[eDebate] Ledewitz terrorism link to Morrison
Thu Sep 7 18:01:04 CDT 2006
I am done with this discussion - The argument is essentially:
Author clarification is bad because it (somehow) punishes a team running
cards from that author in a way that is inconsistent with what was intended
by that author.
This seems totally nuts to me.
First, I do not have magic powers - just like me - any other team could have
asked the same question. How in the world does me sharing this make it
WORSE for other teams in any way - we all have the same info now. Why does
it matter who asked and published it - what is this equity or access to
equity argument you are making - the email is available to literally anyone
who types the dudes name into Google.
Second, and perhaps more importantly, this wild and crazy claim was
un-warranted and unfootnoted in an otherwise well footnoted and reasoned
article. If you read the article you will see what I mean. There is a
massive difference between trying to get an author to write a card for your
disadvantage and trying to find out why the heck some dude said overturning
Morrison was necessary to prevent terrorism.
Finally, this "evidence" was not procured to "win debate rounds" it was an
attempt to find out what the hell this dude was talking about. To prove
this: a) there are multiple other links between Morrison and the ability to
federalize first response to terrorism and b) I am pretty sure we could have
thought of a way to answer a terrorism advantage without the clarification.
I was honestly curious as to why someone would make a totally wild claim
like that and thought I would ask. I shared the info so everyone would
know. If your argument is really that some team who found the evidence and
should have a constitutional right to win on that argument even though it is
un-warranted and is not supported by what the author really meant (for good
reason) then you are awarded zero points and may God have mercy on your
I totally agree with the argument that we should not go to authors to try to
get cards written for us as well as that everyone should have common access
to the information (hence why I put it on edebate which I thought was a nice
thing for me to do). It seems counter-intuitive given the rest of your
argument that you would prefer I keep the info to myself so my teams could
bust it out in cx? I think your analogies arent very apt given the
particular situation I am detailing.
On 9/7/06, scottelliott at grandecom.net <scottelliott at grandecom.net> wrote:
> I sent a response to Josh, but probably forgot to cc edebate.
> There is a distinct difference between seeking clarification from an
> author for
> "education" sake and seeking "clarification" to secure a strategic
> advantage in
> debate competition.
> Your key response is that because you "published" the conversation on
> it is now somehow "fair" or democratic.
> I disagree. It is unfair because the teams relying on evidence published
> solicitation are now being hammered by evidence that was produced for the
> specific purpose of winning debate rounds. Answer me this, but for the
> proposition and the fact that the evidence in question could be used
> your team in a round, would you have asked for the "clarification?" I
> Example: So, my hypothetical team is getting pounded round after round by
> sweet cards. Let's say it is a card saying the Supreme Court has
> Quirin on the precedent that is the link to all of your advantages and/or
> disadvantages (nevermind that Scalia said it too). So, in effect, 1/4 of
> affirmatives are now screwed.
> So, I then e-mail the author for a "clarification." She responds, "Well,
> course the Supreme Court did not technically overrule Quirin." Now I have
> specific indict to all of your no link/inherency arguments. It is a way of
> ginning up an answer to win a debate. That you published it for others to
> does not remove the taint. Rather, it just furthers the results of the
> unethical conduct.
> This simple one sentence statement solicited by a debate coach, debater,
> have huge impacts within a debate round. For example, the affirmative can
> that they are technically topical and technically have inherency in order
> claim X small advantage. However, because Quirin was effectively overruled
> three months ago, all of your substative law based disads are not unique.
> a nice day, game over. (Example: Quirn's precedent no longer is recognized
> status quo, but it was not officially overturned. Plan specifically and
> publicly overturns Quirin--this increases/decreases Bush's credibility,
> The plan does not really change the law. But the effect of the plan would
> politcal consequences.)
> Education. This, like the the term 'Justice' is the last refuge of
> Anything, ANYTHING furthers "education." Buggering a 10 year old boy
> his "education." It does not justify the original unethical conduct.
> Let's say that I have a high school debater come to me and ask me to write
> some great cards on the public service topic. So, in response to his
> request, I
> write an opinion article in the Dallas Morning News or in the Dallas bar
> Journal. In the article, to please the student, I make flaming comments
> "we must have mandatory public service in the U.S. or the planet will
> Now the student did not write the article and it is published. Is it
> ethical for
> him to use it to win debate rounds?
> Similarly, I have plenty of colleagues, former professors and ex-collegues
> are experts on the law. If I were coaching, would it be ethical for me to
> them up and say, "hey, i need you to write an article on Quirin that says
> Assuming she actually writes it and it gets published (no different than
> responding to an e-mail in my mind), is it ethical for me to use the
> in a debate round?
> We all know from public opinion polling 101 that a person can easily shape
> response based on the way a question is asked. Thus, the argument that one
> merely asking for a "clarification" is bogus. the way the question was
> can easily result in an answer that supports my competitive position. I am
> that if I wanted to, I could frame a series of question to professor
> that would lead to an opposite conclusion--that VAWA IS necessary to stop
> global terrorism.
> Wouldn't you agree that how America treats women under the law effects our
> international human rights leadership?
> Wouldn't you agree that VAWA sent a clear message that the USFG cares
> stopping violence against women?
> I read an article that said other countries were thinking of modeling our
> before it was overturned. Wouldn't you agree that if other countries were
> trying to model VAWA, that VAWA was having some influence on other
> human right policies?
> Wouldn't you also agree that if the U.S. has more influence with other
> countries, there is a greater likelihood that we can get more cooperation
> them on a range of issues such as human rights, the war on terrorism and
> women's issues?
> Now, I have just ginned up my own little link story and got a professor to
> with it. I "publish" it in the name of education on edebate. Does this
> mean it
> is ethical for me to use it to win debate rounds? It meets your
> "education" and
> "clarification" standards, but something about it stinks to high heaven.
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at ndtceda.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman