• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Does posting sources while debating matter?

Do sources truly matter when forum debating?


  • Total voters
    45
I'm getting ready to post my first true argument tomorrow. It has about 20 solid cites. I'm worried, though, because even though I anchored my argument with cites to make it credible, members might ask me to cite every single... sentence. That's impractical.

What should I do? I know those who are ridiculous in their pedantry; because I haven't cited every sentence, I'm worried they'll simply dismiss every point I make.
 
I'm getting ready to post my first true argument tomorrow. It has about 20 solid cites. I'm worried, though, because even though I anchored my argument with cites to make it credible, members might ask me to cite every single... sentence. That's impractical.

What should I do? I know those who are ridiculous in their pedantry; because I haven't cited every sentence, I'm worried they'll simply dismiss every point I make.

Where are you doing this? Give me some context.
 
I'm getting ready to post my first true argument tomorrow. It has about 20 solid cites. I'm worried, though, because even though I anchored my argument with cites to make it credible, members might ask me to cite every single... sentence. That's impractical.

What should I do? I know those who are ridiculous in their pedantry; because I haven't cited every sentence, I'm worried they'll simply dismiss every point I make.

Let me see if I can help and get this point through properly:

Sit down and write a zero draft of your paper, a very quick first draft that, in general, lays out the basic lines of development for your paper. At this point, you’ll just be using your own words; you can come back later to integrate your sources more fully. No doubt, this zero draft will be very rough and incomplete, but it is valuable because it helps ensure that it will be your voice, and not that of your sources, that will take the lead in organizing your essay. Your zero draft will also help you begin to see how your research material can be used in the context of your basic discussion or argument—where it can fit in the context of your paper. (I add these notes - Notice how you want your voice, your reasoning to be front and center)

http://library.rpcc.edu/docs/IntegratingSourcesIntoYourResearchPaperhandout.pdf

You should keep direct quotes to an absolute minimum in any research paper. A research paper is not a string of quotes linked together with brief text by you. If we want to read a bunch of quotes, we'd skip your paper and go to your bibliography to read the material for ourselves. (remember this is your argument and not your sources argument. If all you're doing is saying they said so, we should read them and not you.)
The Research Paper

I would never say don't use sources, as they are often necessary (though some arguements can be made without them). And when there is a factual issue, a source is needed. And sometimes it is good to have someone knowledgable on the issue agree with you. But those sources are less valuable once you understand you can find someone knowledgable to say the exact opposite and any other thing.

But at the end of the day, you will need to have sound reasoning that is yours. You need to reason well and create a sound logical foundation on which to place your support.
 
Let me see if I can help and get this point through properly:

Sit down and write a zero draft of your paper, a very quick first draft that, in general, lays out the basic lines of development for your paper. At this point, you’ll just be using your own words; you can come back later to integrate your sources more fully. No doubt, this zero draft will be very rough and incomplete, but it is valuable because it helps ensure that it will be your voice, and not that of your sources, that will take the lead in organizing your essay. Your zero draft will also help you begin to see how your research material can be used in the context of your basic discussion or argument—where it can fit in the context of your paper. (I add these notes - Notice how you want your voice, your reasoning to be front and center)

http://library.rpcc.edu/docs/IntegratingSourcesIntoYourResearchPaperhandout.pdf

You should keep direct quotes to an absolute minimum in any research paper. A research paper is not a string of quotes linked together with brief text by you. If we want to read a bunch of quotes, we'd skip your paper and go to your bibliography to read the material for ourselves. (remember this is your argument and not your sources argument. If all you're doing is saying they said so, we should read them and not you.)
The Research Paper

I would never say don't use sources, as they are often necessary (though some arguements can be made without them). And when there is a factual issue, a source is needed. And sometimes it is good to have someone knowledgable on the issue agree with you. But those sources are less valuable once you understand you can find someone knowledgable to say the exact opposite and any other thing.

But at the end of the day, you will need to have sound reasoning that is yours. You need to reason well and create a sound logical foundation on which to place your support.

That is true; I've used my own words yet found a few gems of info in certain books---I use their cites.

