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

Steven D'Amico stevendamico
Sun Mar 4 10:51:24 CST 2007

Isn't the bigger issue here opening the floodgates for former debaters
blogging about whatever they feel like and then it being used as debate
evidence in rounds? Wouldn't this lead to a new and very problematic method
of cheating?

J.P. (and the rest of us) freaked out about the stratfor card last year, and
that wasn't even written by a debate related person (as far as we know). I
think this is a smaller issue within the giant problem blogs will
continually have for debate. Blogs are great in some respects because
experts, especially legal ones, tend to keep their own blogs about relevant
issues to the debate community. Hell even Robinson has a blog which indites
every Zizek movie analogy. At the same time there are countless less
accredited blogs, and now we have blogs written about specific debate
arguments by ex-debaters. I'm not sure any rules should be written about
this, but at the very least, debaters should be suspicious if the other team
reads evidence from say "blogspot." Additionally, there should be serious
consequences if someone tries to hide they are reading evidence from a blog,
by say, not including the url in the citation. Perhaps a new community
standard could be set to even include somewhere in the citation that a given
card comes from a blog?

Steve D'Amico

On 3/4/07, Harris, Scott L <sharris at ku.edu> wrote:
> While I respect the fact that Lindsay would prefer that her blog not be
> quoted in debate rounds it seems rather silly to call this an "out of
> context" issue.  Out of context generally refers to using evidence in a
> manner that changes the meaning of the evidence.  The meaning of the quotes
> in Lindsay's blog are fairly clear and she has said nothing to indicate that
> she doesn't still believe that court decisions have political
> ramifications.  The fact that the evidence was not written to be used in
> debate rounds or peer reviewed does not make it "out of context."  Very
> little evidence read in a debate round was written with the intent to be
> read in a debate round.  I am positive that many authors would be appalled
> to know what their quotes have been  used to support or oppose in debate
> rounds.   It may be wrong to use evidence when the author has requested that
> it not be used.  It to me is analagous to when you say something to a
> reporter and then ask them not to use it in print.  When they use it they
> are not generally quoting you out of context but are using quotes that
> should not have been used.  The fact that it was said off the record is
> something that should generally be honored but you can't really accuse the
> reporter of taking you out of context just because you didn't want people to
> read the quote in the paper.   Is Lindsey's new quote of "out of context"
> intended to be read in a debate round to prove that a team who read her
> first opinion should get zero points and a loss?  I agree with J.P. that
> we should find other evidence to support the link story.  I also think we
> should be careful; about throwing the phrase "out of context" around even if
> Lindsey thinks this is a context issue.
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20070304/53d3e1e6/attachment.html 

More information about the Mailman mailing list