Data Based Debating - A Guide

[removeduser_487563287433]

Over the years I have been posting in the Political Mudpit, much has changed. Since 2004 the Mudpit has altered drastically from something that was genuinely cut-throat and broadly unmoderated, to a forum with a very stringent set of rules that are meant to govern debate (for better or worse). One of the positive consequences of this is that generally speaking the right versus left atmosphere of the forum has withered away to be replaced with a much more fragmented political battleground. In particular, attitudes have changed from judging debate by the quality of an individual poster's pitch to how much raw data and sources a user can produce to establish solid facts upon which to frame more subjective analysis.

In the world in general, information is now much more accessible to the public around the world, and the forum has to a degree reflected this increased openness. We are all people who, if we choose, can sit down and do the research required to establish facts.

But we still have a great deal of people who are incapable, unwilling or perhaps not quite so skilled at producing data to back up their points, and this damages the quality of the forum. Therefore I have produced a guide that hopefully I will be able to update and expand to provide people with suggestions and datas sources by which to improve their posts.

So;

The Quality of Sources - First, Second, Third and Junk Rate Sources

This is my personal categorisation of sources as I see them. I'm happy to receive suggestions.

First Rate Sources

First Rate Sources are the best sources to produce to back up your argument. Typically these are Primary Sources - the original source for a particular claim or data point.

These sources come from a variety of places - police statements, Government studies, Think Tank papers, Human Rights groups. They themselves will usually be extensively referenced, published and publically available and from credible organisations.

First Rate Sources are often very hard to find immediately, but if you do a small amount of research you should usually be able to find them. For example, do you have a news article that sources a First Rate Source as its source? Google that organisation and find the relevant article or release - use it.

Second Rate Sources

Second Rate Sources are typically secondary sources that are produced by respectable news organisations. For example the BBC, broadsheet newspapers, Reuters are all very high quality Second Rate Sources.

These are often the most easy to find, but they are not as useful as the original sources and are not unknown to make mistakes in their reporting. But generally speaking, you can use these without much concern as to their veracity, and are unlikely to be questioned.

Third Rate Sources

Third Rate Sources are sources that although usable, have serious concerns about their reliability or impartiality.

Wikipedia, for example, is a Third Rate source due to the nature of the project where everybody can edit it. However, it is still very usable so long as an article is read fully. However, Wikipedia is often very well referenced - why not see if you can dig out a First Rate Source from those references?

Organisations with declared bias are also Third Rate Sources - such as pressure groups or think tanks. If these organisations fully declare their bias and agenda, they are still usable, and any quality group will present its data honestly in order to better push their agenda in the long term. But needless to say, these sources should be thoroughly scrutinised before use.

Junk Rate Sources

These sources simply shouldn't ever be used, and their citation will probably only acheive a concerted attack and dismissal of the poster that uses them.

Junk sources are typically tabloid newspapers, but in extreme cases include biased sources who are willing to lie and misinterpret the facts in order to advance their agenda.

The Daily Mail is a good example of a commonly used junk rate source, due to the numerous times the Daily Mail has been exposed to publish false information. Racist and nationalist sources are out for obvious reasons.

Source Directory

Over time, I will update this with sources to check out, as I use them or they are suggested here.

[Adar]

It's much easier to skip the sources and just use one liners.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Providing the right source makes second lines obsolete.

[Farnan]

I assume this post is still your favorite:

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=156236&

I agree on your tiers related to facts in debating, however supporting opinion pieces tier level depends more on the author than the place the article was written.

Level of opinion tiers in my opinion:

Tier One:

Recognized Credentialed Experts in the field debated holding a position in a non-partisan organization in the field.

Yes a lot of words. What that means is that a man with a Doctorate of Biology who works as a proffessor at Duke University writing on Evolution is a Tier One Source. A former US Army Ranger Officer who holds a doctorate in War Studies working for CNAS is a Tier One Source.

You don't need to hold a doctrate to be a Tier One Source, vast experience in a field through work experience can put you there if your experience relates to the subject directly. A journalist who worked 33 years in Afghanistan can be considered a Tier One Source on Afghanistan for example, however a coal miner who worked for 33 years in a coal mine won't be an expert on the environmental impact of coal.

