[eDebate] Response from Lindsay
Sun Mar 4 23:05:47 CST 2007
Im still not sure why your request that no-one use it should have any more bearing than another author who doesnt want their words used in debate? Im not trying to be funny or combative(probably a good thing) i just dont get why the fact that you where writting for debaters to read but not to quote makes a substaitial difference other than more people know you more than any other author who would write a similar letter to edebate, and are likely to consider your request valid...
From: "Sherry Hall" <shahall at comcast.net>
To: edebate at www.ndtceda.com
Sent: 3/4/2007 11:00 PM
Subject: [eDebate] Response from Lindsay
Interesting post. Feel free to post this response:
(1) As to the suggestion that I am being disingenuous, (1) I didn't write an
Aff for Greenhill - I gave them the idea for the Aff (which was partly the
purpose of the blog - to generate new ideas), but they did the writing
themselves, (2) I had considered the possibility that the blog might be used
as evidence but had not talked it over with anyone - after discussing the
point with others in the debate community, I realized that I did not want
the blog to be used in debates - hence my clarification of the point, and
(3) suppose I did write the blog with the intent that Ghill be able to use
it as evidence - doesn't this just prove the point of why it is a bad idea
for debate blogs to be used in rounds as evidence? Someone could post
something the night before the NDT - a new aff or a new DA - and only the
team with whom that person is associated would have the benefit of those
cards, at least until others caught up with them.
(2) I think this whole discussion really only concerns debate-specific blogs
and not legal blogs in general - the purpose of my blog was to educate
debaters and give them new ideas for arguments to write. In almost every
other instance, a blog writer's goal is to advance ideas that they believe
in as their own. This is my argument about context - that the context of
the points on my blog was not "I, as a law lecturer, believe Bush would get
credit," but rather, "debaters should argue that Bush would get credit."
The "out of context" argument is not an indict of anyone's ethics or
character - it is only an explanation of my intent and why I consider the
use of evidence from the blog as inconsistent with my intent (and, yes,
other authors do not intend for debaters to use their evidence but other
authors also do not write with the debate community as their intended
audience and with the specific intent that their articles NOT be used in
debates as opposed to mere ignorance at the possibility that their words
might be used in debates).
(3) If the arguments on my blog have merit, you should be able to find other
authors who advocate the same points, or you should be able to convince a
judge of the point - god-forbid - without evidence. If neither of those
possibilities exist, I would imagine that the indict of the "Harrison 06"
evidence is self-evident (and, yes, I just indicted myself).
More information about the Mailman