I have a bit of my own opinion, but then I cite facts. This argument is about guns. I cannot copy/post on this phone, but I have a rough example of a segment and the cite:

(((In 1996, Australian lawmakers passed sweeping legislation banning guns. Their intent was to make Australia a safer country. What they did was make it a soft target for criminals. Within just a few years of the gun ban, homicides were up 3.2% in Australia. Assaults were up 8.6%. Armed robberies climbed nearly 45%! In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides climbed 300%! (18) Does this sound safe to you?)))

(18) (Cite) ---> (In italics) The International Crime Victims Survey, conducted by Leiden University in Holland; Jon Dougherty, "Britain, Australia top U.S. in violent crime," WorldNetDaily.com, March 5, 2001.

I did a ton of argumentative research papers and arguments in college, and they only required 15 proper MLA cites per paper. What really worries me is that despite good structure and anchoring, my argument will be nit-picked apart. If I inadvertently not cite a little blip of data, though I've cited 20+ actual hard-searched sources, then I'd feel that I'm being trolled. College standards are greater than internet forum standards; I don't want to have to cite every blip of data, or worse, general knowledge.
 
Last edited:
That is true; I've used my own words yet found a few gems of info in certain books---I use their cites.

I have a bit of my own opinion, but then I cite facts. This argument is about guns. I cannot copy/post on this phone, but I have a rough example of a segment and the cite:

(((In 1996, Australian lawmakers passed sweeping legislation banning guns. Their intent was to make Australia a safer country. What they did was make it a soft target for criminals. Within just a few years of the gun ban, homicides were up 3.2% in Australia. Assaults were up 8.6%. Armed robberies climbed nearly 45%! In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides climbed 300%! (18) Does this sound safe to you?)))

(18) (Cite) ---> (In italics) The International Crime Victims Survey, conducted by Leiden University in Holland; Jon Dougherty, "Britain, Australia top U.S. in violent crime," WorldNetDaily.com, March 5, 2001.

I did a ton of argumentative research papers and arguments in college, and they only required 15 proper MLA cites per paper. What really worries me is that despite good structure and anchoring, my argument will be nit-picked apart. If I inadvertently not cite a little blip of data, though I've cited 20+ actual hard-searched sources, then I'd feel that I'm being trolled. College standards are greater than internet forum standards; I don't want to have to cite every blip of data, or worse, general knowledge.

Most of that will deal with opinion. To know what I mean, you should look up causal relationship error. Both sides of the issue often make that mistake.

And it will likely be attacked, so know what to expect, plan for their rebuttal (in one for or another, they will likely attack your numbers and seek to show a causal relationship error).
 
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?
I change my answer. I previously said "yes", but now I'm pretty sure it's "no". It turns out that for many posters, dictionaries are horrible sources for definitions of words. The more you know.
 
Unless you are debating something that relies on opinion then sources really don't matter but if one is debating the economy or budget or something where a viewpoint is relying on hard evidence or one is making a claim that someone stated something than I link is needed. I have typically found though when I post a link to support my postion or statements that the person with the opposing viewpoint does typically ignore it and goes on the personal attack rampage. This to me simply shows I am right and they are wrong which is why they have stuped to the level of personal attacks and no longer wanting to debate the topic at hand.
 
Yes sources always matter... Especially in debatiing.

Only partially do they matter, but around here, not so much. People ask you for sources, but it's unlikely they will believe them. Calling what we do around here real debate is kind of funny anyway.
 
Only partially do they matter, but around here, not so much. People ask you for sources, but it's unlikely they will believe them. Calling what we do around here real debate is kind of funny anyway.

all too often, someone will squeal for "proof" and then categorically dismiss any source you link as biased, faulty, unscientific, etc. It's a waste of time.
 
all too often, someone will squeal for "proof" and then categorically dismiss any source you link as biased, faulty, unscientific, etc. It's a waste of time.

Well, usually there is a problem with the osurce. In today's world, you can find someone to say anything on the internet. I had a student once produce a source that said if you lost your arm in an accident, and smoked pot, it would grow back. Shouldn't I question that source? A source, and it happens, can take real numbers and draw wrong conclusions. So, a source isn't magic. They rarely end the debate. So, your ability to reason is simply more important than finding a source.
 
