[eDebate] Ledewitz terrorism link to Morrison
Fri Sep 8 12:28:29 CDT 2006
First, the problem with this exchange is that you keep equivicating what I
did to a hypothetical "nightmare" scenario that is NOT even close to what I
Second, your argument is either a) You suspect me of literally fabricating
my conversation - if so I will send you the email exchanges I had with him
and you can email them and verify the conversations. If that is your
argument it is very insulting and I am not sure what I ever did to justify
you thinking I would fabricate evidence ever - much less to get an internal
link take-out to at best a bad add-on advantage for which there are better
internal links. b) you think somehow, if he had answered differently it was
Here is literally my thought process - I saw a card that I could not explain
to my students with conclusions that would be run by people throughout the
year. I figured it would be a good idea to find out what the warrant was -
so that in cross-x there could be a meaningful answer to the question
"why?" This seems to me to be a good practice. If he had said "leadership"
or whatever you said in your response then that would allow us or any team
running Morrison to answer that cross-x question "leadership" and more
important for the other team debating to answer the right internal link. In
other words, the information helps BOTH teams have a deeper and better
debate. We, hypothetically, know what advantage we can run and they know
what internal link they can answer or turn. In NO world does this justify
what most of your nightmare scenarios are based around. I do not think
debaters or coaches should lead authors toward writing cards (witness in my
exchange I asked literally - you said this....why?). I simply thought it
would be nice for everyone to know what the heck Ledewitz meant when he said
Morrison overrule key to fighting terrorism. Thats it....job done.
Now, that said - I get that you are either crucifying me by some red herring
OR you are making a slippery slope argument. If it is the slippery slope
argument you certainly cannot say that I am justifying the end result of the
slope. I think we can both agree on about 95% of what you are saying. So,
rather than continually making insulting claims about my professionalism and
saying things that are CLEARLY not what I did could you please just engage
in a civil discussion about how to set better ethical limits for what we
should aspire to?
I responded in the first place because your original email accused me of
something I did not do. It also seemed to suggest that I was acting
unethically to cheat on behalf of my team. If I did that to you - you would
be pissed as well.
On 9/8/06, scottelliott at grandecom.net <scottelliott at grandecom.net> wrote:
> 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
> future terrorist strikes in the United States, and I do not mean just the
> of women, but the introduction of chemical, biological, or nuclear devices
> 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
> would boost United States credibility, our moral leadership. This
> leadership is
> necessary to promote U.S. anti-terrorism efforts world wide. Second,
> Morrison would allow centralized responses to terrorist threats.
> 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
> fan. You can have my first born and I hope you will continue to converse
> 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
> Your input could really help me."
> LEDEWITZ: "No problem. I am always eager to help young female students
> their homework and to enlighten them on this important issues. Thanks for
> End of e-mail.
> Those are some sweet cards. Please use them in rounds with my blessing.
> Now obviously THIS WAS COMPLETELY MADE UP. THIS WAS A FABRICATION. DO NOT
> IT IN ROUNDS.
> 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
> had to forfeit their win. Why? because one of the debaters fabricated
> 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
> 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
> issue of verification should put the kabache on this type of usage. Not
> 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
> 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
> condoned, would also apply to people ginning up evidence via solicitation
> key quotes from experts.
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at ndtceda.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman