Reputable sources as evidence in a debate?

If you have something so weird, strange or off-topic to post and think it doesn't belong in any other forum; you're probably right. Please put all your gormless, half-baked, inane, glaikit ideas in here. This might also be a place where we throw threads that appear elsewhere that don't belong ANYWHERE end up, instead of having to flush them. FORUM RULES STILL APPLY.
UKJ
Expatriate
Posts: 849
Joined: Thu May 29, 2014 4:37 am
Reputation: 0

Reputable sources as evidence in a debate?

Post by UKJ »

In desperately trying not to lose a debate, some people have been discrediting the BBC, live interviews ( confessions! ), newspapers, and any other evidence, while claiming their source is good :facepalm: .
So what news channels, newspapers, websites are acceptable, so we can stop this childishness? It's ok to lose a debate. It should be done graciously.
User avatar
General Mackevili
The General
Posts: 17165
Joined: Tue May 06, 2014 5:24 pm
Reputation: 2132
Location: The Kingdom
Contact:
United States of America

Re: Reputable sources as evidence in a debate?

Post by General Mackevili »

Moving this to the........take a guess? ? ? Yes! Good guess! To the Asinine Arena.

Doesn't seem to have anything to do with General Chatter in a Cambodia expat forum, so off goes to the arena...

No disrespect to you or your thread though.

:hattip:
"Life is too important to take seriously."

"Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh."

Have a story or an anonymous news tip for CEO? Need advertising? CONTACT ME

Cambodia Expats Online is the most popular community in the country. JOIN TODAY

Follow CEO on social media:

Facebook
Twitter
YouTube
Google+
Instagram
UKJ
Expatriate
Posts: 849
Joined: Thu May 29, 2014 4:37 am
Reputation: 0

Re: Reputable sources as evidence in a debate?

Post by UKJ »

General Mackevili wrote:Moving this to the........take a guess? ? ? Yes! Good guess! To the Asinine Arena.

Doesn't seem to have anything to do with General Chatter in a Cambodia expat forum, so off goes to the arena...

No disrespect to you or your thread though.

:hattip:
It wasn't aimed at the two guys I complained about in the 440 thread. Although, they have also done it. It was aimed at the tipping thread, the female genital mutilation debate, and denial of a BBC newsnight ( I think live) interview etc. It's a genuine attempt for it to be agreed what is acceptable as " evidence". And I waited until it reached a farcical level.

Maybe I should have asked what isn't acceptable. That would be easier. So is the BBC ok? I have never had anyone say it fakes political interviews, in ten years of forums.
OrangeDragon
Site Admin
Posts: 4193
Joined: Fri May 02, 2014 8:05 pm
Reputation: 16
United States of America

Re: Reputable sources as evidence in a debate?

Post by OrangeDragon »

With ANY source, I would say view it with a bit of skeptical bias. Especially media sources. They never/rarely tell you the full truth, only the part that fits with what their agenda is. Entertainment media should be given even LESS credit, as it's very heavily edited, and often includes retakes and scripted scenes.

Even with interviews, clever editing can cut out bits of context that make the statement much different than it was intended.

The NBC edited Zimmerman tape is a great example of this:
http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2 ... rman-tape/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Where it was edited to remove the 911 dispatcher asking his race, to make him sound racist.

Your "documentary" doesn't even show the scene prior to the tasering which led up to it, but is alluded to in the police interview later where the guy getting tasered had in some way made physical contact with the cop. Did he grab him from behind/etc? We don't know... because they don't show us. Making it ambiguous and having people argue about police brutality in it as we are can be a nice surge in ratings for a show like that.
User avatar
dagenham
Expatriate
Posts: 448
Joined: Wed May 14, 2014 6:11 pm
Reputation: 2
Great Britain

Re: Reputable sources as evidence in a debate?

Post by dagenham »

UKJ wrote:
General Mackevili wrote:Moving this to the........take a guess? ? ? Yes! Good guess! To the Asinine Arena.

Doesn't seem to have anything to do with General Chatter in a Cambodia expat forum, so off goes to the arena...

No disrespect to you or your thread though.

:hattip:
It wasn't aimed at the two guys I complained about in the 440 thread. Although, they have also done it. It was aimed at the tipping thread, the female genital mutilation debate, and denial of a BBC newsnight ( I think live) interview etc. It's a genuine attempt for it to be agreed what is acceptable as " evidence". And I waited until it reached a farcical level.

