[eDebate] Ledewitz terrorism link to Morrison
Thu Sep 7 18:04:22 CDT 2006
I was right, Scott's argument really is that people should be able to read
the card as an internal link to WMD terrorism even though that is literally
insane. The argument is - Josh should not have asked because people should
be able to read that card essentially out of context and Josh finding out it
was out of context is unethical.
On 9/7/06, scottelliott at grandecom.net <scottelliott at grandecom.net> wrote:
> Debate "seeking truth." What a hoot. Sorry. College academic debate is
> gamesmanship and winning tournaments. I have no delusions about the
> If you want to search for "truth," join a philosophy seminar.
> The "beef" is that there is a growing trend of debaters and coaches
> information which is often slanted for a strategic reasons rather than for
> formulation of "truth." As pointed out earlier, it is one thing to use
> clarfication for "education,' its another to use it for a strategic
> in a game.
> My suggestion is that the person asking the question disclose to the
> author the
> true purpose of the request--to keep from losing to an argument in a
> debate round. This disclosure would make the author realize the motives of
> persons writing. I, for one, would not respond in an e-mail if I knew that
> debater was going to use it to win a debate round--but that's just me.
> In response to the MOI. There are problems with your assumption. First-MOI
> is a
> big picture issue, not debate. Second, the "debunking" is the entire
> purpose of
> peer reviewed publication. Josh's post is an example of unpeer reviewed
> publication. This has a couple of implications: (a) There are no "experts
> the field" reading edebate to see if there is a random post to refute. (b)
> the time someone has seen it, if they did, a rebuttal in the MOI is too
> for the debate. For example: I publish some bulshit card saying that
> Overturning Quirin will cause the Earth to spin off its axis and go
> into the sun. Some kid reads this in a round--hell its published and you
> no "evidence' countering it, so he wins. Now, six months later, somebody
> this and publishes a series of reasons why the Earth will not fly into the
> Hurray for the MOI. However, it is too late for all of those debate rounds
> have been won or lost based on this ginned up/solicited evidence.
> If you don't think debaters would solicit evidence to win a round if
> too, I think you are dead wrong. I would if I thought it were ethical. But
> i do
> not. I would write articles on topic areas to help my wife's debaters if i
> thought it was ethical. And, given my expertise in a variety of areas, on
> paper, it would look like a very credible source. So, would it be ethical
> me to write such an article? I don't think so.
> Better example-many, many debaters are now in law school and on law
> reviews. So,
> they find out about the topic and in between bong hits with their former
> partner, he/she says, "Hey dude, wouldn't it be cool if I wrote an article
> the Samford Law Review on Quirin being overturned--And, I give it all
> great links to our old China/U.S. hegemony file. Dude!! That would be
> Awesome!." He writes it in July for publication in January and his old
> starts reading it in rounds just before nationals. Sweet! Ethical? Well,
> according to you, the MOI will sort it out so its cool. Good luck finding
> a law
> review article responding to it by March 31, NDT finals. LOL.
> I never said that you could get an expert to say something they did not
> Rather, (1) you can find an expert to say anything you want and (2) you
> often manipulate people to come to your pre-determined conclusions.
> Bottom-line, if the standard of evidence is whatever Joe-Bob can dredge up
> sending out e-mails to professors, be prepared for the consequences. I
> that I could get a lot of people to say things about the topic that would
> people into fits. Rather than doing research, we would all be running
> e-mailing experts trying to get them to give us "sweet cards" to win the
> Quoting Jamie Carroll <jamiefcarroll at gmail.com>:
> > I don't understand what your problem is with what Josh did. If an expert
> > willing to validate arguments at the suggestion of a debater, then those
> > arguments are cards, in the same manner that if any other person, such
> as a
> > colleague, suggested to said expert those arguments.
> > Now, admittedly, debaters do this for a competitive reason-why this is
> > than experts writing stuff in service of ideological purpose, money,
> > If the arguments that debaters get experts to admit are so devastating
> > to defeat other team's arguments, then that's good, because perhaps it
> > that the other team's arguments are not really the 'truth', but instead,
> > in this case, misinterpreting a card.
> > Isn't debate all about seeking the truth? The other team can always
> > out that the card was gotten under duress by a debater, and use this as
> > another angle to point out why the evidence should be scrutinized
> > skeptically. Plus, the idea that a debater could seriously hammer an
> > into saying something ludicrous that the expert didn't believe seems
> > to me-and other experts would quickly debunk it if it was made public to
> > detriment of the original expert. The only concern seems to be that
> > questions are asked the expert are made public along with the answers,
> > course.
> > Ah, the wonders of the marketplace of ideas.
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at ndtceda.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman