It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Fight Club Pub.

page: 479
40
<< 476  477  478    480  481  482 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by GAOTU789

Originally posted by americandingbat
reply to post by GAOTU789
 


I think the main question is, what counts as a reference? I always assumed that the images counted, but apparently they don't.

And pdf's of two different chapters of one book are apparently two resources even if they're found on one web page. But I assume that if I actually owned the book and referenced that instead, the two chapters would count as one resource.


If the two links are separate pdf's but linked from the same site they should only be one reference. That is spelled out in the rules as well. Did I miss this discussion? I have been trying to keep up in the pub but I may have missed this.


Yup, you missed this one. And it's the one that got me started on my link rampage





If they come from the same pdf but linked twice for different chapters, than it is one reference.


What if they are two pdf's, each of which is one chapter of a book and both of which were downloaded from one webpage?


Links to multiple pages within a single domain count as 1 reference but there is a maximum of 3 individual links per reference, then further links from that domain count as a new reference.


Okay, maybe this was the sentence that's really been giving me problems. Because in the past I have interpreted the "links to multiple pages within a single domain count as 1 reference" to mean that for example linking to two separate pages on Wikipedia (one domain) could count as one reference.

But now it seems that's not true, so I don't understand how to interpret that rule.



How about one online article that covers 5 pages? Five separate references if you use one sentence from each page?


If you linked to each page separately, than it would be three references. One for the first three links then two for the other ones. Why would you want to do that though? Link it once than state that on page three/five of the article, it also says (use the external quotes for the sentence if you need to)..... A Free tip for all.


That seems to me again to go against the "domain" rule. And mostly I would want to do that because it's very hard to overcome years and years of training to source everything you say that's not your own personal opinion



Originally posted by skeptic1
reply to post by americandingbat
 


And, now, we are all confused.




I would think that the 10 sentences were the total amount of external material (not your own words) that you could use per post from an external source.

You can quote your opponent to your heart's content.


Yes, I agree. The bit I added was meant to refer to a situation where your opponent had used a source and you quoted material from that source that he/she had not used. For example, to expose quote mining, or even just to back up a separate point.

So, not quoting your opponent, but quoting your opponent's source. That's what would count against the 10 sentences. But not against the 5 sources, from what was said earlier, because apparently using your opponent's source doesn't require counting it as one of your sources.




posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 09:17 PM
link   
And a Partridge In a Pear Tree...



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frankidealist35
Does the amount of stars that someone gets for their post affect how the judges think about a poster during a debate?


It is my observation and belief that debate judges are chosen for their intelligence and ability to be impartial to such factors as stars, points, and even friendships.


Though many of us at times may not agree with a judge or two, I have yet to observe anything by honesty and fairness on their part.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by americandingbat
 


Sheesh groundsinker, I though that was a test post.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by americandingbat
 


And, that cinches my decision to stick with the BS and rhetoric.

Takes most of the confusion out of everything.


And, I thought it was "earthsinker".......


[edit on 2/19/2009 by skeptic1]



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 


Where is AshleyD when you need a fellow OCD around



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 09:30 PM
link   
reply to post by americandingbat
 


I rescind my frustrated comment; GAOTU can make the call on the pdf question...



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 09:34 PM
link   
reply to post by MemoryShock
 


and the question of what 3 links per domain means? (for example, with reference to wikipedia. But also with reference to any website where you use info from more than one page.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by americandingbat
and the question of what 3 links per domain means? (for example, with reference to wikipedia. But also with reference to any website where you use info from more than one page.


That's a GAOTU question...



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 09:36 PM
link   
reply to post by americandingbat
 


Right, any more of this and I'm going Anonymous on the whole FCP!



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by MemoryShock
That's a GAOTU question...




I shall await the wisdom of GAOTU.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 09:42 PM
link   
Sheesh!!!!

FIGHTERS!!!

If you are sourcing so much that your afraid your breaking the rules, are you debating, or in a research contest?


de⋅bate
   /dɪˈbeɪt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [di-beyt] Show IPA Pronunciation
noun, verb, -bat⋅ed, -bat⋅ing.
–noun
1. a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints: a debate in the Senate on farm price supports.
2. a formal contest in which the affirmative and negative sides of a proposition are advocated by opposing speakers.
3. deliberation; consideration.

Dictionary

The entire point of a formal debate is to "Prove" that YOU know more, or can present your side in better fashion then your opponent. NOT that you can research better...

We all KNOW everyone can research; what we DON'T know is what YOU know about the subject..

I'll go ahead and let a small cat out of a big bag..

When I read/judge a debate; I rarely if EVER click on links or pay much attention to anything sourced. I could care less what someone outside of ATS and the Debate Forum has to say on the subject. All I care about is what the Fighter has to say and how the Fighter presents their argument.

