[eDebate] response to skarb's apologia (reply hoe and elliott, and retraction to skarb)

Kevin Sanchez let_the_american_empire_burn
Fri May 22 06:57:03 CDT 2009








http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2009-May/078863.html
-- josh hoe: "Can anyone explain the recent FLOOD of anonymous posters?"

well debaters (and former debaters) as a class aren't always as welcoming
or as open to criticism or even as nice as we should be. (i include myself in
this.) and it can be difficult not only to withstand personal attacks, but to
calculate how much one can get away with saying and still keep one's job
or reputation (...would be my partial explanation).

_

http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2009-May/078864.html
-- scott elliott: "if you want debate coaches et al to publish the results of
thier work, specific to a topic area, then by all means do so. Just do it
after the debate season is over. That way, there is no risk of sending a
mixed message."

what is the mixed message exactly? that i'm not publishing in order to win
debate rounds? what's so wrong about winning again? won't i still have to
offer sound reasons for whatever i'm writing?

let's be concrete: if i'm a debater or a debate coach, why can't i write a
letter to the editor of my local newspaper on my given affirmative during
the course of that year's topic? what's more, why can't i use that letter
in-round? in addition to writing a possible card for myself, i've also written
possible cards for my opponents, since various others may refute my letter
in public. apropos, did you read what g. andrew youngstrom and william e.
maness wrote below skarb's essay?...

http://www.cross-x.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1721971&postcount=183

fabricating evidence (i.e. cheating) and contributing to an on-going public
discussion (even under a fake name) are WORLDS APART. that so many in
the debate community have failed to make this basic distinction makes me
think the hysteria of a controversy has triggered a mass migration of our
collective commonsense.

_

so, a retraction on my part. in this reply to gordon mitchell,
http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2009-May/078845.html
i spoke of justin skarb in a mildly derogatory manner, writing:
"there are deeper problems with debate's evidentiary practices - and these
are what future skarbs will use to their own squad's advantage, if rationality
does not prevail."

i'm no longer sure that skarb was exploiting loopholes in evidence standards
in order to afford his own squad an unfair competitive advantage, so i take
back that knee-jerk characterization and sincerely apologize.

_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail? goes with you. 
http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/Mobile?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_Mobile1_052009
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090522/5291ab22/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list