Second, the idea of a coach writing something on the current topic and can be used as evidence during the season seems mighty, mighty wrong to me. If the writing isn’t part of your day job, then don’t do it. Wait until after the competitive season. Even if you aren’t writing in order to affect debate rounds, no one truly knows your intent. If you are a tenured professor who must publish in order to keep your job, publish IN YOUR FIELD (I don’t know how many tenured professors in the sciences are debate coaches) and don’t speculate on the current debate topic. We are debate coaches. If you want to write about debate, please do so. If you want to write about the resolution IN A DEBATE CONTEXT, please do so before or after the season. But for a debate coach to write an article on the current topic in season is just opening the door to some unethical behavior. Skarb is right, we don’t know his intent. That’s the very reason why the article should have never been published. Peer-reviewed or not, a debate coach writing in season opens the door to lots of speculation about intent.

Let’s take this example: An active debate coach works for a newspaper or magazine covering social services. He or she decides (in March or April) to write a bunch of stories about this small, new program that just needs some federal funding to become the next big thing. And the article just happens to list a number of reasons the states can’t do this program. Is this OK just because some other teams may find it and be able to use it too? It isn’t. If an active coach wants to contribute to the discussion, he or she can do so AFTER the season. If their full-time job requires they write on a topic in season, that is another story, but they should a) involve their editor as much as possible and b) be do it with as much transparency, openness and honesty as possible.

I’ve been in that position to write columns and news stories my students could use in debate rounds on current resolutions. And it was my day job and likely career path. That is a far more legitimate reason for a coach to write something that could be used as evidence than what Skarb is trying to pass off as legit. I chose not to write things that could be used in debate rounds.

This is much deeper than just what Skarb did or didn’t do. As coaches, we need to realize that we are educators first. This idea that winning trumps ethical behavior needs to die. We need to stop fabricating evidence. We need to stop lying during disclosure. We need to stop encouraging our students to lie in rounds. Then maybe we can stop worrying about whether someone is getting messages in debate rounds, whether the kid going to get water is talking to their coach and whether we can trust the evidence that’s being read.

I won’t get on a high horse because, as Skarb pointed out, I’ve cut my fair share of poorly qualified cards (incidentally, not a surprise–and the debate community probably didn’t need a coach to mercilessly mock a bunch of cards that Westminster high schoolers cut on a public forum to know that). However, as someone leaving the activity and hoping to stick around as a judge, I have a few thoughts that I wonder if people are interested in.

1) It seems like a fundamental question is where we draw the line on debate as a game vs. debate as an academic activity. This is a disagreement Rajesh and I had many a time, but ultimately for both of us it is some mix of the two. Lab leaders, the NDCA, the 3NR etc, could all help debaters out a lot by engaging in a discussion about how to utilize academic standards in debate. The Marko card is a great example of how people don’t take into account indicts of authors even if they’re just objectively true. (Because they’re not offense? Another thing I don’t get.) I guess the problem here is how “quantifiable” or “impactable” these author indicts are. Does it implicate the overall truth of the article or just shed sketchy light on the content?

2) Along those lines, does literature shape the game, or does the game happen around the literature? It seems like the latter is true simply because of strategy. For instance, the ITER aff had very little to do with the topic. The NIF probably wasn’t what the framers had in mind. Buying a single nuclear carrier, or investing in tornado-makers probably weren’t either. I don’t mean this as an attack on those who cut or read these affs, because they obviously had to do a ton of work and did well. But it seems like, at least in many of our T debates this year and just general discussions of the topic, there was very little discussion of the impact of topic education.

If topic education is important — or just literature-based education in the first place, then something like e-mailing is probably a terrible practice. Whit, Dheidt and a few others have articulated that much better than I can already.

But if debate is purely a game, and the literature simply the “playing field” for that game, then e-mailing becomes a fully justifiable practice and we devolve into trying to cherry-pick somewhat arbitrary distinctions to justify things like “clarification” e-mails vs. “informational” or “targeting” e-mails. Though that distinction might be totally right, how on earth will it be enforced? Counter-interpretations of theory things like this in actual debates rarely get implemented.

For me, these questions all mean that debate has to be much more than a game. Vague alt alert warning… If we value literature as a community more, then we might have a clearer brightline for a lot of things like evidence. For instance, the “cult of evidence” would be less necessary if debaters could effectively attack qualls, impact them, and have their judges evaluate those attacks credibly. Things like this SPS controversy or e-mailing authors might not be as much of an issue. I was pleased at the outraged response to the SPS article, because I was and remain incredibly uncomfortable with the whole situation. However, I hope that controversies like this can both serve as a deterrent and a standard for future evidence.

I think with the changing nature of scholarship as Noah Chesnut and Gordon Mitchell point out (and every corridor of power from government to journalism to mass media to law are dealing with). I think a consolidated opinion piece with people with different perspectives on the issue might be helpful. Its unfortunate that you have to read 40+ pages of text to get up to speed (CEDANDT, here, and cross-x)

What is acceptable/fair?
How to go about it (ie contextualize it)?
How to contact experts in a professional fashion.

These are issues these kids, we as a a community, and future generations are going to have to deal with. Without a shared standard or basis to make decisions students may either suppress valuable scholarship or pursue.

Openness and transparency is certainly a start. This seems to be what was lacking most in afore mentioned case.

Justin, I agree with your quite thorough and entertaining skewering of the state of evidence quality on the national circuit. But in the context of the discussion about the Marburry article, your retort is a transparent attempt at diverting focus from what you did. Even if your actions were taken within the context of an activity that suffers from low standards for what constitutes evidence, there is a fundamental difference between conducting poor quality research and producing scholarship under a pseudonym for use as evidence.

You are right that no one can know your intentions, but I still do not understand why you replied to emails sent to the fictitious Marburry email account as if such a person existed even after the “research thanks” note was added to your article. What possible reason did you have for deceiving those members of the debate community who emailed “John Marburry” with questions?

The only mention of this behavior in your message is the following:

All of this being said, I made several errors in this situation. First, I was wrong to post the essay as a comment on a blog and to submit the essay for publication if I was not also able to attribute the article to myself and to identify myself as a high school debate coach. This is especially the case in this situation where the article was submitted prior to the end of the debate season. Second, I was wrong to not make more of an effort to alert the debate community to my level of involvement in the writing of the essay. Finally, I was wrong to respond to emails requesting information from individuals that identified themselves as members of the debate community without identifying myself as the author of the essay. For exhibiting this level of poor judgment, I have no excuse and can only say that I am terribly sorry.

I appreciate the apology, but what explanation can you offer for this choice to continue the charade when replying to email messages?

The bottom line, for me, is that you quite clearly did something wrong. I think you’ve now acknowledged that, at least in part. But your continued attempts to divert attention away from what you did and to rationalize your “poor judgment” makes me skeptical of how apologetic you truly are.

It is important that you clearly communicate to the many students who have followed this saga that what you did was wrong and that if given the chance, you would never have done it. If your reply had included only the last two paragraphs, I think I would have been satisfied that you had done this. But the preceding 45 (give or take) paragraphs make me think otherwise. “I apologize” or even “I apologize, but let me explain what was going through my mind” would have been wonderful; “first let me explain why what I did was not wrong and then let me explain why everyone else’s behavior is equally bad and then I’ll apologize”, not so much.

I’m not interested in conducting a witch hunt, but I’m very troubled to read the comments on cross-x (and elsewhere) from students who don’t think this is a big deal. Yes, other things are undoubtedly more important. But this is a big deal, at least to me.

First, I have been accused of fabricating the qualifications listed in the essay. Nothing could be further from the truth. Apart from the use of a pseudonym, all of the attribution information provided in both the blog comment and essay published by The Space Review is accurate.

Really? Does John Marburry exist? You admitted that you made him up. (By the way, you didn’t make him up, Aaron Sorkin did. Did it occur to you that perhaps other people in debate might watch the West Wing?) Because when you say “Apart from the use of a pseudonym”, it sounds like Charles Manson saying “Apart from all the murder, my cult was just a bunch of kids hanging out in the desert.”

I believe that it is worth mentioning that I read every technical and non-technical report on space-based solar power (SBSP) I could find before ever picking up a pen.

Really? Did you conduct any original research on the issue? Because what you just described is called “secondary research”, and is nothing more than doing an 8th grade book report.

Regardless, I hold a B.A. in history and a B.S. in political science from Arizona State University. I also hold an M.A. in communication from California State University at Fullerton.

Really? And that qualifies you to write about space-based solar power because?

While you were at ASU, did you ever bother to read the “Students Obligations to Academic Integrity”? Paragraph A prohibits any act of “academic deceit.” Paragraph D prohibits acting “as a substitute for another person in any Academic Evaluation or assignment” . http://provost.asu.edu/academicintegrity/policy/StudentObligations When you posted an article under a pseudonym you engaged in academic deceit, and hid your “work’” and passed it off for another.

