Argumentrix is a wiki of claims and rebuttals

Please do not discuss your opinions; no one should know what you believe. Adopt the site's tone and style: simple, blunt, precise, direct, plain, to-the-point. Include only the absolutely necessary context, and eliminate jargon. Content that is convincing, rhetorical, persuasive, elegant, evocative or embellished may be removed.

Argumentrix:Argumentrix has policies and community pages

From Argumentrix
(Redirected from Help:Contents)
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome to the Argumentarium! If you would like to join the project, please create an account. This is not a wiki that allows anonymous editing, because it is specialized and casual editing is much less likely to be productive than it is with most other wikis. You do not have to give any personal information to sign up.

  1. What is this?: Argumentrix is a wiki about arguments and counter-arguments.
  2. Our copyright policy is described at Argumentrix is available under the Creative Commons Attribution Sharealike License.
  3. At our open forum, Argumenters can discuss policies and other topics of interest.
  4. This is a sample argument page. Read this to learn about how to properly format and lay out an argument.
  5. Our sourcing policy is described at Arguments must be properly sourced.
  6. Our privacy policy is described at Argumentrix has a privacy policy.

Why and What Is This Website?

People want a new way to understand debates. The world has grown more sophisticated, and making everyday decisions about where to shop, which websites to visit and which news sources to trust are growing more and more complex. Most of the sources of information about debatable issues are highly biased, so much so that each side in an argument writes using totally different terminology and assumptions. That means people who do try to find out more information use keywords that push them towards sites that mimic the views they've always been exposed to, and many earnestly don't realize there's a whole nother world of people using different keywords and browsing a completely different ecosystem of information.

Argumentrix can change that. We provide a single source that simply collects and classifies debates. We don't judge them, we don't explain them, we don't tell you whether they are right or wrong, we just tell you that people believe them, and why.

What makes Argumentrix different from other debate sites? We're not a site for debate, we're a site about debate. It's not a place to go to settle an argument, but rather a place to find out what you will need to decide in order to settle the argument.

Does it seem like most debates are argued over what the terms of the debate are, or what terms will be used to define the debate? Since every side is so polarized they insist on using their own set of jargon and assumptions, nobody ever debates the real issues at hand, instead quibbling over semantics and setting the boundaries of the argument. Argumentrix can reduce this effect by providing a single standardized place that anyone can visit where every debate is laid out in a separate page, and its terms are already set in as neutral a format as possible.

Think of Argumentrix like biological taxonomy. Biologists might classify animals by counting the number of molars and bicuspids, or measuring the angle antennae attach to the head. But ordinary people out camping aren't going to do that, they need field guides and wildlife books to make things simple and easy. Even though ordinary people never need to count bicuspids to know they're looking at a racoon, the publishers of those field guides need scientific taxonomy. Without that, one field guide might call a bird a "silver warbler", and another the "silver-throated warbler", and another the "California warbler", and maybe one will call it the "gray jay", and people who used different field guides would be constantly talking past each other, arguing over which bird they're looking at rather than looking at more birds. That's the situation we find ourselves in today - there's no official taxonomy of beliefs, so partisans and pundits argue over what the proper name of the bird is, when what really matters is whether it's going to hurt people or not.

Personal tools