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

Tom Meagher meagher.tom
Fri Apr 25 23:38:15 CDT 2008


JP,

You're right on this point. "[A]ll the standards" was a significant
overstatement. My apologies, again.

Tom

On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 8:37 PM, JP Lacy <lacyjp at wfu.edu> wrote:

>  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 Lacylacyjp 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 Lacylacyjp 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 listeDebate at www.ndtceda.comhttp://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080425/bad134da/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list