You’re explaining appeal to authority. Requiring a source rather than just random words from a person you’re debating is not fallacious in the least
Well of course I am... I then detail ways in which you can undo that reliance. But I don't think I called it fallacious, did I?
Requesting a source is not an appeal to authority. Without the ability to request sources, you’re saying that everyone in a debate should just take the word of their opponent. If I tell you that there was a mass gun confiscation in the northern US in 1930, are you just going to believe me? Or are you going to ask me where I learned that?
Without the ability to request sources, you’re saying that everyone in a debate should just take the word of their opponent.
No, I'm saying they should put off relying on the appeals to authority while in the conversation and humor said conversation so it doesn't play out like this:
person 1 talking about topic X person 2 asks for sources person 1, "I don't have them" person 2, "okay then we're done here"
This disrupts discourse. The reliance upon appeals to authority in conversation halts any advancement of conversation. You can't possibly think I think no one should source anything they say. But sourcing isn't evidence of truth - it's just pointing to something another person has said before you and in order to think critically, you have to be able to explain yourself beyond, "yeah, I made it up." You're misrepresenting what I'm saying.
(post is archived)