Status
Not open for further replies.
A recent experience on another forum made me realize that rules should be in place to restrict behaviors that serve to mislead others. An example of this behavior is misrepresenting a position or someone's views. Another example is misdirection which is something that a lot of politicians use (refer to the quoted information below on misdirection). For now, I'm thinking of prohibiting such behaviors and escalating it to a violation after the person continues such behavior even after being notified about it.

Here's a site that offers a good explanation for 'misdirection' in the context of an argument:
(1) Red Herring Fallacy Also known as: misdirection, smokescreen, clouding the issue, beside the point, and the Chewbacca defense.

A Red Herring argument is one that changes the subject, distracting the audience from the real issue to focus on something else where the speaker feels more comfortable and confident.

EXAMPLE: It may be true that the minimum wage should be adjusted, but the real solution is to eliminate burdensome government regulations so businesses can grow and are able to pay their employees higher salaries.

Your response should be: It’s not an either-or question. Right now we’re debating specific legislation before the legislature/council to increase the minimum wage to $15 per hour. I’m saying it provides hard-working families with income to spend on their basic needs. Let’s focus on that.
Source: How to find logical fallacies in opponents’ arguments - Public leadership Institute

Here's another good explanation:
Red Herring – Changing topics to avoid the point being discussed. A bait and switch. This is an argument tactic in which one attempts to change the conversation – bringing up information that is not relevant or the claim or point being debated – in order to try to control the conversation. This can be a way to avoid having to address or answer the question at hand – and it harms the quality of an argument.
Source: https://pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu/eng-102/chapter/fallacies-failures-in-argument/
 
Last edited:
Misrepresentation of views is straightforward and simple to catch. There is now a rule in place that says to not misrepresent someone's position. I can give someone the benefit of the doubt once, but if it is a repeated incidence, esp. after the person has been notified about it, then it will count as a rule violation and points will be assessed.

Misdirection' is a type of diversionary tactic used in debates. It is harder to determine because it involves intentions. However, I will still consider it a rule violation if it happens repeatedly after the member has already been told about it, and that's especially the case if the member is already under suspicion for proselytizing or promoting a view in the Debate sections. Here's an example of what will count as misdirection:

Member A: Voter ID is way to prevent fraud according to evidence x, y, z.
Member B: Republicans are just trying to suppress votes, and here's evidence x,y,z for that.

Member A: My point is not about Republicans, nor did I ask about that. My point is just about voter ID and if that is one way to identify someone or catch someone trying to impersonate someone else.
Member B: Voter ID is just a way to suppress people. Republicans are just being racist.

We see here that Member B responds to Member's A argument but the response doesn't address Member A's argument. It neither proves nor disproves Member A's argument. It's just extra and irrelevant information, you can even say Member B is jumping around to different topics, and this serves to distract or functions as such, and it's therefore a 'misdirection'. Member B may be engaging in such behavior because he doesn't want to acknowledge a valid point or perhaps it's because he wants readers to think the point is about Republicans or whatever he brings up. A good rule of thumb is to avoid red herrings is to stay on topic when it comes to the original debate topic AND also stay on topic when it comes to the particular person's point or argument that you are addressing. Otherwise don't address a person's argument unless you have logic and evidence to dispute it, agree with it, or you have a question about it.

On reporting either rule:
1. Before reporting first notify the member that they are misrepresenting your view or not addressing your argument.
2. If they continue to engage in misrepresentation or misdirection after notifying them, then report it. When reporting it, you must let us know about your specific argument or point and the response that violates the rules.
3. These rules will only be enforced in the Debate sections, and mostly apply towards those who are already under suspicion for trolling, spamming, and/or proselytizing.

More specifically for misdirection:
- Moderators will be looking for a pattern of behavior (as in multiple instances, and in one thread) of responses that are irrelevant or distract from a specific point/argument.
- If there's also evidence of the offending member engaging in proselytizing behavior, then that will increase our chances of moderators penalizing the member for it.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.