Perhaps I am alone with this grievance..but there seems to be a current trend here at AD to just slap up someone else's thoughts and ideas on a topic, or link to their articles on said topic or even go so far as list books for reading. I have even seen posts that have not one original word being posted...all just quotes or links.

I know lots of people the world over have lots of interesting perspectives but I just feel that here at AD we should be sharing our own personal views more.

I dunno if this is possible to control or even promote but I was hoping we could ask posters to present their own arguments in their own words and then add the links for additional reading or even support of their views.

Hmm bucket I was wondering if it is possible to link to a post that you say is .. Im a little confused on the issue. Thanks Much.

I don't really see why this is a problem. As far as I know, no one on here is an expert on any of the topics we debate. I read many different books on foreign policy and that's where most of my ideas come from. I don't always agree with everything the author says but when you boil it down to a specific topic as we do in , sometimes the author is just more eloquent than me If you agree with what the author is saying, why try and rephrase everything? Why not just link or quote what gave you that viewpoint in the first place?

Bucket, I think I can understand your issue here. What you're seeking is less posts where people simply spam links and quotes from those link and spend more time where the language is original and perhaps occasionally supported with additional sources.

I think the most effective argumentation is a combination of the two. Its perfectly fine to support your opinion/argument with sources, but it should be pursued in support of your reasoning, not in place of it.

Part of this is the normal maturation of a debater. Having competed in or coached academic debate for 10 years, I've witnessed that maturation several times. The new debater will often present his or her opinions, perhaps with a bit of reasoning to support it. Then, when making statements of a factual nature (ie. the number of people who support abortion in the first trimester), they may be challenged to provide support for this fact. Failure to do so leaves their argument as compelling, but ultimately unsupported.

The next stage is what I call "evidentiary overload". This is where some debaters adopt the idea that someone's published opinion is automatically more credible than reasoned discourse outside of the published sphere. And they tend to believe the greater number of sources available/cited, the likelier they are to prevail. Needless to say this is a complex assumption, because there is some merit to the idea of the majority of evidence supporting a particular claim. But to rely on this approach as a replacement for reasoned argumentation is only slightly more valid long term than persistent statements of unsupported facts.

The final phase is when the two approaches blend, and the debater uses both worlds, finally maturing to a state when they can understand where each approach can be more effective than the other, depending on the issue at hand. There are several examples of members at who have this level of argumentative maturity, and you'll find they are usually the most persuasive consistently on a given issue.

Doc

Juber3 I would rather not single individuals out.

Thank you Doclotus for expanding on my point.

Psyclist..all you have to be to share your opinions or perceptions on topics is an expert of your own opinions.

Lately I have come across posts or have had posts replied to me that merely consist of a rebuttal... go read this book, or this article explains it all. To which I am left unable to reply..either because I have no interest in reading an article from a chosen source of another..I would rather do my own investigation or select my own reading materials... or it takes me some time to read an entire book. For me it limits participation.

Now I am not saying that I don't think news articles or opinion pieces have no place in debate but I should be able to figure out what your argument is and the main points you wish to convey without having to click on a link. It just seems to degrade this site into something more along the lines of a politics filter. I come here to actively participate and personally involve myself with events, discussions and political debates ...not to just read others doing it.

I think most of your concerns are covered by our Survival Guide, specifically the section on Sources. Perhaps if a member tries this debate tactic, in addition to your reponse you could kindly point that member to the Survival Guide and ask him/her to elaborate on why s/he chose the source(s).

I think I know of a recent, specific post to which Bucket is speaking to as an example. And I find myself agreeing with her. Though no poster is perfect, or always constructs the perfect post (god knows I'm included in that), I think the type of reply to construct, if and when possible, is one where the poster comes at the argument objectively and open to different ideas, or at least respecting them, instead of regurgitating talking points.
I enjoy the posts where someone brings forth a source that was previously unknown to me, provides a link and a snippet, but also gives us their interpretation or thoughts on how it strengthens their argument.
I too find myself unable to thoughtfully reply to nothing more than a series of links and quotes. I enjoy debating fellow posters and their ideas more than pundits and observers who are more often than not, paid for their partisanship.

I think this issue is covered in the spirit of the AD Survival Guide


edited to add: AAAAARGHHH the mighty Admin beats me again. Blimey.

I personally like to quote Molly Ivins. Her Texican is more creative than mine. She plays the part of the "hick" quite well, so why not use that?

Then there is the lazy poster whose entire post consists of 2-5 words and a link:



or



In those cases, I just move on to the next post.

More on "sourcing" from the Survival Guide: