• 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
Thunder said:
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.
Click to expand...

But you take it to the other extreme; you want sources for almost any opponent's post, yet you don't seem to offer many of your own. Imo, a balance needs to be found in regards to cites.
 
Wake said:
But you take it to the other extreme; you want sources for almost any opponent's post, yet you don't seem to offer many of your own. Imo, a balance needs to be found in regards to cites.
Click to expand...

demanding sources for EVERYTHING someone says is silly, unless of course that person consistently and routinely makes claims that can only be trusted if verified.

when discussing complicated legal matters like gun-control, or scientific matters like the beginning of human-life, or global warming, or Evolution, sources should usually be provided when making serious claims.

I'm sorry, but unless the Mods allow us to post images of our college degrees, I'm not gonna trust anyone unless they have a great track record of being knowledgeable and correct regarding specific subjects.
 
Wake said:
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.
Click to expand...

Sometimes conventional wisdom is mistaken for common knowledge.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Sometimes conventional wisdom is mistaken for common knowledge.
Click to expand...

True. I once saw an episode of "Who wants to be a Millionaire" where the gal that was the contestant didn't know the name of King Arthur's sword. That blew my mind considering that as I was growing up I don't think I could think of a single month where King Arthur and the Knights of the Round wasn't mentioned in one of my classes or on TV.

Generally I won't post a source unless specifically asked to. After all, this is a debate forum...not a factual discourse forum. Which to me means common sense is mandatory. I really hate it when people pretend to be dumb just to be Aholes and/or to make you work. And after posting here for over 3 years its generally easy to tell if someone that posts regularlly is pretending to be dumb or not.

Lately it depends on the subject on whether I will or not also. For example illegal immigration. I recently posted a post basically stating to look in past posts as certain stuff had already been discussed and pointed out. Frankly I'm tired of re-posting links a dozen times over just because people can't be bothered to look up information on thier own. I mean seriously, I'm not the best at looking info up so if I can find info then I know darn well that others can.
 
Kal'Stang said:
True. I once saw an episode of "Who wants to be a Millionaire" where the gal that was the contestant didn't know the name of King Arthur's sword. That blew my mind considering that as I was growing up I don't think I could think of a single month where King Arthur and the Knights of the Round wasn't mentioned in one of my classes or on TV.

Generally I won't post a source unless specifically asked to. After all, this is a debate forum...not a factual discourse forum. Which to me means common sense is mandatory. I really hate it when people pretend to be dumb just to be Aholes and/or to make you work. And after posting here for over 3 years its generally easy to tell if someone that posts regularlly is pretending to be dumb or not.

Lately it depends on the subject on whether I will or not also. For example illegal immigration. I recently posted a post basically stating to look in past posts as certain stuff had already been discussed and pointed out. Frankly I'm tired of re-posting links a dozen times over just because people can't be bothered to look up information on thier own. I mean seriously, I'm not the best at looking info up so if I can find info then I know darn well that others can.
Click to expand...

I usually require someone to post a link when I think they're making things up. Especially people who post up statistics all the time - or make generalizations over and over and over. I mean, everyone does it to a certain extent but really... when I know someone's making it up and they start playing the troll game, it's time to just do something more constructive. It all depends on who you're debating with too...
 
Ockham said:
I usually require someone to post a link when I think they're making things up. Especially people who post up statistics all the time - or make generalizations over and over and over. I mean, everyone does it to a certain extent but really... when I know someone's making it up and they start playing the troll game, it's time to just do something more constructive. It all depends on who you're debating with too...
Click to expand...

This is fine imo. Trolls deserve to be "brought to bear" so to speak. Unfortenately trolls don't normally post sources even when asked. :(
 
show me a man who doesn't feel the need to post evidence and sources, and I'll show you a man who doesn't know what he's talking about.
 
Thunder said:
show me a man who doesn't feel the need to post evidence and sources, and I'll show you a man who doesn't know what he's talking about.
Click to expand...

*Points at self* You see one right here. I feel no need to post sources. This is the internetz and everything is to be taken with a grain of salt. If people believe me so be it. If they don't and don't ask for evidence I provide none. But if they don't believe me and and ask for sources I will post em. In otherwords your statement would be more true if it had instead stated something to the effect of...

