Does posting sources while debating matter?

Dittohead not! said:

Here's a twist on that one:

Give a man a fish, and he will have dinner.

Teach a man to fish, and he will be late for dinner.

Anyone who likes to fish will understand that one.

And his wife will understand it even better.

Click to expand...

I take my wife with me. She is getting better. She has cought a big walleye in our river.
Note in China and here the fish may not last a life time if people don't change their behavior.

Wake said:

I think it's a fair question. Based on my years debating, whenever a user posts sources, the other users are usually never persuaded. It may persuade a few viewers, but typically, if you watch closely, you'll discern a general pattern when a source is posted. It's either ignored entirely, questioned, or countered with another source until both users get frustrated.

I'm currently amassing a written notebook of multiple credible sources, organized by issues(general arguments and counters are listed as well).

Basically, is it worth it if it virtually never persuades the opponent?

Click to expand...

Depends on the source, your audience and your opponent. You are entirely correct that there are some people who will never be swayed by any evidence. There are plenty of them right here. Even worse is when their own source refutes them and they refuse to acknowledge that. We see that from time to time. Kind of a sad reflection upon our education system, but that's neither here nor there.

But I think you discount the fact that there are people reading the debate. Posting a solid piece of evidence that your opponent cannot refute casts serious doubt in the eyes of the audience. You cannot reason someone out of a position they did not reason themselves in to, but you can reason the audience into rejecting your opponent's position.

In my experience, I'm kind of a jack*** to specific people because I know they won't ever learn. Nor will they ever take the time to actually read pieces of evidence. I needle them quite a bit to get the audience to see that not only are they entirely incapable of addressing my points, but that that completely ignore the evidence. I have an incredibly annoying tactic of constantly citing evidence that refutes my opponent giving them stark unpleasant choices of being dishonest, a coward or unable to read and comprehend English as to why they are deliberately running away from it. Plus making people angry generally causes them to make mistakes. And mistakes are opportunities.

Reasonable opponents will address your links if the links themselves are reasonable, (aka, no World Net Daily/Move On crap) or concede their point as was weak. One should always cite if possible. And provide the actual link back to original source material. A few people have been caught either plagiarism or doctoring source documents when someone googled their original citation. Something about the anonymity of the internet causes major dishonesty.

many people post citations to supposed facts that really have nothing to do with the opinion they try to push. For example those who want to ban guns constantly claim the USA has a higher rate of gun violence than some nations that ban guns. That has absolutely no use in supporting the claim that gun bans in the USA would decrease violence. Same with those who claim that because the richest 5% have become richer that justifies more taxes on the rich. You can post sources all you want but they only have any use if they actually support your conclusion.

believed by your opponents or not, is not what counts.

having the honesty & courage to back-up one's assertions with actual evidence that has been put together by someone other than yourself, and hopefully by an expert on the subject matter, is what counts.

its about having integrity. its about having respect for the debate.

OhIsee.Then said:

I take my wife with me. She is getting better. She has cought a big walleye in our river.
Note in China and here the fish may not last a life time if people don't change their behavior.

Click to expand...

That is an unfortunate truth.

Catch and release, conserve water, protect rivers and lakes!

Wake said:

I think it's a fair question. Based on my years debating, whenever a user posts sources, the other users are usually never persuaded. It may persuade a few viewers, but typically, if you watch closely, you'll discern a general pattern when a source is posted. It's either ignored entirely, questioned, or countered with another source until both users get frustrated.

I'm currently amassing a written notebook of multiple credible sources, organized by issues(general arguments and counters are listed as well).

Basically, is it worth it if it virtually never persuades the opponent?

Click to expand...

As others have said, yes and no. It is good to know what you're talking about, but only things that are a question of fact can be settled completely by a source. If all one had to do was look up a source, and the debate would be ended, there would be no reason for debate. In todays world, we can find a source that says anything, and we see that here. But sources mean far less in the debate, nearly any debate, than logic. They are good to have, to back up your point, showing that someone in the know agrees, but that is largely all it is. Nearly anyone can find a decent source to say exactly the opposite on many topics.

Unfortunately, some members here feel that they are soooo smart, sooo important, and sooo beyond fault, that they don't need to post evidence for their claims.

Ever.

And someone who doubts their claims, especially cause they refuse to post evidence? Well, those folks are just jealous & ignorant.

You see, the problem is that humans evolved to believe what we were told to believe. It is a survival mechanism. At one time, people were burned at the stake for heresy, after all. Before that, it was dangerous to say that Leader Og did not actually speak for the Sun God. The less gullible have been weeded out of the gene pool.

So, we are programmed to believe what we want to believe regardless of facts and logic.

OhIsee.Then said:

I take my wife with me. She is getting better. She has cought a big walleye in our river.
Note in China and here the fish may not last a life time if people don't change their behavior.

Click to expand...

aren't our rivers getting cleaner? I remember what the situation was in Cleveland when I was a HS kid-the river would catch on fire. The ohio river is far better now. Drunks who fall into that river die of drowning. 30 years ago it was poisoning that killed them!

Thunder said:

Unfortunately, some members here feel that they are soooo smart, sooo important, and sooo beyond fault, that they don't need to post evidence for their claims.

Ever.

And someone who doubts their claims, especially cause they refuse to post evidence? Well, those folks are just jealous & ignorant.

Click to expand...

There are also those who post links with no idea what they actually say. :coffeepap

TurtleDude said:

aren't our rivers getting cleaner? I remember what the situation was in Cleveland when I was a HS kid-the river would catch on fire. The ohio river is far better now. Drunks who fall into that river die of drowning. 30 years ago it was poisoning that killed them!

Click to expand...

really, what's this got to do with the OP?

Boo Radley said:

There are also those who post links with no idea what they actually say. :coffeepap

Click to expand...

can't stand those people.

one should have the integrity to read the links they post, before posting them.

If you want people to take you seriously then you better post sources.. Otherwise you will seem be seen as being full of it..

Dittohead not! said:

You see, the problem is that humans evolved to believe what we were told to believe. It is a survival mechanism. At one time, people were burned at the stake for heresy, after all. Before that, it was dangerous to say that Leader Og did not actually speak for the Sun God. The less gullible have been weeded out of the gene pool.

So, we are programmed to believe what we want to believe regardless of facts and logic.

Click to expand...

It might be a distinct survival mechanism or part of a larger one. But, is being taught to not be a believer employing the same survival mechanism. I don’t know if my lack of beliefs were taught or genetic. For a normal intellect do beliefs take less work? I think so. The fewer beliefs you have the more often you’re required to figure something out.

This is a bit off topic, sorrry. Maybe it needs a new thread.

DemonMyst said:

If you want people to take you seriously then you better post sources.. Otherwise you will seem be seen as being full of it..

Click to expand...

hear hear!!!

There are very good reasons why web sites aren't acceptable as sources for academic papers, and the same applies now. In any case, the web is so extensive people can easily Google up a topic before they post whatever it is they want to post these days, so it's just a lame attempt at gamesmanship to demand 'links'. It mattered in the early days of BBS's and message boards, but the sources were actual books and magazines, and people actually read them.

I don't ask for them, and if somebody posts something I disagree with, I'll post a source backing up why I disagree, if I think it would matter, or would be informative to others who aren't participating.

I like Wikipedia, especially well footnoted articles, but I don't consider it a 'source'; quoting some sentence or paragraph from a site pretty much requires a link to satisfy copyright laws, but that doesn't mean the poster has to defend the entire article or defend the entire site, so claiming such sites as Worldnet Daily or MoveOn 'aren't valid sources' is of course nonsense; it depends on the author and the info, not who owns the site or whether or not you personally like it or not, so you're back full circle, exactly where circular reasoning leads you, and in fact where all 'logic' leads, since it is all ultimately circular reasoning, as a function of definitions.

Debates rarely change the opposing side anyway. Not posting sources would make debating itself pointless.

Sources should mainly used to support facts. I don't always cite sources for everything, but if someone ask me, then I will provide the sources.

However, I hate people who always ask for sources. If I provide some data, don't go "give me your sources" every single time. Don't be lazy and check if my numbers are correct or not. What's even worse are the people who ask for sources for nonfacts.

I don't think one should necessarily be required attribute every statement, outright, but when citing arcane or technical information, or making assertions of a controversial nature, one is obligated to be able to substantiate them, if asked.

Redress said:

Sources are very important. If you cannot source your claims, then they are absolutely unaccepted. If you source your claims, then others have to counter your sources or accept them. While countering sources is the most common thing to happen(usually poorly done), it does happen surprisingly often that when providing sources, the other person is forced to concede the point.

A person unwilling to provide sources, they are doing a poor job of debating.

Click to expand...

I agree - the issue though is more about disputing facts, not disputing opinion - though I rather think many opinions are based not on fact but strictly on ideology. If that's the case, then you can source yourself to death with as many valid facts and it won't make a difference. If you're having a discussion or argument based on opinion - I usually ask what is that opinion based on. Sometimes that opinion is based on biased ideology - therefore again, facts make no difference.

I kind of had an issue with this just today. The thread as about "prayer". Something was said about prayer giving the person who is praying the "warm and fuzzies", much in the same way a hug does. I made a statement that it does, agreed with that. someone asked me to post a source that stated where it shows it does. Now the actual stuff I had read about it was about three years ago and I have no clue even where it was from or what... but I tried to look for it, couldnt find what i was looking for. Now does that make my statement any less true for me???? no. Does it make the other posters statement inaccurate... no as well. Especially when you can go online and take anything and find multiple sources that say totally different things. I think the only things that a source really lends true credibility to are things like.... If i make a statement that so and so said this. I can post a link to where he or she said it and in what context. that is helpful.

Wake said:

I think it's a fair question. Based on my years debating, whenever a user posts sources, the other users are usually never persuaded. It may persuade a few viewers, but typically, if you watch closely, you'll discern a general pattern when a source is posted. It's either ignored entirely, questioned, or countered with another source until both users get frustrated.

I'm currently amassing a written notebook of multiple credible sources, organized by issues(general arguments and counters are listed as well).

Basically, is it worth it if it virtually never persuades the opponent?

Click to expand...

Depends entirely on the subject matter and whether the person is stating an opinion or not. It also depends on lots of other things that just isn't worth repeating the majority of here. Though one example would be commonality. IE whether what they state is considered, or could be considered, common knowledge.

Kal'Stang said:

Depends entirely on the subject matter and whether the person is stating an opinion or not. It also depends on lots of other things that just isn't worth repeating the majority of here. Though one example would be commonality. IE whether what they state is considered, or could be considered, common knowledge.

Click to expand...

You raise a good point. Common knowledge.

What exactly passes as common knowledge, politically?

I've had instances when I state something that's pretty much common knowledge---such as most liberals mocked Bush---and others demand I cite it.

Wake said:

I think it's a fair question. Based on my years debating, whenever a user posts sources, the other users are usually never persuaded. It may persuade a few viewers, but typically, if you watch closely, you'll discern a general pattern when a source is posted. It's either ignored entirely, questioned, or countered with another source until both users get frustrated.

I'm currently amassing a written notebook of multiple credible sources, organized by issues(general arguments and counters are listed as well).

Basically, is it worth it if it virtually never persuades the opponent?

Click to expand...

It depends on the quality of the source. But if its a good source and the other guy balks, its their problem, not yours.

posting sources, unless its about clearly obvious things like the color of the sky, the date of America's birth, the first President of the USA, the chemical composition of water......deserves a source.

folks who think they are above posting sources, tend to be arrogant and uninformed.

not posting sources, reflects very poorly upon their arguments and their views.