[eDebate] Ledewitz terrorism link to Morrison

Josh Hoe jbhdb8
Thu Sep 7 11:57:37 CDT 2006


Let me try to get at this a different way:

If you are trying to lead an author to write a card he or she has not
written in an article (and is not peer reviewed or published in forum that
would encourage responses from qualified sources) that is clearly
problematic.

If, however, you are trying to get an author to clarify his/her written
opinion when it was something that was unwarranted or footnoted it seems to
be a good move.  A) The alternative is a potential misrepresentation of the
evidence B) The public nature of the post makes it democratic (in other
words, you read your DA you hear an answer you already knew about or can
make the same answer when you hear it) - the alternative to this is me just
saying "thats not what the author meant" and having a bunch of rounds come
down to judge interpretation of who really said what.

I think its important and educational to know what was really intended by
the evidence that we (larger we) read in debate rounds.  I am sure there is
some disadvantage to this but to me the advantages of finding out this
information seemed much more educational than just not asking the question
at all (if you have read the article this particular claim is totally not
explained or footnoted).

J

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/20060907/2b56a7bf/attachment.html 



More information about the Mailman mailing list