Total Posts:15|Showing Posts:1-15
Jump to topic:

Source spamming

Arcanas
Posts: 198
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2015 9:26:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/20/2015 9:18:05 PM, kasmic wrote:
What is it? Mikal says this debate is the definition. http://www.debate.org...

By the name I would assume that it is when one uses tons of sources (While not many are actually needed or necessary) in order to get source points for a debate. Just a guess.
Zaradi
Posts: 14,125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2015 9:50:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/20/2015 9:26:40 PM, Arcanas wrote:
At 4/20/2015 9:18:05 PM, kasmic wrote:
What is it? Mikal says this debate is the definition. http://www.debate.org...

By the name I would assume that it is when one uses tons of sources (While not many are actually needed or necessary) in order to get source points for a debate. Just a guess.

Close.

Source spamming is typically where someone throws out stupid amounts of sources to overwhelm an opposing debater who may or may not be capable of dealing with a high volume of sources. This is especially the case where less sources could've been used to establish the same point that was made with an overbearing amount of sources.

And yeah, whiteflame is spammin' the sources real good in that debate rofl. fvcking 30+....jesus.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2015 9:53:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/20/2015 9:50:30 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 4/20/2015 9:26:40 PM, Arcanas wrote:
At 4/20/2015 9:18:05 PM, kasmic wrote:
What is it? Mikal says this debate is the definition. http://www.debate.org...

By the name I would assume that it is when one uses tons of sources (While not many are actually needed or necessary) in order to get source points for a debate. Just a guess.

Close.

Source spamming is typically where someone throws out stupid amounts of sources to overwhelm an opposing debater who may or may not be capable of dealing with a high volume of sources. This is especially the case where less sources could've been used to establish the same point that was made with an overbearing amount of sources.

And yeah, whiteflame is spammin' the sources real good in that debate rofl. fvcking 30+....jesus.

Hey now, I'm trying to make a lot of points in those arguments. That requires tremendous sourcing!
Zaradi
Posts: 14,125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2015 9:54:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/20/2015 9:53:46 PM, whiteflame wrote:
At 4/20/2015 9:50:30 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 4/20/2015 9:26:40 PM, Arcanas wrote:
At 4/20/2015 9:18:05 PM, kasmic wrote:
What is it? Mikal says this debate is the definition. http://www.debate.org...

By the name I would assume that it is when one uses tons of sources (While not many are actually needed or necessary) in order to get source points for a debate. Just a guess.

Close.

Source spamming is typically where someone throws out stupid amounts of sources to overwhelm an opposing debater who may or may not be capable of dealing with a high volume of sources. This is especially the case where less sources could've been used to establish the same point that was made with an overbearing amount of sources.

And yeah, whiteflame is spammin' the sources real good in that debate rofl. fvcking 30+....jesus.

Hey now, I'm trying to make a lot of points in those arguments. That requires tremendous sourcing!

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight ;)
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2015 9:55:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/20/2015 9:53:46 PM, whiteflame wrote:
At 4/20/2015 9:50:30 PM, Zaradi wrote:

And yeah, whiteflame is spammin' the sources real good in that debate rofl. fvcking 30+....jesus.

Hey now, I'm trying to make a lot of points in those arguments. That requires tremendous sourcing!

Lol
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...
kasmic
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2015 10:18:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Well, For the record Whiteflame did not need the number of sources to intimidate me haha.
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2015 10:22:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I used 38 here (http://www.debate.org...) but whiteflame still has another round to overtake me.

I don't know what's the most number of sources used in a round. Guesses?

And I'm talking about legitimate debates, not the troll-spam kind. My debate was about whether evolution was a science so it necessitated that I use lots of evidence as proof. None of my sources were unnecessary.

I haven't seen any good debater use sources just to up the source count. Mostly, people want to back-up what they say.

I guess some of the newer members think more sources are impressive.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2015 10:25:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/20/2015 9:50:30 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 4/20/2015 9:26:40 PM, Arcanas wrote:
At 4/20/2015 9:18:05 PM, kasmic wrote:
What is it? Mikal says this debate is the definition. http://www.debate.org...

By the name I would assume that it is when one uses tons of sources (While not many are actually needed or necessary) in order to get source points for a debate. Just a guess.

Close.

Source spamming is typically where someone throws out stupid amounts of sources to overwhelm an opposing debater who may or may not be capable of dealing with a high volume of sources. This is especially the case where less sources could've been used to establish the same point that was made with an overbearing amount of sources.

