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

JP Lacy lacyjp
Fri Apr 25 22:37:41 CDT 2008


I'd also eliminate language like

As 
> far as I can tell, this meets all the standards for causing 
> significant harm and distortion in the round.


While you explicitly avoid the issue of intentionality, you ignore the history of evidence distortion and fabrication, in which no defense of lack of intentionality has been available.


This paragraph absent the sentences I object to would have had a similar, less accusatory effect:

"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."

Absent those last two sentences, while adding an explanation of why KU's interpretation was incorrect, would put you in the right in my book.


--JP Lacy
lacyjp at wfu.edu


JP Lacy wrote:
> Tom,
>
> 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
>>
>>     
>
> _______________________________________________
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
>
>
>   

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080425/33932142/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list