homeschool debate | Forums Wiki

HomeSchoolDebate

Speech and Debate Resources and Community
Forums      Wiki
It is currently Sun May 28, 2017 11:33 am
Not a member? Guests can only see part of the forums. To see the whole thing (and add your voice!), just register a free account by following these steps.

All times are UTC+01:00




Post new topic  This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 23 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 Next
Author Message
 Post subject: PSA
PostPosted: Sat Jan 09, 2016 7:59 am 
Offline
Evil Democrat
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 3:23 am
Posts: 3334
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Advancing the gay agenda
So i'm posting this here because honestly its the only means I have to talk to a huge number (or maybe not? idk how active this place is anymore) of people still involved with NCFCA. If forum rules for these posts have changed, I would love for a mod to move this post to the appropriate sub-forum.

Anyways. I've heard through the grapevine that some students briefed the "abolish eyewitness testimony" case by citing my amazing research paper here. Now I have no problem with people citing my work. I very much take pride in that actually. My heart warms with gladness for individuals who cite my wonderful work.

However.

It has come to my attention that some people are citing a single sentence of my paper, here:
Quote:
There are downsides to eliminating eyewitness testimony altogether, as there will be cases in which it will be difficult to find the true culprit.

This is definitely a fair objection to abolishing eyewitness testimony and is a fabulous area for further debate. In fact, let's look at the next sentences of that paragraph:
Quote:
However, in the status quo when eyewitness testimony is allowed, serious cases create pressure “to get justice for the community” to solve the crime.[50] This pressure often leads to mistakes or hastiness in identifying the perpetrator. Thus, elimination advocates contend, eyewitness testimony should be barred from the courtroom, as the consequences of convicting an innocent man drastically outweigh the consequences of letting a man go free.

Hmmmmm.

As you may have guessed, my paper actually advocates FOR abolishing eyewitness testimony. Look at these wonderful words below:
Quote:
Ultimately, this paper wholeheartedly endorses that the United States categorically bar eyewitness testimony in court, with the exception of previously acquainted witnesses. Such reform is the only way for America abide by the core principle of its justice system articulated by Blackstone: “[a]ll presumptive evidence of felony should be admitted cautiously: for the law holds, that it is better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer.”[53]

Like I said, I have no problem with people citing my research. You go nuts, guys. Go to the sources and learn even more! However, citing this paper out of context in this manner, is dangerous, unethical, and wrong. To those out there that have or use this brief, be warned. As for those who wrote the brief, you're lucky the mutual friend of ours is protecting your identity. If you know the person who wrote this brief, if they're in your club, or if you just have a connection with them, please teach them ethics. It's best to learn this now in high school than later in life when you get fired for misquoting something.

Peace.

_________________
josephsamelson.com


Top
   
 
 Post subject: Re: PSA
PostPosted: Sat Jan 09, 2016 4:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 3:32 pm
Posts: 31
Home Schooled: Yes
Interesting. Cool that you're being quoted. I have a question – since you're the author – though I might be completely wrong. Would it be okay to just quote it and say, "that is a downside"? I may have misread, but it seems that you do agree that it is a potential downside?

_________________
~ Min III

Hulbert/Min|RX|Arete|2010-11|
Min/Min|RX|Arete|2011-12|
Min/Min|RX|Arete|2012-13|
Lee/Min|RX|Arete|2013-14|
Blacklock/Min|RX|Arete|2014-15|
Min/Murch|RX|Arete|2015-16|

Notice something? There is no LD...


Top
   
 
 Post subject: Re: PSA
PostPosted: Sat Jan 09, 2016 5:16 pm 
Offline
Evil Democrat
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 3:23 am
Posts: 3334
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Advancing the gay agenda
jacksonmin wrote:
Interesting. Cool that you're being quoted. I have a question – since you're the author – though I might be completely wrong. Would it be okay to just quote it and say, "that is a downside"? I may have misread, but it seems that you do agree that it is a potential downside?

No. Literally the structure of this paragraph is: "Some people say this is a downside." "They're wrong because xyz."

Quoting it in the manner you've described to make a full argument in debate is unethical.

_________________
josephsamelson.com


Top
   
 
 Post subject: Re: PSA
PostPosted: Sat Jan 09, 2016 8:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 8:34 pm
Posts: 473
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Actually reading through entire articles before pulling pieces out of context to make arguments that don't agree with the article? I'm pretty sure it's safe to say that ain't nobody got time for that.

_________________
Timothy

Drew wrote:
GumboSoup wrote:
Dads ftw.
Tim is your dad?


