Absolute Wuss

[Bridge]

In a scholarly and formal debate, directing people to a book is not unheard of and is considered proper and formal. In fact, most of the time the publications are purchased and read before the debate which then become part of the discussion during the debate. It is not in anyway unreasonable to direct someone to third-party sources. Unless you make an absolute statement, a third-party source or some other form of assumed evidence is required. Journalists list their sources all the time, even going so far as to provide a page number.

It is unfortunate that the so-called debate that has been going on in this topic has been constantly leaning towards informality, coupled with unreasonable reasoning, sarcasm and foul language. However, i also realize those choosing to engage the debate may have never considered sticking to formality. I would take the side of Cranky Old Man as far as the way he has presented proper statements within the debate. Unfortunately, sarcasm is a beast that is difficult to tame, but i also realize that it sometimes can help relieve the person of some stress, or head-to-desk injury.

If those choosing to not go out of their way for the very evidence they so requested, then they should simply stop attempting to make a discussion beyond from what they've already made. As far as i can see, constantly requesting for evidence--especially with the assumption that the sources already provided are merely (potential) sensationalist [material]--is all that i'd expect to occur for the remainder of the "debate."

In case you didn't notice, this is an internet forum. There was no pre-debate meeting and no mutual pool of evidence was decided upon. I'm not actively looking to be proved wrong by looking up evidence against my statements and so it's not my problem if he is uninterested or otherwise incapable of doing so.

In real debates, which is a tradition in my college so I am quite familiar with them, a short statement following your reference is the bare mininum. You can't just say "Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Cranky Old Man is wrong and if you read this book you will see why. So, yeah. Bye?". Something more appropriate would be: "Bridge has no idea what he is talking about and clearly has no experience whatsoever and refuses to listen to reason. In his book, "Absolute Proof" by Mr. Truth, he goes on to explain how the human mind is in fact affected in a significant way by videogame violence. A test was carried out by experienced scientists at <place> which yielded the following results: <proof>".

What's so difficult about that? I don't want to put in any effort to participate in a debate, which is a healthy activity and fun if done in a civil manner, if my opponent won't even try.