When people refuse to leave links, for their arguments, are their arguments weakened?

[ZombieHorde]

Poll question: When people refuse to leave links, for their arguments, are their arguments weakened?

If you see a claim that seems wrong, and you ask for a link, does that claim seem less valid if the claimer refuses to leave one? Perhaps they just don't reply or say; "Do your own research."

[Donnachaidh]

1. "Do your own research" is a standard freeper response on other boards

ironic, isn't it?

[babylonsister]

2. If it's an opinion, no, unless drivel is being spouted that needs to

be supported. Otherwise, I'd say yes.

[panader0]

3. I'm not sure because I never read the rules.

But it's only common sense to leave a link for your post (if necessary). On the other hand, computer challenged people like me on dial-ups have a tough time. My 'puter is so slow that by the time I look something up or try to link to something, the issue is already history.

[LisaM]

4. First of all, all links aren't created equal

So it doesn't do much good if it's not from a trusted site.

Second, I have posted the same links multiple times, and I get tired of re-posting them.

Third, even if the link is legit, and entirely backs up your argument, people won't necessarily pay attention.

[panader0]

6. Indeed. Link or patty?

[sandnsea]

5. Depends on whether it's an argument made for the millionth time n/t

[Solly Mack]

7. Do you have a link for this?

[ZombieHorde]

8. Here you go-

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3252825

[Solly Mack]

10. Love it!!!! LOLOLOLOL

Thank you!!!

[CoffeeCat]

9. If someone is giving an opinion...

...why in the hell should they come armed to an anonymous messageboard with
empirical data and double-blind studies?

It's ludicrous.

Unless you are stating that you've discovered a new scientific law--then hell no---links
are not required.

Many times this is a device used by naysayers who don't like the opinion.

[ZombieHorde]

14. I did not mean statements like; "I dislike Mr.X."

I mean statements like; "Mr.X was once a member of the KKK." (I have not seen this, it is just an example)

Some things can be pretty much proven. Such as quotes.

[Gman]

19. Someone should not have to post a link to prove Robert Byrd was once in the KKK

that is considered common knowledge and one should not have to post a link because someone is not educated on this fact.

[ZombieHorde]

23. OK. What it someone states that Dean received money from the KKK in 1984?

Would you like to see a link for that claim?

(I just want to say that I have no reason to believe that Dean received any money, at any time, from the KKK. I chose Dean and the KKK because putting the two together seems outlandish.)

[Gman]

27. That would be a pretty wild accusation as Dean's background is pretty well known

therefore a link would be appropriate. Something that falls outside of the common body of knowledge calls for a link/citation.

[hootinholler]

28. It's highly unlikely that Mr. X was ever a member of the KKK.

I mean Malcom's black.

:evilgrin:

-Hoot

[RedCappedBandit]

25. If your "opinion" needs sources, it isn't an opinion.

[Dorian Gray]

26. I agree when people are posting opinions...

then you are right. But sometimes people claim that a certain historical thing has happened, and in that case, if a link is asked for to support the claim, then it should be provided for the poster to be taken seriously.

[Tippy]

11. No matter how hard I try my links didn't work so I quit trying n/t

[flamin lib]

12. Didn't vote, no dog in the fight as I almost always link to data. BUT

and there is always a butt (sic) I do get very tired of picayune corrections based on research after the fact.

"So I said,'yada yada'", and the Accuracy Police come back and say,"Your facts are absolutely wrong because in the 1972 Farmer's Almanac it clearly states it's Yada + .25 and yada x .97. No wonder you're not convincing anyone!!"

Hyperbole be damned!11! The FACTS are hugh!1!1 and against you11!!11. You must be some kind of moran 1!1! It's offical !1

[Squatch]

13. Not necessarily

Each argument must be judged on its own merits, not validated by the number of links attached to it.

[RedCappedBandit]

15. If you leave no sources, you appear to lack credibility. nt

[Tippy]

16. No matter how hard I try my links didn't work so I quit trying n/t

[LiberalFighter]

17. They are causing other people to do research that has already been done or should had been done.

If we all had to take two or three steps backward for every step forward it becomes a losing cause. That is what happens when posters refuse to provide sources.

[Gman]

18. If the person challenging the assertion of alleged fact

shows a lack of knowledge on the subject but insists on challenging, the poster being challenged needs to tell that person to do their own research. For example, if someone challenges the fact that there were no WMD's in Iraq on the basis that the weapons have yet to be found, then the person doing the challenging needs to do some reading. The poster stating the fact that there were no WMD's in Iraq is under no obligation to educate someone demonstrating a lack of knowledge.

Common ways this happens is challenging someone to prove a negative (e.g. no WMD's in Iraq) with links. A negative cannot be proven, and in fact, the burden of proof is on the person challenging to prove the positive if they feel the negative is wrong. Lacking any substantial evidence to the contrary, the negative remains the truth.

Most people challenging DU common knowledge things are usually newbies here. I was challenged a few months ago about something regarding PNAC. The person really had no idea what PNAC is and since PNAC has been thoroughly discussed at DU for years, I felt no obligation to educate this person regarding PNAC and chose to tell them to google and read the plethora of information available.

So if you're new here at DU and you're not as up on the issues as those of us that have been here for years, you may want to do some googling first before you declare victory over someone that doesn't feel they need to educate you because you haven't educated yourself. Of course, you can declare victory, but you look kinda stupid.

[dipsydoodle]

20. Guess sometimes it could just be a personal belief.

I'l blowed if I can find a link to substantiate that Hillary is a cow for example.

[Rosemary2205]

21. I know the 101st Fighting Keyboarders care a lot about this.

I tend to see DU as a giant coversation, not a debate squad. If someone has a good link, great. If someone has a weak link, great too. If someone says, I know I read that somewhere, fine with me. If I'm that interested I can go look the info up. Even if someone says my cousin's best friends brother in law told me I got no problem with that. Throw it all on the table and share. There's room here for everything and there are plenty of factoids and just plain wisdom in places other than "on the internet tubes". (gasp)

IMHO if we are attacking our fellow DUers for not having every freakin word they say linked with perfect valid enough for the attacker to be satisfied, then it's time to switch to decaf. Just MHO. Now, if someone says something that just sounds wrong - like "Obama molested a turtle." - asking "where did you hear/read that?" is fair. And if someone doesn't answer, fine with me. I assume they either slunk off ashamed of themselves, simply didn't see the request (people DO have lives and come back hours, days or even weeks or months later), or else they decided my question was so out in left field it was prudent to just let me alone in my bizarro world.

I have challenged people on statements - usually gently. I've been challenged often and rudely, most often by the perpetually offended on the board demanding a link to prove my opinion. Once in while if I'm in the right mood I'll play with them awhile, but normally I just ignore them and let them stomp off and tell themselves they won and I lost.

But to me, DU isn't about winning or losing. It's about conversation with mostly like minded people who want life to be better for all Americans.

[leftofthedial]

22. no. this is a message board, not grad school

if you doubt someone's point or their facts, use the damned internet. google it. look in wiki. whatever.

The single commonest tactic for shutting down a compelling argument here (next to mods locking a thread I suppose) is for some yutz to act all outraged, call you a liar and demand dozens of links (but not one from a site the yutz disagrees with).

[PeaceNikki]

24. I agree. We all have the internets and The Google.