Total Posts:28|Showing Posts:1-28
Jump to topic:

The problem with sources 2 points

Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2011 11:35:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I think most of us know the problem with sources, they are 2 points, and as such you have to go find sources to at least counter your opponents number of sources so the other person doesn't get free and easy 2 points as you try to at least create a tie in this category.

If some one wins arguments 3 points, but their opponent gets sources 2, s&g 1, conduct 1, the opponent wins.

If some one wins ONLY arguments 3 points, but their opponent get sources + 1 point from some where else its a tie.

I propose that arguments should be 4 points or that sources should be 1 point.

In both cases if you win arguments but lose everything else, at least it will be a tie, and never a loss for the winner of argument.

If arguments is 4 points and sources is 2 points and the rest are the same, this still give sources their importance as they are worth the same as conduct and s&g combined, so there is still incentive to get good sources.

For now I think this is the best option.

Yay, Nay or other ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2011 11:36:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/20/2011 11:35:19 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
I think most of us know the problem with sources, they are 2 points, and as such you have to go find sources to at least counter your opponents number of sources so the other person doesn't get free and easy 2 points as you try to at least create a tie in this category.

If some one wins arguments 3 points, but their opponent gets sources 2, s&g 1, conduct 1, the opponent wins.

If some one wins ONLY arguments 3 points, but their opponent get sources + 1 point from some where else its a tie.

I propose that arguments should be 4 points or that sources should be 1 point.

In both cases if you win arguments but lose everything else, at least it will be a tie, and never a loss for the winner of argument.

If arguments is 4 points and sources is 2 points and the rest are the same, this still give sources their importance as they are worth the same as conduct and s&g combined, so there is still incentive to get good sources.

For now I think this is the best option.

Yay, Nay or other ?

Hear hear! Ether THAT, or make arguments worth 4.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2011 11:37:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At that point you may as well abolish the other categories.

Nothing wrong with that, I don't even typically use sources, most uses of them are stupid, just saying.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2011 11:38:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I think people shouldn't make the same exact thread they made yesterday.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2011 11:39:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/20/2011 11:37:49 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At that point you may as well abolish the other categories.

Nothing wrong with that, I don't even typically use sources, most uses of them are stupid, just saying.

Same--although, how I use sources is that I already have a basic argument in my head, and then I kinda go round and look for sources to support it. I generally only have 3-5 sources AT MOST per round.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2011 11:41:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/20/2011 11:38:06 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
I think people shouldn't make the same exact thread they made yesterday.

This thread is different. I am now arguing that arguments should be 4 points with the rest the same. This is my first preference and I want to see if its other peoples first preference as well.

If not, my 2nd preference if for sources to be 1 point and everything else to be left the same.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2011 11:44:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/20/2011 11:41:19 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 8/20/2011 11:38:06 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
I think people shouldn't make the same exact thread they made yesterday.

This thread is different. I am now arguing that arguments should be 4 points with the rest the same. This is my first preference and I want to see if its other peoples first preference as well.

If not, my 2nd preference if for sources to be 1 point and everything else to be left the same.

Oops. Now I feel foolish for thinking it was the same, as my post about "Either that, or arguments can become 4," is flawed. So, it SHOULD read: Either that, or sources become 1.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2011 11:45:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/20/2011 11:35:19 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote

For now I think this is the best option.

Yay, Nay or other ?

Nay.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2011 11:47:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/20/2011 11:45:47 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/20/2011 11:35:19 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote

For now I think this is the best option.

Yay, Nay or other ?


Nay.

Why nay?
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2011 11:48:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/20/2011 11:41:19 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 8/20/2011 11:38:06 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
I think people shouldn't make the same exact thread they made yesterday.

This thread is different. I am now arguing that arguments should be 4 points with the rest the same. This is my first preference and I want to see if its other peoples first preference as well.

If not, my 2nd preference if for sources to be 1 point and everything else to be left the same.

the last thread was for discussing your initial suggestion and possible alternatives..

your comment here would have fit there just fine.

And I would care to troll you.

TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

T

R

O

L

L

L

L

L

L

LLL

LL

L

!!!
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2011 11:50:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/20/2011 11:48:31 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 8/20/2011 11:41:19 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 8/20/2011 11:38:06 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
I think people shouldn't make the same exact thread they made yesterday.