I can't remember when I have ever come close to even using all the source links, I may have, but I don't remember ever worrying about the limit.

Now of course this is just my opinion and as you will notice I sourced to prove the point.

How many of you clicked on the "Dictionary" link? Thought so..

Semper



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 09:46 PM
link   
And nobody answered my image code question, so I said to heck with waiting and did it my way. If it ain't right and someone objects, at least we'll find out what the right way is.



... and by the way Shock, the rules say TWO images per post, not three.





posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 09:49 PM
link   
....hides in the corner.....desperate for my debate opponent to show up....it's getting dangerous in here.....




posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis


How many of you clicked on the "Dictionary" link? Thought so..



*raises hand*

It's not about whether you can research. It's about giving your readers a source to verify your facts. Because no matter how much your debate is based on rhetoric, you have to have facts. In my current debate, we have facts about criminal trials. Linking to Wikipedia so that judges who may not be following them can see that I'm not making up stuff to fit the argument is not research, it's courtesy.

What I do with the information and how I present it is rhetoric. And that's what will win or lose the debate. But the fact is that until I looked it up in Wikipedia and verified it by checking their sources, I had no idea about the outcome of any of the cases that are being cited. It's hard to show off rhetorically if you don't have any information.

But note, that does not mean that I didn't have any knowledge about the debate topic. Just about certain specific examples that have been raised.

That's what citations are for.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Heike
 


Your images.


reply to post by americandingbat
 



What if they are two pdf's, each of which is one chapter of a book and both of which were downloaded from one webpage?


One reference.


for example linking to two separate pages on Wikipedia (one domain) could count as one reference.


Nope and this has been addressed in an old tourney thread from a while back. Damned if I can find it though. Using an encyclopedia type site as one reference doesn't count. You couldn't use the front page of the Gutenberg project as one reference to three books or the home page of pub med to link to three different studies and call it one source. Wiki is the same thing.

In a challenge match maybe but during tournament time, the rules are more strict.


That seems to me again to go against the "domain" rule. And mostly I would want to do that because it's very hard to overcome years and years of training to source everything you say that's not your own personal opinion


You would be sourcing and giving proper accreditation to it though with the external quote tags.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 10:09 PM
link   
reply to post by GAOTU789
 




What does Police Academy have to do with this?




posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by GAOTU789


What if they are two pdf's, each of which is one chapter of a book and both of which were downloaded from one webpage?


One reference.


Thank you.



for example linking to two separate pages on Wikipedia (one domain) could count as one reference.


Nope and this has been addressed in an old tourney thread from a while back. Damned if I can find it though. Using an encyclopedia type site as one reference doesn't count. You couldn't use the front page of the Gutenberg project as one reference to three books or the home page of pub med to link to three different studies and call it one source. Wiki is the same thing.


Thank you. That makes sense. But I was thrown off by the word "domain".



And mostly I would want to do that because it's very hard to overcome years and years of training to source everything you say that's not your own personal opinion


You would be sourcing and giving proper accreditation to it though with the external quote tags.


I mostly run into trouble with sources that I'm not using actual quotes from, but that I'm providing so that readers/judges can verify what I've said and see where I'm getting my examples.

An example is that in my opening for this debate, I discuss three individual trials. I would have liked to provide a link for each, but it was also very important to me to get the 6th Amendment in there, which required its own link. I didn't actually quote any external material about two of the trials, but I did want to let the judges know where they could verify what I had said about them.

EDIT to add an example above and add one more question below so that hopefully I can do all my pissing people off in one night and never revisit the topic again:

If you use a source that you've already used in a previous post (less than three times) or if you use something from your opponent's source, should that be linked separately and counted into the 5 resources for that post?

[edit on 2/19/09 by americandingbat]



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
How many of you clicked on the "Dictionary" link? Thought so..


Lol, I did! But I was looking for ammunition - I was going to castigate you for using the noun definition of 'debate', when the verb definition includes the word 'formal', which implies explicitly defined rules.


I agree with you about following source links. They're mostly for your opponent and formality's sake, not the readers/judges necessarily. I usually consider evidence in a source-linked document that isn't quoted or mentioned in the debate to not have been 'introduced into evidence', and thus not count towards the strength of the debater's argument, unless there's some contention about interpretation, etc.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by americandingbat
EDIT to add an example above and add one more question below so that hopefully I can do all my pissing people off in one night and never revisit the topic again:


Make no mistake; we love ya for it...


And I am not sure I want to debate you any more...my brain would explode!


Edit to Add: I jest on the latter comment...



[edit on 19-2-2009 by MemoryShock]




top topics



 
40
<< 476  477  478    480  481  482 >>

log in

join