Total Posts:38|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Sources

000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2012 6:31:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The point of sources isn't just to give credit, but to ensure that the source is credible. But, this is probably the most abused use of points in voting. I think it would be a good idea if we made clear what is and isn't a credible source so that we can more easily distinguish the votebombs from the legitimate opinions.

1. Is Wikipedia a credible source?
2. Are sources that can't be looked at by the other debater allowed (i.e books)?
3. Is FOXnews.com a credible source?
4. Should there be a penalty for source loading?
5. Are blogs a credible source?
"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
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2012 6:32:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
If FOX isn't a credible source, then neither is MSNBC or NBC.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
CiRrK
Posts: 670
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2012 6:37:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/1/2012 6:31:20 PM, 000ike wrote:
The point of sources isn't just to give credit, but to ensure that the source is credible. But, this is probably the most abused use of points in voting. I think it would be a good idea if we made clear what is and isn't a credible source so that we can more easily distinguish the votebombs from the legitimate opinions.

1. Is Wikipedia a credible source?

For just numbers or facts I think wikipedia is fine.

2. Are sources that can't be looked at by the other debater allowed (i.e books)?

Yes. They tend to be the more scholarly sources.

3. Is FOXnews.com a credible source?

Yes.

4. Should there be a penalty for source loading?

Nope.

5. Are blogs a credible source?

If linked to other sources, yes
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2012 6:47:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/1/2012 6:31:20 PM, 000ike wrote:
The point of sources isn't just to give credit, but to ensure that the source is credible. But, this is probably the most abused use of points in voting. I think it would be a good idea if we made clear what is and isn't a credible source so that we can more easily distinguish the votebombs from the legitimate opinions.

1. Is Wikipedia a credible source?

For statistics it is okay.

2. Are sources that can't be looked at by the other debater allowed (i.e books)?

Eh, I guess, as long as they quote the same or similar information.

3. Is FOXnews.com a credible source?

No, and MSNBC isn't either.

4. Should there be a penalty for source loading?

No, just call them out for it.

5. Are blogs a credible source?

Usually not.

And, if people think that Think Progress is a bad source, so is the Cato Institute or Heritage Foundation.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2012 7:09:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Personally, I don't think Wikipedia is a valid source.

http://www.uic.edu...
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2012 7:11:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/1/2012 7:09:00 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
Personally, I don't think Wikipedia is a valid source.

http://www.uic.edu...

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Is this page reliable? MUAHAHAHAHA!
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2012 7:14:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/1/2012 7:09:00 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
Personally, I don't think Wikipedia is a valid source.

http://www.uic.edu...

The article seems to be critiquing the writing skill, not the accuracy of information. Such as in this article about the Gold Rush, which it said was immature writing and could have been written by a High school junior. http://www.uic.edu...
"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
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2012 7:16:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/1/2012 7:11:55 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 7/1/2012 7:09:00 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
Personally, I don't think Wikipedia is a valid source.

http://www.uic.edu...

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Is this page reliable? MUAHAHAHAHA!

I contribute to Wikipedia often, and I've written a few articles that have been deemed "good articles" by their standards. I know they can produce good content, sometimes. Other times, it's completely off, as in that survey of its featured articles (Wikipedia's best content). It's best to stay with published books and articles, which are at least more reliable.

As for that article, at least they report it unbiasedly.
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2012 7:17:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/1/2012 7:14:56 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/1/2012 7:09:00 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
Personally, I don't think Wikipedia is a valid source.

http://www.uic.edu...

The article seems to be critiquing the writing skill, not the accuracy of information. Such as in this article about the Gold Rush, which it said was immature writing and could have been written by a High school junior. http://www.uic.edu...

No. The reason he interviewed scholars in the subject was to test its accuracy.
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2012 7:18:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/1/2012 7:14:56 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/1/2012 7:09:00 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
Personally, I don't think Wikipedia is a valid source.

http://www.uic.edu...

The article seems to be critiquing the writing skill, not the accuracy of information. Such as in this article about the Gold Rush, which it said was immature writing and could have been written by a High school junior. http://www.uic.edu...

From the survey itself: "To this end, scholars were asked to evaluate the quality and accuracy of Wikipedia featured articles within their area of expertise."
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2012 7:30:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/1/2012 6:31:20 PM, 000ike wrote:
The point of sources isn't just to give credit, but to ensure that the source is credible. But, this is probably the most abused use of points in voting. I think it would be a good idea if we made clear what is and isn't a credible source so that we can more easily distinguish the votebombs from the legitimate opinions.

