From jmfried  Sun Feb  1 09:56:07 1998
From: jmfried (Jason Maxwell Friedman)
Date: Sun, 1 Feb 1998 10:56:07 -0500
Subject: bfhs [emory]
Message-ID: <SUN.1.FEB.1998.105607.0500.JMFRIED@EMORY.EDU>

the results thus far of the barkley forum for high schools
the anne douglas tutorial [aka doubles]

glenbrook north b def. lakeland f 2-1
caddo f def. el cerrito b 3-0
glenbrook south b def. st edward  3-0
woodward b def newark science b 3-0
east grand rapids b def. brookwood b 3-0
head royce f def newburgh free b 3-0
greenhill b def. westminster b 3-0
newburgh free def. bronx 2-1
highland park b def. head royce b 3-0
lexington b def. dallas jesuit  2-1
montgomery bell f def. houston memorial 3-0
cathedral prep b def baytown lee 2-1
georgetown day f def. bellaire f 3-0
centerville b dewf. chattahooche 2-1
lexington f def. colleyville heritage b 2-1
dreher deg san antonio lee 2-1

Take Care.


Jason



"We learned more from a three minute record than we ever learned in
school" - Bruce Springsteen
"The future's uncertain and the end is always near" - Jim Morrison

Homer Simpson
(_8(I)



From joshcoffman  Sun Feb  1 13:15:42 1998
From: joshcoffman (josh coffman)
Date: Sun, 1 Feb 1998 11:15:42 PST
Subject: ASU ONLY
Message-ID: <SUN.1.FEB.1998.111542.PST.JOSHCOFFMAN@HOTMAIL.COM>

Hey i was going to see if you guys could email me the cite for the last
solvency card on the littoral warfare case. And i also would like the
cite to the china turn ("plan mitigates perception of containment") that
you read agaisnt North Texas in semis at GSL.

thanks

Josh-UMKC

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



From bigpants28  Sun Feb  1 13:22:17 1998
From: bigpants28 (Matt Baisley)
Date: Sun, 1 Feb 1998 11:22:17 PST
Subject: Liberty or other PKO people
Message-ID: <SUN.1.FEB.1998.112217.PST.BIGPANTS28@HOTMAIL.COM>

        Could someone email me the plan for the Malaysian PKO's case you
all are running....thanks



MAtt BAisley
UMKC Debate Palace

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



From m993264  Sun Feb  1 13:38:37 1998
From: m993264 (Midshipman Adam Johnston, USNA)
Date: Sun, 1 Feb 1998 14:38:37 -0500
Subject: Navy tournament
Message-ID: <SUN.1.FEB.1998.143837.0500.M993264@NADN.NAVY.MIL>

Sorry, I've been sick and unable to post the round-by-round results;
someone will post the complete results at the conclusion of the day.

Semis are about to start now; in Varsity,

George Mason KW (aff) vs. Georgetown BS (neg)
Liberty BL (aff) vs. Samford JS (neg)

As I said, the complete results will be out later.

Adam Johnston
U. S. Naval Academy

>From  Sun Feb  1 21:55:39 1998
Message-Id: <SUN.1.FEB.1998.215539.EST.>
Date: Sun, 1 Feb 1998 21:55:39 EST
Reply-To: Pacedebate at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Pace Debate <Pacedebate at AOL.COM>
Subject: SIU so far
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

ASU SM vs USC BM are debating in finals started at approx 7 pm central time

Semis

ASU SM neg over Alabama SP 3-0
USC BM aff over Pace KP 2-1

Quarters

Alabama SP over Towson BE
ASU SM over USC SH
USC BM over MSU RW
Pace KP over Southwest TX LT

Octas

Towson BE over Oregon BL
Pace KP over ENMU
Alabama SP over Miami (OH)
USC SH over Alabama OY
Southwest TX LT over Northwestern KJ
USC BM over MSU SO
MSU RW over Kentucky RK
ASU SM over Mercer CD

the only thing I know about other divisions is that

ENMU beat MTSU in the finals of novice on a 2-1. ENMU was neg.



From bogen  Sun Feb  1 21:11:27 1998
From: bogen (David Ellenbogen)
Date: Sun, 1 Feb 1998 22:11:27 -0500
Subject: George Washington Tournament
Message-ID: <SUN.1.FEB.1998.221127.0500.BOGEN@GWIS2.CIRC.GWU.EDU>

To All:

tomorrow is the last day to register for rooms at the saint james hotel. in
washington under the special reserved block rate  the phone number is
202-457-0500.  The information is also in the original invitation.  please
contact Steven Keller if you have any questions.

Hope to see you all here in DC.

bogen



From dumas  Sun Feb  1 19:54:30 1998
From: dumas (Jamey Dumas)
Date: Sun, 1 Feb 1998 18:54:30 -0700
Subject: News About Becky Galentine
Message-ID: <SUN.1.FEB.1998.185430.0700.DUMAS@GONZAGA.EDU>

Hi All,

For those of you who keep in touch with Becky Galentine she starts her
"High Dose" chemotherapy tomorrow.  So the next three weeks are the crux.

If you want to call her ("I don't sleep in the hospital" --Becky) she will
be at Swedish Medical Center for the duration (probably until February 25).
The patient information number there is (206) 215-2222 and they will patch
you through to her room.  One of her local friends should then be there to
screen her calls in case she actually is sleeping.

She may also be using a lap top and checking her email depending on the
stage of treatment she is in and how she is feeling.  So anyone who wants
to send good wishes should feel free to do so at:  <theloft at accessone.com>

The good news going into her high dose treatment is that a CAT scan, brain
scan, bone scan, and full bone marrow and blood tests this week came back
"fine."  The tumor is now "barely discernible."  All of which means that
she continues to make good progress and that no drug resistance has
developed to the treatment she is on.

The next week will be the actual chemotherapy drug regimen.  At the end of
that (through the 10th?) she will "bottom out" as the chemo does its best
to kill her immune system.  They will then give her the transplant of stem
cells that they took out of her earlier.  At which point she will be
"really fucking sick" (her words of course) for a good week.  Around
Valentine's day she should be climbing out.  The earliest she could get out
of the hosptial is the 23rd (though Joey and Becky are betting on the
25th).

Of course she plans on being at CEDA Champs, CEDA Nats, and the NDT.

Keep her in your thoughts.

--Jamey Dumas

>From  Sun Feb  1 22:40:33 1998
Message-Id: <SUN.1.FEB.1998.224033.0500.>
Date: Sun, 1 Feb 1998 22:40:33 -0500
Reply-To: deon_garner at STUDENTS.MOREHOUSE.EDU
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Deon Garner <deon_garner at STUDENTS.MOREHOUSE.EDU>
Subject: GA College
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=US-ASCII

Hey everyone,

Does anyone know what the following schools run on the affirmative?

Clemson - something about safe nuclear power plants???
University of Florida
Young Harris
Florida International
Macon State

I think the last three schools primarily are parli and/or IE.

Thanks,
Deon

>From  Sun Feb  1 22:41:25 1998
Message-Id: <SUN.1.FEB.1998.224125.0500.>
Date: Sun, 1 Feb 1998 22:41:25 -0500
Reply-To: deon_garner at STUDENTS.MOREHOUSE.EDU
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Deon Garner <deon_garner at STUDENTS.MOREHOUSE.EDU>
Subject: Dr. Muschell Please
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=US-ASCII

Caould David Muschell please backchannel when you get a chance.

Thanks,
Deon, Captain
Morehouse Debate



From debate  Sun Feb  1 21:47:39 1998
From: debate (Greg Simerly)
Date: Sun, 1 Feb 1998 21:47:39 -0600
Subject: Open SIU results
Message-ID: <SUN.1.FEB.1998.214739.0600.DEBATE@SIU.EDU>

OCTAS
PACE KP OVER ENMU BJ
TOWSON BE OVER OREGON
ALABAMA SP OVER MIAMI (oh) MO
USC SH OVER ALABAMA OY
SWTX LT OVER NORTHWESTERN KJ
USC BM OVER MUS SO
MSU RW OVER KY RK
ASU SM OVER MERCER

QUARTERS
ASU SM OVER USC SH
USC BM OVER MSU RW
PACE KP OVER SWTX LT
BAMA SP OVER TOWSON BE

SEMIS
ASU SM OVER BAMA SP
USC BM OVER PACE KP

FINALS
ASU SM OVER USC BM



From debate  Sun Feb  1 21:50:33 1998
From: debate (Greg Simerly)
Date: Sun, 1 Feb 1998 21:50:33 -0600
Subject: Jr & novice SIU results
Message-ID: <SUN.1.FEB.1998.215033.0600.DEBATE@SIU.EDU>

JUNIOR

QUARTERS
ENMU WG OVER LOYOLA MK
VMT SP OVER UCO HM
WHITMAN CC OVER UCO SB
UT-DALLAS OVER SMS GW

SEMIS
UT-D OVER WHITMAN CC
ENMU OVER VMT SP

FINALS
UT-D OVER ENMU



NOVICE

QUARTERS
MTSU WM OVER BALL STATE PE
IL STATE PF OVER VERMONT ML
ENMU CD OVER DEPAUL DW
VANDY CM OVER UNI CS

SEMIS
ENMU CD OVER VANDY CM
MTSU OVER IL STATE PF

FINALS
ENMU OVER MTSU



From LPCK66A  Sun Feb  1 21:56:41 1998
From: LPCK66A (MR JOSEPH P ZOMPETTI)
Date: Sun, 1 Feb 1998 22:56:41 -0500
Subject: SIU info
Message-ID: <SUN.1.FEB.1998.225641.0500.LPCK66A@PRODIGY.COM>

hi --

any new aff's at the SIU tournament?



From jmfried  Sun Feb  1 23:15:36 1998
From: jmfried (Jason Maxwell Friedman)
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 00:15:36 -0500
Subject: Most of Emory Results (fwd)
Message-ID: <MON.2.FEB.1998.001536.0500.JMFRIED@EMORY.EDU>

greenhill won bfhs finals

Take Care.


Jason



"We learned more from a three minute record than we ever learned in
school" - Bruce Springsteen
"The future's uncertain and the end is always near" - Jim Morrison

Homer Simpson
(_8(I)

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 1 Feb 1998 20:40:22 -0500 (EST)
From: "Jordyn A. Buchanan" <jordyn at confusion.net>
To: Multiple recipients of list <cx-l at debate.net>
Subject: Most of Emory Results

These results should all be correct.  The names, however, come from Mike
Bacon's head.  I'm not saying they're wrong or anything; it's just not my
fault.

Anne Douglas White Tutorial (Double-Octafinals for the unwashed):

Glenbrook North Hurder/Silverman def. Lakeland Wilson/Iyengar
Caddo Magnet Devault/McCartney def. El Cerrito McIntyre/Lai
Glenbrook South Goldman/Fine def. St. Edwards Ware/Perez-Stable
Woodward Zampol/Brown def. Newark Science Bozzalasco/Olivera
East Grand Rapids Jeff/Geoff def. Brookwood Mead/Payne
Head Royce Creek/Holland def. Newburgh Free Academy Scaduto/Prabhu
Greenhill Talmadge/Bradt def. Westminister McGough/Cole
Newburgh Free Academy Dolan/Hunter def. Bronx Science Quatrucci/Green
Highland Park Martin/Sullivan def. Head Royce Valkanoff/Margold
Lexington Choi/Kastorf def. Dallas Jesuit Kovatis/Connelly
Montgomery Bell Academy Gatipati/Humbrecht def. Houston Memorial
Cathedral Prep Sammartino/Cerulo def. Baytown Lee Kubin/Paul
Georgetown Day Berger/Majd def. Bellaire Lai/??
Centerville Thrasher/Akuthota def. Chattahoochee Zweigel/Schindler
Lexington Lynn/Neumann def. Colleyville-Heritage Wemban/Boesch
Dreher A'Hern/Wachter def. San Antonio Lee Fisher/Freeman

Phyllis Flory Barton Tutorial (Octafinals):
GDS def. GBN
GBS def. MBA 3-2
Highland Park def. NFA 4-1
EGR def. Lexington LN 4-1
Cathedral Prep def. Caddo 4-1
Lexington CK def. Woodward
Greenhill def. Dreher
Head Royce def. Centerville

The Third Tutorial (Quarterfinals):
Cathedral Prep (Aff.) def. GDS 4-3
EGR (Aff.) def. Lexington 7-0
Greenhill (Aff.) def. Highland Park 7-0
GBS (Neg.) def. Head Royce 7-0

Sandra Something Silvers Tutorial (Semis):
Greenhill (Neg.) def. Cathedral Prep 5-4
EGR (Aff.) def. GBS 5-4

The Big Key Coach Round (Finals):
Greenhill is currently debating EGR.  Greenhill is affirming.

Speaker awards and results of finals still to come.  Stay tuned and don't
ask for them.

Jordyn

|---------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Jordyn A. Buchanan                                jordyn at debate.net |
| Stuyvesant High School                         jordyn at confusion.net |
| Director of Debate                               jordyn at bestweb.net |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------|



============================== CX-L Mailing List =============================
To unsubscribe:  send the text UNSUBSCRIBE CX-L to listproc at debate.net with
NO SUBJECT.  For other help, send mail to jordyn at debate.net.  Fear the Kvaal!

>From  Mon Feb  2 00:47:42 1998
Message-Id: <MON.2.FEB.1998.004742.0500.>
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 00:47:42 -0500
Reply-To: deon_garner at STUDENTS.MOREHOUSE.EDU
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Deon Garner <deon_garner at STUDENTS.MOREHOUSE.EDU>
Subject: Speakers at SIU
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=US-ASCII

Speakers at SIU?

Deon



From aes4686  Sun Feb  1 23:51:26 1998
From: aes4686 (Andrew E Spencer)
Date: Sun, 1 Feb 1998 23:51:26 -0600
Subject: Thanks To SIU
Message-ID: <SUN.1.FEB.1998.235126.0600.AES4686@KSU.EDU>

Much thanks to SIU for hosting one of the most enjoyable tournaments of
the year. I look forward to attending the Saluki in the years to come.

Andrew Spencer
Kansas State



From jmw8286  Mon Feb  2 01:56:14 1998
From: jmw8286 (Jacob Weigler)
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 02:56:14 -0500
Subject: UMKC only
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.96.980202001518.28616C-100000@curly.cc.emory.edu>
Message-ID: <MON.2.FEB.1998.025614.0500.JMW8286@IS4.NYU.EDU>

Can someone from UMKC backchannel me.

Thanx,
jake

"Freedom without opportunity is a devil's gift, and the refusal to provide
such opportunities is criminal."  -Noam Chomsky

>From  Mon Feb  2 05:48:17 1998
Message-Id: <MON.2.FEB.1998.054817.EST.>
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 05:48:17 EST
Reply-To: XZeitgeist at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Victor Rodriguez <XZeitgeist at AOL.COM>
Subject: Saluki Hospitality
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

I just wanted to congratulate Greg, Glen, and the rest of the Salukis on a
incredible tournament.  SIU spared no expense or effort on running a smooth
and really fun tournament.  Thank you again for all of your hospitality,
especially for the transportation to the Copper Dragon!  Make sure the Trojans
get on the plane, you may have to force them to leave their suite.

Victor Rodriguez
CSU Long Beach



From mgremillion  Mon Feb  2 06:49:26 1998
From: mgremillion (MWilliams)
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 07:49:26 -0500
Subject: Jackey Massey or Ken Delaughder
Message-ID: <MON.2.FEB.1998.074926.0500.MGREMILLION@SELU.EDU>

Would you e-mail me your fax number so I can fax you the Mardi Gras invite today or tomorrow.
Scott Elliott



From grees01  Mon Feb  2 08:31:12 1998
From: grees01 (Gary Rees)
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 08:31:12 -0600
Subject: Thanks To SIU
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.3.96L.980201234805.17952F-100000@abc.ksu.ksu.edu>
Message-ID: <MON.2.FEB.1998.083112.0600.GREES01@MAIL.COIN.MISSOURI.EDU>

Once again, Greg and all the Salukis did an outstanding job.  Thanks for
everything.  Any luck finding my sweater?

Gary Rees
Central Methodist College
Fayette, MO 65248 816-248-3392 x273

On Sun, 1 Feb 1998, Andrew E Spencer wrote:

> Much thanks to SIU for hosting one of the most enjoyable tournaments of
> the year. I look forward to attending the Saluki in the years to come.
>
> Andrew Spencer
> Kansas State
>



From broda  Mon Feb  2 09:18:04 1998
From: broda (Kenneth Broda-bahm)
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 10:18:04 -0500
Subject: Towson Invitations
Message-ID: <MON.2.FEB.1998.101804.0500.BRODA@SABER.TOWSON.EDU>

I recently realized that the Towson invites have been tied up inexplicably
in the University's post office for a month and a half.  They should be on
their way.

Given current airfares and nats-at-Rochester, it is a great time to come
East.  For size and diversity of competition it is tough to beat Towson.
The electronic invite appears below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tis the season for airline ticket buying.  If you are interested
in attending a large and diverse tournament on the East Coast
before CEDA Nationals, you should consider Towson.  A few points
to consider.


          * TU Novice has generally made double-octas and JV has
          generally made octas

          * We have already received several varsity committments
          from teams like SIU, Emporia, Central Oklahoma.

          * TU enjoys long-term traditional recognition as Novice
          and Junior Varsity National Championships

          * TU includes a varsity division (generally quarters or
          octas - this year should be larger due to the proximity
          of Rochester).  You can bring your whole squad

          * TU includes a diverse mix of CEDA teams from across
          the country as well as substantial participation by
          ADA/NDT teams.

          * TU has cool, meaningful, and environmentally friendly
          trophies: hand-turned and painted ceramics which
          include tournament and award names.

          * TU features the only critic's award in which debaters
          rank and rate the critics they were actually assigned
          during the tournament.

          * TU will host a Thursday night public debate before
          the tournament: Cornell's team of Mike Cole and Jessica
          Wojtysiak will face off against Towson's Don Baker and
          Kerry Doyle on the subject of Chinese containment
          before an audience of students, faculty, and
          administrators.

The basic information you need to know now:

Dates:    March 6-8      Number of Rounds: 7 in all divisions

Starting Time: 2:00 pm 6th    Ending Time:  8:00 p.m. 8th,est.

Hotel:  Holiday Inn Timonium,      Registration:  Ken Broda-Bahm
        800-289-4499                              410-830-2888
        Reserve by February 12th   Register by 5pm March 3rd
- - -    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The rest of the invite....

Dear Colleague,
     It is our pleasure to invite you to bring your entire squad
of debaters to three tournaments March 6-8 at Towson University:

THE NINTH NOVICE NATIONALS
                    AND
          THE SIXTEENTH CHESAPEAKE CLASSIC
                              AND
                    THE SIXTH JUNIOR VARSITY NATIONALS

     These tournaments will run concurrently and feature 7 rounds
of open, junior varsity, and novice CEDA competition on the
national topic.  We will operate on a 8-3-5 format with 8-minutes
of preparation time per team.  We are confident that these
concurrent tournaments will offer your whole squad a very
worthwhile experience in national competition.  Hope to See you
in March!

Fees:  $65 per team, due at time of registration. Make checks
payable to T.U. Foundation or Ken Broda-Bahm; we cannot accept
purchase orders or billing for these tournaments.

Judging: One judge is required for every four debaters.  If you
have alumni in the Washington area: dig them up.  We strongly
encourage teams to make every effort to cover their entry.   We
will ration our excellent hired judges so that each school may
request judging for no more than ONE team until all requests are
satisfied.  We reserve the right to limit a school's entry if an
insufficient number of judges are available.  The judging fee
will be $100 for one two-person team.  We will not accept
undergraduate judges unless it becomes absolutely necessary.  All
Judges are obligated through the latter of a.) the round
following their last team's elimination; or b.) the first two
elimination rounds.

Critic's Award:  We encourage critics to provide a brief oral
critique (during which they may or may not wish to reveal their
decision).  At the conclusion of the 7th round, all teams will
receive a ballot with the names of all seven of their judges and
will rank and rate these judges (Individual Events style).  Judge
ranks and ratings will be averaged and judges who have judged at
least four rounds qualify for the award.

Tournament Operation:  Once again we are happy to announce that
Gary Larson of Wheaton College will be the one-person tabroom
using the latest version of Smart Tournament Administrator (CEDA
national computer program) to handle matching, judge assignment,
and the critic's award.  The tournament will abide by CEDA's
evidence and sexual harassment policies.

Judge Assignment:  Contestants will have the opportunity to rank
judges as "A", "B" or "C" with a set number of strikes.  The
computer will seek to maximize mutual preference while keeping
all judges assigned.  In other words, judges will not receive
fewer ballots due to the operation of the preference system.
Teams that do not wish to influence judge assignment need not
fill out a preference sheet.

Eligibility:  Any student meeting the CEDA standards is eligible
for the Chesapeake Classic Tournament.  Novice teams must meet
(1) the CEDA standards and (2) the CEDA novice definition:  "a
team comprised of debaters neither of whom have participated in
more than two semesters of NDT, CEDA and/or high school debate."
The number of final rounds that one has experienced does not
effect eligibility for this tournament.  Individuals in novice or
JV who graduated in the quarter or semester prior to this
tournament, but who would otherwise be eligible, may compete in
their division.

Special Accommodations:  Towson University is committed to
ensuring that persons with disabilities are given an equally
effective opportunity to participate in and benefit from the
university's programs and services.  Persons with disabilities
who might need reasonable accommodations should contact Ken
Broda-Bahm at least 72 hours before the tournament at 410-830-
2888.

Registration: Mail, phone, and E-mail entries must be in our
hands by 5 p.m. Tuesday, March 3rd.  Entries should provide first
and last names of debaters and judges, division entries, judging
constraints, and a phone number for confirmation.  All entries
will be confirmed--if we don't confirm it, we didn't get it.
Entries will only be taken from directors or coaches, not
students .

On all entries please include:
     First & Last Names for all entrants and judges, Divisions,
     coach names, and coach phone numbers and email addresses.

     1.  Phone entries  (410-830-2888)
          Talk to Ken Broda-Bahm, or leave the entry on voice
          mail.  Voice mail entries will confirmed by phone.

     2.  Fax entries (410-830-3656)
          For best results, fax during business hours (8 a.m. - 4
          p.m. EST) to 410-830-3656.  Fax entries will be
          confirmed by phone.

     3.  E-mail entries (kbrodabahm at towson.edu)
          E-mail entries will be confirmed by e-mail.

Housing:  Special rates have been arranged at the Holiday Inn
Timonium at $67 for 1-4 persons per room.  A 13% state and local
tax is not included in these rates.  Your reservation should be
made by Feb. 12th.  This motel is located off I-83 just north of
Towson. Take exit 16A,  Timonium road, and take a right onto
Greenspring Drive.  The hotel is at 2004 Greenspring Drive.
Phone: 1-800-289-4499.  Amenities include an indoor/outdoor pool,
whirlpool, fitness center, hip country & western (both!) bar,
showtime, and on-command video.  In addition a coffee-maker, a
hair-dryer, and an iron and ironing-board come standard in each
room.

Airport:  The Baltimore-Washington International Airport is
served by many carriers.  The airport is approximately 40 minutes
from the University.
Trophies:
     Excellent and artistically-designed Awards will be given to
               * The Top 10 speakers    * The Top 3 critics
               * The Coaches of Teams in Semi and Final Rounds
               * All teams breaking and advancing

School Location:  The University is located off Beltway (695)
Exit #25.  You should proceed down Charles St. and take a left on
Towsontowne Blvd., which takes you to T.U..  Make a right turn
onto Burke Avenue and take the Burke Street entrance into Towson
University.  Follow the road to the right.  You may park in the
first lot you come to on the left (Linthicum Parking Lot) or
follow signs. The Psychology Building, where registration will be
held, is just West of this lot.  Registration is in room 108.

Further Information:  Please contact Ken Broda-Bahm at
410-830-2888 (office) or 410-923-3644 (home).

TENTATIVE SCHEDULE:
     Thursday, March 5
          Audience Debate, Van Bokkelen 200....5:00-6:30 p.m.
          Early registration, Holiday Inn......8:00-11:00 p.m.
     Friday, March 6
          Registration in front of Psychology 108 2:00- 2:30 p.m.
          Pairings Released, Psych 108..2:40 p.m.
          Round 1 ......................3:00- 4:45 p.m.
          Round 2 ......................4:45- 6:30 p.m.
          Round 3 ......................6:30- 8:15 p.m.
     Saturday, March 7
          Pairings Released, Breakfast..7:30 AM
          Round 4 (powered off 3) ......8:00- 10:00 a.m.
          Round 5 (powered off 4).......11:00- 1:00 p.m.
          Lunch - pizza feed!............1:00- 2:00 p.m.
          Round 6 (powered off 5)........2:00- 4:00 p.m.
          Round 7, flip, (powered off 6).5:00- 7:00 p.m.
          Posting, Holiday Inn ..........9:00 ish
     Sunday, March 8
          Pairings released, Breakfast...7:30 a.m.
          First elimination round........8:00 a.m.
          If novice makes double octas, the first round will be
          only novice doubles
          Second elimination round......10:00 a.m.
          Awards........................12:15 a.m.
          Successive Elimination rounds occur with trophies
          awarded in round.  We anticipate finishing by 8:00 p.m.



From masst188+  Mon Feb  2 09:48:32 1998
From: masst188+ (Maxwell Schnurer)
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 10:48:32 -0500
Subject: Thanks Navy!
Message-ID: <MON.2.FEB.1998.104832.0500.MASST188@PITT.EDU>

        I just wanted to Thank the Naval Academy and all of the hard
working participants who made their tourney a success this weekend.
Thanks for all of the Pittsburgh Crew. . .
        Maxwell

". . . 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_)



From gleff  Mon Feb  2 09:53:29 1998
From: gleff (Gary Leff)
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 10:53:29 -0500
Subject: CEDA Nats - judge?
Message-ID: <MON.2.FEB.1998.105329.0500.GLEFF@OSF1.GMU.EDU>

I'll be up in Rochester on business a few days prior to CEDA nats.

Are there any opportunities for signing on as a hired judge?

If so, who would I contact?

Thanks,

Gary Leff
Program Director,                  Institute for Humane Studies
4084 University Dr., Suite 101 Fairfax, VA  22030-6812
1-800-697-8799                                http://www.TheIHS.org

[For students interested in the classical liberal tradition:]
[Scholarships up to $12,000                 Free summer seminars]
[  Washington, DC internships with housing and stipend ]



From AREHEARB  Mon Feb  2 11:17:22 1998
From: AREHEARB (Brad Areheart)
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 11:17:22 CT
Subject: UNT's Not Arms registry case
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.3.95.980131172443.2357A-100000@qix.rs.itd.umich.edu>
Message-ID: <MON.2.FEB.1998.111722.CT.AREHEARB@ESUVM.EMPORIA.EDU>

       Ditto on Matt's request for the cites of the Solvency ed. and the
six scenarios of escalation/war in the 1ac. Thanks in advance to anyone
who can help me with that.
                                                          Brad
                                                      Emporia State



From mkrueger  Mon Feb  2 11:34:39 1998
From: mkrueger (Mike)
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 11:34:39 -0600
Subject: Alabama (a) v. Arizona State (n) @ SIU
Message-ID: <MON.2.FEB.1998.113439.0600.MKRUEGER@FRANK.MTSU.EDU>

I'd like to echo everyone's sentiments about the tournament.  Thanks to
Glen, Joe, and Matt for the excellent hospitality; thanks to Slusher and
James for running us around (shuttles rule!); and thanks to all the rest
of the Salukis for making sure that everything went well.  Thanks to
Greg for his forethought in the scheduling and Nazi-esque attitude
towards rounds starting on time.

Anyway, last night after the semis round, my brain just went
dysfunctional (more so than usual).  Josh was looking at me like I was
crazy (fair enough).  So now that I am rested, here is my RFD for the
semi's round.  Hope this helps both teams predictability of me in the
future (including Hovden and Trice who were also on the panel).

The first thing that I look at in the T debate is whether there is a
reason to vote against a team for on topicality.  I certainly will be
happy to, but there needs to be a reason.

The 1NC story is that T is a voter for reasons of "fairness," "ground,"
"jurisdiction," and "education."  Fair enough.  All of these make sense
to me even though none were explained as reasons to reject a team except
for "education."  I sense the negative is arguing enthymatically.  In
other words, I fill in the rest of the syllogism since it isn't
complete.  I don't mind doing that (though I do have to fill in a
warrant for the claim...  but something as this that's ok).

The fairness and jurisdiction reasons are never developed throughout the
debate.  I am not sure why not, but they are never developed or extended
so I choose to ignore them, which I believe is a fair thing to do.

That leaves me with "education" and "ground."

These two arguments are the only ones that have any development in the
round.  So, I will turn to the arguments on those two issues.

Education:  The initial hit on education from Julia in the 2ac is that
education is enhanced and cross applies the Jones in '96 card from the
top of the debate (2ac #2).  The Jones card discussed the notion of
limits, suggesting that traditional boundaries stifle thought.  I think
this initial argument is essentilly turning back the education debate.
She also says that changing from the "norm" is a small concession to
make for education.

The negative block's response to this argument is essentially a "ground"
response.  They say that 'Bama can do this when they are negative and
still increase our education and that it would be better for Alabama to
increase their education.  Fair enough, but now I have to mix ground
with education and it seems that the debate is movin more from
"education" based reason for rejecting on T and moving to only "ground."

The warrant for the claim is that breadth is better than depth (by the
neg).  This is ok, but Julia makes the argument that it is repugnant and
there is not any reason she should be forced into a repugnant position.
This is persuasive to me since the Jones '96 card suggests boundaries
stifle thought.  And, since education is becoming a ground issue, I
think it is better to decide if ground is a sufficient warrant for
voting negative on topicality.

Ground:  Interesting debate on ground and whether ground is lost or
not.  I think both teams did a fairly poor job though, since neither
team sufficiently responded to some fairly good reasons why ground
should or should not be a reason to vote on T.

These are arguments in no order except that I think they are important.

First, the negative says that they must have "fair ground" and that they
are being forced into "patriarchy good."  This (to me) is the most
crucial non response that Josh makes.  Julia answers back with "you do
it every other round, do it in here."  I know this to mean (since I
bothered to listen to case) "current conceptions of security assistance
are patriarchal."  This means to me that when you defend the status quo
or defend counterplans, you defend the entrenched patriarchal system as
good, since you don't kritik/critique every round when teams run F-16s
or Frigates to the Philippines.  The ONLY answer back that Josh makes is
"That's absurd and I am not going to dignify it with a response."  Seems
to me that Josh is ognoring the conditions under which he operates.
Josh and Justin could argue current conceptions of security assistance
are good; defend the status quo.  That is Julia's argument from the 2ac
and it is extended throughout the debate.  I don't believe that is a
justified response on the part of 2nc or 2nr.  The argument is answered
a little elsewhere but not much.

Second, the 1nc reason that is not applied to ground but is later is the
literature.  First, I am appalled (literally) that lexis-nexis is the
literature check explained by the negative (but that is besides the
point).  I am persuaded by the argument (especially since I have done
research on the case) that security assistance literature does include
the literature that case references.  Collapsing to a specific database
isn't a particularly good argument.

Thus, I don't think the literature argument is very telling for the
negative.

Third, the "negative" ground is the kritik.  Why?  I really don't have a
warrant for that claim.  I think Julia argues that back sufficiently,
which is above.

Fourth, the "gotta have a plan" debate argues that ASU can't argue at
least generics.  It basically collapses to that.  All of the arguments
revolve around "we don't want to argue that."  While I sympathize with
the negative, for it is difficult to argue, I don't believe "it
justifies counterwarrants" is either true without backing or a bad thing
in and of itself.  Now, the affirmative advacacy (the critique) isn't
specific, that's true.  However, I find the argument "run a disad that
links to any  qualitiate change" persuasive.  Also, Julia suggests
running a counter critique.  (I also think that there are MANY other
arguments to be made against case--but I am not doing the coaching
here).  Also, even though Damien says that they don't know what the
world looks like after advocacy, Julia says that they will defend
anything that is an increase in sec asst as case advocates.  Since
NOTHING is ran, I don't have any abuse, just a "potential" for abuse.
How do I know unless they are abusing the negative?  There is no in
round abuse (Julia's argument not mine).

Fifth, Julia also says that they are predictable since they are on
edebate  and have been running this case all year.  I don't like the
argument particularly, but I know that it is true (I saw it at South
Carolina versus Miami (Fl)), and I have heard the case several times
since (usually versus SIU it seems).  What does this mean?  Well, when
Josh and Justin's only response is "we don't want to research it; we
want to research something else" seems to 1) turn back there own
breadth/depth argument (my argument not Julia's-so I don't count it) and
2) isn't responsive to the notion that they do know what they will be
hitting.

Sixth, Julia also argues that loss ground/not knowing what you are
debating is non unique.  Sh argues from the 2ac on that we often don't
know what we will be debating.  True enough.  So, we learn the first
time, and sometimes we win and sometimes we don't.  I think the non
unique functions essentially the same as a non unique on a disad,
beating back the reason for the rejection based on an argument that it
will always happen.



The box at the top of the 2nr isn't very compelling to me.  Saying
controversy is good and moralizing is bad (what isn't and what case
doensn't--again my argument not Julia's--and I think that the case is
very controversial--isn't that what your ground arguments are predicated
on?) doesn't provide me with a reason since you refuse to acknowledge
that you normally engage in patriarchal discourse (see above).

Needing generics and an increase in education are all explained above.

The only other issue is the limit/delimits.  First, there is not an
implication to this.  Plus you turn back your own breadth/depth argument
(again my argument not Julia's).  I don't really have a reason why this
skews ground.

Essentially your arguments all seem to stem around "we want to run China
or Clinton blah blah blah."  The affirmative says not our fault you
don't want to do the research and I end up agreeing.

Last thing.  I don't disagree with the RFDs of Trice and Hovden.  Like I
said earlier, many of these arguments are enthymatic.  I have heard the
various frontlines that Julia read in the 2ac several times and thus I
understand them and the implications more perhaps and thus give them
greater weight.  I don't have a predisposition that the case is topical,
but I think they sufficiently defended it though 2ar could have made a
cleaner story out of it.

Thanks for listening.

Mike




--
Michael Krueger
Asst. Director of Debate
Middle Tennessee State University
Box 43
Murfreesboro, TN 37132
(615)  898-2273 (office)
(615) 898-5826 (fax)
http://www.mtsu.edu/~debate
http://www.mtsu.edu/~mkrueger
http://www.mtsu.edu/~wmts



From dgenco  Mon Feb  2 11:26:20 1998
From: dgenco (Dave Kingston)
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 11:26:20 -0600
Subject: Assistant Debate Coach Position Openings
Message-ID: <MON.2.FEB.1998.112620.0600.DGENCO@EARTHLINK.NET>

UMKC will have openings for two Assistant Debate Coaches during the
1998-1999 academic school year.  The position requires travel with the team
to 15-20 tournaments per year, coordination of and participation in
research projects, and general squad and tournament operations.  One year
appointment; beginning August 1998.

Applicants who have finished thier undergraduate education are preferred.
 The salary is $10-$12,000 for the academic year.  The application deadline
is April 1, 1998. To apply, send a letter of application and resume to:

Linda Collier, Director of Debate
Communication Studies Department
5100 Rockhill Road
Kansas City, MO 64110-2499

The University of Missouri-Kansas City is an Equal Opportunity Employer.

----------------------------
If you have any questions, or need clairification, you can contact me and
I'll help you out or direct you to the person who can help you.

Dave



From dgenco  Mon Feb  2 11:26:42 1998
From: dgenco (Dave Kingston)
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 11:26:42 -0600
Subject: Assistant Director of Debate Opening
Message-ID: <MON.2.FEB.1998.112642.0600.DGENCO@EARTHLINK.NET>

Description:
Assistant Director of Debate; Department of Communication Studies;
full-time; non-tenure track; two-year appointment; beginning August 1998

Responsibilities:
Teach undergraduate speech and debate courses and have primary
administrative responsibility for direction of a nationally prominent
CEDA/NDT debate program.  Duties include director of the high-school
workshop; directing a large intercollegiate debate tournament; travel to
10-20 tournaments with a large squad; supervise research assignments and
squad operations.

Qualifications:
Masters Degree and debate coaching experience required.  Administrative
experience is desirable.

Salary:
$22,000-$27,000

To Apply:
Send a letter of application, vita, and three letters of recommendation to:

        Assistant Director of Debate Search Committee
        Attn:  Linda Collier, Director of Debate
        Communication Studies Department
        5100 Rockhill Road
        Kansas City, MO 64110-2499

Deadline:
April 1, 1998



From ifjxh  Mon Feb  2 11:44:18 1998
From: ifjxh (Joshua Hoe)
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 09:44:18 PST
Subject: Congrats Sun Devils
Message-ID: <MON.2.FEB.1998.094418.PST.IFJXH@HOTMAIL.COM>

Congratulations to Justin and Josh for winning the always excellent
Saluki!!!!  Fork em Devils :).........Josh

Joshua B. Hoe
Former Devil
Research Asst.
University of North Texas



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

>From  Mon Feb  2 13:21:41 1998
Message-Id: <MON.2.FEB.1998.132141.0500.>
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 13:21:41 -0500
Reply-To: deon_garner at STUDENTS.MOREHOUSE.EDU
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Deon Garner <deon_garner at STUDENTS.MOREHOUSE.EDU>
Subject: UNCC TOURNAMENT
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=US-ASCII

If there is anyone who has any information regarding the UNCC
tournament or how I can get in touch with the team captain or coach,
please let me know . . . Coach (Wiebe) has been trying without luck.

Thanks,
Deon, Captain
Morehouse Debate



From berube  Mon Feb  2 13:17:32 1998
From: berube (David M. Berube)
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 13:17:32 EST5EDT
Subject: A NOVICE DEBATER NEEDED FOR GEORGIA COLLEGE TOURNEY
Message-ID: <MON.2.FEB.1998.131732.EST5EDT.BERUBE@GARNET.CLA.SC.EDU>

South Carolina may need a novice debater to debate with a South
Carolina novice at the Georgia College tournament this weekend.

Please email berube at garnet.cla.sc.edu if you can help.

Toiling for a better world! Live the glory!
Join the Global Debate Congress Project

David M. Berube, Ph.D.
Dir., Carolina Debate &
Assoc. Prof., Speech Communication
University of South Carolina 29208
803-777-6663, fax 803-777-0055



From bcr2369  Mon Feb  2 12:44:45 1998
From: bcr2369 (Brian Reddinger)
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 13:44:45 -0500
Subject: John Sharp
Message-ID: <MON.2.FEB.1998.134445.0500.BCR2369@GARNET.ACNS.FSU.EDU>

Could Jphn Sharp please backchannel me about my shirt.

Brian,
Secretary of Intelligence
The Yangist Regime (T.Y.R.)

>From  Mon Feb  2 13:42:46 1998
Message-Id: <MON.2.FEB.1998.134246.CST.>
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 13:42:46 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: Anticipated NLU Entries
Comments: To: pikap-l at nicanor.acu.edu, "smpt%ie-l at cornell.edu"@alpha.nlu.edu,
 parli at willamette.edu

I only received backchannels from 6 Colleges/University's, with 3 Open,
6 Novice, 4 LD, and 3 Parli teams. Official entries are due Tuesday 2/10,
I'll post an official list then. Until then, here are the backchanneled
anticipated entries and a list of schools from which we haven't heard, but
attended the competition last year.
(if you're squad will be attending, please backchannel me with your anticipated
debate entries so that I can update this listing).

Again, I'll post another listing on Thursday, the official list will be out
Tuesday 2/10.
Thanks for your input

Bob Alexander,
Northeast Louisiana University Debate

Cameron University
-1 Open Team
-3 Novice Team's
-2 LD'rs

Cumberland College
-1 Open Team
-2 Novice Team's
-1 Parli Team

LSU-Shreveport
-Krefft LD
-Milstead LD
-Gaensehals/James Novice
-Juneau/Avalone (Centenary) Open
-2 Parli

Northeast Louisiana
-Teams will be entered as needed

Univ. Arkansas-Monticello
-???


Previous Bicker Debate's attendies, we haven't heard from yet:
ACU
Ark State
Ark Tech
Hinds CC
Kilgore CC
Lamar-Orange
La College
LSU-A
LSU
LaTech
McNeese
MGC CC
Panola
SHSU
SEMO
SLU
USL
UT-Tyler
Wlm Carey
Vandy
Xavier



From marnold  Mon Feb  2 13:48:11 1998
From: marnold (Mark S. Arnold)
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 14:48:11 -0500
Subject: Un/Readable Ballots
Message-ID: <MON.2.FEB.1998.144811.0500.MARNOLD@RICHMOND.EDU>

I just returned from the Navy tournament, and let me start off by saying,
What a great tournament! It was well run and I think everyone had a great
time.

Let me also say that my following comments are not directed toward the Navy
at all, and are instead more of a commentary on what I've seen everywhere:

I often find it very hard to read our copy of the ballots that we get back
at the end of tournaments. This isn't because The judges can't write or
because the tab rooms do anything wrong, it usually the simple fact that
the carbons aren't very good. Obviously there is supposed to be three
legeible copies of the ballots, but it ends of being one good copy (the tab
rooms) and two blank copies or at least two with very faint chicken
straches.

It seems to me that the purpose of the RFD and comments has to nothing to
do with the tab room (usually, unless of course your running a double win
paradigm). It is instead for the debaters to read later, after your out of
ear shot. So then doesn't it make sense to have ballots we can read?

Now I'd like to see either two things happen. One is that the people who
make the ballots use better carbon to make it possible to have three good
copies. The other option is to use regular paper and then have tab room
make photocopies for each team. I realize the second option might seem a
little more time consuming, but in reality, it's not much more than what
has to be done now, and I've seen a couple of schools do this at tournies
very effectively.


These are just my thoughts and don't neccessary reflect the thoughts of
Richmond's squad. Again, they are also in no way a critique of the Navy
tournament. I really did think it was an extremely well run tourny.

Sincerely,
Mark Arnold
co-captain
Univ. of Richmond Debate



From Michelin.Massey  Mon Feb  2 13:59:49 1998
From: Michelin.Massey (Michelin Christopher Massey)
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 12:59:49 -0700
Subject: Debater Image (fwd)
Message-ID: <MON.2.FEB.1998.125949.0700.MICHELIN.MASSEY@COLORADO.EDU>

since there is a ceda/ndt division at this tournament, i thought i should
post this here.

mm.


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 15:03:39 -0800 (PST)
From: gratson at mscd.edu
Reply-To: parli at willamette.edu
To: Multiple recipients of list <parli at willamette.edu>
Subject: Re: Debater Image

Dear Debate and Speech Friends:

I am happy to annouce that Metro will be hosting a tournament from 27 Feb.
- 1 March. There will be a lot of amenities, far too many to mention here.
So, here's a slight list:

A very comfortable schedule
An incredible service plan
Great inovative trophies
A lot of free food & beverages
The wonder of dowtown Denver
An incredible hotel stay, right next to the Mountains
Just an already nice experience.

Attached you will find an invitation. We will be happy to answer any
questions that you might have, so please, check it out, and e-mail me at
gratson at mscd.edu or phone (303) 556-8579 if you have any questions.

Hope to see you in Feb/March.

'Best,
Scooter/Scott Gratson
****************************************************************************
************************************

Dear Forensics Colleague:

On behalf of the Metropolitan State College of Denver Administration,
Student Government Association, Office of Student Life and the Debate Team,
we are pleased to announce the annual Metro Downtown Denver Debate
Tournament. Owing to a change in Directorship, the Metro team looks forward
to reinstating what promises to be an exceptional hosting experience from
the 27th of February to the 1st of March, 1998.

In keeping with the traditions established under the Director's tenure as
NFA 27 National Championships Tournament Host, Metro will be offering an
in-depth service plan. Our concierge system, which is designed with the
strictest attention to detail and professionalism, will be a highlight of
our tournament. Additionally, our close proximity to the wonders of
Downtown Denver will allow for hospitable opportunities for entertainment,
cuisine, and shopping. Moreover, we plan to offer a delectable breakfast
for all competitors and coaches alike, drawing upon a plethora of culinary
traditions from England, France and the States. Finally, we will be
offering some unique and stylish trophies which will be certain to please
our guests.

Competitively speaking, we will be offering both CEDA and NPDA competition.
Additionally, all NFA and AFA individual events will be offered. Trophies
will be rewarded to all elimination round finalists in Individual Events
and Debate as well as the top five Novice and top ten Open speakers.
Moreover, we will be offering team sweepstakes to the top three schools in
Individual Events, NPDA, and overall sweepstakes. In order to increase
audience participation during the final rounds and closing assembly, awards
will be given after the close of all rounds. For these reasons and many
others, we are certain that you will find the Downtown Denver Tournament an
exciting experience not to be forgotten.

>From the beauty of the Rockies to the exciting happenings of Downtown
Denver to a solid competitive experience, the Downtown Denver Tournament
promises to be a memorable event. We look forward to seeing you and serving
you as our guests.

Yours in service and hospitality,


Scott "Scooter" Gratson                                         Ken Perry
Director                                                                        Student Assistant
Director


David Yoos                                                              Patrick Beach
Vice President                                                  Special Events Coordinator


Melissa Meck                                                            Terri Haney
Amenities Chair                                                 Events Funds Chair

****************************************************************************
************************************
The Metro
Downtown Denver Debate Tournament 1998
Schedule of Events

FRIDAY, 27 FEBRUARY, 1998
2:00 - 3:00 Registration, North Classroom, Lobby
3:00 - 3:30 Welcoming Assembly
3:30 - 4:45 PARLI, RND I, CEDA RND 1
5:-00 - 6:15 PARLI, RND 2, CEDA RND 2
6:30 - 7:45 PARLI, RND 3, CEDA RND 3

SATURDAY, 28 FEBRUARY
7:00 - 8:00 IE ONLY REGISTRATION
8:15 - 9:15 IE FLIGHT A, RND 1 (Pers, POI, DI. Duo, ADS, LD)
9:30 - 10:00 Extemp Draw & Prep
10:00 - 11:00 IE FLIGHT B, RND 1 (Poe, Info, Pro, Imp, CA, Extemp)
11:15 - 12:15 Lunch
12:30 - 1:15 PARLI RND 4, CEDA RND 4
1:15 - 2:15 IE FLIGHT A, RND 2 (Pers, POI, DI, Duo, ADS, LD)
2:30 - 3:45 PARLI RND 5, CEDA RND 5
4:00 - 5:15 PARLI RND 6, CEDA RND 6
5:30 - 6:00 Extemp Prep
6:00 - 7:15 IE FLIGHT B, RND 2 (Poe, Info, Pro, Imp, CA, Extemp)


SUNDAY, 1 MARCH
8:30 - 9:30 Breakfast
9:00 - 10:15 Octos of PARLI, CEDA
10:15 - 11:15 IE FINALS A
11:30 - 12:45 1/4S OF PARLI, CEDA
1:00 - 1:30 Extemp Draw
1:30 - 2:30 IE FINALS B
3:00 - 4:15 Semis of PARLI, CEDA
4:30 - 5:45- Finals of PARLI, CEDA
5:45 - 6:15 PRE AWARDS GATHERING
6:15 - 7:15 AWARDS




****************************************************************************
***********************************

Pertinent Information

Part First: The AMENITIES SECTION":
AMENITIES of SERVICE:
        Service and professionalism are key components of the Metro team. In
upholding this philosophy, we will be instituting a service plan entitled
""The Concierge Endeavor." This plan, which has been utilized at numerous
tournaments since its inception over five years ago, will provide each
school with a personal representative to assist with the students' and
coaches' concerns, questions and needs throughout the tournament's
duration. Issues such as directions, building locations and tournament
information will be covered by the concierges. Additionally, each concierge
will be versed in Denver tourist and culinary establishments. Concierges
can be identified by their prominent boutonnieres or corsages.

AMENITIES of REFRESHMENT
         A breakfast will be arranged for all participants on Sunday morning.
Items will include a selection of fruit beverages, coffees, teas, pastries,
and representations of the art of Grande de Manger (food carving). Dietary
concerns and requirements should be addressed to the Director as soon as
possible.

AMENITIES of AWARDS
        Metro is pleased to announce that trophies will be unique and
individual objects of arts. A Denver based artist's work will be
incorporated into what promises to be a stellar awards ceremony. We will be
conducting the ceremony in "full presentational style". Moreover, we are
pleased to announce that there will be a brief gathering before the awards
ceremony during which we will be offering refreshments.

AMENITIES OF SCHEDULES
        Upon arrival, each contestant will be given a schedule for their full
I.E. entry and the first round of debate. Further, unique postings will
feature artistic accents and large print. Finally, judges will be given a
full schedule of their respective rounds to the extent possible. Welcome
packets will also include concierge, restaurant and tournament information.
MANY SURPRISE AMENITIES WILL FOLLOW. THIS IS ONLY A PARTIAL LIST. WE HAD TO
KEEP SOME SURPRISES IN STORE FOR YOU.


****************************************************************************
************************************


PART SECOND: THE DESCRIPTIVE SECTION
ENTRY FEES:
                                                                Each Parliamentary or CEDA team
will assessed an entry fee of   $50.00.
Each I.E. slot (duo counts as a single entry) will be assessed $6.00.
ALL ENTRIES MUST BE RECEIVED BY 5:00 P.M., MOUNTAIN STANDARD TIME,  TUESDAY,
 24 FEBRUARY. CHANGES WILL BE TAKEN UP TO 12:00 p.m. WEDNESDAY. Believing
that drops post-entry notification are disruptive to tournament
administration, a "nuisance fee" will be instituted. Thus, subsequent
changes up to the time of registration will result in the following
charges:
Charge per dropped Debate team: $80.00
Charge per dropped individual events slot: $20.00
Charge per dropped judge: $50.00
Registration can be phoned in at (303) 556-8582 or faxed to (303) 556-6392,
att. Scott Gratson. Electronic correspondence is available our website at:
http://
clem.mscd.edu/~perryke/ Registration may be mailed to Scott Gratson,
Director of Debate, Speech Communication Department, at Metropolitan State
College of Denver, Campus Box 34, Denver, Colorado, 80127-3362. PLEASE NOTE
THAT ALL E-/Snail MAIL IN REGISTRATIONS MUST BE RECEIVED BY 5:00 TUESDAY,
24 FEBRUARY.

Individual Event Patterns
A:      Persuasion                                      B: Poetry
        POI (Programmed Oral Interp..)       Informative
                (A.K.A. Mixed Interp.)               Prose
        Dramatic Duo                                           Impromptu
        ADS (After Dinner Speaking)             Communication Analysis
        Dramatic Interpretation                     Extemporaneous Speaking
        Lincoln Douglas Debate**

**PLEASE NOTE CONTESTANTS MAKE ENTER UP TO 3 EVENTS IN EITHER PATTERN.
HOWEVER, ANY STUDENT WHO IS ENTERED IN LINCOLN DOUGLAS DEBATE WILL NOT BE
ABLE TO BE ENTERED IN ANY OTHER PATTERN A EVENTS.
All American Forensics Association (AFA) descriptions and rules will be
followed for individual events, with the exception of Lincoln Douglas
Debate which shall follow the National Forensics Association (NFA)
description and shall include the following times constraints:AFF: 6
MINUTES
CROSS EXAMINATION: 3 MINUTES
NEG: 7 MINUTES
CROSS EXAMINATION: 3 MINUTES
AFF: 3 MINUTES
NEG: 6 MINUTES
AFF: 4 MINUTES
TOTAL PREPARATION TIME: 4 MINUTESCopies of the description of each
individual event will be available at the ballot table.
JUDGES:
        Each school must provide one judge for each five individual event
entries. JUDGES MUST BE WILLING TO JUDGE ALL EVENTS, INCLUDING LD, FOR THE
DURATION OF THE TOURNAMENT. Hired judges can be arranged at the cost of
$8..00 per uncovered individual event slot. Each school must be able to
provide one judge for the first two parliamentary or CEDA teams entered,
and one judge for each subsequent team. HIRED Debate judges are available
at a cost of $65.00 each. Judges must have achieved the Bachelor of Arts or
Science degree, unless prior arrangements are made with the director. EACH
JUDGE MUST BE ABLE TO JUDGE ONE ROUND BEYOND THE ELIMINATION OF THEIR
STUDENTS FROM COMPETITION.

DEBATE RULES AND TIME CONSTRAINTS
        ALL NPDA rounds will follow the standard NPDA guidelines, which are 7,
8, 8, 8, 4, 5 minutes with 15 minute preparation.
        All CEDA rounds will follow the standard CEDA guidelines, which are 8,
3, 5 minutes with five minutes preparation.

DEFINITION OF NOVICE/JUNIOR
        A Novice or Junior will be defined as those competitors for whom this
year is their first year of collegiate competition in CEDA OR PARLI DEBATE.
Metro will only enter novices to "fill space" but will not, under any
circumstances, advance a Metro student to elimination rounds. The Director
reserves the right to collapse divisions if necessary. ONLY REGISTERED
STUDENTS ARE ELIGIBLE FOR COMPETITION.

SWEEPSTAKES POINTS:
 Points will be based on elimination rounds ONLY utilizing the following
formula:
        TEAM DEBATE:
First place.......... 25 points
Second place.......... 20 points
Semi Finalist.......... 15 points
Quarter Finalist.......... 10 points
Octo finalist.......... 5 points

INDIVIDUAL EVENTS
First Place.......... 10 points
Second Place.......... 8 points
Third Place.......... 6 points
Fourth Place.......... 4 points
Fifth Place.......... 2 points
Sixth Place.......... 1 point

FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT OUR TOURNAMENT,
PLEASE VISIT US AT OUR WEBSITE:
HTTP://clem.mscd.edu/~perryke/
TOURNAMENT DETAILS AND ADDITIONAL ELECTRONIC INVITATIONS WILL BE POSTED.

****************************************************************************
************************************
PART FINAL: THE MAP AND HOTEL SECTION

TOURNAMENT HOTEL
        Owing to the Director's staunch belief that environmental and
architectural lay outs of a tournament and the tournament hotel do affect
communication, great care has been taken to provide our guests with a
beautiful, scenic and efficient hotel. We are proud to announce that the
Metro Debate team has been offered a series of amenities and exceptionally
competitive rates through Denver Sheraton West. Located at the foothills of
the Mountains in one of the most naturally beautiful parts of Colorado, the
Sheraton is a must stay. Moreover, the hotel is equipped with a series of
amenities, including a large restaurant, lounge and full bar, indoor heated
pool, steam room, whirlpool, sauna, free wight room, barber shop, stores
and incredible rooms. Further, a professional masseuse and suntanning booth
are available at a nominal price. From the distinct Colorado inspired decor
to the incredible views of near by Red Rocks National Scenic Preservation
to the brief eleven minute drive to Metro's campus, the Sheraton will
provide all of our guests with a grand experience.
        Price: $69.00 per four person room (a savings of practically fifty
percent!)
        Location: 360 Union Boulevard, directly off interstate 6.
        Proximics: Walking distance to 14 restaurants representing various
price levels            and culinary traditions. Close to a series of
entertainment theaters,                 shopping centers and leisure excursions.
        Phone: (303)987-2000, FAX: (303)969-0263 Contact "reservations" and
explain                 that you are a guest of the Metro's Forensics Tournament.
If possible,            please contact the Hotel two weeks beforehand to
ensure a room, however,                 the indicated price will still hold until
the 26th of February.

Additional Hotels:
        (Located near the Sheraton)
        Comfort
Inn.........................................................................
.........................................(303)231-9929
        Fairfield
Inn.........................................................................
......................................(303)2319939
        Four Points
Hotel.......................................................................
................................(303)969-9900
Please note that there are over one hundred and fifty hotels in Denver and
the surrounding areas. Please feel free to phone the Director for
additional options.

PARKING AND SHUTTLES:
        Parking in Denver is a precious commodity. Upon registration, all
guests will be issued a campus map which will indicate all appropriate
parking areas. Please note that Downtown Denver is often convoluted; please
plan to arrive early. Shuttles can be arranged through the Sheraton for
complimentary transport within a 5-mile radius and transport from the
Denver International Airport for $16.00.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
        Denverites love to show off our city! Please consider extending your
stay!!!

METRO DOWNTOWN DEBATE TOURNAMENT
27 February - 1 March, 1998
        Registration and Entry Worksheet

School Name:______________________

Cross Examination Debate Association Teams:
SENIORS
1) _____________________________________ &
__________________________________
2) _____________________________________ &
__________________________________
3) _____________________________________ &
__________________________________
4) _____________________________________ &
__________________________________
5) _____________________________________ &
__________________________________
6) _____________________________________ &
__________________________________

JUNIORS
1) _____________________________________ &
__________________________________
2) _____________________________________ &
__________________________________
3) _____________________________________ &
__________________________________
4) _____________________________________ &
__________________________________
5) _____________________________________ &
__________________________________
6) _____________________________________ &
__________________________________

National Parliamentary Debate Association (NPDA)
SENIORS
1) _____________________________________ &
__________________________________
2) _____________________________________ &
__________________________________
3) _____________________________________ &
__________________________________
4) _____________________________________ &
__________________________________
5) _____________________________________ &
__________________________________
6) _____________________________________ &
__________________________________

JUNIORS
1) _____________________________________ &
__________________________________
2) _____________________________________ &
__________________________________
3) _____________________________________ &
__________________________________
4) _____________________________________ &
__________________________________
5) _____________________________________ &
__________________________________
6) _____________________________________ &
__________________________________







Lincoln Douglas Debate:
1) _____________________________________ 7)
__________________________________
2) _____________________________________ 8)
__________________________________
3) _____________________________________ 9)
__________________________________
4) _____________________________________ 10)
__________________________________
5) _____________________________________ 11)
__________________________________
6) _____________________________________ 12)
__________________________________



Debate Judges:                                  IE Judges:
1) _____________________________________                1)
____________________________________
2) _____________________________________                2)
____________________________________
3) _____________________________________                3)
____________________________________
4) _____________________________________                4)
____________________________________
5) _____________________________________                5)
____________________________________
6) _____________________________________                6)
____________________________________




CALCULATION OF FEES

CEDA DEBATE TEAMS
        Number of Teams X
$50.00......................................................................
..... $ ______

PARLI DEBATE TEAMS
        Number of Teams X
$50.00......................................................................
..... $ ______

INDIVIDUAL EVENTS SLOTS
        Number of slots X
$6.00.......................................................................
......... $ ______

JUDGES FEES:
        Number of uncovered debate slots X
$65.00........................................ $ ______
        Number of uncovered IE slots X
$8.00................................................... $ ______

NUISANCE FEES
        Number of Debate Drops X
$80.00.............................................................. $
______
        Number of IE Drops X $20.00
................................................................... $
______
        Number of Judge Drops X $50.00
........................................................... $ ______


TOTAL: _________________________________________________________________ $
________



METRO DOWNTON DENVER TOURNAMENT
FRIDAY: 27 February, 1998
2:00 - 3:00 Open Registration
3:00 - 3:30 Opening Ceremony
3: 30 - 5:00 Parli 1; 3: 30 - 5: 30 CEDA I
5:00 - 6:30 Parli 2
5: 30 - 7: 30 CEDA II
6: 30 - 8:00 Parli 3

SATURDAY: 28 February, 1998
7:00 - 8: 30 Light Breakfast; IE ONLY registration
8:30 - 10:00 IE, Rnd. 1 Pattern A
10:00 - 11:30 IE, Rnd. 1 Pattern B
11:30 - 1:30, CEDA III
1:30 - 3:00 Parli 4
1:30 - 3:30, CEDA IV
3:00 - 4:30 Parli 5
3:30 - 5:30, CEDA V
5:30 - 7:00 IE Rnd. 2 Pattern A
7:00 - 8:30 IE Rnd. 2 Pattern B

SUNDAY, 1 March 1998
7:30 - 8:30 Larger Breakfast
8:00 - 10:00 CEDA VI
8:30 - 10:00, Parli 6
10:00 - 11:30 IE FINALS, PATTERN A
11:30 - 1:00 IE FINALS, PATTERN B
1:00 - 3:00 CEDA Quarters
1:00 - 2:30 Parli Octos
2:30 - 4:00 Parli Quarters
3:00 - 5:00 CEDA SEMIS
4:00 - 5:30 Parli Semis
5:00 - 7:00 CEDA FINALS
5:30 - 7:00 Parli Finals

Awards Gathering: 7:00 - 7:30
Full Awards Ceremony: 7:30
-------------
Original Text
From: "Tom Preston" <scprest at umslvma.umsl.edu>, on 1/30/98 11:17 AM:
The message you have just received is too large to be displayed
in the normal application. You should look at it using another
application (like a text editor or word processor). The attached
file MAIL.TXT contains the message.

Thank you.



From hager  Mon Feb  2 14:00:47 1998
From: hager (Jared Hager)
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 12:00:47 -0800
Subject: George Mason
Message-ID: <MON.2.FEB.1998.120047.0800.HAGER@LCLARK.EDU>

Hey i was wondering if I could get someone to backchannel me concerning
some cites. Thanks in advance.


Jared Hager
Lewis and Clark Debate



From dbteam  Mon Feb  2 14:02:36 1998
From: dbteam (WGC Debate Team)
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 15:02:36 -0500
Subject: Un/Readable Ballots
In-Reply-To: <v01530502b0fb8af9de5a@[141.166.139.71]>
Message-ID: <MON.2.FEB.1998.150236.0500.DBTEAM@WESTGA.EDU>

well at West Georgia we used the ballots that have the short white copy,
for the tab room, and 3 carbon copies.  Instead of keeping the top copy
and the short copy for the tab room, I kept the bottom copy (usually
unreadable) and gave the first two copies to the teams.  Seems to me that
the top two copies were usually readable.
        As far as using 1 copy and having the staff copy them, I  can say
from experince that this method would be a pain in the butt.  With
everything else we have to do, making 2 copies of ballots is to time
consuming.
        But I do agree that something needs to be done, my vote is for
better carbon copies.



From gleff  Mon Feb  2 14:05:55 1998
From: gleff (Gary Leff)
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 15:05:55 -0500
Subject: George Mason
In-Reply-To: <Pine.OSF.3.96.980202115921.20243B-100000@sun.lclark.edu>
Message-ID: <MON.2.FEB.1998.150555.0500.GLEFF@OSF1.GMU.EDU>

Hmm.. I didn't know George Mason had an active squad.  I've been on staff
here for a year and a half . . .

Who is the contact person?



From BILESROD  Mon Feb  2 14:10:36 1998
From: BILESROD (Rodger Biles)
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 14:10:36 -0600
Subject: Unreadable ballots
Message-ID: <MON.2.FEB.1998.141036.0600.BILESROD@ESUMAIL.EMPORIA.EDU>

I'd be delighted to get a ballot back with something written on it other than
"oral critique" or the prep time used by each team.  (readable or
otherwise)

rodger
emporia state debate



From FPIRIZAR  Mon Feb  2 15:42:39 1998
From: FPIRIZAR (Frank P. Irizarry)
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 16:42:39 EST
Subject: Syracuse Tournament Hotel!
Message-ID: <MON.2.FEB.1998.164239.EST.FPIRIZAR@VPA.SYR.EDU>

Greetings,

MAKE YOUR RESERVATIONS NOW!  The block will be released on Friday the
13th of February and it will be extremely difficult to get ANY rooms in
Syracuse for Saturday evening since the SU-Georgetown game is Sunday.
Hope to see some of you in beautiful and sunny syracuse on the last
weekend in February and remember:

*  Nationals is in the East so come on out and sample the judges before
Nationals

*  There are some good airfares coming into Syracuse right now

*  The Tournament Hotel is fabulous and is located ON CAMPUS

*  We will provide free shuttle service to and from the airport and to
and from the tournament hotel

*  We expect a good sized draw in all three divisions since it is East
regionals

frank

************************************************************************
Frank P. Irizarry                    Office # (315) 443-5143
Director of Debate                   Home #   (607) 749-8715
Syracuse University                  Fax #    (315) 443-5143

fpirizar at vpa.syr.edu

"All those who see me, and all who believe in me, share in the freedom I
feel when I fly!" - John Denver, "The Eagle and the Hawk"

"I'm cell locked in tha doctrines of tha right. Enslaved by dogma, ya
talk about my birthrights. Yet at every turn I'm runnin' into Hells
gates.  So I grip tha canon like fanon an pass the shells to my
classmates." - Rage Against the Machine, "Year of tha Boomerang"



From mluchett  Mon Feb  2 14:30:18 1998
From: mluchett (Scott Luchetti)
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 15:30:18 -0500
Subject: Un/Readable Ballots
Message-ID: <MON.2.FEB.1998.153018.0500.MLUCHETT@RICHMOND.EDU>

Mark Arnold Wrote:

Now I'd like to see either two things happen. One is that the people who
make the ballots use better carbon to make it possible to have three good
copies. The other option is to use regular paper and then have tab room
make photocopies for each team. I realize the second option might seem a
little more time consuming, but in reality, it's not much more than what
has to be done now, and I've seen a couple of schools do this at tournies
very effectively.


I fully agree with Mark, and offer an additional suggestion, one that I
have begun to use when I judge - don't write on the white sheet.  Simply
flip the white up and write directly on the yellow.  that way, there is
guaranteed to be one perfect copy, and from my experience, you don't even
have to press that hard to make a reasonably legible copy on the pink.
 another suggestion to the manufacturers of the ballots, however, might be
to make the pink be the second sheet, and the yellow the third.  with such
a dark background on the pink, it is much harder to read it, when it's the
3rd copy or even just the second.  Perhaps that, or just eliminating the
pink and going to a lighter color, like peach or whatever is available ,
will help.

Scott



From Arnie.Madsen  Mon Feb  2 14:45:32 1998
From: Arnie.Madsen (Arnie Madsen)
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 14:45:32 -0600
Subject: NDT 1st-Round At-Large Bid Application Process
Message-ID: <MON.2.FEB.1998.144532.0600.ARNIE.MADSEN@UNI.EDU>

I have been asked to post this material to the edebate list.  We will
follow the same procedure for 1st-Round At-Large bid applications to
the NDT as we did a year ago.

Highlights:
Interested teams should examine the model bid application form.  You
should have received this in the mail if you are an NDT subscriber.
Otherwise, it is available on the NDT Director's Page on the WWW (go
the the NDT Home Page at http://www.uni.edu/ndt and follow the link).

To apply for an at-large bid, or qualify for the NDT via the District
or 2nd-Round at-large process, your school needs to be an NDT
subscriber for the current academic year (again, a subscription form
is available on the NDT Home Page).

When you have completed your application, you need to send it directly
to each member of the Committee.  Some members prefer fax, some prefer
email, some will accept either method.  The list of Committee preferences
is provided below (please send BOTH a fax and email version to me, as that
will allow me get any missing applications to Committee members via their
preferred mode of delivery).

Note that applications MUST BE RECEIVED by all members of the Committee
no later than 5:00 p.m. CENTRAL STANDARD TIME on February 12.  PLEASE
don't wait until the deadline to submit your application -- as soon as
it is completed, send it to all members of the Committee.  Recipients
of at-large bids will be announced by the tournament director on February
16.

Finally, if you plan on attending your District's qualifying tournament,
you should relay that intent to your District chair.  The Chair of your
District must know your overall preliminary round win/loss percentage,
the number of rounds you had during the season, and the number of
tournaments.  Be prepared to provide that information in the manner
desired by your District.

Preferences for receiving at-large applications are listed below:


I       Greg Miller     Fax only        619 594-6246

II      Jamey Dumas     Fax only        509 324-5718

III     John Fritch     Email only      jef229f at wpgate.smsu.edu
                                        or
                                        john_fritch at hotmail.com

IV      Arnie Madsen    Email AND Fax   319 273-7356
                                        arnie.madsen at uni.edu

V       Brent Brossmann Fax only        216 397-1759

VI      Ed Panetta      Email or fax    706 542-3245
                                        epanetta at uga.cc.uga.edu

VII     Warren Decker   Fax only        703 993-1096

VIII    Scott Thomson   Email only      jz9n at maristb.marist.edu

IX      Tom Jewell      Email only      tjewell at unm.edu

East    Gordon Mitchell Email only      gordonm+ at pitt.edu

South   Ede Warner      Email or fax    502 852-8166
                                        e0warn01 at homer.louisville.edu

Midwest Heidi Hamilton  Fax only        309 794-7702

West    Matt Taylor     Email or fax    310 985-4259
                                        taylorm at csulb.edu

Host    Rebecca Bjork   Email or fax    801 585 6255
                                        rebecca.bjork at m.cc.utah.edu

Dir.    Donn Parson     Fax only        913 864-5203

If there are any additional questions regarding the at-large bid submission
process, please let me know.
--
Arnie Madsen                                          arnie.madsen at uni.edu

UNI Director of Forensics                      http://www.uni.edu/forensic
NDT Committee Chair                                 http://www.uni.edu/ndt
Kenneth Burke Society Treasurer
http://www.siu.edu/departments/english/acadareas/rhetcomp/burke/index.html

Office:   Communication Studies, University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls,
          IA  50614-0357      (O) (319) 273-7200      (FAX) (319) 273-7356

Home:     410 Home Park Blvd, Waterloo, IA  50701       (H) (319) 235-8866



From Gary.N.Larson  Mon Feb  2 14:49:53 1998
From: Gary.N.Larson (Gary Larson)
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 14:49:53 CST6CDT
Subject: (Fwd) Re: Un/Readable Ballots
Message-ID: <MON.2.FEB.1998.144953.CST6CDT.GARY.N.LARSON@WHEATON.EDU>

Forwarded message:
From:     Self <EZRA/GLARSON>
To: WGC Debate Team <dbteam at WESTGA.EDU>
Subject: Re: Un/Readable Ballots
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 14:44:49 CST6CDT

> Date:          Mon, 2 Feb 1998 15:02:36 -0500
> Reply-to:      WGC Debate Team <dbteam at WESTGA.EDU>
> From:          WGC Debate Team <dbteam at WESTGA.EDU>
> Subject:       Re: Un/Readable Ballots
> To:            EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU

> well at West Georgia we used the ballots that have the short white copy,
> for the tab room, and 3 carbon copies.  Instead of keeping the top copy
> and the short copy for the tab room, I kept the bottom copy (usually
> unreadable) and gave the first two copies to the teams.  Seems to me that
> the top two copies were usually readable.
>         As far as using 1 copy and having the staff copy them, I  can say
> from experince that this method would be a pain in the butt.  With
> everything else we have to do, making 2 copies of ballots is to time
> consuming.

For the past 3 1/2 years, the vast majority of tournaments that I
have attended or participated in tournament management have used a
single 8.5x11 paper ballot that is photocopied (only 1 copy - I'm not
sure there is any need for the tab room to save ballots - as long as
they are double-checked in the tab process).

There are several advantages:  1) cost - carbonless forms are 4x to
5x more expensive than using regular paper and photocopying.  2)
environmentally friendly - carbonless forms use chemicals that are
not environmentally friendly.  3) easier to read - the shelf life on
carbonless forms is limited - once they get old they don't copy  4)
customized forms - school logo, etc.

The time issue is probably a wash.  At SIU this past weekend with 46
debates per round, Doug Duke was able to photocopy and stuff all
ballots before the last ballot was turned in each round (but he's the
man!).  It clearly can be done.

I am of the opinion that carbonless forms only have utility in
situtations where photocopy machines are not easily accessible.

GARY

>         But I do agree that something needs to be done, my vote is for
> better carbon copies.
>
>



From andyspencer  Mon Feb  2 15:14:21 1998
From: andyspencer (Andy Spencer)
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 13:14:21 PST
Subject: Un/Readable Ballots
Message-ID: <MON.2.FEB.1998.131421.PST.ANDYSPENCER@HOTMAIL.COM>

Three chears for you Mark. I agree whole heartedly.


Andy Spencer
Team Captain
Panola College Debate Team


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



From debate  Mon Feb  2 18:14:58 1998
From: debate (Greg Simerly)
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 18:14:58 -0600
Subject: Saluki Caselist (Aff)
Message-ID: <MON.2.FEB.1998.181458.0600.DEBATE@SIU.EDU>

THE 1998 SALUKI CASELIST (AFFIRMATIVE)


ALABAMA OSBORNE & YATES [Komodo Dragon Poaching]

PLAN:  USFG shall increase its security assistance to Indonesia by surplus
weapons transfer of small arms and non-lethal items to the Indonesian
government's Dept. of Wildlife Conservation for the protection of the Komodo
Dragon.  Any additional training in anti-poaching methods can be provided,
based on the methods of the African Elephant Conservation Act of 1988.
Funding and enforcement through all normal and necessary means.  We can
clarify intent./
CASE OUTLINE:  OB 1: Komodo Dragon on 4 islands in Indonesia;  Only 5,000 of
them left;  Smallest range of any lizard;  CONT 1:  Non-mammals have
inherent value;  Non-humans have consciousness, must protect; Rights of
non-humans deemand that people help;  Each ecosystem valuable regardless of
human Earth;  Morality is not outweighed by utility, must do what is right;
Non-humans have rights outside of human worth, it's the same as racism &
sexism;  Reject racism;  CONT 2:  Each species important to environmental
health;  Komodo a keystone specie;  OB 2: Solvency:  Lack of weapons prevent
solvency;  African Elephant Act solves, number of elephants increasing;
Anti-poaching efforts solve;  Wildlife conservation study proves [solvency
cites:  All 1AC from Wikramanayake  '97  Smithsonian, April...2AC extends
with Deferrari '97  June, Hearings on HR 39, Subcom. on Fisheries, Wildlife
and Oceans-cited 3 times];  Underview:  Risk assessment/Utilitarianism Bad
[generic] /GEN. CASE STRATEGY, TRICKS & TRAPS:  Most solvency cards not
specific to Komodo;  Only one solvency card and the OB 1 evidence is
specific to Komodo;  2AC claims: African Elephant Act proves solvency, Case
is too small tobe noticed, which proves non-uniquess swamps the disad links.
According to Ken D., case is illegal.  Transfers of light weapons to
Indonesia are embargoed by the status quo...i.e. Congress.

ALABAMA SP (Shaw and Pfister) [Feminist Kritik of International Relations]

Text: We ask that you affirm the resolution that the US should substantially
increase its security assistance to SEA based on the criticisms
substantiated in this case.

Cites: [Hilsdon, Madonnas and Martyrs, 95  /  Ship, Beyond Positivism:
Critical Reflections on International Relations, 94 / Tickner, Gender in
International Relations, 92 / Peterson and Runyon, Global Gender Issues, 93
/ Warren and Cody, Bringing Peace Home: Feminism, Violence and Nature, 96 /
Peterson, Gendered States: Feminist (Re)Visions of IR theory, 92]

ARIZONA STATE MS (Martin and Skarb) [Littoral Strategy]

Plan Text: NEED IT!

Case Outline: Obs. 1 - Current force planning decrease US credibility [Chan,
Orbis, Summer 97], A. Restraints of China Fail; China won't stop until it
has complete control [Hamzah, New Straits Times, 1/11/96], Economics won't
stop the war [Friedburg, HUD International Review, Spring 96], Relations
breakdown inevitable [Kagan, Weekly Standard, 1/20/97], ASEAN can't solve
[Dillon, Parameters, Spring 97], Squo = de facto Chinese control [Valencia,
The Emerging Regional Security Architecture in Asia, 95], B. Escalation -
SCS War = Long-term conflicts [Kenny, Naval War College Review, Summer 96],
Leads to nuclear war [Straits Times, 5/21/95], Ob. 2 Solvency  - Plan
prevents regional hegemons [Chan, Orbis, summer 97], Plan = peaceful
settlement [Snyder, www.usip.org].

AUGUSTANA (IL) BrCh (Bratt and Charles)
AUGUSTANA (IL) BeCa (Berish and Calvert) [Philippines SOFA]

Plan Text: The USFG should substantially increase SA to the Phillipines
including, but not limited to, an optimal mix of port calls, military to
military exchanges and  joint training exercises by agreeing to Philippine
recommendations on revisions to the SOFA. Funding and Enforcement through
normal means. Intent.

Case Outline: Obs. 1 - US and Philippines want to increase military
agreements, Although VFA was signed, it won't ratified. Obs. 2 failure to
complete is a foreign policy failure, lack of US leads to Philippine
paranoia, China and Vietnam are moving in, In spite of security US fails to
strengthen MDT. Obs. 3 - without SOFA there will be bad relations,
resolution of SOFA alleviates tensions, Philippine Senate wants a treaty
like Japan, Ratification of SOFA key now, US must sign to fulfill MDT, SOFA
increase USRP relations, lack of crisis means nothing. Obs. 4 - Forward
deployment facilitates crisis response and demonstrates US commitment to the
region, US leadership in SEA prevents escalation and promotes peace, US
engagement decreases regional suspicions and provides a foundation for
multilateral cooperation.

Case Outline Version #2: Obs 1 - SOFA disagreements prevent SA, VFA will not
be ratified Obs 2 - Failure to complete SOFA = glaring flop, lack iof US
presence spurs Phillipine paranoia, China and Vietnam threaten Philippines,
Philippines one of few countries without US port calls Ob 3- SOFA = positive
step [Tira, Andrei and Falgai, Business World, 10/3/97], Resolution of SOFA
alleviates tensions [Defense News 7/28/97], Philippines Senate wants treaty
like Japan or Germany [Asiaweek 1-30-98], Ratification crucial now because
of increased SCS tensions [DPA 5-14-97], Must sign to fulfill obligations
[Asia Time 6/6/97], Signing SOFA key to relations [Xinhua  12/9/97], Lack of
immediate threat irrelevant [Cossa 96] / Ob 4 - Forward deployment best
demonstrates US commitment, US leadership in SEA stops escalation.

BALL STATE MP  (McRae and Purvis) [Philippines Frigates/ F-16's]

Plan Text: Through all normal means, the USFG will increase its SA to the
Philippines by selling 17 F-16's and giving 6 Perry-class frigates and 6
F-18's from current excess defense articles stocks. Implementation through
normal means, we reserve the right to clarify intent.

Case Outline: Adv. 1 - Mead (monkey see, monkey type), Adv. 2 - Balance of
Power

CENTRAL METHODIST MS (Meador and Strodtman) [CHINA DEMOCRACY PROMOTION BAD]

Plan Text: The US Government shall shift its foreign policy from a focus of
democracy enlargement to a realistic strategy of promoting stability with
China. 1. DEMOCRACY EXPORTATION SHALL NO LONGER BE THE FOCUS OF US-CHINA
POLICY All US officials, representatives and policies of the US government
shall refrain from utilizing anti-China democracy rhetoric, stirring up
dissenters, or otherwise hindering US-Sino equilibrium. US government funded
operations which pressure democracy and disturb equilibrium shall have their
funding eliminated. Democratic values will not be abandoned, but they will
be viewed as the end result of policy of [sic] equilibrium. 2. HUMAN
SUFFERING SHALL BE THE CRITERIA TO EVALUATE HUMAN RIGHTS IN CHINA The State
Department Reports shall evaluate China's condition on the grounds of human
suffering. Genocide, abuse and the human condition shall gain prominence in
US policy - political rights shall be less of a priority. This human
suffering criteria shall be the basis for all policies toward China
formulated on the basis of human rights. 3. MUTUAL INTERESTS AND STABILITY
SHALL GUIDE US CHINA POLICY By abandoning democracy exportation as the core
of US policy, the US will shift its focus to mutual interests of stability
and other interests. US policy shall be guided at all times by the flexible
goal of maintaining Asian equilibrium and stability. PLAN SHALL SERVE AS
LEGISLATION DICTATING THE WHOLE OF US POLICY TOWARD CHINA AND SHALL
SUPERCEDE ANY AND ALL CONFLICTING LEGISLATION. AFF. SPEECHES SHALL SERVE AS
INTENT AND TO PRESERVE FAIRNESS ALL PROCEDURAL ISSUES SHOULD BE ARGUED IN
THE 1NC.

Case Outline: Obs. 1- A) China doesn't like idealistic foreign policy, B)
Beijing fears US cultural pressure, C) China rejects attempts to overthrow
its sovereignty, D) Threat to Chinese sovereignty / Adv . 1 - Democratic
Values - A) Our culturally imperialistic ideals worsen human rights, B)
Pragmatic approach to stability potects democratic values, C) Pragmatic
criteria of human suffering promotes stability / Adv. 2 - SEA Stability - A)
China is a threat to SEA, B) US-Sino struggle for heg. in SCS makes conflict
inevitable, C) Regional Stability require high US-Sino relations / Obs. 2 -
Solvency - A) Geopolitical Realism is the basis for healthy US/Sino
relations [AP online text of Jiang's Harvard Speech, 11/1/97], B) China
wants a geopolitical realist strategy [Erlanger, New York Times, 11/2/97, p. 1]

DEPAUL JP (Jenks and Plamann) [Tropical Forest Conservation Act]

Plan Text: The USFG will substantially increase SA to SEA by immediately
enacting the Tropical Forest Conservation Act and all of its regulatory
tenets, including enforcement and funding.

Case Outline: Obs. 1 - Scen 1 FIRES - Slash and burn = forest fires, more
tropical rain forests (illegible0 due to 97 fires in SEA, SEA fires killed
people and hurt health, fire in China destroyed 1.7 million hectares of land
and cost 24 million bucks / Scen 2 LOGGING - SEA loggers show no regard for
forests, Indonesia isn't stopping current destructive practices, Forests can
be managed by locals / Advantage - SEA has diverse ecology, protecting
rainforests protects biological resources, tropical forest loss main cause
of animal extinction, need ecosystems to continue life, ignoring
biodiversity perpetuates its loss / Obs. 2  - Solvency - Bill restructure
debt to save rainforests [Portman, Congressional Press Releases, 11/14/97],
bill provides financial incentive for Indonesia [Dayton Daily News,
1/16/98], without the bill Indonesia will speed deforestation for hard cash
[Fishman, USA Today, 1/14/98], bill aims to protect biodiversity [Seligmann,
Washington Post, 1/6/98, p. A13], we must act to safeguard the earth {Fishman].

Strategy: Claim ecosystem effects not just individual species loss.

ENMU BF (Barreto and Glueboy) [Agent Orange]

Plan Text: US provides all necessary equipment training and information for
clean-up of Agent Orange through solar detoxification. Funding through
appropriate SA budgets.

Case Outline: Obs.1 - Inherency  - 1) US decreasing research in Vietnam
[Schecter 5-1-97], 2) Vietnam has higher exposure levels [Schecter], 3) 2
million Vietnamese affected and Vietnam wants US assistance [Blagov 7/7/97]
/ Obs 2 Solvency - Solar detoxification solves Dioxins [Saltiel 1-95] / Adv
1 Gulf War Syndrome - 1) AO action spurs GWS action [Yannacone 12-17-96], 2)
100000 US troops affected [Shenon 10-25-97], 3) GWS causes vets to lose
dignity [Scott 1-15-98], 4) Evidence shows link to harms [Scott], 5) GWS
passed on to kids [Whitworth 8-13-97], 6) Moral obligation to solve GWS
[Gutierrez 6-19-97], 7) Vets are canaries of civilization [Yannacone
12-17-96] / Adv 2 Dioxins - 1) US sprayed AO over all of Vietnam [Blagov
7-7-97], 2) Demining only makes AO spread faster [MSNBC Web, 11-12-97], 3)
Demining frees up land for farming and increases exposure to AO {Smith
12-11-97], 4) AO kills babies and causes birth defects [Walman 2-12-97] 5)
AO kills 500,000 in Vietnam [Kupfer 2-18-96], 6) AO produces dioxins and
devastates ecosystem [Feeny and Allaway 92], 7) Even low-level exposure is
harmful [Allen 8-10-97], 8) US has moral obligation to solve the harms of AO
[Katsificas 92].

EMPORIA  TH (TATE & HOLLAND)  [Demine Cambodia]

PLAN:  USFG will increase security assistance to SEA by donating a $30
million aid package to demine Cambodia throught the CMAC.  The aid package
will be used as increase & better mine clearance tech, increase education
for deminers and increase the number of mine clearers in the CMAC.  Tech
includes, but is not limited to, MWM, air knives, and lexfoam.  As
clarification of enforcement, aid will go to the CMAC-not Hun Sen.  Also,
U.S. deminers will be of both genders.  Dogs will not be used.  Funding and
enforcement guaranteed.  1AC operationalizes all terms in the resolution.

CASE OUTLINE:  OB 1: The Killing Fields: Cambodia can't demine in SQ, Now is
a unique time to solve;  OB 2: The Deadly Legacy: 10 million landmines in
Cambodia;  236 civillians victimized each year;  = unnecessary suffering for
non-Cambodians?;  Ottawa Treaty doesn't eliminate landmines; OB 3:
Solvency:  US can demine..we have tech, expertise & education [Hidden
Killers  '93];  CMAC wants $30 million...US is a leader [Agence France
Presse '96];  US is a political leader with influence [Blogder '94, Federal
News Service];  MWM, air knives & lexfoam solve [Newman Jan 5 '98, US News
and World Report];  Advanced ? decrease risks to mine clearers [Dobson '97,
Sunday Times--London?];  Moral obligation to act [Makaberta? '95]
GENERAL CASE STRATEGY, TRICKS & TRAPS:  Dig the plan spikes!  Watch for
moral obligation.

JOHN CARROLL  WL (LAVELLE & WILEY) [Magic Lanterns]

PLAN:  The USFG will authorize the transfer of one Magic Lantern system and
suitable airborne platforms necessary for its use to the Republic of
Singapore.  The systems and platforms will be provided to Singapore through
MAP & Excess Defense Articles provisions through these programs.[?]  The
USFG will give Singapore one of three systems.  Training and funding through
normal means.

CASE OUTLINE:  CONT 1:  Big threat to Singapore and others because of sea
mines; hurts economy; risks prolif and miscalc.;  could spark war in S.
China Seas and will draw in US...goes nuclear;  CONT 2:  Sing. can't afford
Magic Lanterns now, but they want them; economic crisis prevents Sing.
purchase;  CONT 3:  Solvency:  Navy tests prove Magic Lanterns solve [Kaman,
Aerospace Daily, 8-2-96]; detects the undetectable [Defense Daily 8-23-97];
Singapore needs Magic Lanterns [Young, Jane's Int'l Review, 2-1-96];  Magic
Lanterns just rock [Hanlon, 1-17-97, "lower false alarm rate"-lexis]

JOHNSON COUNTY OS (O'Toole and Shuman) [Sea Mines]

Plan Text: The USFG will substantially increase its SA to Singapore by
granting them the US Mine Clearing Helicopter System, i.e. the Magic Lantern
laser detection and appropriate helicopters. F and E through normal means,
speeches = intent.

Case Outline: Obs. 1 - Singapore lacks effective anti-mine capability, US
uniquely suited to provide, countermeasure alone are insufficient / Scen 1 -
Seamines threaten ships, that threatens SLOC's and economies and leads to
miscalc and escalated war. / Solvency -  US can uniquely solve with
Singapore [Young 96], 2) Magic Lantern is the best [Crouse 97], 3) Magic
Lantern is precise and quick, 4) Magic Lantern finds mines in areas deemed
clear.

KANSAS STATE SS (Shaw and Spencer)  [Subic Bay]

Plan Text: The USFG through RCRA will implement a policy of environmental
cleanup at Subic Bay and Clark Air Force Base. The Army Environmental Policy
Institute and Army Corps of Engineers will provide technical and financial
assistance and relevant agencies (?).

Case Outline: Con. 1 - The U.S. has taken a bad stance on Subic bay / Con. 2
- Created a situation of vital environmental importance / Cont. 3 - The U.S.
is obligated {Cites: UPI 96, DERP 96, Gore 95, Baganetto 94, Encyclopedia of
Philosophy 97, Walker 97]

KENTUCKY RK (Kall and Ray)  [PIRACY]

Plan Text: The USFG will increase anti-piracy SA to Malaysia , Singapore and
Indonesia. Intelligence sharing and tracking will be affected as per the
recommendation of Tokarski. F and E through normal means.

Case Outline: Ob 1 - Piracy increasing in SEA, Ad 1 - Regional conflict
draws in superpowers, Ad 2 - Oil Spills - kills fish = starvation, kills
coral reefs key to planetary survival, Adv 3 - Threatens SLOC's - threatens
global economy, Impact is Mead 92.

MCNEESE TJ  [Disease Centers]

Plan : Establish Comprehensive disease surveillance centers in SEA. Use ESF
Funds. All relevant US agencies will coordinate information.

Case Outline: Scenarios are Malaria, Dengue Fever, Tuberculosis and
Microbial Warfare. Solvency cites [Callahan 97, Federation of American
Scientists 97, Emerging Infectious Diseases 97, Satcher 97].


MC NEESE  WP (WERNECKE & PARSONS)  [Tech transfers for solar energy]

PLAN:  Through Article 9 of Rio declaration, we will form a regional tech
transfer through ARF & CSCAP to switch from  nuclear power to solar energy.

CASE OUTLINE:  Sc. 1:  Accidents:  nuclear plants in Indonesia will always
melt down b/c of instability.  This equals wipeout of SE Asia and 150
million dead;  Sc. 2:  Socio-political chaos-nuclear power is a prime
terrorist target.  Also equals massive refugees;  Solvency:  Nukes bad,
solar solves, US must act [Barrett '97, Scheer '94].

MERCER CD (Cockrell and Drake)   [ANTI-TERRORISM]
MERCER HB

Plan Text: Through all relevant actors, the USFG will open military to
military relations to all eligible topic countries by transferring diplomats
specializing in anti-terrorism will all relevant information concerning
terrorist activity and counter-terrorism tactics through normal means.
Speeches will clarify intent.

Case Outline: Ob. 1 - 1. US Gov't must invest more time and money in
fighting terrorism, 2. Focus on military to military terrorist prevention
solves current law enforcement focus, 3. US has the information to stop
terrorism and the plan only shares the info; Adv. 1 - Terrorists will get
WMD; Adv. 2 - Terrorists will mine SEA SLOC's leading to regional
instability, unstable Indonesia and worldwide economic decline; Ob. 2 -
Solvency - Info sharing solves [Cites : Heritage Foundation Rpts. Oct. 6,
1994 / Washington Monthly Jan. 1997 / Dept of St. Dispatch, June 26, 1994 /
Owens and Nye, Foreign Affairs March/April 1996]

MERCER VA (Vaughn and Attaway) [HISAR]

Plan Text: Unconditionally extend export licenses for Hughes Integrated
Synthetic Aperature Radar (HISAR) systems through the DOD, with regard to
the Commerce Dept., for each eligible topic nation through the FMS program,
the U.S. will provide one HISAR system to each above licensed nation.

Case Outline: Ob.1 - Multiple Conflict Scenarios, Adv. 1 Mines lead to
conflict, Adv. 2 Scen. 1 Troop Movements, Scen 2 Refugees, Ob. 2 HISAR =
best option, high detection capability [Cites: Owens and Nye, Foreign
Affairs, 3/96, Flag Revue 8/97, Defense and Foreign Affairs Strategic
Policy, 7/97].

MIAMI WP (Wulkan and Palouse)  [MALAYSIAN PKO TRAINING]

PLAN: The U.S. will increase SA to Malaysia by offering FMF funds and Excess
Defense Articles through EPIC to facilitate training and equipment
standardization for peacekeepers training in Malaysia. Funding and
enforcement guaranteed.

CASE OUTLINE:  OB 1:  Global annihilation is becoming inevitable; dozens of
potential conflicts [Klare '96, "Redefining Security:  The New Global
Schisms," CURRENT HISTORY, Nov/Dec, search: "When the cold war ended, many
of these boundaries quickly lost their geopolitical significance"], These
conflicts encourage nuclear prolif and use [Khalilzad '95, Zalmay, "Losing
the Moment: The US and the World After the Cold War," WASHINGTON QUARTERLY,
Spring], Massive social, demographic, and economic forces ensure a world
rife with intrastate conflicts [Klare '96, same as above], Hundreds of
ethnic conflicts threaten to explode [Swartzberg '95, Joseph, U. of Minn.,
ASIAN AFFAIRS, v. 22 #1], Any of these conflicts risk chemical, biological
or nuclear holocaust [Snow '95, Donald, THE SHAPE OF THE FUTURE],  OB 2:  US
response is inadequate, interdependence ensures that the US will intervene
in these conflicts, while present policy guarantees these will be Lone
Ranger-style initiatives [Dean '95, Joathan, BULLETIN OF ATOMIC SCIENTISTS,
March, p. 45, "democracy and free markets cannot spread" or "when
large-scale conflict erupts, the United States cannot avoid being called on
for help"], increased operations will inevitably gut military readiness,
crippling the US military [White '97, John P., Federal News Service,
"Defense Infrastructure and Depot Maintenance"], Better watch out, such a
destruction of military capability risks nuclear chemical or biological war
[Warner '97, Edward, WASHINGTON QUARTERLY, Winter];  OB 3: Solvency:
Malaysia wants to expand its peacekeeping role through training [BUSINESS
TIMES, 11-20-96, "Malaysia also commended the on-going work of the Informal
Open-Ended Working Group on An Agenda for Peace.."], This peacekeeping
center lacks adequate resources [ Coughley '97, Brian, Int'l Defense Review,
4-1-97, "Malaysia strains for a greater world standing"], US is missing a
golden opportunity to use FMF funds to aid the Malasian Training Center
[Volman '97, Daniel, Africa Policy Report, Africa News, June 2, 1997, "EPIC
w/10 This effort is intended to create peacekeeping"], Training centers
allow for effective peacekeeping [Szayna, Niblack, and O'Malley '96, INT'L
PEACEKEEPING, Autumn '96, "Specialized peacekeeping training programme
within a military"], Training & equipment offered by such centers bolsters
effectiveness [Szayna, Niblack, and O'Malley '96, INT'L PEACEKEEPING, Autumn
'96, above], An acute policy of support for peacekeeping infrastructure is
critical to effective peacekeepers [Dean '95, same as above], US should
actively commit now to supporting our allies and regional organizations in
expanding peacekeeping [Dean '95, same],  US has an opportunity to
strengthen int'l peacekeeping structures and prevent the conflicts {Dean
'95, same], Peacekeeping operations are empirically successful at addressing
these types of conflicts [Lyman '97, FDCH, April 17, 1997, "UN operations
begun in this period proved especially helpful in bringing to an end
conflicts..."], Enhancing 3rd party peacekepping operations decreases US
interventionism [Warner '97, same as above], US led peacekeeping initiatives
allow for the containment of these conflicts and prevents their escalation
[Warner '97, same; last two cards are talking about UN action]

MIAMI (FL) BH (Barreto and Horsley)
MIAMI (FL) ML (Litton and Mitchell) [AGENT ORANGE]

Plan Text: Through FMF, Excess Defense Articles and Joint Military training
funds of SA budget the USFG will give Vietnam Hughes Hardening Foam and all
necessary training to use such foam, train the Vietnamese military on
appropriate search, location and disposal techniques for land mines, train
Vietnamese military on dangers of Agent Orange and how to avoid exposure and
train the Vietnamese Army to focus epidemiological studies on the effects of
Agent Orange, distribution of Dioxin remedies and any necessary military
research of Agent Orange. All necessary enforcement equipment and funding
will be allocated. Intent ... yada yada yada.

Case Outline: Ob. 1 - Chemical Warfare hurts Vietnam - A. Plagues Vietnam
with Dioxin damage, B. Causes Birth Defects, C. Impacts, 1. Cancer (all
kinds) 2. US shirks responsibility - worst yet to come - 1000's die - 3
generations of effect, 3. Genetic meltdown - birth defects, deformed birth
every other day, babies considered to be monsters (Yikes!), Ob. 2 Orange
Crush (Cute) A. Demining efforts waste land - agent orange blows up with
mines and spreads pollution B. Between rock and hard place, either live with
mines or live with agent orange, Ob.3 Solvency - A. U.S. Action will solve
[Schecter '93], B. U.S. has ethical/moral obligation to solve [IndoChina
Interexchange 1997], B. Mines Removed  [ Defense Week 97]

Strategy: 2 tricks - 1) All equipment is already in storage from Bosnia 2)
Already testing in Vietnam.

MIAMI (OH)

Plan Text: The USFG will guarantee a floating base to Thailand. The US will
accept Thailand's invitation and will station the base on the Gulf of
Thailand. F and E though normal means.

Case Outline: Adv.1 Regional Stability / Solvency - bases best for military
deployment [Defense News 9/23/96], Bases secure US presence [Forbes
6-19-95], Gulf of Thailand is best [Bangkok Post 1-5-95], bases prevent
military conflicts [Gannett News Service 9-20-96], base midway to the Middle
East increases readiness [New York Times 11-12-94], bases are huge (?) [The
Post and Courier (Joyce) 9-26-96], Presence in Gulf keeps Iraq in check
[Star Tribune 1-4-98].

MICHIGAN STATE WR (Woidan and Rand)
MICHIGAN STATE OS (O'Dowd and Smith) ENCRAPTION (oops!)

Plan Text: The USFG shall authorize the export of all forms of software
encryption towards the following SEA nations: Brunei, the Philippines,
Thailand, Singapore, and Malaysia. Funding and enforcement guaranteed.
Speeches clarify intent.

Case Outline:  If plan isn;t enacted, other nations will gain the foothold
in the markets which are key for competitiveness [Olbeter and Hamilton,
Fort-Worth Star-Telegraph, 8-25-97, LN "direct response"], Higher level
encryption's export is restricted under the AECA [Pilkington, Santa Clara
LR, v159, 96, LN "software industry'], Waivers don't solve competitiveness
[Legal Times, 10/6/97, LN "tough policies"], Protectionism = nuclear war
[Spicer, The Challenge from the East, 96, p. 121], increased competiiveness
solves hacking [Parenty, 7-30-97, FNS, LN "inability of American"], Weak
encryption = hackers with nukes [Charles Smith, 5-21-97,
www.kimsoft.com/korea/sengao.htm]. / Solvency Cites [Mehta, Malaysian
Business, 7/16/97 LN "third largest" / Parenty, Fed. News Svc, 7/30/97 LN
"use of encryption" / Diffie, FNS, 6/26/96, LN "products and services" /
Legal Times 10/6/97, LN "Critics have charged" / Washington Times, 2/14/97,
LN "data encryption standard"]

MIDDLE TENNESSEE STATE CI (Crews and Ishak) [Demine Cambodia]

Plan Text: The USFG will increase it's security assistance to Cambodia by
extending FMF grants when appropriate to CMAC to coordinate the purchase of
a combined technology of MWM's, air knives and lexfoam as per the
recommendations of Morrison and Tsipsis in the October 1997 Technology Review.
Enforcement through normal means. We reserve the right to clarify intent.

Case Outline: Ob 1 - landmines cause death and destruction in Cambodia, Ob 2
- SQ doesn't solve, Ob 3 - Solvency - MWM, lexfoam and Airknifes solve.

Strategy - The 2AC claims that the plan isn't passed for two years because
the tech isn't ready now.

NORTHWESTERN   KJ (KASTANEK & JOHNSON) [Frigates & planes to Philippines]

PLAN:  The US gov't will provide, through low-cost loans, or other necessary
means, to the Philippines with US frigates and advanced fighter aircraft, as
per recommendation of Richard Fisher

Case Outline: Cont 1 - War in Asia - Chinese Philippine Tensions increasing
[AFP 1/21/98], Cohen trip decreased US-Philippine Relations [Lopez,
Asiaweek, 1-30-98], China probing US resolve - weakness = aggression [Seth,
Free China Journal, 9-19-97], Potential for miscalc is high [Japan Econ
Newswire 12/9/97], China perceives containment [Bernstein and Munro, The
Coming Conflict with China, 97], Creep risks miscalc [Valencia 97], Conflict
increases Chinese nationalism [Kenny, US Naval War College Rev., Summer 96],
Chinese nationalism risks war [Chalmers, CBM's in Asia, 96] / Cont 2 - Coral
Reefs - Philippines key to coral reefs [Ghosh 9-28-97 Singapore Straits
Times], Corals key to biodiversity and all life [Weber, USA Today, 5-93],
Frigates solve illegal fishing [Richardson, IHT 4-8-94] / Cont. 3 Solvency -
Plan increases Philippines coop and deters China [Fisher, "Albright's trip
to SEA", Exec Memo 489, Heritage Foundation, 97], Philippine = litmus test -
no action = aggession [ FEER 6-5-97], China can be deterred [Chang, Orbis,
Summer 96], Combination of deterrence and diplomacy solves [Sutter,
Congressional Research Service, Between Diplomacy and Deterrence, 97]

NORTHWESTERN  RS  (REDDEN & SMITH)  [IMET to Indonesia]

PLAN:  says Congress will offer Indonesia unconditional IMET and E-IMET,
lifts all relevant Congressional restrictions on Indonesian IMET access/CASE
OUTLINE:  OB 1:  IMET restrictions = Nationalist backlash, IMET key to
military relationship, OB 2:  Leadership: A. Conflicts exist, B. Decreased
US leadership = nuke war, C. IMET offer key to military coop [Slocombe '96],
Regional Coop [Cohen 3-20-97];  OB 3:  CHINA: 1. War possible, Nationalism =
regional war [Chalmers '96], 2. China sees US as enemy [Berstein & Munro
'97], 3.  Capabilities inevitable [Dreyer '96], 4. Chinese perception of US
weakness = US-China war [Zalamea '96], 5. Miscalc = WW3 [Waldron '97], 6.
Coop key to stop China [Friedman '97], 7. Breakdown in relations = Chinese
aggression [Masters '97], 8. Deter key to Sino-US relations [Suffer
'97]/SOLVENCY:  Indo. hasn't closed the door on IMET, US gesture key
[Masters '97];  Unconditional offer revitalizes relationship [Cronin & Ott '97]

OREGON BL (Bauer and Lininger) [Debomb Laos]

Plan Text : The USFG acting through the DOD will increase SA to Laos by
furnishing to Laos all relevant "render safe" procedures for all bomblet
designs dropped on Laos between 1964 and 1973. F and E through normal means.

Case Outline: Story case - 5 cards of harms to Laotians, 2 cards of US
refusing to help, Solvency - Giving "render safe" procedure would solve
[Keith Graves, Sunday Telegraph 1/4/98, p. 20], Moral obligation for the US
to act [Rosario Liquicia, Inter Press Service, 5/9/97].

PACE BP (Bell and Peterson) [F-16's and Frigates to the Philippines]

Plan Text: The USFG will provide through low cost loans or other necessary
means, the Phillipines with US frigates and advanced fighter aircraft,
specifically F-16's and F-18's as per the recommendations of Richard Fisher.
The plan will be administered under normal means through FMFSP.

Case Outline: PLAN / Adv. 1 - South China Sea - 1) Weak US/Philippines ties
fuels Chinese expansionism [Fisher, FDCH, 10/1/95, "East Asian and Pacific
Affairs growth in Chinese military"], 2) Tensions = major conflict - Chinese
actions against the Philippines are the litmus test [Chavez, 6/3/97, LN
Newspaper], 3) Chinese encroachments on Philippine claims are key to Chinese
control of all SCS [Maier, Washington Quarterly, 5/2/97], 4) Lack of action
guarantees miscalculated conflict [Valencia, Adelphi Paper #298, 95], 5) SCS
conflict would crush US-Sino cooperation and embolden Chinese nationalists
[Kenny, US Naval War College Review, 96], 6) Conflict in SCS would draw in
the U.S. and = WW3 [Waldron, Commentary, 3/97] / Adv. 2 Regional Prolif - 1)
Perception of U.S. decline in commitment to Philippines sparks Japan, Taiwan
and South Korea proliferation [Fisher, Heritage Foundation Reports, 6/2/97],
2) Asian regional prolif = mult scen for nuclear war = deterrence won't
prevail [Friedberg, Intl Security, Winter 93/94] / Adv 3 - Sino/Japan
Conflict - 1) Chinese encroachments in SCS risk miscalc and causes Japan to
harden it's stance in the Senkaku dispute [Betts, International Security,
Winter 93/94], 2) Chinese hegemony in SCS = Sino/Japanese conflict and cause
Japan to rearm, 3) Sino-Japan cold war risks WW3 [ Roy, International
Security, Summer 94]. / Solvency - 1) The transfer of aircraft to the
Philippines would deter Chinese aggression and rebuilds US-Philippine
defense ties [Fisher 95 above], 2) Militarily strong Philippines key to
deter China [Yap, Business World, 7/11/97], 3) US must aid Philippine mod
efforts to sustain alliance [FEER 97, Incomplete cite], 4) Previous levels
of defense coop between the US and Philippines are insufficient in deterring
China - substantive coop must be expanded to restrain China [Fisher 97], 5)
Despite potential passage of new agreement alliance is still a paper treaty
[Defense News, 12/1/97, LN "This is a paper alliance right now"], 6)
Existence of U.S. planes is key to interoperability [Asia Times, 1/3/97, LN
"it's much more efficient" , 7) US planes key to increase relations and
promoting interoperability between the US and Philippines [Business World
6/24/97 LN "maintain stability in the area"]

2AC answers - CLINTON GOOD NATO GOOD - NATO won't pass [Kreisher, Copley
News Service, 1/26/98], Need legislative victory (winners win) [Financial
Times 1/29/98, Chattanooga Times 1/29/98], Public doesn't care about foreign
policy [LA Times, 1/28/98] / CHINA RELATIONS - 1) NU - Cohen Visit and
signing deals w/ Singapore = perception now 2) Action with Philippines not
directed at China [M2 Presswire 1/23/98], 3) Link inevitable 2 reasons a)
conflict is inevitable and the US will get drawn in b) Kenny evid on SCS
advantage xap - conflict kill Sino-US coop, 4) No link 2 reasons a) Alliance
exists now we just stop collapse b) Link evid not assume F-16's or SOFA 5)
Deterrence = good relations (Rodman, FNS, 9/18/97], 6) China already
perceives Containment [Singapore Straits Times, Yuan Ming, 9/12/97],
Deterrence solves Chinese instability [Rachman, Washington Quarterly, Winter 96]

PACE KP (Kloster and Petrey) [Encryption]

Plan Text: The USFG will substantially increase SA toSEA by authorizing
direct commercial sales of and munitions grade encryption technology to the
Philippines, Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand.

Case Outline: Obs 1 - Inherency - SQ flawed, export controls violate
property rights, individual rights should come before consequences, Adv 1 -
Economy - Export Controls stop US software companies from selling products,
this harms the U.S. economy, SEA has key markey, Growth Key to world peace
[Mead], Adv 2 - Hackers - SEA at risk to hackers who are stealing nuclear
secrets which cause nuclear/biological weapons exchange.

SOUTHERN UTAH SH (Herrmann and Stricker)  [AGENT ORANGE]

Plan Text: USFG through normal means will send hardening foam to Vietnam.
Funding will come from the already allocated FMF budget.

Case Outline: Ob. 1 - Status of Demining - A) Clinton doubled demining
budget [Defense Week 97], B) US demining the globe [FNS, 10/31/97] / Scen 1
- Landmines - A) Landmines all over Vietnam [Williams, After the Guns Fall
Silent, 95], B) Continues to kill [Williams], C) Landmines traumatic
[Anderson, Deadly Legacy, 93] / Scen 2 - Agent Orange - A) US doused Vietnam
with Agent Orange [Duc Nguyen, 97, http://
mamba.bio.edu/`pjbryant/global/sen_sem/duc97.htm], B) Mines exploding
introduce AO into food chain [Stewart, AP, 11/1/97], c) Causes Monster
Babies [Vietnam Geration (sic?) Journal, v. 4, Nov. 3-4, 1992] / Solvency -
Unique Window of Opportunity [Williams above], Foam works [Seffers Defense
News 3-2-97], US has a responsibility [Dwyer, USC Dept of Preventative
Medicine, 4/95], US is successful at demining [DPA, 1/6/98] /  Underview -
despite solvency imperfections we should still demine [ Hidden Killers, 94].

SOUTHERN UTAH RS (Reardon and Stapley)  [HIV EDUCATION]

Plan Text: The USFG will increase SA to SEA by giving a flexible and
cooperative program of culturally sensitive HIV education and prevention,
modeled upon programs which have been proven successful in the past. This
will include accurate information about behaviors that increase the risk of
HIV transmission, and will be suited to the local language, literacy and
culture. Prevention mechanisms will include needle exchange programs modeled
after successful global efforts and disbursement of both female and male
latex condoms with nonoxynol - 9 and appropriate education for proper use.
Through normal means necessary funding and administration under security
assistance programs. Aff speeches serve as legislative intent. Nothing in
this plan shall be interpreted to prohibit the USFG from communicating and
consulting with any or all relevant actors.

Case Outline: Need One!

SMS AK (Atkins and Kilpatrick)  [CMAC]

Plan Text: The USFG will provide CMAC with sufficient non-matching funding
to raise its annual operating budget to 10 million dollars. This grant
program will be in addition to the US $1 million currently allocated to the
CMAC by the Royal Cambodian Government. Funding will be through frozen FY 97
mining aid money and from FMFP demining allocation in the security
assistance budget. CMAC will receive two cost-free packages of demining
equipment, with each package containing a DS system, a CVL system a Vehicle
Mounted Mine Detector, MMN foam and a Chemical Neutralization Sytem, as well
as training to use and service the systems.

No case outline disclosed.

SW TEXAS TL (Tiffee and LaCoss) [ENCRYPTION]

Plan Text: The USFG will pass the International Relations
Committee/Judiciary Committee version of the Safety and Freedom Through
Encryption Act (SAFE), without mandatory key recovery and delayed
notification amendments and reconcile to have the federal government to send
128-bit "strong encryption" to Malaysia, Philippines and Singapore. This
will be done through all topical means with enforcement and funding
provided. Plan is implemented as all foreign policy legislation is, through
normal means.

Case Outline: SEA going on-line [Pillai 96]  / Ob. 1 Inherency - we don't
export now [USNWR 97], makes SEA systems vulnerable [Segal 95] / Scen. 1
Info Warfare -  Info. Is the only form of conflict [Schwartsan 94], Info is
a weapon of mass destruction [Schwartsan 94], Capability key [Schwartsan
94], capability key [Schwartsan 94], 128-bit encryption solves [Louis Freeh
97], SAFE = trust and use [Gillin 97] / Scen. 2 Economy - w/o encryption the
economy will collapse [Parenty (sic?) 97], no growth = extinction [Zey 94] /
Scen. 3 Extropy / Extropian transition makes human god-like beings, with the
ability to manipulate their own universe at will [Regis 94], Personal
info-war stops transition [Schwartsan 94], must act now [Mackay 97],
encryption key because info is the only battleground [Schwartsan 94].

TOWSON STATE BE (Baker and Ellis) [Election Assistance to the Philippines]

Plan Text: The USFG, through all topical means, will substantially increase
SA to the Philippines. The SA will include, but not be limited to, American
information systems election reporting technology, training of personnel and
deputized agencies, technical assistance to administer and monitor elections
as well as capacity building for relevant organizations and institutions.
This SA will be used to modernize the election system through the COMELEC.

Case Outline:  Obs 1 - Inherency - 1) Phil. Elections are paper based and
hand controlled = misinterpretation and cheating [Son, IPS 6-8-95 LN "beacon
for the rest of asia"], 2) Phil. At crossroads [Hegao 97] / Obs 2 - Civil
War  - A) COMELEC credibility - 1) Cheating causes COMELEC to lose all
credibility [Cacho-Olivares, Business World, 9-1-97], 2) Computerization key
to election legitimacy [Business Daily, 8-12-97, LN "if computerization is
not possible"], 3) A military coup will follow illegitimate elections [Seno
and Lopez, Asiaweek, 7-4-97, "sports crazed filipinos"] - B) Constitutional
Convention (Klemz loves a good con-con debate) - 1) A constitutional change
is inevitable [AFP 9/21/97], 2) Delegates for the convention will be elected
in 98 [Xinhua, 9-21-97, LN "1998 is a constitutional convention"], 3) Bad
elections will be key to the convention and will cause military intervention
[Halloran, 2-13-97, 'modern western politics'], 4) Political illegitimacy
risks civil war [Mirsky, 9-19-97, LN "A rat under a dung heap"] - Obs 3
Solvency - 1) Computers will stop Cheating [Robles, South China Morning
Post, 8-24-97], 2) Computers empirically solve [Santillan, 8-4-97, Business
World,], 3) Computers decrease fraud and speed up the process [Santillan],
4) Accountability solves conflict [Bjornland, 3-12-97, LN "governmental
transparency"], 5) COMELEC modeled after the US [Santillan].

TOWSON DF (Doyle and Faraqui) [IMF BAILOUT]

Plan Text: As per the request of the State Department, Congress will pass
the provision of 17.9 billion dollars in IMF funds toward the bailout of
Indonesia and Thailand.

Case Outline: Adv. 1 - Indonesia key to SLOC's, SLOC's key to US readiness,
Readiness avoids wars Adv. 2 - Worldwide Economic Collapse  - Lack of action
= Thailand and Indonesia econmic collapse which devastates the world
economy, Indonesian fall = regional and global fall, world fall = WW3,
Solvency  - [Financial Times, 12/11/97 LN "tigers reach for IMF medicine" /
Andrew McIntyre, LA Times, 1/18/98, LN "I'm shocked!" / Austin American
Statesman 1/13/98 LN "Indonesia shifts fiscal advice" / Laura D'Andrea,
1/23/98 LN "Pitch in to prevent"]

NEED COMPLETE CASE OUTLINE AND EXACT PLAN TEXT.

USC BM (Bevin and Markowsky)  [MAGIC LANTERNS TO SINGAPORE]

Plan Text : Through normal means, the USFG will substantially increase SA to
Singapore by granting the US Mine Clearing Helicopter System and necessary
training, i.e. the Aircraft Sikorski equipped with Magic Lantern detection
through FMF - speeches will clarify.

Case Outline: Cont. 1 Inherency - No focus now, Anonymous mine laying =
uncertainty in SLOC's / Cont. 2 Harms - mine warfare will escalate in the
Singapore Straits internationalizing a conflict from current tensions /
Cont. 3  Solvency - Copters and Magic Lanterns Solve [cites: Young, Janes
Navy International 1996, Sea Power 96, Helicopter News 96, Jane's Defense
97, Deutsch Press Agenteur 98], no money tradeoff - comes from a separate
budget, Singapore controls SLOC's in Singapore Straits, Free trade breakdown
= mine warfare leads to nuclear war.

Strategy: They'll bury your disads in uniqueness answers (US coops with
Singapore now, I'm sure they're talking about the new deep water port that
Cohen just agreed to, US does joint excises for deming with Singapore now).
90% of the time they end up going for Clinton link turns (they especially
like winners-win.) Hey, don't get mad, I'm only being real.

USC  HS (STETSON & HURDER) [Enhanced access agreements with Indonesia]

PLAN:  The US, in order to substantially increase sec. assist., will provide
any and all sec. assist. allocations including training and defense services
to promote the viability of enhanced access agreements with Indonesia.
CASE OUTLINE:  OB 1: US pull out now, Asia not perceive US as committed,
China aggressive now;  ADV 1:  Arms Race because of OB 1;  ADV 2:
Indonesian SLOCs, A. Key routes to Gulf, India & NE Asia, B. Indo close
SLOCs, = mines, kills economy, = Japan Rearm & wars;  SOLVENCY AUTHORS:
Wood, "Asian Security to the Year 2,000"/http://carlisle
-www.army.mil/usassi/ssipubs/pubs96/asia2000/asa20ai.htm/Lord, Federal News
Service, 12-11-97/Wolfowitz, Federal News Service, 3-15-90

UTSA BQ  (Buentello and Quintanilla) [DEBOMB LAOS]

Plan Text: The U.S. Government should substantially increase it's SA to Laos
by providing grants to the Laotian government under the FMF program to
coordinate purchases of Meandering Winding Magnetometers for use in UXO
detection. Under the Military Assistance Program the US will provide Laos
with the database detailing U.S. bombing runs over Laos. F and E through
normal means. We reserve the right to clarify intent.

Case Outline: Adv - Farming, Solvency [Cites: DPA 2/13/97 / Tsipsis, Tech
Review, October 97 / CSM 9/9/96 / USNWR 5-14-97 /  Mennonite Central
Committee 96]

WEBER STATE DM (Dilsaver and Muranaka) [Debomb Laos]

Plan Text: The USFG will substantially increase security assistance to Laos
by creating and open consultation and cooperative dialogue with any and all
interested governments, NGO's, and private corporation, with the goal of
establishing an integrated solution to Laotian Agent Orange soil
contamination, UXOs and landmines. The US will take the following actions to
initiate the policy framework: 1) Provide training of indigenous efforts to
ensure an integrated approach to solving Agent Orange, UXOs and landmines.
2) Provide personnel and financing for US and trained Laotians to act
sequentially, first conducting solar detoxification of Agent Orange, and
then engagin in the removal of landmines and UXOs using the integrated
technologies of AIRKNIFE, LEXFOAM and MEANDERING WINDING MAGNETOMETERS (MWM)
as per the recommendations of the Reprt on the Landmine Brainstorming
Workshop (RLBW.) 3) Openly share data with all participating actors
concerning US bomber flight paths and bomb defuse procedures employed by
Americans during and associated with the Vietnam conflict. Enforcement and
funding will be guaranteed until either a consensus that indigenous efforts
are suitable to solve independently or when all ordinance is removed
according United Nations Standards for Humanitarian Minefield Clearance.
Aff. Speeches serve as legislative intent.

Case Outline: Ob 1 - SQ doesn't solve for Laos - 1) UXOs - US saturated Laos
with bombs, SQ ignores Laos, 2) Land Mines - lots of mines still exist in
Laos, US participation in solvency is limited, 3) Agent Orange - AO sill
exists in soil in Laos, SQ policies make the situation worse, Harms to AO =
cancer and birth defects / Harms - UXOs kill, landmines = suffering, AO =
death / Solvency - US action is key - Solar detoxification solves AO,
Detoxification effective in soil remediation, US action vital for 4 reasons
1) Declassified flight data essential to solve, 2) Need an integrated plan
to solve, 3) Integrated tech = solves, 4) Integrated technology = 20x
increase in detection capability [Morrison and Tsipsis, Tech Review, 10/97],
SQ deminers not aware of new technology, US action key to global solvency,
now is key time for global solvency (modeling).


WEBER STATE AM (Anthony and Menzies) [DEBOMB LAOS]

Plan Text: 1. Provide training and an integrated approach to solve Agent
Orange, UXO's and landmines, 2. Provide personnel and financing, do Agent
Orange detoxification first, use air knife, lexfoam and MWM.

Case Outline: Solvency ; Solar detoxification solves dioxins [UPI 96],
Detoxification solves soil remediation [Saltel, Aerospace America, 95], US
declassification of data is key to solve [USNWR 97], Integrated approach
solves [Davies 97], Airknife/Lexfoam/MWM solves [Rept on Landmine Workshop,
International Security, 96], Speeds up 20x current speed [Morrison and
Tsipsis, Tech Review, Oct 97], key to global demine awareness [Morrison and
Tsipsis], Integrated technology key to solve worldwide [M and T],

2AC Answers:  CLINTON POP GOOD FOR NATO 1) Not link to Laos or Debombing, 2)
Clinton pop high now, 3) Clinton has been acting on landmines for years 4)
US leadership on demining for years, 5) Turns are better than links
(wouldn't it be nice if they'd say what the turn is?)

WHEATON   WC (WILSON & CARTER) [Civilizational Dialogue]

PLAN:  The USFG will substantially increase its security assistance by
initiating civilizational dialogue to all of the topic nations.  This
dialogue will include but not limited to topics such as:  Traditional Asian
values as well as traditional Western values and the similarities between
them, cause for current jingoism as well as security arrangements in SE
Asia./OB 1:  The SQ is needed for a clash of civilizations/OB 2:
Solvency/ADV. the Asian Renaissance = global community = world peace
Cite: Anwar Ibrahim, The Asian Renaissance,  97 as excerpted in New
Perspectives Quarterly, Summer 97

WHITMAN  CS (CLARKE & SCOVILLE) [Pacatom]

PLAN:  The USFG shall substantially increase its sec. assistance to SE Asian
nations by establishing and funding the nuclear energy security regime
Pacatom through the FMF program. As per recommendations of William Dircks,
the regime will exclusively assist all parties in meeting the requirements
of the Convention on Nuclear Safeguards.  It will improve safeguards, adding
to current IAEA and NPT practices.  A regional inspection regime for
non-weapons facilities will be established.  We are willing to clarify
intent./CASE

OUTLINE:  ADV. 1:  Nuclear Accidents, ADV. 2:  Prolif.; Solvency:
Richardson, Isaka, Asian Political News, Gil and Mak



From debate  Mon Feb  2 18:15:25 1998
From: debate (Greg Simerly)
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 18:15:25 -0600
Subject: Saluki Caselist (Neg)
Message-ID: <MON.2.FEB.1998.181525.0600.DEBATE@SIU.EDU>

THE 1998 SALUKI CASELIST (NEGATIVE)


ALABAMA

Vs.  Philippine SOFA
Off-case positions
T-SUBSTANTIALLY = OF WORTH - aff doesn't tangibly increase anything /
EFFECTS T / FEMINISM KRITIK - Aff. Entrenches militarism and that leads to
no security.
Case arguments
Can;t fiat SOFA, SOFA bad.

Vs. ASU MS [Littoral Strategy]
Off-case positions
T - NATIONS AREN'T STATES - you give it to the government so you're not
topical. / FEMINISM - Silence leads to gender domination [Whitworth 94],
critique leads to alternatives [Peterson 92], Aff assumptions are flawed.
{Ed. Note: These cites are complete under Alabama SP affirmative}
Case Arguments
Military is bad.

ARIZONA STATE

Vs. Wheaton  Wilson & Carter [?]

They straight up said, "Your case AIN'T TOPICAL!" SECURITY ASSISTANCE T: 3
defs: 1. "Should be transfer of articles" [Dict. of Jargon], 2.
Substantially means "tangible" [Oxford Eng. Dict.], 3. "DOD does Sec.
Assist.": [US Dept. of the Army, SECURITY ASSISTANCE: MILITARY ASSISTANCE,
GRANT AID OPERATIONS & PROCEDURES, also Bandow, Heritage Foundation, June 1,
1988

Vs. USC [frigates and planes to Philippines]

CLINTON:  Winners win [Rosner, The Nes Democrat, 4-96] NATO impact/SPENDING:
Link from NATIONAL JO.'s CONGRESS DAILY 1-6-98/CASE: gen ans., big wars
aren't true

AUGUSTANA

Vs. Emporia  Tate and Holland  [Cambodia Demining]

MORALISM (KRITIK or DISAD?):  AFF. upholds "new moralism" ensuring
incoherent foreign policy, that's bad/SUSPEND AID CP: "The USFG will suspend
all aid to the government of Cambodia.  All future and present aid will be
eliminated until a democratically elected gov't is established.  Neg. will
clarify."/HUN SEN DISAD: Now key for Hun Sen, AFF upholds, = civil
war/TOPICALITY: "Security Assistance" must be to a gov't/CASE: Demining
solves now; must solve production first/The 2NR went for T.

Vs. Alabama  Osborne & Yates [Komodo Dragon Poaching]

TOPICALITY: Substantial must be 20%/ARMS RACE DISAD: has a miscalc. impact
from Dillon?!)/CHINA:  Must focus on economy not other issues (what?)/case
pimps/SECURITIZATION [Lipschitz] on case/MORALISM: Aff upholds "new
moralism" which = incoherent foreign policy..that's bad [on case]

Vs. SUU [HIV Prevention]

Off-Case Positions
LOCALISM - Top down solutions fail, prevent solvency / DELAY CP - Delay aff
plan two weeks then pass / LEADERSHIP - Clinton must look strong now, plan
shifts focus, kills peace process, which is good. / T - SA ISN'T
HUMANITARIAN ASST. / PLAN IS VAGUE
Case Arguments
Breastfeeding stops solvency and AIDS shifts to other countries.

BALL STATE

Vs. Towson BE [Philippine Election Monitoring]
Off-case positions
EFFECTS T - generic, too many steps / T - SECURITY = PROTECTION /
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT DA / ASEAN DA / TECHNOCRACY KRITIK - infotech

Vs. Towson DF [IMF Bailout to Indonesia & Thailand]

ASEAN DISAD:  Credibility key, they're the only ones who can solve/JIANG:
Perception of US heg = Taiwan war/DEDEV: we all die, standard/TOPICALITY:
"SA"- Cohen, SA = military and diplomacy, not economic assistance, CASE: gen
impact asnwers

CENTRAL METHODIST

Vs. SMS AK (CMAC tech and money)
GLOBAL LANDMINE BAN CP - US will use its leadership to endorse the global
ban - not topical, not SA, NB - ban solves mines, Perms must be
simultaneous, CP is mutually exclusive (evid), solvency - ban calls for
demining effort, ban solves mines / GLOBAL BAN TRADEOFF DA - A) Increasing
number of countries moving to sign ban, B) Humanitarian policies trade off,
C) Success of ban key to treaty, D) Clearance too slow, ban is key to
solvency / SOLVENCY PROBLEM - A) Advocacy is important, B) Violation no one
single line of advocacy, plan is an amalgam of  solvency authors and
assumptions, C) Reasons to reject, 1) Destroys research burdens, 2) Guts
solvency, 3) Allows inconsistent advocacy.

