[eDebate] Ledewitz terrorism link to Morrison

[Josh Hoe]

Oh, and if I misunderstood your complaint and you were asking a different
question (possible as I am tired) I apologize for seeming grumpy.

Josh


On 9/7/06, scottelliott at grandecom.net <scottelliott at grandecom.net> wrote:

>

> I have a question for Josh and others. Is this e-mail conversation between

> you

> and Ledwitz going to now be used as "evidence" in a debate round? I saw

> another

> post where a debater or coach wrote a note to another "expert," trying to

> scam,

> er, "secure" a critical internal link card. if you are planning on using

> it as

> a part of your case and/or defense of your case or disad, did you disclose

> that

> your e-mail conversation would be used in a competitive academic debate in

> order

> to help your team win tournaments? Sometimes people are more critical of

> the

> questions posed when the person asking the question discloses ulterior

> motives.

>

> Perhaps the precedent has already been set. But it seems to me that

> fishing for

> cards via e-mail is very close to simply getting on a blog site and

> writing

> your own cards.

>

> I am sure I could goad a professor into agreeing with just about any link

> story

> I wanted, especially if he was answering on the asusmption that I was just

> an

> avid fan/student/scholar searching for "clarification" or the "logical

> conclusion" of her argument--rather than some debater or coach desperately

> trying to get a link card stretching Morrison into a nuke terrorism

> scenario.

>

> I am just wondering about whether it is ethical for debaters and/or

> coaches to

> go around securing cards from experts through the skillful use of

> questions.

> It is one thing to obtain clarification for one's own education--it is

> quite

> another to drive an author to a conclusion so that you can obtain a

> competitive

> advantage in a debate round. It just seems a bit unethical and also

> dangerous.

>

> Just wondering whether this is the new norm for securing evidence in

> college

> debate.

>

> Does posting on e-debate now count as a published source?

>

> If it does, then please use the following quote as much as you want in

> debate

> rounds:

>

> "It is unethical to use as evidence to support one's case or arguments the

> responses of experts to queries from debaters or debate coaches. The

> questions

> posed are soliticting responses to further the competitive advantages over

> other students and are tantamount to fabricating evidence. It is no

> different

> than making up one's own website and writing whatever link story one needs

> to

> win a debate round. Further, use of such solicited 'evidence' within

> college

> debate rounds will eventually anger White Supremicist Groups in America;

> who

> will then join with Russian Skinheads and German Neo-Nazis to secure a

> suitcase

> nuclear weapon from the Russian-Lithuanian mafia and detonate the nuclear

> device

> in New York City or the Port of Houston; triggering a mistaken retaliatory

> strike by the U.S. against Islamic nations, triggering an all out nuclear

> war.

> Each use of such solicited evidence pushes them closer to the brink of

> detonating the nuclear device and causing the destruction of the planet.

> And,

> to paraphrase Schell, because there impact is infinite, any risk of

> reading

> such solicited evidence in a debate round outweighs the utility of reading

> such

> evidence."

>

> Scott

>

>

>

>

> _______________________________________________

> eDebate mailing list

> eDebate at ndtceda.com

> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate

>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20060907/4f0e706b/attachment.html