Is Peer Reviewing Needed in Debates

[spazman56789]

I recently debated with my friend about something, but the topic suddenly change into Peer Reviewing. He keep asking me the sources of my information, opinion and the amount of it. He said if there is no peer reviewing process done then my argument is invalid. I told him its not logical to do peer reviewing on a debate because it could take too long I and don't want to search for all the information on the topic. I told him if he wanted to put that rule up he should have done it before the debate but he keeps on asking and ignoring all my other points. He told me reason is no use without logic. So is peer reviewing the new rule for debates need these day?

 

[ecofarm]

As the OP did not cite any peer reviewed material, I think it's best if we don't answer.

 

[Fiddytree]

I recently debated with my friend about something, but the topic suddenly change into Peer Reviewing. He keep asking me the sources of my information, opinion and the amount of it. He said if there is no peer reviewing process done then my argument is invalid. I told him its not logical to do peer reviewing on a debate because it could take too long I and don't want to search for all the information on the topic. I told him if he wanted to put that rule up he should have done it before the debate but he keeps on asking and ignoring all my other points. He told me reason is no use without logic. So is peer reviewing the new rule for debates need these day?

I typically look at issues through historical lenses, so I am frequently outside the bounds of discussion peering inward.

Peer reviewed source material is a bonus, a considerable bonus. Statistics matter, source material matters, quality arguments matter. Of course, in casual debate, it is never a requirement. Nevertheless, even that has its follies. It's best to have a grasp of both the peer reviewed material debate (since sources will frequently have difficulty coming to agreement) and develop insight from it.

 

[Grand Mal]

I recently debated with my friend about something, but the topic suddenly change into Peer Reviewing. He keep asking me the sources of my information, opinion and the amount of it. He said if there is no peer reviewing process done then my argument is invalid. I told him its not logical to do peer reviewing on a debate because it could take too long I and don't want to search for all the information on the topic. I told him if he wanted to put that rule up he should have done it before the debate but he keeps on asking and ignoring all my other points. He told me reason is no use without logic. So is peer reviewing the new rule for debates need these day?

Maybe the debate is part of the peer-review process.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

If there hasn't been official scientific studies by experts, then it's up to you and him to sift through the facts and data to try to come to a logical conclusion. He certainly can't say "Well there's no studies done, so I win."

Frankly, even if there have been studies done you can debate the methods/validity/data/conclusions of them.

 

[Northern Light]

The only sectors of peer review that I still find trustworthy are in the European journals of hard sciences. The journals in the United States are increasingly vulnerable to corporate manipulation. United States research is mostly all corporately sponsored now, and the peer groups themselves receive more funding from corporate entities than from academic institutions. So be wary.

If the debate you're having is about an already well-known fact, then referring to the journals makes sense because there is no controversy. But if your debate is about something more pertinent that multiple political and power interests are converging upon, expect to find a large degree of ambiguity. We are entering an era where even the protected institutions of knowledge are being corrupted by evil.

 

[Fisher]

I recently debated with my friend about something, but the topic suddenly change into Peer Reviewing. He keep asking me the sources of my information, opinion and the amount of it. He said if there is no peer reviewing process done then my argument is invalid. I told him its not logical to do peer reviewing on a debate because it could take too long I and don't want to search for all the information on the topic. I told him if he wanted to put that rule up he should have done it before the debate but he keeps on asking and ignoring all my other points. He told me reason is no use without logic. So is peer reviewing the new rule for debates need these day?

Largely depends on the subject matter if one is even going to be able to fine peer-reviewed materials. It is generally an academic cop out in a debate for someone who knows they are on weak ground or really doesn't want to debate/discuss but to act superior, or for someone looking for you to provide them sources for their own real world undertakings. There are some for whom debate is more a vanity than intellectual/emotion exercise.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

I recently debated with my friend about something, but the topic suddenly change into Peer Reviewing. He keep asking me the sources of my information, opinion and the amount of it. He said if there is no peer reviewing process done then my argument is invalid. I told him its not logical to do peer reviewing on a debate because it could take too long I and don't want to search for all the information on the topic. I told him if he wanted to put that rule up he should have done it before the debate but he keeps on asking and ignoring all my other points. He told me reason is no use without logic. So is peer reviewing the new rule for debates need these day?

That sounds like a lazy cop-out: "We can't debate because it hasn't been reviewed by an outside source."

I put a lot of effort into debates sometimes . . . especially when the other party pretends like my point is unfounded all for the lack of one bit of evidence. You can find evidence on anything (lol) - I could probably debate God on his own existence and win. It depends on how dedicated you are. If you're not finding evidence which at least presents your view as founded fact then you're not debating, you're having a heated discussion.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

I ... day?

Can we debate and you let me make my point with whatever sort of facts I care to create?
It'd make the debate go a lot faster if I didn't have to bother with fact checking.

Did you know that the moon landings were faked? It's easy to tell because the moon is made of cheese.

 

[CRUE CAB]

I recently debated with my friend about something, but the topic suddenly change into Peer Reviewing. He keep asking me the sources of my information, opinion and the amount of it. He said if there is no peer reviewing process done then my argument is invalid. I told him its not logical to do peer reviewing on a debate because it could take too long I and don't want to search for all the information on the topic. I told him if he wanted to put that rule up he should have done it before the debate but he keeps on asking and ignoring all my other points. He told me reason is no use without logic. So is peer reviewing the new rule for debates need these day?

If you can not clarify why you feel the way your do about an issue, dont talk about the issue.

 

[spazman56789]

Can we debate and you let me make my point with whatever sort of facts I care to create?
It'd make the debate go a lot faster if I didn't have to bother with fact checking.

Did you know that the moon landings were faked? It's easy to tell because the moon is made of cheese.

I actually gave in and listed 5 books I remembered reading about the subject and a video to watch but he easily discard them and misinterpret then meaning. He gave me 15 links to his argument and keep asking for sources and ignore my points.

 

[Fisher]

I actually gave in and listed 5 books I remembered reading about the subject and a video to watch but he easily discard them and misinterpret then meaning. He gave me 15 links to his argument and keep asking for sources and ignore my points.

That is when you discard his 15 links and tell them if he is misinterpreting peer-reviewed material, then he needs to take it up with the peers who reviewed it to teach him--and throw in something bad about his mother being fat :shock:

 

[Simon W. Moon]

I actually gave in and listed 5 books I remembered reading about the subject and a video to watch but he easily discard them and misinterpret then meaning. He gave me 15 links to his argument and keep asking for sources and ignore my points.

Imhe, humans as whole [present company excluded of course] are quite capable of rational thought but use that rational thought to justify our existing prejudices.
Obviously, this doesn't apply to the noble denizens of DP such as ourselves. But all those other humans, that's how they tend to do.
; )

 

[Goshin]

PEER reviewing.... Oh.


I thought it was BEER reviewing.


Nevermind.

 

[EdwinWillers]

Did someone say BEER?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

I'll review beers. I have been studying up.

 

[Dezaad]

I recently debated with my friend about something, but the topic suddenly change into Peer Reviewing. He keep asking me the sources of my information, opinion and the amount of it. He said if there is no peer reviewing process done then my argument is invalid. I told him its not logical to do peer reviewing on a debate because it could take too long I and don't want to search for all the information on the topic. I told him if he wanted to put that rule up he should have done it before the debate but he keeps on asking and ignoring all my other points. He told me reason is no use without logic. So is peer reviewing the new rule for debates need these day?

It depends. If he is disputing a things that you have asserted that are matters of fact, then it is right of him to require you to prove them. If it is a thing that academia would study in order to determine fact, then yes you must support your facts with peer reviewed material, otherwise he can simply say that your points of fact are not shown to be accepted. This gets more grey as you move into academic theory, but often not by much. The theory of evolution is fact for all practical purposes, for example, and this can be shown with peer reviewed materials.

There is no reason for anyone to accept what you say unless you back it up with objective evidence. There is no reason for YOU to have accepted what you have unless you can back it up. Peer reviewed materials provide strong evidence for accepting stuff.

 

[spazman56789]

It depends. If he is disputing a things that you have asserted that are matters of fact, then it is right of him to require you to prove them. If it is a thing that academia would study in order to determine fact, then yes you must support your facts with peer reviewed material, otherwise he can simply say that your points of fact are not shown to be accepted. This gets more grey as you move into academic theory, but often not by much. The theory of evolution is fact for all practical purposes, for example, and this can be shown with peer reviewed materials.

There is no reason for anyone to accept what you say unless you back it up with objective evidence. There is no reason for YOU to have accepted what you have unless you can back it up. Peer reviewed materials provide strong evidence for accepting stuff.

I can understand that in a research paper but in a debate? wont it just becomes a numbers games on who has more sources to back it up. He easily discarded my sources and misinterpret the meaning behind them when i showed it to him, I also read a bit on his but cant seem to finish reading all 15 links of his by the end of the debate. The needed of peer reviewing in debates seems like some kind of Genetic Fallacy to me.

 

[spazman56789]

I can understand that in a research paper but in a debate? wont it just becomes a numbers games on who has more sources to back it up. He easily discarded my sources and misinterpret the meaning behind them when i showed it to him, I also read a bit on his but cant seem to finish reading all 15 links of his by the end of the debate. The needed of peer reviewing in debates seems like some kind of Genetic Fallacy to me.

It depends. If he is disputing a things that you have asserted that are matters of fact, then it is right of him to require you to prove them. If it is a thing that academia would study in order to determine fact, then yes you must support your facts with peer reviewed material, otherwise he can simply say that your points of fact are not shown to be accepted. This gets more grey as you move into academic theory, but often not by much. The theory of evolution is fact for all practical purposes, for example, and this can be shown with peer reviewed materials.

There is no reason for anyone to accept what you say unless you back it up with objective evidence. There is no reason for YOU to have accepted what you have unless you can back it up. Peer reviewed materials provide strong evidence for accepting stuff.

I was wondering if the use of Peer Reviewing can be a type of Genetic Fallacy and a Appeal to Authority are logical Fallacies.