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

Steven D'Amico stevendamico
Sun Mar 4 15:07:34 CST 2007


"Finally, if I recall correctly, when you wrote an aff for greenhill for the
TOC less than a year ago, you wrote a 1AC for them in which you included a
card from your own blog. So pardon me if your whole rant now seems a bit
disingenuous."

See the above is precisely what I'm worried about and would like to see a
discussion of--the issue of people writing their own aff based on the blog
entries of coaches and assistants. To me their is something very unsettling
about it:

Our activity teaches student how to research (or ideally it should) if
coaches simply "write" evidence, what are we really teaching our students?
Some might argue "independent thinking" but if any argument makes a ton of
logical sense it will be written by someone and you can research it.

Second, it just smells like cheating to me. I'm very interested in counter
arguments.

Lastly I think we need to distinguish writing your own evidence on a blog
from say, communicating with an author about arguments. I think the
interaction that occurred between debaters and folks like Prof. Peter K. Yu
was excellent and should be encouraged. There is an obvious difference
between asking someone what they think of a debate argument, versus a coach
posting something on a blog.

Other questions: what about blog posts in response to original posts, where
you can lie about who you are? This poses yet another avenue of concern.

Steve D'Amico
:
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070304/3d711046/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list