Forum Resources Online

[zusammen]

The Foundations of Value (http://www.friesian.com/foundatn.htm)

If you wish to justify your beliefs, you give reasons for them. You say that you believe proposition Z because of reason Y.

-----

Constructing a Logical Argument (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html)

There's a lot of debate on the net. Unfortunately, much of it is of very low quality. The aim of this document is to explain the basics of logical reasoning, and hopefully improve the overall quality of debate.

-----

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (http://plato.stanford.edu/contents.html#z)

alphabetically organized philosophy terms and authors

-----

CIA World Factbook Notes and Definitions (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/docs/notesanddefs.html)

politically relevant term definitions; also descriptions of various government systems in the world

-----

Assembling A List of Works Cited (http://library.duke.edu/research/citing/workscited/index.html)

how to format references to published information from available media

-----

Schools of Thought (http://homepage.newschool.edu/het/thought.htm)

political economy, neoclassical, alternative, thematic

[skeptical]

I highly recommend this one too:

-----

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (http://plato.stanford.edu/contents.html#z) alphabetically organized philosophy terms and authors

-----

Arguing and debating on the internet is very tiresome and (from what I've experienced) seldom all that productive in accomplishing the desired ends.

It's much more fun to share knowledge than it is to argue over it.

[Manifest Destiny]

I use Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition:

http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/

[zusammen]

I like to share my insight and analysis but I tend to make assertions; statements of belief without including a path of reasoning derived from first principles. I hope to adhere to a rigorous standard than what we witness in other discussion groups. This will help to alienate the intellectual morons and the emotionally defective.

[Hunter Wallace]

I highly recommend this one too:



Arguing and debating on the internet is very tiresome and (from what I've experienced) seldom all that productive in accomplishing the desired ends.

It's much more fun to share knowledge than it is to argue over it.

You can learn a lot arguing on the internet, but I wouldn't advise it. Over the years, I learned how to instantly spot all sorts of logical fallacies and rhetorical tricks.

Christopher Lasch once compared the republican conception of education to the bureaucratic system we have in place today. People learn more from interacting with their peers and practicing the art of reasoning than they do from sitting in a classroom and taking notes all day. That's very true.

[Hunter Wallace]

I like to share my insight and analysis but I tend to make assertions; statements of belief without including a path of reasoning derived from first principles.

I'm the same way. People often have difficulty understanding my reasoning because I work most of it out in my head, not online.

I hope to adhere to a rigorous standard than what we witness in other discussion groups. This will help to alienate the intellectual morons and the emotionally defective.They can always browse.