And yeah, whiteflame is spammin' the sources real good in that debate rofl. fvcking 30+....jesus.

Thats nothing compared to my debate vs zmikecube. he had 48 by round 1.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2015 10:57:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/20/2015 9:18:05 PM, kasmic wrote:
What is it? Mikal says this debate is the definition. http://www.debate.org...

Nope. I used 33 in one round vs danielle. Reason: one of my sources was listing sources :P (http://www.debate.org...)

Here is one of the sources:

"22. Walter R. Schumm. "Intergenerational Transfer of Parentel Sexual Orientation and Other Myths," International Journal of the Jurisprudence of the Family 4 (2013): 267-433.

Some of the studies whose results were hinted to but not specifically cited [were] Sarantakos 2000, Murray and McClinlock 2005, LaVoie, Julien, and Fortier 2006, Hequembourg 2007 (lesbian households report higher romantic experiences with the mother and the child), Goldberg 2007b, Kuvalanka and Goldberg 2009, Bos and Sandfort 2010."
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
4/20/2015 11:02:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
For my danielle debate:

12 (fooking low m8) + 18 (scrub number) + 23 (meh) = 53

Or, using 31 (the true number, 33 was my memory being bad), 12 + 18 + 31 = 61

I am pissed that zmikecuber beat me. I mean fooking sh!t I cite every relevant study in the debate with Danielle and don't get that much. All of the things I debate don't have hundreds of studies so I don't spam as much. It pisses me off. Plus I think explaining a few studies in detail > "studies prove that porn iz bad[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]". Yet again, I actually read the studies and try to find flaws to make sure they aren't BS :P
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
4/20/2015 11:02:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/20/2015 10:25:40 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 4/20/2015 9:50:30 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 4/20/2015 9:26:40 PM, Arcanas wrote:
At 4/20/2015 9:18:05 PM, kasmic wrote:
What is it? Mikal says this debate is the definition. http://www.debate.org...

By the name I would assume that it is when one uses tons of sources (While not many are actually needed or necessary) in order to get source points for a debate. Just a guess.

Close.

Source spamming is typically where someone throws out stupid amounts of sources to overwhelm an opposing debater who may or may not be capable of dealing with a high volume of sources. This is especially the case where less sources could've been used to establish the same point that was made with an overbearing amount of sources.

And yeah, whiteflame is spammin' the sources real good in that debate rofl. fvcking 30+....jesus.

Thats nothing compared to my debate vs zmikecube. he had 48 by round 1.

tbh explaining a study in depth is better than generalizing them with 10 footnotes :P
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
Ragnar
Posts: 1,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2015 11:19:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/20/2015 9:18:05 PM, kasmic wrote:
What is it?

Also known as Source Bombing, it is a special form of Gish Gallop (as previous commentators have described). It is very common to see someone post the same set of links in repetition each debate round, or many links when they all say the same damned thing for the same reason.
Unofficial DDO Guide: http://goo.gl...
(It's probably the best help resource here, other than talking to people...)

Voting Standards: https://goo.gl...

And please disable Smart-Quotes: https://goo.gl...
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2015 11:24:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/20/2015 11:19:04 PM, Ragnar wrote:
At 4/20/2015 9:18:05 PM, kasmic wrote:
What is it?

Also known as Source Bombing, it is a special form of Gish Gallop (as previous commentators have described). It is very common to see someone post the same set of links in repetition each debate round, or many links when they all say the same damned thing for the same reason.

I spam sources but not the same ones
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
Bennett91
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2015 12:00:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/20/2015 11:02:37 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/20/2015 10:25:40 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 4/20/2015 9:50:30 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 4/20/2015 9:26:40 PM, Arcanas wrote:
At 4/20/2015 9:18:05 PM, kasmic wrote:
What is it? Mikal says this debate is the definition. http://www.debate.org...

By the name I would assume that it is when one uses tons of sources (While not many are actually needed or necessary) in order to get source points for a debate. Just a guess.

Close.

Source spamming is typically where someone throws out stupid amounts of sources to overwhelm an opposing debater who may or may not be capable of dealing with a high volume of sources. This is especially the case where less sources could've been used to establish the same point that was made with an overbearing amount of sources.

And yeah, whiteflame is spammin' the sources real good in that debate rofl. fvcking 30+....jesus.

Thats nothing compared to my debate vs zmikecube. he had 48 by round 1.

tbh explaining a study in depth is better than generalizing them with 10 footnotes :P

Had he done that then he'd have to admit they could only find correlation. His argument relied on causation.