Other Evidence issues

[Kenneth Broda-Bahm <broda@midget.towson.edu>]

	1. Straw-person quotes -- (the author doesn't agree with the 
	claim but is quoting, and then refuting, someone who does)  &
	
	2. Responsibility for cards that one didn't cut.


	The proposed CEDA by-law on evidence use addresses both issues.  
Regarding #1, the expanded definition of "out of context" is "selecting 
text rom an article in such a way that the claim made with the selected 
text is clearly inconsistent with the author's position as it is manifest 
in the article, book, or other source, taken as a whole, from which the 
quote is drawn."

	While the language is a bit tortured, we feel that this is more 
clear than the language of the aspirational statement, the AFA code, or 
other comparable documents.  I am interested in what others think.

	On the issue of personal responsibility, the proposed CEDA by-law 
follows the lead of every other organization we could find in noting that 
"Distorted evidence is so defined without reference to whether or not the 
debater using it was the person responsible for misrepresenting it."  In 
other words, if you use it that is taken to mean that you trust it and 
will stand behind its representations.  Absent that assumption, 
accountability would be indeterminate.  

	We welcome any feedback on these or other issues.

--Ken Broda-Bahm

---

• Prev by Date: Electronic and open forum evidence - a word from one committee
• Next by Date: Lemoine and Achten
• Prev by thread: Electronic and open forum evidence - a word from one committee
• Next by thread: Re: Other Evidence issues
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page