Politics & Argument Guide

[MoonlightSonata]

You can hide this advertisement by registering.

Politics & Argument Guide

Contents:

1. Introduction

2. Fallacies of Argument
• Suppressed assumptions
• Begging the question
• Attacking the straw person
• Appeals to ignorance
• Shifting the burden of proof
• Appeal to authority
• Appeal to majority
• Appeal to tradition
• Ad hominem
• Tu quoque (claim of hypocrisy)
• More fallacies

3. Background to Australian Politics
• Overview of Australian government
• Australian political parties
• Placeholder
• Glossary
• Useful links

4. News Sources
• Major news sources
• Partisan news sources
• Opinion articles

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Introduction

Purpose
The purpose of this guide is to provide a source of information for those wanting to explore either more about Australian politics or those wanting to improve their skills of argument. Further this guide will hopefully come to contain an extensive list of references to news and political sources, such as newspapers, articles, etc.

Importantly, for those new to the world of Australian politics, this guide will provide valuable background information so that new members may participate with a better grounding in terms and concepts, enabling contribution to discussion in a fruitful manner.

Development
The guide will be shaped through ongoing development. Please feel free to contribute information, news sources or other useful additions. Obviously it is in the nature of politics that people will form different opinions on various issues, however I am certain that neutrality will not be a problem. Thanks to everyone who contributed.

The argument section is a nicely structured version of some of my old first year philosophy notes, but they are exceedingly useful.

[Back to contents]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Fallacies

A fallacy is a common type of error or weakness in an argument. In a fallacious argument the inference to the conclusion is no longer justified. Hence, when we are assessing arguments, we ought to be on the lookout for fallacies.

Consider this argumentative exchange:

Argument: As a scientist, I think astrology ought to be rejected, because the predictions it makes are so vague as to be unverifiable, and because astrologers themselves have no adequate explanation of how the stars influence our lives.

Counterargument: Astrology should not be banned! People have no reason to criticise astrology, because we ought not criticise beliefs that make people happy. Just as we accept people of different religious backgrounds, we should accept the claims made by astrology. Astrology addresses human life in a holistic and spiritual way, leading us towards an empathetic oneness with the universe. Since ancient times, astrologers have taught us that the movements of heavenly bodies influence our character and our lives, and many millions of people around the world agree with them. How could so many people be wrong? As Athena Starwoman says, “The stars are our guide.” Since the stars are our guide, we would be crazy to ignore them. Critics ask for an explanation of how astrology works, but really it is up to the critics of astrology to show that astrological claims are false. Those of us with an open and spiritual nature can see that they are true. The narrow-minded and pompous scientist who attacked astrology probably only did so because she gets her funding from international drug companies, which lose money whenever people turn to alternative therapies and natural wisdom. I bet that she reads the stars in Woman’s Day anyway!

The counterargument is terrible, but we need to be able to say in detail why it is terrible. By learning to recognise a range of specific fallacies we will improve our ability to assess and criticise arguments, including our own arguments.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

• Suppressed assumptions

A suppressed assumption or suppressed premise is a premise that has not been stated explicitly in the argument. If this premise which has been left out is controversial, or not likely to be believed by the whole audience of the argument, then this suppressed assumption makes the argument fallacious. On the other hand, if a suppressed assumption is not controversial, but rather is common knowledge, the argument is not fallacious. For example:

The biggest city in Australia ought to host the Olympics.
Therefore, it was right that Sydney hosted the Olympics.

The suppressed assumption in the above argument is that Sydney is the biggest city in Australia – not at all controversial, certainly common knowledge, and hence the argument is not fallacious.

We ought to do what God commands.
Therefore, we ought never to take the life of any person.

The suppressed assumptions in the above argument are that God exists and makes commands, and that God demands that we never take the life of any person. Both are controversial, and the second is controversial even when you think that the first is true. Thus, the argument is fallacious. It contains a fallacious suppression of premises, or a fallacious suppressed assumption.

[Back to contents]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

• Begging the question

An argument begs the question if it assumes in the premises what it is supposed to prove in the conclusion. Such arguments seem circular – they are designed to give us a reason to believe the conclusion, but they require us to assume the truth of the conclusion in accepting the premises.

Often the question begging premise of an argument is suppressed – after all, if it were right out in the open, people would see that the argument was circular. For example:

We all agree that we ought not take a person's life except in self defence.
Abortion does not occur out of self defence.
Therefore, abortion is wrong.

The suppressed premise is that an embryo/foetus is a person. But this is precisely what is at issue in most disputes over abortion – whether an embryo/foetus counts as a person, and hence has the rights of a person. Hence, this suppressed premise is question-begging. (Of course, this does not show that the conclusion is false. It just shows that this argument is not useful.)

[Back to contents]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

• Attacking the straw person

Another common fallacy occurs in counterarguments – that of attacking a straw person. The counterarguer commits the straw person fallacy if she argues against a claim that was not asserted in or implied by the original argument. While the counterargument might well be effective against that claim, if the claim was not made in the original argument, the counterargument attacks an imaginary opponent – a straw person rather than a real person. For example:

David: You ought to be very careful if you encounter a funnel web spider, because they are highly venomous and aggressive.

Pauline: Spiders are not dangerous! My friend has a pet tarantula, and it is really gentle.

Pauline puts forward a good argument against the generalisation "All spiders are dangerous", but that was not a claim made by David, nor a claim implied by his argument. Pauline has not given us any reason to think that funnel webs are not aggressive and dangerous. David’s response should be "But I didn’t say that!"

Note that, if there is a contentious suppressed premise in the original argument, it is good for the counterarguer to attack that premise. In such a case it might look as if the counterarguer is committing a straw person fallacy, because she attacks a claim that was not made explicitly in the original argument. But since the claim was implicit in the original argument, it is an appropriate target. e.g. The abortion example above. No straw person fallacy has been committed. For example:

Paul: Our ancestors, the white invaders, were responsible for many Aboriginal deaths. Therefore current white Australians should apologise to Aborigines.

John: As Paul notes, the white invaders are not literally the same people as current white Australians – they are our ancestors. Yet it is inappropriate to apologise for actions that we ourselves did not perform.

John's response is not a straw person fallacy, because, even though Paul did not state it explicitly, his argument does contain the suppressed premise that current white Australians are related to white invaders in such a way that it is appropriate for us to apologise for their actions. Paul's response should not be "But I didn't say that!", because in fact his argument implied it. Paul’s response should be "Here's why it is appropriate to bear responsibility for the actions of our ancestors..."

When and why do straw person fallacies occur? Often, straw person fallacies occur when the counterargument exaggerates the claims made in the original argument. You see this routinely in political exchanges, and in letters pages of newspapers. For example:

Letter 1: Tourists should be warned against swimming at Australian ocean beaches, because they are at high risk of drowning.

Letter 2: If you prohibit tourists from swimming, they won’t come here anymore. There goes the economy.

Note that letter 1 did not claim that tourists should be prohibited from swimming everywhere in Australia, just warned against swimming at ocean beaches. Why did the writer of letter 2 fall into the mistake of a straw person fallacy? Because by exaggerating your opponents claims, they are easier to dismiss. Thus, straw person fallacies often occur in disputes in which people have deeply entrenched opinions, where people have already made up their minds, and are unwilling to give serious consideration to alternative views.

[Back to contents]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

• Appeals to ignorance

Another, quite subtle, fallacy is that of an appeal to ignorance. An appeal to ignorance is a fallacious assumption that because we do not have evidence that p, we should believe that not p. The basic form of the argument is:

We have no good evidence that p.
Therefore, not p.

Arguments of this form are not always fallacious, but sometimes they are. When are they fallacious? When, even if p were true, we would not expect to have clear evidence that p is true.


Fallacious Appeal to Ignorance:

We have no good evidence that p.
Even if p were true, there would not be good evidence that p.
Therefore, not p.

When we spell it out as above, we can see why an appeal to ignorance can be fallacious. For example: "There are no reliable records indicating that aliens have visited Earth, and hence no records that aliens exist. Therefore, aliens do not exist."

This argument is fallacious, because it is quite possible that aliens do exist, and have not visited earth because space is so vast. Hence, even if p is true, we would not expect to have clear evidence that p. Lack of evidence that p does not constitute strong grounds for claiming that p is false. But note - nor does it give us grounds for saying p is true.

[Back to contents]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

• Shifting the Burden of Proof

In many cases, appeals to ignorance can be made by people on either side of a dispute. For example:

There is no evidence that aliens are living amongst us. Therefore, aliens are not living amongst us.

There is no evidence that super-disguised aliens are not living amongst us. Therefore, super-disguised aliens are living amongst us.

Which one of these arguments will win out? That depends on where we think the burden of proof lies. The person who argues for the more surprising, counter-intuitive claim carries the burden of proof. It is up to him/her to show that she has evidence for p being true.

Someone who produces a new medicine similarly bears the burden of proof, i.e. that person is obliged to show that the medicine is effective. It is not the case that we ought to believe that the new medicine is effective unless we have found evidence that it is ineffective.

When the proponent of an argument claims that it is not up to her to prove her conclusion, but up to her opponent to disprove it, the proponent is attempting to shift the burden of proof. Shifting the burden of proof may count as fallacious when the burden clearly cannot be shifted.

e.g. "I believe that I am the King of the world, and, unless you can prove that I am not, you are obliged to obey me!".

e.g. "I believe that you are an alien in very convincing disguise, and I should believe that unless you can prove to me you are not".

The question of where lies the burden of proof is often very difficult. Note that sometimes we explicitly adopt conventions about the burden of proof, e.g. By law you are presumed innocent until proven guilty, in cricket we give the batsman the benefit of the doubt. What should we do in everyday life, and in science?

When it is not clear where the burden of proof lies, it might be best to withhold judgment, i.e. refuse to hold the belief that p and refuse to hold the belief that not p. This is probably best with the question of the existence of aliens somewhere else in the universe. In contrast, the burden of proof lies clearly with those who think that there are aliens amongst us, and they haven’t provided that evidence, so we ought not believe that aliens live amongst us.

[Back to contents]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

• Appeal to authority

Some arguments suggest that we ought to believe p because another person or source of information said p is true, and that person or source is especially reliable. These are arguments which appeal to authority. For example:

• The Gregory’s says City Rd becomes King St, so City Rd does become King St.

• You ought to freeze the garment and scratch it off – that’s what my Mum does to remove chewing gum.

• Albert Einstein says we only use 10% of our brains, so that must be true.

• My English lecturer say Shelley is the greatest English poet, so he must be better than Keats.

• The Archbishop says embryonic stem cell research is immoral, so we shouldn’t permit it.

Such arguments will be strong if:

- The "authority" in question really is an authority.
- The authority is speaking on her area of expertise.
- That area admits of authoritative judgments.

However, if any one of these conditions is not met, an appeal to authority is fallacious.

The Gregory's street directory is a good authority on street names, and the field of street names does admit of authoritative judgments, so the first argument is not fallacious.

My Mum is not a great authority on stain removal, but she does have some knowledge, so the second argument is ok, but not great.

Albert Einstein is an authority, but not in neuroscience, so he is speaking outside of his area of expertise. Also, he has been dead for a while, in which time things might have changed in neuroscience. Therefore, the argument is fallacious.

My English lecturer is speaking within her field off expertise, but judgments of taste in poetry cannot be held as authoritative – there simply is no settled agreement amongst the experts as to who is the greatest poet. Therefore, the argument is fallacious. (Interestingly, in such a case, you yourself would have to read both Keats and Shelly to be licensed to conclude that one is better than the other. We don't allow aesthetic judgments to be passed down by authority. If we report the view of an expert, we say "Apparently Shelley is better than Keats", or "Apparently the exhibition is wonderful".)

The Archbishop is considered an authority, including a moral authority, by many people, but not by all. Thus an appeal to the Archbishop will be considered fallacious by everyone outside of that Church. (Can you hold a moral belief purely based on authority? For example, can you think "Incest is morally wrong, because the priest/Bible says so, but I must confess I cannot understand why it is wrong"?)

