[eDebate] Ledewitz terrorism link to Morrison

scottelliott at grandecom.net scottelliott
Fri Sep 8 07:48:19 CDT 2006

One last set of comments on this issue.

I e-mailed Professor Ledewitz yesterday. Here is the response:

LEDEWITZ: "I had no idea of the implications of my e-mail correspondence. I do
not want such conversations used to help a debate team win debate rounds.
However, upon further review and based on your arguments, I agree that the
Morrison decision really did lead to the proliferation of international
terrorist groups. The inability to have a centralized response could lead to
future terrorist strikes in the United States, and I do not mean just the abuse
of women, but the introduction of chemical, biological, or nuclear devices onto
American soil."

Elliott: "But Professor Ledewitz, would overturning Morrison have any effect on
this problem?"

LEDEWITZ: "Yes. Ibelieve it will for two reasons. First overturing Morrison
would boost United States credibility, our moral leadership. This leadership is
necessary to promote U.S. anti-terrorism efforts world wide. Second, overturning
Morrison would allow centralized responses to terrorist threats. Disjunctions
between state and federal authorities is working to harm U.S. national
security, and must be stopped."

Elliott: "Wow. Thank you Professor Ledewitz. I am now your number one biggest
fan. You can have my first born and I hope you will continue to converse with
me on these issues. Especially around late March 2007, I will need to
correspond with you again. I have a really big exam called the NDT that month.
Your input could really help me."

LEDEWITZ: "No problem. I am always eager to help young female students with
their homework and to enlighten them on this important issues. Thanks for the

End of e-mail.

Those are some sweet cards. Please use them in rounds with my blessing.


But this proves a critical point--how the hell would you verify the veracity of
this? Just last year, the winner of the Texas High School State Championship
had to forfeit their win. Why? because one of the debaters fabricated evidence
for wins. So, this is not just a hypothetical "angels on pins" issue, but a real
issue of what debaters will do in order to secure a win.

I will state on the record that I assume Josh is an honest and ethical person.
And that his first post is accurate. But how the hell would I know? How would I
verify it? Trust? Nice standard.

I agree with most of what Eric Morris says in his post. But, I think this new
issue of verification should put the kabache on this type of usage. Not only
can a person solicit a desired response from a professor through creative
questioning. But, they could also out and out fabricate a discussion. I ask you
to go back and look at Josh's original post and the one I totally made up.
Absent my posting that it was totally made up, how could you possibly tell the

I disagree with Eric's contention that it is not an ethical issue. Why is
fabricating evidence unethical--or is it? I suggest that many of the same
reasons one would give for saying fabrication is unethical and should not be
condoned, would also apply to people ginning up evidence via solicitation of
key quotes from experts.


More information about the Mailman mailing list