Instigator / Pro
8
1702
rating
77
debates
70.13%
won
Topic
#2221

Resolved: referenced sources are necessary in a debate

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
6
Better sources
4
2
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
2

After 2 votes and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...

Death23
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
12,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
12
1553
rating
24
debates
56.25%
won
Description

Resolved: referenced sources are necessary in a debate. The DebateArt Voting Policy[1] requires sources, and declares three separate purposes of sourcing:

1. To provide impact to each participant’s argument.
2. To either bolster a participant’s argument, or weaken an opponent’s argument.
3. To provide superior results of one debater’s argument over the other.

If sourcing is absent from a debater’s argument, none of these purposes are achieved because the avoidance of sourcing renders an argument to the limited status of personal opinion, or likewise, someone else’s parroted opinion. According to the Voting Policy, cited above, a voter must use the purposes listed above to make adequate judgment about a debater’s sourcing compliance.

Even in a situation wherein a debater proposes a resolution that is currently not commonly-known reality, creative sourcing is possible to reference in support of the resolution. For example, should the resolution, earthling humans have had direct, personal contact with alien beings from another planet, sourcing can be found to creatively demonstrate the resolution, and that sourcing can bolster the argument. It is a condition similar to a fictional vehicle: suspension of disbelief.

Yet, a moderator, in a vote, declared agreement with a debater that sources are not absolutely necessary to use in debate. I am purposefully not providing the link nor the direct quote by a moderator to both protect that moderator and because voting on this debate should not consider outside content, specifically because, according to the Voting Policy, “…reasoning that stems from already-placed votes…” should not be considered for voting. The Pro arguments for this debate will not further reference the commentary referenced above, but will prove by reference to sourcing demonstrating the soundness of the voting policy with regard to sourcing.

Definitions:
Referenced sources: citations from scholarly sources which either bolster a debater’s argument, or weakens an opponent’s argument. Full citation, either by providing the complete IRL, allowing a reader to access the cited website, or providing sufficient publication information to find the specified source [author, publication title, publisher, date of publication] by manual [offline] means.

Necessary: [OED], Indispensable, vital, essential, requisite

Debate: Specifically, for purposes of this debate, all debates engaged via DebateArt.com

Debate Protocol

R1 – R3: Argument, rebuttal, defense
R4: No new argument; rebuttal, defense, conclusion

Shared BoP: Pro: referenced sourcing is necessary in debate. Con: referenced sourcing is not necessary in debate.

[1] https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy

-->
@Barney

"I am basically discounting the interview" Why?

-->
@fauxlaw

That you did not automatically win for making an late debate appeal to authority, is not the same thing as a conspiracy against you. If I was invested in you losing, without even reading the debate all I would have had to do was not get around to deleting the bad vote that was against you. Instead I read what you offered, and it did not quite work out in your favor. Heck, had you not messed up on conduct, my vote would have been a tie.

Additionally, I bumped the debate multiple times, to encourage votes. I finally put the work in at your request: https://www.debateart.com/debates/2221/comment-links/29124

And yeah, I do vote against my beliefs, as exemplified: https://www.debateart.com/debates/1198/comment-links/17328

https://rb.gy/eqdk92 It could happen to you

Very representative of the debate. I had a contender and a referee against me. Not to mention a mod who was already self-admittedly biased. 3 on 1? Yup.

-->
@fauxlaw

https://i.imgur.com/X7YpIvj.jpg

-->
@Death23

But you needed the finger on the scale from the referee. Wasn't done on your own, was it? DA won this debate, not you. Give him the credit.

TKO

12 hours remain for voting.

-->
@seldiora

That is stellar improvement.