I have conducted legislative and policy analyses on local, state, and national issues on an independent basis for a political action committee. I am currently employed as a business consultant for a Fortune 500 company. In short, my qualifications were not fabricated.

You understand, substituting your qualifications for the qualifications of a made-up person is called writing fiction right? Oh, by the way, the John Marburry of the West Wing has better made-up qualifications then the ones you gave him. Next time you write evidence under his name, just use the ones Aaron Sorkin wrote up.

Second, I have been accused of “publishing” the essay just prior to the TOC. As an initial matter, I did not publish the essay. The essay was submitted to respected and prominent journal on space issues, The Space Review. The essay underwent The Space Reviews normal editing and review process conducted by Dr. Jeff Foust, an aerospace analyst with a bachelor’s degree in geophysics from the California Institute of Technology and a Ph.D. in planetary science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The Space Review and its editorial staff chose to publish the essay. From my perspective, this editorial and review process is far more stringent than the editing and review that a fair amount of evidence read in debates ever undergoes.

Really? What is The Space Review’s normal editing process? Right now it looks to me like it comprises the following steps: (1) Ctrl-A; (2) Ctrl-C; (3) Ctrl-V. Did Dr. Foust know that were publishing under a pseudonym? I am going to guess the answer is “no”, since he did not say that it was published under a pseudonym. Since The Space Review did not look to see if John Marburry really existed then I doubt that “The Space Review” is really a respected and prominent journal.

By the way, what does Dr. Jeff Foust think of you now?

I believe if the review and editorial process for these articles was sufficient and stringent enough for teams reading the SBSP affirmative, it is also sufficient and stringent enough for my essay.

Really? Because I think you just wrote indicts to any cards coming from The Space Review.

Regardless, there was a non-debate reason for the use of a pseudonym. When I wrote the essay and submitted it to The Space Review for consideration and posted it on the Space Frontier Foundation’s SBSP blog I was concerned that the publication and/or posting of the essay under my name could be viewed by some as being in conflict with the non-compete clause of my current employment agreement. As such I chose to submit the essay using a pseudonym.

Really? This is my favorite part. Your defense of doing one slimy thing (fabricating evidence), is that you were doing another slimy thing (violating your contractual obligations under your employment agreement, and trying to cover your tracks by not assigning your name to it).

Oh by the way, I am not sure what Fortune 500 company you work for, but I bet that the Damien administration is equally pissed at you for doing what you did. And not for nothing, but I bet that your current employer probably could not care less if you posted your opinions on solar powered satellites.

What is ironic about this entire situation is that in attempting to ensure that nothing that could be considered unethical by some occurred, I have been accused of being unethical.

Really? You think its ironic? Here are things that are more ironic: (1) rain on your wedding day; (2) 10,000 spoons when all you need is a knife; (3) the good advice that you just didn’t take.

And NONE of those things are remotely ironic.

Upon learning that the essay was going to be published prior to the TOC, I asked the editors of The Space Review to include my name in the article.

Really? But I thought you were so concerned about violating your employment contract? Why not just ask The Space Review to pull the article? That way your Fortune 500 employer would never know of your cunning ruse to deceive it.

The reason that this entire situation is ironic is because if I had not tried to make my involvement known, I doubt that it would have ever become known that I was the author of the essay and I would have never been accused of cheating or being unethical.

Really? There you are using “ironic” again. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk&feature=related

You know what else would have ensured that you were never accused of cheating or being unethical? Not writing cards prior to the TOC, and then trying to pass them off as written by someone else. When you replied to e-mails in character, you lost all credibility on this issue.

My feeling was that there was little to no chance that the essay would ever be published. Likewise, there certainly seemed to be next to no chance that the essay would be published prior to the completion of the high school debate season. As such, it seemed as though there was little chance that there would ever need to be an explanation about the essay or its authorship.

YOU FIRST POSTED THIS ON A COMMENT TO A BLOG!!!!!!!! There was obviously no filter on the comment section. Also, you chose to publish your book report at a source which you knew was used by debaters on this topic. Why not wait to submit the article, under your name, until after NFL nationals? This is strong circumstantial evidence that you wanted the article posted when debaters could use it.

Frankly, if it was my intention to deceive, I would have kept silent about the subject, never reposted the comment on the Space Frontier Foundation blog on SBSP with my name on it, and certainly never asked the editors at The Space Review to include my name in the article.

