Jump to content
TheScuSpeaks

The ethics of coach/student generated content (emails, interviews, etc) in debate

Recommended Posts

>>>Any response to the problems related to long and short term content verification?

 

Inevitable with any ev thats not on the internet.

 

Actually this solves that back, because they would have to publicly post it (ie a blog/debate listserv) for it to have validity/verification.

 

I would regard with suspect anyone (debate competitor) not willing to post a private interview in a public way. I'm pretty sure that destroys the hope of academic rigor + the academic process.

Edited by nathan_debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>>>Any response to the problems related to long and short term content verification?

 

Inevitable with any ev thats not on the internet.

 

I don't think you understand the argument. Traditional publication or independent author publication allows third parties to verify that the author actually said what it is that a debater contends that they said. It's not inevitable in the status quo. Books and articles have publishers. If someone reads a card from a published work, you can go back and find that work (from the publisher or else ware) to verify that it actually exists and says what the card says. The only world in which this would not work is if some debate team had the last remaining copy of a book from a defunct publisher and there was no scan or record of it's existence, some how. Highly unlikely.

 

Conversely, this virtually impossible situation is the reality of all independent "interviews" that debaters "publish" on a blog or whatever. There's no way to ever confirm that the author or subject of the interview actually said what the debater is contending they did. I'm not talking about having the ability to confirm a record of the interview. I'm talking about the ability to confirm that the record of the interview is accurate.

 

 

Actually this solves that back, because they would have to publicly post it (ie a blog/debate listserv) for it to have validity/verification.

 

As I mentioned above, this doesn't provide any means of true verification. And it doesn't solve any problem. The harm that you're claiming to solve doesn't actually exist and, even if it did, would be solved by the mass movement to digitally scan books and journal articles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>>Conversely, this virtually impossible situation is the reality of all independent "interviews" that debaters "publish" on a blog or whatever. There's no way to ever confirm that the author or subject of the interview actually said what the debater is contending they did. I'm not talking about having the ability to confirm a record of the interview. I'm talking about the ability to confirm that the record of the interview is accurate.

 

1) Usually an e-mail would contain an e-mail address (which solves back your problem). I've never had the e-mail addresses for ANY of my opponents arguments--much less my own.

 

2) This sort of academic witch hunt is ridiculous. If someone posts it and you really think there is a problem. Don't make a crappy theory argument--email the author yourself.

 

3) Specificity and filling evidence voids will always kill this risk in 97% of cases. If someone was going to lie....they would lie with some other form of evidence. Perhaps this makes it .00001 easier.

 

5) But thats a TERRIBLE argument that never should be run--because its functionally a witchhunt. And witchhunts kill the academy. Its the zero-point of the holocaust, its dehum, and collapses the marketplace of ideas and education.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with bumping an old thread is that people post without re-reading the initial arguments and you just end up repeating yourself...alas..

 

1) Usually an e-mail would contain an e-mail address (which solves back your problem). I've never had the e-mail addresses for ANY of my opponents arguments--much less my own.

 

2) This sort of academic witch hunt is ridiculous. If someone posts it and you really think there is a problem. Don't make a crappy theory argument--email the author yourself.

 

"You could email the author and ask if that's what they said." Well I suppose that I could, but they might never get back to me. There's also a fairly high likelihood that at some point in time they'll die. It also seems likely that they wouldn't save the email or remember, verbatim, an email they sent to some high school kid 4 years ago."

 

 

3) Specificity and filling evidence voids will always kill this risk in 97% of cases. If someone was going to lie....they would lie with some other form of evidence. Perhaps this makes it .00001 easier.

 

1. You've given zero analysis about why filling evidence voids in this manner is so important, let alone important enough to outweigh the huge decrease in evidence verifiability and increased risk of cheating.

 

2. All the previous analysis in these posts explains why it is extremely difficult to lie about traditionally published works or articles independently posted by the author.

 

3. It makes it waaay easier to cheat because there's no verifiable original record of the evidence. How do you not see this? Seriously.

 

4. There is a difference between an expert researching, writing, and publishing something as opposed to an offhand remark to some 14 year old kid. There's only value in filling "evidence voids" if you're filling it with something of quality.

 

 

5) But thats a TERRIBLE argument that never should be run--because its functionally a witchhunt. And witchhunts kill the academy. Its the zero-point of the holocaust, its dehum, and collapses the marketplace of ideas and education.

 

I'm going to assume that you're being tongue in cheek here, because you sound like a complete idiot.

 

Who's talking about a witchhunt? I'm talking about having a minimum threshold on evidence that it has to be published (either formally or informally) by the original author.

 

In case this still doesn't make sense to you, try this on:

 

Last month I interviewed Paul Harvey before he died, and he told me that you're a moron and that he totally agrees with me on this issue. I'll post the transcript from that interview (that I'll type up in a word doc) to cross-x, and then use it as a card. I dare you to prove that it isn't 100 percent accurate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In general, I would rather get it from the horse's mouth, rather than forced to be DUMB.

 

In a world without the information you are forced into a world of conjecture or I read this as this.

 

If a Congress person (who has competitive interest in getting bills passed for his district or for lobbyist or his/her own passionate ideas) needs to call up "X" person in the real world they do it. If an academic has the same problem, they usually follow suit. Forcing debaters into another one....one which

 

You can abuse anything. For you no practice can be airtight enough because apparently people are bent on being dirty cheaters. Hence, my scapegoating argument (with all the impacts) that turn back your argument on grounds of education + information flow.

