Religious threads

[Zunaid]

I am speaking as a lay user and not in my capacity as a moderator.

Of late, there has been a preponderance of threads and posts on religious matters. Religion is a sensitive matter - for believers as well as disbelievers. We wil start off with some minor bickerings, but very soon this will explode into futile flame wars. We are starting to stray far from the mission and vision of BanglaCricket and its forums.

Religion or lack thereof is a matter of personal faith and belief. Either you end up preaching to the umma or sowing pearls before swine (or chose a more acceptable animal if you wish). There will be a never ending stream of posts and counter posts with no resolution. Just a waste of time.

On the other hand if your motive is to convert someone to your way of life (be it Islam, atheism, apatheism, Christianity, Wicca and what not), then this is not the place my friend.

I am urging all of you to be judicious in your choice of what you post and what you respond to - keeping in mind what this site is for.

Edited on, February 17, 2005, 11:11 PM GMT, by Zunaid.

[Orpheus]

You know cricket is religion for some ppl .. hmmmmmm

But yes we should try our best to keep our encounter with God private.

[TigerFan]

as far i know , if i post something news, it is because I am interested and I share with people here who are interested. and the recent discussion we have I posted with argument also to show what is islam who ever reading it. I know that this is Forget Cricket. So I don't see how it can affect cricket in Bangladesh Cricket or International Cricket. Forget Cricket was told by the owners years after years that we can talk here anything. Unless you guys want to change it too. If anyone wants to view their believe let them do it till they get violent with words. As far I know I didn't.

[Navarene]

Thanks Zunaid for rightly coming up with this thread. These "quami neo-muslims" should look for an Islamic website to preach and discuss bout their views. I am getting sick and tired out of these nobbo jagroto muslim jonota.

[TigerFan]

If people say bad stuff, punish them. Why do we have to suffer if they use bad language?

[rafiq]

hey I am guilty of asking a couple of questions to a couple of members in one of these threads. I thought the questions were discussed to benefit all parties. No one converted anyone. let people discuss what they want to discuss.

[rafiq]

btw I love this nick:

dawah.tabligh

now why didn't I think of that before

[bourny3]

What does it mean rafiq

[Spitfire_x86]

Dawah = Invitation
Tabligh = Tabligh Jamat

[Beamer]

I agree with Zunaid.

This is supposed to be a Bangladesh cricket site. Why can't we stick to that boundary? From time to time its ok for people to discuss various topics, specially anything related to Bangladesh, but this is too much. It could be that we are idle right now. Tigers are inactive and people are just being people discussing issues other than cricket. But, this whole religious arguements are becoming reduntant. We have a few new members who just came on board and are preaching with a missionary zeal. There are non-muslims in this site as well I am sure. Why talk so much about faith? which is a personal matter. It is beyond any comprehension. I am pretty sure some of these evangelicals go around from forum to forum, sampling and preaching while pretending to have some interest for the contents and topics of that forum.

Whatever ones faith is, it should be private as it could be a very sensitive issue for some. Best way to answer these folks : Stop responding to their poll taking meaningless threads. They will go away as fast as they came aboard.

[Pundit]

One naive solution might be to limit thread headers with a key word to only 10 threads per month or such...key words could be,

Religion
Islam
Sex
India
Pakistan
Awami League
BNP
SHAMS Kibria
Terrorism
Hartal
Cisco
Drishtipath
Khaleda Zia
Sheikh Hasina
Marhum President Ziaur Rahman
Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman

...just to name a few.

[Ahmed_B]

Good List Pundit. But let me sum it up... we can very easily sum up ur list to the following 3 most sensitive topics:

1.Religion
2.Politics
3.Sex

**These are sensitive because a lot is there in it of 'Completely Personal Views'
**These are sensitive because... it's so easy to excite people intensionally if anyone wants to, by just posting an offensive thread (and so many already have been done!)
**These are sensitive because You can escape very easily after saying something wayward irresponsible out here, because this is a webforum... not real life, so u don hav to bother about your personal image.

I hav even seen some members strongly insisting that they should be 'allowed to express their democratic opinion'... hence overlooking that if the moderators stop regulating the quality of posts... this site will really lose its quality of contents and become a chaotic place only.

Actually... right now... I think probably more than 50% posts/threads are being made on offensive and non-cricket issues.. which is definitely objectionable. Some people just register in here... and then instantly forget what this site is for.

