Total Posts:7|Showing Posts:1-7
Jump to topic:

Most Reliable Sources

lannan13
Posts: 23,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2013 9:09:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Reuters is pretty good source and so is China dailey.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,927
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2013 9:50:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Peer-reviewed articles published in reputable journals, anything else elicits suspicion in me. Especially the media. It's usually laughably easy to rip any media source to shreds, considering the appalling lack of rigor which they usually employ.
"See now Oblivion shimmering all around us, its very tranquility deadlier than tempest. How little all our keels have troubled it."
- Lord Dunsany -

"Over her head the stars, the thoughts of God in the heavens,
Shone on the eyes of man, who had ceased to marvel and worship"
- Henry Longfellow -

"We enjoy, we see nothing by direct vision; but only by reflection, and in anatomical dismemberment."
- Thomas Carlyle -
Magicr
Posts: 135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2013 9:58:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
"Which debater, on balance, proved their argument with sufficient quantity and appropriate interpretation of evidence?" is the standard given for judging sources.

Given this standard, it is clear that it is not just about having more sources. If a certain argument can be made without the use of many sources, the party making that argument should not be punished for not using too few sources. Don't just give a party the source points for using more sources. A number of philosophic arguments are of this nature.

A party can be penalized, however, if they make an argument that should have a lot of sources, but only a few are used. This is probably more likely to be applicable in a something like a policy or scientific related debate.

So, it's basically a combination of judging the quality of sources used as well as whether the appropriate number of sources were used based on the claims being made. I often won't vote the sources unless one side clearly has an inappropriate amount of sources or unreliable sources.
philochristos
Posts: 2,698
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2013 10:25:24 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/24/2013 8:38:20 AM, KingDebater wrote:
Is the 'most' in 'most reliable sources' describing how reliable the sources are or how many reliable sources there are?

I judge sources on three criteria, in this order:

1. How relevant they are to the argument (e.g., are they citing expert opinions, or are they just citing dictionaries?)

2. How credible are they?

3. How many relevant/credible sources do they use?
"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
KingDebater
Posts: 687
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2013 10:34:16 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/24/2013 10:25:24 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 3/24/2013 8:38:20 AM, KingDebater wrote:
Is the 'most' in 'most reliable sources' describing how reliable the sources are or how many reliable sources there are?

I judge sources on three criteria, in this order:

1. How relevant they are to the argument (e.g., are they citing expert opinions, or are they just citing dictionaries?)

2. How credible are they?

3. How many relevant/credible sources do they use?

Before now, I pretty much did that. I check the validity of them and then if they're all valid and relevant which they usually are, I count them up and then give the point based on that.