[Back to contents]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

• Appeal to majority

An argument which claims that p is true because most people believe it to be so commits an appeal to the majority. As opposed to appeals to authority, it is hard to find instances in which an appeal to the majority is not fallacious. The fact that most people believe p does not imply that p actually is true, nor that they have reason to believe it true – the minority could be correct. e.g. Belief that the Earth is still, belief that the stars influence your personality so that you share characteristics with an animal, belief that detaining asylum seekers is morally right, etc.

If it is true that the majority believe p, then hopefully they have a good reason to believe p. In your argument you should cite that reason, not the fact that the majority believe p. e.g. We, along with the huge majority of people, ought to think that drink driving is dangerous, because scientific studies have shown a great fall in the number of accidents since the introduction of RBT.

If you are arguing against the majority view, though, it can be very useful to give an explanation of why the majority have got it wrong. e.g. the majority are ignorant, or the majority are biased, or the majority have been misled. Obviously, more specific explanations are more plausible – the claim that "The mob think p because they are stupid" is not particularly convincing, nor useful in arguments with members of the aforementioned mob.

[Back to contents]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

• Appeal to tradition

An argument makes an appeal to tradition when it claims a belief or practice should continue because that belief or practice has a long history. If there is no reason to suppose that the belief or practice is mistaken, harmful, etc., then an appeal to tradition need not be fallacious. After all, traditions can be valuable as traditions.

e.g. We ought to give each other presents because it’s Christmas, and this is what we do at Christmas.

Also note that some appeals to traditions will be backed up by a defence of the tradition. This is very different from a pure appeal to tradition.

e.g. We ought to hold people innocent until proven guilty because that’s the way we do things in our legal system. And we should do things that way, because it protects civil liberties.

Appeal to tradition alone can be fallacious if there are good reasons why this tradition is no longer appropriate. e.g. Slavery, oppression of women. The fact that oppressive practices have continued for long periods do not make those practices legitimate or tolerable.

[Back to contents]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

• Ad hominem

A very common set of fallacies involve attacking one’s opponent instead of the argument put forward by one’s opponent. This practice is particularly widespread in public life and politics, but also in bureaucracies.

The name for this fallacy is ad hominem, (Latin for “to the person”). In an ad hominem argument an author/speaker attacks her opponent, rather than her opponent’s argument, and concludes that the conclusion of her opponent’s argument ought not be believed. For example:

Protester: You ought not cut down that forest, because doing so will destroy the remaining habitat of several endangered species!

Politician: You filthy ignorant hippie, you’re only saying that because you’ve smoked so much pot your brain has turned to mush.

But also:

Politician: We ought to cut down this forest because doing so will provide jobs and revenue, and we can always replant later.

Protester: You are a greedy capitalist pig who stands to profit from this logging, so your argument is crazy.

A ad hominem argument is usually fallacious, as, in most circumstances, criticisms of the opponent are irrelevant to the strength of the opponent’s argument. Someone who is greedy and ignorant can put forward a good argument, and if the argument itself is weak, then you should be able to say how it is weak with out attacking your opponent.

There are two standard forms of ad hominem argument:

An abusive ad hominem fallacy is an attack on the character and/or abilities of the person putting forward the original argument, leading to a rejection of her original conclusion. Sometimes abuse is appropriate, but it is not part of rational argument.

e.g. "You are an ignorant fool!" Maybe so, but is the argument that I put forward any good?

A circumstantial ad hominem counterargument suggests that the original arguer ought not be believed not because of her character and abilities, but because of her circumstances. Often circumstantial ad hominem arguments are accusations of bias or vested interests. If a person’s circumstances, such as her profession, employer, partner, or race, are irrelevant to the strength of the argument she puts forward, then the circumstantial ad hominem is a fallacy. For example:

Of course you support the Liberal party – you're rich! Therefore, your argument in support of Liberal party policy is not good.

Bob can't be trusted because he is a criminal, convicted of fraud. Therefore don’t trust Bob's argument.

Of course you'd defend him, you’re his wife.

Often circumstantial ad hominem arguments are directed at researchers or scientists who are employed by corporations, or by government bodies with vested interests. For example:

Don’t believe his study which "shows" that the global warming is negligible – the study was funded by the petroleum industry. He is living off petro-dollars!