This is a cricket forum. Yes there are scopes for other discussions surely... but that should be always within a limit so that the secondary issues dont irritate people or bore them away from this site.

Sorry to be so rude... but just felt like opening up all the frustrations and express to the mods. But I think.. that the overall quality of the site's discussion forum's is deteriorating. This will only harm the good reputation of the forum... which has already brought reputed people and reputed news-websites to be interested in Banglacricket.

Edited on, February 18, 2005, 5:56 AM GMT, by crickethorizon.

[PoorFan]

Just waited for such voices.
Completely agree with Zunaid, Beemar, crickethorizon, Navarene ....
We may need some new guideline or rules on topics and discussion to maintain the quality of this forum.

[Mridul]

Originally posted by rafiq
hey I am guilty of asking a couple of questions to a couple of members in one of these threads. I thought the questions were discussed to benefit all parties. No one converted anyone. let people discuss what they want to discuss.

i agree with u rafiq bhai.....

...if u wanna put restriction...then i would suggest delete "Forget Crciket"

[tiger_man]

Nah man!
we really need some guidelines coz people have conflicting views and before you know anything it ends up in a heated debate

just respect each other and keep your beliefs to yourself and lets create a friendly environment where we rather appreciate each others view instead of throwing insults

[Arnab]

Ok, I will post some unofficial guidelines here:

1. What are the issues and the conclusions?
2. What are the reasons?
3. Which words and Phrases are ambiguous?
4. What are the value conflicts and assumptions?
5. What are the descriptive assumptions?
6. Are there any fallacies in the reasoning?
7. How good is the evidence?
8. Are there rival causes?
9. Are the statistics deceptive?
10. What significant information is omitted?
11. What reasonable conclusions are possible?

Critical Question #1: What are the issue and the conclusion?

Before you can evaluate an author’s argument, you must clearly identify the issue and conclusion. How can you evaluate an argument if you don’t know exactly what the author is trying to persuade you to believe? Finding an author’s main point is the first step in deciding whether you will accept or reject it.

An issue is a question or a controversy responsible for the conversion or discussion.

There are two kinds of issues: Descriptive and Prescriptive.

Descriptive issues are those that raise questions about the accuracy of descriptions of the past, present, or future.

Prescriptive issues are those that raise questions about what we should do or what is right or wrong, good or bad.

We cannot critically evaluate until we find the conclusion!

A conclusion is the message that the speaker or writer wishes you to accept.

Conclusions are inferred; they are derived from reasoning. Conclusions are ideas that need other ideas to support them. Thus, whenever someone claims something is true or ought to be done and provide no statement to support its claim, the claim is not a conclusion because no one has offered any basis for belief. In contrast, unsupported claims are what we refer to as mere opinions.

How to find the conclusion:
1. Ask what the issue is.
2. Look for indicator words
3. Look in likely locations
4. Remember what a conclusion is not: examples, statistics, definitions, background information, evidence, etc. are not conclusions
5. Check the context of the communication and the author’s background.
6. Ask the question, “and therefore?”

In your own writing, help readers to easily identify your thesis and conclusion.

Critical Question #2: What are the reasons?

You cannot determine the worth of an argument until you identify the reasons. An argument consists of a conclusion and the reasons that allegedly support it.

Reasons are explanations or rationales for why we should believe a particular conclusion. They are things that are offered as a basis for why we should accept the conclusion.

Several characteristics of arguments grab our attention:
• They have intent. Those who provide them hope to convince us to believe certain things or act in certain ways. Consequently they call for a reaction.
• Their quality varies. Critical thinking is required to determine the extent of quality of an argument.
• They have two essential visible components – a conclusion and reasons. Failure to identify each component destroys the opportunity to evaluate the argument. We cannot evaluate what we cannot identify.

Critical Question #3: What words and phrases are ambiguous?

Ambiguity refers to the existence of multiple possible meaning for a word or phrase.

Once you have identified an argument, you need to identify key words or phrases within that reasoning that might have alternative meanings. More importantly, you need to determine whether the author explicitly uses one of those definitions. If she does not, and if one of those meanings alters your acceptance of the conclusion, you have identified an important ambiguity. Identifying ambiguous words and phrases is the next important step in determining whether you will accept or reject the conclusion.

[Arnab]

Critical Question #4: What are the value conflicts and assumptions?

An assumption is an unstated belief that supports the explicit reasoning.

