Can we get a rule change on this please?

[Wootah]

Currently one member of the forum JW simply posts links to other threads and doesn't debate in the threads they join.

Here in post 9 on this topic there is just a link to another thread and no debate on the topic
viewtopic.php?p=1134006#p1134006

Links are for references, for more info but not meant to replace arguments.

Am I correct on this? I mean we could all just start linking to our old posts but I think the idea is to debate in the topic.

Is this something mods would like to see changes, should I start reporting it?

[AgnosticBoy]

[Replying to Wootah in post #1]
I don't see a problem with responding with a link just as long there's also an explanation for how it is relevant and/or specifics on finding the relevant info. Some people post links without any accompanying details as if readers should go reading a long article looking for the relevant details, and that assumes that there are relevant details (and if not, it's a waste of the reader's time).

At least JW posted some details for the link, like what it was about, and it wasn't hard to find the relevant information. I assume what he linked to was relevant to the topic or some discussion that came up within the thread. You could ask JW for more details, and if they always respond by giving only links repeatedly, then that could be a problem.

Generally, I wouldn't want to restrict someone's style unless it was causing a big problem by affecting the quality of the discussion.

Just my two cents.

[otseng]

Yeah, people should not simply use links to debate. There's no explicit rule on this, but you can just ask them to present their case. I'd rather keep rules to a minimum if possible.

[Wootah]

[Replying to Wootah in post #1]
I don't see a problem with responding with a link just as long there's also an explanation for how it is relevant and/or specifics on finding the relevant info. Some people post links without any accompanying details as if readers should go reading a long article looking for the relevant details, and that assumes that there are relevant details (and if not, it's a waste of the reader's time).

At least JW posted some details for the link, like what it was about, and it wasn't hard to find the relevant information. I assume what he linked to was relevant to the topic or some discussion that came up within the thread. You could ask JW for more details, and if they always respond by giving only links repeatedly, then that could be a problem.

Generally, I wouldn't want to restrict someone's style unless it was causing a big problem by affecting the quality of the discussion.

Just my two cents.

This is a demo of what I mean:

Why linking and not debating is wrong
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=41145

Please see my other posts on this

Why linking and not debating is wrong 1
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=41145

Why linking and not debating is wrong 2
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=41145

Why linking and not debating is wrong 3
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=41145

[AgnosticBoy]

This is a demo of what I mean:

Why linking and not debating is wrong
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=41145

Please see my other posts on this

Why linking and not debating is wrong 1
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=41145

Why linking and not debating is wrong 2
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=41145

Why linking and not debating is wrong 3
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=41145

That's an issue, but I see it more as a style issue and not a big one worth legislating on, imo. I view it as JW saying, I've answered this elsewhere and here is the link for it. It could become a problem when they don't tell you what the link would prove or is for and if it's not easy on the reader to find the relevant information. JW's linked post usually contain only the relevant information from what I've seen so far.

Now if you want to see a bad way of posting links (lacking accompanying information, leaving readers to weed though long articles, etc) then here's a good example below (H2H on the resurrection):

As per strict adherence to debate agreement "Post 5: Zzyzx Presents Evidence for Historical Claim of his Choice Post 6: WinePusher Presents Rebuttal", I present the Historical claim of my choice:

On August 6, 1945 Hiroshima, Japan was struck by an atomic bomb.

I accept this as a truthful and accurate statement of the event mentioned and cite a wide range of disconnected sources that report the event.

http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bom ... d_Nagasaki
http://history1900s.about.com/od/worldw ... oshima.htm
http://www.hiroshima-remembered.com/
http://www.lewrockwell.com/raico/raico22.html
http://www.dannen.com/decision/
http://www.hiroshimacommittee.org/Facts ... ombing.htm
http://www.history.com/topics/bombing-o ... d-nagasaki
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/bombing- ... asaki.html
http://www.educationforjustice.org/reso ... saki-facts
http://www.tiptoptens.com/2011/06/05/10 ... cks-facts/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/0 ... 72473.html
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cac ... DE7Zvj5nrQ


Thousands of additional references from worldwide sources can be cited if there is any doubt that the event occurred. To the best of my knowledge there are no claims that the event did not occur.

I look forward to your rebuttal.

Your participation in this thread is nothing short of a 'failure' Zzyzx. I, once again, invite readers to compare Zzyzx performance in this thread with McCulloch performance in the Sacred V. Secular Ancient Historical Evidence Thread. We have one non-christian who presents an argument in his own words, with corresponding evidence to support his argument. Then we have one non-christian who presents links, and can only argue by link because he possesses 'no evidence of knowledge or training in the field.' For future reference Zzyzx, head to head debates clearly are not your thing, and neither are debates over any issue dealing with history, so you should avoid them. Stick to playing with rocks instead, where you can assert at least some authority.

[Wootah]

[Replying to AgnosticBoy in post #5]

Bring back wine pusher and zzyzx and then we can talk about joey ....

OK on topic

The issue is what if I reply via links to JW.

It's only working because one guy is 'being rude' and the rest of us aren't.