DEPAUL

Vs. ASU MS [Littoral Strategy]
Off-Case Positions
EXTRA-TOPICALITY "to SEA Nations', plan is to a body of water, at best it's
extra topical, after you do the plan it might be to a country in the future
/ MILITARISM - increased troop presence -= militarism, militarism justifies
real-life violence.
Case Arguments
China is peaceful and won't dominate the SCS [Cites: Parameswaren,
Agence-France Presse, 8/26/97, Micael O'Connor, World Outlook, March/April
96, Kyodo News Service, 12/18/97, China Business Information Network,
12/17/97].

Vs. Augustana BrCh (Phil. F-16/Frigates)
Off-Case Positions
CULTURAL IMPERIALISM - A) CI defined, B) Links - Militarism = CI, C) Impact
1) Western imperialism is especially harmful, 2) Cultural diversity key to
survival / MILITARISM - 1) Militarism includes peacetime military action, 2)
Using militarism to solve potential scenarios is a justification of
real-life violence and injustice [Cuomo 96].
Case Arguments
China and ASEAN increasing relations [Torode, South China Morning Post,
12-17-97], China and ASEAN will resolve Spratlys peacefully [AFP, 12/16/97],
Threat of armed conflict is minimal [O'Conner, World Outlook, March/April
96], Phil. won't fight over Spratly claims [Ghosh, Straits Times, 5-23-97]






ENMU

Vs. Laos Debombing
Off-case Positions
CLINTON - Clinton good, NATO good / COOK CREDIBILITY (Cook is the foreign
secretary of the UK) - Impact is an Iraqi strike / ACRI  - Tradeoff causes
war in Angola / SURPLUS SPENDING - [Mead 92 impact] / REGIONALISM THING - US
action (saying we have something that they need and then giving it to them)
is colonialist, which destroys regionalism [Cite; McCloud 1995]
Case Arguments
Agent Orange turns (demining spreads agent orange) [Cite; MSNBC Web Page,
1997], Nam Thuen Dam Turns (bombies stop development of Nam Thuen Dam), tech
breaks down in Laos, CHINA DA on case, containment leads to a PLA lashout
against Taiwan, Growth Bad causes enviro destruction and AIDS spread through
increased prostitution, no moral obligation.

EMPORIA STATE

Vs. Miami WP (Malaysian PKO Training)
Off-Case Positions
CLINTON - NATO won't pass now, Quick legislation increase Clinton's
popularity, NATO = nuclear holocaust [Steinbruner, LA Times, 3/3/97] /
INSTITUTIONALISM BAD / T-TRAINING ISN'T SA / EXTRA -T - plan uses ARF which
has extra-regional actors / CHINA DA - Sphere of Influence, containment
links, impact is world war and proliferation {Lieberthal 93] / JAPAN CP -
Japan does the plan.
Case Arguments
Self-Fulfilling Prophesy containment turns.

JOHN CARROLL

Vs. Oregon BL (Debomb Laos)
Off-case positions
CP - give all technology and information to NGO's as soon as it is available
/ LAO SHUNNING - US asst to the Laotian government perpetuates the Hmong
genocide, always reject genocide [Lao human rights council, 2-17-97,
http://home.earthlink.net/~laohumrights/laopos01.html / Solarz, CSIS, Wash
1/4, 97] / NATO EXPANSION - aff allows Clinton to control the agenda, he
gets NATO and that's bad. / T/ XT - MUST BE IN THE BUDGET
Case Arguments
Intl community solving, reject morality claims, no solvency Laos hates US
unilat action = backlash, african aid tradeoff, overclaiming hurts efforts,
Dams turns, impact minimizers.

JOHNSON COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE

Vs. KSU SS (Subic Bay)
Off-Case Positions
HASIMOTO CREDIBILITY - Hashimoto popularity is fragile, public wants
increased influence, public is key to Hashimoto's agenda, Reform is key to
the economy, Economic collapse = world war / CLINTON - Clinton committed to
Bosnia, needs congressional support, aid is unpopular, popularity is key to
congressional action, pullout = WW3 / T - SUBSTANTIAL / T - NATIONS ARE
GOVERNMENTS.
Case Arguments
Subic cleanup is costly, no contamination at Subic.


Vs. DePaul PJ (Tropical Forest Conservation Act)
Off-case Positions
HASHIMOTO CRED (above) / T - SA MUST BE TO A NATION / JAPAN CP - Text: Japan
will offer Indonesia enough money to pay off their debts to the U.S. and
will offer incentives to institute forest preservation programs. / CLINTON
GOOD - BOSNIA GOOD (above)
Case Arguments
Defo exaggerated, no extinction, no way to measure species loss.

KANSAS STATE

vs. Miami (FL) BH [Agent Orange]
Off-Case Positions
DEMOCRACY DA - A. Vietnam oppressive and anti-democratic, B. Shouldn't give
SA to bad countries, C. US style democracy solves international conflicts /
ISRAELI AID DA - A. SA is capped - new SA trades off, B. Israeli Aid is
vulnerable, C. Aid key to the peace process, D. Breakdown of PP = nuclear
war / CHINA DA - A. Sino-US coop increasing, B. Increased SA freaks out
China, C. China hates landmine decrease, D. US/Sino relations key to solving
mult. scens for war. / UN CP - UN does the plan, competes with net benefit
of DA avoidance, solvency : UN key to solve mines, UN critical.

Vs. Kentucky RK [Pirates]

SPANOS KRITIK/RUSSIA:  Russia sees action in SE Asia as zero-sum, Yeltsin
weak now risking instability, instability = terrorism and nuke
accidents/CASE:  Coral alt. causes, SQ solves, Neoclassical economics will
kill US?...Went for Spanos.

KENTUCKY

Vs. Southern Utah SH [Agent Orange]
Off-case positions
T- SA IS DEFENSE ARTICLES AND SERVICES / T - MUST SPECIFY AGENT / RUSSIA -
increased US influence in SEA leads to nationalism / CHINA - increased US
action to SEA leads to percept of containment and war. / CLINTON - Increased
SA = No IMF bailout which kills the global economy. / CP - EUROPE - The EU
will do the plan. /  SPENDING - New spending initiatives ruin budget
agreement which is key to US economy. / HUMAN RIGHTS SHUNNING - Aiding a
human rights abuser is immoral and outside judge's jurisdiction.
Case Arguments
Vietnam won't accept aid, Vietnam government corrupt, No environmental harms.

McNEESE

Vs. Miami PG [Agent Orange]
Off-case positions
T - SECURITY ASSISTANCE / RUSSIA DA - Sphere of Influence / NRDC CP - The
NRDC lobbies SEA governments to do the plan (I assume this refers to the
Natural Resources Defense Council] / CHINA DA - Sphere of Influence, EXTRA T
- Medical Training.

Vs. Mercer AV (HISAR)
Off-case positions
RUSSIA - Sphere of Influence / CHINA - Sphere of Influence / JAPAN CP -
alliance net benefit / T - SA = MILITARY.





MERCER

Vs. ?????? (Demining)
Off-case positions
T - SECURITY ASSISTANCE / INTERNATIONAL RED CROSS CP / DESECURITIZATION DA
Case Arguments
Current tech can't demine effectively, U.S. military demining inefficient,
In-country barriers to demining (geography and territorial disputes).

Vs. Depaul JP [Tropical Forest Conservation Act]
Off-case positions
IRAQ DA - Bipart support for Iraq now, Focusing on environment as security
ignores Iraq, Iraq = greatest threat to U.S. / NATURE DOMINATION KRITIK -
Dialectic of human beings about "nature" is an extension of technology which
dominates and oppresses the environment and human existence, implications =
solvency takeout. / T - SA = MILITARY TO MILITARY, not the environment
[Waever, On Security (ed Lipshutz), 95 / DISAM Journal Summer 95 / M2
Presswire 3/21/97]
Case Arguments
Species: education isn't bad, no keystone species, no crisis / Solvency:
securitization of environment = coercion, swamps environmental solvency,
imperialism, etc..... (their words, not mine.)

Vs. Weber DM (Laos Debomb/Agent Orange0

Off-case positions
T- SA ISN'T HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE / MILITARY KRITIK - sexism and
homophobia / CLINTON DA (useful, huh?) / CP - RED CROSS

Vs. Miami BH [?]

SA TOPICALITY/INT'L RED CROSS CP/MILITARISM KRITIK/CASE:  generic solvency
answers

MIAMI (FL)

Vs. McNeese TJ [Disease]
TOPICALITY:  Disease aid is humanitarian, not security assistance/ACRI
disad.:  Spending trades off with African Aid/BUDGET disad:  New spending
busts the budget causing economic downturn and nuke war/JAPAN CP:  Japan, in
cooperation with the W.H.O., will set up coordination centers to do
surveillance of diseases.  Field and lab research as well as interacting
with each other to provide info and training, primarily, but not limited to
field epidemiology./CLINTON:  AFF. decreases Clinton's pop killing
credibility, kills Irish peace process/CASE:  TB is being solved now, must
solve internationally, WHO can solve

Vs. Towson DF [IMF bailout]
Off-Case Positions
SPENDING DA / CLINTON DA / T - SEC ASST.
Case Arguments
IMF Bailouts Bad, Moral Hazzard is created, No impact to IMF Bailout/economy

Vs. Weber State AM (Laos Debomb)
Off-case positions
CLINTON - A) Clinton will get troop extension, but it's an uphill battle
[Kitfield 97 National Journal, LN "President Clinton had one good meeting"],
B) SEA engagement unpopular [McCain, FNS, 7/9/97, LN "The visit by Hun
Sen"], C) Popularity key to presidential agenda [Simon, Presidential Studies
Quarterly, Fall 88], D) Pullout = conflict [Dallas Morning News, 12-23-97,
LN "originally promised"] / SPENDING  - A) New spending derails the budget
[Rubin, LA Times 1/5/98, LN "warning that a new round of tax cuts"], B)
Failure to stick to budget = financial turmoil [Eaton, Plain Dealer,
10/24/97, LN "Failure to stick to the budget agreement"], C) Economic
decline = nuclear war [Sacks Fernandez, International  J. of Politics and
Society, v. 8 #2, "Process of Integration and Disintergration"] / NEW
ZEALAND CP - Text: The New Zealand deminers/debombers will work in
cooperation with the localities of Laos to train indigenous peoples and
supply low-level technology. A database similar to the affirmatives will be
established. Normal Means. Structure: New Zealand deminers/debombers are the
best in the world [Carlin, The Evening Standard, 4/9/97, LN "Landmine skills
attract worldwide attention"] / T - SA ISN'T HUMANITARIAN AID - SA is
distinct from humanitarian aid [Heritage Foundation Reports, 10/96, LN
"America's foreign aid programs consist of these major projects"].

Vs. Augustana  [Give optimal mix SA to Philippines]

CLINTON:  NATO will pass now, Engagement in SE Asia not popular, need pop
for agenda, causes Bosnia pull-out/INDIA: India increasing ties with SE
Asia, US increase = b/l from India, Kashmir impact/AFRICA:  US support for
ACRI tenuous, new policies trade-off, African instability = Cold War with
China/MILITARY-TO-MILITARY WITH CHINA CP:  "As is consistent with the
reccommendation of GI Get?, thus the US will engage China through
military-to-military exchanges, joint training exercises & transparency.
The US will establish an official doctrine including training of US
negotiators & servicemen who engage w/ Chinese officials.  The intent of the
doctrine will be put an end to the current policies of containment."
[http://carlisle_www.army.mil/usass;/ssipubs/pubs96/betwen/betwen/txt  Col.
Jer Donald Get]

Vs. Mercer CD [Anti-terrorism]

SPENDING:  New spending de-rails budget causing financial turmoil, =
war/CHINA:  Now is key time to engage China, China suspicious of any US
actions as containment/DISPOSITIONAL JAPAN CP:  In accordance with the
spirit of the AFF, Japan, instead of the United States will implement the
AFF mandates but will attempt to enter into multilateral arrangements with
SE Asia.  ODA, MOFA, MITI will use an optimal mix of existing personnel,
financial and technological resources.  Further speeches will
clarify./CLINTON:  Political losses doom NATO.  Public dislikes US
engagement in SE Asia,; they went for Clinton [GANNET NEWS SERVICE 12-3-97,
AFX NEWS 1-27-97, FNS 7-9-97 John McCain, WHITE HOUSE BULLETIN 10-7-97,
William Odom FOREIGN AFFAIRS July/Aug, USAT 10-7-97, POLITICAL SCIENCE
QUARTERLY Summer 1994]/SECURITY ASST. T: Must be defined in budget, extra-T
illegitimate.

MIAMI OHIO
Vs. Northwestern Redden & Smith [?]

ISOLATIONISM CP:  "The USFG will suspend all aid to Asia indefinitely", N/B
is preventing total iso. (total iso. coming, decreasing presence now
prevents)/AID FATIGUE:  Public hates foreign aid [nativist sentiment, cuts
in foreign aid budget, Chicago Tribune, 2-27-95], will backlash causing cuts
in infectious disease funding, which is key to stopping global
outbreaks[Callahan, FDCH, 4-24-97]/CLINTON:  Unpopular plans prevent
Clinton's IMF package (which saves global economy)/CASE:  China war
inevitable [Mango '97, Security Dialogue, v. 28, p. 109], China containment
= nationalism [Liberthal '95, Foreign Affairs, Nov/Dec], Nationalism =
conflict in S China Seas [Briatow '96, RUSI JO., August], Containment bad
[Washington Quarterly, Winter '96]/2NR went for Aid Fatigue

MICHIGAN STATE

Vs. Johnson County [Sea Mines]
Off-case arguments
T - SA = FMS, DCS and IMET / CP - US holds on to Magic Lanterns / POWER
PROJECTION - The US Navy needs all their Magic Lanterns / CIVIL/MILITARY
RELATIONS - Magic Lanterns are classified / SPENDING DA

Vs. McNeese  Wernecke & Parsons [shift away from nuke power to solar energy]

TOPICALITY:  Energy assist. not Security Assistance/CLINTON:  A. Troop
deadline will be extended,  B.  Indo. key political issue, C.  Clinton must
control agenda, D.  = war in Europe (troop withdraw from Bosnia)/
CONSULT JAPAN CP: [no text given] net-benefit: A.  US/Japan can harmonize on
defense relations, B.  Consult. key to scandals?, C.  something? alliance =
US withdrawal and arms race/SPENDING:  A.  Budget balanced now, B. Plan
spends, destroys economy, C. Mead/INDIAN INVESTMENT:  A. Indian investment
trades-off with SE asian nations, B. Instability in SE asia prevents
investment, (this is good b/c)  C.  Decrease investment = Indo-Pak war

Vs. Northwestern [Frigates and F-16s to Philippines]

EXTERNALIZATION:  A. All have inner feelings of guilt but act to repress
[Sewall '95], B. Blaming industries is a scapegoat & masks problems [Bobertz
'96], C. Intrspection key to solving [O'Connor '95]/ CLINTON: . troop
deadline extended, but not w/o a fight, B. Must focus on domestic issues now
[USA TODAY '98], Need to maintain public pop in light of scandals, C. Bosnia
troop pull out = war/INDIA:  A. US-Indo relations high now, B. Finding buyer
for F-16s , payback Pakistan boosts US-Pak relations, US-INDO-PAK relations
a zero-sum, C. US-Indo relations key to security and decreasing prolif/CASE:
Presence high now, SOFA signed and solves, alt causes to coral reefs,
Fischer doesn't assume Frigates or F-16s--would never achieve his notion of
deterrence

NORTHWESTERN

Vs. Mercer VA [HISAR]
Off-case positions
SERIAL EXISTANCE - Mahathir blamed economic collapse on Jews and that's
racist [Singapore Straits Times, 10/19/97], Must cut off ties with evil
institutions to form an effective response - isolation is the best response
[Gordon and Gordon 95, Sartre and Evil], Weak responses to evil condemns us
to a serial existence rendering life meaningless [Gordon x2], Committing
yourself to fighting evils can change society and the evils while moving
closer to an authentic existence [Gordon x2]. ILSA - Iran oil deal - US
asst. directly contradicts (?) [D'Amato, Fed News Svc, 10/30/97], Nuclear
Terrorism leads to full scale nuke war [Louis Rene Beres, Terrorism and
Global Security, 97]. CLINTON - Malaysia policies unpopular because of
Mahathir remarks (see link to Serial Existance) [Hua, Singapore Straits
Times, 10/17/97]. EXCLUDE MALAYSIA CP - Clinton as NB.

Vs. Southern Utah  Reardon & Stapley [Aids?]

EXCLUDE BURMA CP: "Do the plan to all topic nations but Burma";  Three net
benefits:  -SHUNNING: Must be reject policies toward Burma, stops future
violence; -FAST TRACK:?; -The ONG disad [spelling?]: Sanctions on Burma
good, helps rival factions to succeed in Burma/TOPICALITY: "Security Asst."
?, but the violation becomes "must be gov't-to-gov't" in 2NC/CASE:  mostly
education won't solve HIV and Burma solving problem HIV now/the standard
strategy

Vs. John Carroll  Lavelle & Wiley [Magic Lanterns]

CP:  US Navy shall provide all necessary training & supplies to the Republic
of Singapore for the purpose of creating marine mammal mine detection teams.
[Austin-American Statesman 11-23-97, Williams 4-19-96  Federal News Service,
Holzer  Defense News  11-16-97]/TOPICALITY:  "Sec. Assist."-must be increase
budget appropriation, not lift export ban/CHINA: A. Sino-US relations
increasing [Asian Political News, 1-26-96] B. Magic Lanterns = ASW
capability-China freaks [Binnenoijk '97 STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT 1997-it's a
great annual gov doc]  C.  Decreasing relations risks huge Asian war, would
fight Taiwan with nukes [Chicago Tribune, 2-6-96]/CONGO DISAD:  A. Money w/i
Foreign Assist. budget trades-off with Aid to Africa, B. Plan Spends Money,
C. Trade-off hurts peace in Africa (How descriptive!)/CASE:  No miscalc, no
war, US presence checks war

Vs. Miami (OH) [Floating Base to Thailand]

Off-case Positions
T- NOT TO SEA / ASEAN - security dialogue now [Oh, US Foreign and Strategic
Policy in the Post-Cold War Era, 96], Increased US action decreases security
dialogue [Jakarta Post 6-28-97], regional security key to avoid conflict
escalation / CHINA  - increasing security coop with China now [Asia
Political News 1-26-98], Increased security in Asia = decreased China coop
[Binnendjik, Strategic Assessment 97], China sphere of influence = conflict
[Binnendijk], Decreased China coop = war,  prolif and decreased growth
[Ross, Boston Globe, 10-26-97], Taiwan conflict outweighs case [Chicago
Tribune 2-6-96] / CP - Deploy an aircraft carrier to the Middle East
Case Arguments
US presence now, US committed to Middle East now.

OREGON

vs. Mercer CD [Anti-terrorism]
Off-case positions
ASIANIZATION - Asianization increasing now, Unilateral SA stops it,
Asianization key to solve SCS conflict / PATRIARCHY KRITIK - Security is
patriarchal, must reject patriarchy
Case Arguments
Terrorism = propaganda, must reject propaganda, No impact to terrorism,
won't get/use nukes, Economic crisis = local self reliance, local
self-reliance key to peace [cites; Edward Goldsmith and Jerry Mander [eds.]
, The Case Against the Global Economy and for a Turn to the Local, 1996].

PACE

Vs. Northwestern Kastanek & Johnson [frigates & fighters to Phil.]
CP #1:  New Zealand will aquire and give Osprey hovercrafts to the
Philippines [Srthur Salagan, Bus. Daily, 1-2-98]/CP #2:  The US gov't will
offer loans for the purchase of advanced fighter aircraft already offered to
the Philippines/CLINTON GOOD:  Frigates unpopular/CASE: presence not
decreasing (Cohen trip), Alt. causes to coral decrease, SOFA will pass

Vs. C. Methodist Meador & Strodtman [Democracy promotion to China]
CLINTON:  Winners win, NATO bad impact/THREAT CONSTRUCTION KRITIK/NUCLEARISM
KRITIK: realism link/JIANG:  Concessions on S. China Seas kills Jiang (at
least its not Kenny!), causes nuclear civil war/ SOLVENCY PROBLEM/DELAY CP:
Delay until after NATO/BAN IDEALISTIC FOREIGN POLICY TOWARDS CHINA CP:
Don't do realism/TOPICALITY:  four violations--1. Must INCREASE an existing
program, 2. Sec. Assist. = ESF, IMET, FMF, 3. Plan doesn't Increase, only
replaces current foreign policy, 4.  Plan is not toward SE Asia/2NR went for
T (wouldn't you?)

Vs. Wheaton WC [Civizational Dialogue]

SA TOPICALITY:  Plan can only be and increase in four budget programs (I
assume FMS, FMF, IMET and MAP)/CLINTON:  A. Democracy promotion unpopular,
B. Decreasing pop kills IMF bailout [Washington Times, 1-27-97, "Clinton's
popularity may have been shaken by the scandal..."], C. Lack of bailout =
stock market crash & conflict/EXCLUDE CAMBODIA CP:Do plan, but exclude
Cambodia [Fisher '97]...n/b was HUN SEN/...2NR went for CP and argues that
the plan can't solve b/c Republicans will use it to attack Clinton

SOUTHERN UTAH

Vs. Encryption
Off-Case positions
T- SHOULD = OBLIGATION, T - TECH TRANSFER ISN'T S.A. [US Dept of Air Force,
12-16-91] releasability and tech transfers aren't security asst. - they're
defense coop., RUSSIAN MISCALC - because of U.S. influence, ORIENTALISM
KRITIK - Theoretics (e.g. what is Orientalism?) [Said, Orientalism,  1978],
Tech is elitist in nature [Robert S. Boyd, Knight-Ridder News Service,
1994], Fiat is illusionary, Af. Advocacy has no timeframe, impact of
advocating racism , imperialism and ethnocentrism = asian are rejecting the
Western Agenda [The Hindu, 3/27/97].

Vs. Miami [Agent Orange]
Off-case Positions
JAPAN CP - Japan buys the tech from private US company that makes the foam
and then does the plan / JAPAN SECURITY ALLIANCE DA - NB to the CP / CHINA
DA - China will resist any increased US influence in SEA [Pendley, Heritage
Foundation Reports, 6/2/97], China will use force in the reaction, Chinese
miscalc risks World War.

Vs. Ball State MP [Frigate and F-16's to the Philippines]
Off-Case positions
T- SHOULD MEANS OBLIGATION [Random House] / CHINA CONTAINMENT BAD DA -
China's hypersensitive to sovereignty issues [Pendley, 6/2/97, Heritage
Foundation Reports], China doesn;t like containment [Waldron, Commentary,
3/97], China will use force [Waldron], China miscalc = world war [Seth, Free
China Journal, 9/19/97], Every action is key [Dole, 6/97, Washington Times]
/ MIDDLE EAST TRADEOFF DA
Case Arguments
Capitalism argument off economy advantage, plan vagueness.

Vs. Johnson Co. SO [ Sea Mines/Magic Lantern]

DOLPHINS CP:  Gov't will work to establish a marine mammal program to locate
sea mines in all relevant areas in SE Asia.  Dolphina better than tech
[AUSTIN-AMERICAN STATESMAN 11-23-97; David Wood, Seattle Times 10-15-97],
CASE: Solvency ans.-Magic Lanterns don't work [Muradian '97, Defence Daily
10-23-97;  Helicopter News 10-3-97]

SMS

Vs.  USC  Stetson & Hurder [Indonesian Access Agreements]

BACK CHINA CP: "The US will unconditionally back China's claim to the
Spratly's and Sea lanes [Latiff '96, Straits Times, 9-1-96, "hirearchy of
power"]/THREAT CONSTRUCTION/case outs/2NR went for Threat Construction.  2AR
goes for:  no link, not toward China/no alternative/performative
contradictions/perms/Rorty-- public/private distinction

Vs. JCU [Seamines]

GREECE/TURKEY - The plan increases the workload of SA agencies causing a
focus tradeoff from Greece/Turkey conflict / T - SA.

SW TEXAS

Vs. Michigan State ?

TOPICALITY: Substantial-w/o material qualification; Increase-must be an
existing program; SA-Must be all 5 components/INDIA:  You piss off India
(nice link story), disrupts arms control/DEVELOPMENT KRITIK/...2NR went for
DEVELOPMENT [Trainer '95, '85]

TOWSON

Vs. Northwestern Johnson & Kay-Oliphant [sell planes to Philippines]

PERPETUAL PEACE DISAD:  engagement stops diplomacy, which is key to avoiding
war [Tenson '96]/ OFFSETS:  arms sales = offsets = arms race (see ADI "Big
Stick" packet)/IMF DISAD:  US involvement in SE Asia & New arms sales
destroy IMF [Financial Times, Jan 25-30 '98  some time this week]/CASE:
China not a threat, Japan won't rearm

Vs. MSU OS [Encryption]
Off-case positions
T - SA MUST BE IN THE BUDGET /  T- EFFECTS / CP - DELAY (until after the
NATO vote) / AFRICA AID TRADEOFF DA / CLINTON BAD - NATO BAD

USC

Vs. Ball State MP [Philippine F-16's]
Off-case Arguments
ASEAN DA - bilateralism decreases ASEAN strength, ASEAN solves war / CLINTON
- Diversion from scandal focus leading to gridlock, stops UN debt repayment
and fast track and they're good. / ACRI TRADEOFF - Spending trades off with
African aid / INDIA - BJP elections, plan seen as concession to west so BJP
wins the election / EXTRA T - selling tech isn't security assistance
Case arguments
Containment bad, kills relations with China leads to conflict, no war in SEA.

Vs. MTSU IC [CMAC]
Off-case arguments
T- Landmine clearance = humanitarian assistance not SA / AFRICA AID TRADEOFF
/ CLINTON - must wait until scandals have passed to do foreign policy, if
not he can't get UN debt repayment. UN = peace. / ASEAN - bilateral ties
crush ASEAN credibility, decreased ASEAN credibility = war in region / CP
AUSTRALIA - have Australia give the tech, if necessary buy it from US
companies, Net benefit = US/Australian relations on brink of breakdown,
kills deterrence and hurts SEA economy. / EUROPE (?)
Case Arguments
Tech isn't ready and can't solve, other countries tech solving

Vs. ???? [CMAC]

Off-case arguments
CLINTON - Aid unpopular, NATO impact / T - GOVT TO GOVT - NOT CMAC / CHINA -
Cambodia is a key China/US issue, North Korea impact
Case Arguments
Cambodian Elections - plan aid helps SQ government killing future elections,
technology doesn't exist, tech creates a false sense of security, deaths
exaggerated, Khmer Rouge still lays mines, Tech casues false alarms, CMAC
database doesn;t solve and CMAC education fails.

UTSA

Vs. Mercer HB [HISAR]

TOPICALITY:  "To"-Not specific to particular nations; "SA"-not same as
military-to-military/PLAN VAGUENESS/CHINA:  soft power threat fuels
nationalism/ASEAN CP:  Solve case and avoids China/CASE:  Demining answers,
pimps
1AC action. [Acharya, Adelphi Paper #279, 8/93, p. 32  / Owsley, Syracuse J
of Intl Law and Commerce, Spring 95, p. 219 / Roy, Security Dialogue]

WEBER

Vs. USC BM (Magic Lanterns to Singapore)
Off-case positions
T - INCREASE ISN'T CREATE, creating a new policy isn't topical, must add on
to existing SA / US-SINO COOP - US unilateral action upsets China and they
are the most important actor in SEA / READINESS - troops and helicopters are
key to the Gulf theater, preventing multiple world wars / BRITAIN CP - Give
US magic lantern helicopters to British Forces in the Persian Gulf - Solves
gulf war and avoids Readiness and China as net bens /  INVESTOR CONFIDENCE -
East Asian economic reform is shaky now, military expenditures undermine
investor confidence in the region, leading to world wide economic collapse.
Case arguments
Other forces can solve Singapore mine problems, arms races decreasing in
SEA, IMF = anti-american backlash in region. \

Vs. Miami WP [PKO's/Malaysia]

CHINA CONSULTATION CP: Wang '98/IMF BAILOUT?:IMF restrictions prevent any
new military development in SE Asia?/ASEAN ("camp style")/TOPICALITY:
Increase not create/READINESS:  PKO's hurt readiness

WHEATON

Vs. Whitman  Clarke & Scoville [Pacatom]
TOPICALITY:  "Sec. Assist.": U.S. codes definition, FMF?  AND "Substantially
increase":  can't mandate specific countries; T is probablistic/CHINA:
Nationalism story with Taiwan impact/CLINTON:  New policies decrease
Clinton's Asia credibility; destabilizes IMF/NEOCOLONIALISM:  South Asia
policy is used to impose US interests, used to dominate peoples, must reject
security policy reevaluate assumptions [definite claim as kritik
implications]/GEN. CASE ARGS.:  Meltdowns inevitable, case legitimizes nuke
power--causes accidents and nuke terrorism

Vs. Miami (FL) GP [Agent Orange]

CLINTON - IMF IMPACT (Don't know which way) / T - SA / DIALOGUE CP /
NEOCOLONIALISM KRITIK [Cite: Parenti, Against Empire, 95], demining
expensive, churning soil releases AO, Dioxin's not bad.

WHITMAN

Vs. Michigan State Woidan & Rand [Encryption]
RUSSIAN TRADE-OFF?/CHINA RELATIONS/CLINTON BAD-NATO/TOPICALITY: Sec. Assist.
must be military-to-military/terrorism turns on case



From lheller  Mon Feb  2 19:52:05 1998
From: lheller (Lisa K. Heller)
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 20:52:05 -0500
Subject: Free paper opportunity!
Message-ID: <MON.2.FEB.1998.205205.0500.LHELLER@RICHMOND.EDU>

Debate community,

We use a TON of paper in debate. Truly one of the things that MOST breaks
my heart about the activity.

Here's an opportunity to encourage more environmental paper production AND
get free paper. Seems like a win-win situation to me. Hope some of you go
for it.

Lisa

 PS - Hey, with Environmental Regulation and Oceans topic backfiles, this
contest is going a cinch!

>Resent-date: Mon, 02 Feb 1998 19:21:45 -0500
>Date: Mon, 02 Feb 1998 19:17:24 -0500 (EST)
>Resent-from: ecotalk at earthsystems.org
>From: Ecolady at aol.com
>Subject: Prevention of water pollution campaign!
>Resent-sender: ecotalk-request at earthsystems.org
>Resent-to: multiple recipients of <ecotalk at earthsystems.org>
>To: ecotalk at earthsystems.org
>Reply-to: ecotalk at earthsystems.org
>
>Hi!
>PLEASE REPLY TO:  ECOLADY at AOL.COM
>This is part of a company campaign to promote the use of chlorine-free paper
>to help prevent water pollution!
>
>Could your non-profit organization use a free carton of  white processed
>chlorine-free recycled paper?  Enter our writing contest for our on-line
>environmental newsletter. Submit an article - Length: 4 paragraphs or less -
>Deadline: March 1, 1998 - Subject: anything relating to the prevention of
>water pollution.  You can include promotional and contact information for
your
>organization at the bottom of the article.  The winner receives a free carton
>of  white processed chlorine-free recycled paper and a free link off the home
>page (http://www.PCW100.com) and the article appears in the on-line
>environmental newsletter.  Please submit articles directly to me at
>Ecolady at aol.com or e-mail me directly with any questions.  Thanks, Angela
>
>
>
>       To unsubscribe from EcoTalk send a message to
>       ecotalk-request at earthsystems.org with the word
>       unsubscribe in the subject. If you have any
>       problems please write to: www at earthsystems.org
>
>



From race  Mon Feb  2 22:17:47 1998
From: race (David Bruce Rhaesa)
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 21:17:47 -0700
Subject: Un/Readable Ballots
Message-ID: <MON.2.FEB.1998.211747.0700.RACE@MIDUSA.NET>

WGC Debate Team wrote:
>
> well at West Georgia we used the ballots that have the short white copy,
> for the tab room, and 3 carbon copies.  Instead of keeping the top copy
> and the short copy for the tab room, I kept the bottom copy (usually
> unreadable) and gave the first two copies to the teams.  Seems to me that
> the top two copies were usually readable.
>         As far as using 1 copy and having the staff copy them, I  can say
> from experince that this method would be a pain in the butt.  With
> everything else we have to do, making 2 copies of ballots is to time
> consuming.
>         But I do agree that something needs to be done, my vote is for
> better carbon copies.

the judges should stop using that damn invisible INK.

DR



From fls5820  Mon Feb  2 21:54:02 1998
From: fls5820 (Frank L Stevens)
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 21:54:02 -0600
Subject: Cornell Tournament
Message-ID: <MON.2.FEB.1998.215402.0600.FLS5820@KSU.EDU>

Hi -
        We here at KSU would like to hear from anyone who's going to be at
Cornell this weekend.  We will have 3 teams there (listed below).  If
naybody wants to share thier plan and 1ac cites w/ us, that'd be cool.
if not, teams is cool, too.

We have 2 open teams.

1.  Zollman & Glaser.  They run an Incidents at Sea Agreements case.  They
expand on the 1972 IAS treaty w/ russia to include sea nations.
Advantages are arms races and sloc closure.

2.  West and Denny.  Pirates.  They do the expand CINPAC version like
Harvard.  Advantages are Coral Reefs, Fishing, and Accidental escalation.

JV - Mccollough and Spencer.  Subic Bay.  They give tech and cash to clean
up Subic Bay and Clark.  Advantage is marine species.

Looking forward to being in Ithica -
Monte



From JM86STU  Mon Feb  2 21:52:50 1998
From: JM86STU (Rebecca L Congo)
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 21:52:50 CST
Subject: Ark State team list?
Message-ID: <MON.2.FEB.1998.215250.CST.JM86STU@SEMOVM.SEMO.EDU>

Just wondering if there will be a team list for Ark State this
weekend?  Thanks,

Rebecca Congo
SEMO Debate



From kcd5  Mon Feb  2 23:10:56 1998
From: kcd5 (Kristin Chisholm Dybvig)
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 23:10:56 -0600
Subject: Cornell Coaching position
Message-ID: <MON.2.FEB.1998.231056.0600.KCD5@CORNELL.EDU>

Cornell University has a one year coaching position open for 98-99.  The
position includes coaching and administrative duties with a salary of
10,000-13,000.  Applicants should have a Bachelors degree.  If you are
interested please backchannel me for more information.

Kristin Dybvig
Cornell University
kcd5 at cornell.edu
607-255-8046



From SavoieLD99.CS11.USAFA  Mon Feb  2 23:46:05 1998
From: SavoieLD99.CS11.USAFA (Cadet Luke D. Savoie, x-4581)
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 22:46:05 MST
Subject: Point Loma
Message-ID: <MON.2.FEB.1998.224605.MST.SAVOIELD99.CS11.USAFA@USAFA.AF.MIL>

Does anyone know the teams going to Point Loma this weekend and is there a
case list out?

>From  Tue Feb  3 02:04:38 1998
Message-Id: <TUE.3.FEB.1998.020438.EST.>
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 02:04:38 EST
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: John Carroll Only
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

Could someone from John Carroll please backchannel me, thanks.

Jim
SJSU



From gabp  Mon Feb  2 21:50:34 1998
From: gabp (Gabrielle Prisco)
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 22:50:34 -0500
Subject: Cornell Coaching position
Message-ID: <MON.2.FEB.1998.225034.0500.GABP@JUNO.COM>

Hi,

I am extremely interested in Cornell.  I am from NYC and have visited
friends at Cornell and love the school.  I will graduate with a B.S. in
Human Resources and Organizational Development and a minor in Women's
Studies.  Is this a graduate assistantship or just pure coaching?  Please
send me all relevant information, I would be very excited to apply.  I
can be reached by e-mail and at the following:

Gabrielle Prisco
2221 Elliston Place, Number 8
Nashville, TN. 37203

615-320-3882

On Mon, 2 Feb 1998 23:10:56 -0600 Kristin Chisholm Dybvig
<kcd5 at CORNELL.EDU> writes:
>Cornell University has a one year coaching position open for 98-99.
>The
>position includes coaching and administrative duties with a salary of
>10,000-13,000.  Applicants should have a Bachelors degree.  If you are
>interested please backchannel me for more information.
>
>Kristin Dybvig
>Cornell University
>kcd5 at cornell.edu
>607-255-8046
>

_____________________________________________________________________
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 mkuss  Tue Feb  3 08:48:37 1998
From: mkuss (Matthew Kuss)
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 08:48:37 -0600
Subject: Florida Swing Invite
Message-ID: <TUE.3.FEB.1998.084837.0600.MKUSS@UWF.EDU>

Dear Colleagues,

Your are cordially invited to attend the 2nd Annual Florida Sunshine Swing
Tournament hosted by the University of West Florida and the University of
Florida. This year's tournament dates are March 6th through the 8th. This
years swing is also being held in Pensacola, so you will be able to enjoy
our beautiful campus as well as the nation's whitest beaches.

There will be two IE tournaments, the first hosted by UWF, the second by
UF, and the UF team will be hosting a full six round CEDA tournament as
well. We will be offering Tabloid Extemp at the UF half, and Impromptu ADS
at the UWF half.

If you have any questions, please feel free to call or email. We look
forward to seeing you!

Toni Whitfield
Director of Forensics, UWF
twhitfie at uwf.edu
850.474.2332

Kellie Roberts
Director of Forensics, UF
kroberts at cpd.ufl.edu

Angela Adema
Assistant Coach, UWF
aadema at students.uwf.edu
850.474.2895

Rob Klingler
Assistant Coach, UF
orb at atlantic.net

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 MAY NOT enter Individual Events.

Flight A: Extemp, Persuasion, Duo, and POI
Flight B: Imp, Prose, Informative, Tabloid Extemp (UF half only)
Flight C: ADS, CA, DI, Poetry

Special Events: The University of Florida will be offering Tabloid
Extemporaneous Speaking. Instead of using the same standard sources, the
students will draw from 'made-up' information from supermarket tabloids
such as The Star, The National Enquirer, and Weekly World News. Students
must provide their own sources. Students will be given 15 minutes prep to
prepare a 5 minute speech. There will be two prelims, a semi and final
round of this event.

The University of West Florida will be offering Impromptu After Dinner
Speaking. Student will have a total of 5 minutes to prepare and present an
impromptu speech based on a given topic. The speech's purpose will be
strictly to entertain. There will be one round of Impromptu ADS held
directly before the awards ceremony while the other events are being
tabulated.

Pentathlon: A student must be entered in any 5 events to be eligible for
pentathlon.

Debate:
We have six rounds of preliminary competition in both open and novice
divisions. Time limits will be 8-3-5 with 8 minutes prep.

Elimination rounds: Teams will advance into elimination rounds based upon
the following formula: 1.Win-loss record  2.Total team points  3.Adjusted
team points 4.Double-adjusted team points

Speaker awards: Speaker awards will be based on the following formula:
1.Total speaker points 2.Adjusted speaker points 3.Double adjusted speaker
points 4.Ranks

Judging:
One IE judge will cover 6 slots. One debate judge will cover two teams.
Each school is asked to provide a qualified judge to cover all debate teams
entered. Judges will be required to judge one round beyond their team's
elimination. We do not expect a large local pool to draw from, therefore we
appreciate any additional commitment you may be willing to make (And we are
willing to pay...)

Awards:
The winning open division debate team will receive the Smather's Travelling
Debate Trophy. All individual event finalists and debate teams in
elimination rounds will receive awards. The top five speakers in each
division of CEDA debate will receive speaker awards. Awards will be given
for pentathlon as well.

Sweepstakes:
The University of Florida will award the top IE school and the top Debate
school. The University of West Florida will award the top three IE schools.
Both halves of the tournament will recognize the top Community College. An
overall Florida Sunshine Swing Award will be given to the top school
competing in both halves of the tournament.

Deadlines:
All entries must be received by 4:00 pm Monday, March 2nd, 1998. Drops can
be phoned in until Wednesday March 4th at noon. After this time we will
impose a late-drop fee of an additional 10.00 per slot. Refer to each entry
form for the appropriate phone and fax numbers and email addresses.

Parking:
As you enter the UWF campus please stop by the Information Center to
receive parking permits and maps.

Lodging:
We reserved a block of rooms at two hotels- both are located on Davis Hwy.
(Exit 5 off I-10 & to the right).
Shoney's Inn (40 rooms) is $58 plus tax for 1-4 people. For reservations
call 1-850-484-8070.
La Quinta Inn (30 rooms) is $59 plus tax for 1-4 people. Reservations
1-850-474-0411.

Refer to the Florida Swing Tournament when making reservations.
Reservations must be made by February 25th to guarantee these rates.

Additional hotels:
Super 8 Motel  7220 Plantation Rd. (850) 476-8038
Hampton Inn  7330 Plantation Rd. (850) 477-3333
Holiday Inn I-10 and Davis Hwy (850) 474-0100

Florida Sunshine Swing Tournament Individual Events Schedule

UWF
Friday March 6th
10::00 am - 12:00 pm    Registration Bldg. 36
12:30                           Extemp Draw, Bldg 36, Rm. 191
1:00                    Flight A, Rd. 1
2:15                    Extremp Draw
2:45                    Flight A, Rd. 2
4:00                    Flight B, Rd 1
5:15                    Flight B, Rd 2
6:30                    Flight C, Rd 1
7:45                    Flight C, Rd 2

Saturday March 7th
7:30 am                 Coffee, bagels. Lobby of Bldg. 36
8:00                    Extemp draw for finals
8:30                    Finals Flight A
9:45                    Finals Flight B
11:00                   FInals Flight C
12:15-1:15              Lunch Break and Impromptu ADS
1:30                    Awards

UF
Saturday March 7th
2:30pm                  Extemp Draw
3:00                    Flight A, Rd 1
4:15                    Extemp Draw
4:45                    Flight A, Rd 2
6:00                    Flight B, Rd 1
7:15                    Flight B, Rd 2

Sunday March 8th
7:30am                  Coffee, bagels. Lobby of Bldg 36
8:00                    Flight C, Rd 1
9:15                    Flight C, Rd 2
10:30                   Extemp Draw for Finals
11:00                   Finals Flight A
12:15                   Finals Flight B
1:30                    Lunch Break
2:30                    Finals Flight C
4:30                    Awards


28th Annual Gator Invitational Debate Schedule

Friday March 6th
10:00 am to 12:00 pm    Registration Bldg 36
**Debate Ballot Pickup- College of Education**
1:30 to 3:00            Round 1
3:30 to 5:00            Round 2
6:00 to 7:30            Round 3

Saturday March 7th
8:30 am to 9:00         Ballot pickup, coffee...
9:00 to 10:30           Round 4
11:30 to 1:00           Round 5
2:00 to 3:30            Round 6
4:30                    First elim round

Sunday March 8th
8:00 am to 8:30         Ballot pickup, coffee...
9:00                    Second elim round
11:00-ish               Awards
11:30-ish               Elims continue

Debate judges are allowed to provide short oral critiques as long as the
decision is turned in prior to the critique.

Registration forms:

UWF Marks Tournament
Deadline: Monday March 2nd by 5:00 CST
Please phone, fax, mail, or email entries. Phone: 850.474.2895
Fax: 850.474.3153 email: twhitfie at uwf.edu

School:___________________________________________
Coach:___________________________________________
Phone# W:________________________    H:__________________________
Flight A (triple entered, up to 6 per event)
Extemp                  Persuasion              Duo                     POI






Flight B
Impromptu               Prose           Informative     Impromptu ADS (UWF only)






Flight C
ADS             CA              DI              Poetry





Pentathlon:


Judges for IE:


Fees:
Each IE slot is $6 (only $5 if attending both halves)=  __________
Uncovered slots $6 (1 judge = 6 slots)=         __________
Drop Fees:: (each slot $10)=                    __________
Total Fees                                      ___________

Make checks payable to Toni S. Whitfield

Mail entries, by March 2nd, 1998, to:

Toni S. Whitfield
The University of West Florida
11000 University Parkway
Communication Department- Bldg. 36
Pensacola, FL  32514

University of Florida 28th Annual Gator Invitational
Deadline: March 2nd by 5:00pm CST
Please phone, fax, mail, or email entries. Phone # 352.392.5421  Fax
352.392.5420 email kroberts at cpd.ufl.edu

School:_________________________________
Coach:_________________________________
Phone # W:__________________________    H:______________________________

Flight A (triple entered, up to 6 students per event)
Extemp                  Persuasion              Duo             POI






Flight B
Impromptu               Prose           Informative             Tabloid Extemp (UF only)






Flight C
ADS             CA              DI              Poetry







Pentath:


Judges for IE:



Open Division CEDA:





Novice Division CEDA:




Judges for Debate:



Fees:
CEDA teams ($50 each)                   =__________
Uncovered teams ($40 each)              =__________
Each IE slot $6 ($5 if at both halves)  =__________
Uncovered slots $6 (1 judge = 6 slots)  =__________
Drop fees (each slot $10)                       =__________
Total Fees:                             =__________

Make checks payable to Kellie W. Roberts

Mail entries to reach UF by Monday March 2nd

Kellie W. Roberts
The University of Florida
Center for Written and Oral Communication
PO Box 112032
Gainesville, FL  32611

Directions:

>From I-10: Take exit 5 to Davis Hwy. Proceed north on Davis to University
Parkway. Take a left on University and it will take you straight to UWF.

>From Hwy 98: Travel west on 98 across the 3 mile bridge to Gregory Street.
Take Gregory to I-110, and take that to I-10 east. Take the first exit,
exit 5, and follow the above directions...

>From I-65 south: Take exit 69 (Flomaton) and follow hwy 29 into Pensacola.
Take I-10 east towards Tallahassee, take exit 5 onto Davis hwy. See the
above instructions from there...

Maps were sent out in the mailed copies. If you need a map, just email
twhitfie at uwf.edu and we can fax you one.

We look forward to seeing each of you there. :)

Matthew Kuss
Captain, University of West Florida Forensics
mkuss at uwf.edu



From reno  Tue Feb  3 09:10:42 1998
From: reno (Roy H. Eno)
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 09:10:42 -0600
Subject: Saluki Hospitality
In-Reply-To: <282752a9.34d5a473@aol.com>
Message-ID: <TUE.3.FEB.1998.091042.0600.RENO@LONESTAR.JPL.UTSA.EDU>

Hola Salukis: We just returned from our first Saluki "experience" and I
want to chime in with all the other s who have posted thanks.  Your
tournament was superbly managed and your hospitality was
incredible--thanks for a great time!

Skip Eno & Debaters



From Y946  Tue Feb  3 11:13:41 1998
From: Y946 (Layne II, Robert Bailey)
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 11:13:41 CST
Subject: Point Loma
In-Reply-To: In reply to your message of Mon, 02 Feb 1998 23:46:05 CST
Message-ID: <TUE.3.FEB.1998.111341.CST.Y946@ACADEMIC.TRUMAN.EDU>

Does anyone know who is going to Point Loma and is there a case list
available?
                     Rob Layne, TSU

>From  Tue Feb  3 11:23:39 1998
Message-Id: <TUE.3.FEB.1998.112339.CST.>
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 11:23:39 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: Case Disclosure for Ark State

Open teams attending Ark State this weekend:
We're developing a case disclosure list for this weekends tournament,
(obviously, if you're planning on breaking a new case you're not expected
or required to disclose it). Backchannel me with your plan/adv's or sc's
claimed and I will reply with a copy of our plan/sc's as well as the plan's
of others who contribute to the list (will update through Friday morning).

Thanx in advance

Bob Alexander, NLU Debte


*note this will be the only posting to the list service, the disclosure list
 a copy



From dgenco  Tue Feb  3 11:41:36 1998
From: dgenco (Dave Kingston)
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 11:41:36 -0600
Subject: Need results sheets...please help
Message-ID: <TUE.3.FEB.1998.114136.0600.DGENCO@EARTHLINK.NET>

We're filling out our bid, but need some results packets.
We need:

South Carolina
South Carolina RR
Capital Cities Debates
Redlands RR
William Jewell

Gotta love it. If you have these or know who I can contact please let me
know.  You can fax them to me at (816)235-5539 or you can email them to me.
 Whatever is most convenient for you.

Thanks
Dav



From piccirs  Tue Feb  3 11:51:19 1998
From: piccirs (Shannon Piccirillo)
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 12:51:19 -0500
Subject: Contact to join ADA???
Message-ID: <TUE.3.FEB.1998.125119.0500.PICCIRS@ALLEG.EDU>

Could someone who has the information on how to join the ADA, ie. who I
send the check to, how much, etc., please backchannel me??


Thanks in advance.

Shannon Piccirillo
Allegheny Debate

>From  Tue Feb  3 12:36:21 1998
Message-Id: <TUE.3.FEB.1998.123621.0600.>
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 12:36:21 -0600
Reply-To: Jensen_Scott/web_media at WEBSTER.EDU
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Jensen_Scott/web_media at WEBSTER.EDU
Subject: public debate rules/formats
Comments: To: parli at willamette.edu

Item Subject: Message text
I am wondering if anyone familiar with public debate formats could help
me.  I am very interested in learning more about different rules and
formats that have been used in public debate divisions.  If anyone
reading this could fax or email me rules, descriptions, and formats I
would be most appreciative.

Thanks so much!

Scott Jensen
Director of Forensics
(314) 968-7439--office
(314) 968-7403--fax
jensensc at websteruniv.edu



From z955646  Tue Feb  3 12:44:48 1998
From: z955646 (Dedov)
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 12:44:48 -0600
Subject: Unreadable ballots
In-Reply-To: <s4d5d3fe.086@esumail.emporia.edu>
Message-ID: <TUE.3.FEB.1998.124448.0600.Z955646@OATS.FARM.NIU.EDU>

On Mon, 2 Feb 1998, Rodger Biles wrote:

> I'd be delighted to get a ballot back with something written on it other than
> "oral critique" or the prep time used by each team.  (readable or
> otherwise)

        AGREED!  This has been something that I have been thinking about
a lot lately.  I am strongly in favor of the oral reason for decision,
however, it seems that whatever the decision by the judge is, it may be
completely or partially forgotten over the course of a tournament; except
for the "who won, who lost" portion.  The instructive portions of the
critique if only oral are subject to a debaters bias, poor memory, or
disgruntled attitude.  Consequentially, when a debater talks to a coach
about a round, and the coach has no statement on a ballot to refer to,
the coach has to take the debaters word for what happened.  This is not
to suggest that the debater misleads the coach, but she or he may have
forgotton some educational point that the critic mentioned and thus lose
out on becoming more refined in that area.  The debater's report to the
coach on the "oral critique" may also be colored by the debater's
feelings - good, or bad - about a particular round.
        If the critics took the time - during the round (cx or prep
time)- to be a bit more instructive on the ballot and to point out some
areas for improvement, then (assuming the ballots get to the team after
the tourney is over) the coach has something to work from.  There are
some cirtics who do this and their ballots are instructive.  But the
proliferation of the "Oral Critique" ballots stymie round specific or
fine-point coaching.  Maybe I am the only one who cannot completely rely
on myself to 1. remember all of what was pointed out as areas of needed
improvement in an oral critique, 2. not let my post-decision feelings
color my reporting of the oral critique to my coach, but i doubt that i
am alone.
        I know that lengthy decision making, and hurried schedules, and
penalties for late starts prevent critics from devoting large chunks of
time after a round to filling out a complete ballot, but there must be a
happy medium somewhere.  Unless all the debaters in an "Oral Critique"
round do not need improvement in any area, and the Oral Critique
consisted only of the Reason for Decision, then the critics should be a
bit more involved with the rounds they are judging and take a moment to
fill out some instructive comments on the ballots.  There will still
probably be enough time to get a drink, smoke, or listen by the door of
another round.

just my $.02
Billy
NIU



From pjg154  Tue Feb  3 16:06:36 1998
From: pjg154 (Pat J Gehrke)
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 14:06:36 -0800
Subject: Hawaii's Region?
Message-ID: <TUE.3.FEB.1998.140636.0800.PJG154@PSU.EDU>

I am trying to account for all 50 states in their CEDA regions. The
constitution seems somewhat incomplete on these. Below is the regions &
their components, as it seems to be in the constitution. What I cannot
figure out is where Hawaii goes. Is it with North Cal/Reno or is it with
South Cal/Arizona/Vegas? Any other corrections to the below are appreciated.

Anyone know?

-Pat Gehrke
pjg154 at psu.edu

Northwest (Alaska, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Helena, MT.)
West (Northern California zip codes 9300-9700, and Reno, NV.)
PSCFA (Southern California zip codes 9000-9299, Arizona, and Las Vegas, NV.)
Rocky Mountain (Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, New Mexico, Montana, and El Paso,
TX.)
North Central (Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, South Dakota, North Dakota,
Nebraska and Illinois.)
Mid-America (Missouri, Kansas and Oklahoma.)
East Central (Ohio, Indiana, Michigan and West Virginia.)
South Central & Southeast Central (Louisiana, Texas, Kentucky, Tennessee,
Arkansas, Mississippi and Alabama.)
Southeast (North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and Florida)
The East (Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Vermont, New York,
Maine, Pennsylvania, D. C., Maryland, New Jersey, Connecticut, Delaware, and
Virginia.)



From m993264  Tue Feb  3 12:29:05 1998
From: m993264 (Midshipman Adam Johnston, USNA)
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 13:29:05 -0500
Subject: Navy tournament results
Message-ID: <TUE.3.FEB.1998.132905.0500.M993264@NADN.NAVY.MIL>

Here are the complete results of elimination rounds from the 40th Annual
Naval Academy Debate Tournament:

VARSITY:

Octafinals:

1 Liberty BL advances
2 Trinity LM (aff) def 15 Samford BD 2-1
3 Georgeason KW (aff) def 14 Pittsburgh CE 3-0
4 Samford JS (aff) def. 13 James Madison MW 3-0
5 George Washington DM (aff) def. 12 Wayne State MO 2-1
11 Georgia ES (aff) def. 6 Wake Forest PY 2-1
10 Georgetown BS (neg) def. 7 Harvard HS 2-1
9 George Washington ST (aff) def. 8 George Mason IR 2-1

Quarters:

Liberty BL (neg) def. George Washington ST 3-0
Georgetown BS (neg) def. Trinity LM 2-1
George Mason KW (aff) def. Georgia ES 3-0
Samford JS (aff) def. George Washington DM 2-1

Semis:

Liberty BL (aff) def. Samford JS 2-1
George Mason KW (aff) def. Georgetown BS 3-0

Finals:

George Mason KW (neg) def. Liberty BL 3-0

Congratulations to George Mason for winning all elimination round ballots
and walking away with the Pierpont trophy for the coming year.


JUNIOR VARSITY:

Octas:

1 Georgetown LM advances
2 Duke AM advances
3 Mary Washington SS advances
4 Boston College BW advances
5 Cornell HK advances
11 Trinity LP (aff) def. 6 Liberty AF 2-1
10 Liberty RV (aff) def Penn State CG 3-0
8 Allegheny GP (aff) def George Mason AK 2-1

Quarters:

Georgetown LM (neg) def. Allegheny GP 3-0
Duke AM (neg) def. Liberty RV 2-1
Trinity LP (aff) def. Mary Washington SS 3-0
Boston College BW (aff) def. Cornell HK

Semis:

Georgetown LM (neg) def. Boston College BW 2-1
Trinity LP (neg) def. Duke AM 2-1

Finals:

Georgetown LM (neg) def. Trinity LP

Semis and finals were all won by the negative team.

NOVICE:

Octas:

1 Liberty WY advances
2 Liberty TW advances
3 Liberty CT advances
4 Methodist CT advances
5 George Mason AC advances
11 Liberty FG (aff) def Trinity HR 3-0
7 Boston College KL (neg) def. 10 Penn State GL
9 Clemson LR (neg) def. West Virginia MW 3-0

Quarters:

Liberty WY (neg) def. Clemson LR 3-0
Liberty TW (aff) def. Boston College KL 2-1
Liberty CT advances
Methodist CT (aff) def. George Mason AC 3-0

Semis:

Liberty WY (neg) def. Methodist CT 3-0
Liberty TW advances

Liberty locks out the novice division (and scores a large number of
points... have fun, Brett).

Thanks to all who attended, and sorry for the delay and any typos.  Hope
to see you all next year.

Adam Johnston
U.S. Naval Academy



From mhalpin  Tue Feb  3 13:57:51 1998
From: mhalpin (Marcy Halpin)
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 13:57:51 -0600
Subject: Unreadable ballots
Message-ID: <TUE.3.FEB.1998.135751.0600.MHALPIN@WPPOST.DEPAUL.EDU>

A note on readability first:

I've noticed that photocopies don't necessarily solve "Unreadabillity".
Critics should be more aware of the color of ink they use.  My apologies
if I've ever filled out a ballot in a strange color. :)  I am sure that I've been
guilty at some point. Often times green, purple, pink, orange,  and even
some blues do not photocopy well.

In terms of written vs. oral critique.

Well, I know there is an increasing support for oral critiques and I
understand the purpose.  But I also feel a complete ballot is important.

As a coach, I read over my students' ballots looking for what happened
in the debate.  Comments on poor coverage or problems with plan help
coaches direct the areas they work on with their debaters.  I have had
debaters tell me that they did not get spread out of the round, but the
ballot said otherwise.    I can not obtain this information with a blank ballot
stating oral critique, especially if I am judging a round and do have a
chance to listen in on the oral critique.

Also.  A written ballot gives the coach the opportunity to give the debater
direction.  A debater can go into a round make an argument and have the
judge tell them after the round that it was the best argument in the world.
In another round they could make the same argument and have a judge
tell them it was the worst argument in the world.   Although I hope the
latter never happens,  the difference in debate philosophies often give
reason for written comments on the ballots where the coaches can help
explain the difference in opinion.

I am not strictly opposed to oral comments.  I think that the benefit to an
oral critique is that it does offer the possibility for a team to alter its
strategy by the next round.  But I see written comments equally important
to the critique of a debate.

Marcy Halpin
DePaul U.



From inman  Tue Feb  3 14:42:42 1998
From: inman (K. Alex Inman)
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 14:42:42 -0600
Subject: Marquette Cupid Classic
Message-ID: <TUE.3.FEB.1998.144242.0600.INMAN@MUHS.EDU>

Isn't it romantic?

Marquette University, the cutest little debate team in Wisconsin, is
hosting the Cupid Classic Debate Tournament February 13th and 14th.  All
are welcome.

This message is just a confirmation that MU has every intention of
hosting our tournament.  Heck, we already bought speaker awards!  In
fact, they are quite nice.

Some people asked about the existence of our tournament at the Saluki.
We realize John Carrol is hosting the same weekend.  They are an
outstanding program and I'm certain they will host a wonderful
tournament.  However, if you are looking for a closer drive, great
hospitality, and the sweetest little speaker awards on Valentine's Day,
please know you are always welcome at Marquette University.

Sincerely,

Alex Inman
--
K. Alex Inman
Director of Debate
Marquette University
Milwaukee, Wisconsin

inman at muhs.edu



From lsd041  Tue Feb  3 15:50:10 1998
From: lsd041 (Scott Deatherage)
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 15:50:10 -0600
Subject: Please Enter!!!
Message-ID: <TUE.3.FEB.1998.155010.0600.LSD041@NWU.EDU>

I'm about to post a list, but if you have not yet entered, please do so
asap!!!

I need to provide counts for the caterers tomorrow, and I also need to hire
some judges (or not), so a complete entry list would help.

As you enter:

1.  Please provide the first and last names of debaters and judges.

2.  Please indicated if there are schools and/or teams your judges should
not hear.

3.  Please indicate relevant dietary constraints (vegetarians, vegans,
kosher, etc).

Thanks.

SD



From lsd041  Tue Feb  3 16:16:03 1998
From: lsd041 (Scott Deatherage)
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 16:16:03 -0600
Subject: Northwestern Team List
Message-ID: <TUE.3.FEB.1998.161603.0600.LSD041@NWU.EDU>

Approximately 3:00 p.m., CST, Tuesday, February 3, 67 Teams:

Augustana (Illinois):

        Jeremy Bratt and Kate Charles
        Nathan Berish and Wesley Calvert

        Heidi Hamilton (4); Jason Jarvis (4)

Arizona State:

        Joshua Martin and Justin Skarb
        Edwin Aralica and David Williams

        Doyle Srader (8)

Baylor:

        Becky Coulter and Ben Coulter
        Chris Brasure and John Palmer
        Shawn Alexander and Christina Flora
        Meredith Black and Megan Martin

        Ryan Galloway (4); Kelly Dunbar (4); Matt Gerber (4); Ron Stevenson
(4)

Fort Hayes:

        John Clune and Andrew Halverson

        Joey Boyle (4)

Fullerton:

        Laura Heider and Demetrious Lambrinos

        Jon Bruschke (4)

George Mason:

        Peter Krein and Jake Weiner
        Jay Igiel and Richard Reed

        Neil Butt (4); Jomel Angat (4)

George Washington:

        Pramod Thammala and John Stubbs
        David Duccomon and Greg Mast

        Ronna Landy (8)

Georgia:

        Michael Cates and Christopher McIntosh
        Michael Matos and Jason Teagle
        Meredith Stein and Wally Eastwood

        Gordon Stables (4); Kate Shuster (4); Joe Bellon (4)

Georgia State:

        Nathan Horsley and Kevin Kelly

        Tom Rogers (4)

Harvard:

        Carl Engstrom and Sonja Starr

        Dappas Perkins (2); Sherry Hall (2); Scott Hessell (2); Paul
Skiermont (2)

James Madison:

        Eric Minkove and John Willemin

        Pete Bsumek (4)

John Carroll:

        Liz Wiley and Katie Lavelle
        Sig Fuchs and Ben Sovacool

        Brent Brossmann (8)

Kansas:

        Hajir Ardebili and Grant McKeehan
        Mike Eber and Amy Miller
        Ryan Hudson and Tom Seymour

        Sarah Partlow (5); Stacey Sowards (5); Scott Harris (2)

Kentucky:

        Paul Jensen and Brian Ray

        Dave Arnett (4)

Louisville:

        Michael Lee and Jonathan Westbrook
        Timothy Cochran and Haley DeVanna

        Krsna Tibbs (8)

Macalester:

        Jennifer Alme and Kiva Garen
        James Hrat and Martha Wilson

        Jim Haefele (4); Will Brewer (4)

Michigan:

        Corey Stoughton and Lesley Wexler
        Gil Karkowsky and Matt Rice
        Chris Pudelski and Gabe Scannapieco
        Matt Mish and Dan Samson

        Colin Kahl (8); Mike Dickler (8); Amy Humoweicki (4-8); Adrienne
Brovero (elims only); Steve Mancuso (elims only)

Michigan Dearborn:

        Taimaa Hussein and Aiman Mackie

        Danielle Wiese (4)

Missouri Kansas City:

        Jenny Barker and Scott Betz
        Matt Baisley and Josh COffman

        Eric Jenkins (8)

North Carolina:

        Matt Fogharty and Steve Schneider

        Cori Dauber (4)

North Texas:

        Eli Holloway and Cody Morrow
        Kenda Cunningham and Melissa Horn

        Josh Hoe (4); Christy Lowery (4)

Pace:

        Mike Kloster and Taylor Petrey

        Tim Mahoney (4)

Pittsburgh:

        Almas Sayeed and Andrew Stangl
        Lisa Corrigan and Phil Ellwood

        Maxwell Schnurer (3); Tim O'Donnell (3); Gordon Mitchell (2)

Redlands:

        John Miller and Tyson Wetzel

        Bill Southworth (4)

Samford:

        Chris Buzachero and David Dye
        Davi Johnson and Stephen Stetson

        Jenoard Neighbors (8)

Southern California:

        Adam Hurder and Roger Stetson
        Greg Bevan and John Barkowski
        Lindsey Harrison and Armond Revelins
        Ari Meltzer and Andy Weitz

        John Day (5); Jeff Griswold (6); Ted Prosise (5)

Southern Illinois:

        Eric Slusher and Geoff Smith
        Matt Moore and Joey Vuglia

        Aaron Klemz (8)

Southwest Missouri:

        Troy Payne and Matt Vega
        Andy Atkins and Joe Kilpatrick
        Wes Langford and James Martin
        Trenton Gorman and Chris Wilt

        Paul Hood (6); Eric Morris (5); John Fritch (5)

Texas:

        Brett Griffin and Judd Renken
        Kirk Evans and Jairus Grove

        Bill Shanahan (4); David Breshears (4)

Vanderbuilt:

        Gabrielle Prisco and Vinay Reddy

        Hire (4)

Wake Forest:

        Andrew Geppert and clay Rhodes
        Jarrod Atchison and Justin Green
        Emma Filstrup and Ken Rufo
        Michael Bonura and Cyclone Covey
        Elisabeth Ellis and Wesley Lotz
        Amy Powell and Mark Yopp

        Ross Smith (4); Eric Truett (4); Jim Lyle (4); Mark Grant (6);
Daveed Gartenstein-Ross (4); John Hughes (2)

Whitman:

        Sean Haris and Adam Symonds

        J.P. Lacy (4)



From joudmc  Tue Feb  3 15:35:43 1998
From: joudmc (David Mark Cheshier)
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 16:35:43 -0500
Subject: When is George Washington?
Message-ID: <TUE.3.FEB.1998.163543.0500.JOUDMC@PANTHER.GSU.EDU>

I'm confused, and need your help.

Based on the CEDA calendar, and several more recent announcements, I had
thought George Washington was running a policy debate tournament on the
Valentine's Day weekend.  Then last week I got an email which I thought
said they were moving to the Feb 28 weekend to run their normal
tournament along with their District 7 event.  Then today I got the ADA
newsletter, which still lists them as running on Valentine's Day.

I want to send a team if its Valentine's Day weekend, but if it's
collapsed into the District7 tournament, the same weekend as the District
6 tournament, I can't do both.

Am I the only one confused?

HELP!

David Cheshier
Georgia State University



From bogen  Tue Feb  3 15:54:35 1998
From: bogen (David Ellenbogen)
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 16:54:35 -0500
Subject: When is George Washington?/And Hotel Info
Message-ID: <TUE.3.FEB.1998.165435.0500.BOGEN@GWIS2.CIRC.GWU.EDU>

The George Washington University is hosting a tournament on the weekend of
February 20, 21, 22.  There will be a novice and  a Junior varsity division.
 The District tournament will be on the same weekend, only it is only
saturday and sunday.  For all of those who don't read closely, the
TOURNAMENT STARTS ON FRIDAY (distrcits start on saturday).
Tomorrow is also the last day to make reservations at the Tournament Hotel.
They have extended the block but are filling up quickly. So if you want to
send teams call the hotel now.  It is by far the best rate in the area, any
other hotel is at least $60 per night.  the number at the hotel is
202-457-0500.
The dates above are correct.
any questions feel free to contact me or professor Keller.



From arao  Tue Feb  3 16:03:15 1998
From: arao (Anand Rao)
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 17:03:15 -0500
Subject: ADA Newsletter Correction
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.95.980203163241.4850C-100000@panther.Gsu.EDU>
Message-ID: <TUE.3.FEB.1998.170315.0500.ARAO@MAIL.CLARION.EDU>

Sorry for the confusion- the dates for George Washington listed in the
recent ADA newsletter are incorrect. GW will be held Feb. 19-22, 1998.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                                            Anand Rao, Ph.D.
                Assistant Professor and Director of Forensics

Speech Communication
        and Theatre Department                    office: (814) 226-2476
Clarion University                       fax: (814) 226-3330
Clarion, PA 16214                e-mail: arao at mail.clarion.edu
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



From cstought  Tue Feb  3 16:39:35 1998
From: cstought (Corey Stoughton)
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 17:39:35 -0500
Subject: steeley or someone
Message-ID: <TUE.3.FEB.1998.173935.0500.CSTOUGHT@GHIDRAH.RS.ITD.UMICH.EDU>

I can't find Kelly or Kwon's email so can someone (or them -- THAT MEANS
YOU KELLY) email me the currency plan they ran at Dartmouth, and cites
on the russia and hong kong advantages please.

Please respond to my email address (cstought at umich.edu) not edebate, as
I am not on the list.

Thanks!

Corey Stoughton
cstought at umich.edu



From hobbs  Tue Feb  3 16:42:55 1998
From: hobbs (Crisis)
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 14:42:55 -0800
Subject: KU
In-Reply-To: <Mailstrom.1.055UM.2056.-3114.cstought@c.imap.itd.umich.edu>
Message-ID: <TUE.3.FEB.1998.144255.0800.HOBBS@LCLARK.EDU>

Could someone from Kansas please backchannel me.

THanks in advance.

norm


lewis and clark debate
school of "moan"ica lewinski



From donaldst  Tue Feb  3 17:23:46 1998
From: donaldst (Steven Dean Donald)
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 18:23:46 -0500
Subject: Ryan Sparacino
Message-ID: <TUE.3.FEB.1998.182346.0500.DONALDST@PILOT.MSU.EDU>

ryan,

could you mail msu debate back at repkoeli at pilot.msu.edu?  we have some
questions about some affirmatives we think you can help us out with.

thanks in advance.

steve donald



From mmish  Tue Feb  3 17:47:11 1998
From: mmish (Matthew J Mish)
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 18:47:11 -0500
Subject: For Steele or Kwon only
Message-ID: <TUE.3.FEB.1998.184711.0500.MMISH@UMICH.EDU>

-Gtown,
Here is the info. you all wanted.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 10:56:25 PST
From: Joshua Hoe <ifjxh at hotmail.com>
To: mmish at umich.edu
Subject: Re: UNT's Not Arms registry case

Here are the solvency cites....if you could forward the plan text to
Kwon that would be cool......Swinnerton, Laurence, and Mak and Gill are
all from the book Arms Transparency and Security in Southeast Asia eds.
Gil and Mak - publisher SIPRI and the date is 1997.....There is also a
1995 or 1996 version but it changed quite a bit in the 1997
writing.......Chalmers is from the book Confidence Building in Southeast
Asia in 1996...Chalmers and Greene is from the book Taking Stock the UN
Register after two years in 1995.....I gave the most recent plan text to
Adrienne if you do not have it.  I would appreciate it if you would
forward all of this info to Kwan at G'Town...I will get back to you
later with the scenarios from the most recent 1AC.....Eli is still not
here and he has the most recent 1AC.  Josh

>From mmish at umich.edu Sun Feb  1 18:58:11 1998
>Received: from seawolf.rs.itd.umich.edu (smtp at seawolf.rs.itd.umich.edu
[141.211.63.88])
>        by berzerk.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.8.8/3.0-mailhub) with ESMTP id
VAA22482
>        for <ifjxh at hotmail.com>; Sun, 1 Feb 1998 21:58:10 -0500 (EST)
>Received: from localhost (mmish at localhost)
>       by seawolf.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.8.8/4.6-client) with SMTP id VAA27358
>       for <ifjxh at hotmail.com>; Sun, 1 Feb 1998 21:58:10 -0500 (EST)
>Date: Sun, 1 Feb 1998 21:58:10 -0500 (EST)
>From: Matthew J Mish <mmish at umich.edu>
>X-Sender: mmish at seawolf.rs.itd.umich.edu
>To: Joshua Hoe <ifjxh at hotmail.com>
>Subject: Re: UNT's Not Arms registry case
>In-Reply-To: <19980131233108.19249.qmail at hotmail.com>
>Message-ID:
<Pine.SOL.3.95.980201215649.27140C-100000 at seawolf.rs.itd.umich.edu>
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
>
>Thanks in advance for the cites....I assume you're busy, so the bare
>minimum would be great: solvency cites (or atleast the specific
>ones-Lawrence and Mak?) and just a list of the 6 escltn. scenarios (no
>cites).
>
>pax
>
>
>


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



From pbermel  Tue Feb  3 17:53:35 1998
From: pbermel (UNC)
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 18:53:35 -0500
Subject: Novice Nats @ NU
Message-ID: <TUE.3.FEB.1998.185335.0500.PBERMEL@EMAIL.UNC.EDU>

Who out there is planning on going to Novice Nationals at Northwestern?
Please respond either backchannel or to e-debate if you think others will
be interested.


Peter Bermel
UNC-CH



From lsd041  Tue Feb  3 19:02:26 1998
From: lsd041 (Scott Deatherage)
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 19:02:26 -0600
Subject: Novice Nats @ NU
Message-ID: <TUE.3.FEB.1998.190226.0600.LSD041@NWU.EDU>

Northwestern will have three teams entered in the NATIONAL NOVICE:

1.  Leslie Johnson and Annie Kastanek (F16s to Philipines)
2.  Eli Kay-Oliphant and Trace Johnson (F16s to Philipines)
3.  Doug Redden and Robert Smith (IMET to Indonesia or Loas UXO)

These teams may or may not write a new case.

SD

At 06:53 PM 2/3/98 -0500, you wrote:
>Who out there is planning on going to Novice Nationals at Northwestern?
>Please respond either backchannel or to e-debate if you think others will
>be interested.
>
>
>Peter Bermel
>UNC-CH
>
>



From cr004e  Tue Feb  3 18:27:32 1998
From: cr004e (C. Rutledge)
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 19:27:32 -0500
Subject: Cornell
Message-ID: <TUE.3.FEB.1998.192732.0500.CR004E@UHURA.CC.ROCHESTER.EDU>

When will a team list for cornell be put out.  Just curious.

See ya all at the Big Red,

Rutledge



From mstein  Tue Feb  3 18:46:57 1998
From: mstein (Meredith Stein)
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 19:46:57 -0500
Subject: Novice Nats @ NU
In-Reply-To: <Pine.WNT.3.95.980203184925.55D-100000@uglsta14.oit.unc.edu>
Message-ID: <TUE.3.FEB.1998.194657.0500.MSTEIN@ARCHES.UGA.EDU>

Georgia will have:
-Wally Eastwood and Meredith Stein running IMET to Indonesia in addition
to a couple of new cases.
-Jonathan Nolley and Someone who will be running "I don't know yet."

On
Tue, 3 Feb 1998, UNC wrote:

> Who out there is planning on going to Novice Nationals at Northwestern?
> Please respond either backchannel or to e-debate if you think others will
> be interested.
>
>
> Peter Bermel
> UNC-CH
>

**********
*Meredith*
**********

>From  Tue Feb  3 18:52:31 1998
Message-Id: <TUE.3.FEB.1998.185231.0600.>
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 18:52:31 -0600
Reply-To: herro at VAXA.CIS.UWOSH.EDU
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Steve Herro <herro at VAXA.CIS.UWOSH.EDU>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

scan edebate ryan

>From  Tue Feb  3 18:56:53 1998
Message-Id: <TUE.3.FEB.1998.185653.0600.>
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 18:56:53 -0600
Reply-To: herro at VAXA.CIS.UWOSH.EDU
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Steve Herro <herro at VAXA.CIS.UWOSH.EDU>
Subject: Capital U. tourney
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

i will make a NOVICE case list.  if you wanto participate, send most
recent plan text and an outline of the 1ac.  i will mail out the list the
wednesday before the tourney.

steve

Steve Herro
Director of Debate
University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh
(920) 424-7048

>From  Tue Feb  3 20:46:37 1998
Message-Id: <TUE.3.FEB.1998.204637.EST.>
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 20:46:37 EST
Reply-To: Prmethe0s at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Matt Marcus <Prmethe0s at AOL.COM>
Subject: DePaul Debate
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

Could someone from DePaul...anyone...backchannel me at their earliest
convenience.

Thanks in advance,
Matt Marcus



From mgremillion  Tue Feb  3 19:55:46 1998
From: mgremillion (MWilliams)
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 20:55:46 -0500
Subject: Jesuit Round Robin
Message-ID: <TUE.3.FEB.1998.205546.0500.MGREMILLION@SELU.EDU>

What happened? who won?
Scott Elliott



From srader  Tue Feb  3 21:26:10 1998
From: srader (Doyle Srader)
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 20:26:10 -0700
Subject: Point Loma
In-Reply-To: <03FEB98.12126345.0022.MUSIC@ACADEMIC.TRUMAN.EDU>
Message-ID: <TUE.3.FEB.1998.202610.0700.SRADER@IMAP3.ASU.EDU>

Arizona State is sending two teams:

Team KeKi: Kearl & Kircher

Team KaKe, the well-fed team: Karabel & Keller.

Both teams will be running Pacatom, the nuclear safety assistance case.

Doyle Srader
Arizona State University
(602) 649-6033

"All in all, brick by brick, I'll come and build my house
 While I try to get real good at putting words in people's mouths."
   -- Bill Mallonee, _Five Miles Outside of Monroe_



From kjast13+  Tue Feb  3 21:38:02 1998
From: kjast13+ (Kevin Ayotte)
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 22:38:02 -0500
Subject: Random thoughts about kritiking
Message-ID: <TUE.3.FEB.1998.223802.0500.KJAST13@PITT.EDU>

        For all of you other theory hacks, I wanted to get some feedback regarding
a topic about which I've heard surprisingly little debate.  Most of the
kritiks we hear are based in some aspect of poststructuralist/"postmodern"
critical perspective - Heidegger, Spanos(retrieving Heidegger), Foucault,
any of the variety of feminist perspectives, CLS, and others.  I have yet
to hear a cohesive deconstructive kritik either as a negative strategy or,
more interestingly to me, as an affirmative response to any of the above
negative kritiks.  Lyotard argues the following: "Don't you see that
criticizing is still knowing, knowing better?  That the critical relation
still falls within the sphere of knowledge, of 'realization' and thus of
the assumption of power?"  Taken together with the fairly compelling
argument that all of the aforementioned kritiks are, at bottom, critiques
of "power" (one could employ Foucault again, Nietzsche, Derrida, etc.),
couldn't an affirmative take the position that the negative kritik only
reconstructs the very notion of power hierarchies that underlies the
negative kritik itself?  If the fundamental (and I realize that is a
positivistically loaded term) problem necessitating kritiks is the tyranny
of power, wouldn't the affirmative be in a secure position for turning the
kritik?

        I pose these questions only to stimulate responses on an aspect of
kritiking regarding which I have heard little dispute.  As various aspects
of rhetorical and philosophical inquiry become incorporated into the
activity, I am just curious how much variety we can inject into the
analysis of these issues within the round.

Still thinking,

Kevin Ayotte
University of Pittsburgh



From lmcst33+  Tue Feb  3 21:36:02 1998
From: lmcst33+ (Lisa M Corrigan)
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 22:36:02 -0500
Subject: Random thoughts about kritiking
In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19980203223802.0068a984@pop.pitt.edu>
Message-ID: <TUE.3.FEB.1998.223602.0500.LMCST33@PITT.EDU>

yes. this is what my argument was for maxwell at our first kritik meeting
when he was discussing foucault's power/knowledge discussion. i asked him,
"is this a power/knowledge relationship?" and he answered yes.  it seems
to me that taking a position that one type of thought or thought process
is better or closer to the "Truth" than another is just reinforcing a
heirarchy. it may be possibly a different hierarchy but nonetheless,
hierarchy.  this is why i think that kritiks of thought are kind of
stupid.  kritiks with policy implications make mucho sense to me as well
as most kritiks of language but i think that kritiks of power relations
are pretentious.

my $.02,
lisa

On Tue, 3 Feb 1998, Kevin Ayotte wrote:

>         For all of you other theory hacks, I wanted to get some feedback regarding
> a topic about which I've heard surprisingly little debate.  Most of the
> kritiks we hear are based in some aspect of poststructuralist/"postmodern"
> critical perspective - Heidegger, Spanos(retrieving Heidegger), Foucault,
> any of the variety of feminist perspectives, CLS, and others.  I have yet
> to hear a cohesive deconstructive kritik either as a negative strategy or,
> more interestingly to me, as an affirmative response to any of the above
> negative kritiks.  Lyotard argues the following: "Don't you see that
> criticizing is still knowing, knowing better?  That the critical relation
> still falls within the sphere of knowledge, of 'realization' and thus of
> the assumption of power?"  Taken together with the fairly compelling
> argument that all of the aforementioned kritiks are, at bottom, critiques
> of "power" (one could employ Foucault again, Nietzsche, Derrida, etc.),
> couldn't an affirmative take the position that the negative kritik only
> reconstructs the very notion of power hierarchies that underlies the
> negative kritik itself?  If the fundamental (and I realize that is a
> positivistically loaded term) problem necessitating kritiks is the tyranny
> of power, wouldn't the affirmative be in a secure position for turning the
> kritik?
>
>         I pose these questions only to stimulate responses on an aspect of
> kritiking regarding which I have heard little dispute.  As various aspects
> of rhetorical and philosophical inquiry become incorporated into the
> activity, I am just curious how much variety we can inject into the
> analysis of these issues within the round.
>
> Still thinking,
>
> Kevin Ayotte
> University of Pittsburgh
>



From Gary.N.Larson  Tue Feb  3 21:46:10 1998
From: Gary.N.Larson (Gary Larson)
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 21:46:10 CST6CDT
Subject: Wheaton Spring Tournament
Message-ID: <TUE.3.FEB.1998.214610.CST6CDT.GARY.N.LARSON@WHEATON.EDU>


The tournament invite follows both as an attachment and e-mail file.

WINTER in WHEATON Invitational

FEBRUARY 27 & 28, 1998

 We would like to cordially invite you to join us at the 18th annual
 Wheaton CEDA Tournament.  Wheaton has traditionally offered a
 tournament with an exciting mix of regional and national competition,
 typically with all three divisions making at least quarters.

 1.  This year we will again attempt to offer THREE divisions of CEDA
 debate:  OPEN division for all bona fide undergraduate students who
 have com-pleted less than eight se-mesters of intercollegiate debate;
 JUNIOR VARSITY division for  teams on which neither mem-ber has
 completed more than three semes-ters of prior collegiate debate
 ex-perience; and a NOVICE division for those teams which meet CEDA's
 novice definition (neither team member has competed more than one
 prior semester of debate including high school).  It is our intention
 to not collapse divisions unless it is absolutely impossible to pair
 one or more of the divisions.  Maintaining the integrity of
 competition will be viewed as a higher value than increasing the
 number of elimination rounds.

 2. In all three divisions we will schedule SIX preliminary and a
 suitable number of elimination rounds.  As a result of our past use
 of computerized matching and tabulation, we have been able to
 consistently run on time while utilizing power-pair-ing for the last
 four rounds of the tourna-ment.  The second-semes-ter CEDA resolution
 will be used in all de-bates.

 3.  Time limits in open and junior will be 9-3-6 with 8 minutes prep.
  In the novice division, we will adopt the traditional 8-3-4 format
 with 8 minutes prep.

 3.  Entry  fees  will  be  $50.00 per 2-person team.  We will provide
 THREE meals this year (buffet on Friday evening, continental
 breakfast on Saturday morning and pizza for Saturday lunch)

 4.  Each school is expected to provide one qualified faculty (or
 graduate student) judge for each two teams entered. A LIMITED supply
 of qualified judges for hire will be available at $50 per 2-person
 team.  These will be offered on a first-come first-served basis.  If
 you have extra judges or would like to judge beyond your commitment,
 we will gladly pay $15.00 per round.

 5.  Appropriate awards will be given to outstanding speakers and to
 each team that clears to elimination rounds.  Due to the enthusiastic
 response in past years we will again offer a special set of
 consolation awards dubbed --

  "I Could've, I Would've, I SHOULD'VE Won a Speaker Award!"

These awards will be given to speakers based on a Z-score
trans-formation that normalizes for variability in the sample means
and standard deviations of different judges in the judging pool.

TRANSPORTATION:

 Wheaton is located just 25 miles west of the Loop in Chicago, mak-ing
 us  easily accessible by air, rail or automobile (we are only 15
 miles from O'Hare Interna-tional Airport or Midway).  For those who
 are flying in, transportation will be provided to and from the
 airport and the tournament hotel.  Please contact us at least one
 week in advance to arrange for pick-up from O'Hare or Midway airports
  For those driving to Chicago, our campus is convenient to the major
 expressway systems.  From Chicago (the Tri-State Expressway - I-294
 going north/south or the Eisenhower Expressway - I-290 going
 east/west) take the East-West Express-way (I-88) to the Naperville
 Road exit, and go north about 4.5 miles on Naperville Road.  At
 Roosevelt Rd, take a right, go one short block and then turn left on
 Washington Street.  The Billy Graham Center (BGC) will be on the
 right immediately after crossing the railroad tracks.  From the south
 and west, take the Stevenson Expressway - I-55 to the North-South
 Expressway - I-355.  Take I-355 to Roosevelt Road exit where you will
 go west to Chase Street.  Turn right on Chase and go north directly
 to the BGC.

TOURNAMENT SCHEDULE:

 Friday, Feb. 27

       1:00 - 3:00 PM  Registration  (Graham Center Lobby - teams not
  registered by 3:00 PM will not be paired round 1)

       3:30     Round 1
       5:30     Round 2
        7:00     Healthy Buffet (over the years this has become a
        highlight of the tournament)
      8:00     Round 3 (Hi/Hi based on first 2 rounds)

 Saturday, Feb. 22

       8:00     Continental Breakfast (Fruit, Rolls, Juice,
       Coffee/Tea/Hot Chocolate)
      8:30     Round 4 (Hi/Lo in brackets based on rounds 1-3)
    10:30     Round 5 (Hi/Hi in based on rounds 1-3 - 5 will be paired
    before 4 to insure that
  it is a clean pairing)

    12:00     PIZZA LUNCH

       1:00     Round 6 (Hi/Lo in brackets based on rounds 1-5)
      3:00     First ELIMINATION ROUND
      5:00     Awards Assembly

LODGING:  Suggested Hotels (mention Wheaton College for rates) --

     Holiday Inn - Carol Stream
     150 S. Gary Ave. (corner of Gary and North)
     Carol Stream, IL  60188
     630/665-3000  ($75.00 / 1-4)

     Hampton Inn - Naperville
     1087 Diehl Road (2 blocks from Naperville Rd exit off I-88)
     Naperville, IL 60563
     630-505-1400  ($59.00 / 1-4)

     Travelodge - Naperville
     1617 Naper/Wheaton Rd. (Naperville Rd exit off I-88)
     Naperville, IL 60563
     630-505-0200  ($45.00 / 1-4)

     Hilton Inn Lisle/Naperville  (THIS would be our choice!)
     3003 Corporate West Drive  (Naperville Rd exit off I-88)
     Lisle, IL  60532
     800-552-2599  ($69.00 / 1-4)

     Day's Inn
     1350 E. Ogden Avenue
     Naperville, IL  60563
     630-369-3600  ($45.00 / 1-2; $51.00 / 3-4)
-------------- next part --------------
The following section of this message contains a file attachment
prepared for transmission using the Internet MIME message format.
If you are using Pegasus Mail, or any another MIME-compliant system,
you should be able to save it or view it from within your mailer.
If you cannot, please ask your system administrator for assistance.

   ---- File information -----------
     File:  invite1.rtf
     Date:  3 Feb 1998, 21:41
     Size:  11610 bytes.
     Type:  MS-Richtext
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: invite1.rtf
Type: application/rtf
Size: 11610 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/19980203/3c882c9c/attachment.rtf 


From bcr2369  Tue Feb  3 22:53:54 1998
From: bcr2369 (Brian Reddinger)
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 23:53:54 -0500
Subject: kritiks and the random thoughts
Message-ID: <TUE.3.FEB.1998.235354.0500.BCR2369@GARNET.ACNS.FSU.EDU>

I'm not on edebate really, so I would appreciate, if you respond, if you
would include my address on the cc so I can read it too.

Responding to Kevin Ayotte and Lisa Corrigan in defense of these Kritiks.

The first argument they bring up is that the Kritik = a new, subtle form
of power.  Lisa, the reason why Maxwell said that Foucault's critique of
power is an example of power/knowledge is probably because that's what
Foucault said before he died.  He's quoted as saying that knowledge will
transform us.  So why doesn't he eat his own Kritik?  I've struggled with
this myself.  Here's my answer: You collapse all forms of power into one.
Namely oppression.  Foucault is very much against the notion that
power=domination.  That's what Spanos is talking about in the cards that
say "the ruse of the repressive hypothesis."  It's Foucault's phrase.
There are many types of power.  For example, there is power flowing
through my copper wiring, racking up my electric bill.  I also have the
power to take another swig of beer.  And a psychiatrist has the power to
define people as insane, and nullify their own thoughts.  He also agrees
with Lyotard when he says that critique is situated in power.  However,
this is a different type of power.  He calls it anti-power.  It is the
power to resist domination.  The cry, fight the power comes to mind.  But
revolutionaries have a special type of power.  Critics run the risk of
corrupting that power into something also oppressive.  WItness the
enlightenment liberals fighting the monarch creating a democratic big
brother oppression.  But Foucault in an interview answers this: he says
that we are just moving forward, recorrecting our course when we find
error.  It's a process not a blueprint.  Foucault says relax and enjoy the
ride.  Moving forward is better than complacency with Status Quo.  I think
this also answers the blurb about how "all kritiks" are based on the
"Tyranny of Power."

I can't write any bore blither because no one will read it.  Back channel
if you want more.

Brian Reddinger



From hobbs  Tue Feb  3 23:18:27 1998
From: hobbs (Crisis)
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 21:18:27 -0800
Subject: Jackie Massey
In-Reply-To: <Pine.A42.3.96.980203232432.58160A-100000@garnet1.acns.fsu.edu>
Message-ID: <TUE.3.FEB.1998.211827.0800.HOBBS@LCLARK.EDU>

Could you send me the cite for your agent orange turn off uxos?

norm
lewinski & clark



From sarge  Tue Feb  3 23:30:42 1998
From: sarge (Srg. Rutledge)
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 00:30:42 -0500
Subject: jUSTINE dANIELS
Message-ID: <WED.4.FEB.1998.003042.0500.SARGE@CIF.ROCHESTER.EDU>

Hey out there,

Could Justine Daniels from the NYU/coalition please backchannel me (or
someone who knows her address)?

Peace,

Sarge



From lindsayh  Tue Feb  3 23:35:46 1998
From: lindsayh (lindsayh)
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 21:35:46 -0800
Subject: topic papers
Message-ID: <TUE.3.FEB.1998.213546.0800.LINDSAYH@SCFFS.USC.EDU>

Sorry, but I deleted the message with all the info about topic proposals.
if someone could forward the date for abstracts, etc, there are people in
LA asking me for that info.

Thanks,
Lindsay



From kjast13+  Wed Feb  4 00:32:16 1998
From: kjast13+ (Kevin Ayotte)
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 01:32:16 -0500
Subject: Some elaboration on power and kritiks
Message-ID: <WED.4.FEB.1998.013216.0500.KJAST13@PITT.EDU>

This is basically an addendum with a bit of clarification.  I'll bounce off
Reddinger's response as a framework.
He wrote:
>
>Responding to Kevin Ayotte and Lisa Corrigan in defense of these Kritiks.
>
>

I am NOT trying to dismiss kritiks in any way, shape, or form, so please
don't think a "defense" is necessary.  Anyone who has had me as a judge or
coach should know that I think kritiks are one of the most persuasive
arguments when compellingly developed.  I want to explore the potential for
expanding our analysis of kritiks by bringing in MORE of the theories upon
which they are based.

>The first argument they bring up is that the Kritik = a new, subtle form
>of power.  Lisa, the reason why Maxwell said that Foucault's critique of
>power is an example of power/knowledge is probably because that's what
>Foucault said before he died.  He's quoted as saying that knowledge will
>transform us.  So why doesn't he eat his own Kritik?  I've struggled with
>this myself.  Here's my answer: You collapse all forms of power into one.
>Namely oppression.  Foucault is very much against the notion that
>power=domination.  That's what Spanos is talking about in the cards that
>say "the ruse of the repressive hypothesis."  It's Foucault's phrase.
>

Perhaps my initial post was a little blurry about what I want to push in
terms of "power."  I'm well aware that power is not synonymous with
domination for Foucault.  That's not necessarily the question, although it
might be involved.  It's very much entwined with "knowledge," however.
This is what Lyotard's quote suggests, and I'm not sure how the Spanos
quote above re: the "repressive hypothesis" addresses  this.  If you'll
remember from Foucault's History of Sexuality, Vol. 1_, his dismissal of
the repressive hypothesis is followed by an analysis of the enormity of
discourse about sex.  That discourse is not overtly oppressive, but it very
much delineates how we KNOW sexuality (in Victorian England).  That
knowledge then shapes social relations in the world (it did for sexuality).
One can then see lines leading to Derrida, Schrag, Lyotard, and a host of
others, ESPECIALLY Nietzsche, who call for an examination of the
implications/assumptions behind those knowledge claims.

>  But
>revolutionaries have a special type of power.  Critics run the risk of
>corrupting that power into something also oppressive.  WItness the
>enlightenment liberals fighting the monarch creating a democratic big
>brother oppression.  But Foucault in an interview answers this: he says
>that we are just moving forward, recorrecting our course when we find
>error.  It's a process not a blueprint.  Foucault says relax and enjoy the
>ride.  Moving forward is better than complacency with Status Quo.  I think
>this also answers the blurb about how "all kritiks" are based on the
>"Tyranny of Power."
>

I really think we need to broaden beyond (but still include) Foucault.
There are a bunch of things above, and I'll try to follow your order.
First, I think you largely provide the internal answers to the "special
power" of revolutionaries.  You give one example.  If you could provide a
specific cite for the Foucault interview quotes, I'd appreciate it, because
from the context above, there are too many counterexamples to blindly
accept a "movememnt forward."  Remember, "revolutionaries" can be all sorts
of people - obviously civil rights leaders, and unfortunately people like
Hitler who were also called revolutionaries.  This brings me back to
Foucault.  I am a big fan of his theory, and I use it frequently.  However,
we need to problematize this notion of moving forward.  "Relaxing and
enjoying the ride" has little practical application here so far (I'm not
ruling it out, I just don't see yet how this translates into a kritik
debate).  And we need to think about the implications of this "correcting
our course."  See Nietzsche in _The Birth of Tragedy_ for some thoughts on
the dangers of "correcting" history.
        I'll grant that complacency is not an option.  My point is that there may
be some additional points of entry into this discussion, with potential as
arguments.  What happens when you bring in deconstruction to examine what
this "moving forward" is all about?  Again, I am NOT trying to dismiss
kritiks; I would be the happiest camper if debaters were MORE willing to
push the boundaries of critical discussion to flesh out these ideas
(multiple kritiks in a debate, perms, and deeper theory).  The problem is
that there is a huge body of literature that hasn't been discussed (at
least in front of me).  One hypothetical example.  A 1989 issue of
_Critical Inquiry_(I forget the issue#), critiques Spanos in what some
might call a deconstructive move.  A couple of authors argue that Spanos'
recuperation of Heidegger is suspect because of the fascist implications to
Heideggerian philsophy.  I am NOT passing judgment on Heidegger's
philosophy because of his political connections to Nazism(although that was
deplorable), but the authors in _Critical Inquiry_ argue that Heidegger's
idea of Dasein as outside of historical time is what makes his philosophy
_consistent_ with fascism; it allows the dismissal of historical events,
like the Holocaust, as irrelevent to a larger History.  This is only one
example of the questioning of critical knowledge claims, and probably not
the most elegant.

Keep thinking.  I don't want this to degenerate into a debate about who's
right and wrong, but I think it may be valuable to get a variety of
insights on an issue that could be examined more thoroughly.

Kevin Ayotte
University of Pittsburgh



From gabp  Tue Feb  3 23:51:32 1998
From: gabp (Gabrielle Prisco)
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 00:51:32 -0500
Subject: mistaken mail apologies
Message-ID: <WED.4.FEB.1998.005132.0500.GABP@JUNO.COM>

i just wanted to take a moment to apologize for the fact that something
is up with my mail program and all of my private replies to messages
originally sent to the list are getting sent to everyone.  and i wanted
to clarify that through a backchannel i realized that my message to steve
about the capital u. tourney might have been taken by some the wrong way.
 it was supposed to be a backchannel and was meant to tease steve and in
no way reflect the warm feelings i have about capital, their coaches, and
their tournament.  i also wanted to thank everyone who has sent me
encouraging words and support about my grad ass search--it almost makes
up for the mortification i feel for posting my gpa and my other private
mail.

thanks,
gabrielle/vanderbilt

_____________________________________________________________________
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 jcorcora  Wed Feb  4 01:19:03 1998
From: jcorcora (Joe Corcoran)
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 23:19:03 -0800
Subject: NCFA CHAMPS TEAM LIST
Message-ID: <TUE.3.FEB.1998.231903.0800.JCORCORA@FLOYD.SANTAROSA.EDU>

Those of you attending the NCFA Championships in Stockton this weekend,
you will find an up-to-the-hour team list at

http://www.wco.com/~corcoran/ncfa

See you in Stockton.

Joe Corcoran,
Tournament Director



From jmw8286  Wed Feb  4 01:42:54 1998
From: jmw8286 (Jacob Weigler)
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 02:42:54 -0500
Subject: School Vans help
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.95.980203231651.10737F-100000@floyd.santarosa.edu>
Message-ID: <WED.4.FEB.1998.024254.0500.JMW8286@IS4.NYU.EDU>

  Could programs that travel by vehicles that are owned by their
university/college/team backchannel me.

Thanx,
jacob weigler

"Freedom without opportunity is a devil's gift, and the refusal to provide
such opportunities is criminal."  -Noam Chomsky



From broda  Wed Feb  4 07:32:24 1998
From: broda (Kenneth Broda-bahm)
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 08:32:24 -0500
Subject: Hawaii's Region
Message-ID: <WED.4.FEB.1998.083224.0500.BRODA@SABER.TOWSON.EDU>

Hawaii seems to share the fate of Maine and Delaware:  No CEDA district
claims them according to our constitution.  This seems to have been an
oversight based on an absence or near absence of debate schools from these
states.

--Ken Broda-Bahm



From kschrive  Wed Feb  4 09:08:08 1998
From: kschrive (Kristina Schriver)
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 10:08:08 -0500
Subject: bama only
Message-ID: <WED.4.FEB.1998.100808.0500.KSCHRIVE@LAB.HOUSING.FSU.EDU>

Hello..I judged a team at Morehouse running an Amer-asian kids case. I'm
trying to put together a miltary culture DA and was wondering if you could
share some cites about the number of pregnancies occur when our
"well-behaved" troops go abroad. Also, the discrimination cites would be
nice. If possible?

Schriver



From papacat  Wed Feb  4 09:10:57 1998
From: papacat (Pat J. Gehrke)
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 07:10:57 PST
Subject: Foucault and Power
Message-ID: <WED.4.FEB.1998.071057.PST.PAPACAT@HOTMAIL.COM>

Some opinions:

While power was a central concept for Nietzsche, he did little to
clarify the meaning of the term in his work.  Foucault is more useful in
trying to grapple with how to conceptualize power in relation to
discourse.  Though Foucault used the term ~Spower~T in much of his work,
he was more precisely referring to networks or relationships of power
(Foucault, ~SEthic of Care~T 11).  Nancy Fraser notes that it is
misleading to think of Foucault~Rs conception of power as property to be
possessed. Rather, it is a complex and shifting field of relations (29).

Additionally, Foucault joined Nietzsche in considering power both
ubiquitous and inescapable (Fraser 26).  We should neither consider
power as emanating from a single source, nor think of certain zones of
social existence as outside the influence of power.  Rather, we should
note that all human interaction manifests the will to power and involves
power relations.

If power is constant and pervasive, then the political is resituated
from a liberal conception that might attempt to designate legitimate
places of power, to politics of the everyday.  Combining this ~Spolitics
of the everyday~T with a focus on the care of the self, Foucault noted
that the study of power/knowledge was an instrument that spurred the
analysis ~Sof the problem of the relationships between subject and game
of truth~T (~SEthic of Care~T 10).  What Foucault was seeking to uncover
was how the subject constituted the self ~Sthrough a certain number of
practices which were games of truth, applications of power~T (~SEthic of
Care~T 10).

This likewise reflects that power is not itself an evil to be avoided,
but is an unavoidable element of being and becoming: ~SPower is not evil.
Power is strategic games~T (Foucault, ~SEthic of Care~T 18).  Unlike Sartre
or Habermas, Foucault argued that we should not seek to dissolve power
into a utopia.  Rather, we should ~Sgive one~Rs self rules of law, the
techniques of self management, and also the ethics, the ethos, the
practice of the self, which would allow these games of power to be
played with a minimum of domination~T (~SEthic of Care~T 18).

This move away from domination is critical to Foucault.  Domination
precludes liberty but ~Sliberty is the ontological condition of ethics~T
and ~Sethics is the deliberate form assumed by liberty~T (Foucault, ~SEthic
of Care~T 4).  Domination was defined by Foucault as ~Swhen an individual
or social group manages to block a field of relations of power, to
render them impassive and invariable and to prevent all reversibility of
movement~T (~SEthic of Care~T 3).  Thus, domination precludes the liberty
to be other than how one is constituted by those fields of relations
that exercise dominating force.  This is perhaps most antithetical to
ethics because it precludes the artistry of self-creation and
self-overcoming by precluding the repositioning of the self.  If one is
in a state of domination one is defined and constituted by those fields
that dominate, be they passions, religions, sciences, politics, or
philosophies.  Thus Foucault saw the very role of philosophy as the
challenging of all domination, a function of philosophy that ~Semerges
right from the socratic [sic] imperative: ~QBe concerned with yourself,
i.e., ground yourself in liberty, through the mastery of self~R~T (~SEthic
of Care~T 20).  The fundamental criterion for Foucault~Rs new ethics was
to play with a minimum of domination, ~Swhich allows individual liberty
to be founded~T (~SEthic of Care~T 19).

I think similar might be said of Derrida, who seeks to open a space for
thought outside the domination of Western rationalism, without having to
reject the idea of rationality.

If one critiques "power" from the work of Foucault, I believe one has
mistaken Foucault's project.

Just my opinion (works cited below),

Pat Gehrke
Penn State

Works Cited:
Foucault, Michel. ~SThe Ethic of Care for the Self as a Practice of
Freedom: An Interview with Michel Foucault on January 20, 1984~T eds.
James Bernauer and David Rasmussen. The Final Foucault. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press, 1987. 1-20.
Fraser, Nancy. Unruly Practices: Power, Discourse and Gender in
Contemporary Social Theory. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota
Press, 1989.

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



From meaves  Wed Feb  4 09:15:47 1998
From: meaves (Michael_Eaves)
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 10:15:47 -0500
Subject: Foucault/Manuscripts
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SGI.3.96.980204082953.21442A-100000@saber.towson.edu>
Message-ID: <WED.4.FEB.1998.101547.0500.MEAVES@GRITS.VALDOSTA.PEACHNET.EDU>

I am in the process of edited a book on Foucault, Power, and application
to film.  If you are interested and could submit an abstract of possible
work, please let me know asap.

Thanks.

Mike Eaves
Valdosta State
912-333-5820



From LPCK66A  Wed Feb  4 09:24:49 1998
From: LPCK66A (MR JOSEPH P ZOMPETTI)
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 10:24:49 -0500
Subject: Foucualt
Message-ID: <WED.4.FEB.1998.102449.0500.LPCK66A@PRODIGY.COM>

Interesting discussion so far.  I agree with Gehrke's analysis of
Foucualt's description of power, i.e., the newtwork array of power
formations and the resituated subject that resists the concepts of
liberalism.  However, Pat says:


>If one critiques "power" from the work of Foucault, I believe one
has
>mistaken Foucault's project.

>Just my opinion (works cited below),


Here is where I would disagree.  Just because Foucault happens to
also be looking for the ontological of Being (as does Nietzsche,
Heidegger, etc.), the consitution of power is central to his
undertaking.  Only be examining the estabishment of power
relationships can the subject, which thru transgression locates the
self, identify with their localized position.  Foucault's specific
intellectual, and later transgressive ethics, are not his utopian
enterprise, but rather a localized, albeit personal, attempt at
resisting both coercive and liberating notions of power thru a more
aesthetic and principaled notion of Being.  Here is where power is
EXTREMELY important to study.  For without an analysis of power, the
ethic of the self becomes a futile pursuit.

just my opinion, too.  Perhaps there's something to be said for all
of us who are trying to "speak for" Foucault, as if we knew him or
something.  I guess I'm not trying to speak "for" him, but rather,
this is my interpretation.

zompetti



From e0warn01  Wed Feb  4 12:38:29 1998
From: e0warn01 (Ede Warner, Jr.)
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 10:38:29 -0800
Subject: Novice Nats @ NU
Message-ID: <WED.4.FEB.1998.103829.0800.E0WARN01@HOMER.LOUISVILLE.EDU>

Louisville will have two teams:
Jonathan Westbrook/Michael Lee
Robyn Smith/Timothy Cochran

Both running special forces...

----------
From:  UNC [SMTP:pbermel at EMAIL.UNC.EDU]
Sent:  Tuesday, February 03, 1998 3:54 PM
To:  EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU
Subject:  Novice Nats @ NU

Who out there is planning on going to Novice Nationals at Northwestern?
Please respond either backchannel or to e-debate if you think others will
be interested.


Peter Bermel
UNC-CH

>From  Wed Feb  4 11:31:07 1998
Message-Id: <WED.4.FEB.1998.113107.EST.>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 11:31:07 EST
Reply-To: Tenball1 at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Daniel Samson <Tenball1 at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: Novice Nats @ NU
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

from Michigan will be jonah feldman and dan samson running fish wars


Dan Samson



From Arnie.Madsen  Wed Feb  4 11:04:16 1998
From: Arnie.Madsen (Arnie Madsen)
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 11:04:16 -0600
Subject: Speaking Drills
Message-ID: <WED.4.FEB.1998.110416.0600.ARNIE.MADSEN@UNI.EDU>

In June 1994, on the old CEDA-L, there was a discussion of debater
clarity.  At that time I posted the following regarding some useful
drills for increasing debater clarity.

Recently, Dallas Perkins asked if I still had a copy of these drills.
After rediscovering the original message on an old CEDA-L archive, I
decided to also re-post the material now, as many in the current
EDebate audience have likely not seen this before (I have combined
the original two messages into one for this reposting).

> After my posting on SPEAKING drills vs. SPEED drills, a number of
> people have written to me off the list asking for suggestions on
> various drills.  The material in this posting comes from a
> lecture on delivery by Cate Palczewski and Aaron Hawbaker at the
> 1991 National High School Institute at Northwestern University,
> supplemented by a couple additional drills that I have found
> useful.  Sorry in advance for the length of the posting.
>
> A general comment about the drills -- all speaking drills are
> over-corrections.  If a student has a particular speaking
> problem, they work to solve it by over-correcting.  This list
> provides some examples of various drills.
>
> 1) Breathing problems -- this includes not taking enough breathes
> (running out of air at the end of a sentence or the end of a
> card) and breathing wrong (huge gasps of air, actually a symptom
> of not taking enough breathes): A) Breath at natural pause points
> in the evidence -- have the debater take a small breath at each
> punctuation mark -- commas, periods, semi-colons, colons, etc, B)
> Breath at natural pause points in the speech -- say the tag, take
> a breath, read the cite, take a breath, read the card (breathing
> at punctuation marks), then take a breath after the card before
> going to the next tag, then repeat the process, C) Breathing from
> the diaphram -- most debaters when talking fast breath from the
> throat rather than from the diaphram -- they thus don't get
> enough breath to last more than a partial sentence or two.  How
> do you correct this?  Have the debater hold a chair chest high in
> front of them, with their arms as straight as possible (no
> resting the chair on anything, or against one's chest, etc.).
> Have them read a brief that is laying on the seat of the chair -
> - they should be breathing from the diaphram during this process.
> Now have them put down the chair and have them re-read the brief
> in their normal way -- they will likely be breathing improperly.
> Have them do the chair drill until they start to notice the
> physical difference in their breathing process, D) Posture --
> slumping over and reading a brief off of a desktop, or sitting
> down while they are talking, or other posture errors cause a lot
> of breathing from the throat problems.  Have them stand up
> straight and put the briefs on a podium.
>
> 2) Enunciation problems -- 1) Enunciation drills -- have the
> debater slowly read a card, hitting all of the hard consonants
> (g, t, k, p, b, d, etc) and enunciating each and every syllable.
> Then, slowly have them build up to speed while they continue to
> over-enunciate and continue to clearly hit all of the hard
> consonants, 2) Pencil drill -- have the debater read a card while
> they have a pencil in their mouth, 3) Tongue Twisters -- have the
> debater read tongue twisters at high speed.
>
> 3) Pitch problems -- often the pitch of a debater's voice will go
> much higher than their normal pitch when they talk fast.  Pitch
> problems are another symptom of improper breathing, so use the
> same chair drill that you use for breathing problems to work to
> correct this.
>
> 4) Mush words -- 1) abade drill -- have a debater say abade (ah
> baa dee) over and over and over, steadily increasing speed, and
> continuing to have clean and clear breaks between the syllables
> and between the words, 2) Open the mouth -- have the debater open
> their mouth to an exaggerated degree when they read something at
> a conversational rate (they will think this is silly looking and
> that it feels silly).  Now have them do the same at a faster rate
> of delivery -- when people are flowing and judging, they won't
> notice the exaggerated articulation effort.
>
> 5) Not fluid -- lots of unnatural or unnecessary pauses and
> stumbles -- 1) Get a rhythm -- try to get the debater to learn a
> natural rhythm that will keep them at a constant speed -- one
> technique is to read to music that has a clear and constant beat
> (the Talking Heads work well for this drill), or clap your hands
> or tap a pencil on the desk while they are talking, slowly
> increasing the beat as they progress through the speech, 2)
> Internal metronome -- obviously they can't read to music in a
> debate round, so try to create an internal rhythm mechanism
> unique to that debater -- some debaters lightly tap their foot,
> some use a finger to follow the words they are reading, some
> gently rock back and forth or forward and backward, 3) Read ahead
> -- have the debater practice reading a couple words ahead of
> where their mouth is -- often stumbles and pauses are caused by
> suddently encountering new or unexpected words, thus, if they see
> the words a partial second before they speak them, fewer pauses
> will result, 4) Ignore stuttering and stumbles -- a lot of
> debaters will *back up* and try to correctly pronounce a word, or
> will try to stop a stutter and correctly say a word.  That gets
> them out of their rhythm, forces them to almost stop speaking for
> a second, and then re-start again.  Instead, try to have them
> just keep going when they make an error (at a fast rate of
> speaking, few judges will notice if someone mis-pronounces a word
> or two) -- it's like a record that is stuck in the same groove --
> hit the arm and get it to a new groove, don't stop the record and
> merely start over at the same place.
>
> 6) Monotone or Singsong delivery -- 1) Get a brief and mark the
> *good* debate words, the ones that require emphasis.  Have the
> debaters read the brief, altering their pitch or emphasis when
> they get to those words.  Try NOT to have them alter their
> volume, as by the end of the speech they will be shouting, and
> they will also be wasting valuable breathing.  Also, try NOT to
> have them slow down for emphasis -- like braking a car and then
> re-accelerating, slowing down then forces re-acceleration in a
> speech, wasting time and breath, 2) Personality -- most debaters
> seem to divorce their own unique personality from fast speaking.
> Have them read the card or brief slowly, and in their normal mode
> of speaking (like it was a conversation rather than reading
> evidence) -- hints of their personality should come through.  Now
> have them build up the speed, maintaining that personality
> influence along the way.
>
> 7) Too quiet -- more common with high school students and
> novices, but some people are hard to hear because their volume is
> too low.  The drill is simply to have them practice reading at
> the top of their voice.
>
> 8) Too loud -- generally caused by improper breathing, thus, use
> the drills above.  The other remedy is to simply have them
> practice reading at a whisper, and then to find the happy medium.
>
>
> Other hints:
>
> 1) A lot of delivery problems are caused by lack of familiarity
> with what they are reading.  This implies a couple of things.  A)
> Get your debaters in the habit of reading through their briefs
> before they file them -- the more familiar they are with their
> evidence, the more fluid their speaking should be, B) Do drills
> with material that the debaters have no interest in.  For
> example, have them read Plato or Aristotle at warp drive, or have
> them read the classified page of the newspaper.  If they could
> care less about baseball, have them read the baseball page of the
> newspaper as a drill.  This causes them to focus on their
> technique in speaking, rather than on the specific content of
> their material.
>
> 2) Have them start every speech relatively slow and then work up
> to speed.  This does a couple of things.  1) They will tend not
> to overshoot their own capabilities.  A lot of times debaters
> will start at a faster rate than they can maintain over the
> course of a speech.  Building up to their maximum rate means they
> are more likely to maintain that rate, 2) This allows the judge
> and the opponents a few seconds to get used to the debater's
> particular speaking style before a critical card or argument
> comes flying by.
>
> 3) Have your debaters *warm up* before a round -- have them read
> briefs in the van between the motel and the tournament so that
> they are warmed up and ready to speak, or have them take a brief
> to the restroom or outside immediately before the start of every
> debate.
>
> 4) Avoid milk and dairy products -- Cori Dauber has claimed for
> years that milk and other dairy products coat the vocal cords,
> prevent talking at maximum speed, and cause more stumbles and
> vocal slips.  Thus, drink water and ice tea and so on before,
> during, and between debates.  I have noticed that some people
> have similar problems if they drink stuff with too much sugar --
> have them switch to plain water or diet soft drinks instead
> during the day.
>
> 5) Stop and go speeches -- have them give a practice speech, and
> immediately stop them whenever a problem occurs, making them
> start over from the beginning.  Then, at the next problem make
> them stop and start over again.  This will get real old, real
> quick, and cause them to start incorporating the suggestions.
>
> 6) Tape your debaters -- a lot of people use audio tape, but I
> have found that video tape is even better -- that way the
> debaters not only HEAR their annoying habits, they also SEE their
> annoying habits.
>
> 7) Practice, practice, practice -- not only warm up every day at
> a tournament, but get them in the habit of practicing at least 5-
> 10 minutes every day.  Have them practice giving speeches without
> cards as well as reading cards (a lot fewer cards are read in
> rebuttals, for example, than in constructives).
>
> Drills are for EVERYONE.  Novices need them to get used to speaking
> in the debate situation.  People with high school experience need
> them to get rid of their bad high school habits.  Experienced
> debaters that often get speaker awards need them to keep in shape
> and move up on the speaker award list.  As Cecilia Graves says,
> speaking drills are like preparing for a marathon -- you don't just
> practice once or twice and then run a marathon.  You have to train
> every day, even after you won a marathon, because there is always
> another race to run, another opponent to defeat.
>
> I hope these help.  If anyone on the list has other drills that
> are useful, let me know.
> --
> I somehow managed to leave out one category of drills in my
> posting yesterday.
>
> 9) Lazy Reading -- often debaters will get lazy when reading
> evidence, skipping over a lot of words.  1) Have them read a
> brief where they INTENTIONALLY skip every other word, or every
> third word.  This forces them to pay attention to what they are
> reading.  However, this may reinforce in their mind the idea that
> they can legitimately skip over words, 2) Have they insert the
> word *a* between every word in the brief.  The tag line, the
> impact is nuclear war, thus becomes translated into the a impact
> a is a nuclear a war a, 3) Have them read the brief in Pig Latin
> (if you can stand listening to Pig Latin for that long).
> --
> Arnie Madsen

--
Arnie Madsen                                          arnie.madsen at uni.edu

UNI Director of Forensics                      http://www.uni.edu/forensic
NDT Committee Chair                                 http://www.uni.edu/ndt
Kenneth Burke Society Treasurer
http://www.siu.edu/departments/english/acadareas/rhetcomp/burke/index.html

Office:   Communication Studies, University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls,
          IA  50614-0357      (O) (319) 273-7200      (FAX) (319) 273-7356

Home:     410 Home Park Blvd, Waterloo, IA  50701       (H) (319) 235-8866



From dgenco  Wed Feb  4 11:15:44 1998
From: dgenco (Dave Kingston)
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 11:15:44 -0600
Subject: Results sheets the search continues..
Message-ID: <WED.4.FEB.1998.111544.0600.DGENCO@EARTHLINK.NET>

Thanks to a bunch of people.  I've pretty much completed things in one night.  Not bad results for a post to the list in general.

I'm only missing:

South Carolina
South Carolina RR
Wake

(I thought I had Wake, but now know I do not.)

I have:
USMA
Emporia
UCO
Capital Cities
Redlands RR
William Jewell
GSL

If you need any of those, let me know and I'll send em to you.

My Fax number is (816)235-5539.  Thank you to everyone who has helped me so far.  This is real fun if it's your first time.

Dave

>From  Wed Feb  4 12:51:17 1998
Message-Id: <WED.4.FEB.1998.125117.0500.>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 12:51:17 -0500
Reply-To: jwt5 at CORNELL.EDU
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: jwt5 at CORNELL.EDU
Subject: Cornell Tourney Registration
Comments: To: ie-l at cornell.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

We have been having trouble with the Cornell forensics email account
(forensics at cornell.edu).  If you emailed you entry before January 29th to
this account, please resend it to either myself (jwt5 at cornell.edu) or
Jeff Archibald (jda3 at cornell.edu).  If you sent your entry Jan. 29th or
later, we should have received it and will email you a confirmation
soon.  Also, for all teams that registered by email, please be advised
that you will be charged a $7 per person lunch fee unless you indicated
otherwise.

Jeff Tompkins
Assistant Coach,
  Cornell Forensics Society



From KATHRYN-CHARLES  Wed Feb  4 12:18:20 1998
From: KATHRYN-CHARLES (kate charles)
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 12:18:20 CST
Subject: Novice Nats @ NU
Message-ID: <WED.4.FEB.1998.121820.CST.KATHRYNCHARLES@AUGUSTANA.EDU>

Kate Charles and Nathan Berish will be attending from Augie,
Illinois. We'll probably be running the Philippines SOFA.

Kate, Augie debate


> ----------
> From:  UNC [SMTP:pbermel at EMAIL.UNC.EDU]
> Sent:  Tuesday, February 03, 1998 3:54 PM
> To:  EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU
> Subject:  Novice Nats @ NU
>
> Who out there is planning on going to Novice Nationals at Northwestern?
> Please respond either backchannel or to e-debate if you think others will
> be interested.
>
>
> Peter Bermel
> UNC-CH
>

>From  Wed Feb  4 13:33:42 1998
Message-Id: <WED.4.FEB.1998.133342.0500.>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 13:33:42 -0500
Reply-To: deon_garner at STUDENTS.MOREHOUSE.EDU
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Deon Garner <deon_garner at STUDENTS.MOREHOUSE.EDU>
Subject: Georgia College
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=US-ASCII

Is there any word on a team list for Georgia College?

OR

Can teams let us know whose going, what divisions, and what your
running?

Thanks,
Deon, Captain
Morehouse Debate


Morehouse Entries:

O:  Brandon Smith and Deon Garner - Naval vessels, Encryption,
                                    possibly a new case, but not sure
N:  Joe Patterson and Derek McPhatter - Naval vessels, piracy
N:  Dash Cooper and Darius Wilkins - Naval vessels, piracy
N:  Fanon Howell and Hassan Christian - Nava; vessels



From Kenneth.DeLaughder  Wed Feb  4 12:35:41 1998
From: Kenneth.DeLaughder (Kenneth DeLaughder)
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 11:35:41 -0700
Subject: Coaching Position at ENMU
Message-ID: <WED.4.FEB.1998.113541.0700.KENNETH.DELAUGHDER@ENMU.EDU>

Dear Community,

Since the official announcement is ready yet, I thought I would put an
informal one up.  THere will be a coaching position available at Eastern
New Mexico University next year.  THe position will involve coaching on
the national NDT/CEDA circuit, attending both national tournaments, and
some regional work.  ENMU is commited to a nationally competitive program.
We have an I.E. team as well and the person will have to do some double
duty (our DOF does most of it).  Before you cringe, this was my job this
year, I am moving into full time debate.

Preferences? People who have some background in I.Es (at least the
platform speaking events - like informative for those of you who don't
know), someone who is willing to put time in on younger teams to help them
grow, and someone who likes to do some research.  Reasearch is not
required for the position, but is a bonus, working with younger teams is
mandatory, ENMU fields teams in all three divisions.

THe pay isn't bad, and Dr. Schroeder (the DOF) is an excellent person to
work for.  Applicants will be for the M.A. in Communications.  The school
isn't a bad one either.

If you are interested let me know, the more official announcement will be
upcoming.

sincerely,

Kenneth DeLaughder
Assistant, ENMU

--------------------------------------
Kenneth DeLaughder           "Do not be too proud of this technological
Assistant Debate Coach        terror you've constructed...The ability to
Eastern NM University         destroy a planet is insignificant compared
Station #3                    to the power of the Force..."
Portales, NM  88130
(505) 562-2741 (office)                 - Darth Vader, giving a good 2AR



From masst188+  Wed Feb  4 12:38:28 1998
From: masst188+ (Maxwell Schnurer)
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 13:38:28 -0500
Subject: Foucault and Power
In-Reply-To: <19980204151059.4264.qmail@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <WED.4.FEB.1998.133828.0500.MASST188@PITT.EDU>

        Whoo -- what a cool discussion. I only wanted to add one card that
I have found useful in my work to get past the "quandry" --

"So, the main point to be gleaned from these events of thelast fifteen
years, theier predominant feature, is the local character of criticsim.
That should not, I beleive, be taken to mean that its qualitiesare those
of an obtuse, naive or primitive empriricism; nor isit a soggy
eclecticism, an opportunism that laps up any and every kind of theoretical
approach; nor does it mean a self-imposed asceticism which taken by itself
would reduce to the worst kind of theoretical impoverishment.  I believe
that what this essentially local character of criticism indicates in
reality is an autonomous, non-centralizaed kind of theoretical production,
one that is to say whose validity is not dependent on the approval of the
established regimes of thought." p. 81, _Power/Knowldge_ ed. Colin Gordon.

        Seems like a simple answer. maxwell

". . . 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_)



From HANSONJB  Wed Feb  4 13:30:53 1998
From: HANSONJB (Jim Hanson)
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 11:30:53 -0800
Subject: Whitman Tournament
Message-ID: <WED.4.FEB.1998.113053.0800.HANSONJB@WHITMAN.EDU>

Whitman Tournament

--Friday and Saturday, Feb. 27 to 28
--CEDA, Public CEDA, NPDA, All 11 NIET events plus Extemp LD
--6 rounds of debate plus appropriate elimination rounds
--3 rounds of ie's and extemp ld plus finals
GIVE EXTEMP LD A TRY--YOU CAN STILL ENTER OTHER IE'S AND NPDA OR CEDA
--full service food throughout the tournament
--traditional awards including debate, ie, speaker award and sweepstakes
trophies plus, if you wish, team placques with the names of award winning
students

For full details--see the complete invitation at:
http://www.whitman.edu/Departments/Speech/11college98.htm

Jim Hanson
Whitman College



From dmuschel  Wed Feb  4 14:06:48 1998
From: dmuschel (David Muschell)
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 15:06:48 -0500
Subject: Ga. College Entries
Message-ID: <WED.4.FEB.1998.150648.0500.DMUSCHEL@MAIL.GAC.PEACHNET.EDU>

Though I still haven't heard from Emory, U. of South Carolina, Mercer, and
West Florida, here is a partial list of entries for the Peachbelt Classic:

App. State
Brewton-Parker
Clemson
College of Charleston
Macon State University
Morehouse
Tennessee Tech
U. of Florida
U. of North Carolina-Charlotte
Vanderbilt
Young Harris


David
********************
David Muschell
Dept. of English, Speech, and Journalism
Box 44
Georgia College & State University
Milledgeville, GA  31061
dmuschel at mail.gac.peachnet.edu
office:  (912)-445-5556   fax:  (912)445-5961



From ssnider  Wed Feb  4 14:12:20 1998
From: ssnider (Sarahjane)
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 15:12:20 -0500
Subject: looking for Jeremy Hathaway
Message-ID: <WED.4.FEB.1998.151220.0500.SSNIDER@ZOO.UVM.EDU>

Jeremy,
        we need to get in touch with you about WDI, please backchannel me
or Tuna about it......

hope to see you back again this summer, we have lots of new stuff, check
out the website.

Sarah
Vermont



From bcr2369  Wed Feb  4 14:17:59 1998
From: bcr2369 (Brian Reddinger)
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 15:17:59 -0500
Subject: kritiks and the random thoughts
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.96L.980204000534.9728A-100000@unixs2.cis.pitt.edu>
Message-ID: <WED.4.FEB.1998.151759.0500.BCR2369@GARNET.ACNS.FSU.EDU>

On Wed, 4 Feb 1998, Lisa M Corrigan wrote:

> i think that Foucault's is a bullshit defense, though.  there is no
> difference between the power of revolution and the power to oppress.  the
> only plausible difference is whose point of view you're examining the
> power structure from. his eliteism is a form of oppression. its not
> revolutionary but repressive to people of lower class.

That's a claim without a warrant.  Former revoultions have all started off
with the assumption that there must be a single class which begins the
revolution, and claims control and domination over the formerly oppressed
during reconstruction.  Foucault does no such thing.  He argues that there
is no center for the revolution.  That means that there is no guiding
ideology, no leaders, no blueprint.  Besides, this whole notion of a
"revolution" is your own.  Foucault calls it a transformation.  Nobody's
saying that violent conflict, and some coup d'etat is going overthrow
domination.  We get there by resisting domination on a local level.

And, seeing the world from the point of view of the oppressed is what
guarantees some progress.  Only by acting AS the oppressed, and not FOR
the oppressed can that injustice be ended.  So, maybe it does view things
from a different point of view from the one which is traditionally
privelidged, your argument is what?

And Foucault's elitism?  Where do you get THAT one from?

Your thinking like a Marxist where everything is all about classes.  That
allows you to think there is some UPPER ruling class which will inevitably
take over.  Which reeks of Lenin's elite rulers.  But you can't point to a
single argument that Foucault makes which says there has to be some group
who does the thinking and acting for Social Change.

Brian Reddinger



From lmcst33+  Wed Feb  4 15:10:07 1998
From: lmcst33+ (Lisa M Corrigan)
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 16:10:07 -0500
Subject: kritiks and the random thoughts
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.96L.980204153227.25215A-100000@unixs4.cis.pitt.edu>
Message-ID: <WED.4.FEB.1998.161007.0500.LMCST33@PITT.EDU>

while this is a fascinating diatribe about how sweet foucault is, i'll
re-ask one of kevin's initial questions: what place does this have in
debate...? i still don't think i've heard one...

> >
> > And, seeing the world from the point of view of the oppressed is what
> > guarantees some progress.  Only by acting AS the oppressed, and not FOR
> > the oppressed can that injustice be ended.  So, maybe it does view things
> > from a different point of view from the one which is traditionally
> > privelidged, your argument is what?

and what progress is this? so many people live the life of the oppressed
every day and yet never see change...

and, it seems to me, that regardless of who ACTS as the oppressed, it all
still hierarchy. maybe my view is a bit marxist in that i think that there
exist power structures determined by class, but how does that answer the
argument that there is NO decostruction of power, it just transfers to
another person or group....

just wondering what all of this philosophical stuff means,

lisa
university of pittsburgh



From JM86STU  Wed Feb  4 15:10:42 1998
From: JM86STU (Rebecca L Congo)
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 15:10:42 CST
Subject: Ark State
Message-ID: <WED.4.FEB.1998.151042.CST.JM86STU@SEMOVM.SEMO.EDU>

Any word yet on entries for Ark State this weekend?
Thanks

Rebecca Congo
SEMO Debate



From piccirs  Wed Feb  4 15:33:50 1998
From: piccirs (Shannon Piccirillo)
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 16:33:50 -0500
Subject: ALABAMA   SP only...............
Message-ID: <WED.4.FEB.1998.163350.0500.PICCIRS@ALLEG.EDU>

Could one of you please backchannel me??  I have some questions
regarding your affirmative at SIU.


Thanks in advance!
Shannon Piccirillo
Allegheny Debate



From anima  Wed Feb  4 16:05:43 1998
From: anima (anima)
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 16:05:43 -0600
Subject: Az. State martin and skarb
Message-ID: <WED.4.FEB.1998.160543.0600.ANIMA@IPA.NET>

Could you please backchanel me in ref. to the us inst. of peace snyder
article you use in your case on littoral strategy? i need to find that
article asap and that site is a maze. Thanks in advance.

Alisha Karabinus
Ark. State

________________________________________________________________
"If I had no sense of humor, I would long ago have committed
suicide."
         -Mahatma Gandhi

"for whatever we lose (like a you or a me)
it's always ourselves we find in the sea"
          -e. e. cummings, maggie and milly and molly and may.

"Thank you for shopping/In my head."
         -Stephen K. Z. Brust, Attention Shoppers

"When I grow up, I want to be an honest lawyer so things like that
can't happen."
         -Young Richard Nixon on the Teapot Dome Scandal
________________________________________________________________



From MFISHER  Wed Feb  4 15:15:39 1998
From: MFISHER (MICHAEL A. FISHER)
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 16:15:39 CDT
Subject: Arkansas State White Water Team List
Message-ID: <WED.4.FEB.1998.161539.CDT.MFISHER@AZTEC.ASTATE.EDU>

Open/JV
Arkansas State Willis/Altrui
Arkansas Tech  Paschal/Birkhahn
Harding        Henson/Tribble
Henderson      Johnson/Waters
LSU-S          Kreft/Milstead
NLU/ASU        Alexander/Karabinus
SEMO           Wichert/Congo
SEMO           Seabaugh/Yeager
SMSU           Kilpatrick/Hatkins

Novice has 8 entries

Parli has 20 entries and will break to quarters.

At this time Novice and Open/JV will break to semi-finals.  However
if we get more entries which we will accept until Noon 2/5/98 we will
re-evaluate as needed.

Dan Schabot
Arkansas State University

>From  Wed Feb  4 17:14:16 1998
Message-Id: <WED.4.FEB.1998.171416.0400.>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 17:14:16 -0400
Reply-To: davis_mk at MERCER.EDU
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Mike Davis <davis_mk at MERCER.EDU>
Subject: Re: Ga. College Entries
Comments: To: David Muschell <dmuschel at MAIL.GAC.PEACHNET.EDU>
In-Reply-To: <199802042006.PAA04474 at mail.gac.peachnet.edu>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

If anyone has an extra novice who they would want to go swing please let
me know.

Michael Davis
Director of Debate
Mercer University



From sellis1  Wed Feb  4 16:20:29 1998
From: sellis1 (Andy Ellis)
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 17:20:29 -0500
Subject: Larry from miami
Message-ID: <WED.4.FEB.1998.172029.0500.SELLIS1@TIGER.TOWSON.EDU>

larry i need to get your agent orange solvency cites and plan text, thanks
Andy Ellis
Towson
nWo Debate



From sheidt  Wed Feb  4 16:34:33 1998
From: sheidt (Stephen J. Heidt)
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 17:34:33 -0500
Subject: Dartmouth Only
Message-ID: <WED.4.FEB.1998.173433.0500.SHEIDT@EMORY.EDU>

Hey,  Can someone up north (Dave Hung) send me the cites to the AIDs
case you ran at the Round Robin.  Thanks in advance,

Stephen Heidt
sheidt at emory.edu

>From  Wed Feb  4 18:18:46 1998
Message-Id: <WED.4.FEB.1998.181846.0500.>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 18:18:46 -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: extra t. literature
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII

If you know of some literature concerning extra topicality either valid or
invalid arguments would you please send them to me.
Thanks
Mike

>From  Wed Feb  4 17:44:25 1998
Message-Id: <WED.4.FEB.1998.174425.0600.>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 17:44:25 -0600
Reply-To: ddd at UMR.EDU
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Doug Dennis <ddd at UMR.EDU>
Subject: steve woods or gina lane
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

if either of you would backchannel me,  i'd appreciate it.

thanks

doug dennis
um-rolla



From lsd041  Wed Feb  4 19:11:32 1998
From: lsd041 (Scott Deatherage)
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 19:11:32 -0600
Subject: Northwestern Team List
Message-ID: <WED.4.FEB.1998.191132.0600.LSD041@NWU.EDU>

Approximately 3:00 p.m., CST, Tuesday, February 4, 98 Teams:

Augustana (Illinois):

        Jeremy Bratt and Kate Charles
        Nathan Berish and Wesley Calvert

        Heidi Hamilton (4); Jason Jarvis (4)

Arizona State:

        Joshua Martin and Justin Skarb
        Edwin Aralica and David Williams

        Doyle Srader (8)

Baylor:

        Becky Coulter and Ben Coulter
        Chris Brasure and John Palmer
        Shawn Alexander and Christina Flora
        Meredith Black and Megan Martin

        Ryan Galloway (4); Kelly Dunbar (4); Matt Gerber (4); Ron Stevenson
(4)

Dartmouth:

        Adam Garen and Ian Williams
        David Hung and Steve Lehotsky

        `Robbie Ashe (4); Brian Prestes (4); Bill Russell (elims only); Ken
Strange (elims only)

Emory:

        Dan Fitzmier and Stephen Heidt
        Vic Tabak and Anne Marie Todd
        George Kouros and Anjan Sahni
        Raj Goshal and Leslie Wade
        Larry Heftman and Jeff McNabb
        Alison Chase and Kate Matt
        Mike Horowitz and Jon Paul Lupo
        Blake Eno and Ben Goodrich
        Stephen Bailey and Kamal Ghali
        David Harkin and Joey Tavery

        Bill Newnam (4); Jamie McKown (8); David Heidt (8); Hire (20)

Florida State:

        Andre Perez and Erin Verhelst
        Arianna Allyn and Brian Reddinger
        Nick Brooks and John Cayangyang

        Michael Korcock (6); Kristina Schriver (6)

Fort Hayes:

        John Clune and Andrew Halverson

        Joey Boyle (4)

Fullerton:

        Laura Heider and Demetrious Lambrinos

        Jon Bruschke (4)

George Mason:

        Peter Krein and Jake Weiner
        Jay Igiel and Richard Reed

        Neil Butt (4); Jomel Angat (4)

George Washington:

        Pramod Thammala and John Stubbs
        David Duccomon and Greg Mast

        Ronna Landy (8)

Georgetown:

        Jason Kwon and Kelly Steele
        Misha Botvinnik and John Simensen

        Jeff Parcher (4); Anne Davis (4)

Georgia:

        Michael Cates and Christopher McIntosh
        Michael Matos and Jason Teagle
        Meredith Stein and Wally Eastwood

        Gordon Stables (4); Kate Shuster (4); Joe Bellon (4)

Georgia State:

        Nathan Horsley and Kevin Kelly

        Tom Rogers (4)

Harvard:

        Carl Engstrom and Sonja Starr

        Dappas Perkins (2); Sherry Hall (2); Scott Hessell (2); Paul
Skiermont (2)

Iowa:

        Andrew Peterson and Corey Rayburn
        Jill Podgorski and Karen Scott
        Erik Christensen and Mike Jensen
        Trevor Foster and April Rathe
        Nate Hill and Ted Moore

        David Hingstman (3); Bill Trapani (4); Birian Lain (5); Jon Wiebel
(5); Paul Bellus (3)

James Madison:

        Eric Minkove and John Willemin

        Pete Bsumek (4)

John Carroll:

        Liz Wiley and Katie Lavelle
        Sig Fuchs and Ben Sovacool

        Brent Brossmann (8)

Kansas:

        Hajir Ardebili and Grant McKeehan
        Mike Eber and Amy Miller
        Ryan Hudson and Tom Seymour

        Sarah Partlow (5); Stacey Sowards (5); Scott Harris (2)

Kentucky:

        Paul Jensen and Brian Ray

        Dave Arnett (4)

Liberty:

        Rob Burns and Bill Lawrence
        Lacy Siegalkoff and Michael Tilley

        Mike Toguchi (6); Brett O'Donnell (2)

Louisville:

        Michael Lee and Jonathan Westbrook
        Timothy Cochran and Haley DeVanna

        Krsna Tibbs (8)

Macalester:

        Jennifer Alme and Kiva Garen
        James Hrat and Martha Wilson

        Jim Haefele (4); Will Brewer (4)

Michigan:

        Corey Stoughton and Lesley Wexler
        Gil Karkowsky and Matt Rice
        Chris Pudelski and Gabe Scannapieco
        Matt Mish and Dan Samson

        Colin Kahl (8); Mike Dickler (8); Amy Humoweicki (4-8); Adrienne
Brovero (elims only); Steve Mancuso (elims only)

Michigan Dearborn:

        Taimaa Hussein and Aiman Mackie

        Danielle Wiese (4)

Michigan State:

        Eric Cornellier and John Sullivan
        Matt Blair and Steve Donald
        Katy Hoffman and Aaron Monick

        Biza Repko (4); Will Repko (4); Jason Trice (4)

Missouri Kansas City:

        Jenny Barker and Scott Betz
        Matt Baisley and Josh COffman

        Eric Jenkins (8)

North Carolina:

        Matt Fogharty and Steve Schneider

        Cori Dauber (4)

North Texas:

        Eli Holloway and Cody Morrow
        Kenda Cunningham and Melissa Horn

        Josh Hoe (2); Christy Lowery (6)

Pace:

        Mike Kloster and Taylor Petrey

        Tim Mahoney (4)

Pittsburgh:

        Almas Sayeed and Andrew Stangl
        Lisa Corrigan and Phil Ellwood

        Maxwell Schnurer (3); Tim O'Donnell (3); Gordon Mitchell (2)

Redlands:

        John Miller and Tyson Wetzel

        Bill Southworth (4)

Samford:

        Chris Buzachero and David Dye
        Davi Johnson and Stephen Stetson

        Jenoard Neighbors (8)

Southern California:

        Adam Hurder and Roger Stetson
        Lindsey Harrison and Armond Revelins
        Ari Meltzer and Andy Weitz

        John Day (4); Jeff Griswold (4); Ted Prosise (4)

Southern Illinois:

        Eric Slusher and Geoff Smith
        Matt Moore and Joey Vuglia

        Aaron Klemz (8)

Southwest Missouri:

        Troy Payne and Matt Vega
        Wes Langford and James Martin
        Trenton Gorman and Chris Wilt

        Paul Hood (5); Eric Morris (4); John Fritch (3)

Texas:

        Brett Griffin and Judd Renken
        Kirk Evans and Jairus Grove

        Bill Shanahan (4); David Breshears (4)

Vanderbuilt:

        Gabrielle Prisco and Vinay Reddy

        Hire (4)

Wake Forest:

        Andrew Geppert and clay Rhodes
        Jarrod Atchison and Justin Green
        Emma Filstrup and Ken Rufo
        Michael Bonura and Cyclone Covey
        Elisabeth Ellis and Wesley Lotz
        Amy Powell and Mark Yopp

        Ross Smith (4); Eric Truett (4); Jim Lyle (4); Mark Grant (6);
Daveed Gartenstein-Ross (4); John Hughes (2)

Wayne State:

        Dan Gaynor and Amy Lewis
        Dawn Gibson and Allison Markowitz

        George Ziegelmueller (4); Joe Zompetti (4)

West Georgia:

        Jason Lantz and Jim Smith
        Brandyn Barksdale and Rachel Saloom
        Kris Bonilla and Michael Carver

        Mike Hester (6); Jon Sharp (6)

Whitman:

        Sean Haris and Adam Symonds

        J.P. Lacy (4)



From lsd041  Wed Feb  4 19:21:44 1998
From: lsd041 (Scott Deatherage)
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 19:21:44 -0600
Subject: Corrections to Northwestern Team List
Message-ID: <WED.4.FEB.1998.192144.0600.LSD041@NWU.EDU>

Sorry for the delay in getting this posted today.  Some computer problems,
but I think they are now worked out.  Please double check your entry.
Changes:

1.  Harvard has two teams, not one.  My error.  The second team is:

        Aram Horrow and Dan Schrage

I've heard them.  Fine young team.  Don't slight them because I did; they
might beat you.

2.  One drop:

        Iowa (Foster and Rathe)

3.  96 teams total, not 98 or 97.  My error.  I think.

See you soon.
SD

>From  Wed Feb  4 16:49:04 1998
Message-Id: <WED.4.FEB.1998.164904.0800.>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 16:49:04 -0800
Reply-To: swhalen at SFSU.EDU
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Shawn Whalen <swhalen at SFSU.EDU>
Subject: Contact Info for Gary Larson?
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Anyone have a phone number for Gary?  I have a SMART TOURNAMENT question I
need a quick answer to.

Thanks,

Shawn Whalen



From Kenneth.DeLaughder  Wed Feb  4 19:12:50 1998
From: Kenneth.DeLaughder (Kenneth DeLaughder)
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 18:12:50 -0700
Subject: ENMU position clarification
Message-ID: <WED.4.FEB.1998.181250.0700.KENNETH.DELAUGHDER@ENMU.EDU>

Howdy again folks,

Just to clarify on the post I made about the position at ENMU that I
posted earlier today.  I am not leaving ENMU, Jackie Massey is getting his
degree.  But thanks for all of the concern :).  I will be here as one of
two ENMU assistants, the announcement was for the second.

*and a gasp was heard in district IX* hee hee

Ken
ENMU
--------------------------------------
Kenneth DeLaughder           "Do not be too proud of this technological
Assistant Debate Coach        terror you've constructed...The ability to
Eastern NM University         destroy a planet is insignificant compared
Station #3                    to the power of the Force..."
Portales, NM  88130
(505) 562-2741 (office)                 - Darth Vader, giving a good 2AR



From debate  Wed Feb  4 19:55:26 1998
From: debate (Greg Simerly)
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 19:55:26 -0600
Subject: The 1998 Jesuit
Message-ID: <WED.4.FEB.1998.195526.0600.DEBATE@SIU.EDU>

1998 JESUIT QUALIFYING TEAMS
Emroy Horowitch & Reid
Kansas Ardebili & McKeehan
Macalaster Alme & Garen
Michigan State Cornellier & Sullivan
Michigan State Hoffman & Woiden
Pace Peterson & Bell
USC Bevan & Markowski
USC Hurder & Stetson
(only 8 this year because of a last minute drop)


SPEAKER AWARDS
5. McKeehan, Kansas
4. Alme, Macalaster
3. Ardebili, Kansas
2. Cornellier, MSU
1. Sullivan, MSU


FINAL ROUND
Aff MSU CS
Neg Kansas AM

Panel: Day, USC; Brewer, Mac; Haefele, Mac; Heidt, Emory.  Five debaters
make up the fifth ballot: Garen, Mac; Slusher, SIU, Horowitch, Emory;
Stetson, USC; Reid, Emory.


BALLOT COUNT

Student ballot, in order received: Slusher Aff, Stetson Neg, Horowitch Aff,
Reid Aff, Garen, Aff.  The student ballot goes Affirmative for MSU.

Coaches, in order received: Haefele Aff, Brewer Aff, Heidt Aff, (waiting on
Day, waiting, waiting, waiting on Day, still waiting, waiting, still waiting
on Day, waiting), Day Aff.  Four more ballots for MSU.

Thus, a 5-0 decision for the Affirmative, MSU Cornellier & Sullivan.

Special congrats to Sullivan, for his third consecutive Jesuit championship.


Cheers,
Greg

>From  Wed Feb  4 21:20:54 1998
Message-Id: <WED.4.FEB.1998.212054.0600.>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 21:20:54 -0600
Reply-To: WK02 at SWT.EDU
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: WK02 at SWT.EDU
Organization: Southwest Texas State University
Subject: Southwest Texas Tournament
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII

January 20, 1998

Dear Colleagues:

The LBJ Debate Society of Southwest Texas State University invites you
and your squad to join us on the weekend of February 20-22, 1998 for the
Texas Intercollegiate Forensics Association Debate Championships and
The South Central CEDA Regional Debate Tournament.

Both tournaments are open to schools outside of Texas and the South Central
Region, however, Texas schools must be TIFA members to be eligible for
school sweepstakes awards.

The tournament will feature six rounds of CEDA/NDT debate in Open, Junior,
Novice and Lincoln-Douglas Divisions as well as six rounds of Public Debate.

Housing:  Each school is responsible for securing their own housing.  We
recommend the La Quinta Inn, 1619 I-35 North.  Their rate for four in a
room is $55.00.  There are more economical accomodations that we can
suggest upon request.  The La Quinta's number is 512-392-8800.  Please
mention SWT Debate to get the rate.

Awards:  Awards will be given to all teams advancing to the elimination
rounds  as well as speaker awards in each division.  The TIFA Debate
Sweepstakes award will be awarded at the conclusion of the tournament.

Registration:  Registration will be on Friday, February 20th from 2-3 pm
in Flowers Hall.

Divisions and Formats:  Policy debate will be offered in Open, Junior,
and Novice divisions.  We reserve the right to collaspe divisions if
there are insufficient entries.  L/D and Public will compete in a single
open division.  All divisions will debate six rounds.

CEDA will use the 9-3-6 minute format and L/D will use the 6-3-7-3-4-6-3
minute format.

Fees:  Team fees are $45.00 per debate team entered.  L/D and Public
entries are $20.00 per entry.

Judges:  One qualified judge per two debate teams entered is required.
One judge covers 4 L/D entries.  Any team not covered by a qualified
judge will be assessed a $70.00 judging fee.  All judges are required
to remain for one round past the point of thier team's/individual's
elimination.

Emtry Deadlines:  Entries must be received by February 16th (Monday).
Fees will be assessed on Wednesday February 18th.  Debate drops or adds
after 5:00pm on the 18th will be subject to fees assessed plus a $50.00
nuisance fee.

We prefer that entries are phoned in at 512-245-2331.  You may fax your
entry to 512-245-3138 or e-mail them to me at WK02 at academia.swt.edu

Please call if we can be of any assistance to you.

Sincerely,

Wayne Kraemer
Director of Forensics
Southwest Texas State University
San Marcos, TX 78666


Tenative Schedule

Friday, February 20, 1998

2-3 pm          Registration, Flowers Hall
3:00            Round I
5:30            Round II

Saturday, February 21, 1998

9:00 am         Round III
11:00           Round IV
2:00 pm         Round V
5:00            Round VI
8:30            Coaches' Seminar

Sunday, February 22, 1998

9:00 am         First Elimination Round
11:30           Awards
12:00 noon      Elims Continue



From sarah.chan  Wed Feb  4 22:30:04 1998
From: sarah.chan (Sarah E. Chan)
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 23:30:04 EST
Subject: taping theory lectures
Message-ID: <WED.4.FEB.1998.233004.EST.SARAH.CHAN@JUNO.COM>

I was wondering if anyone tapes the theory lectures from their
camps/workshops.  If not, perhaps this is something people might want to
do so that people who either can't attend or are new to CEDA have
something they could order.
Desperately want to hear Kate Schuster's critique lecture again,
Sarah
SJSU debate

_____________________________________________________________________
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 bcr2369  Wed Feb  4 22:21:49 1998
From: bcr2369 (Brian Reddinger)
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 23:21:49 -0500
Subject: kritiks and the random thoughts
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.96L.980204155534.10606B-100000@unixs4.cis.pitt.edu>
Message-ID: <WED.4.FEB.1998.232149.0500.BCR2369@GARNET.ACNS.FSU.EDU>

> while this is a fascinating diatribe about how sweet foucault is, i'll
> re-ask one of kevin's initial questions: what place does this have in
> debate...? i still don't think i've heard one...

But it's a pretty diatribe.

I think we should examine how policy making decision serve to increase and
reproduce oppression.  There is some place for discussing freedom in
debate.  And debate = discourse.  That's all we do is talk.  So I would
guess that Foucault's discusion about how discourse supports power
realtions is something important. One could easily ask without end, what
place does this Clinton Disad have in debate?  My answer is that if it's
something relevant to the plan, and it has some implication it has a place
in debate as an argument.

And BTW I think Kevin's last post made it clear that his argument is not
that Kritik have a questionable place in debate.
>
> and, it seems to me, that regardless of who ACTS as the oppressed, it all
> still hierarchy. maybe my view is a bit marxist in that i think that there
> exist power structures determined by class, but how does that answer the
> argument that there is NO decostruction of power, it just transfers to
> another person or group....
>
> just wondering what all of this philosophical stuff means,
>
WHY is it still hierarchy?  My argument is that we should view power as
being DEcentralized.  Is that hierarchy?  And to be a marxist is okay,
it's just that not all issues fit so neatly into class structures.  Like
the oppression of defining the insane as being unable to speak for
themselves.

I too wonder what the blither means,

Brian Reddinger



From papacat  Wed Feb  4 23:01:38 1998
From: papacat (Pat J. Gehrke)
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 21:01:38 PST
Subject: kritiks and the random thoughts
Message-ID: <WED.4.FEB.1998.210138.PST.PAPACAT@HOTMAIL.COM>

>From:         Lisa M Corrigan <lmcst33+ at PITT.EDU>
>what place does this have in
>debate...? i still don't think i've heard one...

That depends on how it is applied and intended. Some interesting
possibilities exist, but there certainly is possible to debate without
ever having heard of Foucault. The "Polemics" interview in Rabinow's new
book certainly provides some opportunities for rethinking debate.

>and what progress is this? so many people live the life of the
oppressed
>every day and yet never see change...

progress is a dangerous term in this context.

>and, it seems to me, that regardless of who ACTS as the oppressed, it
all
>still hierarchy. maybe my view is a bit marxist in that i think that
there
>exist power structures determined by class, but how does that answer
the
>argument that there is NO decostruction of power, it just transfers to
>another person or group....

yup. Power is inescapable. Hierarchy happens. Foucault's desire was, I
believe, to play with a minimum of domnination -- big difference (see my
previous for exact cites and quotes).

best,

Pat Gehrke
penn state


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

>From  Wed Feb  4 23:59:54 1998
Message-Id: <WED.4.FEB.1998.235954.0600.>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 23:59:54 -0600
Reply-To: nicholas.d.ellinger at vanderbilt.edu
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Nick Ellinger <nicholas.d.ellinger at VANDERBILT.EDU>
Organization: Vanderbilt University -- College of Arts and Science
Subject: How I Learned Paper
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

To all:

        THANK YOU SO MUCH!  I got three times the number of response that the
instructor required!

        As promised, I am sending to the community a copy of the chessy
unscientific paper.  Unlike one person who may or may not want to remain
nameless suggest, I would not suggest quoting Ellinger, in '98.
However, if you want to be hit over the head with author indicts (point
5: Author finished paper only 10 hours before it was due!), be my guest.

Before the stupid stats stuff starts, however, I wanted to address some
comments about the survey.

1. Yes, the questions, especially the two regarding the economic
depression, were crappy YES/NO questions.  I could have easily said rate
on a scale of 1-10, but I sacrificed scientific accuracy for ease.  If I
had done scaling, I would have at least two hours less sleep tonight and
right now, I'm loving that trade-off.

2. How do I deal with non-YES NO responses?  I used .5.  Simple, ain't
it?

3. Some questioned the use of the word "WAR" in the questions,
advocating "use" (among others, this one is my favorite) of nuclear
weapons in said conflicts.  I definitely agree with the fact that "war"
might be perceived as not including sub-state actors.  However, I use
the definition for the Correlates of War project which is armed conflict
in which more than 1000 people die, not necessary with state actors.

4. However, the third YES/NO question was probably just bad.  The
question about inevitability should have been something more like: "It
is evitable that a nuclear weapon will be used as a killing device."  Or
not.

5. I was informed that I probably needed to get permission from a human
subjects review board before studying human subjects.  I definitely
understand why a university would want to look at the use of human
sujects and approve it.  However, our instructor told us specifically to
interview people on campus (I took it one step further (farther?
further?  whatever), and so I assume 1. he got approval or 2. it's his
fault.

Without further (farther? whatever) ado, here's the paper:


        One of the major goals of a debate round is make the opponents~R
advocacy seem as bad as possible.  Thus, the idea that a simple idea can
lead to nuclear war very common.  Authors (especially Robert Jay Lifton)
suggest, though, that people become numbed to the possibility of nuclear
war--they believe that nuclear war cannot be avoided, is comes soon,
and/or can be easily caused.  I decided to test this theory with
debaters.  My hypothesis was that debaters would become more and more
numbed as they were involved in debate for longer periods of times.
        To this end, I sent an e-mail to all of the members of the college
debate mailing list E-DEBATE soliciting responses from debate community
to the following six questions:
1. Number of years involvement in the debate community (all programs on
all levels):
2. YES or NO: Nuclear war is likely within the next 10 years.
3. YES or NO: Nuclear war is inevitable.
4. YES or NO: The United States~R nuclear philosophy cannot be changed.
5. YES or NO: A global depression the magnitude of the 1930s would lead
to world war.
6. YES or NO: A global depression the magnitude of the 1930s would lead
to global nuclear war.

For the correlations, I created a numbing index by assigned 1 to YES
answers, 0 to NO answers, and .5 to any answers that were somehow
equivocated and totaling questions 2-6.  Theoretically, indices were
possible from zero to five; however, the largest index was four, giving
the index a range of four.
        The responses were surprising, to say the least.  More than
three-fourths of the respondents answered YES to less than two
questions. (See Appendix B, graph 2)  With Lifton as a guide, much
greater numbing effects should have been seen.  Furthermore, Lifton and
his colleagues would assume that numbed people would assume that world
war would escalate into nuclear war.  In this study, less than one
quarter of those who believed that a 30~Rs-type depression would lead to
world war thought it would escalate to global nuclear war.  I regarded
those people who said YES to two or more questions as numbed, which is
important for the statistical analysis.
        The original hypothesis that greater debate experience would lead to
greater levels of numbing was not supported.  There seems to be no
significant relationship between the two variables.  The Yule~Rs Q
computed by the tables in Appendix C showed only a .11 correlation
between the two variables, using the aforementioned measure for numbing
and splitting the populace at ten years debate experience.  The damning
statistic, though, was Pearson~Rs correlation coefficient.  This study
registered only a .004 relationship between debate experience and
numbing.  This shows no support for a correlation.
        However, in the data collection process, I noticed another separate
trend.  Females seemed to have higher numbing rates than males,
regardless of debate experience.  This was not intended as part of the
original study and there is no research I found that would support this
conclusion.  However, statistics don~Rt lie (just politicians that use
statistics).  The Yule~Rs Q for this correlation was .81, which is
considered a very strong correlation in the social sciences.  The
statistics are also strong on face--fully 88% of males were not
considered numbed, where as only 44% females weren~Rt numbed.  The
females were also more polarized than males in their views.  A one on
the numbing index was both the average (mean) of the data and the most
common (mode) datum.  However, of sixteen females, only one had a numbed
index and fourteen of the sixteen answered either zero or two or more on
the numbed index.
        This area is a possibility for future study.  Since there was no
empirically base for this finding, it would be interesting to study this
with a more regimented survey including a greater variation of nuclear
scenarios.  In the short term, however, we might question those who say
that simply hearing nuclear language changes the way we think about
nuclear weapons.



Like I said, I never intented to study gender and numbing, but hey--with
correlations like that...

I hope this fosters interest in the subject.  I would love to see more
(legitimate) research on the debate.

Also, I am permentally numbing from doing this paper.

Peace, love, and harmony,
Nick Ellinger
Vanderbilt University

"I have become death, the destroyer of worlds." -- J. Robert Oppenheimer



From srader  Thu Feb  5 00:08:55 1998
From: srader (Doyle Srader)
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 23:08:55 -0700
Subject: ans West (4)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.96L.980115153037.1148C-100000@unixs-eval.cis.pitt.edu>
Message-ID: <WED.4.FEB.1998.230855.0700.SRADER@IMAP3.ASU.EDU>

Didn't I challenge Kerpen to another round of this a while back? Almost a
month ago, matter of fact. Here's my followup:

On Thu, 15 Jan 1998, Phil Kerpen wrote:

> On Sun, 11 Jan 1998, Doyle Srader wrote:
>
> > a. Proving that any of the following can be achieved through the tweaking
> > of theory: perfect equality, rough equality, ballpark parity.
>
> Plan/plan gives almost perfectly equal ground, because it's the *same*
> ground.

Didn't say ground: I said _equality_. Debates aren't equal. "Ground" is a
buzz-phrase that has come to mean very little. Debate is still unequal.
Speaking first and last is not equal to the negative block. The right to
pick the starting point of debate is not offset by ... well, anything.
Plan-plan included.

> > b. Proving that trying to do so accomplishes anything, especially since
> > all attempts are necessary and inescapably scattershot, being limited to
> > individual judges, and, for the most part, individual decisions by those
> > individual judges.
>
> If the negative chooses in some debate to accept a theory, such as
> affplan focus, in which they clearly have less ground, that's their
> decision.  It doesn't undermine the ground equalization of the theory,
> which is a *possibility* for the negative in every round, placing the the
> contest, on a meta-theoretical level, on equal ground.

I have no idea what any of this means. My counterclaim is that
"equalizing" or pursuing "fairness" is silly and misleading, that teams
(or at least judges) ought to accept that debate is _un_equal, and just
to police the most egregious excesses. For example: I don't vote on
topicality arguments unless there's an _impact_. Hash out the in-round
vs. out-of-round bicker yourselves, but I'm hard to persuade to vote on
the issue unless the consequence of me _not_ policing the boundary is a
situation of absurd undebatability, of impossibility of preparation.

Topicality is, of course, only one issue which sparks such claims.
Similar assumptions apply to the others.

> > Another thought: everyone goes affirmative and negative the exact same
> > number of times. Why do we need more of a leveller than that?
>
> Well, because we value high-low pairings, and side skews from even rounds
> create bracket skews, and because each individual round should be fair,

Gotta cut in here: they aren't. Never. Not possible.

> because we don't always get to debate that team again, and because elims
> are winner take all, and even with side equalization, each elim debate
> should be on equal ground.  There are lotsa other reasons also, but how
> about the reductio-- would a theory that the aff always wins be ok for
> ground?  Break on points, right?

Reductio ad absurdum is an awfully shaky way to argue, hombre. If the
affirmative's choice of plan gives the negative all other topical
options, does the affirmative's choice of inflection give the negative
all other audible options, meaning that if the negative can re-read the
1AC in a more aesthetically pleasing way, they win? With that out of my
system ...

Well, the only other follow-up comment I have is the same explanation I
had above. Perfect equality isn't out there. Rough equality is pretty
much reality. Ground encroachments that can successfully be characterized
as outrageous might be reasons for me to vote.

Has anyone noticed that I'm in for eight debates in Chicago this weekend?
Trying to persuade *more* people to exercise their option on me? Would I
do a thing like that?

Doyle Srader
Arizona State University
(602) 649-6033



From papacat  Thu Feb  5 01:05:34 1998
From: papacat (Pat J. Gehrke)
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 23:05:34 PST
Subject: Foucualt [sic]
Message-ID: <WED.4.FEB.1998.230534.PST.PAPACAT@HOTMAIL.COM>

A sloppy statement on my part leads to this discussion by Zompetti,
proving that errors are sometimes most fruitful.

To clarify, I believe that Foucault definitely does want to study power,
especially in its relation to the subject and the subject's involvement
in games of truth. What my originally comment poorly intended to convey
was that Foucault is not opposed to power-per-se, even if such were
possible. He does not critique power as power, or power as a concept, in
order to acquire a power-free relation. Such a move falls back into the
naive movements of liberal politics. This is one way to position F.
contra Habermas or Sartre. So, to use F. as the basis of a critique that
seeks to oppose power relations, per se, seems contrary to the basic
project I read in his work. To use F. to help to better discuss or
examine a specific power relation, or to position an opposition to
polemics or domination, those all make sense to me. I think this is the
same as Mr. Zompetti's point, though I don't intend to speak for him.

-Pat Gehrke
penn state

>Date:         Wed, 4 Feb 1998 10:24:49 -0500
>Reply-To:     MR JOSEPH P ZOMPETTI <LPCK66A at PRODIGY.COM>
>From:         MR JOSEPH P ZOMPETTI <LPCK66A at PRODIGY.COM>
>Subject:      Re: Foucualt
>To:           EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU
>
>Interesting discussion so far.  I agree with Gehrke's analysis of
>Foucualt's description of power, i.e., the newtwork array of power
>formations and the resituated subject that resists the concepts of
>liberalism.  However, Pat says:
>
>
>>If one critiques "power" from the work of Foucault, I believe one
>has
>>mistaken Foucault's project.
>
>>Just my opinion (works cited below),
>
>
>Here is where I would disagree.  Just because Foucault happens to
>also be looking for the ontological of Being (as does Nietzsche,
>Heidegger, etc.), the consitution of power is central to his
>undertaking.  Only be examining the estabishment of power
>relationships can the subject, which thru transgression locates the
>self, identify with their localized position.  Foucault's specific
>intellectual, and later transgressive ethics, are not his utopian
>enterprise, but rather a localized, albeit personal, attempt at
>resisting both coercive and liberating notions of power thru a more
>aesthetic and principaled notion of Being.  Here is where power is
>EXTREMELY important to study.  For without an analysis of power, the
>ethic of the self becomes a futile pursuit.
>
>just my opinion, too.  Perhaps there's something to be said for all
>of us who are trying to "speak for" Foucault, as if we knew him or
>something.  I guess I'm not trying to speak "for" him, but rather,
>this is my interpretation.
>
>zompetti


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



From race  Thu Feb  5 02:03:25 1998
From: race (David Bruce Rhaesa)
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 02:03:25 -0600
Subject: multiple kritiks and ideology
Message-ID: <THU.5.FEB.1998.020325.0600.RACE@MIDUSA.NET>

someone suggested in recent threads the possibility of employing
multiple kritiks in debates and this seems to be an interesting strategy
something akin to the advent of hypothetical counterplans to counterplan
out an advantage.  one might face an affirmative where the goods you
have in terms of traditional policy argumentation only apply to a tiny
segment, but in examining the various "issues" and "problems" (see
Edelman's Spectacle book) in the other portions of the case devise
kritiks which efface the underlying principles (and perhaps turn them
philosophically) of the entire rest of the claims.  In this case, the
kritik strategy is not employed as a direct voting issue -- eliminating
some of the most heated theoretical claims against the strategy -- but
rather as a means of erasing most of the affirmative's portrait for
change leaving only that portion left which one wants to dissect in
terms of traditional policy arguments.

This approach might most easily be understood as is often the case by
analogy to some of the tactics of the critical legal studies movement.
in order to re-direct the point of stasis in the debate the negative
would advance any number of kritiks ON THE CASE which function to
"trash" (is that Tushnet's word?) the underlying claims.

Such a strategy combined with straight up old fashioned case specific
turns and whatnot against the non-erased portion of the discussion leave
the critic with some comprehension of the motivations behind kritiks
with the option of accepting their strategic use by the negative but
giving them the sane pathway of examining the leftover positions in a
more traditional framework.  (of course, the affirmative can easily
employ a similar strategy against negative counterplan argumentation
instead of jumping the gun to the kneejerk and often - these days -
mindless spitting of permutations that a simple cross-examination would
demonstrate are ridiculous [please excuse the soapbox there].

All this seems clearly plausible but my difficulty and question to those
pondering these strategies on the day to day basis of the active
participants and coaches is should the kritiking team be held to a
consistent ideological or philosophical position?



From db8coach  Thu Feb  5 02:15:27 1998
From: db8coach (Bob Lechtreck)
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 00:15:27 -0800
Subject: ans West (4)
Message-ID: <THU.5.FEB.1998.001527.0800.DB8COACH@LIGHTSPEED.NET>

At 11:08 PM 2/4/98 -0700, Doyle Srader wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>
> Plan/plan gives almost perfectly equal ground, because it's the *same*
> ground.

Didn't say ground: I said _equality_. Debates aren't equal. "Ground" is a
buzz-phrase that has come to mean very little.
>>>>>>>>>>

But it should. Ground is the basis for all of our jurisdictionals. How much
more importance should we give it?

>>>>>>>>>>
Debate is still unequal.
>>>>>>>>>>

Damn, and I thought we had achieved perfect equality.

So, Doyle, should we, in a non-equal world, give up trying to achieve
equality? I think that every step towards making debate MORE equal is a good
thing. I also think P2 does that.

>>>>>>>>>>
Speaking first and last is not equal to the negative block. The right to
pick the starting point of debate is not offset by ... well, anything.
Plan-plan included.
>>>>>>>>>>

Not true. The right to pick the starting point of the debate IS offset by
plan/plan. If the aff chooses a starting point which crushes your ground, P2
allows for the neg to choose a different starting point.

>>>>>>>>>>
My counterclaim is that "equalizing" or pursuing "fairness" is silly and
misleading, that teams (or at least judges) ought to accept that debate is
_un_equal, and just to police the most egregious excesses.
>>>>>>>>>>

Not as easy as it sounds. Ground reduction comes in many and severe shapes.

>>>>>>>>>>
Reductio ad absurdum is an awfully shaky way to argue, hombre. If the
affirmative's choice of plan gives the negative all other topical
options, does the affirmative's choice of inflection give the negative
all other audible options, meaning that if the negative can re-read the
1AC in a more aesthetically pleasing way, they win? With that out of my
system ...
>>>>>>>>>>

Nope, that ain't the theory. Even using a different inflection it is STILL
the same case. Or do you think that judges should be able to use vocal
quality as a voting issue?

>>>>>>>>>>
Well, the only other follow-up comment I have is the same explanation I
had above. Perfect equality isn't out there.
>>>>>>>>>>

Doesn't mean we should try to make it better.

>>>>>>>>>>
Ground encroachments that can successfully be characterized as outrageous
might be reasons for me to vote.
>>>>>>>>>>

So if the aff says rape is bad, and the neg is forced to have to try to
argue this, you would vote neg because of ground loss? I doubt it.

>>>>>>>>>>
Has anyone noticed that I'm in for eight debates in Chicago this weekend?
Trying to persuade *more* people to exercise their option on me? Would I
do a thing like that?
>>>>>>>>>>

Won't work anyway. Very few P2 debates this year. Too much neg ground.

Peace,

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



From race  Thu Feb  5 02:20:14 1998
From: race (David Bruce Rhaesa)
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 02:20:14 -0600
Subject: Conservative Kritiks
Message-ID: <THU.5.FEB.1998.022014.0600.RACE@MIDUSA.NET>

It seems that most contemporary thought concerning kritiks suffers from
holding as synonymous terms such as radical, rebel and revolutionary or
liberal, progressive and humanist.

The lines between these terms provide ground for a new generation of
conservative kritiks.

I've been meaning to type a note to this effect for years and just never
got around to it so tonight is the night.  Begin with the conservative
kritik grounded in traditional notions of presumption.  The basic
understanding of the imperfect-ness of humanity creates the ground for a
negative kritik of political progressive action.  One can concede the
problem and recognize that doing something may (not because of the
unknown risk in change but because of the KNOWN human frailties of
imperfection) bring about much worse results than intended and often (as
Burke says somewhere) the opposite of those intended.

I believe the best place to begin such a course of thought would be in
the writings of Peter Berger in Movement or Revolution in his essay on
"Conservative Humanism".  One can have liberal-minded values and be
staunchly conservative against liberal, progressive and other layers of
movement and revolutionary thought by understanding the simple history
of how humans tend to fuck up things they try to hard to fix.  (a loose
translation <grin>).

Once one's eyes are opened to the possibility of radically conservative
argumentation other kritiks will begin to pop up.  Now this is going to
date me but many economic arguments can take the form of kritik.  The
spending position which Doug Sigel used to run was grounded on the
notion that not one cent should be spent until the deficit was cleaned
up.  The Gramm-Rudman bill was grounded in a similar kritik of spending
practices.  Fiscal conservatism is an ideology that can stem kritiks
just as easily as radical anarchism.

Perhaps one of the gnawing points of angst against the kritik strategy
by many is that it turns all the debates into a bunch of progressive
radical leftist crap.  It seems that the rapid development of balancing
conservative kritiks can undercut this nauesa.

just another simple thought

DR



From db8coach  Thu Feb  5 02:21:25 1998
From: db8coach (Bob Lechtreck)
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 00:21:25 -0800
Subject: ans West (4)
Message-ID: <THU.5.FEB.1998.002125.0800.DB8COACH@LIGHTSPEED.NET>

At 12:15 AM 2/5/98 -0800, Bob Lechtreck wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>
Well, the only other follow-up comment I have is the same explanation I
had above. Perfect equality isn't out there.
>>>>>>>>>>

Doesn't mean we should try to make it better.
                ^^^^^^

This should read "shouldn't"....


Peace,

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



From tking  Thu Feb  5 06:25:02 1998
From: tking (Tony)
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 04:25:02 -0800
Subject: Random thoughts about kritiking
In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19980203223802.0068a984@pop.pitt.edu>
Message-ID: <THU.5.FEB.1998.042502.0800.TKING@ECST.CSUCHICO.EDU>

On Tue, 3 Feb 1998, Kevin Ayotte wrote:

>         For all of you other theory hacks, I wanted to get some feedback regarding
> a topic about which I've heard surprisingly little debate.  Most of the
> kritiks we hear are based in some aspect of poststructuralist/"postmodern"
> critical perspective - Heidegger, Spanos(retrieving Heidegger), Foucault,
> any of the variety of feminist perspectives, CLS, and others.  I have yet
> to hear a cohesive deconstructive kritik either as a negative strategy or,
> more interestingly to me, as an affirmative response to any of the above
> negative kritiks.  Lyotard argues the following: "Don't you see that
> criticizing is still knowing, knowing better?  That the critical relation
> still falls within the sphere of knowledge, of 'realization' and thus of
> the assumption of power?"  Taken together with the fairly compelling
> argument that all of the aforementioned kritiks are, at bottom, critiques
> of "power" (one could employ Foucault again, Nietzsche, Derrida, etc.),
> couldn't an affirmative take the position that the negative kritik only
> reconstructs the very notion of power hierarchies that underlies the
> negative kritik itself?  If the fundamental (and I realize that is a
> positivistically loaded term) problem necessitating kritiks is the tyranny
> of power, wouldn't the affirmative be in a secure position for turning the
> kritik?

A couple of thoughts, First, the critique of Postmodernism (not some of
the above that critique modernism) does make that claim, that
deconstructing does create knowledge, by critiquing the power relations.
Second, depending on the aff, the aff could turn the kritik by showing the
tyranny.  Case in point, our case (on the college topic) deals with
agriculture, and is postmodern in its most basic form (I say that knowing
that there are many postmodern authors that have different types of pomo),
so when others kritik us, we turn it with pomo, and when they say that we
are, say orientalist, and we must reject western solutions forced on
others, we say that is oppressive, we must include all discourse, and we
do with pomo, showing that their kritik is just a transfer of power and
tyranny, while we favor neither over the other.  There may be more
examples of this, but it is late and I am drawing a blank.

>
>         I pose these questions only to stimulate responses on an aspect of
> kritiking regarding which I have heard little dispute.  As various aspects
> of rhetorical and philosophical inquiry become incorporated into the
> activity, I am just curious how much variety we can inject into the
> analysis of these issues within the round.
>
> Still thinking,
>
> Kevin Ayotte
> University of Pittsburgh
>

Tony King
CSU Chico

"I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said,..'I drank
what?!'"

 Chris Knight

"Real Genius"



From tking  Thu Feb  5 06:38:59 1998
From: tking (Tony)
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 04:38:59 -0800
Subject: Random thoughts about kritiking
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.96L.980203223103.3862B-100000@unixs2.cis.pitt.edu>
Message-ID: <THU.5.FEB.1998.043859.0800.TKING@ECST.CSUCHICO.EDU>

On Tue, 3 Feb 1998, Lisa M Corrigan wrote:

> yes. this is what my argument was for maxwell at our first kritik meeting
> when he was discussing foucault's power/knowledge discussion. i asked him,
> "is this a power/knowledge relationship?" and he answered yes.  it seems
> to me that taking a position that one type of thought or thought process
> is better or closer to the "Truth" than another is just reinforcing a
> heirarchy. it may be possibly a different hierarchy but nonetheless,
> hierarchy.  this is why i think that kritiks of thought are kind of
> stupid.  kritiks with policy implications make mucho sense to me as well
> as most kritiks of language but i think that kritiks of power relations
> are pretentious.

First, heirarchies are inevidable in all life.  When I talk to you about
something that I am an expert on that you might not be, I have a temporary
heirarchy over you, meaning that on that given subject at that given time,
my views might be taken as superior to yours (I realize that other things
might impede that like credibility, but you get the idea), and in the
situation that might be reversed on a different subject the heirarchy is
reversed.  The difference is that Foucault was analyzing the power
structures in society, not necessarily temporary heirarchies.  Most
kritiks are based on this idea.  Second, a kritik of language is a study
of power relations, in that the language you use creates images in our
minds that create our view of reality.  The reason that most say they are
bad is because that view of reality that is created is full of ideas that
have heirarchies, and create pictures of power relationships.  Example, if
a man calls a womyn a "chick" in a round, and the person runs a language
kritik, the link would be off of sexist language, and how words like
"chick" create the image of womyn as farm animals, that are there for
service, and need to be taken care of by men.  That ideal is a power
relation between men and womyn.  That strikes me as odd, because you like
language kritiks, but you don't like power relations kritiks.  Also, most
kritiks that have policy implications deal with the way we view power
relations and how that affects our judgements, perceptions and thinking.
Every kritik I can think of deals with power relations to some extent,
between humans, humans and nature, etc.  Some are based on technology
creating oppression, nuclear language creates oppression, colonialism
creates oppression....maybe it is just me, but I can't think of one, but I
could be wrong.  Peace.
tony


>
> my $.02,
> lisa
>
> On Tue, 3 Feb 1998, Kevin Ayotte wrote:
>
> >         For all of you other theory hacks, I wanted to get some feedback regarding
> > a topic about which I've heard surprisingly little debate.  Most of the
> > kritiks we hear are based in some aspect of poststructuralist/"postmodern"
> > critical perspective - Heidegger, Spanos(retrieving Heidegger), Foucault,
> > any of the variety of feminist perspectives, CLS, and others.  I have yet
> > to hear a cohesive deconstructive kritik either as a negative strategy or,
> > more interestingly to me, as an affirmative response to any of the above
> > negative kritiks.  Lyotard argues the following: "Don't you see that
> > criticizing is still knowing, knowing better?  That the critical relation
> > still falls within the sphere of knowledge, of 'realization' and thus of
> > the assumption of power?"  Taken together with the fairly compelling
> > argument that all of the aforementioned kritiks are, at bottom, critiques
> > of "power" (one could employ Foucault again, Nietzsche, Derrida, etc.),
> > couldn't an affirmative take the position that the negative kritik only
> > reconstructs the very notion of power hierarchies that underlies the
> > negative kritik itself?  If the fundamental (and I realize that is a
> > positivistically loaded term) problem necessitating kritiks is the tyranny
> > of power, wouldn't the affirmative be in a secure position for turning the
> > kritik?
> >
> >         I pose these questions only to stimulate responses on an aspect of
> > kritiking regarding which I have heard little dispute.  As various aspects
> > of rhetorical and philosophical inquiry become incorporated into the
> > activity, I am just curious how much variety we can inject into the
> > analysis of these issues within the round.
> >
> > Still thinking,
> >
> > Kevin Ayotte
> > University of Pittsburgh
> >
>

Tony King
CSU Chico

"I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said,..'I drank
what?!'"

 Chris Knight

"Real Genius"



From lmcst33+  Thu Feb  5 07:44:20 1998
From: lmcst33+ (Lisa M Corrigan)
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 08:44:20 -0500
Subject: Random thoughts about kritiking
In-Reply-To: <Pine.HPP.3.95.980205042601.24512D-100000@steroid.ecst.csuchico.edu>
Message-ID: <THU.5.FEB.1998.084420.0500.LMCST33@PITT.EDU>

> First, heirarchies are inevidable in all life.

if hierarchies are inevitable, and power structures emerge unconsciously
and will always exist as well, what is their utility as debate arguments.
the examples below of nuclearism and feminist-based disourses make sense
to me because unlike hierarchies and power structures which rely on
someone else reciprocating thoughtful discourse, language is individual
and can* change.  this makes sense to me.  kritiking power relations seems
futile especially in debate since the other variables of interaction
aren't available to change.  i can't change my oppressive teacher's
behavior or my own for that matter because it is a power relation that
exists beyond my control.  i can, however, control my language and shape
parts of my own reality.

still unconvinced foucault is a utility in debate,
lisa
university of pittsburgh

> When I talk to you about
> something that I am an expert on that you might not be, I have a temporary
> heirarchy over you, meaning that on that given subject at that given time,
> my views might be taken as superior to yours (I realize that other things
> might impede that like credibility, but you get the idea), and in the
> situation that might be reversed on a different subject the heirarchy is
> reversed.  The difference is that Foucault was analyzing the power
> structures in society, not necessarily temporary heirarchies.  Most
> kritiks are based on this idea.  Second, a kritik of language is a study
> of power relations, in that the language you use creates images in our
> minds that create our view of reality.  The reason that most say they are
> bad is because that view of reality that is created is full of ideas that
> have heirarchies, and create pictures of power relationships.  Example, if
> a man calls a womyn a "chick" in a round, and the person runs a language
> kritik, the link would be off of sexist language, and how words like
> "chick" create the image of womyn as farm animals, that are there for
> service, and need to be taken care of by men.  That ideal is a power
> relation between men and womyn.  That strikes me as odd, because you like
> language kritiks, but you don't like power relations kritiks.  Also, most
> kritiks that have policy implications deal with the way we view power
> relations and how that affects our judgements, perceptions and thinking.
> Every kritik I can think of deals with power relations to some extent,
> between humans, humans and nature, etc.  Some are based on technology
> creating oppression, nuclear language creates oppression, colonialism
> creates oppression....maybe it is just me, but I can't think of one, but I
> could be wrong.  Peace.
> tony
>
>
> >
> > my $.02,
> > lisa
> >
> > On Tue, 3 Feb 1998, Kevin Ayotte wrote:
> >
> > >         For all of you other theory hacks, I wanted to get some feedback regarding
> > > a topic about which I've heard surprisingly little debate.  Most of the
> > > kritiks we hear are based in some aspect of poststructuralist/"postmodern"
> > > critical perspective - Heidegger, Spanos(retrieving Heidegger), Foucault,
> > > any of the variety of feminist perspectives, CLS, and others.  I have yet
> > > to hear a cohesive deconstructive kritik either as a negative strategy or,
> > > more interestingly to me, as an affirmative response to any of the above
> > > negative kritiks.  Lyotard argues the following: "Don't you see that
> > > criticizing is still knowing, knowing better?  That the critical relation
> > > still falls within the sphere of knowledge, of 'realization' and thus of
> > > the assumption of power?"  Taken together with the fairly compelling
> > > argument that all of the aforementioned kritiks are, at bottom, critiques
> > > of "power" (one could employ Foucault again, Nietzsche, Derrida, etc.),
> > > couldn't an affirmative take the position that the negative kritik only
> > > reconstructs the very notion of power hierarchies that underlies the
> > > negative kritik itself?  If the fundamental (and I realize that is a
> > > positivistically loaded term) problem necessitating kritiks is the tyranny
> > > of power, wouldn't the affirmative be in a secure position for turning the
> > > kritik?
> > >
> > >         I pose these questions only to stimulate responses on an aspect of
> > > kritiking regarding which I have heard little dispute.  As various aspects
> > > of rhetorical and philosophical inquiry become incorporated into the
> > > activity, I am just curious how much variety we can inject into the
> > > analysis of these issues within the round.
> > >
> > > Still thinking,
> > >
> > > Kevin Ayotte
> > > University of Pittsburgh
> > >
> >
>
> Tony King
> CSU Chico
>
> "I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said,..'I drank
> what?!'"
>
>  Chris Knight
>
> "Real Genius"
>



From L_Phillips  Thu Feb  5 08:17:28 1998
From: L_Phillips (Leslie Phillips - Lexington High School)
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 09:17:28 -0500
Subject: Northeastern HS tournament seeks judges this weekend
Message-ID: <THU.5.FEB.1998.091728.0500.LPHILLIPS@SCH.CI.LEXINGTON.MA.US>

Bergenfield High School (NJ) is running a tournament tomorrow and Saturday;
it starts about 3 pm Friday; they need both policy and LD judges.  If you
are within hailing distance of Boston, Lexington can transport you (8 am
departure); let me know.  If you are closer to New York/New Jersey, contact
the tournament director, Bill Barthelme, at 201-387-3878 or at
bergenfield3 at csnet.net

Mr. Barthelme is an amiable gentleman who promises generous food, housing,
remuneration.


Les Phillips
Lexington High School

>From  Thu Feb  5 11:38:11 1998
Message-Id: <THU.5.FEB.1998.113811.0500.>
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 11:38:11 -0500
Reply-To: dhn2 at COLUMBIA.EDU
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Daniel Hugh Nexon <dhn2 at COLUMBIA.EDU>
Subject: Re: Random thoughts about kritiking
Comments: To: Tony <tking at ECST.CSUCHICO.EDU>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.HPP.3.95.980205041653.24512C-100000 at steroid.ecst.csuchico.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Thu, 5 Feb 1998, Tony wrote:

> A couple of thoughts, First, the critique of Postmodernism (not some of
> the above that critique modernism) does make that claim, that
> deconstructing does create knowledge, by critiquing the power relations.
> Second, depending on the aff, the aff could turn the kritik by showing the
> tyranny.  Case in point, our case (on the college topic) deals with
> agriculture, and is postmodern in its most basic form (I say that knowing
> that there are many postmodern authors that have different types of pomo),
> so when others kritik us, we turn it with pomo, and when they say that we
> are, say orientalist, and we must reject western solutions forced on
> others, we say that is oppressive, we must include all discourse, and we
> do with pomo, showing that their kritik is just a transfer of power and
> tyranny, while we favor neither over the other.  There may be more
> examples of this, but it is late and I am drawing a blank.

I have no idea what you just wrote. Could you rephrase in a more
comprehensible form?

Regards, Dan | Columbia Political Science | www.columbia.edu/~dhn2
"Surely here is an opportunity to get rid of that great stick of a
character _Homo economicus_ and to replace him with someone real, like
Madame Bovary." -D. McCloskey, _The Rhetoric of Economics_



From dmuschel  Thu Feb  5 11:26:29 1998
From: dmuschel (David Muschell)
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 12:26:29 -0500
Subject: Ga. College Entries
Message-ID: <THU.5.FEB.1998.122629.0500.DMUSCHEL@MAIL.GAC.PEACHNET.EDU>

 Here is the list of entries for the Peachbelt Classic:

App. State
Brewton-Parker
Clemson
College of Charleston
Emory
Macon State University
Mercer
Morehouse
Tennessee Tech
U. of Florida
U. of North Carolina-Charlotte
U. of South Carolina
U. of West Florida
Vanderbilt
Young Harris


David
********************
David Muschell
Dept. of English, Speech, and Journalism
Box 44
Georgia College & State University
Milledgeville, GA  31061
dmuschel at mail.gac.peachnet.edu
office:  (912)-445-5556   fax:  (912)445-5961

********************
David Muschell
Dept. of English, Speech, and Journalism
Box 44
Georgia College & State University
Milledgeville, GA  31061
dmuschel at mail.gac.peachnet.edu
office:  (912)-445-5556   fax:  (912)445-5961



From KERRP  Thu Feb  5 12:57:26 1998
From: KERRP (Paul Kerr)
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 12:57:26 EST5EDT
Subject: Paging Florida
Message-ID: <THU.5.FEB.1998.125726.EST5EDT.KERRP@BLACK.CLA.SC.EDU>

Can someone backchannel me and let me know what you're running this
weekend?  We will gladly reciprocate

thanks
Paul


**********************************************************************


Don't let the fuckers drag you down  -  Propagandhi



From KERRP  Thu Feb  5 13:02:03 1998
From: KERRP (Paul Kerr)
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 13:02:03 EST5EDT
Subject: Rooms for ADA nats
Message-ID: <THU.5.FEB.1998.130203.EST5EDT.KERRP@BLACK.CLA.SC.EDU>

We overbooked and have four hotel rooms we can release, if anyone's
interested.  Backchannel me and let me know or email Berube:
berube at garnet.cla.sc.edu

Peace

Paul Kerr
South Carolina Debate





**********************************************************************


Don't let the fuckers drag you down  -  Propagandhi



From dgenco  Thu Feb  5 12:18:14 1998
From: dgenco (Dave Kingston)
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 12:18:14 -0600
Subject: Results Sheets
Message-ID: <THU.5.FEB.1998.121814.0600.DGENCO@EARTHLINK.NET>

I have all of the results sheets now.  Thanks to all who helped me gather them.

Dave



From sellis1  Thu Feb  5 12:28:36 1998
From: sellis1 (Andy Ellis)
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 13:28:36 -0500
Subject: Wackos and Their Web Pages
Message-ID: <THU.5.FEB.1998.132836.0500.SELLIS1@TIGER.TOWSON.EDU>

Ok who posted this?
read it and you'll understand.
Andy
Towson

-------------- next part --------------

   The Agent Orange Coverup
   
   
   
   I'm going to keep this site simple, it needs to load fast , and you
   need to get away from it. Believe me they are monitoring you.
   
   
   
   The end of the world is upon us and it stems from Agent Orange, the US
   government sprayed a lot of this stuff to defoliate Vietnam Laos and
   the rest of Indochina, the official story was that it was to drive the
   VC out of hiding. That is what they want you to believe, but there is
   evidence of a much darker purpose. Recent insider reports from former
   pentagon employees with top secret clearance during the Viet Nam era
   have stated that agent orange was sprayed to cover up US use of alien
   technology in the Viet Nam conflict. The same report which was
   uncovered under the greatest secrecy also stated that any effort to
   render the agent orange harmless will allow the Viet namese and the
   international community to find out about the use of alien technology.
   
   The danger that this poses to humanity is unthinkable, and the
   pentagon knows this, that is why they where willing to take the flak
   for spraying dioxins on us soldiers and Indochinese civilians. If
   proof is found that the us employed alien technolgy in warfare the 12
   treaties the secret us governmnet has signed with the ailens will be
   violated. As specified in these treaties violation by the secret us
   government carries the maximim penalty. Clause 76 of the 1958 treaty
   on alien technology signed by men who don't exist reads " Any use of
   technolgy aqquired by visits or transfers which is not for purely
   informational purposes violates this treaty and allows those
   transfering the technology to seize the earth by any means nessecary."
   
   In fact the 1959 treaty regarding alien rights to destroy the earth
   reads " If The US government violates any future or past traeties
   regarding alien technology, the earth will be colonized or destroyed
   by the civilization whose soverignty was impinged upon"
   
   The ailens are out there and they are watching, if the world community
   uncovers evidence of US use of alien technolgy human life will cease
   to exist.
     _________________________________________________________________
   
          This Page Hosted by [INLINE] Get Your Own Free Home page


From mgremillion  Thu Feb  5 11:31:52 1998
From: mgremillion (MWilliams)
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 12:31:52 -0500
Subject: Rooms for the Mardi Gras tournament
Message-ID: <THU.5.FEB.1998.123152.0500.MGREMILLION@SELU.EDU>

Just a reminder that the hold on the block of rooms at the Holiday Inn-Hammond
goes off today!! it will be very difficult to find rooms after this week.
Scott Elliott
Dir. of Forensics
SELU



From sellis1  Thu Feb  5 12:37:58 1998
From: sellis1 (Andy Ellis)
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 13:37:58 -0500
Subject: Wackos and Their Web Pages
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SGI.3.96.980205132713.23091A-200000@tiger.towson.edu>
Message-ID: <THU.5.FEB.1998.133758.0500.SELLIS1@TIGER.TOWSON.EDU>

i forgot here is the url http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/7889/
Andy
Towson

>From  Thu Feb  5 13:03:36 1998
Message-Id: <THU.5.FEB.1998.130336.0600.>
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 13:03:36 -0600
Reply-To: Joeb at media-net.net
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: "Boyle, Joseph" <joeb at MEDIA-NET.NET>
Organization: FHSU Debate
Subject: Re: Wackos and Their Web Pages
Comments: To: Andy Ellis <sellis1 at TIGER.TOWSON.EDU>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Type in 'ASIATOM' on a search engine and see what page you find. ;)

Andy Ellis wrote:
>
> Ok who posted this?
> read it and you'll understand.
> Andy
> Towson
>
>     ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
>    The Agent Orange Coverup
>
>
>
>    I'm going to keep this site simple, it needs to load fast , and you
>    need to get away from it. Believe me they are monitoring you.
>
>
>
>    The end of the world is upon us and it stems from Agent Orange, the US
>    government sprayed a lot of this stuff to defoliate Vietnam Laos and
>    the rest of Indochina, the official story was that it was to drive the
>    VC out of hiding. That is what they want you to believe, but there is
>    evidence of a much darker purpose. Recent insider reports from former
>    pentagon employees with top secret clearance during the Viet Nam era
>    have stated that agent orange was sprayed to cover up US use of alien
>    technology in the Viet Nam conflict. The same report which was
>    uncovered under the greatest secrecy also stated that any effort to
>    render the agent orange harmless will allow the Viet namese and the
>    international community to find out about the use of alien technology.
>
>    The danger that this poses to humanity is unthinkable, and the
>    pentagon knows this, that is why they where willing to take the flak
>    for spraying dioxins on us soldiers and Indochinese civilians. If
>    proof is found that the us employed alien technolgy in warfare the 12
>    treaties the secret us governmnet has signed with the ailens will be
>    violated. As specified in these treaties violation by the secret us
>    government carries the maximim penalty. Clause 76 of the 1958 treaty
>    on alien technology signed by men who don't exist reads " Any use of
>    technolgy aqquired by visits or transfers which is not for purely
>    informational purposes violates this treaty and allows those
>    transfering the technology to seize the earth by any means nessecary."
>
>    In fact the 1959 treaty regarding alien rights to destroy the earth
>    reads " If The US government violates any future or past traeties
>    regarding alien technology, the earth will be colonized or destroyed
>    by the civilization whose soverignty was impinged upon"
>
>    The ailens are out there and they are watching, if the world community
>    uncovers evidence of US use of alien technolgy human life will cease
>    to exist.
>      _________________________________________________________________
>
>           This Page Hosted by [INLINE] Get Your Own Free Home page

>From  Thu Feb  5 14:41:05 1998
Message-Id: <THU.5.FEB.1998.144105.0500.>
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 14:41:05 -0500
Reply-To: deon_garner at STUDENTS.MOREHOUSE.EDU
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Deon Garner <deon_garner at STUDENTS.MOREHOUSE.EDU>
Subject: Georgia College
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=US-ASCII

Could someone from Emory please backchannel and let me know who is
coming and they are running; we will gladly reciprocate.

Deon
Morehouse Debate



From rwj850t  Thu Feb  5 13:46:58 1998
From: rwj850t (Bob Jordan)
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 13:46:58 -0600
Subject: Russia Topic Metasite
Message-ID: <THU.5.FEB.1998.134658.0600.RWJ850T@VMA.SMSU.EDU>

The was sent to me by our Government Documents Librarian. I thought this
would be of interest to people on this list.

>>The University of Kansas Government Documents Library is pleased to announce
>> that, for the third year, we have our High School Debate Topic Online
>>page up
>> on the Web.  This year's topic is Russia and our site can be found at
>> http://www.ukans.edu/cwis/units/kulib/docs/debate98.html.  All three
>>years of
>> our topic sites can be accessed from
>> http://www.ukans.edu/cwis/units/kulib/docs/debhome.html
>>
>>Unlike many debate sites, we not only provide links to agencies,
>>organizations,
>> etc that seem appropriate to the topic, but also a great number of links to
>> fulltext online articles, books and journals as well as an email reference
>> service.  We feel that this is in keeping with our responsibilities as a
>> regional depository.  We also provide a bibliography of a variety of sources
>> and maintain the site daily.
>>
>>Please make your communities aware of our sites and let us know what else
>>you'd
>> like to see.  (Note: this announcement was originally sent out to Kansas
>> libraries on KANLIB but, as we receive many queries and hits from
>> out-of-staters, thought this information might of interest to others.]
>>
>>Thank you.
>>
>>
>>
>>Kendall Simmons
>>Government Documents Library

*************************************************************************
Robert Jordan, User Support Specialist
Duane G. Meyer Library
Southwest Missouri State University
(417) 836-6318

Surfing at Work:  rwj850t at vma.smsu.edu
Surfing from Home: BobJordan at aol.com

Experience the quazy energy of Quisp!: http://www.quisp.com
*************************************************************************

>From  Thu Feb  5 14:00:37 1998
Message-Id: <THU.5.FEB.1998.140037.0600.>
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 14:00:37 -0600
Reply-To: Joeb at media-net.net
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: "Boyle, Joseph" <joeb at MEDIA-NET.NET>
Organization: FHSU Debate
Subject: Result Packets: Kentucky
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I need a copy of the prelim/elim results from Kentucky. If someone out
there could bring a copy to Northwestern this weekend I'd appreciate it.

Joey Boyle
Fort Hays State University



From jgmiller  Thu Feb  5 14:43:01 1998
From: jgmiller (John G. Miller)
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 15:43:01 -0500
Subject: oral critiques and ballots
In-Reply-To: <199802040500.AAA63280@moose.uvm.edu>
Message-ID: <THU.5.FEB.1998.154301.0500.JGMILLER@ZOO.UVM.EDU>

Why is it the judges rsponsibility to give an oral critique and write a
ballot. Yes it is a convention that we have come to expect. It would seem
to me that in most oral critiques(mine and others i have witnessed) judges
reveal Both reasons for decisions and suggestions and advice to the
debaters on how to do things differently. It seems to me that all the
information that those desiring complete ballots exists but is not
distributed to those who "need" to know.

My Argument: DEBATERS SHOULD FLOW THE POST ROUND DISCUSSION.
Most debaters expect ( as they should) that the CRITIC TO WRITE DOWN
(flow) the arguments in the debate. Most critics spend an hour and a half
dillegently writing things down. Is it unreasonable to suggest that
debaters should return that courtesy. not only can this written report be
shared with others, used by the debaters in future practice or
preperation, but debaters can ask questions and write down the answers.

As for arguments that debaters don't remember, or are to
dissapointed/ashamed to give a complete wrap up to coaches, or are they
are cauaght in the heat of the  moment, well thesconcerns are valid, but
writing comments down (especially on the flow for that round) would seem
to answer these issues.

I AM NOT arguing that judges should only write'oral critique" on the
ballot, but i feel that there is an equal obligation on the debaters to
understand and report to those concerned what happened in the debate.

My ballot may be too short, too messy, or confusing, but debaters can
solve for all of these problems bvy writing down ALL post round comments
and ASK questions about things they need more information on.

DEBATERS THIS IS YOUR ACTIVITY-EMPOWER YOURSELVES

GORDIE
LAWRENCE DEBATE UNION
UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT



From marnold  Thu Feb  5 14:56:50 1998
From: marnold (Mark S. Arnold)
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 15:56:50 -0500
Subject: oral critiques and ballots
Message-ID: <THU.5.FEB.1998.155650.0500.MARNOLD@RICHMOND.EDU>

While I agree with many of Gordie's points, let me say a few others:

I do agree that debaters should write things down. in fact, I plan to
implement that policy at Cornell this weekend. Thanks for the suggestion...

But here's my first point: while most of the time they are consitant, isn't
it possible that what the critics SAY and what they MEAN can be different?
I've often found that judges say things to the debaters in round and then
find other helpful hints of suggestions on the ballot. There are issues
that some people have difficulty, perhaps, saying to someone face-to-face.
Like improvements the debaters can make, and such. It can often seem easier
to say stronger things on paper than it is to someone's face. I freeqently
find judges suggestions for personal improvement on the ballot that weren't
in the oral critique.

My second point: debaters flowing judges decisions are still subject to
interpretation. If coaches want to look at the post-round critique, it
might be beneficial to have both the judges written ballot and the debaters
flow of the decision. This would provide two source of "what happened" and
provide a better source of improvement.


Just my thoughts...

Mark Arnold
co-captain
Univ. of Richmond Debate

"You have a very alert baby..." a doctor



From hcspc014  Thu Feb  5 16:10:15 1998
From: hcspc014 (william sheffield)
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 14:10:15 -0800
Subject: oral critiques and ballots
In-Reply-To: <Pine.A41.3.96.980205152603.197976A-100000@gnu.uvm.edu>
Message-ID: <THU.5.FEB.1998.141015.0800.HCSPC014@EMAIL.CSUN.EDU>

Gordie,

I hope that "Frosty G" is doing well in the northeast!

Just a thought on your comments:

While what you say may be true for the jv and open division debaters, I
don't think that you can apply this to novice debaters.  To hold them
accountable for really understanding a judge's decision beyond simplistic
terms doesn't allow for a coach who can understand the intricacies to
work with the debaters.  Also, there always seems to be something lost in
the transition between a judge's decision/oral critique and a novice's
explanation of the round.  Don't you think that the judge has an
obligation to provide a little more detailed critique on the ballot than
"oral critique given?"

Thanks for reading; Just my thoughts.

Bill

Bill Sheffield, Director of Forensics
CSU-Northridge
Dept. of Speech Communication
Northridge, CA  91330-8257
office: 818/677-3043
debate room:  818/677-2028
email:  hcspc014 at csun.edu


On Thu, 5 Feb 1998, John G. Miller wrote:

> Why is it the judges rsponsibility to give an oral critique and write a
> ballot. Yes it is a convention that we have come to expect. It would seem
> to me that in most oral critiques(mine and others i have witnessed) judges
> reveal Both reasons for decisions and suggestions and advice to the
> debaters on how to do things differently. It seems to me that all the
> information that those desiring complete ballots exists but is not
> distributed to those who "need" to know.
>
> My Argument: DEBATERS SHOULD FLOW THE POST ROUND DISCUSSION.
> Most debaters expect ( as they should) that the CRITIC TO WRITE DOWN
> (flow) the arguments in the debate. Most critics spend an hour and a half
> dillegently writing things down. Is it unreasonable to suggest that
> debaters should return that courtesy. not only can this written report be
> shared with others, used by the debaters in future practice or
> preperation, but debaters can ask questions and write down the answers.
>
> As for arguments that debaters don't remember, or are to
> dissapointed/ashamed to give a complete wrap up to coaches, or are they
> are cauaght in the heat of the  moment, well thesconcerns are valid, but
> writing comments down (especially on the flow for that round) would seem
> to answer these issues.
>
> I AM NOT arguing that judges should only write'oral critique" on the
> ballot, but i feel that there is an equal obligation on the debaters to
> understand and report to those concerned what happened in the debate.
>
> My ballot may be too short, too messy, or confusing, but debaters can
> solve for all of these problems bvy writing down ALL post round comments
> and ASK questions about things they need more information on.
>
> DEBATERS THIS IS YOUR ACTIVITY-EMPOWER YOURSELVES
>
> GORDIE
> LAWRENCE DEBATE UNION
> UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT
>



From k.kuswa  Thu Feb  5 16:29:38 1998
From: k.kuswa (kevin kuswa)
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 17:29:38 -0500
Subject: the other side
Message-ID: <THU.5.FEB.1998.172938.0500.K.KUSWA@MAIL.UTEXAS.EDU>

enjoying the Foucault discussion, especially Nexon's response to Tony.
Thought I'd post the present status of the Clinton DA.  I guess this could
be a 2AC answer this weekend: "Number 3: Alternate causes for presidential
capital--the link gets swamped..

THE TOP 14 NICKNAMES FOR THE PRESIDENT'S MEMBER

       14.     The Speaker of the House
       13.     Free Willy
       12.     Presidential Erection
       11.     The Sin Doctor
       10.     Hail to the Beef
       9.      The Secret Servicer
       8.      The Pocket Veto
       7.      The Cabinet Member
       6.      Titanic (because 1,500 people went down on it)
       5.      The Gross National Product
       4.      The Washington Monument
       3.      The Commander in briefs
       2.      The Washington Post

       and the #1 nickname for the President's member...

       1.      The Executive Branch"

see ya,

kevin

>From  Thu Feb  5 17:53:41 1998
Message-Id: <THU.5.FEB.1998.175341.0500.>
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 17:53:41 -0500
Reply-To: kcd5 at CORNELL.EDU
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Kristin Dybvig <kcd5 at CORNELL.EDU>
Subject: Cornell entries
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Team debate

Capital U.
2 Novice

Case Western
1 JV

Clarion U.
3 Novice

Ithaca College
2 Novice

Kansas State
2 Varsity
1 JV

Kings
2 JV
1 Novice

Liberty U.
2 JV
2 Novice

Richmond
1 Varsity
1 Novice

Rochester
14 Novice
1 JV
1 Varsity

Syracuse
1 Varsity
2 Novice

Towson
2 Varsity
2 Novice

UMKC
2 Varsity

USMA
4 JV

Vermont
3 JV
2 Novice



Public Forum Debate
Yeshiva 15
Rochester 4
Queens 2
Binghampton 5



See everyone on Friday!
Kristin Dybvig
Cornell debate



From sellis1  Thu Feb  5 17:12:55 1998
From: sellis1 (Andy Ellis)
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 18:12:55 -0500
Subject: UMKC
Message-ID: <THU.5.FEB.1998.181255.0500.SELLIS1@TIGER.TOWSON.EDU>

Which teams are going to cornell this weekend and if you can what will
they be running?
if any one wants to know towson will be sending two varsity teams, i'm
sorry but i don't know about the novi
 Baker/Ellis
Faruqui/Doyle
Both teams are in the siu caselist.
If you have questions i'll be glad to answer them.



From dlingel  Thu Feb  5 18:20:35 1998
From: dlingel (Dan Lingel)
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 18:20:35 -0600
Subject: need judges
Message-ID: <THU.5.FEB.1998.182035.0600.DLINGEL@JESUITCP.ORG>

I am hosting a rather large high school tournament (it's no Harvard
however) February 13-14 at Jesuit High School in Dallas, Texas.  The
tournament is all day Friday and Saturday.  I am happy to negotiate with
any and all who wish to come judge.  Preference is given to individuals
that can do 10 rounds of my choice.  Back channel if you are
interested.  Thank you

Dan Lingel
Director of Forensics



From lsd041  Thu Feb  5 20:26:20 1998
From: lsd041 (Scott Deatherage)
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 20:26:20 -0600
Subject: Weather Report
Message-ID: <THU.5.FEB.1998.202620.0600.LSD041@NWU.EDU>

Chicago Tribute, 2.5.98:

Friday, Feb. 6:  Morning overcast breaks for some sun.  Breezy, milder than
average.  40/26.

Saturday, Feb. 7:  Morning clouds break again for sunshine,
milder-especially inland.  43/30.

Sunday, Feb. 8:  Blustery, colder.  Cloudy--a bit of drizzle/few passing
flurries.  36/29.

Monday, Feb. 9:  Gusty NE winds, seasonal chill.  Overcast--some possible
snow/rain.  36/30.

SD



From frigg11  Thu Feb  5 19:33:42 1998
From: frigg11 (Mr. Frigg)
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 17:33:42 PST
Subject: UCLA
Message-ID: <THU.5.FEB.1998.173342.PST.FRIGG11@HOTMAIL.COM>

could someone from ucla please backchannel me.

thanx,

frigg

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



From jmw28  Thu Feb  5 19:58:42 1998
From: jmw28 (Jessica Wojtysiak)
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 20:58:42 -0500
Subject: Cornell team list addendum
Message-ID: <THU.5.FEB.1998.205842.0500.JMW28@CORNELL.EDU>

Add 2 jv and 2 varsity teams for the NY coalition.
Not sure about the specific teams.


-jessica

Jessica Wojtysiak                                       jmw28 at cornell.edu
Cornell University

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Within the chest of every cynic beats the heart of a disillusioned
optimist...
...yeah, right.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=



From debate  Thu Feb  5 20:17:02 1998
From: debate (Greg Simerly)
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 20:17:02 -0600
Subject: MPJ amendment
Message-ID: <THU.5.FEB.1998.201702.0600.DEBATE@SIU.EDU>

1997-98 CROSS EXAMINATION DEBATE ASSOCIATION
A proposal to amend CEDA by-laws

According to Article VIII, section 3 of the CEDA Constitution, an amendment
to the Constitution or Bylaws may be proposed by a two-thirds vote of the
Executive Council

A by-law amendment to allow for mutual preference assignment of judges at
the national tournament, submitted by Ken Broda-Bahm, Towson University.
In by-law XIV, Section 4, C, replace the word "random" with the words
"systematic, based upon a pre-defined process."

The amended version would read: "C.  In order to provide a fair and
educational tournament, judge assignment insofar as possible should be
_systematic, based upon a pre-defined process_. Debaters should have equal
opportunity to be heard by a range of judges and to be protected from judges
who might have a conflict of interest."

Legislative intent:  I understand that 'systematic' doesn't yield a precise
meaning, but I think that it is functionally imprecise.  By 'systematic' I
mean that there is a defined process for assigning judges: we are not simply
looking at the cards and thinking "hmm, who would be a good judge for _this_
one?."  "Based on a pre-defined process" means that the method is laid-out
in advance and not re-considered from one match to the next. Anything more
restrictive would make for bad policy since we cannot anticipate
developments in judge assignment.  Also, an "ethics" statement is not the
proper place for a precise statement on the mechanics of matching and
assignment.   I believe that the rest of this statement is easily consistent
with MPJ: debaters have an equal opportunity to be heard by a range of
judges, because all teams are equally able to fill out a form specifying the
range of preferred judges, or to not fill out a form guaranteeing that the
range is as wide as possible.  No one could seriously maintain that because
judges are preferred they no longer constitute a "range" - even with all A's
(something that is not guaranteed by our proposed national tournament
practice) debaters will still necessarily be heard by a range of different
critics.


You may vote:

_____ YES

_____ NO


Return to Greg Simerly, SIU mail code 6605, Carbondale, IL 62901-6605.
Fax to (618) 453-2812.  Email to debate at siu.edu  Ballots are due on or
before March 9.



From jde8553  Thu Feb  5 23:55:22 1998
From: jde8553 (The Essence of Jerry Curl)
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 23:55:22 -0600
Subject: oral critiques and ballots
In-Reply-To: <Pine.A41.3.96.980205152603.197976A-100000@gnu.uvm.edu>
Message-ID: <THU.5.FEB.1998.235522.0600.JDE8553@KSU.EDU>

On Thu, 5 Feb 1998, John G. Miller wrote:

> My Argument: DEBATERS SHOULD FLOW THE POST ROUND DISCUSSION.
> Most debaters expect ( as they should) that the CRITIC TO WRITE DOWN
> (flow) the arguments in the debate. Most critics spend an hour and a half
> dillegently writing things down. Is it unreasonable to suggest that
> debaters should return that courtesy. not only can this written report be
> shared with others, used by the debaters in future practice or
> preperation, but debaters can ask questions and write down the answers.

Usually (well, at least in the rounds I've been in) judges give oral
critiques not only to say what could have been ran, but to give advice and
hints on how each speaker can better their position, arguementatively or
strategically.  This is why I don't think judges should be shackled to
writing down their whole post-round discussion on the ballot.  There are a
lot of things they could say that would not even apply to a team and/or
individual and thus would be wasting space that *could* be used for a more
elaborate RFD.

As for the purpose of deciding on what arguements were good, what won,
what didn't win, what the team lost on, why an arguement didn't win, etc.
- that would be the stuff I'd like myself *and* my coach to read on the
ballot.  This is stuff that the squad/team can work on post-round or
post-tournament.

On the other hand, stuff like discussing on the lack of analysis in the
1NR, how to make an internal link story on a DA better, clairity on speed,
etc. - that's stuff for the oral.  If the competitors wish to hear the RFD
after round, they should ask.  But holding the obligation of giving the
whole oral should not be.

> I AM NOT arguing that judges should only write'oral critique" on the
> ballot, but i feel that there is an equal obligation on the debaters to
> understand and report to those concerned what happened in the debate.

I can understand the obligation for the debaters to understand what
happened in the round, but the 'report to those concerned' could either be
delivered from the debaters themselves or left for the coach to look on
the ballot for the RFD.

I am not going with the side that thinks everything should be on the
ballot - consider my position at least a compromise between the two sides.
I just think it would be wise to leave the ballot writing for the RFD on
the arguements.  But anything that would aid or help the speakers
individually should be left for the oral.

My two bits-

Jerry "The Essence of Jerry Curl" Eddy
Kansas State University Debate

EMail: jde8553 at ksu.edu
       thecurl at hotmail.com
       thecurl at yahoo.com
       jerrycurl at lycosemail.com

Visit my webpage at:
http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~jde8553



From kjast13+  Fri Feb  6 00:09:30 1998
From: kjast13+ (Kevin Ayotte)
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 01:09:30 -0500
Subject: Deconstructing kritiks
Message-ID: <FRI.6.FEB.1998.010930.0500.KJAST13@PITT.EDU>

Reddinger wrote:
>WHY is it still hierarchy?  My argument is that we should view power as
>being DEcentralized.  Is that hierarchy?  And to be a marxist is okay,
>it's just that not all issues fit so neatly into class structures.  Like
>the oppression of defining the insane as being unable to speak for
>themselves.
>

(A quick aside: Although there are problems with Marxism, as with any
theory, don't you think the lower classes are probably a bit more likely to
be successfully defined by the legal system as insane?  Just a thought)

OK, perhaps Reddinger's post gets us more in the direction I wanted to go.
My suggestion is that a potential strategy against a kritik would be an all
out deconstruction.  My previous posts were directed toward a
deconstruction of the knowledge claim that is implicit in ANY kritik.  Only
the deconstructive move would be self-reflexive, always questioning and
avoiding any claim to final knowledge, whereas the kritik offers a
particular way of knowing the world.  Let me suggest a few quotes that
develop this position; I realize it is still sketchy, but I am curious
about the application of thorough deconstruction to kritiking.

1. Lyotard argues the following: "Don't you see that criticizing is still
knowing, knowing better?  That the critical relation still falls within the
sphere of knowledge, of 'realization' and thus of the assumption of
power?"(Driftworks, p. 13, in Schrag's _Resources of Rationality_, p. 56).

2. The "assumption of power" would raise concerns of the kritik
reconstructing a new hierarchy in the sense that Lisa notes.

3. Frederic Jameson also raises this same point.  "As far as language is
concerned, this means that any affirmation one makes is at least implicitly
a philosophical proposition and thereby a component of just such a
metaphysical system.  The bad universalism of metaphysics has thereby
infected language itself, which cannot but continue to emit and endlessly
to regenerate the ~Qmetaphysical' or the ontic, comically to affirm one
proposition after another, which outlast their pragmatic uses and know an
afterlife as what another tradition might call ideology."(_New Left
Review_, Jan-Feb'95, p. 84-5).

4. In an interview, Derrida predicates political action on the refusal of
any appeal to determinate knowledge. "This does not stop one from
calculating strategies and taking decisions or responsibilities... It is to
the extent that knowledge does not program everything in advance, to the
extent that knowledge remains suspended and undecided as to action, to the
extent that a responsible decision as such will never be measured by any
form of knowledge, by a clear and distinct certainty or by a theoretical
judgment, that there can and must be responsibility or decision, be they
ethical or political."(_The Althusserian Legacy_'93, p. 212.

One could try to move from the knowledge claim as an exercise of superior
power (remember Lyotard identifies the critique as the _assumption_ of
power) and turn the kritik (#1-2 above).  Or, one could claim the high
ground of deconstruction (#1, 3, 4) and argue for the rejection of the
kritik in that in recreates metaphysics through the claim of superior
knowledge.  Only the infinite self-reflexivity of deconstruction would
avoid that outcome.

I suggest these as options, because I think either may have potential as a
strategy against a kritik; essentially out-theorizing the kritik from a
deconstructive perspective.  Tony King from Chico seems to be using this
second version; I hope Tony will post his backchannel to provide some
further examples of the stuff above.

Thanks for listening,

Kevin Ayotte
University of Pittsburgh



From lheller  Fri Feb  6 08:46:28 1998
From: lheller (Lisa K. Heller)
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 09:46:28 -0500
Subject: Deconstructing kritiks: What about the ballot?
In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19980206010930.00688bd8@pop.pitt.edu>
Message-ID: <FRI.6.FEB.1998.094628.0500.LHELLER@RICHMOND.EDU>

I've been enjoying this kritik thread. So, here's a question I've been
muddling with that I'd like all of you to address. It's a follow up
question to the issue that others have raised about the appropriatenes of
kritiks for debate:


How do you suitably address the issues of POWER & HIERARCHY within the
context of a debate round where the judge and the debaters are all
constrained by the ballot? Doesn't the ballot and the judge who yields the
almighty vote create a forced hierarchy? I mean, the judge has to vote for
a team, right? You can't deconstruct the round that much under those
conditions. (i.e. - any deconstruction is inevitably contrived, as all
teams are motivated toward gaining the vote.)

Curious to hear your responses,

Lisa K. Heller
Richmond Debate



At 01:09 AM 2/6/98 -0500, Kevin Ayotte wrote:
>Reddinger wrote:
>>WHY is it still hierarchy?  My argument is that we should view power as
>>being DEcentralized.  Is that hierarchy?  And to be a marxist is okay,
>>it's just that not all issues fit so neatly into class structures.  Like
>>the oppression of defining the insane as being unable to speak for
>>themselves.
>>
>
>(A quick aside: Although there are problems with Marxism, as with any
>theory, don't you think the lower classes are probably a bit more likely to
>be successfully defined by the legal system as insane?  Just a thought)
>
>OK, perhaps Reddinger's post gets us more in the direction I wanted to go.
>My suggestion is that a potential strategy against a kritik would be an all
>out deconstruction.  My previous posts were directed toward a
>deconstruction of the knowledge claim that is implicit in ANY kritik.  Only
>the deconstructive move would be self-reflexive, always questioning and
>avoiding any claim to final knowledge, whereas the kritik offers a
>particular way of knowing the world.  Let me suggest a few quotes that
>develop this position; I realize it is still sketchy, but I am curious
>about the application of thorough deconstruction to kritiking.
>
>1. Lyotard argues the following: "Don't you see that criticizing is still
>knowing, knowing better?  That the critical relation still falls within the
>sphere of knowledge, of 'realization' and thus of the assumption of
>power?"(Driftworks, p. 13, in Schrag's _Resources of Rationality_, p. 56).
>
>2. The "assumption of power" would raise concerns of the kritik
>reconstructing a new hierarchy in the sense that Lisa notes.
>
>3. Frederic Jameson also raises this same point.  "As far as language is
>concerned, this means that any affirmation one makes is at least implicitly
>a philosophical proposition and thereby a component of just such a
>metaphysical system.  The bad universalism of metaphysics has thereby
>infected language itself, which cannot but continue to emit and endlessly
>to regenerate the ~Qmetaphysical' or the ontic, comically to affirm one
>proposition after another, which outlast their pragmatic uses and know an
>afterlife as what another tradition might call ideology."(_New Left
>Review_, Jan-Feb'95, p. 84-5).
>
>4. In an interview, Derrida predicates political action on the refusal of
>any appeal to determinate knowledge. "This does not stop one from
>calculating strategies and taking decisions or responsibilities... It is to
>the extent that knowledge does not program everything in advance, to the
>extent that knowledge remains suspended and undecided as to action, to the
>extent that a responsible decision as such will never be measured by any
>form of knowledge, by a clear and distinct certainty or by a theoretical
>judgment, that there can and must be responsibility or decision, be they
>ethical or political."(_The Althusserian Legacy_'93, p. 212.
>
>One could try to move from the knowledge claim as an exercise of superior
>power (remember Lyotard identifies the critique as the _assumption_ of
>power) and turn the kritik (#1-2 above).  Or, one could claim the high
>ground of deconstruction (#1, 3, 4) and argue for the rejection of the
>kritik in that in recreates metaphysics through the claim of superior
>knowledge.  Only the infinite self-reflexivity of deconstruction would
>avoid that outcome.
>
>I suggest these as options, because I think either may have potential as a
>strategy against a kritik; essentially out-theorizing the kritik from a
>deconstructive perspective.  Tony King from Chico seems to be using this
>second version; I hope Tony will post his backchannel to provide some
>further examples of the stuff above.
>
>Thanks for listening,
>
>Kevin Ayotte
>University of Pittsburgh
>
>



From asnider  Fri Feb  6 09:55:33 1998
From: asnider (Alfred C. Snider)
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 10:55:33 -0500
Subject: Welcoming Trinity & CC of Vermont
Message-ID: <FRI.6.FEB.1998.105533.0500.ASNIDER@ZOO.UVM.EDU>

This weekend at Cornell we will be introducing two new debate schools to
the community.

Trinity College is a small women's college here in Burlington with a long
and rich tradition of training women leaders. Sarah Petrie will be debating
in JV representing Trinity. Three other Trinity students are in the joint
training program we have established with them and they hope to be at
tournaments soon.

The Community College of Vermont is a small two-year college here in
Burlington. Some of you might remembner CCV's last famous debater, Gordie
Miller. Eric Soltanoff will be debating in Novice representing CCV this
weekend. Eric was in my Argumentation class last semester at UVM, but for
financial reasons had to change over to CCV. He had wanted to debate and
thought he would not be able to. When he heard about our co-op project with
CCV he was very happy. He's only been training for the tournament for a
week, so you will find him very teachable.

I think this is going to work out for us. We are trying to encourage,
support, and cooperate with these students. Our hope is that their schools
will soon come to recognize and support debating. Maybe someday we could
even have a tournament at one of those schools! Wow!

I want to encourage all other programs to consider and discuss just such an
option. I know that Sam Nelson has been helping with the Binghamton
program, and I think that is a great idea. It isn't easy, but progress can
be made.


Alfred Charles Snider -- "Tuna", Edwin W. Lawrence Professor of Forensics,
University of Vermont, Mail: 475 Main Street, UVM, Burlington, VT
05405-4225, Phone: 802-656-0097, Fax: 802-656-4275; President, Cross
Examination Debate Association 1997-98
http://debate.uvm.edu/ceda.html; DEBATE CENTRAL:  Debate's Biggest Website
 http://debate.uvm.edu/
+++++
WORLD DEBATE INSTITUTE 1998 - make plans now - http://debate.uvm.edu/ndi.html



From kjast13+  Fri Feb  6 10:09:10 1998
From: kjast13+ (Kevin Ayotte)
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 11:09:10 -0500
Subject: Clarifying Foucault in this mess
Message-ID: <FRI.6.FEB.1998.110910.0500.KJAST13@PITT.EDU>

On Wed, Feb. 4, Pat Gehrke wrote:

>What my originally comment poorly intended to convey
>was that Foucault is not opposed to power-per-se, even if such were
>possible. He does not critique power as power, or power as a concept, in
>order to acquire a power-free relation. Such a move falls back into the
>naive movements of liberal politics. This is one way to position F.
>contra Habermas or Sartre. So, to use F. as the basis of a critique that
>seeks to oppose power relations, per se, seems contrary to the basic
>project I read in his work. To use F. to help to better discuss or
>examine a specific power relation, or to position an opposition to
>polemics or domination, those all make sense to me. I think this is the
>same as Mr. Zompetti's point, though I don't intend to speak for him.
>
>-Pat Gehrke
>penn state
>

The above is all cool with me.  I apologize for the sloppiness of my first
post that started all this, in that I didn't mean to suggest Foucault
searches for the elimination of power.  There may be room for a turn on the
basis of a new oppressive knowledge instituted by the kritik.  This, in any
event, is a completely different argument from the deconstruction of the
kritik itself.

Kevin Ayotte
University of Pittsburgh



From srader  Fri Feb  6 10:31:50 1998
From: srader (Doyle Srader)
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 09:31:50 -0700
Subject: Use for NCR ballots
Message-ID: <FRI.6.FEB.1998.093150.0700.SRADER@IMAP3.ASU.EDU>

Maybe some of you have been doing this for years. It didn't occur to me
to do it until elim day at Utah.

Some of the old school NCR (no carbon required) ballots have the
half-sheet on the front, with three carbonless pages behind. Since I've
very little intention of writing anything on those three back pages, they
make great flow paper. It's better than consigning them to a landfill
(unrecyclable, AFAIK) unused, and it means I don't have to scam as much
paper from the debaters.

Just my Martha Stewart moment for the day. Good wishes to people spending
the weekend in Ithaca, Evanston, Point Loma, etc.

Doyle Srader
Arizona State University
(602) 649-6033

"All in all, brick by brick, I'll come and build my house
 While I try to get real good at putting words in people's mouths."
   -- Bill Mallonee, _Five Miles Outside of Monroe_

>From  Fri Feb  6 11:26:35 1998
Message-Id: <FRI.6.FEB.1998.112635.0000.>
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 11:26:35 +0000
Reply-To: ad52 at columbia.edu
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Alan Dove <ad52 at COLUMBIA.EDU>
Organization: Columbia University
Subject: Re: oral critiques and ballots
Comments: To: The Essence of Jerry Curl <jde8553 at KSU.EDU>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hey, folks:

I can't believe I'm the only person to have thought of doing things this
way, but here's my approach:

1) Before 1AC, I draw a horizontal line across the comment space on the
ballot, splitting it into an upper and a lower window of approximately
equal sizes.  In the upper space, I write "1A...1N...2A...2N" down the
left margin, leaving space for comments.

2) During prep time (when the judge has nothing to do anyway), I write
comments about the speech and/or cx which just occurred.  These go in
the subdivided top part of the comment space on the ballot.  Anything I
consider important enough to include in the oral critique will be there,
along with some other stuff which I might want to direct specifically to
the coach.  I think there are comments about individual speakers which
a) need to be communicated to the coach and b) are not likely to be
communicated accurately by the debaters.  If these comments are
exclusively oral, the coach ends up looking at a ballot with a RFD, low
speaker points for his debaters, and only the debater's story that "I
guess the judge didn't like our hats."

3) When positions get punted in rebuttals, I sometimes comment on how I
thought they might have gone if picked up.  This can be written on the
ballot during 2AR prep time.  As with the rest of the comments on the
arguments, this goes in the bottom window of the ballot.

4) At the end of the round, I have a fairly complete critique written on
the ballot already, and only need to fill in the specific issues I am
voting on.  This takes about 2 minutes, and I do it while the debaters
figure out whose evidence is on what desk and what file the disad
belongs in.  Since I do not ask for evidence after rounds except in
extraordinary circumstances (e.g. ethical challenges), I'm usually done
with the ballot by the time the debaters are ready for an oral critique.

5) The oral critique is a 5-minute (or so) summary of the ballot,
followed by a disclosure if permitted.

It's easy, and I've never had a complaint about ballot completeness or
lack of clarity in the oral critique.  Folks are sometimes dissatisfied
with the top part of the ballot, but there's not much to be done about
that.

          --Alan

--
_______________
Alan Dove, Ph.D.
N3IMU
ad52 at columbia.edu
a.dove at natureny.com
http://128.59.173.136/Poliolab/Alan/Dove.html



From Jackie.Massey  Fri Feb  6 10:48:18 1998
From: Jackie.Massey (Jackie Massey)
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 09:48:18 -0700
Subject: Deconstructing kritiks: What about the ballot?
In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.19980206094628.006c722c@facstaff.richmond.edu>
Message-ID: <FRI.6.FEB.1998.094818.0700.JACKIE.MASSEY@ENMU.EDU>

Hello Friends,

LIsa has pointed out my biggest
problem with critiques.  The forced dualistic choice
between affirmative and negative, and the results of that choice
reinforce a tabroom hiererchy and win/loss system.
Would the authors of the "feminist" school of critiques prescribe
"punishment" for someone who works from a patriarchial mindset as the 
method to affect their consciousness?

Good point Lisa.


Peace,

Massey
ENMU

On
Fri, 6
Feb 1998,
Lisa K. Heller wrote:

> I've been enjoying this kritik thread. So, here's a question I've been
> muddling with that I'd like all of you to address. It's a follow up
> question to the issue that others have raised about the appropriatenes of
> kritiks for debate:
> 
> 
> How do you suitably address the issues of POWER & HIERARCHY within the
> context of a debate round where the judge and the debaters are all
> constrained by the ballot? Doesn't the ballot and the judge who yields the
> almighty vote create a forced hierarchy? I mean, the judge has to vote for
> a team, right? You can't deconstruct the round that much under those
> conditions. (i.e. - any deconstruction is inevitably contrived, as all
> teams are motivated toward gaining the vote.)
> 
> Curious to hear your responses,
> 
> Lisa K. Heller
> Richmond Debate
> 
> 
> 
> At 01:09 AM 2/6/98 -0500, Kevin Ayotte wrote:
> >Reddinger wrote:
> >>WHY is it still hierarchy?  My argument is that we should view power as
> >>being DEcentralized.  Is that hierarchy?  And to be a marxist is okay,
> >>it's just that not all issues fit so neatly into class structures.  Like
> >>the oppression of defining the insane as being unable to speak for
> >>themselves.
> >>
> >
> >(A quick aside: Although there are problems with Marxism, as with any
> >theory, don't you think the lower classes are probably a bit more likely to
> >be successfully defined by the legal system as insane?  Just a thought)
> >
> >OK, perhaps Reddinger's post gets us more in the direction I wanted to go.
> >My suggestion is that a potential strategy against a kritik would be an all
> >out deconstruction.  My previous posts were directed toward a
> >deconstruction of the knowledge claim that is implicit in ANY kritik.  Only
> >the deconstructive move would be self-reflexive, always questioning and
> >avoiding any claim to final knowledge, whereas the kritik offers a
> >particular way of knowing the world.  Let me suggest a few quotes that
> >develop this position; I realize it is still sketchy, but I am curious
> >about the application of thorough deconstruction to kritiking.
> >
> >1. Lyotard argues the following: "Don't you see that criticizing is still
> >knowing, knowing better?  That the critical relation still falls within the
> >sphere of knowledge, of 'realization' and thus of the assumption of
> >power?"(Driftworks, p. 13, in Schrag's _Resources of Rationality_, p. 56).
> >
> >2. The "assumption of power" would raise concerns of the kritik
> >reconstructing a new hierarchy in the sense that Lisa notes.
> >
> >3. Frederic Jameson also raises this same point.  "As far as language is
> >concerned, this means that any affirmation one makes is at least implicitly
> >a philosophical proposition and thereby a component of just such a
> >metaphysical system.  The bad universalism of metaphysics has thereby
> >infected language itself, which cannot but continue to emit and endlessly
> >to regenerate the ?metaphysical' or the ontic, comically to affirm one
> >proposition after another, which outlast their pragmatic uses and know an
> >afterlife as what another tradition might call ideology."(_New Left
> >Review_, Jan-Feb'95, p. 84-5).
> >
> >4. In an interview, Derrida predicates political action on the refusal of
> >any appeal to determinate knowledge. "This does not stop one from
> >calculating strategies and taking decisions or responsibilities... It is to
> >the extent that knowledge does not program everything in advance, to the
> >extent that knowledge remains suspended and undecided as to action, to the
> >extent that a responsible decision as such will never be measured by any
> >form of knowledge, by a clear and distinct certainty or by a theoretical
> >judgment, that there can and must be responsibility or decision, be they
> >ethical or political."(_The Althusserian Legacy_'93, p. 212.
> >
> >One could try to move from the knowledge claim as an exercise of superior
> >power (remember Lyotard identifies the critique as the _assumption_ of
> >power) and turn the kritik (#1-2 above).  Or, one could claim the high
> >ground of deconstruction (#1, 3, 4) and argue for the rejection of the
> >kritik in that in recreates metaphysics through the claim of superior
> >knowledge.  Only the infinite self-reflexivity of deconstruction would
> >avoid that outcome.
> >
> >I suggest these as options, because I think either may have potential as a
> >strategy against a kritik; essentially out-theorizing the kritik from a
> >deconstructive perspective.  Tony King from Chico seems to be using this
> >second version; I hope Tony will post his backchannel to provide some
> >further examples of the stuff above.
> >
> >Thanks for listening,
> >
> >Kevin Ayotte
> >University of Pittsburgh
> >
> >
> 

>From  Fri Feb  6 10:42:49 1998
Message-Id: <FRI.6.FEB.1998.104249.0600.>
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 10:42:49 -0600
Reply-To: Bill.Henderson at UNI.EDU
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Bill Henderson <Bill.Henderson at UNI.EDU>
Subject: Individual Events position, UNI
MIME-version: 1.0

Greeting to a number of old friends (as well as not-so-old folks)!
I'm alive and kicking at Northern Iowa, just not engaged in forensics.  We're
losing our current individual events coach at the end of this year, and I'm the
Search Chair for a new one, who will come on board this fall.  The Position
Announcement was forwarded on this, and other lists, a couple of weeks ago, but
I want to be sure that interested persons "get the word", so that we can have
a good pool from which to select our new coach.
In brief, the position is a 2-4 year term appointment, qualifications are an
M.A., two years collegiate individual events coaching experience either as a
graduate student or as an active coach.  The person is required to have course
work or equivalent academic background in interpersonal, small group, and
public speaking, since they'll also teach oral communication 9basic course).
Applications must be received by March 9 to be given full consideration.
Questions?  My e-mail is easiest; bill.henderson at uni.edu.  Voice mail (319)
273-7290.
Best wishes to you as the season moves toward final competitions.  Pass this
information on to any persons you think might be interested.
Regards



From lkahng  Fri Feb  6 12:00:00 1998
From: lkahng (lucius K)
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 13:00:00 -0500
Subject: Case Western U.
Message-ID: <FRI.6.FEB.1998.130000.0500.LKAHNG@OSF1.GMU.EDU>

Hey, I'm trying to get in contact with the team that runs encryption.


                                                        Thanks,

                                                        Lucius K
                                                        George Mason U.
   WW
  /__\
 | oo |    _WWWWW_
(|_()_|)  /  o o  \    (+)(+)      LUCIUS KAHNG
  \__/  (|  __o__  |) /      \
 /|\/|\   \ \___/ /   \ -==- /     lkahng at gmu.edu
 ||||||   /___\   \    /    \      lucius at earthling.net
 ||||||  |=========|  <\/\/\/>
 ||||||  |=========|  /      \



From truthistheweapon  Fri Feb  6 20:05:58 1998
From: truthistheweapon (x truth is the weapon x)
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 21:05:58 -0500
Subject: Rethinking debate's potential
Message-ID: <FRI.6.FEB.1998.210558.0500.TRUTHISTHEWEAPON@JUNO.COM>

20 October 1997

What follows is a portion of my letter of resignation from the debate
team
as presented to my coach.  I have decided to make it widely available
because it represents many concerns that lie just beneath the surface of
the
debate circuit.  If they remain there, however, hidden and unspoken, they
will accomplish nothing.  Take this for what you will.  It is intended,
with
all respect, as a portrait of the truth.


...Similarly, it is for no lack of respect for debate that I find myself
compelled to quit; that is to say, no lack of respect for what debate is
intended to be, rather than what it has become.  It is this latter
element--the evolution of debate into its current form--to which I take
exception and therein find strong imperative to leave.

        My passion for debate has always lain within its potential--as an
educational medium, as a forum for community/academic interaction and
problem-solving, as a challenge to the individual powers of critical
analysis, intelligent discourse and persuasion.  It is a passion which I
have willingly shared, through discussion and example, with my peers,
instructors, community leaders and even my family.  And it is a passion
to
which I, like you, have dedicated a significant portion of my life.
Please
know that for all these reasons, I do not take this decision lightly.

        Yet despite all of this, I cannot reconcile (academically,
personally or ethically) what debate has devolved into--a game which
excludes all those who stand to benefit from the wealth of its resources
from understanding or participation; an activity which relinquishes
communication, education, truth and applicability in the obsessive
pursuit
of the ballot; an elite concentration of students, coaches, research and
funding which benefits no one outside the circuit; in short, an event
that
has sacrificed its potential for selfish ends.

        There are those who say that this is a game--you accept it for
what
it is and you play by the rules, even when a large portion of the time
you
hate what you are doing.  To me, that displays nothing more than weak
character and self-centered motivation.  Debate has existed, as both a
game,
an instructional tool, and a crucial aspect of public policy formation
for
centuries.  Never before has it been about speed at the expense of
clarity
and communication, technical delineation without consideration for the
pursuit of truth, beating the opposition without regard for the ethical
implications or workability of debate positions.

        Accepting premises that are untrue simply for strategic purposes
not
only demonstrates a lack of skill on the part of the speaker(s), but also
a
disturbing predilection toward winning above quality argumentation.
While
this may represent CEDA and collegiate debate as it is today, it is a
poor
representation of the rich history debate and debaters have enjoyed.
Further, it is a direct insult to the intelligence and the commitment of
those who participate in, direct or witness the activity.

        One note regarding debate critics--it is amazing to me that
critics
(individuals who observe/adjudicate rounds from a focal point of
extensive
education, experience and often vision) willingly limit themselves and
the
potential impact of their insight by supporting the current debate
framework
(by voting on Topicality RVI's, on procedural issues that do not impact
the
argumentation, on positions that, while hypothetically supported through
intentionally misleading collections of evidence, are wholly and
obviously
untrue, or by sifting through cards post-round because the debate
wholistically and the speakers individually were unclear).  How truly
disheartening that the complexities of their minds be wasted in a
framework
that neither appreciates nor encourages the knowledge or perspectives
they
are in a position to communicate.

        Debate has the potential to be and to do much; sadly, it now is
and
does comparatively little.  Voltaire once wrote, "It is better to die on
one's feet than to live on one's knees."  Debate now is living on its
knees,
and it will die there without serious reevaluation of its goals and
methods.
It is my sincere hope that debate will one day rise to the challenges of
its
potential; until then, it must settle for being little more than an
elitist
activity, selfish in intent, means and ends.
        And as long as it remains as such, I must pursue its original
objectives and my passion for them in forums that I find personally,
academically and ethically justifiable.

Sincerely,

Kristine J. Kalanges
University of Puget Sound
"Those persons that take their instruction from the authority of books,
and
not from their own meditation, to be as much below the condition of
ignorant
persons, as persons endued with true science are above it."  T. Hobbes

Kristine J. Kalanges




_____________________________________________________________________
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 SavoieLD99.CS11.USAFA  Fri Feb  6 11:05:58 1998
From: SavoieLD99.CS11.USAFA (Cadet Luke D. Savoie, x-4581)
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 17:05:58 GMT
Subject: Rethinking debate's potential
Message-ID: <FRI.6.FEB.1998.170558.GMT.SAVOIELD99.CS11.USAFA@USAFA.AF.MIL>

Forwarded to:      ![edebate at list.uvm.edu]
          cc:
Comments by:       SavoieLD99 at CS11 at USAFA
Comments:

           ***********************DICLAIMER*********************
*******IN NO WAY DO THESE OPINIONS REFLECT THOSE OF THE AIR FORCE, DEPARTMENT
      *******OF DEFENSE, OR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES**********


I am sorry for your feeling but you should have done LD or Parli.

CEDA has become what policy debate is in the real world.

Do lobbiest and congressman care about the ethical implications of what they
are doing, or do they care about what their constituents and peers have told
then to do.

Throughtout all of history people have done things they themselves do not
believe in, but society as asked them to do it and expects them to get it
done.

In a debate round it is my job as the negative to win, by any means as long
as I follow the rules.  If that mean putting strange positions out like
biotech or alife to get the aff off balance then it is my DUTY to do it.

        example: Death row, minutes before the man is to be put to death the
                lawyers are looking for loop hole, missed signature, i's not
                dotted, anything to keep that man from dying.  Because
                procedural issues are key to making our society function.
                Allowing a signature to get past someone one day could lead
                to an innocent man dying the next.

Speed:
        Debates in the real world take hours, days, weeks, or even months.
        In order to develope arguments that you claim that you love so much
        you have to go FAST.  8 minutes, (9 at NDT tournments) is not enough
        to develope on argument slowly.  Speed allows us to do a debate in
        2 hours that would have taken a days in congress.

Kritiques are CEDA's way of trying to get an ethincal or moral implication
into the round, and THIS YEAR IT IS WORKING ;)

Policy is made this way, and I think that CEDA does a good job of
representing this aspect of our society.

Luke Savoie

   -------------------------- [Original Message] -------------------------
20 October 1997

What follows is a portion of my letter of resignation from the debate
team
as presented to my coach.  I have decided to make it widely available
because it represents many concerns that lie just beneath the surface of
the
debate circuit.  If they remain there, however, hidden and unspoken, they
will accomplish nothing.  Take this for what you will.  It is intended,
with
all respect, as a portrait of the truth.


...Similarly, it is for no lack of respect for debate that I find myself
compelled to quit; that is to say, no lack of respect for what debate is
intended to be, rather than what it has become.  It is this latter
element--the evolution of debate into its current form--to which I take
exception and therein find strong imperative to leave.

        My passion for debate has always lain within its potential--as an
educational medium, as a forum for community/academic interaction and
problem-solving, as a challenge to the individual powers of critical
analysis, intelligent discourse and persuasion.  It is a passion which I
have willingly shared, through discussion and example, with my peers,
instructors, community leaders and even my family.  And it is a passion
to
which I, like you, have dedicated a significant portion of my life.
Please
know that for all these reasons, I do not take this decision lightly.

        Yet despite all of this, I cannot reconcile (academically,
personally or ethically) what debate has devolved into--a game which
excludes all those who stand to benefit from the wealth of its resources
from understanding or participation; an activity which relinquishes
communication, education, truth and applicability in the obsessive
pursuit
of the ballot; an elite concentration of students, coaches, research and
funding which benefits no one outside the circuit; in short, an event
that
has sacrificed its potential for selfish ends.

        There are those who say that this is a game--you accept it for
what
it is and you play by the rules, even when a large portion of the time
you
hate what you are doing.  To me, that displays nothing more than weak
character and self-centered motivation.  Debate has existed, as both a
game,
an instructional tool, and a crucial aspect of public policy formation
for
centuries.  Never before has it been about speed at the expense of
clarity
and communication, technical delineation without consideration for the
pursuit of truth, beating the opposition without regard for the ethical
implications or workability of debate positions.

        Accepting premises that are untrue simply for strategic purposes
not
only demonstrates a lack of skill on the part of the speaker(s), but also
a
disturbing predilection toward winning above quality argumentation.
While
this may represent CEDA and collegiate debate as it is today, it is a
poor
representation of the rich history debate and debaters have enjoyed.
Further, it is a direct insult to the intelligence and the commitment of
those who participate in, direct or witness the activity.

        One note regarding debate critics--it is amazing to me that
critics
(individuals who observe/adjudicate rounds from a focal point of
extensive
education, experience and often vision) willingly limit themselves and
the
potential impact of their insight by supporting the current debate
framework
(by voting on Topicality RVI's, on procedural issues that do not impact
the
argumentation, on positions that, while hypothetically supported through
intentionally misleading collections of evidence, are wholly and
obviously
untrue, or by sifting through cards post-round because the debate
wholistically and the speakers individually were unclear).  How truly
disheartening that the complexities of their minds be wasted in a
framework
that neither appreciates nor encourages the knowledge or perspectives
they
are in a position to communicate.

        Debate has the potential to be and to do much; sadly, it now is
and
does comparatively little.  Voltaire once wrote, "It is better to die on
one's feet than to live on one's knees."  Debate now is living on its
knees,
and it will die there without serious reevaluation of its goals and
methods.
It is my sincere hope that debate will one day rise to the challenges of
its
potential; until then, it must settle for being little more than an
elitist
activity, selfish in intent, means and ends.
        And as long as it remains as such, I must pursue its original
objectives and my passion for them in forums that I find personally,
academically and ethically justifiable.

Sincerely,

Kristine J. Kalanges
University of Puget Sound
"Those persons that take their instruction from the authority of books,
and
not from their own meditation, to be as much below the condition of
ignorant
persons, as persons endued with true science are above it."  T. Hobbes

Kristine J. Kalanges




_____________________________________________________________________
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 srader  Fri Feb  6 21:34:23 1998
From: srader (Doyle Srader)
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 20:34:23 -0700
Subject: Fort Hays aff?
Message-ID: <FRI.6.FEB.1998.203423.0700.SRADER@IMAP3.ASU.EDU>

If anyone's seen Fort Hays on the affirmative lately, backchannel me with
what they had to say, eh? Thanks.

Doyle Srader
Arizona State University
(602) 649-6033

"All in all, brick by brick, I'll come and build my house
 While I try to get real good at putting words in people's mouths."
   -- Bill Mallonee, _Five Miles Outside of Monroe_



From race  Sat Feb  7 02:23:35 1998
From: race (David Bruce Rhaesa)
Date: Sat, 7 Feb 1998 02:23:35 -0600
Subject: RUMOURS (between gossip & journalism) [was doyle's FORT HAYS
 Affirmative]
Message-ID: <SAT.7.FEB.1998.022335.0600.RACE@MIDUSA.NET>

without first or second confirmations i heard a rumour that the Tiggers
are planning to spring pest management systems as security assistance
against insects at either the evanston community college or heartless
americuh tourneys.

DR/dbr



From kjast13+  Sat Feb  7 12:51:53 1998
From: kjast13+ (Kevin Ayotte)
Date: Sat, 7 Feb 1998 13:51:53 -0500
Subject: Deconstruction and ballots
Message-ID: <SAT.7.FEB.1998.135153.0500.KJAST13@PITT.EDU>

On Fri., Feb. 6, Lisa Heller wrote:

>How do you suitably address the issues of POWER & HIERARCHY within the
>context of a debate round where the judge and the debaters are all
>constrained by the ballot? Doesn't the ballot and the judge who yields the
>almighty vote create a forced hierarchy? I mean, the judge has to vote for
>a team, right? You can't deconstruct the round that much under those
>conditions. (i.e. - any deconstruction is inevitably contrived, as all
>teams are motivated toward gaining the vote.)
>
>Curious to hear your responses,
>
>Lisa K. Heller
>Richmond Debate
>

Lisa raises a good point regarding the inevitability of power in the search
for a ballot.  I must admit this is somewhat difficult to address.  My
initial response would be that there is no way around the power inscribed
in the ballot, both in the judge's ability to issue one and the debaters'
quest for it.  This is, however, separate from the evaluation of power,
knowledge, and discourse as it is kritiked in the round.  The judge stands
in a position to evaluate who made the most persuasive arguments.  This is
a separate issue entirely from the question of whether U.S. security
assistance inevitably creates colonialism, crushes culture, excludes gender
awareness, etc.  In the round, the debaters are kritiking
mindsets/discourses that are arguably distinct from the judges role of
issuing a ballot.  I realize that this distinction is artificial in the
very constructed nature of the debate format, but I am not sure that the
two are intrinsically intertwined.

Curious to hear others' thoughts on this subject,

Kevin Ayotte
University of Pittsburgh



From ny971300  Sat Feb  7 10:34:54 1998
From: ny971300 (danny bell)
Date: Sat, 7 Feb 1998 16:34:54 -0000
Subject: jesuit thanks
Message-ID: <SAT.7.FEB.1998.163454.0000.NY971300@PACE.EDU>

Jason and I would like to extend a much deserved thanks to the SIU squad
for the excellent hospitality at the Jesuit RR and the Saluki tournament.
Greg, Glen, Joey, Matt, Slusher, Geoff, Klemz, Joel, Metz, and the rest
of those behind the scenes made the trip more than worthwhile.


peace

Danny Bell
Pace U.
"Let's all strap bombs to our chests and ride our bikes to the next G-7
picnic" Propagandhi



From dumas  Sun Feb  8 10:53:11 1998
From: dumas (Jamey Dumas)
Date: Sun, 8 Feb 1998 09:53:11 -0700
Subject: Cornell "Tournament of Love" Breaks and Speaker Awards
Message-ID: <SUN.8.FEB.1998.095311.0700.DUMAS@GONZAGA.EDU>

          The 1998 Russell D. Martin "Tournament of Love
                 Cornell University, February 6-7


Varsity Quarters

1. KState Denny & West           vs  8. Syracuse Peppin & McCann
4. Towson Baker & Ellis          vs  5. UMKC White & Green
2. UMKC Whyte & Curry            vs  7. KState Glaser & Zollman
3. NYU/Columbia Hentea & Weigler vs  6. Towson Doyle & Faruqui

Varsity Speakers

1.  Don Baker, Towson
2.  Grant Denny, KState
3.  Kerry Doyle, Towson
4.  Isaac West, KState
5.  Ben White, UMKC
6.  Andy Ellis, Towson
7.  Sarah Glaser, KState
8.  Adam Whyte, UMKC
9.  Tammy Curry, UMKC
10. Marius Hentea, Colulmbia


Junior Varsity Quarters

1. Vermont Snider & Morgan        vs  7. Rochester Michaels & Myers
4. Kings Rodrigez & Velaquez      vs  5. NYU/Columbia Brindle & Rubino
2. Liberty Vick & Ringsmith       vs  8. Vermont/Trinity Petrie & Young
3. Liberty Attwood & Frazier      vs  6. NYU/Columbia Hanes & Harper

Junior Varsity Speakers

1.  Sarah Snider, Vermont
2.  Rochelle Ringsmith, Liberty
3.  Hanna Vick, Liberty
4.  Sherri Harper, Columbia
5.  Helen Morgan, Vermont
6.  Russ Hanes, Columbia
7.  Je'Mara Attwood, Liberty
8.  Chris Rutledge, Rochester
9.  Katherine McClung, Rochester
10. DH Bennett, USMA


Novice Octos

1.  Liberty Woodard & Yingst      vs  16. Rochester Gross & Asaad
8.  Vermont Sweeney & Hoang       vs  10. Rochester Muhan & Lisman
4.  Rochester Shapiro & Mauskupt  vs  13. Ithaca Hagen & Sroka
5.  Vermont Grover & Mirabelli    vs  12. Capital Verdell & Hammond
2.  Liberty Walker & Twigg        vs  15. Richmond Keeton & Ferguson
7.  Rochester Desai & Fredericks  vs  9.  Kings Ammon & Lisko
3.  Rochester White & Walters     vs  14. Clarion Coyer & Sapp
6.  Towson Jackson & Pusca        vs  11. Rochester Pelton & Ravichandran

Novice Speakers

1.  Jared Woodard, Liberty
2.  Shanna Twigg, Liberty
3.  Todd Walters, Rochester
4.  Nick Yingst, Liberty
5.  Anca Pusca, Towson
6.  Dominic Verdell, Capital
7.  Jonathan White, Rochester
8.  Katey Walker, Liberty
9.  Jennifer Mauskupt, Rochester
10. David Grover, Vermont


(Note, as you may have noticed if you look at the pairings carefully,
Cornell breaks brackets.)

>From  Sun Feb  8 15:54:28 1998
Message-Id: <SUN.8.FEB.1998.155428.0500.>
Date: Sun, 8 Feb 1998 15:54:28 -0500
Reply-To: deon_garner at STUDENTS.MOREHOUSE.EDU
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Deon Garner <deon_garner at STUDENTS.MOREHOUSE.EDU>
Subject: Georgia College
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=US-ASCII

Just back from the Peachbelt Classic at Georgia College . . .

On behalf of the Morehouse Squad, I wanted to give a special
"thank you" to Dr. David Muschell (sp?), DoF of Georgia College
and State University for the wonderful time.  It was a bit rigorous
doing CEDA and Impromptu, but it was fun.  Wee look forward to
the experience next year.



I also want to extend thanks to Glenda Treadaway and Nina Jo
Moore for their wonderful jobs running debate and IE tabs (respectively).
The tournaments always run smoothly when they are handling things.

I hope to see you all Regionals.

Deon, Captain
Morehouse Debate



From mroston  Sun Feb  8 18:56:57 1998
From: mroston (M. Roston)
Date: Sun, 8 Feb 1998 18:56:57 -0600
Subject: READ THIS MESSAGE
Message-ID: <SUN.8.FEB.1998.185657.0600.MROSTON@BLUE.WEEG.UIOWA.EDU>

        Because I am not debating this weekend, and because it came to my
attention, I thought I'd try to promote an effort to add an activist
element to policy debate.  Gordon Mitchell among others has suggested that
there is a very important place for us in the policy arena.  We're well
educated and conscious of a lot of different issues that many people never
get so close to.  I thought we should attempt to make our voices heard,
collectively and as a community on a matter that is directly within our
sphere of interest.

        I spent the season giving IMET to Indonesia and working on
our squad's Suharto disadvantage.  So, I have spent a lot of time mired
deep in the Indonesian politics literature.  I saw an article in
Singapore's Business Times on February 2nd talking about "Suharto's
counteroffensive," his efforts to fight back against those who have
criticized his government in the last few months.  A bomb went off in
Jakarta, and the group that was building the bomb implicated
several well known-individuals in Indonesia, all of whom have somehow been
critical of the Indonesian government recently.  The people building the
bomb were apparently affiliated with the banned PRD, or People's
Democratic Party.

        Why does this directly implicate us?  Well, a few of the names
might be familiar to you.  Jusuf Wanandi, director of the Center for
Strategic and International Studies.  Surya Paloh, general manager of
Media Indonesia.  I am not sure where your research efforts have gone, but
I have read evidence in several debates from both of these sources.  If
the government does shut these folks down(especially in the case of the
CSIS), I think we would have trouble getting information as good as these
organizations have provided.

        These individuals have published material both in favor of the
government, and in criticism of it.  The criticisms are a reason why the
government has singled out these groups, especially the CSIS.  The
Business Times article wrote, quoting economy analyst Dr. Hartojo
Wignyowijoto, "As head of a conglomerate, Sofyan is outspoken, in fact too
outspoken.  Also, Sofyan and Jusuf are seen to be with the Murdani group.
So it looks like President Suharto is beginning to show that he remains in
control of the situation.  He appears to be eliminating any possibility of
him being dethroned through the CSIS."   The Murdani group
refers to an ousted military man named Benny Murdani who has
been critical of Suharto, and keeps an office at CSIS.  Protestors who
might be linked to the military are preventing the CSIS from opening its
doors after the current holiday ends.  They wish the thinktank to be
closed down for good. It is hard to say whether or not their demands will
succeed, but the military has suggested that they will continue to
investigate the Wanandi brothers and others implicated by the terrorists.

        What can we do about it?  Well, not terribly much.  I'm not
suggesting we postpone the coming national tournaments so that we can
charter planes to Jakarta to protest.  Instead, I've written a petition
expressing our community's support for these individuals.  We have
benefitted from their journalism and activism, and I think it would be an
appropriate gesture to petition the Indonesian embassy  in Washington, and
perhaps write letters to your Congressman and Senators to inform them of
our concern for the situation.

        There's talk that we don't do enough.  We talk a good deal about
critical theory and how to change mindsets, suggest that our government
should not support repressive regimes.  And I am sure all of us takes
something out of each debate round that furthers our understanding of the
world.  Why don't we take a concrete action this time, collectively.  Why
don't we express our support for the Wanandi brothers, Alex Flor, Paloh,
and Hendardi who all have influenced the debates we have spent the better
part of a year having?  It seems a rational and appropriate effort to me,
and I plan to work on getting the Hawkeye squad to sign off on this
effort.  I hope others in the community feel the same way.

If anyone would like more information on the investigation, I'd be glad to
provide as much as I know.

Michael Roston
Baird Forum/U. of Iowa



From mroston  Sun Feb  8 18:59:06 1998
From: mroston (M. Roston)
Date: Sun, 8 Feb 1998 18:59:06 -0600
Subject: The Petition(read other message first)
Message-ID: <SUN.8.FEB.1998.185906.0600.MROSTON@BLUE.WEEG.UIOWA.EDU>

The address of the Indonesian embassy is:

2020 Massachusetts Ave. NW
Washington D.C. 20036

email:  info at kbri.org

The petition itself is below.  I made space for 20 signatures.  Some
squads might need more space.  Sorry.
-------------------------------------------

        To the Ambassador at the Embassy of the Republic of
        Indonesia:

        We, as members of <________insert program name___________> wish to
express our support for the following individuals who have been
implicated in the investigation of a bombing in Jakarta:

        *  Sofjan Wanandi of the Gemala Group

        *  Jusuf Wanandi of the Center for Strategic and International
           Studies

        *  Hendardi of the Indonesian Legal Aid Foundation

        *  Alex Flor of Watch Indonesia

        *  Surya Paloh of Media Indonesia

        All five of the above individuals have been involved in critical
efforts to provide information on Indonesia to the outside world through
their organizations.  Without such information, our community would be
unable to participate in debates;  the information provided by these
organizations is of the sort that is the very lifeblood of our activity.
We wish to express our hope that the investigations of these individuals
by Indonesian governmental authorities proceed in a balanced, fair
fashion. It is our belief that the content of the their work, whether it
contains criticisms of the Suharto government or not, deserves to be
heard.  Any  form of investigation that prevents these voices from
lawfully making themsevles heard by communities in Indonesia, America, or
any other nation should immediately be discontinued.


1.




2.




3.




4.



5.



6.



7.



8.



9.



10.



11.



12.



13.



14.




15.



16.




17.




18.



19.




20.



From lwulkan  Sun Feb  8 20:07:26 1998
From: lwulkan (Lawrence Jay Wulkan)
Date: Sun, 8 Feb 1998 21:07:26 -0500
Subject: Martin or Skarb
Message-ID: <SUN.8.FEB.1998.210726.0500.LWULKAN@IONIUM.IT.MIAMI.EDU>

Can either of you please email me your plan text, it is missing from the
SIU case list.  Thanks in advance.  Larry



From buad000c  Sun Feb  8 20:41:27 1998
From: buad000c (Laurie Diane Ishak)
Date: Sun, 8 Feb 1998 20:41:27 -0600
Subject: sea mines
Message-ID: <SUN.8.FEB.1998.204127.0600.BUAD000C@FRANK.MTSU.EDU>

i've been looking for some good stuff on sea mines (neg) and am having no
luck...if anybody could please help me i'd appreciate it--

laurie
mtsu

>From  Sun Feb  8 20:55:33 1998
Message-Id: <SUN.8.FEB.1998.205533.0600.>
Date: Sun, 8 Feb 1998 20:55:33 -0600
Reply-To: Joseph_Coppola at BAYLOR.EDU
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Joseph Coppola <Joseph_Coppola at BAYLOR.EDU>
Subject: Depaul (Jenks or Plamann)
In-Reply-To: <199802030014.SAA83186 at saluki-mail.siu.edu>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII

Could either of you clarify a couple of things in your plan?  Do you just
enact it to all developing countries, or do you just adopt it to Southeast
asian Nations?  If just SEA, which countries do you claim to give it to?  Do
you claim that not requesting the immediate loans from those SEA countries is
what makes you topical, or do you give them any other forms of technical
assistance?

Thanks,
Joseph Coppola

>From  Sun Feb  8 21:02:34 1998
Message-Id: <SUN.8.FEB.1998.210234.0600.>
Date: Sun, 8 Feb 1998 21:02:34 -0600
Reply-To: Joseph_Coppola at BAYLOR.EDU
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Joseph Coppola <Joseph_Coppola at BAYLOR.EDU>
Subject: John Carroll (Lavelle/Wiley)
In-Reply-To: <199802030014.SAA83186 at saluki-mail.siu.edu>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII

Could you specify which of the magic lanterns systems you give Singapore?
Also, besides training do you have the U.S. do any other operations like
actually use the Magic Lanterns systems to detect the mines.  Does Singapore
later have to pay for the Magic Lanterns Systems?
Thanks,
Joseph Coppola



From cohee99g  Sun Feb  8 22:18:17 1998
From: cohee99g (Elisa L Cohen)
Date: Sun, 8 Feb 1998 23:18:17 -0500
Subject: Any news from the COON?
In-Reply-To: <MailDrop1.2d7j.980208205533@st-west-dorms-b-dyn-18.baylor.edu>
Message-ID: <SUN.8.FEB.1998.231817.0500.COHEE99G@WFU.EDU>

Who's in the elims?



From buad000c  Sun Feb  8 22:37:19 1998
From: buad000c (Laurie Diane Ishak)
Date: Sun, 8 Feb 1998 22:37:19 -0600
Subject: usc (california not carolina) please
Message-ID: <SUN.8.FEB.1998.223719.0600.BUAD000C@FRANK.MTSU.EDU>

could someone from usc backchannel me please---thanks
laurie
mtsu



From dbteam  Sun Feb  8 23:25:33 1998
From: dbteam (WGC Debate Team)
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 00:25:33 -0500
Subject: Northwestern
Message-ID: <MON.9.FEB.1998.002533.0500.DBTEAM@WESTGA.EDU>

Any news???

lorie
West Georgia



From db8coach  Sun Feb  8 23:28:04 1998
From: db8coach (Bob Lechtreck)
Date: Sun, 8 Feb 1998 21:28:04 -0800
Subject: MPJ amendment
Message-ID: <SUN.8.FEB.1998.212804.0800.DB8COACH@LIGHTSPEED.NET>

At 08:17 PM 2/5/98 -0600, Greg Simerly wrote:


You may vote:

__X__ YES

_____ NO

Peace,

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



From srader  Sun Feb  8 23:38:28 1998
From: srader (Doyle Srader)
Date: Sun, 8 Feb 1998 22:38:28 -0700
Subject: Northwestern
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.3.96.980209002515.13986A-100000@sun.cc.westga.edu>
Message-ID: <SUN.8.FEB.1998.223828.0700.SRADER@IMAP3.ASU.EDU>

Speakers:

20. Cornellier, Michigan State
19. Kwon, Georgetown
18. McKeehan, Kansas
17. Cates, Georgia
16. Lambrinos, Fullerton
15. Hung, Dartmouth
14. Starr, Harvard
13. Wexler, Michigan
12. Heider, Fullerton
11. Scott, Iowa
10. Heidt, Emory
 9. Fitzmeier, Emory
 8. Bonilla, SUWG
 7. Sullivan, Michigan State
 6. McIntosh, Georgia
 5. Stoughton, Michigan
 4. Ardebili, Kansas
 3. Sahni, Emory
 2. Kouros, Emory
 1. (surprise, surprise) Rayburn, Iowa

Teams grouped by record, listed alphabetically

8-0
Michigan, Stoughton & Wexler

7-1
Emory, Kouros & Sahni
Georgetown, Kwon & Steele
Georgia, Cates & McIntosh
Michigan State, Cornellier & Sullivan

6-2
Dartmouth, Hung & Lehotsky
Emory, Fitzmeier & Heidt
George Mason, Krein & Weiner
Harvard, Engstrom & Starr
Iowa, Peterson & Rayburn
Kansas, Ardebili & McKeehan
Southern California, Harrison & Revelins
Southern California, Hurder & Stetson
Texas, Griffin & Renken
Wake Forest BC (sorry)
West Georgia, Bonilla & Carver

5-3
Emory BG (sorry again)
Emory, Ghoshal & Wade
Emory HT (and again)
Emory, Todd & Tabak
Fullerton, Heider & Lambrinos
Iowa, Podgorski & Scott
Macalester, Alme & Garen
Michigan State, Blair & Donald
Missouri-Kansas City, Barker & Betz
North Texas, Holloway & Morrow
Redlands (sorry)
Samford, Johnson & Stetson
Southern Illinois, Moore & Vuglia
Southern Illinois, Slusher & Smith
Wake Forest, Atchison & Green
Whitman, Harris & Symonds

5-3, insufficient speaker points
Baylor, Coulter & Coulter
Emory EG (sorry)
Emory, Heftman & McNabb
Kansas, Eber & Miller
Liberty, Burns & Lawrence
Michigan, Krakowsky & Rice
Wake Forest, Filstrup & Rufo

Doyle Srader
Arizona State University
(602) 649-6033

"All in all, brick by brick, I'll come and build my house
 While I try to get real good at putting words in people's mouths."
   -- Bill Mallonee, _Five Miles Outside of Monroe_



From race  Mon Feb  9 01:12:52 1998
From: race (David Bruce Rhaesa)
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 01:12:52 -0600
Subject: Gordo1's Debate Activism  [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: PBS/NPR advocacy]]
Message-ID: <MON.9.FEB.1998.011252.0600.RACE@MIDUSA.NET>

I'm not much of a radio dude so i wasn't certain about this but my evil
brother-in-law recommends activism.  I'm on the fence still.

d
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: "Sam & Beth Stevens, et al." <sbstevens at MCIONE.com>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: PBS/NPR advocacy]
Date: Sat, 07 Feb 1998 16:24:16 -0700
Size: 1213
Url: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/19980209/b8e43749/attachment.mht 


From Kenneth.DeLaughder  Mon Feb  9 02:05:00 1998
From: Kenneth.DeLaughder (Kenneth DeLaughder)
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 01:05:00 -0700
Subject: Tiffee from SWT
Message-ID: <MON.9.FEB.1998.010500.0700.KENNETH.DELAUGHDER@ENMU.EDU>

Hey Sean,
can you backchannel me?
Ken

--------------------------------------
Kenneth DeLaughder           "Do not be too proud of this technological
Assistant Debate Coach        terror you've constructed...The ability to
Eastern NM University         destroy a planet is insignificant compared
Station #3                    to the power of the Force..."
Portales, NM  88130
(505) 562-2741 (office)                 - Darth Vader, giving a good 2AR



From Kenneth.DeLaughder  Mon Feb  9 02:07:06 1998
From: Kenneth.DeLaughder (Kenneth DeLaughder)
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 01:07:06 -0700
Subject: Team list/Affs
Message-ID: <MON.9.FEB.1998.010706.0700.KENNETH.DELAUGHDER@ENMU.EDU>

Im putting together our team/case list, Im willing to assist people in
similar efforts, but I am looking to see whats out there, besides Cravens
home page (which I havent checked, but thanks billy for the effort :) )
does anyone else have a good list?  jsut wondering.

also if anyone has good intel from northwestern I would also appreciate
it.

Id rather be in chicago! (but Ill be in lawrence soon :) )

Ken
ENMU

--------------------------------------
Kenneth DeLaughder           "Do not be too proud of this technological
Assistant Debate Coach        terror you've constructed...The ability to
Eastern NM University         destroy a planet is insignificant compared
Station #3                    to the power of the Force..."
Portales, NM  88130
(505) 562-2741 (office)                 - Darth Vader, giving a good 2AR



From db8coach  Mon Feb  9 02:40:34 1998
From: db8coach (Bob Lechtreck)
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 00:40:34 -0800
Subject: Answering Sherwood (2)
Message-ID: <MON.9.FEB.1998.004034.0800.DB8COACH@LIGHTSPEED.NET>

At 04:53 PM 1/30/98 -0800, Forensics wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>
I do think, however that there are some specific claims made in my last post
that were not answered by  either of you in your responses.  But I will get
to those where they apply.
>>>>>>>>>>

Hmmm. I thought I answered all the questions, but will try to do so when you
replay them.

>>>>>>>>>>
>1) These titles are from a day gone by when the aff affirmed the rez and
>the neg negated it. The way we debate now does not necessarliy negate the
>rez, so the title is outdated even in plan focus (more on this below).

Why do you insist on claiming that this is a day gone by?
>>>>>>>>>>

I claim it is a day gone by because there are so few people that debate a
rez focus that it is no longer the "norm". If you think that even a SMALL
minority of policy debaters are debating a rez focus, then I think you need
to get out more often. Now this could be simply a matter of semantics, but
rez focus is simply NOT the way debate is done today.

>>>>>>>>>>
Throughout my career as a debater and as a coach I have argued and taught my
debaters to argue from a resolutional perspective.
>>>>>>>>>>

And I also believe topicality is important. However, a resolutional
"perspective" and rez "focus" are NOT the same thing. One uses the the topic
as the starting point (ie: a perspective), and the other uses the topic as
THE focal point of the debate (ie: is the rez true or false).

I think you are beginning to blur the two into one big mural.

>>>>>>>>>>
the entire community has never agreed that "parametrics" was the only
acceptable approach to debate.  there have simply been a few who tried to
strong arm others into this approch for competitve reasons.
>>>>>>>>>>

Can you say melodramatic? I would hardly call the ENTIRE national circuit of
both policy organizations "a few who tried to strong arm others". In fact, I
can think of VERY few policy circuits who do NOT practice plan focus debate.

>>>>>>>>>>
What do you think generic Disads, critiques and good counterplans are?
>>>>>>>>>>

Bad debate.

First, I disagreee that generic disads and counterplans are counter
resolutional.

If BC is debating LACC and we run our Helms disad with the generic link that
he hates acting in SEA, what will be one of LACC's first 3 answers? Be
honest!!! "No case specific link!!!" And why will LACC make this answer?
Because it is the smart thing to do. Because generic debates are rarely any
good, and because plan is the focus, NOT the resolution. At the point that
LACC makes that answer, they grant that the rez is no longer the focus in
this debate. No one "strong armed" them into making that answer, they did it
because they don't want to debate generic links.

Additionally, if they had a card saying Helms liked their plan, would they
read it as an answer (link turn) to the disad. If they do, then they AGAIN
admit that plan is the focus and not the resolution. For if this were not
true, then the specific link turn would be less compelling than the generic
link card.

As for counterplans, how in the world are they counter-resolutional? Doesn't
the very name counterPLAN take this out (oh yee of the ever important
title)? Tell me how proving that the UN should demine Laos disproves the
claim that the USFG should increase it's SA towards SEA? It may disprove the
PLAN (that the US should demine Laos) but it certainly doesn't disprove the
rez.

And finally (whew), generic disads and rez based kritiks are a warrant FOR
plan/plan debate. Both of these make for bad debates and any theory which
reduces their use is a good thing.

>>>>>>>>>>>
have these argumentative strategies gone away?  Far from it, they have in fact
continued to proliferate in recent years.
>>>>>>>>>>>

Then I think you are watching too many debates between SOC and Moorpark
(just kidding Gary and Jim).

No, rez based disads and rez based kritiks have definitely gone away (or at
east reduced tremendously), thank goodness. At least in 99.9% of the
debates I have judged.

As for c/plans, yes, they have proliferated, but they have done so because
they are a PLAN focus argument, not a rez focus argument.

>>>>>>>>>>
>2) There is no reason that a title HAS to be descriptive. My name may be
>Bob, but I do NOT walk around ducking my head all the time.

I am not arguing that the labels HAVE to be descriptive, they ARE
descriptive. They have a purpose.
>>>>>>>>>>

Well it certainly sounds to me like you're arguing that they HAVE to be
descriptive. You seem to be saying that the titles ARE descriptive so the
teams MUST do what the description assumes. Now the proof that they ARE
descriptive ONLY lies in the fact that the teams must follow the
descriptions. This is circular at best.

>>>>>>>>>>
They were not randomly chosen like Mike suggesting that we could call the
teams Green and Blue.
>>>>>>>>>>

No, they were not randomly chosen. They were chosen because that's what they
DID at the time. This does NOT mean that titles still apply or even that
they are a necessity.

>>>>>>>>>
The theory you expound would apply to football by saying we don't have to
call them Offense and Defense. Of course we don't have to, but we do call
them Offense and Defense because that is their function.
>>>>>>>>>>

Again, circular. We could also call them "team that has the ball" and "team
that wants the ball". Their functions would be the same. The "team that has
the ball" would STILL try to score points, and the "team that wants the
ball" would STILL try to stop them.

And since you started this goofy analogy, why is it that the team called
"offense" will punt on their fourth down (clearly a defensive strategy)?
Does this mean that the punt is illegitimate since the "offense" is not
allowed to be defensive. If not, then why can't the negative negate the aff
plan by being a little bit "affirmative"?

>>>>>>>>>>
P2 theory would be entriely justified IF the rez said something like "plan x
(the Brady Bill) is the best way to enact policy y (Gun control)."  In this
case the Neg would be negating that the Aff plan is the best plan.  But this
is only true if the resolution is written to direct such argumentation.
>>>>>>>>>>

But the resolution ALSO doesn't say, "SHOULD the USFG do XYZ?". There is no
question mark at the end of the rez for YOU to be able to say yes or no to
either. It is a statement. That is all, just a statement. What the statement
means is open to debate.

This is why I think my interpretation is better, because it allows for the
debaters to decide the meaning of the resolution. Your interpretation
codifies how the debaters MUST debate.

>>>>>>>>>>
>In this regard, the debaters ARE taking two opposing sides of a
>controversy. One side believes that their plan is the best example
>of topical action and the other side takes exception with that
>claim.

This is not the controversy specified by the resolution.  This is the
essence of my point.  The resolution is carefully written to identify a
specific controversy to be debated.
>>>>>>>>>>

Sure it does. It specifies that we must debate the controversy of the USFG
increasing SA to SEA. Not necessarily IF, but perhaps HOW. To be more
specific than that, you ALSO have to assume a question mark that doesn't
exist, or put your own spin on the meaning of the statement. We both do.
It's just that MY interpretation allows for more debatability.

>>>>>>>>>>
It cannot function as all three types of resolutions.  A resolution is
either policy, value, or fact
>>>>>>>>>>

This simply is not true. A resolution is a collection of words. How we
interpret those words are what makes the rez policy, value, or fact.

>>>>>>>>>>
People debated these resolutions as more than one type because they wanted a
competitive edge, not because the approach was theoretically justified.  And
yes I was guilty of this as well.
>>>>>>>>>>

Come on, this is a cop-out. We debated the resolutions as both value and
policy because WE were the interpreters of the resolutional statement. Not
because some codification by coaches told us how we HAD to interpret the
rez, but because we believed it was OUR rez to define.

>>>>>>>>>>
>Interesting, but simply untrue. If this were true, then the word "ought",
>which is synonymous with "should" would mean the same thing. Then why was
>it that many of those VALUE propositions which we debated in CEDA had the
>word "ought" in them?

I guess I am a victim of youth at this point.  All of these value
propositions that included the word "ought" must have come before my time
because the twelve topics I debated during my 6 year stretch as a competitor
did not include the word ought.
>>>>>>>>>>>>

You might be right. I seem to think that some did. I am trying to find out
where I can locate all the resolutions from the past so I can check.

>>>>>>>>>>>
>Just to say that "should" magically makes counterwarrants go away
>is to ignore many facets of your own theory and to add the
>conventions YOU LIKE in order to make the theory fit.

Wrong.  This shows a lack of reading on the totality of the counterwarrant
discussion.  There are specific reasons that counterwarrants do not disprove
policy resolutions ( I don't have the space for that discussion here), but
do disprove non-policy propositions.
>>>>>>>>>>

But those reasons assume that the specific policy in question is the focus.
You do not assume that. You are trying to have your cake and eat it too. You
want the rez to be the focus of the debate but don't want the implications
of that focus. Counterwarrants do not disprove policy resolutions ONLY if
the "plan" is the focus. If the rez is the focus, then counterwarrants
certainly make a difference.

>>>>>>>>>>
It all has to do with the differences between inductive and deductive
reasoning as methods of argument.  There is nothing magic about it.  It has
to do with structure and function (which you and Mike seem to think is
non-existent).
>>>>>>>>>>

Not exactly true. It is our claim that there is no intrisic interpretation
of the resolution, but we DO believe that you have to be consistent. If you
interpret the resolution as the focus, fine, but you have to live with the
implications of that interpretation. If you say that plan is the focus, then
you live with THOSE implications. And in the case of P2, you claim a
comparison focus and live with the implications of that.

The rez can have multiple interpretations, and I think this is a good thing.
I simply think that if you are going to claim that there is only ONE true
interpretation that you ought to remain true to the implications of that
interpretation.

>>>>>>>>>>
>An example of this is Terry's post where he says that one way the neg can
>prove the rez false is to beat the aff's plan. This does NOT prove the rez
>false, it just disproves that aff action is NOT the answer.

Ah, but it does. If for no other reason than that the Neg has successfully
prevented the Aff from meeting its burden of proof.
>>>>>>>>>>

AAAARRRRRRGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!

Sorry, but this is frustrating.

True, the aff did not meet their burden (as YOU see the burden). True, this
means they do not prove the resolution true. But it does NOT follow that the
resolution is proved false. And this is what you say the "negative" title
implies.

The resolution is: Ken should go out to dinner
The plan is: Ken should go to Denny's
The neg says: Denny's promotes racism and the food sucks

The judge says: Nope, Ken should NOT go out to Denny's
The judge does NOT say: Ken should not go out to dinner

The aff failed in their quest, but the neg does NOT prove the resolution
false. This is what they must do in a rez focus. Why? Because if they only
have to beat the aff plan then they would be in...... you guessed it, PLAN
focus.

>>>>>>>>>>
It is the Aff that chooses to Affirm the resolution through a plan.  This is
not an intrinsic need.  The Aff could choose to affirm the rez holistically.
i.e. simply making a number of arguments in favor of the general policy
action.
>>>>>>>>>>

So let me get this straight. The affirmative can choose to affirm their plan
(plan focus) OR choose to affirm the resolution holistically (rez focus),
and they can do this on the same resolution. Do you remember which side of
this discussion you are defending??? This is the very point I have made
several times. Resolutions can be interpreted in more than ONE way, and that
debaters can choose to be in a rez focus OR a plan focus (although I also
include comparison focus but I think we have made enough progress for one
day).

>>>>>>>>>>
This is more than the convention of winning and losing in a competitive sense,
because there is a great deal of argumentative theory that says the burden
of proof for any argument is on he/she who asserts.
>>>>>>>>>>

Great, now all we have to do is figure out what the assertion is. When I
debated in policy debate, my assertion was always that my plan was a solvent
and advantageous topical action. The negative could then argue that it
wasn't. It is the FRAMERS who assert that resolution.

>>>>>>>>>>
>Now, does this make you happier?

I don't think so.  I fundamentally disagree with your analysis that this
makes all of the aforementioned approaches invalid.
>>>>>>>>>>

I know you do, but in attempting to justify this, you end up mixing burdens
and focuses. On the one hand you say that the resolution is what is affirmed
or negated, but on the other hand you say that the neg can just negate the
plan, they don't have to negate the rez. On one hand you say that the neg
can negate the rez with a rez based disad but I'll bet you dollars to
doughnuts that your own frontlines include the "no case specific link"
answer. You say that debates are rez focus but you allow the neg to take out
plan to win.

It's hard to discuss a melding of multiple theories.

>>>>>>>>>>
First, you are wrong.  Congress does in fact debate such resolutions (as I
described in my original post) otherwise how would debaters come up with so
much evidence from Congressional testimony to support exactly this type of
argument?
>>>>>>>>>>

So it is your claim that Congress did,in fact, debate the resolution:
Resolved: that the United States Federal Government should enact gun control
laws in the US?

Why is it that I doubt this? They discuss whether or not the laws are needed
as part of the debate over specific laws, but I seriously doubt if that rez
was debated and, subsequently, adopted. Absent this, then your claim of them
debating whether or not gun laws are needed BEFORE debating the specific
laws would be wrong.

>>>>>>>>>>
>You do not disprove the rez by defeating the plan.

You do if you win the argument that there should be no form of gun control.
>>>>>>>>>>

Perhaps, if you can win that there should be NO form of gun control. Puts an
awful lot of burden on the neg doesn't it? ALL gun control would be bad?
This seems just a tad bit unfair. The aff need only show one example to
prove that there should be gun control and affirm the resolution. The neg
must disprove ALL forms of gun control in order to negate the resolution.
Ouch......... Don't think I like going neg in your world.

I think, Ken, that in order to show that the rez is, indeed, the focus of
the debate, you will need to over come the obstacle of your own insistance
on "aff" and "neg" definitions. If neg doesn't really negate the resolution,
then the foundation for your "focus", and your main argument against P2 falls.

Peace,

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

>From  Mon Feb  9 09:18:56 1998
Message-Id: <MON.9.FEB.1998.091856.0600.>
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 09:18:56 -0600
Reply-To: ddd at UMR.EDU
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Doug Dennis <ddd at UMR.EDU>
Subject: ken d.
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

hey ken,  can you backchannel me about those web sites?

doug
um-rolla
former debate nomad

>From  Mon Feb  9 10:30:27 1998
Message-Id: <MON.9.FEB.1998.103027.0500.>
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 10:30:27 -0500
Reply-To: deon_garner at STUDENTS.MOREHOUSE.EDU
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Deon Garner <deon_garner at STUDENTS.MOREHOUSE.EDU>
Subject: UNCC
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=US-ASCII

Is there anyone out there who is planning to go to UNCC this
weekend who may need (or want) to go swing in CEDA open?  I am
a 2A and 1N (however, I have been 1A and 2N, but am stronger
in my current positions). I will know about transportation in
a few days.

Let me know.

Deon, Morehouse
Debate



From dprieto  Mon Feb  9 09:26:48 1998
From: dprieto (Deborah A Prieto)
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 10:26:48 -0500
Subject: Lane McFadden
Message-ID: <MON.9.FEB.1998.102648.0500.DPRIETO@IONIUM.IT.MIAMI.EDU>

lane, send me email.. wanna chat about regionals..



Debbie Prieto
UMiami Debate

*******************************************************************************
Today, women sit on the Supreme Court, conduct Senate hearings, run
multimillion dollar firms, and orbit the earth.  Many put off marriage
until they're established in their careers, show minimal aptitude for
housework, and don't cook.  Quite a few wear combate boots, sit with their
legs spread apart, call their bosses "asshole", and say "Fuck you" to
street harassers.  Some have little interest in children-their own or
anyone else's-and are not nice.

                                -The Lipstick Proviso
*******************************************************************************



From race  Mon Feb  9 09:28:20 1998
From: race (David Bruce Rhaesa)
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 09:28:20 -0600
Subject: [Fwd: [Fwd: Quote of the Week]]
Message-ID: <MON.9.FEB.1998.092820.0600.RACE@MIDUSA.NET>

what's a jihad anyway?

what did one marine say to the other about time in the gulf?
it's a gas, gas, gas!
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: David Bruce Rhaesa <race at midusa.net>
Subject: [Fwd: Quote of the Week]
Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 07:18:48 -0600
Size: 2347
Url: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/19980209/2cb12a16/attachment.mht 


From meaves  Mon Feb  9 09:44:27 1998
From: meaves (Michael_Eaves)
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 10:44:27 -0500
Subject: St. Louis Summer Conference Dates????
In-Reply-To: <Winbox31.2x9x98.10y24y41yAM.253063.deon_garner@students.morehouse.edu>
Message-ID: <MON.9.FEB.1998.104427.0500.MEAVES@GRITS.VALDOSTA.PEACHNET.EDU>

ANyone with info on the ST. Louis SUmmer debate conference?

Dates?

Convention/conference hotel?

Cooridinator of the event?

Any phone or e-mail ?

Thanks
Mike Eaves
VSU Debate
912-333-5820



From dmuschel  Mon Feb  9 11:14:03 1998
From: dmuschel (David Muschell)
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 12:14:03 -0500
Subject: Ga. College results
Message-ID: <MON.9.FEB.1998.121403.0500.DMUSCHEL@MAIL.GAC.PEACHNET.EDU>

Here are the results from this weekend's Peachbelt Classic at Georgia
College and State University:

Novice--Semis

Vandy CR vs Clemson HL...Vanderbilt in a 2-1 decision

Vandy CM vs U. of South Carolina DB...Vanderbilt in a 2-1 decision

Vandy closes out finals

Open--Semis

U. of South Carolina KT vs Emory KT...Emory, 3-0

Morehous SG vs Mercer CH...Mercer in a 2-1 decision

Open--Final

Emory DG vs Mercer CH...Mercer in a 2-1 decsion
********************
David Muschell
Dept. of English, Speech, and Journalism
Box 44
Georgia College & State University
Milledgeville, GA  31061
dmuschel at mail.gac.peachnet.edu
office:  (912)-445-5556   fax:  (912)445-5961



From mgremillion  Mon Feb  9 10:33:45 1998
From: mgremillion (MWilliams)
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 11:33:45 -0500
Subject: U.C. Berkeley only
Message-ID: <MON.9.FEB.1998.113345.0500.MGREMILLION@SELU.EDU>

I must have erased your debate entries for the MArdi Gras Tournament.
Will you please e-mail them to me again along with your available judges.
Scott Elliott
SELU



From lesjober  Mon Feb  9 12:19:57 1998
From: lesjober (Laura Sjoberg)
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 12:19:57 -0600
Subject: Hi all
Message-ID: <MON.9.FEB.1998.121957.0600.LESJOBER@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU>

HI! I am one of those pioneers who is trying to start a CEDA/NDT debate
program at the University of Chicago.  We are looking for advice on how to
get funding, coaches, evidence, and tournaments to go to, both for the rest
of this year and for next year.  Any help you could e-mail us, we'd be
incredibly thankful for.

Laura Sjoberg
lesjober at midway.uchicago.edu
todiefor18 at aol.com



From Michelin.Massey  Mon Feb  9 12:27:17 1998
From: Michelin.Massey (Michelin Christopher Massey)
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 11:27:17 -0700
Subject: UNREPORTED TOC QUALIFIERS (fwd)
Message-ID: <MON.9.FEB.1998.112717.0700.MICHELIN.MASSEY@COLORADO.EDU>

please reply to dr. patterson.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 12:52:29 -0500 (EST)
From: "J.W. Patterson" <jwpatt00 at pop.uky.edu>
Reply-To: ld-l at world.std.com
To: cx-l at debate.net, ld-l at world.std.com
Subject: UNREPORTED TOC QUALIFIERS

 THE ROAD TO THE SILVER ANNIVERSARY ENDS: THE ROAD TO THE GOLDEN
ANNIVERSARY BEGINS

                        VISIT OUR WEBSITE AT (http://toc.debate.org)
                         Special thanks to Michael Bietz

UNREPORTED TOC QUALIFIERS

As of today, we've not received certified TOC qualifiers from the following
tournaments:

        Long Beach State Univ           --  Policy finals
        Floriday Blue Key                       --  LD Semis, Policy Finals
        Newburgh Free Academy           --  LD Semis, Policy Semis
        Elk Grove                               --  Policy finals
        Puyallup                                --  Policy finals
        Carrollton                      --  Policy finals
        Univ of Georgia                 --  Policy finals
        Blake School                    --  Policy finals
        Pinecrest                               --  LD Quarters
        Univ of Pennsylvania            --  LD Finals, Policy Finals
        Georgetown Day                  --  Policy Semis
        Watertown                       --  LD finals, Policy finals
        Samford                         --  LD semis, Policy semis
        Emory University                        --  LD Octos, Policy Octos
        Pacific Lutheran Univ           --  LD finals, Policy finals
        Stanford Univ                   --  LD Octos, Policy Octos
        Stanford Univ  - fall tournament        --  LD semis, Policy semis

IMPORTANT:      If you or one of your students, earned a qualifier at any
one of these tournaments, please encourage the tournament director to
certify the results, we are accepting certified results from members of the
TOC advisory committee if they were present at the tournament.  However, if
there is any question about the matter, the director of the tournament will
have the final say.

VERY IMPORTANT: I have asked our TOC registrar, Linda Barker,  to
automatically return any TOC entries, or at-large bids listing tournament
results that have not been  certified.  If you have the name and address of
the tournament director of any of the tournaments that have not been
recorded, please send that information to me and I too will request the
results.

>From  Mon Feb  9 12:40:21 1998
Message-Id: <MON.9.FEB.1998.124021.0700.>
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 12:40:21 -0700
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: ASSISTANT DEBATE POSITION
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

PRELIMINARY ANNOUNCMENT:


GRAPEVINE HIGH SCHOOL IN TEXAS WILL BE SEEKING A FULL TIME ASSISTANT
DEBATE COACH.

REQUIREMENTS:

1)      HOLD SECONDARY CERTIFICATION
2)      DEBATE EXPERIENCE OR DEBATE COACHING EXPERIENCE.
3)      WILLING TO CONDUCT PRACTICES AFTER SCHOOL, ATTEND                               TOURNAMENTS ON
WEEKEND, AND HELP WITH                                                  ADMINISTRATION OF TEAM.

GRAPEVINE HIGH SCHOOL IS IN THE DALLAS/FORT WORTH AREA AND HAS A STUDENT
POPULATION OF AROUND 1800.

SALARY IS RANKED WITH THE BEST IN THE STATE AND A NICE STIPEND WILL BE
ADDED.

THE DEBATE PROGRAM COMPETES ON THE LOCAL, STATE, AND NATIONAL CIRCUIT
DURING THE YEAR -- (ABOUT 30 TOURNAMENTS ON THE CALENDAR)

FOR INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT:

JANE BOYD
DIRECTOR OF DEBATE
GRAPEVINE HS
3223 MUSTANG DRIVE
GRAPEVINE, TEXAS 76051

817-251-5248



From MDutcher  Mon Feb  9 12:51:24 1998
From: MDutcher (Michael Dutcher)
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 13:51:24 -0500
Subject: Northwestern
Message-ID: <MON.9.FEB.1998.135124.0500.MDUTCHER@WEBCOGP.COM>

Any more on what's going on with elims?

Michael Dutcher



From sarge  Mon Feb  9 13:31:00 1998
From: sarge (Srg. Rutledge)
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 14:31:00 -0500
Subject: multiple requests.
Message-ID: <MON.9.FEB.1998.143100.0500.SARGE@CIF.ROCHESTER.EDU>

1)  Could someone please email me about what happened @ the Jesuit?

2)  Could the debate central webmaster please backchannel me?

3)  Could Myron from UMKC plkease backchannel me?

4)  Cou8ld someone from liberty please backchannel me?

tyhanks,

Sarge



From lesjober  Mon Feb  9 13:43:52 1998
From: lesjober (Laura Sjoberg)
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 13:43:52 -0600
Subject: multiple requests.
Message-ID: <MON.9.FEB.1998.134352.0600.LESJOBER@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU>

what is backchanneling?

-----Original Message-----
From: Srg. Rutledge <sarge at CIF.ROCHESTER.EDU>
To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
Date: Monday, February 09, 1998 1:35 PM
Subject: multiple requests.


>1)  Could someone please email me about what happened @ the Jesuit?
>
>2)  Could the debate central webmaster please backchannel me?
>
>3)  Could Myron from UMKC plkease backchannel me?
>
>4)  Cou8ld someone from liberty please backchannel me?
>
>tyhanks,
>
>Sarge
>



From jde8553  Mon Feb  9 13:49:30 1998
From: jde8553 (The Essence of Jerry Curl)
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 13:49:30 -0600
Subject: Cornell
Message-ID: <MON.9.FEB.1998.134930.0600.JDE8553@KSU.EDU>

How did the Cornell tourney finish?

Jerry "The Essence of Jerry Curl" Eddy
Kansas State University
Secondary Education Major
KSU Debater

EMail: jde8553 at ksu.edu
       thecurl at hotmail.com
       thecurl at yahoo.com
       jerrycurl at lycosemail.com

Visit my webpage at:
http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~jde8553



From sellis1  Mon Feb  9 13:54:48 1998
From: sellis1 (Andy Ellis)
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 14:54:48 -0500
Subject: Cornell
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.3.96L.980209134906.13736A-100000@fox.ksu.ksu.edu>
Message-ID: <MON.9.FEB.1998.145448.0500.SELLIS1@TIGER.TOWSON.EDU>

open sems
ksu dw (aff) over towson be (neg) 3-0
Ksu neg over Towson DF 3-0

thus ksu closes out finals.

Andy
Towson



From KERRP  Mon Feb  9 15:58:12 1998
From: KERRP (Paul Kerr)
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 15:58:12 EST5EDT
Subject: PAGING JW PATTERSON
Message-ID: <MON.9.FEB.1998.155812.EST5EDT.KERRP@BLACK.CLA.SC.EDU>

Please backchannel me about ADA nationals

thanks
Paul



From tyronejn  Mon Feb  9 16:24:39 1998
From: tyronejn (Jonathan Nolley)
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 17:24:39 -0500
Subject: No subject
Message-ID: <MON.9.FEB.1998.172439.0500.TYRONEJN@ARCHES.UGA.EDU>

anyone know how the latest results from Northwestern?

>From  Mon Feb  9 16:36:30 1998
Message-Id: <MON.9.FEB.1998.163630.0600.>
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 16:36:30 -0600
Reply-To: ddd at UMR.EDU
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Doug Dennis <ddd at UMR.EDU>
Subject: mo. debaters only
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

if anyone on the list is going to the missouri state debate tournament
this weekend at longview,  please backchannel me.  thank you and sorry
for the clutter.

doug
um-rolla

>From  Mon Feb  9 18:09:37 1998
Message-Id: <MON.9.FEB.1998.180937.EST.>
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 18:09:37 EST
Reply-To: Pacedebate at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Pace Debate <Pacedebate at AOL.COM>
Comments: To: tyronejn at ARCHES.UGA.EDU
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

In a message dated 2/9/98 10:25:55 PM, tyronejn at ARCHES.UGA.EDU wrote:

>anyone know how the latest results from Northwestern?

Octas

Iowa PR over Texas GR
Michigan SW over Fullerton HL
USC HR over Georgia CM
Emory FH over Dartmouth HL
Harvard ES over Kansas AM
Georgetown KS over West Georgia BC
USC HS over MSU CS
Emory KS over George Mason KW

Quarters

Emory KS (aff) vs Harvard
Emory FH (aff) vs Michigan SW
Iowa PR (aff) vs USC HR
Georgetown KS (aff) vs USC HS

At 6 pm Eastern these debates were just finishing up.



From race  Mon Feb  9 17:09:18 1998
From: race (David Bruce Rhaesa)
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 17:09:18 -0600
Subject: JOHN CULVER
Message-ID: <MON.9.FEB.1998.170918.0600.RACE@MIDUSA.NET>

just got a call out of the blue like a bolt of lightning from John and
he said to say hello to people.  Hello.

d

>From  Mon Feb  9 17:10:54 1998
Message-Id: <MON.9.FEB.1998.171054.0600.>
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 17:10:54 -0600
Reply-To: jrigdon at SEMOVM.SEMO.EDU
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Jennifer Rigdon <jrigdon at SEMOVM.SEMO.EDU>
Subject: scott elliot
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Please backchannel me re: the Mardi gras tournament.  Thanks! jen :)



From STUBYMON  Mon Feb  9 17:51:07 1998
From: STUBYMON (MONICA STUBY)
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 17:51:07 CT
Subject: Paging KSTATE.....
Message-ID: <MON.9.FEB.1998.175107.CT.STUBYMON@ESUVM.EMPORIA.EDU>

Hey, I have some questions about your Subic Bay case....First, can I have plan
text in full?  Second, just what exactly is your inherent barrier (and can I
have the cite to it?).  Third, can I have the cites to your harms and solvency
to your Subic Bay specific cards?  (I know the last one is probably a big
favor, but if you ever need any cites from our affirmative just ask).  Any help
 would be greatly appreciated!!!!
            Thanks in advance!
                              Monica Stuby
                              Emporia State Debate



From SavoieLD99.CS11.USAFA  Mon Feb  9 17:58:19 1998
From: SavoieLD99.CS11.USAFA (Cadet Luke D. Savoie, x-4581)
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 16:58:19 MST
Subject: western states
Message-ID: <MON.9.FEB.1998.165819.MST.SAVOIELD99.CS11.USAFA@USAFA.AF.MIL>

Can someone post a list of teams attending western states.  Thanks



From malthus  Mon Feb  9 18:39:34 1998
From: malthus (Richard & Joanne Hathaway)
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 18:39:34 -0600
Subject: Debate Web Pages
Message-ID: <MON.9.FEB.1998.183934.0600.MALTHUS@STIC.NET>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/19980209/18ee66a9/attachment.htm 


From lheller  Mon Feb  9 19:48:55 1998
From: lheller (Monica S. Lewinsky)
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 20:48:55 -0500
Subject: respecting the head of state
Message-ID: <MON.9.FEB.1998.204855.0500.LHELLER@RICHMOND.EDU>

                Made you look.



From sarge  Mon Feb  9 20:49:44 1998
From: sarge (Srg. Rutledge)
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 21:49:44 -0500
Subject: Liberty
Message-ID: <MON.9.FEB.1998.214944.0500.SARGE@CIF.ROCHESTER.EDU>

To someone @ liberty,

Could someone who runs piracy please backchannel me?  I am also interested
in some of your patriarchy cites.

Rutledge

PS.  Still Looking for Myron from UMKC.



From ricem  Mon Feb  9 21:41:45 1998
From: ricem (Matt Huntley Rice)
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 22:41:45 -0500
Subject: NW Quarters?
Message-ID: <MON.9.FEB.1998.224145.0500.RICEM@UMICH.EDU>

Anyone know the results of the quarters or later?

Matt

***************************************************************************
Matt H. Rice
ricem at umich.edu
A. Hi
B. Hello
C. Good Evening
***************************************************************************



From rlake  Mon Feb  9 21:47:55 1998
From: rlake (Randy Lake)
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 19:47:55 -0800
Subject: NW Quarters?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.3.95.980209224121.930A-100000@qbert.rs.itd.umich.edu>
Message-ID: <MON.9.FEB.1998.194755.0800.RLAKE@ALMAAK.USC.EDU>

I know that both Trojans dropped, so Iowa and Georgetown are still in.
Don't know the others.

Randy Lake
USC

On Mon, 9 Feb 1998, Matt Huntley Rice wrote:

> Anyone know the results of the quarters or later?
>
> Matt
>
> ***************************************************************************
> Matt H. Rice
> ricem at umich.edu
> A. Hi
> B. Hello
> C. Good Evening
> ***************************************************************************
>

>From  Mon Feb  9 23:06:00 1998
Message-Id: <MON.9.FEB.1998.230600.EST.>
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 23:06:00 EST
Reply-To: Pacedebate at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Pace Debate <Pacedebate at AOL.COM>
Subject: more info from Northwestern
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

I heard that

Georgetown KS will be affirmative against Emory KS in finals. Semi's finished
at about 11 pm Eastern.


Semi's

Georgetown KS neg over Michigan SW
Emory KS over Iowa



From lesjober  Mon Feb  9 22:26:36 1998
From: lesjober (Laura Sjoberg)
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 22:26:36 -0600
Subject: Jon Wiebel
Message-ID: <MON.9.FEB.1998.222636.0600.LESJOBER@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU>

Okay, Jon, I'm not sure how t spell your last name.  you were my Lab leader
at Baylor summer of '95 . . . this is Laura Sjoberg . . . if you're out
there, how about giving me an e-mail . . . please!



From dperkins  Tue Feb 10 02:02:43 1998
From: dperkins (Dallas Perkins)
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 03:02:43 -0500
Subject: Whitman only
Message-ID: <TUE.10.FEB.1998.030243.0500.DPERKINS@FAS.HARVARD.EDU>

Sorry, I hate it when people do this, but could one of you guys
backchannel me?
dp



From sellis1  Tue Feb 10 02:16:03 1998
From: sellis1 (Andy Ellis)
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 03:16:03 -0500
Subject: libertys aff at northwestern
In-Reply-To: <366ebe5.34df8cb3@aol.com>
Message-ID: <TUE.10.FEB.1998.031603.0500.SELLIS1@TIGER.TOWSON.EDU>

Can either somebody from liberty or somebody who saw liberty BL  at
nortwestern backchannel me and let me know what they where running.
Thanks
Andy
Towson



From r-sparacino  Tue Feb 10 15:30:42 1998
From: r-sparacino (Ryan Sparacino)
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 15:30:42 -0600
Subject: Northwestern Finals
Message-ID: <TUE.10.FEB.1998.153042.0600.RSPARACINO@NWU.EDU>

In the Final round, Emory KS (on the negative) defeated Georgetown on a 3-0
decision, with Nate Smith, W. Repko and Mason Miller presiding.

congratulations to both teams for an excellent tournament.



From grees01  Tue Feb 10 07:19:31 1998
From: grees01 (Gary Rees)
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 07:19:31 -0600
Subject: Thanks to Ark State
Message-ID: <TUE.10.FEB.1998.071931.0600.GREES01@MAIL.COIN.MISSOURI.EDU>

I would like to publicly thank Michael Fisher, his staff and students for
hosting an excellent tournament at Arkansas State this past weekend.  The
hospitality was great, everything ran on time, the trophies were
super--and we even had time for some barbecue and blues.  Thanks for
everything.  Congratulations to SMSU Atkins and Kilpatrick for winning
first place in open division.

Gary Rees
Central Methodist College
Fayette, MO 65248 816-248-3392 x273



From grees01  Tue Feb 10 07:21:06 1998
From: grees01 (Gary Rees)
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 07:21:06 -0600
Subject: Ark State & NELA only
Message-ID: <TUE.10.FEB.1998.072106.0600.GREES01@MAIL.COIN.MISSOURI.EDU>

Could you guys contact me about some of the cites you had on the CMAC
case?

Gary Rees
Central Methodist College
Fayette, MO 65248 816-248-3392 x273



From broda  Tue Feb 10 07:56:46 1998
From: broda (Kenneth Broda-bahm)
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 08:56:46 -0500
Subject: Judge at TU:  Earn Money, Win Valuable Prizes
Message-ID: <TUE.10.FEB.1998.085646.0500.BRODA@SABER.TOWSON.EDU>

It is after all Novice Nationals, Junior Varsity Nationals, and a
darn-good varsity draw so far...  And it is located in the fun city of
Baltimore, near enough to the capital that you can search the library of
Congress, visit those think-tanks, and apply for the coveted White House
Internship.

We are committed to hiring excellent judges for Towson's tournaments on

        March 6-8, starting Friday at 3:00 and continuing through Sunday


Here are the terms:

        * We charge a fair rate for judging and pass it on, 100% to the
        hired judge: $200 for 7 prelims and 2 out-rounds, more if you
        judge later.

        * We can look into possible housing for hired judges.

        * We supply tasty and healthy food and tasty but less healthy
        coffee throughout the days of competition.

        * We offer the circuit's only contest recognizing good judges
        which allows debaters to rank and rate the critics which they are
        actually assigned.  Top three winners take home gorgeous hand-made
        ceramic lamps.  Hired judges have done well previous years.

To Apply for Judging at Towson:

        - Backchannel me, not the list.  Kbrodabahm at towson.edu

        - Tell me who you are if I don't know you - e.g., where
        you debated, what tournaments you've judged.

Apply now......

 _______________________________________________________
|o                                                     o|
|o     Kenneth T. Broda-Bahm, Asst. Prof.,             o|
|o     Director of Forensics                           o|
|o     Towson University,                              o|
|o     Towson MD, USA, 21252-7097,                     o|
|o     410-830-2888 (office) 410-830-3656 (fax)        o|
|o     KBrodabahm at Towson.Edu                           o|
---------------------------------------------------------



From david.glass  Tue Feb 10 09:13:34 1998
From: david.glass (DAVID GLASS)
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 10:13:34 -0500
Subject: CAN WE STOP THIS NO-FINAL ROUND TREND?
Message-ID: <TUE.10.FEB.1998.101334.0500.DAVID.GLASS@REGPHA.COM>

         CAN WE STOP THIS NO-FINAL ROUND TREND?                2/6/98 5:15 PM

I'm sending this message to both the EDEBATE list and the high school list, since both college and high school folk run tournaments for high school debaters.

I'm quite disturbed by the recent trend of ending high school debate tournaments without a final round.

For example, recently a young high school team of mine got to finals of a local tournment, only to be faced with a mandated coin-flip by the tournament organizers instead of a final round.   I think it demeans the time and effort put in by the debaters to win or lose a tournament by a coin flip, or by a forfeit.

For national tournaments, the issue is more difficult, since plane reservations are often involved
Here are potential  solutions for completing a tournament within the allotted time:
1) start forfeiting teams if they don't get rounds started on time, in adherence of a schedule - and
actually do forfeit teams if they test this rule - after this happens once or twice, I'm sure most
teams will get the idea that you're serious, and will adhere to a schedule which allows tournaments to finish within the allotted time.  ***To make sure that teams are warned that you will do this, include your intent to rigorously enforce the tournament schedule in your invitation, and in the materials teams are given at the beginning of the tournament.
2) change the schedules to allow more time between elimination rounds, so that schools can plan better
3) eliminate either a prelim round or an elimination round, if that's the only way to assure finishing by a reasonable time (I hope this isn't necessary).    
I really hope something is done about this recent trend - for many decades, tournaments have managed to be completed, with an actual winner being decided by an actual final round.  It would be a real shame to lose that, and to have future histories of debate tournaments filled with coin flips and forfeits.  If we think long-term about the history of our activity, it will become quickly obvious how damaging the current practice actually is.

David Glass MD
debate coach
Edgemont High School
and lotsa other places and people, at various times, past present and future



From L_Phillips  Tue Feb 10 09:39:23 1998
From: L_Phillips (Leslie Phillips - Lexington High School)
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 10:39:23 -0500
Subject: CAN WE STOP THIS NO-FINAL ROUND TREND?
Message-ID: <TUE.10.FEB.1998.103923.0500.LPHILLIPS@SCH.CI.LEXINGTON.MA.US>

David Glass wrote:

>I'm quite disturbed by the recent trend of ending high school debate
>tournaments without a final round.
>
>For example, recently a young high school team of mine got to finals of a
>local tournment, only to be faced with a mandated coin-flip by the
>tournament organizers instead of a final round.   I think it demeans the
>time and effort put in by the debaters to win or lose a tournament by a
>coin flip, or by a >forfeit.

I agree.  I think one cause of this phenomenon in the Northeast (I haven't
observed examples outside our region) is a combination of a) coaches and
tournament directors getting older, more tired, more cautious; b)  judges
and debaters being more resistant to moving the tournament along.  Too many
judges and [mostly] younger coaches or assistant coaches behave as though
there's an entitlement to extended coaching time before rounds.  It's no
fun to run around to rooms and force people to stop coaching so that rounds
can begin (not only that round, but the round they're supposed to be
judging).  It's especially no fun when people yell at you and call you
"anti-educational" (give me a break...).


>Here are potential  solutions for completing a tournament within the
>allotted time:
>1) start forfeiting teams if they don't get rounds started on time, in
>adherence of a schedule - and
>actually do forfeit teams if they test this rule - after this happens once
>or twice, I'm sure most
>teams will get the idea that you're serious, and will adhere to a schedule
>which allows tournaments to finish within the allotted time.  ***To make
>sure that teams are warned that you will do this, include your intent to
>rigorously enforce the tournament schedule in your invitation, and in the
>materials teams >are given at the beginning of the tournament.

Absolutely agreed.

>2) change the schedules to allow more time between elimination rounds, so
>that schools can plan better

???  If David means that schedules which are realistic (but don't pander to
the desire for ultima prep time) are more reasonably and justly enforced,
I'd agree with that.

>3) eliminate either a prelim round or an elimination round, if that's the
>only way to assure finishing by a reasonable time (I hope this isn't
>necessary).

If you do #1, this probably won't be necessary.  The other thing you
shouldn't do (dammit) is cancel the awards assembly.  They're *important*.
A well-planned awards assembly that moves quickly and minimizes frillery
and frippery is a chance for the tournament to come together and genuinely
honor the people who have done well.  I do not like the (still minor) trend
of posting speaker awards and telling people to come pick up their trophies
in the tab room.  Uck!

>I really hope something is done about this recent trend - for many
>decades, tournaments have managed to be completed, with an actual winner
>being decided by an actual final round.  It would be a real shame to lose
>that, and to have future histories of debate tournaments filled with coin
>flips and forfeits.  If we think long-term about the history of our
>activity, it will become quickly >obvious how damaging the current
>practice actually is.

The dangerous slippery slope, which I think has already started, is that
teams may simply start to forfeit elim rounds when they happen to get
tired, or have had a bad supper, or something.  I know of a team that
forfeited a mid-afternoon final round, third of the day, they'd had plenty
of rest the night before (or should have !?) simply because they didn't
want to debate the round.  Another final round I can recall may have been
forfeited simply because one party thought that the other party would
massacre them, and they didn't want to be massacred.  Not good.

There are sometimes good reasons for canceling an out round, or having to
forfeit.  Weather is one.  Sometimes pure logistics is another.  This year,
for instance, Lexington has a shortage of qualified driving-assistants on
staff, and our school buses have to back in town by midnight . . . without
additional "late" vehicles (our usual practice), we simply have to take
everybody home at a certain hour, regardless of what's happening.  But
we'll work around this in the future.

Jim Gentile believes that one solution to this problem is more three-day
tournaments in high school:  you get a more relaxed schedule *and* more
rounds. The expense of extra time and money is an obvious issue -- but how
do folks feel about it?


Les Phillips



From Arnie.Madsen  Tue Feb 10 10:21:06 1998
From: Arnie.Madsen (Arnie Madsen)
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 10:21:06 -0600
Subject: NDT's "120 Round" Provision
Message-ID: <TUE.10.FEB.1998.102106.0600.ARNIE.MADSEN@UNI.EDU>

NDT Subscribers and Policy Debate Community:

A couple weeks ago a subscriber asked whether the NDT had a rule
limiting debaters to no more than 120 preliminary rounds prior to
the NDT.  My first reaction was to say "yes, of course," but I
then failed to discover such a rule in any of the NDT's governing
documents.  The only mention of such a provision was on the model
at-large application.

I sought advice from the NDT Committee, and from a number of other
parties.  Along the way I received a lot of insight into the possible
history of the provision, but no definitive statement.

Realize that reconstruction of NDT Committee actions 15-20 years ago is
often a difficult project.  The University of Massachusetts library is
the official NDT archive, but a complete set of minutes, etc. is not in
place at that archive.  Chris Baron of Wayne State recently worked on a
project related to the history of the NDT, and his efforts to locate
many of the old NDT Committee minutes are greatly appreciated.  However,
we still only have approximately 2/3 of the minutes of Committee meetings
from the 1960s and 1970s.

I believe I finally reconstructed much of the history surrounding this
provision, and have attached that history below.  After receiving this
timeline at the Northwestern meeting, the Committee voted by acclamation
that the 120 round provision is NOT in force at present (and likely has
not been in force for the past 16 years).

Thanks to everyone for their input on this matter, especially Donn Parson,
Bill Southworth, David Hingstman, John Morello, Frank Harrison, and Chris
Baron.
--------------

120 Round Issue Timeline

The following reflects my best reconstruction of the history of
the provision limiting debaters to no more than 120 preliminary
rounds prior to the NDT:

1) The American Forensic Association's "Debate Program and Debate
Tournament Standards for Colleges and Universities" (AFA Code),
drafted by the Professional Relations Committee, was adopted July
15, 1972, and revised August 15, 1974.  That document contained
the following provision as Standards: Group I (3):  "During a
given academic year, a student may participate in no more than
120 preliminary rounds of tournament debate prior to the National
Debate Tournament."  JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN FORENSIC ASSOCIATION
13 (1976), p. 115.

2) The NDT Committee, around the same time, considered a motion
stating "that the 14-tournament rule be abollished as it applies
to the NDT and that the [AFA] Professional Relations Committee be
given the records of each team's year-long participation on
request."  That motion was tabled at the October 19, 1973
meeting, and was reconsidered at the February 9, 1974 meeting.
NDT COMMITTEE MINUTES, October 19, 1973, February 9, 1974.
Unfortunately, the relevant portion of the minutes from the
February meeting are unreadable (photocopy of a ditto).

I think it likely the NDT did in fact repeal the provision, as a
14 tournament limit would allow no more than 112 preliminary
rounds (assuming 8 round tournaments), while the AFA Code allowed
debaters an additional 8 rounds of competition prior to the NDT.

3) From the Fall of 1978 through the Spring of 1980, a
subcommittee of the NDT Committee worked on a process of
"codifying" the NDT Charter, Standing Rules for the Operation of
the NDT, Standing Rules for the Committee, and Standing Rules for
the Board.  Various NDT COMMITTEE MINUTES, 1978-1980.  Those new
versions of the rules were adopted in 1980, to take effect for
the 1981 NDT.  Mike Hazen's "Newsletter" suggests "The New
Charter of the NDT and Standing Rules of the Tournament and
National Committee provide that certain information including the
policies and procedures of the tournament be published for all
NDT subscribers by January 1 each year.  To implement this new
regulation we will be providing the National Charter, and
Standing Rules of the NDT with this newsletter.  It is hoped that
you will become familiar with these rules and regulations because
there are a few changes from past procedure."  There is no
mention of a 14 tournament rule, or 120 preliminary round rule,
in that version of the Standing Rules.  However, the model at-
large bid application attached to the newsletter does refer to
the 120 round provision.  NDT NEWSLETTER, December 1980, pg. 3,
and attachments.

4) At approximately the same time that the NDT Committee was
codifying its rules, the Professional Relations Committee of the
American Forensic Association was considering revisions to the
AFA Code.  A revised version of the Code was presented to the
membership at the 1980 SCA Convention in New York, and was to be
discussed by the membership at the 1981 SCA Convention in
Anaheim.  Following discussion of, and approval of, the revisions
at the 1982 Convention, the AFA membership voted on the Code
revisions via mail ballot, and were approved by a 53-13 vote.
The revised Code does not mention a limit of no more than 120
preliminary rounds prior to the NDT.  AFA NEWSLETTER 3:3 (1981),
5-7, AFA NEWSLETTER 5:2 (1983), 5.


Summary -- I believe the following is probably an accurate
summary:

1) The NDT Committee had a 14 tournament limit that was repealed
in favor of the AFA's more expansive 120 round provision.
2) The 120 round provision was not codified in the revised 1980
version of the NDT Rules beyond the normal indication that
students must comply with the AFA Code.
3) The AFA Code was revised in the early 1980s and removed the
120 round provision, in favor of an institution-based
determination of debater eligibility (must be enrolled, degree
seeking, in good academic standing, and not in possession of a
Bachelor's Degree).
4) The NDT Committee and NDT Director simply failed to remove the
provision from the model at-large application after revision of
the AFA Code, and that it ceased to be binding on NDT
participants after those Code revisions were approved over 15
years ago.

--
Arnie Madsen                                          arnie.madsen at uni.edu

UNI Director of Forensics                      http://www.uni.edu/forensic
NDT Committee Chair                                 http://www.uni.edu/ndt
Kenneth Burke Society Treasurer
http://www.siu.edu/departments/english/acadareas/rhetcomp/burke/index.html

Office:   Communication Studies, University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls,
          IA  50614-0357      (O) (319) 273-7200      (FAX) (319) 273-7356

Home:     410 Home Park Blvd, Waterloo, IA  50701       (H) (319) 235-8866



From Arnie.Madsen  Tue Feb 10 10:26:35 1998
From: Arnie.Madsen (Arnie Madsen)
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 10:26:35 -0600
Subject: Request for OLD NDT Committee Minutes
Message-ID: <TUE.10.FEB.1998.102635.0600.ARNIE.MADSEN@UNI.EDU>

Policy Debate Community:

As my previous post suggested, we are still missing the minutes from
several NDT Committee meetings, most noticably those from the 1960s and
1970s, though a couple sets of minutes from the 1980s are also not
accounted for.

Many former NDT Committee members subscribe to Edebate, and many other
Edebate subscribers likely have old NDT Committee minutes lurking in the
back of some file drawer in their office.

I would appreciate it if coaches/directors could scan their backfiles to
see whether they have copies of NDT minutes from those decades.  If so,
send a copy of them to me at the UNI address listed below.  Any help will
be appreciated, and don't worry about whether we already have a copy of
the minutes -- some copies we have are photocopies of dittos, and a cleaner
copy would be useful.

THANKS.
--
Arnie Madsen                                          arnie.madsen at uni.edu

UNI Director of Forensics                      http://www.uni.edu/forensic
NDT Committee Chair                                 http://www.uni.edu/ndt
Kenneth Burke Society Treasurer
http://www.siu.edu/departments/english/acadareas/rhetcomp/burke/index.html

Office:   Communication Studies, University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls,
          IA  50614-0357      (O) (319) 273-7200      (FAX) (319) 273-7356

Home:     410 Home Park Blvd, Waterloo, IA  50701       (H) (319) 235-8866



From Arnie.Madsen  Tue Feb 10 10:44:27 1998
From: Arnie.Madsen (Arnie Madsen)
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 10:44:27 -0600
Subject: Northwestern NDT Committee Meeting Summary
Message-ID: <TUE.10.FEB.1998.104427.0600.ARNIE.MADSEN@UNI.EDU>

Policy Debate Community:

The minutes are not yet available from the NDT Committee~Rs
Northwestern meeting (my computer doesn~Rt want to read they
disk), so here is a quick summary of some of the actions taken by
the Committee.  It was a pretty good discussion (and one of the
all-time records for meeting length -- only about 2 hours from
start to finish).

Chicago minutes were approved
Reports from 1998 and 1999 Hosts, and Tournament Director.  Plans
are progressing nicely.

Bid Allocation Committee -- lengthy discussion resulted on
whether a district employing both ranking and a tournament was a
tournament under the definition for the bid allocation process in
the standing rules -- if, for example, you give automatic bids to
the top two teams in the district (without them having to debate
any rounds), and then make all others debate, is that a
tournament?  The Committee interpreted the rule to state that a
hybrid ranking/tournament process was not simply a ~Stournament~T
under the rules, and thus all teams submitted for allocation from
a district using such a process would need at least a 40 percent
win/loss record.

Committee voted, based on recommendation from David Hingstman,
Parliamentarian, to approve incorporation of amendments to
Standing Rules that had been passed since 1995.  Current version
of the Rules is thus correct, and  available on the web page.

Committee voted for proposal to make all provisions regarding
minimum number of rounds judged prior to the NDT consistent (12
rounds in all three places).

Committee voted to change bid allocation numbers (minimum number
of rounds lowered from 24/32 to 18/24).

Motion on Institutional Review Board review of research withdrawn
due to wording concerns by some Committee members.  A new version
of the motion that would hopefully satisfy those concerns will be
proposed in Salt Lake.

Short discussion of the 120 round issue ~V see previous post.  In
sum, this provision lost force approximately 16 years ago, but was
simply never removed from the model at-large application.
--
Arnie Madsen
arnie.madsen at uni.edu

NDT Committee Chair
http://www.uni.edu/ndt



From asnider  Tue Feb 10 11:17:11 1998
From: asnider (Alfred C. Snider)
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 12:17:11 -0500
Subject: Have Nats Mailed Invites Arrived?
Message-ID: <TUE.10.FEB.1998.121711.0500.ASNIDER@ZOO.UVM.EDU>

I heard from some who did not get a Nationals invite in the mail, although
many, many people say they did. Please let me know if you need a nationals
invite mailed to you.

Also, it is available at the CEDA Nationals Home Page at
http://debate.uvm.edu/cedanats.html


Alfred Charles Snider -- "Tuna", Edwin W. Lawrence Professor of Forensics,
University of Vermont, Mail: 475 Main Street, UVM, Burlington, VT
05405-4225, Phone: 802-656-0097, Fax: 802-656-4275; President, Cross
Examination Debate Association 1997-98
http://debate.uvm.edu/ceda.html; 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 Feb 10 10:33:07 1998
Message-Id: <TUE.10.FEB.1998.103307.0800.>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 10:33:07 -0800
Reply-To: tjewell at UNM.EDU
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Tom Jewell <tjewell at UNM.EDU>
Subject: News You Might Be Interested In
Comments: To: "Alfred C. Snider" <asnider at ZOO.UVM.EDU>
In-Reply-To: <v01540b06b1063bb6626b@[132.198.123.89]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Some of you may remember Heather Wilson, who debated at the Air Force
Academy in the early 80's.  A little NDT, some CEDA.  She has been serving
as the New Mexico State Director of Family Services and has just announced
that she is running for U.S. Congress.  She is seeking to fill the seat of
Steve Schiff who has had a long bout with cancer.  She received an
unprecedented (here, anyway) endorsement from Sen. Pete Dominici and Steve
Schiff, who don't usually endorse candidates before the primaries.

Tom Jewell
University of New Mexico



From dbteam  Tue Feb 10 12:23:35 1998
From: dbteam (WGC Debate Team)
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 13:23:35 -0500
Subject: Northwestern Finals
In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19980210213042.006c9da0@hecky.acns.nwu.edu>
Message-ID: <TUE.10.FEB.1998.132335.0500.DBTEAM@WESTGA.EDU>

i just wanted to thank and congratulate NU for a great tournament.
Zarefsky's investment in weather mod equipment was a stroke of genius;
Chicago in feb. has never been nicer. as for the hospitality, i wanted to
extend a special note of gratitude to the Coon crowd for the vegan
options. the food was both plenty and tasty. those of us from the planet
Vega salute yall. it always amazes me how the folks at both Wake and NU
manage to run such large tournaments so well. the rest of us are envious
and thankful that yall provide such benchmarks to our season.
    congrats to Emory KaoS and G-town on reaching the finals. i hope
everyone has a good couple of weeks(jon will see you at the HEART), and i
wish that something would happen to make that damn currency case go
away(does anyone know how to get in touch with Sean Eckhart or Jeff
Gilooly?). -------hester



From SJRB  Tue Feb 10 12:49:45 1998
From: SJRB (ROBERT BOLEN 0458)
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 12:49:45 CST
Subject: Kansas-Heart only
Message-ID: <TUE.10.FEB.1998.124945.CST.SJRB@ATUVM.ATU.EDU>

 We attended Heart last year but I can't find an invite for this
year and I have a team that is interested. Perhaps I lost it or
deleted it by mistake. Could I have another? Thank You, Bob Bolen
Speech Dept. Wilson 122 Arkansas Tech University Russellville AR
72801   sjrb at atuvm.atu.edu      Fax 501-964-0504



From jrigdon  Tue Feb 10 13:02:38 1998
From: jrigdon (Jennifer Rigdon)
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 13:02:38 -0600
Subject: Thanks to Ark State
Message-ID: <TUE.10.FEB.1998.130238.0600.JRIGDON@SEMOVM.SEMO.EDU>

I want to second Gary's remarks! We had a great time - and it was a great
tournament (except that parli round I had to judge, Fisher!) Thank you for
having us - and let's do it again next year!
jen :)


>Return-path: <owner-edebate at LIST.UVM.EDU>
>X-Sender: grees01 at coinc0
>Date:         Tue, 10 Feb 1998 07:19:31 -0600
>Reply-To:     Gary Rees <grees01 at MAIL.COIN.MISSOURI.EDU>
>Sender:       Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
>From:         Gary Rees <grees01 at MAIL.COIN.MISSOURI.EDU>
>Subject:      Thanks to Ark State
>To:           EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU
>
>I would like to publicly thank Michael Fisher, his staff and students for
>hosting an excellent tournament at Arkansas State this past weekend.  The
>hospitality was great, everything ran on time, the trophies were
>super--and we even had time for some barbecue and blues.  Thanks for
>everything.  Congratulations to SMSU Atkins and Kilpatrick for winning
>first place in open division.
>
>Gary Rees
>Central Methodist College
>Fayette, MO 65248 816-248-3392 x273
>


SEMO Forensics
573/651-2514

"I'd rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints..."  Billy Joel

>From  Tue Feb 10 11:04:15 1998
Message-Id: <TUE.10.FEB.1998.110415.0800.>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 11:04:15 -0800
Reply-To: Konrad.W..Hack at BUBBS.BIOLA.EDU
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: "Konrad W. Hack" <Konrad.W..Hack at BUBBS.BIOLA.EDU>
Organization: Biola University
Subject: Re: News You Might Be Interested In
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Because of both public and private requests for the CEDA/NDT results,
here they are from the Sunset Cliffs Classic.

(1) Arizona St KeKi
(8) Eastern Utah BW  Arizona St. (2-1)
                                        Arizona State (2-1)
(4) Arizona St KaKe   Air Force (2-1)
(5) Air Force DT
                                                        Arizona State (2-1)
(3) Truman State LA
(6) Eastern Utah ZW  Truman State (3-0)
                                        Truman State (2-1)
(2) Eastern Utah NM  Eastern Utah (3-0)
(7) South Orange GC


Speakers:
5.  Kenny Corbit (Eastern Utah)
4.  Chris Dinot (Air Force)
3.  Scot Keller (Arizona State)
2.  John Kircher (Arizona State)
1.  Rob Layne (Truman State)

Thanks to all those who came!  Congratulations to all!

Konrad Hack
Point Loma



From jday  Tue Feb 10 13:08:13 1998
From: jday (jday)
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 11:08:13 -0800
Subject: Saluki Hospitality
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.3.91.980203090719.16279D-100000@lonestar.jpl.utsa.edu>
Message-ID: <TUE.10.FEB.1998.110813.0800.JDAY@SCFFS.USC.EDU>

On Tue, 3 Feb 1998, Roy H. Eno wrote:

> Hola Salukis: We just returned from our first Saluki "experience" and I
> want to chime in with all the other s who have posted thanks.  Your
> tournament was superbly managed and your hospitality was
> incredible--thanks for a great time!
>
> Skip Eno & Debaters
>

I'd also like to thank the SIU folks for an incredibly run tournament and
round-robbin.  Your hospitality was far beyond generous and the
tournaments ran without a hitch.  Also, I think that we should thank the
Duck and the Northwestern debaters for yet another outstandingly run Coon.
I never thought that 11 days in Illinois could be so much fun.  Thank you
all for a great time.

John Day and the USC debaters



From jwpatt00  Tue Feb 10 13:04:44 1998
From: jwpatt00 (J.W. Patterson)
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 14:04:44 -0500
Subject: Request for OLD NDT Committee Minutes
In-Reply-To: <01ITETIBCU9U8Z0927@uni.edu>
Message-ID: <TUE.10.FEB.1998.140444.0500.JWPATT00@POP.UKY.EDU>

Arnie: I am looking for the minutes. NDT passed the 120 round limit about
l970 or 71 in response to the rumor that some schools, like reportedly a
team from Houston,  were running up 130 rounds before NDT, which seemed
excessive to some people(not for me. I couldn"t care less.) As the
seventies wore on, this became less and less of A PROBLEM,  with the
problem becoming more of getting people to go out more as opposed to
less.{Remember along came Jones and the eight rounds, three- day
tournaments. } Keep in mind that  this was back in the old days when
tournaments were largely six rounds, two- day affairs, with many more
tournaments close to home. Some people thought they should not have to
compete at NDT with people  who were permitted  to travel  this much. To my
knowledge, the rule has never been repealed, probably because the problem,
if indeed it was probvlem, just went  away.

J.W. Patterso



From mgremillion  Tue Feb 10 12:34:30 1998
From: mgremillion (MWilliams)
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 13:34:30 -0500
Subject: Judges for Mardi Gras!
Message-ID: <TUE.10.FEB.1998.133430.0500.MGREMILLION@SELU.EDU>

Any qualified person wishing to judge for hire at the Mardi Gras tournament
Feb. 20-22, please backchannel us to we can arrange accomodations.
Scott Elliott



From beckerr  Tue Feb 10 14:18:42 1998
From: beckerr (Robert Becker)
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 13:18:42 -0700
Subject: Western States' Entry
Message-ID: <TUE.10.FEB.1998.131842.0700.BECKERR@MAIL.NWC.WHECN.EDU>

So far, there are thirteen teams entered at the Western States' tournament.

        U.S. Air Force Academy  6

        Northwest College       3

        U. of Colorado, Boulder 1

        Casper College          1

        U. of New Mexico        2

I will post the specific teams entered, as well as additional entries, tomorrow.

Bob Becker
Northwest College
Powell, WY



From jwpatt00  Tue Feb 10 14:55:24 1998
From: jwpatt00 (J.W. Patterson)
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 15:55:24 -0500
Subject: Kansas
Message-ID: <TUE.10.FEB.1998.155524.0500.JWPATT00@POP.UKY.EDU>

Would some one please post information on the Kansas tournament next week.
Is it a Friday-Sun. or Sat-Mon? Hotel? Have invitations gone out. If KU is
viewing, please fax to (606) 3231995. Thanks for the memories. JWP.

>From  Tue Feb 10 14:05:04 1998
Message-Id: <TUE.10.FEB.1998.140504.0700.>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 14:05:04 -0700
Reply-To: texwms at ASU.EDU
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: texwms at ASU.EDU
Subject: Western States Caselist
Comments: To: Robert Becker <beckerr at MAIL.NWC.WHECN.EDU>
In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19980210201842.00e9da24 at mail.nwc.whecn.edu>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

If you are planning on attending the Western States Tournament this
weekend, could you please backchannel me with a description of what cases
you are running.  I will compile these into a case list and send a copy
of it to all those that disclosed their cases. Thanks for the help.

Tex Williams
Arizona St.



From mgremillion  Tue Feb 10 14:11:10 1998
From: mgremillion (MWilliams)
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 15:11:10 -0500
Subject: Rooms for Mardi Gras
Message-ID: <TUE.10.FEB.1998.151110.0500.MGREMILLION@SELU.EDU>

The Super 8  in Hammond has rooms available for 70.00 a night for doubles, also if anyone cancels at the Budget Inn or Holiday Inn let us know before you do.

Thanks,
Marisa



From renegar  Tue Feb 10 15:14:33 1998
From: renegar (Val Renegar)
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 15:14:33 -0600
Subject: Heart of America invite
In-Reply-To: <Pine.OSF.3.95q.971122144801.25789A-100000@eagle.cc.ukans.edu>
Message-ID: <TUE.10.FEB.1998.151433.0600.RENEGAR@EAGLE.CC.UKANS.EDU>

For anyone else who missed it the first time, we gladly repost...



> Dear Colleague:
>
> It is time once again for a three day "experience" with the Jayhawks.  We
> would like to cordially invite your teams to participate in the
> forty-first annual Donn Parson Heart of America Tournament, to be at the
> University of Kansas in Lawrence February 21, 22, and 23, 1998.
>
> Changes from previous years
>
> This year, we will only offer 7 rounds of debate in order to provide a
> more relaxing tournament and also because of restrictions on room use in
> the Kansas Union on elimination day.  Therefore, we will have four
> preliminary rounds on Saturday instead of five, three preliminary rounds
> and the first elimination round on Sunday, followed by the rest of the
> elimination rounds on Monday.
> We have also changed our time limits for the debate rounds from previous
> years.  Debate rounds will follow the 9-3-6 format with 10 minutes of
> preparation time.
>
> Fees
>
> The charge for each team will be $80.00.  This fee covers the cost of
> Student Union rooms for elimination rounds, receptions, lunches, coffee
> and donuts, trophies, the tournament booklet, the case disclosure list,
> and the awards brunch for all tournament participants.  Schools should
> provide judges for all teams entered in the tournament.  Judges should
> have an undergraduate degree or should have finished their college debate
> eligibility.  One judge covers two teams; uncovered teams will be assessed
> at the rate of $80.00 per team.  We would strongly prefer that you provide
> judges rather than pay the fee, as our judging pool may be limited.
>
> Housing
>
> As some have found out in the past, Topeka and Ottawa are lovely while
> visiting Lawrence.  In order to avoid this problem, we urge you to MAKE
> MOTEL RESERVATIONS AT ONCE.   We have designated the Ramada Inn as the
> tournament hotel this year.  The Ramada Inn is the former Quality Inn.
> Same location and same hotel, just new management.  The hotel has given us
> the excellent rate of $50.00 per room (up to four people per room).
> Consider making your reservations early and identify yourself as being a
> KU Heart of America Debate participant.  NOTE:  THE HOTEL WILL CANCEL THE
> BLOCK OF ROOMS AND THE CONVENTION RATE TWO WEEKS PRIOR.  BE CERTAIN TO GET
> YOUR ROOMS BEFORE FEBRUARY.
> Ramada Inn      2222 W. 6th     (785)842-7030
>
> Transportation
>
> We will not be providing airport transportation.  For transportation from
> KCI to Lawrence, we recommend A-1 Airport Shuttle (collect #:
> 1-800-736-1090; local phone#: (785) 842-2432).  The shuttle service
> charges $21 per person for one way transportation from the airport.
>
> Prizes and elimination debates
>
> Awards will be provided for all teams who advance into elimination debates
> and we will clear the top 32 teams, into a double octa-final debate,
> providing sufficient teams enter.
> The FIRST SPEAKER in the open division will received a signed, leather
> autographed ball with the signatures of the KU basketball players and
> coaches.
>
> Tournament assumptions
>
> 1.  Debaters should expect to use the 1997-1998 NDT/CEDA resolution on
> Southeast Asia.
>
> 2.  Rounds 1 and 2 will be randomly paired with random judge assignment.
> 3.  Rounds 3 through 7 will be powered according to the following
>     schedule:
>         *  Round 3 will be powered high-high based off rounds 1-2.
>         *  Round 4 will be powered high-low based off rounds 1-2.
>         *  Round 5 will be powered high-high based off rounds 1-4.
>         *  Round 6 will be powered high-low based off rounds 1-5.
>         *  Round 7 will be powered high-high based off rounds 1-6.
>
> 4.  All debates after round 2, including elimination debates, will honor
>     mutual preference judge assignment.
>
> 5.  We will not break brackets.
>
> 6.  Pairings for Rounds 1 and 2 will be distributed at registration in the
> Ramada.  Changes to the schedule will be posted at 10:00 p.m. immediately
> following the conclusion of registration.
>
> The Grudge Match Returns to the Heart in '98
>
> During rounds 1 and 2, we will honor all mutually accepted grudge matches.
> Any proposed matches which indicate sides for each team and a judge should
> be posted on EDEBATE indicating the pairing and the team which requested
> it.  The team listed on the pairing will need affirmatively reply to the
> request.  We will then schedule the match during rounds 1 or 2.
>
> Food
>
> We will provide coffee and breakfast foods on Saturday and Sunday morning.
> We will also provide lunch for both days.  By popular demand, sandwiches
> from Yellow Sub will be brought in on Sunday for everyone.
>
> Heart Book
>
> The Heart would be lacking if it failed to sufficiently mock its honored
> participants, and as such The Heart of America entry form asks for
> information about each of the debaters you bring.  We use this information
> to put together what we call the Heart Book, which is a compilation of
> of the most meaningful and fanciful biographical data from your debaters.
> This is a chance for you to let everyone know the hidden truths about your
> debaters, and make fun of them in public.  Don't miss this
> opportunity because the dirt we will make up if you neglect to send in
> interesting entries will be far worse.We would also appreciate the
> submission of embarassing photos which need be brought into the public
> sphere.
>
> >From all of the Jayhawks,
>
>
>
> Scott Harris            Josh Zive               Stacey Sowards
> Director of Forensics   Tournament director     Tournament director
>
>
> If you have any questions or problems, please call (785) 864-3265 and
> leave a message on the voice mail if you cannot reach anyone.  If you wish
> to fax your entry to us, the fax number is (785) 864-5203.  If you wish to
> return the invitation in the mail, send it to:
>
> Stacey Sowards or Josh Zive
> ATTN:  HEART ENTRY
> 3090 Wescoe Hall
> Communication Studies Department
> The University of Kansas
> Lawrence, KS  66045
>
>
> Other lodging in Lawrence
> Days Inn Motel          2309 Iowa                       (785) 843-9100
> Hallmark Inn            730 Iowa                        (785) 841-6500
> Eldridge Hotel          701 Massachusetts               (785) 749-5011
> Super 8                 515 McDonald                    (785) 842-5721
> Travelodge Motel        801 Iowa                        (785) 842-5100
> Virginia Inn            2907 W. 6th                     (785) 843-6611
> Westminster Inn         2525 W. 6th                     (785) 841-8410
>
> TOURNAMENT SCHEDULE
>
> Friday, February 20, 1998
>
> 7:00-10:00 p.m. --      Registration and Reception.  The Ramada Inn -
>                         Kansas Debate Suite.  We will collect strikes at
>                         this time and they will be active beginning
>                         in round three.  NOTE:  PAIRINGS FOR ROUNDS 1 &2 WILL
>                         BE DISTRIBUTED AT REGISTRATION.
>
> Saturday, February 21, 1998
>
> 8:00 - 9:00 a.m.        Late Registration -- Fourth Floor Wescoe Hall -
>                         pairings available for those schools who did not
>                         register on Friday.
>
>   9:00 a.m.             Round I
>  11:15 a.m.             Round II
>                         Lunch (provided by tournament)
>   2:30 p.m.             Round III
>   5:30 p.m.             Round IV
>
> Sunday, February 22, 1998
>
>   8:00 a.m.             Pairings distributed -- Fourth Floor Wescoe Hall
>   9:00 a.m.             Round V
>  11:45 a.m.             Round VI
>                         Lunch (provided by tournament)
>  3:00 p.m.              Round VII
>  6:00 p.m.              Double octa-final debate
>
> Monday, February 23, 1998
>
> All events in the Kansas student Union
>
>   8:00 a.m.             Awards Brunch - Kansas Union Ballroom
>  10:00 a.m.             Elims begin
> HEART OF AMERICA ENTRY FORM
>
> (Please duplicate this form if you are entering multiple teams)
>
> School:  _______________________________
>
> Director of Forensics:_________________________
>
> City:___________________        State:______    Zip:___________
>
> Phone#:______________________
>
> Judge #1:________________________________
>
> Judge#2:_________________________________
>
> Judge #3:________________________________
>
> Judge#4:_________________________________
>
>
> Team Name:_______________________________________________
>
>
> Debater #1:________________________________
>
> Hometown:________________________________
>
> Year in School:_____________________________
>
> Major:____________________________________
>
> Occupational Plans:__________________________
>
> Debater #2:________________________________
>
> Hometown:________________________________
>
> Year in School:_____________________________
>
> Major:____________________________________
>
> Occupational Plans:__________________________
>
> Coaches Comments:  (If you don't say something, we surely will!)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Team Name:_______________________________________________
>
>
> Debater #1:________________________________
>
> Hometown:________________________________
>
> Year in School:_____________________________
>
> Major:____________________________________
>
> Occupational Plans:__________________________
>
> Debater #2:________________________________
>
> Hometown:________________________________
>
> Year in School:_____________________________
>
> Major:____________________________________
>
> Occupational Plans:__________________________
>
> Coaches Comments:  (If you don't say something, we will!)
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Team Name:_______________________________________________
>
>
> Debater #1:________________________________
>
> Hometown:________________________________
>
> Year in School:_____________________________
>
> Major:____________________________________
>
> Occupational Plans:__________________________
>
> Debater #2:________________________________
>
> Hometown:________________________________
>
> Year in School:_____________________________
>
> Major:____________________________________
>
> Occupational Plans:__________________________
>
> Coaches Comments:  (If you don't say something, we will!)
>



From jmfried  Tue Feb 10 15:14:39 1998
From: jmfried (Jason Maxwell Friedman)
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 16:14:39 -0500
Subject: CAN WE STOP THIS NO-FINAL ROUND TREND? (fwd)
Message-ID: <TUE.10.FEB.1998.161439.0500.JMFRIED@EMORY.EDU>

First I would like to say that I agree with what Dr. Glass and Les has
said about final rounds.  I think it isn't right after [6 or 10 (or more)]
judges have decided [in panels of 3,5 or more] which two teams should be
in a final round, to let the winner be decided by a 1-0 decion of George
Washington [a coin flip].  I wouldn't want to say co-champions is a good
thing, but in some ways I think it is better.  When a round is determined
on a coin flip, the better debaters are not awarded 1st place, but rather
the winner of the coin toss is awarded a bigger piece of hardware.  I also
think Jim's idea of 3-day tournaments is a good idea.  I realize the
economic side of debate, i.e., paying for hotels, cars, drivers, etc.,
makes shorter tournaments more favorable, but if debate devolves to what
is economical, I fear the activity may have bigger problems. From the
angle of education, it would be nice to be able to have the time to move
between rounds and not feel rushed.  Likewise this would detract from the
need for coaches/tournament directors/tab folk to have to patrol the halls
and force students along. I think it is important for a coach to confer
with their pupils and advise them, but of course it is wrong for that to
hold up a tournament.   Just my thoughs :-)

Take Care.


Jason



"We learned more from a three minute record than we ever learned in
school" - Bruce Springsteen
"The future's uncertain and the end is always near" - Jim Morrison

Homer Simpson
(_8(I)

>From  Tue Feb 10 16:33:03 1998
Message-Id: <TUE.10.FEB.1998.163303.0500.>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 16:33:03 -0500
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: CEDA's PFDs
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII

This past Sunday, Cornell University hosted the first PFD associated with a
CEDA tournament (at least around here).  As usual, the Cornell squad members
were extremely gracious hosts. Since we are a school that only does PFD, I
wanted to provide some feedback for any other CEDA schools who may be
considering including PFDs. One note I should make is that I view PFDs as
an end in itself, NOT as a springboard into CEDA. Color my comments with
that in mind. Also, please do not read anything below as even the slightest
indictment of the Cornell tournament or squad. It was the FIRST one. We did
not have any participants. I just showed up to judge and scope out the
situation.

Not listed in any order of importance - just stream of consciousness.

1). Don't use 4 preset rounds. At the very least, do some type of power
    matching for the last prelim (assuming only four rounds exist). This
    practice (of not power matching) would compound the problem of going from
    32 (or however many) debaters to only two in the finals.

2). With 32 debaters, you NEED to go beyond simply finals... AT LEAST semis,
    preferably quarters. At this stage, one judge per out-round would suffice.

3). The final round, regardless of whether there are other break rounds or not,
    SHOULD be judged by a panal of judges, or at the very least, a judge. NOT
    the participants. In this case both debaters were from the same school,
    so there wouldn't be much of a bias problem. But what do you imagine would
    happen if one was from Yeshiva and one was from Rochester? Let's see,
    which school had more members there? (I am NOT trying to imply that
    anyone from either school would do anything unethical or sleezy. I am
    merely pointing out a hypothetical possibility).

4). While I do NOT at all support having the topic be related to the CEDA
    topic, I understand they already passed the amendment (Gee, with no input
    from anyone but CEDA members... what a shock the vote turned out like it
    did). Regardless of the topic itself however, the wording needs to have a
    little more time spent on it. (This is somewhat minor... there's always
    different quality topics)

5). It's fine to post the rounds in the building where they were being held,
    but why have the judges walk across campus to pick up their ballots?
    Luckily, it was a beautiful day. But miserable weather would have made it
    suck (not that unusual in Central New York in February). But nice or foul
    weather it unnecessarily adds time to the tournament. Also adds the
    increased likelyhood of running late if the weather does get worse. Just
    move the ballots (and possibly the PFD tab room) to the same building.
    They were preset anyway. Cuts SNAFUs.

6). I would want the awards for the PFD debaters to be announced and given at
    the same time as the "big kids." These debaters want recognition for their
    efforts just as much as the most experienced open debater. A seperate
    awards assembly at a different time and location does not foster a
    feeling of being "part" of the tournament.

7). When the winners are announced on CEDA-L (and potentially elsewhere),
    include the PFD winners. If PFDs were being done as an end in itself, the
    debaters deserve the recognition for their success. If they are being
    done to lead into CEDA, it would give them recognition and allow them to
    start building name recognition among their peers.



   On the less specific issue of CEDA related PFDs in general, I have a couple
of questions. Do these count toward CEDA points?  If yes, full points just
like any other CEDA round? How does participation in PFDs affect CEDA
eligibility (especially if they count for points)? Have I even heard correctly
that CEDA passed a PFD amendment? If so, could someone please post the actual
amendment to the L? Why are you calling them PFDs since there is already an
established format that uses that name? If coaches are really using this
format to get debaters ready for Novice CEDA (as was mentioned to me more than
once this past weekend), why not just enter Novice CEDA? Doesn't this simply
add another level of CEDA since the topic is an offshoot of the CEDA topic?
A lot of different issues arise depending on the answers to these (and more)
questions. None insurmountable, but I think if CEDA is really going to
embrace this, some things need to be discussed and spelled out.
   Our school may participate in the CEDA PFDs. We would decide on a case by
case basis. But right now, it looks like we'd just be going to face CEDA
debaters getting experience before the jump to Novice. These debaters would
have access to the backfiles (even with limited research they would be exposed
to far more background info), coaching and resources that we joined PFDs to
get away from. I am curious on the eligibility/points issue. Gather points
in PFD until they're hot, and then put them in Novice to clean up after
they're good? Doesn't sound like support for a new format. It sounds like
support for point shopping.


   Well, just a few thoughts off the top of my head. Please take them in a
friendly vein and let me re-iterate that I believe that the Cornell
Tournament is one of the tops in the nation - run by a wonderful group of
people. Hope to see you again,

                             Sincerely,

                              Mark R. Whitney
                              SUNY Morrisville



From rghosha  Tue Feb 10 15:36:56 1998
From: rghosha (Raj Ghoshal)
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 16:36:56 -0500
Subject: steve donald only
Message-ID: <TUE.10.FEB.1998.163656.0500.RGHOSHA@EMORY.EDU>

steve,

please backchannel me concerning the two cards we talked about on monday
(primates and psychology); i'd appreciate the cites for them.  thanks.

raj

Rajesh Ghoshal              @Emory University                (404)251-8441
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                    FFF

--------------------------------------------------------------------------



From sowards  Tue Feb 10 16:06:00 1998
From: sowards (Stacey K. Sowards)
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 16:06:00 -0600
Subject: Heart entries
Message-ID: <TUE.10.FEB.1998.160600.0600.SOWARDS@EAGLE.CC.UKANS.EDU>

Please send your Heart entries to me or Josh via email or the fax number
in the invitation.  Don't forget your Heart book entries!  And, of
course, the sooner you get them to us the better.

Also, if you have any vegans on your team, please let us know so that we
can make appropriate food arrangements.  We have plenty of regular
vegetarian and meatitarian food ordered, so we only need to know an
approximate number of those with vegan diets.

Stacey Sowards
University of Kansas



From gkuper  Tue Feb 10 16:14:23 1998
From: gkuper (Glenn Kuper)
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 14:14:23 -0800
Subject: WWU results
Message-ID: <TUE.10.FEB.1998.141423.0800.GKUPER@UPS.EDU>

Thanks to Kelly McDonald and Tim Allen for a great tournament.

(1) Gonzaga J.Voight and Moburg-Jones def. (7) Whitman Scoville and Clarke 2-1
(8) Gonzaga B.Voight and Yake def. (2) Lewis and Clark Hesterberg and Ellis 2-1
(3) UPS Veillon and Bailey def. (6) Lewis and Clark Hager and Sayre 2-1
(5) Gonzaga Headridge and Olsen def. (4) Oregon Lininger and Bauer 3-0

(1) Gonzaga VM adv. over (4) Gonzaga HO
(3) UPS BV def. (8) Gonzaga VY 3-0

(1) Gonzaga VM def. UPS BV 2-1

Congrats to Gonzaga...if you see Chad Rigsby ask him about his checkbook and
the GU van...

Glenn Kuper
UPS

>From  Tue Feb 10 16:51:15 1998
Message-Id: <TUE.10.FEB.1998.165115.0600.>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 16:51:15 -0600
Reply-To: herro at VAXA.CIS.UWOSH.EDU
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Steve Herro <herro at VAXA.CIS.UWOSH.EDU>
Subject: Dierctor of debate at UW Oshkosh
Comments: cc: neal <neal at vaxa.cis.uwosh.edu>, gemin <gemin at vaxa.cis.uwosh.edu>,
 palmeri <palmeri at vaxa.cis.uwosh.edu>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

this is the info for the UWO job...

steve

Steve Herro
Director of Debate
University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh
(920) 424-7048

Title:  Director of Debate

Requirements:  MA in Speech Communication: Coaching/Participation
experience in interscholastic debate.  Teaching experience preferred.

Responsibilies:  Direct and coach intercollegiate CEDA debate program
(primarily novice/jv level); host intercollegiate debate tournaments;
administer debate program; manage a competitive budget; teach
Argumentation, Debate Participation, and Fundamentals of Speech
Communication (hybrid course).

Start date:  September 1, 1998

Salary:  Competitive

Terms of appointment:  nine months

Person to contact:  Tony Palmeri
                    Communication Department
                    University of Wisconsin Oshkosh
                    Oshkosh, WI  54901

                    (920) 424-4427   fax (920) 424-7317

Send letters of application, resume, three current letters of
recommendation, and transcripts (official or photocopy)

Application deadline:  February 15, 1998

>From  Tue Feb 10 18:11:41 1998
Message-Id: <TUE.10.FEB.1998.181141.0500.>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 18:11:41 -0500
Reply-To: kcd5 at CORNELL.EDU
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Kristin Dybvig <kcd5 at CORNELL.EDU>
Subject: Cornell Results
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Varsity Quarters

1 K State Denny and West 3-0 over 8 Syracuse Peppin and McCann

4 Towson Baker and Ellis 2-1 over 5 UMKC White and Green

7 K State Glaser and Zollman 3-0 over 2 UMKC Whytel and Curry

6 Towson Doyle and Faruqui 2-1 over 3 NYC Hentea and Weigler

Semis

Kstate DW 3-0 over Towson BE

K State GZ over Towson DF


Finals K State close out

Varsity Speaker awards

1. Don Baker Towson
2. Grant Denny K State
3. Kerry Doyle Towson
4. Isaac West K State
5. Ben White UMKC
6. Andy Ellis Towson
7. Sarah Glaser K State
8. Adam Whyte UMKC
9. Tommy Curry UMKC
10. Marius Hentea NYC



JV quarters

1 Vermont Snider and Morgan 3-0 over 7 Rochester Michaels and Meyers

5 NYC Brindle and Rubino 3-0 over 4 Kings Rodrigez and Velazquez

2 Liberty Vick and Ringsmith 3-0 8 Vermont/Trinity Petrie and Young

3 Liberty Attwood and Frazier 2-1 over 6 NYC Hanes and Harper


JV semis

2 Liberty VR 3-0 over NYC HH
3 Liberty AF 3-0 over Vermont SM

Finals
Liberty close out

JV speaks
1. Sarah Snider Vermont
2. Rochelle Ringsmith Liberty
3. Hanna Vick Liberty
4. Sherri Harper NYC
5. Helen Morgan Vermont
6. Russ Hanes NYC
7. Je'Mara Attwood Liberty
8. Chris Rutledge Rochester
9. Katherine McClung Rochester
10. DH Bennett USMA


Novice

Octos
1 Liberty Woodward and Yingst 3-0 over Rochester Gross and Asaad
8 Vermont Sweeney and Hoag 3-0 over Rochester Mohan and LIsman
4 Rochester Shapiro and Mauskupt 3-0 over Ihaca Hagen and Sroka
5 Vermont Grover and Mirabelli 3-0 over Capital Verdell and Hammond
2 Liberty Walker and Twigg 3-0 over Richmond Keeton and Ferguson
7 Rochester Desai and Fredericks 3-0 over Kings Ammon and Lisko
3 Rochester White and Walters 2-1 over Clarion Coyer and Sapp
11 Rochester Pelton and Ravichandran 2-1 over Towson Jackson and Pusca

Quarters
LIb Wy 3-0 over Roch PR
Roch ShMa 3-0 over Vermont GM
Liberty WT 3-0 over Roch DeFr
Roch ww 2-1 over Vermont SH

Semis
Rochester ShMa 2-1 over Liberty WY
Vermont SH 2-1 over Lib WT

Finals
Vermont SH 2-1 over Rochester ShMa

Speaker awards
1. Jared Woodard Liberty
2. Shanna Twigg Liberty
3. Todd Walters Rochester
4. Nick Yingst Liberty
5. Anca Pusca Towson
6. Dominic Verdell Capital
7. Jonathan White Rochester
8. Katey Walker Liberty
9. Jennifer Mauskupt Rochester
10. David Grover Vermont



From afugate  Tue Feb 10 17:20:31 1998
From: afugate (Amy Fugate)
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 17:20:31 -0600
Subject: NJDDT & NJNDT Invite
Message-ID: <TUE.10.FEB.1998.172031.0600.AFUGATE@JOHNCO.CC.KS.US>

I thought these were in the mail but I just found out not yet.  Ooops!
Please make hotel reservations immediately.  Hard copies should be on
the way by the end of the week.  See you in March.

Amy
22ND NATIONAL JUNIOR DIVISION DEBATE TOURNAMENT
 1ST NATIONAL NOVICE DIVISION DEBATE TOURNAMENT
MIDAMERICA REGIONAL DEBATE TOURNAMENT

JOHNSON COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE
MARCH 13-15, 1998

Dear Colleagues:

I would like to take this opportunity to invite you and your debaters to
attend the 1998 National Junior Division Debate Tournament and National
Novice Division  Debate Tournament.  In order to facilitate travel,  the
MidAmerica  Regional  Open Division Tournament will be held at the same
time.

ELIGIBILITY:  Any student with no more than four semesters of
intercollegiate competition qualifies for the junior division.  The
novice division is open to students in their first year of collegiate
competition and with no previous high school competition.  I have been
requested to offer this division and will provided entries warrant it.
The open division is open to anyone regardless of experience.   If you
have any questions with regard to the eligibility requirements, please
contact the tournament director.

TOURNAMENT PROCEDURES:  The topic is the 1997-98 national debate
proposition, Resolved:  that the United States Federal Government should
substantially increase its security assistance to one or more  of the
following Southeast Asian nations:  Brunei Darussalam, Myanmar (Burma),
Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand,
Vietnam.  Formats will be 9-3-6-10 prep for all divisions.  Rounds 1-2
will be preset based on geography and coach's ranking as entries allow.
Rounds 4-6 will be power matched [provided entries allow].  Elimination
rounds will be determined by the number of entries.   Brackets will not
be broken.   All teams qualifying for elimination rounds will receive
awards, as will the top ten speakers in each division.

We will be able to assist with transportation for those of you flying
into KCI on March 12th and departing either on the 15th or 16th.  These
are the only days we will have van access.  Please  complete the enclosed
transportation information and return it to me as soon as possible.  We
will also provide shuttles to and from the tournament hotel during the
tournament.

LODGING:  The Wyndham Garden Hotel  is the tournament hotel, located on
I-435and Metcalf Street.  A block of rooms has been reserved.  The price
for 1-4 in a room is $59.00.  This is an incredibly good rate for this
area.  For those of you with us last year, you will be very pleased with
the renovations that were in progress last year!  If you are an in-state
tax exempt school, please make sure to bring tax-exempt forms with you.
Reservations may be made by calling [913]383-2550.  Be sure to tell them
that you are attending the NJDDT!  These rooms will be held through
February 28th.  Please make reservations as soon as you receive this
invitation.

FEES:  Fees are $75.00 per team.  This includes a barbeque dinner to be
held during the tournament.  If paying by check, please make the check
payable to Amy Fugate.  Every two teams must be accompanied by a judge.
We strongly urge coaches to attend with their students.  There are some
hired judges available at $75.00 per uncovered team.  Judges should
expect to judge 6 rounds with 2 teams and 3-4 rounds with one team.  All
judges will be needed for the first elimination round whether or not your
team has advanced!   Early registration will be from 8-10 PM at the
Wyndham Garden Hotel on Thursday, March 12th.  Registration will also be
from 11:00- Noon on Friday, March 13th on the second floor of CEC.

MIDWEST REGIONAL OPEN DIVISION PARTICIPANTS:  Sue Stanfield, the region
representative has requested that people interested in bringing teams in
this division contact her directly.  We realize this is the week before
CEDA  nationals and are concerned about interest in debating.   The
special regional awards will also be given at this tournament.

We welcome back old friends and look forward to making new ones at this
year's NJDDT.  If you have any questions, please contact me at
[913]469-8500 Ext. 3502 or [913]385-5983 [Home] or [913]469-4409 [FAX].

Sincerely,

Amy Lee Fugate
Director of Forensics

TENTATIVE SCHEDULE OF EVENTS

Thursday, March 12th

8:00-10:00 PM   Registration, WYNDHAM GARDEN HOTEL


Friday, March 13th

NOON - 1:00             Registration, CEC, 2nd Floor Lobby

1:00 -3:00              Round I

3:30-5:30               Round II

5:30-7:00               Barbecue Dinner

7:00-9:00               Round III


Saturday, March 14th

8:30                    Continental Breakfast

9:00-11:00              Round IV

12:00-2:00              Round V

2:00-3:00               Lunch Break

3:00 -5:00              Round VI

Sunday, March 15th

7:30                    Continental Breakfast

8:30 - 10:30            ELIMINATION RD

11:00                   Awards Assembly

Elimination Rounds to Follow


ENTRY FORM FOR NATIONAL JUNIOR DIVISION DEBATE TOURNAMENT 1998

All entries must be received by Monday, March 9 and all changes by
Wednesday, March 11


SCHOOL  ________________________________________________________________


ADDRESS _______________________________________________________________


SCHOOL PHONE __________________________HOME PHONE ____________________


ATTENDING COACH/JUDGE __________________________________________________


JUNIOR

TEAM 1 ____________________________and ___________________________A B C D


TEAM 2 ____________________________and ___________________________A B C D


TEAM 3 ____________________________and ___________________________A B C D


TEAM 4 ____________________________and ___________________________A B C D

NOVICE

TEAM 1 ____________________________and ___________________________A B C D


TEAM 2 ____________________________and ___________________________A B C D


TEAM 3 ____________________________and ___________________________A B C D


TEAM 4 ____________________________and ___________________________A B C D

OPEN

TEAM 1 ____________________________and ___________________________


TEAM 2 ____________________________and ___________________________


TEAM 3 ____________________________and ___________________________


TEAM 4 ____________________________and ___________________________


___ Number of Teams X $75.00 plus ___Hired Judges X $75.00 = __________



NJDDT Transportation Form

Return by Monday, March 6th

NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN PARTY ______________PERSON IN CHARGE ________________

AIRLINE ARRIVAL DATE ____________FLIGHT # _________ ARRIVAL TIME ____________

AIRLINE DEPARTURE DATE _________FLIGHT # _________DEPARTURE TIME _________

RETURN TO:

Amy Fugate, Communication Division, JCCC, 12345 College Blvd., Overland
Park, KS  66210
[913] 469-8500 Ext. 3502



From dperkins  Tue Feb 10 18:01:12 1998
From: dperkins (Dallas Perkins)
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 19:01:12 -0500
Subject: CAN WE STOP THIS NO-FINAL ROUND TREND?
In-Reply-To: <980210.101334@regpha.com>
Message-ID: <TUE.10.FEB.1998.190112.0500.DPERKINS@FAS.HARVARD.EDU>

I would like to assure everyone that there WILL be a final round at the
Harvard Tournament this upcoming weekend.
dp



From Ryan_Galloway  Tue Feb 10 18:17:42 1998
From: Ryan_Galloway (Ryan Galloway)
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 18:17:42 -0600
Subject: BAYLOR TOURNAMENT FINAL RESULTS
Message-ID: <TUE.10.FEB.1998.181742.0600.RYANGALLOWAY@BAYLOR.EDU>

         Reply to:   BAYLOR TOURNAMENT FINAL RESULTS
In the finals...

Kansas AM (Neg.) defeated Emory FH (Aff.) on a 2-1 decision.

LaVigne, Repko, *Hoe

Congratulations to the Hawks and Emory for a great tournament performance.  
See you in Evanston...

Ryan Galloway



From asnider  Tue Feb 10 18:25:18 1998
From: asnider (Alfred C. Snider)
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 19:25:18 -0500
Subject: Cornell Results/correction and a story
Message-ID: <TUE.10.FEB.1998.192518.0500.ASNIDER@ZOO.UVM.EDU>

Comment, correction, story.

Comment.....

I want to commend everyone involved in the Cornell tournament this last
weekend. I want to attend more tournaments like that! Hospitable, flexible,
efficient, AND with three good divisions AND LD AND public debate AND IE.

But a correction:

>Quarters
>Roch ww 2-1 over Vermont SH

Actually, Vermont SH won on a 2-1. Thus, they go on to win the tournament.

>Semis
>Vermont SH 2-1 over Lib WT
>
>Finals
>Vermont SH 2-1 over Rochester ShMa

Now, the story. The story is about how debating up a division can really
help you.

Many of you may have seen Charlie Hoag and Matt Sweeney on the
UMKC-WmJewell swing debating in JV. They had been to 2 novice tournaments
in the East and they had a rough time debating JV on the swing. Actually,
they were 0-13 on the swing, and were carrying a string of 15 straight
losses into the Cornell tournament. BUT, their JV experience in the Midwest
had taught them a lot, and they showed it by winning a very difficult
Novice tournament with 31 teams. They made it through the tough times with
good spirits, and most of you reading this know how hard that is to do.

Bad sample? Well, the other two novices who got beat up on the swing didn't
go 0-13, but they did go 2-11. David Grover got to quarters after that
experience and won a speaker award this weekend. Helen Morgan went to
UMKC-Jewell as her second and third tournaments ever, and after 2-11 on the
swing, she did well at SIU and then was 6-0 and got to semis AND was 5th
speaker in JV at Cornell.

A 2-24 debate trip can have a good ending. All 4 students won awards after it.

The point I want to make is that you really learn a lot by entering up into
a higher division. Take your knocks but learn all you can and it will pay
off for you later. Sometimes coaches and debaters who lurk in novice or JV
instead of moving up are NOT helping themselves grow as debaters. Enter up
for learning and then go back down and see what you learned.

I'd talk about "Education through Pain" but I believe that's Donn Parson's
slogan so I will just mention it and attribute it to him.

Long live debate!


Alfred Charles Snider -- "Tuna", Edwin W. Lawrence Professor of Forensics,
University of Vermont, Mail: 475 Main Street, UVM, Burlington, VT
05405-4225, Phone: 802-656-0097, Fax: 802-656-4275; President, Cross
Examination Debate Association 1997-98
http://debate.uvm.edu/ceda.html; DEBATE CENTRAL:  Debate's Biggest Website
 http://debate.uvm.edu/
+++++
WORLD DEBATE INSTITUTE 1998 - make plans now - http://debate.uvm.edu/ndi.html



From bcr2369  Tue Feb 10 19:03:35 1998
From: bcr2369 (Brian Reddinger)
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 20:03:35 -0500
Subject: west georgia only please
Message-ID: <TUE.10.FEB.1998.200335.0500.BCR2369@GARNET.ACNS.FSU.EDU>

Could someone from West Georgia please backchannel about their
affirmatives and my shirt.

Brian,
Secretary of Intelligence
The Yangist Regime (T.Y.R.)



From jrc5231  Tue Feb 10 19:11:18 1998
From: jrc5231 (John R Cayangyang)
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 20:11:18 -0500
Subject: uga only please
Message-ID: <TUE.10.FEB.1998.201118.0500.JRC5231@GARNET.ACNS.FSU.EDU>

could someone please backchannel me what affirmatives ya'll run including
advantages, some case specifics.
thanks john from f.s.u.

>From  Tue Feb 10 19:20:46 1998
Message-Id: <TUE.10.FEB.1998.192046.CST.>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 19:20:46 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: NLU Tournament Feb 13-15, 1998
Comments: To: ie-l at listproc.cornell.edu, parli at willamette.edu,
 pikap-l at acuvax.acu.edu

Due to 1) problems with the campus phone system today, 2) notification that
another regional tournament has been cancelled we have extended the
deadlines for entries to the NLU Bicker Speech and Debate Tournament this
weekend.  Entries are now due by 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday 2/11, and changes
will be accepted through noon on Thursday 2/12.
Here are the schools which we have entries for at present:

BPCC
Xavier
UT-Tyler
LSU-Shreveport
Cameron
U. Ark-Monticello
La Tech
ACU
Lamar-Orange
Northeast La Univ


You may enter in one of three ways: Fax: 318-342-1369 (put attn Jodee Hobbs, Brown 127 on coversheet), Phone: 318-342-3182, or Email: SPHobbs at alpha.nlu.edu

If you need more info, please feel free to backchannel me,
thanks, and we look forward to seeing you this weekend.

Bob Alexander
Northeast Louisiana University Debate



From aop8617  Tue Feb 10 19:30:38 1998
From: aop8617 (Andre Perez)
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 20:30:38 -0500
Subject: wake, kentucky, or emory
Message-ID: <TUE.10.FEB.1998.203038.0500.AOP8617@GARNET.ACNS.FSU.EDU>

can you please backchannel me with what you run on the affirmative with
each of the plan texts and case advantages? I would greatly appreciate it.


thanks,
andre,
president of the anti-yangist
regime coalition



From sarge  Tue Feb 10 21:16:26 1998
From: sarge (Srg. Rutledge)
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 22:16:26 -0500
Subject: College Scholarships (fwd)
Message-ID: <TUE.10.FEB.1998.221626.0500.SARGE@CIF.ROCHESTER.EDU>

Coaches out there,

Reply to:  murphym at merlin.aa.edu
about the scholarships.

Sarge
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 19:12:51 -0500 (EST)
From: murphym at merlin.aa.edu
To: Multiple recipients of list <cx-l at debate.net>
Subject: College Scholarships

Help! This is a strange request but,  I have a student who's parents
are demanding "proof" that there are college scholarships for
debaters.

Could any of you (coaches, students) backchannel me with tales of
college scholarships.  I am looking for students stories of aid they
are getting, or coaches who can offer examples of what scholarships
they have.

Thanks,

Melinda Murphy
Albuquerque Academy

============================== CX-L Mailing List =============================
To unsubscribe:  send the text UNSUBSCRIBE CX-L to listproc at debate.net with
NO SUBJECT.  For other help, send mail to jordyn at debate.net.  Fear the Kvaal!



From masst188+  Tue Feb 10 21:20:06 1998
From: masst188+ (Maxwell Schnurer)
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 22:20:06 -0500
Subject: Thanks NU
Message-ID: <TUE.10.FEB.1998.222006.0500.MASST188@PITT.EDU>

        Thanks a ton for hosting the Pittsburgh panthers in Balmy
Evanston.  We all had a grand old time kicking it up w/ our friends and
community members!
        dorkus Maximus

". . . 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_)



From sarge  Tue Feb 10 21:21:28 1998
From: sarge (Srg. Rutledge)
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 22:21:28 -0500
Subject: LIBERTY
Message-ID: <TUE.10.FEB.1998.222128.0500.SARGE@CIF.ROCHESTER.EDU>

Rutledge in rochester still looking for liberty.

Sarge



From joshcoffman  Tue Feb 10 21:22:55 1998
From: joshcoffman (josh coffman)
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 19:22:55 PST
Subject: HARVARD ONLY
Message-ID: <TUE.10.FEB.1998.192255.PST.JOSHCOFFMAN@HOTMAIL.COM>

I know this is annoying, but it you guys are going to Heart could you
send me the cites and plan text of the poaching case.


thanks

josh  umkc

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



From lesjober  Tue Feb 10 21:52:03 1998
From: lesjober (Laura Sjoberg)
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 21:52:03 -0600
Subject: Debate (Again) Chicago
Message-ID: <TUE.10.FEB.1998.215203.0600.LESJOBER@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU>

Are there any former CEDA/NDT debaters in the Chicago area willing to help
us out in the way of some guidance (how to debate, etc)?
We'd really love it if there were . . .

Laura
And the Beginnings of a CEDA/NDT team
The University of Chicago



From mmk1913  Tue Feb 10 21:41:40 1998
From: mmk1913 (Michael Miroslav Korcok)
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 22:41:40 -0500
Subject: foreign language evidence
Message-ID: <TUE.10.FEB.1998.224140.0500.MMK1913@GARNET.ACNS.FSU.EDU>

well, Alta Vista has an automatic translator at:

http://babelfish.altavista.digital.com/cgi-bin/translate?

you can input text in various languages:

French for the kritique-idiota,
German for the HeideggerNazis,
Italian for the remaining Communista,
Portugese for, well, for, and
Spanish for the latest dispatches from the subcommandante

or give it an URL to translate an entire page.  NOT especially good, but
sufficient for evidence?

here is some Portugese for trying it out:

Hello l?. N?o ? a tecnologia incredible? Uma maneira simples e livre
traduzir o texto entre as l?nguas m?ltiplas dispon?veis a qualquer um
com uma conex?o l?quida. Trazido a voc? pela ci?ncia.

michael korcok



From m993264  Tue Feb 10 21:53:31 1998
From: m993264 (Midshipman Adam Johnston, USNA)
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 22:53:31 -0500
Subject: Navy caselist
Message-ID: <TUE.10.FEB.1998.225331.0500.M993264@NADN.NAVY.MIL>

I apologize for the time it took to publish this list, but here it is.  My
thanks to Johannah Schumacher and Carmella House, who spent countless
hours in front of the computer while they were stuck in the tab room
during the tournament.

Teams are grouped by school, then two-letter code.  Negative arguments are
arguments run AGAINST that affirmative, not arguments run by that team
against other affirmatives.

Adam Johnston
U.S. Naval Academy

PS I apologize of someone has trouble reading this as an attachment; my
e-mail system is on the fritz and won't paste the file.  Don't worry, it's
just a simple text file.
-------------- next part --------------
Allegheny

RW (Nov)

Aff: Plan: US will, as a member of the UN weapons registry, provide all the necessary funds and

support to set up a regional registry in SEA.  The registry will include all light weapons.

     Inherency: No registry in SEA; need one

     Adv 1: War

     Adv 2: Spratlys->fish wars will break out if no registry->some have died already in fish

war

     Adv 3: Weapons of mass destruction->a "pressing threat"

Neg (vs Allegheny RW)

     CP: Japan

     DA: Japan

     T: Security assistance



GP (JV)

Aff: Water->cooperative agency belonging to Asia and US to combat.



VW (JV)

Aff: Population control in SEA

     a) overpopulation is bad and leads to war

     b) responsible for other problems

     c) increase USAID funding

     d) Americas and receiving nations want it

     e) prevents war, abortion, and economic problems

     f) US proven leader

Neg (vs Allegheny VW)

     T: Security assistance is defined by the budget

          a) context (Defense News 1997)

          b) effects-T is illegit

     T: Substantially increase is defined in budgetary terms

          a) Fed. News Service 1997 (1992-1995 budget uses terms)

     Case arguments:

          a) Does not solve

          b) No inherency

          c) Turns on plan mechanism decrease readiness











Augustana



HK (V)

Aff: Cambodian mines--US uses a "toolbox" of technology to cure the problem.

Neg (vs Augustana HK)

     T: CMAC is not a government

     CP: Have Japan do it; increases Japanese prestige and stops militarism



SW (NOV):

Aff: Increase DoD funding of IMET and DAP programs to CMAC. Funding will increase by

     $50 mil. Over a 5 year period.  Funding may be used for mine detection and removal

     training, technology development, or equipment.  Includes consultation and cooperation

     with all parties.

Neg (vs Augustana SW):

          T - demining is not SecAsst

          T - CMAC is and NGO, is not a gov't

          Africa Aid Trade Off

          China Encirclement

          Clinton - NATO expansion

          Solvency - mines are dangerous and do not have the tech to demine

          Inherency

Neg (vs Ausgustana SW):

     Readiness

     Topicality

     CP-Japan performs all actions of the Aff plan











Army

BK (V)

Aff: Increase security talks with AFT; reunify Korea; save the world

Neg (vs Army BK)

     T: Substantial

     D/A: India

     D/A: Culture

     D/A: ASEAN way



DH (V)

Aff: US lends support to further AFR meetings.  We will open and encourage regional summits

specifically on security issues between ASEAN member nations.

Neg (vs Army DH)

     T: to=exclusive

     T: security assistance

     Clinton-IMF impact

     China

     Being Kritik: Spanos

     Australia CP

     Security regimes



FH (JV)

Aff: increase support for security dialogue in ARF.  Case argues that many security issues exist in

SEA and that increase dialogue will incorporate China and solve.

Neg (vs Army FH)

     Topicality-the FF does not quantify a substantial increase in SA.  The SA budget is

decreasing now and you don't tell us how much of an increase in the budget you are.

     China DA-decrease competitiveness causes China to devalue currency=world collapse

     Case Turns-corrupt govts will prevent solvency.













Boston College

CF (V)

Aff: The USFG will provide $50 million in FMF grants to Laos for obtaining MWM technology

and for receiving training in UXO removal using the MWM.  The US Army UXO center will

develop and field test the MWM for Laos.  All information necessary for disabling the bombs will

be disclosed to Laos.  Existing Special Operations Forces will remain in Laos until the training is

completed.  Funding will be phased in over a 5-year period through normal means.

Neg (vs Boston College CF)

     CP: Do plan to NGOs

     T: Humanitarian is not SA

     D/A: Special Operations Trade-off

     Clinton/FMF

     Budget

     Turns: Laos government shunning



DM (V)

Aff: Give $50 million and MWM; use special ops.

        Case: UXO in Laos

           O1: millions of UXOs still active

           O2: UXOs injure civilians and causes famine

           O3: current assistance is inadequate

           O4: solvency with moral obligation that US must do

Neg (vs Boston College DM)

     Wag the Dog: Congress backlash link with IMF impax

     NGO CP

     Human rights T on case



KL (Nov)

Aff: UXOs in Laos

        Millions die; 30% of bombs detonated; 16 of 18 provinces; 200 victims/year; 11,000 since

1973; 43% are children; estimates are low; bombs=famine, decreased productivity, less

food=malnutrition=death; SQ funding decreasing; US UXO funding decreasing; training phased

out

        Plan: $50 mil FMF grants for MWM tech and for training through SOFs in existing US UXO

center.  Phased out after 5 years.

     C1: UXOs in Laos

     C2: unexploded bombs...A. kill civilians B.  Cause famine/malnutrition/disease

     C3: US security assistance not adequate...will be phased out.

     C4: Solvency

         Laos is asking; MWM is key; MWM solves in 5 years; training works; US morally obligated

to decrease harms by removing bombs

Neg (vs Boston College KL)

     Topicality-not security assistance because troops are not security assistance: must do

cooperative efforts like training.

     Topicality-not to country, not to government, therefore not security assistance.

     China-A)US/China on brink of breakthrough in relations B)US security policies treat

China as an enemy which undermines US/Sino relations C)China Prolif to ME and increase

conflicts

     Russia-A)Russia wants influence in SEA B)Views policy as zero-sum C)Russia at critical

time

     Solvency-Aid and cleaning land won't solve agriculture.  Numbers are exaggerated.

Neg (vs Boston College KL)

     T

     T

     CP: Australia

     D/A: Monica Lewinsky



MS (V):

Aff: USFG will provide $50 mil to Laos in FMF for

          MWM

          US Army will develop and field test

          all info for disable will be released

          SOF will stay

     5 years

Neg (vs Boston College MS):

          China

          Africa

          CP - USAID



BW (JV):

Aff: $50 mil in FMF grants to Laos UXO using MWM technology to de-bomb Laos.  Existing

     SOF are used.

Neg (vs Boston College BW):









Case Western

LS (JV)

Aff: Information warfare is a serious concern.  We must strengthen SEA in information security

(not technology) in order to substantially increase security assistance. *Malaysia

Neg (vs Case Western LS)

     T: nation vs. people vs. state/country

     D/A: role of China re: regional stability will be upset->war







Clemson



LR (Nov)

Aff: I. Landmines in Laos

     a) mines/bombs in Laos

     b) 1 killed every 2 days

     c) kills children

     d) cause poverty, hunger

     e) increase population, increase danger

     f) WX increases problem

        II. Inherency

     a) current methods slow and dangerous

     b) counterproductive

     c) financial problems prevent

       III. Solvency

     a) new technology

     b) Magnetic Winding Magnetometer

     c) lex foam

     d) increase success with new technology

       IV. Imperative

     a) certainty vs uncertainty

     b) plan straight-forward

       Plan: increase money for new bomb-clearing technology in Laos

Neg (vs Clemson LR)

     Military Overstretch=readiness impacts

     Russian Arms=tech link , crush econ=war

     China summit=new relations, key to solving war

Neg (vs Clemson LR)

     D/A: Clinton foreign policy and NATO

     D/A: Money taken away from Africa foreign aid

     D/A: China problems

     Inherency: US clearing mines

                Nothing prevents technology from going over

                Other countries solve













Cornell



ES (JV)

Aff: Enforce laws banning child sex in Thailand.  Use extraterritorial jurisdiction to persecute

Americans.  Do education, rehab, jobs.

Neg (vs Cornell ES)

     T: Security assistance: ESF isn't security assistance

     China backlash

     Russia/China



GO (Nov)

Aff: US funds job training and education for child prostitution.  Funding through ESF.  US allows

for prosecution of pedophiles by expanding jurisdiction to allow for extradition of US nationals

abroad.

     Harms: 1) AIDS spread by child prostitution; 2) TB spread by child prostitution; 3)

dehumanization

     Solvency: funding jobs and education programs is crucial to preventing child prostitution. 

Increased prosecution by US sends signals abroad.  US has moral obligation to prevent spread of

AIDS.

Neg (vs Cornell GO)

     T: disease prevention is development assistance

     Clinton: plan is unpopular; Clinton can't expand NATO

     China: US influence destroys US-Sino relations

     Russia: US influence causes hardliner takeover

     African Crisis Response Initiative: ESF funds trade off with ACRI

     Solvency Turns: Enforcement drives prostitution underground; prostitution trade shifts to

other areas.



MM (V)

Aff: Through ARF, the USFG will propose and assist in the implementation of incremental

confidence building measures [that is consistent with the Asian way] to all relevant topic countries

that will include category one through three CBMs per Dibb.

     Obs1: unique opportunity for peace

     Obs2: A) Arms race, multi polarity leads to war

          B) Pirates lead to miscalc and environmental disaster

     Obs3: Cornell solves, incremental CBMs solve conflicts, transparency solves, US key to

solving

Neg (vs Cornell MM)

     China relations-China opposes unilateral US support for CBMs

     IMF-Clinton needs to focus all political capital to gain IMF funding

     Case-ASEAN turn, US multilateral action undermines SQ ASEAN coop

Neg (vs Cornell MM)

     Mahatir: support for Malaysia justifies Nazism and oppression of Jews; reject on face

     India: US influence in SEA crowds out India; risks war

     China: Multilats are bad for Sino-US relations

     No arms races; SQ (ARF) CBMs solve; formalizing upsets China



HK (JV)

Aff: Because of the security crisis in Thailand the USFG will substantially increase security

assistance by funding education, jobs, rehabilitation programs in Thailand for the elimination of

child prostitution and aiding in the apprehension of child sex perpetrators, while traveling in

Thailand. [All relevant actors will be consulted]  

     Harms: Child prostitution->AIDS, TB, dehumanization

Neg (vs Cornell HK)

     Topicality-security assistance is defined by arms export and control act...what congress

authorizes

     ME tradeoff-ESF funds

     Russia Nationalism-US influence trades off with Russian influence; Foreign policy loses.

=nationalists taking over, =war.



CW (V)

Aff: The USFG should authorize the use of security assistance funds for technical and economic

support to facilitate and/or monitor the conditions agreed upon for multilateral joint development

of the disputed areas of the SCS by its claimants.  Reception of the multilateral join development

aid and will be limited to recognized topical claimants but post implementation the plan does not

prevent associate claimants from being included in joint development with the consent of the party

states.

Neg (vs Cornell CW)

     US/Sino-Us-China coop in SQ, an increased US presence hurts US/Sino relations,

US/Sino relations prevent conflict

     ASEAN-is solving now, increased presence in the region disrupts ASEAN, turns case,

causes war scenarios that ASEAN was solving

     Case: US will not withdraw, no conflict in the region, ASEAN solves.

Neg (vs Cornell CS)

     T - substantial

     IBC - new outside of the appropriations budget which annoys Congress leading to conflict

with President over foreign policy

     T/O - ACRI works in status quo, as a result Aff will cause conflict

     Case - SEA stable, no arms race, China will never give up Spratleys











Duke 



AT (Nov)

Aff: Give security assistance to Indonesia to solve for he financial collapse.

Neg (vs Duke AT)

     T=x-T

     Clinton-NATO good, needs pop to pass NATO, plan kills pop, =war

     China=relations okay, plan kills them, dialogue key to war

     Africa=ACRI needs funding, trade off with plan, civil wars increase



KN (JV)

Aff: Switch $43 billion IMF package to Indonesia from the IMF to a bilateral package.  Case

     advantages = global depression.  IMF is fouling the bailout and US can solve bilaterally.

Neg (vs Duke KN):

          T - SecAsst = defense articles

          China - plan seizes Chinese influence

          Clinton - NATO good you hurt his political capital

          Russia - plan influence trades off

          Spanos K - lain is reductionist problem solving which inherently backfires



AM (JV)

Aff: Give fusion reactor tech to topic countries.  Advantage is to stop fission reactors which

     cause nuclear accidents for 4 reasons earthquakes, human error, bureaucratic

     incompetence and terrorism.

