Proposed style guidelines for debates
Terminology #
- Issue, Position, and Argument - defined as in the Issue-Based Information System (IBIS)
- Item - any Issue, Position, or Argument
- Argument map - the argument summary shown in outliner format on the left side of the screen
- Details pane - the place on the right side of the screen where details about the selected item are shown.
Proposed guidelines #
- Issues should be phrased as questions.
- For example: "Can we trust temperature readings that indicate warming?"
- For example: "Can we trust temperature readings that indicate warming?"
- Positions should be phrased as answers to the question posed by the Issue.
- For example, if the Issue is a Yes/No question, the positions should be "Yes" and "No".
- In cases where this might be confusing to users, the Position can also include additional information after the answer to the question that helps clarify the position.
- If possible, a colon should separate the answer to the question from the clarification (e.g., "Yes: We can trust temperature readings that indicate warming")
- In situations where a colon would seem awkward, a parenthetical expression after the answer to the question can also be used (e.g., "Yes (We can trust temperature readings that indicate warming.)").
- Question: Should the clarifying information be included in the details pane for the Position, instead of in the argument map itself?
- The different positions should be phrased in ways that are grammatically parallel.
- For example:
- No: We cannot trust temperature readings that indicate warming.
- Yes: We can trust temperature readings that indicate warming.
- For example:
- Arguments should be summarized as short, complete sentences.
- For example: "Urban heat traps artificially raise temperatures near cities."
- Additional information about the argument and its supporting evidence should be in Details pane.
- Arguments that directly counter or support another argument should be placed under the argument they counter or support.
- One test for whether argument A should be under argument B is the following:
- If Argument A makes complete sense on its own as a PRO or CON for given position, then it should be placed directly below the position.
- But if Argument A makes more sense in the context of Argument B, then it should be placed under Argument B.
- For example: "The perceived discrepancy was due to a technical error" makes more sense in the context of the argument it is refuting "Initial readings from satellites showed less warming than surface readings.
- If at all possible, Issues, Positions, and Arguments should be phrased so that users can understand the complete argument just by reading the argument map.
- Additional information in the Details pane should elaborate the meaning and evidence for its associated Item, but it should not be necessary to understand what the item means or why it is relevant."
- One test for whether argument A should be under argument B is the following: