1. Welcome to Smogon Forums! Please take a minute to read the rules.
  2. New to the forums? Check out our Mentorship Program!
    Our mentors will answer your questions and help you become a part of the community!

How to argue and start discussions

Discussion in 'Stark Mountain' started by Tangerine, Aug 6, 2008.

  1. Tangerine

    Tangerine Where the Lights Are
    is a Smogon IRC SOPis a Team Rater Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus

    Joined:
    May 4, 2007
    Messages:
    3,155
    Considering the recent fiasco involving Wobbuffet and Deoxys, in addition to the many other posts that are regurgitated in Stark Mountain, it becomes clear that many of you, good and bad players alike, fail to present coherent and logical arguments. Considering that there is an ongoing effort involving improving the quality of discussion in Stark Mountain, I believe that such a guide might be needed in order to fuel the revolution.

    Of course, stupidity is to be expected in any community. However, this thread does not address these "stupid" as it is quite likely that their attention would not extend to this thread. It is aimed towards the individuals who make a conscious effort to be a part of the community. This guide, if one can call it that, hopes to guide these users so that they may have a valid voice when such an event happens again. Finally, it hopes that it will indirectly cut down on the sheer amount of effort that drives threads off-topic usually involved within correcting the fallacious arguments, or even at times responding to a valid argument with a fallacious one.

    To put it simply, the thread hopes that the discussions involved in Stark Mountain would be debates regarding the philosophy behind systems and viewpoints, rather than a fistfight involving logical fallacies and incoherent arguments. The thread, then, will explore common fallacies and point out couple points that make certain arguments incoherent.

    To write such a guide is a pompous act - it presumes that the author supposedly knows what is good for the community and that they should follow his example. It should be noted that this guide was read and endorsed by every moderator who had the time to preview the draft. We do not claim to be free of logical fallacies by creating a thread such as this, nor do I believe this thread should be something everyone should be forced to adjust to. I also do not believe that this thread contains all the secrets to being a "good" poster on Smogon. This should be well noted, and thus, criticism or comments should be made so the author is able to amend

    And thus, we begin.

    Back Up Your Arguments!


    A real rule in the forum that most people seem to be unaware of (Maybe they're Bidoofs). The idea is simple - if you make a statement, we want to hear why the statement may be valid. We want you to prove it - and show all of your work. Those math teachers everyone despised because they made you show all of your work have a point - your work proves that your statement is indeed the answer to the problem. We want you to apply this idea to arguments - or else it goes against the purpose of this forum.

    The purpose of this forum is to promote discussion - it is not a place where your opinions are heard simply because you have one. We do not want your opinion if you are not able to back it up. Therefore, when making a claim, make certain that you back it up.

    Complete Your Arguments!

    Some people simply list facts to "back up their argument" - the most common Pokemon this argument applied to regards Garchomp. People simply list its base stats and its movepool and the fact that "it is uncounterable" and then concludes that it is uber. This is a logical leap. A full argument must avoid these leaps and lead users step by step into why the argument holds and how it applies to a definition. This is analogous to assuming that "Well this baseball player hit 60 home runs, he must be on steroids". Not only is there a great measure of uncertainty that looms throughout such a statement, but such a statement does nothing for the discussion.

    A common argument is that "statistics do not show this Pokemon is overcentralizing" without telling the user what the statistics are showing and its significance.

    Know your Definitions!


    People commonly throw around words without understanding the full impact involving that word. Common words used in this way are "uber" "overpowered" "overcentralizing". People also commonly talk about the tiering system without understanding. It should be noted that in order to argue for or against anything, the understandings of the definition and the current systems in place must be solid.

    Yet it is surprising how many people still throw around these words without fully grasping it. Consider the word "overcentralizing", which was discussed indepth in one of my previous threads. I believe TheMaskedNitpicker defined it the best...

    Quote:
    However, one word that I don't believe should have a strict definition is 'overcentralization'. It's a word I wish we could all stop using, myself included. What it really means is 'more centralized than I want the metagame to be'.
    'Definitions' in Pokemon are currently not definitions at all - they are far too 'vague' for that at this stage and game. Yet how many people throw the words around like they mean something? How many people use them as the crux of their argument? Far too many.

    Of course, since there is no official definition of such terms yet, we hope that each user is able to work with a personal definition that is made clear by an argument. Claims such as "Steelix is a physical wall that isn't OHKO'd by Nasty Plot Persian, it should be OU", for example, show that the user assumes that any "physical wall" that can take a special hit or two is too broken for the UU metagame. This of course, moves onto our next point about using personal definitions.

    Arguing Definitions


    "Garchomp has no counters, it should be uber"
    "But Gengar and Lucario has no counters"
    "Fine, Garchomp has no counters with a single moveset, it should be uber"

    It does not take a genius to realize that something is going horrendously wrong here. These arguments occur because a user wants a certain Pokemon banned regardless of the definition, or is uncertain what the definition is in the first place. The definition will be twisted and twisted again until of course the definition fits the Pokemon so perfectly that it cannot be argued against.

    But of course, every uber has a unique trait that makes it uber, whether it be the combination of Shadow Tag + Encore or massive attack and speed that would assuringly destroy the metagame. It should be noted that there cannot be one definition to what might be uber(or broken) or overcentralizing.

    However, we still want to avoid such arguments that are so limited in scope. It should be noted that when you wish to use a definition to show why a Pokemon might be too powerful, you note the effects of a given Pokemon in the metagame, not some limited argument such as "no counters with a single moveset". People nowadays seem to think that counters are the only way to deal with a threat - this is simply not true in the current metagame involving Diamond and Pearl. If a user has such a limited understanding, then perhaps they need to put more thought into what they are arguing before making a post in Stark Mountain.

    Stretch your Arguments!


    If an argument is made for one Pokemon, it should be applied to all. Arguments such as "Deoxys E is destroyed by paralysis, it shouldn't be uber" or "Garchomp has no counters, it should be uber" or even "The Pokemon has counters, it shouldn't be uber" arguments apply to this. When these arguments are applied to other Pokemon, we see that "Mewtwo is destroyed by paralysis, it shouldn't be uber" or "Gengar has no counters, it should be uber" and even "Kyogre has counters, it shouldn't be uber". One way to test if your argument might be valid is to apply it to other Pokemon and see if it holds true. Essentially, your arguments should not be limited in scope, but it should aim to apply to the entire metagame if possible, or at least key portions of the metagame.

    Many arguments calling for a Pokemon to be "Uber" fall under this category, for obvious reasons.

    Finally, note that examples are not methods of proof. There are no "proofs by examples". Your experiences shouldn't be your only fuel behind your argument. Just because your Jumpluff dealt with someone's Garchomp a few times doesn't mean that Jumpluff is a good way to deal with Garchomp, for example.

    Personal Attacks/Flaming/Trolling


    The blatant personal attacks are usually hit swiftly by an infraction. This involves simply adding "you are an idiot" or something to that effect somewhere in the post when addressing someone's 'argument'. It should be noted that not only are these against the rules of the forum, but it simply adds nothing to the argument of your own. If someone is an idiot, show us why they are an idiot. If they are really idiots, they probably don't realize that fact and need someone to show them the light.

    Discrediting the user in some way does not make the argument any less valid. This includes the "The user does not play the game" arguments. If a given argument, for one reason or another, is wrong, then it should be replied with an argument why the argument is invalid, not why the user is stupid.

    Note the difference between flaming and "ad hominem" attacks, the latter which many users are claiming to see a lot of. This, however, is not true. Suppose that, user X claims the following.

    "Y does not play Pokemon. Therefore his opinion on the Metagame does not matter".

    It is clear why this is an ad hominem fallacy. They are attempting to say that because of some objectionable characteristic of Y, Y's argument fails to hold. This is the example of ad homnem fallacy. On the other hand, flaming would be

    "Y, you're an idiot"

    There is a fine line between flaming, and ad hominem. Ad hominem uses the flame as an argument of why the argument does not hold. Consider

    "You're an idiot. Your argument does not hold because of reason X"

    Assuming reason X is valid, the above statement is NOT an ad hominem. Of course, you shouldn't be calling people idiots anyway, but that's not the point here.