RFD

PRO: Sources clarify and greatly help argument. A) source must be used to build the impact of argument, B) necessary to prove absurd notions (fiction ex), C) creates superior argument
CON: Not needed to win debate. A) should be vs are necessary B) hypothetical situation was weak C) Facts are well known and don't need sources

PRO: A) source is still needed for voting, and con is ambiguous with relations of source B) No evidence that voters don't need to vote on sources. C) even one source would defeat con's notion and con just wanted more
CON: A) Pro still dodges question on voting policy (voters still not required) B) Claims that pro is making false assertions, especially how a source itself is not an argument C) Dismisses (not real situation)

PRO: A) argues from necessities B) supports A by saying it further helps requirement of a vote C) Uses "Winter is Coming" to create an idea for implied goal/objective
CON: A) says Pro failed to provide actual evidence and experience B) denies pro and implied he hasn't proved it yet C) Dismissed again and speaks with the author of the voting guide D) confused by pro arg

PRO: A) Says it's simple logic and con is dismissing too many things B) Implies that his own experience is enough C) notes from his own research that people do in fact vote on sources D) continues on with the idea that timing is important so C cannot be used for rebuttal
CON: A) points out pro still hasn't shown the text B) infers that the lack of info still yet disproves pro's case C) DISMISSES! The new argument and says it was previously agreed that no new args in round 4 D) relates back to pro's untrustworthiness and false statements.

Overall I feel like pro's case isn't fulfilled enough and he continuously dodged the burden, while con kept pointing out that not all debates needed sources

---RFD (1 of 4)---

Obviously I am not going to address every single line, but out of respect to the debaters I am trying to find at least one highlight from each side per round under each primary contention.

---

Pro's contentions:

I. "Introduction"
Pro says the voting policy says they are nessicary.
Con counters: “Pro has not quoted anything within the source to directly support this claim.” And later expands: “Voters don't have to vote on sourcing. Points can and are awarded without referenced sources. That happens all the time.”
Pro seems to defend on the basis that if they award source points then sources are necessary, but jumps to concluding that therefore it is always necessary.
Con clearly points out: “the text from the policy clearly indicates that these tasks are only necessary if a voter awards source points,” and the absence of any statement that sources must be awarded (side note: as a moderator, occasionally the absence of source points when they unquestionably go against someone's favored side, clues me into a vote being cast out of bias instead of reason). And repeats words to this effect a bunch (suggestion: practice some debates with a low character limit, for conciseness. Yes some repetition is good, but this is getting to be too much).
Pro challenges the claims of personal experience, by citing his own, to show that it’s a fallacious appeal.
Con baits pro with talk of defeating him before (I know this isn’t as bad, but this has similarities to when some debaters ask the audience to go Google something for their case. Sources should ideally be linked for quick verification by the audience).
And ugliness continues with pro insulting the math ability of con.

II. "Cited sources are necessary to provide impact to each participant’s argument."
Pro argues that words carry no impact unless there's a listed source connected, and further that it avoids plagiarism.
Con does a BoP claim to say that the resolution is not that sources should be required, but that they already are. Which is a good point, but missed the mark on pro’s point about impacts here.
Pro makes a point that any vote on a debate without sources, will be deleted by the moderators if reported (pretty sure this is to force con to pull evidence of the contrary? … I was curious as to con’s response to this but it seems to have been missed in the repetition of the same basic phrases). He also highlights the voting policy where source points depend on how the sources impacted the arguments.
Con accuses pro of bad source spamming in ignorance to source content.
Pro does a cool illustration “Sufficiency is expressed in logic by” which ideally should have been an early thing in this debate (I understand hoping your opponent is tired, but your opponent is guaranteed breaks, meaning any voter will probably be more tired by that point). And points to the requirement that votes be sufficient in justification, and that sufficiency points down to the four categories of consideration.
Con reminds us that source points are not always awarded, and disagrees with how pro is using the word sufficient (con lost a little ground here).
Stays ugly with talk of comparative amounts of profiles filled out, while dropping the topic (final round, follow through here could have sealed a lot).
Con also stays ugly with insisting pro is cherry-picking facts to avoid harming his own case (yeah, that’s to be expected. It’s not pro’s side to offer the counter evidence … Were this criminal court, suppressing counter evidence would be another matter).

