How are the debates supposed to go?

I'm rather curious how some here thinks we can talk about what people of a nation thinks about a situation if we are not supposed to use polls, surveys or studies. It can be from if advice from an expert or government official and many other things. Just how?

Imo if we can not back it, not as in nothing exists that will back up an answer we try to portray as factual, but due to wanted debating standards on a forum we are discouraged to link to such pieces of information, it might as well be a bannable offence. Any thoughts?

Always use polls, studies and surveys. Disregarding then solely because you don’t like what they say should be actionable.

Like when I linked to a CNN story and someone refused to even click it because of the source. If CNN is wrong, should be easy to prove.

This should only apply to most things, not like proven rags like infowars or buzzfeed. Not everything is valid.

Trump will be loud and obnoxious and Bidden will just be hoping he can keep up with his teleprompter. Both these men can't talk for shit and they are both liabilities. Seriously it is sad this is who America chose to vote for. Great job America!

I don't think the OP is about the presidential debates at all.

@mattbbpl: I don’t think so either

@horgen: On topic, you will not get agreement for sources, Horgen. For decades, expertise has been attacked as elitism, education attacked as indoctrination, and reputable sources attacked as lamestream media. You might as well try to get your dog to acknowledge the etymology of the word "feline" - you'll make the same amount of headway.

@horgen: I think you can use data to back up your argument, the biggest issue with data in debates, is when people copy and paste data of thier prefered experts without making any argument themselves. Its like talking to someone who has no personal view, they just like what somebody else has told them.

On most issues there is data that contradicts each other depending on where your looking. People tend to cherry pick.

I prefer when someone lays out thier/view or opinion and then emboldens that view with the data, but I cant stand when people just spam statistics, polls, and data without stating what point they are trying to prove before hand. Or what thier personal view is before hand.

And yeah, some people look for the experts opinion, some may rather look at numbers in polling, some go with more micro anecdotal evidence they see in thier everyday life. But like i said, you still need to be able to convey an argument, view or opinion yourself before tossing around data or "expert" opinions. Sometimes experts are right on the money and sometimes they are disconnected and out of touch.

I cant stand when people debate online sometimes, just turns into a "who can google/cherry pick the most sources". So much better having people debate in person.

So much different watching 2 people have an actual debate/discussion in person without just googling FOX or CNN articles/polls and then declaring victory by sharing your prefered confirmation bias.

Idiocrazy makes so much more sense now.

But it statements like: People are saying... but nothing to prove it. It's all show and no substance. Attacking users for providing something to back up their statement.

Exactly, that's the culmination of everything I outlined. It provides the means for your target audience to disregard everything you don't want them to acknowledge.

I just want to highlight ive never seen a debate in person where 2 people look at thier phones and relay articles to each other.

Data is great, but have an argument before hand to then use that data to bolster that argument.

The data itself isnt an argument or a viewpoint.

In college I watched an earnest debate about the fact that the Sun doesn't emit light but instead sucks in the darkness.

Real formal debates involve preparation, sources, and acceptance of facts - otherwise it's just a bunch of apes seeing who can yell their opinion the loudest.

I like debates where there is understanding and both parties, either through experience or education, more or less know what the other side is talking about.

Otherwise you start out with disagreement and that is all it is.

In professional debates people generally come into it informed and knowing their facts. It is data, just not "here is the link" data.

But I agree, the data is just statistics; the debate provides context. It's especially interesting to see how either side manipulates the statistics to prove their points, and rewarding when one side calls bullshit on the other side i.e. "is that total or per capita" and so on.

@mattbbpl: yes in a debate involving the light and the sun, you would need to be prepared with data, like scientifical journals/research. I watched some of those kinds of debates in college as well. That data is needed for any argument rooted in science.

I think that's a lot different though compared to debating politics and culture. For these types of debates there's a lot more opinion interjected compared to arguments in science.

Political and cultural debates don't hinge on facts and data?

Chaotic.

