[eDebate] Right, *Russia* is at the core of everything

JP Lacy lacyjp
Fri Apr 25 21:58:03 CDT 2008


Your apology is definitely accepted.

80 percent of legislators in the US Congress have some debate 
experience. (That number is hearsay and probably inaccurate.)

If someone unintentionally uses a phrase to describe a debate argument, 
like "out of context," then it definitely impacts that debater's 
life...somewhere down the line.

This isn't just about harm to KU debaters: If we're all implicated in a 
game where even the national championships are decided by "cheating," it 
looks bad for all participants.

I don't dispute your disagreement with KU's use of the evidence, only 
your characterization of it as "out of context," which does imply 
"intentional distortion."

I understand that you intended no such implication and accept your apology.

--JP Lacy
lacyjp at wfu.edu

ps -- The solution to the "evidence not supporting the argument" problem 
is to do what you did. Indict the author's & the evidence's support for 
the claim. Eliminate the "out of context" claims.

pps -- As far as 'allies' go, all I was saying was that people will get 
turned off if you call people "cheaters." At least I was. I don't think 
anyone would be offended if you presented a better interpretation of the 
Sandovol book, which you did.

Tom Meagher wrote:
> JP,
> I apologize for the use of the phrase "out of context." I know it is 
> given a more specific use in debate rounds than elsewhere, and this 
> more technical usage was not on my mind when I wrote that. I should 
> have thought of that before using it.
> I apologize to Kansas if they feel that I think they "intentionally 
> distorted the meaning of evidence in the final round". There is no 
> accusation of cheating here. I would really like to hear from any KU 
> folks who have felt harmed by what I said. I'd like to rectify that if 
> it is the case.
> But honestly, in this round KU used a piece of evidence because it 
> argued for "love," and they read it to support arguments that their 
> author actively says are opposite to love. I understand how this kind 
> of mistake happens, and I don't think they should have lost for it. 
> They also read evidence in the 1nr that was NOT about "love" but that 
> was support for their alt author. If I had been in this debate, I 
> would have called them out for a) reading the evidence in the first 
> place and b) making multiple claims in the debate that only make sense 
> in a world where their alternative evidence is true to the author's 
> claim. They also c) define their alternative in cx (everyone love 
> everyone, direct quote) in a way that is not remotely supported by 
> their evidence.
> Saying 'Sandoval's good - Davis 2000' is really what elevated the 
> problem here, and it's evident throughout the 1nr and 2nr.
> JP, if you or anyone else would like to tell me the correct way to 
> label this evidence problem, without using the phrase "out of 
> context", I'd appreciate it to avoid mishaps in the future.
> What I've meant all along is that KU read evidence without having any 
> understanding that, if the author's usage of the term "love" is 
> understood correctly, it directly contradicts nearly every other 
> argument they make in the debate. What's more is that one would need a 
> high level of familiarity with the text in question to realize this. 
> They then read evidence in support of their author instead of their 
> argument, and specifically cited the fact that they read this Davis 
> evidence as a reason why Towson's arguments did not apply to them. As 
> far as I can tell, this meets all the standards for causing 
> significant harm and distortion in the round. And as I stated earlier, 
> I attribute NO intentionality to this issue.
> Given the subject matter, I think it is ironic that you may be 
> suggesting I censor my criticism in order to more quickly gain allies. 
> Obviously, I do not fully agree or disagree with you. But I think you 
> are either being unfair to my criticism by suggesting that my 
> terminology must mean I was making an intentionality argue, or you are 
> simply unaware of the magnitude of the difference between KU's use of 
> "love" and the 50 pages where Sandoval explicitly defines what she 
> means by love in this opening paragraph.
> I do not want to be divisive. Calling out KU is a pretty damned big 
> risk, and I hope it can be appreciated that I did so only because I 
> thought it was a very telling and high profile event. KU has my 
> blessing to keep doing things the way they've been doing them, and I 
> have much more respect for KU as an academic institution than I could 
> relate without becoming super long-winded. It's my feeling that 
> someone started cutting the book, couldn't keep up with it (completely 
> understandable) or did not have the time to do so, and ended up 
> blocking a few cards from the intro. This is an accusation about the 
> level of scrutiny they received, not about their original practice, 
> which is not out of the norm in debate.
> I don't think that KU's use of that evidence warranted voting against 
> them. But at the same time... had it been about something else, like 
> IR... as a judge I absolutely would have entertained whether I should 
> use some part of the ballot (obviously, this is a lesser tool in 
> out-rounds) to punish them for doing so. I'm not saying I would or 
> should have, but in a more widely understood body of literature, it 
> would have seemed at least somewhat appropriate to do so.
> I'd like to build bridges rather than shatter them, but hopefully it 
> is understandable that sometimes a bridge must also be subjected to 
> scrutiny in order to learn how to build new bridges.
> Best,
> Tom

More information about the Mailman mailing list