Rules of Engagement

[denny]

It may well be that when I see a post or comment that differs with my own perception/belief of something I will reply. This has lead to many fascinating discussions, several unfortunate ones, and more than a few heated arguments. By commenting and disagreeing with someone, I (usually) mean no offence - but I do like a good debate/discussion.

So, in an attempt to prevent any misunderstandings, please allow me to lay out my 'Rules of Engagement'. These are the rules which I try to follow when debating online (and, generally, in real life).

1. I argue because (a) I disagree with what was said, or (b) I am curious to learn more about what has been argued. For the uninitiated, this is called discourse and/or debate. This is not a personal attack, this does not reflect on you or everything you believe in (aside from me putting counter opinions/arguments to what has been laid out). This is not a dig at you or your competency.

2. What I address (attack?) are the points laid out - I am not attacking you.

3. The views I put forth are from me, either what I believe or what occurs to me after reading the discussion. Yes, I do play Devil's Advocate quite often, I may even argue on points which I know little about, if the discussion itself has caught my interest. I certainly appreciate that my arguments have as little (or as much) validity as those of the people I'm debating with. I'm not always stating that what you say is wrong, often I'm just asking "have you considered this?".

4. If I didn't want to hear your opinions, I wouldn't be having the discussion. If I put forward an argument counter to yours, yes I am trying to persuade you, but also by proposing an alternative viewpoint or counter to your view, I have enabled you to reply and elaborate on your own position. Please address any points I've made, that is more than half the intention - after all, if the points I propose aren't valid then surely that supports your argument.

5. If you want me to change my mind on something, explain it to me - reference some verifiable facts wherever possible. Telling me that 'X is Z' gives me no reason for why it is so, and (usually) no reason to believe your statement, but if you set out a case for why it is so then I may see where you are coming from. I can't guarantee it, but it is possible.

6. I know that I can argue from an emphatic stance, I can only apologise for this now if you find it upsetting. I tend to find that if you start off by trying to see both sides of an argument, then people just take on board the bits of your argument that they like. Only a strongly stated opposition seems to encourage a good debate. I am convinced that there is nothing like a contrary view to either solidify your beliefs, or to broaden your horizons.

7. If you don't want to discuss the issue with me, fine. I won't be convinced by your argument if you don't make one, but if you say leave it, I will. An exception to this is if you ask me not to continue in the same post or comment as hypocritically continuing the debate yourself - in which case I will more than likely take the bait. If you really want a discussion to end, you should be prepared to let it die without making sure you have the proverbial last word.

8. At the end of it, I may not immediately acknowledge this, but I do take on board what has been said. My view of the world isn't set in stone, but nor is it a sandcastle. It has frequently been re-shaped by discourse.

The best thing about the Internet is that it enables communication; this isn't just a chance to shout out into the wilderness, but also an opportunity to hear other voices, not just people cooing and patting us and reinforcing our views, but also people to challenge us and widen our perception and awareness of the world around us.


(this text was adapted from this post by failing_angel, and I thank him for letting me post this version)

The observant will have noticed that point 1 and point 2 are basically the same. I've left them both in because this seems to be the hardest point for some people to understand - debate does not mean personal criticism (and it most certainly does not mean personal insults).

Comments

[fayroberts.livejournal.com]

Thank you - another placard supporting the evolution of our society goes up and I salute you for it.

:D

[failing-angel.livejournal.com]

Reads well, I may have to plagiarise use this to amend my own RoE.

[dennyd.livejournal.com]

More than welcome to help yourself, of course.

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

telling me that 'X is Z' gives me no reason for why this is so

This is generally true, but there's an exception to this - if, for example, I say that the saturation attack is the same thing as integral cryptanalysis, the fact that I say it gives a reason to believe it.

[dennyd.livejournal.com]

Given that I don't understand that assertation, I'm unlikely to argue with it :)

You're right in that my knowledge of your expertise in that field gives me a reason to believe your assertation, but it doesn't give me a reason why it is so. That said, I was planning on re-wording that section to be about belief rather than reasons anyway, it doesn't read quite right to me as it stands.

[sepheri.livejournal.com]

You are more than welcome, in fact actively encouraged, to engage with me accoring to these principles when ever the mood takes you.
*tries to think of some inflamitory things to say*

[dennyd.livejournal.com]

"Goth" :-P

[sepheri.livejournal.com]

No thats, I just ate :p

[simont]

Point 7 is bothering me just a little. It reads to me as if the only way someone can get you to leave the debate alone is by just saying "leave it", which ensures that you always get the last really-debating word. Given this, it seems a bit discordant to immediately follow this principle with a disapproval of people wanting to have the last word!

I presume that what you actually mean is that people deliberately trying to have the last word are the ones you have a problem with, and that one should make a best effort to distinguish between those and people who merely fall victim to the fact that you can't end a conversation without one person speaking last?

[dennyd.livejournal.com]

It reads to me as if the only way someone can get you to leave the debate alone is by just saying "leave it"

Well, they could convert me to their point of view :)

I'm not sure that I see anything wrong with the person who is willing to continue the discussion getting the last word by default, if the other person doesn't want to continue it. I'd rather have the discussion carry on personally, but if someone decides that it's not worth carrying the discussion on then why would they need to keep making their point?

I suppose they could summarise... personally if I do that to close a discussion, I acknowledge that we seem to have stalemated, then try to summarise both sides fairly, and I expect a rebuttal if I get any of the details wrong. If someone did similar to me and didn't hideously mangle any of my points in their summary (or significantly change any of their own points) then I'd just say 'yeah, fair enough', or words to that effect.

The particular instance which caused me to add that section (it's not in the text I adapted from) was a comment in the discussion (aka heated argument) that inspired me to post this in the first place. It said something very like 'Here is some evidence that proves my previous statement.' (it didn't) and then ended with this "But please don't talk to me any more.". I don't see that as particularly reasonable personally - although at least he did say 'please' (elsewhere he was calling the same person a wanker) :)

[sqrrl101.livejournal.com]

Hear hear!

[sqrrl101.livejournal.com]

I had a hugely long debate once because neither of us wanted the other to have the last word, and out philosophies on the matter differed massively (although he was a very nice chap). Went on for so long that, upon waking the next day, my throat became terribly inflamed. Debate is a dangerous activity indeed.

[burritob.livejournal.com]

Amen :)