[eDebate] Ledewitz terrorism link to Morrison
Thu Sep 7 22:13:36 CDT 2006
On 9/7/2006 11:08 PM, lacyjp wrote:
> 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
> If we can improve the quality of our own arguments as we interact with
> the "real world" we can have a dramatic
impact, not argument
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.
>>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
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at ndtceda.com
More information about the Mailman