[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
Re: Citeable ?
On Fri, 19 Nov 1993, Todd D. Wachtel wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Nov 1993, Maxwell D. Schnurer wrote:
> > I also think that just as you can request for a ILL, you can also
> > call lexis nexis just to check a source.
> Maxwell, Lexis/Nexis costs money. Even at a school like Syracuse, where
> the Dome is sold out on a weekly basis, and tuition is incredibly unfair,
> our debate team is getting a real hard time getting $$$ to subscribe to
> Nexis Lexis. I can only imagine what is going on at some smaller debate
Well, I understand the cash problem. But There are ways to check
peoples sources. And after spending a lot of time on lxnx, I am finding it
quite limiting. In all honesty, its uses for really specific debate
evidence is poorer. i get a lot more use out of the UVM Library
periodicals than LXNX for a lot of positions.
> > Or ask another friendly school to help you out.
> Sure, as much as I'd like to believe otherwise, schools are not exactly
> entirely friendly. Why aren't you posting your counterplan theory until
> after Binghamton ?
Well, I was waiting for somebody to attack me for this. I am not
holding out on posting my ideas, because it would undercut my teammates
who may be running the cp this weekend. Note, my answers are not cited
pieces of evidence, they are simply ideas that came through my little
brain. I would have no problem sharing cites about the counterplan, or
other positions I have written (I didn't write this cp). I don't do it
not to be friendly, but on this resolution, this argument is crucial for
running a counterplan. So I am not with-holding out of malice, or spite,
but to help my teammates.
And there is a difference between ev and ideas. If Todd from
Cornell asked me for a China cite, I would give it to him. (If I had done
the research). Now if todd asked me for my answers to one of his disads
(well, Cornell isn't really running D/A's this topic... but...) so he
could prep out answers, I probably would not give it to him. (on second
thought, I might, I often explain to my opponents how I am going to
respond to their positions before I answer them, just because I think it
enhances the debate.) But on this case, I have been tightlipped about our
cp, because I am a little afraid.
When I was a little kid, I used to trade baseball
> cards. It always seemed that the person with the most cards were awfully
> selective in deciding what baseball cards they'd be willing to trade. Just
> because I don't have enough access to as many cards for whatever reason
> (and trust me, I love the gum) doesn't mean that I should be stuck with a
> set of Cookie Rojas cards. (Played OF for the Royals in the '70's.)
Well, I think that UVM would be willing to help you if you think
there has been some evidence falsification. I agree that there is a lot
of shit that is unfair out there, so lets try to remedy it.
> > Or find a lawyer who has access to the system.
> Seems like a reach to me.
Perhaps not as much of a reach as you think. Lots of lawyers have
access to LXNX, and for the price of the phone call, once you explain the
circumstances, they will often help you out.
> > Half if not three quarters of the fun of debating is researching.
> > I don't see the need to democraticize our sources.
> Agreed, but on-line research isn't really researching in the traditional
> sense. That's why I brought this issue to the forefront.
Bullshit. Online researching is just another kind of research.
It is still research. You have to read and search for the stuff. And
anyone who relies on online research is foolish. The best cards are found
in the stranger places.
> If Budweiser is the King of Beers, is Milwaukee's Best the Court Jester ?
> - Todd
Alcohol stinks. Love Maxwell.
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (email@example.com)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page