When to Source

I've seen how the people on debate.org source. They literally provide a link for every statement they make. This isn't what happens in real life debating, so why do they do it online? IMHO, the only time you should be expected to use a source, is if you are
A. Quoting statistics
B. Quoting a specific study or article
C. Providing complicated but verifiable information when affirming a controversial statement

But I can also see an argument for differentiating ourselves from real life debating. That what is standard in real life shouldn't be standard here. Thoughts?
P.S - This would also be a good place for discussing arguments from sources.

Blackflag: I'm very interested to hear a reply on this.
Not knowing any better, I tend to only source according to the criteria you've put here, except that I'd add, Rebuttal into it as well. If my opponent makes a claim which I see as being false, if possible, I will source the evidence for my objection regardless of whether it meets this criteria. Only because I feel it adds weight.

Can I also ask, some people source with one of these [1] , while others simply create links within the argument.
I tend to favour the links as I feel like it reads better, but I wonder sometimes if it makes my case look less supported not having a nice list at the bottom.

I was interested to hear Admin say something along these lines the other day, rather than misquote him, I'll see if I can find it again.

Blackflag: It's Czar or Tsar.

It's not Csar, fix ur sig noob.

Blackflag: I don't see a problem with either. In general I think the important thing is that judges do not evaluate the quality of sources - that should be brought up by the debaters. But notwithstanding that, providing more detail on your material isn't inherently bad. In general I like your 3-point list.

Blackflag: He can call himself whatever he likes. You have no right to insult him.

nzlockie: "I wonder sometimes if it makes my case look less supported not having a nice list at the bottom"
Not true for me. I read a lot of blue links in the same way as I read a lot of numbers at the bottom. Numbers just wastes characters.

admin: The term is either spelt Tsar or Czar. Csar is an entire cross-wiring of two correct terms into an undeniably incorrect one.

Blackflag: Doesn't matter. He can still can himself that. You can call yourself RationalMadman too even though grammatically there should be a space in your name.

Blackflag: I'd say there's a difference between real life debating and online debating, but that the standard shouldn't be "source everything you post." It's not that difficult to determine whether an argument needs sourcing - if it's integral to your case, and someone can poke a hole in it simply by questioning whether it's true or not, it should be sourced. That doesn't mean it must be sourced, but it does mean that the argument is improved by sourcing. If it's something that's generally known to be true, then there's no concern and no need for sourcing.

whiteflame: The fundamental disagreement we have, is if sources are an offensive tool, or defensive tools.
You believe a source can make an argument stronger. I believe a source should only be viewed as a defense against refutation, and to hold up your credibility.

I've always judged by the latter. In your judging system, you increase the impact of an argument by using evidence in sources. IMO, evidence and sources are used to stop your argument from being refuted. If you don't accredit your information, then there's more merit when the opposition says its wrong. But judging information based on sources makes the judge have to...
1. Review the sources
2. Check that the information is accuarate
3. Judge the Quality
4. See if it impacts the argument itself.

Which should be the job of the debater. If the opposition says something is false, and you didn't source your information, then that's a credibility gap. Not a reason to deduct points. Even the Converse follows the same logic.

Blackflag: In your judging system, you increase the impact of an argument by using evidence in sources.[/quote

I didn't say that. In fact, I specifically separated impact from evidence. Evidence that shows how and why that impact will occur increase the likelihood of that impact occurring. If you told me that nuclear war would happen tomorrow because you really think that Russia has it in for India, I'd view that argument as absurd, lacking in any support beyond what you've told me is true. And you have skin in the game on this - you're telling me this is true because you're trying to win the debate. At best, I could give you a small likelihood that your story might play out that way. On the other hand, if you gave me a link to a CNN article stating that a Russian diplomat spat in an Indian diplomat's face and threatened him, and that they're currently loading missiles onto trucks, I'd have a substantially larger reason to believe that Russia might engage in that kind of behavior. Now the weight of your argument is increased by you explaining how that likelihood was increased.

Yes, sources are important on defense, and if that's all one uses them for, then the arguments that get that defense would factor into the debate more than the ones that barely get touched, from my perspective.

As for the list you've provided, I disagree with every one.

1. They should, theoretically, be quoting from the sources. If they're using the sources to make their arguments for them, then that doesn't count as evidence, and I usually disregard those sources. I don't have to review the source to see the quote. If their opponent notices a discrepancy, it's up to them to state where it is and why I should believe otherwise, turning the source in their favor. If they don't, I have absolutely no need to read the source.

2. Same issue. If the opponent doesn't check, that's on them.

3. Same issue. The quality will be evaluated on the basis of the response it receives and whether it's sufficient evidence at all. If it's a news article versus a blog, I can make quite a few conclusions as to its importance as evidence without even reading it.

