[eDebate] The Harrison '06 Court = Politics Link Card

Jean-Paul Lacy lacyjp
Sat Mar 3 21:36:01 CST 2007


1. Agreed: the ev is out of context if you review the "context" (quoted 
below) & read the author's statement "[Do not quote me in a debate round,] 
I consider it to be taken out of context."

2. *The challenge* to politics debaters: Support with real evidence the 
arguments made on Lindsay Harrison's blog:

a. While the Supreme Court may have historically been able to act as 
political cover for the President and/or Congress, that is not true in a 
world post-Bush v. Gore. The Court is seen today as a politicized body, and 
especially now that we are in the era of the Roberts Court, with a Chief 
Justice hand picked by the President and approved by the Congress, it is 
highly unlikely that Court action will not, at least to some extent, be 
blamed on and/or credited to the President and Congress.

&

b. [Even if the court provides some cover]...it is preposterous to argue 
that the Court is entirely insulated from politics, and equally 
preposterous to argue that Bush and the Congress would not receive at least 
a large portion of the blame for a Court ruling that, for whatever reason, 
received the attention of the public.

3. This entire phenomenon is a symptom of *over-reliance on evidence* in 
debate:

a. Debaters are held to a very high standard of evidentiary support, even 
when it comes to perfectly sensical claims like those made on Lindsay's 
blog. This is especially true when it comes to "politics" debates.
b. Debate judges may be willing to accept "Courts are cover" ev from 
Rosenberg in the absence of any "counter evidence."
c. Debaters may not be willing to stake a link debate on the strength of 
"asserted" warrants similar to those penned by Lindsay Harrison.
d. These factors have created a dynamic making it *far* easier to read "ev" 
from an un-edited blog than to make good arguments supported by less 
strongly worded evidence than the words Lindsay wrote.

4. So...I think debaters need to be much more bold when they try to win a 
link to a politics disad of any sort & that debate judges should give them 
credit for boldly making some gosh-darn sense.

Come on, do you really think a controversial ruling about school 
segregation, federalism, violence against women, military tribunals or 
abortion wouldn't have political ramifications for the congress, president 
& public?

All you need to do is find evidentiary support for Harrison's good arguments.

--JP "as if I judge any politics debates" Lacy
lacyjp at wfu.edu





http://legaldebate.blogspot.com/



Wednesday, September 27, 2006





Hiatus and Evidence

Two notes:

(1) The reason for my extended hiatus from blogging is that I am clerking 
for a federal judge. Sorry bout that.

(2) To clarify, I do NOT intend that anything on this site be read as 
evidence in a debate. This site is merely meant to clarify certain legal 
questions for the debate community. In my opinion, evidence should be 
peer-edited, or at least edited by someone. Nothing on this site has been 
edited or checked by anyone else. I recommend that you do NOT use anything 
posted here in an actual debate.

LH

posted by Lindsay Harrison at 
<http://legaldebate.blogspot.com/2006/09/hiatus-and-evidence.html>5:35 AM | 
<http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=16868026&postID=115936064815082446>1 
comments<http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=16868026&postID=115936064815082446&quickEdit=true> 




Monday, November 28, 2005





Vacation from Blogging

I'll be on vacation and out of email and phone contact until January. Save 
up any questions you have and email them to me after January 2nd, 2006. -LH

posted by Lindsay Harrison at 
<http://legaldebate.blogspot.com/2005/11/vacation-from-blogging.html>12:32 
AM | 
<http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=16868026&postID=113316680003877561>3 
comments<http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=16868026&postID=113316680003877561&quickEdit=true> 




Friday, November 18, 2005





Does the Court Act as "Political Cover" for the Other Branches?

While the Supreme Court may have historically been able to act as political 
cover for the President and/or Congress, that is not true in a world 
post-Bush v. Gore. The Court is seen today as a politicized body, and 
especially now that we are in the era of the Roberts Court, with a Chief 
Justice hand picked by the President and approved by the Congress, it is 
highly unlikely that Court action will not, at least to some extent, be 
blamed on and/or credited to the President and Congress. The Court can 
still get away with a lot more than the elected branches since people don't 
understand the technicalities of legal doctrine like they understand the 
actions of the elected branches; this is, in part, because the media does 
such a poor job of covering legal news. Nevertheless, it is preposterous to 
argue that the Court is entirely insulated from politics, and equally 
preposterous to argue that Bush and the Congress would not receive at least 
a large portion of the blame for a Court ruling that, for whatever reason, 
received the attention of the public.






At 05:39 PM 3/3/2007, Sherry Hall wrote:
>Please post this email to edebate on my behalf.
>
>Dear Debate Community:
>
>It has come to my attention that teams are reading "evidence" from a debate
>blog that I ran last year when the high school topic was a legal one.  I
>started the blog because, in judging debates on the topic, I was frustrated
>by what I saw as misunderstandings of the legal system by many in the debate
>community.  I also was frustrated by a lack of creativity in devising
>arguments as a result of a lack of broad legal knowledge.  I intended the
>blog both to educate and to generate new ideas for argumentation.  I did NOT
>intend the blog to be used as evidence, especially not in college debates
>where I figured the community would recognize that none of my posts were
>peer-reviewed (or reviewed by anyone at all), none of my posts were backed
>up by specific research, and none of my posts would ever qualify as "legal
>scholarship."  In fact, I am merely giving people ideas for arguments and I
>do not necessarily advocate any of the ideas as my own - I consider evidence
>to be taken out of context if it says, "debaters should argue that bush
>would get credit" and folks read only the part suggesting "bush would get
>credit," thereby attributing that idea to me.
>
>When I found out that people were reading "Harrison 06" evidence from the
>blog as link cards on the court politics argument, I made an effort to end
>this.  Whenever anyone read this evidence in front of me, I asked that they
>not do so in the future.  I also posted something on the blog that I
>intended as a disclaimer for people not to read "evidence" from the blog.
>
>I have been traveling internationally for several months and, upon my
>return, I found out that people have continued to read this evidence in
>debate rounds.  Accordingly, I am now sending this to edebate in the hope
>that the community will recognize definitively that I do not want blog posts
>from my debate education blog to be read as "evidence" in rounds.
>
>Please do not read evidence from my debate education blog in rounds.  I
>consider it to be taken out of context.  I hope that if people do read this
>evidence in rounds that judges will penalize those teams for reading
>evidence that the author considers out of context.
>
>Thanks,
>Lindsay
>
>_______________________________________________
>eDebate mailing list
>eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
>http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070303/b48078c7/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list