There are some colleges that actually use this method: www.eastcentral.edu/free/ai-facu...

There are also tools built for this directly, such as Draftback: chromewebstore.google.com/detail/draft...

Funny enough, that's basically the strategy I adopted over the past few months. Telling people that I was studying Eastern European history made them bored. But if I told them I was a student of military history, then they got interested. Learning history became learning information warfare, lol.

It's an interesting balance that everyone in academia grapples with: How do I convey my knowledge and ideas in a way that fits for this paper/presentation/lecture/etc.? The medium and audience shifts that approach. I can take pride in the paper, while knowing my audience are not from the same field.

Checked what was said on birdsite to make sure I understood. I generally agree. My first presentation was just reading my paper. The commentators said they didn't understand it. After that, I started to try and speak to the audience itself, while giving them the paper if they wished. Better received

It's interesting when reading the actual cited material for a book is the greatest argument against that same book.

In creating this, I'm hoping to give somewhat of a reference sheet for anybody dealing with Libertarian nonsense regarding Ukraine. This is only the first of many sections, so work still needs to be done. Still, my plan is to truck on, and work through as much of this as I can.

Within this section, Horton managed to either misattribute his own source, deliberately change around the wording of a source, or deliberately change the vocabulary used within the source. That's not even to mention the one point that he quoted what was clearly misinformation. It's a mess, in short.

Meanwhile, Horton will cite five sources in one sentence that have nothing to do with the actual material of the sentence, and basically cover far-spread ideas that aren't even related. I genuinely have no idea how anybody reads his book without going insane.

It's not the number of materials we cite that makes research robust. Rather, it is the precise nature and understanding of what we cite, which is used to bolster the idea that we are arguing. We don't just say "here's fifty articles," we say, "here's fifty articles that support my argument."

I also think this will be a good exercise in demonstrating how citations themselves are not foolproof shields to criticism. Horton advertises the book as having a high amount of citations, so he must be educated on the topic to an expert level. This is missing the point of why we cite materials.