Neg (vs Duke AM):

          T - SA = defense articles

          Iraq - Clinton must focus, plan trades off

          Fast track - needs capital to pass it











George Mason



AK (JV)

Aff: Increase security assistance to Singapore by DOD authorizing the export of unfettered

software encryption technology through DCS. 

        Adv 1: Hackers

        Adv 2: Information war

        Adv 3: MEAD

Neg (vs George Mason AK)

     Nuke speak

     T: Effects-T: lifting encryption ban is not topical in itself

Neg (vs George Mason AK)

     T: security assistance does not equal relaxing an export ban

     China

     Russia



KW (V)

Aff: Joint exercises with everyone but Laos, Cambodia and Burma

Neg (vs GM KW)

     ASEAN 

     US/Sino coop

     China no threat



RW (Nov)

Aff: The USFG will sub increase its SA to Cambodia by providing up to $10mil annually through

fiscal year 200? for mine and bomb clearance efforts.  These funds will be provided to the

Cambodian Mine Action Center (CMAC) through FMF and will be in addition to any funds

and/or programs already provided.  Some of this funding will be earmarked for providing

appropriate mine and bomb removal tech, including MWM, airnknike, and explosive foam.  The

"Reuder Harmless" procedures for appropriate US ordinance will also b provided.  Funding,

enforcement and **** guaranteed through normal means.

Neg (vs GM RW)

     Topicality-dem-mine not SA.  Demine US part of State Depts Funds

     African Trade-off

     China-Aff ruins US/China relations

     Solvency-takeouts and pimps



AC (NOV):

Aff: 300 Cambodians die/mo. Severe horrors, violating human rights, like Weapons of Mass

     Destruction, on US can solve, need to double the money to CMAC, tremendous problem,

     US refuses to help, give 10 million over 8 years through FMF for education, soldiers, and

     tech.  CMAC is best, they train, info is great, there is a moral responsibility, it would

     improve demining efficiency

Neg (vs George Mason AC):

          T - not giving money to military

          China - US-Sino relationship good, by US increasing = nationalism in China =

nukes















Georgetown

LM (JV)

Aff: Have Congress pass the IMF $18 million package to help bail out SEA markets.  This leads

to the following advantages: avoid global panic and global economic collapse, and rework the

world economic picture.

     Scenario I: Depression with economic meltdown (1 piece of ev)

     Scenario II: India.  The rupee is unstable and vulnerable, causing economic spillover to

Asia, and a nuke war.

     Scenario III: Russia.  Fascist takeover=nuke war

Neg (vs Georgetown LM)

     NATO: expansion is key to Clinton.  Credibility needs to be high, and off agenda.  Helms

will oppose and kill NATO if Clinton is weak.

     Middle East: The peace talks are close to being jump-started by Israel/US, but budget cuts

will disrupt them, leading to war in the Middle East.

     T: Effects-T



BS (V)

Aff: The DOS, in consultation with actors as determined by the Sec., shall institutionalize US

crisis management teams directed exclusively towards conflicts to which the topic countries are a

party.

     I. US participation in regional crises inevitable

     II. Conflicts in region are inevitable: 1) religious causes; 2) environmental causes; 3)

asymmetrical arm acquisitions

     III. Crisis Management Teams Solve: retrain to solve western bias, include academics on

teams=better perspective

Neg (vs Georgetown BS)

     CP: have Canada do plan

     China: China hates US involvement, relations vital to solve wars

     India: plan diverts focus from India, India focus vital to decrease risk of war

     Diplomatic Readiness: plan diverts resources from diplomacy, diplomacy vital to decrease

risk of war

     T: SA=4 programs

     T: Probability: plan only acts in the event of a crisis









George Washington

ES (V)

Aff: USFG establishes a CMC in a topic nation and sends Nest

Neg (vs George Washington ES)

     T: Security assistance

     T: Increase

     D/A: Spending: IMF package will pass now; new spending prevents it; no

package=collapse world economics

     War will not happen; theory of spiral conflict wrong



DM (V)

Aff: US will guarantee development and deployment of a 3-tiered TMD system to defend US

friends and allies in the region (no blacklisting countries).  Funding and implementation through

normal means further speeds and CX clarifies intent.

Neg (vs George Washington DM)

     Clinton-NATO good

     XT: funding TMD

     Enemy creation

     US-Sino relations

     Spending--investor confidence

     On-case: ASEAN solves

             SEA peaceful--no war

             low tensions

Neg (vs George Washington DM)

     Case

     Russia

     Topicality

Neg (vs George Washington DM)

     China

     Russia

     CP: Ban TMD

     Vagueness













Georgia



ES (V)

Aff: US Govt will fund all IMET with Indonesia.  They will unconditionally restore full funding

for IMET as per the admin request in FY98.  The govt will use all diplomatic means necessary to

inform Indonesian officials of the new stance.  Funding and enforcement through normal means.

     AD1: SLOCs, new acquisition=Indo can take over, defense coop ensures passage.

     AD2: Succession Crisis: Econ crisis hurts Suharto, coup likely, plan trains military, gives

Suharto popular credibility->impact SCS war

Neg (vs GA ES)

     Topicality-substantially=no material components, must increase all four components

     African Aid

     Australia CP-with E-IMET solvency

     Case: IMET=poor training/trains killers

          succession and SLOCs takeouts









Harvard

HS (V):

Aff: US will help Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore with anti-piracy training and regional

     information diffusion center.

          I - Oil Spills (attacks = collisions)

          II - Boat People (refugees kidnaped and raped)

          III - Plutonium (Japanese shipments attacked = environmental/security disasters) 

Neg (vs Harvard HS):

          T - SecAsst must be to reduce trade of weapons for conflict

          T - "TO", assistance is not directly to governments

          T - increase is not create, must use preexisting programs









James Madison University



MW (V)

Aff: Give MWM, lex foam and air knife to Laos.  Refocus R40 per

     Dobson 96 evid

     Obs1-people die

     Obs2-we don't deal with Vietnam, etc.

     Obs3-we solve

     Obs4-risk

Neg (vs JMU MW)

     CP: South Africa

     NATO bad

     T











Kings



AL (Nov)

Aff: The USFG in consultation with all relevant actors will substantially increase security

assistance to the nation of the Philippines and any other appropriate topic country which includes

but is not limited to the establishment of NEST and the CBW equivalent of personnel and

equipment.  Any training, equipment or other logistical requirements will be provided.

Neg (vs Kings AL)

     Topicality-increase, makes greater from a previous size

     Japan CP-Japan solves better

     Neo-nationalism-they are opposed to any US involvement

     Terrorism-terrorists problems in the ME and passing aff plan leads to shift of focus

     Iraq-shift of focus



RV (JV)

Aff: NEST - prevent nuclear and chemical terrorism in APR, plan focuses on solvency for

     Philippines while evidence focuses on APR.  Extend 1st with Philippines then other nations

     within topic.

Neg (vs Kings RV):

          T - Vagueness is linked to it, can be done in more than one country

          T - Effects is linked to more than one country

          Africa - funding trade off lack of aid = deaths

          Russia - encirclement with NATO and SEA activity = Boom

          Solvency - NEST budget being reduced

          Japan and ASEAN solve

Neg (vs Kings RV):

          T - SecAsst

          CP - do the plan on Guam

          Clinton - IMF

          K - threat construction

Neg (vs Kings RV):

          T - Vagueness is linked to it, can be done in more than one country

          T - Effects is linked to more than one country

          Africa - funding trade off lack of aid = deaths

          Russia - encirclement with NATO and SEA activity = Boom

          Solvency - NEST budget being reduced

          Japan and ASEAN solve









Liberty

AF (JV)

Aff: Counter-Narcotics/Constructive Engagement to Burma

        S1: US leadership

        S2: Indian Encirclement

        S3: Human rights

        S4: Drugs

Neg (vs Liberty AF)

     China

     Russia

     Drugs key to Burmese economy

     Clinton Bad: Plan=pass NATO



TW (Nov)

Aff: USFG should coordinate joint maritime patrols between the appropriate countries in SEA

and guarantee them access to necessary maritime equipment, including, but not limited to, E-3

Sentry AWACS and Navy P-3 aircraft, equipped with inverse synthetic aperture radar and low-light television.  Funding=FMF; enforcement through normal means.

Adv: rapes/killings

         Environment--plutonium shipments

         Economy--economic prosperity and interdependence assure security of region

Neg (vs Liberty TW)

     T: increase does not mean to create

     D/A: Selective Engagement

     D/A: China

     Inherency: SEA nations are already doing joint patrols; US action is not needed.



BL (JV)

Aff: Build Malaysian peacekeeping center. 1AC claims peacekeeping good, US is less willing to

do it so we need to make others more capable of filling in.

Neg (vs liberty BL)

     China-Ziang credibility

     Russia-Foreign policy prestige link



RV (JV):

Aff: The USFG will guarantee SecAsst through military infrastructure building and a

     substantial increase in military exercises to the Philippines, Brunei, Malaysia, Singapore,

     Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia.  Additionally, these exercises will be guaranteed to be done

     on an annual basis.  All necessary interoperability materials will be transferred through

     FMS and/or FMF.  Joint-exercises to deter China, China creeping into Sprawlers leads to

     possible nuclear war

Neg (vs Liberty RV):

          Clinton - domestic situation makes unable to deal with foreign policy causing war

          Russia - nationalists come to power due to zero sum game and launch nukes

          Humanism - security as only military causes global insecurity

Neg (vs Liberty RV):

     Case-card from Oct 97 that says China wants peace and that there will be no conflict as

long as US maintains one-China policy



WY (Nov)

Aff: US will guarantee security assistance through military infrastructure building and a substantial

increase in military exercises to the Philippines, Brunei, Malaysia, Singapore, Vietnam, Thailand,

and Indonesia.  All necessary interoperability materials will be transferred through FMS/FMF.



CT (NOV):

Aff: The USFG will substantially increase its security assistance by providing MWM's,

     AirKnife and lexfoam technology and training to Laos for the removal of UXO's.

Neg (vs Liberty CT):

          T - SecAsst

          T - increase

          China

          Overstretch

          Russia









Mary Washington



OS (NOV):

Aff: AIDS in military; AIDS weakens military readiness, AIDS in mil. spreads to civilian

     population; leads to war

     increase SecAsst to combat AIDS; IMET/Military to Military

     Special Forces can solve; mil. Has tools to solve AIDS problem; US mil. role model

Neg (vs Mary Washington OS):

          T - Humanitarian Aid is not SecAsst

          CP - US AID to prevent spread of AIDS

          Securitization - securitization of issues causes problems

          China - mil. aid in SEA will cause problems



GT (V)

Aff: We claim AIDS in the military decreases readiness.  We do training, awareness, and blood

screening to all the topic countries except Burma via IMET (IHRM) and SOF.

Neg (vs Mary Washington)

     Russia Encirclement

     Japan soft power/nationality

     Hun Sen credibility

     BBA

     China Encirclement

     Clinton--IMF

     T: Security assistance

     Indonesia relations



SS (JV):

Aff: Military training to reduce risk of AIDS in blood supplies among soldiers in SEA.  IMET

Neg (vs Mary Washington SS):

          T - SecAsst

          T - Substantial

          Russia

          Readiness









North Carolina



CS (V)

Aff: put aircraft carrier in SCS; do joint exercises with Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Brunei,

and Vietnam

Neg (vs North Carolina CS)

     T: SA=Aff is not "assisting"

     T: to=because to SCS

     Malaysia: reject aid because Plan is racist

     Militarism Kritik

     Spanos Kritik: problem solving paradigm bad

     African Development Trade-Off D/A

     China



BB (JV)

Aff: Plan deploys aircraft carrier battle group to China.  CI claims US Naval policy is inconsistent

in SEA; CII says this leads to nuke war, especially because of Spratlys.  Solvency says vs

presence can solve.

Neg (vs North Carolina BB)

     T: "to"

     T: readiness isn't topical

     T: power projection isn't security assistance

     D/A: Iraq--can use bio. weapons; plan distracts military

     D/A: Terrorism--focus shifts link

     D/A: Clinton Sex--Clinton needs to focus domestically; plan distracts, = BOOM!

Neg (vs North Carolina BB)

     T: security assistance as budget categories

     China Encirclement

     Russia: influence/BOP link



MS (Nov)

Aff: Naval presence inconsistent *Ball 94, Asia perceives US withdrawal

     Adv: SCS conflict *Valencia 96, Mischief Reef proves China manipulates ASEAN

*McClenan 97, China=wolf in sheep clothing *Valencia 96, China has military capability to

increase conflict in Spratleys

     PLAN: Security assistance through joint exercises(forward deployment).

     Dispute will draw in Japan/Russia/US *Valencia 96

     US solves through constant coverage *de Cunnah 97, training/presence necessary for

solvency *Addicot 90(x2), in order to maximize capability with Chinese-US must increase

presence in the region *Kagan 97

Neg (vs UNC MS):

     Russia/China-alliance together against US

     Overstretch

     Case: China perceptions of containment, ASEAN does not want US to get involved,

China military strong, nuclear war













Penn State



SW (JV)

Aff: Plan transfers tech to all topic countries to stop CBWs.

     Obs1-inherency; no plan in place in SEA

     Obs2-CBW Terrorism; millions die

     Obs3-solvency; three ways US can solve in SEA

Neg (vs Penn St SW)

     Topicality-nations

     Topicality-security assistance

     Topicality-increase does not equal establish

     Imperialism (cultural)

     Sino/US



CG (JV)

Aff: Give E-3 and P-3 planes for surveillance and training SEAian nations (Thai, Phil,

     Singapore, Indo), US retains ownership of equipment.

          Obs1 Status quo can't stop piracy in SEA

          Obs2 Pirates kill, refugees (100 people/yr)

                    Environment pollution - collisions & unmanned ships

Neg (vs Penn State CG):

          Substantial T - must bring budget to  92 level; Security Assistance T

          Devaluation DA - China will perceive US action as threat to their increasing econ.

role and will devalue currency to boost foreign investment which sparks econ. stagnation

          Hollow Military - US has thinning military resources, any use of forces will trade

off with our ability to respond to Burundi Crisis

          Australian CP



GL (Nov)

Aff: The USFG will substantially increase its security assistance to southeast Asia by conduction

yearly land and water based join-training with the Philippines and Malaysia.  We will supply all

necessary and appropriate equipment through FMF and FMS budgets.

     Obs1-US policy ambiguous

     Obs2-A)China will become aggressive in SCS

               B)Regional arms races

     Obs3-increased joint-training solves

Neg (vs Penn St GL)

     Neonationalism -opposing US action

     China

     Iraq focus shift

     Spending









Pittsburgh



DE (V)

Aff: USFG will station ocean peacekeeping capabilities in Singapore.  Naval escorts will be

offered in SEA.

     Obs 1: Inherency: US presence uncertain

     Obs 2: Two arcs of conflict are developing in Asia over energy concerns.  One is NEA;

the other is SEA.  Energy concerns lead to war

     Obs 3: Solvency

     Main case author: Calder 1996

Neg (vs Pittsburgh DE)

     T: Security assistance is government-to-government; aid does not go to nations

     T: Extra-T: providing escorts to Japan is XT

     D/A: Clinton good->aid kills popularity needed for NATO

     D/A: China->China hates multilateral actions

     D/A: African aid->trades off and is key to stop war

     CP: Canada->let Canadien navy do plan on case

     No arms race now; joint development solves now



CE (V)

Aff: SLOCs--oil flow to SEA will be cut off, necessitating US patrol boats to protect the SLOCs. 

Many war scenarios.

Neg (vs Pitt CE):

     spending with IMF bailout impact

     Topicality: create does not equal increase

     topicality: Security assistance is decreasing weapons

     Escalating war Theory Wrong (off-case)

     Analytical case arguments















Richmond



AM (JV)

Aff: USFG authorize and regulate export of encryption technology to SEA

Neg (vs Richmond AM)

     US-Sino relations: China reacts with hostility to US involvement in SEA.

     US-Japan relations: failure to consult with Japan->deterioration in US-Japan relations,

sparking economic collapse, Japanese rearm

     Trilateral Consultation: US will consult with Japan and China prior to plan implementation

     T: increase must be a new policy; can't augment a current one

     T: security assistance must be military-to-military exchange



BS (V)

Aff: O1: Peripheral States' Definition of security

       A: Directly threatens state structures

       B: Must use this definition to meet states' needs

        O2: PS fails to adopt this definition

       A: Current paradigm is blind and insolvent

       B: This blocks coherent policy

        O3: This leads to poor policy

       A: PS policy is inapplicable

       B: PS policy is ephemeral

       C: PS policy causes disjuncture

        O4: Multiple security threats exist

        Plan: USFG will incorporate policies that adopt peripheral state security as advocated by

Mohammed Ayoob, 3rd World Security Predicament. $ by normal means; enforcement and

implementation as per Ayoob.  Clarification.

        O5: Solvency.  Process is key

Neg (vs Richmond BS)

     China

     India exclusion

     CP: Canada Track II

     Career threat destruction

     Solvency

     T: Security assistance

Neg (vs Richmond BS)

     D/A: China: standard encirclement link story with North Korea impact

     T: Increase: plan must increase security assistance

     Corruption: aiding corrupt regimes destroys SEA economy













Samford

JS (V)

Aff: Use the Coast Guard to train in SEA: all countries but Brunei, Cambodia and one more...

Excess defense items from coast guard-lanterns, buoys, etc... Excluding piracy and drug

procedures (as they are more military in nature).

     Scenario1: Oil Spill/Coral Reefs

     Scenario2: Fish

     Scenario3: Fish wars

Neg (vs Samford JS): 

     Topicality-substantial

     Africa funding trade-off

     Clinton-Bosnia scenario

     Conditional CP-exclude Indonesia

BD (V):

Aff: Through ASEAN the US, after consulting with regional actors, gives to necessary topic

     countries the following, comprehensive fisheries enforcement as per Eaton, including

     comprehensive positioning data, two-way receivers, minimum satellite tracking of fishing,

     training, land-based integration tech.  The Plan will be implemented in the South China

     Sea only as part of progress on satisfactory agreement among relevant parties to individual

     disputes.  Sub-countries unregistered.  Coast Guard skills and facilities will be made

     available as necessary.  Funding and enforcement guaranteed.

Neg (vs Samford BD):

          T - nation is a group of people, the plan acts toward the "state", should change

conception of state to make real world changes

          ASEAN Abuse - Acting through ASEAN is abusive, CP ground and DA's

          Inherency - ASIA Development Bank acting now, no structural barrier











Trinity



LP (JV)

Aff: USFG sub increase SA to the Philippines by engaging in a comprehensive cleanup at the

     former Clark AFB and Subic Bay Naval Base.  The DoD in conjunction with any other

     relevant topical actors will *** at appropriate investigation and clean up.  Friendly intent

     guaranteed.  Adopting the plan will not trade off with any ongoing or future cleanup of

     US military bases.

Neg (vs Trinity LP):

          T-increase - increase does not equal create, must be pre-existing program

          SecAsst T - must help nation approve defense posture

          Nation T - plan deals with state not nation

          Spending - FRB overstretch = depression

          North South - US unilateral actions further polarize



HR (Nov)

Aff: DOD will clean up Subic/Clark, $ does not trade off, other relevant actions

Neg (vs Trinity HR)

     CP-do the plan through development assistance

     Net-securitization bad, wars and intervention increase

     Regionalism-just selective engagement

     Topicality-Security Assistance



LM (V)

Aff: Dec. 3rd--US backed off of position to cooperate on Subic Bay clean-up.

     Toxins at Subic Bay threaten health of thousands of families.

     PLAN: 1. DOD will take all appropriate topical action to clean up Subic Bay.

           2. Appropriations will not trade-off with other base clean-ups.

     Solvency: DOD has technology, it's simple, empirically works, DOD technology is best, and

DOD is best agent for environmental clean-up.

Neg (vs Trinity LM)

     T: developmental assistance is not security assistance

     T: nation to nation

     Japan D/A: soft power trade-off

     Japan CP: Japan and Asia Foundation/Asia Development Bank will coop. on clean-up

     Train wreck: environmental clean-up trades off with DOD modernization--that hurts

readiness necessary fro global stability

     Clinton: Congressional backlash stops NATO expansion

Neg (vs Trinity LM)

     T - nation

     Clinton - NATO











Wake Forest

PY (V):

Aff: The US shall substantially increase demining assistance to Vietnam.  Assistance shall

     include demining training and the transfer of demining technology including meandering

     winding magnometers, and mine marking and neutralization techniques are for use in areas

     doused with Agent Orange.

Neg (vs Wake Forest PY):

          T - increase does not = create

          T - SecAsst means only protection against espionage, sabotage, or attack

          Prolif - increasing spending in region = arms race









Wayne State

MO (V)

Aff: The USFG will provide demining trainers through special operations forces, technical

expertise and equipment, including, but not limited to: database information, mine detection and

detonating foam, MWM, air knives, and all coordinating technology to Cambodia.  Advantage:

people die.

Neg (vs Wayne State MO)

     CP: do plan exactly, but through development assistance (does not specify which budget)

     Clinton good:  A: mass support for IMF

               B: public doesn't like SA

               C: Congress then will not support IMF

               D: IMF key to global stability

     Interbranch Conflict

     Budget already allocated

     Plan=new spending

     Congress has complete control over SA allocation; Congress gets upset; Congress and

President don't get along; CP solves for foreign policy issues











West Virginia



BS (JV)

Aff: Plan: Train all SEA militaries and carry out joint exercises

     Adv 1: (SCS) China expansionist->China sees SCS as $$->China has plans to take SCS->

China needs to be secured

     Adv 2: (Arms Race) China increasing arms buying->other countries reacting->warrants

action->China wants hegemony in SEA (all same author)

     Adv 3: (Hegemony) Looking to control other SEA nations->China taking merchant ships->China will control everyone->China could control colonies

     Solvency: A)Need US presence; B)US commitment key to stopping war; only US can; C)

China will move against SEA no matter what; D)US can solve; E)US checks Chinese hegemony

Neg (vs West Virginia BS)

     D/A: Clinton IMF: Clinton can only get one foreign policy through.  Plan competes. 

Impacts off bottom are war.  Never questioned why war if IMF not funded for Asian bailout.

     China Backlash: Co-oping now; backlashes when US tries to contain with critical

agreements on the table.

          Uniqueness 1: card is 1-13-97

          Uniqueness 2: card is 1-15-97

     Big case dump; well-prepared for China debate



BS (JV)

Aff: SCS disputes, US doesn't think its a big deal, but US leadership is needed in the region so

that everyone will safe enough that they decide not to have to go into an arms race-nuclear war

impact.

Neg (vs West Virginia BS):

     ME terrorism

     China-fear of encirclement

     Iraq-tradeoff with other programs, millions die



AC (Novice)

Aff: Increase low level boat patrols in SC Sea to keep shipping lanes open, will inform various

states of boats positions and coordinates.

     Harms: US not intervening, needs US attention, US downsizing in SCS, Spratleys

could=dispute

     Adv: Arms races-China increase=others increase, any dispute=war, China uses to get heg. 

China heg-increase heg=increase econ, increase China econ=decrease stability, decrease

stability=decrease econ dev, China is aware and trying to control, increase control=decrease econ

dev in region, increase China=increase control in Korea.

     Solvency: US has stakes, only US strong enough, without US=war, US can check, US

must act

     D-Rule: not act now=later belligerent China

Neg (vs WVU AC)

     CP: fund through "desecuritized aid," no real advantage only cards describing how bad it

is to use "security," not avoidance of DA!

     China(increase relations now): China is increasing links to neighbors, US/China=stable,

China doesn't want US intervention, misunderstanding=war

     Case: pimp postdating China/Region relations good.



MW (Nov)

Aff: The USFG shall substantially increase its security assistance to the Philippines and Vietnam

by increasing low level transparent Naval activity in the SCS to ensure passage of ships and no

escalation in territorial disputes.

Neg (vs WVU MW)

     Domestic noise DA/PMN

     Threat Construction DA/critique



PW (NOV):

Aff: The USFG shall substantially increase its security assistance to the Philippines and

     Vietnam by increasing lower-level naval activities in the South China Sea.  China shall be

     informed of all ships at all times.

Neg (vs West Virginia PW):

          T - SecAsst must be bilateral

          Philippines - reject plan, civil war

          Arms Race - tech = perceptions and war

          Fish Wars - surveillance = war









From jmfried  Tue Feb 10 23:19:09 1998
From: jmfried (Jason Maxwell Friedman)
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 00:19:09 -0500
Subject: Maine Debate
Message-ID: <WED.11.FEB.1998.001909.0500.JMFRIED@EMORY.EDU>

My friend is trying to start a debate team at his High School in Maine.
If there are any Maine debaters out there, please either backchannel me,
or backchannel him:  Greg Stern <gstern-student at hyde.pvt.k12.me.us>

Thank you.

Take Care.


Jason



"We learned more from a three minute record than we ever learned in
school" - Bruce Springsteen
"The future's uncertain and the end is always near" - Jim Morrison

Homer Simpson
(_8(I)



From race  Wed Feb 11 00:37:30 1998
From: race (David Bruce Rhaesa)
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 00:37:30 -0600
Subject: Rumor
Message-ID: <WED.11.FEB.1998.003730.0600.RACE@MIDUSA.NET>

Heart of America Donn W. Parson tournament could easily be canceled due
to lack of consensus on interest.

DR/dbr



From race  Wed Feb 11 00:39:32 1998
From: race (David Bruce Rhaesa)
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 00:39:32 -0600
Subject: A Heart Booklet Thread
Message-ID: <WED.11.FEB.1998.003932.0600.RACE@MIDUSA.NET>

to be fair to the crew at Wake Forest and them suffering through a
thread about their wonderful case booklet, it seems only fair to subject
the Heart of America Booklet to the same scalpelesque satire that it has
employed with such wonderful and wicked glee over the years.

any takers?

DR



From race  Wed Feb 11 00:49:29 1998
From: race (David Bruce Rhaesa)
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 00:49:29 -0600
Subject: elder breeding
Message-ID: <WED.11.FEB.1998.004929.0600.RACE@MIDUSA.NET>

what do you get when you cross Donn Parson with Lee Polk?

answer: Andy Griffith as Ben Matlock!

dbr



From LPCK66A  Wed Feb 11 03:42:06 1998
From: LPCK66A (MR JOSEPH P ZOMPETTI)
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 04:42:06 -0500
Subject: looking for Breshears
Message-ID: <WED.11.FEB.1998.044206.0500.LPCK66A@PRODIGY.COM>

Dave -- if you see this, could you backchannel me?  Or, if anyone
else who reads this knows his email address, could you give it to me?


thanks,

zomp



From sarah.chan  Tue Feb 10 23:28:41 1998
From: sarah.chan (Sarah E. Chan)
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 00:28:41 EST
Subject: Nov/JV Nats caselist
Message-ID: <WED.11.FEB.1998.002841.EST.SARAH.CHAN@JUNO.COM>

If anyone wants to participate in a caselist for Novice and JV Nats at
Towson, please e-mail me your plan text and 1AC outline.  I will compile
all entries received by Fri. Feb.  20 and e-mail copies to all who
participate.
Thanks,
Sarah
SJSU debate

_____________________________________________________________________
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 race  Wed Feb 11 05:12:19 1998
From: race (David Bruce Rhaesa)
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 05:12:19 -0600
Subject: citation
Message-ID: <WED.11.FEB.1998.051219.0600.RACE@MIDUSA.NET>

it seems that many of the internal narratives on Political Narratives
would be more cohesive with at least a good re-skimming of Bowers and
Ochs "The Rhetoric of Agitation and Control".



From meaves  Wed Feb 11 07:03:40 1998
From: meaves (Michael_Eaves)
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 08:03:40 -0500
Subject: Need Swing-JV-Mardi Gras
In-Reply-To: <01ITF08JY1XG8ZKBSE@selu.edu>
Message-ID: <WED.11.FEB.1998.080340.0500.MEAVES@GRITS.VALDOSTA.PEACHNET.EDU>

We need a jv swing debater at the Mardi Gras-feb. 20-22

Any interested takers--

we must know by Friday, this week, feb. 13th 9am!!!!

Thanks

Mike Eaves
VSU



From race  Wed Feb 11 07:42:23 1998
From: race (David Bruce Rhaesa)
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 07:42:23 -0600
Subject: CHALLENGE
Message-ID: <WED.11.FEB.1998.074223.0600.RACE@MIDUSA.NET>

I'm willing to joust with Dallas Perkins on the listserve to the DEATH
on the subject of conditionality.  I'd prefer to defend conditionality
but i'll whup him up one side and down the other even if i have to take
the other side. :)

david rhaesa
817 Park Street
Salina, KS 67401
(785) 823-7868
Conservators
205 S. Hilldale
Salina, KS 67401

>From  Wed Feb 11 08:25:41 1998
Message-Id: <WED.11.FEB.1998.082541.0600.>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 08:25:41 -0600
Reply-To: ddd at UMR.EDU
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Doug Dennis <ddd at UMR.EDU>
Subject: umkc teams at mo. state
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

can yuo backchannel me with some info on your cases,  i'm TRYING to
complie info.  thanks and sorry for the clutter.

peace and fat free cookies

doug
um-rolla



From asnider  Wed Feb 11 09:05:43 1998
From: asnider (Alfred C. Snider)
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 10:05:43 -0500
Subject: Huber Debates, Vermont, 2/14-15/98
Message-ID: <WED.11.FEB.1998.100543.0500.ASNIDER@ZOO.UVM.EDU>

I will be posting a team list soon. But for now, here is a school list:

Army
Boston College
Community College of Vermont
Cornell
Richmond
Rochester
South Carolina
Syracuse (has hotel rooms at least)
Trinity, VT
Vermont
Wm Jewell

Stand by for fun!


Alfred Charles Snider -- "Tuna", Edwin W. Lawrence Professor of Forensics,
University of Vermont, Mail: 475 Main Street, UVM, Burlington, VT
05405-4225, Phone: 802-656-0097, Fax: 802-656-4275; President, Cross
Examination Debate Association 1997-98
http://debate.uvm.edu/ceda.html; DEBATE CENTRAL:  Debate's Biggest Website
 http://debate.uvm.edu/
+++++
WORLD DEBATE INSTITUTE 1998 - make plans now - http://debate.uvm.edu/ndi.html



From mkrueger  Wed Feb 11 10:29:41 1998
From: mkrueger (mike krueger)
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 10:29:41 -0600
Subject: Mardi Gras Novices/caselist
Message-ID: <WED.11.FEB.1998.102941.0600.MKRUEGER@FRANK.MTSU.EDU>

Hiya:

While I notice that most of the big tournaments have case lists for
varsity and even some for JV, I also have noticed that very few if any
have caselists for novices.  I think this is unfortunate, since novices
could truly benefit by learning to argue instead of winning using
surprise tactics.

We have four novice teams, and we have judged many novice debates, so we
have know what many novice cases are.  I know that others don't have
that breadth of information.

I am willing to help out, though (following the lead of Steve Herro and
others).

If you (or your novices) would send me a plan text (most recent read in
a round) and an outline of 1AC (or at least scenarios/harms/solvency), I
will put together a caselist for those going to Mardi Gras, and I will
send out that information to all of the teams who provide me with the
information.  I will need the info by wednesday, february 18 since we
will be leaving fairly early on Thursday.

We'll have three teams entered in in novice.
For the teams that are not on e-debate, or don't respond, we will try to
put together a list while we are there (in the first round or two) and
will be willing to share the info with any who is willing to share back.

Hoping for good novice debates (especially with novice nats at JCCC and
Towson and ADA nats coming up soon),

Mike
--
Michael Krueger
Asst. Director of Debate
Middle Tennessee State University
Box 43
Murfreesboro, TN 37132
(615)  898-2273 (office)
(615) 898-5826 (fax)
http://www.mtsu.edu/~debate
http://www.mtsu.edu/~mkrueger
http://www.mtsu.edu/~wmts



From meaves  Wed Feb 11 09:35:24 1998
From: meaves (Michael_Eaves)
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 10:35:24 -0500
Subject: CANCEL-Swing-Valdosta State
In-Reply-To: <19980204151059.4264.qmail@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <WED.11.FEB.1998.103524.0500.MEAVES@GRITS.VALDOSTA.PEACHNET.EDU>

ATTENTION-

I have a fourth debater for MArdi Gras now. Please cancel my request for a
swing.

thanks

Mike Eaves
VSU Debate



From mgremillion  Wed Feb 11 10:08:32 1998
From: mgremillion (MWilliams)
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 11:08:32 -0500
Subject: Mardi Gras Preliminary Team/School list
Message-ID: <WED.11.FEB.1998.110832.0500.MGREMILLION@SELU.EDU>

This is a list of entries so far for the '98 Mardi Gras. Also included are
programs that have said they will be attending.

Angelo State
Novice: Jessica Dees and Charlie Landers
J.V.: Christina Busker and Serena McClain

ENMU
Open: Gilkinson and Wilkinson
JV: Keller and Garret
Novice: Dunn and Conklin

U.C. Berkeley
Open: Nathan Haratani and Randy Luskey
JV: Matt McDonald and Luara Bull

Weber State Univ.
Open: Dasvid Anthony and Jason Menzies
Open: Dan Dilsaver and Aaron Muranaka

Valdosta Sate Univ.
Open: George Horton and Sandra McCullough
JV: Steve Slocumb and Michael Gay

Programs Planning to attend:
U. of Alabama
MTSU   1 open and 3 novice
Southern Illinois
Southern Utah University
Vanderbilt
Northeast Louisiana
LSU-Baton Rouge
LSU-Shreveport
U. of Miami
Southeast Missouri State Univ.
Webster University
U. of West Florida
U.S. Military Academy



From rmckown  Wed Feb 11 11:45:00 1998
From: rmckown (Robert James Mckown)
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 12:45:00 -0500
Subject: Looking for Joe Bellon and Fritch
In-Reply-To: <3.0.16.19980204191129.090fcbe8@lulu.acns.nwu.edu>
Message-ID: <WED.11.FEB.1998.124500.0500.RMCKOWN@EMORY.EDU>



I know Fritch is on Edebate but I'm not sure about Bellon. If any of you
UGA folks know how to get in touch with him I would appreciate it. I'm
looking for both of them regarding some NCA stuff, so If they could
respond ASAP it would be greatly appreciated..


Jamie



"everything seems to be up in the air at this time...."
D.Byrne    Fear of Music



From Arnie.Madsen  Wed Feb 11 11:44:07 1998
From: Arnie.Madsen (Arnie Madsen)
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 11:44:07 -0600
Subject: Draft Copy, NDT Committee Meeting Minutes
Message-ID: <WED.11.FEB.1998.114407.0600.ARNIE.MADSEN@UNI.EDU>

Below is a draft copy of the minutes of the NDT Committee from
2-7-1998.  These minutes are not considered official until approved
by the Committee at its next meeting (Thursday, March 26, 1:00 pm,
Salt Lake City).

Arnie Madsen
arnie.madsen at uni.edu

----------------

Minutes, National Debate Tournament Committee
February 7, 1998
Northwestern University, Evanston, IL

1) Attendence
* Dist 1 - Southworth for Miller
* Dist 2 - Lacy for Dumas
* Dist 3 - Fritch
* Dist 4 - Madsen
* Dist 5- Brossmann
* Dist 6- Smith for Panetta
* Dist 7 - O'Donnell for Decker
* Dist 8 - Perkins for Thomson
* Dist 9 - Bjork for Jewell
* AFA East - Mitchell- (Fashionably late)
* South - Warner
* Midwest - Hamilton
* West - Deloach for Taylor
* Director - Parson
* Board Representative - Mancuso
* 1998 Host - Bjork
* 1999 Host - Ziegelmueller

Madsen acting as Chair and parliamentarian.  Warner acting secretary.

2) No NDT chair report - all issues relayed via email

3) NDT host report-   Becky Bjork, University of Utah
* Becky gave correct phone number for van rental.  596-2596 No longer
called Payless.
* 9 booths left for NDT data connections (Harvard, Liberty, John Fritch, Ross
Smith requested reservations)
* Hotel Rooms- Individual confirmation.  Please don't give away rooms.
 Becky has reserved the rest of the rooms.  5 other hotels in area might have
rooms available.
* Road Construction is significant- check the web.  Link to State
Transportation site and Traffic Cam for up to the minute news.
* O'Donnell asked about whether Payless was at airport.  They will shuttle
* Ziegelmueller asked:  Is there arrangement with Payless.  Perkins says 15
passenger vans are gone.
* Deatherage asks:  Is transportation necessary?  Bjork - 2 miles from
hotel in campus.  Deatherage- Is there food near hotel?  Variety of fast
food.
* No photocopiers in hotel.  Kinko's within 3 blocks.
* Please communicate room issue to those in District, including hotel
cancellations or reservations now go through Bjork.
* Budget:  Total cost $50,000.  $35,000 accounted for by:  in-kind
donations; tournament fees; donations.  In-kind contributions are tough to
do.
* Perkins asked:  Does NDT document make clear about providing copying
facilities near hotel.  Madsen says that hosts can add benefits if they
choose.  Smith says this would be a NDT host responsibility and not NDT
tournament fees.  Madsen- host document just says that copying needs to be
provided for tournament director.  Bjork- could do like other technology
and assess schools a fee for copier use.
* Only 15 phone lines.  Will contact US West about more phone lines.

4) Ziegelmueller report on 1999 NDT
* Hotels are biggest concern.  Meetings next week with everyone.
* Deatherage- Hotel rate increase is largest single expense and steadily
increasing.
* Computer hookups:  Room in undergraduate library.  24 hour access.

5) Report of the director:
* Publishing of e-mail address to use for reporting rankings.
* O'Donnell- Why is your account use "eagle", instead of Jayhawk?  Parson-
It was "Falcon", but they took that away.
* If they come earlier than deadline, I will post before deadline (telephone
and NDT Director's page).
* Lawrence will get new area code soon.
* Madsen- Wants both fax and e-mail bids, so he can send you one if for
some reason one doesn~Rt arrive.
* Question:  How many schools will have a PC with them at NDT...Give
everyone the disk (preference sheet) and skip the transcribing by the tab
room.

6) Report of the board
* Madsen reports for Gossett:  2 trophy bids.  One could not supply
everything.  Thus, using same vendor as last year. Someone said:  How much
was bid?  Many say: somewhat lower.  Madsen- But this bid does not include
plaques, just mugs.
 O'Donnell- I think we saved $500 bucks.  Perkins- That's all.  O'Donnell-
Don't quote me.  A discussion about the lack of interest in submission of
bids.  Silver is the problem for trophy vendors.  Perkins and
Ziegelmueller:  Buying silver elsewhere saves a lot.  Southworth- Why can't
we split it?  Perkins:  I floated this, not much interest.

7) Rankings: Cheshier
* List next week. Perkins:  Late as usual.  Cheshier:  Over 30 tournaments
yet to send info. Seems unconcerned about Perkin's quip...

8) Allocation stuff:  Fritch
* Due Tuesday, Feb 17.
* Southworth- To count they must have 24 rounds?  50% record?  Madsen:
three touraments in open or varsity division with at least six schools.

Discussion of what counts as a District ~STournament~T for purposes of bid
allocation rule.   District three gave out 40% of the bids through ranking, then
had a tournament for the rest.  Madsen- rule is "districts have option of
holding tournament, ranking, or an alternative process.~T  Does Partial
touranment, partial rankings count as a tournament or as alternative?
Southworth- What advantage exists to removing teams to create fairer
tournament?  Deatherage- Madsen's reading seems correct but Southworth's
goal seems justifiable.  Madsen- Given past practice, should let rankings and
tournament count as a tournament unless objection...Perkins
objects and says rule is unambigious.  Perkins- Dallas motions to quit
allowing mixed rankings and tournaments as "tournaments," counting instead
as alternative to tournament.  Only teams with 40% or over count for
allocation process. 2nd by O'Donnell.  Brossmann- We need to define
"tournament".  Madsen- Rule change can't go into effect, we are only
clarifying standing rule.  Much discussion:  Smith- Call question.
Brossmann- If I vote against.
* 7-5 vote.  Districts ranking some teams and having others debate in a
tournament is not a tournament under bid allocation rule.  If Districts
choose that process, all teams submitted for bid allocation must have at
least a 40% prelim round record.
* Southworth- Clarification:  Committee not attempting to define what
constitutes a tournament in terms of number of debates, etc.
* Madsen:  May need to fix the allocation process at Utah or New York.
* Southworth-  Why not consider the old system.  Knew bids and what
wanted to do.  Potential here for abuse is people not showing up.  Focused
on participation and involvement.  Considerable distortions.

* Poll of districts on number of teams in allocation process (before bid teams):
* D1 - Technically yes.  9 teams.  Having a tournament.  (1 or 2
applications)
* D2-  No idea
* D3- 13-15 with bids.  (5-2 KU, UMKC, NTEX, 2 TEX)
* D4- 6 with 1st round bids (IA, MAC)
* D5- 19-20  (7 to apply- 2 SIU, 2NW, 2 MICH; )
* D6- 16-20  (?)
* D7- 16  (3)
* D8- 3-6, I guess...  (2)
* D9 - 10-12 teams.  (0)

9) Judge Philosophy-  Chairs should collect at districts and forward to Mike
Berry.

Old Business
* Updating of standing rules:  Revised over holiday break.  Changed order on
topic revisions 2 years ago.  Hinghtsman concurred.  He recommends that we
formally approve changes.  Motion would be to approve incorporation of all
amendments to standing rules since ~R95 Brossmann motions, Hamilton 2nd.
Adoption passes unianimously.

New Business
* Standing rule amendment.  Propose to make consistent all provisions
regarding minimum number of rounds judges need to be able to judge at the
NDT.   Perkins moves adoption, Brossman 2nd.  Passes unanimously.

* Standing rule amendment.  Proposal to lower from 24 to 18 rounds the
number of rounds required to be eligible for the bid allocation process.
Question is whether folk prefer minimum number of rounds, minimum
number of tournaments, or both.  Voting for motion indicates that
tournaments is primary factor, voting against motion indicates that number
of rounds is most important. Perkins moves adoption, Brossmann 2nd.
 Motion passes.

* Standing rule amendment.  Amendment would require Institutional Review
Board approval prior to submission of a research proposal to the NDT
Director or Committe.  Perkins, Motion, Bjork, 2nd.  Perkins asks
would director's survey be included.  Bjork- Informed consent survey gets
around IRB. Motion withdrawn for revision, reconsider at Utah.

* NDT preliminary round limit.  Madsen- thought yes (120 rounds), but could
not find limit.  Hinghtsman. A bunch of various beliefs, no one could find
history.  Madsen found following:  timeline- AFA adopted code in '72,
revised in '74.  Southworth right that it's in AFA code.  NDT had a 14
tournament required.  Unclear if passed or not.  Assume rule went away,
though can't prove it happened in the mid-70s.
* End of 70's, rules were codified to get standing rules updated and codify
charter.  Went into effect and passed in spring 1980.  Hazen's newsletter
has a copy of charter, standing rules, board rules, and committee rules.
 120 round was not found in those codified rules.
* AFA Educational practices committee (New York) in 1980 submitted Code
revisions, approved in 1982.  Sent to all AFA members in 1982.
120 rounds not mentioned in the new code.  Hazen's application says no more
than 120 rounds, but that form was from before the AFA Code revisions, thus
no one changed the model at-large application.  It has been a statement on the
form, but it is not a rule. AFA says- must be enrolled; must be seeking
a degree; must be in good-standing; must not have a BA degree.  Perkins
moves that Madsen's work is good.  O'Donnell wants to know if this applies
to anyone.  Motion carries by acclamation.

Next meeting is Wed, 1PM, day before NDT.  Odd-numbered districts
should conduct elections prior to Utah if possible.  If there are
recommendations for AFA East, AFA South, forward to Madsen.  Will elect
Chair, Secretary, and Parliamentarian for next year at Utah meeting.



From klmccann  Wed Feb 11 11:49:23 1998
From: klmccann (Kendra L. Mccann)
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 12:49:23 -0500
Subject: vermont
In-Reply-To: <01ITGAM7Z1SY8YYSW5@uni.edu>
Message-ID: <WED.11.FEB.1998.124923.0500.KLMCCANN@MAILBOX.SYR.EDU>

could sarah from vermont please backchannel me.

thanks in advance

kendra
syracuse debate



From joshcoffman  Wed Feb 11 11:53:47 1998
From: joshcoffman (josh coffman)
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 09:53:47 PST
Subject: IOWA ONLY
Message-ID: <WED.11.FEB.1998.095347.PST.JOSHCOFFMAN@HOTMAIL.COM>

If you guys are planning on going to Heart could you send me any
solvency cites for the refugee case that have changed since Wake.

Thanks --josh--UMKC


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



From mcm29  Wed Feb 11 11:57:06 1998
From: mcm29 (Pedro)
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 12:57:06 -0500
Subject: Miami OH
Message-ID: <WED.11.FEB.1998.125706.0500.MCM29@CORNELL.EDU>

A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 382 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/19980211/cd4d9cc4/attachment.bin 


From joshcoffman  Wed Feb 11 11:57:27 1998
From: joshcoffman (josh coffman)
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 09:57:27 PST
Subject: Jason Trice
Message-ID: <WED.11.FEB.1998.095727.PST.JOSHCOFFMAN@HOTMAIL.COM>

Hey i dont why im asing you this but hey, could you send me the cites
for the IMET to Thailand case (esp the advantages).

Josh



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



From debate  Wed Feb 11 12:11:32 1998
From: debate (greg simerly)
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 12:11:32 -0600
Subject: Long Beach prelim results
Message-ID: <WED.11.FEB.1998.121132.0600.DEBATE@SIU.EDU>

If anyone has Long Beach prelims handy, please backchannel me.

T'anks,
Greg



From Kenneth.DeLaughder  Wed Feb 11 12:51:27 1998
From: Kenneth.DeLaughder (Kenneth DeLaughder)
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 11:51:27 -0700
Subject: Northwestern cases
Message-ID: <WED.11.FEB.1998.115127.0700.KENNETH.DELAUGHDER@ENMU.EDU>

anyone have good intell about teh new cases that were broken at
northwestern?  teh quicker the better..

getting ready for heart,

Ken

--------------------------------------
Kenneth DeLaughder           "Do not be too proud of this technological
Assistant Debate Coach        terror you've constructed...The ability to
Eastern NM University         destroy a planet is insignificant compared
Station #3                    to the power of the Force..."
Portales, NM  88130
(505) 562-2741 (office)                 - Darth Vader, giving a good 2AR



From ameltzer  Wed Feb 11 13:00:35 1998
From: ameltzer (Ari Meltzer)
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 11:00:35 -0800
Subject: UNLV Results
Message-ID: <WED.11.FEB.1998.110035.0800.AMELTZER@USC.EDU>

USC needs its results from prelims and elims at the UNLV tournament (teams
debated w/ results and ballot counts).  If someone from the tournament or
someone who attended has these results, please backchannel Jeff Griswold at
jdgriswold at aol.com.

Thanks,

USC Debate



From ameltzer  Wed Feb 11 13:01:05 1998
From: ameltzer (Ari Meltzer)
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 11:01:05 -0800
Subject: Long Beach Results
Message-ID: <WED.11.FEB.1998.110105.0800.AMELTZER@USC.EDU>

USC needs its results from prelims and elims at the Long Beach tournament
(teams debated w/ results and ballot counts).  If someone from the
tournament or someone who attended has these results, please backchannel
Jeff Griswold at jdgriswold at aol.com.

Thanks,

USC Debate



From ameltzer  Wed Feb 11 13:01:35 1998
From: ameltzer (Ari Meltzer)
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 11:01:35 -0800
Subject: Kentucky Results
Message-ID: <WED.11.FEB.1998.110135.0800.AMELTZER@USC.EDU>

USC needs its results from prelims and elims at the Kentucky tournament
(teams debated w/ results and ballot counts).  If someone from the
tournament or someone who attended has these results, please backchannel
Jeff Griswold at jdgriswold at aol.com.

Thanks,

USC Debate



From ameltzer  Wed Feb 11 13:02:06 1998
From: ameltzer (Ari Meltzer)
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 11:02:06 -0800
Subject: Utah Results
Message-ID: <WED.11.FEB.1998.110206.0800.AMELTZER@USC.EDU>

USC needs its results from prelims and elims at the Utah tournament (teams
debated w/ results and ballot counts).  If someone from the tournament or
someone who attended has these results, please backchannel Jeff Griswold at
jdgriswold at aol.com.

Thanks,

USC Debate



From FPIRIZAR  Wed Feb 11 14:48:16 1998
From: FPIRIZAR (Frank P. Irizarry)
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 15:48:16 EST
Subject: RESPONSE TO TUNA'S STORY!
Message-ID: <WED.11.FEB.1998.154816.EST.FPIRIZAR@VPA.SYR.EDU>

Tuna's post Kind of makes a compelling argument why the JV division in
the Northeast is unecessary and prevents debaters from reaching their
maximum potential.  I've been saying for sometime now that not only is
J.V. killing Varsity Debate in the Northeast but it's also retarding the
development of our Novices.  I remember when I was debating in the East
9 years ago and there was no such thing as J.V Debate.  You were forced
to take your lumps in open during your second year but you still had two
years beyond that as an open debater.  I don't think I would've been in
Semi's or Finals of almost all of my tournaments in my senior year if I
had wasted a year in J.V.  I've always believed that one of the
benchmarks of the CEDA East region was the fact that we were able to
take Novices with no High School experience and help them to become
successful Open debaters.  I look at some of the more successful
debaters we've had in the Northeast over the years that did not debate
in High School yet enjoyed some modicum of National Level success:

Mark Kesselman - Semis at CEDA Nats
Bill Charron - Quarters at CEDA Nats
Jethro Hayman and Annalei McGreevy - Semis at CEDA Nats
Maxwell Schnurer - 7-1 at CEDA Nats
Mike Davis - 6-2 and Double Octos at CEDA Nats

plus many other debaters that I'm probably leaving out.  All I'm saying
is that I doubt these debaters would have blossomed into the fine Open
level debaters they were if they had wasted a year "slumming" in the J.V
ranks and debating the same novices for another year.  I think if the
East wants to get back to a level of prominence with debaters that have
had no High School experience, we need to do away with J.V. Debate in
our region.  Our Open divisions are too small and our J.V talent is not
developing the way it used to.  Look at the Cornell Tournament this past
weekend.  In years past that Tournament would have made Octos in Open
easily but this year we only got quarters and wouldn't have had that if
Kansas State and UMKC didn't each send two teams and Kings College
didn't send a team.  Last year at regionals, we couldn't even have a
full six rounds for Open because there weren't enough teams.  We had to
break right to finals.  I think it's sad when the Open division at the
regional Championship can't attract enough Open teams to have a
six-round tournament.  Something needs to be done and I think getting
rid of J.V (especially at the Spring Tournaments!  I mean come on now,
it's ridiculous!) would be a start.

frank
syracuse


Tuna writes:

Now, the story. The story is about how debating up a division can really
help you.

Many of you may have seen Charlie Hoag and Matt Sweeney on the
UMKC-WmJewell swing debating in JV. They had been to 2 novice
tournaments
in the East and they had a rough time debating JV on the swing.
Actually,
they were 0-13 on the swing, and were carrying a string of 15 straight
losses into the Cornell tournament. BUT, their JV experience in the
Midwest
had taught them a lot, and they showed it by winning a very difficult
Novice tournament with 31 teams. They made it through the tough times
with
good spirits, and most of you reading this know how hard that is to do.

Bad sample? Well, the other two novices who got beat up on the swing
didn't
go 0-13, but they did go 2-11. David Grover got to quarters after that
experience and won a speaker award this weekend. Helen Morgan went to
UMKC-Jewell as her second and third tournaments ever, and after 2-11 on
the
swing, she did well at SIU and then was 6-0 and got to semis AND was 5th
speaker in JV at Cornell.

A 2-24 debate trip can have a good ending. All 4 students won awards
after it.

The point I want to make is that you really learn a lot by entering up
into
a higher division. Take your knocks but learn all you can and it will
pay
off for you later. Sometimes coaches and debaters who lurk in novice or
JV
instead of moving up are NOT helping themselves grow as debaters. Enter
up
for learning and then go back down and see what you learned.

I'd talk about "Education through Pain" but I believe that's Donn
Parson's
slogan so I will just mention it and attribute it to him.

Long live debate!


Alfred Charles Snider -- "Tuna", Edwin W. Lawrence Professor of
Forensics,
University of Vermont, Mail: 475 Main Street, UVM, Burlington, VT
05405-4225, Phone: 802-656-0097, Fax: 802-656-4275; President, Cross
Examination Debate Association 1997-98
http://debate.uvm.edu/ceda.html; DEBATE CENTRAL:  Debate's Biggest
Website
 http://debate.uvm.edu/
+++++
WORLD DEBATE INSTITUTE 1998 - make plans now -
http://debate.uvm.edu/ndi.html

************************************************************************
Frank P. Irizarry                    Office # (315) 443-5143
Director of Debate                   Home #   (607) 749-8715
Syracuse University                  Fax #    (315) 443-5143

fpirizar at vpa.syr.edu

"All those who see me, and all who believe in me, share in the freedom I
feel when I fly!" - John Denver, "The Eagle and the Hawk"

"I'm cell locked in tha doctrines of tha right. Enslaved by dogma, ya
talk about my birthrights. Yet at every turn I'm runnin' into Hells
gates.  So I grip tha canon like fanon an pass the shells to my
classmates." - Rage Against the Machine, "Year of tha Boomerang"



From berube  Wed Feb 11 14:34:42 1998
From: berube (David M. Berube)
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 14:34:42 EST5EDT
Subject: GRADUATE ASSISTANTSHIP AT SOUTH CAROLINA
Message-ID: <WED.11.FEB.1998.143442.EST5EDT.BERUBE@GARNET.CLA.SC.EDU>

BERUBE is still soliciting graduate assistant applications for next
year.  Please do not assume I am displeased with our current
candidates.  Next year is a golden opportunity for me to broaden the
assistantship base of the program.

Please contact me ASAP.

South Carolina need enrolled graduate assistants.  We will not and
cannot hire former debaters who are out of work but not attending
graduate schools.

 OPEN LETTER TO PROSPECTIVE
 GRADUATE ASSISTANTSHIPS
 CAROLINA DEBATE
    UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Thank you for indicating interest in Carolina Debate. Enclosed is a
general description of the program (the attachment was cleared through
the University Provost office).

We plan on having a full season in 1998-99. The funds allocated to the
program will be used to maintain an operating budget which will enable
us to attend the tournaments we feel will make us the best program we
can become. The funds will provide housing and meal allowances and
should pay for nearly every debate preparation expense from copying
through most supplies.

The assistantship is typical of MA assistantships but unlike other
programs you can register to become an MA student in theatre and
speech BUT you needn't. You may register for any MA outside of the
professional schools (law, medicine, etc.). The assistantship will
provide $5000 stipend and tuition reduction (and you become an
in-state student).

 WHAT WE NEED FROM YOU

  1.   You must be officially accepted to the University.
  2.   You must complete a financial aid form (University and FAF).
   3.   You need to send a letter which describes in great detail your
   experience debating (not            individual events). If Dr.
   Berube does not recognize you by name, he may need to know   which
   tournaments you attended and how you did. He may also need to know
   how large the division was at these tournaments.
  4.   You need to send a letter indicating why you should be
  considered an asset to this program.
   5.   You need to have a letter of recommendation sent by your coach
   and Dr. Berube will want the name, address, and phone number of
   another coach who can assess your potential.

 DEADLINES

On May 15, Dr. Berube will announce the students selected as graduate
assistants to the program.

Visit our web page at
www.cla.sc.edu/THSP/Faculty/Berube/Debate/Index.htm

Toiling for a better world! Live the glory!
Join the Global Debate Congress Project

David M. Berube, Ph.D.
Dir., Carolina Debate &
Assoc. Prof., Speech Communication
University of South Carolina 29208
803-777-6663, fax 803-777-0055



From Arnie.Madsen  Wed Feb 11 13:28:53 1998
From: Arnie.Madsen (Arnie Madsen)
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 13:28:53 -0600
Subject: First-Round At-Large Reminder
Message-ID: <WED.11.FEB.1998.132853.0600.ARNIE.MADSEN@UNI.EDU>

A reminder that all applications for First-Round At-Large bids to the
National Debate Tournament must be RECEIVED by 5:00 p.m. CST tomorrow
(February 12).  Applications should be sent directly to each member of
the Committee via their preferred mode indicated below.

The model application is available on the NDT Director's Web Page.  To
access that, go to the NDT Home Page (http://www.uni.edu/ndt) and follow
the link to the Director's Page.

Note that the Team/Coach data form, also available on the Director's Page,
should be filled out and sent to the Tournament Director.

If you have any questions about the application process, please let me
know.  At the end of the day today and tomorrow I will post a list of
teams applying for First-Round At-Large bids.


I       Greg Miller     Fax only        619 594-6246

II      Jamey Dumas     Fax only        509 324-5718

III     John Fritch     Email only      jef229f at wpgate.smsu.edu
                                        or
                                        john_fritch at hotmail.com

IV      Arnie Madsen    Email AND Fax   319 273-7356
                                        AND arnie.madsen at uni.edu

V       Brent Brossmann Fax only        216 397-1759

VI      Ed Panetta      Email or fax    706 542-3245
                                        epanetta at uga.cc.uga.edu

VII     Warren Decker   Fax only        703 993-1096

VIII    Scott Thomson   Email only      jz9n at maristb.marist.edu

IX      Tom Jewell      Email only      tjewell at unm.edu

East    Gordon Mitchell Email only      gordonm+ at pitt.edu

South   Ede Warner      Email or fax    502 852-8166
                                        e0warn01 at homer.louisville.edu

Midwest Heidi Hamilton  Fax only        309 794-7702

West    Matt Taylor     Email or fax    310 985-4259
                                        taylorm at csulb.edu

Host    Rebecca Bjork   Email or fax    801 585 6255
                                        rebecca.bjork at m.cc.utah.edu

Dir.    Donn Parson     Fax only        913 864-5203


--
Arnie Madsen                                          arnie.madsen at uni.edu

UNI Director of Forensics                      http://www.uni.edu/forensic
NDT Committee Chair                                 http://www.uni.edu/ndt
Kenneth Burke Society Treasurer
http://www.siu.edu/departments/english/acadareas/rhetcomp/burke/index.html

Office:   Communication Studies, University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls,
          IA  50614-0357      (O) (319) 273-7200      (FAX) (319) 273-7356

Home:     410 Home Park Blvd, Waterloo, IA  50701       (H) (319) 235-8866



From broda  Wed Feb 11 14:34:04 1998
From: broda (Kenneth Broda-bahm)
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 15:34:04 -0500
Subject: Get your Towson Hotel Rooms *now.
Message-ID: <WED.11.FEB.1998.153404.0500.BRODA@SABER.TOWSON.EDU>

There are still rooms available in the block for Towson's tournaments
(Novice and JV Nats, Chesapeake Classic, March 6-8th), but the block is
released after _tomorrow_ the 12th.

Phone:  the Holiday Inn Timonium, 800-289-4499, mention the tournament and
they should give you a rate of $67 per night.  If you have any trouble
registering for rooms, you can call the hotel direct (410-252-7373) and
ask for sales manager Karen Coleman.

 _______________________________________________________
|o                                                     o|
|o     Kenneth T. Broda-Bahm, Asst. Prof.,             o|
|o     Director of Forensics                           o|
|o     Towson University,                              o|
|o     Towson MD, USA, 21252-7097,                     o|
|o     410-830-2888 (office) 410-830-3656 (fax)        o|
|o     KBrodabahm at Towson.Edu                           o|
---------------------------------------------------------



From mkrueger  Wed Feb 11 14:47:48 1998
From: mkrueger (mike krueger)
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 14:47:48 -0600
Subject: Sea Mines, Website, E-Mail
Message-ID: <WED.11.FEB.1998.144748.0600.MKRUEGER@FRANK.MTSU.EDU>

I e-mailed this guy (LT Mark Zwolski) about sea mines that were laid in
wwII

I found his address at a web site that he maintains
http://members.aol.com/helmineron/index.htm

It is a website about HELicopter MINE countermeasers squadRONs.

What I want to know...  our library here isn't very good.
Anyone out there have any hard copy sources that corroberate this?
We have some stuff that alludes to it, but nothing as succinct as this
guy says.

anyway, you might want to check out the website just to learn more about
what we do to combat mines.  It's pretty thorough.

Mike
--
Michael Krueger
Asst. Director of Debate
Middle Tennessee State University
Box 43
Murfreesboro, TN 37132
(615)  898-2273 (office)
(615) 898-5826 (fax)
http://www.mtsu.edu/~debate
http://www.mtsu.edu/~mkrueger
http://www.mtsu.edu/~wmts
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: HELMINERON <HELMINERON at aol.com>
Subject: Re: Sea Mines in the South Pacific
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 18:27:20 EST
Size: 1360
Url: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/19980211/d116e3a4/attachment.mht 


From k0tibb01  Wed Feb 11 14:59:58 1998
From: k0tibb01 (Krsna I. Tibbs)
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 15:59:58 -0500
Subject: sign on
Message-ID: <WED.11.FEB.1998.155958.0500.K0TIBB01@HOMER.LOUISVILLE.EDU>

"Subscribe"

>From  Wed Feb 11 15:19:05 1998
Message-Id: <WED.11.FEB.1998.151905.0600.>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 15:19:05 -0600
Reply-To: MKKING at CCTR.UMKC.EDU
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Myron King <MKKING at CCTR.UMKC.EDU>
Subject: wake forest...wake forest...
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII

I need some info regarding new affirmatives at Northwestern. Im not certain you
all even ran a new one, but If you did, I need plan, solvency cites, and the
adv. you claim. Gracias, senors or senoritas.



 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Myron King                                 Asst. Coach
 MKKING at UMKC.EDU                            University of Missouri, Kansas City
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------



From sarge  Wed Feb 11 15:34:46 1998
From: sarge (Srg. Rutledge)
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 16:34:46 -0500
Subject: LIBERTY
Message-ID: <WED.11.FEB.1998.163446.0500.SARGE@CIF.ROCHESTER.EDU>

Can anyone confirm that any person from librty even recieves mail from
EDEBATE.

Rutledge -- still looking for liberty



From Arnie.Madsen  Wed Feb 11 15:47:36 1998
From: Arnie.Madsen (Arnie Madsen)
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 15:47:36 -0600
Subject: At-Large Applicants, as of 2-11-98
Message-ID: <WED.11.FEB.1998.154736.0600.ARNIE.MADSEN@UNI.EDU>

The following is the list of teams whose applications have been
received as of 3:45 CST on Wednesday, Feb 11.  Remember the deadline
for receipt of applications is 5:00 p.m. CST tomorrow.

Arnie Madsen
arnie.madsen at uni.edu

----------

First-Round At-Large Bid Applicants

Emory -- Fitzmeier and Heidt
Emory -- Kouros and Sahni
Fullerton -- Heider and Lambrinos
Georgetown -- Kwon and Steele
Georgia -- Cates and McIntosh
Iowa -- Peterson and Rayburn
Michigan -- Stoughton and Wexler
North Texas -- Holloway and Morrow
Northwestern -- Gottleib and Sparacino
Northwestern -- Sato and Sohrn
Southern Illinois -- Moore and Vuglia
Southern Illinois -- Slusher and Smith
Texas -- Griffin and Renken
West Georgia -- Bonilla and Carver

>From  Wed Feb 11 17:43:30 1998
Message-Id: <WED.11.FEB.1998.174330.EST.>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 17:43:30 EST
Reply-To: CAITI16 at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Caitrin Muldoon <CAITI16 at AOL.COM>
Subject: SAMFORD ONLY, PLEASE
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

Hey, could someone from Samford please backchannel me with your plan text(s)?
Thanks....



Caitrin Muldoon
FSU Debate



From gkuper  Wed Feb 11 16:54:39 1998
From: gkuper (Glenn Kuper)
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 14:54:39 -0800
Subject: RESPONSE TO TUNA'S STORY!
Message-ID: <WED.11.FEB.1998.145439.0800.GKUPER@UPS.EDU>

While I won't dispute the theories put forth by Prof. Irizarry, I think we
have the opposite problem in the Northwest.  I think policy debate in the
Northwest has only had a JV division once this year, and that was at the
first major tournament.  Since then, we have collapsed divisions every time.
There are certainly some teams who have benefitted from moving into varsity
competition (and some coaches who have been unable to slum for points:)),
but since we also have not had a novice division, there is nowhere for new
students to go (except parli., but that is another issue).  I agree that
losing can make you better, but I'm not sure we are doing our novices a
service when their first debate round is against a team that has broken at
nationals, and it doesn't get much easier after that.  Getting beat badly
can make you better, but having it happen over and over all year can make
the strongest-willed novice quit in frustration.  We have tried to initiate
a "public" division, but that has only made twice, and both times a single
school had the majority of the entries.  In short, I wish we had the
"problem" of the Northeast of having big JV divisions, at least once in a while.


>

>From  Wed Feb 11 17:06:41 1998
Message-Id: <WED.11.FEB.1998.170641.0600.>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 17:06:41 -0600
Reply-To: MKKING at CCTR.UMKC.EDU
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Myron King <MKKING at CCTR.UMKC.EDU>
Subject: andy geppert
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII

Whas up. Im myron from umkc. I need the plan text and solvency cites for the
case you might have broken at northwestern...Yeah I know we had teams there,
but ....I dont know. Just mail me at your earliest convenience.




 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Myron King                                 Asst. Coach
 MKKING at UMKC.EDU                            University of Missouri, Kansas City
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------



From sellis1  Wed Feb 11 17:37:28 1998
From: sellis1 (Andy Ellis)
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 18:37:28 -0500
Subject: k state only
Message-ID: <WED.11.FEB.1998.183728.0500.SELLIS1@TIGER.TOWSON.EDU>

I need to get some elctions cites from you all.
Andy
Towson

>From  Wed Feb 11 17:44:38 1998
Message-Id: <WED.11.FEB.1998.174438.CST.>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 17:44:38 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: NLU Bicker Tournament Entries

At present we have entries from the 14 Colleges/Universities which follow.
(there is a possibility of one more college entering).
All IE's have made
Parli 10 teams/breaking semi's
In CEDA debate we have a dilemma, we presently have 7 Novice teams and
6 Open teams entered. If we do not attain sufficient entries for those
divisions to break to semi's, we can either a) break to finals in both,
b) collapse the divisions. (Please let us know your preference, we'll follow
the majority vote on this issue if we don't get sufficient entries)

All that said, here are the debate entries

1) Xavier
   (N) Chase/Cooper

2) UT-Tyler
   (P) Smith/McGee

3) LSU-Shreveport
   (P) AJ Edwards/Kennedy
   (P) J. Edwards/Jones
   (P) Tyler/Benovdy
   (N) Gaensehals/James
   (O) Krefft/Milstead

4) Cameron
   (O) K. Wilson/Alexander (NLU)
   (N) King/C. Wilson
   (N) J. Wilson/Smith
   (N) Hayth/Vanhoozer

5) U.A.M.
   (IE's only)

6) LaTech
   (O) Guice/Carr
   (P) Bonnette/Free
   (P) ???

7) ACU
   (P) Campos/Milstead
   (P) Dunbar/Hudson

8) SEMO
   (N) Sebaugh/Smith
   (O) Congo/Weichert

9) Pacific U.
   (P) Bell/Magden
   (P) Johnson/Bullard

10) Ark State
    (IE's only)

11) SW Texas
    (O) Montemayer/Dowdy
    (N) Cunningham/Luebeck

12) Lamar-Orange
    (IE's only)

13) Austin Community College
    (IE's only)

14) Northeast La. Univ.
    (O) Ward/Kurtz


See y'all on Friday, if you have any questions, don't hesitate to contact me.
Also, please voice your opinion on what to do in the event that Novice/Open
divisions do not receive sufficient entries to warranta semi-final round,
you may backchannel me or call the debate office at 318-342-1462

Bob Alexander,
NLU Debate



From kcd5  Wed Feb 11 18:50:17 1998
From: kcd5 (Kristin Chisholm Dybvig)
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 18:50:17 -0600
Subject: CEDA's PFDs
Message-ID: <WED.11.FEB.1998.185017.0600.KCD5@CORNELL.EDU>

I thought that some clarification on this was nessesary.  My understanding
of PFD is that it has been going on in New York City for about a year.  The
way that the Cornell tournament operated was directed by two people who
were at the NCA meeting pushing for the PFD amendment.  The majority of the
schools that competed at the Cornell tournament this weekend had been
competing at some of the tournaments in New York City.  I believe that this
was the first travel tournament for all of the schools involved.  I am not
sure if this is the same type of PFD that you are referring too or if there
are several.  More bellow.

At 04:33 PM 2/10/98 -0500, you wrote:
>This past Sunday, Cornell University hosted the first PFD associated with a
>CEDA tournament (at least around here).  As usual, the Cornell squad members
>were extremely gracious hosts. Since we are a school that only does PFD, I
>wanted to provide some feedback for any other CEDA schools who may be
>considering including PFDs. One note I should make is that I view PFDs as
>an end in itself, NOT as a springboard into CEDA. Color my comments with
>that in mind. Also, please do not read anything below as even the slightest
>indictment of the Cornell tournament or squad. It was the FIRST one. We did
>not have any participants. I just showed up to judge and scope out the
>situation.
>
>Not listed in any order of importance - just stream of consciousness.
>
>1). Don't use 4 preset rounds. At the very least, do some type of power
>    matching for the last prelim (assuming only four rounds exist). This
>    practice (of not power matching) would compound the problem of going from
>    32 (or however many) debaters to only two in the finals.
>
We used 2 presets and 2 power matched rounds.  It was fairly difficult as
we have severe time constraints.  Most of the schools who compete in PFD do
so because there are things about traditional formats that do not work for
them.  One of these things is Saturday tournaments.  Many of these schools
can not compete on the Sabbath.  This made it impossible to hold more than
4 prelim rounds.
        The issue of going straight to finals also bothered me.  But I was told by
coaches of PFD that none of their tournaments had yet had a final round.
They have a group discussion about the topic after the presets have ended.
We decided to hold a final round because there were so many competitiors.
Going to a quarterfinal round would have kept many of the schools later
than they expected.


>2). With 32 debaters, you NEED to go beyond simply finals... AT LEAST semis,
>    preferably quarters. At this stage, one judge per out-round would
suffice.
>
Judging was not a problem, but I don't know if the focus of this new
community is on winning.  Will Baker explained to me that with all of the
tournaments he had been involved with, the atmosphere was cooperative
rather than competitive.  And like I said earlier, that puts time
restrictions on the tournament.

>3). The final round, regardless of whether there are other break rounds or
not,
>    SHOULD be judged by a panal of judges, or at the very least, a judge. NOT
>    the participants. In this case both debaters were from the same school,
>    so there wouldn't be much of a bias problem. But what do you imagine
would
>    happen if one was from Yeshiva and one was from Rochester? Let's see,
>    which school had more members there? (I am NOT trying to imply that
>    anyone from either school would do anything unethical or sleezy. I am
>    merely pointing out a hypothetical possibility).
Again, I agree.  To us it seemed like a happy medium between no final round
and the community participation at the end.  All students participated in a
ten minute question/answer period at the end of the round.

>
>4). While I do NOT at all support having the topic be related to the CEDA
>    topic, I understand they already passed the amendment (Gee, with no input
>    from anyone but CEDA members... what a shock the vote turned out like it
>    did). Regardless of the topic itself however, the wording needs to have a
>    little more time spent on it. (This is somewhat minor... there's always
>    different quality topics)

Again, this is a difficult problem to solve.  The way that topics had been
formulated was that the participants were given an ethical situation and
then asked to take a side and argue for it.  What we did is we made a small
version of the topic, made it a value resolution and gave the participants
four articles a week before the tournament.

>
>5). It's fine to post the rounds in the building where they were being held,
>    but why have the judges walk across campus to pick up their ballots?
>    Luckily, it was a beautiful day. But miserable weather would have made it
>    suck (not that unusual in Central New York in February). But nice or foul
>    weather it unnecessarily adds time to the tournament. Also adds the
>    increased likelyhood of running late if the weather does get worse. Just
>    move the ballots (and possibly the PFD tab room) to the same building.
>    They were preset anyway. Cuts SNAFUs.
>
Again, they were not preset (I know because I powered the rounds on
Sunday).  Sharing judges with the other tab room made it difficult to
separate the two rooms.  Ideally the Cornell campus would have more rooms
in a central area, but it's not the case.

>6). I would want the awards for the PFD debaters to be announced and given at
>    the same time as the "big kids." These debaters want recognition for
their
>    efforts just as much as the most experienced open debater. A seperate
>    awards assembly at a different time and location does not foster a
>    feeling of being "part" of the tournament.
>
Again, because of the time this was not possible.  We also had a separate
IE awards cerimony.  Not because we think less of the activity, but because
out of necessity the schedules are different.

>7). When the winners are announced on CEDA-L (and potentially elsewhere),
>    include the PFD winners. If PFDs were being done as an end in itself, the
>    debaters deserve the recognition for their success. If they are being
>    done to lead into CEDA, it would give them recognition and allow them to
>    start building name recognition among their peers.
>
Fair enough.
>
>
>   On the less specific issue of CEDA related PFDs in general, I have a
couple
>of questions. Do these count toward CEDA points?  If yes, full points just
>like any other CEDA round? How does participation in PFDs affect CEDA
>eligibility (especially if they count for points)? Have I even heard
correctly
>that CEDA passed a PFD amendment? If so, could someone please post the actual
>amendment to the L? Why are you calling them PFDs since there is already an
>established format that uses that name? If coaches are really using this
>format to get debaters ready for Novice CEDA (as was mentioned to me more
than
>once this past weekend), why not just enter Novice CEDA? Doesn't this simply
>add another level of CEDA since the topic is an offshoot of the CEDA topic?
>A lot of different issues arise depending on the answers to these (and more)
>questions. None insurmountable, but I think if CEDA is really going to
>embrace this, some things need to be discussed and spelled out.

There was an amendment passed at NCA.  I don't know the exact wording, but
I do remember that it did not have a format that had to be used.  We called
it PFD at our tournament because that is what the amendment passed for.
Andrew Jacobs, the director of debate at Rockland Community College, a PFD
school forwarded us the directions for PFDs.  We changed them a little, as
the topic is supposed to be related to the CEDA topic to count for CEDA
points.
Only two of the schools at our tournament had CEDA programs.  I don't think
that
many of the schools were going to use it as a jumping point to novice.  I
think that part of the appeal of PFD is that it allows students who would
not normally be able to compete the chance to do so.

>   Our school may participate in the CEDA PFDs. We would decide on a case by
>case basis. But right now, it looks like we'd just be going to face CEDA
>debaters getting experience before the jump to Novice. These debaters would
>have access to the backfiles (even with limited research they would be
exposed
>to far more background info), coaching and resources that we joined PFDs to
>get away from. I am curious on the eligibility/points issue. Gather points
>in PFD until they're hot, and then put them in Novice to clean up after
>they're good? Doesn't sound like support for a new format. It sounds like
>support for point shopping.
>
I don't think that it will turn into that.  If people are going to go point
shopping, they will do it anyway.  I hope that there are ways to resolve
the issues that schools have with PFDs.  As I said earlier I think that it
is a great way to involve people in our activity that would normally be
shut off from it.
>
>   Well, just a few thoughts off the top of my head. Please take them in a
>friendly vein and let me re-iterate that I believe that the Cornell
>Tournament is one of the tops in the nation - run by a wonderful group of
>people.
Thanks!
Kristin Dybvig
Cornell Debate

Hope to see you again,
>
>                             Sincerely,
>
>                              Mark R. Whitney
>                              SUNY Morrisville
>
Kristin Dybvig
Cornell Debate
Dept. of Communication
Cornell University
Kennedy Hall 202
Ithaca, NY 14853
607-255-8046



From gabriels  Wed Feb 11 21:26:14 1998
From: gabriels (Gabriel H. Scannapieco)
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 19:26:14 -0800
Subject: Some information, por favor.
Message-ID: <WED.11.FEB.1998.192614.0800.GABRIELS@UMICH.EDU>

Hi there,

This is Gabe from Michigan, and I'm interested in finding out what what
John Carroll University,
Miami of Ohio, Ball State, and Loyola of Ill. run on the affirmative.
If you all could let me know
(hopefully you could include the plan text and solvency cites) at you're
earliest convenience, it would
be great.  If any of these schools are not subscribed to e-debate and
someone reading this knows how
I can get in touch with these teams by other, less advanced means,
please drop me a line too.

If you all could mail me with that information, I would be grateful.



From hansonjb  Wed Feb 11 18:59:04 1998
From: hansonjb (Jim Hanson)
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 16:59:04 -0800
Subject: Jenn Kleven
Message-ID: <WED.11.FEB.1998.165904.0800.HANSONJB@WHITMAN.EDU>

Jenn Kleven

could you backchannel me?

thanks

Jim Hanson
hansonjb at whitman.edu



From beckerr  Wed Feb 11 19:37:24 1998
From: beckerr (Robert Becker)
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 18:37:24 -0700
Subject: Western States' Teams
Message-ID: <WED.11.FEB.1998.183724.0700.BECKERR@MAIL.NWC.WHECN.EDU>

Here is a list of the teams attending the Western States' Forensics
Tournament in Denver, Colorado.

Air Force Academy

        Shawn Briscoe and Luke Savoie
        Chris Dinote and Jessica Trafecanty
        Amanda Meyers and Rashad Howard
        Andy Meudt and Ryan Pelkola
        Marshall McMullen and Ryan Sullivan

Arizona State

        Edwin Aralica and David Williams
        Ben Kearl and John Kircher
        Aron Karabel and Scot Keller

Cal Poly San Luis Obispo

        One team, but (I apologize to Cal Poly) I can't remember the
individuals.

University of Colorado

        Eric McMullen and Josh Jennison

New Mexico

        Brandon Mark and Kelci Lowe
        Chris Rodgers and Trisha Smith

Northwest College

        Kenny Andersen and Greg Little
        Richard Howell and Tiffany Leuty
        Nancy Lantis and Corey Tolliver

University of Utah

        Reuben Cawley and Jared Raynor

Looking forward to fun in the Mile-High city!

If there is anyone in the Denver area who would like to or be able to judge,
we need CEDA, Parli, and IE judges.

Thanks,
Bob Becker
Northwest College
Powell, WY



From gabriels  Wed Feb 11 22:39:11 1998
From: gabriels (Gabriel H. Scannapieco)
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 20:39:11 -0800
Subject: Mas information, por favor.
Message-ID: <WED.11.FEB.1998.203911.0800.GABRIELS@UMICH.EDU>

Sorry, I forgot to place Wheaton on the list of teams that I need to get
in touch with.  If you all could mail me with what you all have been
running (plan and solvency cites), I would appreciate it.

Thanks.
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: "Gabriel H. Scannapieco" <gabriels at umich.edu>
Subject: Some information, por favor.
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 19:26:14 -0800
Size: 968
Url: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/19980211/6abbf63b/attachment.mht 


From FPIRIZAR  Wed Feb 11 21:44:16 1998
From: FPIRIZAR (Frank P. Irizarry)
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 22:44:16 EST
Subject: RESPONSE TO TUNA'S STORY!
Message-ID: <WED.11.FEB.1998.224416.EST.FPIRIZAR@VPA.SYR.EDU>

Just want to make it clear that I in no way endorse getting rid of
Novice Debate.  Novice Debate needs to be there because absent Novice
Debate there would be no place for the Novices to gain some training and
experience before moving up to J.V.  Glenn makes some good points
concerning the situation in the Northwest but I tried to be as specific
as possible and focus my attention on the Northeast.  I think because we
have relatively few debaters coming into our programs with significant
H.S. experience as some other regions do, the need for J.V. is
diminished.

frank


Date:          Wed, 11 Feb 1998 14:54:39 -0800
Reply-to:      Glenn Kuper <gkuper at UPS.EDU>
From:          Glenn Kuper <gkuper at UPS.EDU>
Subject:       Re: RESPONSE TO TUNA'S STORY!
To:            EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU

While I won't dispute the theories put forth by Prof. Irizarry, I think
we
have the opposite problem in the Northwest.  I think policy debate in
the
Northwest has only had a JV division once this year, and that was at the
first major tournament.  Since then, we have collapsed divisions every
time.
There are certainly some teams who have benefitted from moving into
varsity
competition (and some coaches who have been unable to slum for
points:)),
but since we also have not had a novice division, there is nowhere for
new
students to go (except parli., but that is another issue).  I agree that
losing can make you better, but I'm not sure we are doing our novices a
service when their first debate round is against a team that has broken
at
nationals, and it doesn't get much easier after that.  Getting beat
badly
can make you better, but having it happen over and over all year can
make
the strongest-willed novice quit in frustration.  We have tried to
initiate
a "public" division, but that has only made twice, and both times a
single
school had the majority of the entries.  In short, I wish we had the
"problem" of the Northeast of having big JV divisions, at least once in
a while.


>



From kenny420  Wed Feb 11 19:00:04 1998
From: kenny420 (kenny s hanson)
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 20:00:04 -0500
Subject: Dave Helwich or Gavin Williams
Message-ID: <WED.11.FEB.1998.200004.0500.KENNY420@JUNO.COM>

Please backchannel me before Mardi Gras.


                                        Kenny
                                Mercer U

_____________________________________________________________________
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 piccirs  Wed Feb 11 20:35:39 1998
From: piccirs (Shannon Piccirillo)
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 21:35:39 -0500
Subject: DUKE only.
Message-ID: <WED.11.FEB.1998.213539.0500.PICCIRS@ALLEG.EDU>

Could the coach from Duke who we gave IMF cards to at Navy please
backchannel me?  I apologize for not knowing your name.

Shannon Piccirillo
Allegheny Debate



From kenny420  Wed Feb 11 19:09:02 1998
From: kenny420 (kenny s hanson)
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 20:09:02 -0500
Subject: Airfare from Atlanta to NDT and CEDA Nats
Message-ID: <WED.11.FEB.1998.200902.0500.KENNY420@JUNO.COM>

I need to get final numbers for the teams in the Georgia area that are
going on the AirMercer flight. Both to the NDT and CEDA. Tickets to CEDA
Nats are $250 round trip and $350 to the NDT. If anyone else wants to
take advantage of these prices you must get back in touch with me ASAP.



                                        Kenny Hanson
                                        Mercer U

_____________________________________________________________________
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 race  Wed Feb 11 21:51:59 1998
From: race (David Bruce Rhaesa)
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 21:51:59 -0600
Subject: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: Journey to the East - The drive]]]
Message-ID: <WED.11.FEB.1998.215159.0600.RACE@MIDUSA.NET>

sightseeing options near heart of america!
d
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: CVEditions at aol.com
Subject: Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: Journey to the East - The drive]]
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 22:35:45 EST
Size: 984
Url: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/19980211/dda243b2/attachment.mht 


From lesjober  Wed Feb 11 22:29:11 1998
From: lesjober (Laura Sjoberg)
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 22:29:11 -0600
Subject: Loyola Only
Message-ID: <WED.11.FEB.1998.222911.0600.LESJOBER@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU>

Hey Guys this is Laura Sjoberg, a potential debater from the University of
Chicago.  We were told to get in touch with you for possible information
concerning tournaments and evidence as we try to start a team here.

Laura



From echallst  Wed Feb 11 22:27:17 1998
From: echallst (chili cheeze)
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 22:27:17 -0600
Subject: marquette
Message-ID: <WED.11.FEB.1998.222717.0600.ECHALLST@INST.AUGIE.EDU>

could marquette please post, or backchannel the team list for the
tournament this weekend.  i would appreciate it.

peace

eric hallstrom
------------------------------
augie debate / student pugwash
------------------------------
augustana college
sioux falls, south dakota
------------------------------
echallst at inst.augie.edu



From sarah.chan  Wed Feb 11 23:47:39 1998
From: sarah.chan (Sarah E. Chan)
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 00:47:39 EST
Subject: Towson caselists
Message-ID: <THU.12.FEB.1998.004739.EST.SARAH.CHAN@JUNO.COM>

Okay, so I didn't talk to my teammates.  Jim will handle the caselist,
plan text and case outline would be good.  His e-mail is jaz4715 at aol.com
or you can backchannel me and I'll get it to him.
Sarah
SJSU debate

_____________________________________________________________________
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 dlingel  Thu Feb 12 08:01:59 1998
From: dlingel (Dan Lingel)
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 08:01:59 -0600
Subject: desperate for judges
Message-ID: <THU.12.FEB.1998.080159.0600.DLINGEL@JESUITCP.ORG>

hello community,

i am desperate for judges for this weekend in dallas at the jesuit hs
tournament.  if you can be in dallas by 9:00 am friday morning and stay
until 5 pm saturday.  i will pay very well.  i had 5 people cancel on me
yesterday.  help me please.

Dan Lingel



From asnider  Thu Feb 12 08:39:03 1998
From: asnider (Alfred C. Snider)
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 09:39:03 -0500
Subject: Richmond & William Jewell
Message-ID: <THU.12.FEB.1998.093903.0500.ASNIDER@ZOO.UVM.EDU>

I need flight arrival time and airline for Richmond.

For Jewell, I need a more precise arrival time than 5-6 PM and an airline
so we can meet you in Boston.

Thanks,

Tuna

Alfred Charles Snider -- "Tuna", Edwin W. Lawrence Professor of Forensics,
University of Vermont, Mail: 475 Main Street, UVM, Burlington, VT
05405-4225, Phone: 802-656-0097, Fax: 802-656-4275; President, Cross
Examination Debate Association 1997-98
http://debate.uvm.edu/ceda.html; DEBATE CENTRAL:  Debate's Biggest Website
 http://debate.uvm.edu/
+++++
WORLD DEBATE INSTITUTE 1998 - make plans now - http://debate.uvm.edu/ndi.html



From broda  Thu Feb 12 09:15:37 1998
From: broda (Kenneth Broda-bahm)
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 10:15:37 -0500
Subject: Junior Division
Message-ID: <THU.12.FEB.1998.101537.0500.BRODA@SABER.TOWSON.EDU>

I'm not sure if I understand Frank Irizarry's argument:  Because some
students improve by going straight from novice to open, we should
therefore get rid of junior division?  Currently, any debater is free to
enter open (hence the name, "open").  Frank's argument that junior
division "prevents debaters from reaching their maximum potential" is an
argument for students/coaches _choosing_ to enter the higher division.
Tuna's story is also an argument for the same.

But Frank's arguing for "getting rid of J.V." is an argument for a denial
of choice which must be premised on the idea that we know better than the
coaches and students who enter J.V. - we know what is good for them and
they don't.

I believe that a _minority_ of students at the conclusion of their novice
experience are ready to make the jump.  There are anecdotes, Frank uses
most of those (including many who spent substantial time in Junior
division).  Our question should not be "what will help the good become the
best?"  Rather our question should be, "what will help the maximum number
of interested students continue in debate."  Retention.  When one ponders
the quantum long jump between novice and open, I think it is hard to
maintain that we promote the greatest levels of participation by making
sure that there is no weigh station in between.

By the way, I've withdrawn the amendment encouraging three divisions,
(in part because I believe the choice argument made above) but
I continue to think that one reason the East is healthier than most
regions is precisely _because_ of its committment to three divisions.  The
greatest predictor of regional decline is when varsity success becomes the
benchmark.


--Ken Broda-Bahm



From Arnie.Madsen  Thu Feb 12 09:49:36 1998
From: Arnie.Madsen (Arnie Madsen)
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 09:49:36 -0600
Subject: ATTN: 1st-Round At-Large Applicants
Message-ID: <THU.12.FEB.1998.094936.0600.ARNIE.MADSEN@UNI.EDU>

Those schools submitting first-round at-large applications to the NDT
Committee may be having problems connecting with Donn Parson's fax machine.
The Lawrence area now has a new area code.  Try 785 864 5203

When submitting an application, be sure to send BOTH a fax and email
version to me.  arnie.madsen at uni.edu   319 273 7356

Let me know if there are questions/problems.
--
Arnie Madsen                                          arnie.madsen at uni.edu

UNI Director of Forensics                      http://www.uni.edu/forensic
NDT Committee Chair                                 http://www.uni.edu/ndt
Kenneth Burke Society Treasurer
http://www.siu.edu/departments/english/acadareas/rhetcomp/burke/index.html

Office:   Communication Studies, University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls,
          IA  50614-0357      (O) (319) 273-7200      (FAX) (319) 273-7356

Home:     410 Home Park Blvd, Waterloo, IA  50701       (H) (319) 235-8866



From phares  Thu Feb 12 10:28:46 1998
From: phares (PHARES ROD S)
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 10:28:46 -0600
Subject: ATTN: 1st-Round At-Large Applicants
In-Reply-To: <01ITHKWW4I428Z1Q0I@uni.edu>
Message-ID: <THU.12.FEB.1998.102846.0600.PHARES@FALCON.CC.UKANS.EDU>

On Thu, 12 Feb 1998, Arnie Madsen wrote:

> Those schools submitting first-round at-large applications to the NDT
> Committee may be having problems connecting with Donn Parson's fax machine.
> The Lawrence area now has a new area code.  Try 785 864 5203

The department fax machine has been very busy the last day or two.  Keep
trying if you need to send stuff to Dr. Parson.  I also tied it up or an
hour or so this morning trying to fax our stuff to the rest of the
committee.


Rod Phares
University of Kansas

Department of Communication Studies
3090 Wescoe Hall
Lawrence, KS  66045
phares at falcon.cc.ukans.edu



From sellis1  Thu Feb 12 10:29:51 1998
From: sellis1 (Andy Ellis)
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 11:29:51 -0500
Subject: Towson caselists
In-Reply-To: <19980211.214657.6375.1.Sarah.Chan@juno.com>
Message-ID: <THU.12.FEB.1998.112951.0500.SELLIS1@TIGER.TOWSON.EDU>

I am doing the caselists for the towson tournament , for towson. If You
like I can save other people the work and everybody can just send info to
me. We do not consider it mandatory , we will just provide that service
for those who want it.
Thanks
Andy Ellis
Towson University
Debate



From mkrueger  Thu Feb 12 10:56:08 1998
From: mkrueger (mike krueger)
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 10:56:08 -0600
Subject: Junior Division
Message-ID: <THU.12.FEB.1998.105608.0600.MKRUEGER@FRANK.MTSU.EDU>

I want to echo what is said by Ken.
We generally have a good JV division in this part of the country.

In JV, people have the ability to learn without getting discouraged.  Of
course, some Open tournaments are good, but getting whooped up on all
the time isn't psychologically healthy either--and I'm afraid, why we
lose so many debaters from novice.  The attrition rate is pretty high,
even with novice division.  It's DAMN hard to compete in open any more;
and JV is getting better too.

Keep the three divisions--and add public.  Let everyone have a place to
learn.

Mike


Kenneth Broda-bahm wrote:
>
> I'm not sure if I understand Frank Irizarry's argument:  Because some
> students improve by going straight from novice to open, we should
> therefore get rid of junior division?  Currently, any debater is free to
> enter open (hence the name, "open").  Frank's argument that junior
> division "prevents debaters from reaching their maximum potential" is an
> argument for students/coaches _choosing_ to enter the higher division.
> Tuna's story is also an argument for the same.
>
> But Frank's arguing for "getting rid of J.V." is an argument for a denial
> of choice which must be premised on the idea that we know better than the
> coaches and students who enter J.V. - we know what is good for them and
> they don't.
>
> I believe that a _minority_ of students at the conclusion of their novice
> experience are ready to make the jump.  There are anecdotes, Frank uses
> most of those (including many who spent substantial time in Junior
> division).  Our question should not be "what will help the good become the
> best?"  Rather our question should be, "what will help the maximum number
> of interested students continue in debate."  Retention.  When one ponders
> the quantum long jump between novice and open, I think it is hard to
> maintain that we promote the greatest levels of participation by making
> sure that there is no weigh station in between.
>
> By the way, I've withdrawn the amendment encouraging three divisions,
> (in part because I believe the choice argument made above) but
> I continue to think that one reason the East is healthier than most
> regions is precisely _because_ of its committment to three divisions.  The
> greatest predictor of regional decline is when varsity success becomes the
> benchmark.
>
> --Ken Broda-Bahm

--
Michael Krueger
Asst. Director of Debate
Middle Tennessee State University
Box 43
Murfreesboro, TN 37132
(615)  898-2273 (office)
(615) 898-5826 (fax)
http://www.mtsu.edu/~debate
http://www.mtsu.edu/~mkrueger
http://www.mtsu.edu/~wmts

>From  Thu Feb 12 12:27:37 1998
Message-Id: <THU.12.FEB.1998.122737.CST.>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 12:27:37 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: Request for schedule of PKD-Lake Charles Tournament

If anyone has a copy of the schedule for the Pi Kappa Delta tournament to
be held at McNeese, would you please fwd me a copy.

Thanks in advance,
Bob Alexander, NLU Debate

>From  Thu Feb 12 14:00:54 1998
Message-Id: <THU.12.FEB.1998.140054.0500.>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 14:00:54 -0500
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: CEDA's PFDs
Comments: To: kcd5 at CORNELL.EDU
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII

Kristin responds and clears some stuff up - Thanks.  :)   A couple of further
comments/questions. The following questions are not necessarily directed to
Kristin, per se, but are born of general curiosity of the situation - where
I'll have to be deciding whether we are going to get involved/support etc.

Kristin says:
I thought that some clarification on this was nessesary.  My understanding
of PFD is that it has been going on in New York City for about a year.  The
way that the Cornell tournament operated was directed by two people who
were at the NCA meeting pushing for the PFD amendment.  The majority of the
schools that competed at the Cornell tournament this weekend had been
competing at some of the tournaments in New York City.  I believe that this
was the first travel tournament for all of the schools involved.  I am not
sure if this is the same type of PFD that you are referring too or if there
are several.  More bellow.


Me again:
So was this a PFD, or a PSD (Public Sphere Debate = CEDA's)? If it was a PSD,
why call it PFD? If it was a PFD, does it still count for CEDA points? If it
does, why have a distinction at all? Are the two formats mutually exclusive?
(I hope not). If it was a PFD, and not a PSD, does it still count against
CEDA eligibility?


Kristan says:
We used 2 presets and 2 power matched rounds.  It was fairly difficult as
we have severe time constraints.  Most of the schools who compete in PFD do
so because there are things about traditional formats that do not work for
them.  One of these things is Saturday tournaments.  Many of these schools
can not compete on the Sabbath.  This made it impossible to hold more than
4 prelim rounds.

Me again:
   I'm very glad you had two power matched rounds. That is not what I was
told by a different Cornellian. And, the situation with the Sabbath would
probably not be an issue with most tournaments.  I ABSOLUTELY applaud
that your tournament accomodated Yeshiva's needs. However, I'm not sure I'd
believe that "many" of the schools can't compete on a Saturday. It
does make it hard, but not impossible.  :)


Kristin says:
      The issue of going straight to finals also bothered me.  But I was told by
coaches of PFD that none of their tournaments had yet had a final round.
They have a group discussion about the topic after the presets have ended.
We decided to hold a final round because there were so many competitiors.
Going to a quarterfinal round would have kept many of the schools later
than they expected.


Me again:
   The tournaments don't generally have out rounds because there aren't usually
enough entrants to justify it.  If you feel the numbers justified outrounds,
then there should be the number of outrounds based on the numbers. eg...
x = Finals,  y = semis,  z = quarters.


Kristin says:
Judging was not a problem, but I don't know if the focus of this new
community is on winning.  Will Baker explained to me that with all of the
tournaments he had been involved with, the atmosphere was cooperative
rather than competitive.  And like I said earlier, that puts time
restrictions on the tournament.


Me again:
   Depends on what you mean by "focus." Certainly there is a lot of comraderie
and cooperation in PFDs. But that should not be construed as the participants
aren't competitve and don't want to win.


Kristin says (in response to a point about needing judges in finals and not a
vote by participants):
Again, I agree.  To us it seemed like a happy medium between no final round
and the community participation at the end.  All students participated in a
ten minute question/answer period at the end of the round.


Me again:
   Question and answer period at the end by participants is fine. But why does
that mean the actual decision should be by those participants. Could have still
had the participation, but added credibility by having the decision rendered by
actual judges.


Kristin, regarding topic wording:
Again, this is a difficult problem to solve.  The way that topics had been
formulated was that the participants were given an ethical situation and
then asked to take a side and argue for it.  What we did is we made a small
version of the topic, made it a value resolution and gave the participants
four articles a week before the tournament.


Me again:
   um... actually your topic was a Question of Fact, not Value. Other than the
way some of the terms could potentially be interpreted, there was no explicit
value judgement in the topic (eg... the topic never said Cultural Imperialism
is bad... it just said it occurs - Aff says yes it does occur, Neg says no it
doesn't).


While I thank Kristin for taking the time to respond, and clear up some of
my misconceptions, I would be curious as to how the CEDA hierarchy
considers some of these questions. Again, none of my message should be
construed as knocking Cornell or their effort. It was the FIRST one. But
precedents can be set, and some of these things should be discussed.
Thanks

                          Mark Whitney
                          SUNY Morrisville



From asnider  Thu Feb 12 13:38:09 1998
From: asnider (Alfred C. Snider)
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 14:38:09 -0500
Subject: Huber Debates 98 team & judge list
Message-ID: <THU.12.FEB.1998.143809.0500.ASNIDER@ZOO.UVM.EDU>

1. Weather is going to be fine on Friday for travel. Good luck.
2. Another year, another breakthrough in awards technology.
3. We upgraded snacks and beverages from last year.

Here they are....

Boston College
Cameratta & Fields open
Marmol & Metz open
Briscoe & Walson jv
Ho judge full
Katsulas judge half

South Carolina
McFadden & Rose open

Richmond
Bates & Luchetti open
Heller judge half

Army
Wehner & Baer open
Villa & DeLong open
Leonard & Ruthe jv
Harris & Fritz jv
Betts & Hanson novice
Angers full
Frederick full
Christrup full

Cornell
Wojtysiak & Kronk open
Edwards & Hightower jv
Novice X
Novice Y
Dybvig judge full
Wilcox judge full

Rochester
McClung & Segaloff jv
White & Pelton novice
Clayton judge full

Syracuse
Pepin & McCann open
Irizarry judge half
Anderson judge 2 + hired
Muerrens judge 1 + hired

Ithaca/Syracuse
Stark & Sroka novice

William Jewell
Harris & Davis open
McGee & Petit open
Woods judge full

NYCity
Weigler & Wilson open
Daniels & Kennan open
Rubino & Brindle jv
Baker judge full

Vermont
Morgan & Snider open
Hoag & Sweeney jv
Parmett & Michel jv
Grover & Mirabelli novice
Lockwood & Garreau novice
Hovden judge full
Miller judge full
Skowron judge full
Cedarfield judge full
Wilson judge full

Trinity/Vermont
Petrie & Young jv
Beggs & McCann novice

Community College of Vermont/Vermont
Soltanoff & Osmonovic

Alfred Charles Snider -- "Tuna", Edwin W. Lawrence Professor of Forensics,
University of Vermont, Mail: 475 Main Street, UVM, Burlington, VT
05405-4225, Phone: 802-656-0097, Fax: 802-656-4275; President, Cross
Examination Debate Association 1997-98
http://debate.uvm.edu/ceda.html; DEBATE CENTRAL:  Debate's Biggest Website
 http://debate.uvm.edu/
+++++
WORLD DEBATE INSTITUTE 1998 - make plans now - http://debate.uvm.edu/ndi.html



From broda  Thu Feb 12 14:14:25 1998
From: broda (Kenneth Broda-bahm)
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 15:14:25 -0500
Subject: Towson Overflow Hotel
Message-ID: <THU.12.FEB.1998.151425.0500.BRODA@SABER.TOWSON.EDU>

Well that was one of the most effective email messages I've ever sent.
Just hours after my post, TU's hotel block sold out (yet another sign that
it is going to be a big rockin tournament!).

Don't fear however, there are two overflow hotels which are directly next
to the Holiday Inn Timonium, providing about 30 more rooms.

        Days Inn        410-560-1000,  $60.00 for dbl dbl, mention "towson
        debate"

        Red Roof Inn    410-666-0380,  $49.99 for 2 per room, $59.99 for 4
        per room.


See you then,
*Remember, come early and you can watch Towson versus Cornell in an
audience debate on Chinese Containment (5pm Thursday).*


Ken Broda-Bahm


 _______________________________________________________
|o                                                     o|
|o     Kenneth T. Broda-Bahm, Asst. Prof.,             o|
|o     Director of Forensics                           o|
|o     Towson University,                              o|
|o     Towson MD, USA, 21252-7097,                     o|
|o     410-830-2888 (office) 410-830-3656 (fax)        o|
|o     KBrodabahm at Towson.Edu                           o|
---------------------------------------------------------



From mcmulpm5  Thu Feb 12 14:17:29 1998
From: mcmulpm5 (patrick)
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 15:17:29 -0500
Subject: HARVARD HS Tourn--HELP!!!
In-Reply-To: <v01540b01b108fa7a2741@[132.198.123.89]>
Message-ID: <THU.12.FEB.1998.151729.0500.MCMULPM5@WFU.EDU>

if anyone on this list knows the current whereabouts of the Greenhill or
Colleyville high school debate teams, their coaches, or anyone invloved
with them, please contact me ASAP. I am supposed to fly into Boston
tonight to meet them, but I have no clue where they are staying, and
Boston seems like a particularly _cold_ place to wander the streets.

thank you

patrick



From m993264  Thu Feb 12 14:24:15 1998
From: m993264 (Midshipman Adam Johnston, USNA)
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 15:24:15 -0500
Subject: Navy caselist: Unattached
Message-ID: <THU.12.FEB.1998.152415.0500.M993264@NADN.NAVY.MIL>

I finally got on a computer that could handle it.  Here's the Navy
caselist unplugged, for those that requested it.

Adam Johnston
U.S. Naval Academy



Allegheny
RW (Nov)
Aff: Plan: US will, as a member of the UN weapons registry, provide all
the necessary funds and
support to set up a regional registry in SEA.  The registry will include
all light weapons.
     Inherency: No registry in SEA; need one
     Adv 1: War
     Adv 2: Spratlys->fish wars will break out if no registry->some have
died already in fish
war
     Adv 3: Weapons of mass destruction->a "pressing threat"
Neg (vs Allegheny RW)
     CP: Japan
     DA: Japan
     T: Security assistance

GP (JV)
Aff: Water->cooperative agency belonging to Asia and US to combat.

VW (JV)
Aff: Population control in SEA
     a) overpopulation is bad and leads to war
     b) responsible for other problems
     c) increase USAID funding
     d) Americas and receiving nations want it
     e) prevents war, abortion, and economic problems
     f) US proven leader
Neg (vs Allegheny VW)
     T: Security assistance is defined by the budget
          a) context (Defense News 1997)
          b) effects-T is illegit
     T: Substantially increase is defined in budgetary terms
          a) Fed. News Service 1997 (1992-1995 budget uses terms)
     Case arguments:
          a) Does not solve
          b) No inherency
          c) Turns on plan mechanism decrease readiness





Augustana

HK (V)
Aff: Cambodian mines--US uses a "toolbox" of technology to cure the
problem.
Neg (vs Augustana HK)
     T: CMAC is not a government
     CP: Have Japan do it; increases Japanese prestige and stops
militarism

SW (NOV):
Aff: Increase DoD funding of IMET and DAP programs to CMAC. Funding will
increase by
     $50 mil. Over a 5 year period.  Funding may be used for mine
detection and removal
     training, technology development, or equipment.  Includes
consultation and cooperation
     with all parties.
Neg (vs Augustana SW):
          T - demining is not SecAsst
          T - CMAC is and NGO, is not a gov't
          Africa Aid Trade Off
          China Encirclement
          Clinton - NATO expansion
          Solvency - mines are dangerous and do not have the tech to
demine
          Inherency
Neg (vs Ausgustana SW):
     Readiness
     Topicality
     CP-Japan performs all actions of the Aff plan





Army
BK (V)
Aff: Increase security talks with AFT; reunify Korea; save the world
Neg (vs Army BK)
     T: Substantial
     D/A: India
     D/A: Culture
     D/A: ASEAN way

DH (V)
Aff: US lends support to further AFR meetings.  We will open and encourage
regional summits
specifically on security issues between ASEAN member nations.
Neg (vs Army DH)
     T: to=exclusive
     T: security assistance
     Clinton-IMF impact
     China
     Being Kritik: Spanos
     Australia CP
     Security regimes

FH (JV)
Aff: increase support for security dialogue in ARF.  Case argues that many
security issues exist in
SEA and that increase dialogue will incorporate China and solve.
Neg (vs Army FH)
     Topicality-the FF does not quantify a substantial increase in SA.
The SA budget is
decreasing now and you don't tell us how much of an increase in the budget
you are.
     China DA-decrease competitiveness causes China to devalue
currency=world collapse
     Case Turns-corrupt govts will prevent solvency.






Boston College
CF (V)
Aff: The USFG will provide $50 million in FMF grants to Laos for obtaining
MWM technology
and for receiving training in UXO removal using the MWM.  The US Army UXO
center will
develop and field test the MWM for Laos.  All information necessary for
disabling the bombs will
be disclosed to Laos.  Existing Special Operations Forces will remain in
Laos until the training is
completed.  Funding will be phased in over a 5-year period through normal
means.
Neg (vs Boston College CF)
     CP: Do plan to NGOs
     T: Humanitarian is not SA
     D/A: Special Operations Trade-off
     Clinton/FMF
     Budget
     Turns: Laos government shunning

DM (V)
Aff: Give $50 million and MWM; use special ops.
        Case: UXO in Laos
           O1: millions of UXOs still active
           O2: UXOs injure civilians and causes famine
           O3: current assistance is inadequate
           O4: solvency with moral obligation that US must do
Neg (vs Boston College DM)
     Wag the Dog: Congress backlash link with IMF impax
     NGO CP
     Human rights T on case

KL (Nov)
Aff: UXOs in Laos
        Millions die; 30% of bombs detonated; 16 of 18 provinces; 200
victims/year; 11,000 since
1973; 43% are children; estimates are low; bombs=famine, decreased
productivity, less
food=malnutrition=death; SQ funding decreasing; US UXO funding decreasing;
training phased
out
        Plan: $50 mil FMF grants for MWM tech and for training through
SOFs in existing US UXO
center.  Phased out after 5 years.
     C1: UXOs in Laos
     C2: unexploded bombs...A. kill civilians B.  Cause
famine/malnutrition/disease
     C3: US security assistance not adequate...will be phased out.
     C4: Solvency
         Laos is asking; MWM is key; MWM solves in 5 years; training
works; US morally obligated
to decrease harms by removing bombs
Neg (vs Boston College KL)
     Topicality-not security assistance because troops are not security
assistance: must do
cooperative efforts like training.
     Topicality-not to country, not to government, therefore not security
assistance.
     China-A)US/China on brink of breakthrough in relations B)US security
policies treat
China as an enemy which undermines US/Sino relations C)China Prolif to ME
and increase
conflicts
     Russia-A)Russia wants influence in SEA B)Views policy as zero-sum
C)Russia at critical
time
     Solvency-Aid and cleaning land won't solve agriculture.  Numbers are
exaggerated.
Neg (vs Boston College KL)
     T
     T
     CP: Australia
     D/A: Monica Lewinsky

MS (V):
Aff: USFG will provide $50 mil to Laos in FMF for
          MWM
          US Army will develop and field test
          all info for disable will be released
          SOF will stay
     5 years
Neg (vs Boston College MS):
          China
          Africa
          CP - USAID

BW (JV):
Aff: $50 mil in FMF grants to Laos UXO using MWM technology to de-bomb
Laos.  Existing
     SOF are used.
Neg (vs Boston College BW):




Case Western
LS (JV)
Aff: Information warfare is a serious concern.  We must strengthen SEA in
information security
(not technology) in order to substantially increase security assistance.
*Malaysia
Neg (vs Case Western LS)
     T: nation vs. people vs. state/country
     D/A: role of China re: regional stability will be upset->war



Clemson

LR (Nov)
Aff: I. Landmines in Laos
     a) mines/bombs in Laos
     b) 1 killed every 2 days
     c) kills children
     d) cause poverty, hunger
     e) increase population, increase danger
     f) WX increases problem
        II. Inherency
     a) current methods slow and dangerous
     b) counterproductive
     c) financial problems prevent
       III. Solvency
     a) new technology
     b) Magnetic Winding Magnetometer
     c) lex foam
     d) increase success with new technology
       IV. Imperative
     a) certainty vs uncertainty
     b) plan straight-forward
       Plan: increase money for new bomb-clearing technology in Laos
Neg (vs Clemson LR)
     Military Overstretch=readiness impacts
     Russian Arms=tech link , crush econ=war
     China summit=new relations, key to solving war
Neg (vs Clemson LR)
     D/A: Clinton foreign policy and NATO
     D/A: Money taken away from Africa foreign aid
     D/A: China problems
     Inherency: US clearing mines
                Nothing prevents technology from going over
                Other countries solve






Cornell

ES (JV)
Aff: Enforce laws banning child sex in Thailand.  Use extraterritorial
jurisdiction to persecute
Americans.  Do education, rehab, jobs.
Neg (vs Cornell ES)
     T: Security assistance: ESF isn't security assistance
     China backlash
     Russia/China

GO (Nov)
Aff: US funds job training and education for child prostitution.  Funding
through ESF.  US allows
for prosecution of pedophiles by expanding jurisdiction to allow for
extradition of US nationals
abroad.
     Harms: 1) AIDS spread by child prostitution; 2) TB spread by child
prostitution; 3)
dehumanization
     Solvency: funding jobs and education programs is crucial to
preventing child prostitution.
Increased prosecution by US sends signals abroad.  US has moral obligation
to prevent spread of
AIDS.
Neg (vs Cornell GO)
     T: disease prevention is development assistance
     Clinton: plan is unpopular; Clinton can't expand NATO
     China: US influence destroys US-Sino relations
     Russia: US influence causes hardliner takeover
     African Crisis Response Initiative: ESF funds trade off with ACRI
     Solvency Turns: Enforcement drives prostitution underground;
prostitution trade shifts to
other areas.

MM (V)
Aff: Through ARF, the USFG will propose and assist in the implementation
of incremental
confidence building measures [that is consistent with the Asian way] to
all relevant topic countries
that will include category one through three CBMs per Dibb.
     Obs1: unique opportunity for peace
     Obs2: A) Arms race, multi polarity leads to war
          B) Pirates lead to miscalc and environmental disaster
     Obs3: Cornell solves, incremental CBMs solve conflicts, transparency
solves, US key to
solving
Neg (vs Cornell MM)
     China relations-China opposes unilateral US support for CBMs
     IMF-Clinton needs to focus all political capital to gain IMF funding
     Case-ASEAN turn, US multilateral action undermines SQ ASEAN coop
Neg (vs Cornell MM)
     Mahatir: support for Malaysia justifies Nazism and oppression of
Jews; reject on face
     India: US influence in SEA crowds out India; risks war
     China: Multilats are bad for Sino-US relations
     No arms races; SQ (ARF) CBMs solve; formalizing upsets China

HK (JV)
Aff: Because of the security crisis in Thailand the USFG will
substantially increase security
assistance by funding education, jobs, rehabilitation programs in Thailand
for the elimination of
child prostitution and aiding in the apprehension of child sex
perpetrators, while traveling in
Thailand. [All relevant actors will be consulted]
     Harms: Child prostitution->AIDS, TB, dehumanization
Neg (vs Cornell HK)
     Topicality-security assistance is defined by arms export and control
act...what congress
authorizes
     ME tradeoff-ESF funds
     Russia Nationalism-US influence trades off with Russian influence;
Foreign policy loses.
=nationalists taking over, =war.

CW (V)
Aff: The USFG should authorize the use of security assistance funds for
technical and economic
support to facilitate and/or monitor the conditions agreed upon for
multilateral joint development
of the disputed areas of the SCS by its claimants.  Reception of the
multilateral join development
aid and will be limited to recognized topical claimants but post
implementation the plan does not
prevent associate claimants from being included in joint development with
the consent of the party
states.
Neg (vs Cornell CW)
     US/Sino-Us-China coop in SQ, an increased US presence hurts US/Sino
relations,
US/Sino relations prevent conflict
     ASEAN-is solving now, increased presence in the region disrupts
ASEAN, turns case,
causes war scenarios that ASEAN was solving
     Case: US will not withdraw, no conflict in the region, ASEAN solves.
Neg (vs Cornell CS)
     T - substantial
     IBC - new outside of the appropriations budget which annoys Congress
leading to conflict
with President over foreign policy
     T/O - ACRI works in status quo, as a result Aff will cause conflict
     Case - SEA stable, no arms race, China will never give up Spratleys





Duke

AT (Nov)
Aff: Give security assistance to Indonesia to solve for he financial
collapse.
Neg (vs Duke AT)
     T=x-T
     Clinton-NATO good, needs pop to pass NATO, plan kills pop, =war
     China=relations okay, plan kills them, dialogue key to war
     Africa=ACRI needs funding, trade off with plan, civil wars increase

KN (JV)
Aff: Switch $43 billion IMF package to Indonesia from the IMF to a
bilateral package.  Case
     advantages = global depression.  IMF is fouling the bailout and US
can solve bilaterally.
Neg (vs Duke KN):
          T - SecAsst = defense articles
          China - plan seizes Chinese influence
          Clinton - NATO good you hurt his political capital
          Russia - plan influence trades off
          Spanos K - lain is reductionist problem solving which inherently
backfires

AM (JV)
Aff: Give fusion reactor tech to topic countries.  Advantage is to stop
fission reactors which
     cause nuclear accidents for 4 reasons earthquakes, human error,
bureaucratic
     incompetence and terrorism.
Neg (vs Duke AM):
          T - SA = defense articles
          Iraq - Clinton must focus, plan trades off
          Fast track - needs capital to pass it





George Mason

AK (JV)
Aff: Increase security assistance to Singapore by DOD authorizing the
export of unfettered
software encryption technology through DCS.
        Adv 1: Hackers
        Adv 2: Information war
        Adv 3: MEAD
Neg (vs George Mason AK)
     Nuke speak
     T: Effects-T: lifting encryption ban is not topical in itself
Neg (vs George Mason AK)
     T: security assistance does not equal relaxing an export ban
     China
     Russia

KW (V)
Aff: Joint exercises with everyone but Laos, Cambodia and Burma
Neg (vs GM KW)
     ASEAN
     US/Sino coop
     China no threat

RW (Nov)
Aff: The USFG will sub increase its SA to Cambodia by providing up to
$10mil annually through
fiscal year 200? for mine and bomb clearance efforts.  These funds will be
provided to the
Cambodian Mine Action Center (CMAC) through FMF and will be in addition to
any funds
and/or programs already provided.  Some of this funding will be earmarked
for providing
appropriate mine and bomb removal tech, including MWM, airnknike, and
explosive foam.  The
"Reuder Harmless" procedures for appropriate US ordinance will also b
provided.  Funding,
enforcement and **** guaranteed through normal means.
Neg (vs GM RW)
     Topicality-dem-mine not SA.  Demine US part of State Depts Funds
     African Trade-off
     China-Aff ruins US/China relations
     Solvency-takeouts and pimps

AC (NOV):
Aff: 300 Cambodians die/mo. Severe horrors, violating human rights, like
Weapons of Mass
     Destruction, on US can solve, need to double the money to CMAC,
tremendous problem,
     US refuses to help, give 10 million over 8 years through FMF for
education, soldiers, and
     tech.  CMAC is best, they train, info is great, there is a moral
responsibility, it would
     improve demining efficiency
Neg (vs George Mason AC):
          T - not giving money to military
          China - US-Sino relationship good, by US increasing =
nationalism in China =
nukes







Georgetown
LM (JV)
Aff: Have Congress pass the IMF $18 million package to help bail out SEA
markets.  This leads
to the following advantages: avoid global panic and global economic
collapse, and rework the
world economic picture.
     Scenario I: Depression with economic meltdown (1 piece of ev)
     Scenario II: India.  The rupee is unstable and vulnerable, causing
economic spillover to
Asia, and a nuke war.
     Scenario III: Russia.  Fascist takeover=nuke war
Neg (vs Georgetown LM)
     NATO: expansion is key to Clinton.  Credibility needs to be high, and
off agenda.  Helms
will oppose and kill NATO if Clinton is weak.
     Middle East: The peace talks are close to being jump-started by
Israel/US, but budget cuts
will disrupt them, leading to war in the Middle East.
     T: Effects-T

BS (V)
Aff: The DOS, in consultation with actors as determined by the Sec., shall
institutionalize US
crisis management teams directed exclusively towards conflicts to which
the topic countries are a
party.
     I. US participation in regional crises inevitable
     II. Conflicts in region are inevitable: 1) religious causes; 2)
environmental causes; 3)
asymmetrical arm acquisitions
     III. Crisis Management Teams Solve: retrain to solve western bias,
include academics on
teams=better perspective
Neg (vs Georgetown BS)
     CP: have Canada do plan
     China: China hates US involvement, relations vital to solve wars
     India: plan diverts focus from India, India focus vital to decrease
risk of war
     Diplomatic Readiness: plan diverts resources from diplomacy,
diplomacy vital to decrease
risk of war
     T: SA=4 programs
     T: Probability: plan only acts in the event of a crisis




George Washington
ES (V)
Aff: USFG establishes a CMC in a topic nation and sends Nest
Neg (vs George Washington ES)
     T: Security assistance
     T: Increase
     D/A: Spending: IMF package will pass now; new spending prevents it;
no
package=collapse world economics
     War will not happen; theory of spiral conflict wrong

DM (V)
Aff: US will guarantee development and deployment of a 3-tiered TMD system
to defend US
friends and allies in the region (no blacklisting countries).  Funding and
implementation through
normal means further speeds and CX clarifies intent.
Neg (vs George Washington DM)
     Clinton-NATO good
     XT: funding TMD
     Enemy creation
     US-Sino relations
     Spending--investor confidence
     On-case: ASEAN solves
             SEA peaceful--no war
             low tensions
Neg (vs George Washington DM)
     Case
     Russia
     Topicality
Neg (vs George Washington DM)
     China
     Russia
     CP: Ban TMD
     Vagueness






Georgia

ES (V)
Aff: US Govt will fund all IMET with Indonesia.  They will unconditionally
restore full funding
for IMET as per the admin request in FY98.  The govt will use all
diplomatic means necessary to
inform Indonesian officials of the new stance.  Funding and enforcement
through normal means.
     AD1: SLOCs, new acquisition=Indo can take over, defense coop ensures
passage.
     AD2: Succession Crisis: Econ crisis hurts Suharto, coup likely, plan
trains military, gives
Suharto popular credibility->impact SCS war
Neg (vs GA ES)
     Topicality-substantially=no material components, must increase all
four components
     African Aid
     Australia CP-with E-IMET solvency
     Case: IMET=poor training/trains killers
          succession and SLOCs takeouts




Harvard
HS (V):
Aff: US will help Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore with anti-piracy
training and regional
     information diffusion center.
          I - Oil Spills (attacks = collisions)
          II - Boat People (refugees kidnaped and raped)
          III - Plutonium (Japanese shipments attacked =
environmental/security disasters)
Neg (vs Harvard HS):
          T - SecAsst must be to reduce trade of weapons for conflict
          T - "TO", assistance is not directly to governments
          T - increase is not create, must use preexisting programs




James Madison University

MW (V)
Aff: Give MWM, lex foam and air knife to Laos.  Refocus R40 per
     Dobson 96 evid
     Obs1-people die
     Obs2-we don't deal with Vietnam, etc.
     Obs3-we solve
     Obs4-risk
Neg (vs JMU MW)
     CP: South Africa
     NATO bad
     T





Kings

AL (Nov)
Aff: The USFG in consultation with all relevant actors will substantially
increase security
assistance to the nation of the Philippines and any other appropriate
topic country which includes
but is not limited to the establishment of NEST and the CBW equivalent of
personnel and
equipment.  Any training, equipment or other logistical requirements will
be provided.
Neg (vs Kings AL)
     Topicality-increase, makes greater from a previous size
     Japan CP-Japan solves better
     Neo-nationalism-they are opposed to any US involvement
     Terrorism-terrorists problems in the ME and passing aff plan leads to
shift of focus
     Iraq-shift of focus

RV (JV)
Aff: NEST - prevent nuclear and chemical terrorism in APR, plan focuses on
solvency for
     Philippines while evidence focuses on APR.  Extend 1st with
Philippines then other nations
     within topic.
Neg (vs Kings RV):
          T - Vagueness is linked to it, can be done in more than one
country
          T - Effects is linked to more than one country
          Africa - funding trade off lack of aid = deaths
          Russia - encirclement with NATO and SEA activity = Boom
          Solvency - NEST budget being reduced
          Japan and ASEAN solve
Neg (vs Kings RV):
          T - SecAsst
          CP - do the plan on Guam
          Clinton - IMF
          K - threat construction
Neg (vs Kings RV):
          T - Vagueness is linked to it, can be done in more than one
country
          T - Effects is linked to more than one country
          Africa - funding trade off lack of aid = deaths
          Russia - encirclement with NATO and SEA activity = Boom
          Solvency - NEST budget being reduced
          Japan and ASEAN solve




Liberty
AF (JV)
Aff: Counter-Narcotics/Constructive Engagement to Burma
        S1: US leadership
        S2: Indian Encirclement
        S3: Human rights
        S4: Drugs
Neg (vs Liberty AF)
     China
     Russia
     Drugs key to Burmese economy
     Clinton Bad: Plan=pass NATO

TW (Nov)
Aff: USFG should coordinate joint maritime patrols between the appropriate
countries in SEA
and guarantee them access to necessary maritime equipment, including, but
not limited to, E-3
Sentry AWACS and Navy P-3 aircraft, equipped with inverse synthetic
aperture radar and low-light television.  Funding=FMF; enforcement through
normal means.
Adv: rapes/killings
         Environment--plutonium shipments
         Economy--economic prosperity and interdependence assure security
of region
Neg (vs Liberty TW)
     T: increase does not mean to create
     D/A: Selective Engagement
     D/A: China
     Inherency: SEA nations are already doing joint patrols; US action is
not needed.

BL (JV)
Aff: Build Malaysian peacekeeping center. 1AC claims peacekeeping good, US
is less willing to
do it so we need to make others more capable of filling in.
Neg (vs liberty BL)
     China-Ziang credibility
     Russia-Foreign policy prestige link

RV (JV):
Aff: The USFG will guarantee SecAsst through military infrastructure
building and a
     substantial increase in military exercises to the Philippines,
Brunei, Malaysia, Singapore,
     Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia.  Additionally, these exercises will be
guaranteed to be done
     on an annual basis.  All necessary interoperability materials will be
transferred through
     FMS and/or FMF.  Joint-exercises to deter China, China creeping into
Sprawlers leads to
     possible nuclear war
Neg (vs Liberty RV):
          Clinton - domestic situation makes unable to deal with foreign
policy causing war
          Russia - nationalists come to power due to zero sum game and
launch nukes
          Humanism - security as only military causes global insecurity
Neg (vs Liberty RV):
     Case-card from Oct 97 that says China wants peace and that there will
be no conflict as
long as US maintains one-China policy

WY (Nov)
Aff: US will guarantee security assistance through military infrastructure
building and a substantial
increase in military exercises to the Philippines, Brunei, Malaysia,
Singapore, Vietnam, Thailand,
and Indonesia.  All necessary interoperability materials will be
transferred through FMS/FMF.

