[eDebate] Ledewitz terrorism link to Morrison

lacyjp lacyjp
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 
> grabs.)
> 
> 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.
>> 
>> 
>>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
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at ndtceda.com
> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
> 
> 





More information about the Mailman mailing list