This can't be posted too often on a discussion web site, "The Ten Commandment of Rational Debate".

[canoeist52]

[kentuck]

1. Good post.

Thanks.

[MineralMan]

2. Lots of Internet posters leave the NOT out of that list,

and use it as a guide for discussion.

[Arkansas Granny]

3. Good advice.

[annabanana]

4. If these were adhered to, internet-wide...

The internet would be a quiet, quiet place.

And a lot more fun

[Progressive dog]

5. What about

Thou shall not confuse opinion with fact.
Thou shall not confuse changing the subject with false dichotomy

Where can I contact this god of the internets and can I cite his commandments as part of my arguments?

[skydive forever]

6. number 6 alone

Would shut down most TV news shows.

[pangaia]

14. What TV news shows?

[shawn703]

7. Burden of proof reversal

Seems to be a favorite tactic of people in religious circles.

[krispos42]

8. Well, there goes DU

Especially about pit bulls, circumcision, guns, and corn flake fried chicken!

[Dr Hobbitstein]

16. I've seen the pit bull and guns arguments...

But I must've missed the corn flake fried chicken and circumcision ones.
Just read through a bit of them and realized you left a couple things off:
Breast Feeding and Olive Garden.

[krispos42]

28. The fried-chicken topic got so bad...

...Skinner had to ban the mention of fried chicken until the furor died down. Moderators on DU2 were, I understand, given "remove on sight" rules of engagement for fried-chicken threads, posts, and similar.


Circumcision seems to be an ongoing topic that draws attention, although I don't think it's gotten too bad as of late. The new juries and the "you can't post in the thread anymore after you've had a post removed" seem to quench the worst of the passions.


But a gun-toting woman eating corn-flake-breaded fried chicken in the Times Square Olive Garden while breastfeeding a circumcised pit bull and watching a space probe crash into the moon, after refusing to let the Target security guard check her bags, is sure to make the internet explode!

[Dr Hobbitstein]

30. I read through a lot of DU2 Fried Chicken posts earlier today...

And while some were funny, I don't get it. Was it one of those "no-true Scotsman" things? I've been a LONG TIME lurker on DU (since around 2002 or 2003 I think), but have only recently been posting. Back then, I only really saw political stuff, not too much OT discussion, so I missed out on the CFFC. I'd love to know a little history behind it.

[krispos42]

53. It might have been before my time as well.

I think the problem was the number of alerts generated, and that the mods had to sort through all of them and re-discuss everything all the time. I wasn't a mod at the time, though. I came into it later, just like you.

[dkf]

51. What's wrong with corn flake fried chicken?

[krispos42]

54. I think only people that eat raw kittens like CFFC.

[SunSeeker]

9. Great list, but the author needs to drop the "s" in premises in #10.

Maybe #11 should be:

"Thou shalt not omit proofreading. (Teabagger sign folly)"

[ZombieHorde]

10. Great list, but #1 is slightly off.

An ad hominem is more than just a personal attack. Just calling someone an asshole is not an ad hominem fallacy. The fallacy requires the personal attack to also be an attack against the argument.

"Rush Limbaugh is an asshole" is a personal attack, but not an ad hominem.

"We all know Limbaugh is an asshole, so we don't even need to consider his stance on X" is an ad hominem.

That's a crappy example, but I didn't get much sleep, so please cut me some slack.

[booley]

35. I think it can also be misconstrued another way

That if someone make s a poorly argued and cherry picked argument, that you can't accuse that person of being decieftful or intellectually lazy.

Take the rampant republican hypocrisy.

Hypocrisy on say, the IRS or investigating reporters doesn't necessarily mean there are no valid points.

But that hypocrisy would suggest that the arguer may not be making a valid point and should be given extra scrutiny.

Just my opinion though.

[ZombieHorde]

36. Good point. nt

[Stryder]

11. Thamk you very much.

I have a few FB buddies that can't seem to make a post without violating at least 4 of these.Especially #8,when regurgitating something from one the many pulled it out of their ass websites.
This will come in very handy.Now I can just reply with a number.

[JBoy]

12. Similar in some ways to the "argument pyramid"

Don't argue something if you can't do it in one of the top 3 levels

[canoeist52]

26. Great pyramid chart. This is my facebook political posting rule as well - top three only.

[retired rooster]

13. Everybody should study logic.

It's amazing how a little information about logic can expose pure b.s.

[N_E_1 for Tennis]

15. A List Of Fallacious Arguments

Interesting website explaining even more arguments.

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html

[SalviaBlue]

17. Thanks for the list.

rec.