All requirements must be met to be Tier One.

Tier Two:

Same, but working for a partisan organization. If that former Army Ranger Officer worked for the Heritage Foundation he would be a Tier Two Source, and if the Biologist worked for Freedom from Religion Foundation he would be a Tier Two source.

The difference between Tier One and Tier Two is that Tier two generally have a larger bias than Tier One and are more likely to let that bias influence their opinions.

Tier Three:

Experts writing on fields related to, but not in their field of expertise.

Example: Military expert writing on homeland security, biologist writing on anthropology.

Tier Four:

Finally, political figures from mainstream parties.

They are usually not experts but they generally have a team working for them, and help them form their opinion pieces.

Junk:

Everything else.


Hope that made sense.

[Mangalore]

... One of the positive consequences of this is that generally speaking the right versus left atmosphere of the forum has withered away to be replaced with a much more fragmented political battleground. ...

I'm afraid my impression is that this mainly happened because Iraq became boring and Bush went out of office, not because any particular shift in mentality. Some things like Iraq or a president like Bush are simply polarizing which was not just an internet phenomen but what you could see in the real world from the very small to nations' diplomacy.

[s.rwitt]

Obama = polarizing

And when Iraq became boring Afghanistan became anything but.

[Mangalore]

Obama = polarizing

Not on the same level since anyone sensible would note that Obama doesn't have a black&white worldview himself

And when Iraq became boring Afghanistan became anything but.

In my personal eyes (which is obviously a far superior source ) not on the same level since that intervention never had the same divisionary lines as the political alignment. It is far more ambigious and differentiated since on some level more people/parties are willing to support it. I do see some level to support it, but I also see some dogooder blindness in the warhawks trying to change an entire society and now wondering why it doesn't work.

Anyway, kudos to Ferrets.

[Wilder]

A also first rate: peer reviewed scientific publications.

[chilon]

A also first rate: peer reviewed scientific publications.

The irony about this is that often times reading the full article of peer reviewed scientific publications requires a subscription to some database. When I have posted these peer reviewed scientific publications in the past (which would be considered completely valid sources in academia) people just say "I can't access the full article" and pretend to dismiss the evidence.

[removeduser_487563287433]

A also first rate: peer reviewed scientific publications.

Absolutely. Will update to reflect this, more human rights groups and farina's suggestions.

[Wilder]

Human Rights groups being listed as a first rate source may elucidate the OP's personal bias. Like all sources they have an agenda. Does anyone really believe there aren't human rights groups that would skew the facts if they believed the ends justify the means or maybe even do so unconsciously? From individuals I’ve known who’ve worked with human rights groups, I’ve gotten the impression that there is general bias in favor of the claims of those with little power over those with more, but balances of power are not indicative of empirical truth.

That is true, and crossed my mind. Additionally, one can get into a really heated debate over what constitutes a human rights group. Lots of white power organizations call themselves advocates for human rights, and there are people who even believe it, but that does not mean it is so.

Unless debating is won by a point system of sources, I can't see how anything changes. In fact there are certain subjects where I trust some level 3 sources MORE than the top tier. I would never concede a debate because someone produced the latest IPCC report as a "government study" and therefore superior source.

But sometimes that is the way it goes. Some sources say one thing, others say something else, and the only option to suss out the truth by the debater is to evaluate which camp is more reliable. Of course this is rare enough, because as a situation develops it usually becomes more clear why certain groups are saying what they are.

As to the good old mucky world of science and politics (you know I can't resist), I have discerned a pretty clear pattern these days:



1. mainstream scientific community holds position (A).
2. One or another political block finds position (A) inconvenient for whatever reason, so they find minority scientific community that holds position (B), and brings them to the fore. they put them on comities have them testify to congress that sort of thing.
3. Big argument ensues. Both sides make cases. Side (B) brings plausible, but somewhat untried/untested/controversial/unsubstantiated arguments and data to the table.
So far so good! but...
4. Upon requests to publish findings for public scientific scrutiny, (B) does not. They adopt an attitude that side (A) is the clotheslines emperor, and start repeating themselves. A lot.
In science land this would not be a problem, because (B) would be ostracized as loonies until they buck up, but in politics this happens:
5. Side (B) continues to make a lot of noise. Cable TV News, Senate hearings, cabinet and board postings, internet blogs, they grace them all. They never win, but they manage to muddy up the issue enough to keep -usually scientifically illiterate- leaders from making informed decisions, and the public remains confused.



