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

Unfortunately, Pro believes, as the resolution is stated, that Pro's position is now untenable.While Pro does not agree with most of Con's arguments, Con was able to present a valid reason to use a source other than for definitions, to present a counterexample, or to avoid the appearance of plagiarism.Pro concedes that offering a synopsis of someone else's work, and then citing their work to provide more detail (if the debater or voters wish) is a use of sources which is not a definition, not a counterexample, and, although similar to avoidance of plagiarism, not the same. In fact, Pro can now, himself, come up with another instance where sources would be useful other than those mentioned in the resolution (and clarification of resolution).Due to this concession, Pro has no choice but to recommend a vote for the Con.While Pro concedes the debate, in the spirit of debate, I will continue, as I feel Con has only presented one example where sources would be useful so far. If Con feels it is unnecessary or not fruitful to continue the debate, then Pro will cheerfully oblige. It is unnecessary for Con to present any arguments in Round 2 or Round 3 to win this debate.As for the plagiarism use case, Pro feels that since this was mentioned in the clarification of resolution and that it's clear by Pro's arguments that this use was to be excluded.Empirical Evidence:Con incorrectly asserted that Pro claimed empirical arguments/evidence had no place whatsoever in philosophical debates. Pro, in fact made no such claim rather stated that empirical evidence should only be used when trying to prove a negative (i.e. as a counterexample)."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." - ConThere is no doubt that empirical evidence plays a role in our understanding of the world. In a science debate, such empirical evidence supporting one's claim is indeed valid (and probably necessary). However, when discussing philosophy, I believe there is a much higher standard. I believe that for statements and claims to be taken is true, that there must be a logical (or rational) reason. In my opinion, empirical evidence cannnot meet this standard (except when used as a counterexample)."Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument." [1]Furthermore, Pro believes that all of Con's examples where empirical evidence is reasonable are in fact used as counterexamples."Bob's mistake was NOT using empirical methods - his mistake was not consulting ENOUGH empirical evidence." - ConOne problem here is we should not characterize Bob's hypothesis (that eating rotten bread is safe) as a "mistake". I actually argue that Bob is merely incorrect, not that his hypothesis is definitively false. To clarify, saying that it is wrong that eating rotten bread is safe, does not necessarily mean that eating rotten bread is unsafe. In fact Bob's own experiences seem to counter that argument. The truth is that sometimes Bob's hypothesis is true and sometimes it is false. The empirical studies that show that you sometimes get sick from eating rotten bread shows that Bob's hypothesis is incorrect, while the fact that Bob never got sick, shows that the negation is also not true: eating rotten bread is unsafe. Obviously, this is not exactly a formal example, as we would need to actually define what we mean by safe and unsafe."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." - ConI do not really see how this line of argument pertains to whether or not empirical evidence is useful other than to present counterexamples. In fact, ultimately, this worldview was changed because empirical evidence presented counterexamples to the Earth-centric world view. Such counterexamples include the fact that planets orbit in elliipses not circles and the anamolous orbit of Mercury which empirically provided a counterexample to Newtonian gravity.I think the problem with Con's line of arguments for the use of empirical evidence comes from the fact that it is true that you can always frame an argument from two different angles. You can either prove the claim or prove that the negation of the claim is false. This is assuming that the given claim is either universally true or universally false (which is actually generally not the case). Perfect example of this is Bob's hypothesis. Bob's hypothesis that eating rotten bread is safe can be shown to not be universally true with a counterexample provided by empirical evidence. However, that evidence does not show that eating rotten bread is safe is universally false! In fact we can use Bob's own empirical studies to show that it indeed it is not the case that eating rotten bread is safe is universally false.Pro holds that none of Con's instances show that empirical evidence is used in any way other than to provide a counterexample to a claim.The last point made by Con is conceded by Pro.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...;(see source on Wikipedia)