Somehow, this strikes me as less than appropriate. IMO, if we’re going to debate, we should debate. Links are useful in many ways - for more detailed facts and arguments, to make it clear just what the source of the poster’s facts are, and to give the reader a place to go for further reading. But to simply say, ‘my response to your argument is contained in this website,’ without any more detailed precis of what the reader will find there, is a cop-out and a nonrebuttal, IMHO.
Responses?
“I truly believe that dragging Jesus Christ into partisan politics is a grave mistake. It will do Jesus no good at all to be seen in the company of politicians - apt to ruin his reputation, if you ask me.” - Molly Ivins
A proper refutation states the case and then provides evidence, by quotation or link as appropriate.
Semitroll: And I belive the following stupid half-baked theory/urban legend! So there! Goodposter: You are incorrect, Semitroll. George Washington never flew in a balloon. In fact, the first balloon in the Americas didn’t arrive here until 30 years after his death. The following link gives more information on this.
Note that simply asserting the contrary without linking (in this case) provides no ground, other than the fact that Goodposter is a respected poster who seems to know his stuff, for believing that George never flew. Simply posting the link requires the casual follower of the thread to wade through five screens on the history of ballooning to discover a short paragraph on when the first balloon was imported to America. And the casual reader may not have time or inclination to do so.
Both stating the pertinent fact and sourcing one’s information provides the best of both worlds.
The same would be appropriate in a quotation. Abstract from one’s source the data pertinent to support one’s assertion, post it, and add either a link if an online source or a citation in some useful bibliographical format if using a non-Web datum. (The idea is not that you will be graded for your bibliographic style, but to furnish the info. for someone across the country from you to go to his local library or bookstore and get the reference if he cares enough to follow up.)
In theory, links are equally valid arguments. In actual practice, they’re not as effective as restating the content of the link in your own words. Lots of people just ignore links, particularly if they’re just lurking, and it’s a pain to wade through a giant page of info. Asking people to willingly seek out information that refutes their own point of view is not a sure route to their illumination. Considering that whoever posted the link probably knows a fair bit about what is being discussed on that page, it would be more effective for him/her to summarize the major points in adition to posting the link, rather than have the other person try to struggle through an alien viewpoint on their own.
IMO, whatever specific points prompted you to produce the link should be cited in the post. Otherwise, you could just say “It’s in the Bible, ass-clown, go find it yerself;” or “What part of The Encyclodpedia Britannica don’t you understand?”
Many such points? Long post.
Link for additional info of perhaps tangential relation? Just give-y link-y.
Link to Dutch aardvark-bondage-toothbrush fetish site? Just send to [email=dirt7@go.com]me.
The case had already been stated. A certain poster, Scylla, said this:
So I provided him a link to Cato Institute studies that I had never provided before.
Now, RT has to crank up this thread which exists for the sole purpose of getting you guys to pile up on me. He’s done it before, but at least before he had the relative decency to take this kind of ass-biting nonsense nondebate to the Pit where it belongs.
How the heck do you restate the contents of a congressional budget proposal? I had already mentioned generalities like pork barrel programs and foreign aid.
Who’s piling? Everyone’s saying links are good, but debate is better. I think this is true. It doesn’t mean you can’t just post a link without discussion, just that it works better if you talk about what the linked page says, too.
Woo, I got no business piling up, as I’m both new and also in considerable awe of the debating chops of all in this thread. Wasn’t trying to pile. Just simulposting with my superiors.
I said when I gave the link that it was the Cato Institute’s advice to the 106th Congress on the budget. It had already been discussed. Where do you think Harry Browne got it from?
Yeah, well, I’m with Dirt here. I wish RTF would just out up signs with “This is a Lib Bashing Thread” so I’d know.
Lib, I personally had no idea this stemmed from a previous discussion. (Firefly didn’t provide a link, after all.) Further, I don’t much care. It’s an interestign topic of conversation (tho not very debatable IMO) and as such works very well on its own.
Gaudere, this is unbelievable. You just got on my case about expressing myself in terms of my philosophy, and I acknowledged your point, and promised to think it over.
But now, RT creates a nondebate slam in Great Debates directed straight at me despite his weasley indications to the contrary that he’s seen a “number of instances”. Why did he start this thread right when the number just happened to include my link?
So, now he just sits back and laughs, not even revisiting this sorry excuse for a debate, knowing that you will take his side against me because I am already on your shit list for mentioning peace and honesty in a thread about temperature scales.
Yeah, yeah, I know. Lib, you’re overreacting. Take a break. Well fuck it. Fuck all of it.
Lib, you’re not on my “shit list”. I am discussing the validity of link rebuttals in a generic way; I have no idea how it applies in your situtation, not being inclined to reread the entire Libertarianism thread to see what’s been discussed/not discussed. If someone asked for a link and you gave them a link, that’s cool. I don’t see anything wrong with posting a link, I just think that, given human nature, it’s more effective to talk about it as well. “More effective” is a good thing. As I mentioned, links are boring (and I tend to be lazy and like people to summarize things for me; I can confirm the summary on my own via the link). I’m not attacking you with this; I just like direct debate. I like direct debate no matter who is involved.
I had not followed the thread Lib. makes reference to, and assumed RT was asking, in general, what our views were on the proper use of links. If there was any intent to zap Lib. I was not aware of it.
That said, I suspect some of Lib’s points are quite valid. Summarizing the contents of a budget (I gather the question was in relation to the differences between the Cato Institute’s draft budget and the actual one in use) would be quite difficult in a post of reasonable size. But a sentence like “Note the dozens of differences between The US Budget (a hyperlink) and the Cato Institute’s model budget (another one)” might have worked.
C’mon, Lib. You’re well liked. And I’m more amused than upset at how everything reminds you of a libertarian principle or can be illustrated by an analogy making reference to it. Some months ago, Satan noted that I seemed to bring religion into everything. I took his comment at face value (though I was down for a bit afterwards) and tried to moderate doing so. I recognized that he was not putting me down as a person but giving a valid critique of my posting style.
RT, the ball is in your court. If you intended to zap Lib. with this thread, say so. If not, make that clear. Please.
I did have some posts of Lib’s particularly in mind when I started this thread.
If it was inappropriate not to state that up front, I apologize. I didn’t want this to turn into a battle over personalities, and I thought omitting names would keep that from happening. I intended to leave Lib’s name out of it, am sorry he brought his name into it, and hadn’t planned on waving the results under his nose if people confirmed my intuition here.
I’d rather not quote or link to an example; that would be adding fuel to the flames at this point, IMO. I’ll do so if overruled, but with reluctance. But if y’all concur that I owe Lib an apology, I will certainly apologize. I didn’t mean to start a fire.
And I must add that it was a hell of a surprise to come back from a meeting and find 14 posts already on this thread. I figured I’d get about 2 responses by lunchtime, if I was lucky.
It strikes me that only the rarest OP is raised without some agenda behind it. I don’t think it’s fair to fault RTF for starting the thread just because the topic had been bugging him elsewhere. I don’t honestly know how else he could have done it without appearing to intentionally skewer Lib.
On the other hand, having lurked the betimes dog-piling Libertarian threads in question, I can see how Lib would feel backsidedly targetted by this one. Maybe the only problem with this thread is the implicit reference to those.
Unintentional and probably unavoidable. And in all other ways an interesting topic.
I am discussing the validity of link rebuttals in a generic way; I have no idea how it applies in your situtation, not being inclined to reread the entire Libertarianism thread to see what’s been discussed/not discussed. If someone asked for a link and you gave them a link, that’s cool. I don’t see anything wrong with posting a link, I just think that, given human nature, it’s more effective to talk about it as well. “More effective” is a good thing. As I mentioned, links are boring (and I tend to be lazy and like people to summarize things for me; I can confirm the summary on my own via the link). I’m not attacking you with this; I just like direct debate. I like direct debate no matter who is involved.