I just read somewhere about a small, but weird, controversy (whether lead is bad for you or not!) which has exhibited these exact same steps. The argument by the guy who thinks that the danger of lead ingestion is overstated is that much of the evidence that it is, is based in epidemiology and therefore probability, not good old direct re-experimentable cause and effect.

I know we don't see eye to eye on this but I think group (B) describes the AGW skeptics quite nicely.

Absolutely. Will update to reflect this, more human rights groups and farina's suggestions.

[SLN445]

Debating is something i really need to work on

[boofhead]

Human Rights groups and the BBC can be as biased as some Balkan nationalist rag (well maybe not quite). In fact there are many sources around that collate examples of this. Amnesty International is one giant joke. Reuters is not perfect either, they love to publish doctored photos. What matters is not so much the publisher of the info, but the facts behind it. Conceivably, a Stormfronter could produce an article that is full of accurate and testable references and sources, and yet the prevailing wisdom at TWC would immediately declare the reference ''Pffft, Stormfront'' (which would normally be the case almost invariably, but I'm speaking hypothetically). ''Pffft, Jihad Watch, 'nuff said''; ''Pffft, RT''; ''Pffft, Al Jazeera''; ''Pffft, Minor Balkan State Nationalist News'' etc. But what if the facts cited happen to be accurate? Once in a while ''Pffft, BBC'', and referring to it as over-trumpeted, holier-than-thou, left-leaning, politically correct jizz bucket, could be appropriate.

[Emperor Arcturus Mengsk]

I still remember some pictures and a video that was posted in the Pussy Riot thread, and the user who posted them was banned because the images where pretty much pornographic.

None of the "1st rate sources" had shown me these images : (

Rules are rules and he violated them, but it still made the supporting of Pussy Rioters obsolete, too bad for the people who missed those because of rules, : D

[PointOfViewGun]

Wouldn't this thread be more fitting in the Political Academy? It's guidelines apply to all of D&D as well.

[Phier]

Rating sources if fine and good, only bias exists in all sources, sometimes serious bias. So while places like the Mail my basically fabricate some of their stories and can't be trusted, all sources are suspect to some extent.

police statements, Government studies, Think Tank papers, Human Rights groups.

All of those can be suspect at times.

Unless debating is won by a point system of sources, I can't see how anything changes. In fact there are certain subjects where I trust some level 3 sources MORE than the top tier. I would never concede a debate because someone produced the latest IPCC report as a "government study" and therefore superior source.

[Grouchio]

This is a great enriching pecking order system for the mudpit, perhaps making it a little less dirty and a little more sensical. I like this.

[Aanker]

The best way of analyzing a source posted by someone is still reading through at least the abstract or (to have a full understanding) reading the entire report. Painful, takes a lot of time but guaranteedely will not let any bias or inaccuracies escape unnoticed.

[sumskilz]

Human Rights groups being listed as a first rate source may elucidate the OP's personal bias. Like all sources they have an agenda. Does anyone really believe there aren't human rights groups that would skew the facts if they believed the ends justify the means or maybe even do so unconsciously? From individuals I’ve known who’ve worked with human rights groups, I’ve gotten the impression that there is general bias in favor of the claims of those with little power over those with more, but balances of power are not indicative of empirical truth.

I think one should always consider bias when evaluating sources. For example, if a news outlet known to be right-leaning reports on s story that favors a left-leaning position (or vice-versa) then that adds a little more weight than if they are pushing their typical position.

[Phier]

I think one should always consider bias when evaluating sources. For example, if a news outlet known to be right-leaning reports on s story that favors a left-leaning position (or vice-versa) then that adds a little more weight than if they are pushing their typical position.

Which is why whenever a college leftist makes a swipe at the tea party I use the NYT article on them, which while heavily biased and it takes a typical left wing parting shot at them, does present the data at least in a way that a left winger can't really argue with.