• 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 blame the dems for pandering to people who don't pay taxes by telling them that the rich need to pay more taxes and the rich don't pay enough taxes or their "fair share" of taxes.

Can you deny that its the dems who mainly claim the rich need to pay more?
 
TurtleDude said:
I blame the dems for pandering to people who don't pay taxes by telling them that the rich need to pay more taxes and the rich don't pay enough taxes or their "fair share" of taxes.

Can you deny that its the dems who mainly claim the rich need to pay more?
Click to expand...

Why don't you blame the Republicans who actually created the situation where the 47% you demonize for not paying federal taxes?

I do not deny that the calls for the rich to pay more come from the Democrats. I am sure that is one reason you despise and hate them since keeping more of your money is a major goal for you. But why is not some of your vitriol extended to the party who created the 47% who do not pay federal income taxes when it is that reality that seems to irk you as much ad Dems advocating higher taxes on the wealthy?

That is what I do not get and truthfully see as either you giving your boys a free pass that they do not deserve or its simply outright political hypocrisy in that you rant and rail and complain loudly about the 47% but have made a decision to absolve the Republicans from the blame for them.
 
I said the worst thing bush did was to drop all those people off of the tax Roles. Of course that is how he got enough votes to get the tax cuts for those who do pay too much
 
It is true, sources have countless good uses, and bad uses.

The best is when you post a source, and your own source was falsified by the source itself, or the media, etc. It both starts, and loses the debate all in one post!

The worst is the death by paperwork. When someone unloads 5050 pages of source material and claims you have to read it to refute their post, it's not even a debate, it's a forfeit by any other name.
 
It really depends. If it's a point of fact, sources can be invaluable. If somone says Detroit is 50% smaller than it was 20 years ago, posting a source for the numbers would be useful. On the other hand, if someone is posting an opinion and they post a source that says Ann Coulter or Michael Moore agree with them, that would fall into the realm of totally worthless.

I was discussing extraterrestrials with my children and my daughter said she knew they existed and had visited earth because of a story she'd read in the newspaper. The newspaper was the National Enquirer.

When some people don't have a logical argument they start demanding sources and no matter what you give it doesn't meet their high standards. Baloney.
 
TurtleDude said:
I said the worst thing bush did was to drop all those people off of the tax Roles. Of course that is how he got enough votes to get the tax cuts for those who do pay too much
Click to expand...

And was that a worthy bargain in your opinion? Was it an acceptable price to pay to cut taxes on the wealthy?
 
When some people don't have a logical argument they start demanding sources and no matter what you give it doesn't meet their high standards.
Click to expand...

Indeed. It's impossible to have a real discussion with ideologues, anyway; they aren't interested in that in the first place.

If you can't agree on what is fact and what is fiction, there is no 'debate' or whatever you want to call it on an issue. Just enjoy the humor and entertainment offered up.
 
Oberon said:
Indeed. It's impossible to have a real discussion with ideologues, anyway; they aren't interested in that in the first place.

If you can't agree on what is fact and what is fiction, there is no 'debate' or whatever you want to call it on an issue. Just enjoy the humor and entertainment offered up.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree. Whenever someone says, "It's common knowledge...," or "Everyone knows...." what follows is usually nonsense. If you are going to make an assertion such as "research shows" then I think a citation is incumbent.
 
what I hate is when you give an opinion and then some douchebag wets themself and squeals for you to prove it.
 
OscarB63 said:
what I hate is when you give an opinion and then some douchebag wets themself and squeals for you to prove it.
Click to expand...

Me? I hate it when some DB doesn't understand your soruce, or worse yet, his own.


:coffeepap
 
OscarB63 said:
what I hate is when you give an opinion and then some douchebag wets themself and squeals for you to prove it.
Click to expand...

Perhaps the fault lies in the douchebag offering the 'opinion' disguised in the Halloween costume as an allegation of fact?
 
haymarket said:
And was that a worthy bargain in your opinion? Was it an acceptable price to pay to cut taxes on the wealthy?
Click to expand...


hard to say. the rich were paying way too much of their income in taxes
but those who don't pay taxes have no reason to keep government spending down

Bush ran on-among other things-cutting taxes. His big mistake was increasing spending

we have way too much government. And until government proves it can go on a diet no one should even think about raising taxes-especially on those who still pay too much

using the tax system as a sword against all the perceived unfairness in society is a really bad idea
 
Turtle - obviously you can form any opinion you want to and it certainly is not unusual for all of us to carefully pick and choose from the plate as to what we will eat and what we will reject. However, for two humble two cents, it is more than a bit hypocritical for anyone to accept the tax cuts for the rich and rail against the 47% at the same time when they are intelligent enough to know how the entire bargain was crafted in the first place.
 
haymarket said:
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.
Click to expand...

