From Michelin.Massey Tue Mar 31 23:29:05 1998 From: Michelin.Massey (Michelin Christopher Massey) Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 22:29:05 -0700 Subject: spanos? Message-ID: from what doyle srader indicated on his posting about the ndt final round, he indicated that emory went for "spanos" for the entire six minutes in the 2NR. he said that this emory team was very innovative in their arguments. i was wondering about this one in particular...i'm curious if someone could explain this position? is this the same william v. spanos who wrote _heidegger_and_criticism:_retrieving_the cultural_politics_of_ destruction_ in 1993? is this from the same book? is this a different kind of an argument? help. i hope that now that this season is now over, someone will be able to help me out with this question! thanks in advance. michelin massey. university of colorado-boulder. From allyson Tue Mar 31 23:44:30 1998 From: allyson (John Stubbs) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1998 00:44:30 -0500 Subject: ndt final round Message-ID: i was wondering if someone who watched/judged/debated the final round could post something about it. i have heard that northwestern was affirmative, gottleib did the 2A because he did lots of work on spanos or something, emory went for spanos in the 2NR, and NW won on a 5-0. if someone could just comment on the arguments that were made on both sides and the round in general, i am sure lots of people who couldn't witness finals would be interested in learning more about an argument that probably beat everyone at least once this year. or if there is a tape or anything like that, i am sure it would be a very educational tool for learning/teaching about the kritik in debate rounds. thanks, john John W. Stubbs George Washington Univ. P: 202/676-4052 A: 2350 H St., NW #904 Washington, D.C. 20037 From djc192 Tue Mar 31 23:47:23 1998 From: djc192 (Devin J Chwastyk) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1998 00:47:23 -0500 Subject: topic- cr bad args Message-ID: Even as I quickly realize how completely unqualifed (in debate and legal knowledge) I am to be involved in this discussion- I think there's a point to be made . . . A whole bunch of posts have said that w/ a civil rights topic "no one in their right mind will advocate civil rights bad." I don't think that's true at all. No matter what choice of wording is used, the affirmative will be defending some expansion of rights over the status quo. That means the neg won't have to argue that rights in general are bad, or take any racist or reactionist stance. I think there are plenty of credible arguments that the overexpansion of rights diminishes their value, that overexpanision undermines societal norms (the omnipresent Casey Martin example), and that, in general, a balance needs to be struck between the expansion of rights and the problems that that expansion can cause in terms of upheaval or merely liability. plus, there's always Clinton DAs. anyway, Devin Chwastyk Penn State Debate From louden Sun Mar 1 00:08:01 1998 From: louden (Allan Louden) Date: Sun, 1 Mar 1998 01:08:01 -0500 Subject: District VI Qualifiers Message-ID: District VI Qualifying teams: Tourn. in Murfreesboro, TN - MTSU 1st Samford (Johnson & Stetson) 5-1 2nd Wake Forest (Filstrup & Rufo) 5-1 3rd Wake Forest (Atchison & Green) 5-1 4th Georgia (Teagle & Matos) 4-2 5th North Carolina (Schnieder & Hussain) 3-3 6th West Georgia (Smith & Lantz) 3-3 7th Kentucy (Ray & Jensen) 3-3 8th Louisville (Lee & Westbrook) 3-3 1st Alternate Miami (Paulose & Wilkan) 3-3 2nd Alternate Samford (Buzachero & Dye) Honorable Mention (not eligible teams or closed out by # from a school that can qualify) Emory (Tabak & Todd) 6-0 Wake Forest (Bonura and Covey) 5-1 Wake Forest (Rhodes & Geppert) 4-2 Emory (Horwitz & Lupo) 4-2 West Georgia ( Saloom & Barksdale) 3-3 Speakers: 1st Vic Tabak, Emory 2nd Clay Rhodes, Wake Forest 3rd Steven Stetson, Samford 4th Ann Marie Todd, Emory 5th Emma Filstrup, Wake Forest 6th Rashad Hussain, North Carolina 7th Jason Teagle, Georgia 8th Andy Geppert, Wake Forest 9th Michael Matos, Georgia 10th Justin Green, Wake Forest From hansonjb Sun Mar 1 13:15:34 1998 From: hansonjb (Jim Hanson) Date: Sun, 1 Mar 1998 11:15:34 -0800 Subject: NFC Designated Tournament Four, Whitman College: CEDA-NDT Message-ID: NFC Designated Tournament Four, Whitman College: CEDA-NDT Results SENIOR POLICY DEBATE QUARTERS Gonzaga M-JO over Whitman BC 3-0 UPS SL over Gonzaga YK 2-1 Whitman HS over PLU PS 3-0 Whitman CS over UPS CH 3-0 SEMIS Whitman HS over Gonzaga M-JO 3-0 Whitman CS over UPS SL 3-0 FINALS Whitman closes out JUNIOR POLICY DEBATE Western Washington MT takes first place PUBLIC POLICY DEBATE Whitman DW takes first place U. Washington KD takes second place Jim Hanson From malthus Sun Mar 1 16:12:16 1998 From: malthus (Richard & Joanne Hathaway) Date: Sun, 1 Mar 1998 16:12:16 -0600 Subject: Don't Delete: Website information for Debate community.. Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/19980301/86db9af9/attachment.htm From bpick Sun Mar 1 18:23:12 1998 From: bpick (BARBARA PICKERING) Date: Sun, 1 Mar 1998 16:23:12 -0800 Subject: District Results anyone? Message-ID: District nine is concluding a runoff debate and we will post our list of qualifiers as soon as the decision is in. In the meantime, does anyone have results from District 2, District 4, District 5, District 8??? You can expect our posting within the next 2 hours. Barb Pickering UNLV From bpick Sun Mar 1 19:16:47 1998 From: bpick (BARBARA PICKERING) Date: Sun, 1 Mar 1998 17:16:47 -0800 Subject: District IX Results Message-ID: The tournament is over and the qualifiers are: l. ENMU Baretto/Foy 6-0 2. Weber Menzies/Anthony 5-1 3. ASU Skarb/Martin 4-2 4. New Mexico Stalley/Clark 4-2 5. Weber Dilsaver/Muranaka 3-3 lst Alt. New Mexico Mark/Lowe 3-3 2nd Alt. UNLV Kimbrough/Robertson 2-4 Congratulations and good luck at the NDT. Barb Pickering UNLV From kmscott Sun Mar 1 19:28:49 1998 From: kmscott (K. Scott) Date: Sun, 1 Mar 1998 19:28:49 -0600 Subject: District 4 Results In-Reply-To: Message-ID: 1. Iowa-Jill Podgorski/Karen Scott 2. Macalester-Jenny Alme/Kiva Garen Alternate-Augustana-Erik Hallstrom/Nick ? (sorry, i can't remember Nick's last name) From lesjober Sat Mar 28 20:36:41 1998 From: lesjober (Laura Sjoberg) Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 20:36:41 -0600 Subject: Redlands only Message-ID: Will the redlands HR team that ran vietnam navy cooperation please send us the cites and outline of that case? -----Original Message----- From: Richard & Joanne Hathaway To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU Date: Sunday, March 01, 1998 4:14 PM Subject: Don't Delete: Website information for Debate community.. Hi all... I have completed the Debate Community Web Site . There is a laundry list of sites on it. Remember it is designed to help all levels of the community. This means it covers from High School CX Debate to Collegiate CX Debate. You can book mark this page for future reference in getting connected to that all important debate University (for you High School Folk) or you can look for research, even research products. The purpose of the page is to provide a more centralized location for Debaters to find Debate information. If you have any questions, criticisms, etc. Please respond to this post. If you would like to submit your site please send me your URL and I will post it ASAP. If you have a URL on this site and want the description changed- I had to create them myself- let me know.. Thank you for your help: We hope you enjoy the Site http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/9802/debate_online.html is the URL..... Richard Hathaway Arsenal Data -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/19980328/a23d2a1b/attachment.html From mkrueger Sun Mar 1 20:45:15 1998 From: mkrueger (mike krueger) Date: Sun, 1 Mar 1998 20:45:15 -0600 Subject: SE/SEC CEDA resuts Message-ID: Open Alabama SP over South Carolina MR 3-0 MTSU IC over Alabama LG 3-0 Miami PG over Arkansas State 3-0 Alabama CO over Vanderbilt CR 2-1 Semis Alabama SP over MTSU IC 3-0 Miami PG over Alabama CO 3-0 Finals Alabama SP over Miami PG 3-0 Junior Varsity Semis North Carolina over SE Louisiana 2-1 South Carolina over Louisville 2-1 Finals South Carolina over North Carolina 3-0 Novice Quarters South Carolina ED over MTSU CP 3-0 MTSU WM over South Carolina JC 3-0 Vanderbilt CM over Georgia State 2-1 Vanderbilt RC over Cleveland State 3-0 Semis MTSU WM over South Carolina ED 3-0 Vanderbilt RC over Vanderbilt CM 3-0 Finals Vanderbilt RC over MTSU WM Thanks and see you next year at Regionals (wherever that may be!) 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 mkrueger Sun Mar 1 20:47:14 1998 From: mkrueger (mike krueger) Date: Sun, 1 Mar 1998 20:47:14 -0600 Subject: SE/SEC CEDA resuts Message-ID: mike krueger wrote: > > Open > > Alabama SP over South Carolina MR 3-0 > MTSU IC over Alabama LG 3-0 > Miami PG over Arkansas State 3-0 > Alabama CO over Vanderbilt CR 2-1 > > Semis > > Alabama SP over MTSU IC 3-0 > Miami PG over Alabama CO 3-0 > > Finals > > Alabama SP over Miami PG 3-0 > > Junior Varsity > > Semis > > North Carolina over SE Louisiana 2-1 > South Carolina over Louisville 2-1 > > Finals > > South Carolina over North Carolina 3-0 > > Novice > > Quarters > > South Carolina ED over MTSU CP 3-0 > MTSU WM over South Carolina JC 3-0 > Vanderbilt CM over Georgia State 2-1 > Vanderbilt RC over Cleveland State 3-0 > > Semis > > MTSU WM over South Carolina ED 3-0 > Vanderbilt RC over Vanderbilt CM 3-0 > > Finals > > Vanderbilt RC over MTSU WM > That decision is a 2-1. I'm an idiot, not that you didn't know that. Hope the hospitality was enjoyed! Mike > Thanks and see you next year at Regionals (wherever that may be!) > > 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 -- 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 djc192 Sun Mar 1 21:39:32 1998 From: djc192 (Devin J Chwastyk) Date: Sun, 1 Mar 1998 22:39:32 -0500 Subject: michigan state Message-ID: Could someone from msu backchannel me? I'm looking for one of your debaters. Thanks, Devin Chwastyk Penn State Debate From hwalters Sun Mar 1 22:07:05 1998 From: hwalters (Heather L Walters) Date: Sun, 1 Mar 1998 23:07:05 -0500 Subject: District 8 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: For the impatient, 1. Dartmouth GM (mead and garen) 2. Pace BP (bell and peterson) First alternate Cornell CW (cole and wojo) The official total will probably come from Scott soon. Sorry Jessica, I still cannot spell your last name. Martin Che Harris From theloft Sun Mar 1 22:02:23 1998 From: theloft (Becky Galentine) Date: Sun, 1 Mar 1998 20:02:23 -0800 Subject: dallas perkins rocks Message-ID: becky here, second day home from the hospital. an update at this point is pointless. i feel like shit. unless my fiancee and oncologist can physically prevent me i will be at the back to back nationals. i'm just reaching out of the chemo fog to say thanks dallas and to let all of you know what a sweet man he is. i admitingly don't know dp very well. not sure i've ever spoken with him, or looked him in the eye for that matter. yet, for the last few months, i have received numerous 'you go girl,' type inspirational messages, and recently while i was in the hospital, dallas and thousands of debaters, as the card read, sent me a very nice vase of flowers. it helps tremendously when you are going through a hell like this that people are behind you sending you energy -- even when you don't know them. thanks, again. becky From ram29 Sun Mar 1 22:26:21 1998 From: ram29 (Robert Melton) Date: Sun, 1 Mar 1998 23:26:21 -0500 Subject: District 8 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: At 11:07 PM 3/1/98 -0500, Heather L Walters wrote: >For the impatient, > >1. Dartmouth GM (mead and garen) >2. Pace BP (bell and peterson) >First alternate Cornell CW (cole and wojo) First alternate Cornell CW (cole and wojtysiak) :) >The official total will probably come from Scott soon. Sorry Jessica, I >still cannot spell your last name. > >Martin Che Harris > From hwalters Sun Mar 1 22:40:51 1998 From: hwalters (Heather L Walters) Date: Sun, 1 Mar 1998 23:40:51 -0500 Subject: SCOTT SEGAL Message-ID: If Scott could backchannel me I would appreciate it. Sorry for wasted bandwidth but the long brace and patterson mcimail address the scan gave me returns a 553 and 550 user unknown error. Martin From jvuglia Sun Mar 1 23:18:42 1998 From: jvuglia (Joe Vuglia) Date: Sun, 1 Mar 1998 23:18:42 -0600 Subject: District 5 and/or 7??? Message-ID: Anybody got results for districts 5 and 6? Watching via the sidelines, Joe - SIU From srader Sun Mar 1 23:54:46 1998 From: srader (Doyle Srader) Date: Sun, 1 Mar 1998 22:54:46 -0700 Subject: New cases in District Nine Message-ID: Weber AM: Airport Security in the Philippines. Gives Q-Scan radar and various other security-type stuff to the Philippines to improve airport security. Advantages: Terrorism and drug smuggling. Tricks: Attempt to straight-turn Clinton by arguing that Clinton's drug war approach has shifted from supply-side to demand-side, and that a move back to anti-supply measures has bipartisan support. UNM LM (1st alternate): Cause the Maoist revolution in the Philippines. The plan takes away all security assistance that we currently give to the Philippines, and uses it to fund the delivery of night vision goggles, "intelligence technology," printing presses, etc. to the NPA, which I think is the National People's Army. The plan is overseen by a board of progressive American anti-imperialists. They argue that a coup is imminent in the Philippines, and the coup provides the opening for the NPA, if they can just take advantage of it. The advantages are displaced indigenous peoples, poverty, the environment, and oppression of women. New cases from other corners of the debate world? 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 dougdennis Mon Mar 2 01:49:12 1998 From: dougdennis (doug dennis) Date: Sun, 1 Mar 1998 23:49:12 PST Subject: enmu bf or coaches only Message-ID: hey, backchannel me, i've got some info you might want to get your hands on. doug um-rolla ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From marnold Mon Mar 2 07:55:03 1998 From: marnold (Mark S. Arnold) Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 08:55:03 -0500 Subject: SE/SEC Regionals Message-ID: I just wanted to say a few things about the tourny at MTSU: 1. Great job! The tournament ran smoothly and Ben and I had a great time (and I believe our Sara and Joe did too, but I hate speaking for others...) 2. Cool new building MTSU! 3. I also want to extend a special thanks to Tennessee Tech for accepting Ben and my challenge for the exhibition/challenge round during normal out rounds. Just because we didn't break, doesn't mean we did or have to stop debating! Also, thanks to MTSU for the room to debate. See some of you at Towson! Mark Arnold Captain Richmond Debate From jz9n Mon Mar 2 08:47:32 1998 From: jz9n (phillip thomson) Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 09:47:32 -0500 Subject: District 8 Results Message-ID: The previous posts are correct. 1. Dartmouth: Grey Mead and Adam Garen 2. Pace: Jason Peterson and Danny Bell first alternate Cornell: Michael Cole and Jessica Wojtysiak Thanks to everyone involved for making the tournament easy to administer and good luck at the NDT. Scott Thomson From mgremillion Mon Mar 2 08:11:40 1998 From: mgremillion (MWilliams) Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 09:11:40 -0500 Subject: Vanderbilt Only. Message-ID: Hey folks, Do you by chance have my leather jacket? Scott M. Elliott From Gary.N.Larson Mon Mar 2 09:32:02 1998 From: Gary.N.Larson (Gary Larson) Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 09:32:02 CST6CDT Subject: Wheaton tournament Message-ID: The following are the results of the Wheaton tournament. Congratulations are in order for all participants. Speaker awards - Open 1. Petit - William Jewell 169 2. Plamann - DePaul 168 3. Nave - Duke 167 111 56 4. Jenks - DePaul 167 111 55 5. Dale - Marquette 164 6. McCauley - Loyola 163 7. Truesdell - DePaul 162.5 8. Cripe - Northern Illinois 162 9. Sherbert - UCO 161 115 10. Kane - Marquette 161 109 Speaker awards - Novice 1. Powell - Illinois State 163.5 2. Jenkins - Buena Viasta 163 110 3. Winn - Hillsdale 163 107 4. Simonis - UW Oshkosh 162 5. Busby - Hillsdale 161 6. Wiltse - DePaul 160 7. Ross - Northern Iowa 156 105 53 8. LaFountain - Illinois St 156 105 52 9. Marrar - Illinois State 156 104 52 9. Fleisher - Illinois State 156 104 52 Elimination Rounds - OPEN Quarters (1)DePaul(Jenks/Plamann) def. (8)William Jewell(McGee/Petit) 3-0 (2)Marquette(Dale/Kane) def. (7)WJC/UMSL(Chance/Berryman) 3-0 (3)UCO(Blankenship/Sherbert) def. (6)No Illinois(Bullis/Cripe) 3-0 (5)Duke(Krivinskas/Nave) def. (4)Loyola(Eggers/McCauley) 2-1 Semis (5)Duke KN def. (1) DePaul JP 2-1 (3)UCO BS def. (2) Marquette DK 2-1 Finals (3)UCO BS def. (5) Duke KN 3-0 Elimination Rounds - NOVICE Quarters (8)No Illinois(Drury/Price) d. (1)Ill State(Powell/Fleisher) 2-1 (2)UW-Osh(Simonis/Torbenson) d. (7)DePaul(Wiltse/Urso) 3-0 (3)ISU(LaFountain/Marrar) d. (6)Buena Vista(Boscaljon/Jenkins) 2-1 (4)Hillsdale(Busby/Winn) d. (5)No Iowa(Stephenson/Ross) 2-1 Semis (8)NIU DP def. (4) Hillsdale BW 3-0 (3)ISU LM def. (2) UW-Oshkosh ST 3-0 Finals (8)NIU DP def. (3) ISU LM 2-1 Prelim Records Open DePaul JP 5-1 Marquette DK 5-1 Central Oklahoma BS 5-1 Loyola EM 4-2 Duke KN 4-2 Northern Illinois CB 4-2 WmJewell/UMSL CB 4-2 William Jewell MP 3-3 DePaul TH 3-3 Loyola LN 3-3 Central Oklahoma MH 3-3 Northern Illinois MB 3-3 Northern Illinois CZ 3-3 William Jewell DH 3-3 Northern Iowa MS 2-4 Marquette SP 2-4 Loyola MM 2-4 Illinois State KS 1-5 Marquette CS 1-5 Novice Illinois State PF 5-1 UW-Oshkosh ST 5-1 Illinois State LM 5-1 Hillsdale BW 4-2 Wheaton MS 4-2 (not eligible to clear) Northern Iowa SR 4-2 Buena Vista BJ 3-3 DePaul WV 3-3 Northern Illinois DP 3-3 Northern Iowa CS 3-3 Northern Illinois DR 3-3 Duke TA 3-3 UW-Oshkosh OS 3-3 Hillsdale PT 3-3 Wheaton ZB 3-1 Wheaton SG 2-1 Hillsdale SH 1-5 Hillsdale MW 1-5 Buena Vista DN 1-5 Buena Vista CH 0-6 From Gary.N.Larson Mon Mar 2 10:00:31 1998 From: Gary.N.Larson (Gary Larson) Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 10:00:31 CST6CDT Subject: Fri/Sat Tournaments - Still an option??? Message-ID: I want to thank everyone who participated in the Wheaton tournament this past weekend. While still fresh in our minds, I would be interested in the community's response to a question we will have to be asking ourselves in the next few months. Wheaton's two tournaments operate within a model that was once popular in CEDA but is rapidly fading away. We host tournaments that begin on Friday afternoon (3:30 PM) and conclude on Saturday night (10:45 PM). Rounds went off as follows: 1. 3:30 PM (random) 2. 5:30 PM (random) buffet dinner after round 3. 8:00 PM (hi/hi off 2) 4. 8:30 AM (hi/low off 3) 5. 10:30 AM (hi/hi off 3) pizza lunch after round 6. 1:00 PM (hi/low off 5) Qtrs. 3:30 PM Semis 6:15 PM Finals 8:50 PM The final ballot was returned on Friday at 10:18 PM The final decision was announced on Saturday at 10:50 PM We used a 9-3-6-8 format. The reactions we received from several were - both days ran too late, Saturday started too early, six rounds in one day are too many, rounds were too rushed (pre-round coaching, post-round critique), it was almost impossible to eat after Friday rounds were completed. I must also report that EVERYONE was gracious - they sympathized rather than complained. The length of rounds both internally and externally strongly conspires against the model we use. We have campus policies that prevent us from hosting on Sunday. As a result, we are strongly considering cancelling our tournament in future years. With Heart of America and NDT districts falling on the last two weekends of Feb (our usual window of opportunity), our tournament is not on a good weekend for most in any case. I am sincerely thankful for the support that our spring tournament has received in its 19 year history. I look forward to helpful advice as we make decisions for the future. I would appreciate it if general comments concerning tournament format be discussed publicly on edebate while specific reactions to the Wheaton tournament be addressed to me back-channel. From mkrueger Mon Mar 2 10:49:50 1998 From: mkrueger (mike krueger) Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 10:49:50 -0600 Subject: ADA Rules Message-ID: Anyone have a copy on a webpage or on computer that could be sent to me? thanks in advance, 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 lesjober Sun Mar 29 10:58:20 1998 From: lesjober (Laura Sjoberg) Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 10:58:20 -0600 Subject: Redlands only Message-ID: We were wondering about the cites for the aff case in the Whitman case list about Vietnam and the Cam ranh Bay (sp). If you could send those to us, we'd be really thankful. Laura U chicago From atsst14+ Mon Mar 2 11:13:49 1998 From: atsst14+ (Almas T Sayeed) Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 12:13:49 -0500 Subject: Novice Nationals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hey Meredith (or anyone else in the know)- What is Emory's "genocide" aff? Do you have cites or plan text or ads...anything? thanks Almas Sayeed University of Pittsburgh On Sun, 22 Feb 1998, Meredith Stein wrote: > Here are the Emory teams and what info I could get: > baily/ghali > eno/goodrich > harkin/tavrey > doshi/ghavi > friedman/klink > > And quoting Mike Horowitz running :"all running all the cases emory has > ran this year (cbms, defo, genocide, joint production) and some new > stuff, I think." > > ********** > *Meredith* > ********** > From lsd041 Mon Mar 2 12:09:55 1998 From: lsd041 (Scott Deatherage) Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 12:09:55 -0600 Subject: COACHES: Please Enter Message-ID: I only count an entry as official when I receive it from a coach. I've learned over the years that what I make as our plans and what my debatters think are our plans are sometimes different accounts of the world. And I've already noticed some inconsistencies between the few official entries I do have and the lists that have been posted to e-debate. So I listen only to what coaches tell me. A list of what I have will follow shortly. As you enter, please: 1. Provide first and last names of your students and judges. 2. Indicate constraints for judges: schools and/or teams they should not hear. 3. Provide infomration regarding dietary constraints of those in your party: vegan, vegetarian, kosher, etc. 4. Indicate if helpers, observers, or others will be attending with your party. Thanks. SD From atsst14+ Mon Mar 2 11:22:26 1998 From: atsst14+ (Almas T Sayeed) Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 12:22:26 -0500 Subject: Harvard's primate case In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Could someone (preferably Harvard but if you have the info then please fwd it) please send us the plan, cites, ads for Harvard's primate case? Thank you in advance Almas Sayeed University of Pittsburgh From lsd041 Mon Mar 2 12:20:25 1998 From: lsd041 (Scott Deatherage) Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 12:20:25 -0600 Subject: OFFICIAL NU NATIONAL NOVICE ENTRIES Message-ID: As of Monday, 3/2, Noon CST: Chicago: Joe Matise and Laura Sjoberg Judge: Marcia Tiersky Georgia: Wally Eastwood and Meredity Stein Judge: Kate Shuster Kansas: Ryan Hudson and Tom Seymour RJ Melman and Nathan Rodriguez Judges: Scott Harris (4); Josh Zive (4) Loyola (Chicago): Alison Eggers and Bridget McCauley Judge: David Romanelli Missouri Kansas City: Matt Baisley and Tommy Curry Judge: Eric Jenkins Northwestern: Leslie Johnson and Annie Kastanek Trace Johnson and Eli Kay-Oliphant Doug Redden and Robert Smith Judges: Tim Alderete (4); Greg Blankinship (4); Nate Smith (4) Pittsburgh: Almas Sayeed and Andrew Stangl Phil Ellwood and Eric English Judge: Gordon Mitchell Southwest Missouri: Trenton Gorman and Chris Wilt Judge: John Fritch I anticipate entries from (as I recall): Augustana (IL) Baylor Emory Harvard Michigan Michigan State North Carolina Redlands Wake Forest Perhaps others. SD From Arnie.Madsen Mon Mar 2 11:47:14 1998 From: Arnie.Madsen (Arnie Madsen) Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 11:47:14 -0600 Subject: Second Round Bid Information Message-ID: Potential Second Round At-Large Teams: Teams interested in applying for a second-round at-large bid to the NDT should remember that the application deadline is Thursday, March 5. Bids must be received by all members of the Committee no later than 5:00 pm CST. Model application forms are available on the NDT Director's Home Page. Go to the NDT Page at the URL listed below, and follow the link to the Director's Page. Teams applying for Second-Round At-Large Bids must have at least a fifty percent win/loss record in preliminary rounds prior to the District Tournaments. Teams applying for Second-Round At-Large Bids must also have participated in their District's Tournament/Ranking process. If you have any additional questions, 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 lsd041 Mon Mar 2 12:51:31 1998 From: lsd041 (Scott Deatherage) Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 12:51:31 -0600 Subject: District V Results Message-ID: 1. Michigan State BD 7-1 17 2. Northwestern SS 6-2 17 3. Wayne State AS 6-2 16 4. Michigan KR 6-2 15 ** Michigan State HM 5-3 15 ** Northwestern AN 5-3 14 5. Augustana 4-4 16 ** Michigan PS 4-4 15 6. Wayne State GL 4-4 14 7. Miami 4-4 13 8. John Carroll FS 3-5 9 I was tabulating, so I'm not too up on new cases. I know that Augustana ran Philipine Deforestation against AN, which was a new case for Augie, and that John Carroll ran a new case about Philipine Election Assistance against both AN and SS. Michigan KR was still running piracy; MSU BD still running Thai Sat Dat, and Michigan PS still running fish wars, but I can't say much more than that at this point. SD From suee Mon Mar 2 12:17:31 1998 From: suee (Sue E. Lowrie) Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 10:17:31 -0800 Subject: UNM please Message-ID: Hey...just wondering if you were going to go to Northwest CEDA champs AND if I could get your plan text specifics on you Mao affirmative! Thanks... Go Chaing Kai-Shek!! ;) Sue Lowrie Chico State Debate '97-98 "Demented and sad, but social." ****************************************** * The only possible alternative to * * being the oppressed or the oppressor * * is voluntary cooperation for the * * greatest good of all. * * --Errico Maletesta * ****************************************** From suee Mon Mar 2 12:28:06 1998 From: suee (Sue E. Lowrie) Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 10:28:06 -0800 Subject: NW Ceda champs case/teamlist Message-ID: Hey out there! Wondering if anyone would like to put together a list of teams that will be attending Champs in Oregon this weekend...I'll start! Chico will be sending four teams: Delano/King, Cupp/Lowrie, Sobalvarro/Loupe, Arbenz/Buckley Delano/King, Sobalvarro/Loupe, and Cupp/Lowrie appear on caselists...if you want plan texts backchannel me...Arbenz/Buckley were running a Prostitution case...will probably be running the same...again if you want plan text backchannel me! Thanks! Sue Lowrie Chico State Debate '97-98 "Demented and sad, but social." ****************************************** * The only possible alternative to * * being the oppressed or the oppressor * * is voluntary cooperation for the * * greatest good of all. * * --Errico Maletesta * ****************************************** From z955646 Mon Mar 2 12:32:11 1998 From: z955646 (Dedov) Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 12:32:11 -0600 Subject: Harvard's primate case In-Reply-To: Message-ID: ditto that Billy NIU On Mon, 2 Mar 1998, Almas T Sayeed wrote: > Could someone (preferably Harvard but if you have the info then please fwd > it) please send us the plan, cites, ads for Harvard's primate case? > Thank you in advance > Almas Sayeed > University of Pittsburgh > From joshcoffman Mon Mar 2 12:29:02 1998 From: joshcoffman (josh coffman) Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 10:29:02 PST Subject: Ryan Hudson Message-ID: Hey could you "backchannel" me? Thanks Josh -UMKC ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From spjarvis Mon Mar 2 12:55:30 1998 From: spjarvis (Jason Jarvis) Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 12:55:30 CST Subject: New District Affs. In-Reply-To: <3.0.16.19980302125128.09373e10@lulu.acns.nwu.edu> Message-ID: John Carroll's aff was Cambodian Election assistance (unless they ran more than one new case). They claim to provide monitor for the japanese/cambodian election agreement. Jason augie,il > I was tabulating, so I'm not too up on new cases. I know that Augustana > ran Philipine Deforestation against AN, which was a new case for Augie, and > that John Carroll ran a new case about Philipine Election Assistance > against both AN and SS. Michigan KR was still running piracy; MSU BD still > running Thai Sat Dat, and Michigan PS still running fish wars, but I can't > say much more than that at this point. > > SD > "For me there is only the traveling on paths that have heart, on any path that may have heart. There I travel, and the only worthwhile challenge is to traverse its full length. And there I travel looking, looking, breathlessly." --Don Juan From joshcoffman Mon Mar 2 13:15:12 1998 From: joshcoffman (josh coffman) Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 11:15:12 PST Subject: WAKE FOREST VIETNAM CASE Message-ID: Could someone who has the cites to the De Bomb Vietnam case send me them to me? Josh--UMKC ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From CUDb8R Mon Mar 2 13:16:34 1998 From: CUDb8R (CUDb8R) Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 14:16:34 EST Subject: Harvard's primate case Message-ID: Could I also get that info? Thanks Kirk Wilson Cameron University Debate From joshcoffman Mon Mar 2 13:31:31 1998 From: joshcoffman (josh coffman) Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 11:31:31 PST Subject: EMORY GENOCIDE STUDIES Message-ID: Hey could you all forward the cites (solvency esp) and plan text to me that would be great. Or how about anyone else who has them?? thanks Josh-UMKC ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From BoisBrule Mon Mar 2 13:31:27 1998 From: BoisBrule (BoisBrule) Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 14:31:27 EST Subject: Stannard Only, Please Message-ID: Matt, could you backchannel me please? Aaron Klemz SIU From sarge Mon Mar 2 13:54:26 1998 From: sarge (Srg. Rutledge) Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 14:54:26 -0500 Subject: Harvard's primate case In-Reply-To: Message-ID: could rochester get that stuff too? On Mon, 2 Mar 1998, Dedov wrote: > ditto that > > Billy > NIU > > On Mon, 2 Mar 1998, Almas T Sayeed wrote: > > > Could someone (preferably Harvard but if you have the info then please fwd > > it) please send us the plan, cites, ads for Harvard's primate case? > > Thank you in advance > > Almas Sayeed > > University of Pittsburgh > > > From asnider Mon Mar 2 14:04:09 1998 From: asnider (Alfred C. Snider) Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 15:04:09 -0500 Subject: Registering for CEDA Nationals Message-ID: I am back from the tournament this weekend at Syracuse, and I hope I can provide any information to those who still need it. A number of people have asked for and received extensions. 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 asnider Mon Mar 2 14:18:16 1998 From: asnider (Alfred C. Snider) Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 15:18:16 -0500 Subject: CEDA East Results Message-ID: Sorry if some of these results are partial, but the Varsity results pages seem to have vanished during the printing process. DEBATER OF THE YEAR: Jessica Wojtysiak, Cornell COACH OF THE YEAR: Sam Nelson, Rochester REGIONAL GRAND SWEEPSTAKES: Rochester REGIONAL SELECT SWEEPSTAKES: Rochester (won over Vermont on the last debate of the tournament, the novice finals....congrats!) FINAL ROUND JUDGE: Isaac Castillo, Rochester (vote by students) OPEN RESULTS: Close-out: Towson BE & Towson DF OPEN SPEAKERS: 1. Gulati, Rochester 2. Baker, Towson JV RESULTS Vermont SM 3-0 over Army RB 3rd. Cornell EH 4th Vermont PM JV SPEAKERS: 1. Snider, Vermont 2, Hightower, Cornell 3. Morgan, Vermont 4. Maratea, Army 5. Ruthe, Army NOVICE RESULTS: Rochester DS 3-0 over Vermont GM Losing in Semis to their own schools: Rochester MW & Vermont HS Others in Quarters: Towson JP (3) Army FK (5) Rochester BS (7) Army HB (8) NOVICE SPEAKERS: 1. Segaloff, Rochester 2. Meyers, Rochester 3. Desai, Rochester 4. Grover, Vermont 5. Mirabelli, Vermont 6. Faiella, Army 7. Becker, Rochester 8. Sroka, Ithaca 9. Pusca, Towson 10. Hoag, Vermont SPECIAL THANKS TO FRANK IRIZARRY AND ALL AT SYRACUSE FOR BEING SUCH EXCELLENT HOSTS. 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 mcmulpm5 Mon Mar 2 15:01:31 1998 From: mcmulpm5 (patrick) Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 16:01:31 -0500 Subject: Towson hotel room needed In-Reply-To: Message-ID: If you are planning on cancelling a room or rooms at the tournament hotel for Towson, please contact me first. Thanks Patrick McMullen Mary Washington College >From Mon Mar 2 17:12:46 1998 Message-Id: Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 17:12:46 -0800 Reply-To: viper at waycom.com To: Team Topic Debating in America From: J??-B?? Organization: W?????d H?gh S?h??? D?b?t? ?1998 Subject: join MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit i would like to join the list From jleviton Sun Mar 1 20:28:20 1998 From: jleviton (Jason Leviton) Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 02:28:20 +0000 Subject: PLU only Message-ID: Can someone from PLU please send me text of your plan, and also the sites of your solvency authors. Thanks Jason ******************************************************* Jason Leviton jleviton at gonzaga.edu Student of Philosophy and Political Science at GU ******************************************************* From mstein Mon Mar 2 17:29:07 1998 From: mstein (Meredith Stein) Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 18:29:07 -0500 Subject: Kansas and Louisville Message-ID: Could the plan texts and advs. that will be run at Novice Nationals be sent to me, please? thanks, -Meredith From Joseph_Coppola Mon Mar 2 11:32:23 1998 From: Joseph_Coppola (Joseph_Coppola) Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 17:32:23 +0000 Subject: Kansas and Louisville Message-ID: Could I also get a copy of that please. Thanks,Joseph. > Could the plan texts and advs. that will be run at Novice Nationals be > sent to me, please? > > thanks, > > -Meredith From bas6745 Mon Mar 2 17:36:43 1998 From: bas6745 (Brent Allen Siemers) Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 17:36:43 -0600 Subject: Paging TARA TATE Message-ID: Tara, Backchannel me ASAP about THE END OF THE YEAR PARTY???? Brent From andyspencer Mon Mar 2 18:11:16 1998 From: andyspencer (ANDY SPENCER) Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 16:11:16 PST Subject: Covert Ops Solvency Cards Message-ID: If anyone is using covert ops, could you send me the sovlvency cites? I appreciate it very much. PS. if anyone wants this too, just reply to me for this and if i get it you'll get it. Andy Spencer Panola College ______________________________________________ "YOU TELL EM I'M COMIN! TELL EM I'M COMIN AND HELL'S COMIN WITH ME!" -TOMBSTONE- ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From donaldst Mon Mar 2 18:56:25 1998 From: donaldst (Steven Dean Donald) Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 19:56:25 -0500 Subject: Anyone From Emory Message-ID: Dear Raj Goshal, Alison Chase, Anne Marie Todd, Larry Heftman, Steven Bailey, Jeff McNabb, Steven Heidt, His brother David "crazy" Heidt, Leslie Wade, Shanara Reid, Chris Lundberg, George Kouros, Dan Fitzmeir, Vic Tabak, Julia Eno, Jon Paul Lupo, Katie Matt, Mike Horowitz, Nessa Horowitch, Kmal Ghali, A. Sahni, Bill Newnam, Jamie Mckown, Jason Friedman, Hank L. Tomlinson, and Melissa Wade and the rest of the crew, Surely one of you can assist me in compiling the cites to your malaysian deforestation affirmative, or who I should mail to get them. I, and the rest of the community, would deeply appreciate it. Your dear friend and brother, Steven Donald MSU Debate From LPCK66A Mon Mar 2 19:30:07 1998 From: LPCK66A (MR JOSEPH P ZOMPETTI) Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 20:30:07 -0500 Subject: New Case Correction Message-ID: John Carroll's new aff wasn't Philippine election assistance...the aided with the Cambodian election by providing PKO's to ensure "free and fair elections" including helicopter transportation of all Cambodian nationals for the election. zompetti From m982178 Mon Mar 2 19:55:16 1998 From: m982178 (Midn Titus L Fortner) Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 20:55:16 -0500 Subject: ADA Rankings as of 3/1/98 Message-ID: Points Include: King's, Duquesne, Liberty, Penn State, Mason, Navy and GW ADA Nationals will be the only other tournament to add... Let me know if you have any questions or problems with these points. Titus Fortner Navy Debate Team Captain -------------- TOTAL 1 Liberty 388 2 Mason 249 3 Navy 238 4 BC 186 5 MWC 154 6 GW 118 7 Pitt 106 8 Towson 104 9 Cornell 103 10 S. Carolina 82 11 Penn St 74 12 Methodist 66 13 Georgetown 66 14 Trinity 65 15 WVU 63 16 Wayne 57 17 Allegheny 56 18 Duquesne 54 19 Madison 53 20 Duke 44 21 John Carroll 42 22 Clarion 35 23 Vermont 34 24 Army 33 25 Louisville 31 26 Scranton 29 27 Wake 29 28 King's 29 29 Samford 25 30 Harvard 22 31 Clemson 19 32 NY 17 33 Binghamton 17 34 Shepherd 17 35 Capital 16 36 Hillsdale 16 37 North Carolina 13 38 Case W. 13 39 Georgia 11 40 U Mich 10 41 Rochester 8 42 Augustana 8 43 Richmond 8 44 Mansfield 4 45 Emory 4 46 Buffalo 2 47 Northampton 1 NOVICE 1 Liberty 159 2 Navy 144 3 Mason 87 4 S. Carolina 57 5 Towson 56 6 Methodist 56 7 MWC 45 8 Pitt 45 9 BC 43 10 WVU 40 11 Allegheny 32 12 Cornell 30 13 Scranton 29 14 Clarion 27 15 Duquesne 27 16 John Carroll 24 17 Wayne 24 18 Penn 19 19 Clemson 19 20 King's 18 21 Binghamton 17 22 Shepherd 17 23 Capital 16 24 Duke 13 25 Hillsdale 13 26 Louisville 12 27 Vermont 11 28 U Mich 10 29 Trinity 7 30 Madison 7 31 Mansfield 4 32 Augustana 4 33 Army 4 34 Wake 3 35 North Carolina 3 36 Buffalo 2 37 Case W. 2 38 Northampton 1 JUNIOR 1 Liberty 119 2 BC 105 3 MWC 71 4 Mason 67 5 Navy 66 6 Penn 55 7 Cornell 53 8 Pitt 38 9 Duke 31 10 Georgetown 30 11 S. Carolina 25 12 WVU 23 13 Allegheny 20 14 Vermont 19 15 Duquesne 17 16 Army 17 17 Towson 16 18 Wake 15 19 GW 13 20 Madison 12 21 Harvard 12 22 John Carroll 11 23 Case W. 11 24 King's 10 25 Methodist 10 26 NY 10 27 Clarion 8 28 North Carolina 6 29 Richmond 5 30 Louisville 4 31 Rochester 4 32 Hillsdale 3 VARSITY 1 Liberty 110 2 GW 105 3 Mason 95 4 Trinity 58 5 MWC 38 6 BC 38 7 Georgetown 36 8 Madison 34 9 Wayne 33 10 Towson 32 11 Navy 28 12 Samford 25 13 Pitt 23 14 Cornell 20 15 Louisville 15 16 Army 12 17 Wake 11 18 Georgia 11 19 Harvard 10 20 Duquesne 10 21 John Carroll 7 22 NY 7 23 Vermont 4 24 Allegheny 4 25 Rochester 4 26 Augustana 4 27 North Carolina 4 28 Emory 4 29 Richmond 3 30 King's 1 From jmeany Mon Mar 2 11:58:46 1998 From: jmeany (John Meany) Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 17:58:46 +0000 Subject: Topic papers Message-ID: Do topic papers have to be completed by CEDA nationals for consideration by the topic committee? If so, do they need to be distributed to the committee members prior to the meeting at nationals or posted to the listserv or debate central? I had planned on writing a topic paper on the issue of human sexuality and have brilliant collaborators for the project but would prefer to have some additional time to integrate the ideas from others. What is the final date for submission and to whom, in addition to Gina Lane, should papers be sent? John Meany Claremont Colleges >From Mon Mar 2 19:07:01 1998 Message-Id: Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 19:07:01 MST7MDT Reply-To: WEST at CENTRUM.CN.SUU.EDU To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Terry West Organization: Southern Utah University Subject: Re: Covert Ops Solvency Cards We COULD send them to you, but then we'd have to kill you. Suharto SUU > Date sent: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 16:11:16 PST > Send reply to: ANDY SPENCER > From: ANDY SPENCER > Subject: Covert Ops Solvency Cards > To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU > If anyone is using covert ops, could you send me the sovlvency cites? > > I appreciate it very much. > > PS. if anyone wants this too, just reply to me for this and if i get it > you'll get it. > > > > Andy Spencer > Panola College > ______________________________________________ > > "YOU TELL EM I'M COMIN! TELL EM I'M COMIN AND HELL'S COMIN WITH ME!" > -TOMBSTONE- > > > ______________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com > From lheller Mon Mar 2 20:32:28 1998 From: lheller (Lisa K. Heller) Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 21:32:28 -0500 Subject: SEARCHING FOR INFORMATION Message-ID: >Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Feb 1998 21:33:55 -0500 (EST) >Resent-From: owner-debate-team at urvax.urich.edu >Date: Sat, 28 Feb 1998 21:30:59 -0500 >From: _DEFAULT >Subject: SEARCHING FOR INFORMATION >To: debate-team at urvax.urich.edu >Resent-reply-to: debate-team at richmond.edu >Reply-to: sommers at bellatlantic.net >X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) > >Ladies and Gentlemen: > I serve as an adjunct instructor at a local community college, and am >exploring the possibility of beginning a forensic program there. Could >you provide me with any and all information you might have about schools >on the East Coast withdebate programs, tournaments in the east, and any >coaches' names. Thanks in advance for your help. > > Dean S. Sommers, Wenonah, NJ > > From meaves Mon Mar 2 22:07:57 1998 From: meaves (Michael_Eaves) Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 23:07:57 -0500 Subject: Vermont 98 WDI Dates? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Does anyone, like Tuna, know the EXACT dates for WDI--summer 1998 in Burlington? Deadlines for applications forms to be in by? Curious Mike Eaves VSU Debate From kcd5 Tue Mar 3 00:20:18 1998 From: kcd5 (Kristin Chisholm Dybvig) Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 00:20:18 -0600 Subject: Towson rooms Message-ID: I have two rooms at the tournament hotel for Towson that I am going to drop. If you need one, let me know by tomorrow. Kristin Dybvig Cornell Debate Dept. of Communication Cornell University Kennedy Hall 202 Ithaca, NY 14853 607-255-8046 From broda Tue Mar 3 07:15:37 1998 From: broda (Kenneth Broda-bahm) Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 08:15:37 -0500 Subject: Towson Updates Message-ID: An updated team list for the Towson University Tournament will be posted today. A reasonably up-to-date list of the teams entered and caselist information that we have at this point is being maintained on our website: http://www.towson.edu/~broda/speechanddebate *Enhance your prestige by posting your school's case info. Send it to sellis1 at tiger.towson.edu --See you at Towson From dworth1 Wed Mar 4 08:16:19 1998 From: dworth1 (David Worth) Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 08:16:19 -0600 Subject: Joe Boyle Message-ID: Joe, Please backchannel me. DW From broda Tue Mar 3 08:35:38 1998 From: broda (Kenneth Broda-bahm) Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 09:35:38 -0500 Subject: Tuesday Morning Team List, Towson Message-ID: This is the School and Team list for the TU tournaments as of 8:00 AM EDT, Tuesday March 2nd. The deadline isn't until 5:00, so there is still plenty of time for this list to increase. *This year the tournament t-shirt will feature a U.S. map with lines radiating from Towson to each city represented in the tournament, so IF YOU WANT TO BE ON THE SHIRT, MAKE SURE YOUR ENTRY IS ON TIME 5pm EDT. SCHOOLS Air Force Claremount Cornell Depaul Eastern New Mexico Emporia George Mason Hillsdale Illinois State Johnson County Kansas State Liberty Louisiana State Marquette Mary Washington Methodist College Michigan-Dearborn Morehouse Middle Tennessee Northampton North Carolina Northern Iowa Northern Illinois Pepperdine Pittsburgh Richmond Sam Houston Sacramento (CSU) San Jose Scranton Southeast Missouri Southern Illinois Syracuse Texas El Paso Washington (St. Louis) Webster Wheaton Wisonsin Osh Kosh OPEN Air Force - Shawn Briscoe & Luke Savoie Air Force - Marshall McMullen & Ryan Sullivan Depaul - Becky Jenks & Kristi Plamann Eastern New Mexico - Barreto & Foy Emporia - Tara Tate & Shannon Holland Mary Washington - Rebecca Green & Amber Tussing Middle Tennessee - Laurie Ishak & Daniel Crews Northern Illinois - Billy Cripe & Jami Bullis Richmond - Mark Arnold & Ben Bates Southern Illionois - Eric Slusher & Geoff Smith Southern Illinois - Matt Moore & Joey Vuglia JUNIOR VARSITY Air Force - Chris DiNote & Jess Trafecanty Air Force - Andy Meudt & Ryan Pelkola Claremount - Cecilia Cho & Camille Ryan Cornell - Melinda Hightower & Mike Cole Cornell - Caren Spencer & Beth Kronk Cornell - Matt Miller & Rob Melton Depaul - Chris Truesdell & Mike Horowitz Emporia - Tony Nation & Brad Areheart Emporia - Rob Gilligan & Marie Baenig Illinois State - Sunny Kelly & Kevin Suess Johnson County - Tom O'Toole & Adam Sokoloff Kansas State - Josh Longbottom & Kevin Zollman Kansas State - Hugh McCollough & Andrew Spencer Liberty - Rochelle Ringsmuth & Michael Tilley Liberty - Leah Frazier & Hannah Vick Louisiana State - Emily Mancina & William Winters Marquette - Tim Dale & Kiley Kane Marquette - Kyle Strupp & Kate Phillips Mary Washington - Kate O'Konski & Kristin Scott Methodist - Suzan Graves & Alexis Parmenter Michigan-Dearborn - Taimaa Hussein & Aiman Mackie North Carolina - Peter Bermel & Richard Curlee Northern Illinois - Adrian Cherikos & Jamie Zite Northern Iowa - Jenn Mumm & Sara Sheller Pepperdine - Brenda Zeimet & Thomas Manakides Pepperdine - Cober Plucker & Kristina Sun Pepperdine - Jenna McGrath & Alexis Gorton Pittsburgh - Jolena Sterner & Melissa Monteres Pittsburgh - Chris Burdick & Mark Denardis San Jose - Marcus Walton & Sara Chan Texas El Paso - Robert Jones & Leigh Mayo Washington (St. Louis) - Mathew Crawford & Ravi Rao Wheaton - David Wittig & Judy Swanson NOVICE Air Force - Rashad Howard & Amanda Myers Cornell - Jennifer Edwards & Kelly Olino Depaul - Julie Darr & Rich Wiltse Ithaca College - Kim Sroka & Damon Hagen Eastern New Mexico - Dunn & Conklin Hillsdale - Robert Busby & Abel Winn Hillsdale - Joel Schellhammer & Sarah Parker Hillsdale - Mary Moorman & Jesse Rine Hillsdale - Melinda Wilcox & Emily Crookston Illinois State - Khalil Marrar & Marcine LaFountain Illinois State - Jef Powell & Emily Fleisher Liberty - Jared Woodard & Nick Yingst Liberty - Shanna Twigg & Katey Walker Louisville - Melodie Humphrey & Haley DeVanna Methodist - Greg Thomas & Daniel Charpentier Michigan-Dearborn - Tania Hajal & Joe Hosang Northampton - Tunya Butterfield & Ronald Moll North Carolina - John Stonestreet & Aaron Mayer Northern Illinois - Jeff Drury & Donald Price Northern Iowa - Anjeanette Christensen & Mandy Southard Northern Iowa - T.W. Ross & Tony Stephenson Pepperdine - Meredith Sullivan & Emily Allardyce Richmond - Kelly Ferguson & Anthony Kiriluscha Richmond - Mighty Joe Keeton & Drew Demarinis Sam Houston - Jim Gibson & Jerad Waters Sacramento - Marie VanAssendelft & Nicole Kipp San Jose - Jim Xhang & Alex Kramer Scranton - Kieth Sigured & Julie Finn Southeast Missouri - Marcus Stephens & Ryann Juden Syracuse - Emile Khader & Mike Kaveney Texas El Paso - Jonathan Kruse & Ross Hytnen Webster - Serena Jones & Shawn Roberts Wheaton - Lindsey Zimmerman & Torrey Babson Wheaton - Bill Smiljanich & Anthony Gostanian Wheaton - Josh Montgomery & Vincent Scalfani Wisconsin Osh Kosh - Todd Simonis & David Torbenson JUDGE Rachel Woodward - Air Force - full (jv, nov) John Cinnamon - Air Force - full Pam Stepp - Cornell - full Jeff Archibald - Cornell - half Wynn Wilcox - Cornell - half Kristin Dybvig - Cornell - half Marcy Halpin - Depaul - full Steve Whitson - Depaul - half Jackie Massey - Eastern New Mexico - full Rodger Biles - Emporia - Full John Lama - Hillsdale - full Anna Doncyson - Hillsdale - full Rachel Santine - Illinois State - half Molly Munson - Illinois State - half Rich McCollum - Johnson County - half Monte Stevens - Kansas State - half Brent Siemers - Kansas State - half Cary Voss - Liberty - full Heather Hall - Liberty - full Rob Abrams - Louisiana State - half John Monberg - Louisville - half Nicole Leilich - Marquette - full (Nov.) Patrick McMullen - Mary Washington - full John Humphreys - Methodist - full Bob Bryant - Michigan Dearborn Mike Krueger - Middle Tennessee - half Robert McKenzie - Northampton - half (nov) Jason Ingram - North Carolina - half Frank Bender - North Carolina - half Kate Palczewski - Northern Iowa - Full Bridget Godes - Northern Iowa - Half - (Nov.) Kellie Cripe - Northern Illinois - half Kerith Woodyard - Northern Illinois - full Greg Achten - Pepperdine - full Marce Luck - Pepperdine - full Maxwell Schnurer - Pittsburgh - half Ron Von Burg - Pittsburgh - half Michele Walls - Richmond - half(Sat, Sun only) Lisa K. Heller - Richmond - full(no 4,5) Debbi Hatton - Sam Houston - half Kimo Ah Yun - Sacramento - half Ben Nourian - Scranton - half Jennifer Rigdon - Southeast Missouri - half Greg Simerly - Southern Illinois - half (Nov., no elims) Glen Frappier - Southern Illinois - half (elims only) Jeremy Hutchins - Southern Illinois - full Geoff Anderson - Syracuse - full Lorena Donnellan - Texas El Paso - full (nov, jr) Gina Jensen - Webster - half Alicia VanDyke - Wheaton - full Jay Chandra - Wheaton - full Steve Herro - Wisconsin Osh Kosh - half From asnider Tue Mar 3 09:52:15 1998 From: asnider (Alfred C. Snider) Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 10:52:15 -0500 Subject: Vermont 98 WDI Dates? Message-ID: >Does anyone, like Tuna, know the EXACT dates for WDI--summer 1998 in >Burlington? > >Deadlines for applications forms to be in by? > >Curious > >Mike Eaves >VSU Debate EWVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW, AND APPLICATIONS AND SCHOLARSHIP FORMS ARE AVAILABLE AT THE WEB SITE: http://debate.uvm.edu/ndi.html Here is information: WORLD DEBATE INSTITUTE University of Vermont -- 16th Summer of Excellence in Debate Education HERE IS THE BASIC INFORMATION ABOUT WDI 1998 PROGRAMS WORLD DEBATE INSTITUTE PROGRAMS FOR DEBATERS College Policy Debate Workshop 8/1-8/15/98 America's largest summer program for college team topic debaters. Comprehensive preparation for debating the 1998-99 CEDA/NDT national topic. Skill and theory training for students at all levels of experience. $800 Application, Tuition, Housing, Copying, T-shirt College Parliamentary Debate Workshop 8/8-8/15/98 Complete training and practice for engaging in parliamentary debating in all of its formats [American, Canadian, British, etc.]. Skill and theory training for students at all levels of experience. $300 Application, Tuition, Housing, Copying, T-shirt High School Policy Debate Workshop 8/1-8/15/98 16 years of academic excellence. Fully integrated with advanced instruction on skill and theory issues with the college program, but separate research program for 1998-99 national high school debate topic. For students at all levels of experience. $850 Application, Tuition, Housing, Copying, T-shirt High School Lincoln-Douglas Debate Workshop 8/8-8/15/98 Complete training and practice for engaging in high school Lincoln-Douglas debating at all levels of experience. Special focus on value construction, speaking skills, and philosophical argumentation. $350 Application, Tuition, Housing, Copying, T-shirt SPECIAL PROGRAMS FOR DEBATERS International Debate Workshop 8/1-8/15/98 Designed for students from outside the USA. Now in its third year! Personal, small group instruction in pedagogical, practical, and competitive aspects of a variety of formats for academic and public debates. Includes daily seminars, workshops, and orientation to a wide variety of debate formats (parliamentary, policy, Lincoln-Douglas, public debate, etc.) as well as access to all other portions of the WDI program. $500 Application, Tuition, Housing, Copying, T-shirt Future Stars Workshop 7/31-8/1/98 Students with less experience are encouraged to attend this intensive pre-WDI program to gain a basic grounding in the theory, practice, and skill of team topic debating. $100 Application, Tuition, Housing Debate Fellowship Program (High School and College) 8/1-8/15/98 Students who have graduated from the program in previous years will be offered the normal program but will also participate in a lower priced but enriched program of advanced research as well as theoretical and practical instruction to replace the basic lecture series. Includes limited amount of responsibility critiquing debates. Admission is competitive. $600 Application, Tuition, Housing, Copying, T-shirt (college) $650 Application, Tuition, Housing, Copying, T-shirt (high school) PROGRAMS FOR COACHES American Coaching Workshop 8/1-8/15/98 Personal, small group instruction in pedagogical, practical, and competitive aspects of coaching academic debate. Includes daily seminars, judging workshops, and orientation to upcoming national topics as well as access to all other portions of the WDI program. Available for high school and college coaches. $500 Application, Tuition, Housing, Copying, T-shirt ADMISSION TO PROGRAMS Get an application and fill it out. Receive an acceptance form. Return it with a $200 deposit to guarantee admission. Because of increased attendance and limited dormitory space an upper limit will be put on admissions. Balance due at beginning of program. Schools can be billed for students attending by prior arrangement only. FINANCIAL AID Submit applications for financial aid by June 1, 1998. Awards will be made immediately. Applications must be complete in order to be considered. Awards are available for debaters and coaches. Last year NDI scholarship awards exceeded $14,000. Awards are based on financial need and depth of commitment. CONTACT US: World Debate Institute, Box 54225, Univ. of Vermont, Burlington, VT 05405-4225 asnider at zoo.uvm.edu 802-656-0097 voice; 802-656-4275 fax http://debate.uvm.edu/ndi.html HISTORY "I think that it truly is boot camp for the brain. I enjoyed it." Since the 1950's the University of Vermont has been a center for national debate education through its summer programs. In 1983 this tradition was reinvigorated by the creation of the National Debate Institute, a national summer program for competitive debaters. After ten previous years of working at summer programs on other campuses, the core senior staff founded the NDI program. Since 1983 the program has grown and matured into one where the faculty consists of highly published debate theoreticians and strategists along with national champion debaters and coaches who draw students from over 30 states. In 1997 the name of the program was changed from "National Debate Institute" to "World Debate Institute" to reflect the increasingly international nature of attendees and the debate community. The WDI program is the largest summer debate institute in the nation for college students. For high school students, the NDI program has been recognized by the National Forensic League, has been supported by grants from Phillips Petroleum, and has been chosen as one of the top four programs in the nation to act as a barometer of where the upcoming high school topic will be headed. WDI is a non-profit educational program of the University of Vermont. It is managed by the University, not by someone renting campus facilities, as is so often the case. PHILOSOPHY "It's one of those challenging, pivotal, aggravating, wonderful points in your debate career. Definitely memorable." The World Debate Institute is a unique academic program. Its conceptual foundations include: -QUALITY: Faculty members are skilled college and university coaches with lengthy experience at summer instruction, not college debaters seeking summer employment. -INTENSITY: The program styles itself as "Boot camp for the brain." It seeks to challenge students to do more than they have done before as well as more than they think they are capable of, but all in an environment to provide the support that young people need. The program is intense, and it is by no means "easy." -COMMUNITY: The program stresses the creation of a cooperative atmosphere so that students and faculty can freely share ideas and research. Each student is asked to give what they are able to give, and all students are supported and nurtured in their personal attempts at improvement. This program is an opportunity to transcend, if just for a couple of weeks, the competition and elitism which can be a problem in academic debate. -RESPECT: Each individual student is seen as being intelligent and capable, although some are more experienced than others. Students at all levels of experience are given tasks and challenges which respect their abilities and recognizes their future achievements. FACULTY "The faculty was awesome and they helped me improve in every area possible." "The faculty is just plainly phenomenal." "The best part about this institute was the willingness and ability of the staff to adapt and change according to the needs and desires of the students." "Working with debate big names, national champions, and best speakers was very, very inspiring and an enriching experience." Summer, 1998 Faculty included those listed below, but new and outstanding faculty members will be added. DIRECTOR Dr. Alfred C. "Tuna" Snider, University of Vermont Outstanding college debater at Brown University, Third place 1972 NDT, 25 years as college coach, originator of gaming paradigm, 1993 National Coach of the Year, one of the most widely published debate theorists in the world. 1997-98 CEDA President. 16th WDI year. FACULTY Dr. David Berube, University of South Carolina Most widely published debate theorist, guru of high tech arguments, publisher of more college debate handbooks than anyone in history. Coach of the Year for 1994. Masters degree from Montclair State, doctoral degree from New York University. 13th WDI year. Josh Hoe, University of North Texas National CEDA champion and outstanding coach at Central Oklahoma and Arizona State. After many years at the Arizona Debate Institute Josh will be joining the WDI staff. J. Connell, William & Mary Law School Top speaker at CEDA Nationals 1993 as debater for Florida State University. Second Place at CEDA Nationals 1992. 5th WDI year. Jamey Dumas, Gonzaga University Top debater and coach for Cornell. Teams have placed in top 5 in all divisions nationally. 1996 Gonzaga team finished 3rd at CEDA Nationals. 3rd WDI year. Gina Ercolini, Pennsylvania State University Top debater for Chico, now enrolled in graduate school. WDI graduate. 2nd WDI year. Pat Gehrke, Pennsylvania State University Quarterfinalist at 1995 CEDA Nationals. Kritik advocate. Now enrolled in graduate school. WDI graduate. 4th WDI year. Tracy Gonos, University of Michigan Law School Top seed at 1994 CEDA Nationals. Outstanding debater for Florida State University and UMKC. 5th WDI year. Jethro Hayman, University of Vermont Top debater for University of Vermont. 3rd place at 1996 CEDA Nationals. WDI graduate. 3rd WDI year. Paul Hayes, Michigan State University Won 11 tournaments for UMKC in 1994-95 season. #1 team in Coaches Poll. Third place at CEDA Nationals 1994 & 1995. Now a top national level collegiate coach. 4th WDI year. WDI graduate. Jan Hovden, University of Vermont Outstanding college debater at University of Central Oklahoma and University of North Dakota. Quarterfinalist at 1994 CEDA Nationals. Academic All American in 1994. Two time qualifier for the Jesuit Round Robin. Coached the 1995 Jesuit Round Robin winners. 4th WDI year. Paul Kerr, University of South Carolina Outstanding college debater for University of Vermont. Successful coaching stint at University of Rochester. Now a graduate student in International Studies. 3rd WDI year. John Meany, Claremont Colleges 20 years as college coach. Outstanding college debater at Boston College, Top Speaker at 1975 National Round Robin. Innovative argument theorist. In 1993-94 his teams placed in the national top ten in CEDA, LD, and Parliamentary debate. 15th WDI year. Gordie Miller, University of Vermont Outstanding debater, won four tournaments in 1994-95, #1 varsity debater in the East 1994-95. NDI graduate in high school and college. 3rd WDI year. Eric Morris, Southwest Missouri State University Outstanding college debater for SMS. Masters degree from Kansas State. Coached successfully at Missouri Southern. Coached the 1996 Jesuit Round Robin championship team. 3rd WDI year. Steve Woods, William Jewell College 8 years as college coach. Masters degree from Kansas State, PhD Florida State. Coached national champions and top speaker at nationals. Voted 1994-95 Best Judge in East. 5th WDI year. GUEST LECTURERS Melissa Wade, Emory University 1995 Brownlee Award winner. Masterminds largest debate squad in the nation, excelling in CEDA and NDT. Coach of the Year in 1991. Community leader in debate outreach to unserved populations, including inner city and rural schools. Debate's most dynamic lecturer. Kate Shuster, Emory University 1996 NDT champion, pioneer in application of critiques to policy debate, veteran of numerous high school institutes. 3rd WDI year. LECTURE SERIES "Favorite things: lectures, practice rounds, great faculty, motivating environment, commitment to excellence." The WDI lecture series is a lot more than just a series of talks about debate theory and techniques which the lecturers have heard about. At WDI theory lectures are given by leading debate theorists who have been instrumental in creating new theoretical perspectives through publication and coaching. At WDI skill and technique lectures are given by extremely experienced coaches and former national champions. College debaters will not be lecturing but listening as some of the finest minds in debate share their insights. The lecture series is carefully planned and implemented to make sure students receive a full grounding in debate and argument theory, an in-depth introduction to the most advanced debate theory in existence, a chance to explore new and innovative approaches to the debate activity, and a comprehensive set of instructions on specific skills by those who used them to succeed. Hear about paradigms from the leading published theorist in paradigms, hear about the "Psychology of Winning" from National Champions and National Top Speakers, learn about electronic research from a master of the internet. Each lecture will be accompanied by a detailed written outline of its contents. EVIDENCE AND RESEARCH "This institute is much more organized and more productive. The overall quality of the evidence is 150% better." "I've now compared them all -- NDI's evidence set is way better, more recent, better organized, more useful." "I really appreciated the typing of all tags and sources on evidence." The University of Vermont has one of the finest and most user friendly libraries in America. Unlike other institutes, students will have full borrowing privileges. Enrolled students will have access to the widest array of electronic research tools available at any summer program, including 24 Lexis-Nexis passwords. All research is done by small, faculty-directed groups. All briefs produced will be shared with all students. All briefs are edited and approved by faculty members. All sources and tag lines are typed. Last year's evidence set was of legendary proportions. Last year's evidence set index available upon request. All photocopying costs are covered by the program. This is worth approximately $95 a week based on previous copying rates. Banks of Macs and PCs are available for student use along with laser printers. We have upgraded our word processing facilities. PRACTICE DEBATES AND SKILL DRILLS To really learn how to debate, a student must debate and receive constructive feedback. At WDI students average six debates each week. Each debate is critiqued by a staff member in a way which emphasizes teaching and learning, not just "who won." A series of Skill Drills will be offered during the program for students to use. These daily drills will focus on: delivery (clarity, coverage, speed), organization, evidence analysis, argument invention, flowing, debating theory, and other topics. UNIQUE ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE "Senior top level debaters have a lot to learn from this." "I really appreciated the support shown to less experienced debaters." The WDI program is designed to meet the needs of all debaters -- from beginners to seasoned debate veterans. This is done by targeting those with less experience for additional introductory instruction without separating them from the more experienced debaters. At the same time, students with more experience are given additional and more challenging assignments. Students of different experience levels will work together in small groups with a faculty member so that the contribution and learning experience of all is maximized. More experienced students are allowed to show leadership while less experienced students gain exposure to high levels of argument preparation and instruction. There will be no "labs." Students receive basic instruction as one large group, with special sessions for students with differing experience levels. Students are assigned to argument groups where, for example, six students and a faculty member will work on researching and briefing one disadvantage, while in another example ten students and two faculty members will work on an affirmative case. The WDI system has been tested and refined over the years. It is a "cooperative" model for a learning community. We believe that the lab system as it currently exists at most institutes is counterproductive. It creates divisions, needless competition, traps students with only one or two faculty members, creates "inside" and "outside" groups, and prevents all students from sharing the combined research output. The WDI cooperative system allows students to become integrated into the academic work of the program, prevents counterproductive competitive tensions, allows students to work with many faculty members, and allows each student to take home the combined research and argument output of the entire program. Additionally, the structure allows students who need more instruction and assistance in a certain area to seek it easily and without embarrassment. At the same time, WDI graduate Fellows benefit from closer working relationships with faculty at a more advanced level. DORMITORIES, MEALS, AND FACILITIES Students will be staying in handsome college dormitories. We have secured one of the nicest facilities on campus. Students will be housed in doubles, and may request a particular roommate. Dormitories have complete laundry facilities. The dormitories are within a few minutes walk of the classroom space and the libraries. Meal options are varied and should be tailored to meet individual student needs. Students should consider one of these options or some combination of these options: -Pre-paid meal plan in University dining halls. -Pre-purchased meal card for use at University dining halls. -Cash purchases at University dining halls and lunch facilities. -Kitchens available in the dormitories -Use of any of the dozens of eating establishments within a few minutes walk. BURLINGTON AND THE UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT "The best lectures anywhere, best staff, cool downtown area." "Wonderful people, faculty, students, and the town of Burlington were just a blast." The University of Vermont has a beautifully landscaped and wooded campus located on a hill overlooking Lake Champlain. The center of the campus is the "University Green" bequeathed by Ira Allen. There are fountains, benches, and nearby open spaces for youthful play. Basketball courts and gym facilities are also available. Burlington is one of America's most beautiful towns. A four season tourist attraction, it is full of interesting eating establishments, shops, coffee houses, and entertainment facilities. It has been rated as one of America's most livable cities. It retains a small town Vermont charm and is free from the crime and decay which characterizes many urban areas. Summer in Vermont is delightful, with the temperature hovering in the 80's and almost never reaching the 90's. Humidity is low and outdoor activities are common and comfortable. TRANSPORTATION PLAN TO ARRIVE ON 7/31 AND TO LEAVE ON 8/15. NO HOUSING AVAILABLE ON THE NIGHT OF 8/15. The Burlington International Airport is well served by USAir (through Pittsburgh and Philadelphia), United (through Chicago), Delta (through Boston), and other major carriers. Early purchasers can take advantage of discount fares. Contact Marty at 802-656-2233 for travel assistance. We will have hourly shuttles to pick students up at the Burlington Airport, but you must sign up for this service. Students can save additional money by flying into Boston's Logan Airport. Students arriving in Boston on 7/31 BEFORE 5 PM and departing on 8/15 AFTER 11 AM may sign up for an NDI Boston Airport-Burlington Shuttle for $40 round trip. LIMITED SHUTTLE SPACE! MAKE PLANS EARLY! A clean and convenient bus station is located downtown. If we know of your arrival time WDI staff will be on hand to pick students up when they arrive at any of these two locations, as well as transport them back when they leave Burlington. By car Burlington is 5 hours from New York City and 3.5 hours from Boston. SCHOLARSHIPS Each year WDI offers scholarships to needy students to attend. In 1997 NDI awarded over $14,000 in scholarships. This can be done because WDI is a non-profit program of the University. No student should consider lack of funds to be an insurmountable barrier to attending WDI. Scholarships are made available based on certifiable need, student credentials and reference, and a student essay. Scholarship applications must be complete by June 1, 1998. Forms are available when you get an application. FEES AND APPLICATIONS All students are accepted when their application is complete and their $200 deposit is paid. Payment of all fees are due at the start of the program on July 31, 1998. Applications received after June 1, 1998 will be charged a $75 late fee. Payments can be made by check or credit card (Master or Visa only). Schools may be billed for the fees of their students by prior arrangement only. All checks must be payable to "WDI-Univ. of Vermont" NO REFUNDS AVAILABLE AFTER 15 JULY 1998! For more information, please contact us: World Debate Institute Box 54225, University of Vermont Burlington, VT 05405-4225 802-656-0097 voice 802-656-4275 fax asnider at zoo.uvm.edu email Questions? Email us! 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 lsd041 Tue Mar 3 11:18:02 1998 From: lsd041 (Scott Deatherage) Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 11:18:02 -0600 Subject: OFFICIAL NU NATIONAL NOVICE ENTRIES Message-ID: 31 Teams as of Tuesday, 3/3, 11:00 a.m. CST: Augustana (IL): Nathan Berish and Kate Charles Judge: Jason Jarvis Baylor: Meredith Black and Megan Martin Joseph Coppola and Alan Henson Judge: Toby Arquete (4); Hire (4) Chicago: Joe Matise and Laura Sjoberg Judge: Corey Todero Emory: Stephen Bailey and Kamal Ghali Blake Eno and Ben Goodrich David Harkin and Joey Tavery Hetal Doshi and Amir Ghavi Jason Friedman and Aaron Klink Judges: Bill Newnam (6); David Heidt (7); Chris Lundberg (7) Georgia: Wally Eastwood and Meredity Stein Judge: Kate Shuster Harvard: Aram Harrow and Dan Schrage Nicholas Hanssens and Shafeeqa Watkins Judges: Sherry Hall (2); Paul Skiermont (3); Scott Hessell (3) Kansas: Ryan Hudson and Tom Seymour RJ Melman and Nathan Rodriguez Judges: Scott Harris (4); Josh Zive (4) Loyola (Chicago): Alison Eggers and Bridget McCauley Judge: David Romanelli Michigan: Jonah Feldman and Dan Samson Mario DeMarco (Wake Forest) and Matt Mish Judges: Steve Mancuso (4); Adrienne Brovero (4) Missouri Kansas City: Matt Baisley and Tommy Curry Judge: Eric Jenkins Michigan State: Tara O'Dowd and Orion Smith Judge: Jason Trice North Carolina: Matt Fogharty and Rashad Hussain Judge: Cori Dauber Northwestern: Leslie Johnson and Annie Kastanek Trace Johnson and Eli Kay-Oliphant Doug Redden and Robert Smith Judges: Tim Alderete (4); Greg Blankinship (4); Nate Smith (4) Pittsburgh: Almas Sayeed and Andrew Stangl Phil Ellwood and Eric English Judge: Gordon Mitchell Southwest Missouri: Trenton Gorman and Chris Wilt Judge: John Fritch Wake Forest: Jarrod Atchison and Andrew Ryan Michael Bonura and Cyclone Covey Elizabeth Ellis and Wesley Lotz Amy Powell and Mark Yopp Thomas Allen and Thomas Loquvum Mario DeMarco and Matt Mish (Michigan) Judges: Elisha Cohen (8); Jim Lyle (8); Hire (6) Perhaps others. SD From lheller Tue Mar 3 11:44:27 1998 From: lheller (Lisa K. Heller) Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 12:44:27 -0500 Subject: Tree-free paper Message-ID: >>>Resent-date: Tue, 03 Mar 1998 07:25:10 -0500 >>Date: Tue, 03 Mar 1998 07:24:33 -0500 (EST) >>Resent-from: ecotalk at earthsystems.org >>From: Ecolady >>Subject: Helping to Promote Recycled and Tree-Free Paper >>Resent-sender: ecotalk-request at earthsystems.org >>Resent-to: multiple recipients of >>To: ecotalk at earthsystems.org >>Reply-to: ecotalk at earthsystems.org >> >>REPLY TO ECOLADY at AOL.COM: >>Would your non-profit organization like an opportunity to help promote 100% >>recycled and tree-free papers? If yes, please contact me at Angela at >>Ecolady at aol.com. We have pads made from recycled paper and tree-free paper >>(each sheet labeled - kenaf, hemp, etc.). These pads sample these papers at a >>very low price ($1.00 each - the first 10 FREE). You can use these pads at >>conferences and meetings and in turn help promote recycled and tree-free paper >>with soy-ink printing. Please reply directly to me Ecolady at aol.com. Thanks! >> >> >> >> 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 mjgottlieb Tue Mar 3 12:22:17 1998 From: mjgottlieb (mjg) Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 12:22:17 -0600 Subject: Alabama Only Message-ID: Could someone from Alabama please backchannel me with a cite request? Sorry everyone else, I couldn't find the address in the list request... thanks mike From AMACKIE Tue Mar 3 13:16:49 1998 From: AMACKIE (AIMAN FOUAD MACKIE) Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 14:16:49 -0500 Subject: Towson Room Drop annoc. Message-ID: If anyone is in need of hotel rooms at the Holiday Inn in Towson, let me know. I think we have three on reserve. AM U-M-Dearborn From hansonjb Tue Mar 3 13:34:42 1998 From: hansonjb (Jim Hanson) Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 11:34:42 -0800 Subject: Complete Case List Message-ID: Complete Case List We've compiled a complete case list. We'll update it again next week for new cases coming out of the district qualifiers and for any other info you send me. Go to: http://www.whitman.edu/Departments/Speech/04ceda.htm Jim Hanson Whitman College hansonjb at whitman.edu The list includes info from: Emporia Heart of America Navy North Carolina Northern Iowa Richmond South Carolina South Carolina Round Robin Southern Illinois Towson University of Southern California Wake Forest Western Washington Scrimmage William Jewell From broda Tue Mar 3 13:33:21 1998 From: broda (Kenneth Broda-bahm) Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 14:33:21 -0500 Subject: Tuesday Afternoon Team List - Towson Message-ID: This is the School and Team list for the TU tournaments as of 2:00 PM EDT, Tuesday March 2nd. The deadline is 5:00. We are now one team away from clean double-octas in Novice Nationals (I'm of course talking about the Novice Nationals at Towson). I'm confident that we'll get more than that and hopeful that we'll hold the line against drops. The numbers: Chesapeake (open) 20 teams -- quarters at present JV Nationals 45 teams -- octas at present Novice Nationals 57 teams -- one breath from doubles *This year the tournament t-shirt will feature a U.S. map with lines radiating from Towson to each city represented in the tournament, so IF YOU WANT TO BE ON THE SHIRT, MAKE SURE YOUR ENTRY IS ON TIME 5pm EDT. Send your caselist information to Sellis1 at tiger.towson.edu Caselist and entries are on the web http://www.towson.edu/~broda/speechanddebate SCHOOLS Air Force Allegheny Ball State Claremount Columbia Cornell Depaul Eastern New Mexico Emporia George Mason Hillsdale Illinois State Johnson County Kansas State Liberty Louisiana State Marquette Mary Washington Methodist College Mercer Michigan-Dearborn Morehouse Middle Tennessee New York University Northampton North Carolina Northern Iowa Northern Illinois Pepperdine Pittsburgh Richmond Rochester Sam Houston Sacramento (CSU) San Jose Scranton Southeast Missouri Southern Illinois Syracuse Texas San Antonio Vermont Washington (St. Louis) Webster Wheaton Wisonsin Osh Kosh OPEN Air Force - Shawn Briscoe & Luke Savoie Air Force - Marshall McMullen & Ryan Sullivan Army - Kenneth Kondo & Derek Bennett Army - Brandon Hoskins & Matthew Villa Army - Jack Delong & Eric Geary Depaul - Becky Jenks & Kristi Plamann Eastern New Mexico - Barreto & Foy Emporia - Tara Tate & Shannon Holland George Mason - Peter Krein & Lisa Corrigan Mary Washington - Rebecca Green & Amber Tussing Mercer - Alysia Cockrell & Brian Drake Mercer - Kenneth Hanson & Betty Vaughn Middle Tennessee - Laurie Ishak & Daniel Crews New York U. - Justine Daniels & Victoria Keenan New York U./Columbia - Jacob Wiegler & Heather Wilson I Northern Illinois - Billy Cripe & Jami Bullis Richmond - Mark Arnold & Ben Bates Rochester - Chet Gulati & Ria Dimilanta Southern Illionois - Eric Slusher & Geoff Smith Southern Illinois - Matt Moore & Joey Vuglia JUNIOR VARSITY Air Force - Chris DiNote & Jess Trafecanty Air Force - Andy Meudt & Ryan Pelkola Army - Jeremiah Fritz & Luke Harris Army - Jim Brocato & Sean Ruthe Army - Joseph Faiella & Philip Kreck Army - Lance Leonard & Mark Maretea Allegheny - Shannon Piccirillo & Beth Gardner Claremount - Cecilia Cho & Camille Ryan Cornell - Melinda Hightower & Mike Cole Cornell - Caren Spencer & Beth Kronk Cornell - Matt Miller & Rob Melton Depaul - Chris Truesdell & Mike Horowitz Emporia - Tony Nation & Brad Areheart Emporia - Rob Gilligan & Marie Baenig George Mason - Lucious Kahng & Jason Gronberg George Mason - Jay Igiel & Richard Reed Illinois State - Sunny Kelly & Kevin Suess Johnson County - Tom O'Toole & Adam Sokoloff Kansas State - Josh Longbottom & Kevin Zollman Kansas State - Hugh McCollough & Andrew Spencer Liberty - Rochelle Ringsmuth & Michael Tilley Liberty - Leah Frazier & Hannah Vick Louisiana State - Emily Mancina & William Winters Marquette - Tim Dale & Kiley Kane Marquette - Kyle Strupp & Kate Phillips Mary Washington - Kate O'Konski & Kristin Scott Mercer - Jeremy Attaway & Dan Feldmeier Methodist - Suzan Graves & Alexis Parmenter Michigan-Dearborn - Taimaa Hussein & Aiman Mackie New York U. - Kathryn Rubino & Kate Brindle New York U./Columbia - Russ Hanes & Sherri Harper North Carolina - Peter Bermel & Richard Curlee Northern Illinois - Adrian Cherikos & Jamie Zite Northern Iowa - Jenn Mumm & Sara Sheller Pepperdine - Brenda Zeimet & Thomas Manakides Pepperdine - Cober Plucker & Kristina Sun Pepperdine - Jenna McGrath & Alexis Gorton Pittsburgh - Jolena Sterner & Melissa Monteres Pittsburgh - Chris Burdick & Mark Denardis San Jose - Marcus Walton & Sara Chan Texas San Antonio - Robert Jones & Leigh Mayo Vermont - Sarah Snider & Helen Morgan Vermont - Amanda Michel & Sam Young Vermont/Trinity - Greta Lockwood & Sarah Petrie Washington (St. Louis) - Mathew Crawford & Ravi Rao Wheaton - David Wittig & Judy Swanson NOVICE Air Force - Rashad Howard & Amanda Myers Allegheny - Jen Scheller & Rupa Ranganathan Army - Brian Betts & Jason Hanson Ball State - Kristin Kasting & Lindsy Elkins Ball State - Donny Peters & Kelly Lipp Cornell - Jennifer Edwards & Kelly Olino Depaul - Julie Darr & Rich Wiltse Ithaca College - Kim Sroka & Damon Hagen Eastern New Mexico - Dunn & Conklin George Mason - Clair Carroll & Steve Adams George Mason - Steve Williams & Ngozi Robinson Hillsdale - Robert Busby & Abel Winn Hillsdale - Joel Schellhammer & Sarah Parker Hillsdale - Mary Moorman & Jesse Rine Hillsdale - Melinda Wilcox & Emily Crookston Illinois State - Khalil Marrar & Marcine LaFountain Illinois State - Jef Powell & Emily Fleisher Liberty - Jared Woodard & Nick Yingst Liberty - Shanna Twigg & Katey Walker Louisville - Melodie Humphrey & Haley DeVanna Mercer - Whit Whitmore & Ponder Woodard Mercer - Happy Ferrell & Erica Wyatt Mercer - Otis Williams & Jeff Coxon Methodist - Greg Thomas & Daniel Charpentier Michigan-Dearborn - Tania Hajal & Joe Hosang New York U. - Angela Tong & Jason Clark Northampton - Tunya Butterfield & Ronald Moll North Carolina - John Stonestreet & Aaron Mayer Northern Illinois - Jeff Drury & Donald Price Northern Iowa - Anjeanette Christensen & Mandy Southard Northern Iowa - T.W. Ross & Tony Stephenson Pepperdine - Meredith Sullivan & Emily Allardyce Richmond - Kelly Ferguson & Anthony Kiriluscha Richmond - Mighty Joe Keeton & Drew Demarinis Rochester - Lauren Michaels & Adam Shapiro Rochester - Dan Meyers & Todd Walters Rochester - Akash Desai & Phil Segaloff Rochester - Merideth Pelton & Jonathan White Rochester - Jeremy Smith & Roscoe Kubazywski Rochester - Shawna Hicks & Priyanka Rai Rochester - Preety Tulsian and Juhi Pandey Rochester - Robert Whittman & Peter Asaad Sam Houston - Jim Gibson & Jerad Waters Sacramento - Marie VanAssendelft & Nicole Kipp San Jose - Jim Xhang & Alex Kramer Scranton - Kieth Sigured & Julie Finn Southeast Missouri - Marcus Stephens & Ryann Juden Syracuse - Emile Khader & Mike Kaveney Texas San Antonio - Jonathan Kruse & Ross Hytnen Vermont - Charles Hoag & Matt Sweeney Vermont - David Grover & Carla Mirabelli Vermont/Trinity - Jocelyn McCann & Mary Beggs Webster - Serena Jones & Shawn Roberts Wheaton - Lindsey Zimmerman & Torrey Babson Wheaton - Bill Smiljanich & Anthony Gostanian Wheaton - Josh Montgomery & Vincent Scalfani Wisconsin Osh Kosh - Todd Simonis & David Torbenson JUDGE Rachel Woodward - Air Force - full (jv, nov) John Cinnamon - Air Force - full Nathan Lucas - Army - full Bill Buhling - Army - full Kim Field - Army - full (nov.) Jason Stone - Ball State - half Andrea Whalen - Ball State - half Mike Bauer - Ball State - half (nov) Pam Stepp - Cornell - full Jeff Archibald - Cornell - half Wynn Wilcox - Cornell - half Kristin Dybvig - Cornell - half Marcy Halpin - Depaul - full Steve Whitson - Depaul - half Jackie Massey - Eastern New Mexico - full Rodger Biles - Emporia - Full John Lama - Hillsdale - full Anna Doncyson - Hillsdale - full Rachel Santine - Illinois State - half Molly Munson - Illinois State - half Rich McCollum - Johnson County - half Monte Stevens - Kansas State - half Brent Siemers - Kansas State - half Cary Voss - Liberty - full Heather Hall - Liberty - full Rob Abrams - Louisiana State - half John Monberg - Louisville - half Nicole Leilich - Marquette - full (Nov.) Patrick McMullen - Mary Washington - full Mike Davis - Mercer - full Steve Sand - Mercer - half John Humphreys - Methodist - full Bob Bryant - Michigan Dearborn Mike Krueger - Middle Tennessee - half Beltran - New York U. - full Bill Charron - New York U. - full Alan Dove - New York U. - half Will Baker - New York U. - full (hire) Robert McKenzie - Northampton - half (nov) Jason Ingram - North Carolina - half Frank Bender - North Carolina - half Kate Palczewski - Northern Iowa - Full Bridget Godes - Northern Iowa - Half - (Nov.) Kellie Cripe - Northern Illinois - half Kerith Woodyard - Northern Illinois - full Greg Achten - Pepperdine - full Marce Luck - Pepperdine - full Maxwell Schnurer - Pittsburgh - half Ron Von Burg - Pittsburgh - half Michele Walls - Richmond - half(Sat, Sun only) Lisa K. Heller - Richmond - full(no 4,5) Jeff Clayton - Rochester - full Isaac Castillo - Rochester - full Sam Nelson - Rochester - full Elaine Maag - Rochester - full Debbi Hatton - Sam Houston - half Kimo Ah Yun - Sacramento - half Ben Nourian - Scranton - half Jennifer Rigdon - Southeast Missouri - half Jeremy Hutchins - Southern Illinois - full Geoff Anderson - Syracuse - full Lorena Donnellan - Texas San Antonio - full (nov, jr) Jan Hovden - Vermont - full Gordie Miller - Vermont - full Jeff Cedarfield - Vermont - full Gina Jensen - Webster - half Alicia VanDyke - Wheaton - full Jay Chandra - Wheaton - full Steve Herro - Wisconsin Osh Kosh - half From nkw2a Tue Mar 3 13:39:50 1998 From: nkw2a (Natalie Kay Hatch Woodward) Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 13:39:50 -0600 Subject: ADA Message-ID: Is their a team list out yet for ADA Nats in Athens, Ga? Natalie "I would rather learn from one bird how to sing than teach ten thousand stars how not to dance." -- ee cummings "They sicken of the calm, who know the storm" -- Dorothy Parker "Offer me solutions, offer me alternatives, and I decline. Its the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine." -- REM "Hold back the edges of your gowns, Ladies, we are going through hell." -- William Carlos Williams From Arnie.Madsen Tue Mar 3 14:05:14 1998 From: Arnie.Madsen (Arnie Madsen) Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 14:05:14 -0600 Subject: Two more Second-Round At-Large Comments Message-ID: Second-Round At-Large Applicants: Yesterday I mentioned a reminder regarding the application date for Second- Round At-Large bids to the NDT -- all applications must be received by all members of the Committee no later than 5:00 p.m. CST this Thursday, March 5. A model application form is available on the NDT Director's Home Page. Go to the NDT Home Page and follow the link to the Director's Page: http://www.uni.edu/ndt A couple of additional comments: 1) The list of Committee members, and their preferences for receiving applications via fax and/or email, is also available on the Director's Page (note that you should send BOTH a fax and an email version to me). 2) Some Committee members have experienced problems with MIMEd or attached files. Thus, when you send your email versions of the application, it would make life a little simpler if you would simply send the application as a text file within the message itself, rather than as a MIMEd or attached file. Again, if you have any questions about the Second-Round At-Large process, feel free to 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 mdickman Tue Mar 3 14:18:33 1998 From: mdickman (Michael R. Dickman) Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 15:18:33 -0500 Subject: Florida/westflorida tourney? Message-ID: Hey all: Is there any word on who will be at Florida? West Florida? How large is each division? Who's going to be their? Mike CC Debate From kenny420 Wed Mar 4 14:24:08 1998 From: kenny420 (kenny s hanson) Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 15:24:08 -0500 Subject: Result sheet for Wake and UCO Message-ID: If anybody could send me the results of these two tournaments I would be thankful. Peace Kenny Hanson _____________________________________________________________________ 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 epanetta Tue Mar 3 15:29:33 1998 From: epanetta (edward panetta) Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 16:29:33 -0500 Subject: ADA In-Reply-To: Message-ID: We only have a few entries at this point. Joe Bellon will post a list in about a week. For copies of invitation see the GA Debate Union Web Page. www.uga.edu/~spc/Debate/debate.html We have 10 slots available for golf on friday morning. The tee times are between 10:00 to 10:15 AM. The University course was designed by Robert Trent Jones. 18 holes + cart will be $27.00. E-mail/contact me if you are interested in playing. Rounds will start at 5:30 PM on friday. From debate Tue Mar 3 15:30:19 1998 From: debate (greg simerly) Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 15:30:19 -0600 Subject: MPJ amendment Message-ID: Don't forget to vote. >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 jrellis Tue Mar 3 15:57:00 1998 From: jrellis (Jared Ellis) Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 13:57:00 -0800 Subject: UPS Paul or Daryl Message-ID: Hey, you all still want to exchange some cites? I'm looking for something. Peace Ellis Lewis and Clark From broda Tue Mar 3 16:04:01 1998 From: broda (Kenneth Broda-bahm) Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 17:04:01 -0500 Subject: Tuesday Evening Teamlist - Towson Message-ID: 20 in open, 48 in JV, a whoppiin 62 in Novice This is the School and Team list for the TU tournaments as of 5:00 PM EDT, Tuesday March 2nd. If you have late entries, all is forgiven, but by all means send them in. Andy Ellis is compiling *voluntary* submissions to a case list which will be distributed at the tournament. The list so far is on our web-site http://www.towson.edu/~broda/speechanddebate If you have not yet sent your information to Andy, his address is Sellis1 at tiger.towson.edu SCHOOLS Army Air Force Allegheny Ball State Claremount Columbia Cornell Depaul Eastern New Mexico Emporia George Mason Hillsdale Illinois State Johnson County Kansas State Liberty Louisiana State Louisville Marquette Mary Washington Methodist College Mercer Michigan-Dearborn Morehouse Middle Tennessee Navy New York University Northampton North Carolina Northern Iowa Northern Illinois Pepperdine Pittsburgh Richmond Rochester Sam Houston Sacramento (CSU) San Jose Scranton South Carolina Southeast Missouri Southern Illinois Syracuse Texas San Antonio Vermont Washington (St. Louis) Webster Wheaton Wisonsin Osh Kosh OPEN Army - Kenneth Kondo & Derek Bennett Army - Brandon Hoskins & Mathew Villa Army - Jack Delong & Eric Geary Air Force - Shawn Briscoe & Luke Savoie Air Force - Marshall McMullen & Ryan Sullivan Depaul - Becky Jenks & Kristi Plamann Eastern New Mexico - Barreto & Foy Emporia - Tara Tate & Shannon Holland George Mason/Pittsburgh - Peter Krein & Lisa Corrigan Mary Washington - Rebecca Green & Amber Tussing Mercer - Alysia Cockrell & Brian Drake Mercer - Kenneth Hanson & Betty Vaughn Middle Tennessee - Laurie Ishak & Daniel Crews New York U. - Justine Daniels & Victoria Keenan New York U./Columbia - Jacob Wiegler & Heather Wilson I Northern Illinois - Billy Cripe & Jami Bullis Richmond - Mark Arnold & Ben Bates Rochester - Chet Gulati & Ria Dimilanta Southern Illionois - Eric Slusher & Geoff Smith Southern Illinois - Matt Moore & Joey Vuglia JUNIOR VARSITY Army - Jeremiah Fritz & Luke Harris Army - Jim Brocato & Sean Ruthe Army - Lance Leonard & Mark Maretea Air Force - Chris DiNote & Jess Trafecanty Air Force - Andy Meudt & Ryan Pelkola Allegheny - Shannon Piccirillo & Beth Gardner Claremount - Cecilia Cho & Camille Ryan Cornell - Melinda Hightower & Mike Cole Cornell - Caren Spencer & Beth Kronk Cornell - Matt Miller & Rob Melton Depaul - Chris Truesdell & Mike Horowitz Emporia - Tony Nation & Brad Areheart Emporia - Rob Gilligan & Marie Baenig George Mason - Lucious Kahng & Jason Gronberg George Mason - Jay Igiel & Richard Reed Illinois State - Sunny Kelly & Kevin Suess Johnson County - Tom O'Toole & Adam Sokoloff Kansas State - Josh Longbottom & Kevin Zollman Kansas State - Hugh McCollough & Andrew Spencer Liberty - Rochelle Ringsmuth & Michael Tilley Liberty - Leah Frazier & Hannah Vick Louisiana State - Emily Mancina & William Winters Marquette - Tim Dale & Kiley Kane Marquette - Kyle Strupp & Kate Phillips Mary Washington - Kate O'Konski & Kristin Scott Mercer - Jeremy Attaway & Dan Feldmeier Methodist - Suzan Graves & Alexis Parmenter Michigan-Dearborn - Taimaa Hussein & Aiman Mackie Navy - Johannah Schumacher & Andrew Roy Navy - Adam Weinstein & Matt Sullivan Navy - Mike Bruno & Phil Sprincin New York U. - Kathryn Rubino & Kate Brindle New York U./Columbia - Russ Hanes & Sherri Harper North Carolina - Peter Bermel & Richard Curlee Northern Illinois - Adrian Cherikos & Jamie Zite Northern Iowa - Jenn Mumm & Sara Sheller Pepperdine - Brenda Zeimet & Thomas Manakides Pepperdine - Cober Plucker & Kristina Sun Pepperdine - Jenna McGrath & Alexis Gorton Pittsburgh - Jolena Sterner & Melissa Monteres San Jose - Marcus Walton & Sara Chan South Carolina - John Trotti & Matt Katz Texas San Antonio - Robert Jones & Leigh Mayo Vermont - Sarah Snider & Helen Morgan Vermont - Amanda Michel & Sam Young Vermont/Trinity - Greta Lockwood & Sarah Petrie Washington (St. Louis) - Mathew Crawford & Ravi Rao Wheaton - David Wittig & Judy Swanson NOVICE Army - Brian Betts & Jason Hanson Army - Joseph Faiella & Philip Kreck Air Force - Rashad Howard & Amanda Myers Allegheny - Jen Scheller & Rupa Ranganathan Ball State - Kristin Kasting & Lindsy Elkins Ball State - Donny Peters & Kelly Lipp Cornell - Jennifer Edwards & Kelly Olino Depaul - Julie Darr & Rich Wiltse Ithaca College - Kim Sroka & Damon Hagen Eastern New Mexico - Dunn & Conklin George Mason - Clair Carroll & Steve Adams George Mason - Steve Williams & Ngozi Robinson Hillsdale - Robert Busby & Abel Winn Hillsdale - Joel Schellhammer & Sarah Parker Hillsdale - Mary Moorman & Jesse Rine Hillsdale - Melinda Wilcox & Emily Crookston Illinois State - Khalil Marrar & Marcine LaFountain Illinois State - Jef Powell & Emily Fleisher Liberty - Jared Woodard & Nick Yingst Liberty - Shanna Twigg & Katey Walker Louisville - Melodie Humphrey & Haley DeVanna Mercer - Whit Whitmore & Ponder Woodard Mercer - Happy Ferrell & Erica Wyatt Mercer - Otis Williams & Jeff Coxon Methodist - Greg Thomas & Daniel Charpentier Michigan-Dearborn - Tania Hajal & Joe Hosang Navy - Beto Pena & Dan Fritchman New York U. - Angela Tong & Jason Clark Northampton - Tunya Butterfield & Ronald Moll North Carolina - John Stonestreet & Aaron Mayer Northern Illinois - Jeff Drury & Donald Price Northern Iowa - Anjeanette Christensen & Mandy Southard Northern Iowa - T.W. Ross & Tony Stephenson Pepperdine - Meredith Sullivan & Emily Allardyce Pittsburgh - Chris Burdick & Mark Denardis Richmond - Kelly Ferguson & Anthony Kiriluscha Richmond - Mighty Joe Keeton & Drew Demarinis Rochester - Lauren Michaels & Adam Shapiro Rochester - Dan Meyers & Todd Walters Rochester - Akash Desai & Phil Segaloff Rochester - Merideth Pelton & Jonathan White Rochester - Jeremy Smith & Roscoe Kubazywski Rochester - Shawna Hicks & Priyanka Rai Rochester - Preety Tulsian and Juhi Pandey Rochester - Robert Whittman & Peter Asaad Sam Houston - Jim Gibson & Jerad Waters Sacramento - Marie VanAssendelft & Nicole Kipp San Jose - Jim Xhang & Alex Kramer Scranton - Kieth Sigured & Julie Finn South Carolina - Joanne Johnston & Daniel Chappell South Carolina - Deirdre Dhaenens & Jeremy Bowers Southeast Missouri - Marcus Stephens & Ryann Juden Syracuse - Emile Khader & Mike Kaveney Texas San Antonio - Jonathan Kruse & Ross Hytnen Vermont - Charles Hoag & Matt Sweeney Vermont - David Grover & Carla Mirabelli Vermont/Trinity - Jocelyn McCann & Mary Beggs Webster - Serena Jones & Shawn Roberts Wheaton - Lindsey Zimmerman & Torrey Babson Wheaton - Bill Smiljanich & Anthony Gostanian Wheaton - Josh Montgomery & Vincent Scalfani Wisconsin Osh Kosh - Todd Simonis & David Torbenson JUDGE Nathan Lucas - Army - full Bill Ruhling - Army - full Kim Field - Army - full (nov) Rachel Woodward - Air Force - full (jv, nov) John Cinnamon - Air Force - full Jason Stone - Ball State - half Andrea Whalen - Ball State - half Mike Bauer - Ball State - half (nov) Pam Stepp - Cornell - full Jeff Archibald - Cornell - half Wynn Wilcox - Cornell - half Kristin Dybvig - Cornell - half Marcy Halpin - Depaul - full Steve Whitson - Depaul - half Jackie Massey - Eastern New Mexico - full Rodger Biles - Emporia - Full Neil Butt - George Mason - Full Warren Decker - George Mason - full Doug Frye - George Mason - half John Lama - Hillsdale - full Anna Doncyson - Hillsdale - full Rachel Santine - Illinois State - half Molly Munson - Illinois State - half Rich McCollum - Johnson County - half Monte Stevens - Kansas State - half Brent Siemers - Kansas State - half Cary Voss - Liberty - full Heather Hall - Liberty - full Rob Abrams - Louisiana State - half John Monberg - Louisville - half Nicole Leilich - Marquette - full (Nov.) Patrick McMullen - Mary Washington - full Mike Davis - Mercer - full Steve Sand - Mercer - half John Humphreys - Methodist - half (fri., Sun) Todd Lyden - Methodist - half (Sat) Bob Bryant - Michigan Dearborn Mike Krueger - Middle Tennessee - half Phil Warken - Navy - half Robert Kennedy - Navy - half Brad Taylor - Navy - half Steve Vincent - Navy - half Beltran - New York U. - full Bill Charron - New York U. - full Alan Dove - New York U. - half Will Baker - New York U. - full (hire) Robert McKenzie - Northampton - half (nov) Jason Ingram - North Carolina - half Frank Bender - North Carolina - half Kate Palczewski - Northern Iowa - Full Bridget Godes - Northern Iowa - Half - (Nov.) Kellie Cripe - Northern Illinois - half Kerith Woodyard - Northern Illinois - full Greg Achten - Pepperdine - full Marce Luck - Pepperdine - full Maxwell Schnurer - Pittsburgh - half Ron Von Burg - Pittsburgh - half Michele Walls - Richmond - half(Sat, Sun only) Lisa K. Heller - Richmond - full(no 4,5) Jeff Clayton - Rochester - full Isaac Castillo - Rochester - full Sam Nelson - Rochester - full Elaine Maag - Rochester - full Debbi Hatton - Sam Houston - half David Schoenthal - San Jose State - full Kimo Ah Yun - Sacramento - half Ben Nourian - Scranton - half Paul Kerr - South Carolina - full Jennifer Rigdon - Southeast Missouri - half Jeremy Hutchins - Southern Illinois - full Geoff Anderson - Syracuse - full Lorena Donnellan - Texas San Antonio - full (nov, jr) Jan Hovden - Vermont - full Gordie Miller - Vermont - full Jeff Cedarfield - Vermont - full Gina Jensen - Webster - half Alicia VanDyke - Wheaton - full Jay Chandra - Wheaton - full Steve Herro - Wisconsin Osh Kosh - half From hansonjb Tue Mar 3 16:36:59 1998 From: hansonjb (Jim Hanson) Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 14:36:59 -0800 Subject: Northwest Students--Please read this email Message-ID: Northwest Students--Please read this email I'm taking nominations for NW CEDA student representative. Send nominations to me at hansonjb at whitman.edu I'd like to hold the vote for this position next week--so all nominations should be in by Monday, 1pm, March 9. thanks Jim Hanson Whitman College From jhovden Tue Mar 3 17:23:15 1998 From: jhovden (Jan Hovden) Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 18:23:15 -0500 Subject: Teams for CEDA Nationals Message-ID: This is a list of teams entered for CEDA Nationals as of March 3, 1998. I will post another list next week for the entries we receive for the rest of the week. I'm sorry if I misspelled anyone's name. I didn't have time to proof this. Jan Teams entered for the 1998 CEDA National Tournament Appalachian State Rudy Dunlap & Lindsay Phipps Eleanor Norman & Jarrett Helms Arkansas Tech Jimmy Wilson & Dena Bucker Rebecca Paschal & Sommer Faulkenberry Ball State Amanda McRae & Kathy Purvis Capital Dominic Verdell & Alisha Ketner Central Methodist Shelly Meador & Leila Morgan Central Oklahoma Tony Sherbert & Shawn Blankenship Cornell Jessica Wojtysiak & Michael Cole Rob Melton & Matt Miller Melinda Hightower & Jennifer Edwards Beth Kronk & Caren Sencer Julie Chon & Cappy Lay Rogelio Galindo & Ying Lin Cumberland College Nathan Kinser & Curtis Brown Eastern Utah Brian McDonald & Toni Nielson Mike Zahller & Zack Westerfield Emory Stephen Heidt & Dan Fitzmeier Anne Marie Todd & Vic Tabak Nessa Horewitch & Shanara Reid Raj Ghoshal & Leslie Wade John Paul Lupo & Mike Horowitz Katie Matt & Alison Chase Stephen Bailey & Kamal Ghali Emporia Tara Tate & Shannon Holland Tony Nation & Brad Areheart Marie Baenig & Luke Simmons Florida State Erin Verhelst & Nick Brooks Brian Reddinger & Ari Allyn Andre Perez & John Layang Yang Kansas State Grant Denny & Isaac West Sarah Glaser & Kevin Zollman Lewis & Clark Jared Ellis & Nick Hesterberg Macalester College Jennifer Alme & Kiva Garen Martha Wilson & James Hart McNeese Amiee Wernecke & Jarvis Parsons Jennifer Dula & Anthony James Morehouse/Mercer Deon Garner & Kenny Hanson Northeast Louisiana\Southeast Missouri Bob Alexander & Rebecca Congo Northern Iowa Jennifer Rawe & Melissa Peterson Pace Jason Peterson & Taylor Petrey Pepperdine Cober Pluckes & Kristina Sun Alexis Gorton & Brenda Zeimet Thomas Manakides & Jenna McGrath Richmond Mark Arnold & Ben Bates Joe Keeton & Scott Luchetti San Francisco State Autumn Boylan & Corey Martin Bree Antenncci & Helen Calip Amy Gaughran & Sueanne McNeil South Carolina Lane McFadden & Corey Rose Matthew Katz & John Trotti Southeastern Louisiana Kevalyn Robertson & Jeffrety Waguespack Southern Illinois Eric Slusher Geoff Smith Southwest Texas Travis LaCoss & Sean Tiffee Syracuse Kendra McCAnn & Emite Khader Texas - Dallas Jason Jordan & Vasile Stanescu Lisa Anselmi & Trevon Fuller US Airforce Academy Marshall McMullen & Ryan Sullivan Shawn Briscoe & Luke Savioe Jessica Trafecanty & Chris Denote Vanderbilt Gabrielle Prisco & Vinay Reddy Western Washington Julie Pitt & Jeff Van Horn Whitney Garrison & Michelle Sarruf Whitman Sean Harris & Adam Symonds Jessica Clarke & Ryan Scoville Mike Caughey & Sean Collins From jhovden Tue Mar 3 17:27:44 1998 From: jhovden (Jan Hovden) Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 18:27:44 -0500 Subject: Judges for CEDA Nationals Message-ID: These are the judges so far for the 1998 CEDA Nationals. If the entry form didn't have the judging commitments for each judge noted, I just distributed them equally to the judges for that school. If you want it changed, let me know. Judges for the 1998 CEDA National Tournament Appalachian State Glenda Treadaway (Tab Room) Matthew Doggett (4 rounds) Arkansas Tech Robert Bolen (4 rounds) Ball State Mike Bauer (4 rounds) Capital Sarah Ryan (4 rounds + hire) Central Methodist Gary Rees (4 rounds + hire) Central Oklahoma Chad Hill (4 rounds + hire) Cornell Pam Stepp (6 rounds + hire) Jeff Archibald (7 rounds + hire) Jeff Tompkins (7 rounds + hire) Kristin Dybvig (out rounds only) Wynn Wilcox (hire) Jonathan Stanton (hire) Adam Chud (hire) Cumberland Michael Dickman (4 rounds + hire) Eastern Utah Chris Harper (8 rounds) Emory David Heidt (8 rounds) Jamie McKown (8 rounds) Ashley Fairchild (8 rounds) Melissa Wade (4 rounds) Emporia Rodger Biles (6 rounds) Darren Elliot (6 rounds + hire) Florida State Kristina Schriver (4 rounds) Mike Korcok (4 rounds + hire) Mike Jackman (4 rounds + hire) Kansas State Sue Stanfield (2 rounds) Christina Sabee (4 rounds) Rich McCollum (2 rounds) Monte Stevens (elims only) Lewis & Clark Steve Hunt (2 rounds) Nathan Hobbs (2 rounds) Macalester Jim Haefele (4 rounds plus hire) Will Brewer (4 rounds) McNeese Robert Markstrom (8 rounds) Northeast Louisiana Jodee Hobbs (4 rounds) Northern Iowa Cate Palczewski (2 rounds) Heather Dzuricky (2 rounds + hire) Pace Tim Mahoney (4 rounds) Pepperdine Greg Achten (4 rounds) Becky Opsata (4 rounds) Marce Luck (4 rounds) Richmond Lisa Heller (8 rounds) San Francisco State Shawn Whalen (6 rounds) Lisa Kawamura (6 rounds + hire) South Carolina Paul Kerr (8 rounds) David Berube (elims only) Southeast Louisiana Scott Elliot (4 rounds) Southern Illinois Glen Frappier (hire) Aaron Klemz (hire) Jeremy Hutchins (hire) Southwest Texas Leah Castella (hire) Syracuse Geoff Anderson (2 rounds + hire) Bradley Meurrens (2 rounds + hire) Frank Irizarry (hire if needed) Texas - Dallas Stephanie Steele (8 rounds) US Airforce Rachel Woodward (8 rounds) Vanderbilt M. Sandoz (4 rounds) Western Washington Grady Martin Wichita State Jeffrey Jarman Douglas Roubidoux Whitman Jim Hanson (6 rounds) J.P. Lacy (6 rounds) Hire Sean Lemoine From AMACKIE Tue Mar 3 17:58:27 1998 From: AMACKIE (AIMAN FOUAD MACKIE) Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 18:58:27 -0500 Subject: Attn: Pepperdine Message-ID: Hey, could someone please backchannel from Pepperdine. I need to get in contact with Jana and/or her partner. Thanks! Sorry everyone else for the bother. AM UM-Dearborn From JimHaefele Tue Mar 3 18:42:43 1998 From: JimHaefele (JimHaefele) Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 19:42:43 EST Subject: Judges for CEDA Nationals Message-ID: In a message dated 98-03-03 18:28:03 EST, jhovden at ZOO.UVM.EDU writes: << Hire Sean Lemoine >> Abandon all hope, ye who enter here...... From gachten Tue Mar 3 18:35:00 1998 From: gachten (Achten, Greg) Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 16:35:00 PST Subject: Southern California Students--Please read this email Message-ID: I'm taking nominations for Southern California CEDA student representative. Send nominations to me at gachten at pepperdine.edu I would like to resolve this asap, so please let me know of any nominations within the next week. Thanks, Greg Achten Peppedine University >From Tue Mar 3 23:12:57 1998 Message-Id: Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 23:12:57 -0500 Reply-To: rider at ORO.NET To: Team Topic Debating in America From: rider at ORO.NET Subject: High School Coach for next year Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Nevada Union High School, while having an up and coming debate program, has one serious problem: it lacks an experienced, full-time committed coach. We're located in Northern California and have numerous dedicated kids. We just got a nice funding boost from the school/district and the forensics director is looking for a coach to take over, so she can do IE's and administrative type stuff. Numerous teaching posisitions will be opening up next year, so if you're looking for a full- time job or interested in education, this could be the right spot for you. This is the basic information, if you're interested, please e-mail me. Thanks, Nate Oleson Nevada Union HS rider at oro.net > >>>> \\\|||/// \\\|||/// \\\|||/// > >>>> . ======= . ======= . ======= > >>>> / \| O O | / \| O O | / \| O O | > >>>> \ / \v_'/ \ / \v_'/ \ / \v_'/ > >>>> # _| |_ # _| |_ # _| |_ > >>>> (#) ( ) (#) ( ) (#) ( ) > >>>> #\//|* *|\\ #\//|* *|\\ #\//|* *|\\ > >>>> #\/( * )/ #\/( * )/ #\/( * )/ > >>>> # ===== # ===== # ===== > >>>> # (\ /) # (\ /) # (\ /) > >>>> # || || # || || # || || > >>>> .#---'| |----. .#---'| |----. .#---'| |----. > >>>> #----' -----' #----' -----' #----' -----' From Chandra.Garrett Tue Mar 3 22:40:00 1998 From: Chandra.Garrett (Chandra Garrett) Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 21:40:00 -0700 Subject: Paging Pittsburg, please (Chris Burdick, maybe?) Message-ID: Chris, long time no see! I've lost your email address and have a few questions about one of your affirmatives, if you wouldn't mind backchanneling me? Anybody from Pittsburg, I'd appreciate a backchannel. Sorry for the clutter, Thanks! Chandra ENMU Debate *notice: this is not the official stand of ENMU Debate squad nor does it necessarily reflect the statements of the team. ... especially if I say something stupid. thank you.* ************************************************************************ "Everybody gets so much information all day long that they lose their common sense." Gertrude Stein "Some call it Rambling... but I prefer to think of it as genius at its most chaotic form." Christina Rossetti "Would you mind explaining the scientific nature of the 'whammy'?" Dana Scully, contemplating the subtleties of higher philosophy with Fox Mulder; "Pusher" From mgremillion Tue Mar 3 22:10:04 1998 From: mgremillion (MWilliams) Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 23:10:04 -0500 Subject: Is there a entry deadline or not? Message-ID: Call me crazy, but the deadline for entries has been known for months now. Is there a set deadline for rntries or not? Scott Elliott SELA From buad000c Wed Mar 4 00:32:03 1998 From: buad000c (Laurie Diane Ishak) Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 00:32:03 -0600 Subject: peterson from u of florida Message-ID: i'm trying to get a hold of peterson form univ of florida...if anyone can help i'd appreciate it.....thanks laurie loveshak mtsu From MWBRYANT Wed Mar 4 01:21:49 1998 From: MWBRYANT (MWBRYANT) Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 02:21:49 EST Subject: Is there a entry deadline or not? Message-ID: In a message dated 98-03-04 01:34:16 EST, you write: << Call me crazy, but the deadline for entries has been known for months now. Is there a set deadline for rntries or not? Scott Elliott SELA >> Swampthang, 1. OK, you're crazy... 2. No, there's never really been that set of a deadline. It's been bent multiple times in multiple ways over many years. If you haven't noticed this before, you just weren't looking. 3. If folks need another weekend, is it really that god-awful? I don't know about you, but the list Hovden posted looks under a hundred. Is that were you really want to cap it? What happened to all the hoopla about the big, open tent of CEDA? No one would classify me as a rabid Tuna supporter, but his actions in this specific question seem ultimately defensible. My debaters wish me to convey their sincere gratitude for the swell time at your tournament. Bear From debate Wed Mar 4 06:41:46 1998 From: debate (greg simerly) Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 06:41:46 -0600 Subject: March 1 Exec-Sec Rpt, 1 of 4 Message-ID: 1997-98 CROSS EXAMINATION DEBATE ASSOCIATION March 1 Executive-Secretary Report Student Topic Committee members: The amendment to the CEDA Constitution, Article IV, Section 11, B, 3 to have two student members on the Topic Committee passes, 8-1. Public Debate Award: Submissions for CEDA's Public Debate Award are due to Steve Koch, chair of the Public Sphere Project Team by the start of the national tournament. Detail are enclosed. Election: Congratulations to CEDA's newest elected officers, Glenda Treadaway, Second Vice President; Mike Bauer, East Central Representative, Mike Eaves, Southeast Representative; Gary Rees, Mid America Representative; Shawn Whalen, West Representative; Jim Hanson, Northwest Representative. Balloting for the Rocky Mountain Representative resulted in a tie, and there was no nominee for the East Representative. In accordance with the CEDA Constitution, I will conduct special elections for both offices. A ballot for both those offices in enclosed. Congratulations also go to Josh Hoe, newest member of the Topic Committee, and to Stacy Sowards, Editor of the Associations Electronic Topic Journal. Amendments for the Spring Business Meeting: The deadline for submission of amendments for the Spring business meeting is February 20. I've included proposed amendments that I've received so far. Proxy forms: If you are unable to attend the Spring business meeting, you may vote by proxy. Form is enclosed. CEDA Members: I've enclosed a list of paid members as of March 1. Only paid members can enter the National tournament and receive CEDA awards. A dues form is enclosed. If you sent your dues in with nationals entry, I obviously haven't received your dues. CEDA National Sweepstakes Rankings: I've enclosed national CEDA sweepstakes rankings, regional rankings, 2-year school rankings, Select Sweepstakes rankings, and New Member rankings. In the email edition, you'll find rankings with totals only; then you'll find unformatted rankings with tournament by tournament points. In the latter, you'll see school name, region, then points and tie breakers for a tournament, then points and tie breakers for a second tournament, and so on for best six tournaments, then total points and total tie breakers. The rankings include tournament results that I received by noon, March 1. I have not received results from the following tournaments: Arizona St (need elims), GSL (need elims), PLU, McNeese, FCCAA, Arkansas St, Western Washington, NCFA Champs, Point Loma, Northwestern (need elims), Marquette Spring, Missouir MAFA, George Washington, NE Louisiana, Whitman, CEDA East, PSCFA Champs, NDT district 4, 6, 9. I've received the following results, but no in time to count them: Heart, Highland, LSUS Fall, Wheaton, Cornell. 1997-98 CROSS EXAMINATION DEBATE ASSOCIATION National Public Debate Award The National Public Debate Award. A. This award is given to the intercollegiate debate program which, over the course of the past academic year, has best advanced the values of debate in the public sphere through sponsorship of one or more public debate activities including international public debates, radio or television debates, public debates on campus or for community groups, and through general promotion of public discourse through diverse fora to promote critical examination of public issues for general audiences. B. Programs seeking this recognition should submit a portfolio including a narrative description of their public debate activities. Programs are also asked to submit supporting materials of their choosing which might include participant lists, publicity and promotional materials, attendance figures, transcripts or recordings (audio, video, CD, etc.), commendations and letters of appreciation, and any other materials that they feel are appropriate. C. The CEDA President shall designate appropriate individuals or a committee to receive, evaluate, and archive materials. The individuals or committee may elect to give up to three awards (recognized by plaques or trophies) and may also recognize as many Honorable Mention entrants as they deem appropriate. Each awardee and Honorable Mention will receive recognition through letters sent to the appropriate officers of their academic institutions. Portfolios will be submitted o the designated individual or committee representative no later than the entry due date of the CEDA national tournament. Submissions are due by the start of the national tournament to Steve Koch, Speech and Communication Arts, Spielman Hall, Capital University, Columbus, Ohio 43209. Phone: 614-236-9638. Email: skoch at capital.edu. 1997-98 CROSS EXAMINATION DEBATE ASSOCIATION Ballot for East and Rocky Mountain representatives Ballots are due to the Executive-Secretary on or before Arpil 2. Mail to Greg Simerly, SIU mail code 6605, Carbondale, IL 62901-6605. Fax to (618) 453-2812. Email balloting for officers IS PERMITTED. Email to debate at siu.edu. Each school that has paid regular membership dues last year and/or this year has voting privileges. Members schools vote only for representatives in their region. Associate members have no voting privileges. EAST REGION (MA, RI, NH, VT, NY, PA, DC, MD, VA) _____ Sam Nelson (all other nominees declined) ROCKY MOUNTAIN (CO, WY, UT, NM, MT, & El Paso, TX) _____ Chris Harper, Eastern Utah _____ Jackie Massey, Eastern New Mexico 1997-98 CROSS EXAMINATION DEBATE ASSOCIATION Proposed amendments to the CEDA Constitution An amendment to clarify the duties of the Executive-Secretary, submitted by Russell Church, MTSU. Article IV, section 5, add K. "Shall call and organize any necessary any e-mail, listserv or other computer or electronic discussions of the Executive Council." An amendment to claify duties of the Treasuer, submitted by Russell Church, MTSU. Article IV, section 6, strike from B. "Accept membership applications to CEDA". Add to J: " and the Topic Committee." An amendment to clarify the duties of the Executive Council, submitted by Russell Church, MTSU. Article IV, section 10, add "G. The Executive Council may meet at: (1) annual meetings of the NCA (National Communication Association), (2) the annual National Tournament, (3) any special meetings (e.g., summer conferences) and (4) by e-mail or by other kinds of computer or electronic communication. H. A quorum of the Executive Council is considered to be 50 percent of the membership plus one member for meetings as specified in (1-4) in section G. The Executive-Secretary shall maintain either an e-mail address list or a listserv for all Executive Council members. The Executive-Secretary shall contact members who do not have access to e-mail by other means. In case of other means of communication, the Executive- Secretary shall be responsible for making sure that all members of the Executive Council have access to any deliberations. I. Suggested Protocol for E-mail Deliberations: The Executive- Secretary should contact all members and notify them of the need for a discussion. A reasonable but limited period of time (e.g., two weeks) shall be set for the deliberations. Members must refrain from voting until such time as discussion has ended and the Executive-Secretary calls for a vote. Members may not rescind their individual votes during deliberations, but they may ask for reconsideration or rescinding of the group votes by normal parliamentary means after all voting has concluded. J. The Executive Council should refrain from making decisions which can or should be made by a general business meeting or a general vote of the membership." An amendment to allow for the removal of Executive Officers and Elected Representatives, submitted by Russell Church, MTSU. Article IV, add "Section 12. Removal of Officers and Elected Representatives. A. Executive Officers (President, Vice-Presidents, Executive-Secretary, Treasurer) and those appointed to positions (e.g. Editors, Committee Chairs, etc.) may be removed for non-feasance, misfeasance and malfeasance by a two-thirds vote of the Executive Council. B. Regional Representatives may be removed for non-feasance, misfeasance and malfeasance if (1) a petition of 10 percent of the membership of the region petitions the Executive-Secretary for removal and (2) the Executive Council agrees to removal by a two-thirds vote." An amendment to clarify the Nominating Committee's responsibilities, submitted by Russell Church, MTSU. Article V, section 1, rewrite last line to read "should attempt to submit at least two names for each position." An amendment to clarify the Association's budgeting process, submitted by Russell Church, MTSU. Bylaw I, section 2, re-write to read "The Treasurer, in consultation with the other Executive Officers (President, Vice-Presidents and Executive-Secretary) should present a budget of anticipated income and expenses and existing resources as a guide for the financial activity of the Association. This budget shall be presented to the Executive Council no later than the any Summer meeting of each year. If there is no scheduled summer meeting, then the Treasurer should provide the budget to the Executive-Secretary by August 1 who will distribute the budget to the Executive Council. The Executive Council may vote to amend any part of the budget by a simple majority vote." Throughout, the word "mail" should become "mail or e-mail." An amendment to update the name of the National Communication Association, submitted by Russell Church, MTSU. Throughout, change "Speech Communication Association" to "National Communication Association." 1997-98 CROSS EXAMINATION DEBATE ASSOCIATION Proxy form for Spring 1998 Business Meetings If you are unable to attend the Spring Business meeting and have paid membership dues this year and/or last year, you may assign your proxy to a member school that has paid dues this year and/or last year. No school may bring more than five proxies to a meeting. Proxies apply to main motions only. The President may rule proxies void if amendments substantially alter a motion's intent. You may, but are not required, to specify "for" or "against" or let your proxy decide. I assign my proxy to __________________________________ for the motions checked below. Signature _________________________________ School _____________________________ _____ All motions. _____ 1. An amendment to clarify the duties of the Executive-Secretary, submitted by Russell Church, MTSU. _____ 2. An amendment to claify duties of the Treasuer, submitted by Russell Church, MTSU. _____ 3. An amendment to clarify the duties of the Executive Council, submitted by Russell Church, MTSU. _____ 4. An amendment to allow for the removal of Executive Officers and Elected Representatives, submitted by Russell Church, MTSU. _____ 5. An amendment to clarify the Nominating Committee's responsibilities, submitted by Russell Church, MTSU. _____ 6. An amendment to clarify the Association's budgeting process, submitted by Russell Church, MTSU. _____ 7. An amendment to update the name of the National Communication Association, submitted by Russell Church, MTSU. From debate Wed Mar 4 06:42:05 1998 From: debate (greg simerly) Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 06:42:05 -0600 Subject: March 1 Exec-Sec Rpt, 2 of 4 Message-ID: 1997-98 CROSS EXAMINATION DEBATE ASSOCIATION Paid members as of March 1 Abiline Christian Air Force Alabama Alaska-Anchorage Allegheny Angelo State Appalachian Arizona State Arkansas State Arkansas-Monticello Augustana (IL) Augustana (SD) Austin Peay Azusa Pacific Ball State Baylor Becker, Bob Bethel (MN) Biles, Rodger Boston College Brevard CC Cal Poly - SLO Cameron Capital Carroll Case Western Casper Catholic Univ Central Methodist Central Missouri Central Oklahoma Charleston Citadel Claremont Clarion Clemson Cleveland St CC Colorado Colorado College Columbia Basin Concordia College Cornell Craig, E. Harvey CSU-Chico CSU-Fresno CSU-Fullerton CSU-Hayward CSU-Long Beach CSU-Sacramento Cumberland Cypress Dartmouth DePaul DePauw DSR-TKA Duke Duqesne Eastern New Mexico Emory Emporia Fayetteville Florida Foreman-Takano, Deborah Fort Hays Fresno City Coll George Mason Georgia Georgia Clg & St Univ Georgia State Gonzaga Graham, Todd Harding Henderson State Hillsdale Illinois College Illinois State Ithaca Jacksonville James Madison John Carroll Johnson C. Smith Univ Jordan, Robert Kansas Kansas State Kentucky King's College Kingwood Clg Lewis & Clark Liberty Linfield Logue, Brenda J. Louisiana College Louisville Loyola (CA) LSU-Baton Rouge LSU-Shreveport Macalester Mansfield Marquette Mary Washington Matsumoto, Shigeru McGee, Brian McNeese Mercer Methodist (NC) Miami (FL) Michigan Michigan State Michigan-Dearborn Middle Tennessee Mississippi Gulf Coast CC Missouri-St.Louis Modesto JC Morehouse NEDA Nevada-Reno New Mexico New York Univ North Carolina North Dakota State North Texas Northeast Louisiana Northern Illinois Northern Iowa Northhampton CC-Monroe Northwest CC Notre Dame Oregon Otterbein Pacific Pacific Lutheran Panola JC Pepperdine Perry, Michael C. Pittsburgh Puget Sound Redlands Richmond Rochester Sam Houston Samford San Diego State San Francisco State San Jacinto Central San Jose State Santa Clara Santa Rosa JC Shelton, Michael South Carolina Southeast Missouri Southeast Oklahoma Southeastern Louisiana Southern Colorado Southern Illinois Southern Nevada Southern Utah Southwest Louisiana Southwest Missouri Southwest State Southwest Texas St. Mary's SUNY-Binghamton Syracuse Tennessee Tech Towson University Trinity University Tyler JC UMKC UNC-Charlotte UNLV US Naval Academy USC-Spartanburg UT-Austin UT-Dallas UT-El Paso UT-San Antonio UT-Tyler Utah UW-Oshkosh Valdosta State Valparaiso Vanderbilt Vermont Wake Forest Walters State CC Washington (St. Louis) Wayne State Webster West Georgia West Point Western Washington Wheaton Whitman Wichita State William Jewell Wofford Wyoming Xavier (LA) 1997-98 CROSS EXAMINATION DEBATE ASSOCIATION National sweepstakes rankings as of March 1 Rank/school/total points/tiebreaker points 1 Liberty 142 46 2 SIU 142 34 3 Michigan St 133 24 4 Emory 129 16 5 MTSU 120 30 6 Alabama 119 27 7 Geo Mason 118 29 8 Navy 116 24 9 Boston Col 112 27 10 Kansas 112 13 11 Vanderbilt 111 40 12 Cornell 106 28 13 UMKC 104 25 14 S Carolina 101 20 15 Wake Forest 101 13 16 Michigan 100 10 17 Northwestern 97 15 18 E New Mex 95 28 19 Rochester 94 22 20 SE Louisiana 90 19 21 Dartmouth 87 9 22 Whitman 86 17 23 CSU-Sac 86 16 24 Wayne St 85 25 25 Emporia St 85 19 26 Georgetown 85 15 27 Gonzaga 85 10 28 Wheaton 84 23 29 Texas 83 3 30 Bakersfield* 81 20 31 SW Texas 79 25 32 Cent Ok 79 15 33 Vermont 79 11 34 Towson 78 15 35 Harvard 77 10 36 Iowa 76 5 37 Georgia 74 6 38 S Utah 71 18 39 Pepperdine 70 17 4 CSU-Chico 69.5 16 41 Louisville 69 12 42 Cal Poly SLO 67.5 14 43 Mary Wash 67 5 44 Illinois St 66.5 16 45 Ark St 66.5 15 46 Arizona St 65 15 47 W Georgia 65 7 48 Santa Rosa JC* 63 13 49 Geo Wash 63 7 50 Trinity (TX) 62 10 51 N Illinois 61 17 52 Pace 61 7 53 Miami (FL) 61 6 54 John Carroll 61 5 55 Macalester 58 4 56 SFSU 57 13 57 San Jose St 57 12 58 Cameron 56.5 18 59 Los Rios* 55 14 60 McNeese 55 10 61 Redlands 55 1 62 Fort Hays 54 9 63 SW Missouri 54 7 64 Kansas St 54 1 65 Lewis & Clark 53 10 66 NW College* 53 9 67 CSU-Fllrton 53 2 68 UT-Dallas 52 17 69 N Texas 51 6.5 70 Florida 50.5 9.5 71 Cent Meth 50 12 72 Ball State 50 11 73 DePaul 50 7 74 N Iowa 49 14 75 Samford 49 7 76 UNLV 49 6 77 Baylor 49 0 78 West Point 48 8 79 New Mexico 48 3 80 Mercer 47 6 81 Truman St 46 9 82 Wichita St 46 7 83 Loyola (IL) 45 8 84 Cleveland St CC*45 4 85 Methodist (NC)45 1 86 Duquesne 44 1 87 Morehouse 43 3 88 LSU-Shreveport 42.5 10 89 Auggie (IL) 42.5 5 90 Allegheny 42 2 91 Hillsdale 42 1 92 CSU-LB 41.5 8 93 Johnson Cnty* 41 11 94 Puget Sound 41 5 95 Pitt 41 4 William J 41 4 97 Air Force 41 2 98 Western Wash 39 4 99 Mich-Dearborn 39 0 100 Abiline Christ 37.5 4 101 Weber St 37.5 1 102 Clemson 36 7 103 E Utah* 35 5 104 North Carolina 35 3 105 Richmond 35 1 106 Capital 34.5 0 107 UW-Oshkosh 34 1 108 Berkeley 33 9 109 Ark Tech 33 8 110 Webster 31.5 2 111 New York U 31 5 112 Kentucky 29 0 Tenn Tech 29 0 114 Utah 28.5 0 115 App St 28 5 116 Sam Houston 27 2 117 NE Louisiana 26.5 2.5 118 UT-San Anton 26.5 0 119 Valdosta St 25 3 120 Cumberland 25 0 James Mdsn 25 0 122 San Jacinto* 23 8.5 123 Loyola (CA) 23 0 124 Syracuse 22.5 1 125 Austin Peay 22 1 126 Auggie (SD) 22 0 127 SW Louisiana 21 5 128 Florida St 21 0 129 SE Missouri 20.5 0.5 130 Oregon 19 0 131 Fresno City Clg 18 1 132 Claremont 18 0 133 Colorado 17 2 134 Marshall 17 1 135 Marquette 17 0 San Diego St 17 0 Santa Clara 17 0 138 Washington (StL)16 3 139 Georgia St 15 1 140 Kings 15 0 141 Columbia 13.5 5 142 Casper* 13 1 143 Clarion 13 0 144 Cypress* 12.5 4 145 Duke 12 1 146 Notre Dame 12 1 147 LSU-BR 12 0 148 Ithica 10.5 1 149 CSU-Nrthrdge 10 0 SUNY-Bing 10 0 USC-Sprtnbrg 10 0 152 Texas Tech 9.5 0.5 153 Panola JC* 9 2.5 154 Angelo St 8 0 Case Westrn 8 0 156 Harding 7 0 Marist 7 0 Pacific Luth 7 0 159 Seattle 6 0 Xavier (LA) 6 0 161 UNCC 5 3 162 UMSL 3 0 163 Concordia Clg 2 0 Furman 2 0 Henderson 2 0 Mansfield 2 0 SE Oklahoma 2 0 168 Kingwood 1 0 169 Tyler JC 0.5 0 170 American 0 0 Ark-Monticello 0 0 Asbury 0 0 Azusa Pacific 0 0 Baker 0 0 Biola 0 0 Boise State 0 0 Brevard CC* 0 0 Cal Luth 0 0 Carroll 0 0 Cent Missouri 0 0 Charleston 0 0 Citadel 0 0 Clark-Atlanta 0 0 Col Basin CC* 0 0 Colorado Coll 0 0 Concordia-StPl 0 0 CSU-Fresno 0 0 CSU-Hayward 0 0 DePauw 0 0 Diablo Valley* 0 0 Georgia Clg 0 0 Georgia Mlt 0 0 Gustavus 0 0 Henry Ford CC*0 0 Highland 0 0 Illinois Clg 0 0 Jacksonsville 0 0 Linfield 0 0 Lipscomb 0 0 Louisiana Col 0 0 McKendree 0 0 Mobile 0 0 Modesto* 0 0 N Dakota St 0 0 Nebraska 0 0 Nevada-Reno 0 0 NW Louisiana 0 0 Otterbein 0 0 Pacific 0 0 Palm Bch Atlntc0 0 Point Loma 0 0 Rockland CC* 0 0 S Cal Clg 0 0 S Colo 0 0 S Nevada* 0 0 Sac City* 0 0 San Fran City* 0 0 Southern Meth 0 0 St. Mary's 0 0 SW ST (MN) 0 0 Trinity Intl 0 0 U of Pacific 0 0 UT-El Paso 0 0 UT-Tyler 0 0 UW-River Falls 0 0 Walters State* 0 0 Willamette 0 0 Wingate 0 0 Wofford 0 0 Wyoming 0 0 From debate Wed Mar 4 06:42:20 1998 From: debate (greg simerly) Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 06:42:20 -0600 Subject: March 1 Exec-Sec Rpt, 3 of 4 Message-ID: 1997-98 CROSS EXAMINATION DEBATE ASSOCIATION Regional rankings as of March 1 Rank/school/total points/tiebreaker points n1 Liberty E 142 46 n7 Geo Mason E 118 29 n8 Navy E 116 24 n9 Boston Col E 112 27 1 Cornell E 106 28 2 Rochester E 94 22 3 Dartmouth E 87 9 4 Georgetown E 85 15 5 Vermont E 79 11 6 Towson E 78 15 7 Harvard E 77 10 8 Mary Wash E 67 5 9 Geo Wash E 63 7 10 Pace E 61 7 11 West Point E 48 8 12 Duquesne E 44 1 13 Allegheny E 42 2 14 Pitt E 41 4 15 New York U E 31 5 16 James Mdsn E 25 0 17 Syracuse E 22.5 1 18 Kings E 15 0 19 Columbia E 13.5 5 20 Clarion E 13 0 21 Ithica E 10.5 1 22 SUNY-Bing E 10 0 23 Marist E 7 0 24 Mansfield E 2 0 25 American E 0 0 Rockland CC* E 0 0 n3 Michigan St EC 133 24 1 Michigan EC 100 10 2 Wayne St EC 85 25 3 John Carroll EC 61 5 4 Ball State EC 50 11 5 Hillsdale EC 42 1 6 Capital EC 34.5 0 7 Marshall EC 17 1 8 Notre Dame EC 12 1 9 Case Westrn EC 8 0 10 DePauw EC 0 0 Henry Ford CC*EC 0 0 Otterbein EC 0 0 n10 Kansas MA 112 13 1 UMKC MA 104 25 2 Emporia St MA 85 19 3 Cent Ok MA 79 15 4 Cameron MA 56.5 18 5 Fort Hays MA 54 9 6 SW Missouri MA 54 7 7 Kansas St MA 54 1 8 Cent Meth MA 50 12 9 Truman St MA 46 9 10 Wichita St MA 46 7 11 Johnson Cnty* MA 41 11 12 William J MA 41 4 13 Webster MA 31.5 2 14 SE Missouri MA 20.5 0.5 15 UMSL MA 3 0 16 SE Oklahoma MA 2 0 17 Baker MA 0 0 Cent Missouri MA 0 0 n2 SIU NC 142 34 1 Northwestern NC 97 15 2 Wheaton NC 84 23 3 Iowa NC 76 5 4 Illinois St NC 66.5 16 5 N Illinois NC 61 17 6 Macalester NC 58 4 7 DePaul NC 50 7 8 N Iowa NC 49 14 9 Loyola (IL) NC 45 8 10 Auggie (IL) NC 42.5 5 11 Mich-Dearborn NC 39 0 12 UW-Oshkosh NC 34 1 13 Auggie (SD) NC 22 0 14 Marquette NC 17 0 15 Concordia Clg NC 2 0 16 Concordia-StPl NC 0 0 Gustavus NC 0 0 Highland NC 0 0 Illinois Clg NC 0 0 McKendree NC 0 0 N Dakota St NC 0 0 Nebraska NC 0 0 SW ST (MN) NC 0 0 Trinity Intl NC 0 0 UW-River Falls NC 0 0 1 Whitman NW 86 17 2 Gonzaga NW 85 10 3 Lewis & Clark NW 53 10 4 Puget Sound NW 41 5 5 Western Wash NW 39 4 6 Oregon NW 19 0 7 Washington (StL)NW 16 3 8 Pacific Luth NW 7 0 9 Seattle NW 6 0 10 Boise State NW 0 0 Col Basin CC* NW 0 0 Linfield NW 0 0 Pacific NW 0 0 U of Pacific NW 0 0 Willamette NW 0 0 1 E New Mex RM 95 28 2 S Utah RM 71 18 3 NW College* RM 53 9 4 New Mexico RM 48 3 5 Air Force RM 41 2 6 Weber St RM 37.5 1 7 E Utah* RM 35 5 8 Utah RM 28.5 0 9 Colorado RM 17 2 10 Casper* RM 13 1 11 Carroll RM 0 0 Colorado Coll RM 0 0 S Colo RM 0 0 Wyoming RM 0 0 1 SE Louisiana SC 90 19 2 Texas SC 83 3 3 SW Texas SC 79 25 4 Trinity (TX) SC 62 10 5 McNeese SC 55 10 6 UT-Dallas SC 52 17 7 N Texas SC 51 6.5 8 Baylor SC 49 0 9 LSU-ShreveportSC 42.5 10 10 Abiline Christ SC 37.5 4 11 Sam Houston SC 27 2 12 NE Louisiana SC 26.5 2.5 13 UT-San Anton SC 26.5 0 14 San Jacinto* SC 23 8.5 15 SW Louisiana SC 21 5 16 LSU-BR SC 12 0 17 Texas Tech SC 9.5 0.5 18 Panola JC* SC 9 2.5 19 Angelo St SC 8 0 20 Xavier (LA) SC 6 0 21 Kingwood SC 1 0 22 Tyler JC SC 0.5 0 23 Louisiana Col SC 0 0 NW Louisiana SC 0 0 Southern Meth SC 0 0 St. Mary's SC 0 0 UT-El Paso SC 0 0 UT-Tyler SC 0 0 1 Pepperdine SCA 70 17 2 Arizona St SCA 65 15 3 Redlands SCA 55 1 4 CSU-Fllrton SCA 53 2 5 UNLV SCA 49 6 6 CSU-LB SCA 41.5 8 7 Loyola (CA) SCA 23 0 8 Claremont SCA 18 0 9 San Diego St SCA 17 0 10 Cypress* SCA 12.5 4 11 CSU-Nrthrdge SCA 10 0 12 Azusa Pacific SCA 0 0 Biola SCA 0 0 Cal Luth SCA 0 0 Point Loma SCA 0 0 S Cal Clg SCA 0 0 S Nevada* SCA 0 0 n4 Emory SE 129 16 1 S Carolina SE 101 20 2 Wake Forest SE 101 13 3 Georgia SE 74 6 4 W Georgia SE 65 7 5 Miami (FL) SE 61 6 6 Florida SE 50.5 9.5 7 Mercer SE 47 6 8 Methodist (NC)SE 45 1 9 Morehouse SE 43 3 10 Clemson SE 36 7 11 North Carolina SE 35 3 12 Richmond SE 35 1 13 App St SE 28 5 14 Valdosta St SE 25 3 15 Florida St SE 21 0 16 Georgia St SE 15 1 17 Duke SE 12 1 18 USC-Sprtnbrg SE 10 0 19 UNCC SE 5 3 20 Furman SE 2 0 21 Brevard CC* SE 0 0 Charleston SE 0 0 Citadel SE 0 0 Clark-Atlanta SE 0 0 Georgia Clg SE 0 0 Georgia Mlt SE 0 0 Jacksonsville SE 0 0 Palm Bch AtlntcSE 0 0 Wingate SE 0 0 Wofford SE 0 0 n5 MTSU SEC 120 30 n6 Alabama SEC 119 27 1 Vanderbilt SEC 111 40 2 Louisville SEC 69 12 3 Ark St SEC 66.5 15 4 Samford SEC 49 7 5 Cleveland St CC*SEC 45 4 6 Ark Tech SEC 33 8 7 Kentucky SEC 29 0 Tenn Tech SEC 29 0 9 Cumberland SEC 25 0 10 Austin Peay SEC 22 1 11 Harding SEC 7 0 12 Henderson SEC 2 0 13 Ark-Monticello SEC 0 0 Asbury SEC 0 0 Lipscomb SEC 0 0 Mobile SEC 0 0 Walters State* SEC 0 0 1 CSU-Sac W 86 16 2 Bakersfield* W 81 20 3 CSU-Chico W 69.5 16 4 Cal Poly SLO W 67.5 14 5 Santa Rosa JC* W 63 13 6 SFSU W 57 13 7 San Jose St W 57 12 8 Los Rios* W 55 14 9 Berkeley W 33 9 10 Fresno City ClgW 18 1 11 Santa Clara W 17 0 12 CSU-Fresno W 0 0 CSU-Hayward W 0 0 Diablo Valley* W 0 0 Modesto* W 0 0 Nevada-Reno W 0 0 Sac City* W 0 0 San Fran City* W 0 0 1997-98 CROSS EXAMINATION DEBATE ASSOCIATION Two-year school rankings as of March 1 Rank/school/total points/tiebreaker points 1 Bakersfield* 81 20 2 Santa Rosa JC* 63 13 3 Los Rios* 55 14 4 NW College* 53 9 5 Cleveland St CC*45 4 6 Johnson Cnty* 41 11 7 E Utah* 35 5 8 San Jacinto* 23 8.5 9 Casper* 13 1 10 Cypress* 12.5 4 11 Panola JC* 9 2.5 12 Tyler JC* 0.5 0 13 Brevard CC* 0 0 Col Basin CC* 0 0 Diablo Valley* 0 0 Modesto* 0 0 Rockland CC* 0 0 S Nevada* 0 0 Sac City* 0 0 San Fran City* 0 0 Walters State* 0 0 1997-98 CROSS EXAMINATION DEBATE ASSOCIATION New Members sweeptakes rankings Rank/school/total points/tiebreaker points 1 Washington (StL)16 3 2 Panola JC 9 2.5 3 Case Western 8 0 4 Kingwood 1 0 5 Catholic 0 0 Nthhampton CC0 0 Valparaiso 0 0 1997-98 CROSS EXAMINATION DEBATE ASSOCIATION Select Sweepstakes rankings as of March 1 (max 6 tournaments, plus nationals) Rank/school/total points/total tiebreakers 1 Ark St 66.5 15 2 UT-Dallas 52 17 3 Ball State 50 11 4 Loyola (IL) 45 8 5 Cleveland St CC*45 4 6 Morehouse 43 3 7 Allegheny 42 2 8 E Utah* 35 5 9 Capital 34.5 0 10 Tenn Tech 29 0 11 Valdosta St 25 3 12 Cumberland 25 0 13 Fresno City Clg 18 1 14 Marquette 17 0 Santa Clara 17 0 16 Washington (StL)16 3 17 Duke 12 1 18 LSU-BR 12 0 19 Ithica 10.5 1 20 Case Westrn 8 0 21 Harding 7 0 22 Xavier (LA) 6 0 23 UMSL 3 0 24 Henderson 2 0 25 Modesto* 0 0 N Dakota St 0 0 UT-El Paso 0 0 From debate Wed Mar 4 06:42:35 1998 From: debate (greg simerly) Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 06:42:35 -0600 Subject: March 1 Exec-Sec Rpt, 4 of 4 Message-ID: 1997-98 CROSS EXAMINATION DEBATE ASSOCIATION National Sweepstakes rankings, unformatted 1 Liberty E 24 10 26 8 29 8 15 6 22 10 26 4 142 46 2 SIU NC 21 6 21 2 26 8 22 2 27 8 25 8 142 34 3 Michigan St EC 28 6 18 5 14 0 24 4 35 8 14 1 133 24 4 Emory SE 23 1 30 5 18 3 18 1 19 5 21 1 129 16 5 MTSU SEC 19 4 24 8 21 4 19 6 19 3 18 5 120 30 6 Alabama SEC 23 6 21 6 19 8 21 1 16 1 19 5 119 27 7 Geo Mason E 24 6 23 8 21 5 21 6 15 3 14 1 118 29 8 Navy E 23 6 28 8 8 0 21 5 20 2 16 3 116 24 9 Boston Col E 13 0 13 6 19 5 21 4 23 6 23 6 112 27 10 Kansas MA 21 1 25 5 12 0 14 0 19 1 21 6 112 13 11 Vanderbilt SEC 20 6 16 6 19 6 21 6 17 8 18 8 111 40 12 Cornell E 23 2 12 0 17 6 12 6 18 6 24 8 106 28 13 UMKC MA 20 5 16 5 15 0 18 2 18 6.5 17 6 104 25 14 S Carolina SE 18 6 12 2 18 3 14 1 16 4 23 4 101 20 15 Wake Forest SE 11 0 27 8 13 0 15 0 12 0 23 5 101 13 16 Michigan EC 11 0 20 0 24 3 18 1 15 1 12 5 100 10 17 Northwestern NC 13 1 22 5 15 5 19 3 15 1 13 0 97 15 18 E New Mex RM 14 1 17 5 11 3 19 6 20 8 14 5 95 28 19 Rochester E 4 0 21 4 18 6 26 5 10 1 15 6 94 22 20 SE Louisiana SC 13 0 12 1 24 8 14 4 22 5 5 1 90 19 21 Dartmouth E 14 0 20 1 21 5 5 0 15 3 12 0 87 9 22 Whitman NW 10 0 19 8 16 0 18 8 13 0 10 1 86 17 23 CSU-Sac W 28 10 13 1 17 2 11 3 8 0 9 0 86 16 24 Wayne St EC 18 5 12 5 17 8 13 1 13 1 12 5 85 25 25 Emporia St MA 11 1 13 4 14 3 20 4 17 4 10 3 85 19 26 Georgetown E 13 3 12 0 12 0 13 3 20 6 15 3 85 15 27 Gonzaga NW 12 0 9 0 19 4 23 6 10 0 12 0 85 10 28 Wheaton NC 14 5 8 0 11 0 17 5 24 10 10 3 84 23 29 Texas SC 17 0 14 0 17 0 13 0 10 0 12 3 83 3 30 Bakersfield* W 9 0 12 3 15 5 11 1 19 8 15 3 81 20 31 SW Texas SC 20 8 10 0 14 6 9 0 11 5 15 6 79 25 32 Cent Ok MA 10 0 19 5 12 1.5 23 8 9 0 6 0 79 15 33 Vermont E 7 0 9 0 24 6 9 1 16 3 14 1 79 11 34 Towson E 8 1 11 0 21 5 20 8 9 1 9 0 78 15 35 Harvard E 17 1 8 0 9 0 16 3 16 5 11 1 77 10 36 Iowa NC 14 1 12 0 13 0 17 3 11 1 9 0 76 5 37 Georgia SE 15 1 11 0 9 0 8 0 17 5 14 0 74 6 38 S Utah RM 20 4 5 0 17 5 15 8 6 0 8 1 71 18 39 Pepperdine SCA 20 4 8 0 6 0 14 5 13 8 9 0 70 17 4 CSU-Chico W 7 0 9.5 2.5 21 8 9 1 13 3 10 1 69.5 16 41 Louisville SEC 11 0 11 5 17 5 8 1 8 0 14 1 69 12 42 Cal Poly SLO W 10.5 3 15 1 8 1 10 3 16 5 8 1 67.5 14 43 Mary Wash E 15 0 12 0 7 0 7 0 18 5 8 0 67 5 44 Illinois St NC 9 0 8.5 1 14 4 19 6 7 0 9 5 66.5 16 45 Ark St SEC 10 1 6 0 18 7.5 22 6 4 0 7 0 66.5 15 46 Arizona St SCA 13 5 8 0 14 4 9 0 13 5 8 1 65 15 47 W Georgia SE 14 0 7 0 13 0 9 0 11 7 11 0 65 7 48 Santa Rosa JC* W 5 0 19 6 9 1 11 1 2 0 17 5 63 13 49 Geo Wash E 8 0 13 0 7 0 19 6 6 0 10 1 63 7 50 Trinity (TX) SC 16 3 8 1 13 5 9 1 8 0 8 0 62 10 51 N Illinois NC 7 1 9 1 7 0 14 5 8 0 16 10 61 17 52 Pace E 9 0 18 3 12 3 12 1 5 0 5 0 61 7 53 Miami (FL) SE 9 0 12 3 10 0 10 0 13 3 7 0 61 6 54 John Carroll EC 12 0 12 0 7 0 9 0 12 5 9 0 61 5 55 Macalester NC 9 0 6 0 10 1 11 0 6 0 16 3 58 4 56 SFSU W 6 0 10 1 7 3 9 3 8 1 17 5 57 13 57 San Jose St W 10 1 13 3 16 6 7 1 4 0 7 1 57 12 58 Cameron MA 19.5 5.5 3 0 15 6 7 1 12 5 0 0 56.5 18 59 Los Rios* W 5 0 8 0 8 3 9 3 14 3 11 5 55 14 60 McNeese SC 8 0 20 4 5 0 6 1 11 5 5 0 55 10 61 Redlands SCA 8 0 7 1 15 0 7 0 10 0 8 0 55 1 62 Fort Hays MA 16 3 10 5 6 0 9 1 5 0 8 0 54 9 63 SW Missouri MA 13 3 7 0 7 0 11 3 7 0 9 1 54 7 64 Kansas St MA 9 0 7 1 12 0 7 0 10 0 9 0 54 1 65 Lewis & Clark NW 7 0 12 5 6 0 6 0 16 5 6 0 53 10 66 NW College* RM 11 0 10 0 4 0 4 0 8 1 16 8 53 9 67 CSU-Fllrton SCA 12 1 6 0 6 0 10 0 8 0 11 1 53 2 68 UT-Dallas SC 5 1 2 0 9 3 17 5 19 8 0 0 52 17 69 N Texas SC 6 0 9 1 8.5 1 14 3 7.5 0 6 1.5 51 6.5 70 Florida SE 11.5 2.5 15 5 5 0 4 0 6 0.5 9 1.5 50.5 9.5 71 Cent Meth MA 5 0 9 3 7 0 8 0 14 6 7 3 50 12 72 Ball State EC 8 1 11 1 5 1 4 0 22 8 0 0 50 11 73 DePaul NC 1 0 13 4 11 1 14 1 5 1 6 0 50 7 74 N Iowa NC 7 0 6 0 6 0 15 8 6 3 9 3 49 14 75 Samford SEC 3 0 5 0 12 1 10 5 6 0 13 1 49 7 76 UNLV SCA 7 0 6 0 5 0 6 0 21 6 4 0 49 6 77 Baylor SC 9 0 8 0 6 0 12 0 8 0 6 0 49 0 78 West Point E 9 1 7 0 8 3 6 0 5 0 13 4 48 8 79 New Mexico RM 7 3 6 0 13 0 6 0 7 0 9 0 48 3 80 Mercer SE 8 0 7 0 11 5 6 0 10 1 5 0 47 6 81 Truman St MA 5 0 4 0 15 3 9 0 13 6 0 0 46 9 82 Wichita St MA 7 1 9 0 4 0 11 5 12 1 3 0 46 7 83 Loyola (IL) NC 10 0 13 5 8 0 14 3 0 0 0 0 45 8 84 Cleveland St CC* SEC 14 1 13 3 8 0 3 0 7 0 0 0 45 4 85 Methodist (NC) SE 5 0 12 1 11 0 6 0 11 0 0 0 45 1 86 Duquesne E 9 0 9 0 6 0 9 1 6 0 5 0 44 1 87 Morehouse SE 6 0 9 1 13 1 9 1 6 0 0 0 43 3 88 LSU-Shreveport SC 8.5 2.5 7 0 9 2 9 3 9 2.5 0 0 42.5 10 89 Auggie (IL) NC 5 0 10 1 5.5 0 5 0 7 0 10 4 42.5 5 90 Allegheny E 4 0 9 0 9 1 12 1 4 0 4 0 42 2 91 Hillsdale EC 6 0 9 0 4 0 6 0 13 1 4 0 42 1 92 CSU-LB SCA 12 3.5 5 0 15 4.5 3 0 4 0 3 0 41.5 8 93 Johnson Cnty* MA 4 0 6 1 5 1 6 1 10 3 10 5 41 11 94 Puget Sound NW 8 0 8 0 10 1 2 0 13 4 0 0 41 5 95 Pitt E 6 0 9 3 10 1 5 0 5 0 6 0 41 4 96 William J MA 11 1 9 3 8 0 5 0 4 0 4 0 41 4 97 Air Force RM 5 0 5 0 4 0 9 1 13 1 5 0 41 2 98 Western Wash NW 4 0 6 0 11 1 12 3 3 0 3 0 39 4 99 Mich-Dearborn NC 5 0 7 0 6 0 8 0 4 0 9 0 39 0 100 Abiline Christ SC 5 0 6 0 12 3 1.5 0 7 0 6 1 37.5 4 11 Weber St RM 8 1 3.5 0 5 0 5 0 6 0 10 0 37.5 1 102 Clemson SE 6 0 9 5 3 0 10 1 5 1 3 0 36 7 103 E Utah* RM 6 0 1 0 9 0 3 0 16 5 0 0 35 5 104 North Carolina SE 9 0 8 0 2 0 6 0 10 3 0 0 35 3 15 Richmond SE 6 0 5 0 10 1 4 0 5 0 5 0 35 1 106 Capital EC 6 0 6 0 6 0 5 0 9 0 2.5 0 34.5 0 107 UW-Oshkosh NC 1 0 10 0 8 0 8 1 7 0 0 0 34 1 108 Berkeley W 15 8 3 0 1 0 11 1 3 0 0 0 33 9 109 Ark Tech SEC 14 3 9 5 6 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 33 8 110 Webster MA 6 0 4 0 3 0 4 0 6 0 8.5 2 31.5 2 111 New York U E 6 0 9 0 7.5 2.5 2 0 5 2.5 1.5 0 31 5 112 Kentucky SEC 3 0 6 0 6 0 6 0 3 0 5 0 29 0 113 Tenn Tech SEC 4 0 4 0 8 0 3 0 5 0 5 0 29 0 114 Utah RM 3.5 0 5 0 5 0 6 0 5 0 4 0 28.5 0 115 App St SE 14 5 1 0 5 0 2 0 4 0 2 0 28 5 116 Sam Houston SC 3 0 5.5 1 6 0 3 1 6 0 3.5 0 27 2 117 NE Louisiana SC 5 1 7 0 2 0 3.5 0.5 3 0.5 6 0.5 26.5 2.5 118 UT-San Anton SC 7 0 6 0 3.5 0 3 0 1 0 6 0 26.5 0 119 Valdosta St SE 11 0 3 0 3 0 4 3 2 0 2 0 25 3 120 Cumberland SEC 5 0 6 0 5 0 5 0 4 0 0 0 25 0 121 James Mdsn E 4 0 4 0 3 0 6 0 5 0 3 0 25 0 122 San Jacinto* SC 4 2.5 7.5 2.5 9 3.5 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 23 8.5 123 Loyola (CA) SCA 3 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 8 0 0 0 23 0 124 Syracuse E 3 0 3 0 8 1 2 0 2 0 4.5 0 22.5 1 125 Austin Peay SEC 5 0 7 1 3 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 22 1 126 Auggie (SD) NC 3 0 4 0 9 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 127 SW Louisiana SC 17 5 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 5 128 Florida St SE 5 0 5 0 2 0 4 0 5 0 0 0 21 0 129 SE Missouri MA 3 0 4.5 0 4 0 4 0 2 0 3 0.5 20.5 0.5 130 Oregon NW 4 0 2 0 3 0 2 0 3 0 5 0 19 0 131 Fresno City Clg W 2 0 4 0 12 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 1 132 Claremont SCA 3 0 3 0 3 0 1.5 0 6 0 1.5 0 18 0 133 Colorado RM 3 0 3 0 5 1 6 1 0 0 0 0 17 2 134 Marshall EC 10 1 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 1 135 Marquette NC 8 0 3 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 136 San Diego St SCA 3 0 2 0 3 0 8 0 1 0 0 0 17 0 137 Santa Clara W 6 0 4 0 5 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 138 Washington (StL) NW 2 0 3 0 9 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 16 3 139 Georgia St SE 2 0 2 0 3 0 2 0 1 0 5 1 15 1 140 Kings E 7 0 1 0 2 0 2 0 3 0 0 0 15 0 141 Columbia E 1.5 0 5 2.5 1.5 0 5.5 2.5 0 0 0 0 13.5 5 142 Casper* RM 4 0 3 0 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 1 143 Clarion E 3 0 3 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 144 Cypress* SCA 5 2.5 5.5 1.5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12.5 4 145 Duke SE 1 0 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 1 146 Notre Dame EC 1 0 4 0 2 0 5 1 0 0 0 0 12 1 147 LSU-BR SC 3 0 3 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 12 0 148 Ithica E 4 0 6 1 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10.5 1 149 CSU-Nrthrdge SCA 3 0 1 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 150 SUNY-Bing E 3 0 1 0 2 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 151 USC-Sprtnbrg SE 3 0 1 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 152 Texas Tech SC 3 0 2.5 0.5 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 9.5 0.5 153 Panola JC* SC 1 0 2 0 6 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 2.5 154 Angelo St SC 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 155 Case Westrn EC 3 0 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 156 Harding SEC 1 0 4 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 157 Marist E 2 0 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 158 Pacific Luth NW 2 0 2 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 159 Seattle NW 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 160 Xavier (LA) SC 4 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 161 UNCC SE 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 3 162 UMSL MA 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 163 Concordia Clg NC 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 164 Furman SE 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 165 Henderson SEC 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 166 Mansfield E 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 167 SE Oklahoma MA 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 168 Kingwood SC 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 169 Tyler JC SC 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 American E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ark-Monticello SEC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Asbury SEC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Azusa Pacific SCA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Baker MA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Biola SCA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Boise State NW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Brevard CC* SE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cal Luth SCA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Carroll RM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cent Missouri MA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Charleston SE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Citadel SE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Clark-Atlanta SE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Col Basin CC* NW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Colorado Coll RM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Concordia-StPl NC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CSU-Fresno W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CSU-Hayward W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DePauw EC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diablo Valley* W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Georgia Clg SE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Georgia Mlt SE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Gustavus NC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Henry Ford CC* EC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Highland NC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Illinois Clg NC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Jacksonsville SE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Linfield NW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lipscomb SEC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Louisiana Col SC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 McKendree NC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mobile SEC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Modesto* W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N Dakota St NC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nebraska NC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nevada-Reno W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NW Louisiana SC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Otterbein EC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pacific NW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Palm Bch Atlntc SE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Point Loma SCA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rockland CC* E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S Cal Clg SCA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S Colo RM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S Nevada* SCA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sac City* W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 San Fran City* W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Southern Meth SC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 St. Mary's SC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SW ST (MN) NC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Trinity Intl NC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U of Pacific NW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 UT-El Paso SC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 UT-Tyler SC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 UW-River Falls NC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Walters State* SEC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Willamette NW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Wingate SE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Wofford SE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Wyoming RM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 From DRTUNA Wed Mar 4 07:19:56 1998 From: DRTUNA (DRTUNA) Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 08:19:56 EST Subject: Is there a entry deadline or not? Message-ID: "Call me crazy, but the deadline for entries has been known for months now. Is there a set deadline for rntries or not? Scott Elliott SELA" Prof. Elliott is concerned about the CEDA Nats entry deadline. Yes, there is. The deadline is determined by the postmark on your certified mail, March 1. Knowing my mail service at school, I will expect many more to come in with legit dates. I have seen first class mail take over 10 days to reach my mail box at school. Those who were unable to make the deadline and asked for an extension and gave a good reason were granted one. I'm not going to exclude students from their nationals when there is a good reason for their delay. All of those who wish to exclude people from their Nationals when the only reason is "it's the deadline and I don't care what your reason is" voted for the wrong President when they voted for me. I'm all about inclusion, whether it is an NDT school who had their District tournament the day the entries were due or a new school not used to the details or a school which had its administrative offices closed all of last week. If they are in contact with me and have good reasons, it's going to be OK. I am just a bit more open than most about what is going on. I am told that CEDA Presidents have traditionally allowed late entries with good reasons, I'm just the first to be so public about it. I am reminded of CEDA Nationals at Western Washington where Queens College had to have a hearing the day before Nationals to determine whether they should be allowed to enter because they were a bit late. They were going to be turned away and sent home without debating. Outreach to people, contact and assistance from me, and understanding for new schools having a hard time getting checks cut can avoid this problem. I hope that answers your question. Best wishes, Tuna CEDA Prez From sellis1 Wed Mar 4 08:38:13 1998 From: sellis1 (Andy Ellis) Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 09:38:13 -0500 Subject: Paul kerr Message-ID: Paul can you get in touch with me about your caselist info. Andy From sellis1 Wed Mar 4 08:44:09 1998 From: sellis1 (Andy Ellis) Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 09:44:09 -0500 Subject: towson caselist info Message-ID: This is what we have, if you are not on here email sellis1 at tiger.towson.edu still waiting for some people, if I missed something you sent me let me know, if you sent me what you that was disclosure and i thought it was just a cite request(i.e. ENMU and GMU) then i will put those up as well. Andy Ellis Towson University Cornell As of know, Rob and I are still running CBMs, and Mel and Mike will be running Jess and Mike's version of Joint development. The structure of our aff is: Obs 1 Inherency There is an opportunity for peace Obs 2 The harms Sub A Arms race Sub B Piracy Observation 3 Solvency Emporia Plan USFG will increase security assistance to SEA by donating a $30 million aid package to demine Cambodia through theCMAC. The aid package will be used to increase and better mine clearance technology, increase education for deminers and increae 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. OBS 1.--The Killing Fields: Cambodia can't demine in SQ...Now is the unique time to solve. OBS 2.-The Deadly Legacy: 10 million landmines in Cambodia, 236 civilians victimized each year, Ottawa treaty doesn't eliminate land mines in Cambodia. OBS 3.-Solvency: US can demine..we have tech, expertise, education, US is a politica leader with influence, MWM, airknives, lexfoam solve, Moral Obligation to act. ENMU Open team will run agent orange cleanup in vietnam Our novice team will run clean up subic bay and give singapore the magic lantern. GEORGE MASON text: The USFG should sub. increase S.A. to Singapore by authorizing the export of unfettered encryption tech. Done via Direct Commercial Sales. Scenerios are Hackers cause chaos and nuclear wars Info War MEAD (hackers destabalize economy) Novice teams will be running demine Cambodia...don't know the exact plan text but its the same boring aff...no big surprises. Louisville We will be at your debate tournment in March. We are Louisville DH and we run Special Forces to the topic countries. MICHIGAN (N) plan text= The USFG shall substantially increase assistance to asean for the purpose of mulitaleral management of regional fisheries: limited pps data, maritime moniotoring devices and a regional coordinating center. Ongoing implementation of the assistance shall not necessarily be through the united states. funding and enforcement normal if necessary. (MTSU Crews and Ishak). Case is going to remain essentially the same (demine/debomb cambodia-send lexfoam, mwm, airknives) (from the Saluki case list); plan text will change for that tournament (and the two tournaments before Towson)... North Carolina Bermel & Curlee, have been running -- essentially, it's joint exercises and training with SE Asian nations using an aircraft carrier, intended to check SCS conflict. We'll be entered in the JV Division at Towson. The outline is as follows: Contention 1 - US naval presence has become inconsistent. It was obvious in 1994 that SE Asia would lose out [Desmond Ball, Asian nations perceive that US withdrawal from the region is inevitable [Mark Valencia, SE Asia in the New World Order, 1996] Advantage - South China Seas Conflict There is no progress in current CBMs [Valencia, 1996] China has the military capabilities to cause conflict in the Spratlys [Cronin & Cronin, Washington Quarterly, 1996] China can threaten vital SLOCs in the SCS [Rodman, The Straits Times (Singapore), 7/6/97] Mischief reef incident proves - China just manipulates ASEAN [McLanan (sp?), National Interest, Fall 1997, p. 58] Empirically - China acts like a wolf in sheep's clothing - it deceptively participates in negotiations to advance its interest - regional forums can't solve SQ disputes [Valencia, 1996] These disputes draw in Japan, Russia, and the US, leading to international conflict [Valencia, 1996] US and China are drawn into a nuclear war [Mahathir, The World Reshaped, 1996, p. 119] Plan - Substantial security assistance should be provided as follows: the US federal government should provide constant coverage of the Southeast Asian region by one aircraft carrier, and as much of its attendant battle group as US Naval Command in consultation with PACCOM deems necessary to provide operational and doctrinal development training, professional military education and discussions regarding military professionalism pertaining to defensive naval doctrine, formal or informal discussions of appropriate divisions of labor in the event of collective action, with particular emphasis placed on the need for assisted nations to focus on littoral and coastal defense, and joint exercises for that purpose. The offer of assistance shall be made to the Southeast Asian nations which the US currently has diplomatic ties with. Nothing in the plan should be interpreted as precluding the deployment of additional US forces and service members. The deployment of the carrier required to perform the above service will be guaranteed. We reserve the right to clarify. Contention 2 - Solvency A commitment to constant coverage signals our determination to support and stabilize the area. [da Cunha, The Straits Times (Singapore), 5/30/97] Training and presence are necessary to solve [Addicott, JAG Int'l Law Division, 1990] To maximize cooperation with the Chinese, the US must increase its military presence in the region [Kagan, FNS, 9/17/97] UNC Novice Team Mayer and Stonestreet. They've been running the same case, essentially (with a few less cards). Northern Illinois (N) (J) They run 7th fleet South China Seas. Plan text guarentees that one fighter group will be continously stationed in the South China Sea. Advantage one is Chinese containment. Advantage two is prevention of an arms race. Our JV Team Cherikos/Zite runs the same case. UNI (N) Plan: USFG will substantially increase its security assistance to Cambodia by increasing its DOD funding of IMET and DAP programs to CMAC. Funding will increase by $50 million over a five year period. Funding may be used for mine detection and removal training, non-explosive removal technology development, detection technology development, or equipment. Implementation and funding will be through normal means, which includes consultation and cooperation with all relevant parties. (all of the teams that disclosed with the exception of George Mason's Encryption cases are novice) NYC(Weigler /Wilson) jake and i are running nuclear weapons free zone. plan text: the USFG will ratify, implement, and enforce the protocol to the treaty on the Southeast Asian Nuclear Weapon Free Zone. Richmond Novices will be running encryption with econ and nationals ecurity advantages. REpeal key escrow and remove 56-bit limitation. Varsity will be running Ayoobian redefinition of security to allow for coherent and solvent security policy. Main cite is Third World Security Predicament. Also carrying supress the MILF in the Philippines to stop Islamic Fundamentalism and prevent Self-Determination Wars and its obverse to get ISlamic Fundamentalism and Demo; Porn; Hun Sen OVerthrow; buy hemp - stop weed. SAN JOSE STATE (N) Debomb Laos: USFG will fund and actively remove UXO's in laos with the meadering winding magnetometer. We will also declassify flight paths and fund community based awareness. normal means. Demine Vietnam: USFG will use best available technology to create an indigenous demining infrastructure and provide community based awareness in vietnam. normal means. Magic Lanterns: The USFG will give singapore two magic lanterns with appropriate helicopters and training. Normal means. SEMO(N) SEMO's novices will most likly be running Cambodian demining, pretty much the same standard case. SIU Slusher/Smith We're running Cambodia UXO. FMF grants to CMAC for MWM and Lazer Neutralization for UXO removal. Claim UXO's kill, etc. SYRACUSE (N) Syracuse University will have two teams at Novice Nationals and both teams will be debating SOFA to the Philipines (assuming it's not REALLY passed by then). We cede jurisdiction of U.S. soldiers to Filipino courts. We claim China and readiness as our advantages. Webster Serena Jones & Shawn Roberts Pirates. We give AWACs and P-3 aircraft to all nations in the resolution. Will share intelligence with each nation. We give AWACs and P-3 aircraft to all nations in the resolution. Will share intelligence with each nation. OBS 1--Inherency and Harms SCEN 1--Pirates Kill --dehumanization and death SCEN 2--China --China uses piracy to further their influence OBS 2--Solvency --Carpenter and Wienchak in '96 --specific to AWACs, P-3s, and intelligence sharing SCEN 3--Environment --oil spills University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh simonis/torbenson plan: the commander in chief of the pacific will increase anti-piracy SA to malaysia, singapore, and indonesia by offering: --joint excersise and training --technology transfers --command, control, and communication gear --information/information technology the solvency author is tokarski the harms are: pirates kill, they rape and kill refugees, and they risk an oil spill. From asnider Wed Mar 4 08:57:32 1998 From: asnider (Alfred C. Snider) Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 09:57:32 -0500 Subject: Random Judging at Nationals? You decide. Message-ID: Attached below is the ballot you can use to vote, one authorized vote per school, on something which I think is fairly important to us. I URGE EVERY DEBATE WHO FEELS STRONGLY ON THIS ISSUE TO DISCUSS IT WITH THEIR COACH. LOBBY THEM. TELL THEM WHAT YOU WANT! TO BE HEARD, THE STUDENT VOICE NEEDS TO BE USED. As you know, I have long been an advocate of mutually preferred judging. I have, through the years, tried to make my case calmly and logically, I have gathered and discussed considerable data to verify my claims, and I have responded respectfully to those who disagree with me. I wanted to try it, experimentally, at one of our National tournaments. A one year experiment, to which major eloquent critics of MPJ [like Terry West and Russell Church] said OK, let's just try it for one year and see what happens. I stated that I would not do so without the expressed will of the community. In a poll on tournament procedures, use of an MPJ system which would have everyone judge their commitment was accepted. As I went to implement that, it was pointed out that the Ethics Statement mentioned "random" judging, and that the National tournament had to follow those guidelines. I and others disagreed with this interpretation, but the Executive Committee [made up of all officers and all regional preps] said the by laws had to be changed. Then, on authorizing a vote on changing the by laws, it was claimed that it was "too late" to do so. I disagreed with this, and so did the Executive Committee in a vote. So, now we are down to this ballot. It is proposed by Ken Broda-Bahm and seems to me to clarify what we mean in the by laws and we would be allowed to experiment with MPJ. This ballot will take a huge majority in order to pass. So, if you want random judging at Nationals, just vote no. If you want a tight preference system which Gary Larson will implement, vote yes. YOU MUST VOTE BY MARCH 9! If this motion fails I will introduce it again at the Business Meeting at Nationals. I have been involved in this struggle for years and we are getting close to at least TRYING MPJ once (and we will then have tons of data to examine about it). Thanks for your help and support. >>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. >> > 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 asnider Wed Mar 4 09:06:14 1998 From: asnider (Alfred C. Snider) Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 10:06:14 -0500 Subject: Nats Entries received today Message-ID: Just to relax some of you, here are the envelopes I just got. Full listing will come later from Jan. Columbia/NYU Loyola Marymount Miami Fla NoTexas Ft Hays Duke Oregon Kansas SMS Cal Poly SLO Towson SoUtah Marquette UTSA Alabama Wichita Navy SEMo GMason MTSU Pitt Many, many of these have postmarks of 26 & 27, so I expect quite a few more in the pipeline. Please don't panic. 