This thread is different. I am now arguing that arguments should be 4 points with the rest the same. This is my first preference and I want to see if its other peoples first preference as well.

If not, my 2nd preference if for sources to be 1 point and everything else to be left the same.

the last thread was for discussing your initial suggestion and possible alternatives..

your comment here would have fit there just fine.

And I would care to troll you.

That's my story and I am sticking to it.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2011 11:51:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/20/2011 11:47:33 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 8/20/2011 11:45:47 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/20/2011 11:35:19 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote

For now I think this is the best option.

Yay, Nay or other ?


Nay.

Why nay?

Sources are more important than he leads on. People can easily pull facts out of a magic hat and make them appear legitimate. Imagine having a compelling argument based entirely on false statistics. You didn't provide any sources though, because you didn't have any, you made them up. The readers don't know that. They take points off of you for sources, but give you convincing argument when you don't deserve it. 4 WHOLE points just for making up nonsense.

The idea is illogical and the voting point system is fine as is.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2011 11:52:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/20/2011 11:51:15 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/20/2011 11:47:33 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 8/20/2011 11:45:47 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/20/2011 11:35:19 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote

For now I think this is the best option.

Yay, Nay or other ?


Nay.

Why nay?


Sources are more important than he leads on. People can easily pull facts out of a magic hat and make them appear legitimate. Imagine having a compelling argument based entirely on false statistics. You didn't provide any sources though, because you didn't have any, you made them up. The readers don't know that. They take points off of you for sources, but give you convincing argument when you don't deserve it. 4 WHOLE points just for making up nonsense.

The idea is illogical and the voting point system is fine as is.

my comments in the last thread addressed all this, and you're wrong.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2011 11:53:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/20/2011 11:52:22 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 8/20/2011 11:51:15 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/20/2011 11:47:33 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 8/20/2011 11:45:47 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/20/2011 11:35:19 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote

For now I think this is the best option.

Yay, Nay or other ?


Nay.

Why nay?


Sources are more important than he leads on. People can easily pull facts out of a magic hat and make them appear legitimate. Imagine having a compelling argument based entirely on false statistics. You didn't provide any sources though, because you didn't have any, you made them up. The readers don't know that. They take points off of you for sources, but give you convincing argument when you don't deserve it. 4 WHOLE points just for making up nonsense.

The idea is illogical and the voting point system is fine as is.

my comments in the last thread addressed all this, and you're wrong.

Right, right, because simply saying "you're wrong" is all it takes to be right.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2011 11:59:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/20/2011 11:51:15 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/20/2011 11:47:33 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 8/20/2011 11:45:47 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/20/2011 11:35:19 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote

For now I think this is the best option.

Yay, Nay or other ?


Nay.

Why nay?


Sources are more important than he leads on. People can easily pull facts out of a magic hat and make them appear legitimate. Imagine having a compelling argument based entirely on false statistics. You didn't provide any sources though, because you didn't have any, you made them up. The readers don't know that. They take points off of you for sources, but give you convincing argument when you don't deserve it. 4 WHOLE points just for making up nonsense.

The idea is illogical and the voting point system is fine as is.

I reject that charge I am some how arguing that sources are not important. Its for this reason in fact I prefer having arguments as 4 points and sources as 2, rather than having arguments as 3 and sources as 1.

In my first preference sources are the same as s&g & conduct COMBINED. Hell I would even consider having something like arguments 5 point, sources 3, s&g 1, conduct 1.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2011 12:01:01 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/20/2011 11:39:39 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 8/20/2011 11:37:49 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At that point you may as well abolish the other categories.

Nothing wrong with that, I don't even typically use sources, most uses of them are stupid, just saying.

Same--although, how I use sources is that I already have a basic argument in my head, and then I kinda go round and look for sources to support it. I generally only have 3-5 sources AT MOST per round.

The proper use of sources is if your arguments involve an empirical statement, to verify that particular statement (Did a controlled experiment in such and such a place result in a higher rate of explosions for water with lithium thrown in than water without lithium thrown in? Who was the successor to Prince Ludwig the VII of insertrelevantcountryhere?

