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.

Widgets are superior to hardtack

From Argumentrix
Jump to: navigation, search
This is a deliberately nonsensical argument provided as an example of formatting. For details on how to write Argumentrix content, see Talk:Widgets are superior to hardtack/explanation

Widgets are superior to hardtack
Subjects
Hardtack
Superiority
Widgets
Linking arguments
None



Note: This is a note. Use it to introduce jargon and relevant terms. This isn't a glossary, it's an explanation of the terminology surrounding the Argument. For example, if supporters or opposers of the Argument are referred to by a word, give it here. If the Argument is central to a theory or belief system, name it here.

Supporting arguments

This point relies on Christian doctrine.
This is a "Point" that supports the titular proposition. It doesn't have to be conclusive in itself - it merely has to be a reason someone believes in the Argument. Similar Points should be grouped together where they share a common counterArgument: for example, if there are three Bible verses that condemn hardtack, each should be listed as a separate Point. Once a valid counterArgumentis made (e.g. The Bible condemns hardtack exists and has opposing Points), all of three of the Biblical points may be combined to a general "Widgets are superior because the Bible condemns hardtack" Point, with the counterArgument supplying the specific verses. [1]


Points should be succinct - no more than 3-4 sentences. If it's possible to say it in five words, do it. Points should describe the entire reason to believe it, including all qualifiers. Use plain, direct language. Do not eschew obscure words when they are the most succinct way to make the point. Remember that Points should not be convincing, rhetorical, persuasive, elegant, evocative or embellished. Do not use slogans, rhetorical techniques or hyperbole. Similies, analogies, allusions or metaphors should only be used when they are the heart of the Point - for example, if someone argues that "hardtack is created by Neo-Nazis, so eating it is analogous to supporting Nazism" we can use that as a Point; if someone argues that "hardtack is evil", the Point should say that, not use an analogy to Nazism to make itself more clear. [2]

Opposing arguments

Opposing Points are the same as Supporting ones. Points have to cover a separate idea but they can overlap, if they are believed for different reasons or to a different extent. For example, if someone argues that widgets are best for women and hardtack is best for men, the very same source can be use for a Point on both sides of the debate. One can say "widgets are superior to hardtack for women" and the other can say "hardtack is superior to widgets for men". If the source also says "men are superior to women, so hardtack is, overall, superior to widgets", then that would be an entirely separate Point even though it's obviously closely related. [3]


Arguments must be sourced to prove they are genuine. See Arguments must be properly sourced for more information. It's easy to find sources because even Internet comments and Facebook updates can be cited. You may not, however, cite anything on this website or any post that is directly responding to what is written at Argumentrix - this wiki describes opinions people hold, it is not a resource for debate or for shaping debates. [4]

Notes

  1. Source
  2. Source
  3. Source
  4. Source

Step One: This is the minimum you need to understand to edit

It's very, very easy. Just type the following (which is also found on the edit screen so you don't have to memorize it):

{{A
|P=The text of the Point
|U=The Url of the Source
|S=The name of the Source (name of the person(s)/group(s) who believe in the Point, not the publisher or journal)
}}

If there is already a Source, you can add more with just a few digits:

{{A
|P=The text of the Point
|U=The Url of the Source
|S=The name of the Source
|U2=The Url of the second Source
|S2=The name of the second Source
|And so on, U3 and S3, U4 and S4, U5 and S5, etc
}}

To add counterArguments and fallacies, use the C1, F1, C2, F2 parameters.

{{A
|P=The text of the Point
|U=The Url of the Source
|S=The name of the Source
|C1=The title of the first counterArgument
|C2=The title of the second counterArgument
|F3=The name of the first applicable fallacy
|And so on, C4, F5, C6, F7, F8, C9, etc.
}}

That's it. That's all you need to know. There are other templates in use, but don't feel obligated to learn them.

Step Two: Learn this next

You can also use the T parameter to designate religious and location-based Points.

{{A
|P=The text of the Point
|U=The Url of the Source
|S=The name of the Source
|T=The name of the Template you wish to use
}}

For religions and countries, the name of the Template is simply the name of the religion or country. For religions, when there is a distinction, plural noun Templates are use for Points that apply only to believers (e.g. the Template "Christianity" means "This point is based on Christian doctrine" while Template "Christians" means "This point applies only to Christians". See all of the religion Templates and all of the location Templates.

You can also use the Y parameter to designate the last known year a Point was believed. It's not necessary to do this in most cases, this is mainly to mark old Points that nobody believes anymore.

{{A
|P=The text of the Point
|U=The Url of the Source
|S=The name of the Source
|T=The name of the Template you wish to use
|Y=The year of the most recent source demonstrating that someone earnestly believes the Point
}}

Step three: The last step

Don't worry about this stuff, it's still experimental so it might change. See Template:Research, Template:Bibleverse, Template:ArgumentTop and Category:Law-specifying templates, and check out some of the pages that already use them. This page will be expanded with clearer how-to guides for all these soon.

A few last rules

  1. Don't link to pages that don't exist.
  2. Do not discuss your personal beliefs on talk pages or in edit summaries. Do not discuss your personal feelings about others' beliefs.
  3. You must be editing for the purpose of improving both Arguments you agree with and Arguments you don't.
  4. Titles should address a singular point. Titles can encompass a general topic, like capitalism is beneficial, so long as it is still a singular point (whether or not, and in what way, capitalism is beneficial).
  5. Titles should all be positive statements. For example, use Governments should prohibit cannabis, not Governments should not legalize cannabis. This is, of course, always a judgement call (one could just as easily title it Governments should tolerate cannabis), but choose the most specifically relevant words.
  6. Points should be written for a well-informed person in the relevant field. Do not provide extra information or context.
  7. This is a machine-readable database of opinions. You may not just add information willy-nilly.
  8. We are fulfilling a need that Wikipedia (and other sources) don't supply. Don't try to compete with Wikipedia or other sources by providing background info or context. We should link to Wikipedia and other sources instead.
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Toolbox