Sources have no place in a Philosophical Debate other than to define terms and give counterexamples.

Sup. Firstly, I assume I'm not supposed to be showing that sources are logically necessary for a philosophical debate. At most, I might argue that for some philosophical debates, sources are logically necessary for a successful debate - which I am stipulatively defining as one which resolves the issue with the truth. It isn't utterly essential that sources be used in the same way that it essential that I must exist in some form to be taking part in this debate. Rather, I take it that my burden is to show that sources/empirical evidence are relevant, insightful, useful or in some way serve some important purpose (beyond definitions or counterexamples) that justifies their 'place' in a philosophical debate. Con CaseFirstly, the division Pro draws between "philosophical" and "empirical" evidence is misguided. Empirical evidence has a bearing on a wide range of philosophical topics - arguably all of them, in fact. The reason? A priori, or mental justifications for positions such as "the shortest distance between two points is a straight line" and "borrowing something without permission is morally wrong" are reliable or not depending upon how our brains work. Thus, neuroscience has an important role to play in philosophical inquiry. Also, theistic philosophy, normative ethics, political philosophy and many other branches all have clear intersections with empirical evidence. Whether god exists or not obviously has some relation with how the physical universe is. So does the best may to maximise utility, or protect property rights. Even logic is not entirely immune to empirical evidence - advances in quantum physics, for example, have called into doubt the truth of the law of excluded middle: http://plato.stanford.edu... - by the way, explaining why that is would take all too much time and be pointless - you don't need to know why that is the case, only that it is the case. This isn't necessary to prove my point, but it is relevant and carries weight - and I would say, that shows that sources can have a role in a philosophical debate such as this one.Thus, sourcing evidence regarding neuroscience, quantum physics, economics, evolutionary biology has entirely legitimate purposes in a wide range of philosophical issues. Counterarguments."Any honest debater is justified in being concerned about plagiarism. From a philosophical standpoint, I see this as a moot point. I contend that sources which serve to alleviate any concern of plagiarism are outside of the scope of what I am discussing. A debater should be able to express concerns raised by other philosophers in the debater's own words and if they feel that they should reference the philosopher so they are not improperly credited with an original thought, then so be it. This is more of a moral acknowledgement of inspiration rather than a source that serves to prove the debater's point."I consider this a concession of the entire debate - if there is a moral obligation to credit a philosopher with her/his original argument, then that is a reason to allow sources in a philosophical debate. It is clearly within the scope of the debate, because it is not a definition or a counterexample, which are the only exeptions allowed under the resolution.Pro says: "since empiricism is inherently illogical, empirical evidence shouldnotbe used in philosophical debates"This doesn't follow at all. If empricism (i.e. the claim that all or the vast majority of knowedge is derived directly from the senses) is false, this does not mean empirical evidence should be disregarded entirely. Rather, one can maintain that evidence from the sense is viewed, or understood, in the context of a set of mental abilities that interpret and draw conclusions from that evidence. One can maintain that knowledge is derived from both the mental and the empirical, with the former coming prior to the latter.Quotes from Pro:1. "this notion (that the Earth is the center of the Universe) is absurd and thus empirical evidence leads us to accept an incorrect proposition"2. "His logic that because he has yet to become sick that he willneverbecome sick is invalid--it is illogical."3. "if there is empirical evidence that shows people getting sick from eating rotten rye bread, then this empirical evidence provides a counterexample that refutes Bob's claim."Pro is trying to have his cake and eat it - on the one hand he argues that empirical evidence should not be used in defense of positive claims because of those two examples, and on the other he agrees that claims can be refuted with empirical evidence - but he never tells us why it can be used the former case but not the latter.Put another way, if Bob's original reasoning process is fundamentally flawed in the second case, then it is also fundamentally flawed in the third case. Bob's mistake was NOT using empirical methods - his mistake was not consulting ENOUGH empirical evidence. Had he been aware of the evidence from medical biology, he would have realised that his original conclusion, made provisionally likely by his limited set of observations, was superceded by a larger set of more reliable observations.Empirical evidence without any mental structure is NOT required to defend the Con case. The reason physicists generally don't take epicycles to show that the earth is the centre of the universe despite them being compatible is because of a prior worldview in which it seems out of place for the earth to be so central to the universe. This does not show that empirical evidence is useless, it shows that empirical evidence takes place in a context."The critiquer citing Williams should present Williams' argument in their own words to convince the other debater that the critiquer is correct. It's perfectly fine to cite Williams as the source of the argument presented, but the critquer should not merely state Williams refutes the Cogito ergo sum argument as evidence--this is insufficient for a debate."Again, this seems like another concession of the debate. Isn't citing Williams as the source of an argument the same as showing that sources have a place in philosophical debates besides giving definitions or counterexamples? I might want to condense Williams argument into a smaller form to fit the character limits, but also wish to cite his argument so that people can read the argument in extended form if they so wish - is that not a legitimate reason?I have shown that sources have a range of legitimate uses in philosophical debates, that Pro's arguments contradict themselves and that the resolution fails under Pro's own concessions.Vote for meee.