Values are the unstated ideas that people see as worthwhile. They provide standards of conduct by which we measure the quality of human behavior.

A value assumption is an implicit preference for one value over another n a particular context. We use value preferences and value priorities as synonyms.

While an author usually offers explicit reasons why she comes to a certain conclusion, she also makes certain assumptions that lead her to a certain conclusion. By identifying value conflicts, you determine whether the author’s value preferences match your value preferences. Consequently, you have a tool for determining whether you will accept or reject an author’s conclusion.

Critical Question #5: What are the descriptive assumptions?

Descriptive assumptions are beliefs about the way the world is; prescriptive or value assumptions, you remember, are beliefs about how the world should be.

Clues for Discovering Descriptive Assumptions:
1. Keep thinking about the gap between the conclusion and reasons.
2. Look for ideas that support reasons.
3. Identify with the opposition.
4. Recognize the potential existence of other means of attaining the advantages referred to in the reasons.
5. Learn more about the issues.

When you identify descriptive assumptions, you are identifying the link between a reason and the author’s conclusion. If the link is flawed, the reason does not necessarily lead to the conclusion. Consequently, identifying the descriptive assumptions allows you to determine whether an author’s reasons lead to a conclusion. Thus, when you determine that the link between the reasons and conclusion is flawed, you will want to be reluctant to accept the author’s conclusion.

Critical Question #6: Are there any fallacies in the reasoning?

A fallacy is a reasoning “trick” that an author might use while trying to persuade you to accept a conclusion.

Once you have identified the reasons, you want to determine whether the author used any reasoning tricks, or fallacies. If you identify a fallacy in reasoning, that reason does not provide good support for the conclusion. Consequently, you would not want to accept an author’s conclusion on the basis of that reason. If the author provides no good reasons, you would not want to accept his or her conclusion. Thus, looking for fallacies is another important step in determining whether you will accept or reject the author’s conclusion.

List of Fallacies:
1. Ad hominem: An attack, or an insult, on the person, rather than directly addressing the person’s reasons.
2. Slippery Slope: Making the assumption that a proposed step will set off an uncontrollable chain of undesirable events, when procedures exist to prevent such a chain of events.
3. Searching for perfect solutions: Falsely assuming that because part of a problem would remain after a solution is tried, the solution will not be adopted.
4. Equivocation: A keyword is used with two or more meanings in an argument such that the argument fails to make sense once the shifts in meaning are recognized.
5. Appeal to Popularity (Ad populum): An attempt to justify a claim by attempting to sentiments that large groups of people have in common; falsely assumes that anything favored by a large group is desirable.
6. Appeal to questionable authority: Supporting a conclusion by citing an authority who lacks special expertise on the issue at hand.
7. Straw person: Distorting our opponent’s point of view so that it is easy to attack; thus we attack a point of view that does not truly exist.
8. Either-or (False Dilemma): Assuming only two alternatives exist when it is possible that there are more than two.
9. Wishful thinking: Making the faulty assumption that because we wish X were true (or false), then X is indeed true (or false).
10. Explaining by naming: Falsely assuming that because you have provided a name for some event or behavior that you have also adequately explained the event.
11. Glittering generality: The use of vague, emotionally appealing virtue words that dispose us to approve something without closely examining the reasons.
12. Red Herring: An irrelevant topic is presented to divert attention from the original issue and help to “win” an argument by shifting attention away from the argument and to another issue. The fallacy sequence in this instance is as follows: (a) Topic A is being discussed. (b) Topic B is introduced as though it is relevant to Topic A, but it is not; (c) Topic A is abandoned.
13. Begging the Question: An argument in which the conclusion is assumed in the reasoning.
14. Hasty generalization: A person draws a conclusion about a large group based on experiences with only a few members of the group.
15. Faulty Analogy: Occurs when an analogy is proposed in which there are important relevant dissimilarities.
16. Causal Oversimplification: Explaining an event by relying on causal factors that are insufficient to account for the event or by overemphasizing the role of one or more of these factors.
17. Confusion of cause and effect: Confusing the cause with the effect of an event or failing to recognize that the two events may be influencing each other.
18. Neglect of a common cause: Failure to recognize that two events may be related because of the effects of a common third cause.
19. Post hoc fallacy: Assuming that a particular event, B, is caused by another event, A, simply because B follows A in time.

[Arnab]

Critical Question #7: How good is the evidence: intuition, personal experience, testimonials and appeal to authority?

