Samford Consult Japan - A thread about why it's bad to tell a lie

[jwright 379]

Out of sheer curiosity, did anyone notice the uncanny similarities between the Consult Japan file put out at Samford this year and a certain Wake Forest file from 2 years ago?

 

For people who have seen the Samford file, you can download the Wake Forest file:

 

http://jmubarnes.googlepages.com/

 

go to "Consult Japan CP - Paul Johnson"

[papak_06 237]

Aw, now that's just not cool at all. They changed one card in the shell, and it was the B card...everything else is the same. BOO! Samford's coolness level is now lower than AIDS.

 

Mucho props for finding this flaw, you shall be receiving positive rep from me.

[CairoDC09 19]

maybe because it was the same person that made it

 

I was apart of the making of this file if you find evidence then your going to find it we didnt go copy any of it Paul Johnson is Paul Johnson

 

My lab leader was Paul Johnson

[Saske 429]

WOAH DANG! THE SITCH HAS BEEN CLARIFIED

[Pointlessness413 7]

maybe because it was the same person that made it

 

I was apart of the making of this file if you find evidence then your going to find it we didnt go copy any of it Paul Johnson is Paul Johnson

 

My lab leader was Paul Johnson

 

So in other words...the lab didn't do the work and Paul Johnson just copied a file he already did? I guess it's better than saying the lab copied his file. Then again, maybe not, because that would mean the lab didn't do a file =/

[CairoDC09 19]

our group me my partner and Sonya and Paul did the file you can ask anybody at that camp we did it and smartass if you look its alot of analyticals and theory that we worked together on dont say anything if you dont know the real thing

[jwright 379]

our group me my partner and Sonya and Paul did the file you can ask anybody at that camp we did it and smartass if you look its alot of analyticals and theory that we worked together on dont say anything if you dont know the real thing

 

Again out of curiosity, which part of the theory section did you write that isn't in the Wake Forest file?

 

I suppose it's possible that you wrote... the exact same thing, but I've had a copy of that file for months.

 

I don't know who Sonya or Paul are, but you should start from scratch even if you're going to reuse old evidence. It's justified to reuse cites when cutting generic arguments like this one. But you shouldn't just open up an old file and add a few new cards to it and call it original work.

[CairoDC09 19]

it was an original file me and my partner with sonya another lab partner along with paul spent probably 5 hour each day for 5 or six days researching the evidence Your not going to create a file and not find similar cards but we found alot of cards on our own we did not just copy and paste sure we couldve done it but we didnt because we understand that to be a good debater you have to cut your own evidence and not always copy and paste and along with paul we helped cut this file Im not going to deny that it looks the same because it does but we did start from scratch and we do not appreciate being called copy and pasters

 

whatever we didnt have in the theory section he wrote because he wanted to have a good file and not look like a dumbass youd understand if you spent 5 hours a day 5 days a week in a computer lab researching evidence all day

 

by the ways he also is a Lab leader at SDI and is a damn good one

[SHS Debate 64]

I agree with JW - same tags and same underlining except for the few topic specific pieces of evidence.

 

PJ put his file out - you filled it in with some topic specific info...just admit it. You did not recut this whole file. There is nothing wrong with your lab leader putting out an old backfile to help the lab - just dont play it off as being primarily your own work and not much of his except where holes existed.

 

Its the equivalent of plagiarism by saying that.

[Needs More Consult Japan 1753]

lol @ spending so much time on a Consult Japan file

[CairoDC09 19]

we didnt know that he had another Consult Japan out we were told to research and what we research happened to be the same cards in his previous file uh because your going to find the same shit no matter how hard you look

[bangladesh.counterplan 182]

Just like Gonzaga's framework is a lot of Klinger's work.

[jwright 379]

we didnt know that he had another Consult Japan out we were told to research and what we research happened to be the same cards in his previous file uh because your going to find the same shit no matter how hard you look

 

That doesn't explain having the same block titles, order of the file, underlining, cite notation, and formatting.

 

Klinger's work being in the Gonzaga file is different. It's readily apparent that the file was constructed from scratch and the majority of it is original research, despite the fact that some cards which have been circulating for years were added.

 

Besides, most of that file is from one book - Political Theory and Partisan Politics - unlike in the case of this particular file because the work comes from many, many different sources.