"Show me a man who doesn't want evidence or sources, and I'll show you a man who doesn't know what he's talking about."

Everyone wants facts and evidence to back up other peoples claims...hardly any care to post thier own initially.
 
Kal'Stang said:
*Points at self* You see one right here...
Click to expand...

well, we don't have to ALWAYS post sources with our claims.

but if requested, one should have the honesty & integrity to provide them.

and none of this "look it up yourself if you care that much".

if you respect the debate & respect yourself, you will back-up your claims.

its that simple.
 
Thunder said:
well, we don't have to ALWAYS post sources with our claims.

but if requested, one should have the honesty & integrity to provide them.

and none of this "look it up yourself if you care that much".

if you respect the debate & respect yourself, you will back-up your claims.

its that simple.
Click to expand...

I generally won't tell people to look it up themselves...unless it's been posted here at DP already. Like I said above...I'm tired of reposting the same links over and over.
 
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 know it matters when I post a source and the person I was responding to doesn't come back to the thread.
 
Well, I'm just not interested in where crackpots get their info, and the vast majority of 'requests for links' come from trolls who rarely post more than one or two lines at a time and of course never post any real responses or rebuttals, or just move on to yet another series of one or two line response and another demand for 'links' with no comments on the last ones posted.

Posting last on the internet means you win, at least in some minds.
 
In an honest debate between open minded people, yes, sources absolutely matter. The goal is to learn, and refine or perhaps change one's position, if that's where the information leads. I like to learn new things from debates. A lot of times, especially when we get to debates of theism v atheism or capitalism v socialism, it tends to be a lot of shouting. Debating cultural issues is always very informative, though.
 
It depends on what and who you are debating.

Oftentimes, source material just adds another layer of debate. Instead of Source A providing clear evidence of your argument, you find yourself arguing the meaning of Source A in addition to the original argument.

Nonetheless, I believe that sources do influence the beliefs of others, whether they want to admit it or not. That is to say, they may have a firm belief in their position, and argue it unyieldingly, but there's a good chance you can sow some seeds of doubt with a well-presented case, and source material certainly helps. More than once I've debated a topic to no conclusion, only to find (months later) the other person arguing my position.

One of my pet peeves are those "link please" posters who don't believe a thing anyone says unless they can produce an article of someone else saying the same thing. It's scary that they'd dismiss something out of hand simply because it's been authored here, but readily accept the same thing because it's been published. It seems to indicate a lack of critical thinking skills.
 
According to google searching "posting sources matters" returns 32 million hits so the answer is obviously yes, backed up by all those sources.
 
I don't know if this deserves another thread or not, but I thought it worked with this discussion:

Skilled arguers, however, are not after the truth but after arguments supporting their views. This explains the notorious confirmation bias. This bias is apparent not only when people are actually arguing, but also when they are reasoning proactively from the perspective of having to defend their opinions. Reasoning so motivated can distort evaluations and attitudes and allow erroneous beliefs to persist. Proactively used reasoning also favors decisions that are easy to justify but not necessarily better. In all these instances traditionally described as failures or flaws, reasoning does exactly what can be expected of an argumentative device: Look for arguments that support a given conclusion, and, ceteris paribus, favor conclusions for which arguments can be found.

Is Reasoning Built for Winning Arguments, Rather Than Finding Truth? | The Intersection | Discover Magazine

Doesn't limiting our research to that which only supports our position support this type of thinking?
 
When I was a member of the debate team for two years in college, we were taught that following up your positions with verifiable sources was the rule and law in debate. This is especially important in any allegation of fact or usage of the historical record.

It amazes me that we have a site here called DEBATE POLITICS and many feel that their own pompous pontifications are all that is needed in debate. For those, we should have a section called WHAT I BELIEVE BECAUSE I BELIEVE IT since that is the depth and breadth of most of their posts.
 
Thunder said:
show me a man who doesn't feel the need to post evidence and sources, and I'll show you a man who doesn't know what he's talking about.
Click to expand...

