[eDebate] Standards for Evidence/Skarb

Josh jbhdb8
Mon May 11 20:32:05 CDT 2009


Look,

I have been against random Blog evidence being considered the same as
published for a long time.  If the "random blog" posts a qualified or
researchable author...no problem...But this goes to show that had Justin not
have given credit to Justin this would not even be traceable.

Personally, I suspect that there has to be another side of the story (since
Justin debated for me at ASU and I love the guy) but if this is accurate it
is a tragedy.  I would like to think that we hold ourselves, as
professionals, to higher standards of ethics then publishing fake evidence
under nom de plumes so we can "win" by cheating.

I do hope we hear from Justin at some point, I suspect there has to be some
explanation,

Josh

On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 9:05 PM, Paul Johnson <paulj567 at yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>
> "When is the next "socio-political" foray into space based energy going to
> be published?"
>
> Eh, Gordon Mitchell could probably do it.
>
> --- On Mon, 5/11/09, Rahul Jaswa <rahul.jaswa at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > From: Rahul Jaswa <rahul.jaswa at gmail.com>
> > Subject: [eDebate] Standards for Evidence/Skarb
> > To: edebate at www.ndtceda.com
> > Date: Monday, May 11, 2009, 3:42 PM
> > A teammate pointed this out to me on the high school debate
> > website and I
> > was pretty shocked so I left some commentary. I didn't
> > realize this was on
> > edebate as well--i'm copying and pasting my thoughts
> > here.
> >
> > First, this is completely unethical.
> >
> > 1) No attempt was made to inform the community that such an
> > article was
> > written. Given that it was produced by a debate coach
> > instructing students
> > during the current season, that seems to be minimally
> > appropriate.
> >
> > 2) The article is obviously written for strategic benefit.
> > It has several DA
> > and CP solvency arguments without appropriate data, and
> > draws on
> > "non-intrinsic" arguments which would be largely
> > inappropriate for any real
> > "peer-reviewed" journal. Citing 2 references and
> > attempting to then publish
> > an article would be laughed at by any journal submission
> > board.
> >
> > Some examples:
> >
> > ?every dollar spent on solar satellites will not be spent
> > on terrestrial
> > research and commercialization?. Unfortunately, it is
> > these very programs
> > that may be critical to preventing a deepening of the
> > current economic
> > crisis."
> >
> > "the problem with DOD investments in SBSP in the short
> > term is that the
> > military will end up having to pay not only for its
> > traditional energy
> > supplies but will have to also carry the extra burden of
> > funding SBSP
> > research and development costs. With readiness,
> > maintenance, and procurement
> > accounts already stretched thin, this is simply a situation
> > the DOD can not
> > afford. In a worst-case scenario, a mandate to pursue SBSP
> > research and
> > development could force the military to drastically scale
> > back, if not
> > cancel entirely, critical weapons programs to pay for an
> > energy system that
> > it will not be able to use for decades."
> >
> > "If there were such a thing as a money tree and the
> > American economy were
> > not in dire straits it would make perfect sense for the
> > government to embark
> > upon an all-out path towards the development of space-based
> > solar power.
> > Unfortunately, money trees only exist in our dreams and,
> > quite simply, the
> > nation currently has better uses for the money that would
> > need to be spent
> > by funding SBSP research and development. Fortunately,
> > however, there is a
> > more moderate path the government can take, agreeing to
> > purchase commercial
> > power beamed from space, which does not require any federal
> > outlays in the
> > near-term but will effectively help speed the development
> > of SBSP. This is
> > one case where we might be able to have our cake and eat it
> > too."
> >
> > 3) Why was a name other than Skarb's ever cited?
> > Marburry is Skarb, as we
> > know, and saying that Skarb helped "research" is
> > even more unethical because
> > it blatantly redirects credit for the article from an
> > actual person to a
> > fictitious person.
> >
> > 4) This was in the comments section, posted under the name
> > "norman
> > ornstein," coincidentally... I wonder how that would
> > sound in a debate
> > round? Plan derails lost--Ornstein yesterday
> >
> > "It seems clear, however, that DOD serving as an
> > anchor tenant for
> > commercial power beamed from space would drain the last
> > drop of Barack
> > Obama's finite reserve of political capital that he is
> > currently using to
> > persuade key senators and moderate Republicans to pass the
> > Law of the Sea
> > Treaty. That treaty is up in the air right now, but if the
> > status quo is
> > maintained it seems very likely to pass, due to Obama's
> > focus on spending
> > political capital there. Space is a controversial issue in
> > these times, as
> > poll after poll attest to, and DOD action would surely be
> > perceived as part
> > of Obama's green energy plan, which would engender
> > backlash from the same,
> > interestingly enough, senators he's co-operating with
> > to pass LOST."
> >
> > 5) Published 2 days before the TOC
> >
> > 6) Did Damien teams debate this case at the TOC? If not, I
> > don't think that
> > "we didn't read these cards is an appropriate
> > defense." The onus is clearly
> > on them.
> >
> > 7) It pollutes the existing research base which is
> > constituted by the
> > writings of researchers who have no vested interest in
> > producing
> > oversimplified debate arguments.
> >
> > 8) When is the next "socio-political" foray into
> > space based energy going to
> > be published? I'm anxious to hear more from the newest
> > topic expert. After
> > all, Arizona State's political science, history, and
> > political communication
> > departments are world renowned for their classes on space
> > based energy. And
> > your master's research, i'm sure, required you to
> > devote your time and
> > thoughts to learning the intricacies of DOD weapons
> > programs, the details of
> > agency fiscal discipline, and the workings of the imaginary
> > "money tree"
> > which guide the future of such a program--most importantly,
> > how they would
> > interact given immediate funding of such a program.
> >
> > 9) The bottom line is that this activity is meant to
> > promote quality
> > education among students. Even if Damien's coaching
> > doesn't believe that
> > debate is more than a game, there are a slew of people,
> > apparently more
> > wise, who recognize the importance of keeping debate clean.
> > EVEN IF there
> > were arguments in defense of this behavior (there are not),
> > this was clearly
> > approaching questionable territory and instead of erring
> > against it, or at
> > least diffusing the problem by proactively taking measures
> > like informing
> > the community that such an article had been written by your
> > program, you
> > decided it was more important to have another strategic
> > tool.
> >
> > Second, addressing other people's rationalizations.
> >
> > 1) "I'd say that it's fairly important to take
> > into consideration the
> > credentials of the author. If you're a coach with a
> > major in engineering or
> > something of the sort, there's no problem with you
> > publishing the article
> > and having debaters card from it."
> >
> > This is nonsensical--just like how qualified global warming
> > researchers used
> > to be paid money by thinktanks to publish articles
> > supporting their side of
> > the debate. Except this is worse because it affects a
> > strategic game.
> >
> > 2) "you should email them directly instead of asking
> > for responses on a
> > public forum known for devolving into keyboard wars."
> >
> > Please, own up. I know you're young and proud and feel
> > the need to defend
> > your program--this obviously deserves "community"
> > attention, and the fact
> > that I, a UC Berkeley debater with essentially no ties to
> > high school
> > debate, heard about it, is clear evidence that this sort of
> > discussion has
> > far-reaching influence.
> >
> > Right or wrong, relegating this to the private sphere is
> > obviously an
> > inappropriate way to deal with a phenomenon which directly
> > affects the way
> > that debates take place on a community-wide basis. More
> > importantly, the
> > longer this goes without
> >
> > It was published two days before the TOC. There was no
> > effort to tell the
> > whole community that this article was available. The
> > article obviously cited
> > no research to backup the vast majority of its assertions.
> >
> > 3) "What if the coach is an expert in the field. For
> > instance, what if the
> > coach is, say, the chief scientist at the JPL, and he/she
> > coaches debate in
> > their spare time - would anything that the coach writes be
> > off-limits
> > insofar as debate is concerned? Even if they were the main
> > solvency author
> > in the field?"
> >
> > Well that is certainly not the case here, and this
> > imaginary coach/field
> > expert would certainly not publish articles in an obscure
> > hybrid between
> > community blog and public discussion of
> > "published" articles.
> >
> > More importantly, this article wouldn't be written from
> > an oversimplified
> > argumentative perspective with shallow analysis and
> > exclusively debate
> > arguments. "Peer-reviewed" in academia/policy
> > analysis doesn't just mean
> > that someone else read and approved it, it means that
> > reputable
> > academics/analysts within your subdiscipline read and
> > approved it. Please,
> > submit this to a scientific journal and send us the
> > response, i'd be glad to
> > read it. Or, if you prefer, an economics journal, or the
> > economist, or the
> > New Yorker even.
> >
> > 4) "if they are writing for peer-reviewed or edited
> > journals, etc., then I
> > don't think their writing is off-limits. you can't
> > say that we can't have
> > subject matter experts coaching debate, and if you're
> > lucky enough to get a
> > subject matter expert coaching you, then their writing
> > should be fair game -
> > as long as the writing is from legit sources.."
> >
> > At minimum, there needs to be specific practice to protect
> > the
> > community--people need to be made aware of the existence of
> > such an article
> > from the author/debate coach; in this case it is
> > inappropriate to say that
> > the burden is on the researcher because, among other
> > things, this is
> > ingenuine research and artificially benefits the team
> > making the arguments.
> >
> > Their writing should not be fair game as evidence, their
> > opinions should
> > help direct your research/argumentation so that you can
> > find people who
> > don't have a vested interest in your winning that
> > support your findings.
> > _______________________________________________
> > eDebate mailing list
> > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
> > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20090511/2149ab97/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list