From arsenalgunners2  Sat Aug  1 00:26:02 1998
From: arsenalgunners2 (Mick Souders)
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 22:26:02 PDT
Subject: NDT Booklets and the Law of Fives-WHY???
Message-ID: <FRI.31.JUL.1998.222602.PDT.ARSENALGUNNERS2@HOTMAIL.COM>

Once again, I am a new kid on the block, so I dont really know much, but
this all sounds suspiciously like the pointless ad hom arguments that
have destroyed the CX-L in the past years.  One of the reason I was
impressed when I got on this list was the lack of wasted breath on ad
hom based discussions.  Then the evil demon reared its head once more.
Maybe its impossible to escape, but it seems to me that everyone keeps
sinking lower and lower into childish, personal rivalries and thinly
veiled jabs and threats at each other.  As a rule, it would probably be
best if everyone simply did their own job of shutting themselves up.
Dont worry about Bryant and all or the NDT "elites".  Never mind about
'em.  Dont perpetuate the worthless discussion thats is suceeding in
neither of its goals:  exposing the elitism of the NDT or dispelling the
myth of the elitism in the NDT. I dont know, maybe I just thought I
would escape all that away from the CX-L.

Mick Souders
Seattle U.


>From owner-edebate at list.uvm.edu Wed Jul 29 09:30:48 1998
>Received: from list.uvm.edu (132.198.101.67) by smtpgate.uvm.edu (LSMTP
for Windows NT v1.1a) with SMTP id <0.AABCCCB0 at smtpgate.uvm.edu>; Wed,
29 Jul 1998 12:30:27 -0400
>Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release
1.8c) with
>          spool id 3652 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 29 Jul 1998
12:30:25
>          -0400
>Received: from imo24.mx.aol.com (imo24.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.68]) by
>          list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id MAA71534 for
>          <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Wed, 29 Jul 1998 12:30:23 -0400 (EDT)
>Received: from DrAllen81 at aol.com by imo24.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id
>          JMYVa22588; Wed, 29 Jul 1998 12:29:41 -0400 (EDT)
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
>X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 56
>Message-ID:  <42a8c89b.35bf4df6 at aol.com>
>Date:         Wed, 29 Jul 1998 12:29:41 EDT
>Reply-To:     DrAllen81 at AOL.COM
>Sender:       Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
>From:         Allen Brooks <DrAllen81 at AOL.COM>
>Subject:      Re: NDT Booklets and the Law of Fives
>Comments: To: Jackie.Massey at ENMU.EDU
>To:           EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU
>
>Disclaimer:  I missed out on everything but I feel the need to defend
Jake.
>
><< Weiner,
>
> This post is absurd. Since you want to be the posterboy, i will refer
to
> you as such from now on.  You know nothing! NOw to your shallow words.
>
>
>Why is it abusrd?  The ad-homs?  Will, Captain Hypocrite you refer to
jake as
>posterboy and as a joke.
>
>
> "quit bogarding the pipe. I want some of what your smoking."
>
> What brought this on?  Have you ever seen Bear do  smoke anything
> besides a cigarrette! Or does your shallow logic justify hearsay in
the
> court room?  Good argument posterboy.
>
>Ad-hom!!  Also, jake's intelectual level is far from yours.  He's your
school
>teacher so I better shuddap if I were you before he breaks out the
whipping
>stick.  Seriously though, Jake is a very smart, logical crack head :).
He
>always demonstrates his maturity and his intelligence when it is
appropiate.
>Though I do agree his post was sorta pointless, Bear's ad-homs were
going too
>far.
>
> "schools at motel 6"
>
> Were you even at the NDT?  Maybe if you had been there at the
> Motel 6, where someone was alomst beaten to death one night,
> you would get a vision. It was interesting how it was mostly
> traditional CEDA schools at the Motel 6.
>
>ok.
>
> "must be a joke"
>
> Actually, if you read the posts, Bear is not making ad-homs
> but is actually being very sensical. You are the joke.
>
>Ad-hom!!!  The only joke is you and your worthless posts defending
bear.  Im
>sure Bear, Jake, and Pete can take care of themselves.  Please just
shuddap.
>I see your email address too many times in my mail.
>
> "LSD in"
>
> Maybe if you had some you could also open your mind to other peoples
> thoughts, rather than working only two inches below the surface.
>
>What is that?  Maybe if your mom actually used birth control this would
have
>never happened.
>
> "Most fun i have ever had"
>
> I bet a KKK member said that once while hannging someone who was
trying
> to voice their opinion.  "Lets hang em"
> UNfortunately, what you consider fun and games could be very important
> to someone else.
>
>what?  See your LSD comment above.
>
> "Bear shut his friggin trap"
>
> At least he is making arguments. Rant on Bear!  (Less about Dr. Snider
> though)  I bet you are going into government arent you posterboy.
>
>Point being?  What is wrong with government?  You imply that it is some
sort
>of evil but if it wasnt for this government, you wouldnt be able to do
this.
>
> "Peter Krein sends Hugs and Kisses"
>
> ARe you hoping that when Bear actually comes out and flames you
> shallow thoughts Krein will jump in.
>
>Try again in english.
>
> Weak Weak Weak
>
> Massey
>
> Formerly ENMU >>
>
>
>a-dawg
>pfhs debate
>


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com



From db8coach  Sat Aug  1 00:39:15 1998
From: db8coach (Bob Lechtreck)
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 22:39:15 -0700
Subject: NDT Elitism: Conclusions
Message-ID: <FRI.31.JUL.1998.223915.0700.DB8COACH@RAIDEN.LIGHTSPEED.NET>

At 12:21 PM 7/31/98 EDT, Michael Bear Bryant wrote:


>>>>>>>>>>
1. Almost all of the people taking such great offense at what I've said have
been NDT debaters. Surprised? Yeah, Marcus wasn't NDT, but he's not really
CEDA, either. He's just a CC guy from California who lashes out at any
rhetoric that might cause him to fell anxiety.
>>>>>>>>>>

I find it rather disingenuous that Bear would criticize the NDT for being
elitist and then refer to Marcus as "... JUST a CC (community college)
guy..." Emphasis and parenthetical phrase added.

Are Community Colleges not as worthy as Weber State? Is this an example of
how Bear would solve the elitism problem, by replacing their elitism with
his own?

Finally, the last letter of the school where Marcus debated last year is a U
(SJSU). It stands for university. I seem to recall one of the first attacks
by Bear being that the NDT wouldn't recognize that Weber was a university.
If you want others to do this, Bear, then I might suggest you lead by example.

Peace,

Bob Lechtreck
Bakersfield College
"Putting out fires, and damn good debaters"



From jhebert  Sat Aug  1 01:18:16 1998
From: jhebert (james hebert)
Date: Sat, 1 Aug 1998 02:18:16 -0400
Subject: The downtrodden CEDA plebes can sleep well now
Message-ID: <SAT.1.AUG.1998.021816.0400.JHEBERT@LAB.HOUSING.FSU.EDU>

I just got off the phone with the moderator of mdebate, and have handed it
back to her. I assume she will catch up on things, decide what to make of
this situation, and be subjected to unreasonable and unprofessional
attacks no matter what she does, as seems to be the norm for various
posters on this list.

To the people who didn't enjoy my stint as moderator: Congratulations, you
made me very very sorry that every day my computing resources at my small
business are being spent on working around the complete lack of self
control, civility, and desire to stay on-topic that particular members of
the subscribership shroud in the patriotic language of free speech and
trying to save the activity.

The private thank-yous I've received, which dwarf in number and platitudes
those posted by Bear, are the only thing that makes me keep making those
resources availible.

To those who have treated me like dirt, associated my moderatorship with
Hitler, called it censored-debate, and completely disregarded the several
hundred lines of thoughtful analysis of the situation (look at me, I'm
extending dropped arguments) that I posted in response to stannard and
others, have fun on edebate where you exert your power by forcing people
to be an audience to your crap when they'd really just like something
they're interested in, and strive to drive away a moderator that would
undermine such a power. I'm happy to put this most unproductive and
intellectually numbing one way "exchange" of thought to rest. Error
messages from the listserv software are more responsive to my posts than
the people who I've answered on this list, literally.

Oh, and Bear: I'd have to check and make sure, but I think they got my NDT
picture right. Not bad for little old FSU, not exactly the NDT elite...
Dr. Brey must have voted right at some tournament...

jim
tired of having his warm regards shoved up his ass

PS Apologies to the sane in CEDA for the apparent slight in my subject
line.

>From  Sat Aug  1 09:09:46 1998
Message-Id: <SAT.1.AUG.1998.090946.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 1648 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Sat, 1 Aug 1998 09:09:52 -0400
Received: from imo15.mx.aol.com (imo15.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.5]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id JAA54154 for
 <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Sat, 1 Aug 1998 09:09:51 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from Spewer77 at aol.com by imo15.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id 8RXHa20768
 for <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Sat, 1 Aug 1998 09:09:46 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 214
Message-ID: <215f15fa.35c3139b at aol.com>
Date: Sat, 1 Aug 1998 09:09:46 EDT
Reply-To: Spewer77 at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Rachel Saloom <Spewer77 at AOL.COM>
Subject: ATTN: Classic, anyone there

To anyone at the Classic institute could you *please* pass the word to Hester
that i really need to get in contact with him
he can email me from someone else's address if needed
its very important

thanks
Rachel
West Ga



From phoenix  Sat Aug  1 09:46:34 1998
From: phoenix (Chris)
Date: Sat, 1 Aug 1998 10:46:34 -0400
Subject: Title VII  (was Re: topicality)
Message-ID: <SAT.1.AUG.1998.104634.0400.PHOENIX@SSSNET.COM>

>These are just my thoughts.  I still am not very familiar with T7, so would
>someone mind posting a summary of the thing, please?
>
>~Samara
>Seattle University
>
you can find the complete text at
http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/vii.html

chris



From asnider  Sat Aug  1 12:11:18 1998
From: asnider (Alfred C. Snider)
Date: Sat, 1 Aug 1998 12:11:18 -0500
Subject: WDI Saturday 8/1
Message-ID: <SAT.1.AUG.1998.121118.0500.ASNIDER@ZOO.UVM.EDU>

EVENTS AT COLLEGE WDI 1998

9:30 AM         Lecture: Research       Gehrke, Ercolini, Berube
10:30 AM                Evidence System Snider, Meany
11 AM           Lecture: Flowing        King, Jones
1 PM            Lecture: Affirmative #1 Woods, Hoe
2 PM            Lecture: Topicality #1 King, Dybvig
3 PM            Lecture: Civil Rights #1 Gonos
7 PM            Speaking Drills
7:30 PM         Lecture: Civil Rights #2        Hayes
8:30 PM         Lecture: Civil Rights #3        Gehrke

COACHING WORKSHOP Day 1 Saturday 8/1
7 PM Getting Acquainted (Snider)
Introductions & Stories
Establish Goals
Review of Curriculum

Argument groups are now being formed. We will post a list of arguments we
have begun tomorrow.

Everyone seems to haver arrived safely! Thanks to everyone who was so
patient during travel difficulties.

Tuna

PS: We will be posting pictures later today and every day at
http://debate.uvm.edu/ndi.html


Alfred Charles Snider -- Lawrence Professor of Forensics, University of Vermont
Mail: 475 Main Street, UVM, Burlington, VT 05405-4225
Phone: 802-656-0097, Fax: 802-656-4275
DEBATE CENTRAL:  Debate's Biggest Website http://debate.uvm.edu/
WORLD DEBATE INSTITUTE 1998 - make plans now - http://debate.uvm.edu/ndi.html

>From  Sat Aug  1 13:38:48 1998
Message-Id: <SAT.1.AUG.1998.133848.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 2223 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Sat, 1 Aug 1998 13:39:20 -0400
Received: from imo30.mx.aol.com (imo30.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.74]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id NAA32478 for
 <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Sat, 1 Aug 1998 13:39:19 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo30.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id
 RPNOa26167; Sat, 1 Aug 1998 13:38:48 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 58
Message-ID: <2236db69.35c352a9 at aol.com>
Date: Sat, 1 Aug 1998 13:38:48 EDT
Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Michael Bear Bryant <MWBRYANT at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: NDT Booklets and the Law of Fives-WHY???
Comments: To: arsenalgunners2 at HOTMAIL.COM

In a message dated 98-08-01 01:26:56 EDT, you write:

<< Dont worry about Bryant and all or the NDT "elites".  Never mind about
 'em.  Dont perpetuate the worthless discussion thats is suceeding in
 neither of its goals:  exposing the elitism of the NDT or dispelling the
 myth of the elitism in the NDT. I dont know, maybe I just thought I
 would escape all that away from the CX-L.

 Mick Souders
 Seattle U.
  >>

Yes, Mr. Souders, we should all just paste smiley faces everywhere, so
freshman, like you, will encounter a lower level of anxiety. Maybe, however,
you should consider waiting to see if I might possibly be right. You have zero
experience to base a judgement on, but you choose to tell folks to ignore me
based on that zero experience. I've been dealing with NDT elitism since 1975,
before you were even born. Could you possibly wait for your first tournament
before instructing folks to put me on "ignore."

Here's a tip: The folks that are going to ignore me already do. You're
certainly welcome to join those legions.

Impudence comes in many forms,

Bryant,
DoF @ Weber State

>From  Sat Aug  1 13:50:06 1998
Message-Id: <SAT.1.AUG.1998.135006.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 2313 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Sat, 1 Aug 1998 13:50:44 -0400
Received: from imo17.mx.aol.com (imo17.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.7]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id NAA56008 for
 <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Sat, 1 Aug 1998 13:50:44 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo17.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id
 3ZVJa02268; Sat, 1 Aug 1998 13:50:06 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 58
Message-ID: <46aa1f35.35c3554f at aol.com>
Date: Sat, 1 Aug 1998 13:50:06 EDT
Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Michael Bear Bryant <MWBRYANT at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: NDT Elitism: Conclusions
Comments: To: db8coach at raiden.lightspeed.net

I knew Mr. db8coach would have something to say. I don't think I've ever had a
thread where Lechtreck didn't enjoy the thrill.

In a message dated 98-08-01 02:02:07 EDT, you write:

<<
 I find it rather disingenuous that Bear would criticize the NDT for being
 elitist and then refer to Marcus as "... JUST a CC (community college)
 guy..." Emphasis and parenthetical phrase added.
 Are Community Colleges not as worthy as Weber State? Is this an example of
 how Bear would solve the elitism problem, by replacing their elitism with
 his own?
>>

No, I love CC's. I recruit heavily from them.`My point, which as usual you
avoid, was that Marcus has little exposure to NDT. Certainly not enough to
dismiss my entire thesis so cavlierly.

>>
 Finally, the last letter of the school where Marcus debated last year is a U
 (SJSU). It stands for university. I seem to recall one of the first attacks
 by Bear being that the NDT wouldn't recognize that Weber was a university.
 If you want others to do this, Bear, then I might suggest you lead by
example.
>>

My apologies if I mislabeled anything. I'll try not to take the same eight
years it took Dr. Parson to correct the error. My main complaint voiced
against the NDT booklet was reversing names.

Thanks for attempting to divert the thread away from any attitudinal elitism
on the part of NDT.

Didn't you go to school at USC?

Bryant

 Peace,

  >>



From dwanzer  Sat Aug  1 12:57:47 1998
From: dwanzer (Darrel Wanzer)
Date: Sat, 1 Aug 1998 10:57:47 -0700
Subject: Expansion of Title VII
Message-ID: <SAT.1.AUG.1998.105747.0700.DWANZER@UPS.EDU>

Dear beloved community members:

I am just wondering if anyone has yet to run across good reasons why
expanding T7 is bad.  Those reasons could be broad or narrow (e.g.,
expanding is generally bad or expanding for gays is bad).  If so, could
you post some ideas or back channel me with some cites.  I have had one
helluva time finding what is needed.

Darrel Wanzer

>From  Sat Aug  1 13:58:19 1998
Message-Id: <SAT.1.AUG.1998.135819.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 2441 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Sat, 1 Aug 1998 13:58:47 -0400
Received: from imo18.mx.aol.com (imo18.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.8]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id NAA55942 for
 <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Sat, 1 Aug 1998 13:58:46 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo18.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id
 MSTJa29473; Sat, 1 Aug 1998 13:58:19 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 58
Message-ID: <da05061e.35c3573e at aol.com>
Date: Sat, 1 Aug 1998 13:58:19 EDT
Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Michael Bear Bryant <MWBRYANT at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: The downtrodden CEDA plebes can sleep well now
Comments: To: jhebert at LAB.HOUSING.FSU.EDU

In a message dated 98-08-01 02:12:01 EDT, you write:

<<
 Oh, and Bear: I'd have to check and make sure, but I think they got my NDT
 picture right. Not bad for little old FSU, not exactly the NDT elite...
 Dr. Brey must have voted right at some tournament...

 jim
 tired of having his warm regards shoved up his ass
  >>

Look, I said this wasn't your fault. I've stayed away from bothering you after
our initial exchange. But if this is the type of person you are, I think we're
better off in your absence. Didn't you tell us that you weren't involved in
debate? Now you admit (and the good Doctor informs via backchannel) that you
were an NDT debater. Nothing like trying to be honest about one's prejudices,
eh?

Thanks for faking how you really felt so well,

Michael Bryant,
seeing that what a moderator "says" and how they allow their emotions to cause
them to react are very different things...



From atodd01  Sat Aug  1 13:31:52 1998
From: atodd01 (Anne Marie Todd)
Date: Sat, 1 Aug 1998 14:31:52 -0400
Subject: Seeking Ede Warner
Message-ID: <SAT.1.AUG.1998.143152.0400.ATODD01@EMORY.EDU>

If anyone knows how to get in touch with Ede at Michigan could you let me
know or have him contact me.
Thanks
AMT



From atodd01  Sat Aug  1 13:35:44 1998
From: atodd01 (Anne Marie Todd)
Date: Sat, 1 Aug 1998 14:35:44 -0400
Subject: Seeking Ede Warner
Message-ID: <SAT.1.AUG.1998.143544.0400.ATODD01@EMORY.EDU>

Ede are you there? or could anyone who knows how to contact Ede at
Michigan let me know or ask him to contact me.
Thanks
AMT

>From  Sat Aug  1 14:38:51 1998
Message-Id: <SAT.1.AUG.1998.143851.0400.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 2701 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Sat, 1 Aug 1998 14:38:54 -0400
Received: from MORRISVILLE.EDU (SNYMORAB.MORRISVILLE.EDU [136.204.81.12]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id OAA40290 for
 <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Sat, 1 Aug 1998 14:38:53 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from morrisville.edu by morrisville.edu (PMDF V5.1-7 #18385) id
 <01J03CMRQFX48Y59Q3 at morrisville.edu> for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Sat, 1
 Aug 1998 14:38:51 EDT
X-VMS-To: edebate at list.uvm.edu
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Message-ID: <01J03CMRQFX68Y59Q3 at morrisville.edu>
Date: Sat, 1 Aug 1998 14:38:51 -0400
Reply-To: WHITNEMR at MORRISVILLE.EDU
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: WHITNEMR at MORRISVILLE.EDU
Organization: SUNY College of Agriculture & Technology - Morrisville, New York
Subject: Downtrodden CEDA Plebes

Look Jim,

    Again, as the only one who even implied the name Hitler (I never did
actually use it until the following explanation), I will REPEAT: it was
one example out of a possible multitude showing the need for context. In
NO way was I trying to liken you, personally, to Adolf Hitler. If that was
the way it was interpreted by Jim, or anyone else, allow me to apologize.
What you were doing did not resemble anything that evil being did. I'm
sorry if you thought I meant you did.
    Allow me to REPEAT a second point: I think you were doing a fine job
given the circumstances. I too, don't know what took the old moderator so
long. When I last backchanneled with her last May, she said she was leaving
then. It's now August. The problem was not with YOU, it was with the way
the criteria sucks and lack of guidance given to you.
    Allow me a final point (not a repetition): I thought you said you had
no affiliation with debate? Now I am morbidly curious as to the inclusion/
exclusion decisions. Don't bother to answer... we'll all just repeat. And,
you may find yourself sucked into all this.  :)

                   Best of Luck to you, Jim

       Sorry differing opinions upset you so, it was nothing personal

                                   Mark Whitney
                                   SUNY Morrisville

>From  Sat Aug  1 15:47:11 1998
Message-Id: <SAT.1.AUG.1998.154711.0500.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 2881 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Sat, 1 Aug 1998 15:50:35 -0400
Received: from jcvaxa.jcu.edu (jcvaxa.jcu.edu [143.105.8.2]) by list.uvm.edu
 (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id PAA25776 for
 <EDEBATE at list.uvm.edu>; Sat, 1 Aug 1998 15:50:35 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from JCVAXA.jcu.edu by JCVAXA.jcu.edu (PMDF V5.1-9 #28018) id
 <01J03EYXFJZM8YB0T7 at JCVAXA.jcu.edu> for EDEBATE at list.uvm.edu; Sat, 1
 Aug 1998 15:47:11 EST
X-VMS-To: IN%"EDEBATE at list.uvm.edu"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Message-ID: <01J03EYXFKXG8YB0T7 at JCVAXA.jcu.edu>
Date: Sat, 1 Aug 1998 15:47:11 -0500
Reply-To: KYOUNG at JCVAXA.JCU.EDU
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Kelly Young <KYOUNG at JCVAXA.JCU.EDU>
Subject: Extraterritorial application of Title VII

Can someone let me know if Title VII applies to US companies
operating outside the US?

Kelly Young
JCU

>From  Sat Aug  1 15:03:55 1998
Message-Id: <SAT.1.AUG.1998.150355.0500.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 2984 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Sat, 1 Aug 1998 16:05:20 -0400
Received: from alpha.selu.edu (alpha.selu.edu [147.174.1.7]) by list.uvm.edu
 (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id QAA55450 for
 <edebate at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Sat, 1 Aug 1998 16:05:18 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from selu.edu by selu.edu (PMDF V5.1-9 #D3128) id
 <01J03DGJT04WA4M75G at selu.edu> for edebate at LIST.UVM.EDU; Sat, 1 Aug
 1998 15:04:09 CDT
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Message-ID: <01J03DHUXS12A4M75G at selu.edu>
Date: Sat, 1 Aug 1998 15:03:55 -0500
Reply-To: selliott at SELU.EDU
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: selliott at SELU.EDU
Organization: Southeastern Louisiana University
Subject: Re: Inherency and Title VII
In-Reply-To: "Your message dated Fri, 31 Jul 1998 14:12:20 -0400 (EDT)"
 <199807311828.OAA04403 at lab.housing.fsu.edu>

Is your plan being done in thestatus quo?

>From  Sat Aug  1 15:10:00 1998
Message-Id: <SAT.1.AUG.1998.151000.0500.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 3051 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Sat, 1 Aug 1998 16:11:23 -0400
Received: from alpha.selu.edu (alpha.selu.edu [147.174.1.7]) by list.uvm.edu
 (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id QAA49152 for
 <edebate at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Sat, 1 Aug 1998 16:11:22 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from selu.edu by selu.edu (PMDF V5.1-9 #D3128) id
 <01J03DGJT04WA4M75G at selu.edu> for edebate at LIST.UVM.EDU; Sat, 1 Aug
 1998 15:11:00 CDT
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Message-ID: <01J03DPF1DU4A4M75G at selu.edu>
Date: Sat, 1 Aug 1998 15:10:00 -0500
Reply-To: selliott at SELU.EDU
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: selliott at SELU.EDU
Organization: Southeastern Louisiana University
Subject: Re: Expansion of Title VII
In-Reply-To: "Your message dated Sat, 01 Aug 1998 10:57:47 -0700"
 <199808011814.OAA08632 at lab.housing.fsu.edu>

You have executive action and S. Court c-plan ground!! What more do you need!
:)
Seeing the negative whines a mile away.
Scott Elliott



From kristina_massey  Sat Aug  1 15:26:24 1998
From: kristina_massey (Kristina Massey)
Date: Sat, 1 Aug 1998 13:26:24 -0700
Subject: Extraterritorial application of Title VII
Message-ID: <SAT.1.AUG.1998.132624.0700.KRISTINAMASSEY@YAHOO.COM>

 when congress passed T7 it made no mention in the statute of it intent
 to apply US employment law outside the country's boundaries. W/no
direct statement from congress the courts were forced to "guess"
 whether T7 was meant to protect US citizens working for American
 companies abroad. Anyway, initially the lower crts upheld that it did,
 and then the supreme court decided that it didn't.  But the final word
 came in 1991 CRA, it spec xtnded T7 coverage to us citizens working
for us employers overseas. blah blah blah...


>
>
>
> ---Kelly Young  wrote:
> >
> > Can someone let me know if Title VII applies to US companies
> > operating outside the US?
> >
> > Kelly Young
> > JCU
> >
>
> _________________________________________________________
> DO YOU YAHOO!?
> Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>

_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com



From jhebert  Sat Aug  1 16:26:10 1998
From: jhebert (james hebert)
Date: Sat, 1 Aug 1998 17:26:10 -0400
Subject: I'm not on edebate, but I'm told you're posting abou me... (fwd)
Message-ID: <SAT.1.AUG.1998.172610.0400.JHEBERT@LAB.HOUSING.FSU.EDU>

[after some thought, I decided to send this to edebate though I'd
originally just sent it to Mark and Mike. Read the edebate archive, check
the context, evalute their claims, and then decide if I'm a liar for
yourself. Wow, I spent my entire saturday writing this, that sucks...]

Mark, and Mike,

I haven't debated for over a year. I don't hang out with debate people,
don't talk about debate with people, etc., with the possible exception
being Dr. Schriver. I don't consider myself a debate-person at this time.

The reason I was a good moderator choice was because I HAD been in debate,
long enough to understand the lingo, understand why a post about title 7
is germane when the topic has been announced, understand the difference
between a jargon-rich post entirely about Focult would be different from a
jargon-rich post entirely about Fiat, and which ones should be posted.

The meaning of me saying I was a person was not affiliated with debate
intended only to underscore the magnitude of my generousity at moderating
this list, since, ostensibly, a person not currently involved in debate in
any form should have very little reason to care if the mdebate forum gets
neglected for a couple of weeks.

I never used it as a claim to ignorance. Bear did, and I think others did,
ascribing my difficulty in moderating the listserv to my
"non-debate-person" status, but I never did. In fact, I had no trouble
descibing why I didn't post certain posts (I only ever got to explain one,
I never was emailed any additoinal URLs to explain). Further, I made no
effort to hide my debate knowledge: I attended FSU, I knew 2 coaches of
the team, Mike Korcok and Kristina Schriver, I refered to things as
not-unique in nearly every long post on the subject of what harms mdebate
may or may not cause. Know any people who never debated who say "the harm
is not unique?" Know many people who never debated who make arguments
about positive and negative rights by those names? Know any people who
have never been involved in Forensics who know of the Forensics Quarterly?
Perhaps I should have sent some sort of "Hi, I'm the moderator, and here
are my qualifications for you to pick apart" message?

If I was trying to play dumb for you, rest assured I would have done a
better job. I would have posted from jhebert at compu-aid.com, for one thing.
It just so happened that my moderation software was already installed at
fsu.

Hell, didn't you think I learned what the letters NDT and CEDA meant
pretty damn fast? For crying out loud, of course I had debate experience,
what did you think, that Dr. Schriver picked a person off the street, gave
them criteria they had no hope to understand, and said "go" ?

My original post, availible at
http://list.uvm.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind9807&L=edebate&D=&H=&T=&O=&F=&P=38074
says:

"Meanwhile, I, a person who has zero affiliation with debate, will
continue to perform a gratis service as an extension of my original offer
to host the listserv."

I stand by this statement. I have zero affiliation with debate, and you
can see the context in which the statement was made.

If I didn't debate with Bear when he posts "you couldn't understand,
you're a non-debate person" it was simply because it was non-productive, a
personal attack on me rather than an argument against my stated reasons
for my moderation decisions. I chose my battles pretty consistently,
quoting entire passages on Dr. Schriver's professionalism, and saying I'd
stick to discussing the list moderation and leave that isssue to her. I
wasn't going to catalog my debate experience in the hopes that Bear would
go, oh, ok, I respect that, since I had every reason to believe that he
would continue his typical pattern of flaming and putting down whatever it
was I said. I'm not in the habbit of offering up my bio as flamebait,
thanks.

Where I did honestly have ignorance, and pointed it out, was the context
of Bear's history of complaining about NDT elitism, and I admit that in
http://list.uvm.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind9807&L=edebate&D=&H=&T=&O=&F=&P=42260
Had I known that, I admitted, I would have read his initial email more
generously.

Oh, in
http://list.uvm.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind9807&L=edebate&D=&H=&T=&O=&F=&P=44424
I referred to myself as someone not a member of your community. I stand by
that as well.

For a bunch of guys so concerned about the professionalism of the mdebate
moderator, the word liar certainly pops up after crossing a
zero-threshold. Yeesh. How very professional you both are.

jim

PS I also went to CEDA Nats, and lots in finals at some CEDA regional
tournament right before Nats to Crenshaw's team. Quite honestly, I was
much more of a CEDA debater, but I attended the NDT and my picture came
out ok in the book, so of course I'm biased against you and quell your
posts now for that reason. Bah. I could care less who you bash in the NDT.
Truth be known, I disliked the NDT, so how come I'm not biased in your
favor?



From a.dove  Sat Aug  1 12:18:00 1998
From: a.dove (Alan Dove)
Date: Sat, 1 Aug 1998 17:18:00 +0000
Subject: Columbia Debate Research Site Updated
References: <19980801202624.21281.rocketmail@send1d.yahoomail.com>
Message-ID: <SAT.1.AUG.1998.171800.0000.A.DOVE@EROLS.COM>

Hey, folks:

Dozens of topic-specific links are now online at the Columbia Debate research
site.  A bunch of organizations, some topic-specific and topic-related search
tools, and sites for a number of relevant publications, both print and Web,
have been added, along with short descriptions.  On the remote chance that
we'll actually be talking about some of the more inflammatory issues, a couple
of links well outside the mainstream should provide good starting points.

The general search tools and news links (not topic-specific) were checked and
updated recently, and links to sites for generic positions and the caselist page
are still valid.

Input for additional links or repairs to existing ones is always welcome.

Columbia Debate Research Site:
http://128.59.173.136/Columbia/Rooms/Filebox.html

          --Alan

--
_______________
Alan Dove, Ph.D.
N3IMU
a.dove at erols.com
http://128.59.173.136/Poliolab/Alan/Dove.html

>From  Sat Aug  1 18:07:13 1998
Message-Id: <SAT.1.AUG.1998.180713.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 3534 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Sat, 1 Aug 1998 18:08:20 -0400
Received: from imo12.mx.aol.com (imo12.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.2]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id SAA25744 for
 <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Sat, 1 Aug 1998 18:08:19 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo12.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id
 MWYPa11468; Sat, 1 Aug 1998 18:07:13 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 58
Message-ID: <10a92a6d.35c39192 at aol.com>
Date: Sat, 1 Aug 1998 18:07:13 EDT
Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Michael Bear Bryant <MWBRYANT at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: I'm not on edebate,
 but I'm told you're posting abou me... (fwd)
Comments: To: jhebert at LAB.HOUSING.FSU.EDU

Hebert,

In a personal backchannel, Dr. Schriver informs me that prior to your
temporary placement as moderator, a grand total of ONE of my posts had been
struck from MDEBATE. In three days, how many did you suspend? Don't you think
that says something about your own perspective?

I tried to avoid bothering you any more. I said I didn't think it was your
fault, though given the additional knowledge of your debate background (which
you so cleverly hid from us), I no longer extend that minimization of
responsibilty. You said that you were not affiliated with debate, that you
were only a helpless computer techie left with a nasty job. I never called you
a "liar" in this earlier thread. I do now. Glad to see that you're (Damus
would use the word "your") at least honest enough to admit that you thought
NDT was a pretty lousy experience.

To help others w/ context: I'm not liked very much by several folks on the FSU
squad. My wars with Korcok seemed to familiar to many supportive NDT
backchannelers. My problems with Geoff Anderson that are about to explode (if
he manages to leave Salt Lake City alive) probably will only lead to further
deterioration of relations between Brey and I.

Geoff coaching on a civil rights topic - how ironic can you get?

Bryant

Have a really nice life and do whatever you want



From asnider  Sat Aug  1 18:12:46 1998
From: asnider (Alfred C. Snider)
Date: Sat, 1 Aug 1998 18:12:46 -0500
Subject: WDI Argument Wave #1
Message-ID: <SAT.1.AUG.1998.181246.0500.ASNIDER@ZOO.UVM.EDU>

WORLD DEBATE INSTITUTE 1998
ARGUMENT WAVE #1

AFFIRMATIVES

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION GOOD/BAD
        Myron King, Ken Delaughder RTT 110

SAME SEX HARASSMENT
        Hoe, Ayotte RTT 209

REDEFINE EMPLOYER
        Gonos, Hayes L100

DISADVANTAGES

MOVEMENTS
        Massey, Morris RTT 204

BUSINESS CONFIDENCE
        Dumas, Davis RTT 206

COUNTERPLAN-OFF CASE PAIRS

BAN TITLE SEVEN + REPRESSIVE TOLERANCE
        Berube, Hovden 475 Main

COLOR BLIND CP + RACIAL IDENTITY
        Woods, Cornellier A202

COURTS REDEFINE + CRITICAL RACE THEORY
        Hayman, Kerr A206

CRITIQUES:

CONSTRUCTION OF RACE/CRITICAL LATINO/LATINA THEORY
        Meany, Miller A207

CRITIQUE OF LIBERAL CONSTITUTIONALISM
        Gehrke, Ercolini A303

Alfred Charles Snider -- Lawrence Professor of Forensics, University of Vermont
Mail: 475 Main Street, UVM, Burlington, VT 05405-4225
Phone: 802-656-0097, Fax: 802-656-4275
DEBATE CENTRAL:  Debate's Biggest Website http://debate.uvm.edu/
WORLD DEBATE INSTITUTE 1998 - make plans now - http://debate.uvm.edu/ndi.html



From db8coach  Sat Aug  1 17:15:59 1998
From: db8coach (Bob Lechtreck)
Date: Sat, 1 Aug 1998 15:15:59 -0700
Subject: NDT Elitism: Conclusions
Message-ID: <SAT.1.AUG.1998.151559.0700.DB8COACH@RAIDEN.LIGHTSPEED.NET>

At 01:50 PM 8/1/98 EDT, MWBRYANT at aol.com wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>
I knew Mr. db8coach would have something to say. I don't think I've ever had a
thread where Lechtreck didn't enjoy the thrill.
>>>>>>>>>>

Just trying to right the wrongs that bother ME, like you do with the wrongs
that bother you.

>>>>>>>>>>
No, I love CC's. I recruit heavily from them.`My point, which as usual you
avoid, was that Marcus has little exposure to NDT. Certainly not enough to
dismiss my entire thesis so cavlierly.
>>>>>>>>>>

And your point was well taken, Marcus does have little exposure to NDT.
However, that does NOT excuse the fact that you took an elitist attitude
over Marcus because he was at a community college (which in fact he was
not). There are numerous community colleges who DO have a lot of experience
with NDT and have even qualified to attend the tournament.

>>>>>>>>>>
Thanks for attempting to divert the thread away from any attitudinal elitism
on the part of NDT.
>>>>>>>>>>

Not my intent, nor, I would wager, the end result. I just believe that
deconstructionists who live in glass houses shouldn't throw elitist stones.

That's all.

>>>>>>>>>>
Didn't you go to school at USC?
>>>>>>>>>>

How I wish I had. No, I was relegated to Cal State Bakersfield BEFORE it was
a university. I am but a poor serf...........

Peace,

Bob Lechtreck
Bakersfield College
"Putting out fires, and damn good debaters"



From gabriels  Sat Aug  1 17:38:22 1998
From: gabriels (Gabe S.)
Date: Sat, 1 Aug 1998 18:38:22 -0400
Subject: Seeking Ede Warner
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.96.980801143012.14274A-100000@paladin.cc.emory.edu>
Message-ID: <SAT.1.AUG.1998.183822.0400.GABRIELS@UMICH.EDU>

To get in touch with anyone at the Michigan institutes...
Call (734) 764-9492 and ask for their apt. phone numbers.

Gabe
UofM

                ------------------------------------------
                | You're with me so much...              |
                | Though you're never with me any more.  |
                |                               -Sundays |
                ------------------------------------------


On Sat, 1 Aug 1998, Anne Marie Todd wrote:

> If anyone knows how to get in touch with Ede at Michigan could you let me
> know or have him contact me.
> Thanks
> AMT
>



From jhebert  Sat Aug  1 18:20:38 1998
From: jhebert (james hebert)
Date: Sat, 1 Aug 1998 19:20:38 -0400
Subject: I'm not on edebate,
 but I'm told you're posting abou me... (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <10a92a6d.35c39192@aol.com>
Message-ID: <SAT.1.AUG.1998.192038.0400.JHEBERT@LAB.HOUSING.FSU.EDU>

On Sat, 1 Aug 1998 MWBRYANT at aol.com wrote:

> Hebert,
>
> In a personal backchannel, Dr. Schriver informs me that prior to your
> temporary placement as moderator, a grand total of ONE of my posts had been
> struck from MDEBATE. In three days, how many did you suspend? Don't you think
> that says something about your own perspective?

Suspend is a good word, considering that I indicated that I was about to
review a batch of them this weekend but decided to let her do it.

Furthermore, I asked you to aid me in locating the posts which you would
like to have seen on mdebate. You ignored at least 2 or 3 requests made to
the list by me. Any post not appearing on mdebate is solely your
responsibility, as I placed the onus on you and anyone else was willing to
dig them up for me.

> I tried to avoid bothering you any more. I said I didn't think it was your

And I posted my reasoning, which you refuse to confront and post why it
was an incorrect reading of your post. I have refused from the first to
use "ignorance" as a reason why you weren't being approved, and sought
discussion from you on the topic.

> fault, though given the additional knowledge of your debate background (which
> you so cleverly hid from us), I no longer extend that minimization of
> responsibilty. You said that you were not affiliated with debate, that you
> were only a helpless computer techie left with a nasty job. I never called you
> a "liar" in this earlier thread. I do now. Glad to see that you're (Damus

I challenge you to defend this characterization of my communications.
It's currently only asserted. I reread every post to edebate and
highlighted the passages in question, and defended them. If the rest of
edebate was flowing, they'd see the drops you're committing here. I'm not
giving you any ad-homs to latch on to and go tangental, just a request
that if you're going to make this claim you defend it. Please refer to my
original email for the urls that I think are the most important, but feel
free to do your own research, read them all again individually, and post
your own evidence of my "lying."

> would use the word "your") at least honest enough to admit that you thought
> NDT was a pretty lousy experience.
>
> To help others w/ context: I'm not liked very much by several folks on the FSU

This is not context. If it was why are you suddently now bringing it up,
rather than on the "do you know Mike Krocok" thread, or immediately when
you saw my email address was from FSU? Or hell, when you realized I knew
Dr. Schriver, also from FSU?

I have already indicated I haven't heard from him in a long time. I
certainly am not some extension of your conflict with him, and was only
vaguely aware that you and him didn't get along (mostly because you asked
me if I knew him).

> squad. My wars with Korcok seemed to familiar to many supportive NDT
> backchannelers. My problems with Geoff Anderson that are about to explode (if
> he manages to leave Salt Lake City alive) probably will only lead to further
> deterioration of relations between Brey and I.
>
> Geoff coaching on a civil rights topic - how ironic can you get?

Without trying to start a war with Geoff, he is most certainly no friend
of mine. Yet again, more non-context from you. Are you trying to establish
my bias using guilt-by-association? I'm hoping you will reread my posts,
and either post something in there which "proves" my guilt, or not do so
and demonstrate the lack of support for your claims. I can't ask you to
actually get on edebate and say "OK, I can't support my claims, he's
right." But, we'll all just that if you can't come up with the evidence.
OK?

Me? I'll go put your email address in my mail filter and ignore you. You
should have taken me up on that mailing list offer, I really would have
made you one.

jim



From chappy27  Sat Aug  1 20:26:09 1998
From: chappy27 (Sean Chapman)
Date: Sat, 1 Aug 1998 18:26:09 PDT
Subject: COPY OF TITLE VII
Message-ID: <SAT.1.AUG.1998.182609.PDT.CHAPPY27@HOTMAIL.COM>

Does anybody out there have a copy of the official wording of TITLE VII
of the Civil Rights Act of 64, or do they know A web address where i can
get my hands on it.
Thanks
Sean Chapman
Pasadena Debate

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com



From chappy27  Sat Aug  1 22:38:18 1998
From: chappy27 (Sean Chapman)
Date: Sat, 1 Aug 1998 20:38:18 PDT
Subject: ADI hotel
Message-ID: <SAT.1.AUG.1998.203818.PDT.CHAPPY27@HOTMAIL.COM>

Does anybody know the name of the hotel that ADI participants will be
staying at? Can we check in before we register?
Thanks
Sean Chapman
Pasadena debate

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

>From  Sat Aug  1 23:38:40 1998
Message-Id: <SAT.1.AUG.1998.233840.0400.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 0054 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Sat, 1 Aug 1998 23:38:43 -0400
Received: from MORRISVILLE.EDU (SNYMORAB.MORRISVILLE.EDU [136.204.81.12]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id XAA32340 for
 <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Sat, 1 Aug 1998 23:38:42 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from morrisville.edu by morrisville.edu (PMDF V5.1-7 #18385) id
 <01J03V1SNN5Y8Y5BE5 at morrisville.edu> for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Sat, 1
 Aug 1998 23:38:41 EDT
X-VMS-To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Message-ID: <01J03V1SNWT48Y5BE5 at morrisville.edu>
Date: Sat, 1 Aug 1998 23:38:40 -0400
Reply-To: WHITNEMR at MORRISVILLE.EDU
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: WHITNEMR at MORRISVILLE.EDU
Organization: SUNY College of Agriculture & Technology - Morrisville, New York
Subject: Re: posting about me / Dear jim

Jim,

   I've never called you a liar. I have also REPEATEDLY said that I thought
you were doing a good job considering the situation. I really don't know
how many times I have to post it before it sinks in. Or do you just like
seeing it again and again? The ONE AND ONLY thing I have been saying that
has anything to do with you in any way is that PROCEDURALLY mdebate could
use some work. I don't hate mdebate, I don't hate you. I have been
attacking the concept of mdebate, I have NOT been attacking you. Try to
seperate the two.
   I have not debated for many, many years. I am not now a member of CEDA
or NDT. But I do consider myself "affiliated" with debate. That is why when
I saw a name I was unfamiliar with, with an address I was unfamiliar with,
state that they were not affiliated with any debate, I interpreted that to
mean you weren't familiar with debate. It looks as though it may have been
an honest mis-interpretation on my part. I did wonder when I saw some of
your phrasing, but I took you at your word (or, thought I was).
   I also find it very ironic that one of the points I was making is that
Bear's posts should have been forwarded to provide context, and now you're
saying that we need to evaluate your posts for context.  :)  Oh well.
Look, this is getting old. Will you just accept that I don't think you
are evil or did a bad job? It was/is the criteria and its application
(or lack thereof) that I have a problem with, not you. I'll buy ya a beer
if we ever meet, ok?

                See? I told you you'd get sucked into this.  :)

                                      Mark Whitney
                                      SUNY Morrisville



From mroston  Sat Aug  1 22:45:07 1998
From: mroston (Michael Roston the eminently practical)
Date: Sat, 1 Aug 1998 22:45:07 -0500
Subject: COPY OF TITLE VII
In-Reply-To: <19980802012609.5080.qmail@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <SAT.1.AUG.1998.224507.0500.MROSTON@BLUE.WEEG.UIOWA.EDU>

I don't know if somebody else got to this already, but it's avaiale in
toto at:

www.eeoc.gov/laws/vii.html

On Sat, 1 Aug 1998, Sean Chapman wrote:

> Does anybody out there have a copy of the official wording of TITLE VII
> of the Civil Rights Act of 64, or do they know A web address where i can
> get my hands on it.
> Thanks
> Sean Chapman
> Pasadena Debate
>
> ______________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>

-Michael Roston
the king of boggle

"You must be out of your mind to write to the Times like this! There are
millions of bitter Voltairean types whose souls are filled with angry
satire and who keep looking for the keenest, most poisonous word. You
could send in a poem instead, you nitwit! Why should you be more right out
of sheer distraction than they are out of organization? You ride in their
trains, don't you? Distraction didn't build the railroad. Go on, write a
poem and kill 'em with bitterness!"
                                        -Saul Bellow

>From  Sun Aug  2 00:46:27 1998
Message-Id: <SUN.2.AUG.1998.004627.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 0351 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Sun, 2 Aug 1998 00:46:31 -0400
Received: from imo28.mx.aol.com (imo28.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.72]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id AAA93716 for
 <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Sun, 2 Aug 1998 00:46:30 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from CUDb8R at aol.com by imo28.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id 8CTLa17153
 for <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Sun, 2 Aug 1998 00:46:27 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 170
Message-ID: <9e69fd10.35c3ef24 at aol.com>
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 1998 00:46:27 EDT
Reply-To: CUDb8R at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Kirk Wilson <CUDb8R at AOL.COM>
Subject: 1991 Amendment

Maybe I'm just missing something, but it seems to me that the 1991 amendment
covers just about everything when it extended T7 and all of its amendments to
all employees/employers.  There have been numerous amendments to T7...somebody
help me...WHAT'S LEFT???

Kirk Wilson
CU Debate

>From  Sun Aug  2 01:11:17 1998
Message-Id: <SUN.2.AUG.1998.011117.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 0438 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Sun, 2 Aug 1998 01:12:08 -0400
Received: from imo14.mx.aol.com (imo14.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.4]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id BAA25800 for
 <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Sun, 2 Aug 1998 01:12:07 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from Ara98 at aol.com by imo14.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id 8PGDa13456
 for <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Sun, 2 Aug 1998 01:11:17 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 38
Message-ID: <20f8c868.35c3f4f7 at aol.com>
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 1998 01:11:17 EDT
Reply-To: Ara98 at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Samara Mohamed <Ara98 at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: 1991 Amendment

Well, affirmative action is still not perfect and many people are still not
satisfied with how it works.  Find those imperfections and dissatisfactions,
and make your plan to amend T7 so it is "perfect."  It may not be to expand
T7, it may be to take it down to the bare bones of legislation to declare
merely that all employers must use colorblind hiring practices.  Bigger is not
always better.  This is coming from a moderate libertarian, so take it as you
will.

~Samara
Seattle University

>From  Sun Aug  2 02:37:08 1998
Message-Id: <SUN.2.AUG.1998.023708.0700.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 0910 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Sun, 2 Aug 1998 05:48:56 -0400
Received: from mm1 (mm1.sprynet.com [165.121.1.50]) by list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB
 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id FAA65260 for <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Sun, 2
 Aug 1998 05:48:55 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [131.230.253.147] ([131.230.253.147]) by mm1.sprynet.com with
 SMTP id <227734-17247>; Sun, 2 Aug 1998 02:37:17 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.21
Message-ID: <98Aug2.023717-0700pdt.227734-17247+15857 at mm1.sprynet.com>
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 1998 02:37:08 -0700
Reply-To: slusher at LEXIS-NEXISMAIL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Eric Slusher <slusher at LEXIS-NEXISMAIL.COM>
Subject: vote splitting

>From the looks of it, everybodys 2nd choice won.

So the idea was that if we had less options on the ballot it would force hands
with the result being no vote splitting.  Looks like it backfired, eh?

I'm not saying it's somebody else's fault.  I was there on the committee when
somehow we got delusional and decided that 3 choices would decrease vote
splitting.  Sure, I was all for that.  Sounded like a good plan.

I will say that the 30 people that ranked Title VII 2nd are responsible to a
degree.  Why rank anything besides first?  Do you feel the need to express what
you'd prefer to debate if your favorite topic looses?  Imagine if political
elections worked this way.

Maybe we should consider doing away with this ranking procedure and just put a
check-mark by your preference and then add up the check-marks.  If that was the
way it worked we'd be debating the remedies/list topic now.  Title VII would
have been 3rd.

Is this disturbing to anyone else?

slusher





From mgremillion  Sun Aug  2 08:58:44 1998
From: mgremillion (MWilliams)
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 1998 08:58:44 -0500
Subject: vote splitting isn't that bad
Message-ID: <SUN.2.AUG.1998.085844.0500.MGREMILLION@SELU.EDU>

There is another element of politics that enables us to actually accomplish
things Eric. Its called compromise. I see the selection of T7 as a compromise.
It was the only one I voted for, so I'm happy. However, as far as voting
procedures go, the ranking system is just fine. Perhaps your favorite topic did
not get picked, or even the one that got a plurality of first place votes.
But what did get picked was a topic that people were moderately comfortable
with. Rather than having a significant minority pick up their marbles and
go do Parly, or some alternative topic, we now have everyone moderately
complaining, but still working away. Simply adding up the votes to
a plurality DOES NOT mean that the most popular topic wins. Example:
100 people vote for the three topics (since you admit that the value topic was a throw away). 33 vote for T7, 34 vote for remedies, and 32 vote for S. Ct.
Even though Remedies won, it was not most popular. 65% did not vote for
remedies, yet will be forced to debate it. With rankings, a majority will
be equally "guilty" when the complaints of "whaaaaaaa!, No ground!" and
"Whaaaaaaa!, topic to limited," and "whaaaaaaa! no topical team could win,"
and Whaaaaaa!!!! But you have to give me a link to Clinton, or I'll never win""
start to hit the fan.
On point topics are good.
Scott Elliott



From MWBRYANT  Sun Aug  2 09:30:46 1998
From: MWBRYANT (Michael Bear Bryant)
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 1998 10:30:46 -0400
Subject: An Apology
Message-ID: <SUN.2.AUG.1998.103046.0400.MWBRYANT@AOL.COM>

To all the folks on this listserv:

I want to apologize for my recent boorish, insensitive, and offensive
posts. I have come to realize that I have been acting like a child, and a
very poorly mannered one at that. I would like to take this opportunity to
recant and take back everything that I've said. It was I who was in the
wrong - for accusing Becky Bjork and the NDT community in general of
elitism. In my quiet hours of introspection, I've come to the conclusion
that perhaps I am not quite mentally stable -- my deluge of ad homs,
which bordered on hysteria and mania, only further pointed me towards
this conclusion. Once again, I'm sorry. I have clearly misused this
listserv to air my dirty laundry and more general resentments.

In truth, the catalyst for this post was my discovery that I was incorrect
in the accounting of both the Motel 6 and NDT booklet incidents. I
checked the NDT booklets again last night, and to my surprise, I realized
that the names of my debaters were correctly entered next to the
pictures. I don't know how I made the original mistake -- I am going in for
an eye exam as soon as possible. Furthermore, I did a double-check with
the Motel 6 we stayed in at the NDT, and it turns out my memory
betrayed me also; it was I who had made those reservations there, not
Becky Bjork. I don't know where that conclusion came from.

In sum, I'm deeply sorry if I offended anyone, but I probably cannot help
it, because I am in general a pretty offensive human being. I can only
thank my lucky stars that Weber has a fine tradition of recruiting its
debate coaches from the shallow end of the gene pool, otherwise I might
not even have a job.

Once again, sorry everyone.



From matth474  Sun Aug  2 11:39:57 1998
From: matth474 (matt holland)
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 1998 09:39:57 PDT
Subject: Sorry... How do I sign off
Message-ID: <SUN.2.AUG.1998.093957.PDT.MATTH474@HOTMAIL.COM>

i know this message gets annoying but could you tell me how to sign off
this list.

Matt Holland


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com



From srader  Sun Aug  2 12:35:50 1998
From: srader (Doyle Srader)
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 1998 10:35:50 -0700
Subject: vote splitting
In-Reply-To: <98Aug2.023717-0700pdt.227734-17247+15857@mm1.sprynet.com>
Message-ID: <SUN.2.AUG.1998.103550.0700.SRADER@IMAP3.ASU.EDU>

On Sun, 2 Aug 1998, Eric Slusher wrote:

> Is this disturbing to anyone else?

Nope. When you deal with a group this big and this diverse, the best sign that
you did the right thing may be that everyone's mildly unhappy, but everyone
can live with it.

By the way, we ranked Title VII first. The remedies topic would've been a
nightmare, for a number of reasons discussed some weeks back.

But that's just my opinion. Eric's is different, and I respect that. The
process sorted out opinions and found a middle ground. I'm not disturbed by
it.

Doyle Srader
Director of Forensics
Arizona State University
(602) 965-5578

"Praise poetry in the great lakes area of Africa is shouted during
martial dances by a warrior stepping out of the ranks to the front of the
dancing area. The speed of delivery, the height of the pitch, the martial
attitude taken are part of the performance."
   -- Jan Vansina, _Oral Tradition as History_, 1985

For more information about debate at Arizona State:
http://www.public.asu.edu/~srader/debate.html

>From  Sun Aug  2 12:46:37 1998
Message-Id: <SUN.2.AUG.1998.124637.0000.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 0879 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Sun, 2 Aug 1998 13:46:36 -0400
Received: from wfrpc.dst.fl.us (server.wfrpc.dst.fl.us [206.105.46.100]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with SMTP id NAA87712 for
 <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Sun, 2 Aug 1998 13:46:34 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from TERM-26 (TERM-26 [206.105.46.85]) by wfrpc.dst.fl.us (NTMail
 3.02.09) with ESMTP id ma022788 for <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Sun, 2
 Aug 1998 12:46:42 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Priority: normal
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a)
Message-ID: <17464266914184 at wfrpc.dst.fl.us>
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 1998 12:46:37 +0000
Reply-To: chismc at SERVER.WFRPC.DST.FL.US
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
Comments: Authenticated sender is <chismc at mail.wfrpc.dst.fl.us>
From: Chip Chism <chismc at SERVER.WFRPC.DST.FL.US>
Subject: SIGN OFF

SIGN OFF LIST

>From  Sun Aug  2 14:50:51 1998
Message-Id: <SUN.2.AUG.1998.145051.0400.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 1007 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Sun, 2 Aug 1998 14:52:13 -0400
Received: from excaliber.digitalink.com (excaliber.digitalink.com
 [206.137.160.2]) by list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with SMTP id
 OAA50870 for <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Sun, 2 Aug 1998 14:52:13 -0400
 (EDT)
Received: from utility.washpost.com by excaliber.digitalink.com;
 (5.65v3.0/1.1.8.2/15Jan96-0459PM) id AA24065; Sun, 2 Aug 1998
 14:51:25 -0400
Received: from notesnt1.washpost.com by utility.washpost.com (AIX 4.1/UCB
 5.64/4.03) id AA46660; Sun, 2 Aug 1998 14:25:16 -0400
Received: by notesnt1.washpost.com(Lotus SMTP MTA SMTP v4.6 (462.2 9-3-1997))
 id 85256654.006704CE ; Sun, 2 Aug 1998 14:45:14 -0400
X-Lotus-Fromdomain: WASHPOSTMAIN
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Message-ID: <85256654.00672445.00 at notesnt1.washpost.com>
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 1998 14:50:51 -0400
Reply-To: waltonm at WASHPOST.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Marcus Walton <waltonm at WASHPOST.COM>
Subject: Re: NDT Elitism: Conclusions
Comments: To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM

Michael Bear Bryant <MWBRYANT at AOL.COM> on 07/31/98 12:21:22 PM

Please respond to MWBRYANT at AOL.COM

To:   EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU
cc:    (bcc: Marcus E Walton/news/TWP)
Subject:  NDT Elitism: Conclusions




Dear NDT Debaters,
This thread has been interesting. My conclusions?
>1. Almost all of the people taking such great offense at what I've said
have
>been NDT debaters. Surprised? Yeah, Marcus wasn't NDT, but he's not really
>CEDA, either. He's just a CC guy from California who lashes out at any
>rhetoric that might cause him to fell anxiety.

Mmmmm.Someone should tell that to my partner and the rest of the Nor-Cal
CEDA community. And By the way, I have watched NDT debates, not many, but I
have watched them. Oh and please drop a line to San Jose State University
and tell them I haven't been enrolled there. They may want to take away the
classes I've taken.

Bear, it's time you stop. (Like that will help.)

Marcus



From matth474  Sun Aug  2 15:21:48 1998
From: matth474 (matt holland)
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 1998 13:21:48 PDT
Subject: sign off
Message-ID: <SUN.2.AUG.1998.132148.PDT.MATTH474@HOTMAIL.COM>

sign off edebate

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com



From suee  Sun Aug  2 15:42:46 1998
From: suee (Sue E. Lowrie)
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 1998 13:42:46 -0700
Subject: MDI arguments
In-Reply-To: <l03130300b1e950e9e889@[132.198.123.89]>
Message-ID: <SUN.2.AUG.1998.134246.0700.SUEE@ECST.CSUCHICO.EDU>

Hey there from Illinois!  The arguments we are working on do not have
fully developed form yet, but here
are the general ideas:

Affirmatives:

Include Native American Reservations in Title Vii
Extend fringe benefits to include domestic partners/same sex partners
Grant EEOC the right to use "testers" for examining cases of
descriminatory hiring.
Guarantee women's reproductive issues as fringe benefits in health
packages.

NEgatives:

CLS
Latino/Latina Crit.
Intersexuality Crit.
Courts counterplan
Militia backlash
Feminism backlash
States/Federalism
Affirmative aCtion good/bad

I'm doing this off the top of my head, so I'm sure I forgot some.  I will
get a more detailed description of the positions sent out as the week
progresses!  Look forward to the details on the WDI as well!  Some of it
sounds interesting!


Sue Lowrie
Chico State Debate '97-98
(Soon to be Pepperdine!)

"Demented and sad, but social."
******************************************
*  The only possible alternative to      *
*  being the oppressed or the oppressor  *
*   is voluntary cooperation for the     *
*       greatest good of all.            *
*               --Errico Maletesta       *
******************************************



From suee  Sun Aug  2 15:44:01 1998
From: suee (Sue E. Lowrie)
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 1998 13:44:01 -0700
Subject: ANYONE WITH INFO ON JASON RUSSELL
In-Reply-To: <l03130300b1e950e9e889@[132.198.123.89]>
Message-ID: <SUN.2.AUG.1998.134401.0700.SUEE@ECST.CSUCHICO.EDU>

If anyone knows where Jason might be found please back channel me.  IF
Jason is out there please have someone back channel me!  Thanks!!!

Sue Lowrie
Chico State Debate '97-98
"Demented and sad, but social."
******************************************
*  The only possible alternative to      *
*  being the oppressed or the oppressor  *
*   is voluntary cooperation for the     *
*       greatest good of all.            *
*               --Errico Maletesta       *
******************************************



From jarvisparsons  Sun Aug  2 16:48:10 1998
From: jarvisparsons (jarvis parsons)
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 1998 14:48:10 PDT
Subject: sign off
Message-ID: <SUN.2.AUG.1998.144810.PDT.JARVISPARSONS@HOTMAIL.COM>

sign off edebate


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

>From  Sun Aug  2 18:33:08 1998
Message-Id: <SUN.2.AUG.1998.183308.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 1673 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Sun, 2 Aug 1998 18:33:36 -0400
Received: from imo28.mx.aol.com (imo28.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.72]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id SAA83952 for
 <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Sun, 2 Aug 1998 18:33:35 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo28.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id 8FXEa17154
 for <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Sun, 2 Aug 1998 18:33:08 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 58
Message-ID: <4dbff611.35c4e926 at aol.com>
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 1998 18:33:08 EDT
Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Michael Bear Bryant <MWBRYANT at AOL.COM>
Subject: To the author of "An Apology"

You have broken federal laws by hacking into my account and posting a fake
message. Fortunately, it was not very difficult for AOL to trace where this
came from. Your knowledge of tech just wasn't quite as strong as you felt.

AOL is leaving prosecution of this matter up to me. I'll give the author
exactly 12 hours to identify themselves and apologize or so help me God, you
better hope AOL and the FBI reach you first.

Michael Bryant, the real one
"time, time, time is on my side, yes, it is."



From wkerman  Sun Aug  2 17:40:21 1998
From: wkerman (Walter J. Kerman)
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 1998 17:40:21 -0500
Subject: ADI hotel
In-Reply-To: <19980802033819.17613.qmail@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <SUN.2.AUG.1998.174021.0500.WKERMAN@ORION.IT.LUC.EDU>

were staing @ the twin palms hotel

Walter Kerman
Loyola Debate 97-98


On Sat, 1 Aug 1998, Sean Chapman wrote:

> Does anybody know the name of the hotel that ADI participants will be
> staying at? Can we check in before we register?
> Thanks
> Sean Chapman
> Pasadena debate
>
> ______________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>

>From  Sun Aug  2 18:59:33 1998
Message-Id: <SUN.2.AUG.1998.185933.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 0008 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Sun, 2 Aug 1998 19:13:54 -0400
Received: from imo17.mx.aol.com (imo17.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.7]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id SAA100194 for
 <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Sun, 2 Aug 1998 18:59:48 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo17.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id 8CPRa02269
 for <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Sun, 2 Aug 1998 18:59:33 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 58
Message-ID: <6d70ba98.35c4ef56 at aol.com>
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 1998 18:59:33 EDT
Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Michael Bear Bryant <MWBRYANT at AOL.COM>
Subject: Asking for Help

In the past hour, I've tried to send several messages to the list regarding a
message supposedly posted from my account entitled "an Apology." Someone
hacked into my account and found sick humor in having me admit I was making
all my recent complaints up. We are already well along on tracing the involved
parties.

My question is this: In the past hour of I've posted several messages
regarding this crime. Only those without "Re: An Apology" on he subject line
seem to be making it back from the list. Since my account has been compromised
(and will require being shut down) I am wondering if anyone else is receiving
my pronouncement that this message was faked and not from me.

Feel free to backchannel,

Mike Bryant

>From  Sun Aug  2 19:25:13 1998
Message-Id: <SUN.2.AUG.1998.192513.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 0111 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Sun, 2 Aug 1998 19:25:32 -0400
Received: from imo23.mx.aol.com (imo23.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.67]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id TAA88200 for
 <Edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Sun, 2 Aug 1998 19:25:31 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo23.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id 8JHHa26053
 for <Edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Sun, 2 Aug 1998 19:25:13 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 58
Message-ID: <e09d0c9f.35c4f55a at aol.com>
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 1998 19:25:13 EDT
Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Michael Bear Bryant <MWBRYANT at AOL.COM>
Subject: Deconstructing "An Apology"

In a message dated 98-08-02 19:14:48 EDT, an AOL Tech writes:

<<  the info i pasted below is the key. it came from a netscape mailing
program, which cannot send from an aol address, so it's clearly not you, or
any other aol user for that matter. >>

I include this quote from an AOL Techie to show that the mailing program used
to post "an apology" was not my own.

But we got the info we need to find out who this loser is:

> Received: from www3.mgfx.com ([198.139.67.3]) by list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB
>            8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id KAA22856 for <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Sun,
2
>            Aug 1998 10:30:46 -0400 (EDT)
>  Received: from [199.174.204.233] by www3.mgfx.com (Netscape Mail Server v2.
> 02)
>            with SMTP id AAA380 for <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Sun, 2 Aug 1998
>            10:23:09 -0400
>  X-Mailer: Euthanasia 1.40 - [Kr0me Corp]

You're screwed. And I will turn this over to your institution. See what you
have to put up with when you have the audacity to even bring up NDT elitism?
Beautiful, smiling, people...

Michael Bryant
"time, time, time is on my side, yes, it is"

>From  Sun Aug  2 19:37:29 1998
Message-Id: <SUN.2.AUG.1998.193729.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 0252 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Sun, 2 Aug 1998 19:37:35 -0400
Received: from imo25.mx.aol.com (imo25.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.69]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id TAA87596 for
 <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Sun, 2 Aug 1998 19:37:34 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo25.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id 8BBTa07259
 for <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Sun, 2 Aug 1998 19:37:29 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 58
Message-ID: <145fc925.35c4f83a at aol.com>
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 1998 19:37:29 EDT
Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Michael Bear Bryant <MWBRYANT at AOL.COM>
Subject: Tracing "an Apology"

Sorry for reposting this message, but I think that some of this info might
convince the guilty party to come on out in the open and 'fess up to their
perverse sense of humor.

<<<<
It doesn't look like (to me) the person hacked your account. They used a
program
called Euthanasia 1.40 put out by the 'kr0me corp' (a hacker/programming group
with a webpage) to send a fake e-mail message. The program (I'm guessing)
allows
the person running it to type in whatever return e-mail address they want
(kinda
like netscape lets you do), and also lets you send it through another computer
system (they sent it through  www3.mgfx.com which is a butterfly collectors
site).

Just glancing at the headers on the message it looks like this is the chain
the
e-mail message took:

Sent from: 199.174.204.233 (which is a computer network called Interserv in
seattle, wa) to
www3.mgfx.com (which is a butterfly website maintained by a company in
pennsylvania) to
edebate (the UVM listserv) to
everyones address subscribed to the listserv.

If they had hacked your AOL account then the very last line of the header
would
be:
Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo28.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id
8FXEa17154
for <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Sun, 2 Aug 1998 18:33:08 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 58

instead, the last line of the fake messages header reads:

Received: from [199.174.204.233] by www3.mgfx.com (Netscape Mail Server v2.02)
with SMTP id AAA380 for <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Sun, 2 Aug 1998 10:23:09 -0400
X-Mailer: Euthanasia 1.40 - [Kr0me Corp]
the X-Mailer line is the big tip off that the message is forged. That's just
what I gather from the headers though.
>>>>>>>

How do you think this will impact the administrators of the offending party?

Michael Bryant
"time, time, time is on my side, yes, it is."

>From  Sun Aug  2 20:46:19 1998
Message-Id: <SUN.2.AUG.1998.204619.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 0469 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Sun, 2 Aug 1998 20:47:00 -0400
Received: from imo11.mx.aol.com (imo11.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.1]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id UAA83934 for
 <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Sun, 2 Aug 1998 20:47:00 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo11.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id 8QAYa07118
 for <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Sun, 2 Aug 1998 20:46:19 +2000 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 58
Message-ID: <4e42243d.35c5085c at aol.com>
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 1998 20:46:19 EDT
Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Michael Bear Bryant <MWBRYANT at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: An Apology

In a message dated 98-08-02 18:15:57 EDT, someone impersonating me wrote:

<< In sum, I'm deeply sorry if I offended anyone, but I probably cannot help
  it, because I am in general a pretty offensive human being. I can only
  thank my lucky stars that Weber has a fine tradition of recruiting its
  debate coaches from the shallow end of the gene pool, otherwise I might
  not even have a job.
  >>

Look, you moral degenerate, feel free to take all the pot shots at me you
want, but insult the people that have worked for me again and I will
personally rip your face off. Sue Malone, Michael Shelton and Eric Marlow are
all some of the very nicest and brightest human beings on this planet. Their
genes are far superior to yours, you elitist scumbag.

Got the courage to admit who you are? I'll call you out, get your lawyers
ready. Any of you in NDT have the the moral strength to take a stand against
this type of behavior? Here's your chance to show that not everyone in NDT
seeks to trumpet their "genetic superiority."

Michael Bryant, the real one
Really getting fired up now....



From asnider  Sun Aug  2 22:27:28 1998
From: asnider (Alfred C. Snider)
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 1998 22:27:28 -0500
Subject: Forged messages suck!
Message-ID: <SUN.2.AUG.1998.222728.0500.ASNIDER@ZOO.UVM.EDU>

I sympathize with Bear Bryant and deplore what has happened to him. It also
happened to Ben Bates a while back.

This last year I taught a class with 312 students, and I had a listserv to
distribute information and to allow students to engage in discussions about
the class material. It was a class which portrayed reggae music as a
rhetorical movement for social change.  Racist individuals who were tracked
down as attending XXX University and YYY University began posting unsavory
messages to the list. When I made it a "members only" list they
impersonated real people on the list and authored racist messages as if
they were coming from students and TAs. So, I made it a moderated list (I
hated to do it, but I felt compelled to) where all postings had to be
approved by me (to avoid forgeries). They then forged my AOL account name
to get past it. So, racist forged messages with my AOL address appeared. I
finally had to set the list to a "confirm" status where only messages which
I confirmed with an ever changing code number could be posted. That finally
got rid of them.

Bear has been critical of me and what I do, but he does not deserve to have
such forgeries sent. I have sent information about this to the listserv
manager here at UVM, although I don't know what they can possibly do about
this.

There are hacker programs as well as anonymous emailers, and I believe both
are highly inappropriate for an open discussion.

It was clearly a cowardly act.


Alfred Charles Snider -- Lawrence Professor of Forensics, University of Vermont
Mail: 475 Main Street, UVM, Burlington, VT 05405-4225
Phone: 802-656-0097, Fax: 802-656-4275
DEBATE CENTRAL:  Debate's Biggest Website http://debate.uvm.edu/
WORLD DEBATE INSTITUTE 1998 - make plans now - http://debate.uvm.edu/ndi.html



From jarvisparsons  Sun Aug  2 21:27:20 1998
From: jarvisparsons (jarvis parsons)
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 1998 19:27:20 PDT
Subject: SIGN OFF
Message-ID: <SUN.2.AUG.1998.192720.PDT.JARVISPARSONS@HOTMAIL.COM>

PLEASE SIGN ME OFF THE LIST SERVE

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com



From jr0929  Sun Aug  2 22:28:12 1998
From: jr0929 (JASON RUSSELL)
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 1998 22:28:12 -0500
Subject: MDI people only
Message-ID: <SUN.2.AUG.1998.222812.0500.JR0929@BRONCHO.UCOK.EDU>

sorry for the clutter to those that are not from the mdi, but i have had
no luck getting this message to the people there. I am stuck in lansing
with a bum eye. I have an abbrassion (sp) on my cornea that is preventing
me from wearing my contacts or glasses, which has kept me from leaving
for the cam. I sent this message to gina and glenn yesterday, but have as
of yet not received a response. I am still able to work the camp if these
delays and the problem of travel plans have not soured things.
Essentially, i would need to find some way to get to carbondale by  way
of flying to st louis or chicago. someone should backchannel me this info
and a way to get ahold of someone by phone via a collect call, as i am
currently in the msu dorms and without a long distance service. sorry for
the major inconvenience and looking forward to working this out.

jason

>From  Mon Aug  3 04:21:37 1998
Message-Id: <MON.3.AUG.1998.042137.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 0647 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 3 Aug 1998 04:21:45 -0400
Received: from imo23.mx.aol.com (imo23.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.67]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id EAA25824 for
 <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Mon, 3 Aug 1998 04:21:45 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo23.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id 8MWJa26053
 for <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Mon, 3 Aug 1998 04:21:37 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 58
Message-ID: <962699af.35c57312 at aol.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 04:21:37 EDT
Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Michael Bear Bryant <MWBRYANT at AOL.COM>
Subject: Some Happier News

In a message dated 98-08-03 01:06:23 EDT, Tom DeGarlais wrote:

<<  I thought I would let you know that Marisa and I had a beautiful baby
 boy on Tuesday, July 28.  Isaac Charles was 7 lbs. 14 oz and 21 inches
 long.  He and mom are both doing just great here at home.
>>

Fantastic news that I thought some of you might be interested in, since Tom
was a Weber debater (NDT and CEDA) and coached at K-State and UMKC. My
sincerest congratulations to one of the nicest guys I know!

Bear

>From  Mon Aug  3 07:20:08 1998
Message-Id: <MON.3.AUG.1998.072008.0000.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 1461 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 3 Aug 1998 08:20:12 -0400
Received: from wfrpc.dst.fl.us (server.wfrpc.dst.fl.us [206.105.46.100]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with SMTP id IAA84036 for
 <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Mon, 3 Aug 1998 08:20:10 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from TERM-26 (TERM-26 [206.105.46.85]) by wfrpc.dst.fl.us (NTMail
 3.02.09) with ESMTP id na022789 for <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Mon, 3
 Aug 1998 07:20:13 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Priority: normal
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a)
Message-ID: <12201363914268 at wfrpc.dst.fl.us>
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 07:20:08 +0000
Reply-To: chismc at SERVER.WFRPC.DST.FL.US
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
Comments: Authenticated sender is <chismc at mail.wfrpc.dst.fl.us>
From: Chip Chism <chismc at SERVER.WFRPC.DST.FL.US>
Subject: sign off

sign off list

>From  Mon Aug  3 08:26:04 1998
Message-Id: <MON.3.AUG.1998.082604.0000.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 2902 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 3 Aug 1998 09:26:10 -0400
Received: from wfrpc.dst.fl.us (server.wfrpc.dst.fl.us [206.105.46.100]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with SMTP id JAA25724 for
 <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Mon, 3 Aug 1998 09:26:09 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from TERM-26 (TERM-26 [206.105.46.85]) by wfrpc.dst.fl.us (NTMail
 3.02.09) with ESMTP id fa022807 for <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Mon, 3
 Aug 1998 08:26:08 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Priority: normal
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a)
Message-ID: <13260852614369 at wfrpc.dst.fl.us>
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 08:26:04 +0000
Reply-To: chismc at SERVER.WFRPC.DST.FL.US
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
Comments: Authenticated sender is <chismc at mail.wfrpc.dst.fl.us>
From: Chip Chism <chismc at SERVER.WFRPC.DST.FL.US>
Subject: sign off list

maybe the third time is a charm

SIGN OFF LIST



From mharri2  Mon Aug  3 08:58:13 1998
From: mharri2 (Martin Harris)
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 09:58:13 -0400
Subject: vote splitting
In-Reply-To: <98Aug2.023717-0700pdt.227734-17247+15857@mm1.sprynet.com>
Message-ID: <MON.3.AUG.1998.095813.0400.MHARRI2@TIGER.TOWSON.EDU>

Vote splitting???  Why is that anything more than a rhetorical tool?  What
are the advantages to your system?  You claim it is peoples second choice
but that is only true if you are allowed to define the scoring process.
It is everyones FIRST choice by the status quo.
In addition to the benefits expressed by Scott and Doyle it also allows
squads to let STUDENTS participate in the voting process.  I would have
preferred the Supreme Court topic and Heather would have preferred
remedies, the rest of Towson would have been even more divided.  So what,
Ken votes however HE wants for the squad and tells the rest of us to drop
dead?  Allowing a ranking process gets a broader SQUAD consensus for their
vote.  Towson usually provides second and third place votes so that
EVERYONES opinion is represented.
Remember consensus at its best is win-win.  Your system is more often
win-lose.  You notice that the topic that got the most first place votes
is THIRD in consensus voting? I'll take the give and take of compromise
voting over that anyday.  This system makes sure that topics have BROAD
based appeal and is more likely to get rid of polarizing topics that are
either strongly liked or strongly disliked.


JPL
Martin

  On Sun, 2 Aug 1998, Eric Slusher wrote:

> >From the looks of it, everybodys 2nd choice won.
>
> So the idea was that if we had less options on the ballot it would force hands
> with the result being no vote splitting.  Looks like it backfired, eh?
>
> I'm not saying it's somebody else's fault.  I was there on the committee when
> somehow we got delusional and decided that 3 choices would decrease vote
> splitting.  Sure, I was all for that.  Sounded like a good plan.
>
> I will say that the 30 people that ranked Title VII 2nd are responsible to a
> degree.  Why rank anything besides first?  Do you feel the need to express what
> you'd prefer to debate if your favorite topic looses?  Imagine if political
> elections worked this way.
>
> Maybe we should consider doing away with this ranking procedure and just put a
> check-mark by your preference and then add up the check-marks.  If that was the
> way it worked we'd be debating the remedies/list topic now.  Title VII would
> have been 3rd.
>
> Is this disturbing to anyone else?
>
> slusher
>
>

>From  Mon Aug  3 11:58:39 1998
Message-Id: <MON.3.AUG.1998.115839.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 4407 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 3 Aug 1998 11:59:24 -0400
Received: from imo30.mx.aol.com (imo30.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.74]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id LAA100286 for
 <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Mon, 3 Aug 1998 11:59:23 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo30.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id
 XGOOa26167; Mon, 3 Aug 1998 11:58:39 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 58
Message-ID: <b70e3718.35c5de31 at aol.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 11:58:39 EDT
Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Michael Bear Bryant <MWBRYANT at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: vote splitting
Comments: To: mharri2 at TIGER.TOWSON.EDU

Martin Harris makes some pretty good arguments, below, for keeping "ranked
preference" topic voting. I just want to point out, however, that we really
have isn't the system Martin describes, since any ballot is allowed to vote
for just one topic.

Bear

In a message dated 98-08-03 10:00:15 EDT, you write:

<< Vote splitting???  Why is that anything more than a rhetorical tool?  What
 are the advantages to your system?  You claim it is peoples second choice
 but that is only true if you are allowed to define the scoring process.
 It is everyones FIRST choice by the status quo.
 In addition to the benefits expressed by Scott and Doyle it also allows
 squads to let STUDENTS participate in the voting process.  I would have
 preferred the Supreme Court topic and Heather would have preferred
 remedies, the rest of Towson would have been even more divided.  So what,
 Ken votes however HE wants for the squad and tells the rest of us to drop
 dead?  Allowing a ranking process gets a broader SQUAD consensus for their
 vote.  Towson usually provides second and third place votes so that
 EVERYONES opinion is represented.
 Remember consensus at its best is win-win.  Your system is more often
 win-lose.  You notice that the topic that got the most first place votes
 is THIRD in consensus voting? I'll take the give and take of compromise
 voting over that anyday.  This system makes sure that topics have BROAD
 based appeal and is more likely to get rid of polarizing topics that are
 either strongly liked or strongly disliked.


 JPL
 Martin

  >>

>From  Mon Aug  3 11:00:35 1998
Message-Id: <MON.3.AUG.1998.110035.CST.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 4465 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 3 Aug 1998 12:00:02 -0400
Received: from ALPHA.NLU.EDU (alpha.nlu.edu [192.135.131.100]) by list.uvm.edu
 (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with SMTP id MAA50902 for
 <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Mon, 3 Aug 1998 12:00:01 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by ALPHA.NLU.EDU (MX V4.2 AXP) id 153; Mon, 03 Aug 1998 11:00:36 CST
Message-ID: <009CA256.67A4B4EF.153 at ALPHA.NLU.EDU>
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 11:00:35 CST
Reply-To: 964balexande at ALPHA.NLU.EDU
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: BOB ALEXANDER <964balexande at ALPHA.NLU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Forged Messages Suck!

The purpose of this note is not to minimize what happened to Bear (I think
that it was truly a cowardly act), but to reiterate why email messages
shouldn't be used as evidence in debate rounds (a thread from a few months
back).  This situation has shown us the relative ease with which individuals
with too much time on their hands/impure motives can assume the identity
of another and post email through that identity.  In the debate context,
this can easily provide for illegitimate evidence.  My concern is not one
of debaters writing their own evidence and posting through sueans (there
are plenty of ways dishonest people could fabricate evidence), rather
my concern is with the use of email evidence which may be obtained through
a listservice, web page, etc. which may have a name/qualifications attached
to it which seem perfectly legitimate--but are actually forged (this situation
illustrated how such a thing could be done).

summation: While I think that whoever forged Bear's account should be dealt
with, there is a lesson which we can apply to the debate setting as well.

Bob Alexander,
NLU Debate



From steelek  Mon Aug  3 11:12:43 1998
From: steelek (Kelly Steele)
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 12:12:43 -0400
Subject: DEFCON 2
In-Reply-To: <4a3e9f1f.35c16b9f@aol.com>
Message-ID: <MON.3.AUG.1998.121243.0400.STEELEK@GUSUN.GEORGETOWN.EDU>

Mr. Bryant,

I really take umbrage with the way in which you respond to my message.  I
think that if you take a look, it is exactly the sort of escalatory
rhetoric which has caused this to become so personal to so many people.  I
agree, it is your list too, but the way in which you conduct yourself does
not help you in advancing your point of view.  You say that if I don't
like what you say I can do whatever I please (suggestions thus far include
participation in a "flame war" or to sign off.)  And don't say that
arguing with with you is not just that.  In your message, you correct
yourself and then go into "battle mode" -- calling me out about what I
have done, characterizing and attributing claims to me which I never made,
using inflammatory rhetoric like "do you have any idea how ignorant that
is" and "all you understand is an aggressive put-down."  My point is that
that is about all that you understand, and your aggressiveness does
nothing but make others angry and unwilling to listen to you.  The debate
listserve IS NOT A WAR.  The context in which I suggested things be toned
down a bit was following a six message exchange between you and Damus in
which you hurled insults and mocked each others' intelligence.  No one
will agree with you that that type of garbage needs to be posted to the
listserve.  My guess is that most people would agree that it is only
inflammatory and only makes you look like a jerk.  I did not make any
suggestions about NDT elitism (there were no assumptions put forth for you
to "deconstruct") and did not insult you in any way.  You have no idea who
I am or where I stand on any of those issues (probably like most of the
people you "flame.")  In addition, it is this climate that you (and others
like you) create that makes the listserve seem like a "battle."  I in no
way condone the actions of whomever broke into your account and posted
that (obviously forged) message.  I think that that action was
reprehensible and I hope that you figure out what happened and resolve it
to your satisfaction.  That being said, people are not rational in "war."
Whomever decided that they needed to take this "war" to the next level,
hacking, is taking this a bit too seriously.  But maybe you are to blame
for some of the initial escalation.  I don't need my mailbox littered with
your diatribe about not blaming the victim or telling me that I probably
side with rapists, so don't use that line as a fuse on which to set
off your next instigatory "flame bomb."  I would ask that you just think
about what role you play in what, I think, is a serious and fruitful
discussion on NDT elitism.  We've established that it exists.  If you
don't like it, should your options be to put up with or get out?  I hope
not, but that's all you have to say to those who don't like your conduct
in this forum.

K.Steele

On Fri, 31 Jul 1998, Michael Bear Bryant wrote:

> Dear Mr. Steele,
>
> Truly sorry to darken your day. It's my list, too. If you don't like what I
> say, do whatever you please. My statement to Marcus (who I doubt has seen an
> NDT debate) said that leaving MDEBATE was only one option. Actually (to
> heighten your reading comprehension), I said the preferred option was for
> Marcus to focus less on reacting to style and to actually participate. The
> same might be said of you. Despite your first round bid, what have contributed
> to analyzing the problems of NDT? Oh I forgot, that's just not an acceptable
> topic, right?
>
> I find it starting to be downright amusing how you NDT folk can't allow anyone
> to even mention NDT elitism without turning blue using the term "conspiracy".
> I've never once described NDT elitism as a conspiracy. Only NDT respondents
> seem capable of believing that NDT elitism is totally the product of my
> singular fantasies. Right. Do you have any concept of how ignorant a thesis
> that is? The vast majority of CEDA programs came to CEDA because they were
> tired of NDT elitism. It was a major impetus for the creation of CEDA over 20
> years ago. That fact that your perspective is unable to admit any possibility
> of NDT elitism is frightening proof that we certainly do create our own
> relative realities.
>
> Sorry, but I won't shut up for you. BTW, Stannard was just trying to be funny.
> Oh, I forgot, the only humor allowed in NDT is the aggressive put-down, right?
> Guess where I debated....
>
> Bryant,
> who used to enjoy beating Unger and Ziff's teams...
>

>From  Mon Aug  3 12:24:15 1998
Message-Id: <MON.3.AUG.1998.122415.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 4773 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 3 Aug 1998 12:24:30 -0400
Received: from imo18.mx.aol.com (imo18.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.8]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id MAA83900; Mon, 3 Aug
 1998 12:24:29 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from Gabp333 at aol.com by imo18.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id KIAMa29473;
 Mon, 3 Aug 1998 12:24:15 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 167
Message-ID: <c0242741.35c5e430 at aol.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 12:24:15 EDT
Reply-To: Gabp333 at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Gabp333 at AOL.COM
Subject: Sign On
Comments: To: listserv at edebate.list.uvm.edu
Comments: cc: listserv at list.uvm.edu

Sign On Gabrielle Prisco

>From  Mon Aug  3 12:26:29 1998
Message-Id: <MON.3.AUG.1998.122629.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 4853 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 3 Aug 1998 12:26:35 -0400
Received: from imo28.mx.aol.com (imo28.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.72]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id MAA32336 for
 <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Mon, 3 Aug 1998 12:26:34 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo28.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id
 8GBEa17154; Mon, 3 Aug 1998 12:26:29 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 58
Message-ID: <2877e404.35c5e4b6 at aol.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 12:26:29 EDT
Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Michael Bear Bryant <MWBRYANT at AOL.COM>
Subject: Winding Down
Comments: To: Damus at aol.com

Mr. Damus,

Gee, you've been quiet. Let's start from the angle my lawyer suggests. David,
you willing to publicly deny involvement in forging a message from my account?
I'm already receiving a number of backchannels saying you're (not your)
clearly involved, but before I post those, or personally conclude that you are
guilty, I want to give you the opportunity to deny involvement.

Can you?

Michael Bryant,
still bowing to your superiority in all areas...

>From  Mon Aug  3 12:39:34 1998
Message-Id: <MON.3.AUG.1998.123934.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 4967 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 3 Aug 1998 12:40:19 -0400
Received: from imo11.mx.aol.com (imo11.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.1]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id MAA25832 for
 <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Mon, 3 Aug 1998 12:40:16 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo11.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id
 LINJa07118; Mon, 3 Aug 1998 12:39:34 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 58
Message-ID: <a7104b1a.35c5e7c7 at aol.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 12:39:34 EDT
Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Michael Bear Bryant <MWBRYANT at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: DEFCON 2
Comments: To: steelek at GUSUN.GEORGETOWN.EDU

Please feel free to batch delete my posts. I am now coming to the conclusion
that there is no way the NDT community will ever tolerate an open discussion
of NDT elitism without feeling that my every word is a deliberate act of
escalation. The fact that you are so clearly convinced that I did not
articulate even one deconstructable assumption shows me that you're
perspective is pitifully narrow. The fact that someone in NDT would forge
messages from my account for their own humorous response to my examples of NDT
elitism shows me that there are some groups of people that will ignore all
evidence presented. At least, unlike Prince Damus, you at  admit that elitism
exists.

Sorry, but I'm slowly realizing that there are some groups of people I clearly
do not want to be associated with. Escalation against those elements is
something I won't mind spending the rest of my life doing.

Know anyone into butterflies?

Michael Bryant



From mjg407  Mon Aug  3 11:43:56 1998
From: mjg407 (Michael J Gottlieb)
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 11:43:56 -0500
Subject: Winding Down
In-Reply-To: <2877e404.35c5e4b6@aol.com>
Message-ID: <MON.3.AUG.1998.114356.0500.MJG407@CASBAH.ACNS.NWU.EDU>

Mr. Bryant,

Good to see that you've consulted with an attourney over this most serious
matter of email impersonation.  I'm sure the FBI will be banging down the
door of whoever changed their "identity" information on netscape.  But why
assume that Damus is in charge?  Isn't it clear to you that the Council to
Destroy CEDA is the organization behind this most egregious offense.  I
mean, you've already determined that some NDT elitist is behind the post,
I just figure we should take that statement to its logical conclusion.

NDT = Elitists
If NDT Elitists get criticized ---->  retalliation
Act of retalliation carried out --->  NDT elitists responsible.


good logic.


Lining up my defense team as we speak,


Mike G.







On Mon, 3 Aug 1998, Michael Bear Bryant wrote:

> Mr. Damus,
>
> Gee, you've been quiet. Let's start from the angle my lawyer suggests. David,
> you willing to publicly deny involvement in forging a message from my account?
> I'm already receiving a number of backchannels saying you're (not your)
> clearly involved, but before I post those, or personally conclude that you are
> guilty, I want to give you the opportunity to deny involvement.
>
> Can you?
>
> Michael Bryant,
> still bowing to your superiority in all areas...
>

>From  Mon Aug  3 13:05:18 1998
Message-Id: <MON.3.AUG.1998.130518.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 5355 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 3 Aug 1998 13:05:52 -0400
Received: from imo24.mx.aol.com (imo24.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.68]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id NAA50824 for
 <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Mon, 3 Aug 1998 13:05:51 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo24.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id
 VRBDa22587; Mon, 3 Aug 1998 13:05:18 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 58
Message-ID: <b3082523.35c5ede0 at aol.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 13:05:18 EDT
Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Michael Bear Bryant <MWBRYANT at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: Winding Down
Comments: To: mjg407 at casbah.acns.nwu.edu

Mr. Gottlieb,

I didn't respond to your earlier post because, frankly, I thought it was one
of the best replies and that I needed to clearly reflect on some very good
points on your part.

Then, I see this crap in my box. Is it really your intention to minimize the
severity of forging email messages? That is a felony offense. Oh, I forgot, it
was in a good cause, right? You willing to deny your involvement?

Why is it that every NDT person sees this as articulation of a conspiracy?
I've never claimed a "Council to Destroy CEDA" exists. Is the concept of NDT
elitism, which you readily admit to in your earlier post, really only
answerable by questioning the sanity of the person claiming it? Then aren't
you, by your first post, also whacked?

The attitude that it's ok to break little laws to make fun of NDT detractors
is a frightening example of the NDT attitudes I reject. Are you really
embracing that perspective? I know your position as NDT Champion prevents much
objectivity, but it is so inherently wrong to consider the possibility that
you might be wrong?

Yes, unfortunately, I am hardening on NDT as I see intelligent folks like you
justify yourselves so poorly.

If you have any eligibility left, make sure to strike me,

Michael Bryant

n a message dated 98-08-03 12:44:00 EDT, you write:

<< Mr. Bryant,

 Good to see that you've consulted with an attourney over this most serious
 matter of email impersonation.  I'm sure the FBI will be banging down the
 door of whoever changed their "identity" information on netscape.  But why
 assume that Damus is in charge?  Isn't it clear to you that the Council to
 Destroy CEDA is the organization behind this most egregious offense.  I
 mean, you've already determined that some NDT elitist is behind the post,
 I just figure we should take that statement to its logical conclusion.
 NDT = Elitists
 If NDT Elitists get criticized ---->  retalliation
 Act of retalliation carried out --->  NDT elitists responsible.
 good logic.
 Lining up my defense team as we speak,
  >>



From steelek  Mon Aug  3 12:05:32 1998
From: steelek (Kelly Steele)
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 13:05:32 -0400
Subject: Winding Down
In-Reply-To: <Pine.HPP.3.93.980803113747.14460A-100000@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Message-ID: <MON.3.AUG.1998.130532.0400.STEELEK@GUSUN.GEORGETOWN.EDU>

On Mon, 3 Aug 1998, Michael J Gottlieb wrote:

> Mr. Bryant,
>
> Good to see that you've consulted with an attourney over this most
serious
> matter of email impersonation.


What are you?  A fucking moron?  What the fuck is an "attourney"?  You are
stupid.  Your vocabulary is "pitifully narrow."

Flaming mad at the world,
Bear

Note: Written by K.Steele.  Please do not prosecute me.

>From  Mon Aug  3 13:16:20 1998
Message-Id: <MON.3.AUG.1998.131620.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 5616 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 3 Aug 1998 13:17:23 -0400
Received: from imo25.mx.aol.com (imo25.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.69]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id NAA03542 for
 <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Mon, 3 Aug 1998 13:17:22 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo25.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id
 LRZSa07259; Mon, 3 Aug 1998 13:16:20 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 58
Message-ID: <53d908d1.35c5f065 at aol.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 13:16:20 EDT
Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Michael Bear Bryant <MWBRYANT at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: Winding Down
Comments: To: steelek at gusun.georgetown.edu

In a message dated 98-08-03 13:08:53 EDT, you write:

<<
 What are you?  A fucking moron?  What the fuck is an "attourney"?  You are
 stupid.  Your vocabulary is "pitifully narrow."

 Flaming mad at the world,
 Bear

 Note: Written by K.Steele.  Please do not prosecute me.

  >>

Is this really that funny? Maybe you need to reflect that on this list you
represent NDT. Maybe it's unfair, but you do.

Is it really funny to deliberately mock someone over an illegal act comitted
against them? Let me applaud your sense of humor --> it does more for my
objectives than you seem capable of realizing.

Keep up the excellent work.

Michael Bryant,
these folks may not represent all of NDT, but they do reflect some clearly
pervasive attitudes that I think most of us do reject.



From steelek  Mon Aug  3 12:24:15 1998
From: steelek (Kelly Steele)
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 13:24:15 -0400
Subject: DEFCON 2
In-Reply-To: <a7104b1a.35c5e7c7@aol.com>
Message-ID: <MON.3.AUG.1998.132415.0400.STEELEK@GUSUN.GEORGETOWN.EDU>

I don't think that block deleting is yet, or should ever be, necessary.
Still tantamount to my suggestion that in response to NDT elitism you
should possibly just block delete yourself from all of the pre-tournament
team lists and not show up.  Elitism in NDT debate exists.  I don't even
think that "Prince Damus" (no, you're not trying to be a dick and pick
fights, Bear) would contend that you are wrong about that.  Which
activities are you involved in that are not in some way elitist?  Anything
as rigidly hierarchical as debate cannot be expected not to be somewhat
elitist.  You win, you lose.  Here are the best 20 speakers.  Keep
debating until there is one team left which is then the very best.  Its
not difficult for me to imagine that that particular climate breeds
elitism.  Don't think that I won't acknowledge a discernable difference
between the way I was treated this year versus last (by some people.)
What's your argument and more importantly, what's your solution?  I don't
know that elitism has anything to do with the NDT in a causal sense.  At
least half of my best friends on the debate curcuit are "CEDA people"
(whatever that means.) And I have also known CEDA debaters to be elitist
and exclusionary.  Where is the link between elitism and NDT?  The way
that you categorize all of us from traditionally NDT schools and make
accusations is offensive.  There are a lot of things that people get out
of debate without going to the best Round Robins or staying in a hotel
near their friends.  I get shit on at work all the time by some woman that
doesn't like me.  By your logic, she must have been affiliated with NDT
and/or related to Becky Bjork (no offense BB, just illustrating.)  Hope
you're not taking the LSAT any time soon, Bear.

K.Steele

On Mon, 3 Aug 1998 MWBRYANT at aol.com wrote:

> Please feel free to batch delete my posts. I am now coming to the conclusion
> that there is no way the NDT community will ever tolerate an open discussion
> of NDT elitism without feeling that my every word is a deliberate act of
> escalation. The fact that you are so clearly convinced that I did not
> articulate even one deconstructable assumption shows me that you're
> perspective is pitifully narrow. The fact that someone in NDT would forge
> messages from my account for their own humorous response to my examples of NDT
> elitism shows me that there are some groups of people that will ignore all
> evidence presented. At least, unlike Prince Damus, you at  admit that elitism
> exists.
>
> Sorry, but I'm slowly realizing that there are some groups of people I clearly
> do not want to be associated with. Escalation against those elements is
> something I won't mind spending the rest of my life doing.
>
> Know anyone into butterflies?
>
> Michael Bryant
>

>From  Mon Aug  3 13:33:55 1998
Message-Id: <MON.3.AUG.1998.133355.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 6165 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 3 Aug 1998 13:34:06 -0400
Received: from imo27.mx.aol.com (imo27.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.71]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id NAA93138 for
 <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Mon, 3 Aug 1998 13:34:05 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from Westtoast at aol.com by imo27.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id
 8PFZa04231 for <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Mon, 3 Aug 1998 13:33:55 -0400
 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 167
Message-ID: <ca8699ad.35c5f488 at aol.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 13:33:55 EDT
Reply-To: Westtoast at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Terrance Hogan <Westtoast at AOL.COM>
Subject: DEFCON3

        I've been watching this over the past few days, and I guess I can't keep my
mouth shut (i.e. why I'm in this activity to begin with). This particular
listserv has been designated as a public forum. Think of it as a city park.
People generally discuss debate-related material here. Like most people play
with their kids, or play tennis, etc. , in a park. Some people argue over
which pro wrestler (Ric Flair) is better. Some people argue about which pro
wrestler is better in a park.
Some people get angry here, and express that anger. Some people yell in a
park. Some people beg for money . . . You get where I'm going here. This is
unmoderated. People have the right to say an opinion for whatever reason they
wish to say it. If you don't like it, flame back, and be ready for what you
recieve in return. If you don't like it, delete it. As already stated, it only
takes 1/10 of a calorie to do so. If you don't like the madness of this list,
MDEBATE is there for you.
        As far as the elitism issue, I'm a bottom dwelling JC debater, and both CEDA
and the NDT are snobs when it comes to the mention of us. It's also a part of
human nature, which I hope is something we will all be educated in as the year
goes on, as it's one of the greatest reasons racism still exists. Everybody
wants to think that they, or whatever activity they are have devoted a
significant amount of time to, it the best. Therefore, other things must be
inferior. If this is a good natured rivalry, it's productive.
        I've looked through "Grizzly Bear" Bryant's posts. Most of the points are
legitimate arguments. Nobody has given an explaination why Weber State ended
up at the Motel Six after making such early reservations. Most of the response
from the NDT side has been ad hom. If I were judging this round, I might be a
little peeved at both teams, but Bryant would definitely pick up my ballot
(especially after the e-mail incident, i.e. forged ev.).
        Everybody has their own style of delivery of rhetoric. While I tell dumb
jokes, and another person waxes philosophically, other just get in your face
(been to Brooklyn lately). Chill and deal, people. Nobody has threatened
anybody's children, financial aid, or grant money here. 'Nuff said.


        On to the topic: I can't see how T7 could ever be topically amended to
include anything to do with health care. That seems entirely the turf of the
Americans with Disabilities Act. Anybody have an opinion on that?



From jhoniball  Mon Aug  3 12:35:38 1998
From: jhoniball (Jonathan Honiball)
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 13:35:38 -0400
Subject: Winding Down
In-Reply-To: <53d908d1.35c5f065@aol.com>
Message-ID: <MON.3.AUG.1998.133538.0400.JHONIBALL@ACTIVMEDIA.COM>

Bear and others,

First, this issue is serious and undeserving of ridicule.  Sure, it isn't a
murder or anything, but with this world moving into the digital age this
type of crime is serious.  Do any of you realize that other forms of
communication are being replaced by e-mail?  Sure, you can laugh and say ha
ha, it happened to Bear...and it wasn't that big of a deal.  But this is a
no tolerance issue.

Security on the Net is vital to our economy.  Most of the growth that has
occured in this country is in the hi tech sector.  Electronic Commerce is
huge, but it could be bigger.  The number one reason that people won't shop
online:  Lack of security.  Asshole moves like impersonating someone's
e-mail only worsens this problem.  You may think it is no big deal, but
what if everyone did this?  Good idea?  No, not even close.

To whoever did this, yeah, I'm hoping you get busted, I hope Bear does
prosecute, and a million other mean wishes.

Jonathan Honiball

At 01:16 PM 8/3/98 EDT, Michael Bear Bryant wrote:
>In a message dated 98-08-03 13:08:53 EDT, you write:
>
><<
> What are you?  A fucking moron?  What the fuck is an "attourney"?  You are
> stupid.  Your vocabulary is "pitifully narrow."
>
> Flaming mad at the world,
> Bear
>
> Note: Written by K.Steele.  Please do not prosecute me.
>
>  >>
>
>Is this really that funny? Maybe you need to reflect that on this list you
>represent NDT. Maybe it's unfair, but you do.
>
>Is it really funny to deliberately mock someone over an illegal act comitted
>against them? Let me applaud your sense of humor --> it does more for my
>objectives than you seem capable of realizing.
>
>Keep up the excellent work.
>
>Michael Bryant,
>these folks may not represent all of NDT, but they do reflect some clearly
>pervasive attitudes that I think most of us do reject.
>



From steelek  Mon Aug  3 12:39:54 1998
From: steelek (Kelly Steele)
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 13:39:54 -0400
Subject: Winding Down
In-Reply-To: <53d908d1.35c5f065@aol.com>
Message-ID: <MON.3.AUG.1998.133954.0400.STEELEK@GUSUN.GEORGETOWN.EDU>

Thank god I have nothing to do this afternoon.  Look, my whole point is
that it is ridiculous for you to be as derisive and confrontational as you
are on the list.  Debate listserve activity is not a war.  My original
post came in a context in which you and Damus exchanged 6 emails hurling
insults and mocking each others' spelling.  How is what you write half of
the time okay if this is not funny?  What I wrote is not that amusing, and
I wasn't writing to make fun of your misfortune.  I have already said that
what happened to you is not funny, nor is it acceptable.  I will once
again reiterate that I hope you resolve it to your satisfaction.  That
being said, do you have any evidence that Damus or anyone in NDT was
involved?  I will go on the record as denying involvement (but reserve the
right to change my story if ever called before a grand jury after they
discover semen stains on your dress.)  Stop making blanket accusations
against people you don't know or care to hear from.  You don't even read
messages about serious discussion and attempt to respond to their
substance.  Give it a try.  I invite you to reference my last post.  If
all you want to do is hurl insults and be a dick, thats fine too.  Don't
expect anyone to like it or respect it (I don't speak for anyone in the
NDT or CEDA when saying that.)

K.Steele

On Mon, 3 Aug 1998, Michael Bear Bryant wrote:

> In a message dated 98-08-03 13:08:53 EDT, you write:
>
> <<
>  What are you?  A fucking moron?  What the fuck is an "attourney"?  You are
>  stupid.  Your vocabulary is "pitifully narrow."
>
>  Flaming mad at the world,
>  Bear
>
>  Note: Written by K.Steele.  Please do not prosecute me.
>
>   >>
>
> Is this really that funny? Maybe you need to reflect that on this list you
> represent NDT. Maybe it's unfair, but you do.
>
> Is it really funny to deliberately mock someone over an illegal act comitted
> against them? Let me applaud your sense of humor --> it does more for my
> objectives than you seem capable of realizing.
>
> Keep up the excellent work.
>
> Michael Bryant,
> these folks may not represent all of NDT, but they do reflect some clearly
> pervasive attitudes that I think most of us do reject.
>



From mjg407  Mon Aug  3 13:23:04 1998
From: mjg407 (Michael J Gottlieb)
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 13:23:04 -0500
Subject: Winding Down
In-Reply-To: <b3082523.35c5ede0@aol.com>
Message-ID: <MON.3.AUG.1998.132304.0500.MJG407@CASBAH.ACNS.NWU.EDU>

On Mon, 3 Aug 1998 MWBRYANT at aol.com wrote:
> Then, I see this crap in my box. Is it really your intention to minimize the
> severity of forging email messages? That is a felony offense. Oh, I forgot, it
> was in a good cause, right? You willing to deny your involvement?


1.  There is an enormous difference between "breaking into someone's
account" and fabricating someone's identification on netscape.  I'm not
sure of the difference in terms of criminal statutes, but it's not like
whoever did this "hacked" into your account, or even USED it for that
matter.  I'm on a few listserves, and people have pulled similar pranks on
me in the past.  I just laughed at it and posted to the listserv that it
wasn't really7 my  message.  And, I assure you, the content of that
message was far more damaging personaly than the obvious joke that was
uposted on this list.  I'm not saying that what this person did was ok, but
neither was it something to get so worked up about.  If you want to call
it a felony and do your best to prosecute, so be it.  I just think that
there are so many terrible things that happen every day in this country,
and maybe you should consider that you are not one of the "persecuted", at
least not due to this email forgery.

2.  I never said it was a good cause.
3.  I am willing to publically deny my involvement, although I'm sure
this means little to you , given that I'm a card carrying member of the
NDT. If you would
like, I will go in front of the grand jury, either live or video taped, to
testify.

>
> Why is it that every NDT person sees this as articulation of a conspiracy?
> I've never claimed a "Council to Destroy CEDA" exists. Is the concept of NDT
> elitism, which you readily admit to in your earlier post, really only
> answerable by questioning the sanity of the person claiming it? Then aren't
> you, by your first post, also whacked?
>

1.  I never questioned your sanity.  Read much Freud?
2.  There is no doubt to anyone who knows me that I am whakced, or at
least mostly insane.  I, my friend, embrace my insanity.


> The attitude that it's ok to break little laws to make fun of NDT detractors
> is a frightening example of the NDT attitudes I reject. Are you really
> embracing that perspective? I know your position as NDT Champion prevents much
> objectivity, but it is so inherently wrong to consider the possibility that
> you might be wrong?
>

1.  I didn't say it was ok to "break laws to make fun of NDT detractors".
I simply said, this is not the worst thing that has ever happened to
anyone.  And if it is the worst thing that has happened to you, then you
are a lucky dude.  DEAL.  No one physically threatened you,
or attacked you, or even BROKE INTO YOUR ACCOUNT.  Someone signed your
name and address to a joke email.  I understand that this is illegal, and
offensive, and uncalled for.  But that's all it is.  I'm not defending the
person who did this, or the action itself.  All I'm saying is that maybe
you should try to have a little perspective on what's going on here...

 2.  Like I said in my last post, you make
the assumption that whoever
wrote this email was doing so IN DEFENSE of NDT elitism, or afraid of
your criticism.  I don't understand how you can continue to put words in
my mouth.  I never said that what this person did was ok BECAUSE it was in
defense of NDT elitism.  The manner in which you assign warrant and
causality to my arguments is more than "frightening".  It's nearly
"criminal".  I said, well, see above.

3.  I may not be "objective", but at least I can recognize that the NDT
has elements of elitism in it [see last post].  All I asked for was to
approach this discussion in a civil manner, stop bringing personal attacks
on people into the mix, and begin a meaningful dialogue.  Look, I know how
it feels to be on the other side of the elites.  I debated in Kansas in HS
and often felt the same way at national tournaments.  I know it sucks to
feel left out, not included, and everything else that goes along with it.
Now, what can we all do to address this problem?  How can we change?  How
can I help?  Or is someone as entrenched in the system as I am just
screwed?  You tell me.

> Yes, unfortunately, I am hardening on NDT as I see intelligent folks like you
> justify yourselves so poorly.
> If you have any eligibility left, make sure to strike me,
>
> Michael Bryant
>

Childish is the word I would use to describe that threat, except for that
would be an insult to all the infants and toddlers I know.
What is that?   A threat to drop me because I have criticized what I
believe
to be offensive remarks from you?  Is that tolerance?  Is that
reasonable?
Or maybe, is that, well, you draw your conclusion.  If you really want me
to strike you, so be it.


Always willing to agree to disagree...

Mike



From jhoniball  Mon Aug  3 13:29:07 1998
From: jhoniball (Jonathan Honiball)
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 14:29:07 -0400
Subject: Winding Down
In-Reply-To: <Pine.HPP.3.93.980803125630.13039A-100000@casbah.acns.nwu.e du>
References: <b3082523.35c5ede0@aol.com>
Message-ID: <MON.3.AUG.1998.142907.0400.JHONIBALL@ACTIVMEDIA.COM>

No, there is no real difference between faking an e-mail to reflect a real
one and breaking into an account and sending mail from it.  The only
difference is that it is easier to see in the logs that the message really
didn't come from the claimed source, but how many people read the logs of
every message they receive to see if it is valid?

Either way, the same result occurs, anyone who reads the message is fooled
into thinking that it was the real sender.  Is there a difference legally,
nope, not in the least, both actions are just as illegal.  One is just
easier to find.

That you deal with this type of crime as a joke is your own problem.  This
is not a laughing matter.  I'm sure I can find a few people who thought
that getting assaulted was kind of fun, but what difference does that make.

Yes, there are many terrible things that happen everyday, so let's let all
the things that don't really affect me too much slide.  Heck,
robbery...happens all the time, but why go after the criminals, not like
they are killing anyone...yeah, this is great logic.  A crime is a
crime...plain and simple, and whereas you choose to not believe the powert
of the Internet, I don't.  This is a serious offense whether you believe it
or not!

At 01:23 PM 8/3/98 -0500, Michael J Gottlieb wrote:

>1.  There is an enormous difference between "breaking into someone's
>account" and fabricating someone's identification on netscape.  I'm not
>sure of the difference in terms of criminal statutes, but it's not like
>whoever did this "hacked" into your account, or even USED it for that
>matter.  I'm on a few listserves, and people have pulled similar pranks on
>me in the past.  I just laughed at it and posted to the listserv that it
>wasn't really7 my  message.  And, I assure you, the content of that
>message was far more damaging personaly than the obvious joke that was
>uposted on this list.  I'm not saying that what this person did was ok, but
>neither was it something to get so worked up about.  If you want to call
>it a felony and do your best to prosecute, so be it.  I just think that
>there are so many terrible things that happen every day in this country,
>and maybe you should consider that you are not one of the "persecuted", at
>least not due to this email forgery.
>

>From  Mon Aug  3 14:39:45 1998
Message-Id: <MON.3.AUG.1998.143945.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 7308 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 3 Aug 1998 14:41:41 -0400
Received: from imo20.mx.aol.com (imo20.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.10]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id OAA55428 for
 <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Mon, 3 Aug 1998 14:41:40 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo20.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id
 LABLa19317; Mon, 3 Aug 1998 14:39:45 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 58
Message-ID: <b9057555.35c603f3 at aol.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 14:39:45 EDT
Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Michael Bear Bryant <MWBRYANT at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: Winding Down
Comments: To: steelek at GUSUN.GEORGETOWN.EDU

Mr. Steele,

I'm glad you've boiled this back down to an issue of revulsion to my style. It
allows me to answer both you and Marcus at the same time. I've been reviewing
the related threads of the last week and I want to invite you to use the
archives to examine those posts. With the exception of a very direct verb-
object combo hurled at Damus (which I won't retract), I think the
representatives of NDT have rather substantially outpaced me in deliberately
distorting positions, being intentionally provocative, using obscenities, and
reverting to other clearly unethical procedures. In fact, early content-
analyses are showing NDT folks to be "smokin' me" in these categories. The
fact that you see all of this as reason to reject my position is incredible.
It's also an interesting peek into the way your mind must work. In a field of
equally-incendiary (your descriptions of Damus' actions makes this point)
expressions, you uniquely reject my rhetoric as so "flame-oriented" as to be
rejected a priori. Really? I think the biggest thing this tells anyone is
simply where your personal presumptions are located.

I'm not asking for your admiration. I'll choose the shrillness of my tone.
Sometimes they way people respond to something on the periphery of mainstream
tolerance says something about who those people are. I think many NDT
respondents to my mere mention of NDT elitism have clearly illustrated that
principle. Sorry, if you feel that violates some unwritten code of forensic
civility, but, as you say, I guess civilty isn't the highest social priority
in my personal schema. But, then, I seem to be in good company...

Bryant,
no obscentities, illegalities, or personal insults...not bad for a guy that
can't type, eh?



From mroston  Mon Aug  3 13:59:44 1998
From: mroston (Michael Roston the eminently practical)
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 13:59:44 -0500
Subject: Help the Chicago Debate Commission's Summer Workshop
Message-ID: <MON.3.AUG.1998.135944.0500.MROSTON@BLUE.WEEG.UIOWA.EDU>

>From August 10 through August 21, Les Lynn will be leading around 50 city
debaters in instruction on debate technique, theory, and argumentation.
This will take place at Near North High School in the city.

We are presently looking for a number of guest speakers in areas like
speech burdens, debate technique, cross-examination, the functioning of
debate teams, and so on.

If you are going to be in or around the Chicago area during any of hese
dates, and would like to contirbute your time, contact me via backchannel
and I'll put you in touch with Les.

-Michael Roston
the king of boggle

"You must be out of your mind to write to the Times like this! There are
millions of bitter Voltairean types whose souls are filled with angry
satire and who keep looking for the keenest, most poisonous word. You
could send in a poem instead, you nitwit! Why should you be more right out
of sheer distraction than they are out of organization? You ride in their
trains, don't you? Distraction didn't build the railroad. Go on, write a
poem and kill 'em with bitterness!"
                                        -Saul Bellow

>From  Mon Aug  3 15:11:06 1998
Message-Id: <MON.3.AUG.1998.151106.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 7616 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 3 Aug 1998 15:11:11 -0400
Received: from imo13.mx.aol.com (imo13.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.3]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id PAA100312 for
 <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Mon, 3 Aug 1998 15:11:10 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from EMarlowWSU at aol.com by imo13.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id
 8SKa011436 for <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Mon, 3 Aug 1998 15:11:06 -0400
 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 38
Message-ID: <e49d16aa.35c60b4b at aol.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 15:11:06 EDT
Reply-To: EMarlowWSU at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Eric Marlow <EMarlowWSU at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: Another Marlow On The Way

Hi all!

Just thought I would brag a little.  My wonderful wife, Anita, and I found out
this morning that we will definitely be expecting the arrival of a baby boy
some time around the 23rd of December...Doc had been telling us another girl
until the ultrasound conclusively proved him wrong this morning.

Massey keeps pushing Jackie as a name...personally I would probably go with
Earl or Elmer before giving in to him as I'm sure most of you will agree!!!

Sorry to waste the bandwidth in the midst of the enlightened and highly
intelligent discussion about elitism, but this isn't MDEBATE so I get to post
whatever I want, too :-)

Peace,
Marlow



From MDutcher  Mon Aug  3 14:35:50 1998
From: MDutcher (Michael Dutcher)
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 15:35:50 -0400
Subject: Winding Down
Message-ID: <MON.3.AUG.1998.153550.0400.MDUTCHER@WEBCOGP.COM>

> > Yes, unfortunately, I am hardening on NDT as I see intelligent folks
> like you
> > justify yourselves so poorly.
> > If you have any eligibility left, make sure to strike me,
> >
> > Michael Bryant
> >
>
        Is that for real?  Wow, I didn't think that I would ever see that.
I remember hearing my coaches say that judges voted against team because the
color ties they were wearing so on and so forth.  I never thought I would
see such a threat.

        So here is the question:  Isn't that exactly what you are upset
with?  You are upset that people are backlashing against you because of your
views of the NDT and your style of delivery.  Now you take it the next step
and completely eliminate any educational purpose of a debate (the
hypothetical debate with Gottlieb and Sparacino vs. another team with you
judging)?  Because he disagrees with you?

        Gimme a break!  Which would make more upset, getting beaten to a
pulp and having all of your money taken or somebody forging an email?
Naturally I would hope the first would be more frightening (not a scary as
my spelling, though).  I think that is Gottlieb's only point.  Just because
one thing is worse than the other does not mean it is not bad.  Whoever did
it broke the law and appropriate actions should be taken.  But isn't
threatening to "rip-off" somebody's face as well?  Isn't that an even worse
felony (meaning harsher penalties)?

        False accusation is pretty bad too.   Just because someone does not
see it on the same level that you does not mean that they are involved in
the crime.
        I think that is why some many people jumped to calling things a
"consipiracy".  The finger pointing has come fast and furious when,
according to you, AOL will be able to find the culprit and appropriate steps
will be taken.  After this, I am not sure how to listen to email evidence if
I judge for another year.  Makes ya think don't it?

        I understand that you are upset and all but you have to draw a line
somewhere.

        Michael Dutcher
        George Mason University (An NDT and ADA school)

>From  Mon Aug  3 16:03:22 1998
Message-Id: <MON.3.AUG.1998.160322.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 7963 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 3 Aug 1998 16:03:36 -0400
Received: from imo15.mx.aol.com (imo15.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.5]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id QAA83748 for
 <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Mon, 3 Aug 1998 16:03:35 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from DRTUNA at aol.com by imo15.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id 8YFVa20769
 for <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Mon, 3 Aug 1998 16:03:22 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 59
Message-ID: <14620294.35c6178b at aol.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 16:03:22 EDT
Reply-To: DRTUNA at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Alfred Snider <DRTUNA at AOL.COM>
Subject: DON'T MINIMIZE FORGERY

I am surprised to see people minimizing the forgery issue.

I can speak from experience that this summer when 312 students received a
racist message from one of my TAs which was forged and not written by him, it
really tore him up. He didn't know how he could explain to all 312 people how
he really felt, and even then the damage could never be undone.

I don't understand how we can value free speech and at the same time minimize
forgery like this, as it takes your voice and says things you do not believe
in and people read it as your voice.

I disagree with Bear on many things, most of them stylistic, but I will
support his right to speak as he wishes and will criticize those who try and
rob him of his free voice by forging messages in his name.

Tuna



From MDutcher  Mon Aug  3 15:23:25 1998
From: MDutcher (Michael Dutcher)
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 16:23:25 -0400
Subject: DON'T MINIMIZE FORGERY
Message-ID: <MON.3.AUG.1998.162325.0400.MDUTCHER@WEBCOGP.COM>

I really don't think anybody was trying to minimize it.  I can not speak for
the others but I realize that it is serious and that actions must be taken
to solve this instance and stop future ones.  I know what really caught my
attention was that Mr. Bryant had spoken with AOL, they could find the
person and then started pointing the finger at others, asking them if they
wanted to deny involvment publicly first.  Then he says he instructs someone
if they have eligibility left to strike him.  I understand he is upset and
that I would be too but I would wait until I have an answer to who did it
before I started into anyone specific.  Even then I would probably just let
it be handled by the proper authorities.

Yes, forgery is a very serious issue on many levels.  Let's just get all of
the facts first.  Mr. Bryant did come out and say he did not write the email
and made all of the members of the list aware of it.  That is step one and
two of damage control.
Now he is pursuing steps three and four:  finding out who did and going
after them.

The other emails were just stating the obvious that there are worse things
in life.  Like the racist forgery you were talking about.

Michael Dutcher
George Mason University

>From  Mon Aug  3 16:31:56 1998
Message-Id: <MON.3.AUG.1998.163156.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 8402 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 3 Aug 1998 16:32:20 -0400
Received: from imo22.mx.aol.com (imo22.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.66]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id QAA55940 for
 <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Mon, 3 Aug 1998 16:32:19 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from Westtoast at aol.com by imo22.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id
 8WLCa20982 for <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Mon, 3 Aug 1998 16:31:56 -0400
 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 167
Message-ID: <e2d01965.35c61e3d at aol.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 16:31:56 EDT
Reply-To: Westtoast at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Terrance Hogan <Westtoast at AOL.COM>
Subject: The Forgery

        This time I'll type it before I send it.

        I only hope it was a student that did this, not an faculty member somewhere.
        If it was a student, I pray that your school does not have a single sanction
honor code, like they have at Univ. of Virginia, Annapolis, etc. That student
would be looking at expulsion at one of those campuses. But overall, I could
deal with this being the act of a student. This is a culture that looks up to
hacking, and it could be written off as a really stupid act of childishness.
        If it was a faculty member somewhere, I really hope you lose your job. I'm
tired of hearing those who are supposed to be role models, especially coaches,
who specifically choose to mold young people, attempt to shrink from their
responsibities as role models. I don't want to hear that "all I'm payed for is
to teach debate" baloney. When you place someone in front of an impressionable
mind, and tell them to learn from them, they will. Both the bad and the good.
There is a duty on the part of a teacher of any kind to be better than the
rest of us. That's why we place them in a position of esteem in front of us,
rather than just milling about in our midst.



From steelek  Mon Aug  3 15:33:11 1998
From: steelek (Kelly Steele)
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 16:33:11 -0400
Subject: DON'T MINIMIZE FORGERY
In-Reply-To: <14620294.35c6178b@aol.com>
Message-ID: <MON.3.AUG.1998.163311.0400.STEELEK@GUSUN.GEORGETOWN.EDU>

No one disagrees--

I in no way disagree with sentiments expressed towards Bear and his
situation.  Forgery is not acceptable and the individual(s) who committed
this act should be dealt with in whatever way he sees fit.  I think that
Gottlieb's point is that things similar have happened to him and that he
blew it off.  Tuna is right on the money, but I think that we should
consider that there are different degrees of severity for this crime.  The
posting of racist messages to a class listserve is, IMHO, more serious
than what happened to Bear.  Sorry if that is offensive.

On Mon, 3 Aug 1998, Alfred Snider wrote:

> I am surprised to see people minimizing the forgery issue.
>
> I can speak from experience that this summer when 312 students received a
> racist message from one of my TAs which was forged and not written by him, it
> really tore him up. He didn't know how he could explain to all 312 people how
> he really felt, and even then the damage could never be undone.
>
> I don't understand how we can value free speech and at the same time minimize
> forgery like this, as it takes your voice and says things you do not believe
> in and people read it as your voice.
>
> I disagree with Bear on many things, most of them stylistic, but I will
> support his right to speak as he wishes and will criticize those who try and
> rob him of his free voice by forging messages in his name.
>
> Tuna
>



From jhoniball  Mon Aug  3 15:44:17 1998
From: jhoniball (Jonathan Honiball)
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 16:44:17 -0400
Subject: DON'T MINIMIZE FORGERY
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.3.96.980803161412.14342A-100000@gusun>
References: <14620294.35c6178b@aol.com>
Message-ID: <MON.3.AUG.1998.164417.0400.JHONIBALL@ACTIVMEDIA.COM>

Like I said earlier some people choose to laugh off an assault.  That
doesn't mean it is the "thing to do."  Whether or not Gottlieb laughs off
forgery is irrelevant, some people don't care about lots of things...no
matter how important.

Either way, that is completely irrelevant.  Plain and simple a law was
broken.  Tuna's example is indeed more severe than what happened to Bear.
The attributed statements were far more vile than just an insult.  But this
in no way makes what happened to Bear any less important.  The issue at
hand is forgery and fraud, regardless of content.

Jonathan Honiball

At 04:33 PM 8/3/98 -0400, Kelly Steele wrote:
>No one disagrees--
>
>I in no way disagree with sentiments expressed towards Bear and his
>situation.  Forgery is not acceptable and the individual(s) who committed
>this act should be dealt with in whatever way he sees fit.  I think that
>Gottlieb's point is that things similar have happened to him and that he
>blew it off.  Tuna is right on the money, but I think that we should
>consider that there are different degrees of severity for this crime.  The
>posting of racist messages to a class listserve is, IMHO, more serious
>than what happened to Bear.  Sorry if that is offensive.
>
>On Mon, 3 Aug 1998, Alfred Snider wrote:
>
>> I am surprised to see people minimizing the forgery issue.
>>
>> I can speak from experience that this summer when 312 students received a
>> racist message from one of my TAs which was forged and not written by
him, it
>> really tore him up. He didn't know how he could explain to all 312
people how
>> he really felt, and even then the damage could never be undone.
>>
>> I don't understand how we can value free speech and at the same time
minimize
>> forgery like this, as it takes your voice and says things you do not
believe
>> in and people read it as your voice.
>>
>> I disagree with Bear on many things, most of them stylistic, but I will
>> support his right to speak as he wishes and will criticize those who try
and
>> rob him of his free voice by forging messages in his name.
>>
>> Tuna
>>
>

>From  Mon Aug  3 16:51:44 1998
Message-Id: <MON.3.AUG.1998.165144.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 8770 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 3 Aug 1998 16:51:55 -0400
Received: from imo24.mx.aol.com (imo24.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.68]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id QAA87612 for
 <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Mon, 3 Aug 1998 16:51:54 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo24.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id
 KBHQa22588; Mon, 3 Aug 1998 16:51:44 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 58
Message-ID: <658b7b96.35c622e2 at aol.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 16:51:44 EDT
Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Michael Bear Bryant <MWBRYANT at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: Winding Down
Comments: To: MDutcher at WEBCOGP.COM

In a message dated 98-08-03 15:36:17 EDT, Dutcher writes:

<<        Is that for real?  Wow, I didn't think that I would ever see that.
 I remember hearing my coaches say that judges voted against team because the
 color ties they were wearing so on and so forth.  I never thought I would
 see such a threat.

         So here is the question:  Isn't that exactly what you are upset
 with?  You are upset that people are backlashing against you because of your
 views of the NDT and your style of delivery.  Now you take it the next step
 and completely eliminate any educational purpose of a debate (the
 hypothetical debate with Gottlieb and Sparacino vs. another team with you
 judging)?  Because he disagrees with you?
  >>

Who defines what's educational?

I'm being honest with Gottlieb when I say that I'm upset with the direction he
went after a very cogent beginning in his first post. I'm even more upset that
he would minimize email forgery in the manner he did earlier today. I also
know that most top level NDT debates could (and often do) go either way.
Consider my request preemptive - I'd rather Gottlieb and Sparky just go ahead
and strike me now than lest, god forbid, I find myself in a situation where
they might fear my crusade against defenders of elitism.

If you find that unethical, I'll be happy to provide a list of NDT directors
that pull themselves from hearing some teams because of personal problems in
the past between them and those teams. Sorry for carrying it the next step
further, but uncertainty is a critical element of deterrence. We non-elites
are forced to grapple with those tools which are available.

And hey, the crazier I act, the more teams strike me, the more time off I have
at tournaments. Remember, I studied under Billy Shanahan for a year....

Exposing the newest "conspiracy",

Bear,
Ask Dallas, it could go either way, "Sometimes you get the Bear and sometimes
the bear gets you."



From tweiner1  Mon Aug  3 15:56:39 1998
From: tweiner1 (Timothy J Weiner)
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 16:56:39 -0400
Subject: Winding Down
In-Reply-To: <658b7b96.35c622e2@aol.com>
Message-ID: <MON.3.AUG.1998.165639.0400.TWEINER1@OSF1.GMU.EDU>

> And hey, the crazier I act, the more teams strike me, the more time off I have
> at tournaments. Remember, I studied under Billy Shanahan for a year....

Hey whats that supposed to prove?  Bill debated with Katsulas.  But that
may be another reason to strike you!!! (Just joking John :) )


Jake



From steelek  Mon Aug  3 15:58:29 1998
From: steelek (Kelly Steele)
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 16:58:29 -0400
Subject: DON'T MINIMIZE FORGERY
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980803164417.0074134c@css.activmedia.com>
Message-ID: <MON.3.AUG.1998.165829.0400.STEELEK@GUSUN.GEORGETOWN.EDU>

Einstein,
If you have an argument, its not with me.  Forgery/fraud is wrong.  What
happened to Tuna is worse than what happened to Bear.  If one wants to
deal with something like this by blowing it off, that is also one's right.
Are you just talking to hear yourself?

On Mon, 3 Aug 1998, Jonathan Honiball wrote:

> Like I said earlier some people choose to laugh off an assault.  That
> doesn't mean it is the "thing to do."  Whether or not Gottlieb laughs off
> forgery is irrelevant, some people don't care about lots of things...no
> matter how important.
>
> Either way, that is completely irrelevant.  Plain and simple a law was
> broken.  Tuna's example is indeed more severe than what happened to Bear.
> The attributed statements were far more vile than just an insult.  But this
> in no way makes what happened to Bear any less important.  The issue at
> hand is forgery and fraud, regardless of content.
>
> Jonathan Honiball
>
> At 04:33 PM 8/3/98 -0400, Kelly Steele wrote:
> >No one disagrees--
> >
> >I in no way disagree with sentiments expressed towards Bear and his
> >situation.  Forgery is not acceptable and the individual(s) who committed
> >this act should be dealt with in whatever way he sees fit.  I think that
> >Gottlieb's point is that things similar have happened to him and that he
> >blew it off.  Tuna is right on the money, but I think that we should
> >consider that there are different degrees of severity for this crime.  The
> >posting of racist messages to a class listserve is, IMHO, more serious
> >than what happened to Bear.  Sorry if that is offensive.
> >
> >On Mon, 3 Aug 1998, Alfred Snider wrote:
> >
> >> I am surprised to see people minimizing the forgery issue.
> >>
> >> I can speak from experience that this summer when 312 students received a
> >> racist message from one of my TAs which was forged and not written by
> him, it
> >> really tore him up. He didn't know how he could explain to all 312
> people how
> >> he really felt, and even then the damage could never be undone.
> >>
> >> I don't understand how we can value free speech and at the same time
> minimize
> >> forgery like this, as it takes your voice and says things you do not
> believe
> >> in and people read it as your voice.
> >>
> >> I disagree with Bear on many things, most of them stylistic, but I will
> >> support his right to speak as he wishes and will criticize those who try
> and
> >> rob him of his free voice by forging messages in his name.
> >>
> >> Tuna
> >>
> >
>

>From  Mon Aug  3 17:02:46 1998
Message-Id: <MON.3.AUG.1998.170246.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 9021 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 3 Aug 1998 17:03:23 -0400
Received: from imo25.mx.aol.com (imo25.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.69]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id RAA50908 for
 <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Mon, 3 Aug 1998 17:03:22 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo25.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id
 SFSAa03745; Mon, 3 Aug 1998 17:02:46 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 58
Message-ID: <935bff13.35c62578 at aol.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 17:02:46 EDT
Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Michael Bear Bryant <MWBRYANT at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: Winding Down
Comments: To: tweiner1 at OSF1.GMU.EDU

In a message dated 98-08-03 16:57:49 EDT, you write:

<< > And hey, the crazier I act, the more teams strike me, the more time off I
have
 > at tournaments. Remember, I studied under Billy Shanahan for a year....

 Hey whats that supposed to prove?  Bill debated with Katsulas.  But that
 may be another reason to strike you!!! (Just joking John :) )
  >>

Exactly. Grant.

Bryant,
shocked at the different style one finds in Jake's public posts...

>From  Mon Aug  3 16:57:06 1998
Message-Id: <MON.3.AUG.1998.165706.0400.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 9112 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 3 Aug 1998 17:06:36 -0400
Received: from mail.bestsoftware.com (mail.abra.com [163.125.31.35]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with SMTP id RAA70618 for
 <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Mon, 3 Aug 1998 17:06:35 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by mail.bestsoftware.com(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.1  (569.2 2-6-1998))  id
 85256655.00738A6C ; Mon, 3 Aug 1998 17:02:00 -0400
X-Lotus-FromDomain: BEST at ABRA CADABRA SOFTWARE
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-ID: <85256655.0071F484.00 at mail.bestsoftware.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 16:57:06 -0400
Reply-To: Duane_J_Hyland at BESTSOFTWARE.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Duane J Hyland <Duane_J_Hyland at BESTSOFTWARE.COM>
Subject: Thoughts on Forgery

Hi, I've already shared these thoughts with Bear via back channel, but I
figured I'd also send them out. A long time ago my coach, a very wise man
and extremely dedicated to debate, once told me that if a debater, or a
coach, made an ethical violation (forging evidence, stealing evidence, and
I guess in today's world, forging e-mails) it could be enough to have the
debater, or the program (presumably if it were a coach who committed the
infraction) banned from the circuit. I guess the logic with forging e-mails
would go like this: If the person is reprehensible enough to forge
another's name to an e-mail that denigrated both the original sender and
others (the remark about Weber coaches being from the shallow end of the
gene pool) then how do we, as a community, know that the person won't forge
cards? Or Steal evidence? We don't. Hence, anyone who does this has to be
punished, and punished severely, so that others are dissuaded from doing
the same. This, as with any crime, is a serious issue, and I hope that the
person who did this is sensible enough to realize what they did was wrong,
and that they have enough honor to fess up and take whatever punishment is
handed out to them.  Duane

>From  Mon Aug  3 17:10:05 1998
Message-Id: <MON.3.AUG.1998.171005.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 9216 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 3 Aug 1998 17:10:50 -0400
Received: from imo21.mx.aol.com (imo21.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.65]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id RAA70426 for
 <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Mon, 3 Aug 1998 17:10:50 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo21.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id
 LQNYa12329; Mon, 3 Aug 1998 17:10:05 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 58
Message-ID: <e806f9e5.35c6272e at aol.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 17:10:05 EDT
Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Michael Bear Bryant <MWBRYANT at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: DON'T MINIMIZE FORGERY
Comments: To: steelek at GUSUN.GEORGETOWN.EDU

In a message dated 98-08-03 17:03:46 EDT, you write:

<<
 Einstein,
 If you have an argument, its not with me.  Forgery/fraud is wrong.  What
 happened to Tuna is worse than what happened to Bear.  If one wants to
 deal with something like this by blowing it off, that is also one's right.
 Are you just talking to hear yourself?
  >>

I think the same question might be directed in your direction, Mr. Steele.
Your steadfast intent to evaluate and pronounce different "severity levels"
is, indeed, another interesting window into your soul. Isn't it my right,
also, to not blow it off?

Et tu,

Bryant



From jhoniball  Mon Aug  3 16:09:36 1998
From: jhoniball (Jonathan Honiball)
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 17:09:36 -0400
Subject: DON'T MINIMIZE FORGERY
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.3.96.980803165539.14342B-100000@gusun>
References: <3.0.1.32.19980803164417.0074134c@css.activmedia.com>
Message-ID: <MON.3.AUG.1998.170936.0400.JHONIBALL@ACTIVMEDIA.COM>

Pleae, I don't do well with insulting people, and I would rather not be
insulted.  I don't think I insulted you in any way shape or form, so please
give me the same respect.

I apologize if my last post wasn't clear.  My point that I was attempting
to convey is simple.  The content although more severe is completely
irrelevant.  The crime is the same: forgery and fraud.  There is no
difference in severity, which was your original point...or am I wrong about
that?

Jonathan Honiball

At 04:58 PM 8/3/98 -0400, Kelly Steele wrote:
>Einstein,
>If you have an argument, its not with me.  Forgery/fraud is wrong.  What
>happened to Tuna is worse than what happened to Bear.  If one wants to
>deal with something like this by blowing it off, that is also one's right.
>Are you just talking to hear yourself?
>



From MDutcher  Mon Aug  3 16:17:17 1998
From: MDutcher (Michael Dutcher)
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 17:17:17 -0400
Subject: Winding Down
Message-ID: <MON.3.AUG.1998.171717.0400.MDUTCHER@WEBCOGP.COM>

> Who defines what's educational?
>
maybe competive (boy do I need a dictionary) would have been a better choice
of words.  My point was: What is the purpose of that debate then? If that
pairing happens because Gottlieb and Sparacino need to use their strikes in
other places, is that a bye for the other team?  Do you waste time having
the debate?

> I'm being honest with Gottlieb when I say that I'm upset with the
> direction he
> went after a very cogent beginning in his first post. I'm even more upset
> that
> he would minimize email forgery in the manner he did earlier today. I also
> know that most top level NDT debates could (and often do) go either way.
> Consider my request preemptive - I'd rather Gottlieb and Sparky just go
> ahead and strike me now than lest, god forbid, I find myself in a
> situation where they might fear my crusade against defenders of elitism.
>
see, this is where you lose me. while Gottlieb's emails may not have been
the most flattering he did say there should be a dialouge about those
things.  A starting point with examples so we can make the activity better.
Hell, I would love to see that.

> If you find that unethical, I'll be happy to provide a list of NDT
> directors
> that pull themselves from hearing some teams because of personal problems
> in the past between them and those teams. Sorry for carrying it the next
> step
> further, but uncertainty is a critical element of deterrence. We
> non-elites
> are forced to grapple with those tools which are available.
>
I don't know what to call it.  I wouldn't say unethical but it makes me ill.
It is contrary to everything I believe to be good about debate. It is the
reason I almost quit about 10 times during my career.

Who are the elites? Am I?  If you think so, how do you know without even
knowing me from Adam?

2 Wrongs don't make a right and just because others are doing it doesn't
make it right either.

If you want to take it that far, why don't you preclude yourself instead
having them strike you?

> And hey, the crazier I act, the more teams strike me, the more time off I
> have
> at tournaments.
>
Okay, I have to agree with that one.

Michael Dutcher



From dperkins  Mon Aug  3 16:27:57 1998
From: dperkins (Dallas Perkins)
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 17:27:57 -0400
Subject: Email forgery
Message-ID: <MON.3.AUG.1998.172757.0400.DPERKINS@FAS.HARVARD.EDU>

A couple of things.

First, I categorically deny ever making the statement that "Sometimes you
get the Bear, and sometimes the bear gets you."  (Of course, my memory
ain't perfect.)

Second, how does the false attribution of that statement to me differ from
the forged email?  (Well, I guess it does . . . .)  Perhaps this
attribution is worse, since it is plausible that I might have that, but I
don't really think anybody (except gullible me) ever took the forged
apology seriously.

Now third, and for the first time seriously, but STRICTLY OUT OF
CURIOSITY, and NOT in any way meaning to condone email forgery:  Exactly
why is this supposed to be a CRIME.  How is it different from stealing or
fabricating letterhead from somebody and sending out a snail mail letter
over their forged signature?  IF, and this is a big IF, there is the
intent to defraud somebody of money or property, to intentionally
interfere with commerce, to cause harm to the public safety (as in the
case of a bomb threat), etc., then a crme has been committed.  However,
the simple case of the practical joker who sends out a false engagement
announcement, for example, or who writes a fictional confession to some
heinously distasteful act (as when Flynt told that story about Falwell
raping his mother in an outhouse,) I do not believe that any crime has
been committed.

I do know that there are special statutes that prohibit hacking into
somebody else's computer, even if only for thrills, and without any
damage.  However, by all accounts, those statutes would not apply here, as
no hacking occurred:  this was a simple forgery.

Back to working on employment discrimination.

dp



From cjclevenger  Mon Aug  3 18:02:25 1998
From: cjclevenger (Clint J. Clevenger)
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 18:02:25 CDT
Subject: No subject
Message-ID: <MON.3.AUG.1998.180225.CDT.CJCLEVENGER@HOTMAIL.COM>

edebate list

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

>From  Mon Aug  3 19:11:16 1998
Message-Id: <MON.3.AUG.1998.191116.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 10328 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 3 Aug 1998 19:11:50
 -0400
Received: from imo17.mx.aol.com (imo17.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.7]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id TAA50770 for
 <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Mon, 3 Aug 1998 19:11:49 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo17.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id
 6ICGa02269; Mon, 3 Aug 1998 19:11:16 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 58
Message-ID: <962845c1.35c64395 at aol.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 19:11:16 EDT
Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Michael Bear Bryant <MWBRYANT at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: Email forgery
Comments: To: dperkins at FAS.HARVARD.EDU

First, Dallas, your (not you're) memory must be going.

Secondly, I'm told by people who know far more about it than I do (having not
attended Harvard Law, like you) that it involves criminal statues against
electronic forgery and use of interstate telephone lines to misrepresnt
identity. There is also the possibility of civil action if a jury could be
persuaded that the action was taken to deliberately damage my professional
standing.

Thanks for the free legal advice for those forging posts. How long has it been
since you practiced?

While elitism is a sin, you at least have done it with class.

Bear



From cjclevenger  Mon Aug  3 18:14:53 1998
From: cjclevenger (Clint J. Clevenger)
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 18:14:53 CDT
Subject: Brent Siemers
Message-ID: <MON.3.AUG.1998.181453.CDT.CJCLEVENGER@HOTMAIL.COM>

-Brent-

This is CJ.  I need to talk to you. Call me at 436-7728.

ps. sorry for the clutter, list.

CJ

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com



From mgremillion  Mon Aug  3 18:24:54 1998
From: mgremillion (MWilliams)
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 18:24:54 -0500
Subject: Bear's damaged professional standing.
Message-ID: <MON.3.AUG.1998.182454.0500.MGREMILLION@SELU.EDU>

Bear, I side with you on many issues, but I doubt you will get much of a jury
award (maybe a dollar) for some type of cyber-defamation of charecter. All
the opposition will have to do is bring up your past edebate posts. While
I prefer a little fire on both my food and edebate posts, most people will
say you screwed the pooch of credibility and professionalism a long time ago.
        I ain't no saint, never claimed to be. But you won't win a jury trial.
Better to go for expulsions, repremands and federal laws. If you could somehow
tie all of this to the War on Drugs--say, for example, evil marijuanny smokin'
hackers are destroyin' ya in cyberworld--then you may get the federales involved.
Scott Elliott

>From  Mon Aug  3 19:45:54 1998
Message-Id: <MON.3.AUG.1998.194554.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 10655 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 3 Aug 1998 19:46:40
 -0400
Received: from imo11.mx.aol.com (imo11.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.1]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id TAA88202 for
 <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Mon, 3 Aug 1998 19:46:39 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo11.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id
 NOGFa07118; Mon, 3 Aug 1998 19:45:54 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 58
Message-ID: <83ab1fde.35c64bb4 at aol.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 19:45:54 EDT
Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Michael Bear Bryant <MWBRYANT at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: Bear's damaged professional standing.
Comments: To: mgremillion at SELU.EDU

Dear Swampy,

I don't think either us is laboring under any mistaken impressions regarding
our relative standings in this "professional" (and I definitely use that term
in the loosest possible sense) community. Fortunately, most juries weigh
consideration of deliberate defamation of "charecter" (West Florida, FSU,
right?) much more like they
were asessing kritiks than making policy debate's somewhat artificial
construction of the notion of uniqueness.

The forger sure is a beautiful type of guy. Clearly genetically superior.

As soon as we can compare access site lists w/ the lists of those accessing
the butterfly web page on the same day, at a minimum, we'll know what city the
terminal is located. This isn't THAT difficult. Once I can make local
confirmation, I wont need the legal system to take care of this problem.
Pressing it as a criminal action helps increase the focus on completing the
trace. Federal programs to fight internet kiddie porn have made wonderful
advances in tracking down internet criminals.

Keep your feet dry, Swampster.

Bear

In a message dated 98-08-03 19:31:21 EDT, you write:

<<
 Bear, I side with you on many issues, but I doubt you will get much of a jury
 award (maybe a dollar) for some type of cyber-defamation of charecter. All
 the opposition will have to do is bring up your past edebate posts. While
 I prefer a little fire on both my food and edebate posts, most people will
 say you screwed the pooch of credibility and professionalism a long time ago.
         I ain't no saint, never claimed to be. But you won't win a jury
trial.
 Better to go for expulsions, repremands and federal laws. If you could
somehow
 tie all of this to the War on Drugs--say, for example, evil marijuanny
smokin'
 hackers are destroyin' ya in cyberworld--then you may get the federales
involved.
 Scott Elliott

  >>



From seantiffee  Mon Aug  3 18:57:55 1998
From: seantiffee (sean tiffee)
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 16:57:55 PDT
Subject: the topic?
Message-ID: <MON.3.AUG.1998.165755.PDT.SEANTIFFEE@HOTMAIL.COM>

i'm really sorry for wasting space but i think i got a little happy with
my "delete all" function.  could someone please tell me what the topic
is (title VII?) and the exact wording.  thanks.

sean
swtsu

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com



From cjclevenger  Mon Aug  3 19:35:02 1998
From: cjclevenger (Clint J. Clevenger)
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 19:35:02 CDT
Subject: prob. w/ list
Message-ID: <MON.3.AUG.1998.193502.CDT.CJCLEVENGER@HOTMAIL.COM>

I was just wondering if I am the only one suffering these problems.
Everytime that I send a message to the list, I get a email telling me
that (can't remember the adress but I think it is KKnuta@??)  I don't
know some weird adress that I have never heard of.  Anyways, It tells me
that this persons mail box is full and that I will have to wait untill
they get rid of some of their shit before I can get in touch with them.

Is anyone else sufferign this same pain in the ass as me?

CJ

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com



From scprest  Mon Aug  3 21:15:45 1998
From: scprest (Tom Preston)
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 20:15:45 -0600
Subject: Gateway Invitation 1998
Message-ID: <MON.3.AUG.1998.201545.0600.SCPREST@UMSLVMA.UMSL.EDU>

To:  The Community

From:  Your friends at UM-St. Louis

Re:  The Gateway Invitation for 1998

What follows is the invitation to our tournament this year.  We will post
again the August 17, August 31, September 14, and October 5.  The snailmail
should arrive for usual attendees the 31st--be sure to contact me at the
above email if you would like the snailmail version of the below and
traditionally have not received it.  The tournament is open and we would
love to have you.

Here it is:

UM                                      UM-St. Louis Forensics/Debate
                                        Department of Communication
                                                8001 Natural Bridge Road
                                                St. Louis, MO 63121-4499

5 September 1997

Dear Colleagues:

On behalf of the Missouri Psi Chapter of Pi Kappa Delta and the Debate and
Forensics program at the University of Missouri-St. Louis, you are invited
to attend the Gateway Debate and Speech Tournament October 30-31, 1998.
This tournament features five divisions of debate this year--Open CEDA,
Novice CEDA, Open Parliamentary, Open NFA-LD, and Open Public Debate.  As
well, we offer twelve individual events--the traditional AFA-11 plus the
most popular of our experimental events over the years, duo improvisations.
Be looking for our mediated tournament in the Spring!  Last year, over 50
schools attended Gateway Weekend, which includes an IE Swing at Webster
University on November 1.  43 attended the Gateway, and some opted for both
tournaments.  We hope you will continue to enjoy the array of choices that
this setup affords the variety of students in your program.

Again, for those who also do IE's, check out Webster's one-day event
Sunday--its invitation and entry forms are included in this invitation!.

WE CAN OFFER AN AWESOME HOTEL RATE FROM THE RECENTLY RENOVATED HENRY VIII,
AND ALTHOUGH THE BLOCK IS HELD UNTIL OCTOBER 1, WE ENCOURAGE YOU TO MAKE
ROOM RESERVATIONS EARLY BY CALLING 1-314-731-3040.  Be sure to mention
UM-St. Louis Gateway Debate Tournament to the clerk to obtain this special
offer, and be sure to make reservations by October 1 to ensure yourself of
this special rate.

The IE tabroom will be directed by Forensics Guru (Church, 1997) Scott
Jensen of Webster University, and the debate tabroom will be directed ably
by Jennifer Rigdon at Southeast Missouri State University.

There will also be speaker awards for the top team in each division.  The
top novice team in each division of debate that combines all levels, plus
the top novoce speaker in each individual event will be honored, and in the
Pi Kappa Delta tradition, excellent awards will go to the top thirty per
cent in each event.

We look forward to seeing you at this year's Gateway Tournament, and if
your schedule permits, at the second half of the Louisiana Purchase Swing
at Webster University.  Entry deadline is 5:00 PM Tuesday October 27--No
exceptions!

Thank you for your kind support, especially those who wrote letters on
behalf of our program last Spring.  If not for that, you would not be
reading this invitation.


Sincerely,


C. Thomas Preston, Jr.                          Bruce Arokoyo
Director of Forensics, Director, GDST           President, UM-St. Louis
Forensics
        Co-Director, GDST
 General Notes on the Gateway Tournament


What you can and cannot enter at the same time:

Double entering across ANY divisions of debate--NO--This cannot be done
since at least some rounds will run concurrently.

Entering Team (NDT/CEDA) Policy Debate or and IE's--NO--these run concurrently.

Entering "Public", Parliamentary, OR NFA-LD and IE--YES--it will be
grueling if the student does a lot of IE--carry some candy bars and take
advantage of our snacks--we may even get permission to sell Jolt Cola.  But
the schedule WILL allow for this.

Entering several ie's--YES--We recommend no more than four per conflict
pattern while at the tournament (for a total of eight plus mediated
events), however, students are responsible for performing within the time
allocated for the round.  NO SPEECHES WILL START FEWER THAN TEN MINUTES
BEFORE THE END OF A ROUND!


YOU MAY DO ANY OF THE ABOVE PLUS ENTER IE'S AT WEBSTER, HOWEVER--its A
FREESTANDING IE SWING WITH US.

Other Features, some new and interesting:

As you have figured out, we will offer an NFA LD division (five prelims
plus appropriate outrounds) plus a SIX round Parliamentary division (with
appropriate outrounds).

WE MAY HAVE TO LIMIT THE ENTRY OR MOVE "PUBLIC" DEBATE SHOULD ROOM
RESTRICTIONS OBSTRUCT.

We WILL schedule double-octas in Parliamentary debate if necessary--We
teetered on it last year with 53 teams--have judges, will offer!

THERE WILL BE DUPLICATE AWARDS FOR TEAMS ADVANCING IN DEBATE--You liked 'em
last year, so we're keeping them..

Individual Events:   The AFA-11 plus our most popular extra, IMPROV!  ADS
finals at the Halloween Party Friday--Bring your best mask as we will give
an award for the most outstanding one! THE RULES:

CEDA/NDT TEAM DEBATE--We will go back to the 8-3-5 format for both
divisions, and each team will be limited to five minutes total in
preparation time throughout the debate.

The tournament philosophy is that these divisions should be training
grounds for potential future national champions.   Since debate is a
diverse world, all contestants are encouraged to read writings concerning
what the leaders of each form see as the ideal approach, and share it with
all critics so that standards can be kept consistent within divisions if
not across them.  Each division has a distinct philosophy:

Open CEDA/NDT Joint:  The standards used to judge tournaments at the
highest level of the national CEDA and NDT circuits should be used.  The
Gateway Open CEDA division should hit octafinals again this year since more
JV teams will be included.  The competition has and should continue to be
among the best in the nation, and the judging pool will once again reflect
those expectation.  Clearly, research, evidence, and organization of
materials is clearly the name of the game here.  This is an
informational-intensive and highly specialized division, and we will make
every effort to use the critics best qualified and most willing to handle
large amounts of information in their judging.
Modified ABCX pref system used among the judging pool will be in effect
after round 2.

Novice CEDA/NDT Joint:  Same time format as above.  Although this is a
beginning division in a specialized activity, generally, novices are not
expected to process as much information as their varsity counterparts in
policy debates--but the pieces should be beginning to fall into place.
Especially in this division, judges must show encouraging comments on every
ballot, and a 20-point minimum in speaker points will be strictly enforced.
Keep in mind, as well, the need for judges representing your school to
encourage advancement into upper divisions when novice debaters are
beginning to sound like varsity--this is clearly a division in which we
expect debaters entering their first tournament should feel welcome and
comfortable.  Random Judge Assignment
within pool.

Parliamentary:  We will follow NPDA Rules for time format: 7-8-8-8-4-5.
Although the philosophies underlying parliamentary debating approaches are
becoming more specialized, this division clearly is intended for a general
audience--in fact,we will make efforts to use reasonably informed lay
critics to judge this division, as well as some of the familiar national
circuit parliamentary judges that may show up in a potentially 70-team
division.  The tournament philosophy in parliamentary debating at the
Gateway is that it, is a place where future national champions (such as the
winners fromt two years ago from Regis University) would desire to attend.
Clearly, however, the expectations and ways of obtaining this will differ
from the policy debate division.  The philosophy this year will remain, as
it has been yet is unstated in the past, along the lines of Brockriede's
"debate for lovers" article.  In these divisions, clearly, public speaking
and audience oriented skills will be stressed, although logical analysis,
creativity in terms of humor and gentle heckling, and strategic use of
parliamentary motions during the debate will also be stressed.   One quirk
about out event that only affects a few rounds--Rounds may NOT be stopped
on procedural issues such as "truisms" or "tautologies", although like in
any other motion a critic can pronounce such arguments as "well taken" or
"not well taken."  The main idea is that for educational purposes the
debaters argue these throughout the round.  Because of room limitations
Friday morning, you are encouraged to get your entries in early--we've
never turned folks away before, but this debating form is experiencing
exponential growth in our region.  Here, clearly, communication persuasive
and credible in the public arena is the name of the game.  Random Judge
Assignment within pool.  Mixture of lay and experienced critics used.

NFA-LD:  6-3-7-3-6-6-3 time format, with 2 min/side prep.  Although
Goldilocks might find NDT too hard and Parliamentary too soft, she might
find NFA "just right."  Here, although debaters must somehow defend a plan
in this LD policy format, they are expected to communicate it to the
average educated person in a comprehensible, "reasonable" fashion.  This is
a challenge, but one enjoyed by many debaters.  A balance between prepared
evidence and communication should be struck--the event started in the IE
organization NFA--being aware if its norms should help your students
understand the types critics they will be assigned in this division.
Random Judge Assignment within pool.

"Public" Debate--Goldilocks and Dr. Preston are still trying to figure this
one out, so in the "marketplace of ideas" approach traditional to the old
Gateway, we are offering it to learn more about it--and to see how it
flies.   As far as we know now, this is a new national organization out of
St. Mary's College in San Antonio which offers COACHES a chance to
participate along with students.  Note, however--a COACH participating in
this will be able to cover NO entries of any sort--but they may enter this
division nonetheless.  This is supposed to be a "fun" type of debate, and
you are encouraged to look at the statements out of the PDA to learn how
you should judge this, as well as how your students will be judged.  The
schedule may shift or entries may be l  limited on a first come, first
serve basis if a room shortage takes place!  Although we will strictly
stick to PDA rules and expectations in explaining judging instructions,
expect plenty of lay judges here.


  The AFA 11 plus improv--These events will follow the same rules as the 11
AFA national tournament individual events. The Flight A events will be
impromptu speaking, persuasive speaking, communication analysis, poetry
interpretation, mixed (programmed oral) interpretation, and dramatic duo
interpretation.

The Flight B events will be extemporaneous speaking, informative speaking,
after dinner speaking, prose interpretation, dramatic interpretation, and
duo improv, with improv being ten minutes to create and act out a situation
given before the round.  ADS FINALS MASS-JUDGED AT KARAOKE HALLOWEEN
MASQUERADE PARTY!

NOTE:  WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO CHANGE THE IE'S INTO 2.5 CONFLICT PATTERNS
IF WE FACE A ROOM SHORTAGE.  THIS WOULD WORK SIMILAR TO THE MAFL
TOURNAMENTS.
Other items of interest

Entry fees:     Two-person Debate, Any Div.     $60.00 per team
                One-person NFA-LD                       $30.00 per team
                Two-person Team CEDA/NDT        $60.00 per team
                IE                                      $5.00 per entry


Judging fees:   Two Person Parliamentary--one judge covers 2 teams
                Fixed pool for parliamentary
                $100.00 judging fee for each uncovered team in addition to
entry fee.

                One Person NFA LD--one judge covers 4 entries
                Fixed pool for NFA LD
                $50.00 judging fee for each individual not covered.

                Two Person CEDA--one judge covers two teams.
                Fixed Pool for CEDA
                $100.00 judging fee for each uncovered team in addition to
entry fee.

                $10.00/each slot/conflict pattern uncovered for ie--EACH
JUDGE DOES
                COVER SIX SLOTS PER CONFLICT PATTERN--if you, for example,
                have six entries in A and six entries in B, your judge,
justly covers 12, not
                six, slots as would be the case in some tournaments--beware
of those who
                only allow a judge to cover six slots who have multiple
confict patterns!
                But distribution is important, so if you have 9 entries in
A and two in B,
                then you would owe for the 3 uncovered in A as it is
difficult to hire
                judges unevenly and piecemeal.

                Entry fees charged as of 5:00 PM Wednesday Oct. 28.

                Drops at registration will result in a $30.00 per slot
change in
                IE and a $50.00 entry change in debate.  A change in a speaker
                name that does not affect entry size will not result in a
                nuisance tax.


Criteria for debate speaker awards:     1.  Totals minus hi and lo
                (all divisions)         2.  Raw speaker point totals
                                        3.  Totals minus two hi and two lo
                                        4.  Ranks
                                        5.  Judge Variance
                                        6.  Opposition Wins
                                        7.  Wins of team
                                        8.  At Random


Criteria for debate seedings:           1.  Won-loss record
                                        2.  Total Speaker Points, minus hi-lo
                                        3.  Total speaker points
                                        4.  Total speaker points, minus two
hi and two lo
                                        5.  Ranks
                                        6.  Opposition Wins
                                        7.  Judge Variance
                                        8.  At Random

The number of debate teams breaking will be determined by CEDA, NPDA, and
NFA guidelines, with the exception that no division will break beyond octas.

Criteria for ie breakings:              1.  Rank total (lowest)
                                        2.  Total rating points (highest)
                                        Ties for 6th will go to finals at
the second level.

                                        The twelve events will all break
directly to
                                                finals


Sweepstakes:

Individual Events:  Preliminary round points will be awarded on the basis
of 3-2-1 for each schools top five entries in each individual events.
There will be two mediated event prelims as well.  Points will count for
all entries reaching elimination rounds in individual events; one point per
quarterfinalist; two points per semifinalist, and for finals, on the basis
of 6-5-4-3-2-1, in addition to any points earned in previous outrounds.

Debate:  Each preliminary round will will count 5 points toward
sweepstakes, and each team making elimination rounds will earn 10 points,
for the top five teams entered.  ALL teams entered in debate count for
this, including PDA and NFA.

Combined:  Add the two above together, and you have Overall Sweeps!  The
top five in each category win substantive awards at the Gateway. Traveling
Trophies:

With Southern Illinois University having Retired the first Gateway
Traveling Trophy, who will win the new Policy Debating Trophy?

Here are our two new Traveling Trophies:

1.      The Gateway Policy Debating Trophy--New Values Begin this year
        for a new 12-year era.  Each win counts 2 points in varsity, and 1
        point in novice, for the five teams earning the most points for your
        school.

2.      The Gateway IE Traveling Trophy--Now that we pretty much have
        our 12 ie's standardized, we are starting our traveling trophy in IE--
        based on the same sweepstakes formula as above.  Whoever wins the
        regular ie Sweeps, wins this one.

And here are the older ones (if being in their third year is "old.")

3.      The Gateway Parli Traveling Placque--one point per prelim win for
        your top five parliamentary teams.  Chicago won it last year, and
        CMSU is atop the standings for this coming year.

4.      The Gateway NFA Traveling Placque--CMSU won this last year,
        and the race is now wise open.  Who will win it this year?

Note ENTRY DEADLINE WILL BE 5 PM OCTOBER 28--AND 5 PM OCTOBER 15 FOR
RECEIPT OF MEDIATED EVENTS. For the events in which you have to come to the
tournament to participate, here is the rest of our schedule:

Tentative Schedule:

Oct. 29: 7-12 PM Early Registration--Henry VIII

Oct. 30:

7-9 More Registration, Lucas Hall Lobby, Campus  (NOTE--Get there
early--PARKING WILL
        BE AT A PREMIUM)
9:00 AM-10:15 AM Round I Parliamentary, PDA (Rounds I and II of all
divisions are preset)
9:00 AM-10:45 AM Round I NFA LD (piggybacked) 10:15-11:30 AM--Round II
Parliamentary
10:15-11:30 AM  Round II Parliametnary, PDA
10:45-12:30 AM--Round II NFA LD
11:30-12:45 AM--Round III Parliamentary, PDA (power matching begins, based
on all prev. rounds)
12-2 Last Chance at Registration
12:30-2:00 PM--Round III NFA LD
12:45-2:00 PM--Round IV Parliamentary (powered straight off 1,2)
2:00--Round I NDT/CEDA, both divisions
2:00--Round I Flight A IE's (Imp, P, CA, Poe, ADS, Duo)
3:30--Round II NDT/CEDA, both divisions
3:30--Round II Flight A IE's
5:00--Food break
5:30--X Draw
6:00--Round I Flight B IE's (X, Inf, Iv, POI, Prose, DI)
6:00  Round III CEDA/NDT (power matching begins)
7:00--X Draw
7:30--Round II Flight B IE's--Finals of small Flight A events
7:30--Round IV CEDA/NDT
CEDA Powered straight off 1-2

10:30--KARAOKE/MASQUERADE PARTY AT HOTEL--ADS FINALS--PRIZES FOR TOP THREE
MASQUES!

Saturday October 31.

8:00--Round V CEDA/NDT Debate and Parliamentary Debate
9:30--Round VI CEDA/NDT Debate and Parliamentary Debate
11:00--Extemp Draw
11:30--Remaining IE Finals
1:00--Lunch
1:30--Awards Ceremony--1. Debate Speaker Awards
                          2.  Distribution of debate outrounds for
CEDA/NDT--All Sweepstakes Awards
                          3.  Awards of IE Finalists and Top Novices of
remaining events
2:30    Debate Outrounds begin--Announcements and Awards in Rooms after
each round

Target times for remaining LD: 4:00, 5:45, 6:45 (note--last two will NOT be
piggybacked if judges   available)

MANDATORY start times for parli outrounds:  3:45 second outround, 5:00
third outround, 6:15 fourth outround, and 7:30 for possible fifth outround.

MANDATORY start times for team debate second outround:  4:45, with forfeit
rules being strictly enforced---Target times for remaining two outrounds if
nec:  6:30 and 8:15, although keeping that will be soley up to the
contestants and remaining judges who may wish to delay finals until after a
dinner break.
Entry Blank Gateway Debate Tournament


CEDA/NDT Policy Open Debate Teams (First and Last Names Please)

        Rating
1. _________________________________________            _____

2. _________________________________________            _____

3. _________________________________________            _____

4. _________________________________________            _____

5. _________________________________________            _____

6. _________________________________________            _____

7. _________________________________________            _____

8. ________________________________________             _____

CEDA/NDT Novice Debate Teams (Awards for top ten novice speakers, too)

1. _________________________________________            _____

2. _________________________________________            _____

3. _________________________________________            _____

4. _________________________________________            _____

5. _________________________________________            _____

6. _________________________________________            _____

7. _________________________________________            _____

8. _________________________________________            _____

***RATE each team as follows:  A  Breaks almost always in this division;
B  Breaks most of the time in this division  C  may break but has limited
experience in this divisions  D  inexperienced with respect to this division

List CEDA/NDT judges here, and FAX a philosophy to Tom Preston at
314-516-5415 for each judge--separate pool from parliamentary, PDA or LD
debate, so pls. don't crosslist!:

1.                                              4.

2.                                              5.

3.                                              6. Parliamentary Debate Teams

        Rating
1. _________________________________________            _____

2. _________________________________________            _____

3. _________________________________________            _____

4. _________________________________________            _____

5. _________________________________________            _____

6. _________________________________________            _____

7. _________________________________________            _____

8. ________________________________________             _____

PDA Debate Teams

1. _________________________________________            _____

2. _________________________________________            _____

3. _________________________________________            _____

NFA-LD Students

1. _________________________________________            _____
2. _________________________________________            _____
3. _________________________________________            _____
4. _________________________________________            _____
5. _________________________________________                    _____
6. _________________________________________            _____
7. _________________________________________            _____
8. _________________________________________            _____
***RATE each team as follows:  A  Breaks almost always in this division;
B  Breaks most of the time in this division  C  may break but has limited
experience in this divisions  D  inexperienced with respect to this division

Judges and whether they do parliamentary or LD--please do not crosslist as
each pool will remain separate

Judge                                                   Parli or LD

1.  _____________________________________     _________
2.  _____________________________________     _________
3.  _____________________________________     _________
4.  _____________________________________     _________
5.  _____________________________________     _________
6.  _____________________________________     _________
.7.  _____________________________________     _________

NOTE:  If a coach is entered in PDA, he/she may NOT cover teams. IE Entry
Form--Just list events and students entered in them.  (A special form
appears below in the snailmailed version)

Remember--a judge covers 6 slots PER CONFLICT PATTERN--beware of
tournaments who  rip you off by requiring one judge per six slots period!
If your entries are divided up evenly among our two conflict patterns, your
judge can cover up to TWELVE entries.  $10.00 per uncovered slot per
conflict pattern charge applies/ Motel--Get reservations in by October 1 to
the Henry VIII at 314-731-4134 and ask for special UMSL "Gateway Debate"
rate.  Ask for KAY CARTER or KIM BREECE if a clerk acts inexperienced, says
they are unfamiliar with this event, or says the hotel is booked when in
fact rooms are being held aside.  IMPORTANT--be sure to get reservations in
early as bloc is limited.

SEND ALL ENTRIES to C. Thomas Preston, Jr., Director of Forensics, UM-St.
Louis, Department of Communication, St. Louis, MO 63121-4499 to be received
by October 27.

OR call in entries to same at 314-516-5498 BEFORE 5:00 PM TUESDAY October 27.

OR email in entries to same at scprest at umsl.edu by the same time, OR fax
them to 314-516-5816.  IF YOU EMAIL OR FAX, ASSUME I HAVE NOT RECEIVED YOUR
ENTRY UNTIL I CONFIRM YOU ENTRY.



From mmk1913  Mon Aug  3 20:11:00 1998
From: mmk1913 (Michael Miroslav Korcok)
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 21:11:00 -0400
Subject: spelling assistance
Message-ID: <MON.3.AUG.1998.211100.0400.MMK1913@GARNET.ACNS.FSU.EDU>

Bryant,

in your post "Re: Email forgery" from the 3rd of August at
7:13 pm,
i believe you meant to type "criminal statutes" rather than
"criminal statues".  also, "misrepresnt" is spelled
"misrepresent".

you're welcome from a present FSU student,
michael miroslav korcok

>From  Mon Aug  3 21:58:27 1998
Message-Id: <MON.3.AUG.1998.215827.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 11635 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 3 Aug 1998 21:59:14
 -0400
Received: from imo18.mx.aol.com (imo18.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.8]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id VAA57708 for
 <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Mon, 3 Aug 1998 21:59:13 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo18.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id
 GVEIa29489; Mon, 3 Aug 1998 21:58:27 +2000 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 58
Message-ID: <a61c3e28.35c66ac4 at aol.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 21:58:27 EDT
Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Michael Bear Bryant <MWBRYANT at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: spelling assistance
Comments: To: mmk1913 at GARNET.ACNS.FSU.EDU

In a message dated 98-08-03 21:15:51 EDT, you write:

<<
 Bryant,

 in your post "Re: Email forgery" from the 3rd of August at
 7:13 pm,
 i believe you meant to type "criminal statutes" rather than
 "criminal statues".  also, "misrepresnt" is spelled
 "misrepresent".

 you're welcome from a present FSU student,
 michael miroslav korcok

  >>

Ah, Mike, I don't care how anyone spells anything until they claim to be
"superior" to me, and I've never claimed perfection. Interesting to see what's
important enough to cause you to rear your head....

I was making fun of Swampy's legal advice on subjects he couldn't begin to
spell. At least I make fun of him to his face.

If I unleash on Geoff, will your desire to promote your FSU education cause
you to support him?

If so, you're much worse off than me.

Hope your summer's going well,

Bear

>From  Mon Aug  3 22:00:33 1998
Message-Id: <MON.3.AUG.1998.220033.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 11716 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 3 Aug 1998 22:01:21
 -0400
Received: from imo30.mx.aol.com (imo30.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.74]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id WAA88084 for
 <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Mon, 3 Aug 1998 22:01:20 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo30.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id
 RXBQa26166; Mon, 3 Aug 1998 22:00:33 +2000 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 58
Message-ID: <6d739738.35c66b43 at aol.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 22:00:33 EDT
Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Michael Bear Bryant <MWBRYANT at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: prob. w/ list
Comments: To: cjclevenger at HOTMAIL.COM

In a message dated 98-08-03 20:35:26 EDT, you write:

<< Is anyone else sufferign this same pain in the ass as me? >>

Every single post I've made in the last week has been graced by that notice.

Bear



From ameltzer  Mon Aug  3 21:11:35 1998
From: ameltzer (Ari Meltzer)
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 21:11:35 -0500
Subject: Winding Down
Message-ID: <MON.3.AUG.1998.211135.0500.AMELTZER@USC.EDU>

If we want to be technical, this is no more a crime than prank calling
someone on the telephone, except that this is in a more public forum.  So,
Bear, next time you call the NDT host about rooms, it may take awhile for
them to accomodate you so they can check the validity of the call.

Ari Meltzer
Part of the Evil NDT Conspiracy in Los Angeles

>From  Mon Aug  3 23:43:08 1998
Message-Id: <MON.3.AUG.1998.234308.0400.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 0059 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 3 Aug 1998 23:43:15 -0400
Received: from MORRISVILLE.EDU (SNYMORAB.MORRISVILLE.EDU [136.204.81.12]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id XAA54160 for
 <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Mon, 3 Aug 1998 23:43:10 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from morrisville.edu by morrisville.edu (PMDF V5.1-7 #18385) id
 <01J06O89MMPG8Y5HOS at morrisville.edu> for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 3
 Aug 1998 23:43:08 EDT
X-VMS-To: edebate at list.uvm.edu
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Message-ID: <01J06O89MMPI8Y5HOS at morrisville.edu>
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 23:43:08 -0400
Reply-To: WHITNEMR at MORRISVILLE.EDU
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: WHITNEMR at MORRISVILLE.EDU
Organization: SUNY College of Agriculture & Technology - Morrisville, New York
Subject: Forgery

Well,

   I realize a lot of people are probably darned tired of hearing from me
on a variety of issues, but I've been reading the posts on the forged
email and am a little dumbfounded.
   I can't help but wonder if all these cavalier attitudes about someone
impersonating someone else would be so evident if the victim had been one
of debates most respected folks. Let's say someone got on and impersonated
Al Johnson, and said all types of vile things? I find it difficult to
believe that so many would just go "oh yeah, it's bad, but not as bad as
having your mother murdered."
   I'm starting to think we can't think for ourselves in this activity. Is
it only bad if you have a bad link saying it's going to wipe out life? No,
the examples I've seen in recent posts typically violate (at least) two
Informal Fallacies. One, "Two wrongs don't make a right." One of Lt. William
Calley's (sp?) defenses in his court-martial was that his massacre wasn't
as bad as the massacres the Viet Cong did. I'm sure it would make the victims
very happy to know they died in a "good" massacre. The issue is not one of
degree, it is one of kind. It makes no sense to say "well, it was bad for
Bear, but Tuna's was worse." That would be infinitely regressive to try and
put each violation into a hierarchy. It's either bad or it isn't. I think it
is a priori bad! Yeah, yeah, everyone has said it's bad. But many of the
posts follow with rationale as to why it's not THAT bad.
   Another fallacy that has been seen is the "appeal to emotion" fallacy.
Posters seek to minimize what happened by comparing it to worse crimes. Of
course what happened is not as bad as being physically beaten (in this
instance). Raising the spectre of worse crimes is a diversionary practice
seeking to make what happened diminuative.
   The fact remains that what happened is wrong, it is bad, and it is a
crime. There was even a post saying that if it was a student it might be
tallied up to being a prank. But if it was a coach, they should lose their
job. The second one is right. A coach should lose their job AT A MINIMUM.
But a student shouldn't just be let off as a prank. They should be, at the
very least, suspended. And, possibly, prosecuted.
   Impersonating others is not only wrong in a moral sense, it can have
real life ramifications. What if someone impersonated Martin Luther King Jr
(when he was alive) and said vile and rascist things? What if a powerful
politician is impersonated? It could cause wars, death, economic collapse
(impersonate Greenspan and say the economy sucks and see what the stock
market would do). Would you mind if someone impersonated YOU and emptied
your bank account or destroyed your credit rating?
   The reason this is SO important is because we are speaking of communication.
And ethical communication is the fabric of civilized society. As soon as you
shut one eye to the ethics, you see the fabric unravel. Personally, I hope
the perpetrator is caught and made an example of.

                  Mark Whitney
                  SUNY Morrisville

ps... can't help but wonder if this made it to mdebate. Probably not.
      The reputation of a prominant coach isn't a concern of the debate
      community... just tournament dates. But, let's not open that again



From mmk1913  Mon Aug  3 22:55:07 1998
From: mmk1913 (Michael Miroslav Korcok)
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 23:55:07 -0400
Subject: my summer has been going well
Message-ID: <MON.3.AUG.1998.235507.0400.MMK1913@GARNET.ACNS.FSU.EDU>

    Jess and i have been following edebate every now and
then.  she taught for Kaplan's Score!, an outreach program
for high-risk middle school kids, and has been really busy
researching the new topic.  i took a couple of graduate
courses and taught a couple of public speaking classes.  i
have also been doing a lot of thought and reading about
decision making and rationality and expect to have something
fairly profound to say about that soon (you know, the
usual).
    Jess is getting ready for her last year at Cornell and
is beginning the law school application process.  I'm
prepping to assist Dr. Wotring in teaching the graduate
Research Methods course here as well as taking several
graduate courses.
    During the worst of the fires here, i was reminded how
important Bob Lechtreck's "other job" is.  and of course,
waking every morning to the smell of burning wood reminded
me of my friend at Weyerhauser, Becky Gallentine.  and for
some reason, when Jess and I see "As Good As It Gets" (a
dozen times now), it reminds me of Dallas Perkins sending
Becky flowers in the hospital.  and almost as sad as i am to
see Jamie "retire" from debate, i'm glad to see that Glen
has finally found gainful employment.  and i share
everyone's alarm that both DeGarlais and Marlow are
successfully reproducing.  and "howdy" to everyone who was
in St. Louis.

thank you for asking,
michael miroslav korcok

p.s. - how has your summer been going?



From srader  Tue Aug  4 00:26:01 1998
From: srader (Doyle Srader)
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 22:26:01 -0700
Subject: ADI Demo Debate
Message-ID: <MON.3.AUG.1998.222601.0700.SRADER@IMAP3.ASU.EDU>

Aff: Transparently White Decisionmaking. The plan adopted the recommendations
of Barbara Flagg to allow plaintiffs bringing Title VII job discrimination
suits to offer evidence of disparate treatment that fell short of proving
intent, and to offer a commercially viable alternative practice that would
eliminate the racially disparate impact without adversely affecting the
business. The advantage was straightforward: Elimination of covert or
unconscious racism in hiring practices.

Negative arguments:
Clinton - Non colorblind policies cause public outcry, derailing Clinton's
agenda, which kills IMF funding and takes U.S. leadership with it. Khalilzad.
Spending - Greenspan & interest rates.
Critical race theory - Solutions within the legal system are doomed and
actually make the plight of minorities worse.
On the case - Lowering the hurdle for proving discrimination chills companies
hiring minorities. They'll hire more temps or demand more overtime instead.
Also, white males are getting a bum rap.
Spending was kicked in the block, and Critical Race Theory was jettisoned in
the 2NR, leaving Clinton and the Minority Hiring Chill argument.

Debaters: Jennifer Alme & Doyle Srader on the affirmative, Greg Achten and
Becky Opsata on the negative.

Decision: Everyone but Josh Martin voted negative. Buncha stinking Clinton
hacks.

Doyle Srader
Director of Forensics
Arizona State University
(602) 965-5578

"Praise poetry in the great lakes area of Africa is shouted during
martial dances by a warrior stepping out of the ranks to the front of the
dancing area. The speed of delivery, the height of the pitch, the martial
attitude taken are part of the performance."
   -- Jan Vansina, _Oral Tradition as History_, 1985

For more information about debate at Arizona State:
http://www.public.asu.edu/~srader/debate.html



From jvuglia  Tue Aug  4 01:54:59 1998
From: jvuglia (joe vuglia)
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 01:54:59 -0500
Subject: SIGN ME OFF THIS CRAZY THING
Message-ID: <TUE.4.AUG.1998.015459.0500.JVUGLIA@SIU.EDU>

I don't want to sift through this crap anymore, looking for something at
all relevent (to me that is - tourny info, topic talk, arg/theory
discussion, etc.)
My computer is slooooooooooooooow.... (a whopping 33 MHz w/ a powerful 4 MB
RAM), and I have better things to waste my time on than sitting here
waiting for dozens and dozens of posts about this and that conspiracy that
I'm gonna throw away without reading.  Can anyone direct me to mdebate?

Joe Vuglia
Southern Illinois Univ.

>From  Tue Aug  4 03:24:40 1998
Message-Id: <TUE.4.AUG.1998.032440.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 1068 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 4 Aug 1998 03:25:29 -0400
Received: from imo12.mx.aol.com (imo12.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.2]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id DAA57794 for
 <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Tue, 4 Aug 1998 03:25:28 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo12.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id
 GIUFa11469; Tue, 4 Aug 1998 03:24:40 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 58
Message-ID: <15707573.35c6b739 at aol.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 03:24:40 EDT
Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Michael Bear Bryant <MWBRYANT at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: my summer has been going well
Comments: To: mmk1913 at GARNET.ACNS.FSU.EDU

Gee, a civil conversation with Korcok.

Mike,

Wonderful to hear things are going so productively for you. I've been kind of
busy here, too. My first summer away from institutes in over a decade freed me
to do some work designing an internet-supported public speaking class that
I've taught during our summer session. It's gone so well, I'm in the process
of designing my fall argumentation course around internet support.

Sorry to hear about the fires. It got so hot here in the high desert that I
finally had to break down and move out of my non-air-conditioned apartment. It
worked out very well as the Marlows and I found a great place to lease in one
of Ogden's swankier neighborhoods (I live a couple of blocks away from Tuna's
father, imagine the thrill!). Just finished the last stages of moving this
weekend and it's really great to see how Anita Marlow has fixed the place up
despite being half way along in her mission to bring another Marlow into the
world. Eric, Anita, and Sammi live upstairs, while
I get the whole bottom level. Gigantic patio, oriental-style garden, wicked
trees, and multiple phone lines for the growing number of computers we seem to
have in the house. I'm in heaven. Bile's been up to hang a couple of times.

We're also in the process of totally redesigning the Weber program. In
addition to our regular focus on policy tournaments, we're stepping up our
emphasis on novice-level parli and implementing an extensive on-campus speech
and public debate program. We've made a committment tot the university to have
a traveling squad of over thirty debaters and our planning several new
tournaments. Our varsity policy people are all new, young, and ready to get
some to national tournaments - it looks like fun.

Geoff stayed at my old apartment for a few days a couple of weeks ago. Wow.
Good luck. Actually made me miss Stannard who'd been hanging out a few days
before. I saw Massey, but couldn't convince him to stay and beat up Geoff. Oh
well, there's always next time...

It was nice to share summer events with you. Take care.

Bear

>From  Tue Aug  4 03:41:16 1998
Message-Id: <TUE.4.AUG.1998.034116.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 1135 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 4 Aug 1998 03:44:54 -0400
Received: from imo21.mx.aol.com (imo21.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.65]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id DAA65044 for
 <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Tue, 4 Aug 1998 03:44:52 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo21.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id
 FTSNa12329; Tue, 4 Aug 1998 03:41:16 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 58
Message-ID: <46b1c0a5.35c6bb1d at aol.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 03:41:16 EDT
Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Michael Bear Bryant <MWBRYANT at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: Winding Down
Comments: To: ameltzer at USC.EDU

In a message dated 98-08-03 22:12:18 EDT, you write:

<< If we want to be technical, this is no more a crime than prank calling
 someone on the telephone, except that this is in a more public forum.  So,
 Bear, next time you call the NDT host about rooms, it may take awhile for
 them to accomodate you so they can check the validity of the call.

 Ari Meltzer
 Part of the Evil NDT Conspiracy in Los Angeles
  >>

1. Why is the tone of your public notice here so different from the
backchannel you sent me pleading the case of why it wasn't Damus? Do you think
it's important for you to join the public-ridicule bandwagon to maintain NDT
respect?

2. I can seriously understand the incentive you have to minimize the
significance of actions that have been taken against me. Truly.

3. Does it concern you that a number of posts have called for the firing of
any Director involved in this sort of chicanery?

Well, if it's not Damus, I guess you don't have to worry, right? After all,
what harm is there to impersonating a person's identity over telephone lines?
Oh, that's right - it's a felony...

Let me see if I can strain some NDT logic for you - it's ok to impersonate
Bear's account, since he's crazy and who cares? But let that moron suggest
that those minimizing this act should waste a strike on him and he's the most
irresponsible educator in history? Wow. You folks don't have to worry about
any crusade to damage NDT on my part. You're doing an excellent job on your
own. The impact of divorcing value discussions from intercollegiate debate is
definitely showing...

I don't even really blame the actions taken on any one individual. Clearly the
very core of a community is rotten when so many highly-respected NDT
individuals can do no more than claim that there was nothing really wrong with
the act of forging an account header.

Thanks for simply illustrating my initial point. Thanks for playing. Thanks
for showing others.

Michael Bryant

>From  Tue Aug  4 08:33:29 1998
Message-Id: <TUE.4.AUG.1998.083329.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 1767 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 4 Aug 1998 08:34:31 -0400
Received: from imo19.mx.aol.com (imo19.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.9]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id IAA55926 for
 <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Tue, 4 Aug 1998 08:34:30 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from AKing50 at aol.com by imo19.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id NEOMa04161;
 Tue, 4 Aug 1998 08:33:29 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 58
Message-ID: <f75464b.35c6ff9a at aol.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 08:33:29 EDT
Reply-To: AKing50 at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Tony King <AKing50 at AOL.COM>
Subject: Looking for Greg Achten
Comments: To: srader at IMAP3.ASU.EDU

Greg backchannel me asap please, tony

>From  Tue Aug  4 09:02:14 1998
Message-Id: <TUE.4.AUG.1998.090214.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 2620 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 4 Aug 1998 09:02:57 -0400
Received: from imo13.mx.aol.com (imo13.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.3]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id JAA03338 for
 <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Tue, 4 Aug 1998 09:02:56 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo13.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id
 SQFYa11436; Tue, 4 Aug 1998 09:02:14 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 58
Message-ID: <216803be.35c70657 at aol.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 09:02:14 EDT
Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Michael Bear Bryant <MWBRYANT at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: Winding Down
Comments: To: tweiner1 at osf1.gmu.edu

In case anyone wonders what both Massey and I are both doing when we finally
get to meet the rather rude Jake Weiner. Mr. Weiner, keep writing! You
epitomize the points I'm making about NDT.

You must bathe in superiority, whoever you are. Sorry for neglecting you. You
obviously are itching for a fight.

Weak? We'll see.

Michael Bryant,



In a message dated 98-08-04 08:50:38 EDT, you write:

<< From:        tweiner1 at osf1.gmu.edu (Timothy J Weiner)
 To:    MWBRYANT at aol.com

 >
 > Bryant,
 > shocked at the different style one finds in Jake's public posts...
 >
 >
 Well I try to be cordial in public unlike you, I just try to make joke
 where I think they are appropriate.
 As for you, I gave up on you once you found out that I was a no longer
 a debater.  You just threaten people until you realize who they are, then
 when you realize that you screwed up you just run and hide.  You are weak
 and
 you don't know me or anyone else you rip on until it's too late.  By the
 way I would NEVER prejudge one of your teams because of you, your pretty
 weak to admit you would prejudge others just because of some personal
 problems.

 Jake

  >>



From MDutcher  Tue Aug  4 08:45:34 1998
From: MDutcher (Michael Dutcher)
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 09:45:34 -0400
Subject: New Thread - Kritick Question
Message-ID: <TUE.4.AUG.1998.094534.0400.MDUTCHER@WEBCOGP.COM>

I am trying to decide whether or not to coach next year and part of my
decision will be based on my ability to understand deconstruction arguments
because I am sure they will be plentiful next year.  I don't think I am very
"up" on most of the debates and I am glad I never judged the Rex Copeland
Award winning duo from Emory because i would have probably been lost.  Well,
actually, I may have come out of the round with a better understanding.

Anyways, here is the question:

Could someone please point me towards some general deconstruction
literature?

Thanks in advance,

Michael Dutcher
George Mason University

>From  Tue Aug  4 10:26:39 1998
Message-Id: <TUE.4.AUG.1998.102639.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 3384 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 4 Aug 1998 10:27:11 -0400
Received: from imo22.mx.aol.com (imo22.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.66]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id KAA57692 for
 <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Tue, 4 Aug 1998 10:27:10 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from DRTUNA at aol.com by imo22.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id 8ZICa22301
 for <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Tue, 4 Aug 1998 10:26:39 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 59
Message-ID: <e6fc63bd.35c71a20 at aol.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 10:26:39 EDT
Reply-To: DRTUNA at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Alfred Snider <DRTUNA at AOL.COM>
Subject: Striking Yourself

Is it ever appropriate to ask that a team or person strike you so that you do
not judge them? Actually, it might be better for the judge to tell the tab
room so that the team involved gets to save a strike, but is that ever
appropriate?

It seems to be appropriate when you have coached that person before. Hard to
be totally objective in that situation. We usually do not let people judge
their own school until two years out, at least.

It seems to be appropriate if you are intimately involved with that person.
For example, Barry Rosenbaum should probably not judge his brother Greg
(although it happened). In addition, lovers should not judge each other. It
would be hard to be as objective as one would like in that situation.

How about a situation where there is a very strong dislike between two people?
It is unfortunate, but it does happen. Should that judge announce that they
fear for their objectivity and should not judge? I think this is better than
the alternative, waiting for it to happen and then enacting "revenge"  or even
when not being vengeful being in a situation where strong dislike will be a
factor in post round discussions.

It is too bad that people have such strong dislike for each other, but I think
it is better for those people not to be in a judge-debater relationship.

We need to be honest about our ability to be objective in certain situations,
and especially aware of the shortcomings in our own objectivity.

Tuna



From ifjxh  Tue Aug  4 09:45:32 1998
From: ifjxh (Joshua Hoe)
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 07:45:32 PDT
Subject: ADI Demo Debate
Message-ID: <TUE.4.AUG.1998.074532.PDT.IFJXH@HOTMAIL.COM>

Doyle...you are still losing on Clinton :)....Josh

>From owner-edebate at list.uvm.edu Mon Aug  3 22:26:30 1998
>Received: from list.uvm.edu (132.198.101.67) by smtpgate.uvm.edu (LSMTP
for Windows NT v1.1a) with SMTP id <0.DAC0B440 at smtpgate.uvm.edu>; Tue, 4
Aug 1998 1:26:07 -0400
>Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release
1.8c) with
>          spool id 0683 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 4 Aug 1998
01:26:06 -0400
>Received: from post5.inre.asu.edu (post5.inre.asu.edu [129.219.110.86])
by
>          list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id BAA48170 for
>          <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Tue, 4 Aug 1998 01:26:05 -0400 (EDT)
>Received: from email2.asu.edu by asu.edu (PMDF V5.1-10 #24133) with
ESMTP id
>          <01J06LIQCHNU99S0WT at asu.edu> for edebate at list.uvm.edu; Mon, 3
Aug
>          1998 22:26:04 MST
>Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by email2.asu.edu
>          (8.9.0.Beta5/8.9.0.Beta5) with SMTP id WAA06496 for
>          <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Mon, 03 Aug 1998 22:26:02 -0700 (MST)
>X-Sender: srader at email2.asu.edu
>MIME-version: 1.0
>Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
>Message-ID:  <Pine.GSO.3.96.980803221935.6313A-100000 at email2.asu.edu>
>Date:         Mon, 3 Aug 1998 22:26:01 -0700
>Reply-To:     Doyle Srader <srader at IMAP3.ASU.EDU>
>Sender:       Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
>From:         Doyle Srader <srader at IMAP3.ASU.EDU>
>Subject:      ADI Demo Debate
>To:           EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU
>
>Aff: Transparently White Decisionmaking. The plan adopted the
recommendations
>of Barbara Flagg to allow plaintiffs bringing Title VII job
discrimination
>suits to offer evidence of disparate treatment that fell short of
proving
>intent, and to offer a commercially viable alternative practice that
would
>eliminate the racially disparate impact without adversely affecting the
>business. The advantage was straightforward: Elimination of covert or
>unconscious racism in hiring practices.
>
>Negative arguments:
>Clinton - Non colorblind policies cause public outcry, derailing
Clinton's
>agenda, which kills IMF funding and takes U.S. leadership with it.
Khalilzad.
>Spending - Greenspan & interest rates.
>Critical race theory - Solutions within the legal system are doomed and
>actually make the plight of minorities worse.
>On the case - Lowering the hurdle for proving discrimination chills
companies
>hiring minorities. They'll hire more temps or demand more overtime
instead.
>Also, white males are getting a bum rap.
>Spending was kicked in the block, and Critical Race Theory was
jettisoned in
>the 2NR, leaving Clinton and the Minority Hiring Chill argument.
>
>Debaters: Jennifer Alme & Doyle Srader on the affirmative, Greg Achten
and
>Becky Opsata on the negative.
>
>Decision: Everyone but Josh Martin voted negative. Buncha stinking
Clinton
>hacks.
>
>Doyle Srader
>Director of Forensics
>Arizona State University
>(602) 965-5578
>
>"Praise poetry in the great lakes area of Africa is shouted during
>martial dances by a warrior stepping out of the ranks to the front of
the
>dancing area. The speed of delivery, the height of the pitch, the
martial
>attitude taken are part of the performance."
>   -- Jan Vansina, _Oral Tradition as History_, 1985
>
>For more information about debate at Arizona State:
>http://www.public.asu.edu/~srader/debate.html
>


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com



From asnider  Tue Aug  4 10:52:22 1998
From: asnider (Alfred C. Snider)
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 10:52:22 -0500
Subject: Subscribing, unsubscribing
In-Reply-To: <199808040402.AAA45608@moose.uvm.edu>
Message-ID: <TUE.4.AUG.1998.105222.0500.ASNIDER@ZOO.UVM.EDU>

All information about this can be found at:

http://list.uvm.edu/

Alfred Charles Snider -- Lawrence Professor of Forensics, University of Vermont
Mail: 475 Main Street, UVM, Burlington, VT 05405-4225
Phone: 802-656-0097, Fax: 802-656-4275
DEBATE CENTRAL:  Debate's Biggest Website http://debate.uvm.edu/
WORLD DEBATE INSTITUTE 1998 - make plans now - http://debate.uvm.edu/ndi.html



From srader  Tue Aug  4 10:25:36 1998
From: srader (Doyle Srader)
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 08:25:36 -0700
Subject: ADI Demo Debate
In-Reply-To: <19980804144532.26019.qmail@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <TUE.4.AUG.1998.082536.0700.SRADER@IMAP3.ASU.EDU>

On Tue, 4 Aug 1998, Joshua Hoe wrote:

> Doyle...you are still losing on Clinton :)....Josh

Clearly, you're confused. My debate career was over before Clinton was
elected. Back in the day, I had the devil's own time with Bush, and the even
better Reagan credibility disad.

Did I mention that Lexis/Nexis didn't make the scene until I was a fifth year
senior? Dear God, I'm old.

Of course, Josh Hoe is quite a bit older than I. Even judged me once.

Back to work.

Doyle Srader
Director of Forensics
Arizona State University
(602) 965-5578

"Praise poetry in the great lakes area of Africa is shouted during
martial dances by a warrior stepping out of the ranks to the front of the
dancing area. The speed of delivery, the height of the pitch, the martial
attitude taken are part of the performance."
   -- Jan Vansina, _Oral Tradition as History_, 1985

For more information about debate at Arizona State:
http://www.public.asu.edu/~srader/debate.html



From steelek  Tue Aug  4 11:28:02 1998
From: steelek (Kelly Steele)
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 12:28:02 -0400
Subject: Winding Down
In-Reply-To: <46b1c0a5.35c6bb1d@aol.com>
Message-ID: <TUE.4.AUG.1998.122802.0400.STEELEK@GUSUN.GEORGETOWN.EDU>

Who is it that you think (on behalf of NDT) claimed that there is nothing
wrong with forgery?  I don't know that anyone ever questioned whether it
was right or wrong or whether or not the act committed against you was
very serious.  Here you go again.....for someone so quick to criticize
others' "reading comprehension" you're not too on the ball.  Perhaps its
because you see what you want to see in others' posts.  Good luck
searching for fuses for your next "flame bomb" in this one.....

Opening more "windows to my soul" for Bear's peep show,
K.Steele

On Tue, 4 Aug 1998, Michael Bear Bryant wrote:

> In a message dated 98-08-03 22:12:18 EDT, you write:
>
> << If we want to be technical, this is no more a crime than prank calling
>  someone on the telephone, except that this is in a more public forum.  So,
>  Bear, next time you call the NDT host about rooms, it may take awhile for
>  them to accomodate you so they can check the validity of the call.
>
>  Ari Meltzer
>  Part of the Evil NDT Conspiracy in Los Angeles
>   >>
>
> 1. Why is the tone of your public notice here so different from the
> backchannel you sent me pleading the case of why it wasn't Damus? Do you think
> it's important for you to join the public-ridicule bandwagon to maintain NDT
> respect?
>
> 2. I can seriously understand the incentive you have to minimize the
> significance of actions that have been taken against me. Truly.
>
> 3. Does it concern you that a number of posts have called for the firing of
> any Director involved in this sort of chicanery?
>
> Well, if it's not Damus, I guess you don't have to worry, right? After all,
> what harm is there to impersonating a person's identity over telephone lines?
> Oh, that's right - it's a felony...
>
> Let me see if I can strain some NDT logic for you - it's ok to impersonate
> Bear's account, since he's crazy and who cares? But let that moron suggest
> that those minimizing this act should waste a strike on him and he's the most
> irresponsible educator in history? Wow. You folks don't have to worry about
> any crusade to damage NDT on my part. You're doing an excellent job on your
> own. The impact of divorcing value discussions from intercollegiate debate is
> definitely showing...
>
> I don't even really blame the actions taken on any one individual. Clearly the
> very core of a community is rotten when so many highly-respected NDT
> individuals can do no more than claim that there was nothing really wrong with
> the act of forging an account header.
>
> Thanks for simply illustrating my initial point. Thanks for playing. Thanks
> for showing others.
>
> Michael Bryant
>



From asnider  Tue Aug  4 14:32:22 1998
From: asnider (Alfred C. Snider)
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 14:32:22 -0500
Subject: WDI 8/2-3/98
Message-ID: <TUE.4.AUG.1998.143222.0500.ASNIDER@ZOO.UVM.EDU>

Practice debates have begun. The "practice" case is one that eliminates the
"cronyism" defense for not hiring women and racial groups. Put together by
Josh Hoe, Jackie Massey, Ken Delaughder, and Steve Woods.

The weather is absolutely beautiful, sunny and in the low 80's.

Five high speed copiers are available, and we really do have free copying!

Check out the new photos at the website. http://debate.uvm.edu/ndi.html

8/3 Monday
8:45 AM Meeting   RTT
9 AM  Lecture: Civil Rights #4 David Berube's Critique Checklist
10 AM Lecture: Disad #1  Paul Kerr
11 AM Lecture: Answering DAs Kevin Ayotte
11:30  Lunch
1 PM  Practice Debates (60 teams debated)
3 PM  Argument Groups
5 PM  Dinner
7 PM  Lecture: 2ac/1ar/2ar  Josh Hoe
8 PM Argument Groups

8/4 Tuesday
8:45 AM Meeting   RTT
9 AM  Lecture: CP #1  Jan Hovden
10 AM Lecture: Top #2  Jamey Dumas
10:30 AM Lecture: Cross Ex  Eric Morris
11 AM Lecture: Briefing Eric Cornellier
11:30  Lunch
1 PM  Practice Debates
3 PM  Argument Groups
5 PM  Dinner
7 PM  Speaking Drills  RTT
7:30 PM Argument Groups

Wish you were here!

Tuna


Alfred Charles Snider -- Lawrence Professor of Forensics, University of Vermont
Mail: 475 Main Street, UVM, Burlington, VT 05405-4225
Phone: 802-656-0097, Fax: 802-656-4275
DEBATE CENTRAL:  Debate's Biggest Website http://debate.uvm.edu/
WORLD DEBATE INSTITUTE 1998 - make plans now - http://debate.uvm.edu/ndi.html

>From  Tue Aug  4 13:56:42 1998
Message-Id: <TUE.4.AUG.1998.135642.0500.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 6474 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 4 Aug 1998 14:54:50 -0400
Received: from mail.uttyl.edu ([192.88.13.2]) by list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB
 8.7/8.7) with SMTP id OAA09270 for <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Tue, 4 Aug
 1998 14:54:48 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by mail.uttyl.edu(Lotus SMTP MTA SMTP v4.6 (462.2 9-3-1997))  id
 86256656.006813DA ; Tue, 4 Aug 1998 13:56:48 -0500
X-Lotus-FromDomain: UT TYLER
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Message-ID: <86256656.00659684.00 at mail.uttyl.edu>
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 13:56:42 -0500
Reply-To: Jack_Rogers at MAIL.UTTYL.EDU
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Jack Rogers <Jack_Rogers at MAIL.UTTYL.EDU>
Subject: Patriot Games Tourney Invite
Comments: To: pikap-l at nicanor.acu.edu, parli at willamette.edu

        3rd Annual "Patriot Games" Speech & Debate Swing Tournament
               The University of Texas at Tyler & L.S.U. - S
                           November 13-15, 1998

August 1998

Dear Forensic Colleagues:

On  behalf  of  the  Universities of Texas at Tyler and LSU-S please accept
this  invitation  to  the third annual "Patriot Games" tournament, which we
will co-host on the campus of UT-Tyler on November 13-15, 1998.

Last  year, we were one of the largest combined tournaments on the schedule
with  over  700 IE slots and 100 debate entries.  Parli easily made octo's.
This  year, we offer competition in five divisions of debate:  CEDA Team --
Open and Novice; CEDA LD; Open Parli; and Open IPDA-Public Debate)  and all
11  AFA-NIET IE's.  Once again, this year, all debaters will be eligible to
experiment  in the Public Debate Division without sacrificing their regular
debate  entry  since  "public"  will be offered in conflict with the "B" IE
events.  LSU-S  will  co-host a one day IE only swing tournament on Friday.
Two  tournaments  for  the  travel  time  and expense of one!!!  We have an
experienced tabroom staff with Jorji Jarzabek (LSU-Shreveport), Mike Fisher
(Arkansas State) and Richard Smith (Cameron).

The tournament hotel will be the Holiday Inn SE Crossing at 3310 Troup Hwy.
They  have  offered a flat rate of $58.00, which is excellent for a special
event  in  Tyler.  To guarantee the rate, dial direct at (903) 593-3600 and
mention  the  tournament  by  October 12, 1998.  The backup choice is right
down  the  street.   The  Hampton  Inn at  (903) 596-7752,  3130 Troop Hwy,
offers  a  rate  of  $65-69,  but  includes a full complimentary breakfast.
Their  cutoff date is October 11th.  If you are a team on a tighter budget,
give me a call for less expensive recommendations.

If  you  have  any  questions, comments or suggestions, please feel free to
contact  us.   We  look  forward  to  welcoming you to our campus for great
competition and a lot of fun.

Jack E. Rogers, Director of Forensics, UT-Tyler
Office:     (903)     566-7099       Fax:     (903)    566-7287     E-mail:
jrogers at mail.uttyl.edu

                         Schedule

Early Registration       7-10 pm   Nov 12 (Thursday)         Azelea Room
                                                   Holiday Inn
Fri., Nov. 13  8:00 Registration (UT Student Center)
          9:00 Extemp Draw
          9:30 Round 1, Pattern A
          10:45     Round 1, Pattern B        (RD1-Public Debate)
          12:00     Extemp Draw
          12:30     Round 2, A
          1:45 Round 2, B                (RD2-Public Debate)
          3:00 Extemp Draw    --   Registration UT-Tyler Tourney
          3:30 Finals A
          4:45 Finals B            (RD3-Public Debate)
          6:15 Debate Round 1 (UT Tyler Tourney)
          7:45 LSU-S Swing Awards (Univ. Center)
          8:30 Debate Round 2 (UT Tyler Tourney)

Sat., Nov. 14  8:00 Round 3, Debate
          9:45 Round 4, Debate
          11:30     Extemp Draw
          12:00     Round 1, Pattern A
          1:30 Round 1, Pattern B        (RD4-Public Debate)
          3:00 Round 5, Debate
          4:45 Extemp Draw
          5:15 Round 2, A
          6:30 Debate Round 6
          7:45 Round 2, B                (RD5-Public Debate)


Sun., Nov. 15  8:00 Extemp Draw
          8:30 Finals A
          9:45 Finals B            (RD 6-Public Debate)
          1:00 Awards Assembly (Univ. Center)
          ASAP Debate Elimination Rounds

Debate:  Five  divisions  of  debate  will be offered: Team Open and Novice
CEDA,  LD  (CEDA  Topic),  Open Parli and Public Debate.  Parli will follow
NPDA  "practices," 7-8-8-8-4-5.  However, it should be noted that these are
"practices"  ONLY.   The Tournament Director reserves the right, under NPDA
Guidelines,  to  make  any  decisions  that better facilitate the efficient
operation of the tournament.  Team CEDA debate will use 8-3-4 w/5 prep.  LD
time   limits   will  be  6-3-7-3-4-6-3  with  5  prep.   Public  will  use
5-2-7-2-3-4-3.   Novice means exactly that.  We follow CEDA definitions and
policies  with regard to divisions. We also follow a fifteen minute forfeit
rule, so don't be late.  We will not break brackets during elims.
I.E.'s:  We  follow  AFA-NIET  rules as closely as possible.  A student may
enter  no more than three events per conflict pattern.  The tabroom will do
everything   possible   to  schedule  competitors  strategically  to  avoid
conflict;  however,  the  tabroom assumes no responsibility for them making
their rounds.  Enter at your own risk.  Pattern A: Extemp, Persuasive, Duo,
Poetry,  ADS;  Pattern  B:  Impromptu,  Informative,  Prose,  POI,  DI, CA.
Pentathlon  is  defined  as  five  events  (minimum  of  1  prepared  PA; 1
unprepared PA; and 1 Interp).
Judges:  A  debate  critic  covers two teams; four LDers; or one team and 2
LDers  (essentially  four debaters)   An I.E. critic covers six entries per
pattern.   Judges  are  obligated  one  round  past  the  point  that their
competitors  are  eliminated.    PLEASE  UNDERSTAND  -- this is Tyler.  The
number of judges for hire is extremely limited.  Bring a judge!!!!
Entries:  Only  four  entries  per  event  per  school  will  count towards
sweepstakes.    Additional   entries   will   be  allowed  for  non  sweeps
participation  as  room  allows.   The tabroom will automatically score and
advance  your  top four competitors.  To qualify for entry into the Overall
Sweeps  Division,  a  school must tender a significant entry in both debate
and IE's.
Awards:  LSU  Swing:  1st-3rd place in Sweeps; 1st-5th place in Pentathlon;
All IE finalists will receive an award.  UT-Tyler "Patriot Games:"  1st-3rd
Place  in:  Overall  Sweeps,  Debate Sweeps, IE Sweeps, Swing Sweeps (LSU-S
points  carried  over), and all divisions of debate.  All finalists in IE's
will receive an award.  1st-5th speaker in all divisions of debate.  Awards
will  be based upon the following formula:  Debate: All team wins or byes =
5  points.   All LD and Public wins or byes = 2.5 points.  Debate Speakers:
1st  =  6  points;  2nd = 5 points; 3rd = 4 points; 4th = 3 points; 5th = 2
points.   IE's:  Prelim  points - 1st in round = 3 points; 2nd in round = 2
points; 3rd in round = 1 point.  Finals points -  1st place = 6 points; 2nd
place = 5 points; 3rd place = 4 points; 4th place = 3 points; 5th place = 2
points; 6th place = 1 points.  No points are awarded for Pentathlon.
Fees:  Debate teams are $40.00 each; LD and Public entries are $25.00 each.
IE  slots  are  $8.00  per  entry; Duos are $10.00 each.  Debate Judges are
$50.00  per  uncovered team; $25.00 per uncovered LD entry.  IE critics are
$8.00  per uncovered slot.  Fees are assessed on your entry as it stands at
5:00  p.m. (CST), Wednesday, November 11th; after which,  a $15.00 nuisance
fee  will be charged for each "correction" to your entry.   Only drops will
be  accepted  at  registration  and  they  are double ($30) + regular fees.
Dropped  judges  at  registration are double.  If replacement judges aren't
available , you will drop the entry the dropped judge would have covered.


Deadlines:  Entries must be received no later than 5:00 p.m. (CST) Tuesday,
November  10.   If  you use the mail -- PLEASE call to confirm.  The postal
system  is  not  what  it used to be.  OUR PREFERENCE 1) Email,  2) FAX; 3)
Call; 4) U.S. POSTAL SERVICE.

                                Entry/Fees

Name of School: _______________________________ CODE:__________
Phone numbers: ______________________________________________

Debate:
CEDA TEAMS:                              L/D:

__________________/_________________  O  N         __________________
__________________/_________________  O  N         __________________
__________________/_________________  O  N         __________________
__________________/_________________  O  N         __________________
__________________/_________________  O  N         __________________
__________________/_________________  O  N         __________________
Judges:                                  Judges:
_________________________                     __________________
_________________________                     __________________

PARLI TEAMS:                             Public:

__________________/_________________          __________________
__________________/_________________          __________________
__________________/_________________          __________________
__________________/_________________          __________________
__________________/_________________          __________________
__________________/_________________          __________________
Judges:                                  Judges:
_________________________                     __________________
_________________________                     __________________

                            Individual Events:

Name:               Event:
          Flight A:                                Flight B:
          EXT  PER  POE  ADS  DUO  Partner           IMP  INF PRO POI DI CA
LSU-S UTT  Both      PENT
___________________________________________________________________________
_______
___________________________________________________________________________
_______
___________________________________________________________________________
_______
___________________________________________________________________________
_______
___________________________________________________________________________
_______
___________________________________________________________________________
_______
___________________________________________________________________________
_______
___________________________________________________________________________
_______
___________________________________________________________________________
_______
___________________________________________________________________________
_______
___________________________________________________________________________
_______
___________________________________________________________________________
_______
Judges: ___________________________________

Debate Fees:

___ Debate Teams @ $40.00 each                __________
___ LD/Public  entries @ $25.00 each          __________
___ Uncovered Teams @ $50.00 each         __________
___ Uncovered LD entries @ $25.00 each   __________
Subtotal Debate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    ___________

Individual Events:

LSU-S Swing                              Patriot Games
___  IE  slots  @  $8.00  each ='s      __________           ___ IE slots @
$8.00 each ='s            ___________
___  Duo's @ $10.00 each ='s   __________           ___ Duo's @ $10.00 each
='s             ___________
___  Uncovered slots @ $8.00  __________       ___ Unocovered slots @ $8.00
___________

Subtotal  IE's  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . . . . . . . . . . . .
____________

Total fees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .     ____________

Make  checks  payable  to  UT-Forensics.  Personal checks are accepted from
DOF's only.



From smithr  Tue Aug  4 14:21:58 1998
From: smithr (Ross Smith)
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 15:21:58 -0400
Subject: Cronyism defense case
Message-ID: <TUE.4.AUG.1998.152158.0400.SMITHR@WFU.EDU>

Question: can the cronyism defense also be used for age, national origin, or
other categories?

A counterplan to "eliminate the 'cronyism' defense in all Title VII cases"
would seem better, but perhaps not competitive. This counterplan seems to be
a topical aff. with some extratopical parts.

Many of the process oriented cases may be subject to these same
observations. The ADI paractice case plan might also be rewritten to be broader?

--Ross




At 02:32 PM 8/4/98 -0500, Alfred C. Snider wrote:
>Practice debates have begun. The "practice" case is one that eliminates the
>"cronyism" defense for not hiring women and racial groups. Put together by
>Josh Hoe, Jackie Massey, Ken Delaughder, and Steve Woods.

>From  Tue Aug  4 13:31:11 1998
Message-Id: <TUE.4.AUG.1998.133111.0600.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 6823 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 4 Aug 1998 15:26:00 -0400
Received: from mail.inconnect.com (mail.inconnect.com [209.140.64.7]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with SMTP id PAA40282 for
 <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Tue, 4 Aug 1998 15:25:59 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (qmail 29721 invoked from network); 4 Aug 1998 19:25:57 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO default) (209.140.68.86) by mail.inconnect.com
 with SMTP; 4 Aug 1998 19:25:57 -0000
X-Sender: TomDeGar at mail.inconnect.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19980804133111.006997d4 at mail.inconnect.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 13:31:11 -0600
Reply-To: TomDeGar at INCONNECT.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Tom DeGarlais <TomDeGar at INCONNECT.COM>
Subject: Re: my summer has been going well
Comments: To: Michael Miroslav Korcok <mmk1913 at GARNET.ACNS.FSU.EDU>
In-Reply-To: <000001bdbf5c$ac48f1c0$7602c992 at fsu.edu.fsu.edu>

At 11:55 PM 8/3/98 -0400, Korcok wrote:
>and i share
>everyone's alarm that both DeGarlais and Marlow are
>successfully reproducing.  and "howdy" to everyone who was
>in St. Louis.
>
>thank you for asking,
>michael miroslav korcok
>
>p.s. - how has your summer been going?
>
Lord help us all if Korcok ever decides to perpetuate some genetic
reproduction of himself (they say the cloning is going well)...Glad to hear
all is going well Mike.
Drop a line if you have a chance.
Tom



Tom, Marisa and Isaac DeGarlais
TomDeGar at inconnect.com
http://www.inconnect.com/~TomDeGar

>From  Tue Aug  4 15:34:08 1998
Message-Id: <TUE.4.AUG.1998.153408.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 6957 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 4 Aug 1998 15:34:45 -0400
Received: from imo22.mx.aol.com (imo22.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.66]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id PAA70144 for
 <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Tue, 4 Aug 1998 15:34:44 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo22.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id
 LEKBa20982; Tue, 4 Aug 1998 15:34:08 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 58
Message-ID: <5056ce01.35c76231 at aol.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 15:34:08 EDT
Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Michael Bear Bryant <MWBRYANT at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: Winding Down
Comments: To: steelek at gusun.georgetown.edu

In a message dated 98-08-04 12:32:22 EDT, Steele  writes:

<<
 Who is it that you think (on behalf of NDT) claimed that there is nothing
 wrong with forgery?  I don't know that anyone ever questioned whether it
 was right or wrong or whether or not the act committed against you was
 very serious.  Here you go again..... >>

Mr. Steele,

Either you have the worst case of selective perception in the recorded history
of mankind or you need to check on getting a new service provider. Have fun
re-reading the following excerpts, all from folks in NDT.

Shocked at your perception and what passes for ethics with so many in NDT,

Bryant

Reply-to:       ameltzer at USC.EDU (Ari Meltzer)
If we want to be technical, this is no more a crime than prank calling
someone on the telephone, except that this is in a more public forum.


Reply-to:       dperkins at FAS.HARVARD.EDU (Dallas Perkins)
How is it different from stealing or
fabricating letterhead from somebody and sending out a snail mail letter
over their forged signature?  IF, and this is a big IF, there is the
intent to defraud somebody of money or property, to intentionally
interfere with commerce, to cause harm to the public safety (as in the
case of a bomb threat), etc., then a crme has been committed.  However,
the simple case of the practical joker who sends out a false engagement
announcement, for example, or who writes a fictional confession to some
heinously distasteful act (as when Flynt told that story about Falwell
raping his mother in an outhouse,) I do not believe that any crime has
been committed.
I do know that there are special statutes that prohibit hacking into
somebody else's computer, even if only for thrills, and without any
damage.  However, by all accounts, those statutes would not apply here, as
no hacking occurred:  this was a simple forgery.

From:   mjg407 at casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Michael J Gottlieb)
 I'm on a few listserves, and people have pulled similar pranks on
me in the past.  I just laughed at it and posted to the listserv that it
wasn't really7 my  message.  And, I assure you, the content of that
message was far more damaging personaly than the obvious joke that was
uposted on this list.  I'm not saying that what this person did was ok, but
neither was it something to get so worked up about.  If you want to call
it a felony and do your best to prosecute, so be it.  I just think that
there are so many terrible things that happen every day in this country,
and maybe you should consider that you are not one of the "persecuted", at
least not due to this email forgery.

Reply-to:       mjg407 at CASBAH.ACNS.NWU.EDU (Michael J Gottlieb)
Good to see that you've consulted with an attourney over this most serious
matter of email impersonation.  I'm sure the FBI will be banging down the
door of whoever changed their "identity" information on netscape.



From smithr  Tue Aug  4 15:54:46 1998
From: smithr (Ross Smith)
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 16:54:46 -0400
Subject: Anyone have UNI invite?
Message-ID: <TUE.4.AUG.1998.165446.0400.SMITHR@WFU.EDU>

Changed computers, lost some electronic invitations. If anyone has  a copy
of the UNI one, I would appreciate a forward so I can make a hotel reservation.

--Ross



From race  Tue Aug  4 21:02:09 1998
From: race (David Rhaesa)
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 21:02:09 -0500
Subject: a generic card
Message-ID: <TUE.4.AUG.1998.210209.0500.RACE@MIDUSA.NET>

"Up to now, wherever equal rights were legally enacted and enforced,
wherever partnership between the sexes became stylish, these innovations
gave a sense of accomplishment to the elites who proposed and obtained
them, but left the majority of women untouched, if not worse off than
before."
                -- Ivan Illich

>From  Tue Aug  4 22:11:16 1998
Message-Id: <TUE.4.AUG.1998.221116.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 9269 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 4 Aug 1998 22:11:28 -0400
Received: from imo16.mx.aol.com (imo16.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.6]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id WAA49384 for
 <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Tue, 4 Aug 1998 22:11:27 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from Damus at aol.com by imo16.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id 0KMYa27698
 for <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU (Team Topic Debating in America)>; Tue, 4
 Aug 1998 22:11:16 +2000 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 18
Message-ID: <bf1392ae.35c7bf47 at aol.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 22:11:16 EDT
Reply-To: Damus at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: David Damus <Damus at AOL.COM>
Subject: Let's Move On--Stop the Madness!!!

I would like to make a few points with respect to the escelation to "DEFCON --
WHATEVER" and the like...

Bear and I disagree on issues...and via free speech voice our opinions (FYI--I
do not subscribe to M-debate and enjoy occasional banter). In my opinion, he
crosses a line...I responded (honestly in jest and wanting to have some fun
with him...no malicious intent!)...and it turns into who can out-do the other
via this public forum...is it protected free speech...well most should
be...then it gets ugly;

(1) PEOPLE ATTACKED INDIVIDUALS (Offends many)

(2) E-DEBATE CLUTTERED WITH WHAT I CALL "JUNK MAIL"--from Bear and I--and
others...

(3) ESCELATION INTO IMPERSONATION--wow--

(4) THREATS AND NAME CALLING ALL OVER THE PLACE--

(5) "McCarthy" style accusations and inuendo's--

Folks...this is wrong! I received a post from a friend who said they prefer
posts about tournaments, the topic and the activity...so I decided to stop.
I've been offline since 7-31-98 (as a "Prince" I like many have a job and must
make money to feed my court...) I sign on today (8-4-98 @ about 5:30 p.m. PST
and find TONS of E-mail...

I return to be told I must publically profess that I am innocent of
perpetuating a fraud...even though I am free from ANY guilt and BTW though
most folks were "presumed innocent"...oh well...this is out of control!

THIS IS STUPID!!! I am not required to deny something that I am incapable of
doing, and am actually sad that these posts have distorted the purpose of this
list!

This list is not a place for "Tracking Down" people...it should be a place to
discuss our activity...logistics of tournament travel...theory...ideas about
topics...and sure some public debate and light banter if you choose...it's
your right! (I do find it somewhat understandable that Bear would want to find
out the identity of the person that did him wrong...)

HOW ABOUT THE FOLLOWING:

(1) Whoever did impersonate Bear--you've crossed a line...your accountable.
Whomever did this could have made the same point without using Bear's AOL
account.--NOT COOL!

(2) BACKCHANNELS: Bear:--Your tone is offensive to me...but I'm a big-boy--I
invited some of it...let's just insult each-other via-backchannels--or let's
start a "Baddger-Debate" list-serve and people can have a reasonable
expectation of what they get when they open this e-mail.

(3) Let's move on and talk about the topic, tournaments, and maybe even a
little NDT/CEDA elitism...sure that's worthy of come constructive checks and
balances once in a while...

(4) Let's Stop Embarrassing ourselves and the entire NDT/CEDA community!  This
is really sad...I may have contributed...but I would like to see it stop.

Just Some thoughts!

David Damus
USC Trojans

>From  Tue Aug  4 21:49:25 1998
Message-Id: <TUE.4.AUG.1998.214925.0500.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 9465 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 4 Aug 1998 22:50:25 -0400
Received: from alpha.selu.edu (alpha.selu.edu [147.174.1.7]) by list.uvm.edu
 (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id WAA09358 for
 <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Tue, 4 Aug 1998 22:50:23 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from selu.edu by selu.edu (PMDF V5.1-9 #D3128) id
 <01J07YETES0GA74L3K at selu.edu> for edebate at list.uvm.edu; Tue, 4 Aug
 1998 21:50:00 CDT
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Message-ID: <01J07YIXPPEAA74L3K at selu.edu>
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 21:49:25 -0500
Reply-To: selliott at SELU.EDU
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: selliott at SELU.EDU
Organization: Southeastern Louisiana University
Subject: What does "repressive tolerance" mean?

What does the term "repressive tolerance" mean? How is it an argument in debate?scott Elliott



From Gary.N.Larson  Tue Aug  4 23:42:04 1998
From: Gary.N.Larson (Gary Larson)
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 23:42:04 -0500
Subject: STA 7.10
Message-ID: <TUE.4.AUG.1998.234204.0500.GARY.N.LARSON@WHEATON.EDU>

I will be away from e-mail until 8/16.  I will then honor any new requests
for STA updates.

Thanks,

GARY

>From  Wed Aug  5 03:12:44 1998
Message-Id: <WED.5.AUG.1998.031244.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 0594 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 5 Aug 1998 03:12:50 -0400
Received: from imo16.mx.aol.com (imo16.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.6]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id DAA57824 for
 <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Wed, 5 Aug 1998 03:12:49 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from Alapapa at aol.com by imo16.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id 8VLLa27698
 for <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Wed, 5 Aug 1998 03:12:44 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 214
Message-ID: <54de8312.35c805ee at aol.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 03:12:44 EDT
Reply-To: Alapapa at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: J B <Alapapa at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: prob. w/ list

he must've gotten like 763 of them at the rate he posts

:o)

jeff

In a message dated 8/3/98 10:01:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time, MWBRYANT at AOL.COM
writes:

> In a message dated 98-08-03 20:35:26 EDT, you write:
>
>  << Is anyone else sufferign this same pain in the ass as me? >>
>
>  Every single post I've made in the last week has been graced by that
notice.
>
>  Bear



From asnider  Wed Aug  5 08:16:16 1998
From: asnider (Alfred C. Snider)
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 08:16:16 -0500
Subject: Today at World Debate Institute
Message-ID: <WED.5.AUG.1998.081616.0500.ASNIDER@ZOO.UVM.EDU>

New photos available at the web site!

http://debate.uvm.edu/wdidaily.html

8/5 Wednesday
8:45 AM         Meeting                 RTT
9 AM            Panel: Diversity                RTT
10 AM           Lecture: Critique #1    Berube  RTT
11 AM           Skill/Topic             RTT
11:30           Lunch
1 PM            Practice Debates
3 PM            Argument Groups
5 PM            Dinner
7 PM            Speaking Drills         RTT
7:30 PM         Lecture: Critique #2 Shuster    RTT
8:30 PM         Argument Groups

Alfred Charles Snider -- Lawrence Professor of Forensics, University of Vermont
Mail: 475 Main Street, UVM, Burlington, VT 05405-4225
Phone: 802-656-0097, Fax: 802-656-4275
DEBATE CENTRAL:  Debate's Biggest Website http://debate.uvm.edu/
WORLD DEBATE INSTITUTE 1998 - make plans now - http://debate.uvm.edu/ndi.html

>From  Wed Aug  5 11:23:39 1998
Message-Id: <WED.5.AUG.1998.112339.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 3544 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 5 Aug 1998 11:24:46 -0400
Received: from imo21.mx.aol.com (imo21.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.65]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id LAA71560 for
 <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Wed, 5 Aug 1998 11:24:45 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo21.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id
 6PNQa12329; Wed, 5 Aug 1998 11:23:39 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 18
Message-ID: <ce386d1e.35c878fc at aol.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 11:23:39 EDT
Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Michael Bear Bryant <MWBRYANT at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: Email forgery
Comments: To: dperkins at fas.harvard.edu

In a message dated 98-08-04 20:30:28 EDT, you write:

<<
 Don't know who Whitmer is, but did you catch that post about the greats of
 debate:  Al Johnson???????  A real hero there!
 dp

  >>

I admit Al had his weaknesses, but I still remember him being the only person
with the guts to come over and try to calm me down after Bjork threw me out of
a tournament my teams were competing in on the U of U campus. Al always went
out of his way to make sure I was welcome on his campus. Al went out of his
way to help me get our novice parli squad up and running. Al not only ran the
NDT tournament, he was one of the two major driving forces behind the
establishment of Western parli. I remember when he ran District 9  BB (before
Bjork) and it sure seemed like there was three or four times as many schools
involved in NDT, as compared to the four or five left a year after Bjork took
over.

I also remember Al chewing me up one side of a wall and down the other after
he overheard me telling humorous stories about Pierre, the year after Pierre
had all his problems with law enforcement here in Ogden. When Al liked you, he
was a true friend, and that impression left a personal mark on me.

In short, while I've always held you in extreme respect, Dallas, your attitude
about folks, like Al, is the exact type of elitist trash-talking that so
enrages me.

Taking your advice,

Bryant



From schwartzman  Wed Aug  5 13:29:29 1998
From: schwartzman (Roy Schwartzman)
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 13:29:29 EST5EDT
Subject: Repressive Tolerance
Message-ID: <WED.5.AUG.1998.132929.EST5EDT.SCHWARTZMAN@GARNET.CLA.SC.EDU>

The phrase "repressive tolerance" specifically refers to a concept
developed by Herbert Marcuse, the neo-Marxist philosopher whose works
include _One-Dimensional Man_ and _Eros & Civilization_.  According
to Marcuse, "repressive tolerance" is a mechanism
purportedly democratic regimes use to quell dissent and silence
potentially subversive social movements.  Here's how it works.  A
social movement arises that poses a serious threat to the existing
social order.  The powers that be COULD simply crush the movement
through violence, censorship, or harassment.  That's the route
fascist and communist states typically have taken.  Marcuse argues
that democratic political systems make symbolic (but not substantive)
gestures to show that radical ideas are allowed within their
political system.  For example, the govt. spin on anarchists is to
celebrate the fact that only in this great democracy is uncensored
anarchist rhetoric permitted.  What originally was an anarchist
attack on existing govt. now becomes further reason to marvel at
the wonder of democracy.  By making it seem that radical movements
are allowed and encouraged, the radical edge of the movements is lost
because they are in effect incorporated into the existing power
structure.  As a result, the movement is absorbed and de-radicalized.
 Some theorists say this is how the civil rights movement and
feminism lost momentum.  Once a few highly symbolic measures were
taken that seemed to cater to the movements (e.g., granting the
franchise to women in 1920 & passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964),
it became very difficult for the social movements to portray the US
govt. as hostile and unresponsive.

Repressive tolerance could develop into a generic DA on this topic
in a number of ways.  I would envision it being used as an argument
vs. extending Title VII coverage.  The argument would show how, if
the aff. expands Title VII, the progress of other civil rights action
will slow because the govt. seems to be progressing toward greater
tolerance.  The impact would be, for example, the erosion of grounds
for more progressive social movements.  More generally, one might
argue that any USFG extension of civil rights would undermine any
non-governmental civil rights initiatives.

Dr. Roy Schwartzman
Interim Director of Debate
University of South Carolina

>From  Wed Aug  5 12:43:46 1998
Message-Id: <WED.5.AUG.1998.124346.0500.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 4939 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 5 Aug 1998 13:43:49 -0400
Received: from VIRGO.BSUVC.BSU.EDU (VIRGO.BSUVC.BSU.EDU [147.226.56.55]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id NAA48374 for
 <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Wed, 5 Aug 1998 13:43:48 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from BSUVC.bsu.edu by BSUVC.bsu.edu (PMDF V5.1-10 #21374) id
 <01J08TD880TC8WYKNJ at BSUVC.bsu.edu> for edebate at list.uvm.edu; Wed, 5
 Aug 1998 12:43:46 EST
X-VMS-To: IN%"edebate at list.uvm.edu"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Message-ID: <01J08TD880TE8WYKNJ at BSUVC.bsu.edu>
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 12:43:46 -0500
Reply-To: 00MHBAUER at BSUVC.BSU.EDU
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: mike Bauer <00mhbauer at BSUVC.BSU.EDU>
Subject: NDT distrcit V/CEDA east/north central coaches

Here is the tournament schedule I have so far, there are some over laps we
need to work out.
Sept. 25-26 Wheaton
Oct 2-4?? Ball State
Oct 9-11 Northern Illinois
Oct 16-18 Capital
Oct 24-26 Wayne State/Loyola/ Duquense yup 3 tournies on this date
Oct 30-1??Ball State
Nov 13-14 U Wisc. Oshkosh
Febr 13-14 Marquette
Febr 26-27 Wheaton

I'm missing Northwestern, Miami, Augustana, John Carroll, anyone else?
Bauer

>From  Wed Aug  5 13:57:12 1998
Message-Id: <WED.5.AUG.1998.135712.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 5057 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 5 Aug 1998 13:57:58 -0400
Received: from imo11.mx.aol.com (imo11.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.1]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id NAA25784 for
 <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Wed, 5 Aug 1998 13:57:54 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from Cballingll at aol.com by imo11.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id
 0OVMa04179; Wed, 5 Aug 1998 13:57:12 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 170
Message-ID: <a7172ad6.35c89cf9 at aol.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 13:57:12 EDT
Reply-To: Cballingll at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Chuck Ballingall <Cballingll at AOL.COM>
Subject: 1998-99 Russia topic wording change
Comments: To: cx-l at debate.net

Should the National Federation topic wording committee add the word
"government" to this year's topic?