Maybe I should have asked what isn't acceptable. That would be easier. So is the BBC ok? I have never had anyone say it fakes political interviews, in ten years of forums.
I personally would support only citing CBN (the Christian Broadcasting Network) as the only true source. That should make UKJ overjoyed...

All other media sources would obviously have a slant...
Winston Churchill said, "Have a cigar, a glass of brandy, pet your dog and get a blow job daily for a productive and fulfilling life"
HotRecruiter
Expatriate
Posts: 255
Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 10:38 am
Reputation: 0

Re: Reputable sources as evidence in a debate?

Post by HotRecruiter »

Double-confirm sources, reputable journos are supposed to do this, but occasionally don't.
Rain Dog
Expatriate
Posts: 694
Joined: Thu May 29, 2014 4:40 pm
Reputation: 29

Re: Reputable sources as evidence in a debate?

Post by Rain Dog »

dagenham wrote:
UKJ wrote:
General Mackevili wrote:Moving this to the........take a guess? ? ? Yes! Good guess! To the Asinine Arena.

Doesn't seem to have anything to do with General Chatter in a Cambodia expat forum, so off goes to the arena...

No disrespect to you or your thread though.

:hattip:
It wasn't aimed at the two guys I complained about in the 440 thread. Although, they have also done it. It was aimed at the tipping thread, the female genital mutilation debate, and denial of a BBC newsnight ( I think live) interview etc. It's a genuine attempt for it to be agreed what is acceptable as " evidence". And I waited until it reached a farcical level.

Maybe I should have asked what isn't acceptable. That would be easier. So is the BBC ok? I have never had anyone say it fakes political interviews, in ten years of forums.
I personally would support only citing CBN (the Christian Broadcasting Network) as the only true source. That should make UKJ overjoyed...

All other media sources would obviously have a slant...
HaHa -- I was the one that quoted CBN --- Hagee and Blood Moon Prophecies indicating the need to bomb Iran.

Great Source!!!!!!

:mrgreen:
Taxi, we'd rather walk. Huddle a doorway with the rain dogs
The Rum pours strong and thin. Beat out the dustman with the Rain Dogs;
User avatar
frank lee bent
Expatriate
Posts: 11330
Joined: Sat May 17, 2014 4:10 am
Reputation: 2088
United States of America

Re: Reputable sources as evidence in a debate?

Post by frank lee bent »

it is a good point- what media organ is really neutral?

I found my last visit to USA, Al Jazeera, which I had always considered conservative, is viewed as a dangerous jihadist propaganda organ by many Americans.

how they formed that opinion i could not determine as i never found their broadcasts there.
Rain Dog
Expatriate
Posts: 694
Joined: Thu May 29, 2014 4:40 pm
Reputation: 29

Re: Reputable sources as evidence in a debate?

Post by Rain Dog »

%)
frank lee bent wrote:it is a good point- what media organ is really neutral?

I found my last visit to USA, Al Jazeera, which I had always considered conservative, is viewed as a dangerous jihadist propaganda organ by many Americans.

how they formed that opinion i could not determine as i never found their broadcasts there.
Fox now told em so.

If Hannity and O'Reilly say it, it must be true
%)
Taxi, we'd rather walk. Huddle a doorway with the rain dogs
The Rum pours strong and thin. Beat out the dustman with the Rain Dogs;
Soi Dog
Expatriate
Posts: 2236
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 8:53 am
Reputation: 5

Re: Reputable sources as evidence in a debate?

Post by Soi Dog »

UKJ wrote: So what news channels, newspapers, websites are acceptable, so we can stop this childishness? It's ok to lose a debate. It should be done graciously.
A safe bet is to quote "reliable internet sources" when you need something to prove your point.

Quoting sources has become a no-win situation. If you quote the BBC or Fox News for anything, the entire thread will be derailed with multiple attacks, saying "I can't believe anyone would be so dumb as to quote anything from that blatantly biased pile of shite media outlet! you read".

As for your last two sentences, you need to take your own advice there. I have yet to see you walk away gracefully from any argument. You get as aggressive as anyone here. You always need to get in the last word and you never let that go.
Post Reply Previous topicNext topic
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: SternAAlbifrons and 74 guests