III. "Cited sources are necessary to bolster one’s own argument, or weaken the opponent’s argument"
Pro implicitly ushers back to Russell's teapot, and BoP being on the one making a claim which is unmet without exterior proof.
Con counters that there are “generalized knowledge that are so universally well known that they cannot reasonably be the subject of dispute.” (side note: as a debater, I often give sources for well known things, in case an audience member is not familiar. This actually started in business school, when a teacher did not know some of the basic concepts I referenced, so I began having footnotes which added depth)
This turns into a discussion of cake, and more cake being better, but any cake being cake.
In gist, con asserts that it’s a non-sequitur strawcake.
Apparently pro possesses the magical powers of the Old Spice Guy, having turned that strawcake into a dragon egg, which then hatched into a Game of Thrones point with text only circle diagrams (seriously impressed!). The new argument page calls sourcing “necessary.” As a note, all voters must have completed a couple debates, so have seen said text.
Ok this gets complex with consideration of whether ambushing someone with interview data is fair in a debate, and worse he’s the person that gives us a screenshot of the phrase hidden on the new argument screen to verify it’s there… Aside from his questionable offered evidence, he does logically make a good point in questioning the factual weight of the claim, in light of [redacted] and people winning without using sources in spite of what that one line says is necessary.
FAUXLAW SURVEYED 100 DEBATES! … Ok, first off, 30 would have been enough for statistical validity. Second, damn! Third, I am morbidly curious to see the data. … Ok, so pro calls anywhere it’s left a tie as an allotment rather than withholding the point; which doesn’t seem kosher.
Con challenges that pro has violated the agreed upon setup with the new argument of the survey, and questions if pro is telling the truth. He eventually gets around to questioning what the data looked, particularly with regards to what percent had an awarded source point being a determinant factor to victory.

IV "Cited sources are necessary to demonstrate a superior argument"
Pro demonstrates how some sources trump others.
Con counters that pro hasn’t given sources to prove this…
This ties back to the cake, but pro points out that even entertainment media can provide good sourcing depending on the debate.
Con calls those only weak evidence (combined with the cake argument, they do stand as evidence).
Con suggests pro is mistaken, and suggests pro’s own experience with debating should have already lead to that conclusion that sources aren’t strictly necessary (sources would have really improved the impact here).
Pro calls con less educated than a 12 year old.
Con says pro’s testimony should be discounted, and questions the credibility of what people claim about themselves (side note: I advise always assuming each other member is a conjoined twin consisting of a 12 year old boy, and a 80 year old woman … yes, that is not supposed to make sense, but if anyone ever wants to meet up in person, it will be helpful to remember).

V. “A binding Voting Policy”
Pro cites that users are bound by the voting policy, and cites this very debate as evidence for what’s in said policy (this initially looked like a declaration that the title of this debate was inside that policy… Anyway, a link to the policy and an applicable quote would have served better).
Con calls this a lie (I assume he read it as I initially did, mistaking the title of this debate being used as evidence for the title of the debate being words within the voting policy).

“VII Rebuttal: A finger on the scale”
This is an example of why to be consistent in organization throughout any one debate. I had already wondered at some of the statements not seeming to match the prior statements, but this highlights what is going on. As a voter, my job of following any single contention through the debate should be very easy. For this one I could have done my own debate with less effort.

Ok, enough of my rant…

This is a continuation of III.
Chiefly a complaint about the tactic used of an interview.
Con defends that all evidence pointed to inside the debate rounds is techniquiely outside content, so the meaning of the rule does not apply to evidence within. The defense goes on for awhile…

---

Con's contentions:

"Interpretation of resolution"
Con inquires of the ambiguity, to ask "Necessary for what?" And argues that pro's case is that they are necessary to win the debate. He drills down to add words like usually, and on this website (which was pretty clear already from the debate description...).