Well, usually there is a problem with the osurce. In today's world, you can find someone to say anything on the internet. I had a student once produce a source that said if you lost your arm in an accident, and smoked pot, it would grow back. Shouldn't I question that source? A source, and it happens, can take real numbers and draw wrong conclusions. So, a source isn't magic. They rarely end the debate. So, your ability to reason is simply more important than finding a source.

yeah, that was kinda my point. and on interwebz debates, it doesn't matter what the source is, your "opponent" is going to dismiss it. That's why the "prove it" retort is so stupid. because no matter what you link, they are not going to accept it as proof. they can't rebutt your arguement, so they ask for proof that they know they will not accept. one of the most lame and dishonest tactics in forumdom
 
Last edited:
yeah, that was kinda my point. and on interwebz debates, it doesn't matter what the source is, your "opponent" is going to dismiss it. That's why the "prove it" retort is so stupid. because no matter what you link, they are not going to accept it as proof. they can't rebutt your arguement, so they ask for proof that they know they will not accept. one of the most lame and dishonest tactics in forumdom

True in some cases, and in some cases, the claim is so far out there that there really isn't anything you can do. Kind of like prove there isn't an Easter Bunny. What can you do with that but laugh? Some of the arguments here are pretty close to being just that silly.
 
Only partially do they matter, but around here, not so much. People ask you for sources, but it's unlikely they will believe them. Calling what we do around here real debate is kind of funny anyway.

So the conclusion is to completely throw in the towel and just say this is all about what you believe because you want to believe it?

No thanks. That is NOT debate.

When somebody makes an allegation of a fact - and they fail to back it up - everyone would insist that the penalty be ridicule and shame. But that never happens because the fellow true believers look the other way and pretend it did not happen.

Honestly people, there are some of the leading posters here who would not get pass day one in an actual college debate situation.
 
Last edited:
When somebody makes an allegation of a fact - and they fail to back it up - everyone would insist that the penalty be ridicule and shame. But that never happens because the fellow true believers look the other way and pretend it did not happen.

Honestly people, there are some of the leading posters here who would not get pass day one in an actual college debate situation.


I could claim that roses are red and link a picture of me standing in a freakin rose garden holding a dozen long stemmed red roses and there are posters here who would claim it was photoshopped. or they would quibble that not "ALL" roses are red.
 
all too often, someone will squeal for "proof" and then categorically dismiss any source you link as biased, faulty, unscientific, etc. It's a waste of time.

or they post stuff that doesn't prove their claims

for example saying the rich own X amount of the WEALTH and posting a graph of that and then whining that the RICH do not pay their FAIR SHARE of the INCOME tax.

Or claiming that European crime statistics prove that gun bans would make America SAFER while ignoring the fact that areas of the USA with the most strict gun laws often have the highest rates of gun crime
 
I could claim that roses are red and link a picture of me standing in a freakin rose garden holding a dozen long stemmed red roses and there are posters here who would claim it was photoshopped. or they would quibble that not "ALL" roses are red.

Which has what to do with my words that you posted preceding your ..... your ..... your whatever it was you posted and I have no idea what it has to do with anything because I have never seen an incident like the one your describe.

Did something like that actually happen?

Oscar ....... tell me.... tell us ....... why is it permissible in debate for anyone to make an assertion or allegation of historical fact and fail to support it with actual historical evidence?

that is what we see here over and over and over again in thread after thread after thread on topic after topic after topic. And then some people even brag about their not having any evidewnce to back up their sources claiming they do simply not cotton to providing any verifiable evidence for their pompous pontifications.

That is not debate and anyone who thinks it is knows nothing about debate.

We should have two sections on this board... the first for actual debate with the normal procedures of debate including supporting your claims with verifiable sources. The second would be a WHAT I BELIEVE BECAUSE I WANT TO BELIEVE IT section. In it, faith would reign supreme and you would never have to support anything.
 
Which has what to do with my words that you posted preceding your ..... your ..... your whatever it was you posted and I have no idea what it has to do with anything because I have never seen an incident like the one your describe.

Did something like that actually happen?

Oscar ....... tell me.... tell us ....... why is it permissible in debate for anyone to make an assertion or allegation of historical fact and fail to support it with actual historical evidence?

that is what we see here over and over and over again in thread after thread after thread on topic after topic after topic. And then some people even brag about their not having any evidewnce to back up their sources claiming they do simply not cotton to providing any verifiable evidence for their pompous pontifications.

That is not debate and anyone who thinks it is knows nothing about debate.

We should have two sections on this board... the first for actual debate with the normal procedures of debate including supporting your claims with verifiable sources. The second would be a WHAT I BELIEVE BECAUSE I WANT TO BELIEVE IT section. In it, faith would reign supreme and you would never have to support anything.

so who gets to decide what is or is not a "verifiable" source? that's the problem, neither side of the arguement is willing to accept any source that disagrees with their side as "verifiable" or "reputable" or "credible"
 
So... it'd be wise to gather a lot of sources on paper? Perhaps, for swift convenience, large and well-constructed arguments could by typed up on a Microsoft document... and then be copied and pasted? I think it'd be a more advantageous way of debating to have a massive and relevant argument already typed up and ready to post.

A lot of us have have had such files for a long time.
 
A lot of us have have had such files for a long time.

Interesting...

I just finished my first Word Document argument today. The fun part is that now I can repost it or massive segments elsewhere to spread my highly credible and substantial argument across the subforums. Then, I can add to it and, with more research and comments from other members, make it bigger and better. Hopefully, I'll add in counter-arguments to bolster it also. It's almost becoming a hobby to me, this debating business.
 
A lot of us have have had such files for a long time.

yeah its a common tactic of some. however, it means little. that really is not "debating" but more like brief writing in a legal contest. its not oral argument, its competing memoranda of law
 
so who gets to decide what is or is not a "verifiable" source? that's the problem, neither side of the arguement is willing to accept any source that disagrees with their side as "verifiable" or "reputable" or "credible"

Look - this is simple. If you make the statement that Democrats are behind the progressive income tax to keep themselves in power, that is an allegation of fact. You should be able to
1) show from the historical record who it was that actually championed the progressive income tax
2) show from the historical record who it was that actually provided most of the votes to pass the progressive income tax
3) show from the historical record who has supported budget after budget the progressive income tax

This is not freakin rocket science.

Recently, I got sick and tired of a few posters claiming that it was Democrats who were responsible for the infamous group of 47% of people who pay no federal income tax. We heard this over and over and over again in thread after thread after thread every time the subject was raised by right wing posters. I got fed up and looked up who exactly was responsible.

The answer: Republican President George Bush and his two 2001 and 2003 tax cuts created that situation. And who in Congress supported Bush and provided the YES votes for those cuts and the situation where 47% pay no federal income tax? Answer: 91% of the YES votes on those two bills were provided by REPUBLICANS.

So I posted that information with links for support.

Does that stop the exact same people from keeping on making the same ridiculous accusations against Democrats and own up to their own party and their responsibility?

You get three guesses to answer that and the first two don't have to count.

Like I said - is outright pathetic when some here openly brag that they don't use evidence and are only here to pontificate and spout off using their own beliefs as the end all of everything. They would not last one day in actual debate.
 
I don't recall anyone blaming the dems for that fact-we merely noted that the dems are the ones who push for higher taxes on the rich and benefit the most from lots of voters who aren't given proper feedback about the cost of government
 
I don't recall anyone blaming the dems for that fact-we merely noted that the dems are the ones who push for higher taxes on the rich and benefit the most from lots of voters who aren't given proper feedback about the cost of government

Turtle - lets be frank and truthful here.... you blame the democrats for just about everything this side of hell for almost everything except bad weather .... and I probably just missed those posts. (thats a joke) Almost every time you complained bout the hated 47% that you targeted for your bile, you blamed the Democrats for their policies.

And now you are committing another basic sin that we are discussing here.......... for a time beyond count or reckoning, you make the allegation that the Democrats benefit from voters from voters who are not given proper feedback about the cost of government.... and you do it without one shred of evidence or substantiation of any kind!!!!!!

So how about it Turtle. This would be a good time to begin backing up your statements of alleged fact with data and actual verifiable evidence.
 
Back
Top Bottom