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

Andy Ellis andy.edebate
Thu May 14 00:13:33 CDT 2009


ROFLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
+
LOLZ
+
LMAO
=
http://ofjwh.tk (really short url courtesy of tweak.tk or if you like them
long try freakinghugeurl.com)
http://www.freakinghugeurl.com/refer.php?count=12&url=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

On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 1:45 PM, bandana martin <drmosbornesq at gmail.com>wrote:

> 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/20090514/fba8aa7a/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list