The rules are: There are no rules, only methods.

The purpose of debating is to reach conclusions on the point of the debate. The only purpose of a debate method is to keep the debate moving in a progressive (not circular) direction. A conclusion can be either consensus or stalemate. A stalemate is when two or more competing perspectives have reached a point where consensus is impossible to achieve without new information or new methods of debating.

Having said that there are no rules, I have my own set of guidelines that help me (not necessarily us) come to conclusions. The reason why a holistic thinker like myself uses the term "me" instead of "us", is because my first guideline is "everything is relative." Although it may appear that we are getting somewhere, it could just be my perspective or my imagination. The perceived fact that you all exist, could be just my illusion.

I may debate using different modes (methods) depending on which way I think the direction of the discussion is headed or what the goal of the discussion is.

Here are my different modes and their guidelines:

Philosophical Existential: Everything is relative. Perception is everything. Reality is what we make it.

Moralistic: Morals are methods to achieve our purpose in life. Morals are based on beliefs. In order to debate morals, there must be consensus on the belief. The most widely accepted moral belief is the meaning of life as being the continuation of life. From that belief, you can subdivide from the most polarized to the least on the best way to continue life, starting with the definition of life, if there is an afterlife, and if the afterlife is more important than the mortal life.

Political: Politics are methods to achieve consensus. Unlike morals, which assume consensus on what is the purpose, consensus is the purpose of politics. Politics doesn't have to care what is believed or how moralistic the beliefs are. Politics just wants people to believe the same things, and will use any means necessary to get them on the same page, even if it means compromising their morals. The number of people can vary from a majority in a democracy, to a minority in a republic, to a single person in an autocracy. The belief that politics are trying to get everyone to come to consensus on, can range from liberal (open to change), to conservative (less than open to change), to fundamentalist (not open to change).

Artistic: Art is a method of achieving any goal(s) in a system which the rules or guidelines have not yet been fully established. It's up to the artist(s) to make the rules or guidelines to help them achieve those goals. Artistic conclusions are usually considered subjective, but are not always subjective.

Scientific: Science is a method of discovering relative truth by process of elimination or falsification. Science can either be natural or social. Natural science only uses what is considered fact to explain the laws of nature and physics. Social science uses what is widely accepted as fact to explain the laws of social interaction within a widely acceptable degree of predictability. Social science is more complex and controversial than natural science because social dynamics change over periods of time. The mere act of studying social dynamics changes social dynamics.

Logical: There are many ways to study and use logic. But the only two I use are Boolean and Fuzzy. Some of the other methods get into math that I don't understand, but I may accidentally stumble into those domains anyway. It's futile for anyone who understands those methods better to rebuke my attempt instead of correcting my math.

Doctrinal: This is simply explaining what I think the author of the doctrine meant, not necessarily what I believe. It can lead to using all the above methods. But the only reason I will ever start with this method is because the person who I'm debating with is either debating the meaning of that doctrine or has their beliefs grounded in that doctrine.

If it seems to some people on this forum that I'm changing my beliefs, it's either because I've learned something in the process of the debate (and occasionally forget to acknowledge it), or I'm changing my method of debate. If I change my method it's not to trick anyone, change the subject, or avoid concession. I only change methods when I believe others have changed them as well.

My goal on CGCS is always to reach consensus on critical issues that I believe shape politics in this country, whether or not it's consensus on what I would like to believe or have others believe.