[eDebate] Ledewitz terrorism link to Morrison
Thu Sep 7 18:53:53 CDT 2006
First, if you sent me a backchannel I never received it (just so you know).
Second, Professor Ledewitz seemed like a nice fellow and the rest of the
article was well researched and well sourced....This one claim was the
exception. I suspect he is not "full of shit" and probably is
credible...However, that one claim was so bold and unwarranted I had to
ask. I dont consider that a "wrong" as you put it. I consider that to be a
"right." We clearly disagree about this.
Why would I need to publish this argument - its an internal link take out to
a terrorism advantage for a card that was un-warranted in the first place.
If I was trolling for evidence would this be a very strategic use of my
time? You really think that? Usually, even if you were/are right (which
you are not) I would likely try for a disad link or cp solvency evidence.
In addition, I wouldnt really need a published card to use this exchange in
a debate (at least I dont think so given the startling nature of the claim
as stated in the article). To be honest, I was just really curious about
what the heck he was thinking (read that card in the context of the article
or just alone and you will see what I mean).
In addition, if you knew me a bit better you would know I hate that debate
is "all about strategy" and is no longer something that emphasizes the
search for truth and education. That is not to say I try to be
un-strategic. Well, some might say so ;).
I do disagree with your conclusion - I would rather know - and let everyone
else know - what an unwarranted card means. I did not lead the conversation
- I quoted the evidence he wrote back to him and said "why?" If that is
wrong I guess I will be wrong.
I also dont know how this increases the inequities you refer to - anyone
could have done the same thing and me sharing it only disadvantages someone
who was planning the whole aff around an impact internal link that was
I told Professor Ledewitz that I was a debate coach, that our topic included
Morrison, and that I had read the article. I asked the question in that
context. If we won a debate because one internal link to a terrorism add-on
was about violence against women instead of about nuclear terrorism I would
I will say that you made MANY implied arguments about asking leading
questions to him and about fabrication...You also seem to suggest that I
misled him. I have to admit most of the reason I got mad was because of
your insulting and leading arguments about my intent.
Your next argument
"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
Is laughable as the whole intent of me asking the question was to IMPROVE
the quality of debate on this question NOT become a published source. You
really are reaching.
Your argument that the text speaks for itself is inane...In this instance it
didnt - you really shold read the post before bashing me. PS, I didnt WRITE
ANYTHING. He wrote it, he wrote the response, I only said - "here is what
you wrote, why?" You really seem to be mad about something else that I sure
didnt do. Your counter-proposal (much like the analogies in the last
email) are so unapplicable to what I did as to literally inspire laughter.
When I say something like "when you said X in your article did you really
mean Y" then get on my case. Until then stop it.
I was not trolling for email cards - if that is not obvious to you by now I
dont know what to say. I honestly think you owe me an apology - you have
essentially insulted my professionalism from email one.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman