In almost all of our recent debates, I have noticed a tendency to "sourcewar", I.E., to post a large number of ostensibly "reliable" sources, in order to sway one's ideological adversaries. THis is fine and dandy; debate operates on fact, not opinion. Yet I cannot help but wonder how far these sources can be trusted.

So, here's my query.

Without actually having been there, how is it truly possible to elucidate the veracity of our sources? What guarantees do we have, even from the larger networks?

Does this, in turn, foster a sort of "lordly" air to the debators on this site? Are we, as debators, playing the part of the secluded philosophers, arguing over complex theses, without any true knowledge of the realities of the matters that we discuss?

Cite examples if possible, please.

Fere libenter homines it quod volunt credunt.
Julius Caesar, The Gallic War, III:18.

It is a rule of academic discipline to cite the source authorities in support of one’s arguments; and the validity of such sources, in the final analysis, depends on the source. (It will not do for a scientist to support his thesis by quoting scripture, however revered it may be by theologians.) In science the true source is empirical evidence validated by independent experiment. In politics the true source is political correctness counted at the polling booth; which is to say what the many say is so, whether it is so or not. Needs must it be so, for in politics, “men willingly believe what they wish to be true.”

Without actually having been there, how is it truly possible to elucidate the veracity of our sources? What guarantees do we have, even from the larger networks?

One can take a look at the source and get some sense of its reliability, in many cases. For example, if one has a direct quote from the Encyclopaedia Brittanica, one can expect it to have a high degree of accuracy. On the other hand, if a source is clearly dedicated to propagating a point of view, one must take what it says with a grain of salt.

I try to use sources which are either neutral and generally considered to be accurate, like an encyclopaedia, or sources which have a point of view which is opposed to my own. When it was claimed that Senator Clinton is a socialist, for example, I chose to quote William F. Buckley, a solidly conservative, anti-Clinton source, to deny this. Surely this is more effective than if I had quoted a pro-Clinton source.

Does this, in turn, foster a sort of "lordly" air to the debators on this site? Are we, as debators, playing the part of the secluded philosophers, arguing over complex theses, without any true knowledge of the realities of the matters that we discuss?

I personally feel quite comfortable in my ivory tower, and I am content to rely on indirect sources of information. For those who have personal experience which is relevant, this can be brought into the debate as a welcome source of information. It must be recognized, however, that multiple reliable sources of information must take precedence over one person's experience.

Without actually having been there, how is it truly possible to elucidate the veracity of our sources? What guarantees do we have, even from the larger networks?

I'm not even sure I understand your question. "Without actually having been there?" Been where? Or, "Elucidate the veracity of our sources"? Elucidate? What do you mean? My guess is that you mean to say that we can never be sure our sources are using accurate data? That being the case, you're largely correct. We have no guarantees at all. Everything quoted as fact is also challenged as "slant" or as being incomplete. Even in the hard sciences one cannot escape politicking the results. Imagine how much more difficult it is when dealing with those "softer" sciences.

Those on this board who link us to other sources ad infinitum should face more often the scrutiny that comes from challenging the data of those sources. Case in point, I recently took one such AD poster to task on his misquoting of a particular statistic that was on it's face easy to refute. Actually, this problem was that the poster misconstrued the results, albeit well-intentioned. What about when the actual study is arguably flawed? Do we not scrutinize it simply because the link is above reproach and unbiased? On the flip side I think it's equally laughable when another study is point blank discounted only because it emanates from a conservative or liberal frame.

The only answer is to review the parameters of the study with a critical eye before accepting or making any conclusions. Fortunately, one's ability to cast a critical eye cannot in itself be supported by providing yet another link! It's called CRITICAL THINKING.

Does this, in turn, foster a sort of "lordly" air to the debators on this site? Are we, as debators, playing the part of the secluded philosophers, arguing over complex theses, without any true knowledge of the realities of the matters that we discuss?

Better question. To some extent, yes. I guess it's hard to know when to say when before a certain exchange of ideas becomes simply a face-saving exchange cast under the auspices of "higher reasoning".

Without actually having been there, how is it truly possible to elucidate the veracity of our sources?

Like vanguard, I'm not even sure what this question means - "elucidate the veracity"? It is not our job as debaters to elucidate how or why we find the sources we cite veracious. I'm often grateful enough that people cite sources for their assertions at all. But the primary purpose of citing one's sources, akalae, is to enable other participants to assess the veracity of the source for themselves. This is why, for example, people who seem to get all their "news" from NewsMax or Democratic Underground or Fox News or Smirking Chimp aren't taken quite as seriously as though who cite more unbiased sources.

I think we must bear in mind, though, that most questions of sourcing in debates is to provide foundation for what is being put forward as "fact". One can claim that Iran is developing nuclear weapons or that more people believe they've seen UFOs than approve of George W Bush or that blacks have lower IQs than whites or that gay men make better fathers than straight men. But without a source to back up such assertions, there's really no point in entertaining such notions - let alone debating them.

What guarantees do we have, even from the larger networks?

Guarantees of what? Veracity in news reports generated by larger television networks? Little, if any, I would imagine. I seldom cite such sources, apart from eyewitness reporting - and, even then, with a grain of salt. If a network news item quotes a politician or scientist or religious leader or whatever, I'll sometimes link to such a source, should a primary source be unavailable - though I'd usually try to find a fuller statement or a transcript. Cable news is often more dubious. When looking for sources on news items, I tend to rely on teh internets (where, at least, information is relatively encyclopedic and which often provides numerous, accessible sources for most claims) - and try to find primary sources where possible. In general, though, the most credible and convincing arguments here rely on more concrete data - actually statistics or quotes from legislation or peer-reviewed articles or an amalgam of national polling results.

It can be difficult to determine how accurate any report is, regardless of the source - or sources. Newspapers of record, established wire services, exhaustive investigative reporters, learned bodies of scientists, large-sample opinion surveys, and clinically controlled studies have all been proved wrong on occasion - some of them frequently. Does that mean that we should abandon all research? Not if we want our arguments to be convincing - or even defensible. The best we can do is find the most credible sources possible (and I use the plural there intentionally) and be prepared to face whatever challenges they may be met with.

Does this, in turn, foster a sort of "lordly" air to the debators on this site?

Among some, perhaps - if you refer to the inherent condescension of one who has done their research in addressing those who are relatively clueless. But if you are implying that seeking out and providing credible foundation for one's opinions is somehow "elitist", then I would respectfully submit that, while you may be in the right country, you are on the wrong political discussion board. If the alternative to "lordly airs" is the groundless ranting of dimwits, give me well-supported discourse with credible foundation any day.

Are we, as debators, playing the part of the secluded philosophers, arguing over complex theses, without any true knowledge of the realities of the matters that we discuss?

Speaking for myself, no. I engage in debate because I am engaged with the world. I discuss politics because they directly affect my life and have frequently changed the course of it. Where possible, I speak from personal experience and often share such experiences, however anecdotally. But - like many of the better debaters here (and I do not necessarily include myself among them, though I do try to emulate them) - I also provide as much foundation as possible to support my positions, especially when they're challenged. A number of times, I have come to realize (due to the efforts of those on the other side of a debate) that the foundation for my position was shaky and that my sources may have been biased, prejudiced, erroneous, or out-dated - or that my own experience has been exceptional. This has occasionally led to my modifying a position - for which I am grateful to well-researched opponents.

Obviously, there are many "realities" of which few of us here have direct experience - the reality of living in the Green Zone or Guantanamo Bay or being on death row or having lost a child in a school shooting or living below the poverty level or having served as a senator or ambassador or judge. Does that mean that discussing Iraq or capital punishment or gun legislation or welfare reform or national politics makes us "secluded philosophers"? Hardly. Anyone can discuss "complex theses" - and if you've spent any time in public places, you will find that they frequently do - but far too many discuss such issues without being informed about them, except (maybe) in the most cursory, misinformed manner possible. And that is one of the main differences here at America's Debate. We may not have "true knowledge of the realities of the matters that we discuss", but we are prepared to seek out those who do. And that necessarily means relying on other sources. And, you must admit, that's better than relying on no sources.

People here do share personal experiences - military, minority, medical, financial, family, business - when debating issues and often admit that their personal experience has informed their opinion. But they also do their homework (at least many of them do) and some of those people - what I consider the more serious debaters - are often frustrated when banging their heads against the wall of gut assertion. And that is why you will occasionally come across a "sourcewar".

It's easy to simply post "You're wrong - the best policy is x, y, or z" or "I'm right because x, y, or z says so". If it's easy debate one is looking for, I'd recommend the partisan discussion boards where everyone will agree with you, support your position, and leap en masse on anyone who dissents. But if one is looking for a serious, reasoned discussion of issues that values accuracy above passion, one must be prepared to argue with some foundation.

The basic human condition is that we cannot know anything for sure, other than we cannot know anything for sure. Rene Descartes only knew that he doubted, and when you get right down to it, that's a fact Zack.

But then it's hard to live with that level of epistemological brain seizure.

So we argue about things we don't fully understand, as if even "being there" would lead to full understanding. So what if you were there? Everybody sees things differently.

Eye witnesses to crimes always have different takes on what really happened. Shoot, ask 20 different people what a single sentence means and you'll get 20 different answers. I did this in college, and I was there, so I know it is true. But you can doubt me because, well, that's the nature of life.

It gets frustrating when arguing point/counter point. Oh well. That's another human condition. You believe you're right and I believe you're all wet, and no amount of arguing changes the situation. But the advantage of carrying out the pointless exercise is that I might understand my own thinking better. Maybe the opposition gets this benefit too, who knows, that person being so thoroughly wet.

Ultimately we only know what we believe to be true. Debate like this helps people to understand their own thinking better. That's it.

And it's free. And often fun. Don't take it too seriously, which is fairly good advice for life in general that I often don't follow.

Oh, another good thing about this place is that you might get Big Bad Pundit Monster spouting some sort of miserable cocky-pop that gets torn asunder and blown apart and generally stomped flatter than a two-dimensional critter stuck in the first dimension. It's like making fun of royalty.

Just thought of another reason why people might like to participate in debate -- one might come to a better understanding of the other side(s) for any particular subject. Think that comes under advanced doubt.

I've just returned from an interesting topic by Zack, replete with a "source"; in this case, World Net Daily which claimed, convincinly, i may add, that a certain university was marginalising all of its white students, forcing them into a self-deprecating, near-subservient state to the university's minorities. Several, (well, actually, one) debators responded to this angrily, until our dear level-headed colleague CruisingRam made an attempt to debunk it. When it was examined closely, the entire story fell to pieces.

This is the point I'm trying to make, and the question i'm trying to ask. There's so much information flowing through this site, and what scares me, is that so much of it is false! We rely on our remote sources, we are fed information through all sorts of outlets, yet how do we seperate truth from falshood? Where do we draw the line?

Debators need facts. Not tabloids, not lies, posted on fake newsboards in the dank corners of the net. Facts.

So please, enlighten me; how can we tell?

Edit; ah, my questions are a bit obtuse. Sorry about that. let me reiterate;

How do we distinguish between truthful articles and those written by filthy stinking liars?

"A man of realities. A man of facts and calculations. A man who proceeds upon the principle that two and two are four, and nothing over, and who is not to be talked into allowing for anything over....With a rule and a pair of scales, and the multiplication table always in his pocket, sir, ready to weigh and measure any parcel of human nature, and tell you exactly what it comes to. It is a mere question of figures, a case of simple arithmetic."
- Charles Dickens, Hard Times (1854)