Amended rule 5

[otseng]

Rule 5 has been changed to read:

Support your assertions/arguments with evidence. Do not persist in making a claim without supporting it. All unsupported claims can be challenged for supporting evidence. Opinions require no support, but they should not be considered as valid to any argument, nor will they be considered as legitimate support for any claim.

[ThatGirlAgain]

Rule 5 has been changed to read:

Support your assertions/arguments with evidence. Do not persist in making a claim without supporting it. All unsupported claims can be challenged for supporting evidence. Opinions require no support, but they should not be considered as valid to any argument, nor will they be considered as legitimate support for any claim.

In some cases, especially in the Philosophy sub-forum, the argument may be entirely abstract, using only a few obvious facts about the world (e.g., that it appears to exist) and then proceeeding entirely by logical extrapolation. I do not want to have to cite sources for my original arguments since these sources do not exist. I am not talking about just opinions, which the reader is free to dismiss, but (hopefully) rigorous argumentation. However in the description of evidence it appears that I need to present citations. Can this be clarified, please?

[otseng]

In some cases, especially in the Philosophy sub-forum, the argument may be entirely abstract, using only a few obvious facts about the world (e.g., that it appears to exist) and then proceeeding entirely by logical extrapolation.

Good point. For purely abstract arguments in the philosophy subforum, it doesn't have to comply with this rule.

[ThatGirlAgain]

In some cases, especially in the Philosophy sub-forum, the argument may be entirely abstract, using only a few obvious facts about the world (e.g., that it appears to exist) and then proceeeding entirely by logical extrapolation.

Good point. For purely abstract arguments in the philosophy subforum, it doesn't have to comply with this rule.

Thank you.