I have noticed recently a number of sources that I would personally consider to be highly questionable, specifically conspiracy theorist websites, being cited to back-up arguments. The purpose of this thread is to discuss what constitutes a valid source and what doesn't.

I assume this is kind of directed towards me for using WRH as a source.(he links mostly to international news pages BTW) conspiracy theory is a term often used to discredit something or some one. you hear it and automatically discount it as kooky or insane. all a conspiracy theory really is is a theory (speculation based upon evidence, but cannot be proven (ie a theory about cold fusion) about a conspiracy (agreement between two or more persons to perform together an act;
An agreement, manifesting itself in words or deeds, by which two or more persons confederate to do an act)-- so conspiracy theory means speculation based upon evidence that cannot be totally proven about an act performed/planned by more than one person. It does not mean speculation that is crazy, or insane in nature.

I think "conspiracy theory" websites should be judge upon there content. for example, some sites are/were trying to say that flight 77 didn't hit the pentagon but it was a cruise missle. this is ubsurd, and should be discounted.

meanwhile, sites like WRH make speculations that are backed by evidence, such as video, audio, and photos. most of what he presents is backed by at least a little evidence (some is speculation based on suspcious circumstances, such as the israelis dancing and celebrating whil the towers burned)

I don't think that people should automatically discount "conspiracy sites" you should look at the evidence, and judge based on that.

I, myself, try to find several sources to back up my arguments when possible, and try not to use anything that has no sources for their info.

Well, the problem is... Every proven conspiracy was once a conpiracy theory. I try to judge each site on its own merits, because as applies to the US government specifically... There isn't a heck of allot that would surprise me. Obviously there are allot of sites that are just totally off the wall, but sometimes, even in those, you may just find a shred of truth.

My best suggestion for when you run across such a site posted as "back-up", is that you conduct your own research, and see what you can find to either substantiate it, or debunk it. The great thing about it being posted here is that it is always open for debate.

I think one is only as credible as the sources one uses.

While conspiracy websites may base their opinions on fact, they certainly are not fact until proven. And just because it is posted on the internet doesn't make it true.

That is why these are conspiracy theories: nobody knows if they are true.

Uncredible sources make for less-than-credible posts, at least to me.

Mike

Besides just plain old websites...what about news sites?

I guess what I'm getting at is that we are not a conspiracy website.The majority of our members don't come here to debate conspiracy. They are here to debate facts.

I have fielded countless correspondence in the past few days stating that continually posting conspiratorial views is detracting from the debate, and I tend to agree.

The rules state that "We require posts to be constructive, and on-topic. We may delete or edit posts to remove off-topic content." Consistantly posting conspiracies and conspiracy theory websites in not conducive to our stated goal, intelligent political debate.

We are here to debate known facts, not the possibility of the known facts being part of some sort of massive government cover up.

I encourage other members to openly question sources that have no basis in proof, and hold no more weight than your or my opinion.

I would also encourage those who cite conspiracy websites to start their own threads to discuss their conspiracy theory of the day. At least that way, we give members the option to participate in "normal" threads, as well as the conspiracy threads if they do so choose.

I'll have to start splitting threads to keep the debates constructive if this doesn't start happening, and nobody will enjoy that.

In the past, our members have questioned conspiratorial sources and ridiculed them to no end. I don't know what has changed.

Mike

I tend to agree with Mike on this, and while I can understand what Stefan is saying in regards to that "shred of truth," I think that it is generally more conducive to debate if people can provide solid evidence from more widely accepted sources, and depending upon the topic of debate, primary sources. It makes people take the argument more seriously.

Now, having said that, I will also say that each person has a different definition of what is an acceptable source, and that's why I started this thread, because obviously, in a debate site, the purpose is to try to convince your opponent that your argument holds merit. In my opinion, the logical decision when choosing a source would be to choose one that will, with very little question, be accepted as credible by your opponent otherwise, you are just wasting your breath. Additionally, you will have to expend an additional amount of time and effort trying to back up your source which backs up your argument. Threads get messy, people lose interest...it's a vicious cycle that can easily be avoided by questioning the validity of a source by trying to view the argument through the eyes of your opponent.

unfortionatly cyan, if it doesn't follw what the official story is or goes against what someone believes they will discount it as a conspiracy theory, despite all the evidence, and even if it is a credible source (such as britains newspaper/website, "the gaurdian") I mean, you could have more evidence then OJ simpsons prosecuters and still it is label a conspriracy theory. this a term often used to discredit those that don't believe the official story, and have a strong case against it.

that being said, I find the american mainstream presses sources qeustionabe, especially as they censor what they say, and only report what the current adminstartion wants them to. for example, the dossier powell used in his speech to the un was proven to be a plagerization of several different documents, (one was even copied word for word, including grammatical errors and misspellings, this according to reuters news agency (unless they aren't a credible source.) the media of the world picked this story up and ran it, meanwhile here in america, all you here about is "terrorism, terrorist, code orange alert, osama bin laden, ooga booga!" it's kind of convienient the current terrorist alert came just as the story about the dossier was breaking, and now the OBL tape, which came just in time to link saddam and iraq to OBL (the two hate each other, saddam's government is a secular one, and bin laden looks down on saddam as an infidel, and a bad muslim, it is akin to a fundmentalist christian and an atheist working together, you wouldn't get past OBL preaching to saddam how bad a muslim he is, and if he doesn't believe the way he says, saddam will burn in hell)

Okay, so you just pointed out that "the gaurdian" is a credible source, and I have often read the gaurdian for their editorial peices, particularly John Pilger, BUT I will also say that the gaurdian is obviously slanted to the left, and if I was trying to argue with a conservative, I would not use that source. When you are dealing in facts, you should be able to find a source from either side of the board. If you are not dealing in facts, than you should present your data as opinion or speculation not as actual evidence.



Okay, this is a good example. You just posted an accusation against Colin Powell, and you stated that Reuters ran the story (Yes, I would consider Reuters to be credible), but you failed to provide a link to the story.



You can use the foreign media stories to back up your statements. It would be more credible, IMO, than using a conspiracy theorist website.

sorry cyan, here is the link to that reuters story.

http://sf.indymedia.org/uploads/copiedpowe...rtreuter__s_.rm

it requires realplayer. it should download and play automatically.

I link to the news sites directly as much as possible, sometimes you have to use "conspiracy theory" sites though, like sites that compare the osama cofession tape with older photos are not mainstream and many would consider them "conspiracy theory" sites. I won't post to sites that are completly off the wall (like those that claim 9/11 was an alien operation etc...)

I was using the gaurdian as an example because it was the first name toha came to mind. many of the info I get is from them, BBC, rueters, pravada, etc... sometimes even american media sites (like MSNBC)

Thank you for posting the link. Now, as an example, had you posted the actual link from reuters. http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?t...storyID=2190238 rather than a link from indymedia, your claim would have been received more willingly from whomever you are debating.



You would receive a better response if you did some further research, and you actually posted credible foreign news sites that questioned the authenticity of the tapes. If, indeed, the tapes are not authentic, my guess would be that you will find some of our foreign critics discussing it. I just don't see a necessity for using "conspiracy theory" websites as a source, and as I said, if you do intend to use these, I would definitely not present them as fact. I would present them as mere speculation.

I hope this is in line with your topic, cyan. I don't think it warrants its own thread....

What I find odd is when people claim to have sources and when I inquire about them, they tell me to do a google search.

Whaa?

Why would one risk me misinterpreting their thoughts because I chose the "wrong" sites to review after my google search? Isn't that a risky debate tactic? You are trusting me to find sites to support you?!?

I mean, really...how hard is it do the search yourself and find one or two relevant links and post them? It's not. Or tell me about a book you read, or magazine, or newspaper article....something...anything.

Just to add my two cents. No source can be proven as worthwhile. When Fox news writes a story it does not constitute it as fact. You say prove it but that can actually never be done unless it happened in front of you and even then it could all be...an...illusion...mwa...ha...ha...ha...ha...(poof)...and the fool that wrote this is gone...

thanks for the advice cyan, I am kind of new at debating. I will definatly take your suggestions into consideration, again thanks.

While I agree overall with what cyan is saying (and even Mike to an extent), the fact is that there is no source of news which is completely free of bias or prejudice. The Guardian, for example, is going to cover stories which no Murdoch or Moon paper will ever touch. Because one paper includes some stories which others exclude, does that make it less credible? The same goes for print media. Noam Chomsky's political works, for example, are among the most heavily footnoted books ever written with massive bibliographies referring to tons of source materials. Yet his opponents will dismiss every word he's ever written (usually without having read one of them), simply because no one else has the cojones to report the stories he does (or because everyone else is participating in the tacit censorship agreed upon by the government and the "liberal" media).

So to my mind, there are two variables at work here: credible sources and credible debaters. I may disagree with something which, say, Ann Coulter may write - but in the astronomically unlikely event that she actually backed her statement up by citing source references, I would have to take her statements (or at least her research) as more or less credible. For some here, though, you could have fourteen eye-witnesses sitting in their lap screaming testimony at them under oath, but if one of them had been quoted by Chomsky, they would all be dismissed out of hand. To me, this is not a problem with the source, this is a problem with the participant in the debate - and I can think of nothing which will remedy such closed-mindedness.