Atleast here on Veeky Forums and sci when you debate people and post links/citations they usually respond with something along the lines of
>i'm not reading that, present your argument here or i win
as if the point is to win the argument rather than come to a well backed conclusion.
sorry if this didn't warrant its own thread i'll off myself now.
Other urls found in this thread:
reflectionofmind.org
ru-clip.com
scientificamerican.com
nytimes.com
anthropology.net
bible.com
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
SOURCE??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
>posts income infographic about racial differences to prove his point
Well, what's wrong with that? Most of them are legit and cite their sources at the bottom. If you want to dispute the data you need to bring your own. "Muh infographics" is a meme answer and not an argument.
When you don't include a link they want a source
When you include a link they don't wanna go check the link.
present a link to the poster that hurt you user.
but seriously, I don't think I've ever encountered someone who disregarded my argument because I backed it up with sources. but honestly if you just presented a link to some reddit argument you liked or a youtube video of someone making a good argument you can suck my dick
this thread was my accumulated butt hurt of people disregarding my sources for a while. This didn't happen recently but still happens often, not just sci but other boards as well.
>as if the point is to win the argument rather than come to a well backed conclusion.
This is exactly the problem.
If you don't want to discuss any of your hot opinions other than posting links and acting like people have to believe you now, you aren't really interested in having any discussion with anybody. You aren't interested in listening to other opinions enough to give them a unique response, and you aren't even interested in defending your own views. You just want to win.
While it's certainly possible to have a reasonable, productive discussion with copious sources (the comments section of an acadamic blog, for example) this is not what happens on Veeky Forums.
>this is not what happens on Veeky Forums.
It should at least happen when making factual claims. I mean, come on, science based web discussions with no sources? bleh.
I'm wary of infographics these days largely because /pol/ has put out so many convincing fakes. It's frustrating that people trust them just because of some alleged sources. No, those Jews did not call for the extermination of the white race; someone just happened to use the words "extermination" and "white people" in the same interview, and that was enough to make it unquestionably true to anyone who wanted to believe it. Citing sources doesn't automatically make your claims legit.
Because Amerindian superiority is a historical fact no subhuman can refute.
The Amerindian genocide will never EVER be forgotten.
It depends on the context of the discussion, if you put links of studies then it's almost never a problem, if you post articles then you're a brainlet and deserve to be called that. Read the article yourself and condence it into an argument, just that someone wrote a long article doesn't mean he's right. It's annoying when someone posts an article because then you have to read it and if it's wrong you need to greentext what they said and explain what's wrong etc.
Because a link is not a valid source. When debating on the chan, you need to provide sources in MLA format. APA will not cut it either.
It's been demonstrated that when arguing with someone, showing them objective facts will usually just make them angry.
This is especially true of /pol/ and science. They hate science, but even try to post links of their own. When you try to show them that their own links about climate or race do no support their ideas, and usually contradict them, they believe their own special interpretation of a source is the "right" way.
I like the one full of dates when jews were exiled from various societies which includes jews being exiled from Czechoslovakia in the middle ages
At least 80% of the time someone just posts a link with no explanation for their source it has nothing to do with their argument and sometimes even proves them wrong. Provide your claim, then provide a source link AND explain what the source link says and how it proves your argument. If you haven't even read it why should I waste my time doing it?
It's lazy and delays the conversation, leaving the work of reading and interpreting the link to someone else when you could just have added what it says and how it supports your argument. It's the same reason publication intros aren't just a string of links to previous research.
One word : advertising
Backlinks from Veeky Forums are garbage.
>hey let's have a discussion
>nah go read this link while I jerk off to anime depictions of underage catgirls
fuck off plebbit this isn't a fucking refereed journal
Some boards have a jones against giving people hits through links, and ant it archived. Is that what you are talking about?
Politely sageing a meta-thread, which should really go on /qa/
You hit the nail on the head. There's also the issue that so many people on both sides have turned their politics into a part of their personality and identity, so any refutation of tenets of their ideology feels like a personal attack to them, so they feel compelled to defend it by any means possible.
Cuz it's not even as half-assed as plagiarism you fucking pleb
Please go back to lurking
What I mean by this in case you're an idiot is that plagiarist's at least have some form of conceptualization about the subject but link spammers don't even have that.
Get rekt neo-pseuds
Any one can see with naked eyes can that the Earth is Flat and NASA Images are CGI.
Sources: reflectionofmind.org
ru-clip.com
evolution and the big bang are also lies
The earth is 600 years old and most geology proves the Biblical flood
also that's very present on Reddit, especially when i was debating with race deniers.
throw incredible amount of research at them, they will respond with "gotcha" one-liner and guess which one will be upvoted?
Race is a Social Construct.
scientificamerican.com
nytimes.com
anthropology.net
Plus the opinion of hundreds thousands of Humanities Professors and Journalists.
Bigot white male BTFO.
welp, i had 12 sources but you had 15. i concede defeat, bravo!
Jesus is real.