Earlier this summer, there was a great deal of discussion on this listserv
about the wording of the Russia topic, and about the apparent omission of the
word "government" after "United States." At that time, several people
mentioned that the National Federation topic committee had the ability to
change the topic wording at their August meeting.

Well, it's August. The meeting takes place this weekend, in Breckinridge,
Colorado. The main topic for this meeting is the consideration of potential
topics for the 1999-2000 debate year. But, on Friday, there is always a vote
to formally accept the wording of the coming year's topic. It is at that point
that a change could be considered. For example, in 1990, modifying words were
added to the space exploration topic ("beyond the Earth's mesosphere"). To my
knowledge (which reaches back 20 years or so), that is the only change in a
topic that has occurred in this manner.

But the opportunity does present itself. My personal belief is that we
committed an error of omission in leaving the word "government" out of the the
topic. There is always a desire to use as few words as are necessary in a
topic, for a number of reasons, and the feeling of the committee at the time
was that affirmatives would be forced to use the US GOVERNMENT as the agent of
action because of our use of the term "foreign policy."  The better
definitions seemed to indicate that only a government could have a foreign
policy (though there certainly wasn't a universality of definitions on this
point, I will admit).

As chair of the wording committee this year, I am most interested in the
reactions of those who are about to debate, coach, and judge on this topic to
the possibility of making the change. Obviously, time is of the essence; the
meeting takes place Friday, and I will be receiving messages at this email
address only until late Thursday evening. But I would appreciate input.

One impression I have is that there are very few (if any) institute
affirmatives that are NOT using the U.S. GOVERNMENT as the agent of action. Is
that true?

Chuck Ballingall
Damien High School
La Verne, California
National Federation Topic Committee Chair



From bauscsa4  Wed Aug  5 13:27:07 1998
From: bauscsa4 (Stefan Bauschard)
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 14:27:07 -0400
Subject: 1998-99 Russia topic wording change
In-Reply-To: <a7172ad6.35c89cf9@aol.com>
Message-ID: <WED.5.AUG.1998.142707.0400.BAUSCSA4@WFU.EDU>

This doesn't seem to be a big deal to me for a few reasons

1) I don't know of a case that doesn't use the US government yet.  I can't
think of a good case that wouldn't use the US government.
2)  I think the negative can win the "foreign policy is made by
governments" T violation without any difficulty.
3) There are plenty of good generics against non-governmental actors
contradicting our foreign policy.  Sounds like an interesting debate to
me.
4)  If there are viable, non-government actors they will have to be
researched anyhow because the neg could counterplan with them.

I don't think anyone will care if you change it, but I don't see the need
to change it.

>From  Wed Aug  5 14:58:15 1998
Message-Id: <WED.5.AUG.1998.145815.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 5664 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 5 Aug 1998 14:59:32 -0400
Received: from imo13.mx.aol.com (imo13.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.3]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id OAA87834 for
 <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Wed, 5 Aug 1998 14:59:03 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from DrAllen81 at aol.com by imo13.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id
 8COa011436; Wed, 5 Aug 1998 14:58:15 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 56
Message-ID: <f8ea78d4.35c8ab59 at aol.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 14:58:15 EDT
Reply-To: DrAllen81 at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Allen Brooks <DrAllen81 at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: 1998-99 Russia topic wording change
Comments: To: Cballingll at aol.com
Comments: cc: cx-l at debate.net

Stefan's post was 100% right except that some schools might aim towards having
NGOs like the Soros Foundation, etc to do things like give them aid.  This
does happen in the status quo and if an aff chose to do this, then it would be
perfectly topical cause the action is arguably US action and the argument that
NGOs cant do it because its unconstitutional is wrong because they can still
give them money.  I dunno if that huge run-on made sense but basically NGOs
can do plan if it does give them aid.

allen
pfhs debate

In a message dated 98-08-05 13:59:25 EDT, Cballingll at aol.com writes:

<< Should the National Federation topic wording committee add the word
 "government" to this year's topic?

 Earlier this summer, there was a great deal of discussion on this listserv
 about the wording of the Russia topic, and about the apparent omission of the
 word "government" after "United States." At that time, several people
 mentioned that the National Federation topic committee had the ability to
 change the topic wording at their August meeting.

 Well, it's August. The meeting takes place this weekend, in Breckinridge,
 Colorado. The main topic for this meeting is the consideration of potential
 topics for the 1999-2000 debate year. But, on Friday, there is always a vote
 to formally accept the wording of the coming year's topic. It is at that
point
 that a change could be considered. For example, in 1990, modifying words were
 added to the space exploration topic ("beyond the Earth's mesosphere"). To my
 knowledge (which reaches back 20 years or so), that is the only change in a
 topic that has occurred in this manner.

 But the opportunity does present itself. My personal belief is that we
 committed an error of omission in leaving the word "government" out of the
the
 topic. There is always a desire to use as few words as are necessary in a
 topic, for a number of reasons, and the feeling of the committee at the time
 was that affirmatives would be forced to use the US GOVERNMENT as the agent
of
 action because of our use of the term "foreign policy."  The better
 definitions seemed to indicate that only a government could have a foreign
 policy (though there certainly wasn't a universality of definitions on this
 point, I will admit).

 As chair of the wording committee this year, I am most interested in the
 reactions of those who are about to debate, coach, and judge on this topic to
 the possibility of making the change. Obviously, time is of the essence; the
 meeting takes place Friday, and I will be receiving messages at this email
 address only until late Thursday evening. But I would appreciate input.

 One impression I have is that there are very few (if any) institute
 affirmatives that are NOT using the U.S. GOVERNMENT as the agent of action.
Is
 that true?

 Chuck Ballingall
 Damien High School
 La Verne, California
 National Federation Topic Committee Chair >>



From STDKCS11  Wed Aug  5 14:31:46 1998
From: STDKCS11 (Kirby Shoemake)
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 14:31:46 -0500
Subject: debate schedule
Message-ID: <WED.5.AUG.1998.143146.0500.STDKCS11@SHSU.EDU>

Debate Community

        It is my honor to announce the following will be hosted in the South -
Central Region.

                                                        Hatton
Texas ~V TX

Sep 18-19       * Southwest Texas State University, San Marcos, TX; IEs
Sep 19-20       * University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX; IEs
Sept 25-26      * University of Houston, Houston, TX; IEs
Sep 27          * Rice University, Houston, TX; IEs
Oct 9-11        Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, TX; Team, Public, IEs
Oct 23-24       St. Mary's University, San Antonio, TX; NPDA, Public
Oct 25          Rice University, Houston, TX; IEs
Nov 6-8         Del Mar College, Corpus Christi, TX; IEs
Nov 13-15       * University of Texas-Tyler, Tyler, TX; CEDA, L-D, NPDA, Public,
IEs
Dec 4-6         University of Houston, Houston, TX; NPDA, IEs
Dec 5-7         University of North Texas, Denton, TX; Team
Jan 23-25       Baylor University, Waco, TX; NDT
Feb 5-7         Lee College, Baytown, TX; Team, NPDA, CEDA, L-D, IEs
Feb 19-21       Southwest Texas State University, San Marcos, TX; Team NPDA,
Public
Feb 20-21       * University of Texas-Tyler, Tyler, TX; NPDA, Public, IEs
Feb 26-28       * Texas Southern University, Houston, TX; NPDA, IEs

Louisiana ~V LA
Nov 13-14       * Louisiana State University - Shreveport, Shreveport, LA; CEDA,
L-D, Public, IEs
Dec 4-5         Louisiana State University ~V Shreveport, Shreveport, LA; NPDA,
Public, IEs
Jan 15-16       * McNeese State University, Lake Charles, LA; Team, NPDA, CEDA,
IEs
Jan 17          * McNeese State University, Lake Charles, LA (Hosted by Webster
University); IEs
Feb 19-20       * Louisiana State University ~V Shreveport, Shreveport, LA; CEDA,
L-D, NPDA, Public, IEs



From jrigd  Wed Aug  5 17:25:29 1998
From: jrigd (Jennifer Rigdon)
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 15:25:29 -0700
Subject: joe v. or matt m. at siu
Message-ID: <WED.5.AUG.1998.152529.0700.JRIGD@GORILLA.BLACKBURN.EDU>

please backchannel me....thanks
sorry for the clutter
jen rigdon



From swhalen  Wed Aug  5 15:35:21 1998
From: swhalen (Shawn T Whalen)
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 13:35:21 -0700
Subject: District 9 history
Message-ID: <WED.5.AUG.1998.133521.0700.SWHALEN@SFSU.EDU>

Bear,

Tried to send this back channel, but aol bounced it back (I figured it was
associated with the forgery investigation.) Anyway...

On Wed, 5 Aug 1998, Michael Bear Bryant wrote:

> I remember when he ran District 9  BB (before
> Bjork) and it sure seemed like there was three or four times as many schools
> involved in NDT, as compared to the four or five left a year after Bjork took
> over.

Is that really true?  My memory of Districts in Al's last year as chair
being Weber, Utah, Wyoming, New Mexico, UNLV and thats it.  I'm sure its
possible that I've forgotten a few but I was under the impression that it
had been ages since there were as many as 12 schools in district 9.

Just curious if I'm out of it,

SW

>From  Wed Aug  5 15:46:54 1998
Message-Id: <WED.5.AUG.1998.154654.0500.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 7191 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 5 Aug 1998 16:47:03 -0400
Received: from viper.uni.edu (viper.uni.edu [134.161.1.16]) by list.uvm.edu
 (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id QAA03478 for
 <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Wed, 5 Aug 1998 16:47:02 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from uni.edu by uni.edu (PMDF V5.1-12 #U2748) id
 <01J090420WVM8WYPAV at uni.edu> for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 5 Aug
 1998 15:46:55 CDT
X-VMS-To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU
MIME-version: 1.0
Message-ID: <01J090420WVO8WYPAV at uni.edu>
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 15:46:54 -0500
Reply-To: Catherine.Palczewski at UNI.EDU
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Catherine Palczewski <Catherine.Palczewski at UNI.EDU>
Subject: uni invite

Greetings folks,

The U. Northern Iowa invite for the Ulrich Season Opener Debate
Tournament was sent out via snail mail in mid-July.  If you have not
reveived an invite, and want one, drop me an email (palczewski at uni.edu).
The dates are Sept 19-21.  The tournament hotel is the Holiday Inn
Waterloo -- the one attached to the convention center (all elim
rounds will be held at the convention center).  Their number is
319-233-7560.

Cate Palczewski

>From  Wed Aug  5 17:45:59 1998
Message-Id: <WED.5.AUG.1998.174559.0400.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 7648 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 5 Aug 1998 17:46:03 -0400
Received: from MORRISVILLE.EDU (SNYMORAB.MORRISVILLE.EDU [136.204.81.12]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id RAA03416 for
 <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Wed, 5 Aug 1998 17:46:02 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from morrisville.edu by morrisville.edu (PMDF V5.1-7 #18385) id
 <01J09440AMZK8WW2JT at morrisville.edu> for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 5
 Aug 1998 17:46:00 EDT
X-VMS-To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Message-ID: <01J09440B6AA8WW2JT at morrisville.edu>
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 17:45:59 -0400
Reply-To: WHITNEMR at MORRISVILLE.EDU
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: WHITNEMR at MORRISVILLE.EDU
Organization: SUNY College of Agriculture & Technology - Morrisville, New York
Subject: Re: forgery/"Greats of debate"

  As the person who posted the note about the forgery which contained
Dallas' response, I want to make a correction. I did not use the phrase
"greats of debate," you did. I spoke of "respected" people in debate, which
could have little, if anything, to do with how you obviously interpret
"greatness."  Whether you respect Al Johnson or not is obviously a personal
decision of yours. But I was coming from the perspective that he is one of
the few genuinely caring people I've had the pleasure to meet. I also
wouldn't be surprised if he's forgotten more about debate than I'll ever
know, but that's irrelevent to the issue of respect. I am not the least
bit bashful to stand up and say that I truly respect him. Also, Dulles,
that's Whitney, not Whitmer.

                  Mark Whitney
                  SUNY Morrisville

>From  Wed Aug  5 15:43:54 1998
Message-Id: <WED.5.AUG.1998.154354.0500.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 7714 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 5 Aug 1998 17:47:30 -0400
Received: from goose.prod.itd.earthlink.net (goose.prod.itd.earthlink.net
 [207.217.120.18]) by list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id
 RAA54704 for <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Wed, 5 Aug 1998 17:47:29 -0400
 (EDT)
Received: from 208.252.1.95 (1Cust95.tnt3.grapevine.tx.da.uu.net
 [208.252.1.95]) by goose.prod.itd.earthlink.net (8.8.7/8.8.5) with
 SMTP id NAA07254 for <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Wed, 5 Aug 1998 13:40:00
 -0700 (PDT)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0-C-NSCP (Macintosh; U; PPC)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <35C8DBD9.4855 at mail.blackburn.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <35C8C406.EA3 at earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 15:43:54 -0500
Reply-To: gvinedebate at earthlink.net
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Jane Boyd <gvinedebate at EARTHLINK.NET>
Organization: Grapevine HS Debate
Subject: Judges needed

NOTICE:
HIRED JUDGES NEEDED!
GRAPEVINE CLASSIC T.F.A. TOURNAMENT
SEPTEMBER 11-12

August 4, 1998

Dear Friends:

We are in the process of procuring judges for the tenth annual Grapevine
Classic Tournament September 11-12.  We would like to hire experienced
Cross-Examination Debate and Lincoln-Douglas Debate judges.  Judge's
will be paid $10.00 a round for every debate round judged.  If we ask
you to judge an I.E. round, you will be paid an additional $5.00 per
round. If you are hired to judge VCX you will probably not be used in
IE's.  But the schedule is such for VLD that you may be expected to
judge both IE and Debate rounds.  We will use paid judges for debate as
priority judges in all rounds of debate.

We will provide judges housing if they must travel 50 or more miles one
way.

Please contact me bySept. 1-- but the sooner we can have some idea of
the judges the better.

Once again, thank you for supporting our cause.

                                                                Sincerely,


                                                                Jane Boyd
                                                                Director

3223 Mustang Drive, Grapevine, Texas 76051
817-251-5248
Fax:  817-481-5957

>From  Wed Aug  5 16:57:43 1998
Message-Id: <WED.5.AUG.1998.165743.0500.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 7976 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 5 Aug 1998 17:58:34 -0400
Received: from alpha.selu.edu (alpha.selu.edu [147.174.1.7]) by list.uvm.edu
 (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id RAA102530 for
 <edebate at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Wed, 5 Aug 1998 17:58:30 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from selu.edu by selu.edu (PMDF V5.1-9 #D3128) id
 <01J092HDMVRKA754W4 at selu.edu> for edebate at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 5 Aug
 1998 16:57:47 CDT
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Message-ID: <01J092NBTG18A754W4 at selu.edu>
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 16:57:43 -0500
Reply-To: selliott at SELU.EDU
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: selliott at SELU.EDU
Organization: Southeastern Louisiana University
Subject: Re: Repressive Tolerance
In-Reply-To: "Your message dated Wed, 05 Aug 1998 13:29:29 +0000 (EST5EDT)"
 <199808052151.RAA25991 at lab.housing.fsu.edu>

thanks

>From  Wed Aug  5 18:06:19 1998
Message-Id: <WED.5.AUG.1998.180619.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 8112 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 5 Aug 1998 18:06:29 -0400
Received: from imo18.mx.aol.com (imo18.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.8]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id SAA55362 for
 <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Wed, 5 Aug 1998 18:06:28 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from VIKjonah at aol.com by imo18.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id 8LKWa29489
 for <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Wed, 5 Aug 1998 18:06:19 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 56
Message-ID: <1d9a2d4f.35c8d75c at aol.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 18:06:19 EDT
Reply-To: VIKjonah at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Vik Keenan <VIKjonah at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: 1998-99 Russia topic wording change

To begin, if adding the word government is really a necessity for the
resolution, then it would probably be best to add the entire term "federal
government".  However, I doubt that amending the current wording is really
necessary at all.

Allen and Stefan make excellent points on why it is irrelevant if the
resolution is changed:  anyone who would find an aff plan using an NGO grossly
abusive can easily create solid T arguments that foreign policy must be done
by a federal government, that the United States in context is the federal
government, and that the word "its" refers to United States necessitating
foreign policy as representative of the entire nation (must be federal). Aside
from the procedural tactics, disads aplenty exist on NGO's being a
contradiction or even a detriment to FP.

Allen's point that aid form an NGO is arguably US action is exactly the point
of the activity:  how well can an affirmative argue that the Soros Foundation
(or any other) by being located in the United States can take action that is
considered the foreign policy of the United States.  Any debater/team that
wants to take this approach would obviously do the research to back it up (I
hope) and to answer the expected neg arguments.  And in the end this
dedication to preparation should result in a better debate and better debaters
- both the ones who have done the extensive preparation and the ones who find
themselves contending with the unexpected and well prepared argument.

And since this scenario is most likely for aid cases there is a limit to how
abusive one can get with the resolution without "government" - unless someone
gets really ambitious and decides to research George Soros buying all Russian
nukes to dealert/dearm himself.

However, there is another possibility that Allen and Stefan do not mention
that is also possible under the current wording (and even perhaps with
"government included, but "federal" excluded) - there have been a few examples
of municipalities/cities creating "foreign policies" of their own.  Usually it
is in the form of sanctions that this occurs, although under some
interpretations New York's crackdown against Russian diplomats delinquent with
parking tickets was interpreted as a "foreign policy".  I do know NYC has some
other standing FP, and there are about 20 other municipalities who have
declared their own FP, so technically the plan is normal means. (Time wise, I
know a few sanctions were back against South Africa for apartheid and as
recent as against India and Pakistan.  Sorry I don't have more specifics - my
internet connection is flaky so I can't remember where I read about this)

A municipality as an actor may be slightly more legitimate than an NGO (I say
slightly) because one can justify that it is geographically a part of the
United States giving a slight twist to T answers.  Obviously though, it does
fall susceptible to the same T and D/A arguments as an NGO plan.
Additionally, since states agreed to give up the right to conduct foreign
policy over 200 years ago, there is definately a constitutionality problem.
However since current local FP's haven't been challenged, there may be room
for argument by the aff.

It all comes down to Stefan's comment about what would make a good case.  Most
of us would agree that any good foreign policy case must have a (federal)
government actor.  However, the omission of the word "government" does give
some industrious mind the chance to come up with some interesting arguments,
which do not necessarily unduly burden the negative.  Research on NGO's will
be done anyway because of C/P research, and anyone with good arguments as to
why FP must be FG will have a very simple round in-terms of deciding strategy.
In the end, the benefit of the omission is the possibility of developing
stronger argument and refutation by debaters, while there is no direct
additonal limit imposed by adding "government" to the resolution that most of
the debate community would not be adhering to anyway.

VIK

>From  Thu Aug  6 10:42:03 1998
Message-Id: <THU.6.AUG.1998.104203.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 4125 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Thu, 6 Aug 1998 10:42:34 -0400
Received: from imo29.mx.aol.com (imo29.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.73]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id KAA43160 for
 <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Thu, 6 Aug 1998 10:42:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from MATTANDLEO at aol.com by imo29.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id
 8LYSa27848 for <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Thu, 6 Aug 1998 10:42:03 -0400
 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 59
Message-ID: <be34f19a.35c9c0bc at aol.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 10:42:03 EDT
Reply-To: MATTANDLEO at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Matt Stannard <MATTANDLEO at AOL.COM>
Subject: ground

After a week of research, can't believe people were ever opposed to this topic
because of a perceived lack of negative ground!!!

stannard

>From  Thu Aug  6 10:44:02 1998
Message-Id: <THU.6.AUG.1998.104402.0400.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 4273 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Thu, 6 Aug 1998 10:50:09 -0400
Received: from hatch.rand.com (hatch.rand.com [207.107.175.2]) by list.uvm.edu
 (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with SMTP id KAA43034 for
 <edebate at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Thu, 6 Aug 1998 10:50:07 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from roger.rand.com by hatch.rand.com via smtpd (for list.uvm.edu
 [132.198.101.67]) with SMTP; 6 Aug 1998 14:50:07 UT
Received: from smokin.rand.com ([199.43.156.111]) by roger.rand.com
 (8.8.5/8.7.2) with SMTP id KAA26618 for <edebate at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Thu,
 6 Aug 1998 10:45:08 -0400 (EDT)
X-Sender: ikimbrell at roger.rand.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Message-ID: <3.0.32.19980806104153.006a2430 at roger.rand.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 10:44:02 -0400
Reply-To: ikimbrell at RAND.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Ian Kimbrell <ikimbrell at RAND.COM>
Subject: Re: NDT distrcit V/CEDA east/north central coaches

At 12:43 PM 8/5/98 -0500, you wrote:
>Here is the tournament schedule I have so far, there are some over laps we
>need to work out.
>Sept. 25-26 Wheaton
>Oct 2-4?? Ball State
>Oct 9-11 Northern Illinois
>Oct 16-18 Capital
>Oct 24-26 Wayne State/Loyola/ Duquense yup 3 tournies on this date

Is there anyway you can beg these schools to switch weekends?
Specifically, we (CWRU, Cleveland) planned on attending both Wayne State
and Duquesne, and then maybe Loyola if the schedule allowed it.  We need
tournaments that are near us to save on costs.  To lose a tournament that
is 2 hours from us really hurts.  Loyola is only 6 hours away which also
puts them in the group of tournaments we would definitely attend.  I would
think that Wayne and Duquesne and Loyola would split a lot of schools
participations (I'm not real sure that's true, but it seems like a good
argument).

Is this a converstion between the three schools that you might be able to
initiate?  Do they all have thier schedules in concrete?  If this is not
something you normally do, can you send me all the appropriate person's
e-mails?

Let me know.


Ian Kimbrell
Case Western Reserve University Debate Team
T:(216)447-1422  X226
F:(216)447-1475
ikimbrell at rand.com
ijk4 at po.cwru.edu



From wnewnam  Thu Aug  6 09:57:12 1998
From: wnewnam (William E Newnam)
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 10:57:12 -0400
Subject: ground
In-Reply-To: <be34f19a.35c9c0bc@aol.com>
Message-ID: <THU.6.AUG.1998.105712.0400.WNEWNAM@EMORY.EDU>

Amazing isn't it?

On Thu, 6 Aug 1998, Matt Stannard wrote:

> After a week of research, can't believe people were ever opposed to this topic
> because of a perceived lack of negative ground!!!
>
> stannard
>

>From  Thu Aug  6 12:52:20 1998
Message-Id: <THU.6.AUG.1998.125220.0500.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 6579 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Thu, 6 Aug 1998 13:53:21 -0400
Received: from alpha.selu.edu (alpha.selu.edu [147.174.1.7]) by list.uvm.edu
 (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id NAA87638 for
 <edebate at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Thu, 6 Aug 1998 13:53:19 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from selu.edu by selu.edu (PMDF V5.1-9 #D3128) id
 <01J0A80YPCDSA75G8D at selu.edu> for edebate at LIST.UVM.EDU; Thu, 6 Aug
 1998 12:52:39 CDT
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Message-ID: <01J0A8DFKQ72A75G8D at selu.edu>
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 12:52:20 -0500
Reply-To: selliott at SELU.EDU
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: selliott at SELU.EDU
Organization: Southeastern Louisiana University
Subject: Re: ground
In-Reply-To: "Your message dated Thu, 06 Aug 1998 10:42:03 -0400 (EDT)"
 <199808061745.NAA29375 at lab.housing.fsu.edu>

Yeah, but it has to be winnable.

>From  Thu Aug  6 14:33:11 1998
Message-Id: <THU.6.AUG.1998.143311.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 6856 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Thu, 6 Aug 1998 14:33:54 -0400
Received: from imo12.mx.aol.com (imo12.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.2]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id OAA88042 for
 <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Thu, 6 Aug 1998 14:33:54 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from Damus at aol.com by imo12.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id 0RBSa11468
 for <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU (Team Topic Debating in America)>; Thu, 6
 Aug 1998 14:33:11 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 18
Message-ID: <a622ef57.35c9f6e9 at aol.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 14:33:11 EDT
Reply-To: Damus at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: David Damus <Damus at AOL.COM>
Subject: D. Berube-South Carolina Only

Dear David,

The Trojans are looking into coming out this September. Could you please e-
mail or fax me the tournament information. My fax # is (213) 687-1128.

Thanks & I hope we can make it in September!

David Damus
USC-Trojans



From srader  Thu Aug  6 15:19:24 1998
From: srader (Doyle Srader)
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 13:19:24 -0700
Subject: Preliminary argument list from ADI
Message-ID: <THU.6.AUG.1998.131924.0700.SRADER@IMAP3.ASU.EDU>

Affirmatives
============
Ban compulsory arbitration in discrimination complaints.
Big Affirmative Action, either increased or abolished.
Change gendered pronouns in Title VII to gender-neutral ones.
Eliminate the foreign customer preference BFOQ.
Fetal protection & workplace toxins.
Intersectionality: Give women of color a cause of action for both, instead of
     making them choose whether to complain of racial discrimination *or*
     gender discrimination.
More accommodation of pregnant women in the workplace.
Same sex sexual harassment.
Sexual harassment: either vicarious liability or procedural protections for
     the alleged harasser.
Women in the military: either let them have combat assignments, or protect
     them from harassment.

Negative arguments
==================
Alternative dispute resolution counterplan.
Court counterplan with redefinition of Equal Protection.
Critical Legal Studies arguments.
Critical Race Theory arguments.
EEOC overload: You contribute to the backlog which is bad, or you open up new
     causes of action which hurts Congressional support for their continued
     funding.
Evil Court.
Executive order counterplan with Clinton/Congressional Elections disads.
Feminist jurisprudence.
Movements, of some sort.
Repeal Title VII.
Small business confidence.
States counterplan & federalism.
Stigma kritik: The claims of the 1AC construct a victimized group who are
     allegedly dependent upon the same institutions that oppress them for
     their protection. The case harm is derogatory, and the "solvency"
     disrupts the evolution of relationships. The alternative is group
     solidarity.
Tort reform disadvantage: More causes of action generate negative publicity
     about excessive litigation, fuels tort reform which unshackles evil
     corporations.
Whiteness kritik (more detail promised later).

Doyle Srader
Director of Forensics
Arizona State University
(602) 965-5578

"Praise poetry in the great lakes area of Africa is shouted during
martial dances by a warrior stepping out of the ranks to the front of the
dancing area. The speed of delivery, the height of the pitch, the martial
attitude taken are part of the performance."
   -- Jan Vansina, _Oral Tradition as History_, 1985

For more information about debate at Arizona State:
http://www.public.asu.edu/~srader/debate.html



From asnider  Thu Aug  6 16:29:48 1998
From: asnider (Alfred C. Snider)
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 16:29:48 -0500
Subject: World Debate Institute Today
Message-ID: <THU.6.AUG.1998.162948.0500.ASNIDER@ZOO.UVM.EDU>

NEW PHOTOS AVAILABLE AT THE WEB SITE!

http://debate.uvm.edu/wdidaily.html

8/6 Thursday
8:45 AM Meeting
9 AM  Lecture: Discourse Based Affirmatives John Meany
10 AM Lecture: Negative Strategy Josh Hoe
11 AM Lecture: DA #2: Adapting, updating, evolving Jethro Hayman
11:30  Lunch
1 PM  Argument Groups
5 PM  Dinner
7 PM  Speaking Drills  RTT
7:30 PM Argument Groups UNTIL WAVE ONE IS FINISHED!

Beautiful day today, high in the mid 80's. Wish you were here.


Alfred Charles Snider -- Lawrence Professor of Forensics, University of Vermont
Mail: 475 Main Street, UVM, Burlington, VT 05405-4225
Phone: 802-656-0097, Fax: 802-656-4275
DEBATE CENTRAL:  Debate's Biggest Website http://debate.uvm.edu/
WORLD DEBATE INSTITUTE 1998 - make plans now - http://debate.uvm.edu/ndi.html



From swhalen  Thu Aug  6 17:13:45 1998
From: swhalen (Shawn T Whalen)
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 15:13:45 -0700
Subject: Carrie Crenshaw??
Message-ID: <THU.6.AUG.1998.151345.0700.SWHALEN@SFSU.EDU>

I need to get in touch with Carrie. I suspect she's traveling or teaching
at an institute.  Does anyone know how I can get in touch with her?

Shawn Whalen

Director of Forensics
San Francisco State University
swhalen at sfsu.edu
(415) 338-3173



From truthistheweapon  Thu Aug  6 17:35:45 1998
From: truthistheweapon (x truth is the weapon x)
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 18:35:45 -0400
Subject: ***TOC Qualifier Dates***
Message-ID: <THU.6.AUG.1998.183545.0400.TRUTHISTHEWEAPON@JUNO.COM>

--------- Begin forwarded message ----------
From: "Michael Bietz" <creativeis at hotmail.com>
To: ld-l at world.std.com
Subject: TOC qualifier  Dates
Date: Thu, 06 Aug 1998 13:51

+++Will someone please cross-post this message to all relevant
lists/message boards!+++

Dear Colleagues,

As we approach the 1998-1999 debate season many people are beginning to
plan their traveling schedules.  In order to help with this I have put a
calender of TOC qualifying tournaments on the official Tournament of
Champions website.  However, there are still many tournament directors
that have not contacted me regarding the dates of their tournaments.
Please respond to this message if you can help me on this matter.

In Policy Debate:
-Stanford Spring
-Berkeley
-Harvard
-Samford University
-Ohio Valley
-Stanford Winter Warmup
-University of Oregon
-Carrolton, GA
-Dallas Jesuit
-Homewood
-Newark Science
-Puyallup
-SA Clark

In LD Debate
-Stanford Spring
-Berkeley
-Harvard
-Crestian Classic
-Homewood
-New Orleans Jesuit
-St. Joseph's
-USC Fall
-Samford University
-Stanford Winter Warmup
-Ohio Valley
-Iowa City West
-Newark Science
-Gonzaga University
-Bergenfield

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,
Michael Bietz
Project Manager - Creative Internet Solutions
Policy Coach - Apple Valley Debate
Dept. of Cultural Studies and Comparative Lit - Univ. of Minnesota
--------- End forwarded message ----------

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]



From lesjober  Thu Aug  6 19:16:36 1998
From: lesjober (laura elizabeth sjoberg)
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 19:16:36 -0500
Subject: Speed and Title Vii
Message-ID: <THU.6.AUG.1998.191636.0500.LESJOBER@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU>

Two unrelated subjects, but, rather than clog up your mailboxes, .  . .

1) Speed Drills.  I need help in this area.  I am a decently fast speaker
(always seems to be good enough to get by and win rounds, but nowhere near
the fastest people out on the circuit).  I never learned speed by drills,
I just heard it and sort of picked it up in HS.  However, next year, I am
in the position of teaching people about policy debate, and I am the
leader of a new team.  I have already noticed that many of the prospective
members speak at unacceptably slow speeds for competition, and have been
approached to teach them to speak faster.  I was wondering if people out
there would share with me how they teach and learn speed, so I can pass on
some pointers to the University of Chicaqgo debate squad.

2) Title Vii and women in combat.  Title Vii seems to dictate that women
in the military be treated without discrimination on the basis of sex.
However, there have been many issues about owmen fighting in ground
combat.  Does anyone know where the law actually stands on the issue?


Thank you for your time,
Laura Sjoberg
President, the University of Chicago CEDA/NDT Debate Team

>From  Thu Aug  6 22:41:31 1998
Message-Id: <THU.6.AUG.1998.224131.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 10448 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Thu, 6 Aug 1998 22:41:45
 -0400
Received: from imo23.mx.aol.com (imo23.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.67]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id WAA83764 for
 <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Thu, 6 Aug 1998 22:41:44 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from Shonjose at aol.com by imo23.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id 8FOGa26052
 for <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Thu, 6 Aug 1998 22:41:31 +2000 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 214
Message-ID: <9214dfba.35ca695c at aol.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 22:41:31 EDT
Reply-To: Shonjose at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Shon Joseph <Shonjose at AOL.COM>
Subject: MDI

Does anyone know what dorm MDI is using to house the debaters?

>From  Fri Aug  7 11:12:02 1998
Message-Id: <FRI.7.AUG.1998.111202.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 3327 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Fri, 7 Aug 1998 11:12:11 -0400
Received: from imo16.mx.aol.com (imo16.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.6]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id LAA32258 for
 <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Fri, 7 Aug 1998 11:12:10 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from MATTANDLEO at aol.com by imo16.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id
 8EIHa27696 for <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Fri, 7 Aug 1998 11:12:02 -0400
 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 59
Message-ID: <68f46641.35cb1944 at aol.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 1998 11:12:02 EDT
Reply-To: MATTANDLEO at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Matt Stannard <MATTANDLEO at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: ground

No cites in this reply, but I can compile a list in about a week, after our
camp is finished, if you'd like.

1.  Lots of specific neg on most any given affirmative:  Reasons why extension
of t7 is not appropriate, why legal remedies do not solve, why alternative
mechanisms would be possible in this particular instance, etc.  Better case
debates, I anticipate, than we've seen in a while.

2.  Modelling and international relations disadvantages, political process
disadvantages with acceptable-to-good links.

3.  Marxism, feminism, CLS/CRT, libertarianism (Victor says the cards are very
good), latina/o criticism, heteropatriarchy, and the thing is, most of these
will have genuine links which discuss the role of the legal system in general
and most title 7 remedies as well.  "Kritikal" debate is woven into the topic
so that most all argumentation is critical and/or invites criticism

My earlier post was stimulated by just being surprised that our "neg piles"
are bigger than usual--bigger than our "aff piles."  The squad and our guests
from around the region think the topic favors the negative.

stannard

>From  Fri Aug  7 11:53:27 1998
Message-Id: <FRI.7.AUG.1998.115327.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 4204 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Fri, 7 Aug 1998 11:53:53 -0400
Received: from imo26.mx.aol.com (imo26.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.70]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id LAA14336 for
 <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Fri, 7 Aug 1998 11:53:52 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo26.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id 8CRZa04520
 for <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Fri, 7 Aug 1998 11:53:27 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/mixed; boundary="part0_902505208_boundary"
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 18
Message-ID: <5fc1657c.35cb22f9 at aol.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 1998 11:53:27 EDT
Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Michael Bear Bryant <MWBRYANT at AOL.COM>
Subject: Fwd: NFA-LD topic

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--part0_902505208_boundary
Content-ID: <0_902505208 at inet_out.mail.aol.com.1>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII


--part0_902505208_boundary
Content-ID: <0_902505208 at inet_out.mail.aol.com.2>
Content-type: message/rfc822
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Content-disposition: inline

Return-Path: <parli at willamette.edu>
Received: from  rly-ya05.mx.aol.com (rly-ya05.mail.aol.com [172.18.144.197])
        by air-ya05.mx.aol.com (v47.2) with SMTP; Fri, 07 Aug 1998 11:48:57
        -0400
Received: from earth.willamette.edu (earth.willamette.edu [158.104.100.101])
          by rly-ya05.mx.aol.com (8.8.8/8.8.5/AOL-4.0.0)
          with ESMTP id LAA10246;
          Fri, 7 Aug 1998 11:48:51 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from  (66 at localhost.willamette.edu [127.0.0.1])
        by earth.willamette.edu (8.8.8/8.6.4) with SMTP
        id IAA08254; Fri, 7 Aug 1998 08:48:42 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 1998 08:48:42 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <Pine.PMDF.3.95.980807094142.541178754A-100000 at cc.colorado.edu>
Errors-To: trapp at willamette.edu
Reply-To: parli at willamette.edu
Originator: parli at willamette.edu
Sender: parli at willamette.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: bstapleton at cc.colorado.edu
To: Multiple recipients of list <parli at willamette.edu>
Subject: Re: NFA-LD topic
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

Thanks Shawnalee
On Thu, 6 Aug 1998, Shawnalee Whitney wrote:

> Hey, folks!
>
> Larry Schnoor posted the following item on the ie-l.  I thought it might
> be of interest to those who may attend tournaments that offer NFA-LD
> this year.
>
> Shawnalee :)
>
> __________________________________________________
>
> The NFA-LD Resolution for 1998 is:
>
> "Resolved: The United States federal government should significantly
> increase its regulation of electronically mediated communication."
>
> A hard-copy mailing of the resolution to all NFA members is being sent
> out today.
>
> Larry Schnoor, NFA President
>

Bonnie Stapleton                                719-389-6614 (Office)
Director of Forensics                           71-389-6214 (FAX)
The Colorado College
14 East Cache La Poudre
Colorado Springs, CO 80903
BSTAPLETON at cc.colorado.edu


--part0_902505208_boundary--

>From  Fri Aug  7 12:34:02 1998
Message-Id: <FRI.7.AUG.1998.123402.0500.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 4610 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Fri, 7 Aug 1998 13:34:14 -0400
Received: from viper.uni.edu (viper.uni.edu [134.161.1.16]) by list.uvm.edu
 (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id NAA03476 for
 <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Fri, 7 Aug 1998 13:34:05 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from uni.edu by uni.edu (PMDF V5.1-12 #U2748) id
 <01J0BM0LGGKW8WYEBN at uni.edu> for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Fri, 7 Aug
 1998 12:34:02 CDT
X-VMS-To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU
X-VMS-Cc: PALCZEWSKI
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN
Content-transfer-encoding: 8BIT
Message-ID: <01J0BM0LGHDU8WYEBN at uni.edu>
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 1998 12:34:02 -0500
Reply-To: Catherine.Palczewski at UNI.EDU
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Catherine Palczewski <Catherine.Palczewski at UNI.EDU>
Subject: uni invite -- electronic form

July 1998

Dear Colleagues:

The University of Northern Iowa is pleased to invite you and your
students to our annual Season Opener Forensics Tournament.  This
year UNI will hold the Henderson Season Opener Individual Events
Tournament on September 19. The Ulrich Season Opener Debate
Tournament will be held September 19-21.


Please note the following changes for 1998:

We will be using the Holiday Inn and Convention Center in
Waterloo as the tournament hotel.  Registration for the debate
and individual events tournaments, release of debate pairings
each morning, and the coaches' receptions in the evening will all
be held at the Waterloo Holiday Inn.  Due to remodeling on the
UNI campus, all IE events will be taking place at the Convention
Center attached to the hotel.

We are pleased that UNI will be the host for the season openers
in debate and individual events.  This year we hope more of our
friends in the forensics community will attend and make the
tournaments even more competitive.  For the Debate Tournament,
both divisions will simply be "team policy debate," with no
further distinction between NDT and CEDA.  As in the past four
years, we anticipate compiling an exhaustive list of each
school's affirmative and negative arguments, and distributing a
printed copy of the case list to each school attending the
tournament.

Additional details on the individual events and debate
tournaments appear later in this invitation.  Please call if you
have any additional questions.

We look forward to welcoming you to our campus in September.

Sincerely,


Leah White               Cate Palczewski
Director of Forensics         Debate Coach
(319) 273-7200      (319) 273-2714
season opener Debate and Individual Events Tournament Information

                 UNI Transportation Information

By Air: Waterloo/Cedar Falls is served by several commuter
airlines.  If you don't mind small propjets, this airport might
offer the best rates. The Cedar Rapids airport is approximately
an hour from Cedar Falls, offering jet service by most major
carriers. Other airports used by tournament participants in the
past have included Des Moines, Minneapolis-St. Paul, and Chicago.

Ground Transportation: If you are flying, we encourage you to
make van or mini-van reservations early.  Due to on-campus
regulations regarding university vehicles, we will not be able to
provide local transportation.  However, the area taxis operate at
reasonable rates, and many of the local hotels offer airport
transportation.

By Car: From Chicago, take the Northwest Tollway (I-90) to U.S.
20.  From Central Illinois or the Quad Cities, take I-80 to I-380
to U.S. 20.  From Des Moines, take I-35 North to U.S. 20.  From
Minnesota, take U.S. 63 or U.S. 218.

Parking: You should have little problem parking on-campus on
Saturday or Sunday.  Please be sure to park in the designated
areas on Monday or you will receive a ticket.

                       UNI Smoking Policy

Please note that UNI is a smoke-free campus.  No Smoking Is
Allowed In Any Campus Buildings ? all tournament participants
must abide by the smoking restrictions or we will risk the loss
of facilities for future tournaments.

                      UNI Hotel Information

The Tournament Hotel for the UNI tournaments will be the Holiday
Inn Convention Center, at 4th and Commercial in Waterloo (just a
15 minute drive to the university). Registration for the debate
and individual events tournaments, release of debate pairings
each morning, and the coaches' receptions in the evening, will
all be held at the Holiday Inn.  Please contact the Holiday Inn
directly for reservations: (319) 233-7560.  The tournament rate
is a flat $50.00 per room.  When you call, tell them you are
attending the UNI Season Opener.  The hotel is only guaranteeing
the availability of our block through September 1, so make your
reservations early.

There are several other hotels in the area, including the
following:

Holiday Inn University Plaza, 5826 University Avenue, Cedar
Falls.  (319) 277-2230.
University Inn,  4711 University Avenue, Cedar Falls.  (319) 277-
1412.
Best Western Midwest Lodge, 4410 University Avenue, Cedar Falls.
(319) 277-1550.
Econo Lodge, 4117 University Avenue, Cedar Falls.  (319) 277-
6931.
Excel Inn, 3350 University Avenue, Waterloo.  (319) 234-2165.

If you cannot find suitable housing in any of the above
facilities, please let us know and we can provide a list of
additional motels.

               UNI Team Policy Debate Information

Tab room: As in the past three years, Cate Palczewski will be
running the tab room for the tournament.

Divisions: We are delighted to again start the season by using
the joint CEDA-NDT policy topic.  As a result of the combined
topic, we will be offering two divisions of Team Policy Debate:
     Open: Any undergraduate student meeting AFA eligibility
requirements may participate in the Open Division.  8 prelims,
elims appropriate for division size (we expect to clear all teams
with a 5-3 or better record, up to 32 teams).
     Junior Varsity: The Junior Varsity Division will be
restricted to students in their first or second year of
intercollegiate debate.  8 prelims, elims appropriate for
division size (we expect to clear all teams with a winning
record).

Entries: Entry deadline is Wednesday, September 16, at 4:00 pm.

Number of Prelims: While we understand the arguments in favor of
moving to 6 or 7 preliminary rounds, we believe that more
guaranteed rounds of competition are useful at tournaments at the
beginning of the year.  We have generally adhered to our
published schedule each of the past three years, and so
anticipate being able to again conclude each day at a reasonable
hour.  We hope that all tournament participants will assist us in
starting, and concluding, each round on time.

Time Limits: The time limits will be 9-3-6, with 10 minutes of
preparation time per team.

Judging: Each school is expected to provide qualified judges to
accompany their teams.  We don't have a very large pool of hired
judges that are available in Cedar Falls/Waterloo, so please try
to find someone rather than hiring from us.  If you do need to
hire a judge, the fee will be $75.00 per team.  If you must hire
a judge from us, please give us at least a week's advance notice
to try to locate someone.  If you have extra judges available
from your school, please let us know--we will almost certainly
hire them for as many rounds as they want to work.

More on Judging: Note that UNI uses preference/strike sheets for
prelim and elim debate rounds.  All judges at the tournament are
expected to render a decision where they indicate one, and only
one, team that won the round (did the better job of debating).
Judges' ballots not adhering to this principle will be
"corrected" by the tab room through use of a coin flip.

Fees: For the third consecutive year, we will retain the low
registration fee of $60.00 per team.

Elimination rounds: In the Open Division, we expect to clear all
teams with a 5-3 or better record, up to 32 teams.  An
appropriate number of elimination rounds will be held in JV,
depending on the size of that Division.  We will not break
brackets in elimination rounds.  We plan on using side
equalization in elimination rounds.

Awards: Silver awards will be provided to all teams participating
in the elimination rounds, and to the top speakers in each
division.

Unusual situations: We believe in maximizing the competitive
opportunities for eligible students.  Thus, if two schools each
have an extra debater, we would allow a combined team from two
institutions to compete in the preliminary rounds of the
tournament, and would allow those individuals to be eligible to
receive speaker awards.  However, teams composed of students from
two separate institutions will not be eligible for participation
in elimination rounds.

                 UNI Team Policy Debate Schedule

Friday, September 18

7:00 - 10:00 p.m.   Registration and Coaches Reception, Holiday
Inn Waterloo.

Saturday, September 19

7:00 a.m. Pairings Released, Rounds 1 - 4, Holiday Inn Waterloo
7:30 a.m. Continental Breakfast, UNI Campus

8:00 a.m. Round 1 Required Starting Time
10:30 a.m.     Round 2 Required Starting Time
     All Round 1 ballots should be in

1:00 p.m. Lunch
     All Round 2 ballots should be in

2:00 p.m. Round 3 Required Starting Time
4:30 p.m. Round 4 Required Starting Time
     All Round 3 ballots should be in

7:00 p.m. All Round 4 ballots should be in

9:00 - 12:00 p.m.   Coaches Reception, Holiday Inn Waterloo


Sunday, September 20

7:00 a.m. Pairings Released, Rounds 5 & 6, Holiday Inn Waterloo
7:30 a.m. Continental Breakfast, UNI Campus

8:00 a.m. Round 5 Required Starting time
10:30 a.m.     Round 6 Required Starting time
     All Round 5 ballots should be in

1:00 p.m. Lunch
     All Round 6 ballots should be in

2:00 p.m. Pairings Released, Round 7
2:30 p.m. Round 7 Required Starting Time
5:00 p.m. All ballots should be in

6:00 p.m. Pairings Released, Round 8
6:30 p.m. Round 8 Required Starting Time
9:00 p.m. All ballots should be in


10:00 - 12:00 p.m.  Coaches Reception, Holiday Inn Waterloo

     A list of teams participating in elimination rounds will be
posted at the Holiday    Inn Waterloo as soon as possible after
the conclusion of Round 8


Monday, September 21 -- We have adhered to the following general
elim schedule the past four years:

7:00 a.m. Pairings Released, Holiday Inn University Plaza
7:30 a.m. Continental Breakfast, UNI Campus

8:00 a.m. First Elimination Round Required Starting Time,
Waterloo Convention Center

11:00 a.m.     Speaker awards, awards for first elimination round

Noon      Octa-Finals Required Starting Time
3:00 p.m. Quarter-Finals Required Starting Time
6:00 p.m. Semi-Finals Required Starting Time
9:00 p.m. Finals Required Starting Time

                UNI Team Policy Debate Entry Form
School:   Coach:
City:     State:    Zip: Office Phone:  Home Phone:    Fax:

Open Division (use additional pages if you need more space):


Junior Varsity Division (use additional pages if you need more
space):


Judges: Please indicate commitment for each judge, and any
division or team restrictions for each judge (use additional
pages if you need more space):


Send your entry whichever way you prefer, but please make sure we
receive your policy debate entry by Wednesday, September 16,
4:00pm:
Phone: (319) 273-2714    Fax: (319) 273-7356 Email:
palczewski at uni.edu
U.S. Mail: Cate Palczewski, Communication Studies, CAC 257,
University of Northern  Iowa, Cedar Falls, IA  50614-0357

>From  Fri Aug  7 13:29:16 1998
Message-Id: <FRI.7.AUG.1998.132916.0400.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 4712 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Fri, 7 Aug 1998 13:35:22 -0400
Received: from hatch.rand.com (hatch.rand.com [207.107.175.2]) by list.uvm.edu
 (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with SMTP id NAA48262 for
 <edebate at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Fri, 7 Aug 1998 13:35:21 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from roger.rand.com by hatch.rand.com via smtpd (for list.uvm.edu
 [132.198.101.67]) with SMTP; 7 Aug 1998 17:35:20 UT
Received: from smokin.rand.com ([199.43.156.111]) by roger.rand.com
 (8.8.5/8.7.2) with SMTP id NAA12406 for <edebate at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Fri,
 7 Aug 1998 13:30:20 -0400 (EDT)
X-Sender: ikimbrell at roger.rand.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Message-ID: <3.0.32.19980807132843.006b4b7c at roger.rand.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 1998 13:29:16 -0400
Reply-To: ikimbrell at RAND.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Ian Kimbrell <ikimbrell at RAND.COM>
Subject: Re: NDT distrcit V/CEDA east/north central coaches

John Carrolls is February 14-15.  (This time I am correct.  I called them.)

Ian Kimbrell
CWRU

At 12:43 PM 8/5/98 -0500, you wrote:
>Here is the tournament schedule I have so far, there are some over laps we
>need to work out.
>Sept. 25-26 Wheaton
>Oct 2-4?? Ball State
>Oct 9-11 Northern Illinois
>Oct 16-18 Capital
>Oct 24-26 Wayne State/Loyola/ Duquense yup 3 tournies on this date
>Oct 30-1??Ball State
>Nov 13-14 U Wisc. Oshkosh
>Febr 13-14 Marquette
>Febr 26-27 Wheaton
>
>I'm missing Northwestern, Miami, Augustana, John Carroll, anyone else?
>Bauer
>
>
>

>From  Fri Aug  7 13:45:31 1998
Message-Id: <FRI.7.AUG.1998.134531.0500.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 4864 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Fri, 7 Aug 1998 13:48:56 -0400
Received: from jcvaxa.jcu.edu (jcvaxa.jcu.edu [143.105.8.2]) by list.uvm.edu
 (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id NAA57854 for
 <EDEBATE at List.uvm.edu>; Fri, 7 Aug 1998 13:48:55 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from JCVAXA.jcu.edu by JCVAXA.jcu.edu (PMDF V5.1-9 #28018) id
 <01J0BOGUE9LY91VXWC at JCVAXA.jcu.edu> for EDEBATE at List.uvm.edu; Fri, 7
 Aug 1998 13:45:31 EST
X-VMS-To: IN%"EDEBATE at List.uvm.edu"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Message-ID: <01J0BOGUEAK891VXWC at JCVAXA.jcu.edu>
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 1998 13:45:31 -0500
Reply-To: KYOUNG at JCVAXA.JCU.EDU
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Kelly Young <KYOUNG at JCVAXA.JCU.EDU>
Subject: NDT District V/CEDA E. N. Central--correction

John Carroll has not decided on a date as of yet.  We would like to have
it around the same date, but this is not set in stone yet.  If anyone would
like to see the tourney on another date, please let me know.

Kelly Young
John Carroll U



From hunt  Fri Aug  7 15:56:24 1998
From: hunt (Steven Hunt)
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 1998 13:56:24 -0700
Subject: Lewis & Clark Invitation
Message-ID: <FRI.7.AUG.1998.135624.0700.HUNT@LCLARK.EDU>

Here is the L&C Invitation for Oct 9-ll, l998. Paper copies will go in the
mail in a few weeks. We may add a public debate division depending on NW
Conference Forensics meeting discussions early Sept, l998.
Airline rates are great through Aug l3, l998.
Everyone is welcome.
Steve Hunt








                                                                August
,1998
                                                                Dr. Steven
B. Hunt

Dear Forensics Colleagues:

The Lewis & Clark College Pioneers Oregon Beta of PKD cordially invite you
and
your squad to participate in THE PIONEER INVITATIONAL  Friday, Oct.
9-Sunday,
Oct. 11, l998. We will be an officially sanctioned CEDA and NDPA
tournament.


Our tournament will offer six preliminary rounds of CEDA debate +
quarterfinals
(or octafinals if warranted) in two divisions, parliamentary debate in two
divisions , and 11 individual events following modified AFA NIET rules. We
hope
for some beautiful Indian Summer weather but you should be prepared for
possible
liquid sunshine as October is when the Northwest rains really start
falling and
don't end till April.

We look forward to welcoming you and your competitors to our campus. We
expect
to combine the graciousness, competitiveness, and efficiency of the
Northwest in
our Pioneer tradition. We will have a combined tabroom .We will have L&C
forensics alumni, local high school directors of forensics, and law
student
guest judges to try to provide a respite for our "professional" judges. We
will
try to provide you with healthy snacks and great trophies. .

If you have any questions and/or if we can provide you with any other
information, please don't hesitate to get in touch. We would really like
to have
you and your students as our guests.

PLEASE SERIOUSLY CONSIDER COMING TO BEAUTIFUL PORTLAND AND TO LEWIS &
CLARK AND
BRING YOUR BEST AND BRIGHTEST WITH YOU!!!





Please carefully read the rules for all events.

We are a Bon Apetit school for food.

Note that Crowne Plaza is our official designated motel and they need
reservations by Sept 21 , l998 NOTA BENE!!!!

ENTRIES ARE DUE TO STEVE HUNT BY TUESDAY Oct. 6,1998 !!!!!!.

                                                        Sincerely,



                                                        Steve Hunt,
                                                        and the Pioneers
                                                        Office
503-768-7617
                                                        Secretary
503-768-7616
                `                                       FAX 503-768-7620
                                                        SBH home
503-641-6383
                                                        Email:
hunt at lclark.edu
Pioneer Invitational Oct. 9-11 1998

Pioneer Rules of Competition
Debate: there will be junior and open divisions in CEDA/NDT debate
contesting
the Fall, l998 CEDA resolution  . All CEDA divisions will follow an 8-3-5
format
with 5 minutes preparation time. Power matching will be used in rounds 3-6
as
warranted. Lewis & Clark follows CEDA guidelines on topic, divisions,
discrimination, et al.


        Junior-is for students with high school or college limited debate
experience.
Should not have won 8 or more debate awards in college. Should not have
more
than 2 years collegiate debate experience.

        Open-open to all who wish to compete.

We may be adding a division of NW Public Debate!!!!! depending on NW
Forensics
Meeting Sept, l998







There will be two divisions of parliamentary debate. Novice/Junior is for
debaters who have never debated or who have one year or less of combined
h.s.
college debate experience IN ANY FORM of competitive debate. Open division
is
for everyone else.   Time limits will be 7-8-8-8-4-5. Topics are likely to
be in
the arena of politics since l998 is an election year.

Individual Events

Divisions
        Novice-is for beginners. Novice speakers are in their first year
of competition
in public speaking in forensics. They have not won 3 or more speaking
awards in
college. Novice interpreters are those in their first year of competition
in
interpretation in forensics. They have not won 3 or more interpretation
awards
in college.
        Junior-is for students with high school or collegiate experience.
Junior
speakers should not have won more than 8 speaking awards in college.
Junior
interpreters should not have won more than 8 interpretation awards in
college.
        Open-for all students. Speakers with more than 8 awards in
collegiate speaking
(ADS, extemp, impromptu, persuasion, informative, and communication
criticism)
must enter open division in speaking events. . Interpreters with more than
8
awards in college in interpretation( duo, drama, prose, poetry, POI) must
enter
open division interpretation events.

Students are required to have manuscripts in all prepared events and may
be
required to show same to the tournament administration.

Conflict Patterns
Pattern A: Extemp (N,J,S) Persuasion (N,S) Drama (N,S) POI (NS), ADS(S)
Poetry
(S)
Pattern B: Impromptu (N,J,S) , Informative (N,J,S), CA (S), Duo (N, S)
Prose [N,S]
Novices may enter only l event per pattern
Juniors may enter up to 2 events per pattern
Seniors may enter 5 events no more than 3 in one pattern
Students responsible for getting back and forth to conflicts!!!!



        Pattern A Events
Extemp- Contestants will be given three topics in the general area of
current
events, choose one and have 30 minutes to prepare a speech. Limited use of
notes
is permitted. Speech 6 minutes maximum with 1 additional minute for a
single
pertinent question from the judge.

Persuasion-An original speech by the student designed to inspire,
reinforce or
change beliefs, attitudes or values or get action from the audience.
Multiple
sources should be utilized and cited in the development of the speech.
Minimal
notes are permitted. Maximum time limit l0 minutes.

Drama- A cutting which represents one or more characters from a play or
plays of
literary merit. Use of script is required. Maximum time limit is l0
minutes.

POI- a program of thematically linked selections of literary merit, chosen
from
two or more of the recognized genres of interpretation
(prose/poetry/drama) A
substantial portion of speaking time must be devoted to each genre used in
the
program. Use of script is required. Maximum time limit l0 minutes.

ADS- Speech should be designed to entertain the audience. The speech
should
emphasize a central theme while demonstrating wit and creativity. It
should
refrain from being a series of one line jokes. Visual aids are encouraged.
Maximum speaking time is l0 minutes.

Poetry-A selection or selections of poetry of literary merit, which may be
drawn
from more than one source. Play cuttings are prohibited. Use of manuscript
is
required. Maximum time limit is l0 minutes, including introduction.

        Pattern B Events

Impromptu- a choice of two topics from great quotations will be given to
students. Students will be given 6 minutes to both prepare and present a
clearly
outlined and argued speech on one of the two topics with l additional
minute for
the judge to ask a single pertinent question.


Informative- An original factual speech by the student on a realistic
subject to
fulfill the general aim to inform the audience. Audio-visual aids are
encouraged. Minimal notes are permitted. l0 minutes maximum.

Duo- a cutting from a play involving the portrayal of two or more
characters
presented by two individuals. The material may be drawn from stage,
screen, or
radio. This is not an acting event thus, no costumes, props, lighting,
etc.
Presentation is from script and the focus should be off-stage not to each
other.
Maximum time l0 minutes. (Students may be entered in only one duo
interpretation)

Communication Analysis- an original speech by the student designed to
offer an
explanation and/or evaluation of a communication event such as a speech,
speaker, movement, poem, poster, film campaign, song, etc. through the use
of
rhetorical principles (preferably a consistent comm analysis paradigm)
Manuscripts are permitted, but it is better to "deliver" your analysis
versus
merely "reading "your analysis.  Maximum time is l2 NOTA BENE l2 minutes
this is
not NIET limit.

Prose- A selection or selections of prose material of literary merit,
which may
be drawn from more than one source. Play cuttings are prohibited. Use of
manuscript is required. Maximum time is l0 minutes including introduction.

Fees
        School fee $30
        Debate fee $30 per team
        I.E. fee $5 per slot (each entry of a person in an event; l person
in 2 events
= 2 slots thus $l0 etc.
        Debate judges- $60 per team not covered
        I.E. judges $8 per slot uncovered
A judge covers l-2 debate teams and l-6 I.E. slots.

Parking
Parking is extremely limited due to new construction. Please park in
Griswald
Stadium lot, Student Union lot, or guest parking spots on campus.





Food
We will serve some hopefully healthy snacks. L&C is a Bon Apetit
institution. We
have a snack bar in Templeton Center (The Student Union)

Sweepstakes
Debate  20 pts lst      l4 pts 2nd      8 pts 3rd       4 pts qtrs      2
pts octas
Parli           l4 pts lst      8 pts 2nd  5 pts 3rd    3 pts qtrs   2  pt
octas
IE               l0 pts lst     7 pts 2nd       4 pts 3rd       2 pts
finalist

Entries
Entries are due Tuesday Oct. 6 to Steve Hunt Dept of Communication Lewis &
Clark
ollege Portland OR 97219   Office FAX 503-768-7620
Office phone 503-768-76l7
Home phone 503-641-6383
E Mail hunt at lclark.edu
Secretary Carol Wilson 503-768-76l6

This Tournament Endorses
AFA Ethics Code
The Rules of the Cross Examination Debate Association
The Statement of Ethics for the Northwest Forensics Conference

Tentative Schedule L&C Pioneer Invitational
   Friday Oct 9-Sunday Oct 11,1998

Thursday, Oct 8, l998
9-l0            Confirm Entries at Crowne Plaza

 Friday Oct. 9, l998
8:30-9:00 A.M.          Late Registration Extemp Prep
9:00-l0:l5 A.M.         Rd I Pattern A
l0:l5-ll:30 A.M.                Rd I Pattern B
ll:30-l2:00 A.M.                Lunch Extemp Prep
l2:00-l:15  P.M.                Rd II Pattern A
l:15-3:l5  P.M.                 Rd I Debate
3:l5-5:00   P.M.                Rd II Debate
5:00-6:l5   P.M.                Rd II Pattern B
6:l5-8:00   P.M.                Rd III Debate




Saturday Oct. l0, 1998
8:00-8:30  A.M.         Extemp Prep
8:30-9:45   A.M.                Rd III Pattern A
9:45-ll:30   A.M.               Rd IV Debate
ll:30-l2:00  A.M.               Lunch
l2:00-l:l5    P.M.              Rd III Pattern B
l:l5-3:00     P.M.              Rd V Debate
3:00-3:30   P.M.                Extemp Finals Prep
3:30-5:30   P.M.                Finals All IE's these may have to
                                        be flighted into 2 l hr patterns
5:30-7:l5         P.M.          RD VI Debate
7:30- 8:30  P.M.                IE Awards Preliminary Debate
                                        Awards

Sunday Oct. l1, l998
8:00-8:30   A.M.                Finish Debate Preliminary Awards
                                        Announce Debate Eliminations
8:30-l0:30  A.M.                Octas or Qtrs
l0:30-l230  A.M.                Qtrs or Semis
l2:30-2:30   P.M.               Semis or Finals
2:30-4:30    P.M.               Finals























Lewis & Clark Pioneer Invitational Oct 9-ll, 1998

School________________________Director of Forensics_____________

Address______________________ Office telephone_________________

_______________________Zip_____Home telephone________________

E mail address__________________

Please return this form and keep a xerox for yourself. Deadline for
entries is
Tuesday Oct 6.  to Steve Hunt Dept of Comm Lewis & Clark College Portland
OR
972l9   FAX 503-768-7620

Debate Entries (Please use Complete Names)

Open                            Intermediate (jr)
Team #l_____________ Team#1___________________

Team #2_____________Team #2__________________

Team#3_____________Team #3__________________


Parliamentary( Please note Open or Novice)

Team #l_____________ Team #2________________  Team #3________



Judges (please specify if for debate or IE's or both and any limitation
vis
times available or conflicts of interest re schools or students the judge
should
not hear) It is assumed judging philosophies for both debate and IE's have
been
turned in to Northwest judging.
l._______________________
                                                Judges must be college
graduates
2._______________________               or adults preferably with
forensics
                                                experience and background.
3_______________________                Students are not acceptable as
                                                judges.
4._______________________


Individual Events Entries

School_________________________

Enter N for Novice, J for Junior S for Senior Please Note FULL NAME
EVENT/S AND
DIVISION FOR ALL STUDENTS
SEE IE EVENT RULES FOR CONFLICTS AND DIVISIONS

Name

1.____________________________________________________

2.____________________________________________________

3.____________________________________________________

4.____________________________________________________

5.____________________________________________________

6.____________________________________________________

7.____________________________________________________

8.____________________________________________________

9.____________________________________________________

10.___________________________________________________

11.___________________________________________________

12.___________________________________________________

13.___________________________________________________

14.____________________________________________________






 Crowne Plaza DESIGNATED HOTEL for Lewis & Clark Pioneer Invitational Oct
9-11,
l998

        Crowne Plaza Hotel
14811 Kruse Oaks Blvd
Lake Oswego, OR 97035
1-800-2CROWNE
503-624-8400
I-5 Exit  292

Please reserve by Sept 21, l998 Please say attending Lewis & Clark
Forensics
Tournament.

Flat rate for up to 4 in a room $71 per night + taxes.

This is a great hotel only 6-7 miles from Lewis & Clark. It has a suana ,
swimming pool, and other facilities. It is right next to several
restaurants. It
is just off of I-5.

>From  Fri Aug  7 16:51:15 1998
Message-Id: <FRI.7.AUG.1998.165115.0400.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 7224 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Fri, 7 Aug 1998 16:57:22 -0400
Received: from hatch.rand.com (hatch.rand.com [207.107.175.2]) by list.uvm.edu
 (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with SMTP id QAA22800 for
 <edebate at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Fri, 7 Aug 1998 16:57:21 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from roger.rand.com by hatch.rand.com via smtpd (for list.uvm.edu
 [132.198.101.67]) with SMTP; 7 Aug 1998 20:57:20 UT
Received: from smokin.rand.com ([199.43.156.111]) by roger.rand.com
 (8.8.5/8.7.2) with SMTP id QAA00088 for <edebate at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Fri,
 7 Aug 1998 16:52:18 -0400 (EDT)
X-Sender: ikimbrell at roger.rand.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Message-ID: <3.0.32.19980807165110.006f9fe4 at roger.rand.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 1998 16:51:15 -0400
Reply-To: ikimbrell at RAND.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Ian Kimbrell <ikimbrell at RAND.COM>
Subject: Re: NDT District V/CEDA E. N. Central--correction

If you guys scheduled your tournament for November, that would be great.
That way we don't have to travel as finals get closer and there do not seem
to be any tournaments I want to go to in November (I am considering Wake or
Wisconsin or Liberty, but not real excited about any of them.)

Ian




At 01:45 PM 8/7/98 -0500, you wrote:
>John Carroll has not decided on a date as of yet.  We would like to have
>it around the same date, but this is not set in stone yet.  If anyone would
>like to see the tourney on another date, please let me know.
>
>Kelly Young
>John Carroll U
>
>
>



From chappy27  Fri Aug  7 18:10:49 1998
From: chappy27 (Sean Chapman)
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 1998 16:10:49 PDT
Subject: Help finding 3 cites.
Message-ID: <FRI.7.AUG.1998.161049.PDT.CHAPPY27@HOTMAIL.COM>

Can somebody help me with locating a couple of cites,

1. I am loking for the Orenstein card that says winners win, losers
lose. I don't even know if Im spelling Orenstein right?

2. I am also looking for the EDDLEMAN cards from last year, does anybody
remember the source cites and titles for those?

3. And lastly I am looking for the MEAD MPX card.

Even if you only know about one, I would appreciate the assistance.
Thanks in advance for the help. :)
Sean Chapman


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com



From JABLONSKIP  Fri Aug  7 23:22:42 1998
From: JABLONSKIP (Dr. Patrick M. Jablonski)
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 1998 22:22:42 -0600
Subject: More debate spawning...
Message-ID: <FRI.7.AUG.1998.222242.0600.JABLONSKIP@APSU01.APSU.EDU>

I just wanted to send our congratulations to David and Amy Romanelli
(Loyola-Chicago) on the birth of their daughter, Marissa last week.
No the kid isn't named after Scott Elliott's wife.
Haven't been able to talk to Dave yet, but he sure sounded excited
on our answering machine...
The community has really hit a baby boom recently.
Only thing I can remember that explains it is the NCA convention was
just about 9 months ago....  coincidence???



From muaddib  Sat Aug  8 01:30:54 1998
From: muaddib (Luke D Savioe)
Date: Sat, 8 Aug 1998 00:30:54 -0600
Subject: wow
References: <199808030403.AAA16218@dot.crosswinds.net>
Message-ID: <SAT.8.AUG.1998.003054.0600.MUADDIB@COLORADOSPRINGS.CROSSWINDS.NET>

I just got back from work this summer and am back to school... and after
reading my 1196 unread messages from edebate I came to a dark discovery and
please tell me if it is true...

The resolution is actually a case ???  It sure sounds like one....  is it me
or is there really no ground....  is it me or didn't the 1991 amendments or
attemp thereof already prove that one... there is no inherency for any case,
two that every case has been imperically proven to be solved or proved to be
unsolveable.... and three that fiat does not cover people's personal feelings
toward gender and race and therefore renders the resolution pointless .... or
the previous acts and amendments would have solved....

Sorry I just needed to vent that out... it is going to be a long year and I
am glad that I do not have to judge any of these rounds... because believe me
all those arguments of people taking this topic personally are finally going
to be proven true or false... and when some one starts getting all heated up
don't say that I didn't tell you so.... and if it never happens then I will
be glad to be proven wrong and know that people finally learned how to act as
young adults and realize that this is a learning environment that we are
competing in.. not  the halls of congress or city hall  :)

as for me... I am just going to run prolif (It can be topical too, just wait
and see).  ;)

Can't wait....  Looking forward to a great value, critique, more critiques,
and yes more critiques year.... (because that is all that you can run on both
sides)


Mornfully

Me



From e0warn01  Sun Aug  9 08:57:03 1998
From: e0warn01 (Ede Warner)
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 1998 09:57:03 -0400
Subject: Carrie Crenshaw??
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.96.980806151208.13495A-100000@apollo.sfsu.edu>
Message-ID: <SUN.9.AUG.1998.095703.0400.E0WARN01@HOMER.LOUISVILLE.EDU>

teaching at MDI (SIU)...

On Thu, 6 Aug 1998, Shawn T Whalen wrote:

> I need to get in touch with Carrie. I suspect she's traveling or teaching
> at an institute.  Does anyone know how I can get in touch with her?
>
> Shawn Whalen
>
> Director of Forensics
> San Francisco State University
> swhalen at sfsu.edu
> (415) 338-3173
>

Ede Warner Jr., Director of Debate
Strickler 308E, Department of Communication
University of Louisville, Louisville, KY 40292
1-502-852-7126 (office); 1-502-634-0306 (home), fax: 1-502-852-8166
UofL Debate Web Page: http://www.louisville.edu/a-s/comm/students/debate

>From  Sun Aug  9 15:06:11 1998
Message-Id: <SUN.9.AUG.1998.150611.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 2023 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Sun, 9 Aug 1998 15:06:17 -0400
Received: from imo29.mx.aol.com (imo29.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.73]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id PAA44326 for
 <edebate at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Sun, 9 Aug 1998 15:06:16 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from Shonjose at aol.com by imo29.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id 8LULa27851
 for <edebate at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Sun, 9 Aug 1998 15:06:11 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 214
Message-ID: <737092a7.35cdf324 at aol.com>
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 1998 15:06:11 EDT
Reply-To: Shonjose at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Shon Joseph <Shonjose at AOL.COM>
Subject: WDI

OK so Bob Alexander played a pretty good joke on me.  I knew from my college
days the evi from WDI was not sold but he had a pretty good point on why they
would bend this year.  HA HA  The high school I am coaching at is new to
debate and I am hunting every card I can that may be of some use.  If anyone
sees Bob Alexander at MDI let him know this was a pretty good joke and so is
his affirmative for the new topic.

Shon Joseph

>From  Sun Aug  9 15:40:03 1998
Message-Id: <SUN.9.AUG.1998.154003.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 2154 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Sun, 9 Aug 1998 15:40:15 -0400
Received: from imo29.mx.aol.com (imo29.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.73]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id PAA87600 for
 <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Sun, 9 Aug 1998 15:40:14 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from DRTUNA at aol.com by imo29.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id 8YLPa27851;
 Sun, 9 Aug 1998 15:40:03 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 59
Message-ID: <a057e247.35cdfb15 at aol.com>
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 1998 15:40:03 EDT
Reply-To: DRTUNA at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Alfred Snider <DRTUNA at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: WDI HS EVI
Comments: To: Shonjose at aol.com

WDI evidence sets may not be purchased at either the HS or college level.

You may trade with someone who attended, but it is, like true love, not for
sale, at least from us.

Thanks for asking.

Tuna

>From  Sun Aug  9 15:46:40 1998
Message-Id: <SUN.9.AUG.1998.154640.0400.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 2243 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Sun, 9 Aug 1998 15:46:45 -0400
Received: from mailhub.mercer.edu (mailhub.mercer.edu [168.17.194.202]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id PAA14586 for
 <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Sun, 9 Aug 1998 15:46:44 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from acadmn.mercer.edu by Mercer.EDU (PMDF V5.1-10 #28255) with ESMTP
 id <01J0ELBNL9K2000C04 at Mercer.EDU> for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Sun, 9
 Aug 1998 15:46:42 EDT
Received: from Acadmn.Mercer.EDU by Acadmn.Mercer.EDU (PMDF V5.1-10 #28254) id
 <01J0ELBMFNTS8WWMDD at Acadmn.Mercer.EDU> for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Sun,
 09 Aug 1998 15:46:40 -0400 (EDT)
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Message-ID: <Pine.PMDF.3.95.980809154604.538999105A-100000 at Acadmn.Mercer.EDU>
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 1998 15:46:40 -0400
Reply-To: vaughn_e at ACADMN.MERCER.EDU
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Betty Vaughn <vaughn_e at ACADMN.MERCER.EDU>
Subject: Re: Speed and Title Vii
Comments: To: Samara Mohamed <Ara98 at AOL.COM>
In-Reply-To: <34cda9f5.35cca416 at aol.com>

> 1) yes, please.  Ideas for speed drills would be greatly appreciated.  Thank
> you to anyone that posts them!
>
> 2)About women in combat, I thought the law still stood that woment could do
> everything but be in the front line of combat, though I don't know what the
> exact law is.
I am pretty certain women are not allowed to serve on submarines either.



From asnider  Sun Aug  9 16:07:32 1998
From: asnider (Alfred C. Snider)
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 1998 16:07:32 -0500
Subject: WDI schedules for Week 2
Message-ID: <SUN.9.AUG.1998.160732.0500.ASNIDER@ZOO.UVM.EDU>

Here are the schedules for week 2 of WDI. The Parliamantary session is now
in full swing.

I will soon be posting an updated argument and issues list for your
enjoyment as well as more recent pictures, which are on display at
http://debate.uvm.edu/wdidaily.html

Best wishes!

Tuna

++++++++++

COLLEGE EXPERIENCED
WDI 1998
WEEK TWO

8/9 Sunday
1 PM Practice Debates
3 PM Argument Groups
5 PM Dinner
7 PM Speaking Drills RTT
7:30 PM Argument Groups

8/10 Monday
8:45 AM Meeting RTT
9 AM Lecture: Counterplan #2 Hayes R: Dumas RTT
10 AM Lecture: Circumvention & Fiat Berube R: Gonos
10:45 AM Lecture:Attack Case Dumas R; Heidt RTT
11:30 Lunch
1 PM Practice Debates
3 PM Argument Groups
5 PM Dinner
7 PM Speaking Drills RTT
7:30 PM Argument Groups

8/11 Tuesday
8:45 AM Meeting RTT
9 AM Lecture: Six Disads Snider R: Massey RTT
10 AM Panel: Psychology of Winning Hovden, Massey, Cornellier, Heidt RTT
11:30 Lunch
1 PM Practice Debates
3 PM Argument Groups
5 PM Dinner
7 PM Speaking Drills RTT
7:30 PM Argument Groups

8/12 Wednesday
8:45 AM Meeting & Institute Photo
9 AM Argument Groups
11:30 AM Lunch
1 PM Argument Q & A
5 PM Dinner
7 PM Work with partner

8/13 Thursday
 Round One
 Round Two
 Round Three


8/14 Friday
 Round Four
5 PM Closing Assembly

8/15 Saturday
NOON Everyone is out of their dorm room

++++++++++

 COLLEGE FELLOWS
WDI 1998
WEEK TWO

8/9 Sunday
1 PM Practice Debates
3 PM Argument Groups
5 PM Dinner
7 PM Speaking Drills Royall Tyler
7:30 PM Argument Groups

8/10 Monday
8:45 AM Meeting Royall Tyler
9 AM Lecture: Counterplan #2 Hayes R: Dumas Royall Tyler
10 AM Lecture: Circumvention & Fiat Berube R: Gonos
10:45 AM Fellows Session: Meany
11:30 AM Lunch
1 PM Practice Debates
3 PM Argument Groups
5 PM Dinner
7 PM Speaking Drills Royall Tyler
7:30 PM Argument Groups

8/11 Tuesday
8:45 AM Meeting Royall Tyler
9 AM Fellows Session: Briefing RTT 210
10 AM Psychology of Winning Hovden, Massey, Cornellier, Heidt
11:30 AM Lunch
1 PM Practice Debates
3 PM Argument Groups
5 PM Dinner
7 PM Speaking Drills Royall Tyler
7:30 PM Argument Groups

8/12 Wednesday
8:45 AM Meeting & Institute Photo Royall Tyler
9 AM Argument Groups
11:30 AM Lunch
1 PM Argument Q&A
5 PM Dinner
7 PM Work with Partner

8/13 Thursday
 Round One
 Round Two
 Round Three

8/14 Friday
 Round Four
5 PM Closing Assembly

8/15 Saturday
NOON Everyone is out of their dorm room

++++++++++

 COLLEGE FUTURE STARS
WDI 1998
WEEK TWO

8/9 Sunday
1 PM Argument Groups
3 PM Practice Debates
5 PM Dinner
7 PM Speaking Drills RTT
7:30 PM Argument Groups

8/10 Monday
8:45 AM Meeting RTT
9 AM Lecture: CP #2 Hayes R: Dumas RTT
10 AM Lecture: Circumvention & Fiat Berube R: Gonos RTT
10:45 AM Lecture: Attack the Case Dumas R: Heidt RTT
11:30 Lunch
1 PM Future Stars session Hayes, Berube, Dumas RTT 210
2 PM Work with Partner
3 PM Practice Debates
5 PM Dinner
7 PM Speaking Drills RTT
7:30 PM Argument Groups

8/11 Tuesday
8:45 AM Meeting RTT
9 AM Lecture: 6 DAs Snider R: Massey RTT
10 AM Panel: Psychology of Winning Hovden, Massey, Cornellier, Heidt RTT
11:30 Lunch
1 PM Future Stars session Snider RTT 210
2 PM Work with Partner
3 PM Practice Debates
5 PM Dinner
7 PM Speaking Drills RTT
7:30 PM Argument Groups

8/12 Wednesday
8:45 AM Meeting & Institute Photo
9 AM Argument Groups
11:30 AM Lunch
1 PM Argument Q & A
5 PM Dinner
7 PM Work with partner

8/13 Thursday
 Round One
 Round Two
 Round Three

8/14 Friday
 Round Four
5 PM Closing Assembly

8/15 Saturday
NOON Everyone is out of their dorm room

++++++++++

 HIGH SCHOOL
WDI 1998
WEEK TWO

8/9 Sunday
1 PM Speaking Drills Lafayette 207
1:30 PM Lecture
2:30 Argument Groups
5 PM Dinner
7 PM Practice Debates

8/10 Monday
8:45 AM Meeting Lafayette 207
9 AM Panel: Psychology of Winning Hovden, Cornellier, Massey, Heidt
10 AM Lecture: CP #2 Hayes R: Dumas
11 AM Lecture: 2AC/1AR/2AR Hoe R: Jones
11:30 AM Lunch
1 PM Speaking Drills Lafayette 207
1:30 PM Lecture: Fiat & Circumvention Berube R: Gonos Lafayette 207
2:30 PM Argument Groups
5 PM Dinner
7 PM Practice Debates

8/11 Tuesday
8:45 AM Meeting & Institute Photo Lafayette 207
9 AM Lecture: Alternative Formats Meany R: Berube
10 AM Lecture: 6 Das Snider
11 AM Lecture: 1NC/2NC/1NR/2NR Hoe
11:30 AM Lunch
1 PM Speaking Drills Lafayette 207
1:30 PM Argument Groups
5 PM Dinner
7 PM Practice Debates

8/12 Wednesday
8:45 AM Meeting Lafayette 207
9 AM Argument Groups
11:30 AM Lunch
1 PM Argument Q&A
5 PM Dinner
7 PM Work with Partner

8/13 Thursday
 Round One
 Round Two
 Round Three

8/14 Friday
 Round Four
 Round Five
5 PM Closing Assembly

8/15 Saturday
NOON Everyone is out of their dorm room

++++++++++

 COACHING WORKSHOP
WDI 1998
WEEK TWO

Day 9 Sunday 8/9
1:30 PM TELEVISION SHOW: Snider, JW Patterson, Glen Johnson, Clay Redding
7:00 PM Judging Part 2 Seminar
Hovden, Meany, Dumas

Day 10 Monday 8/10
7:00 PM Administration Part 2 with David Berube
Requesting Funds
Budgeting
Travel Arrangements
Grant Writing

Day 11 Tuesday 8/11
8:45 AM INSTITUTE PHOTO RTT
7:00 PM Different Formats with John Meany
Parliamentary Debating
International Debating
Public Debates/radio/TV

Day 12 Wednesday 8/12
7:00 PM SELECTED TOPICS
7 PM Sexual harassment with Jan Hovden
7:30 PM Team Psychology with Steve Woods
8:15 PM Debate and the Law with Tracy Gonos

Day 13 Thursday 8/13
Judging at tournament
Coaches Dinner

Day 14 Friday 8/14
Day off!
5 PM Closing Assembly RTT

Day 15 Friday 8/15
LEAVE AND GO HOME!

++++++++++++++++

 TENTATIVE
PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
WORLD DEBATE INSTITUTE 1998

SUNDAY, AUGUST 9, 1998
1: 00 PM WELCOME RTT
1:30 PM "Parliamentary debate formats from around the world"
 Meany, Kargacin, Murray, Nelson, Whitmore
2:00 PM "Types of propositions"
 Nelson R: Meany
2:45 PM "Public and broadcast debate and discussion"
 Meany R:
3:30 PM Topic Selection Exercise
4:15 PM "Propositional case construction, strategy, and exercise"
 Meany R: Kargacin

MONDAY, AUGUST 10, 1998
9:00 AM "Advanced internet and electronic database research: a multimedia
presentation
 Gehrke R: Gonos
10:00 AM "Philosophical and historical argument"
 Kargacin R: Petkov
11:00 AM "Causal argument"
 Berube R: Kargacin
11:30 AM Lunch
1:00 PM Practice debates/Television debates, discussions
2:00 PM Practice debates/Television debates, discussions
3:00 PM "Argument components and lines of argument"
 Snider R: Meany
4:00 PM "Refutation and opposition strategy"
 Meany R: Whitmore
5:00 PM Dinner

TUESDAY, AUGUST 11, 1998
8:45 AM INSTITUTE PHOTO SESSION RTT
9:00 AM Practice debates
10:00 AM "Counterpositions"
 Woods R: Meany
10:45 AM "Points of information and exercise"
 Whitmore R: Nelson
11:30 AM Lunch
1:00 PM "Debating value controversies"
 Berube R: Kargacin
2:00 PM "Discourse based argument"
 Meany R: Kargacin
2:45 PM "Dynamism and credability"
 Snider R: Nelson
3:30 PM Public speaking exercise
4:15 PM "Cognitive illusions"
 Meany R: Kargacin
5:00 PM Dinner


WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 12, 1998
9:00 AM "Critiquing & argument concentrations"
 Meany R: Kargacin
10:00 AM "Argument fallacies"
 Snider, R: Nelson
11:00 AM TBA
 Heller
11:30 AM Lunch
1:00 PM Practice debates/Television debates, discussions
2:00 PM Practice debates/Television debates, discussions
3:00 PM "Ethics"
 Meany R: Dybvig
4:00 PM "Hasty generalization, induction, deduction"
 Berube R: Kargacin
5:00 PM Dinner

THURSDAY, AUGUST 13, 1998
9:00 AM "Value comparisons and hierarchies"
 Meany R: Kargacin
10:00 AM "Judge adaptation and tournament behavior"
 Nelson R: Meany
10:45 AM Open Discussion
11:30 AM Lunch
1:00 PM "Metaphor and symbolism"
 Meany R: Heller
1:45 PM "Humor, barracking, heckling"
 Nelson R: TBA
2:30 PM Open Discussion
3:00 PM Round One
4:00 PM Round Two

FRIDAY, AUGUST 14, 1998
9:00 AM Round Three
10:00 AM Round Four
11:00 AM Lunch
1:00 PM Television debates and discussions
2:00 PM Television debates and discussions
3:30 PM Public Debate preparation
4:00 PM Public Debate: Japan vs. Yugoslavia
5:00 PM Closing Assembly

SATURDAY, AUGUST 15, 1998
NOON EVERYONE OUT OF THEIR ROOM

Alfred Charles Snider -- Lawrence Professor of Forensics, University of Vermont
Mail: 475 Main Street, UVM, Burlington, VT 05405-4225
Phone: 802-656-0097, Fax: 802-656-4275
DEBATE CENTRAL:  Debate's Biggest Website http://debate.uvm.edu/
WORLD DEBATE INSTITUTE 1998 - make plans now - http://debate.uvm.edu/ndi.html

>From  Sun Aug  9 16:44:11 1998
Message-Id: <SUN.9.AUG.1998.164411.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 2632 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Sun, 9 Aug 1998 16:44:33 -0400
Received: from imo17.mx.aol.com (imo17.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.7]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id QAA102492 for
 <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Sun, 9 Aug 1998 16:44:32 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo17.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id 8JLLa02269
 for <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Sun, 9 Aug 1998 16:44:11 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 58
Message-ID: <a7249647.35ce0a1d at aol.com>
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 1998 16:44:11 EDT
Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Michael Bear Bryant <MWBRYANT at AOL.COM>
Subject: NDT Committee Elitism

I'm going to take Dallas' advice and attempt to focus my animosity on some
"hot spots" of elitism. Can anyone on the NDT Committee justify the way the
NYC Consortium was denied the ability to send teams to NDT Districts?

Why is the notion of a team comprised of individuals from different schools
really that threatening? Given the immense shrinkage in NDT teams, you'd think
that you'd be willing to do whatever's possible to increase the number of
students. Why is it OK to suspend eligibility (the SMS precedent that Louden
has admitted to) rules to get some schools into your organization and then
turn around and exclude others because they are banding together to make it
affordable to exist?

I think the NYC Consortium decision proves, as most of us already believe,
that the NDT Committee is more concerned with protecting the people that are
part of that committee than it cares about the health of NDT or about the
students that might actually benefit from those activities the committee
oversees.

Betting no one on the Committee has the courage to answer,

Bryant,



From mgremillion  Sun Aug  9 16:00:54 1998
From: mgremillion (MWilliams)
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 1998 16:00:54 -0500
Subject: Lookin' for Jen Rigdon
Message-ID: <SUN.9.AUG.1998.160054.0500.MGREMILLION@SELU.EDU>

Rigdon, get in touch with me please.
Scott Elliott

>From  Sun Aug  9 17:13:07 1998
Message-Id: <SUN.9.AUG.1998.171307.0400.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 2888 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Sun, 9 Aug 1998 17:13:14 -0400
Received: from mailhub.mercer.edu (mailhub.mercer.edu [168.17.194.202]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id RAA87778 for
 <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Sun, 9 Aug 1998 17:13:13 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from acadmn.mercer.edu by Mercer.EDU (PMDF V5.1-10 #28255) with ESMTP
 id <01J0EOCTT492000C04 at Mercer.EDU> for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Sun, 9
 Aug 1998 17:13:09 EDT
Received: from Acadmn.Mercer.EDU by Acadmn.Mercer.EDU (PMDF V5.1-10 #28254) id
 <01J0EOCSRCJ48WWMGW at Acadmn.Mercer.EDU> for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Sun,
 09 Aug 1998 17:13:08 -0400 (EDT)
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Message-ID: <Pine.PMDF.3.95.980809170345.538999232C-100000 at Acadmn.Mercer.EDU>
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 1998 17:13:07 -0400
Reply-To: drake_b at ACADMN.MERCER.EDU
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Brian Drake <drake_b at ACADMN.MERCER.EDU>
Subject: Re: NDT Committee Elitism
Comments: To: Michael Bear Bryant <MWBRYANT at AOL.COM>
In-Reply-To: <a7249647.35ce0a1d at aol.com>

On Sun, 9 Aug 1998, Michael Bear Bryant wrote:
> Why is the notion of a team comprised of individuals from different schools
> really that threatening? Given the immense shrinkage in NDT teams, you'd think
> that you'd be willing to do whatever's possible to increase the number of
> students. Why is it OK to suspend eligibility (the SMS precedent that Louden
> has admitted to) rules to get some schools into your organization and then
> turn around and exclude others because they are banding together to make it
> affordable to exist?

Let's be 100% clear on this issue.  The NYC Consortium is not the first
group of people to be denied eligibility in the NDT.  Lots of different
schools have requested mixed team eligibility.  My fear, which is shared
by many different people, is that allowing hybrid teams sets a bad
precident for other schools.  Sometimes schools produce a superior debater
and have to pair them with a less than great partner.  Lets say there is
more than one school with this problem.  These schools then decide to pair
the two superior debaters and create a team that will dominate all others.
Taking it a step further, let's say that team wins the NDT.  Which school
gets the credit for the trophy and prestige?

The Drake
Mercer University



From dperkins  Sun Aug  9 16:56:34 1998
From: dperkins (Dallas Perkins)
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 1998 17:56:34 -0400
Subject: Joint Subscriptions
Message-ID: <SUN.9.AUG.1998.175634.0400.DPERKINS@FAS.HARVARD.EDU>

I write in response to the posts of Bear and The Drake regarding joint
subscriptions to the NDT.

I join in Bear's hope that some members of the NDT governance will defend
this action.  I am not a member of that august body (NDT Comm) which made
this decision, but I was present and was active in the discussion, and I
had Scott Thompson's proxy to vote for District Eight.

To clarify, the issue for discussion was not explicitly about the NYC
consortium, or about any other specific set of circumstances.  While
specific situations were lurking in the background, and were discussed at
length, the proposal on the table was general in nature.  It would have
allowed two or more universities to subscribe jointly to the NDT for a
limited number of years, and only if they met a fairly rigorous set of
conditions.  These latter included close geographical proximity, full and
continuous integrations of the students from the various schools into a
single debate squad with a single integrated coaching staff, written
approval from the administrations of the various schools, and, most
importantly, a demonstration that the schools involved (or all but one of
them) could not support a full debate team with resources available on
each campus.

Despite all of these conditions, and despite several precedents where
joint programs have been allowed on an ad-hoc basis in years past (MIT and
Wellesley;  the Claremont Colleges,) and finally depite the committee's
certain knowledge that its decision would mean the exclusion of students
from several schools from ever having the opportunity to attend the NDT,
the proposal was defeated.

The content of the debate, and the results of the rollcall vote, are
recorded in the minutes of the NDT meetings held in Chicago at the 1997
SCA convention, which are available on the NDT Chair's web site.

In this context, I don't see how Mr. Drake's arguments make any sense.
The scenario he paints of two star debaters being paired up go win this
one tournament is totally beyond the limits of the proposed amendment to
the NDT rules.  The "precident" (sic) set would be considerably more
limited.  And as Bear points out, the signal that the NDT is open to
expanded participation, especially by such an innovative attempt to bring
policy debate to college students in our greatest city, would have been
profound.

Finally, and I really do need to get back to reading about employment
discrimination, I applaud the shift from the shrill tones of recent days
to this more constructive discourse, one in which I hope the
representatives of the NDT governance structure will feel comfortable in
joining.  Frankly, I am troubled that NO ONE with any responsibility for
any of the events that started all of the elitism thread has come forth to
offer any explanations.  Of course, Rebecca Bjork has left debate and is
likely (blissfully) ignorant of the whole controversy.  For our other
leaders to remain so utterly silent is  .  .  .  . well, I won't say what
I think, and I can't think of anything appropriate.

dp

>From  Sun Aug  9 18:31:13 1998
Message-Id: <SUN.9.AUG.1998.183113.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 3160 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Sun, 9 Aug 1998 18:31:22 -0400
Received: from imo23.mx.aol.com (imo23.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.67]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id SAA14390 for
 <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Sun, 9 Aug 1998 18:31:22 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo23.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id
 SCNKa26053; Sun, 9 Aug 1998 18:31:13 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 38
Message-ID: <ca96627b.35ce2332 at aol.com>
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 1998 18:31:13 EDT
Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Michael Bear Bryant <MWBRYANT at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: NDT Committee Elitism
Comments: To: drake_b at Acadmn.Mercer.EDU

In a message dated 98-08-09 17:13:14 EDT, Drake writes:

<<  My fear, which is shared
 by many different people, is that allowing hybrid teams sets a bad
 precident for other schools.  Sometimes schools produce a superior debater
 and have to pair them with a less than great partner.  Lets say there is
 more than one school with this problem.  These schools then decide to pair
 the two superior debaters and create a team that will dominate all others.
 Taking it a step further, let's say that team wins the NDT.  Which school
 gets the credit for the trophy and prestige?   >>

It's already happened in CEDA, without collapse of any prestige-based
heirarchy. What are we weighing versus the possible expansion in
participation? What are we balancing versus inclusiveness for low-budget
programs?

Interested in your opinions,

Bear

>From  Sun Aug  9 19:40:24 1998
Message-Id: <SUN.9.AUG.1998.194024.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 3281 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Sun, 9 Aug 1998 19:40:46 -0400
Received: from imo29.mx.aol.com (imo29.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.73]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id TAA14580 for
 <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Sun, 9 Aug 1998 19:40:46 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo29.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id
 ECARa27851; Sun, 9 Aug 1998 19:40:24 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 58
Message-ID: <e610058a.35ce3369 at aol.com>
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 1998 19:40:24 EDT
Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Michael Bear Bryant <MWBRYANT at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: NDT Committee Elitism
Comments: To: steveman at umich.edu

In a message dated 98-08-09 18:01:00 EDT, Steve Mancuso wrote and I forward
with permission:

<<
 I really don't have much time to answer this attack since I've been busy
 rearranging the names in the NDT Booklet, but I'll explain my vote, at
 least.

 The NDT rules prohibit hybrid teams.  My district (Five) has, at every
 opportunity, expressed near unanimous opposition to hybrids.  In voting
 to exclude hybrids, I am representing the opinions of my constituents,
 large and small schools.

 Personally, I am opposed to hybrids, especially where each school
 involved has the resources and debaters to enter a complete team on
 their own.  However, I strongly support allowing hybrids to debate at
 individual tournaments, just not at the national championship
 tournament.

 I don't know the details of the NYC situation, and to my knowledge the
 NDT committee hasn't voted on that particular example.

 As to your general charge of elitism and taking care of our own...the
 last time this issue came before the committee, Harvard (one of your
 identified elite NDT schools) was petitioning to waive the hybrid rule
 to permit MIT students to debate for Harvard.  I voted against the
 waiver (it was defeated by one vote).

 You conclude your post by saying that no one on the Committee would have
 the courage to answer you.  Why in the world do you think this takes
 courage?  If any aspect of responding is scary it's knowing that I've
 contributed to causing another torrent of email from you.



 Steve Mancuso
 University of Michigan

 P.S.  BTW, my compliments to the fellow elitist who misspelled several
 of the names of Michigan participants to the NDT in the booklet.  What
 better way for us to cover our tracks than to treat ourselves no better
 than the schools we are trying to screw.
 >>

Bear answers:

First, thank you, Steve for both your response and the permission to forward
the entirety of your post back to the list. I've never really pegged you as
someone held back by fear.

Secondly, I concede your explanation of how the only vote on hybrid teams
revolved around Dallas' effort to secure approval for a Havard-Wellesley
hybrid. I also understand that rejecting that possibility forced Scott
Thompson of Marist to deny the NYC Consortium the right to enter the Northeast
Districts.

Thirdly, we really must examine how deeply your strongly-held principles are
really rooted. I apologize for what seems like a personal attack, but is
critical to further possible deconstruction of NDT elitism. Didn't David
Brownell really attend Eastern Michigan while attending NDT for Michigan in
the 1980's? Want the names of five other debaters that were in elims at NDT,
while not enrolled in the school they debated for?

It appears that there is a horrible double standard whereby the sins of the
elites are overlooked at the same time that rules are rigidly being enforced
to deny inclusion of a number of potential students. If Dallas can get some
more students involved from a neighboring school that doesn't seem able to
fund a program, what's so wrong? It seems as though he's being punished for
not using the traditional process of just doing it and not even asking for
permission. The NDT version of "Don't ask, don't tell."
How can you rationalize the distinction between what you proscribe for others
and your own history? Be careful, Steve, there's a wonderful message from NDT-
L of about 4 years ago (that I cross-posted to CEDA-L) where you beautifully
justify your actions in allowing Brownell to debate for Michigan. Is it
possible that some intra-elite conflict would be enough to blind you to your
earlier words in favor of student inclusivity?

Finally, I'm sorry to hear they screwed your debaters' names up, too. Maybe if
two of them weren't knocked out of advancing to elims by a CEDA  team (go
ENMU!) , you'd get more respect, too. Did you see what the "booklet elites"
did to them, by the way? Whats that drawing besides "Fog"-boy Foy's mouth?

I know it would probably be easy to escalate this into a full-scale ad hom
war, but really, how do you reconcile the distinction in a manner that doesn't
continue to make NDT look very elitist?

Bear
(still upset about losing to Mancuso in the quarters of Northwestern in 1980,
despite picking up Snider's ballot....;-)

>From  Sun Aug  9 20:24:59 1998
Message-Id: <SUN.9.AUG.1998.202459.0400.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 3547 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Sun, 9 Aug 1998 20:25:01 -0400
Received: from gremlins.rs.itd.umich.edu (gremlins.rs.itd.umich.edu
 [141.211.83.13]) by list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id
 UAA102540 for <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Sun, 9 Aug 1998 20:25:00 -0400
 (EDT)
Received: from [141.211.120.110] (aha220.ccs.itd.umich.edu [141.211.120.110])
 by gremlins.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.8.8/2.5) with SMTP id UAA26123; Sun,
 9 Aug 1998 20:24:49 -0400 (EDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Message-ID: <MailDrop1.2d7.980809202459 at aha220.ccs.itd.umich.edu>
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 1998 20:24:59 -0400
Reply-To: steveman at UMICH.EDU
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Steve Mancuso <steveman at UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: NDT Committee Elitism
Comments: To: MWBRYANT at aol.com
In-Reply-To: <e610058a.35ce3369 at aol.com>

Bear,

I do not know anything directly about your other accusations directed
toward "NDT elitists".  But I do know the facts in the example you raise
about Michigan and David Brownell -- your "facts" are utterly wrong.  It
sort of calls into question in my mind your McCarthy-like list of "five
other debaters" that you have in your pocket, and discredits your other
charges of elitism.

First the facts.  David Brownell attended Eastern Michigan for exactly
ONE semester -- the first semester of the NATO topic. During that
semester I contacted tournament directors to receive permission for him
to attend their tournaments.   After that semester he was admitted to
Michigan as a full time student (I still remember seeing his acceptance
letter to UM hanging on his Christmas tree), he spent five semesters
enrolled at Michigan and graduated with a Michigan degree.

In short, contrary to your wreckless and unsubstantiated accusation, he
never attended the NDT for Michigan when he was not a fully enrolled UM
student.  He didn't attend the NDT at all on the NATO topic - as that
was prior to third teams being permitted to attend.  Our two teams met
in the quarterfinals (Mike Green, Andrew Schrank, Jim Speta and Denise
Loshbough).  David was at our side helping, though.

No double standard here.  I support hybrid teams being permitted to
attend every tournament except the national championship.  I stated that
position clearly in my first post to you.

I strongly support hybrids for regular-seasonal invitationals and always
have - especially where one of the two schools does not offer
intercollegiate debate.  I do not support hybirds for the NDT.  I think
at the NDT the risk to the integrity (as I see it) of the tournament
posed by "all-star" teams outweighs the educational benefit to the
individual students.  I understand the arguments of those who evaluate
this differently.

In the case of Harvard and MIT, I argued strongly for this exact
dichotomy.  I think it wonderful that Dallas takes the MIT debaters to
tournaments to help create interest in their program at their school.
In fact there were two MIT students travelling with Harvard last year.

My argument at the committee meeting was that if DP and SAH had the
resources and interest to coach them WITH the Harvard debaters at the
NDT, they should submit for a separate membership to the NDT for MIT and
take/coach them at the NDT under the name MIT.

I suppose after reading this correction of your memory, you won't
apologize for accusing me of "NDT elitism" based on it, and accusing me
of violating the NDT/AFA rules.

Or will you just turn to your next wreckless, ridiculous and
unsubstantiated charge?

Steve Mancuso
University of Michigan

>From  Sun Aug  9 21:57:13 1998
Message-Id: <SUN.9.AUG.1998.215713.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 3950 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Sun, 9 Aug 1998 21:57:18 -0400
Received: from imo25.mx.aol.com (imo25.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.69]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id VAA52838 for
 <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Sun, 9 Aug 1998 21:57:17 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from DRTUNA at aol.com by imo25.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id SUJQa03745;
 Sun, 9 Aug 1998 21:57:13 +2000 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 59
Message-ID: <5afcf6e5.35ce537b at aol.com>
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 1998 21:57:13 EDT
Reply-To: DRTUNA at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Alfred Snider <DRTUNA at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: NDT Committee Elitism
Comments: To: drake_b at ACADMN.MERCER.EDU

In a message dated 8/9/98 4:13:36 PM, drake_b at ACADMN.MERCER.EDU wrote:

<<Let's be 100% clear on this issue.  The NYC Consortium is not the first
group of people to be denied eligibility in the NDT.  Lots of different
schools have requested mixed team eligibility.  My fear, which is shared
by many different people, is that allowing hybrid teams sets a bad
precident for other schools.  Sometimes schools produce a superior debater
and have to pair them with a less than great partner.  Lets say there is
more than one school with this problem.  These schools then decide to pair
the two superior debaters and create a team that will dominate all others.
Taking it a step further, let's say that team wins the NDT.  Which school
gets the credit for the trophy and prestige?>>

So the danger that some teams might be more competitive justifies leaving
whole programs out of the tournament? I just want to make sure this is what
you are saying ... that potential abuse which might hurt your team's
competitive performance means that it is OK to keep out programs like NYCartel
and MIT/Harvard.

I wouldn't want to misinterpret.

Tuna

>From  Sun Aug  9 21:05:14 1998
Message-Id: <SUN.9.AUG.1998.210514.0500.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 4070 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Sun, 9 Aug 1998 22:09:38 -0400
Received: from alpha.selu.edu (alpha.selu.edu [147.174.1.7]) by list.uvm.edu
 (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id WAA43140 for
 <edebate at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Sun, 9 Aug 1998 22:09:35 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from selu.edu by selu.edu (PMDF V5.1-9 #D3128) id
 <01J0EWGBTJ4WAC2XAJ at selu.edu> for edebate at LIST.UVM.EDU; Sun, 9 Aug
 1998 21:08:32 CDT
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Message-ID: <01J0EWGKUPJ6AC2XAJ at selu.edu>
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 1998 21:05:14 -0500
Reply-To: selliott at SELU.EDU
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: selliott at SELU.EDU
Organization: Southeastern Louisiana University
Subject: Re: NDT Committee Elitism
In-Reply-To: "Your message dated Sun, 09 Aug 1998 16:44:11 -0400 (EDT)"
 <199808092119.RAA07654 at lab.housing.fsu.edu>

Oh, I get it now!
It is all about securing the big "W" for the old school. Its not about
having more people participate in an activity, it is all about securing that
bad-ass NDT National Championship--the REAL national championship. Bear may be
crazy, but he does have a point. If I recall, CEDA proudly had a national
championship won by a hybrid team. The stench of the "tainted" victory wasn't
that bad.
Scott Elliott



From kmmcdon  Sun Aug  9 21:25:54 1998
From: kmmcdon (Kelly McDonald)
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 1998 19:25:54 -0700
Subject: NDT Committee Elitism (fwd)
Message-ID: <SUN.9.AUG.1998.192554.0700.KMMCDON@CC.WWU.EDU>

As I was not concerned in the past, am not concerned in the present, nor
do I anticipate concern in the future about any 'hyper' competitive hybrid
teams, there may be a more principled reason to suggest why only single
programs should be able to enter teams at a tournament.  The decision to
debate in college is and should be tied to the school one elects to enroll
in.  As Burke is noted for saying, 'choice is tragic.'  The decision to
enroll at one institution is also a decision NOT to enroll at others.
Why, for example, should students at a community college without a debate
program debate under the name/guise of a neighboring university?  When
that student completes the program at their CC they may enroll for at and
debate for the adjacent university.  As I run a program at a state
supported institution, this concern is less relevant to me as tuition is
so inexpensive.  However, if I were at a private school with a high
barrier for tuition and had little scholarships to off-set that, I would
be at a qualitative disadvantage over the state supported program with CC
students or another program with CC students.

I admire the work of those who wish to create programs at institutions
where they have not existed in the past and bring the value of a forensic
education to individuals who may not otherwise have that opportunity, we
should recognize the value and necessity of institutional support and
faculty involvement in the program.  This comment is not intended as a
slight to anyone or any program.  Rather, it reflects my concern that we
recognize the possibility that the decision to debate is more tied with
one's choice of educational institution than we realize.

Some thoughts....

Kelly

Kelly M. McDonald, PhD
Director of Forensics
Western Washington University
Department of Communication
Bellingham, WA  98225-9102

phone:  360-650-3877
  fax:  360-650-6529
email:  kmmcdon at cc.wwu.edu

>From  Mon Aug 10 00:21:03 1998
Message-Id: <MON.10.AUG.1998.002103.0400.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 0239 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 10 Aug 1998 00:21:09
 -0400
Received: from mailhub.mercer.edu (mailhub.mercer.edu [168.17.194.202]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id AAA58602 for
 <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Mon, 10 Aug 1998 00:21:08 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from acadmn.mercer.edu by Mercer.EDU (PMDF V5.1-10 #28255) with ESMTP
 id <01J0F3ADZVJK000CDF at Mercer.EDU> for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 10
 Aug 1998 00:21:05 EDT
Received: from Acadmn.Mercer.EDU by Acadmn.Mercer.EDU (PMDF V5.1-10 #28254) id
 <01J0F3ADG85S8WWO2D at Acadmn.Mercer.EDU> for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon,
 10 Aug 1998 00:21:03 -0400 (EDT)
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Message-ID: <Pine.PMDF.3.95.980810001012.539001301B-100000 at Acadmn.Mercer.EDU>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 00:21:03 -0400
Reply-To: drake_b at ACADMN.MERCER.EDU
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Brian Drake <drake_b at ACADMN.MERCER.EDU>
Subject: Re: NDT Committee Elitism
Comments: To: DRTUNA at aol.com
In-Reply-To: <5afcf6e5.35ce537b at aol.com>

On Sun, 9 Aug 1998 DRTUNA at aol.com wrote:

> So the danger that some teams might be more competitive justifies leaving
> whole programs out of the tournament? I just want to make sure this is what
> you are saying ... that potential abuse which might hurt your team's
> competitive performance means that it is OK to keep out programs like NYCartel
> and MIT/Harvard.
>
> I wouldn't want to misinterpret.
>
> Tuna
>

I was unaware of the amendment that Dallas spoke of in his previous post.
I think that there does need to be a significant check against potential
abuse.  Coming from a small school, I think it would be unfair that a
group of schools could ban together and create a greater pool of library,
coaching, and work resources.  I do not know much about the NYC schools
involved in the consortium, so I will not venture to say that they are
these "evil" schools.  However, I think the conseqences of any abuse would
be too great.

Competition is only one piece of the greater pie which is debate.  I would
like to think that debate has as much to do with education as it does with
competition.  The fact is that the more competitive you are the more you
learn.  I think it would be unfortunate to see only hybrid schools
dominate the educational process.  So yes, I fear that there would be
super competitive schools because its my education at stake.

The Drake
Mercer Univ.

>From  Mon Aug 10 00:41:13 1998
Message-Id: <MON.10.AUG.1998.004113.0400.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 0347 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 10 Aug 1998 00:41:17
 -0400
Received: from mailhub.mercer.edu (mailhub.mercer.edu [168.17.194.202]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id AAA37134 for
 <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Mon, 10 Aug 1998 00:41:16 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from acadmn.mercer.edu by Mercer.EDU (PMDF V5.1-10 #28255) with ESMTP
 id <01J0F40COREK000CDF at Mercer.EDU> for edebate at list.uvm.edu; Mon, 10
 Aug 1998 00:41:13 EDT
Received: from Acadmn.Mercer.EDU by Acadmn.Mercer.EDU (PMDF V5.1-10 #28254) id
 <01J0F40CDRH68WWO2D at Acadmn.Mercer.EDU> for edebate at list.uvm.edu; Mon,
 10 Aug 1998 00:41:13 -0400 (EDT)
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Message-ID: <Pine.PMDF.3.95.980810003041.539001301D-100000 at Acadmn.Mercer.EDU>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 00:41:13 -0400
Reply-To: drake_b at ACADMN.MERCER.EDU
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Brian Drake <drake_b at ACADMN.MERCER.EDU>
Subject: Re: NDT Committee Elitism
Comments: To: MWBRYANT at aol.com
In-Reply-To: <ca96627b.35ce2332 at aol.com>

On Sun, 9 Aug 1998 MWBRYANT at aol.com wrote:

> It's already happened in CEDA, without collapse of any prestige-based
> heirarchy. What are we weighing versus the possible expansion in
> participation? What are we balancing versus inclusiveness for low-budget
> programs?
>
> Interested in your opinions,
>
> Bear
>

Bear,
        I don't think we're talking about teams who can't afford to
compete on the circuit.  Boston University does not have a debate program,
but on the Enviro. topic they pulled it together and debated
competitively.  Granted they spent their own personal funds to debate on
the national circuit, but they sacrificed for the love of the activity.
As I stated in a previous e-mail, I was not aware of the amendment that
Dallas spoke of.  I suppose that changes my view on the matter.  So guess
the question becomes, does the NYC Cartel lack the resources to qualify
for the NDT?  I think the amendment is a great check to my fears of a
hyper-competitive team, should we try to see what happens when we
dismantle that check?

The Drake
Mercer Univ.

>From  Mon Aug 10 04:32:00 1998
Message-Id: <MON.10.AUG.1998.043200.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 0877 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 10 Aug 1998 04:32:37
 -0400
Received: from imo29.mx.aol.com (imo29.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.73]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id EAA93908 for
 <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Mon, 10 Aug 1998 04:32:36 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo29.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id
 BVHUa27851; Mon, 10 Aug 1998 04:32:00 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 58
Message-ID: <599ee472.35ceb001 at aol.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 04:32:00 EDT
Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Michael Bear Bryant <MWBRYANT at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: NDT Committee Elitism (fwd)
Comments: To: kmmcdon at CC.WWU.EDU

Yes, choice is tragic. Unfortunately, NDT seems to have already made its
choices and now seems dependent upon the foundation of larger CEDA membership
to be able to live with those choices. Though I know Kelly is a good person,
I'm afraid the philosophy that says, "If they want to compete they should have
went to the 'RIGHT' school," is a pretty tragic rhetorical choice. Can you
possibly see how one would interpret that to be somewhat elitist?

A mindset doesn't have to be a conspiracy,

Bryant


In a message dated 98-08-09 22:26:14 EDT, Kelly writes:

<< As I was not concerned in the past, am not concerned in the present, nor
 do I anticipate concern in the future about any 'hyper' competitive hybrid
 teams, there may be a more principled reason to suggest why only single
 programs should be able to enter teams at a tournament.  The decision to
 debate in college is and should be tied to the school one elects to enroll
 in.  As Burke is noted for saying, 'choice is tragic.'  The decision to
 enroll at one institution is also a decision NOT to enroll at others.
 Why, for example, should students at a community college without a debate
 program debate under the name/guise of a neighboring university?  When
 that student completes the program at their CC they may enroll for at and
 debate for the adjacent university.  As I run a program at a state
 supported institution, this concern is less relevant to me as tuition is
 so inexpensive.  However, if I were at a private school with a high
 barrier for tuition and had little scholarships to off-set that, I would
 be at a qualitative disadvantage over the state supported program with CC
 students or another program with CC students.

 I admire the work of those who wish to create programs at institutions
 where they have not existed in the past and bring the value of a forensic
 education to individuals who may not otherwise have that opportunity, we
 should recognize the value and necessity of institutional support and
 faculty involvement in the program.  This comment is not intended as a
 slight to anyone or any program.  Rather, it reflects my concern that we
 recognize the possibility that the decision to debate is more tied with
 one's choice of educational institution than we realize.

 Some thoughts....

 Kelly
  >>



From asnider  Mon Aug 10 07:55:42 1998
From: asnider (Alfred C. Snider)
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 07:55:42 -0500
Subject: Hybrid Teams
Message-ID: <MON.10.AUG.1998.075542.0500.ASNIDER@ZOO.UVM.EDU>

The University of Vermont will continue to enter hybrid teams with Trinity
College of Vermont and the Community College of Vermont.

We will not be impacted by the lack of sanction by anyone except for
tournament directors who act as our hosts.

Think for yourself.


Alfred Charles Snider -- Lawrence Professor of Forensics, University of Vermont
Mail: 475 Main Street, UVM, Burlington, VT 05405-4225
Phone: 802-656-0097, Fax: 802-656-4275
DEBATE CENTRAL:  Debate's Biggest Website http://debate.uvm.edu/
WORLD DEBATE INSTITUTE 1998 - make plans now - http://debate.uvm.edu/ndi.html



From gibsoniii  Mon Aug 10 08:16:13 1998
From: gibsoniii (Trey Gibson)
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 06:16:13 -0700
Subject: UAM Debate Tournament
Message-ID: <MON.10.AUG.1998.061613.0700.GIBSONIII@YAHOO.COM>

On October 2nd the University of Arkansas at Monticello will host it's first IPDA only tournament.  Attached is a copy of the invitation.  Snail mail versions will be sent out today.  If you have trouble bringing this copy up and/or don't receive a hard copy throught the good old post office and want one, just give me a buzz!  Hope all is well and look forward to seeing everyone again this year!

Trey Gibson
Assistant Director of Forensics
University of Arkansas at Monticello




_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: PTNinvite.txt
Url: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/19980810/b613f7e2/attachment.txt 


From kmmcdon  Mon Aug 10 09:23:06 1998
From: kmmcdon (Kelly McDonald)
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 07:23:06 -0700
Subject: NDT Committee Elitism (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <599ee472.35ceb001@aol.com>
Message-ID: <MON.10.AUG.1998.072306.0700.KMMCDON@CC.WWU.EDU>

I respect Bear's concern that my comments about the 'tragic' nature of
school selection may ring of elitism.  However, the point which I was
trying to make -- though I admit in the middle of running a high school
debate camp may obscure my point -- was that individuals who wish to
debate in college should elect to attend a school with an established
program.  Cal Tech, for example, would be an excellent place to attend
school if you wished to be an engineer.   But I do not think they have a
debate or speech team and thus it would be a bad choice for school if you
wanted to debate in college.

On a more personal note, I welcome hybrid teams the tournaments -- high
school and college -- that I host.  That is something which is mentioned
in my tournament invitation.  The situation with the NDT is somewhat
analagous.  The tournament invitation and governing rules prohibit
participation of hybrid teams.  That too is a 'rule of game.'  The NDT and
WWU scrimmage are both invitational tournaments.  As such, one is not
required to attend either for successful participation and completion of
their competitive season.

Just a final thought or two....and off to the copy center with the next
round of generics!

Kelly

Kelly M. McDonald, PhD
Director of Forensics
Western Washington University
Department of Communication
Bellingham, WA  98225-9102

phone:  360-650-3877
  fax:  360-650-6529
email:  kmmcdon at cc.wwu.edu



From katebrindle  Mon Aug 10 09:35:18 1998
From: katebrindle (Kate Brindle)
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 07:35:18 -0700
Subject: NDT Committee Elitism
Message-ID: <MON.10.AUG.1998.073518.0700.KATEBRINDLE@YAHOO.COM>

I'm writing in response to the discussion about teams consisting of
more than one school being barred from NDT nationals.  I understand
the argument that it could get out of hand if we were to let big
powerhouse schools pool together their resources and debaters in order
to win tournaments, however I see no problem with smaller schools with
small programs and small budgets combining their coaches, money,
debaters, etc. to further their programs.

I believe debate should primarily be about learning.  We should
encourage more schools to develop new teams to join the league and
compete.  If certain schools don't have enough money, coaches or
enough team members, I see no problem with them forming a joint team
with another school in their area who can help provide them with these
resources.  If there's only one individual willing to coach in the
immediate area of two schools, wouldn't it make more sense to just
form one larger team instead of two tiny ones?  Or why should an
experienced debater be forced to debate with a novice from her/his own
school when there is an equally experienced debater at another school
that s/he could debate with?  I think not allowing joint teams into
NDT makes it easier for bigger, older teams to advance and it puts
newer, smaller teams at a tremendous disadvantage.  How can a small
school with few team members and a small budget ever complete against
a big school with a developed program?

I've had first hand experience with debating on small developing
teams.  I debated in high school on a brand new team with very little
money.  We had to pay our own way to tournaments , had very few team
members to share the research burden and only had one head coach.
That made it very difficult to compete against schools with huge
squads, large budgets and many assistant coaches.  When I got to
college I again starting debating on a new team and found it much
easier that we were able to pool together our resources with other
schools nearby.

I don't think it's very fair for cartels to exist during the debate
season, but not at nationals.  I know of certain partnerships that
work well together all through the year, but would be forced to split
up for NDT nationals.  Having to work with a new person for the most
important tournament of the year doesn't seem right.

I understand it would be unfair to combine teams from hours away just
to get a win, but when schools are mere city blocks away and need to
form a cartel just to have a program, why is that so bad?  I also
understand that one does choose the college institution s/he attends,
however, when considering universities, a lot of students look at the
academic program the school has to offer, not the extra-curricular
activities.  Students shouldn't be punished for considering their long
term career goals over college debate goals.  I think it's nice that a
lot of good high school debaters are attending universities that lack
debate teams.  While it is difficult, these debaters can hopefully
start new teams. And it is A LOT easier to combine resources instead
of having to do all the work alone.  I think new teams should be
rewarded, not punished by being barred ffrom nationals.  Remember,
some debaters might only have the opportunity to debate if it is on a
cartel team. So we're denying ourselves the presence of good debaters,
not to mention deterring new joint teams from entering the league.

Kate Brindle
New York University Debate
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com



From katebrindle  Mon Aug 10 09:36:28 1998
From: katebrindle (Kate Brindle)
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 07:36:28 -0700
Subject: NDT
Message-ID: <MON.10.AUG.1998.073628.0700.KATEBRINDLE@YAHOO.COM>

I'm writing in response to the discussion about teams consisting of
> more than one school being barred from NDT nationals.  I understand
> the argument that it could get out of hand if we were to let big
> powerhouse schools pool together their resources and debaters in order
> to win tournaments, however I see no problem with smaller schools with
> small programs and small budgets combining their coaches, money,
> debaters, etc. to further their programs.
>
> I believe debate should primarily be about learning.  We should
> encourage more schools to develop new teams to join the league and
> compete.  If certain schools don't have enough money, coaches or
> enough team members, I see no problem with them forming a joint team
> with another school in their area who can help provide them with these
> resources.  If there's only one individual willing to coach in the
> immediate area of two schools, wouldn't it make more sense to just
> form one larger team instead of two tiny ones?  Or why should an
> experienced debater be forced to debate with a novice from her/his own
> school when there is an equally experienced debater at another school
> that s/he could debate with?  I think not allowing joint teams into
> NDT makes it easier for bigger, older teams to advance and it puts
> newer, smaller teams at a tremendous disadvantage.  How can a small
> school with few team members and a small budget ever complete against
> a big school with a developed program?
>
> I've had first hand experience with debating on small developing
> teams.  I debated in high school on a brand new team with very little
> money.  We had to pay our own way to tournaments , had very few team
> members to share the research burden and only had one head coach.
> That made it very difficult to compete against schools with huge
> squads, large budgets and many assistant coaches.  When I got to
> college I again starting debating on a new team and found it much
> easier that we were able to pool together our resources with other
> schools nearby.
>
> I don't think it's very fair for cartels to exist during the debate
> season, but not at nationals.  I know of certain partnerships that
> work well together all through the year, but would be forced to split
> up for NDT nationals.  Having to work with a new person for the most
> important tournament of the year doesn't seem right.
>
> I understand it would be unfair to combine teams from hours away just
> to get a win, but when schools are mere city blocks away and need to
> form a cartel just to have a program, why is that so bad?  I also
> understand that one does choose the college institution s/he attends,
> however, when considering universities, a lot of students look at the
> academic program the school has to offer, not the extra-curricular
> activities.  Students shouldn't be punished for considering their long
> term career goals over college debate goals.  I think it's nice that a
> lot of good high school debaters are attending universities that lack
> debate teams.  While it is difficult, these debaters can hopefully
> start new teams. And it is A LOT easier to combine resources instead
> of having to do all the work alone.  I think new teams should be
> rewarded, not punished by being barred ffrom nationals.  Remember,
> some debaters might only have the opportunity to debate if it is on a
> cartel team. So we're denying ourselves the presence of good debaters,
> not to mention deterring new joint teams from entering the league.
>
> Kate Brindle
> New York University Debate




==
"6:58, are you sure where MY spark is?"
If you find it, let me know!

_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com



From CPuuri  Mon Aug 10 09:39:17 1998
From: CPuuri (Cory Puuri)
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 09:39:17 -0500
Subject: NDT Committee Elitism
Message-ID: <MON.10.AUG.1998.093917.0500.CPUURI@JJKELLER.COM>

An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Url: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/19980810/f062c33a/attachment.pot 


From kmmcdon  Mon Aug 10 10:54:50 1998
From: kmmcdon (Kelly McDonald)
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 08:54:50 -0700
Subject: NDT Committee Elitism (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <47e66eb5.35cf1528@aol.com>
Message-ID: <MON.10.AUG.1998.085450.0700.KMMCDON@CC.WWU.EDU>

I appreciate Tuna's response to my post and I feel strongly as he does
about generating debaters from my campus community.  I am a shameless
advocate for my debate program in my argumentation class which has
consistently and historically generated students for this program.

However, I am still confused about the 'form' or 'mindset' of elitism
which I am perpetuating.  The NDT, as with CEDA, NDPA, ADA, etc. are
organizations which programs have affiliations.  They are not themselves
college debate or forensics.

The value of a forensic education is undeniable.  That is why we are in
the activity.  However, I am concerned when the charge of elitism is
thrown around simply because one organization has a more restrictive
charter.  The simplist answer is don't support an organization which you
don't believe in. If everyone's arguments about the failings of NDT to
open itself up are true, NDT will eventually fail -- as will any system --
for lack of exernal inputs.  I don't see that happening, however, in the
near term.  My experience with NDT at KU and as a tab room member this
year at the U. of U. suggests the organization is vibrant.

Best,
Kelly

Kelly M. McDonald, PhD
Director of Forensics
Western Washington University
Department of Communication
Bellingham, WA  98225-9102

phone:  360-650-3877
  fax:  360-650-6529
email:  kmmcdon at cc.wwu.edu



From asnider  Mon Aug 10 12:14:03 1998
From: asnider (Alfred C. Snider)
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 12:14:03 -0500
Subject: Calling Mike Bryant
Message-ID: <MON.10.AUG.1998.121403.0500.ASNIDER@ZOO.UVM.EDU>

Mike, your AOL mailbox is full and I need to talk to you about a student
named Chris Harris.

Please email me.

Tuna


Alfred Charles Snider -- Lawrence Professor of Forensics, University of Vermont
Mail: 475 Main Street, UVM, Burlington, VT 05405-4225
Phone: 802-656-0097, Fax: 802-656-4275
DEBATE CENTRAL:  Debate's Biggest Website http://debate.uvm.edu/
WORLD DEBATE INSTITUTE 1998 - make plans now - http://debate.uvm.edu/ndi.html



From hunt  Mon Aug 10 11:20:44 1998
From: hunt (Steven Hunt)
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 09:20:44 -0700
Subject: NDT Committee Elitism (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <47e66eb5.35cf1528@aol.com>
Message-ID: <MON.10.AUG.1998.092044.0700.HUNT@LCLARK.EDU>

I too am interested in this thread about people from other colleges
combining for hybrid debate teams.

I can see advantages in getting community colleges and colleges not
already debating debating. This adds to the entire debate community.
I can see advantages in people combining coaching and research capacity.

However,
WHO GETS THE CREDIT FOR NDT OR CEDA WINS CHAMPIONSHIPS OR POINTS?
Who pays for transport, room and board, and entry fees? Should one college
or university pay for students who go to another school entering
tournaments on their funds esp. when maybe it is student generated funds
or even other school specific funds?
Should schools who have separate programs be allowed to combine? debaters
or duo interpreters or whatever? At its worst this gets to the superteam
argument with two debaters from separate schools with programs but without
partners they consider of their talent getting together?
 What happens with
school specific sweepstakes awards?
Does helping another school start a new program or does it dissuade the
school that doesn't have a program from committing teaching and other
resources to starting a program? Does it encourage more activity or excuse
that school from starting anything since their students are already "taken
care of?"

I have long thought this a very very thorny issue and am interested in the
comments of one and all esp. those who have experienced hybrid schools
hybrid teams from either participating end or seeing others do it end.

Steve Hunt
Lewis & Clark



From drwiese  Mon Aug 10 11:28:09 1998
From: drwiese (DANIELLE R. WIESE)
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 12:28:09 -0400
Subject: NDT elitism
Message-ID: <MON.10.AUG.1998.122809.0400.DRWIESE@ONLINE.EMICH.EDU>

Please, Please, stop this battle.  There is no question in anyone's mind
that the debate community, NDT, CEDA, heck even L-D have issues that need
to be discussed.  How arrogant are we to think that our community can
entirely overcome the hundreds of years of discrimination and hierarchy
that darken every aspect of human history.

Despite this, I am proud to say that I am a part of this extrodinary group
of people that challenges young minds, seeks to broaden horizons, and
provides the foundation for discussion about important topics like
elitism.  We aren't perfect, I have yet to find an organization or person
that is.  Conversations about equality in our community are essential, but
over the past month I haven't watched conversations, I have watched a
devastating display of hostility that may only serve to thwart future
conversations, SOLUTION-ORIENTED!, conversations about what needs to be
done.

A few weeks ago I lost someone who is very important to me.  Angela Cowan
was not only my debate partner, but one of the closest friends and
inspiring women I have ever met.  Having never debated in High School,
Angela, put herself through college, often working two jobs, coached a
high school debate team, graduated at the top of her class, interned at
the White House, coached summer debate camps, was accepted to Harvard Law
and competed in elimination rounds at the NDT.

You can say what you want about "elitism," the unpleasantness of the NDT
community, the discrimination, whatever, but Angela is an only an example
of what can be accomplished through collegiate debate.  Wayne State is not
a program that stems from a collection of wealthy high school students.
Never once, did Angela say "I hate the NDT it's so elitist."  Rather, she
constantly thanked her higher power for giving her the opportunity to
experience the wonders of debate.

Please, don't disgrace our community with rude and hostile accusations.
NDT and CEDA those are just silly letters that promote segregation, we are
all part of the debate community.  Let's respect the progress that has
been made.  Let's be proud of what we have to offer to so many students.
Let's be proud of those who have taken what they learned in debate and
moved to do other great things in the world.

Let's recognize that we aren't perfect and all we can do is keep trying by
working together, by discovering solutions, not pushing people from the
activity with our complaints and hostility.  I know that is exactly how
Angela would want us to continue her memory in this activity.


Thank you for your time.


Danielle Wiese
Illinois State Univeristy



From katebrindle  Mon Aug 10 11:40:19 1998
From: katebrindle (Kate Brindle)
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 09:40:19 -0700
Subject: NDT Committee Elitism (fwd)
Message-ID: <MON.10.AUG.1998.094019.0700.KATEBRINDLE@YAHOO.COM>

While I haven't been debating in college for a long time and am still
learning a lot about the whole process, I believe it would be up to
the individual schools about funding and coaching.  Perhaps a school
with a big budget could share the funding with the school with a small
budget (assuming they are in the same coalition).  If it is student
raised funding, it would be up to the students where the money goes.
This goes the same for coaching resources.  As far as sweepstake
points and coaches go, the team would probably just be known as one
team, i.e. it is no longer two universities, it is one team.  I don't
think the system would get abused if people really took the time to
look at the situation.  If the schools are close together and both
have developing programs, I think it's pretty easy to see why the
teams feel a need to combine.  The one thing I think I've gotten out
of participating on smaller teams is I have a greater appreciation for
debate.  Members of smaller teams have to work extremely hard for
their teams (doing research, collecting funds, recruiting, etc.)
I also agree with Tuna that we should encourage debaters who didn't
debate in high school to join the activity.  I think a lot of people
that did not participate in debate in high school feel overwhelmed and
feel as though it's a prerequisite to debate in college.  I don't
think what school one chooses to go to should affect the opportunities
s/he has to debate.

Kate Brindle

==
"6:58, are you sure where MY spark is?"
If you find it, let me know!


_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

>From  Mon Aug 10 12:43:49 1998
Message-Id: <MON.10.AUG.1998.124349.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 4123 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 10 Aug 1998 12:44:04
 -0400
Received: from imo26.mx.aol.com (imo26.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.70]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id MAA88242 for
 <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Mon, 10 Aug 1998 12:44:03 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo26.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id
 BCUPa04521; Mon, 10 Aug 1998 12:43:49 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 58
Message-ID: <913773d9.35cf2347 at aol.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 12:43:49 EDT
Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Michael Bear Bryant <MWBRYANT at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: NDT Committee Elitism (fwd)
Comments: To: kmmcdon at CC.WWU.EDU

In a message dated 98-08-10 11:57:17 EDT, you write:

<<
 The value of a forensic education is undeniable.  That is why we are in
 the activity.  However, I am concerned when the charge of elitism is
 thrown around simply because one organization has a more restrictive
 charter.  The simplist answer is don't support an organization which you
 don't believe in. If everyone's arguments about the failings of NDT to
 open itself up are true, NDT will eventually fail -- as will any system --
 for lack of exernal inputs.  I don't see that happening, however, in the
 near term.  My experience with NDT at KU and as a tab room member this
 year at the U. of U. suggests the organization is vibrant.

 Best,
 Kelly
  >>

Kelly,

1. Come on, if you really are willing to believe that NDT is a "vibrant"
organization, why have the number of subscribing schools shrunk so drastically
over the past 15 years? This isn't just a Bear conspiracy - the numbers are
real and speak for themselves.

2. Why were major NDT programs, like Georgetown, threatening to leave NDT for
CEDA right before NDT decided to debate the CEDA topic? Check the archives for
some interesting posts by Parcher.

3. Measuring the "vibrancy" of an organization off of one tournament eats the
very kritik of elitism that I've been asking everyone to think about. To be
frank, the NDT is far overblown in significance. The quality of the education
received by students participating in debate at NDT programs has to mean more
than whether the "integrity" of the championship tournament is steadfastly
maintained.

4. A "vibrant" championship tournament costs too much when it comes with the
price tag of abandoning novice, jv, and regional debate. If you are actually
going to suggest that NDT is "vibrant" in any of those areas, I can understand
why you so vehemently resist the label of "elitism".

5. Finally, consider the possibility that you have simply bought into the
constructed reality to which you were exposed. Having studied under Dr. Parson
at the University of Kansas, you found yourself invited to help run the
nation's most prestigious debate tournament (NDT) while still a grad student.
What an honor! Particularly for a former CEDA debater who never competed in
NDT. You'll probably wind up on the NDT Committee, if you aren't already
there. Hell, another decade and you'll be up for AFA Service Awards.... You
see, at one time, I bought into the same picture. I certainly hope you can
realize that buying into that picture structures the very way you choose to
interpret what's going on around you.

The NDT can be called a lot of things. I personally feel very confident in
saying that I feel strongly that the term "elitist" applies better than the
term "vibrant".

How many NDTs have you really been at Kelly? How many were you weren't locked
away in the tabroom?

With sincere respect,

Bear



From laneg  Mon Aug 10 11:57:36 1998
From: laneg (Lane, Gina)
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 11:57:36 -0500
Subject: NCA Update
Message-ID: <MON.10.AUG.1998.115736.0500.LANEG@WILLIAM.JEWELL.EDU>

Hello Colleagues--

I have just received a copy of the NCA Convention Program.  I have listed
CEDA sponsored meetings and panels below.  If you have any questions or
concerns, please contact me.  If not -- see you in New York!

Gina Lane
First Vice President
Cross Examination Debate Association
NCA Program Planner

1998 National Communication Association Convention
New York, NY
November 20-24

CEDA Meetings:

Executive Council Meeting
Friday, November 20  5:00 - 6:10 pm Gibson Suite -- 2nd Floor Hilton

General Business Meeting I
Saturday, November 21   9:30 - 10:40 am Room 548 -- Fifth Floor Hilton

General Business Meeting II
Sunday November 22   5:00 - 6:10 pm  Clinton Suite -- 2nd floor Hilton


ACADEMIC DEBATE: ISSUES OF SQUAD MANAGEMENT

Tuesday, November 24  11:00 am - 12:10 pm  Room 552  5th floor  NY Hilton

Chair: Alfred C. Snider, University of Vermont
"Divisions in Debate."  Jack E. Rogers, University of Texas, Tyler
"Consensus Building:  A Functional Model for Organizing?" Joel David
Rollins, University of Texas
"All the Debaters You Need: On Campus Recruiting and Retention of New
Debaters."  Alfred C. Snider, University of Vermont
"Starting from Scratch: Novice Debaters' Recruitment and Retention."  Sue
Wenzlaff, Duquesne University
"Reasons for Transfer II: The Nationals' Survey."  Steven K. Hunt, Southern
Illinois University, Darin Gerard, Southern Illinois University, Greg
Simerly, Southern Illinois University, Aaron Klemz, Southern Illinois
University

ARGUMENTATION EVOLUTION WITHIN DEBATE ROUNDS

Saturday, November 21  12:30 pm - 1:40 pm   Room 548  5th floor NY Hilton

Chair:  Eric Morris, Southwest Missouri State University
"We Agree: A Rationale for Agreement in Competitive Debate."  Todd Graham,
Arizona State University
"Comparison Focus: The Plan-Plan Debate."  Michael Korcok, Florida State
University
"The Kritik as Affirmative Advocacy."  Charles Walts, Abilene Christian
University
"Topical Counterplans: Tensions Between Pedagogical Theory and Emergent
Practice." Terry L. West, Southern Utah University
Respondent: Eric Morris, Southwest Missouri State University

CASE STUDIES IN PUBLIC DEFINITIONAL ARGUMENT

Saturday, November 21  2:00 - 3:10 pm  Room 548  5th floor NY Hilton

Chair: Kenneth Broda-Bahm, Towson University
"Finding Protection in Definition: The Scope of 'National Security' and the
Frictions of Meaning as Use."  Kenneth Broda-Bahm, Towson University
"Locating the Bounds of Community: The Liberalism-Communitarian Debate."
Kelly McDonald, Western  Washington University
"An Ideological Basis for Definition in Public Argument: A Case Study of the
Individuals with Disabilities in Education."  Scott Titsworth, University of
Nebraska
"Black, White, Mulatto: Race and the Argument from Definition during the
Progressive Era."  Brian R. McGee, Texas Tech University
Respondent: Edward Schiappa, University of Minnesota


CEDA/NDT POLICY DEBATE TOPIC PAPERS: 1999-2000

Sunday, November 22  3:30 - 4:40 pm  Room 548  5th floor NY Hilton

Chair:  Glenda Treadaway, Appalachian State University
"First Amendment Issues in Intercollegiate Policy Debate." Jeremy Hutchins,
Southern Illinois University, Aaron Klemz, Southern Illinois University
"Disparities in Public Education." Stacey Sowards, University of Kansas,
Stefan Braushard, Cathedral Prepatory School, Gannon University
"Reforming Federal Financial Aid for Higher Education."  Doyle Srader,
Arizona State University, Robert Kraig, University of Wisconsin, Madison.

CRISIS MANAGEMENT DISCOURSE: ARGUMENTATION AND COMMUNICATION RESEARCH AND
THEORY

Monday, November 23  3:30 pm - 4:40 pm  Room 543  5th floor  NY Hilton

Chair:  Robert C. Chandler, Illinois State University
"Handling Charges of  Sexual Harassment : Crisis Management, and
Communication Theory & Research to Develop Better Arguments for Media
Response Strategies."  Dean Kazoleas, Illinois State University and Vicki
Cunz, Illinois State University.
"Implications of a Theory of Public Relations Competence for Crisis
Communication:Balancing Concerns for Effectiveness and Appropriateness of
Discourse and Arguments."  Vincent Hazleton, Radford University.
"Argumentation and Rhetorical Insights and Applications for Crisis
Management Public Relations Strategies."  Robert C. Chandler, Illinois State
University.
"Crisis Management Argument Strategies: Case Studies Involving Charges of
Sexism and Racism," Jeffrey Dale Hobbs, Abilene Christian University, Jodee
Hobbs, Northeast Louisiana University, and Mandy Wilkins, Emerson College.
"'The Presidency in Crisis':  An Analysis of the Arguments in The White
House's Response to the Clinton Scandals,"Arnie Madsen, University of
Northern Iowa

CRITIQUES AND PERMUTATIONS: A ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION

Sunday, November 22   9:30 am - 10:40 am  Room 548  5th floor NY Hilton

Chair: Maxwell D. Schnurer, University of Pittsburgh
"Critiques and Permutations: A Critical Perspective." Maxwell D. Schnurer,
University of Pittsburgh
Roundtable Participants: Kevin Ayotte, University of Pittsburgh; David
Breshears, University of Texas, Austin; Pat J. Gehrke, Pennsylvania State
University
Brian Lain, University of Iowa; Joel Rollins, University of Texas, Austin
Catherine Schuster, University of Georgia; Joseph Zompetti, Wayne State
University

DEBATE AS A CRITIQUE OF REALITY: THEORY AND PRACTICE

Tuesday, November 24  9:30 am - 10:40 am  Room 552  5th floor  NY Hilton

Chair: Matthew Taylor, California State University, Long Beach
"Policy Debate and the Crumbling Ivory Tower."  Felicia Coco, California
State University, Long Beach and Patricia Robinson, California State
University, Long Beach
"Fiat, Advocacy, and the Critique: How the Critical Turn in Contemporary
Academic Debate has Reshaped Community Conceptions of Fiat." Nick Rangel,
California State University, Long Beach and Matt Stannard, California State
University, Long Beach
"Parliamentary Debate as a Critique of Rationalism and Evidence."  Bonnie
Chuen, California State University, Long Beach
"Debate as Critical, Real-World Praxis: The Daniel Webster Project."  Victor
Rodriguez, California State University, Long Beach and Angela Aguayo,
California State University, Long Beach
 Respondent: Matthew Taylor, California State University, Long Beach

EVIDENCE AND ETHICS: GUIDELINES, STANDARDS AND FRAMEWORKS

Monday, November 23  8:00 - 9:10 am  Room 543  5th floor NY Hilton

Chair: Martin Che Harris, Southwest Missouri State University
"You Call that Proof?: What Standards Ought Evidence Have in Academic
Debate."Martin Che Harris, Southwest Missouri State University
"Rhetorical Sensitivity or the Masking of Oppression: The Ethics of Changing
Language in Evidence."  Jan Hovden, University of Vermont
"Foucault Didn't Say That!: Evidence and Ethics in Poster/Modern Debating."
Joel David Rollins, University of Texas
"Searching for Stability in a Shifting Linguistic Landscape: Ethical Use of
Authoritative Evidence in a Postmodern World."  Aaron Klemz, Southern
Illinois University
Respondent: Glenda Treadaway, Appalachian State University

EXPLORING ISSUES OF THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN CEDA

Monday, November 23   9:30 am - 10:40 am   Room 543  5th floor NY Hilton

Chair: David L. Steinberg, University of Miami
"The Nature of Administrative Support for Intercollegiate Debate Programs
and its Effect on the Quality of Life for Directors."  David L. Steinberg,
University of Miami
"Tournament Practices and Quality of Life."  William Sheffield, California
State University, Northridge
"Civility in Debate."  Sue Lowery, California State University, Chico
"Debate Coaches as Academically At-Risk: The Impact of Coaching on Scholarly
Pursuits."  Glen Frappier, Southern Illinois University
Respondent:  David A. Thomas, University of Richmond


INTERCOLLEGIATE DEBATE AND THE PUBLIC SPHERE: NEW VISIONS FOR
THE INTER-LINKING OF COLLEGE EXPERIENCE AND THE PUBLIC SPHERE

Monday, November 23  9:30 am - 10:40 am  Trianon Ballroom  3rd fllor  NY
Hilton

"National Advocacy Audit."  Stephen C. Koch, Capital University
"Collegiate Debate Alumni Association."  Susan P. Millsap, Otterbein College
"CEDA Public Debate Award." Pamela L. Stepp, Cornell University
"Debate Topic Electronic Journal" Kenneth T. Broda-Bahm, Towson State
University
"Program Assessment Package"  Glenda J. Treadaway, Appalachian State
University
"Commissioned Research on Debate and the Public Sphere"  Robert O. Weiss,
Depauw University


LINKING INTERCOLLEGIATE DEBATE AND THE PUBLIC SPHERE: A ROUNDTABLE
DISCUSSION

Sunday, November 22  8:00 - 9:10 am  Room 548  5th floor NY Hilton

Chair: Stephen C. Koch, Capital University
Panelists: Kenneth T. Broda-Bahm, Towson State University; Glenda J.
Treadaway, Appalachian State University; Pamela L. Stepp, Cornell University
Gordon R. Mitchell, University of Pittsburgh; Susan P. Millsap, Otterbein
College
Robert O. Weiss, Depauw University

MARGINALIZED VOICES: EXPERIENCING ACADEMIC DEBATE AS "OTHER"

Sunday, November 22  12:30 pm - 1:40 pm  Room 548  5th floor NY Hilton

Chair: David Steinberg, University of Miami
"Performing Woman in a Male Dominated Culture: Women in Intercollegiate
Debate." Dacia Charlesworth, Southern Illinois University and Greg
Simerly, Southern Illinois University
"The Traitor: Never Mind that I Too Am Black."  Myron King, University of
Missouri, Kansas City
"Being A Minority As A White Male: My Experiences at Emory University's
Urban Debate League Summer Institute."  Jason Jarvis, Augustana College
"On the Outside Looking In: The Critic as Other."  William Sheffield,
California State University, Northridge


PHILOSOPHICAL DEBATING / DEBATING PHILOSOPHY

Sunday, November 22  2:00 - 3:10 pm  Room 548  5th floor NY Hilton

Chair: Gordon R. Mitchell, University of Pittsburgh
"Ships in the Night: Debating Postmodern Theories."  Pat J. Gehrke,
Pennsylvania State University
"Performative Contradictions: Feminist Arguments in a Masculinist Context."
Sue Lowrie, California State University, Chico
"Debating Culture and the Role of the Critic."  Maxwell Schnurer, University
of Pittsburgh
"Incorporating More Complex Hermeneutic Theories into Intercollegiate
Debate."Gina L. Ercolini, Pennsylvania State University
Respondent: Gordon R. Mitchell, University of Pittsburgh


STRIVING FOR DIVERSITY IN ACADEMIC DEBATE

Saturday, November 21   8:00 - 9:10 am  Room 548  5th floor NY Hilton

Chair:  Linda M. Collier, University of Missouri, Kansas City
"Student Perceptions of Intercollegiate Debate: Exploring Gender and Race
Differences in CEDA."  Steve K. Hunt, Southern Illinois University and
Greggory Simerly, Southern Illinois University
"Retention and Recruitment of Latino/a Minority Participants in
Intercollegiate Competitive Policy Debate."  Richard Pineda, University of
Texas, El Paso, Stacey Sowards, University of Kansas
"Building the Table: Making Debate Inclusive, not Exclusive."  Linda M.
Collier, University of Missouri, Kansas City
"Androgyny and Intercollegiate Debate: Does Expressiveness Lead to Dropout?"
Martin Che Harris, Southwest Missouri State University
"Creating a Diverse Debate Squad: Recruitment and Other Coaching Issues."
Jack E. Rogers, University of Texas, Tyler

THEORY AND PRACTICE: CONTRIBUTED PAPERS IN ACADEMIC     DEBATE

Tuesday, November 24    8:00 - 9:10 am  Room 552  5th floor NY Hilton

Chair: Amy Lee Fugate, Johnson County Community College
"Counterinherency as a Counterplan Burden."  Benjamin Bates, University of
Richmond
"The Limits of Ethical Discursive Space: Negative Ground and the
Justification of Marginally Topical Cases."  Nick Rangel, University of
California-Long Beach
"Arguing, Dialogics, and Empathizing: A New Case for Debate Instruction as a
Tool for Critical Thinking."  Scott Thomson, Marist College


URBAN LEAGUE DEBATES AND THE FACES OF OUR FUTURE: A     ROUNDTABLE
DISCUSSION

Tuesday, November 24  9:30 - 10:40 AM  Petit Trianon 3rd floor  NY Hilton

Chair: William Baker, Queens College
Panelists:  Melissa Maxey Wade, Emory University; Edward Lee, University of
Alabama; Tom Preston, University of Missouri-St. Louis.  Nationwide,
populations that were formerly excluded from debate are participating and
excelling in the activity on the high school level and a large number plan
to continue in college.  Panelists will discuss reasons why debate is so
attractive to inner-city students and how this could affect the larger
debate community.

>From  Mon Aug 10 13:41:52 1998
Message-Id: <MON.10.AUG.1998.134152.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 4426 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 10 Aug 1998 13:42:08
 -0400
Received: from imo13.mx.aol.com (imo13.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.3]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id NAA65026 for
 <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Mon, 10 Aug 1998 13:42:07 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo13.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id
 9KIUa11435; Mon, 10 Aug 1998 13:41:52 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 58
Message-ID: <22553853.35cf30e2 at aol.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 13:41:52 EDT
Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Michael Bear Bryant <MWBRYANT at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: NDT elitism
Comments: To: drwiese at ONLINE.EMICH.EDU

Ms. Wiese,

Yes, assuredly, there are many issues that need to be resolved in every debate
organization. Why is that reason to avoid resolving problems inherent to NDT?

I applaud Dr. Ziegelmueller for directing one of the few NDT programs that
does place an emphasis on enabling individuals without high school background
to participate in NDT. I do have a slight problem with how few African-
Americans have debated for Wayne State, which at least used to have the
highest African-American enrollment of any US university.

While I extend my sincerest sympathies to the Wayne State squad upon the
recent death of Angela Cowan, I simply cannot understand why you feel her
death is a reason not to identify and deconstruct the roots of elitism in NDT.
Quite frankly, it seems that you are using your friend's death as a rationale
for avoiding this discussion. Are you saying that her success totally
invalidated any notion of NDT elitism? Or are you saying that the strain of
her death doesn't put you in the mood for this discussion?

If anything, Angela's success while she was with us proves my point. She was
capable of great successes without the high school background that is an
absolute prerequisite in most NDT programs. Most NDT programs would not have
provided her with the same opportunities she found at Wayne State. That, quite
simply, illustrates one of the great tragedies of NDT.

Bryant
Wayne State 1981-83



From mkrueger  Mon Aug 10 13:27:12 1998
From: mkrueger (krueger)
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 13:27:12 -0500
Subject: MDI Reflections
Message-ID: <MON.10.AUG.1998.132712.0500.MKRUEGER@FRANK.MTSU.EDU>

Well, now that I have arrived home, I just want to take some time to
extend some "thank you"s and reflect a little on the MDI experience.

I think the camp went very well this year.  We had a great time and
worked very hard and came up with some very good ideas.

Initially the "Thank You"s...

First to the Saluki Joe Vuglia, who worked tirelessly it seemed.  He was
always there working hard, making sure that all was well on the
administrative side.

Second to William Jewell's Gina Lane, who made sure that all problems
were solved quickle, quietly and efficiently.  I can't imagine a better
Institute director.

Third to my other lab faculty.  Aaron Klemz and Sue Lowrie are amazing.
They put up with me and taught or lab so much.  Also, I want to thank
them for teaching ME so much about so many things (organization,
leadership, communication, strategies, kritiks, etc.).  All I can say is
the camp is much better off for their participation, and SIU and
Pepperdine are lucky to have their valuable skills, talent, energy,
committment and compassion to draw from.

Fourth to my lab members.  The students--for all their frustration at
the affirmative we worked on, the incredibly difficult literature they
were trying to make sense of and so on--made our group successful.
"Texas" Mike Scates from Houston Baptist, Christian "I slept through our
break round but Mike won anyway though our points were hosed" Hess from
Marshall, Eric Butler and Nathan Mihelich from my alma mater of Northern
Illinois, Shannon Coleman from Santa Rosa, Serena Jones from Webster,
Garyn Dunbar from Abilene Christian, Katie Hingtgen from Santa Fe CC,
Sarah Parker from Hillsdale College (our thoughts are with you, Sarah),
Apryl Parks from Tennessee Tech, Karen Eckert from Southwest Missouri,
and the William Jewell posse: James Lawson, Matt McGee, and Alaina
Schmissur:  I send my thanks to you.  You all worked your collective
butts off and did everything that we asked of you...  All that and I
think we had a good time too.  I know that I am looking forward to
seeing all of you this year at various times.  You all have the skills
to be excellent debaters...  so even if you have your doubts at times,
know that I will always believe and be rooting for you.

Fifth, I want to extend my gratitude to Matt Moore for putting together
an excellent starter pack so we could get it going so soon.

Sixth, I want to extend my thanks to the other lab leaders who put my
students to the grindstone--Monte Stevens of my other alma mater,
k-state, Glenda Treadaway from App State, Carrie Crenshaw from Alabama,
Glen Frappier from Gonzaga, Matt Moore (again), the new Jayhawk (are you
paying attention Steve Woods??) and my old buddy from k-state Rich
McCollum, Ed Lee from 'Bama, Carol O'?????? from Idaho State, and Brian
Campbell from SIU.  My five debaters learned so much from you all, and
they will take that with them for the rest of the year and the rest of
their lives.

Last, I want to thank the rest of the students at the institute.  There
are many too many to name each of them individually, but they kicked ass
getting so much done is a short period of time and they also were
influential on me and my debaters...  a few though--Wiley Gordon and Ben
Osborne from 'Bama, Louie Petit from William Jewell, Kasey Reardon and
Stacie Stapley soon to be from Weber, Aaron Whaley and David Snapp from
Western Kentucky, Cindy Simmons from Furman (GET HER TO TOURNAMENTS
KEVIN!!!  SHE IS THE BOMB), and I am sure that I am missing some.  You
all were fantastic.  Especially Ben, but that is another story.  Anyway,
all of the students just rocked and I look forward to seeing all of you
this year.

I can't imagine a better group of faculty with as much diversity.  It
alled seemed to gel though, and that is what made the camp memorable.
My students have been raving about it since it ended and are looking
forward to the debate year and the institute in the future.

Mike
--
Michael Krueger
Director of Debate
Middle Tennessee State University
Box 43
Murfreesboro, TN 37132
(615)  898-5607 (office)
(615) 898-5826 (fax)
http://www.mtsu.edu/~debate
http://www.mtsu.edu/~mkrueger
http://www.mtsu.edu/~wmts



From sheidt  Mon Aug 10 13:30:25 1998
From: sheidt (Stephen J. Heidt)
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 14:30:25 -0400
Subject: NDT elitism
In-Reply-To: <22553853.35cf30e2@aol.com>
Message-ID: <MON.10.AUG.1998.143025.0400.SHEIDT@EMORY.EDU>

I've really resisted this entire discussion.  I lost the flavor in July
when arguments started to disappear and personal attacks escalated.  But
this one I just could not resist...

On Mon, 10 Aug 1998, Michael Bear Bryant wrote:

> Ms. Wiese,
>
> Yes, assuredly, there are many issues that need to be resolved in every debate
> organization. Why is that reason to avoid resolving problems inherent to NDT?

        It's not.  Her argument was that we needed to avoid personal
ad-homs and rhetorical devices intended to AVOID providing
arguments/evidence.  Danielle clearly described the neccessity of informed
and VALUABLE discussion of these issues, as compared to the past months
nobbery.

(Nobbery - Silliness, Foolishness.  Synonym -
Jimmification)

 >
> I applaud Dr. Ziegelmueller for directing one of the few NDT programs that
> does place an emphasis on enabling individuals without high school background
> to participate in NDT. I do have a slight problem with how few African-
> Americans have debated for Wayne State, which at least used to have the
> highest African-American enrollment of any US university.
>
> While I extend my sincerest sympathies to the Wayne State squad upon the
> recent death of Angela Cowan, I simply cannot understand why you feel her
> death is a reason not to identify and deconstruct the roots of elitism in NDT.

        I don't think that is what she was saying at all.  Danielle was
very clear.  These issues need to be addressed.  This sentence confuses
me into thinking that you did not read her post.

> Quite frankly, it seems that you are using your friend's death as a rationale
> for avoiding this discussion. Are you saying that her success totally
> invalidated any notion of NDT elitism? Or are you saying that the strain of
> her death doesn't put you in the mood for this discussion?

        I think that Angela's success, as with many others, does provide a
basis for undercutting your blanket description of how NDT schools prevent
inexperienced debaters from succeeding.  As to your elitism claim, I would
be interested in any EVIDENCE available that demonstrates
collegiate success rates of experienced vs inexperienced high school
debaters (or people that did not debate in high school).  Or any studies
that map numbers of years of experience vs success rate (perhaps there is
an inherent advantage for inexperienced people who debated in high school
vs inexperienced people that did not debate in high school?)  Or a study
that compares the above variables between NDT and CEDA.  If anyone has
websites or electronic copies of those types of studies, please
backchannel me so I can conduct my own personal research.  Absent that, I
think it is very difficult to pay attention to the angry chaos that people
have called arguments in the last month.

 >
> If anything, Angela's success while she was with us proves my point. She was
> capable of great successes without the high school background that is an
> absolute prerequisite in most NDT programs. Most NDT programs would not have
> provided her with the same opportunities she found at Wayne State. That, quite
> simply, illustrates one of the great tragedies of NDT.


        I don't know which NDT schools you are referring to.  I don't
know of any schools where a high school background is an "absolute
prerequisite" for success in the NDT.  Once again, an argument is
something with a claim AND a WARRENT.  I'm willing to entertain evidence
or arguments that demonstrate that claim, but as is, I don't think your
post serves much use.


Stephen

>From  Mon Aug 10 15:34:29 1998
Message-Id: <MON.10.AUG.1998.153429.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 0583 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 10 Aug 1998 15:34:34
 -0400
Received: from imo30.mx.aol.com (imo30.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.74]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id PAA37164 for
 <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Mon, 10 Aug 1998 15:34:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from Westtoast at aol.com by imo30.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id
 8PGBa12042 for <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Mon, 10 Aug 1998 15:34:29
 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 167
Message-ID: <1754312e.35cf4b46 at aol.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 15:34:29 EDT
Reply-To: Westtoast at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Terrance Hogan <Westtoast at AOL.COM>
Subject: Suggestions to chew on

        Some individuals have asked for specifics on how to approach hybrids and
exclusionary practices. I have some ideas on this that I will throw out there
for you guys to think about to open up some discussion.

        1) Allow hybrids into the NDT on a case-by-case basis. Form a panel which can
look at issues such as lack of a faculty supported program, limited budget,
lack of coaching, etc. Have the panel meet the year before the changes take
place in order to publish guidelines for circumstances in which a hybrid would
be allowed. Have a deadline for applications around 1/31 of that year to allow
for sufficient time for decisions.

        2) Split the sweepstakes points (rounding up). If the pair is from two
schools,
there shouldn't be double points. List each school that gathers points on the
sweepstakes list. I, personally, would be proud as hell of a debater who
single-handedly managed to get his school into the top 25 (and that's
possible). It would also provide an incentive for that school to support that
debater the next year (embarrasing that school's admin. into participation).

        3) It's time for an overall "Heisman Trophy" for forensics. All points
obtained in NDT, CEDA, Parli, NFA, public speaking, etc. would count and may
the best woman (or man) win. Get a corporate sponsor to underwrite the costs
of compiling the data every week. This could be for individuals and teams.

>From  Mon Aug 10 15:36:59 1998
Message-Id: <MON.10.AUG.1998.153659.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 0683 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 10 Aug 1998 15:37:24
 -0400
Received: from imo24.mx.aol.com (imo24.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.68]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id PAA40224 for
 <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Mon, 10 Aug 1998 15:37:23 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from VIKjonah at aol.com by imo24.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id 8VLRa22588
 for <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Mon, 10 Aug 1998 15:36:59 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 56
Message-ID: <3bd887d3.35cf4bdd at aol.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 15:36:59 EDT
Reply-To: VIKjonah at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Vik Keenan <VIKjonah at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: NDT Committee Elitism (fwd)

This is a message to address some of the questions Steve Hunt has posed about
hybrid teams.  As a former member of the NY Cartel/Coallition/Conglomerate I
have nothing but praise for the concept of a cartel when it is necessary for
the survival of a program at all, and it leads to better competition in the
entire debate community.

To begin, the point that students who do not choose a school with debate have
made their choice about collegiate debating has already been addressed by
Tuna, Kate and others, but it is important to look at the impact the debater
who chooses to start a team can have.  Three years ago when I began college I
had never debated and had no interest in seeking out the activity.  Three
years ago New York University, Columbia University, and the New School for
Social Research did not have policy debate programs.  Working with the
established Queens College team, first a small NYU squad was developed with
the addition of a New School debater, and the following year debaters from
Columbia joined the program.  In these preliminary years, neither NYU nor
Colombia nor New School had the resources to travel a squad competitively
without aid from Queens and a complete dedication to combining resources.
While we still cannot compete independently of each other, we do look to
return the favor by developing small programs at other CUNY colleges (John Jay
School of Criminal Justice, BMCC) who will be able to develop a novice program
to maturity.  As an additional asset, the creation of a new body of debaters
provides a new body of judges for high school debate.  Our dedication to
community service has strengthened our commitment to the developing New York
Urban Debate League - our debaters acting as mentors and coaches to help the
teachers and students who are participating in debate for the first time.  As
an added note, I (the one who had no interset in policy debate 2 1/2 years
ago) will be teaching high school in NY this fall. The condition of being
hired was my agreement to start, develop, and teach a debate program at the
school.

However, I realize that speaking glowingly about a coallition expereience does
not address many real concerns about how such a program would operate.  I
would also like to address those:


> However,
 WHO GETS THE CREDIT FOR NDT OR CEDA WINS CHAMPIONSHIPS OR >POINTS?

As I understand it, points are split between the two schools of the debaters.
Each school in our cartel pays dues for CEDA membership (so we don't get a
break that way, alas), and points are assigned accordingly.  Credit for the
win is announced for the coallition.  Example:  (and my points may be off - I
never really paid attention to such things)  Team XY debates.  X is from
school 1, Y from school 2.  XY break at a tournament, win 1 out round worth
points, and X gets a speaker award.  In an ideal announcement at an awards
assembly, we are told that XY from the "one-two cartel" receive a trophy, X
from school 1 receives a speaker award, and after everyone goes home one point
is awarded to school 1, and 1 point is awarded to school 2.

> Who pays for transport, room and board, and entry fees? Should one college
 or university pay for students who go to another school entering
> tournaments on their funds esp. when maybe it is student generated funds
 or even other school specific funds?

The budget of all schools in the coallition is treated as one.  Basically,
payment is done by how it makes the most sense.  Suppose one school can get a
contingency fund for one tournament, and any money not used on that tournament
returns to the school.  Obviously, the one school should pay for everything.
If one school is given a copy budget and another is not, the choice is
obvious.  Sometimes conditions for renting cars vary from school to school,
and then the cheaper rate is prefered.  The things to remember about this
model of the coallition are that 1) everyone is a team.  Sometimes all
debaters cannot go to all tournaments.  On a single school squad would their
be a protest by a debater if funds s/he helped raise personally were used for
a tournament s/he could not attend?  Probably not.  2)  This merger occurs
because a team CANNOT travel alone.  Recognizing whatever obstacles there are,
all teams realize they have a symbiotic relationship and each have to aid the
other in order to compete at all.

> Should schools who have separate programs be allowed to combine? debaters
 or duo interpreters or whatever? At its worst this gets to the superteam
> argument with two debaters from separate schools with programs but without
 partners they consider of their talent getting together?

What is being referred to in "seperate programs" ?  In order to get funding at
most schools I know, each extracurricular must have a board/committe of rep's.
NYU's team, Columbia/Barnard's team, and Queen's college each have seperate
presidents, vp's, secretaries, and treasurers because our universities require
us to in order to get funding.  However, I should point out that the
"executive board" of each school used to be the entire team roster from each
school.  THe point is NONE of these programs could travel or compete - it
wasn't desire of a superteam, it was desire for competition.  If a school has
one debater, the debater is not competeing in a hybrid for "talent" and
stomping purposes - they are doing so merely to stay in the activity.


  >What happens with
 school specific sweepstakes awards?

Good question.  For the record, our cartel hasn't won one, yet - so draw your
own conclusions (remember, Rochester is in our region :)  As for sweeps awards
that include other forms of speech and debate - I will address this from a
uniquely NYU perspective.  When attending tournaments, NYU Parli and IE do not
end up with NYU CEDA connected to them.  Instead, the NYCartel or the Impact
Coallition are the association that NYU CEDA maintains.  Impact has even
entered ie tournaments as a seperate team where NYU ie is competing.  The
point of creating  our cartel in the current manner is partially due to the
fact that NYU ie and parli do not offer travel or funding support in any way.
We are supportive of each other as classmates, but we are not teammates and
there is no mechanism for us to become so.  You have to understand the New
York schools live in a different paradigm than a school with a DOF - we have
had no faculty guidance/representation and we are not part of an overriding
forensics program.  (I will add that both Queens and Columbia have different
circumstances, in fact it is Queens IE that provides part of our current
support.)

> Does helping another school start a new program or does it dissuade the
 school that doesn't have a program from committing teaching and other
> resources to starting a program? Does it encourage more activity or excuse
 that school from starting anything since their students are already "taken
> care of?"

I would say it it doesn't discourage commitment.  After several years NYU will
get it first debate class, despite help from Columbia, New School, and Queens.
Of course, my experience has not been one of great school involvement (NYU is
not known for overadvising or having lots of school spirit.)  However, the
advantage of our set-up is that it is truly student driven.  It is a program
of individuals who were determined to continue participation in an activity
they find value in, and of individuals caught in the excitement of creating
something new.  Because there have been few precedents, whatever we wish our
program to be, we must create.  We have been fortunate that the NY area is a
breeding ground for former collegiate debaters who have given us their time
and talent to make it possible that we could create such a program without
institutional support (or even knowledge) as a preexisting condition.


 I hope these comments are helpful to Steve and anyone else interested in the
matter.

There are two more points I wish to address about coallitions (the word cartel
implies that dominating hybrid scenario) and resources.  They are specific to
urban institutions.  The first addresses the issue of resources.  One concern
raised was that coallitions would provide more library access and other
resources to debaters who would not necessarily have them.  This rings false
in two key ways, but my instinctive response would be to turn the "you choose
where you go to school argument".  If a debater chooses a school with limited
resources or a distance from other institutions, that is not the fault of
debaters who live in close proximity to one another.  However, this is not a
real argument.  I think it is more important to look at what the existing
conditions of college resources are: a) schools share resources all the time.
Look at the 5 colleges in Amherst, with varying degrees of sharing, etc.
Additionally, the Colombia/NYU/New School part of the the NYCoallition does
not actually increase our library base - we already have access through school
agreement.  b)  some schools just have better resources than others.  In NY we
have lots of UN NGO offices and consuls to go to - certainly an advantage on
any f.p. topic.  The NY Public Library can be fairly extensive. Is it an
unfair advantage for us to access these resources too?  What about Washington
D.C schools, or schools with law libraries or certain collections.  The point
is that not all schools offer the same educational experience to begin with,
and good debaters overcome resource "defecits" with resourcefulness and good
argumentation.

My last comment is also urban/community school specific.  In addressing
Steve's questions I refered to our coallition as Impact - The Impact
coallition is a specific orginization to promote urban, minority, and women
student success in college and high school, partially through the activity of
debate  (This is close - check with Will Baker on specifics).  Part of the
organization is the recognition that students who work, who have family
commitments, or have other restrictions on time have unique academic needs.
Sometimes extracurricular and campus participation is diminished.  Part of
having a coallition of debaters allows students with multiple commitments to
participate in the activity without adding the pressure of a full-time
commitment.  A debater can debate every other tournament and feels secure that
the team will flourish because there is another debater who may be able to
participate at those times.  While it is not a major facet of the current NYC
program, it is an interesting possibility that allows the activity to be its
most inclusive.

I will stress that the above statements are mine alone and not necessarily
reflective of the views of the NYCoallition, its debaters, or coaches in
anyway. THis is simply been my expereince with the concept of coallition
debating and the advantages it may have.  I simply offer it as an example of
how a coallition can work and why it would choose to exist in the first place.

VIK
Freedom Academy, Brooklyn
 (NYU alum)

>From  Mon Aug 10 15:39:19 1998
Message-Id: <MON.10.AUG.1998.153919.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 0768 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 10 Aug 1998 15:39:33
 -0400
Received: from imo19.mx.aol.com (imo19.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.9]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id PAA18908 for
 <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Mon, 10 Aug 1998 15:39:32 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from Westtoast at aol.com by imo19.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id
 8BIIa04161 for <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Mon, 10 Aug 1998 15:39:19
 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 167
Message-ID: <9011698e.35cf4c69 at aol.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 15:39:19 EDT
Reply-To: Westtoast at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Terrance Hogan <Westtoast at AOL.COM>
Subject: NDT/CEDA Publicity Question

        Has anybody ever contacted C-SPAN for coverage of, at least, our championship
rounds?



From swhalen  Mon Aug 10 14:57:45 1998
From: swhalen (Shawn T Whalen)
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 12:57:45 -0700
Subject: NDT elitism
In-Reply-To: <Pine.PMDF.3.95.980810121205.547487334E-100000@ONLINE.EMICH.EDU>
Message-ID: <MON.10.AUG.1998.125745.0700.SWHALEN@SFSU.EDU>

On Mon, 10 Aug 1998, DANIELLE R. WIESE wrote:

> We aren't perfect, I have yet to find an organization or person
> that is.

Danielle,

I know that you know Ede Warner and he has assured me on numerous
occasions that he is, indeed, perfect.

SW

>From  Mon Aug 10 15:58:17 1998
Message-Id: <MON.10.AUG.1998.155817.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 1055 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 10 Aug 1998 16:00:21
 -0400
Received: from imo28.mx.aol.com (imo28.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.72]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id QAA18688 for
 <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Mon, 10 Aug 1998 16:00:20 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo28.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id
 2JXCa17153; Mon, 10 Aug 1998 15:58:17 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 58
Message-ID: <921cf3f8.35cf50db at aol.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 15:58:17 EDT
Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Michael Bear Bryant <MWBRYANT at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: NDT elitism
Comments: To: sheidt at EMORY.EDU

Mr. Heidt,

Let me make one thing clear, before this goes any further. I hold a great deal
of respect for both you and the Emory program. I recognize both the personal
and institutional efforts you have put into helping the two communities come
together.
I'm sorry if my shrill "jimminess" gets on your nerves. It does mine, too.

I'll avoid the fluff and cut to your core challenge. You seem to chastise the
"meaninglessness" of my condemnation of NDT elitism because I can't produce
substantive, empirical data that few NDT debaters lack high school experience
or that more CEDA debaters lack high school experience. After sorting through
your ad homs and rephrases  that seems to be your most substantive position.

Yes, I lack the exact percentages. They would also change year-to-year and be
open to all kinds of methodological challenges even if I had the data. So, is
this nothing more than a delay tactic? Do you really expect that many members
of either community doubt the fact that few programs in NDT even bother with
novice recruitment? Is there any doubt that far more CEDA programs rely almost
exclusively on novice on-campus recruitment? Are you really denying that you
didn't know most of the people that cleared at NDT when you did while you were
still in high school? How many top Emory debaters pick up the activity after
high school? How about the simple comparison of CEDA novice and jv divisions
to the number offered by NDT tournaments? These answers are obvious, but your
fine NDT-level exposure to argumentation theory will convince that there's
nothing, zero, zip, nada that can be considered unless currently correct
statistics are properly cited.

Here's my challenge - name five people that have made it to semis at NDT in
the past decade that didn't do policy debate in high school. I'll be more than
happy to do the same for CEDA.

Does NDT-centrism really require empirical proof that more CEDA debaters have
never debated before college? Like, duh...

Jimmy #1,

Bryant


In a message dated 98-08-10 14:34:04 EDT, you write:

<<  As to your elitism claim, I would
 be interested in any EVIDENCE available that demonstrates
 collegiate success rates of experienced vs inexperienced high school
 debaters (or people that did not debate in high school).  Or any studies
 that map numbers of years of experience vs success rate (perhaps there is
 an inherent advantage for inexperienced people who debated in high school
 vs inexperienced people that did not debate in high school?)  Or a study
 that compares the above variables between NDT and CEDA.  If anyone has
 websites or electronic copies of those types of studies, please
 backchannel me so I can conduct my own personal research.  Absent that, I
 think it is very difficult to pay attention to the angry chaos that people
 have called arguments in the last month.

  >
 > If anything, Angela's success while she was with us proves my point. She
was
 > capable of great successes without the high school background that is an
 > absolute prerequisite in most NDT programs. Most NDT programs would not
have
 > provided her with the same opportunities she found at Wayne State. That,
quite
 > simply, illustrates one of the great tragedies of NDT.


         I don't know which NDT schools you are referring to.  I don't
 know of any schools where a high school background is an "absolute
 prerequisite" for success in the NDT.  Once again, an argument is
 something with a claim AND a WARRENT.  I'm willing to entertain evidence
 or arguments that demonstrate that claim, but as is, I don't think your
 post serves much use.


 Stephen >>

>From  Mon Aug 10 16:06:41 1998
Message-Id: <MON.10.AUG.1998.160641.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 1182 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 10 Aug 1998 16:06:45
 -0400
Received: from imo29.mx.aol.com (imo29.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.73]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id QAA18822 for
 <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Mon, 10 Aug 1998 16:06:44 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo29.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id
 8RVYa27851; Mon, 10 Aug 1998 16:06:41 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 58
Message-ID: <a62d2307.35cf52d3 at aol.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 16:06:41 EDT
Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Michael Bear Bryant <MWBRYANT at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: NDT/CEDA Publicity Question
Comments: To: Westtoast at aol.com

In a message dated 98-08-10 15:39:47 EDT, you write:

<<
         Has anybody ever contacted C-SPAN for coverage of, at least, our
championship
 rounds?
  >>

I don't think many folks think that the style of delivery in NDT and CEDA
elims is very conducive to public consumption.

I volunteer for color commentary.

Bear



From swhalen  Mon Aug 10 15:13:10 1998
From: swhalen (Shawn T Whalen)
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 13:13:10 -0700
Subject: NDT/CEDA Publicity Question
In-Reply-To: <a62d2307.35cf52d3@aol.com>
Message-ID: <MON.10.AUG.1998.131310.0700.SWHALEN@SFSU.EDU>

On Mon, 10 Aug 1998, Michael Bear Bryant wrote:

> In a message dated 98-08-10 15:39:47 EDT, you write:
>
> <<
>          Has anybody ever contacted C-SPAN for coverage of, at least, our
> championship
>  rounds?
>   >>


C-Span did cover Jack Kemp's dreadful speech at the Liberty NDT two years
ago.  That may have doomed Bear's TV career.

SW



From allyson  Mon Aug 10 15:11:10 1998
From: allyson (John Stubbs)
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 16:11:10 -0400
Subject: NDT elitism
In-Reply-To: <22553853.35cf30e2@aol.com>
Message-ID: <MON.10.AUG.1998.161110.0400.ALLYSON@GWIS2.CIRC.GWU.EDU>

i agree with heidt on this one.  the sidelines have become a dark,
desolate haven for disinterested, dissapointing cowards.  this lunacy must
come to end.  the grizzly beast has roamed outside of his reserved staging
area and is now ravaging the countryside ripping and clawing into
everything that dares breathe in opposition to his mccarthy-esque diatribe
on the evils of the almighty ndt.

as heidt and many others have pointed out, your few lucid, sober arguments
are lost in a whirlwind of ad-homs and insensitivities.  perhaps you fall
prey to the wild animal psyche that you have taken as your name, or maybe
you woke up one day and forgot how to employ basic standards of decency in
your interactions with others.  this latest actack upon danielle wiese is
most painful and incriminating towards your position and all that you
claim to hold dear.  rather than recognize her message as a personal, most
certainly painful, outreach to any sane noodle in your head, you choose to
attack her motivations for engaging you.  i don't know danielle, and i
regretably did not know angela, as she seemed to have led an extraordinary
life, but i do believe your current devolution will do little more than
rally the poachers to delcare an early season for bear-hunting.

as for your main arguments, i will leave you with nothing but the personal
attack above.  this discussion is tiring and incapable of occuring on the
level of tolerance that you exhibit.

john stubbs
g.w. debate

On Mon, 10 Aug 1998, Michael Bear Bryant wrote:

> Ms. Wiese,
>
> Yes, assuredly, there are many issues that need to be resolved in every debate
> organization. Why is that reason to avoid resolving problems inherent to NDT?
>
> I applaud Dr. Ziegelmueller for directing one of the few NDT programs that
> does place an emphasis on enabling individuals without high school background
> to participate in NDT. I do have a slight problem with how few African-
> Americans have debated for Wayne State, which at least used to have the
> highest African-American enrollment of any US university.
>
> While I extend my sincerest sympathies to the Wayne State squad upon the
> recent death of Angela Cowan, I simply cannot understand why you feel her
> death is a reason not to identify and deconstruct the roots of elitism in NDT.
> Quite frankly, it seems that you are using your friend's death as a rationale
> for avoiding this discussion. Are you saying that her success totally
> invalidated any notion of NDT elitism? Or are you saying that the strain of
> her death doesn't put you in the mood for this discussion?
>
> If anything, Angela's success while she was with us proves my point. She was
> capable of great successes without the high school background that is an
> absolute prerequisite in most NDT programs. Most NDT programs would not have
> provided her with the same opportunities she found at Wayne State. That, quite
> simply, illustrates one of the great tragedies of NDT.
>
> Bryant
> Wayne State 1981-83
>



From seantiffee  Mon Aug 10 15:43:23 1998
From: seantiffee (sean tiffee)
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 13:43:23 PDT
Subject: someone at ADI (or any kind-hearted soul)
Message-ID: <MON.10.AUG.1998.134323.PDT.SEANTIFFEE@HOTMAIL.COM>

on the list from ADI a clinton coattails position was listed.  if
someone could please tell me what the impact is(and if you could list
the cites i would be forever indebted) that would be outstanding.

thanks in advance,

sean
swtsu

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

>From  Mon Aug 10 16:58:39 1998
Message-Id: <MON.10.AUG.1998.165839.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 1670 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 10 Aug 1998 16:58:48
 -0400
Received: from imo24.mx.aol.com (imo24.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.68]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id QAA22912 for
 <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Mon, 10 Aug 1998 16:58:47 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from Alapapa at aol.com by imo24.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id 8CHGa22588
 for <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Mon, 10 Aug 1998 16:58:39 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 214
Message-ID: <f8fc2f47.35cf5f00 at aol.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 16:58:39 EDT
Reply-To: Alapapa at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: J B <Alapapa at AOL.COM>
Subject: Repressive Tolerance

will everyone give me their view of the phrase "repressive tolerance".

~Jeff



From jmw8286  Mon Aug 10 16:40:37 1998
From: jmw8286 (Jacob Weigler)
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 17:40:37 -0400
Subject: NDT Committee Elitism
In-Reply-To: <Pine.PMDF.3.95.980810003041.539001301D-100000@Acadmn.Mercer.EDU>
Message-ID: <MON.10.AUG.1998.174037.0400.JMW8286@IS4.NYU.EDU>

Considering the discussion on the L about consortiums and NYC,
I thought I would provide a little clarification about the
"monster hybrid" threat from the East.  Last year, where we
requested to enter the regional qualifier for the NDT, all
schools in the coalition had a combined budget of around $7000.
Columbia University, around $900, with the rest from NYU.  There was
one paid coach, Will Baker, who received $1000 from NYU.
The team did not have a office space, or a copy budget, or a
department to operate out of.  Total active membership on the team
never rose above ten.  Neither administration has shown much
interest in building large institutions at either school and thus
new programs in the NYC area have had to piggy back on existing ones
to attend any tournaments.

Although this juggernaut scenario is perhaps interesting to read and
fun reference with phrases like "The Cartel," my four years experience
lend little credibility to such possibilities.  Running a coalition
is far more difficult and troublesome than a single institution program.
I have to ride the subway an hour each way to talk to my partner or
go over files.  Practice rounds or inter-school meetings are a
logistical nightmare that if they happen once a month is unusual. I
would wager to suggest that any <underline> competition-oriented
<underline> program that was able to build a sufficient budget and
 resources would abandon a coalition model as an inhibitor towards
national circut success rather than a booster.  The NYC coalition
doesn't have that as its driving impetus and thus, the extra time
and effort is worthy of such goals as outreach, inclusion, and
accessibilty.  But, otherwise, seeing our structure being painted as
the new threat by programs that dwarf us in resources and institutional
support is laughable.

Sincerely,
Jacob Weigler
NYU Student President

" I feel that my speaking is also disrespectful because it flies in the
face of the absoluteness of Tom's death and all the other deaths, as if in
the face of that my words could give a sense of closure, of significance,
of comfort.  In fact, another AIDS death signifies nothing and there isn't
or shouldn't be any comfort.  So I've made a vow that this is the last
memorial at which I will speak."        -Robert Rafsky,
                        at fellow AIDS activist Tom Cunningham's memorial



From a.dove  Mon Aug 10 12:35:17 1998
From: a.dove (Alan Dove)
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 17:35:17 +0000
Subject: Repressive Tolerance
References: <f8fc2f47.35cf5f00@aol.com>
Message-ID: <MON.10.AUG.1998.173517.0000.A.DOVE@EROLS.COM>

J B wrote:
>
> will everyone give me their view of the phrase "repressive tolerance".

>From what I've seen, it's just a new link story and name attached to the same
old "social movements" disad most folks have had kicking around their
fileboxes for the past decade.

It might also be an aging radical's bitter realization that it's nearly impossible
to rouse well-fed people in a basically democratic nation to take up
revolutionary causes.

          --Alan (in a curmudgeonly mood)

--
_______________
Alan Dove, Ph.D.
N3IMU
a.dove at erols.com
http://128.59.173.136/Poliolab/Alan/Dove.html



From a.dove  Mon Aug 10 12:46:50 1998
From: a.dove (Alan Dove)
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 17:46:50 +0000
Subject: NDT/CEDA Publicity Question
References: <a62d2307.35cf52d3@aol.com>
Message-ID: <MON.10.AUG.1998.174650.0000.A.DOVE@EROLS.COM>

Michael Bear Bryant wrote:
>
> In a message dated 98-08-10 15:39:47 EDT, you write:
>          Has anybody ever contacted C-SPAN for coverage of, at least, our
> championship
>  rounds?

> I don't think many folks think that the style of delivery in NDT and CEDA
> elims is very conducive to public consumption.

Neither is the style or content of most Congressional activity.  On the other
hand, NDT and CEDA may have more at stake in such "warts and all"
publicity, since our existence is not mandated by the Constitution.

There was some discussion of broadcasting the final round at Nats last year
over the Internet, and as I recall only a technical barrier (i.e. there was no final
round) prevented that from happening.  C-SPAN may actually have a slightly
smaller potential audience than an Internet broadcast.

> I volunteer for color commentary.

I'm reminded of a classic by P.D.Q. Bach.

          --Alan

--
_______________
Alan Dove, Ph.D.
N3IMU
a.dove at erols.com
http://128.59.173.136/Poliolab/Alan/Dove.html



From mkrueger  Mon Aug 10 16:54:15 1998
From: mkrueger (krueger)
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 16:54:15 -0500
Subject: more on mdi
Message-ID: <MON.10.AUG.1998.165415.0500.MKRUEGER@FRANK.MTSU.EDU>

As my debaters have reminded me, I didn't thank them for their hard
work...

Natalie Woodward, Stacie Murphy, Terrence Bond, Matt Carter and Chris
Dixon also worked very hard, and I appreciate that.

Also, more props go out to Wiley et al for staging an incredible
mobilization in the annual water fight.  wow.  Crenshaw was just wrong.
You all did good.

Mike
--
Michael Krueger
Director of Debate
Middle Tennessee State University
Box 43
Murfreesboro, TN 37132
(615)  898-5607 (office)
(615) 898-5826 (fax)
http://www.mtsu.edu/~debate
http://www.mtsu.edu/~mkrueger
http://www.mtsu.edu/~wmts

>From  Mon Aug 10 18:17:48 1998
Message-Id: <MON.10.AUG.1998.181748.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 2433 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 10 Aug 1998 18:19:34
 -0400
Received: from imo12.mx.aol.com (imo12.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.2]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id SAA22948 for
 <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Mon, 10 Aug 1998 18:19:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo12.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id
 4RKSa11469; Mon, 10 Aug 1998 18:17:48 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 58
Message-ID: <9011b3bf.35cf718d at aol.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 18:17:48 EDT
Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Michael Bear Bryant <MWBRYANT at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: NDT elitism
Comments: To: allyson at gwis2.circ.gwu.edu

You are right, Mr. Stubbs, your post is nothing more than an ad hom. I have
tried my best from going down that path, particularly in the second half of
this thread. Despite receiving backchannels applauding me for avoiding the
very style you now embrace, I find it interesting to speculate on your own
inability to move beyond ad homs. Is every criticism of NDT an obscenity?

Is this the best that the superior educational product of NDT can produce?

His Grizzliness

In a message dated 98-08-10 16:17:25 EDT, you write:

<<
 i agree with heidt on this one.  the sidelines have become a dark,
 desolate haven for disinterested, dissapointing cowards.  this lunacy must
 come to end.  the grizzly beast has roamed outside of his reserved staging
 area and is now ravaging the countryside ripping and clawing into
 everything that dares breathe in opposition to his mccarthy-esque diatribe
 on the evils of the almighty ndt.

 as heidt and many others have pointed out, your few lucid, sober arguments
 are lost in a whirlwind of ad-homs and insensitivities.  perhaps you fall
 prey to the wild animal psyche that you have taken as your name, or maybe
 you woke up one day and forgot how to employ basic standards of decency in
 your interactions with others.  this latest actack upon danielle wiese is
 most painful and incriminating towards your position and all that you
 claim to hold dear.  rather than recognize her message as a personal, most
 certainly painful, outreach to any sane noodle in your head, you choose to
 attack her motivations for engaging you.  i don't know danielle, and i
 regretably did not know angela, as she seemed to have led an extraordinary
 life, but i do believe your current devolution will do little more than
 rally the poachers to delcare an early season for bear-hunting.

 as for your main arguments, i will leave you with nothing but the personal
 attack above.  this discussion is tiring and incapable of occuring on the
 level of tolerance that you exhibit.

 john stubbs
 g.w. debate
  >>



From asnider  Mon Aug 10 18:37:11 1998
From: asnider (Alfred C. Snider)
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 18:37:11 -0500
Subject: New Photos of WDI posted...
Message-ID: <MON.10.AUG.1998.183711.0500.ASNIDER@ZOO.UVM.EDU>

Find them at http://debate.uvm.edu/wdidaily.html

Watch us having fun!


Alfred Charles Snider -- Lawrence Professor of Forensics, University of Vermont
Mail: 475 Main Street, UVM, Burlington, VT 05405-4225
Phone: 802-656-0097, Fax: 802-656-4275
DEBATE CENTRAL:  Debate's Biggest Website http://debate.uvm.edu/
WORLD DEBATE INSTITUTE 1998 - make plans now - http://debate.uvm.edu/ndi.html



From db8coach  Mon Aug 10 17:18:58 1998
From: db8coach (Bob Lechtreck)
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 15:18:58 -0700
Subject: NDT elitism
Message-ID: <MON.10.AUG.1998.151858.0700.DB8COACH@RAIDEN.LIGHTSPEED.NET>

At 04:11 PM 8/10/98 -0400, John Stubbs wrote:

WOW!!! Me defending Bear. People would lose millions on this bet.

>>>>>>>>>>
as heidt and many others have pointed out, your few lucid, sober arguments
are lost in a whirlwind of ad-homs and insensitivities.  perhaps you fall
prey to the wild animal psyche that you have taken as your name, or maybe
you woke up one day and forgot how to employ basic standards of decency in
your interactions with others.
>>>>>>>>>>

When was the last time you actually read one of Bear's posts. Certainly
there was a time when you would be correct, but the posts of late have been
both lucid AND sober, and have employed AT LEAST as many basic standards of
decency as you yourself have employed.

>>>>>>>>>>
this latest actack upon danielle wiese is most painful and incriminating
towards your position and all that you claim to hold dear.  rather than
recognize her message as a personal, most certainly painful, outreach to any
sane noodle in your head, you choose to attack her motivations for engaging
you.
>>>>>>>>>>

This is ridiculous. Bear's resonse to Danielle was the kindest I have ever
seen him write. He asked fair questions in a sympathetic and encouraging manner.

I think, in this instance, you were reading his post (if you did, indeed,
read it) with "typical Bear" blinders.

Peace,

Bob Lechtreck
Bakersfield College
"Putting out fires, and damn good debaters"



From cjclevenger  Mon Aug 10 18:21:04 1998
From: cjclevenger (Clint J. Clevenger)
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 18:21:04 CDT
Subject: NDT Committee Elitism (fwd)
Message-ID: <MON.10.AUG.1998.182104.CDT.CJCLEVENGER@HOTMAIL.COM>

I don't think that she is saying that they have to go to the right
schools, but if you want to debate in college then choose a college that
has the type of debate program that you want to be involved in.  It is
not an elitist attitude it is just a part of life.

C.J. Clevenger
UMKC
(816) 436-7728
1617 NE 82nd TERR.
Kansas City, MO 64118



<<Yes, choice is tragic. Unfortunately, NDT seems to have already made
its
choices and now seems dependent upon the foundation of larger CEDA
membership
to be able to live with those choices. Though I know Kelly is a good
person,
I'm afraid the philosophy that says, "If they want to compete they
should have
went to the 'RIGHT' school," is a pretty tragic rhetorical choice. Can
you
possibly see how one would interpret that to be somewhat elitist?
A mindset doesn't have to be a conspiracy,Bryant>>


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com



From jvuglia  Mon Aug 10 18:29:03 1998
From: jvuglia (joe)
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 18:29:03 -0500
Subject: MDI reflections
Message-ID: <MON.10.AUG.1998.182903.0500.JVUGLIA@SIU.EDU>

I also wanted to take a moment to thank everyone involved with the
institute for their support in its mostly smooth operation.  I could not
have handled my responsibilities without the help of Gina Lane, Greg
Simerly, Pat & Karen at Continuing Educ., the team here at SIU (especially
Matt Moore, Glen Frappier (it was a fun 3yrs, Glen - you'll be missed),
Brian Campbell), and my fellow P-Funk staffpersons: Ed Lee, Carol O'Neill,
and Brian Campbell.  Thanks to you all.

Thanks to all the students and all the staff for making it a good time.  I
look forward to seeing you all throughout the upcoming season.

I also had to write a paper for my first grad school class, that is mostly
about my experience at the institute.  I do not mean to disparage anyone's
beleifs, but if reading this angers you, I want to apolpogize beforehand.
I'm somewhat hesitant to post my reflections, but what the hell... I've
always needed to work on expressing myself.  If you're interested - read on
- if you're not, you know where the delete button is...



Joseph Vuglia
SPCM  531 : Feminist Pedagogy
August 10, 1998
Reflective Essay

        How many times, and how fast can one drive to St. Louis without
snapping?  How many days in a row can one exist on less than 5 hours of
sleep per night?  What does feminist pedagogy mean to me?  How has the
class experience affected my life?  Is turning this in late acceptable
within a feminist pedagogical framework?  The answers to these exciting
questions, and a few more, wait for you.
        I am more tired than I have felt in years.  The experience of
hosting and teaching at the Midwest Debate Institute has been a draining
one.  I am glad it is finally over.  I don't know if I'd want to do it
again next year.  I'm not sure I want to be involved in the activity at
all.  But alas, I'm under contract, so I will stay involved.  That is part
of my "dedication" to the activity.  Also contributing, are the feelings I
have for my team-mates.  These are the people that have been my friends and
family for the three years I have spent in Carbondale.  I have to do
whatever I can to help them.  I also have a debt to repay to the department
and the school, for giving me a second chance at completing my degree.
        I have no choice but to be dedicated to the activity.  I do have
considerable flexibility in how I "feel" about that dedication.  I have
always thought that debate is pedagogically valuable, intellectually
challenging, and simply, a lot of fun.  That has meant that I accepted my
responsibilities gladly.  But, now I question that.  I do not know if
debate is as valuable as I previously thought.  I also am not sure how I
reconcile these feelings with the knowledge I have gained from feminist
pedagogy.
        Every beginning debate/argumentation text I have seen lists
"ability to think critically" as the benefit the activity confers on
participants.  Its what I was always taught and beleived.  It's the same
line I have used countless times to justify my involvement to people that
didn't know what debate was.  What "critical thinking" means in terms of
debate, I am not sure.  I know that its not the same type of criticality
that feminist pedagogy supports.  Some of the debate texts I have read
define it as the ability to problem-solve by: research, problem
identification, solution identification, evaluation of solutions, and
implementation of the best possible solution.  The way we bring this to
life, though, is fraught with issues that have become problematic for me.
        We learn to teach conformity.  Our process is inherently a Western,
rational, confrontational approach.  There have been some changes in this,
with the development of the "kritique" argument - which does serve to
question some of the assumptions of our arguments.  However, it does so in
a way that still follows the same competitive focus - the kritique isn't
meant to enlighten or change minds.  Its purpose is the same as any other
argument - to win the ballot.  We are not concerned with "Truth".  We want
to win.
        Debate teaches us that as long as someone has an idea published,
its valid - without ever really delving into the motivations behind their
arguments.  We quote "experts" - people who have the qualifications society
deems appropriate: professor, doctor, lawyer, etc.  All privileged
occupations that disproportionately are occupied by white male middle class
heterosexuals.  This is compounded by the fact that the activity is
dominated, in terms of competitors and coaches, by the same class of
people.
        The experience I have had over the past two weeks has led me to
think a lot about what I've been involved with for the past 10 years.  I
helped to bring 60+ students to Carbondale to learn more about debate, and
prepare for the upcoming season.  They each had to pay nearly $700 to come
to town for 11 days of intense research, lectures, and debate.  In addition
to acting as the local host, I was also assigned to the beginners lab, with
3 other staff members who also question our roles as educators and the
ideas and assumptions behind the style of debate we engage in.  We didn't
teach them to speak at incomprehensible rates.  We didn't load our language
with words of domination and competition.  We tried to have them argue
real-world issues, not the convoluted argument strategies that are thrown
together in most of the community.  We thought this was acceptable, but
several things happened to make me think that change is not what the
community wants.
        As staff we were given priveleges that the students could not get.
We were to be treated to two free dinners instead of dormitory cafeteria
food.  My lab staff opted out by paying for their own meals or not
attending these dinners at all.  It bothers me that more of the staff did
not have a problem with this.  They were basically dining off the student's
plates, while the students ate shitty food, and paid for the whole thing.
I'm not sure where our indulgence of good food and spirits fit into the
concept of education, but having the students pay for it just doesn't seem
right.
        Another problem I had was the operation of the tournament the last
days of the institute.  Not all of the students had the same level of
experience, but they were all thrown into the same competition.  Three
times that I know of, there were debate rounds that broke down and couldn't
finish because one or both teams didn't want to continue.  In a round I
"judged", instead of fighting it out, we talked about the issues.  We
discussed what it was the affirmative side was proposing.  We shared our
opinions and objections about the case, regardless of our roles as
affirmative, negative, and judge.  The students in this round, and the
other two, all expressed their gratitude at the opportunity to just talk
about things in a non-competitive environment.  I awarded the ballot
(because the tournament requires a decision be rendered) to the team that
did not initiate ending the round, because it didn't seem right to penalize
them, because the other side didn't want to compete.  I gave the loss to
the team that wanted cooperation because competition  is the expectation of
the activity and our roles within it.
        One of the other phantom-rounds involved another staff-member from
my lab.  She brought her students outside and sat in the Faner breezeway
discussing the arguments.  She was very public about what was occuring, and
had been vocal about her disdain for the standard ideas and assumptions
behind our institute's mission.  The tournament staff found this
unacceptable, but when I did virtually the same thing, it was all okay.
The only reason I got away with it, was I didn't make what I did into a
public protest.  The message I get from this is: its okay to make waves, as
long as no one notices.
        The last problem I had was the conferring of gag-gifts, and MVP
awards for each lab.  The institute paid for awards and gifts, but not
enough for everybody in each lab.  All four of the staff-members on the
novice lab found this to be unacceptable.  Why should we single out one
person in our lab, when they are all valuable, and they all contributed in
their own way?  Why should we privilege some with fun gifts, and not
others?  If we couldn't afford something for everybody, why spend money on
these things at all?  No one really had a good answer.  "It's not meant to
marginalize - we're just having some fun," is the comment I heard from a
few other staff members, but I'm not sure why lack of intent is a
sufficient excuse for such behavior.
        I was really stressed-out about the whole experience, but now that
its over, I've had a some time to reflect on it more.  I've had three
lonely trips back from the airport in St. Louis in the past twenty-four
hours in which to comtemplate the institute, this paper, and my feelings in
general about the class.  I'm glad to have had the opportunity to learn
more about pedagogy, and to have had the experience of the camp to apply
these ideas to.  It has made me question my role in debate.  I don't think
I will find closure on the problems I've encountered, but I'll continue to
reflect.
        I also wanted to discuss the class itself, especially the group
project, and our expereince role-playing the admissions process.  The class
made me think about issues I had only scratched the surface of before.  I
had never been incited to question so many things about the educational
system before.  The class made me realize that change is uncomfortable, and
that the struggle to implement it is a difficult undertaking.
        The role-playing admissions activity was highly contradictory.  We
talked about it before-hand, about how the process shouldn't be an
ideological litmus-test, but rather an opportunity for applicants to orient
themselves to the university's mission.  It didn't work out that way.  It
was a litmus-test.  It bothers me that we defaulted to that sort of
process, without any of us recognizing it.  To me, our conduct says that
its easy to not be reflective, to not question our actions.  But how do we
make sure we act in a manner that isn't "bad"?  We spent four weeks
learning about feminist pedagogy, and on the last day we may have shown we
didn't learn anything.



From mgremillion  Mon Aug 10 18:36:32 1998
From: mgremillion (MWilliams)
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 18:36:32 -0500
Subject: Choose the right school--Response to Clevenger
Message-ID: <MON.10.AUG.1998.183632.0500.MGREMILLION@SELU.EDU>

It is going to be great this year watching well fed, upper-middle class white
boys talk about oppression and racism when they can't even see it in their own lives. I keep seeing posts saying such things as "well choose the right school ifyou want to debate." Most students have never even heard of debate. Thus, it is
pretty damn hard to make a "choice" of schools. Had we chosen a topic with
Title IX implications, I'm sure you would get to know this subject line well.
In a state (Louisana--Number one in the nation for high school drop outs and teen pregnancy) that is just NOW Desegragating its public schools--yes! you read itcorrectly--the resources available to students to make an informed choice about
debate does not exist. Many schools do not even allow students to take textbooks home because they can't afford to lose them.
        The point is that for the vast majority of students there really is no
"choice" for schools or debate programs. If combining teams opens up the choicesand opportunites to students we should be in favor of it.
        One more thing. To the idiot who backchanneled me saying it really is all about winning--grow up! For a debater with some type of ego-driven need to
"beat" people, I guess debate is a way to feed your desires. For those of us that are coaches and professors, we need to look to a higher calling--namely, to
expose as many students as possible to the activity. So, no. It ain't all about
winning. It is still, at some level, an educational activity.
Scott Elliott



From jmw8286  Mon Aug 10 19:02:28 1998
From: jmw8286 (Jacob Weigler)
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 20:02:28 -0400
Subject: NDT Committee Elitism (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.OSF.3.96.980810091414.8990D-100000@sun.lclark.edu>
Message-ID: <MON.10.AUG.1998.200228.0400.JMW8286@IS4.NYU.EDU>

I thought I could offer a few words.

On Mon, 10 Aug 1998, Steven Hunt wrote:
> However,
> WHO GETS THE CREDIT FOR NDT OR CEDA WINS CHAMPIONSHIPS OR POINTS?

Ceda awards half points to each school.  As to who keeps the hardware,
that has typically been a partnership decision.

> Who pays for transport, room and board, and entry fees? Should one college
> or university pay for students who go to another school entering
> tournaments on their funds esp. when maybe it is student generated funds
> or even other school specific funds?

Expenses are typically paid on an ability to pay basis for the coalition.
I can't speak to the greater morality or oughts of the situation (and
given the overall NYU priorities on spending I think I have much larger
qualms than where the debate budget goes), but I think that it is positive
in that it allows debaters to travel and debate who would not otherwise be
able to.

> Should schools who have separate programs be allowed to combine? debaters
> or duo interpreters or whatever? At its worst this gets to the superteam
> argument with two debaters from separate schools with programs but without
> partners they consider of their talent getting together?

I would see my earlier post about the difficulties of coalitions, although
I suppose it is possible, it would seem a large hassle in practice.

>  What happens with
> school specific sweepstakes awards?

Points are currently kept at an instituional level so one specific school
will win. (granted we're 1/2 as likely to win, but you can just send the
kleenex this way.)

> Does helping another school start a new program or does it dissuade the
> school that doesn't have a program from committing teaching and other
> resources to starting a program? Does it encourage more activity or excuse
> that school from starting anything since their students are already "taken
> care of?"

All coalition schools in nyc are student initiatives with student contact
to the administrations.  My experience has been that students have been
ineffective in forcing adminstrations to commit teaching or large
resources.  It is only after success that additional support has been more
forthcoming.  In other words, you need to show a functioning team before
schools are going to increase support.

> Steve Hunt
> Lewis & Clark
>

Jacob Weigler

" I feel that my speaking is also disrespectful because it flies in the
face of the absoluteness of Tom's death and all the other deaths, as if in
the face of that my words could give a sense of closure, of significance,
of comfort.  In fact, another AIDS death signifies nothing and there isn't
or shouldn't be any comfort.  So I've made a vow that this is the last
memorial at which I will speak."        -Robert Rafsky,
                        at fellow AIDS activist Tom Cunningham's memorial

>From  Mon Aug 10 20:13:58 1998
Message-Id: <MON.10.AUG.1998.201358.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 3174 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 10 Aug 1998 20:16:09
 -0400
Received: from imo25.mx.aol.com (imo25.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.69]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id UAA65130 for
 <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Mon, 10 Aug 1998 20:16:08 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo25.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id
 REWa003745; Mon, 10 Aug 1998 20:13:58 +2000 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 58
Message-ID: <30154e9b.35cf8cca at aol.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 20:13:58 EDT
Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Michael Bear Bryant <MWBRYANT at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: NDT Committee Elitism (fwd)
Comments: To: cjclevenger at HOTMAIL.COM

In a message dated 98-08-10 19:21:27 EDT, you write:

<<
 I don't think that she is saying that they have to go to the right
 schools, but if you want to debate in college then choose a college that
 has the type of debate program that you want to be involved in.  It is
 not an elitist attitude it is just a part of life.

  >>

Come on, open up your eyes! Can you see how your position is simply that of
someone who debated in high school. How about the mission of exposing more
students to debate that are already out of high school?

Whatever.

Bryant



From cjclevenger  Mon Aug 10 19:35:18 1998
From: cjclevenger (Clint J. Clevenger)
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 19:35:18 CDT
Subject: NDT/CEDA PUBLICITY QUESTION
Message-ID: <MON.10.AUG.1998.193518.CDT.CJCLEVENGER@HOTMAIL.COM>

Ah Bear, but it worked so well in "Listen to Me"!!!!!
CJ

In a message dated 98-08-10 15:39:47 EDT, you write:

<<
    <<     Has anybody ever contacted C-SPAN for coverage of, at least,
our
championship
 rounds?
  >>

I don't think many folks think that the style of delivery in NDT and
CEDA
elims is very conducive to public consumption.

I volunteer for color commentary.

Bear>>



______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com



From cjclevenger  Mon Aug 10 20:06:10 1998
From: cjclevenger (Clint J. Clevenger)
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 20:06:10 CDT
Subject: Choose the right school--Response to Clevenger
Message-ID: <MON.10.AUG.1998.200610.CDT.CJCLEVENGER@HOTMAIL.COM>

<<It is going to be great this year watching well fed, upper-middle
class white
boys talk about oppression and racism when they can't even see it in
their own
lives.>>
Maybe you should be sure what experiences that I have in my life before
you go claiming what I have and have not experiened in my life.
While you are correct in assuming that I am white upper middle class,
That does not mean that I have not experinced racism or opression.  Two
years ago at our Highschool in Kansas City, I was one of the organizers
of a walk out, because we felt that the adiministration was failing to
deal with the problem of racism at our school.  I have seen it and dealt
with it.  If you lived or were in the Kansas City area at the time, then
you saw it on the news.


 <<I keep seeing posts saying such things as "well choose the right
school
ifyou want to debate." Most students have never even heard of debate.
Thus, itis
pretty damn hard to make a "choice" of schools. Had we chosen a topic
with
Title IX implications, I'm sure you would get to know this subject line
well.
In a state (Louisana--Number one in the nation for high school drop outs
and
teen pregnancy) that is just NOW Desegragating its public schools--yes!
you read
itcorrectly--the resources available to students to make an informed
choiceabout
debate does not exist. Many schools do not even allow students to take
textbooks
home because they can't afford to lose them.
        The point is that for the vast majority of students there really
is no
"choice" for schools or debate programs. If combining teams opens up the
choicesand opportunites to students we should be in favor of it.>>

And I agree, while alot of students have never been exposed to debate
and who come from situtation where they do not have a choice, it is
diffuicult.  I do think that is one of the problems that the Debate
Kansas City propgram here hopes to overcome.  I had the opportunity to
work with kids from the program and hope to become extensively involved
in the program during the school year.  But as was read in later posts,
I think that there is some situtations where hybrids teams and squads
become acceptable, as the cases that were talked about.  And I think the
suggestion that we should look to case by case basis At those who want a
hybrid team.  But for those who do want to debate in college, as was
said in my post, It should be a large deciding factor in the choice of
school that they attend.  Refering back to your white upper middile
class reference where my parents fed me everything that I needed.  You
are wrong, I am paying for my own school, I made that choice.


<<One more thing. To the idiot who backchanneled me saying it really is
all about winning--grow up! For a debater with some type of ego-driven
need to
"beat" people, I guess debate is a way to feed your desires. For those
of us
that are coaches and professors, we need to look to a higher
calling--namely, to
expose as many students as possible to the activity. So, no. It ain't
all about
winning. It is still, at some level, an educational activity.Scott
Elliott>>

It is sad that some one only interperates this activity as about
winning, while I do go into every debate round wanting to win.  I Think
that what I learn about the issues this year is very important.  I think
that that is one of the great things about this topic, will be the
amount of new stuff that we will encounter.  And the new things that we
will experience and learn.  This my be one of the very few topics that
really stops and makes us thinks and change our mindset.

Livivng the Suburban Life

C.J. Clevenger
UMKC
(816) 436-7728
1617 NE 82nd TERR.
Kansas City, MO 64118


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com



From parcherj  Mon Aug 10 20:12:35 1998
From: parcherj (Jeff Parcher)
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 21:12:35 -0400
Subject: Confessions of Elitism
Message-ID: <MON.10.AUG.1998.211235.0400.PARCHERJ@MCI2000.COM>

I embrace the theme of Bear's charge.  My program is elitist.  I am a single
Director at a program with a small budget.  I have tried to bring novices in
on occaision and it has never worked (assuming we don't count Jason).  I
have a hard time finding tournaments for them.   I can't afford financially
or personally to add more tournaments onto the schedule.  I also can't seem
to find the time to work with them without sacrificing time spent for
students who on the whole, are more aggressively committed to the activity.
With more money and an assistant that could be changed. I am also biased.
It is more enjoyable for me to work with experienced students than to teach
the basics.  I am not a patient guy.  I like what I do now. Working with
gifted students is great fun.  I don't think I'm better than people who work
with novices.  I just like it better.   I admire programs with the resources
or superhuman Directors which seem able to serve both constituencies.   It
is admirable - just not what I choose to do.  If that makes me an elitist
then I embrace the notion personally.  Teaching the higher skills of
argumentation is as educationally valuable as teaching to a novice.

Guilty as charged, Jeff

BTW - the joint subscription debate is a blowout for the proponents so far.
Case-by-case subscriptions with limitations as proposed solves all the
concerns of the detractors that I have heard.



From muaddib  Tue Aug 11 00:22:13 1998
From: muaddib (Luke D Savioe)
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 23:22:13 -0600
Subject: 2 res year
Message-ID: <MON.10.AUG.1998.232213.0600.MUADDIB@COLORADOSPRINGS.CROSSWINDS.NET>

Is there any possibility that after 2 tournment and we have debated all
that there is to be debated on this topic is done that the community
will opt to go BACK to two resolutions a year....  i.e. a new topic next
semester.  I just finished the peliminary research on the 1991 act (The
actual text from the 102nd congress) and all the act is  231 pages of
amendments to Title 7 of the 1964 Act....  the start of the actual text
is ....   "This is an amendment to the Civil Rights Act of 1964"...
Just some food for thought for those who have not looked into the 91 Act
yet....  but I am sure this is old news and I am just behind the power
curve....  Happy Ev Cutting


The lone researcher

Me

>From  Tue Aug 11 02:52:15 1998
Message-Id: <TUE.11.AUG.1998.025215.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 1149 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 02:52:24
 -0400
Received: from imo16.mx.aol.com (imo16.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.6]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id CAA70268 for
 <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 02:52:23 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from Chrislotz at aol.com by imo16.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id
 8UXNa27698 for <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 02:52:15
 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 64
Message-ID: <a05d0bf4.35cfea20 at aol.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 02:52:15 EDT
Reply-To: Chrislotz at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Chris Lotz <Chrislotz at AOL.COM>
Subject: Hybrid teams at the NDT

If hybrid teams are a good idea at the NDT, why don't we also have them at
other major championships?  Perhaps George Steinbrenner and Ted Turner could
get together and merge the Yankees and Braves for the World Series.  Maybe the
U.S. should join up with Russia at the Olympics.  Sound fair to anyone?  No,
then why should we endorse such a notion at the NDT?  While it is important to
expand opportunities for students in debate, it is also important that we
recognize some limits.  Persons who are concerned about elitism in debate
should be very apprehensive about hybrid teams at its championship.  It might
be all well and good for you if Podunk U. unites with Small State College, but
what if two powerhouses join to conquer all?  Oh sure, we could just make
decisions on a case by case basis.  But who makes the decisions over what
schools get to gang up on the solo artists?  The elites themselves, right?
Also, where's a good spot to draw the line?  One of the nice things about
having two national championships (CEDA and the NDT) with different principles
and parameters is that schools can choose which is better suited for their
needs (or both, as the case may be).  So if you are looking to put together
the All-Star debate team, feel free to do so at the tournament(s) that allow
you to do so, but respect the choice of a majority of the NDT Committee to
disallow hybrid teams.

- Chris Lotz



From swhalen  Tue Aug 11 02:20:51 1998
From: swhalen (Shawn T Whalen)
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 00:20:51 -0700
Subject: Hybrid teams at the NDT
In-Reply-To: <a05d0bf4.35cfea20@aol.com>
Message-ID: <TUE.11.AUG.1998.002051.0700.SWHALEN@SFSU.EDU>

How does this answer the proposal Dallas wrote about that seemed to have
lots of checks against such abuse.  I'm with Jeff - so far a clean crush
for hybrid proponents.

Shawn Whalen

Director of Forensics
San Francisco State University
swhalen at sfsu.edu
(415) 338-3173

On Tue, 11 Aug 1998, Chris Lotz wrote:

> If hybrid teams are a good idea at the NDT, why don't we also have them at
> other major championships?  Perhaps George Steinbrenner and Ted Turner could
> get together and merge the Yankees and Braves for the World Series.  Maybe the
> U.S. should join up with Russia at the Olympics.  Sound fair to anyone?  No,
> then why should we endorse such a notion at the NDT?  While it is important to
> expand opportunities for students in debate, it is also important that we
> recognize some limits.  Persons who are concerned about elitism in debate
> should be very apprehensive about hybrid teams at its championship.  It might
> be all well and good for you if Podunk U. unites with Small State College, but
> what if two powerhouses join to conquer all?  Oh sure, we could just make
> decisions on a case by case basis.  But who makes the decisions over what
> schools get to gang up on the solo artists?  The elites themselves, right?
> Also, where's a good spot to draw the line?  One of the nice things about
> having two national championships (CEDA and the NDT) with different principles
> and parameters is that schools can choose which is better suited for their
> needs (or both, as the case may be).  So if you are looking to put together
> the All-Star debate team, feel free to do so at the tournament(s) that allow
> you to do so, but respect the choice of a majority of the NDT Committee to
> disallow hybrid teams.
>
> - Chris Lotz
>



From swhalen  Tue Aug 11 02:30:52 1998
From: swhalen (Shawn T Whalen)
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 00:30:52 -0700
Subject: [delivery failure to kknutsen@m2.sprynet.com] (fwd)
Message-ID: <TUE.11.AUG.1998.003052.0700.SWHALEN@SFSU.EDU>

Any chance we some list god somewhere could remove this person?

Shawn Whalen

Director of Forensics
San Francisco State University
swhalen at sfsu.edu
(415) 338-3173

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 00:22:12 -0700 (PDT)
From: Interserv Operations <postmaster at sprynet.com>
To: swhalen at SFSU.EDU
Subject: Re:       Re: Hybrid teams at the NDT [delivery failure to kknutsen at m2.sprynet.com]

The message that you sent to the above recipient was not delivered.  All mail
sent to this account will continue to be returned until the recipient has
removed enough mail to lower the mailbox size below the system mailbox limit.

--

Sprynet Network Operations Center               Postmaster at sprynet.com
2001 6th Ave. Suite 3025B                       noc at interserv.net
Seattle, WA. 95121                              CompuServe/Internet Division

-----[ Orginal mail message follows ]-------------


>
> How does this answer the proposal Dallas wrote about that seemed to have
> lots of checks against such abuse.  I'm with Jeff - so far a clean crush
> for hybrid proponents.
>
> Shawn Whalen
>
> Director of Forensics
> San Francisco State University
> swhalen at sfsu.edu
> (415) 338-3173
>
> On Tue, 11 Aug 1998, Chris Lotz wrote:
>
> > If hybrid teams are a good idea at the NDT, why don't we also have them at
> > other major championships?  Perhaps George Steinbrenner and Ted Turner could
> > get together and merge the Yankees and Braves for the World Series.  Maybe the
> > U.S. should join up with Russia at the Olympics.  Sound fair to anyone?  No,
> > then why should we endorse such a notion at the NDT?  While it is important to
> > expand opportunities for students in debate, it is also important that we
> > recognize some limits.  Persons who are concerned about elitism in debate
> > should be very apprehensive about hybrid teams at its championship.  It might
> > be all well and good for you if Podunk U. unites with Small State College, but
> > what if two powerhouses join to conquer all?  Oh sure, we could just make
> > decisions on a case by case basis.  But who makes the decisions over what
> > schools get to gang up on the solo artists?  The elites themselves, right?
> > Also, where's a good spot to draw the line?  One of the nice things about
> > having two national championships (CEDA and the NDT) with different principles
> > and parameters is that schools can choose which is better suited for their
> > needs (or both, as the case may be).  So if you are looking to put together
> > the All-Star debate team, feel free to do so at the tournament(s) that allow
> > you to do so, but respect the choice of a majority of the NDT Committee to
> > disallow hybrid teams.
> >
> > - Chris Lotz
> >
>



From asnider  Tue Aug 11 07:49:04 1998
From: asnider (Alfred C. Snider)
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 07:49:04 -0500
Subject: Parcher's confession
In-Reply-To: <199808110400.AAA56860@moose.uvm.edu>
Message-ID: <TUE.11.AUG.1998.074904.0500.ASNIDER@ZOO.UVM.EDU>

Refreshingly honest. I apologize for being a bit harsh in my honest response.

Jeff says:

>Date:    Mon, 10 Aug 1998 21:12:35 -0400
>From:    Jeff Parcher <parcherj at MCI2000.COM>
>Subject: Confessions of Elitism
>
>I embrace the theme of Bear's charge.  My program is elitist.  I am a single
>Director at a program with a small budget.  I have tried to bring novices in
>on occaision and it has never worked (assuming we don't count Jason).  I
>have a hard time finding tournaments for them.   I can't afford financially
>or personally to add more tournaments onto the schedule.  I also can't seem
>to find the time to work with them without sacrificing time spent for
>students who on the whole, are more aggressively committed to the activity.
>With more money and an assistant that could be changed. I am also biased.
>It is more enjoyable for me to work with experienced students than to teach
>the basics.  I am not a patient guy.  I like what I do now. Working with
>gifted students is great fun.  I don't think I'm better than people who work
>with novices.  I just like it better.   I admire programs with the resources
>or superhuman Directors which seem able to serve both constituencies.   It
>is admirable - just not what I choose to do.  If that makes me an elitist
>then I embrace the notion personally.  Teaching the higher skills of
>argumentation is as educationally valuable as teaching to a novice.
>
>Guilty as charged, Jeff

1. If you cannot succeed at attracting new people to debating then you are
failing at doing your job. Why should the University keep you on board?
This isn't the basketball team.

2. If you can't find novice tournaments in the middle of ADA land then you
are in deep trouble. Check the tournament schedule.

3. Students will never become committed unless you introduce them to
debate. If everyone had your attitude you would have no debaters.

4. Your program should be designed for your students. It isn't. As you say,
it is designed for you. Is there anything wrong with that? I think there
is. You serve them, not the reverse.

5. You say both are educationally valuable, yet you choose to ignore the
LARGER group of students. Again, your preferences trump those of the
students.

A while back you started a conversation about debating the CEDA topic
because NDT subscriptions were falling below a critical mass. The cause of
that problem may be mostly located in attitudes like yours.

It works for you, Jeff, but it isn't going to work for the debate
community. But then, you have been very honest in stating what your
preferences are, so I do not expect you to change. I'm just glad I didn't
send my daughter to Georgetown because she never would have had an
opportunity to debate there since she didn't debate in high school. Many
other students on your campus will also never have the chance to experience
the life-changing power of debate. Their lost opportunity is your bias.

An honest confession deserves an honest response.


Alfred Charles Snider -- Lawrence Professor of Forensics, University of Vermont
Mail: 475 Main Street, UVM, Burlington, VT 05405-4225
Phone: 802-656-0097, Fax: 802-656-4275
DEBATE CENTRAL:  Debate's Biggest Website http://debate.uvm.edu/
WORLD DEBATE INSTITUTE 1998 - make plans now - http://debate.uvm.edu/ndi.html



From ikimbrell  Tue Aug 11 07:09:03 1998
From: ikimbrell (Ian Kimbrell)
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 08:09:03 -0400
Subject: Speed and Title Vii
Message-ID: <TUE.11.AUG.1998.080903.0400.IKIMBRELL@RAND.COM>

Did you get any responses on your request for speed drills?  I would be
interested in any responses you received.



At 07:16 PM 8/6/98 -0500, you wrote:
>Two unrelated subjects, but, rather than clog up your mailboxes, .  . .
>
>1) Speed Drills.  I need help in this area.  I am a decently fast speaker
>(always seems to be good enough to get by and win rounds, but nowhere near
>the fastest people out on the circuit).  I never learned speed by drills,
>I just heard it and sort of picked it up in HS.  However, next year, I am
>in the position of teaching people about policy debate, and I am the
>leader of a new team.  I have already noticed that many of the prospective
>members speak at unacceptably slow speeds for competition, and have been
>approached to teach them to speak faster.  I was wondering if people out
>there would share with me how they teach and learn speed, so I can pass on
>some pointers to the University of Chicaqgo debate squad.
>
>2) Title Vii and women in combat.  Title Vii seems to dictate that women
>in the military be treated without discrimination on the basis of sex.
>However, there have been many issues about owmen fighting in ground
>combat.  Does anyone know where the law actually stands on the issue?
>
>
>Thank you for your time,
>Laura Sjoberg
>President, the University of Chicago CEDA/NDT Debate Team
>
>
>
Ian Kimbrell
Case Western Reserve University Debate Team
T:(216)447-1422  X226
F:(216)447-1475
ikimbrell at rand.com
ijk4 at po.cwru.edu



From katebrindle  Tue Aug 11 07:23:05 1998
From: katebrindle (Kate Brindle)
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 05:23:05 -0700
Subject: Choose the right school
Message-ID: <TUE.11.AUG.1998.052305.0700.KATEBRINDLE@YAHOO.COM>

Just a question for you, Clint.  What about the kids who have never
been exposed to debate?  Should we just forget about them?  Speaking
from experience, most kids in the inner city public high schools have
never even heard of debate, let alone don't have the resources to
start teams on their own.  Or what about the kids who can't "choose"
the school they attend because either they can't afford to go to the
"right" school or they are forced to choose the only institution that
will give them a scholarship?  I don't mean to jump on you, but I
think those are questions we need to consider if we're going to try to
tackle elitism.

Kate Brindle
NYU Debate





==
"6:58, are you sure where MY spark is?"
If you find it, let me know!


_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com



From MDutcher  Tue Aug 11 07:23:03 1998
From: MDutcher (Michael Dutcher)
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 08:23:03 -0400
Subject: Parcher's confession
Message-ID: <TUE.11.AUG.1998.082303.0400.MDUTCHER@WEBCOGP.COM>

Hmmmm. . .  I really think that what Jeff was saying was missed.  I don't
think that he actively weeds out students from his program that do not have
high school expirience.  Rather, he just plays the cards that he is dealt.
>From what he said, Gtown is a one man, low budget operation.  He can not
financially or personally add more tournaments to the schedule.  That
doesn't sound to me like it would be anyone's preferance (my spelling is an
atrocity). "Give me no money and no assistance coaches, yeah that's my kind
of program."  I can not fathom anyone saying that.

Yes, being in the realm of ADA may create more novice opportunities but not
if he does not have the money or time to expend on them.

Jeff has found a situation where he is comfortable (I would have said happy
but I don't know if Jeff is happy - Jeff are you happy? ahahaha).  He is
doing what he can with what he is given and he likes it (boy, being out in
the real world sucks.  I don't think that i have heard anyone say that they
like what they are doing).

Good for you Jeff,

Michael Dutcher

> ----------
> From:         Alfred C. Snider[SMTP:asnider at ZOO.UVM.EDU]
> Reply To:     Alfred C. Snider
> Sent:         Tuesday, August 11, 1998 8:49 AM
> To:   EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU
> Subject:      Parcher's confession
>
> Refreshingly honest. I apologize for being a bit harsh in my honest
> response.
>
> Jeff says:
>
> >Date:    Mon, 10 Aug 1998 21:12:35 -0400
> >From:    Jeff Parcher <parcherj at MCI2000.COM>
> >Subject: Confessions of Elitism
> >
> >I embrace the theme of Bear's charge.  My program is elitist.  I am a
> single
> >Director at a program with a small budget.  I have tried to bring novices
> in
> >on occaision and it has never worked (assuming we don't count Jason).  I
> >have a hard time finding tournaments for them.   I can't afford
> financially
> >or personally to add more tournaments onto the schedule.  I also can't
> seem
> >to find the time to work with them without sacrificing time spent for
> >students who on the whole, are more aggressively committed to the
> activity.
> >With more money and an assistant that could be changed. I am also biased.
> >It is more enjoyable for me to work with experienced students than to
> teach
> >the basics.  I am not a patient guy.  I like what I do now. Working with
> >gifted students is great fun.  I don't think I'm better than people who
> work
> >with novices.  I just like it better.   I admire programs with the
> resources
> >or superhuman Directors which seem able to serve both constituencies.
> It
> >is admirable - just not what I choose to do.  If that makes me an elitist
> >then I embrace the notion personally.  Teaching the higher skills of
> >argumentation is as educationally valuable as teaching to a novice.
> >
> >Guilty as charged, Jeff
>
> 1. If you cannot succeed at attracting new people to debating then you are
> failing at doing your job. Why should the University keep you on board?
> This isn't the basketball team.
>
> 2. If you can't find novice tournaments in the middle of ADA land then you
> are in deep trouble. Check the tournament schedule.
>
> 3. Students will never become committed unless you introduce them to
> debate. If everyone had your attitude you would have no debaters.
>
> 4. Your program should be designed for your students. It isn't. As you
> say,
> it is designed for you. Is there anything wrong with that? I think there
> is. You serve them, not the reverse.
>
> 5. You say both are educationally valuable, yet you choose to ignore the
> LARGER group of students. Again, your preferences trump those of the
> students.
>
> A while back you started a conversation about debating the CEDA topic
> because NDT subscriptions were falling below a critical mass. The cause of
> that problem may be mostly located in attitudes like yours.
>
> It works for you, Jeff, but it isn't going to work for the debate
> community. But then, you have been very honest in stating what your
> preferences are, so I do not expect you to change. I'm just glad I didn't
> send my daughter to Georgetown because she never would have had an
> opportunity to debate there since she didn't debate in high school. Many
> other students on your campus will also never have the chance to
> experience
> the life-changing power of debate. Their lost opportunity is your bias.
>
> An honest confession deserves an honest response.
>
>
> Alfred Charles Snider -- Lawrence Professor of Forensics, University of
> Vermont
> Mail: 475 Main Street, UVM, Burlington, VT 05405-4225
> Phone: 802-656-0097, Fax: 802-656-4275
> DEBATE CENTRAL:  Debate's Biggest Website http://debate.uvm.edu/
> WORLD DEBATE INSTITUTE 1998 - make plans now -
> http://debate.uvm.edu/ndi.html
>



From bdgst1  Tue Aug 11 08:28:56 1998
From: bdgst1 (Bryon Gill)
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 06:28:56 PDT
Subject: Parcher's confession
Message-ID: <TUE.11.AUG.1998.062856.PDT.BDGST1@HOTMAIL.COM>

I feel the need to toss a few pennies on the pile here.

I won't save the decision for after the critique- I think Jeff's right.
I think there's a place for both sorts of programs.

Just like the old breadth/depth T debate, there's value in both
expanding the pool of debaters AND honing the talents of those with
demonstrated talent and experience.

There's no reason why all programs must try to do both.

more below:

>Date:         Tue, 11 Aug 1998 07:49:04 -0500
>Reply-To:     "Alfred C. Snider" <asnider at ZOO.UVM.EDU>
>From:         "Alfred C. Snider" <asnider at ZOO.UVM.EDU>
>Subject:      Parcher's confession
>To:           EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU
>
>Refreshingly honest. I apologize for being a bit harsh in my honest
response.
>
>Jeff says:
>
>>Date:    Mon, 10 Aug 1998 21:12:35 -0400
>>From:    Jeff Parcher <parcherj at MCI2000.COM>
>>Subject: Confessions of Elitism
>>
>>I embrace the theme of Bear's charge.  My program is elitist.  I am a
single
>>Director at a program with a small budget.  I have tried to bring
novices in
>>on occaision and it has never worked (assuming we don't count Jason).
I
>>have a hard time finding tournaments for them.   I can't afford
financially
>>or personally to add more tournaments onto the schedule.  I also can't
seem
>>to find the time to work with them without sacrificing time spent for
>>students who on the whole, are more aggressively committed to the
activity.
>>With more money and an assistant that could be changed. I am also
biased.
>>It is more enjoyable for me to work with experienced students than to
teach
>>the basics.  I am not a patient guy.  I like what I do now. Working
with
>>gifted students is great fun.  I don't think I'm better than people
who work
>>with novices.  I just like it better.   I admire programs with the
resources
>>or superhuman Directors which seem able to serve both constituencies.
It
>>is admirable - just not what I choose to do.  If that makes me an
elitist
>>then I embrace the notion personally.  Teaching the higher skills of
>>argumentation is as educationally valuable as teaching to a novice.
>>
>>Guilty as charged, Jeff
>
>1. If you cannot succeed at attracting new people to debating then you
are
>failing at doing your job. Why should the University keep you on board?
>This isn't the basketball team.

