Total Posts:16|Showing Posts:1-16
Jump to topic:

Sources Outside of Debate

Magicr
Posts: 135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2013 8:47:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I am currently engaged in a dispute with an opponent over whether it is permissible to list sources in the comments section of a debate due to space constraints. I have seen this, or people linking to a new debate with sources in it, done many times and have thought it to be considered generally acceptable unless it is specified that this is not to be done.

Thoughts on this issue?
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2013 9:07:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Default is that everything in the debate goes into the debate round, so unless otherwise stated, you can't put the sources outside the debate. Otherwise it's cheating the character limit.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2013 9:11:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/15/2013 8:47:59 PM, Magicr wrote:
I am currently engaged in a dispute with an opponent over whether it is permissible to list sources in the comments section of a debate due to space constraints. I have seen this, or people linking to a new debate with sources in it, done many times and have thought it to be considered generally acceptable unless it is specified that this is not to be done.

Thoughts on this issue?

I usually use tny.cz or pastebin to link sources. Never had someone go ape over it.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.

"So Magic8000 believes Einstein was a proctologist who was persuaded by the Government and Hitler to fabricate the Theory of Relativity"- GWL-CPA
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2013 9:12:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Two debaters can agree to whatever they want to, but if there's no explicit agreement, you should put your sources in your post. It wouldn't be fair for one person to put their sources in their post and the other person to post their sources elsewhere since they take up space.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Magicr
Posts: 135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2013 9:33:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/15/2013 9:12:39 PM, philochristos wrote:
Two debaters can agree to whatever they want to, but if there's no explicit agreement, you should put your sources in your post. It wouldn't be fair for one person to put their sources in their post and the other person to post their sources elsewhere since they take up space.

I have no problems with him sourcing in the comments as well.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2013 1:31:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/15/2013 9:33:08 PM, Magicr wrote:
At 3/15/2013 9:12:39 PM, philochristos wrote:
Two debaters can agree to whatever they want to, but if there's no explicit agreement, you should put your sources in your post. It wouldn't be fair for one person to put their sources in their post and the other person to post their sources elsewhere since they take up space.

I have no problems with him sourcing in the comments as well.

too hard for people voting to find everything. Just use one of the sites others have suggested in this thread and they won't take up hardly any space.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
Lizard
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2013 11:56:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/15/2013 9:07:44 PM, phantom wrote:
Default is that everything in the debate goes into the debate round, so unless otherwise stated, you can't put the sources outside the debate. Otherwise it's cheating the character limit.

The lizard hasn't been around long enough to know, but this is what I'd assume.
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2013 10:22:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Unless both sides agreed to it initially, it's a conduct violation.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
Magicr
Posts: 135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2013 10:41:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
While I understand why you all would consider it a conduct violation, I find it interesting that this practice is fairly common and when it is done, it is not really looked down upon. For example, Pro's R4 here: http://www.debate.org...

It is for this apparent acceptance in practice, and I don't think you will deny that it appears to be accepted when it is done in many cases, that I presumed that it would be alright to do so, though I am finding that many consider it not to be.
Zaradi
Posts: 14,124
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2013 10:43:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I personally don't see too much problem with it, regardless of whether or not it's agreed upon. I actually didn't have much of an opinion on it before, so reading this thread made me think about it, but here's what I'm thinking right now:

I agree right now to if someone intentionally is trying to break the character limit, that's a conduct violation. The question then boils down to whether or not posting sources in such a way is trying to break the character limit. To this extent, I go to what the entire purpose of the character limit is about.

I think the entire purpose of the character limit is to prevent debaters from just spamming massive amounts of arguments and making the debate unreadable. For example, the whole hooplah with Mouthwash when he frequently glitched his way past the character limit to post massive amounts of argumentation and responses to other arguments. But, as any half-competent debater knows, sources aren't arguments. Using a source as an argument is a horribly poor choice in strategy, moreover it's just not an actual argument, otherwise we'd all just scour Google for any thread that agrees with our position and just copy-paste them all into our round space.

So from there, I have to ask myself the question of if sources aren't arguments, and the point of the character limit is to prevent mass argument spamming, then is citing sources in such a manner really a violation of the character limit and, thusly, a violation of conduct? I come up with the answer of 'no'.

Apparently this isn't the popular opinion on the site. I'd love to see feedback because I'm curious as to why y'all thinks it's a conduct violation. But these are just my thoughts.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2013 11:15:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The limit is 8000 characters for your post, not for your argument.

If it was fair to say, "I don't have room for my sources, so I'll put them in the comments," then it should also be fair to say, "I only have room for my sources, so I'll put my argument in the comments.
Daktoria
Posts: 497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2013 8:48:15 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/17/2013 11:15:23 PM, wiploc wrote:
The limit is 8000 characters for your post, not for your argument.

If it was fair to say, "I don't have room for my sources, so I'll put them in the comments," then it should also be fair to say, "I only have room for my sources, so I'll put my argument in the comments.

Not really.

There's a difference between processing information through argumentation and storing information through citation.

If anything, sources should be mentioned in comments to keep things organized.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2013 11:41:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The character limit on debates is a site rule, and it cannot be amended by agreement of the debaters. re is also a rule that arguments have to be in the debate and not elsewhere. Therefore including material outside of the debate violates the rule. It is a conduct violation and the sources do not count.

The reason for the rule is keep debates compact for the convenience of the reader. It shouldn't be a challenge to track down all the pieces of a debate. Very often when people post external lists of links they get the list out of sync with the debate, so you have the addition challenge of trying to find what reference is actually used for what claim.

I recommend putting the link right after the sentence that depends upon it. That minimizes errors in making lists and it most convenient for the reader. I think the character-counting should be changed to exclude characters in links, but authorizing treasure hunts to find the references is very bad idea. Debates should be self-contained.
tulle
Posts: 4,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2013 11:50:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
@Roy---I just checked out your last debate with Brian and I really like your format (of posting the source directly after the relevant sentence, rather than posting them at the end). I'll do that for my next debate. I agree that people are less inclined to look at sources and scroll up and down the check them.
yang.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2013 12:29:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
There's a lot of gray area between would constitute of using a source as a form of argumentation and when it's used just to verify information.

Some arguments are hard to argue against, unless you're directly arguing against the source. For example if the debate is about emperical evidence showing that your argument is correct, then you have to challenge the source directly and not the argument. Otherwise, it's an automatic concession.

In theory, a debate can be done without the reader needed to look at sources. This is true, however its fairly easy to come up with arguments that would be undefendable unless you challenge the sources directly.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...