The Instigator
lord_megatron
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Danielle
Con (against)
Winning
2 Points

If one opponent uses a source and other doesn't, vote for source should be tie.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Danielle
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/18/2016 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 217 times Debate No: 91439
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)

 

lord_megatron

Pro

It has often happened that one debater hasn't used a source and made decent arguments, and another has used a source and made more or less equally strong arguments. In that case in a 7 point voting system the point for reliability of sources should be tied as the other opponent made a good argument without a source, which is a good skill as well. Just because one used a source doesn't mean that one should be allowed to win the debate for doing the meager task of pasting a relevant link.
Danielle

Con

Many thanks to my opponent for beginning this debate.

1. Sources are useful criteria for judging
2. Debaters willingly accept this criteria
3. Debaters have the opportunity to adjust

When each debater makes their case, they often rely on citing facts for relevance. In order to prove the facts are correct, sources are presented which allows the opponent and the audience/judges to validate the debater's claims. If the claims are incorrect or misrepresented, their opponent has the opportunity to highlight this infraction and use it against them.

Research is important to debate. Formal debaters agree of the advantages in capitalizing on the prestige of an authority who shares your argument, and may verbalize it better than you can [1].

If a judge does not feel that a debater has proven their alleged facts (through lack of sources), or if a judge feels that one has abused their sources via plagiarism, they should be able to vote on that accordingly. Similarly judges might want to vote on the quality of one's sources. For example professional, peer-reviewed research based on substantial qualitative and quantitative data is more valuable for establishing truth than merely stating an opinion [2]. Therefore if one debater provides a source whereas the other does not, the person without sources has no way of proving that their arguments are rooted in legitimate facts.

As you can see, sources are a useful criteria for both debating and judging standards.

Before accepting a debate challenge, each debater has the opportunity to see the voting standards for each debate. If they do not wish sources to qualify as a point for substance, the debater has the opportunity to change that voting standard and eliminate it entirely, or refuse to accept a debate until that standard is removed. By choosing to accept a debate that judges sources, each debater can reasonably expect to be scored on their use (or lack thereof) of sources.

If one debater chooses to use sources, it should signal the opponent to include sources in their case as well. While sources are not necessary to make an argument, they provide a reference for where the debater's information is coming from. When one debater chooses to include a reference for validation and the other does not, the judge might reward the debater who provided that additional information in good faith for fact checking. Considering each debater has the opportunity to adjust and include sources per their opponent's use of sources, it is their responsibility to adjust to that standard if they expect to be judged on similar factors.

Each judge has different values and some do not believe sources are important. However for those that do (with good reason) they should be allowed to penalize someone for not providing any references, vs. someone who does include references considering sources were a known standard for judgment in the debate.

[1] https://sites.google.com...
[2] http://www.skepticalraptor.com...
Debate Round No. 1
lord_megatron

Pro

"Therefore if one debater provides a source whereas the other does not, the person without sources has no way of proving that their arguments are rooted in legitimate facts."
But shouldn't it be up to the debater who used the source to discredit the other debater's claims? And many topics have limited research capabilities, such as war scenarios and movie debates.
Suppose in a movie debate, say Iron Man vs Captain America, I didn't know about Iron Man's Mark 44 and I googled it and put the source. My opponent had already watched the movies and read the comics and didn't need to use sources. As long as the information put is correct, shouldn't the source point be tie? It is unfair for the opponent, and people may just post unuseful but reliable links to be on the safe side.
Danielle

Con

Pro asks, "But shouldn't it be up to the debater who used the source to discredit the other debater's claims?"

Indeed it is up to the debaters to discredit their opponent's sources, however if one used sources effectively and one did not, the judges should be able to determine this on their own. In fact that's part of being a judge.

Pro notes that many topics have limited research capabilities, and so long as the information in the debate is correct, sources shouldn't be a factor. However I've argued that professional, peer-reviewed research based on substantial qualitative and quantitative data is more valuable for establishing truth than merely stating an opinion. Moreover sources are also what establishes that the information is correct in the first place. Without sources, the audience has no reason to accept it as such.

While not every debate has information that CAN be researched, many debates do, and those debaters who effectively use sources should be rewarded vs. their opponents who choose not to. Even debates rooted in opinion can utilize sources. The judges can/should decide if the debater made an effort to provide information that was useful to the debate, or gave credibility to the debater's case somehow.

In research there is hard information and soft information. "Hard research describes scientific and objective research, where math, figures, statistics, evidence and proven facts are absolutely critical. Hard research expectations apply to anything that is scientific, medical, or legal, or when the topic is going to result in lofty philosophical claims, organizational policy, or have large-scale political impact... Soft research describes topics that are more subjective, cultural, and opinion-based. Soft research depends less on facts and evidence and more on the presentation skill of the researcher. Soft research sources will be less scrutinized by the readers" [1].

Combined soft and hard research is hybrid research. You can indeed use sources even to argue for or against opinions [2].

[1] http://netforbeginners.about.com...
[2] https://www.youtube.com...
Debate Round No. 2
lord_megatron

Pro

So according to you, you should win because you posted some links. Even if I give back some good argument, you should get the point for sources. I don't have much to say here, but it ain't just voting. Suppose I just check up the definition of a word on google and put it as a source, while the other opponent knows better English and doesn't need google dictionaries, the one who used the source should get the point. I state such scenarios because these kind of scenarios are happening at debate.org. I believe this site should be a fair place where the best debater wins. Providing points just for using a source isn't fair. It should be tied as the one who used sources put extra effort into research which is balanced by the other debater having to use knowledge that he has for countering new arguments.
Danielle

Con

Pro begins, "So according to you, you should win because you posted some links."

That is a fallacious straw man of my arguments [1]. He is misrepresenting my contentions to make my case easier to attack.

I never said that "posting some links" should qualify as an automatic win.

In fact my arguments were:

1. Sources are useful criteria for judging
A. Sources give credibility to asserted claims
B. Research teaches additional arguments from other knowledgeable people

2. Debaters willingly accept this criteria
A. The debater has the opportunity to change that voting standard and eliminate it entirely
B. Because almost all claims can be sourced (or can have additional information provided), there isn't an excuse to not provide any

3. Debaters have the opportunity to adjust
A. If they see their opponent using sources, they should too since it's a legitimate voting criteria that is both useful and pre-accepted

Pro continues, "Even if I give back some good argument, you should get the point for sources."

Once again, I never said that. If one debater makes superior arguments, they should win the point for arguments. If one debater uses superior sources in both quantity, quality and utility - they should win the points for sources, especially if their opponent did not use any. But if one debater used sources (while the other did not) though abused them or used them ineffectively, i.e. through plagiarism, lack of relevance, etc., then no that person should not automatically win sources points. Pro's resolution is based on absolute standards whereas none should exist, hence why he is having such a hard time fulfilling his burden.

Pro asks, "Suppose I just check up the definition of a word on google and put it as a source..."

In that case, it would signal to the judges that one person at least tried to include sources if their opponent did as a sign of due diligence. However if you only used sources to cite definitions and not information, that might be a sign to the judges that you do not deserve sources points and your opponent does. Again it depends on the debate. Sometimes sourcing definitions is very important to a debate. Sometimes one debater uses sources while the other does not, but uses the sources for frivolous reasons and in those cases the judge can vote in their favor or as a tie.

Pro states, "Providing points just for using a source isn't fair." My arguments #1-3 explain why it's fair judging criteria. Please extend. And finally Pro concludes that sourcing research shouldn't be weighted more heavily than knowledge one can provide off-hand. However while it's useful to be able to recite information, judges, your opponent and the audience need to verify your claims which is why sources are useful and often imperative to a debate.

Thank you, everyone.

[1] http://rationalwiki.org...
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by lord_megatron 9 months ago
lord_megatron
Why u troll me Iwittman
Posted by fire_wings 9 months ago
fire_wings
lol@ lwittman's vote
Posted by tejretics 9 months ago
tejretics
lol @ lwittman's vote
Posted by Ockham 9 months ago
Ockham
I can't accept this debate since I'm already in another debate with you, but in my view if two people sign up for a debate knowing that sources are going to be a judging criterion and one side doesn't provide any sources then they fully deserve to lose that point. They knew they needed sources to get full points but they didn't provide any because they forgot or were lazy.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lwittman 9 months ago
lwittman
lord_megatronDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: Con used a reliable source in every round.