[eDebate] Response from Lindsay
Mon Mar 5 14:17:34 CST 2007
I think that maybe I agree with this. I haven't looked at the blog in
question with the care you have brought to its examination. It does seem
clear that it hoped to invite participation by other law-types, and that
maybe the postings should be quotable. Whether Lindsay's piece fits in
that category or the pure "advice to debaters" category is a little
unclear. Or was, until she told us.
I have a couple of points.
First, as mentioned before, if law teachers think they will get quoted,
they may well be less willing to blog with debaters. Perhaps there should
be a rule against quoting them, even if it would otherwise be fair. Like
a privilege in the law of evidence.
Second, I notice you reserve comment on the Gottlieb 2NR overview cut into
cards, complete with hyperbolic rhetoric and finely crafted balancing of
impacts. I trust this is not the Jayhawks' ace-in-the-hole new strategy
now that you can't quote Lindsay every round on the neg.
On Mon, 5 Mar 2007, Harris, Scott L wrote:
> While we should not be reading Lindsay's blog as evidence as per her request your analogy seems very strained. The blog as originally written is clearly expressing opinions about the relationship between the law and debate arguments. It was originally presented as a forum for Law Professor interaction with the high school community clearly suggesting the presentation by experts on the subject area being debated. There is a disclaimer that the opinions expressed are not the opinion of the University of Miami but there is nothing about the original blog anywhere to suggest that these are ideas for possible arguments rather than an expression of Lindsay's opinions about the arguments. It is more equivelent to an article published in the DRG with an author making actual arguments than it is to your depiction of someone attributing cards in the DRG to Ross. It seems obvious to me that Lindsay wrote the original blog knowing that there was a good chance it would be quoted!
in high school debates but that she was uncomfortable being quoted to decide the outcome of college debates. I undertand her reticence. This new claim that when she said it was preposterous to argue that there wasn't a political impact to court decisons she actually meant "one argument debaters could make but I am not endorsing in any way shape or form" does not seem close to the format of the original blog. Maybe the original blog was intended to be a camp lecture brainstorming ideas for possible arguments but it sure doesn't read that way. The analogy to your critique of a debate round is a glove that doesn't seem to fit.
More information about the Mailman