1. Is Wikipedia a credible source?
2. Are sources that can't be looked at by the other debater allowed (i.e books)?
3. Is FOXnews.com a credible source?
4. Should there be a penalty for source loading?
5. Are blogs a credible source?

It depends when it comes to news sites. If they're saying, "A woman was arrested and charged with X this morning in X city" or "X number of people are arrested in America each year for X drug possession" then yeah, you might be able to trust that. Maybe. If they say, "A woman went into a meth-rage yesterday in X city after being asked nicely by a police officer to stop" or "The war on drugs is failing" then that's probably not as trustworthy. Basically, it depends on the amount of rhetorical force they're using. If they're just reporting a conviction, charge, statistic, etc. then I suppose it's alright... but if they are doing that, why not just go to the original source in the first place?

Also important to keep in mind- mainstream news sources tend to downplay the importance of details when giving reports of various studies and they very often report lone studies before they have been peer-reviewed.

I think the problem with most of these (blogs, news sites, wiki) is that they are not the original source but a middle-man. So when you see someone has sourced a wiki, news site, and a blog- what you're really seeing is a list of sources much longer. You're then looking at all sources from each thing they cited- given the wiki, news site, or blog have sources listed at all. And if they don't have sources, then NO, they are not credible in the slightest. It's all mere hearsay at that point when you're dealing with results of studies and statistics.

However, I can imagine a way in which a blog or news site could be an original source when it comes to things like interviews- who said what.

It's difficult to give a clear-cut answer, but it's generally better to use academic sources, the literal study being referenced, critiques of said study, etc. It certainly makes your argument stronger.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2012 7:39:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/1/2012 6:31:20 PM, 000ike wrote:
The point of sources isn't just to give credit, but to ensure that the source is credible. But, this is probably the most abused use of points in voting. I think it would be a good idea if we made clear what is and isn't a credible source so that we can more easily distinguish the votebombs from the legitimate opinions.

1. Is Wikipedia a credible source?
Usually. If you don't trust a statistic, you can always look at the source wikipedia cites.
2. Are sources that can't be looked at by the other debater allowed (i.e books)?
Yes, although you usually can look at those sources through google books/google scholar. You can't see the whole source, but if an opponent cites a specific quote you can search the book, and you can see the abstracts of academic studies.
3. Is FOXnews.com a credible source?
Depends. For obvious stuff (The Supreme Court found Obamacare constitutional today), sure. But news sites often misrepresent stuff they don't understand--I wouldn't trust a news article about a scientific study ('New study proves that soda causes cancer!', for example), because reporters tend to exaggerate and misrepresent what scientists are actually saying.
4. Should there be a penalty for source loading?
Not sure what this is.
5. Are blogs a credible source?
Usually not. If you find something on a blog you want to use, just use the source the blog uses. If it doesn't give a source, and you can't find that same fact/statistic in a reputable source, you probably shouldn't use it.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2012 8:47:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
1) Wikipedia, by itself can be edited by anyone anytime. It is a great source for definitions and basic facts. For arguments, I would suggest going to the original source that wikipedia cites, read that source and cite it. The reason is that wikipedia is as credible as it's own sources. If it has good info, then it is a wonderful source. If it links to blogs, then not so much.

2) Debaters should absolutely be penalized for providing books as sources. Their opponent cannot access the books neither can the voters. For instance, I recently had a debate where a voter claimed that my opponent cited better sources because he linked books which were supposedly more "scholarly" and I linked online sources. The point is not whether they were more "scholarly." My opponent could have been blatently lying about having info from a book that I don't have access to. How would I refute those sources then? Did the voter read those sources? No. He didn't have access either. It is really poor voting to assume that people who cite books have better sources. If a source cannot be accessed by the opponent and the voter, the debater must be penalized. From now on, everytime I vote, I will penalize anyone who cites a book.

3) Of course news articles are credible sources.

4) Who cares if someone made a ton of sources. It is THEIR character space that is getting used up. In some of my debates, I had 20-25 sources for just one round. The number of sources does not matter. People who use an abundance of sources should neither be rewarded nor penalized. It is quality, reliability, and accessibility of sources that matter.

5) Blogs, by themselves no. But if those blogs link to studies, then go to those original studies to get that source.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2012 8:56:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/1/2012 6:31:20 PM, 000ike wrote:
The point of sources isn't just to give credit, but to ensure that the source is credible. But, this is probably the most abused use of points in voting. I think it would be a good idea if we made clear what is and isn't a credible source so that we can more easily distinguish the votebombs from the legitimate opinions.

