[eDebate] Ledewitz terrorism link to Morrison

Josh Hoe jbhdb8
Thu Sep 7 11:29:11 CDT 2006

Oh, and if I misunderstood your complaint and you were asking a different
question (possible as I am tired) I apologize for seeming grumpy.


On 9/7/06, scottelliott at grandecom.net <scottelliott at grandecom.net> wrote:
> I have a question for Josh and others. Is this e-mail conversation between
> you
> and Ledwitz going to now be used as "evidence" in a debate round? I saw
> another
> post where a debater or coach wrote a note to another "expert," trying to
> scam,
> er, "secure" a critical internal link card. if you are planning on using
> it as
> a part of your case and/or defense of your case or disad, did you disclose
> that
> your e-mail conversation would be used in a competitive academic debate in
> order
> to help your team win tournaments? Sometimes people are more critical of
> the
> questions posed when the person asking the question discloses ulterior
> motives.
> Perhaps the precedent has already been set. But it seems to me that
> fishing for
> cards via e-mail is very close to simply getting on a blog site and
> writing
> your own cards.
> I am sure I could goad a professor into agreeing with just about any link
> story
> I wanted, especially if he was answering on the asusmption that I was just
> an
> avid fan/student/scholar searching for "clarification" or the "logical
> conclusion" of her argument--rather than some debater or coach desperately
> trying to get a link card stretching Morrison into a nuke terrorism
> scenario.
> I am just wondering about whether it is ethical for debaters and/or
> coaches to
> go around securing cards from experts through the skillful use of
> questions.
> It is one thing to obtain clarification for one's own education--it is
> quite
> another to drive an author to a conclusion so that you can obtain a
> competitive
> advantage in a debate round. It just seems a bit unethical and also
> dangerous.
> Just wondering whether this is the new norm for securing evidence in
> college
> debate.
> Does posting on e-debate now count as a published source?
> If it does, then please use the following quote as much as you want in
> debate
> rounds:
> "It is unethical to use as evidence to support one's case or arguments the
> responses of experts to queries from debaters or debate coaches. The
> questions
> posed are soliticting responses to further the competitive advantages over
> other students and are tantamount to fabricating evidence. It is no
> different
> than making up one's own website and writing whatever link story one needs
> to
> win a debate round. Further, use of such solicited 'evidence' within
> college
> debate rounds will eventually anger White Supremicist Groups in America;
> who
> will then join with Russian Skinheads and German Neo-Nazis to secure a
> suitcase
> nuclear weapon from the Russian-Lithuanian mafia and detonate the nuclear
> device
> in New York City or the Port of Houston; triggering a mistaken retaliatory
> strike by the U.S. against Islamic nations, triggering an all out nuclear
> war.
> Each use of such solicited evidence pushes them closer to the brink of
> detonating the nuclear device and causing the destruction of the planet.
> And,
> to paraphrase Schell, because there impact is infinite, any risk of
> reading
> such solicited evidence in a debate round outweighs the utility of reading
> such
> evidence."
> Scott
> _______________________________________________
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at ndtceda.com
> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20060907/4f0e706b/attachment.html 

More information about the Mailman mailing list