What's the point of a debate if all you're gonna do is ask for sources, say the sources are bullshit, and call the person you're debating a liar?

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

It depends on the sort of debate, I guess? If it's medicine or science we're talking about then it is not a matter of opinion but a matter of facts. So, if you tell me something that I have never heard of before, of course I'm going to ask for sources. And if the sources are shit then...of course I'm gonna call them that?
If it's something else we're talking about, art, politics, anything that could depend on personal opinions then yeah, asking for sources to prove an opinion is stupid.

MrBrownstone · 46-50, M

@K1llYourDumplings What makes a source shit?

Rolexeo · 26-30, M

@K1llYourDumplings Hard to pn them down when they wont agree on a valid source, or they do and still say the source is bs afterwards

K1llYourDumplings · 31-35, F

@MrBrownstone Just an example, if your sources are Instagram/Facebook etc. posts or articles that are not confirmed/supported by actual scientific research and evidence (evidence, not just theories and speculations), then that is not considered a valid source.

MrBrownstone · 46-50, M

@K1llYourDumplings Many scientist sat climate is nothing to worry about

K1llYourDumplings · 31-35, F

@MrBrownstone ...sources? 👀 proper sources. With evidence, not just what they said

MrBrownstone · 46-50, M

@K1llYourDumplings Source THAT you agree with right? You have not defined what proper is.

K1llYourDumplings · 31-35, F

@MrBrownstone Scroll up, I have🤔

MrBrownstone · 46-50, M

@K1llYourDumplings So anything from a scientific newspaper is legit?

K1llYourDumplings · 31-35, F

@MrBrownstone If there is actual research to back it up, it is. But speculations and theories are NOT evidence. They need to be tested before they are considered evidence.
And of course, if a source is from, I don't know, 1978, and there are newer ones that confirm that the initial findings were wrong, it's the latest one that you should trust.

MrBrownstone · 46-50, M

@K1llYourDumplings So sources as defined by you. Sounds biased.

This comment is hidden. Show Comment

MrBrownstone · 46-50, M

@K1llYourDumplings So everything on google is legit. Got it.

K1llYourDumplings · 31-35, F

@MrBrownstone Hey, if common sense is not your friend and you can't tell legit from bullshit, that's not my problem 🤷🏻‍♀️

Also, no, I didn't find out because of Google, it is part of my job.

MrBrownstone · 46-50, M

@K1llYourDumplings Just repeated that you said google is legit. So I got plenty of facts now

K1llYourDumplings · 31-35, F

@MrBrownstone That's not what I said, that's what you read. And I'm really not surprised by the lack of critical thinking

MrBrownstone · 46-50, M

@K1llYourDumplings If it’s on google then it’s factually incorrect or correct. Got it. Because google isn’t biased. No need for sources anymore. Got it

Rolexeo · 26-30, M

@K1llYourDumplings Theories is science are fact based tho

K1llYourDumplings · 31-35, F

@Rolexeo you are absolutely right! I meant it more like misinterpretations of results but couldn't think of what to call that. It happens sometimes (not often) with popular science articles and even more with random articles

Rolexeo · 26-30, M

@K1llYourDumplings science is misinterpreted all the time by scientists, that's why theories are constantly being edited

K1llYourDumplings · 31-35, F

@Rolexeo Hmmmm not all the time, I don't think so. I mean maybe it depends on what exactly we're talking about, I could see that happen with biology, for example (even though simply saying biology here is very vague).