- Jan 28, 2012
You don't have to prove a source is not credible if it's already widely regarded as not credible. That only has to happen if the source hasn't been shown to be lacking credibility already. And you know what it shows when you show a source isn't credible? The validity of your information is in check. Many judges view that as game over. If your evidence is faulty, your argument falls apart.EstrogenicMuscle said:You can dismiss a source as not credible if you can prove it is not credible.Bashfluff said:No, in debate you can dismiss sources that are not credible.
You, as of currently, have dismissed the source as not credible without making any rebuttal to the claims.
It doesn't matter what site information is posted on. It may still be true or not true. It is much like the ad hominem attack. A person may be unintelligent, and you may say she or he is unintelligent. But calling a person unintelligent does not disprove their point. A fool may say that energy cannot be created or destroyed. But the statement energy cannot be created or destroyed is true no matter where it is said or who says it.
Fox News is a very much not reputable news source and many things on Fox News are made up.Bashfluff said:Just like any other source that isn't credible, like Fox News.
That does not mean everything on Fox News is false and can be outright dismissed.
Yes, arguments should be judged on their own merits. But consider this: most creationist sites post evidence that has been shown to be faulty. They've done this constantly and consistently for years. All of a sudden, they post a new article with new evidence. What do you think about that evidence? Do you think it's likely to be true or not? Are YOU going to waste your time with it? Predictive power. Your source is not credible, and I'm not going to waste my time with it. Defend it to someone else. I came here to talk with people. If you want to talk, feel free. If you don't, stop trying.