An Hour… or So (10/1)
posted by Bietz on October 2nd, 2007
WEST HOLLYWOOD, Cali. — “An Hour… or So” with Mike Bietz will be on tonight at 6:00PM PDT (9:00EDT, 8:00CDT). We are still in experimental mode, but will hopefully have the opportunity to take calls about the new topic as well as the current one. Hope you’ll join! You can either:
or call in and listen over your phone - Phone Number: (724) 444.7444 | Talkcast ID: 54411.
To participate, though, you must become a member of TalkShoe.com.
Popularity: 1%
no more tag found, sorry
30 Responses to “An Hour… or So (10/1)”
Leave a Reply
Most Popular Posts
- Chris Theis Wins the Heart of Texas
- Two Choices Remain for New Policy Debate Topic
- Field Report: The Kaiser
- Field Report: Big Bronx XXXVII
- Claire Herron Wins Saint James
- This Weekend: Live from the Kaiser, Live from UPenn
- Team USA Applications Due This Saturday
- Megan Herbert is FSU Champion
- Crystallize: By the time I'm done with a banana, I'm quite ready to be done with a banana.
- Field Report: The MinneApple
Posted from: 76.170.34.41
October 2nd, 2007 20:07
Thanks to everyone who listened and participated. Great show!
Posted from: 74.36.137.22
October 2nd, 2007 20:19
Thanks a lot for hosting it Bietz. =)
It’s really a good idea/production, I know the rest of the people that have listened/participated would agree.
Posted from: 68.92.215.215
October 2nd, 2007 21:52
I think once again Bietz put on a great show. It’s great that we got some very knowledgeable people to discuss issues. I always love hearing the thoughts of some of the best former competitors and judges. For those of you that never got the chance to see Josh Anderson debate, you missed a real treat. He was truly one of the best ever.
I thoroughly enjoy the fact that we can have exchanges that are highly intellectual. The part that I found a little disheartening is not that there was disagreement between some of us over the issue of what constitutes ethical vs. unethical evidence. I think the disagreement is WONDERFUL. I think Anderson/Bietz/Mangus/Babb have spent tons of time thinking about debate and offer opinions based on years of experience.
I’d like to think all of our concerns for the integrity of evidence stems from a respect for the time competitors and coaches put into preparation.
What I find incredibly disheartening is the fact whenever there is a discussion about the ethical nature of practices in debate is that there is also this immediate push to not have the discussion. I find this troubling for a few reasons. 1. What I like so much about the debate community is the free flow of ideas between intelligent people. I feel we shouldn’t lose the ability to do this when it concerns how we participate in an activity we all devote hours of time to. I think there are points in time where we all do just need to agree to disagree. I don’t think we’re close to that point yet in this discussion. 2. I feel it screams “Ivory Tower” for us to feel very comfortable discussing the ethical nature of policies that determine whether people LIVE OR DIE but not be willing to discuss whether we play a game in an ethical manner. It’s easy to talk about the deaths of millions of people in the third world, but it’s hard to talk about the way in which one prepares a debate case. That seems a little troubling. 3. I think people like to conflate two very distinct things. When we say someone’s practice or the way in which someone performs a given task is unacceptable or inconsistent with our notion of academically sound practices, we are NOT saying they are a bad person or they are an unethical person. We are saying one given action is not something we’d like to see replicated and as educators we’re willing to explain why and help any student correct these mistakes. I’m not sure why that’s so abhorrent. To make mistakes is human. To make mistakes when you are a teenager in a competitive activity is expected but shouldn’t be embraced. Teachers and judges are not just coaches and referees. They should be educators. 4. Sometimes uncomfortable questions are necessary for making the activity as a whole better. I think the push to allow progressive argumentation is excellent but I think it’s meaningless without a push for a more progressive approach to how we research/construct arguments.
I would love for this discussion to continue and I really hope the community’s leaders will be willing to engage in this discussion, explaining their beliefs and be willing to have an open discussion. I’ve learned so much from the community over the past 9 years. I feel like this is an issue where we can all learn from each other. I really hope people choose to continue this discussion as opposed to brushing it aside because it might force us to consider the manner in which we compete.
Respectfully,
Sam Duby
Posted from: 66.108.94.165
October 2nd, 2007 22:05
Agh! Open House at Bronx Science struck tonight. But these are great to listen to. I am going to try my best to participate in next week’s episode.
Posted from: 76.171.173.12
October 2nd, 2007 22:11
Sam.
I too believe that it is a fruitful discussion, yet, and this might be because I am not a trained ethicist, I don’t know how to *prove* something is ethical. I also don’t think any of us shied away from the issue. In fact, I think the opposite happened.
Posted from: 76.171.173.12
October 2nd, 2007 22:12
Jon: Goodie.
Posted from: 74.67.55.150
October 2nd, 2007 23:00
I think Sam is right on point, and I think Bietz is right as well. The issue was not shied away from at all. Kudos there.
Posted from: 71.106.50.150
October 3rd, 2007 00:06
For the benefit of those who have not listened to the podcast (or didn’t make it to the end of the second hour), I’ll give some context to the discussion Sam is referring to.
The broad issue was the ethical implications of quoting an author to advance a conclusion the author explicitly disagrees with. I don’t recall Sam’s specific example, but I believe it was something along the lines of the negative quoting a death-penalty opponent who gives an articulate defense of the death penalty for the purposes of then refuting it (ie quoting a strawperson argument). We considered a number of other hypotheticals revolving around authorial intent.
I found our discussion to be pretty in-depth, and no doubt we can get more into it here, but for the moment, I’ll address Sam’s specific question posed above–whether to approach this discussion from an ethical perspective.
There are broadly speaking two ways of “handling” an evidentiary dispute about author’s intent *in a round*, which I think should affect the terms in which we talk about it here. Those two ways are to treat authorial intent as an ethical question, or to treat it as a substantive question. Treating it as a substantive issue might mean: making authorial intent a factor or tie-breaker in evidence comparison; comparing the author’s underlying logic supporting his or her conclusion with the debater’s underlying logic supporting the different conclusion; or entertaining a debate about the relevance of authorial intent given the context. The worst consequence is the rejection of the evidence. On the other hand, treating it as an ethical issue requires judgment of the debater’s motives and character. The presumptive consequence is they should lose the round, and they will probably endure lasting harm to their reputation.
My position on the podcast was that there’s limited utility to framing this as an ethical issue. While I don’t think it’s ‘bad per se’ to discuss evidence ethics, when you are *in a round* there’s way too many variables and you’d have to read way too much into debaters’ motives to comfortably apply ethical brightlines (unless of course your position was ‘never quote an author to advance a side of the topic that the author would not support’ … we can get into this I suppose, but our podcast discussion seemed to reveal that time, place, and manner were considered relevant by most contributors). Standards of debate ethics come from the consensus norms of the community. Our discussion revealed that there is nothing close to consensus on this issue. Maybe in time that will change, but for now, introducing ethical discourse creates the risk of prematurely polarizing the discussion.
In short, Sam, like you I think we should have vibrant discussion about the validity of this sort of evidentiary practice, but I consider it less helpful to approach it as an ethical issue than as a substantive issue.
Posted from: 24.131.201.49
October 3rd, 2007 00:31
sam,
i dont think we should dismiss ethical questions out of hand. i think the point bietz tried to make (or at least a version of the point bietz made that i would agree with) is that its not easy to have a discussion when the premise of someones argument is ‘i believe this is unethical; prove me wrong.’ you asked a lot of questions and came up with a lot of examples, but im not really sure what the basis of your claim is.
ive made my argument from what i hope to be a fairly sensible academic point of view: it is fair to quote authors as authorities on particular arguments theyve made, even if you do not agree with other arguments they advance. as long as they present the same argument you do (even if they draw other conclusions), you have cited them fairly and their qualifications lend credence to that aspect of your argument. this is the basis for the distinction i drew between changing an authors argument (bracketing out a “not”) and using an argument as the initial premise for a different conclusion.
in cases where the author is describing someone else’s argument, i think the ethos gained from citing that author is greatly diminished, but the citation isnt dishonest in and of itself. in the event that a card is not an initial premise but rather a basic strawman, then the author is not using his/her qualifications to advance that particular argument - the relevant qualification would seem to be “can this author read and summarize someone else’s claim,” which is no great academic feat. thus, the model i propose (viewing evidence as an attempt to gain ethos by deferring to a particularly qualified source) would filter out the strategic value of using strawmen, but would not reject the evidence on face since there isnt anything dishonest about the citation itself.
i think sams post is informative in shying away from the idea that this is a question of personal ethics. it seems to me that in creating debate paradigms (which i use here as a term broadly inclusive of judging, coaching, and pedagogy) we should have two concerns: is this practice academically sound? if so, does it make for good debate?
my arguments regarding the first question have gone uncontested so far - no one seems to think that you can only cite authors who make the exact same argument that you do. this answer also provides a groundwork for dealing with the second question: it is not easy to research a position within the narrow confines of ‘find an academic who says exactly what you say.’ aside from the cost in terms of critical thinking, such a constraint isnt feasible in a world where academics rarely happen to engage the exact wording of the resolution.
consequently, a world of sam’s strict interpretation would significantly narrow the scope of legitimate research. argument flexibility is valuable not only for pedagogical reasons (broadening our horizons, demanding more in-depth research, etc) but competitive ones (since cases become highly predictable and the most prepped debater will win out).
sam, we all know its easier to “go neg” and refute the arguments of others. id like to see you present a principled argument for why using evidence in this way is wrong instead of feigning ignorance. i dont think youre a sheep in need of a shepherd; its more likely that you are a wolf in sheeps clothing.
Posted from: 98.194.140.193
October 3rd, 2007 01:27
harvard had food and busses
UT had hospitality
Posted from: 69.74.169.2
October 3rd, 2007 05:56
Moving away from ethics for a minute, I’m about two thirds of the way through listening to the podcast (my morning commute plus a little more) and I applaud the participants and the whole idea. Although I do suggest that, if you do this weekly, you don’t run over an hour, that is a mere quibble. To hear intelligent commentators discuss a topic in depth, and then to discuss theory arguments in depth, is a rare occurrence. I will no doubt stick to the podcast version in the future, so that I can time shift to my advantage. In any case, bravo!
Posted from: 75.139.45.247
October 3rd, 2007 06:35
if you cut strawmen, as long as you’re not using the credibility of the author to advance your claim but rather just its analytic value, i don’t see why that’s bad. it seems to be no different from any other analytic that you could have made yourself.
further, i don’t see why it’s strategic to cut strawmen in the first place since a) they are a victim of what mangus is indicting - they no longer can use the author as a reason to prefer the argument. b) these cards often represent a condensed form of the actual argument that is less inclined to be thoroughly warranted or explained
Posted from: 67.155.35.66
October 3rd, 2007 09:11
I agree 100% with Josh/Mangus/Bietz. It’s not constructive or helpful if my only claim is I think X now prove me wrong. I plan on taking the time to prepare a thought out written response based on the objections/concerns/questions raised both from the Podcast and the ones listed on here. So I’d really like if people have thoughts on the matter to keep posting those, so I can try to construct and articulate my viewpoint in a way that incorporates and addresses as many of these ideas as possible.
I agree with Mangus that the other individuals on the show were more than willing to answer every one of my questions and it is now my turn to develop a coherent/well reasoned defense of my stance on evidence in LD as opposed to just trying to poke holes in other views. I hopefully will be able to complete that this weekend and hope Jon/Mike/Victor will allow me a forum to post it on here so this discussion can continue.
Posted from: 169.226.84.109
October 3rd, 2007 09:25
I want to preface this comment with the note that I have not seen any of the cases in question.
I think (this is referring specifically the Raymond evidence that was being discussed on the cast) that the way it was explained makes me think it was legitimate, but I also think it’s very dependant on what claim you are using that evidence to advance. From my understanding, Raymond clearly makes 2 arguments. 1) That if you kill, you are due death, and 2) The state should not be the agent of that death because of mitigating factors. If you use the first argument, to warrant the claim “People who commit murder deserve to die” then I can’t really see how it could be construed as illegitimate. The author DOES make that claim, and you are using it in exactly the way they are, as a premise to a larger point. You can then go on to establish that the government should be the agent to give people their due death with other evidence.