Jesus is our Lord and Savior
John 1:1, King James Version
>In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Retard, flat earthers can't even explain sunsets.
summarize or gtfo
I have my own shit to read
It's not the fact that people hate links, it's just that people aren't capable of forming original thought when/if they post links. There's lack of critical thought involved; it's not even a debate at that point, it's shit flinging.
Learning how to debate is an exercise in critical thinking and an application of it. It's reasonable to post a link as a source, but you should not simply let the link/source speak for your argument. In addition, 99.9% of the time when people use a link to 'backup' their claim, they don't understand the details of it. They use the link as a standin for their argument.
Let's look at an example. If I were a mathematics professor and I told you that the slope of the tangent line at a point is the derivative, you'd probably be skeptical; you'd want to see a general breakdown of that, at least a geometric argument. Your intuition disagrees with this.
In other words, you're doubting what I'm saying and we're entering into an informal debate. Instead of proving it to you by using logic, I tell you "here's this introductory calculus book. i'm right, you're wrong." If you've encountered this, then you'll immediately know how it feels. Consider an entire semester of a professor or someone telling you facts without being able to back them up without saying, "see textbook." It's infuriating because (a) you're not learning shit and (b) it isn't constructive for debate.
The point of debate is to back up your assertions, to usurp the opponent's ideological stance and, if you're successful, dismiss it entirely and perhaps turn them over to your side. It's lazy to simply provide a link that you barely understand that just has a catchy headline of, "DERIVATIVE OF FUNCTION IS SLOPE OF TANGENT LINE!"
t. Debate team, entire 4 years of undergrad.
While sources and evidence are important in a debate, the main focus should always be in reasoning, especially in """internet debates""" where you have no idea what's considered common knowledge between the debaters.
Are you really debating or just trying to prove a point? There is a difference.
tl;dr
>en.wikipedia.org
>summarize or gtfo
Posting a study that confirms your opinion doesn't automatically prove your point, because studies with contradictory conclusions and cherry picking are thing. A link without a quick rundown on the relevant parts is also nothing more than a denial of service attack. You've presumably read the entire study you're posting (since you're not just a link spamming brainlet, right?), so it shouldn't be hard for you to point out the relevant parts. I mean, you're actually trying to prove your point and get the other person to change their mind, you're not just trying to seem smart by link spamming.
I've once argued with a brainlet here who claimed that microwave ovens cause cancer or something, and he ended up posting a 100 page pdf. I did a few ctrl+f-s, looked at the table of contents, read a few pages, but those parts didn't seem to confirm his opinion, so I repeatedly told him to tell me which pages I should read, but he just called me lazy for not wasting hours reading a random 100+ page document.
I like it when sources are cited, however, at least try to distill the point you want to support with the link in your post. Also,I generally frown upon posting links to data that have been outdated for 10+ years. Like that IQ graphic that /pol/ won't shut the hell up about, its data is from 1980-1990. Any number of sociological or economic changes could have happened in the past 30 years to make that data no longer representative.
>Like that IQ graphic that /pol/ won't shut the hell up about, its data is from 1980-1990.
Which one? You know that thing about Jews and Koreans getting the highest scores and Blacks getting the lowest is a real phenomenon, right? I'm left-leaning and even I can't deny it.
>Why do people hate links when debating?
Links are fine if you're just adding them below your actual argument to support what you're saying.
What annoys people is when you respond to someone's else's argument by saying "you're wrong, read this" with a link and no explicit argument of your own because your implicit argument is then "this other person who wrote the contents at this link is right because I say he's right."
Like if you argue there's nothing impossible about reproducing human mental processes with a program and I respond just by posting a Searle link, that would be pretty obnoxious since a lot of people disagree with Searle and he by no means has the definitive final say and what is or isn't possible with AI.
>can see the moon, which is round when full
>can see other planets, which are round
>but Earth is flat
Makes sense.
I mean, it kinda does if you follow the flat earther line of pretending the last 5000 years of human knowledge doesn't exist.
If you want to participate in the argument, then form an argument. Don't post a link and hope everyone reading it comes to the same conclusions you drew from it.
By posting the link without any supporting context or making any claim, you are hoping the opponent interprets the link in such a way that argues against their own points in your place, before forming a rebuttal to reply with. That is idiotic, lazy, and retarded.
maybe it's not the link itself, rather than its existence
This, how often do you hear people not asking for source when someone makes a claim. I think your op describes the minority.
>source?
:^).com
Source?
>posts link to a 9 hour youtube conspiracy video
If you got into a discussion with someone and they told you to read a book before continuing the discussion it's not going to go anywhere quickly.
The links should be there so people can verify your claims afterward, you should be able to summarize the information yourself or get out of the discussion.
it's not my job to educate you, shitlord
>Skip around a bit
>It's about the FBI harnessing 9th dimensional fractals to keep down the middle class
>Original topic was about climate change
Every time
>Why do people hate links when debating?
Uh.. because telling someone to read a book isn't an argument.
This. If they are informed enough to link the information, they are capable to presenting it in such a way that it is relevant to the discussion. Make your point, cite the link, and move on. Don't expect someone to read the material and explicate it for YOUR argument.
It is if you want to convince them of your argument