What happens on these forums is not typically really "debate" anyway. It's more of a discussion, sometimes an argument, now and again a rant, sometimes a display of abject ignorance, but hardly ever is it really a debate in which there is a "winner" and a "loser."
 
Patrickt said:
I tend to agree. Whenever someone says, "It's common knowledge...," or "Everyone knows...." what follows is usually nonsense. If you are going to make an assertion such as "research shows" then I think a citation is incumbent.
Click to expand...

Called the assuming things not settled fallacy. ;)
 
Wake said:
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.
Click to expand...

I admire you passion.

I confess, when I started doing it, it was simply because I was tired of re-typing the same old well sourced arguments for new debaters who were just going to ignore everything you say anyway.

I would post a pre-made post in good faith, and how they react to it tells me everything I need to know about what to expect from them in the future.
 
I'm pretty sure cites don't matter that much, as evidenced in that gun debate thread; it was an experiment directly related to this issue.

From now on I'm not using cites, unless I have to prove an event did indeed happen. I'm returning to my general philosophical discussion.
 
Last edited:
Wake said:
I'm pretty sure cites don't matter that much, as evidenced in that gun debate thread; it was an experiment directly related to this issue.

From now on I'm not using cites, unless I have to prove an event did indeed happen. From now on I'm returning to my general philosophical discussion.
Click to expand...

It wasn't that your sources didn't matter, it was how you used them and how you interpreted them. I try to explain this earlier.
 
Wake said:
I'm pretty sure cites don't matter that much, as evidenced in that gun debate thread; it was an experiment directly related to this issue.

From now on I'm not using cites, unless I have to prove an event did indeed happen. I'm returning to my general philosophical discussion.
Click to expand...

Well, to offer friendly, well intended criticism: you didn't source a damn thing you said. I for one didn't read it simply for that reason. If you don't post sources, the generally whatever you say can be easily dismissed as it has no force of authority.

I saw like 4 OPs and said '**** that', and left the thread. To many words and no source material. Even if I agree with your position, I can't take your side because your argument was to easily defeated.
 
Last edited:
OscarB63 said:
what I hate is when you give an opinion and then some douchebag wets themself and squeals for you to prove it.
Click to expand...

And/or when they read into your post a whole mess of **** that never crossed your mind, let alone said, and then demand that you prove those claims which you ever made.

It's all just trolling. This site is 99% trolling.
 
Wake said:
I'm pretty sure cites don't matter that much, as evidenced in that gun debate thread; it was an experiment directly related to this issue.

From now on I'm not using cites, unless I have to prove an event did indeed happen. I'm returning to my general philosophical discussion.
Click to expand...

Hey Wakey, did anyone the stuff you cited?
 
Sometimes sources matter, sometimes they don't.

I find in general that there is an increasing trend toward outright ignoring expertise of professionals because there is a growing sentiment against science and academia, for some reason. In many cases, you can quote a million experts but it won't make a difference to someone. Climate change is one example of this problem.

Sources matter to me because they come from people who have dedicated their lives to the subject, as opposed to people who transiently debate a subject for 20 minutes and then move on with their lives. They also help to bring in an outsider perspective if two people are deadlocked.

However, I mainly only trust peer reviewed sources, or official sources that confirm what happened in a story. There is a lot of bias out there and blatant lying. You have to be careful.
 
Temporal said:
Sometimes sources matter, sometimes they don't.

I find in general that there is an increasing trend toward outright ignoring expertise of professionals because there is a growing sentiment against science and academia, for some reason. In many cases, you can quote a million experts but it won't make a difference to someone. Climate change is one example of this problem.

Sources matter to me because they come from people who have dedicated their lives to the subject, as opposed to people who transiently debate a subject for 20 minutes and then move on with their lives. They also help to bring in an outsider perspective if two people are deadlocked.

However, I mainly only trust peer reviewed sources, or official sources that confirm what happened in a story. There is a lot of bias out there and blatant lying. You have to be careful.
Click to expand...

I agree on the climate change topic, too. People who have subscribed to the global warming religion fanatically adhere to it despite the world of direct counter evidence like Young-Earth Creationists do to their religious beliefs. There is no convincing these people through fact that global warming is a non-issue because their religious beliefs are not based on facts to begin with.
 
If we're just sitting around having a light-handed discussion, I wouldn't expect sources. However, the moment you cross your arms, stomp your foot and demand one of me, expect to have to source your every syllable from that point forward.
 
I'm going to post a third thread on this issue. I don't believe cites are that useful, and "Guns are Good" experiment showed it. However, now I'm told certain cites are worth more than others. I want to know which sources are the most credible. I'm also told Mr. Valentine's sources in his argument didn't matter.

I do believe his argument was good.

Now I want to know what qualifies as "so credible that it cannot be denied". IF I'm going to use cites that are credible, I want them to be credible enough so as not to be blown off and utterly disregarded. Once I create my own argument with credible resources, I don't want it to be for nothing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom