# Rules For Debate (Got a Cite?) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 21, 2000, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rules-for-debate-got-a-cite/33994 "2000-09-21T13:52:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![jmullaney](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/85e7bf/32.png) [@jmullaney](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jmullaney)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2000, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rules-for-debate-got-a-cite/33994/21 "2000-09-25T18:54:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Gaudere \* > generally a person can back up their statements relatively quickly if there is factual merit to them. If the argument on one issue would be too much of a distraction to the main debate (although lord knows we go wildly OT sometimes) the posters should start a new thread and link to it in the original thread. But the other rule should be if someone does make a point that is tangental to an argument, and the person can not find the facts immediately to back up his case, you are being a jerk if you keep hounding them over and over about it. That’s happened to me a few times, and then any slightly dubious point I make from then on in the thread is rebutted: “Well, this is just like that other point you brought up earlier, which BTW you still haven’t provided a cite yet for, and is just as idiotic.” Makes a trip six towns over to a real library to finally shut them up that much more rewarding though. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Gaudere](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e495f1/32.png) [@Gaudere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gaudere)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2000, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rules-for-debate-got-a-cite/33994/22 "2000-09-25T19:16:11Z")
Well, if the point is truly tangental, you can just say “Ok, forget about it,” if you can’t back it up, since it is unnecessary to your argument. But if you continue to use an unverified and challenged factoid to bolster your argument, I think it is entirely fair for other people to refuse to accept any argument to the degree that it is based on that statement; and as you’ve noticed, a refusal to back up your statements lowers your credibility. > [@](#): > > Makes a trip six towns over to a real library to finally shut them up that much more rewarding though. See, a little piece of someone’s ignorance was eradicated because you were forced to back up your statement. I love happy endings. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![beakerxf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/bc79bd/32.png) [@beakerxf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beakerxf)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2000, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rules-for-debate-got-a-cite/33994/23 "2000-09-26T03:17:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by IzzyR \* > \*\ ***beakerxf,** > > Change “unjustified conjecture” to “incorrect conjecture”, in my last post. > \*\* Then, I apologize. ---
**Author:** ![Danielinthewolvesden](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ce7236/32.png) [@Danielinthewolvesden](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Danielinthewolvesden)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2000, 9:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rules-for-debate-got-a-cite/33994/24 "2000-09-26T09:37:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Gaudere \* > \*\*Well, if the point is truly tangental, you can just say “Ok, forget about it,” if you can’t back it up, since it is unnecessary to your argument. > \*\* This leads to a certain extreme form of this, where some folks ask for a cite on EVERYTHING, no matter how unimportant to the thread. And if you do not want to bother hijacking the thread to make these rude folks happy, they then demand you “retract your statement”. Well, if I mentioned in an offhand manner, (in a thread about Civil War generals), thet Rommel was overated too, like Forrest, then you have every right to call me on my opinion about Forrest. But, insisting that I either “retract or prove” an offhand opinion is simply rude, and childish, and I will not subject the other readers to the hijack. If I go into a debate about Civil War generals, then I should be prepared with cites on Civil War Generals, not WWII generals. ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2000, 12:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rules-for-debate-got-a-cite/33994/25 "2000-09-26T12:56:39Z")
A major problem not only at SDMB but in a lot of public forums is that people get locked into some silly “more scholarly than thou” contest and forget that it isn’t a formal debate between scholars and scientists. It really just isn’t reasonable to expect the average Joe to put his entire life on hold and spend every spare minute he’s got in the library trying to find references. And I’ve found that requests or demands for references often aren’t honest. No matter how many references you provide, no matter how sound your references may be, it seems like the other guy always has some vaguely plausible excuse for not accepting them. In most forums, about the most you can realistically do is compare opinions and viewpoints. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Corrado](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/a88e4f/32.png) [@John\_Corrado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Corrado)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2000, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rules-for-debate-got-a-cite/33994/26 "2000-09-26T13:29:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Danielinthewolvesden \* > If I go into a debate about Civil War generals, then I should be prepared with cites on Civil War Generals, not WWII generals. I feel that just because the point was made tangentially does not mean you can’t be called upon it. Otherwise, like Jesus, I could be a lying scalawag. I could go into any thread and, like Al Gore often does, lie outrageously about people. But if we follow the “can’t touch it if it’s tangential” argument, then I, like Bill Clinton, can make spurious claims with absolutely no facts to back me up. And no one can call me on it. Nope. Sorry. Tangential or not, you have to be prepared to cite and back up _anything_ you say on this board, or drop it. ---
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2000, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rules-for-debate-got-a-cite/33994/27 "2000-09-26T17:26:34Z")
**john** > [@](#): > > I feel that just because the point was made tangentially does not mean you can’t be called upon it. I think you can be called on it. But the author of the assertion is not required to provide a cite. Of course, this statement may be less credible, due to lack of evidence. In all cases one has the freedom to accept or reject whatever one wishes. Even with a “cite”, people may decide to reject the evidence, cite and all (as was alluded to earlier by **spooje** ). But I think the significance of a tangential point is that if the one who made the statement declines to defend it, it might be interpreted less as an **admission** that it was hogwash, and more that he simply does not wish to hijack the larger issue. Also, people can get irritated if others make assertions and refuse to back them up. This should not apply to asides. Though once challenged on it, they shouldn’t be brought up again if they will not be defended. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Corrado](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/a88e4f/32.png) [@John\_Corrado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Corrado)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2000, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rules-for-debate-got-a-cite/33994/28 "2000-09-26T17:47:59Z")
**Izzy** - Well, on that point, I don’t think that anyone _needs_ to provide a cite for any argument they make. However, they need to accept that their argument may be ridiculed or dismissed out of hand if they are unwilling to provide a cite. As for asides- it’s easy enough to say, “Well, let’s take that issue into a new thread [link]here[/link] and discuss it” should it seem like it’s going to get out of hand. Given that, the excuse “Well, I don’t really want to hijack this thread” seems a cop-out to me more than anything else. Heck, a lot of good threads were started as spring-offs from other threads, and most threads end up mutating from the original argument. My feeling, then, still remains that you must accept the idea of being called to prove anything you say. Hell, in discussions with Libertarian, you occasionally have to try and prove that you exist to say it. ---
**Author:** ![pldennison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9fc29f/32.png) [@pldennison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pldennison)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2000, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rules-for-debate-got-a-cite/33994/29 "2000-09-26T19:18:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by John Corrado \* > \*\* > My feeling, then, still remains that you must accept the idea of being called to prove anything you say. Hell, in discussions with Libertarian, you occasionally have to try and prove that you exist to say it. \*\* That’s exactly what I would **expect** a Turing Program to say, you impostor! ---
**Author:** ![John\_Corrado](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/a88e4f/32.png) [@John\_Corrado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Corrado)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2000, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rules-for-debate-got-a-cite/33994/30 "2000-09-26T19:29:32Z")
Phil, that’s completely tangential to this discussion. I have no need to prove anything in this thread. If you wish to discuss it, I’d prefer not to hijack this issue; rather, start a new thread. Thank you. 011001101010001 ---
**Author:** ![Satan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Satan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Satan)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2000, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rules-for-debate-got-a-cite/33994/31 "2000-09-27T03:50:19Z")
Well, sure, you don’t _NEED_ a cite. But I tell you, I have changed my mind when the facts presented by others showed that my logic in taking a particular position was faulty. So feel free to not give a citation. Nobody will believe your argument, you will erradicate not an iota of ignorance, and probably only contribute to your own. * * * Yer pal, Satan - Commissioner, [The Teeming Minions](http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com/full/show?lid=39428&page=leaguehome) \*TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING: Five months, two weeks, four days, 1 hour, 51 minutes and 14 seconds. 6843 cigarettes not smoked, saving $855.39. Extra time with Drain Bead: 3 weeks, 2 days, 18 hours, 15 minutes. \***“I’m a big Genesis fan.”-David B. _(Amen, brother!)_** ---
**Author:** ![Danielinthewolvesden](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ce7236/32.png) [@Danielinthewolvesden](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Danielinthewolvesden)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2000, 9:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rules-for-debate-got-a-cite/33994/32 "2000-09-27T09:49:56Z")
So, feel free to demand cites when the item is unimportant, or tangential, or a well-known fact. Everyone will assume you’re being an \*sshole, and they will ignore your post, even if it has some good stuff in it. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Corrado](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/a88e4f/32.png) [@John\_Corrado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Corrado)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2000, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rules-for-debate-got-a-cite/33994/33 "2000-09-27T13:07:06Z")
Sure. And feel free to assert things in a post, even just as comparison (“pagans are not persecuted on this board, unlike Christians”) and refuse to back it up because that would be a “hijack”. Likewise, you’ll be considered an \*sshole who makes assertions without being able to back them up, and they will ignore your post, even if it has some good stuff in it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rules-for-debate-got-a-cite/33994.md?page=1)