Thanks for the two links. I've just read them plus two debates Withdraw from Iraq on a Timetable or Conditionally and Democratizing Iraq plus skimmed the contents list (only) of three other debates related to Iraq (as listed in Bill's post and linked on main page).
Its certainly been useful reading to get to grips with how some people think about things with a view to presenting persuasive arguments to think differently.
But I'm left stuck with the feeling that its sort of impenetrable.
On the face of it a sub-topic tree and ground rules as defined there ought to somehow shed more light (and perhaps it does than the widespread simple pandering and ranting).
It ought at least to shed enough light to make it easier to compose a FAQ list etc reflecting our views on the issues.
But the issues and arguments as perceived are so discordant that its hard to know where to begin to disentangle them.
Many of the ground rules appear to be entirely sensible (though hard to see applied in practice). But the following ground rules strike me as contributing to the problem:
1. No personal opinion.
2. Present only third-party arguments:
Editors are allowed to present arguments that have been made by some credible third-party source, such as an expert, scholar, leader, columnist, newspaper article that summarizes some argument, etc. The most effective way of doing this is ALMOST ALWAYS by quoting a particular point, although it is acceptable in cases where a quote or study's findings are too lengthy and cumbersome, to summarize or paraphrase an argument.
Above should make perfect sense and certainly confirms the need for us to present arguments and analysis in a form amenable to being quoted as a "third-party source" such as at least a "columnist".
But the result as seen in the two "debates" I just read fully is quite unintelligible "arguments" because the whole public debate is so cognitively dissonant.
Forums
Main Forum