What is evidence? Evidence is explicit information shared by the communicator that is used to back up or to justify the dependability of a factual claim. In prescriptive arguments, evidence will be needed to support reasons that are factual claims; in descriptive arguments, evidence will be needed to directly support a descriptive conclusion.

Major kinds of evidence include:

• intuition
• personal experience
• testimonials
• appeals to authorities
• personal observations
• case examples
• research studies
• analogies


Use the following questions to help assess the various kinds of evidence.

Intuition:

1. Does the intuition have any other kind of evidential support?

Authority:

1. How much expertise or training does the authority have on this particular subject?
2. Was the authority in a position to have especially good access to pertinent facts?
3. Is there good reason to believe that the authority is relatively free of distorting influences?
4. Has the authority developed a reputation for frequently making dependable claims?
5. Have we been able to rely on this authority in the past?

Personal Testimony:

1. What biases or interests might be affecting the person’s testimony?
2. Does the person have any expertise to assist his or her judgment?
3. How do the person’s value assumptions affect his or her testimony?
4. Whose personal testimony might be helpful in assessing this person’s testimony?
5. What information has been left out in this personal testimony?

Research Studies:

1. What is the quality of the source of the report? Usually, the most dependable reports are those published in peer-review journals, those in which a study is not accepted until it has been reviewed by a series of relevant experts. Usually --- but not always --- the more reputable the source, the better designed the study. So, try to find out all you can about the reputation of the source.
2. Other than the quality of the source, are there other clues included in the communication suggesting the research was well done? For example, does the report detail any special strengths of the research?
3. Has the study been replicated? Has more than one study reached the same conclusion? Findings, even when “statistically significant,” can arise by chance alone. For example, when an association is repeated and consistently found in well-designed studies, like the link between smoking and cancer, then there is a reason to believe it, at least until those who disagree can provide persuasive evidence for their point of view.
4. How selective has the communicator been in choosing studies? For example, have relevant studies with contradictory results been omitted? Has the researcher selected only those studies that support her point?
5. Is there any evidence of strong-sense critical thinking? Has the speaker or writer showed a critical attitude toward earlier research that was supportive of her point of view? Most conclusions from research need to be qualified because of research limitations. Has the communicator demonstrated a willingness to qualify?
6. Is there any reason for someone to have distorted the research? We need to be wary of situations in which the researchers need to find certain kinds of results.
7. Are conditions in the research artificial and therefore distorted? Always ask, “How similar are the conditions under which the research study was conducted to the situation the researcher is generalizing about?”
8. How far can we generalize, given the research sample?
a. The sample must be large enough to justify the generalization or conclusion.
b. The sample must possess as much breadth or diversity, as the types of events about which conclusions are to be drawn.
c. The more random the sample, the better.
9. Are there any biases or distortions in the surveys, questionnaires, ratings, or other measurements that the researcher uses? We need to have confidence that the researcher has measured accurately what she has wanted to measure.
a. You cannot assume that verbal reports accurately reflect true attitudes.
b. Look carefully at the wording of the questions.
c. Be alert to contextual factors when evaluating survey results. Preceding questions or the length of the questionnaire can affect the results.
d. Examine survey procedures carefully before accepting survey results.

Case examples:

Dramatic cases appeal to our emotions and distract us from seeking other more relevant research evidence. Be wary of striking case examples as proof. Ask “Is the example typical?” “Are there powerful counterexamples?” “Are there biases in how the example is exported?” However, this doesn’t mean case examples that consistent with the conclusion are not useful; they demonstrate possibilities and put a human face on abstract statistics. But beware its effect on your judgment.

Analogies:

Analogies are persuasive, BUT evaluate the quality of the analogy by focusing on
1. The number of ways the two things being compared are similar and different.
2. The relevance of the similarities and the differences.
Also, try to generate alternative analogies:
1. Identify some important features of what you are studying.
2. Try to identify other situations with which you are familiar that have some similar features. Give free rein to your imagination. Brainstorm. Try to imagine diverse situations.
3. Try to determine whether the familiar situation can provide you with some insights about the unfamiliar situation.

[Arnab]

Critical Question #8: Are there rival causes?

While an author might offer an explanation for why certain events occurred, other explanations might be plausible. When you try to identify rival causes, you are finding alternative explanations for an event. If you can identify alternative explanations, you must decide whether you should believe the author’s explanation or one of the other explanations. If the author does not provide reasons for why you should believe his explanation over other explanations, you should not be willing to accept his explanation and ultimately, his conclusion. Thus, looking rival causes is another step in deciding whether to accept or reject an argument.

Some things to remember:
1. Many kinds of events are open to explanation by rival causes, including clinical case studies, criminal trials, research studies, stock market trends, advertising statistics, sports page charts, airline crash findings, and historical events.
2. Experts can examine the same evidence an come up with different causes to explain it,.
3. Although many explanations can “fit the facts”, some seem more plausible than others.
4. Most communicators will provide you with only their favored causes; the critical reader or listener must generate rival causes.
5. Generating rival causes is a creative process; usually such causes will not be obvious.
6. Even “scientific” researchers frequently fail to acknowledge important rival causes for their findings.
7. Finally, the certainty of a particular causal claim is inversely related to the number of plausible rival causes.

Ask these questions:
1. Can I think of any other way to interpret the evidence?
2. What else might have caused this act of these findings?
3. If I looked at this from another point of view, what might I see as important causes?
4. Is this interpretation is incorrect, what other interpretation might make sense?

Remember: Association or correlation does not provide causation.

Some rules of thumb to determine whether a scientific research provides good, strong support for a particular cause:
1. The researcher doesn’t have any personal financial incentive in suggesting the cause.
2. The research had at least one control group, such as a group that did not get exposed to the cause.
3. Groups that were compared differed on a very few characteristics other than the causal factor of interest.
4. Research participants were randomly assigned to groups; they did not get to select which group they were in.
5. Participants wee unaware of the researchers’ hypotheses.
6. Other researchers have replicated the findings.

Ask yourself the following questions when trying to generate rival causes for events:
1. Is there any evidence that the explanation has been critically examined?
2. Is it likely that social, political, or psychological forces may be bias the hypothesis?
3. What rival causes have not been considered? How credible is the author’s hypothesis compared to rival causes?
4. Is the hypothesis thorough in accounting for many puzzling aspects of the event in question?
5. How consistent is the hypothesis with all the available valuable relevant evidence?
6. Is the Post hoc fallacy the primary reasoning being used to link the events?

Critical Question #9: Are the statistics deceptive?

Authors often provide statistics support their reasoning. The statistics appear to be hard evidence. However, there are many ways that statistics can be misused. Because problematic statistics are used frequently, it is important to identify any problems with the statistics so that you can more carefully determine whether you will accept or reject the author’s conclusion.

Clues for assessing statistics:
1. Try to find out as much as you can about how the statistics were obtained. Ask, “How does the author or speaker know?”
2. Be curious about the type of average being described.
3. Be alert to the users of statistics concluding one thing; but proving another.
4. Blind yourself to the writer’s or speaker’s statistics and compare the needed statistical evidence with the statistics actually provided.
5. Form your own conclusion from the statistics. If it doesn’t match the author’s or speaker’s, then something is probably wrong.
6. Determine what information is missing. Be especially alert for misleading numbers and percentages and for missing comparisons.

[Arnab]

Critical Question #10: What significant information is omitted?

When an author is trying to persuade you of something, he or she often leaves out important information. This information is often useful in assessing the worth of that information. By explicitly looking for omitted information, you can determine whether the author has provided you with enough information top support the reasoning. If she has left out too much information, you cannot accept the information as support for the conclusion. Consequently, you should choose to reject her conclusion.

Omitted information is inevitable for at least five reasons:
a. Time and space limitations
b. Limited attention span
c. Inadequacies in human knowledge.
d. Deception
e. Existence of different perspectives.

However, our focus is on significant omitted information. By that we mean information that would affect whether you should be influenced by a speaker’s arguments or writer’s arguments, that is, information that shapes the reasoning!