@mattbbpl: there are still facts and data, there is just alot more gray area involved

In my ideal world we would strive towards intellectually honesty. This means,

1. Dont handwave evidence: This includes well sourced polls (not facebook memes), articles from respected sources (that includes Fox News, and despite what SOME might say, Snopes is very well respected). In a few rare cases, YouTube videos (not Vlogs or cropped out of context videos) and tweets can count. If you disagree with a source, go into the source, point out where the article is mistaken. Youtube videos can take an extraordinary ammount of time to go through. And trying to debunk a YouTube video can take too much effort and can too easily lead to someone using Chewbacca defenses.

2. Understand the basic rules of logic, such as correlation not leading to causation. Understanding the general rules of debate.

3. Avoid the "fanboy wars"

4. Avoid logical fallacies https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/ is a good source

5. Be willing to entertain ideas we disagree with

6. Accept the Facts. Debates are there to provide context around the facts. In fact, you can use debate to point out how someone's reading of a fact is entirely incorrect. And they essentially believe in a half-truth. Counter their surface level data, with a more indepth one. But don't handwave it.

7. For thread creators. Provide things in your actual opening post. Not a single sentence followed by a vlog you found of YouTube. Make an argument yourself. The thread creator should not put in less effort in making the thread, than everyone else trying to just read it.

Edit: Now I wouldnt make these actual rules (point 7 already is one). But they are good guidelines to follow.

It's going to be a shit show.

Debating someone like Trump is always a losing proposition, because he doesn't care about facts and the proper etiquette. He's a showman and a con man, one who works on spectacle, intimidation and showmanship, which unfortunately impresses many. Debate is the art of appealing to emotion as much as it is (if not more so) than articulating points based of factual data. It's of little wonder he is reputedly taking no steps to prepare as that's not his game. He doesn't operate within the norm of decorum. He wings it, very effectively.

Unfortunately, debates seem to be a necessary formality. Biden will need to learn to play an entirely new game, or lose at the one that Trump isn't going to abide by. I'm not even going to watch because I already know he's going to lose.

As far as the Trump-Biden debate goes, I hope Biden essentially does not acknowledge Trump. I'd like him to respond well to the folks asking questions, let Trump run his mouth, then just provide facts to counter everything Trump says while still being the usual appealing Biden.

Don't stoop to Trump's level, don't take the bait, don't squabble.

On the flipside, it'd be kind of cool if Trump was actually prepared and did a good job, used facts and so forth. But I don't see that happening. At all.

just cite alternative facts

Biden playing chess with a pigeon.

Exactly.

Trump is gonna lie every second lol.

If I am gonna play a drinking game. In which I drink every time Trump lies or blames Democrats. How long before I fall unconscious?

Weren't actually thinking about the presidential debates, but they are good topic to discuss. At least very relevant.

Just call an ambulance in advance. If you're drinking wine you will be close to finish your second bottle before they arrive anyway.

A moderator should stop Trump from going to far with his normal style. You think there will be a "that's a nasty question, you're a nasty moderator"?

3 minutes into his opening remarks

@thegreatchomp: @horgen: But who or what determines a reliable source?

I believe Chomp is referring to me for not clicking a CNN article, but they are known for their anti Trump bias. They’ve been proven inaccurate and or make up stories.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/cnn/

https://youtu.be/v7FnD-RnOrc

So no, I will not click a CNN article. They are fake news.

@Sevenizz: Can always see if they list a source. Or ask for another.

@horgen: But again, who or what determines what’s real? The other day I posted a thread here with a popular YouTuber named Tim Pool and it was locked by a mod who considered him ‘some random guy’ and not legit. Guy has over a million subscribers lol.

Doesnt fall under Questionable Source. So still valid. Not great, but Valid.

And that is what makes written articles so much better than say... YouTube.

A news story that would take 15 minute on YouTube, can be read in 3 minutes. Furrthermore, I can skim articles, I cant skim a video.

Also, from the very site you link,

"However, news reporting on the website tends to be properly sourced with minimal failed fact checks"

Guess what people are linking to?

@Sevenizz: Who cares how many subs he has? That doesn’t make him reliable, Buzzfees has over 20 million, so? Alex Jones had a lot and he is a crack pot:

Also your refusal to click any CNN link makes it look like you won’t accept view other than your own. I hate Fox, but I will click the link.

@Sevenizz: the irony of that is Tim Pool just reads articles from sources, he reads the source on screen behind him, but adds context and opinion in as well.

One of Tims strong suits is also calling out the lies and bias in these sources

@thegreatchomp: ‘Who cares how many subs he has?’

Over a million is more than just ‘some random guy’ was my point.

‘I hate Fox, but I will click the link.’

I won’t lol. I only watch Fox News for Tucker and sometimes Ingram.

Lmao, that's more followers than Madcow. But yeah, CNN, NBC, etc has a very clear bias with cherry picked data and skewed polls. I'd Trust them about as quickly as I'd trust needles from a homeless person. The fact it gets cited on here as a source when they've been exposed so many times is laughable. You can find polls anywhere online to say anything you want. Studies from different groups that say two entirely different things. Scientific data that'll say whatever you want. It gets cherry picked and at that point most "sources" are just someone in agreement with the person posting that source, not actual facts or evidence.

Lmao, remember when these people thought Trump told everyone to go commit a crime? And when they got proven wrong, instead of admitting they were wrong they came up with this "but it's a dog whistle" bullcrap? Even direct video sources to contradict their narrative goes in one of their ears and out the other.

YouTubers, even the news and politics guys come across more as entertainment than actual proper analysis. Even the science popularizers, are a bit too surface level to classify as proper education. I still love them though, but even they are edutainment.

Unless you are literally watching something from an accredited university like Harvard, or a respected educator like Khan Academy. You are almost certainly watching some form of entertainment.

YouTubers are also really difficult to rebut, not because they make good arguments, they REALLY don't (Tim Pool struggled understanding what 'Per Capita' meant), but because the nature of their format is harder to rebut,

• In a video the pace is generally dictated by the video maker, We can pause, but we can't really do much more. When fact checking, it is MUCH easier when we, the fact checkers control the pace.
• Note taking is a lot harder in a video than a text. In a text, it can easily be reskimmed to allow us to backtrack, a video can't be skimmed. Being able to backtrack and go back to previous points is important to make a proper rebuttal.
• sources are generally easier to check in a written text. As they tend to be linked to on the text that makes the argument. Many YouTubers dont even link sources any more. Instead linking to their Patreons.

There is a reason us lefties arent linking to left wing youtubers. Because we prefer more valid sources.

@jeezers: ‘One of Tims strong suits is also calling out the lies and bias in these sources’

Yup. He’ll even call our Fox or Brietbart if he spots falsities. I view him as a centrist. But he doesn’t lean left so he gets labeled a nazi lol.

@Sevenizz: I will. I will at least look at what is said.

He's making excellent content. I've been following him since he was under 100k subs, his main channel is currently at 1.11 million, he was under 1 mill about a month ago. Guy is killing it right now. He is really good at compiling sources and then explaining his view by using these sources.

since reading your comment I decided to see what he's put out today, (i usually check out what he's putting out 1-2 times a week, he is a work horse putting out multiple stories a day on several channels.)

watched this one linked below, great content, sources brought up include, Newsweek, The Atlantic, FOX, New York Times, some blue check marks on twitter, statements put out by the FBI and a statement put out by the whitehouse.

Somebody mentioned above that they prefer just a news article, because its 3 minutes to scan through, instead of 20 - 30 min of vetting a video. Well if a video is using multiple sources like Tim does, its going to take longer than 3 minutes and you are going to get a lot more information and a lot more context as well.

To each their own, but I love Tim Pools format. I'm not saying people have to care about his personal opinion, but the guy literally puts the sources in the background while talking. If you have problems with what he is talking about the sources are right there for people to check themselves. Which I do a lot when I listen to him. He does a lot of the heavy lifting of digging through the trash in media. I'm happy his content is getting more popular, breaking 1 million was huge for him.

The Bald One is just entertainment. Not a real news source. Linking him as a source/citation, as you often do, is pure cringe. Super cringe.

And his opinion happens to be closer to that of the far right and mostly only attacks the left. He doesn't calls out the right for far more egregious things.

You may as well link Hannity or Tucker at this point. Except they don't pretend to be not conservative like he has to.

I'd rather read straight from those valid sources than Baldy Tim's insane opinions and spin.

