Resources/Materials

Author: Theweakeredge ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 13
  • Theweakeredge
    Theweakeredge avatar
    Debates: 17
    Forum posts: 2,108
    3
    5
    10
    Theweakeredge avatar
    Theweakeredge
    Hello DART users! Obviously research and collecting information is an important part to any debate, but a lot of people have trouble starting their search. This topic was made with the intention of providing materials, citations, resources, etc to the debaters of DART on a variety of subjects. I would ask that the resources given are labeled under a general category, for example:


    Free Online Dictionaries



    Thank you for any participation, good debating!
  • BearMan
    BearMan avatar
    Debates: 14
    Forum posts: 1,021
    3
    4
    11
    BearMan avatar
    BearMan
    scholar.google.com

    In case anyone doesn't know, it's just a search for reliable sources.
  • RationalMadman
    RationalMadman avatar
    Debates: 311
    Forum posts: 9,344
    10
    10
    11
    RationalMadman avatar
    RationalMadman
    It used to be that Oxford Dictionaries (now on Lexico.com) had the superior definitions but due to some weird alterations they've made over on Lexico to make the definitions more literal and simplistic, Cambridge has outdone them in my opinion (in terms of online dictionaries) with each word linking to the definitions.


    I approve of Merriam Webster too but my goodness please don't use Wiktionary...
  • BearMan
    BearMan avatar
    Debates: 14
    Forum posts: 1,021
    3
    4
    11
    BearMan avatar
    BearMan
    I find urban dictionary useful if you need to define slang.
  • RationalMadman
    RationalMadman avatar
    Debates: 311
    Forum posts: 9,344
    10
    10
    11
    RationalMadman avatar
    RationalMadman
    The technique for finding the supreme source on something that's not too biased, very in-depth but just biased enough to support your side of a debate lies in how you use your search engine.

    This is where the reason people use DuckDuckGo instead of Google can kind of backfire. Google learns your biases and general topics of interest (which you can opt-out of here: 

    Even with them off, you enable Google to give you more tailored results for you via your Internet History on Chrome, if you use that. Whatever paranoid and legitimate reasons you have to hate this, just for a second understand that everything about the search engine is designed to learn from your previous searches (such as the one you just did one second ago and potentially disliked the links of) to contrast it with your new similar search, combine that with your general location from your IP address, notice the wording patterns you use and match the very way you write to sources in an abstract way that understand how you're prioritising keywords.

    You will find that if you dislike the sources that show up in your first search, refining it isn't too hard as you need to 'work with' the search engine you have. If it's DuckDuckGo, spell it all out, every detail that's annoying you for being lacked in sources that show up, if it's Google simply search more adding 2-or-more keywords each 're-search'.

    Then, skim read sources to see their stance, conclusions and commit confirmation bias in a controlled manner (did you like that 'con' alliteration there?). Stick with the ones that somewhat support your stance, be careful if you're cherry picking middleground or oppositional sources to your stance and your opponent is left with nearly nothing to use against you.

    Of course things like .gov, .edu and .org are generally more reliable than .com but a blog post by a dedicated online journalist is nothing to be ashamed of using.
  • seldiora
    seldiora avatar
    Debates: 158
    Forum posts: 352
    2
    6
    10
    seldiora avatar
    seldiora
    wikipedia.org

    some think it's obvious, others think it's untrustworthy. It's a decent starting point.
  • Intelligence_06
    Intelligence_06 avatar
    Debates: 54
    Forum posts: 1,827
    4
    7
    11
    Intelligence_06 avatar
    Intelligence_06
    --> @seldiora
    Wiki is useful for literal facts that aren't debatable but you want your opponent to know about them. You probably want to cite Wiki when your opponent doesn't understand what Oligarchy is.
  • seldiora
    seldiora avatar
    Debates: 158
    Forum posts: 352
    2
    6
    10
    seldiora avatar
    seldiora

    Using better verbs when describing sources
  • seldiora
    seldiora avatar
    Debates: 158
    Forum posts: 352
    2
    6
    10
    seldiora avatar
    seldiora
    Havard's free course on rhetoric. In case you ever want to gain equal footing with Oromagi. https://courses.edx.org/courses/course-v1:HarvardX+AESTHINT15+2T2020/course/

16 days later

65 days later

  • Dr.Franklin
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Debates: 32
    Forum posts: 8,855
    4
    7
    11
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Dr.Franklin
    if your interested in philosophy and religion, they are tons of essays from the top theist and atheist scholars here:

  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 54
    Forum posts: 2,055
    4
    6
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    i hear that Wiki is a reliable source. Don't beleive everything you hear.
  • Theweakeredge
    Theweakeredge avatar
    Debates: 17
    Forum posts: 2,108
    3
    5
    10
    Theweakeredge avatar
    Theweakeredge
    --> @fauxlaw
    Question.

    Are you not part of that "everything"?

    Do you think I randomly parrot opinions of people?

    I could point you in the direction of some major disagreement between me and some person you think I've copied from.

    I am very argumentative.