Are you just making it up as you go along? You admitted that you posted under a pseudonym, but you never alerted anyone that it was a pseudonym. You then responded to e-mails under the pseudonym. That’s overwhelming circumstantial evidence that you in fact intended to deceive. You took action to deceive, and succeeded (temporarily) in deceiving. Really.

Whether evidence that could be read in a debate could be found in the essay is not relevant to the question of whether it was written to be used as a source for such evidence. I do not think it is shocking my time in debate would influence my writing style. More to the point, it seems as if the logical conclusion of this line of thinking is that any article that includes strongly worded arguments must have been written for the purposes of being read in debate and, as such, should be disqualified. I will not bother getting into the dangers of this argument. Far from contaminating the literature base, the essay contributed to not only the literature base but also the ongoing public policy discussion surrounding space-based solar power. This is evidenced in no small part by the comments the article has received, both publicly and privately, from a senior engineer at an aerospace defense contractor, the CEO of a solar powered satellite company, and the former Director of NASA’s Energy Program who happened to lead one of the organization’s investigations of space-based solar power.

Do you care to be more specific what these comments were, by whom they were made, and when they were made? Because absent some sort of corroboration, you will pardon those of us who don’t believe you, because, you know, you lied.

Frankly, the rest of your post is a bunch of red herrings. What you should have said is “this is what I did, it was wrong, and I am super sorry I did it.” Trying to embarrass teams for reading cards from blogs is not the same as apologizing or showing contrition for what you did. Really.

Pete Nikolai
St. Paul Central Debate

Skarb is correct about one thing: we can never know his intent. It’s plausible that Skarb considers something he described as a joke blog post from which cards would be read to demonstrate that the NSSO was unqualified to be a “scholarly piece.” Or it’s possible that Skarb really had no intention of actually writing cards, he was really just doing his civic duty by answering the president’s call to advance the national conversation on space solar power, and boy was he just shocked that people thought that these were cards, how dare they, he didn’t know the words would come together the way they did. I guess it’s also plausible that writing an article about space based solar power conflicts with with the “don’t write about space solar power” clause in his employment agreement as a consultant for a Fortune 500 company, and that company also had a really strict “lie about who you are when people ask via email” policy too. Or, for all I know, Skarb’s article was written just so he could send out an “apology” that serves as an ironic performance of the lack of standards we have for evidence. Or maybe this really was just a case of poor judgement. Colossally poor judgement. Judgement so idiotic that it demonstrates a basic unfitness to be responsible for or interact with high school students.

Intent doesn’t matter in this context. Intent isn’t verifiable. Reducing this solely to a question of intent is a license to cheat. “Oh, I wrote these cards and posted them to ironically demonstrate their evidence wasn’t qualified but they didn’t see the irony so I just extended them and we won the debate on cards I wrote” isn’t too far removed from the Skarburry defense. It’s true that Skarb thanked himself while using the Marburry name, but this is hardly a demonstration of intent when he continued the charade via subsequent emails. For all anyone knows, that line could have been added to create a plausible defense in case someone did track down the source of the post or in case it was leaked from someone else at Damien. The other coaches and students on that squad appear to have ethics.

Were any student to do what Skarb did and get caught, they most likely would lose a debate, be kicked off their team, or worse. Skarb, on the other hand, appears to face few, if any consequences. There should be a lesson in this. I just hope that the lesson is “Skarb did something absolutely unjustifiable” instead of “Skarb isn’t to blame.”

It is accurate that I, Justin Skarb, was, indeed, the author of the blog comment, carrying the same title, on the Space Frontier Foundation’s space-based solar power blog (http://spacesolarpower.wordpress.com/2008/10/13/time-to-build-a-first-look-at-the-initial-plan/#comment-3059). It is also accurate that I was the author of the essay published by The Space Review (http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1359/1). It is also accurate that a pseudonym, John Marburry, was used both in the blog comment and in the publication of the essay by The Space Review.

Unfortunately, numerous misstatements and inaccurate accounts of what happened and why it happened have been made by numerous people both on this message board and elsewhere.

First, I have been accused of fabricating the qualifications listed in the essay. Nothing could be further from the truth. Apart from the use of a pseudonym, all of the attribution information provided in both the blog comment and essay published by The Space Review is accurate. I believe that it is worth mentioning that I read every technical and non-technical report on space-based solar power (SBSP) I could find before ever picking up a pen. Regardless, I hold a B.A. in history and a B.S. in political science from Arizona State University. I also hold an M.A. in communication from California State University at Fullerton. I have conducted legislative and policy analyses on local, state, and national issues on an independent basis for a political action committee. I am currently employed as a business consultant for a Fortune 500 company. In short, my qualifications were not fabricated.

