Total Posts:18|Showing Posts:1-18
Jump to topic:

Is it OK to use books in debates?

STALIN
Posts: 3,726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2014 12:03:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Is it OK to cite books in your debates as a source?

I'm just wondering because there are two problems with this.

1) Voters/opponent cannot view the source.

2) The person who used the book might have lied about the fact. In other words, the person would have cited the book as a source but just made up the facts.
thett3
Posts: 14,348
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2014 12:06:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Depends on how it's used. If you say something like "Kant says:'....'" Then cite the book, perfectly legitimate. If you say "my opponents statistical evidence is all wrong" and then cite the book as "proof" without quoting it or anything, that's not okay.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2014 12:09:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/25/2014 12:03:28 PM, STALIN wrote:
Is it OK to cite books in your debates as a source?

I'm just wondering because there are two problems with this.

1) Voters/opponent cannot view the source.

2) The person who used the book might have lied about the fact. In other words, the person would have cited the book as a source but just made up the facts.

I think it's "okay" but could be an ill-advised move. You're making an assertion about the contents...your opponent could just make the assertion that it says the opposite, and the voters wouldn't necessarily know who was right. So I think it's something to be done with caution.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
hawk55732
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2014 1:54:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Seeing as how for the majority of human existence books were the only source for information, Id say you'd be crazy for not using them. Not all knowledge in the world is on the internet.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2014 1:59:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
If books or printed text is not allowed, then it must be that before the internet, no debate with sources was possible. Really?

Books are completely legitimate. The debater is obliged to present an accurate quotation that's not taken out of context. As a courtesy, if the same information is on the web then use the web. Google is in the process of scanning in all the books, so searching for a quotation from a book has a fair chance of getting a hit. Also, quite a few public libraries loan out books using downloads. I know someone who is a member of the New York City Public Library who has never been in the Library and doesn't live in New York City. Librarians know how it all works.

Contrary to popular belief, all worthwhile knowledge is not available for free on the web. An example that comes to mind is the book "Mismatch: How Affirmative Action Hurts Students It's Intended to Help, and Why Universities Won't Admit It" that is important for any debate on affirmative action in admissions. There are many subjects requiring more depth that the superficial info on the web provide.
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2014 4:36:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Is it OK to cite books in your debates as a source? That is what was used exclusively for hundreds of years. LOL
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
dtaylor971
Posts: 1,907
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2014 5:15:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/25/2014 4:36:38 PM, sadolite wrote:
Is it OK to cite books in your debates as a source? That is what was used exclusively for hundreds of years. LOL

I don't think they had internet debating hundreds of years ago... Did they?

The Asians probably did.
"I don't know why gays want to marry, I have spent the last 25 years wishing I wasn't allowed to." -Sadolite
YYW
Posts: 36,294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2014 5:34:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/25/2014 12:03:28 PM, STALIN wrote:
Is it OK to cite books in your debates as a source?

Yes.

I'm just wondering because there are two problems with this.

1) Voters/opponent cannot view the source.

They could buy the book or go to the library, so they could see the source. The question is how hard should it be for them to see the source.

(btw. it's not hard to see if a book source is misquoted, if you know how, via de internets.)

2) The person who used the book might have lied about the fact. In other words, the person would have cited the book as a source but just made up the facts.

They could have, and it wouldn't be hard to know if they did. Google exists, you know.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2014 5:45:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/25/2014 1:59:37 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
If books or printed text is not allowed, then it must be that before the internet, no debate with sources was possible. Really?

Not talking about debating rules, generally but only permissibility on DDO. So, irrelevant.

Books are completely legitimate. The debater is obliged to present an accurate quotation that's not taken out of context. As a courtesy, if the same information is on the web then use the web. Google is in the process of scanning in all the books, so searching for a quotation from a book has a fair chance of getting a hit. Also, quite a few public libraries loan out books using downloads. I know someone who is a member of the New York City Public Library who has never been in the Library and doesn't live in New York City. Librarians know how it all works.

JSTOR does something similar too, but I digress. Just searching a phrase will more often than not yield sufficient results. If what the debater says is in conflict with what the rest of the world says on the same subject, chances are high that the debater has misused a source. However, if it's something complicated (like philosophy, especially analytic philosophy, etc.) then that becomes more dicey. For example, most (continental) philosophy majors (i.e. the only people likely to have been taught the stuff) have no idea what to do with logical positivism (among the theoretical cornerstones of social science)... having been "taught" by people who teach the stuff only to dismiss it, the students also summarily dismiss it and then want to argue over what something means when they have absolutely no idea what they're talking about. This has been a recurring problem for me, which is the only reason I mention it.

Contrary to popular belief, all worthwhile knowledge is not available for free on the web.

If that isn't the truth, I don't know what is.

An example that comes to mind is the book "Mismatch: How Affirmative Action Hurts Students It's Intended to Help, and Why Universities Won't Admit It" that is important for any debate on affirmative action in admissions.

I'm not familiar with that book, but I have a pretty complicated position on affirmative action...

There are many subjects requiring more depth that the superficial info on the web provide.

The problem is that there is a lot of meaningless sh!t on the internet that isn't accurate. It's like the definitions of "positive" and "normative." Those words have real, precise meanings and implications and they mean FAR more than just "empirical observation" and "value judgement," respectively. The same applies to words like "falsifiable."

I read a thing on a philosophy forum not long ago where I read a consecutive series of eight or so half-witted nincompoop try to tease out meanings to some of the words I've listed above, not the least of whom have clearly EVER read anything of what they're talking about or, if they have, never understood it. They were improperly taught, and then measure the veracity of what others say on the basis of other's congruence to what they think they already know.