Here we find a surprising lack of warrant.  What is the difference
between the debate team and the basketball team?

>
>2. If you can't find novice tournaments in the middle of ADA land then
you
>are in deep trouble. Check the tournament schedule.

Here, Dr. Snider and I agree.  But just because novice tournaments are
available doesn't mean that one is obligated to spend precious resources
on them when that's not the goal of your particular organization.

>
>3. Students will never become committed unless you introduce them to
>debate. If everyone had your attitude you would have no debaters.

But if everyone did nothing but recruit novices, there would be no
coaching at the higher levels.  The fact is, not everyone has, nor wants
to have, this attitude, and novices continue to be trained despite the
fact that Jeff isn't doing it.

>
>4. Your program should be designed for your students. It isn't. As you
say,
>it is designed for you. Is there anything wrong with that? I think
there
>is. You serve them, not the reverse.

The program is designed for a certain kind of student, and I would have
been thrilled to be a part of it after graduating from high school.
(Although Pitt's geographical proximity, lower cost, knockout philosophy
department and ever-so-slightly more forgiving entrance requirements
lured me away... 8)

>
>5. You say both are educationally valuable, yet you choose to ignore
the
>LARGER group of students. Again, your preferences trump those of the
>students.

But why is quantity so much more important than quality?  Furthermore, I
doubt that the G'town debaters are unhappy with the size and average
experience level of their squad, so which students are you talking
about?

>
>A while back you started a conversation about debating the CEDA topic
>because NDT subscriptions were falling below a critical mass. The cause
of
>that problem may be mostly located in attitudes like yours.
>
>It works for you, Jeff, but it isn't going to work for the debate
>community. But then, you have been very honest in stating what your
>preferences are, so I do not expect you to change. I'm just glad I
didn't
>send my daughter to Georgetown because she never would have had an
>opportunity to debate there since she didn't debate in high school.
Many
>other students on your campus will also never have the chance to
experience
>the life-changing power of debate. Their lost opportunity is your bias.

And many talented young athletes who didn't play basketball in High
School will never experience the joy of playing for the G'town
Basketball Team.  For shame.

The point is, there's room for both sorts of programs.

Bdg

>
>An honest confession deserves an honest response.
>
>
>Alfred Charles Snider -- Lawrence Professor of Forensics, University of
Vermont
>Mail: 475 Main Street, UVM, Burlington, VT 05405-4225
>Phone: 802-656-0097, Fax: 802-656-4275
>DEBATE CENTRAL:  Debate's Biggest Website http://debate.uvm.edu/
>WORLD DEBATE INSTITUTE 1998 - make plans now -
http://debate.uvm.edu/ndi.html
>


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

>From  Tue Aug 11 11:20:19 1998
Message-Id: <TUE.11.AUG.1998.112019.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 4178 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 11:20:52
 -0400
Received: from imo24.mx.aol.com (imo24.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.68]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id LAA87620 for
 <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 11:20:51 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from Westtoast at aol.com by imo24.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id
 8BQMa22587 for <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 11:20:19
 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 167
Message-ID: <7da868b2.35d06134 at aol.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 11:20:19 EDT
Reply-To: Westtoast at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Terrance Hogan <Westtoast at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: Parcher's confession

        The statement that all programs don't have to develop novices from within
their university is similar (but not as serious) as the statement, "There are
lots of houses and neighborhoods around, so blacks don't need to live in this
one."
        Of course every campus has to recruit and develop novices. This is an
EDUCATIONAL activity. It can be compare neither to football or calculus.
Debate was created as an ARTIFICIAL environment to stimulate learning. Debate
was ment to be an educational tool, not a trade. Football is a sport, and
doesn't matter. Lives depend on accurate calculations, so univerities
specializing in advanced math can discriminate against those who do not
understand algebra. You also do not have only 4 years of eligibility in
Calculus. Students at (only an example) Michigan can benefit from debate in
the same way they can benefit from a large library. So Michigan's Board of
Regents gives money to the debate program in the same way they fund library
acquisitions. It's there as another tool to develop the student that wishes to
participate. If the head librarian suddenly decided that the goal of the
library was to have the biggest, most pristine collection of books in the
United States, the Michigan Board of Regents might see that as a worthy goal
due to the good P.R. that may result from having said collection, it might be
supported. I doubt they would go so far as to lock their libraries away from
the students in pursuit of said goal. As a matter of fact, I doubt they would
even allow the librarian to stop advertising library hours in pursuit of said
goal. Yes, some books will get stolen and have beer spilled on them, but such
is the cost of providing an education tool to your students.
        Again, I repeat, debate is supposed to be an educational tool, as well. If
the regents of your respective schools knew you guys weren't actively
recruiting and training students from your campuses, I don't think they would
be very happy with you at all.

>From  Tue Aug 11 11:29:53 1998
Message-Id: <TUE.11.AUG.1998.112953.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 4277 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 11:29:55
 -0400
Received: from imo14.mx.aol.com (imo14.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.4]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id LAA70516 for
 <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 11:29:54 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from Westtoast at aol.com by imo14.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id
 8WSLa13456 for <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 11:29:53
 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 167
Message-ID: <2c8ffe3f.35d06372 at aol.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 11:29:53 EDT
Reply-To: Westtoast at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Terrance Hogan <Westtoast at AOL.COM>
Subject: Response to Chris Lotz

        You dingbat, you!
        Yes, I know I just flamed you with an ad-hom. This masterpiece deserved it.
 Why does everything have to be all or nothing, when 99.9% of the population
lives and thrives (or fails to) in between the extremes of a situation.
        First of all, I am a proud supporter of Podunk U. Those "dirtfarmers" are
what the educational system is built for. We are trying in this country to
build an educational structure that allows anyone with the tools and drive to
rise above their current position and fulfill whatever destiny their
capabilities allow. The forensic activity is not about the 50 or so
individuals who have had no other lives but debate since 3rd grade, go without
sleep or showering for 10 months to cut 20 boxes of evidence, and can speed
through the entire text of both Testaments of the Bible in their 1AC. This
activity is for the thousands of other participants who are participating in
this activity because educators figured out a way to make developing public
speaking and logic skills more fun for students to learn by adding competition
to the mix. This activity is for the thousands that will make better
presentations, logical decisions, and will be more active in the public
service arena because of participating. So believe it or not Georgetown, USC,
Northwestern, and whatever school you're at Lotz, no matter what you may think
or believe, the NDT isn't for you. You are just the people who have so little
else to do in your lives that your singular focus become a detrimental weight
upon an activity that has the capability to change lives. The vast majority of
us are trying to tread water on the surface, attempting to stay afloat, but
the wieght is dragging us under. Do you want everyone to switch to
parlimentarty debate? That's what your singular focus is failing to see.
Within 10 years, alll there will be in policy debate is those of you who have
no other lives, there will be none of us "Podunks" for you to beat up on
anymore, and policy debate will be, for all practical purposes, so "lofty" an
activity that it will be dead. What will be accomplished for all of that?
Nothing. All us Podunks down here know we never stand a chance at winning the
NDT. We withstand know we're going to get drubbed by file wienies in a third
of our rounds, and cheated out of another third of our rounds by the coaches
of file wienies, because we are wise enough to see that policy debate is
making us better people, and that, maybe, we might at least, get to go to the
NDT before we are done.
        As far as I'm concerned, all you file weinies can form one humungous team
with 73 coaches, a 2.2 million dollar budget, and cellular V/R links to
Lexis/Nexis displayed inside your thick glasses. Take that big-assed team and
win all the NDTs for all I care. I'd be willing to sacrifice ever having a
remote chance of winning the stupid thing, if it means a few more people are
motivated to stay in this activity. Because when all is said and done, it's us
Podunks who will be well-rounded enough to step into the rest of our lives and
actually do something productive with our lives. You wienies are so one-
dimensional that your lives after debate will only be a lonely look back at
your glory days in an activity that really doesn't impress the way it used to.

 [Hmmm... podunks, wienies . . . I think that's enough ad-hom for today]

        There is a middle road. Coach Perkins offered middle ground for hybrids last
year, I mentioned it a little yesterday along with others. Determining
eligibility of hybrids on a case-by-case basis, with previously published
guidelines of what scenarios would be allowable is a good middle ground.
 Obvious, Dingbat Lotz (o.k., one more ad-hom) Northwestern/Michigan hybrids
wouldn't fit this scenario.
        As far your statement about different organizations for different
rules/theories/philosophies, I think were attempting to promote unity, not
anarchy. Why don't we just have a different organization for every debater,
that way everyone is a national champion and all are egos are satisfied.
        And as far as your statement that only the elites would decide on hybrid
eligibility anyway, then I guess us Podunks ought to send in our dues and vote
out some wienie elites, huh? Remember, there are far more of us Podunks than
you elites. The number one rule of elite rule is give the peasants enough
bread for our hunger to be satisfied. If us Podunks get hungry enough to riot
around here, that elite ivory tower's gonna burn.



From a.dove  Tue Aug 11 06:39:41 1998
From: a.dove (Alan Dove)
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 11:39:41 +0000
Subject: Hybrid teams at the NDT
References: <a05d0bf4.35cfea20@aol.com>
Message-ID: <TUE.11.AUG.1998.113941.0000.A.DOVE@EROLS.COM>

Hey, folks:

I think most of the points raised below have been amply covered already, but I just
couldn't let this slip by.

Chris Lotz wrote:
>
> If hybrid teams are a good idea at the NDT, why don't we also have them at
> other major championships?  Perhaps George Steinbrenner and Ted Turner could
> get together and merge the Yankees and Braves for the World Series.  Maybe the
> U.S. should join up with Russia at the Olympics.  Sound fair to anyone?

Turner and Steinbrenner co-running a baseball team?  Each ceding part of his authority
to the other in mutual respect and cooperation for the sake of the game?  Are you high?
The analogies are flawed on multiple additional levels: how would the Russo-American
olympic teams practice together, what would be the justification for hybrids in the
World Series of a sport which does not allow hybrids in regular season play, and why do
you seem so certain that either the Russo-American alliance or the Steinturner team
would enjoy some huge advantage?  Performance in a competitive endeavour reaches a
near-plateau at the upper levels; a fraction of a second in a race or a few extra strikes in a
season are all that separates the top athletes from the also-rans, and the distinction is
even finer in a qualitative activity like debate.  One Braves unit plus one Yankees unit
does not equal two Yankees or two Braves units.  It might not even equal one Red Sox
unit if the team dynamic doesn't work.

Persons who are concerned about elitism in debate
> should be very apprehensive about hybrid teams at its championship.  It might
> be all well and good for you if Podunk U. unites with Small State College, but
> what if two powerhouses join to conquer all?

Please think through your scenario in light of Jake Weigler's excellent summary of the
difficulties faced by hybrid teams.  If you really have a well-funded powerhouse team,
you would be STUPID to break it up to form hybrids, no matter how talented you think
the debaters are at some other school.  If Helen Hotshot and Mark Mediocre are part of
Borg University's squad, they may do pretty well.  If Helen decides to form a hybrid with
Sam Speedy, who goes to school 600 miles away at Bigtime Tech, what's the advantage?
Even if Helen wins 30% more ballots in her new partnership (probably an unrealistically
optimistic projection), Borg U. will do worse in the sweepstakes than they would with
an intact team.  Indeed, in the overlapping CEDA/NDT world, hybrids are clearly at a
disadvantage.  The only exception would be if Helen and Sam can qualify for the NDT as
a single team.  They will have sacrificed CEDA sweeps points and many hours of added
headaches (from running a long-distance partnership) solely for the benefit of
competing in a particular tournament.  Unless they're in semis or finals at the NDT,
which is obviously not guaranteed, this will have been a horrendous blunder for the
Borg and Bigtime squads.

There are also public relations pressures.  How do you explain to tight-fisted
administrators that the $100,000/year budget for debate scholarships, graduate assistants,
and travel has yielded a co-championship with a rival and an uninspiring national
ranking?  Will the Student Government and the administration appreciate the nuances
of balancing sweeps points against the chance of an NDT title?  I don't think it's the
right call on a purely tactical basis, without even starting on the educational arguments.

Finally, the straw-man policy you propose, where the NDT committee makes arbitrary
exemptions on a case-by-case basis, is obviously not the only solution.  How about a time
limit instead?  Once a program has been a member of NDT for, say, 3 consecutive years,
they can no longer participate in hybrid teams at that tournament.  Or a budgetary bright
line.  If your total team budget is over $10,000, you're on your own.  The numbers I've
mentioned are clearly arbitrary, but we could undoubtedly reach some kind of
agreement on what constitutes a truly "small" or "new" program.

If the NDT committee continues to exclude hybrids like the NY Cartel teams, they're
entitled to do so.  But don't try to justify the policy by constructing unrealistic doomsday
scenarios.

          --Alan

--
_______________
Alan Dove, Ph.D.
N3IMU
a.dove at erols.com
http://128.59.173.136/Poliolab/Alan/Dove.html



From sheidt  Tue Aug 11 11:01:56 1998
From: sheidt (Stephen J. Heidt)
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 12:01:56 -0400
Subject: NDT elitism
In-Reply-To: <921cf3f8.35cf50db@aol.com>
Message-ID: <TUE.11.AUG.1998.120156.0400.SHEIDT@EMORY.EDU>

Bear,

My search for data on this subject is not a delay tactic.  I simply want
to be better informed about this issue.  I don't have the years of
experience and exposure to NDT/CEDA that you and many others can provide.
So, I guess my real point is that if there is any data/evidence, then that
evidence can help strengthen the argument that elitism exists and needs to
be changed.  I can only be an advocate if I know what I am advocating and
why.  That being said, I would prefer reading studies simply because all
of the information is available in one source.  Instead of trying the
almost impossible task of reading all the posts on edebate, if I can read
a series of reports, then I feel that I can come to a credible conclusion
about the state of the activity.

As to your question about the NDT semis and CEDA semis with debaters the
never debated in high school, I really don't have data on either.  I
understand there have been several debaters in the 90's who got to the
semis or higher at CEDA Nats who never debated in high school, but what
does that prove?  There seems to be consensus with the few individuals I
have talked to that some, if not all, of those debaters could have had the
same level of success at the NDT.  I don't really know how we gauge that,
but perhaps those individuals and their respective talents speak to the
necessity  of college recruiting and novice NDT debating.

This entire discussion, however, warrents scholarly inquiry.  So I presume
we can come to some level of consensus on that issue at least.  Finally, I
want to make it clear that I do respect you and your position on this
argument, so I am thankful for your reply and the questions you ask.

Stephen



From jwingram  Tue Aug 11 11:04:04 1998
From: jwingram (Jason Ingram)
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 12:04:04 -0400
Subject: Hogan on Parcher's confession
In-Reply-To: <7da868b2.35d06134@aol.com>
Message-ID: <TUE.11.AUG.1998.120404.0400.JWINGRAM@EMAIL.UNC.EDU>

        I am a bit confused about what seems to be a representative
anecdote in your argument:

>The statement that all programs don't have to develop novices
>from within their university is similar (but not as serious) as the
>statement, "There are lots of houses and neighborhoods around, so blacks
>don't need to live in this one."

My confusion stems from your equation (through analogy) of race with
debate experience.  Are you really saying that "blacks are equivalent to
novices"?  I think, especially with this topic, that we should be much
more careful in drawing clever analogies.

>From  Tue Aug 11 12:15:07 1998
Message-Id: <TUE.11.AUG.1998.121507.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 4945 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 12:15:59
 -0400
Received: from imo20.mx.aol.com (imo20.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.10]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id MAA87674 for
 <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 12:15:58 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo20.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id
 8BHPa19316; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 12:15:07 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 58
Message-ID: <20109144.35d06e0d at aol.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 12:15:07 EDT
Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Michael Bear Bryant <MWBRYANT at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: Response to Chris Lotz
Comments: To: Westtoast at aol.com

In a message dated 98-08-11 11:37:20 EDT, Hogan writes:

<<  And as far as your statement that only the elites would decide on hybrid
 eligibility anyway, then I guess us Podunks ought to send in our dues and
vote
 out some wienie elites, huh? Remember, there are far more of us Podunks than
 you elites. The number one rule of elite rule is give the peasants enough
 bread for our hunger to be satisfied. If us Podunks get hungry enough to riot
 around here, that elite ivory tower's gonna burn.
  >>

Amen, Bro. Hogan! NDT may not want to change but we have the power to change
it. I was an NDT debater, participant at the overrated nat'l championship and
have even coached six teams into NDT elims. Do you have any idea how angry it
makes me feel when elitists say, "If you don't like NDT, go to some other
organization"? NDT is my organization. I'm not leaving no matter how many ad
homs they can throw in my direction.

If we don't like what NDT has become, we have the power to change it. Indeed,
we have the responsibility to save NDT from itself.

Bryant

>From  Tue Aug 11 12:13:15 1998
Message-Id: <TUE.11.AUG.1998.121315.0400.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 5014 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 12:16:58
 -0400
Received: from mail.bestsoftware.com (mail.abra.com [163.125.31.35]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with SMTP id MAA58590 for
 <Edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 12:16:57 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by mail.bestsoftware.com(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.1  (569.2 2-6-1998))  id
 8525665D.00590738 ; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 12:12:25 -0400
X-Lotus-FromDomain: BEST at ABRA CADABRA SOFTWARE
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-ID: <8525665D.0054DC36.00 at mail.bestsoftware.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 12:13:15 -0400
Reply-To: Duane_J_Hyland at BESTSOFTWARE.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Duane J Hyland <Duane_J_Hyland at BESTSOFTWARE.COM>
Subject: Of Hybrids, Novices and other Items

Hi, I find this whole debate on hybrids and novices interestring. I am a
fan of hybrid teams. I debated for a university that started its NDT
program in 1987. We didn't become actively involved in District 7 until the
fall of 1988, and at our first tournament in ADA we entered a hybrid team
with Kings College (then directed by Shelly James, as I remember it). As
one half of the hybrid, I learned a lot about debate and how things worked
at the JV ADA/NDT level. I am thankful to Kings for pairing me up with one
of their debaters and giving me the chance to debate, its something that
wouldn't have happened otherwise. I think that some schools, perhaps when
they are starting programs, benefit from hybrid pairings. As for hybrids at
the NDT, I can see the concerns of some that two powerful schools (for an
improbable  example: Harvard and Emory) could enter a hybrid that would do
quite well. But, I think that there are good debaters, from schools that
don't support programs, or support them badly, who deserve to be at the NDT
that might not have a chance otherwise. In those cases, I think admission
of hybrids should be approved. There's been a lot of talk about choosing
schools. I've spent the last 5 years of my life working for Higher
Education in the area of Financial Aid. Most students, that I've
encountered, don't have the luxury of picking a school because of its
debate  reputation. Studies, conducted by the organization I worked for,
have shown that students look at: 1) The academic program, 2) The cost, and
3) The amount of financial aid they can get so they can study 1 and afford
2. It seems a shame that these kids, some of whom have no choice in where
they attend school because of other factors (parents, etc. should be
penalized. I coach a high school program here in the Virginia/DC  suburbs,
and I have kids who are going to college in pre-law, engineering, or other
pursuits because that's what mom and dad  want them to do, and that's what
mom and dad will pay for (or, as the case might be, help pay for). If one
of the kids wants to be an engineer, and goes to MIT and wants to debate,
why should they be penalized for choosing one of the top schools in the
country for the discipline that they wish, or others wish them, to pursue?
I think that the debate community can include, and probably should include,
students who wish to debate, no matter where they come from. After all, if
it weren't for the students, debate would be dead in the water as an
activity. Personally, I think if a hybrid team were to win the NDT, or
CEDA, it would be great!!:) After all, the logistics of doing so would be
greater than a single unit program doing so. And, besides, the arguments of
"all star teams" aside, I think we would see a lot more of the Mansfield
University/Shepherd College pairings (To use an obscure District 7 example)
than the Harvard/Emory pairings.

    Now, on Novices. It's a shame that Dr. Parcher doesn't have the time
and resources to recruit and train novices (although I'm willing to bet
that the "small" budget he refers to, isn't that small in comparison to
some schools). I, personally, consider him to be one of the best debate
teachers I have ever encountered. But, as director of Georgetown's program,
he must use his resources as he sees fit to fulfill his goals for his
school. There is nothing wrong with this at all. Some schools can afford to
run several Varsity, JV and Novice squads, some can't, some don't run
Varsity teams (like my alma mater) and just run JV and Novice teams. I am,
again, willing to bet that as travel costs increase, and as tournament
admission fees increase we will see a lot more programs that "specialize"
in just a varsity squad, or just JV/Novices. I'm also not sure that high
school success is immediately translated into college success. I have seen
stand out debaters that had no high school experience, and I have seen
stand out debaters that did. I think success is just a question of how hard
you are willing to work to learn the techniques, and how much time you are
willing to sacrafice to the activity. That might sound incredibly naive,
but it works.

       In the end, Debate is an important learning/competitive activity. We
should try to include as many students as possible, even in the
championships (NDT/CEDA) as we can. I consider the debate experiences I had
in college (and they were only at the novice and JV levels) to be some of
the most important learning activities I ever engaged in, and I think we
should give as many people as we can the chance to look back and say that
also.  Duane Hyland (formerly Mansfield University Debate)

>From  Tue Aug 11 12:26:23 1998
Message-Id: <TUE.11.AUG.1998.122623.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 5188 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 12:26:32
 -0400
Received: from imo27.mx.aol.com (imo27.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.71]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id MAA49188 for
 <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 12:26:31 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo27.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id 8FEQa04229
 for <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 12:26:23 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 58
Message-ID: <67a5579b.35d070b0 at aol.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 12:26:23 EDT
Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Michael Bear Bryant <MWBRYANT at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: Parcher's confession

Even if we grant Parcher some excuse as to why his resource limitations
inhibit any focus below championship-level varsity debate, how does that
legitimate a nearly universal trend across NDT? I guess Wake and Northwstern
have the same excuse for ignoring recruitment and training of novices, right?

Frankly, I don't think Parcher has an excuse. For once, I agree with almost
every word in Dr. Snider's post. I might also add that given G'towns long-term
history of elitism and corruption, perhaps a broader-based program might allow
the Hoyas a foundation for more institutional support.

It's enabled Weber to double it's budget over the past decade. And you can
even allow administrators to watch novice debates without cringing in fear of
additional cutbacks...

Bear



From tweiner1  Tue Aug 11 11:26:43 1998
From: tweiner1 (Timothy J Weiner)
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 12:26:43 -0400
Subject: Parcher's confession
In-Reply-To: <7da868b2.35d06134@aol.com>
Message-ID: <TUE.11.AUG.1998.122643.0400.TWEINER1@OSF1.GMU.EDU>

On Tue, 11 Aug 1998, Terrance Hogan wrote:

>         The statement that all programs don't have to develop novices from within
> their university is similar (but not as serious) as the statement, "There are
> lots of houses and neighborhoods around, so blacks don't need to live in this
> one."

WHAT?  Why do all debaters feel it necessary to draw stupid and irrelevent
analogies.  Maybe you didn't hear what Jeff said.  He said that he wishes
that he could do so, but has neither the time, money nor personal patience
to do so.  I've had it with people using horrible analogies to call people
racists or nazi's, either call them that or just make you statement.

If you don't like the situation at Georgetown then you should teach novice
debate there, I'm sure Jeff wouldn't mind.

Jake



From asnider  Tue Aug 11 12:44:30 1998
From: asnider (Alfred C. Snider)
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 12:44:30 -0500
Subject: Addendum to my last message
Message-ID: <TUE.11.AUG.1998.124430.0500.ASNIDER@ZOO.UVM.EDU>

Just wanted to complete my thought before I turn to reading responses. I'm
now back from lecturing.

If a school wants to have a "competitive" versus an "educational" debate
team focus, I guess that is certainly their choice. While I might disagree,
I would still follow the job description if I got the job.

Likewise, while I may disagree with another coach in the way they emphasize
their program, I do not assume that they are evil or unenlightened, just
differently opinioned. Mr. Parcher is obviously one who cares deeply about
the acitivity and is an excellent coach, we just disagree on educational
philosophy.

Having said that, I really want to urge all programs to include a novice
component for the health of the activity in general and regional circuits
in particular.


Alfred Charles Snider -- Lawrence Professor of Forensics, University of Vermont
Mail: 475 Main Street, UVM, Burlington, VT 05405-4225
Phone: 802-656-0097, Fax: 802-656-4275
DEBATE CENTRAL:  Debate's Biggest Website http://debate.uvm.edu/
WORLD DEBATE INSTITUTE 1998 - make plans now - http://debate.uvm.edu/ndi.html

>From  Tue Aug 11 13:02:51 1998
Message-Id: <TUE.11.AUG.1998.130251.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 5843 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 13:03:03
 -0400
Received: from imo27.mx.aol.com (imo27.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.71]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id NAA49022 for
 <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 13:03:02 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from Westtoast at aol.com by imo27.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id
 8DSWa04231 for <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 13:02:51
 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 167
Message-ID: <a443f89d.35d0793d at aol.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 13:02:51 EDT
Reply-To: Westtoast at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Terrance Hogan <Westtoast at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: Hogan on Parcher's confession

In a message dated 8/11/98 12:05:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
jwingram at EMAIL.UNC.EDU writes:

<<       I am a bit confused about what seems to be a representative
 anecdote in your argument:

 >The statement that all programs don't have to develop novices
 >from within their university is similar (but not as serious) as the
 >statement, "There are lots of houses and neighborhoods around, so blacks
 >don't need to live in this one."

 My confusion stems from your equation (through analogy) of race with
 debate experience.  Are you really saying that "blacks are equivalent to
 novices"?  I think, especially with this topic, that we should be much
 more careful in drawing clever analogies.
  >>
                Yes I used an analogy comparing discrimination of race to that of
debate experience. That is why I included the parenthetical statement
"though not as serious." Grammatically, that means that the violation is
similar, but less worisome. Had I not included the parenthetical
statement, you would have a point. Since I did, you do not.

>From  Tue Aug 11 13:28:49 1998
Message-Id: <TUE.11.AUG.1998.132849.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 6053 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 13:29:28
 -0400
Received: from imo29.mx.aol.com (imo29.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.73]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id NAA71560 for
 <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 13:29:26 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from Westtoast at aol.com by imo29.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id
 8LAMa27851 for <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 13:28:49
 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 167
Message-ID: <c4605e86.35d07f56 at aol.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 13:28:49 EDT
Reply-To: Westtoast at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Terrance Hogan <Westtoast at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: Parcher's confession

        Speaking of file weinies . . .
        It's my memory that a young man at a small college in the LA area was
attempting to qualify for the NDT with another guy from Arizona. The guy
LA was the only debater at his school, and his budget for the school year
was $50. He was denied from hybriding. That is flat out discrimination,
by any standard. Because he could not generate interest among other
student, he was denied the right to compete.
        As far as poor Mr. Parcher, pardon moi for not crying for Georgetown.
If he can generate a better record, more money, or more grad. assistants
at one of the formost Jesuit universities in the country (pointng toward
historical Jesuit support, not religion), then he's not a very persuasive guy.
        Maybe he's not getting the funding because the university has seen
his lack of interest in increasing the program on campus. Maybe if the
Georgetown campus was plastered with recruitment fliers for the budget
directors to see as they walked the campus, they might have more
sympathy for increasing his budget.
        I state for the record that I have no knowledge of Mr. Partcher's
program, and apologize for insinuating I might in this message. This
is only an example. But I refuse to feel pity for Georgetown, period.
        If I'm going to feel pity for, and go to work for anyone, it would be
the Traditionally Black Colleges and Universities I se a distinct lack of
in the NDT standings!


Proud to be a Podunk!


In a message dated 8/11/98 12:26:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
tweiner1 at osf1.gmu.edu writes:

<< On Tue, 11 Aug 1998, Terrance Hogan wrote:

 >         The statement that all programs don't have to develop novices from
within
 > their university is similar (but not as serious) as the statement, "There
are
 > lots of houses and neighborhoods around, so blacks don't need to live in
this
 > one."

 WHAT?  Why do all debaters feel it necessary to draw stupid and irrelevent
 analogies.  Maybe you didn't hear what Jeff said.  He said that he wishes
 that he could do so, but has neither the time, money nor personal patience
 to do so.  I've had it with people using horrible analogies to call people
 racists or nazi's, either call them that or just make you statement.

 If you don't like the situation at Georgetown then you should teach novice
 debate there, I'm sure Jeff wouldn't mind.

 Jake
  >>



From asnider  Tue Aug 11 13:37:54 1998
From: asnider (Alfred C. Snider)
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 13:37:54 -0500
Subject: New Photos of WDI...
Message-ID: <TUE.11.AUG.1998.133754.0500.ASNIDER@ZOO.UVM.EDU>

New photos of WDI are now available at http://debate.uvm.edu/wdidaily.html

Today is the death march to infinity, continuing into the evening until
Argument Wave #2 is completed. Tomorrow we plan a day of unscheduled
individual work to prepare for the tournament, which is on Thursday and
Friday.

Wish you were here (to help us type tags)!


Alfred Charles Snider -- Lawrence Professor of Forensics, University of Vermont
Mail: 475 Main Street, UVM, Burlington, VT 05405-4225
Phone: 802-656-0097, Fax: 802-656-4275
DEBATE CENTRAL:  Debate's Biggest Website http://debate.uvm.edu/
WORLD DEBATE INSTITUTE 1998 - make plans now - http://debate.uvm.edu/ndi.html



From k.kuswa  Tue Aug 11 12:44:42 1998
From: k.kuswa (kevin kuswa)
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 13:44:42 -0400
Subject: What's a Novice?
Message-ID: <TUE.11.AUG.1998.134442.0400.K.KUSWA@MAIL.UTEXAS.EDU>

Howdy--I won't get into some of the reasons why Georgetown has a scaled down
budget and little administrative support.  I do think, though, that Parcher
has made some incredible strides with the team on a national level.  Even if
he's only working with a few students, the ideas they craft spread far
across the community....

        My question, though, is WHAT IS A NOVICE?  Look at the word in two
parts: no vice.  The "vices" debaters have after four years of competition
in high school may make some of them less ready to compete on a national
level in CEDA or NDT when compared to students with "little experience."  I
know the "less experienced" don't always fare as well as the "pre-made"
debaters, but it doesn't have to be so one-sided.  Maybe part of the problem
is that we (at least Parcher and his opponents do) view people with less
experience as "behind."  It just ain't the case: people are not "behind"
except in a pre-determined world of what good debate is, what good debate
should be, what counts for experience, and even what counts as a legitimate
argument.

It seems like some human beings are being lost between the Parcher/Tuna
Snider dichotomy.  Some coaches won't deal with Them, while other coaches
treat Them like infants in need of careful training so they can become like
their older, wiser, varsity team memebers.

Striving for no/vices in Texas,

kevin kuswa

>From  Tue Aug 11 13:57:48 1998
Message-Id: <TUE.11.AUG.1998.135748.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 6480 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 13:57:52
 -0400
Received: from imo30.mx.aol.com (imo30.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.74]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id NAA44404 for
 <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 13:57:50 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from Westtoast at aol.com by imo30.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id
 8BLZa12042 for <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 13:57:48
 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 167
Message-ID: <90150191.35d0861d at aol.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 13:57:48 EDT
Reply-To: Westtoast at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Terrance Hogan <Westtoast at AOL.COM>
Subject: Where are UNCF schools?

        This is not a elitist ,flame attack. It was a point I thought of at the end
of a previous post and I really am curious.

        How many Traditionally Black Colleges and Universities participate in NDT and
CEDA? How competeitive are they? Would someone please post that to the
listserv.



From DLukasik  Tue Aug 11 12:52:42 1998
From: DLukasik (Dennis Lukasik)
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 13:52:42 -0400
Subject: NDT elitism
Message-ID: <TUE.11.AUG.1998.135242.0400.DLUKASIK@MICHCPA.ORG>

Mr Bear,

just got around to catching up on the posts over the weekend. i have
written you in backchannel previously(Wayne State; now WestGa) and saw
danielle (my high school coach) weise's post and your response. The way
you originally dismissed my plea to take action instead of whining about
elitism didn't upset me but how you state your supposed knowledge of
wayne african american debaters is a joke. not only do wayne state
debaters help run the Detroit Public School League for not enough money
but they actively recruit and teach college level novices. To imply
wayne is a racist institution based upon experience you had with them
over a decade ago is an insult. Take into consideration that debate is
an expensive activity and in michigan exists on an ndt-like elitist
level, wayne st is the only institution that recruits beyond that
ego-stroking high school "you are fast come debate for me" level and
takes kids with any amount of experience (and especially those of us
that can't afford UofM or MSU) Do you think Steve Mancuso offered Chris
LaVigne a scholarship right out of high school (you know he wishes he
had) Thinking in black and white has fogged your brain. Dr Z has done
nothing but foster debate at all levels (one of the reasons he gives up
money  every year by hosting multiple urban youth debate leagues and
tournaments and lectures  to Detroit Public school kids). Maybe if you
had the gumption to work as hard as Dr Z at breaking down the barriers
of elitism some of us would give you the respect you think you deserve
so much.

On your Side but Wondering Why,
Dennis Lukasik
Wayne St. (97-98)



From jwingram  Tue Aug 11 13:15:18 1998
From: jwingram (Jason Ingram)
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 14:15:18 -0400
Subject: Hogan on Parcher's confession
In-Reply-To: <a443f89d.35d0793d@aol.com>
Message-ID: <TUE.11.AUG.1998.141518.0400.JWINGRAM@EMAIL.UNC.EDU>

I fail to see how you have a point in drawing an analogy between two
categories different IN KIND (race, which is presumably not a marker of
experience, skill, ability to organize data, or any other _qualitative_
consideration; and debate ability, which can be improved through coaching
designed to hone certain specific behaviors) as if they were merely
different IN DEGREE.  Stating that being black is like being a novice,
only much worse, maps race onto dangerous terrain.  You draw the analogy
to justify more support for coaching novices, which is fine, and you do
well to point out that the discrimination faced by the two groups is
different
.  But that has little to do with my question.  You remark,

>Yes I used an analogy comparing discrimination of race to that
>of debate experience. That is why I included the parenthetical statement
>"though not as serious." Grammatically, that means that the violation is
>similar, but less worisome. Had I not included the parenthetical
>statement, you would have a point. Since I did, you do not.

I asked a question, not wanting to assume that you really thought
blackness was like debate status.  My point, which you missed, was that
the comparison was qualitatively different.  By including the statement,
"though not as serious," you map criteria onto being black that constitute
a different picture of blackness than many might be comfortable with.  You
may be comfortable with implying that being black is like being someone
unskilled in the critical thinking marking varsity debaters, "only worse."


My question (it _was_ a question; I wasn't trying to "score a point off of
you") still stands, though I think your message implies an answer.



From parcherj  Tue Aug 11 13:30:44 1998
From: parcherj (Jeff Parcher)
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 14:30:44 -0400
Subject: Snider Imposes His Philosophy on Me
Message-ID: <TUE.11.AUG.1998.143044.0400.PARCHERJ@MCI2000.COM>

>1. If you cannot succeed at attracting new people to debating then you are
>failing at doing your job. Why should the University keep you on board?
>This isn't the basketball team.


Your vision of my job, not mine.  The University should keep me on board
because debate is a good program for a few gifted and talented students that
have decided to commit themselves to debate.  I serve a specific groups of
students quite well.  There is pretty much a tradeoff in my program.  Every
additional novice would tradeoff in time and tournaments somewhere.  I
choose to give my attention to certain students over others.  As do all
classes and programs at the University.  The University itself has criteria
for who they accept - they don't take anybody. Why don't they take students
that have never been to high school (true school novices)?  Surely we could
alter the classes and serve them greatly.   Well, that would be a fine
educational mission.  Just not the mission chosen by this particular
University.  My value choice is as defensible as yours.   There is nothing
more magically valuable about introducing a new student to debate than there
is spending time strategizing with some 'elite' student about Harvard's new
case.   They each get something out of it.   I do not try to impose my view
of the educational value of debate on you - why impose yours on me.  Is
there no room for my program in your big tent?

BTW - my Boss sees the program the same way.   We have parliamentary and an
on- campus debate society for students with less experience.  It ain't the
same.  I know.  But there are alot of benefits they can get from those
programs.

>2. If you can't find novice tournaments in the middle of ADA land then you
>are in deep trouble. Check the tournament schedule.


You think it might be a little more complicated than that?  In order to go
to an additional tournament I have to cancel one.  The travel budget is
about $12,000 - trust me in that I am spending more than every dime of that.
Also, even with a few extra bucks, I personally don't want to go to any more
tournaments regardless of the type.  I have other things in my life - I need
to keep balance.  That leaves the option of redirecting the program to fit
your vision.  I am not canceling our travel to the Kentucky tournament or
Northwestern, in order to add the James Madison tournament.  Why?  The
experienced kids in my program don't want to go to that tournament.  They
would rather go to one of the previously mentioned tournaments.   I choose
not to impose that decision on them in an effort to redirect my program.   I
go to a few ADA tournaments but not enough to keep total novices going.
Mostly I do it for lesser experienced kids who need something to complement
the thrashing they get at the more nationally attended tournaments.  What I
would need to fit my program into your vision of what it should be is some
extra money and national tournaments which have a novice division.

>3. Students will never become committed unless you introduce them to
>debate. If everyone had your attitude you would have no debaters.


That's why I am not a high school debate coach.   I do not judge them
inferior for what they do, its just that bringing debate to the novice was
never the thing that got me going.  I spent a year as a high school debate
coach and decided against that route for a variety of reasons.    I never
said that everyone should have my vision.  I just think the tent is big
enough for different types of programs and coaches.

>4. Your program should be designed for your students. It isn't. As you say,
>it is designed for you. Is there anything wrong with that? I think there
>is. You serve them, not the reverse.


Wrong.  My program is dictated precisely by my students.   The nature of the
University is that I get enough experienced students to fill up the program.
Over a third of all Georgetown freshman participated in debate in high
school.  I serve exactly the students that walk into my door and seek me
out.   Just because I ain't some debate evangelist going out on my campus
and converting students to the 'great way' doesn't mean I am a failure.
Thank you for the value judgement on my career, though.   I try to serve
every student that seeks me out.  Novices included.  Some have even made it
through two full years.  The vast majority don't for reasons that should be
clear by now.

Of course, the program is designed around me to a certain extent.  So?   The
alternative is losing a debate coach (I'd like to think a pretty good one).
Another director might take the program another direction.  He/She could
turn away all the experienced students and say that debate had already
served them and then reach out onto the campus for novices only.  That would
be an educational choice.  One that is no less discrimantory than mine.
Perhaps, no less valid.  It would be their choice.  Seems to me that shaping
the program to the Director's ideas and taste is inevitable.

>5. You say both are educationally valuable, yet you choose to ignore the
>LARGER group of students. Again, your preferences trump those of the
>students.


I choose not teach them to sing either and I guess that trumps their choices
too.  We have seminar classes at the University that only serve small groups
of students with exact prerequisites as well.  Should we get rid of those?
Hell, all the classes have limitations of some sort.  What does this
argument get you?   Breadth vs. Depth?  Yes I sacrifice breadth for depth.
Seems reasonable to me.  The fact that other programs sacrifice depth for
breadth does not bother me. It's a fair decision. The fact that some
programs have the money and resources not to make such a sacrifice is great.
The argument you are making seems to me to go nowhere.  We all make
choices - I could spend the entire budget taking 150 students to 1
tournament.  Would that make my program better in your eyes?

>A while back you started a conversation about debating the CEDA topic
>because NDT subscriptions were falling below a critical mass. The cause of
>that problem may be mostly located in attitudes like yours.


Huh?  The idea that my program would me more secure if I served novices is
simply untrue.  You do not understand the politics of Georgetown.
Georgetown revels in being elite.  To describe my program as serving and
bringing elite students to the campus is one of my best arguments.   My
arguments regarding the problems in NDT have been mischaraterized to a
certain extent for the purposes both you and Bear wish to argue for.  My
main concern was and is the small field combined with the rich-poor gap in
size of program.   I don't see how my recruiting novices would do anything
but drive away experienced students by depriving them of competitive
opportunity.   That would make those dynamics even worse.

>It works for you, Jeff, but it isn't going to work for the debate
>community. But then, you have been very honest in stating what your
>preferences are, so I do not expect you to change. I'm just glad I didn't
>send my daughter to Georgetown because she never would have had an
>opportunity to debate there since she didn't debate in high school. Many
>other students on your campus will also never have the chance to experience
>the life-changing power of debate. Their lost opportunity is your bias.


I never said it would work for the debate community.   If I had more money
and some assistance, I would make choices for the community (run a novice
program, go to more ADA tournaments).  As it is, I make choices for myself
and the students I serve.

Your daughter might have come to Georgetown and got a job through a
professor that might have changed her life.  She might have taken a class
that changed her whole way of looking at the world.   Her not choosing
Georgetown destroyed many opportunities she might have had.   Every choice
kills opportunity.   Every student in my program might have spent time doing
something else which might have led them done a more fulfilling life path.
Debating itself is a lost opportunity.   The University doesn't give me the
resources to reach every student on the campus.  That's probably good.
They would have to sacrifice alot of other opportunities for students in
order to do so.   If you want to debate on my campus - I'm here for you.
It's a tough road unless you are self-motivated and have some experience.  I
ain't gonna tell you that it's the best choice you can ever make.  That
would be arrogant.   But if you want an in depth educational option that
might offer you something diffferent from any other option, here I am.   I
am very comfortable with that.

>An honest confession deserves an honest response.


Honest, but perhaps unnecessarily pejorative.   As has been this whole
discussion.   Elite does not mean bad.

Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: Alfred C. Snider <asnider at ZOO.UVM.EDU>
To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
Date: Tuesday, August 11, 1998 7:45 AM
Subject: Parcher's confession


>Refreshingly honest. I apologize for being a bit harsh in my honest
response.
>
>Jeff says:
>
>>Date:    Mon, 10 Aug 1998 21:12:35 -0400
>>From:    Jeff Parcher <parcherj at MCI2000.COM>
>>Subject: Confessions of Elitism
>>
>>I embrace the theme of Bear's charge.  My program is elitist.  I am a
single
>>Director at a program with a small budget.  I have tried to bring novices
in
>>on occaision and it has never worked (assuming we don't count Jason).  I
>>have a hard time finding tournaments for them.   I can't afford
financially
>>or personally to add more tournaments onto the schedule.  I also can't
seem
>>to find the time to work with them without sacrificing time spent for
>>students who on the whole, are more aggressively committed to the
activity.
>>With more money and an assistant that could be changed. I am also biased.
>>It is more enjoyable for me to work with experienced students than to
teach
>>the basics.  I am not a patient guy.  I like what I do now. Working with
>>gifted students is great fun.  I don't think I'm better than people who
work
>>with novices.  I just like it better.   I admire programs with the
resources
>>or superhuman Directors which seem able to serve both constituencies.   It
>>is admirable - just not what I choose to do.  If that makes me an elitist
>>then I embrace the notion personally.  Teaching the higher skills of
>>argumentation is as educationally valuable as teaching to a novice.
>>
>>Guilty as charged, Jeff
>
>1. If you cannot succeed at attracting new people to debating then you are
>failing at doing your job. Why should the University keep you on board?
>This isn't the basketball team.
>
>2. If you can't find novice tournaments in the middle of ADA land then you
>are in deep trouble. Check the tournament schedule.
>
>3. Students will never become committed unless you introduce them to
>debate. If everyone had your attitude you would have no debaters.
>
>4. Your program should be designed for your students. It isn't. As you say,
>it is designed for you. Is there anything wrong with that? I think there
>is. You serve them, not the reverse.
>
>5. You say both are educationally valuable, yet you choose to ignore the
>LARGER group of students. Again, your preferences trump those of the
>students.
>
>A while back you started a conversation about debating the CEDA topic
>because NDT subscriptions were falling below a critical mass. The cause of
>that problem may be mostly located in attitudes like yours.
>
>It works for you, Jeff, but it isn't going to work for the debate
>community. But then, you have been very honest in stating what your
>preferences are, so I do not expect you to change. I'm just glad I didn't
>send my daughter to Georgetown because she never would have had an
>opportunity to debate there since she didn't debate in high school. Many
>other students on your campus will also never have the chance to experience
>the life-changing power of debate. Their lost opportunity is your bias.
>
>An honest confession deserves an honest response.
>
>
>Alfred Charles Snider -- Lawrence Professor of Forensics, University of
Vermont
>Mail: 475 Main Street, UVM, Burlington, VT 05405-4225
>Phone: 802-656-0097, Fax: 802-656-4275
>DEBATE CENTRAL:  Debate's Biggest Website http://debate.uvm.edu/
>WORLD DEBATE INSTITUTE 1998 - make plans now -
http://debate.uvm.edu/ndi.html

>From  Tue Aug 11 14:49:35 1998
Message-Id: <TUE.11.AUG.1998.144935.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 7721 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 14:49:44
 -0400
Received: from imo18.mx.aol.com (imo18.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.8]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id OAA100194 for
 <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 14:49:42 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo18.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id
 XYLNa29489; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 14:49:35 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 58
Message-ID: <aec04096.35d09240 at aol.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 14:49:35 EDT
Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Michael Bear Bryant <MWBRYANT at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: What's a Novice?
Comments: To: k.kuswa at MAIL.UTEXAS.EDU

In a message dated 98-08-11 13:45:05 EDT, Kuswa writes:

<<
 Howdy--I won't get into some of the reasons why Georgetown has a scaled down
 budget and little administrative support.  I do think, though, that Parcher
 has made some incredible strides with the team on a national level.  Even if
 he's only working with a few students, the ideas they craft spread far
 across the community....

         My question, though, is WHAT IS A NOVICE?  Look at the word in two
 parts: no vice.  The "vices" debaters have after four years of competition
 in high school may make some of them less ready to compete on a national
 level in CEDA or NDT when compared to students with "little experience."  I
 know the "less experienced" don't always fare as well as the "pre-made"
 debaters, but it doesn't have to be so one-sided.  Maybe part of the problem
 is that we (at least Parcher and his opponents do) view people with less
 experience as "behind."  It just ain't the case: people are not "behind"
 except in a pre-determined world of what good debate is, what good debate
 should be, what counts for experience, and even what counts as a legitimate
 argument.

 It seems like some human beings are being lost between the Parcher/Tuna
 Snider dichotomy.  Some coaches won't deal with Them, while other coaches
 treat Them like infants in need of careful training so they can become like
 their older, wiser, varsity team memebers.

 Striving for no/vices in Texas,

 kevin kuswa

  >>
Kevin,

I hope I don't have to remind you that I genuinely respect both you and the
Texas program.

No/vices in Austin, right? Cute. And proof that you shouldn't start by reading
the last part of any post.

Your claim that HS debaters need coaching, too, is unrefutable. Please
explain, again, how your above discourse, however, justifies abandoning any
outreach to people who didn't debate in high school. Is it ok just to write
off those that weren't even misprogrammed in high school?

What you're really talking about are junior debaters, not novices. Novices, by
point definition, didn't do team debate in high school. Let's not get bogged
down in "cute" semantic games.

Can you name five NDT schools putting effort into training raw novices
(outside of ADA, of course)?

Bear



From dawst38+  Tue Aug 11 13:59:19 1998
From: dawst38+ (Delmar A Wright)
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 14:59:19 -0400
Subject: sign off
Message-ID: <TUE.11.AUG.1998.145919.0400.DAWST38@PITT.EDU>

Sign off Delmar Wright.

"I USE TO DO IT LIVE IN THE (215), BUT NOW I'M DOING IT FOR YOU IN THE
(412)"



From parcherj  Tue Aug 11 13:59:34 1998
From: parcherj (Jeff Parcher)
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 14:59:34 -0400
Subject: Hogan Confesses to Ignorance
Message-ID: <TUE.11.AUG.1998.145934.0400.PARCHERJ@MCI2000.COM>

The part of your post that said perhaps you should not insinuate about
people and programs that you know nothing about is the only part that was
correct.  Lets just leave it at that, you know nothing about me or my
program or Georgetown University.  It's a good summary for your
participation in the debate so far.
-----Original Message-----
From: Terrance Hogan <Westtoast at AOL.COM>
To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
Date: Tuesday, August 11, 1998 1:29 PM
Subject: Re: Parcher's confession


>        Speaking of file weinies . . .
>        It's my memory that a young man at a small college in the LA area
was
>attempting to qualify for the NDT with another guy from Arizona. The guy
>LA was the only debater at his school, and his budget for the school year
>was $50. He was denied from hybriding. That is flat out discrimination,
>by any standard. Because he could not generate interest among other
>student, he was denied the right to compete.
>        As far as poor Mr. Parcher, pardon moi for not crying for
Georgetown.
>If he can generate a better record, more money, or more grad. assistants
>at one of the formost Jesuit universities in the country (pointng toward
>historical Jesuit support, not religion), then he's not a very persuasive
guy.
>        Maybe he's not getting the funding because the university has seen
>his lack of interest in increasing the program on campus. Maybe if the
>Georgetown campus was plastered with recruitment fliers for the budget
>directors to see as they walked the campus, they might have more
>sympathy for increasing his budget.
>        I state for the record that I have no knowledge of Mr. Partcher's
>program, and apologize for insinuating I might in this message. This
>is only an example. But I refuse to feel pity for Georgetown, period.
>        If I'm going to feel pity for, and go to work for anyone, it would
be
>the Traditionally Black Colleges and Universities I se a distinct lack of
>in the NDT standings!
>
>
>Proud to be a Podunk!
>
>
>In a message dated 8/11/98 12:26:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
>tweiner1 at osf1.gmu.edu writes:
>
><< On Tue, 11 Aug 1998, Terrance Hogan wrote:
>
> >         The statement that all programs don't have to develop novices
from
>within
> > their university is similar (but not as serious) as the statement,
"There
>are
> > lots of houses and neighborhoods around, so blacks don't need to live in
>this
> > one."
>
> WHAT?  Why do all debaters feel it necessary to draw stupid and irrelevent
> analogies.  Maybe you didn't hear what Jeff said.  He said that he wishes
> that he could do so, but has neither the time, money nor personal patience
> to do so.  I've had it with people using horrible analogies to call people
> racists or nazi's, either call them that or just make you statement.
>
> If you don't like the situation at Georgetown then you should teach novice
> debate there, I'm sure Jeff wouldn't mind.
>
> Jake
>  >>

>From  Tue Aug 11 15:02:40 1998
Message-Id: <TUE.11.AUG.1998.150240.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 8098 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 15:02:49
 -0400
Received: from imo23.mx.aol.com (imo23.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.67]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id PAA48904 for
 <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 15:02:48 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from Westtoast at aol.com by imo23.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id
 8JOEa26053 for <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 15:02:40
 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 167
Message-ID: <8220d11d.35d09551 at aol.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 15:02:40 EDT
Reply-To: Westtoast at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Terrance Hogan <Westtoast at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: Snider Imposes His Philosophy on Me

        First of all, state the positive... o.k. at least your door is open to
novices if they do seek you out. That is a better situation than your previous
posts indicate. There is a lot that can be accomplished by being at practices,
etc, that are valuable to anyone who would seek you out. Because of the
quality of the competition they would have in practice rounds would be very
good, things are better than you made them originally sound. And you are an
honest man, definitely, honest. . .

Now, that having been said . . .

        What an arrogant load of horseshit that was. Damn . . .that all I can say . .
. damn...
[Fill in about two pages of any ad-hom flames your imagination may create
here] ...
elistist, file wienie. . . you can just cancel our dinner reservations.
Aaagggh!



From dawst38+  Tue Aug 11 14:07:49 1998
From: dawst38+ (Delmar A Wright)
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 15:07:49 -0400
Subject: SIGN OFF
In-Reply-To: <5afcf6e5.35ce537b@aol.com>
Message-ID: <TUE.11.AUG.1998.150749.0400.DAWST38@PITT.EDU>

SIGN OFF DELMAR WRIGHT.

"I USE TO DO IT LIVE IN THE (215), BUT NOW I'M DOING IT FOR YOU IN THE
(412)"



From smithr  Tue Aug 11 14:10:26 1998
From: smithr (Ross Smith)
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 15:10:26 -0400
Subject: Long post: Elitism, Parcher, Tuna, hybrids, etc.
Message-ID: <TUE.11.AUG.1998.151026.0400.SMITHR@WFU.EDU>

1) *Competitive* academic debate, by its nature, is elitist.

2) The NDT (a tournament, not an organization), by design, is especially
elitist in that it has a competitive selection process.

3) The NDT, CEDA Nats, and other tournaments all try to promote sometimes
conflicting values. The national "championships" actively seek to name the
one best team. But they also try to celebrate the activity as a whole, to
promote debate as a whole, and to reward more than just the winning team.
Different tournaments balance these values differently. The NDT puts more
emphasis on "competitive accuracy" than does CEDA Nats. Theoreticaclly, NDT
could be an even more "competitive/elitist" tournament, by limiting the
field to 32 teams, by allowing the fourth or fifth teams from "Borgs" to
displace other teams in the 72 team field, or by reducing the number of
judges in prelims. But these proposals have been defeated because they are
too elitist, even for the elitist NDT. Non-competitive, non-elitist values
won the day when those proposals were defeated. Neither NDT nor CEDA Nats
has a novice division. Towon, ADA Nationals, and other tournaments balance
values differently.

4) The NYC coalition or MIT/Harvard combo do not threaten the interest of
Northwestern in winning the NDT. But as long as the NDT has a fixed number
of teams, and a competitive entry process through districts, admission of
hybrids would trade off with slots currently won by some non-elite schools.
First-round bid teams are not threatened. The LAST teams to qualify are the
ones with competitive concerns.  I believe that much of the resistance to
the proposal may have come from "small schools at the margin" that felt that
they would be the ones that would "lose" the zero-sum game. Some of their
thought process may have been, "We have limited resources, too, but have
struggled to get and/or maintain insitutional support, and we use NDT
qualification as proof to our administration that we are deserving of
support. If hybrids qualify, why won't our administrators just tell us we
should team up with others instead of seeking more funding internally." As
it stands now, the NDT *rewards institutions*. It rewards *administrations*
that support a debate program. I personally am not sure that the degree of
this emphasis is optimal, but it is a fact that the incentive structure of
the status quo rules encourages the development and maintainance of
stand-alone programs. The three-team per school limit discourages
(punishes?) schools that have more than three highly competitive teams. That
rule is a disincentive to building a squad beyond a certain size at the
varsity level. But the incentives created by any of these rules should not
be exaggerated. It is a huge mistake to think that the rules of one
tournament are the primary factor in the activity's health nationally or at
any one institution.

5) Tuna has strong arguments for increasing emphasis on novice recruitment.
Given the shape of learning curves, his argument that the marginal benefit
to a novice is greater than the marginal benefit to an experienced debater
has a great deal of merit. But a learning curve is also a reductionist view
of debate's educational benefits.There is educational merit in "highly
advanced" debate, just as there is merit in higher math. How else can one
explain the testimonials of experienced debaters at rigorous colleges who
graduate high in their class but say that what they learned in nationally
competitive collegiate varsity debate eclipsed the rest of their collegiate
academic experience? I found the post about librarians, calculus, etc. to be
quite wide of the mark, factually as well as analytically. Factually, the
Wake Forest administration, for one, explicitly has rewarded the debate
program here precisely because we have enjoyed competitive success in an
elite field against the most experienced and talented opposition. Right or
wrong, their view is that Cal Tech can be known for math and that Wake
Forest can be known for debate. A nationally prominent debate program
attracts a number of well qualified students to Wake Forest, most of whom do
not debate in college. Analytically, saying that our society does need
people with advanced math skills more than it needs people with advanced
debate skills seems to be wrong. Yes, our society does need as many citizens
as possible with policy debate skill. But our society also needs universal
basic math literacy. But we probably have a greater shortage of people with
advanced policy analysis, advocacy, and research skill than we have a
shortage of mathematicians.

6) "Why don't you do things our way" has very limited value in this
discussion. Tuna's addendum notes that he is not saying all programs should
be just like his. Parcher didn't say that either. "Let a bunch of flowers
bloom" (sic)  was a phrase used by Tuna a year or two ago. One can apply
that concept to styles of debate, novice versus varsity emphasis, tournament
administration, and organizations. Applied to individual programs, it is not
very useful to point to a program and to tell them they are doing things the
"wrong" way. Each program has very unique resources, motivations,
administrations, students, and coaches. It was very useful for Parcher to
talk about what is unique about him and his program because it helps
demonstrate the point I just made. And it is useful to raise awareness of
alternative ways of running a program as Tuna, Bear, and others have done.
But to think that a listserv debate can be won or lost on the question,
"What is THE best way to run a program" is delusional. And, as Parcher's
second post eloquently demonstrates, telling any one director that their
program is fundamentally flawed is usually unpersuasive.

7) Trade-offs, an example. At Wake Forest we stretch our time, people, and
money as far as it can go now. We DO encourage and support novice and JV
participation, and I know we could do more in that area. We also want to
make efforts provide collegiate debate experiences for high school debaters
coming out of thte urban debate leagues and other previously underserved
populations. Expanding opportunities for the latter trades off with
opportunities for white, middle class novices who are already on campus.
Both trade off with opportunities for experienced debaters who came to Wake
Forest because they seek the specialized, advanced coaching and competition
opportunities available here. Ideally, we could just snap our fingers and
increase our budget and personnel. But since we can't, we will be making
choices that not everyone will think are right. Should I have try-outs or a
fixed number limit for my varsity squad so that I free up resources for
novices? Should I cut back on the number of tournaments I bring our varsity
to? If so, by how much? We will strive to make "good" choices, and in the
long run to continue to increase our budget. Bear is VERY right when he
makes the point that budgets are not fixed forever. Recruiting more students
is the best way to justify a higher budget. But Weber and Wake both have
administrations that may be more responsive than other schools. And Weber
and Wake still face trade-offs whatever thesize of their budgets. Weber's
administration apparently values novice participation. Wake's values varsity
participation. At any one moment, we work with what we have.

8) The idea of sending a listing of every CEDA member school advertising the
existence of policy debate at those schools to every high school guidance
office in the country sounds like a good way of helping high school students
learn that debate exists at some schools but not others.
But to read some of the posts recently, one would think this a bad idea,
encouraging even more of the debate-rich to come to colleges where they
could divert resources from the debate-deprived.

9) MIT/Harvard, proposed by Dallas, is a very scary thought. For all we
know, the sneaky elitist bastard really did have some hot-shot, elim-capable
debater waiting in the wings at MIT. Give him an inch and he'll take a mile.
Dallas probably was already scoping out incoming first-years at Yale and
Brown, too.

10) Number nine was a joke.

11) I conclude by risking offending opponents to problem/solution thinking:
perhaps we could spend as much time offering proposals for change, like the
specific amendment to the NDT rules regarding hybrids, and discussing the
merits of those proposals, as we spend "deconstructing" (a fancy word for
pointing to flaws, warts, past transgressions, etc. if context is a guide to
meaning). I do think it is important to accurately identify problems. But
engaging in a reflexive process that includes proposed solutions is
something we are supposed to be good enough at to warrant teaching it to
novices, JV, and varsity debaters alike.

--Ross Smith

>From  Tue Aug 11 15:13:25 1998
Message-Id: <TUE.11.AUG.1998.151325.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 8526 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 15:13:47
 -0400
Received: from imo30.mx.aol.com (imo30.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.74]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id PAA28474 for
 <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 15:13:46 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from Westtoast at aol.com by imo30.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id
 8HANa12041 for <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 15:13:25
 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 167
Message-ID: <f8a5d1f.35d097e1 at aol.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 15:13:25 EDT
Reply-To: Westtoast at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Terrance Hogan <Westtoast at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: Confession to Ignorance

In a message dated 8/11/98 3:02:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
        You are an arrogant, classist, elitist, file wienie. Your line of crap brings
out the worst in me, so I'm not responding to any more of it.  All I'm going
to say is that your lengthy post, "Snider imposes..." is a far greater
confession of poor character than any I've had to make in my lifetime.

Hogan
Proud to be an Ignorant Podunk



parcherj at mci2000.com writes:

<< The part of your post that said perhaps you should not insinuate about
 people and programs that you know nothing about is the only part that was
 correct.  Lets just leave it at that, you know nothing about me or my
 program or Georgetown University.  It's a good summary for your
 participation in the debate so far. >>



From smithr  Tue Aug 11 14:16:29 1998
From: smithr (Ross Smith)
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 15:16:29 -0400
Subject: What's a Novice?
Message-ID: <TUE.11.AUG.1998.151629.0400.SMITHR@WFU.EDU>

Bear: Can you name five NDT schools putting effort into training raw novices
(outside of ADA, of course)?

Me: Yes. Wake Forest, West Georgia, Mercer, UNC, Samford.

Kuswa may not have been able to name them, however!



From kendog_3  Tue Aug 11 14:30:19 1998
From: kendog_3 (kenny hanson)
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 12:30:19 PDT
Subject: South Carolina's ROUND ROBIN
Message-ID: <TUE.11.AUG.1998.123019.PDT.KENDOG3@HOTMAIL.COM>

As of right now these are the teams that I have competing in this years
Round Robin. If there is some mistake with this list let me know ASAP.

Emory RL
Emory BG
Georgia ST
Gonzaga VK
Gonzaga MJH
Michigan St. HW
Michigan St. RS
UMKC WC
UMKC CB
Pace BP
Pace KP
South Carolina RT
SIU SS
Towson State BE
Wake Forest ??
Wichita State HM

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com



From southwor  Tue Aug 11 14:49:22 1998
From: southwor (Bill Southworth)
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 12:49:22 -0700
Subject: Confessions of Elitism
In-Reply-To: <002101bdc4c5$20a30d40$214337a6@default>
Message-ID: <TUE.11.AUG.1998.124922.0700.SOUTHWOR@JASPER.UOR.EDU>

I concur with Jeff's analysis.  I would add further, that some
programs sustain themselves through different means.  Redlands is
a small school which has traditionally done well in competitive debate
and that recognition is what sustains the program and its "limited"
administrative support.  There was a time, long long ago, when there
were sufficient local tournaments to sustain a JV even a novice
program.  Now the demands are simply too great, even for many
experienced high school debaters.  There was a time when a small
program could achieve success just by having a few good debaters,
I remember a Morehead State University doing just that in the late
1970's.  I am not sure the term is elitist, as much as "self-
selecting."  Many high school debaters are burnt out by time they
reach college.  The summer institutes coupled with a national
schedule provides top high school debaters with experiences equal
to or more demanding than any college schedule.  Beginning debaters
have no idea what they are getting into, and quickly decide there
is too much work involved to enjoy any level of success.  Thus,
Jeff's point is absolutely correct.  Where do you focus your
attention as a coach, on those students who are willing to make
the massive commitment of time and effort or do you try to administer
(frequently by yourself) a larger group of students who rarely stay
in for the long haul.  Each Director and Program must make such
decisions based on both their personal goals as well as the
politics of their own campus.  I applaud the larger programs who
have the personnel and resources  to attract numerous students, as
a matter of fact I am quite envious.  However, given our limitations
I am satisfied with what we have done with this program and hopefully
will continue to do.

On Mon, 10 Aug 1998, Jeff Parcher wrote:

> I embrace the theme of Bear's charge.  My program is elitist.  I am a single
> Director at a program with a small budget.  I have tried to bring novices in
> on occaision and it has never worked (assuming we don't count Jason).  I
> have a hard time finding tournaments for them.   I can't afford financially
> or personally to add more tournaments onto the schedule.  I also can't seem
> to find the time to work with them without sacrificing time spent for
> students who on the whole, are more aggressively committed to the activity.
> With more money and an assistant that could be changed. I am also biased.
> It is more enjoyable for me to work with experienced students than to teach
> the basics.  I am not a patient guy.  I like what I do now. Working with
> gifted students is great fun.  I don't think I'm better than people who work
> with novices.  I just like it better.   I admire programs with the resources
> or superhuman Directors which seem able to serve both constituencies.   It
> is admirable - just not what I choose to do.  If that makes me an elitist
> then I embrace the notion personally.  Teaching the higher skills of
> argumentation is as educationally valuable as teaching to a novice.
>
> Guilty as charged, Jeff
>
> BTW - the joint subscription debate is a blowout for the proponents so far.
> Case-by-case subscriptions with limitations as proposed solves all the
> concerns of the detractors that I have heard.
>

>From  Tue Aug 11 16:15:47 1998
Message-Id: <TUE.11.AUG.1998.161547.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 9134 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 16:15:51
 -0400
Received: from imo30.mx.aol.com (imo30.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.74]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id QAA87766 for
 <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 16:15:51 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo30.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id
 MWMYa12042; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 16:15:47 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 58
Message-ID: <a9f10942.35d0a675 at aol.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 16:15:47 EDT
Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Michael Bear Bryant <MWBRYANT at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: Short post: Elitism, Parcher, Tuna, hybrids, etc.
Comments: To: smithr at WFU.EDU

In a message dated 98-08-11 15:12:42 EDT, you write:

<<  I conclude by risking offending opponents to problem/solution thinking:
 perhaps we could spend as much time offering proposals for change, like the
 specific amendment to the NDT rules regarding hybrids, and discussing the
 merits of those proposals, as we spend "deconstructing" (a fancy word for
 pointing to flaws, warts, past transgressions, etc. if context is a guide to
 meaning). I do think it is important to accurately identify problems. But
 engaging in a reflexive process that includes proposed solutions is
 something we are supposed to be good enough at to warrant teaching it to
 novices, JV, and varsity debaters alike.

 --Ross Smith
  >>

Gee, Ross, it just sounds like your biting into the normativity and Spanos
kritiks in your rush to a policy focus. Particularly given the large number of
people denying within the last week that NDT elitism even exists. I think we
need to understand the nature of the complaints that the majority of debate
coaches in this country have against NDT, because I see little-to-no evidence
of the self-reflexive capabilities of most people immersed in the NDT culture.
Instead, I've seen a lot of knee-jerk defense, denial, and obfuscation.
Perhaps a clearer picture of the overall problems facing NDT will allow a
stronger consensus on the best ways to fix it. I know that the discourse
really troubles some people, but don't you really think this has all been
brushed under the carpet for far too long?

Bear

>From  Tue Aug 11 16:15:34 1998
Message-Id: <TUE.11.AUG.1998.161534.0400.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 9219 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 16:19:41
 -0400
Received: from mail.bestsoftware.com (mail.abra.com [163.125.31.35]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with SMTP id QAA09432 for
 <EDEBATE at List.UVM.EDU>; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 16:19:40 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by mail.bestsoftware.com(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.1  (569.2 2-6-1998))  id
 8525665D.006F416C ; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 16:15:12 -0400
X-Lotus-FromDomain: BEST at ABRA CADABRA SOFTWARE
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-ID: <8525665D.006F3476.00 at mail.bestsoftware.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 16:15:34 -0400
Reply-To: Duane_J_Hyland at BESTSOFTWARE.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Duane J Hyland <Duane_J_Hyland at BESTSOFTWARE.COM>
Subject: Can Anyone Tell me How to Contact Stefan Brouschard??

Hi, Can Anyone give me Stefan's e-mail adress?? It's very important.
Thanks, sorry for the clutter. Duane

>From  Tue Aug 11 16:22:51 1998
Message-Id: <TUE.11.AUG.1998.162251.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 9309 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 16:22:56
 -0400
Received: from imo23.mx.aol.com (imo23.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.67]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id QAA93814 for
 <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 16:22:55 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from Westtoast at aol.com by imo23.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id
 8CUUa26052 for <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 16:22:51
 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 167
Message-ID: <3ad97c2c.35d0a81d at aol.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 16:22:51 EDT
Reply-To: Westtoast at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Terrance Hogan <Westtoast at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: Long post: Elitism, Parcher, Tuna, hybrids, etc.

        First of all, I want to point out the differences between this post and
Parcher's. First of all, nowhere in this post do you see the self-concern that
Parcher's did. Parcher's post was every bit as much a statement of what he
wanted out of life as it was a defense of a program in his particular
circumstances.



In a message dated 8/11/98 3:13:55 PM Eastern Daylight Time, smithr at WFU.EDU
writes:

<< 1) *Competitive* academic debate, by its nature, is elitist.

 2) The NDT (a tournament, not an organization), by design, is especially
 elitist in that it has a competitive selection process.
---

I think everyone granted the competitive tends toward elitism argument a long
time ago.

---
 3) The NDT, CEDA Nats, and other tournaments all try to promote sometimes
 conflicting values. The national "championships" actively seek to name the
 one best team. But they also try to celebrate the activity as a whole, to
 promote debate as a whole, and to reward more than just the winning team.
 Different tournaments balance these values differently. The NDT puts more
 emphasis on "competitive accuracy" than does CEDA Nats. Theoreticaclly, NDT
 could be an even more "competitive/elitist" tournament, by limiting the
 field to 32 teams, by allowing the fourth or fifth teams from "Borgs" to
 displace other teams in the 72 team field, or by reducing the number of
 judges in prelims. But these proposals have been defeated because they are
 too elitist, even for the elitist NDT. Non-competitive, non-elitist values
 won the day when those proposals were defeated. Neither NDT nor CEDA Nats
 has a novice division. Towon, ADA Nationals, and other tournaments balance
 values differently.

 4) The NYC coalition or MIT/Harvard combo do not threaten the interest of
 Northwestern in winning the NDT. But as long as the NDT has a fixed number
 of teams, and a competitive entry process through districts, admission of
 hybrids would trade off with slots currently won by some non-elite schools.
 First-round bid teams are not threatened. The LAST teams to qualify are the
 ones with competitive concerns.  I believe that much of the resistance to
 the proposal may have come from "small schools at the margin" that felt that
 they would be the ones that would "lose" the zero-sum game. Some of their
 thought process may have been, "We have limited resources, too, but have
 struggled to get and/or maintain insitutional support, and we use NDT
 qualification as proof to our administration that we are deserving of
 support. If hybrids qualify, why won't our administrators just tell us we
 should team up with others instead of seeking more funding internally."
---
This is the first legitimate argument I've seen against hybrids, and is very
worthy of discussion
----
As
 it stands now, the NDT *rewards institutions*. It rewards *administrations*
 that support a debate program. I personally am not sure that the degree of
 this emphasis is optimal, but it is a fact that the incentive structure of
 the status quo rules encourages the development and maintainance of
 stand-alone programs. The three-team per school limit discourages
 (punishes?) schools that have more than three highly competitive teams. That
 rule is a disincentive to building a squad beyond a certain size at the
 varsity level. But the incentives created by any of these rules should not
 be exaggerated. It is a huge mistake to think that the rules of one
 tournament are the primary factor in the activity's health nationally or at
 any one institution.
---
I still feel that more people would be served by allow case-by-case hybrids
because
individuals at schools with little or non-existent programs would be more
motivated
toward excellence even though the vast majority would not qualify. Everybody
that
participates in NDT style debate dreams of winning the NDT, though few expect
to,
and far fewer would admit it. This isn't about budgets, this is about letting
anybody
attempt to fulfill their dreams. It can't be determined by the stone cold
logic of the
dollar sign. What this discussion should be about is whether or not anybody,
at time
or place in their lives, is allowed by this organization the opportunity to
attempt to
participate in this organization's grandest event.

---
 5) Tuna has strong arguments for increasing emphasis on novice recruitment.
 Given the shape of learning curves, his argument that the marginal benefit
 to a novice is greater than the marginal benefit to an experienced debater
 has a great deal of merit. But a learning curve is also a reductionist view
 of debate's educational benefits.There is educational merit in "highly
 advanced" debate, just as there is merit in higher math. How else can one
 explain the testimonials of experienced debaters at rigorous colleges who
 graduate high in their class but say that what they learned in nationally
 competitive collegiate varsity debate eclipsed the rest of their collegiate
 academic experience? I found the post about librarians, calculus, etc. to be
 quite wide of the mark, factually as well as analytically. Factually, the
 Wake Forest administration, for one, explicitly has rewarded the debate
 program here precisely because we have enjoyed competitive success in an
 elite field against the most experienced and talented opposition. Right or
 wrong, their view is that Cal Tech can be known for math and that Wake
 Forest can be known for debate. A nationally prominent debate program
 attracts a number of well qualified students to Wake Forest, most of whom do
 not debate in college. Analytically, saying that our society does need
 people with advanced math skills more than it needs people with advanced
 debate skills seems to be wrong. Yes, our society does need as many citizens
 as possible with policy debate skill. But our society also needs universal
 basic math literacy. But we probably have a greater shortage of people with
 advanced policy analysis, advocacy, and research skill than we have a
 shortage of mathematicians.
 ---

        I am stating my opinion that the organization should serve the vast majority
rather than the ultra-competitive few. To go back to the library anology,
should
we lock up the books to ensure they will all be there for the honor students,
or
do we allow every student the opportunity to better themselves thorough usage,
taking the risk an important one will not be there when an honor student needs
it. I say let everyone in.
        The cream generally rises to the top. I'm really not worried about the ultra-
competitive types. Their dedication to the activity will prevail. I'd like to
see
more people in this activity, and if if costs one team one long distance trip
a year so that 4 novice team can go to three local ones, I'm for it (I realize
this is an overstatement, it's for illustration purposes).

--
 6) "Why don't you do things our way" has very limited value in this
 discussion. Tuna's addendum notes that he is not saying all programs should
 be just like his. Parcher didn't say that either. "Let a bunch of flowers
 bloom" (sic)  was a phrase used by Tuna a year or two ago. One can apply
 that concept to styles of debate, novice versus varsity emphasis, tournament
 administration, and organizations. Applied to individual programs, it is not
 very useful to point to a program and to tell them they are doing things the
 "wrong" way. Each program has very unique resources, motivations,
 administrations, students, and coaches. It was very useful for Parcher to
 talk about what is unique about him and his program because it helps
 demonstrate the point I just made. And it is useful to raise awareness of
 alternative ways of running a program as Tuna, Bear, and others have done.
 But to think that a listserv debate can be won or lost on the question,
 "What is THE best way to run a program" is delusional. And, as Parcher's
 second post eloquently demonstrates, telling any one director that their
 program is fundamentally flawed is usually unpersuasive.

 7) Trade-offs, an example. At Wake Forest we stretch our time, people, and
 money as far as it can go now. We DO encourage and support novice and JV
 participation, and I know we could do more in that area. We also want to
 make efforts provide collegiate debate experiences for high school debaters
 coming out of thte urban debate leagues and other previously underserved
 populations.
---

This seems fair, it seems like an equitable policy.

---
Expanding opportunities for the latter trades off with
 opportunities for white, middle class novices who are already on campus.
 Both trade off with opportunities for experienced debaters who came to Wake
 Forest because they seek the specialized, advanced coaching and competition
 opportunities available here. Ideally, we could just snap our fingers and
 increase our budget and personnel. But since we can't, we will be making
 choices that not everyone will think are right. Should I have try-outs or a
 fixed number limit for my varsity squad so that I free up resources for
 novices? Should I cut back on the number of tournaments I bring our varsity
 to? If so, by how much? We will strive to make "good" choices, and in the
 long run to continue to increase our budget. Bear is VERY right when he
 makes the point that budgets are not fixed forever. Recruiting more students
 is the best way to justify a higher budget. But Weber and Wake both have
 administrations that may be more responsive than other schools. And Weber
 and Wake still face trade-offs whatever thesize of their budgets. Weber's
 administration apparently values novice participation. Wake's values varsity
 participation. At any one moment, we work with what we have.

 8) The idea of sending a listing of every CEDA member school advertising the
 existence of policy debate at those schools to every high school guidance
 office in the country sounds like a good way of helping high school students
 learn that debate exists at some schools but not others.
 But to read some of the posts recently, one would think this a bad idea,
 encouraging even more of the debate-rich to come to colleges where they
 could divert resources from the debate-deprived.

 9) MIT/Harvard, proposed by Dallas, is a very scary thought. For all we
 know, the sneaky elitist bastard really did have some hot-shot, elim-capable
 debater waiting in the wings at MIT. Give him an inch and he'll take a mile.
 Dallas probably was already scoping out incoming first-years at Yale and
 Brown, too.
---

I knew it.   ;-)

---
 10) Number nine was a joke.
---

Elitist scum, think us podunks are too dumb  to know a joke   ;-)

---
 11) I conclude by risking offending opponents to problem/solution thinking:
 perhaps we could spend as much time offering proposals for change, like the
 specific amendment to the NDT rules regarding hybrids, and discussing the
 merits of those proposals, as we spend "deconstructing" (a fancy word for
 pointing to flaws, warts, past transgressions, etc. if context is a guide to
 meaning). I do think it is important to accurately identify problems. But
 engaging in a reflexive process that includes proposed solutions is
 something we are supposed to be good enough at to warrant teaching it to
 novices, JV, and varsity debaters alike.
---

I tried yesterday with 3 "suggestions to chew on." I got 2 responses, and one
of the was from Bear saying nobody would respond. Where was this response
yesterday to the "suggestions"? It seems like it took another flame war to get
a dialogue going. Let's keep it going.  Keeping it going is the only way the
emotions behind these flame wars will dissipate.
Thank you for posting such a well-authored statement of your views.

Hogan
______________________

--Ross Smith


 >>



From dperkins  Tue Aug 11 15:37:33 1998
From: dperkins (Dallas Perkins)
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 16:37:33 -0400
Subject: Seeking Brian Lain
Message-ID: <TUE.11.AUG.1998.163733.0400.DPERKINS@FAS.HARVARD.EDU>

I know this is a bad way to try to communicate, but I have emailed BL
without any reply, so I'm hoping somebody will tell me where he is, so I
can perhaps call him.  It's important.

dp

>From  Tue Aug 11 16:38:48 1998
Message-Id: <TUE.11.AUG.1998.163848.0500.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 9534 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 16:42:11
 -0400
Received: from jcvaxa.jcu.edu (jcvaxa.jcu.edu [143.105.8.2]) by list.uvm.edu
 (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id QAA87780 for
 <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 16:42:10 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from JCVAXA.jcu.edu by JCVAXA.jcu.edu (PMDF V5.1-9 #28018) id
 <01J0HFOV7D9S91XLY0 at JCVAXA.jcu.edu> for edebate at list.uvm.edu; Tue, 11
 Aug 1998 16:38:49 EST
X-VMS-To: IN%"edebate at list.uvm.edu"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Message-ID: <01J0HFOV7HZM91XLY0 at JCVAXA.jcu.edu>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 16:38:48 -0500
Reply-To: KYOUNG at JCVAXA.JCU.EDU
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Kelly Young <KYOUNG at JCVAXA.JCU.EDU>
Subject: NIU Only

Sorry 4 the clutter.....

But, I keep getting critical error messages everytime I email
Kellie or Bill Cripe.  I need either one to get in touch with me.

Kelly Young

>From  Tue Aug 11 16:49:13 1998
Message-Id: <TUE.11.AUG.1998.164913.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 9632 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 16:49:18
 -0400
Received: from imo12.mx.aol.com (imo12.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.2]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id QAA50690 for
 <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 16:49:17 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from Westtoast at aol.com by imo12.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id
 8FPSa11468 for <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 16:49:13
 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 167
Message-ID: <741489e1.35d0ae4b at aol.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 16:49:13 EDT
Reply-To: Westtoast at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Terrance Hogan <Westtoast at AOL.COM>
Subject: Tradionally Black Colleges

        Let me put this up again, as some may not know UNCF is United
Negro College Fund. Again, this is not a flame. It's curiousity spurred
by the topic.
     Does anyone have any information on how many Traditionally
Black Colleges and Universities participate in NDT or CEDA. How
well do have they done in the past?



From smithr  Tue Aug 11 15:57:42 1998
From: smithr (Ross Smith)
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 16:57:42 -0400
Subject: Short post: Elitism, Parcher, Tuna, hybrids, etc.
Message-ID: <TUE.11.AUG.1998.165742.0400.SMITHR@WFU.EDU>

I agree with the need for discourse, consciousness raising, reflection, and
clearer pictures. No rush, just a (self-aware, already noted risk of
prompting kritiks) comment that evaluating proposed changes can also help. I
tend to discount knee-jerk denials (and accusations) as well as obfuscation
and defense. I disagree that a "large number" deny existence of elitism
(probably because I paid them little heed, perhaps because it was a small
number relative to the total number in our activity). I have not recently
seen evidence of "the nature of the complaints that a majority of debate
coaches have against NDT" (majority?). However, if this discussion moves us
closer to understanding the complaints of even a minority, it is still
worthwhile. I happen not to agree with the "brushed under a carpet"
metaphor. If there's a stain on a dress, this community seems quite adept at
noting it.

I'm not sure that "NDT" is the best focus, either for identifying the most
important problems facing our activity or for trying to solve those
problems. Elitism seems to mean a view that ranks some programs as better
than others. I infer that NDT elitism is a variant that ranks a program's
worth according to its success in national level varsity competition. But we
hardly need attach the NDT label to that since CEDA had its own club members
before the common topic. It seems unproductive to label. Here's a sixth NDT
program with an up and coming novice emphasis: Weber State.

--Ross

>
>Gee, Ross, it just sounds like your biting into the normativity and Spanos
>kritiks in your rush to a policy focus. Particularly given the large number of
>people denying within the last week that NDT elitism even exists. I think we
>need to understand the nature of the complaints that the majority of debate
>coaches in this country have against NDT, because I see little-to-no evidence
>of the self-reflexive capabilities of most people immersed in the NDT culture.
>Instead, I've seen a lot of knee-jerk defense, denial, and obfuscation.
>Perhaps a clearer picture of the overall problems facing NDT will allow a
>stronger consensus on the best ways to fix it. I know that the discourse
>really troubles some people, but don't you really think this has all been
>brushed under the carpet for far too long?
>
>Bear
>
>
>

>From  Tue Aug 11 17:06:58 1998
Message-Id: <TUE.11.AUG.1998.170658.0400.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 9802 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 17:06:58
 -0400
Received: from www07.netaddress.usa.net (www07.netaddress.usa.net
 [204.68.24.27]) by list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with SMTP id
 RAA09382 for <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 17:06:56 -0400
 (EDT)
Received: (qmail 28578 invoked by uid 60001); 11 Aug 1998 21:06:54 -0000
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <19980811210654.28577.qmail at www07.netaddress.usa.net>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 17:06:58 -0400
Reply-To: b-campbell at USA.NET
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Brian Campbell <b-campbell at USA.NET>

I, is a grass root man
a born Triniagonian.
Is love and pain
That produce me
In this wicked society
So the grass root
Send a message through me,
Dey say.

Young intellectuals,
Of this society
Men and women
Of great mental faculty
You are being trained
To lead we.

Young intellectuals,
Indian and African
You are part of
The Trinago population.

Young intellectuals
I know you could see
Is less food, food
Growing in the country
And more being imported
>From the imperialist countries.

Young intellectuals
Within the society
Is more Youths
Being driven crazy
And don't talk 'bout
police brutality.

Young intellectuals
Dont't try to stand aside
Is either you decide
To let exploitation
Continue peacefully
Or you stand up for
The oppressed in society.
Young intellectuals
What will your glory be?
A big fat salary
And just touch glasses
In cocktail parties.

Young intellectuals
Don't be no armchair revolutionary.
Just write a book
To be published internationally.
With the language heavy, heavy
Some of we can't read.
Remember, is we you come out to lead.

Young intellectuals
You have to come out
Put brains and muscles together
And rub shoulder to shoulder
With your brother and sister.

Young intellectuals
Don't just tell we
Come out and show we
Because, history tell we
Beware of the man
With the Ph.D.
'cause one of them
Done fool we already
Just keep promising we.

Young intellectuals
The grass root send me
To deliver their story,
They say without you
The job go be more more hard
So when victory com
Dey go deal with you
Sad,sad,sad,sad.

Young Intellectuals
Come out and learn from we
Is we make the latest
Contribution to the world musically.
So Young Intellectuals
When you come out with yuh theory
and join us
With we creativity
There'll be no way stopping we
In carving out a most beautiful
history
Transforming society.
Dat is the message
The grass root send
Through me.


____________________________________________________________________
Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1



From cjclevenger  Tue Aug 11 16:19:10 1998
From: cjclevenger (Clint J. Clevenger)
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 16:19:10 CDT
Subject: Choose the right school
Message-ID: <TUE.11.AUG.1998.161910.CDT.CJCLEVENGER@HOTMAIL.COM>

Kate you write:

<<Just a question for you, Clint.  What about the kids who have never
been exposed to debate?  Should we just forget about them?  Speaking
from experience, most kids in the inner city public high schools have
never even heard of debate, let alone don't have the resources to
start teams on their own. >>


I definitely don't think that we should not expose kids to debate.  I
think that is a great benefit of the urban debate leagues.  You are
right most kids don't have the opportunity to be exposed to debate in
their schools and that is one of the great benefits of the program.
My question is why do they have to start a team or squad and travel to
get the education from debate that we want to expose to them.  I our
school district here, our debate parents organization began to pressure
the school board into making it mandatory for all students to take some
kind of public speaking class.  These classes, atleast here involve,
researching and argueing or defending their point.  That is almost what
debate is.  So I don't hink that it is a matter of them getting their
own program, if it is not possible, but just being exposed to the
situtations.  Granted ther is no way that you can simulate a tournament
setting, but it is better than nothing.

<<Or what about the kids who can't "choose"
the school they attend because either they can't afford to go to the
"right" school or they are forced to choose the only institution that
will give them a scholarship?  I don't mean to jump on you, but I
think those are questions we need to consider if we're going to try to
tackle elitism.
Kate Brindle
NYU Debate>>

First of all, what is the right school.  Is it one that has a large
budget so they can travel alot?  Assuming that it is, and all of this is
assuming that you are talking of people who have had experience with
high shcool debate.  I thought the point was to get students envolved in
debating, what does it matter what tournament they attend whether it is
five miles or five hundred mile from home, debating is debating no
matter where you do it.  Granted it is nice to be able to travel to
tournaments.  But I enjoyed my Highschool debate experience and never I
repeat never traveled to a tournament, and found adequate competetion
and rivalries every weekend right in the Kansas City area.

As far as beign able to afford to go to certain schools,and wanting to
debate, as I said earlier, I like the suggestion of lokking at every
case on a case by case basis.  Those people can attempt to start
programs in their new school.  While granted I have never been involved
in a program that had not or was just coming into existence.  But I
agree that eveyone should be given an opportunity, But those who have
experienced debate in high school, and want to debate in college, most
state universitys are not very expensive, or atleast here, so why not go
there.?  But I agree that there are some circumstances where that is not
the opportunity.:)

CJ



______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com



From smithr  Tue Aug 11 16:46:11 1998
From: smithr (Ross Smith)
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 17:46:11 -0400
Subject: Solution to hotel inequity?
Message-ID: <TUE.11.AUG.1998.174611.0400.SMITHR@WFU.EDU>

I said people should propose solutions, so I'll try one.

1) The hotel problem. In recent years, there have NEVER been enough rooms at
the tournament hotel. As a result, those "in the know" have reserved rooms
even before the public announcement of the hotel arrangements. At NDT
meetings at NCA (officially open, but many cannot afford to be there) the
tournament host routinely reports hosting progress, telling those present
the name of the hotel. The elites find out first. Some others quickly
reserve rooms once the announcement is made. Those who are out of the loop,
or new to the NDT experience, get screwed. Market shortages lead to
rationing and increase the possibility of corruption.

2) Plan: Direct the Board of Trustees and hosts (the board has power over
the contracts) to find a spacious enough hotel, and to post immediately to
the listserv once a contract has been signed. The contract could include a
stipulation that no reservations will be accepted before a certain date. The
announcement of the hotel arrangements then could precede that date by a
week or two, be sent by mail and listserv, or posted repeatedly. Should
"bumping" or overflow hotels be necessary, Board of Trustees rooms should be
the first ones bumped. Northwestern should be next, followed by other
schools in order of the number of times they have won the NDT.

3) Solvency. With enough rooms, there won't be a bumping problem. Even if
there were, the bumping procedure is anti-elitist. The insiders sign-up
problem will be solved, too.

4) Pre-empts. The Board procedure for hotel contracts does not specify that
a contract must be limited to a guaranteed number of rooms. Part of the
problem has been that the cautious board has been afraid of reserving too
many rooms and getting stuck having to pay. However, if they guarantee a set
number but also arrange for a higher number to be "released" by the hotel
after a certain date, there should be no problem: anyone not making a
reservation after that date deserves to stay wherever they can. For those
who think they have to wait until they qualify for the NDT to reserve a
room, think again. If you think there is a reasonable chance you will
qualify and attend, go ahead and make reservations. Districts and the 2nd
round bid process are complete far enough in advance to cancel some rooms.

5) Counterplans, including those of the plan-inclusive variety are encouraged.

6) Of course, solving this problem will probably just mask and entrench the
elitism. After all, any time they are accused of being elitist, the board
and the borg will just say, "Of course not. Look, we're the ones staying at
Motel 6, aren't we?" Then, everyone will be fooled into thinking there is no
more elitism.

--Ross Smith



From tweiner1  Tue Aug 11 16:57:11 1998
From: tweiner1 (Timothy J Weiner)
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 17:57:11 -0400
Subject: Snider Imposes His Philosophy on Me
In-Reply-To: <8220d11d.35d09551@aol.com>
Message-ID: <TUE.11.AUG.1998.175711.0400.TWEINER1@OSF1.GMU.EDU>

Do you know Jeff? No, so go to Georgetown and teach novice debate for him
if it's so important to you, and then maybe you can find out who he is?
If you have a problem with Jeff deciding that it's more important to spend
time with his wife than teaching novice debate, then why don't you go to
coach for him pro bono.  Until you start packing your bags maybe you
should lay off a great guy like Jeff, man he's only human.

Jake, NDT and now GU posterboy





On Tue, 11 Aug 1998, Terrance Hogan wrote:

>         First of all, state the positive... o.k. at least your door is open to
> novices if they do seek you out. That is a better situation than your previous
> posts indicate. There is a lot that can be accomplished by being at practices,
> etc, that are valuable to anyone who would seek you out. Because of the
> quality of the competition they would have in practice rounds would be very
> good, things are better than you made them originally sound. And you are an
> honest man, definitely, honest. . .
>
> Now, that having been said . . .
>
>         What an arrogant load of horseshit that was. Damn . . .that all I can say . .
> . damn...
> [Fill in about two pages of any ad-hom flames your imagination may create
> here] ...
> elistist, file wienie. . . you can just cancel our dinner reservations.
> Aaagggh!
>



From monte  Tue Aug 11 17:30:26 1998
From: monte (Frank L Stevens)
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 17:30:26 -0500
Subject: NDT elitism
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.96.980811114849.29240B-100000@paladin.cc.emory.edu>
Message-ID: <TUE.11.AUG.1998.173026.0500.MONTE@KSU.EDU>

nessa was in the semi at ceda nats with fitz in witchita (1997).  don't
think he debated in hs.

Monte Stevens
Kansas State University


On Tue, 11 Aug 1998, Stephen J. Heidt wrote:

> Bear,
>
> My search for data on this subject is not a delay tactic.  I simply want
> to be better informed about this issue.  I don't have the years of
> experience and exposure to NDT/CEDA that you and many others can provide.
> So, I guess my real point is that if there is any data/evidence, then that
> evidence can help strengthen the argument that elitism exists and needs to
> be changed.  I can only be an advocate if I know what I am advocating and
> why.  That being said, I would prefer reading studies simply because all
> of the information is available in one source.  Instead of trying the
> almost impossible task of reading all the posts on edebate, if I can read
> a series of reports, then I feel that I can come to a credible conclusion
> about the state of the activity.
>
> As to your question about the NDT semis and CEDA semis with debaters the
> never debated in high school, I really don't have data on either.  I
> understand there have been several debaters in the 90's who got to the
> semis or higher at CEDA Nats who never debated in high school, but what
> does that prove?  There seems to be consensus with the few individuals I
> have talked to that some, if not all, of those debaters could have had the
> same level of success at the NDT.  I don't really know how we gauge that,
> but perhaps those individuals and their respective talents speak to the
> necessity  of college recruiting and novice NDT debating.
>
> This entire discussion, however, warrents scholarly inquiry.  So I presume
> we can come to some level of consensus on that issue at least.  Finally, I
> want to make it clear that I do respect you and your position on this
> argument, so I am thankful for your reply and the questions you ask.
>
> Stephen
>



From monte  Tue Aug 11 17:35:39 1998
From: monte (Frank L Stevens)
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 17:35:39 -0500
Subject: NDT elitism
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.3.96L.980811172949.10298A-100000@nbc.ksu.ksu.edu>
Message-ID: <TUE.11.AUG.1998.173539.0500.MONTE@KSU.EDU>

this was supposed to say don't think "she" was a hs debate person.  sorry
nessa...

Monte Stevens
Kansas State University


On Tue, 11 Aug 1998, Frank L Stevens wrote:

> nessa was in the semi at ceda nats with fitz in witchita (1997).  don't
> think he debated in hs.
>
> Monte Stevens
> Kansas State University
>
>
> On Tue, 11 Aug 1998, Stephen J. Heidt wrote:
>
> > Bear,
> >
> > My search for data on this subject is not a delay tactic.  I simply want
> > to be better informed about this issue.  I don't have the years of
> > experience and exposure to NDT/CEDA that you and many others can provide.
> > So, I guess my real point is that if there is any data/evidence, then that
> > evidence can help strengthen the argument that elitism exists and needs to
> > be changed.  I can only be an advocate if I know what I am advocating and
> > why.  That being said, I would prefer reading studies simply because all
> > of the information is available in one source.  Instead of trying the
> > almost impossible task of reading all the posts on edebate, if I can read
> > a series of reports, then I feel that I can come to a credible conclusion
> > about the state of the activity.
> >
> > As to your question about the NDT semis and CEDA semis with debaters the
> > never debated in high school, I really don't have data on either.  I
> > understand there have been several debaters in the 90's who got to the
> > semis or higher at CEDA Nats who never debated in high school, but what
> > does that prove?  There seems to be consensus with the few individuals I
> > have talked to that some, if not all, of those debaters could have had the
> > same level of success at the NDT.  I don't really know how we gauge that,
> > but perhaps those individuals and their respective talents speak to the
> > necessity  of college recruiting and novice NDT debating.
> >
> > This entire discussion, however, warrents scholarly inquiry.  So I presume
> > we can come to some level of consensus on that issue at least.  Finally, I
> > want to make it clear that I do respect you and your position on this
> > argument, so I am thankful for your reply and the questions you ask.
> >
> > Stephen
> >
>

>From  Tue Aug 11 18:41:42 1998
Message-Id: <TUE.11.AUG.1998.184142.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 10876 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 18:41:57
 -0400
Received: from imo29.mx.aol.com (imo29.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.73]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id SAA43166 for
 <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 18:41:56 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from Westtoast at aol.com by imo29.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id
 8ZYPa27851 for <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 18:41:42
 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 167
Message-ID: <6ba9790c.35d0c8a8 at aol.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 18:41:42 EDT
Reply-To: Westtoast at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Terrance Hogan <Westtoast at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: Solution to hotel inequity?

        We, the Podunk People's Army, officially welcome Wake Forest University
as fellow workers in the struggle against the elitists aristocracy. Day by
day,
the masses grow grow stronger. All hail the revolution.  ;-)

Hogan
Podunk People's Army Party Secretary

>From  Tue Aug 11 19:09:08 1998
Message-Id: <TUE.11.AUG.1998.190908.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 10996 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 19:10:01
 -0400
Received: from imo13.mx.aol.com (imo13.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.3]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id TAA48948 for
 <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 19:10:00 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from Westtoast at aol.com by imo13.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id
 SZRRa11436; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 19:09:08 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 167
Message-ID: <3017acf8.35d0cf15 at aol.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 19:09:08 EDT
Reply-To: Westtoast at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Terrance Hogan <Westtoast at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: Snider Imposes His Philosophy on Me
Comments: To: tweiner1 at osf1.gmu.edu

        If I lived inside the beltway, I would spend my time at the Howard
and UDC campuses. Speaking of not knowing people, you are
clueless about what I've done, who I've helped, and under what
circumstances I've done them in. All I know about the man is that
he likes to talk about why he doesn't want to help people. That's
isn't how I would introduce myself, and it certainly does not make
a good impression.
        Let that be a good lesson to you, young man. When you
introduce yourself to people for the first time, put your best face
on, not your worst, because first impressions are lasting. That's
a lesson in public speaking you should have been taught by your
coach.
        This is exactly what I was speaking of when I stated that some
of the ultra-competive in this activity are too singularly focus and
not well-rounded people. While this behavior might be tolerated in
rounds and by your coach, it would not be tolerated by a boss,
and unemployment would result.

Hogan
Podunk People's Army




In a message dated 8/11/98 5:57:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
tweiner1 at osf1.gmu.edu writes:

<< If you have a problem with Jeff deciding that it's more important to spend
 time with his wife than teaching novice debate, then why don't you go to
 coach for him pro bono.  Until you start packing your bags maybe you
 should lay off  >>



From Michelin.Massey  Tue Aug 11 18:18:19 1998
From: Michelin.Massey (Michelin Christopher Massey)
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 17:18:19 -0600
Subject: names of teams?
In-Reply-To: <19980811193020.27785.qmail@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <TUE.11.AUG.1998.171819.0600.MICHELIN.MASSEY@COLORADO.EDU>

for those teams that may have new partnerships, can someone tell us who
these people are (or at least their last names)?

michelin massey.


On Tue, 11 Aug 1998, kenny hanson wrote:

> As of right now these are the teams that I have competing in this years
> Round Robin. If there is some mistake with this list let me know ASAP.
>
> Emory RL
> Emory BG
> Georgia ST
> Gonzaga VK
> Gonzaga MJH
> Michigan St. HW
> Michigan St. RS
> UMKC WC
> UMKC CB
> Pace BP
> Pace KP
> South Carolina RT
> SIU SS
> Towson State BE
> Wake Forest ??
> Wichita State HM
>
> ______________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>

>From  Tue Aug 11 18:52:45 1998
Message-Id: <TUE.11.AUG.1998.185245.0500.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 11321 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 19:53:17
 -0400
Received: from mail.midusa.net (mail.midusa.net [206.28.168.5]) by list.uvm.edu
 (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id TAA48906 for
 <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 19:53:16 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from midusa.net (node134.salina.midusa.net [206.28.169.134]) by
 mail.midusa.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA10301; Tue, 11 Aug
 1998 19:11:37 -0500 (CDT)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1.5.4.32.19980811214611.0069a5a4 at pop.wfu.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <35D0D94C.2C1A799B at midusa.net>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 18:52:45 -0500
Reply-To: race at midusa.net
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: David Rhaesa <race at MIDUSA.NET>
Organization: smiling small thoughts
Subject: Re: Solution to hotel inequity?
Comments: To: Ross Smith <smithr at WFU.EDU>

Go ahead and push the elims over to the Motel 6 parking lot while you're at it.
They'll leave a light on for you.


Ross Smith wrote:

> I said people should propose solutions, so I'll try one.
>
> 1) The hotel problem. In recent years, there have NEVER been enough rooms at
> the tournament hotel. As a result, those "in the know" have reserved rooms
> even before the public announcement of the hotel arrangements. At NDT
> meetings at NCA (officially open, but many cannot afford to be there) the
> tournament host routinely reports hosting progress, telling those present
> the name of the hotel. The elites find out first. Some others quickly
> reserve rooms once the announcement is made. Those who are out of the loop,
> or new to the NDT experience, get screwed. Market shortages lead to
> rationing and increase the possibility of corruption.
>
> 2) Plan: Direct the Board of Trustees and hosts (the board has power over
> the contracts) to find a spacious enough hotel, and to post immediately to
> the listserv once a contract has been signed. The contract could include a
> stipulation that no reservations will be accepted before a certain date. The
> announcement of the hotel arrangements then could precede that date by a
> week or two, be sent by mail and listserv, or posted repeatedly. Should
> "bumping" or overflow hotels be necessary, Board of Trustees rooms should be
> the first ones bumped. Northwestern should be next, followed by other
> schools in order of the number of times they have won the NDT.
>
> 3) Solvency. With enough rooms, there won't be a bumping problem. Even if
> there were, the bumping procedure is anti-elitist. The insiders sign-up
> problem will be solved, too.
>
> 4) Pre-empts. The Board procedure for hotel contracts does not specify that
> a contract must be limited to a guaranteed number of rooms. Part of the
> problem has been that the cautious board has been afraid of reserving too
> many rooms and getting stuck having to pay. However, if they guarantee a set
> number but also arrange for a higher number to be "released" by the hotel
> after a certain date, there should be no problem: anyone not making a
> reservation after that date deserves to stay wherever they can. For those
> who think they have to wait until they qualify for the NDT to reserve a
> room, think again. If you think there is a reasonable chance you will
> qualify and attend, go ahead and make reservations. Districts and the 2nd
> round bid process are complete far enough in advance to cancel some rooms.
>
> 5) Counterplans, including those of the plan-inclusive variety are encouraged.
>
> 6) Of course, solving this problem will probably just mask and entrench the
> elitism. After all, any time they are accused of being elitist, the board
> and the borg will just say, "Of course not. Look, we're the ones staying at
> Motel 6, aren't we?" Then, everyone will be fooled into thinking there is no
> more elitism.
>
> --Ross Smith



From mkrueger  Tue Aug 11 18:56:22 1998
From: mkrueger (krueger)
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 18:56:22 -0500
Subject: MDI reflections
References: <v01510100b1f52df7ef11@[131.230.253.42]>
Message-ID: <TUE.11.AUG.1998.185622.0500.MKRUEGER@FRANK.MTSU.EDU>

Joe:

Thanks for sharing the frank thoughts about the nature of debate.
I also have had long discussions about debate and the potential
hypocrisy of "running" feminism "positions" to "crush" another team and
"win" a ballot.

I have advocated (and I have had teams do this) stopping the round and
engaging a discussion from a feminine communication perspective,
ignoring the other aspects of debate.  I'm not sure this is appropriate
either though.  Let me ramble a bit.

First, debate is a speech community or culture and has established
norms.  Those normative behaviors are certainly rooted in masculine
communication practices.  Here I borrow from Julia Wood, "Masculine
speech communities define the goal of talk as exerting control,
preserving independence, and enhancing status.  Conversation is an arena
for proving oneself and negotiating prestige" (_Gendered Lives_, p.
143).

I believe Professor Wood's explanation of the masculine speech community
is entirely accurate of the debate experience.  Debate can have
pedagogical functions, but those functions are rooted in the masculine
speech patterns.  For example, we talk of "strategies," "crushing
arguments," "blood on the flow," etc.  There are many more uses of
language that demonstrate the competitive nature of the activity.
And, of course, it is all about wins and losses.

To contrast, Dr. Wood explains that woman's speech is quite different.
"For most women, communication is  a primary way to establish and
maintain relationships with others.  They engage in conversation to
share themselves and to learn about others.  This is an important point:
For women, talk _is_ the essence of relationships.  Consistent with this
primary goal, women's speech tends to display identifiable features that
foster connections, support, closeness, and understanding" (_Gendered
Lives_, p. 141).  Now while some teams do move to this type of
communication "style," not many do.  It is mostly about winning.  I can
say that some teams do try to engage in a non-competitive competition,
and I really respect them for that.  However, it is against the norm
within the particular community.

The reason that I discuss this is to point out that when we denigrate
competative debate, the exact same thing that is being critiqued is
happening.  there is an evaluation of "good" speech and "better"
speech.  I am not certain that I am willing to make this judgement.  I
believe that neither gendered communication practice is superior to the
other.  I believe that gendered feminine communication practices are
good, and not just in relationships where they tend to get top billing.
And, I believe that gendered masculine communication practices also have
a place, and not just in business where they tend to get top billing.

So I acknowledge the irony of arguing a feminist position from inside a
communication culture that denigrates the feminine style of
communication.  But I don't choose to reject the culture.  I believe
there is a benefit in people learing a variety of communication styles
and patterns.  I believe that argument from a western neo-classical
position of rationality isn't bad.

Perhaps we as a community need to do more to uncover and break down
those modes of communication.  We need to recognize our communication
styles and talk about other styles.  Certainly Cornell West, Geneva
Smitherman, bell hooks and others have argued that "black" communication
style is qualitatively different as well, and black modes of
communication are also not very well accepted in the debate speech
community.

Is it a surprise?  No.  Traditionally debate has been a forum for white
males, and it is is dominated to this day (especially in upper
divisions) by white males.  I have often argued the MODE of
communication is the primary obstacle that continues this pattern,
though that argument often falls on deaf ears.  But, I still refuse to
say that debate in its current form should be abandoned.  Sure, I am a
white male.  However, I think that I can set that aside and recognize
that continued constructions of heirarchies isn't good, and denigrating
the current form is exactly that.

Second, when people pay to go to an institute, I'm not certain that lab
leaders should unilaterally decide to go a completely different
direction than what was advertised.  The institute advertised teaching
debate in its current form, and the novice lab was a little bit lax in
that regard.  I know the novice lab felt left out at times.  I found it
to be ironic that I was chastised for calling the novice lab "baby
novices" yet the lab was told they weren't ready to move on.  I had
novices tell me that they wanted to do research, stand up and get to
debating, put arguments together, work until 5 in the morning, get
stressed out.  In other words, they felt excluded from the rest of the
camp.

I know this is opening a huge can of worms here, but that is irrelevent
to me.  I know that my debater in that lab wasn't happy with the
experience because he wanted to learn to debate.  However, there wasn't
much teaching of debate in its current form from what he says.  Seems to
me that debaters, especially novices who expect to go home with some
knowledge and skills, should learn to debate in its current form.  Now
that isn't to say that the lab leaders have to absolutely toe the line
and not deviate.  There can and should be frank discussions of
communication and praxis.  There can be a reconciliation, an exposure,
an enlightening.  In fact, the whole camp should probably discuss
communication communities and style.

There are other issues that were addressed in your post, and I can see
your point as well.  However, I believe that all the debaters were
receipients of gag gifts, except for the novice lab, which excluded
them.  And, the "Lab MVP" was selected in a vote by the students.  Is it
wrong for students to recognize outstanding behavior?  Should we
completely abandon that?  I don't agree.  Certainly all members of my
lab were valuable.  However, some people do go the extra mile,
contribute more insight, and so on.  To say that Michael Scates was the
Lab MVP isn't to say that my other lab members were slackers; it is to
say that he was outstanding and recognized by his peers.

There are other issues as well--like meals (which I view as part of my
"salary.")  Did your lab decide that your salary was from the sweat and
bones of the campers?  Did you decide as a group that you shouldn't
accept it and share yourselves and your knowledge for free?  I'm just
checking.  Again, a matter of perspective.

And, as far as the rounds go, I had debaters from the advanced lab get
stressed out completely, too.  And, I had excellent rounds with
beginning debaters and advanced debaters.  I believe that mixing it all
up--if the advanced debaters were willing to engage in a moderately to
slow paced debate so there is substantive argumentation--is excellent.
I know that I voted for a beginner team that made a damn smart argument
over an advanced team who mishandled the argument.

Last, I want to say that I respect and believe in the novice lab
leaders.  I believe in Ed, Carol, BC, and you, Joe.  I believe your
hearts and souls are in the right place.  I might not agree with the
actions, but I do agree with your principles.  I believe that debate as
an activity can provide what you and others claim to be the traditional
reason--learning critical thinking skills.  However, I believe that
debate can serve as a forum for learning more than that.  There is the
practical side:  research, speaking, organization, listening,
note-taking, etc.  There is also the intellectual side: learning about
multiple perspectives, that truth is subjective, absolutes are hard to
find, and so on.  I also believe there is a human side: we can recognize
the differences among us and celebrate those.  Debate isn't ONLY about
what happens in the rounds.  Outside the rounds, we have the opportunity
to deconstruct and expose the practices and ideologies that are inherent
within the activity.  Certainly there can be no claim of hypocrisy if we
take seriously the discussions elsewhere.

Again, I want to stress that I respect all of the novice lab members.
It is just odd to me that the novice lab leaders--whose goal was
INCLUSION, ultimately made many in the novice lab feel EXCLUDED from the
rest of the camp and the activity as a whole.  Anyway, I took several
opportunities to express my gratitude for your hard work in particular,
Joe, since I recognized that you were really working particularly hard.
This is just something more for you to think about.

Take care,

Krueger



--
Michael Krueger
Director of Debate
Middle Tennessee State University
Box 43
Murfreesboro, TN 37132
(615) 898-5607 (office)
(615) 898-5826 (fax)
http://www.mtsu.edu/~debate
http://www.mtsu.edu/~mkrueger
http://www.mtsu.edu/~wmts

>From  Tue Aug 11 18:59:28 1998
Message-Id: <TUE.11.AUG.1998.185928.0500.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 11488 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 20:01:56
 -0400
Received: from alpha.selu.edu (alpha.selu.edu [147.174.1.7]) by list.uvm.edu
 (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id UAA14410 for
 <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 20:01:55 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from selu.edu by selu.edu (PMDF V5.1-9 #D3128) id
 <01J0HKMDAKU8AC3X8H at selu.edu> for edebate at list.uvm.edu; Tue, 11 Aug
 1998 19:01:08 CDT
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Message-ID: <01J0HKMDALSIAC3X8H at selu.edu>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 18:59:28 -0500
Reply-To: selliott at SELU.EDU
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: selliott at SELU.EDU
Organization: Southeastern Louisiana University
Subject: Public Forum debate--does it have to use the narrow topic to earn
 points?

That's the essential question. Does public forum debate--or whatever you call
it--have to use the CEDA narrow version?
Or, can it 1) use a narrow version of the CEDA topic not on the list.
        2) Use a totally different topic?
Scott Elliott

>From  Tue Aug 11 20:05:30 1998
Message-Id: <TUE.11.AUG.1998.200530.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 11576 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 20:06:28
 -0400
Received: from imo11.mx.aol.com (imo11.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.1]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id UAA14544 for
 <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 20:06:27 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from Westtoast at aol.com by imo11.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id
 LYBCa04180; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 20:05:30 +2000 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 167
Message-ID: <e6176ca4.35d0dc4b at aol.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 20:05:30 EDT
Reply-To: Westtoast at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Terrance Hogan <Westtoast at AOL.COM>
Subject: Mail I recieved from Georgetown
Comments: To: botvinnm at gusun.georgetown.edu

        I recieved this e-mail from a Georgetown debater. It paints a much better
portrait of Coach Parcher than he painted on his own. On the basis of this,
I'll publically eat crow.
        I still have to ask why Coach Parcher why his posts had the tone they did.

Hogan


In a message dated 8/11/98 7:28:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
botvinnm at gusun.georgetown.edu writes:

<< I am writing directly to you, not because I am afraid to post this on the
 list but because I don't know who you are and I am not about to start
 another fight. However, if you want to post this message on the list, feel
 free. I never post on the list or even backchannel people. But you took it
 to a whole new level. I am saying this solely based on your message,
 and maybe my sentiments would be different if I knew you through
 other means. However, who do you think you are to call somebody you
 do not know "elitest" and "classist"?
 Here are some things you may want to consider:
 1) Jeff pays out of his own  pocket to take kids to tournaments, i.e.,
 after the budget runs out.
 2) The GU budget does not have enough money to cover meals, copies, etc...
 That would obviously limit certain kids from debating (scholarship kids,
 etc...) Jeff covers the majority of their expenses from his own pocket.
 3) He had many opportunities to leave this activity for much higher paying
 consulting jobs, yet he has chosen to stay because he loves the activity.
 4) This past season there were "novices" that were interested in debating.
 He took them to a few tournaments, which resulted in him being away from
 his family every weekend for two months.