People can say what they want about whether this makes me “qualified” to write the essay I did and to make the arguments advanced in the essay. Frankly, I do not think that it takes a rocket scientist to come to the conclusions that money does not grow on trees and that money for a program that would cost tens of billions, if not hundreds of billions, of Dollars would have to come from somewhere. Honestly, I think the village idiot is smart enough to realize this.

Second, I have been accused of “publishing” the essay just prior to the TOC. As an initial matter, I did not publish the essay. The essay was submitted to respected and prominent journal on space issues, The Space Review. The essay underwent The Space Reviews normal editing and review process conducted by Dr. Jeff Foust, an aerospace analyst with a bachelor’s degree in geophysics from the California Institute of Technology and a Ph.D. in planetary science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The Space Review and its editorial staff chose to publish the essay. From my perspective, this editorial and review process is far more stringent than the editing and review that a fair amount of evidence read in debates ever undergoes.

Tangentially, several individuals have chosen to criticize my actions by lambasting the editorial process at The Space Review. Apart from the fact that I highly doubt any of these individuals have ever submitted an essay to the journal for consideration and, as such, would have little knowledge of their editorial process, what is interesting is that some of these same people that have attacked The Space Review either read or coached teams that read evidence from the exact same journal. For instance, one prominent team read the following evidence all from The Space Review:

And, this jumpstarts the civilian market.
The Space Review ‘07 (Taylor Dinerman, “Solar power satellites and space radar” http://integrator.hanscom.af.mil/2007/July/07262007/07262007-16.htm, July 16, 2007)
The first steps in such a program would be to begin…made into a win-win outcome.

And, no technological barriers, we would fly demonstrations in 4 years, and independent study groups indict their author.
Ashworth ‘08 – Fellow of the British Interplanetary Society (Stephen, The Space Review, “In defense of the knights”, 6/23, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1153/1)
Usually, Day’s articles are among the…contents of the SPACE FRONTIER FOUNDATION study report.

SSP solves supply problems that destabilize Afghanistan
Dinerman 11/24, (Taylor Dinerman, writer for The Space Review, “Space solar power and the Khyber Pass,” 11/24/08) http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1255/1
For the second time… …to the modern world.

Others don’t have the incentive or technical capability to cheat. Elhefnawy ’06 Nader Elhefnawy, written on space policy and international security for several years and currently teaching at the University of Miami, 11/27/2006. http://www.thespacereview.com/article/755/1
Arms control skeptics…much as possible

I believe if the review and editorial process for these articles was sufficient and stringent enough for teams reading the SBSP affirmative, it is also sufficient and stringent enough for my essay.

Likewise, the essay was not published by me days before the TOC. As a point of fact, the essay was submitted to The Space Review for consideration on February 11, 2009. By random chance, The Space Review notified me that they were going to publish the essay in an upcoming issue of the journal. The Space Review ended up publishing the essay on Monday, April 27, 2009. Other than submitting the essay for consideration, I had no part in this editorial decision.

Third, I have been accused of using a pseudonym to hide my bias in order for Damien to be able to read the evidence in debates against the SBSP AFF. It is important to note that no team from Damien ever read evidence from this essay in any debate. Regardless, there was a non-debate reason for the use of a pseudonym. When I wrote the essay and submitted it to The Space Review for consideration and posted it on the Space Frontier Foundation’s SBSP blog I was concerned that the publication and/or posting of the essay under my name could be viewed by some as being in conflict with the non-compete clause of my current employment agreement. As such I chose to submit the essay using a pseudonym.

What is ironic about this entire situation is that in attempting to ensure that nothing that could be considered unethical by some occurred, I have been accused of being unethical. Upon learning that the essay was going to be published prior to the TOC, I asked the editors of The Space Review to include my name in the article. Likewise, the original comment on the Space Frontier Foundation’s SBSP blog was reposted making it clear that a pseudonym was used in the original comment. It was obvious to me that it was more important that my involvement in the essay be made clear than any risk that may or may not have existed in regards to my employment agreement. The reason that this entire situation is ironic is because if I had not tried to make my involvement known, I doubt that it would have ever become known that I was the author of the essay and I would have never been accused of cheating or being unethical. Again, had I wanted to or intended to cheat or be unethical, I would have never associated my name with the essay and people would still be trying to track down John Marburry. This was, in no uncertain terms, never my intent.