Looking for sources to vaguely "support your argument" (i.e., sources which have an abstract argument that happens to match up with your position on the resolution) is stupid. Make your own arguments, let them stand on their own merits. Hell, sources are better if they are created for some other purpose than to address the resolution that you are addressing. Are you arguing over the feasibility of resistance to tyranny? Did your opponent just question whether two household products can make a useful poison gas? Hmm, might want a source for that. It's okay if you refer to some survival nut's website for his instruction manual, but it's better, other things (like degree of informativeness) equal if you refer to a warning on the manufacturer's website or a news story about someone who accidentally mixed the chemicals and died or the production processes for the military's own chemical weapons. And if you do refer to the survival nut's website, go to the manual to cite the specific chemical stuff, don't go to his manifesto and expect that your arguments are suddenly stronger because someone agrees with you.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2011 12:01:50 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/20/2011 11:51:15 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/20/2011 11:47:33 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 8/20/2011 11:45:47 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/20/2011 11:35:19 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote

For now I think this is the best option.

Yay, Nay or other ?


Nay.

Why nay?


Sources are more important than he leads on. People can easily pull facts out of a magic hat and make them appear legitimate. Imagine having a compelling argument based entirely on false statistics. You didn't provide any sources though, because you didn't have any, you made them up. The readers don't know that. They take points off of you for sources, but give you convincing argument when you don't deserve it. 4 WHOLE points just for making up nonsense.

The idea is illogical and the voting point system is fine as is.

Yes, but I spy two problems:

1) That a person could win the debate with S/G, Conduct, and Sources. He could take legit sources and then use the art of rhetoric (just as much as a no-source arguer can) and spin webs of BS around facts--completely warping what the sources actually say.

2) I know this is a popular stance of mine, but you shouldn't underestimate DDO'ers' intelligence. They (the honest ones, anyway) can tell crap from real arguments.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2011 12:04:06 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/21/2011 12:01:01 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/20/2011 11:39:39 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 8/20/2011 11:37:49 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At that point you may as well abolish the other categories.

Nothing wrong with that, I don't even typically use sources, most uses of them are stupid, just saying.

Same--although, how I use sources is that I already have a basic argument in my head, and then I kinda go round and look for sources to support it. I generally only have 3-5 sources AT MOST per round.

The proper use of sources is if your arguments involve an empirical statement, to verify that particular statement (Did a controlled experiment in such and such a place result in a higher rate of explosions for water with lithium thrown in than water without lithium thrown in? Who was the successor to Prince Ludwig the VII of insertrelevantcountryhere?

Looking for sources to vaguely "support your argument" (i.e., sources which have an abstract argument that happens to match up with your position on the resolution) is stupid. Make your own arguments, let them stand on their own merits. Hell, sources are better if they are created for some other purpose than to address the resolution that you are addressing. Are you arguing over the feasibility of resistance to tyranny? Did your opponent just question whether two household products can make a useful poison gas? Hmm, might want a source for that. It's okay if you refer to some survival nut's website for his instruction manual, but it's better, other things (like degree of informativeness) equal if you refer to a warning on the manufacturer's website or a news story about someone who accidentally mixed the chemicals and died or the production processes for the military's own chemical weapons. And if you do refer to the survival nut's website, go to the manual to cite the specific chemical stuff, don't go to his manifesto and expect that your arguments are suddenly stronger because someone agrees with you.

I believe I have misrepresented my method (I should really go to sleep). I have an idea for how I want to argue, and then proceed to look around and read up a bit more on the subject, and then craft an argument based around what I read and what my opponent said.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2011 12:08:52 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
That sounds like backstage stuff that voters don't need to know about unless you're quoting someone involved, which you shouldn't do.

Maybe in the comments section, but don't put it in the debate as a "Source" and present it for scoring, it shouldn't be scored. Say "Special thanks to so and so, it was helpful when crafting my argument."
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2011 12:13:08 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/21/2011 12:08:52 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
That sounds like backstage stuff that voters don't need to know about unless you're quoting someone involved, which you shouldn't do.

Maybe in the comments section, but don't put it in the debate as a "Source" and present it for scoring, it shouldn't be scored. Say "Special thanks to so and so, it was helpful when crafting my argument."

Well--

You know what, that's not it either. I'm just gonna give up on explaining and leave my argument crafting a mystery.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2011 1:53:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The sources thing has always annoyed the crap out of me. I understand the need to provide reliable sources but many debates focus on validity of the logic being implemented to which sources mean nothing. I also hate when people give points to the person who provides more sources. That has absolutely nothing to do with it. The question is whether sources were necessary for the claims made.

