Archive:Summaries of policy arguments

From Citizendium
Revision as of 19:38, 4 September 2007 by imported>Larry Sanger
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Citizendium Communication
Workgroups | Discussion forum | For non-members | Twitter
How to Edit
Getting Started Organization Technical Help
Policies Content Policy
Welcome Page

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 rules for summarizing policy arguments

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. These must be excellent, largely fallacy-free formulations of the arguments.
  4. Consider this page a style template. Begin "affirmative" and "negative" sections with top-level headings (one =).
  5. 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.

The issues

License

Constabulary