In SFA: requiring sources for factual claims

I think that it would help the SFA a lot if factual claims needed to be backed up by sources.

Far too often, I see people making outlandish claims that they are unable to back up. It is frustrating to argue with people who do this.

Recently, in the SFA, two people got into a two page argument because one misinterpreted a law that he heard of from somebody he knew. The argument quite obviously went nowhere and took a lot of time and energy from both sides of the argument.

Needless to say, arguments would be greatly improved if they needed to be backed up with proper sources.



This goes for definitions as well.
Too many times have I gotten into an argument only to be told something like, "I dont want to argue about semantics".

 

Apart of arguments = someone being incorrect and someone being correct.
Arguments being debates that is.

I think debates are a good thing unless it goes overboard with flaming.
If they know what's good for them they'll research abit before they start debating over things.

That's my opinion on this, so no support in the way that it's NEEDED to have sources. But I support there should be something stickied about how people should do research before disagreeing / debating with someone.

 

I don't support this. SFA forums is there to have arguments and participate in intellectual discussions. People are always going to lie and make things up. The good thing about the SFA forum is that if you think that someone is saying false facts or claims that they cannot back up then you can call them out on it. It is the nature of the section to argue. People that lie in that section are not hurting anyone but themselves when they get called out on it or get proven wrong.

Lym pretty much beat me to it.

 

I agree everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion if it gets out of hand or turns into a flame war I am sure a mod can deal with it.

 

What... You rather somebody make a fake claim and say they're wrong rather than actually having a debate with real information proving both sides of the argument? I support Blazin idea. Recently Malakandang (not picking on you, just the only example I have since I rarely go in there) said that a lot more teens know about the government and voting something a rather than you think. A few days later a study came out saying that more than 50% of under 18s (or adults; I forgot) didn't even know who the current premier of their state was. So that was a dead end argument with no proof to back it up.

 

Usually once they are proven wrong they will come back with a rebuttal and the argument will only continue with different points being made. Plus if this were put in place it would be really inconvenient and hard to moderate. The moderator would have to search around for awhile looking for one little fact. Considering how often things like this are done it is really unlikely that this would ever be put into place. The argument will continue even if someone uses some fake fact.

 

No support. Just all them out on their argument.

 

Why would a mod have to search for the proof? The suggestion to me is when somebody claims that Australia is world largest island country all they'll have to do is link a reputable website saying Australia is the largest island country in the world and that's enough proof. All it is showing your proof...

Otherwise, the sfa forum is for idiots making up stuff to be right.

 

It might slow down the activity if people had to quote everything they talked about.

No support

 

Premier =/= Prime Minister. Also, the burden of proof in that case shifts towards you. (I understand what you mean though.)


Blazin, definitions change all the time. Sheltering behind etymology and semantically shifting is not really a strong case. If memory serves me, your referring to when we were debating about strippers and degradation. You IMO mistook the OPs interpretation of degradation. Instead, you cited a dictionary reference showing that my assumed definition was incorrect. My definition may not of been 100% perfect, however, it was not blatantly incorrect and was consistent with the OP's intention.

Also, as for me and l2's tyraide, he agreed initially that motorcycle helmets, and balaclavas where illegal to wear outside the zone in which they should be used. Changing it 3/4 of the way through the argument is not nice. Also, it wasn't really what one person said, it was what one person of the profession said. Don't strawman.


No support. Tbh, requiring citations is a bit over the top. People generally agree to a certain premise/statement, or they don't. If they don't they'll point it out. Pragmatically, the SFA isn't at a stage where additional rules should be enforced. It's already skin and bone.

 

I agree with the last line to a certain extent. If somebody says space is extremely large, evidence shouldn't need to be given there since it is a well known fact, but in other examples providing the proof in an argument would be more beneficial than not.

If less than 50% of the population of NSW knew the current premier what hope do you have for them knowing more than you think about the voting system .

 

True, though, I'd say where is this caveat in the Electoral Act.

 

Infracting people for misquoting or not citing what they've said is a little over the top. We aren't Wikipedia.

No support.

 

+1 John.

Also, the nature of an argument is to have a disagreement. If you put proof in front of them, that they cannot ignore it kills the entire argument.

 

sheltering behind etymology?

i was using the correct definition for a word for god sakes.

the way that you were using it was not even in the dictionary, if i do recall correctly.

and who are you to say that your definition was consistent with the OP's definition. we are using the same word for god sakes.



I do not care if the person you heard it from was of the profession. You still had a terrible source that ended up being completely incorrect.

 

Er but wouldn't that be the entire debate, whether they have facts to back themselves up or not.. Aka if everyone submitted perfectly clear facts that were backed up and written by computers, would there even be anything to debate?

+ Debating isn't about if your right and the other persons wrong, its just who can make themselves look right and the other person wrong.

 

like i said before, both sides can have correct differing beliefs.

ex
1)most people who care about their country vote
2)juan cares about his country
3) therefore, juan voted.

a countering argument:
1) if juan was busy the day of the vote, he did not vote
2) juan was busy the day of the vote
3) therefore, juan did not vote


reviewing further information usually changes your beliefs. It would be beneficial if this further information had sources that backed it up.

 

If Sythe himself felt that this was needed, then he would have implemented it along time ago.

 

Fair enough, I misunderstood the main point of the suggestion. I assumed that they would be checking the accuracy of the facts. This makes much more sense, although I still do not support it. Mainly the reason from other users above me. Plus the ones that are still valid that I presented earlier.

 

The conclusion here would be false because of the word most.

This one is circular.
[/QUOTE]
In an objective debate, there can only be one answer. In a subjective debate however both sides can be correct dependent on interpretation.