You should not be given points for using sources on DDO

Con has listed 4 scenarios where awarding sources is useful. I can think of 6 reasons why it is not. 1.) If a person has a degree in theology does this person really need to list sources. Surely the information that they have learnt is better than picking out information from the internet just for the sources point. 2.) Some debates are based on opinion (ie. red is better than yellow) someone may decide to define the terms and list the link to the page just for the sources point. Since their opponent cannot find any sources that give any relevant evidence to back up his case he does not have a source. 3.) If the debate falls under a certain category (ie. philosophy) it is down to the debater to prove that x is more moral than y (for example) there is no need for sources in this situation. 4.) Sometimes the limitation of characters can stop there being enough room for sources to be provided. This results in either a lack of sources or the debater being forced to shorten their argument. 5.) Although sources can be extremely important in certain debates. I believe that the voting system should be based on criteria that should be met for all debates. The term 'sources' can only be used as criteria for specific debates. 6.) Sometimes people are pressured into thinking that they have to use sources in a debate and their debate falls apart when they try to use other peoples arguments just for points. Again, looking at your example this is specific to certain debates. Lets say that Pro has a degree in philosophy and hasn't used any sources - just his brain. Con uses Wikipedia. He will still receive the sources point since no sources have been provided for Pro. Con's information could be completely wrong but voters feel that there is no need to check how truthful the source really is. It appears clear that Con has used better sources. There is no greater source than the brain. Elaborating on your example. Voters often don't check the content of the source. They judge it by quantity or by their own bias. Regarding your 3rd point claiming that certain sources are full of bias. Bias does not necessarily mean that the source is wrong or bad. Bias sources sometimes provide good reasons to be bias. Some sources can see both sides of the argument but if you are going to write a page of information on a topic you usually have an opinion on it. Your paragraph about sources being necessary in certain debates (4) is true in some cases. However, as I mentioned earlier. Debate criteria should consist of things that are required in all debates. Of course your example makes sense and as I spoke about in the first round - I am not against the idea of using sources. I just feel that points should not be awarded for this. I will now provide an alternative solution to using sources. Since the topic of a more 'convincing argument' meets the criteria for all debates I suggest that instead of using sources as a voting option, if sources are necessary and are not provided then you should take this into account when voting for a more 'convincing argument'. Surely if Pro provides statistics without sources and Con does then it makes con's argument more convincing. Sources effect how convincing an argument is and as a result the two headings (sources and more convincing argument) should be linked in as one topic - keeping the heading more convincing argument since sources is only a small part of what makes up a convincing argument. Sources are important but they do not necessarily need to come under their own heading. I await Con's case. Sources http://www.princeton.edu... I have used a source because as I have said I am not against sources I just cite them when I have to.