The three gates of speech: Before you speak, let your words pass through three gates.
At the first gate, ask yourself, is it true.
At the second gate ask, is it necessary.
At the third gate ask, is it kind.
You should attempt to re-express your target's position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says, "Thanks, I wish I'd thought of putting it that way."
—Rapoport's First Rule
Disagreements that remain when everyone understands exactly what's being argued, and agrees on what all the evidence says, but have vague and hard-to-define reasons for disagreeing.
Where both parties understand they're in a cooperative effort to fix exactly what they're arguing about.
Survey of evidence
Not trying to devastate the other person with a mountain of facts and start looking at the studies and arguments on both sides and figuring out what kind of complex picture they paint.
Argument hinges on the meaning of words, or whether something counts as a member of a category or not.
Better than scattered facts, proving they at least looked into the issue formally.
Demands for rigor
Attempts to demand that an opposing argument be held to such strict standards that nothing could possibly clear the bar.
One fact, which admittedly does support their argument, but presented as if it solves the debate in and of itself.
Short claims that purport to be devastating proof that one side can't possibly be right.
A demand for listeners to place someone outside the boundary of whom deserve to be heard.
How to apologize: Quickly, specifically, sincerely.
Ad baculum: Argument relying on an appeal to fear or a threat.
Ad ignorantiam: Argument relying on people's ignorance.
Ad populum: Argument relying on sentimental weakness.
Ad verecundiam: Argument relying on the the words of an "expert", or authority.
Ex silentio: Argument relying on ignorance.
Ex nihilo: An argument that bears no relation to the previous topic of discussion.
Non sequitur: An inference that does not follow from established premises or evidence.
Akrasia: State of acting against one's better judgment.
Connotation: Emotional association with a word.
Intransigence: Refusal to change one's views or to agree about something.
Inferential distance: Gap between the background knowledge and epistemology of a person trying to explain an idea, and the background knowledge and epistemology of the person trying to understand it.
Straw man: Creating a false or made up scenario and then attacking it. Painting your opponent with false colors only deflects the purpose of the argument.
Steel man: To steelman is to address the strongest possible variant or the most charitable interpretation of an idea, rather than the most available phrasings.
Red herring: A diversion from the active topic.
Rationalization: Starts from a conclusion, and then works backward to arrive at arguments apparently favouring that conclusion. Rationalization argues for a side already selected.
Dogpiling: A disagreement wherein one person says something wrong or offensive, and a large number of people comment in response to tell them how wrong they are, and continue to disparage the original commenter beyond any reasonable time limit.
Grandstanding: An action that is intended to make people notice and admire you, behaving in a way that makes people pay attention to you instead of thinking about more important matters.
Whataboutism: An attempt to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument.
Dissensus: The deliberate avoidance of consensus.
Belief: The mental state in which an individual holds a proposition to be true.
Priors: The beliefs an agent holds regarding a fact, hypothesis or consequence, before being presented with evidence.
Alief: An independent source of emotional reaction which can coexist with a contradictory belief. Example The fear felt when a monster jumps out of the darkness in a scary movie is based on the alief that the monster is about to attack you, even though you believe that it cannot.
Proper belief: Requires observations, gets updated upon encountering new evidence, and provides practical benefit in anticipated experience.
Improper belief: Is a belief that isn't concerned with describing the territory. Note that the fact that a belief just happens to be true doesn't mean you're right to have it. If you buy a lottery ticket, certain that it's a winning ticket (for no reason), and it happens to be, believing that was still a mistake.
Belief in belief: Where it is difficult to believe a thing, it is often much easier to believe that you ought to believe it. Were you to really believe and not just believe in belief, the consequences of error would be much more severe. When someone makes up excuses in advance, it would seem to require that belief, and belief in belief, have become unsynchronized.
A Priori: Knowledge which we can be sure of without any empirical evidence(evidence from our senses). So, knowledge that you could realize if you were just a mind floating in a void unconnected to a body.
A leader is best when people barely know they exists, when their work is done, their aim fulfilled, people will say: we did it ourselves.
—老子(Lao Tse), 道德經(Dao De Jing)
The first principle of Wikipedia etiquette has been said to be Assume Good Faith.
Jumping into a conversation with endless unapplicable, unrealistic or unrelated answers to the question.
A clear and honest response to the central point of a question without an aggressive attempt to convince.
Spouting accusations while cowardly hiding behind the claim of just asking questions, and ignoring the answers. Asking loaded questions.
A question asked with the intention to be fair, open, and honest, regardless of the outcome of the interaction.
Social rules are expected to be broken from time to time, in that regard they are different from a code of conduct.
Commit to refute explicitly the central point.
Argue a conflicting passage, explain why it's mistaken.
Contradict with added reasoning or evidence.
State the opposing case, what.
Responding to Tone
Responding to the author's tone, how.
Attacking the author directly, who.
Initiating a discussion on the lessons learnt from a project.
Presenting the recent development of a personal experience, ongoing event or work in progress.
Spontaneous and or enthusiastic posts about a general topic of interest or finding.
Venting frustration publicly without explicitly looking to have a conversation about the matter.
Aggressively or ironically looking for the biggest reaction with the least effort possible. Includes subtoots and vague-posting.
You are led to feel that the fulfillment of your dreams depends on your doing what the other is encouraging you to do.
The interests of the system are presented as fulfilling your emotional needs. You are led to feel that your survival, your viability in society or your very identity depends on your doing what the other is requiring of you.
Complex subjects are reduced to a single, emotionally charged issue.
Issues are presented in such a way that you are either right or wrong. You are told that any dialogue between different perspectives is suspect, dangerous or simply not permissible.
You are made to feel that your own interests (or interests that run counter to the interests of the other) are inconsequential.
The terms of a debate are set so that issues that threaten the system cannot be articulated or discussed. You are led to ignore aspects of the issue that may be vitally important to your own interests but are contrary to the interests of the other that is seeking to make you act in their interests.
Kings speak for the realm, governors for the state, popes for the church. Indeed, the titled, as titled, cannot speak with annyone.