mpg
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2005
- Messages
- 7,795
- Reaction score
- 1,784
- Location
- Milford, CT
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
I'm getting ready to post my first true argument tomorrow. It has about 20 solid cites. I'm worried, though, because even though I anchored my argument with cites to make it credible, members might ask me to cite every single... sentence. That's impractical.
What should I do? I know those who are ridiculous in their pedantry; because I haven't cited every sentence, I'm worried they'll simply dismiss every point I make.
I'm getting ready to post my first true argument tomorrow. It has about 20 solid cites. I'm worried, though, because even though I anchored my argument with cites to make it credible, members might ask me to cite every single... sentence. That's impractical.
What should I do? I know those who are ridiculous in their pedantry; because I haven't cited every sentence, I'm worried they'll simply dismiss every point I make.
Let me see if I can help and get this point through properly:
Sit down and write a zero draft of your paper, a very quick first draft that, in general, lays out the basic lines of development for your paper. At this point, you’ll just be using your own words; you can come back later to integrate your sources more fully. No doubt, this zero draft will be very rough and incomplete, but it is valuable because it helps ensure that it will be your voice, and not that of your sources, that will take the lead in organizing your essay. Your zero draft will also help you begin to see how your research material can be used in the context of your basic discussion or argument—where it can fit in the context of your paper. (I add these notes - Notice how you want your voice, your reasoning to be front and center)
http://library.rpcc.edu/docs/IntegratingSourcesIntoYourResearchPaperhandout.pdf
You should keep direct quotes to an absolute minimum in any research paper. A research paper is not a string of quotes linked together with brief text by you. If we want to read a bunch of quotes, we'd skip your paper and go to your bibliography to read the material for ourselves. (remember this is your argument and not your sources argument. If all you're doing is saying they said so, we should read them and not you.)
The Research Paper
I would never say don't use sources, as they are often necessary (though some arguements can be made without them). And when there is a factual issue, a source is needed. And sometimes it is good to have someone knowledgable on the issue agree with you. But those sources are less valuable once you understand you can find someone knowledgable to say the exact opposite and any other thing.
But at the end of the day, you will need to have sound reasoning that is yours. You need to reason well and create a sound logical foundation on which to place your support.
That is true; I've used my own words yet found a few gems of info in certain books---I use their cites.
I have a bit of my own opinion, but then I cite facts. This argument is about guns. I cannot copy/post on this phone, but I have a rough example of a segment and the cite:
(((In 1996, Australian lawmakers passed sweeping legislation banning guns. Their intent was to make Australia a safer country. What they did was make it a soft target for criminals. Within just a few years of the gun ban, homicides were up 3.2% in Australia. Assaults were up 8.6%. Armed robberies climbed nearly 45%! In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides climbed 300%! (18) Does this sound safe to you?)))
(18) (Cite) ---> (In italics) The International Crime Victims Survey, conducted by Leiden University in Holland; Jon Dougherty, "Britain, Australia top U.S. in violent crime," WorldNetDaily.com, March 5, 2001.
I did a ton of argumentative research papers and arguments in college, and they only required 15 proper MLA cites per paper. What really worries me is that despite good structure and anchoring, my argument will be nit-picked apart. If I inadvertently not cite a little blip of data, though I've cited 20+ actual hard-searched sources, then I'd feel that I'm being trolled. College standards are greater than internet forum standards; I don't want to have to cite every blip of data, or worse, general knowledge.
I change my answer. I previously said "yes", but now I'm pretty sure it's "no". It turns out that for many posters, dictionaries are horrible sources for definitions of words. The more you know.I think it's a fair question. Based on my years debating, whenever a user posts sources, the other users are usually never persuaded. It may persuade a few viewers, but typically, if you watch closely, you'll discern a general pattern when a source is posted. It's either ignored entirely, questioned, or countered with another source until both users get frustrated.
I'm currently amassing a written notebook of multiple credible sources, organized by issues(general arguments and counters are listed as well).
Basically, is it worth it if it virtually never persuades the opponent?
Yes sources always matter... Especially in debatiing.
Only partially do they matter, but around here, not so much. People ask you for sources, but it's unlikely they will believe them. Calling what we do around here real debate is kind of funny anyway.
all too often, someone will squeal for "proof" and then categorically dismiss any source you link as biased, faulty, unscientific, etc. It's a waste of time.
Well, usually there is a problem with the osurce. In today's world, you can find someone to say anything on the internet. I had a student once produce a source that said if you lost your arm in an accident, and smoked pot, it would grow back. Shouldn't I question that source? A source, and it happens, can take real numbers and draw wrong conclusions. So, a source isn't magic. They rarely end the debate. So, your ability to reason is simply more important than finding a source.
yeah, that was kinda my point. and on interwebz debates, it doesn't matter what the source is, your "opponent" is going to dismiss it. That's why the "prove it" retort is so stupid. because no matter what you link, they are not going to accept it as proof. they can't rebutt your arguement, so they ask for proof that they know they will not accept. one of the most lame and dishonest tactics in forumdom
Only partially do they matter, but around here, not so much. People ask you for sources, but it's unlikely they will believe them. Calling what we do around here real debate is kind of funny anyway.
When somebody makes an allegation of a fact - and they fail to back it up - everyone would insist that the penalty be ridicule and shame. But that never happens because the fellow true believers look the other way and pretend it did not happen.
Honestly people, there are some of the leading posters here who would not get pass day one in an actual college debate situation.
all too often, someone will squeal for "proof" and then categorically dismiss any source you link as biased, faulty, unscientific, etc. It's a waste of time.
I could claim that roses are red and link a picture of me standing in a freakin rose garden holding a dozen long stemmed red roses and there are posters here who would claim it was photoshopped. or they would quibble that not "ALL" roses are red.
Which has what to do with my words that you posted preceding your ..... your ..... your whatever it was you posted and I have no idea what it has to do with anything because I have never seen an incident like the one your describe.
Did something like that actually happen?
Oscar ....... tell me.... tell us ....... why is it permissible in debate for anyone to make an assertion or allegation of historical fact and fail to support it with actual historical evidence?
that is what we see here over and over and over again in thread after thread after thread on topic after topic after topic. And then some people even brag about their not having any evidewnce to back up their sources claiming they do simply not cotton to providing any verifiable evidence for their pompous pontifications.
That is not debate and anyone who thinks it is knows nothing about debate.
We should have two sections on this board... the first for actual debate with the normal procedures of debate including supporting your claims with verifiable sources. The second would be a WHAT I BELIEVE BECAUSE I WANT TO BELIEVE IT section. In it, faith would reign supreme and you would never have to support anything.
So... it'd be wise to gather a lot of sources on paper? Perhaps, for swift convenience, large and well-constructed arguments could by typed up on a Microsoft document... and then be copied and pasted? I think it'd be a more advantageous way of debating to have a massive and relevant argument already typed up and ready to post.
A lot of us have have had such files for a long time.
A lot of us have have had such files for a long time.
so who gets to decide what is or is not a "verifiable" source? that's the problem, neither side of the arguement is willing to accept any source that disagrees with their side as "verifiable" or "reputable" or "credible"
I don't recall anyone blaming the dems for that fact-we merely noted that the dems are the ones who push for higher taxes on the rich and benefit the most from lots of voters who aren't given proper feedback about the cost of government
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?