Top
   
 
 Post subject: Re: PSA
PostPosted: Sun Jan 10, 2016 4:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2013 4:07 am
Posts: 1375
Home Schooled: Yes
Well, sometimes it is legitimate to quote articles that are generally negative about the policy, but admits that a certain part of the policy is beneficial...then I think it's ok to quote it. In some situations, it's nice to say "this is actually from an advocate of the plan, but even he admits x" just to be clear. :)

Quote:
No. Literally the structure of this paragraph is: "Some people say this is a downside." "They're wrong because xyz."

Mmm, yeah, problem is, it doesn't really SEEM like that's what you're saying, so it's understandable that people get it wrong. You don't actually say "critics say x." You literally wrote "There are downsides to eliminating eyewitness testimony altogether, as there will be cases in which it will be difficult to find the true culprit." So it DOES seem that you are admitting that there are downsides, even if you advocate abolishing the thing, and even if that wasn't really your intent. :P

_________________
Check out my new website!

"Never quote yourself on internet forums" - Gabriel Blacklock, 2014


Top
   
 
 Post subject: Re: PSA
PostPosted: Sun Jan 10, 2016 5:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2013 6:11 am
Posts: 347
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: In a library somewhere
I think the tone of this post is a bit over the top. All experienced teams I know wouldn't quote your article, because you lack the necessary experience to be a credible source and your post is also a blog post and hasn't been peer reviewed or subjected to the necessary academic scrutiny to have it published in a journal(I would assume?).

So what happened is that some inexperienced novice team stumbled across this evidence, because their search term mirrored the language you used. Given that almost inevitable fact, I think your post comes across as too threatening. This really should be used as an educational opportunity not as a you should be lucky I don't know who you are moment.

Edit: and yes the usage is incorrect given the context of the article I don't think you can argue otherwise.

_________________
Caleb


Top
   
 
 Post subject: Re: PSA
PostPosted: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:20 am 
Offline
Evil Democrat
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 3:23 am
Posts: 3334
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Advancing the gay agenda
Quote:
Well, sometimes it is legitimate to quote articles that are generally negative about the policy, but admits that a certain part of the policy is beneficial...then I think it's ok to quote it. In some situations, it's nice to say "this is actually from an advocate of the plan, but even he admits x" just to be clear.
Yeah except they weren't doing that so stop giving unethical idiots credence here.
Cyberknight wrote:
You literally wrote "There are downsides to eliminating eyewitness testimony altogether, as there will be cases in which it will be difficult to find the true culprit." So it DOES seem that you are admitting that there are downsides, even if you advocate abolishing the thing, and even if that wasn't really your intent. :P

Dear diary, today I learned that sentences before and after another sentence have no impact on the context of that sentence.

Disgusting analysis and from a research club mod of all people. Sheesh. I should have figured that you would try to find a way to justify this unethical behavior.
Quote:
I think your post comes across as too threatening.
I think you're taking this a bit to personal. I'm not actually out to threaten the kids. I meant it in a way as "I would report these kids to NCFCA leadership for literally destroying the integrity of the league." I have no problem with that.

_________________
josephsamelson.com


Top
   
 
 Post subject: Re: PSA
PostPosted: Sun Jan 10, 2016 5:23 pm 
Offline
Is now cool
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2009 9:29 pm
Posts: 3495
Home Schooled: Yes
Tl;dr: a team put a piece of evidence in a brief that isn't entirely sound. If you hit the brief or trade for the brief, keep that in mind and respond accordingly.

There's not really any debate to be had here. If the author of a piece says he sees an ethical problem with how his work is being quoted, generally the author should have final word on how his piece is used.

So just keep that in mind and don't attack each other over what's a pretty cut and dry public notice.


Top
   
 
 Post subject: Re: PSA
PostPosted: Sun Jan 10, 2016 6:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2013 4:07 am
Posts: 1375
Home Schooled: Yes
Hyper Static Union wrote:
Yeah except they weren't doing that so stop giving unethical idiots credence here.

How about not calling people idiots who may be on this thread? :) Might be nice (see Matthew 5:22).

Quote:
Dear diary, today I learned that sentences before and after another sentence have no impact on the context of that sentence.

Dear diary, today I learned to make it clear what my actual position is when writing on blogs. :P

Quote:
Disgusting analysis and from a research club mod of all people. Sheesh. I should have figured that you would try to find a way to justify this unethical behavior.

Well, that wasn't nice (same with the rest of your comment). You really need to be more careful with your words, you could seriously offend someone. I don't know if you're trolling or not, but anyway, it's hard to tell. :P

And I'm not trying to "justify" anyone. I was only pointing out that to an ordinary first-time reader of your article (like me), it simply does not appear to say what you said it does. I'm not disputing the fact that the people who used this quote were unethical (I can't really do that, because i don't know the situation exactly).

Finally, let's actually look at those "sentences before and after":

Sentence before: This is because, especially in murder cases, police are often “able to find the evidence needed even without witnesses.” [49]

Sentence after: However, in the status quo when eyewitness testimony is allowed, serious cases create pressure “to get justice for the community” to solve the crime.[50]

Hmm, maybe I can't read right, but I'm not seeing anywhere where you took back your original statement that there were downsides. :P True, you said "however, we make up for it by discouraging hastiness." That isn't the same as saying "I take it back, it won't make it harder to identify anyone."

There's a difference between saying "x is a problem with my plan, but y outweighs it" and saying "critics say x is a problem with my plan, but actually it isn't." The thing simply isn't clear.

Quote:
There's not really any debate to be had here. If the author of a piece says he sees an ethical problem with how his work is being quoted, generally the author should have final word on how his piece is used.

If the author says his own article says something which it clearly does not seem to say, I think I'm entitled to point that out. :P Obviously I can't question his intent, but I can point out that his writing does not properly convey that intent to the average reader.

_________________
Check out my new website!

"Never quote yourself on internet forums" - Gabriel Blacklock, 2014


Top
   
 
 Post subject: Re: PSA
PostPosted: Sun Jan 10, 2016 7:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 3:32 pm
Posts: 31
Home Schooled: Yes
Quote:
jacksonmin wrote:
Interesting. Cool that you're being quoted. I have a question – since you're the author – though I might be completely wrong. Would it be okay to just quote it and say, "that is a downside"? I may have misread, but it seems that you do agree that it is a potential downside?

No. Literally the structure of this paragraph is: "Some people say this is a downside." "They're wrong because xyz."


Sorry, I misread. I don't like quotes out of context either. Thanks for the heads up.

_________________
~ Min III

Hulbert/Min|RX|Arete|2010-11|
Min/Min|RX|Arete|2011-12|
Min/Min|RX|Arete|2012-13|
Lee/Min|RX|Arete|2013-14|
Blacklock/Min|RX|Arete|2014-15|
Min/Murch|RX|Arete|2015-16|

Notice something? There is no LD...


Top
   
 
 Post subject: Re: PSA
PostPosted: Mon Jan 11, 2016 1:44 am 
Offline
I know not this "leverage" of which you speak.
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2008 5:52 pm
Posts: 2275
Home Schooled: Yes
Cyberknight,

Do you think that people should continue to use this evidence?

If yes, should they use it without verbally clarifying that the author disagrees with their conclusion? e.g. By failing to introduce the evidence with something like, "Even a critic of abolishing eyewitness testimony admits that..."

_________________
This account doesn't express the opinions of my employers and might not even express my own.


Last edited by Mr Glasses on Mon Jan 11, 2016 1:48 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
   
 
 Post subject: Re: PSA
PostPosted: Mon Jan 11, 2016 7:04 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2013 4:07 am
Posts: 1375
Home Schooled: Yes
Quote:
If yes, should they use it without verbally clarifying that the author disagrees with their conclusion? e.g. By failing to introduce the evidence with something like, "Even a critic of abolishing eyewitness testimony admits that..."

I think that it would be legitimate to use the evidence in this way, yes. Except for one thing: The author himself has stated that he didn't really mean that sentence. So at this point, it would not be ok for anyone who's read this thread to use the evidence. But for someone who doesn't know the author's actual intent, who hasn't read this thread, and who also explained that the quote came from an Aff advocate, I don't think you can really blame them for bringing it up. :)

_________________
Check out my new website!

"Never quote yourself on internet forums" - Gabriel Blacklock, 2014


Top
   
 
 Post subject: Re: PSA
PostPosted: Mon Jan 11, 2016 4:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 4:14 pm
Posts: 798
Home Schooled: Yes
This type of thing was going on back when I was in NCFCA. I graduated in 2012.

A similar card was read against my aff. It sounded great out of context. I asked for it in CX and then wrote down the author's name and the title of the article so I could find it after the tournament.

Lo and behold, I found that this "awesome card" was really from an author who agreed with my case. I cut the conclusion section of that article and used it as a response every time the issue was raised in further rounds.

