beggars kant be choosers

[UWG Debate Team]

i beg to differ.

i backchanneled about this to others, but guess i should state it here. it
seems to me that any ethical framework that is so good/right/useful that
it is "key, judge" can be (and perhaps should be) defended by the debaters
in their own voice and with their own words. there would be no need to
quote "qualified" sources to warrant a universally valid claim.  the use
of evidence to support ethical frameworks seems superfluous.
        and, by using your own words, you may even come up with a better
framework-- as well as avoid plagiarism. for example, i might defend "no
sentient being should ever be used as a means to an end."  such phrasing
would be more inclusive and also be so different from Kant's idea as to
not require crediting him.
        this concept is explained further in sarah G's post about
expanding upon ideas. why quote someone else if you can say it better
yourself?
        i guess waht i'm saying is we, as a community, need to investigate
the reasons WHY we read evidence.
         if the purpose is to allign our arguments with "authorities",
then i don't think it's that ludicrous to say that debaters must be
prepared to defend their allies (not just the particular quotes they've
extracted). any team seeking to strengthen their claims by associating
it with a particular source should be reciprocally responsible for that
association. it's non-sensical to say that you can separate a claim made
by a particular author from that author's credibility when the REASON WHY
YOU QUOTE THAT PERSON IS TO INCREASE THE LEGITIMACY OF YOUR CLAIM.
         if the reason why we do it is b/c "they just said it better" then
it doesn't seem a reach for a team to question the use of specific terms
used in that quote.
        if it's to be sure and give credit to the originator
of the idea, then THIS COMMUNITY IS SERIOUSLY VIOLATING THE SPIRIT, AND
MANY TIMES THE LAW, OF THIS NORM. how many times is evidence quoted w/o
noting the author? "sacramento bee, 99". or who exactly is "smith in 97"?
and lord knows how many times i've read evidence that includes quotes from
unidentified sources ("he stated..." or "she warned..." or even "the
report concluded...") to put it bluntly, if giving due credit is the
reason we read evidence, then we're all a bunch of lying cheats who
constantly "steal" others lines without recognizing them properly.
        only by understanding why we qote other in debates can we know
what all we must be prepared to defend in a round.


hester

On Thu, 13 Apr 2000, Roger Saad wrote:

> One more thing in addition to Kamal and Bill's comments.  Hester's argument
> seems to beg the question of whether or not as debaters we are "advocating"
> KANT's ethical framework, or if we are establishing an ethical framework of
> our own for the debate round and using evidence by Kant to support that
> idea.  I think this becomes an especially valid concern given that from the
> evidence I have read about the impact of gendered language. It is the use of
> this language that perpetuates gender hierarchies.  If there is no intent
> and the language is not part of that teams speech act, why does the author's
> intent matter?
>
> ______________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>