    Ignorance

    Sadly arguments that are based on ignorance is something that is impossible to avoid. People will make ignorant statements no matter what we as a community might do. (maybe not responding to them is a good idea!) Most arguments that are ignorant will lead to a strawman argument.

    Strawman Arguments


    This perhaps the most common logical "fallacy" committed in the forums , if one can call it that. This is simply a (intentional or unintentional) misinterpretation of the opponent's argument that is then countered. We can stretch this to apply when a user chooses only to answer the weak arguments and ignore all other arguments and then show that because he was able to counter the weak arguments that their point must be true and their opposition must be wrong. Another case is to use a point with very little significance (like a glitch of little consequence) and show that this made a Pokemon "more powerful than it should have been" and thus it should not be uber.

    When arguing that a Pokemon is "not uber", one must be particularly careful to avoid strawman arguments. While it is up to the "uber" camp to indeed prove that a Pokemon is uber, it is the job of the "not uber" camp to disprove the evidence brought up by the "uber" camp. Any "not uber" argument that fails to consider the biggest "uber" arguments then can fall under the strawman fallacy - something users need to watch out for.

    Comparisons


    People commonly make comparisons when talking about a specific Pokemon. This is an argument that should be completely avoided unless you are talking ONLY about a specific trait of a Pokemon - but not the Pokemon as a whole. An argument such as "Blissey centralizes the metagame more than Garchomp" is a valid argument (assuming of course it is backed up properly), however an argument such as "Darkrai is like Gengar with a better sleep move and less immunities" is an argument that should never be made, not that the comparison would mean much to start with. Furthermore, comments such as "If Garchomp isn't uber, then Deoxys E isn't uber" fall under the category for obvious reasons.

    In the end, it does not matter if Pokemon such as Mew has less SpA and Speed than Azelf, or if it does not have that Grass type like Celebi, etc. Comparing a Pokemon undermines the uniqueness of each Pokemon - while a Pokemon may have less raw power than Azelf, perhaps there are other factors that one needs to consider. These are then arguments that should be avoided - unless you have a very specific and good reason for it - and in most cases - you don't.

    A Few Mental Blocks

    1) Counters are not the only way to play the game. Note that there is so much more to the game than using "counters" to deal with a Pokemon. There are other ways to switch in safely and be an immediate threat to the opposing Pokemon without carrying a counter to a specific Pokemon. There are other ways to deal with a threat without switching in. If Pokemon is supposedly build around "predictions" then I do recommend that people free themselves from this mentality where everything must have counters and presumably act like it is the only way to play the game. Attempting to counter everything is a silly task in itself in this metagame anyway as previously mentioned in many threads, including stickies.

    http://www.smogon.com/forums/showthread.php?t=45565 <<< Reading this thread might help you.

    2) Roles. The old fashioned roles such as "physical wall" "special wall" and the like seems to still plague the minds of new users. While we use these terms in discussion, it should be noted clearly that these are general terms used to ease discussion, and that is it. Roles are now used in team building because one needs it, not because it is a requirement for a team. For example, not every team needs to have a rapid spinner, nor does every team need a Spike user. There is no six role system for the "best team ever".

    3) A 6 vs 6 or 6 1 vs 1 matches? Many arguments still seem to boil down to this weird idea that Pokemon is a series of 6 1 vs 1 matches and that every Pokemon must find a way to beat its counters (an attitude prevalent in WiFi, especially with its fetish for useless Hidden Powers). Many good players talk of synergy - but where is this "synergy" when they are discussing bans and specific Pokemon? Many times people argue that this Pokemon being used in a certain way is "too much" for one reason or another - but how does that matter in a team match? Many people fail to "complete" the argument, so to speak.