Clues for finding Common kinds of Significant Information:
1. Common counterarguments:
a. What reasons would someone who disagrees offer?
b. Are there research studies that contradict the studies presented?
c. Are there missing examples, testimonials, or analogies that support the other side of the argument?
2. Missing Definitions:
a. How would the arguments differ if key terms were defined in other ways?
3. Missing value preferences or perspectives:
a. From what other set of values might one approach this issue?
b. What kinds of arguments would be made by someone approaching the issue from a different set of values?
4. Origins of “facts” alluded to in the argument:
a. Where do the “facts” come from?
b. Are the factual claims supported by competent research or by reliable sources?
5. Details of procedures used for gathering facts:
a. How many people completed the questionnaire?
b. How were the survey questions worded?
6. Alternative techniques for gathering or organizing the evidence:
a. How might the results from an interview study differ from written questionnaire results?
7. Missing or incomplete figures, graphs, tables, or data:
a. Would the figure look different if it included evidence from earlier or later years?
b. Has the author “stretched” the figure to make the differences look larger?
8. Omitted effects, both positive and negative, and both short- and long-term, of what is advocated and what is opposed:
a. Has the argument left out important positive or negative consequences of a proposed action?
b. Do we need to know the impact of the action on any of the following areas: political, social, economic, biological, health, mental, or environmental?
9. Context of quotes and testimonials:
a. Has a quote or testimonial been taken out of context?
10. Benefits accruing to the author from convincing others to follow her advice:
a. Will the author benefit financially if we adopt her proposed policy?

Critical Question #11: What reasonable conclusions are possible?

When you are deciding whether to accept or reject an author’s conclusion, you want to make sure that the author has come to the most reasonable conclusion. An author often oversteps his or her reasoning when he or she comes to a conclusion. By identifying alternative reasonable conclusions, if any, you would be willing to accept in place of the author’s conclusion. This step is the final tool in deciding whether to accept or reject the author’s conclusion.

Very rarely do reasons mean just one thing. After evaluating a set of reasons, you still must decide what conclusion is most consistent with the best reasons in the controversy. To avoid dichotomous thinking in your search for the strongest conclusion, provide alternative contexts for the conclusions through the use of when, where and why questions.

Qualifications for conclusions will move you away from dichotomous thinking. If-clauses provide a technique for expressing these qualifications.

[Arnab]

More Guidelines:

1. Be certain to demonstrate that you really want to grasp what is being said. Ask questions that indicate your willingness to grasp and accept new conclusions.
2. Restate what you heard or read and ask whether your understanding of the argument is consistent with what was written or spoken.
3. Voice your critical arguments as if you are curious. Nothing is more deadly to the effective use of critical thinking than an attitude of “Aha, I caught you asking an error.”
4. Request additional reasons that might enable the person to make a stronger argument tan the one originally provided.
5. Work hard to keep the conversation going. If critical thinking is deployed like a bomb, thinking on that topic is halted.
6. Ask the other permission to allow you to explore any weaknesses in the reasoning. The idea with this strategy is to encourage the other person to examine the argument with you.
7. Convey the impression that you and the other person are collaborators, working toward the same objective --- improved conclusions.

[Arnab]

Distinguishing Argument from Opinion

The expression of personal opinion is one of the most common forms of verbal exchange, and since reasons for our opinions are often not requested, we are unaccustomed to defending them and are even lulled into thinking that reasons are not required. “Everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion,” it is often said. That is true, but the question here is not whether one has the right to express an opinion; it is a question of what opinions deserve our acceptance. If an opinion is not accompanied by reasons in support of it, it is not possible to determine whether it merits our acceptance.

When people criticize an argument by saying of its conclusion by something like, “Well, that’s just his (or her) opinion,” they should be reminded that an opinion expressed as the conclusion of an argument is no longer “just an opinion.” It may not be a very good argument, but it is no longer “just an opinion”; it is just a bad argument. All claims, even those that are conclusions of arguments, are, of course, still opinions. The question is whether they are supported opinions or unsupported ones. An argument is a supported opinion.

[Arnab]

Making Arguments Stronger

1. Find ways to give additional support to weak or questionable premises.
2. Substitute less conroversial premises if they willd o the job required.
3. Add additional or missing premises if needed to give sufficient grounds for concluson.
4. Soften, if necessary, any absolute claims made in the premises in a way that makes them right.
5. Restate premises in their clearest and most economical form.
6. Spell out any implicit premises that have important roles in the argument.
7. Recast the argument in a more orderly form so that it can be followed more easily.
8. Declare which are the weakest points in the argument, not only to demonstrate your objectivity but also to blunt the force of your opponent's counterfire.
9. Clear up any vague or confusing language used.
10. Take out any irrelevant matters that tend to clutter the argument.
11. Introduce as much deductive character to the argument as subject matter will allow.
12. Be as exhaustive in your rebuttal as the context calls for.

[Tintin]

Nah man!
we really need some guidelines

Tiger_man will never repeat that mistake

[mahbubH]

When did you start writing this guideline .. Arnab?