 My only suggestion to you, is maybe you should get more information before
 making such accusations. Elitism or whatever you want to call it ,
 you show me other coaches that are as dedicated as Jeff. By the
 way, keep something in mind, he has been coaching at GU for six years,
 and all this time virtually w/o any help, which indicates he kept up this
 level of commitment/intensity for that long.

 >>



From cohee99g  Tue Aug 11 19:56:49 1998
From: cohee99g (Elisia L. Cohen)
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 20:56:49 -0400
Subject: Stop the attacks, bring on the solutions
In-Reply-To: <67a5579b.35d070b0@aol.com>
Message-ID: <TUE.11.AUG.1998.205649.0400.COHEE99G@WFU.EDU>

On Tue, 11 Aug 1998, Michael Bear Bryant wrote:

> Even if we grant Parcher some excuse as to why his resource limitations
> inhibit any focus below championship-level varsity debate, how does that
> legitimate a nearly universal trend across NDT? I guess Wake and Northwstern
> have the same excuse for ignoring recruitment and training of novices, right?

This discussion is not constructive and is beginning to become
intolerable. Get off your soapbox, Bear. The year Prestes and Daveed won
the NDT (as well as before and after then_ a few of the assistant coaches
as well as Ross and Al were busting their butts recruiting and training
novices. Most from public speaking classes at the university. Sometimes,
however, it is difficult to retain interested in
novices who are also involved in other time-consuming campus activities.
For example, one of our novices' scholarship at Wake is for violin. This
year some novice debaters couldn't justify leaving campus that
much given the ammount of money they were spending on their education
here.

Debate is time-consuming, partiularly for the novice.  Another novice, and
when I say novice I do mean those with zero high school c-x debate
experience, is a residence hall advisor, which means she works heavilly
and can't elave campus often on weekends.  Is it the evil elites at Wake
ignoring them?  No, its a difficulty intergrating and retaining new people
into a team with 20+ experienced people and keeping them going to
tournaments all year.

Personally, even with two other assistants it is EXHAUSTING going to
tournaments every other weekend (I remember one month being in Winston 14
days), keeping up graduate studies, judging
almost every round because you have more teams attending tournaments than
judges... and that's just a schedule that allows novices a tournament a
semester or so of true novice debate.  When you add a few more novice
tournaments that we don't send the other varsity teamst to it gets even
more grueling, particularly when we also are the ones driving a van.
While I admire Tuna's ability to recruit novices, drive to tournaments
across country, keep his graduate students in school etc. obviously the
Vermont program and others like it such as Emory (I can't even imagine
having 60 debaters on a team) are the exception.  Of
course most programs would like to have the budgets and coaches the
stamina to do all the above.  If we could have persuaded some of
the novices to go to novice novice nats, someone from Wake would
have been their. Recruiting and retaining debaters
is something that we strive to 'do better' at, right?  That's why we're in
this activity.

Your attempt at 'deconstructing' a problem does little to
offer solutions to what we all face: an activity that requires a lot of
resources be it time, money, coaching etc and has recruitment and
retention problems. Instead of making warrentless
attacks on specific programs, why don't you focus your energy at home or
in your district working with others, instead of against them, to create
local solutions.

Enjoying being a member of the DEBATE community,

Elisia Cohen
assistant debate coach, Wake Forest University

>From  Tue Aug 11 22:42:09 1998
Message-Id: <TUE.11.AUG.1998.224209.0400.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 12178 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 22:42:16
 -0400
Received: from MORRISVILLE.EDU (SNYMORAB.MORRISVILLE.EDU [136.204.1.12]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id WAA71434 for
 <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 22:42:12 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from morrisville.edu by morrisville.edu (PMDF V5.1-7 #18385) id
 <01J0HSFFM1IS8WWNXV at morrisville.edu> for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue,
 11 Aug 1998 22:42:10 EDT
X-VMS-To: IN%"selliott at SELU.EDU"
X-VMS-Cc: edebate at list.uvm.edu
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Message-ID: <01J0HSFFMB5Y8WWNXV at morrisville.edu>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 22:42:09 -0400
Reply-To: WHITNEMR at MORRISVILLE.EDU
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: WHITNEMR at MORRISVILLE.EDU
Organization: SUNY College of Agriculture & Technology - Morrisville, New York
Subject: Re: Public Forum debate--does it have to use the narrow topic to
 earn points?
Comments: To: selliott at SELU.EDU

   Public Forum Debate, which has existed for several years, does not use
the CEDA topic at all. Thank goodness


                   Mark Whitney
                   SUNY Morrisville

P.S. - although, it is my understanding, that a tournament director of
       Public Forum Debate COULD use that topic if they wished

>From  Wed Aug 12 00:58:17 1998
Message-Id: <WED.12.AUG.1998.005817.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 0818 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 00:58:40
 -0400
Received: from imo30.mx.aol.com (imo30.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.74]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id AAA48956 for
 <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 00:58:39 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from Ara98 at aol.com by imo30.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id 8VTPa12041
 for <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 00:58:17 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 38
Message-ID: <813c4eac.35d120ea at aol.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 00:58:17 EDT
Reply-To: Ara98 at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Samara Mohamed <Ara98 at AOL.COM>
Subject: Speed

Thanks to the graciousness of the debate community, these are the speed drills
I recieved via e-mail.  Thank you to all that sent them to me!!
~Samara
seattle u

1. Read anything and everything.  Keep your mouth moving! Improves speed
2. Read all of the above with a pen in your mouth, your front teeth should be
just over the pen.  Read the stuff as clearly as you can.  Improves clarity.
3. Read evidence backwards, starting with the last word.  Improves speed (by
focusing on each word)
4. Insert a word (like "and", "dolphin", "Elvis" anything) in between each
word.  Improves clarity (makes you enunciate each word)
5. Hold a chair in front of you at about chest level, with arms fully
extended, while reading evidence as fast as you can towards the floor.
Improves breathing technique.
6. Find a natural rhythm to read at.  Helps speed and clarity

Hope it helps you and me!

>From  Wed Aug 12 01:06:31 1998
Message-Id: <WED.12.AUG.1998.010631.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 0892 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 01:06:40
 -0400
Received: from imo21.mx.aol.com (imo21.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.65]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id BAA71592 for
 <edebate at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 01:06:39 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from Ara98 at aol.com by imo21.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id 8TNQa03888
 for <edebate at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 01:06:31 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 38
Message-ID: <7daa9503.35d122d9 at aol.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 01:06:31 EDT
Reply-To: Ara98 at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Samara Mohamed <Ara98 at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: 2 res year

what would be the choice for the next topic, if we went to 2 resolutions a
year?  would it be another civil rights thing, or something completely
different?



From muaddib  Wed Aug 12 00:08:39 1998
From: muaddib (Luke D. Savoie)
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 23:08:39 -0600
Subject: Lessons
Message-ID: <TUE.11.AUG.1998.230839.0600.MUADDIB@COLORADOSPRINGS.CROSSWINDS.NET>

Can I get an interest count on whether or not people would like debate
lesson plans available on the net ....

Since USAFA will not  have a freshman CEDA squad .. or any new one, I
have all of my lessons that I use to teach available and time to put
them to html....  This way the entire community could benefit from
them.  They consist of teaching everything from stock issues, critiques,
cutting ev, and speed.  There is something for all levels and aspects of
debate.  If you think this would be useful to anyone just respond to
this and if the interest is large enough I will post them on the USAFA
debate web page and make them available for downloading in to multiple
formats (for you mac users) :)

Thank you

Luke Savoie
USAFA CEDA

>From  Wed Aug 12 01:49:22 1998
Message-Id: <WED.12.AUG.1998.014922.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 1075 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 01:49:29
 -0400
Received: from imo14.mx.aol.com (imo14.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.4]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id BAA71490 for
 <Edebate at List.UVM.EDU>; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 01:49:28 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from Gabp333 at aol.com by imo14.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id 8AAIa13456
 for <Edebate at List.UVM.EDU>; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 01:49:22 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 58
Message-ID: <5a0533a3.35d12ce3 at aol.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 01:49:22 EDT
Reply-To: Gabp333 at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Gabrielle Prisco <Gabp333 at AOL.COM>
Subject: ANYONE AT WDI, PLEASE

hey,
i am trying to get in touch with rinku chatterjji or adam rosen from
vanderbilt but the number i have for rinku is perpetually busy.  please ask
her to call me at:
615-320-3882
or write:
gabp at juno.com

thanks,
gabrielle prisco



From kwonh  Wed Aug 12 01:19:27 1998
From: kwonh (Hyuk Kwon)
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 02:19:27 -0400
Subject: Repressive Tolerance
In-Reply-To: <f8fc2f47.35cf5f00@aol.com>
Message-ID: <WED.12.AUG.1998.021927.0400.KWONH@GUSUN.GEORGETOWN.EDU>

It requires too much "deconstruction." ;)

Kwon


On Mon, 10 Aug 1998, J B wrote:

> will everyone give me their view of the phrase "repressive tolerance".
>
> ~Jeff
>



From kwonh  Wed Aug 12 01:41:42 1998
From: kwonh (Hyuk Kwon)
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 02:41:42 -0400
Subject: Parcher's confession
In-Reply-To: <67a5579b.35d070b0@aol.com>
Message-ID: <WED.12.AUG.1998.024142.0400.KWONH@GUSUN.GEORGETOWN.EDU>

On Tue, 11 Aug 1998, Michael Bear Bryant wrote:

> Even if we grant Parcher some excuse as to why his resource limitations
> inhibit any focus below championship-level varsity debate, how does that
> legitimate a nearly universal trend across NDT? I guess Wake and Northwstern
> have the same excuse for ignoring recruitment and training of novices, right?

Strawman alert! Jeff never tried to justify other NDT programs - he just
gave an honest summation of his own. Please don't try and twist his reply
into a "legitimation" of this "nearly universal trend across NDT."

> Frankly, I don't think Parcher has an excuse. For once, I agree with almost
> every word in Dr. Snider's post. I might also add that given G'towns long-term
> history of elitism and corruption, perhaps a broader-based program might allow
> the Hoyas a foundation for more institutional support.

WHOA WHOA WHOA!!! Kind of hitting WAY below the belt there, don't you
think? Yes, there have been some questionable incidents in the past
(regarding corruption), but that does not mean that such behavior on the
part of the program administration is endemic to the institution. By the
way, since when did you become an expert on Georgetown history? Do you
have any experience with this school aside from your enjoyment of beating
Unger's teams (as you mentioned before)? I think I can safely assume that
you have no idea what the institutional atmosphere is like here. We have
to fight for every dollar, even when we do get novices (and we do get some
every year - they just don't last very long because like Jeff said - he
can't afford to take them to any tournaments). Most of the student
programs are underfunded, and many subsist on their own budgets with money
that they raise on their own. So please, before you engage in slanderous
accusations, try and possess a more complete knowledge of the subject
matter. (this is not an ad hom, just a plea for more substantive
argumentation) We have a very tight-fisted administration, mainly because
one of our graduate schools is VERY DEEP in the red.

> It's enabled Weber to double it's budget over the past decade. And you can
> even allow administrators to watch novice debates without cringing in fear of
> additional cutbacks...

Have you ever thought that maybe's it's because Weber has a better
financial situation? (or at least, more competent people working with the
financial duties - you'd think that Georgetown, with it's insane tuition
would get some, but boy you'd be surprised)

Kwon
G'town Debate



From kwonh  Wed Aug 12 01:43:13 1998
From: kwonh (Hyuk Kwon)
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 02:43:13 -0400
Subject: Parcher's confession
In-Reply-To: <Pine.OSF.3.96.980811121641.27576B-100000@mason2.gmu.edu>
Message-ID: <WED.12.AUG.1998.024313.0400.KWONH@GUSUN.GEORGETOWN.EDU>

On Tue, 11 Aug 1998, Timothy J Weiner wrote:

> If you don't like the situation at Georgetown then you should teach novice
> debate there, I'm sure Jeff wouldn't mind.
>
> Jake

Yeah, the position's open. The annual salary? $0/year. Get the point?

Kwon
Gtown Debate



From kwonh  Wed Aug 12 01:55:58 1998
From: kwonh (Hyuk Kwon)
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 02:55:58 -0400
Subject: Long post: Elitism, Parcher, Tuna, hybrids, etc.
In-Reply-To: <3ad97c2c.35d0a81d@aol.com>
Message-ID: <WED.12.AUG.1998.025558.0400.KWONH@GUSUN.GEORGETOWN.EDU>

Not so. I just think others have disguised their personal interests
better. After all, can we really say any more that the personal isn't the
political?

Kwon
Gtown


On Tue, 11 Aug 1998, Terrance Hogan wrote:

>         First of all, I want to point out the differences between this post and
> Parcher's. First of all, nowhere in this post do you see the self-concern that
> Parcher's did. Parcher's post was every bit as much a statement of what he
> wanted out of life as it was a defense of a program in his particular
> circumstances.
>
>
>
> In a message dated 8/11/98 3:13:55 PM Eastern Daylight Time, smithr at WFU.EDU
> writes:
>
> << 1) *Competitive* academic debate, by its nature, is elitist.
>
>  2) The NDT (a tournament, not an organization), by design, is especially
>  elitist in that it has a competitive selection process.
> ---
>
> I think everyone granted the competitive tends toward elitism argument a long
> time ago.
>
> ---
>  3) The NDT, CEDA Nats, and other tournaments all try to promote sometimes
>  conflicting values. The national "championships" actively seek to name the
>  one best team. But they also try to celebrate the activity as a whole, to
>  promote debate as a whole, and to reward more than just the winning team.
>  Different tournaments balance these values differently. The NDT puts more
>  emphasis on "competitive accuracy" than does CEDA Nats. Theoreticaclly, NDT
>  could be an even more "competitive/elitist" tournament, by limiting the
>  field to 32 teams, by allowing the fourth or fifth teams from "Borgs" to
>  displace other teams in the 72 team field, or by reducing the number of
>  judges in prelims. But these proposals have been defeated because they are
>  too elitist, even for the elitist NDT. Non-competitive, non-elitist values
>  won the day when those proposals were defeated. Neither NDT nor CEDA Nats
>  has a novice division. Towon, ADA Nationals, and other tournaments balance
>  values differently.
>
>  4) The NYC coalition or MIT/Harvard combo do not threaten the interest of
>  Northwestern in winning the NDT. But as long as the NDT has a fixed number
>  of teams, and a competitive entry process through districts, admission of
>  hybrids would trade off with slots currently won by some non-elite schools.
>  First-round bid teams are not threatened. The LAST teams to qualify are the
>  ones with competitive concerns.  I believe that much of the resistance to
>  the proposal may have come from "small schools at the margin" that felt that
>  they would be the ones that would "lose" the zero-sum game. Some of their
>  thought process may have been, "We have limited resources, too, but have
>  struggled to get and/or maintain insitutional support, and we use NDT
>  qualification as proof to our administration that we are deserving of
>  support. If hybrids qualify, why won't our administrators just tell us we
>  should team up with others instead of seeking more funding internally."
> ---
> This is the first legitimate argument I've seen against hybrids, and is very
> worthy of discussion
> ----
> As
>  it stands now, the NDT *rewards institutions*. It rewards *administrations*
>  that support a debate program. I personally am not sure that the degree of
>  this emphasis is optimal, but it is a fact that the incentive structure of
>  the status quo rules encourages the development and maintainance of
>  stand-alone programs. The three-team per school limit discourages
>  (punishes?) schools that have more than three highly competitive teams. That
>  rule is a disincentive to building a squad beyond a certain size at the
>  varsity level. But the incentives created by any of these rules should not
>  be exaggerated. It is a huge mistake to think that the rules of one
>  tournament are the primary factor in the activity's health nationally or at
>  any one institution.
> ---
> I still feel that more people would be served by allow case-by-case hybrids
> because
> individuals at schools with little or non-existent programs would be more
> motivated
> toward excellence even though the vast majority would not qualify. Everybody
> that
> participates in NDT style debate dreams of winning the NDT, though few expect
> to,
> and far fewer would admit it. This isn't about budgets, this is about letting
> anybody
> attempt to fulfill their dreams. It can't be determined by the stone cold
> logic of the
> dollar sign. What this discussion should be about is whether or not anybody,
> at time
> or place in their lives, is allowed by this organization the opportunity to
> attempt to
> participate in this organization's grandest event.
>
> ---
>  5) Tuna has strong arguments for increasing emphasis on novice recruitment.
>  Given the shape of learning curves, his argument that the marginal benefit
>  to a novice is greater than the marginal benefit to an experienced debater
>  has a great deal of merit. But a learning curve is also a reductionist view
>  of debate's educational benefits.There is educational merit in "highly
>  advanced" debate, just as there is merit in higher math. How else can one
>  explain the testimonials of experienced debaters at rigorous colleges who
>  graduate high in their class but say that what they learned in nationally
>  competitive collegiate varsity debate eclipsed the rest of their collegiate
>  academic experience? I found the post about librarians, calculus, etc. to be
>  quite wide of the mark, factually as well as analytically. Factually, the
>  Wake Forest administration, for one, explicitly has rewarded the debate
>  program here precisely because we have enjoyed competitive success in an
>  elite field against the most experienced and talented opposition. Right or
>  wrong, their view is that Cal Tech can be known for math and that Wake
>  Forest can be known for debate. A nationally prominent debate program
>  attracts a number of well qualified students to Wake Forest, most of whom do
>  not debate in college. Analytically, saying that our society does need
>  people with advanced math skills more than it needs people with advanced
>  debate skills seems to be wrong. Yes, our society does need as many citizens
>  as possible with policy debate skill. But our society also needs universal
>  basic math literacy. But we probably have a greater shortage of people with
>  advanced policy analysis, advocacy, and research skill than we have a
>  shortage of mathematicians.
>  ---
>
>         I am stating my opinion that the organization should serve the vast majority
> rather than the ultra-competitive few. To go back to the library anology,
> should
> we lock up the books to ensure they will all be there for the honor students,
> or
> do we allow every student the opportunity to better themselves thorough usage,
> taking the risk an important one will not be there when an honor student needs
> it. I say let everyone in.
>         The cream generally rises to the top. I'm really not worried about the ultra-
> competitive types. Their dedication to the activity will prevail. I'd like to
> see
> more people in this activity, and if if costs one team one long distance trip
> a year so that 4 novice team can go to three local ones, I'm for it (I realize
> this is an overstatement, it's for illustration purposes).
>
> --
>  6) "Why don't you do things our way" has very limited value in this
>  discussion. Tuna's addendum notes that he is not saying all programs should
>  be just like his. Parcher didn't say that either. "Let a bunch of flowers
>  bloom" (sic)  was a phrase used by Tuna a year or two ago. One can apply
>  that concept to styles of debate, novice versus varsity emphasis, tournament
>  administration, and organizations. Applied to individual programs, it is not
>  very useful to point to a program and to tell them they are doing things the
>  "wrong" way. Each program has very unique resources, motivations,
>  administrations, students, and coaches. It was very useful for Parcher to
>  talk about what is unique about him and his program because it helps
>  demonstrate the point I just made. And it is useful to raise awareness of
>  alternative ways of running a program as Tuna, Bear, and others have done.
>  But to think that a listserv debate can be won or lost on the question,
>  "What is THE best way to run a program" is delusional. And, as Parcher's
>  second post eloquently demonstrates, telling any one director that their
>  program is fundamentally flawed is usually unpersuasive.
>
>  7) Trade-offs, an example. At Wake Forest we stretch our time, people, and
>  money as far as it can go now. We DO encourage and support novice and JV
>  participation, and I know we could do more in that area. We also want to
>  make efforts provide collegiate debate experiences for high school debaters
>  coming out of thte urban debate leagues and other previously underserved
>  populations.
> ---
>
> This seems fair, it seems like an equitable policy.
>
> ---
> Expanding opportunities for the latter trades off with
>  opportunities for white, middle class novices who are already on campus.
>  Both trade off with opportunities for experienced debaters who came to Wake
>  Forest because they seek the specialized, advanced coaching and competition
>  opportunities available here. Ideally, we could just snap our fingers and
>  increase our budget and personnel. But since we can't, we will be making
>  choices that not everyone will think are right. Should I have try-outs or a
>  fixed number limit for my varsity squad so that I free up resources for
>  novices? Should I cut back on the number of tournaments I bring our varsity
>  to? If so, by how much? We will strive to make "good" choices, and in the
>  long run to continue to increase our budget. Bear is VERY right when he
>  makes the point that budgets are not fixed forever. Recruiting more students
>  is the best way to justify a higher budget. But Weber and Wake both have
>  administrations that may be more responsive than other schools. And Weber
>  and Wake still face trade-offs whatever thesize of their budgets. Weber's
>  administration apparently values novice participation. Wake's values varsity
>  participation. At any one moment, we work with what we have.
>
>  8) The idea of sending a listing of every CEDA member school advertising the
>  existence of policy debate at those schools to every high school guidance
>  office in the country sounds like a good way of helping high school students
>  learn that debate exists at some schools but not others.
>  But to read some of the posts recently, one would think this a bad idea,
>  encouraging even more of the debate-rich to come to colleges where they
>  could divert resources from the debate-deprived.
>
>  9) MIT/Harvard, proposed by Dallas, is a very scary thought. For all we
>  know, the sneaky elitist bastard really did have some hot-shot, elim-capable
>  debater waiting in the wings at MIT. Give him an inch and he'll take a mile.
>  Dallas probably was already scoping out incoming first-years at Yale and
>  Brown, too.
> ---
>
> I knew it.   ;-)
>
> ---
>  10) Number nine was a joke.
> ---
>
> Elitist scum, think us podunks are too dumb  to know a joke   ;-)
>
> ---
>  11) I conclude by risking offending opponents to problem/solution thinking:
>  perhaps we could spend as much time offering proposals for change, like the
>  specific amendment to the NDT rules regarding hybrids, and discussing the
>  merits of those proposals, as we spend "deconstructing" (a fancy word for
>  pointing to flaws, warts, past transgressions, etc. if context is a guide to
>  meaning). I do think it is important to accurately identify problems. But
>  engaging in a reflexive process that includes proposed solutions is
>  something we are supposed to be good enough at to warrant teaching it to
>  novices, JV, and varsity debaters alike.
> ---
>
> I tried yesterday with 3 "suggestions to chew on." I got 2 responses, and one
> of the was from Bear saying nobody would respond. Where was this response
> yesterday to the "suggestions"? It seems like it took another flame war to get
> a dialogue going. Let's keep it going.  Keeping it going is the only way the
> emotions behind these flame wars will dissipate.
> Thank you for posting such a well-authored statement of your views.
>
> Hogan
> ______________________
>
> --Ross Smith
>
>
>  >>
>



From mmk1913  Wed Aug 12 01:52:51 1998
From: mmk1913 (Jessica Marie Wojtysiak)
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 02:52:51 -0400
Subject: ans Smith
Message-ID: <WED.12.AUG.1998.025251.0400.MMK1913@GARNET.ACNS.FSU.EDU>

well, not really, since i thought the post was excellent: wise and articulate.  
except for the "opponents of problem/solution thinking" crack.  that was dumb.

and for no particular reason, Professors John Carroll and Eric Johnson, in their 1990 book, Decision Research, point out that:

    "Although people strive to make good decisions and often have high opinions of their own decision making, research repeatedly shows that decision makers may not understand their own implicit decision rules (Hammond, Stewart, Brehmer, and Steinmann, 1975) and are systematically overconfident about the quality of their judgements and decisions (Fischoff, 1975)."

michael miroslav korcok
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/19980812/078534d0/attachment.html 


From a.dove  Wed Aug 12 04:26:53 1998
From: a.dove (Alan Dove)
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 09:26:53 +0000
Subject: Public Forum debate--does it have to use the narrow topic to
 earn points?
References: <01J0HSFFMB5Y8WWNXV@morrisville.edu>
Message-ID: <WED.12.AUG.1998.092653.0000.A.DOVE@EROLS.COM>

WHITNEMR at MORRISVILLE.EDU wrote:
>
>    Public Forum Debate, which has existed for several years, does not use
> the CEDA topic at all. Thank goodness

True, but not quite complete.  PFD is a format developed here in the East
which has been evolving and expanding for the past few years.  Public Sphere
Debate (PSD), on the other hand, is CEDA's top-down attempt to franchise a
more beginner-friendly format nationwide.  There was a long debate before the
policy was implemented, and I don't remember how the issue of sweepstakes
points for other formats was resolved.  PSD counts for points and uses a
modification of the CEDA/NDT topic.  The pre-existing PFD style does not
generally use the CEDA/NDT topic, but does it count for points?  If it does,
that's dandy, but if it doesn't, then CEDA will have disenfranchised a
grass-roots movement in order to rush the implementation of a new format.

On the other hand, if PFD counts for CEDA sweepstakes points, why wouldn't
NPDA or even APDA tournaments count as well?  This discussion may have
been truncated in the heat of assimilation, or I may have simply missed it.

Can some commentator with a better memory fill us in?

          --Alan

--
_______________
Alan Dove, Ph.D.
N3IMU
a.dove at erols.com
http://128.59.173.136/Poliolab/Alan/Dove.html

>From  Wed Aug 12 09:43:24 1998
Message-Id: <WED.12.AUG.1998.094324.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 3312 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 09:43:29
 -0400
Received: from imo12.mx.aol.com (imo12.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.2]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id JAA57826 for
 <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 09:43:28 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from Westtoast at aol.com by imo12.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id
 8XULa11469 for <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 09:43:24
 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 167
Message-ID: <2ef3442c.35d19bfd at aol.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 09:43:24 EDT
Reply-To: Westtoast at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Terrance Hogan <Westtoast at AOL.COM>
Subject: Searching for Deon Garner

        If anyone has an e-mail address for Deon Garner at Morehouse,
please send it to me. Thank you and sorry for the clutter.

Hogan



From nhorewi  Wed Aug 12 08:57:42 1998
From: nhorewi (Nessa Elise Horewitch)
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 09:57:42 -0400
Subject: NDT elitism
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.3.96L.980811173455.10298B-100000@nbc.ksu.ksu.edu>
Message-ID: <WED.12.AUG.1998.095742.0400.NHOREWI@EMORY.EDU>

That's true, I didn't debate in high school, nor did I debate my freshman
year.  All it takes for a novice to be successful in college debate is a
constructive work environment.  You don't have to recruit novices, you
just have to support them.  And trust me, I speak from the position of
someone who has dealt with both NDT AND CEDA elitism.  Thanks Monte...
Nessa

On Tue, 11 Aug 1998, Frank L Stevens wrote:

> this was supposed to say don't think "she" was a hs debate person.  sorry
> nessa...
>
> Monte Stevens
> Kansas State University
>
>
> On Tue, 11 Aug 1998, Frank L Stevens wrote:
>
> > nessa was in the semi at ceda nats with fitz in witchita (1997).  don't
> > think he debated in hs.
> >
> > Monte Stevens
> > Kansas State University
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 11 Aug 1998, Stephen J. Heidt wrote:
> >
> > > Bear,
> > >
> > > My search for data on this subject is not a delay tactic.  I simply want
> > > to be better informed about this issue.  I don't have the years of
> > > experience and exposure to NDT/CEDA that you and many others can provide.
> > > So, I guess my real point is that if there is any data/evidence, then that
> > > evidence can help strengthen the argument that elitism exists and needs to
> > > be changed.  I can only be an advocate if I know what I am advocating and
> > > why.  That being said, I would prefer reading studies simply because all
> > > of the information is available in one source.  Instead of trying the
> > > almost impossible task of reading all the posts on edebate, if I can read
> > > a series of reports, then I feel that I can come to a credible conclusion
> > > about the state of the activity.
> > >
> > > As to your question about the NDT semis and CEDA semis with debaters the
> > > never debated in high school, I really don't have data on either.  I
> > > understand there have been several debaters in the 90's who got to the
> > > semis or higher at CEDA Nats who never debated in high school, but what
> > > does that prove?  There seems to be consensus with the few individuals I
> > > have talked to that some, if not all, of those debaters could have had the
> > > same level of success at the NDT.  I don't really know how we gauge that,
> > > but perhaps those individuals and their respective talents speak to the
> > > necessity  of college recruiting and novice NDT debating.
> > >
> > > This entire discussion, however, warrents scholarly inquiry.  So I presume
> > > we can come to some level of consensus on that issue at least.  Finally, I
> > > want to make it clear that I do respect you and your position on this
> > > argument, so I am thankful for your reply and the questions you ask.
> > >
> > > Stephen
> > >
> >
>

>From  Wed Aug 12 10:13:14 1998
Message-Id: <WED.12.AUG.1998.101314.0400.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 3722 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 10:13:22
 -0400
Received: from MORRISVILLE.EDU (SNYMORAB.MORRISVILLE.EDU [136.204.81.12]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id KAA49160 for
 <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 10:13:21 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from morrisville.edu by morrisville.edu (PMDF V5.1-7 #18385) id
 <01J0IGK98WAC8Y4X8D at morrisville.edu> for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed,
 12 Aug 1998 10:13:16 EDT
X-VMS-To: IN%"a.dove at EROLS.COM"
X-VMS-Cc: edebate at list.uvm.edu
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Message-ID: <01J0IGK98WAE8Y4X8D at morrisville.edu>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 10:13:14 -0400
Reply-To: WHITNEMR at MORRISVILLE.EDU
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: WHITNEMR at MORRISVILLE.EDU
Organization: SUNY College of Agriculture & Technology - Morrisville, New York
Subject: Re: Public Forum debate--does it have to use the narrow topic to
 earn points?
Comments: To: a.dove at EROLS.COM

Alan wrote:
True, but not quite complete.  PFD is a format developed here in the East
which has been evolving and expanding for the past few years.  Public Sphere
Debate (PSD), on the other hand, is CEDA's top-down attempt to franchise a
more beginner-friendly format nationwide.  There was a long debate before the
policy was implemented, and I don't remember how the issue of sweepstakes
points for other formats was resolved.  PSD counts for points and uses a
modification of the CEDA/NDT topic.  The pre-existing PFD style does not
generally use the CEDA/NDT topic, but does it count for points?  If it does,
that's dandy, but if it doesn't, then CEDA will have disenfranchised a
grass-roots movement in order to rush the implementation of a new format.

On the other hand, if PFD counts for CEDA sweepstakes points, why wouldn't
NPDA or even APDA tournaments count as well?  This discussion may have
been truncated in the heat of assimilation, or I may have simply missed it.

Can some commentator with a better memory fill us in?


Me:
     I'm not sure how good my memory is - the 70's was a very long decade. :)
But, because of that, I tend to save a lot of messages. Below is the item
that was posted to the list regarding what CEDA had passed for their "Public
Sphere" division. As you can see, the "elite" policy organization might be
able to use some work on writing actual policies. Although it was
stated that the format would count for points, it's not mentioned in the
actual policy they passed (assuming what was posted is accurate). We don't
know if they count for full points (one point per round), partial points,
or what. Other than that, it basically says tournament directors can do
whatever the hell they want and call it PSD, as long as the topic is in some
way related to the overall CEDA topic. Unfortunately, that was the exact
thing many of us were looking to avoid. By using the CEDA topic, the CEDA
wannabes can raid the files of their "Big Brother" teammates, attend topic
lectures etc. The whole division, while originally a potentially great step
toward bringing back disenfranchised schools, has become nothing more than
"ultra-novice CEDA." The whole reason PFDs (not PSDs) evolved was to give
schools with less resources, and students with little or no background an
opportunity to compete without having to be grist for the policy machines.
     There are many OBVIOUS problems with this policy. Points: how much are
they? There are one and two person PFD formats. The policy passed by CEDA
places no limit on that either. You could have ten person small group
discussions and call it a CEDA sanctioned PSD, as long as it was spelled
out in the invitation. How would you do points for that? Does the one person
format count the same as the two person format? Do any of the formats count
the same as "traditional" CEDA? Are they listed in the same overall rankings?
Can a school that concentrates only on PSDs find themselves ranked number one
in points at the end of the year? (I'll bet not - that'll bring back those
schools that quit, I bet)
     Tied to this issue, which I have not seen discussed, is the issue of
eligibility. How does participating in PSDs affect a student's CEDA
eligibility? What is to stop a team from entering experienced debaters just
to get points? If it does count against eligibility, how many students will
be steered toward PSDs when they can simply be put into novice? These answers
will mainly be determined by the answer to how points will count. Which, up
until now is a mystery.
     Alan, I think you hit the nail on the head when you said they may have
disenfranchised a grass roots movement to rush implementation of a policy.
There are a million more questions about the "policy" below, but I hope
you see my point. This tripe will do ZERO to bring back teams that were
sick of the crap that's going on.



The "policy":

By Law XVIII: Public Sphere Debate
"Preamble: The Cross Examination Debate Association is committed to making
debate accessible to as many schools and students as possible.  Recognizing
the variety which exists among schools, debaters, program & director goals,
and resources, as well as the need for an evidence based alternative, CEDA
will promote the offering of Public Sphere Debate at CEDA tournaments.  This
article will set forth the aspiration of the Association for this type of
debate in hopes that this statement will promote more intercollegiate debate
and give guidance to those schools wishing to offer an alternative at their
intercollegiate tournaments.
Section 1: Individual tournament directors may modify time limits, designate
division(s) (e.g., open, junior, novice, etc.), and use the narrow version
of the CEDA topic or another version of the CEDA topic for Public Sphere Debate.
Section 2: Individual tournament directors should use as many nontraditional
judges as possible for Public Sphere Debate.
Section 3: All rules and/or guidelines for Public Sphere Debate, including
time limits, topic, divisions, matching procedures, judge assignment
procedures, the nature of the judging pool, etc. should be made clear in
the tournament invitation.


               Remember what the Dormouse said...

                                 Mark Whitney
                                 PFD Participants at SUNY Morrisville



From katebrindle  Wed Aug 12 09:50:56 1998
From: katebrindle (Kate Brindle)
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 07:50:56 -0700
Subject: Choose the right school
Message-ID: <WED.12.AUG.1998.075056.0700.KATEBRINDLE@YAHOO.COM>

Clint,
First of all, thanks for writing back.  I do agree with you that
debate is about education and whether at a tournament or in a
classroom, kids can learn. However, I think tournaments, institutes
and other debate experiences outside the classroom are extremely
beneficial.  Students get the chance to interact with and make friends
with other people (I have great memories from institute in hs--and I
believe we went to SDI the same year), learn about different debate
styles of different schools, build confidence, learn competition and
travel to different schools and cities.  Also, people learn what it's
like to work with other people and actually be part of a "team."  I'm
not sure one could get these advantages from just debating in a
classroom a couple days a week.

You're right, debating is debating no matter how far away.  But, in
your original e-mail, I think the statement "choose the right
school...that's just the way it is", is pretty elitist.  It makes it
sound as though you won't have a very fruitful debate career unless
you go to the "right" school.  To me, the connotation of "right"
school is a school that can afford to travel a lot and has a pretty
extensive coaching staff.  However, the right school for someone is
not always right for someone else. My point is, it shouldn't matter
what school you go to.  Everyone should get a chance to debate in a
classroom setting, go to tournaments, etc.  You shouldn't be penalized
because you chose an institution for it's academic programs and not
debate.  I think we agree about that, that everyone should be exposed
to debate and have opportunities.  Whether you go to a little school
with a brand new team or a large school with a developed one.

Kate



---"Clint J. Clevenger" <cjclevenger at HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:
>
> Kate you write:
>
> <<Just a question for you, Clint.  What about the kids who have never
> been exposed to debate?  Should we just forget about them?  Speaking
> from experience, most kids in the inner city public high schools have
> never even heard of debate, let alone don't have the resources to
> start teams on their own. >>
>
>
> I definitely don't think that we should not expose kids to debate.  I
> think that is a great benefit of the urban debate leagues.  You are
> right most kids don't have the opportunity to be exposed to debate in
> their schools and that is one of the great benefits of the program.
> My question is why do they have to start a team or squad and travel to
> get the education from debate that we want to expose to them.  I our
> school district here, our debate parents organization began to
pressure
> the school board into making it mandatory for all students to take
some
> kind of public speaking class.  These classes, atleast here involve,
> researching and argueing or defending their point.  That is almost
what
> debate is.  So I don't hink that it is a matter of them getting their
> own program, if it is not possible, but just being exposed to the
> situtations.  Granted ther is no way that you can simulate a
tournament
> setting, but it is better than nothing.
>
> <<Or what about the kids who can't "choose"
> the school they attend because either they can't afford to go to the
> "right" school or they are forced to choose the only institution that
> will give them a scholarship?  I don't mean to jump on you, but I
> think those are questions we need to consider if we're going to try to
> tackle elitism.
> Kate Brindle
> NYU Debate>>
>
> First of all, what is the right school.  Is it one that has a large
> budget so they can travel alot?  Assuming that it is, and all of
this is
> assuming that you are talking of people who have had experience with
> high shcool debate.  I thought the point was to get students
envolved in
> debating, what does it matter what tournament they attend whether it
is
> five miles or five hundred mile from home, debating is debating no
> matter where you do it.  Granted it is nice to be able to travel to
> tournaments.  But I enjoyed my Highschool debate experience and
never I
> repeat never traveled to a tournament, and found adequate competetion
> and rivalries every weekend right in the Kansas City area.
>
> As far as beign able to afford to go to certain schools,and wanting to
> debate, as I said earlier, I like the suggestion of lokking at every
> case on a case by case basis.  Those people can attempt to start
> programs in their new school.  While granted I have never been
involved
> in a program that had not or was just coming into existence.  But I
> agree that eveyone should be given an opportunity, But those who have
> experienced debate in high school, and want to debate in college, most
> state universitys are not very expensive, or atleast here, so why
not go
> there.?  But I agree that there are some circumstances where that is
not
> the opportunity.:)
>
> CJ
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>
>
>

==
"6:58, are you sure where MY spark is?"
If you find it, let me know!


_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

>From  Wed Aug 12 10:56:52 1998
Message-Id: <WED.12.AUG.1998.105652.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 4153 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 10:57:43
 -0400
Received: from imo26.mx.aol.com (imo26.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.70]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id KAA57740 for
 <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 10:57:42 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo26.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id
 LBDCa04520; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 10:56:52 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 58
Message-ID: <9222214b.35d1ad36 at aol.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 10:56:52 EDT
Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Michael Bear Bryant <MWBRYANT at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: Parcher's confession
Comments: To: kwonh at GUSUN.GEORGETOWN.EDU

In a message dated 98-08-12 02:45:43 EDT, you write:

<<
 > Even if we grant Parcher some excuse as to why his resource limitations
 > inhibit any focus below championship-level varsity debate, how does that
 > legitimate a nearly universal trend across NDT? I guess Wake and
Northwstern
 > have the same excuse for ignoring recruitment and training of novices,
right?

< Strawman alert! Jeff never tried to justify other NDT programs - he just
< gave an honest summation of his own. Please don't try and twist his reply
< into a "legitimation" of this "nearly universal trend across NDT."

Look, if anyone's doing the "twisting" it's you folks. This thread didn't
start out as an indictment of G'town. Contrary to your assertions, I do
believe that Parcher's reply was a defense of why it's OK not to travel
novices. Even if we admit that there are some justifications due to the unique
nature of the program, why is that a response to the thread's deconstruction
of the culture of NDT?

 > Frankly, I don't think Parcher has an excuse. For once, I agree with almost
 > every word in Dr. Snider's post. I might also add that given G'towns long-
term
 > history of elitism and corruption, perhaps a broader-based program might
allow
 > the Hoyas a foundation for more institutional support.

< WHOA WHOA WHOA!!! Kind of hitting WAY below the belt there, don't you
< think? Yes, there have been some questionable incidents in the past
< (regarding corruption), but that does not mean that such behavior on the
< part of the program administration is endemic to the institution. By the
< way, since when did you become an expert on Georgetown history? Do you
< have any experience with this school aside from your enjoyment of beating
< Unger's teams (as you mentioned before)? I think I can safely assume that
< you have no idea what the institutional atmosphere is like here.

In 1986 (after coaching two clearing teams at NDT from Eastern Illinois Univ.)
I was a finalist and interviewed for the Director's position at G'town. I draw
my advice from conversations with the Director of Student Activities and other
high-ranking officials at G'town. Let me say that you are indeed correct that
G'town's budget sucks and that the institutional support reeks (I took a
position at West Georgia, instead).Back then, the job was even worse, with the
debate coach in charge of the basketball tutorial program - did you know that
Ziff tutored Patrick Ewing? And believe it or not, Weber teams in the late
eighties and early nineties were pretty close with a couple of G'town debaters
(hi, Kuswa!), so I have pretty good background into some of G'towns support
problems. By the way, I think both Cheshier and Parcher deserve tremendous
respect for putting together such successful programs under the constraint of
working for a school that seems to have no deep committment to debate.

< We have
< to fight for every dollar, even when we do get novices (and we do get some
< every year - they just don't last very long because like Jeff said - he
< can't afford to take them to any tournaments). Most of the student
< programs are underfunded, and many subsist on their own budgets with money
< that they raise on their own. So please, before you engage in slanderous
< accusations, try and possess a more complete knowledge of the subject
< matter. (this is not an ad hom, just a plea for more substantive
< argumentation) We have a very tight-fisted administration, mainly because
< one of our graduate schools is VERY DEEP in the red.

Well, I'm not going to buy the assertion (also unproven) that Georgetown
simply has no funds. The "Catholic conspiracy" that runs G'town is not broke.
I also reject your assertion that there is absolutely no way that G'town can
afford to travel novices while in the heart of ADA-land. Many programs offer
both varsity and novice debate and exist off of less than G'town provides. I
grant you that lack of the support you identify. My argument, which you don't
seem to grasp, is that there is a good chance that institutional support would
increase if the G'town administration perceived that the debate budget was
being spent on more than a handful of students. I base this on direct
statements from G'town administrators. Winning NDT certainly didn't make that
large of a difference in the level of support, did it?

 > It's enabled Weber to double it's budget over the past decade. And you can
 > even allow administrators to watch novice debates without cringing in fear
of
 > additional cutbacks...

< Have you ever thought that maybe's it's because Weber has a better
< financial situation? (or at least, more competent people working with the
< financial duties - you'd think that Georgetown, with it's insane tuition
< would get some, but boy you'd be surprised)

Now, you're the one whistling in the dark! The Utah state legislature
(virtually 100% LDS) seems to define educators as "enemies of God." The
prevailing religious doctrine in this state is not one that encourages free-
spirited inquiry or questioning cultural assumptions. With the IRS's largest
processing center also in Ogden, most good administrators choose to double
their pay and leave university administration. Weber also has one of the
lowest tuitions in the country - allowing to it be included as one of the
nation's 100 Best Buys in Colleges. The budget at Weber is the result of years
of lobbying every administrator we can find and making sure that each one of
them gets a report on every accomplishment from clearing at NDT to novice
parli recruiting drives. When it comes right down to it, administrators are
happiest when they can view large numbers of participants. We've also spent a
great deal of time working to secure outside contributions, like a $100,000
endowment put together by the folks that make Franklin Day Planners. BTW,
there are no grad assistants at Weber, all the coaching has to be done by me
and another member of the faculty. We also have to teach. If you think
institutional support at Weber is due to competent administrators stockpiling
cash, you are the one that needs to inform themselves.

< Kwon
< G'town Debate
  >>

Isn't someone on the G'town team from Seattle? Just asking because that's
where the email with my forged name on it seems to have originated from....and
I'm left wondering why Parcher indicates he has talked to a lawyer about the
nature of the crime.

Please, can we keep this civil? I really do respect G'town's accomplishments,
even if y'all do chase novices away by never traveling them.

Bear



From hansonjb  Wed Aug 12 00:40:50 1998
From: hansonjb (Jim Hanson)
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 22:40:50 -0700
Subject: Northwest Public Debate--Read Now!
Message-ID: <TUE.11.AUG.1998.224050.0700.HANSONJB@WHITMAN.EDU>

Hi

Earlier this summer in the Northwest, we had an "E-mail Summit" discussion that was focused on those who had expressed interest in Policy-Quotation based debate, some people were left out as replies went only to some people, etc. To address this, I am encouraging Northwest students, coaches, and judges (and others as well) to signup to the NW Forensics Conference Listserv now.

I will be posting a message about a plan of action for NW Public Debate to the Northwest Forensics Listserv in about 2 days.

I ENCOURAGE YOU TO SIGNUP TO THE NW FORENSICS LISTSERV NOW!
Send an email message to listproc at willamette.edu that says:
subscribe nwfc Your Name

This listserv generates virtually no mail most of the time--SO YOU WILL NOT BE ADDING TONS OF EMAIL TO YOUR E-BOXES.

PLEASE SIGNUP--NOW! AND BE A PART OF THE NORTHWEST DEBATE DISCUSSION.
Also, would you send this message to students on your team? I am only sending this to DoF's in the Northwest and the CEDA and Parli Listservs and I am worried students will be left out.

thanks!

Jim Hanson
Whitman College
hansonjb at whitman.edu



From smithr  Wed Aug 12 10:41:39 1998
From: smithr (Ross Smith)
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 11:41:39 -0400
Subject: Fall Tourney Calendar anyone?
Message-ID: <WED.12.AUG.1998.114139.0400.SMITHR@WFU.EDU>

Is there an electronic copy of a tentative fall calendar of tournaments?
Would probably be good to repost about now. If someone has one, please send
it to me. Thanks,

--Ross Smith



From a.dove  Wed Aug 12 06:42:34 1998
From: a.dove (Alan Dove)
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 11:42:34 +0000
Subject: Public Forum Debate: Problems and Questions
References: <01J0IGK98WAE8Y4X8D@morrisville.edu>
Message-ID: <WED.12.AUG.1998.114234.0000.A.DOVE@EROLS.COM>

WHITNEMR at MORRISVILLE.EDU wrote:

<snip>
> The "policy":
>
> By Law XVIII: Public Sphere Debate
> "Preamble: The Cross Examination Debate Association is committed to making
> debate accessible to as many schools and students as possible.  Recognizing
> the variety which exists among schools, debaters, program & director goals,
> and resources, as well as the need for an evidence based alternative, CEDA
> will promote the offering of Public Sphere Debate at CEDA tournaments.  This
> article will set forth the aspiration of the Association for this type of
> debate in hopes that this statement will promote more intercollegiate debate
> and give guidance to those schools wishing to offer an alternative at their
> intercollegiate tournaments.
> Section 1: Individual tournament directors may modify time limits, designate
> division(s) (e.g., open, junior, novice, etc.), and use the narrow version
> of the CEDA topic or another version of the CEDA topic for Public Sphere Debate.
> Section 2: Individual tournament directors should use as many nontraditional
> judges as possible for Public Sphere Debate.
> Section 3: All rules and/or guidelines for Public Sphere Debate, including
> time limits, topic, divisions, matching procedures, judge assignment
> procedures, the nature of the judging pool, etc. should be made clear in
> the tournament invitation.

Thanks for re-posting this, Mark.  It looks like it wasn't my fogged brain after all - these
issues really were just left dangling in the final policy.  One of the concerns expressed
while it was being formulated was that current PFD should be permitted under the
PSD bylaw, so I suspect some of the vagueness was deliberately designed to encompass
as much as possible.  Unfortunately, the policy appears to accomplish exactly the
opposite by omission and assumption.  Specifically:

1) There is no provision whatsoever for points.  In this regulatory vacuum, I assume
that the Secretary would compile PSD points by the methods determined elsewhere in
CEDA policies, i.e. 1 point/ballot at a CEDA-sanctioned tournament.  If this is the case,
then PSD really is just another division of CEDA.

2) Eligibility is also left dangling.  Again, in the absence of specific rules, the sensible
solution would be to apply the existing rules for other CEDA divisions.  That means
PSD competition would count against Novice and overall eligibility, so a debater who
does nothing but PSD for two years and then decides to try CEDA would be thrown
directly into Open.  The opposite interpretation - that PSD does not count against
eligibility, not only triggers Mark's scenario of dumping aged-out CEDA debaters into
PSD to grab some more points, but also undermines the entire concept of eligibility.  In
theory, a 10th-year debater could still be doing PSD for points.

3) One-person formats are not specifically permitted.  "Time limits, topic, divisions,
matching, judge assignment, judging pool, etc." doesn't address the issue, either.  I
believe the CEDA Constitution calls for 2-person teams, so in fact one-person PFD
formats would be forbidden.

4) Current PFD is specifically excluded.  By specifying a version of the CEDA topic, the
bylaw excludes both the scenario-based and the usual limited-evidence versions of
PFD as practiced in the East.

5) Parliamentary formats would be easier to modify for inclusion than current PFD.
APDA and NPDA tournament directors need only pick topics which fall within the
CEDA topic, and their events could be sanctioned as PSDs, since they already use
two-person teams.  Nothing wrong with that, but was assimilation of parli the real
agenda here?

6) In its attempt to be inclusive, the bylaw explodes the idea of a "tournament."  I'm
particularly concerned about opening up time limits, matching, judging pool and
judge assignment to "anything, as long as you state it in the invitation."  Let's carry
this to the extreme it permits: NYU, Columbia, and Queens College decide to host
PSDs.  Each round consists of two one-minute constructives and two half-minute
rebuttals on the CEDA topic.  The judging pool consists of debaters on the three
schools' squads, pairings and judge assignments are random, and a full tournament
consists of three rounds.  3-judge panels have 30 seconds to fill out ballots at the end of
the round.  Since the entire tournament can be held in 15 minutes, we could have
them weekly at the start of each team meeting.  Or daily during a summer workshop.

6a) Before anyone says "the scenario in (6) is ridiculous," he should be prepared to
explain how the CEDA Constitution and bylaws specifically prohibit that scenario.

6b) What would motivate someone to do something so silly?  Easy - the 15-minute
tournament would be an efficient points factory.  A no-budget program could go from
the bottom of the rankings to the top in the course of a week (or a few hours, if the
tournaments were held back-to-back).

6c) The three schools mentioned, as far as I know, have absolutely no intention of
doing such a thing.  I haven't patented the idea, though, so others are certainly free to
try it.

In summary, it is not clear what format this bylaw allows, but it very clearly disallows
(or forces a wholesale revision of) the pre-existing PFD style.  Rather than rushing to
assimilate PFD, it probably would have been better to leave well enough alone for a
couple of years to let the format evolve.  In the face of declining numbers, the desire to
take action is understandable, but does not necessarily lead to good policies.  As I've
said before in other contexts, the IBM motto is probably a better choice than the Nike
slogan.  Don't just do it - think.

So now that we have this policy, what do we do with it?  Abort, retry, ignore, or fail?

          --Alan

--
_______________
Alan Dove, Ph.D.
N3IMU
a.dove at erols.com
http://128.59.173.136/Poliolab/Alan/Dove.html



From bsiemers  Wed Aug 12 09:47:51 1998
From: bsiemers (Brent Siemers)
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 09:47:51 -0500
Subject: Fantasy Football Pool
Message-ID: <WED.12.AUG.1998.094751.0500.BSIEMERS@IDIR.NET>

For anyone that is interested I am doing a fantasy football league on the
Internet.  The price is modest ($15), and their are prizes.  You can find it
at "cnnsi.com".  My league name is "Debate Pool", and the password for that
league is "bsiemers".

Sorry if this is just wasted bandwidth,
Brent

>From  Thu Aug 13 00:06:25 1998
Message-Id: <THU.13.AUG.1998.000625.0000.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 4974 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 11:54:48
 -0400
Received: from mailserv0.isis.unc.edu (mailserv0.isis.unc.edu [152.2.25.140])
 by list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id LAA57642 for
 <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 11:54:47 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [152.2.53.95] ([152.2.53.95]) by mailserv0.isis.unc.edu
 (8.8.8/8.8.7) with SMTP id LAA10440; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 11:54:10 -0400
 (EDT)
X-Mailer: Siren Mail for Macintosh 4.0.2
X-Sender: cdauber at imap.unc.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET="US-ASCII"
Message-ID: <199808121554.LAA10440 at mailserv0.isis.unc.edu>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 00:06:25 +0000
Reply-To: cdauber at IMAP.UNC.EDU
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: cdauber at IMAP.UNC.EDU
Subject: Re: Speed
Comments: To: Samara Mohamed <Ara98 at AOL.COM>

You should insert the word "A" since that forces you to complete the physical
movements involved in a sharp "plosive" (the hard consenants at the ends of
words). That drill will you slow you down a bit while you are doing it but if
you push to get decent speed it will facilitate a sharper break between words.
-- Begin original message --

> From: Samara Mohamed <Ara98 at AOL.COM>
> Date:         Wed, 12 Aug 1998 00:58:17 EDT
> Subject:      Speed
> To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU
> Reply-To: Ara98 at AOL.COM
>
> Thanks to the graciousness of the debate community, these are the speed drills
> I recieved via e-mail.  Thank you to all that sent them to me!!
> ~Samara
> seattle u
>
> 1. Read anything and everything.  Keep your mouth moving! Improves speed
> 2. Read all of the above with a pen in your mouth, your front teeth should be
> just over the pen.  Read the stuff as clearly as you can.  Improves clarity.
> 3. Read evidence backwards, starting with the last word.  Improves speed (by
> focusing on each word)
> 4. Insert a word (like "and", "dolphin", "Elvis" anything) in between each
> word.  Improves clarity (makes you enunciate each word)
> 5. Hold a chair in front of you at about chest level, with arms fully
> extended, while reading evidence as fast as you can towards the floor.
> Improves breathing technique.
> 6. Find a natural rhythm to read at.  Helps speed and clarity
>
> Hope it helps you and me!
>

-- End original message --



From parcherj  Wed Aug 12 10:54:00 1998
From: parcherj (Jeff Parcher)
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 11:54:00 -0400
Subject: Sorry I said anything
Message-ID: <WED.12.AUG.1998.115400.0400.PARCHERJ@MCI2000.COM>

Bear's last message contains the uttelry false and slanderous insinuation
that I have some knowledge of a Georgetown person's participation in the
false email incident.   I participated in this discussion in an open an
honest way, expecting to here some good arguments and criticisms against my
'confession'.  I also expected the tone of the criticism to be severe.  So
far I have received messages accusing me of being an 'elitist pig', an
'enemy of the people', and a 'racist'.  There have been suggestions that I
do not deserve to keep my job and that I should find another career.  Fine -
I asked for it.  I was disappointed in these, but not surprised.  I know the
tone and mentality and maturity of some on the list, but thought an open
discussion about the pejorative use of the word 'elite' was worthwhile.   I
did not expect persons to resort to such utterly ridiculous and unfounded
accusations as this recent post contains.

It is not the only part of the recent post which I find utterly
unfathomable.  But I now conclude that Bear simply makes it impossible to
have a reasonable, rational discussion on this server.   I know that many
others I have talked to think it took me too long to learn this.   They
think it useless to post - just to have epithets, lies and distortions
hurled at them from the state of Utah.

Bear - have I ever attacked you personally on this list or elsewhere?  You
say you want to have a civil discussion but then you let loose with these
insinuations.

I grew up learning that making such accusations without proof is immoral and
unethical.  It's wrong.  But now Damus and I have been publicly accused of
crimes because you don't like our ideas.  Or in my case, my personal
preferences.

Bear, I backchanneled you regarding a purely academic discussion that I had
with an attorney regarding the issue of whether you were correct in saying
that that forged email was a federal crime ( I said in that post that it was
reprehensible whether it was formal crime or not).  There seemed to be a
mystery as to what statute criminalized this behavior.  I wanted to know
what provision of what statute was violated (I have a law degree you know -
I am interested in stupid things like that).  I got no answer from you.
Fine.  Now you pull the backchannel out and use it as a means of implying
that I participated in some way in the event.  What is your major
malfunction?   Did I wrong you in previous life or something?

This is utter lunacy and I see no point in being a part of it.  It was a
damn mistake to jump into it in the first place.  Until we can get people's
tone atleast below the level of slander - I think the vast majority of
readers will remain on the sideline.

That is where I return to now.....

Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Bear Bryant <MWBRYANT at AOL.COM>
To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
Date: Wednesday, August 12, 1998 10:57 AM
Subject: Re: Parcher's confession


>In a message dated 98-08-12 02:45:43 EDT, you write:
>
><<
> > Even if we grant Parcher some excuse as to why his resource limitations
> > inhibit any focus below championship-level varsity debate, how does that
> > legitimate a nearly universal trend across NDT? I guess Wake and
>Northwstern
> > have the same excuse for ignoring recruitment and training of novices,
>right?
>
>< Strawman alert! Jeff never tried to justify other NDT programs - he just
>< gave an honest summation of his own. Please don't try and twist his reply
>< into a "legitimation" of this "nearly universal trend across NDT."
>
>Look, if anyone's doing the "twisting" it's you folks. This thread didn't
>start out as an indictment of G'town. Contrary to your assertions, I do
>believe that Parcher's reply was a defense of why it's OK not to travel
>novices. Even if we admit that there are some justifications due to the
unique
>nature of the program, why is that a response to the thread's
deconstruction
>of the culture of NDT?
>
> > Frankly, I don't think Parcher has an excuse. For once, I agree with
almost
> > every word in Dr. Snider's post. I might also add that given G'towns
long-
>term
> > history of elitism and corruption, perhaps a broader-based program might
>allow
> > the Hoyas a foundation for more institutional support.
>
>< WHOA WHOA WHOA!!! Kind of hitting WAY below the belt there, don't you
>< think? Yes, there have been some questionable incidents in the past
>< (regarding corruption), but that does not mean that such behavior on the
>< part of the program administration is endemic to the institution. By the
>< way, since when did you become an expert on Georgetown history? Do you
>< have any experience with this school aside from your enjoyment of beating
>< Unger's teams (as you mentioned before)? I think I can safely assume that
>< you have no idea what the institutional atmosphere is like here.
>
>In 1986 (after coaching two clearing teams at NDT from Eastern Illinois
Univ.)
>I was a finalist and interviewed for the Director's position at G'town. I
draw
>my advice from conversations with the Director of Student Activities and
other
>high-ranking officials at G'town. Let me say that you are indeed correct
that
>G'town's budget sucks and that the institutional support reeks (I took a
>position at West Georgia, instead).Back then, the job was even worse, with
the
>debate coach in charge of the basketball tutorial program - did you know
that
>Ziff tutored Patrick Ewing? And believe it or not, Weber teams in the late
>eighties and early nineties were pretty close with a couple of G'town
debaters
>(hi, Kuswa!), so I have pretty good background into some of G'towns support
>problems. By the way, I think both Cheshier and Parcher deserve tremendous
>respect for putting together such successful programs under the constraint
of
>working for a school that seems to have no deep committment to debate.
>
>< We have
>< to fight for every dollar, even when we do get novices (and we do get
some
>< every year - they just don't last very long because like Jeff said - he
>< can't afford to take them to any tournaments). Most of the student
>< programs are underfunded, and many subsist on their own budgets with
money
>< that they raise on their own. So please, before you engage in slanderous
>< accusations, try and possess a more complete knowledge of the subject
>< matter. (this is not an ad hom, just a plea for more substantive
>< argumentation) We have a very tight-fisted administration, mainly because
>< one of our graduate schools is VERY DEEP in the red.
>
>Well, I'm not going to buy the assertion (also unproven) that Georgetown
>simply has no funds. The "Catholic conspiracy" that runs G'town is not
broke.
>I also reject your assertion that there is absolutely no way that G'town
can
>afford to travel novices while in the heart of ADA-land. Many programs
offer
>both varsity and novice debate and exist off of less than G'town provides.
I
>grant you that lack of the support you identify. My argument, which you
don't
>seem to grasp, is that there is a good chance that institutional support
would
>increase if the G'town administration perceived that the debate budget was
>being spent on more than a handful of students. I base this on direct
>statements from G'town administrators. Winning NDT certainly didn't make
that
>large of a difference in the level of support, did it?
>
> > It's enabled Weber to double it's budget over the past decade. And you
can
> > even allow administrators to watch novice debates without cringing in
fear
>of
> > additional cutbacks...
>
>< Have you ever thought that maybe's it's because Weber has a better
>< financial situation? (or at least, more competent people working with the
>< financial duties - you'd think that Georgetown, with it's insane tuition
>< would get some, but boy you'd be surprised)
>
>Now, you're the one whistling in the dark! The Utah state legislature
>(virtually 100% LDS) seems to define educators as "enemies of God." The
>prevailing religious doctrine in this state is not one that encourages
free-
>spirited inquiry or questioning cultural assumptions. With the IRS's
largest
>processing center also in Ogden, most good administrators choose to double
>their pay and leave university administration. Weber also has one of the
>lowest tuitions in the country - allowing to it be included as one of the
>nation's 100 Best Buys in Colleges. The budget at Weber is the result of
years
>of lobbying every administrator we can find and making sure that each one
of
>them gets a report on every accomplishment from clearing at NDT to novice
>parli recruiting drives. When it comes right down to it, administrators are
>happiest when they can view large numbers of participants. We've also spent
a
>great deal of time working to secure outside contributions, like a $100,000
>endowment put together by the folks that make Franklin Day Planners. BTW,
>there are no grad assistants at Weber, all the coaching has to be done by
me
>and another member of the faculty. We also have to teach. If you think
>institutional support at Weber is due to competent administrators
stockpiling
>cash, you are the one that needs to inform themselves.
>
>< Kwon
>< G'town Debate
>  >>
>
>Isn't someone on the G'town team from Seattle? Just asking because that's
>where the email with my forged name on it seems to have originated
from....and
>I'm left wondering why Parcher indicates he has talked to a lawyer about
the
>nature of the crime.
>
>Please, can we keep this civil? I really do respect G'town's
accomplishments,
>even if y'all do chase novices away by never traveling them.
>
>Bear



From sharris  Wed Aug 12 10:57:50 1998
From: sharris (SCOTT HARRIS)
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 10:57:50 -0500
Subject: Response to Chris Lotz
In-Reply-To: <2c8ffe3f.35d06372@aol.com>
Message-ID: <WED.12.AUG.1998.105750.0500.SHARRIS@FALCON.CC.UKANS.EDU>

On Tue, 11 Aug 1998, Terrance Hogan wrote:

>  We withstand know we're going to get drubbed by file wienies in a third
> of our rounds, and cheated out of another third of our rounds by the coaches
> of file wienies, because we are wise enough to see that policy debate is
> making us better people, and that, maybe, we might at least, get to go to the
> NDT before we are done.

Whats up with this accusation of cheating?  Thats a pretty serious charge.

#####LOCO IN LAWRENCE#####

>From  Wed Aug 12 13:38:41 1998
Message-Id: <WED.12.AUG.1998.133841.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 6138 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 13:39:03
 -0400
Received: from imo25.mx.aol.com (imo25.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.69]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id NAA49126 for
 <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 13:39:02 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo25.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id
 MYMKa03745; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 13:38:41 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 58
Message-ID: <87b966be.35d1d322 at aol.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 13:38:41 EDT
Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Michael Bear Bryant <MWBRYANT at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: Sorry I said anything
Comments: To: parcherj at MCI2000.COM

Mr. Parcher,

You need to calm your ass down. Since several people have pointed out to me
that there are G'town team members from Seattle, where the forged mail
originated, I asked Mr. Kwon if that was so. If you can only interpret that as
an official accusation, I suggest you go back and talk to your lawyer one more
time, because you've crossed the line in a number of areas in your past post.
I didn't call you any names or suggest that you be fired. I clearly indicated
my respect for your ability to accomplish so much with so little. Perhaps that
pressure is getting to you.

Ballistic defense? You are the one, at this point, appearing unable to
continue any discourse.I guess civil discourse isn't possible.

Bear


In a message dated 98-08-12 11:57:42 EDT, you write:

<<
 Bear's last message contains the uttelry false and slanderous insinuation
 that I have some knowledge of a Georgetown person's participation in the
 false email incident.   I participated in this discussion in an open an
 honest way, expecting to here some good arguments and criticisms against my
 'confession'.  I also expected the tone of the criticism to be severe.  So
 far I have received messages accusing me of being an 'elitist pig', an
 'enemy of the people', and a 'racist'.  There have been suggestions that I
 do not deserve to keep my job and that I should find another career.  Fine -
 I asked for it.  I was disappointed in these, but not surprised.  I know the
 tone and mentality and maturity of some on the list, but thought an open
 discussion about the pejorative use of the word 'elite' was worthwhile.   I
 did not expect persons to resort to such utterly ridiculous and unfounded
 accusations as this recent post contains.
  >>



From mcmulpm5  Wed Aug 12 12:45:52 1998
From: mcmulpm5 (patrick)
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 13:45:52 -0400
Subject: Sorry I said anything
In-Reply-To: <87b966be.35d1d322@aol.com>
Message-ID: <WED.12.AUG.1998.134552.0400.MCMULPM5@WFU.EDU>

On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, Michael Bear Bryant wrote:

> Mr. Parcher,
>
> You need to calm your ass down. Since several people have pointed out to me
> that there are G'town team members from Seattle, where the forged mail
> originated, I asked Mr. Kwon if that was so. If you can only interpret that as
> an official accusation, I suggest you go back and talk to your lawyer one more
> time, because you've crossed the line in a number of areas in your past post.


Bear wrote:

>Isn't someone on the G'town team from Seattle? Just asking because that's
>where the email with my forged name on it seems to have originated
from....and
>I'm left wondering why Parcher indicates he has talked to a lawyer about
the
>nature of the crime.

I think that at least implies Georgetown was somehow involved. Does
everyone else think otherwise?

>From  Wed Aug 12 13:50:58 1998
Message-Id: <WED.12.AUG.1998.135058.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 6321 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 13:51:07
 -0400
Received: from imo27.mx.aol.com (imo27.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.71]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id NAA54242 for
 <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 13:51:06 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo27.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id
 MPQVa04229; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 13:50:58 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 58
Message-ID: <3f335cc.35d1d604 at aol.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 13:50:58 EDT
Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Michael Bear Bryant <MWBRYANT at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: Sorry I said anything
Comments: To: parcherj at MCI2000.COM

In a message dated 98-08-12 11:57:42 EDT, you write:

<<
< It is not the only part of the recent post which I find utterly
< unfathomable.  But I now conclude that Bear simply makes it impossible to
< have a reasonable, rational discussion on this server.   I know that many
< others I have talked to think it took me too long to learn this.   They
< think it useless to post - just to have epithets, lies and distortions
< hurled at them from the state of Utah.

I simply asked Kwon if there were G'town debaters from Seattle? What lie,
epithets or distortion have I personally inflicted upon you?

< Bear - have I ever attacked you personally on this list or elsewhere?  You
< say you want to have a civil discussion but then you let loose with these
< insinuations.

Gee, it seems as if you've drawn much more from my words than I could've ever
intended.

< I grew up learning that making such accusations without proof is immoral and
< unethical.  It's wrong.  But now Damus and I have been publicly accused of
< crimes because you don't like our ideas.  Or in my case, my personal
< preferences.
  >>

Wrong. I never directly accused Damus. In fact, I told Damus I thought it was
someone else as soon as we were able to isolate that the call was from
northwest Washington. Ask him. Before you become "immoral and unethical." Oh,
you've so beautifully stuck to the high road, sir.

Just be honest, Jeff, you can no longer defend those "personal preferences"
you've imposed on the G'town squad. You've deftly steered away from the
discussion you started when you implied that the G'town program couldn't
possibly deal with novices. I didn't make any charges regarding your morality
or ethics.

Just to be absolutely clear, Jeff, I am not accusing you of anything more than
neglect of novices. Is that a crime?

Still in interested in the names of G'town debaters from Seattle,

Still with actual respect,

Bear,
what have I said that's so horrible that I personally threaten threaten the
future of debate in America? Geez....

>From  Wed Aug 12 13:53:17 1998
Message-Id: <WED.12.AUG.1998.135317.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 6425 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 13:54:24
 -0400
Received: from imo22.mx.aol.com (imo22.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.66]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id NAA102652 for
 <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 13:54:23 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo22.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id
 PRRDa04141; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 13:53:17 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 58
Message-ID: <584e98db.35d1d691 at aol.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 13:53:17 EDT
Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Michael Bear Bryant <MWBRYANT at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: Response to Chris Lotz
Comments: To: sharris at FALCON.CC.UKANS.EDU

In a message dated 98-08-12 12:09:59 EDT, you write:

<<
 On Tue, 11 Aug 1998, Terrance Hogan wrote:

 >  We withstand know we're going to get drubbed by file wienies in a third
 > of our rounds, and cheated out of another third of our rounds by the
coaches
 > of file wienies, because we are wise enough to see that policy debate is
 > making us better people, and that, maybe, we might at least, get to go to
the
 > NDT before we are done.

 Whats up with this accusation of cheating?  Thats a pretty serious charge.

 #####LOCO IN LAWRENCE#####

  >>

It must akin to how Mancuso felt when he handed out the coins to flip when he
got CEDA judges in the elims of Heart of America....

Thinking the word "cheating" went a bit too far,

Bear

>From  Wed Aug 12 13:55:51 1998
Message-Id: <WED.12.AUG.1998.135551.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 6502 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 13:56:26
 -0400
Received: from imo21.mx.aol.com (imo21.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.65]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id NAA40324 for
 <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 13:56:25 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo21.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id
 FNBPa03887; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 13:55:51 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 58
Message-ID: <b4624e1a.35d1d728 at aol.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 13:55:51 EDT
Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Michael Bear Bryant <MWBRYANT at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: Fantasy Football Pool
Comments: To: bsiemers at IDIR.NET

In a message dated 98-08-12 11:48:17 EDT, you write:

<< For anyone that is interested I am doing a fantasy football league on the
 Internet.  The price is modest ($15), and their are prizes.  You can find it
 at "cnnsi.com".  My league name is "Debate Pool", and the password for that
 league is "bsiemers".
  >>

Yes, this is a much better outlet for gambling junkies than the old midwest
CEDA practice of gambling on rotisserie debate teams....

Bear



From MDutcher  Wed Aug 12 13:04:48 1998
From: MDutcher (Michael Dutcher)
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 14:04:48 -0400
Subject: Sorry I said anything
Message-ID: <WED.12.AUG.1998.140448.0400.MDUTCHER@WEBCOGP.COM>

isn't there a Georgetown debater from seattle?   that is where the forged
email came from.  Didn't Parcher talk to a lawyer about email forgery?
(not direct quotes, just from memory of the post)

What the hell?  You didn't make an accusation or weren't pointing a finger?
You are right, you didn't say Jeff did it or a Georgetown debater did it but
who would read your post and not think that is what you were inferring? ONLY
YOU!

Well, how about this, if your question or comment was not an accusation,
What was the point of saying that?  Surely it wasn't out of pure curiosity.
I am just baffled by this.

Did you read the post that Terrance Hogan posted this morning?  The one
where he "publicly ate crow" because Jeff putting his own money into the
team, spending extended periods of time away from his family, classes so on
and so forth.  I don't jeff needs to defend his position, you play the cards
you are dealt.  However, when you post something as ludicrous as inferring
that he was involved in the forgery, then what is the purpose of listening
to you?  Why bother arguing with you?  You making assumptions and publicly
posting them without any evidence.

Put up about the email forgery or shut up.  Either come out with evidence of
who did it or just keep your accusations to yourself.  Don't waste our time
with red herrings.

Michael Dutcher
George Mason University

>From  Wed Aug 12 14:13:44 1998
Message-Id: <WED.12.AUG.1998.141344.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 6785 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 14:14:03
 -0400
Received: from imo12.mx.aol.com (imo12.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.2]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id OAA28608 for
 <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 14:13:51 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo12.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id
 KEAGa11468; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 14:13:44 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 58
Message-ID: <57b3df13.35d1db59 at aol.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 14:13:44 EDT
Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Michael Bear Bryant <MWBRYANT at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: Sorry I said anything
Comments: To: MDutcher at WEBCOGP.COM

In a message dated 98-08-12 14:06:51 EDT, you write:

<< Don't waste our time
 with red herrings.

 Michael Dutcher >>

Excellent, Dutch, let's stick to the novice discussion. Please remember that's
where I started and that's few NDT posters are willing to stay.

Out of curiosity, any GMU debaters from Seattle? Probably not, right?

Bear



From parcherj  Wed Aug 12 13:21:56 1998
From: parcherj (Jeff Parcher)
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 14:21:56 -0400
Subject: Incredibly, Bear Defends His Tactics
Message-ID: <WED.12.AUG.1998.142156.0400.PARCHERJ@MCI2000.COM>

Bear you are incorrect, your post clearly insinuates that I or my debaters
was involved.  The fact that you never directly say "Parcher and his
debaters did it" is irrelevant.  The rhetorical device is obvious.  As for
Damus, below is your post from Aug 3.  It is clearly an accusation.  It is a
despicable act.  The fact that you mask your insinuations only makes them
more insidious.  Remember these types of tactics: "Some people have said you
are a communist.  Many of them actually, I am holding the evidence here in
my hand.  I don't know if I believe it, but will you deny it here and now
before the committee?"

Someone told you I had debaters from Seattle eh?  Well that seems cause
enough to make the insinuations publicly.  It's really brave of you to hide
behind statements like, 'well someone told me that...' and 'I have recieved
several back channels that say'.

Pardon me if I don't choose to answer your questions Professor McCarthy.

You only get lower by defending your tactics as reasonable discourse.

>Mr. Damus,
>Gee, you've been quiet. Let's start from the angle my lawyer >suggests.
David,
>you willing to publicly deny involvement in forging a message >from my
account?
>I'm already receiving a number of backchannels saying you're >>>(not your)
>clearly involved, but before I post those, or personally conclude >that you
are
>guilty, I want to give you the opportunity to deny involvement.
>Can you?



From MDutcher  Wed Aug 12 13:25:00 1998
From: MDutcher (Michael Dutcher)
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 14:25:00 -0400
Subject: Sorry I said anything
Message-ID: <WED.12.AUG.1998.142500.0400.MDUTCHER@WEBCOGP.COM>

> In a message dated 98-08-12 14:06:51 EDT, you write:
>
> << Don't waste our time
>  with red herrings.
>
>  Michael Dutcher >>
>
> Excellent, Dutch, let's stick to the novice discussion. Please remember
> that's
> where I started and that's few NDT posters are willing to stay.
>
I have no problem sticking to that discussion.  I don't think that Jeff did
either.  I can understand why he got upset.  Hell, it ticked me off too.  I
respect what Jeff has done and I have known him for a few years so that is
why I was stunned when I read your post.

> Out of curiosity, any GMU debaters from Seattle? Probably not, right?
>
> Bear
>
Actually, aren't we all from Seattle? ahahahahahahahhahahahaa!
(PS -that was a joke.  although some of us would have loved to say we are
from seattle because of love for the music of Pearl Jam, Nirvana,
Soundgarden, yadda yadda, I don't believe any of us are)

>From  Wed Aug 12 13:26:51 1998
Message-Id: <WED.12.AUG.1998.132651.0500.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 7254 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 14:27:18
 -0400
Received: from mail.midusa.net (mail.midusa.net [206.28.168.5]) by list.uvm.edu
 (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id OAA09352 for
 <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 14:27:17 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from midusa.net (node64.salina.midusa.net [206.28.169.64]) by
 mail.midusa.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA24871; Wed, 12 Aug
 1998 13:25:01 -0500 (CDT)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <703D8A133691D11198AA00A0C90520BC189264 at smtp.webcogp.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <35D1DE6A.414FDDC2 at midusa.net>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 13:26:51 -0500
Reply-To: race at midusa.net
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: David Rhaesa <race at MIDUSA.NET>
Organization: smiling small thoughts
Subject: Re: Sorry I said anything
Comments: To: Michael Dutcher <MDutcher at WEBCOGP.COM>

Can anyone really prove that Seattle exists?

Michael Dutcher wrote:

> > In a message dated 98-08-12 14:06:51 EDT, you write:
> >
> > << Don't waste our time
> >  with red herrings.
> >
> >  Michael Dutcher >>
> >
> > Excellent, Dutch, let's stick to the novice discussion. Please remember
> > that's
> > where I started and that's few NDT posters are willing to stay.
> >
> I have no problem sticking to that discussion.  I don't think that Jeff did
> either.  I can understand why he got upset.  Hell, it ticked me off too.  I
> respect what Jeff has done and I have known him for a few years so that is
> why I was stunned when I read your post.
>
> > Out of curiosity, any GMU debaters from Seattle? Probably not, right?
> >
> > Bear
> >
> Actually, aren't we all from Seattle? ahahahahahahahhahahahaa!
> (PS -that was a joke.  although some of us would have loved to say we are
> from seattle because of love for the music of Pearl Jam, Nirvana,
> Soundgarden, yadda yadda, I don't believe any of us are)



From gordonm+  Wed Aug 12 13:47:11 1998
From: gordonm+ (Gordon Mitchell)
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 14:47:11 -0400
Subject: Proposal for Parcher
In-Reply-To: <199808111840.OAA22489@post-ofc02.srv.cis.pitt.edu>
Message-ID: <WED.12.AUG.1998.144711.0400.GORDONM@PITT.EDU>

Too bad the discussion prompted by Parcher's "confession" had to combust
so quickly.  No problem; I've primed up some cybershmellows here for
roastage while I type some comments.

Parcher's "confession" was not just a celebration of NDT elitism; as
we found out in his subsequent posts, it was also rueful reflection on how
the lack of support at G'town essentially forced him into the zero-sum
mentality that precludes extensive novice / public teaching.  Here's the
part of his second post that jumped out at me:

> I never said it would work for the debate community.   If I had more money
> and some assistance, I would make choices for the community (run a novice
> program, go to more ADA tournaments).  As it is, I make choices for myself
> and the students I serve.

So it appears from this passage that Parcher is not the dyed-in-the-wool
"elitist pig" that detractors have said.  Rather, he is someone who wants
to do more for the community, but feels constrained given his current
situation.  Rather than torch him for the amazing work he has done with
the G'town team for most of this decade, how about a different strategy of
criticism: 1) Affirm him and the G'town program for their excellent and
valuable work; 2) Enter into collaborative brainstorming for the purpose
of helping the director and team change the underlying conditions
sufficiently so that it becomes possible for them to "make choices for the
community."

As I give another twist to the slowly singing cybershmellow, here are some
constructive ideas in that vein:

1) Let's stage a public debate on civil rights between a Pitt team and a
G'town team in D.C. sometime this year.  Could benefit all involved--NDT
debaters hone their persuasion skills and get practice in adapting to
multiple audiences, on-campus program gets a boost from the publicity, and
the local public audience gets a chance to participate in an excellent
debate.  Cost in terms of money and energy minimal, especially if the
on-campus program is willing to assume some of the burden of organizing
logistics.

2) Invite some big wheels to the debate - G'town administrators, debate
alums, members of the media, charitable foundations, civil rights
organizations, etc.  Use the debate as a tool to demonstrate the value of
public debate to potential supporters.

3) Follow up with a campaign to bolster the on-campus program by hiring
someone full-time to coordinate it.  Leverage the campaign with the
(hopefully) positive feedback from the media and others who attended.  Aim
for a joint university - private foundation package to bear the financial
weight.  Shatter the zero-sum straightjacket that forces investments in
novices to trade off with the travel budget for NDT thoroughbreds.

The idea of a thriving public debate program at Georgetown has incredible
appeal.  The payoff in terms of public service and opportunities for
novices would be truly remarkable.  While Jeff may not want to direct this
program, his sterling reputation as a debate coach could be of substantial
assistance in getting the university and other organizations behind the
effort.  If he decides to go in this direction, I will be more than happy
to throw in my support.

Gordon Mitchell,
University of Pittsburgh



From muaddib  Wed Aug 12 13:52:55 1998
From: muaddib (Luke D. Savoie)
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 12:52:55 -0600
Subject: JCCC
Message-ID: <WED.12.AUG.1998.125255.0600.MUADDIB@COLORADOSPRINGS.CROSSWINDS.NET>

Could some one backchannel me with all the info for JCCC

Thank you

Luke D Savoie
USAFA CEDA



From vwb  Wed Aug 12 14:04:09 1998
From: vwb (Bill Balthrop)
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 15:04:09 -0400
Subject: Snider Imposes His Philosophy on Me
References: <3017acf8.35d0cf15@aol.com>
Message-ID: <WED.12.AUG.1998.150409.0400.VWB@EMAIL.UNC.EDU>

I've tended to stay out of this whole exchange and "conversation" since
I'm sure that I am one of the "NDT elitists" about whom so many
references are made.  I do think that Mr. (Dr.?) Hogan makes an
interesting point in how messages are interpreted.

He responded to Jeff Parcher's post as being about "why he doesn't want
to help people."  I tended to interpret that as Jeff saying, "here are
my priorities, which also happen to be the University's priorities, and
this is what we do.  Yep, it would be good if we did more but we can't
and we don't with the resources we have."  I also see him saying that he
does help people by working hard to improve their abilities.  As someone
who allegedly has this as an area of study (i.e., criticism), this seems
to me a reasonable interpretation of Jeff's statement.  Admittedly, I do
have the luxury (and pleasure) of having known Jeff for many, many years
(even voting for him against Baylor in round 8 at the Gonzaga NDT--the
bottom of a 2-1 as I recall), so that might have some slight influence
on my reading.

But then I see Terrance Hogan's comment that, "Let that be a good lesson
to you, young man. When you introduce yourself to people for the first
time, put your best face
on, not your worst, because first impressions are lasting. That's a
lesson in public speaking you should have been taught by your coach.
        This is exactly what I was speaking of when I stated that some
of the ultra-competive in this activity are too singularly focus and not
well-rounded people. While this behavior might be tolerated in rounds
and by your coach, it would not be tolerated by a boss, and unemployment
would result."

But I don't know Mr. Hogan, and the first impression that he's left with
me has been somewhat less than steller (e.g., Podunk People's Army,
attacks on people he now admits he doesn't know, and making judgments
about individuals and students he doesn't know).  It does not serve
anyone well to make generalizations about how not well-rounded or
focused some folks are.  Many of us who've been around now see folks who
could have been described in similarly negative terms now serving
exemplary public lives.  It also seems that, given the environement that
Jeff works in, that he is tolerated by his boss.  It also seems that
some of those formerly not-well-rounded folks are doing pretty well.

So, all I ask is that we try to extend to others the courtesy that we
ask for ourselves.  I don't mean that discussion over important, even
potentially sensitive, issues should not occur.  But that such
discussions exemplify what we hope our students learn from participation
in this activity.  I hope that Mr. Hogan would live by the standard that
he espouses for others.

Bill Balthrop
Professor and Chair
(and one of those diminished AFA Service Award recipients)

>From  Wed Aug 12 15:09:04 1998
Message-Id: <WED.12.AUG.1998.150904.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 8277 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 15:09:15
 -0400
Received: from imo15.mx.aol.com (imo15.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.5]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id PAA48298 for
 <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 15:09:14 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from Westtoast at aol.com by imo15.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id
 8HSFa20768 for <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 15:09:04
 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 167
Message-ID: <48762546.35d1e851 at aol.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 15:09:04 EDT
Reply-To: Westtoast at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Terrance Hogan <Westtoast at AOL.COM>
Subject: The word "cheating"

        I've touched on the most unspeakable of topics. The grammer
structure I used the word cheating, might have been a tad stretched,
as in an activity with no rules, there by definition can be no cheating.
But everybody knows about reputation wins. Nobody talks about it.
But they happen in every single tournament.
        If a judge walks into a round with any feelings that will hinder a
team in a round. That round is tainted. And I assure you, those with
only local or regional reputations have far more stories of judges
weird explanations of why ballots were cast against them, then those
with national reps, and it happens at prestigious tournament. The
word cheating cannot be used in the description of judging. But the
actions are similar to why would bring said charges in any other
activity.

Hogan



From mattc  Wed Aug 12 14:10:53 1998
From: mattc (Matt Caligur)
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 14:10:53 -0500
Subject: Just A Thought
Message-ID: <WED.12.AUG.1998.141053.0500.MATTC@HBU.EDU>

Call me naive (or something worse if you so desire) but I am
still amazed by the lack of civility that at times seems to
exist on this discussion list.

I have always thought that one of the basic tenets of
"netiquette" was that one should communicate in cyberspace
in relatively the same way as one would communicate in a
face-to-face conversation.  My observation is that this rule
is violated almost daily by at least a few persons on this
list.

I am frequently disappointed by the apparent inability of
some (who are ostensibly engaged professionally in the study
of human communication) to make their points without
resorting to distortions, mischaracterizations, ad hominem
attacks, and outright defamatory communciation.  For the
most part, the issues discussed on the list are meaningful
to the forensic community.  Shouldn't the content and tone
of our comments be equally meaningful?

With full knowledge that no one asked for my opinion,

Matt Caligur

>From  Wed Aug 12 14:17:26 1998
Message-Id: <WED.12.AUG.1998.141726.0000.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 8570 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 15:18:05
 -0400
Received: from wfrpc.dst.fl.us (server.wfrpc.dst.fl.us [206.105.46.100]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with SMTP id PAA54646 for
 <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 15:18:04 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from TERM-26 (TERM-26 [206.105.46.85]) by wfrpc.dst.fl.us (NTMail
 3.02.09) with ESMTP id da023195 for <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Wed, 12
 Aug 1998 14:17:35 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Priority: normal
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a)
Message-ID: <19173542918364 at wfrpc.dst.fl.us>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 14:17:26 +0000
Reply-To: chismc at SERVER.WFRPC.DST.FL.US
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
Comments: Authenticated sender is <chismc at mail.wfrpc.dst.fl.us>
From: Chip Chism <chismc at SERVER.WFRPC.DST.FL.US>
Subject: none of my bizness

none of my bizness of course, but aren't you people going to have to
face each other at a tournament eventually? what will happen then?
 it seems to me like this escalating
rhetoric and name calling migh end in a shoving match or
fistacuffs....



From wnewnam  Wed Aug 12 14:20:48 1998
From: wnewnam (William E Newnam)
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 15:20:48 -0400
Subject: Proposal for Parcher
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.96L.980812133324.29440K-100000@unixs2.cis.pitt.edu>
Message-ID: <WED.12.AUG.1998.152048.0400.WNEWNAM@EMORY.EDU>

>
> The idea of a thriving public debate program at Georgetown has incredible
> appeal.  The payoff in terms of public service and opportunities for
> novices would be truly remarkable.  While Jeff may not want to direct this
> program, his sterling reputation as a debate coach could be of substantial
> assistance in getting the university and other organizations behind the
> effort.  If he decides to go in this direction, I will be more than happy
> to throw in my support.


as will i,

bill n
emory


>
> Gordon Mitchell,
> University of Pittsburgh
>

>From  Wed Aug 12 14:28:42 1998
Message-Id: <WED.12.AUG.1998.142842.0500.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 8790 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 15:29:06
 -0400
Received: from mail.midusa.net (mail.midusa.net [206.28.168.5]) by list.uvm.edu
 (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id PAA57828 for
 <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 15:29:05 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from midusa.net (node119.salina.midusa.net [206.28.169.119]) by
 mail.midusa.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA11644; Wed, 12 Aug
 1998 14:26:51 -0500 (CDT)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <48762546.35d1e851 at aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <35D1ECE9.68DB6F30 at midusa.net>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 14:28:42 -0500
Reply-To: race at midusa.net
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: David Rhaesa <race at MIDUSA.NET>
Organization: smiling small thoughts
Subject: Re: The word "cheating"
Comments: To: Westtoast at AOL.COM

Reputations are often and usually earned and are commonly associated with
talent.  Often it is the talent that results in wins.


Terrance Hogan wrote:

>         I've touched on the most unspeakable of topics. The grammer
> structure I used the word cheating, might have been a tad stretched,
> as in an activity with no rules, there by definition can be no cheating.
> But everybody knows about reputation wins. Nobody talks about it.
> But they happen in every single tournament.
>         If a judge walks into a round with any feelings that will hinder a
> team in a round. That round is tainted. And I assure you, those with
> only local or regional reputations have far more stories of judges
> weird explanations of why ballots were cast against them, then those
> with national reps, and it happens at prestigious tournament. The
> word cheating cannot be used in the description of judging. But the
> actions are similar to why would bring said charges in any other
> activity.
>
> Hogan

>From  Wed Aug 12 15:31:16 1998
Message-Id: <WED.12.AUG.1998.153116.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 8884 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 15:31:53
 -0400
Received: from imo13.mx.aol.com (imo13.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.3]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id PAA70614 for
 <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 15:31:52 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo13.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id
 OCXRa11435; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 15:31:16 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 58
Message-ID: <7c3137f9.35d1ed85 at aol.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 15:31:16 EDT
Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Michael Bear Bryant <MWBRYANT at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: none of my bizness
Comments: To: chismc at SERVER.WFRPC.DST.FL.US

In a message dated 98-08-12 15:18:20 EDT, you write:

<<
 none of my bizness of course, but aren't you people going to have to
 face each other at a tournament eventually? what will happen then?
  it seems to me like this escalating
 rhetoric and name calling migh end in a shoving match or
 fistacuffs....


  >>

Promising not to throw the first punch, except in a rhetorical sense. ;-)

Seriously, I want to thank Gordon Mitchell for attempting to move this
discussion on to much preferable level.

Just for clarity sakes:

1. I have not accused Jeff Parcher of any crime, immorality, or unethical act.
2. I believe he is essentially a "good guy." I am aware of his CEDA background
as a debater.
3. I have tremendous respect for his coaching successes in a very difficult
environment.

Having said these things, I still think there's good reasons why ALL programs
need an open novice component of some sort.

Truly sorry that every kritik of NDT cultural assumptions seems so blatantly
offensive,

Bear

>From  Wed Aug 12 15:38:09 1998
Message-Id: <WED.12.AUG.1998.153809.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 9002 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 15:38:57
 -0400
Received: from imo25.mx.aol.com (imo25.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.69]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id PAA100142 for
 <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 15:38:56 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo25.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id
 UJSEa03745; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 15:38:09 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 58
Message-ID: <3ecbb6d2.35d1ef22 at aol.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 15:38:09 EDT
Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Michael Bear Bryant <MWBRYANT at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: The word "cheating"
Comments: To: race at midusa.net

In a message dated 98-08-12 15:29:41 EDT, you write:

<<
 Reputations are often and usually earned and are commonly associated with
 talent.  Often it is the talent that results in wins.
  >>

I have to agree, on the whole, with David's sentiments. Still, there's plenty
of examples I've encountered in the past twenty-five years where both teams
admit the decision seemed to be based more on who was "tightest" with the
judge. We have to admit that most of the rounds are close enough that the
judge has tremendous latitude in crafting justifications for voting in either
direction.

Where I disagree with Mr. Hogan is his assertion that national-level judges
are more biased than regional judges. My experience indicates that the exact
reverse is true, and that NDT national-level coaches are just slowly beginning
to trust national-level CEDA judges.

Bear

>From "SEGASH (a) PO1%Bracewell & Patterson"@MCIMAIL.COM Wed Aug 12 14:29:48 1998
Message-Id: <WED.12.AUG.1998.142948.0500.SEGASHAPO1BRACEWELLPATTERSON at MCIMAIL.COM>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 9043 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 15:39:20
 -0400
Received: from gatekeeper2.mcimail.com (gatekeeper2.mcimail.com
 [192.147.45.10]) by list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with SMTP id
 PAA54994 for <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 15:39:16 -0400
 (EDT)
Received: from mcimail.com (dgn2ig.mcimail.com [166.38.58.58]) by
 gatekeeper2.mcimail.com (8.6.12/8.6.10) with ESMTP id TAA13785; Wed,
 12 Aug 1998 19:53:03 GMT
Received: from mcimail.com by DGN0IG.mcimail.com (PMDF V5.1-8 #24741) id
 <01J0J009PJKQC00J0K at DGN0IG.mcimail.com>; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 19:29:47 GMT
X-Mailer: TFS Gateway /221000000/221050508/221010333/221100275/
Priority: normal
Message-ID: <98081219294579/0006253657DP1EM at mcimail.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 14:29:48 -0500
Reply-To: SEGASH <"SEGASH (a) PO1%Bracewell & Patterson"@MCIMAIL.COM>
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: SEGASH <"SEGASH (a) PO1%Bracewell & Patterson"@MCIMAIL.COM>
Subject: Re: Sorry I said anything -Reply
Comments: To: race <race at midusa.net>

Seattle?  Wasn't he a 19th century Native American tribal leader?
 Surely he can't be mixed up in all this.  I don't think he had
access to e-mail anyway.  SS

>>> " race " 08/12/98 02:37pm >>>
Can anyone really prove that Seattle exists?

Michael Dutcher wrote:

> > In a message dated 98-08-12 14:06:51 EDT, you write:
> >
> > << Don't waste our time
> >  with red herrings.
> >
> >  Michael Dutcher >>
> >
> > Excellent, Dutch, let's stick to the novice discussion. Please
remember
> > that's
> > where I started and that's few NDT posters are willing to
stay.
> >
> I have no problem sticking to that discussion.  I don't think
that Jeff did
> either.  I can understand why he got upset.  Hell, it ticked me
off too.  I
> respect what Jeff has done and I have known him for a few
years so that is
> why I was stunned when I read your post.
>
> > Out of curiosity, any GMU debaters from Seattle? Probably
not, right?
> >
> > Bear
> >
> Actually, aren't we all from Seattle?
ahahahahahahahhahahahaa!
> (PS -that was a joke.  although some of us would have loved to
say we are
> from seattle because of love for the music of Pearl Jam,
Nirvana,
> Soundgarden, yadda yadda, I don't believe any of us are)



From wnewnam  Wed Aug 12 14:37:53 1998
From: wnewnam (William E Newnam)
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 15:37:53 -0400
Subject: The word "cheating"
In-Reply-To: <48762546.35d1e851@aol.com>
Message-ID: <WED.12.AUG.1998.153753.0400.WNEWNAM@EMORY.EDU>

Terrance,

I have run the gamut representing teams with no rep, little rep, some rep,
and awesome rep.  As a debater, I went through this process of building my
career so that in some circles, I ended up with some rep, never awesome
rep.

You are no doubt correct that decisions are tainted by reputation.  Many
of us are persuaded by reputation.  "If its Clinton's words against
Monica's, then he will win the day."  We have all heard that said.  It
might well be that this is unfair, but it is reality.

In our everyday world, we confront issues with reputation.  People make
choices about who will fix their car, work on their house, represent them
in court, where they will go to school, based in large measure on
REPUTATION.

I well imagine that Clarence Darrow won a few far more important decisions
than debate rounds, by reputation.

Reputation functions to help the person with rep because it:

a.  scares their opponent, who fears they cannot win
b.  provides credibility to arguments and ideas
c.  provides credibilities to claims, thereby lowering the burden of proof
d.  probably determines close decisions.

Aristotle, called it ethos, in debate it is the credibility that comes
with repeated success.  It might sometimes lead to INJUSTICE.

But it is the reality that credibility is a powerful component of
persuasion, and, when close decisions are being rendered, might
subtly, but with powerful consequences, influence how a particular issue,
then ultimately an entire round is decided.

I agree that this leads to unfair decisions, but it

1. is part of the real world
2. provides students with the incentive to seek to build their reputation
3. is usually earned through hard work and commitment
4. is an understandably persuasive tool
5. and can be overcome, its just hard

To pretend reputation and credibility does not exist. Or to advise our
students to retreat from it, rather to challenge it and earn their own,
undermines the value of educating our students about persuasion and the
"real world."

I truly understand the frustration that comes when facing rep, (far more
than you might know), but I have also come to understand that rep is
really another word for "earned credibility."

We should all strive, as I think most of us do, to make fair and
intelligent decisions.  But part of persuasion is credibility, and we are
OBJECTIVE.  I would take issue with the assertion it is wholly achievable.

Striving to be fair and to be objective is what I think the VAST majority
of debate judges are doing, but I also think that this impossible
objective comes into play most in close debates between teams of disparate
reputation.

We are after all human and many factors determine ethos and ultimately
persuasion.

Not an apology for our failings, but an explanation of my views of
credibility, rep, ethos, and persuasion.

bill n
emory

On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, Terrance Hogan wrote:

>         I've touched on the most unspeakable of topics. The grammer
> structure I used the word cheating, might have been a tad stretched,
> as in an activity with no rules, there by definition can be no cheating.
> But everybody knows about reputation wins. Nobody talks about it.
> But they happen in every single tournament.
>         If a judge walks into a round with any feelings that will hinder a
> team in a round. That round is tainted. And I assure you, those with
> only local or regional reputations have far more stories of judges
> weird explanations of why ballots were cast against them, then those
> with national reps, and it happens at prestigious tournament. The
> word cheating cannot be used in the description of judging. But the
> actions are similar to why would bring said charges in any other
> activity.
>
> Hogan
>

>From  Wed Aug 12 15:41:00 1998
Message-Id: <WED.12.AUG.1998.154100.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 9171 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 15:41:49
 -0400
Received: from imo28.mx.aol.com (imo28.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.72]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id PAA57628 for
 <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 15:41:45 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from Westtoast at aol.com by imo28.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id
 UTLEa17153; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 15:41:00 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 167
Message-ID: <6bad64b0.35d1efce at aol.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 15:41:00 EDT
Reply-To: Westtoast at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Terrance Hogan <Westtoast at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: The word "cheating"
Comments: To: race at midusa.net

        I'm not talking about rounds where high power team clearly wins.
That's generalization and minimumization.

Hogan

>From  Wed Aug 12 14:43:16 1998
Message-Id: <WED.12.AUG.1998.144316.0500.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 9335 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 15:43:27
 -0400
Received: from mail.uttyl.edu ([192.88.13.2]) by list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB
 8.7/8.7) with SMTP id PAA54810 for <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Wed, 12
 Aug 1998 15:43:21 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by mail.uttyl.edu(Lotus SMTP MTA SMTP v4.6 (462.2 9-3-1997))  id
 8625665E.006C5649 ; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 14:43:19 -0500
X-Lotus-FromDomain: UT TYLER
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Message-ID: <8625665E.006C3125.00 at mail.uttyl.edu>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 14:43:16 -0500
Reply-To: Jack_Rogers at MAIL.UTTYL.EDU
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Jack Rogers <Jack_Rogers at MAIL.UTTYL.EDU>
Subject: Simerly only

Sorry for the clutter.  Greg would you be interested in an Assistant
Editor/Reviewer's position with the International Journal of Forensics?

Jack



From steelek  Wed Aug 12 14:53:10 1998
From: steelek (Kelly Steele)
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 15:53:10 -0400
Subject: Parcher's confession
In-Reply-To: <9222214b.35d1ad36@aol.com>
Message-ID: <WED.12.AUG.1998.155310.0400.STEELEK@GUSUN.GEORGETOWN.EDU>

Can we keep this thing civil?  Are you real?  Listen, I would like to echo
Parcher's statements about your inability to have a civil discussion.  You
have proven yourself to be a bona fide clown.  As Patrick McMuffin and
others have pointed out, your implication (reprinted below) is accusatory,
offensive, and unethical.  You have made veiled accusations against
Parcher, Damus, Mancuso and god knows who else without a shred of
evidence.  Put up or shut up.  Directors of prestigious programs
(or any programs for that matter) should not be forced to defend
themselves in the face of slanderous accusations based on rumor or
heresay.  I was perfectly willing to enter the discussion about Parcher's
specific situation until I finished reading your post and saw what is
reprinted below.  Parcher is an outstanding debate coach and he certainly
doesn't need his debaters or anyone else to defend him in public, and I
will choose not to because I will not (nor do I understand why anyone
would continue to) engage in any discussion with someone as dispicable as
yourself.  Thought you might have toned it down, realize that this is just
more proof you should start your messages "Live from the WGN studios, its
the Bear Bryant show..."  Get bent, Bozo.

Steele

On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, Michael Bear Bryant wrote:
>
> Isn't someone on the G'town team from Seattle? Just asking because that's
> where the email with my forged name on it seems to have originated from....and
> I'm left wondering why Parcher indicates he has talked to a lawyer about the
> nature of the crime.
>
> Please, can we keep this civil? I really do respect G'town's accomplishments,
> even if y'all do chase novices away by never traveling them.
>
> Bear
>

>From  Wed Aug 12 15:58:04 1998
Message-Id: <WED.12.AUG.1998.155804.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 9857 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 15:59:21
 -0400
Received: from imo14.mx.aol.com (imo14.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.4]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id PAA88172 for
 <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 15:59:20 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from Westtoast at aol.com by imo14.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id
 2ACWa13455; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 15:58:04 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 167
Message-ID: <4bd9cd10.35d1f3d3 at aol.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 15:58:04 EDT
Reply-To: Westtoast at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Terrance Hogan <Westtoast at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: The word "cheating"
Comments: To: wnewnam at emory.edu

        Thank you for making providing such a rational, well-crafted
benchmark from which this discussion may continue. Much better
crafted than I would have produced. I was really scared this issue
would only be a flame war.
        You know the old saying about how athlete's can live with the
games they get blown out in, it's the close ones that hurt. I feel that
when debaters have that hurt of a close loss combined with the
possibilities of reputation affecting the decision, and it aggravates
of inter-collegiate interactions, with trust being affected as a result.
What would you suggest as a means to at least approach this subject
with the rationality you have shown, in order, if not to prevent, at
least to vent and process these emotions.
        Again, thanks for approaching this topic, and for doing better
than I ever could.

Hogan

>From  Wed Aug 12 16:17:38 1998
Message-Id: <WED.12.AUG.1998.161738.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 10034 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 16:18:05
 -0400
Received: from imo25.mx.aol.com (imo25.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.69]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id QAA49302 for
 <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 16:18:04 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from Westtoast at aol.com by imo25.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id
 8IHRa07259 for <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 16:17:38
 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 167
Message-ID: <1db178fc.35d1f864 at aol.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 16:17:38 EDT
Reply-To: Westtoast at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Terrance Hogan <Westtoast at AOL.COM>
Subject: Reputation's effect on rounds

        I'm just changing the thread's title to something a little less
inflamatory. Again I recommend everyone look at the response
from Emory and my response to that from the "The word "cheating""
thread as a benchmark for a good discussion if you are interested
in this subject.

Hogan



From gordonm+  Wed Aug 12 15:25:59 1998
From: gordonm+ (Gordon Mitchell)
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 16:25:59 -0400
Subject: ans Ross / elitism
In-Reply-To: <199808111921.PAA08456@post-ofc03.srv.cis.pitt.edu>
Message-ID: <WED.12.AUG.1998.162559.0400.GORDONM@PITT.EDU>

With all due respect to my mentor, I must disagree with Ross' first axiom:

> 1) *Competitive* academic debate, by its nature, is elitist.

Now I'll bet that the key elements of this sentence are the bookend *'s,
and I hope to hear more from Ross on the meaning of these bookends after
this post.  But for now, let me make an objection to this essentialist
axiom by sharing some material from the debate archives at the University
of Pittsburgh.  The piece that I pass along is a 1930 policy statement
from Professor of Public Speaking and Director of Debate W.M. Parrish.

This policy statement was published on the inside cover of all public
debate brochures put out by the University during this era, INCLUDING one
*competitive* public debate held against Wake Forest in 1932!  The
document is fascinating in several respects: 1) It contains allusions to a
cantankerous dispute about the nature of academic debate that parallels
many of the points of contention currently being advanced on eDebate; 2)
It contains concrete documentation that a well-supported program is
capable of competitive success *and* community outreach; 3) It
advances a philosophy that resists casting debate in the mold of
"a major sport, a gladitorial combat, or an advertising agency," and
instead prioritizes public service and pedagogy for citizenship as the
overriding principles anchoring the effort.

 ** UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH DEBATING ASSOCIATIONS POLICY STATEMENT **
               W.M. Parrish, Professor of Public Speaking
                                 1930

Since the recent wide-spread changes in the style of inter-collegiate
debating, and the vogue of long distance debate tours, it frequently
happens that two teams take the platform with aims and methods so
divergent that no satisfactory engagement between them is possible.
Hence, in making arrangements with other schools, it seems wise to define
the debate policy pursued at the University of Pittsburgh.

The chief aim of debating as we see it, and as we try to practice it, is
+to give students instruction and practice in public discussion+.  We do
not make debating either a major sport, a gladitorial combat, or an
advertising agency.  A second aim is to give interested audiences an
opportunity to hear public questions discussed.  Our debates are not shows
staged for the people's amusement, but forums for the molding of public
opinion.

Decisions by judges, if they cannot be dispensed with, should, we believe,
be incidental, serving only to guide and stimulate the speakers.  Instead
of a decision, we prefer to have an expression of opinion, +by the
audience+, both before and after the debate.  We believe audiences should
be found who wish to hear honest discussion, and who are sufficiently
interested to ask questions and take part in an open forum.  To find such
audiences we frequently leave the campus and hold our discussions before
clubs, lodges, high school assemblies, etc.

Our debaters are urged to try to get at the truth, and to present it in a
favorable light, not merely to score "hits" or to win "victories."  +Each
debater speaks on one side of a question only+, and his choice of side is
dictated by his own honest conviction after study of both sides.  Whatever
enthusiasm he shows is generated by the heat of conviction, not from a
desire to win decisions.

The benefits of debating we try to extend to the largest possible number
of students, instead of concentrating on a "varsity" team of three
"stars."  We have had in one year as many as 74 contests, in which more
than 35 students took part.  We have had ten home debates in one week.
The most faithful workers on this heavy program are rewarded each year by
long trips.  During the past three years our teams have traveled 20,000
miles, and visited most of the important schools in America.

Our debaters are undergraudates, seldom beyond 21 years of age.  We have
both men's teams and women's teams.

We are especially desirous of meeting schools who are in sympathy with
this general policy.



From lkahng  Wed Aug 12 15:33:13 1998
From: lkahng (lucius)
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 16:33:13 -0400
Subject: Parcher's confession
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.3.96.980812153525.5681B-100000@gusun>
Message-ID: <WED.12.AUG.1998.163313.0400.LKAHNG@OSF1.GMU.EDU>

I have to concur with the sentiments of Jeff Parcher and others in that
Bear has gone too far. Virtually every time someone posts something Bear
doesn't like, he smuggles in accusations tantamount to rhetorical
terrorism. It is truly sad that such intelligent persons as Parcher
should choose not to discuss elitism or any other issue merely because
they know they will be accused of slanderous forgery.

                                                        lucius
                                                        George Mason U.

PREEMPT: I have never been to Seattle.

__________________________________________________________________________
"In a striking image, he [Foucault] contrasts ancient to modern society
through the emblem structure of temple and panopticon. The ancients strove
to make a few things visible to the many; we try to make many things
visible to the few."
                                                        -Charles Taylor



From wnewnam  Wed Aug 12 15:51:54 1998
From: wnewnam (William E Newnam)
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 16:51:54 -0400
Subject: The word "cheating"
In-Reply-To: <3ecbb6d2.35d1ef22@aol.com>
Message-ID: <WED.12.AUG.1998.165154.0400.WNEWNAM@EMORY.EDU>

On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, Michael Bear Bryant wrote:

> In a message dated 98-08-12 15:29:41 EDT, you write:
>
> <<
>  Reputations are often and usually earned and are commonly associated with
>  talent.  Often it is the talent that results in wins.
>   >>
>
> I have to agree, on the whole, with David's sentiments. Still, there's plenty
> of examples I've encountered in the past twenty-five years where both teams
> admit the decision seemed to be based more on who was "tightest" with the
> judge. We have to admit that most of the rounds are close enough that the
> judge has tremendous latitude in crafting justifications for voting in either
> direction.


I would just add, that given that and the thousands of rounds that occur
in the course of a year, we should all pat ourselves on the back that
truly politicized decisions do not occur more often.

And, I think they occur less than they did 25 years ago.

bill n
emory




>
> Where I disagree with Mr. Hogan is his assertion that national-level judges
> are more biased than regional judges. My experience indicates that the exact
> reverse is true, and that NDT national-level coaches are just slowly beginning
> to trust national-level CEDA judges.
>
> Bear
>



From mmk1913  Wed Aug 12 15:59:27 1998
From: mmk1913 (Michael Miroslav Korcok)
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 16:59:27 -0400
Subject: who is Terrance Hogan?
Message-ID: <WED.12.AUG.1998.165927.0400.MMK1913@GARNET.ACNS.FSU.EDU>

a simple question.
i am told that "Hulk" Hogan's real name is Terrance Hogan.
so who are you, really, Westtoast at aol.com ?

michael miroslav korcok



From swhalen  Wed Aug 12 16:17:45 1998
From: swhalen (Shawn T Whalen)
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 14:17:45 -0700
Subject: The word "cheating"
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.96.980812164924.18433A-100000@paladin.cc.emory.edu>
Message-ID: <WED.12.AUG.1998.141745.0700.SWHALEN@SFSU.EDU>

Over the past few years I've had the good fortune to work with quite of
few folks getting their first exposure to of any kind to academic debate.
In doing so, I've devoted a little thought to how to deal with new
debaters and new coaches when they thought they won a debate but the judge
votes against them.  My observations have been that suspicions about the
judges integrity come easiest to this group and I have often found myself
trying to defend judges and judging (generally).

As a result of all this I've spent a great deal of time reflecting about
my experiences in debate over the last 21 years.  I now tell my new
debaters that I cannot think of a single case where I suspect that a judge
voted for a team that, in that judges mind, had lost the debate.  In other
words, I've never seen a judge cheat.

Surely I've seen judges who seem lost or confused by a debate, but in my
experience those judges do the best they can to sort things out and pick a
winner that "makes sense" to them.  There have also been loads of rounds
where the judge knew one team and had no prior history with the other, but
(while recognizing that there can be subconscious credibility issues), in
my experience, I don't think I've ever seen any of these people vote in
opposition to how they really thought the debate came out.

I think we do a disservice to judges and to the hard work of everyone in
the community when we perpetuate what I believe is the "corruption myth."
But maybe I'm just naive.  I'm not asking folks to name any names or
rehash any old debates, but I am curious if others believe that
unethically corrupt judging has been a part of their debate experiences.

Shawn Whalen

Director of Forensics
San Francisco State University
swhalen at sfsu.edu
(415) 338-3173

On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, William E Newnam wrote:

> On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, Michael Bear Bryant wrote:
>
> > In a message dated 98-08-12 15:29:41 EDT, you write:
> >
> > <<
> >  Reputations are often and usually earned and are commonly associated with
> >  talent.  Often it is the talent that results in wins.
> >   >>
> >
> > I have to agree, on the whole, with David's sentiments. Still, there's plenty
> > of examples I've encountered in the past twenty-five years where both teams
> > admit the decision seemed to be based more on who was "tightest" with the
> > judge. We have to admit that most of the rounds are close enough that the
> > judge has tremendous latitude in crafting justifications for voting in either
> > direction.
>
>
> I would just add, that given that and the thousands of rounds that occur
> in the course of a year, we should all pat ourselves on the back that
> truly politicized decisions do not occur more often.
>
> And, I think they occur less than they did 25 years ago.
>
> bill n
> emory
>
>
>
>
> >
> > Where I disagree with Mr. Hogan is his assertion that national-level judges
> > are more biased than regional judges. My experience indicates that the exact
> > reverse is true, and that NDT national-level coaches are just slowly beginning
> > to trust national-level CEDA judges.
> >
> > Bear
> >
>



From bdgst1  Wed Aug 12 16:18:13 1998
From: bdgst1 (Bryon Gill)
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 14:18:13 PDT
Subject: Who's behind the fake email from seattle
Message-ID: <WED.12.AUG.1998.141813.PDT.BDGST1@HOTMAIL.COM>

Well, if it's parcher it can't be damus, and if it's damus it can't be
parcher, unless it's... (GASP) A cartel! (or hybrid if you will...)

