Etiquette in internet political discussions...

[wyldwolf]

When I was a part of my high school and college debate teams, we were required to show proof of our points for them to count. If we quoted a document, for example, we were required to produce a copy of that document if the opposing team asked for it.

On the internet, I have always believed it to be proper etiquette to give links to sources to back up one's claims when a discussion is being had.

Do you not agree that it is proper etiquette to do so? Do you not agree that making claims without producing a link upon request to prove them weakens your argument? Do you not agree that demanding your opponant find the link themselves is a complete and total cop-out?

The reason I post this is because I've just been told I ask for proof of things to "weaken the progressive cause."

[libbygurl]

1. Sounds very sound to me (oops, pun unintended and intended).

With google, doing research is much, much faster and comprehensive, too.

[liberalhistorian]

2. I totally agree, and I don't

understand why people don't see this, it's so simple. Anyone can say anything on the internet, and arguments need to be backed up with evidence.

That's why I have to be careful on here with arguments because, techno-dummy that I am, I have no freaking clue how to post a link, lol!

[gristy]

6. I shall shine the light for you!

Just type the link into your post: http://www.democraticunderground.com
Voila! You have posted a link.

A helpful hint: Navigate to the page you whose link you want to post, select the page address in your browser (put the cursor up near the top and "double-click" it), then hit "Ctrl+C" to save a copy of that text. Then put your cursor in the post that you are composing and hit "Ctrl+V" to paste that page address into your post.

You'll be posting backup links left and right in no time.

[NightTrain]

13. It's easy to post a link, my dear!

1. Move your mouse arrow into the address line at the top of your screen and left-click it.

2. Hit "control" and "C" at the same time.

3. Move your mouse arrow back to the DU message window and hit "control" and "V" simultaneously.

Voila! Your link is posted.

[neverborn]

3. Agree 100%

[cetasika]

4. links arent "proof"

and this isnt the debate team.

[wyldwolf]

7. Sure they are - if they're to reputable sources

How else are we to believe a statement as factual unless there is a reputable source to corraborate?

Do we take the poster's word at face value?

[sangha]

20. Links aren't proof. Links are evidence

without which it's impossible to assess the credibility of an assertion. Basically, if you can't back your statements up, then what you have is an opinion.

[wyldwolf]

21. ok... I was using "proof" and "evidence" interchangebly

... but we agree anyway. Basically, if you can't back your statements up (with proof and/or evidence), then what you have is an opinion.

[OKNancy]

5. Kerry supports the Patriot Act!

Hey, I don't care what his website says, or what he said about it during the campaign....I say so.
-------
Yes, I agree within reason. If someone says something that is common knowledge, then I think it's okay to pass with the documentation. Also, of course, opinion. I can write, " I don't think that Kerry will appoint anti-choice judges". I don't think I should have to back that up with detail.

[wyldwolf]

8. "Common knowledge" isn't the same to everyone

"Kerry supports the Patriot Act."

I would need proof, because that statement is in the present tense.

He DID support it. He HAS supported it. Does he support it now?

His site may say no. He may say "no" in an interview.

So unless you're in his head and reading his thoughts, you don't KNOW that he supports it.

[OKNancy]

11. Right

I was being scarcastic....I hope you know that.

[Rowdyboy]

9. If you intend to make strong or controversial statements...

you should be able to back them uo with reputable sources. How can basing your arguments in FACT weaken the progressive cause?

[LunaC]

10. Absolutely!

But be forewarned, Freeper-types don't subscribe to this policy....empty rhetoric and personal opinion is all they usually have to offer and when you ask for documentation to back up their claims they say "The onus of proof is on YOU." Bullshit! It's not my responsibility to prove THEIR point.

This happened here within recent weeks when we were "infiltrated". Their refusal to engage in an HONEST exchange of ideas totally pisses me off. I bail quickly when they can't/won't support their position. It reminds of the saying "Never try to teach a pig to sing....it wastes your time and annoys the pig."

[wyldwolf]

12. and obviously some of "us" don't either...

...since I was told I only required proof to "weaken the progressive cause,"

[TrogL]

17. the "weaken the progressive cause" bit

is code for "I'm losing the argument - stop posting".

Keep it up and they'll accuse use of being a Republican or working for Karl Rove or be a government mole.

[LoZoccolo]

14. When someone does that...

...you can just roll your eyes and ignore them. Don't get worked up about some of the more extreme elements here.

[Nikia]

15. I guess that I am just lazy

I have a bunch of facts in my head that I remember from various television programs, high school and college lectures, books that I have read or quickly browsed, magazines and newspapers that I have read at one time or the other. For some reason I store a lot of information in my brain in reference to how they fit with other things that I know rather than where they came from, which my mind unconsciously might think seems rather unimportant.
I don't invest as much in my messages as I might in a paper or something so I don't seek out the references which I may or may not be able to find on the internet. I agree that quoting or referencing sources adds credibility though.

[wyldwolf]

16. That's good... and I'm that way, too... but...

..the mind is a tricky thing. Sometimes I rediscover facts that are documented somewhere and realize I didn't remember them completely accurate.

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

18. Well, there is difference between factual debate & "rants" or opinion

I think if you are doing a serious debate you need to marshal facts to make a point, and you have sources to back up the "facts" (which leaves the other side the opportunity to "debunk" your facts by challenging or dismissin your sources).

Then there is the kind of internet discussion which is just opinion, or opinion based on personal anecdote or vaguely remembered recieved wisdom ("I read it somewhere"), ideology, or just out and out opinionated rants.

It all depends on how serious you want to debate an issue.

[wyldwolf]

19. pretend it is something you feel very strongly about...

..and I tell you you're full of shit.

I've read somewhere that you are wrong!

"Where?" You inquire.

somewhere, I fire back. Maybe on Time.com

"Then perhaps you can provide a link?" You ask?

I don't need to provide a link. I'm right and you're wrong! Look it up for yourself

"uh... the burden of proof is on you..." you correctly state.

proof this, proof that! Anyone who asks for proof is just weakening the progressive cause...

--------------------------

My point? If it is something two or more feel strongly about, the debate is serious.

[sangha]

22. IMO, opinions are obviously appropriate material

for Internet discussions. However, I do think opinions should be stated as such. Furthermore, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask someone for a reason why they hold an opinion.

[Festivito]

23. Some links do not represent the statements, so....

RW posters obfuscate good information by shedding doubt, no links, no return posts, incomprehensible grammar, misspellings.

A link from them might go to some new shill site. Or, might go to a major source only their summary is misleading as may be the article when read between the lines.

It all adds up to too much to read so the reader moves on.

They are pigs. Feed them, they breed. Corral them, they roll deeper in mud. Get close, you get mud on yourself, you look dirty, and you stink.

Etiquette, yeah, sure.

[sweetheart]

24. But that was debate, this is propaganda

We have all read the "facts" and if we haven't, then i love to read
them... but what we lack in our world today is quality journalism.
We've got a gazillion facts but know knowledge.

I don't need to prove how many 1000's have died in iraq... that is
somebody else's mission.... rather, i can use the rhetorical
device of bush's illegal war of mass murders as an inflection to
inspire other writers to "use" the power of the English language.

I did not need any facts to tell you bush is a criminal except one
look at the man during the presidential debates. I already knew,
without facts, that he was planning to mass murder people to make
his gravestone bigger. Now we have supporting facts. Wow. It
changes not very much.