Difference between revisions of "An example of Nonpartisan Treatment of Controversial Issues"
From SaveTheWorld - a project of The Partnership Machine, Inc. (Sponsor: Family Music Center)
(Created page with " The following section shows how a review of all positions on an issue can be divided with subheadings, and how a "Table of Contents" will magically appear in reaction to the...") |
(No difference)
|
Revision as of 03:02, 26 March 2020
The following section shows how a review of all positions on an issue can be divided with subheadings, and how a "Table of Contents" will magically appear in reaction to the headings, with indentation determined by the number of "equals" signs on either side of the headings and subheadings.
Contents
Democrat Website
The separate article Democrat Platform on ___(Issue name) shows what the Democrat national platform (positions on issues) says about ___(Issue name). Below are the parts of it that tell how Democrats want ___(Issue name) law changed, and that tell what facts Democrats believe about ___(Issue name) which justify their positions. Your help is welcome to update this section as the platform is updated; and/or to add information from other Democrat sources.
Democrat goals
(Goal One)
(Goal Two)
(Goal Three)
Democrat beliefs
(Belief One)
(Belief Two)
(Belief Three)
Republican Website
The separate article Republican Platform on ___(Issue name) shows what the Republican national platform (positions on issues) says about ___(Issue name). Below are the parts of it that tell how Democrats want ___(Issue name) law changed, and that tell what facts Republicans believe about ___(Issue name) which justify their positions. Your help is welcome to update this section as the platform is updated; and/or to add information from other Democrat sources.
Republican goals
(Goal One)
(Goal Two)
(Goal Three)
Republican beliefs
(Belief One)
(Belief Two)
(Belief Three)
Comparison
This section is for comparing the legislative goals and beliefs of the political parties on this issue. We will list them side by side without challenging them, yet, so we an isolate where the differences lie, and which facts we need to research. Here we may also make observations about goals stated so generally that we have questions what they would look like, and observations about what facts were not addressed which perhaps should have been. Your contribution is welcome. Sign your contribution with 4 tildes (~~~~). The simplest way to contribute is on the "Discussion" page, which is like a place to leave comments. Or you can clarify something on this page, from fixing typos to adding a paragraph, or a section, or a whole new article. For suggestions how, please see The Forum#Ways you can contribute. For sample verbiage and codes to help you do this, that you can copy, paste, and adapt, see Template.
Comparison of the Specific Goals
(Goal One)
(Goal Two)
(Goal Three)
Comparison of the Specific Beliefs
(Belief One)
(Belief Two)
(Belief Three)
Sorting out the Facts
Here is where we will begin examining the evidence for the various alleged facts, and how the outcome of this examination clarifies which legislative goals are most consistent with reality. Your contribution is welcome. Sign your contribution with 4 tildes (~~~~). The simplest way to contribute is on the "Discussion" page, which is like a place to leave comments. Or you can clarify something on this page, from fixing typos to adding a paragraph, or a section, or a whole new article. For suggestions how, please see The Forum#Ways you can contribute. For sample verbiage and codes to help you do this, that you can copy, paste, and adapt, see Template.
Interaction/Argument
Here we begin interacting with each other, responding to the reasoning and evidence of those who disagree, and acknowledging any agreement. Here is where we practice focusing our scrutiny on the issue, not on each other. Here is where our character is tested, along with our commitment to seek the truth and to acknowledge it when evidence warrants.
In the preceding sections there shouldn’t have been much controversy, but only a hopefully objective comparison of positions. So we could edit each other’s work and our amendments should be seen as friendly, But from here on, we need to be very careful about editing the arguments of others. We can freely add our own arguments, but before we remove others’ contributions we need to be careful not to weaken their argument; the only legitimate reason to edit another’s argument would be to correct spellings, fix grammar, tighten the flow of thought, or remove redundancy (unnecessary words).
Your contribution is welcome. Sign your contribution with 4 tildes (~~~~). The simplest way to contribute is on the "Discussion" page, which is like a place to leave comments. Or you can clarify something on this page, from fixing typos to adding a paragraph, or a section, or a whole new article. For suggestions how, please see The Forum#Ways you can contribute. For sample verbiage and codes to help you do this, that you can copy, paste, and adapt, see Template.
Argument One: XXX
Argument Two: XXX
Argument Three: XXX
===Argument Four: XXX===