- Oct 12, 2009
- 58,613
- 10,629
- 2,030
Note to the left: We understand the show us proof game. We provide it and you deny the source, then counter with a blog. So let's progress to what you're going to do as a more honest approach to debate.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Note to the left: We understand the show us proof game. We provide it and you deny the source, then counter with a blog. So let's progress to what you're going to do as a more honest approach to debate.
Serious reply when I have time - but every time I post links and books I'm chastised by the right. Go figure.
Although Si Modo posted a wondeful post about debate which was made sticky, there seems to be some confusion here about something important. That something is called Burden of Proof.
If one were to make a certain claim, then it is up to that person to provide some sort of proof as to that claims validity.
While it is possible to prove a negative, when making such claims, the burden -is- generally on those who disagree with the claim.Although Si Modo posted a wondeful post about debate which was made sticky, there seems to be some confusion here about something important. That something is called Burden of Proof.
If one were to make a certain claim, then it is up to that person to provide some sort of proof as to that claims validity.
Mostly true. However I would say properly that it should be "If one were to make a certain POSITIVE claim, then it is up to that person to provide some sort of proof as to that claims validity." Negative claims don't always need support.
Example: A: "I don't really think that X causes Y."
B: "But X does cause Y!"
Even though the initial claim was made by A, it is a negative claim..a lack of belief or confidence. A is not making a factual claim that X does not cause Y but a negative claim that the evidence/arguments have not convinced him, and does not have the burden of proof that X does not cause Y (though he does have an ethical obligation to explain why he rejects the causality argument).
B, by asserting that X does cause Y, is making the positive claim and has the burden of proof even though he's not the initial claimant.
Note to the left: We understand the show us proof game. We provide it and you deny the source, then counter with a blog. So let's progress to what you're going to do as a more honest approach to debate.
Serious reply when I have time - but every time I post links and books I'm chastised by the right. Go figure.
Funny that you two want to pretend that the making stuff up style of "debating" is confined to one side or the other.
Note to the left: We understand the show us proof game. We provide it and you deny the source, then counter with a blog. So let's progress to what you're going to do as a more honest approach to debate.
Serious reply when I have time - but every time I post links and books I'm chastised by the right. Go figure.
Funny that you two want to pretend that the making stuff up style of "debating" is confined to one side or the other.
Read for comprehension AF. Did I say sourcing wasn't required? Nope. Did I suggest an inpartial source was a good idea? Yes. I suggested denying a credible source and responding with a biased one was a problem.
I was only laughing at the contention that one side did it more often than the other.
The sad truth is 90% of people who "debate" on message boards, aren't debating, they are simply screaming their opinion without wanting to actually hear anything which refutes it. I don't mean just this board, I mean any board, be the topic sports, religion, politics, or whatever else.
In other words, the truly idiotic once again scream the loudest and drown out the people who actually want to have civilized discussion, and those sorts exist on all points of the political spectrum.
I was only laughing at the contention that one side did it more often than the other.
The sad truth is 90% of people who "debate" on message boards, aren't debating, they are simply screaming their opinion without wanting to actually hear anything which refutes it. I don't mean just this board, I mean any board, be the topic sports, religion, politics, or whatever else.
In other words, the truly idiotic once again scream the loudest and drown out the people who actually want to have civilized discussion, and those sorts exist on all points of the political spectrum.
On this board, it is one party more than the other. True, both sides are contributors though. One thing that happens with me. (I'm admitting this) My sources get ignored or dismissed because the other party just doesn't want to change their opinion. After a while, my interest in posting a source goes away. If a source doesn't matter, why post one?
EditedI was only laughing at the contention that one side did it more often than the other.
The sad truth is 90% of people who "debate" on message boards, aren't debating, they are simply screaming their opinion without wanting to actually hear anything which refutes it. I don't mean just this board, I mean any board, be the topic sports, religion, politics, or whatever else.
In other words, the truly idiotic once again scream the loudest and drown out the people who actually want to have civilized discussion, and those sorts exist on all points of the political spectrum.
On this board, it is one party more than the other. True, both sides are contributors though. One thing that happens with me. (I'm admitting this) My sources get ignored or dismissed because the other party just doesn't want to change their opinion. After a while, my interest in posting a source goes away. If a source doesn't matter, why post one?
I tend to not post sources much, unless they are quotes or something like that. What gets me is when you post something that in real life 99% of people would admit is true and some dolt (or multiple dolts) comes screaming into a thread "link?" Here's an idea dolt, how about being an adult and conceding known facts sans a link that you will just deny is true anyway.
Or , and this just happened to me on this board, Someone makes a wild claim and you post a valid comparison that shoots their claim in the head, and instead of debating to you why the situation they describe is different in their opinion they instead scream that you are bringing up scenarios that are irrelevant to the thread.
Once again, that is usually things that in a real life discussion an adult would say "that's a good point, but this is different because........" but no no on the internet that is apparently not allowed.
I'm not aware of what Harry Reid said. So for the reader, I would think you would need to re-state his comment, then state why it is relevent to the argument and how it leads to your conclusion.Actually, it seems to have everything to do with the OP. He provided an example of what you were opposing. And I doubt there is anyone ignorant as to what Harry Reid said last week.
So in a way, you are right, it's a perfect example.
Even in formal debate, the participant can use a degree of logic and reason based on common knowledge and does not have to provide a citation for everything he or she says.
On a message board which will be much less structured, the ability to have a conversation should require much less formal citation in order to have that conversation. Otherwise you have endless links and/or cut and paste from opinions that may or may not be better than anybody else's. This becomes extremely time consuming, tedious, and in many cases quite boring for all but a very few.
Let common sense and not rigid rules prevail. If I comment that based on a recent reported increases in food stamp usage, we can conclude that people are either having harder times making ends meet or there is more abuse of the system. . . .
You can accept that you agree that there is more food stamp usage and focus on my rationale for why that is. . . .or. . . .
You can challenge my opinion that there is more food stamp usage.
THEN, I can find a credible source or sources to support my statement. And if you just aren't buying it, you can find a credible source to dispute it.
But if we both know and agree that food stamp usage is up, then we can focus on the whys and consequences of that and skip a lot of unnecessary fact checking.
We're in agreement there.Even in formal debate, the participant can use a degree of logic and reason based on common knowledge and does not have to provide a citation for everything he or she says.
On a message board which will be much less structured, the ability to have a conversation should require much less formal citation in order to have that conversation. Otherwise you have endless links and/or cut and paste from opinions that may or may not be better than anybody else's. This becomes extremely time consuming, tedious, and in many cases quite boring for all but a very few.
Let common sense and not rigid rules prevail. If I comment that based on a recent reported increases in food stamp usage, we can conclude that people are either having harder times making ends meet or there is more abuse of the system. . . .
You can accept that you agree that there is more food stamp usage and focus on my rationale for why that is. . . .or. . . .
You can challenge my opinion that there is more food stamp usage.
THEN, I can find a credible source or sources to support my statement. And if you just aren't buying it, you can find a credible source to dispute it.
But if we both know and agree that food stamp usage is up, then we can focus on the whys and consequences of that and skip a lot of unnecessary fact checking.