    4) Tiering. The most common reasoning I have seen nowadays is "Uber X has some flaw. It should be tested." However, many of these arguments are senseless - paritcularly because the user commonly fails to grasp the full consequences of the tiering system.
  2. makiri

    makiri My vast and supreme will shall be done!
    is a Tiering Contributoris a Smogon IRC AOp Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnusis a Past WCoP Winneris a SPL Winner

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2006
    Messages:
    4,226
    This is a good guide for discussions, I urge everyone who participates in community discussions to read this and understand it. If you have any thoughts or additions feel free to state them and we will discuss it.
  3. Aldaron

    Aldaron All da lil birdies chirpin
    is a Tournament Directoris a Battle Server Administratoris a Smogon IRC SOPis a Tiering Contributoris a Contributor to Smogonis an Administrator
    OU and IRC Leader

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2007
    Messages:
    4,333
    Emphasizing two things here:

    1.) The straw man idea. It isn't a fallacy, but it quickly derails threads. Try your best to avoid it.

    2.) The archaic nature of the standard definition of counter. In fact, I don't even think counters should hold any significance other than simple support; they are by no means "determining evidence." Countering everything in DP is impossible, and countering many variations of just the common Pokemon is difficult itself. We work more to beat these Pokemon than counter them, so be sure to think about it from this perspective as well.
  4. Bologo

    Bologo Have fun with birds and bees.
    is a Contributor Alumnus

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    2,841
    I might as well throw this in for this thread as well:

    http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html

    Tang, this is the website that you gave me when I asked about arguments in my congregation thread. I believe that it will help people a lot in these discussions as well to realize what all of the fallacies are, so that they can know when to use them, and how to point them out. Thanks for giving me this website by the way, it was pretty cool to see all the fallacies I was making before.

    Your guide is tremendous, good job.
  5. Jenigmat

    Jenigmat

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Messages:
    769
    I wish I could fit a printout of this in my wallet so I could show this to everyone who talks to me about politics.

    But seriously people, if you aren't as much of a coherent argument maker don't worry, most people aren't. I'm certainly not either. If you can't do everything this guide asks of you, do what I do, and stop posting arguments and instead read all the points other people post. You have no idea how much better I've gotten at discussions or debates since looking at some of the garchomp threads or the BL/UU discussion threads.
  6. Aldaron

    Aldaron All da lil birdies chirpin
    is a Tournament Directoris a Battle Server Administratoris a Smogon IRC SOPis a Tiering Contributoris a Contributor to Smogonis an Administrator
    OU and IRC Leader

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2007
    Messages:
    4,333
    I hope you didn't look at the recent posts in the Garchomp thread to learn how to debate, because frankly they were one ad hominen attack after the other.
  7. Aeroblacktyl

    Aeroblacktyl The pizza doesn't scream in the oven! LOL!
    is a Tutor Alumnusis a Tournament Director Alumnusis a Site Staff Alumnusis a Team Rater Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnusis a Past SPL + WCoP Winner

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2005
    Messages:
    8,335
    Despite the whole point of this topic/thread, I find it quite ironic that this is perhaps NOT the place to start that skiddle.
  8. DrEnzyme

    DrEnzyme

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Messages:
    95
    This is a fantastic post. A lot of you've said is arbitrary, but this is a really good checklist to go from when you're trying to make a point.

    Unfortunately, I feel as though it falls under the category of "if it's been said once, it's been said a million times". That is, you will never be able to stop stupid people from saying stupid things, and the best thing we can do for these people is ignore them. The same old topics are always going to come up: "Garchomp is Uber", "SkarmBliss is evil", "Wobuffet isn't that bad". That ol' song. Actually, this reminds me of a thought I had yesterday:

    "I can understand why people try to push the limits of human stupidity. What I can't understand, is why there's a prize for it"

    I've been waiting to use that one.
  9. Tangerine

    Tangerine Where the Lights Are
    is a Smogon IRC SOPis a Team Rater Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus

    Joined:
    May 4, 2007
    Messages:
    3,155
    A lot of what I've said are actual arguments people have used in the forums in the past.

    I don't think they're "arbitrary"

    And yes, if you read the opening paragraphs you would have known my stance on stupidity
  10. cim

    cim happiness is such hard work
    is a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2007
    Messages:
    5,412
    DrEnzyme, I believe the intended readers of this guide aren't complete idiots (does this include me?), but people that are actually trying to make a good point but just don't know how to do it in a good way.