CT (NOV):
Aff: The USFG will substantially increase its security assistance by
providing MWM's,
     AirKnife and lexfoam technology and training to Laos for the removal
of UXO's.
Neg (vs Liberty CT):
          T - SecAsst
          T - increase
          China
          Overstretch
          Russia




Mary Washington

OS (NOV):
Aff: AIDS in military; AIDS weakens military readiness, AIDS in mil.
spreads to civilian
     population; leads to war
     increase SecAsst to combat AIDS; IMET/Military to Military
     Special Forces can solve; mil. Has tools to solve AIDS problem; US
mil. role model
Neg (vs Mary Washington OS):
          T - Humanitarian Aid is not SecAsst
          CP - US AID to prevent spread of AIDS
          Securitization - securitization of issues causes problems
          China - mil. aid in SEA will cause problems

GT (V)
Aff: We claim AIDS in the military decreases readiness.  We do training,
awareness, and blood
screening to all the topic countries except Burma via IMET (IHRM) and SOF.
Neg (vs Mary Washington)
     Russia Encirclement
     Japan soft power/nationality
     Hun Sen credibility
     BBA
     China Encirclement
     Clinton--IMF
     T: Security assistance
     Indonesia relations

SS (JV):
Aff: Military training to reduce risk of AIDS in blood supplies among
soldiers in SEA.  IMET
Neg (vs Mary Washington SS):
          T - SecAsst
          T - Substantial
          Russia
          Readiness




North Carolina

CS (V)
Aff: put aircraft carrier in SCS; do joint exercises with Indonesia,
Malaysia, Philippines, Brunei,
and Vietnam
Neg (vs North Carolina CS)
     T: SA=Aff is not "assisting"
     T: to=because to SCS
     Malaysia: reject aid because Plan is racist
     Militarism Kritik
     Spanos Kritik: problem solving paradigm bad
     African Development Trade-Off D/A
     China

BB (JV)
Aff: Plan deploys aircraft carrier battle group to China.  CI claims US
Naval policy is inconsistent
in SEA; CII says this leads to nuke war, especially because of Spratlys.
Solvency says vs
presence can solve.
Neg (vs North Carolina BB)
     T: "to"
     T: readiness isn't topical
     T: power projection isn't security assistance
     D/A: Iraq--can use bio. weapons; plan distracts military
     D/A: Terrorism--focus shifts link
     D/A: Clinton Sex--Clinton needs to focus domestically; plan
distracts, = BOOM!
Neg (vs North Carolina BB)
     T: security assistance as budget categories
     China Encirclement
     Russia: influence/BOP link

MS (Nov)
Aff: Naval presence inconsistent *Ball 94, Asia perceives US withdrawal
     Adv: SCS conflict *Valencia 96, Mischief Reef proves China
manipulates ASEAN
*McClenan 97, China=wolf in sheep clothing *Valencia 96, China has
military capability to
increase conflict in Spratleys
     PLAN: Security assistance through joint exercises(forward
deployment).
     Dispute will draw in Japan/Russia/US *Valencia 96
     US solves through constant coverage *de Cunnah 97, training/presence
necessary for
solvency *Addicot 90(x2), in order to maximize capability with Chinese-US
must increase
presence in the region *Kagan 97
Neg (vs UNC MS):
     Russia/China-alliance together against US
     Overstretch
     Case: China perceptions of containment, ASEAN does not want US to get
involved,
China military strong, nuclear war






Penn State

SW (JV)
Aff: Plan transfers tech to all topic countries to stop CBWs.
     Obs1-inherency; no plan in place in SEA
     Obs2-CBW Terrorism; millions die
     Obs3-solvency; three ways US can solve in SEA
Neg (vs Penn St SW)
     Topicality-nations
     Topicality-security assistance
     Topicality-increase does not equal establish
     Imperialism (cultural)
     Sino/US

CG (JV)
Aff: Give E-3 and P-3 planes for surveillance and training SEAian nations
(Thai, Phil,
     Singapore, Indo), US retains ownership of equipment.
          Obs1 Status quo can't stop piracy in SEA
          Obs2 Pirates kill, refugees (100 people/yr)
                    Environment pollution - collisions & unmanned ships
Neg (vs Penn State CG):
          Substantial T - must bring budget to  92 level; Security
Assistance T
          Devaluation DA - China will perceive US action as threat to
their increasing econ.
role and will devalue currency to boost foreign investment which sparks
econ. stagnation
          Hollow Military - US has thinning military resources, any use of
forces will trade
off with our ability to respond to Burundi Crisis
          Australian CP

GL (Nov)
Aff: The USFG will substantially increase its security assistance to
southeast Asia by conduction
yearly land and water based join-training with the Philippines and
Malaysia.  We will supply all
necessary and appropriate equipment through FMF and FMS budgets.
     Obs1-US policy ambiguous
     Obs2-A)China will become aggressive in SCS
               B)Regional arms races
     Obs3-increased joint-training solves
Neg (vs Penn St GL)
     Neonationalism -opposing US action
     China
     Iraq focus shift
     Spending




Pittsburgh

DE (V)
Aff: USFG will station ocean peacekeeping capabilities in Singapore.
Naval escorts will be
offered in SEA.
     Obs 1: Inherency: US presence uncertain
     Obs 2: Two arcs of conflict are developing in Asia over energy
concerns.  One is NEA;
the other is SEA.  Energy concerns lead to war
     Obs 3: Solvency
     Main case author: Calder 1996
Neg (vs Pittsburgh DE)
     T: Security assistance is government-to-government; aid does not go
to nations
     T: Extra-T: providing escorts to Japan is XT
     D/A: Clinton good->aid kills popularity needed for NATO
     D/A: China->China hates multilateral actions
     D/A: African aid->trades off and is key to stop war
     CP: Canada->let Canadien navy do plan on case
     No arms race now; joint development solves now

CE (V)
Aff: SLOCs--oil flow to SEA will be cut off, necessitating US patrol boats
to protect the SLOCs.
Many war scenarios.
Neg (vs Pitt CE):
     spending with IMF bailout impact
     Topicality: create does not equal increase
     topicality: Security assistance is decreasing weapons
     Escalating war Theory Wrong (off-case)
     Analytical case arguments







Richmond

AM (JV)
Aff: USFG authorize and regulate export of encryption technology to SEA
Neg (vs Richmond AM)
     US-Sino relations: China reacts with hostility to US involvement in
SEA.
     US-Japan relations: failure to consult with Japan->deterioration in
US-Japan relations,
sparking economic collapse, Japanese rearm
     Trilateral Consultation: US will consult with Japan and China prior
to plan implementation
     T: increase must be a new policy; can't augment a current one
     T: security assistance must be military-to-military exchange

BS (V)
Aff: O1: Peripheral States' Definition of security
       A: Directly threatens state structures
       B: Must use this definition to meet states' needs
        O2: PS fails to adopt this definition
       A: Current paradigm is blind and insolvent
       B: This blocks coherent policy
        O3: This leads to poor policy
       A: PS policy is inapplicable
       B: PS policy is ephemeral
       C: PS policy causes disjuncture
        O4: Multiple security threats exist
        Plan: USFG will incorporate policies that adopt peripheral state
security as advocated by
Mohammed Ayoob, 3rd World Security Predicament. $ by normal means;
enforcement and
implementation as per Ayoob.  Clarification.
        O5: Solvency.  Process is key
Neg (vs Richmond BS)
     China
     India exclusion
     CP: Canada Track II
     Career threat destruction
     Solvency
     T: Security assistance
Neg (vs Richmond BS)
     D/A: China: standard encirclement link story with North Korea impact
     T: Increase: plan must increase security assistance
     Corruption: aiding corrupt regimes destroys SEA economy






Samford
JS (V)
Aff: Use the Coast Guard to train in SEA: all countries but Brunei,
Cambodia and one more...
Excess defense items from coast guard-lanterns, buoys, etc... Excluding
piracy and drug
procedures (as they are more military in nature).
     Scenario1: Oil Spill/Coral Reefs
     Scenario2: Fish
     Scenario3: Fish wars
Neg (vs Samford JS):
     Topicality-substantial
     Africa funding trade-off
     Clinton-Bosnia scenario
     Conditional CP-exclude Indonesia
BD (V):
Aff: Through ASEAN the US, after consulting with regional actors, gives to
necessary topic
     countries the following, comprehensive fisheries enforcement as per
Eaton, including
     comprehensive positioning data, two-way receivers, minimum satellite
tracking of fishing,
     training, land-based integration tech.  The Plan will be implemented
in the South China
     Sea only as part of progress on satisfactory agreement among relevant
parties to individual
     disputes.  Sub-countries unregistered.  Coast Guard skills and
facilities will be made
     available as necessary.  Funding and enforcement guaranteed.
Neg (vs Samford BD):
          T - nation is a group of people, the plan acts toward the
"state", should change
conception of state to make real world changes
          ASEAN Abuse - Acting through ASEAN is abusive, CP ground and
DA's
          Inherency - ASIA Development Bank acting now, no structural
barrier





Trinity

LP (JV)
Aff: USFG sub increase SA to the Philippines by engaging in a
comprehensive cleanup at the
     former Clark AFB and Subic Bay Naval Base.  The DoD in conjunction
with any other
     relevant topical actors will *** at appropriate investigation and
clean up.  Friendly intent
     guaranteed.  Adopting the plan will not trade off with any ongoing or
future cleanup of
     US military bases.
Neg (vs Trinity LP):
          T-increase - increase does not equal create, must be
pre-existing program
          SecAsst T - must help nation approve defense posture
          Nation T - plan deals with state not nation
          Spending - FRB overstretch = depression
          North South - US unilateral actions further polarize

HR (Nov)
Aff: DOD will clean up Subic/Clark, $ does not trade off, other relevant
actions
Neg (vs Trinity HR)
     CP-do the plan through development assistance
     Net-securitization bad, wars and intervention increase
     Regionalism-just selective engagement
     Topicality-Security Assistance

LM (V)
Aff: Dec. 3rd--US backed off of position to cooperate on Subic Bay
clean-up.
     Toxins at Subic Bay threaten health of thousands of families.
     PLAN: 1. DOD will take all appropriate topical action to clean up
Subic Bay.
           2. Appropriations will not trade-off with other base clean-ups.
     Solvency: DOD has technology, it's simple, empirically works, DOD
technology is best, and
DOD is best agent for environmental clean-up.
Neg (vs Trinity LM)
     T: developmental assistance is not security assistance
     T: nation to nation
     Japan D/A: soft power trade-off
     Japan CP: Japan and Asia Foundation/Asia Development Bank will coop.
on clean-up
     Train wreck: environmental clean-up trades off with DOD
modernization--that hurts
readiness necessary fro global stability
     Clinton: Congressional backlash stops NATO expansion
Neg (vs Trinity LM)
     T - nation
     Clinton - NATO





Wake Forest
PY (V):
Aff: The US shall substantially increase demining assistance to Vietnam.
Assistance shall
     include demining training and the transfer of demining technology
including meandering
     winding magnometers, and mine marking and neutralization techniques
are for use in areas
     doused with Agent Orange.
Neg (vs Wake Forest PY):
          T - increase does not = create
          T - SecAsst means only protection against espionage, sabotage,
or attack
          Prolif - increasing spending in region = arms race




Wayne State
MO (V)
Aff: The USFG will provide demining trainers through special operations
forces, technical
expertise and equipment, including, but not limited to: database
information, mine detection and
detonating foam, MWM, air knives, and all coordinating technology to
Cambodia.  Advantage:
people die.
Neg (vs Wayne State MO)
     CP: do plan exactly, but through development assistance (does not
specify which budget)
     Clinton good:  A: mass support for IMF
               B: public doesn't like SA
               C: Congress then will not support IMF
               D: IMF key to global stability
     Interbranch Conflict
     Budget already allocated
     Plan=new spending
     Congress has complete control over SA allocation; Congress gets
upset; Congress and
President don't get along; CP solves for foreign policy issues





West Virginia

BS (JV)
Aff: Plan: Train all SEA militaries and carry out joint exercises
     Adv 1: (SCS) China expansionist->China sees SCS as $$->China has
plans to take SCS->
China needs to be secured
     Adv 2: (Arms Race) China increasing arms buying->other countries
reacting->warrants
action->China wants hegemony in SEA (all same author)
     Adv 3: (Hegemony) Looking to control other SEA nations->China taking
merchant ships->China will control everyone->China could control colonies
     Solvency: A)Need US presence; B)US commitment key to stopping war;
only US can; C)
China will move against SEA no matter what; D)US can solve; E)US checks
Chinese hegemony
Neg (vs West Virginia BS)
     D/A: Clinton IMF: Clinton can only get one foreign policy through.
Plan competes.
Impacts off bottom are war.  Never questioned why war if IMF not funded
for Asian bailout.
     China Backlash: Co-oping now; backlashes when US tries to contain
with critical
agreements on the table.
          Uniqueness 1: card is 1-13-97
          Uniqueness 2: card is 1-15-97
     Big case dump; well-prepared for China debate

BS (JV)
Aff: SCS disputes, US doesn't think its a big deal, but US leadership is
needed in the region so
that everyone will safe enough that they decide not to have to go into an
arms race-nuclear war
impact.
Neg (vs West Virginia BS):
     ME terrorism
     China-fear of encirclement
     Iraq-tradeoff with other programs, millions die

AC (Novice)
Aff: Increase low level boat patrols in SC Sea to keep shipping lanes
open, will inform various
states of boats positions and coordinates.
     Harms: US not intervening, needs US attention, US downsizing in SCS,
Spratleys
could=dispute
     Adv: Arms races-China increase=others increase, any dispute=war,
China uses to get heg.
China heg-increase heg=increase econ, increase China econ=decrease
stability, decrease
stability=decrease econ dev, China is aware and trying to control,
increase control=decrease econ
dev in region, increase China=increase control in Korea.
     Solvency: US has stakes, only US strong enough, without US=war, US
can check, US
must act
     D-Rule: not act now=later belligerent China
Neg (vs WVU AC)
     CP: fund through "desecuritized aid," no real advantage only cards
describing how bad it
is to use "security," not avoidance of DA!
     China(increase relations now): China is increasing links to
neighbors, US/China=stable,
China doesn't want US intervention, misunderstanding=war
     Case: pimp postdating China/Region relations good.

MW (Nov)
Aff: The USFG shall substantially increase its security assistance to the
Philippines and Vietnam
by increasing low level transparent Naval activity in the SCS to ensure
passage of ships and no
escalation in territorial disputes.
Neg (vs WVU MW)
     Domestic noise DA/PMN
     Threat Construction DA/critique

PW (NOV):
Aff: The USFG shall substantially increase its security assistance to the
Philippines and
     Vietnam by increasing lower-level naval activities in the South China
Sea.  China shall be
     informed of all ships at all times.
Neg (vs West Virginia PW):
          T - SecAsst must be bilateral
          Philippines - reject plan, civil war
          Arms Race - tech = perceptions and war
          Fish Wars - surveillance = war



From hbspc164  Thu Feb 12 14:30:30 1998
From: hbspc164 (julie straub)
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 12:30:30 -0800
Subject: wayne state
Message-ID: <THU.12.FEB.1998.123030.0800.HBSPC164@EMAIL.CSUN.EDU>

Tonia Brown please email Phaedra at CSUN.



From STUBYMON  Thu Feb 12 15:02:51 1998
From: STUBYMON (MONICA STUBY)
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 15:02:51 CT
Subject: Questions about Subic Bay (specifically KSTATE)
Message-ID: <THU.12.FEB.1998.150251.CT.STUBYMON@ESUVM.EMPORIA.EDU>

I'm still looking for help from someone on Kstate's squad (I would like to have
 plan text and a couple of cites).  Any help about the subic bay case would be
greatly appreciated!!!
                      Thanks in advance,
                                        Monica



From lsd041  Thu Feb 12 16:38:49 1998
From: lsd041 (Scott Deatherage)
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 16:38:49 -0600
Subject: Orrington Hotel at Novice Nationals
Message-ID: <THU.12.FEB.1998.163849.0600.LSD041@NWU.EDU>

If you have not yet made researvations for the Omni Orrington Hotel at
Novice Nationals (Northwestern), please do so today.  The block expires
tomorrow (Friday, February 13) at 5:00 p.m.  After that, the hotel is not
obliged to honor the tournament rate ($85 per night, 1-4 persons), nor will
they guarantee availability.

SD



From Broveraf  Thu Feb 12 15:48:01 1998
From: Broveraf (Adrienne F. Brovero)
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 16:48:01 -0500
Subject: At-Large Applicants, as of 2-11-98
Message-ID: <THU.12.FEB.1998.164801.0500.BROVERAF@WFU.EDU>

Hey Arnie and applicants - 

I was wondering if actual copies of teams' applications would be posted to the web page?  If not, might applicants send a copy to EDebate?  No big deal, I have always been curious and used to read thru the ones we received when Ross was on the committee, and was curious to see what the other applications looked like this year.  
just curious,
adri
u of m


----------
From:   Arnie Madsen[SMTP:Arnie.Madsen at UNI.EDU]
Sent:   Wednesday, February 11, 1998 4:47 PM
To:     EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU
Subject:        At-Large Applicants, as of 2-11-98

The following is the list of teams whose applications have been
received as of 3:45 CST on Wednesday, Feb 11.  Remember the deadline
for receipt of applications is 5:00 p.m. CST tomorrow.

Arnie Madsen
arnie.madsen at uni.edu

----------

First-Round At-Large Bid Applicants

Emory -- Fitzmeier and Heidt
Emory -- Kouros and Sahni
Fullerton -- Heider and Lambrinos
Georgetown -- Kwon and Steele
Georgia -- Cates and McIntosh
Iowa -- Peterson and Rayburn
Michigan -- Stoughton and Wexler
North Texas -- Holloway and Morrow
Northwestern -- Gottleib and Sparacino
Northwestern -- Sato and Sohrn
Southern Illinois -- Moore and Vuglia
Southern Illinois -- Slusher and Smith
Texas -- Griffin and Renken
West Georgia -- Bonilla and Carver

>From  Thu Feb 12 17:24:53 1998
Message-Id: <THU.12.FEB.1998.172453.0500.>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 17:24:53 -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: need help with internet class
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII

Hi,

I am in charge of an internet research seminar for our first year
students.  During the first part of the seminar, I taught students
how to use the 5 standard criteria to evaluate web info and had
them apply it to various web sites.

Now, I am looking to expand this discussion a bit by talking about
why students should not neglect other forms of research just because
they have internet access.

What I was looking for from the community was any ideas for an activity
to connect to this lesson.  I roughly know what I want to discuss, but
I was wondering if anyone has done any of these activities before and
has any ideas to offer me.

Any help is greatly appreciated.

kelly young
John Carroll U



From dbteam  Thu Feb 12 16:44:55 1998
From: dbteam (WGC Debate Team)
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 17:44:55 -0500
Subject: At-Large Applicants, as of 2-11-98
In-Reply-To: <01BD37D6.0932DFE0@slip129-37-44-18.il.us.ibm.net>
Message-ID: <THU.12.FEB.1998.174455.0500.DBTEAM@WESTGA.EDU>

west ga's is on the way if i can figure out how to operate this damn
thing.

On Thu, 12 Feb 1998, Adrienne F. Brovero wrote:

> Hey Arnie and applicants -
>
> I was wondering if actual copies of teams' applications would be posted to the web page?  If not, might applicants send a copy to EDebate?  No big deal, I have always been curious and used to read thru the ones we received when Ross was on the committee, and was curious to see what the other applications looked like this year.
> just curious,
> adri
> u of m
>
>
> ----------
> From:   Arnie Madsen[SMTP:Arnie.Madsen at UNI.EDU]
> Sent:   Wednesday, February 11, 1998 4:47 PM
> To:     EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU
> Subject:        At-Large Applicants, as of 2-11-98
>
> The following is the list of teams whose applications have been
> received as of 3:45 CST on Wednesday, Feb 11.  Remember the deadline
> for receipt of applications is 5:00 p.m. CST tomorrow.
>
> Arnie Madsen
> arnie.madsen at uni.edu
>
> ----------
>
> First-Round At-Large Bid Applicants
>
> Emory -- Fitzmeier and Heidt
> Emory -- Kouros and Sahni
> Fullerton -- Heider and Lambrinos
> Georgetown -- Kwon and Steele
> Georgia -- Cates and McIntosh
> Iowa -- Peterson and Rayburn
> Michigan -- Stoughton and Wexler
> North Texas -- Holloway and Morrow
> Northwestern -- Gottleib and Sparacino
> Northwestern -- Sato and Sohrn
> Southern Illinois -- Moore and Vuglia
> Southern Illinois -- Slusher and Smith
> Texas -- Griffin and Renken
> West Georgia -- Bonilla and Carver
>



From Kenneth.DeLaughder  Thu Feb 12 16:54:43 1998
From: Kenneth.DeLaughder (Kenneth DeLaughder)
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 15:54:43 -0700
Subject: At-Large Applicants, as of 2-11-98
In-Reply-To: <01BD37D6.0932DFE0@slip129-37-44-18.il.us.ibm.net>
Message-ID: <THU.12.FEB.1998.155443.0700.KENNETH.DELAUGHDER@ENMU.EDU>

I think adrienne has a great idea.  We might apply sometime, and I think
it would help us to see what others have done.  Also as a debate junkie,
IM always curious to read about the process and form my own opinions.

in the interest of discosure and openness? :)

great idea!

Ken
ENMU

p.s. thanks again adrienne for the always good intell!

--------------------------------------
Kenneth DeLaughder           "Do not be too proud of this technological
Assistant Debate Coach        terror you've constructed...The ability to
Eastern NM University         destroy a planet is insignificant compared
Station #3                    to the power of the Force..."
Portales, NM  88130
(505) 562-2741 (office)                 - Darth Vader, giving a good 2AR

>From  Thu Feb 12 18:34:57 1998
Message-Id: <THU.12.FEB.1998.183457.0100.>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 18:34:57 +0100
Reply-To: Earnest.L.Neighbors at samford.edu
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: "Earnest L. Neighbors" <Earnest.L.Neighbors at SAMFORD.EDU>
Subject: Breshears or Kuswa
In-Reply-To: <Pine.A41.3.95.980212151518.150406B-100000 at f1n11.spenet.wfu.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII

Backchannel, por favor.

Len

-----------------------------------------
Earnest L. Neighbors
Email: Earnest.L.Neighbors at samford.edu
Samford University



From marnold  Thu Feb 12 17:38:50 1998
From: marnold (Mark S. Arnold)
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 18:38:50 -0500
Subject: Clemson
Message-ID: <THU.12.FEB.1998.183850.0500.MARNOLD@RICHMOND.EDU>

Could someone at Clemson backchannel me...


Mark Arnold
Richmond Debate

>From  Thu Feb 12 17:51:33 1998
Message-Id: <THU.12.FEB.1998.175133.0600.>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 17:51:33 -0600
Reply-To: rchurch at frank.mtsu.edu
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Russell Church <rchurch at FRANK.MTSU.EDU>
Organization: Middle Tennessee State University
Subject: Southeast Central,
 Southeast Regionals and NDT Districts -- Hotels & Special Requests
Comments: To: epanetta <EPANETTA at UGA.CC.UGA.EDU>,
 David Steinberg <dave at miami.edu>
Comments: cc: Allan Louden <louden at ac.wfunet.wfu.edu>, Ross <smithr at wfu.edu>,
 Mike <MJJanas at Samford.Edu>, "J.W. Patterson" <jwpatt00 at pop.uky.edu>,
 David <joudmc at panther.gsu.edu>, Ede <e0warn01 at homer.louisville.edu>,
 Cori <CDauber at email.unc.edu>, Bill <wnewnam at Emory.Edu>,
 Jim <jbrey at garnet.acns.fsu.edu>,
 Berube at Garnet.Cla.Sc.Edu, Melissa <mwade at Emory.Edu>,
 Garry Vance <VanceG at cts.db.erau.edu>,
 Michael Davis <davismk13 at aol.com>, David <Dave at miami.edu>,
 Mike Hester <dbteam at westga.edu>, Clay Rhodes <rhodecs5 at wfu.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I hope all have their hotel rooms by now.  If not, email me or call me
now and I will try to find you rooms.  I will be gone next week Thursday
through Tuesday.  If you cancel rooms at the Shoney's please post a
notice to me and to edebate so those wanting there can have a chance at
grabbing your rooms.

We look forward to providing a lot of hospitality.  Coaches party on
Friday and general reception with tons of food for ALL debaters and
coaches on Saturday. Southeast and Southeast Central Tournament will
have a lunch and/or awards breakfast.  Based on number of teams entered,
we will have you centrally located.  Evidence storage over night is a
problem at this point, because of security and the buildings we will be
using.  But we should be centrally located with a minimum of movement.
Let me know any special requests.

See you very soon.


Regards,


Russell Church
615-898-5607 (Office)
615-898-2640 (Department Secretary)
615-898-5826 (Fax)

MTSU Box 43
Murfreesboro, Tn. 37132

CHECK OUT MTSU DEBATE TEAM HOME PAGE!
http://www.mtsu.edu/~debate
CHECK OUT RUSS'S HOME PAGE!
http://ritchi.mtsu.edu/wcb/schools/LA/spee/rchurch/rchurch.html



From Arnie.Madsen  Thu Feb 12 18:02:07 1998
From: Arnie.Madsen (Arnie Madsen)
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 18:02:07 -0600
Subject: Final At-Large Bid Applicant List
Message-ID: <THU.12.FEB.1998.180207.0600.ARNIE.MADSEN@UNI.EDU>

The following 24 teams submitted their applications for 1st-Round
At-Large Bids to the National Debate Tournament by the 5:00 p.m.
deadline.

Good luck to all.  Results of the voting will be posted on the
NDT Director's Web Page on Sunday, around noon (or early afternoon).

First-Round At-Large Bid Applicants -- Total of 24 applicants

Dartmouth -- Hung and Lehotsky
Emory -- Fitzmeier and Heidt
Emory -- Kouros and Sahni
Fullerton -- Heider and Lambrinos
George Mason -- Krein and Weiner
Georgetown -- Kwon and Steele
Georgia -- Cates and McIntosh
Harvard -- Engstrom and Starr
Iowa -- Peterson and Rayburn
Kansas -- Ardebili and McKeehan
Kansas -- Eber and Miller
Liberty -- Burns and Lawrence
Michigan -- Stoughton and Wexler
Michigan State -- Blair and Donald
Michigan State -- Cornelier and Sullivan
North Texas -- Holloway and Morrow
Northwestern -- Gottleib and Sparacino
Northwestern -- Sato and Sohrn
Southern California -- Hurder and Stetson
Southern Illinois -- Moore and Vuglia
Southern Illinois -- Slusher and Smith
Texas -- Griffin and Renken
Wake Forest -- Atchison and Green
West Georgia -- Bonilla and Carver

--
Arnie Madsen                                          arnie.madsen at uni.edu

UNI Director of Forensics                      http://www.uni.edu/forensic
NDT Committee Chair                                 http://www.uni.edu/ndt
Kenneth Burke Society Treasurer
http://www.siu.edu/departments/english/acadareas/rhetcomp/burke/index.html

Office:   Communication Studies, University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls,
          IA  50614-0357      (O) (319) 273-7200      (FAX) (319) 273-7356

Home:     410 Home Park Blvd, Waterloo, IA  50701       (H) (319) 235-8866

>From  Thu Feb 12 19:22:06 1998
Message-Id: <THU.12.FEB.1998.192206.0500.>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 19:22:06 -0500
Reply-To: nbutt at erols.com
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Neil Butt <nbutt at EROLS.COM>
Subject: KY Results
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

We (GMU) got the information we needed. Thanks to everyone that
responded (and so quickly)! I really appreciate it.

-Neil

>From  Thu Feb 12 18:48:23 1998
Message-Id: <THU.12.FEB.1998.184823.0000.>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 18:48:23 +0000
Reply-To: Davi.A.Johnson at samford.edu
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: "Davi A. Johnson" <Davi.A.Johnson at SAMFORD.EDU>
Subject: Wake Forest and Emory
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII

Hey,

 If someone could please backchannel me. . .

 I am looking for cites for Emory's deforestation case, and
Wake's urban development and coral reefs/biodiversity
cases.

 Thank you,

 Davi

-----------------------------------------
Davi A. Johnson
Email: Davi.A.Johnson at samford.edu
Samford University



From warming_files  Thu Feb 12 19:31:31 1998
From: warming_files (john stine)
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 17:31:31 PST
Subject: Sara Partlow only
Message-ID: <THU.12.FEB.1998.173131.PST.WARMINGFILES@HOTMAIL.COM>

Sara-

   Skippy said you were probably the one to talk to about working the KU
camp this summer.  This is an opportunity in which I an very interested.
Any information you could send (obviously AFTER the Heart!) would be
greatly appreciated.  Just let me know what info you need from
me...(letters of rec, experience working camps, etc...).

See you at the Heart!

W. James Taylor, SIU undergraduate coaching staff

warming_files at hotmail.com

705 West College Street
Carbondale,  IL  62901

618-549-4046

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



From warming_files  Thu Feb 12 19:36:34 1998
From: warming_files (john stine)
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 17:36:34 PST
Subject: Linda Collier, only
Message-ID: <THU.12.FEB.1998.173634.PST.WARMINGFILES@HOTMAIL.COM>

Linda,

   Hello!  I was wondering if you had any information about the UMKC
summer camp?  I am looking for a staff position for the Summer '98 camp.
The last time I inquired about the camp you asked for a letter
explaining why I should/could/want to teach HIGH SCHOOL students.  Is
there any other information you might need at this time?  I'm not sure
where you are at in terms of the camp right now..., but any information
would be helpful.

Sincerely,

Sweet Baby James
SIU
warming_files at hotmail.com
618-549-4046

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



From warming_files  Thu Feb 12 19:48:53 1998
From: warming_files (john stine)
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 17:48:53 PST
Subject: USC--Markowski
Message-ID: <THU.12.FEB.1998.174853.PST.WARMINGFILES@HOTMAIL.COM>

Markowski-

  Hey man.  Hope you had a good time in Carbondale (sorry the cheap
hookers didn't come through!)...
  A couple of things..
  Metz asked me to see if you could send some cites for "Indo. is
laying/will lay mines," "Sing. solvency," and "Sing. has jurisdiction
over straits.."
   Also, have you guys found any good answers to the Marine Mammal CP?
Back on the CEDA oceans topic, there were flaming cards about how they
get abused, etc.  I'm looking around for them...I know some one has got
to have them!  I can also send whatever Metz & I find for sea
mines/Magic Lantern.
  Rumor has it that USC is ditching CEDA Nats...cash flow?
  Hopefully, I'll see you guys at the NDT.  Best of luck.

  Peace.

JT     SIU

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

>From  Thu Feb 12 19:40:11 1998
Message-Id: <THU.12.FEB.1998.194011.0800.>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 19:40:11 -0800
Reply-To: jhizm at JUNO.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Joe W Kilpatrick <jhizm at JUNO.COM>
Subject: Cambodian Mine Action Center. . .

Community,
      Having recently returned from a tournament where inherency became
an issue for the demining case to Cambodia, I wanted to post this as both
a notice of new material for your use and for general knowledge.  I have
communicated with Col. Matt Carr of PACOM in Hawaii regarding current
demining policy in Cambodia, and am making available to you the text of
that communication, courtesy of America Online.  To copy this transcript,
please visit my website at

http://members.aol.com/DrJWK/Cambodia

This information should not be devastatingly crucial to any round, other
than to simply clarify current policy.  Hence, it is not my intention to
create a precedent of personal communication as being legitimate resource
material.  However, the circumstances of this last tournament coupled
with the sheer absence of literature clearly defining this issue
indicates to me the necessity for this offer...


               If you have any questions mail me,
                                                Joe Kilpatrick
                                                SMSU

                                                Jhizm at juno.com


_____________________________________________________________________
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 sellis1  Thu Feb 12 21:25:13 1998
From: sellis1 (Andy Ellis)
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 22:25:13 -0500
Subject: some one from msu who runs encryption
In-Reply-To: <19980212.194012.3934.0.Jhizm@juno.com>
Message-ID: <THU.12.FEB.1998.222513.0500.SELLIS1@TIGER.TOWSON.EDU>

i need to get some cites from you all .
ok thats all i got to say.
Andy
Towson



From cornell7  Thu Feb 12 21:40:26 1998
From: cornell7 (Erik Andrew Cornellier)
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 22:40:26 -0500
Subject: Michigan SW
Message-ID: <THU.12.FEB.1998.224026.0500.CORNELL7@PILOT.MSU.EDU>

Corey or Leslie...

could you please backchannel me?  Soon?
 or anyone from michigan for that matter


erik
--



From cornell7  Thu Feb 12 21:41:06 1998
From: cornell7 (Erik Andrew Cornellier)
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 22:41:06 -0500
Subject: Kansas MA
Message-ID: <THU.12.FEB.1998.224106.0500.CORNELL7@PILOT.MSU.EDU>

Grant or Hajir..


please backchannel me as soon as possible


thanks


erik--



From cornell7  Thu Feb 12 21:42:52 1998
From: cornell7 (Erik Andrew Cornellier)
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 22:42:52 -0500
Subject: Shunning
Message-ID: <THU.12.FEB.1998.224252.0500.CORNELL7@PILOT.MSU.EDU>

Hello all,

could anyone send me the cites they have to a position called

'Shunning'  --sounds scary doesn't it.  Twould be a large help.  Thanks!

erik


--



From warming_files  Thu Feb 12 22:36:52 1998
From: warming_files (john stine)
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 20:36:52 PST
Subject: Montey   K-State
Message-ID: <THU.12.FEB.1998.203652.PST.WARMINGFILES@HOTMAIL.COM>

Montey-

   Missed you at the Saluki...Just wondering if you guys had any good
"shunning" cites for impact/voter cards?

  Any info would be greatly appreciated.

Peace.

J.T.,  SIU

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



From warming_files  Thu Feb 12 22:41:39 1998
From: warming_files (john stine)
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 20:41:39 PST
Subject: Grant McKeon (KU) only
Message-ID: <THU.12.FEB.1998.204139.PST.WARMINGFILES@HOTMAIL.COM>

Grant-

  Just wondering if I could get some of the "shunning" cites you ran at
the Jesuit...anything other than Gordon '95 ISRAEL... and Gordon &
Gordon '95 SARTRE AND EVIL.  Looking forward to the Heart.  Perhaps I'll
see you at Skippy's birthday party...?

  Thanks,

J. Taylor "JT", SIU

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



From warming_files  Thu Feb 12 22:44:35 1998
From: warming_files (john stine)
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 20:44:35 PST
Subject: Tara Tate only
Message-ID: <THU.12.FEB.1998.204435.PST.WARMINGFILES@HOTMAIL.COM>

T.T.-

What up, dog pound?  Just wondering if could help me out with some
"shunning" cites (impact/voter cards and answers)...?

What are your plans for next year?

See you at the Heart.

Peace
 JT, SIU

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



From warming_files  Thu Feb 12 22:47:50 1998
From: warming_files (john stine)
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 20:47:50 PST
Subject: Ken Delaughter  only
Message-ID: <THU.12.FEB.1998.204750.PST.WARMINGFILES@HOTMAIL.COM>

Ken-

  Hey fool...just wondering id you could hook me up with some shunning
cites...impact/voter cards and answers ...already have Gordon & Gordon
'95 SARTRE AND EVIL, and Gordon '95 ISRAEL, INTIFADA AND THE RISE OF
POLITICAL DEMOCRACY....See you at Heart!



JT
warming_files at hotmail.com
618-549-4046

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



From kenny420  Thu Feb 12 23:24:07 1998
From: kenny420 (kenny s hanson)
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 00:24:07 -0500
Subject: Airfare to CEDA/NDT Nats
Message-ID: <FRI.13.FEB.1998.002407.0500.KENNY420@JUNO.COM>

Last chance. If anybody wants to fly on AirMercer now is the time to let
me know. If not I can't assure any prices!



                                        Kenny Hanson
                                        Mercer U

_____________________________________________________________________
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 rrao  Thu Feb 12 23:46:46 1998
From: rrao (Ravi)
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 23:46:46 -0600
Subject: Subscribe Me
Message-ID: <THU.12.FEB.1998.234646.0600.RRAO@ARTSCI.WUSTL.EDU>

What do I need to do in order to join the listserve?

Ravi Rao
Washington University
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/19980212/54c2be83/attachment.html 


From rrao  Fri Feb 13 00:22:46 1998
From: rrao (Ravi)
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 00:22:46 -0600
Subject: Help Us Build A Program
Message-ID: <FRI.13.FEB.1998.002246.0600.RRAO@ARTSCI.WUSTL.EDU>

The Washington University Debate Team, located in St. Louis, is barely a year old.  We started with four members, and have now expanded to fourteen.  As the team has expanded, so has support from our university in every area except one.  We are an entirely student run team and have been so since our inception.  We enjoy every aspect of coordinating team events, but as you might imagine, this becomes more cumbersome with such a rapidly growing program now including CEDA/NDT, NPDA, and IEs.

The area in which we need help (and hopefully you out there can help us) is convincing our school to hire a full time coach.  So far, the administration has allocated a perfectly adequate traveling budget for the size team we have, but they suggest we hire a coach out of this budget as well.  The problem is that the administration knows very little about the intensity of the activity and the immense benefits reaped by the participants.  Our budget is certainly too small to even hire an assistant without severely detracting from our involvement in tournaments.  We truly believe that the benefits of having a qualified, full time coach would be well worth the cost.

YOU CAN HELP!  Any coaches, administrators, or other individuals with significant knowledge of the forensics activity can help us by writing to our faculty advisor (these letters will get to the chancellor) about how important expert instruction is to the education of all the competitors and how secure an investment a coach would be to the university.

We have already received a great deal of support from the members of the debate community as a whole (really too many to thank all at once).  But we would especially like to extend our gratitude to Tom Preston (University of Missouri, St. Louis) and Carrie Crenshaw (University of Alabama).  Thanks to all who help us out.  Every letter will be appreciated and beneficial to the whole debate community.

Mathew Crawford
Ravi Rao
The Entire Washington University Debate Team
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/19980213/efbae2fa/attachment.htm 


From rrao  Fri Feb 13 00:26:48 1998
From: rrao (Ravi)
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 00:26:48 -0600
Subject: Help Us Build A Program II
Message-ID: <FRI.13.FEB.1998.002648.0600.RRAO@ARTSCI.WUSTL.EDU>

For those of you who couldn't tell by the previous garbled message (please read if you have not already), you can send a letter of support to:

Jill Carnaghi
1 Brookings Drive
Campus Box 1068
Washington University
St. Louis, MO 63130

Thanks once again from the Washington University Debate Team.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/19980213/4f6fd9f5/attachment.html 


From wnewnam  Fri Feb 13 09:14:22 1998
From: wnewnam (William E Newnam)
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 10:14:22 -0500
Subject: Memoriam to a Cornucopian
In-Reply-To: <19980212.194012.3934.0.Jhizm@juno.com>
Message-ID: <FRI.13.FEB.1998.101422.0500.WNEWNAM@EMORY.EDU>

Community,

One of debate's classic sources died recently.  Given that many
debaters owed successful careers and memorable debate moments to the man,
I thought many of y'all'd like to know.

peace,

bill n
emory



I saw the following obituary in the Atlanta Constitution, Thursday,
February 12, 1998 (Associated Press):

        Julian L. Simon, the economist who argued that, by material measures, the
human standard of living would only improve, died Sunday.
        Mr. Simon suffered a heart attack at his home in Chevy Chase, Md.
        A Professor of business administration at the University of
Maryland, Mr. Simon challenged common beliefs by asserting that increasing
world population and standards or living were compatible.
        Saying that "the doomsayers have been wrong for 25 years," Mr.
Simon wrote in a 1995 essay that every measure of human welfare has only
improved.
        Mr. Simon believed that immigration benefits rather than threatens
the U.S economy, by enlarging the workforce and boosting productivity.  He
also asserted that shortages of resources did not pose a theat, pointing
out that the prices of food and materials have continuously declined
throughout history.

>From  Fri Feb 13 10:17:29 1998
Message-Id: <FRI.13.FEB.1998.101729.0600.>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 10:17:29 -0600
Reply-To: ssegal at BRACEPATT.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: ssegal at BRACEPATT.COM
Subject: Memoriam to a Cornucopian -Reply
Comments: To:
 BPHOU.BPHOU1#c#MCI#c#REMS#c#William_E_Newnam#s#INTERNET#s##034#wnewnam#064#EMORY.EDU#034#@po.bracepatt.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

To Bill and the Community:  Thanks for posting the obit of Julian
Simon, "growth is good" source par excellance.  A quick story
for some interesting debate perspective:

About six months ago, one of my clients -- an industrial trade
organization -- asked me to contact Simon about a speaking gig.
I did so, and the dates never worked out.  However, Simon and I
struck up an all-too-brief friendship that included numerous
phone calls and one memorable afternoon with him at his home
in Chevy Chase.  On that sunny day, we walked around his
garden (he kidded that, contrary to popular belief, he probably
spent more time "in nature" than a whole host of Paul Erhlichs).

Our real topic of discussion?  Intercollegiate debate.  I couldn't
help but tell him that he had been grist for the mill for many,
MANY debate rounds; indeed, that to mention his name was to
invite source idicts.  He was tremendously amused.  At first, he
noted that he was mistrustful of debate because it seemed that
it was too easy to twist the printed word (too true).

However, once I described to him the almost quantified
approach modern policy debate takes, and pointed out that it
was a conduit for challenging prevailing orthodoxies, he
became quite enthusiastic.  Indeed, he even wanted to come
see a growth round some time.

Wouldn't that have been art imitating life.

Anyway, his fiery (and clever) rhetoric aside, Julian Simon
struck me as a gentle man that grooved on debate's embrace
of the growth debate and, more broadly, on critical thinking in
general.

Ciao,

Scott Segal
Bracewell & Patterson
George Washington Debate



>>> William E Newnam 02/13/98 11:42am >>>
Date: Fri Feb 13, 1998  9:30 am  CST
Source-Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 10:14:22 -0500
From: William E Newnam
   EMS: INTERNET
   MBX: wnewnam at EMORY.EDU

*TO: EDEBATE
   EMS: INTERNET
   MBX: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU
BCC: segash at po1
   EMS: Bracewell & Patterson
   MBX: segash at po1
Subject:  Memoriam to a Cornucopian
Handling: LETTER
Message-Id: 98021315303544/INTERNETGWDN3IG
Source-Msg-Id:
<Pine.GSO.3.96.980213100611.20639C-100000 at paladin.cc.emory.edu>
U-X-Sender: wnewnam at paladin.cc.emory.edu


Community,

One of debate's classic sources died recently.  Given that many
debaters owed successful careers and memorable debate
moments to the man,
I thought many of y'all'd like to know.

peace,

bill n
emory



I saw the following obituary in the Atlanta Constitution,
Thursday,
February 12, 1998 (Associated Press):

        Julian L. Simon, the economist who argued that, by material
measures, the
human standard of living would only improve, died Sunday.
        Mr. Simon suffered a heart attack at his home in Chevy
Chase, Md.
        A Professor of business administration at the University of
Maryland, Mr. Simon challenged common beliefs by asserting
that increasing
world population and standards or living were compatible.
        Saying that "the doomsayers have been wrong for 25
years," Mr.
Simon wrote in a 1995 essay that every measure of human
welfare has only
improved.
        Mr. Simon believed that immigration benefits rather than
threatens
the U.S economy, by enlarging the workforce and boosting
productivity.  He
also asserted that shortages of resources did not pose a theat,
pointing
out that the prices of food and materials have continuously
declined
throughout history.



From ludebate  Fri Feb 13 10:14:18 1998
From: ludebate (Liberty University Debate Team)
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 12:14:18 -0400
Subject: Max at Pittsburgh
Message-ID: <FRI.13.FEB.1998.121418.0400.LUDEBATE@LIBERTY.EDU>

Hey Max,

I was just wondering if I could get the cites from the new "Build a
Monument to Women in Vietnam" case.  Could you also explain what the aff
does and its advantages as well.

Thanks a lot,

rob burns

Independence for Scotland



From ludebate  Fri Feb 13 10:19:12 1998
From: ludebate (Liberty University Debate Team)
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 12:19:12 -0400
Subject: TOWSON
Message-ID: <FRI.13.FEB.1998.121912.0400.LUDEBATE@LIBERTY.EDU>

Hey fellas,

How are you guys doing?  I was wondering if I could get the cites and the
full story on the kritik you beat me down with at Richmond (GEOPOLITICAL
DISCOURSE) :).  Thanks a lot.


rob burns @ LU

power to the people



From revelins  Fri Feb 13 12:19:38 1998
From: revelins (revelins)
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 10:19:38 -0800
Subject: Emory/anyone familiar with forestry case only
Message-ID: <FRI.13.FEB.1998.101938.0800.REVELINS@USC.EDU>

I am looking for the cite for the master's thesis from which most of the
cards for Emory's Indonesian forestry case come from, as well as
information for how one is to go about acquiring it (do you have to
order it, can this be done through the web, etc). If anyone has this
information and could either email it to myself, or Jeff Griswold at
Jdgriswold at aol.com, then thanks in advance.

    Armands Revelins
    USC debate

>From  Fri Feb 13 14:26:02 1998
Message-Id: <FRI.13.FEB.1998.142602.0500.>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 14:26:02 -0500
Reply-To: Mark_W_Yopp at MTA.WFU.EDU
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Mark Yopp! <Mark_W_Yopp at MTA.WFU.EDU>
Subject: Novice Nationals
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

     To add to the list, Wake Forest will have at least 4 teams at Novice
Nationals

     Powell/Yopp!
     Bonura/Covey
     Ellis/Lotz
     Ryan/Atchison

Cases run by these teams include
     Demine Vietnam, Clean up the Subic Bay, Joint Development of the SCS,
EDAs to solve cyanide fishing and the bends in the Coral Reefer of
Indonesia and the Phillipines, and Debomb Laos.

Other teams I know that have posted are Northwestern and Georgia, if there
are any more that I have missed, I would appreciate resending them.  Thanks
a lot

Yopp!!!



From Kenneth.DeLaughder  Fri Feb 13 14:51:20 1998
From: Kenneth.DeLaughder (Kenneth DeLaughder)
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 13:51:20 -0700
Subject: College of Eastern Utah
Message-ID: <FRI.13.FEB.1998.135120.0700.KENNETH.DELAUGHDER@ENMU.EDU>

could someone backchannel me from CEU, I got the number once but lost it.
I'd like to talk about next year.

Ken
ENMU



From race  Fri Feb 13 17:30:41 1998
From: race (David Bruce Rhaesa)
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 17:30:41 -0600
Subject: [Fwd: zyprexa blues #134]
Message-ID: <FRI.13.FEB.1998.173041.0600.RACE@MIDUSA.NET>

sorry i'm a day late with this weekly magazine everyone.
david
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: David Bruce Rhaesa <race at midusa.net>
Subject: zyprexa blues #134
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 21:15:21 -0600
Size: 695
Url: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/19980213/4895cd84/attachment.mht 


From dpfiste1  Thu Feb 12 16:55:38 1998
From: dpfiste1 (Damien S. Pfister)
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 22:55:38 +0000
Subject: miami (fl), please
Message-ID: <THU.12.FEB.1998.225538.0000.DPFISTE1@UA1VM.UA.EDU>

could regina from miami please backchannel me as soon as possible.
if she's not on edebate, could someone else from the miami squad
respond...i got questions, and i hear you have many of the answers.
thanks.

damien
university of alabama



From jrellis  Fri Feb 13 19:15:05 1998
From: jrellis (Jared Ellis)
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 17:15:05 -0800
Subject: Whitman
Message-ID: <FRI.13.FEB.1998.171505.0800.JRELLIS@LCLARK.EDU>

        Could someone from Whitman backchannel me?

        Jared Ellis
        Lewis and Clark



From ludebate  Fri Feb 13 21:27:29 1998
From: ludebate (Liberty University Debate Team)
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 23:27:29 -0400
Subject: Richmond Univ.
Message-ID: <FRI.13.FEB.1998.232729.0400.LUDEBATE@LIBERTY.EDU>

We are wondering if you could tell us either the plan text to your
Pornography case and advantages or if you will be running it.  Thanks for
any help.

Liberty



From debateprof  Sat Feb 14 01:11:40 1998
From: debateprof (Bill T Sheffield)
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 23:11:40 -0800
Subject: piracy cases
Message-ID: <FRI.13.FEB.1998.231140.0800.DEBATEPROF@JUNO.COM>

Sorry to bother, but could anyone running piracy backchannel me with your
plan text.  I think that there are a couple of different versions out
there.  Could you also include affirmative cites?

Thanks in advance,

Bill Sheffield
CSU-Northridge
debateprof at juno.com

_____________________________________________________________________
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 cara  Sat Feb 14 01:34:29 1998
From: cara (Cara E. Cupp)
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 23:34:29 -0800
Subject: baby congrats for Cleo and Jethro
In-Reply-To: <34E4D7A1.746@midusa.net>
Message-ID: <FRI.13.FEB.1998.233429.0800.CARA@ECST.CSUCHICO.EDU>

Hey all,
 I am happy to announce that after a pretty long day, Cleo Jones and
Jethro Hayman are the proud new parents of Karamay Adiza
Hayman-Jones...(sorry if I messed up the spelling.)  Her greeting came at
approximately 10:30 p.m. this evening (Friday the 13th.)  She weighed in
at a healthy 8 lbs. 2 oz. Both mother and baby (and probably Jet) are
resting happily and healthily this evening.

While i have yet to see Karamay, Jethro assures me that she did not come
with dreadlocks.

Congratulations....and now the battle for babysitting rights begins.

Cara Cupp
CSU Chico



From krakg  Sat Feb 14 11:41:06 1998
From: krakg (Gil Krakowsky)
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 12:41:06 -0500
Subject: Wayne State
Message-ID: <SAT.14.FEB.1998.124106.0500.KRAKG@UMICH.EDU>

        Could somebody from Wayne State backchannel me with the cases that
the teams you'll be sending to districts are running. I would gladly
reciprocate with the districts case info we already have.

Gil Krakowsky
Michigan Debate

>From  Sat Feb 14 13:09:56 1998
Message-Id: <SAT.14.FEB.1998.130956.0500.>
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 13:09:56 -0500
Reply-To: deon_garner at STUDENTS.MOREHOUSE.EDU
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Deon Garner <deon_garner at STUDENTS.MOREHOUSE.EDU>
Subject: Select Sweepstakes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=US-ASCII

Wassup All,

Just trying to find out who all is vying (sp?) for the newly-instituted
Select Sweeepstakes.

Thanks,
Deon, Captain
Morehouse Debate

PS - Right now I know:

        Morehouse
        UMSL
        Valdosta State (I think)



From sowards  Sat Feb 14 17:59:14 1998
From: sowards (Stacey K. Sowards)
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 17:59:14 -0600
Subject: Heart entries
Message-ID: <SAT.14.FEB.1998.175914.0600.SOWARDS@EAGLE.CC.UKANS.EDU>

Here are the Heart entries I have so far.  I know we have a couple of
other entries, like Pepperdine, so if you sent your entry to Harris or
Zive, we probably have it.  Please email me with any
corrections.  Anyone else who plans to come, please send your entry now.
And don't forget your Heart book entries!


Stacey Sowards
University of Kansas

Cornell
Matt Miller and Rob Melton
Jessica Wojtysiak and Michael Cole
Judge:  Kristin Dybvig (7)

Cal State Northridge
Julie Straub and Phaedra Ellis-Lampkins
Judge:  Bill Sheffield (4)

Dartmouth
Michael Andrew and Adam Garen
Judges:  Bill Russell (2) and Brian Prestes (2)

Emory
Dan Fitzmier and Vic Tabak
Anne Marie Todd and Leslie Wade
Katie Matt and Alison Chase
Nessa Horewitch and Shanara Reid
George Kouros and Stephen Bailey
Anjan Sahni and Jon Paul Lupo
Stephen Heidt and Larry Heftman
Raj Ghoshal and Jeff McNabb
Judges:  David Heidt (5), Jamie McKown (5), and Chris Lundberg

Emporia State
Tara Tate and Shannon Holland
Tony Nation and Brad Areheart
Luke Simmons and Marie Baenig
Judges:  Darren Elliot (4) and Rodger Biles (3)

Fort Hays State
John Clune and Andrew Halverson
Judge:  Joey Boyle (4)

Fullerton (Cal State)
Laura Heider and Demetrius Lambrinos
Judge:  Jeanine Congalton

Harvard
Sonja Starr and Carl Engstrom
Nicholas Hanssens and Shafeequa Watkins
Judges:  Scott Hessell (4), Paul Skiermont (3), Dallas Perkins (elim),
Sherry Hall (elim)

Kentucky
Brian Ray and Paul Jensen
Judge: Dave Arnett (4)

Macalester
Jennifer Alme and Kiva Garen
Marfa Wilson and Francis James Hart
Judges:  Will Brewer (3), Jim Haefele (7)

Northwestern
Michael Gottlieb and Ryan Sparacino
Judge:  Nate Smith (4)

Pace
Mike Kloster and Taylor Petrey
Jason Peterson and Danny Bell
Judge:  Tim Mahoney (7)

Puget Sound
Paul Veillon and Scott Bailey
Darrel Wanzer and Foster Reif
Judge:  Glenn Kuper (7)

Wake Forest
Ken Rufo and Emma Filstrup
Andy Geppert and Justin Green
Judges:  Elisia Cohen (5), Ross Smith (2)

West Georgia
Barksdale and Saloom
Judge:  Jon Sharp

William Jewell
Matt McGee and Louie Petit
Jenn Davis and Aubrey Harris
Judges:  Steve Woods (4), Gina Lane (3)

>From  Sun Feb 15 10:25:35 1998
Message-Id: <SUN.15.FEB.1998.102535.EST.>
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 10:25:35 EST
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: Hierarchializing Judges
Comments: cc: parli at willamette.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

I've got a pet peeve. Allow me to get it off my chest.

I'm actually very happy with the format of most Western tournaments - several
divisions of parli, ususally a single division of CEDA/NDT, and plenty of IEs.
The tournaments are large, happy events, even if CEDA/NDT only has a single
division. Parli more than makes up the difference for novices and folks
disgruntled all together with policy.

My pet peeve - I've been taking walkon novices to these tournaments in novice
and JV parli. I generally make my preference clear to tournament hosts that I
prefer to judge in parli, where my exposure to other parli styles and
strategies will help me coach my participating students. Everytime I'm asked
if I'd mind judging a policy debate if they're in a pinch. Everytime I say OK,
only to end up judging a schedule of nothing but policy. When I complain, I'm
told that I should look at this as a compliment, since they're only trying to
make sure that the "more difficult" policy debates have the best judges
possible.

Ego-stroking is a weak substitute for fairness and equality. I am deeply
disturbed by the attitude prevalent here in the Rocky Mountain region that
policy rounds deserve consistently better judges, since they're more
difficult. The students in parli are actually trying to take this seriously
and don't deserve permanent consignment to the "weaker" judges. Actually, I
find it independently disturbing that tabroom staff are so insistent on
ranking (hierarchializing) judges that they would come to the conclusion that
some are so bad that they must be kept in junior parli while others are so
good they must be kept in policy. Is this really what tabrooms should be
doing? Given the fact that I'm being assigned over and over to hear the same
policy teams (who interestingly enough debate for the people doing the tabroom
assignments), I also have to question "competence" as the guiding rationale
for my placement.

This may sound like something minor. I don't think it is. By placing me in the
policy schedule, I am separated from my novice students. Since the policy
debates are twice as long, I am unable to coach my novices, or even take them
out for food between rounds.

>From this point on, I will simply have to take the step of refusing to judge
policy at local tournaments, unless, of course, I have policy teams in
attendance. I urge local Western tournament directors to reflect on the unfair
biases against parli that seem to be creeping in to their judge assignments.
I urge people all across the country to avoid repeating these injustices as
they look toward setting up PFD tournaments, next year. The youngest, most
impressionable students also deserve quality judging. Which probably rules me
out of judging both parli and policy...

Just wishing people would think more about their actions,

Bear
PS: Those of you condemning parli as an activity of fools are the biggest
fools I know of in this activity. You can now return to Scooby Doo....



From ifjxh  Sun Feb 15 12:26:23 1998
From: ifjxh (Joshua Hoe)
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 10:26:23 PST
Subject: Hierarchializing Judges
Message-ID: <SUN.15.FEB.1998.102623.PST.IFJXH@HOTMAIL.COM>

I agree with your basic premise that you should be allowed to judge the
division that your teams are participating in.  I do think there are
some things that you are overlooking, however, about judging in the
West.  In my time at ASU there were frequently more qualified judges for
parli than for policy.  Judging parlimentary debate (which I have done
before) has an different set of operating procedures and rules than
policy debate.  Perhaps what you are encountering is that there are
frequently shortages of cx experienced judges rather than the bias you
identify?  If not, I am sorry.....People in policy debate have
frequently saught to define themselves in terms unfavorable to
comparable activities......That is sad.......We should not have to
essentialize the other in order to define ourselves.


Josh


Joshua B. Hoe
Research Asst.
University of North Texas


>From owner-edebate at list.uvm.edu Sun Feb 15 07:25:54 1998
>Received: from list.uvm.edu (132.198.101.67) by smtpgate.uvm.edu (LSMTP
for Windows NT v1.1a) with SMTP id <0.11F59190 at smtpgate.uvm.edu>; 15 Feb
1998 10:25:43 -0500
>Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release
1.8c) with
>          spool id 12299 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Sun, 15 Feb 1998
10:25:41
>          -0500
>Received: from imo18.mx.aol.com (imo18.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.175]) by
>          list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id KAA13490 for
>          <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Sun, 15 Feb 1998 10:25:39 -0500 (EST)
>Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo18.mx.aol.com (IMOv12/Dec1997) id
>          2BJTa25483; Sun, 15 Feb 1998 10:25:35 -0500 (EST)
>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:  <4cdcb5a8.34e708f2 at aol.com>
>Date:         Sun, 15 Feb 1998 10:25:35 EST
>Reply-To:     MWBRYANT at AOL.COM
>Sender:       Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
>From:         Michael Bear Bryant <MWBRYANT at AOL.COM>
>Subject:      Hierarchializing Judges
>Comments: cc: parli at willamette.edu
>To:           EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU
>
>I've got a pet peeve. Allow me to get it off my chest.
>
>I'm actually very happy with the format of most Western tournaments -
several
>divisions of parli, ususally a single division of CEDA/NDT, and plenty
of IEs.
>The tournaments are large, happy events, even if CEDA/NDT only has a
single
>division. Parli more than makes up the difference for novices and folks
>disgruntled all together with policy.
>
>My pet peeve - I've been taking walkon novices to these tournaments in
novice
>and JV parli. I generally make my preference clear to tournament hosts
that I
>prefer to judge in parli, where my exposure to other parli styles and
>strategies will help me coach my participating students. Everytime I'm
asked
>if I'd mind judging a policy debate if they're in a pinch. Everytime I
say OK,
>only to end up judging a schedule of nothing but policy. When I
complain, I'm
>told that I should look at this as a compliment, since they're only
trying to
>make sure that the "more difficult" policy debates have the best judges
>possible.
>
>Ego-stroking is a weak substitute for fairness and equality. I am
deeply
>disturbed by the attitude prevalent here in the Rocky Mountain region
that
>policy rounds deserve consistently better judges, since they're more
>difficult. The students in parli are actually trying to take this
seriously
>and don't deserve permanent consignment to the "weaker" judges.
Actually, I
>find it independently disturbing that tabroom staff are so insistent on
>ranking (hierarchializing) judges that they would come to the
conclusion that
>some are so bad that they must be kept in junior parli while others are
so
>good they must be kept in policy. Is this really what tabrooms should
be
>doing? Given the fact that I'm being assigned over and over to hear the
same
>policy teams (who interestingly enough debate for the people doing the
tabroom
>assignments), I also have to question "competence" as the guiding
rationale
>for my placement.
>
>This may sound like something minor. I don't think it is. By placing me
in the
>policy schedule, I am separated from my novice students. Since the
policy
>debates are twice as long, I am unable to coach my novices, or even
take them
>out for food between rounds.
>
>From this point on, I will simply have to take the step of refusing to
judge
>policy at local tournaments, unless, of course, I have policy teams in
>attendance. I urge local Western tournament directors to reflect on the
unfair
>biases against parli that seem to be creeping in to their judge
assignments.
>I urge people all across the country to avoid repeating these
injustices as
>they look toward setting up PFD tournaments, next year. The youngest,
most
>impressionable students also deserve quality judging. Which probably
rules me
>out of judging both parli and policy...
>
>Just wishing people would think more about their actions,
>
>Bear
>PS: Those of you condemning parli as an activity of fools are the
biggest
>fools I know of in this activity. You can now return to Scooby Doo....
>


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



From ifjxh  Sun Feb 15 13:10:45 1998
From: ifjxh (Joshua Hoe)
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 11:10:45 PST
Subject: 1st round at large bids - off the directors phone 1998
Message-ID: <SUN.15.FEB.1998.111045.PST.IFJXH@HOTMAIL.COM>

Hello...Just called the directors phone...here are the first round bids
for 1998:

Dartmouth HL
Emory KS
Emory FH
Fullerton HL
Georgetown KS
Georgia CM
Harvard ES
Iowa RP
Kansas AM
Kansas EM
Michigan SW
Michigan State CS
North Texas HM
Northwestern GS
Texas GR
West Georgia BC


Congrats to all on the list....sorry to any excluded...Just
reporting....Josh

Joshua B. Hoe
Research Asst.
University of North Texas



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



From agorton  Sun Feb 15 14:17:03 1998
From: agorton (Piggy)
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 12:17:03 -0800
Subject: chico only
Message-ID: <SUN.15.FEB.1998.121703.0800.AGORTON@PEPPERDINE.EDU>

could someone from chico please email me - i'm looking for some of your
nutrition cites.  thanks a lot
alexis

>From  Sun Feb 15 15:34:25 1998
Message-Id: <SUN.15.FEB.1998.153425.0600.>
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 15:34:25 -0600
Reply-To: rchurch at frank.mtsu.edu
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Russell Church <rchurch at FRANK.MTSU.EDU>
Organization: Middle Tennessee State University
Subject: Southeast, Southeast Central Regionals Hotels
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Since I have had several calls -- I am posting the hotel information
again...

I think Shoney's is full but you might want to check them --
615-896-6030 -- Holiday Inn should be checked second 615-896-2420 --
again you have until the 18th -- after that there are a lot of choices
based on how much you want to spend

Garden Plaza -- very nicest in town and more expensive usually
615-895-5555 -- $59 is a rate I just got and it is terrific for this
place -- MENTION INTERCOLLEGIATE DEBATE ASSOCIATION OF MTSU WHEN YOU
CALL AND I JUST ARRANGED THIS...

Other than this, you might want to give me a call or email me before
this coming Wednesday.

Regards,


Russell Church
615-898-5607 (Office)
615-898-2640 (Department Secretary)
615-898-5826 (Fax)

MTSU Box 43
Murfreesboro, Tn. 37132

CHECK OUT MTSU DEBATE TEAM HOME PAGE!
http://www.mtsu.edu/~debate
CHECK OUT RUSS'S HOME PAGE!
http://ritchi.mtsu.edu/wcb/schools/LA/spee/rchurch/rchurch.html



From Michelin.Massey  Sun Feb 15 16:22:58 1998
From: Michelin.Massey (Michelin Christopher Massey)
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 15:22:58 -0700
Subject: bear's comments on judging!
In-Reply-To: <4cdcb5a8.34e708f2@aol.com>
Message-ID: <SUN.15.FEB.1998.152258.0700.MICHELIN.MASSEY@COLORADO.EDU>

On Sun, 15 Feb 1998, Michael Bear Bryant wrote:

> Ego-stroking is a weak substitute for fairness and equality. I am deeply
> disturbed by the attitude prevalent here in the Rocky Mountain region that
> policy rounds deserve consistently better judges, since they're more
> difficult. The students in parli are actually trying to take this seriously
> and don't deserve permanent consignment to the "weaker" judges. Actually, I
> find it independently disturbing that tabroom staff are so insistent on
> ranking (hierarchializing) judges that they would come to the conclusion that
> some are so bad that they must be kept in junior parli while others are so
> good they must be kept in policy. Is this really what tabrooms should be
> doing? Given the fact that I'm being assigned over and over to hear the same
> policy teams (who interestingly enough debate for the people doing the tabroom
> assignments), I also have to question "competence" as the guiding rationale
> for my placement.
>
> This may sound like something minor. I don't think it is. By placing me in the
> policy schedule, I am separated from my novice students. Since the policy
> debates are twice as long, I am unable to coach my novices, or even take them
> out for food between rounds.
>
> >From this point on, I will simply have to take the step of refusing to judge
> policy at local tournaments, unless, of course, I have policy teams in
> attendance. I urge local Western tournament directors to reflect on the unfair
> biases against parli that seem to be creeping in to their judge assignments.
> I urge people all across the country to avoid repeating these injustices as
> they look toward setting up PFD tournaments, next year. The youngest, most
> impressionable students also deserve quality judging. Which probably rules me
> out of judging both parli and policy...

i don't mean to bag on anyone or jump on any band-wagon.  my comments here
are strictly directed at what bear has said here.

in reference to this post, i think there are many reasons for and against
the action bear is suggesting.  nevertheless...

as a parliamentary debater, i feel selfishly compelled in my belief
(despite the critics) that parliamentary debate is indeed debate.  as
such, debate needs to have qualified judges, whatever the name -- whether
it be parli or policy.  this past weekend at the wsca tournament, my
partner and i had five outstanding judges in our preliminary debates.
however, because we had ONE judge who was not exactly what anyone would
call a debate judge, we were evaluated by standards foreign to the
philosophy stated by our judge.

i don't mean to sit here and bitch and moan, but i think it's really
unfair for tournaments to assume that parliamentary debate does not
deserve great judges.  i can absolutely understand the need for policy
debate to have competent judging.  when a judge has to ask whether or not
you've kicked out of a disad is something that i just find strange in
college policy debate.  BUT, does that mean that the good judge we had
that round (who was a former policy debater who cleared at ceda nationals
TWICE) should've been given to policy?  no.  we were/are just as
deserving of good judges and i think that many tournaments are responding
to that call as parli gains more respect from good judges who judge good
teams.

incidentally, i believe that wsca was run very well this weekend and
definitely exposed us to some different judges and competitors.  i am sad
that i couldn't get a speaker award as a result of my 19 first round and
because we did not clear.  however, i think that all of those who did
break and did get speaker awards should be congratulated on their ability
to adapt, something i need to obviously work on.

at any rate, for all of you good judges out there, you should love the
parli!

michelin massey.
university of colorado-boulder.

>From  Sun Feb 15 17:28:14 1998
Message-Id: <SUN.15.FEB.1998.172814.CST.>
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 17:28:14 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: NLU Bicker Debates RESULTS

Results from the 1998 NLU Bicker Debates:

Open Speakers
1-Alexander NLU
2-Krefft    LSUS
3-Guice     LaTech
4-Congo     SEMO
5-Carr      LaTech

Open Results

Semifinalists
SEMO-Congo/Weichert
LaTech-Guice/Carr

Finals
Cameron Wilson/Alexander (Northeast La)
3-0 over
LSUS Milstead/Krefft



Novice Speakers
1-Vanhoozer  Cameron
2-JWilson    Cameron
3-CWilson    Cameron
4-Gaensehals LSUS
5-King       Cameron




Novice Results

Semifinalists
Cameron King/C Wilson
LSUS Gaensehals/James

Finals
Cameron J Wilson/Smith
Cameron Vanhoozer/Hayth  CLOSE OUT


Parli Speakers
1-McGee    UT-Tyler
2-JEdwards LSUS
3-Smith    UT-Tyler
4-Campos   ACU
5-Hudson   ACU

Parli Results

Semi's
La Tech West/Tate
3-0 over
UT-Tyler Smith/McGee

ACU Campos/Milstead
3-0 over
LSUS-JEdwards/Jones

Finals
La Tech West/Tate
3-0 over
ACU Campos/Milstead



Thanks to all who competed, we look forward to seeing you next year as
we move the Bicker Debates to the fall semester.

Bob Alexander,
NLU Debate



From marnold  Sun Feb 15 17:47:06 1998
From: marnold (Mark S. Arnold)
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 18:47:06 -0500
Subject: Richmond Univ.
Message-ID: <SUN.15.FEB.1998.184706.0500.MARNOLD@RICHMOND.EDU>

Liberty and all others,

        The Pornography case is actually posted online (and has been for
quite some time). Currently, only Ben Bates and I run the case. I can't say
we will be running it for the rest of the semester, but it is a
possibility.

        Ben is in Vermont right now for the tourny. As soon as he gets
back, I'll have him post the url for the case, an I'll discuss with him the
prospect of us running it again. Until then, here's the idea:

        Obs 1 Definitions: Should, S.A., to

        Obs 2 Porn is a problem,

        Obs 3 Scenerios

                Sc 1: Violence against women
                Sc 2: Male Supremacy
                Sc 3: Rape

        Obs 4: Of course, we solve

        Main Cites: Hill and SIlver (studies of causlity), Taglicozzo (porn
is security prob. in s.a.)


        As soon as you get the url, everyone please feel free to read it
and right up your T violations. We love to hear them...


Mark Arnold
Captain
Richmond Debate



From allyson  Sun Feb 15 18:29:38 1998
From: allyson (John Stubbs)
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 19:29:38 -0500
Subject: GEORGE MASON
In-Reply-To: <v01530501b10ce70e17f3@[141.166.139.71]>
Message-ID: <SUN.15.FEB.1998.192938.0500.ALLYSON@GWIS2.CIRC.GWU.EDU>

sorry for the clutter, but i was wondering if someone from george mason
would backchannel me.

thanks,
john


   John W. Stubbs
   George Washington Univ.
   P: 202/676-4052
   A: 2350 H St., NW #904
      Washington, D.C. 20037



From lsd041  Sun Feb 15 19:51:35 1998
From: lsd041 (Scott Deatherage)
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 19:51:35 -0600
Subject: Assignments
Message-ID: <SUN.15.FEB.1998.195135.0600.LSD041@NWU.EDU>

Ryan:

        Disasters, Philippines, Indonesia, May, Topic (GA, KU)  NDT
        Deforestation (Indonesia, Topic)                        NDT
        Animals (Harvard)                                       NDT
        AIDS (Dartmouth)                                        NDT
        Vietnam MIAs (GMU)                                      NDT
        Democratization                                         NDT
        Affirmative                                             NDT

Mike:

        CEMAC/Demine Cambodia (Michigan)                        NDT
        Demine Vietnam (WGA, Et Al)                             NDT
        Agent Orange (WGA, Texas, Et Al)                        NDT
        Joint Development (Dartmouth)                           NDT
        Air Traffic Control (Redlands)                          NDT
        Circle K:  Spanos, Pragmatism, Deterrence, Camus         NDT
        Thai-Burma Refugee Act                                  NDT
        Generic Mechanisms (DCS, ECA)                           NDT

Matt:

        Japan Updates                                           NDT
        Japan Led US (Gonzaga Macalester)                       NDT
        Thai Sats (MSU)                                         Districts
        Lao UXO (Kansas, WGA, SIU, Baylor, Et Al)               Districts/NDT
        Satellites (Kansas)                                     NDT
        Co production (Emory)                                    NDT

Dave:

        Indonesian Access Agreements (USC)                      NDT
        Indonesian IMET (UMKC SMS)                              NDT
        Indonesian Food Aid (Wake)                              NDT
        Thai IMET (MSU)                                         NDT

Shuman:

        Base Clean-up (Wake Trinity K-State)                    NDT
        Genocide Monitoring (Emory)                             NDT
        Singapore Cities (Wake)                                 NDT

Shorge:

        Encryption (MSU, SWT)                                   Dist/NDT
        Incidents at Sea (Wayne)                                Districts
        Coast Guard (Samford)                                   NDT
        Not Arms Registry (North Texas)                         NDT
        Piracy (Harvard, Michigan KR, Kentucky)                 Dist/NDT

Annie:

        Fish Wars (Michigan)
Dist/Novice/NDT
        THAD (GW)                                               Novice/NDT
        WID Vietnam, Philippines (Fullerton)                    NDT

Leslie:

        AIDS (Dartmouth)                                        Novice
        Majic Lantern (JC, Et Al)                               Novice

Robert:

        Orangutans (Harvard)                                    Novice
        Indonesian Assasination Assistance (Georgia)            Novice

Trace:

        Deforestation (Emory)                                   Novice
        Subic Bay (Wake)                                        Novice
        $ SEA ARms Buys (GMU)                                   NDT

Doug:

        Indonesian Food Aid (Wake)                              Novice
        Indonesian IMET (Georgia)                               Novice

Eli:

        Fund Burmese Opposition (Pitt)                          Novice
        Malaysian Wetlands (Georgia)                            Novice

Nate:

        Currency                                                NDT
        Joint Exercises (GMU Whitman MSU)                       NDT

Greg:

        Written Text (Fullerton)                                NDT
        Elephant Narrative (WGA)                                NDT

Trace:



From epanetta  Sun Feb 15 19:16:26 1998
From: epanetta (edward panetta)
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 20:16:26 -0500
Subject: ADA Nationals Room Block
In-Reply-To: <3.0.16.19980215195132.23178bf8@lulu.acns.nwu.edu>
Message-ID: <SUN.15.FEB.1998.201626.0500.EPANETTA@ARCHES.UGA.EDU>

The Block rate for rooms at the Holiday Inn in Athens expires
on February 18th.  Check your invitation for number to call.

If you don't have an invitation a copy can be found on the
GA Debate Web Site.

www.uga.edu/~spc/Debate/debate.html

ADA National Tournament
March 13-15, 1998
Athens, GA



From SavoieLD99.CS11.USAFA  Sun Feb 15 19:21:10 1998
From: SavoieLD99.CS11.USAFA (Cadet Luke D. Savoie, x-4581)
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 18:21:10 MST
Subject: Mardi Gras
Message-ID: <SUN.15.FEB.1998.182110.MST.SAVOIELD99.CS11.USAFA@USAFA.AF.MIL>

Anyone know if someone is compiling a team and/or case list for the Mardi
Gras Tournament this weekend.

>From  Sun Feb 15 19:26:16 1998
Message-Id: <SUN.15.FEB.1998.192616.0600.>
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 19:26:16 -0600
Reply-To: herro at VAXA.CIS.UWOSH.EDU
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Steve Herro <herro at VAXA.CIS.UWOSH.EDU>
Subject: capital case list
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

i will make one.  send the names of each team, what division and the most
recently read plan text and a case outline.  i will mail the list to all
contributors by wed 18th in the afternoon.

please do not send less info than listed above--sharing roughly the same
level of info is only fair.

steve

Steve Herro
Director of Debate
University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh
(920) 424-7048



From lsd041  Sun Feb 15 20:25:32 1998
From: lsd041 (Scott Deatherage)
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 20:25:32 -0600
Subject: Boy, do I feel stupid
Message-ID: <SUN.15.FEB.1998.202532.0600.LSD041@NWU.EDU>

It appears to me as if I just posted a draft of an assignment list.  I
thought I typed in the code for the team, but....

I'll have to fire myself.

Please do me the favor of disregarding it, if you have not already looked.
Thanks.

SD

PS:  If you have cooments or suggestions, or new affirmative ides, don't be
shy.



From lsd041  Sun Feb 15 20:29:35 1998
From: lsd041 (Scott Deatherage)
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 20:29:35 -0600
Subject: Oh, and please....
Message-ID: <SUN.15.FEB.1998.202935.0600.LSD041@NWU.EDU>

Don't reel slighted...If you are not on there, don't worry, it's my first
draft.  I haven't forgotten you.  SD

>From  Sun Feb 15 21:14:28 1998
Message-Id: <SUN.15.FEB.1998.211428.0500.>
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 21:14:28 -0500
Reply-To: deon_garner at STUDENTS.MOREHOUSE.EDU
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Deon Garner <deon_garner at STUDENTS.MOREHOUSE.EDU>
Subject: UNCC Results
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=US-ASCII

Wassup all,

Just wondering who was at UNCC . . .

Who won?  Who got speaks?  I trust all went well; I know that
Dawn and Kerry did an awesome job.



From sarge  Sun Feb 15 20:29:51 1998
From: sarge (Srg. Rutledge)
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 21:29:51 -0500
Subject: UNCC Results
In-Reply-To: <Winbox31.2x15x98.9y14y40yPM.711374.deon_garner@students.morehouse.edu>
Message-ID: <SUN.15.FEB.1998.212951.0500.SARGE@CIF.ROCHESTER.EDU>

Could the same things be forwarded out for what happened at Vermont this
weekend?

On Sun, 15 Feb 1998, Deon Garner wrote:

> Wassup all,
>
> Just wondering who was at UNCC . . .
>
> Who won?  Who got speaks?  I trust all went well; I know that
> Dawn and Kerry did an awesome job.
>



From rpeacor  Sun Feb 15 20:27:24 1998
From: rpeacor (Rick Peacor)
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 18:27:24 -0800
Subject: Northwest CEDA Champs Invitation
Message-ID: <SUN.15.FEB.1998.182724.0800.RPEACOR@RIO.COM>

THIRTEENTH ANNUAL NORTHWEST CEDA CHAMPIONSHIPS
UNIVERSITY OF OREGON
Eugene Oregon
FRIDAY, MARCH 6 - SUNDAY, MARCH 8

Dear Colleague:

You and your debate students are invited to the THIRTEENTH ANNUAL NORTHWEST
CEDA CHAMPIONSHIPS to be held at the UNIVERSITY OF OREGON from FRIDAY,
MARCH 6 to SUNDAY, MARCH 8.  This tournament is designed to celebrate the
accomplishments of students who are completing their final year as
competitors and as a preparation for CEDA nationals.   We will offer six
preliminary rounds of debate and elimination rounds as necessary.

As is the tradition, we will host a tournament banquet that will feature
vegetarian and options for our carnivorous friends.

Time limits will be 9-3-6 with 10 minutes of prep-time.

Please e-mail, fax or mail your entries to Rick Peacor.

Glenn Kuper from the University of Puget Sound will serve as tournament
director.

Sincerely,

Rick Peacor
Assistant Director of Forensics,
University of Oregon
Tournament Host
Phone: 541-346-4186
Fax: 541-346-2220
e-mail:  rpeacor at rio.com
Address:
        Rick Peacor, Asst. Director of Forensics
        Robert Clark Honors College
        University of Oregon
        Eugene, OR 97403

Glenn Kuper
Director of Forensics,
University of Puget Sound
Tournament Director

This tournament will adhere to the principles and practices outlines in the
following Documents:
Principles and Objectives of the Guild of American Forensics Educators
The Statement of Ethical Principles of the Cross Examination Debate
Association
The Statement of Ethics for the Northwest Forensics Conference
The CEDA Statement on Discrimination and Sexual Harassment

_________________________________________________________
THIRTEENTH ANNUAL NORTHWEST CEDA CHAMPIONSHIPS
UNIVERSITY OF OREGON
FRIDAY, MARCH 6 - SUNDAY, MARCH 8

Friday, March 6th

2:00            Registration 237 Gilbert Hall
3:00-5:30       Round One  (Randomly matched), strike sheets due by 5:00 p.m.
5:30-8:00       Round Two  (Randomly matched)

Saturday, March 7th

7:00            Continental Breakfast, Gilbert Hall
8:00-10:30      Round Three
11:00-1:00      Round Four
1:00-2:00       Lunch
2:00-4:30       Round Five
5:00-7:30       Round Six
7:30            Awards Banquet:  Willamette Hall Atrium

Sunday, March 8th

8:00    Continental Breakfast, Gilbert Hall
8:30    Partial Doubles, 11:00 Octafinals, 1:30 Quarters, 4:00 Semis, 6:30 Finals
_________________________________________________________
 THIRTEENTH ANNUAL NORTHWEST CEDA CHAMPIONSHIPS
UNIVERSITY OF OREGON
FRIDAY, MARCH 6 - SUNDAY, MARCH 8


School:
Director of Forensics:
School Phone    Home Phone
email address

Judges:         1.

        2.

        3.

        4.

        5.



Teams   1.

        2.

        3.

        4.

        5.


Fees:
         teams at $70 per team  $
         people will attend the banquet at $15 per person       $
         uncovered debate teams at $100 per uncovered team      $
        Total   $
Checks should be made payable to "University of Oregon Forensics."
_________________________________________________________
 Motel List:

Barrons Motel
1895 Franklin Blvd.
(541) 342-6383

Best Western Green Tree Motel
1759 Franklin Blvd.
(541) 485-2727

Campus Inn
390 E. Broadway
(541) 343-3376

Holiday Inn
225 Coburg Rd.
(541) 342-5181

Phoenix Inn
850 Franklin
(541) 344-0001

Quality Inn
2121 Franklin Blvd.
(541) 342-1243

Red Lion
205 Coburg Rd.
(541) 342-5201

66 Motel
755 E. Broadway
(541) 342-5041

Travelodge
540 E. Broadway
(541) 342-1109


_____________________________________
Rick Peacor
Director of Intercollegiate Forensics
University of Oregon
rpeacor at rio.com
541-346-4186 (office)
541-461-1678 (home)
_____________________________________



From gabriels  Sun Feb 15 20:30:51 1998
From: gabriels (Gabriel H. Scannapieco)
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 21:30:51 -0500
Subject: Just for Iowa.
Message-ID: <SUN.15.FEB.1998.213051.0500.GABRIELS@UMICH.EDU>

Could someone at Iowa backchannel me with the cites you read on Spanos
in the Semi's of NU.

Thanks.
Gabe

>From  Sun Feb 15 21:40:23 1998
Message-Id: <SUN.15.FEB.1998.214023.0500.>
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 21:40:23 -0500
Reply-To: deon_garner at STUDENTS.MOREHOUSE.EDU
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Deon Garner <deon_garner at STUDENTS.MOREHOUSE.EDU>
Subject: College Scholarships
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=US-ASCII

I sent a message earlier, but it did not post.

I am very interested in receiving information regarding college
scholarships for undergraduate debaters fro mteh private sectors.
Since Morehouse doesn't offer debate scholarships (yet), I am
trying to compile a "bank" of scholarships so that some of the
guys who are former state champs and NFL qualifiers will get
back into the activity.

I will appreciate any information that anyone can offer.

Thanks,
Deon

>From  Sun Feb 15 21:44:06 1998
Message-Id: <SUN.15.FEB.1998.214406.0500.>
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 21:44:06 -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: John Carroll Results
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII

Results of the JCU invitational:

OPEN:
SEMIS:
Wayne AS (3-0) over Wheaton SW
Miami (OH) OM (3-0) over NIU BC

FINALS:
Miami (OH) OM (2-1) over Wayne AS

NOVICE:

1/4s:
Wheaton MS (3-0) over BSU EK
Allegheny RS (2-1) over Wayne EL
NIU DP (2-1) over Wayne CK
CAP KV (3-0) over Case Western CS

Semis:
Allegheny (3-0?) over Wheaton MS
NIU DP (unsure again) over Capital KV

finals:
NIU DP (3-0) over Allegheny


SPEAKERS:
Open:

1. Wilson-Wheaton
2. Skillin (Wayne)
3. O'Malley (Miami)
4. Carter (Wheaton)
5. Andrus (Wayne)

Novice:

1.  Drury (NIU)
2. Lee (Wayne)
3. Elkins (BSU)
4. P???? (NIU)
5. Verdell (Capital)
6. Ranganathan (Allegheny)
7. Scalfani (Wheaton)
8. Kastings (BSU)
9. Montgomery (Wheaton)
10. Zimmerman (Wheaton)

Thanks to everyone that came to the tournament.  Congrats to all that
cleared.

kelly young



From rpeacor  Sun Feb 15 20:45:44 1998
From: rpeacor (Rick Peacor)
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 18:45:44 -0800
Subject: Corrected NW CEDA Champs invitation
Message-ID: <SUN.15.FEB.1998.184544.0800.RPEACOR@RIO.COM>

THIRTEENTH ANNUAL NORTHWEST CEDA CHAMPIONSHIPS
UNIVERSITY OF OREGON
Eugene Oregon
FRIDAY, MARCH 6 - SUNDAY, MARCH 8

Dear Colleague:

You and your debate students are invited to the THIRTEENTH ANNUAL NORTHWEST
CEDA CHAMPIONSHIPS to be held at the UNIVERSITY OF OREGON from FRIDAY,
MARCH 6 to SUNDAY, MARCH 8.  This tournament is designed to celebrate the
accomplishments of students who are completing their final year as
competitors and as a preparation for CEDA nationals.   We will offer six
preliminary rounds of debate and elimination rounds as necessary.

As is the tradition, we will host a tournament banquet that will feature
vegetarian and options for our carnivorous friends.

Please e-mail, fax or mail your entries to Rick Peacor.

Glenn Kuper from the University of Puget Sound will serve as tournament
director.

Sincerely,

Rick Peacor
Assistant Director of Forensics,
University of Oregon
Tournament Host
Phone: 541-346-4186
Fax: 541-346-2220
e-mail:  rpeacor at rio.com
Address:
        Rick Peacor, Asst. Director of Forensics
        Robert Clark Honors College
        University of Oregon
        Eugene, OR 97403

Glenn Kuper
Director of Forensics,
University of Puget Sound
Tournament Director

This tournament will adhere to the principles and practices outlines in the
following Documents:
Principles and Objectives of the Guild of American Forensics Educators
The Statement of Ethical Principles of the Cross Examination Debate
Association
The Statement of Ethics for the Northwest Forensics Conference
The CEDA Statement on Discrimination and Sexual Harassment

_________________________________________________________
THIRTEENTH ANNUAL NORTHWEST CEDA CHAMPIONSHIPS
UNIVERSITY OF OREGON
FRIDAY, MARCH 6 - SUNDAY, MARCH 8

Tournament Information:

OPEN CEDA:  This division is open to all teams.    Time limits will be
9-3-6 with 10 minutes of prep-time.

NORTHWEST PUBLIC DEBATE: This division is open to all teams.  Teams should
openly reveal their affirmative cases.   Teams will debate the 1997-98
national CEDA/NDT topic.  Time limits are 8-3-5 with 8 minutes preparation
time.  Six rounds with appropriate elimination rounds to follow.  This
debate format focuses on research and discussion about important
issues facing our nation.  It is intended to allow students to invest
modest time, make clear arguments using more or less conversational paced
delivery, and stay focused on the issues that the resolution raises.  The
event sets a 32-argument limit for each speech in constructives.  Debaters
may use 16 pieces of evidence (each piece of evidence should be a section
that is read that is 7 sentences or shorter; if it is over, it counts as
two pieces of evidence) for constructives. This allows 4 arguments (a claim
with support) per minute with up to two pieces of evidence per minute.
For rebuttals, the limit is set at 25 arguments, 5 pieces of evidence (that
is 5 arguments per minute with 1 piece of evidence per minute).  This
maximum permits conversational to moderate paced speaking.  Arguments in
excess of these limits are to be ignored by the judge.

_________________________________________________________
THIRTEENTH ANNUAL NORTHWEST CEDA CHAMPIONSHIPS
UNIVERSITY OF OREGON
FRIDAY, MARCH 6 - SUNDAY, MARCH 8

Friday, March 6th

2:00            Registration 237 Gilbert Hall
3:00-5:30       Round One  (Randomly matched), strike sheets due by 5:00 p.m.
5:30-8:00       Round Two  (Randomly matched)

Saturday, March 7th

7:00            Continental Breakfast, Gilbert Hall
8:00-10:30      Round Three
11:00-1:00      Round Four
1:00-2:00       Lunch
2:00-4:30       Round Five
5:00-7:30       Round Six
7:30            Awards Banquet:  Willamette Hall Atrium

Sunday, March 8th

8:00    Continental Breakfast, Gilbert Hall
8:30    Partial Doubles, 11:00 Octafinals, 1:30 Quarters, 4:00 Semis, 6:30 Finals
_________________________________________________________
 THIRTEENTH ANNUAL NORTHWEST CEDA CHAMPIONSHIPS
UNIVERSITY OF OREGON
FRIDAY, MARCH 6 - SUNDAY, MARCH 8


School:
Director of Forensics:
School Phone    Home Phone
email address

Judges:         1.

        2.

        3.

        4.

        5.



Teams   1.

        2.

        3.

        4.

        5.


Fees:
         teams at $70 per team  $
         people will attend the banquet at $15 per person       $
         uncovered debate teams at $100 per uncovered team      $
        Total   $
Checks should be made payable to "University of Oregon Forensics."
_________________________________________________________
 Motel List:

Barrons Motel
1895 Franklin Blvd.
(541) 342-6383

Best Western Green Tree Motel
1759 Franklin Blvd.
(541) 485-2727

Campus Inn
390 E. Broadway
(541) 343-3376

Holiday Inn
225 Coburg Rd.
(541) 342-5181

Phoenix Inn
850 Franklin
(541) 344-0001

Quality Inn
2121 Franklin Blvd.
(541) 342-1243

Red Lion
205 Coburg Rd.
(541) 342-5201

66 Motel
755 E. Broadway
(541) 342-5041

Travelodge
540 E. Broadway
(541) 342-1109


_____________________________________
Rick Peacor
Director of Intercollegiate Forensics
University of Oregon
rpeacor at rio.com
541-346-4186 (office)
541-461-1678 (home)
_____________________________________



From gabriels  Sun Feb 15 20:45:51 1998
From: gabriels (Gabriel H. Scannapieco)
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 21:45:51 -0500
Subject: This is just for Case Western
Message-ID: <SUN.15.FEB.1998.214551.0500.GABRIELS@UMICH.EDU>

Hey there,

This is Gabe from Michigan and I am wondering if you all are going to be
at districts?  If so, can you let us know which cases you have run so
far this year and include a plan text is possible?  Thanks a lot.



From glasers  Sun Feb 15 21:24:27 1998
From: glasers (Sarah Michell Glaser)
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 21:24:27 -0600
Subject: iowa's indo. food aid case
Message-ID: <SUN.15.FEB.1998.212427.0600.GLASERS@KSU.EDU>

To the team I debated last round at Baylor: Could you
send me the cites for your Cessnas and helicopters to Indonesia case?
Thanks in advance.

Sarah Glaser
Kansas St.



From donaldst  Sun Feb 15 21:29:58 1998
From: donaldst (Steven Dean Donald)
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 22:29:58 -0500
Subject: Monte Stevens-KState
Message-ID: <SUN.15.FEB.1998.222958.0500.DONALDST@PILOT.MSU.EDU>

Montel,

Frankly, I've finally got around to compiling those cites for you, but I have
lost your address.  I'll be perfectly frank--if you give it to me, I can mail
you those cites.  This is how I do it, and that's as frank as I get.

keep it real.

steve donald
msu



From mgremillion  Sun Feb 15 21:02:48 1998
From: mgremillion (MWilliams)
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 22:02:48 -0500
Subject: Bear's Peaving
Message-ID: <SUN.15.FEB.1998.220248.0500.MGREMILLION@SELU.EDU>

Perhaps your judging assignment has a lot more to do with policy teams and coaches than on the tabroom. Example: My team, in their brek round of a Parly/CEDA
tournament had a "parly judge." Right before the round started, I called my team to the door for literally 30 seconds. I told them to go for a traditional stock issue style of debate. They lost the round. Reason for Decision? The judge
dropped them and gave them 10 speaker points a piece becuase they talked to a coach before their round. "Clearly a violation of rules." These are the kinds of
"judges" that cross-over into CEDA world. 2 Weeks ago, the same judge and 2
other parly judges were thrown into a Semi final open division round. She
explained that she only flowed the first two speeches and then just listened.
The other two did not even bother to flow. The 2AR (I would have done it too)
just made up all kinds of new arguments to win the round. What's my point?
Well Bear, I need you and the other competent judges in my student's CEDA rounds Not that I think they will win, but that they will have a fair shot at competing on a difficult topic. This topic is so technical that most lay critics and parly judges can't handle the material. To throw the question back at you, would
Jason Menzies want a Parly judge in a round where he has to go neg against
Mich. State or SIU, or Miami> I think not. And, when he gets screwed by a judge
not because of a difference of opinion or a dropped response, but sheer
incompetence, then I bet you will be the one having a fit. The tabroom is
just giving CEDA debaters what they want--a somewhat competent judge in the back of the room. When they are scraping the bottom of the barrel :), you happen to be relatively (very looosely speaking) superior to the rest of the judging pool.Hell, at SIU I noticed that your dootles looked a lot like a competent flow.
Stay in CEDA judging pools.
Scott Elliott
SELU



From Michelin.Massey  Sun Feb 15 23:41:30 1998
From: Michelin.Massey (Michelin Christopher Massey)
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 22:41:30 -0700
Subject: a few items of clarification.
In-Reply-To: <01ITMHG1EBEG8ZMFLR@selu.edu>
Message-ID: <SUN.15.FEB.1998.224130.0700.MICHELIN.MASSEY@COLORADO.EDU>

On Sun, 15 Feb 1998, MWilliams wrote:

> Perhaps your judging assignment has a lot more to do with policy teams and coaches than on the tabroom. Example: My team, in their brek round of a Parly/CEDA
> tournament had a "parly judge." Right before the round started, I called my team to the door for literally 30 seconds. I told them to go for a traditional stock issue style of debate. They lost the round. Reason for Decision? The judge
> dropped them and gave them 10 speaker points a piece becuase they talked to a coach before their round. "Clearly a violation of rules." These are the kinds of
> "judges" that cross-over into CEDA world. 2 Weeks ago, the same judge and 2
> other parly judges were thrown into a Semi final open division round. She
> explained that she only flowed the first two speeches and then just listened.
> The other two did not even bother to flow. The 2AR (I would have done it too)
> just made up all kinds of new arguments to win the round. What's my point?
> Well Bear, I need you and the other competent judges in my student's CEDA rounds Not that I think they will win, but that they will have a fair shot at competing on a difficult topic. This topic is so technical that most lay critics and parly judges can't handle the material. To throw the question back at you, would
> Jason Menzies want a Parly judge in a round where he has to go neg against
> Mich. State or SIU, or Miami> I think not. And, when he gets screwed by a judge
> not because of a difference of opinion or a dropped response, but sheer
> incompetence, then I bet you will be the one having a fit. The tabroom is
> just giving CEDA debaters what they want--a somewhat competent judge in the back of the room. When they are scraping the bottom of the barrel :), you happen to be relatively (very looosely speaking) superior to the rest of the judging pool.Hell, at SIU I noticed that your dootles looked a lot like a competent flow.
> Stay in CEDA judging pools.

for one, there is NO RULE for parliamentary debate which prevents
pre-round coaching.  every tournament has their own rules, at least in
npda.  and, at the national npda tournament, there are no regulations
prohibiting pre-round coaching, specifically.

two, i don't think any of the tournaments siu, miami, or msu go to are
ones with parli sections.  and if there were parli sections, more than
likely the parli judges would NOT judge policy.  why?  probably because
they wouldn't want to judge policy.

we, in parli, need good judges too.  a coupla of my friends had bear judge
them at asu and they have commented that he was one of the best judges
they have gotten the entire year.

third, realize that bear said he'd judge policy IF HE HAS POLICY STUDENTS.
to the extent where he ONLY has students in parli, i don't see why we
shouldn't have the benefit of getting a good judge in parli.  the attitude
that dictates that policy "deserves" better is the very reason why a lot
of people aren't doing policy...but hey...that's just what i've noticed.

michelin massey.
university of colorado-boulder.



From sowards  Mon Feb 16 00:39:47 1998
From: sowards (Stacey K. Sowards)
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 00:39:47 -0600
Subject: Heart entries
Message-ID: <MON.16.FEB.1998.003947.0600.SOWARDS@EAGLE.CC.UKANS.EDU>

These are all of the entries we have so far, except for two faxes at the
office (ENMU and someone else).  If you haven't entered, enter soon and
don't forget Heart book entries!

Stacey Sowards
University of Kansas

Baylor
Becky Coulter and Ben Coulter
Judges:  Chris Salinas (2), Karla Leeper (2)

Cornell
Matt Miller and Rob Melton
Jessica Wojtysiak and Michael Cole
Judge:  Kristin Dybvig (7)

Cal State Fullerton
Laura Heider and Demetrius Lambrinos
Judge:  Jeanine Congalton (4)

Cal State Long Beach
Heather Henkel and Kristin Clancy
Judge:  Victor Rodriguez (4)

Cal State Northridge
Julie Straub and Phaedra Ellis-Lampkins
Judge:  Bill Sheffield (2), Kasim Alimahomed (2)

Eastern New Mexico
Probably Matt Bareto and John Foy
Judge:  Jackie Massey or Ken DeLauder

Dartmouth
Michael Andrew and Adam Garen
Judges:  Bill Russell (2) and Brian Prestes (2)

Emory
Dan Fitzmier and Vic Tabak
Anne Marie Todd and Leslie Wade
Katie Matt and Alison Chase
Nessa Horewitch and Shanara Reid
George Kouros and Stephen Bailey
Anjan Sahni and Jon Paul Lupo
Stephen Heidt and Larry Heftman
Raj Ghoshal and Jeff McNabb
Judges:  David Heidt (5), Jamie McKown (5), and Chris Lundberg (7)

Emporia State
Tara Tate and Shannon Holland
Tony Nation and Brad Areheart
Luke Simmons and Marie Baenig
Judges:  Darren Elliot (4) and Rodger Biles (3)

Fort Hays State
John Clune and Andrew Halverson
Judge:  Joey Boyle (4)

Harvard
Sonja Starr and Carl Engstrom
Nicholas Hanssens and Shafeequa Watkins
Judges:  Scott Hessell (4), Paul Skiermont (3), Dallas Perkins (elim),
Sherry Hall (elim)

Kansas State
Isaac West and Grant Denny
Sarah Glaser and Kevin Zollman
Alan Hamilton and Quinton Shaw
Judges:  Christina Sabee (7), Sue Stanfield  (4), Brent Siemers (elim),
Monte Stevens (elim)

Kentucky
Brian Ray and Paul Jensen
Judge: Dave Arnett (4)

Macalester
Jennifer Alme and Kiva Garen
Marfa Wilson and Francis James Hart - possible drop
Judges:  Will Brewer (3), Jim Haefele (7)

UMKC
Jenny Barker and Scott Betz
Stephen Green and Ben White
Josh Coffman and Matt Baisley
Tommy Curry and Adam Whyte
Judges:  Dave Kingston (4), Myron King (5), Eric Jenkins (5)

Northwestern
Michael Gottlieb and Ryan Sparacino
Judge:  Nate Smith (2), Scott Deatherage (2)

Pace
Mike Kloster and Taylor Petrey
Jason Peterson and Danny Bell
Judge:  Tim Mahoney (7)

Pepperdine
Thomass Manakides and Brenda Zeimet
Alexis Gorton and Jenna McGrath
Judge:  Greg Achten (7)

Puget Sound
Paul Veillon and Scott Bailey
Darrel Wanzer and Foster Reif
Judge:  Glenn Kuper (7)


Wake Forest
Ken Rufo and Emma Filstrup
Andy Geppert and Justin Green
Judges:  Elisia Cohen (5), Ross Smith (2)

West Georgia
Barksdale and Saloom
Judge:  Jon Sharp

Whitman
Adam Symonds and Sean Harris
Sean Collins and Mike Caughey
Jessica Clarke and Ryan Scoville
Judges: Jim Hanson (4), JP Lacy (7)

William Jewell
Troy Cobourn and Louie Petit - maybe not Troy
Jenn Davis and Aubrey Harris
Judges:  Steve Woods (4), Gina Lane (3)



From Kenneth.DeLaughder  Mon Feb 16 01:28:46 1998
From: Kenneth.DeLaughder (Kenneth DeLaughder)
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 00:28:46 -0700
Subject: Sue Stanfield
Message-ID: <MON.16.FEB.1998.002846.0700.KENNETH.DELAUGHDER@ENMU.EDU>

Hey sue,
I lost your address, I have some case info for you, if youd still liek to
exchange. congratss on cornell.

still can sing Wildcat Victory :),
Ken
ENMU



From papacat  Mon Feb 16 05:24:32 1998
From: papacat (Pat J. Gehrke)
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 03:24:32 PST
Subject: Bear &Judging: Cuts Both Ways
Message-ID: <MON.16.FEB.1998.032432.PST.PAPACAT@HOTMAIL.COM>

Funny.

I am sympathetic to Bear's comments, but find them a bit ironic.  I'm
not sure what it says about the region's perception of my judging, but
when I was in the West region I consistently had to struggle to stay out
of parli rounds.  Even at tournaments where we did not bring parli teams
I would get tossed a parli ballot or two.  The first few times I did not
mind, but like Bear I wanted to be in the same field as the debaters I
was coaching so that I could get a look and a sense of the other teams
and arguments, as well as be on the same schedule.  Additionally, I am
not fond of parli as an activity (just doesn't suit my tastes--we can
leave it at that), so judging it was a particularly odd experience.  I
kept wanting to ask the debaters to cut some cards.  The point?  Bear's
argument cuts both ways.  Critics who do not bring parli teams and ask
not to judge parli rounds should be accommodated as much as possible.
The problem is, if you have no teams in a division/event, you become
prime judging material for it--an easy fix for any conflict.

Best to all,

Pat Gehrke
penn state


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



From mdickman  Mon Feb 16 07:28:32 1998
From: mdickman (Michael R. Dickman)
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 08:28:32 -0500
Subject: John Carroll tourney
Message-ID: <MON.16.FEB.1998.082832.0500.MDICKMAN@CC.CUMBER.EDU>

Hey all! 

I just got back from Cleveland and the John Carroll Debate Tournament and wanted to say thanks for a fine tournament.  rounds started on time and the awards assembly actually started a few minutes early!

I must admit I was a bit aprehensive about making the trip up.  Cumberland college is a regional based, tradionally CEDA school, travelling to a tournament out of the district to a school that is tradionally NDT.  How would we be received?  How would mY squad compete?  Well everyone was more than friendly and while none of my teams cleared, My jv team lost their break round in an open division and report that they felt that they could hang with the teams that beat them just fine!  My own observation was that at least at this tournament, the distiction between CEDA and NDT is all but over.  

This was our squads first experience with the 9-3-6 format and I polled my debaters who report that the extra minute in constructives isn't all that useful, but the extra minute in rebuttals is great!  I was wondering if anyone has tried an 8-3-6 hybred of the two?  If so what was the felling of judges and competitors?

Again thanks for a fine tourney!

Mike
CC Debate

----------
From:   Kelly Young[SMTP:KYOUNG at JCVAXA.JCU.EDU]
Sent:   Sunday, February 15, 1998 9:44 PM
To:     EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU
Subject:        John Carroll Results

Results of the JCU invitational:

OPEN:
SEMIS:
Wayne AS (3-0) over Wheaton SW
Miami (OH) OM (3-0) over NIU BC

FINALS:
Miami (OH) OM (2-1) over Wayne AS

NOVICE:

1/4s:
Wheaton MS (3-0) over BSU EK
Allegheny RS (2-1) over Wayne EL
NIU DP (2-1) over Wayne CK
CAP KV (3-0) over Case Western CS

Semis:
Allegheny (3-0?) over Wheaton MS
NIU DP (unsure again) over Capital KV

finals:
NIU DP (3-0) over Allegheny


SPEAKERS:
Open:

1. Wilson-Wheaton
2. Skillin (Wayne)
3. O'Malley (Miami)
4. Carter (Wheaton)
5. Andrus (Wayne)

Novice:

1.  Drury (NIU)
2. Lee (Wayne)
3. Elkins (BSU)
4. P???? (NIU)
5. Verdell (Capital)
6. Ranganathan (Allegheny)
7. Scalfani (Wheaton)
8. Kastings (BSU)
9. Montgomery (Wheaton)
10. Zimmerman (Wheaton)

Thanks to everyone that came to the tournament.  Congrats to all that
cleared.

kelly young



From Broveraf  Mon Feb 16 08:39:38 1998
From: Broveraf (Adrienne F. Brovero)
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 09:39:38 -0500
Subject: First round bid applications
Message-ID: <MON.16.FEB.1998.093938.0500.BROVERAF@WFU.EDU>

Hey folks -

I am about to start posting the bid applications I have been able to translate.  I have also gone thru and done a *tiny* bit of editing - by this, I mean I got rid of some of the formal gibberish required on the first page of the bid - for example, the addresses, director's name, phone numbers, and lengthy lists of coaches.  I also edited out some of the gibberish symbols which came through in translation. In some circumstances, I eliminated some spacing to make it more easily readable.  I did not edit anything related to the substance of the applications.  Hope this works,
                adrienne
                U of M



From Broveraf  Mon Feb 16 08:40:30 1998
From: Broveraf (Adrienne F. Brovero)
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 09:40:30 -0500
Subject: Georgia CM
Message-ID: <MON.16.FEB.1998.094030.0500.BROVERAF@WFU.EDU>

In the event that you had any problems with the earlier attachment file,
the following is a copy of the bid for UGA CM.

        School:                 University of Georgia
        Debaters:               Michael Cates & Chris McIntosh

II.     TABULAR SUMMARY

A.      Record of the two as a team

Tournament      Date    Prlm    DO      O       Q       S       F       T

1.Northern Iowa 9/20    6-2     WWW     WWW     LLL                     8-3
2.Kentucky RR   10/1    3-5                                             3-5
3.Kentucky      10/4    5-3     WLL                                     5-4
4.Capital City  11/1    5-1             WWW     WWW     WWW     WWW     9-1
5.Wake Forest   11/15   7-1     WWW     WWW     WLL                     9-2
6.Southern Cal  11/28   6-2             WWW     WWW     WLL             9-3
7.Redlands RR   1/2     6-0                     WWW     LLL             7-1
8.West Georgia  1/17    6-2             WLL                             6-3
9.Dartmouth RR  1/24    4-2                                             4-2
10.Northwestern 2/7     7-1     WWW     WLL                             8-2

        Summary:

                A.      Preliminary Record:     42-12   77.8%
                B.      Elimination Record:     12-7    63.2%
                C.      Round Robins:           13-7    65.0%
                D.      Other Partners:         N/A
                E.      Total Record:           67-26   72.0%

B.      Record of the team with other colleagues
                N/A

C.       Number of preliminary rounds
                As a team                       74
                Michael Cates                   74
                Chris McIntosh                  74

III.    TOTAL RECORD OF DEBATERS
                same as section II

IV.     INDIVIDUAL TOURNAMENTS

A.              As a team

University of Northern Iowa, The Walter Ulrich Debates,
        September 20-22, 1997

Round           Side    W-L     Opponent

1.              N       W       Northwestern (Johnson & Kastanek)
2.              A       L       Kansas (Ardebili & McKeehan) *
3.              N       W       Wayne St. (Opalewski & Skillan)
4.              A       W       Samford (Johnson & Stetson)
5.              A       W       Redlands (Graffagnini & Wetzel) *
6.              N       W       Wayne St. (Gainer & Wilk)
7.              N       L       Emory (Fitzmier & Heidt) *
8.              A       W       Baylor (Coulter & Coulter) *

D-Octofinals    A       WWW     Wake Forest (Geppert & Lotz)
Octofinals      N       WWW     Northwestern (Sato & Sohrn)
Quarters        N       LLL     George Mason (Krein & Weiner)

Prelims:        6-2             Honors
Elims:          2-1             Sixth Seed
Total:          8-3             McIntosh - Fourth Speaker
                                Cates - Fourteenth Speaker

University of Kentucky Round Robin, October 1-2, 1997

Round           Side    W-L     Opponent

1.              A       W       Emory (Fitzmier & Heidt)
2.              N       W       Dartmouth (Hung & Lehotsky)
3.              N       L       Northwestern (Gottlieb & Sparacino)
4.              A       L       Harvard (Engstrom & Starr)
5.              N       L       Texas (Congdon & Griffin)
6.                              BYE
7.              A       W       Michigan (Stoughton & Wexler)
8.              A       L       Kansas (Ardebili & McKeehan)
9.              N       L       Michigan State (Cornelier & Sullivan)

Record: 3-5

University of Kentucky - Henry Clay Debates, October 4-6, 1997

Round           Side    W-L     Opponent

1.              N       W       Florida (Itskowitz & Smith)
2.              A       W       North Carolina (Fogarty & Hussein)
3.              N       L       Baylor (Coulter & Coulter)
4.              A       W       Northwestern (Sato & Sohrn)
5.              A       W       Texas (Griffin & Renken) *
6.              N       W       Michigan State (Rand & Smith)
7.              N               Kansas (Eber & Miller) *
8.              A       L       Michigan (Stoughton & Wexler) *

Doctos          A       WLL     Kansas (Eber & Miller)

Prelims:        5-3             Honors
Elims:          0-1             Eighteenth Seed
Total:          5-4             Cates - Ninth Speaker

Capital City Debates, November 1-3, 1997

Round           Side    W-L     Opponent

1.              A       W       George Washington (Ellenbogen & Thummala)
2.              N       W       Michigan (Nicalo & Pudelski) *
3.              A       W       Emory (Goshal & Wade)
4.              N       W       Texas (Griffin & Renken) *
5.              N       L       Dartmouth (Hung & Lehotsky) *
6.              A       W       Missouri at Kansas City (Barker & Betz) *

Octos           N       WWW     Missouri at Kansas City (Barker & Betz)
Quarters        A       WWW     West Georgia (Bonilla & Carver)
Semifinals      N       WWW     Emory (Kouros & Sahni)
Finals          A       WWW     Northwestern (Gottlieb & Sparacino)

Prelims:        5-1             Honors
Elims:          4-0             First Place
Total:          9-1             Fifth Seed
                                Cates - Ninth Speaker
                                McIntosh - Eleventh Speaker

Wake Forest - Franklin R. Shirley Dixie Classic, November 15-17, 1997

Round           Side    W-L     Opponent

1.              N       W       Augustana (Bratt & Charles)
2.              A       W       Emory (Bailey & Ghali) *
3.              A       W       Texas (Congdon & Reed) *
4.              N       L       Emory (Kouros & Sahni) *
5.              A       W       Kansas (Eber & Miller) *
6.              N       W       Emory (Heftman & McNabb) **
7.              A       W       Georgetown (Kwon & Steele) *
8.              A       W       Dartmouth (Hung & Lehotsky) *

Doct            A       WWW     Dartmouth (Farahany & Mead)
Octos           N       WWW     North Texas (Holloway & Morrow)
Quarters        A       WLL     Harvard (Engstrom & Starr)

Prelims:        7-1             Honors
Elims:          2-1             Fifth Seed
Total:          9-2             Cates - Tenth Speaker

University of Southern California, Alan Nichols Invitational,
        December 29-31, 1997

Round           Side    W-L     Opponent

1.              N       L       Liberty (Burns & Lawrence) *
2.              A       L       Northwestern (Gottlieb & Sparacino) *
3.              A       W       California St. Fullerton (Choe & Hernandez)
4.              N       W       California St. Chico (Lowrie & Cupp)
5.              A       W       Iowa (Podgorski & Scott)
6.              N       W       Gonzaga (Leviton & Voight)
7.              A       W       Eastern New Mexico (Baretto & Foy)
8.              N       W       Redlands (Miller & Wetzel) *

Octos           A       WWW     Liberty (Burns & Lawrence)
Quarters        A       WWW     Emory (Chase & Ghosal)
Semis           N       WL      Northwestern (Gottlieb & Sparacino)

Prelims:        6-2             Honors
Elims:          2-1             Sixth Seed
Total:          9-3

University of Redlands Round Robin, January 2-4, 1998

Round           Side    W-L     Opponent

1.              N       W       Harvard (Engstrom & Starr) *
2.              N       W       Michigan (Nicalo & Pudelski)
3.              A       W       Texas (Congdon & Reed)
4.              A       W       George Mason (Krein & Weiner)
5.                              BYE
6.              A       W       Southern California (Harrison & Revelins)
7.              N       W       Kansas (Ardebili & McKeehan)

Quarters:       A       WWW     California St. Fullerton (Heider & Lambrinos)
Semis:          N       LLL     Iowa (Peterson & Rayburn)

Prelims:        6-0             Honors
Elims:          1-1             First Seed
Total:          7-1             Semifinalist
                                Cates - Third Speaker
                                McIntosh - Tenth Speaker

State University of West Georgia, Robert D. Tisinger Debates,
        January 17-19, 1998

Round           Side    W-L     Opponent

1.              A       W       Iowa (Foster & Rathe)
2.              N       W       Wake (Bonura & Covey) **
3.              N       W       Michigan State (Cornelier & Sullivan) *
4.              A       L       Iowa (Peterson & Rayburn) *
5.              N       L       Emory (Horowitz & Lupo) **
6.              A       W       Wake Forest (Filstrup & Rufo) *
7.              N       W       Wake Forest (Atchison & Green) **
8.              A       W       Michigan State (Blair & Donald) *

Octos:          N       WLL     Harvard (Engstrom & Starr)

Prelims:        6-2             Honors
Elims:          0-1             Ninth Seed
Total:          6-3             McIntosh - Twentieth Speaker

Dartmouth College, Herbert James Round Robin, January 24-25, 1998

Round           Side    W-L     Opponent

1.              N       W       Northwestern (Gottlieb & Sparacino)
2.              A       W       Emory (Kouros & Sahni)
3.                              BYE
4.              A       L       Michigan (Stoughton & Wexler)
5.              N       L       Georgetown (Kwon & Steele)
6.              A       W       Dartmouth (Hung & Lehotsky)
7.              N       W       Harvard (Engstrom & Starr)

Total:          4-2             Honors
                                Second Place

Northwestern University - Owen L .Coon Debates, February 7-9, 1997

Round           Side    W-L     Opponent

1.              N       W       Southwest Missouri (Vega & Payne)
2.              A       W       Michigan State (Blair & Donald) *
3.              N       W       Redlands (Miller & Wetzel) *
4.              A       W       Emory (Ghoshal & Wade) *
5.              N       W       Dartmouth (Hung & Lehotsky) *
6.              A       L       Kansas (Eber & Miller) **
7.              N       W       Liberty (Burns & Lawrence) **
8.              A       W       George Mason (Krein & Weiner) *

Doctos          A       WWW     Whitman (Harris & Symonds)
Octos           N       WLL     Southern California (Harrison & Revelins)

Prelims:        7-1             Honors
Elims:          1-1             Third Seed
Total:          8-2             McIntosh - Sixth Speaker
                                Cates - Seventeenth Speaker




From Broveraf  Mon Feb 16 08:51:31 1998
From: Broveraf (Adrienne F. Brovero)
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 09:51:31 -0500
Subject: Kansas AM
Message-ID: <MON.16.FEB.1998.095131.0500.BROVERAF@WFU.EDU>

        School:         University of Kansas
        Debaters:       Hajir Ardebili and Grant McKeehan

II.  Tabular Summary

        A.  Record of the two debaters as a team.

Tournament      Date            Prelims     Bioctas     Octas   Qrts    Semis Finals    Total
UNI             9/20-22         6-2         WWW         WWW      WLL                    8-3
Kentucky RR     9/30-10/1       4-4                                                     4-4
Kentucky        10/3-5          6-2       bye           LLL                             6-3
Emporia 10/18-20        7-1                     WWW       bye   WLL             8-2
Wake Forest     11/15-17        6-2      WLL                                            6-3
Redlands RR     1/2-4           3-3                                                     3-3
William Jewel   1/9-11          5-1                     WWW     WWW     WWL     WLL     8-2
Baylor          1/24-26         8-0      bye            WWW     WWW     bye     WWL     11-0
SIU RR          2/2-4   5-2                                                     LLLLL   5-3
Northwestern    2/7-9   6-2     WWW     WLL                                             7-3

Summary:                        A.  Prelim Record:      44-10   81.5%
                                B.  Elim Record:        10-7    58.8%
                                C.  Round Robin:        12-9    57.1%
                                D.  Total Record:       66-26   71.7%

All round robin preliminary rounds are listed in the round robin section.
Any elimination rounds from a round robin tournament are included in the
elimination record section.

        B.  Record of debaters with other colleagues.
                does not apply
        C.  Number of preliminary rounds:
                As a team:      75
                Debater #1:     75
                Debater #2:     75

III.  Total Record of Debaters

        Debater #1:     Hajir Ardebili

                        A.  Prelim Record:      44-10   81.5%
                        B.  Elim Record:        10-7    58.8%
                        C.  Round Robin:        12-9    57.1%
                        D.  Total Record:       66-26   71.7%

        Debater #2:     Grant McKeehan

                        A.  Prelim Record:      44-10   81.5%
                        B.  Elim Record:        10-7    58.8%
                        C.  Round Robin:        12-9    57.1%
                        D.  Total Record:       66-26   71.7%

IV.  Individual Tournaments.

        A.  Individual tournaments of debaters as a team

Ulrich Season Opener at the University of Northern Iowa         September
20-22, 1997

        A       W       Augustana South Dakota MT (Muilenburg & Thalacker)
        N       W    *  Georgia CM (Cates and McIntosh)
        A       W    *  Emory TT (Todd & Tabek)
        N       W       George Mason CI (Clifton & Igiel)
        A        L    * Emory KS (Kouros & Sahni)                               Honors:
        N       W    *  Redlands GM (Grant &Miller)                             7th Seed
        A        L    * Dartmouth HL (Hung & Lehotsky)                  Ardebili 6th Speaker
        N       W    *  Wake Forest GL (Geppert & Lotz)
Biocta  N       WWW     Redlands GW (Graffagnini & Wetzel)
Octa    A       WWW     Texas GR (Griffin & Renken)
Qrts    A       WLL     Georgetown KS (Kwon & Steele)
                                Prelims:        6-2
                                Elims:                  2-1
                                Total:          8-3

Round Robin at the University of Kentucky
September 31 - October 1, 1997

        A       W       Michigan State CS (Cornellier & Sullivan)
        N       W       Emory FH (Fitzmier & Heidt)
        A        L      Northwestern GS (Gottlieb & Sparacino)
        N       W       Harvard ES (Engstrom & Staff)
        N        L      Michigan SW (Stoughton & Wexler)
        A        L      Dartmouth HL (Hung & Lehotsky)
        A        L      Texas CG (Congdon & Griffin)
        N       W       Georgia CM (Cates & McIntosh)
                                Prelims:  4-4





Henry Clay Debate Tournament at the University of Kentucky
October 3-5, 1997

        A       W  **   Michigan FM (Feldman & Mish)
        N       W  **   Alabama PS (Pfister & Shaw)
        A       W       Georgia EW (Eastwook & Weber)
        N       W   *   George Mason KW (Krein & Weiner)
        A       W   *   Northwestern GS (Gottlieb & Sparacino)          Honors:
        N        L   *  Dartmouth HL (Hung & Lehotsky)          7th Seed
        A       W   *   Fullerton HL (Heider & Lambrinos)               Ardebili 5th Speaker
        N        L   *  Michigan KR (Krakowsky & Rice)
Biocta       bye
Octa    A       LLL     Dartmouth HL (Hung & Lehotsky)
                                Prelims:           6-2
                                Elims:     0-1
                                Total:     6-3


Pflaum Debates  at Emporia State Universtiy
October 18-20, 1997

        A       W   **  UMKC BW (Baisley & Whyte)
        N       W       Wichita State GH (Gough & Hathaway)
        N       W    *  Emory HR (Horewitch & Reid)
        A       W       Southern Illinois MS (Metz & Spaienza)
        N       W    *  Emory KS (Kouros & Sahni)                       Honors:
        A       W    *  Michigan State HO (Hoffman & Owens)             2nd Seed
        A        L    * Michigan State BC (Blair & Cornellier)          Ardebili 2nd Speaker
        N       W    *  Michigan State MW (Monick & Woida)
Octa    N       WWW     Kansas State DG (Denny & Glasser)
Qrts         bye - met own team
Semis   A       WLL     Emory KS (Kouros & Sahni)
                                Prelims:           7-1
                                Elims:     1-1
                                Total:     8-2


Franklin R. Shirley Dixie Classic at Wake Forest University
November 15-17, 1997

        N       W       Pittsburg ES (Elwood & Stangl)
        A       W  **   Michigan State HM (Hoffman & Monick)
        A       W       Harvard HS (Harrow & Schrage)
        N       W   *   Emory GW (Goshal & Wade)
        A       W   *   Michigan State CS (Cornellier & Sullivan)               Honors:
        N        L   *  West Georgia BC (Bonilla & Carver)              7th Seed
        A       W       George Washington DM (Ducommen & Mast)  Ardebili 2nd Speaker
        N        L   *  Liberty BL (Burns & Lawrence)                   McKeehan 8th Speaker
Biocta  A       WLL     Samford JS (Johnson & Stetson)
                                Prelims:           6-2
                                Elims:     0-1
                                Total:     6-3

West Coast Round Robin Invitational at the University of Redlands
January 2-4, 1998

        N       W       Michigan NP (Nicalo & Pudelski)
        N       W       George Mason KW (Krein & Weiner)
        N       W       Southern California HR (Harrison & Revelins)
        A        L      Texas CR (Congdon & Reed)                       Honors:
        A        L   *  Harvard ES (Engstrom &Starr)                    Ardebili 8th Speaker
        A        L   *  Georgia CM (Cates & McIntosh)
                                Prelims:           3-3
                                Elims:     0-0
                                Total:     4-4

Georgia D. Bowman Debate Tournament at William Jewel
January 9-11, 1998

        A       W  **   Pace PB (Peterson & Bell)
        N       W       Southwest Missouri MW (Martin & Kilpatrick)
        N        L   *  Wake Forest AG (Atchison & Green)
        A       W       Cornell MM (Melton & Miller)                    Honors:
        N       W   *   Michigan State BD (Blair & Donald)              2nd Seed
        A       W   *   Southwest Missouri PV (Payne & Vega)            Ardebili 1st Speaker
Octa    A       WWW     Emporia HT (Holland & Tate)
Qrts    A       WWW     UMKC BB (Barker & Betz)
Semis   A       WWL     Southern Illinois SS (Slusher & Smith)
Finals  A       WLL     Michigan State BD (Blair & Donald)
                                Prelims:           5-1
                                Elims:     3-1
                                Total:     8-1


Glenn R. Capp Debate Tournament at Baylor University
January 24-26, 1998

        N       W   *   Wake Forest GR (Geppert & Rhodes)
        A       W       Emory EH (Early & Harkin)
        N       W   *   Michigan FM (Mish & Feldman)
        A       W   *   Texas GR (Griffin & Renken)
        A       W   *   Wake FR (Filstrup & Rufo)                       Honors:
        N       W   *   Northwestern AN (Anderson & Nemecek)            1st Seed
        N       W   *   Michigan State BD (Blair & Donald)              Ardebili 4th Speaker
        A       W   *   Michigan PS (Pudelski & Scannapieco)            McKeehan 16th Speaker
Biocta       bye
Octa    N       WWL     Michigan PS (Pudelski & Scannapieco)
Qrts    A       WWL     Wake Forest AG (Atchison & Green)
Semis        met own team
Finals  N       WWL     Emory FH (Fitzmier & Heidt)
                                Prelims:           8-0
                                Elims:     3-0
                                Total:     11-0


Saluki Round Robin at the Southern Illinois University          February2-4, 1998

        N       WW      Michigan State HW (Hoffman & Woida)
        A       WL      Emory HR (Horewitch & Reid)
        N       WW      Southern California BM (Bevan & Markowski)
        A        LL   * Michigan State CS (Cornellier & Sullivan)               Honors:
        N       WW      Southern California HS (Hurder & Stetson)       2nd Seed
        A       WL      Macalester AG (Alme & Garen)                    Ardebili 3rd Speaker
        N       WW      Pace BP (Bell & Peterson)                       McKeehan 5th Speaker
Finals  N       LLLLL   Michigan State CS (Cornellier & Sullivan)
                                Prelims:        5-2
                                Elims:          0-1
                                Total:          5-3


Owen L. Coon Debate Tournament at Northwestern University
February 7-9, 1998

        A       W       Emory CM (Chase & Matt)
        N       W       Wake Forest PY (Powell & Yopp)
        A       W   *   George Mason KW (Krein & Weiner)
        N       W   *   Iowa PS (Podgorski & Scott)
        N        L   *  Emory KS (Kouros & Sahni)                       Honors:
        A       W   *   Southern California HS (Hurder & Stetson)       7th Seed
        A       W   *   Wake Forest BC (Bonura & Covey)         Ardebili 4th Speaker
        N        L   *  Michigan SW (Stoughton & Wexler)                McKeehan 18th Speaker
Biocta  A       WWW     Emory GW (Goshal & Wade)
Semi    N       WLL     Harvard ES (Engstrom & Starr)
                                Prelims:           6-2
                                Elims:     1-1
                                Total:     7-3

        B.  Individual tournaments of debaters with other colleagues

                        does not apply



From Broveraf  Mon Feb 16 08:56:23 1998
From: Broveraf (Adrienne F. Brovero)
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 09:56:23 -0500
Subject: Kansas EM
Message-ID: <MON.16.FEB.1998.095623.0500.BROVERAF@WFU.EDU>

I.      School:         University of Kansas
        Debaters:       Mike Eber and Amy Miller

II.  Tabular Summary

        A.  Record of the two debaters as a team.

Tournament      Date            Prelims     Bioctas     Octas   Qrts    Semis   Finals  Total
UNI             9/20-22         5-3           WWL               WWL      WWL     LLL            8-4
Kentucky        10/3-5          6-2        WWL          WLL                             7-3
Emporia 10/18-20        5-3                     WWL     met own team            6-3
Wake Forest     11/15-17        5-3        WWL          WWW     LLLLL                   7-4
Redlands RR     1/2-4           1-5                                                     1-5
Baylor          1/24-26         6-2        bye  WWW     WWW     met own team            8-2
Northwestern    2/7-9           5-3                                                     5-3

                        Summary:        A.  Prelim Record:      32-16
66.7%
                                B.  Elim Record:        9-3     75.0%
                                C.  Round Robin:        1-5     16.7%
                                D.  Total Record:       42-24   63.6%

        B.  Record of debaters with other colleagues.

                does not apply

        C.  Number of preliminary rounds:

                As a team:      54
                Debater #1:     54
                Debater #2:     54

III.  Total Record of Debaters

        Debater #1:     Mike Eber

                A.  Prelim Record:      32-16   66.7%
                B.  Elim Record:        9-3     75.0%
                C.  Round Robin:        1-5     16.7%
                D.  Total Record:       42-24   63.6%

        Debater #2:  Amy Miller

                A.  Prelim Record:      32-16   66.7%
                B.  Elim Record:        9-3     75.0%
                C.  Round Robin:        1-5     16.7%
                D.  Total Record:       42-24   63.6%

IV.  Individual Tournaments.

        A.  Individual tournaments of debaters as a team

Ulrich Season Opener Debate Tournament at the University of Northern Iowa
September 20-22, 1997

        N       W       Liberty JS (Johnson & Seigalkoff)
        A        L    * Dartmouth FM (Farahany & Mead)
        N        L    * Texas CR (Congdon & Reed)
        A       W       UNLV KR (Kimbrough & Robertson)
        A       W       Michigan FS (Feldman & Sampson)         Honors:
        N       W       Iowa CH (Christensen & Haughney)                21st Seed
        A        L    * Georgetown KS (Kwon & Steele)
        N       W    *  Redlands GW (Graffagnini & Wetzel)
Biocta  N       WWL     Northwestern AN (Anderson & Nemecek)
Octa    A       WWL     Baylor CC (Coulter & Coulter)
Qrts    A       WWL     Michigan SW (Stoughton & Wexler)
Semis   A       LLL     Emory KS (Kouros & Sahni)
                                Prelims:           5-3
                                Elims:             3-1
                                Total:     8-4


Henry Clay Debate Tournmament at the University of Kentucky
October 3-5, 1997

        A       W   *   Michigan KR (Krakowsky & Rice)
        N       W       Iowa FR (Foster & Rathe)
        A       W       Samford BD (Buzachero & Dye)
        N        L   *  Emory FH (Fitzmier & Heidt)
        N        L      SIU SS (Slusher & Smith)                Honors:
        A       W       USC HS (Hurder & Stetson)               15th Seed
        A       W   *   Georgia CM (Cates & McIntosh)           Eber 20th Speaker
        N       W       Northwestern AN (Anderson & Nemecek)
Biocta  N       WWL     Georgia CM (Cates & McIntosh)
Octa    N       WLL     Michigan State CS (Cornellier & Sullivan)
                                Prelims:           6-2
                                Elims:     1-1
                                Total:     7-3

Pflaum Debate Tournament at Emporia State Universtiy
October 18-20, 1997

        N        L    * Trinity LM (Lotz & Meches)
        A        L    * Michigan State HO (Hoffman & Owens)
        N        L    * UMKC BC (Betz & Coffman)
        A       W   **  UNLV KR (Kimbrough & Robertson)
        A       W       Southern Illinois MS (Metz & Spaienza)          Honors:
        N       W       Wichita State GH (Gough & Hathaway)             7th Seed
        N       W    *  Eastern New Mexico BF (Baretto & Foy)           Eber 3rd Speaker
        A       W       Augustana College BC (Brett & Charles)
Octa    N       WWL     Emory HR (Horewitch & Reid)
Qrts         met own team
                                Prelims:           5-3
                                Elims:     1-0
                                Total:     6-3


Franklin R. Shirley Dixie Classic at Wake Forest University
November 15-17, 1997

        N       W       Pittsburg DD (Delaney & DeNardis)
        A       W       Northwestern RS (Redden & Smith)
        N       W       John Carol SW (Sovacool & Wiley)
        A        L   *  West Georgia BC (Bonilla & Carver)
        N        L   *  Georgia CM (Cates & McIntosh)           Honors:
        A       W       Wayne State SW (Skillen & Wilk) 23rd Seed
        N        L  **  Northwestern AN (Anderson & Nemecek)    Eber 15th Speaker
        A       W       Michigan FS (Feldman & Sampson)
Biocta  A       WWL     Texas CR (Congdon & Reed)
Octa    A       WWW     Samford JS (Johnson & Stetson)
Qrts    A       LLLLL   Dartmouth HL (Hung & Lehotsky)
                                Prelims:           5-3
                                Elims:     2-1
                                Total:     7-4


West Coast Invitational Round Robin at the University of Redlands
January 2-4, 1998

        A        L   *  Fullerton HL (Heider & Lambrinos)
        A        L      Liberty BL (Burns & Lawrence)
        A        L   *  Emory FH (Fitzmier & Heidt)
        N        L      Redlands MW (Miller & Wetzel)
        N       W   *   Michigan SW (Stoughton & Wexler)
        N        L   *  Georgetown KS (Kwon & Steele)

                                Prelims:           1-5
                                Elims:     0-0
                                Total:     1-5

Glenn R. Capp Debate Tournament at Baylor University
January 24-26, 1998

        N       W   *   Northwestern SS (Sato & Sorhn)
        A       W       Georgia State HK (Horsley & Kelley)
        N       W       Arizona State AW (Aralica & Williams)
        A       W       Dartmouth FM (Farahany & Mead)
        A       W   *   Iowa PR (Peterson & Rayburn)            Honors:
        N        L   *  Michigan State BD (Blair & Donald)      4th Seed
        N       W   *   Texas EG (Evans & Grove)                Eber 3rd Speaker
        A        L   *  Redlands MW (Miller & Wetzel)
Biocta       bye
Octa    A       WWW     Northwestern SS (Sato & Sohrn)
Qrts    N       WWW     Macalester AG (Alme & Garen)
Semis         met own team
                                Prelims:           6-2
                                Elims:     2-0
                                Total:     8-2


Owen L. Coon Debate Tournament at Northwestern University
February 7-9, 1998

        A       W       Iowa CJ (Christensen & Jensen)
        N       W       George Mason IR (Igiel & Reed)
        A       W   *   North Texas HM (Holloway & Morrow)
        N       W   *   Emory TT (Tabak & Todd)
        A        L   *  Iowa PR (Peterson & Rayburn)            Honors:
        N       W   *   Georgia CM (Cates & McIntosh)           33rd Seed
        N        L   *  Emory FH (Fitzmier & Heidt)
        A        L   *  Dartmouth HL (Hung & Lehotsky)
                                Prelims:           5-3
                                Elims:     0-0
                                Total:     5-3

        B.  Individual tournaments of debaters with other colleagues

                        does not apply



From Broveraf  Mon Feb 16 09:00:26 1998
From: Broveraf (Adrienne F. Brovero)
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 10:00:26 -0500
Subject: First round bid applications
Message-ID: <MON.16.FEB.1998.100026.0500.BROVERAF@WFU.EDU>

Okay -

Despite my best efforts, the summaries at the beginning of the applications (where is lists each tourney and the ballot counts for elims) aren't lining up properly.  I can't help that anymore than I have already tried.  However, the info is included elsewhere in the application, where the individual tourneys are listed, so you can still figure out how that team did in elims.

-adri

----------
From:   Adrienne F. Brovero[SMTP:Broveraf at wfu.edu]
Sent:   Monday, February 16, 1998 9:39 AM
To:     EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU
Subject:        First round bid applications

Hey folks -

I am about to start posting the bid applications I have been able to translate.  I have also gone thru and done a *tiny* bit of editing - by this, I mean I got rid of some of the formal gibberish required on the first page of the bid - for example, the addresses, director's name, phone numbers, and lengthy lists of coaches.  I also edited out some of the gibberish symbols which came through in translation. In some circumstances, I eliminated some spacing to make it more easily readable.  I did not edit anything related to the substance of the applications.  Hope this works,
                adrienne
                U of M



From bbates2  Mon Feb 16 09:22:50 1998
From: bbates2 (Benjamin R. Bates)
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 10:22:50 -0500
Subject: Richmond Univ.
In-Reply-To: <v01530501b10ce70e17f3@[141.166.139.71]>
Message-ID: <MON.16.FEB.1998.102250.0500.BBATES2@RICHMOND.EDU>

>        Ben is in Vermont right now for the tourny. As soon as he gets
>back, I'll have him post the url for the case, an I'll discuss with him the
>prospect of us running it again. Until then, here's the idea:

The UR Pornography Is Bad case is posted on the web at

http://www.student.richmond.edu/~bbates2/case.htm

Read it, Learn it, Live it.
Salaam
BEN
I was a pathological liar.  Or am, I should say.
Lying is like alcoholism, one is always "recovering."
-- Graham in sex, lies, and videotape



From Broveraf  Mon Feb 16 09:04:59 1998
From: Broveraf (Adrienne F. Brovero)
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 10:04:59 -0500
Subject: Georgetown KS
Message-ID: <MON.16.FEB.1998.100459.0500.BROVERAF@WFU.EDU>

I. School: Georgetown University

Debaters: Jason Kwon and Kelly Steele

II. Tabular Summary

    1.. Record of the two debaters as a team
    Tournament Date Prelims DBLES OCTAS QTRS SEMIS Finals TOTAL

    1. UNI 9/20 5-3 WWL WWL WWL WWL WLL 9-4

    2. Kentucky 10/4 7-1 -BYE- WWW LLL 8-2

    3. Captial City 11/1 5-1 WWL LLL 6-2

    4. Wake 11/15 6-2 WWL WWL WWLLL 8-3

    5. Southern Cal 12/30 5-3 WWW WWL WWW WWL LLL 9-4

    6. Redland RR 1/3 4-2 LLL 4-3

    7. Dartmouth RR 1/24 3-3 -N/A- 3-3

    8. Northwestern 2/7 7-1 WWW WWL WWW WWL LLL 11-2

    Summary:

    A. Prelim Record: 35-11 76.1%

    B. Elim Record: 16-7 69.6%

    C. Round Robins 7-5 58.3%

    D. Junior Division N/A

    E. Total Record 58-23 71.6%

    b.. Record of debaters with other partners
    N/A

    c.. Number of Preliminary Rounds
As a team: 46

Jason Kwon: 46

Kelly Steele: 46

    a.. Total Record of the Debaters
    Jason Kwon

    Prelim Record: 35-11 76.1%

    Elim Record: 16-7 69.6%

    Round Robins 7-5 58.3%

    Total Record 58-23 71.6%

    Kelly Steele

    Prelim Record: 35-11 76.1%

    Elim Record: 16-7 69.6%

    Round Robins 7-5 58.3%

    Total Record 58-23 71.6%

    b.. Individual Tournaments
University of Northern Iowa Sept 20-22

Round Side W/L Opponent

1. A W Utah (Delahunt and Munk)

2. N L Wayne State (Lewis and Thompson)

3. A W Western Washington (Pitt and Van Horn)

4. N W Iowa (Christensen and Haughney)

5. N W Dartmouth (Farahany and Mead)*

6. A L Texas (Griffin and Renken)*

7. N W Kansas (Miller and Eber)*

8. A L Wake Forest (Rhodes and Ryan)*

DBLES N WWL Iowa (Podgorski and Scott)=20

OCTAS A WWL Emory (Fitzmier and Heidt)

QRTRS N WWL Kansas (Ardebili and McKeehan)

SEMIS A WWL George Mason (Krien and Weiner)

Finals A WLL Emory (Kouros and Sahni)

Prelims: 5-3

Elims: 4-1

Total: 9-4

Honors: Second Place

University of Kentucky October 4-6

Round Side W/L Opponent

1. A W Dartmouth (Farahany and Mead)*

2. N L Baylor (Brasure and Palmer)**

3. A W Macalester (Hart and Wilson)

4. N W Arizona State (Martin and Skarb)*

5. A W Baylor (Coulter and Coulter)**

6. N W Emory (Horwitz and Harkin)

7. A W Dartmouth (Hung and Lehotsky)*

8. N W Fullerton (Heider and Lambrinos)*

DBLES -BYE-

OCTAS N WWW Dartmouth (Farahany and Mead)

QRTRS N LLL Harvard (Starr and Engstrom)

Prelims: 7-1

Elims: 1-1

Total: 8-2

Honors: Quarterfinalist, 5th Seed



Capital City Debates November 1-3

Round Side W/L Opponent

1. A W Wake Forest (Filstrup and Covey)

2. N W Kansas State (Glaser and Zollman)

3. A L Texas (Griffin and Renken)*

4. N W West Georgia (Bonilla and Carver)**

5. N W UMKC (White and Green)

6. A W Arizona St. (Aralica and Williams)=20

OCTAS N WLL Michigan (Nicalo and Pudelski)

QTRS A LLL Emory (Kouros and Sahni)

Prelims: 5-1

Elims: 1-1

Total: 6-2

Honors: Quaterfinalist



Wake Forest University Nov 15-17

Round Side W/L Opponent

1. N W Texas (Evans and Grove)

2. A W Macalester (Garen and Alme)*

3. N W Redlands (Grant and Miller)

4. A W Harvard (Starr and Engstrom)*

5. A W West Georgia (Bonilla and Carver)*

6. N L Michigan State (Cornellier and Sullivan)*

7. N L Georgia (Cates and McIntosh)*

8. A W UMKC (Barker and Betz)*

DBLES N WWL Emory (Horwitz and Lupo)

OCTAS A WWL Northwestern (Gottlieb and Sparacino)

QRTRS A WWLLL Iowa (Peterson and Rayburn)

Prelims: 6-2

Elims: 2-1

Total: 8-3

Honors: Quarterfinalist



University of Southern Cal Dec 29-31

Round Side W/L Opponent

1. A W Texas (Grove and Evans)

2. N W Trinity (Lotz and Meshes)

3. A W Whitman (Harris and Symonds)*

4. N L Fullerton (Lambrinos and Heider)*

5. A L Eastern New Mexico (Barreto and Foy)

6. N W Iowa (Christensen and Jensen)

7. N W SIU (Slusher and Smith)*

8. A L West Georgia (Bonilla and Carver)*

DBLES A WWW Gonzaga=20

OCTAS A WWL Fullerton (Lambrinos and Heider)

QRTRS A WWW Wake Forest (Geppert and Rhodes)

SEMIS A WWL Michigan (Stoughton and Wexler)

FINALS N LLL Northwestern (Gottlieb and Sparacino)

Prelims: 5-3

Elims: 4-1

Total: 9-4

Honors: Second Place



Redlands Round Robin Jan 2-4

Round Side W/L Opponent

1. N W Emory (Fitzmeir and Heidt)*

2. A W Fullerton (Lambrinos and Heider)*

3. N L Liberty (Lawrence and Burns)

4. A W Redlands (Miller and Wetzel)

5. N L Michigan (Stoughton and Wexler)*

6. N W Kansas (Eber and Miller)

QRTRS A LLL Northwestern (Gottlieb and Sparacino)

Prelims: 4-2

Elims: 0-1

Elims: 4-3

Honors: Quaterfinalist



Dartmouth Round Robin January 25-26

Round Side W/L Opponent

1. N L Michigan (Stoughton and Wexler)

2. A L Northwestern (Gottlieb and Sparacino)

3. N W Emory (Kouros and Sahni)

4. A W Georgia (Cates and McIntosh)

5. N L Harvard (Starr and Engstrom)

6. A W Dartmouth (Hung and Lehotsky)

Total: 3-3

Honors: Tied for 3rd Place and awarded 4th on points



Northwestern University Feb 7-9

Round Side W/L Opponent

1. N W Southwest Missouri (Martin and Langford)=20

2. A W Dartmouth (Garen and Williams)

3. N W Baylor (Palmer and Brasure)

4. A L West Georgia (Carver and Bonilla)*

5. N W Emory (Tabek and Todd)*

6. A W Wake Forest (Ellis and Lotz)

7. N W Michigan State (Blair and Donald)*

8. A W Emory (Fitzmeir and Heidt)*

DBLES A WWW Emory (Harkin and Tavery)=20

OCTAS N WWL West Georgia (Bonilla and Carver)

QRTRS A WWW Southern Cal (Stetson and Hurder)

SEMIS N WWL Michigan (Stoughton and Wexler)

FINALS A LLL Emory (Kouros and Sahni)

Prelims: 7-1

Elims: 4-1

Total: 11-2

Honors: Second Place, 5th Seed



From Broveraf  Mon Feb 16 09:06:46 1998
From: Broveraf (Adrienne F. Brovero)
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 10:06:46 -0500
Subject: Fullerton HL
Message-ID: <MON.16.FEB.1998.100646.0500.BROVERAF@WFU.EDU>

I. CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, FULLERTON

        Debaters: Laura Heider and Demetrius Lambrinos

II. TABULAR SUMMARY

A. RECORD OF THE TWO DEBATERS AS A TEAM

TOURNAMENT              DATE    PRELIM   SEXTOS   OCTOS  QTRS  SEMIS    FINALS   TOTAL
1. UNI                  9/20-22  4-4                                                 4-4
2. KENTUCKY             10/3-5   5-3            WWW      LLL                                 6-4
3. UNLV                                 10/25-27
6-2                              LLL                         6-3
4. AMERICAN                  11/1-3      4-2             LLL                                         4-3
5. WAKE FOREST          11/15-17 6-2             WWW     WWWWW  WWW LLL      9-3
6. USC                                  12/29-31 6-2
WLL                                          6-3
7. REDLANDS RR                  1/2-4
3-3                                             LLL                  3-4
8. BAYLOR               1/24-26  5-3         WWW    LLL                              6-4
9. NORTHWESTERN         2/7-9    5-3         WWW    WLL                      6-4

                                SUMMARY: A. PRELIM RECORD:      41-20   67.2%
                                                B. ELIM RECORD:         6-8     42.9%
                                                C. ROUND ROBINS:        3-4     42.9%
        D. JUNIOR DIVISION:     0-0     ---
        E. TOTAL RECORD:        50-32   61.0%

B. RECORD OF THE INDIVIDUAL DEBATERS WITH OTHER COLLEAGUES

Neither debater attended any tournaments with other colleagues.

C. NUMBER OF PRELIMINARY ROUNDS AS A TEAM

As a team:  61

III. INDIVIDUAL TOURNAMENTS

A. INDIVIDUAL TOURNAMENTS OF DEBATERS AS A TEAM

NORTHERN IOWA                   9/20-22

ROUND           SIDE            W/L     OPPONENT                                TEAM
1               Aff             W       Iowa (Keuter & Roston)                  Prelims:        4-4
2               Neg             W       Liberty (Burns & Lawrence) *            Elims:  N/A
3               Aff             W       Michigan (Mish & Scanapiecio)           Total:  4-4
4               Neg             L       Dartmouth (Culyba & Snip)
5               Aff             L       Dartmouth (Hung & Lehotsky) *
6               Neg             L       Baylor (Coulter & Coulter) *
7               Neg             L       North Texas (Holloway & Morrow) *
8               Aff             W       Iowa (Christensen & Haughney)

Individual Honors: Heider, 10th speaker.  Lambrinos, 16th speaker.

UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY          10/3-5

ROUND           SIDE            W/L     OPPONENT                                TEAM
1               Neg             W       Louisville (Lee & Westbrook)            Prelims:        5-3
2               Aff             W       Wake Forest (Bonura & Ellis)            Elims:  1-1
3               Neg             W       Emory (Goshal & Wade) *         Total:  6-4
4               Aff             L       Iowa (Peterson & Rayburn) *
5               Aff             W       Wake Forest (Rhodes & Ryan)             19th seed
6               Neg             W       Harvard (Harrow & Speier)
7               Neg             L       Kansas (Ardebeli & McKeehan) *
8               Aff             L       Georgetown (Kwon & Steele) *
Doubles         A               WWW     Michigan (State Blair & Donald)
Octos           A               LLL     Michgan (Stoughton & Wexler)

Individual Honors: Heider, 16th speaker

UNLV                                    10/25-27

ROUND           SIDE            W/L     OPPONENT                                TEAM
1               Aff             W       USC (Stetson & Hurder) *                Prelims:        6-2
2               Neg             W       ASU (Aralica & Williams)                Elims:  0-1
3               Aff             W       SMS (Kilpatrick & Atkins)               Total:  6-3
4               Neg             W       Redlands (Hughes & Christiansen)
5               Aff             W       SIU (Slusher & Smith) *                 6th seed
6               Neg             L       Wayne St. (Thompson & Lewis) *
7               Aff             W       USC (Markowski & Bevan) *
8               Neg             L       USC (Revelens & Harrison) *
Octos           Neg             LLL     SIU (Slusher & Smith)

Individual Honors: Lambrinos, 15th speaker

CAPITOL CITY DEBATES            11/1-3

ROUND           SIDE            W/L     OPPONENT                                TEAM
1               Aff             L       UMKC (Collingnon & Stites)              Prelims: 4-2
2               Neg             W       Emory (Heftman & McNabb)                Elims:  0-1
3               Neg             W       Georgetown (Botvinnick & Simonsen)      Total:  4-3
4               Aff             W       ASU (Skarb & Martin)
5               Neg             L       Texas (Renken & Griffin)        *               16th seed
6               Aff             W       Liberty (Burns & Lawrence)
Octos           Neg             LLL     Emory (Kouros & Sahni)

WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY          11/15-17

ROUND           SIDE            W/L     OPPONENT                                TEAM
1               Neg             W       Georgetown (Bottvinnick & Simonsen)     Prelims: 6-2
2               Aff             W       SIU (Moore & Vuglia) **                 Elims:  3-1
3               Neg             W       Liberty (Sciorra & Siegelkoff)          Total:  9-3
4               Aff             W       Georgia St. (Horsely & Kelley)
5               Aff             W       Emory (Fitzmeyer & Heidt) *             11th seed
6               Neg             L       Dartmouth (Hung & Lehotsky) *
7               Aff             W       Baylor (Brasure & Palmer) *
8               Neg             L       Texas (Griffin & Renken) *
Doubles         Aff             WWW     Macalester (Alme & Garen)
Octos           Neg             WWW     West Georgia (Bonilla & Carver)
Quarters                Neg             WWWWL   Emory (Kouros & Sahni)
Semis           Aff             LLL     Dartmouth (Hung & Lehotsky)

Individual Honors: Heider, 13th speaker.

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CAL.     12/29-31, 1998

ROUND           SIDE            W/L     OPPONENT                                TEAM
1               Neg             W       George Mason (Krein & Weiner) *         Prelims:        6-2
2               Aff             W       Texas (Evans & Grove)                   Elims:  0-1
3               Neg             W       Lewis & Clark (James & Rhea)            Total:  6-3
4               Aff             W       Georgetown (Kwon & Steele) *
5               Neg             W       Northwestern (Gottleib & Sparacino) *   4th seed
6               Aff             L       Liberty (Burns & Lawrence) *
7               Neg             L       Michigan (Stoughton & Wexler) *
8               Aff             W       Whitman (Clarke & Scoville) *
Doubles                                 Bye
Octos           Neg             LLW     Georgetown (Kwon & Steele)

Individual Honors: Heider, 4th speaker.  Lambrinos, 7th speaker.

REDLANDS ROUND ROBIN            1/ 2-4, 1998

ROUND           SIDE            W/L     OPPONENT                                TEAM
1               Neg             W       Kansas (Eber & Miller)                  Prelims:        3-3
2               Aff             L       Emory (Fitzmeyer & Heidt) *             Elims:  0-1
3               Aff             L       Michigan (Stoughton & Wexler) *         Total:  3-4
4               Neg             L       Georgetown (Kwon & Steele) *
5               Aff             W       Liberty (Burns & Lawrence)              8th seed
6               Neg             W       Redlands (Miller & Wetzel)
Quarters                Neg             LLL     Georgia (Cates & McIntosh)

BAYLOR UNIVERSITY               1/30-2/2, 1998
ROUND           SIDE            W/L     OPPONENT                                TEAM
1               Neg             W       Iowa (Keuter & Roston)                  Prelims: 5-3
2               Aff             W       Michigan (Pudelski & Scannapieco) *     Elims:  1-1
3               Neg             L       Dartmouth (Farahany & Mead)             Total:  6-4
4               Aff             W       Wake Forest (Geppert & Rhodes) *
5               Aff             L       Texas (Evans & Grove) *                 10th seed
6               Neg             W       Emory (Eno & Goodrich)
7               Neg             L       Redlands (Miller & Wetzell) *
8               Aff             W       Iowa (Foster & Rathe)
Doubles         Aff             WWW     Eastern New Mexico (Barreto & Fox)
Octos           Neg             LLL     Texas (Renken & Griffin)

Individual Honors: Heider, 7th speaker.  Lambrions, 8th speaker.

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY 2/6-9, 1998
ROUND           SIDE            W/L     OPPONENT                                TEAM
1               Neg             W       Augustana (Charles & Bratt)             Prelims:        5-3
2               Aff             W       Michigan (Krakowski & Rice) **          Elims:  1-1
3               Neg             L       Michigan St. (Cornelier & Sullivan) *   Total:  6-4
4               Aff             W       Macalester (Wilson & Hart)
5               Aff             L       Iowa (Podgurski & Scott)        *               17th seed
6               Neg             W       George Washington (Thammala & Stubbs)
7               Neg             W       Michigan St. (Hoffman & Monick)
8               Aff             L       Samford (Stetson & Johnson) *
Doubles         Aff             WWW     Wake Forest (Bonura & Covey)
Octos           Neg             LLL     Michigan (Stoughton & Wexler)

Individual Honors: Heider, 12th speaker.  Lambrinos, 16th speaker.

B. INDIVIDUAL TOURNAMENTS OF DEBATERS WITH OTHER COLLEAGUES.

No tournaments were attended with other partners.



From Broveraf  Mon Feb 16 09:10:13 1998
From: Broveraf (Adrienne F. Brovero)
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 10:10:13 -0500
Subject: Emory FH
Message-ID: <MON.16.FEB.1998.101013.0500.BROVERAF@WFU.EDU>

I.  School:   Emory University

Debaters:  Stephen Heidt and Dan Fitzmeier

II.  Tabular Summary:

A.      Record of the Two Debaters as a team.

        Tournament      Prelims 2-Octas Octas Qrtrs Semis Finals Totals

1.      Northern Iowa   8-0     WWW     WLL                       9-1
2.      Kentucky RR     4-4                                       4-4
3.      Kentucky        8-0     By      WWW     LLL               9-1
4.      Capital City    5-1             WLL                       5-2
5.      Cent. Oklahoma 7-1              WWW Met Emory   WWW LLL   9-2
6.      Wake Forest     6-2     WLL                               6-3
7.      Southern Cal    6-2     Bye     WLL                       6-3
8.      Redlands        6-2                     WLL               6-3
9.      West Georgia    6-2                   met Emory WLL       6-3
10.     Baylor          6-2     Bye     WWW met Emory WWW WLL     8-3
11.     Northwestern    6-2     WWW     WWW     LLL               8-3


                                                Summary:
                                                Prelim Record   58-12%82.88
                                                Elim Record      8-10%44.44
                                                Round Robins     10-6%62.50
                                                Total Record    76-27%73.78

B.      Record  of Individuals (with other colleagues)

C.      Number of Preliminary Rounds

        As a Team       70
        Debater #1      70
        Debater #2      70
III.  Total Record of Debaters

        Debater #1  Stephen Heidt               Debater #2  Dan Fitzmeier

        Prelim Record    58-12%82.88            Prelim Record 58-12%82.88
        Elim Record       8-10 %44.44           Elim Record    8-10%44.44
        Round Robins     10-6 %62.50            Round Robins  10-6 %62.50
        Total Record    76-27%73.78             Total Record  76-27%73.78


IV.  Record of Debaters at Individual Tournaments

A.  Record of the two debaters as a team

Ulrich Season Opener    University of Northern Iowa     9/20-22/97      73
Teams

1.      N       W       Texas (Grove and Powers)
2.      A       W       Dartmouth (Hung and Lehotsky)*
3.      N       W       Augustana (Bratt and Charles)
4.      A       W       Wayne (Gainer and Wilk)
5.      A       W       Northwestern (Gottleib and Sparacino)*
6.      N       W       Redlands (Graffanigni and Wetzel)*
7.      A       W       Georgia (Cates and McIntosh)*
8.      N       W       Redlands (Grant and Miller)*

2-0ctas A       WWW     Kansas (Magarile and Melman)
Octas   N       WLL     Georgetown (Kwon and Steele)
                                                Honors:
                                                Second Seed
                                                Fitzmier Speaker One
                                                Heidt Speaker Seven

                                                Totals:
                                                Prelims: 8-0
                                                Elims    1-1
                                                Totals   9-1

                                                Fitzmier Speaker One
                                                Heidt Speaker Seven

Thoroughbred Round Robin        University of Kentucky  9/30-10/1/97
(Rounds are not necessarily in order they occurred.)

1.      A       L       Texas (Griffin and Renkin)
2.      N       W       Michigan (Wexler and Stoughton)
3.      N       L       Georgia (Cates and McIntosh)
4.      N       W       Michigan State (Cornelier and Sullivan)
5.      A       L       Northwestern (Gottleib and Sparacino)
6.      N       W       Harvard (Engstrom and Starr)
7.      A       L       Kansas (Ardibelli and McKeehan)
8.      A       W       Dartmouth (Hung and Lehotsky)
                                                        Honors:
                                                        Fitzmier Speaker One
                                                        Record:  4-4
Henry Clay Debates      University of Kentucky  10/3-5/97       89 Teams

1.      N       W       Pittsburgh (Elwood and Stangle)
2.      A       W       Michigan State (Monick and Woiden)**
3.      N       W       Southern California (Hurder and Stetson)*
4.      A       W       Kansas (Ebert and Miller)*
5.      A       W       Dartmouth (Hung and Lehotsky)*
6.      N       W       Baylor (Brasure and Palmer)**
7.      N       W       Michigan State (Blair and Donald)*
8.      A       W       Michigan State (Cornellier and Sullivan)*

2-Octas Bye
Octas   A       WWW     George Mason (Krein and Weiner)
Qrtrs   A       LLL     Northwestern (Gottleib and Sparacino)


Honors:
Seed 1
Fitzmeier Speaker 11
Heidt      Speaker 10

Prelims 8-0
Elims           1-1
Totals          9-1

Capital City Debates    American University     11/1-3/97       74 Teams

1.      N       L       Liberty (Siegelkiff and Sciorra)
2.      A       W       Harvard (Harrow and Speier)
3.      N       W       Miami (Horsley and Prieto)
4.      A       W       Michigan (Scanapeico and Mish)**
5.      A       W       Texas (Evans and Grove)**
6.      N       W       George Mason (Krein and Weiner)*
Octas   N       WLL     West Georgia (Bonilla and Carver)

Honors:
Seed 4
Fitzmeir Speaker 3
Heidt Speaker 14

Prelims 5-1
Elims:          0-1
Totals: 5-2

Joe C. Jackson Invitational     University of Central Oklahoma  58 Teams

1.      A       W       Middle Tennessee (Loveshak and Crews)
2.      N       W       Gonzaga (Hummal and Yake)
3.      N       W       Missouri-Kansas City (Stiles and Colignon)*
4.      A       W       Southern Illinois(Roland and Woolery)*
5.      A       W       Michigan State (Sullivan and Cornelier)*
6.      N       L       Missouri-Kansas City (Barker and Betts)*
7.      N       W       Southern Illinois (Slusher and Smith)*

2-Octas N       WWW     Missouri-Kansas City
Octas   Met Emory Todd and Tabak
Qrtrs   N       WWW     Arizona State (Skarb and Martin)
Semis   N       LLL     Michigan State (Cornelier and Sullivan)


Honors:
Seed Two
Fitzmeir Speaker 3
Heidt Speaker 6

Prelims 6-1
Elims           2-1
Totals          8-2

Franklin R. Shirley Dixie Classic       Wake Forest     11/11/97
128 Teams

1.      N       W       Georgia State (Horsley and Kelley)
2.      A       W       North Carolina (Hussain and Schneider)
3.      A       W       Iowa (Podgorny and Scott)*
4.      N       W       Iowa (Rathe and Foster)
5.      N       L       Fullerton (Heider and Lambrinos)*
6.      A       L       Michigan (Stoughton and Wexler)*
7.      N       W       Wayne (Andrus and Gainer)
8.      A       W       Northwestern (Anderson and Nemecek)**
2-OctasN        WLL     North Texas (Holloway and Morrow)


Prelims:        6-2
Elims:          0-1
Totals: 6-3

Honors:
Seed 12
Fitzmeir Speaker 19

Alan Nichols Invitational University of Southern California     12/29/96
65 Teams

1.      A       W       Texas (Griffin and Renkin)*
2.      N       W       Pepperdine (Missing results sheet page 5)
3.      N       W       John Carroll (Missing results sheet page 3)
4.      A       W       Gonzaga (Voight and Moburg-Jones)*
5.      A       L       Michigan (Stoughton and Wexler)*
6.      N       W       Redlands (Miller and Wetzel)*
7.      N       L       Northwestern (Gottleib and Sparacino)*
8.      A       W       Gonzaga (Headridge and Olson)*
2-Octas Bye
Octas   A       WLL     Wake Forest (Geppert and Rhodes)


Honors: Seed 5
Fitzmier Speaker 1
Heidt Speaker 8

Prelims:        6-2
Elims           0-1
Totals          6-3

Redlands Round Robin    University of Redlands   1/2/97 21 Teams

1.      A       L       Georgetown (Kwon and Steele)*
2.      N       W       Fullerton (Heider and Lambrinos)*
3.      N       W       Kansas (Ebert and Miller)
4.      A       L       Redlands (Miller and Wetzel)
5.      N       W       Michigan (Stoughton and Wexler)*
6.      A       W       Liberty (Burns and Lawrence)
Qrtrs   N       WLL     Iowa (Rayburn and Peterson)

Honors: Seed 5
Fitzmier Speaker 5

Prelims:        4-2
Elims:          0-1
Totals: 4-3

Richard Tisinger        West Georgia College                    1/11/97 50
Teams

1.      A       W       Florida State (Perez and Verheist)
2.      N       W       Michigan State (Hoffman and Monick)*
3.      N       W       Texas (Griffin and Renkin)
4.      A       W       George Mason (Krein and Weiner)*
5.      N       L       Michigan (Stoughton and Wexler)*
6.      A       L       Northwestern (Gottleib and Sparacino)*
7.      A       W       Baylor (Coulter and Coulter)
8.      N       W       Iowa (Podgorni and Scott)*

Octas                   Met Emory HM
Qrtrs   N       WLL     Michigan State (Cornelier and Sullivan)
Prelims 6-2
Elims           0-1
Totals          6-3
Honors:         Seed 6
Fitzmier Speaker Four
Heidt Speaker Twelve

Glenn R. Capp Debates   Baylor University               1/25-7/98       57
Teams

1.      N       W       Redlands (Miller and Wetzell)*
2.      A       W       Macalaster (Alme and Garen)*
3.      N       L       Texas (Grove and Evans)*
4.      A       L       Iowa (Pogorni and Scott)*
5.      A       W       Kansas (Herndon and Flynn)
6.      N       W       Iowa (Peterson and Rayburn)*
7.      N       W       Dartmouth (Farahany and Mead)*
8.      A       W       Texas (Griffin and Renkin)*

2-Octas         Bye
Octas   A       WWL     Wake Forest (Geppert and Rhodes)
Qrtrs                   Met Emory Todd and Tabak
Semis   N       WWW     North Texas (Morrow and Holloway)
Finals  A       WLL     Kansas (Ardibelli and McKeehan)

Prelims:        6-2
Elims:          2-1
Totals: 8-3

Honors: Seed 3
Fitzmier Speaker Two
Heidt Speaker Ten

Owen L. Coon    Northwestern University 2/7-998 86 Teams
1.      N       W       Southern California (Meltzer and Weitz)
2.      A       W       Arizona State (Martin and Skarb)
3.      N       W       Wake Forest (Geppert and Rhodes)
4.      A       W       Augustana (Berish and Calvert)
5.      N       L       Michigan (Stoughton and Wexler)*
6.      A       W       Harvard (Engstrom and Starr)*
7.      A       W       Kansas (Ebert and Miller)**
8.      N       L       Georgetown (Kwon and Steele)*

2Octas  N       WWW     Wake Forest (Atchison and Green)
Octas   A       WWW     Dartmouth (Hung and Lehotsky)
Qrtrs   A       LLL     Michigan (Wexler and Stoughton)

Prelims:        6-2
Elims:          2-1
Totals: 8-3
Honors: Seed 8
Fitzmier Speaker Nine
Heidt Speaker Ten



From Broveraf  Mon Feb 16 09:13:31 1998
From: Broveraf (Adrienne F. Brovero)
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 10:13:31 -0500
Subject: Emory KS
Message-ID: <MON.16.FEB.1998.101331.0500.BROVERAF@WFU.EDU>

I.  School:   Emory University
Debaters:  George Kouros and Anjan Sahni

II.  Tabular Summary:

        A.      Record of the Two Debaters as a team.

        Tournament      Prelims 2-Octas Octas Qrtrs Semis Finals Totals

1.      Northern Iowa   8-0     bye     WWW   WWW   WWW   WWL    12-0
2.      Emporia         7-1             WWW   WWW   WWL   WWL    11-1
3.      Capital City    6-0             WWW   WWW   LLL           8-1
4.      Wake Forest     7-1     WWW     WWW   WLLLL               9-2
5.      West Georgia    6-2             WWW   WWW   WLL           8-3
6.      Dartmouth RR    3-3                                       3-3
7.      Northwestern    7-1       WWW   WWW   WWW   WWW  WWW     12-1


                                        Summary:
                                        Prelim Record  41-5%89.13
                                        Elim Record    15-3%83.33
                                        Round Robins    3-3%50.00
                                        Total Record  59-11%84.28

B.      Record  of Individuals (with other colleagues)

C.  Number of Preliminary Rounds

        As a Team       52
        Debater #1      52
        Debater #2      52
III.  Total Record of Debaters

        Debater #1  George Kouros       Debater #2  Anjan Sahni

        Prelim Record    41-5%89.13     Prelim Record   41-5%89.13
        Elim Record      15-3%83.33     Elim Record     15-3%83.33
        Round Robin       3- 3%50.00    Round Robins     3-3%50.00
        Total Record    59-11%84.28     Total Record   59-11%84.28

IV.  Record of Debater at Individual Tournaments

A.  Record of the Two Debaters as a Team

Ulrich Season Opener    Northern Iowa   September 20-22, 1997   73 Teams

1.      N       W       Michigan (Feldman and Samson)
2.      A       W       Wake Forest (Ryan and Rhodes)*
3.      N       W       Northern Illinois (Cripe and Cherikos)
4.      A       W       Kansas (Magariel and Melman)*
5.      N       W       Kansas (Ardibelli and McKeehan)*
6.      A       W       North Texas (Holloway and Morrow)*
7.      N       W       Northwestern (Gottleib and Sparacino)*
8.      A       W       Texas (Griffin and Renkin)*

2-Octas bye
Octas   A       WWW     Redlands (Grant and Miller)
Qrtrs   A       WWW     Texas (Congdon and Reed)
Semis   N       WWW     Kansas (Ebert and Miller)
Finals  N       WWL     Georgetown (Kwon and Steele)

                                                        Honors:Seed One
                                                        Kouros SecondSpeaker
                                                        Sahni FifthSpeaker

                                                        Prelims:8-0
                                                        Elims:4-0
                                                        Totals: 12-0


National Pflaum Debates Emporia State           29 Teams

1.      N       W       Kansas (Seymour and Hudson)*
2.      A       W       Wheaton (Carter and Wilson)
3.      A       W       Michigan State (Blair and Cornelia)*
4.      N       W       Southwest Texas (Willia and Meyers )*
5.      A       L       Kansas (Ardebelli and McKeehan)*
6.      N       W       Michigan State (Woida and Monick)*
7.      N       W       Michigan State (Owens and Hoffman)*
8.      A       W       Michigan State (Rand and Smth)

Octas   N       WWW     Missouri-Kansas City (Betz and Coffman)
Qrtrs   A       WWW     Kansas (Flinn and Herndon)
Semis   N       WWL     Kansas (Ardibelli and McKeehan)
Finals  N       WWL     Michigan State (Cornelia and Blair)

                                                        Honors:Seed One
                                                        Kouros ThirdSpeaker
                                                        Sahni FifthSpeaker

                                                        Prelims:7-1
                                                        Elims:4-0
                                                        Totals: 11-1

Capital City Debates            American University     November 1-3, 1997
66 Teams

1.      A       W       George Washington (Mast and Shah)
2.      N       W       West Georgia (Lantz and Smith)
3.      A       W       Missouri-Kansas City (Collingnon and Stiles)
4.      N       W       Towson (Doyle and Ellis)
5.      N       W       Missouri-Kansas City (Betz and Barker)*
6.      A       W       Northwestern (Gottleib and Sparacino)*

Octas   A       WWW     Fullerton (Heider and Lambrinos)
Qrtrs   N       WWW     Georgetown (Kwon and Steele)
Semis   A       LLL     Georgia (Cates and McIntosh)

                                                        Honors:  Seed One
                                                        Kouros  FirstSpeaker
                                                        Sahni   FifthSpeaker

                                                        Prelims:6-0
                                                        Elims:2-1
                                                        Totals: 8-1


Franklin R. Shirley Dixie Wake Forest University        November 15-17,
1997 128 Teams

1.      N       W       Kansas (Herndon and Flinn)
2.      A       W       Utah (DelaHunt and Monk)
3.      N       W       Michigan (Nicalao and Pudelski)*
4.      A       W       Georgia (Cates and McIntosh)*
5.      A       W       Dartmouth (Hung and Lehotsky)*
6.      N       W       Iowa (Peterson and Rayburn)*
7.      A       L       Michigan (Stoughton and Wexler)*
8.      N       W       North Texas (Holloway and Morrow)*

2-Octas A       WWW     Arizona State (Aralica and Williams)
Octas   N       WWW     Texas (Griffin and Renkin)
Qrtrs   A       WLLLL   Fullerton (Heider and Lambrinos)

                                                        Honors:Seed 3
                                                        Sahni NinthSpeaker

                                                        Prelims7-1
                                                        Elims:2-1
                                                        Totals: 9-2

Richard R. Tisinger     West Georgia            January 17-19, 1998     60
Teams

1.      N       W       Baylor (Black and Martin)
2.      A       W       Iowa (Podgorny and Scott)*
3.      N       W       Harvard (Harrow and Schrage)
4.      A       W       Texaz (Griffin and Renkin)
5.      N       L       Iowa (Peterson and Rayburn)*
6.      A       W       Michigan (Stoughton and Wexler)*
7.      A       L       Michigan State (Cornelier and Sullivan)*
8.      N       W       Michigan State (Hoffman and Monick)*

Octas   N       WWW     George Mason (Weiner and Krein)
Qrtrs   A       WWW     Michigan State (Blair and Donald)
Semis   N       WLL     Harvard (Starr and Engstrom)

                                                Honors:Seed 4
                                                        KourosSpeaker One
                                                        SahniSpeaker Three

                                                        Prelims:6-2
                                                        Elims:2-1
                                                        Totals: 8-3

Herbert L. James Debate Dartmouth College       1998

1.      A       W       Harvard (Engstrom and Starr)
2.      N       L       Georgia (McIntosh and Cates)
3.      A       L       Georgetown (Kwon and Steele)
4.      N       W       Dartmouth (Hung and Lehotsky)
5.      A       L       Michigan (Stoughton and Wexler)
6.      N       W       Northwestern (Gottlieb and Sparacino)


        Honors: Third Place
        Sahni   SpeakerThree

                                                        Record: 3-3
Owen L. Coon    Northwestern            February 7-10/98        94 Teams

1.      A       W       Harvard (Horrow and Schrage)
2.      N       W       Louisville (Lee and Westbrook)
3.      A       W       Southern Illinois (Slusher and Smth)*
4.      N       W       Southern California (Revelins and Harrison)*
5.      A       W       Kansas (Ardibelli and McKeehan)*
6.      N       W       Samford (Johnson and Stetson)*
7.      A       L       Michigan (Wexler and Stoughton)*
8.      N       W       Iowa (Pogorni and Scott)*



2-Octas A       WWW     Samford (Johnson and Stetson)
Octas   N       WWW     George Mason (Weiner and Krein)
Qrtrs   A       WWW     Harvard (Starr and Engstrom)
Semis   N       WWW     Iowa (Peterson and Rayburn)
Finals  N       WWW     Georgetown (Kwon and Steele)

        Prelims:7-1
        Elims:5-0
        Totals12-1
                                                        Honors:
                                                        Seed Two
                                                        Kouros Speaker Two
                                                        Sahni   SpeakerThree



From Broveraf  Mon Feb 16 09:16:16 1998
From: Broveraf (Adrienne F. Brovero)
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 10:16:16 -0500
Subject: West Georgia BC
Message-ID: <MON.16.FEB.1998.101616.0500.BROVERAF@WFU.EDU>

I.  School: State University of West Georgia
    Debaters:  Michael Carver and Kris Bonilla

II. Tabular Summary:

    A. Record of the two debaters as a team.

    Tournament       Date           Prelims  Doubles  Octas  Qtrs Total
    South Carolina   9/19-21/97     5-2      WWW      WWW    LLW  7-3
    Kentucky        10/3-5/97       5-3                           5-3
    North Carolina  10/18-20/97     7-1               LLW         7-2
    Capitol City    11/1-3/97       4-2               WWL    LLL  5-3
    Wake Forest     11/15-17/97     7-1      WWL      LLL         8-2
    S. California   12/29-31/97     6-2      WWW      WWL    LLL  8-3
    Redlands RR      1/2-4/98       3-3                           3-3
    Northwestern     2/7-9/98       6-2      WWL      LLW         7-3


                                Summary:  A. Prelims 40-13  75.5%
                                          B. Elims    7-6   53.8%
                                          C. RR       3-3   50.0%
                                          D. Total   50-22  69.4%


III. Total Record of Debaters

        Debater #1              Debater #2
        Prelims 40-13           Prelims 40-13
        Elims   7-6             Elims   7-6
        RR      3-3             RR      3-3
        Total   50-22           Total   50-22



IV.  INDIVIDUAL TOURNAMENTS

     A. Record of Two Debaters as a Team

     1.  University of South Carolina  9/19-21/97  (63 Teams)

         W  A  Pitt (Sayeed-Corrigan)
         W  N  Georgia St.  (Horsley-Kelley)
         L  A  UMKC  (Barker-Betz)*             5-2
                W  N  Emory  (Eno-Goodrich)             12th seed
         L  N  Emory  (Horewitch-Reid)*         Bonilla 15th speaker
         W  A  Emory  (Ghavi-Patel)*
         W  N  Emory  (Horowitz-Harkin)*

         Doubles N WWW  Vermont (Snider-Schwartz)
         Octas   A WWW  Michigan St.  (Monick-Woidan)
         Qrts    A LLL  Emory  (Horewitch-Reid)


     2. University of Kentucky  Oct. 3-5, 1997  (89 teams)

         W  A  Utah (Delhunt-Monk)
         W  N  SW Missouri  (Langford-Wilt)
         L  A  Michigan St.  (Cornelier-Sullivan)*    5-3**
         W  N  Michigan  (Hernandez-Scanapieco)       32nd seed
         L  A  Wake Forest  (Atchison- Green)**
                W  N  Dartmouth  (Farhany-Mead)*
         L  N  Baylor  (Coulter-Coulter)**
         W  A  Emory  (Goshal-Wade)*



     3.  University of North Carolina  Oct. 18-20, 1997  (51 teams)

         W  N  Emory  (Ave-Lallmont-Klink)
         W  A  Iowa   (Podgorski-Scott)*
         W  N  Liberty  (Ringsmith-Tillen)      7-1, 3rd seed
         W  A  Baylor  (Alexander-Flora)        Bonilla, 6th speaker
         L  N  Baylor  (Coulter-Coulter)*
         W  A  Wake Forest  (Geppert-Lotz)*
         W  N  Iowa  (Peterson-Foster)*
         W  A  Goergia  (Matos-teagle)*


         Octas N WLL  Wake Forest  (Atchinson-Green)


     4. Capitol City  Nov. 1-3,1997  (66 teams)

         W  A  Michigan (Mish-Scanapieco)
         L  N  George Mason  (Krein-Weiner)*
         W  N  Towson  (Baker-Faraqui)          4-2, 13th seed
         L  A  Georgetown  (Kwon-Steele)*       Bonilla, 12th speaker
         W  N  Wake Forest  (Ellis-Loquvum)
         W  A  Emory  (Heffman-McNabb)


         Octas  A  WWL   Emory (Fitzmeir-Heidt)
         Qtrs   N  LLL   Georgia  (Cates-McIntosh)


     5. Wake Forest  Nov. 15-17, 1997

         W  N  Georgia  (Matos-Tegal)
         W  A  Towson  (Baker-Ellis)
         W  A  George Washington  (Stubbs-Thummala)**
         W  N  Kansas  (Eber-Miller)*                   7-1, 6th seed
         L  N  Georgetown  (Kwon-Stelle)*
         W  A  Kansas  (Ardebili-McKeehan)*
         W  A  Michigan  (Nicalo-Pudelski)*
         W  N  Michigan St.  (Cornelier-Sullivan)*


         Doubles N WWL  Iowa (Podgorski-Scott)
         Octas   A LLL  Fullerton  (Heider-Lambrinos)


     6. Southern California  Dec. 29-30,1997

         W  A  Long Beach (Clancey-Hinkel)
         W  N  Georgetown  (Bottvinik-Simenson)   6-2, 10th seed
         W  N  Baylor  (Coulter-Coulter)
         L  A  Michigan  (Stoughton-Wexler)*
         L  FFT  (No Wake up call)
         W  A  Texas  (Evans-Grove)
         W  A  Southern Illinois  (Moore-Vuglia)*
         W  N  Georgetown  (Kwon-Steele)*


         Doubles  N  WWW  E.New Mexico (Foy-Baretto)
         Octas    N  WWL  Harvard  (Engstrom-Starr)
         Qtrs     A  LLL  Northwestern  (Gottlieb-Sparacino)


     7. Redlands Round Robin  Jan 2-4, 1998  (21 teams)

         W  N  Iowa  (Peterson-Rayburn)*
         L  N  Michigan St.  (Cornelier-Sullivan)
         W  A  Wake Forest  (Geppert-Rhodes)            3-3,14th seed
         L  A  Texas  (Griffin-Renken)
         L  A  Northwestern  (Gottlieb-Sparacino)*
         W  N  UMKC  (Barker-Betz)



     8. Northwestern  Feb 7-9, 1998  (93 teams)


         W  A  Iowa  (Hill-Moore)
         W  N  Emory  (Harkin-Tavery)*          6-2, 12th seed
         W  A  Texas  (Griffin-Reken)*          Bonilla, 8th Speaker
         W  A  Georgetown  (Kwon-Steele)*
         L  N  S. California  (Hurder-Stetson)*
         W  A  Dartmouth  (Hung-Lehotsky)*
         L  N  Michigan St.  (Cornelier-Sullivan)*
         W  A  N. Texas  (Holloway-Morrow)*


         Doubles  N  WWL  Emory (Tabak-Todd)
         Octas    A  LLW  Georgetown  (Kwon-Steele)



From Broveraf  Mon Feb 16 09:30:15 1998
From: Broveraf (Adrienne F. Brovero)
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 10:30:15 -0500
Subject: Michigan SW
Message-ID: <MON.16.FEB.1998.103015.0500.BROVERAF@WFU.EDU>

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
Corey Stoughton (senior)
Lesley Wexler (senior)

TABULAR SUMMARY
Debaters as a Team

        Tournament            Dates                Prel        DOc      Oct        Qtr        Sem        Fin        Total

1.        Northern Iowa        9/20-22            7-1        3-0        3-0     1-2                                     9-2
2.        Kentucky RR         10/1-2              3-5                                                3-5
3.        Kentucky                10/3-5             6-0        Bye        3-0        2-1        2-1        1-2        9-1
4.        Capitol City                11/1-3          4-2                     2-1        3-0        0-3                      6-3
5.        Wake Forest                11/15-17     7-1        3-0   1-2                                           8-2
6.        USC                        12/29-31         8-0                   3-0        3-0        1-2               10-1
7.        Redlands RR                1/2-4          4-2                                2-1        2-1        3-2        7-2
8.        West Georgia                1/17-19     6-2           1-2                                          6-3
9.        Dartmouth RR        1/24-25            5-1                                                 5-1
10.        Northwestern                2/7-9       8-0     3-0        2-1        3-0        1-2                11-1



        SUMMARY         Prelims:            46-6                88.46%
                                Round Robins:  12-8             60.00%
                                        Elims:              16-7                69.56%
                        Total:          74-21           77.89%


INDIVIDUAL TOURNAMENT RECORD            MICHIGAN

1.        University of Northern Iowa, Ulrich Season Opener

        1.        Neg         W                Iowa             Foster-Rathe
        2.        Aff        L                Northwestern      Gottleib-Sparacino *
        3.        Neg        W                Texas     Evan-Nathan
        4.        Aff        W                Baylor            Brasure-Palmer
        5.        Aff        W                ENMU              Barreto-Foy *
        6.        Neg        W            George Mason  Krein-Weiner *
        7.        Neg        W                Northwestern      Sohrn-Sato *
        8.        Aff        W                Iowa              Podgorski-Scott *
DOct        Aff        WWW        Northwestern  Kay-Oliphant-Johnson
Oct        Neg        WWW        North Texas    Holloway-Morrow
        Qtrs        Neg        WLL                Kansas        Eber-Miller

        Summary:        Prelims        7-1      4th Seed
                        Elims                2-1
                Total                9-2

2.        University of Kentucky, Thoroughbred Round Robin

        1.        Aff        L                Harvard           Starr-Engstrom
        2.        Neg        W                Texas     Griffin-Congdon
        3.        Aff        W                Kansas    Ardebili-McKeehan
        4.        Bye
        5.        Aff        W                Dartmouth Hung-Lehotsky
        6.        Neg        L                Michigan StateCornellier-Sullivan
        7.        Neg        L          Georgia             Cates-McIntosh
        8.        Aff        L                Emory             Fitzmeier-Heidt
        9.        Neg        L                Northwestern      Gottleib-Sparacino
        Summary:        Record        3-5       Stoughton - 2nd Speaker

3.        University of Kentucky, Henry Clay Debates

        1.        Wexler Taking LSAT in Lexington
        2.        Wexler Taking LSAT in Lexington
        3.        Aff        W                Utah              Sidle-Upton
        4.        Neg        W                UNC               Brent-Schneider
        5.        Aff        W                Iowa              Podgorski-Scott *
        6.        Neg        W                Northwestern      Anderson-Nemecek
        7.        Aff        W                Wake Forest       Atchison-Green **
        8.        Neg        W                Georgia   Cates-McIntosh *
        DOc                                Bye
        Oct        Neg        WWW        Fullerton      Heider/Lambrinos
        Qtr        Neg        WWL                Texas  Griffin/Renken
        Sem        Neg        WWL                Dartmouth      Hung/Lehotsky
        Fin        Neg        WLL                Northwestern   Gottleib/Sparacino
        Summary        Prelims        6-0       3rd Seed
                        Elims                3-1        Stoughton - 1st Speaker
                        Total                9-1        Wexler - 14th Speaker

4.        Capitol City Debates, Washington D.C.

        1.        Aff        W                Kentucky  Jensen-Ray *
        2.        Neg        W                Emory     Tabak-Eno
        3.        Neg        W                Arizona State     Martin-Skarb
        4.        Aff        L                Dartmouth Hung-Lehotsky *
        5.        Neg        W                Arizona State     Kessel-Sweet
        6.        Aff        L                Texas             Griffin/Renken *

        Oct        Neg        WWL                Texas  Griffin/Renken
        Qtr        Neg        WWW        Dartmouth      Hung-Lehotsky
        Sem        Aff        LLL            Northwestern       Gottleib-Sparacino
        Summary        Prelims        4-2       Stoughton - 4th Speaker
                        Elims                2-1        Wexler - 19th Speaker
                        Total                6-3

5.        Wake Forest University, Franklin R. Shirley Dixie Classic

        1.        Neg        W                Emory     Chase-Matt **
        2.        Aff        W                Michigan State    Rand-O'Dowd
        3.        Neg        W                Emory     Harkin-Goodrich
        4.        Aff        W                Wayne State       Andrus-Gainer
        5.        Aff        W                Iowa      Rayburn-Peterson *
        6.        Neg        W                Emory     Fitzmeier-Heidt *
        7.        Neg        W                Emory     Kouros-Sahni *
        8.        Aff        L                Northwestern      Gottleib-Sparacino *

        DOct        Neg        WWL                Emory Bailey-Ghali
        Oct        Aff        WLL                Dartmouth      Hung-Lehotsky

        Summary        Prelims        7-1       2nd Seed
                        Elims                1-1        Stoughton - 6th Speaker
                        Total                12-1       Wexler - 17th Speaker

6.        University of Southern California, Alan Nichols Invitational


        1.        Neg        W                Gonzaga   Voight-Leviton
        2.        Aff        W                George Mason      Krein-Weiner *
        3.        Aff        W                New Mexico        Clark-Lowe
        4.        Neg        W                West Georgia      Bonilla-Carver *
        5.        Neg        W                Emory     Fitzmeier-Heidt *
        6.        Aff        W                Emory             Ghoshal-Chase *
        7.       Aff        W                Fullerton  Heider/Lambrinos *
        8.        Neg        W                Northwestern      Sohrn-Sato *
        Octa        Aff        WWW        Wake Forest   Filstrup-Ryan
        Qtr        Aff        WWW        Texas          Griffin-Renken
        Sem        Neg        WLL      Georgetown       Steele-Kwon

        Summary        Prelims        8-0       1st Seed
                        Elims                2-1        Stougton - 2nd Speaker
                        Total                5-4        Wexler - 5th Speaker


7.        University of Redlands, West Coast Round Robin

        1.        Neg        W                Redlands  Miller-Wetzel
        2.        Aff        L                Emory             Fitzmeier-Heidt *
        3.        Neg        W                Fullerton Heider/Lambrinos *
        4.        Neg        W                Liberty   Burns-Lawrence
        5.        Aff        W                Georgetown        Steele-Kwon *
        6.        Aff        L                Kansas            Eber-Miller

        Qtrs        Neg        WWL                Harvard       Starr-Engstrom
        Sem        Aff        WWL                Northwestern   Gottleib-Sparacino
        Fin        Aff        WWWLL        Iowa Rayburn-Peterson
        Summary        Prelims        4-2       4th Seed
                        Elims                3-0        Stougton - 6th Speaker
                        Total                7-2        Wexler - 11th Speaker


8.        Dartmouth College, Herbert L. James Round Robin


        1.        Aff        W                Georgetown        Steele-Kwon
        2.        Neg        L                Dartmouth Hung-Lehotsky
        3.        Aff        W                Harvard   Starr-Engstrom
        4.        Neg        W                Georgia   Cates-McIntosh
        5.        Aff        W                Northwestern      Gottleib-Sparacino
        6.        Neg        W                Emory     Kouros-Sahni
        7.                                BYE

        Summary        Record        5-1        1st Place
Stoughton - 1st Speaker

9.        West Georgia, Robert D. Tisinger Debates


        1.        Neg        W                Georgia   Connerat-Nolley
        2.        Aff        W                Kentucky  Jensen-Kall
        3.        Aff        W                Michigan State    Hoffman-Monick
        4.        Neg        W                Baylor    Coulter-Coulter
        5.        Aff        W                Emory             Fitzmeier-Heidt *
        6.        Neg        L                Emory             Kouros-Sahni *
        7.        Neg        W                Emory     Heftman-McNabb *
        8        Aff        L                Northwestern       Gottleib-Sparacino *

        Oct        Neg        WLL                Michigan State Donald-Blair

        Summary:        Prelims        6-2      5th Seed
                        Elims                0-1        Stoughton - 7th Speaker
                        Total                6-3        Wexler - 8th Speaker


10.        Northwestern University, Owen L. Coon Memorial


        1.        Aff        W                Louisville        Chochran-DeVanna
        2.        Neg        W                West Georgia      Smith-Lantz
        3.        Aff        W                Wake Forest       Atchison-Green*
        4.        Neg        W                Samford   Johnson-Stetson*
        5.        Aff        W                Emory             Fitzmeier-Heidt*
        6.        Neg         W                Michigan State   Cornellier-Sullivan*
        7.        Neg        W                Emory     Kouros-Sahni*
        8        Aff        W                Kansas             Ardebili-McKeehan*
        DOct        Aff        WWW        Michigan State        Donald-Blair
        Oct        Aff        WWL                Fullerton      Heider-Lambrinos
        Qtr        Neg        WWW        Emory  Fitzmeier-Heidt
        Sem        Aff        WLL                Georgetown     Steele-Kwon

        Summary:        Prelims        8-0      1st Seed
                        Elims                3-1        Stoughton - 5th Speaker
                        Total                11-1       Wexler - 13th Speaker



From Broveraf  Mon Feb 16 09:31:30 1998
From: Broveraf (Adrienne F. Brovero)
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 10:31:30 -0500
Subject: Iowa PR
Message-ID: <MON.16.FEB.1998.103130.0500.BROVERAF@WFU.EDU>

FIRST ROUND AT-LARGE APPLICATION        THE UNIVERSITY OF IOWA
NATIONAL DEBATE TOURNAMENT              Andy Peterson and Corey Rayburn

RECORD OF THE TWO DEBATERS AS A TEAM

Tournament      Dates           Prelims Sextos  Octas   Qtrs    Semis   Finals  Total

Kentucky        10/3-5/97       6-2     *       WLL                             6-3

Wake Forest     11/15-17/97     6-2     WWW     WWL     WWWLL WWLLL     9-3

Redlands RR     1/2-4/98        4-2                     WWL     WWW   WWLLL     6-3

West Georgia    1/17-19/98      7-1             WWW     WWL     WWW        LLL  10-2

Baylor          1/24-26/98        7-1   W       WLL                             8-2

Northwestern    2/7-9/98                6-2     WWW     WWW     WWW     LLL                     9-3

* Advanced over Iowa (Podgorski-Scott).
SUMMARY WON-LOST        PERCENTAGE
Preliminary Record      36-10   78.3%
Elimination Record       12-6   66.7%
Round Robins    Does not apply
Junior Division Does not apply
TOTAL RECORD    48-16   75%

RECORD OF ANDY PETERSON (WITH TREVOR FOSTER)

Tournament      Dates           Prelims Sextos  Octas   Qtrs    Semis   Finals  Total

U North Carolina        10/18-20/97     5-3     LLL                                     5-4

SUMMARY         WON-LOST        PERCENTAGE
Preliminary Record       5-3    62.5%
Elimination Record       0-1       0%
Round Robins    Does not apply
Junior Division Does not apply
TOTAL RECORD     5-4    55.6%

INDIVIDUAL TOURNAMENTS OF DEBATERS AS A TEAM
University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, 10/3-5/97 (89 teams)

Round  Side     Opponent                                Decision
1.           A        Michigan (Nicalo-Pudelski)**              W               Prelims 6-2

2.           N        West Georgia (Lance-Smith)                L               Elims   0-1

3.           A        Georgia State (Horsley-Kelley)            W               Total   6-3

4.           N        Fullerton (Heider-Lambrinos)*             W       Honors Rayburn-6th

5.           A        Dartmouth (Farahany-Mead)*                W               speaker;

6.           N        Emory (Bailey-Ghali)**                    W               11th seed

7.           N          Michigan State (Cornellier-Sullivan)*   L

8.           A          Texas (Congdon-Reed)*           W

Sextos                Advanced over Iowa (Podgorski-Scott)
Octas      A          Texas (Griffin-Renken)                            WLL

Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC, 11/15-17/97
(129 teams)

Round Side   Opponent                                   Decision
1.      N       Redlands (Graffagnini-Wetzel)           W               Prelims  6-2

2.      A       Northwestern (Kay-Oliphant-Johnson)     W               Elims   3-1

3.      N       Kansas State (Glaser-Longbottom)        W               Total   9-3

4.      A       Emory (Horowitz-Lupo)*                  W               Honors  Rayburn-3rd

5.      N       Michigan (Stoughton-Wexler)*            L               speaker

6.      A       Emory (Kouros-Sahni)*                   L               9th seed

7.      A       Pepperdine (Manakides-Zeimet)           W

8.      N       Emory (Heftman-McNabb)**                W

Sextos  A       USC (Revelins-Harrison)                 WWW

Octas   N       Michigan State (Corneiller-Sullivan)    WWL

Quarters        N       Georgetown (Kwon-Steel) WWWLL

Semis   N       Harvard (Engstrom-Starr)                        WWLLL

University of Redlands, Los Angeles, CA, 1/2-4/98 (3X7 team Round
Robin)

Round   Side    Opponent                                Decision
1.      A       West Georgia (Bonilla-Carver)           L       Prelims 4-2

2.      A       Northwestern (Gottlieb-Sparacino)*      W       Elims   2-1

3.      A       Michigan State (Cornellier-Sullivan)    W       Total   6-3

5.      N       Wake Forest (Geppert-Rhodes)            L       Honors  Rayburn-2nd

6.      N       Texas (Griffin-Renken)                  W       speaker; Peterson-9th

7.      N       UMKC (Barker-Betz)                      W       speaker;

Qrtrs   A       Emory (Fitzmier-Heidt)                  WWL     3rd seed

Semis   A       Georgia (Cates-MacIntosh)               WWW

Finals  N       Michigan (Stoughton-Wexler)             WWLLL

West Georgia College, Carrollton, GA, 1/13-15/96 (54 teams)
Round   Side    Opponent                                Decision
1.      N       Miami (Barreto-Geldens)                 W       Prelims 7-1

2.      A       Emory (Heftman-McNabb)*         W       Elims   3-1

3.      A       Georgia (Matos-Teagle)                  W       Total   10-2

4.      N       Georgia (Cates-MacIntosh)*              W       Honors  Rayburn-2nd

5.      A       Emory (Kouros-Sahni)*                   W               speaker; Peterson-

6.      N       Dartmouth (Hung-Lehotsky)*              W               18th speaker

7.      N       Northwestern (Gottlieb-Sparacino)*      L               2nd seed

8.      A       Harvard (Engstrom-Starr)*               W

Octas   A       Michigan State (Monick-Hoffman) WWW

Qrts    A       Wake Forest (Geppert-Rhodes)            WWL

Semis   N       Michigan State (Cornellier-Sullivan)    WWW

Finals  N       Harvard (Engstrom-Starr)                        LLL

Baylor University, Waco, TX, 1/24-1/26 (54 teams)
Round   Side    Opponent                                Decision
1.      N       Kansas State (Denny-West)               W       Prelims 7-1

2.              BYE                                     W       Elims   0-1

3.      N       Wichita (Hathaway-Morioka)              W`      Total   7-2

4.      A       Texas (Evans-Grove)*                    W       Honors  Rayburn-1st

5.      N       Kansas (Eber-Miller)*                   L               speaker; Peterson-

6.      A       Emporia (Holland-Tate)                  W               19th speaker;

7.      N       Wake Forest (Filstrup-Rufo)*            W               2nd seed

8.      A       Michigan State (Blair-Donald)*          W

Sextos          BYE

Octas   A       North Texas (Holloway-Morrow)   WLL

Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, 2/7-9/98 (102 teams)

Round   Side    Opponent                                Decision
1.      N       George Washington (Duccomon-Mast)       W       Prelims 6-2

2.      A       Whitman (Harris-Symonds)*               W       Elims   3-1

3.      N       USC (Hurder-Stetson)*                   L       Total   9-4

4.      A       Fort Hays (Clune-Halverson)             W       Honors  Rayburn-1st

5.      N       Kansas (Eber-Miller)**                  W               speaker;

6.      A       UMKC (Coffman-Baisley)          W               6th seed

7.      N       George Mason (Krein-Weiner)*            L

8.      A       Liberty (Burns-Lawrence)**              W

Sextos  N       Redlands (Miller-Wetzel)                        WWW

Octas   A       Texas (Griffin-Renken)                  WWW

Qrtrs   A       USC (Harrison-Revelins)                 WWW

Semis   A       Emory (Kouros-Sahni)                    LLL

INDIVIDUAL TOURNAMENTS  OF ANDREW PETERSON
(With Trevor Foster)

University of North Carolina , Chapel Hill, NC, 10/18-20/97 (51 teams)
Round   Side    Opponent                                Decision

1.      A       George Washington (Ducommun-Stubbs)     W       Prelims 5-3

2.      N       Mercer (Buck-Vaughn)                    W       Elims   0-1

3.      A       Wake Forest (Atchinson-Green)*          W       Total   5-4

4.      N       Samford (Buzachero-Dye)                 W       Honors  Peterson, 5th

5.      N       Michigan (Hernandez-Scanapieco)*                W               speaker;

6.      A       Kentucky (Jensen-Ray)*                  L               10th seed

7.      A       West Georgia (Bonilla-Carver)*          L

8.      N       Wake Forest (Rhodes-Ryan)*              L

Octas   N       Baylor (Coulter-Coulter)                        LLL



From Broveraf  Mon Feb 16 09:35:50 1998
From: Broveraf (Adrienne F. Brovero)
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 10:35:50 -0500
Subject: SIU SS
Message-ID: <MON.16.FEB.1998.103550.0500.BROVERAF@WFU.EDU>

I. School: Southern Illinois University
   Debaters: Eric Slusher & Geoff Smith

II. Tabular Summary

A. Record of the two debaters as a team (all varsity; parens note paired
against SIU)

Tournament, Date                Prelim  Doubles Octas   Qtrs    Semi    Finals
S. Carolina RR, Sept 17-19      5-2     n/a     n/a     n/a
S. Carolina, Sept 19-21         6-1     W        W      W       L
Wheaton, Sept 26-27             6-0     n/a     n/a     n/a     W       (W)
Kentucky, Oct 3-5               4-4
SMS, Oct 11-13                  7-1     n/a      W      W       L
UNLV, Oct 25-27                 5-3     (W)      W      L
UMSL, Oct 31-1                  6-0     n/a      n/a    W       W       (W)
Central OK, Nov 7-9             5-2     W        W      L
Wake, Nov 15-17                 5-3
USC, Dec 29-31                  5-3     L
Long Beach, Jan 2-4             4-2     (W)     W       L
UMKC, Jan 6-8                   5-2     n/a     W       W       L
Wlm Jewell, Jan 8-10            5-1     n/a     W       (W)     L
Weber RR, Jan 13-14             4-1     n/a      n/a    n/a     (L)
Utah, Jan 16-18                 5-3     L
Northwestern, Feb 7-9           5-3     L

Summary
A. Prelim record:       73-28, 73%
B. Elim record:         16-10, 62%
C. Round Robins:        9-3, 75%
D. Junior:              none
E. Total                98-41, 71%

B. Record of individual debaters with other colleagues.

     Neither Slusher nor Smith debated with any other partner.


C. Number of preliminary rounds (even though there is no maximum number of
prelims a team can have debated by the NDT): Slusher 113; Smith 113.

III. Total record of debaters:

Slusher
A. Prelim record:       73-28, 73%
B. Elim record:         16-10, 62%
C. Round Robins:        9-3, 75%
D. Junior:              none
E. Total                98-41, 71%

Smith
A. Prelim record:       73-28, 73%
B. Elim record:         16-10, 62%
C. Round Robins:        9-3, 75%
D. Junior:              none
E. Total                98-41, 71%


IV. Individual tournaments (*opponents reaching elims; **opponents missing
on points)

A. Individual tournaments of debaters as a team.

S. Carolina RR, Sept 17-18
1.  A   W       Gonzaga Voight Moburg
2.  N   L       *Wake Atchison Green
3.  A   W       Kansas State Glasser West
4.  A   W       Southwest Texas Tiffee Lacraoss
5.  N   W       Emory Goshal Wade
6.  N   L       *Michigan State Cornellier Sullivan
7.  A   W       UMKC Coffman Whyte
Prelim: 5-2
Total:  5-2
Honors: Slusher, 3rd speaker of 32

S Carolina, Sept 19-21
1.  N   W       **Wake Allen Loquvum
2.  A   W       *Michigan State Hoffman Owens
3.  N   W       *Emory Horowitch Reid
4.  A   L       *Michigan Krakowsky Rice
5.  A   W       *Alabama Shaw Pfeister
6.  N   W       **Wake Bonura Ellis
7.  N   W       *Emory Goshal Wade
D.  N   WWW     Kansas State Zollman Longbottom
O.  N   WWW     Alabama Shaw Pfeister
Q.  N   WWL     Emory Earley Peron
S.  A   WLL     Michigan St Cornellier Sullivan
Prelim: 6-1
Elims:  3-1
Total:  9-2
Honors: third seed; Slusher, 7th speaker of 126; Smith 18th of 126.

Wheaton, Sept 26-27
1.  N   W       Loyola Kerman Melody
2.  A   W       *Northern Illinois Cherikos Cripe
3.  N   W       Loyola Paige Nason
4.  A   W       Loyola Lizak Upchurch
5.  N   W       DePaul Jenks Plaman
6.  A   W       Loyola Vivilakis Eggers
S.  A   WWW     Notre Dame Guidi Garland
F.  n/a WWW     SIU Roland Woolery
Prelim: 6-0
Elims:  2-0
Total:  8-0
Honors: 1st seed; Smith 1st speaker of 20; Slusher 3rd speaker of 20.

Kentucky, October 3-5
1.  N   W       Fort Hays Clune Halverson
2.  A   W       Pitt Corrigan Sayeed
3.  N   W       Wake Covey Filstrup
4.  A   L       *Northwestern Gottlieb Sparacino
5.  A   W       *Kansas Eber Miller
6.  N   L       **Wake Atchison Green
7.  N   L       *Emory Goshal Wade
8.  A   L       *Emory Todd Tabek
Prelim: 4-4
Total:  4-4

Southwest Missouri, October 11-13
1.  A   W       *Texas Evans Grove
2.  N   W       **Iowa Haughney Rupali
3.  A   L       *Kansas Flynn Herndon
4.  N   W       *Kansas State Longbottom Zollman
5.  N   W       *Wayne State Gibson Marowitz
6.  A   W       *Northern Iowa Grant Rowe
7.  N   W       *Emory Horowitch Reid
8.  A   W       *Emporia Tate Holland
O.  A   WWW     Michigan State O'Dowd Smith
Q.  N   WWL     Kansas State Glasser West
S.  A   WLL     Michigan State Hoffman Owens
Prelim: 7-1
Elims:  2-1
Total:  10-2
Honors: first seed; Slusher 1st speaker of 66; Smith 6th speaker of 66.

UNLV, October 25-27
1.  N   W       *Redlands Miller Grant
2.  A   W       USC Tapia Trimmer
3.  N   L       *Southwest Texas Tiffee Lacross
4.  A   W       Fullerton Choe Hernandez
5.  N   L       *Fullerton Heider Lambrinos
6.  A   W       Baylor Black Martin
7.  N   L       *Dartmouth Farahany Mead
8.  A   W       Western Washington Pitt VanHorn
D.  A   (WWW)   Bye
O.  A   WWW     Fullerton Heider Lambrinos
Q.  N   LLL     Wayne State Lewis Thompson
Prelim: 5-3
Elims:  2-1
Total:  7-4
Honors: Slusher, 10th speaker of 104.

UMSL, October 31-November 1
1.  A   W       *Weber Menzies Schubert
2.  N   W       Illinois State Reno Bruno
3.  N   W       **Southwest Missouri Payne Vega
4.  A   W       **SE Misouri/NE Louisiana Congo Alexander
5.  A   W       *Alabama Shaw Pfeister
6.  N   W       **Vanderbilt Prisco Reddy
Q.  N   WWL     Alabama Shaw Pfeister
S.  A   WWW     Florida/Middle Tennessee Gittings Ishak
F.  n/a WWW     SIU RW
Prelim: 6-0
Elims:  3-0
Total:  9-0
Honors: top seed; Slusher 1st speaker of 42; Smith 3rd of 42.

Central Oklahoma, November 7-9
1.  N   W       Notre Dame Garland Guidi
2.  A   W       Kansas *State Zollman Shaw
3.  N   W       Southwest Missouri Wilt Langford
4.  A   L       *Emory Todd Tabak
5.  N   W       Florida Smith Itzkowiski
6.  A   W       *Michigan State Hoffman Blair
7.  A   L       *Emory Fitzmier Heidt
D.  N   WWW     Kansas State Zollman Shaw
O.  N   WWL     Southwest Texas Tiffee Lacross
Q.  N   LLL     Michigan State Cornellier Sullivan
Prelim: 5-2
Elims:  2-1
Total:  7-3
Honors: Slusher 8th speaker of 116; Smith 11th of 116.

Wake, November 15-17
1.  N   L       Emory Harkin Goodrich
2.  A   W       USC Hurder Meltzer
3.  A   L       New Mexico Clark Stalley
4.  N   W       Syracuse Briand McCann
5.  N   W       Arizona State Aralica Williams
6.  A   L       **Northwestern Anderson Nemeck
7.  A   W       Pitt Corrigan Sayeed
8.  N   W       Cornell Cole Wojysiak
Prelim: 5-3
Total:  5-3

USC, December 29-31
1.  N   L       *Harvard Engstrom Starr
2.  A   W       Fullerton Choe Hernandez
3.  A   W       Utah DeLaHunt Brandon
4.  N   L       *Michigan Nicalo Pudelski
5.  A   W       *Wake Filstrup Ryan
6.  N   W       Northwestern Redden Smith
7.  A   L       *Georgetown Kwon Steele
8.  N   W       Lewis & Clark Ellis Hesterberg
D.  A   WLL     Wake Geppert Rhodes
Prelim: 5-3
Elims:  0-1
Total:  5-4
Honors: 12th seed; Slusher, 9th speaker of 130.

Long Beach, January 2-4
1.  N   L       *USC Hurder Stetson
2.  A   W       Lewis & Clark Ellis Hesterberg
3.  N   W       *Redlands Wetzel Graffagnini
4.  A   L       *Texas Grove Evans
5.  N   W       Iowa Christianson Jensen
6.  A   W       John Carrol Fuchs Sovacool
7.  N   L       *Texas Dwyer Nathan
8.  A   W       Utah DeLaHunt Monk
D.  n/a WWW     SIU Moore Vuglia
O.  N   WWW     Gonzaga Voight Moburg
Q.  N   WLL     Northwestern Sohrn Sato
Prelim: 4-2
Elims:  2-1
Total:  6-3
Honors: Slusher, 5th speaker.

UMKC, January 6-8
1.  A   W       Louisville Lee Westbrook
2.  N   W       *Wake Bonura Covey
3.  A   W       *Macalaster Alme Garen
4.  N   L       Kansas Herndon Flynn
5.  N   W       *Michigan State Hoffman Monick
6.  A   W       *Kansas Rodriguez Magariel
7.  N   L       *Pace Kloster Petry
O.  A   WWW     Kansas State Glasser West
Q.  A   WWW     Michigan State Hoffman Monick
S.  N   LLL     Wake Atchison Green
Prelim: 5-2
Elims:  2-1
Total:  7-3
Honors: third seed; slusher, 3rd speaker of 80; Smith 11th speaker of 80.

William Jewell, 9-11
1.  N   W       North Texas Horn Cunningham
2.  A   W       Richmond Arnold Bates
3.  A   W       *UMKC Barker Betz
4.  N   W       *Kansas Magariel Rodriguez
5.  N   L       *Wake Atchison Green
6.  A   W       Pace Peterson Bell
O.  N   WWW     Southwest Missouri Payne Vega
Q.  n/a WWW     SIU Moore Vuglia
S.  N   WLL     Kansas Ardebili McKeehan
Prelim: 5-1
Elims:  2-1
Total:  7-2
Honors: Smith 7th speaker of 84; Slusher 11th of 84.

Weber Round Robin, January 13-14
1.  N   W       Gonzaga Peterson Kelly
2.  A   W       Eastern New Mexico Gilkinson wilkerson
3.  N   L       *North Texas Holloway Morrow
4.  A   W       Southwest Texas Tiffee Lacross
5.  A   W       Chico Cupp Lowrie
S.  n/a LLL     SIU Moore Vuglia
Prelim: 4-1
Elims:  0-1
Total:  4-2
Honors: semifinalist.

Utah, January 16-18
1.  N   W       Johnson County O'Toole Shuman
2.  A   W       Arizona State Aralica Williams
3.  A   W       *Gonzaga Moburg Voight
4.  N   W       *Weber Dilsaver Muranaka
5.  A   L       *North Texas Holloway Morrow
6.  N   L       *UMKC Barker Betz
7.  A   L       Forfeit
8.  N   W       *Cornell Cole Wojtysiak
D. n/a  LLL     Forfeit
Prelim: 5-3
Elims:  0-1
Total:  5-4
Honors: Slusher, 5th speaker of 118.

Northwestern, February 7-9
1.  N   W       Baylor  Alexander Flora
2.  A   L       **Wake Filstrup Rufo
3.  N   L       *Emory Kouros Sahni
4.  A   W       Florida State Allyn Reddinger
5.  A   W       UMKC Barker Betz
6.  N   L       Liberty Siegalkoff Tilley
7.  A   W       George Mason Igiel Reed
8.  N   W       Wake Powell Yopp
D.  N   LLL     USC Hurder Stetson
Prelim: 5-3
Elims:  0-1
Total:  6-4
Honors: 20th seed.

B. Individual tournaments of debaters with other colleagues.

     Neither Slusher nor Smith debated with any other partner.



From Broveraf  Mon Feb 16 09:36:43 1998
From: Broveraf (Adrienne F. Brovero)
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 10:36:43 -0500
Subject: SIU MV
Message-ID: <MON.16.FEB.1998.103643.0500.BROVERAF@WFU.EDU>

I. School: Southern Illinois University
   Debaters: Matt Moore & Joey Vuglia

II. Tabular Summary

A. Record of the two debaters as a team (all varsity; parens note paired
against SIU)

Tournament, Date                Prelim  Doubles Octas   Qtrs    Semi    Finals
S. Carolina, Sept 19-21         5-2     W        L
Middle Tenn, Sept 26-28         5-1     n/a      n/a    W       (W)     (W)
SMS, Oct 11-13                  7-1     n/a      W      W       L
Emporia, Oct 18-20              4-4     n/a      L
UNLV, Oct 25-27                 5-3     W        L
UMSL, Oct 31-1                  5-1     n/a      n/a    L
Central OK, Nov 7-9             5-2     W        L
Wake, Nov 15-17                 5-3
USC, Dec 29-31                  4-4
Long Beach, Jan 2-4             5-3     (L)
UMKC, Jan 6-8                   5-2     n/a      W      W       L
Wlm Jewell, Jan 8-10            4-2     n/a      W      (L)
Weber RR, Jan 13-14             5-0     n/a      n/a    n/a     (W)     W
Utah, Jan 16-18                 6-2     W        W      L
Northwestern, Feb 7-9           5-3     L

Summary
A. Prelim record:       70-33, 68%
B. Elim record:         11-9, 55%
C. Round Robins:        6-0, 100%
D. Junior:              none
E. Total                87-42, 68%

B. Record of individual debaters with other colleagues.

     Neither Moore nor Vuglia debated with any other partner.


C. Number of preliminary rounds (even though there is no maximum number of
prelims that a team can have debated by the NDT): Moore, 108; Vuglia, 108 .

III. Total record of debaters:

Moore
A. Prelim record:       70-33, 68%
B. Elim record:         11-9, 55%
C. Round Robins:        6-0, 100%
D. Junior:              none
E. Total                87-42, 68%

Vuglia
A. Prelim record:       70-33, 68%
B. Elim record:         11-9, 55%
C. Round Robins:        6-0, 100%
D. Junior:              none
E. Total                87-42, 68%


IV. Individual tournaments (*opponents reaching elims; **opponents missing
on points)

A. Individual tournaments of debaters as a team.

S Carolina, Sept 19-21
1.  A   W       Abiline Christian Hudson Milstead
2.  N   W       *Southwest Texas Tiffee Lacross
3.  A   W       Emory Bradley ElleLein
4.  N   L       *Emory Chase Matt
5.  A   L       *Michigan Krakowsky Rice
6.  N   W       Emory Hansford Lee
7.  N   W       *Alabama Shaw Pfeister
D.  A   WWL     Emory Chase Matt
O.  N   LLL     Emory Baily Ghali
Prelim: 5-2
Elims:  1-1
Total:  6-3
Honors: ninth seed; Moore, 10th speaker of 126.

Middle Tennessee, Sept 26-28
1.  N   W       McNeese Turner James
2.  A   W       Marshall Smoulder Hess
3.  N   W       Webster White Lorenz
4.  A   L       *Alabama Shaw Pfiester
5.  N   W       *Louisville Lee Westbrook
6.  A   W       Trinity Low Puls
Q.  A   WWW     Richmond Bates Skinner
S.  n/a WWW     SIU Sapienza Metz
F.  n/a WWW     SIU Eldredge Griffith
Prelim: 5-1
Elims:  3-0
Total:  8-1
Honors: 2nd seed; tournament champions; Moore 3rd speaker of 42; Vuglia, 4th
speaker of 42.

Southwest Missouri, October 11-13
1.  N   W       North Texas Shafstall Riley
2.  A   W       *Pace Bell Peterson
3.  N   W       *Emory Horowitch Reid
4.  A   W       Arkansas State Simpson Willis
5.  A   W       *Emporia Holland Tate
6.  N   L       *Michigan Hoffman Owens
7.  A   W       *Texas Grove Evans
8.  N   W       *Wayne Gibson Marowitz
O.  N   WWL     Iowa Jensen Moore
Q.  N   WWW     Texas Grove Evans
S.  N   WLL     Pace Bell Peterson
Prelim: 7-1
Elims:  2-1
Total:  9-2
Honors: Moore, 2nd speaker of 66; 2nd seed.

Emporia, October 18-20
1.  A   L       *Kansas Herndon Flynn
2.  N   W       *Fort Hays Clune Halverson
3.  A   W       *Wichita State Hathaway Gough
4.  N   W       Bye
5.  A   W       Kansas Brockman Rodriguez
6.  N   L       *Michigan State Blair Cornellier
7.  A   L       *Michigan State Woidan Monick
8.  N   L       *Southwest Texas Tiffee Lacross
O.  N   WLL     Kansas Herndon Flynn
Prelim: 4-4
Elims:  0-1
Total:  3-5
Honors: Vuglia, 10th speaker of 158.

UNLV, October 25-27
1.  A   L       *Redlands Wetzel Graffagnini
2.  N   W       *Chico Cupp Lowrie
3.  A   W       Southwest Texas Williams Meyers
4.  N   W       Pepperdine Zeimet Manakides
5.  A   L       *USC Stetson Hurder
6.  N   L       Augie Hallstrom Kloos
7.  A   W       Southwest Missouri Payne Vega
8.  N   W       USC Weitz Meltzer
D.  A   WWW     New Mexico Clark Stalley
O.  N   LLL     USC Stetson Hurder
Prelim: 5-3
Elims:  1-1
Total:  6-4

UMSL, October 31-November 1
1.  A   W       **Southern Utah Reardon Sstapley
2.  N   W       **Vanderbilt Prisco Reddy
3.  A   W       *Florida/Middle Tenn Gittings Ishak
4.  N   L       *Weber Menzies Schubert
5.  N   W       **Southwest Missouri Payne Vega
6.  A   W       Illinois State Reno Bruno
Q.  N   WLL     Florida/Middle Tenn Gittings Ishak
Prelim: 5-1
Elims:  0-1
Total:  5-2
Honors: 4th seed; Moore 2nd speaker 42; Vuglia 10th of 42.

Central Oklahoma, November 7-9
1.  A   W       Abiline Christian Milstead Hudson
2.  N   W       Arkansas Tech Wilson Buckner
3.  N   W       Trinity Puls Stoeck
4.  A   L       *Whitman Clarke Scoville
5.  N   W       **Lewis & Clarke Hager Sayre
6.  A   L       *Emory Todd Tabak
7.  A   W       *Gonzaga Voight Moburg
D.  A   WWL     South Carolina McFadden Rose
O.  A   WLL     Michigan Stte Woiden Monick
Prelim: 5-2
Elims:  1-1
Total:  6-3

Wake, November 15-17
1.  A   W       Augastana Berish Calvert
2.  N   L       *Fullerton Heider Lambrinos
3.  N   W       Augastana Bratt Charles
4.  A   L       **Emory Heftman McNabb
5.  A   W       Kansas State Glasser West
6.  N   L       George Washington Ducommen Mast
7.  A   W       Wayne State Lucksic dOpalewski
8.  N   W       Georgia Matos Teagle
Prelim: 5-3
Total:  5-3
Honors: missed on points.

USC, December 29-31
1.  A   W       Trinity Lotz Mesches
2.  N   W       Chico Evans Moyle
3.  A   W       South Carolina McFadden Rose
4.  N   L       *Northwestern Sato Sohrn
5.  N   W       Whitman Harris Symonds
6.  A   L       *Gonzaga Voight Moburg
7.  N   L       *West Georgia Karver Bonilla
8.  A   L       *Wake Ellis Lotz
Prelim: 4-4
Elims:  0-0
Total:  4-4

Long Beach, January 2-4
1.  A   W       Chico Lupe Sobalvarro
2.  N   W       *Sacramento Johnson Clarkson
3.  A   W       Southern Utah Striker Herrmann
4.  N   W       USC Tallungan Prince
5.  A   L       *Northwestern Sohrn Sato
6.  N   W       *Texas Grove Evans
7.  N   L       *Trinity Lotz Mesches
8.  A   L       *Texas Hatziavramid Pursley
D. n/a  LLL     SIU Slusher Smith
Prelim: 5-3
Elims:  0-1
Total:  5-4

UMKC, January 6-8
1.  A   W       *Chico Cupp Lowrie
2.  N   L       **Wake Allen DeMarco
3.  A   W       Michigan State Woiden Rand
4.  N   W       **Emporia Tate Holland
5.  A   W       Kansas Herndon Flynn
6.  N   L       *Kansas State West Denny
7.  A   W       *Southwest Missouri Atkins Kilpatrick
O.  N   WWW     Chico Cupp Lowrie
Q. n/a  WWW     SIU Roland Woolery
S.  N   WLL     Macalester Alme Garen
Prelim: 5-2
Elims:  2-1
Total:  7-3
Honors: 4th seed; Moore, 10th speaker of 80.

William Jewell, 9-11
1.  A   L       **South Carolina McFadden Rose
2.  N   W       Wake Allen DeMarco
3.  N   W       **Wake Powell Yopp
4.  A   W       **Alabama Shaw Pfiester
5.  A   L       *Kentucky  Jensen Ray
6.  N   W       **UMKC Baisley Coffman
O.  N   WWL     Kentucky Jensen Ray
Q. n/a  LLL     SIU Slusher Smith
Prelim: 4-2
Elims:  1-1
Total:  5-3

Weber Round Robin, January 13-14
1.  N   W       *Gonzaga Voight Moburg
2.  A   W       Pace Bell Peterson
3.  A   W       Emory Horesitch Reid
4.  N   W       Miami/Southern Utah Walkun
5.  N   W       Eastern New Mexico Baretto Foy
S.  n/a WWW     SIU Slusher Smith
F.  N   WWWWL   North Texas Holloway Morrow
Prelim: 5-0
Elims:  2-0
Total:  7-0
Honors: 1st seed; tournament champions; Moore 2nd speaker of 32; Vuglia 5th
speaker of 32.

Utah, January 16-18
1.  A   L       *USC Hurder Stetson
2.  N   W       *Gonzaga Hummell Kelley
3.  A   W       Chico Delano King
4.  N   W       *UNLV Robertson Kimbrough
5.  N   W       *Pace Bell Peterson
6.  A   W       **Pepperdine Gorton McGrath
7.  A   L       *Northwestern Anderson Nemecek
8.  N   W       *Southwest Missouri Payne Vega
D.  N   WWW     Weber Dilsaver Muranaka
O.  A   WWW     Eastern New Mexico Baretto Foy
Q.  N   LLL     UMKC Barker Betz
Prelim: 6-2
Elims:  2-1
Total:  8-3
Honors: 10th seed.

Northwestern, February 7-9
1.  N   W       Michigan-DearbornHusein Mackie
2.  A   W       Pace Peterson Bell
3.  N   W       *Macalster Alme Garen
4.  A   L       **Liberty  Burns Lawrence
5.  A   L       *Texas Renken Griffin
6.  N   W       USC Meltzer Weitz
7.  A   L       **Emory Eno Goodrich
8.  N   W       Wake Ellis Lotz
D.  N   LLL     Texas Renken Griffin
Prelim: 5-3
Elims:  0-1
Total:  5-4
Honors: 22nd seed.

B. Individual tournaments of debaters with other colleagues.

     Neither Moore nor Vuglia debated with any other partner.



From Broveraf  Mon Feb 16 09:37:57 1998
From: Broveraf (Adrienne F. Brovero)
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 10:37:57 -0500
Subject: Dartmouth HL
Message-ID: <MON.16.FEB.1998.103757.0500.BROVERAF@WFU.EDU>


I.      School: DARTMOUTH COLLEGE
        Debaters:       DAVID HUNG and STEVE LEHOTSKY

II. TABULAR SUMMARY.

A. Record of the two debaters as a team.

TOTAL
TOURNAMENT      DATE    PRELIMS SXTO    OCTO    QTRS    SEMI    FNLS    RECORD
1. Nrthrn. Iowa 9/20    7-1     2-1     1-2                             8-2
2. Kentucky RR  9/30    3-5                                             3-5
3. Kentucky     10/3    6-2     3-0     3-0     3-0     1-2             9-3
4. Capitol City 11/1    6-0             3-0     0-3                     7-1
5. Wake Forest  11/15   6-2     3-0     2-1     5-0     3-0     3-0     11-2
6. West Georgia 1/17    6-2             0-3                             6-3
7. Dartmouth RR 1/24    2-4                                             2-4
8. Northwestern 2/7     6-2     3-0     0-3                             7-3

        SUMMARY:        A. Prelim Record        37-9    80.4%
        B. Elim Record  11-5    68.8%
        C. Round Robin   5-9    35.7%
        D. Junior Varsity       0-0     00.0%
        E. Total Record 53-23   69.7%


B. Record of the individual debaters debating with other collegaues

        DOES NOT APPLY




C. Number of Preliminary Rounds

        As a Team:      46
        Hung:   46
        Lehotsky        46:


III. TOTAL RECORD OF DEBATERS:

        David Hung:     A. Prelim Record        37-9    80.4%
        B. Elim Record  11-5    68.8%
        C. Round Robin   5-9    35.7%
        D. Junior Varsity       0-0     00.0%
        E. Total Record 53-23   69.7%


        Steve Lehotsky: A. Prelim Record        37-9    80.4%
        B. Elim Record  11-5    68.8%
        C. Round Robin   5-9    35.7%
        D. Junior Varsity       0-0     00.0%
        E. Total Record 53-23   69.7%





IV. INDIVIDUAL TOURNAMENTS:

A. Individual Tournaments of Debaters as a team.

(1)   UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN IOWA - Season Opener
         September 20-22, 1997

ROUND   SIDE    W-L     OPPONENT
        1.      A       W       Redlands (Hughes and Radeshwar)
        2.      N       L       *Emory (Fitzmeier and Heidt)
        3.      A       W       Utah (Sidle and Upton)
        4.      N       W       Kansas (Brockman and Rodriguez)
        5.      N       W       Fullerton (Heider and Lambrinos)
        6.      A       W       Southwest Missouri (Payne and Vega)
        7.      N       W       *Kansas (Ardebili and McKeehan)
        8.      A       W       *Wayne State (Lewis and Thompson)
Sexto   N       WWL     Liberty (Burns and Lawrence)
Octo    N       WLL     George Mason (Krein and Weiner)

Prelims 7-1      Awards:        Octofinalists
Elims   1-1     third seed
Total   8-2     Hung - ninth speaker
                Lehotsky - twelfth speaker


(2)   UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Thoroughbred Round Robin
         September 30- October 1, 1997

ROUND   SIDE    W-L     OPPONENT
        1.      A       W       Northwestern (Gottlieb and Sparacino)
        2.      N       L       Harvard (Engstrom and Starr)
        3.      A       L       Georgia (Cates and McIntosh)
        4.      A       W       Texas (Congdon and Griffin)
        5.      N       L       Michigan (Stoughton and Wexler)
        6.      N       W       Kanasa (Ardebili and McKeehan)
        7.      bye
        8.      A       L       Michigan State (Cornellier and Sullivan)
        9.      N       L       Emory (Fitzmeier and Heidt)

Total   3-5

(3)   UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Henry Clay Debates
         October 3-5, 1997

ROUND   SIDE    W-L     OPPONENT
        1.      N       W       George Mason (Igiel and Kronberg)
        2.      A       W       Southwest Missouri (Atkins and Kilpatrick)
        3.      N       W       Wake Forest (Geppert and Lotz)
        4.      A       W       *Macalester (Alme and Garen)
        5.      N       L       *Emory (Fitzmeier and Heidt)
        6.      A       W       *Kansas (Ardebili and McKeehan)
        7.      N       L       *Georgetown (Kwon and Steele)
        8.      A       W       *Baylor (Brasure and Palmer)
Sexto   A       WWW     Arizona State (Martin and Skarb)
Octo    N       WWW     Kansas (Ardebili and McKeehan)
Qtr     N       WWW     Michigan State (Cornellier and Sullivan)
Semi    A       WLL     Michigan (Stoughton and Wexler)

Prelims 6-2      Awards:        Semifinalists
Elims   3-1     tenth seed
Total           9-3                                     Lehotsky - fifteenth
speaker


(4)   AMERICAN UNIVERSITY  - Capitol City Debates
         November 1-3, 1997

ROUND   SIDE    W-L     OPPONENT
        1.       N      W       Mary Washington (Grynaviski and Peine)
        2.      A       W       Missouri - Kansas City (Whyte and Coffman)
        3.      A       W       Wake Forest (Ryan and Rhodes)
        4.      N       W       *Michigan (Stoughton and Wexler)
        5.      A       W       *Georgia (Cates and McIntosh)
        6.      N       W       Wake Forest (Atchinson and Green)
Octo    N       WWW     Kentucky (Jensen and Ray)
Qtr     A       LLL     Michigan (Stoughton and Wexler)

Prelims 6-0     Awards:         Quarterfinalists
Elims   1-1     second seed
Total           7-1                                     Hung - sixth speaker
                                        Lehotsky - seventh speaker

(5)     WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY  -  Shirley Dixie Classic
         November 15-17, 1997

ROUND   SIDE    W-L     OPPONENT
        1.      N       W       Wayne State (Andrus and Gainer)
        2.      A       W       Kentucky (Clemons and Kall)
        3.      N       W       **Michigan (Hernandez and Krakowski)
        4.      A       W       *Baylor (Coulter and Coulter)
        5.      N       L       *Emory (Kouros and Sahni)
        6.      A       W       *Fullerton (Heider and Lambrinos)
        7.      N       W       *Texas (Congdon and Reed)
        8.      A       L       *Georgia (Cates and McIntosh)
Sexto   A       WWW     Michigan (Nicalo and Pudelski)
Octo    N       WWL     Michigan (Stoughton and Wexler)
Qtr     N  WWWWW  Kansas (Eber and Miller)
Semi    N       WWW     Fullerton (Heider and Lambrinos)
Fnl     A       WWW     Harvard  (Engstrom and Starr)

Prelims 6-2      Awards:        First Place
Elims   5-0     fifteenth seed
Total   11-2


(6)   STATE UNIVERSITY OF WEST GEORGIA - Tisinger Debates
         January 17-19, 1998

ROUND   SIDE    W-L     OPPONENT
        1.      N       W       Michigan State (O'Dowd and Smith)
        2.      A       W       Emory (Goshal and Wade)
        3.      N       W       **Emory (Horowitz and Lupo)
        4.      A       W       Harvard (Harrow and Schrage)
        5.      N       L       *Northwestern (Gottlieb and Sparacino)
        6.      A       L       *Iowa (Peterson and Rayburn)
        7.      N       W       Emory (Ghavi and Ghali)
        8.      A       W       *Emory (Heftman and McNabb)
Octo    N       LLL     Wake Forest (Geppert and Rhodes)

Prelims 6-2      Awards:        Octofinalists
Elims   0-1     seventh seed
Total   6-3     Lehotsky - tenth speaker
Hung - eleventh speaker

(7)   DARTMOUTH COLLEGE  - Herbert L. James Debates
         January 24-25, 1998

ROUND   SIDE    W-L     OPPONENT
        1.      bye
        2.      A       W       Michigan (Stoughton and Wexler)
        3.      N       L       Northwestern (Gottlieb and Sparacino)
        4.      A       L       Emory (Kouros and Sahni)
        5.      A       W       Harvard (Engstrom and Starr)
        6.      N       L       Georgia (Cates and McIntosh)
        7.      N       L       Georgetown (Kwon and Steele)

Total   2-4     Awards:         Hung - second speaker


(8)   NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY  - Owen L. Coon
         February 7-9, 1998

ROUND   SIDE    W-L     OPPONENT
        1.      A       W       *Wake Forest (Bonura and Covey)
        2.      N       W       Baylor (Black and Martin)
        3.      A       W       *Missouri - Kansas City (Barker and Betz)
        4.      N       W       **Emory (Heftman and McNabb)
        5.      A       L       *Georgia (Cates and McInbtosh)
        6.      N       L       *West Georgia (Bonilla and Carver)
        7.      A       W       Wake Forest (Ellis and Lotz)
        8.      N       W       **Kansas (Eber and Miller)
Sexto   A       WWW     Macalester (Alme and Garen)
Octo    N       LLL     Emory (Fitmeier and Heidt)

Prelims 6-2      Awards:        Octofinalists
Elims   1-1     ninth seed
Total   7-3     Hung - fifteenth speaker
        Lehotsky - twenty second speaker



From Broveraf  Mon Feb 16 09:39:15 1998
From: Broveraf (Adrienne F. Brovero)
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 10:39:15 -0500
Subject: GMU KW
Message-ID: <MON.16.FEB.1998.103915.0500.BROVERAF@WFU.EDU>

I.      School:                 George Mason University
        Debaters:                       Jake Weiner and Pete Krein

II.     Tabular Summary.
A.      Record of the debaters as a team.
Tournament         Dates     Prelim  Dbls  Octas  Qtrs  Semis  Finals  Total

Northern Iowa      9/20-22   5-3     WWL   WWL    WWW   WLL
8-4
Kentucky           10/4-6    6-2     WWL   LLL                         7-3
North Carolina     10/18-20  8-0           LLL
8-1
Capital City       11/1-3    4-2           LLL
4-3
Liberty            11/7-9    6-0           Bye    WWW   WWW    WLL
8-1
Wake Forest        11/15-17  6-2     LLL                               6-3
S. California      12/29-31  5-3     LLL
5-4
Redlands           1/2-4     2-4                                       2-4
West Georgia       1/17-19   5-3           LLL
5-4
Navy               1/30-2/1  6-2           WWW    WWW   WWW    WWW     10-2
Northwestern       2/7-9     6-2     WWW   LLL
7-3

Summary:        A.      Prelim Record:  57-19           75%
                B.      Elim Record:    11-9            55%
                C.      Round Robins:   2-4             33.33%
                D.      Total Record:   70-32           68.63%

B.      Record of individual debaters with other colleagues.

1.      Pete Krein with Jay Igiel.

Tournament         Dates     Prelim  Dbls  Octas  Qtrs  Semis  Finals  Total

King's College     9/26-28   5-1           Bye    WWL   WWL    WWW
8-1


C.      Number of Preliminary Rounds.

        As a team:     82
        Jake Weiner:   82
        Pete Krein:    88
 III.   Total Record of Debaters.

A.      Jake Weiner

        Prelim Record:  57-19           75%
        Elim Record:    11-9            55%
        Round Robins:   2-4             33.33%
        Total Record:   70-32           68.63%

B.      Pete Krein

        Prelim Record:  62-20           75.61%
        Elim Record:    14-9            60.87%
        Round Robins:   2-4             33.33%
        Total Record:   78-33           70.27%

IV.     Individual Tournaments.

A.      University of Northern Iowa, Sept 20-22, 1997.  (73 teams)

Round           Side    W/L             Opponent

1               A       W               UMKC CS (Collignon-Stiles)
2                       W               Bye
3               A       L               Texas GR (Griffin-Renken)*
4               N       W               Fullerton BH (Basora-Hernandez)
5               N       W               North Texas HM (Holloway-Morrow)*
6               A       L               Michigan SW (Stoughton-Wexler)*
7               N       W               Kansas SH (Seymour-Hudson)*
8               A       L               Northwestern SS (Sato-Sohrn)*
Doubles N       WWL             Emory TT (Todd-Tabak)
Octas           A       WWL             Dartmouth HL (Hung-Lehotsky)
Quarters        A       WWW             Georgia CM (Cates-Macintosh)
Semis           N       WLL             Georgetown KS (Kwon-Steele)

        Summary:        Prelims:        5-3     Honors: Semifinalists
                        Elims:  3-1               Krein - 15th Speaker
                        Total:  8-4

B.      University of Kentucky, October 4-6, 1997. (89 teams)

Round           Side    W/L             Opponent

1               N       W               Emory EG (Eno-Goodrich)
2               A       W               Florida State CS (Cobas-Southerland)
3               N       W               Southern California MW (Metzler-Weitz)
4               A       L               Kansas AM (Ardebili-McKeehan)*
5               N       W               Emory GW (Goshal-Wade)*
6               A       W               Wake Forest RR (Ryan-Rhodes)
7               A       L               Harvard ES (Engstrom-Starr)*
8               N       W               Southern California BM (Bevan-Markowski)
Doubles         N       WWL             Emory MH  (McNabb-Heftman)
Octas           A       LLL             Emory FH (Fitzmeier-Heidt)

        Summary:        Prelims:        6-2     Honors: Octofinalists
                        Elims:  1-1
                        Total:  7-3
 C.     University of North Carolina, October 18-20, 1997. (51 teams)

Round           Side    W/L             Opponent

1               N       W               Mary Washington GP (Grynaviski-Peine)
2               A       W               Wake Forest GL (Geppert-Lotz)*
3               N       W               Baylor AF (Alexander-Flora)
4               A       W               Wake Forest AD (Allen-De Marco)
5               A       W               Wake Forest RR (Rhodes-Ryan)*
6               N       W               Samford JS (Johnson-Stetson)*
7               A       W               Kentucky JR (Jensen-Ray)*
8               N       W               Iowa PS (Podgorski-Scott)*
Octas           N       LLL             Wake Forest GL (Geppert-Lotz)

        Summary:        Prelims:        8-0     Honors: First Seed
                        Elims:  0-1                     Octofinalists
                        Total:  8-1                     Krein - 6th Speaker


D.      Capital City Debates, American University, November 1-3, 1997. (66
teams)

Round           Side    W/L             Opponent

1               N       W               Miami LM (Litton-Mitchell)
2               A       W               West Georgia BC (Bonilla-Carver)*
3               A       W               Harvard ES (Engstrom-Starr)*
4               N       L               Northwestern GS (Gottlieb-Sparacino)*
5               N       W               Wake Forest RR (Rhodes-Ryan)
6               A       L               Emory FH (Fitzmeier-Heidt)*
Octas           A       LLL             Northwestern GS (Gottlieb-Sparacino)

        Summary:        Prelims:        4-2     Honors: Octofinalists
                        Elims:  0-1
                        Total:  4-3

E.      Liberty University, November 7-9, 1997. (18 teams)

Round           Side    W/L             Opponent

1               N       W               Liberty RV (Ringsmuth-Vick)
2               A       W               Navy CJ (Callahan-Johnson)
3               A       W               George Washington DM (Ducommun-Mast)*
4               N       W               George Washington SS (Stubbs-Shah)*
5               A       W               Trinity LM (Lotz-Mesches)*
6               N       W               Mary Washington GP (Grynaviski-Peine)*
Octas                                   Bye
Quarters        N       WWW             Wake Forest BD (Bonura-De Marco)
Semis           A       WWW             Louisville LW (Lee-Westbrook)
Finals          N       WLL             Trinity LM (Lotz-Mesches)

        Summary:        Prelims:        6-0     Honors: Second Place
                        Elims:  2-1                     Krein - First Speaker
                        Total:  8-1

 F.     Wake Forest University, November 15-17, 1997.  (129 teams)

Round           Side    W/L             Opponent

1               N       W               Kentucky JR (Jensen-Ray)**
2               A       W               UNLV MP (McGill-Purtle)
3               N       L               Emory HL (Horowitz-Lupo)*
4               A       L               Samford JS (Johnson-Stetson)*
5               A       W               Redlands GW (Graffagnini-Wetzel)**
6               N       W               Georgia NS (Nolley-Stein)
7               A       W               Georgia MT (Matos-Teagle)
8               N       W               Emory GW (Goshal-Wade)*
Doubles         A       LLL             Texas GR (Griffin-Renken)

        Summary:        Prelims:        6-2     Honors: 19th Seed
                        Elims:  0-1                     Krein - 18th Speaker
                        Total:  6-3


G.      University of Southern California, Dec 29-31, 1997. (65 teams)

Round           Side    W/L             Opponent

1               A       L               CSU Fullerton HL (Heider-Lambrinos)*
2               N       L               Michigan SW (Stoughton-Wexler)*
3               N       W               Louis & Clark JR (James-Rhea)
4               A       W               John Carroll FS (Fuchs-Sovacol)
5               A       W               Trinity LM (Lotz-Mesches)
6               N       W               Pepperdine MZ (Zeimet-Manakides)
7               N       L               Harvard ES (Engstrom-Starr)*
8               A       W               Duquesne MK (Miller-Kimicata)
Doubles         N       LLL             Redlands MW (Miller-Wetzel)

        Summary:        Prelims:        5-3     Honors: 15th Seed
                        Elims:  0-1
                        Total:  5-4

H.      University of Redlands (Round Robin), January 2-4, 1998. (21 teams)

Round           Side    W/L             Opponent

1               N       W               Southern California HR (Harrison-Revelins)
2               N       W               Texas CR (Congdon-Reed)
3               A       L               Kansas AM (Ardebili-McKeehan)
4               N       L               Georgia CM (Cates-Macintosh)*
5               A       L               Harvard ES (Engstrom-Starr)*
6               A       L               Michigan NP (Nicalo-Pudelski)

        Summary:        Prelims:        2-4     Honors: Krein - 17th Speaker
                        Elims:  0-0
                        Total:  2-4
 I.     West Georgia College, January 17-19, 1998. (54 teams)

Round           Side    W/L             Opponent

1               N       W               Emory GG (Ghavi-Ghali)
2               A       W               Emory TT (Tabak-Todd)
3               A       L               Harvard ES (Engstrom-Starr)*
4               N       L               Emory FH (Fitzmeier-Heidt)*
5               A       W               Samford BD (Buzicarro-Dye)
6               N       W               Wake PY (Powell-Yopp)
7               A       W               Emory HL (Horowitz-Lupo)**
8               N       L               Michigan State CS (Cornellier-Sullivan)*

Octas           N       LLL             Emory KS (Kouros-Sahni)

        Summary:        Prelims:        5-3     Honors: Octofinalists
                        Elims:  0-1                     Krein - 13th Speaker
                        Total:  5-4

J.      US Naval Academy, Jan 30-Feb 1, 1998. (31teams)

Round           Side    W/L             Opponent

1               N       L               Georgetown BS (Botnivik-Simensen)*
2               A       W               Boston College MS (Marmol-Staiti)**
3               N       W               Cornell MM (Melton-Miller)
4               A       W               Richmond BS (Bates-Skinner)
5               A       W               Wayne State MO (Markowitz-Opalewski)*
6               N       L               James Madison MW (Minkove-Willemin)*
7               N       W               Samford BD (Buzachero-Dye)*
8               A       W               Liberty ST (Siegalkoff-Tilley)**
Octas           A       WWW             Pittsburgh CE (Corrigan-Ellwood)
Quarters        A       WWW             Georgia ES (Eastwood-Stein)
Semis           A       WWW             Georgetown BS (Botvinik-Simensen)
Finals          N       WWW             Liberty BL (Burns-Lawrence)

        Summary:        Prelims:        6-2     Honors: First Place
                        Elims:  4-0                     Krein - First Speaker
                        Total:  10-2                    Weiner - 13th Speaker

K.      Northwestern University, February 7-9, 1998. (93 teams)

Round           Side    W/L             Opponent

1               N       W               Georgia ES (Eastwood-Stein)
2               A       W               Georgia MT (Matos-Teagle)
3               N       L               Kansas AM (Ardebili-McKeehan)*
4               A       W               Pittsburgh CE (Corrigan-Ellwood)
5               A       W               Samford JS (Johnson-Stetson)*
6               N       W               Michigan State HM (Hoffman-Monick)
7               A       W               Iowa PR (Peterson-Rayburn)*
8               N       L               Georgia CM (Cates-Macintosh)*
Doubles         A       WWW             Iowa PS (Podgorski-Scott)
Octas           A       LLL             Emory KS (Kouros-Sahni)

        Summary:        Prelims:        6-2     Honors: Octofinalists
                        Elims:  1-1
                        Total:  7-3
 V.     Individual Tournaments with other debaters

A.      King's College, September 26-28, 1997. (19 teams)

Round           Side    W/L             Opponent

1               N       W               Army BK (Bennett-Kondo)
2               A       W               Bye
3               N       W               George Washington DS (Ducommun-Stubbs)*
4               A       W               Liberty BL (Burns-Lawrence)*
5               N       W               Trinity LM (Lotz-Mesches)*
6               A       L               Mary Washington GP (Grynaviski-Peine)*
Octas                                   Bye
Quarters        N       WWL             George Washington MS (Mast-Shah)
Semis           A       WWL             Trinity LM (Lotz-Mesches)
Finals          N       WWW             Liberty BL (Burns-Lawrence)

        Summary:        Prelims:        5-1     Honors: First Place
                        Elims:  3-0                     Krein - Second Speaker
                        Total:  8-1



From Broveraf  Mon Feb 16 09:41:08 1998
From: Broveraf (Adrienne F. Brovero)
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 10:41:08 -0500
Subject: Liberty BL
Message-ID: <MON.16.FEB.1998.104108.0500.BROVERAF@WFU.EDU>

I.  School:             Liberty University
            Debaters:           Robert Burns and Bill Lawrence
          II.  Tabular Summary

           A. Record of the two debaters as a team.

TOURNAMENT      DATE     PRELIMS  SEXTOS  OCTAS  QTRS  SEMIS  FINALS  TOTAL

1. No. Iowa              09/20-22            5-3                LLW                                              5-4
2. King's College     09/26-28       5-1                            Bye      WWW WWW    LLL      7-2
3. North Carolina     10/18-20       5-3                            WWL    WWL  LLW              7-4
4. Capitol City         11/01-03             3-3                                                                 3-3
5. Wake Forest         11/15-17      6-2                WWL         LLL                                  7-3
6. Southern Cal.       12/29-31      6-2                WWL      LLL                                     7-3
7. Redlands RR        01/02-04       2-4                                                                 2-4
8. Baylor Univ.        01/24-26      5-3                LLW                                              5-4
9. Naval Academy   01/30-2/1     8-0                        Bye      WWW WWL     LLL     10-1
10. Northwestern     02/06-09      5-3                                                           5-3


                                Summary:        A.  Prelim Record               48-20   70.6%
                                                B.  Elim Record           8-7   53.3%
                                                C.  Round Robins                  2-4   33.3%
                                                D. Junior Division              n/a
                                                E.  Total Record                58-31   65.2%


          B. Record of individual debaters debating with other colleagues

               Debater One: Rob Burns (with Lacy Siegalkoff)

TOURNAMENT      DATE     PRELIMS  SEXTOS  OCTAS  QTRS  SEMIS  FINALS  TOTAL

1. Richmond            10/10-12      4-2
        LLL                      4-3
          C. Number of Preliminary Rounds

               As a Team:       74 preliminary rounds
                   Robert Burns:        80 preliminary rounds
               Bill Lawrence:     74 preliminary rounds

III. Total Record of Debaters

      Bill Lawrence                                     Robert Burns

      Prelim Record             48-20   70.6%           Prelim Record              52-22        70.3%
      Elim Record                 8-7   53.3%           Elim Record              8-8    50%
      Round Robins                2-4   33.3%           Round Robins             2-4    33.3%
      Junior Division           n/a                     Junior Division n/a
      Total Record              58-31   65.2%           Total Record               62-34        64.6%


  IV.  Individual Tournaments

        A.  Individual Tournaments of Debaters as a team.

Ulrich Season Opener, University of Northern Iowa, September 20-22, 1997
(73 teams)

Round           Side    W/L             Opponent

    1             N       L             Redlands (Grant and Miller)*
    2             A       L             CS-Fullerton (Heider and Lambrinos)
    3             N       L             Kansas (Hudson and Seymour)*
    4             A       W             Florida State (Allyn and Velherst)
    5             N       W             Iowa (Kueter and Roston)
    6             A       W             Northwestern (Reeden and Smith)
    7             N       W             Augustana-IL. (Bratt and Charles)
    8             A       W             Texas (Grove and Powers)
 Sexto            A     LLW             Dartmouth (Hung and Lehotsky)


Summary:        Prelims 5-3
                Elims           0-1
                Total           5-4


Connelly-Garvey Debate Tournament, King's College, September 26-28, 1997
(19 teams)

Round           Side    W/L             Opponent

    1             A       W             James Madison (Minkove and Willemin)
    2             N       W             George Washington (Mast and Shah)*
    3             A       W             Cornell (Cole and Wojtysiak)*
    4             N       L             George Mason (Igiel and Krein)*
    5             N       W             Mary Washington (Grynaviski and Peine)*
    6             A       W             Towson (Baker and Ellis)*
Octas           Bye
Qrtrs           Bye                     Liberty JS
Semis             A     WWW             Mary Washington (Grynaviski and Peine)
Finals            A     LLL             George Mason (Igiel and Krein)


Summary:        Prelims 5-1             Honors: Lawrence-top speaker
                Elims           1-1                           Finalist (top seed)
                Total           6-2





Tarheel Debates, University of North Carolina, October 18-20, 1997, (51 teams)

Round           Side    W/L             Opponent

    1             A       W             Mercer (Buck and Vaughn)
    2             N       L             Wake Forest (Atchinson and Green)*
    3             A       L             Samford (Buzachero and Dye)
    4             N       W             George Washington (Ducommun and Stubbs)
    5             A       W             Michigan (Mish and Sampson)
    6                     N       W             Louisville (Lee and Westbrook)
    7             N       L             Wake Forest (Covey and Filstrup)*
    8             A       W             Kansas State (Glaser and West)
Octas             N     WWL             Wake Forest (Rhodes and Ryan)
Qrtrs             N     WWL             Baylor (Coulter and Coulter)
Semis             A     LLW             Wake Forest (Atchinson and Green)


Summary:        Prelims 5-3             Honors: Lawrence-2nd Speaker
                Elims           2-1                       Semifinalist
                Total           7-4





Capitol City Debates, American University, November 1-3 , 1997, (66 teams)

Round           Side    W/L             Opponent

    1             A       W             Dartmouth (Andrew and Williams)
    2             N       L             Wake Forest (Atchinson and Green)**
    3             A       L             Arizona State (Kessel and Sweet)
    4             N       W             Pittsburgh (Corrigan and Sayeed)
    5             A       W             George Washington (Ellenbogen and Thummala)
    6             N       L             CS-Fullerton (Heider and Lambrinos)*


Summary:        Prelims 3-3






Franklin R. Shirley Dixie Classic, Wake Forest University, November 15-17,
1997,               (129 teams)

Round           Side    W/L             Opponent

    1             A       W             Emory (Todd and Tabak)
    2             N       W             John Carroll (Fuchs and Yanus)
    3             N       W             Emory (Heftman and McNabb)**
    4             A       L             Michigan State (Cornellier and Sullivan)*
    5             N       W             Michigan (Hernandez and Krakowski)**
    6             A       L             North Texas (Holloway and Morrow)*
    7             N       W             Emory (Harkin and Goodrich)
    8             A       W             Kansas (Ardebili and McKeehan)*
Sexto             N     WWL             Baylor (Coulter and Coulter)
Octas             N     LLL             Harvard (Engstrom and Starr)


Summary:        Prelims 6-2             Honors: Octafinalist (20th seed)
                Elims           1-1
                Total           7-3



Alan Nichols Invitational, University of Southern California, December
29-31, 1997,        (65 teams)

Round           Side    W/L             Opponent

    1             A       W             Georgia (Cates and McIntosh)*
    2             N       W             Iowa (Christensen and Jensen)
    3             A       W             Chico (Evans and Moyle)
    4             N       L             Redlands (Miller and Wetzel)*
    5             A       W             Northwestern (Redden and Smith)
    6             N       W             CS-Fullerton (Heider and Lambrinos)*
    7             N       W             Whitman (Clarke and Scoville)*
    8             A       L             Northwestern (Gottlieb and Sparacino)*
Sextos            A     WWL             Whitman (Clarke and Scoville)
Octas             N     LLL             Georgia (Cates and McIntosh)


Summary:        Prelims 6-2             Honors: Octafinalist (11th seed)
                Elims           1-1
                Total           7-3



West Coast Invitational Debate Tournament, University of Redlands, January
2-4, 1998, (21 teams)

Round           Side    W/L             Opponent

    1             N       W             Kansas (Eber and Miller)
    2             A       W             Georgetown (Kwon and Steele)*
    3             A       L             Michigan (Stoughton and Wexler)*
    4             N       L             CS-Fullerton (Heider and Lambrinos)*
    5             N       L             Emory (Fitzmeir and Heidt)*
    6             A       L             Redlands (Miller and Wetzel)**


Summary:        Prelims         2-4             Honors: 17th place





Glenn R. Capp Debates, Baylor University, January 24-26, 1998, (54 teams)

Round           Side    W/L             Opponent

    1             N       W             Kansas (Herndon and Flynn)
    2             A       L             Emory (Bailey and Ghali)*
    3             N       L             Michigan State (Blair and Donald)*
    4             A       W             Wayne State (Andrus and Skillen)
    5             N       W             Kansas (Magariel and Rodriguez)
    6             A       L             Wake Forest (Geppert and Rhodes)*
    7             N       W             Iowa (Foster and Rathe)
    8             A       W             Emory (Eno and Goodrich)
Sexto             A     LLW             Macalester (Alme and Garen)


Summary:        Prelims 5-3             Honors: Lawrence-12th speaker
                Elims           0-1
                Total           5-4



United States Naval Academy Debate Tournament, January 30-February 1, 1998,
           (31 teams)

Round           Side    W/L             Opponent

    1             N       W             North Carolina (Curlee and Schneider)
    2             A       W             George Washington (Ducommun and Mast)*
    3             N       W             Army (Delong and Hoskins)
    4             A       W             Trinity (Massey and Stoeck)
    5             N       W             George Mason (Igiel and Reed)*
    6             A       W             Georgetown (Botnivik and Simensen)*
    7             A       W             Trinity (Lotz and Mesches)*
    8             N       W             Samford (Johnson and Stetson)*
Octas           Bye
Qrtrs             N     WWW             George Washington (Stubbs and Thummala)
Semis             A     WWL             Samford (Johnson and Stetson)
Finals            A     LLL             George Mason (Krein and Weiner)


Summary:        Prelims 8-0             Honors: Finalist, top seed
                Elims           2-1                           Lawrence-2nd speaker
                Total           10-1




Owen L. Coon Debates, Northwestern University, February 7-9, 1998, (95 teams)

Round           Side    W/L             Opponent

    1             A       W             Wake Forest (Ellis and Lotz)
    2             N       W             Kansas (Hudson and Seymour)
    3             A       L             Harvard (Engstrom and Starr)*
    4             N       W             Southern Illinois (Moore and Vuglia)*
    5             A       W             Michigan (Krakowsky and Rice)**
    6             N       W             Iowa (Podgorski and Scott)*
    7             A       L             Georgia (Cates and McIntosh)*
    8             N       L             Iowa (Peterson and Rayburn)*


                Prelims 5-3     Missed on Points





          B. Individual Tournaments of Debaters with other colleagues.

                  Debater One: Robert Burns (with Lacy Siegalkoff)

Spider Classic, University of Richmond, October 10-12, 1997, (15 teams)

Round           Side    W/L             Opponent

    1             A       W             Trinity (Massey and Stoeck)**
    2             N       L             Trinity (Low and Puls)*
    3             N       W             Navy (Callahan and Johnston)*
    4             A       W             Duquesne/Richmond (Kimicata and Geiser)
    5             N       L             Georgetown (Botnivik and Simensen)*
    6             A       W             South Carolina (McFadden and Rose)*
Qrtrs             A     LLL             Towson (Baker and Ellis)


Summary:        Prelims 4-2
                Elims           0-1
                Total           4-3



From Broveraf  Mon Feb 16 09:42:35 1998
From: Broveraf (Adrienne F. Brovero)
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 10:42:35 -0500
Subject: Wake Forest AG
Message-ID: <MON.16.FEB.1998.104235.0500.BROVERAF@WFU.EDU>

I.  WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY      February 12, 1998
        Justin Green & Jarrod Atchison  First Round At-Large

II.  TABULAR SUMMARY

        A. Record of the two debaters as a team:

TOURNAMENT      DATE    PRELIM  D-OCTAS OCTAS   QTRS    SEMIS    FINALS TOTAL

1.  S. Carolina RR      Sept. 17-18     6-1                             WWW     LLL      7-2
2.  Kentucky    Oct. 4-6        5-3                                              5-3
3.  North Carolina      Oct. 18-20      5-3             WWL     WWL     WWL     W*       8-3
4.  Capitol Cities      Nov. 1-3        4-2                                              4-2
5. UMKC Jan. 6-8        6-1             WWW     W**     WWW     WWW      9-1
6. William Jewell       Jan 9-11        6-0             WWL     WLL                      7-1
7.  West Georgia        Jan. 17-19      5-3                                              5-3
8.  Baylor      Jan. 24-26      6-2     W***    WWW     WLL                      7-3
9.  Northwestern        Feb.    5-3     LLL                                      5-4
       *  Closed out with WFU, Geppert & Lotz (did not count round as a win
in elim %)
       ** Advanced over WFU, Covey & Bonera (did not count round as a win in
elim %)
      *** Advanced over WFU, Filstrup & Rufo (did not count round as a win
in elim %)

        Summary:        Prelims         42-17   71.2%
                Elims     9-4   69.2%
                Rd. Robin         6-1*  85.7%
                Total   57-22   72.2%
        * Prelims only (counted two elims at SC RR in Elim total)

C. Number of Preliminary Rounds:

        As a team:      59 prelim/ 7 Round Robin
        Justin Green    59 prelim/ 7 Round Robin
        Jarrod Atchison 59 prelim/ 7 Round Robin


III.  TOTAL RECORD OF DEBATERS

                Justin Green    Jarrod Atchison
Prelims 42-17   71.2%   42-17   71.2%
Elims     9-4   69.2%     9-4   69.2%
Rd. Robin         6-1   85.7%     6-1   85.7%
Total   57-22   72.2%   57-22   72.2%
 IV.  INDIVIDUAL TOURNAMENTS

7th Annual National Round Robin Debates, Univ. of South Carolina, 16 teams,
Sept. 17-18, 1997.