[sulphurdunn]

18. Commandment 11

Though shalt not introduce irrelevant information and claim it is relevant in order to divert attention from the original topic. (Red Herring Fallacy)

[FairWinds]

19. Thou shalt not claim . .

that all opinions are of equal worth, that an uninformed - out the wazoo - opinion is as legitimate as a well-researched analysis.
It is not.

[SpankMe]

20. #10 has an error

"Premises" should be "premise".

[Dreamer Tatum]

21. DU would then have roughly 100 posts per year nt

[SunSeeker]

39. LOL. Yup. And other boards would have even less.

Oops. Did I just violate #2?

[SpankMe]

22. Nice collection of sensible statements

But, we're guilty of a few of these on our side, too. We should stay aware of these when posting.

[Populist_Prole]

23. Pithy stuff. Thanks for this

I see, hear, endure cons doing many of these when they argue.

[cheapdate]

24. Great post. Thank you.

[yodermon]

25. one caveat.. use this list AT YOUR OWN PERIL in an argument with your spouse n/t

[rhett o rick]

37. My spouse has two rules of argument. One, there should never be an argument because she is, by

default, always correct. Two, should she ever be wrong.....wait, there is only one rule.

[G_j]

27. K&R

[AnotherMcIntosh]

29. The top two represent the worst of what can be seen from some posters: 1) ad hominem attacks and

2) creating fictional statements and positions which they falsely attribute to others.

[stevenleser]

47. Yes, lots of those posts all the time. Nt

[Nevernose]

31. You know who else had lots of rules?

Hitler and Stalin!

[rhett o rick]

38. And you're demonstrating the fallacy, absurdus associationus. nm

[stevenleser]

48. Godwins law, aka argumentum ad hitlerum (there is really such a thing)

[rhett o rick]

52. Yes, but I only use it when I am desperate. nm

[ismnotwasm]

32. Stolen for prosterity

I love this, and thank you

[Silver Swan]

33. I just wish that people would stop using the phrase "This begs the question"

when they really mean, "This raises the question."

[longship]

34. But #4 does not describe "begging the question" either.

Begging the question is specifically to presume the truth of the conclusion within the premise.

When one makes an argument, one must presume that ones premise is true. Falsifying the premise defeats an argument but does not necessarily defeat the conclusion; it only defeats the specific argument. The conclusion may still be true. That is decidedly not an example of "begging the question".

I would restate #4 as:
Thou shalt not assume the truth of your conclusion in your premise. ("Begging the Question&quot

[nadinbrzezinski]

40. And the ignore list is your friend

Thanks, just saved that list

[lindysalsagal]

41. 11: Correcting a spelling error does not indicate superior knowledge or expertise.

It usually means the corrector has missed the point, entirely. And is annoying the hell out of everyone else.

[freshwest]

42. Ah, feels like Meta.

[kentauros]

44. Doesn't it now?

I'm so glad I never took a class in logic. That way, I can simply say, "Sorry, I don't understand what that is" and keep going

[freshwest]

45. LOL! But playing dumb is your best defense with some people.

I took Logic, etc. classes in college, and was a natural for circuit logic at work. I consider neither require brainiacs.

As far as what 'is' is, I think the GOP has made Clinton perfectly coherent on that score.

Since they lie for a living, not just when upset, they have lost reality. The best reason to tell the truth to the best of one's ability, is the chance of discovery.

The GOP has been living in an alternative media reality so long, nothing is real anymore.

They remind me of Kate traveling with Petruchio, the discussion of the Sun and the Moon. You cannot win with them.

[kentauros]

46. I wouldn't say I'm "playing dumb" though.

Some of the things in that list just went over my head. Maybe I'm too tired, but I know even when I'm not, some of that "logical argument" stuff simply doesn't make sense to me.

I prefer the simplest method of all: stick to the point!

[freshwest]

49. Yes!

[defacto7]

43. Nice list. I had better keep an eye on myself.

It also brings me to my signature. I hope I live up to it. I think it is sums up a lot of error in argumentation.

See below ↓

[Rise Rebel Resist]

50. how many fk up at the first one

(by point out did I too just break said rule?)

[Savannahmann]

55. Everyone here would rather eat a raw turd than abide by those rules.

On occasion, that would even include me.

[sufrommich]

56. Following these rules would most likely kill

any online discussion group. I know most of us like to pretend we would prefer calm,rational discussions, but the most popular OPs on DU are never filled with polite discussion,nor is that true of any other online discussion web sites I've seen.

[stevenleser]

57. Kick. A recent OP seemed to violate most of these. nt

[stevenleser]

58. Kick