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

[DrOswald]

Depends, if something is widespread enough to be "common knowledge" then no, I'm not going to do a run around citing sources.

For instance, if I am posting about superhero movies, and mention that 2011 Green Lantern was a critical and commercial flop that killed the franchise they were looking to spawn, 99% of anyone posting in such a thread will know that, and for those who don't, it takes two seconds to pull up Metacritic and/or Box Office Mojo and look. In circumstances like that there is no way I am doing the lifting, if they want to refute me, they can go find some evidence.

If on the other hand I am posting about a relatively specialist subject, and particularly if I am drawing conclusions based on data, I had better be able to back up the facts and figures I am using with some evidence, and that's on me.

I would say that you're right in general, because in your example the person challenging you on that point (I have no clue about it by the way, I'm assuming you're right) is HIGHLY unlikely to be sincerely ignorant or confused.

Still, if it's two seconds of work, and the underlying principle still holds the burden to be yours, it's an odd line to draw IMO. The problem with allowing people who assert positive claims to dodge their burden even on small things, is that it allows for the intellectual equivalent of Spam Warfare; it shuts everything in a real debate down.

Compared to a formalism that has been serving humans well for longer than we've been alive, and two seconds of work, I'd do the two seconds and come off as the more informed and informative person.

The problem is that if the person is not willing to do the two seconds of work then they are unwilling to be informed. If Green Lantern (2011) suddenly becomes an important part of the conversation, a person should be willing to google "Green Lantern (2011)" and read the Wikipedia page or just check the meta critic score. If they are unwilling to do this then they clearly are not looking to be informed or contribute anything meaningful.

Then we have the other end of the spectrum, where a person demands the impossible. For example, I recently made the claim that although processor clock speed has seemingly capped out, there is a ton of room left for processors to improve. This was immediately dismissed because I was unable to provide a link specifically stating so.

There are many cases where if someone wants to be informed they are just going to have to get off their ass and do some leg work. Despite what most internet forum battlers thing, most knowledge cannot be delivered in convenient easy to understand links, and if a person is unwilling to put in the effort to become informed then their opinions are worthless.

Now, I will gladly provide links for kind of obscure knowledge that can be delivered in link format. But far more often than not I find people refusing to so much as google a single word or demanding that I somehow deliver them understanding obtained through 4 year university degree through a single link.

 

[Bat Vader]

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.

Why should it matter what others do on the internet? If people want to treat it like an academic debate let them. If people end up wasting hours of their life just to prove someone wrong it doesn't effect anyone else but themselves. If they prove the person wrong good on them. Someone can call an idiot and idiot but that person shouldn't expect to be taken as seriously after that. I feel that resorting to insults is good way for someone to destroy any good faith others have in them.

 

[manic_depressive13]

But see that's sort of the point. The "random person" is the person most likely to change their mind on a subject. Most debaters will say that they are there for the audience. They know pretty confidently that the person they are debating isn't going to change their opinion, but someone watching might.

So if you're just going to answer smugly anyway, then all you do is look smug, without actually backing your claim. It will probably actually hurt your standpoint on the subject. But if you actually provide evidence to support your claim, then the audience can review it, and possibly change their mind on a subject.

This is the case for any kind of debate, not exclusive to a gaming site. But, it does require you actually caring what the outcome of the debate is. If, like you say, you don't care, then I'm not really sure why you would participate anyway.

Like I said,"my standpoint" is already accepted by academics and people who actually matter, so I don't need to convince some nobody. I participate to make myself feel good and to guide anyone actually curious on the topic and not just determined to stick to their own uneducated opinions in the right direction. That's all. I'm an uninvested but benevolent knowledge Jesus.

 

[Jezzy54]

If A knows why B is wrong, A should bloody explain it, not just act like a smug douchebag.