The implication is that, since this scientist makes money from people who want to keep selling petrol, he will be biased and his argument cannot be trusted. But, if you think that the above circumstantial ad hominem is legitimate (non-fallacious), consider the analogous case:

"Don’t believe her study which “shows” that global warming is a huge threat – the study was funded by environmental organizations which make money from donations made by people who are scared of catastrophe. She is living off dono-dollars!"

In both of the examples above, a circumstantial ad hominem has been committed, and I think that both arguments are fallacious. The fact that someone has a vested interest in convincing people of a particular conclusion should not make us reject his or her argument. Instead, we should look at the argument itself. If the argument is not to be trusted, surely there are signs in the argument itself, e.g. it is deductively invalid, or it is inductively weak, or it does not consider all possible explanations, or it confuses correlation with causation, etc.

However, there are some special cases in which assessments of the arguer’s capacity, character and circumstances are important tools for assessing the argument itself. These are cases in which, for some reason, you are unable to assess the argument (or all of the details of the argument) itself. This occurs when:

You have not seen the argument. e.g. You read in the paper that someone has done a study which reached conclusion p, but no details of the study are given.

You lack the expertise to understand the argument. e.g. A scientist argues that GM crops will be safe, but you know nothing about genetics, nor about ecosystems, etc.

In cases like these, the character and circumstances of the arguer might be all that you have to go on. Of course, if possible, you could try to see the argument in detail, or try to gain the expertise required, but sometimes this is impractical. Limitations such as these lead to situations in which people decide who to vote for on the basis of who looks trustworthy rather than on policy, and people deciding what to believe on the basis of suspicion of being manipulated by the powerful.

[Back to contents]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

• Tu quoque (claim of hypocrisy)

A final fallacy (perhaps a version of an ad hominem) with an interesting Latin name – tu quoque. "Tu quoque" is Lain for "you also". A tu quoque argument is one in which the counterarguer accuses the arguer of hypocrisy, and hence rejects the original argument. For example:

Dad: You should not smoke, because it’s bad for your health and cigarettes cost a fortune.

Daughter: But you smoke! Your argument must be no good.

Why is tu quoque a fallacy? Because the argument could be good even though the arguer fails to act in accordance with its conclusion. "Do as I say, not as I do" is frustrating, but legitimate advice in many cases. The fact that the arguer is a hypocrite shows that there is something wrong with the arguer, not necessarily with the argument.

[Back to contents]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

• More fallacies

More fallacies can be found on Wikipedia.

[Back to contents]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Background to Australian Politics

• Overview of Australian government

Yet to be added.

[Back to contents]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

• Australian political parties

Party websites:
http://www.liberal.org.au/
http://www.alp.org.au/
http://www.nationals.org.au/
http://www.democrats.org.au/
http://www.greens.org.au/


The following link contains a list that 'is consistent with the Parliamentary Library's role as a provider of information and in no way indicates an endorsement of particular web sites or organisations. Only political parties with websites are listed. Please consult the Australian Electoral Commission for a complete list of registered parties.'

http://www.aph.gov.au/library/intguide/pol/polparti.htm

[Back to contents]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

• Placeholder

Yet to be added.

[Back to contents]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

• Glossary

Yet to be added.

[Back to contents]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

• Useful links

• AustralianPolitics.com - great background to Australian politics.

[Back to contents]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. News Sources

• Major news sources

Australian newspapers
• Sydney Morning Herald
• The Australian
• The Age

Major/cross-media news organisations
• ABC News
• BBC

World news sources
• Reuters

[Back to contents]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

• Partisan news sources

Kevin07

[Back to contents]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

• Opinion articles

OnlineOpinion.com.au

[Back to contents]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This guide is constantly being added to.

[absolution*]

Sorry. Is this telling us how to debate?

[MoonlightSonata]

Originally Posted by absolution*

Sorry. Is this telling us how to debate?

No. It is a background to politics guide for those interested. It also contains a list of logical and argumentative fallacies of which all members, including myself, would do well to keep in mind.

[absolution*]

*crawls back into corner*

[absolution*]

Originally Posted by Asquithian

Which takes me to David Hawker. I saw him in action a few days ago in parliament. He is a shocker. Honestly he is the most bias speaker I have ever seen.

He's such a dumb weak little man. Perfect choice really.

[PwarYuex]

This is right out of a first year 'Logic and Reason' textbook, but what the hell

[MoonlightSonata]

Originally Posted by PwarYuex

This is right out of a first year 'Logic and Reason' textbook, but what the hell

I spared everyone deductive reasoning stuff though

[Rorix]

Originally Posted by MoonlightSonata

No. It is a background to politics guide for those interested. It also contains a list of logical and argumentative fallacies of which all members, including myself, would do well to keep in mind.

You only say that because you are an arts student! You live off argu-dollars$$$$!

[Iron]

Didn't really capture the shifty eyes, shakey voice and tortured conscience

[Xayma]

Is attacking terrible typing attacking the argument or their arguer? If so is retyping it with the corrections bolded implying that you don't take them or their argument seriously?

[Rafy]

ahhh yeah i think i saw that asqy. Was that shown on friday afternoon on the ABC? (During the parliamentary broadcast?)

[Comrade nathan]

Reminds me of this. http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/s....html#question

[Rafy]

Originally Posted by Asquithian

Yeah...I didn't think he handled it pretty well. That aint verbatim but its reasonable close.

Yeah i just saw a repeat of it.

Its on Page 71 of Wednesday's Hansard. http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/reps/dailys/dr170805.pdf

The member for wakefield added "and are there any alternative policies" to the end of his question when he restated it. (Which of course opened up the question to allow Abbott to attack Labors alternative view)

Perhaps we should just have an independant speaker...

The SPEAKER—In response to the Chief Opposition
Whip, I say that the chair had great difficulty in
hearing the question.
Ms Gillard—On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I accept
you may not have heard and that the minister may
not have heard. I heard and I have got no objection to
the question being restated in identical terms, but certainly
I would have an objection to it being changed.
So if it is identically repeated that will not be a problem.
The SPEAKER—I am pleased that the Manager of
Opposition Business has very good hearing, but, in
order to assist some other members in this chamber, I
would ask the member for Wakefield to restate his
question.
Mr FAWCETT—Thank you, Mr Speaker. My
question is addressed to the Minister for Health and
Ageing. How is the government helping older Australians
through Strengthening Medicare, and are there
any alternative policies?
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER—Order! The member for Wakefield
has not completed his question. Member for
Grayndler, do you have a point of order?
Mr Albanese—I do, Mr Speaker. The member for
Wakefield has repeated his question and he added one
word: ‘and’. What we cannot have, Mr Speaker—
The SPEAKER—There is no point of order.
Mr Albanese—Mr Speaker, on the point of order:
we cannot have a situation whereby members can ask a
question, the minister being asked the question can
suggest a change to that member and then the member
is allowed to add to the question. That is unacceptable.
The SPEAKER—If the member for Grayndler
would just show a little bit of patience, we might actually
hear the question. I am still waiting to hear it.
Mr FAWCETT—Thank you, Mr Speaker. My
question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing, who
I am sure has very good hearing.

[Generator]

A few slabs of text that may be of use -

http://www.liberal.org.au/
http://www.alp.org.au/
http://www.nationals.org.au/
http://www.democrats.org.au/
http://www.greens.org.au/


The following link contains a list that 'is consistent with the Parliamentary Library's role as a provider of information and in no way indicates an endorsement of particular web sites or organisations. Only political parties with websites are listed. Please consult the Australian Electoral Commission for a complete list of registered parties.'
http://www.aph.gov.au/library/intguide/pol/polparti.htm

Just a suggestion, but I think that another subsection should be added to the section providing news links: Major/Cross media news organisations (ABC, BBC, for example). Breaking up each section in order to create 'Australian' and 'World' lists may be a good idea, too.

www.smh.com.au
www.theage.com.au
http://www.news.com.au/newspapers (The Australian being the stable's national broadsheet)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/

etc.

[volition]

I don't know if this really belongs here or not, but I find it interesting anyway: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/
Maybe it can go under 'opinion articles'

Mod edit: added.