Body & Soul2 mins ago
News: Rules Of Debate
Good Afternoon,
It seems a few of you are getting a little ruffled around the boa. I wondered if we could agree on some basic guidelines for debating in the News section of the AnswerBank.
Here's what I have to start with:
1. If you present a statistic, back it up - If you can't, expect to have the statistic dismissed.
2. Silence is not evidence - Just because someone hasn't condemmned the actions of someone or other in a news story doesn't mean they support them. Do not assert as much.
3. To further point 2: Only work with what people say - not what they haven't.
4. No personal attacks - However, "sledging" style "banter" should be taken with good grace.
5. Anecdotal Evidence - If you have experiences of one thing, please accept that other either may not have or have had opposing experiences. It is likely that neither are invalid.
6. No on likes a whiner - if someone disagrees with you, I suggest you absorb the comments and compose a well thought out rebuttal. Do not whine about how you're being bullied/attacked or similar, it makes for very boring reading.
Further suggestions?
I'll write this up properly once we've had a chance to talk about it.
All the best,
Spare Ed
It seems a few of you are getting a little ruffled around the boa. I wondered if we could agree on some basic guidelines for debating in the News section of the AnswerBank.
Here's what I have to start with:
1. If you present a statistic, back it up - If you can't, expect to have the statistic dismissed.
2. Silence is not evidence - Just because someone hasn't condemmned the actions of someone or other in a news story doesn't mean they support them. Do not assert as much.
3. To further point 2: Only work with what people say - not what they haven't.
4. No personal attacks - However, "sledging" style "banter" should be taken with good grace.
5. Anecdotal Evidence - If you have experiences of one thing, please accept that other either may not have or have had opposing experiences. It is likely that neither are invalid.
6. No on likes a whiner - if someone disagrees with you, I suggest you absorb the comments and compose a well thought out rebuttal. Do not whine about how you're being bullied/attacked or similar, it makes for very boring reading.
Further suggestions?
I'll write this up properly once we've had a chance to talk about it.
All the best,
Spare Ed
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by AB Editor. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
mike11111 - In this instance, surely the Ed means that just because there is not an orderly queue of contributors forming, waiting their chance to join a thread to add their consensus with the OP, it does *not* automatically mean (however much it pleases some people to believe it to be the case) that these contributors hold a contrary opinion and deserve the castigation they receive ?
It would be too tiring to have to post "I agree" or "I disagree" on every thread simply to satisfy a handful of ABers who believe their own threads should be the highlight of everyones' day...........
It would be too tiring to have to post "I agree" or "I disagree" on every thread simply to satisfy a handful of ABers who believe their own threads should be the highlight of everyones' day...........
The nature of the right to silence
In criminal proceedings the general rule is that every man is innocent until proven guilty. Therefore, it is for the prosecution to prove that he has committed a crime by establishing beyond reasonable doubt every element of the offence.
The accused does not have to prove anything and that would provide that he does not need to say anything or establish anything in his defence. This is further embodied in a widely known fundamental human right to remain silent.
However more recently, Parliament has created a number of rules which allow a failure of the accused to answer questions to be adduced as evidence of showing his guilt. These circumstances include the accused remaining silent on being questioned by the police, or not accounting for a certain object in his possession, or for his presence at a particular place.
This is taken from a Law site, notice >> failure of the accused to answer questions to be adduced as evidence of showing his guilt.<<
In criminal proceedings the general rule is that every man is innocent until proven guilty. Therefore, it is for the prosecution to prove that he has committed a crime by establishing beyond reasonable doubt every element of the offence.
The accused does not have to prove anything and that would provide that he does not need to say anything or establish anything in his defence. This is further embodied in a widely known fundamental human right to remain silent.
However more recently, Parliament has created a number of rules which allow a failure of the accused to answer questions to be adduced as evidence of showing his guilt. These circumstances include the accused remaining silent on being questioned by the police, or not accounting for a certain object in his possession, or for his presence at a particular place.
This is taken from a Law site, notice >> failure of the accused to answer questions to be adduced as evidence of showing his guilt.<<
that's a tremendous sentence, Geezer, let me just run it through google translator
פֿאַר קראָמאָ, מיט די שפּרינגען פון ילאַדזשיק באַמערקן איך ב טאַלקינג וועגן מאכן אַ פאַלש האַשאָרע באזירט אויף עפּעס געזאגט אַז טוט ניט נאָכגיין.
Now back from the Yiddish
Peer Ckerama, Mitt pretty Sfringeen von Ilaadazashiak Abamarkne how in Talkinge Voagan loran a Falsch Hashara Abazirt Auip Apaas Giazagte then nit Anaachgyen Tot.
No, that's not much better, is it.
פֿאַר קראָמאָ, מיט די שפּרינגען פון ילאַדזשיק באַמערקן איך ב טאַלקינג וועגן מאכן אַ פאַלש האַשאָרע באזירט אויף עפּעס געזאגט אַז טוט ניט נאָכגיין.
Now back from the Yiddish
Peer Ckerama, Mitt pretty Sfringeen von Ilaadazashiak Abamarkne how in Talkinge Voagan loran a Falsch Hashara Abazirt Auip Apaas Giazagte then nit Anaachgyen Tot.
No, that's not much better, is it.
I'd like to make a point about censorship and the more and more often seen 'answer removed' phenomenon.
I was always under the impression that when a person's answer was removed, it was done so because it either contained foul language or could be deemed to be offensive to other users. I didn't think that posts would be removed for expressing agreement with someone else's point of view.
Quite frankly, I couldn't care less whether people agree with my posts or not. But to censor someone for expressing a legitimate opinion seems to fly in the face of everything that the Answer Bank purports to be.
http://www.theanswerb...Question977591-2.html
I was always under the impression that when a person's answer was removed, it was done so because it either contained foul language or could be deemed to be offensive to other users. I didn't think that posts would be removed for expressing agreement with someone else's point of view.
Quite frankly, I couldn't care less whether people agree with my posts or not. But to censor someone for expressing a legitimate opinion seems to fly in the face of everything that the Answer Bank purports to be.
http://www.theanswerb...Question977591-2.html
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles3 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles18 mins ago
News23 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles24 mins ago
What Did The Conservatives Achieve In...
Politics61 mins ago
