US Political debate thread

[Kuu]

Alright, I think I'll sign up too if it isn't too late. I'll sign up as Republican I guess. I'm not a Republican... but I agree with them on more things than I do Democrats.

[BluePriest]

immigration.

'nuff said.

[gavsword]

So I am officially announcing Economics as our first topic! Teams prepare your topics, debates begin monday.

Our Second topic will be Filibusters!

Nominate 3rd Week topics now! Nomination period ends Monday and the next poll will be unlocked.

[Five In One]

I have a question about sources. Can we use non-website sources for our arguments? I ask this because I have a book for my economics class and one for history, too, and I thought it would lead to some confusion because it's harder to determine if the sources actually exist. If we can use non-website sources, is there a specific format we need to use?

Also, the new poll topic is locked already.

[gavsword]

I have a question about sources. Can we use non-website sources for our arguments? I ask this because I have a book for my economics class and one for history, too, and I thought it would lead to some confusion because it's harder to determine if the sources actually exist. If we can use non-website sources, is there a specific format we need to use?

Also, the new poll topic is locked already.

I'm going to talk to Doublecross and then I'll get back to you on the book.

The new poll is supposed to be locked. I'll add more types as nominations come up and

Nominate 3rd Week topics now! Nomination period ends Monday and the next poll will be unlocked.

already got that covered

[LongDono]

Tabacco laws.
If it is selected as a topic I will research it, but honestly some of the stuff in it should just be ban.
Also cyber security is a big thing.

[gavsword]

Ill add them both

[doublecross]

I would say non-book sources are allowed.

Personally, I would be inclined to allow all sources, but only the ones listed in the original post can be used as outright fact (and, even those, can be disputed, if we are capable of doing that with civility).

However, anything you see that helps make your point, you could mention, but that is not to say the the community is necessarily going to accept it as a valid source.

Point is, there is a ton of information out there, and not all of it agrees. We shouldn't arbitrarily reject certain sources. Instead, we should view each source with a critical eye.

Instead of going "OH MY GOD THAT IS FOX/MSNBC YOU CAN'T USE THAT"
We should go "Yes, I see your point, but that source is known to be biased. I found a source that disagrees." and then proceed with civil discourse from there.

But, I am just one of two moderators. This is not a final decision.

[Essence]

Ideally, we could all use sources that we all have access to (i.e. are available online.)  If you have a book that says something, chances are very, very good that someone online has said the same thing; look it up!

[doublecross]

That is a good point.

Even if we do allow print sources, online are preferred.

If you must include an online source, please give a direct quotation, as well as proper MLA citation.

I have access to a large collection of online versions of print sources, and I could (unless this book is very obscure), verify that your quote, in fact, does exist.

[Five In One]

Okay. Thanks for clearing things up for me.

[BluePriest]

Even if we do allow print sources, online are preferred.

If you must include an online source, please give a direct quotation, as well as proper MLA citation.

whats clear about that? lol.