"It's Not My Job to Do Your Research for You"

[Eomega123]

Hello fellow netizens. This isn't the biggest issue in the world, but it's something that's been nagging at me for some time, and I'd like to get some feedback. There's something that I see as a problem that occasionally crops up in internet arguing, and I'd like to illustrate that with the following story:

There is a thread going on. A, B, and C are in this thread.
A has researched the topic of the thread extensively and has strong opinions on it.
B has researched the topic of the thread extensively, using different sources than A, and has equally strong opposite opinions on it.
C got lost on his way to the kitchen and has no opinions on the topic.

A and B are arguing. A makes certain statements about the topic, to which B responds with something like "Do you have any evidence for that?" or "Give me one example."

A has several examples. In fact he has 3 tabs and a podcast of examples open on his desktop right now and is dumbstruck anyone could be ignorant of them. He is also very tired of arguing with B and so he responds "It's not my job to do your research for you. There's tons of examples out there." And with that the chance for anyone to change their minds on the topic disappears. After all, B gets his information from different sources, so he feels that he has already looked deeply into the issue and turned up nothing.

A will go back to his group and bemoan how ignorant group B is since they can't see the obvious evidence.

B will go back to his group and bemoan how ignorant group A is since they can't provide any evidence for their views and deflect questioning.

C will shrug his shoulders and leave since neither side provided any sort of useful information.

Now of course it's not A's job to do research for B, but B isn't going to look into A's sources unless A brings them up and explains why they're credible. This of course isn't guaranteed to be successful and B may still conclude that the evidence is insufficient, but isn't that better than no one learning anything?

Internet arguing is exhausting, and dealing with people who seem to purposefully avoid the "truth" (truth in quotes because you always have to consider that you may be wrong) may make you want to bang your head against the wall, but I feel like asking someone to "do their own research" without at least providing them some starting evidence to chew on will guarantee that no one will change.

Discussion value: How do you react to being told to "Do your own research"? Do you tend to say it? Can it actually lead to someone informing themselves? Is it a real issue or am I making a mountain out of a molehill? Or is internet conversation just doomed no matter how we go about it?

TLDR: What place do the phrases "It's not my job to do your research for you" and "Do your own research" have in internet debate, and how can we deal with them?

 

[DoPo]

The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Pretty simple.

Yep, pretty much this. I don't really have much else to add - if somebody makes a claim, they should be able to back it up. Expecting the other party to do all the research is both lazy and not doesn't speak well for the debate.

 

[tippy2k2]

3/3 with the "Burden of proof is on the claim maker" group.

If they're so "exhausted" with internet arguing, either don't start the argument or just bow out gracefully. I've done that plenty of times where I just plain get sick of arguing and I'll just say it. 90% of people I've said that to are cool with it and the 10% that are not cool with it are so entrenched in their own opinion being right that you're wasting your time debating them.

 

[Albino Boo]

If you want an academic paper then go to university. The internet is not an academic debate and I'm rather tired of people thinking that it is. I want scream every time someone goes ad hominem or straw man. You sometimes you have to call an idiot an idiot. This is not a court of law and there is no burden of proof. You are just going have accept that sometimes people do have knowledge and experience that isn't on wikipedia and quite frankly its not worth the time spending 2 hours on google to prove something that you know to some guy on the internet. Usually because they are full of sound and fury and don't know what the hell they are talking about.

 

[Pirate Of PC Master race]

If proof for argument is not provided, it can be assumed as an opinion.
(If knowing is power, not knowing brings about equally strong effect in the 1 on 1 debate - nice incentive not to take all in.)

If your argument hinges on an opinion, or something that can be assumed as an opinion, internet is the place for you!

Just don't expect people many people to believe you, but it is better than real world situations.

(Or, you know, Let idiots be idiots? I don't have time to argue stupid question - like, 2+2 = 4, not 5 - on stupid people, and being out examples that anyone can see through. My time is too valuable to be lost on them, and I KNOW I am right.)

