Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The divisive nature of disputed subjects has triggered arguments, since opinions on a given issue differ. These subjects are responsible for a great deal of tension among Wikipedia editors, reflecting the debates of society as a whole. Perspectives on these subjects are affected by the time, place, and culture of the editor.
The subjects of the debate topic, typically a government agency, is not the interlocutor; the debate rounds are not addressed to them. Within the topic of the debate, a group that enacts a certain policy action is the policy group; if by an individual, the individual is the policy leader, such as a head of state.
Apoliticism is apathy or antipathy towards all political affiliations. [1] A person may be described as apolitical if they are uninterested or uninvolved in politics. [2] Being apolitical can also refer to situations in which people take an unbiased position in regard to political matters. [3]
This is a list of recognized content, updated weekly by JL-Bot (talk · contribs) (typically on Saturdays).There is no need to edit the list yourself. If an article is missing from the list, make sure it is tagged (e.g. {{WikiProject Politics}}) or categorized correctly and wait for the next update.
The idea gained attention with the publication of The Anti-Politics Machine by anthropologist James Ferguson in 1990. Ferguson developed a thesis that rural development projects funded by the World Bank and the Canadian International Development Agency in Lesotho increased bureaucratic state power in the country and depoliticised both the state and poverty, causing them to become non-political ...
A political argument is an instance of a logical argument applied to politics. Political arguments are used by academics , media pundits , candidates for political office, and government officials. Political arguments are also used by citizens in ordinary interactions to comment on and understand political events.
In deliberative rhetoric, an argument is made using examples from the past to predict future outcomes in order to illustrate that a given policy or action will either be harmful or beneficial in the future. [2] It differs from deliberative democracy, which is a form of governmental discourse or institution that prioritizes public debate.
Nozick's famous Wilt Chamberlain argument is an attempt to show that patterned principles of just distribution are incompatible with liberty. He asks us to assume that the original distribution in society, D1, is ordered by our choice of patterned principle, for instance Rawls's Difference Principle .