However, if you use Raymond to warrant the claim “The government should utilize the death penalty” I think what you’re doing is at least a little ethically unsound, and certainly unwise against a debater who has done her research.
Ok, so Basically I agree with Mangus. It’s ok if you’re using the evidence in the same way the author intended it, as a premise, and NOT ok if you are using it to misconstrue his conclusion.
Posted from: 75.73.214.91
October 3rd, 2007 21:53
To make a comment on the AC Shess and I formulated at NSD on the resolution “Resolved: In the United States, jury nullification is a legitimate check on government.” that I feel was a bit misinterpreted during the course of this discussion:
The case set up a syllogism that required three proofs:
1st, is implies the status quo, as per the American Heritage Dictionary definition “Third person present indicative of be.” This was the only definition in the dictionary, and any way you look at it “is” requires some sort of statement about what happens to be occurring at that moment, for example, “he is fat” implies that the man indicated by ‘he’ is currently fat. He may have been fat in the past, he may be fat in the future, but we know that he is fat right now, if we take that statement as true.
2nd, legitimate means “according to law.” This was the more contentious suggestion, and, to cover my bases, I looked up the definition in about 4 legal dictionaries, 2 standard dictionaries, and even an ethical encyclopedia (no joke, when I went to ‘legitimacy, it said ‘See Obedience to Law’), and quoted all of them in my case to show that I wasn’t just picking and choosing definitions. Other definitions (which generated some hilarity in the quarters round at NSD) were ‘Born of lawfully married parents’ and ‘Genuine, valid,’ and neither of which gives us a very good way to debate that resolution. The only definition that could logically compete with legitimate=legal is “in accordance with recognized or accepted standards or principles,” as per http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=legitimate, and even that has a link to legality in the sense that laws are generally accepted/recognized standards. Anyways, that aside, I made no judgments about whether or not jury nullification was indeed moral or just, only that it was legal.
This sets up the burden for the AC to show that jury nullification is currently a legal check on government in the United States.
So, 3rd, I quoted various court rulings which stated that juries had the power to use jury nullification. People would often argue “well, just because they have the POWER to do it doesn’t make it legal,” to which the response is “we assume that picking up a chair is legal, despite the fact that there is no law saying I can do it.” Also, people would ask the CX question “if I show that jury nullification is used to break laws, do I win your case?” The answer was “no, because in the same way that driving a car will be legal even though you have the capability of committing vehicular homicide while using it, jury nullification may be used to break laws but the act itself is legal.”
But I must point out the part which I thought that the conversation on the podcast got it wrong: you (not anyone in particular, it seemed everybody made the mistake) made the argument seem to be that ’since its legal, it’s just.’ But since that resolution didn’t require me to show that anything was just, I didn’t make any claims to justice, only to legality. In a very (I assure you, VERY) awkward CX moment, one of my opponents asked me if, under my interpretation, I would affirm the resolution that “Resolved: The killing of the Jews by the Nazis during the Holocaust was legitimate.” After I avoided the question for a while (as I said, it was awkward) and Dave McGinnis gradually grew more irate (both at my case and at the way I was avoiding the question), the answer was yes, I’d affirm the resolution insofar as the killings were state-sponsored and hence “legal” under Nazi-Germany’s rules (but not under international legal standards, etc., but that’s a subtlety that escaped the question/answer), but that didn’t mean that I was advocating the killings as just or moral in any way.
Although Wade just mentioned to me that Corey Metzman defined justice as legality on the other camp topic, so I suppose the interpretation isn’t so out of left field, but be aware that I made no such link (both because it wasn’t necessary and, in my mind, very very untrue).
Posted from: 76.170.34.41
October 3rd, 2007 22:33
it seems like there was a lot of framework to set up something that would be a stock interpretation of the resolution. how else would someone debate the affirmative if they didn’t read evidence or court decisions indicating that it “is” currently used as a check on government?
that said, you are correct that this isn’t analogous to what would be done on this resolution by being completely descriptive.
