• 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 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.

I think the reverse is true, but I note your insistence on having to have factual sources in another thread, but want to go against the facts, against the overwhelming majority, regardless of the facts on this issue. And yet, you claim those who have the facts, the overwhelming support of the scientific community are theones treating it like a relgion. Do you not see the contradiction? The problem with debates on a site like this?
 
That's all you ever need to post. That sums up everything you have to say.

It is important to think. I recomend it if you're up to it. But you should read further in that post and try to answer the point, if you can I mean.


:coffeepap
 
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.

There is a difference between science and generalities. That is one reason not to trust "experts". I can't stand supposed experts that say "this is the facts" when it comes to generalities. One size does not always fit all. For example the raising of kids. One "expert" will tell you that you shouldn't spank your kids when they misbehave in a way that is a danger to themselves and/or others. That you should just give them a "time out" in thier bedrooms...where all thier toys are. :roll: Others will stand by it.

The reason that I don't trust climatologists is for the simple fact that that particular science is 1: in its infancy..only a few decades old is young compared to predicting climate change on a global scale vs the actual climate change that has been going on for millions of years that included hot and cold climates beyond what we see today. 2: predicting climate change on a global scale is so full of variables that it has got to be among the most difficult things to do on this Earth. If not impossible. It only takes one missed or unnecessarily added variable to completely change the outcome of a model. And humans are fallible. While I know climatology cannot be measured and based on a specific area I still liken it to the weather man. If he can only be right half the time then why is it that climatologists think that they are so right as to cry that the Earth is ending based on weather/temp predictions on a global scale?

Anyways another reason to not always trust "experts" is because they are often wrong...alot. It use to be that when someone wanted to study something they wouldn't dare publish something unless they had had it peer reviewed by neutral parties first. Now things are published by supposed experts whether it has been peer reviewed or not. Its become all about fame and money now adays. The advent of the internet has only made this even more likely to happen. Its really sad.
 
As a rule, posting sources is more helpful than not. It allows for the actual origin of the claim, their workings and history of correct/incorrect statements to be checked and so allow a fuller picture of whatever is being discussed to emerge. Also, if someone is mistaken, then by pointing out the errors present in the sources they use, they can correct their knowledge. I know I've gone to post things in arguments elsewhere before and gone to look for a source, only to find I couldn't substantiate my claim and so abandon that line of argument.

Sometimes though, if the source is of especially low credibility or contentious (or both) then it will probably not help matters much. And as pretty much anything can and will be politicized in the current Anglophone political climate, that can lead to some pretty bitter and fruitless ad hominem attacks.

It's a judgement call. Ultimately, I think posting sources does matter, but good judgement in using sources in the first place is also necessary. Citations for citations sake are too easy, especially with the popularity of political blogging and opinion-driven media.
 
Back
Top Bottom