• 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
Wake

Wake

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
18,536
Reaction score
2,438
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
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?
 
Last edited:
Yes and no. It is going to persuade your opponent? Probably not. They usually won't even look at it.

But it may persuade a lurking fence-sitting. I've seen that happen more than once. So in my mind it's still worth doing.
 
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...

On some subjects (say neoconservatism) what I do is write from my knowledge of it, and try to incorporate much of the written material one is likely to come across-but without necessarily picking specific texts, specific passages, or where you would find them. I have generally come to the conclusion that people would not bother going to a library or purchase the said texts, have a general minor curiosity in the manner, so I do my best to just alter them away from, say, the Wikipedia entry, or far worse, BBC documentaries floating on the net.
 
Last edited:
Yes sources always matter... Especially in debatiing.
 
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's not gonna matter to the opponent, because most people in their stubborness will never admit when they are wrong.
 
Depends on the debate issue. In some, it can be very effective, in others, it doesn't matter so much. And, I do not believe the purpose of debate is to convince your opponent anyway. I always see debate as having 4 purposes:

1) Present your position as clearly, completely, and as well as possible.
2) Demonstrate that your opponent's position is as poor and invalid as possible.
3) Make sure that inaccurate information is shown to be nonsense.
4) Sway those who are undecided towards your side.

Changing your opponents mind is never a goal for me, and is, for the most part, an unattainable goal.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Depends on the debate issue. In some, it can be very effective, in others, it doesn't matter so much. And, I do not believe the purpose of debate is to convince your opponent anyway. I always see debate as having 4 purposes:

1) Present your position as clearly, completely, and as well as possible.
2) Demonstrate that your opponent's position is as poor and invalid as possible.
3) Make sure that inaccurate information is shown to be nonsense.
4) Sway those who are undecided towards your side.

Changing your opponents mind is never a goal for me, and is, for the most part, an unattainable goal.
Click to expand...

That was informative and well-put; those goals will definitely be used. Thank you.

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.

Basically, I want to become a very experienced debater, and now it seems it's worth the effort to create a conceptual warchest.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Yes sources always matter... Especially in debatiing.
Click to expand...

Last I checked, the national system for highschool debate competitions had Lincoln-Douglas and Team-Debate. Lincoln-Douglas is a discussion of ethics, morals and philosophy; things like 'right to privacy', 'free speech' and other topics not likely to be as strongly supported by citations as by reasoning; a Lincoln-Douglas debater (solo) would bring perhaps a couple magazines (US News, Newsweek, etc). Team-Debate (remember, this was before computers) was two people who argued as a team about hard issues with stats and legal reference; they carried 2-5 suitcases of reference material to the debate competition.

I find that citations are only necessary when the other person claims that I have no idea what I'm talking about, or if my 'opponent' has no idea what they are talking about. Perhaps your extreme stance, TheDemSocialist, is such that you are constantly in the position of being accused of having no idea or believing that your 'opponent' has no idea.
 
Last edited:
Wake said:
Basically, I want to become a very experienced debater, and now it seems it's worth the effort to create a conceptual warchest.
Click to expand...

As a social conservative, you will be best off just mindlessly repeating talking points or posting junk science from discredited sources and claiming they are just as viable as any other source.

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.
Click to expand...

That is called flooding. That is a tactic for amateur debaters. If you had a decent argument then you could sum it up in just a few sentences and would only need a few sources of supporting documentation. Flooding indicates that you know your argument is weak so you intend to tire your opponent out by having them refute dozens of weak arguments and sources that you have amassed together.
 
Wake said:
That was informative and well-put; those goals will definitely be used. Thank you.

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.

Basically, I want to become a very experienced debater, and now it seems it's worth the effort to create a conceptual warchest.
Click to expand...

I have a host of bookmarks linking to sources... all filed under different topics. Over the years, I've become familiar enough with the information that I can paraphrase and use it without always sourcing it, but it's there if I need it. It's good to have lots of sources at your disposal, but it is better to have read those sources completely and understand then, so you can use the information more fluidly.
 
CriticalThought said:
As a social conservative, you will be best off just mindlessly repeating talking points or posting junk science from discredited sources and claiming they are just as viable as any other source.
Click to expand...

Moderator's Warning:
Stop. No reason for this.
 
ecofarm said:
Last I checked, the national system for highschool debate competitions had Lincoln-Douglas and Team-Debate. Lincoln-Douglas is a discussion of ethics, morals and philosophy; things like 'right to privacy', 'free speech' and other topics not likely to be as strongly supported by citations as by reasoning; a Lincoln-Douglas debater (solo) would bring perhaps a couple magazines (US News, Newsweek, etc). Team-Debate (remember, this was before computers) was two people who argued as a team about hard issues with stats and legal reference; they carried 2-5 suitcases of reference material to the debate competition.
Click to expand...

I find that citations are only necessary when the other person claims that I have no idea what I'm talking about, or if my 'opponent' has no idea what they are talking about.
Click to expand...
I agree...

Perhaps your extreme stance, TheDemSocialist, is such that you are constantly in the position of being accused of having no idea or believing that your 'opponent' has no idea.
Click to expand...
Like when?
When talking about what socialism is?
When people ask me to cite a source i do.
When i cite sources i do..
Can you provide a more specific example with this?
 
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.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
I agree...


Like when?
When talking about what socialism is?
When people ask me to cite a source i do.
When i cite sources i do..
Can you provide a more specific example with this?
Click to expand...

