One of the makings of a good debater is that he/she has facts or sources to back up the claims that are made to legitimize their argument. On these boards, it is usually asked (really demanded) that links to sources be provided. I know we are in the information age here but yet not all sources are electronic (or acquired without a fee) such as books, scholarly journals, and scientific research. Obviously this makes the situation difficult because the debater trying to prove a point can only paraphrase the source and the debater opposed has no way to reference the material.

I was wondering if there was a method that we could use on the boards to cite non-electronic sources without sacrificing the integrity of the debate. I've been on the boards a while and have really yet to see people write out full citations for non-electronic sources. Is there a way we can reconcile this that would be acceptable to everyone debating?

I do this all the time Leder. In fact, I think some of the electronic soures are intelletually shallow.

Here is an instance where I quote Robert Dallek's Flawed Giant: Lyndon Johnson and his Times 1961-1973 and cited specific page numbers.

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...ndpost&p=122419

Now I realize that not everyone has Dallek's book at hand, but hey, if getting one's butt up from the computer chair and visiting the public library is necessary for verification, then so be it. If someone doubts I quoted Dallek correctly, then verification is their problem not mine.

The only problem I see is that pages will be different, if there are multiple editions of a book - hardcover and paperback editions, for example.

But again, that's not my problem. Typing out text from a book is time consuming. If, and I always have, quote words from a book verbatim (and try to get the context honestly) , I see no problem with using books and plan to continue doing so.

To give you a direct answer, I'm not at all interested in reconciling this practice or changing how I do things to placate you.

I occasionally cite books or articles that aren't online and, when I do so, either provide a link to Barnes & Noble or Amazon (for books) or list the publication date for newspaper or magazine articles. Often, pertinent articles or sections of articles are reproduced somewhere online (and the same sometimes goes for books). If not - and if someone seriously doubts someone's reference or transcription - people can either pick up a copy at a book store, order it online, or go to a public library. I doubt that many would just invent books or make up quotes to support an argument and, were they to do so, would no doubt soon be exposed. If a work they're citing is so obscure as to be unavailable, it should possibly be discounted anyway, especially if it is the entire foundation for a point they're trying to make. The only exception I can think of here is for certain historical arguments where pertinent titles may be long out of print. Even in those cases, though, there are likely to be used copies available online or at least reviews or references that can be checked to ensure that an author isn't being cited entirely out of context.

There is no way I think debates should be restricted to using online references as foundation or support for an argument, so to a certain extent such references must be accepted as a matter of faith (unless, of course, one is willing to fork out the money for one's own copy).