I still do not understand why you deleted those arguments. It is normal that there are more studies that contradict each other, but that doesn't mean that the argument as such is invalid. Neither would it be invalid if some authority denied it, because the whole point of debating is looking at both sides all the time and explaining data and statistics, instead of blindly relying on them. Don't you think?
Lenka, 17:46, 30th May 2010
You do not underestand. There is none study contradicting other: "No credible empirical research suggests otherwise. The specific research studies typically cited in this regard do not address parents’ sexual orientation, however, and therefore do not permit any conclusions to be drawn about the consequences of having heterosexual versus nonheterosexual parents, or two parents who are of the same versus different genders." http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/documents/Amer_Psychological_Assn_Amicus_Curiae_Brief.pdf You simply cannot imply results of research on opposite-sex parents to same-sex family, since it is illogical and lead to invalid arguments. --Destinero 01:35, 1 June 2010 (EDT)
Welcome and deletion policy
Hi Destinero and welcome to the community. Yeah, I had to rollback your deletion of the arguments on the Debate: Gay marriage article. It's fine that you disagree with the argument and think that it's invalid, but others think that the argument is valid. You need to flush out your disagreement through a counter-argument that describes why you think the other argument is invalid. In some cases, there are wholly invalid arguments that are entirely factually inaccurate, but this is not one of them, as it is a matter of opinion as to whether biological parents may be better parents. -- Brooks Lindsay (Talk) 12:47, 1 June 2010 (EDT)
- Sorry, this is big misunderstanding. You cannot use arguments like "Children do better when raised by biological parents" since they are based on studies comparing households of heterosexual parents with one parent or none parent and therefore do not permit any conclusions to be drawn about the consequences of having heterosexual versus nonheterosexual parents, or two parents who are of the same versus different genders. 30 years of scientific research is very reliable and conclusive here as can be seen by multiple resolutions of main expert associations and peer-reviewed analyses. And this is the reason why the lies and propaganda of religious and political bodies desinterpreting research have to be removed. --Destinero 16:07, 1 June 2010 (EDT)
Some more comments
Your edits and arguments, though, are generally very good. Don't be turned off by our deletion policies. We hope you'll stick around. We could really use your clearly strong editorial abilities. -- Brooks Lindsay (Talk) 12:57, 1 June 2010 (EDT)
I've reverted your deletion of argument-quotations once again. I don't disagree with your comments, but your employing the wrong tactics here. All arguments and quotations on Debatepedia.org are inherently considered refutable. So, refute them with counter-arguments, as you've done in large part on the section under concern. Don't delete quotations on an argument page and replace them with counter-argument quotations on that argument page. That's not how we display arguments and counter-arguments. And, the two arguments under consideration are not just a matter of scientific study (as these studies will always be imperfect), but of pure subjective opinion (which means they have a place on Debatepedia.org no matter what the 'science'). -- Brooks Lindsay (Talk) 19:03, 1 June 2010 (EDT)
Firstly, you should get familiar of the Debatepedia Editing and Sources and referencing policies. Then you find you can not revert the invalid arguments and clear fallacies (The functioning of children in intact families with heterosexual parents compared to those children raised by a single parent following divorce or death of a spouse without including studies that compare the functioning of children raised by heterosexual couples with the functioning of children raised by same-sex couples. In this group of studies, any differences observed are more accurately attributable to the effects of death or divorce, and/or to the effects of living with a single parent, rather than to parents’ sexual orientation. These studies do not tell us that the children of same-sex parents in an intact relationship fair worse than the children of opposite-sex parents in an intact relationship.) based on unreliable sources (not autoritative, since they are not peer-reviwed; not accurate, since they don't cite relevant sources; questionable, since there is no editorial oversight or fact-checking process or with a poor reputation for fact-checking. They express views that are widely acknowledged as fringe or extremist, are promotional in nature and rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions; self published, since there is any form of fact-checking, legal scrutiny, or peer review) mis-interpreting the findings of psychological research to support their positions.
Debatepedia:Editing_policies#Arguments on Debatepedia must follow the basic rules of argument structure and logical consistency: Sound argument structure: There are some simple rules for constructing a sound argument on Debatepedia. There are various components to an argument. An argument is a statement (premise) or group of statements (premises) offered in support of another statement (conclusion/claim - which should be bolded at the beginning of the argument on Debatepedia). A logically sound argument does contains only premises that directly support the claim or conclusion. An argument should not ramble tangentially to the point, and diverge from the purpose of justifying the central conclusion or claim of the argument. Each particular argument on Debatepedia, therefore, has a uniqueness, and can be separated into individual paragraphs. These argument paragraphs start with the claim/conclusion/summary-of-the-argument "bolded" in the first short sentence. The rest of an argument paragraph is reserved for providing support, warrants, justifications, or evidence for that unique claim/conclusion.
