evidence and context

[Pacedebate@AOL.COM]

>>>>>
This suggestion would remove the issue of context from the
policy.  Distortion would mean inserting and deleting and nothing else.  This
would seem to be an endorsement of the scavenger-hunt view of evidence.
 There would be no need to ever turn off KWIC since advocates would not be
seen as representing the views of authors but instead as simply presenting an
excellent continuous sequence of words that they found. The Bosnia quote
above would not be problematic. Even if we are so bound to the notion of
human frailty that we cannot see ourselves enforcing any of this, I would
still be quite uncomfortable with the view that, philosophically and
educationally, context is no longer a consideration in deciding whether
evidence is distorted or not.
>>>>

I agree with all of this except for the conclusion - "We need an evidence
policy." I think the status quo adequately checks this. Any debater who reads
the hypothetical Bosnia evidence in a debate is not only subject to ridicule
but essentially has read evidence that turns itself. I think that is a
sufficient check. No advantage to the change. The DA to change is that I
consider there to be a risk of unduly politicizing what is already a highly
charged issue. 

Ken also writes:
>>>>
To write in an automatic escape cause to any challenge would be ill-advised I
think.  Imagine, as has happened, that a team has been continuously using
fabricated or out of context evidence despite the efforts of many to initiate
communication and resolve the situation.  The team continues to use the
evidence when they can get away with it.  A context challenge ought to be a
last resort against such a team and it ought to have some teeth.  With the
escape clause as written, the team would simply say "oops, nevermind,
disregard that evidence," and continue to use that evidence  in the future
whenever they can.
>>>>

When my debaters and I discussed this issue we recognized the same dilema you
indicate above. Basically, ensuring this opt out procedure means there is
little disincentive to reading evidence that is out of context. Unless you
count public ridicule. The debate community in situations like this is quite
'gossipy'. The listserv fuels this chatter. If a team knew a piece of
evidence was out of context but continued reading it I wouldn't think it
would take long for the word to spread. Additionally, just because this
policy exists doesn't mean in the round debaters couldn't say 'You should
vote against them for reading this evidence. They know it is out of context
because they have been challenged on it before yet they continue to read it
whenever they won't get called on it. Now is the time to stop that." I
honestly have trouble believing this would ever happen but it might. To me we
are trying to solve the problem (which I consider a small one) with a
'governmental approach' as oppossed to a grass roots mechanism. I agree that
'distorted' evidence is something we should opposed and work to rid from our
activit but I think the best way to solve is for coaches and debaters on
individual squads to address the issue.

Tim Mahoney, Pace U.

---

Follow-Ups:

• Debate and Punish
• From: "N. Antonucci" <antonucc@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu>

---

• Prev by Date: Transport at the TSU Tourneys
• Next by Date: one topic and topic release date
• Prev by thread: Transport at the TSU Tourneys
• Next by thread: Debate and Punish
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

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