[eDebate] Ledewitz terrorism link to Morrison

lacyjp lacyjp
Thu Sep 7 22:08:05 CDT 2006


I honestly do think debate (in general, not just the game we play) can 
benefit (and has benefitted in the past) immensely from interation with 
the experts we quote and from greater use of evidence generated from 
interaction with "expert" and primary sources.

I also think those "expert" and primary sources can benefit immensely 
from interaction with a community like ours.

While we do play a "game," there *is* a truth seeking function: The game 
is predicated on one basic norm: "The force of the best argument should 
hold the day." (Within the context of the game...which is always up for 
grabs.)

If we can improve the quality of our own arguments as we interact with 
the "real world" we can have a dramatic argument on the quality of 
decisions made by ourselves and "real" decision-makers.

I'm making two arguments here: 1) Many debate arguments are absurd. & 2) 
Many "real world" arguments are equally absurd.

The "slippery slope" to "fishing for evidence" can be avoided if we 
follow simple protocols:

1. Publish interactions with authors in their totality in a manner 
transparent to all, prior to their use in debate. Right now, the best 
medium we have to do so is eDebate. [That way, evidence from Ledewitz, 
Scott Elliot, Stratfor, etc is subject to follow up questioning. (And 
the "Marketplace of Ideas" can quickly react to absurd claims like 
"yes...the earth will actually implode if Quirin is not overrruled as 
soon as possible.")]

2. Be forthright in your questions: Explain fully your position and your 
purpose in asking the question. If full "interviews" or email exchanges 
are published for the debate community to examine, leading, or even 
unethical lines of questioning will be easily exposed for what they are.

--JP Lacy

ps -- is all this really an extension of the "I don't want to belong to 
any club that will have me as a member" syndrome?

Talk to your authors. They make their email available for a reason.



On 9/7/2006 8:26 PM, Zompetti at aol.com wrote:

>  
> Well....even with a j.d. and a ph.d., Josh is still a more qualified 
> source than you.
>  
> Good grief....Josh was simply being nice by reporting to the community 
> the conversation he had with Ledowitz.  I doubt very seriously if Josh 
> needed that conversation to be "published" on eDebate so his teams can 
> win -- they're better than that.
>  
>  
> zomp
>  
>  
>  
> In a message dated 9/7/2006 6:34:20 P.M. Central Daylight Time, 
> scottelliott at grandecom.net writes:
> 
>     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.
> 
>  
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at ndtceda.com
> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate





More information about the Mailman mailing list