I don't have any idea if this is a problem in engineering, but it is in social science, philosophy, and the humanities, generally. And whenever I see it, it just drives me crazy...
Tsar of DDO
STALIN
Posts: 3,726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2014 5:46:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/25/2014 5:34:53 PM, YYW wrote:
At 1/25/2014 12:03:28 PM, STALIN wrote:
Is it OK to cite books in your debates as a source?

Yes.

I'm just wondering because there are two problems with this.

1) Voters/opponent cannot view the source.

They could buy the book or go to the library, so they could see the source. The question is how hard should it be for them to see the source.

(btw. it's not hard to see if a book source is misquoted, if you know how, via de internets.)

2) The person who used the book might have lied about the fact. In other words, the person would have cited the book as a source but just made up the facts.

They could have, and it wouldn't be hard to know if they did. Google exists, you know.

ok
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2014 8:06:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/25/2014 5:15:35 PM, dtaylor971 wrote:
At 1/25/2014 4:36:38 PM, sadolite wrote:
Is it OK to cite books in your debates as a source? That is what was used exclusively for hundreds of years. LOL

I don't think they had internet debating hundreds of years ago... Did they?

The Asians probably did.

Eh, I was referring to using books as a source in a debate. The fact that one holds a debate on line is irrelevant. Although I would think you would have to paraphrase the passage(s) and page number(s) that substantiate your source. I don't think simply stating the title of a book would be sufficient. The same would apply in a face to face debate.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
TUF
Posts: 21,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2014 9:45:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/25/2014 12:06:51 PM, thett3 wrote:
Depends on how it's used. If you say something like "Kant says:'....'" Then cite the book, perfectly legitimate. If you say "my opponents statistical evidence is all wrong" and then cite the book as "proof" without quoting it or anything, that's not okay.

straight, simple and to the point.
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2014 11:02:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
So the community has spoken: books are allowed. In that case, the vote-bomb from bsh1 on my debate needs to be removed:

http://www.debate.org...

Not only did bsh1 explicitly state that "there is no way Con could have won," she gave Con points and Pro none. Further, she justified this vote-bomb (which was based on her anger of the supposedly "abusively" framed resolution, by saying that she couldn't access my source (WHICH WAS A BOOK).
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 12:21:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/25/2014 11:02:40 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
So the community has spoken: books are allowed. In that case, the vote-bomb from bsh1 on my debate needs to be removed:

http://www.debate.org...

Not only did bsh1 explicitly state that "there is no way Con could have won," she gave Con points and Pro none. Further, she justified this vote-bomb (which was based on her anger of the supposedly "abusively" framed resolution, by saying that she couldn't access my source (WHICH WAS A BOOK).

bsh1 courteously complied with my request, so never mind.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 12:33:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Yes, as long as info on the book and its author are readily available online.

As I've said in an earlier thread: "I think accessibility of sources is vital insofar as it shows a source has not be falsified, misquoted, or misrepresented...we must also consider that, without the source itself to examine, it is hard for an opponent to evaluate and critique the source within the debate."
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 2:28:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/25/2014 5:45:32 PM, YYW wrote:

JSTOR does something similar too, but I digress. Just searching a phrase will more often than not yield sufficient results. If what the debater says is in conflict with what the rest of the world says on the same subject, chances are high that the debater has misused a source. However, if it's something complicated (like philosophy, especially analytic philosophy, etc.) then that becomes more dicey. For example, most (continental) philosophy majors (i.e. the only people likely to have been taught the stuff) have no idea what to do with logical positivism (among the theoretical cornerstones of social science)...

Lol you rascal what are you saying now.

having been "taught" by people who teach the stuff only to dismiss it, the students also summarily dismiss it and then want to argue over what something means when they have absolutely no idea what they're talking about. This has been a recurring problem for me, which is the only reason I mention it.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
lannan13
Posts: 23,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 2:31:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I generally believe yes.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-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...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 6:37:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/25/2014 5:45:32 PM, YYW wrote:
At 1/25/2014 1:59:37 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
If books or printed text is not allowed, then it must be that before the internet, no debate with sources was possible. Really?

Not talking about debating rules, generally but only permissibility on DDO. So, irrelevant.

No one has claimed that there is a site rule forbidding use of books as sources. The question is then whether there is a de facto rule established by convention in debating. The point is that it would be foolish to have such a convention because it would defy the conventional concepts of debate.

... if it's something complicated (like philosophy, especially analytic philosophy, etc.) then that becomes more dicey. For example, most (continental) philosophy majors (i.e. the only people likely to have been taught the stuff) have no idea what to do with logical positivism (among the theoretical cornerstones of social science)... having been "taught" by people who teach the stuff only to dismiss it, the students also summarily dismiss it and then want to argue over what something means when they have absolutely no idea what they're talking about. This has been a recurring problem for me, which is the only reason I mention it.

The more technical the debate, the less likely that what's available for free on the internet will be adequate. For example, serious scientific study of abiogenesis only began around 2000, and not much of it has reached the web.

An example that comes to mind is the book "Mismatch: How Affirmative Action Hurts Students It's Intended to Help, and Why Universities Won't Admit It" that is important for any debate on affirmative action in admissions.

I'm not familiar with that book, but I have a pretty complicated position on affirmative action...

The book is important because it contains substantial original research. Community colleges and about 100 four-year colleges have no academic requirements for admissions -- that's well over half the students. doing well in a two-year community college provides admission to virtually any four year school. Affirmative action has an effect in admission to elite schools. But affirmative action only provides admission, not completion. The result is that the many minority students who would have done well at less difficult schools drop out completely discouraged, and never get degrees. The result is that fewer minority students get degrees with affirmative action than without.