[eDebate] more questions about evidence

Halli Tripe hallitripe
Wed May 13 03:36:25 CDT 2009


I don?t mean to get up on a high horse or anything?. But I will say
that I am saddened and frustrated by some of Richard?s responses.  I
will start by saying that I didn?t really have a coach in high school,
and thus I was taught how to cut cards by Gerber and Dave Cisneros
once I entered college.  I remember cutting cards and then asking Dave
?how do I cite this??  Often he would say something like ?WTF website
are you looking at!?  There is no date, no author? you can?t cite this
because this website is crap!?  Maybe I learned how to cut cards from
super-uptight people, but I don?t think that?s a bad thing?..
Unfortunately, it seems like a lot of people/teams don?t seem to have
the same mentality.  I have seen cards in debate rounds that are
barely readable/legible (ie. they were written by a 2nd grader or were
very poorly translated via google-translator) and the cards pass as
legitimate evidence.  I agree that in an ideal world we would all be
good enough debaters to call this crap out.  However, some people are
clever enough in their citations to somehow make the sources seem
legitimate.  For example, if I cut a card from the comments of an
article and cite it ?NY times, ?09??.is that legit?  In an example
from the Skarb article, can I cite the comment ?Ornstein 09??  As a
debater, I was always under the impression that what Dave and Gerber
told me was the community norm, but apparently I was wrong.  All along
it seems that I had a higher evidence standard than a lot of people
(is this true!?!?).  When I look at it from a pessimistic lens, I
probably lost a few round because of it.
I fully acknowledge that the questions I am getting at are NOT ?you
were unethical? accusations or anything of the like?. but at some
points it is borderline.
Inappropriately citing cards is REALLY BAD research/scholarship at
best, and can be sketchy at worse.  You might ask ?yeah, but why would
you??  ???. Well, the reason why people MIGHT is that people can post
stupid stuff (but good debate arguments) in the comments, but then
cite the evidence as ?qualified publication, ?09? and get away with it
in debate rounds.
I realize that all of these questions are borderline, and probably
context dependent.

So my question is this?. Should I:
a)	Stop worrying about such silly distinctions and cut really
bad/sketchy evidence because everybody else is doing it, and that?s
what it takes to win?. Or,
b)	Keep cutting evidence that is reputable and would pass the ?laugh
test? but risk losing from sketchy evidence from the other team?
It is really sad that this is what the activity is coming to??but I at
least want to know what the consensus is so that I can cut terrible
evidence without feeling guilty.



More information about the Mailman mailing list