[eDebate] Ledewitz terrorism link to Morrison

[lacyjp]

On 9/7/2006 11:08 PM, lacyjp wrote:


> I honestly do think debate (in general, not just the game we play) can 

> benefit (and has benefitted in the past) immensely from interation with 

> the experts we quote and from greater use of evidence generated from 

> interaction with "expert" and primary sources.

> 

> I also think those "expert" and primary sources can benefit immensely 

> from interaction with a community like ours.

> 

> While we do play a "game," there *is* a truth seeking function: The game 

> is predicated on one basic norm: "The force of the best argument should 

> hold the day." (Within the context of the game...which is always up for 

> grabs.)

> 

> If we can improve the quality of our own arguments as we interact with 

> the "real world" we can have a dramatic 

impact, not argument
argument on the quality of

> decisions made by ourselves and "real" decision-makers.

> 

> I'm making two arguments here: 1) Many debate arguments are absurd. & 2) 

> Many "real world" arguments are equally absurd.

> 

> The "slippery slope" to "fishing for evidence" can be avoided if we 

> follow simple protocols:

> 

> 1. Publish interactions with authors in their totality in a manner 

> transparent to all, prior to their use in debate. Right now, the best 

> medium we have to do so is eDebate. [That way, evidence from Ledewitz, 

> Scott Elliot, Stratfor, etc is subject to follow up questioning. (And 

> the "Marketplace of Ideas" can quickly react to absurd claims like 

> "yes...the earth will actually implode if Quirin is not overrruled as 

> soon as possible.")]

> 

> 2. Be forthright in your questions: Explain fully your position and your 

> purpose in asking the question. If full "interviews" or email exchanges 

> are published for the debate community to examine, leading, or even 

> unethical lines of questioning will be easily exposed for what they are.

> 

> --JP Lacy

> 

> ps -- is all this really an extension of the "I don't want to belong to 

> any club that will have me as a member" syndrome?

> 

> Talk to your authors. They make their email available for a reason.

> 

> 

> 

> On 9/7/2006 8:26 PM, Zompetti at aol.com wrote:

> 

> 

>> 

>>Well....even with a j.d. and a ph.d., Josh is still a more qualified 

>>source than you.

>> 

>>Good grief....Josh was simply being nice by reporting to the community 

>>the conversation he had with Ledowitz.  I doubt very seriously if Josh 

>>needed that conversation to be "published" on eDebate so his teams can 

>>win -- they're better than that.

>> 

>> 

>>zomp

>> 

>> 

>> 

>>In a message dated 9/7/2006 6:34:20 P.M. Central Daylight Time, 

>>scottelliott at grandecom.net writes:

>>

>>    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.

>>

>> 

>>

>>

>>------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>

>>_______________________________________________

>>eDebate mailing list

>>eDebate at ndtceda.com

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

> 

> 

> _______________________________________________

> eDebate mailing list

> eDebate at ndtceda.com

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

> 

>