Posted from: 69.111.84.102
October 3rd, 2007 22:35
What if you use evidence from a particular author but develop a different conclusion? Like a lot of Western philosophy is grounded in Plato and people used a lot of his epistemological arguments about reality versus shadow (via the Allegory) but then argued for a different conclusion, is that legitimate?
Posted from: 129.15.131.248
October 3rd, 2007 23:06
Grimstad, is that the AC that Moerner ANNIHILATED(See:Whooped yo ass)
Posted from: 24.131.201.49
October 3rd, 2007 23:15
jordan, my point on the podcast i think applies directly to the claim youre making here:
the idea that ‘is’ can only mean ‘right now’ doesnt make a lot of sense. the present tense does not always literally imply the current moment. when we right about literature (which doesnt even happen at all and may be set far in the temporal past), we use the present tense. also, even in using the present tense, we dont necessarily capture the semantic essence of a statement.
heres a practical example of the argument i made on the show about the distinction of the ‘romance copula.’ the spanish example on wikipedia is appropriate - when you say “he’s dirty” you can mean something like ‘he’s a bad person,’ or something like ‘he needs a shower.’ we understand this distinction pragmatically, but cant express it simply in writing (if presented that sentence in isolation, you couldnt infer which meaning was intended). in some languages, there are two verbs that equate to our english ‘is’ and express these meanings separately. in english, however, both senses share the same verb. we can only know which sense is expressed in relation to some other aspect of the sentence (perhaps with certain adjectives as the complement only 1 sense would be reasonable), but those debates arent debates about ‘is,’ theyre debates about whatever aspect of the sentence leads us to prefer one sense of ‘is’ to the other. the answer is a matter of semantic interpretation.
if you want to default to a definition, the issue is still tricky. does is here mean “To have a specified significance”? does it mean “To have or show a specified quality or characteristic”? do those things imply an inherent quality or an ongoing quality or a current quality? i dont think we can say for sure without some arguments about division of ground, fairness, etc (which generally supersede grammatical claims anyway in my opinion)
Posted from: 24.131.201.49
October 3rd, 2007 23:17
and i am of course a moron and wrote ‘right’ where i meant ‘write.’
Posted from: 70.141.122.14
October 4th, 2007 00:16
UT has bad hospitality
Posted from: 75.73.214.91
October 4th, 2007 19:06
Ok Michael, I think that makes sense, although it’s tough to distinguish, because 99% of the uses of the word “is” seem to indicate something that refers to a current state, right? Even with, as you said “does is here mean “To have a specified significance”? does it mean “To have or show a specified quality or characteristic”? do those things imply an inherent quality or an ongoing quality or a current quality?” we never imply a past or future tense, do we? Like, even if a quality is inherent, it’s something that’s currently (and always) true about that something, yes?
Posted from: 24.131.201.49
October 4th, 2007 21:33
well like i said, theres not really a 100% grammatical answer to your question, its all an issue of how we interpret things. i think that while even a “general quality” understanding of “is” might imply that its true now, that doesnt necessarily capture the whole meaning (i.e. the issue of “at this moment” vs “in the abstract”)
Posted from: 69.134.16.205
October 5th, 2007 15:36
Ahhhhh SAT T.T.. No Mo :(
Posted from: 66.233.57.238
October 5th, 2007 22:04
i attempted to do work on the new topic… and while i said i’d give it a chance. it’s impossible. there is tons of literature on plea bargains in general, very little on plea bargains in exchange for testimony. and negating is impossible.
Posted from: 76.171.173.12
October 7th, 2007 10:06
hahaha
Posted from: 75.73.214.91
October 7th, 2007 19:42
Bietz is laughing at the pain of LD debaters everywhere.
Posted from: 66.233.57.238
October 8th, 2007 07:26
i would laugh too if i didn’t have to actually debate this.
Posted from: 76.170.34.41
October 8th, 2007 07:42
what is laughable is the notion that negating is impossible.
Posted from: 66.233.57.238
October 8th, 2007 18:22
i concur.