[Argumentative Atheist]

A codification of rules that allow reasonable debate between site members. These may be edited from time to time to be more fair, or allow better debate.

 

1. Articles on the internet which are not:
   A. Using sound, logical reasoning for their position.
   B. Backing up any claims with reasonable or peer reviewed evidence.
   C. Peer reviewed. Do not count towards your argument.
2. Any factual claim must be backed up with reasonably reliable evidence. Reasonably reliable evidence can be peer reviewed material, professional works made by an established and non controversial expert in the field in question, or factual piece written by a reputable journalist who consulted reliable experts on the subject under discussion from a well established newspaper that has been subjected to a thorough editorial process. Unless it can be shown that the author of a website, article or blog is an established authority on the subject of discussion then any internet based resource, such as personal blogs or YouTube, are not considered reliable evidence.
3. If you are repeatedly asked a question on a particular subject then that question must be answered. Refusing to do so would be a significant blow to your argument and if serious enough would void your argument entirely.
4. While making your argument you cannot simply ignore evidence provided which contradicts your position. Declaring peer reviewed studies to not be evidence would immediately void your argument unless you can show counter studies or that the study in question is not in fact relevant to the argument.
5. Spamming several replies to each point and multiple links to studies without providing an explanation for why each study is applicable is not debating. Alternatively using gish gallop techniques and walls of text to exhaust your opponent is not debating. It is merely trying to bury your opponent under data and does not further your argument. All it does is cause people to become bored of your argument and leave the conversation in frustration. It does not mean you “won” it means you were annoying. This point leads on to point 6.
6. Any studies or articles cited must have an explanation as to why they are cited and their applicability to the debate in question. Posting links to five or six studies and saying “Do the research” is not considered an argument.
7. Refusal to address a new argument or new evidence against your position while continuing to argue the same position will immediately void your argument.
8. Ad Hominem fallacies are not considered valid in a debate, although be aware that not all Ad Hominem statements are a fallacy. If you use a word that could be considered insulting, such as for example “ignorant” you must have a reason for using that word, which would be that the person opposing you is showing genuine ignorance of the subject under question. Wilfully attacking the person you are debating against is not a correct debating tactic. Attacking something or someone that your opponent uses as a source without reason to do so is also considered to be bad debating methods. Just because people are not likeable does not mean they are in fact wrong. For example, Hitler said “Words Build Bridges Into Unexplored Regions.” Something I can agree with, even if the source is about as terrible as you can get.

[Tonya Saliba]

Thank you for the opportunity to listen and learn as well as hone my debate skills.

[Argumentative Atheist]

I think we have a long way to go before we can really get debates going, but I hope to get things running soonish.

[Author]

Posts