The problem with Tim Pool in general, is that his analysis is EXTREMELY lousy. His videos are usually around 25 minutes long, and they are devoid of any jokes or any insightful commentary. So watching his videos is a slog.

His commenatry isdevoid of any real analysis or critical thinking. He often has a dififcult time grasping concepts, doesnt know how to read articles he is citing, many times misrepresenting what he reads. He is terrible with facts, stats and data, misinterpreting them quite often.

I don't want to go further into detail, because I dont want to be overly harsh on the guy. For what it is worth, the guy has done incredibly good for himself for someone who has spent a lot of time homeless and had to drop out of school at the age of 14. Despite his ignorance, he is passionate about his work.

Instead of expecting us to listen to a 20-30 minute podcast. Feel free to just type his points in the thread instead of making us go through a 20-30 minute long video (of a broadcaster many would consider to be quite terrible). Posting a video with no commentary on your end takes no effort. But having to watch a video for half an hour, then having to break it down. You can't expect people to spend an hour debunking a single forum post.

We wont judge you for just reciting Tim Pool's points (or Sargon or whomever). None of my ideas are original either.

Edit: You can also link the articles he goes through as well.

@zaryia: ‘Baldy Tim's’

Name-calling is how you lose any credibility.

Debate 101.

Except when those "valid sources" provide faulty reporting. Like when the majority of the news outlets mis-reported on the Trump Charlottesville rally and took his comments out of context. Or the way they defamed Sandmann (with the courts proving he was in the right) at the Lincoln memorial confrontation last year. Or pretty much any of the "peaceful protest" confrontations this year (namely the one in Albuquerque).

I don't expect you to hold your sources accountable when they fit your political narrative, but that's where people like Tim Pool come in.

How about telling us why his opinions are insane instead of trying to discredit him?

Yes. Valid sources get it wrong sometimes. But most of the time they are accurate, and try to do straight reporting. It's where we get the info from in the first place. I choose them over dumb youtubers. Like how I'll look at a TechPowerUp review for a 3080 over some idiot youtuber like JayZ2Cents who won't provide thermals or decibels.

I'm not into pure opinion/entertainment shows that regurgitate actual news and give their own opinion on the news. Those suck for both the left and right. Especially when it's from a bald grifter.

To answer your last question, he uses anecdotal evidence in laughable fashions to make idiotic unfounded statements: https://preview.redd.it/9bbfdydika651.jpg?width=960&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=c9763055faaea9c1e0cca7cc54b278939b8cfd98

That's not an ad-hom, I wasn't attacking Jeezers nor was it the basis of my critique on Bald Pool.

It's just a joke.

For example I can post studies and facts showing how Trump and his Admin completely mis-handled Corona virus and actually caused people to die. But if I jokingly spell his name "Donald Dump" a few times in that post instead, those facts and studies do not go away. You can't do that.

Hey Zaryia i know you hate tim pools content and I enjoy it. But that aside, watch this video, it makes me laugh so hard every time. it's got everything,

Tim getting insecure about being bald, an incel prankster, and a screaming bashee sjw all in less than 3 minutes. its AMAZIN lmao

One of the few good youtubers (who touches on a serious topic) is Potholer54. He is more of a science journalist, but sadly, the science he does touch is often politicized (evolution, climate change, COVID). I still would refrain from linking his videos, even though they are of VASTLY superior quality compared to any of the political Youtube pundits.

But most YouTubers are Trash, and Tim Pool might be the worst of the worst.

Kyle Kulinski, Tim Pool are both the same, they both tend to go through a bunch of articles, then spin them, misinterpret data, to suit a narrative. Kyle's being that this is why we need Social Democracy. And Tim Pool's being that this is why the democrats are losing.

Their spins and takes are so bad you are better off just reading the source material itself, without the spin.

Edit: I should clarify that Potholer doesnt politicize the science, as he just tends to report what the scientific journals are stating. But a lot of people politicize the science he talks about. That is where the pseudoscience generally comes from. Because pseudoscience often is done to achieve a political agenda.

No. I don't think the moderators have the balls to confront Trump on his nonsense. He'd just talk over them if they did. The only way to win against such a man is not to play.

Looking forward to the debate regardless, though.

@MirkoS77: Will there be a live audience?

@horgen: yes. Muppets.