[eDebate] Skarb - and how is this even a debate??

bandana martin drmosbornesq
Wed May 13 12:45:47 CDT 2009

are u saying debaters will go to the trouble of fabricating good evidence
because/even though judges accept bad evidence bc that makes no sense to me.

cards, especially high school ones, only hafta be "good enough" and that's
the first rule u'd know if u ever spent a day in ur life. if the community
didnt demand any warrants from evidence then ppl could read google ads and
ku would win the ndt. debaters fab cards bc they cant find anything that
meets what they perceive to be the bottom standard by those who frequently
judge them (obv the fact that some of us think a poem is a card and some
dont is prolly relevant at some level here) and as someone who did some
damien neg work last year i'll tell u this isnt a team that sets the bar all
that high. i mean they learned from forslund so what can u expect.

maybe some debaters are worse than others at holding teams accountable for
ev quality but that's a personal problem and if yall think it's a big one u
will do a better job teaching that skill at camp. the reason this is an
issue (and as far as i know its not a widespread one) isnt bc debaters and
consequently judges are undemanding of evidence, even if we disagree on that
question. the reason ppl fab evidence is bc they're dirty shit-eating sacks
who deserve just as little compassion and tolerance as any other rotten
cheater. it's not the community and its not the product of any contemporary
norm. it might be useful to blame actual people on this one.

ozzy - p.s. i'd like to clarify that the forslund joke is 100% humor and i
think he has absolutely nothing to do w this, is a total class act, and
would bet any amount of money that you will never uncover this at a program
under his purview.

On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 8:10 AM, Andy Ellis <andy.edebate at gmail.com> wrote:

> And then sometimes posts like Scott's prove that going through the work to
> get a PhD does not by itself prove anything.
> 1) I was wrong about my application of my general answers to this specific
> instance(remember the original post asked general questions about the
> practices). This case seems to have aspects that do not fall under the
> broader questions Anon asked originally, or at least some of them.
> 2) My general stance is that if we had higher standards for evidence
> evaluation when cutting cards, reading cards and deciding debates on cards,
> that this would be less of a problem. If for example we demanded warrents
> and supporting evidence from all cards then there would be less of a problem
> when a debate coach wrote cards/articles. The problem now is that we have no
> standards, which means anybody can write anything, true or not, scholarship
> or not, and it gets passed off as such until proven otherwise. This article
> seems to be awful assertions, but if our standards where higher and Skarb
> wrote actual scholarship (under his name would be nice) I don't see why
> there would be a problem.
> 3)I do not think a stance which says that this is a symptom of a larger
> problem ie "Debaters do not apply very strict standards of scrutiny to
> "evidence" and thus things like this pass as evidence all the time" is
> delusional, nor proof of my anti academic nutjobness.
> 4)Nutjobs get PhD's all the time, delusional people get higher degrees all
> the time, in fact the academy may have much higher thresholds for declaring
> people delusional nutjobs than almost any other profession. I would guess
> that 70 per cent of the things read in debate rounds would not be sufficient
> proof in the grants i am working on this month...This is not to say that 70
> per cent of things has no utility, or is worthless, just that Scott's
> arguments could use some more precision.
> On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 3:12 PM, <scottelliott at grandecom.net> wrote:
>> Why is there even a debate?
>> Great Question. The answer is deeper than people think within this
>> community. The reason why there is a debate is because many within
>> this insular community a flat out delusional. They are nutjobs. Notice
>> that the one's defending such shit as people fabricating evidence are
>> not people with Ph.D.'s. Some i do not think even have degrees or
>> academic positions. Why does this matter they will ask?
>> It matters because unless you have actually done the work necessary to
>> obtain a Ph.D., or to get published in a peer review journal, you
>> really don't know what you are talking about when it comes to
>> scholarship. It is a sad freaking day when I am in agreement with
>> Jason Russell. But there is a reason why--because he too knows what
>> constitutes real scholarship, and what is shit. We also know
>> fabrication of evidence in order to secure a win at the TOC when we
>> see it. People trying to rationalize such behavior do a disservice to
>> the field of academic debate and they do a disservice to their teams.
>> The circumstances that have been relayed to me indicates that somebody
>> fabricated evidence in order to secures some wins at the TOC. I
>> wonder if Skarb is the real author...becuase I find it hard to believe
>> that an adult coach with more than half a brain would do so. But,
>> assuming it is true, there is no debate.
>> Sanchez, JT, Ellis and every other yahoo trying to rationalize such
>> shit are just doing that...rationalizing.
>> Actions like Skarb/whoever wrote the article sets a horrible precedent
>> and should be punished by the respective organizations. Handling it as
>> an "internal matter" is not enough. Under the new CEDA Rules regarding
>> professional responsibility, such fabrication at a CEDA sanctioned
>> tournament would/should result in that coach be sanctioned, up to and
>> including teams that he coaches not receiving CEDA points.
>> Leaving it up to teams to argue it out in rounds is NOT a solution.
>> Why? Because the circumstances of this case prove the point...it
>> happens too quickly for students to adapt, the abuse may take weeks to
>> figure out, and the damage has already been done. If this evidence was
>> used in a round at the TOC...is there any way for a "do over?"
>> Scott
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20090513/73bbdfbb/attachment.htm 

More information about the Mailman mailing list