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

Resolution: Sources have no place in a Philosophical Debate other than to define terms or provide counterexamples.Clarification of Resolution: "or" is meant in the mathematical sense, meaning that sources are reasonable to use in philosophical debate when either they are used to define terms or used to provide counterexamples, or both.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.BOP: Con has the BOP. Pro will present arguments that the resolution is true. To properly refute Pro, Con must show that indeed sources are necessary in, at least some, Philosophical debates (as outlined in the resolution--i.e. they must present arguments for sources other than definitions or counterexamples). If Con can present at least one case where sources are necessary, then Con has won the debate.Sources: As the purpose of this debate is to determine whether or not sources are necessary, sources must be allowed in this debate. However, Con cannot present a source and then use the existence of that source in this debate as refutation of the resolution. On the other hand, Con is justified in argueing that any sources provided by Pro constitute an example of why sources are necessary (again, as outlined in the resolution).In the spirit of the purpose of this debate, Con should not present unreasonable amounts of sources. If Con presents a multitude of sources without explaining how each source is relevant to this debate, this is grounds for voting Pro.Caveat: Con can theoretically present a "counterexample" which references another philosophical debate where sources are used. For this to be a valid refutation of the resolution, Con must argue for why the sources in their counterexample are necessary, rather than merely stating: "Here is an example where sources are are used in a debate."Structure of Debate:This debate is 3 rounds long to allow for both parties to make their case and present new arguments in Round 2 depending on arguments made in Round 1.Round 1: Both parties will present their case. Pro: Pro is expected to present their case for the resolution. Con: Con is expected to rebut Pro's case and/or present a counter case (i.e. an example such that sources are necessary in a philosophical debate) Round 2: Rebuttal - new arguments are allowed. Pro: Pro is expected to rebut all claims made by Con in Round 1 and is allowed to make new arguments as they see fit. Con: Con, by the end of this round, should have refuted all claims made by Pro (in both Round 1 and Round 2)--any claim that Pro has made to this point that is not refuted in this round is considered to be conceded by Con. Con may rebut arguments made in Round 1 by Pro that they[Con] did not refute in Round 1. Con may introduce new arguments. Although this is difficult to enforce, Con should try to avoid making new arguments that would reasonably require more than 1 more round of debate. As an example, Con should not ask questions of Pro which are intended to elicit a response from Pro such that Con will refute the logical response in Round 3. Round 3: Final Rebuttal/Conclusion. No new arguments are allowed! Pro: Pro will rebut all of Con's claims made in Round 2 and conclude. Con: Con may refute Pro's Round 3 rebuttal and then conclude. How to win this debate: For Pro to win this debate, they must 1) motivate and defend why sources should not be used in philosophical debates and 2) must refute all of Con's examples of why sources are necessary. If Pro fails to convince why sources should not be used or Con shows that sources are necessary in at least some philosophical debates, then Con has won the debate. Opening Arguments:I see that evidence can be divided into two categories: Empirical Evidence Philosophical Evidence I argue, prima facie, that empirical evidence has no bearing on philosophical debates. Philosophical debates deal in the rational (or logical) conclusions one can reach. Since empiricism is inherently illogical, empirical evidence should not be used in philosophical debates. As a simple counterexample, I present the following proposition:The Earth is the center of the universe because epicycles correctly predict the position of the planets.Definition of Epicycle (for reference): http://en.wikipedia.org...;Con must bear with me (and to a large extent, accept this particular argument). First, I want to be clear that I am not arguing that the Earth is the center of the Universe. Instead, I am arguing that the empirical evidence (i.e. the measured positions of the planets) are in agreement with the theory of epicycles and thus that the Earth is the center of the Universe (according to this theory). At this point I expect both Pro and Con to agree that this notion (that the Earth is the center of the Universe) is absurd and thus empirical evidence leads us to accept an incorrect proposition.Here is a simpler example of why empiricism is incorrect. Let's consider that Bob routinely eats rye bread that is one month past its expiration date. Bob observes that despite the appearance of mold on the bread that he, within 5 years of habitually eating this moldy bread, never gets sick. Based on the empirical evidence, Bob assumes the bread is safe to eat within a month of its expiration date. However, we know that eventualy Bob will become sick (perhaps due to ergot poisoning). His logic that because he has yet to become sick that he will never become sick is invalid--it is illogical.These two examples provide examples of why empiricism is illogical and thus empirical evidence should not be presented as evidence of a philosophical argument, unless that empirical evidence provides a counterexample to the argument being made.The rye bread example is a perfect example of where empirical evidence provides a valid counterexample of a given claim. Bob claims that eating rye bread within a month of its expiration date is safe. Yet 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.Empirical evidence is only a valid source when providing a counterexample.I almost reject philosophical evidence outright. By philosophical evidence, I mean external (not from the debater) logical arguments for or against whatever topic is being debated, including hypothetical examples.Do not get me wrong, this is the crux of any philosophical debate. But that is why such deferments should not be used as sources. As an example, if I wish to refute the Cogito argument, I might merely say, see Williams refutations [1]. First, the citation alone, does not refute the Cogito argument. If I wish to use Williams' argument against cogito ergo sum, then I should state and defend it. The other debater is not (or at least should not be) interested in debating Williams. If they were, they could go read the work of Williams. Such referrals are better sutied for discussions, not debates. 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.[1] Criticisms of Cogito ergo sum: http://en.wikipedia.org...