Rd      Side    W-L     Opponent        Prelims 6-1
1       A               L       Southwest Texas St. (Tiffee & LeCoss)   Elims   1-1
2       N               W       Southern Illinois (Slusher & Smith)     Total   7-2
3       N               W       Missouri-Kansas City (Coffman & Whyte)  Honors:
4       A       *       W       Michigan State (Cornellier & Sullivan)  2nd Place
5       A               W       Gonzaga (Voight & Moburg)       6th Speaker - Green
6       N               W       Emory (Wade & Ghoshal)
7       N               W       Kansas State (Glaser & West)
Semis   A       WWW     Macalester (Garen & Alme)
Finals  A       LLL     Michigan State (Cornellier & Sullivan)


Henry Clay Debates, University of Kentucky, 89 teams, October 4-6, 1997.

Rd      Side    W-L     Opponent        Prelims 5-3
1       N       **      W       Emory (Bailey & Ghali)  Elims
2       A               W       Augustana, IL (Bratt & Charles) Total   5-3
3       N               W       Georgia (Stein & Volley)        Honors:
4       A               L       Harvard (Harrow & Speier)       25th seed
5       N       **      W       West Georgia (Bonilla & Carver) Cut-on-points
6       A               W       Southern Illinois (Slusher & Smith)
7       N       *       L       Michigan (Wexler & Stoughton)
8       A       *       L       Emory (Heftman & McNabb)

UNC Tarheel Debates, Univ. of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, 51 teams, October
18-20, 1997.

Rd      Side    W-L     Opponent        Prelims 5-3
1       N               L       West Georgia (Lanta & Smith)    Elims   3-0
2       A       *       W       Liberty (Burns & Laurence)      Total   8-3
3       N       *       L       Iowa (Foster & Peterson)        Honors:
4       A               W       West Georgia (McCoy & Simon)    14th Seed
5       N               W       West Georgia (Saloom & Barkesdale)      1st Place
6       A               W       James Madison (Blauer & Kirk)
7       A       *       W       Harvard (Engstrom & Schrage)
8       N       *       L       Michigan (Hernandez & Scannapieco)
Octas   A       WWL     West Georgia (Bonilla & Carver)
Q-F     N       WWL     Harvard (Engstrom & Schrage)
Semis   N       WWL     Liberty (Burns & Lawrence)
Finals                  W       Close out with WFU (Geppert & Lotz)

Capitol Cities Debates, American Univ., 66 teams, November 1-3, 1997.

Rd      Side    W-L     Opponent        Prelims 4-2
1       N               W       Towson State (Doyle & Ellis)    Elims
2       A               W       Liberty (Burns & Lawrence)      Total   4-2
3       A               W       Florida State (Velherst & Sutherland)   Honors:
4       N       *       L       Northwestern (Gottlieb & Sparacino)     17th Seed
5       N       *       W       Harvard (Starr & Engstrom)
6       A       *       L       Dartmouth (Hung & Lehotsky)

1998 Kansas City Classic, Univ. of Missouri-Kansas City, 40 teams, January
6-8, 1998.

Rd      Side    W-L     Opponent        Prelims 6-1
1       A               W       Southwest Missouri St. (Martin & Langford) Elims        3-0
2       N       **      W       Louisville (Cochran & Smith)    Total   9-1
3       A       *       W       Michigan State (Donald & Blair) Honors:
4       N       *       W       Kansas State (Glaser & Zollman) 2nd Seed
5       N       *       W       Pace (Kloster & Petrey) 1st Place
6       A       *       W       Southwest Missouri (Atkins & Kilpatrick)        5th Speaker - Green
7       N       *       L       Macalester (Garen & Alme)       6th Speaker - Atchison
Octas   N       WWW     North Texas (Cunningham & Horn)
Q-F                     W       Advanced over WFU (Bonura & Covey)
Semis   A       WWW     Southern Illinois (Slusher & Smith)
Finals          WWW     Macalester (Garen & Alme)

Georgia B. Bowman Debate Tournament, William Jewell College, 42 teams,
January 9-11, 1998.

Rd      Side    W-L     Opponent        Prelims 6-0
1       A       *       W       Emporia State (Tate & Holland)  Elims   1-1
2       N               W       Rochester (Dimilanta & Watterworth)     Total   7-2
3       A       *       W       Kansas (Ardebili & McKeehan)    Honors:
4       N       *       W       Kentucky (Jensen & Ray) 1st Seed
5       A       *       W       Southern Illinois (Slusher & Smith)     Q-Finals
6       N       *       W       Michigan State (Hoffman & Monick)       8th Speaker - Green
Octas   N       WWL     Ft. Hayes State (Clune & Halverson)     10th Speaker
Q-F     N       WLL     Michigan State (Donald & Blair)    Atchison

Robert D. Tisinger Debates, State Univ. of West Georgia, Carrollton, GA, 54
teams, January 17-19, 1998.

Rd      Side    W-L     Opponent        Prelims 5-3
1       N               W       George Mason (Igiel & Kahng)    Elims
2       A       **      L       Emory (Horowitz & Lupo) Total   5-3
3       A               W       Northwestern (Johnson & Kay-Oliphant)   Honors:
4       N               W       Mercer (Cockrell & Drake)       Cut-on-Points
5       A               W       Emory (Tabak & Todd)    17th Seed
6       N       *       L       Emory (Heftman & McNabb)
7       A       *       L       Georgia (Cates & McIntosh)
8       N               W       Baylor (Coulter & Coulter)

Glenn Capp Baylor Debates, Baylor Univ., Waco, TX, 54 teams, January 24-26,
1998.

Rd      Side    W-L     Opponent        Prelims 6-2
1       A               W       West Georgia (Lanz & Smith)     Elims   1-1
2       N               W       Texas (Dwyer & Nathan)  Total   7-3
3       A       *       L       Trinity (Lotz & Mosches)        Honors:
4       N       *       W       North Texas (Holloway & Morrow) Q-Finals
5       A       *       W       Northwestern (Sato & Sohen)
6       N       *       W       Macalester (Alme & Garen)
7       N       *       L       Texas (Griffin & Renken)
8       A       *       W       Iowa (Podgorski & Scott)
D-Octas W               Advanced over WFU (Rufo & Filstrup)
Octas      A    WWW     Emory (Bailey & Ghali)
Q-F        N    WLL     Kansas (Ardebili & McKeehan)

Owen L Coon Debate Tournament, Northwestern University, 93 teams, Feb. 7-9,
1998.

Rd      Side    W-L     Opponent        Prelims 5-3
1       N               W       Liberty (Siegalkoff & Tilley)   Elims   0-1
2       A               W       Baylor (Coulter & Coulter)      Total   5-4
3       N       *       L       Michigan (Stoughton & Wexler)   Honors:
4       A               W       George Washington (Stubbs & Thammala)   D-Octas
5       A               W       Southern California (Metzler & Weitz)
6       N       *       L       Emory (Ghosal & Wade)
7       N       *       L       North Texas (Holloway & Morrow)
8       A               W       Emory (Horowitz & Lupo)
D-Octas   A     LLL     Emory (Fitzmeier & Heidt)



From Broveraf  Mon Feb 16 09:44:17 1998
From: Broveraf (Adrienne F. Brovero)
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 10:44:17 -0500
Subject: MSU CS
Message-ID: <MON.16.FEB.1998.104417.0500.BROVERAF@WFU.EDU>

1st ROUND BID APPLICATION--MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
ERIK CORNELLIER & JOHN SULLIVAN

SECTION II.             TABULAR SUMMARY

        A) RECORD OF TWO DEBATERS AS A TEAM

TOURNAMENT      Date    Prelim  2x Octa Octa    Quarter Semi    Final   TOTAL RECORD
South Carolina RR9/17-18        6-1         -      -       -      W        W           8-1
South Carolina  9/19-21 7-0        W       W       W      W         L          11-1
  Kentucky RR   9/30-10/13-5                                                   3-5
Kentucky        10/3-5  7-1        Bye     W        L                          8-2
Central Oklahoma        11/7-9  6-1        W       Box     W      W        W (Box)     9-1
Wake Forest     11/15-17        6-2        W       L                                   7-3
Redlands RR     1/ 2-4  3-3                                                    3-3
West Georgia    1/17-19 7-1        -       W       W        L                  9-2
Jesuit RR       2/ 3-5  5-1                                        W           6-1
Northwestern    2/ 7-9  7-1        W       L                                   8-2
                                Summary:        Prelim Record   86.9 % (40-6)
                                                Elim Record     70.5 % (12-5)
                                                Round Robins    66.7 % (20-10)
                                                Grand Total     77.4%  (72-21)














        B) RECORD OF THE DEBATERS WITH OTHER COLLEAGUES

Debater # 1:    Erik Cornellier

TOURNAMENT      Colleague       Date    Prelim  Octa    Quarter Semi    Final   Total Record

Emporia State   Matt Blair      10/16-18        7-1     W       Box     Box     L       8-2




Debater # 2:    John Sullivan

                John debated exclusively with Erik this season.


        C. NUMBER OF PRELIMINARY DEBATES

                As a team:      73 rounds
                Erik Cornellier:        81 rounds
                John Sullivan:  73 rounds



SECTION III.    TOTAL RECORD OF DEBATERS

        Erik Cornellier         Prelim Record           87.0 %  (47-7)
                                Elim Record             68.4 %  (13-6)
                                Round Robin             67.7 %  (20-10)

                                Grand Total             77.4 %  (79-23)



        John Sullivan           Prelim Record           86.9 %  (40-6)
                                Elim Record             70.5 %  (12-5)
                                Round Robins            66.7 %  (20-10)

                                Grand Total             77.4 %          (72-21)













SECTION IV. INDIVIDUAL TOURNAMENTS

        A. RECORD DEBATING AS A TEAM

7TH NATIONAL ROUND ROBIN - SEPTEMBER 17th-18th,1997
SOUTH CAROLINA ROUND ROBIN

Round           Side            W/L             Opponents
    1           N               W               Kansas State GW                 (Glaser & West)
    2           A               W               Emory GW                        (Ghoshal & Wade)
    3           N               W               Gonzaga MV                      (Moberg & Voight)
    4           A                L              Wake Forest AG*                 (Atchison & Green)
    5           N               W               UMKC CW                         (Coffman & White)
    6           A               W               Southern Illinois SS**          (Slusher & Smith)
    7           N               W               Southwest Texas LT              (LeCoss & Tiffee)

Semifinals      A               WWW             UMKC BB                         (Barker & Betz)
Finals          N               WWW             Wake Forest AG                  (Atchison & Green)

Prelims:        6-1
Elims:  2-0

Total:  8-1

HONORS -        Cornellier      1st Speaker
                Sullivan                2nd Speaker

1st seed from the "Black Division" Pod.




























7TH EARLYBIRD OPENER - SEPTEMBER 19th-21th, 1997
SOUTH CAROLINA INVITATIONAL

Round           Side            W/L             Opponents
1               A               W               Emory CM*               (Chase & Matt)
2               N               W               Alabama CY              (Carroll & Yates)
3               A               W               Georgia EW              (Eastwood & Weber)
4               N               W               Pittsburgh CS           (Corrigan & Sayeed)
5               N               W               Emory GW*               (Ghoshal & Wade)
6               A               W               Emory HH*               (Horowitz & Harkin)
7               A               W               UMKC BB*                (Barker & Betz)

Double-Octa     A               WWW             Southwest Texas LT      (LeCoss & Tiffee)
Octafinals      A               WWW             Emory GW                        (Ghoshal & Wade)
Quaterfinals    A               WWW             Macalester AG                   (Alme & Garen)
Semifinals            N         WWL             Southern Illinois SS            (Slusher & Smith)
Finals          N               WLL             UMKC BB                 (Barker & Betz)

Prelims:        7-0
Elims:  4-1
Total:  11-1

HONORS--        Sullivan                1st Speaker
                Cornellier      3rd Speaker

Advanced to Elims as the 1st Seed




THOROUGHBRED DEBATES - SEPTEMBER 30th & October 1st, 1997
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY ROUND ROBIN

Round           Side            W/L             Opponents
    1           N                L              Kansas AM               (Ardebelli & McKeehan)
    2           BYE
    3           N                L              Texas CG                (Congdon & Griffin)
    4           A                L              Emory FH                (Fitzmeier & Heidt)
    5           N                L              Northwestern GS         (Gottlieb & Sparacino)
    6           A               W               Michigan SW             (Stoughton & Wexler)
    7           A                L              Harvard ES              (Engstrom & Starr)
    8           N               W               Dartmouth HL            (Hung & Lehotsky)
    9           A               W               Georgia CM              (Cates & McIntosh)

Total:  3-5








HENRY CLAY DEBATES-OCTOBER 3rd-5th, 1997
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY

Round           Side            W/L             Opponents
    1           N               W               Emory CM                (Chase & Matt)
    2           A               W               New Mexico CS           (Clark & Stalley)
    3           N               W               West Georgia BC**       (Bonilla & Carver)
    4           A               W               Texas GR*               (Griffen & Renken)
    5           N               W               Harvard ES*             (Engstrom & Starr)
    6           A               W               Texas CR*               (Congdon & Reed)
    7           A               W               Iowa PR*                (Peterson & Rayburn)
    8           N               L               Emory FH*               (Fitmeier & Heidt)

Double-Octas    Bye
Octafinals      A               WWL             Kansas EM               (Eber & Miller)
Quaterfinals    A               LLL             Dartmouth HL            (Lehotsky & Hung)

Prelims:        7-1
Elims:  1-1
Total:  8-2

HONORS  Cornellier      3rd Speaker
                Sullivan                4th Speaker

Advanced to Elims as  the 2nd Seed


JOE C. JACKSON INVITATIONAL  - NOVEMBER 7th-9th, 1997
UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL OKLAHOMA

Round           Side            W/L             Opponents
    1           A               W               Trinity PS              (Puls & Stoeck)
    2           N               W               Southwest Texas LT*     (LeCoss & Tiffee)
    3           N               W               Central Oklahoma WS**   (Whetmore & Sherbert)
    4           A               W               Emporia State GN**      (Gilligan & Nation)
    5           N               L               Emory FH*               (Fitzmeier & Heidt)
    6           A               W               Iowa HL*                (Haughney & Limaye)
    7           A               W               Arizona State MS*       (Martin & Skarb)

Double-Octas    N               WWW             Kansas State AW (West & Albright)
Octafinals      Boxed Out                       Michigan State BH       (Blair and Hoffman)
Quarterfinals   A               WWW             Southern Illinois SS    (Slusher & Smith)
Semifinals      A               WWW             Emory FH                (Fitzmeier & Heidt)
Finals          Boxed Out                       Michigan State MW       (Monick & Woidan)

Prelims:        6-1
Elims:  3-0
Total:  9-1

HONORS  Sullivan                1st speaker
                Cornellier      2nd Speaker

                                Advanced to Elims as the 2nd Seed



THE DIXIE CLASSIC - NOVEMBER 15th-17th, 1997
WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY

Round           Side            W/L             Opponents
    1           N               W               Northwestern AN         (Anderson & Nemecek)
    2           A               W               Southwest Missouri PV** (Payne & Vega)
    3           A               W               Navy CJ                 (Callahan & Johnston)
    4           N               W               Liberty BL*             (Burns & Lawrence)
    5           N                L              Kansas AM*              (Ardebelli & McKeehan)
    6           A               W               Georgetown KS*          (Kwon & Steele)
    7           N               W               Emory BG*               (Bailey & Ghali)
    8           A                L              West Georgia BC*        (Bonilla & Carver)

Double-Octas    N               WWW             Baylor BP               (Brasure & Palmer)
Octafinals      A               WLL             Iowa PR                 (Peterson & Rayburn)

Prelims:        6-2
Elims:  1-1
Total:  7-3

HONORS :        Cornellier      1st Speaker
                Sullivan                11th Speaker

                                Advanced to Elims as the 8th Seed




REDLANDS ROUND ROBIN - JANUARY 2nd - 4th, 1998
REDLANDS UNIVERSITY

Round           Side            W/L             Opponents
    1           A               W               UMKC BB         (Barker & Betz)
    2           A               W               West Georgia BC         (Bonilla & Carver)
    3           N               L               Iowa PR*                (Peterson & Rayburn)
    4           Bye
    5           N               W               Wake Forest GR          (Geppert & Rhoades)
    6           A               L               Northwestern GS*        (Gottlieb & Sparacino)
    7           N               L               Texas GR**              (Griffin & Renken)

Prelims:        3-3













WEST GEORGIA - JANUARY 17th-19th, 1998
STATE COLLEGE OF WEST GEORGIA

Round           Side            W/L             Opponents
    1           N               W               Miami (FL) HP           (Horsley & Prieto)
    2           A               W               Samford JS**            (Johnson & Stetson)
    3           A               L               Georgia CM*             (Cates & McIntosh)
    4           N               W               Harvard ES*             (Engstrom & Starr)
    5           A               W               Wake Forest PY          (Powell & Yopp)
    6           N               W               Emory TT                (Tayback & Todd)
    7           N               W               Emory KS*               (Kouros & Sahni)
    8           A               W               George Mason KW*        (Krien & Weiner)

Octafinals      A               WWW             Iowa PS                 (Podgorski & Scott)
Quarterfinals   A               WWL             Emory FH                (Fitzmeier & Heidt)
Semifinals      A               LLL             Iowa PR                 (Peterson & Rayburn)

Prelims:        7-1
Elims:  2-1
Total:  9-2

HONORS  Advanced to Elims as the 3rd Seed





                        JESUIT ROUND ROBIN - FEBRUARY 3rd-5th, 1998
                              SOUTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY


Round           Side            W/L             Opponents
    1           N               WL              Southern California HS  (Hurder & Stetson)
    2           A               WW              Macalester AG           (Alme & Garen)
    3           A               WW              Emory HR                (Horewitch & Reid)
    4           N               WW              Kansas AM*              (Ardebelli & McKeehan)
    5                   Arranged Split of ballots with team from own school             (Hoffman &
Woidan)

    6           A               WW              Pace BP                 (Bell & Peterson)
    7           N               WW              Southern California BM  (Bevan & Markowski)

Finals          A               WWWWW   Kansas AM               (Ardebelli & McKeehan)

Prelims:        5-1 (12-2 ballot count, with one "half loss" in round one, and
another in round five.)
Elims:  1-0
Total:  6-1

HONORS:         Sullivan                1st speaker
                Cornellier      2nd Speaker

                Advanced to Elims as the 1st Seed







OWEN L. COON INVITATIONAL - FEBRUARY 7th-9th, 1998
NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY

Round           Side            W/L             Opponents
    1           A               W               Pittsburgh SS           (Sayeed & Stangl)
    2           N               W               West Georgia BS         (Barksdale & Saloom)
    3           A               W               CSU-Fullerton HL*       (Heider & Lambrinos)
    4           N               W               Emory BG*               (Bailey & Ghali)
    5           N               W               Harvard ES*             (Engstrom & Starr)
    6           A                L              Michigan SW*            (Stoughton & Wexler)
    7           A               W               West Georgia BC*        (Bonilla & Carver)
    8           N               W               Texas GR*               (Griffin & Renken)

Double-Octas    A               WWL             Emory BG                (Bailey & Ghali)
Octafinals      N               LLL             Southern California HS  (Hurder & Stetson)

Prelims:        7-1
Elims:  1-1
Total:  8-2

HONORS  Sullivan                7th Speaker
                Cornellier      20th Speaker

                                Advanced to Elims as the 4th Seed


        B. RECORD DEBATING WITH OTHER COLLEAGUES

        Debater # 1     Erik Cornellier

NATIONAL PFLAUM DEBATES, OCTOBER 16th-18th, 1997
EMPORIA STATE UNIVERSITY

                (PARTNERED WITH MATT BLAIR)

Round           Side            W/L             Opponents
    1           A               W               Southwest Texas LT*     (LeCoss & Tiffee)
    2           N               W               UMKC BC*                (Betz and Coffman)
    3           N                L              Emory KS*               (Kouros & Sahni)
    4           A               W               Trinity LM*             (Lotz & Mesches)
    5           N               W               Emory HR*               (Horewitch & Reid)
    6           A               W               Southern Illinois MV*   (Moore & Vuglia)
    7           N               W               Kansas AM*              (Ardebelli & McKeehan)
    8           A               W               Eastern New Mexico BF*  (Barreto & Foy)

Octas           A               WWW             Fort Hays State CH      (Clune & Halverson)
Quarters                Box-Out                         Michigan State MW       (Monick & Woidan)
Semis           Box-Out                         Michigan State HO       (Hoffman & Owens)
Finals          A               WLL             Emory KS                (Kouros & Sahni)

Prelims:        7-1
Elims:  1-1
Total:  8-2

HONORS          Cornellier              1st Speaker
                                                Advanced to Elims as the 1st Seed

        Debater # 2     John Sullivan

                John debated exclusively with Erik this season.



From Broveraf  Mon Feb 16 09:45:20 1998
From: Broveraf (Adrienne F. Brovero)
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 10:45:20 -0500
Subject: MSU BD
Message-ID: <MON.16.FEB.1998.104520.0500.BROVERAF@WFU.EDU>

--MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
MATT BLAIR & STEVEN DONALD

SECTION II.             TABULAR SUMMARY

        A) RECORD OF TWO DEBATERS AS A TEAM

TOURNAMENT      Date     Prelim  2x Octa  Octa  Quarter Semi Final      TOTAL
Northern Iowa   9/20-22    5-3      L                                        5-4
Kentucky        10/3-5     6-2      L                                        6-3
UMKC            1/6-8      4-3      -   Boxed                                    4-3
Wm Jewell        1/9-11    4-2      -         W        W         W      W          8-2
West Georgia    1/17-19    5-3      -         W         L                            6-4
Baylor          1/24-26    6-2    Bye      L                                     6-3
Northwestern    2/ 7-9     5-3      L                                                5-4

                                Summary Prelim Record   66.0%  (35-18)
                                                Elim Record     50.0%  (5-5)
                                                Grand Total     63.5%  (40-23)


        B) RECORD OF THE DEBATERS WITH OTHER COLLEAGUES

Debater # 1     Matt Blair

TOURNAMENT      Colleague Date    Prelim        Double  Octa    Quarter Semi    Final   Total

Emporia State   Cornellier 10/16-18  7-1           W    Box     Box     L                   8-2
Capital City    Monick    11/1-3             4-2                                                    4-2
Cntrl Oklahoma  Hoffman  11/7-9   5-2                   W    Box                                  6-2



Debater # 2     Steven Donald

                Steven debated exclusively with Matt this season.


        C. NUMBER OF PRELIMINARY DEBATES

                As a team:              53 rounds
                Matt Blair:             74 rounds
                Steven Donald:              53 rounds



SECTION III.    TOTAL RECORD OF DEBATERS

        Matt Blair              Prelim Record:              68.8%               (51-23)
                                Elim Record:            55.7%           (7-6)
                                Grand Total:            66.7%           (58-29)

        Steven Donald           Prelim Record:          66.0%           (35-18)
                                Elim Record:            50.0%           (5-5)
                                Grand Total:            63.5%           (40-23)

SECTION IV. INDIVIDUAL TOURNAMENTS

        A. RECORD DEBATING AS A TEAM

THE ULRICH SEASON OPENER-SEPTEMBER 20th-22th, 1997
UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN IOWA

Round           Side            W/L             Opponents
    1           N                L              Kentucky JR             (Jensen & Ray)
    2           A                W              Northwestern RS (Reeden & Smith)
    3           N                L              Northwestern J-KO       Johnson & Kay-Oliphant)
    4           A                W              Wake Forest GL* (Geppert & Lotz)
    5           N                W              Michigan MS             (Mish & Scanapieco)
    6           A                       L               Baylor BP               (Brasure & Palmer)
    7           N                W              Iowa FR                 (Foster & Rathe)
    8           A                W              UMKC CS         (Collingon & Stiles)

Double          N               WLL             Redlands GM             (Grant & Miller)

Prelims:        5-3
Elims:  0-1
Total:  5-4

HONORS          Donald          11th Speaker
                                        Advanced to Elims as the 17th Seed


HENRY CLAY DEBATES-OCTOBER 3rd-5th, 1997
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY

Round           Side            W/L             Opponents
    1           N               W               Northwestern SS*        (Sato & Sohrn)
    2           A               W               Florida IS              (Itskowitz & Smith)
    3           N               W               North Carolina FH       (Fogarty & Hussein)
    4           A               W               Baylor CC**             (Coulter & Coulter)
    5           A               W               Southern California BM  (Bevan & Markowski)
    6           N               W               Northwestern GS*        (Gottlieb & Sparacino)
    7           A               L               Emory FH*               (Fitzmeier & Heidt)
    8           N               L               Harvard ES*             (Engstrom & Starr)

Doubles         N               LLL             CSU-Fullerton HL        (Heider & Lambrinos)

Prelims:6-2
Elims:  0-1
Total:  6-3

HONORS  Donald          17th Speaker
                                Advanced to Elims as the 14th Seed






KANSAS CITY CLASSIC -- JANUARY 6th-8th, 1998
UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI - KANSAS CITY

Round           Side            W/L             Opponents
    1           N               W               Macalester HW           (Hart & Wilson)
    2           A               W               Kansas State HS (Hamilton & Shaw)
    3           N               L               Wake Forest AG* (Atchison & Green)
    4           A               W               Wake Forest BC* (Bonura & Covey)
    5           N               L               Macalester AG*          (Alme & Garen)
    6           A               L               Emporia State HT        (Holland & Tate)
    7           A               W               Alabama PS              (Pfister & Shaw)

Octafinals      Boxed-Out - D/N Advance Michigan State HM       (Hoffman & Monick)

Prelims:        4-3
Elims:  0-0
Total   4-3

HONORS          Donald          2nd Speaker
                                        Advanced to Elims as the 11th Seed




                THE GEORGIA B. BOWMAN DEBATES - JANUARY 9th-11th, 1998
                                WILLIAM JEWELL COLLEGE

Round           Side            W/L             Opponents
    1           N               W               Kentucky CK             (Clemmons & Kall)
    2           A               W               Kansas State GZ (Glaser & Zolman)
    3           N               W               MacAlester AG*          (Alme & Garen)
    4           A               W               Wake Forest BC* (Bonura & Covey)
    5           A               L               Kansas AM*              (Ardebelli & McKeehan)
    6           N               L               Kentucky JR*            (Jensen & Ray)

Octafinals      A               WWW             Macalester AG           (Alme & Garen)
Quarterfinals   A               WWL             Wake Forest AG  (Atchison & Green)
Semifinals      N               WWL             Kansas State DW (Denny & West)
Finals          N               WWL             Kansas AM               (Ardebelli & McKeehan)

Prelims:        4-2
Elims:  4-0
Total:  8-2

HONORS          Donald          4th Speaker
                                Advanced to Elims as the 9th Seed

WEST GEORGIA - JANUARY 17th-19th, 1998
STATE COLLEGE OF WEST GEORGIA

Round           Side            W/L             Opponents
    1           A               W (Forfeit)     Wake Forest AL
    2           N               L               Texas GR                (Griffin & Renken)
    3           N               L               Emory GG                (Ghali & Ghavi)
    4           A               W               Emory EG                (Eno & Goodrich)
    5           N               W               Northwestern JK         (Johnson & Kastanek)
    6           A               W               Samford JS**            (Johnson & Stetson)
    7           A               W               Wake Forest BC**        (Bonura & Covey)
    8           N               L               Georgia CM*             (Cates & McIntosh)

Octafinals      A               WWL             Michigan SW             (Stoughton & Wexler)
Quarterfinals   N               LLL             Emory KS                (Kouros & Sahni)

Prelims:        5-3
Elims:  1-1
Total   6-4

HONORS          Advanced to Elims as the 12th Seed


GLENN R. CAPP DEBATES - JANUARY 24th-26th, 1998
                                BAYLOR UNIVERSITY

Round           Side            W/L             Opponents
    1           A               W               Emporia State HT        (Holland & Tate)
    2           N               W               Texas HP                (Pursley & Hatziavramidis)
    3           A               W               Liberty BL*             (Burns & Lawrence)
    4           N               W               Trinity LM*             (Lotz & Mesches)
    5           N               W               Emory EH                (Earley & Harkin)
    6           A               W               Kansas EM*              (Eber & Miller)
    7           A               L               Kansas AM*              (Ardebelli & McKeehan)
    8           N               L               Iowa PR*                (Peterson & Rayburn)

Doubles         Bye
Octafinals      N               WLL             Macalester AG           (Alme & Garen)

Prelims:        6-2
Elims:  0-1
Total:  6-3

HONORS          Donald          6th Speaker
                                        Advanced to Elims as the 5th Seed

OWEN L. COON INVITATIONAL - FEBRUARY 7th-9th, 1998
NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY

Round           Side            W/L             Opponents
    1           A               W               Michigan MS             (Mish & Samson)
    2           N               L               Georgia CM*             (Cates & McIntosh)
    3           A               W               Georgetown BS           (Botvinnik & Simenson)
    4           N               W               Samford BD              (Buzachero & Dye)
    5           N               L               Emory HM**              (Heftman & McNabb)
    6           A               W               Wake Forest FR**        (Filstrup & Rufo)
    7           A               L               Georgetown KS*  (Kwon & Steele)
    8           N               W               Dartmouth GW            (Garen & Williams)

Doubles         N               LLL             Michigan SW             (Stoughton & Wexler)

Prelims:        5-3
Elims:  0-1
Total:  5-4

        B. RECORD DEBATING WITH OTHER COLLEAGUES

        Debater # 1     Matt Blair

NATIONAL PFLAUM DEBATES, OCTOBER 16th-18th, 1997
EMPORIA STATE UNIVERSITY

(PARTNERED WITH ERIK CORNELLIER)

Round           Side            W/L             Opponents
    1           A               W               Southwest Texas LT*     (LeCoss & Tiffee)
    2           N               W               UMKC BC*                (Betz and Coffman)
    3           N               L               Emory KS*               (Kouros & Sahni)
    4           A               W               Trinity LM*             (Lotz & Mesches)
    5           N               W               Emory HR*               (Horewitch & Reid)
    6           A               W               Southern Illinois MV*   (Moore & Vuglia)
    7           N               W               Kansas AM*              (Ardebelli & McKeehan)
    8           A               W               East. New Mexico BF*    (Barreto & Foy)

Octas           A               WWW             Fort Hays State CH      (Clune & Halverson)
Quarters                Box-Out         Michigan State MW       (Monick & Woidan)
Semis           Box-Out                 Michigan State HO       (Hoffman & Owens)
Finals          A               WLL             Emory KS                (Kouros & Sahni)

Prelims:        7-1
Elims:  1-1
Total:  8-2

HONORS          Blair   8th Speaker
                                Advanced to Elims as the 1st Seed

CAPITOL CITY DEBATES - NOVEMBER 1st-3rd, 1997
WASHINGTON, D.C.

(PARTNERED WITH AARON MONICK)

Round           Side            W/L             Opponents
    1           A               W               Florida State RP(Reddinger & Perez)
    2           N               L               Northwestern GS*(Gottlieb & Sparacino)
    3           A               L               Wake Forest CF(Covey & Filstrip)
    4           N               W               Emory ET        (Eno & Tayback)
    5           A               W               Dartmouth GS    (Garen & Snip)
    6           N               W               Liberty SS      (Sciorra & Siegalkiff)

Prelims:        4-2

HONORS          Missed on points


JOE C. JACKSON INVITATIONAL  - NOVEMBER 7th-9th, 1997
UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL OKLAHOMA

(PARTNERED WITH KATY HOFFMAN)

Round           Side            W/L             Opponents
    1           A               W               Arkansas Tech BW        (Buckner & Wilson)
    2           N               W               UMKC BC*                (Baisley & Curry)
    3           A               L               Iowa HL*                (Haughtney & Limaye)
    4           N               W               Lewis & Clark EH*       (Ellis & Hesterburg)
    5           A               W               Iowa RK**               (Kueter & Roston)
    6           N               L               Southern Illinois SS*   (Slusher & Smith)
    7           A               W               UMKC CS*                (Collignon & Stiles)

Double-Octas    A               WWL             Southern Illinois RW    (Rowland & Woolery)
Octafinals      Boxed-Out - D/N Advance         Michigan State CS       (Cornellier & Sullivan)

Prelims:        5-2
Elims:  1-0
Total:  6-2

HONORS          Advanced to the Elims as the 15th Seed

        Debater # 2     Steven Donald

                Steven debated exclusively with Matt this season.



From jarman  Mon Feb 16 10:20:39 1998
From: jarman (Jeff Jarman)
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 10:20:39 -0600
Subject: Graduate Study At Wichita State
Message-ID: <MON.16.FEB.1998.102039.0600.JARMAN@ELLIOTT.ES.TWSU.EDU>

Wichita State University is accepting applications for graduate teaching
assistants connected with debate and forensics.  We have several positions
available.  The positions require full time graduate study in
communications, teaching one section of public speaking per semester, weekly
coaching, and travel with debate and/or individual events.

The assistantship covers 100% of tuition, and pays approximately $7,000
for nine months.

The deadline is March 1.

Interested students should contact me directly.  I will send you the
relevant material.

Jeff Jarman
WSU


Jeffrey Jarman
1845 Fairmount
Elliott School of Communication
Wichita State University
Wichita, KS  676260-0031
(o)  316-978-6075
(f)  316-978-3006



From Broveraf  Mon Feb 16 09:56:34 1998
From: Broveraf (Adrienne F. Brovero)
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 10:56:34 -0500
Subject: USC HS
Message-ID: <MON.16.FEB.1998.105634.0500.BROVERAF@WFU.EDU>

I.  UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

Debaters:                       Adam Hurder & Roger Stetson
Director of Forensics:          David Damus

II. TABULAR SUMMARY:

A.      RECORD OF THE TWO DEBATERS AS A TEAM.

Tournament          Date                 Prelims        x2 Octos      Octos        Qtrs       Semis        Finals          Total

Kentucky                                        3-5
UNLV                                            7-1          Bye                WWW     WWW      WWW          WWL        10-2
Long Beach                      6-2          WLW            WWW      WWL       WWW          WWW          11-1
Utah                                    6-2          WWW           WWL      USC BM Advances                        9-1
SIU                                             6-0                                WWW       LLW                                           7-1
SIU Round Robin                         8-6
Northwestern                    6-2           WWW          WWW      LLL                            8-3

PRELIMS:                34-12   74%
ELIMS:          14-2    87.5%
ROUND ROBIN:      8-6   57%
TOTAL:          56-20   73.6%


B.      RECORD OF INDIVIDUAL DEBATERS DEBATING WITH OTHER COLLEAGUES

DEBATER #1: Adam Hurder

Tournament          Date                 Prelims        x2 Octos      Octos        Qtrs       Semis        Finals          Total

Wake Forest                     4-4

        C.      NUMBER OF PRELIMINARY ROUNDS:

As a Team:                      46
Debater #1 Adam Hurder  54
Debater #2 Roger Stetson        46








III. TOTAL RECORD OF DEBATERS

Debater #1      Adam Hurder

Prelims         38-16   70.3%
Elims                   14-2    87.5%
Round Robin             8-6     57.0%
Total                   60-24   71.4%

Debater #2      Roger Stetson

Prelims         34-12   74%
Elims                   14-2    87.5%
Round Robin             8-6     57%
Total                   56-20   73.6%

IV.     INDIVIDUAL TOURNAMENT

        A.      INDIVIDUAL TOURMAMENTS AS A TEAM

KENTUCKY   OCTOBER 11-13, 1997

ROUND          SIDE                 W/L         OPPONENT (School and Names)
1.              N               W               AUGISTANA ( BRATT / CHARLES)
2.              A               W               GEORGIA (STEIN / VOLLY)
3.              N               W               HARVARD (HARROW / SPEAR)
4.              A                L              *TEXAS (CONGNOLTON / REED)
5.              A                L              *MACALASTER (ALME / GAREN)
6.              N                L              *KANAS (EBER / MILLER)
7.              N                L              MICHIGAN (FELDMAN / MISH)
8.              N                L              UTAH (SIDLE / UPTON)

PRELIMS:        3-5















UNLV      OCTOBER 25-27, 1997

ROUND         SIDE                  W/L         OPPONENT (School and Names)
1.              N               L               *FULLERTON (LAMBRINOS / HEIDER)
2.              A               W               LOYOLA (SM
3.              N               W               CLAIRMONT (PAGE / GROSSMAN)
4.              A               W               *WAYNE ST. AG
5.              N               W               *SOUTHERN ILLINOIS (MOORE / VUGLIA)
6.              N               W               *CHICO (CAPP / LOWERY)
7.              A               W               *PACE (BELL / PETERSON)
8.              N               W               *ARIZONA ST. ( KESSEL / SWEET)
DOUBLES BYE
OCTOS            A                WWW           SOUTHERN ILLINOIS (MOORE / VUGLIA)
QUARTERS    A             WWW           REDLANDS (GRAFFAGNINI / WETZEL)
SEMIS             N                      WWW            WAYNE ST. ( LEWIS / THOMPSON)
FINALS           N                      LWW             DARTMOUTH (FARAHANY / MEAD)

PRELIMS:        7-1
ELIMS:  4-0
TOTALS: 11-1
HONORS: 2ND SEED, STETSON 4TH SPEAKER, HURDER 17TH SPEAKER


CSU-LONG BEACH    JANUARY 2-4, 1998

ROUND        SIDE               W/L             OPPONENT (School and Names)
1.                   A          W               *SOUTHERN ILLINOIS (SLUSHER / SMITH)
2.                   N          W               *NEW MEXICO (CLARK / STALLEY)
3.                   A          W               *WEST GEORGIA (LANTZ / SMITH)
4.                   N          W               WHITMAN BJ
5.                   N           L              *NORTH TEXAS (HOLLOWAY / MORROW)
6.                   A           L              *CHICO (CUPP / LOWRIE)
7.                           N          W               *WAKE FOREST (FILSTRUP / RYAN)
8.                   A          W               PEPPERDINE (MANAKIDES / ZEIMET)
DOUBLES          N              WWL             UNLV    (KIMBROUGH / ROBERTSON)
OCTOS               A           WWW             TEXAS (HATZIAVRAMIDIS / PURSLEY)
QUARTERS       A                WWL             WAKE FOREST (FILSTRUP / RYAN)
SEMIS        A          WWW             NORTHWESTERN (SOHRN / SATO)
FINALS              A           WWW             NORTH TEXAS ( HOLLOWAY / MORROW)

PRELIMS:        6-2
ELIMS:  5-0
TOTAL:  11-2
HONORS :    6TH SEED, STETSON 3RD SPEAKER.






UTAH - GREAT SALT LAKE   JANUARY 17-19, 1998

ROUND        SIDE               W/L             OPPONENT (School and Names)
1.                   N           W              SOUTHERN ILLINOIS (MOORE/VUGLIA)
2.                   A           W              UNLV (KIMBROUGH / ROBERTSON)
3.                   N            L             EASTERN NEW MEXICO (BARETTO / FOY)
4.                   A           W              LOUIS CLARK ( HAGER / SAYRE)
5.                   N           W              UMKC (BAISLEY / COFFMAN)
6.                   A           W              EMORY (HOROWITCH / REID)
7.                   A           W              NORTHWESTERN ( SOHRN / SATO)
8.                   N            L             GONZAGA ( MOBURG / VOIGHT)
DOUBLES:             A          WWW             MIAMI (PAULOSE / WULKAN)
OCTOS:       N          WLW             BAYLOR (BRASURE / PALMER)
QRTS:        USC BM ADVANCED

PRELIMS:        6-2
ELIMS:  2-0
TOTAL:  8-2
HONORS:     6TH SEED, STETSON 12TH SPEAKER.


SOUTHERN ILLINOIS          JANUARY 23 -25, 1998

ROUND        SIDE                   W/L         OPPONENT (School and Names)
1.              N               W               PACE (BELL / PETERSON)
2.              A               W               SOUTHERN MISSOURI (KILPATRICK / ATKINS)
3.              A               W               *ARIZONA STATE (SKARB / MARTIN)
4.              N               W               EMPORIA (TATE / HOLLAND)
5.              N               W               *SOUTHWEST TEXAS (LACOSS / TIFFEE)
6.              A               W               *KENTUCKY (RAY / KALL)
OCTOS   A               WWW             ALABAMA (OSBORNE / YATES)
QRTS    N               WLL             ARIZONA STATE (SKARB / MARTIN)

PRELIMS:        6-0
ELIMS:  1-1
TOTAL:  7-1
HONORS: TOP SEED, STETSON 1ST SPEAKER, HURDER 9th SPEAKER











SOUTHERN ILLINOIS ROUND ROBIN      JANUARY 26-27, 1998

ROUND        SIDE                     W/L               OPPONENT (School and Names)
1.              A               W/L             MICHIGAN STATE (CORNLLIER / SULLIVAN)
2.              N               L/L             PACE (BELL / PETERSON)
3.              N               W/W             MACALASTER (ALME / GAREN)
4.              A               W/W             MICHIGAN STATE (HOFFMAN / WOIDAN)
5.              A               L/L             KANSAS (ARDEBILI / MCKEEHAN)
6.              BYE             W/L
7.              N               W/W             EMORY (HOROWITCH / REID)

TOTAL:  7-5
WITH BYE:       8-6
HONORS: 4TH

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY        FEBRUARY 7-9, 1998

ROUND   SIDE            W/L             OPPONENT (School and Names)
1.              A               W               GEORGIA STATE  (HORSLEY / KELLEY)
2.                      N               W               NORTH CAROLINA (SCHNEIDER / FOGARTY)
3.              A               W               *IOWA  (PETERSON / RAYBURN)                  6TH SEED
4.      N               W               EMORY (HOROWITZ / LUPO )
5.              A               W               * WEST GEORGIA (BONILLA / CARVER)   12TH SEED
6       N                L              * KANSAS ( ARDEBILI / MCKEEHAN)           7TH SEED
7.              A                L              * TEXAS  ( GRIFFEN / RENKEN)                   11TH SEED
8.      N               W               * EMORY (GHOSHAL / WADE)
DOUBLES      A          WWW             SOUTHERN ILLINOIS (SLUSHER / SMITH)
OCTOS        A          WWW             MICHIGAN ST. (CORNELLIER / SULLIVAN) 4TH SEED
QUARTERS         N              LLL             GEORGETOWN (KWON / STEELE)                  5TH SEED

PRELIMS:        6-2
ELIMS:  2-1
TOTALS: 8-3
HONORS: 13TH SEED


B. INDIVIDUAL TOURNAMENTS OF DEBATERS WITH OTHER COLLEAGUES

Debater #1 Adam Hurder (Debating with Ari Meltzer)

WAKE FOREST NOV. 15-17, 1997

ROUND        SIDE               W/L             OPPONENT (School and Names)
1.                   A          W               PITTSBURGH (BURDICK / ENGLISH)
2.                   N           L              **SOUTHERN ILLINOIS (SLUSHER / SMITH)
3.                   A           L              **NORTHWESTERN (SOHRN / SATO)
4.                   N          W               GEORGIA (MATOS / TEAGLE)
5.                   N          W               TEXAS (EVANS / GROVE)
6.                   A          W               LIBERTY (JOHNSON / TILLEY)
7.                   A           L              **EMORY HM (HEFTMAN / MCNABB)
8.                   N           L              **MICHIGAN (MISH / SCANNAPIECO)
PRELIMS:        4-4



From mkrueger  Mon Feb 16 11:15:20 1998
From: mkrueger (mike krueger)
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 11:15:20 -0600
Subject: Mardi gras caselist (novice)
Message-ID: <MON.16.FEB.1998.111520.0600.MKRUEGER@FRANK.MTSU.EDU>

Again, I'm working on a caselist for NOVICES for mardi gras.
varsity folks can be found in a variety of places, you just
have to do the work.  However, the novices are generally shut out.

I will be e-mailing to all that respond to me wednesday night.
So far, only one school (thanks Jackie) has sent me anything.
I am looking for at least a general idea...

Looking forward to seeing y'all in louisiana!

Mike
--
Michael Krueger
Asst. Director of Debate
Middle Tennessee State University
Box 43
Murfreesboro, TN 37132
(615)  898-2273 (office)
(615) 898-5826 (fax)
http://www.mtsu.edu/~debate
http://www.mtsu.edu/~mkrueger
http://www.mtsu.edu/~wmts

>From  Mon Feb 16 11:34:47 1998
Message-Id: <MON.16.FEB.1998.113447.0600.>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 11:34:47 -0600
Reply-To: roarklaughed at JUNO.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Stephen Green <roarklaughed at JUNO.COM>
Subject: Michigan State......

Could you please send me the sites to the POW/MIA counter-plan?  Thanks.

Steve Green
UMKC

_____________________________________________________________________
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 Broveraf  Mon Feb 16 11:17:57 1998
From: Broveraf (Adrienne F. Brovero)
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 12:17:57 -0500
Subject: Harvard ES
Message-ID: <MON.16.FEB.1998.121757.0500.BROVERAF@WFU.EDU>

Harvard University
Sonja Starr and Carl Engstrom

Tabular Summary

Section IA:  Record of the Debaters as a Team

Tournament                      Date            Prelims         Elims   Final Result    Overall Record

1.      Kentucky Round Robin    Sept. 30-Oct. 1                         3rd Place               5-3

2.      Henry Clay Debates              Oct. 3-5                7-1             2-1     Semifinals      9-2

3.      Capital City Debates            Nov. 1-3                4-2             1-1     Quarters                5-3

4.      Wake Dixie Classic              Nov. 15-17      7-1             4-1     Finals          11-2

5.      USC A. Nichols Invitational     Dec. 29-31      6-2             0-1     Octas           6-3

6.      Redlands Round Robin    Jan. 2-4                                        Quarters                4-3 (4-2 prelims)

7.      West Georgia Invitational       Jan. 17-19      6-2             4-0     Champions       10-2

8.      Dartmouth Round Robin   Jan. 24-25                                              2-4

9.      Northwestern            Feb. 7-9                6-2             2-1     Quarters                8-3

Summary:

A.      Prelim Record: 36-10, .783 winning percentage
B.      Elim Record: 13-5, .722 winning percentage
C.      Round Robin Record: 11-9, .550 winning percentage
D.   Total Record: 60-24, .714 winning percentage
Note: Redlands prelims included in Round Robin Record, elims in Elim Record


Section IB: Record of individual debaters with other colleagues.

Debater: Carl Engstrom, debating with Dan Schrage.

Tournament                      Date            Prelims         Elims   Final Result    Total Record

UNC Tarheel Debates             Oct. 18-20      5-3             1-1     Quarters                6-4





Section IC: Number of Preliminary Rounds

As a Team:  46 (without counting round robins) or 66 (counting round robins)

Carl Engstrom: 54 prelims, 72 counting round robins

Sonja Starr: 46 prelims, 66 counting round robins


Section II: Total Record of Debaters

Debater #1: Carl Engstrom
Prelims 41-13, .759 winning percentage
Elims 14-6, .700 winning percentage
Round Robin 11-9, .550 winning percentage
Total 66-28, .702 winning percentage

Debater #2: Sonja Starr
Prelims 36-10, .783 winning percentage
Elims 13-5, .722 winning percentage
Round Robin 11-9, .550 winning percentage
Total 60-24, .714 winning percentage

Note: Redlands Round Robin prelims are counted under "Round Robin," elims under "elims"


Section IIIA: Individual Tournaments as a Team

University of Kentucky Round Robin on September 30-Oct. 1

Round   Side    W/L     Opponent
1       N       W       Michigan SW Stoughton & Wexler
2       A       W       Dartmouth HL Hung & Lehotsky
3       A       L       Emory FH Fitzmeier & Heidt
4       N       W       Georgia CM Cates & McIntosh
5       A       L       Kansas AM Ardebili & McKeehan
6       N       L       Northwestern GS Gottlieb & Sparacino
7       N       W       Michigan St. CS Cornellier & Sullivan
8       Bye
9       A       W       Texas CG Congdon & Griffin

Total: 5-3
Honors: 3rd Place

Henry Clay Debates at University of Kentucky on October 3-5

Round   Side    W/L     Opponent
1       N       W       West Georgia BS Barksdale & Saloom
2       A       W       Texas GP Grove & Powers
3       N       W       Wake RR Ryan & Rhodes
4       A       W       Northwestern AN Anderson & Nemecek
5       A       L       Michigan St. CS Cornellier & Sullivan *
6       N       W       Univ. Southern Cal BM Bevan & Markowski
7       N       W       George Mason KW Krein & Weiner *
8       A       W       Michigan St. BD Blair & Donald *
Octas   N       W(3-0)  Michigan KR Krakowski & Rice
Quarters        A       W(3-0)  Georgetown KS Kwon & Steele
Semis   N       L(2-1)  Northwestern GS Gottlieb & Sparacino

Prelims: 7-1
Elims: 2-1
Total: 9-2
Honors: 4th Seed, Sonja Starr 2nd Place Speaker, Semifinalist

Capital City Debates at American University on October 17-19

Round   Side    W/L     Opponent
1       A       W       Georgetown BS Botvinik & Simonson
2       N       W       Michigan KR Krakowski & Rice*
3       N       L       George Mason KW Krein & Weiner *
4       A       W       UMKC CB Curry & Baisley
5       A       L       Wake AG Atchison & Green*
6       N       W       Arizona St. MS Martin & Skarb
Octas   A       W(3-0)  Northwestern SS Shorn & Sato
Quarters        N       L(3-0)  Northwestern GS Gottlieb & Sparacino

Prelims: 4-2
Elims: 1-1
Total: 5-3
Honors: Quarterfinalists

Dixie Classic at Wake Forest University on November 15-17

Round   Side    W/L     Opponent
1       N       W       Liberty JT Johnson & Tilley
2       A       W       New Mexico CS Clark & Stalley
3       A       W       Dartmouth GS Garen & Snip
4       N       L       Georgetown KS Kwon & Steele*
5       A       W       Baylor CC Coulter & Coulter*
6       N       W       Iowa PS Podgorski & Scott*
7       A       W       Emory HL Horowitz & Lupo*
8       N       W       Baylor BP Brasure & Palmer*
D-Octas N       W(2-1)  Emory GW Goshal & Wade
Octas   A       W(3-0)  Liberty BL Burns & Lawrence
Quarters        N       W(3-2)  Georgia CM Cates & McIntosh
Semis   A       W(3-2)  Iowa PR Peterson & Rayburn
Finals  N       L(3-0)  Dartmouth HL Hung & Lehotsky

Prelims: 7-1
Elims: 4-1
Total: 11-2
Honors: Carl Engstrom 16th Speaker, Finalists, 4th Seed



Alan Nichols Invitational at USC on December 29-31

Round   Side    W/L     Opponent
1       A       W       Southern Illinois SS Slusher & Smith*
2       N       W       Pace KP Kloster & Petrey
3       A       W       UNLV KR Kimbrough & Robertson
4       N       L       Northwestern GS Gottlieb & Sparacino*
5       N       L       Gonzaga VM Voight & Moburg-Jones*
6       A       W       Duquesne MK Miller & Kimicata
7       A       W       George Mason KW Krein & Weiner*
8       N       W       Eastern New Mexico BF Foy & Baretto*
Octas   A       L(2-1)  West Georgia BC Bonilla & Carver

Prelims: 6-2
Elims: 0-1
Total: 6-3
Honors: Sonja Starr 11th Speaker, Octafinalists

Redlands Round Robin January 2-4

Round   Side    W/L     Opponent
1       A       L       Georgia CM Cates & McIntosh*
2       A       W       USC HR Harrison & Revelins
3       A       W       Michigan PN Pudelski & Nicalo
4       Bye
5       N       W       George Mason KW Krein & Weiner
6       N       W       Kansas AM Ardebili & McKeehan
7       N       L       Texas CR Congdon & Reed
Quarters        A       L(2-1)  Michigan SW Stoughton & Wexler

Prelims: 4-2
Elims: 0-1
Overall: 4-3
Honors: Quarterfinalist, 6th seed


West Georgia Tournament on January 17-19
Round   Side    W/L     Opponent
1       A       W       Mercer CD Cockrell & Drake
2       N       W       Wake FR Filstrup & Rufo
3       N       W       George Mason KW Krein & Weiner*
4       A       L       Michigan State CS Cornellier & Sullivan*
5       N       W       Emory CM Chase & Matt
6       A       W       Wake GR Geppert & Rhodes*
7       A       W       Iowa PS Podgorski & Scott*
8       N       L       Iowa PR Peterson & Rayburn*
Octas   A       W(2-1)  Georgia CM Cates & McIntosh
Quarters        N       W(2-1)  Northwestern GS Gottlieb & Sparacino
Semis   A       W(2-1)  Emory KS Kouros & Sahni
Finals  A       W(3-0)  Iowa PR Peterson & Rayburn

Prelims: 6-2
Elims: 4-0
Total: 10-2
Honors: Sonja Starr 9th Speaker, 1st Place, 9th seed

Dartmouth Round Robin on January 24-25

Round   Side    W/L     Opponent
1       N       L       Emory KS Kouros & Sahni
2       Bye
3       N       L       Michigan SW Stoughton & Wexler
4       A       W       Northwestern GS Gottlieb & Sparacino
5       N       L       Dartmouth HL Hung & Lehotsky
6       A       W       Georgetown KS Kwon & Steele
7       A       L       Georgia CM Cates & McIntosh

Total: 2-4

Northwestern University on February 7-9
Round   Side    W/L     Opponent
1       N       W       Pace KP Kloster & Petrey
2       A       W       Macalester AG Alme & Garen*
3       N       W       Liberty BL Burns & Lawrence**
4       A       W       Michigan Dearborn Tyma & Iman
5       A       L       Michigan St. CS Cornelier & Sullivan*
6       N       L       Emory FH Fitzmeier & Heidt*
7       N       W       Iowa HM Hill & Moore
8       N       W       Wake GR Geppert & Rhodes
D-Octas N       W       North Texas HM Holloway & Morrow
Octas   A       W       Kansas AM Ardebili & McKeehan
Quarters        N       L       Emory KS Kouros & Sahni
Prelims: 6-2
Elims: 2-1
Total: 8-3
Honors: Sonja Starr 13th speaker, 10th seed, Quarterfinalists

Section IIIB: Individual Tournaments of Debaters with other partners
University of North Carolina Tarheel Debates on Oct. 18-20
Round   Side    W/L     Opponent
1       A       W       Liberty RT Ringsmuth & Tilly
2       N       L       Baylor CC Coulter & Coulter*
3       A       W       Northwestern JK Johnson & Kastanek
4       N       W       Georgia State HK Horsley & Kelley
5       N       L       Iowa PS Podgorski & Scott*
6       A       W       Wake BE Bonura & Ellis
7       N       L       Wake AG Achison & Green*
8       A       W       Michigan MS Mish & Samson
Octas   A       W(3-0)  Iowa PS Podgorski & Scott
Quarters        A       L(2-1)  Wake AG Acheson & Green

Honors: Carl Engstrom 3rd speaker, Quarterfinalists
Prelims 5-3
Elims 1-1
Total 6-4



From Broveraf  Mon Feb 16 11:36:14 1998
From: Broveraf (Adrienne F. Brovero)
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 12:36:14 -0500
Subject: Texas GR
Message-ID: <MON.16.FEB.1998.123614.0500.BROVERAF@WFU.EDU>


Hey folks - 

Texas's bid was in HTML format, and looked really cool with tables for each of the reported results and summaries,
but I had to remove the table borders to send it as email text, so that may change how readable this is.  Sorry.  You should check it out on the web anyway - it looks cooler than email. 
 
School: The University of Texas at Austin
Debaters: James Brett Griffin and Judd Renken

TABULAR SUMMARY
RECORD OF TWO DEBATERS AS A TEAM

Tournament Date Prelim  Doubles Octas   Qtrs    Semis   Final   Total
NORTHERN IOWA Sept 20-22        6-2     WWL     LLW                             7-3
KENTUCKY Oct 3-5        6-2             WWL     LLW                     7-3
CAPITAL CITIES Nov 1-3  5-1             LLW                             5-2
WAKE FOREST Nov 15-17   6-2     WWW     LLL                             7-3
SOUTHERN CAL Dec 29-31  6-2     WWW     WWW     LLL                     8-3
BAYLOR Jan 24-26        6-2             WWW     LLL                     7-3
NORTHWESTERN Feb 7-9    6-2     WWW     LLL                             7-3
REDLANDS ROUND ROBIN Jan 2-4    3-3                                             3-3

Summary: Prelim Record 41-13 75.9%
Elim Record 7-7 50.0%
Round Robins 3-3 50.0%
Total 51-23 68.9%
RECORD OF INDIVIDUAL DEBATERS DEBATING WITH OTHER COLLEAGUES
JAMES BRETT GRIFFIN Debating with Kelly Congdon
KENTUCKY ROUND ROBIN OCT 1-2    5-3                                             5-3

Number of preliminary rounds
As a team 54 
Griffin 54
Renken 54
Total Record of Debaters
Griffin 
Prelims 41-13 75.9%
Elims 7-7 50.0%
Round Robin 8-6 57.1%
Total 56-26 68.3%
Renken
Prelims 41-13 75.9%
Elims 7-7 50.0%
Round Robin 3-3 50.0%
Total 51-23 68.9%
INDIVIDUAL TOURNAMENTS
Individual Tournaments of Debaters as a team

University of Northern Iowa, Ulrich Season Opener, 20-22 September 1997
Round Side W/L Opponent 
1       N       L       *Northwestern (Anderson, Nemecek)       Prelims 6-2
2       A       W       *North Texas (Holloway, Morrow) Elims   1-1
3       N       W       *George Mason (Krein, Wiener)   Total   7-3
4       A       W       Florida St (Perez, Reddinger)   Seed    10th
5       A       W       *Iowa (Podgorski, Scott)        	
6       N       W       *Georgetown (Kwon, Steele)      	
7       A       W       *Redlands (Grant, Miller)       	
8       N       L       *Emory (Kouros, Sahni)  	
D-Octs  A       WWL     Kansas (Seymour, Hudson)        	
Octs    N       LLW     Kansas (Ardebili, McKeehan)     	
University of Kentucky, Henry Clay Debates, 3-5 October 1997
Round Side W/L Opponent
1       A       W       Michigan (Hernandez, Scanpieco) Prelims 6-2
2       N       W       Utah (Delahunt, Monk)   Elims   1-1
3       A       W       SMS (Langford, Wilt)    Total   7-3
4       N       L       *Michigan St (Cornellier, Sullivan)     Seed    6th
5       N       L       *Georgia (Cates, McIntosh)      	
6       A       W       Wake Forest (Bonura, Ellis)     	
7       N       W       Harvard (Harrow, Speier)        	
8       A       W       *Emory (Bailey, Ghali)  	
D-Octs          BYE             	
Octs    N       WWL     Iowa (Peterson, Rayburn)        	
Qtrs    A       LLW     Michigan (Stoughton, Wexler)    	
Capital Cities Debates, Washington, DC, 1-3 November 1997
Round Side W/L Opponent
1       A       W       Columbia/NYU (Hentea, Weigler)  Prelims 5-1
2       N       W       Miami (Paulose, Wulkan) Elims   0-1
3       N       W       *Georgeotwn (Kwon, Steele)      Total   5-2
4       A       L       *Georgia (Cates, McIntosh)      Seed    7th
5       A       W       *Fullerton (Heider, Lambrinos)  	
6       N       W       *Michigan (Stoughton, Wexler)   	
Octs    A       LLW     Michigan (Stoughton, Wexler)    	


Dixie Classic, Wake Forest University, 15-17 November 1997
Round Side W/L Opponent
1       N       W       Mercer (Cockrell, Drake)        Prelims 6-2
2       A       L       Kansas St (Glaser, Longbottom)  Elims   1-1
3       N       W       Northwestern (Redden, Smith)    Total   7-3
4       A       W       Dartmouth (Andrews, Williams)   Seed    14th
5       N       W       *North Texas (Holloway, Morrow) 	
6       A       L       *Emory (Horowitz, Lupo) 	
7       N       W       Wayne St (Skillen, Wilk)        	
8       A       W       *Fullerton (Heider, Lambrinos)  	
D-Octs  N       WWW     George Mason (Krein, Weiner)    	
Octs    A       LLL     Emory (Kouros, Sahni)   	
Alan Nichols Invitational, U. of Southern California, 29-31 Dec 1997
Round Side W/L Opponent
1       N       L       *Emory (Fitzmier, Heidt)        Prelims 6-2
2       A       W       John Carroll (Lavelle, Wiley)   Elims   2-1
3       A       W       Oregon (Bauer, Lininger)        Total   8-3
4       N       W       St U West Georgia (Lantz, Smith)        Seed    8th
5       A       W       *Michigan (Nicalo, Pudeleski)   	
6       N       W       *Eastern New Mexico (Barretto, Foy)     	
7       N       L       *Gonzaga (Voight, Mosburg-Jones)        	
8       A       W       *Whitman (Harris, Symonds)      	
D-Octs  N       WWW     Wake Forest (Lotz, Ellis)       	
Octs    N       WWW     Northwestern (Sohrn, Sato)      	
Qtrs    N       LLL     Michigan (Stoughton, Wexler)    	


West Coast Round-Robin, University of Redlands, 2-4 January 1998
Round Side W/L Opponent
1       N       L       Northwestern (Gottlieb, Sparacino)      Prelims 3-3
2       N       L       Wake Forest (Geppert, Rhodes)   	
3       A       W       UMKC (Barker, Betts)    Total   3-3
4       N       W       St U West Georgia (Bonilla, Carver)     	
5       A       L       Iowa (Peterson, Rayburn)        	
6       A       W       Michigan State (Cornellier, Sullivan)   	
                                	

Glenn R. Capp Debates, Baylor University, 24-26 January 1998
Round Side W/L Opponent
1       N       W       Kansas (Magariel, Rodriguez)    Prelims 6-2
2       A       W       Iowa (Foster, Rathe)    Elims   1-1
3       A       W       St U West Georgia (Lantz, Smith)        Total   7-3
4       N       L       *Kansas (Ardebili, McKeehan)    Seed    7th
5       N       W       Georgia St (Horsley, Kelley)    	
6       A       W       *Emory (Bailey, Ghali)  	
7       A       W       *Wake Forest (Atchison, Green)  	
8       N       L       *Emory (Fitzmier, Heidt)        	
D-Octs          BYE             	
Octs    A       WWW     Fullerton (Heider, Lambrinos)   	
Qtrs    A       LLL     North Texas (Holloway, Morrow)  	


Owen L. Coon, Northwestern University, 7-9 February 1998
Round Side W/L Opponent
1       N       W       Dartmouth (Garen, Williams)     Prelims 6-2
2       A       W       Baylor (Brasure, Palmer)        Elims   1-1
3       N       L       *St U West Georgia (Bonilla, Carver)    Total   7-3
4       A       W       SMS (Langford, Martin)  Seed	
5       N       W       *SIU (Moore, Vuglia)    	
6       A       W       Emory (Horowitz, Lupo)  	
7       N       W       *Southern California (Hurder, Stetson)  	
8       A       L       *Michigan St (Cornellier, Sullivan)     	
D-Octs  A       WWW     SIU (Moore, Vuglia)     	
Octs    N       LLL     Iowa (Peterson, Rayburn)        	
                                	

Individual Tournaments of Debaters with other Colleagues
JAMES BRETT GRIFFIN Debating with Kelly Congdon
University of Kentucky Round-Robin, 29-30 September1997
Round Side W/L Opponent
1       A       L       Michigan (Stoughton, Wexler)    Total   5-3
2       A       W       Michigan State (Cornellier, Sullivan)   Place   Second
3       N       L       Dartmouth (Hung, Lehotsky)      	
4       A       W       Georgia (Cates, McIntosh)       	
5       N       W       Emory (Heidt, Fitzmier) 	
6       N       W       Kansas (Ardebili, McKeehan)     	
7       A       W       Northwestern (Gottlieb, Sparacino)      	
8       N       L       Harvard (Engstom, Starr)        	




From Broveraf  Mon Feb 16 11:57:40 1998
From: Broveraf (Adrienne F. Brovero)
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 12:57:40 -0500
Subject: UNT HM
Message-ID: <MON.16.FEB.1998.125740.0500.BROVERAF@WFU.EDU>

I.      School:                 University of North Texas
Debaters:                       Eli Holloway and Cody Morrow

II.     Tabular Summary

A.      Record of the two debaters as a team.

TOURNAMENT DATE PRELIM  DO      OCTAS QTRS      SEMI    FINALS TOTAL
1. Univ. of North. Iowa 9/20-22 5-3     WLW     LLL                             6-4
2. Wake Forest Univ.    11/15-17        5-3     WLW     LLL                             6-4
3. CSU Long-Beach               1/2-4   6-2     WLW     WWW     WWW     WWW     LLL     10-3
4. Weber Round Robin    1/14-15 5-0                                  WWWWL   LLLLW      6-1
5. Univ. of Utah                1/17-19 8-0     WLW     WLW     WLW     WLW     WWW     13-0
6. Baylor Univ.         1/24-26 5-3     WLW     WLW     WWW     LLL             8-4
7. Northwestern Univ.   2/7-9   5-3     LWL                                     5-4

Summary:        A.  Prelim Record:      34-14   70.8%
B.  Elim Record:        14-5    73.6%
C.  Round Robins:       6-1     85.7%
D.  Junior Division:    N/A
E.  Total Record:       54-20   73.0%

B.      Record of individual debaters debating with other colleagues.

Not Applicable

C.      Number of Preliminary Rounds:
As a team:      48
Debater #1:     48
Debater #2:     48

III.    Total Record of Debaters.
Debater #1--Eli Holloway                        Debater #2--Cody Morrow
Prelims:        34-14   70.8%                   Prelims:        34-14   70.8%
Elims:          14-5    73.6%                   Elims:          14-5    73.6%
Round Robin:    6-1     85.7%                   Round Robin:    6-1     85.7%
Total:          54-20   73.0%                   Total:          54-20   73.0%

IV.     Individual Tournaments
A.      Individual Tournaments of Debaters as a team.

1.      The Ulrich Season Opener, University of Northern Iowa, Sept. 20-22, 1997

ROUND   SIDE    W/L     OPPONENT                                Prelims:        5-3
1               A       W       BYE                                     Elims:  1-1
2               N       L       Texas (Griffin/Renken)*                 Total:  6-4
3               A       W       Fullerton (Hernandez/Basora)
4               N       W       Wayne State (Andrus/Gibson)             Honors: Holloway, 19th Speaker
5               A       L       George Mason (Krein/Weiner)*            Thirteenth Seed
6               N       L       Emory (Sahni/Kouros)*
7               A       W       Fullerton (Lambrinos/Heider)
8               N       W       Kansas (Rodriguez/Brockman)
DO              N       WLW     Wayne State (Lewis/Thompson)*
O               A       LLL     Michigan (Stoughton/Wexler)*

2.      Franklin R. Shirley Dixie Classic, Wake Forest University, November 15-17, 1997

ROUND   SIDE    W/L     OPPONENT                                Prelims:        5-3
1               N       L       Emory (Horowitz/Lupo)*                  Elims:  1-1
2               A       W       Cornell (Cole/Wojysiak)                 Total:  6-4
3               N       W       Southwest Missouri (Atkins/Kilpatrick)
4               A       W       Michigan (Mish/Scannapieco)**           Honors: Holloway, 26th Speaker
5               A       L       Texas (Renken/Griffin)*                 21st Seed
6               N       W       Liberty (Burns/Lawrence)*
7               N       W       New Mexico (Clark/Stalley)
8               A       L       Emory (Kouros/Sahni)*
DO              A       WLW     Emory (Fitzmier/Heidt)*
O               A       LLL     Georgia (Cates/McIntosh)*

3.      Winter at the Beach, California State University-Long Beach, January 2-4, 1998

ROUND   SIDE    W/L     OPPONENT                                Prelims:        6-2
1               N       W       Gonzaga (Voight/Leviton)                        Elims:  4-1
2               A       W       Whitman (Symonds/Harris)*               Total:  10-3
3               N       W       Wayne State (Gainer/Andrus)
4               A       W       Iowa (Podgorski/Scott)*                 Honors: Holloway, 2nd Speaker
5               A       W       Southern California (Hurder/Stetson)*           Morrow, 13th Speaker
6               N       W       Pace (Kloster/Peterson)*                        5th Seed
7               A       L       Gonzaga (Voight/Moburg-Jones)*
8               N       L       Texas (Grove/Evans)*
DO              A       WLW     Southern California (Weitz/Meltzer)*
O               A       WWW     West Georgia (Lantz/Smith)*
Q               A       WWW     New Mexico (Stalley/Clark)*
S               A       WWW     Southern California (Bevin/Markowski)*
F               N       LLL     Southern California (Hurder/Stetson)*

4.      Val Browning Round Robin, Weber State University, January 14-15, 1998

ROUND   SIDE    W/L     OPPONENT                                Prelims:        5-0
1               N       W       Chico (Cupp/Lowrie)                     Elims:  1-1
2               A       W       Gonzaga (Voight/Leviton)                        Total:  6-1
3               A       W       Southern Illinois (Slusher/Smith)*
4               N       W       Eastern New Mexico (Gilkinson/Wilkerson)        Honors: Holloway, 4th Speaker
5               A       W       Southwest Texas (Tiffee/LaCoss)                 Morrow, 3rd Speaker
SF              A     WWWWL     Gonzaga (Voight/Moburg-Jones)*          First Seed
F               A       LLLLW   Southern Illinois (Moore/Vuglia)*

5       Great Salt Lake Invitational, University of Utah, January 17-19, 1998
ROUND   SIDE    W/L     OPPONENT                                Prelims:        8-0
1               A       W       Baylor (Flora/Alexander)                        Elims:  5-0
2               N       W       Southern California (Meltzer/Weitz)*    Total:  13-0
3               A       W       Arizona State (Martin/Skarb)*
4               N       W       Emory (Horowitch/Reid)*                 Honors: Holloway, 1st Speaker
5               N       W       Southern Illinois (Slusher/Smith)*                      Morrow, 4th Speaker
6               A       W       Northwestern (Sato/Sohrn)*              First Seed
7               A       W       Southern California (Bevan/Markowski)*
8               N       W       UMKC (Barker/Betz)*
DO              A       WWL     Oregon (Bauer/Lininger)*
O               N       WWL     Wayne State (Lewis/Gainer )*
QF              N       WWL     Northwestern (Sato/Sohrn)*
SF              N       WWL     Arizona State (Martin/Skarb)*
F               A       WWW     UMKC (Barker/Betz)*

6.      Glenn R. Capp Debates, Baylor University, January 24-26, 1998

ROUND   SIDE    W/L     OPPONENT                                Prelims:        5-3
1               N       W       Wayne State (Andrus/Skillin)            Elims:  3-1
2               A       W       Iowa (Podgorski/Scott)*                 Total:  8-4
3               N       W       UNLV (Kimbrough/Robertson)
4               A       L       Wake Forest (Atchison/Green)*           Honors: Holloway, 11th Speaker
5               N       L       Emory (Todd/Tabak)*                     Fifteenth Seed
6               A       L       Michigan (Mish/Feldman)*
7               N       W       Dartmouth (Garen/Williams)
8               A       W       Wake Forest (Geppert/Rhodes)*
DO              N       WWL     Northwestern (Anderson/Nemecek)*
O               N       WWL     Iowa (Rayburn/Peterson)*
QF              N       WWW     Texas (Griffin/Renkin)*
SF              A       LLL     Emory (Fitzmeir/Heidt)*

7.      Northwestern University, February 7-9, 1998

ROUND   SIDE    W/L     OPPONENT                                Prelims:        5-3
1               N       W       Florida State (Perez/Verhelst)          Elims:  0-1
2               A       L       Michigan State (Hoffman/Monick)*                Total:  5-4
3               N       L       Kansas (Eber/Miller)**
4               A       W       Vanderbilt (Prisco/Reddy)                       Honors: Twenty-Third Seed
5               A       W       Texas (Evans/Grove)
6               N       W       Michigan (Pudelski/Scannapieco)
7               A       W       Wake Forest (Atchison/Green)*
8               N       L       West Georgia (Bonilla/Carver)*
DO              A       LWL     Harvard ( Engstrom/Starr)*

>From  Mon Feb 16 12:06:53 1998
Message-Id: <MON.16.FEB.1998.120653.0600.>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 12:06:53 -0600
Reply-To: rchurch at frank.mtsu.edu
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Russell Church <rchurch at FRANK.MTSU.EDU>
Organization: Middle Tennessee State University
Subject: TWO ROOMS JUST OPENED UP AT SHONEY'S!
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------3DAB7B8823A1"

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--------------3DAB7B8823A1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

--
Regards,


Russell Church
615-898-5607 (Office)
615-898-2640 (Department Secretary)
615-898-5826 (Fax)

MTSU Box 43
Murfreesboro, Tn. 37132

CHECK OUT MTSU DEBATE TEAM HOME PAGE!
http://www.mtsu.edu/~debate
CHECK OUT RUSS'S HOME PAGE!
http://ritchi.mtsu.edu/wcb/schools/LA/spee/rchurch/rchurch.html

--------------3DAB7B8823A1
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Received: from quapaw.astate.edu (quapaw.astate.edu [147.97.1.10])
        by frank.mtsu.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id LAA03985
        for <rchurch at frank.mtsu.edu>; Mon, 16 Feb 1998 11:11:05 -0600 (CST)
Received: by quapaw.astate.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3)
        id AA21372; Mon, 16 Feb 1998 11:10:23 -0600
Received: from AZTEC/MAILQUEUE by AZTEC.astate.edu (Mercury 1.20);
    16 Feb 98 11:14:52 CDT
Received: from MAILQUEUE by AZTEC (Mercury 1.20); 16 Feb 98 11:14:44 CDT
From: "MICHAEL A. FISHER" <MFISHER at aztec.astate.edu>
Organization:  FINE ARTS, ASU
To: rchurch at frank.mtsu.edu
Date:          Mon, 16 Feb 1998 11:14:40 CDT
Subject:       Re: Southeast, Southeast Central Regionals Hotels
X-Confirm-Reading-To: "MICHAEL A. FISHER" <MFISHER at aztec.astate.edu>
X-Pmrqc:       1
Priority: normal
X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail v3.21
Message-Id: <9150860769 at AZTEC.astate.edu>

Hi Russ!  I just released two of the four rooms that I have reserved
four regionals at the Shoney's Inn. You may want to communicate this
to the folks coming in.

See you in a couple of weeks!

Michael Fisher
Arkansas State University




Date sent:      Sun, 15 Feb 1998 15:34:25 -0600
Send reply to:  rchurch at frank.mtsu.edu
From:           Russell Church <rchurch at FRANK.MTSU.EDU>
Organization:   Middle Tennessee State University
Subject:        Southeast, Southeast Central Regionals Hotels
To:             EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU

Since I have had several calls -- I am posting the hotel information
again...

I think Shoney's is full but you might want to check them --
615-896-6030 -- Holiday Inn should be checked second 615-896-2420 --
again you have until the 18th -- after that there are a lot of choices
based on how much you want to spend

Garden Plaza -- very nicest in town and more expensive usually
615-895-5555 -- $59 is a rate I just got and it is terrific for this
place -- MENTION INTERCOLLEGIATE DEBATE ASSOCIATION OF MTSU WHEN YOU
CALL AND I JUST ARRANGED THIS...

Other than this, you might want to give me a call or email me before
this coming Wednesday.

Regards,


Russell Church
615-898-5607 (Office)
615-898-2640 (Department Secretary)
615-898-5826 (Fax)

MTSU Box 43
Murfreesboro, Tn. 37132

CHECK OUT MTSU DEBATE TEAM HOME PAGE!
http://www.mtsu.edu/~debate
CHECK OUT RUSS'S HOME PAGE!
http://ritchi.mtsu.edu/wcb/schools/LA/spee/rchurch/rchurch.html


--------------3DAB7B8823A1--

>From  Mon Feb 16 13:48:13 1998
Message-Id: <MON.16.FEB.1998.134813.0600.>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 13:48:13 -0600
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: Public Debate Association National Finals
Comments: To: pikap-l at nicanor.acu.edu, parli at willamette.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

If you are interested in attending the 1998 National Finals Tournament of
the Public Debate Association, hosted on the weekend of April 2-4, 1998 at
the University of Texas at Tyler, please back-channel me for an invitation
and regs.

Jack Rogers



From asnider  Mon Feb 16 14:28:13 1998
From: asnider (Alfred C. Snider)
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 15:28:13 -0500
Subject: Results: Huber Debates, University of Vermont
Message-ID: <MON.16.FEB.1998.152813.0500.ASNIDER@ZOO.UVM.EDU>

Thanks to everyone who attended.
1. Everyone helped us start and stop on time.
2. People kept the rooms very clean.
3. Thanks to those who did extra judging, especially Vermont alums who came
in to help.
4. Thanks to Luke Thomson who provided us with incredibly unique and
interesting troiphies made out of hardwood...but we also had silver trays.

We will have a picture-packed web page about the tournament available soon at:
http://debate.uvm.edu/huber98.html

AWARDS: Vermont students did not win awards, but are mentioned in (parentheses)

OPEN DIVISION:

Semis
South Carolina MR over Cornell KW 2-1
NYCartel WW over Boston College CF 3-0

Finals
NYCartel WW over South Carolina MR 3-0

Speakers
(1) Morgan, Vermont
(2) Snider, Vermont
1. McFadden, South Carolina
2. Cameratta, BC
3. Fields, BC
4. Wojtysiak, Cornell
5. Wilson, NYCartel
6. Rose, South Carolina
7. Weigler, NYCartel
8. Pepin, Syracuse

JUNIOR VARSITY:

Semis
Cornell EH over Rochester MS 3-0
Boston College BW over Army HF 2-1

Finals
Boston College BW over Cornell EH 2-1

Speakers:
1. Hightower, Cornell
2. Edwards, Cornell
3. Walson, BC
(4) Parmett, Vermont
4. Briscoe, BC
5. Rubino, NYCartel
(6) Michel, Vermont
6. Brindle, NYCartel
(7) Hoag, Vermont
7. Leonard, Arm8. McClung, Rochester

NOVICE:

Semis
Cornell CL over Army BH 3-0
Rochester WP over Rochester RT 3-0

Finals
Rochester WP over Cornell CL 3-0

Speakers
1. Chon, Cornell
2. White, Rochester
3. Pelton, Rochester
(4) Beggs, Vermont
(5) Lockwood, Vermont
4. Lay, Cornell
5. Hanson, Army
6. Tulsian, Rochester
7. Sroka, Ithaca
(10) Grover, Vermont
(11) Soltanoff, Community College of Vermont
(12) McCann, Trinity
8. Rai, Rochester


MOST PREFERRED JUDGE: Dybvig, Cornell


Alfred Charles Snider -- "Tuna", Edwin W. Lawrence Professor of Forensics,
University of Vermont, Mail: 475 Main Street, UVM, Burlington, VT
05405-4225, Phone: 802-656-0097, Fax: 802-656-4275; President, Cross
Examination Debate Association 1997-98
http://debate.uvm.edu/ceda.html; DEBATE CENTRAL:  Debate's Biggest Website
 http://debate.uvm.edu/
+++++
WORLD DEBATE INSTITUTE 1998 - make plans now - http://debate.uvm.edu/ndi.html



From wnewnam  Mon Feb 16 14:46:19 1998
From: wnewnam (William E Newnam)
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 15:46:19 -0500
Subject: Emory KS
In-Reply-To: <01BD3AC6.2210BDA0@slip129-37-44-45.il.us.ibm.net>
Message-ID: <MON.16.FEB.1998.154619.0500.WNEWNAM@EMORY.EDU>

There was a correction sent out to accompany KS which changes the
following Line.  I hope that those voting saw the correction which was
mailed and faxed to each and everyone the morning that bids were due.


bill n
> 7.      Northwestern    7-1       WWW   WWW   WWW   WWW  WWW     12-1
>
>
>                                         Summary:
>                                         Prelim Record  41-5%89.13
>                                         Elim Record    15-3%83.33

The real elim record is 19-3.  I did not add Northwestern elim wins into
the original version I sent to committee members.



From z947427  Mon Feb 16 15:11:53 1998
From: z947427 (cripe kellie ann)
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 15:11:53 -0600
Subject: Update to the John Carroll Results
In-Reply-To: <01ITMGG4TB9E8ZNI8Q@JCVAXA.jcu.edu>
Message-ID: <MON.16.FEB.1998.151153.0600.Z947427@OATS.FARM.NIU.EDU>

Two additions/corrections to the John Carroll Results listed.

1. In novice semifinals NIU DP won over Capitol on a 3-0
2. The unlisted 4th speaker in novice was Donald Price

Thanks to Brent, Kelly, and the whole John Carroll squad for running an
excellent tournament and for keeping it on schedule, even finals was over
at 9pm!

Thanks
Kellie Cripe
NIU



From lsd041  Mon Feb 16 16:51:27 1998
From: lsd041 (Scott Deatherage)
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 16:51:27 -0600
Subject: CSIS Internship
Message-ID: <MON.16.FEB.1998.165127.0600.LSD041@NWU.EDU>

Coaches, please distribute to your undergraduates.  Undergraduates, please
consider:

Center for Strategic & International Studies, Washington, DC

The William J. Taylor, Jr. Internship

Purpose:  The purpose of the award is to promote professional development
among intercollegiate policy debaters who have an interest in public
policy, particularly in political-military affairs.  The internship is
offered to one intercollegiate policy debater to serve as a full-time
summer intern in the Political-Military Studies program of the Center for
Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).

Eligibility:  Candidates for the award must currently be undergraduate
(including seniors graduating this year) policy debaters.  Major field(s)
of study should be related to international affairs.  Applicants are
expected to have strong writing skills, an exemplary debate record, an
interest in international affairs, strong communication skills, as well as
demonstrated leadership potential and maturity.

Application:  If you would like to apply for an internship, please submit a
cover letter and resume by March 1 to:

        Alex Lennon
        Deputy Director of Studies
        CSIS
        1800 K St, NW
        Washington DC 20006

About Dr. Taylor:  The William J. Taylor, Jr. internship was established to
recognize the outstanding training intercollegiate debate gives students.
The award honors Dr. Taylor's commitment to the activity.  Dr. Taylor is
currently the Senior Vice President for International Security Affairs at
CSIS.  A former U.S. Army colonel, he was elected to the Infantry Officer
Candidate Hall of  Fame.  Dr. Taylor was a professor and director of
national security studies as well as the director of debate for West Point.
 He is the author, coauthor, or coeditor of 16 books and more than 300
articles on international affairs.  He has been responsible for bringing
many debaters to CSIS--including Mike Mazarr, the 1986 NDT Finalist from
Georgetown and current editor of the Washington Quarterly, and Alex Lennon,
the 1990 NDT Champion form Harvard and current Deputy Director of Studies
at CSIS.  He currently also serves as the Director of the CSIS Political
Military Studies program.

>From  Mon Feb 16 15:02:20 1998
Message-Id: <MON.16.FEB.1998.150220.0700.>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 15:02:20 -0700
Reply-To: texwms at ASU.EDU
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: texwms at ASU.EDU
Subject: enmu only
Comments: To: "Midshipman Adam Johnston, USNA" <m993264 at NADN.NAVY.MIL>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.3.96.980212151959.23350A-100000 at baltic>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

could someone from enmu backchannel me.  i have a question about your
agent orange case.

thanks
tex williams
asu debate



From jmw8286  Mon Feb 16 16:43:30 1998
From: jmw8286 (Jacob Weigler)
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 17:43:30 -0500
Subject: Cornell, Richmond, Miami (Fl), Southern Utah, USC only
Message-ID: <MON.16.FEB.1998.174330.0500.JMW8286@IS4.NYU.EDU>

Could someone from each of your schools backchannel me?  I need some
cites.

Thanx a bunch,
jake


"Freedom without opportunity is a devil's gift, and the refusal to provide
such opportunities is criminal."  -Noam Chomsky



From Jackie.Massey  Mon Feb 16 16:54:34 1998
From: Jackie.Massey (Jackie Massey)
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 15:54:34 -0700
Subject: Mardi Gras NOvice Case
Message-ID: <MON.16.FEB.1998.155434.0700.JACKIE.MASSEY@ENMU.EDU>

Hello,

FOr those compiling a case list for Mardis Gras,
my novice team will not be entered. Just to save some prep time for some.
I will have two JV teams and one OPEN.
We will be running
SUbic Bay and Magic Lantern to Singapore/
just like SIU/METZ the (everyone do a case hit on) case.

Peace,

Massey
ENMU



From jef229f  Mon Feb 16 17:12:42 1998
From: jef229f (John E Fritch)
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 17:12:42 -0600
Subject: Novice Nationals
Message-ID: <MON.16.FEB.1998.171242.0600.JEF229F@WPGATE.SMSU.EDU>

SMS will be attending with one team

Gorman and Wilts.

They have run IMET to Indonesia all year.  If they are still running
it......well.....just send us the aff. ideas you sent Deatherage!

John Fritch
SMS



From dgenco  Mon Feb 16 17:05:47 1998
From: dgenco (Dave Kingston)
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 17:05:47 -0600
Subject: Matt Frasier....Where are you?
Message-ID: <MON.16.FEB.1998.170547.0600.DGENCO@EARTHLINK.NET>

Does anyone know how to get a hold of Matt, or have his email address?
Let me know.

Sorry if you read this and it wasted your time.

Thanks
Dave Kingston

>From  Mon Feb 16 18:14:41 1998
Message-Id: <MON.16.FEB.1998.181441.0500.>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 18:14:41 -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: Ill State info
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII

Hi,

Does anyone know what Illinois State's open team runs on the aff?   I
have checked all the case lists that I have and Craven's page, and
found nothing.

THanks
Kelly YOung
John Carroll



From sowards  Mon Feb 16 17:16:30 1998
From: sowards (Stacey K. Sowards)
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 17:16:30 -0600
Subject: UCO only - Doug or Jason
Message-ID: <MON.16.FEB.1998.171630.0600.SOWARDS@EAGLE.CC.UKANS.EDU>

I got your fax entry for the Heart, but the Coaches Comments section got
cut off.  Can you email me the last three lines, or fax again?  Thanks.


Stacey Sowards
University of Kansas

>From  Mon Feb 16 19:13:28 1998
Message-Id: <MON.16.FEB.1998.191328.EST.>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 19:13:28 EST
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: Just-UNC-Schneider or Fogarty
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

Hey could Steve Schneider or Matt Fogarty backchannel me
i need to get the cite from the T card you read against us at Northwestern\

Thanks
Rachel
West GA:)



From bbates2  Mon Feb 16 20:21:25 1998
From: bbates2 (Benjamin R. Bates)
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 21:21:25 -0500
Subject: Huber Debates, University of Vermont
In-Reply-To: <v01540b02b10e4d40272a@[132.198.123.89]>
Message-ID: <MON.16.FEB.1998.212125.0500.BBATES2@RICHMOND.EDU>

The University of Richmond squad wants to thank Tuna and all the other
people from Vermont for running an excellent tournament this weekend.
Everything ran on time, the awards were unique (not that usual cheap
plastic stuff), and the out-of-round hospitality was great.  We especialy
want to thank Sam (and his housemates Shawna and Bryan) for letting us
sleep on the floor, use their shower, and all of the rest.  Pretty much the
only thing that Vermont needs to do to have a perfect tournament is come up
with a way to control the weather so it will be less cold walking to
downtown Burlington.
Hope to see more of you there next year,
BEN

I was a pathological liar.  Or am, I should say.
Lying is like alcoholism, one is always "recovering."
-- Graham in sex, lies, and videotape



From douglas  Mon Feb 16 20:24:31 1998
From: douglas (Douglas Robbins)
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 18:24:31 -0800
Subject: Debate Novel Revised Webpage
Message-ID: <MON.16.FEB.1998.182431.0800.DOUGLAS@LANMINDS.COM>

The webpage for the Debate Novel has been updated, the sample chapter
revised.  Please visit for a free viewing of the first and only novel on
intercollegiate debate.  The address is http://users.lanminds.com/~douglas.
Also linked to Alta Vista, and Yahoo: search "Debate Novel." Below is a
Netscape bookmark.  If you do not have internet access, e-mail a request
for the sample chapter to the above address (douglas at lanminds.com).

To the debate community, thanks for your ever-inspiring support.

Cordially ,
Douglas Robbins
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Debate_Novel
Type: application/mac-binhex40
Size: 150 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/19980216/fdc9059c/attachment.hqx 


From jmw8286  Mon Feb 16 23:19:28 1998
From: jmw8286 (Jacob Weigler)
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 00:19:28 -0500
Subject: Huber Debates, University of Vermont
In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19980216212125.006a3e58@student.richmond.edu>
Message-ID: <TUE.17.FEB.1998.001928.0500.JMW8286@IS4.NYU.EDU>

 I'd just like to echo everything Ben said about Vermont, including the
weather.

Thanxs to tuna and the entire UVM team for a great weekend,

Jacob Weigler
NYC Coalition

"Freedom without opportunity is a devil's gift, and the refusal to provide
such opportunities is criminal."  -Noam Chomsky



From lesjober  Mon Feb 16 23:32:37 1998
From: lesjober (Laura Sjoberg)
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 23:32:37 -0600
Subject: The Universtiy of Chicago Create-a-Team
Message-ID: <MON.16.FEB.1998.233237.0600.LESJOBER@MIDWAY.UCAHICAGO.EDU>

Ok guys, we have a research initiative beginning here . .. will even have
files soon!

Couple of questions (may sound stupid, but we haven't been on the circuit)

"debomb" ? ? what is this a reference to doing?

EDA? What's that an acronym for?

Thanks - - -
Laura



From sowards  Tue Feb 17 00:06:20 1998
From: sowards (Stacey K. Sowards)
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 00:06:20 -0600
Subject: Heart Entries, 2/16
Message-ID: <TUE.17.FEB.1998.000620.0600.SOWARDS@EAGLE.CC.UKANS.EDU>

Please check over your entry, especially if you just entered recently.
This should include everyone, unless you faxed something after 3PM today.
Please send us a Heart book entry if you haven't already.

Stacey Sowards
University of Kansas

Heart Entries as of Monday, 2-16
68 entries so far

Arkansas Tech
Dena Marie Bucker and Jimmy Wilson

Baylor
Becky Coulter and Ben Coulter
Judges:  Chris Salinas (2), Karla Leeper (2)

Cornell
Matt Miller and Rob Melton
Jessica Wojtysiak and Michael Cole
Judge:  Kristin Dybvig (7)

Cal State Fullerton
Laura Heider and Demetrius Lambrinos
Judge:  Jeanine Congalton (4)

Cal State Long Beach
Heather Henkel and Kristine Clancy
Judge:  Victor Rodriguez (4)

Cal State Northridge
Julie Straub and Phaedra Ellis-Lampkins
Judge:  Bill Sheffield (2), Kasim Alimahomed (2)

Central Oklahoma
Tony Sherbert and Shawn Blankenship
Judge:  Jason Russell (7), Aaron Price (7)

Claremont Colleges
Matt Grossmann and Camille Ryan

Dartmouth
Michael Andrew and Adam Garen
Judges:  Bill Russell (2) and Brian Prestes (2)

Eastern New Mexico
Matt Bareto and John Foy
Judge:  Ken DeLaughder (4)

Emory
Dan Fitzmier and Vic Tabak
Anne Marie Todd and Leslie Wade
Katie Matt and Alison Chase
Nessa Horewitch and Shanara Reid
George Kouros and Stephen Bailey
Anjan Sahni and Jon Paul Lupo
Stephen Heidt and Larry Heftman
Raj Ghoshal and Jeff McNabb
Judges:  David Heidt (5), Jamie McKown (5), and Chris Lundberg (7)

Emporia State
Tara Tate and Shannon Holland
Tony Nation and Brad Areheart
Luke Simmons and Marie Baenig
Judges:  Darren Elliot (4) and Rodger Biles (3)

Florida State
3 teams
Judges:  Michael Jackman (5), Michael Korcok (6)

Fort Hays State
John Clune and Andrew Halverson
Judge:  Joey Boyle (4)

Harvard
Sonja Starr and Carl Engstrom
Nicholas Hanssens and Shafeequa Watkins
Judges:  Scott Hessell (4), Paul Skiermont (3), Dallas Perkins (elim),
Sherry Hal
l (elim)

Kansas State
Isaac West and Grant Denny
Sarah Glaser and Kevin Zollman
Alan Hamilton and Quinton Shaw
Judges:  Christina Sabee (7), Sue Stanfield  (4), Brent Siemers (elim),
Monte Stevens (elim)

Kentucky
Brian Ray and Paul Jensen
Judge: Dave Arnett (4)

Lewis and Clark
Jared Ellis and Nick Hesterberg
Jared Hager and Aleava Sayre
Judge:

Macalester
Jennifer Alme and Kiva Garen
Judges:  Will Brewer (7), Jim Haefele (7)

Michigan
Corey Stoughton and Lesley Wexler
Gil Krakowsky and Matt Rice
Gabe Scannapieco and Chris Pudelski
Jonah Feldman and Dan Samson
Judges:  Colin Kahl (7), Adrienne Brovero (4), Steve Mancuso (3)

Michigan State
Eric Cornellier and John Sullivan
Matt Blair and Steve Donald
Katy Hoffman and Aaron Monick
Bill Rand and Allison Woidan
Tara O'Dowd and Orion Smith
Judges:  Terry Johnson (5), Biza Repko (5), Will Repko (4), Jason Trice
(4)

UMKC
Jenny Barker and Scott Betz
Stephen Green and Ben White
Josh Coffman and Matt Baisley
Tommy Curry and Adam Whyte
Judges:  Dave Kingston (4), Myron King (5), Eric Jenkins (5)

New York/Columbia
Diana Kruse (NYU) and Heather Wilson (Columbia)
Jacob Weigler (NYU) and Marius Hentea (Columbia)
Judge:  Will Baker (7)

North Carolina
Steve Schneider and Rashad Hussain

Northwestern
Michael Gottlieb and Ryan Sparacino
Judge:  Nate Smith (2), Scott Deatherage (2)

Pace
Mike Kloster and Taylor Petrey
Jason Peterson and Danny Bell
Judge:  Tim Mahoney (7)

Pepperdine
Thomass Manakides and Brenda Zeimet
Alexis Gorton and Jenna McGrath
Judge:  Greg Achten (7)

Puget Sound
Paul Veillon and Scott Bailey
Darrel Wanzer and Foster Reif
Judge:  Glenn Kuper (7)


Wake Forest
Ken Rufo and Emma Filstrup
Andy Geppert and Justin Green
Judges:  Elisia Cohen (5), Ross Smith (2)

West Georgia
Barksdale and Saloom
Judge:  Jon Sharp

Whitman
Adam Symonds and Sean Harris
Sean Collins and Mike Caughey
Jessica Clarke and Ryan Scoville
Judges: Jim Hanson (4), JP Lacy (7)

Wichita State
Jeremy Hathaway & Kristi Morioka
Brian Gough & James Harris
Judge:  Doug Roubidoux (4)

William Jewell
Troy Cobourn and Louie Petit - maybe not Troy
Jenn Davis and Aubrey Harris
Judges:  Steve Woods (4), Gina Lane (3)



From kwonh  Tue Feb 17 00:16:07 1998
From: kwonh (Hyuk Kwon)
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 01:16:07 -0500
Subject: iowa's indo. food aid case
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.3.96L.980215211830.16865A-100000@abc.ksu.ksu.edu>
Message-ID: <TUE.17.FEB.1998.011607.0500.KWONH@GUSUN.GEORGETOWN.EDU>

Ditto on that.

Kwon


On Sun, 15 Feb 1998, Sarah Michell Glaser wrote:

> To the team I debated last round at Baylor: Could you
> send me the cites for your Cessnas and helicopters to Indonesia case?
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Sarah Glaser
> Kansas St.
>

>From  Tue Feb 17 04:11:25 1998
Message-Id: <TUE.17.FEB.1998.041125.0600.>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 04:11:25 -0600
Reply-To: Joeb at media-net.net
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: "Boyle, Joseph" <joeb at MEDIA-NET.NET>
Organization: FHSU Debate
Subject: Counterplans by candlelight
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

It's 3:30 am and I can't sleep. Rather than working on my thesis, I've
decided to dredge back up a line of counter-plan discussion. If the
issue of whether or not a 1NC has to tell if the CP is dispositional or
conditional bores you, quit readin'.

Whenever a 1NC runs a counterplan they get asked, "Is it conditional,
dispositional, or is it your advocacy." Then the 2AC lays down a short
grocery list of reasons why dispositionality is bad, conditionality is
bad, plan inclusive counter-plans are bad, counter-plans that solve
better than the plan are bad, etc.

Something I find "not-fun-to-judge" is when this happens:

1NC runs a "you-perm-it-and-we-can-kick-it CP in the 1NC"
2AC argues "dispositionality bad"
2AC also perms the counter-plan without telling me what to do with the
counter-plan if they win the perm.
2NC decides to keep the counter-plan and beat the perm and argue that if
they keep it then there's no abuse
1AR drags along the "dispositionality bad" debate and whines about poor
Freddy2AC having to spend the 10 seconds arguing dispositionality was
bad in the 2AC

So I always end up wondering, "Alright jerky, you win dispositionality
is bad, but you didn't tell me what it means if you win that argument.
And you win your permutation, but you didn't tell me what the hell
winning a perm means if it doesn't make the counter-plan go away, so
what the hell do you want me to do now?"

...

So, as some have asked before, why can't the 1NC just not include any
discussion of competitiveness in the 1NC shell? My first reaction to the
idea some centuries ago was "well that skews 2AC time allocation". But
now that I'm older and wiser and can't see without contacts anymore, I
don't think that that's true...

If the 2AC makes a competitiveness argument against the counter-plan
(let's just say a perm for right now and not talk about solvency
arguments or disads to the cp), and does or doesn't explain what happens
to the counter-plan if they win the perm, the negative can take issue
with that interpretation of competitiveness in the block, or just agree
with it. The 2AC isn't hurt on time allocation, they didn't "have" to
invest time in reading their "conditionality bad" or "dispositionality
bad" blocks. If they 1AR chooses to disagree with the negative arguments
in the block, that's doesn't seem to be a 'skew' in time allocation.

If the 2AC doesn't make a competitiveness argument against the CP, and
the negative tries to initiate a 'conditionality' argument in the block,
then the 1AR is free and clear to make abuse or time allocation
arguments in the 1AR.

Joey Boyle
Sleepless Coach Type Guy
Fort Hays State University
joeb at media-net.net
Office: (785)628-5859



From mgremillion  Tue Feb 17 05:44:43 1998
From: mgremillion (MWilliams)
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 06:44:43 -0500
Subject: Mardi Gras Entries due today.
Message-ID: <TUE.17.FEB.1998.064443.0500.MGREMILLION@SELU.EDU>

Entries for the Mardi Gras tournament are due today.
A team list will be posted this evening.



From Arnie.Madsen  Tue Feb 17 08:28:55 1998
From: Arnie.Madsen (Arnie Madsen)
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 08:28:55 -0600
Subject: 1st Round At-Large List
Message-ID: <TUE.17.FEB.1998.082855.0600.ARNIE.MADSEN@UNI.EDU>

A few folk missed this list when it was posted the first time.  So, here
is the list of teams receiving First-Round At-Large invitations to the
1998 National Debate Tournament.  Congratulations to all applicants and
recipients for a fine season.

                        1998 FIRST ROUND AT LARGE BIDS

DARTMOUTH

EMORY FH

EMORY KS

FULLERTON

GEORGETOWN

GEORGIA

HARVARD

IOWA

KANSAS AM

KANSAS EM

MICHIGAN

MICHIGAN STATE CS

NORTH TEXAS

NORTHWESTERN GS

TEXAS

WEST GEORGIA

--
Arnie Madsen                                          arnie.madsen at uni.edu

UNI Director of Forensics                      http://www.uni.edu/forensic
NDT Committee Chair                                 http://www.uni.edu/ndt
Kenneth Burke Society Treasurer
http://www.siu.edu/departments/english/acadareas/rhetcomp/burke/index.html

Office:   Communication Studies, University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls,
          IA  50614-0357      (O) (319) 273-7200      (FAX) (319) 273-7356

Home:     410 Home Park Blvd, Waterloo, IA  50701       (H) (319) 235-8866



From andyspencer  Tue Feb 17 08:54:28 1998
From: andyspencer (Andy Spencer)
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 06:54:28 PST
Subject: Lay Judges
Message-ID: <TUE.17.FEB.1998.065428.PST.ANDYSPENCER@HOTMAIL.COM>

Debating World,

At our regional tournament we there were many lay judges judging debate.
While I hold no ill feelings toward any of these lay judges, it is very
exasperating to have to cater to these judges in the rounds.

I understand the problem of there being a lack of judges for debate.  My
question is, are there any schools for these judges to attend to learn
the basics of debate? If it were a requirement for a judge to have
debate experience or be certified by a "judging school" to judge a
round, it might prove more valuable for the debate process.  If a
sponsor has no debate experience, and has not attended a school, then
maybe they could pay a judging fee for debate.

I guess I may be a little naive, but it just wouldn't seem right if I
judged a poetry finals.  So why let someone with just IE experience
judge a debate?

Just a few thoughts,



Andy Spencer
Team Captain
Panola College Debate Team


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



From dougdennis  Tue Feb 17 09:16:43 1998
From: dougdennis (doug dennis)
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 07:16:43 PST
Subject: iowa's indo. food aid case
Message-ID: <TUE.17.FEB.1998.071643.PST.DOUGDENNIS@HOTMAIL.COM>

>From owner-edebate at list.uvm.edu Mon Feb 16 22:18:57 1998
>Received: from list.uvm.edu (132.198.101.67) by smtpgate.uvm.edu (LSMTP
for Windows NT v1.1a) with SMTP id <0.F22B5100 at smtpgate.uvm.edu>; Tue,
17 Feb 1998 1:18:25 -0500
>Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release
1.8c) with
>          spool id 11008 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 17 Feb 1998
01:18:24
>          -0500
>Received: from gusun.georgetown.edu (gusun.georgetown.edu
[141.161.1.7]) by
>          list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id BAA27816 for
>          <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 01:18:22 -0500 (EST)
>Received: from localhost (kwonh at localhost) by gusun.georgetown.edu
>          (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id BAA27317; Tue, 17 Feb 1998
01:16:07 -0500
>          (EST)
>X-Sender: kwonh at gusun
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
>Message-ID:  <Pine.SOL.3.96.980217011601.25860B-100000 at gusun>
>Date:         Tue, 17 Feb 1998 01:16:07 -0500
>Reply-To:     Hyuk Kwon <kwonh at GUSUN.GEORGETOWN.EDU>
>Sender:       Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
>From:         Hyuk Kwon <kwonh at GUSUN.GEORGETOWN.EDU>
>Subject:      Re: iowa's indo. food aid case
>Comments: To: Sarah Michell Glaser <glasers at KSU.EDU>
>To:           EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU
>In-Reply-To:
<Pine.SOL.3.96L.980215211830.16865A-100000 at abc.ksu.ksu.edu>
>
>Ditto on that.
>
>Kwon
>
>
>On Sun, 15 Feb 1998, Sarah Michell Glaser wrote:
>
>> To the team I debated last round at Baylor: Could you
>> send me the cites for your Cessnas and helicopters to Indonesia case?
>> Thanks in advance.
>>
>> Sarah Glaser
>> Kansas St.
>>
>


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

>From  Tue Feb 17 11:17:39 1998
Message-Id: <TUE.17.FEB.1998.111739.EST.>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 11:17:39 EST
Reply-To: JimHaefele at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Jim Haefele <JimHaefele at AOL.COM>
Subject: Wake Teams at Heart
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

Hi.  What are you running this weekend?  Could you fill me in on the plan(s)?

Thanks--I'll repay you with some inappropriate jokes about rednecks.

Jim Haefele



From asnider  Tue Feb 17 10:38:35 1998
From: asnider (Alfred C. Snider)
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 11:38:35 -0500
Subject: Registering for CEDA Nationals 1998
Message-ID: <TUE.17.FEB.1998.113835.0500.ASNIDER@ZOO.UVM.EDU>

All the info you should need can be found at:
http://debate.uvm.edu/cedanats.html

Remember, there is a March 1 entry deadline.

All entries must be complete. Including:

1.  CEDA dues must be paid to register teams.
2.  Entry must be postmarked by March 1, 1998.
3.  Your entry must be sent by certified mail.  Nothing else will be accepted!
4.  A complete entry includes:
         First and last names of students.
        Check for correct amount made payable to CEDA (this money is non-
         refundable.)
5.  Official stamp from your university registrar verifying student status.
6.  Judging philosophy forms for all judges.
7.  Judging preemption information.
8.  Student and judge demographic information sheet.

Let me know if I can be of assistance to you in this process.
Congratulations to Emory University for being the first squad entered, and
they have entered SEVEN teams.


Alfred Charles Snider -- "Tuna", Edwin W. Lawrence Professor of Forensics,
University of Vermont, Mail: 475 Main Street, UVM, Burlington, VT
05405-4225, Phone: 802-656-0097, Fax: 802-656-4275; President, Cross
Examination Debate Association 1997-98
http://debate.uvm.edu/ceda.html; DEBATE CENTRAL:  Debate's Biggest Website
 http://debate.uvm.edu/
+++++
WORLD DEBATE INSTITUTE 1998 - make plans now - http://debate.uvm.edu/ndi.html



From sharris  Tue Feb 17 11:14:23 1998
From: sharris (SCOTT HARRIS)
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 11:14:23 -0600
Subject: Novice Nationals
In-Reply-To: <s4e87117.062@wpgate.smsu.edu>
Message-ID: <TUE.17.FEB.1998.111423.0600.SHARRIS@FALCON.CC.UKANS.EDU>

Kansas will have a team  Seymour and Hudson.  They have been running
deforestation.

#####LOCO IN LAWRENCE#####



From strange  Tue Feb 17 11:27:34 1998
From: strange (Bennett Strange)
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 12:27:34 -0500
Subject: Lay Judges
Message-ID: <TUE.17.FEB.1998.122734.0500.STRANGE@ANDRIA.LACOLLEGE.EDU>

Andy has an interesting complaint that each of us has voiced at one time or
the other; The incompetent judge took me out wtih his ballot.   However,
this observation is correct only if we want to discount the persuasive
speaking portion of debate.

If we consider competitive debating as a public speaking exercise to prepare
for life after college then the responsiblity lies with the speaker not the
judge.

A lawyer is not assured that there will be "qualified" jurors to listen to
his case.  He is limited by venire.  A minister is not assured that those in
his congregation are experts in theology .  Even legislators have to bring
their arguments to lowest common denominator of their colleagues.
Therefore, debaters should analyize their audience (judge/critic) and adapt.



At 06:54 AM 2/17/98 PST, you wrote:
>Debating World,
>
>At our regional tournament we there were many lay judges judging debate.
>While I hold no ill feelings toward any of these lay judges, it is very
>exasperating to have to cater to these judges in the rounds.
>
>I understand the problem of there being a lack of judges for debate.  My
>question is, are there any schools for these judges to attend to learn
>the basics of debate? If it were a requirement for a judge to have
>debate experience or be certified by a "judging school" to judge a
>round, it might prove more valuable for the debate process.  If a
>sponsor has no debate experience, and has not attended a school, then
>maybe they could pay a judging fee for debate.
>
>I guess I may be a little naive, but it just wouldn't seem right if I
>judged a poetry finals.  So why let someone with just IE experience
>judge a debate?
>
>Just a few thoughts,
>
>
>
>Andy Spencer
>Team Captain
>Panola College Debate Team
>
>
>______________________________________________________
>Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>
Bennett Strange
Associate Professor of Communication Arts
Louisiana College
Pineville, LA 71052
318-487-7321

>From  Tue Feb 17 12:45:14 1998
Message-Id: <TUE.17.FEB.1998.124514.0500.>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 12:45:14 -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: Larry from Miami only
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII

Larry,

Could you backchannel me.  I have a question about a cite of yours
from SIU.

Kelly Young
John Carroll U



From ricem  Tue Feb 17 12:28:11 1998
From: ricem (Matt Huntley Rice)
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 13:28:11 -0500
Subject: Kansas arrival help
Message-ID: <TUE.17.FEB.1998.132811.0500.RICEM@UMICH.EDU>

Due to an unforeseen midterm, I'm not going to be leaving with the
Michigan Debate team on Friday as they journey down to Lawrence.  I'm
going to try to get a later flight, and was wondering if anyone is getting
into the Kansas City airport at around 5:30 or so (or any time later for
that matter) and would be willing to
let me ride with them from the airport to Lawrence.  Any help would be
_greatly_ appreciated.

Thanks,

Matt

***************************************************************************
Matt H. Rice
ricem at umich.edu
A. Hi
B. Hello
C. Good Evening
***************************************************************************



From db8coach  Tue Feb 17 12:32:31 1998
From: db8coach (Bob Lechtreck)
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 10:32:31 -0800
Subject: Hierarchializing Judges
Message-ID: <TUE.17.FEB.1998.103231.0800.DB8COACH@LIGHTSPEED.NET>

At 10:25 AM 2/15/98 EST, Michael Bear Bryant wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>
My pet peeve - I've been taking walkon novices to these tournaments in novice
and JV parli. I generally make my preference clear to tournament hosts that I
prefer to judge in parli, where my exposure to other parli styles and
strategies will help me coach my participating students.
>>>>>>>>>>

I would like to echo Bear's comments in a similar vein. The same concern
applies to coaches who have junior division debaters at a tournament. I oft
times find myself judging open debates when I have junior division teams at
a tournament. This makes is less likely that I will be able to see, first
hand, some of the cases and teams that we may well be hitting later.

At a tournament recently (Long Beach), I decided to speak up about it and
make my request known to the tournament director and tabroom staff. Matt
Taylor, Mark Deloach, and Greg Miller all said that they understood
perfectly and from that time on I was able to actually judge AND help my
teams at the same time.

I realize that Bear talked to the staff and still didn't get his wish,
unfortunate to say the least, but I would recommend to all coaches who find
themselves in a similar situation that they let the tabroom know their
wishes. As in my case above, all I had to do was ask.

Peace,

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

>From  Tue Feb 17 12:42:10 1998
Message-Id: <TUE.17.FEB.1998.124210.0600.>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 12:42:10 -0600
Reply-To: tshuman at CCP.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Terrance Shuman <tshuman at CCP.COM>
Subject: Lay Judges: ans Spencer
In-Reply-To: <19980217145428.29987.qmail at hotmail.com>

In <19980217145428.29987.qmail at hotmail.com>, on 02/17/98
at 06:54 AM, Andy Spencer <andyspencer at HOTMAIL.COM> said:

>At our regional tournament we there were many lay judges judging
>debate. While I hold no ill feelings toward any of these lay judges,
>it is very exasperating to have to cater to these judges in the
>rounds.

Really?  The person sitting in the back of the room has something
which you desire (a winning ballot).  How can you find it
"exasperating" to attempt to acquire that object?  Why do you feel
put upon by being required to "ask" for that object in a way that
is persuasive to that judge?

>I understand the problem of there being a lack of judges for debate.
>My question is, are there any schools for these judges to attend to
>learn the basics of debate? If it were a requirement for a judge to
>have debate experience or be certified by a "judging school" to judge
>a round, it might prove more valuable for the debate process.  If a
>sponsor has no debate experience, and has not attended a school, then
>maybe they could pay a judging fee for debate.

Are we all so self-involved that we see nothing wrong with excluding
certain people from participating in this activity?  How can one
justify an attitude which seeks to characterize folks willing to give
of their time and energy as "unqualified" to render an opinion about
serious matters of public policy?  Would it not be more accurate to
characterize debaters who can't succeed except in front of an elite,
specialized audience as "unqualified," or at least "underqualified?"
I mean, yeah, you can spew with the best of them; but what *else*
can you do?

Solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and...well, not as tall
as I used to be,

Terrance Shuman
Bishop LeBlond Memorial High School
St. Joseph, Missouri

>From  Tue Feb 17 14:38:01 1998
Message-Id: <TUE.17.FEB.1998.143801.0500.>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 14:38:01 -0500
Reply-To: deon_garner at STUDENTS.MOREHOUSE.EDU
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Deon Garner <deon_garner at STUDENTS.MOREHOUSE.EDU>
Subject: Re: Lay Judges: ans Spencer
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=US-ASCII

On 17 Feb 98, you wrote:

>In <19980217145428.29987.qmail at hotmail.com>, on 02/17/98
>at 06:54 AM, Andy Spencer <andyspencer at HOTMAIL.COM> said:
>
>>At our regional tournament we there were many lay judges judging
>>debate. While I hold no ill feelings toward any of these lay judges,
>>it is very exasperating to have to cater to these judges in the
>>rounds.
>
>Really?  The person sitting in the back of the room has something
>which you desire (a winning ballot).  How can you find it
>"exasperating" to attempt to acquire that object?  Why do you feel
>put upon by being required to "ask" for that object in a way that
>is persuasive to that judge?
>
I think the point here is mistooken (word?)  It is not the task
of winning the ballot, but having to "adapt" to judges who do
not "know" the activity.  I think THAT is the exasperating part.
Each time we enter into a roundwe have to adapt to a judge; that
is a given as each judge has his or her preference as to what
she or he wants to see in a given debate.  I think the argument
that andy is trying to make is, that it becomes tiring having
to "not debate" (get my drift) in order to adapt to a judge who
truly doesn't understand the nuances of the activity.  At the
Morehouse Tournament, I timed for one of the judges who judged
in the novice division, who, by the way, is a professor of English
at Morehouse.  He is familiar with debate and understands the
basics, but that is all he understands.  He was not confident
of his decision, and even admitting that his decision came down
to the PRESENTATION of the arguments rather than the issues.
The team that sounded better ended up winning; in my opinion,
the other team should have won.  It is unfair to that losing
team to having "undo" all of their debate training, hardwork,
and practice, to appease that one judge who didn't really understand
what it took to effectively judge a round (be it novice, open,
or jv).



>>I understand the problem of there being a lack of judges for debate.
>>My question is, are there any schools for these judges to attend to
>>learn the basics of debate? If it were a requirement for a judge to
>>have debate experience or be certified by a "judging school" to judge
>>a round, it might prove more valuable for the debate process.  If a
>>sponsor has no debate experience, and has not attended a school, then
>>maybe they could pay a judging fee for debate.
>
>Are we all so self-involved that we see nothing wrong with excluding
>certain people from participating in this activity?

I really love this argument . . . I hear it all of the time in
debate rounds . . . nothing personal, but I think it is silly.
"Debating" is something that everyone can do.  When we argue
with our parents and loved ones, we debate, when we are upset
about that grade we received in a class, we debate the professor,
etc.  However, debate (noun) is not an activity that is meant
for the public forum.  Now, do NOT get me wrong, everyone can
potentially involve themselves in debate; however, it is not
until after he or she has been trained and has learned at least
the basics.  In high-school, Lincoln-Douglas would be the thing
for parents, "non-debate-oriented" (as opposed to unqualified)
persons, and the like to judge.  In some areas it was easy to
judge L-D; however, policy is all together different.  If my
mother or any other person who is not familiar with policy debate,
there is NO way he or she can effectively judge a round.  Debaters
should not sacrifice all that he or she has learned, researched,
and practiced to "win" a ballot.  Additionally, the educational
value that the debate round has should not be sacrificed in order
to adapt to "win" a ballot.  I really do not think that Andy
is advocating excluding anyone from the activity or round, the
activity already excludes people.


  How can one
>justify an attitude which seeks to characterize folks willing to give
>of their time and energy as "unqualified" to render an opinion about
>serious matters of public policy?


The flow already does that.  If one cannot flow, then one cannot
SERIOUSLY evaluate the issues in a given round in order to render
a well-informed decision.  Additionally, the speed would keep
a lay judge from physically "hearing" all of the issues, thus
keeping her or him from making an informed decision based on
the issues.


Would it not be more accurate to
>characterize debaters who can't succeed except in front of an elite,
>specialized audience as "unqualified," or at least "underqualified?"
>I mean, yeah, you can spew with the best of them; but what *else*
>can you do?

(Laughing Out LOUD with people staring at me like I am crazy)
You've got to be kidding me.  If one were to put Kate Shuster
and David Heidt from Emory in front of a panel of three "non-lay"
and two lay judges, I think they would go for the three "non-lay"
ballots (assuming that they knew the status of the judges going
intot the round).  They are the NDT champs from 1996; I don't
they would be considered underqualified or unqualified.  Additionally,
Terrance, I think you are very mistaken . . . it has nothing
to do with a debater's ability to "success except in front of
an elite yadda yadda yadda."  It has everything to do with the
desire of the debaters to do such.  Some debaters have been at
this thing for four to eight to eleven years (middle school inclusive)
perfecting this craft.  I don't think that any debater who is
serious about the activity or what is has to offer would choose
to "give up" that craft for a round or two JUST to win a ballot.

Granted, there are those time where it just MUST be done; it's
a given; HOWEVER, any debater worth his or her salt (wow, I sound
like my pops) would not CHOOSE to forego that "skill" (and everything
within) in order win a round or two here or there.  It has nothing
to do with  being able to adapt, b/c that comes with the territory.
It has everything to do with the DESIRE to have good judging.

Yours in the struggle (thanks Damien),

Deon, Captain
Morehouse Debate


>
>Solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and...well, not as tall
>as I used to be,
>
>Terrance Shuman
>Bishop LeBlond Memorial High School
>St. Joseph, Missouri


Terrance, when you get to the collegiate circuit, you'll how important
a DECADE of work in a particular activity truly is, and you are
not going to WANT to sacrifice that decade for anyone for any
given period of time.



From mkrueger  Tue Feb 17 13:38:14 1998
From: mkrueger (mike krueger)
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 13:38:14 -0600
Subject: Lay Judges: ans Spencer
Message-ID: <TUE.17.FEB.1998.133814.0600.MKRUEGER@FRANK.MTSU.EDU>

I'd like to echo these thoughts.  We should be able to adapt to a
variety of people.

Now, most folks in the debate community would like to be able to
"predict" how someone will react to certain issues, etc.  While this
type of in depth audience analysis is very beneficial, the "real world"
also requires us to persuade an audience based upon little prior
information.  Thus we learn to adapt in that fashion, too.

I think that both types of judges are good for debate.  sometimes it
ain't just about the "w."  (sorry to say that Greg!)

Of course, "lay" judges are almost prohibited from Open policy debate.
Too bad that.  Seems like debaters should open their eyes to other
possibilities and learn from those experiences.

Mike

Terrance Shuman wrote:
>
> In <19980217145428.29987.qmail at hotmail.com>, on 02/17/98
> at 06:54 AM, Andy Spencer <andyspencer at HOTMAIL.COM> said:
>
> >At our regional tournament we there were many lay judges judging
> >debate. While I hold no ill feelings toward any of these lay judges,
> >it is very exasperating to have to cater to these judges in the
> >rounds.
>
> Really?  The person sitting in the back of the room has something
> which you desire (a winning ballot).  How can you find it
> "exasperating" to attempt to acquire that object?  Why do you feel
> put upon by being required to "ask" for that object in a way that
> is persuasive to that judge?
>
> >I understand the problem of there being a lack of judges for debate.
> >My question is, are there any schools for these judges to attend to
> >learn the basics of debate? If it were a requirement for a judge to
> >have debate experience or be certified by a "judging school" to judge
> >a round, it might prove more valuable for the debate process.  If a
> >sponsor has no debate experience, and has not attended a school, then
> >maybe they could pay a judging fee for debate.
>
> Are we all so self-involved that we see nothing wrong with excluding
> certain people from participating in this activity?  How can one
> justify an attitude which seeks to characterize folks willing to give
> of their time and energy as "unqualified" to render an opinion about
> serious matters of public policy?  Would it not be more accurate to
> characterize debaters who can't succeed except in front of an elite,
> specialized audience as "unqualified," or at least "underqualified?"
> I mean, yeah, you can spew with the best of them; but what *else*
> can you do?
>
> Solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and...well, not as tall
> as I used to be,
>
> Terrance Shuman
> Bishop LeBlond Memorial High School
> St. Joseph, Missouri

--
Michael Krueger
Asst. Director of Debate
Middle Tennessee State University
Box 43
Murfreesboro, TN 37132
(615)  898-2273 (office)
(615) 898-5826 (fax)
http://www.mtsu.edu/~debate
http://www.mtsu.edu/~mkrueger
http://www.mtsu.edu/~wmts



From mkrueger  Tue Feb 17 13:44:02 1998
From: mkrueger (mike krueger)
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 13:44:02 -0600
Subject: Hierarchializing Judges
Message-ID: <TUE.17.FEB.1998.134402.0600.MKRUEGER@FRANK.MTSU.EDU>

Again, I echo these sentiments...

(In a different vein though)

First, novices get the "bad" judges.  Why?  I truly wish that novices
had the same judging pool, since their learning curve is great and they
can take away so much from a post round explanation (I just want to say
thanks to many people in the region that have immensely helped my
debaters such as Ed Lee, Carrie Crenshaw, and many varsity
debaters--there are many others too!)...  Whereas many varsity debaters
just say that's fine and go on their way (don't worry about the
rationale-just worry about the decision).

Also, mutual preference judging often ends up with people excluded from
the pool.  I'm not sure that I like that, but oh well.

Anyway, social stratification of judges just stigmatizes judges and is a
problem in my estimation.

anyway,
I'm done rambling

Mike


Bob Lechtreck wrote:
>
> At 10:25 AM 2/15/98 EST, Michael Bear Bryant wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> My pet peeve - I've been taking walkon novices to these tournaments in novice
> and JV parli. I generally make my preference clear to tournament hosts that I
> prefer to judge in parli, where my exposure to other parli styles and
> strategies will help me coach my participating students.
> >>>>>>>>>>
>
> I would like to echo Bear's comments in a similar vein. The same concern
> applies to coaches who have junior division debaters at a tournament. I oft
> times find myself judging open debates when I have junior division teams at
> a tournament. This makes is less likely that I will be able to see, first
> hand, some of the cases and teams that we may well be hitting later.
>
> At a tournament recently (Long Beach), I decided to speak up about it and
> make my request known to the tournament director and tabroom staff. Matt
> Taylor, Mark Deloach, and Greg Miller all said that they understood
> perfectly and from that time on I was able to actually judge AND help my
> teams at the same time.
>
> I realize that Bear talked to the staff and still didn't get his wish,
> unfortunate to say the least, but I would recommend to all coaches who find
> themselves in a similar situation that they let the tabroom know their
> wishes. As in my case above, all I had to do was ask.
>
> Peace,
>
> Bob Lechtreck
> Bakersfield College
> "Putting out fires, and damn good debaters!!!"

--
Michael Krueger
Asst. Director of Debate
Middle Tennessee State University
Box 43
Murfreesboro, TN 37132
(615)  898-2273 (office)
(615) 898-5826 (fax)
http://www.mtsu.edu/~debate
http://www.mtsu.edu/~mkrueger
http://www.mtsu.edu/~wmts

>From  Tue Feb 17 14:56:58 1998
Message-Id: <TUE.17.FEB.1998.145658.0500.>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 14:56:58 -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: Lay Judges: Ans Spencer
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII

Deon makes some interesting points here, but I am curious as to why debaters
must "non-debate" or "undo" their knowledge of debate to debate in front
of a lay judge.  Before the creation of NEDA, I was forced to debate in front
of numerous lay judges at Public Argument tournaments in the region.  Granted,
I would prefer faster judges and someone who was hip to Neo-isolationism,
Dedev, and WOMP, but when I had Lay judges, I never sacrificed my knowledge of
debate.

If you boil it down, policy debate hinges on proving or disproving a need,
plan, solution, and advantages/disadvantages.  Also, refutuation and evaluation
of evidence is standard.  Any lay judge, or normal person, realizes this. The
primary thing that is lost is the speed, micro-line-by-line analysis, and
SOME positions.  I don't really see the "undoing" of debate knowledge that
is present here.

Generally what happens