"My case"
First foot in mouth moment of this debate, given that this debate is about the requirement of evidence: "Pro must present evidence to show that the resolution is true."
I'm outright cringing at the next paragraph "The type of evidence required ... If that percentage is greater than 50%, I would say that Pro would have won." I do agree if pro does that he has definitely won, there are of course other ways he may win. I cringe because Fauxlaw and myself are the two main data analytics people on this site, so asking him for that, there's a good chance it will actually happen.
Con goes on implicitly to say people should just vote their biases (I am guessing this is a rhetorical tactic to avoid using any sources. I am personally biased against encouraging this type of voting, as I've seen too many people outright ignore any evidence that goes against their convictions to fluff vote).
Con offers a strong piece of antototal evidence: “I can say that it seemed like the high quality debates referenced sources appeared necessary, but most debates on this site are not that.”
In R2 Pro drops, and Con extends.

---

Arguments: con
See above… At the end of the day, no matter how much things get twisted around, it seems to only be necessary to win the source point (side note: yes, I know non-moderated debates have it without that), as opposed to general necessity or even to win debates necessity. This leaves it on balance as untrue.

Yes votes should be sufficient, but that sufficiency does not state that source points are required, merely that if allotted they must be sufficiently explained or risk deletion.

I am basically discounting the interview, but not the connected points (challenging that the site owner can be wrong, which implicitly connected to the personal experience point… I did not even like that point, but it lines up well).

The survey is not dropped, as much as it proved to not be the silver bullet it was intended to be. On this, a link to a spreadsheet containing the data mining on it would have been very useful.

Overall pro did a good job arguing up hill against the status quo, but con cast more than enough doubt on the resolution to pull it back down said hill.

Sources: pro
It would make my job so much easier to be passive aggressive and side with con that all sources should be dismissed.
So on this one, pro wins by a landslide. Con had very few, and pro had a ton. Con did a good job challenging how pro was using some of them, but without more evidence from him this doesn’t even fall back into the default tied range. A particular highlight was pro’s use of a circle diagram (more argument then sources, but normally that would be expected in linked picture, so this cannot be praised too much), and the mathbook site as a reference in case his notations were not understood (thereby strengthening his arguments which used math notation).

Advice for con: Sources may not be your style, but you could have made this debate an easy decision by linking a handful of debates (preferably moderated ones) without sources (or at least where only one side has sources).

I will outright say on this that not all impact to arguments stems from sources they’re connected to. Certainly some does, but it’s a variable amount. A well reasoned point has impact by itself, even if it could be improved with a source.

S&G: tie
The organization helped through most of the debate, but got confusing later. Granted, I am not a fan of responding to absolutely every paragraph individually.

Conduct: tie
In future, please strive to be fair.

This debate got heated. Insults to both sides. One clear rule violation and one questionable major hit to sportsmanship (some policy will have to be decided on in future for ones like that).

-->
@Death23
@fauxlaw
@seldiora

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: seldiora // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 4:0; 4 points to Pro.
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:

In essence, this vote was just too vague... This can be avoided in future by just commenting on the core contention (and the main counterpoint or the lack thereof), listing a single source you found important (if voting sources), saying what conduct violation distracted you (if voting conduct)... You need not write a thesis but some minimal level of detail is required to verify knowledge of what you're grading.

To award argument points, the voter must:
(1) survey the main argument and counterargument in the debate,
(2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and
(3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision.
**************************************************

seldiora
Added: 45 minutes ago
#1
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better spelling and grammar
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
I don't understand pro's argument, yes, he proved that sources are very important with helping a debate, and required when something needs evidence for backing, however, he strays from his main idea and I feel con better proves that they aren't always necessary in every debate.

-->
@fauxlaw

Thank you for the talk of cake. It was a touch of livity this debate needed.

After I break I've read con's R1.

Neither has a clear lead yet.

Pro has not provided any clear proof, but there is a certain irony in con asking for evidence when his side is implicitly that evidence is not required (or at least not always).

Just read Pro's R1. Kinda strange having interacted with the comment section so much, that while it feels like something big is missing, that it will be presented later.

This debate does not deserve to end in a no-vote tie.

Only 2 days remain for voting.

bump

Not relevant to anything in particular, but it occurred to me to wonder if a Cribbage board could be used to score Texas Hold-em Poker. Anyone know?