Bryguy

(or unless I read Symbolic Logic by Virginia Klenk a bit too quickly)

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com



From a.dove  Wed Aug 12 12:38:44 1998
From: a.dove (Alan Dove)
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 17:38:44 +0000
Subject: Who's behind the fake email from seattle
References: <19980812211813.19300.qmail@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <WED.12.AUG.1998.173844.0000.A.DOVE@EROLS.COM>

Bryon Gill wrote:
>
> Well, if it's parcher it can't be damus, and if it's damus it can't be
> parcher, unless it's... (GASP) A cartel! (or hybrid if you will...)

I will publicly state that I had nothing to do with the fake email, and believe
that Seattle is actually a fictional city created for a Starbucks marketing
campaign.

          --Alan


"I went down to speaker's corner, I was thunderstruck -
They've got free speech, tourists, police in trucks.
Two men say they're Jesus, one of 'em must be wrong,
There's a protest singer, he's singing a protest song..."
                                                                   --Mark Knopfler

--
_______________
Alan Dove, Ph.D.
N3IMU
a.dove at erols.com
http://128.59.173.136/Poliolab/Alan/Dove.html



From smuir  Wed Aug 12 16:55:37 1998
From: smuir (STAR A. MUIR)
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 17:55:37 -0400
Subject: Ad for Policy Debate Manual (College and HS)
Message-ID: <WED.12.AUG.1998.175537.0400.SMUIR@OSF1.GMU.EDU>

Hi Folks:  Just a quick note about the availability of the Policy Debate
Manual (formerly the Policy Debate Handbook), a resource for debaters,
coaches, and teachers of debate.  Yes, I am still collecting lore,
including war stories, tips, techniques that work, commentary and venting.

Send anything along that you care to, including suggestions for improving
this resource.

*******************************
Announcing the NEW COLLEGE and HIGH SCHOOL DEBATE MANUALS for 1998-1999.

Formerly the Policy Debate Handbook, the Policy Debate Manual is a
compilation of debate practice and lore, and provides practical guidance
toward more effective debate.  Novice, Intermediate and Advanced debaters
will gain insight from the introductions to basic theory and position
development, the sections on Strategic Argument and Traps, Pitfalls and
Swindles, and of course the many Appendices.  Debate and Argumentation
classes will benefit from the thorough treatments of case and position
construction, as well as the tips and drills for skill development and the
variety of debate formats developed in the appendix on using debate in the
classroom.  Both a college and a high school version are available, and
each contains examples and illustrations specific to this year's topic,
with appendices appropriate to the level of activity.

FOR 1998-1999

     Excerpts from interviews with dozens of top notch coaches and
debaters, more war stories, colloquia on topics such as Transitioning to
the Upper Level, Anticipating Theory Debates, Debating Faster Teams, and
more.

     A TOPIC and INTERNET DIRECTORY for the 1998-1999 topic.

     Illustrations and examples of cases and arguments from the 1998-1999
topics of Russia (high school)  and Civil Rights (college).

     Sections on Advanced Skills, Strategy Archetypes, Managing the Debate
Environment, Staying Alive Against New Cases, Adapting to Team Strategies,
and much more.

     A Policy Debate Tournament History section, with first and second
place teams and speakers for a variety of national tournaments, including
the NDT, Northwestern, and Wake Forest.

     Contributed Sections on Plan-Inclusive Counterplans, and on debating
Counterplan Permutations.

     A new section on adapting to judges, with tips for more effective
judging.

LEARNING THE TRICKS OF THE TRADE

     Discussion and development of basic skills, including research
(electronic and otherwise), briefing (with sample briefs), flowing (with
abbreviation chart and sample flow), filing, cross-examination (basic
rationale, dos and don'ts), presence and delivery (tips, list of drills,
assessment form), and the application of briefs (how to).

     An introduction to effectively debating theory, with inquiries into
several different controversies, including the critique, fiat, paradigms,
conditionality, etc.  Extended discussions on debating topicality,
debating disadvantages, and debating counterplans.

     A section on electronic research, with a variety of internet
resources for policy debate, together with tips on getting the most out of
electronic research sessions.

     Appendices with useful reference material, including a tournament
schedule, contact information for new coaches, a complete list of previous
topics, and rules and codes specific to college or high school.

FOR USE IN ARGUMENTATION AND DEBATE CLASSES

     Clear and easy to understand sections on developing basic skills,
constructing cases and positions, and understanding and applying basic
tenets of debate theory.

     An appendix on Teaching Debate in the Classroom, with ground rules
for effective debate, tips on picking topics, strengths and weaknesses of
various formats, and strategies for managing the debate interaction.

     Explication of effective and ineffective uses of Toulmin's Model,
covering a discussion of weaknesses of each of the major argument types.

     A Glossary of key terms in policy debate.

Comments, reactions and suggestions are welcome!

The Policy Debate Manual offers practical advice and insight from dozens
of coaches, directors, and debaters who have hundreds of years of
collective experience in winning debates.  These practitioners were
interviewed and excerpts from their interviews, including creative
strategies, practical techniques, war stories, different visions of
debate, and commentary about the current practice and theory of policy
debate, are integrated into the Policy Debate Manual.

Cost and Availability:
0-5 copies            $25.00/copy
6+ copies             $20.00/copy
Shipping and Handling 10% of the total order
  (Virginia residents add 4.5% sales tax)

Make checks or money orders payable to "Star A. Muir."  Purchase orders
are accepted from educational institutions.  No credit card orders
accepted.  Course orders of 15 or more are eligible for a desk copy.  Send
all orders to this address:

Star A. Muir, PDM
Department of Communication, MS 3D6
George Mason University
Fairfax, VA  22030
(o) 703-993-4115
(fax) 703-993-1096
SMUIR at GMU.EDU

E-MAIL ORDERING

Name:

Address:

Telephone:

College Manual 1998-1999 # of copies:

High School Manual 1998-1999 # of copies:

Total Number of Copies:

Cost/Copy:
     (Handbook Costs:  $25 each for 1-5; $20 each for 6+)

Virginia residents add 4.5% sales tax:

Shipping & Handling:
     (S & H Costs:  10% of total order)

Total Cost:

(Please check one)
Check/Money Order in the mail  (make payable to "Star A. Muir")

Please invoice to the above address (educational departments, programs or
institutions only)

>From  Wed Aug 12 18:12:54 1998
Message-Id: <WED.12.AUG.1998.181254.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 11320 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 18:13:25
 -0400
Received: from imo15.mx.aol.com (imo15.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.5]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id SAA50728 for
 <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 18:13:24 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from Rsmithpgh at aol.com by imo15.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id
 USGMa20769; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 18:12:54 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 64
Message-ID: <8224543b.35d21369 at aol.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 18:12:54 EDT
Reply-To: Rsmithpgh at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Rebecca Smith <Rsmithpgh at AOL.COM>
Subject: SEATTLE EXISTS--and a question about hybrids...
Comments: To: a.dove at EROLS.COM

I can most assuredly tell you that, unless I am a figment of my own
imagination, which has been a possibility for several years now, that there is
a Seattle-- I am here right now!

It is very beautiful (85 degrees, not a cloud in the sky) and there are many
other figments of my imagination wandering around thinking that they are real,
and that I am imaginary.

I did not send the fake e-mail.

*****
Curious what responsiblity other schools have to broadening debate experiences
for others-- I believe that hybrid teams from different schools are
acceptable, yet must be a living breathing hypocrite-- when I was the Director
at Seattle U., I refused to travel students from other schools, and pay for
their tournement fees or anything else.  I thought that the people who
attended Seattle U. deserved to have the entire budget spent upon them.
After leaving Seattle U. I found after perusing the CEDA tournament lists that
my policy did not remain, and in fact at least three people competed for
Seattle U, while not attending SU (two for the University of Washington, one
person who had been a student at SU for three years went to a community
college to remain eligible for tournaments)--

I have no opinion on why/how this happened and in fact was darn happy for the
UW students as they deserved to have some competitive experience, being great
folks who had no administrative support at all.  I was also happy for the
comm. college student as he deserved to end his career in style, after
competing for me for three years.

The question is:
What responsibility do people have to use their budget money on admittedly
deserving students from schools who do not compete?  My personal answer
was"None"  --My successor decided otherwise- both are legitimate decisions
made for legitimate reasons.

If we believe in 'hybrid teams' why wouldn't we use part of our budgets EVERY
year to expand the opportunity for other students from other schools?  What is
our responsibility to other programs? (This is different from asking whether
hybrids are 'ok' or not-this is to ask what responsibility 'rich' schools have
to support the poor).

Thanks for reading--Tony Penders
Catapult Software Training--want to buy some training?

>From  Wed Aug 12 18:19:48 1998
Message-Id: <WED.12.AUG.1998.181948.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 11433 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 18:19:52
 -0400
Received: from imo27.mx.aol.com (imo27.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.71]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id SAA49024 for
 <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 18:19:51 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from Damus at aol.com by imo27.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id MPFRa04231;
 Wed, 12 Aug 1998 18:19:48 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 18
Message-ID: <e61ba959.35d21505 at aol.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 18:19:48 EDT
Reply-To: Damus at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: David Damus <Damus at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: Incredibly, Bear Defends His Tactics
Comments: To: parcherj at MCI2000.COM

Bear

I think he's got you on implicating directly that I had something to do with
this...that's how I read it. I do not wish to escelate anything--just re-
stating the obvious.

David Damus
USC



From mmk1913  Wed Aug 12 17:27:01 1998
From: mmk1913 (Michael Miroslav Korcok)
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 18:27:01 -0400
Subject: fake Hulkster search progress
Message-ID: <WED.12.AUG.1998.182701.0400.MMK1913@GARNET.ACNS.FSU.EDU>

okay, buster, you have 12 hours to fess up to your real
name.  our extensive detective department WILL find you:
you are in violation of BIG laws with respect to
impersonation and fakeness. Janet Reno has been notified.

EXHIBIT A is a picture of the REAL Terrance Bollea, aka
Sterling Golden, aka Terry Boulder, aka Thunderlips, aka
Hulk Hogan, aka The Hulkster, aka Hollywood Hogan.  are YOU
the man in Exhibit A?

it was found at "Sexy V's Hollywood Hulk Hogan Fan Club"
which can be found at  www.uvm.edu/~cxcosta/hulk.html.
potential fan clubbers may e-mail "Sexy V" at
cxcosta at zoo.uvm.edu.

to assist potential witnesses and informants, EXHIBIT B is a
picture of the Classique Productions Hulk Hogan impersonator
"Gary".  although it may be difficult, close and careful
examination should reveal clear differences between "Gary"
and The Hulkster.

dammit, this is so serious that it matters!
michael miroslav korcok

ps: we too have noticed the eerie resemblance between
Terrance Hogan and David Damus.  is it merely COINCIDENCE
that both live in Los Angeles?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: EXHIBIT A.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 15449 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/19980812/a1c0d3b2/attachment.gif 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: EXHIBIT B.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 8893 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/19980812/a1c0d3b2/attachment.jpg 


From CPuuri  Wed Aug 12 17:36:51 1998
From: CPuuri (Cory Puuri)
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 17:36:51 -0500
Subject: SEATTLE EXISTS--shah!
Message-ID: <WED.12.AUG.1998.173651.0500.CPUURI@JJKELLER.COM>

An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Url: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/19980812/231cf526/attachment.pot 


From kwonh  Wed Aug 12 19:41:32 1998
From: kwonh (Hyuk Kwon)
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 20:41:32 -0400
Subject: Sorry I said anything
In-Reply-To: <Pine.A41.3.95.980812134355.98616A-100000@f1n11.spenet.wfu.edu>
Message-ID: <WED.12.AUG.1998.204132.0400.KWONH@GUSUN.GEORGETOWN.EDU>

On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, patrick wrote:

> On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, Michael Bear Bryant wrote:
>
> > Mr. Parcher,
> >
> > You need to calm your ass down. Since several people have pointed out to me
> > that there are G'town team members from Seattle, where the forged mail
> > originated, I asked Mr. Kwon if that was so. If you can only interpret that as
> > an official accusation, I suggest you go back and talk to your lawyer one more
> > time, because you've crossed the line in a number of areas in your past post.
>
>
> Bear wrote:
>
> >Isn't someone on the G'town team from Seattle? Just asking because that's
> >where the email with my forged name on it seems to have originated
> from....and
> >I'm left wondering why Parcher indicates he has talked to a lawyer about
> the
> >nature of the crime.
>
> I think that at least implies Georgetown was somehow involved. Does
> everyone else think otherwise?
>

Yeah, we had a debater from Seattle. He graduated a year ago. He's now
traveling in Europe.

Just putting to rest an insinuation, (not yours Pat)
Kwon
Gtown

>From  Wed Aug 12 19:53:47 1998
Message-Id: <WED.12.AUG.1998.195347.0500.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 12521 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 20:54:11
 -0400
Received: from mail.midusa.net (mail.midusa.net [206.28.168.5]) by list.uvm.edu
 (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id UAA86116 for
 <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 20:54:10 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from midusa.net (node21.salina.midusa.net [206.28.169.21]) by
 mail.midusa.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA14937; Wed, 12 Aug
 1998 19:51:58 -0500 (CDT)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <Pine.SOL.3.96.980812204027.12442B-100000 at gusun>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <35D2391A.B13AB82F at midusa.net>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 19:53:47 -0500
Reply-To: race at midusa.net
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: David Rhaesa <race at MIDUSA.NET>
Organization: smiling small thoughts
Subject: Re: Sorry I said anything
Comments: To: Hyuk Kwon <kwonh at GUSUN.GEORGETOWN.EDU>

can anyone prove Europe exists?

deconstructively,
david

Hyuk Kwon wrote:

> On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, patrick wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, Michael Bear Bryant wrote:
> >
> > > Mr. Parcher,
> > >
> > > You need to calm your ass down. Since several people have pointed out to me
> > > that there are G'town team members from Seattle, where the forged mail
> > > originated, I asked Mr. Kwon if that was so. If you can only interpret that as
> > > an official accusation, I suggest you go back and talk to your lawyer one more
> > > time, because you've crossed the line in a number of areas in your past post.
> >
> >
> > Bear wrote:
> >
> > >Isn't someone on the G'town team from Seattle? Just asking because that's
> > >where the email with my forged name on it seems to have originated
> > from....and
> > >I'm left wondering why Parcher indicates he has talked to a lawyer about
> > the
> > >nature of the crime.
> >
> > I think that at least implies Georgetown was somehow involved. Does
> > everyone else think otherwise?
> >
>
> Yeah, we had a debater from Seattle. He graduated a year ago. He's now
> traveling in Europe.
>
> Just putting to rest an insinuation, (not yours Pat)
> Kwon
> Gtown



From whiteben37  Wed Aug 12 20:33:00 1998
From: whiteben37 (ben white)
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 18:33:00 PDT
Subject: Search Engines question
Message-ID: <WED.12.AUG.1998.183300.PDT.WHITEBEN37@HOTMAIL.COM>

Though i've found good stuff on the net, i usually feel like i'm wasting
too much time and energy...anyone know of some  better search engines.
I think someone posted about one a few months ago that would search for
terms in the order they were entered.  Couldve written it down then, but
then i couldnt annoy all with this messsage.
peace out.

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com



From kwonh  Wed Aug 12 21:03:16 1998
From: kwonh (Hyuk Kwon)
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 22:03:16 -0400
Subject: Sorry I said anything
In-Reply-To: <3f335cc.35d1d604@aol.com>
Message-ID: <WED.12.AUG.1998.220316.0400.KWONH@GUSUN.GEORGETOWN.EDU>

A brief perspective on the ripple effects of Bear's initial "rocking of
the boat":

Damus refuses to participate in this discussion anymore, mainly because of
growing hostility and not-so-subtle accusations of criminal behavior.

Mancuso signs off with his one and only indirect contribution (via
Bryant's forwarding) by stating that his only fear is the torrent of email
he expects to receive as a result of replying to Bear's posts.

Steele also drops out of the "discussion" with a not-so-civil parting shot
of "Get Bent." (but someone was going to say it sooner or later)

Parcher quits out of sheer disgust when he is also accused of being a
criminal - and after his attempt at honesty and frankness is answered with
just plain rudeness.

Gordon Mitchell's constructive contributions somehow get lost in the
clutter of the electronic flames fanned from the Bear cave.

Stephen Heidt's call for substantive evidence and statistics is labelled
as a "delay tactic."

One can only guess that Jake Weiner has also grown weary of this
discussion.

The majority of the list has chosen not to get involved in this debacle -
probably a wise thing to do. (too late for me, I suppose - but I'll get to
that later)


Mr. Bryant, how do you plan to effect any kind of change in the "elitism"
that you see as all pervasive in NDT when you have the effect of
alienating just about everyone that you drag into your crusade? I thought
this activity was meant to teach its participants skills in persuasion!
If you were still debating, would you try and persuade the judge to vote
for you by calling him/her a criminal and attacking his/her personal
character? In a very short amount of time, I believe you've made it to the
top of the "shunning" list. If it appears as though there is an obvious
streak of hostility directed towards you from members of the NDT
community, perhaps you should take a second look at the method you have
chosen to engage this community in a plea for change (more like an
aggressive demand, not plea). You began your quest by shooting yourself in
the foot, and you have only yourself to blame if most think you're lame.
"Deconstruct" NDT? Please. "Deconstruct" yourself first. Either way, add
me to the list of people who won't even bother to read and reply to your
messages anymore. And remember, the bigger that list gets, the fewer the
people that will be listening when you're no longer crying wolf.

Kwon
Gtown

P.S. Thanks go out to Rhaesa (sorry if I've butchered the spelling of your
name) for attempting to inject some much needed harmless levity into this
thread. (If Seattle truly does exist, then which came first? Seattle, or
the IDEA of Seattle?)



From reno  Wed Aug 12 22:25:12 1998
From: reno (Roy H. Eno)
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 22:25:12 -0500
Subject: Looking for Galentine
In-Reply-To: <199808130058.UAA23506@lab.housing.fsu.edu>
Message-ID: <WED.12.AUG.1998.222512.0500.RENO@LONESTAR.JPL.UTSA.EDU>

I haven't been able to reach Becky Galentine via the accessone
conduit--anybody out there have a current address?

Skip Eno



From swhalen  Wed Aug 12 22:26:15 1998
From: swhalen (Shawn T Whalen)
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 20:26:15 -0700
Subject: Sorry I said anything
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.3.96.980812212350.15689B-100000@gusun>
Message-ID: <WED.12.AUG.1998.202615.0700.SWHALEN@SFSU.EDU>

On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, Hyuk Kwon wrote:

> (If Seattle truly does exist, then which came first? Seattle, or
> the IDEA of Seattle?)

Neither - I think Burke would say that the name came first.  Once we had
the name, the idea and the place could follow.

SW



From a.dove  Wed Aug 12 18:51:21 1998
From: a.dove (Alan Dove)
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 23:51:21 +0000
Subject: Search Engines question
References: <19980813013301.20381.qmail@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <WED.12.AUG.1998.235121.0000.A.DOVE@EROLS.COM>

ben white wrote:
>
> Though i've found good stuff on the net, i usually feel like i'm wasting
> too much time and energy...anyone know of some  better search engines.
> I think someone posted about one a few months ago that would search for
> terms in the order they were entered.  Couldve written it down then, but

Have you read the online research manual on the Columbia Debate Web site?
It's at http://128.59.173.136/Columbia/DB8.html, and follow the links to
Research, then How To.  If you've already done that and are still having
problems, let me know and maybe we can sort out the difficulties backchannel
so I can make appropriate modifications to the manual.

Currently, I recommend the Boolean Search window in the AltaVista
Advanced Search engine (http://www.altavista.digital.com, then follow the
link to "Advanced.")  I'll probably modify the manual soon to incorporate the
results of recent studies on search sites, but for now, focus on mastering
AltaVista.

          --Alan

--
_______________
Alan Dove, Ph.D.
N3IMU
a.dove at erols.com
http://128.59.173.136/Poliolab/Alan/Dove.html



From a.dove  Wed Aug 12 19:15:24 1998
From: a.dove (Alan Dove)
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 00:15:24 +0000
Subject: SEATTLE EXISTS--and a question about hybrids...
References: <8224543b.35d21369@aol.com>
Message-ID: <THU.13.AUG.1998.001524.0000.A.DOVE@EROLS.COM>

Hey, folks:

I haven't viewed the hybrid team issue in quite the same way, probably
because the situation here in NYC is very different from what most schools
encounter.  The Columbia team, for example, went to a half-dozen
tournaments in the 1996-97 season on a $0.00 budget by forming hybrids with
Queens, NYU, and New School debaters.  Now that Columbia has a (small)
budget, it would be ludicrous for them to say that their resources should not go
towards traveling debaters at the schools which made their program possible.

The assumption all along has been that wholesale hybridization is just part of
a necessary transition stage.  Ultimately, the goal is to get stand-alone programs
sustaining themselves at schools all over the city.  IMPACT schools would still
have features which distinguish them from "ordinary" debate programs, and
would presumably maintain close ties, but there would be little reason for
large, well-funded programs to form hybrid teams with each other.  As has
already been discussed, there are a number of tactical and logistical drawbacks
to hybrids.

Does a well-funded team have an obligation to help out new programs?  Of
course not.  It is, however, something which is relatively easy to do and can
have enormous benefits for your own team as well as the activity.  Start more
programs in your area, and you get bigger regional tournaments, more
out-rounds, and more opportunities for your own students.  In addition,
bureaucratic sands shift, administrations come and go, and today's prestigious
program may be the target of tomorrow's budget ax.  The tiny team you help
this season might be saving your butt a few years down the line.  For those
more mystically inclined, think of it as good karma.

          --Alan

--
_______________
Alan Dove, Ph.D.
N3IMU
a.dove at erols.com
http://128.59.173.136/Poliolab/Alan/Dove.html



From mroston  Thu Aug 13 00:13:56 1998
From: mroston (Michael Roston the eminently practical)
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 00:13:56 -0500
Subject: Search Engines question
In-Reply-To: <19980813013301.20381.qmail@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <THU.13.AUG.1998.001356.0500.MROSTON@BLUE.WEEG.UIOWA.EDU>

On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, ben white wrote:

> Though i've found good stuff on the net, i usually feel like i'm wasting
> too much time and energy...anyone know of some  better search engines.
> I think someone posted about one a few months ago that would search for
> terms in the order they were entered.  Couldve written it down then, but
> then i couldnt annoy all with this messsage.
> peace out.


I've spent the summer working for Encyclopedia Britannica's new world wide
web division, and I'll tell you my honest opinion.

For academic research, especially in terms of trying to get some
information for a paper, I really think what we do at Britannica is a good
place to work from - there are a million sites out there about Nixon, for
instance, but maybe five of them have really good content.  www.eblast.com
points you exactly there.  also, check out the issues and commentary
section under news and current events which provides well-written(in most
cases) abstracts of articles on a variety of topics from a good sweep of
journals and magazines that are available online.

now, as far as debate research goes, here's my take.

#1 - hotbot.  my experience doing research for the Indonesian IMET
affirmative convinced me of hotbot's value.  www.hotbot.com.  it's out of
control in the results, but within the hundreds of results, you get lots
of good articles, sites, and so on.  this is clearly the browser with the
best sweep of the web.

#2 - metacrawler.  this is a tricky server, and can have some problems in
certain areas, like its filters can be a little too filtering.  but
www.metacrawler.com searches basically all the other engines for you - it
covers yahoo, altavista, infoseek, excite, lycos, and thunderweb(?).  so,
you get a cleanly organized, ranked from 1-1000 set of results from other
engines.  clever concept.

#3 - Northern Light, at www.nlsearch.com.  I think it covers the web
pretty well, and in addition to good coverage, it has its article search
feature - this really is the poor man's lexis.  $5 a month, 50 articles
from a certain selection.  I didn't have access to Lexis this summer, and
needed a decent search engine for my research for the chicago debate
commission.  after I was done with northern light, I didn't need to
photocopy anything for one of the affirmatives I wrote.  great resource.

that's my take after working the web for the summer.  hope it helps

-Michael Roston
the king of boggle

"You must be out of your mind to write to the Times like this! There are
millions of bitter Voltairean types whose souls are filled with angry
satire and who keep looking for the keenest, most poisonous word. You
could send in a poem instead, you nitwit! Why should you be more right out
of sheer distraction than they are out of organization? You ride in their
trains, don't you? Distraction didn't build the railroad. Go on, write a
poem and kill 'em with bitterness!"
                                        -Saul Bellow

>From  Thu Aug 13 02:12:06 1998
Message-Id: <THU.13.AUG.1998.021206.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 3456 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 02:12:55
 -0400
Received: from imo14.mx.aol.com (imo14.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.4]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id CAA50788 for
 <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 02:12:54 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from Rsmithpgh at aol.com by imo14.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id
 LDGWa13456; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 02:12:06 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 64
Message-ID: <2187c2df.35d283b7 at aol.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 02:12:06 EDT
Reply-To: Rsmithpgh at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Rebecca Smith <Rsmithpgh at AOL.COM>
Subject: Existence of Seattle/debate
Comments: To: kwonh at gusun.georgetown.edu

KwonH at Georgetown.edu:

(If Seattle truly does exist, then which came first? Seattle, or
 the IDEA of Seattle?)
  >>

Tony:

Hmmm-- well, Seattle the city had to have come before the idea of Seattle--for
example what we associate with Seattle (or as Seattle) could only exist
insofar as we have pre-conceived notions of what Seattle is, or what Seattle
should be--in fact, a Seattle that  competes with original notions of Seattle
might not be Seattle until we have identified those notions (that were not
previously Seattle) with Seattle--in fact, Seattle cannot exist for those with
no notion of Seattle--and can only exist for those with preconceived judgement
of Seattle or those with actual experience of Seattle itself.  Thus no notion
of Seattle could pre-exist Seattle.

Kinda like our preconceived notions of debate or what a debate round should be
like--since many rounds do not conform to our preconceived notions of what
debate looks like, then it must not be debate at all (I have received ballots
before that indicate that since what my debaters did was "not debate" then
they could not have won a "debate" round.)

Sorry for wasting bandwidth, but it is late, I am tired, and just finished
watching "Don Juan de Marco"--now what would you feel like if the person you
finished watching Don Juan de Marco with insisted that the movie was "a weak
story" and not at all about the power of love?  So, I look to E-debate for
some hope that love of life and love of love itself really does exist.   I
guess I think the only things of importance in life are "reading", "teaching",
"learning" and "writing".  In spite of the almost slanderous ad-homs thrown
out on this list serv, I feel love and kinship with everyone on it.

Now, I have to get up early, sell software training, and worry about my
numbers, my distric manager's numbers and the general corporate ship we call
'Catapult'--

I am jealous of you all.

Looking forward to the fall of '99--

Tony Penders



From mjjtiffany  Thu Aug 13 01:23:27 1998
From: mjjtiffany (Michael J.J. Tiffany)
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 23:23:27 -0700
Subject: Sorry I said anything
References: <Pine.GSO.3.96.980812202338.18190A-100000@apollo.sfsu.edu>
Message-ID: <WED.12.AUG.1998.232327.0700.MJJTIFFANY@ALTAVISTA.NET>

> > (If Seattle truly does exist, then which came first? Seattle, or
> > the IDEA of Seattle?)
>
> Neither - I think Burke would say that the name came first.
> Once we had the name, the idea and the place could follow.

His early works aside, I think that Burke would actually react with
vehement contempt to not only such a question but the actual act of
ASKING such a question.

Indeed, I'd say that good ol' Eddy would go so far as to blame a large
portion of his society's flaws on the habit of the elite to waste their
time asking these abstract philosophical questions when they could be
doing something noble, like liberating the Colonies or stopping the
Jacobins.

Amalgamating these positions, I'd say that the truly VITAL question now
before us is,

If we cease to question whether the idea, name, or actual city of
Seattle came first, will they ALL cease to exist, in some sort of
laudanum-induced, Coleridge-esque apocalyptic vision?

Or, as I think Burke would suggest, do we have to stop pampering
ourselves with the intellectual comfort of abstraction before we can
truly see Seattle at all?


Deconstructively yours,

J.J.

>From  Thu Aug 13 02:35:16 1998
Message-Id: <THU.13.AUG.1998.023516.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 3836 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 02:35:20
 -0400
Received: from imo29.mx.aol.com (imo29.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.73]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id CAA44512 for
 <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 02:35:19 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from Ara98 at aol.com by imo29.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id 8POCa27851
 for <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 02:35:16 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 38
Message-ID: <741733f8.35d28925 at aol.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 02:35:16 EDT
Reply-To: Ara98 at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Samara Mohamed <Ara98 at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: Sorry I said anything -Reply

Yo, for all of you out there.  Seattle does, in fact, exist.  I happen to work
there and are currently enrolled at a university in downtown.  It is a
fantastic town, and all of you should visit and check out the music scene (and
everything else while your at it).  If you are ever up here, you can find me
at SEATTLE UNIVERSITY!!!

~Samara
seattle u



From whiteben37  Thu Aug 13 02:23:13 1998
From: whiteben37 (ben white)
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 00:23:13 PDT
Subject: Looking for John Sharpe
Message-ID: <THU.13.AUG.1998.002313.PDT.WHITEBEN37@HOTMAIL.COM>

If someone could backchannel me John Sharpe's email address that would
be cool. Thanks.

Ben White
UMKC Debate

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

>From  Thu Aug 13 03:52:40 1998
Message-Id: <THU.13.AUG.1998.035240.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 4087 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 03:53:13
 -0400
Received: from imo11.mx.aol.com (imo11.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.1]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id DAA54104 for
 <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 03:53:12 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo11.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id 8AADa04180
 for <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 03:52:40 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 58
Message-ID: <8a43ead1.35d29b49 at aol.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 03:52:40 EDT
Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Michael Bear Bryant <MWBRYANT at AOL.COM>
Subject: Enough

I am no longer able to receive email. Someone decided that what I was saying
warranted action against me and mailbombed my account.As soon as I clear crap
out, it keeps reappearing. I am currently working with AOL to repair my
mailbox. But I understand I didn't miss alot - just more NDT people avoiding
the core issue and choosing instead to turn everything I say into some sort of
ethics violation.

Since I use this account to also receive student assignments from my internet
supported classes I can no longer afford to be part of this discourse. I still
don't think Parcher, or anyone else, has explained why debate programs are
justified in not dealing with novices.

I know its easy to write me off as a rude psycho-case, but I still think there
are some deeply-rooted cultural assumptions of the NDT community that deserve
further scrutiny. CEDA wouldn't even exist if everything I say was simply a
product of my paranoia. (Thanks to all the NDT physicians for their
diagnoses). I am absolutely convinced that there are elements in the NDT
community that will do anything within their powers to prevent that discourse
from taking place.

To my backchannel supporters - thanks for reading my posts. If you agree - do
something! Don't just sit back and wait to be assimilated! Debate means too
much to all of us to let a small clique of elites make their values the
dominant ones. Also, remember, the elites I speak of are hardly a monolithic
bloc. Their ultra-competitiveness results in intra-elite conflict, too. We
need to use those cracks to our advantage. Don't allow CEDA to become NDT's
little sibling. Don't give up the fight to save NDT from itself.

To NDT: Save your responses. I'm not able to read them. You aren't really the
least bit interested in discussing the situation, anyway.

Bear

>From  Thu Aug 13 03:36:08 1998
Message-Id: <THU.13.AUG.1998.033608.0500.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 4205 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 04:36:32
 -0400
Received: from mail.midusa.net (mail.midusa.net [206.28.168.5]) by list.uvm.edu
 (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id EAA23218 for
 <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 04:36:31 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from midusa.net (node22.salina.midusa.net [206.28.169.22]) by
 mail.midusa.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id DAA01912; Thu, 13 Aug
 1998 03:34:23 -0500 (CDT)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <6d878796.35d28c58 at aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <35D2A577.A988A231 at midusa.net>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 03:36:08 -0500
Reply-To: race at midusa.net
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: David Rhaesa <race at MIDUSA.NET>
Organization: smiling small thoughts
Subject: Re: The word "cheating"
Comments: To: CUDb8R at aol.com

glad to know that i am now wrong in addition to be a generalizer and a minimizer
(as opposed to a maximizer).  i don't believe that i'm incorrect though.

CUDb8R at aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 8/12/98 2:30:03 PM Central Daylight Time, race at midusa.net
> writes:
>
> << Reputations are often and usually earned and are commonly associated with
>  talent.  Often it is the talent that results in wins. >>
> No sir, you are incorrect.  It is reputations that are gained by talent, but
> all to often, the reputation of a school will get less talented debaters the
> win.
>
> Kirk Wilson
> CU DEBATE

>From  Thu Aug 13 03:42:03 1998
Message-Id: <THU.13.AUG.1998.034203.0500.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 4294 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 04:42:27
 -0400
Received: from mail.midusa.net (mail.midusa.net [206.28.168.5]) by list.uvm.edu
 (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id EAA43092 for
 <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 04:42:26 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from midusa.net (node22.salina.midusa.net [206.28.169.22]) by
 mail.midusa.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id DAA27928; Thu, 13 Aug
 1998 03:40:18 -0500 (CDT)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <8a43ead1.35d29b49 at aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <35D2A6DA.35C2E105 at midusa.net>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 03:42:03 -0500
Reply-To: race at midusa.net
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: David Rhaesa <race at MIDUSA.NET>
Organization: smiling small thoughts
Subject: Re: Enough
Comments: To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM

obvious contradiction in this post between speaking of ndt as a whole and pointing
out the divisions within ndt.  the part about divisions with ndt and the
non-monolithic nature was the most reasonable description i'd heard from bear yet.

dbr

Michael Bear Bryant wrote:

> I am no longer able to receive email. Someone decided that what I was saying
> warranted action against me and mailbombed my account.As soon as I clear crap
> out, it keeps reappearing. I am currently working with AOL to repair my
> mailbox. But I understand I didn't miss alot - just more NDT people avoiding
> the core issue and choosing instead to turn everything I say into some sort of
> ethics violation.
>
> Since I use this account to also receive student assignments from my internet
> supported classes I can no longer afford to be part of this discourse. I still
> don't think Parcher, or anyone else, has explained why debate programs are
> justified in not dealing with novices.
>
> I know its easy to write me off as a rude psycho-case, but I still think there
> are some deeply-rooted cultural assumptions of the NDT community that deserve
> further scrutiny. CEDA wouldn't even exist if everything I say was simply a
> product of my paranoia. (Thanks to all the NDT physicians for their
> diagnoses). I am absolutely convinced that there are elements in the NDT
> community that will do anything within their powers to prevent that discourse
> from taking place.
>
> To my backchannel supporters - thanks for reading my posts. If you agree - do
> something! Don't just sit back and wait to be assimilated! Debate means too
> much to all of us to let a small clique of elites make their values the
> dominant ones. Also, remember, the elites I speak of are hardly a monolithic
> bloc. Their ultra-competitiveness results in intra-elite conflict, too. We
> need to use those cracks to our advantage. Don't allow CEDA to become NDT's
> little sibling. Don't give up the fight to save NDT from itself.
>
> To NDT: Save your responses. I'm not able to read them. You aren't really the
> least bit interested in discussing the situation, anyway.
>
> Bear

>From  Thu Aug 13 04:24:08 1998
Message-Id: <THU.13.AUG.1998.042408.0600.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 4497 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 06:18:54
 -0400
Received: from mail.inconnect.com (mail.inconnect.com [209.140.64.7]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with SMTP id GAA88284 for
 <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 06:18:53 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (qmail 1797 invoked from network); 13 Aug 1998 10:18:51 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO default) (209.140.68.73) by mail.inconnect.com
 with SMTP; 13 Aug 1998 10:18:51 -0000
X-Sender: TomDeGar at mail.inconnect.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19980813042408.0069a1f4 at mail.inconnect.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 04:24:08 -0600
Reply-To: TomDeGar at INCONNECT.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Tom DeGarlais <TomDeGar at INCONNECT.COM>
Subject: Korcok and "Cheating"

In the immortal words of Michael Miroslav Korcok's judging philosophy:

"I vote the list.  If you don't know what that is, you're not on it."

A blast from the past for my buddy Mike...(always remember the good old days!)
(Is it odd to be friends with both Korcok and Bear?)

Tom



From wnewnam  Thu Aug 13 07:45:43 1998
From: wnewnam (William E Newnam)
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 08:45:43 -0400
Subject: The word "cheating"
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.96.980812135554.20523C-100000@apollo.sfsu.edu>
Message-ID: <THU.13.AUG.1998.084543.0400.WNEWNAM@EMORY.EDU>

Shawn,

Extremely rarely.

bill n
emory

On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, Shawn T Whalen wrote:

> Over the past few years I've had the good fortune to work with quite of
> few folks getting their first exposure to of any kind to academic debate.
> In doing so, I've devoted a little thought to how to deal with new
> debaters and new coaches when they thought they won a debate but the judge
> votes against them.  My observations have been that suspicions about the
> judges integrity come easiest to this group and I have often found myself
> trying to defend judges and judging (generally).
>
> As a result of all this I've spent a great deal of time reflecting about
> my experiences in debate over the last 21 years.  I now tell my new
> debaters that I cannot think of a single case where I suspect that a judge
> voted for a team that, in that judges mind, had lost the debate.  In other
> words, I've never seen a judge cheat.
>
> Surely I've seen judges who seem lost or confused by a debate, but in my
> experience those judges do the best they can to sort things out and pick a
> winner that "makes sense" to them.  There have also been loads of rounds
> where the judge knew one team and had no prior history with the other, but
> (while recognizing that there can be subconscious credibility issues), in
> my experience, I don't think I've ever seen any of these people vote in
> opposition to how they really thought the debate came out.
>
> I think we do a disservice to judges and to the hard work of everyone in
> the community when we perpetuate what I believe is the "corruption myth."
> But maybe I'm just naive.  I'm not asking folks to name any names or
> rehash any old debates, but I am curious if others believe that
> unethically corrupt judging has been a part of their debate experiences.
>
> Shawn Whalen
>
> Director of Forensics
> San Francisco State University
> swhalen at sfsu.edu
> (415) 338-3173
>
> On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, William E Newnam wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, Michael Bear Bryant wrote:
> >
> > > In a message dated 98-08-12 15:29:41 EDT, you write:
> > >
> > > <<
> > >  Reputations are often and usually earned and are commonly associated with
> > >  talent.  Often it is the talent that results in wins.
> > >   >>
> > >
> > > I have to agree, on the whole, with David's sentiments. Still, there's plenty
> > > of examples I've encountered in the past twenty-five years where both teams
> > > admit the decision seemed to be based more on who was "tightest" with the
> > > judge. We have to admit that most of the rounds are close enough that the
> > > judge has tremendous latitude in crafting justifications for voting in either
> > > direction.
> >
> >
> > I would just add, that given that and the thousands of rounds that occur
> > in the course of a year, we should all pat ourselves on the back that
> > truly politicized decisions do not occur more often.
> >
> > And, I think they occur less than they did 25 years ago.
> >
> > bill n
> > emory
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Where I disagree with Mr. Hogan is his assertion that national-level judges
> > > are more biased than regional judges. My experience indicates that the exact
> > > reverse is true, and that NDT national-level coaches are just slowly beginning
> > > to trust national-level CEDA judges.
> > >
> > > Bear
> > >
> >
>



From mdickman  Thu Aug 13 08:36:14 1998
From: mdickman (Michael R. Dickman)
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 09:36:14 -0400
Subject: The word "cheating"
Message-ID: <THU.13.AUG.1998.093614.0400.MDICKMAN@CC.CUMBER.EDU>

I would second bill n's answer below and might go as far as to say never.  What I think happens goes more like this...

Team B(org) vs team P(odunk) with judge A#1 Grad asst.  who travels weekly and knows team B and has heard them on several ocasions.  Team B runs a position that judge A#1 has heard several times before, in fact, she's one step ahead on her flow!  Since the judge knows the position, team B feels free to offer it in short hand form,  filled with arcane abbreviations and perhaps missing a few cards which would explain the position to those who have never heard it before (namely team P).  Judge A#1 fills in the gaps for team B, understands the arg and gives it lots of weight in the round.  Team P doesn't get the importance of the arg because the don't understand it and haven't heard it the same as judge A#1.  The judge picks up team B and team P starts grumbling, WE WAS ROBBED!  Were they?  In a way yes, and it would be real easy for team P to say they lost on rep.  But the the judge team P just didn't cover that kritik enough and it was clear that they should have.  How do we fix this problem?  As a coach at a Podunk U.  I try to stress the importance of cross x and try to instill in my debaters the mantra that there are no dumb questions  (at least when dealing with a position you don't understand.)  On the other hand I think it is incumbant on all debaters to read arguments fully and to explain their args in the speech when you are presenting any argument (unless both your opponent and the judge are "in the know")  Most important I think judges should try (and I think most do try) to judge args based only on what they hear in a particular round.  

In short it's not cheating, or voting on rep, it's voting on what you understand because you've heard it before.

Mike
CC Debate  

----------
From:   William E Newnam[SMTP:wnewnam at EMORY.EDU]
Sent:   Thursday, August 13, 1998 8:45 AM
To:     EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU
Subject:        Re: The word "cheating"

Shawn,

Extremely rarely.

bill n
emory

On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, Shawn T Whalen wrote:

> Over the past few years I've had the good fortune to work with quite of
> few folks getting their first exposure to of any kind to academic debate.
> In doing so, I've devoted a little thought to how to deal with new
> debaters and new coaches when they thought they won a debate but the judge
> votes against them.  My observations have been that suspicions about the
> judges integrity come easiest to this group and I have often found myself
> trying to defend judges and judging (generally).
>
> As a result of all this I've spent a great deal of time reflecting about
> my experiences in debate over the last 21 years.  I now tell my new
> debaters that I cannot think of a single case where I suspect that a judge
> voted for a team that, in that judges mind, had lost the debate.  In other
> words, I've never seen a judge cheat.
>
> Surely I've seen judges who seem lost or confused by a debate, but in my
> experience those judges do the best they can to sort things out and pick a
> winner that "makes sense" to them.  There have also been loads of rounds
> where the judge knew one team and had no prior history with the other, but
> (while recognizing that there can be subconscious credibility issues), in
> my experience, I don't think I've ever seen any of these people vote in
> opposition to how they really thought the debate came out.
>
> I think we do a disservice to judges and to the hard work of everyone in
> the community when we perpetuate what I believe is the "corruption myth."
> But maybe I'm just naive.  I'm not asking folks to name any names or
> rehash any old debates, but I am curious if others believe that
> unethically corrupt judging has been a part of their debate experiences.
>
> Shawn Whalen
>
> Director of Forensics
> San Francisco State University
> swhalen at sfsu.edu
> (415) 338-3173
>
> On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, William E Newnam wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, Michael Bear Bryant wrote:
> >
> > > In a message dated 98-08-12 15:29:41 EDT, you write:
> > >
> > > <<
> > >  Reputations are often and usually earned and are commonly associated with
> > >  talent.  Often it is the talent that results in wins.
> > >   >>
> > >
> > > I have to agree, on the whole, with David's sentiments. Still, there's plenty
> > > of examples I've encountered in the past twenty-five years where both teams
> > > admit the decision seemed to be based more on who was "tightest" with the
> > > judge. We have to admit that most of the rounds are close enough that the
> > > judge has tremendous latitude in crafting justifications for voting in either
> > > direction.
> >
> >
> > I would just add, that given that and the thousands of rounds that occur
> > in the course of a year, we should all pat ourselves on the back that
> > truly politicized decisions do not occur more often.
> >
> > And, I think they occur less than they did 25 years ago.
> >
> > bill n
> > emory
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Where I disagree with Mr. Hogan is his assertion that national-level judges
> > > are more biased than regional judges. My experience indicates that the exact
> > > reverse is true, and that NDT national-level coaches are just slowly beginning
> > > to trust national-level CEDA judges.
> > >
> > > Bear
> > >
> >
>

>From  Thu Aug 13 10:56:31 1998
Message-Id: <THU.13.AUG.1998.105631.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 7278 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 10:56:46
 -0400
Received: from imo11.mx.aol.com (imo11.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.1]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id KAA58486 for
 <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 10:56:44 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from Westtoast at aol.com by imo11.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id
 MUIJa04179; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 10:56:31 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 167
Message-ID: <aec606a8.35d2fea1 at aol.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 10:56:31 EDT
Reply-To: Westtoast at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Terrance Hogan <Westtoast at AOL.COM>
Subject: Reputation's effect on rounds
Comments: To: mdickman at CC.CUMBER.EDU

        Here's another scenario that I think happens somewhat more often that is very
similar to your scenario. Team #4 from B(org) goes into a round against Team
#1
from P(odunk) Team B4 is running Team B1 and B2's case but didn't write it and
do not understand it as well. Judge has heard B1 and B2 argue case, and this
is
the fourth round of the day, and is tired. Judge has never heard P1 case. Team
B4 reads case but gets chewed up in C-X. Judge still fills in from experience
of
B1 and B2, even though they may not have made the arguments properly, maybe
not on purpose, but because of fatigue. P1 extends good c-x, and uses it
through
round with a couple of good cards. Judge has experience that lots of cards are
powertagged anyway and maybe doesn't give cards enough. P1 might have won
close round, but rep of P1 and P2 carries over into round and turns ballot in
favor
of B4.
        I think there might as well be an attitude in some coaches minds that is
similar
to the old boxing axiom that a challenger can't beat a champ on points, they
have
to knock them out. Not that a P team has to slaughter a B team, but that the B
team needs to make a somewhat signicant error that captures the judges
attention.
If neither team makes significant errors, I think rep. can have an effect.I
think reputation probably has it's biggest effect with the #4-7 teams from
prestigious programs.
        But on the flip side, I know of a P1 that used rep. to that team's
advantage a few years ago. They wrote a case and didn't have a lot of
luck with it.After one of the late Fall majors, they looked through the case
list, found out what Harvard was running, and researched and wrote their
own version of it. They made sure the judge heard it was Harvard's case
3 or 4 times in a round, and did pretty well in their region after that.

Hogan



From smithr  Thu Aug 13 10:10:51 1998
From: smithr (Ross Smith)
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 11:10:51 -0400
Subject: Fall Tournament Calendar -- for others that missed it
Message-ID: <THU.13.AUG.1998.111051.0400.SMITHR@WFU.EDU>

>Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 20:51:09 -0500
>From: krueger <mkrueger at frank.mtsu.edu>
>Organization: Middle Tennessee State Debate
>To: smithr at WFU.EDU
>Subject: Fall Tournament Calendar
>References: <199808010023.TAA29460 at saluki-mail.siu.edu>
>
>Ross-
>
>>From the exec sec report 8/1/98:
>
>> Tournament information is listed as follows: date, tournament name, host
>> school, location.  # of prelim rounds, divisions (other events).  Contact
>> information.  Tournaments are open to all unless otherwise indicated.
>> O=open, J=junior, N=novice, LD=Lincoln-Douglas, PS=public sphere, R=rookie,
>> p=parli, ie=individual events, nld=nfa-ld.  .
>>
>> SEPTEMBER
>>         12, Cumberland Gap, Tennessee Tech Univ, Cookville, TN.  4, N.  Bob
>> Clougherty, O931-372-6314, F 931-372-6412, rclougherty at tntech.edu. (not
>> sanctioned for points, as it occurs before the third Friday in Sept.).
>>         16-17, 8th Annual National Round Robin, Univ of South Carolina,
Columbia,
>> SC.  7, O.  David Berube, O 803-777-6663, F 83-777-0055, berube@
>> garnet.cla.sc.edu. (not santioned for points, as it occurs before the third
>> Friday in Sept.).
>>         18-20, 8th Annual Earlybird Debates, Univ of South Carolina,
Columbia, SC.
>> 6, O J.  David Berube, O 803-777-6663, F 83-777-0055, berube@
garnet.cla.sc.edu.
>>         25-27, 2nd Annual Pejaver Debates, MTSU, Murfreesboro, TN.  6, O
J N (p ie,
>> nld).  Mike Krueger, O 615-898-5607, F 615-8985826, mkrueger at frank.mtsu.edu.
>>         25-27, Raisin Center Invitational, CSU-Fresno, Fresno, CA.  6, O
J N R (p
>> ie).  Doug Fraleigh, O 209-278-4292, F 209-278-4113,
>> douglasf at zimmer.csufresno.edu.
>>         25-27, Connelly-Garvey Debate Tournament, King's Clg, Wilkes
Barre, PA.  6,
>> O J N. Michael Berry, O 717-826-5900 x5681, 717-826-5988, mrberry@ Kings.edu.
>>         26-27, PSCFA Warm-up, Azusa Pacific Univ, 4, O J N R LD (p ie).
Dave Guin,
>> RCC, O 909-222-8843.
>>
>> OCTOBER
>>         2-3, Utah Scrimmage, Weber St Univ, Ogden, UT.  6, O J N (p ie).
Michael
>> "Bear" Bryant, O 801-626-7186, F 801-626-7975, mwbryant at aol.com.
>>         9-11, Pioneer Invitational, Lewis & Clark Clg, Portland, OR. 6, O
J N PS (p
>> ie).  Steve Hunt, O 503-768-7617, F 503-768-7620, hunt at lclark.edu.
>>         9-11, Spider Classic, Univ of Richmond, Richmond, VA.  6, O J N
PS.  Lisa
>> Heller, O 804-289-8269, F 804-287-6496, lheller at richmond.edu.
>>         9-11, M. Jack Parker Invitational, Northern Illinois University,
DeKalb,
>> IL.  6, O J N.  Kellie Cripe, O 815-753-0514, kcripe at niu.edu.
>>         16-18, Bicker Debates, Northeast Louisiana Univ, Monroe, LA.  6,
O N LD (p
>> ie).  Jodee Hobbs, O 318-342-3182, F 318-342-1369, sphobbs@ alpha.nlu.edu.
>>         16-18, Autumn Gold Classic, Capital Univ, Columbus, OH.  8, O J N PS.
>> Steve Koch, O 614-236-6320, F 614-236-6820, skoch at capital.edu; Sarah Ryan,
>> 614-236-6326, sryan at capital.edu.
>>         16-18, Crimson Classic, Univ of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL.  6, O N
PS (ie).
>> Carrie Crenshaw, O 205-348-8072, F 205-348-8080, ccrensh at com.ua.edu.
>>         16-18, 17th Annual Aztec Invitational, SDSU, San Diego, CA.  6, O
J N (p
>> ie).  Gilbert DelToro, O 619-594-4639, F 619-594-7882, deltoro at mail.sdsu.edu.
>>         16-18, George R. R. Pflaum National Debates, Emporia St Univ,
Emporia, KS.
>> 7,  O J N.  Glen Strickland, O316-341-5709, F 316-341-6213, stricklg@
>> emporia.edu.
>>         23-25, 1st Annual Ray Buchanan Invitational, Pepperdine Univ,
Malibu, Ca.
>> 6, O J N.  Greg Achten, O 310-465-4524, F 310-456-3083, gachten@
pepperdine.edu.
>>         23-25, Mel Moorhouse Invitational, Wichita St Univ, Wichita, KS.
6, O J
>> (ie).  Jeff Jarman, O 316-978-6075, F 316-978-3006,
jarman at elliott.es.twsu.edu.
>>         23-25, Rambler Debates, Loyola Univ-Chicago, Chicago, IL.  6, O N PS.
>> David Romanelli, O 773-58-3808, F 773-508, 8492, dromane at luc.edu.
>>         23-25, Pikes Peak Forensic Tournament, The Colorado Clg, Colorado
Springs,
>> CO.  6, O (p ie nld).  Bonnie Stapleton, O 719-389-6614, F 719-389- 6214.
>>         24-25, 31st Annual West Point Debate Tournament, USMA, West
Point, NY.  6,
>> O J N.  Major Charlotte Hallengren, 914-938-3345, F 914-938-4563,
>> jc1752 at exmail.usma.edu.
>>         24-26, Motor City Debate Tournament, Wayne St Univ, Detroit, MI.
8, O J N
>> (6).  George Ziegelmueller, O 313-577-2946, F 3130577-6300, jmille5994@
>> aol.com.
>>
>>         30-31, Gateway Debate Tournament, Univ of Missouri-St. Louis.
St. Louis,
>> MO.  6, O N PS (p ie, nld).  Tom Preston, O 314-516-5498, F 314-516- 5816,
>> scprest at umsl.edu.
>>         31-2, Harvard, Harvard Univ, Cambridge, MA. 8,  O.  Dallas
Perkins,      O
>> 617-625-4662, F 617-625-1701, dperkins at fas.harvard.edu.
>>
>> NOVEMBER
>>         6-8, Joe C. Jackson, Univ of Central Oklahoma, Edmond, OK.  7, O
J N.  Doug
>> Duke, Jan Hovden, O 405-341-2980 x5587, F 405-330-3837, dduke@ aix1.ucok.edu
>>         6-8, Liberty University Debate Tournament, Liberty Univ,
Lynchburg, VA.  6,
>> O J N.  Brett O'Donnell, O 804-582-208, F 804-582-2113, bodonnel@
liberty.edu.
>>         12-14, The Star Invitational, Florida CC at Jacksonville,
Jacksonville, FL.
>> 3, O LD ( p ie).  Jeff Hess, O 904-381-3620, F 904-381-3462, jhess@
>> fccjmail.fccj.cc.fl.us.
>>         13-14, Cheddar Head Challenge, Univ of Wisconsin-Oshkosh,
Oshkosh, WI.  6,
>> O J N.  Director of Debate, O 920-424-7048, F 920-424-1279.
>>         13-15, Patriot Games, UT-Tyler, Tyler, TX.  6, O N PS LD (p ie).
Jack
>> Rogers, O 903-566-7099, F 903-566-7287, jrogers at mail.uttyl.edu.
>>         13-15, Appalachian Mountain Forensics Tournament, Appalachian St
Univ,
>> Boone, NC.  6, O J N PS (ie).  Glenda Treadaway, O 828-262-2222, F 828-262-
>> 2543, treadwaygj at conrad.appstate.edu.
>>         13-15, Epicenter Classic, CSU-Northridge, Northridge, CA.  6, O N
(p ie).
>> Bill Sheffield, O 818-677-3043, hcspc014 at csun.edu.
>>         13-15, 40th Annual USAFA Classic, USAFA, Colorado Springs, CO.
6, O N (p
>> ie).  Rachel Woodward, O 719-333-3464, V 719-333-3930, F 719-333-3932,
>> woodwardr.dfend.usafa at usafa.af.mil.
>>         14-16, Franklin R. Shirley Dixie Classic, Wage Forest Univ,
Winston- Salem,
>> NC.  8, O.  Allan Louden, 336-758-5408, F 336-758-4691, louden at wfu.edu; Ross
>> Smith, O 336-785-5268, smithr at wfu.edu.
>>         21-22, 9th Annual Southern Tier Forensics Festivan/Fall CEDA East
Regional
>> Champs, Binghamton Univ, Binghamton, NY.  6, JV N.  Jolene Chan,   O
>> 607-777-2705, F 607-777-6501, be26123 at binghamton.edu.
>>
>> DECEMBER
>>         4-5, Louisiana Lagniappe, LSU-Shreveport, Shreveport, LA.  6, O J
N (p ie).
>> Jorji Jarzabek, O 318-797-5318, F 318-797-5132, mjarzabe at pilot.lsus.edu.
>>         4-6, PSCFA Fall Champs, Mt. San Antonio Clg.  6, O J N R (p ie).  Ken
>> Sherwood, LA CC, 213-953-4294.
>>         5, Study Break Debate Tournament, Webster Univ, St. Louis, MO.
4, N J.
>> Scott Jensen, O 314-968-7439, F 314-968-7403, jensensc at websteruniv.edu.
>>         5-7, William DeMougeot Debates, Univ of North Texas, Denton, TX.
8, O J.
>> Mark DeLoach, O 940-565-2588, F 940-565-3630, deloach at unt.edu.
>>
>>         5-7, Forensics Fiesta, Arizona St Univ, Phoenix, AZ.  6, O J LD
(p ie).
>> Doyle Srader, O 602-965-5578, F 602-965-4291, srader at asu.edu.
>>         29-31, Alan Nichols National Forensics Tournament, Univ of Southern
>> California, Los Angeles, CA.  8, O J N.  David Damus, O 213-687-7275 x13, F
>> 213-74-0014, damus at aol.com.
>>
>> JANUARY
>>         2-4, Winter at the Beach, CSU-Long Beach, Long Beach, CA.  8, O J
N (p ie).
>> Matt Taylor, O 562-985-4340, F 562-985-4259, taylorm at csulb.edu.
>>         2-4, West Coach Invitational, Univ of Redlands, Redlands, CA. 6-8, O.
>> Invitation only.  William Southworth, O909-793-2121 x3542, F 909-335-5215,
>> southwor at jasper.uor.edu.
>>         22-23, Dr. Arnold Henry Debate & Forensics Tournament, Arkansas
Tech Univ,
>> Russellville, AR.  5, O N (p ie).  Robert Bolen, O 501-968-0458, F 501-964-
>> 0504, sjrb at atuvm.atu.edu.
>>         22-24, Gorlok Gala, Webster Univ, St. Louis, MO.  6, O J N PS (ie
p nld).
>> Scott Jensen, O 314-968-7439, F 314-968-7403, jensensc at websteruniv.edu.
>>         22-24, The Return of the Hurricane Debates, Univ of Miami, Coral
Gables,
>> FL.  6, O N.  David Steinberg, O 305-284-5553, F 305-284-3648, dave@
>> miami.edu.
>>         23-25, Glenn R. Capp Debates, Baylor Univ, Waco, TX.  8, O J N.
Karla
>> Leeper, O 254-710-6919, F 254-710-1563, karla_leeper at baylor.edu.
>>
>> FEBRUARY
>>         5-7, Peachbelt Classic, Georgia Clg & St Univ, Milledgeville, GA.
6, O J N
>> (p ie).  David Muschell, O 912-445-5556, F 912-445-5961, dmuschel@
>> mail.gac.peachnet.edu.
>>         6-7, Russell D. Martin, Cornell Univ, Ithaca, NY.  6, O J N LD PS
(ie).
>> Pamela Stepp, O 607-255-7819, F 607-254-1322, pls8 at cornell.edu.
>>         6-8, Owen L. Coon Memorial Debate Tournament, Northwestern Univ,
Evanston,
>> IL.  8, O.  Scott Deatherage, O 847-491-7916, F 847-467-1748, lsd041 at nwu.edu.
>>         12-14, Mardi Gras!, Southeast Louisiana Univ, Hammond, LA.  6, O
J N PS
>> (ie).  Scott Elliott, O 504-549-5408, F 504-549-5014, selliott at selu.edu.
>>         12-14, Whitewater Classic, Arkansas State University, State
University, AR.
>> 6, O J N PS (p ie).  Mike Fisher, O 870-972-3091, F 870-972-3932,
>> mfisher at aztec.astate.edu.
>>         19-20, FCCAA, Brevard CC, Titusville, FL.  3, O.  Members only.
Barbara
>> Williamson, O 407-632-1111 x42030, F 407-634-3723, williamsonb@
>> brevard.cc.fl.us.
>>         19-21, MAFA State Tournament, Central Missouri St Univ,
Warrensburg, MO.
>> 6, O (p ie nld).  Jessica Leonard, O 816-271-4397, F 816-271-5987,
>> leonard at griffon.mwsc.edu; Harold Lawson, O 660-543-4459, F 660-543-8006,
>> blawson at terraworld.net.
>>
>>         26-28, Whitman Clg NFC Designated Speech Tournament, Whitman Clg,
Walla
>> Walla, WA.  6, O J  PS (p ie).  Jim Hanson, O 509-527-5499, F 509-527- 5039,
>> hansonjb@ whitman.edu.
>>         26-28, Southeast/Southeast Central Champs & District VI NDT
Qualifier, Univ
>> of South Carolina, Columbia, SC.  6, O J N.  David Berube, O 803-7776663, F
>> 803-777-0055, berube at garnet.cla.sc.edu.
>>
>>         26-28, Jack Samosky Invitational, CSU-Hayward, Haward, CA.  6, O
N R (p
>> ie).  Deborah Alexander, O 510-885-3522, F 5100-885-4748. dalexand@
>> csuhayward.edu.
>>         26-28, PSCFA Spring Champs, LA Valley Clg.  6, O J N R (p ie).  Greg
>> Miller, SDSU, 619-594-4947.
>>
>> MARCH
>>         5-7, Novice Nationals, JV Nationals, Chesapeake Classic, Towson Univ,
>> Towson, MD.   O J N.  Ken Broda-Bahm, O 410-830-2888, F 410-830-3651,
>> kbrodabahm at towson.edu.
>>         6-8, Chicago National Novice Debates, Northwestern Univ,
Evanston, IL.  8,
>> N.  Scott Deatherage, O 847-491-7916, F 847-467-1748, lsd041 at nwu.edu. (not
>> sanctioned for points, as it does not follow CEDA division requirements for
>> novice)
>>         10-13, Pi Kappa Delta Nationals, N Dakata St Univ, Fargo, ND.  6,
O J N PS
>> (p ie nld).  Invitation only.  Scott Jensen, O 314-968-7439, F 314-968-7403,
>> jensensc at websteruniv.edu.
>>         12-14, ADA National Championship Tournament, Mary Washington Clg,
>> Fredericksburg, VA.  6, O J N.  Members only.  Pat McMuller or John Morello
>> (only contact info given).
>>         19-22, CEDA Nationals, SIU, Carbondale, IL.  8, O.  Carrie
Crenshaw,    O
>> 205-348-8072, F 205-348-6213, ccrensh at ccom.ua.edu.
>>
>> APRIL
>>         PSCFA Cool-off, S. Orange Co. CC.  4, O LD (p ie).  Yancy Duncan,
LAVC,
>> 818-781-1200 x 257 (not sanctioned for points, as it occurs after nationals).
>
>--
>Michael Krueger
>Director of Debate
>Middle Tennessee State University
>Box 43
>Murfreesboro, TN 37132
>(615)  898-5607 (office)
>(615) 898-5826 (fax)
>http://www.mtsu.edu/~debate
>http://www.mtsu.edu/~mkrueger
>http://www.mtsu.edu/~wmts
>
>



From dperkins  Thu Aug 13 10:11:49 1998
From: dperkins (Dallas Perkins)
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 11:11:49 -0400
Subject: Bear, Hotel Space Allocations, NDT Elitism
Message-ID: <THU.13.AUG.1998.111149.0400.DPERKINS@FAS.HARVARD.EDU>

   Well, it seems that somebody has finally resorted to email terrorism
and run Bear off the list for a while.  He says that it's all too easy to
write him off as a "rude psycho-case."  I think he's correct:  Bear's
rhetorical style is . . . . .provocative :-).  Furthermore, some of the
things he has said, such as charges that Damus did the famous forgery,
were clearly irresponsible.  Nonetheless, he has in the last three weeks
provoked us to discuss a number of important issues, and some of the
responses to his posts (Parcher defending elitism comes most prominently
to mind) have been nothing short of profound.  On balance, I guess I can't
say that I'll MISS the Bear, at least not for a day or two, but I think it
would be a mistake for us to quit talking about these threads just because
our favorite rude psycho-case has decided to lay low.

   In particular, I hope that the discussions of the role of novice
training, the future of joint subscriptions, the nature and meaning of
elitism in tournament debate, and the elitist actions of the NDT governing
bodies will continue.  I continue to be troubled by the fact that almost
no representatives of NDT governance have come forward to make any
statements on the various charges that have been leveled.  Steve Mancuso
did backchannel Bear and me with a defense of his views on the NDT
Committee's rejection of the joint subscription proposal (I don't even
think he was a member of the Committee at the time,) and NDT Board of
Trustees Treasurer Bill Balthrop sent a nice post asking everyone to be
polite, (certainly good advice under the circumstances.)  Other than that,
nothing.

   Several people have pointed out to me in private that it is unlikely
that the responsible persons even know that this controversy is going on.
Apparently nither the tournament director, nor the Board of Trustees
officials responsible for seeing that there are sufficient hotel rooms,
even read this list.

   Perhaps it is unrealistic to assume that this list might serve as sort
of a permanent town meeting for NDT governance.  It is read by a much
wider
audience than people who have any real stake in how that tournament is
run, and not read by many of the people who do.  Perhaps we might have
thought about this when we fused NDT and CEDA lists originally;  there
might be room for a listserve that deals with issues unique to the NDT.
Nonetheless, with all of that said, it does seem to me that the CEDA
leadership manages to stay in touch with the membership through this
listserve, it seems to work pretty well, and I haven't even heard any of
them complaining that Bear is so obstreperous that they can't bring
themselves to read the traffic.  I get the feeling that the problem with
the NDT may be less one of elitism than the simple fact that its
governance is out of touch with the membership.

   Maybe that IS elitism.  Maybe anyone who would presume to run an
organization without knowing much about the needs and desires and feelings
of the membership is the very paradigm of elitism.  At a minimum, I think
we can all see how the disenfranchised membership might become upset.  I
like to think of debate as elitist in the same way that the Marine Corps
is elitist:  anybody can try to join, but only the strongest and toughest
make it.  However, the Marine Corps goes out of its way to make sure that
all those who try feel that they got a fair chance to compete on a level
playing field.  If debate is to have the right to claim that it is elite
in this good sense, it must carefully avoid the charge that it is elite in
the bad sense.  The two are inseparably connected.  If the current
governance of the NDT leads to the bad, unrepresentative, unsympathetic
elitism, it must be changed.

   Finally, I'd like to comment on Ross's post regarding hotel rooms.
Ross is an elitist in the good sense:  seldom officially part of the
governing structure, he moves intercollegiate debate in America through
the force of his ideas, and through the example of excellence that he and
his debaters set every weekend.  His proposal on allocation of hotel rooms
was obviously a bit tongue-in-cheek, but it provoked me to think about all
of these issues, even including how it took the ravings of a Bear to make
us address the issue.

   The NDT Hotel contracts are negotiated by the Board of Trustees, which
usually dispatches a representative to the hotel to check things out,
often accompanied by the tournament director.  This is expensive, but it
is thought necessary to assure that the proposed facilities are adequate.
While the NDT Committee has no right to review or reject the hotel
contract, it does generally receive reports on the hotel, along with other
matters, and it does retain the authority to accept or reject proposals to
host the tournament (although usually before the hotel contract is
finalized.)  NDT Committee members are usually quite astute in noting the
name and number of the hotel and calling early to get reservations, even
before that information has been made available to the membership at
large.  The committee has apparently been less than perfectly astute in
insisting that all hosts have sufficient hotel space for the tournament.

   With all of this in mind, I suggest the following amendment to Ross's
proposal.  If the tournament hotel does not have sufficient rooms to
accommodate everyone who attempts to make reservations by the published
cutoff date, the hotel will be contractually required to continue to take
reservations, and to "bump" people out to some other location in the
following order:
First, all Board of Trustees members;
Second, all those schools whose coach is an NDT Committee member who voted
in favor of the particular host site;
Third, each school with more than six rooms reserved will be reduced to
six;
Fourth, a random draw, conducted the day after the reservations deadline.

   It is my considered judgement that if this rule were in place, we would
likely never have to use it, since the Board would then finally get it
together to secure sufficient rooms.

thanks for reading so long,

dp



From tweiner1  Thu Aug 13 10:28:50 1998
From: tweiner1 (Timothy J Weiner)
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 11:28:50 -0400
Subject: Enough--A new Def.
In-Reply-To: <8a43ead1.35d29b49@aol.com>
Message-ID: <THU.13.AUG.1998.112850.0400.TWEINER1@OSF1.GMU.EDU>

The Jacobian New Literary Dictionary defines E-mail Arson

E-mail Arson -- Starting a flame war then running from the scene of the
crime!  :)

Jake


On Thu, 13 Aug 1998, Michael Bear Bryant wrote:

> I am no longer able to receive email. Someone decided that what I was saying
> warranted action against me and mailbombed my account.As soon as I clear crap
> out, it keeps reappearing. I am currently working with AOL to repair my
> mailbox. But I understand I didn't miss alot - just more NDT people avoiding
> the core issue and choosing instead to turn everything I say into some sort of
> ethics violation.
>
> Since I use this account to also receive student assignments from my internet
> supported classes I can no longer afford to be part of this discourse. I still
> don't think Parcher, or anyone else, has explained why debate programs are
> justified in not dealing with novices.
>
> I know its easy to write me off as a rude psycho-case, but I still think there
> are some deeply-rooted cultural assumptions of the NDT community that deserve
> further scrutiny. CEDA wouldn't even exist if everything I say was simply a
> product of my paranoia. (Thanks to all the NDT physicians for their
> diagnoses). I am absolutely convinced that there are elements in the NDT
> community that will do anything within their powers to prevent that discourse
> from taking place.
>
> To my backchannel supporters - thanks for reading my posts. If you agree - do
> something! Don't just sit back and wait to be assimilated! Debate means too
> much to all of us to let a small clique of elites make their values the
> dominant ones. Also, remember, the elites I speak of are hardly a monolithic
> bloc. Their ultra-competitiveness results in intra-elite conflict, too. We
> need to use those cracks to our advantage. Don't allow CEDA to become NDT's
> little sibling. Don't give up the fight to save NDT from itself.
>
> To NDT: Save your responses. I'm not able to read them. You aren't really the
> least bit interested in discussing the situation, anyway.
>
> Bear
>



From masst188+  Thu Aug 13 10:32:24 1998
From: masst188+ (Maxwell Schnurer)
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 11:32:24 -0400
Subject: In defense of Novice Instruction
Message-ID: <THU.13.AUG.1998.113224.0400.MASST188@PITT.EDU>

IN DEFENSE OF NOVICE INSTRUCTION

        Well I put on a little Black Flag this morning while checking my
email, and I'll be darned if it hasn't riled me up to send a little note
to Edebate about novice instruction.  I HOPE that this post can help
salvage an important discussion among debaters and debate instructors.
But here are a few ideas that I've thought about novices & teaching 'em in
the last couple of years.
        1. Getting novices is easy.  At Vermont, Wake and Pitt the squad just put
up posters to recruit novices.  Make the posters sexy!  Have people
recruit from the folks they know. If there is an activities fair, try to
get some debate representative to sit in on it.  Last year we got almost
fifty names of people who were interested in the various debate options we
have at Pitt.  Trust me, people are interested in debate.
2. Teaching Novices is easy.  The basic instruction of novices can fall
into a couple of evening or afternoon meetings.  Have one of your varsity
debaters make up a packet of basic debate evidence (your most generic
disads, a cp a good affirmative case & the frontlines usually suffices).
Keep it simple and let their natural debate impulses take over.  If you
can meet with novices six times, you can teach them the basics about
debate.  Give them some evidence and get them to file.  You may need to
sit down with them and show them how to file, or expose them to another
debate box.  Two things are on your side: they want to learn about debate,
and they are afraid of getting mashed.  Set up two practice debates and
have them watch a varsity round.  If you can get your debaters to judge
the rounds, then you might not even have to watch the rounds.  But I've
found that the students respond more positively when their "debate
teacher" is also their first judge.
3. You should teach novices in the fall semester, not the spring.   I have
found that it is rough for students to debate other students who were
novices in the fall but have three tournaments under their belt.  They
will get creamed by Liberty and BC :)
4. Some of the best debaters come as stock novices.  I brought Paul Kerr
over from the radio station where we all knew him as the best heavy metal
DJ on the air.  He and I were going to lunch and stopped at the squad room
for me to get a file.  He was curious about what we did and I told him
that we just read all this paper really fast and then someone tells us if
we win.  (I was a relatively simple debater).  So while I was looking for
this file in the other room, I heard this strange noise.  I came back into
the room, and Paul was spewing at an insane speed.  He was some kind of
mutant who could naturally burn rubber.  So we hooked him up with Gordie,
and he was off and running.  I had already met Annalei and Jethro, a
brother and sister team who were aided by their telepathic connection.
Jethro didn't start debating until he was a freaking JUNIOR!!!!  Yep, a
JUNIOR. . . but there he was in the semifinals of ceda nationals!  One of
the proudest moment's of my life . . . I guess this wandering discourse on
my friends is to convey that lots of people have natural debate capacity.
And with some quality coaching and a novice-friendly environment these
people can really become competetetive (in the Ross Smith sense of the
term).   It is possible for novices to become successful varsity level
policy debaters.
5. Novices help the overall strength of a team.  I really think that
novices are a little bit like investing money (or what I assume investing
is . . . the closest I come to investing is paying my taxes every year).
You put a little bit of energy and love into them and then they seem to
grow up and get more and more capable.  Varsity debaters should see
novices as their support network.  Very few squads (emory  comes to mind)
couldn't use more debaters, card cutters, etc.  Novices quickly become
viable researchers, and brain-storming partners.  Strong squads are strong
from the bottom up.  Plus it always stinks for the two hotshot seniors to
graduate and then the team has two or three "building years".  Keeping
novices means that debate programs always have more debaters to become the
top team. . .
6. Travelling with novices is rough, but rewarding.  Beginning debaters
often make a lot of mistakes and much of the actual debate instruction
that coaches will do is on the road.  But the benefit that you can see in
the growth in a single debate tournament is incredible.  Imagine the
excitement in watching two students go from the chaos flow to the line by
line in a single tournament!  Admittedly, it might not give some of us the
same thrill of being in varsity finals, but there is a little bit of spark
in there for us adrenaline junkies.
7. I don't have an argument about having enough time or $.  I sympathize
like crazy with the programs that don't have enough money or time to coach
novices.  I have been blessed with three programs that have the resources
and are supportive to novice debate.  I understand people who can't get
their programs to focus on novices, but I think there is serious benefit
to having a strong novice program at your school, and it might be worth
exploring the institutional barriers that prevent novice instruction.
Thanks for your time, maxwell, Pittsburgh


". . . the effect of jazz on the normal brain produces an atrophied
condition on the brain cells of conception, until very frequently those
under the demoralizing influence of the persistent use of syncopation,
combined with inharmonic partial tones, are actually incapable of
distinguishing between good and evil, between right and wrong."  (Ann Shaw
Faulkner, aqi: Michelle Hilmes _Radio Voices_)
*****King Maxwell's Radical Resources: http://www.pitt.edu/~masst188/*****



From swhalen  Thu Aug 13 10:35:17 1998
From: swhalen (Shawn T Whalen)
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 08:35:17 -0700
Subject: Sorry I said anything
In-Reply-To: <35D2865F.E9BB97CD@altavista.net>
Message-ID: <THU.13.AUG.1998.083517.0700.SWHALEN@SFSU.EDU>

Kenny never liked Eddy.

Shawn Whalen

Director of Forensics
San Francisco State University
swhalen at sfsu.edu
(415) 338-3173

On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, Michael J.J. Tiffany wrote:

> > > (If Seattle truly does exist, then which came first? Seattle, or
> > > the IDEA of Seattle?)
> >
> > Neither - I think Burke would say that the name came first.
> > Once we had the name, the idea and the place could follow.
>
> His early works aside, I think that Burke would actually react with
> vehement contempt to not only such a question but the actual act of
> ASKING such a question.
>
> Indeed, I'd say that good ol' Eddy would go so far as to blame a large
> portion of his society's flaws on the habit of the elite to waste their
> time asking these abstract philosophical questions when they could be
> doing something noble, like liberating the Colonies or stopping the
> Jacobins.
>
> Amalgamating these positions, I'd say that the truly VITAL question now
> before us is,
>
> If we cease to question whether the idea, name, or actual city of
> Seattle came first, will they ALL cease to exist, in some sort of
> laudanum-induced, Coleridge-esque apocalyptic vision?
>
> Or, as I think Burke would suggest, do we have to stop pampering
> ourselves with the intellectual comfort of abstraction before we can
> truly see Seattle at all?
>
>
> Deconstructively yours,
>
> J.J.
>



From swhalen  Thu Aug 13 10:45:25 1998
From: swhalen (Shawn T Whalen)
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 08:45:25 -0700
Subject: The word "cheating"
In-Reply-To: <01BDC69D.D40B08E0@mdickman.ccnet>
Message-ID: <THU.13.AUG.1998.084525.0700.SWHALEN@SFSU.EDU>

What you describe here cannot be corrected for by the judge.  I think
Bill's post explains how these are "natural" bias in human decision
making. And regardless, such a decision certainly doesn't eminate from any
dishonesty on the judges part.

Another solution for Team P, would be to change the way that they view the
judge's critique.  Instead of looking for evidence of dishonesty, they
might look at the critique as a way of figuring out how judge came to the
decision they made so that they can improve in debates that have similar
contexts.

Shawn Whalen

Director of Forensics
San Francisco State University
swhalen at sfsu.edu
(415) 338-3173

On Thu, 13 Aug 1998, Michael R. Dickman wrote:

> I would second bill n's answer below and might go as far as to say never.  What I think happens goes more like this...
> 
> Team B(org) vs team P(odunk) with judge A#1 Grad asst.  who travels weekly and knows team B and has heard them on several ocasions.  Team B runs a position that judge A#1 has heard several times before, in fact, she's one step ahead on her flow!  Since the judge knows the position, team B feels free to offer it in short hand form,  filled with arcane abbreviations and perhaps missing a few cards which would explain the position to those who have never heard it before (namely team P).  Judge A#1 fills in the gaps for team B, understands the arg and gives it lots of weight in the round.  Team P doesn't get the importance of the arg because the don't understand it and haven't heard it the same as judge A#1.  The judge picks up team B and team P starts grumbling, WE WAS ROBBED!  Were they?  In a way yes, and it would be real easy for team P to say they lost on rep.  But the the judge team P just didn't cover that kritik enough and it was clear that they should have.  How do we fix this problem?  As a coach at a Podunk U.  I try to stress the importance of cross x and try to instill in my debaters the mantra that there are no dumb questions  (at least when dealing with a position you don't understand.)  On the other hand I think it is incumbant on all debaters to read arguments fully and to explain their args in the speech when you are presenting any argument (unless both your opponent and the judge are "in the know")  Most important I think judges should try (and I think most do try) to judge args based only on what they hear in a particular round.  
> 
> In short it's not cheating, or voting on rep, it's voting on what you understand because you've heard it before.
> 
> Mike
> CC Debate  
> 
> ----------
> From:   William E Newnam[SMTP:wnewnam at EMORY.EDU]
> Sent:   Thursday, August 13, 1998 8:45 AM
> To:     EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU
> Subject:        Re: The word "cheating"
> 
> Shawn,
> 
> Extremely rarely.
> 
> bill n
> emory
> 
> On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, Shawn T Whalen wrote:
> 
> > Over the past few years I've had the good fortune to work with quite of
> > few folks getting their first exposure to of any kind to academic debate.
> > In doing so, I've devoted a little thought to how to deal with new
> > debaters and new coaches when they thought they won a debate but the judge
> > votes against them.  My observations have been that suspicions about the
> > judges integrity come easiest to this group and I have often found myself
> > trying to defend judges and judging (generally).
> >
> > As a result of all this I've spent a great deal of time reflecting about
> > my experiences in debate over the last 21 years.  I now tell my new
> > debaters that I cannot think of a single case where I suspect that a judge
> > voted for a team that, in that judges mind, had lost the debate.  In other
> > words, I've never seen a judge cheat.
> >
> > Surely I've seen judges who seem lost or confused by a debate, but in my
> > experience those judges do the best they can to sort things out and pick a
> > winner that "makes sense" to them.  There have also been loads of rounds
> > where the judge knew one team and had no prior history with the other, but
> > (while recognizing that there can be subconscious credibility issues), in
> > my experience, I don't think I've ever seen any of these people vote in
> > opposition to how they really thought the debate came out.
> >
> > I think we do a disservice to judges and to the hard work of everyone in
> > the community when we perpetuate what I believe is the "corruption myth."
> > But maybe I'm just naive.  I'm not asking folks to name any names or
> > rehash any old debates, but I am curious if others believe that
> > unethically corrupt judging has been a part of their debate experiences.
> >
> > Shawn Whalen
> >
> > Director of Forensics
> > San Francisco State University
> > swhalen at sfsu.edu
> > (415) 338-3173
> >
> > On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, William E Newnam wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, Michael Bear Bryant wrote:
> > >
> > > > In a message dated 98-08-12 15:29:41 EDT, you write:
> > > >
> > > > <<
> > > >  Reputations are often and usually earned and are commonly associated with
> > > >  talent.  Often it is the talent that results in wins.
> > > >   >>
> > > >
> > > > I have to agree, on the whole, with David's sentiments. Still, there's plenty
> > > > of examples I've encountered in the past twenty-five years where both teams
> > > > admit the decision seemed to be based more on who was "tightest" with the
> > > > judge. We have to admit that most of the rounds are close enough that the
> > > > judge has tremendous latitude in crafting justifications for voting in either
> > > > direction.
> > >
> > >
> > > I would just add, that given that and the thousands of rounds that occur
> > > in the course of a year, we should all pat ourselves on the back that
> > > truly politicized decisions do not occur more often.
> > >
> > > And, I think they occur less than they did 25 years ago.
> > >
> > > bill n
> > > emory
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Where I disagree with Mr. Hogan is his assertion that national-level judges
> > > > are more biased than regional judges. My experience indicates that the exact
> > > > reverse is true, and that NDT national-level coaches are just slowly beginning
> > > > to trust national-level CEDA judges.
> > > >
> > > > Bear
> > > >
> > >
> >
> 



From pgarrett  Thu Aug 13 10:51:06 1998
From: pgarrett (Patrick Garrett)
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 11:51:06 -0400
Subject: idiocy and its effects on rounds
In-Reply-To: <aec606a8.35d2fea1@aol.com>
Message-ID: <THU.13.AUG.1998.115106.0400.PGARRETT@OSF1.GMU.EDU>

maybe i'm reading this wrong, but the impression that i am getting from
hogan is that not is debate discriminatory on the basis of misallocation
of funding (rich vs poor) but also that a good portion of judges lack
integrity and a certain amount of intelligence when deciding rounds.

i think that this argument is insulting to judges and to the other teams,
and portrays a debater who has 'never lost a round'.

i'll grant that this might occur at times, (rare times) but usually the
reason that teams like P do not win in the eyes of the judge is that they
haven't done the work or made the arguments within the debate to justify a
win.

just because they are the fourth, fifth or a freshman team doesn't make
them incapable of beating you.


one of the hardest lessons i had top learn (and still am) is that
reactions, like yours, are usually just superficial and lack a thorough
review of the round.

go back, and redo your flows, and your speaches, it'll help you alot more
than whining about some stupid gap between the rich schools and the poor
ones.

patrick

On Thu, 13 Aug 1998, Terrance Hogan wrote:

>         Here's another scenario that I think happens somewhat more often that is very
> similar to your scenario. Team #4 from B(org) goes into a round against Team
> #1
> from P(odunk) Team B4 is running Team B1 and B2's case but didn't write it and
> do not understand it as well. Judge has heard B1 and B2 argue case, and this
> is
> the fourth round of the day, and is tired. Judge has never heard P1 case. Team
> B4 reads case but gets chewed up in C-X. Judge still fills in from experience
> of
> B1 and B2, even though they may not have made the arguments properly, maybe
> not on purpose, but because of fatigue. P1 extends good c-x, and uses it
> through
> round with a couple of good cards. Judge has experience that lots of cards are
> powertagged anyway and maybe doesn't give cards enough. P1 might have won
> close round, but rep of P1 and P2 carries over into round and turns ballot in
> favor
> of B4.
>         I think there might as well be an attitude in some coaches minds that is
> similar
> to the old boxing axiom that a challenger can't beat a champ on points, they
> have
> to knock them out. Not that a P team has to slaughter a B team, but that the B
> team needs to make a somewhat signicant error that captures the judges
> attention.
> If neither team makes significant errors, I think rep. can have an effect.I
> think reputation probably has it's biggest effect with the #4-7 teams from
> prestigious programs.
>         But on the flip side, I know of a P1 that used rep. to that team's
> advantage a few years ago. They wrote a case and didn't have a lot of
> luck with it.After one of the late Fall majors, they looked through the case
> list, found out what Harvard was running, and researched and wrote their
> own version of it. They made sure the judge heard it was Harvard's case
> 3 or 4 times in a round, and did pretty well in their region after that.
>
> Hogan
>

        ***************************************************
        *  Durch Nacht und       **  Through Night and    *
        *  Blut zur licht        **  Blood to light       *
        ***************************************************



From mdickman  Thu Aug 13 11:23:53 1998
From: mdickman (Michael R. Dickman)
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 12:23:53 -0400
Subject: The word "cheating"
Message-ID: <THU.13.AUG.1998.122353.0400.MDICKMAN@CC.CUMBER.EDU>

I'll Try and answer this down below:


----------
From:   Shawn T Whalen[SMTP:swhalen at sfsu.edu]
Sent:   Thursday, August 13, 1998 11:45 AM
To:     Michael R. Dickman
Cc:     EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU
Subject:        Re: The word "cheating"



What you describe here cannot be corrected for by the judge. 

Why not?  shouldn't the judge try to judge the round on those arguments in the round as presented in that round and try to not fill in the gaps for team B?

 I think
Bill's post explains how these are "natural" bias in human decision
making.

So, since we are naturally biased we should all get over it and not ask those with the ballot to at least examine and be aware of those biases?  It sounds like you are saying that there is no chance of 100% solvency so no attempt should be made at all.  

It should be noted that in my original post I also had corrections for both team P and B.  I do not want to put all the effort on the judge but certainly you agree that a round should be judged based on what happens in THAT round, and that judges should try not to let outside of THAT round considerations influence their decissions, right?

 And regardless, such a decision certainly doesn't eminate from any
dishonesty on the judges part.

Grant!  That was the point of my post!

Another solution for Team P, would be to change the way that they view the
judge's critique.  Instead of looking for evidence of dishonesty, they
might look at the critique as a way of figuring out how judge came to the
decision they made so that they can improve in debates that have similar
contexts.

Right.  But it's damn hard to win an argument that you don't (can't) fully understand!

Mike
CC Debate
Shawn Whalen

Director of Forensics
San Francisco State University
swhalen at sfsu.edu
(415) 338-3173

On Thu, 13 Aug 1998, Michael R. Dickman wrote:

> I would second bill n's answer below and might go as far as to say never.  What I think happens goes more like this...
> 
> Team B(org) vs team P(odunk) with judge A#1 Grad asst.  who travels weekly and knows team B and has heard them on several ocasions.  Team B runs a position that judge A#1 has heard several times before, in fact, she's one step ahead on her flow!  Since the judge knows the position, team B feels free to offer it in short hand form,  filled with arcane abbreviations and perhaps missing a few cards which would explain the position to those who have never heard it before (namely team P).  Judge A#1 fills in the gaps for team B, understands the arg and gives it lots of weight in the round.  Team P doesn't get the importance of the arg because the don't understand it and haven't heard it the same as judge A#1.  The judge picks up team B and team P starts grumbling, WE WAS ROBBED!  Were they?  In a way yes, and it would be real easy for team P to say they lost on rep.  But the the judge team P just didn't cover that kritik enough and it was clear that they should have.  How do we fix this problem?  As a coach at a Podunk U.  I try to stress the importance of cross x and try to instill in my debaters the mantra that there are no dumb questions  (at least when dealing with a position you don't understand.)  On the other hand I think it is incumbant on all debaters to read arguments fully and to explain their args in the speech when you are presenting any argument (unless both your opponent and the judge are "in the know")  Most important I think judges should try (and I think most do try) to judge args based only on what they hear in a particular round.  
> 
> In short it's not cheating, or voting on rep, it's voting on what you understand because you've heard it before.
> 
> Mike
> CC Debate  
> 
> ----------
> From:   William E Newnam[SMTP:wnewnam at EMORY.EDU]
> Sent:   Thursday, August 13, 1998 8:45 AM
> To:     EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU
> Subject:        Re: The word "cheating"
> 
> Shawn,
> 
> Extremely rarely.
> 
> bill n
> emory
> 
> On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, Shawn T Whalen wrote:
> 
> > Over the past few years I've had the good fortune to work with quite of
> > few folks getting their first exposure to of any kind to academic debate.
> > In doing so, I've devoted a little thought to how to deal with new
> > debaters and new coaches when they thought they won a debate but the judge
> > votes against them.  My observations have been that suspicions about the
> > judges integrity come easiest to this group and I have often found myself
> > trying to defend judges and judging (generally).
> >
> > As a result of all this I've spent a great deal of time reflecting about
> > my experiences in debate over the last 21 years.  I now tell my new
> > debaters that I cannot think of a single case where I suspect that a judge
> > voted for a team that, in that judges mind, had lost the debate.  In other
> > words, I've never seen a judge cheat.
> >
> > Surely I've seen judges who seem lost or confused by a debate, but in my
> > experience those judges do the best they can to sort things out and pick a
> > winner that "makes sense" to them.  There have also been loads of rounds
> > where the judge knew one team and had no prior history with the other, but
> > (while recognizing that there can be subconscious credibility issues), in
> > my experience, I don't think I've ever seen any of these people vote in
> > opposition to how they really thought the debate came out.
> >
> > I think we do a disservice to judges and to the hard work of everyone in
> > the community when we perpetuate what I believe is the "corruption myth."
> > But maybe I'm just naive.  I'm not asking folks to name any names or
> > rehash any old debates, but I am curious if others believe that
> > unethically corrupt judging has been a part of their debate experiences.
> >
> > Shawn Whalen
> >
> > Director of Forensics
> > San Francisco State University
> > swhalen at sfsu.edu
> > (415) 338-3173
> >
> > On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, William E Newnam wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, Michael Bear Bryant wrote:
> > >
> > > > In a message dated 98-08-12 15:29:41 EDT, you write:
> > > >
> > > > <<
> > > >  Reputations are often and usually earned and are commonly associated with
> > > >  talent.  Often it is the talent that results in wins.
> > > >   >>
> > > >
> > > > I have to agree, on the whole, with David's sentiments. Still, there's plenty
> > > > of examples I've encountered in the past twenty-five years where both teams
> > > > admit the decision seemed to be based more on who was "tightest" with the
> > > > judge. We have to admit that most of the rounds are close enough that the
> > > > judge has tremendous latitude in crafting justifications for voting in either
> > > > direction.
> > >
> > >
> > > I would just add, that given that and the thousands of rounds that occur
> > > in the course of a year, we should all pat ourselves on the back that
> > > truly politicized decisions do not occur more often.
> > >
> > > And, I think they occur less than they did 25 years ago.
> > >
> > > bill n
> > > emory
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Where I disagree with Mr. Hogan is his assertion that national-level judges
> > > > are more biased than regional judges. My experience indicates that the exact
> > > > reverse is true, and that NDT national-level coaches are just slowly beginning
> > > > to trust national-level CEDA judges.
> > > >
> > > > Bear
> > > >
> > >
> >
> 



From a.dove  Thu Aug 13 07:32:25 1998
From: a.dove (Alan Dove)
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 12:32:25 +0000
Subject: In defense of Novice Instruction
References: <Pine.GSO.3.96L.980813112913.18677B-100000@unixs2.cis.pitt.edu>
Message-ID: <THU.13.AUG.1998.123225.0000.A.DOVE@EROLS.COM>

Maxwell Schnurer wrote:

<snip>
> 2. Teaching Novices is easy.  The basic instruction of novices can fall
> into a couple of evening or afternoon meetings.  Have one of your varsity
<snip>

This is the only part of Maxwell's post I have to disagree with.  Teaching Novices is
many things: rewarding, challenging, fun...but not easy.  Coaching Open debaters is
much easier, since they can receive rapid-fire input in the common tongue of debate
jargon.  Novices require actual teaching skill.

In other words, for those who have coached Open and JV for years, perhaps it's time to
put your coaching abilities to the test -- move up to Novice.

          --Alan

--
_______________
Alan Dove, Ph.D.
N3IMU
a.dove at erols.com
http://128.59.173.136/Poliolab/Alan/Dove.html



From mdickman  Thu Aug 13 11:33:59 1998
From: mdickman (Michael R. Dickman)
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 12:33:59 -0400
Subject: In defense of Novice Instruction
Message-ID: <THU.13.AUG.1998.123359.0400.MDICKMAN@CC.CUMBER.EDU>

Hear hear!!

Three cheers for Alan

Mike
CC Debate

----------
From:   Alan Dove[SMTP:a.dove at EROLS.COM]
Sent:   Thursday, August 13, 1998 8:32 AM
To:     EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU
Subject:        Re: In defense of Novice Instruction

Maxwell Schnurer wrote:

<snip>
> 2. Teaching Novices is easy.  The basic instruction of novices can fall
> into a couple of evening or afternoon meetings.  Have one of your varsity
<snip>

This is the only part of Maxwell's post I have to disagree with.  Teaching Novices is
many things: rewarding, challenging, fun...but not easy.  Coaching Open debaters is
much easier, since they can receive rapid-fire input in the common tongue of debate
jargon.  Novices require actual teaching skill.

In other words, for those who have coached Open and JV for years, perhaps it's time to
put your coaching abilities to the test -- move up to Novice.

          --Alan

--
_______________
Alan Dove, Ph.D.
N3IMU
a.dove at erols.com
http://128.59.173.136/Poliolab/Alan/Dove.html



From mkrueger  Thu Aug 13 12:10:46 1998
From: mkrueger (krueger)
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 12:10:46 -0500
Subject: In defense of Novice Instruction
References: <Pine.GSO.3.96L.980813112913.18677B-100000@unixs2.cis.pitt.edu>
 <35D2DCD9.3F6F@erols.com>
Message-ID: <THU.13.AUG.1998.121046.0500.MKRUEGER@FRANK.MTSU.EDU>

After coaching novices for four years and working at camps two years, I
disagree with Alan and agree with Max.

I certainly am a firm advocate of teaching novices how to debate.  This
year, our squad loses its ONLY high school debater (Daniel Crews) and is
comprised entirely of debaters that started as novices.  I LIKE to coach
novices.

Now, why do I think that coaching novices is easy?  First, you don't
have to convince them to "unlearn" anything.  For those of you who have
had to convince students with high school experience their coach isn't
the best thing in the world, you'll understand.  Second, novices have an
incredibly high learning curve.  They pick up on things SO incredibly
quickly, and Max is right--my advanced debaters can help alot.  I have a
much easier time getting my novices competative against other novices,
and I don't spend a disporportionate time with them.  Third, I think
that intermediate/JV type debaters are the hardest to coach--they need
to learn how to research BETTER, they need to learn how arguments fit
together BETTER, and so on.  It is MUCH harder to get teams to make the
leap FROM novice to varsity than to get them initiated.  I think
coaching varsity debaters is even harder, but purely because there is
such a fine line between most of them.

Anyway, the point is that I agree with Bear and Max and others.  Get
some novices and see what you can learn from them.  Amazing what they
may see and tell you.  Plus, it is incredibly rewarding to see how much
novices learn.  They learn MUCH more than varsity debaters.

In the SE/SEC region, we have strong novice competition--Cumberland,
Vanderbilt, Alabama, SE Louisiana, Clemson, Furman (this year they
should break out), Appalachian State, Arkansas State, Arkansas Tech,
Tennessee Tech, North Carolina and others are all great competition and
we have to work very hard to try and keep a step ahead (which of course
we don't always do).  Also, the ADA schools do a great job; ADA
Nationals in the novice division was a bloodbath last year.  I imagine
many of the students from ADA and CEDA novice nationals will be
incredibly good in the years to come.

Anyway, if anyone wants to know what we do to recruit novices (above and
beyond what Max and others have suggested), just let me know.  I'll be
happy to share insights.

Thanks for reading.

mike


Alan Dove wrote:
>
> Maxwell Schnurer wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > 2. Teaching Novices is easy.  The basic instruction of novices can fall
> > into a couple of evening or afternoon meetings.  Have one of your varsity
> <snip>
>
> This is the only part of Maxwell's post I have to disagree with.  Teaching Novices is
> many things: rewarding, challenging, fun...but not easy.  Coaching Open debaters is
> much easier, since they can receive rapid-fire input in the common tongue of debate
> jargon.  Novices require actual teaching skill.
>
> In other words, for those who have coached Open and JV for years, perhaps it's time to
> put your coaching abilities to the test -- move up to Novice.
>
>           --Alan
>
> --
> _______________
> Alan Dove, Ph.D.
> N3IMU
> a.dove at erols.com
> http://128.59.173.136/Poliolab/Alan/Dove.html

--
Michael Krueger
Director of Debate
Middle Tennessee State University
Box 43
Murfreesboro, TN 37132
(615)  898-5607 (office)
(615) 898-5826 (fax)
http://www.mtsu.edu/~debate
http://www.mtsu.edu/~mkrueger
http://www.mtsu.edu/~wmts



From theloft  Thu Aug 13 12:26:52 1998
From: theloft (Rebecca Galetine)
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 10:26:52 -0700
Subject: jeff bile
Message-ID: <THU.13.AUG.1998.102652.0700.THELOFT@ACCESSONE.COM>

knew i would forget to ask for someone's email...  if you are out there
please backchannel.



From theloft  Thu Aug 13 12:26:07 1998
From: theloft (Rebecca Galetine)
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 10:26:07 -0700
Subject: Need help reaching some folks Re: Looking for Galentine
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.3.91.980812222318.9504C-100000@lonestar.jpl.utsa.edu>
Message-ID: <THU.13.AUG.1998.102607.0700.THELOFT@ACCESSONE.COM>

i am still on accessone, i've just had my head in the sand for a couple of
months.  if the following people could backchannel me it would be
appreciated.  i am at stanford and don't have access to my address book:

mike korcok
sean lemoine
kate shuster
dave breshears
monte johnson
kevin kuswa
aaron moburg jones
dallas perkins
steve herro
josh hoe
ken broda-bahm
greg achten
becky opsata
jim haefele
monte stevens
gina lane
erik corneilier
john sullivan
jason trice
peter mccollum

i know i am forgetting some, so i may post an amendment later.  sorry for
the clutter.

becky


On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, Roy H. Eno wrote:

> I haven't been able to reach Becky Galentine via the accessone
> conduit--anybody out there have a current address?
>
> Skip Eno
>

>From  Thu Aug 13 13:42:52 1998
Message-Id: <THU.13.AUG.1998.134252.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 10717 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 13:43:15
 -0400
Received: from imo28.mx.aol.com (imo28.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.72]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id NAA102536 for
 <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 13:43:14 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from Westtoast at aol.com by imo28.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id
 8BYTa17153 for <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 13:42:52
 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 167
Message-ID: <51ef004e.35d3259d at aol.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 13:42:52 EDT
Reply-To: Westtoast at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Terrance Hogan <Westtoast at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: Reputation's effect on debate

        I have to disagree. I refuse to point fingers or state specifics as
 I do not wish to create a flame war. But there are many decisions that
 benefit B teams that are justified by reasoning way of the flow in the
 face of major basic errors that are on the flow against P teams that
 are justified by the statements "there are no rules in debate" or "the
 activity has evolved away from that."
        Maybe part of the problem is that the B teams are the teams that
 generally are the cause of evolution in the activity, and P teams are
 forced to scramble to keep up. In this case, no one is to blame, but
 you still have victims, as it is difficult for P teams to keep up with
 evolution due to the lack of published policy debate resources. But
 to say that frustration is an inappropriate emotion I believe is
 invalidating a legitimate emotional response. I would like to see some
 way for us all to, at least, valididate the response. If we take that step,
 maybe we could reason our way collectively to a venting mechanism.


 Hogan



From a.dove  Thu Aug 13 08:45:27 1998
From: a.dove (Alan Dove)
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 13:45:27 +0000
Subject: In defense of Novice Instruction
References: <Pine.GSO.3.96L.980813112913.18677B-100000@unixs2.cis.pitt.edu>
 <35D2DCD9.3F6F@erols.com> <35D31E16.3ED7@frank.mtsu.edu>
Message-ID: <THU.13.AUG.1998.134527.0000.A.DOVE@EROLS.COM>

krueger wrote:

<snip>
> Now, why do I think that coaching novices is easy?  First, you don't
> have to convince them to "unlearn" anything.  For those of you who have
> had to convince students with high school experience their coach isn't
> the best thing in the world, you'll understand.  Second, novices have an
> incredibly high learning curve.  They pick up on things SO incredibly
> quickly, and Max is right--my advanced debaters can help alot.  I have a
> much easier time getting my novices competative against other novices,
> and I don't spend a disporportionate time with them.  Third, I think
> that intermediate/JV type debaters are the hardest to coach--they need
> to learn how to research BETTER, they need to learn how arguments fit
> together BETTER, and so on.  It is MUCH harder to get teams to make the
> leap FROM novice to varsity than to get them initiated.  I think
> coaching varsity debaters is even harder, but purely because there is
> such a fine line between most of them.

I think we're seeing the same things, but interpreting them differently.  Yes, the progress
Novices make in a short time is incredibly rewarding.  But teaching them requires
adapting your lesson frequently, re-explaining material in several different ways.  An
explanation that gets a complex concept across to one new debater will completely
mystify another one.  It's like teaching any complicated subject (molecular biology, for
example) to undergraduates with no background in it.

Open and JV debaters are more like seniors majoring in a field or early-year graduate
students: they understand the basics, and need to refine their skills.  That's the shallow
part of the learning curve, so the results aren't as visible.  On the other hand, the ability
to assume a common knowledge base makes explanations a lot easier.  The main
problem in coaching more advanced debaters is not explaining concepts (which I regard
as the core of the teaching art), but persuading them to change their practices.  JV, of
course, can be an absolute nightmare to coach, but the difficulty is still one of persuasion
rather than explanation.

The other way I measure challenges is to ask how many people can do a particular thing
well, and what type of experience it requires.  Any competent national-circuit Open
debater will understand enough about tactics and style to coach less experienced JV and
Open debaters.  Coaching Novices requires both debate skills and genuine teaching
ability.  The latter is something many, but not all, good debaters possess.

          --Alan

--
_______________
Alan Dove, Ph.D.
N3IMU
a.dove at erols.com
http://128.59.173.136/Poliolab/Alan/Dove.html

>From  Thu Aug 13 13:44:45 1998
Message-Id: <THU.13.AUG.1998.134445.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 10860 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 13:44:51
 -0400
Received: from imo28.mx.aol.com (imo28.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.72]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id NAA28472 for
 <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 13:44:50 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from Westtoast at aol.com by imo28.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id
 8ZFUa17153 for <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 13:44:45
 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 167
Message-ID: <61d3b528.35d3260e at aol.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 13:44:45 EDT
Reply-To: Westtoast at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Terrance Hogan <Westtoast at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: Reputation's effects on rounds

        Notice I did not say it happens in every round in that circumstance. I
 gave the scenario in the same vein of the post I replied to. Why do you
 assume that I am saying it happens every time when I give an example
 of when I think it might happen. Also in that post, nowhere did I question
 integrity of a judge. I made sure I was very specific in detailing the post.
 Maybe this is a good case of a B guy not reading/listening to the material
 provided by a P guy studiously enough. Please go back and read the
 post.


 Hogan



From vwb  Thu Aug 13 13:07:36 1998
From: vwb (Bill Balthrop)
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 14:07:36 -0400
Subject: Reputation's effect on rounds
References: <aec606a8.35d2fea1@aol.com>
Message-ID: <THU.13.AUG.1998.140736.0400.VWB@EMAIL.UNC.EDU>

Terrance Hogan wrote:

>         Here's another scenario that I think happens somewhat more
> often that is very
> similar to your scenario.

> Team #4 from B(org) goes into a round against Team

> #1
> from P(odunk) Team B4 is running Team B1 and B2's case but didn't
> write it and
> do not understand it as well. Judge has heard B1 and B2 argue case,
> and this
> is
> the fourth round of the day, and is tired. Judge has never heard P1
> case. Team
> B4 reads case but gets chewed up in C-X. Judge still fills in from
> experience
> of
> B1 and B2, even though they may not have made the arguments properly,
> maybe
> not on purpose, but because of fatigue. P1 extends good c-x, and uses
> it
> through
> round with a couple of good cards. Judge has experience that lots of
> cards are
> powertagged anyway and maybe doesn't give cards enough. P1 might have
> won
> close round, but rep of P1 and P2 carries over into round and turns
> ballot in
> favor
> of B4.
>

Actually, I don't think this happens all that often except when B4 is
also reading the extension cards that are probably as good or better
than P1's.  In the scenario you describe, my suspicion is that the judge
will actually read the cards if they're that important to the round
(unless it's a judge who doesn't read cards....and then fatigue does
become a factor, not bias) then the P1 team will win a healthy percent
of the time, I'll bet.

>    I think there might as well be an attitude in some coaches minds
> that is
> similar
> to the old boxing axiom that a challenger can't beat a champ on
> points, they
> have
> to knock them out. Not that a P team has to slaughter a B team, but
> that the B
> team needs to make a somewhat signicant error that captures the judges
>
> attention.

Well, on this assumption, I might grant that there is a scenario where
"da champ" has to be beaten pretty clearly, but I know from experience
that it happens.  And it happened 20 years ago to a team that won the
NDT and had a *very* rough beginning to the year.  Part of it is that
the experience that results from debating a lot in tough rounds will
allow you to win debates where you don't have the cards.

> If neither team makes significant errors, I think rep. can have an
> effect.I
> think reputation probably has it's biggest effect with the #4-7 teams
> from
> prestigious programs.

My experience with 20 years on both national and regional circuits would
indicate that the prestige factor is pretty well gone by the time you
reach teams 4-7.  At that point, they pretty much have to win or lose on
their own.

>         But on the flip side, I know of a P1 that used rep. to that
> team's
> advantage a few years ago. They wrote a case and didn't have a lot of
> luck with it.After one of the late Fall majors, they looked through
> the case
> list, found out what Harvard was running, and researched and wrote
> their
> own version of it. They made sure the judge heard it was Harvard's
> case
> 3 or 4 times in a round, and did pretty well in their region after
> that.

Instead of giving credit to Harvard, why not grant that (a) the case
area was a pretty solid one, (b) that P1 actually did some work and
thought about how to run the case effectively and had the ev to do so.
Why denigrate their accomplishments?

Bill Balthrop

>
>
> Hogan



From SJRB  Thu Aug 13 13:37:02 1998
From: SJRB (ROBERT BOLEN 0458)
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 13:37:02 CDT
Subject: Reputation and winning
Message-ID: <THU.13.AUG.1998.133702.CDT.SJRB@ATUVM.ATU.EDU>

Anyone who doesn't believe that what I call the "A team" effect isn't
 a real problem that small schools encounter is kidding themselves!
Some call it the self-fullfilling prophecy and some the expectency
theory. If the challenger(The no name team) doesn't beat the crap
out of the "A' team sorry but you lose- better luck next time.
I work real hard in some debates to deal with this myself. I'm
not attacking anyone and I don't have any particular judge in mind
nor a particular debate round, but it is real and it penalizes
some small programs. I will work on my judging,hopefully others
will also. Bob Bolen, Arkansas Tech



From vwb  Thu Aug 13 13:45:50 1998
From: vwb (Bill Balthrop)
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 14:45:50 -0400
Subject: Bear, Hotel Space Allocations, NDT Elitism
References: <Pine.OSF.3.96.980813095913.10298A-100000@login6.fas.harvard.edu>
Message-ID: <THU.13.AUG.1998.144550.0400.VWB@EMAIL.UNC.EDU>

Well, I guess that I'm clearly part of the elite, and I'd like to
respond to a few of Dallas's points.  I will take the liberty of
clipping much of his post, since I think others should perhaps address
those issues who are still active on the circuit.  For some who have had
short lives and don't know who I am, I now serve as Treasurer of the NDT
Board of Trustees, served for 4 years as a grad asst at Kansas, directed
the forensics program at North Carolina for 14 years that competed at
national, regional, and novice levels in both NDT policy debate and
Individual Events, served on the NDT Committee for years (chair once),
and was president of AFA.  Oh, yes.  I also taught at least two courses
per year and had to publish in order to become tenured.  I'm now
departmental chair.  No wonder I don't have a life.

I agree with Dallas that we need to continue discussing the issues (at
least some of them) that Bear raises.  I do disagree rather strongly
with the tone of many of these messages and with the unwillingness to
grant one another the benefit of the doubt, although I admit to being
guilty of that on occasion as well.

My basic reaction to much of this discussion is that it generalizes from
a few, I believe isolated, instances.  My experience would indicate
reputation played a very small part in debate decisions and that better
cards, more strategic positions, more experience, better coaching, more
assistants, and judging preferences (for particular arguments or style
of debate) were far more influential.  Debate judges judge
differently--that's why you can have two rep teams with a
judge-preferenced, all A panel for both teams and end up with 3-2
decisions.

I also accept the fact that each director has to make choices about what
kind of forensic program he/she directs based on the mission/preferences
of the insitution and department where they survive.  NC is a public
institution (the oldest public university in the nation) that
unabashedly considers itself among the elite institutions of the nation,
whether public or private.  Excellence matters.  So, while we always
have tried to include and develop novice debaters in our program, I can
understand why others make different decisions.  We still allocate
resources as needed to accomplish our goals as we have defined them.  I
think that should be respected, whether you have the same or different
priorities.

As part of this establishing of priorities, I think it important to
realize that there are/should be far more important considerations about
where to attend college than the presence or absence of debate.  All
things being equal, I would prefer that debate be active at all
institutions, but it isn't.  Resources are scarce and folks have to make
choices based on what they believe to be most critical.  I won't go into
this since I've wailed on this thread before on this list.  At UNC,
we've worked with, supported, and sent hybrid teams to tournaments.  It
didn't flourish as we might have hoped, and it might have created
problems had it done so.  If, for instance, the school that we were
helping had not wanted to support debate given their resources and
priorities; and if the hybridization were working, I have to ask the
question:  "To what extent should I use my own scarce resources to
provide opportunities for students at other institutions?"  As an
administrator, I have to ask that question and I have to be able to
explain that to my Dean.  I don't think an appeal to the universal value
of debate for all students (regardless of what institution they attend)
would be successful.  I would, in fact, be bordering on dereliction of
duties from my perspective.  So, I think everything is more complicated
than it is often characterized in the debates on this list.

As to the response from the NDT governance, I think that mostly has to
do with the NDT Committee since they decide the specific eligibility
criteria for the tournament.  I would, however, like to respond to those
areas where the Board has responsibilities.  I would also like to state
that I am responding with my own personal opinion and am not
representing any "official" NDT Board of Trustees position.

Dallas Perkins wrote:

>    Several people have pointed out to me in private that it is
> unlikely
> that the responsible persons even know that this controversy is going
> on.
> Apparently nither the tournament director, nor the Board of Trustees
> officials responsible for seeing that there are sufficient hotel
> rooms,
> even read this list.

Well, I do read this list although it is time-consuming.

>   I get the feeling that the problem with
> the NDT may be less one of elitism than the simple fact that its
> governance is out of touch with the membership.

I am less confident of this than Dallas is since the NDT Committee is
elected by the subscribing schools in each district.  If it is
unrepresentative, the membership bears primary responsibility for that
problem and can correct pretty quickly, I should think.

>    Maybe that IS elitism.  Maybe anyone who would presume to run an
> organization without knowing much about the needs and desires and
> feelings
> of the membership is the very paradigm of elitism.  At a minimum, I
> think
> we can all see how the disenfranchised membership might become upset.

How is the membership disenfranchised when each shool in a district
should be able to vote for its representative on the NDT committee?
Being disenfranchised is quite different here, it seems to me, than not
exercising the franchise that one has.

>  If the current
> governance of the NDT leads to the bad, unrepresentative,
> unsympathetic
> elitism, it must be changed.

Absolutely agreed.

>    The NDT Hotel contracts are negotiated by the Board of Trustees,
> which
> usually dispatches a representative to the hotel to check things out,
> often accompanied by the tournament director.  This is expensive, but
> it
> is thought necessary to assure that the proposed facilities are
> adequate.
> While the NDT Committee has no right to review or reject the hotel
> contract, it does generally receive reports on the hotel, along with
> other
> matters, and it does retain the authority to accept or reject
> proposals to
> host the tournament (although usually before the hotel contract is
> finalized.)

