Ban Fact Check Dismissal Posts

[jonny5]

Im talking about when someone starts a thread with a link to some source, and immediately someone posts a link to some fact check site where they say the source is biased, instead of actually debating the topic with their own brain. Maybe its already against the rules, but its pretty annoying.

3. Baiting/Flaming/Trolling
Another form of baiting is known as “derailing” or “thread-jacking”
those “who post inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages” to disrupt normal on-topic discussions.

At the very least, such ad hominem off topic posting should be added to the rules. If someone doesnt like the source someone uses, challenge its facts, present your own, or ignore the thread.

 

[MamboDervish]

Im talking about when someone starts a thread with a link to some source, and immediately someone posts a link to some fact check site where they say the source is biased, instead of actually debating the topic with their own brain. Maybe its already against the rules, but its pretty annoying.

3. Baiting/Flaming/Trolling
Another form of baiting is known as “derailing” or “thread-jacking”
those “who post inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages” to disrupt normal on-topic discussions.

At the very least, such ad hominem off topic posting should be added to the rules. If someone doesnt like the source someone uses, challenge its facts, present your own, or ignore the thread.

It's unclear what you're asking for. Making reference to a fact checking site would seem to be the definition of "challenging it's facts". It certainly doesn't qualify as derailing or "thread-jacking", which refer to changing the subject. If the content of the OP is so feeble as to be parried or dismissed by the simple reference to a fact checking site, then why is it even up here? Do you expect a long "debate" on a subject that isn't factually based to begin with?

What exactly are you asking for?

 

[gdgyva]

Someone posts something from a lesser site (maybe left, maybe right)

Instead of discussing the actual topic, debating its facts, or merits, they post something about the SITE

i have seen it done here dozens if not hundreds of times

Maybe the site is not known for being the most factual....then argue the merits of what is posted with alternative facts

I think that is what he was trying to get across?

 

[jonny5]

It's unclear what you're asking for. Making reference to a fact checking site would seem to be the definition of "challenging it's facts". It certainly doesn't qualify as derailing or "thread-jacking", which refer to changing the subject. If the content of the OP is so feeble as to be parried or dismissed by the simple reference to a fact checking site, then why is it even up here? Do you expect a long "debate" on a subject that isn't factually based to begin with?

What exactly are you asking for?

They arent challenging the facts. They are effectively adding a cancel label to the thread by saying the source is biased in an attempt to kill the post or turn it into a debate about the bias of the site. Like:

OP - foxnews says "celebrities call for gun control" (link to article)
First reply - (link to bias check site) FOXNEWS IS BIASED

Thread devolves into debate about fox news

 

[Utility Man]

Speaking of brains, probably shouldn't use trumps.....

....maybe if a "source" was more credible and wasn't know for lying.....

.....people might not dismiss them so easily.

Like, if your "expert" is in court saying that "no reasonable person should take them seriously", how could you expect anyone to do so.

Whatever happened to all the chants of "fake news" anyway.

 

[OlNate]

Im talking about when someone starts a thread with a link to some source, and immediately someone posts a link to some fact check site where they say the source is biased, instead of actually debating the topic with their own brain. Maybe its already against the rules, but its pretty annoying.

3. Baiting/Flaming/Trolling
Another form of baiting is known as “derailing” or “thread-jacking”
those “who post inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages” to disrupt normal on-topic discussions.

At the very least, such ad hominem off topic posting should be added to the rules. If someone doesnt like the source someone uses, challenge its facts, present your own, or ignore the thread.

I think we should ban people from sharing anything from dumb ass click bait websites that fail fact checks. It would definitely thin the herd and bring up the mean intelligence level in here.

If you're basing your posts off of joke "news" venues, don't get salty if you get jokes back. Garbage in / garbage out. Calling out clickbait not only tells everyone how seriously they should take a thread, it also helps identify those people who are not worth debating seriously.

 

[Wayne Jr]

Im talking about when someone starts a thread with a link to some source, and immediately someone posts a link to some fact check site where they say the source is biased, instead of actually debating the topic with their own brain. Maybe its already against the rules, but its pretty annoying.

3. Baiting/Flaming/Trolling
Another form of baiting is known as “derailing” or “thread-jacking”
those “who post inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages” to disrupt normal on-topic discussions.

At the very least, such ad hominem off topic posting should be added to the rules. If someone doesnt like the source someone uses, challenge its facts, present your own, or ignore the thread.

Attacking the source is a valid debate tactic. Always has been, always will be. Being annoyed by it should tell you that you are the party in the wrong. Change yourself.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

Im talking about when someone starts a thread with a link to some source, and immediately someone posts a link to some fact check site where they say the source is biased, instead of actually debating the topic with their own brain. Maybe its already against the rules, but its pretty annoying.

3. Baiting/Flaming/Trolling
Another form of baiting is known as “derailing” or “thread-jacking”
those “who post inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages” to disrupt normal on-topic discussions.

At the very least, such ad hominem off topic posting should be added to the rules. If someone doesnt like the source someone uses, challenge its facts, present your own, or ignore the thread.

You’re complaining that people fact check stuff and if it’s found to be false *they* should be penalized for refusing to accept the false premise? If the OP in question has been found to be false yet the OP wants to continue arguing the point, by your own definitions wouldn’t that be trolling and baiting?

 

[jonny5]

Attacking the source is a valid debate tactic. Always has been, always will be. Being annoyed by it should tell you that you are the party in the wrong. Change yourself.

Attacking the source by rebutting the substance contained in it is a valid debate tactic. Dismissing the entire argument being made by posting a "bias check" is not debate. And in fact likely violates the rules about posting offtopic derailing.

An ad hominem fallacy is committed when an individual employs an irrelevant personal attack against an opponent instead of addressing that opponent’s argument.
Also a false appeal to authority (some random bias check site)

But look I get it, such derailing is basically SOP on this debate site. Few people actually want to debate someones argument, and would rather just make sarcastic comments or dismiss anything they disagree with. Why theyre on this site I dont know.

 

[Wayne Jr]

Attacking the source by rebutting the substance contained in it is a valid debate tactic. Dismissing the entire argument being made by posting a "bias check" is not debate.

That actualy is debate tho. Use non-biased sources for the foundation of your argument, otherwise, your entire argument is invalid.

 

[jonny5]

That actualy is debate tho. Use non-biased sources for the foundation of your argument, otherwise, your entire argument is invalid.

BIAS CHECK - Wayne JR is biased according to this site biascheck.fake-

Your entire argument is invalid.

 

[Wayne Jr]

BIAS CHECK - Wayne JR is biased according to this site biascheck.fake-

Your entire argument is invalid.

Of course, I'm biased. I'm the arguer, not the source.

 

[jonny5]

Of course, I'm biased. I'm the arguer, not the source.

Youre argument is dismissed because that site says so.

 

[Underestimated]

I think it's the debater's responsibility to find facts from difficult to assail sources. For example, instead of debating a source by using a NYT or Fox News source, identify the actual source of the information. This will diffuse the ability for one to attack the source. Discuss DC v. Heller, post the actual PDF from the Supreme Court and not a MSM story about it. Remove the "attack the source" tactic by driving discussion about the subject matter. It's not always possible as some information comes from "confidential" informants, and IMO I don't bother with those until a they are identified and can be verified.

 

[Wayne Jr]

Youre argument is dismissed because that site says so.

*Your

 

[Redress]

Im talking about when someone starts a thread with a link to some source, and immediately someone posts a link to some fact check site where they say the source is biased, instead of actually debating the topic with their own brain. Maybe its already against the rules, but its pretty annoying.

3. Baiting/Flaming/Trolling
Another form of baiting is known as “derailing” or “thread-jacking”
those “who post inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages” to disrupt normal on-topic discussions.

At the very least, such ad hominem off topic posting should be added to the rules. If someone doesnt like the source someone uses, challenge its facts, present your own, or ignore the thread.

This will not happen. Attacks on the credibility of sources are part of debate. Having to defend your posts is not a sign you are being baited.

Moderator's Warning:

Answered, closing this.