Will it be a great day when debaters recognize the difference between argument and rebuttal?

-->
@Barney

Not my place to suggest one way or the other, but I'd consider a PM just a specialized comment exchange, and PM is not even within the "walls" of the debate file, whereas comments are within them, and they are forbidden to use as a voting factor per Voting Policy, ergo, a PM would best fit in that category. Isn't it still a matter of sheer logic as one considers the various forms of communication within DebateArt? Now you've heard from my side.

-->
@Death23

Will do.

"(I can't say for sure, as I've only looked closely at a single contention in a single argument)."

-->
@Barney

You should wait until you hear from both sides regarding objections to exhibits before you make a decision about which evidence you intend to include or exclude.

I have never considered users citing PMs as evidence in debates.

By citing them, they intuitively seem to become a source (on a debate about sources no less). At the same time, it would be a tactic that could easily get out of control (such as were it to become half or more of someone's arguments... Not to say that exact amount should be codified, merely calling back to a writing rule of thumb about quotes vs your own material).

It's definitely not the same as plagiarism where someone copy/pastes someone else's argument on a given topic instead of writing their own (which I would still have a problem with, even with quotation marks and a link).

To me it most closely resembles anecdotal evidence. For example, on a recent debate I used my girlfriend's mixed heritage to make a point (which I then backed up with data on how common such cases are).

There is also the problem that such things could get out of control, with multiple authors ganging up on one.

It's a complex enough matter that it may warrant a MEEP question, to determine if such things merit a strong conduct penalty in future.

...

Personally, on this debate I am likely to dismiss it from consideration when voting, instead depending on the strength of what each wrote. (I can't say for sure, as I've only looked closely at a single contention in a single argument).

Surely by now you know me well enough to have been put on notice that I'm obviously too stupid to read at the 12 year old level. You should have known to dumb it down.

My 12-year old grandson understands math when he sees it, even when numerics are replaced by alpha ciphers. It is just logic, after all.

Image hosting on Imgur.com is down for some reason. This is an alternate link to the PM screenshot https://ibb.co/L5Djgyv

-->
@fauxlaw

Haven't read it yet. I only glanced at what you had due to a report that you were having trouble posting. I'll let you know what I think of it when the debate concludes.

-->
@Barney

Thanks! I was afraid the arrow symbols would not transfer into the form. Whew! Did you enjoy my "Winter is coming?" Maybe you shouldn't answer that if you're going to vote. I'd rather have the vote than the commentary!

-->
@fauxlaw

I applaud you for getting a diagram in there in spite the lack of photos!

-->
@Barney

Winter is coming, and bears the name "Round 3"

-->
@Intelligence_06

Scoping it out

-->
@Death23

Interested?

>> "Yet, a moderator, in a vote, declared agreement with a debater that sources are not absolutely necessary to use in debate. I am purposefully not providing the link nor the direct quote by a moderator to both protect that moderator and because voting on this debate should not consider outside content, specifically because, according to the Voting Policy, “…reasoning that stems from already-placed votes…” should not be considered for voting. The Pro arguments for this debate will not further reference the commentary referenced above, but will prove by reference to sourcing demonstrating the soundness of the voting policy with regard to sourcing."

For reference, the vote in question may be found at: https://www.debateart.com/debates/2173/vote_links/5467
Yes, the debate was able to be voted on in spite of con having no sources. The result ended up being sources to pro, arguments to con, all other points tied.
And to quote the sources decision: "I agree with con that sources are not absolutely necessary. That said, pro still put the work into his research, and gets credit for that..." it of course went on to point out a specific source, and describe impacts.

The above may or may not be used as evidence within this debate. If it is not cited by either debater, votes based upon it will of course have to be removed. If it is used as evidence within the debate, it contextually is not an already placed vote on this debate, so is fair game as evidence (the policy is contextually referring to the problem of piggy-back voting within any given debate). I should however mention that I am not infallible. I've had votes deleted for falling short of the standard.

Temping... However, the semantic rabbit hole that there may be A debate they are required on, even if not every debate, is something I do not wish to explore.