[eDebate] The CSIS Debaters Who Blog

Josh jbhdb8
Thu Sep 10 01:02:06 CDT 2009

Your caveat at the end is naiive in that most people would not think to
"subscribe to the rss feed" while doing research. It is a good tip, but
doesn't jump to mind for most I suspect.  In addition, this blog will have
authors attributed soon anyway (they are redesigning),


On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 12:34 AM, JP Lacy <lacyjp at wfu.edu> wrote:

> Not really disagreeing:
> Have you read their stuff? It makes more sense than the NYT, LAT, WP or
> "major news magazines" do.  I don't know if they make better arguments
> than "experts." But, I see a lot less overreaching, a lot more good
> arguments & a lot more documentation than the usual blog, or even news
> feed would contain.
> Given almost equally good arguments, expertise or "authority" does come
> into play.
> But, you can't ignore reality when an academic expert has been beaten,
> whether in "print" or in an un-evidenced speech delivered by a debater.
> If someone makes an argument with limited warrants, debaters should be
> able to dissect & refute it...especially if the argument is wrong. Who
> cares about the authors qualifications?
> Its hard to make "analytics" count as much as a card but, that is part
> of the game.
> I hope we can teach debaters how to beat a bad argument quoted from the
> most qualified source imaginable.
> We may need to work on that, but I hope that debaters in general become
> conversant enough in a subject matter to tell the "experts" when they
> are wrong.
> Debate judging is part of the problem: How long will the "you are right,
> but they have a card" excuse last?
> I hope no one uses similar reasoning in their daily decision making. We
> got rid of the parts of Stock Issues that made no sense. Why do we
> follow "argument from authority" to its extreme?
> If a debater is right & an authority wrong, why do we keep rely on
> authority?
> -- JP
> ps: I don't get this whole "The blog is without authors" argument.
> Subscribe to the blog with an RSS feed & you'll see all the authors.
> Jason Russell wrote:
> > I couldn't disagree with Paul more about the qualifications of the
> > CSIS interns. And I ironically enough think Josh makes an important
> > point that helps my argument. I'll say this: they're not automatically
> > unqualified, BUT citing this evidence as "CSIS Nuclear Topics Blog"
> > would, in my opinion, overstate the role that either plays in the
> > CSIS. Effectively, either of these folks is basically a Masters
> > student without a completed degree, which is better than most
> > journalists (probably not the NYT, LAT, WP, or major news magazines),
> > but should not put them on par with true academic experts. This is not
> > to say that their evidence should be ignored, but it is to say that,
> > like Josh notes, they're probably not qualified to make the very
> > specific claims they're making with the very limited warrants they
> > provide in some places. I don't think that the guys tried to hide
> > their qualifications, but I do think it would be disingenuous now to
> > argue that this evidence is of top level quality or that insulating
> > the evidence from interrogation by refusing to note that it was
> > written by Warden and Jones is an attempt to hide a relevant fact to
> > judging these cards' quality.
> >
> >
> > J
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/20090910/89c8ea0b/attachment.htm 

More information about the Mailman mailing list