    This is a really handy guide to argumentation and should be required reading for all people that post on Stark Mountain. I'll be checking this sticky approximately once a day until i have every last word memorized.

    One minor point: A few months ago I attempted to stretch the "Garchomp has no 100% counter" argument by saying "Porygon-Z has no 100% counter", showing examples of both, and I was told not to "compare Pokémon". Where is the line between stretching a common argument to see if it makes sense and comparing Pokémon?
  11. Taylor

    Taylor stardust infinite
    is a Team Rater Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnus

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    Messages:
    4,019
    I'm glad we all, as a community, have this topic to study and use to our advantage when we are all involved in debatable subjects. I hope that more people will be able to participate in community discussions with this thread at their disposal. I, for one, will certainly enjoy reading this again and will encourage users who I know to do so as well.
  12. DrEnzyme

    DrEnzyme

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Messages:
    95
    Actually (and I'm not sure if it came across this way), what I was trying to say is that stupid people won't read this guide, and even if they did, well, they would probably ignore it anyway.

    Maybe arbitrary was the wrong word... Obvious rather. Axiomatic truths, if you want something intelligent sounding. All of what's been said are very basic points, the sort that people often forget when they're writing an argument, and I think it's a good idea to have them listed out in full, so people can go through them and make sure that their argument isn't full of holes.
  13. DougJustDoug

    DougJustDoug Knows the great enthusiasms
    is a member of the Site Staffis an Artistis a Programmeris a CAP Contributoris an Administratoris a Battle Server Admin Alumnusis a Smogon IRC SOp Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnus
    CAP Leader

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2007
    Messages:
    3,045
    Great guide, Tang.

    I was a long-time debater back in school, and I still judge debate competitions from time to time. I love seeing the practical use of argumentation technique in the real world.

    I just want to point out that our discussion threads are rhetoric, not a judged debate. That means there is no winner and loser like you have in debate competition. The goal is to persuade others to accept your position. Therefore, whatever techniques that can be used to successfully persuade others, are fair game in real life arguments.

    As I like to say, "I love debating in real life -- I can cheat!"

    In a judged debate competition, if you commit an egregious logical fallacy, it can easily cost you the match. In real life arguments, it's oftentimes the easiest way to sway people to your side. In fact, I do it all the time intentionally in business dealings -- logical fallacies are wonderfully easy for most common people to accept, and people are readily persuaded by them!

    The biggest and baddest logical fallacy you can use in real life is the Straw Man -- god, how I love it. Even in high-level judged debate competition -- straw man arguments can decimate the opposition. In fact, if you can get in a good straw man, unchallenged by the opposition, you will earn credit with the judges while furthering your own position. It's not "cheating" to use a straw man -- it's good argumentation technique.

    On the other hand, a poorly constructed straw man will be easily seen and refuted by the opposition, and you will look like an idiot for using it. The same thing goes in real life, particularly in online debates. Because all arguments have a de facto written transcript, it's easy to defeat most straw men by saying -- "I didn't say that. Here's what I said, <insert quote here>. You completely missed my point, and now you are putting words in my mouth. etc....."

    Getting caught using a straw man is a risk, but it's not "illegal". It can be incredibly persuasive at times.
  14. david stone

    david stone Fast-moving, smart, sexy and alarming.
    is a Site Staff Alumnusis a Smogon IRC AOp Alumnusis a Programmer Alumnusis a Super Moderator Alumnusis a Researcher Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnus

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2005
    Messages:
    5,150
    I don't think we should be telling people to say whatever they can get away with. I know that I, for one, don't let anyone get away with anything when they are debating me.

    I disagree with "don't compare Pokemon". In fact, from what you said, you are telling us to both compare Pokemon and to not compare Pokemon. If you create a definition for uber that applies to Garchomp, and someone then compares Garchomp to Lucario in that both fit the definition, I both should and shouldn't do that. I am mostly referring to this point:

    If someone creates a definition of uber that excludes Garchomp and also applies to Deoxys-S, then we definitely should compare the two.

