[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page

Re: Citeable -"public domain"



On Fri, 19 Nov 1993, Jamey Dumas wrote:

> 
> Additionally, I do not think that the norm right now is that "any source"
> is valid, as Jonathan suggests.  For example, a personal note from Tuna to
> the Vermont team would not be acceptable, I think.  Thus, there is a
> question of what category things, such as this listserv, fall in.  (Is it
> an extended personal note between those of us who are subscribed, or is it
> a public news source?)
> 
I am unsure of the difference between the listserv, and personal notes put
out on the listserv. It seems to me, nothing is personal on the listserv
(like Yuval's cousin's phone #). Under one of your other arguments you
suggest that listserves are OK for evidence as long as they are archived,
but what if E-mail is archived. Sorry, the lack of a difference between
the two strengthens my belief that all cyber-ev should be off-limits for
the time being.

> Not at all the solution I would advocate if we decided that cyber-ev was
> bad.  (BTW.  This is an example of why plans and counterplans can further
> education, and avoid confusion.)  I think the question remains whether we
> let them in or not.  If we decide to let them (cyber-ev) in, then the only
> solution is for the debaters to argue about the value of the ev in the
> round.  If we don't let them in, then we only need to clarify the
> definition of acceptable evidence to make it clear that, for example,
> literature which is only available electronically is not acceptable.

Remember, I want full credit for the creation of the Wachtel Tech Attack
Jurisdictional argument. Just wait, in about five years the W.T.A. will be
run as much as Topicality.
> there is the opporunity for someone like Patrick Buchanan to respond to
> those ideas in another public forum.  But, the discussions of some lists,
> 
> To flip sides (which I can do since there is no consistent advocacy
> standard on this list, even if such a thing exists in debate as Mr. Shafer
> would like to believe).  I think that this is true regardless of whether
> the source is electronic or not.  Cornell's libraries make McNeese's (where
> our new assistant director resided most recently) look like a bad newstand
> (as he is found of pointing out).  Monetary based discrepancies exist with
> all sources for evidence.  Eliminating electronic forums probably only
> makes the problem worse.  (For example, AOL is available for about
> $10/month while one journal, which may or may not be useful, costs much
> more for a library.  Even Nexis/Lexis is now far cheaper for a library than
> subscriptions to the ten largest newspapers it covers -- which are only an
> infintesimal fraction of its offerings.)

This is one of the biggest stumbling blocks for implimenting cyber-ev to
me. First, it assumes that EVERY school can afford enough computers where
debaters can have such access. Second, I'll grant ya that economic
differences exist now, and at least to me, that seems unfair. However, we
have the unique ability, right now, to try to prevent that economic gap
from increasing. If cyber-ev increases, as well as a dependence upon
evidence in general increases, rich teams will win and poor teams will
lose. At Syracuse, we have to argue with the Student Government
Association to get money to make photo copies. Every year we have had
severe budget questions, and fortunately we have been able to get enough
money to continue. Even though AOL is only ten dollars a month (or
something like that), it still is ten dollars that is not budgeted.
Lexis/Nexis is NOT BY ANY MEANS cheap. In fact, at Syracuse, it is
strictly guarded by the Law School and we have to run around with
ski-masks and flow pads just to try to get on it (OK, I'm exagerating a
little). Sure, we COULD find a way to pay costs for on-line services, but
then we may have to cut the amount of teams entering tournaments to make
up the costs. I really see no benefit to CEDA if that starts happening --
and IMHO, Syracuse seems to have a lot of money. I feel really strongly
for the smaller schools (who incidentally, aren't really yet participating
in the listserv as much as some of the bigger schools.)

> Finally, I would like to point out that I personally think that anything
> which is openly available and archived should be legitimate for evidence. 
> Thus, once this list is archived, and as long as anyone who wants to can
> subscribe and retrieve that archive, then I think that the discussions on
> this list are suitable for evidence.  (I think that this will put me near,
> if not at one radical end of the spectrum of opinions on this.)

I think that this will ultimately give far too much crediblity to the
individual listserve particpants. It even makes me laugh to think that
someone someday could say "Wachtel in '93" in a round. I think we'd be
better served as a community if people just internalized what
the discussions were on the listserv and then re-presented them, in their own
fashion, as a new argument specific to the individual round.


  As for the
> potential for abuse, I think that that potential already exists -- and that
> debaters need only to be educated that such abuse destroys the fabric of
> trust upon which our activity is dependent.  If we can learn to work
> together, and be open and honest about things like this, then (to be
> highminded for a moment) I think there is reason to believe that we will
> survive the advent of future crises (such as the potential problems of
> nano, a-life, and Michael Berman propagating.)  On the otherhand, if
> debaters with all but the rarest exceptions cannot be trusted to be honest
> on this -- then we have far greater problems to worry about...

At the same time, a little preventive medicine wouldn't hurt either. If we
can pre-empt an evidence problem then we should make every effort to do
so. We already try to be "open and honest" about things like this, and bad
things STILL occurs. As any reader of WIRED can tell you, we are in the
stone age as far as technology goes. The Internet will be replaced by an
information superhighway which will make what we are doing this very
minute look almost silly. Just as they are starting to lay the cable that
will bring this into every home, we should start laying the ground work
that prevents cyber-ev from being used for evil, and not for good. The
good being an increase in debate coaching and communication, what we
currently have now. Increasing the applications of technology into CEDA
will change the activity so drastically that it will no longer resemble
what we have now.

(Rhetorical enough for ya' ?)

- Todd W.
Let it snow, Let it snow, Let it snow.
References:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page