 

Finally, opening up the dialouge between debaters and people in the real world is a good thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If a Congress person (who has competitive interest in getting bills passed for his district or for lobbyist or his/her own passionate ideas) needs to call up "X" person in the real world they do it. If an academic has the same problem, they usually follow suit. Forcing debaters into another one....one which

 

Show me 5 scholarly books or articles that cite the author's "personal correspondence" with someone else. I don't recall coming across this practice in any of the books or articles that I read in my debate experience.

Edited by joe kelly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, not my argument. My argument was based on congress. Congress doesn't do extensive citing on speeches, only reports.

 

Second, as someone pointed out earlier...email has a place in the APA and similar other style manuals.

 

Asking me for this is like me telling you: Your parents or girlfriend/boyfriend don't love you unless you can produce a letter that says they do.

 

My argument is that informal conversations (online and off) take place between policy makers, analysts, and academics. These conversations don't always get citations in an academic manner, but the fact that they don't get cited in mass, is not proof that they don't happen. (ie plenty of drug transactions take place that we don't have documents on--doesn't deny their factual existence).

 

My argument is that these informal conversations happen and effect policy...except when ego or resources (time, etc.) get in the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First, not my argument. My argument was based on congress. Congress doesn't do extensive citing on speeches, only reports.

 

Actually, you did say that academics do the same thing. Additionally, policy debate has a very different decision making process then Congress, thank god. Congressional offices very rarely make decisions based on logical, evidenced exposure to multiple views. They prioritize other issues. In that way, policy debate has the luxury of intellectual insulation. Different forums require different practices.

 

Second, as someone pointed out earlier...email has a place in the APA and similar other style manuals.

 

That doesn't really prove anything. If I'm using an anecdote from an email I would cite it. That doesn't mean that personal, unpublished emails are used as concrete evidence for anything. Additionally, papers and edited publications have editors and fact checkers for a reason. That's a luxury that we don't have in policy debate.

 

 

 

My argument is that informal conversations (online and off) take place between policy makers, analysts, and academics. These conversations don't always get citations in an academic manner, but the fact that they don't get cited in mass, is not proof that they don't happen.

 

Sweet. If this is your new argument then I think we agree. Debaters conversing with experts in order to gain a more full understanding of issues and arguments is great. I think everyone should do it. All I (and others) am saying is that those "informal conversations" shouldn't be used as cards, unless they're independently published by the other party to the conversation. This solves all of your offense and avoids all of the disads that we've expressed. Hazzah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah....you're right. Except....when those very issues get contested.

 

Once those conversations go down.....inevitably the debater is to a) use that as argument in debate OR B) ignore their real lived experience.

 

Under a) those get contested...the only way to resolve that contest is to allow those issues to be evidenced in the form of emails.

 

--Also, any smart academic or writer will have their name on Google alert, which checks back some of your abuse claims due to web 2.0 technologies. Ie if William V. Spanos sees someone misquoted him on the list serv or a blog...he can sign up for the listserv or write his own blog.

 

Here, opening up the marketplace of ideas rather than using procrustean rules to stifle thought and communication.....is the ideal course of action.

 

My argument has never been that those transactions are perfect...just that they are better than the alternative...and information void (and a communications void).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

--Also, any smart academic or writer will have their name on Google alert, which checks back some of your abuse claims due to web 2.0 technologies.

 

Haha. Spoken like a true search engine maximizing web 2.0 evangelist. I think this conversation has run its course. Agree to disagree, I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Show me 5 scholarly books or articles that cite the author's "personal correspondence" with someone else. I don't recall coming across this practice in any of the books or articles that I read in my debate experience.

 

John Rawls and Robert Nozick both claim in the intros to their books (A Theory of Justice and Anarchy, State, and Utopia respectively) that they wrote each other in regards to their ideas when writing their books quite frequently (this was the 70s so email wasn't around). I don't believe they directly quoted one another, but i'm sure that their letters served a valuable purpose in both authors' writings...

 

EDIT: I get this may in fact further your point, but I'm just providing an example of where exchanges between academics have come into play in books/articles

Edited by Poneill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nathan debate makes a few points.

 

Off the #1. Not my argument

I have two responses.

1. No problem.

2. My argument then is that debate evidence citation practices should mirror the scholarly practices found in published articles and books.

 

 

Off the #2. APA

I have two.

1. The APA provides citation assistance for Wiki. Wiki is unacceptable for debate.

2. The APA actually discourages e-mail in particular and makes a distinction between personal communication and Reference. See p. 214 of their 2001 Publication Manual or see http://www.bedfordstmartins.com/online/cite6.html.

 

Then you say something about my mom followed by something which would be more accurately worded as "the fact that they don't get cited [[in any book or article that Nathan_Debate can think of]], is [[]] proof that they don't happen"

I've got one.

1. Give me a[/a] cite where an author advances a thought or argument based on personal communication.

 

 

 

 

Poneill says John Rawls and Robert Nozick

 

I tracked down the cites on Google Books and Amazon, because they were both checked out at my library. In any event, in Rawls book, there's an acknowledgement of Nozick. And then there are a couple citations through the book of various works by Nozick. But nowhere is there something along the lines of "I spoke with Nozick, and he said ___"

 

In Nozick's book, you'll find extensive citation of Rawls. You'll also find a footnote on p. 167, which reads in part: "I discuss below __what I think would be__ Rawls' reply: that some principles apply at the macro level which do not apply to micro- situations." (emphasis mine).

 

 

So, sure, conversations take place. But personal communication should not to be used as a reference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...