Imagine how much better the national conversation would be if we adhered to a formal set of rules when we discuss (or even argue) current events! Debate needs to be conducted under very strict rules or else we begin making fallacious arguments. A point cannot be proven with a falacious argument.
I recently came across a quote from “The Rules of Decorum” as published in a book called Hedge’s Logic. Using my best Googling skills, I couldn’t find a copy of the book. There are plenty of references to it in other debates and writings, though. I found a copy of them and have decided that I will unfollow anyone that breaks one of them. Especially #4 & #6.
Rule 1. The terms in which the question in debate
is expressed, and the point at issue should be clearly
defined, that there could be no misunderstanding
respecting them.
Rule 2. The parties should mutually consider each
other as standing on a footing of equality, in respect to
the subject in debate. Each should regard the other
as possessing equal talents, knowledge, and a desire for
truth with himself; and that it is possible, therefore,
that he may be in the wrong, and his adversary in the
right.
Rule 3. All expressions which are unmeaning, or
without effect in regard to the subject in debate, should
be strictly avoided.
Rule 4. Personal reflections on an adversary
should, in no instance, be indulged.
Rule 5. The consequences of any doctrine are not
to be charged on him who maintains it, unless he ex-
pressly avows them.
Rule 6. As truth, and not victory, is the professed
object of controversy, whatever proofs may be ad-
vanced, on either side, should be examined with fair-
ness and candor ; and any attempt to answer an adversary
by arts of sophistry, or to lessen the force of his
reasoning by wit, cavilling or ridicule, is a violation
of the rules of honorable controversy.