    Chris is me: what the "don't compare Pokemon" is intended to apply to is "Darkrai is a Gengar with more Speed and a better sleep move" kind of thing.
  15. Tangerine

    Tangerine Where the Lights Are
    is a Smogon IRC SOPis a Team Rater Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus

    Joined:
    May 4, 2007
    Messages:
    3,155
    The guide isn't intended to do that. The guide is intended to show you what you will not get away with in a serious discussion.

    I think you misunderstood the reason I put that comment there - it was because there was a lot of nonsense posts like "Garchomp isn't uber until Blissey is uber" in many of the Garchomp "discussion" threads. By all means, any definition of uber must be stretch, but the fact that Pokemon X is not uber should not be an argument for why Pokemon Y is not uber.
  16. david stone

    david stone Fast-moving, smart, sexy and alarming.
    is a Site Staff Alumnusis a Smogon IRC AOp Alumnusis a Programmer Alumnusis a Super Moderator Alumnusis a Researcher Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnus

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2005
    Messages:
    5,150
    That was in reference to Doug's post above mine.
  17. Cynthia

    Cynthia

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2007
    Messages:
    641
    It's nice to have this thread to at least have on record that Smogon doesn't support logical fallacies, though I personally haven't seen much difference overall. Some people just have some fallacies, particularly ad hominem, so deeply ingrained in their mindset that they'll probably never change.
  18. Tangerine

    Tangerine Where the Lights Are
    is a Smogon IRC SOPis a Team Rater Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus

    Joined:
    May 4, 2007
    Messages:
    3,155
    I haven't seen too many ad hominem attacks.

    Updated the section on Personal Attacks, Definition, and a brief overview of "Tiering" as a mental block considering I'm planning on writing more indepth regarding Tiering/Metagame eventually.

    Also, seriously. Stop thinking of this guide as a thing that your opponents must read. I think the biggest person who needs to read it is you (you, as in the person who is accusing others of shenanigans), considering there are still a million others who are more than willing to stuff words into people's mouth, misunderstanding opponents and twisting their words on purpose, and accusing other people of logical fallacies when most of the time all they are doing is "disagreeing" with you. It's pretty pathetic and it's not what this guide was intended for. Take a look at your own arguments before bitching about other's arguments. Seriously.

    Thanks a lot.
  19. Mia

    Mia

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2008
    Messages:
    93
    I would like to add a few sections that I feel have been overlooked. These sections prevent a drawn out debate with repetitive points and function to come to an effective and timely solution.

    1. A primary goal of some kind should be proposed so that a conclusive decision can be reached at some point. If no goal is given, there can be no clear solution. Regardless of the weight of the points, the debacle warrants no merit. The conclusion of an involved argument also adds a sense of closure and prevents the same argument from resurfacing in the near future.

    2. One side of the argument should properly consider the view of the other. When both parties can formulate a goal and use both viewpoints to reach that goal rather than fighting against each other, the process to determine the best result progresses much faster. It is totally responsible and admirable to completely understand the opinion of another, and may give you ideas of your own to help the opposing side. Remember, even if you disagree with others, the problem addresses the both of you, and you are both free to function as teammates rather than opponents.

    3. Almost anything worthy of debate in the first place will probably have some data available on the subject. Understand that objective data in a subject worthy of debate will likely have subjective conclusions drawn from that data. Simply dismissing one side as subjective can be a major hindrance on the progression and conclusion of the debate. Instead, encourage others to reveal their subjective interpretations so that everyone involved can consider them and work with them.

    4. Honor your conclusions. If you are going to present some method of how you will come to a conclusion, do not insert arbitrary means of skewing the results. This should be pretty obvious, but it could help the article anyway.

    5. Realize that the decision that you are working for will ultimately affect some one else. Who are you debating for? If it is yourself, state it as such. If it is for another, or for a group of people, state it as such. It is easier to understand your viewpoint in a discussion if the others in that discussion are aware of what interests you represent.

    I get the feeling that I have forgotten something. If I have missed something, I will come back to edit this post.

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)