Page 1 of 2
Reputable sources as evidence in a debate?
Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2014 11:35 am
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
.
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.
Re: Reputable sources as evidence in a debate?
Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2014 12:32 pm
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.
Re: Reputable sources as evidence in a debate?
Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2014 1:00 pm
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.
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.
Re: Reputable sources as evidence in a debate?
Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2014 1:09 pm
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/
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.
Re: Reputable sources as evidence in a debate?
Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2014 1:50 pm
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.
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...
Re: Reputable sources as evidence in a debate?
Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2014 1:58 pm
by HotRecruiter
Double-confirm sources, reputable journos are supposed to do this, but occasionally don't.
Re: Reputable sources as evidence in a debate?
Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2014 2:06 pm
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.
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!!!!!!
Re: Reputable sources as evidence in a debate?
Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2014 2:29 pm
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.
Re: Reputable sources as evidence in a debate?
Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2014 5:02 pm
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
Re: Reputable sources as evidence in a debate?
Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2014 8:43 pm
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.