Do you have a source to prove this?

Case in point, this can be very frustrating. What you seem to think as common sense/conventional wisdom, well, others demand proof.

Usually, I'd know my info was from a source, whether biased or not. But then knowing it was from a source I wouldn't cite it because I figured others would know what I mean. Then certain people, who were pedantic, which isn't bad but annoying, have now compelled me to collect cites as well. I find it difficult to argue without sources now because now sources are demanded routinely.

Then, I'm told a cite I used is biased, yet theirs is biased as well even though they cannot tell.

Furthermore, how do you cite whether something is right or wrong?
 
haymarket said:
When I was a member of the debate team for two years in college, we were taught that following up your positions with verifiable sources was the rule and law in debate. This is especially important in any allegation of fact or usage of the historical record.

It amazes me that we have a site here called DEBATE POLITICS and many feel that their own pompous pontifications are all that is needed in debate. For those, we should have a section called WHAT I BELIEVE BECAUSE I BELIEVE IT since that is the depth and breadth of most of their posts.
Click to expand...

Though, if I were to return to an older stance of mine, I would tell you that all beliefs are mere beliefs and that cites are not absolute. They don't give you absolute certainty and correctness. I could argue alcohol is a poison upon society and cite the yearly death toll, yet that doesn't make me absolutely and undeniably correct that alcohol is a poison upon society. This absolute stance I take is especially correct for philosophical issues and matters of good and evil. Can abortion or homosexuality be proven good or evil? One can say it is good because it is harmless, yet how does harmlessness equal good/righteousness?

You believe what you believe and you find certain fragments to support your belief.
 
Wake said:
Though, if I were to return to an older stance of mine, I would tell you that all beliefs are mere beliefs and that cites are not absolute. They don't give you absolute certainty and correctness. I could argue alcohol is a poison upon society and cite the yearly death toll, yet that doesn't make me absolutely and undeniably correct that alcohol is a poison upon society. This absolute stance I take is especially correct for philosophical issues and matters of good and evil. Can abortion or homosexuality be proven good or evil? One can say it is good because it is harmless, yet how does harmlessness equal good/righteousness?

You believe what you believe and you find certain fragments to support your belief.
Click to expand...
People have reasons for what they believe and if you aren't prepared to provide those reasons, then you admit to having baseless ideas about reality.
 
Kal'Stang said:
You'll eventually learn that a person not responding means squat.
Click to expand...

Or it means the person not responding could have the other on ignore.
 
Wake said:
Though, if I were to return to an older stance of mine, I would tell you that all beliefs are mere beliefs and that cites are not absolute. They don't give you absolute certainty and correctness. I could argue alcohol is a poison upon society and cite the yearly death toll, yet that doesn't make me absolutely and undeniably correct that alcohol is a poison upon society. This absolute stance I take is especially correct for philosophical issues and matters of good and evil. Can abortion or homosexuality be proven good or evil? One can say it is good because it is harmless, yet how does harmlessness equal good/righteousness?

You believe what you believe and you find certain fragments to support your belief.
Click to expand...

an example:

If someone constantly rants and whines about the 47% who do not pay federal income tax and blame them on the Democratic party, that indeed can be proven by examining the historical record of the two Bush tax cuts which created the situation. Providing the votes and which party voted for those bills which created the situation can be established.

The historical record is there. Use it.

I have little use for pompous pontifications of personal belief supported only by the belief system itself.
 
haymarket said:
When I was a member of the debate team for two years in college, we were taught that following up your positions with verifiable sources was the rule and law in debate. This is especially important in any allegation of fact or usage of the historical record.

It amazes me that we have a site here called DEBATE POLITICS and many feel that their own pompous pontifications are all that is needed in debate. For those, we should have a section called WHAT I BELIEVE BECAUSE I BELIEVE IT since that is the depth and breadth of most of their posts.
Click to expand...

It is importsnt for allegations of fact or usage of historical record. However, a lot of debate is also about reasoning through something. I would never argue there is no place for valid, reputable, and sound sourcing. But, it cannot replace thought, reasoning, and having your own take on an issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom