I guess it’s just a personality difference because in that case and most cases I’m gonna go look into for myself. If I don’t trust that you’re being honest in the first place then I’m not going to trust your cite.
Well, that’s certainly a good point, though as I said earlier it is helpful to know what sources you are using in order to assess where you are coming from…or even if it’s worth actually continuing the debate with you. In the end though, why have a debate at all if you are just going to go look for yourself? Most people (myself included) are going to look for and find what they WANT to find, what conforms most to their own world view. Without the various SD debates I’ve been in and the cites provided by others (as well as their logical arguments) I wouldn’t be the person I am today, nor would I have learned nearly as much as I have learned. It’s been convincing arguments backed up by cites that weren’t in line with my old world view that has convinced me in many cases to change my own perceptions of events, or to at least see the other side, and too see that perhaps things aren’t nearly as cut and dried as I THOUGHT they were.
-XT
There is a lot to arguing that doesn’t involve dry facts, and many cites are biased, outdated, or just plain wrong anyway. And it’s not that I would never ask where someone was getting their information from but, well-- that’s a perfect example-- “where are you getting your information?” is a lot less abrasive than cite?! in my opinion. Even asking for a source seems more accurate and genuine. It’s not as much wanting it but the way it’s asked for here that gets to me. We’re participating in group discussions here, not comparing term papers. “Cite?” is something I would expect a professor to write on a freshman’s homework.
Oh, I agree with you there. I actually picked up the term ‘cite!’ from here. Before first lurking and then joining this board I always would simply say pretty much what you are…‘where are you getting your information from?’ or ‘do you have any data to back that up with?’. Of course saying ‘cite’ burns up a lot fewer electrons and doesn’t make the hamsters work nearly as hard, so perhaps that’s something to be said in it’s favor…
-XT
Cite?
It seems things have gone full circle now…I AM your father, LUKE!
-XT
:p:p:D
I propose a guideline. A poster who cries cite (especially the dickish one word response “cite!” and no other comments) when presented with cites, does not show up again is doing the latter. Jimmy Joe Meager did this to me in this thread.
If you want me to look up cites, it should be to some purpose. Come back and debate, or dispute my citations, or if my citations and argument are so awesome no other response but concession is possible, then concede! If you don’t do any of these, then I think the cite call is just dickery and the cite crier should be ashamed.
That’s a good point that I meant to bring up in this thread but I don’t think I did. When the people who ask for cites get them, they just disappear.
My private theory on this is that it’s because people calling “Cite?” are usually saying “Bullshit!” or “That’s not what I heard”, and when the citee comes up with evidence to back their statements, the person calling “Cite?” just feels silly and crawls away. Because no-one likes to feel silly, after all.
There are certain posters, who called cite a bunch in threads about transsexuality and transgenderism. When given the cites, they came back and argued and debated, hashed out what the citations really meant, and some in the end changed their mind and though they may have lost the debate by some standards, they gained my respect, not because they agree with me on something, but because they allowed themselves to change their opinion based on reasoned arguments and facts. I’m glad they could get over feeling silly when citations were produced in answer to their calls of cite.
That’s all very well and good, but they’re in the minority, as I’m sure you’ll agree.
I have not counted, so I can’t agree or disagree. They do stand out to me and since they have gained my respect, I pay much more attention to what they have to say especially when I disagree.
I think the simplest solution to this problem is to just post the damn picture!
The behaviour you outline is dickery, sure, but it doesn’t mean that their call of “cite” was inappropriate. It just means that them not coming back was inappropriate.
Say you say something rather unlikely sounding, but true. Say another poster genuinely doesn’t believe what you say. It is completely valid for them to call “cite”. Nothing wrong with that at all.
It is a completely separate thing, and a transgression arguably, not to acknowledge that you were right.
This doesn’t make a lick of sense as a general proposition. Are you saying that if I say something and you don’t trust me and I provide you with cites to ten different learned journals and encyclopedias etc all of which are precisely on point and prove what I say you’ll decide that they are all untrustworthy rather than admit I’m right?
No, I’m saying that if you say something and I don’t trust you I’m going to look into the matter for myself at that point. And you providing me cites is different than me asking for them, so that’s really a pretty bad example.
I disagree with the OP, at least when it comes to GD. If someone wants to assert something, especially in the debate forum, it’s that person’s duty to back up their assertion if it is questioned.
And it’s important to remember that this isn’t a board rule - you aren’t going to get kicked off the SDMB for refusing to answer requests for cites.
The cite rule is basically a social convention. The users of the board have collectively said that there is a forum, called Great Debates, in which the debate will be held to a higher standard than is usual on the internet, and people will be asked to back up their statements with relevant facts and cites when asked. And another forum where people can ask questions and receive factual answers, and requests for cites help police the forum and insure that answers are in fact correct.
If you think the request is unreasonable, then by all means ignore it. Everyone else will read the exchange and draw their own conclusions. If they agree the request was inappropriate, no one will hold it against you.
In the end, you’ll have to use your own judgment.
It doesn’t make any difference. Whether I’m providing the cites unasked or in the first place, it is silly to say if you don’t trust me you are not going to trust my cites. It might well make sense for you not to trust a particular dodgy cite that I might give, but to say that as a general proposition you are not going to trust my cites because you don’t trust me makes no sense, unless you know what cites they are.
Frankly I think you are scouring for reasons why citing and asking for cites is not a valid behaviour, and you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater, saying they are never any use when very often they may be.