[eDebate] Response from Lindsay

andy ellis andy.edebate
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...

-----Original Message-----
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).

L





More information about the Mailman mailing list