I would make sources 1 point but I would give the other point to spelling and grammar, with a focus on argument structure. Strong arguments mean nothing when you fail to effectively communicate them.
CD-Host
Posts: 20
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2011 2:12:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I find quite often I'm debating things that are refuted by basic literature on the topic. I just finished a very long debate on presuppositional apologetic where it was obvious my opponent wasn't familiar with the basic literature in his debate. I had another where I was having to argue material like the fermentation reaction is common.

I think the sources points are good. People should bother to learn something about the topics they are debating.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2011 2:17:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/21/2011 1:53:59 PM, Double_R wrote:
The sources thing has always annoyed the crap out of me. I understand the need to provide reliable sources but many debates focus on validity of the logic being implemented to which sources mean nothing. I also hate when people give points to the person who provides more sources. That has absolutely nothing to do with it. The question is whether sources were necessary for the claims made.

I would make sources 1 point but I would give the other point to spelling and grammar, with a focus on argument structure. Strong arguments mean nothing when you fail to effectively communicate them.

What if an opponent provides books as sources? Docking them points for sources seems controversial, but if their opponent can't check it and respond to it, and the voters can't verify it, how can they get points for sources?
BlackVoid
Posts: 9,170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2011 2:33:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/22/2011 2:17:17 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 8/21/2011 1:53:59 PM, Double_R wrote:
The sources thing has always annoyed the crap out of me. I understand the need to provide reliable sources but many debates focus on validity of the logic being implemented to which sources mean nothing. I also hate when people give points to the person who provides more sources. That has absolutely nothing to do with it. The question is whether sources were necessary for the claims made.

I would make sources 1 point but I would give the other point to spelling and grammar, with a focus on argument structure. Strong arguments mean nothing when you fail to effectively communicate them.

What if an opponent provides books as sources? Docking them points for sources seems controversial, but if their opponent can't check it and respond to it, and the voters can't verify it, how can they get points for sources?

That happened to me once. My opponent gave all book or journal sources with no links, whereas I gave an equal number of pages that could actually be looked at, but somehow a couple people voted me down on sources...
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2011 3:06:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/22/2011 2:17:17 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:

What if an opponent provides books as sources? Docking them points for sources seems controversial, but if their opponent can't check it and respond to it, and the voters can't verify it, how can they get points for sources?

It's a very interesting question. Personally I would say that it is valid but the person using the book should state exactly what page it is on and even a paragraph# just to show that they are not making it up. At least that way anyone can come along and call them out on it if they were. It is still an issue though because many quotes can be taken out of context, so there would be no way to verify this. I think it all has to do with how the source is used.

This should be the case anytime people use long papers or any pdf as a source. I had one debate where my opponent did that. It's difficult to read through 200 pages to figure out where the claim comes from. I always list the page# and paragraph if necessary.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2011 9:06:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/20/2011 11:41:19 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 8/20/2011 11:38:06 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
I think people shouldn't make the same exact thread they made yesterday.

This thread is different. I am now arguing that arguments should be 4 points with the rest the same. This is my first preference and I want to see if its other peoples first preference as well.

If not, my 2nd preference if for sources to be 1 point and everything else to be left the same.

Why not post this in the original thread? Why do you have to create a new thread every time your opinion on an issue changes?
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2011 10:53:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/22/2011 9:06:02 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 8/20/2011 11:41:19 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 8/20/2011 11:38:06 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
I think people shouldn't make the same exact thread they made yesterday.

This thread is different. I am now arguing that arguments should be 4 points with the rest the same. This is my first preference and I want to see if its other peoples first preference as well.

If not, my 2nd preference if for sources to be 1 point and everything else to be left the same.

Why not post this in the original thread? Why do you have to create a new thread every time your opinion on an issue changes?

How about making a comment on the issue at hand.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
CD-Host
Posts: 20
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2011 7:05:48 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/22/2011 2:17:17 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:

What if an opponent provides books as sources? Docking them points for sources seems controversial, but if their opponent can't check it and respond to it, and the voters can't verify it, how can they get points for sources?

1) Quote stuff from the book that contradicts your opponent. I had an opponent that was citing sources they hadn't read. Judges generally like it when you use your opponent's sources to make a point.

2) Attack the cite. Just say you aren't going to read a 200 book to find a quote.