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 lsd041 Wed Mar 4 10:00:42 1998 From: lsd041 (Scott Deatherage) Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 10:00:42 -0600 Subject: OFFICIAL NU NATIONAL NOVICE ENTRIES Message-ID: > >32 Teams as of Wednesday, 3/4, 9:00 a.m. CST: > >Augustana (IL): > > Nathan Berish and Kate Charles > Judge: Jason Jarvis > >Baylor: > > Meredith Black and Megan Martin > Joseph Coppola and Alan Henson > Judge: Toby Arquete (4); Hire (4) > >Chicago: > > Joe Matise and Laura Sjoberg > Judge: Corey Todero > >Emory: > > Stephen Bailey and Kamal Ghali > Blake Eno and Ben Goodrich > David Harkin and Joey Tavery > Hetal Doshi and Amir Ghavi > Jason Friedman and Aaron Klink > Judges: Bill Newnam (6); David Heidt (7); Chris Lundberg (7) > >Georgia: > > Wally Eastwood and Meredity Stein > Judge: Kate Shuster > >Harvard: > > Aram Harrow and Dan Schrage > Nicholas Hanssens and Shafeeqa Watkins > Judges: Sherry Hall (2); Paul Skiermont (3); Scott Hessell (3) > John Carroll: Ben Sovacool and Elizabeth Whiley Judge: Kelly Young >Kansas: > > Ryan Hudson and Tom Seymour > RJ Melman and Nathan Rodriguez > Judges: Scott Harris (4); Josh Zive (4) > >Loyola (Chicago): > > Alison Eggers and Bridget McCauley > Judge: David Romanelli > >Michigan: > > Jonah Feldman and Dan Samson > Mario DeMarco (Wake Forest) and Matt Mish > Judges: Steve Mancuso (4); Adrienne Brovero (4) > >Missouri Kansas City: > > Matt Baisley and Tommy Curry > Judge: Eric Jenkins > >Michigan State: > > Tara O'Dowd and Orion Smith > Judge: Jason Trice > >North Carolina: > > Matt Fogharty and Rashad Hussain > Judge: Cori Dauber > >Northwestern: > > Leslie Johnson and Annie Kastanek > Trace Johnson and Eli Kay-Oliphant > Doug Redden and Robert Smith > Judges: Tim Alderete (4); Greg Blankinship (4); Nate Smith (4) > >Pittsburgh: > > Almas Sayeed and Andrew Stangl > Phil Ellwood and Eric English > Judge: Gordon Mitchell > >Southwest Missouri: > > Trenton Gorman and Chris Wilt > Judge: John Fritch > >Wake Forest: > > Jarrod Atchison and Andrew Ryan > Michael Bonura and Cyclone Covey > Elizabeth Ellis and Wesley Lotz > Amy Powell and Mark Yopp > Thomas Allen and Thomas Loquvum > Mario DeMarco and Matt Mish (Michigan) > Judges: Elisha Cohen (8); Jim Lyle (8); Hire (6) > > >Perhaps others. > >SD > > >From Wed Mar 4 09:20:03 1998 Message-Id: Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 09:20:03 -0600 Reply-To: rchurch at frank.mtsu.edu To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Russell Church Organization: Middle Tennessee State University Subject: So you think you know my opinion on mpj? Comments: To: "Alfred C. Snider" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Let me clarify my position. I do not know if my position is not understood or what the problem is, but I think Tuna does not understand my thoughts on mpj. Several years ago I changed my mind on mutual preference and I still see it as a viable educational option for certain kinds of tournaments. It is infinitely better than what used to be called the "keyman" (sexist) system where judges are handpicked based on the discretion of whoever is assigning judges. I think we should try mpj if the membership approves in a proper kind of vote. THIS WAS THE REASON I OPPOSED MPJ WITHOUT THE KIND OF VOTE THAT IS NOW AVAILABLE. I hope that when it passes, we will not assume that we should always do it, because we want it. I hope we could do some studies of its impact. I also hope we can compare the good of our individual programs with the good of the community. There may be a trade-off or there might not be one. I worry about the increasing inaccessibility of debate rounds and the narrow range of skills and the diminishing value upon good oral communication in debate. My fear is that mpj will accelerate these trends. I am also pretty certain that almost all of us will choose the right to select our judges over any concern for the nature of the activity. I know in my own case, I prefer mpj at tournaments outside my region because it gives me more control and I don't have to worry about "bad" judges. I don't know that I can give up that control once I have it. I feel like I will want it all the time although my heart and my mind tell me that debate would be a better activity when students are exposed to a wider variety of critics. At the same time a very good case can be made that there is a very large pool of excellent critics who are concerned (somewhat at least) about communication and our students who work so hard deserve these critics. I think it is a mixed picture, but I am voting for mpj. Alfred C. Snider wrote: > > Attached below is the ballot you can use to vote, one authorized vote per > school, on something which I think is fairly important to us. > > I URGE EVERY DEBATE WHO FEELS STRONGLY ON THIS ISSUE TO DISCUSS IT WITH > THEIR COACH. LOBBY THEM. TELL THEM WHAT YOU WANT! TO BE HEARD, THE STUDENT > VOICE NEEDS TO BE USED. > > As you know, I have long been an advocate of mutually preferred judging. I > have, through the years, tried to make my case calmly and logically, I have > gathered and discussed considerable data to verify my claims, and I have > responded respectfully to those who disagree with me. > > I wanted to try it, experimentally, at one of our National tournaments. A > one year experiment, to which major eloquent critics of MPJ [like Terry > West and Russell Church] said OK, let's just try it for one year and see > what happens. I stated that I would not do so without the expressed will of > the community. In a poll on tournament procedures, use of an MPJ system > which would have everyone judge their commitment was accepted. > > As I went to implement that, it was pointed out that the Ethics Statement > mentioned "random" judging, and that the National tournament had to follow > those guidelines. I and others disagreed with this interpretation, but the > Executive Committee [made up of all officers and all regional preps] said > the by laws had to be changed. Then, on authorizing a vote on changing the > by laws, it was claimed that it was "too late" to do so. I disagreed with > this, and so did the Executive Committee in a vote. > > So, now we are down to this ballot. It is proposed by Ken Broda-Bahm and > seems to me to clarify what we mean in the by laws and we would be allowed > to experiment with MPJ. This ballot will take a huge majority in order to > pass. > > So, if you want random judging at Nationals, just vote no. If you want a > tight preference system which Gary Larson will implement, vote yes. > > YOU MUST VOTE BY MARCH 9! > > If this motion fails I will introduce it again at the Business Meeting at > Nationals. > > I have been involved in this struggle for years and we are getting close to > at least TRYING MPJ once (and we will then have tons of data to examine > about it). > > Thanks for your help and support. > > >>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. > >> > > > > 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 -- 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 STRICKLG Wed Mar 4 09:48:44 1998 From: STRICKLG (Glen Strickland) Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 09:48:44 -0600 Subject: towson caselist info -Reply Message-ID: Would someone from Liberty please send us a copy of your plan text for the two teams entered in JV at Towson? Also, would someone from Mercer please send us a copy of your plan text for the two teams en Open at Towson. Thanks.... Glen Strickland From broda Wed Mar 4 10:09:45 1998 From: broda (Kenneth Broda-bahm) Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 11:09:45 -0500 Subject: Wednesday Noon Teamlist - Towson Message-ID: My guess is that we are the largest debate tournament in America other than nats (imagine my stress). 51 Schools, Teams in Open 20 Teams in Junior 55 Teams in Novice 67 This is the School and Team list for the TU tournaments as of 12:00 PM EDT, Wednesday March 3rd. Andy Ellis is compiling *voluntary* submissions to a case list which will be distributed at the tournament. The list so far is on our web-site http://www.towson.edu/~broda/speechanddebate If you have not yet sent your information to Andy, his address is Sellis1 at tiger.towson.edu SCHOOLS Army Air Force Allegheny Ball State Capital Claremount Columbia Cornell Depaul Eastern New Mexico Emporia George Mason Hillsdale Illinois State Johnson County Kansas State Liberty Louisiana State Louisville Marquette Mary Washington Methodist College Mercer Michigan-Dearborn Morehouse Middle Tennessee Navy New York University Northampton North Carolina Northern Iowa Northern Illinois Pennsylvania State Pepperdine Pittsburgh Richmond Rochester Sam Houston Sacramento (CSU) San Jose Scranton South Carolina Southeast Missouri Southern Illinois Syracuse Texas San Antonio Vanderbilt Vermont Washington (St. Louis) Webster Wheaton Wisonsin Osh Kosh OPEN Army - Kenneth Kondo & Derek Bennett Army - Brandon Hoskins & Mathew Villa Air Force - Shawn Briscoe & Luke Savoie Air Force - Marshall McMullen & Ryan Sullivan Depaul - Becky Jenks & Kristi Plamann Eastern New Mexico - Barreto & Foy Emporia - Tara Tate & Shannon Holland George Mason/Pittsburgh - Peter Krein & Lisa Corrigan Mary Washington - Rebecca Green & Amber Tussing Mercer - Alysia Cockrell & Brian Drake Mercer - Kenneth Hanson & Betty Vaughn Middle Tennessee - Laurie Ishak & Daniel Crews New York U. - Justine Daniels & Victoria Keenan New York U./Columbia - Jacob Wiegler & Heather Wilson I Northern Illinois - Billy Cripe & Jami Bullis Richmond - Mark Arnold & Ben Bates Rochester - Chet Gulati & Ria Dimilanta Southern Illionois - Eric Slusher & Geoff Smith Southern Illinois - Matt Moore & Joey Vuglia Vanderbilt - Vinay Reddy & Gabrielle Prisco JUNIOR VARSITY Army - Jeremiah Fritz & Luke Harris Army - Jim Brocato & Sean Ruthe Army - Lance Leonard & Mark Maretea Air Force - Chris DiNote & Jess Trafecanty Air Force - Andy Meudt & Ryan Pelkola Allegheny - Shannon Piccirillo & Beth Gardner Claremount - Cecilia Cho & Camille Ryan Cornell - Melinda Hightower & Mike Cole Cornell - Caren Spencer & Beth Kronk Cornell - Matt Miller & Rob Melton Depaul - Chris Truesdell & Mike Horowitz Emporia - Tony Nation & Brad Areheart Emporia - Rob Gilligan & Marie Baenig George Mason - Lucious Kahng & Jason Gronberg George Mason - Jay Igiel & Richard Reed Illinois State - Sunny Kelly & Kevin Suess Johnson County - Tom O'Toole & Adam Sokoloff Kansas State - Josh Longbottom & Kevin Zollman Kansas State - Hugh McCollough & Andrew Spencer Liberty - Rochelle Ringsmuth & Michael Tilley Liberty - Leah Frazier & Hannah Vick Louisiana State - Emily Mancina & William Winters Marquette - Tim Dale & Kiley Kane Marquette - Kyle Strupp & Kate Phillips Mary Washington - Kate O'Konski & Kristin Scott Mercer - Jeremy Attaway & Dan Feldmeier Methodist - Suzan Graves & Alexis Parmenter Michigan-Dearborn - Taimaa Hussein & Aiman Mackie Navy - Johannah Schumacher & Andrew Roy Navy - Adam Weinstein & Matt Sullivan Navy - Mike Bruno & Phil Sprincin New York U. - Kathryn Rubino & Kate Brindle New York U./Columbia - Russ Hanes & Sherri Harper North Carolina - Peter Bermel & Richard Curlee Northern Illinois - Adrian Cherikos & Jamie Zite Northern Iowa - Jenn Mumm & Sara Sheller Pennsylvania State - Andy Schmidt & Carrie Weletz Pennsylvania State - Laurie Gresh & Devin Chwastyk Pepperdine - Jenna McGrath & Thomas Manakides Pepperdine - Cober Plucker & Kristina Sun Pepperdine - Brenda Zeimet & Alexis Gorton Pittsburgh - Jolena Sterner & Melissa Monteres San Jose - Marcus Walton & Sara Chan South Carolina - John Trotti & Matt Katz Texas San Antonio - Robert Jones & Leigh Mayo Vanderbilt - Brett Beaulieu & Nick Ellinger Vermont - Sarah Snider & Helen Morgan Vermont - Amanda Michel & Sam Young Vermont/Trinity - Greta Lockwood & Sarah Petrie Washington (St. Louis) - Mathew Crawford & Ravi Rao Wheaton - David Wittig & Judy Swanson NOVICE Army - Brian Betts & Jason Hanson Army - Joseph Faiella & Philip Kreck Air Force - Rashad Howard & Amanda Myers Allegheny - Jen Scheller & Rupa Ranganathan Ball State - Kristin Kasting & Lindsy Elkins Ball State - Donny Peters & Kelly Lipp Capital - Alisha Ketner & Dominic Verdell Capital - Jim DieKroger & Adrian Curry Cornell - Jennifer Edwards & Kelly Olino Cornell - Rogelio Galindo & Penelope Partner Depaul - Julie Darr & Rich Wiltse Ithaca College - Kim Sroka & Damon Hagen Eastern New Mexico - Dunn & Conklin George Mason - Clair Carroll & Steve Adams Hillsdale - Robert Busby & Abel Winn Hillsdale - Joel Schellhammer & Sarah Parker Hillsdale - Mary Moorman & Jesse Rine Hillsdale - Melinda Wilcox & Emily Crookston Illinois State - Khalil Marrar & Marcine LaFountain Illinois State - Jef Powell & Emily Fleisher Liberty - Jared Woodard & Nick Yingst Liberty - Shanna Twigg & Katey Walker Louisville - Melodie Humphrey & Haley DeVanna Mercer - Whit Whitmore & Ponder Woodard Mercer - Happy Ferrell & Erica Wyatt Mercer - Otis Williams & Jeff Coxon Methodist - Greg Thomas & Daniel Charpentier Michigan-Dearborn - Tania Hajal & Joe Hosang Navy - Beto Pena & Dan Fritchman New York U. - Angela Tong & Jason Clark Northampton - Tunya Butterfield & Ronald Moll North Carolina - John Stonestreet & Aaron Mayer Northern Illinois - Jeff Drury & Donald Price Northern Iowa - Anjeanette Christensen & Mandy Southard Northern Iowa - T.W. Ross & Tony Stephenson Pepperdine - Meredith Sullivan & Emily Allardyce Pittsburgh - Chris Burdick & Mark Denardis Richmond - Kelly Ferguson & Anthony Kiriluscha Richmond - Mighty Joe Keeton & Drew Demarinis Rochester - Lauren Michaels & Adam Shapiro Rochester - Dan Meyers & Todd Walters Rochester - Akash Desai & Phil Segaloff Rochester - Merideth Pelton & Jonathan White Rochester - Jeremy Smith & Mike Kubasczewski Rochester - Shawna Hicks & Priyanka Rai Rochester - Preety Tulsian and Juhi Pandey Rochester - Robert Whittman & Peter Asaad Sam Houston - Jim Gibson & Jerad Waters Sacramento - Marie VanAssendelft & Nicole Kipp San Jose - Jim Xhang & Alex Kramer Scranton - Kieth Sigured & Julie Finn South Carolina - Joanne Johnston & Daniel Chappell South Carolina - Deirdre Dhaenens & Jeremy Bowers Southeast Missouri - Marcus Stephens & Ryann Juden Syracuse - Emile Khader & Mike Kaveney Texas San Antonio - Jonathan Kruse & Ross Hytnen Vanderbilt - Adam Rosen & Rinku Chaterji Vanderbilt - Leigh Crouch & Sam Moore Vanderbilt - Katie Miller & Jason Manning Vermont - Charles Hoag & Matt Sweeney Vermont - David Grover & Carla Mirabelli Vermont/Trinity - Jocelyn McCann & Mary Beggs Webster - Serena Jones & Shawn Roberts Wheaton - Lindsey Zimmerman & Torrey Babson Wheaton - Bill Smiljanich & Anthony Gostanian Wheaton - Josh Montgomery & Vincent Scalfani Wisconsin Osh Kosh - Todd Simonis & David Torbenson JUDGE Nathan Lucas - Army - full Bill Ruhling - Army - full John Nagl - Army - full (nov) Rachel Woodward - Air Force - full (jv, nov) John Cinnamon - Air Force - full Jason Stone - Ball State - half Andrea Whalen - Ball State - half Mike Bauer - Ball State - half (nov) Capital - Sarah Ryan - full Pam Stepp - Cornell - full Jeff Archibald - Cornell - half Wynn Wilcox - Cornell - half Kristin Dybvig - Cornell - half Marcy Halpin - Depaul - full Steve Whitson - Depaul - half Jackie Massey - Eastern New Mexico - full Rodger Biles - Emporia - Full Neil Butt - George Mason - Full Warren Decker - George Mason - full Doug Frye - George Mason - half John Lama - Hillsdale - full Anna Doncyson - Hillsdale - full Rachel Santine - Illinois State - half Molly Munson - Illinois State - half Rich McCollum - Johnson County - half Monte Stevens - Kansas State - half Brent Siemers - Kansas State - half Cary Voss - Liberty - full Heather Hall - Liberty - full Rob Abrams - Louisiana State - half John Monberg - Louisville - half Nicole Leilich - Marquette - full (Nov.) Patrick McMullen - Mary Washington - full Mike Davis - Mercer - full Steve Sand - Mercer - half John Humphreys - Methodist - half (fri., Sun) Todd Lyden - Methodist - half (Sat) Bob Bryant - Michigan Dearborn Mike Krueger - Middle Tennessee - half Phil Warken - Navy - half Robert Kennedy - Navy - half Brad Taylor - Navy - half Steve Vincent - Navy - half Beltran - New York U. - full Bill Charron - New York U. - full Alan Dove - New York U. - half Will Baker - New York U. - full (hire) Robert McKenzie - Northampton - half (nov) Jason Ingram - North Carolina - half Frank Bender - North Carolina - half Kate Palczewski - Northern Iowa - Full Bridget Godes - Northern Iowa - Half - (Nov.) Kellie Cripe - Northern Illinois - half Kerith Woodyard - Northern Illinois - full Michael Hall - Pennsylvania State - full Greg Achten - Pepperdine - full Marce Luck - Pepperdine - full Maxwell Schnurer - Pittsburgh - half Ron Von Burg - Pittsburgh - half Michele Walls - Richmond - half(Sat, Sun only) Lisa K. Heller - Richmond - full(no 4,5) Jeff Clayton - Rochester - full Isaac Castillo - Rochester - half Angela Waterworth - Rochester - full Bismark Myerick - Rochester - half Elaine Maag - Rochester - full Debbi Hatton - Sam Houston - half David Schoenthal - San Jose State - full Kimo Ah Yun - Sacramento - half Ben Nourian - Scranton - half Paul Kerr - South Carolina - full Jennifer Rigdon - Southeast Missouri - half Jeremy Hutchins - Southern Illinois - full Glen Frappier - Southern Illinois - half Geoff Anderson - Syracuse - full Lorena Donnellan - Texas San Antonio - full (nov, jr) M.L. Sandoz - Vanderbilt - full Jan Hovden - Vermont - full Gordie Miller - Vermont - full Jeff Cedarfield - Vermont - full Gina Jensen - Webster - half Alicia VanDyke - Wheaton - full Jay Chandra - Wheaton - full Steve Herro - Wisconsin Osh Kosh - half Brian Gagnon - Towson - full Heather Walters - Towson - full Jonathan Stanton - Towson - full Tom Preston - UMSL - half Scott Jenson - Webster - full Earl Croasmun - Towson - full Micah Walsh - Towson - full Will Baker - NYU/Col - full Jessica Goldstein - Marist - full Ron Bratt - Towson - full From z959204 Wed Mar 4 10:11:42 1998 From: z959204 (nicole bowman) Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 10:11:42 -0600 Subject: No subject Message-ID: SUBSRIBE EDEBATE NICOLE BOWMAN From cebst34+ Wed Mar 4 10:51:54 1998 From: cebst34+ (Chris Burdick) Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 11:51:54 -0500 Subject: Hillsdale and Scranton only Message-ID: Sorry for the clutter. If someone from Hillsdale and Scranton could please backchannel me, i cannot locate your email addresses via scan edebate. thanks alot chris burdick pitt +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ When the outlook is bad, try the uplook From jhovden Wed Mar 4 10:55:55 1998 From: jhovden (Jan Hovden) Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 11:55:55 -0500 Subject: Nationals Entries Message-ID: If we haven't received your entry yet, I wouldn't worry about it too much. I looked at the postmarks from the entries received today and several of them were from FEbruary 26. The mail service is just sometimes a little slow at UVM. Jan From ssnider Wed Mar 4 11:14:06 1998 From: ssnider (Sarahjane) Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 12:14:06 -0500 Subject: looking for liberty Message-ID: I assume that if you were planning on disclosing it would be on the caselist for towson, but I thought I would ask anyway what your JV and novice teams will be running at Towson this weekend......we will be running VIP still. Sarah Vermont Debate From ssnider Wed Mar 4 11:23:31 1998 From: ssnider (Sarahjane) Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 12:23:31 -0500 Subject: looking for Josh Hoe Message-ID: Could you please backchannel me Thanks, Sarah Snider Vermont Debate From jmw8286 Wed Mar 4 12:20:55 1998 From: jmw8286 (Jacob Weigler) Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 13:20:55 -0500 Subject: towson caselist info -Reply In-Reply-To: Message-ID: why don't Liberty and Mercer just send their info to Andy like everyone else? jake "Freedom without opportunity is a devil's gift, and the refusal to provide such opportunities is criminal." -Noam Chomsky From jhovden Wed Mar 4 13:01:43 1998 From: jhovden (Jan Hovden) Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 14:01:43 -0500 Subject: More schools entries received Message-ID: This is a list of schools we received entries from this afternoon. I will try to add to the team list before I leave for Towson, but I don't know if I will have time. If not, I will post it when I get back. Jan Johnson County Eastern New MExico Chico Weber West Georgia Arizona State Michigan State UMKC From MWBRYANT Wed Mar 4 13:11:27 1998 From: MWBRYANT (MWBRYANT) Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 14:11:27 EST Subject: towson caselist info -Reply Message-ID: In a message dated 98-03-04 13:22:48 EST, you write: << why don't Liberty and Mercer just send their info to Andy like everyone else? jake >> Oh, come on, folks...Pre-access to such info is not a mandatory right. Disclosure is generally good, but Berube has proven for years that you can't squeeze blood out of some turnips... Bear From erm892f Wed Mar 4 13:35:34 1998 From: erm892f (Eric Morris) Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 13:35:34 -0600 Subject: SMSU is seeking graduate assistants for Fall 1998 Message-ID: If you have graduated, or will by next fall, and wish to consider a debate graduate teaching assistanceship, we would love to talk with you. SMSU is located in Springfield, MO, and we travel the traditional NDT national circuit in addition to some regional tournaments. We have a cadre of promising students, and we expect for them all to be around for the next 2 years. For more information, contact John Fritch at (417) 836-6612 or me (Eric Morris) at (417) 836-6564. Thanks! Eric Morris SMSU >From Wed Mar 4 13:20:20 1998 Message-Id: Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 13:20:20 -0600 Reply-To: herro at VAXA.CIS.UWOSH.EDU To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Steve Herro Subject: Re: towson caselist info -Reply Comments: To: Jacob Weigler In-Reply-To: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII one reason is that not everyone is contributing to the list, but its being made public and will be distributed at the tourney. it allows people to not contribute and then get all the info anyway. i can name a bunch of novi teams on the towson list that havent contributed... On Wed, 4 Mar 1998, Jacob Weigler wrote: > why don't Liberty and Mercer just send their info to Andy like everyone > else? > > jake > > "Freedom without opportunity is a devil's gift, and the refusal to provide > such opportunities is criminal." -Noam Chomsky > steve Steve Herro Director of Debate University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh (920) 424-7048 >From Wed Mar 4 14:20:33 1998 Message-Id: Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 14:20:33 -0600 Reply-To: herro at VAXA.CIS.UWOSH.EDU To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Steve Herro Subject: towson novice MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII i am looking for info in the following novice teams aff. if anyone could help i would appreciate it and can reciprocate with info. i did use the scan command and other ways to avoid using this method. this is my last resort. ithaca northampton sam houston scranton allegheny army nyu navy south carolina utsa thanks in advance steve Steve Herro Director of Debate University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh (920) 424-7048 From sphamilton Wed Mar 4 14:20:30 1998 From: sphamilton (Heidi Hamilton x????) Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 14:20:30 CST Subject: 2nd round bids Message-ID: To all submitting second rounds: I requested that bid forms be sent to me via fax, but we've run into a glitch here. We are on break, the department secretary is gone and the fax machine is broken. All of which means that the fax machine won't be fixed until next week. My apologies. That said, could I please get the bid forms sent to me via email. Address is: sphamilton at augustana.edu Thanks, Heidi >From Wed Mar 4 15:38:12 1998 Message-Id: Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 15:38:12 -0500 Reply-To: blaeuedm at jmu.edu To: Team Topic Debating in America From: "Blaeuer, Daniel M" Subject: deforestion cites MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII if anyone has the cites to emory's deforestion case could you forward them to me. Thank you in advance. -- Blaeuer, Daniel M blaeuedm at jmu.edu From Arnie.Madsen Wed Mar 4 14:53:48 1998 From: Arnie.Madsen (Arnie Madsen) Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 14:53:48 -0600 Subject: Second round glitch Message-ID: Second-Round At-Large Applicants: If you are applying for a Second-Round At-Large bid to the NDT, please note the following as a change for submitting your bid to Heidi Hamilton. The fax machine in the department office at Augustana is out of order for the rest of the week, thus Heidi needs to receive at-large applications via email -- sphamilton at augustana.edu Also, please don't wait till the last minute to send in your application. Realize that many others are also trying to send faxes to members of the Committee. Thus, it would be better if you could fax your application today or tomorrow morning, rather than putting it off till the absolute final deadline. -- 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 asnider Wed Mar 4 15:12:20 1998 From: asnider (Alfred C. Snider) Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 16:12:20 -0500 Subject: So you think you know my opinion on mpj? Message-ID: Russell, My apologies if I misconstrued your position on MPJ. I feel that you have clarified it quite well. >At the same time a very good case can be made that there is a very large >pool of excellent critics who are concerned (somewhat at least) about >communication and our students who work so hard deserve these critics. >I think it is a mixed picture, but I am voting for mpj. >Regards, > > >Russell Church >615-898-5607 (Office) >615-898-2640 (Department Secretary) >615-898-5826 (Fax) > >MTSU Box 43 >Murfreesboro, Tn. 37132 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 piccirs Wed Mar 4 15:46:30 1998 From: piccirs (Shannon Piccirillo) Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 16:46:30 -0500 Subject: releasing a room for towson Message-ID: I am calling at 5:30 today to release a room at the tourament hotel. Call the hotel immediately after 5:30 if you still need a room. Shannon Piccirillo Allegheny Debate From piccirs Wed Mar 4 15:47:29 1998 From: piccirs (Shannon Piccirillo) Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 16:47:29 -0500 Subject: Ken -- weather for Towson?? Message-ID: Ken- What are we looking at for the weekend as far as weather goes?? Shannon Piccirillo Allegheny Debate >From Wed Mar 4 17:08:03 1998 Message-Id: Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 17:08:03 -0400 Reply-To: davis_mk at MERCER.EDU To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Mike Davis Subject: Re: towson caselist info -Reply Comments: To: Jacob Weigler In-Reply-To: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT On Wed, 4 Mar 1998, Jacob Weigler wrote: > why don't Liberty and Mercer just send their info to Andy like everyone > else? > > jake > > "Freedom without opportunity is a devil's gift, and the refusal to provide > such opportunities is criminal." -Noam Chomsky > Jake, Why don't you ask nicely. Mercer's open teams will be running either provide terrorism info. to SEA or East Timor (train peacekeepers). Our novices will only disclose what they are running to novice teams which do the same. Michael Davis Director of Debate Mercer University From hwalters Wed Mar 4 16:31:26 1998 From: hwalters (Heather L Walters) Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 17:31:26 -0500 Subject: Ken -- weather for Towson?? In-Reply-To: <199803042146.QAA28860@list.uvm.edu> Message-ID: As busy as ken is I doubt he will get to this very soon, so I thought I would add my two sense. Weather the last two weeks has been generally low to mid 40's with LOTS of rain. El nino has been giving the Eastern shore a good battering, and as usual, the Baltimore area gets the edges of the storms. Was watching the weather to see if I could get a five day forecast, but they do not seem to want to give me one. The best they could hint is rain Saturday temps in the high 30's low 40's. Be warned that nightime low's are about 20 degrees cooler then the day. Today was 49 high 30 low, so when you leave it at night and in the morning it should be below or at freezing. Martin Che Harris From FPIRIZAR Wed Mar 4 18:01:06 1998 From: FPIRIZAR (Frank P. Irizarry) Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 19:01:06 EST Subject: towson caselist info -Reply Message-ID: I heard a rumor that Mercer's Novices were running something dealing with Trident Subs? :-> frank Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 17:08:03 -0400 Reply-to: davis_mk at MERCER.EDU From: Mike Davis Subject: Re: towson caselist info -Reply To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU On Wed, 4 Mar 1998, Jacob Weigler wrote: > why don't Liberty and Mercer just send their info to Andy like everyone > else? > > jake > > "Freedom without opportunity is a devil's gift, and the refusal to provide > such opportunities is criminal." -Noam Chomsky > Jake, Why don't you ask nicely. Mercer's open teams will be running either provide terrorism info. to SEA or East Timor (train peacekeepers). Our novices will only disclose what they are running to novice teams which do the same. Michael Davis Director of Debate Mercer University From srader Wed Mar 4 17:10:56 1998 From: srader (Doyle Srader) Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 16:10:56 -0700 Subject: Those attending CEDA Nationals Message-ID: The judging philosophy that I wrote and sent in with the ASU entry was compiled in haste. I then elaborated on it before leaving for the district tournament, and then again before sending off my NDT one. The most current one is at the following location, if you're interested: http://www.public.asu.edu/~srader/philos.html 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 bigpants28 Wed Mar 4 18:12:59 1998 From: bigpants28 (Matt Baisley) Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 16:12:59 PST Subject: Blair and Donald or MSU Message-ID: Could you send me the plan to the GPS case and solvency authors/case advantage's If there are any independent solvency authors on the advantages could you also send those?? thanks matt baisley UMKC ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From cdauber Wed Mar 4 18:14:16 1998 From: cdauber (Cori Dauber) Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 19:14:16 -0500 Subject: towson caselist info -Reply In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Freeriders. Since this clearly a voluntary procedure, why not just distribute it to people who have participated? I suspect Ill be sorry I said that, but what the hell, its March and Im tired. On Wed, 4 Mar 1998, Steve Herro wrote: > one reason is that not everyone is contributing to the list, but its being > made public and will be distributed at the tourney. it allows people to > not contribute and then get all the info anyway. > > i can name a bunch of novi teams on the towson list that havent > contributed... > > On Wed, 4 Mar 1998, Jacob Weigler wrote: > > > why don't Liberty and Mercer just send their info to Andy like everyone > > else? > > > > jake > > > > "Freedom without opportunity is a devil's gift, and the refusal to provide > > such opportunities is criminal." -Noam Chomsky > > > > steve > > Steve Herro > Director of Debate > University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh > (920) 424-7048 > From jhovden Wed Mar 4 18:15:21 1998 From: jhovden (Jan Hovden) Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 19:15:21 -0500 Subject: Nationals Team List Message-ID: We received entries from 30 more schools today for a total of 63 schools. I integrated them into the original list I posted. I won't post another list until after Towson. Also, I don't have time to update the judge list tonight so I will post that after Towson also. Jan Teams entered for the 1998 CEDA National Tournament Alabama Julia Shaw & Damien Pfister Esglen Lamberth & Wiley Gordon LeNee Carroll & Ben Osborne Appalachian State Rudy Dunlap & Lindsay Phipps Eleanor Norman & Jarrett Helms Arizona State Josh Martin & Justin Skarb John Kircher & Julie Sweet Edwin Aralica & David Williams Arkansas Tech Jimmy Wilson & Dena Bucker Rebecca Paschal & Sommer Faulkenberry Ball State Amanda McRae & Kathy Purvis Cal Poly - SLO Dan Bolton & Kristen Hamilton Liney LaRoche & Angela Sandoval CSU - Chico Sue Lowrie & Cara Cupp Tony King & Dave Delano Gloria Sobolvarro & Paul Loupe CSU - Long Beach Heather Henkel & Kristine Clancy Capital Dominic Verdell & Alisha Ketner Central Methodist Shelly Meador & Leila Morgan Central Oklahoma Tony Sherbert & Shawn Blankenship Cornell Jessica Wojtysiak & Michael Cole Rob Melton & Matt Miller Melinda Hightower & Jennifer Edwards Beth Kronk & Caren Sencer Julie Chon & Cappy Lay Rogelio Galindo & Ying Lin Cumberland College Nathan Kinser & Curtis Brown Duke Imran Alibhai & Dan Krivinskas Dave Marquard & Alisa Nave Eastern New Mexico Matt Barreto & John Foy Katie Gilkinson & Shawn Wilkerson Mathew Dunn & David Keller Eastern Utah Brian McDonald & Toni Nielson Mike Zahller & Zack Westerfield Emory Stephen Heidt & Dan Fitzmeier Anne Marie Todd & Vic Tabak Nessa Horewitch & Shanara Reid Raj Ghoshal & Leslie Wade John Paul Lupo & Mike Horowitz Katie Matt & Alison Chase Stephen Bailey & Kamal Ghali Emporia Tara Tate & Shannon Holland Tony Nation & Brad Areheart Marie Baenig & Luke Simmons Florida State Erin Verhelst & Nick Brooks Brian Reddinger & Ari Allyn Andre Perez & John Layang Yang Fort Hays John Clune & Andrew Halverson George Mason Peter Krein & Mike Toguchi Johnson County Tom O'Toole & Adam Sokoloff Kansas Hajir Ardebili & Grant McKeehan Mike Eber & Amy Miller Steve Flinn & Scott Herndon Ryan Hudson & Tom Seymour David Magariel & Nathan Rodriguez Kansas State Grant Denny & Isaac West Sarah Glaser & Kevin Zollman Lewis & Clark Jared Ellis & Nick Hesterberg Loyola Marymount Leroy McClain & Cindy Morgan Macalester College Jennifer Alme & Kiva Garen Martha Wilson & James Hart Marquette Tim Dale & Kiley Kane McNeese Amiee Wernecke & Jarvis Parsons Jennifer Dula & Anthony James Miami (FL) Larry Wulkan & Regina Paulose Veronica Barreto & Kim Horsley Debbie Prieto & Jeff Geldens Michigan State John Sullivan & Erik Cornellier Aaron Monick & Katy Hoffman Alison Woidan & William Rand Tara O'Dowd & Orian Smith Middle Tennessee Laurie Ishak & Daniel Grews Missouri - Kansas City Jennifer Barker & Scott Betz Josh Coffman & Matt Baisley Adam Whyte & Tommy Curry Steven Green & Ben White Morehouse/Mercer Deon Garner & Kenny Hanson New York Cartel Angla Teng & Jason Clark Kathryn Rubino & Kate Brindle Justine Daniels & Victoria Keiran Marius Hentea & Jake Weigler Heather Wilson & Diane Kruze North Texas Eli Holloway & Cody Morrow Melissa Horn & Kenda Cunningham Northeast Louisiana\Southeast Missouri Bob Alexander & Rebecca Congo Northern Iowa Jennifer Rawe & Melissa Peterson Oregon Katie Bauer & Jay Lininger Pace Jason Peterson & Taylor Petrey Pepperdine Cober Pluckes & Kristina Sun Alexis Gorton & Brenda Zeimet Thomas Manakides & Jenna McGrath Pittsburgh Almas Sayeed & Andrew Stangl Brendan Delaney & Eric English Richmond Mark Arnold & Ben Bates Joe Keeton & Scott Luchetti San Francisco State Autumn Boylan & Corey Martin Bree Antenncci & Helen Calip Amy Gaughran & Sueanne McNeil South Carolina Lane McFadden & Corey Rose Matthew Katz & John Trotti Southeast Missouri Rebecca Congo & Bob Alexander (Northeast Louisiana) Southeastern Louisiana Kevalyn Robertson & Jeffrety Waguespack Southern Illinois Eric Slusher &Geoff Smith Matt Moore & Joey Vuglia Southern Utah Luc Stricker & Sara Herrmann Kasey Reardon & Stacie Stapley Southwest Missouri James Martin & Wes Langford Trenton Gorman & Chris Wilt Shawn Bone & Melissa McMurde Southwest Texas Travis LaCoss & Sean Tiffee Syracuse Kendra McCAnn & Emite Khader Texas - Dallas Jason Jordan & Vasile Stanescu Lisa Anselmi & Trevon Fuller Texas - San Antonio Javier Buentello & Javier Quintanilla Towson Don Baker & Steven Andrew Ellis Brian Bittner & Michelle Karl Kerry Doyle & Zia Faruqui Renee Jackson & Anca Pusca US Airforce Academy Marshall McMullen & Ryan Sullivan Shawn Briscoe & Luke Savioe Jessica Trafecanty & Chris Denote US Naval Academy Shannon Callahan & Adam Johnston Vanderbilt Gabrielle Prisco & Vinay Reddy Weber Dan Dilsaver & Aaron Muranaka West Georgia Brandyn Barksdale & Rachel Saloom Western Washington Julie Pitt & Jeff Van Horn Whitney Garrison & Michelle Sarruf Wichita Kristi Morioka & Jeremy Hathaway Brian Gough & James Harris Whitman Sean Harris & Adam Symonds Jessica Clarke & Ryan Scoville Mike Caughey & Sean Collins >From Wed Mar 4 18:00:25 1998 Message-Id: Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 18:00:25 MST7MDT Reply-To: WEST at CENTRUM.CN.SUU.EDU To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Terry West Organization: Southern Utah University Subject: Re: Is there a entry deadline or not? I concur with Dr. Snider's explanations below and note a couple of things: 1) Indeed, the "hard" March 1 deadline has been much softer-- particularly the past few years. It seems like our past several CEDA Presidents have followed a similar philosophy of "give me a good reason." Even if I didn't have a good reason, I'd hate to think my students wouldn't get to debate just because I couldn't read a calendar. All the rhetoric in the world about how "the blame rests with the DOF" doesn't solve the fact that a student might miss their last nationals. 2) There are some particular issues that make our entry process difficult. The fact that we require fee payment several weeks before the tournament is difficult for some schools (ours included). I wind up sending a personal check for the fees and reimbursing myself out of our travel advance a couple of weeks later. Of course, I'm independently wealthy :-) (that is, wealth remains independent of me). Now we've added a first-time ever requirement to have student enrollment verified at a time when some schools have shut down for spring break. A little consideration is welcome. 3) At the same time, there are good reasons for deadlines. A judge pool must be gathered; supplies and materials bought. On-campus preparations must be made. These are all difficult to accomplish when we are guessing about how many teams attend. Hopefully, every DOF will make an honest attempt to meet the deadline, and we can continue to try to work with those who have particular problems. Terry West SUU > Date sent: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 08:19:56 EST > Send reply to: DRTUNA > From: DRTUNA > Subject: Re: Is there a entry deadline or not? > To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU > "Call me crazy, but the deadline for entries has been known for months now. > Is there a set deadline for rntries or not? > Scott Elliott > SELA" > > Prof. Elliott is concerned about the CEDA Nats entry deadline. Yes, there is. > The deadline is determined by the postmark on your certified mail, March 1. > Knowing my mail service at school, I will expect many more to come in with > legit dates. I have seen first class mail take over 10 days to reach my mail > box at school. > > Those who were unable to make the deadline and asked for an extension and gave > a good reason were granted one. I'm not going to exclude students from their > nationals when there is a good reason for their delay. > > All of those who wish to exclude people from their Nationals when the only > reason is "it's the deadline and I don't care what your reason is" voted for > the wrong President when they voted for me. I'm all about inclusion, whether > it is an NDT school who had their District tournament the day the entries were > due or a new school not used to the details or a school which had its > administrative offices closed all of last week. If they are in contact with me > and have good reasons, it's going to be OK. > > I am just a bit more open than most about what is going on. I am told that > CEDA Presidents have traditionally allowed late entries with good reasons, I'm > just the first to be so public about it. > > I am reminded of CEDA Nationals at Western Washington where Queens College had > to have a hearing the day before Nationals to determine whether they should be > allowed to enter because they were a bit late. They were going to be turned > away and sent home without debating. Outreach to people, contact and > assistance from me, and understanding for new schools having a hard time > getting checks cut can avoid this problem. > > I hope that answers your question. > > Best wishes, > > Tuna CEDA Prez > From dbaker5 Wed Mar 4 19:10:34 1998 From: dbaker5 (Don Baker) Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 20:10:34 -0500 Subject: Ken -- weather for Towson?? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Actually I did get a five day forecast today (being the Weather Channel fanatic that I am). It looks like it will be in the high 40s to low 50s for much of the weekend. The lows are going to drop temperatures into the low 30s, Martin was right about that. It will be cloudy/partly cloudy on thursday through saturday, but rain is expected on Sunday. We had some snow yesterday that was completely unexpected, so you should prepare for anything. Don *********************************************************************** * Don Baker * * Towson University Debate * * dbaker5 at tiger.towson.edu * *********************************************************************** From EMarlowWSU Wed Mar 4 20:03:12 1998 From: EMarlowWSU (EMarlowWSU) Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 21:03:12 EST Subject: Is there a entry deadline or not? Message-ID: I agree with Terry...Wealth remains independent of me as well. One of the things that I have experienced is the lack of any receipt in the invite to the tournament. My accounting office does not allow the invite to serve as a receipt becuase there is no signature, accounting sheet, or place to figure entry fees or judging fees. One year I even got stuck having to pay our entry out of my pocket because the accounting people would not accept any of the proof of fees from CEDA Nats. This has annually compounded my problems with being able to send the entry a month in advance. Just my two cents worth. Peace, Marlow >From Wed Mar 4 19:12:38 1998 Message-Id: Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 19:12:38 MST7MDT Reply-To: WEST at CENTRUM.CN.SUU.EDU To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Terry West Organization: Southern Utah University Subject: Re: Is there a entry deadline or not? Eric makes a good point below; this has been a problem for me as well. One reason I went to the personal check is that my administration accepted it (the cancelled check) as receipt. Don't know if they will this year. Wonder if it would be possible for CEDA to give something that looks like an official receipt (you know, printed up with CEDA on it somewhere and the amount of the fees and stuff) at registration? Terry SUU > Date sent: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 21:03:12 EST > Send reply to: EMarlowWSU > From: EMarlowWSU > Subject: Re: Is there a entry deadline or not? > To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU > I agree with Terry...Wealth remains independent of me as well. > > One of the things that I have experienced is the lack of any receipt in the > invite to the tournament. My accounting office does not allow the invite to > serve as a receipt becuase there is no signature, accounting sheet, or place > to figure entry fees or judging fees. One year I even got stuck having to pay > our entry out of my pocket because the accounting people would not accept any > of the proof of fees from CEDA Nats. This has annually compounded my problems > with being able to send the entry a month in advance. > > Just my two cents worth. > > Peace, > Marlow > From z947427 Wed Mar 4 20:14:06 1998 From: z947427 (cripe kellie ann) Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 20:14:06 -0600 Subject: Vanderbilt In-Reply-To: <273CF773B80@CENTRUM.CN.SUU.EDU> Message-ID: Can somone from vaderbilt backchannel me ASAP Kellie NIU From Kenneth.DeLaughder Wed Mar 4 20:42:32 1998 From: Kenneth.DeLaughder (Kenneth DeLaughder) Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 19:42:32 -0700 Subject: Coaching Position at ENMU (fwd) Message-ID: listed again for your enjoyment... 