[CairoDC09 19]

if you look at the cards in that files they are years year old do you not want us to use the same cards the tag are the same because frankly theyre good tags and he constructed the file how he wanted to rearranging tags that we might of cut out of context and put it in his way

 

he did it how he wanted to do it we did the freakin research and you clearly werent there to see if we didnt

 

your arg. is that uh they use the same evi. and that is bad but this arg. has no liability and because it was made by the same guy and he made a kick ass file the first time sure he took some of the same tags but that was done on his standards and the amount of time he had to create it so stop being a jackass and just drop it because it is stupid youre making a big deal out of nothing

[jwright 379]

if you look at the cards in that files they are years year old do you not want us to use the same cards the tag are the same because frankly theyre good tags and he constructed the file how he wanted to rearranging tags that we might of cut out of context and put it in his way

 

he did it how he wanted to do it we did the freakin research and you clearly werent there to see if we didnt

 

your arg. is that uh they use the same evi. and that is bad but this arg. has no liability and because it was made by the same guy and he made a kick ass file the first time sure he took some of the same tags but that was done on his standards and the amount of time he had to create it so stop being a jackass and just drop it because it is stupid youre making a big deal out of nothing

 

I can leave it at that... I'm not on a crusade to get people to abandon the file or whatever, but I don't believe it's OK to put out old backfiles at camp and claim them as original research. If it's the exact same file, I still don't understand how you could have done the research unless you cut all the exact same cards and Paul Johnson decided to modify your work so it looked exactly the same as his old file.

 

In other words: I could have abandoned all the work I did at camp and copied someone else's files because they were 'better'. That doesn't make it OK

 

But hey, you're right, it's your deal not mine...

[CairoDC09 19]

we claim it as original research because it is original research and some cards we had went into the Japan Do it cp file because they didnt fit the consult we researched what we were limited to and nothing else and if you knew Paul he is a hard worker he helped coach Wake Forest to the NDT finals and is now coaching for Iowa he understands how to make good files and he did alot of stuff based off his old file because he is not going to cut the cards out of context he is going to cut them right and he uses the same tags because you cant make a man think another way if you want to say that we copied and pasted you can say that but you dont know the half of it so when you attack somebody find out all the facts before you call them liers or cheaters there was not even a reason to start this thread so Im asking the Synergy to delete this thread because it doesnt make any damn since at all

[jmiller 499]

Okay speaking as the coach of the third person in this research group, about 20-25 pages of the file were original research done by the three debaters. The other stuff was Paul's work - which means he may have just used the backfile.

[Real_Coach 11]

Okay speaking as the coach of the third person in this research group, about 20-25 pages of the file were original research done by the three debaters. The other stuff was Paul's work - which means he may have just used the backfile.

Thanks for clarifying--after looking at the two files, I had a lot of questions myself. I guess beefing up an old backfile with a few pages of topic-specific evidence isn't an awful thing to do; especially with arguments with Consult Japan, one can only cut so many cards before redundancy sets in. What I have a problem with is Cairo's aggression toward the senior members of the debate community. I don't think anyone set out to accuse a camper of recycling evidence--rather, a question about the similarities of two files was posed. For Cairo to get so defensive is not only uncalled for, but also embarrassing in light of the revelation that most of the file is Paul's work.

[Flying Spaghetti Monster 164]

Being in the same lab as Cairo I can understand why he might be so defensive becuase they worked pretty hard on the file. And yes there are blatent similarities between the files esepecially the first 30 or so pages, but I think all paul did was change it from a kick ass file to an even better kick ass file with specific lit, more theory, and some more answers. This does not in any way though diminish their contabution to the file though, it just amplifies it and makes it better.

[Wonder 1044]

it was an original file me and my partner with sonya another lab partner along with paul spent probably 5 hour each day for 5 or six days researching the evidence Your not going to create a file and not find similar cards but we found alot of cards on our own we did not just copy and paste sure we couldve done it but we didnt because we understand that to be a good debater you have to cut your own evidence and not always copy and paste and along with paul we helped cut this file Im not going to deny that it looks the same because it does but we did start from scratch and we do not appreciate being called copy and pasters

 

Good debaters also use proper sentence structure and speak like they're not twelve.

[Pepsi One 57]

I agree with JW - same tags and same underlining except for the few topic specific pieces of evidence.

 

PJ put his file out - you filled it in with some topic specific info...just admit it. You did not recut this whole file. There is nothing wrong with your lab leader putting out an old backfile to help the lab - just dont play it off as being primarily your own work and not much of his except where holes existed.

 

Its the equivalent of plagiarism by saying that.

 

its not worth it for a consult file...just grab some specific links, new say yes card, and throw in some theory. This would be like complaining someone recycled the USFG, ASPEC, Colon, Its, and Should violations from last year's T file...Dirty plagiarizers...

[MSTR DB8R 213]

Just like Gonzaga's framework is a lot of Klinger's work.

 

It might be but I assure you we didn't plagiarize anything...brett (our lab leader) pretty much made the entire thing for us.

[movingonup 678]

This sort of thing happens a lot. So what, it happens. Check UNT's framework file this year. It matches the one Mich 7 put out last year.

[mbv 1082]

I'm not sure UNT copped that file though - the formatting is the same as the National Service K files that both UNT and Michigan shared last year, so I'm thinking it's probably the same lab leader.