My statement is not so personal. I meant that people in extreme positions might often be accused of not knowing what they are talking about, and people in extreme positions might also commonly presume that others have no clue (regarding there own position or where you are coming from). Thus, citations become of paramount importance. When two people can see each other's position, citations become less important. It's like, if two people are out of 'punting range', then citations may become important so that there is at least some communication - but it's not the best form of communication, as an opponent so far away is likely to take it as a shallow attempt to discredit instead of a desperate attempt to reach.


ps. Feel free to use PM, it seems stuff in visitors messeges does not delete completely and I'd rather that not get cluttered.
 
Last edited:
I think it depends. I dont really "debate" to change anyones mind about anything, people are going to think what they think. I mostly post here to learn. To find out what others think, give my opinion and talk about stuff. For me, I dont really feel the need to post sources for these reasons:

1. if you do post a source, someone who disagrees is always going to say... oh thats not a credible source.
2. no matter what you post, there is always something else out there that someone else posts that says the opposite of what you are trying to say. In other words you can find a source for pretty much anything and everything you want to post that will support your point of view. (how many charts and graphs have we seen reguarding how much of our govt money actually goes to ssi and medicare and what cuts would do for us....)
3. I dont really want to know all of the time what..this source or that source thinks... I want to know what my fellow DPers think and feel.
 
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...

IMO if you make a factual claim and are asked to cite your source it certainly strengthens your argument to do so, so long as your source is credible. To some though, no source is credible; Not even the New England Journal of Medicine. Do not waste your time on these people.

However, the failure to properly present an arguments reasoning then stating "Read this and you'll understand I am right" is NOT the same thing. This is a debate forum and I don't have to do my opponents work for them. Also it is presumptuous to assume that 1. Your source is correct and 2. I would agree with whatever I read. Cite a source when ASKED where you got your claim/fact/statistic from, not so that you don't have to actually engage in a debate over the nuances of the issue.
 
Last edited:
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. Most political argument is just advocacy nonsense, anybody can play, and real facts are obscure or entirely non-existent, since it's ideologically driven. Now, anybody can be a Two Minute Google Scholar on any topic whatsoever, which also renders actual discussion impossible in most threads; most are here to push agendas, not engage in real debate or discussion.

Demanding 'links' is just another bogus delaying tactic; if you think somebody is a liar, and there are lots of them these days, why are you attempting to have a rational debate with them in the first place? It's more than pointless.
 
Not every thread is a debate as such. If it is, in which two or more members are sure that they're right and the other guy is wrong, then no number of links, no overwhelming fact, will convince either that they are wrong. Of course, there will be others reading for whom the link will add valuable information.

If it is a discussion, give and take, then a credible source can add a lot to the thread.

There is a lot of information on the web. Some of it is even true.
 
People are too stupid to filter through all the information that our age brings. For example, I participated on a thread about Fox News claiming that scientists have to alter their data in order to serve their agenda. They cited that scientists were adding .3 mm of water to their results, not really caring about the responses the scientists had in explaining their actions. And so the ignorant people that they were, started spewing out that scientists have to fake data in order to get the results that they want.

But if people could actually do sixth grade math, they would come to the conclusion that they were adding less than a trillionth of a percent of volume.

This is evidence of what I said earlier. Our system creates people that are uneducated but they think they are educated. It strengthens the position of power that our government has, because the people are too dumb to discover their true actions. The whole time, the dumb ass populace think they know what they are talking about.

So no, it doesn't matter. People are too dumb.
 
sookster said:
People are too stupid to filter through all the information that our age brings. For example, I participated on a thread about Fox News claiming that scientists have to alter their data in order to serve their agenda. They cited that scientists were adding .3 mm of water to their results, not really caring about the responses the scientists had in explaining their actions. And so the ignorant people that they were, started spewing out that scientists have to fake data in order to get the results that they want.

But if people could actually do sixth grade math, they would come to the conclusion that they were adding less than a trillionth of a percent of volume.

This is evidence of what I said earlier. Our system creates people that are uneducated but they think they are educated. It strengthens the position of power that our government has, because the people are too dumb to discover their true actions. The whole time, the dumb ass populace think they know what they are talking about.

So no, it doesn't matter. People are too dumb.
Click to expand...

He who knows not, and knows that he knows not, is a child. Teach him.

He who knows, and knows not that he knows , is asleep. Wake him.

He who knows not, and knows not that he knows not, is a fool. Shun him.

He who knows, and knows that he knows, is wise. Follow him.

I think you're describing people in that third category.

You can usually tell who they are, as they are the most sure that everyone else is wrong, and the loudest about their opinion.
 
I really liked that.

I have an old Chinese proverb that is sort of like in the same theme.

Give a man a fish for the night, you give him dinner. Teach a man on how to fish, and you give him dinner for a lifetime.

Figured you might like that.
 
Wake said:
Do sources truly matter when forum debating?
Click to expand...

Only if you wish your response to be considered credible. :sun
 
sookster said:
I really liked that.

I have an old Chinese proverb that is sort of like in the same theme.

Give a man a fish for the night, you give him dinner. Teach a man on how to fish, and you give him dinner for a lifetime.

Figured you might like that.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...

I love reading sources, info and links - even when I'm not involved in the exchange. There have been countless times where I've used that link or info for another means altogether - nothing wrong with spreading knowledge.
 
Sources matter. I often go to the sources that are posted. Sometimes I get direct information that I was missing. Other times, e.g. when a source was sighted to show Obama’s spending the source was one on debt not spending. So I got to disabuse the poster of his misconception. A couple of times I’ve had to apologize since my source was incorrect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom