So many retards engaging in arguments

Each serves their own purpose toward rationality.

>What k ind of sources are acceptable in a debate?

Generally speaking, your sources should themselves have sources in the form of citations; medical/scientific journals, academic studies with large participation sizes, research publications, Wikipedia or other encyclopedia type websites with citations, or even just encyclopedias). Generally anything works as long as it possesses citations and those citations are verified for truth and accuracy.
This naturally excludes a number of sources including:
-works of fiction
-opinion pieces
-news articles with no verified/verifiable citations
-conspiracy websites with nothing or very little of substance that can be verified as true (the overwhelming majority of them)
-youtube videos with no verifiable citations

It boils down to:

Does my source have citations that can be verified to be accurate and truthful to the best of all available knowledge?
Yes /////////////////// No
| ////////////////// |
V ////////////////// V
It's a source! ......... It's not a source!

/b is not a debate format. You don't go in having foreknowledge of exact topics and have source prep time. Threads can disappear in the time it takes to link sources or, if you're genuine, in the time it takes to read sources. But most of all sourcing is pointless because the more they call for a source 1) the less likely they will be to actually look at it, and/or 2) the more likely they will immediately attack the source as invalid or biased without actually looking at it.

Once in a while you can get a thoughtful conversation going but if you add to your list 5. shill you have 90% of the motivation of posting. I'd just be happy if OK threads didn't reach limit because of constant 1 line insult posts that don't add anything.

>/b is not a debate format

This is absolutely true, Cred Forums is not and was never intended to be a platform for debate.

That said... It is clearly still used as a platform for debate and while the individual you are arguing with may completely stonewall against any logic or reason, others who are reading your discourse are not stonewalling your words in the same way. If you are rational and what you say makes sense, those you are hoping to influence through your debate will still remain impressed.

It is still used as a platform for a lot of things it shouldn't be and if it must be this way and I must suffer endless debate on my random shitposting haven, whatever. I can at least ease my own psychological pain, you understand?

>But how do I swallow my pride and accept that I am wrong? What should I DO exactly? How do I resist the urge to just shitpost or resort to le ebin ruseman meming?

Truly it is a fair point of contention. How do you get over the natural urge to believe yourself correct without regard to the facts presented?
It is difficult, but it can be done! First, you should consider: if you are debating because you have a point to make, does it make you look good from the outside looking in if you are failing to impress your assertions as correct to those who may be following your debate? E.g. are you embarrassing yourself by doing so? When you see someone rejecting something that you know to be a fact, what is your first impression of them? Is it that they are calm, intelligent rational people? Most likely not.
Also consider that conceding one point does not mean that you have necessarily lost the debate, nor does having to concede one point mean that the rest of your argument is invalid; in a debate, things are civil for a reason: there is not meant to be anything on the line. It is two people attempting to discern through the facts and with logic and reasoning whose assertions are most in-line with reality. Do you want to be that person who can't accept the facts?

Consider that if you have lost the debate and have no further point to make, you can always simply walk away without even having to concede with words that you have lost. Your ego can be preserved and you won't continue making yourself look stupid digging deeper and deeper into a false point. That said, acknowledging when you are incorrect in your assertions and quickly absorbing the correct information is absolutely the hallmark of an intellectual, something you are hopefully striving towards.

>Is your information out-dated?
Things change with constant regularity as you are hopefully aware. That article from 2001 may not have information that is accurate by today's standards. It may be missing vital information or the information may not be relevant at all. An example of this would be:
>Is weed legal in (state)?
>No user, weed is not legal in (state.) Have a look at this web page (insert web page from 2003 here), as you can see marijuana carries a very stiff penalty in (state where weed was legalized in 2007)

Always ensure that your source is UP TO DATE AND CURRENT! Generally speaking if you are verifying the citations in your source, you will pick up on the inconsistencies very quickly. You should move along if this is the case.

I sympathize completely.

I'm glad to hear it user.

I like this thread

Attached: 8AFBC279-2E13-44AC-9B96-3BD489C870E6.jpg (1058x1058, 215K)

>Removing your bias from the equation

When looking for sources, you need to stop and ask yourself "am I looking for a neutral source?"
IE if you are debating whether or not the Holocaust happened, are websites linking to either blatantly pro-Jewish or Neonazi propaganda sites likely to hold a bias? Yes. They are likely to hold a bias and both are examples of sources inadmissible in a debate.

Neutral sources will not have a biased perspective, and neither should you in a debate. If your assertion cannot be proved logically and/or depends upon a suspension of disbelief, you have no business presenting it.
You should learn to differentiate between your existing biases and an assertion which is correct and based in bias; to put it more bluntly, if you are going to be biased, you had better be the correct kind of biased, and your bias should be plainly and neutrally spelled out in your source.

Thank you. Please help me keep it alive. Love the painting, Diogenes is my favorite Greek philosopher.

>What should I do if I actually DON'T understand my opponent's argument?
I can tell you what you should not do: make shit up and fling feces like an excited chimpanzee on crystal meth.
You could consider:

1. Ask for clarification - It should not embarrass you to as your opponent to further clarify and expand upon their point. If they are hopeful that you are willing to listen to them, they will often give you far more information than you ever asked for and very eager to offer it at that.
2. Use Google fuckwit - We live in the year 2020, the Great Year of Hindsight! All the world's information (and misinformation) is just a few keystrokes away in the search engine of your choice. Don't know what
technical term your opponent just used and don't want to look like you don't understand the rest of the argument? Look it up, yikes.

Bump

>Stop insulting your opponent
Not only is it a logical fallacy to insult somebody without extending or expanding the debate, it's just poor form in general. If you were to engage in a personal attack of your opponent in a debate too frequently, you can even lose a debate by default. If you are using Cred Forums to practice your debate skills, consider this information and keep it civil even when your opponent does not.
Remember that getting incensed is going to make you act irrationally. Keep a lid on it.

Bump
if this post is dubs you have to reply to this thread
quads a mod has to sticky it

fuck me

This post is a complete strawman and op is a humongous faggot

I don't have an opponent ergo it cannot by definition be a straw man fallacy; even if I did have an opponent, it would still not be a straw man fallacy.

1/10 for making me reply and thanks for the bumperino newfren

Mine too, but I haven’t exactly read into the other ones as much as I have him. I’m reminded of him a lot when I see people advocating logic and rationality on this trashcan website. Something about how like him, you’re surprisingly level-headed for somebody who chooses to dwell in squalor. I’ve also spent some time wondering if he might be the first shitposter in recorded history.

Attached: 31CFDFCE-FE87-435A-8FA4-F13DDE49C5BD.jpg (600x939, 396K)

Ahh, squalor and comfort are somewhat subjective, don't you think? If Diogenes were to be able to experience homelessness in the west in the modern era, he might consider the homeless to be nobility themselves.

also yeah, he was definitely one of the first, if not THE first
If the accounts are to be believed even Alexander accepted his rebuke without fuss; the man was and still is an absolute L E G E N D

first of what

of the shitposters friendo

bump

It's not that they don't understand.
It's that they don't care.
Trolls will be trolls after all.

Ah yeah, trolls will be trolls. This is more meant for the people I notice who are clearly trying to hold their own in a debate but don't really understand HOW to debate properly, this is meant for them.

That is fair.

Regarding Google

In a debate, it's an indispensable tool for keeping up with your opponent, refreshing your knowledge or looking up a new foreign concept. It can also be your downfall if you aren't careful.
Always, always, always always be sure to read your own source thoroughly and critique it as if you were your own opponent.
If you just google search (counter point to my opponent's argument) and paste the link to the first site on Google's results page, you're probably gonna have a bad time.
For instance, if you're trying to find proof that potatoes cause cancer or something and you look for something and you think it proves your point and then your opponent peruses your source and points out immediately that your own source doesn't support your assertion, you lose. Bad time.

It’s really hard to have a debate with somebody you agree with

Attached: B0D75EFF-23C8-4260-9D15-7A130A435180.gif (360x203, 1.19M)

Agreed.
[Echo Chambering Intensifies]

Some people say that never happened, but I like to think there are too many dope paintings of the event for it to be entirely made-up.

Attached: 22D72509-9730-4DF2-8C85-34B99F112DC1.jpg (1310x900, 266K)

I shall bump this thread for being sensible on Cred Forums

I myself kind of doubt it, knowing what I know about Alexander basically being extremely insecure (EXTREMELY) but yeah it is a cool story to tell and you never know, it might actually be true. Alexander was severely insecure but he wasn't entirely without a sense of humor

I fully agree with what you're saying op, but did you have to start by calling everyone who needs to learn this a retard? Kind of weakened your point there, please give the right example in the future.

As for the premise: I don't understand how proper respectful communication isn't part of elementary school. In my opinion there is absolutely nothing more important in life than knowing how to do that well, but like op said: shockingly few adults seem to be able to do so. This problem causes fucking wars.

>I fully agree with what you're saying op, but did you have to start by calling everyone who needs to learn this a retard? Kind of weakened your point there, please give the right example in the future.

I'd be lying if I said I wasn't a little peeved when I made this thread, trying to hold a debate with somebody who clearly had a tenuous grasp (at best) on how to actually behave during a debate.

I agree with your point but in my defense, this is Cred Forums. Most people come here knowing that they're going to get called a retard or a faggot. Someone might even tell them to kill themselves! Just the name of the game 'round here.

>You're fucking doing it wrong.
Yeah? Fuck you you sad little bitch. Your probably just too scared to fight a real debate.
Your argument is basically "muh logic, muh rationality, muh respectarinos". You forgot that passion and bluster are also part of human interaction.
It's people like you who will set us on the slope into a degenerate humanity, where everyone sits around respectfully agreeing with each other, nothing gets done, and the insects rule the world.
Also, please supply a source for your definitions and claims.

How'd I do, OP?

I chuckled

Many thanks.

Here, I'll do it again - though I think the length of posts will disuade the attention-span challenged Cred Forumstard.
Alas...

>mfw slippery slope became absolutely legitimate when talking about video games industry

Attached: 1569110675229.png (886x840, 1.27M)

I myself kind of disagree with it even being a logical fallacy because it's actually been one of those things that actually proves true with some frequency.

I recall we used to joke about "pedo normality" and shit like that and Christians would say things like "what's gonna be the next one? having sex with kids?"
yet here we are in 2020 and people are legitimately trying to normalize "pedosexuality"
like dude we are pretty much all attracted to youth just stop being in denial and stop acting on it you fucking chimps!

Welp, I guess we have 2 examples then.

Now when I think about it, slippery slope can't be a fallacy, as it's not just a term of such abstract branch of knowledge as philosophy or ethics, law isn't abstract at all and what the hell is a precedent if not the grease for slipperiness of a slope?

Attached: 1567448556984.jpg (275x275, 16K)

It's more the context of the situation, I think, because human nature is to always take it as far as you can before you encounter consequences. This behavior is pretty deeply ingrained in our chimp lizard minds.
Slippery slope is fair to claim in some circumstances, but it's not necessarily a catch-all get out of debate free card either

BUMP