regardless of this fact, you are expected to know your opponent or ally's boundaries. Push them, if you wish, but do not attack.}
   
2. No logical fallacies
   _{A logical fallacy is a flaw in reasoning. There are a number of them, and are pretty easy to make by mistake. In english, this basically is similar to saying a potato is a potato because bread can be buttered. If your opinion or response is littered with loopholes and logic that cannot be challenged, you have a fallacy.}
   
3. Know your losses
   _{It's okay to be wrong. It's okay to admit where you are wrong. Accept this as a learning achievement and move on with your new-found wisdom. Make an attempt to thank your opponent for correcting your or showing you a new view, in an effort to keep this hobby flourishing.}

---

Glossary

When someone uses one of these words or phrases in a discussion, this is what they mean:


• "Evidence" or "Facts"
  Evidence is things that have been observed by a number of people. It can be things that have been scientifically proven, or found in a study. Evidence CAN be wrong sometimes, but you are OK in saying "I have heard this from a number of sources, so I consider it evidence." Facts are even stronger than evidence, where just about everybody has looked at this and agreed that it is true. Some evidence might seem like fact when it isn't. You might not be aware of this.
  
• "Experience"
  This is stuff that has happened directly to you. It may have happened to other people, it may not. You may understand it for what it is, or you may not. The key here is that it is currently not verified by other people, merely what you, personally, have seen or felt. Sometimes, your experiences CANNOT be verified. That's just how life is sometimes. This does not mean you are right or wrong.
  
• "Logic"
  People have been thinking about stuff for a long time, and they have found some patterns to life. These patterns are very well defined structures to information that prevent you from claiming something that is not connected to reality. This is logic. Anything that does not follow those rules is a fallacy, and usually wrong.
  
• "It is a fallacy."
  This is a word that describes HOW something you said is wrong. There are established structures for figuring out if you are saying the truth, and these fallacies are the stable and common mistakes that people tend to make. When someone points out a fallacy in your argument, stop, look up the fallacy, and look at your information seriously. If you do not believe it is a fallacy, explain why. YOU may be right, but you need to do the work.
  
• "Respect others' opinions."
  Other people are allowed to believe whatever they believe, even if you know it to be wrong. It does not harm your life that they believe something that is wrong. Do not attack people for believing wrong things. This is YOU being wrong, purely because it is you being an attacker. Show them how you know it is wrong, and present your argument, but if they do not accept it, you CANNOT force the issue. This technically has little to do with true respect, but is often used as a phrase to mean exactly this. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.
  
• "Be open-minded."
  YOU might be wrong. You may not think you are wrong, but it is not impossible. Listen to the evidence provided, compare it to your experiences, and see if you can find places where you might have made a mistake. You might just learn something. That being said, do not blindly trust what you hear either. The key to all this is thinking about it. It's called Serious Discussion for a reason. Look at it seriously. If you have evidence to the contrary, present it. Perhaps everyone else will learn something, or perhaps they know exactly where your mistake is. Remain calm, pay attention, and think.
  
• "Keep your cool."
  Guess what? When you get serious about things, you can get seriously angry. That's perfectly natural and common. That's also technically a problem, since most people find it very hard to be reasonable, polite, and open-minded, while screaming mad. If you find yourself becoming really mad, take a break. Stop yourself before you start screaming insults and finding yourself at the business end of a ban for flaming. The argument will still be there later, and if you take the time to cool down, you will usually find the words you need to calmly and logically explain why the other person is completely wrong. (Although you might need to be open-minded.)

---

Index
---To be written---

---

Sources
[News/World Events]
CNN
Al Jazeera
[Logic and Reason]
Your Logical Fallacy Is

!	This thread was Doram approved, and formatting was assisted with Doram's help as well. Mods, feel free to edit text, add links, and anything else. Everyone else, please only post links to credible sources of information for other users to use, or to suggest additions to this post.

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.

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.

Vesoralla wrote: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.

Vesoralla wrote: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.

^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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.