[eDebate] Ledewitz terrorism link to Morrison

[Josh Hoe]

Let me try to clarify one more time before I go back to reading on the
topic:

I agree with you - trolling for cards with authors in order to try to find
link arguments that arent in the literature is bad.

I disagree with you - when someone publishes something in the public domain
that makes a claim without a warrant...It is better to learn what he/she was
talking about then just leave it be.  It makes for more informed and better
debates. It informs the subject that we are researching (one of the purposes
of a topic I think). Check the question I asked - I did not say you say X
but did you mean Y.  I asked "what did you mean?"  That was it.  All the
answers were his not mine.

Josh


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

>

> No Josh, you are wrong. That is not my argument. My argument is that you

> posted

> your conversation on a list serve and that coversation will be used as

> "evidence" in a round. I know this may sound like a suprise, but two

> wrongs do

> not make a right. Reading a piece of shit card with no warrants to support

> a

> terrorism link/advantage is bad for debate. No doubt. Understanding that

> the

> author is full of shit and has no credibility is good. However, trolling

> for

> "evidence" to refute a bad card sets a bad precedent.

>

> Was your motivation for posting the conversation for educational purposes,

> or

> was it to post publicly so you can count it as a "published" "source" to

> use in

> a round?

>

> Did you explain or disclose to the professor in your e-mails that you had

> a

> competitive motivation to have him respond in a particular way? Did you

> disclose that what he/she wrote back would be used to win a college

> debate?

>

>

>

> For me, most of the evidence read in debate rounds is garbage--especially

> the

> links and internal links to politics disads. The quality of sources used

> in

> debates is abysmal and I frankly think coaches are doing a disservice to

> students by failing to have standards for what qualifies as a credible

> source.

> Billie-Bob's blogsite should not be given the same level of credibility as

> a

> peer-reviewed journal. Similarly, having Josh Hoe's impromptu interviews

> "published on edebate" the mantle of credibility just perpetuates the

> problem.

>

> Use the analyticals derived from your "educational" interview, but using

> e-mails

> as evidence smacks of ginning up one's own evidence.

>

>

> As for "out of context," I'd say the text speaks for itself. If the

> author's

> conclusion is inconsistent with the part quoted--something I am often a

> victim

> of--then the evidence is out of context. If, however, in this case, the

> author

> was making a claim for which he has no support. Then point out that the

> card is

> crap and give the judge reasons to reject. But don't go writing your own

> evidence, or trolling for someone with a advanced degree to say what you

> want

> them to say.

>

> Here, LOL, is a counter-proposal. Children and coaches, please send me

> your

> e-mails asking for link take outs and links to whatever position you are

> missing. I will e-mail you back with some half-ass answer. Hey, I have a

> Ph.D.

> and a J.D., so surely anything I write can be counted as evidence in a

> debate

> round right? No problem. Write me and tell me what Josh's teams are

> running and

> what problems you are having with their case or negative strategies. Then

> I will

> send you an e-mail giving you all kinds of reasons why their arguments are

> wrong

> or why they link to file du juor. Hey, publish it on e-debate and you are

> golden

> for the next tournament. No problems.

>

> Perhaps now you may see the implications of trolling for e-mail cards. You

> are

> setting a horrible precedent. I would rather someone read a bullshit card,

> in

> context, in a round than have debaters trolling for evidence via e-mail

> "discussions."

>

>

>

> Scott

>

> p.s.

>

>

>

>

> Quoting Josh Hoe <jbhdb8 at gmail.com>:

>

> > I was right, Scott's argument really is that people should be able to

> read

> > the card as an internal link to WMD terrorism even though that is

> literally

> > insane.  The argument is - Josh should not have asked because people

> should

> > be able to read that card essentially out of context and Josh finding

> out it

> > was out of context is unethical.

> >

> > Awesome,

> >

> > Josh

> >

> >

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

> wrote:

> > >

> > > Debate "seeking truth." What a hoot. Sorry. College academic debate is

> > > about

> > > gamesmanship and winning tournaments. I have no delusions about the

> > > activity.

> > > If you want to search for "truth," join a philosophy seminar.

> > >

> > > The "beef" is that there is a growing trend of debaters and coaches

> > > soliticing

> > > information which is often slanted for a strategic reasons rather than

> for

> > > the

> > > formulation of "truth." As pointed out earlier, it is one thing to use

> > > clarfication for "education,' its another to use it for a strategic

> > > advantage

> > > in a game.

> > >

> > > My suggestion is that the person asking the question disclose to the

> > > author the

> > > true purpose of the request--to keep from losing to an argument in a

> > > college

> > > debate round. This disclosure would make the author realize the

> motives of

> > > the

> > > persons writing. I, for one, would not respond in an e-mail if I knew

> that

> > > some

> > > debater was going to use it to win a debate round--but that's just me.

> > >

> > > In response to the MOI. There are problems with your assumption.

> First-MOI

> > > is a

> > > big picture issue, not debate. Second, the "debunking" is the entire

> > > purpose of

> > > peer reviewed publication. Josh's post is an example of unpeer

> reviewed

> > > publication. This has a couple of implications: (a) There are no

> "experts

> > > in

> > > the field" reading edebate to see if there is a random post to refute.

> (b)

> > > by

> > > the time someone has seen it, if they did, a rebuttal in the MOI is

> too

> > > late

> > > for the debate. For example: I publish some bulshit card saying that

> > > Overturning Quirin will cause the Earth to spin off its axis and go

> > > hurling

> > > into the sun. Some kid reads this in a round--hell its published and

> you

> > > have

> > > no "evidence' countering it, so he wins. Now, six months later,

> somebody

> > > reads

> > > this and publishes a series of reasons why the Earth will not fly into

> the

> > > sun.

> > > Hurray for the MOI. However, it is too late for all of those debate

> rounds

> > > that

> > > have been won or lost based on this ginned up/solicited evidence.

> > >

> > > If you don't think debaters would solicit evidence to win a round if

> > > allowed

> > > too, I think you are dead wrong. I would if I thought it were ethical.

> But

> > > i do

> > > not. I would write articles on topic areas to help my wife's debaters

> if i

> > > thought it was ethical. And, given my expertise in a variety of areas,

> on

> > > paper, it would look like a very credible source. So, would it be

> ethical

> > > for

> > > me to write such an article? I don't think so.

> > >

> > > Better example-many, many debaters are now in law school and on law

> > > reviews. So,

> > > they find out about the topic and in between bong hits with their

> former

> > > partner, he/she says, "Hey dude, wouldn't it be cool if I wrote an

> article

> > > in

> > > the Samford Law Review on Quirin being overturned--And, I give it all

> > > these

> > > great links to our old China/U.S. hegemony file. Dude!! That would be

> > > Awesome!."  He writes it in July for publication in January and his

> old

> > > buddy

> > > starts reading it in rounds just before nationals. Sweet! Ethical?

> Well,

> > > according to you, the MOI will sort it out so its cool. Good luck

> finding

> > > a law

> > > review article responding to it by March 31, NDT finals. LOL.

> > >

> > > I never said that you could get an expert to say something they did

> not

> > > believe.

> > > Rather, (1) you can find an expert to say anything you want and (2)

> you

> > > can

> > > often manipulate people to come to your pre-determined conclusions.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Bottom-line, if the standard of evidence is whatever Joe-Bob can

> dredge up

> > > by

> > > sending out e-mails to professors, be prepared for the consequences. I

> > > know

> > > that I could get a lot of people to say things about the topic that

> would

> > > throw

> > > people into fits. Rather than doing research, we would all be running

> > > around

> > > e-mailing experts trying to get them to give us "sweet cards" to win

> the

> > > next

> > > round.

> > >

> > >

> > > Scott

> > >

> > >

> > > Quoting Jamie Carroll <jamiefcarroll at gmail.com>:

> > >

> > > > I don't understand what your problem is with what Josh did. If an

> expert

> > > is

> > > > willing to validate arguments at the suggestion of a debater, then

> those

> > > > arguments are cards, in the same manner that if any other person,

> such

> > > as a

> > > > colleague, suggested to said expert those arguments.

> > > > Now, admittedly, debaters do this for a competitive reason-why this

> is

> > > worse

> > > > than experts writing stuff in service of ideological purpose, money,

> > > etc?

> > > >  If the arguments that debaters get experts to admit are so

> devastating

> > > as

> > > > to defeat other team's arguments, then that's good, because perhaps

> it

> > > shows

> > > > that the other team's arguments are not really the 'truth', but

> instead,

> > > as

> > > > in this case, misinterpreting a card.

> > > > Isn't debate all about seeking the truth? The other team can always

> > > point

> > > > out that the card was gotten under duress by a debater, and use this

> as

> > > > another angle to point out why the evidence should be scrutinized

> > > > skeptically. Plus, the idea that a debater could seriously hammer an

> > > expert

> > > > into saying something ludicrous that the expert didn't believe seems

> > > absurd

> > > > to me-and other experts would quickly debunk it if it was made

> public to

> > > the

> > > > detriment of the original expert. The only concern seems to be that

> > > whatever

> > > > questions are asked the expert are made public along with the

> answers,

> > > of

> > > > course.

> > > > Ah, the wonders of the marketplace of ideas.

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > _______________________________________________

> > > 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/bdd76280/attachment.htm