 

[kris40k]

The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Pretty simple.

This. Burden of proof is always on the person making an assertion. Just need people to be careful about argument from ignorance and assuming that just because someone can't prove something that the opposite must be true, because that is incorrect as well.

If you want an academic paper then go to university. The internet is not an academic debate and I'm rather tired of people thinking that it is. I want scream every time someone goes ad hominem or straw man. You sometimes you have to call an idiot an idiot. This is not a court of law and there is no burden of proof. You are just going have accept that sometimes people do have knowledge and experience that isn't on wikipedia and quite frankly its not worth the time spending 2 hours on google to prove something that you know to some guy on the internet. Usually because they are full of sound and fury and don't know what the hell they are talking about.

No, we don't have to accept it. Back it up or jog on. While the internet is not an academic debate, we can try and keep it to an intelligent one and not have to suffer fools[footnote]including me[/footnote] making errors in critical thinking, logic, or making up their own facts with just a "you just have to trust me".

No, no we don't.

 

[renegade7]

TLDR: What place do the phrases "It's not my job to do your research for you" and "Do your own research" have in internet debate, and how can we deal with them?

It depends. Sometimes it's a perfectly valid response, other times it's a blatant cop-out.

In the first case, when the debate assumes a certain level of knowledge or when one debater is demonstrably knowledgeable about a subject, it is appropriate for him to respond to a clearly less-informed arguer by telling him that he clearly has gaps in his knowledge about the subject being discussed. Another possibility is that the information is some kind of general knowledge. Scientific theories are a good example, scientific subjects that usually become the subjects of debate (ie global warming, evolution, big bang cosmology) tend to be very elementary. Scientists are no longer trying to prove these things, we've long since moved on from validating these theories and we're well into applying them. If the subject is, say, evolution, and you ask me to provide a link validating the theory of evolution, what would you want? Which paper from the last 150 years of successfully applying evolutionary theory to biology would you like to see?

The slightly less polite, though in my opinion still valid, way of using it is to point out that another person clearly doesn't know what he's talking about. If another debater is clearly lacking in fundamental concepts in a given subject (again, especially with scientific topics) then at a certain point you may just have to tell them that it's clear they don't understand the subject enough to productively engage with it and that they should go study it before attempting to debate it.

And the last possibility is that a modern paper in a given subject is well beyond the understanding of the average forumgoer. Internet forums give you maybe a few paragraphs, and modern subjects take scientists years to learn. Best case, no one understands the paper anyway and nothing is added to the discussion. Worst case, the impenetrability of such a paper provokes the debater (especially an uninformed debater, being much more likely to not understand that there just is no simple way to explain a modern scientific concept) into accusing you of deliberate obfuscation.

Basically, the claim "This is so basic that we've long since proved it as thoroughly as possible, you clearly don't understand this, and there's no way I'm going to be able to fully bring you up to speed on this subject in a few forum posts" is the height of all cop-outs...unless it's actually true. Unfortunately, because of the Dunning-Krueger effect, being uninformed about a subject causes one to be much more willing to think they understand it than does actually being knowledgeable about it, which is why this is more likely to be the argument of a crank than one who actually understands the matter at hand.

 

[renegade7]

If you want an academic paper then go to university. The internet is not an academic debate and I'm rather tired of people thinking that it is. I want scream every time someone goes ad hominem or straw man. You sometimes you have to call an idiot an idiot. This is not a court of law and there is no burden of proof. You are just going have accept that sometimes people do have knowledge and experience that isn't on wikipedia and quite frankly its not worth the time spending 2 hours on google to prove something that you know to some guy on the internet. Usually because they are full of sound and fury and don't know what the hell they are talking about.

No, we don't have to accept it. Back it up or jog on. While the internet is not an academic debate, we can try and keep it to an intelligent one and not have to suffer fools[footnote]including me[/footnote] making errors in critical thinking, logic, or making up their own facts with just a "you just have to trust me".

No, no we don't.

He's kind of right. In a debate you should always be willing to provide your sources, but I think it's fair to say that there is a point at which something can be so basic and elementary that it's not worth the effort citing a source for every reference to it and sometimes an argument can be just so ill-informed or poorly-reasoned that it's not worth the effort to engage with directly. In such case, the only good thing you really can do is just point out that the other person is so uninformed that you can't productively engage with them.

Of course, one has to do this tactfully. The purpose of debate is ultimately to inform and enlighten, not to win, so if you bow out of an argument with a recommendation that the other person do some background reading next time that has to be a genuine suggestion rather than a snide comment about how you're clearly smarter than the other person. Otherwise, the backfire effect comes into play and the other person will go away from it even more convinced of his fallacious argument.

 

[Compatriot Block]

If it's important enough to you to argue about it with strangers on the internet, you don't get to pull that stupid line. It's used so people can focus on preaching their opinion without dealing with things like "evidence" or "facts." Another vote for "if you make a claim (that isn't 101-level basic), back it up or it's worthless."

 

[Passive Aggression]

Yup, if you make a claim it's on you to prove it. But, if your "Proof" on a factual matter is blogs and word of mouth, you kinda deserve to get ignored.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

I'll happily correct anybody so long as I already know my stuff and it takes me under one line to say it.

 

[barbzilla]

I will say that debate on the internet has always been a touchy thing. The fact that you have removed the human interaction element is going to put it at much greater strain in relation to finding a conclusive decision, happy middle ground, or politely agreeing to disagree. With the lack of empathy available in text, the other person will read what you wrote filtered by their own mindset. So if they are upset, they will likely perceive you as upset.

So right from the word go, I'd say that telling someone that it isn't your responsibility to do their research is doomed to send the debate spiraling towards a full blown argument where nobody will walk away happy. Even if that wasn't an issue, since you are trying to prove to the other person that your viewpoint is valid/true/correct, it is on you to provide both your reasoning and any factual evidence you can provide. If the other person were to go look for it themselves, they could just as likely end up on a page that was written by an admirer of the author you read the information from that just doesn't quite fully understand it. Now the person you just told to go look up your information has a skewed view of your point, which will only make it harder to debate (as well as the potential lack of credibility where they read it). So I would say that it is in everyone's best interest to either provide the documentation/links to show proof of their statements, or realize they don't actually care that much about the topic in the first place and move on.

 

[Fox12]

Honestly, when this happens, I look at the other persons post, and immediately start thinking of sources I can use to refute their claim.

...

Then I realize it really doesn't matter, they won't listen to anything I say anyway, and that I'm really too tired to bother with this anymore. So I state my opinion in a sentence and move on with my life.

 

[Redd the Sock]

Burden of proof aside, it gets very basic. The point of an argument is to try and convince someone else of your viewpoint. "It's not my job to do your research for you" is basically a way to try and quit arguing by judgmentally tossing out the idea that if your opponent read the "right" things they'd have already been convinced. It's like a teacher just assuming a student didn't do the reading instead of not understanding it, or disagreeing with it.

 

[MysticSlayer]

This is an Internet discussion where I know the person is using a web browser to read and respond. They have five-second access to the wealth of information on the Internet. They can at least put in a little effort on their own. Sure, I'll look up sources if really challenged and I realize that the person probably can't find it regardless of all their searching, but I'm not going to bow to every request for a source because, frankly, there comes a point where the person asking for the source really isn't all that interested in what you have to say. They just want to say, "I'm right."

