What do you guys think is the appropriate way to deal with someone in an argument/informal debate who is trying to...

What do you guys think is the appropriate way to deal with someone in an argument/informal debate who is trying to 'bury you with the burden of proof'. What I mean by that is that they are essentially trying to win an argument by forcing you to come up with sources for every little claim and then attempting to discredit you when you can't site it in person, or aren't willing to do tons of footwork on an internet forum. I am noticing this more and more as a tactic used by people when they want to counter you.

Other urls found in this thread:

bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/Llgsfp.pdf].
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

ignore them.

If you are making a claim, you are the one who has to source it

>why can't I just say whatever I want in an argument and have people accept it at face value?

lol

but you should have a source for every claim you make that is based on one. what are you, just making shit up?

go to a random wiki page and copy the sources.
just like you do in an essay.

The problem with having a source for every little claim in the internet era is that alot of us who grew up spending our freetime reading wikis, blogs and first hand accounts have amassed a large body of knowledge without necessarily remembering the source of that knowledge. Even if we know it, finding it is a time consuming drag.

well tough luck. I agree in casual discussion sourcing everything isn't necessary. however, if someone doubts a claim and asks for a source you should give it to them.

Stop shoving random information into your fat fucking face uncritically you mongoloid

like the source you may forget the details of such stuff and misremember. read up or shut up.

if it's such a topic that lots of research is necessary then everyone needs to be prepared for that or else stupidity is just going to occur. trying to discuss a complicated topic on Veeky Forums? do it as a pre-prepared text dump or don't pretend you're doing it properly.

failing such things you can go "I have sources but haven't bothered to dig them up, take my word for it or don't" but only a retard would expect anyone to actually do that. the best you should hope for is that they find your words reasonable and do their own research.

For expediency, in a casual argument, you can't slow down and dissect every little thing like it's a murder trial. I'm not even talking about not giving no sources at all. The most recent example I have is someone posted a conservative news article about a journalist that was let go from a liberal paper for writing an article that have a pro C stance. All the C article did was say she was let for not preaching the narrative. I responded with a source to her paper's statement. The guy responded that they didn't have evidence for their claims. I found a different article saying she was let go for having done speaking engagements for an organization praised in the article and didn't disclose it and I used it as a source. That wasn't good enough for the guy because they didn't provide evidence that she had been paid off. Even though my original argument was that she wasn't let go simply because her opinions differed from her boss.

I forgot to edit out all the pro C and pro L stuff out for conservative/liberal. I didn't need to refer to them as much as I thought I would

Oh, another one would be (this is still casual argument) when I provide a source, and they don't like the source, and they want me to provide another source to corroborate the first one. The burden of proof of countering my source is on them, of course, but should I mention that, they try to claim that I started the argument, so the burden is on me to prove it as a way to sidestep. And regular people buy into the other guys point. And now I've gone from proving my point to trying to defend logic. It's effectively a win for the other guy in public opinion, and it's infuriating.

>why don't people agree with me in cases where the facts are disputable
because they prefer to dispute them for whatever reason. if your evidence isn't airtight that just necessarily limits the amount of ridicule you can place on someone for their beliefs about it.

maybe you're looking for rhetoric or something.

that's been a typical /pol/ tactic for a while, besides making butthurt pictures like the one you posted

"never get in a pissing contest with a skunk"-my pawpaw

Unless it's common knowledge I don't think it's too much to ask. You don't have to write out a full bibliography, but if someone says they don't believe one of your facts, the only way you can prove them wrong is by linking/citing your source.

If they continue to ask for sources on facts that are obviously common knowledge (ex: Lincoln passed the emancipation proclamation, Germany, Italy, and Japan were in an alliance during WWII) then I would simply tell them they need to go read a few more books and come back when they're ready for a more informed discussion.

>Proofs
And
>Whataboutism
are classic tactics intending to distract from the point and lead one astray. If you have provided reasonable references to your points and they do not and constantly try to about the points being made disengage with them. They are not seeking to have an honest conversation and it isn't really worth your time. However, you should try your best to ensure your views stem from an honest analysis of the facts.

If you're referring to anonymous conversations with people online, most of the time you shouldn't even bother if you're not on a well moderated site. The internet is mostly for propaganda at this point. Finding someone willing to have a real conversation is very difficult. If they're making an honest attempt to engage you though don't dismiss their requests out of hand though.

Fuck this shit is annoying as fuck.