It is worth noting that, in every instance of which I am aware, the
hotel arrangements are included as part of the initial invitation,
including whether or not one hotel will be used or whether additional
facilities will be required.  Both the NDT committee and Board were well
aware of limitations if they existed.

> NDT Committee members are usually quite astute in noting the
> name and number of the hotel and calling early to get reservations,
> even
> before that information has been made available to the membership at
> large.  The committee has apparently been less than perfectly astute
> in
> insisting that all hosts have sufficient hotel space for the
> tournament.

The Committee and Board have been astute, I think, in assuring that "all
hosts have sufficient hotel space for the tournament."  That need not
mean that all hotel space must be in one facility.  If we were to impose
that requirement, it might limit unnecessarily the schools who could
host the NDT.  It is also worth noting, I think, that the Host Document
for the NDT states the following regarding hotel facilities:

"A representative of the Board of Trustees and/or a person designated by
the Chair of the Board, and/or the Tournament Director will visit the
host institution and city to review all potential properties.  The local
host is expected to make initial hotel contacts and recommendations
prior to a site visit by the Board; only the Board Chair can sign the
final contract with the Tournament hotel(s).  It is strongly preferred
that all participants at the NDT be housed in one hotel or in facilities
that are adjacent to each other.  It is recommended that no more than
two facilities be utilized except in unusual circumstances.  Rates
should be kept as reasonable as possible, generally within the range of
prices at other tournaments throughout the year.  It is also strongly
encouraged that hotel facilities be available for all elimination
debates."

I don't remember whether all rooms were in one hotel at Wake Forest or
not, but there were sufficient rooms at Liberty if everyone made
reservatoins by the cut-off date and there will also be sufficient rooms
at Wayne State (I presume, again, if reservations are made by the
release date).  Becky Bjork indicated at the time she presented the
invitation that there were hotel options but that specifics would have
to be negotiated.  She also had arranged, and it was agreed to in the
contract or in a letter if I recall correctly, that no other
organizations would be booked into the tournament hotel.  The hotel
messed that up and at least one other group was booked, forcing some NDT
teams to move.  I do not know the criteria that were used to decide
which teams were moved and which remained.

>    With all of this in mind, I suggest the following amendment to
> Ross's
> proposal.  If the tournament hotel does not have sufficient rooms to
> accommodate everyone who attempts to make reservations by the
> published
> cutoff date, the hotel will be contractually required to continue to
> take
> reservations, and to "bump" people out to some other location in the
> following order:
> First, all Board of Trustees members;

at least two members of the Board (myself and Tim Hynes) were bumped in
Salt Lake City and were even forced to share a room (each had a single
prior to the bumping)

> Second, all those schools whose coach is an NDT Committee member who
> voted
> in favor of the particular host site;
> Third, each school with more than six rooms reserved will be reduced
> to
> six;
> Fourth, a random draw, conducted the day after the reservations
> deadline.
>
>    It is my considered judgement that if this rule were in place, we
> would
> likely never have to use it, since the Board would then finally get it
>
> together to secure sufficient rooms.

> thanks for reading so long,
>
> dp

ditto.

Balthrop



From swhalen  Thu Aug 13 14:56:44 1998
From: swhalen (Shawn T Whalen)
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 12:56:44 -0700
Subject: The word "cheating"
In-Reply-To: <01BDC6B5.3CCBA080@mdickman.ccnet>
Message-ID: <THU.13.AUG.1998.125644.0700.SWHALEN@SFSU.EDU>

I don't dispute any of this.  Judges should work hard to provide well
reasoned decisions to all the debaters based on the debating done in the
round.

Debaters should know that judges do their best and that different
perspectives will inevitably alter the ways that decisions get made.
Acting on that belief they should use the critique to identify argument
choices that (legitimately) failed in one context and learn what options
might have been more effective assuming that such circumstances might
occur again.


Shawn Whalen

Director of Forensics
San Francisco State University
swhalen at sfsu.edu
(415) 338-3173

On Thu, 13 Aug 1998, Michael R. Dickman wrote:

> I'll Try and answer this down below:
> 
> 
> ----------
> From:   Shawn T Whalen[SMTP:swhalen at sfsu.edu]
> Sent:   Thursday, August 13, 1998 11:45 AM
> To:     Michael R. Dickman
> Cc:     EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU
> Subject:        Re: The word "cheating"
> 
> 
> 
> What you describe here cannot be corrected for by the judge. 
> 
> Why not?  shouldn't the judge try to judge the round on those arguments in the round as presented in that round and try to not fill in the gaps for team B?
> 
>  I think
> Bill's post explains how these are "natural" bias in human decision
> making.
> 
> So, since we are naturally biased we should all get over it and not ask those with the ballot to at least examine and be aware of those biases?  It sounds like you are saying that there is no chance of 100% solvency so no attempt should be made at all.  
> 
> It should be noted that in my original post I also had corrections for both team P and B.  I do not want to put all the effort on the judge but certainly you agree that a round should be judged based on what happens in THAT round, and that judges should try not to let outside of THAT round considerations influence their decissions, right?
> 
>  And regardless, such a decision certainly doesn't eminate from any
> dishonesty on the judges part.
> 
> Grant!  That was the point of my post!
> 
> Another solution for Team P, would be to change the way that they view the
> judge's critique.  Instead of looking for evidence of dishonesty, they
> might look at the critique as a way of figuring out how judge came to the
> decision they made so that they can improve in debates that have similar
> contexts.
> 
> Right.  But it's damn hard to win an argument that you don't (can't) fully understand!
> 
> Mike
> CC Debate
> Shawn Whalen
> 
> Director of Forensics
> San Francisco State University
> swhalen at sfsu.edu
> (415) 338-3173
> 
> On Thu, 13 Aug 1998, Michael R. Dickman wrote:
> 
> > I would second bill n's answer below and might go as far as to say never.  What I think happens goes more like this...
> > 
> > Team B(org) vs team P(odunk) with judge A#1 Grad asst.  who travels weekly and knows team B and has heard them on several ocasions.  Team B runs a position that judge A#1 has heard several times before, in fact, she's one step ahead on her flow!  Since the judge knows the position, team B feels free to offer it in short hand form,  filled with arcane abbreviations and perhaps missing a few cards which would explain the position to those who have never heard it before (namely team P).  Judge A#1 fills in the gaps for team B, understands the arg and gives it lots of weight in the round.  Team P doesn't get the importance of the arg because the don't understand it and haven't heard it the same as judge A#1.  The judge picks up team B and team P starts grumbling, WE WAS ROBBED!  Were they?  In a way yes, and it would be real easy for team P to say they lost on rep.  But the the judge team P just didn't cover that kritik enough and it was clear that they should have.  How do we fix this problem?  As a coach at a Podunk U.  I try to stress the importance of cross x and try to instill in my debaters the mantra that there are no dumb questions  (at least when dealing with a position you don't understand.)  On the other hand I think it is incumbant on all debaters to read arguments fully and to explain their args in the speech when you are presenting any argument (unless both your opponent and the judge are "in the know")  Most important I think judges should try (and I think most do try) to judge args based only on what they hear in a particular round.  
> > 
> > In short it's not cheating, or voting on rep, it's voting on what you understand because you've heard it before.
> > 
> > Mike
> > CC Debate  
> > 
> > ----------
> > From:   William E Newnam[SMTP:wnewnam at EMORY.EDU]
> > Sent:   Thursday, August 13, 1998 8:45 AM
> > To:     EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU
> > Subject:        Re: The word "cheating"
> > 
> > Shawn,
> > 
> > Extremely rarely.
> > 
> > bill n
> > emory
> > 
> > On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, Shawn T Whalen wrote:
> > 
> > > Over the past few years I've had the good fortune to work with quite of
> > > few folks getting their first exposure to of any kind to academic debate.
> > > In doing so, I've devoted a little thought to how to deal with new
> > > debaters and new coaches when they thought they won a debate but the judge
> > > votes against them.  My observations have been that suspicions about the
> > > judges integrity come easiest to this group and I have often found myself
> > > trying to defend judges and judging (generally).
> > >
> > > As a result of all this I've spent a great deal of time reflecting about
> > > my experiences in debate over the last 21 years.  I now tell my new
> > > debaters that I cannot think of a single case where I suspect that a judge
> > > voted for a team that, in that judges mind, had lost the debate.  In other
> > > words, I've never seen a judge cheat.
> > >
> > > Surely I've seen judges who seem lost or confused by a debate, but in my
> > > experience those judges do the best they can to sort things out and pick a
> > > winner that "makes sense" to them.  There have also been loads of rounds
> > > where the judge knew one team and had no prior history with the other, but
> > > (while recognizing that there can be subconscious credibility issues), in
> > > my experience, I don't think I've ever seen any of these people vote in
> > > opposition to how they really thought the debate came out.
> > >
> > > I think we do a disservice to judges and to the hard work of everyone in
> > > the community when we perpetuate what I believe is the "corruption myth."
> > > But maybe I'm just naive.  I'm not asking folks to name any names or
> > > rehash any old debates, but I am curious if others believe that
> > > unethically corrupt judging has been a part of their debate experiences.
> > >
> > > Shawn Whalen
> > >
> > > Director of Forensics
> > > San Francisco State University
> > > swhalen at sfsu.edu
> > > (415) 338-3173
> > >
> > > On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, William E Newnam wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, Michael Bear Bryant wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > In a message dated 98-08-12 15:29:41 EDT, you write:
> > > > >
> > > > > <<
> > > > >  Reputations are often and usually earned and are commonly associated with
> > > > >  talent.  Often it is the talent that results in wins.
> > > > >   >>
> > > > >
> > > > > I have to agree, on the whole, with David's sentiments. Still, there's plenty
> > > > > of examples I've encountered in the past twenty-five years where both teams
> > > > > admit the decision seemed to be based more on who was "tightest" with the
> > > > > judge. We have to admit that most of the rounds are close enough that the
> > > > > judge has tremendous latitude in crafting justifications for voting in either
> > > > > direction.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I would just add, that given that and the thousands of rounds that occur
> > > > in the course of a year, we should all pat ourselves on the back that
> > > > truly politicized decisions do not occur more often.
> > > >
> > > > And, I think they occur less than they did 25 years ago.
> > > >
> > > > bill n
> > > > emory
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Where I disagree with Mr. Hogan is his assertion that national-level judges
> > > > > are more biased than regional judges. My experience indicates that the exact
> > > > > reverse is true, and that NDT national-level coaches are just slowly beginning
> > > > > to trust national-level CEDA judges.
> > > > >
> > > > > Bear
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > 
> 



From swhalen  Thu Aug 13 15:20:44 1998
From: swhalen (Shawn T Whalen)
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 13:20:44 -0700
Subject: Reputation's effects on rounds
In-Reply-To: <61d3b528.35d3260e@aol.com>
Message-ID: <THU.13.AUG.1998.132044.0700.SWHALEN@SFSU.EDU>

Is this directed at me?  I don't think I made claims to that effect.  I
was just trying to clarify my concerns about accusations of judge
dishonesty.  I see the circumstances in your example as something else.

Chuckling about the SF State Borg - we're gunnin' for ya Sparky,

Shawn Whalen

Director of Forensics
San Francisco State University
swhalen at sfsu.edu
(415) 338-3173

On Thu, 13 Aug 1998, Terrance Hogan wrote:

>         Notice I did not say it happens in every round in that circumstance. I
>  gave the scenario in the same vein of the post I replied to. Why do you
>  assume that I am saying it happens every time when I give an example
>  of when I think it might happen. Also in that post, nowhere did I question
>  integrity of a judge. I made sure I was very specific in detailing the post.
>  Maybe this is a good case of a B guy not reading/listening to the material
>  provided by a P guy studiously enough. Please go back and read the
>  post.
>
>
>  Hogan
>

>From  Thu Aug 13 16:29:31 1998
Message-Id: <THU.13.AUG.1998.162931.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 13287 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 16:29:41
 -0400
Received: from imo30.mx.aol.com (imo30.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.74]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id QAA44292 for
 <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 16:29:40 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from Westtoast at aol.com by imo30.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id
 8AOYa12041 for <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 16:29:31
 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 167
Message-ID: <301e7bef.35d34cac at aol.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 16:29:31 EDT
Reply-To: Westtoast at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Terrance Hogan <Westtoast at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: Reputation's effect on debate

A requested repost:

In a message dated 8/13/98 4:13:48 PM Eastern Daylight Time, swhalen at sfsu.edu
writes:

<< I would defer to Bill Newnam's post on how rep works.  I don't disagree at
 all that reputation and familiarity can effect a decision.  My point is
 only that it isn't dishonest.  Judges who vote for B teams, in my
 experience, believe they have made the right decision.  I know of no case
 where a judge purposely voted for a friend, despite a conviction to the
 contrary.

 That being said, I believe that you are right on the mark about P team's
 frustration.  As teachers of debate we need to be aware of the frustration
 and understand its legitimate origins.  However, we shouldn't equate team
 P's frustration with judge dishonesty and encourage team P to vent their
 frustration in claims of dishonesty.

 Encouraging students to use their frustration to motivate them to REALLY
 listen to the components of the judge's decision is the key.  I suspect
 that debaters too often listen for evidence that they've been "screwed",
 which is a selective listening procedure that prevents a more productive
 critique.

 Frustration is a real and persistent experience for debaters and coaches
 alike. Judge dishonesty, I firmly believe, is a myth.  Blaming frustration
 on judge dishonesty, it seems to me, can only serve to perpetuate the
 frustration.

 Shawn Whalen

 Director of Forensics
 San Francisco State University
 swhalen at sfsu.edu
 (415) 338-3173

 On Thu, 13 Aug 1998 Westtoast at aol.com wrote:

 >      I have to disagree. I refuse to point fingers or state specifics as
 > I do not wish to create a flame war. But there are many decisions that
 > benefit B teams that are justified by reasoning way of the flow in the
 > face of major basic errors that are on the flow against P teams that
 > are justified by the statements "there are no rules in debate" or "the
 > activity has evolved away from that."
 >      Maybe part of the problem is that the B teams are the teams that
 > generally are the cause of evolution in the activity, and P teams are
 > forced to scramble to keep up. In this case, no one is to blame, but
 > you still have victims, as it is difficult for P teams to keep up with
 > evolution due to the lack of published policy debate resources. But
 > to say that frustration is an inappropriate emotion I believe is
 > invalidating a legitimate emotional response. I would like to see some
 > way for us all to, at least, valididate the response. If we take that step,
 > maybe we could reason our way collectively to a venting mechanism.
 >
 >
 > Hogan
 >

  >>



From pgarrett  Thu Aug 13 16:00:45 1998
From: pgarrett (Patrick Garrett)
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 17:00:45 -0400
Subject: Reputation's effects on rounds
In-Reply-To: <61d3b528.35d3260e@aol.com>
Message-ID: <THU.13.AUG.1998.170045.0400.PGARRETT@OSF1.GMU.EDU>

On Thu, 13 Aug 1998, Terrance Hogan wrote:


>         Notice I did not say it happens in every round in that circumstance. I
>  gave the scenario in the same vein of the post I replied to. Why do you
>  assume that I am saying it happens every time when I give an example
>  of when I think it might happen. Also in that post, nowhere did I question
>  integrity of a judge.

as a matter of fact you have. the entire discussion is based upon elitism,
either real or perceived, within the debate community in which memebers of
the 'old school' watch out for each others teams in relation to those
teams like P. and about how some of the good old boys are not willing to
let any of the new kids join the club (the club being either the squad
itself or the institution as a whole).

on the basis of the institution as a whole, im not sure why people who are
subject to an unfavorable ballot must always find some sort of scapegoat
to justify their loss. isn't it enough to say, that team b got lucky by
reading the good card vs. the bad one, when team P didn't read one at all?
or that the members of team b happenned to sit down and do some work, or
were fortunate enough to have support from a strong staff?

wouldn't it be much more efficiant to redirect that frustration or angst
into something more productive like doing more research and writing better
briefs, always evolving and becoming better educated on the specifics of
that issue? isn't that why we are here? isn't debate suppossed to be about
discovering the nuances of a position and then taking it apart, as
oppossed to letting ego dictate the activity?

patrick

        ***************************************************
        *  Durch Nacht und       **  Through Night and    *
        *  Blut zur licht        **  Blood to light       *
        ***************************************************



From monte  Thu Aug 13 16:27:41 1998
From: monte (Frank L Stevens)
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 16:27:41 -0500
Subject: case lists?
Message-ID: <THU.13.AUG.1998.162741.0500.MONTE@KSU.EDU>

I want to try something.  We have case lists during the year, and they
make things a lot easier for organizing research.  How about trying the
same concept before tournaments start?  I did this  short lexis search.
"congress should amend title vii".  Done in the lawrev file, the following
case areas appeared.  This is not an attempt to get people to tell
everybody their case before the season starts.  Just want to start a list
of what direction people think the topic could take.  Does anybody else
argree with this?
Here are the results

1.  same sex harassment
2.  apply title vii to japan (gonzaga's case)
3.  applly title vii to the military
4.  redefine the term "employer"
5.  ban anti-nepotism laws
6.  impose vicarious liability (expand the california plan nationwide)
7.  extra-territorial application of t7
8.  ban english only discrimination
9.  ban the after acquired evidence doctrine
10.  allow the eeoc to use arbitration
11.  allow for cognitive discrimination to be covered under t7
12.  allow the eeoc to use testers
13.  change the language of t7 w/ regard to "ethnic" traits
14.  overturn "st. mary's vs. hicks"
15.  allow for attroney fee shifting
16.  ban first and second class status for discrimination claims
17.  require employers to publish grievance procedures
18.  apply t7 to native american reservations

This is not meant to be an exhaustive list.  The idea is for others to
contribute, be it by addition or subtraction, to this list so we can
better predict what we are getting into before the competition starts.

Monte Stevens
Kansas State University



From jablonskip  Thu Aug 13 12:02:52 1998
From: jablonskip (Patrick Jablonski)
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 17:02:52 +0000
Subject: Austin Peay Tournament
Message-ID: <THU.13.AUG.1998.170252.0000.JABLONSKIP@APSU01.APSU.EDU>

August 13, 1998



Dear Friends:

The Austin Peay Speech and Debate Team invites you to attend the 1998
Governors Invitational September 18, 19, & 20 here in "beautiful"
Clarksville, Tennessee.

This year's tournament will feature 6 preliminary rounds and appropriate
elimination rounds of college policy debate in both open and novice
divisions using the current National Policy Debate topic (Civil Rights).  In
addition, we will offer 3 preliminary rounds of Individual Events.  Kellie
Roberts of the very large state university in the town of Gainesville,
Florida has graciously offered to run the Individual Events tab room.

It has been a long time since Austin Peay has offered both debate and
individual events.  We hope you can join us as we continue to rebuild our
program.  We look forward to seeing you in Clarksville in September.

The deadline for entering the tournament is Wednesday, September 16, 1998 at
4pm Central Time.

Sincerely,



Dr. Patrick M. Jablonski
Director of Forensics
Department of Speech, Communication, and Theatre
Austin Peay State University
P. O. Box 4446
Clarksville, TN  37044
Office:  (931) 648-7363
Fax:  (931) 648-5992
E-mail:  jablonskip at apsu01.apsu.edu


 The Austin Peay Governors Invitational

Debate:
The tournament will offer six preliminary rounds in both Varsity and Novice
college policy debate.  We will enforce the CEDA definition of Novice
status.  This year we will use the 9-3-6 time format with eight minutes of
prep time.

The appropriate number of elimination rounds will begin on Sunday morning.
We expect all judges to be there Sunday.  Team swill advance into
elimination rounds according to the following criteria:  1) win-loss record,
2) adjusted points, 3) total team points, 4) double-adjusted points, 5)
opposition strength, 6) a game of paper, rock, scissors.  Just to blend in
with everyone else, brackets will be broken for the Speaker awards will be
given to the top eight debaters in each division on the following criteria:
1) adjusted speaker points, 2) total speaker points, 3) double adjusted
points 4) ranks, 5) variance, 6) a fight with pool cues.

One debate judge will cover two teams.  Each school is asked to provide a
qualified judge to cover all debate teams entered.  Face it, it's not like
we have a lot of debate folks up here right now.  If you have to hire a
judge, you MUST get permission from Dr. Jablonski in advance.  As the MTSU
folks say, I want your judges, not your money.  We are willing to pay if you
judge beyond your commitment.  Your commitment is one round past your team's
elimination.

CEDA Statement on Sexual Discrimination:
This tournament abides by the CEDA Statement on Sexual Discrimination.

Individual Events:
Each school may enter no more than six students in an individual event.
Each student may be triple-entered during a flight.  All entries follow AFA
standards.  Debaters will not be allowed to enter IE events.  One IE judge
will cover 6 slots.

Flight A:  Extemporaneous, Persuasion, Duo & Program of Oral Interpretation
Flight B:  Impromptu, Prose, Informative
Flight C:  After Dinner Speaking, Communication Analysis, Dramatic
Interpretation, Poetry.

All individual events finalists will receive awards.

 Directions:
To campus and the hotel from Interstate 24:
>From Nashville, take Interstate 24 West to Exit 4 (Wilma Rudolph Blvd.).
Go left on Wilma Rudolph.
Travel about 5 miles.
You will cross the Red River and start heading uphill.
The name of the street changes from Wilma Rudolph to College.
The road will fork, sort of.  You now have a choice.
*If you want to go to the hotel, go right (Kraft Street).  After about 2
miles (maybe), there will be a major intersection (US79/US41A).  Make a
right (which, mysteriously, means you are heading North on 41A and South on
79 at the same time)and the hotel is immediately on your right.
*If you want to go to campus from the fork in the road, keep going straight,
which is technically staying on College Street.
Make a right on Eighth Street.
You will immediately notice that campus is under construction.
Go to past the second brick building on your left and park in the lot at the
corner of 8th and Marion Streets.
That second brick building is the Music and Mass Communication Building,
which is where registration will be.  Pairings may be released there as
well.  As of this writing, that is not certain.

To Campus from the Hotel:
Make a left coming out of the hotel.  Go straight at the light, you are now
on Second Street.
Go up the hill and make a left on Marion Street.
The Music and Mass Communication Building will be on your right 1 block
after the stadium.

If you will be flying to the tournament, we offer a free airport shuttle
from the Nashville airport as long as you give us a week's notice.



Hotel
The official tournament hotel is the Quality Inn Hotel-Downtown.  The phone
number is (931) 645-9084.
The hotel is giving us a special $40/night double occupancy rate.  Here's
the catch:  The rooms will only be held until August 18th, 1998.  That's
right, August 18th!!!
Be sure to mention the Austin Peay Debate Tournaments.
If they have never heard of this and refuse to give you the $40 rate, ask to
speak to the Sales Manager, Clara Frazier.
The hotel has an indoor swimming pool with jacuzzi and offers free
continental breakfasts each morning.

A good alternative to the Quality Inn is:
The Ramada Inn Riverview -- close to campus at 50 College Street.
(931) 552-3331.

Most of the other good choices are near Exit 4 on I-24:
Hampton Inn
190 Holiday Road
(931) 552 2255

Days Inn-North
130 Westfield Ct.
(931) 552 1155

Super 8
3065 Wilma Rudolph
(931) 647 2002

Shoney's Inn
3083 Wilma Rudolph
(931) 552 8060

   Wingate Inn
251 Holiday Road
  (931) 906 2989

 Debate Schedule

Friday, September 18, 1998
1:00pm-3:00pm   Registration, MMC Building Lobby
3:30pm    Pairings Released
4:00pm-6:00pm    Round 1
6:00pm-8:00pm   Round 2

Saturday, September 19, 1998
8:00am    Coffee, Pairings, and Ballots
8:30am-10:30am   Round 3
11:00am-1:00pm   Round 4
1:00pm-2pm    Lunch
2:00pm-4pm    Round 5
4:30pm-6:30pm   Round 6

Sunday, September 20, 1998
8:00am    Coffee, Pairings, and Ballots
8:30am-10:30am   First Elimination Round
10:30am    Awards
11:00am    Eliminations Continue

Entries
Deadline:  Wednesday, September 16, 1998, 4pm Central Time.
Please phone, fax, or e-mail entries.
Fax number is (931) 648-5992.  Clearly mark the cover sheet with "Patrick
Jablonski" so that it gets to us.
Phone number is (931) 648-7363.
E-mail is: jablonskip at apsu01.apsu.edu

Snail mail version of above, with fee forms, etc. is in the mail.



From mnt398  Thu Aug 13 20:05:41 1998
From: mnt398 (Marcia Tiersky)
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 20:05:41 -0500
Subject: case lists?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.3.96L.980813161004.5010A-100000@nbc.ksu.ksu.edu>
Message-ID: <THU.13.AUG.1998.200541.0500.MNT398@HECKY.ACNS.NWU.EDU>

I think this is an intriguing idea. Frank made some good suggestions.
Since I have nothing to lose by revealing my potential case ideas, I think
I will join in.  Just a reminder: I don't work for any school, this is
not some secret hint into the thinking of NU, WFU, UGA or anyone else; I
have not discussed case ideas with anyone.

Anyway, here are my thoughts.  Some of them may turn out to be
non-topical, but they are ideas nonetheless.  I got them all from law
reviews I glanced at.  If anyone wants a cite, I'm happy to provide it in
backchannel, but I'm too lazy to include them all tonight.

1. extend title vii to include gender based/race based hate crimes
2. apply title vii to transsexuals
3. extend title vii to small businesses
4. extend title vii to "older women"
5. eliminate BFOQ (bona fide occupational qualification) for women
6. ban mandatory arbitration
7. protect Latinos/Asian Americans for being fired for their
language/accent
8. take the court cases from the end of last term (you don't need to have
suffered an impact from quid pro quo harassment to sue for it and
employers can duck liability by having a working system of dealing with
complaints in place) and turn them into legislation
9. increase the statute of limitations
10.  eliminate the EEOC portion of the process for filing a claim against
one's employer
11. remove damage caps
12. allow claims for hostile work env't based on single events
13. include pregnancy discrimination as a form of gender discrimination
14.  apply title vii to gender stereotyping

I hope this is helpful and that others play along.



Marcia Tiersky

"I think Mulder is the worst FBI agent in the world.  He spends millions
of dollars investigating these paranormal phenomena and never comes up
with any evidence.  He's the Kenneth Starr of the FBI." --David Duchovny



From jarvijl5  Thu Aug 13 20:16:49 1998
From: jarvijl5 (Jason L. Jarvis)
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 21:16:49 -0400
Subject: Enough
In-Reply-To: <8a43ead1.35d29b49@aol.com>
Message-ID: <THU.13.AUG.1998.211649.0400.JARVIJL5@WFU.EDU>

Dare I respond? Oki, i have a couple of thoughts after watching all of
this pass throught my box...

> supported classes I can no longer afford to be part of this discourse. I still
> don't think Parcher, or anyone else, has explained why debate programs are
> justified in not dealing with novices.
>

I think Parcher did a nice job of describing why he didn't have time to
recruit novices and the choices that he is forced to make due to
resources.  Despite what you say above I think he made a real effort to
constructively address the issues that you raised.


> I know its easy to write me off as a rude psycho-case, but I still think there
> are some deeply-rooted cultural assumptions of the NDT community that deserve
> further scrutiny. CEDA wouldn't even exist if everything I say was simply a
> product of my paranoia. (Thanks to all the NDT physicians for their
> diagnoses). I am absolutely convinced that there are elements in the NDT
> community that will do anything within their powers to prevent that discourse
> from taking place.
>


Allright, I guess this is what I don't understand: how is "elitism" unique
to NDT?  I was discussing this thread with a former CEDA debater/teammate,
he
commented that he thought elitism was terribly bad in CEDA when he debated
(graduated in 96)....his explanation was that it might even be worse
because in CEDA you have such a large group of true novices and such a
small pool of experienced debaters.  I can recall a time when the Midwest
was constantly labelled the "elite" CEDA region and how hard it was to
break into the circuit and achieve legitimacy as a debater.  I think that
it may simply be true that any competitive activity may have a certain
element of elitism to it.  It is true that CEDA has gone to great lengths
to incorporate novices into the activity though I think that this is a
product of regional circuits, and not some innate ability to fight
elitism.  Any person who travelled the "national" circuit before the
merger knows that there was a clear group of "elite" teams (UMKC,
Michigan State, Gonzaga, Emporia, Northwest Louisiana, etc)....hell the
Jesuit was a qualification only tournament, hard to be more elite than
that.

That being said, I think that there are things about debate which I find
distressing.  I think it is an activity that seems to encourage a certain
level of cliqueshness (is that a word?:)), in the sense that I remember
when I was a young debater and found that the best debaters seemed to only
talk to one another....I think it is easy in our community to judge people
by their debate skills and subsequently write off anyone that doesn't seem
to meet our standards of what constitutes quality as a debater, coach or
critic.  From a community standpoint this is a horrible way to treat one
another, yet it happens.  I'm not pointing fingers at anyone, and I have
found myself doing these same things, but it seems to me that if the goal
is to foster a true community and to combat elitism, then we need to
critically evaluate the way we treat one another and recognize that debate
is just debate....there are plenty of amazing people in our activity that
may never see an outround or get a speaker award....

> To my backchannel supporters - thanks for reading my posts. If you agree - do
> something! Don't just sit back and wait to be assimilated! Debate means too
> much to all of us to let a small clique of elites make their values the
> dominant ones. Also, remember, the elites I speak of are hardly a monolithic
> bloc. Their ultra-competitiveness results in intra-elite conflict, too. We
> need to use those cracks to our advantage. Don't allow CEDA to become NDT's
> little sibling. Don't give up the fight to save NDT from itself.
>
> To NDT: Save your responses. I'm not able to read them. You aren't really the
> least bit interested in discussing the situation, anyway.

One additional note, as Kwon pointed out, this discussion died because of
a lack of constructive posts and a huge amount of hostility.  I recently
returned from a eye opening trip to India. I have to say that I was a
little saddened by the 300 odd messages in my box which contained some of
the meanest things I have read in a long time.  Personally, I usually scan
Bear's posts, I don't like the flames but occasionally I find a thought
provoking letter....I have to wonder though, Bear look back over what you
read, Kwon pointed this out pretty thoroughly: don't you think that many
of your posts only served to chill discussion?  At one point you told
someone that they were speaking for NDT, as a former CEDA debater and
current NDT/CEDA coach it
bothers me a bit that you don't recognize that you have cast yourself as
the voice of CEDA.  If this is the role you want, perhaps a more civil
posture would be the best way to facilitate your goals.  I thought
Gordon's message was a much needed step in the right
direction...constructive discussion over adhoms and angst.

.02,

jason jarvis
augie, il



From jbrey  Thu Aug 13 20:20:01 1998
From: jbrey (James Brey)
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 21:20:01 -0400
Subject: fake Hulkster search progress
Message-ID: <THU.13.AUG.1998.212001.0400.JBREY@GARNET.ACNS.FSU.EDU>

Mike:

I told you to NOT circulate my post-sabbatical photos!!!!!

Brey


-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Miroslav Korcok <mmk1913 at garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
Date: Wednesday, August 12, 1998 6:25 PM
Subject: fake Hulkster search progress


>okay, buster, you have 12 hours to fess up to your real
>name.  our extensive detective department WILL find you:
>you are in violation of BIG laws with respect to
>impersonation and fakeness. Janet Reno has been notified.
>
>EXHIBIT A is a picture of the REAL Terrance Bollea, aka
>Sterling Golden, aka Terry Boulder, aka Thunderlips, aka
>Hulk Hogan, aka The Hulkster, aka Hollywood Hogan.  are YOU
>the man in Exhibit A?
>
>it was found at "Sexy V's Hollywood Hulk Hogan Fan Club"
>which can be found at  www.uvm.edu/~cxcosta/hulk.html.
>potential fan clubbers may e-mail "Sexy V" at
>cxcosta at zoo.uvm.edu.
>
>to assist potential witnesses and informants, EXHIBIT B is a
>picture of the Classique Productions Hulk Hogan impersonator
>"Gary".  although it may be difficult, close and careful
>examination should reveal clear differences between "Gary"
>and The Hulkster.
>
>dammit, this is so serious that it matters!
>michael miroslav korcok
>
>ps: we too have noticed the eerie resemblance between
>Terrance Hogan and David Damus.  is it merely COINCIDENCE
>that both live in Los Angeles?
>



From clarkeja  Thu Aug 13 21:46:32 1998
From: clarkeja (Jessica Clarke)
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 19:46:32 -0700
Subject: case lists?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.3.96L.980813161004.5010A-100000@nbc.ksu.ksu.edu>
Message-ID: <THU.13.AUG.1998.194632.0700.CLARKEJA@WHITMAN.EDU>

Good Idea!  I did a similar search when the resolution came out: title vii
w/30 amend! and date aft 1991 in the lawrev file.  I found the same cases
you did with a few additions.  I don't know if all of these are viable or
even topical, but someone out there advocates them:

Harasser Protection - Change sexual harassment law to stop arbitrary
firings of alleged harassers, demand that employers set up specific
grievance procedures and counseling instead
Get rid of affirmative action/end disparate impact liability
Allow affirmative action, amend T7 to overrule Adarand
Retroactivity of the 1991 amendments - Congress refused to take a stance
on this, leaving it up to the courts, who have made a mess of it-a case
could fix it.
Ban marital status discrimination
Change the PDA (1978 pregnancy discrimination act) to protect women better
reduce the intent requirement from pretext-plus to pretext only
Change caps on damages
Include volunteers in definition of employee
Apply T7 to religious organizations as employers

Jessica Clarke

On Thu, 13 Aug 1998, Frank L Stevens wrote:

> I want to try something.  We have case lists during the year, and they
> make things a lot easier for organizing research.  How about trying the
> same concept before tournaments start?  I did this  short lexis search.
> "congress should amend title vii".  Done in the lawrev file, the following
> case areas appeared.  This is not an attempt to get people to tell
> everybody their case before the season starts.  Just want to start a list
> of what direction people think the topic could take.  Does anybody else
> argree with this?
> Here are the results
>
> 1.  same sex harassment
> 2.  apply title vii to japan (gonzaga's case)
> 3.  applly title vii to the military
> 4.  redefine the term "employer"
> 5.  ban anti-nepotism laws
> 6.  impose vicarious liability (expand the california plan nationwide)
> 7.  extra-territorial application of t7
> 8.  ban english only discrimination
> 9.  ban the after acquired evidence doctrine
> 10.  allow the eeoc to use arbitration
> 11.  allow for cognitive discrimination to be covered under t7
> 12.  allow the eeoc to use testers
> 13.  change the language of t7 w/ regard to "ethnic" traits
> 14.  overturn "st. mary's vs. hicks"
> 15.  allow for attroney fee shifting
> 16.  ban first and second class status for discrimination claims
> 17.  require employers to publish grievance procedures
> 18.  apply t7 to native american reservations
>
> This is not meant to be an exhaustive list.  The idea is for others to
> contribute, be it by addition or subtraction, to this list so we can
> better predict what we are getting into before the competition starts.
>
> Monte Stevens
> Kansas State University
>



From db8coach  Thu Aug 13 22:00:04 1998
From: db8coach (Bob Lechtreck)
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 20:00:04 -0700
Subject: The word "cheating"
Message-ID: <THU.13.AUG.1998.200004.0700.DB8COACH@LIGHTSPEED.NET>

At 12:56 PM 8/13/98 -0700, Shawn T Whalen wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>
I don't dispute any of this.  Judges should work hard to provide well
reasoned decisions to all the debaters based on the debating done in the
round.
>>>>>>>>>>

I agree 100%.

>>>>>>>>>>
Debaters should know that judges do their best and that different
perspectives will inevitably alter the ways that decisions get made.
Acting on that belief they should use the critique to identify argument
choices that (legitimately) failed in one context and learn what options
might have been more effective assuming that such circumstances might
occur again.
>>>>>>>>>>

But this assumes that there is something that the debaters can do to
overcome the big school/little school bias. There are times when ther is
nothing which can be done.

I realize that you mention the judges responsibility above, but it seems
like you are putting MORE emphasis on what the students should do than on
the judges. This really doesn't address the problem at hand. Sure, debaters
can do more to try to win rounds, but what needs to be discussed is how the
judges can put aside their biases.

Hey, SF State is no Borg, but at leat you got that 4 year designator. Try
doing it at a Community College.

Peace,

Bob Lechtreck
Bakersfield College
"Putting out fires, and damn good debaters!!!"

>From  Thu Aug 13 22:33:03 1998
Message-Id: <THU.13.AUG.1998.223303.0500.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 2881 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 23:33:24
 -0400
Received: from mail.midusa.net (mail.midusa.net [206.28.168.5]) by list.uvm.edu
 (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id XAA14454 for
 <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 23:33:23 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from midusa.net (node46.salina.midusa.net [206.28.169.46]) by
 mail.midusa.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA18639 for
 <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 22:31:24 -0500 (CDT)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------395CA73F0D1D7DAF69E9BC3D"
Message-ID: <35D3AFEE.CBC6BD6 at midusa.net>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 22:33:03 -0500
Reply-To: race at midusa.net
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: David Rhaesa <race at MIDUSA.NET>
Organization: smiling small thoughts
Subject: [Fwd: The word "cheating"]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------395CA73F0D1D7DAF69E9BC3D
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

just learning a new mail program.  i'll get it right some day - maybe

--------------395CA73F0D1D7DAF69E9BC3D
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Message-ID: <35D3AF70.60270B7D at midusa.net>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 22:30:57 -0500
From: David Rhaesa <race at midusa.net>
Reply-To: race at midusa.net
Organization: smiling small thoughts
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Bob Lechtreck <db8coach at LIGHTSPEED.NET>
Subject: Re: The word "cheating"
References: <199808140300.UAA20501 at lsbsdi1.lightspeed.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

i don't believe it is necessarily wise for judges to eliminate their biases if
these involve what they consider constitutes quality argument on a given topic
that they are thoroughly involved in researching and discussing.  the major
innovation since the dark ages of debate seems to be the post round
discussion.  often this is the most "educational" point in the debate (and i
believe it should be considered part of the debate).  the difficulty is that if
a student (and sometimes even coaches) are trapped in a post-decision angst
they may miss out on this important educational period.  debate isn't changing
through publications as it did in the rather stale years of days gone by.  it
changes round by round as judges -- experts in debate are involved AS
PARTICIPANTS in the debate process.  There biases are constantly effected by
the changes in arguments they hear from round to round to round.  Debaters do
best to try and learn rather than whine.

Judging is so hard that i won't even begin to consider doing it anymore.

Bob Lechtreck wrote:

> At 12:56 PM 8/13/98 -0700, Shawn T Whalen wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> I don't dispute any of this.  Judges should work hard to provide well
> reasoned decisions to all the debaters based on the debating done in the
> round.
> >>>>>>>>>>
>
> I agree 100%.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> Debaters should know that judges do their best and that different
> perspectives will inevitably alter the ways that decisions get made.
> Acting on that belief they should use the critique to identify argument
> choices that (legitimately) failed in one context and learn what options
> might have been more effective assuming that such circumstances might
> occur again.
> >>>>>>>>>>
>
> But this assumes that there is something that the debaters can do to
> overcome the big school/little school bias. There are times when ther is
> nothing which can be done.
>
> I realize that you mention the judges responsibility above, but it seems
> like you are putting MORE emphasis on what the students should do than on
> the judges. This really doesn't address the problem at hand. Sure, debaters
> can do more to try to win rounds, but what needs to be discussed is how the
> judges can put aside their biases.
>
> Hey, SF State is no Borg, but at leat you got that 4 year designator. Try
> doing it at a Community College.
>
> Peace,
>
> Bob Lechtreck
> Bakersfield College
> "Putting out fires, and damn good debaters!!!"




--------------395CA73F0D1D7DAF69E9BC3D--



From db8coach  Thu Aug 13 22:28:52 1998
From: db8coach (Bob Lechtreck)
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 20:28:52 -0700
Subject: Reputation's effects on rounds
Message-ID: <THU.13.AUG.1998.202852.0700.DB8COACH@LIGHTSPEED.NET>

At 05:00 PM 8/13/98 -0400, Patrick Garrett wrote:

There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

>>>>>>>>>>
as a matter of fact you have. the entire discussion is based upon elitism,
either real or perceived, within the debate community in which memebers of
the 'old school' watch out for each others teams in relation to those
teams like P. and about how some of the good old boys are not willing to
let any of the new kids join the club (the club being either the squad
itself or the institution as a whole).
>>>>>>>>>>

Well, this is a rather strawperson description of the real issues at hand,
but what the hell, I'll play.

>>>>>>>>>>
on the basis of the institution as a whole, im not sure why people who are
subject to an unfavorable ballot must always find some sort of scapegoat
to justify their loss.
>>>>>>>>>>

Because sometimes it is just a plain old screwing. No ifs, ands, or buts
about it. If this has never happened to you, congratulations, you are
probably at one of the "rep" schools we are discussing.

>>>>>>>>>>
isn't it enough to say, that team b got lucky by reading the good card vs.
the bad one, when team P didn't read one at all? or that the members of team
b happenned to sit down and do some work, or were fortunate enough to have
support from a strong staff?
>>>>>>>>>>

No it isn't. If it were true, I might agree, but you are just wrong.

Yes, your description is FREQUENTLY the case, but there are DEFINITELY times
when it is NOT the case. To ignore those cases and simply tell the losing
team that they should have worked harder is ridiculous and insulting. It is
also pretty indicative of the elitism we have been discussing.

>>>>>>>>>>
wouldn't it be much more efficiant to redirect that frustration or angst
into something more productive like doing more research and writing better
briefs, always evolving and becoming better educated on the specifics of
that issue? isn't that why we are here? isn't debate suppossed to be about
discovering the nuances of a position and then taking it apart, as
oppossed to letting ego dictate the activity?
>>>>>>>>>>

Of course it is, but this assumes that ALL losses are because the winning
team was better prepared, more knowledgable, or better debaters. I have sat
in on numerous rounds where this is simply not true.

And the worst part of all this is that you want all these instances to just
go away with the wave of a library card. You seem to be saying that we
should not address the issue of judging bias because it hasn't happened to
George Mason. Sorry, it DOES happen, and it SHOULD be addressed.

I don't have all the answers, but I think they lie in the same vein as
racism. In order to correct the problem, we have to first open our eyes and
see that the problem does, indeed, exist.

We also need to start pulling the trigger in the debate rounds. If Podunk U.
beats Borg U. in a debate (even by a fraction), then vote for Podunk. Don't
look for ways to vote for Borg. Don't reconstruct the 1NR to make sure all
the 2AC was covered. Borg coach will just have to understand.

Judges need to reverse the teams to see if they are voting on rep. At the
end of the debate between the Borg team and the Podunk team, imagine that
the Podunk team had made the exact same arguments the Brog team did and see
if your decision would change.

I am not saying that this is a widespread problem, or that it happens
frequently. What I AM saying is that it DOES happen, and it should not be
dismissed as a lack of preparation.

Peace,

Bob Lechtreck
Bakersfield College
"Putting out fires, and damn good debaters!!!"

>From  Fri Aug 14 00:30:28 1998
Message-Id: <FRI.14.AUG.1998.003028.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 3275 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 00:31:19
 -0400
Received: from imo19.mx.aol.com (imo19.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.9]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id AAA26508 for
 <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 00:31:18 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from Westtoast at aol.com by imo19.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id
 AZELa04161; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 00:30:28 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 167
Message-ID: <807bfdc8.35d3bd65 at aol.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 00:30:28 EDT
Reply-To: Westtoast at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Terrance Hogan <Westtoast at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: Reputation's effects on rounds
Comments: To: db8coach at LIGHTSPEED.NET

        It really isn't just a couple of voices from the fringe concerned
about this issue. I would like to hear more from other JCs. They have
to deal with this issue at practically every tournament they attend. I like
the reversal technique judges could use as a discernment tool. It a
practical suggestion that could benefit anyone in any decision making
process.

Hogan

In a message dated 8/13/98 11:57:52 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
db8coach at LIGHTSPEED.NET writes:

<< At 05:00 PM 8/13/98 -0400, Patrick Garrett wrote:

 There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

 >>>>>>>>>>
 as a matter of fact you have. the entire discussion is based upon elitism,
 either real or perceived, within the debate community in which memebers of
 the 'old school' watch out for each others teams in relation to those
 teams like P. and about how some of the good old boys are not willing to
 let any of the new kids join the club (the club being either the squad
 itself or the institution as a whole).
 >>>>>>>>>>

 Well, this is a rather strawperson description of the real issues at hand,
 but what the hell, I'll play.

 >>>>>>>>>>
 on the basis of the institution as a whole, im not sure why people who are
 subject to an unfavorable ballot must always find some sort of scapegoat
 to justify their loss.
 >>>>>>>>>>

 Because sometimes it is just a plain old screwing. No ifs, ands, or buts
 about it. If this has never happened to you, congratulations, you are
 probably at one of the "rep" schools we are discussing.

 >>>>>>>>>>
 isn't it enough to say, that team b got lucky by reading the good card vs.
 the bad one, when team P didn't read one at all? or that the members of team
 b happenned to sit down and do some work, or were fortunate enough to have
 support from a strong staff?
 >>>>>>>>>>

 No it isn't. If it were true, I might agree, but you are just wrong.

 Yes, your description is FREQUENTLY the case, but there are DEFINITELY times
 when it is NOT the case. To ignore those cases and simply tell the losing
 team that they should have worked harder is ridiculous and insulting. It is
 also pretty indicative of the elitism we have been discussing.

 >>>>>>>>>>
 wouldn't it be much more efficiant to redirect that frustration or angst
 into something more productive like doing more research and writing better
 briefs, always evolving and becoming better educated on the specifics of
 that issue? isn't that why we are here? isn't debate suppossed to be about
 discovering the nuances of a position and then taking it apart, as
 oppossed to letting ego dictate the activity?
 >>>>>>>>>>

 Of course it is, but this assumes that ALL losses are because the winning
 team was better prepared, more knowledgable, or better debaters. I have sat
 in on numerous rounds where this is simply not true.

 And the worst part of all this is that you want all these instances to just
 go away with the wave of a library card. You seem to be saying that we
 should not address the issue of judging bias because it hasn't happened to
 George Mason. Sorry, it DOES happen, and it SHOULD be addressed.

 I don't have all the answers, but I think they lie in the same vein as
 racism. In order to correct the problem, we have to first open our eyes and
 see that the problem does, indeed, exist.

 We also need to start pulling the trigger in the debate rounds. If Podunk U.
 beats Borg U. in a debate (even by a fraction), then vote for Podunk. Don't
 look for ways to vote for Borg. Don't reconstruct the 1NR to make sure all
 the 2AC was covered. Borg coach will just have to understand.

 Judges need to reverse the teams to see if they are voting on rep. At the
 end of the debate between the Borg team and the Podunk team, imagine that
 the Podunk team had made the exact same arguments the Brog team did and see
 if your decision would change.

 I am not saying that this is a widespread problem, or that it happens
 frequently. What I AM saying is that it DOES happen, and it should not be
 dismissed as a lack of preparation.

 Peace,

 Bob Lechtreck
 Bakersfield College
 "Putting out fires, and damn good debaters!!!"
  >>



From mdickman  Fri Aug 14 07:35:02 1998
From: mdickman (Michael R. Dickman)
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 08:35:02 -0400
Subject: The word "cheating"
Message-ID: <FRI.14.AUG.1998.083502.0400.MDICKMAN@CC.CUMBER.EDU>

Shawn:

I don't dispute any of what you say either and think we are pretty much in agreement.  

The only thing I would add at this point has to do with the nature of listserve communication (wow is there a convention paper in there or what?)  It first seemed that Shawn and I had a difference of opinion.  After a few days and a few messages it turns out that any difference is slight to non existent.  Now if Shawn and I had this conversation face to face we would (assuming both Shawn andI have at least some basic competetence in interpersonal communication) have sorted this out in about 30 seconds.  Listserve communication is still new to all of us!  It seems very easy for "discussions to spin way out of control and flame wars start between people who outside of cyberworld would probably get along just fine.  I guess what I am trying to say is everyone just needs to chill a bit.  If a post bothers you it might be wise to wait a day or so to respond!  I think there are plenty of examples of diferences of opinion being aired without anyone resorting to flame wars.  It can be done1

This is the only list I am a member of.  I would like to know, is the level of rhetorical violence as high on other list or are we just a highly combative group of people?

Mike
CC Debate
 
----------
From:   Shawn T Whalen[SMTP:swhalen at SFSU.EDU]
Sent:   Thursday, August 13, 1998 3:56 PM
To:     EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU
Subject:        Re: The word "cheating"

I don't dispute any of this.  Judges should work hard to provide well
reasoned decisions to all the debaters based on the debating done in the
round.

Debaters should know that judges do their best and that different
perspectives will inevitably alter the ways that decisions get made.
Acting on that belief they should use the critique to identify argument
choices that (legitimately) failed in one context and learn what options
might have been more effective assuming that such circumstances might
occur again.


Shawn Whalen

Director of Forensics
San Francisco State University
swhalen at sfsu.edu
(415) 338-3173

On Thu, 13 Aug 1998, Michael R. Dickman wrote:

> I'll Try and answer this down below:
> 
> 
> ----------
> From:   Shawn T Whalen[SMTP:swhalen at sfsu.edu]
> Sent:   Thursday, August 13, 1998 11:45 AM
> To:     Michael R. Dickman
> Cc:     EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU
> Subject:        Re: The word "cheating"
> 
> 
> 
> What you describe here cannot be corrected for by the judge. 
> 
> Why not?  shouldn't the judge try to judge the round on those arguments in the round as presented in that round and try to not fill in the gaps for team B?
> 
>  I think
> Bill's post explains how these are "natural" bias in human decision
> making.
> 
> So, since we are naturally biased we should all get over it and not ask those with the ballot to at least examine and be aware of those biases?  It sounds like you are saying that there is no chance of 100% solvency so no attempt should be made at all.  
> 
> It should be noted that in my original post I also had corrections for both team P and B.  I do not want to put all the effort on the judge but certainly you agree that a round should be judged based on what happens in THAT round, and that judges should try not to let outside of THAT round considerations influence their decissions, right?
> 
>  And regardless, such a decision certainly doesn't eminate from any
> dishonesty on the judges part.
> 
> Grant!  That was the point of my post!
> 
> Another solution for Team P, would be to change the way that they view the
> judge's critique.  Instead of looking for evidence of dishonesty, they
> might look at the critique as a way of figuring out how judge came to the
> decision they made so that they can improve in debates that have similar
> contexts.
> 
> Right.  But it's damn hard to win an argument that you don't (can't) fully understand!
> 
> Mike
> CC Debate
> Shawn Whalen
> 
> Director of Forensics
> San Francisco State University
> swhalen at sfsu.edu
> (415) 338-3173
> 
> On Thu, 13 Aug 1998, Michael R. Dickman wrote:
> 
> > I would second bill n's answer below and might go as far as to say never.  What I think happens goes more like this...
> > 
> > Team B(org) vs team P(odunk) with judge A#1 Grad asst.  who travels weekly and knows team B and has heard them on several ocasions.  Team B runs a position that judge A#1 has heard several times before, in fact, she's one step ahead on her flow!  Since the judge knows the position, team B feels free to offer it in short hand form,  filled with arcane abbreviations and perhaps missing a few cards which would explain the position to those who have never heard it before (namely team P).  Judge A#1 fills in the gaps for team B, understands the arg and gives it lots of weight in the round.  Team P doesn't get the importance of the arg because the don't understand it and haven't heard it the same as judge A#1.  The judge picks up team B and team P starts grumbling, WE WAS ROBBED!  Were they?  In a way yes, and it would be real easy for team P to say they lost on rep.  But the the judge team P just didn't cover that kritik enough and it was clear that they should have.  How do we fix this problem?  As a coach at a Podunk U.  I try to stress the importance of cross x and try to instill in my debaters the mantra that there are no dumb questions  (at least when dealing with a position you don't understand.)  On the other hand I think it is incumbant on all debaters to read arguments fully and to explain their args in the speech when you are presenting any argument (unless both your opponent and the judge are "in the know")  Most important I think judges should try (and I think most do try) to judge args based only on what they hear in a particular round.  
> > 
> > In short it's not cheating, or voting on rep, it's voting on what you understand because you've heard it before.
> > 
> > Mike
> > CC Debate  
> > 
> > ----------
> > From:   William E Newnam[SMTP:wnewnam at EMORY.EDU]
> > Sent:   Thursday, August 13, 1998 8:45 AM
> > To:     EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU
> > Subject:        Re: The word "cheating"
> > 
> > Shawn,
> > 
> > Extremely rarely.
> > 
> > bill n
> > emory
> > 
> > On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, Shawn T Whalen wrote:
> > 
> > > Over the past few years I've had the good fortune to work with quite of
> > > few folks getting their first exposure to of any kind to academic debate.
> > > In doing so, I've devoted a little thought to how to deal with new
> > > debaters and new coaches when they thought they won a debate but the judge
> > > votes against them.  My observations have been that suspicions about the
> > > judges integrity come easiest to this group and I have often found myself
> > > trying to defend judges and judging (generally).
> > >
> > > As a result of all this I've spent a great deal of time reflecting about
> > > my experiences in debate over the last 21 years.  I now tell my new
> > > debaters that I cannot think of a single case where I suspect that a judge
> > > voted for a team that, in that judges mind, had lost the debate.  In other
> > > words, I've never seen a judge cheat.
> > >
> > > Surely I've seen judges who seem lost or confused by a debate, but in my
> > > experience those judges do the best they can to sort things out and pick a
> > > winner that "makes sense" to them.  There have also been loads of rounds
> > > where the judge knew one team and had no prior history with the other, but
> > > (while recognizing that there can be subconscious credibility issues), in
> > > my experience, I don't think I've ever seen any of these people vote in
> > > opposition to how they really thought the debate came out.
> > >
> > > I think we do a disservice to judges and to the hard work of everyone in
> > > the community when we perpetuate what I believe is the "corruption myth."
> > > But maybe I'm just naive.  I'm not asking folks to name any names or
> > > rehash any old debates, but I am curious if others believe that
> > > unethically corrupt judging has been a part of their debate 
>From  Fri Aug 14 08:38:25 1998
Message-Id: <FRI.14.AUG.1998.083825.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 4916 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 08:38:35
 -0400
Received: from imo30.mx.aol.com (imo30.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.74]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id IAA26482 for
 <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 08:38:34 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from Spewer77 at aol.com by imo30.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id 8WDHa12042
 for <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 08:38:25 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 214
Message-ID: <1f9c6b07.35d42fc3 at aol.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 08:38:25 EDT
Reply-To: Spewer77 at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Rachel Saloom <Spewer77 at AOL.COM>
Subject: Women in Debate, thoughts and acknowledgments

Hey everyone
as i have been reflecting on this past season getting ready for this one
i have had some reoccurring thoughts i would like to share
this post is not a negative post about sexism in debate
instead, i would like to take a minute to write about the women this past
season who have uniquely influenced me in my debate career thus far
one caveat, this list is not exhaustive nor is it meant to be an accurate
cross section of all debate in the country
I am only speaking from *my* personal experience therefore, i can only talk
about those people from tournaments that i normally attend
some of these women already know what an influence they have had on me, while
others i'm sure have no idea what a role model that have been for me, and im
sure many others as well
that being said, now i would like to acknowledge these women
**Corey and Leslie, i put them together instead of separate because their
accomplishments as a two woman team were truly amazing
i learned something every time i watched them literally beat down their
opponents
each with their own style they made a team that will not be matched
**Sonja, i learned from watching her that no matter how disorganized or what ,
problems might occur in the round, she gave some of the best 2nr/2ar's i have
ever seen her ability to tell the story in the end was something i admire
**Laura, she showed me that debate isn't about mainstream disads and cp's
she displayed that there are no real rules to the game and that you make the
activity what you want it to be
**Ann Marie, besides being a great debater, Ann Marie always was helpful and
encouraging to me at tournaments, her love for the activity is clearly
something that effected me on a personal level
In addition there are two other women that i would like to mention that did
not debate this past year
first, Elisha Cohen, she always is a driving force for women in the activity,
since she judged me my sr year in hs there has never been a tourn i have been
at where she has not inquired about how i was doing
and last but definitely not least Kate Shuster, much more than just being an
ndt champion, kate has continuously helped me in more ways than she could ever
know
she always told me never to give up and to keep working and that one day it
would all come together
there is so much more to be said about these individuals, but i just wanted to
voice some of my appreciation about these women
I would encourage others to reflect on those people that have influenced them
i have uniquely focused on women because i truly believe that women role
model's are crucial for this activity to increase the women that participate
thanks for reading my thoughts
Rachel
west ga:)

>From  Fri Aug 14 10:21:04 1998
Message-Id: <FRI.14.AUG.1998.102104.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 6307 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 10:21:18
 -0400
Received: from imo28.mx.aol.com (imo28.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.72]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id KAA82040 for
 <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 10:21:15 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from Westtoast at aol.com by imo28.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id
 MCESa17153; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 10:21:04 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 167
Message-ID: <e4c3b33b.35d447d2 at aol.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 10:21:04 EDT
Reply-To: Westtoast at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Terrance Hogan <Westtoast at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: The word "cheating"
Comments: To: mdickman at CC.CUMBER.EDU

        It's this bad everywhere. I'm a bit of a hiker, and I'll occasionally
look at some of those lists. You should see the way people rip each
other's throats out over whether North Face or Marmot makes a
better rainsuit. Sad but true.


Hogan

>From  Fri Aug 14 10:16:08 1998
Message-Id: <FRI.14.AUG.1998.101608.0500.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 6916 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 11:17:37
 -0400
Received: from apollo.cc.macalstr.edu (apollo.cc.macalester.edu [141.140.1.2])
 by list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id LAA86242 for
 <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 11:17:35 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from macalester.edu by macalester.edu (PMDF V5.1-8 #15853) id
 <01J0L98K1QWM0006YF at macalester.edu> for edebate at list.uvm.edu; Fri, 14
 Aug 1998 10:16:09 CDT
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Message-ID: <Pine.PMDF.3.95.980814101438.9015B-100000 at macalester.edu>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 10:16:08 -0500
Reply-To: dennis at MACALESTER.EDU
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: dennis at MACALESTER.EDU
Subject: jason russell

if jr is on line,  could you or someone that knows how to contact him
please backchannel me asap.  thankls for the cooperation.

peace

doug
mac college



From swhalen  Fri Aug 14 10:33:23 1998
From: swhalen (Shawn T Whalen)
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 08:33:23 -0700
Subject: The word "cheating"
In-Reply-To: <199808140300.UAA20501@lsbsdi1.lightspeed.net>
Message-ID: <FRI.14.AUG.1998.083323.0700.SWHALEN@SFSU.EDU>

On Thu, 13 Aug 1998, Bob Lechtreck wrote:

> But this assumes that there is something that the debaters can do to
> overcome the big school/little school bias. There are times when ther is
> nothing which can be done.
>
> I realize that you mention the judges responsibility above, but it seems
> like you are putting MORE emphasis on what the students should do than on
> the judges. This really doesn't address the problem at hand. Sure, debaters
> can do more to try to win rounds, but what needs to be discussed is how the
> judges can put aside their biases.


Two things:

1) I completely agree that discussion about ways to improve judging is
warranted and can help decrease "improperly biased" decision making.

2) I fundementally disagree with the first paragraph above.  My position
is that something can always be done to win a debate.  I've made the bold
assertion that (functionally) NO JUDGE DISHONESTY exists.  There are
certainly judge biases which I see as a different issue, but judges don't
vote for a team regardless of who they thought won the debate.


Lets work to improve the quality of judging, but at the same time lets
stop recirculating the MYTH that judges make corrupt decisions.  (I've
received 3 back channels with just one contending that dishonesty was a
significant issue).

Shawn Whalen
SFSU



From swhalen  Fri Aug 14 10:37:57 1998
From: swhalen (Shawn T Whalen)
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 08:37:57 -0700
Subject: Reputation's effects on rounds
In-Reply-To: <199808140328.UAA27772@lsbsdi1.lightspeed.net>
Message-ID: <FRI.14.AUG.1998.083757.0700.SWHALEN@SFSU.EDU>

On Thu, 13 Aug 1998, Bob Lechtreck wrote:

> At 05:00 PM 8/13/98 -0400, Patrick Garrett wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> on the basis of the institution as a whole, im not sure why people who are
> subject to an unfavorable ballot must always find some sort of scapegoat
> to justify their loss.
> >>>>>>>>>>
>
> Because sometimes it is just a plain old screwing. No ifs, ands, or buts
> about it. If this has never happened to you, congratulations, you are
> probably at one of the "rep" schools we are discussing.


Thats far enough Bob!

I can catagorically report that Pat Garrett has absolutely no rep.


;)


SW



From swhalen  Fri Aug 14 10:44:26 1998
From: swhalen (Shawn T Whalen)
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 08:44:26 -0700
Subject: Reputation's effects on rounds
In-Reply-To: <199808140328.UAA27772@lsbsdi1.lightspeed.net>
Message-ID: <FRI.14.AUG.1998.084426.0700.SWHALEN@SFSU.EDU>

On Thu, 13 Aug 1998, Bob Lechtreck wrote:

> >>>>>>>>>>
> wouldn't it be much more efficiant to redirect that frustration or angst
> into something more productive like doing more research and writing better
> briefs, always evolving and becoming better educated on the specifics of
> that issue? isn't that why we are here? isn't debate suppossed to be about
> discovering the nuances of a position and then taking it apart, as
> oppossed to letting ego dictate the activity?
> >>>>>>>>>>
>
> Of course it is, but this assumes that ALL losses are because the winning
> team was better prepared, more knowledgable, or better debaters. I have sat
> in on numerous rounds where this is simply not true.
>
> And the worst part of all this is that you want all these instances to just
> go away with the wave of a library card. You seem to be saying that we
> should not address the issue of judging bias because it hasn't happened to
> George Mason. Sorry, it DOES happen, and it SHOULD be addressed.


Just so that I understand your argument here.  Do you contend that judges,
knowing in their heart that Team P won, still vote for Team B?  Or are you
discussing the phenomenon where (in your observation of the debate) Team P
won pretty clearly, but (in your observation) the judge had pre-round
biases that led them to a contrary decision?

Shawn Whalen
SFSU



From dougdennis  Fri Aug 14 11:37:36 1998
From: dougdennis (doug dennis)
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 09:37:36 PDT
Subject: rep
Message-ID: <FRI.14.AUG.1998.093736.PDT.DOUGDENNIS@HOTMAIL.COM>

>it absolutely perplexes me to hear that there are some in the
>activity that TRULY believe that the best team always wins,  and that
>any time a team from a school with no reputation loses there MUST
>be some justification.  i'm sure mine isn't the only story like this,
>but when i went to one of those small no rep schools (chico state
>before the glory days),  i had a judge tell me,  verbatum (sp?) that
>he would much rather vote against us and deal with our coach than to
>vote against a hi rep team because "he'd rather have our coach mad and
>flaming than their coach."  probably not typical,  but probably
>more common (albeit not stated) than you give credit for.
>
>the way most schools GET rep is to beat someone they're NOT supposed
>to beat (taking it to another level,  like jordan in the playoffs).
>if judges don't pull the trigger when this happens...
>
>the top teams are going to win the great majority of their rounds
>anyway...the last thing they need is judges doing work for them on
>the occasions when they mess up,  don't have anything to say,  or
>get out debated.  i don't think you should make up reasons to vote for
>the small school,  but you shouldn't make up reasons to NOT vote for
>them either.
>
>doug
>looking to pull the trigger
>apologies to sms pv
>
>
>>At 05:00 PM 8/13/98 -0400, Patrick Garrett wrote:
>>
>>There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>as a matter of fact you have. the entire discussion is based upon
>elitism,
>>either real or perceived, within the debate community in which
memebers
>of
>>the 'old school' watch out for each others teams in relation to those
>>teams like P. and about how some of the good old boys are not willing
>to
>>let any of the new kids join the club (the club being either the squad
>>itself or the institution as a whole).
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>
>>Well, this is a rather strawperson description of the real issues at
>hand,
>>but what the hell, I'll play.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>on the basis of the institution as a whole, im not sure why people who
>are
>>subject to an unfavorable ballot must always find some sort of
>scapegoat
>>to justify their loss.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>
>>Because sometimes it is just a plain old screwing. No ifs, ands, or
>buts
>>about it. If this has never happened to you, congratulations, you are
>>probably at one of the "rep" schools we are discussing.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>isn't it enough to say, that team b got lucky by reading the good card
>vs.
>>the bad one, when team P didn't read one at all? or that the members
of
>team
>>b happenned to sit down and do some work, or were fortunate enough to
>have
>>support from a strong staff?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>
>>No it isn't. If it were true, I might agree, but you are just wrong.
>>
>>Yes, your description is FREQUENTLY the case, but there are DEFINITELY
>times
>>when it is NOT the case. To ignore those cases and simply tell the
>losing
>>team that they should have worked harder is ridiculous and insulting.
>It is
>>also pretty indicative of the elitism we have been discussing.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>wouldn't it be much more efficiant to redirect that frustration or
>angst
>>into something more productive like doing more research and writing
>better
>>briefs, always evolving and becoming better educated on the specifics
>of
>>that issue? isn't that why we are here? isn't debate suppossed to be
>about
>>discovering the nuances of a position and then taking it apart, as
>>oppossed to letting ego dictate the activity?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>
>>Of course it is, but this assumes that ALL losses are because the
>winning
>>team was better prepared, more knowledgable, or better debaters. I
have
>sat
>>in on numerous rounds where this is simply not true.
>>
>>And the worst part of all this is that you want all these instances to
>just
>>go away with the wave of a library card. You seem to be saying that we
>>should not address the issue of judging bias because it hasn't
happened
>to
>>George Mason. Sorry, it DOES happen, and it SHOULD be addressed.
>>
>>I don't have all the answers, but I think they lie in the same vein as
>>racism. In order to correct the problem, we have to first open our
eyes
>and
>>see that the problem does, indeed, exist.
>>
>>We also need to start pulling the trigger in the debate rounds. If
>Podunk U.
>>beats Borg U. in a debate (even by a fraction), then vote for Podunk.
>Don't
>>look for ways to vote for Borg. Don't reconstruct the 1NR to make sure
>all
>>the 2AC was covered. Borg coach will just have to understand.
>>
>>Judges need to reverse the teams to see if they are voting on rep. At
>the
>>end of the debate between the Borg team and the Podunk team, imagine
>that
>>the Podunk team had made the exact same arguments the Brog team did
and
>see
>>if your decision would change.
>>
>>I am not saying that this is a widespread problem, or that it happens
>>frequently. What I AM saying is that it DOES happen, and it should not
>be
>>dismissed as a lack of preparation.
>>
>>Peace,
>>
>>Bob Lechtreck
>>Bakersfield College
>>"Putting out fires, and damn good debaters!!!"
>>
>
>
>______________________________________________________
>Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

>From  Fri Aug 14 12:43:06 1998
Message-Id: <FRI.14.AUG.1998.124306.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 8442 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 12:44:11
 -0400
Received: from imo17.mx.aol.com (imo17.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.7]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id MAA92764 for
 <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 12:44:10 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from Westtoast at aol.com by imo17.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id
 VWCYa02269; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 12:43:06 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 167
Message-ID: <86498824.35d4691c at aol.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 12:43:06 EDT
Reply-To: Westtoast at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Terrance Hogan <Westtoast at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: Reputation's effects on rounds
Comments: To: swhalen at SFSU.EDU

        I think a better way to look at this issue is to remember that me are
all human beings. Never is not a word we should use in association
with human behavior. Human beings do too many strange things, and
we forensic people are among the strangest.  :-)
        There is nothing associated with mankind that will ever be perfect.
Once we accept that premise, we can more on to the issue of
minimization of the impact. Nobody here has to crucify themselves
before anyone for us all to move the discussion to a constuctive
dialog on how everyone can become better at judging rounds, as
nobody will ever be perfect at that either. Every day is offers new
chances for all human beings to grow and learn. Why not accept
that as a common benchmark.

Hogan

>From  Fri Aug 14 12:52:03 1998
Message-Id: <FRI.14.AUG.1998.125203.0400.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 8705 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 12:58:26
 -0400
Received: from mail.bestsoftware.com (mail.abra.com [163.125.31.35]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with SMTP id MAA92762 for
 <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 12:58:25 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by mail.bestsoftware.com(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.1  (569.2 2-6-1998))  id
 85256660.005CDB2C ; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 12:54:14 -0400
X-Lotus-FromDomain: BEST at ABRA CADABRA SOFTWARE
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-ID: <85256660.005C0203.00 at mail.bestsoftware.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 12:52:03 -0400
Reply-To: Duane_J_Hyland at BESTSOFTWARE.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Duane J Hyland <Duane_J_Hyland at BESTSOFTWARE.COM>
Subject: On Rep,

Voting on Rep happens. I have a handbook, for HS, that says, something to
the effect of, "building rep for a squad is a good way to pick up a win a
close round, or to pick up a few extra speaker points." This shows that rep
has some sort of an effect on other teams, besides the A team, from the
same school, or the author of the article wouldn't have included the
advice. But, that aside. I think we can all name instances where judges
display bias against programs, especially new programs, or small programs,
but I've found that the way to overcome the bias is keep working, keep
learning, and keep improving your debating skills until only a hardened few
won't vote for you, if you deserve the vote.  I guess it's just "paying
your dues."  Duane



From ccooper  Fri Aug 14 12:18:52 1998
From: ccooper (Chris Cooper)
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 13:18:52 -0400
Subject: Wacked Case Thoughts
Message-ID: <FRI.14.AUG.1998.131852.0400.CCOOPER@CKRC.ORG>

Has anybody given consideration to "past tense" cases (for lack of a better
title)?  For example, would it be possible for the Aff. to pick one of the
amendments to T7 of the CRA made in 1991, and make a defense of the
protections it has offered since?  Am I smokin crack to think this may be
legitimate under the wording of this resolution?

COOP
Geoge Washington University



From deloach  Fri Aug 14 12:39:23 1998
From: deloach (MARK DELOACH)
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 12:39:23 CST6CDT
Subject: (Fwd) NDT governance, elitism, and hotels -Forwarded
Message-ID: <FRI.14.AUG.1998.123923.CST6CDT.DELOACH@UNT.EDU>

This is a letter from John Gossett, chair of the NDT Board of
Trustees.  Please send any responses or correspondence to him, as he
is not on the list.  His e-mail address is:

gossett at unt.edu

Mark DeLoach
University of North Texas
---------------------------------------------------------------------


Several persons have forwarded to me much of the debate list
commentary on the current controversies, and as chair of the NDT Board
of Trustees, I would like to address several of the concerns.  For
those who don't know me, I was a debate graduate assistant at Houston
in the mid-1970s, was in a similar position at Southern Cal in the
late 1970s while working on my doctorate, coached at Northern Iowa
from 1979-81, and coached at University of North Texas from 1981-1990.
 I am completing nine years of service as department chair at North
Texas.  I've served on the NDT Committee and am in my second term on
the NDT Board of Trustees.

At the outset, let me say that as long as I've been on the Board, I've
never known of any attempt to establish a more-preferred hotel and a
less-preferred hotel at the NDT.  I've read much of the commentary
about how schools were handled at the Utah NDT, and I am sorry that
some were bumped to what was perceived as a less-preferred hotel (the
Quality Inn).  Please recall Balthrop's comment that at least two
members of the Board were bumped to the Quality Inn.  Frankly, my
personal experience at the Olympus was less than satisfactory, and I
wish that I had stayed at the Quality Inn.

For the 1999 NDT at Wayne State University, the hotel is the Hyatt
Regency in Dearborn, Michigan.  The room rate is $95 for 1-4 persons
in a room.  Here is what is blocked for our group:  Monday 3/22/99 =
10 rooms;  Tuesday 3/23/99 = 15 rooms;  Wednesday 3/24/99 = 125 rooms;
 Thursday 3/25/99 = 200 rooms;  Friday 3/26/99 = 200 rooms;  Saturday
3/27/99 = 200 rooms;  Sunday 3/28/99 = 200 rooms;  Monday 3/29/99 =
100 rooms.   March 3, 1999 is the cut-off date for hotel reservations.
 Prior to March 3, however, we will review how reservations are
proceeding and will work with the hotel to adjust the number of rooms
blocked if necessary.

The Board of Trustees is charged with securing hosts for the national
tournament.  In the past 1-1/2 years, the NDT Committee and the Board
have revised and updated the "Expectations of the School Hosting the
NDT" document.  Although the Board chair has sent information to
several institutions who have expressed interest in hosting the
tournament, there is not an extensive list of potential hosts in the
queue.  In some years, we've been faced with host schools with
excellent classroom and dining facilities, but those schools are
located in cities without a single hotel capable of housing all
tournament participants.  While we try to work with the host to secure
adequate lodging facilities, it is always possible that the two or
three hotels will not be of the same quality.  I have zero personal
knowledge of instances where schools were bumped from a more-preferred
hotel to a less-preferred hotel on the basis of who they are--elite or
non-elite (whatever those terms may mean).  I hear via the grapevine
that there are some instances where coaches perceive this, but I am
not personally aware of this happening.

Finally, it appears to me that a good portion of the problem deals
with information availability.  When information regarding some aspect
of the tournament (lodging options, Lexis hook-ups, etc.) are
presented at the NCA meetings of the NDT Committee and the NDT Board
and at the Northwestern meeting of the Committee, directors in
attendance at the meeting have an advantage over directors who don't
attend.  Perhaps if there was a method of disseminating this
information immediately after the meeting there might be a somewhat
greater chance of all directors being able to act on the information
more equitably.

I'll be more than willing to share responses with Board members.  Best
wishes.

John Gossett
Chair, NDT Board of Trustees


=======================================
John S. Gossett, Chair
Department of Communication Studies
University of North Texas, Box 305268
Denton, TX  76203-5268
phone:  (940) 565-2588
e-mail:   gossett at unt.edu
=======================================

>From  Fri Aug 14 12:24:18 1998
Message-Id: <FRI.14.AUG.1998.122418.0600.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 9427 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 14:24:40
 -0400
Received: from ns.suu.edu (ns.suu.edu [134.250.2.3]) by list.uvm.edu
 (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with SMTP id OAA86100 for
 <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 14:24:36 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from centrum.cn.suu.edu ([134.250.80.2]) by ns.suu.edu with ESMTP for
 EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 12:23:18 -0600
Received: from CENTRUM/SpoolDir by centrum.cn.suu.edu (Mercury 1.40); 14 Aug 98
 12:24:34 MST7MDT
Received: from SpoolDir by CENTRUM (Mercury 1.40); 14 Aug 98 12:24:22 MST7MDT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Priority: normal
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b)
Message-ID: <199808141824.OAA86100 at list.uvm.edu>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 12:24:18 -0600
Reply-To: WEST at CENTRUM.CN.SUU.EDU
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Terry West <west at CENTRUM.CN.SUU.EDU>
Organization: Southern Utah University
Subject: Re: Reputation's effect on debate
In-Reply-To: <301e7bef.35d34cac at aol.com>

What's all the fuss?

I have been assured repeatedly that mutual preference judging
means that there are no longer any votes on rep; rep cliques will
never form, small schools will get to pick judges who won't vote on
rep and those judges will be mutual A's with rep schools' picks, and
that I was insulting our entire community by even suggesting that
this sort of thing would happen.  Clearly, I was told, the only problem
was the huge number of incompetent judges in our profession.

Hey, don't hurt me; this is intended satirically :-)  I've been on the
road for 80 of the past 96 hours in my car and then a U-haul,
attending, as Michael Corleone might say, to some "family business."

Terry West
Southern Utah


Date sent:              Thu, 13 Aug 1998 16:29:31 EDT
Send reply to:          Westtoast at AOL.COM
From:                   Terrance Hogan <Westtoast at AOL.COM>
Subject:                Re: Reputation's effect on debate
To:                     EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU

> A requested repost:
>
> In a message dated 8/13/98 4:13:48 PM Eastern Daylight Time, swhalen at sfsu.edu
> writes:
>
> << I would defer to Bill Newnam's post on how rep works.  I don't disagree at
>  all that reputation and familiarity can effect a decision.  My point is
>  only that it isn't dishonest.  Judges who vote for B teams, in my
>  experience, believe they have made the right decision.  I know of no case
>  where a judge purposely voted for a friend, despite a conviction to the
>  contrary.
>
>  That being said, I believe that you are right on the mark about P team's
>  frustration.  As teachers of debate we need to be aware of the frustration
>  and understand its legitimate origins.  However, we shouldn't equate team
>  P's frustration with judge dishonesty and encourage team P to vent their
>  frustration in claims of dishonesty.
>
>  Encouraging students to use their frustration to motivate them to REALLY
>  listen to the components of the judge's decision is the key.  I suspect
>  that debaters too often listen for evidence that they've been "screwed",
>  which is a selective listening procedure that prevents a more productive
>  critique.
>
>  Frustration is a real and persistent experience for debaters and coaches
>  alike. Judge dishonesty, I firmly believe, is a myth.  Blaming frustration
>  on judge dishonesty, it seems to me, can only serve to perpetuate the
>  frustration.
>
>  Shawn Whalen
>
>  Director of Forensics
>  San Francisco State University
>  swhalen at sfsu.edu
>  (415) 338-3173
>
>  On Thu, 13 Aug 1998 Westtoast at aol.com wrote:
>
>  >      I have to disagree. I refuse to point fingers or state specifics as
>  > I do not wish to create a flame war. But there are many decisions that
>  > benefit B teams that are justified by reasoning way of the flow in the
>  > face of major basic errors that are on the flow against P teams that
>  > are justified by the statements "there are no rules in debate" or "the
>  > activity has evolved away from that."
>  >      Maybe part of the problem is that the B teams are the teams that
>  > generally are the cause of evolution in the activity, and P teams are
>  > forced to scramble to keep up. In this case, no one is to blame, but
>  > you still have victims, as it is difficult for P teams to keep up with
>  > evolution due to the lack of published policy debate resources. But
>  > to say that frustration is an inappropriate emotion I believe is
>  > invalidating a legitimate emotional response. I would like to see some
>  > way for us all to, at least, valididate the response. If we take that step,
>  > maybe we could reason our way collectively to a venting mechanism.
>  >
>  >
>  > Hogan
>  >
>
>   >>

>From  Fri Aug 14 12:46:44 1998
Message-Id: <FRI.14.AUG.1998.124644.0600.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 9647 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 14:46:52
 -0400
Received: from ns.suu.edu (ns.suu.edu [134.250.2.3]) by list.uvm.edu
 (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with SMTP id OAA26372 for
 <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 14:46:51 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from centrum.cn.suu.edu ([134.250.80.2]) by ns.suu.edu with ESMTP;
 Fri, 14 Aug 1998 12:45:33 -0600
Received: from CENTRUM/SpoolDir by centrum.cn.suu.edu (Mercury 1.40); 14 Aug 98
 12:46:49 MST7MDT
Received: from SpoolDir by CENTRUM (Mercury 1.40); 14 Aug 98 12:46:47 MST7MDT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Priority: normal
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b)
Message-ID: <199808141846.OAA26372 at list.uvm.edu>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 12:46:44 -0600
Reply-To: WEST at CENTRUM.CN.SUU.EDU
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Terry West <west at CENTRUM.CN.SUU.EDU>
Organization: Southern Utah University
Subject: Re: who is Terrance Hogan?
Comments: To: Michael Miroslav Korcok <mmk1913 at GARNET.ACNS.FSU.EDU>
In-Reply-To: <001f01bdc634$6c312100$1a02c992 at fsu.edu.fsu.edu>

Actually, Hogan's real name is Terry Bollea.  He briefly used Terry
"Hulk" Hogan as a "stage name" in one of the first movies he ever
appeared in (thought the wrestling link would help avoid the fact that
he can't act).

Just helping the community stay informed about the important stuff,

Terry West
SUU

PS:  Rumor has it there will be an Ultimate return on the August 17
Nitro.


Date sent:              Wed, 12 Aug 1998 16:59:27 -0400
Send reply to:          Michael Miroslav Korcok <mmk1913 at GARNET.ACNS.FSU.EDU>
From:                   Michael Miroslav Korcok <mmk1913 at GARNET.ACNS.FSU.EDU>
Subject:                who is Terrance Hogan?
To:                     EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU

> a simple question.
> i am told that "Hulk" Hogan's real name is Terrance Hogan.
> so who are you, really, Westtoast at aol.com ?
>
> michael miroslav korcok



From theloft  Fri Aug 14 14:36:04 1998
From: theloft (Rebecca Galetine)
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 12:36:04 -0700
Subject: jason russell
Message-ID: <FRI.14.AUG.1998.123604.0700.THELOFT@ACCESSONE.COM>

please email me

>From  Fri Aug 14 14:56:08 1998
Message-Id: <FRI.14.AUG.1998.145608.0500.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 10806 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 15:56:43
 -0400
Received: from mail.midusa.net (mail.midusa.net [206.28.168.5]) by list.uvm.edu
 (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id PAA40428 for
 <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 15:56:36 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from midusa.net (node138.salina.midusa.net [206.28.169.138]) by
 mail.midusa.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA05411; Fri, 14 Aug
 1998 14:54:37 -0500 (CDT)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <l03110701b1f9ddc233e4@[90.0.0.52]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <35D49657.917296A8 at midusa.net>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 14:56:08 -0500
Reply-To: race at midusa.net
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: David Rhaesa <race at MIDUSA.NET>
Organization: smiling small thoughts
Subject: Re: Wacked Case Thoughts
Comments: To: Chris Cooper <ccooper at CKRC.ORG>

of course i thought of that one given some of my past interpretations but at
least early on it doesn't seem to be too wise.

Chris Cooper wrote:

> Has anybody given consideration to "past tense" cases (for lack of a better
> title)?  For example, would it be possible for the Aff. to pick one of the
> amendments to T7 of the CRA made in 1991, and make a defense of the
> protections it has offered since?  Am I smokin crack to think this may be
> legitimate under the wording of this resolution?
>
> COOP
> Geoge Washington University



From swhalen  Fri Aug 14 15:13:51 1998
From: swhalen (Shawn T Whalen)
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 13:13:51 -0700
Subject: rep
In-Reply-To: <19980814163737.26438.qmail@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <FRI.14.AUG.1998.131351.0700.SWHALEN@SFSU.EDU>

Interesting story of a clearly dishonest judge.  How wide spread would you
guess this phenomenon is?  I've had no such experiences in 21 years.

Remember that I'm only addressing the case where the judge knowingly votes
for the team that she/he thought lost the debate.  Cases where rep
influenced how the judge interpreted the debate (for my purposes) are
something all together different.

Shawn Whalen

Director of Forensics
San Francisco State University
swhalen at sfsu.edu
(415) 338-3173

On Fri, 14 Aug 1998, doug dennis wrote:

> >it absolutely perplexes me to hear that there are some in the
> >activity that TRULY believe that the best team always wins,  and that
> >any time a team from a school with no reputation loses there MUST
> >be some justification.  i'm sure mine isn't the only story like this,
> >but when i went to one of those small no rep schools (chico state
> >before the glory days),  i had a judge tell me,  verbatum (sp?) that
> >he would much rather vote against us and deal with our coach than to
> >vote against a hi rep team because "he'd rather have our coach mad and
> >flaming than their coach."  probably not typical,  but probably
> >more common (albeit not stated) than you give credit for.
> >
> >the way most schools GET rep is to beat someone they're NOT supposed
> >to beat (taking it to another level,  like jordan in the playoffs).
> >if judges don't pull the trigger when this happens...
> >
> >the top teams are going to win the great majority of their rounds
> >anyway...the last thing they need is judges doing work for them on
> >the occasions when they mess up,  don't have anything to say,  or
> >get out debated.  i don't think you should make up reasons to vote for
> >the small school,  but you shouldn't make up reasons to NOT vote for
> >them either.
> >
> >doug
> >looking to pull the trigger
> >apologies to sms pv
> >
> >
> >>At 05:00 PM 8/13/98 -0400, Patrick Garrett wrote:
> >>
> >>There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.
> >>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>as a matter of fact you have. the entire discussion is based upon
> >elitism,
> >>either real or perceived, within the debate community in which
> memebers
> >of
> >>the 'old school' watch out for each others teams in relation to those
> >>teams like P. and about how some of the good old boys are not willing
> >to
> >>let any of the new kids join the club (the club being either the squad
> >>itself or the institution as a whole).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>
> >>Well, this is a rather strawperson description of the real issues at
> >hand,
> >>but what the hell, I'll play.
> >>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>on the basis of the institution as a whole, im not sure why people who
> >are
> >>subject to an unfavorable ballot must always find some sort of
> >scapegoat
> >>to justify their loss.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>
> >>Because sometimes it is just a plain old screwing. No ifs, ands, or
> >buts
> >>about it. If this has never happened to you, congratulations, you are
> >>probably at one of the "rep" schools we are discussing.
> >>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>isn't it enough to say, that team b got lucky by reading the good card
> >vs.
> >>the bad one, when team P didn't read one at all? or that the members
> of
> >team
> >>b happenned to sit down and do some work, or were fortunate enough to
> >have
> >>support from a strong staff?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>
> >>No it isn't. If it were true, I might agree, but you are just wrong.
> >>
> >>Yes, your description is FREQUENTLY the case, but there are DEFINITELY
> >times
> >>when it is NOT the case. To ignore those cases and simply tell the
> >losing
> >>team that they should have worked harder is ridiculous and insulting.
> >It is
> >>also pretty indicative of the elitism we have been discussing.
> >>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>wouldn't it be much more efficiant to redirect that frustration or
> >angst
> >>into something more productive like doing more research and writing
> >better
> >>briefs, always evolving and becoming better educated on the specifics
> >of
> >>that issue? isn't that why we are here? isn't debate suppossed to be
> >about
> >>discovering the nuances of a position and then taking it apart, as
> >>oppossed to letting ego dictate the activity?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>
> >>Of course it is, but this assumes that ALL losses are because the
> >winning
> >>team was better prepared, more knowledgable, or better debaters. I
> have
> >sat
> >>in on numerous rounds where this is simply not true.
> >>
> >>And the worst part of all this is that you want all these instances to
> >just
> >>go away with the wave of a library card. You seem to be saying that we
> >>should not address the issue of judging bias because it hasn't
> happened
> >to
> >>George Mason. Sorry, it DOES happen, and it SHOULD be addressed.
> >>
> >>I don't have all the answers, but I think they lie in the same vein as
> >>racism. In order to correct the problem, we have to first open our
> eyes
> >and
> >>see that the problem does, indeed, exist.
> >>
> >>We also need to start pulling the trigger in the debate rounds. If
> >Podunk U.
> >>beats Borg U. in a debate (even by a fraction), then vote for Podunk.
> >Don't
> >>look for ways to vote for Borg. Don't reconstruct the 1NR to make sure
> >all
> >>the 2AC was covered. Borg coach will just have to understand.
> >>
> >>Judges need to reverse the teams to see if they are voting on rep. At
> >the
> >>end of the debate between the Borg team and the Podunk team, imagine
> >that
> >>the Podunk team had made the exact same arguments the Brog team did
> and
> >see
> >>if your decision would change.
> >>
> >>I am not saying that this is a widespread problem, or that it happens
> >>frequently. What I AM saying is that it DOES happen, and it should not
> >be
> >>dismissed as a lack of preparation.
> >>
> >>Peace,
> >>
> >>Bob Lechtreck
> >>Bakersfield College
> >>"Putting out fires, and damn good debaters!!!"
> >>
> >
> >
> >______________________________________________________
> >Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
> >
>
>
> ______________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>



From swhalen  Fri Aug 14 15:18:23 1998
From: swhalen (Shawn T Whalen)
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 13:18:23 -0700
Subject: On Rep,
In-Reply-To: <85256660.005C0203.00@mail.bestsoftware.com>
Message-ID: <FRI.14.AUG.1998.131823.0700.SWHALEN@SFSU.EDU>

One can admit to Rep's impact and deny that judge dishonesty exists at the
same time.

Shawn Whalen

Director of Forensics
San Francisco State University
swhalen at sfsu.edu
(415) 338-3173

On Fri, 14 Aug 1998, Duane J Hyland wrote:

> Voting on Rep happens. I have a handbook, for HS, that says, something to
> the effect of, "building rep for a squad is a good way to pick up a win a
> close round, or to pick up a few extra speaker points." This shows that rep
> has some sort of an effect on other teams, besides the A team, from the
> same school, or the author of the article wouldn't have included the
> advice. But, that aside. I think we can all name instances where judges
> display bias against programs, especially new programs, or small programs,
> but I've found that the way to overcome the bias is keep working, keep
> learning, and keep improving your debating skills until only a hardened few
> won't vote for you, if you deserve the vote.  I guess it's just "paying
> your dues."  Duane
>



From tweiner1  Fri Aug 14 16:23:30 1998
From: tweiner1 (Timothy J Weiner)
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 17:23:30 -0400
Subject: On Rep,
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.96.980814131722.11576C-100000@apollo.sfsu.edu>
Message-ID: <FRI.14.AUG.1998.172330.0400.TWEINER1@OSF1.GMU.EDU>

I'll admit any day of the week that Rep has, is, and will influence rounds
with the same reservations that Shawn has, but I do have a question.  I'm
curious as to how often you guys think this happens, for example once a
tournament, eight rounds a tournament, once a year... you get the point.
Just kinda curious on what everyone thinks.

Jake

P.S. Has anyone noticed that Flame War '98 ended pretty much as soon as
Bear got e-mail bombed.  Oh No, now that I said that I'm sure that I'm the
one that did it!!  :)



On Fri, 14 Aug 1998, Shawn T Whalen wrote:

> One can admit to Rep's impact and deny that judge dishonesty exists at the
> same time.
>
> Shawn Whalen
>
> Director of Forensics
> San Francisco State University
> swhalen at sfsu.edu
> (415) 338-3173
>
> On Fri, 14 Aug 1998, Duane J Hyland wrote:
>
> > Voting on Rep happens. I have a handbook, for HS, that says, something to
> > the effect of, "building rep for a squad is a good way to pick up a win a
> > close round, or to pick up a few extra speaker points." This shows that rep
> > has some sort of an effect on other teams, besides the A team, from the
> > same school, or the author of the article wouldn't have included the
> > advice. But, that aside. I think we can all name instances where judges
> > display bias against programs, especially new programs, or small programs,
> > but I've found that the way to overcome the bias is keep working, keep
> > learning, and keep improving your debating skills until only a hardened few
> > won't vote for you, if you deserve the vote.  I guess it's just "paying
> > your dues."  Duane
> >
>



From mkrueger  Fri Aug 14 16:40:08 1998
From: mkrueger (krueger)
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 16:40:08 -0500
Subject: On Rep,
References: <Pine.OSF.3.96.980814170732.13244B-100000@osf1.gmu.edu>
Message-ID: <FRI.14.AUG.1998.164008.0500.MKRUEGER@FRANK.MTSU.EDU>

Coming from a small school, I think I can comment a little on this.  I
don't think that "rep" wins or loses us many rounds.  I believe that
judges try to make a conscientious decision.  And, sometimes "rep" is
deserved.

For example, last year I was judging a guy from Emory that I had never
seen and didn't know.  He traveled the NDT circuit.  He was debating
George Mason at ADA Nationals, and it was a George Mason team that I
didn't know.  I was just in the back of the room.  Well, it didn't take
me long to make a decision; I voted for Emory.  After the round I just
comment on how good the 2N was.  Turns out the guy's name is Anjan
Sahni...  who I hear is pretty good.  In other words, his reputation is
likely to be deserved.

Since I am a judge at a "small" school, I know that rep can influence
decisions that I make, but I try to set it aside.  I certainly am
willing to vote for anyone--and sometimes I EXPECT the "rep" schools to
do even more than they might be doing.  Matters not to me.  And, I
believe that most judges try to do that.

Now there are instances when the judge is totally excluded from the
round.  he or she might not have a clue as to what is happening...
jargon flying, speed and incomprehensibility are the norm, and so on,
espesically if this is not the first time this debate has happened.
That might be a situation where rep plays a part.

Anyway, that's my take.

krueger



Timothy J Weiner wrote:
>
> I'll admit any day of the week that Rep has, is, and will influence rounds
> with the same reservations that Shawn has, but I do have a question.  I'm
> curious as to how often you guys think this happens, for example once a
> tournament, eight rounds a tournament, once a year... you get the point.
> Just kinda curious on what everyone thinks.
>
> Jake
>


--
Michael Krueger
Director of Debate
Middle Tennessee State University
Box 43
Murfreesboro, TN 37132
(615)  898-5607 (office)
(615) 898-5826 (fax)
http://www.mtsu.edu/~debate
http://www.mtsu.edu/~mkrueger
http://www.mtsu.edu/~wmts



From kendog2  Fri Aug 14 17:37:17 1998
From: kendog2 (kenny hanson)
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 15:37:17 -0700
Subject: RUSS CHURCH
Message-ID: <FRI.14.AUG.1998.153717.0700.KENDOG2@MAILEXCITE.COM>

Could you get in touch with me ASAP.


                                                Peace
                                           Kenny Hanson


Free web-based email, Forever, From anywhere!
http://www.mailexcite.com



From swhalen  Fri Aug 14 17:52:49 1998
From: swhalen (Shawn T Whalen)
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 15:52:49 -0700
Subject: Judging Standards & Bias: Long Post
Message-ID: <FRI.14.AUG.1998.155249.0700.SWHALEN@SFSU.EDU>

A couple of insightful back channels have prompted me to broaden my goals
a bit.  While I will continue to maintain that the judge who knowingly
votes for the team that lost is the rarest of creatures, I am also
convinced that we can improve perceptions of honesty by working on judges.
In other words, we ought to begin a discussion about judging with the goal
of increasing the trust we have in our judging.

I contend that for this project to work, we must begin with a presumptive
acceptance of judge integrity.  I believe, as a community, that we all too
easily validate claims of dishonesty.  If judges want to wield their
ballots for corrupt purposes, I suspect that we are powerless to stop
them. As I have argued in previous posts, suspicions of dishonesty often
destroy the potential for meaningful, educational dialogue.

However, I have been convinced through recent dialogue that festering
resentment may be even more detrimental to the educational environment.
Essentially, we must foster a relationship of genuine trust - which means
that we have to be able to identify illegitimate bias and reject it in order
for us to defend the justice in our decision making.

Many have noted some of the origins of potentially troubling biases. We
already have rules that prevent certain types of bias.  We don't let
coaches judge former students; we invite judges who are romantically
involved with debaters to bar themselves from judging them; we prevent
judges from judging their own team; we prevent judges from judging the
same team twice (in prelims anyway) etc...  We obviously believe that
other "illegitimate" biases exist, but have not found a way to prevent
them or we've been powerless to implement the mechanisms.  Some have
surely found such biases so distasteful as to view the whole enterprise as
unjust.  When that happens their only recourse is to quit.

So what can we do about this?

I think that we can do a few things better than we have:

1) We could be much better at defending honest judges to our debaters than
we are.  Different judges have different training and different abilities
and we (myself included) are too quick to equate lack of expertise with
dishonesty.

2) We could actively prepare judges for judging. We simply don't train our
judges.  We operate as if four years of debating prepares one to judge
debate, yet we all know that judges in their first year are notoriously
feared.  We expect that over time they'll figure it out and we watch
carefully (and listen to the rumors) to find out whose figured it out and
who hasn't.

3) We could be much less defensive and much more open to discussions about
improper bias.  We are too quick to treat inquiries about these things as
accusations.  As such, we really don't have anything approaching a
community wide consensus about what is legitimate bias and what isn't. (If
Katsulas says I won't vote on that Kritik is that OK; if I'm judging
someone who has requested an application for my graduate program is that
OK; etc.)  We need to develop a list of common circumstances that create
illegitimate bias so that we can develop mechanisms to minimize it. So far
we have Borg v. Podunk.  How about the circumstance where a first year is
judging a senior who schooled them regularly the previous year.  There are
lots more surely.

4) We could do a better job giving judges feedback.  Some judges know
their reputation, many judges don't.  Some judges care, others don't.  On
the whole though, we make little or no effort to give honest feedback to
judges.  People have argued on the list that proposed feedback mechanisms
(like publishing judge rankings) just encourage conformity to one set of
"elitist" judging values.  However, if we are to build trust we need to
be open about these evaluations.  We can't discuss different judge's
values if we aren't willing to defend the kind of judges we want.  I
remember Gary Larson openly soliciting feedback on the list a few years
back, but wonder how many helpful responses he got.

As a pre-empt, our current feedback model sucks.  Bad judges see bad
debates and never see elims.  If you're young you get a few chances to
prove that you're capable, but the penalty for poor judging is the "O-for"
bracket.  You may know your ranking, but you rarely hear why.


For many who feel comfortable in their present circumstances, this may
seem to be a non-issue.  But it seems to me that it goes to the core of
perceptions of elitism.  We have to work hard to foster trust and
legitimacy in our decision making or we really are inviting folks to head
elsewhere.  We need to talk about judging experiences more too - that's
how we learn.  There are folks with lots of experience at judging debate
who have lots of helpful advice to offer.  An example, I remember a late
night conversation with Ross Smith and Ede Warner where I was talking
about the closest debate I ever judged (Baylor v Michigan in the doubles
at the Wake NDT).  After a lengthy war story, Ross piped in with something
like: "In debates like that I like to use the old Roger Solt
trick, where you make a list of questions that you'd have to answer for
the negative if you vote aff, and a list of questions that you'd have to
answer for the aff if you voted neg.  Then you look over the lists and
decide which set of questions you're more comfortable answering."
Certainly not rocket science (my apologies to Ross and Rodger), but an
inordinately useful tool that I've benefited from many times since.


There's much more to all this, but I suspect doing things in pieces might
make sense.


Thanks for reading,



Shawn Whalen

Director of Forensics
San Francisco State University
swhalen at sfsu.edu
(415) 338-3173



From swhalen  Fri Aug 14 18:03:23 1998
From: swhalen (Shawn T Whalen)
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 16:03:23 -0700
Subject: On Rep,
In-Reply-To: <35D4AEB8.14FA@frank.mtsu.edu>
Message-ID: <FRI.14.AUG.1998.160323.0700.SWHALEN@SFSU.EDU>

On Fri, 14 Aug 1998, krueger wrote:

> He was debating
> George Mason at ADA Nationals, and it was a George Mason team that I
> didn't know.

More evidence that Pat Garrett has no rep?

;)

SW



From mkrueger  Fri Aug 14 18:28:48 1998
From: mkrueger (krueger)
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 18:28:48 -0500
Subject: On Rep,
References: <Pine.GSO.3.96.980814160214.11576L-100000@apollo.sfsu.edu>
Message-ID: <FRI.14.AUG.1998.182848.0500.MKRUEGER@FRANK.MTSU.EDU>

Heh

After the round I started the critique with....

"Well, you do a pretty good job aff, but you are behind pretty
significantly on the shunning debate...  He's just GOOD (referring to
Anjan)"

the aff explained to me who he was (me the clueless ceda judge).
they weren't disappointed.  they were just happy to be that close.

krueger


Shawn T Whalen wrote:
>
> On Fri, 14 Aug 1998, krueger wrote:
>
> > He was debating
> > George Mason at ADA Nationals, and it was a George Mason team that I
> > didn't know.
>
> More evidence that Pat Garrett has no rep?
>
> ;)
>
> SW

--
Michael Krueger
Director of Debate
Middle Tennessee State University
Box 43
Murfreesboro, TN 37132
(615)  898-5607 (office)
(615) 898-5826 (fax)
http://www.mtsu.edu/~debate
http://www.mtsu.edu/~mkrueger
http://www.mtsu.edu/~wmts



From alexanre  Fri Aug 14 21:56:13 1998
From: alexanre (robert earl alexander 982)
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 21:56:13 -0500
Subject: Request for 98-99 Tournament Calendar
Message-ID: <FRI.14.AUG.1998.215613.0500.ALEXANRE@TRIBE.NLU.EDU>

if anyone has a copy of a 98-99 tournament schedule saved, i'd appreciate
your forwarding it to me.  I've just changed email accounts and realized
that my copy was deleted as I was forwarding my saved mail.

Thanks in advance

Bob


------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Alexander,
Northeast Louisiana University
alexanre at tribe.nlu.edu



From db8coach  Sat Aug 15 01:16:54 1998
From: db8coach (Bob Lechtreck)
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 23:16:54 -0700
Subject: The word "cheating"
Message-ID: <FRI.14.AUG.1998.231654.0700.DB8COACH@RAIDEN.LIGHTSPEED.NET>

At 08:33 AM 8/14/98 -0700, Shawn T Whalen wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>
2) I fundementally disagree with the first paragraph above.  My position
is that something can always be done to win a debate.  I've made the bold
assertion that (functionally) NO JUDGE DISHONESTY exists.  There are
certainly judge biases which I see as a different issue, but judges don't
vote for a team regardless of who they thought won the debate.
>>>>>>>>>>

And I disagree with your statement. I think Doug Dennis' example happens
more often than you would like to believe. Not just when the judge admits to
it, but when judges take a close round and then make a decision based on
who's coach they would rather face after the round. This may not be
conscious dishonesty, but.............

>>>>>>>>>>
Lets work to improve the quality of judging, but at the same time lets
stop recirculating the MYTH that judges make corrupt decisions.  (I've
received 3 back channels with just one contending that dishonesty was a
significant issue).
>>>>>>>>>>

So if three womyn responded to a survey on harrassment in the workplace and
only one said they were harrassed you would not think that was important?
Why does an organization which takes such proactive steps to diminish sexism
and racism in debate, simpley tell those that have a valid complaint, "just
shut up and work harder", or "sure you got screwed, but if you pay your
dues, you can be on the up side of the screwing someday." We wouldn't accept
this attitude if it were directed at womyn or African Americans, why do we
accept it when directed at lesser rep people and schools?

Peace,

Bob Lechtreck
Bakersfield College
"Putting out fires, and damn good debaters"

>From  Fri Aug 14 23:54:48 1998
Message-Id: <FRI.14.AUG.1998.235448.0700.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 14442 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Sat, 15 Aug 1998 02:44:16
 -0400
Received: from dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.3]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id CAA48270 for
 <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Sat, 15 Aug 1998 02:44:14 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from smap at localhost) by dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id
 BAA26293 for <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Sat, 15 Aug 1998 01:44:12 -0500
 (CDT)
Received: from pas-ca14-12.ix.netcom.com(204.32.164.76) by
 dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma026213; Sat Aug 15
 01:43:36 1998
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <35D530B7.2B2297CC at ix.netcom.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 23:54:48 -0700
Reply-To: coughi at ix.netcom.com
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: "Michael H. Miller" <coughi at IX.NETCOM.COM>
Subject: (no subject)

sign off edebate.



From db8coach  Sat Aug 15 01:30:05 1998
From: db8coach (Bob Lechtreck)
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 23:30:05 -0700
Subject: Reputation's effects on rounds
Message-ID: <FRI.14.AUG.1998.233005.0700.DB8COACH@RAIDEN.LIGHTSPEED.NET>

At 08:44 AM 8/14/98 -0700, Shawn T Whalen wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>
Just so that I understand your argument here.  Do you contend that judges,
knowing in their heart that Team P won, still vote for Team B?  Or are you
discussing the phenomenon where (in your observation of the debate) Team P
won pretty clearly, but (in your observation) the judge had pre-round
biases that led them to a contrary decision?
>>>>>>>>>>

Yes to both.

I think that the latter happens more often, but I think the former also happens.

Additionally, I think the pre-round bias can include any number of things.
It could be that the judge, before the round even starts, thinks the debate
is going to be a crush and then "makes it happen". It could be that the
judge simply thinks that the Borg team's case is damn near unbeatable (it
must be since her best team has lost to it several times) and has a bias
TOWARDS that case. It could be that having seen this Borg team many times,
s/he does work for that team by "filling in gaps". Then when Podunk team
does answer those "filled in" areas, it is a simple ballot. Perfectly
justified, and just another case of Podunk needing to quit whining, work
harder, and do more research. At least that's what people will tell them
when they say they were screwed.

And the answer to your nest question is yes, in my 13 years of college
coaching I believe I have seen examples of all of these. Several examples.
Can I prove it? No. But then I shouldn't have to be able to prove it to
discuss it.

Peace,

Bob Lechtreck
Bakersfield College
"Putting out fires, and damn good debaters"



From gordonm+  Sat Aug 15 08:41:47 1998
From: gordonm+ (Gordon Mitchell)
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1998 09:41:47 -0400
Subject: NDT / CEDA governance
Message-ID: <SAT.15.AUG.1998.094147.0400.GORDONM@PITT.EDU>

I would like to see some discussion on the relative differences,
strengths, and drawbacks of the two models for national governance bodies
overseeing NDT and CEDA.

NDT: Narrow mission - plan and manage the NDT.

CEDA: Very broad mission - see Carrie Crenshaw's first report filed
online in late June. It provides a vision for each of the 12-odd
CEDA committees dealing with a wide swath of issues facing the debate
community.  These majority of these issues range far beyond management of
the national tournament - e.g. diversity recruitment and retention,
cultivation of contacts with civil rights organizations, partnership
programs to facilitate interaction between schools, and promotion of
public debate opportunities activities.

Gordon Mitchell,
University of Pittsburgh

>From  Sat Aug 15 10:40:34 1998
Message-Id: <SAT.15.AUG.1998.104034.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 15345 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Sat, 15 Aug 1998 10:40:45
 -0400
Received: from imo27.mx.aol.com (imo27.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.71]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id KAA54090 for
 <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Sat, 15 Aug 1998 10:40:44 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from JAZ4715 at aol.com by imo27.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id 8QIAa04229
 for <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Sat, 15 Aug 1998 10:40:34 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 170
Message-ID: <3d5f28a4.35d59de3 at aol.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1998 10:40:34 EDT
Reply-To: JAZ4715 at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Jim Zhang <JAZ4715 at AOL.COM>
Subject: "LOST" TUB AT WDI

Sorry for the clutter but if anybody who was at WDI accidently took a tub of
evidence which was in front of Royal Tyler theater the last day of camp, could
you please backchannel me.  It's a fairly distinctive white rubbermaid tub
with a blue lid and red handles and has a lot of bumper stickers on it (south
park, etc.).  I would greatly appreciate getting it back considering it has
all my camp evidence and vital materials  that would expose the conspiracy :).

Jim
Cal Poly-SLO

>From  Sat Aug 15 15:28:19 1998
Message-Id: <SAT.15.AUG.1998.152819.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 16973 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Sat, 15 Aug 1998 15:28:25
 -0400
Received: from imo11.mx.aol.com (imo11.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.1]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id PAA49266 for
 <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Sat, 15 Aug 1998 15:28:24 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from Zompetti at aol.com by imo11.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id
 8OJMa04179; Sat, 15 Aug 1998 15:28:19 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 58
Message-ID: <ba256c2c.35d5e154 at aol.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1998 15:28:19 EDT
Reply-To: Zompetti at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Joe Zompetti <Zompetti at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: What's a Novice?
Comments: To: MWBRYANT at aol.com

In a message dated 98-08-11 14:50:36 EDT, MWBRYANT at AOL.COM writes:

> Can you name five NDT schools putting effort into training raw novices
>  (outside of ADA, of course)?
>
>  Bear


I can:

Mercer, Wayne State, Louisville, Miami, Augustana

I can provide more too, if you so desire....and by the way, Bear, how many
non-HS debaters do you recruit?  as far as I can tell, your track record is
one of preferring to steal other squad's debaters thru transfer....now there's
a non-elitist, and educationally-drivien idea!

>From  Sat Aug 15 22:49:30 1998
Message-Id: <SAT.15.AUG.1998.224930.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 17928 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Sat, 15 Aug 1998 22:50:38
 -0400
Received: from imo23.mx.aol.com (imo23.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.67]) by
 list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id WAA93010 for
 <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Sat, 15 Aug 1998 22:50:37 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from CUDb8R at aol.com by imo23.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id UZXIa26053;
 Sat, 15 Aug 1998 22:49:30 +2000 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 170
Message-ID: <b516fd0c.35d648bb at aol.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1998 22:49:30 EDT
Reply-To: CUDb8R at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Kirk Wilson <CUDb8R at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: Wacked Case Thoughts
Comments: To: race at midusa.net

In a message dated 8/14/98 2:59:32 PM Central Daylight Time, race at midusa.net
writes:

<< Has anybody given consideration to "past tense" cases (for lack of a better
 > title)?  For example, would it be possible for the Aff. to pick one of the
 > amendments to T7 of the CRA made in 1991, and make a defense of the
 > protections it has offered since?  Am I smokin crack to think this may be
 > legitimate under the wording of this resolution? >>

This is a case where the stock issue of Inherency has to come into play.  At
the point that you as the AFF defend something that was done in 1991, you are
defending SQ.  (That is still neg ground isn't it?)  <--Sorry, just a poke at
those out there who don't believe in the same theory that I do.  When you
defend the 1991 amendments, you are defending SQ; Inherency kicks in b/c there
is no reason to do your plan b/c it has already been done.  Vote on INH as a
stock.  Or for the non stock people vote Neg. b/c the aff has just told you
that the neg ground (SQ) is great!!!

Kirk Wilson
CU Debate



From sellis1  Sun Aug 16 11:30:55 1998
From: sellis1 (Andy Ellis)
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1998 12:30:55 -0400
Subject: looking for kate shuster
In-Reply-To: <35D17FAA.A48@erols.com>
Message-ID: <SUN.16.AUG.1998.123055.0400.SELLIS1@TIGER.TOWSON.EDU>

I need to get in touch with kate shuster and am not sure if she is back
from dartmouth if someone can forward me an email address i would be very
appreciative.
Andy Ellis
Towson



From mmmo  Sun Aug 16 13:22:33 1998
From: mmmo (Matt Moore)
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1998 13:22:33 -0500
Subject: MDI lost and found
Message-ID: <SUN.16.AUG.1998.132233.0500.MMMO@SIU.EDU>

Sorry this took a week or so to post, but moving sucks and I didn't have
much time.

Some things were left in the dorms that people might be missing.
Someone's CD player and a bunch of CD's were left (I'm calling dibs if
no one claims them). If anyine lost something backchannel me and I'll
see what I can do.

Matt
SIU



From lkahng  Sun Aug 16 13:43:38 1998
From: lkahng (lucius)
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1998 14:43:38 -0400
Subject: Wacked Case Thoughts
In-Reply-To: <b516fd0c.35d648bb@aol.com>
Message-ID: <SUN.16.AUG.1998.144338.0400.LKAHNG@OSF1.GMU.EDU>

I think David presents an interesting question since the resolution refers
to a 1964 statute, one could suppose, through association, that the
framers are refering to the 1964 federal government. However, I think this
smuggles in superflous interpretation since it can more easily be
assumed that the resolution refers to the date of a statue, and not
to the date of the government.

I also think that historical plans will be detered by the word "the" which
clearly refers to a specific government, esp. when U.S.F.G. is
capitalized. If the framers really intended Affirmatives to fiat past
governments, the word "a" (as in "RESOLVED: 'a' usfg should...") or a
"and/or" switch would have been used in the reolution. Just my thoughts.


                                                        lucius
                                                        George Mason U.





On Sat, 15 Aug 1998, Kirk Wilson wrote:

> In a message dated 8/14/98 2:59:32 PM Central Daylight Time, race at midusa.net
> writes:
>
> << Has anybody given consideration to "past tense" cases (for lack of a better
>  > title)?  For example, would it be possible for the Aff. to pick one of the
>  > amendments to T7 of the CRA made in 1991, and make a defense of the
>  > protections it has offered since?  Am I smokin crack to think this may be
>  > legitimate under the wording of this resolution? >>
>
> This is a case where the stock issue of Inherency has to come into play.  At
> the point that you as the AFF defend something that was done in 1991, you are
> defending SQ.  (That is still neg ground isn't it?)  <--Sorry, just a poke at
> those