First thing first

We all have been in discussions that turn into circular arguments, eventually frustration creeps in, the next thing you know, a dose of argumentum ad hominem "you are an idiot", personal attacks and name-calling degrade, one of the most basic tenets of the human condition, the exchange of ideas. The obvious exception being "yo mama" of course. For the sake of clarity, we will restrict our selves to the subject of intellectual discussions only.

The subject matter and causes of most disagreements are trivial but a few obvious disconnects will prevent us from losing our cool while discussing slightly more hard hitting domains like politics, religion( including secularism) or life choices.

The object of a debate is to convince others that the beliefs or actions of a person or a group (may include the one we belong to) are correct or erroneous. To scrutinize a third party obviously is limiting due to the absence of direct rebuttal. The old, right or wrong holds. Live and let live is fine but we all have to live together. We are not talking about judging someone superficially. The focus is on having an informed opinion about people or group's beliefs and actions.

Because of the casual nature of most discussions, most participant's true positions and identities are not clear at the onset, they are gradually exposed layer by layer as the discussion unfolds. It is important that whenever the target is a group, the positions or at least the participants own affiliation with a group if any be revealed. "I was a member of KKK but I am not a racist". Hunting with the hounds and running with the foxes will not endear you to either.

A few ground rules can, not only make the discussions more productive but also prevent the ugly aspects of most discussions. The hope is to eliminate or minimize what is called informal fallacies.

Before we get into the the ground rules of productive discussions: Determine if the participants believe in the nature and existence of God or not (No I am not kidding) and if all agree on the definition of God: Dictionary definition of God.

If the answer to, does God exists? Is "yes" then most likely a comparative analysis of the various religions should follow and/or other related issues will be taken up within the context of one or more religions.

The acknowledgment of the existence and nature of God should move us on to the next obvious issue, how does God communicate with us. The nature and authenticity of apostles and scriptures, the role of prayers and miracles, will all need to be addressed.

If the group unanimously agree on "there is no God" then it will be a straightforward comparative analysis of the various secular schools of thoughts. The starting point to resolve could be perhaps man's place and status in the universe. "I think there for I am" and "to be or not to be" although poetically very seductive does not resolve much.

The discussion could move on to explore nature and scope of supreme good and the methods and modes of achieving it. The discussion could touch on the human experience, knowledge of laws of life, conditions of existence, intuition and reason, further more the underlying bases of our convictions like happiness, perfection, and duty for the sake of duty will all come into play. Ideally, the supreme good should resolve issues of what is good and evil, right or wrong. The question of where we came from and most important where are we headed. Yes I am leading.

In the event that the participants are unable to agree on the existence or the nature of God, it is highly recommended that the issue be at least broadly settled before proceeding to secondary issues. No thanks, you are on your own.

Luckily, there are issues that can escape the "God" factor up to a point; obviously, these issues are secondary from a philosophical point of view but never the less important to you and me. My favorite color is blue, same as my sport team's uniform. Yes, you can spell color without a "u" and don't even try to get me started on "favorite".

Now let us set some rules of engagements, everybody is requested to check-in your weapons with the coat lady. No kicking, no scratching and no biting.

1. The first issue already touched upon has to do with the participant's positions (belief) or at least their own affiliation with a group if any were revealed. "My name is John/Abdul/Lee/Mary/Kim/Fatima/Ashok/Ann-Marie/Jacob and I am a (n) .........."

 2. The second issue to get in the way of most discussions is the disparity in the level of expertise of the participants. "You don't know what you're talking about". The avoidance of jargons will minimize the impact of the disparity in most cases. While we are on the subject, please avoid Weasel Words and peacock terms. It just takes a little bit longer to spot logical fallacies.

 3. The third aspect is important, that the use of words and their meanings need to shadow the linguistic bias of a particular natural language "This is not a cigarette", unless the subject is Linguistics.

4. The fourth constraint is time. Awareness of the available time for discussion can maximize the chances of a conclusion. This one is related to the following aspect.

5. The fifth aspect, which has a direct bearing on all discussion, is the mode of discussions whether written, online, face-to-face, with a moderator or free for all. "This thread is now closed (moderator)". This one is related to the preceding constraint.

6. The sixth should be the most significant one but we do not live in a perfect world. Research. Discuss well-researched issues only. Ok whenever possible.

7. The Seventh and the last rule have more to do the etiquettes of discussions. Do not attempt to shout down your opponent even if you are faced with blue-in-the-face absurd logic. The antics will dilute a valid point, in Gregory's words "Passion is inversely proportional to the amount of real information available".

Some other issues that have a direct bearing on most discussions have to do with epistemology, plain ignorance and the big one, misinformation. "You are entitled to your own opinion...but you are not entitled to your own facts." The Senator hit the nail on the head. It is almost irrelevant whether you are the perpetrators or the victims of such misinformation. The problem is compounded by the deliberate attempt "fallacy of deliberate division" (you think it will catch on) of individuals and groups to cram the information channels with misinformation "label, demonize, market and attack" and worse, withhold information. "I can't tell you because of National security". An "open source" methodology from the information age seems to be the way forward.

The internet is proving to be both a boon and a bain to our understanding of different subject matters, especially current events. On one hand the aggregation and distribution of information is literally a click or two away, on the other hand telling apart the good info from the bad can be a clicking nightmare.