On Plebbit, I was trying to explain to these fucking idiots how fucking awful China was before the Revolution and how after the Revolution even as bad as Mao was, things legitimately did get much better in every meaningful way.

Literally, every sentence I made, they just kept going "CITATION NEEDED". It was a fucking pain in the ass. (while at the same time, they never cited any of their claims).

The problem really is, not much information actually exists on the internet, at least with history, I would have no problem providing some citations, but mostly, anything useful is locked behind JSTOR or is in an actual physical book in a university or state library/archive.

But what really pissed me off is they were like "CITATION NEEDED" on fucking basic historical facts about what life was like in China before the Revolution. Like, what the fuck, is it my job to fucking teach them fucking basic history instead of them picking up a goddamn history book or even watching a documentary on the subject?

Wikipedia is fucking dogshit honestly. It accepts pop history as fact since it can easily be "sourced".

The demand for sources is an imperialist, Eurocentric discourse which marginalizes indigenous, feminist, and differently gendered ways of knowing.

You can't provide citations for 'China was awful before the Revolution' because it's an interpretation.

tell them to get on booksc or libgen

>I know it, I just don't know why

The problem is that you're too retarded to say things such as "I believe I read somewhere but I can't remember where" to lay out your opinion while admitting that it very well could be complete bullshit.

Because if you can't remember the source it could very well be complete bullshit.

You disgust me.

Even then Data shows life in China before the revolution was fucking awful, it's death rate was 4x higher than after the revolution and 2x higher than the GLF.

Not to mention, in pretty much every legitimate way, life was incredibly harsh and brutal. The vast majority of the population lived barely on subsistence levels, the population was made up largely of serfdom controlled by warlords and brutal landlords, 70 million people addicted to opium. Women literally had no rights and were treated as property. Serfs were barely better and were stuck in bonded labour and unfair debt for life. The KMT would go around and randomly murder everyone in a village if say, a worker wore a red scarf. The majority of the population had no level of education.

I mean, everyone who knows anything about Chinese history knows how bad the century of humiliation was. It was possibly one of, if not the worst period of Chinese history to live in. It was tedious "arguing" with people who literally had zero clue on anything to do with Chinese history.

Citing work can take hours if not days of time. Not a lot of decent historical data exists online as Wikipedia will accept shitty pop history as a decent source not to mention, Wikipedia can be bias as fuck and contradictory from one page to another based on the biases of the page contributors and editors.

While if you can provide sources it's good, but nobody is going to provide serious source work on a Reddit or Veeky Forums post.

I generally don't expect or provide sources except for specific questions regarding verifiable statistics. Demanding sources for every word so you can stall the discussion is not having an informed discussion in good faith.

A good rule of thumb is if the argument was a Wikipedia article, would you follow the citation and read the source article? If not, you don't need it cited. I don't think I've ever read more than 3 source article from a Wikipedia page, even long ones with hundreds of citations. Obviously Wikipedia needs all of those hundreds of citations because each entry is more or less static, but since you're only obligated to provide sources on request, you shouldn't be expected to provide more than 3 in a given discussion unless it drags on across multiple threads/hours.

A good habit to get into to avoid constant requests for citations is to not make concrete claims without first fact checking yourself. That's not how you remember, anyway. When you gain knowledge, what you're gaining is a vague conceptual understanding of a topic that gets added to your greater understanding of the world. Be up front about that and people will often interpret it as "interesting but suspect" rather than "bullshit and made up." The former category will tend to be cached and integrated as a minor data point, while the latter will often be rejected outright without a citation.

Example: "I read once that something like 1/4 of all black men in the US will be incarcerated in their lifetime" can probably slide by without a citation. Meanwhile, "28.5% of black men in the US will be incarcerated at some point" demands a citation [bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/Llgsfp.pdf].

>but mostly, anything useful is locked behind JSTOR or is in an actual physical book in a university or state library/archive
Books are valid citations, user. So are article names if they're easily found on Google. You don't need to give a direct link for everything.

What I mean, is, in an online debate on Veeky Forums or plebbit, you're not going to remember the sources of everything you studied. I was arguing Chinese history, but I honestly haven't read up on it in several years, so of course I'm not going to remember the sources. (aside from a few, Fanshen left a lasting impression)

When people keep making the claim, they assume you can just "google" it and bring up sources, but in reality, to provide sources, it would require me to travel to the university and have access to the archives like I did back then. Fuck that shit for an online debate on /pol/ or Plebbit.