4. Same issue. If they don't explain how it impacts the argument, then it doesn't matter in the debate.

It is the job of a debater to analyze the evidence, not the job of the judge. At the same time, if someone's making an incredible claim and it doesn't get a response, I can still see reason to doubt the credibility of that claim if they made no effort to support it. I'm not going to buy that the sky is bright green if someone tells me that on the basis that the other side didn't spend the time proving it is actually blue.

I didn't say that. In fact, I specifically separated impact from evidence. Evidence that shows how and why that impact will occur increase the likelihood of that impact occurring. If you told me that nuclear war would happen tomorrow because you really think that Russia has it in for India, I'd view that argument as absurd, lacking in any support beyond what you've told me is true. And you have skin in the game on this - you're telling me this is true because you're trying to win the debate. At best, I could give you a small likelihood that your story might play out that way. On the other hand, if you gave me a link to a CNN article stating that a Russian diplomat spat in an Indian diplomat's face and threatened him, and that they're currently loading missiles onto trucks, I'd have a substantially larger reason to believe that Russia might engage in that kind of behavior. Now the weight of your argument is increased by you explaining how that likelihood was increased.
I'll debate you on this.

Blackflag: We'll need to come up with a solid topic, first, but sure.

Still liking this thread, thanks!

My feeling is that sources should only be used to confirm the validity of an argument. They should not be used to actually MAKE that argument.
In other words, make your point, then give me a source to prove that your point has substance. Don't allude to a point and then refer me to a source to convince me.

nzlockie: Absolutely, 100% agreed. I think too many people utilize their sources to make their arguments for them, and as a judge, I don't abide that. If you don't provide the argument, the source is pointless.

whiteflame: My problem is that you increase the solvency of an argument by its source. You rate the scale of the argument on 1-5, but you give an argument a bigger impact on the BOP when they use sources, even though the same thing was said.

Affirmed arguments are affirmed, whether or not they use sources, which is why I'm questioning your choice to increase their solvency when evidence proves an affirmed argument.

Or let me put it this way. Let's say Jim makes the argument that "Yeti's like cheese". This is his strongest argument in the whole debate, and the impact it has on his BOP is a 4 out of 5. But oh wait, he sourced his data, so now his argument, while still affirmed, is increased by another modifier of 5.

If you want to judge sources, then they shouldn't be mixed with the value of the argument. They need to be their own thing.

Blackflag: BoP stands for burden of proof. Proof requires more than just assertion, and in the case of debate, it often requires actual proof, as in sources. You may be saying the same thing, but by adding a source, you're providing support for your argument, and thus better meeting your burden of proof.

A debater that seeks to affirm a resolution will present affirming arguments. However, the only reason anyone can accept those arguments is that there is substantial logic backing those arguments. In order to get that logic, especially if we're talking about real world happenings, some points require more than just an assertion that they're true - they require actual support.

...I'm not quite sure I understand where you're going with your example, so I'm going to use a real world example. The topic is that the U.S. should send up a new satellite that detects earthquakes. Con argues that sending up said satellite is going to infuriate China, which wants to control space. They will, thus, nuke the U.S. When I see that argument, I give it a 5 on impact, and a 0 on likelihood. It doesn't have any support, it's just unwarranted assertions. If Con tells me a story, explaining why China wants to control space, how they will likely respond to a satellite being shot into orbit, and how ready they are to go to blows with the U.S., they would get a bump to 2 or 3 on likelihood without response. If Con sources those arguments, providing quotes from Chinese generals stating that they are readying nuclear weapons for just such an occasion, that they have threatened to nuke Russia for doing the same thing, and would engage in that behavior here, it gets bumped to a 4 or 5. That's because they've just increased the likelihood by giving me the full basis of support for your arguments.

What you appear to be saying is that I should weigh the first argument I listed as exactly the same as the last one in terms of potency within the debate. They are an integral part of whether someone's argument was effective. I'm not sure why they have to be separate.

Okay, I don't think you're understanding what I'm trying to say. If an argument is affirmed, it has already been proven. It doesn't matter if they include sources with the proven argument, the "point" has already been made. Both my judging system and yours grade based on the potency of that argument, but you also mix in how the argument is done for points.

This means that if Jimmy and Tommy have an argument of equal potency, both being affirmed, but Tommy used a source, his argument is suddenly worth more points.

Affirmed Arguments are worth as many points as they contribute to the burden of proof.
If there is a lack of sources, then there is a credibility gap, and you should just consider if the argument has been affirmed without sources or not.
Not add extra points for affirmed arguments with sources, as that dilutes the final score when it comes to a simple "who filled the BOP".

I also added a 2 point deduction system for bad cx, bad conduct, bad presentation, and bad speech. Another reason why your system doesn't work, is because conduct violations and arguments are on the same ladder scale. Meaning PRO can have 2 arguments of twenty points, but three conduct violations of thirty points.