Introduction

A huge number of new members have joined ATS, I think it is important to set up a guide to constructive discussion.

Many threads have been trolled, spammed and completely diverted and have become useless considering objectivity.

To change that, I have created this thread to discuss how we can improve our discussion, to help us end threads with conclusions rather than uncertainty.

Point number1 (what is your point)

First you have to understand fully what your point is.

For example, "America is bad".

Point number2 (prove your point)

What do you have to support your point?

What evidence do you have which helped you come to this conclusion?

For example "America is bad because it invaded Iraq for no legitimate reasons (false reasons), and risked millions of lives in the process".

Point number3 (how to counter constructively)

How can you counter the above assertion constructively?

To help you differentiate between constructive and nonconstructive counter,

I will lay the un-constructive counter first.

An Example of un-constructive counter would be:
("Iraq was bad before US invaded and occupied it". ---->Choosing this one
"You are a terrorist sympathizer for making such points"
"You are anti-American and anti-Western not to mention anti-Semite"
"You are an idiot")
....

Why is the above nonconstructive counter? Because it takes the focus away from the original point, hence," US is bad".

Pointing out that Saddam was worse, is not constructive.

An example of a constructive counter would be to ask certain questions regarding the OP:
"Does US invading Iraq for illegitimate reasons, make US bad?"
"Is US defined by just one small portion of history"?
"Is US defined by just one action?"
"How can US be bad if it is also good?"

You are trying to counter his point, not his evidence which backs his point.

-If the evidence is clearly false, then it is understandable to concentrate on the evidence rather than the point.
-If the evidence is uncertain, tell him how the evidence is uncertain, and leave it at that, or ask him for other evidence which backs his point.
-If the evidence is true, concentrate on the point, rather than the evidence.

Point number4 (If evidence backing his point is true)

If it is true, then concentrate on the point, rather than trying to divert attention.

For Example, "Yes US invaded Iraq for illegitimate reasons, but does that make the U.S. bad"?

For Example, "US has taken a lot of actions which are regarded as good, does that mean US is good using the same logic?"

Point number5 (conclusion)

1. If the opposition is correct, that US also has good qualities, along side the bad ones, then the point of the OP is flawed, and the discussion has come to a conclusion (even if the evidence is true).

In the above sense, the conclusion is, that yes US has done wrong, but that doesn't make the US wrong, the world is not black and white. In the same manner, US has done right, but that doesn't make the US right, the world is not black and white.

----------------------------------------------------

Add your thoughts regarding a constructive discussion which doesn't lead to the path of trolling, spamming, clear off-topicism etc.

What are we suppose to take in to consideration when we are discussing an issue?

The point?

The evidence backing the point?

etc

Thanks for your patience

oz

I notice that in this thread you say things, that you directly contradict in other threads.

The things you say NOT to do , you do repeatedly in other postings.......I think thats a bit hypocritical...


I also am not surprised that your using the US and Iraq conflict as a stage for your "proper" ways of debate.....

Seems like your tyring to indoctrinate people more to your point of view, then trying to foster proper discussion decorum........

It's a double edged sword and ooz is good at what he does....



Ps. I still totally disagree with you ooz on most everything you say

but you get a flag for creativity

Nice guide SF

new members need to learn this guide A to Z or

Originally posted by Ben81


anti usa stuff ??
we already know the government system in canada and the usa is corrupted to the highest officials

anti gov is ok but anti americanism is not
we do have very good people in america .. the problem is the GOVERNMENT
still lying and continu to steal the peoples money to make wars etc .. stupid decision one after another

Point

anti gov is ok but anti americanism is not

Evidence to support the point

we do have very good people in america .. the problem is the GOVERNMENT
still lying and continu to steal the peoples money to make wars etc .. stupid decision one after another

What defines a "new" person? People who have been here for less than a month? A year? 5 years? Does having a high WATS index but only being on ATS for 3 months give you more credence than somebody who has been here for 7 years with a low WATS index?

Most critical of all, where is the space between "number" and "1/2/3/4/5" in the headers?

oozyism is the WORST poster on ATS by a long shot, even in a forum of conspiracy theories he's the master at fear mongering and seems to harbor an intense hatred towards the US, I find this thread highly amusing and contradictory and no...I dont have the time to dig through your posts but I do know I have called you out several times on different subjects in the past as have many other members.

You have no right to post this.

Originally posted by SonicInfinity
What defines a "new" person? People who have been here for less than a month? A year? 5 years? Does having a high WATS index but only being on ATS for 3 months give you more credence than somebody who has been here for 7 years with a low WATS index?

Most critical of all, where is the space between "number" and "1/2/3/4/5" in the headers?

It is not aimed at simply who just join ATS, but people who are not usually accustom to discussions without letting their emotions loose.

I hope you understand what I mean.

There are people out there who just join ATS, but have an incredible ability to creatively + productively discuss issues, avoiding personal attacks and diversion of attention.

As you've failed to address valid points I've made in a previous thread of yours (your reply was "lol" and/or "still trying?" - hardly the wonderful use of discussion you have chosen to enlighten us with in this thread), you should re-read what you have posted as you need to learn more than others.