No invalid arguments nor clear fallacies: Debatepedia bans explicitly Invalid arguments. In Formal Logic, an invalid argument is one in which, even if all the premises are true, the argument's conclusion cannot be true. Because there is no value in invalid arguments, they have no place on Debatepedia. In informal logic, an argument may be seen as strong or weak due to certain problems in its structure. These problems are commonly called fallacies. Debatepedia generally encourages editors to improve and strengthen arguments, and eliminate certain basic logical fallacies within them. It is not, however, a policy of Debatepedia that an argument be deleted simply on the basis that it is inherently weak. Debatepedia deems it important that weak and strong arguments alike be visible to the public. Determinations of the eligibility of content on Debatepedia should be made by other Debatepedia policies, such as basic logical soundness and structure, evidence being cited to reliable sources, and anti-repetition policies demanding that unique arguments be separated-out from one another.
While their is no requirement or assurances on Debatepedia that an argument's conclusions are "true", it is required that arguments and their supporting evidence and warrants be based-on and cited to reliable published sources. This ensures that the information provided on Debatepedia is reasonably credible. It also ensures that we can agree by consensus (necessary on a wiki) on what information belongs on the site, as well as what does not. Since we cannot agree on what is necessarily "true" in debates, the next best thing is reliable sources, which we can more easily agree on. In general, most would agree that an argument that cannot muster any supporting evidence from reliable sources is unlikely to be a good or credible argument.
- Indeed, arguments that are unable to muster support from reliable published sources (with citations) are subject to removal from Debatepedia.
Debatepedia:Sources_and_referencing#Evaluating the quality and reliability of reference sources: According to the sixth edition of the MLA Handbook for Writers, Joseph Gibaldi advises: "Not all sources are equally reliable or of equal quality. In reading and evaluating potential sources, you should not assume that something is truthful or trustworthy just because it appears in print or is on the Internet. Some material may be based on incorrect or outdated information or on poor logic, and the author's knowledge or view of the subject may be biased or too limited. Weigh what you read against your own knowledge and intelligence as well as against other treatments of the subject. Focus particularly on the authority, accuracy, and currency of the sources you use" (41).
Following Gibaldi's categories, one should be aware of the following key qualities when evaluating a reference source as reliable:
- Authority: Is the journal, book, or website peer-reviewed? Who is the author(s)? Who are the editor(s)? In the MLA Handbook for Writers, Gibaldi explains: "In peer review, publishers seek the advice of expert readers, or referees, before considering a manuscript for publication" (42-42). Does the source come from a reputable (print or web) publisher or sponsor organization? Or, is it simply information from a self-publisher or a private blog? In general, some level of peer review or peer editing from a respectable institution helps add authority to a reference source. To assess quality websites, check out the source of the site, how field specific the publisher or organization is, and check to see how often their information is checked and updated.
- Accuracy: Just as you should cite works, the works you cite should also cite its own relevant sources. Check to see if the (print or online) text you are researching has a "Works Cited" section, a Bibliography, and/or hypertextual links. Can you access the information the author(s) are citing? Do they come from reputable sources? If so, then you have a quality resource.
- Currency: The publication date of a print or online text are important, as is how often they are updated. Definitions, statistics, and facts change, so, (while this is not always valid) in general, those reference sources that keep up-to-date tend to be regarded as more reliable than older, out-of-date ones.
Debatepedia:Sources_and_referencing#Overview of Debatepedia referencing and citation guidelines: Content on scholarly pages on Debatepedia must be based on and cited to reliable published sources: Just as in Wikipedia, the threshold for inclusion on Debatepedia is not whether an assertion is "true", but whether it is attributable to a reliable published source. "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing writing, the more reliable the publication. Material that is self-published is generally not regarded as reliable."
- Citing primary and secondary sources (preferably secondary):
- Citing primary sources Debatepedia is the same as Wikipedia in this regard. Wikipedia's policy on this is the following: "Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge."
- Citing secondary sources: "Secondary sources are documents or people that summarize, analyze and/or interpret other material, usually primary source material. These are academics, journalists, and other researchers, and the papers and books they produce. Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors."
- Citing questionable or self-published sources (same as Wikipedia):
- Questionable sources: "A questionable source is one with no editorial oversight or fact-checking process or with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as fringe or extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources may only be used in articles about themselves."
- Self published: "A self-published source is material that has been published by the author, or whose publisher is a vanity press, a web-hosting service, or other organization that provides little or no editorial oversight. Personal websites and messages either on USENET or on Internet bulletin boards are considered self-published. With self-published sources, no one stands between the author and publication; the material may not be subject to any form of fact-checking, legal scrutiny, or peer review. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published and then claim to be an expert in a certain field; visiting a stranger's personal website is often the online equivalent of reading an unattributed flyer on a lamp post. For that reason, self-published material is largely not acceptable."
--Destinero 03:04, 2 June 2010 (EDT)