[eDebate] Ledewitz terrorism link to Morrison
scottelliott at grandecom.net
Thu Sep 7 18:32:40 CDT 2006
No Josh, you are wrong. That is not my argument. My argument is that you posted
your conversation on a list serve and that coversation will be used as
"evidence" in a round. I know this may sound like a suprise, but two wrongs do
not make a right. Reading a piece of shit card with no warrants to support a
terrorism link/advantage is bad for debate. No doubt. Understanding that the
author is full of shit and has no credibility is good. However, trolling for
"evidence" to refute a bad card sets a bad precedent.
Was your motivation for posting the conversation for educational purposes, or
was it to post publicly so you can count it as a "published" "source" to use in
Did you explain or disclose to the professor in your e-mails that you had a
competitive motivation to have him respond in a particular way? Did you
disclose that what he/she wrote back would be used to win a college debate?
For me, most of the evidence read in debate rounds is garbage--especially the
links and internal links to politics disads. The quality of sources used in
debates is abysmal and I frankly think coaches are doing a disservice to
students by failing to have standards for what qualifies as a credible source.
Billie-Bob's blogsite should not be given the same level of credibility as a
peer-reviewed journal. Similarly, having Josh Hoe's impromptu interviews
"published on edebate" the mantle of credibility just perpetuates the problem.
Use the analyticals derived from your "educational" interview, but using e-mails
as evidence smacks of ginning up one's own evidence.
As for "out of context," I'd say the text speaks for itself. If the author's
conclusion is inconsistent with the part quoted--something I am often a victim
of--then the evidence is out of context. If, however, in this case, the author
was making a claim for which he has no support. Then point out that the card is
crap and give the judge reasons to reject. But don't go writing your own
evidence, or trolling for someone with a advanced degree to say what you want
them to say.
Here, LOL, is a counter-proposal. Children and coaches, please send me your
e-mails asking for link take outs and links to whatever position you are
missing. I will e-mail you back with some half-ass answer. Hey, I have a Ph.D.
and a J.D., so surely anything I write can be counted as evidence in a debate
round right? No problem. Write me and tell me what Josh's teams are running and
what problems you are having with their case or negative strategies. Then I will
send you an e-mail giving you all kinds of reasons why their arguments are wrong
or why they link to file du juor. Hey, publish it on e-debate and you are golden
for the next tournament. No problems.
Perhaps now you may see the implications of trolling for e-mail cards. You are
setting a horrible precedent. I would rather someone read a bullshit card, in
context, in a round than have debaters trolling for evidence via e-mail
Quoting Josh Hoe <jbhdb8 at gmail.com>:
> 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
> > about
> > gamesmanship and winning tournaments. I have no delusions about the
> > activity.
> > If you want to search for "truth," join a philosophy seminar.
> > The "beef" is that there is a growing trend of debaters and coaches
> > soliticing
> > information which is often slanted for a strategic reasons rather than for
> > the
> > formulation of "truth." As pointed out earlier, it is one thing to use
> > clarfication for "education,' its another to use it for a strategic
> > advantage
> > 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
> > college
> > debate round. This disclosure would make the author realize the motives of
> > the
> > persons writing. I, for one, would not respond in an e-mail if I knew that
> > some
> > 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
> > in
> > the field" reading edebate to see if there is a random post to refute. (b)
> > by
> > the time someone has seen it, if they did, a rebuttal in the MOI is too
> > late
> > 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
> > hurling
> > into the sun. Some kid reads this in a round--hell its published and you
> > have
> > no "evidence' countering it, so he wins. Now, six months later, somebody
> > reads
> > this and publishes a series of reasons why the Earth will not fly into the
> > sun.
> > Hurray for the MOI. However, it is too late for all of those debate rounds
> > that
> > 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
> > allowed
> > 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
> > for
> > 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
> > in
> > the Samford Law Review on Quirin being overturned--And, I give it all
> > these
> > 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
> > buddy
> > 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
> > believe.
> > Rather, (1) you can find an expert to say anything you want and (2) you
> > can
> > often manipulate people to come to your pre-determined conclusions.
> > Bottom-line, if the standard of evidence is whatever Joe-Bob can dredge up
> > by
> > sending out e-mails to professors, be prepared for the consequences. I
> > know
> > that I could get a lot of people to say things about the topic that would
> > throw
> > people into fits. Rather than doing research, we would all be running
> > around
> > e-mailing experts trying to get them to give us "sweet cards" to win the
> > next
> > round.
> > Scott
> > Quoting Jamie Carroll <jamiefcarroll at gmail.com>:
> > > I don't understand what your problem is with what Josh did. If an expert
> > is
> > > 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
> > worse
> > > than experts writing stuff in service of ideological purpose, money,
> > etc?
> > > If the arguments that debaters get experts to admit are so devastating
> > as
> > > to defeat other team's arguments, then that's good, because perhaps it
> > shows
> > > that the other team's arguments are not really the 'truth', but instead,
> > as
> > > in this case, misinterpreting a card.
> > > Isn't debate all about seeking the truth? The other team can always
> > point
> > > 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
> > expert
> > > into saying something ludicrous that the expert didn't believe seems
> > absurd
> > > to me-and other experts would quickly debunk it if it was made public to
> > the
> > > detriment of the original expert. The only concern seems to be that
> > whatever
> > > questions are asked the expert are made public along with the answers,
> > of
> > > course.
> > > Ah, the wonders of the marketplace of ideas.
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > eDebate mailing list
> > eDebate at ndtceda.com
> > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
More information about the Mailman