Fourth, I have been accused of writing the essay for the purpose of using evidence from it in debates against the SBSP AFF. Again, the premise of this argument is flawed. I do not believe that anyone can know my intentions on this subject. It is accurate that the research for the article coincided with research that was completed for the 2008-2009 high school debate topic. Given the ongoing public discussion of this subject in addition to the President’s calls for comment on the subject (http://change.gov/open_government/entry/space_solar_power_ssp_a_solution_for_energy_independence_climate_change/), the decision was made to seek an outlet to edit, review, and publish the essay. Given my overriding interest in participating in the policy discussion, the essay was also posted as a comment on the Space Frontier Foundation’s blog on SBSP. The article was written as a scholarly piece, plain and simple.

My feeling was that there was little to no chance that the essay would ever be published. Likewise, there certainly seemed to be next to no chance that the essay would be published prior to the completion of the high school debate season. As such, it seemed as though there was little chance that there would ever need to be an explanation about the essay or its authorship. Frankly, if it was my intention to deceive, I would have kept silent about the subject, never reposted the comment on the Space Frontier Foundation blog on SBSP with my name on it, and certainly never asked the editors at The Space Review to include my name in the article.

Whether evidence that could be read in a debate could be found in the essay is not relevant to the question of whether it was written to be used as a source for such evidence. I do not think it is shocking my time in debate would influence my writing style. More to the point, it seems as if the logical conclusion of this line of thinking is that any article that includes strongly worded arguments must have been written for the purposes of being read in debate and, as such, should be disqualified. I will not bother getting into the dangers of this argument. Far from contaminating the literature base, the essay contributed to not only the literature base but also the ongoing public policy discussion surrounding space-based solar power. This is evidenced in no small part by the comments the article has received, both publicly and privately, from a senior engineer at an aerospace defense contractor, the CEO of a solar powered satellite company, and the former Director of NASA’s Energy Program who happened to lead one of the organization’s investigations of space-based solar power.

Truth be told, members of the Damien coaching staff did toy with the idea of using the comment on the Space Frontier Foundation’s blog as a means to illustrate the absurdity of the means by which the NSSO completed its evaluation of SBSP. Our argument would have been that it is a travesty of intellectual thought that such an important study would use blog posts and comments to influence its findings and recommendations. The NSSO did, indeed, rely on this very forum to assist in its review of SBSP (http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2007-07-25-pentagon-space-power_N.htm) and (http://spacesolarpower.wordpress.com/2007/11/03/what-comes-next-phase-1-your-comments-needed/). Likewise, the blog actively encouraged the participation of the high school debate community (http://c-sbsp.org/2008/01/11/debate-topic-alternative-energy/) and (http://spacesolarpower.wordpress.com/2008/04/09/ad-astra-special-report-space-based-solar-power/ — comments 16 and 17). Had Damien made this argument, the blog comment would have been used to illustrate the fact that it is irresponsible to conduct a study of this kind by utilizing unverifiable blog comments. Our argument would have been a means of illustrating why the DOD thinks the report is a joke (http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1147/1).

Ultimately, Damien chose not to make this argument and decided that other strategies against the SBSP AFF were far more viable. This is proven, in no small part, that Damien debated Westminster’s top team, that began reading the SBSP affirmative, at the NDCA National Championship, twice in elimination rounds and did not use any evidence from the Space Frontier Foundation blog comment.

Some individuals have raised the argument that the fact that the essay was posted as a comment on the Space Frontier Foundation blog in February is proof positive that I intended to deceive the debate community and that Damien intended to use the evidence in debates. In all honesty, I did not realize that it had become so commonplace to read comments on blogs and blog posts from unverifiable authors. As such, I never thought that the blog comment would ever be used in a debate by Damien or any other team.

I truly believed that the community had a general rule that evidence should only be read from “explicitly… expert blog[s]” where “some random Skarburry” can not make posts and rely only on “actual qualified blog[s].” After this entire situation caught fire at the conclusion of the TOC, I started doing some digging around on the high school case list. In short, I was positive that I would only find that evidence was being read from “expert blog[s].” Here are some examples of what I am speaking about:

1. Increased footing with Cuba is key to prevent Russian bombers there that will bring us to nuclear war
Hinz 3/14 – Founder and Editor of the Minority Report (“Russia to send Bombers to Cuba and Venezuela” http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/hinzsight_story/david_hinz/2009/03/14/russia_to_send_bombers_to_cuba_and_venezuela)
Like Nostradamus or Jeanne Dixon, the prognostications of Joe the Biden have come to pass. An… red line for the United States of America,” said General Norton Schwartz said on July 23.

Sure enough, David Hinz is the President and Editor in Chief of the Minority Report. It is interesting, though, that one can’t seem to find his qualifications for writing anything with any level of authority despite the fact that his writings are rather prolific in the blog world. I suppose, though, its enough that the esteemed names of the “Front Page Contributors” for The Minority Report include: BooBooKitty, .cnI redruM, Streetwise, DocJ, Dave In Boca, pilgrim, EPU, Night Twister, Joliphant, HeavyM, Haystack, Susannah, Knight of the Mind, and $peciallist. An “actual qualified blog” indeed.

2. And, SSP immediately reduces launch costs.
Eades ‘07 – (Jeremy, “US military proposes space-based solar power station”, Futurismic Blog, 10/17, http://futurismic.com/2007/10/17/us-military-proposes-space-based-solar-power-station/)
A few weeks ago, Tobias posted about…technology for civilian consumption

I wasn’t able to figure out who Jeremy Eades is (I’m sure he is an expert on launch costs though), but I was able to determine that the Futurismic Blog “seeks contemporary, near future science fiction for online publication.” More importantly they are looking for “Mundane SF, Post-cyberpunk SF, Satirical/gonzo futurism, Realistic near future hard SF.” I’d classify this as one of those “actual qualified blog[s].”

3. Colonization’s impossible: launch costs are too high, conditions are inhospitable, and it’s never economical Stross, 7 – technical author; freelance journalist; author of The Web Architect’s Handbook; specializes in space opera and hard science fiction [characterized by an emphasis on scientific or technical detail and scientific accuracy] (Charles, “The High Frontier, Redux,” 06-16-07, http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2007/06/the_high_frontier_redux.html)

Now I’m beginning to see the pattern of what constitutes qualified sources…SCIENCE FICTION! I’m sure that because Mr. Stross “went to university in London and qualified as a Pharmacist,” “went back to university in Bradford and did a postgraduate conversion degree in computer science,” and “managed to turn his unemployment into an exciting full time career opportunity as a freelance journalist specializing in Linux and free software” he is more than qualified to speak about launch costs, the economics of space colonization, and the conditions for humans to survive in space. Maybe Mr. Stross is qualified to discuss this matter because he got started “around the time he was getting heavily into Dungeons and Dragons.”

4. Pollinator deaths cause extinction Dee 07, (jay, “colony collapse disorder” associated content 9/5 online The overuse…unchecked

Given public statements that “[i]t’s true that sometimes people are lazy and cite things as “NYT” or whatever, but it’s rare that this is a cover-up for bias … it involves lazy people LEAVING OFF qualifications for no reason other than they are careless” that this scientist’s qualifications were just accidentally left off of the citation. I was happy to learn that Mr. Dee has “written and published numerous short stories, poems, and magazine articles” and has “even written one play that was produced in Canada.” His interests include “writing, coin collecting, [and] bike riding.” I was worried that maybe this actually wasn’t a scientist that had the qualifications to discuss what does and does not cause extinction, but then I found out that Mr. Dee has an “Associate Degree – Psychology.”

More importantly, his motto is from Albert Einstein (shouldn’t this automatically make him qualified)…“Imagination is more important than intelligence.” Truer words have never been spoken.

5. RPS is a form of picking winners that distorts energy markets – the counterplan is a superior form of market regulation that allows greater technological innovation Epstein, 08 (Max, “In Defense of Carbon Pricing: Why Clean RD&D Isn’t Enough,” 7/21, http://www.thebreakthrough.org/blog/2008/07/guest_post_in_defense_of_carbo.shtml)

This is my favorite out of all of them. One would, again, think that the lack of author qualifications was just another example of laziness on the part of coaches and debaters. For goodness sake, at the very beginning of this article Mr. Epstein is cited as an “occasional Washington Post editorialist.” Clearly this author must know what he is talking about, even the Washington Post has published his articles. I was able to overlook the fact that he didn’t include any sources for any of the claims he was making in this article because I was sure that I would find them in his Washington Post articles.

So I decided to take a look at one of his Washington Post articles
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/29/AR2008052903263.htm).

