Quote:
Originally Posted by redsocialist
Like i said "biased" is BS word to say you just don't agree with the source. Every source is biased. The best "source" is to go see it yourself either on video or in person.
|
Whoever told you that apparently forgot to tell you what "reference" means. What you just said is one of the most basic things that I think almost everyone here knows. It's called "source criticism" and I think you could practise that too. But that's not the point.
The point is what Raptor1 told you and I quote:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Raptor1
Citing (largely dubious) websites and telling us to search there does not constitute proof that the alleged genocide you say is being committed.
|
You are not using sources for an argument, you are making them do the arguing for you. That's a lazy man's solution. Or an ignorant man's solution, whichever one you prefer. If I said: "You are wrong, go read a book", even I would laugh myself out of the room. Instead the proper way would be to say: "X is like this, and it's based on that and that source" with direct links or references to pages.
Then we could argue about the sources if necessary without having to discuss whole websites. Just like it would be stupid if we had to prove that a whole book is bad if we wanted to argue about a certain point made by someone. It could be done after that, but it shouldn't be necessary. Vague links contribute to nothing, especially if you are just throwing them around.