Discussion: Difference between revisions

From Opasnet
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(some clean-up)
(more technical text moved to Discussion method)
Line 5: Line 5:
:'''Discussion''' is a part of an [[attribute]] of a formally structured [[object]]. In discussion, anyone can raise any relevant points about the property that the attribute describes. Discussion is organised using the [[:en:Pragma-dialectics|pragma-dialectical argumentation theory]]<ref name="pragmadial">Eemeren, F.H. van, & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.</ref>. A discussion usually consists of three parts: 1) the explication of a dispute; 2) the actual discussion, which is organised as hierarchical threads of arguments; and 3) the resolution.
:'''Discussion''' is a part of an [[attribute]] of a formally structured [[object]]. In discussion, anyone can raise any relevant points about the property that the attribute describes. Discussion is organised using the [[:en:Pragma-dialectics|pragma-dialectical argumentation theory]]<ref name="pragmadial">Eemeren, F.H. van, & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.</ref>. A discussion usually consists of three parts: 1) the explication of a dispute; 2) the actual discussion, which is organised as hierarchical threads of arguments; and 3) the resolution.
<section end=glossary />
<section end=glossary />
This page presents rules of discussion engagement and discussion format, as well rules for editing discussions.
Your contribution in the form of remarks or argumentative criticism on the content of the wikipages is most welcome. It can change the outcome of an assessment; it will improve it and make the assessment better understandable for decision makers and other stakeholders. The discussions will show the reasoning behind the work done in an assessment; it will indicate the objective and normative aspects in the assessment. In this way, decision makers and stakeholders can judge themselves whether they agree on our normative weighting. In order to obtain an orderly discussion, it is appreciated if you follow the discussion rules and apply the discussion format.
==Discussion rules==
# Freedom of opinion. Everyone has the right to criticise or comment on the ''content'' of Opasnet pages.
# State your critique with supporting arguments or your comment or remarks on the discussion tab of the page whose content you wish to criticize and sign it. (Discussion tab can be found on top of every Opasnet page, signature can be added using the signature button in the toolbar on top of the edit window.)
# Comments, remarks, statements and argumentation must be related to the topic of the Opasnet page.
# Only statements made and arguments given can be attacked.
# Comments, remarks, statements and argumentation can NOT be redundant. They cannot be repeated.
# You are supposed to be committed to your statements, that is:
:a) if someone doubts on your statement ({{comment| || }}), you must explain it (edit or defend {{defend| || }} ).
:b) if someone attacks your statement ({{attack| || }}), you must defend it ({{defend| || }} ).
:c) if someone doubts on your argument ({{comment| || }}), you should explain it (edit or defend {{defend| || }} ).
:d) if someone attacks your argument ({{attack| || }} ), you should defend it ({{defend| || }} ).
===Discussion format===
For discussing, the discussion format should be used. Click the blue capital '''D''' in the toolbar on top of the edit window to apply the discussion template. This is how the discussion format appears:
{{discussion
|Statements = This is either
*a single statement made in the Opasnet page content upon which someone cast doubt, or
*a statement opposing a statement within the Opasnet page content, i.e. an anti-thesis to a thesis
|Resolution =
|Argumentation =
{{comment|1|The blue horizontal line represents the comment button. It yields this blue layout, which is used for '''comments''' and '''remarks'''.| }}
:{{defend|2|This green arrow represents a '''defending argument'''.| }}
:{{attack|3|This red arrow represents an '''offending argument'''. | }}
}}
Furthermore:
* If you agree with an argument made by others, you can place your signature (clicj the signature button in the toolbar) after that argument.
* Arguments may be edited or restructured. However, if there are signatures of other people, only minor edits are allowed without their explicit acceptance.
* If agreement is reached, i.e. the dispute is settled or resolved, the result can be stated at '''resolution'''.
In order to contribute to the discussion you need to have a user account and be logged in.


==See also==
==See also==

Revision as of 13:03, 20 April 2009


<section begin=glossary />

Discussion is a part of an attribute of a formally structured object. In discussion, anyone can raise any relevant points about the property that the attribute describes. Discussion is organised using the pragma-dialectical argumentation theory[1]. A discussion usually consists of three parts: 1) the explication of a dispute; 2) the actual discussion, which is organised as hierarchical threads of arguments; and 3) the resolution.

<section end=glossary />

See also


Interesting, but somewhat outdated text on editing discussions, argumentation structures, and argument types was archived, and can be found at [1].

  1. ↑ Eemeren, F.H. van, & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Retrieved from "https://en.opasnet.org/index.php?title=Discussion&oldid=8892"