It was certainly interesting that there weren’t any sources for any of the claims he was making. I thought that was part of the process of writing a quality scholarly piece. The Washington Post explained that Mr. Epstein is a student at the University of Maryland. I thought that he surely must be a graduate or Ph.D. student studying economics.

So I decided to take a look on the UMD web page to see if I could track down Mr. Epstein. Sure enough, I found a page that clearly explained how qualified he truly was to be discussing Renewable Portfolio Standards
(http://teams.gemstone.umd.edu/classof2010/chip/team.html).

“Max Epstein Economics and Government Major
Max is a sophomore economics and government major from Chevy Chase, Maryland. Following graduation he plans on either attending law school, grad school, or working as a waiter traveling across Europe. In his free time he enjoys watching movies, playing sports and reading.”

A sophomore at the University of Maryland…Yet another fine example of evidence being read from an “expert” and not “some random Skarburry.”

6. And, that’s key to Chinese growth SciDev 11/3/8 (is a not-for-profit organisation dedicated to providing reliable and authoritative information about science and technology for the developing world, “China must use science and technology for development” http://www.scidev.net/en/opinions/china-must-use-science-and-technology-for-developm.html)
China has made great ….and address global climate change”.

This one was somewhat interesting to me. When you go to the web page provided in the cite, there is a link to the full article originally published in Science Magazine

(http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/322/5902/649?ijkey=HEnoG/1aCB.yE&keytype=ref&siteid=sci).

Obviously, this source is beyond reproach. But why in the world would someone not use the Science Magazine source and, instead, opt for the SciDev source. It must have just been an oversight that the author of the article was Wen Jiabao who is the Premier of the State Council of the People’s Republic of China. Clearly he isn’t an author who might have some bias when it comes to what is and is not important to continued economic growth in China.

7. NASA deliberately disclosed false information about risk factors and the need for nuclear power. The real reports go negative. Chong, 97—Daniel, “Nukes in Space: The Final Frontier?” The North Coast Express, http://www.sonic.net/~doretk/Issues/97-08%20AUG/nukesinspace.html Risking a Human Tragedy…deadly plutonium

When it comes to debates about using nuclear power in space, there is no better place to look than The North Coast Xpress. After all, it “is a quarterly magazine committed to educating the public, as well as prisoners, about political, social and economic issues related to justice, including but not limited to: preserving the democratic ideals of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, safeguarding the environment, explaining U.S. domestic and global economics, revealing how the criminal justice system works, and providing a voice for underrepresented minorities.”

More importantly, at the bottom of this particular version of the article the reader is notified that this is a reprint of the version of the article that appeared in Awareness Magazine (http://www.awarenessmag.com/sepoct7/SO7_NUKE.HTML). At the bottom of this printing of the article, the reader is notified that it was reprinted from the Florida Coalition for Peace and Justice (http://www.fcpj.org/). I am not sure what their qualifications are to talk about nuclear power in space, but they are having a yard sale on May 30. Maybe you can buy some of the textbooks they used to learn about using nuclear power in space for a really good price.

Ultimately, it seems to me that the real problem is the authors debaters and coaches are willing to cut evidence from and the sources they are willing to cite for their evidence. It is 100% accurate that “debaters should follow (and judges should enforce) higher standards of evidence.”

All of this being said, I made several errors in this situation. First, I was wrong to post the essay as a comment on a blog and to submit the essay for publication if I was not also able to attribute the article to myself and to identify myself as a high school debate coach. This is especially the case in this situation where the article was submitted prior to the end of the debate season. Second, I was wrong to not make more of an effort to alert the debate community to my level of involvement in the writing of the essay. Finally, I was wrong to respond to emails requesting information from individuals that identified themselves as members of the debate community without identifying myself as the author of the essay. For exhibiting this level of poor judgment, I have no excuse and can only say that I am terribly sorry.

I am truly sorry for any headaches and frustration the publication of the essay caused. In no uncertain terms, there was no intention to do harm to the debate community, let alone the program at Damien High School. Those that know me, know that I love and cherish debate like none other and that leads to an unwavering respect for the activity and its integrity. I have been involved in the activity for over 15 years. Acting unethically or cheating has never been and was not my intent. For acting in such a way that has opened me and, more importantly Damien, up to questions about ethics, integrity, and intentions, I am truly and deeply sorry. I pledge that this mistake will not be repeated.

Respectfully,

Justin B. Skarb