I used that response probably 3-4 times before the bad card quit circulating. Judges were always impressed that I had done that much work, and it made the other team look bad for not knowing their sources. So affs: do your homework.

_________________
Laura

COG Author | NCFCA Alumna | Wife and Mother


Top
   
 
 Post subject: Re: PSA
PostPosted: Mon Jan 11, 2016 8:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2012 2:27 am
Posts: 637
Home Schooled: Yes
I think that what your blog post says is really not that important and no one cares enough to actually quote it. Or if they DO quote it, that is an even bigger problem.

_________________
:lol:


Top
   
 
 Post subject: Re: PSA
PostPosted: Mon Jan 11, 2016 9:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2012 2:27 am
Posts: 637
Home Schooled: Yes
Quote:
Dear diary, today I learned that sentences before and after another sentence have no impact on the context of that sentence.

Quote:
Disgusting analysis and from a research club mod of all people. Sheesh. I should have figured that you would try to find a way to justify this unethical behavior.

Glad to know you care about ethics.
And even though I don't think any sane person should quote you're blog, I agree that it would be completely out of context to quote that portion of the evidence.

tl;dr: No one should care this much. Joseph is kinda right. Everyone stop.

_________________
:lol:


Last edited by _idontknow_ on Tue Jan 12, 2016 2:09 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
   
 
 Post subject: Re: PSA
PostPosted: Mon Jan 11, 2016 11:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2013 4:07 am
Posts: 1375
Home Schooled: Yes
To be clear, I never disputed the fact that the evidence was taken out of context. Never once. HSU was claiming I made a "disgusting analysis" by merely suggesting that bringing up that quote against an aff would be fine as long as you made it clear it was from an aff advocacy article.

Just wanted to be clear. :)

_________________
Check out my new website!

"Never quote yourself on internet forums" - Gabriel Blacklock, 2014


Top
   
 
 Post subject: Re: PSA
PostPosted: Tue Jan 12, 2016 4:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 3:47 pm
Posts: 1365
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: H*wL*tt P*ck*rd muffins
I would always council my RC members against ever citing a college student for anything. Literally no one cares what college students have to say.

_________________
-Joshua
08-09 | Half-Timer | Verdict | R8
09-10 | Timer | Verdict | R8
10-11 | Folkert/Folkert | Verdict | R8
11-12 | Folkert/Light | Verdict | R8
12-13 | Folkert/Light | Verdict | R8
13-14 | Folkert/Light | Verdict | R8
14-15 | Folkert/Porter | Arx Axiom | R8
15-16 | Doto/Folkert | Verdict | R8


Top
   
 
 Post subject: Re: PSA
PostPosted: Wed Jan 13, 2016 12:52 am 
Offline
Forerunner
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2011 2:45 am
Posts: 1090
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Locations are too mainstream
Hyper Static Union wrote:
I've heard through the grapevine that some students briefed the "abolish eyewitness testimony" case by citing my amazing research paper


lowkey too much bruh

_________________
Former NCFCA debate and speech competitor
Former homeschooler
Joel Thomas


Top
   
 
 Post subject: Re: PSA
PostPosted: Wed Jan 13, 2016 3:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2012 9:09 pm
Posts: 160
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Region 7
Really tempted to use this card now just to spite you, Joseph, especially since I know it will get back to you from your sister. ;)

_________________
~ Savannah Rigby

Beaver/Rigby | 2015-2016

Check out this video!

And this one!


Top
   
 
 Post subject: Re: PSA
PostPosted: Thu Jan 14, 2016 5:52 am 
Offline
Guardian of the Black Room
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 26, 2011 3:05 am
Posts: 852
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: 127.0.0.1
Cyberknight wrote:
Guys, I'm pretty sure he's trolling, his last comment didn't even make sense. :)

I'm pretty sure he's not. HSU doesn't generally troll, and he does sound legitimately upset that people are defending unethical citation practices.

As an aside, this was a Public Service Announcement, not really something that should be the topic of much debate. The author of a paper specifically requested that people not misrepresent his paper by quoting it in support of a position it does not defend. While it may be a grey area in general to use quotations in this way, I think the author's clarification here places the use of this piece of evidence in the described manner soundly in the "unethical" area. Finding pieces of evidence isn't that hard--why tread grey areas unnecessarily?

--Andrew

_________________
"The poet only asks to get his head into the heavens. It is the logician who seeks to get the heavens into his head. And it is his head that splits"
- G.K. Chesterton


Top
   
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 23 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 Next

All times are UTC+01:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited