[eDebate] Ledewitz terrorism link to Morrison

Josh Hoe jbhdb8
Thu Sep 7 19:17:48 CDT 2006


Let me try to clarify one more time before I go back to reading on the
topic:

I agree with you - trolling for cards with authors in order to try to find
link arguments that arent in the literature is bad.

I disagree with you - when someone publishes something in the public domain
that makes a claim without a warrant...It is better to learn what he/she was
talking about then just leave it be.  It makes for more informed and better
debates. It informs the subject that we are researching (one of the purposes
of a topic I think). Check the question I asked - I did not say you say X
but did you mean Y.  I asked "what did you mean?"  That was it.  All the
answers were his not mine.

Josh


On 9/7/06, scottelliott at grandecom.net <scottelliott at grandecom.net> wrote:
>
> 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
> a round?
>
> 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
> "discussions."
>
>
>
> Scott
>
> p.s.
>
>
>
>
> 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.
> >
> > Awesome,
> >
> > Josh
> >
> >
> > 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
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20060907/bdd76280/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list