• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why are facts not important?

beancounter

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 6, 2017
Messages
2,875
Reaction score
1,835
Location
A Purple State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
So yesterday, I started a thread asking for a rule requiring links for statements of "fact" made by OP's.

(Now, before this thread gets shut down..I understand and acknowledge that it's too much work for the Mods to handle.)

In that thread, several people either directly, or passive-aggressively mocked me for the the idea. The thread was closed before I had an opportunity to respond.

You know who you are, so here is your opportunity to explain why factual information isn't a good thing.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
71,323
Reaction score
40,589
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
So yesterday, I started a thread asking for a rule requiring links for statements of "fact" made by OP's.

(Now, before this thread gets shut down..I understand and acknowledge that it's too much work for the Mods to handle.)

In that thread, several people either directly, or passive-aggressively mocked me for the the idea. The thread was closed before I had an opportunity to respond.

You know who you are, so here is your opportunity to explain why factual information isn't a good thing.

Hmm... where is the link to support that (bolded above) fact? ;)
 

Mycroft

Genius is where you find it.
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
75,671
Reaction score
30,350
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Hmm... where is the link to support that (bolded above) fact? ;)

I'm not going to bother looking up the thread...you can find it in the suggestions forum...but I did read comments from more than one forum staff member expressing the OP's suggestion would lead to an excessive amount of work.

I didn't respond to the OP in that other thread, but I'll respond in this one.



In that thread, several people either directly, or passive-aggressively mocked me for the the idea. The thread was closed before I had an opportunity to respond.

You know who you are, so here is your opportunity to explain why factual information isn't a good thing.

I suggest you look around and find a thicker skin. You are going to need it if your ass is chapped from the responses you got in that other thread. I don't think anyone mocked you at all.
 

bluesmoke

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 18, 2016
Messages
17,038
Reaction score
5,516
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
So yesterday, I started a thread asking for a rule requiring links for statements of "fact" made by OP's.

(Now, before this thread gets shut down..I understand and acknowledge that it's too much work for the Mods to handle.)

In that thread, several people either directly, or passive-aggressively mocked me for the the idea. The thread was closed before I had an opportunity to respond.

You know who you are, so here is your opportunity to explain why factual information isn't a good thing.


Debate is a formal discussion arguing a proposition, belief or claim between sides of differing conviction which implies supporting evidence of fact. Facts indicate whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

What makes the discussion a formal debate are the rules of the governing body of the debate, being, in this case, Debate Politics, as represented and enforced by the Mods.

A ‘rule requiring links for statements of "fact" made by OP's’ might as well be said as requiring Mods enforce any request by a poster to enforce such rule which would require judgement by the Mods or fact relevancy. It would not be the straw that broke the camel’s back, but the 8/8ths of a bale that broke the camel’s back.

When the opposition fails to provide a link to valid citation of fact, you can always reply in your own words:

“What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. It is also called Hitchens' Razor. The burden of proof in a debate lies with the claim- maker and if he or she does not meet it then the opponent does not need to argue against the unfounded claim.”

‘Latin maxim ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (“the burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on one who denies”).’

I seldom find the opposition providing relevant evidence of fact. I think because it takes work or the research necessary to find such and they are lazy.

Factual information is a good thing.
 

beancounter

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 6, 2017
Messages
2,875
Reaction score
1,835
Location
A Purple State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I suggest you look around and find a thicker skin. You are going to need it if your ass is chapped from the responses you got in that other thread. I don't think anyone mocked you at all.

So, you don't believe facts are a good thing. Got it.

In the words of your own signature line "you're dismissed"...
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
71,323
Reaction score
40,589
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Well, I'd link to the (closed) thread, but I'd probably get banned for doing so. :)

OK, but some facts (such as the one which I bolded) are generally accepted without need of any links. Obviously, anyone is free to post links which dispute (challenge?) an OP's (or any other reply post's) allegedly "factual" content.

I am not attempting to "mock" you for your proposed forum rule change, but simply wanted to point out that requiring an included link to any (all?) references to "factual" statements would be a daunting task for all (posters as well as mods).
 

Mycroft

Genius is where you find it.
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
75,671
Reaction score
30,350
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
So, you don't believe facts are a good thing. Got it.

In the words of your own signature line "you're dismissed"...

When did I say facts are not a good thing?

(btw, I don't think you know how to dismiss people.)
 

beancounter

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 6, 2017
Messages
2,875
Reaction score
1,835
Location
A Purple State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
OK, but some facts (such as the one which I bolded) are generally accepted without need of any links. Obviously, anyone is free to post links which dispute (challenge?) an OP's (or any other reply post's) allegedly "factual" content.

I am not attempting to "mock" you for your proposed forum rule change, but simply wanted to point out that including a link to any (all?) references to "factual" statements would be a daunting task for all (posters as well as mods).

For the Mods yes, but it shouldn't be a burden for individual posters when they are asserting a position as fact (separate from expressing an obvious opinion which doesn't require factual support)
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
71,323
Reaction score
40,589
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
For the Mods yes, but it shouldn't be a burden for individual posters when they are asserting a position as fact (separate from expressing an obvious opinion which doesn't require factual support)

I disagree, since many facts (or concepts) are generally accepted without need for a supporting link. An example would be discussion of a law/policy without a specific (linked) reference to the statute or (initial) policy statement. Many posts discuss (address?) M4A (or UHC) with no reference to any specific legislation.
 

beancounter

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 6, 2017
Messages
2,875
Reaction score
1,835
Location
A Purple State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I disagree, since many facts (or concepts) are generally accepted without need for a supporting link. An example would be discussion of a law/policy without a specific (linked) reference to the statute or (initial) policy statement. Many posts discuss (address?) M4A (or UHC) with no reference to any specific legislation.

Sure, if the poster can provide enough specific info so that others can easily look it up themselves, that would be fine.
 

Fledermaus

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2014
Messages
86,005
Reaction score
17,100
Location
Peoples Republic of California AKA Taxifornia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
So yesterday, I started a thread asking for a rule requiring links for statements of "fact" made by OP's.

(Now, before this thread gets shut down..I understand and acknowledge that it's too much work for the Mods to handle.)

In that thread, several people either directly, or passive-aggressively mocked me for the the idea. The thread was closed before I had an opportunity to respond.

You know who you are, so here is your opportunity to explain why factual information isn't a good thing.

I generally believe if a claim is made the claimant is obliged to provide support if asked.

If one claimed the Atlantic was deeper than the Pacific one should either support the claim or retract it.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
71,323
Reaction score
40,589
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Sure, if the poster can provide enough specific info so that others can easily look it up themselves, that would be fine.

OK, but now you seem to have added a rule qualification (exception?) based on what could be easily looked up.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
71,323
Reaction score
40,589
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I generally believe if a claim is made the claimant is obliged to provide support if asked.

If one claimed the Atlantic was deeper than the Pacific one should either support the claim or retract it.

That could be tricky since using (comparing?) the average depth as opposed to the deepest single location may well yield different "facts".
 

Fledermaus

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2014
Messages
86,005
Reaction score
17,100
Location
Peoples Republic of California AKA Taxifornia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
That could be tricky since using (comparing?) the average depth as opposed to the deepest single location may well yield different "facts".

Indeed. But then the facts can be compared and measured and a decision made.

Too many people declare X without supporting X with facts and logic.

“I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely in your thoughts advanced to the state of Science, whatever the matter may be.”

- Lord Kelvin, 1883
 

Mr Person

A Little Bitter
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Oct 14, 2015
Messages
49,959
Reaction score
34,046
Location
Massachusetts
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
So yesterday, I started a thread asking for a rule requiring links for statements of "fact" made by OP's.

(Now, before this thread gets shut down..I understand and acknowledge that it's too much work for the Mods to handle.)

In that thread, several people either directly, or passive-aggressively mocked me for the the idea. The thread was closed before I had an opportunity to respond.

You know who you are, so here is your opportunity to explain why factual information isn't a good thing.

But....they told you:

1. It would take an army of mods given the volume of threads and sources they would have to read, then determine just how many of the stated 'facts' in the thread are supported by the sources, whether that support is strong enough, etc.

2. They do not want to have to take on a fact-checking role anyway.




It has nothing to do with a belief that "factual information isn't a good thing." It's about feasibility first, and responsibility second. You've been here a few years. Surely, you know which posters start threads with valid source support and which constantly spout off with bull****.
 

beancounter

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 6, 2017
Messages
2,875
Reaction score
1,835
Location
A Purple State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
But....they told you:

1. It would take an army of mods given the volume of threads and sources they would have to read, then determine just how many of the stated 'facts' in the thread are supported by the sources, whether that support is strong enough, etc.

2. They do not want to have to take on a fact-checking role anyway.




It has nothing to do with a belief that "factual information isn't a good thing." It's about feasibility first, and responsibility second. You've been here a few years. Surely, you know which posters start threads with valid source support and which constantly spout off with bull****.

Well let me explain what got me a tad irritated.

I was effectively dinged for jaywalking, and the mods then told me they don't have enough time to chase after the guy breaking into the house across the street. (obviously I'm using an analogy)

I wouldn't expect them to check every thread. Just the ones that are brought to their attention by fellow members...just like someone brought my "jaywalking offense" to their attention....

That only seems fair and equitable.
 
Last edited:

trixare4kids

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 16, 2017
Messages
45,625
Reaction score
31,831
Location
S. California
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
So yesterday, I started a thread asking for a rule requiring links for statements of "fact" made by OP's.

(Now, before this thread gets shut down..I understand and acknowledge that it's too much work for the Mods to handle.)

In that thread, several people either directly, or passive-aggressively mocked me for the the idea. The thread was closed before I had an opportunity to respond.

You know who you are, so here is your opportunity to explain why factual information isn't a good thing.

No one thinks that facts aren't good but that said, I can't think of a better reason for the mods not fact checking than the one you were already given by Red, who wrote,
"Mods aren't fact checkers and we absolutely don't want to be either. No rule will be created to back up every assertion a poster makes. Thanks for the suggestion, but this one just isn't realistic without an army of moderators and that's not going to happen."
 
Top Bottom