 

[Albino Boo]

If you want an academic paper then go to university. The internet is not an academic debate and I'm rather tired of people thinking that it is. I want scream every time someone goes ad hominem or straw man. You sometimes you have to call an idiot an idiot. This is not a court of law and there is no burden of proof. You are just going have accept that sometimes people do have knowledge and experience that isn't on wikipedia and quite frankly its not worth the time spending 2 hours on google to prove something that you know to some guy on the internet. Usually because they are full of sound and fury and don't know what the hell they are talking about.

No, we don't have to accept it. Back it up or jog on. While the internet is not an academic debate, we can try and keep it to an intelligent one and not have to suffer fools[footnote]including me[/footnote] making errors in critical thinking, logic, or making up their own facts with just a "you just have to trust me".

No, no we don't.

This will probably come as shock to you but your opinion is just yours. You do not run the internet and and therefore if you want demonstrate that I am wrong you are going to have to do some work yourself. To be blunt its like or lump it.

 

[JimB]

You do not run the internet and and therefore if you want demonstrate that I am wrong you are going to have to do some work yourself.

No one begins an argument with a presumption of being correct. If we were assuming you were correct, then we wouldn't be arguing. Since you begin in a place where you are assumed to be wrong, it is your duty to prove yourself correct not because the emperor of the internet is dictating it to you but because that is the path you chose when you started arguing in the first place.

 

[CrystalShadow]

Yeah, I've hit upon that a few times. Sometimes it's actually difficult to provide proof, owing to the format of how you are arguing. (eg, linking to anything in youtube comments is tedious as anything)

Still, it can get worse. I've had genuine arguments with people where they spend their entire time picking on the exact words I use, even though it should be clear from context and further explanations what I meant. Rather than help out in any way by telling me what I should be using to describe what I actually mean, they tell me i'm misusing some term but then proceed to act as though I am arguing as if I actually mean that exact term, even though them pointing it out the way they do shows they know I didn't mean that.

But above all else, the worst thing ever is "I'm an expert, and you're wrong".
Not because it's impossible to meet someone who is in fact an expert on a topic, but because the people that say that never bother to construct any kind of proper verifiable argument (even though, if they are an expert, they surely should be able to prove it easily enough)

I mean seriously...

"I'm an expert..."
- And I'm just supposed to take the word of some anonymous person on the internet on their expert status without any means to verify who they are, and what, exactly they are an expert in?
"... and you're wrong."
- care to elaborate? In what way am I wrong? What part of what I said is wrong. On what basis?

BBut no, you never seem to get ANYTHING out of these 'experts'. Challenge them to prove, or even just explain their remark, and you get pretty much nothing out of them except repeats of the claim and appeals to their own (unverifiable) authority.

It's fine to be an expert on a subject, and even to say so. But you can't use this as an argument in it's own right. Especially not in a context where you are effectively anonymous, and cannot meaningfully verify your identity...

Anyway, discussions can be undermined for so many reasons, it's almost scary how many logical fallacies and unfair discussion techniques there are.
Many people use quite a few by accident.
Unfortunately, many more use them on purpose, with specific intent, knowing full well that they are trying to mess up the other people in the discussion using underhanded tactics...

Still, you can't force a debate to work. It's just not going to happen

 

[L. Declis]

Well, here is the problem I used to come across.

So, in a recent argument on Reddit, I stated that marriage is not a good deal for men, and that many men are now worried or even opposed to marriage as a result.

People responded with "You're wrong".

So I provide evidence from government papers, with links and where to look.

They ignore this, and say that it's just my opinion, and that their opinion is better.

So I provide yet more evidence, from more official papers, with links and pages.

They ignore this and say "Yeah, well, that's your opinion".

So I provide some easy videos on YouTube which explain the issues in a simple fashion; none of them watch it and say I'm wrong.

My point with all of this is, even if I bother to get you the research, are you going to read it? Because my experience is that people are not going to bother to read it, they are not open to actually changing their opinion, and I do not have the time to research when people just won't bother.

On the internet, the court of feelings win, not evidence. My advice is to state your piece and move on, because no one is going to change their mind anyway.