1. Is Wikipedia a credible source?

Depends

2. Are sources that can't be looked at by the other debater allowed (i.e books)?

You can usually find the quoted passage/area of many books you're looking for on google books.

3. Is FOXnews.com a credible source?

Most news sources are, yes. MSNBC has been found with false information on their articles, though.

4. Should there be a penalty for source loading?

No, and statistical debates either need many sources or very credible ones.

I have noticed if I find studied on the subject I need fewer sources then if I am using articles online.

5. Are blogs a credible source?

Yes and no, it would take reading the post they are citing. But as a general rule as voters wont read them, no its not credible.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2012 9:02:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/1/2012 8:56:12 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 7/1/2012 6:31:20 PM, 000ike wrote:
The point of sources isn't just to give credit, but to ensure that the source is credible. But, this is probably the most abused use of points in voting. I think it would be a good idea if we made clear what is and isn't a credible source so that we can more easily distinguish the votebombs from the legitimate opinions.

1. Is Wikipedia a credible source?

Depends

2. Are sources that can't be looked at by the other debater allowed (i.e books)?

You can usually find the quoted passage/area of many books you're looking for on google books.

I've used google books before. It doesn't have everything, and when it comes to finding passages, the context they give you is too limited to do anything with it. I agree with F16 on this. It isn't fair to use books in a debate......what is stopping me from citing a book that I didn't use?
"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
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2012 9:03:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/1/2012 8:47:22 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
1) Wikipedia, by itself can be edited by anyone anytime. It is a great source for definitions and basic facts. For arguments, I would suggest going to the original source that wikipedia cites, read that source and cite it. The reason is that wikipedia is as credible as it's own sources. If it has good info, then it is a wonderful source. If it links to blogs, then not so much.

2) Debaters should absolutely be penalized for providing books as sources. Their opponent cannot access the books neither can the voters. For instance, I recently had a debate where a voter claimed that my opponent cited better sources because he linked books which were supposedly more "scholarly" and I linked online sources. The point is not whether they were more "scholarly." My opponent could have been blatently lying about having info from a book that I don't have access to. How would I refute those sources then? Did the voter read those sources? No. He didn't have access either. It is really poor voting to assume that people who cite books have better sources. If a source cannot be accessed by the opponent and the voter, the debater must be penalized. From now on, everytime I vote, I will penalize anyone who cites a book.

Look up it on google books, you can go to the contents of certain chapters.

Also some books are published online, ex: http://www.massresistance.org...

And if it's put of copyright the whole book is accessible on google books in full.

Most books can be accessed in full or you can search the certain chapter and read. Or can be found in PDF online.


3) Of course news articles are credible sources.

4) Who cares if someone made a ton of sources. It is THEIR character space that is getting used up. In some of my debates, I had 20-25 sources for just one round. The number of sources does not matter. People who use an abundance of sources should neither be rewarded nor penalized. It is quality, reliability, and accessibility of sources that matter.

5) Blogs, by themselves no. But if those blogs link to studies, then go to those original studies to get that source.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2012 9:04:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
@ 16kadams, if that is the case, there is no excuse for citing a book as opposed to simply providing a link to the url where it can be accessed and the page number of the claim.

My argument is against those people who have a book at home with them and cite it.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2012 9:05:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/1/2012 9:02:32 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/1/2012 8:56:12 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 7/1/2012 6:31:20 PM, 000ike wrote:
The point of sources isn't just to give credit, but to ensure that the source is credible. But, this is probably the most abused use of points in voting. I think it would be a good idea if we made clear what is and isn't a credible source so that we can more easily distinguish the votebombs from the legitimate opinions.

1. Is Wikipedia a credible source?

Depends

2. Are sources that can't be looked at by the other debater allowed (i.e books)?

You can usually find the quoted passage/area of many books you're looking for on google books.

I've used google books before. It doesn't have everything, and when it comes to finding passages, the context they give you is too limited to do anything with it. I agree with F16 on this. It isn't fair to use books in a debate......what is stopping me from citing a book that I didn't use?

Popular books (that I cite, at least) full chapters are accessible of you google the title and chapter. Or is printed online as well. E.G http://www.massresistance.org...

And your saying possible fraud is fraud, which is a fallacy.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2012 9:07:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/1/2012 9:05:10 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 7/1/2012 9:02:32 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/1/2012 8:56:12 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 7/1/2012 6:31:20 PM, 000ike wrote:
The point of sources isn't just to give credit, but to ensure that the source is credible. But, this is probably the most abused use of points in voting. I think it would be a good idea if we made clear what is and isn't a credible source so that we can more easily distinguish the votebombs from the legitimate opinions.

1. Is Wikipedia a credible source?

Depends

2. Are sources that can't be looked at by the other debater allowed (i.e books)?

You can usually find the quoted passage/area of many books you're looking for on google books.

I've used google books before. It doesn't have everything, and when it comes to finding passages, the context they give you is too limited to do anything with it. I agree with F16 on this. It isn't fair to use books in a debate......what is stopping me from citing a book that I didn't use?

Popular books (that I cite, at least) full chapters are accessible of you google the title and chapter. Or is printed online as well. E.G http://www.massresistance.org...

And your saying possible fraud is fraud, which is a fallacy.

No. I'm saying that fraud is possible....and fraud should be detectable. Google books is insufficient.

By the way, don't tell me you actually read that drivel.
"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
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2012 9:13:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/1/2012 9:04:57 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
@ 16kadams, if that is the case, there is no excuse for citing a book as opposed to simply providing a link to the url where it can be accessed and the page number of the claim.

My argument is against those people who have a book at home with them and cite it.

How often dies fraud happen? What of they have a study online? Technically they need to it properly. And all of my sources are google-able. And how often died fraud happen? Likely it's fairly rarely.

Also, just google the chapter. On your debate say "must cite chapter along with book".

I see your point, but it's freaking out over a very rare problem.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2012 9:14:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Auto correct -_-
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2012 9:21:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The sources in the debate F16 is talking about were easily accessible. One was a quote from a book--if you searched for it in google books, you could find the quote, and read the several pages surrounding it to ensure that it wasn't taken out of context. In another, I cited a chapter--and the chapter was entirely available online on google books. The 3rd was an article in an academic journal--you could see the abstract, which included a description of the experiment and its conclusion, which was the only information I was citing.

In addition, you can lie about online sources too. For example, in my most recent debate, F16 blatantly lied about the content of one of my online sources.

"Pro's source is absolutely irrelevant and have flawed methodology. I read the link he provided in round 1 (Detterman). In page 2, the author gives examples of how skills are not transferred. Essentially, the people conducting the study taught a mentally retarded women to give the correct amount of change to a cashier when she bought something. They then made her try it in the real world where she failed. From there they jumped to the conclusion that skills are not transferable." -F16

Actually, the source ( http://cms.educ.ttu.edu... ) said no such thing. The study F16 talked about was an anecdote from the introduction used to illustrate an idea, not prove anything. The bulk of the article talked about a century's worth of literature on the subject--that was the evidence used to support the thesis, not the irrelevant anecdote F16 mentioned.

Since most people don't bother to read all online sources, people like F16 could easily get away with dishonest tactics like this whether on or offline sources are used. If it wasn't my source, which I had already read, I probably wouldn't have noticed his dishonesty.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2012 9:30:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I don't recall anyone ever complaining about my use of offline sources before F16. It reminds me of a question on a job application--it was something like, 'what percentage of people do you think would steal if given the opportunity?' The idea was that thieves think other people are thieves too. F16 is so paranoid about people lying about sources because he's a liar and expects other people to be like him, even though outright fabrication of sources is probably pretty rare.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2012 9:30:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
1. Is Wikipedia a credible source?

Yes, absolutely. The Long Tail (book) cites multiple studies showing Wikipedia is comparable to accuracy to Britannica and is better in some regards. However, if the opponent has only reason to doubt the analysis from wikipedia, or it is from a section that has been "flagged" by users, then judges should default to not believing wikipedia.

Debaters who want really brownie points though for sources (and the point) should cite the primary sources (from the bottom of wikipedia), rather than wikipedia itself.

2. Are sources that can't be looked at by the other debater allowed (i.e books)?

Yes. However, if a debater paraphrases from a book and the other debater questions whether this paraphrasing is true, the debater citing the book should be required to post the full quote from which they derived this analysis, either in the debate or in comments. Direct quotes from books should always be allowed.

3. Is FOXnews.com a credible source?

Yes. Although for analysis, rather than facts, readers can choose to take its viewpoints with a grain of salt. It won't stack well against Brookings, but neither would Huffington Post.

4. Should there be a penalty for source loading?

As in, citing too many sources? No. It's better to cite all your source material than little or none. Judges shouldn't be reading your sources, independently from the debate. Sources are merely to help your opponent locate where your claims come from. Sources cited should count as part of character count though. If you want to cite 20 sources for credibility, that should be counted towards your character total. There must be some limiting factor.

5. Are blogs a credible source?

Depends which blog. SCOTUSblog obviously has more credible analysis on Supreme Court decisions than say angelfire.iIZaBALLA.com. SCOTUSblog is more legit even than CNN, given the reporting mistakes on Obamacare. Depends which blog. Debaters citing blogs should also cite the credibility of the author in the debate, if their source credibility is questioned.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2012 9:34:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/1/2012 9:30:09 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
I don't recall anyone ever complaining about my use of offline sources before F16. It reminds me of a question on a job application--it was something like, 'what percentage of people do you think would steal if given the opportunity?' The idea was that thieves think other people are thieves too. F16 is so paranoid about people lying about sources because he's a liar and expects other people to be like him, even though outright fabrication of sources is probably pretty rare.

That's a little harsh. Maybe it was just a misunderstanding
"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
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2012 9:35:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/1/2012 9:34:00 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/1/2012 9:30:09 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
I don't recall anyone ever complaining about my use of offline sources before F16. It reminds me of a question on a job application--it was something like, 'what percentage of people do you think would steal if given the opportunity?' The idea was that thieves think other people are thieves too. F16 is so paranoid about people lying about sources because he's a liar and expects other people to be like him, even though outright fabrication of sources is probably pretty rare.

That's a little harsh. Maybe it was just a misunderstanding

Read the quote from him. He said he read the source, and then misrepresented what the source said. He was either being dishonest about having read the source, or did read the source, and was dishonest about what it said.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2012 9:39:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
16k, it is not just about fraud but rather giving the opponent the opportunity to refute your sources and point out exactly what is wrong with it. This opportunity is taken away when books are cited. Everything that is cited must be provided to the opponent and the voters and be kept transparent. I don't mind citing a book provided that book is accessible online.

LaissezFaire provided a few sources in his debate against me. Since he decided to take the argument to the forums, I would like to point out that one of his sources (the one he was talking about did in fact talk about the retarded woman. It may have mentioned research but it is not a paper where the research results were given. It mentioned other examples too like the author being helped by bus driver. I explained all this in my debate. Besides this source, LF also used other books as sources.

For instance, one of his source was entirely from a book. A link was
not provided in the round and it was inaccessible unless the contender
had access to the book or could pay to access it online. He should have
penalized for this by any rational voter but we have gotten very used
to the notion that books as sources are more reliable. A source is
only reliable if it stands against the opponent's arguments.

Since LF decided to take our debate to the comments section, I might
as well point out that he used cheap, underhanded tactics like drowning
out my argument in a huge volume of text hoping that the voters forget
about my argument. It seemed to have worked as at least one or two
voters skimmed through the debate instead of reading it closely. This
allowed LaissezFaire to make it seem like his argument was the only
relevant one.

I would highly encourage DDO members to never debate LaissezFaire.
This is the first time that I was losing that I felt irritation that
my opponent cheated and won as opposed to admiration about how well
they dismantled my argument - which is what I usually feel. The reason
of course is that LF never addressed my argument. He is a fraud and
a cheat. All his victories are likely due to cheating. Do not debate
this despicable person.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2012 9:44:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Apparently there's a source dispute between two debaters who I really respect. I'll read the debate soon and comment based on that.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2012 9:45:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
F16's claim that I somehow cheated by drowning out his argument in a wall of text is nonsense. I didn't spend much time on his points because they were irrelevant to my argument. As BlackVoid explained in his RFD (where he voted for F16): "First off, I didnt really see an issue with LF not spending much time on Con's case. LF's case directly responds to F-16's. F-16's case summary is: College is key to higher income, and people can't afford it without subsidies. LF's case is: College isn't why the students have higher income, its because the college-bound students are more productive in the first place (before even stepping on campus). So naturally the debate will focus mostly on LF's case because thats where the clash is."
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2012 9:50:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/1/2012 9:30:45 PM, bluesteel wrote:
1. Is Wikipedia a credible source?

Yes, absolutely. The Long Tail (book) cites multiple studies showing Wikipedia is comparable to accuracy to Britannica and is better in some regards. However, if the opponent has only reason to doubt the analysis from wikipedia, or it is from a section that has been "flagged" by users, then judges should default to not believing wikipedia.

Debaters who want really brownie points though for sources (and the point) should cite the primary sources (from the bottom of wikipedia), rather than wikipedia itself.

This is actually sources GOLD!!!

You can do almost entire debates from Wiki and the sources provided there.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"