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 so it isn't that hard, 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) and hey you have to teach public speaking so you know how to do it already, 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 DRTUNA Wed Mar 4 21:03:42 1998 From: DRTUNA (DRTUNA) Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 22:03:42 EST Subject: Is there a entry deadline or not? Message-ID: Receipt? Actually, we will provide an invoice in advance if you let us know, which is something I did for several schools. Thanks for your response. Tuna From vandy.debate Wed Mar 4 21:27:29 1998 From: vandy.debate (Mary L Sandoz) Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 21:27:29 -0600 Subject: Towson tournament Message-ID: Does anyone know about any inexpensive modes of transportation at the Towson tournament? We are currently renting a van, but really need to save some money. We need transportation from BWI and to the school each day. Will cabs even be a possibility? Any ideas about the cost? Any information will be appreciated. M. L. Sandoz Vanderbilt 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 jmw8286 Wed Mar 4 23:47:35 1998 From: jmw8286 (Jacob Weigler) Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 00:47:35 -0500 Subject: towson caselist info -Reply In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hmm... freeriders... seems like we need some increased consequences to non-participation. Maybe a few lost or ammended mjp sheets? course the irony is that it is in Andy's interest to have people not contribute cause less work for him. peace, jake "Freedom without opportunity is a devil's gift, and the refusal to provide such opportunities is criminal." -Noam Chomsky From kenny420 Thu Mar 5 23:50:38 1998 From: kenny420 (kenny s hanson) Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 00:50:38 -0500 Subject: Towson caselist Message-ID: Jake, All you had to do was ask what we were running and we would have told you. I don't think that your sarcasim gets you anywhere in tring to find out what people are running. If a team has a non-disclosure then they won't tell you what they are running. On the other hand, if you ask a team that does disclose then they will tell you and you will get your caselist. However; I think that I may agree with you when you say that if a team does not disclose, then they should not recieve one. Peace Kenny Hanson Mercer U " Ask and you shall recieve" _____________________________________________________________________ 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 hwalters Thu Mar 5 00:27:41 1998 From: hwalters (Heather L Walters) Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 01:27:41 -0500 Subject: Towson caselist In-Reply-To: <19980306.005038.3494.0.kenny420@juno.com> Message-ID: With all the traffic on this subject I thought I would add a Towson voice. Although it may not represent the true opinion of any much less all of the Towson squad. There are two reasons to do disclosure, one for education and one for competitive reasons. If education is your goal then the assymetry of nondisclosure has severely mitigated impact. The main loss is competitive disadvantage. I think Ken's goal in caselists has always been increased education over competitive advantage. If some secondhanders want to freeride on the system, then well it happens. The main reason we do not coerce/force/extort/limit the caselist to some is because Towson feels that some of our clientale might not have the same views on the value of caselists. MAny squads still have a don't ask don't tell policy. It was not that long ago most squads (at least traditional CEDA) would look at you funny if you asked them what they were running. We respect their difference in opinion. Finally, remember the caselist guidelines were advertised from the begginning. If people want to run their own secret backchannel lists and not post publicly then that is your perogative. We provide a public list for those that think disclosing is educational independent of whether they get a tit for tat benefit. This is what most closely mirrors the opinion of the Squad as a whole (independent minded open teams aside). Our novices always disclose both sides regardless of reciprocity. MArtin Che Harris From sellis1 Thu Mar 5 00:47:40 1998 From: sellis1 (Andy Ellis) Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 01:47:40 -0500 Subject: Towson caselist thursday In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I'm getting more and more entries but this will probably be the last edebate update untill the tournament is done, we will still accept email entries but as of 5:00 PM tomorrow i will not check again until sunday night. We will also be collecting disclosure from people at early registration thursday night, so if you want to disclose make sure the 1ac is handy. I will post in the morning to explain when you can expect to see the final product and any other comments. Andy Ellis Towson University This is what we have, if you are not on here email sellis1 at tiger.towson.edu Divisons and teams are indicated where we know them. Ball State novice teams have a landmines case. The plan gives mine detection technology, money, and blast resistent boots to Cambodia. Advantages are save lives and increase regional/world security. Cornell As of know, Rob and I are still running CBMs, and Mel and Mike will be running Jess and Mike's version of Joint development. The structure of our aff is: Obs 1 Inherency There is an opportunity for peace Obs 2 The harms Sub A Arms race Sub B Piracy Observation 3 Solvency Emporia Plan USFG will increase security assistance to SEA by donating a $30 million aid package to demine Cambodia through theCMAC. The aid package will be used to increase and better mine clearance technology, increase education for deminers and increae 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. OBS 1.--The Killing Fields: Cambodia can't demine in SQ...Now is the unique time to solve. OBS 2.-The Deadly Legacy: 10 million landmines in Cambodia, 236 civilians victimized each year, Ottawa treaty doesn't eliminate land mines in Cambodia. OBS 3.-Solvency: US can demine..we have tech, expertise, education, US is a politica leader with influence, MWM, airknives, lexfoam solve, Moral Obligation to act. ENMU Open team will run agent orange cleanup in vietnam Our novice team will run clean up subic bay and give singapore the magic lantern. GEORGE MASON text: The USFG should sub. increase S.A. to Singapore by authorizing the export of unfettered encryption tech. Done via Direct Commercial Sales. Scenerios are Hackers cause chaos and nuclear wars Info War MEAD (hackers destabalize economy) Novice teams will be running demine Cambodia...don't know the exact plan text but its the same boring aff...no big surprises. Louisville We will be at your debate tournment in March. We are Louisville DH and we run Special Forces to the topic countries. Mary Washington ( both) will be running AIDs in the military Plan: Use IMET and SOF to do medical military training and all necessary tech transfer to stop the spread of AIDs in all regional militaries except Burma. Advantage: AIDs spread collapses military readiness, leads to instability and war. Solvency: IMET solves through the International Health Resources Management Program, can provide military medical training, US military has excellent HIV control technologies and techniques, SOF are ideally suited for cross-cultural medical training. Mercer's open teams provide terrorism info. to SEA or (different case) East Timor (train peacekeepers). Our novices will only disclose what they are running to novice teams which do the same. MICHIGAN (N) plan text= The USFG shall substantially increase assistance to asean for the purpose of mulitaleral management of regional fisheries: limited pps data, maritime moniotoring devices and a regional coordinating center. Ongoing implementation of the assistance shall not necessarily be through the united states. funding and enforcement normal if necessary. (MTSU Crews and Ishak). Case is going to remain essentially the same (demine/debomb cambodia-send lexfoam, mwm, airknives) (from the Saluki case list); plan text will change for that tournament (and the two tournaments before Towson)... North Carolina Bermel & Curlee, have been running -- essentially, it's joint exercises and training with SE Asian nations using an aircraft carrier, intended to check SCS conflict. We'll be entered in the JV Division at Towson. The outline is as follows: Contention 1 - US naval presence has become inconsistent. It was obvious in 1994 that SE Asia would lose out [Desmond Ball, Asian nations perceive that US withdrawal from the region is inevitable [Mark Valencia, SE Asia in the New World Order, 1996] Advantage - South China Seas Conflict There is no progress in current CBMs [Valencia, 1996] China has the military capabilities to cause conflict in the Spratlys [Cronin & Cronin, Washington Quarterly, 1996] China can threaten vital SLOCs in the SCS [Rodman, The Straits Times (Singapore), 7/6/97] Mischief reef incident proves - China just manipulates ASEAN [McLanan (sp?), National Interest, Fall 1997, p. 58] Empirically - China acts like a wolf in sheep's clothing - it deceptively participates in negotiations to advance its interest - regional forums can't solve SQ disputes [Valencia, 1996] These disputes draw in Japan, Russia, and the US, leading to international conflict [Valencia, 1996] US and China are drawn into a nuclear war [Mahathir, The World Reshaped, 1996, p. 119] Plan - Substantial security assistance should be provided as follows: the US federal government should provide constant coverage of the Southeast Asian region by one aircraft carrier, and as much of its attendant battle group as US Naval Command in consultation with PACCOM deems necessary to provide operational and doctrinal development training, professional military education and discussions regarding military professionalism pertaining to defensive naval doctrine, formal or informal discussions of appropriate divisions of labor in the event of collective action, with particular emphasis placed on the need for assisted nations to focus on littoral and coastal defense, and joint exercises for that purpose. The offer of assistance shall be made to the Southeast Asian nations which the US currently has diplomatic ties with. Nothing in the plan should be interpreted as precluding the deployment of additional US forces and service members. The deployment of the carrier required to perform the above service will be guaranteed. We reserve the right to clarify. Contention 2 - Solvency A commitment to constant coverage signals our determination to support and stabilize the area. [da Cunha, The Straits Times (Singapore), 5/30/97] Training and presence are necessary to solve [Addicott, JAG Int'l Law Division, 1990] To maximize cooperation with the Chinese, the US must increase its military presence in the region [Kagan, FNS, 9/17/97] UNC Novice Team Mayer and Stonestreet. They've been running the same case, essentially (with a few less cards). Northern Illinois (N) (J) They run 7th fleet South China Seas. Plan text guarentees that one fighter group will be continously stationed in the South China Sea. Advantage one is Chinese containment. Advantage two is prevention of an arms race. Our JV Team Cherikos/Zite runs the same case. UNI (N) Plan: USFG will substantially increase its security assistance to Cambodia by increasing its DOD funding of IMET and DAP programs to CMAC. Funding will increase by $50 million over a five year period. Funding may be used for mine detection and removal training, non-explosive removal technology development, detection technology development, or equipment. Implementation and funding will be through normal means, which includes consultation and cooperation with all relevant parties. (all of the teams that disclosed with the exception of George Mason's Encryption cases are novice) NYC(Weigler /Wilson) jake and i are running nuclear weapons free zone. plan text: the USFG will ratify, implement, and enforce the protocol to the treaty on the Southeast Asian Nuclear Weapon Free Zone. Pittsburgh BD's Case Plan text: The United States should subst increase its security assistance to Thailand by allocating sufficient funds from the Foreign Military Purchases Fund for transportation, communication, and interdiction aids to support ongoing ASEAN anti-narcotics efforts. Additionally, the United States should declare support for the National League for democracy and the DAB by allocating sufficient ESF funds to Burma for communications gear, medical assistance and local, anti-narcotic initiatives in coordination with ongoing UNDCP efforts. Funding through necessary appropriations and enforcement through normal means. Advantage: Break the Slorc's grip Richmond Novices will be running encryption with econ and nationals ecurity advantages. REpeal key escrow and remove 56-bit limitation. Varsity will be running Ayoobian redefinition of security to allow for coherent and solvent security policy. Main cite is Third World Security Predicament. Also carrying supress the MILF in the Philippines to stop Islamic Fundamentalism and prevent Self-Determination Wars and its obverse to get ISlamic Fundamentalism and Demo; Porn; Hun Sen OVerthrow; buy hemp - stop weed. Sam Houston will be running either transparency or pirates. There is the possibility of a new case but we will not disclose until it is broke. SAN JOSE STATE (N) Debomb Laos: USFG will fund and actively remove UXO's in laos with the meadering winding magnetometer. We will also declassify flight paths and fund community based awareness. normal means. Demine Vietnam: USFG will use best available technology to create an indigenous demining infrastructure and provide community based awareness in vietnam. normal means. Magic Lanterns: The USFG will give singapore two magic lanterns with appropriate helicopters and training. Normal means. SEMO(N) SEMO's novices will most likly be running Cambodian demining, pretty much the same standard case. OR i....SEMO's novices may be running IMF instead....we aren't sure even as of this late date! South Carolina PIRATES: PLAN: The USFG will substantially increase its SA to Indonesia, The Philippines, Singapore, Malaysia, and Thailand throught the USCINCPAC for anti-piracy measures, as per the recommendations of Tokarski. Any and all equipment will remain the property of of the US Gov't and its function limited to discovery and tracking of pirate vessels. Funding and Enforcement will be through normal diplomatic means. Affirmative speeches will clarify intent. scenarios include: coral reefs, starvation, fish wars, regional conflict through SQ efforts to solve, Japan rearm CAM RANH BAY PLAN: The USFG will incrase its SA to Vietnam by supporting renovation, refurbishment, and reconstruction efforts at Cam Ranh Bay within the current leasing agreements. Security Assistance will be increased threough the ESF and will be designed to increase the commercial function of the base area including the airport and sea port. The US wil not demand exclusive basing rights but will negotiate non-exclusive porting opportunities through normal means. Funding and Enforcemant guaranteed through normal means. Affirmative speeches establish intent Advantages include (not all teams claim them): naval presence, relations with Vietnam, and relations with Russia SIU Slusher/Smith We're running Cambodia UXO. FMF grants to CMAC for MWM and Lazer Neutralization for UXO removal. Claim UXO's kill, etc. SIU Moore/Vuglia Still runnin' piracy. AWACS and P-3s to eligible topic countries. Scenarios change round by round; oil spills, slocs, regional stability, etc. SYRACUSE (N) Syracuse University will have two teams at Novice Nationals and both teams will be debating SOFA to the Philipines (assuming it's not REALLY passed by then). We cede jurisdiction of U.S. soldiers to Filipino courts. We claim China and readiness as our advantages. Vanderbilt Open Reddy and Prisco Disease Centers to the 10 topic countries based on CDC in Atlanta, claiming increased awareness and cooperation becuase of more efficient tech transfer. Claim TB, Malaria, other indigenous diseases that can spread everywhere. JV Beaulieu and Ellinger Debomb Laos, claim less dead people, moral imperative, using MWM, airknives, lexfoam. Novice Rosen and Chaterji Send airport detection equipment to Philippines to decrease terrorism. Also send "red teams" to solve for what airport detection can't. Crouch and Moore Send USAID to Cambodia to improve family planning. Condoms, education are primary tools. Claim AIDs, population (hunger). Miller and Manning Pass Hayakawa's Amerasian bill allowing Amerasians to emigrate to the United States. Moral imperative, solves for racism. Negative positions include Consult China CP/DA with north korea and/or indo-pak impacts, nuclearism critique, patriarchy critique, Rider (next bill through congress will have a rider attached that kills family planning), NGO Counterplans and exclusionary counterplans. Webster Serena Jones & Shawn Roberts Pirates. We give AWACs and P-3 aircraft to all nations in the resolution. Will share intelligence with each nation. We give AWACs and P-3 aircraft to all nations in the resolution. Will share intelligence with each nation. OBS 1--Inherency and Harms SCEN 1--Pirates Kill --dehumanization and death SCEN 2--China --China uses piracy to further their influence OBS 2--Solvency --Carpenter and Wienchak in '96 --specific to AWACs, P-3s, and intelligence sharing SCEN 3--Environment --oil spills University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh simonis/torbenson plan: the commander in chief of the pacific will increase anti-piracy SA to malaysia, singapore, and indonesia by offering: --joint excersise and training --technology transfers --command, control, and communication gear --information/information technology the solvency author is tokarski the harms are: pirates kill, they rape and kill refugees, and they risk an oil spill. From sellis1 Thu Mar 5 00:49:44 1998 From: sellis1 (Andy Ellis) Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 01:49:44 -0500 Subject: Towson caselist thursday In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Ok loose language will get you in trouble every time, I mean caselist entries not tournament entries. andy towson From sellis1 Thu Mar 5 01:26:25 1998 From: sellis1 (Andy Ellis) Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 02:26:25 -0500 Subject: Towson caselist thursday In-Reply-To: Message-ID: for all of the people who are complaing about information that is missing i suggest you check out the whitman homepage, the url was posted yesterday but in case you deleted it go to http://www.whitman.edu. then search debate, then just follow the links from there i am sure some whitman person can fill you in on the exact address but i suggest you check it out, the list is divided into four huge files and its incredibly inclusive. Just like martin says, this is not offical towson policy or anything, its just a helpful resource that you really need to check out. Andy Towson From kenny420 Thu Mar 5 01:20:46 1998 From: kenny420 (kenny s hanson) Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 02:20:46 -0500 Subject: Gordon Mitchell Message-ID: Could you backchannel me ASAP. Peace 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 broda Thu Mar 5 09:56:08 1998 From: broda (Kenneth Broda-bahm) Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 10:56:08 -0500 Subject: Pert near final Towson list Message-ID: SCHOOLS Army Air Force Allegheny Ball State Capital Claremount Columbia Cornell Depaul Duke Eastern New Mexico Emporia George Mason Hillsdale Illinois State Ithaca Johnson County Kansas State Liberty Louisiana State Louisville Marquette Mary Washington Methodist College Mercer Michigan-Dearborn Morehouse Middle Tennessee Navy New York University Northampton North Carolina Northern Iowa Northern Illinois Pennsylvania State Pepperdine Pittsburgh Richmond Rochester Sam Houston Sacramento (CSU) San Jose Scranton South Carolina Southeast Missouri Southern Illinois Syracuse Texas San Antonio Vanderbilt Vermont Washington (St. Louis) Webster Wheaton Wisonsin Osh Kosh OPEN Army - Kenneth Kondo & Derek Bennett Army - Brandon Hoskins & Mathew Villa Air Force - Shawn Briscoe & Luke Savoie Air Force - Marshall McMullen & Ryan Sullivan Depaul - Becky Jenks & Kristi Plamann Eastern New Mexico - Barreto & Foy Emporia - Tara Tate & Shannon Holland George Mason/Pittsburgh - Peter Krein & Lisa Corrigan Mary Washington - Rebecca Green & Amber Tussing Mercer - Alysia Cockrell & Brian Drake Mercer - Kenneth Hanson & Dan Feldmeier Middle Tennessee - Laurie Ishak & Daniel Crews New York U. - Justine Daniels & Victoria Keenan New York U./Columbia - Jacob Wiegler & Heather Wilson I Northern Illinois - Billy Cripe & Jami Bullis Richmond - Mark Arnold & Ben Bates Rochester - Chet Gulati & Ria Dimilanta Southern Illionois - Eric Slusher & Geoff Smith Southern Illinois - Matt Moore & Joey Vuglia Vanderbilt - Vinay Reddy & Gabrielle Prisco JUNIOR VARSITY Army - Jeremiah Fritz & Luke Harris Army - Jim Brocato & Sean Ruthe Army - Lance Leonard & Mark Maretea Air Force - Chris DiNote & Jess Trafecanty Air Force - Andy Meudt & Ryan Pelkola Allegheny - Shannon Piccirillo & Beth Gardner Claremount - Cecilia Cho & Camille Ryan Cornell - Melinda Hightower & Mike Cole Cornell - Caren Spencer & Beth Kronk Cornell - Matt Miller & Rob Melton Depaul - Chris Truesdell & Mike Horowitz Duke - Alisa Nave & Dave Marquard Emporia - Tony Nation & Brad Areheart Emporia - Rob Gilligan & Marie Baenig George Mason - Lucious Kahng & Jason Gronberg George Mason - Jay Igiel & Richard Reed Illinois State - Sunny Kelly & Kevin Suess Johnson County - Tom O'Toole & Adam Sokoloff Kansas State - Josh Longbottom & Kevin Zollman Kansas State - Hugh McCollough & Andrew Spencer Liberty - Rochelle Ringsmuth & Michael Tilley Liberty - Leah Frazier & Hannah Vick Louisiana State - Emily Mancina & William Winters Marquette - Tim Dale & Kiley Kane Marquette - Kyle Strupp & Kate Phillips Mary Washington - Kate O'Konski & Kristin Scott Methodist - Suzan Graves & Alexis Parmenter Michigan-Dearborn - Taimaa Hussein & Aiman Mackie Navy - Johannah Schumacher & Andrew Roy Navy - Adam Weinstein & Matt Sullivan Navy - Mike Bruno & Phil Sprincin New York U. - Kathryn Rubino & Kate Brindle New York U./Columbia - Russ Hanes & Sherri Harper North Carolina - Peter Bermel & Richard Curlee Northern Illinois - Adrian Cherikos & Jamie Zite Northern Iowa - Jenn Mumm & Sara Sheller Pennsylvania State - Andy Schmidt & Carrie Weletz Pennsylvania State - Laurie Gresh & Devin Chwastyk Pepperdine - Jenna McGrath & Thomas Manakides Pepperdine - Cober Plucker & Kristina Sun Pepperdine - Brenda Zeimet & Alexis Gorton Pittsburgh - Jolena Sterner & Melissa Monteres Rochester - Katherine McClung & Chris Rutledge San Jose - Marcus Walton & Sara Chan South Carolina - John Trotti & Matt Katz Texas San Antonio - Robert Jones & Leigh Mayo Vanderbilt - Brett Beaulieu & Nick Ellinger Vermont - Sarah Snider & Helen Morgan Vermont - Amanda Michel & Sam Young Vermont/Trinity - Greta Lockwood & Sarah Petrie Washington (St. Louis) - Mathew Crawford & Ravi Rao Wheaton - David Wittig & Judy Swanson NOVICE Army - Brian Betts & Jason Hanson Army - Joseph Faiella & Philip Kreck Air Force - Rashad Howard & Amanda Myers Allegheny - Jen Scheller & Rupa Ranganathan Ball State - Kristin Kasting & Lindsy Elkins Ball State - Donny Peters & Kelly Lipp Capital - Alisha Ketner & Dominic Verdell Capital - Jim DieKroger & Adrian Curry Cornell - Jennifer Edwards & Kelly Olino Cornell - Rogelio Galindo & Julie Chon Depaul - Julie Darr & Rich Wiltse Duke - Chris Ayers & Imran Alahbi Ithaca College - Kim Sroka & Steve Everett Ithaca College - Daman Hagen & Jason Bennett Eastern New Mexico - Dunn & Conklin George Mason - Clair Carroll & Steve Adams Hillsdale - Robert Busby & Abel Winn Hillsdale - Joel Schellhammer & Sarah Parker Hillsdale - Mary Moorman & Jesse Rine Hillsdale - Melinda Wilcox & Emily Crookston Illinois State - Khalil Marrar & Marcine LaFountain Illinois State - Jef Powell & Emily Fleisher Liberty - Jared Woodard & Nick Yingst Liberty - Shanna Twigg & Katey Walker Louisville - Melodie Humphrey & Haley DeVanna Mercer - Whit Whitmore & Ponder Woodard Mercer - Happy Ferrell & Erica Wyatt Mercer - Otis Williams & Jeff Coxon Methodist - Greg Thomas & Daniel Charpentier Michigan-Dearborn - Tania Hajal & Joe Hosang Navy - Beto Pena & Dan Fritchman New York U. - Angela Tong & Jason Clark Northampton - Tunya Butterfield & Ronald Moll North Carolina - John Stonestreet & Aaron Mayer Northern Illinois - Jeff Drury & Donald Price Northern Iowa - Anjeanette Christensen & Mandy Southard Northern Iowa - T.W. Ross & Tony Stephenson Pepperdine - Meredith Sullivan & Emily Allardyce Pittsburgh - Chris Burdick & Mark Denardis Richmond - Kelly Ferguson & Anthony Kiriluscha Richmond - Mighty Joe Keeton & Drew Demarinis Rochester - Lauren Michaels & Adam Shapiro Rochester - Dan Meyers & Todd Walters Rochester - Akash Desai & Phil Segaloff Rochester - Merideth Pelton & Jonathan White Rochester - Jeremy Smith & Mike Kubasczewski Rochester - Shawna Hicks & Priyanka Rai Rochester - Preety Tulsian and Juhi Pandey Rochester - Robert Whittman & Peter Asaad Sam Houston - Jim Gibson & Jerad Waters Sacramento - Marie VanAssendelft & Nicole Kipp San Jose - Jim Xhang & Alex Kramer Scranton - Kieth Sigured & Julie Finn South Carolina - Joanne Johnston & Daniel Chappell South Carolina - Deirdre Dhaenens & Jeremy Bowers Southeast Missouri - Marcus Stephens & Ryann Juden Syracuse - Emile Khader & Mike Kaveney Texas San Antonio - Jonathan Kruse & Ross Hytnen Vanderbilt - Adam Rosen & Rinku Chaterji Vanderbilt - Leigh Crouch & Sam Moore Vanderbilt - Katie Miller & Jason Manning Vermont - Charles Hoag & Matt Sweeney Vermont - David Grover & Carla Mirabelli Vermont/Trinity - Jocelyn McCann & Mary Beggs Webster - Serena Jones & Shawn Roberts Wheaton - Lindsey Zimmerman & Torrey Babson Wheaton - Bill Smiljanich & Anthony Gostanian Wheaton - Josh Montgomery & Vincent Scalfani Wisconsin Osh Kosh - Todd Simonis & David Torbenson JUDGE Nathan Lucas - Army - full Bill Ruhling - Army - half (no Friday) John Nagl - Army - full (nov) Rachel Woodward - Air Force - full (jv, nov) John Cinnamon - Air Force - full Jason Stone - Ball State - half Andrea Whalen - Ball State - half Mike Bauer - Ball State - half (nov) Capital - Sarah Ryan - full Pam Stepp - Cornell - full Jeff Archibald - Cornell - half Wynn Wilcox - Cornell - half Kristin Dybvig - Cornell - half Marcy Halpin - Depaul - full Steve Whitson - Depaul - half Rich O'Dor - Duke - half Jackie Massey - Eastern New Mexico - full Rodger Biles - Emporia - Full Neil Butt - George Mason - Full Warren Decker - George Mason - full Doug Frye - George Mason - half John Lama - Hillsdale - full Anna Doncyson - Hillsdale - full Rachel Santine - Illinois State - half Molly Munson - Illinois State - half Rich McCollum - Johnson County - half Amy Fugate - Johnson County - half Monte Stevens - Kansas State - half Brent Siemers - Kansas State - half Cary Voss - Liberty - full Heather Hall - Liberty - full Rob Abrams - Louisiana State - full John Monberg - Louisville - half Nicole Leilich - Marquette - full (Nov.) Patrick McMullen - Mary Washington - full Mike Davis - Mercer - full Steve Sand - Mercer - half John Humphreys - Methodist - half (fri., Sun) Todd Lyden - Methodist - half (Sat) Bob Bryant - Michigan Dearborn Mike Krueger - Middle Tennessee - half Phil Warken - Navy - half Robert Kennedy - Navy - half Brad Taylor - Navy - half Steve Vincent - Navy - half Beltran - New York U. - full Bill Charron - New York U. - full Alan Dove - New York U. - half Robert McKenzie - Northampton - half (nov) Jason Ingram - North Carolina - half Frank Bender - North Carolina - half Kate Palczewski - Northern Iowa - Full Bridget Godes - Northern Iowa - Half - (Nov.) Kellie Cripe - Northern Illinois - half Kerith Woodyard - Northern Illinois - full Michael Hall - Pennsylvania State - full Greg Achten - Pepperdine - full Marce Luck - Pepperdine - full Maxwell Schnurer - Pittsburgh - half Michele Walls - Richmond - half(Sat, Sun only) Lisa K. Heller - Richmond - full(no 4,5) Jeff Clayton - Rochester - full Isaac Castillo - Rochester - half Angela Waterworth - Rochester - full Bismark Myerick - Rochester - half Elaine Maag - Rochester - full Debbi Hatton - Sam Houston - half David Schoenthal - San Jose State - full Kimo Ah Yun - Sacramento - half Ben Nourian - Scranton - half Paul Kerr - South Carolina - full Jennifer Rigdon - Southeast Missouri - half Jeremy Hutchins - Southern Illinois - full Glen Frappier - Southern Illinois - half Geoff Anderson - Syracuse - full Lorena Donnellan - Texas San Antonio - full (nov, jr) M.L. Sandoz - Vanderbilt - full Jan Hovden - Vermont - full Gordie Miller - Vermont - full Jeff Cedarfield - Vermont - full Gina Jensen - Webster - half Alicia VanDyke - Wheaton - full Jay Chandra - Wheaton - full Steve Herro - Wisconsin Osh Kosh - half Brian Gagnon - Towson - full Heather Walters - Towson - full Jonathan Stanton - Towson - full Tom Preston - UMSL - half Scott Jenson - Webster - full Earl Croasmun - Towson - full Micah Walsh - Towson - full Will Baker - NYU/Col - full Jessica Goldstein - Marist - full Ron Bratt - Towson - full Martin Harris - Towson - full From allyson Thu Mar 5 10:25:11 1998 From: allyson (John Stubbs) Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 11:25:11 -0500 Subject: 2nd round at large Message-ID: i have a question about the second round at-large application, and i am hoping someone out there can answer it for me. i faxed/emailed out an application yesterday, but did not include the district 7 tournament because i assumed that it was not neccessary. now i am getting conflicting information from lots of people regarding the district tournaments. do they need to be included in the application? is my application incomplete without it? if so, are the rounds calculated into the overall record like other tournaments, or do they not count towards the prelim record/total? or are you just supposed to include the tournament as one attended, and list all rounds, but not calculate it into the total. if it needs to be included, is it okay to mail in the results seperately with recalculated records (if neccessary)? thanks, john John W. Stubbs George Washington Univ. P: 202/676-4052 A: 2350 H St., NW #904 Washington, D.C. 20037 >From Thu Mar 5 10:25:59 1998 Message-Id: Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 10:25:59 -0600 Reply-To: Jensen_Scott/web_media at WEBSTER.EDU To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Jensen_Scott/web_media at WEBSTER.EDU Subject: Interested in sharing a room at Towson? Item Subject: Message text We are bring one woman to Towson and are interested in splitting the costs in exchange for sharing that room. We are leaving today (in an hour actually) and will stay over Sunday night, checking out Monday. If anyone is interested, please backchannel me (SOON)--actually calling may even be better. We can also maybe work something out there. Thanks! Scott Jensen (314) 968-7439--office jensensc at websteruniv.edu From cdauber Thu Mar 5 10:33:54 1998 From: cdauber (Cori Dauber) Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 11:33:54 -0500 Subject: Towson caselist In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I think the Towson folks have been absolutely wonderful, going above and beyond the call, and proving again that they are one of the most gracious hosts in the business. I want to make clear that I have, not just no complaint, but tremendous respect and appreciation for the work you all are willing to put in even before the guests arrive. On Thu, 5 Mar 1998, Heather L Walters wrote: > With all the traffic on this subject I thought I would add a Towson > voice. Although it may not represent the true opinion of any much less all > of the Towson squad. > There are two reasons to do disclosure, one for education and one for > competitive reasons. If education is your goal then the assymetry of > nondisclosure has severely mitigated impact. The main loss is competitive > disadvantage. I think Ken's goal in caselists has always been increased > education over competitive advantage. If some secondhanders want to > freeride on the system, then well it happens. > The main reason we do not coerce/force/extort/limit the caselist to some > is because Towson feels that some of our clientale might not have the same > views on the value of caselists. MAny squads still have a don't ask don't > tell policy. It was not that long ago most squads (at least traditional > CEDA) would look at you funny if you asked them what they were running. > We respect their difference in opinion. > Finally, remember the caselist guidelines were advertised from the > begginning. If people want to run their own secret backchannel lists and > not post publicly then that is your perogative. We provide a public list > for those that think disclosing is educational independent of whether they > get a tit for tat benefit. This is what most closely mirrors the opinion > of the Squad as a whole (independent minded open teams aside). Our novices > always disclose both sides regardless of reciprocity. > > MArtin Che Harris > From MWBRYANT Thu Mar 5 10:38:56 1998 From: MWBRYANT (MWBRYANT) Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 11:38:56 EST Subject: What's Up W/ CEDA Nats? Message-ID: I count about 130 teams registering for CEDA Nats. Even if a few more register, it appears that numbers are significantly down. Will this be likely to have any impact on the tournament schedule? Given the small number of quad-octs last year, doesn't it seem unlikely that these rounds will occur? Bear From lkahng Thu Mar 5 10:41:53 1998 From: lkahng (lucius K) Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 11:41:53 -0500 Subject: George Msaon fax machines In-Reply-To: <9803050502.AA01293@osf1.gmu.edu> Message-ID: Some may notice that the GMU fax machine was down for a while. As Neil sez, "don't freak out" It is now back on line... and sorry for the trouble. lucius George Mason U. P.S. You may have trouble getting through right now since everyone is sending faxes at once. From Arnie.Madsen Thu Mar 5 11:10:40 1998 From: Arnie.Madsen (Arnie Madsen) Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 11:10:40 -0600 Subject: Second-Round Applicants Update Message-ID: Listed below are the teams whose Second-Round At-Large applications for the 1998 National Debate Tournament have been received as of 11:00 a.m. CST. Remember the submission deadline is 5:00 p.m. CST today, March 5. Second-Round At-Large Applicants Emory Tabak and Todd Fort Hays Clune & Halverson George Mason Igiel & Reed George Washington Stubbs & Thummala Iowa Christensen & Jensen John Carroll Lavell & Wiley Kansas State Glaser & Zollman Mercer Cockrell & Drake Michigan Pudelski & Scannapieco Northwestern Anderson & Nemecek Nevada Las Vegas Kimbrough & Robertson Southern California Beven & Markowski Wake Forest Geppert & Rhodes -- 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 Mar 5 12:48:46 1998 Message-Id: Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 12:48:46 CST Reply-To: Ccrensh at CCOM.UA.EDU To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Carrie Crenshaw Organization: U of A College of Communication Subject: Everyone is Invited to Summer Meeting MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Dear Community, Scott and Gina Jensen of Webster University (St. Louis) have graciously offered to be our hosts for our summer meeting. I look forward to this meeting as it provides an important opportunity for all of us to come together for the purpose of "working on our organization" as Pam Stepp would say. I strongly encourage you all to attend. With your help, we can create a stronger organization that better serves the needs of our members. Below please find the dates and the tentative schedule for our summer meeting. I will be posting hotel information soon. Cross Examination Debate Association Summer Meeting Schedule June 24-28, 1998 Local Hosts: Scott and Gina Jensen, Webster University, St. Louis. Wednesday, June 24: 12:00-5:00: Session I: Topic Committee Meeting Thursday, June 23: 9:00-12:00: Session II: Topic Committee Meeting 1:30-5:00: Session III: Topic Committee Meeting Friday, June 26: 9:00-12:00: Session IV: Topic Committee Meeting (if Gina deems it necessary) 3:00-5:00: Opening Session: Summer Meeting Agenda 1. Reports Reports should be made available in print ahead of time. The oral reports should be brief representations of the most important issues so that the majority of time devoted to the reports can be used to solicit feedback and input from members. Reports will include: President's Report First Vice President's Report Second Vice President's Report Topic Committee Chair's Report Project Team Reports 2. Old Business 3. New Business 4. Meet with Project Team Members Saturday, June 27: The entire Saturday will be devoted to Project Team work. each team will prepare a brief report on their accomplishments for the Sunday morning meeting. 9:00-12:00: Session I: Project Teams 1:30-3:00: Session II: Project Teams 3:15-6:00: Session III: Project Teams Sunday, June 28: 9:00-12:00: Closing Session The closing session will be devoted to sharing the progress of the project teams, conductin any remaining business and soliciting further input and feedback. I hope that you all will be able to attend. Best, Carrie Carrie Crenshaw, Ph.D. Director of Debate, University of Alabama First Vice President, Cross Examination Debate Association >From Thu Mar 5 12:56:59 1998 Message-Id: Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 12:56:59 CST Reply-To: Ccrensh at CCOM.UA.EDU To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Carrie Crenshaw Organization: U of A College of Communication Subject: Please Join a Project Team MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: Quoted-printable Dear Community, I invite you to share your talents with the rest of the debate community by volunteering to serve on one of the following project teams. Please join us in striving to improve our organization and seeking to serve the needs of our members better. Please contact me ASAP if you would be willing to serve (or continue serving) on one or more of the following: Cross Examination Debate Association Project Teams 1998-1999 BACKGROUND In 1996, former CEDA President Pam Stepp began the Presidential tradition of appointing several committees in addition to those constitutionally specified both to improve the contributions of the Cross Examination Debat= e Association to its members and to involve more of our talented and capable members in the leadership of the organization. Pam always argued that it is important for us to take the time to work on our organization. The individuals who participated on these committees have greatly contributed to the organization through their hard work, dedication and excellent recommendations to CEDA. It is my intent to institutionalize these committees and maximize their potential for improving our organization's service to its members. In consultation with Greg Simerly, executive secretary of CEDA, and other CEDA officers and committee members, I have provided each of these project teams with specific charges. The charges specified below are meant to supply guidance in order to enhance the effectiveness of each team. Project teams should not feel constricted by these charges but rather take them as a starting point for their work. Each project team is responsible for reporting on its activities at least once a year to the CEDA Executive Council and the CEDA membership. I am very grateful for both the contributions of our members who have served on Pam's committees and those of you who will agree to serve on the following project teams. PROJECT TEAMS Committee on Discrimination and Sexual Harassment (CDSH) This committee is chaired by the Sexual Harassment Officer and is responsible for administering CEDA's policy on discrimination and sexual harassment, which is contained in the Bylaws. Committee Charge: The CEDA constitution specifies that the President will appoint a Sexual Harassment Officer (SHO) who will chair the CDSH. The CDSH will consist o= f no fewer than three and no more than five active CEDA members. The names of the SHO and CDSH members will be widely published, listed in newsletters, included in the national tournament invitation and made known in other appropriate ways. The SHO and CDSH members shall be available to consult with complainants within the procedure as outlined in this procedure. (It is particularly important that the SHO be available at the National Tournament.) The CDSH shall facilitate and review an educational program annually, informing members of the CEDA debate community about the definitions and interpretations of discrimination and sexual harassment an= d about procedures for initiating complaints. Program Development Project This project is designed to assist individual member programs in their efforts to conduct intercollegiate debate programs. Its activities are designed to assist (1) new programs (2) established programs and (3) endangered programs. Project Charge: Project members are responsible for the development and provision of advisory and resource documents, the establishment and facilitation of contact avenues for individual program directors with CEDA officers and members and supplying support letters and other appropriate forms of assistance to individual programs. The project will consist of three sub-projects. (1) New Programs Project. Project members are charged with the task of developing initiatives to promote the establishment of new intercollegiate debate programs on campuses that currently do not have them. Specifically, project members w= ill: =B7 Supply an assessment report on CEDA's efforts to encourage the development of new programs to date. =B7 Construct a 3-year new program initiative plan containing specific new member goals and specific action items to accomplish those goals. =B7 Updating and distributing CEDA's New Program Packet. =B7 Track and assess the impact of CEDA's currently existing new format initiatives and make recommendations for changes and modifications to such= . (2) On-going Program Support Project Project members are charged with the task of developing initiatives to promote the on-going organizational support of CEDA's member schools. Specifically, project members will: =B7 Supply an assessment report on CEDA's efforts to provide organizationa= l support of its members to date. =B7 Construct a 3-year Program Support Plan containing specific goals relating to program support and specific action items to accomplish these goals with special emphasis on funding initiatives, student leadership and diversity/outreach concerns. =B7 Implement the Program Support Plan in a timely fashion. =B7 Collect contact information for relevant administrators for each progr= am. =B7 Write letters in support of each program to be placed in the files of program directors. =B7 Write letters of congratulation to administrators for each program's successes at the CEDA National Debate Tournament . (2) "Super Friends" or Endangered Programs Project Project members are charged with the task of developing initiatives to assist programs that are endangered by threats to their funding and/or existence. Specifically, project members will: =B7 Supply an assessment report on CEDA's efforts to assist endangered programs to date. =B7 Develop a "Super Friends" action item agenda document that specifies t= he series of steps to be taken in support of an endangered program. =B7 Contact directors of endangered programs and collect relevant informat= ion on the reasons for endangerment in an annual report to be submitted to the CEDA Executive Council. =B7 Supply coordinated assistance to endangered programs in the form of support letters and personal contacts with relevant administrators. =B7 Collect and supply relevant documents to assist directors of endangere= d programs in making arguments in support of their programs. CEDA PUBLIC RELATIONS PROJECT The public relations project is designed to promote the activities of the Cross Examination Debate Association, intercollegiate debate and the value of debate in general. Project Charge: Project Members are charged with the task of promoting the public relation= s of the Cross Examination Debate Association and the importance of intercollegiate debate. Its specific constituencies shall include (1) collegiate administrators; (2) the high school debate community including high school students and coaches; (3) other forensics organizations; (4) the general public; (5) politicians and community decision-makers and (6) corporate sponsors. Specifically, project members will: =B7 Supply an assessment report on CEDA's efforts in the area of public relations to date. =B7 Develop an overall 3-year public relations plan targeting each of thes= e constituencies including specific goals and action items attached to a specific time table for implementation. =B7 Implement and assess the impact of the 3-year public relations plan on= ce it is developed. =B7 Develop and implement specific public relations projects targeted to specific audiences including but not limited to: a promotional video tape; press releases; fundraising. NOMINATING COMMITTEE This committee shall solicit and receive names of individuals for elective office in the organization and propose the slate of nominees at the annual business meeting, as indicated in Article VI of the Constitution. Committee Charge: The Nominating Committee is responsible for nominations for the regional representatives, Second Vice President, Executive Secretary and Treasurer when their terms have expired. The Committee shall solicit or receive nominations from each region of CEDA. When nominating for Second Vice President, Executive Secretary and/or Treasurer, the Nominating Committee should submit at least two names for each position. Nominations shall be submitted by the Nominating Committee at the first annual business meeting of the Association, at which time additional nominations for any office ma= y be submitted by any member present. CEDA RESEARCH PROJECT The Second Vice President will serve as Chair of the Research Committee. This committee shall evaluate proposals for research to be conducted at th= e Association's National Tournament and approve only those proposals which meet standards for ethical and competent research. Project Charge: Members of the CEDA Research Project are charged with the task of initiating and coordinating research efforts related to the Cross Examination Debate Association and its tournament. Specifically, project members will: =B7 Evaluate (and approve or reject) requests for research at the CEDA National Debate Tournament after considering the evaluation of the University's human subject committee. Guidelines for evaluation are included in the CEDA Bylaws. =B7 Develop a 3-year plan for the promotion and development of new ideas f= or research about participation in intercollegiate debate including specific goals and action items according to a specific time table. =B7 Assist members in their research efforts. NATIONAL TOURNAMENT STAFF This staff will administer the Association's National Tournament. Guidelines and procedures for administration appear in the Bylaws. QUALITY OF LIFE PROJECT This project is designed to collect and disseminate information and recommendations regarding improving the quality of life of directors, coaches and students involved in intercollegiate debate. Project Charge: Project members are charged with the task of researching and making recommendations to the CEDA Executive Council and membership regarding issues impacting the quality of life for intercollegiate debate participants. Specifically, project members will: =B7 Develop and disseminate an advisory document on quality of life issues= . This document should contain recommendations for directors, coaches, student debaters and tournament administrators for how to improve quality of life. =B7 Support, encourage and/or conduct research on quality of life issues. =B7 Report annually to the CEDA executive council its research outcomes an= d any specific actions the council can take to improve the quality of life for its members. PUBLIC SPHERE PROJECT This project is designed to promote connections between the practice of intercollegiate debate and the public sociopolitical activities of community members. Project Charge: Project members are charged with the task of promoting the relevance of intercollegiate debate to the public sphere including promoting the abilit= y of intercollegiate debaters to utilize their skills in the public sphere upon graduation and promoting the ongoing contributions of intercollegiate debate to the public sphere. Specifically, project members will: =B7 Administer the Public Debate Program Awards on an annual basis by soliciting and evaluating portfolio nominations by individual programs. =B7 Develop plans for specific projects designed to promote the relevance = of intercollegiate debate to the public sphere. =B7 Report to the CEDA Executive council the tasks necessary to implement these projects according to a specific time table for implementation. PROFESSIONALISM PROJECT Project Charge: Project members are charged with the task of promoting the professional activities of CEDA members including scholarship, teaching and service. Specifically, project members will: =B7 Create and disseminate advisory documents designed to assist members i= n their scholarly pursuits. =B7 Design a networking vehicle to promote collaborative research efforts. =B7 Establish a research clearinghouse that archives research and bibliographies on argumentation and debate related research. =B7 Coordinate and encourage research submissions to the Second Vice President in his/her role as program planner. =B7 Administer the CEDA scholarship mentoring program. =B7 Collect and disseminate information designed to assist members in thei= r tenure and promotion efforts. =B7 Solicit volunteers for a list of established scholars who understand a= nd appreciate the contributions of argumentation and debate research who willing to evaluate tenure portfolios. ADVOCATES FOR DIVERSITY PROJECT This project is designed to promote CEDA's dedication to the principle of appreciating a diversity of thought, background and ideas. It is specifically designed to promote the involvement of people of diverse and underrepresented backgrounds in intercollegiate debate. Project Charge: Project Members are charged with the task of promoting diversity in intercollegiate debate. Specifically, project members will: =B7 Continue its demographic research on the level of diversity in participation in intercollegiate debate. =B7 Design, implement and seek continued funding for a scholarship program for students of color participating in intercollegiate debate. =B7 Design and circulate an advisory document for promoting diversity in individual programs. =B7 Develop a 5-year plan with specific action items according to a specif= ic time table for promoting diversity in participation in intercollegiate deb= ate. =B7 Develop and implement a plan for increasing the involvement of historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs) in intercollegiate debate. =B7 Design and implement a mentoring program for individuals in underrepresented groups in concert with the partnership project. GRANTS PROJECT This project is designed to assist members in garnering more resources to promote debate on their campuses and their communities. Project Charge: Project members are charged with the task of assisting CEDA members in applying for and gaining grants in support of intercollegiate debate activities and related projects. Specifically, project members will: =B7 Create, collect and circulate instructive documents on effective grant writing. =B7 Collect and circulate contact information for relevant grant giving organizations. =B7 Develop contacts with relevant grant giving organzations. =B7 Develop and offer grant writing workshops at the CEDA annual summer meetings. PARTNERSHIP PROJECT This project is designed to promote effective relationship networks among CEDA members to facilitate the growth of directors, coaches and student debaters and to assist them in the accomplishment of their individual goal= s. Project Charge: Project members are charged with the task of promoting mentoring partnerships among CEDA members including directors, coaches, graduate and undergraduate students. This project will be divided into three segments: (1) Scholarship Partnership Program; (2) Director Partnership Program and (3) Student partnership program. Specifically, members will: =B7 Take over the administration of the existing CEDA mentoring program. =B7 Develop and grow these programs in creative ways. =B7 Assess and report on the progress of the programs to the CEDA Executiv= e Council and the CEDA membership on an annual basis. DEVELOPMENT CONFERENCE 2000 PROJECT This project is designed to plan and implement a CEDA development conference in the year 2000. Project Charge: Project members are charged with the task of developing a plan for the implementation of the CEDA Development Conference 2000. The plan should include: =B7 Recommendations for the format of the conference. =B7 Recommendations regarding the goals of the conference. =B7 Recommendations for the place and time of the conference. =B7 Recommendations for the administration of the conference including nominations for conference director. =B7 Recommendations for the theme of the conference. =B7 Recommendations for holding down costs for attendees. =B7 Recommendations for maximizing student participation. STUDENT LEADERSHIP PROJECT Recent strides have been made to include more student representation in ou= r organization. However, that representation needs to be formalized and institutionalized. This project is designed to formalize, institutionalize, and promote student leadership in the Cross Examination Debate Association. Project Charge: =B7 Formalize student leadership roles and responsibilities. =B7 Formalize election process. =B7 Formalize process for election/selection of student leadership advisor= . =B7 Initiate projects designed to promote student participation in the CED= A organization and reflect student constitutency concerns and interests. Thanks in advance for your service. I hope all is well for you and yours as you prepare for Nationals. Best, Carrie Carrie Crenshaw, Ph.D. Director of Debate, University of Alabama First Vice President, Cross Examination Debate Association From Pacedebate Thu Mar 5 12:58:40 1998 From: Pacedebate (Pacedebate) Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 13:58:40 EST Subject: Topic papers Message-ID: What topic papers have been submitted so far and what is the deadline for submission? Tim Mahoney Director of Debate, Pace University From Michelin.Massey Thu Mar 5 13:39:20 1998 From: Michelin.Massey (Michelin Christopher Massey) Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 12:39:20 -0700 Subject: Second-Round Applicants Update In-Reply-To: <01IUAZUXRSJ68WW3RU@uni.edu> Message-ID: how many second round folks are accepted? On Thu, 5 Mar 1998, Arnie Madsen wrote: > Listed below are the teams whose Second-Round At-Large applications for > the 1998 National Debate Tournament have been received as of 11:00 a.m. CST. > > Remember the submission deadline is 5:00 p.m. CST today, March 5. > > Second-Round At-Large Applicants > > Emory Tabak and Todd > Fort Hays Clune & Halverson > George Mason Igiel & Reed > George Washington Stubbs & Thummala > Iowa Christensen & Jensen > John Carroll Lavell & Wiley > Kansas State Glaser & Zollman > Mercer Cockrell & Drake > Michigan Pudelski & Scannapieco > Northwestern Anderson & Nemecek > Nevada Las Vegas Kimbrough & Robertson > Southern California Beven & Markowski > Wake Forest Geppert & Rhodes > > -- > 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 Mar 5 13:27:33 1998 Message-Id: Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 13:27:33 -0500 Reply-To: LESICKO at MACALESTER.EDU To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Dick Lesicko Subject: Assistant Coaching Positions At Macalester MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Macalester College has openings for two assistant debate coaches for the 1997-1998 academic year. Macalester is a nationally-ranked small liberal arts college located in St. Paul,MN. We compete in policy debate, parliamentary debate, and our program also houses a competitive mock trial program. These are part-time positions that pay 1,125 a month. The term of employment runs from August 1 to April 1. To apply, please send a letter detailing your experiences and the names of two references to: Dick Lesicko, Director of Forensics Macalester College 1600 Grand Ave. St. Paul,MN 55105 If you have questions about the position: Office: 612.696.6089 e-mail: lesicko at macalester.edu CLOSING DATE: April 1, if not before. I would appreciate it if someone would forward this notice to the Parli-L From amackie Thu Mar 5 13:47:01 1998 From: amackie (AIMAN FOUAD MACKIE) Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 14:47:01 -0500 Subject: Please read Message-ID: Hi, Does anyone know of someone involved in the Debae/forensics community by the name of Christopher Shroll? If you do please let me know as soon as you can. Thanks for your time. AM UM-Dearborn From bigpants28 Thu Mar 5 13:56:29 1998 From: bigpants28 (Matt Baisley) Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 11:56:29 PST Subject: Novice nationals Message-ID: Sorry this is so last minute but UMKC probably will be running a new case. CBM's was previously posted but we are running sea-mines instead. Baisley & Curry UMKC ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com >From Thu Mar 5 15:18:32 1998 Message-Id: Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 15:18:32 -0500 Reply-To: brewer at MACALESTER.EDU To: Team Topic Debating in America From: William Brewer Subject: georgia MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII could someone from georgia backchannel me. falco From rpeacor Thu Mar 5 16:31:54 1998 From: rpeacor (Rick Peacor) Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 14:31:54 -0800 Subject: NW CEDA Champs entries Message-ID: Here are the entries to the NW CEDA Championship as of 2:30 Pacific Time, March 5. CSU-Chico Sue Lowrie & Cara Cupp Dave Delano & Tony King Paul Loupe & Gloria Sobalvarro Casey Arbenz & Ryan Buckley CSU-Long Beach Kristine Clancy & Heather Henkel. Gonzaga John Voight & Aaron Moburg-Jones Josh Yake & Ben Voight Casey Kelly & Shawn Hummell Jason Leviton & Cliff Duke Lewis & Clark Jared Ellis & Nick Hesterberg Jared Hager & Terry James Aleava Sayre & Wendy Hansen University of Oregon Katie Bauer & Jay Lininger Shanna Gazley & Molly Schiessl (Public) Lauren Baldel & Syd Peterson (Public) Annie Bruce & Tom Sexton (Public) Joannie Tang & Razib Khan (Public) Noah Bean & Josh Horton (Public) Alan Tauber & Aaron Anderson (Public) University of Puget Sound Paul Veillon & Scott Bailey Amy Stutesman & Michael LeFevre Darrel Wanzer & Maxine Cram Michael Gilbrough & Foster Reif Weber State Dan Dilsaver & Dave Anthony Western Washington Jeff Van Horn & Julie Pitt Michelle Sarruf & Whitney Garrison Ian Mynatt & Liz Bennett (public) Whitman Sean Harris & Adam Symonds Jessica Clarke & Ryan Scoville Sean Collins & Mike Caughey Lisa Beyl & Erin Carlson Bobby deGrouchy & Keola Whittaker (Public) _____________________________________ Rick Peacor Director of Intercollegiate Forensics University of Oregon rpeacor at rio.com 541-346-4186 (office) 541-461-1678 (home) _____________________________________ From srader Thu Mar 5 16:50:49 1998 From: srader (Doyle Srader) Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 15:50:49 -0700 Subject: Kofi Annan & Macalester Message-ID: To add to the list of famous people who debated, add the current Secretary-General of the U.N., who debated for Macalester! This is from the Baltimore Sun, February 20, 1998: "While at a university in Ghana, Annan won a Ford Foundation scholarship and enrolled at Macalester College, a school with an international bent. Slight of build, he distinguished himself in track but quickly gave up football after a nasty collision with another player. He also became a star debater, exhibiting early a quiet command over an audience." Probably a bit before Professor Lesicko's time, though -- Annan is 59. 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 Thu Mar 5 14:16:49 1998 Message-Id: Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 14:16:49 MST7MDT Reply-To: WEST at CENTRUM.CN.SUU.EDU To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Terry West Organization: Southern Utah University Subject: disclosure thread Comments: To: parli at willamette.edu An old issue, but one that seems to have renewed in Parli. 1) Ballots are problematic. Even if we thought we could enforce some "thou must fill the page with scribble" rule, the limited space on the ballot leaves many questions unanswered. Learning is very limited. Disclosure has a similar problem; coaches are often unable to hear the disclosure given to their debaters (we're usually disclosing rounds we are judging at the same time), and debaters are often not as accurate as they could be in relating what the judge said back to the coach. But the opportunity for healthy interaction (questions/clarifications) from post round disclosure in my mind outweighs this problem. 2) A judge can learn, too. I know there are usually a handful of rounds each year where post round discussion convinces me that I might have voted differently had I understood a line of argument better. Now that's not necessarily my "fault"--ultimately the debater must communicate assuming I'm doing my best. Point is that I might understand the argument a bit better the next time I hear it. That's consistent with the way things happen in the "real world." And I think debaters learn as well that arguments they thought were "crystal" were a bit less than perfectly clear. 3) Both sides need to chill a bit and understand the stresses the other assumes. Debaters are in the "heat of competition." OK, it's fine with me if a debater is disappointed in a decision--and even if they express that. Of course, IDEALLY all my disclosures would end with "we all agree and are happy," but that's unrealistic in a competitive endeavor. Debaters should understand that judges are under pressure as well. The last thing I want to do is screw someone out of a decision they deserve. I want my teams to win the tournament; if they don't, I don't give a rat's tail who does. Hope the best team wins. I can live with a debater who thinks I voted wrong, even one who thinks I'm an idiot. I hope no debater thinks I voted against them for some personal reason, but I can't control what they think. I'm happy if all the debaters leave knowing I did the best I could, whether or not it was "right." 4) All the above having been said, there is seldom a need for abusive or violent behavior. Yes, there are some judges who vote politically (more than most of us would like to admit). But screaming at them at the end of the round is often exactly what they want--makes them look like the martyr. But absent such a clear political motive, there's no need for hurtfulness. My own policy is that I'll stay as long as the tournament permits to answer questions and try to explain the decision--I won't argue about it. If things get abusive, my bottom line is "I understand you disagree; I believe I did the best I could and wish you good luck in the future." Then I'm gone. This hasn't really happened to me that often, and I've never had anyone try to physically accost me. Lucky for them. Terry West SUU From bdw2 Thu Mar 5 17:44:12 1998 From: bdw2 (Brian Wassom) Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 18:44:12 -0500 Subject: [Fwd: Iraq's Continuing Nuclear Threat: A Report] Message-ID: -- Brian D. Wassom, 2L Case Western Reserve University School of Law, Cleveland, OH 1975 Ford #4 Cleveland OH 44106 phone: (216) 721-8680 email: bdw2 at po.cwru.edu WWW: http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/2253/ AOL Instant Messenger: Wassdoggg -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: Nuclear Control Institute Subject: Iraq's Continuing Nuclear Threat: A Report Date: Thu, 05 Mar 1998 17:59:38 -0500 Size: 2633 Url: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/19980305/fce84e91/attachment.mht From jigiel Thu Mar 5 18:06:11 1998 From: jigiel (Jay I Igiel) Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 19:06:11 -0500 Subject: Second-Round Applicants Update In-Reply-To: <01IUAZUXRSJ68WW3RU@uni.edu> Message-ID: Could someone please post the final list? Jay Igiel GMU Debate "In the beginning good upheld all the mortality evils of all man's sins, but in time the nations grew weak and our cities fell to slums, while evil stood strong. In the dusts of hell lay the blackest of hates, for he who knew fear awaits you. Now many many light-ons later lay destroyed, beaten down, only the corpses of rebels, hashes of dreams and bloodstained streets. It has been written that those who are the youth have the future. So, come now children of the beast, be strong and shout at the devil." MOTLEY CRUE From rghosha Thu Mar 5 18:24:01 1998 From: rghosha (Raj Ghoshal) Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 19:24:01 -0500 Subject: Second-Round Applicants Update In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 5 Mar 1998, Jay I Igiel wrote: > Could someone please post the final list? > Jay Igiel > GMU Debate Also, if anyone has compiled a list of those who made it out through all the districts tourneys, please post. Thank you. Rajesh Ghoshal @Emory University (404)251-8441 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- "He basically led his personal life the way he led his political life: with an iron fist, so to speak. He would criticize everything about her that he didnt like the same way he might criticize the death penalty, for example." --Slava Faybysh -------------------------------------------------------------------------- "You are about to be told one more time that you are America's most valuable natural resource. Have you seen what they do to valuable natural resources? Have you seen a strip mine? Have you seen a clear cut in the forest? Have you seen a polluted river? Don't ever let them call you a valuable natural resource! They're going to strip mine your soul! They're going to clear cut your best thoughts for the sake of profit unless you learn to resist because the profit system follows the path of least resistance and following the path of least resistance is what made the river crooked!" --Utah Phillips -------------------------------------------------------------------------- >From Thu Mar 5 19:31:38 1998 Message-Id: Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 19:31:38 -0500 Reply-To: deon_garner at STUDENTS.MOREHOUSE.EDU To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Deon Garner Subject: CONGRATULATIONS Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=US-ASCII I want to first thank all of my debate peers and compatriarts (sp?) for electing me Student Representative for the Southeast CEDA Region; I looking forward to serving your individual and collective needs. I would like to take this opportunity to perform my first official task as Student Rep.: At the 1997 Regional Tournament, the student body decided to institute a Critic of the Year award. The award would recognize the critic who served as a fair adjudiicator, fervent educator, and all-around good representative of the activity. I would like to congratulation DR. CARRIE CRENSHAW for being selected as CRITC OF THE YEAR for the Southeast & Southeast Central Regions for the 1997-98 Debate Season. Carrie was nominated by Larry Wulkan (U. of Miami, FL) and Gabrielle Prisco & Vinay Reddy (Vanderbilt University). Thanks, Deon, Captain Morehouse Debate >From Thu Mar 5 19:40:25 1998 Message-Id: Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 19:40:25 -0500 Reply-To: deon_garner at STUDENTS.MOREHOUSE.EDU To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Deon Garner Subject: ADA Nats. Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=US-ASCII Hi, Who all will be attending ADA Nationals next weekend? Thanks, Deon, Captain Morehouse Debate From mvega69 Thu Mar 5 21:12:05 1998 From: mvega69 (Matt Vega) Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 19:12:05 PST Subject: michigan PS Message-ID: I'm looking for Pudelski or Scannapieco. Could one of you backchannel me? thanks in advance. matt vega smsu ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From mvega69 Thu Mar 5 21:14:16 1998 From: mvega69 (Matt Vega) Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 19:14:16 PST Subject: texas Message-ID: i am looking for grove or jarious...could one of you please backchannel me? thanks in advance. matt vega smsu ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From mvega69 Thu Mar 5 21:17:15 1998 From: mvega69 (Matt Vega) Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 19:17:15 PST Subject: eastern new mexico Message-ID: could one of you please backchannel me with your solvency cites for agent orange? i appreciate it. matt vega smsu mvega69 at hotmail.com ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From lheller Thu Mar 5 21:35:11 1998 From: lheller (Lisa K. Heller) Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 22:35:11 -0500 Subject: FW: fwd..US GREENLIGHT IN KOSOVO! "Play Ball!" Message-ID: Given the uncertainty of next years topic - a little hoop anyone? Lisa K. Heller Richmond Debate >Date: Thu, 05 Mar 1998 20:17:34 -0700 >From: Dan Kerlinsky >Subject: Re: FW: fwd..US GREENLIGHT IN KOSOVO! "Play Ball!" >Sender: owner-bioregional at csf.colorado.edu >To: BIOREGIONAL >Reply-to: bioregional at csf.colorado.edu >X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 >X-To: bioregional at csf.colorado.edu, jmjb at montana.com > >Please forgive more psychotherapeutic sociobiological fantasy coming from this writer... but I have been imagining what advanced peacekeeping interventions could look like, based on my 15 years of milieu therapy with disturbed, brain-damaged, traumatized and aggressive adolescents. > >Basically, intervening ecologically means changing interaction patterns, breaking up negative synergisms, and creating positive structure that eventually becomes self-sustaining via positive synergisms. > >The first intervention is a spiritual one, overcoming the sense of expendability that has developed from so many centuries of violence and trauma; being cared for, in a basic mammalian, warm-blooded, nurturant way begins to create the hope that things could get better... > >...that someday there might be peace, love and contentment in our hearts >where now fear, helplessness, anger, stress, shame, guilt, sadness, hurt, numbness and confusion reign. This can be done many ways --- music - an international concert of stars raising money for ALbanian projects could be a start. > >Sending food, sending money, letting people know we care. If it can be done for Chris Reeves, American Farm-Aid, and starving children... it can be done for Albania. > >The next set of interventions disrupt negative synergisms. If competition, social oppression, ethnic domination and deprivation of status has escalated normal aggressiveness into violence, one needs to create a safe way to compete and win in a cooperative way. > >Ask George Soros to put up $10 million for a basketball league and bring in American basketball stars, along with Olympic competitors, to run training camps and help set up teams. Get corporate sponsors to equip the teams. Set up a television station to broadcast the games. Promise to broadcast to Europe and the United States if the teams make it through the season without disruptiion by violence. Put up some money for the winners. > >If not basketball... find out what people like to play in the region. But set up incentives for people to compete safely. Send in peacekeeping troops if necessary to get it started and to help build the indoor stadiums where the games would be played. Let the GI's play some hoop too. > >Then send in 1000 video cameras and let the people make their own films. Set up a contest for the best non-violent, non-hate-arousing documentaries and movies. Make a distribution deal for an ALbanian film festival in five or six European and American cities; include some developing world locations too. > >Get EPA and DOE to work with UNDP and UNEP to study the natural resources and economy of the region. Determine a few ventures that would be restorative to the ecosystem and the people. Fund them in a way that requires cooperation across ethnic and national groups. > >We can bring this into being. For some reason this sort of magical dream won't leave me alone; so I share it with you... and hope it is contagious. > > > >>>> "Jamil Brownson" 12/26 1:54 PM >>> >PLS EXCUSE THIS FORWARD, BUT KOSOVO MAY BE THE ACHILLES HEEL OF THE WEST IN >AN IMPENDING CIVILIZATIONAL CRISIS WITH THE SLAVIC-ORTHODOX WORLD, ONE THAT >COULD DRAW IN THE MUSLIM WORLD AS WELL. > >Eastern Orthodox Slavic peoples, from Serbia to Russia, view the 14th c. >battle of Kosovo Pole against Turko-Tatar forces, as a turning point in >their identity as a people. That Battlefield is at the centre of a River >Valley that constitutes the heart of former Yujoslavian Province of Kosovo. >The region was anciently settled by Illyrian peoples, from which modern >Albanians are descended. Southern Slave migrated into the area only in the >7th to 8th centuries, and moved on to more fertile territories to the north. >At present, 90+% of Kosovo's population are ethnic Albanians, mostly Muslim. >Geopolitically, this small mountain enclave is more crucial symbolically >than Bosnia. In neighbors Macedonia, which is presently served by a UN >Peacekeeping force. Macedonia is claimed by Greece, Bulgaria, and Serbia. >Even if the Macedonians could affiliate with one of the three surrounding >nations, the other two would go to war over it. That is how strong feelings >are. > >Current forced occupation of Kosovo by outside Serbs, and their brutal >oppression of the overwhelming majority of Kosovo's 1.9 million people is a >crime against humanity almost as glaring as what first transpired in Serbian >dominated regions of Bosnia and Croatia before war broke out. This time, >there will be even greater bloodshed than in Bosnia if the Albanian people >of Kosovo rise up against the Serbs--not as terrorists, but as fighters for >their autonomy that was illegally seized by Milosevich when he took over the >remains of former Yujoslavia for his Serbian faction. > >Should Albania be drawn into a Kosovo war, ramifications could spread to >neighboring Montenegro and Macedonia where Albanians are 20% of the >population. That could easily spill over into neighboring Greece and >Bulgaria. At the borders of both Greece and Bulgaria stands Turkey and >Russia, both very interested historical participants. Turkey and Greece are >uneasy neighbors at best, and current relations are extremely strained over >Cyprus. Russia is fighting for its new identity and desperately wants to be >seen as it has historically been , the overlord and protector of all Slavic >Orthodox peoples. Russia is currently under pressure in the Caucasas, >especially in Chechnia, which is the historically contexted area between >Turkish and Russina spheres of influence. > >So once again, US diplomats display their lack of historical acumen, and >slovenly skills at making the crucial nature of this conflict known to our >ignorant politicians (whose spins of scandal and re-election outweigh any >true political wisdom necessary for a world power. Our academics and pundits >are helpless to advise as they are so caught in an a-historicism, that we >are left mostly uninformed and vulnerable. > >If you saw the recent DeNiro film Wag the Dog, its prescience was not about >a White House sex scandal and potential Iraqi war, but about the ignorance >of Americans over Albania. This time our ignorence may be a fatal flaw that >could more readily involve us in a potential nuclear war than any time since >the Cuban missle crisis. > >Please think about this. > >jb >---------- >From: ernie yacub >To: BIOREGIONAL >Subject: fwd..US GREENLIGHT IN KOSOVO! >Date: Thu, 05 Mar, 1998, 18:09 >From: "Boyle, Francis" >To: Multiple recipients of list >" Condemning the incidents, the US envoy said: "I consider these >> to be terrorist actions and it is the strong and firm policy of the >> US to fully oppose all terroristic actions and all terrorist >> organisations."........ >> Gelbard said the current situation, which has seen some areas of >> Kosovo become no-go areas for Serbs and on Sunday a police report >> that a Serb man had been killed by "Albanian terrorists" in an >> attack on Friday, needed attention. ....." > >Gelbard in Pristina, Kosovo, February 22, 1998 >Notice that Gelbard went all the way to Pristina just to >condemn the Albanian opposition there as "terrorists." In other words, >Gelbard knowingly gave the green light to Milosevic to crack down on the >Albanian Population in Kosovo that, according to the latest reports, has >degenerated into outright genocide against Albanians, just like >Milosevic did in Croatia and Bosnia. > Notice too that history repeats itself: In June of 1991 Jim >Baker flew all the way to Belgrade to meet with Milosevic,then publicly >stated that the United States government fully supported the territorial >integrity of Yugoslavia. In other words, Baker gave a green-light to >Milosevic. Immediately thereafter Milosevic unleashed his war on >Slovenia, then his war and genocide against Croatia, then his war and >genocide against Bosnia. Meanwhile, the Bush administration instituted >the arms embargo against Yugoslavia so that the Peoples of Croatia and >Bosnia could not defend themselves from Milosevic's aggression, genocide >and ethnic cleansing. Deja vu all over again in Kosovo. > Francis A. Boyle > Professor of International Law > >Francis A. Boyle >Law Building >504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >Champaign, Ill. 61820 >Phone: 217-333-7954 >Fax: 217-244-1478 >fboyle at law.uiuc.edu > > >Daniel Kerlinsky MD >Child Psychiatrist >Physicians for Social Responsibility > >"Ever desiring one can perceive the manifestations. > Ever desireless one can perceive the mystery." > --- Lao Tsu > > From Broveraf Fri Mar 6 00:06:38 1998 From: Broveraf (Adrienne F. Brovero) Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 01:06:38 -0500 Subject: Districts 2 & 3 where are you? Message-ID: Hey could someone post the results specifically from these 2 - I can post a complete list if I get those 2. -adri u of m ---------- From: Raj Ghoshal[SMTP:rghosha at EMORY.EDU] Sent: Thursday, March 05, 1998 7:24 PM To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU Subject: Re: Second-Round Applicants Update On Thu, 5 Mar 1998, Jay I Igiel wrote: > Could someone please post the final list? > Jay Igiel > GMU Debate Also, if anyone has compiled a list of those who made it out through all the districts tourneys, please post. Thank you. Rajesh Ghoshal @Emory University (404)251-8441 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- "He basically led his personal life the way he led his political life: with an iron fist, so to speak. He would criticize everything about her that he didnt like the same way he might criticize the death penalty, for example." --Slava Faybysh -------------------------------------------------------------------------- "You are about to be told one more time that you are America's most valuable natural resource. Have you seen what they do to valuable natural resources? Have you seen a strip mine? Have you seen a clear cut in the forest? Have you seen a polluted river? Don't ever let them call you a valuable natural resource! They're going to strip mine your soul! They're going to clear cut your best thoughts for the sake of profit unless you learn to resist because the profit system follows the path of least resistance and following the path of least resistance is what made the river crooked!" --Utah Phillips -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From wnewnam Fri Mar 6 08:07:50 1998 From: wnewnam (William E Newnam) Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 09:07:50 -0500 Subject: District seven results? In-Reply-To: <01BD489C.30CBC2C0@slip166-72-135-166.mi.us.ibm.net> Message-ID: If anyone out there has a post of District 7 tournament results, please post them or forward them to me. For some reason I have not received those and I take from Adrienne's post that it has been posted. I simply cannot locate it on my email. thanks bill n emory From mcmulpm5 Fri Mar 6 08:34:44 1998 From: mcmulpm5 (patrick) Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 09:34:44 -0500 Subject: Novice needed for ADA Nationals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: We have an extra novice debater looking for a partner to debate with at the ADA National tournament. Please contact me ASAP if you have someone. thanks Patrick McMullen Mary Washington College From dperkins Fri Mar 6 13:53:11 1998 From: dperkins (Dallas Perkins) Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 14:53:11 -0500 Subject: China Airlines Message-ID: Does anybody reading this list have any experience flying China Airlines (the one based in Taipei)? If so, please drop me a backchannel. dp >From Fri Mar 6 15:22:17 1998 Message-Id: Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 15:22:17 +0100 Reply-To: Earnest.L.Neighbors at samford.edu To: Team Topic Debating in America From: "Earnest L. Neighbors" Subject: topic paper MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="Part9803061512.B" --Part9803061512.B Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Dearest List, This is Mike Janas's topic paper on biotechnology. I think this is a wonderful topic, whatever that counts for. Mmm... science and Frankenstein and government and ethics and cloning and vegetables, Oh My! By the by, Janas asked me to send this to Tuna, and I think he is on the list. Tuna, if you can hear this, please bang a wrench on the hull three times. Len --- Begin Forwarded Message --- Date: Fri, 06 Mar 1998 14:08:32 +0100 From: "Michael J. Janas" Subject: topic paper Sender: "Michael J. Janas" To: "Neighbors, Earnest Leonard" Reply-To: mjjanas at samford.edu Message-ID: LEN, PLEASE FORWARD THIS TO THE LIST FOR ME. MIKE ----------------------------------------- Michael J. Janas Email: Michael.J.Janas at samford.edu Samford University --- End Forwarded Message --- ----------------------------------------- Earnest L. Neighbors Email: Earnest.L.Neighbors at samford.edu Samford University --Part9803061512.B Content-Type: MULTIPART/APPLEDOUBLE; BOUNDARY="Part9803061513.C" --Part9803061513.C Content-Type: APPLICATION/APPLEFILE; NAME="%biotech.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: BASE64 AAUWBwACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAUAAAADAAAAVgAAAAsAAAAJAAAA YQAAACAAAAAIAAAAgQAAABAAAAAEAAAAkQAAAAAAAAACAAAAkQAAAABiaW90 ZWNoLnR4dFJURiBNU1dEAQD/////AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA/JK+Q/yS vkZLbQwA/JK/2Q== --Part9803061513.C Content-Type: APPLICATION/RTF; NAME="biotech.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: BASE64 e1xydGYxXG1hYyBcZGVmZjYxXGRlZmxhbmcxMDMze1xmb250dGJse1xmOVxm bmlsXGZjaGFyc2V0NzdcZnBycTIgSGVsdmV0aWNhO317XGY2MVxmbmlsXGZj aGFyc2V0NzdcZnBycTIgUGFsYXRpbm87fX17XGNvbG9ydGJsO1xyZWQwXGdy ZWVuMFxibHVlMDtccmVkMFxncmVlbjBcYmx1ZTI1NTtccmVkMFxncmVlbjIw NFxibHVlMjU1O1xyZWQwXGdyZWVuMjIxXGJsdWUwOw1ccmVkMjU1XGdyZWVu MFxibHVlMjU1O1xyZWQyNTVcZ3JlZW4wXGJsdWUwO1xyZWQyNTVcZ3JlZW4y NTVcYmx1ZTA7XHJlZDI1NVxncmVlbjI1NVxibHVlMjU1O1xyZWQwXGdyZWVu MFxibHVlMTM2O1xyZWQwXGdyZWVuMTUzXGJsdWUxNTM7XHJlZDBcZ3JlZW4x MTlcYmx1ZTA7XHJlZDIwNFxncmVlbjBcYmx1ZTIwNDtccmVkMTM2XGdyZWVu MFxibHVlMDtccmVkMTUzXGdyZWVuMTUzXGJsdWUwO1xyZWQxMTlcZ3JlZW4x MTlcYmx1ZTExOTsNXHJlZDE4N1xncmVlbjE4N1xibHVlMTg3O317XHN0eWxl c2hlZXR7XHdpZGN0bHBhciBcZjYxIFxzbmV4dDAgTm9ybWFsO317XHMxXHNi MjQwXHdpZGN0bHBhciBcYlxmOVx1bCBcc2Jhc2Vkb24wXHNuZXh0MCBoZWFk aW5nIDE7fXtcKlxjczEwIFxhZGRpdGl2ZSBEZWZhdWx0IFBhcmFncmFwaCBG b250O317XHMxNVx3aWRjdGxwYXIgXGY2MVxmczIwIFxzYmFzZWRvbjBcc25l eHQxNSBlbmRub3RlIHRleHQ7fXtcKlxjczE2IFxhZGRpdGl2ZQ1cc3VwZXIg XHNiYXNlZG9uMTAgZW5kbm90ZSByZWZlcmVuY2U7fXtcKlxjczE3IFxhZGRp dGl2ZVxmczE2XHVwNiBcc2Jhc2Vkb24xMCBmb290bm90ZSByZWZlcmVuY2U7 fXtcczE4XHdpZGN0bHBhciBcZjYxXGZzMjAgXHNiYXNlZG9uMFxzbmV4dDE4 IGZvb3Rub3RlIHRleHQ7fXtcczE5XHdpZGN0bHBhclx0cWNcdHg0MzIwXHRx clx0eDg2NDAgXGY2MSBcc2Jhc2Vkb24wXHNuZXh0MTkgaGVhZGVyO317DVxz MjBcd2lkY3RscGFyXHRxY1x0eDQzMjBcdHFyXHR4ODY0MCBcZjYxIFxzYmFz ZWRvbjBcc25leHQyMCBmb290ZXI7fXtcKlxjczIxIFxhZGRpdGl2ZVxzYmFz ZWRvbjEwIHBhZ2UgbnVtYmVyO319e1xpbmZve1x0aXRsZSBiaW90ZWNobm9s b2d5fXtcYXV0aG9yIERvdWcgSm9uZXN9e1xvcGVyYXRvciBEb3VnIEpvbmVz fXtcY3JlYXRpbVx5cjE5OThcbW8zXGR5NlxocjE0fXtccmV2dGltXHlyMTk5 OFxtbzNcZHk2XGhyMTR9e1x2ZXJzaW9uMn0Ne1xlZG1pbnMxfXtcbm9mcGFn ZXMwfXtcbm9md29yZHMwfXtcbm9mY2hhcnMwfXtcdmVybjQ5MjMxfX1cbWFy Z2wxNDQwXG1hcmdyMTQ0MFxtYXJndDE4MDBcbWFyZ2IxODAwIFx3aWRvd2N0 cmxcZW5kZG9jXGFlbmRkb2NcaHlwaGhvdHowXGZ0bm5ybGNcYWZ0bm5hclxz cHJzdHNwXG90YmxydWxcYnJrZnJtXHNwcnN0c21cdHJ1bmNleFxub2xlYWRc bXNtY2FwXGh5cGhjYXBzMCBcZmV0MXtcKlxhZnRuc2VwIFxwYXJkXHBsYWlu IFx3aWRjdGxwYXIgDVxmNjEgDVxwYXIgfXtcKlxhZnRuc2VwYyBccGFyZFxw bGFpbiBcd2lkY3RscGFyIFxmNjEgDVxwYXIgfVxzZWN0ZCBcc2Jrbm9uZVxs aW5leDBcZW5kbmhlcmUge1xoZWFkZXIgXHBhcmRccGxhaW4gXHMxOVx3aWRj dGxwYXJcdHFjXHR4NDMyMFx0cXJcdHg4NjQwIFxmNjEgXHRhYiBcdGFiIEJp b3RlY2hub2xvZ3kvcGFnZSB7XGZpZWxke1wqXGZsZGluc3Qge1xjczIxICBQ QUdFIH19e1xmbGRyc2x0IHtcY3MyMSAzMX19fQ1ccGFyIH17XCpccG5zZWNs dmwxXHBudWNybVxwbnN0YXJ0MVxwbmluZGVudDcyMFxwbmhhbmd7XHBudHh0 YSAufX17XCpccG5zZWNsdmwyXHBudWNsdHJccG5zdGFydDFccG5pbmRlbnQ3 MjBccG5oYW5ne1xwbnR4dGEgLn19e1wqXHBuc2VjbHZsM1xwbmRlY1xwbnN0 YXJ0MVxwbmluZGVudDcyMFxwbmhhbmd7XHBudHh0YSAufX17XCpccG5zZWNs dmw0XHBubGNsdHJccG5zdGFydDFccG5pbmRlbnQ3MjBccG5oYW5ne1xwbnR4 dGEgKX19e1wqXHBuc2VjbHZsNQ1ccG5kZWNccG5zdGFydDFccG5pbmRlbnQ3 MjBccG5oYW5ne1xwbnR4dGIgKH17XHBudHh0YSApfX17XCpccG5zZWNsdmw2 XHBubGNsdHJccG5zdGFydDFccG5pbmRlbnQ3MjBccG5oYW5ne1xwbnR4dGIg KH17XHBudHh0YSApfX17XCpccG5zZWNsdmw3XHBubGNybVxwbnN0YXJ0MVxw bmluZGVudDcyMFxwbmhhbmd7XHBudHh0YiAofXtccG50eHRhICl9fXtcKlxw bnNlY2x2bDhccG5sY2x0clxwbnN0YXJ0MVxwbmluZGVudDcyMFxwbmhhbmcN e1xwbnR4dGIgKH17XHBudHh0YSApfX17XCpccG5zZWNsdmw5XHBubGNybVxw bnN0YXJ0MVxwbmluZGVudDcyMFxwbmhhbmd7XHBudHh0YiAofXtccG50eHRh ICl9fVxwYXJkXHBsYWluIFxxY1xzbDQ4MFxzbG11bHQwXHdpZGN0bHBhciBc ZjYxIHtcZnM0MCBCaW90ZWNobm9sb2d5IGFzIGEgVG9waWMgQXJlYX0NXHBh ciBTdWJtaXR0ZWQgYnkgTWljaGFlbCBKYW5hcw1ccGFyIFNhbWZvcmQgVW5p dmVyc2l0eQ1ccGFyIEJpcm1pbmdoYW0sIEFMIDM1MjI5DVxwYXIgbWpqYW5h c0BzYW1mb3JkLmVkdQ1ccGFyIA1ccGFyIFxwYXJkIFxzbDQ4MFxzbG11bHQw XHdpZGN0bHBhciBcdGFiIEcuIFRob21hcyBHb29kbmlnaHQgYXJndWVzIHRo YXQgdGhlIHB1YmxpYyBzcGhlcmUgaGFzIGNvbGxhcHNlZCBpbnRvIHRoZSB0 ZWNobmljYWwgc3BoZXJlLntcY3MxNlxzdXBlciBcY2hmdG4ge1xmb290bm90 ZVxmdG5hbHQgXHBhcmRccGxhaW4gXHMxNVxxY1xub3dpZGN0bHBhciBcZjYx XGZzMjAge1xmczI0IE5vdGVzDVxwYXIgfVxwYXJkIFxzMTVccWNcbm93aWRj dGxwYXIgDVxwYXIgXHBhcmQgXHMxNVxub3dpZGN0bHBhciB7XGNzMTZcc3Vw ZXIgXHRhYiB9e1xmczE4XHVwNiBcY2hmdG4gfUcuIFRob21hcyBHb29kbmln aHQuICAiVGhlIFBlcnNvbmFsLCBUZWNobmljYWwsIGFuZCBQdWJsaWMgU3Bo ZXJlcyBvZiBBcmd1bWVudDogIEEgU3BlY3VsYXRpdmUgSW5xdWlyeSBpbnRv IHRoZSBBcnQgb2YgUHVibGljIERlbGliZXJhdGlvbiwiIHtcdWwgVGhlIEpv dXJuYWwgb2YgdGhlIEFtZXJpY2FuIEZvcmVuc2lj IEFzc29jYXRpb259DSAxOCAoMTk4Mik6IDIxNC0yMjcuDVxwYXIgfX0gIEJ5 IHRoaXMgaGUgbWVhbnMgdGhhdCB3ZSBoYXZlIGNlZGVkIG11Y2ggcG9sDWl0 aWNhbCBhdXRob3JpdHkgdG8gc2NpZW50aXN0cyBiZWNhdXNlIHdlIHBlcmNl aXZlIG91cnNlbHZlcyBhcyBsYWNraW5nIHJlbGV2YW50IGtub3dsZWRnZSB0 byBzcGVhayB0byAidGVjaG5pY2FsIiBpc3N1ZXMuICBUaGUgY29uc2VxdWVu Y2UgaXMgdGhhdCB3ZSBoYXZlIGxpdHRsZSBkZXRhaWxlZCBrbm93bGVkZ2Ug b2YgdGhlIHNjaWVudGlmaWMgbWV0aG9kLiAgQW5kLCBpbiBmYWN0LCBmZXcg cGVvcGxlIHByb2Zlc3MgZW5vdWdoIGtub3dsZQ1kZ2UgdG8gIGNvbW1lbnQg Zm9yY2VmdWxseSBvbiBhbnkgc2NpZW50aWZpYyBpc3N1ZS4gIA1ccGFyIFxw YXJkIFxzbDQ4MFxzbG11bHQwXHdpZGN0bHBhciBcdGFiIFRoaXMgY29sbGFw c2Ugb2Ygc3BoZXJlIGlzIGRlbW9uc3RyYXRlZCBpbiBhY2FkZW1pYyBkZWJh dGUuICBBcyBhIGNvbW11bml0eSBvZiBkZWJhdGVycywgYm90aCBDRURBIGFu ZCBORFQsIHdlIGhhdmUgbm90IGVuZ2FnZWQgaGVhZGxvbmcgYSBzY2llbnRp ZmljIGRlYmF0ZSBzaW5jZSB0aGUgc3BhY2UgdG9waWNzIG9mIHRoZSBlYXJs eSAxOTgwcy4gVGgNZXJlIGFyZSBzZXZlcmFsIHJlYXNvbnMgd2UgY2FuIG9m ZmVyIGZvciB0aGlzLCB0aGUgdGVuc2lvbiBiZXR3ZWVuIHRoZSBzdXJldHkg b2Ygc2NpZW5jZSBhbmQgdGhlIHByb2JhYmlsaXR5IG9mIGRlYmF0ZSwgYSBs YWNrIG9mIGludGVyZXN0IG9uIHRoZSBwYXJ0IG9mIGRlYmF0ZXJzLCBhbiBp ZGVvbG9naWNhbCBiaWFzIHRvd2FyZCBhdHRvcm5leXMgcmF0aGVyIHRoYW4g c2NpZW50aXN0cy4gIEhvd2V2ZXIsIGluIHRoZXNlIGp1c3RpZmljYXRpDW9u cyB3ZSBoYXZlIGxldCBtYW55IG9mIHRoZSBtb3N0IGltcG9ydGFudCBwb2xp dGljYWwgZGV2ZWxvcG1lbnRzIG9mIG91ciBhZ2Ugc2xpcCBieSB1cywgZ2l2 ZW4gdGhhdCB0aGUgZmllbGRzIG9mIHNjaWVuY2UsIGxhdywgdGhlb2xvZ3ks IGFuZCBwb2xpY3kgYXJlIGRhaWx5IG1vcmUgaW50ZXJ0d2luZWQuDVxwYXIg XHBhcmQgXHNsNDgwXHNsbXVsdDBcd2lkY3RscGFyIFx0YWIgQmlvdGVjaG5v bG9neSBpcyBvbmUgb2YgdGhlIGZhc3Rlc3QgZ3Jvd2luZyBzZWdtZW50cyBv ZiBvdXIgZWNvbm9teSBhbmQgaXMgcHJvag1lY3RlZCB0byBncm93IGludG8g dGhlIG5lYXIgZnV0dXJlLiAgIkJldHdlZW4gMTk4NSBhbmQgMTk5MCwgdGhl IG51bWJlciBvZiBiaW90ZWNobm9sb2d5IHBhdGVudCBhcHBsaWNhdGlvbnMg ZmlsZWQgaW4gdGhlIFVuaXRlZCBTdGF0ZXMgZ3JldyBieSBmaWZ0ZWVuIHBl cmNlbnQgYW5udWFsbHkuIntcY3MxNlxzdXBlciBcY2hmdG4ge1xmb290bm90 ZVxmdG5hbHQgXHBhcmRccGxhaW4gXHMxNVxub3dpZGN0bHBhciBcZjYxXGZz MjAgXHRhYiB7DVxjczE2XHN1cGVyIFxjaGZ0biB9R29sbGlucyBldC4gYWwu LiB7XHVsIEJpb3RlY2hub2xvZ3kgUHJvc3BlY3Rpbmd9LCAxOTkzLiANXHBh ciB9fSBCeSB0aGUgeWVhciAyMDAwLCBiaW90ZWNobm9sb2d5IHNhbGVzIGFy ZSBleHBlY3RlZCB0byBpbmNyZWFzZSB0byBtb3JlIHRoYW4gJDUwIGJpbGxp b24gZG9sbGFycyBhbm51YWxseS4gIFZpY2UgUHJlc2lkZW50IEFsIEdvcmUg aGFzIHJlZmVycmVkIHRvICJ0aGUgcG90IG9mIGdvbGQgYXQgdGhlIGVuZCBv ZiB0aGUgYmlvdGVjaG5vbG9neSByYWluYm93LiJ7XGNzMTZcc3VwZXIgXGNo ZnRuIHtcZm9vdG5vdGVcZnRuYWx0IA1ccGFyZFxwbGFpbiBcczE1XG5vd2lk Y3RscGFyIFxmNjFcZnMyMCBcdGFiIHtcY3MxNlxzdXBlciBcY2hmdG4gfUFs IEdvcmUuICAiUGxhbm5pbmcgYSBOZXcgQmlvdGVjaG5vbG9neSBQb2xpY3ks IiB7XHVsIEhhcnZhcmQgSm91cm5hbCBvZiBMYXcgYW5kIFRlY2hub2xvZ3l9 IChGYWxsIDE5OTEpOiAxOS4NXHBhciB9fSAgQXR0b3JuZXkgR2luYSBLdWhs bWFuIG5vdGVkLCANXHBhciBccGFyZCBcbGk3MjBcc2w0ODBcc2xtdWx0MFx3 aWRjdGxwYXIgW1RdaGUgZXhwbG9kaW5nIGJpb3RlY2hub2xvZ3kgaW5kdXN0 cnkgaG9sZHMgdGhlIHBvdGVudGlhbCB0byBjcmVhdGUgam9icyBhbmQgdG8g YmVjb21lIHRoaXMgbmF0aW9uJ3MgbQ1vc3QgaW1wb3J0YW50IHNvdXJjZSBv ZiBlY29ub21pYyBkZXZlbG9wbWVudCwgbGVhZGluZyBBbWVyaWNhIHRvIHRo ZSBmb3JlZnJvbnQgb2YgdGhpcyB5b3VuZyBidXQgZXhwbG9kaW5nIGluZHVz dHJ5LiAgVGhlIHZpdGFsaXR5IG9mIGJpb3RlY2hub2xvZ3kgaXMgY3JpdGlj YWwgdG8gY29tYmF0aW5nIGRpc2Vhc2VzLCB0byBqb2IgY3JlYXRpb24sIHRv IGVjb25vbWljIGRldmVsb3BtZW50IG5hdGlvbmFsbHksIGFuZCB0aGUgbWFp bnRlbmFuY2UNIG9mIEFtZXJpY2FuIGNvbXBldGl0aXZlbmVzcyBpbiB0aGUg d29ybGQgZWNvbm9teS4gIEJpb3RlY2hub2xvZ3kncyBwb3RlbnRpYWwgdG8g ZGV2ZWxvcCBsaWZlLXNhdmluZyBkcnVncyBhbmQgaGVscCBwb3dlciBBbWVy aWNhJ3MgZWNvbm9teSByZXF1aXJlcyBzdXN0YWluZWQgZGV2ZWxvcG1lbnQg aW4gdGhlIGZpZWxkIG9mIGVuZGVhdm9yLCB3aGljaCBjYW4gYmVzdCBiZSBh Y2hpZXZlZCB0aHJvdWdoIGNvb3BlcmF0aW9uIGJldHdlZW4gdW5pDXZlcnNp dGllcyBhbmQgaW5kdXN0cnkue1xjczE2XHN1cGVyIFxjaGZ0biB7XGZvb3Ru b3RlXGZ0bmFsdCBccGFyZFxwbGFpbiBcczE1XG5vd2lkY3RscGFyIFxmNjFc ZnMyMCBcdGFiIHtcY3MxNlxzdXBlciBcY2hmdG4gfUdpbmEgS3VobG1hbi4g ICJBbGxpYW5jZXMgZm9yIHRoZSBGdXR1cmU6ICBDdWx0aXZhdGluZyBhIENv b3BlcmF0aXZlIEVudmlyb25lbWVudCBmb3IgQmlvdGVjaCBTdWNjZXNzLCIg e1x1bCANIEJlcmtlbHkgVGVjaG5vbG9neSBMYXcgSm91cm5hbH0gMTEgKDE5 OTYpOiAzMTEtMzYxLg1ccGFyIH19DVxwYXIgXHBhcmQgXHNsNDgwXHNsbXVs dDBcd2lkY3RscGFyIA1UaGUgcG9zc2liaWxpdHkg b2ZmZXJlZCBieSBiaW90ZWNobm9sb2d5IGJyZWFrdGhyb3VnaHMgaGFzIGZv c3RlcmVkIGdvdmVybm1lbnQgb2ZmaWNpYWxzIHRvIHJlY29nbml6ZSB0aGF0 IGJpb3RlY2hub2xvZ3kgaXMgYSAibmF0aW9uYWwgY3JpdGljYWwgdGVjaG5v bG9neSwiIHRoYXQgaXMgImVzc2VudGlhbCBmb3IgdGhlIFVuaXRlZCBTdGF0 ZXMgdG8gZGV2ZWxvcCBmdXJ0aGVyIHRoZSBsb25nLXRlcm0gbmF0aW9uYWwg c2VjdXJpdHkgYW5kIGUNY29ub21pYyBwcm9zcGVyaXR5IG9mIHRoZSBVbml0 ZWQgU3RhdGVzLiJ7XGNzMTZcc3VwZXIgXGNoZnRuIHtcZm9vdG5vdGVcZnRu YWx0IFxwYXJkXHBsYWluIFxzMTVcbm93aWRjdGxwYXIgXGY2MVxmczIwIFx0 YWIge1xjczE2XHN1cGVyIFxjaGZ0biB9Q29udGUsIDE4Lg1ccGFyIH19XHRh YiANXHBhciBccGFyZCBcc2w0ODBcc2xtdWx0MFx3aWRjdGxwYXIgXHRhYiBI b3dldmVyLCB3aGlsZSBiaW90ZWNobm9sb2d5IGhhcyBiZWNvbWUgYW5kIGlt cG9ydGFudCBwYXJ0IG9mIHRoZSBVbml0ZWQgU3RhdGVzXHJxdW90ZSAgYW5k IHdvcmxkIGVjb25vbWllcywgaXQgYWxzbyBoYXMgY2hhbGxlbmdlZCBtYW55 IG9mIG91ciBsb25nLWhlbGQgcHJlc3VtcHRpb25zIGFib3V0IGh1bWFuaXR5 J3MgcGxhY2UgaW4gdGhlDSB3b3JsZCBhbmQgd2hldGhlciB3ZSBoYXZlIHJl YWNoZWQgdGhlIHByb2R1Y3RpdmUgbGltaXRzIG9mIG91ciBzY2llbnRpZmlj IHByb2dyZXNzLiAgRXNwZWNpYWxseSBzaW5jZSB0aGUgYmlydGggb2YgRG9s bHksIHRoZSBmaXJzdCBjbG9uZWQgc2hlZXAsIGh1bWFucyBoYXZlIGJlZW4g Zm9yY2VkIHRvIGVuZ2FnZSB0aGUgaW50ZW5kZWQgbGltaXRzIG9mIHRoZWly IHBvd2VyIGFuZCBpbnRlbGxlY3QuICBOb3Qgc2luY2UgdGhlIGRyb3BwaW5n IA1vZiBhdG9taWMgd2VhcG9ucyBvbiBIaXJvc2hpbWEgYW5kIE5hZ2FzYWtp LCBoYXMgdGhlIHdvcmxkIGJlZW4gZm9yY2VkIHRvIHNlcmlvdXNseSBkZWJh dGUgd2hldGhlciB0aGVyZSBhcmUgbGltaXRzIHRvIG91ciB1c2Ugb2YgdGVj aG5vbG9neS4NXHBhciBccGFyZCBcc2w0ODBcc2xtdWx0MFx3aWRjdGxwYXIg DVxwYXIgXHBhcmQgXHFjXHNsNDgwXHNsbXVsdDBcd2lkY3RscGFyIERlZmlu aXRpb25zDVxwYXIgXHBhcmQgXHNsNDgwXHNsbXVsdDBcd2lkY3RscGFyIA1c cGFyIFxwYXJkIFxzbDQ4MFxzbG11bHQwXHdpZGN0bHBhciBcdGFiIEJpb3Rl Y2hub2xvZ3kgaXMgYSB0ZXJtIHRoYXQgZGVmaWVzIGRlZmluaXRpb24ue1xj czE2XHN1cGVyIFxjaGZ0biB7XGZvb3Rub3RlXGZ0bmFsdCBccGFyZFxwbGFp biBcczE1XG5vd2lkY3RscGFyIFxmNjFcZnMyMCBcdGFiIHtcY3MxNlxzdXBl ciBcY2hmdG4gfQ1LbGF1cyBCb3NzZWxtYW5uLiAgIlBsYW50cyBhbmQgUG9s aXRpY3M6ICB0aGUgaW50ZXJuYXRpb25hbCBMZWdhbCBSZWdpbWUgQ29uY2Vy bmluZyBCaW90ZWNobm9sb2d5IGFuZCBCaW9kaXZlcnNpdHl7XHVsICx9IiB7 XHVsIENvbG9yYWRvIEpvdXJuYWwgb2YgSW50ZXJuYXRpb25hbCBFbnZpcm9u bWVudGFsIExhdyBhbmQgUG9saWN5fQ0gNyAoMTk5NSk6IDExNDsgTWlsbGVy IGFuZCBZb3VuZy4gICJJc24ndCBpdCBhYm91dCBUaW1lIHdlIERpc3BlbnNl ZCB3aXRoIEJpb3RlY2hub2xvZ3kgYW5kIEdlbmV0aWMgRW5naW5lZXJpbmc/ IiB7XHVsIEJpby9UZWNofSA1ICgxOTg3KTogMTg0LiANXHBhciB9fSAgSW4g Z2VuZXJhbCwgdGhpcyBleHBhbnNpdmUgZmllbGQgaW5jbHVkZXMgIm1hbnkg ZmENY2V0cyBvZiBtZWRpY2FsIHJlc2VhcmNoIGZyb20gZHJ1ZyBkaXNjb3Zl cnkgYW5kIGRlc2lnbiwgdG8gZ2VuZSB0aGVyYXB5IGFuZCB0aGUgZGlhZ25v c2lzIG9mIGdlbmV0aWMgZGlzZWFzZXMsIHRvIHRoZSB1c2Ugb2YgZGVveHly aWJvbnVjbGVpYyBhY2lkIChETkEpIGV2aWRlbmNlIHRvIGlkZW50aWZ5IGlu ZGl2aWR1YWxzIGFuZCBnZW5ldGljIGNoYXJhY3RlcmlzdGljcy4ie1xjczE2 XHN1cGVyIFxjaGZ0biB7XGZvb3Rub3RlXGZ0bmFsdCANXHBhcmRccGxhaW4g XHMxNVxub3dpZGN0bHBhciBcZjYxXGZzMjAgXHRhYiB7XGNzMTZcc3VwZXIg XGNoZnRuIH1NaXRjaGFlbCBKLk0uIExpbi4gICJDb25mZXJyaW5nIGEgZmVk ZXJhbCBQcm9wZXJ0eSByaWdodCBpbiBHZW5ldGljIG1hdGVyaWFsOiAgU3Rl cHBpbmcgaW50byB0aGUgRnV0dXJlIHdpdGggdGhlIEdlbnRpYyBQcml2YWN5 IEFjdCwiIHtcdWwgQW1lcmljYW4gSm91cm5hbCBvZiBMYXcgYW5kIE1lZGVj aW5lfQ0gMjIgKDE5OTYpOiAxMDkuDVxwYXIgfX0NICBUZWNobmljYWxseSwg dGhlIGdvdmVybm1lbnQgaGFzIGRlZmluZWQgYmlvdGVjaG5vbG9neSBhcyBh bnkgdGVjaG5pcXVlIHRoYXQgdXNlcyBsaXZpbmcgY2VsbHMsIHRpc3N1ZXMs IG9yIGdlbmV0aWMgbWF0ZXJpYWwgdG8gY3JlYXRlLCBpbXByb3ZlLCBvciAi ZGV2ZWxvcCBtaWNyby1vcmdhbmlzbXMgZm9yIHNwZWNpZmljIHVzZXMtLWlu Y2x1ZGluZy4gLiAuIHRlY2huaXF1ZXMgc3VjaCBhcyBnZW5lIGNsb25pbmcg YW5kIGNlbGwgZnVzaW9uDS4iIHtcY3MxNlxzdXBlciBcY2hmdG4ge1xmb290 bm90ZVxmdG5hbHQgXHBhcmRccGxhaW4gXHMxNVxub3dpZGN0bHBhciBcZjYx XGZzMjAgXHRhYiB7XGNzMTZcc3VwZXIgXGNoZnRuIH1PZmZpY2Ugb2YgVGVj aG5vbG9neSBBc3Nlc3NtZW50LiAge1x1bCBOZXcgRGV2ZWxvcG1lbnRzIGlu IEJpb3RlY2hub2xvZ3k6ICBPd25lcnNoaXAgb2YgSHVtYW4gVGlzc3VlcyBh bmQgQ2VsbHMtLVNwZWNpYWwgUmVwb3J0fQ0sIE9UQS1CQS0zNyAoMTk4Nyk6 IDI0Ln19ICBUaGUgVW5pdGVkIE5hdGlvbnMgZGVmaW5lcyBiaW90ZWNobm9s b2d5IGFzLCAiYW55IHRlY2hub2xvZ2ljYWwgYXBwbGljYXRpb24gdGhhdCB1 c2VzIGJpb2xvZ2ljYWwgc3lzdGVtcywgbGl2aW5nIG9yZ2FuaXNtcywgb3Ig ZGVyaXZhdGl2ZXMgdGhlcmVvZiwgdG8gbWFrZSBvciBtb2RpZnkgcHJvZHVj dHMgb3IgcHJvY2Vzc2VzIGZvciBsaXZpbmcgdXNl LiJ7XGNzMTZcc3VwZXIgXGNoZnRuIA17XGZvb3Rub3RlXGZ0bmFsdCBccGFy ZFxwbGFpbiBcczE1XG5vd2lkY3RscGFyIFxmNjFcZnMyMCANXHBhciBccGFy ZCBcczE1XG5vd2lkY3RscGFyIFx0YWIge1xjczE2XHN1cGVyIFxjaGZ0biB9 VW5pdGVkIE5hdGlvbnMgQ29uZmVyZW5jZSBvbiBFbnZpcm9ubWVudCBhbmQg RGV2ZWxvcG1lbnQsIENvbnZlbnRpb24gb2YgQmlvbG9naWNhbCBEaXZlcnNp dHksIG9wZW5lZCBmb3Igc2lnbmF0dXJlIDUgSnVuZSAxOTkyLCBVLk4uIERv Yy4gRFBJLzEzMC83LCBhcnQuIDIgKDE5OTIpLn19DSAgVW5pdmVyc2l0eSBv ZiBBdWtsYW5kIHByb2Zlc3NvciBLbGF1cyBCb3NzZWxtYW5uIGRlZmluZXM6 DVxwYXIgXHBhcmQgXGxpNzIwXHNsNDgwXHNsbXVsdDBcd2lkY3RscGFyIA1C aW90ZWNobm9sb2d5IGNhbiBiZSBkZWZpbmVkIGFzIHRoZSBjcmVhdGlvbiBv ZiBuZXcgdmFyaWV0aWVzIG9mIHBsYW50cywgYW5pbWFscywgYW5kIG1pY3Jv b3JnYW5pc20uICBJbiBhIHNlbnNlLCBodW1hbmtpbmQgaGFzIGJlZW4gbW9k aWZ5aW5nIHBsYW50cyBhbmQgYW5pbWFscyBmb3IgdGhvdXNhbmRzIG9mIHll YXJzLCBidXQgdGhlIHRlcm0gJ2Jpb3RlY2hub2xvZ3knIGhhcyBiZWNvbWUg cG9wdWxhciB3aXRoIHRoZSByaXNlIG9mIGdlbmUNdGljIGVuZ2luZWVyaW5n LiAgR2VuZXRpYyBlbmdpbmVlcmluZyB0ZW5kcyB0byBiZSBhc3NvY2lhdGVk IHdpdGggdGhhdCB0ZXJtLCBhbHRob3VnaCB0aGVyZSBzZWVtcyB0byBiZSBu byByZWFzb24gd2h5IHRyYWRpdGlvbmFsIHNlbGVjdGlvbiBtZXRob2RzIHVz ZWQgaW4gcGxhbnQgYW5kIGFuaW1hbCBicmVlZGluZyBzaG91bGQgbm90IGFs c28gYmUgcmVnYXJkZWQgYXMgYmlvdGVjaG5vbG9neS4ge1xjczE2XHN1cGVy IFxjaGZ0biANe1xmb290bm90ZVxmdG5hbHQgXHBhcmRccGxhaW4gXHMxNVxu b3dpZGN0bHBhciBcZjYxXGZzMjAgDVxwYXIgXHRhYiB7XGNzMTZcc3VwZXIg XGNoZnRuIH1Cb3NzZWxtYW5uLCAxMTQufX0NXHBhciBccGFyZCBcc2w0ODBc c2xtdWx0MFx3aWRjdGxwYXIgQWNjb3JkaW5nIHRvIExpc2EgQ29udGUsIFBy ZXNpZGVudCBhbmQgQ0VPIG9mIFNoYW1hbiBQaGFybWFjZXV0aWNhbHMsIEJp b3RlY2hub2xvZ3kgImlzIGZ1bmRhbWVudGFsbHkgYSB0ZWNobm9sb2d5IHRo YXQgZWl0aGVyIGltcHJvdmVzIG9uLCBvciBpbmNyZWFzZXMgdGhlIHF1YW50 aXR5IG9mIG5hdHVyYWwgcHJvZHVjdHMuIntcY3MxNlxzdXBlciBcY2hmdG4g DXtcZm9vdG5vdGVcZnRuYWx0IFxwYXJkXHBsYWluIFxzMTVcbm93aWRjdGxw YXIgXGY2MVxmczIwIHtcdWwgDVxwYXIgfVxwYXJkIFxzMTVcbm93aWRjdGxw YXIgXHRhYiB7XGNzMTZcc3VwZXIgXGNoZnRuIH17XHVsIENvbXBldGl0aXZl bmVzcyBvZiB0aGUgVVMgQmlvdGVjaG5vbG9neSBJbmR1c3RyeX0NLiAgU2Vu YXRlIEhyZy4sICBTdWJjb21taXR0ZWUgb24gU2NpZW5jZSwgVGVjaG5vbG9n eSwgYW5kIFNwYWNlICBvZiB0aGUgU2VuYXRlIENvbW1pdGVlIG9uIENvbW1l cmNlLCBTY2llbmNlLCBhbmQgVHJhbnNwb3J0YXRpb24sIDEwM3JkIENvbmdy ZXNzLCAybmQgU2Vzc2lvbiAoMTk5NCk6IDE4LiB9fSBBdHRvcm5leSBHaW5h IEt1aGxtYW4gbm90ZXMgdGhhdDoNXHBhciBccGFyZCBcc2w0ODBcc2xtdWx0 MFx3aWRjdGxwYXIgIFxsZGJscXVvdGUgQmlvdGVjaG5vbG9neSBpcyB0aGUg YXBwbGljYXRpb24gb2YgZW5naW5lZXJpbmcgYW5kIHRlY2hub2xvZ2ljYWwg cHJpbmNpcGxlcyB0byBsaXYNaW5nIG9yZ2FuaXNtcyBvciB0aGVpciBjb21w b25lbnRzIHRvIHByb2R1Y2UgbmV3IGludmVudGlvbnMgb3IgcHJvY2Vzc2Vz LiAgVGhlIGZpZWxkIG9mIGJpb3RlY2hub2xvZ3kgY29tcHJpc2VzIHRoZSBm b2xsb3dpbmcgZ3JvdXBzOiAgdW5pdmVyc2l0eSBhbmQgZmVkZXJhbCByZXNl YXJjaCBsYWJvcmF0b3JpZXMgYW5kIGJpb3RlY2hub2xvZ3kvcGhhcm1hY29s b2d5IGNvbXBhbmllcy4ie1xjczE2XHN1cGVyIFxjaGZ0biANe1xmb290bm90 ZVxmdG5hbHQgXHBhcmRccGxhaW4gXHMxNVxub3dpZGN0bHBhciBcZjYxXGZz MjAgDVxwYXIgXHRhYiB7XGNzMTZcc3VwZXIgXGNoZnRuIH1LdWhsbWFuLCAz MTQufX0gIA1ccGFyIFxwYXJkIFxzbDQ4MFxzbG11bHQwXHdpZGN0bHBhciBc dGFiIA1OYXRpb25hbCBJbnN0aXR1dGUgb2YgSGVhbHRoIGluc3RydWN0b3Is IFJlaWQgQWRsZXIsIGRlZmluZXMgYmlvdGVjaG5vbG9neSBhcyAidmFyaW91 cyBnZW5ldGljIGVuZ2luZWVyaW5nIHRlY2huaXF1ZXMsIGRldmVsb3BlZCBk dXJpbmcgdGhlIHBhc3QgMjAgeWVhcnMsIHdoaWNoIHBlcm1pdCB0aGUgY29u dHJvbGxlZCB0cmFuc2ZlciBvZiBzcGVjaWZpYyBnZW5lcyBvciBncm91cHMg b2YgZ2VuZXMgZnJvbSBvbmUgY2VsbCBvciBnZW5lcyBvcg0gZ3JvdXBzIG9m IGdlbmVzIGZyb20gb25lIGNlbGwgb2Ygb3JnYW5pc20gdG8gYW5vdGhlciwg dGhlcmVieSBjcmVhdGluZyBjZWxscyBvciBvcmdhbmlzbXMgdGhhdCB3b3Vs ZCBub3QgbGlrZWx5IG9jY3VyIGluIG5hdHVyZSBvciB0aHJvdWdoIGNvbnZl bnRpb25hbCBicmVlZGluZyBwcmFjdGljZXMuIntcY3MxNlxzdXBlciBcY2hm dG4ge1xmb290bm90ZVxmdG5hbHQgXHBhcmRccGxhaW4gXHMxNVxub3dpZGN0 bHBhciBcZjYxXGZzMjAgDQ1ccGFyIFxwYXJkIFxzMTVcbm93aWRjdGxwYXIg XHRhYiB7XGNzMTZcc3VwZXIgXGNoZnRuIH1SZWlkIEFkbGVyLiAgIkNvbnRy b2xsaW5nIHRoZSBBcHBsaWNhdGlvbnMgb2YgQmlvdGVjaG5vbG9neTogIEEg Q3JpdGljYWwgQW5hbHlzaXMgb2YgdGhlIFByb3Bvc2VkIE1vcmF0b3JpdW0g b24gQW5pbWFsIFBhdGVudGluZywiIHtcdWwgSGFydmFyZCBKb3VyYW5sIG9m IExhdyBhbmQgVGVjaG5vbG9neX0gMSAoMTk4OCk6IDEufX0gDVxwYXIgXHBh cmQgXHNsNDgwXHNsbXVsdDBcd2lkY3RscGFyIA1ccGFyIFxwYXJkIFxxY1xz bDQ4MFxzbG11bHQwXHdpZGN0bHBhciBMZWdpc2xh dGl2ZSBBdG1vc3BoZXJlDVxwYXIgXHBhcmQgXHNsNDgwXHNsbXVsdDBcd2lk Y3RscGFyIA1ccGFyIFxwYXJkIFxzbDQ4MFxzbG11bHQwXHdpZGN0bHBhciBc dGFiIEZvciBhbGwgYmlvdGVjaG5vbG9neVxycXVvdGUgDXMgaW1wb3J0YW5j ZSB0byB0aGUgZWNvbm9teSBhbmQgY3VsdHVyYWwgbGlmZSwgaXQgcmVtYWlu cyBhIHJlbGF0aXZlbHkgdW5yZWd1bGF0ZWQgaW5kdXN0cnkuICBQYXJ0bHks IHRoaXMgaXMgYSBjb25zZXF1ZW5jZSBvZiB0aGUgZmFjdCB0aGF0IG1vc3Qg b2YgaXQgZXhpc3RzIGZpcm1seSB3aXRoaW4gdGhlIHRlY2huaWNhbCBzcGhl cmUgc28gbm9uLWV4cGVydHMgZG8gbm90IGZlZWwgY29tZm9ydGFibGUNIHRh bGtpbmcgYWJvdXQgcmVndWxhdGlvbi4gIEFsc28sIGJlY2F1c2UgYmlvdGVj aG5vbG9neSBpcyBhICBuZXdlciBpbmR1c3RyeSwgdGhlcmUgaXMgdmlydHVh bGx5IG5vIGludGVybmF0aW9uYWwgcmVndWxhdGlvbi57XGNzMTZcc3VwZXIg XGNoZnRuIHtcZm9vdG5vdGVcZnRuYWx0IFxwYXJkXHBsYWluIFxzMTVcbm93 aWRjdGxwYXIgXGY2MVxmczIwIA1ccGFyIFxwYXJkIFxzMTVcbm93aWRjdGxw YXIgXHRhYiB7XGNzMTZcc3VwZXIgXGNoZnRuIH1Bbm5lIENvc3NpbnMuICJV bmNldGFpbnR5LCBSaXNrIEFzc2Vzc21lbnQgYW5kIExlZ2FsIFJlZ3VsYXRp b24sIiB7XHVsIGVudmlyb250ZWFsIGFuZCBQbGFuIExhdyBKb3VybmFsfSA5 ICgxOTkyKS59fQ0gIEluc3RlYWQsIG1vc3QgcmVndWxhdGlvbiBoYXMgYmVl biBhZCBob2MgYW5kIHdpdGhpbiB0aGUgY29udGV4dCBvZiBuYXRpb25hbCBz b3ZlcmVpZ250eS4gIFRoZSBjb25zZXF1ZW5jZSBoYXMgYmVlbiBhIHBhdGNo d29yayBvZiByZWd1bGF0aW9ucyBvbiBiaW90ZWNobm9sb2d5IGFwcGxpZWQg d2l0aCB2ZXJ5IGxpdHRsZSB0aG91Z2h0IHRvIGludGVncmF0aW9uIGludG8g YW4gaW50ZXJuYXRpb25hbCByZWdpbWUuDVxwYXIgXHRhYiBJbiB0aGUgVW5p dGVkIFN0YXRlcywgdGhlIGdvdmVybm1lbnQgaGFzIHJldGljZW50IHJlZ2Fy ZGluZyBiaW90ZWNobm9sb2d5IHJlZ3VsYXRpb24uICBUaGVuIFVOIGFiYXNz YWRvciBNYWRlbGluZSBBbGJyaWdodCBmb3VnaHQgdGhlIFVOIGJpb2RpdmVy c2l0eSBhZ3JlZW1lbnQgYmVjYXVzZSBpdCByZXByZXNlbnRlZCBhIHBvdGVu dGlhbCBpbXBpbmdlbWVudCBvbiB0aGUgZnJlZWRvbSBvZiBVUyBiaW90ZQ1j aG5vbG9neSBjb21wYW5pZXMgdG8gbW92ZSBnZXJtIHBsYXNtIGFyb3VuZCB0 aGUgZ2xvYmUuICBBbHNvLCBjb25jZXJuZWQgd2l0aCB0aGUgY2FwaXRhbC1p bnRlbnNpdmUgbmF0dXJlIG9mIGJpb3RlY2hub2xvZ3kgcmVzZWFyY2ggYW5k IHRoZSBwb3RlbnRpYWwgZWNvbm9taWMgcmV3YXJkcyBvZiBiaW90ZWNobm9s b2d5IGZpbmRzLCBVUyBwb2xpdGljYWwgbGVhZGVycyBoYXZlIGJlZW4gdW53 aWxsaW5nIHRvIHN0YW5kIGluIHRoZSB3YXkgb2YNIGJpb3RlY2hub2xvZ3kg Y29tcGFuaWVzIHdobyBjbGFpbSB0byBiZSBhbHJlYWR5IGJ1cmRlbmVkIHdp dGggaGlnaCBjYXBpdGFsIGNvc3RzLntcY3MxNlxzdXBlciBcY2hmdG4ge1xm b290bm90ZVxmdG5hbHQgXHBhcmRccGxhaW4gXHMxNVxub3dpZGN0bHBhciBc ZjYxXGZzMjAgDVxwYXIgXHBhcmQgXHMxNVxub3dpZGN0bHBhciBcdGFiIHtc Y3MxNlxzdXBlciBcY2hmdG4gfUtlbm5ldGggV2lnZ2VyLiAgIldoeSB0aGUg QmlvdGVjaCBJbmR1c3RyeSBpcyBpbiBQZXJpbCwiIHtcdWwgU2FuIERpZWdv IFVuaW9uIFRyaWJ1bmV9LCAyMCBKdW5lIDE5OTM6IEczLn19DVxwYXIgXHRh YiBJbiBmYWN0LCBiaW90ZWNobm9sb2d5IHJlc2VhcmNoIGlzIHNvIGV4cGVu c2l2ZSB0aGF0IG1hbnkgYmlvdGVjaG5vbG9neSBjb21wYW5pZXMgbGl2ZSBv biB0aGUgZWRnZSBvZiBiYW5rcnVwdGN5LiAgV2hpbGUgdGhlIGJpb3RlY2hu b2xvZ3kgaW5kdXN0cnkgaXMgZXhwZWN0ZWQgdG8gcmVhY3QgdGhlDSAkMTAw IGJpbGxpb24gbWFyayBieSB0aGUgeWVhciAyMDAwLCBmcm9tICQxNiBiaWxs aW9uIGluIDE5OTIsIG1vc3QgYmlvdGVjaG5vbG9neSBjb21wYW5pZXMgZmFj ZSBhbiB1bmNlcnRhaW4gZnV0dXJlLntcY3MxNlxzdXBlciBcY2hmdG4ge1xm b290bm90ZVxmdG5hbHQgXHBhcmRccGxhaW4gXHMxNVxub3dpZGN0bHBhciBc ZjYxXGZzMjAgDVxwYXIgXHBhcmQgXHMxNVxub3dpZGN0bHBhciBcdGFiIHtc Y3MxNlxzdXBlciBcY2hmdG4gfUhlcmIgTGFzcywgIkJpb3RlY2ggUmV2ZW51 ZXMgdG8gVG9wICQxMDBCIGJ5IDIwMDAuIiAge1x1bCBCaW90ZWNobm9sb2d5 IE5ld3N3YXRjaH0sIDE4IEphbnVhcnkgMTk5Myk6MjsgQ2hlcnlsIEhhcmR5 LiAgIlBhdGVudCBQcm90ZWN0aW9uIGFuZCBSYXcgTWF0ZXJpYWxzOiAgVGhl IENudmV0aW9uIG9mDSBiaW9sb2dpY2FsIERpdmVyc2l0eSBhbmQgaXRzIElt cGxpY2F0aW9ucyBmb3IgVS5TLiBQb2xpY3kgb24gdGhlIERldmVsb3BtZW50 IGFuZCBDb21tZXJjaWFsaXphdGlvbiBvZiBCaW90ZWNobm9sb2d5LCIge1x1 bCBVbml2ZXJzaXR5IG9mIFBlbm5zeWx2YW5pYSBKb3VybmFsIG9mIEludGVy bmF0aW9uYWwgTGF3fSAxNSAoMTk5NCk6IDI5OS59fQ0gSW4gMTk5MywgZmV3 ZXIgdGhhbiBvbmUgcGVyY2VudCBvZiBiaW90ZWNoIGNvbXBhbmllcyB3ZXJl IHByb2ZpdGFibGUue1xjczE2XHN1cGVyIFxjaGZ0biB7XGZvb3Rub3RlXGZ0 bmFsdCBccGFyZFxwbGFpbiBcczE1XG5vd2lkY3RscGFyIFxmNjFcZnMyMCAN XHBhciBcdGFiIHtcY3MxNlxzdXBlciBcY2hmdG4gfUNvbnRlLCAxOC59fQ0g IE5ldCBsb3NzZXMgZm9yIHRoZSBpbmR1c3RyeSB0b3RhbGVkICQzLjYgYmls bGlvbiBpbiAxOTkzLCBhbmQgaW5jcmVhc2Ugb2Ygc2l4IHBlcmNlbnQgb3Zl ciAxOTkyLiAgTW9zdCBiaW90ZWNobm9sb2d5IGNvbXBhbmllcyBoYXZlIGxl c3MgdGhhbiAxOCBtb250aHMgb2YgZnVuZGluZyBpbiByZXNlcnZlcyBhbmQg aGF2ZSBhIGJ1cm4gcmF0ZSBvZiAyNSBwZXJjZW50 ICh0aGUgcmF0ZSBhdCB3aGljaCBjYXBpdGFsIGlzIHJhaXNlZCByZWxhdGkN dmUgdG8gZXhwZW5kaXR1cmUpLntcY3MxNlxzdXBlciBcY2hmdG4ge1xmb290 bm90ZVxmdG5hbHQgXHBhcmRccGxhaW4gXHMxNVxub3dpZGN0bHBhciBcZjYx XGZzMjAgDVxwYXIgXHBhcmQgXHMxNVxub3dpZGN0bHBhciBcdGFiIHtcY3Mx NlxzdXBlciBcY2hmdG4gfUVybnN0IGFuZCBZb3VuZy4gIHtcdWwgQmlvdGVj aCA5NDogTG9uZyBUZXJtIFZhbHVlIFNob3J0IFRlcm0gSHVyZGxlcywgRWln aHQgQW5udWFsIFJlcG9ydCBvbiB0aGUgQmlvdGVjaCBJbmR1c3RyeX0gNDUg KDE5OTMpLn19DVxwYXIgXHBhcmQgXHNsNDgwXHNsbXVsdDBcd2lkY3RscGFy IFx0YWIgVGhlIGNvbnNlcXVlbmNlIG9mIHRoZSBnYXAgYmV0d2VlbiBwb3Rl bnRpYWwgYQ1uZCBhY3R1YWwgcHJvZml0YWJpbGl0eSBoYXMgbWFkZSBwb3Rl bnRpYWxseSBjb3N0bHkgY29udHJvbCBvZiB0aGUgaW5kdXN0cnkgdmVyeSBk aWZmaWN1bHQuICBJbiBnZW5lcmFsLCB0aGVyZSBhcmUgb25seSBhIGZldyBw bGFjZXMgd2hlcmUgc3RhYmxlIGxlZ2FsIHJlZ2ltZXMgY29udHJvbCB0aGUg Z3Jvd3RoIG9mIHRoZSBiaW90ZWNobm9sb2d5IGluZHVzdHJ5OyBhbmQgdGhl c2UgYXJlIGxhcmdlbHkgaW4gdGhlIGZvcm0gb2Ygc3Vic2lkaWUNcy4gIEZv ciBleGFtcGxlLCB0aGUgQmF5aC1Eb2xlIFRyYWRlbWFyayBBY3Qgd2hpY2gg cGFzc2VkIGludG8gbGF3IGluIDE5ODAgcGVybWl0cyB1bml2ZXJzaXRpZXMg YW5kIG90aGVyIG5vbnByb2ZpdCBvcmdhbml6YXRpb25zIHRvIHJldGFpbiB0 aGUgaW50ZWxsZWN0dWFsIHByb3BlcnR5IHJpZ2h0cyB0byBpbnZlbnRpb25z IHJlc3VsdGluZyBmcm9tIHJlc2VhcmNoIHN1cHBvcnRlZCBieSBmZWRlcmFs IGdyYW50LntcY3MxNlxzdXBlciANXGNoZnRuIHtcZm9vdG5vdGVcZnRuYWx0 IFxwYXJkXHBsYWluIFxzMTVcbm93aWRjdGxwYXIgXGY2MVxmczIwIA1ccGFy IFx0YWIge1xjczE2XHN1cGVyIFxjaGZ0biB9MTUgVVNDXCdhNFwnYTQzNzAx LTM3MTR9fSAgVGhlIFN0ZXZlbi1XeW5kbA1lciBUZWNobm9sb2d5IElubm92 YXRpb24gQWN0LCBhbHNvIHBhc3NlZCBpbiAxOTgwLCBjcmVhdGVkIHRoZSBP ZmZpY2Ugb2YgVGVjaG5vbG9neSBUcmFuc2ZlciBhdCB0aGUgTmF0aW9uYWwg SW5zdGl0dXRlIG9mIEhlYWx0aCB0byBpbnZlc3RpZ2F0ZSBwcm9qZWN0cyBm b3IgdXNlIGJ5IGdvdmVybm1lbnQgb2YgcHJpdmF0ZSBpbmR1c3RyeS4gIEl0 IGFsc28gY3JlYXRlZCB0aGUgQ2VudGVyIGZvciB0aGUgVXRpbGl6YXRpb24g b2YgRmVkZXJhbCANVGVjaG5vbG9neSB0byBwcm92aWRlIGluZHVzdHJ5IHdp dGggaW5mb3JtYXRpb24gb24gZmVkZXJhbGx5IGRldmVsb3BlZCB0ZWNobm9s b2d5IHdpdGggcG90ZW50aWFsIGZvciBjb21tZXJjaWFsIGFwcGxpY2F0aW9u LntcY3MxNlxzdXBlciBcY2hmdG4ge1xmb290bm90ZVxmdG5hbHQgXHBhcmRc cGxhaW4gXHMxNVxub3dpZGN0bHBhciBcZjYxXGZzMjAgDVxwYXIgXHRhYiB7 XGNzMTZcc3VwZXIgXGNoZnRuIH0xNSAxNSBVU0MgXCdhNDM3MDF9fSAgQWRk aXRpb25hbGx5LCB0aGUgRmVkZXJhbCBUZWNobm9sb2d5IFRyYW5zZmVyIEFj dCwgcGFzc2VkIGluIDE5ODYsIHBlcm1pdHMgYWdyZWVtZW50cyBiZXR3ZWVu IEZlZGVyYWwgbGFib3JhdG9yaWVzIGFuZCBwcml2YXRlIGZpcg1tcyB3aGVy ZSBGZWRlcmFsIGxhYm9yYXRvcmllcyBtdXN0IHNoYXJlIHRoZSByb3lhbHRp ZXMgZnJvbSBwYXRlbnRzIHdpdGggdGhlIGludmVzdGlnYXRpbmcgc2NpZW50 aXN0cyBhbmQgYWxsb3dzIHRoZSBGZWRlcmFsIEdvdmVybm1lbnQgdG8gb2Zm ZXIgZXhjbHVzaXZlIGxpY2Vuc2VzIHRvIHByaXZhdGUgcmVzZWFyY2ggcGFy dG5lcnMue1xjczE2XHN1cGVyIFxjaGZ0biB7XGZvb3Rub3RlXGZ0bmFsdCBc cGFyZFxwbGFpbiANXHMxNVxub3dpZGN0bHBhciBcZjYxXGZzMjAgDVxwYXIg XHRhYiB7XGNzMTZcc3VwZXIgXGNoZnRuIH0xNVVTQ1wnYTRcJ2E0MzcwMSwg MzcxMS0zNzE0fX0NICBGaW5hbGx5LCB0aGUgT3JwaGFuIERydWcgQWN0IG9m IDE5ODMgZ3JhbnRzIGJpb3RlY2hub2xvZ3kgY29tcGFuaWVzIGEgc2V2ZW4g eWVhciBtb25vcG9seSBvbiBtZWRpY2F0aW9uIGRldmVsb3BlZCBmb3IgcmFy ZSBkaXNlYXNlcyBhbmQgcHJvdmlkZXMgdGhlbSB3aXRoIHRheCBjcmVkaXRz IHVwIHRvIGZpZnR5IHBlcmNlbnQgb2YgdGhlIGFubnVhbCB0ZXN0aW5nIGV4 cGVuc2VzIG9uIG1lZGljYXRpb25zIGRldmVsb3BlZCBmb3IgcmFyZSBkDWlz ZWFzZXMue1xjczE2XHN1cGVyIFxjaGZ0biB7XGZvb3Rub3RlXGZ0bmFsdCBc cGFyZFxwbGFpbiBcczE1XG5vd2lkY3RscGFyIFxmNjFcZnMyMCANXHBhciBc dGFiIHtcY3MxNlxzdXBlciBcY2hmdG4gfTIxIFVTQ0FcJ2E0MzYwZWUoYiko Mil9fSANXHBhciBccGFyZCBcc2w0ODBcc2xtdWx0MFx3aWRjdGxwYXIgXHRh YiBPdGhlciBwb3NpdGl2ZSByZWd1bGF0aW9ucyBvZmZlcmVkIGJ5IHRoZSBG ZWRlcmFsIEcNb3Zlcm5tZW50IGluY2x1ZGUgb25lIG9mIHRoZSB3b3JsZCdz IG1vc3QgaW5jbHVzaXZlIHBhdGVudCBwcm90ZWN0aW9ucy4gIFVubGlrZSBt YW55IG90aGVyIG5hdGlvbnMsIHBhcnRpY3VsYXJseSB0aGlyZCB3b3JsZCBu YXRpb25zLCB0aGUgVW5pdGVkIFN0YXRlcyBvZmZlcnMgcGF0ZW50IHByb3Rl Y3Rpb24gZm9yIG1vc3QgcHJvZHVjdHMgb2YgYmlvdGVjaG5vbG9neSwgaW5j bHVkaW5nIGxpdmluZyBhbmltYWxzIGFuZCBwbGFudHMuew1cY3MxNlxzdXBl ciBcY2hmdG4ge1xmb290bm90ZVxmdG5hbHQgXHBhcmRccGxhaW4gXHMxNVxu b3dpZGN0bHBhciBcZjYxXGZzMjAgDVxwYXIgXHRhYiB7XGNzMTZcc3VwZXIg XGNoZnRuIH1EaWFtb25kIHYuIENoYWtyYWJhcnR5LCA0NDcgVVMgMzAzICgx OTgwKS59fQ0gIFRoZSBlZmZlY3Qgb2YgdGhpcyB1bnBhcmFsbGVsZWQgcHJv dGVjdGlvbiBmb3IgaW50ZWxsZWN0dWFsIHByb3Bl cnR5IHJpZ2h0cyBoYXMgYmVlbiB0byBzdGltdWxhdGUgdGhlIGdyb3d0aCBv ZiB0aGUgVW5pdGVkIFN0YXRlcycgYmlvdGVjaG5vbG9neSBpbmR1c3RyeSBi eSBpbnN1cmluZyBhZ2FpbnN0IHBhdGVudCBwaXJhY3kgYW5kIGhhcyBtYWRl IHRoZSBVbml0ZWQgU3RhdGVzIHRoZSBjZW50ZXIgb2YgdGhlIHdvcmxkJ3Mg YmlvdGVjaG4Nb2xvZ3kgaW5kdXN0cnkuICBLbGF1cyBCb3NzZWxtYW5uIGNv bnRpbnVlczoNXHBhciBccGFyZCBcbGk3MjBcc2w0ODBcc2xtdWx0MFx3aWRj dGxwYXIgDVtUXWhlIFVTIHByb2JhYmx5IGxlYWRzIHRoZSB3b3JsZCBpbiB0 aGUgc2NvcGUgb2YgcHJvdGVjdGlvbnMgdGhhdCBpdCBvZmZlcnMgdG8gYmlv dGVjaG5vbG9naWNhbCBpbnZlbnRpb25zIGluIHRoYXQgImludmVudGVkIiBs aXZpbmcgb3JnYW5pc21zIGNhbiBiZSBwYXRlbnRlZCBhbmQgdGhhdCBwbGFu dCB2YXJpZXRpZXMgY2FuIGJlIGJvdGggcGF0ZW50ZWQgYW5kIHByb3RlY3Rl ZCB1bmRlciBwbGFudCB2YXJpZXR5IHN0YXR1dGVzLiAuIC4gdA1oZXJlIGhh dmUgYmVlbiB0d28gZ2VuZXJhbCB0cmVuZHMgaW4gSVBScyBjb25jZXJuaW5n IGJpb2xvZ2ljYWwgb3JnYW5pc21zIGluIHRoaXMgY2VudHVyeTogIHRoZSBz Y29wZSBvZiBwYXRlbnRzIGhhcyBncmFkdWFsbHkgaW5jcmVhc2VkIHRvIGFj Y29tbW9kYXRlIGFkdmFuY2VzIGluIGJpb3RlY2hub2xvZ3ksIGFuZCB0aGVy ZSBoYXMgYmVlbiBhIHRyZW5kIG9mIGludGVybmF0aW8NbmFsaXppbmcgYW5k IHN0YW5kYXJkaXppbmcgcGF0ZW50IGNvbnRyb2wgc28gdGhhdCBhIHBsYW50 IGJyZWVkZXIgb3IgaW52ZW50b3Igb2YgYSBiaW90ZWNobm9sb2dpY2FsIHBy b2R1Y3QgY2FuIGNsYWltIHByb3RlY3Rpb24gbm90IG9ubHkgaW4gdGhlIGlu dmVudG9yJ3Mgb3duIGNvdW50cnkgYnV0IGluIG90aGVyIGNvdW50cmllcyB0 aGF0IGFyZSBzaWduYXRvcmllcyBvZiBpbnRlbGxlY3R1YWwgcHJvcGVydHkg Y29udmVudGlvbnMuICBUaGVzDWUgdHJlbmRzIGhhdmUgYmVlbiBtb3N0IG5v dGljZWFibGUgaW4gY291bnRyaWVzIHdoZXJlIGJpb3RlY2hub2xvZ3kgaXMg dGhlIG1vc3QgYWR2YW5jZWQuICBXaXRoIHRoZSBhZHZlbnQgb2YgdGhlIEdB VFQgYW5kIFRSSVBTLCBib3RoIHRoZXNlIHRyZW5kcyBhcmUgbGlrZWx5IHRv IGNvbnRpbnVlIGlmIG5vdCBhY2NlbGVyYXRlLntcY3MxNlxzdXBlciBcY2hm dG4ge1xmb290bm90ZVxmdG5hbHQgXHBhcmRccGxhaW4gDVxzMTVcbm93aWRj dGxwYXIgXGY2MVxmczIwIA1ccGFyIFx0YWIge1xjczE2XHN1cGVyIFxjaGZ0 biB9Qm9zc2VsbWFubiwgMTI2Ln19IA1ccGFyIFxwYXJkIFxzbDQ4MFxzbG11 bHQwXHdpZGN0bHBhciBCcm9hZCBVUyBwcm90ZWN0aW9ucyBoYXZlIHByb3Zl ZCB0byBiZSBhIG1vZGVsIGZvciB0aGUgd29ybGQuICBCbw10aCBKYXBhbiBh bmQgR2VybWFueSBoYXZlIG1vZGVsZWQgVVMgcGF0ZW50IHByb3RlY3Rpb25z IGluIGF0dGVtcHRzIHRvIHNoaWVsZCB0aGVpciBvd24gaW5kdXN0cmllcyBm cm9tIGNvbXBldGl0aW9uIGFuZCB0byBrZWVwIHRoZW0gZnJvbSBtb3Zpbmcg dG8gdGhlIFVuaXRlZCBTdGF0ZXMuDVxwYXIgXHBhcmQgXHNsNDgwXHNsbXVs dDBcd2lkY3RscGFyIFx0YWIgDVdoaWxlIHRoZXJlIGhhdmUgYmVlbiBzZXZl cmFsIG1lY2hhbmlzbXMgdGhyb3VnaCB3aGljaCB0aGUgRmVkZXJhbCBHb3Zl cm5tZW50IGhhcyBzb3VnaHQgdG8gc3VwcG9ydCBVbml0ZWQgU3RhdGVzIGJp b3RlY2hub2xvZ3kgcmVnaW1lcyBmcm9tIGhpZ2ggY2FwaXRhbCBzdGFydC11 cCBjb3N0cywgY29tcGV0aXRpb24sIGFuZCBpbnRlbGxlY3R1YWwgcHJvcGVy dHkgaW5mcmluZ2VtZW50LCB0aGVyZSBhcmUgc2V2ZXJhbCB3YXlzIHRoYXQg dGhlDSBGZWRlcmFsIEdvdmVybm1lbnQgaGFzIHRyaWVkIHRvIGxpbWl0IHRo ZSBzY29wZSBvZiBiaW90ZWNobm9sb2d5LiAgSG93ZXZlciwgYmVjYXVzZSBv ZiB0aGUgcmlza3kgbmF0dXJlIG9mIGJpb3RlY2hub2xvZ3kgaW52ZXN0bWVu dCwgdGhlc2UgbGF3cyBoYXZlIHRlbmRlZCB0byBiZSBhZCBob2MgYW5kIHVu Y29vcmRpbmF0ZWQuDVxwYXIgXHBhcmQgXHNsNDgwXHNsbXVsdDBcd2lkY3Rs cGFyIFx0YWIgQWZ0ZXIgdGhlIGNsb25pbmcgb2YgdGhlIFNjb3R0aXNoIHNo ZWVwLCBwcmVzaWRlbnQgQ2xpbnRvbiBzaWduZWQgYW4gZXhlY3V0aXZlIG9y ZGVyIGJhbm5pbmcgdGhlIHVzZSBvZiBmZWRlcmFsIG1vbmV5cyBmb3IgY2xv bmluZyByZXNlYXJjaCB3aXRoIHRoZSBpbnRlbnQgb2YgY3JlYXRpbmcgYSBo dW1hbiBiZWluZy57XGNzMTZcc3VwZXIgXGNoZnRuIA17XGZvb3Rub3RlXGZ0 bmFsdCBccGFyZFxwbGFpbiBcczE1XG5vd2lkY3RscGFyIFxmNjFcZnMyMCAN XHBhciBccGFyZCBcczE1XG5vd2lkY3RscGFyIFx0YWIge1xjczE2XHN1cGVy IFxjaGZ0biB9Q2xpbnRvbiBwbGFjZWQgYSBtb3JpdG9yaQ11bSBvbiBjbG9u aW5nIGZvciA5MCBkYXlzIHdoaWxlIGl0IHdhcyBzdHVkaWVkLiAgT24gNiBK dW5lIDE5OTcsIHRoZSBzdHVkeWluZyBjb21taXR0ZWUgcmVjb21tZW5kZWQg YSA1IHllYXIgbGVnaXNsYXRpdmUgcHJvaGliaXRpb24gb24gY2xvbmluZy4g IFRoaXMgaGFzIGxlZCB0byB0aGUgQ2xvbmluZyBQcm9oaWJpdGlvbiBBY3Qg b2YgMTk5NyB3aGljaCBpcyBub3Qgc2l0dGluZyBpbiBjb21taXR0ZWUufX0N ICBIaXMgYWN0aW9uIHdhcyBkaXJlY3RlZCBhdCBwdWJsaWMgY29uY2VybiBt b3JlIHRoYW4gYSBjb25jZXJuIGZvciB0aGUgYWN0dWFsIGRhbmdlcnMgb2Yg aHVtYW4gY2xvbmluZyB0ZWNobm9sb2d5LCB3aGljaCBtb3N0IHNjaWVudGlz dHMgYmVsaWV2ZSB0byBiZSBhIGxvbmcgaW50byB0aGUgZnV0dXJlIChhIFNl bmF0ZSByZXNvbHV0aW9uIHRoYXQgc291Z2h0IHRvIGluc3RpdHV0aW9uYWxp emUgdA1oZSBiYW4gZmFpbGVkIGluIEZlYnJ1YXJ5bSAxOTk4KS4gIEhvd2V2 ZXIsIHRoZSB1c2Ugb2YgdGhlIGV4ZWN1dGl2ZSBv cmRlciBwb2ludHMgdG93YXJkIHRoZSBsYWNrIG9mIGEgY29oZXJlbnQgZmVk ZXJhbCBwb2xpY3kgcmVnYXJkaW5nIHRoZSBjb250cm9sIG9mIGJpb3RlY2hu b2xvZ3kuICBSYXRoZXIgdGhhbiBvdmVydCBjb250cm9scywgdGhlIEZlZGVy YWwgR292ZXJubWVudCBoYXMgc291Z2h0IHRvIHRyZWF0IGJpb3RlY2hub2xv Z3kgaW4NIHRoZSBzYW1lIHdheSB0aGF0IGl0IGhhcyB0cmFkaXRpb25hbGx5 IHRyZWF0ZWQgY2hlbWlzdHJ5LiAgRm9yIGV4YW1wbGUsIHRoZSBGREEgb2Zm ZXJlZCBpbiAxOTkyIGd1aWRlbGluZXMgZm9yIHRyYW5zZ2VuaWMgcGxhbnQg Zm9vZHMuICBUaGUgZ29hbCBvZiB0aGUgZ3VpZGVsaW5lcyB3YXMgdG8gZXN0 YWJsaXNoIHRyYW5zZ2VuaWMgZm9vZHMgYXMgc2ltaWxhciB0byB0cmFkaXRp b25hbCBjaGVtaWNhbCBhZGRpdGl2ZXMgYW5kIHRvIGFwcGx5DSB0DWhlIHNh bWUgbGV2ZWwgb2Ygc2NydXRpbnkgdG8gZ2VuZXRpY2FsbHkgZW5oYW5jZWQg Zm9vZHMgYXMgdG8gY2hlbWljYWxzLiAgQ29uc2VxdWVudGx5LCBhZGRpdGl2 ZXMgc3VjaCBhcyBCb3ZpbmUgR3Jvd3RoIEhvcm1vbmUgKGJTVCkgd2VyZSB0 cmVhdGVkIGluIHRoZSBzYW1lIHdheSBhcyBhbnkgb3RoZXIgYWRkaXRpdmUs IHdpdGggdmVyeSBsaXR0bGUgYXR0ZW50aW9uIGdpdmVuIHRvIHRoZSB1bmlx dWUgcXVhbGl0aWVzIGFuZCBkYW5nZXJzIA1vZiBnZW5ldGljYWxseSBhbHRl cmVkIG1hdGVyaWFscy4gIFRoZSBzYW1lIHdhcyB0cnVlIG9mIGZlZGVyYWwg YXR0ZW1wdHMgdG8gcmVndWxhdGUgZ2VuZXRpY2FsbHkgYWx0ZXJlZCB0b21h dG9lcyB0aGF0IHdlcmUgZGVzaWduZWQgdG8gcmVzaXN0IHJvdHRpbmcue1xj czE2XHN1cGVyIFxjaGZ0biB7XGZvb3Rub3RlXGZ0bmFsdCBccGFyZFxwbGFp biBcczE1XG5vd2lkY3RscGFyIFxmNjFcZnMyMCANXHBhciBccGFyZCBcczE1 XG5vd2lkY3RscGFyIFx0YWIge1xjczE2XHN1cGVyIFxjaGZ0biB9UGF1bCBC LiBUaG9tcHNvbi4gICJGb29kIEJpb3RlY2hub2xvZ3kncyBDaGFsbGVuZ2Ug dG8gQ3VsdHVyYWwgSW50ZWdyaXR5IGFuZCBJbmRpdmlkdWFsIENvbnNlbnQs IiB7XHVsIEhhc3RpbmdzIENlbnRlciBSZXBvcnR9IDI3ICgxOTk3KTogMzQt MzgufX0NXHBhciBccGFyZCBcc2w0ODBcc2xtdWx0MFx3aWRjdGxwYXIgXHRh YiBTaW1pbGFybHksIGJpb3RlY2hub2xvZ3kgZGVyaXZlZCBkcnVncyBhcmUg dGVzdGVkIHdpdGggdGhlIHNhbWUgcmlnb3IgYXMgdHJhZGl0aW9uYWwgZHJ1 Z3MuICAgVGhlcmUgaXMgbm8gYWNrbm93bGVkZ21lbnQgb2YgYW55IGRpZmZl cmVuY2VzIGJldHdlZW4gYmlvdGVjaG5vbG9neSBhbmQgb3RoZXIgdGVjaG5v bG9naWVzLg1ccGFyIFxwYXJkIFxzbDQ4MFxzbG11bHQwXHdpZGN0bHBhciBc dGFiIA1GaW5hbGx5LCB0aGVyZSBhcmUgaW5jaWRlbnRhbCBjb250cm9scyBv biB0aGUgdXNlIG9mIGJpb3RlY2hub2xvZ2llcy4gIEZvciBleGFtcGxlLCBs YXdzIHN1Y2ggYXMgdGhlIENFUkNMQSBpc29sYXRlIHBhcnRpY3VsYXJseSBw cm92ZW4gdGVjaG5vbG9naWVzIGZvciBlbnZpcm9ubWVudGFsIHJlY2xhbWF0 aW9uLCBvZnRlbiB0aGVzZSBsaXN0cyBleGNsdWRlIGJpb3RlY2hub2xvZ2ll cy4gIFRoZSBjb25zZXF1ZW5jZSBpcyB0aGF0IGJpb3RlYw1obm9sb2dpY2Fs IGludmVudGlvbnMsIGJlY2F1c2UgdGhleSBhcmUgbmV3LCBkbyBub3QgZ2V0 IHRoZSBzYW1lIGNvbnNpZGVyYXRpb24gYXMgdHJhZGl0aW9uYWwgdGVjaG5p cXVlcyBkZXNwaXRlIHRoZSBmYWN0IHRoYXQgdGhleSBtYXkgYmUgbW9yZSB1 c2VmdWwuDVxwYXIgXHBhcmQgXHNsNDgwXHNsbXVsdDBcd2lkY3RscGFyIFx0 YWIgV2hpbGUgdGhlIEZlZGVyYWwgR292DWVybm1lbnQgaGFzIGJlZW4gcmV0 aWNlbnQgaW4gcmVnYXJkIHRvIHJlc3RyaWN0aW9ucyBvZiBiaW90ZWNobm9s b2d5LCBzdGF0ZXMgaGF2ZSBiZWVuIG1vcmUgYWN0aXZlLiAgQ2xvc2VyIHRv IHRoZWlyIGNvbnN0aXR1ZW50cywgYW5kIHR5cGljYWxseSBsZXNzIGNvbmNl cm5lZCB3aXRoIGxhcmdlIGJpb3RlY2hub2xvZ3kgY29ycG9yYXRpb25zLCBz ZXZlcmFsIHN0YXRlcyBoYXZlIHRha2VuIHRoZSBsZWFkIGluIGxpbWl0aW5n IHRoZSB1c2Ugbw1mIGJpb3RlY2hub2xvZ3kuICBJbiBzdGF0ZXMgd2hlcmUg YmlvdGVjaG5vbG9neSBjb21wZXRlcyB3aXRoIHRyYWRpdGlvbmFsIGFncmlj dWx0dXJlLCB0aGV5IGhhdmUgYmVlbiB3aWxsaW5nIHRvIHJlc3RyaWN0IHRo ZSB1c2Ugb2YgcGFydGljdWxhciBiaW90ZWNobm9sb2dpZXMgdG8gZW5oYW5j ZSB0aGUgY29tcGV0aXRpdmVuZXNzIG9mIHRoZWlyIHRyYWRpdGlvbmFsIGVj b25vbWllcy4gIEV4YW1wbGVzIGluY2x1ZGUgbGltaXRhdGlvbnMgb24NIGJT VCBpbiBXaXNjb25zaW4gYW5kIFZlcm1vbnQgYW5kIGEgdmFyaWV0eSBvZiBs aW1pdGF0aW9uIG9uIGdlbmV0aWNhbGx5IGFsdGVyZWQgdG9iYmFjY28gc2Vl ZHMgaW4gbWFueSBTb3V0aGVybiBzdGF0ZXMuDVxwYXIgXHBhcmQgXHNsNDgw XHNsbXVsdDBcd2lkY3RscGFyIFx0YWIgDU1vc3QgcmVndWxhdGlvbnMsIGhv d2V2ZXIsIGFyZSBpbmZvcm1hbC4gIFRoZXkgYXJlIGVuYWN0ZWQgdGhyb3Vn aCB0aGUgbWVjaGFuaXNtcyB0aGF0IHByb21vdGUgcmVzZWFyY2g6IHVuaXZl cnNpdGllcywgZ292ZXJubWVudCBsYWJzLCBhbmQgcHJpdmF0ZSByZXNwb25z aWJpbGl0eS4gIFdoaWxlIHRoZXJlIGFyZSBmZXcgbGVnYWxseSBiaW5kaW5n IHJlc3RyaWN0aW9ucywgdGhlcmUgYXJlIHNldmVyYWwgZGlmZmVyZW50IGd1 aWRlbGluZXMgDXRoYXQgcmVzZWFyY2hlcnMgbXVzdCBmb2xsb3cgdG8gYmUg aW4gY29tcGxpYW5jZSB3aXRoIHRoZSBncmFudHMgb3Igb3JnYW5pemF0aW9u cyB0aGF0IGZ1bmQgdGhlaXIgcmVzZWFyY2guICBPbiB0aGUgd2hvbGUsIHBy aXZhdGUgZ29vZCB3aWxsIGhhcyByZWd1bGF0ZWQgdGhlIGRldmVsb3BtZW50 IG9mIHRoZSBiaW90ZWNobm9sb2d5IGluZHVzdHJ5 LiAgDVxwYXIgXHRhYiANSW4gc3VtbWFyeSwgYmlvdGVjaG5vbG9neSBpcyBu b3QgYSBjYXJlZnVsbHkgcmVndWxhdGVkIGFyZWEuICBXaXRoIGFuIGV5ZSBv biBpdHMgdWx0aW1hdGUgcHJvZml0YWJpbGl0eSwgaGlnaCByaXNrLCBhbmQg aGlnaCBmcm9udC1lbmQgY2FwaXRhbCBpbnB1dHMsIGxlZ2lzbGF0b3JzIGhh dmUgYmVlbiByZXRpY2VudCBhYm91dCByZWd1bGF0aW5nIGJpb3RlY2hub2xv Z3kgYXMgYW55dGhpbmcgb3RoZXIgdGhhbiBhIHN1YnNldCBvZiBjaGVtaXMN dHJ5LiAgVGhlIGNoZW1pc3RyeSBtb2RlbCwgaW4gbWFueSBpbnN0YW5jZXMs IGhhcyBwcm92ZW4gYW4gaW5hZGVxdWF0ZSBtZXRhcGhvciBmb3IgY29uZnJv bnRpbmcgc29tZSBvZiB0aGUgdW5pcXVlIHByb2JsZW1zIGFzc29jaWF0ZWQg d2l0aCB0aGUgc3ByZWFkIG9mIGJpb3RlY2hub2xvZ3kuDVxwYXIgXHBhcmQg XHNsNDgwXHNsbXVsdDBcd2lkY3RscGFyIA1ccGFyIFxwYXJkIFxxY1xzbDQ4 MFxzbG11bHQwXHdpZGN0bHBhciBBZmZpcm1hdGl2ZSBDYXNlIEFyZWFzDVxw YXIgXHBhcmQgXHNsNDgwXHNsbXVsdDBcd2lkY3RscGFyIA1ccGFyIFxwYXJk IFxzbDQ4MFxzbG11bHQwXHdpZGN0bHBhciBcdGFiIA1UaGUgaW5mYW50IHN0 YXRlIG9mIHJlZ3VsYXRpb24gbGVhZHMgdG8gYW4gb3BlbiBmaWVsZCBvZiBw b3NzaWJsZSBjYXNlIGFyZWFzIGludm9sdmluZyBpbmNyZWFzZWQgcmVndWxh dGlvbiBvZiBiaW90ZWNobm9sb2d5LiAgVGhlcmUgYXJlIHR3byBnZW5lcmFs IHZhcmlldGllcyBvZiByZWd1bGF0aW9uOyByZWd1bGF0aW9ucyB0aGF0IGFs dGVyIHRoZSBwcm9jZXNzIGJ5IHdoaWNoIGJpb3RlY2hub2xvZ3kgd2lsbCBk ZXZlbG9wLCBhbmQsIHJlZw11bGF0aW9ucyBpbnZvbHZpbmcgcGFydGljdWxh ciB0eXBlcyBvZiBiaW90ZWNobm9sb2d5LiAgVGhlIGZvcm1lciBpbnZvbHZl IGEgZmV3IGdlbmVyYWwgY2F0ZWdvcmllcywgdGhlIGxhdHRlciBpbnZvbHZl IGEgbWF5IHBvc3NpYmxlIHBlcm11dGF0aW9ucy4NXHBhciBccGFyZCBcc2w0 ODBcc2xtdWx0MFx3aWRjdGxwYXIgXHRhYiBCaW90ZWNobm9sb2d5IHBvc3Nl c3NlcyBhIGxvdCBvZiBwcm9taXNlLiAgRnJvbSBtaXJhY2xlIGRydWdzIGZv ciBjdXJpbmcgQUlEUyB0byBzb2x2aW5nIGZvciBwb2xsdXRpb24gYW4NZCBl dmVuIGdyb3dpbmcgdGhlIFVuaXRlZCBTdGF0ZXMgZWNvbm9teSwgYmlvdGVj aG5vbG9neSBob2xkcyB0aGUga2V5IHRvIG1hbnkgZnV0dXJlIGltcHJvdmVt ZW50cyBpbiB0aGUgaHVtYW4gY29uZGl0aW9uLiAgVW5mb3J0dW5hdGVseSwg aXQgYWxzbyBwb3NzZXNzZXMgYSBsb3Qgb2YgZGFuZ2VyLiAgT25lIGhhcyBv bmx5IHRvIHdhbGsgZG93biBhIHJ1cmFsIEdlb3JnaWEgcm9hZCBvciBhIE5l dyBFbmdsYW5kIGZvcmVzdCBpbiB0aGUgbWlkDWRsZSBvZiBzdW1tZXIgdG8g c2VlIHNvbWUgb2YgdGhlIGhhemFyZHMgb2YgbWVzc2luZyB3aXRoIG5hdHVy ZS4gIEluIEdlb3JnaWEgb25lIG1pZ2h0IGZpbmQga3VkenUsIGEgYnJpZ2h0 IGdyZWVuIGJsYW5rZXQgb2YgYSB3ZWVkIHRoYXQgY292ZXJzIGV2ZXJ5IGNv dW50cnkgcm9hZCwgdHJlZSwgYW5kIGFiYW5kb25lZCBob3VzZS0tdmlydHVh bGx5IGV2ZXJ5dGhpbmcgdGhhdCBjYW4gbm90IG1vdmUgZmFzdCBlbm91Z2gg dG8gZ2V0IG91dCBvZg0gdA1oZSB3YXkuICBJbiBOZXcgRW5nbGFuZCwgdGhl IGd5cHN5IG1vdGggY2F0ZXJwaWxsYXJzIGVhdCB0aGUgbGVhdmVzIG9mZiBv ZiBhbGwgb2YgdGhlIHRyZWVzLCBsZWF2aW5nIHRoZSBmb3Jlc3QgaW4gc3Vt bWVyLCBtdWNoIGxpa2UgaXQgd291bGQgYmUgaW4gdGhlIG1pZGRsZSBvZiB3 aW50ZXItLWJhcmUuICBXaGVuIHlvdSB3YWxrIHRocm91Z2ggdGhlIGZvcmVz dCwgYWxsIHlvdSBjYW4gaGVhciBpcyBhIGdlbnRsZSByYWluIG9mIGNhdGVy cGkNbGxhciBkcm9wcGluZ3MuICBFYWNoIHJlZ2lvbiBvZiB0aGUgY291bnRy eSBoYXMgaXRzIG93biBob3Jyb3Igc3RvcnksIGZyb20gc3RhcmxpbmdzIHRv IGNvbW1lcmNpYWwgc2FsbW9uIHRvIHplYnJhIG11c2NsZXMsIHRoZXJlIGhh cyBiZWVuIHZlcnkgbGl0dGxlIGNvbnRyb2wgb3ZlciB0aGUgaW5hZHZlcnRl bnQgaW50cm9kdWN0aW9uIG9mIGFsaWVuIHNwZWNpZXMuDVxwYXIgXHBhcmQg XHNsNDgwXHNsbXVsdDBcd2lkY3RscGFyIFx0YWIgVGhlIHJpc2tzIGFzc29j aWF0ZWQgd2l0aCB0aGUgaW5hZHZlcnRlbnQgaW50DXJvZHVjdGlvbiBpcyBo aWdoZXN0IGR1cmluZyBpbml0aWFsIHRlc3RzIG9mIGEgYmlvdGVjaG5vbG9n eS4gIFRoaXMgaXMgYmVjYXVzZSBpdCBpcyBkaWZmaWN1bHQgdG8gY29tcGxl dGVseSBwcmVkaWN0IGhvdyBhIG5ldyBzcGVjaWVzIHdpbGwgaW50ZXJhY3Qg aW4gYSBuZXcgZW52aXJvbm1lbnQuICBJbiBtYW55IGluc3RhbmNlcywgdGhl IHJpc2sgaXMgdGhhdCBhIG5ldyBzcGVjaWVzIG9mIHBsYW50IG9yIGFuaW1h bCBtaWdodCBkbyBiZXR0ZQ1yIHdoZW4gaW50cm9kdWNlZCBpbnRvIGEgbmV3 IGVudmlyb25tZW50IG9uY2UgaXQgaGFzIGJlZW4gcmVtb3ZlZCBmcm9tIGl0 cyBuYXR1cmFsIHByZWRhdG9ycy4gIEhpc3RvcnkgZGVtb25zdHJhdGVzIHRo YXQgdGhpcyBoYXMgb2Z0ZW4gYmVlbiB0aGUgY2FzZS4gIA1ccGFyIFxwYXJk IFxzbDQ4MFxzbG11bHQwXHdpZGN0bHBhciBcdGFiIFRoZXJlIGFyZSBvdGhl ciB1bmludGVuZGVkIHJpc2tzLiAgVGhlIGVhc3kgbWl4aW5nIG9mIGdlcm0g cGxhc20gaGFzIGluY3JlYXNlZCB0aGUgcmlzayB0aGF0IG5ldyBzcGVjaWUN cyB3aWxsIGVzY2FwZSBpbnRvIHRoZSB3b3JsZCwgb3IgdGhhdCBuZXcgc3Bl Y2llcyB3aWxsIGVuaGFuY2UgY3VycmVudCBzcGVjaWVzIGxlYWRpbmcgdG8g c3VwZXIgd2VlZHMgb3IgYW5pbWFscywgaW1tdW5lIHRvIG1vc3QgdHJhZGl0 aW9uYWwgdGhyZWF0IGFuZCB0aHJlYXRlbmluZyBpbmRpZ2Vub3VzIHdpbGRs aWZlLg1ccGFyIFxwYXJkIFxzbDQ4MFxzbG11bHQw XHdpZGN0bHBhciBcdGFiIA1CZWNhdXNlIGJpb3RlY2hub2xvZ2ljYWwgaW1w cm92ZW1lbnRzIGFyZSB0cmVhdGVkIGluIHJvdWdobHkgdGhlIHNhbWUgbWFu bmVyIGFzIG5ldyBjaGVtaWNhbHMsIHRoZXJlIGFyZSB2ZXJ5IGZldyBjb250 cm9scyByZWdhcmRpbmcgdGhlIGluYWR2ZXJ0ZW50IHJlbGVhc2Ugb2YgbmV3 IHNwZWNpZXMgaW50byB0aGUgd2lsZC4gIFdoaWxlIG1hbnkgaW5kaXZpZHVh bCBzdGF0ZXMgaGF2ZSBjb250cm9scywgYW5kIHRoZSBVbml0ZWQgTmF0aW9u cw0gRW52aXJvbm1lbnQgUHJvZ3JhbW1lIChVTkVQKSBoYXMgc3VnZ2VzdGVk IHNvbWUgZ3VpZGVsaW5lcywgdGhlc2UgY29udHJvbHMgcHJvdmlkZSBpbmFk ZXF1YXRlIGluc3VyYW5jZSBmb3IgdGhlIGRhbmdlcnMgb2YgYmlvdGVjaG5v bG9neSB0ZXN0aW5nLntcY3MxNlxzdXBlciBcY2hmdG4ge1xmb290bm90ZVxm dG5hbHQgXHBhcmRccGxhaW4gXHMxNVxub3dpZGN0bHBhciBcZjYxXGZzMjAg DVxwYXIgXHBhcmQgXHMxNVxub3dpZGN0bHBhciBcdGFiIHtcY3MxNlxzdXBl ciBcY2hmdG4gfUFkIEhvYyBXb3JraW5nIEdyb3VwIG9mIEV4cGVydHMgb24g QmlvbG9naWNhbCBEaXZlcnNpdHksIFVOIEVudmlyb25tZW50IFByb2dyYW1t ZSAoVU5FUCksIDNkIFNlc3MuLCBVTkVQL0Rpby5EaXYuMy9JbmYuNSAoMTk5 MCk6IDktMTAufX0NICBUaGVyZSBhcmUgb25seSBydWRpbWVudGFyeSBjb250 cm9scyByZWd1bGF0aW5nIGJpb3RlY2hub2xvZ3kuICBUaGVyZSAiYXJlIG5v IGRvbWVzdGljIGxhd3MgdGhhdCBzcGVjaWZpY2FsbHkgcmVndWxhdGUgaXRz IHVzZS4gIEZ1cnRoZXIsIHRoZSBsYXdzIGN1cnJlbnRseSBpbiBwbGFjZSB0 aGUgbWlnaHQgZGVhbCB3aXRoIGJpb3RlY2hub2xvZ3kgZ2VuZXJhbGx5IGV4 ZW1wdCB0aGlzIGNhdGVnb3J5IG9mIG9yZ2FuaXNtcyBmcm9tIHRoZWlyDSBy ZWd1bGF0b3J5IHJlZ2ltZXMuIntcY3MxNlxzdXBlciBcY2hmdG4ge1xmb290 bm90ZVxmdG5hbHQgXHBhcmRccGxhaW4gXHMxNVxub3dpZGN0bHBhciBcZjYx XGZzMjAgDVxwYXIgXHBhcmQgXHMxNVxub3dpZGN0bHBhciBcdGFiIHtcY3Mx NlxzdXBlciBcY2hmdG4gfUthcmVuIEdyYXppYW5vLiAgIkJpb3N0YWZldHkg UHJvdG9jYWxsOiAgUmVjb21tZW5kYXRpb25zIHRvIEVzdXJlIHRoZSBTYWZl dHkgb2YgdGhlIEVudmlyb25tZW50LiIge1x1bCBDb2xvcmFkbyBKb3VybmFs IG9mIEludGVybmF0aW9uYWwgRW52aXJvbm1ldG5hbCBMYXcgYW5kIFBvbGlj eX0gNyAoMTk5NSk6IDE4MC59fQ1ccGFyIFxwYXJkIFxzbDQ4MFxzbG11bHQw XHdpZGN0bHBhciBcdGFiIEhvd2V2ZXIsIHRoZXJlIGFyZSBsYXdzIHRoYXQg cmVxdWlyZSBhc3Nlc3NtZW50IG9mIHBvc3NpYmxlIGVudmlyb25tZW50YWwg cmlza3MuICBFbnZpcm9ubWVudGFsIEltcGFjdCBTdGF0ZW1lbnRzIChFSVMp IGFyZSByZXF1aXJlZCBmb3IgbW9zdCBwb3RlbnRpYWxseSBoYXphDXJkb3Vz IGFjdGl2aXRpZXMsIGJ1dCBldmVuIHRoZXNlIEVJUyByZXF1aXJlbWVudHMg ZGVzaWduZWQgdG8gY29udHJvbCBjaGVtaWNhbCB3YXN0ZSBkbyBsaXR0bGUg cmVnYXJkaW5nIHRoZSB1bmlxdWUgaGF6YXJkcyBhc3NvY2lhdGVkIHdpdGgg YmlvdGVjaG5vbG9neS4gIEluIG1hbnkgaW5zdGFuY2VzLCBpdCBpcyBub3Qg Y2xlYXIgd2hldGhlciBhbiBlbnZpcm9ubWVudGFsIGltcGFjdCBzdGF0ZW1l bnQgbmVlZHMgdG8gYmUgZmlsbGVkIG91dA0gZm9yIGJpb3RlY2hub2xvZ3kg dGVzdGluZy4NXHBhciBccGFyZCBcc2w0ODBcc2xtdWx0MFx3aWRjdGxwYXIg XHRhYiANVGhlcmUgYXJlIG1hbnkgZGlmZmVyZW50IHBvdGVudGlhbCBoYXJt cyB0byBwcmVtYXR1cmUgb3IgaW5hZHZlcnRlbnQgaW50cm9kdWN0aW9uIG9m IHRyYW5zZ2VuaWMgc3BlY2llcyBvZiBwbGFudHMgYW5kIGFuaW1hbHMuICBC aW9nZW5pYyBlbmdpbmVlcmluZyBjb3VsZCBwb3RlbnRpYWxseSBkaXNydXB0 IHRoZSBkeW5hbWljIHBhdHRlcm4gb2YgcmVsYXRpb25zaGlwcyB0aGF0IHVu ZGVyZ2lyZCBlDXZvbHV0aW9uYXJ5IGFuZCBlY29sb2dpY2FsIHN0YWJpbGl0 eS57XGNzMTZcc3VwZXIgXGNoZnRuIHtcZm9vdG5vdGVcZnRuYWx0IFxwYXJk XHBsYWluIFxzMTVcbm93aWRjdGxwYXIgXGY2MVxmczIwIA1ccGFyIFxwYXJk IFxzMTVcbm93aWRjdGxwYXIgXHRhYiB7XGNzMTZcc3VwZXIgXGNoZnRuIH1U aGUgVW5pb24gb2YgQ29uY2VybmVkIFNjaWVudGlzdHMuICB7XHVsIFRoZSBO ZWVkIGZvciBHcmVhdGVyIFJlZ3VsYXRpb25zIGFuZCBjb250cm9sIG9mIEdl bmV0aWMgRW5naW5lZXJpbmc6ICBBIFN0YXRlbWVudCBCeSBTY2llbnRpc3Rz IENvbmNlcm5lZCBBYm91dCBDdXJyZW50IFRyZW5kcyBpbiB0aGUgTmV3IEJp b3RlY2hub2xvZ3l9DSAxMSAoMTk5NCk6IDExLn19ICAgIEFkZGl0aW9uYWxs eSwgdHJhbnNnZW5pYyB2aXJ1c2VzIG9yIHdlZWRzIGNhbiBjaG9rZSBvdXQg aW5kaWdlbm91cyB2YXJpZXRpZXMgb3IgdGhyZWF0ZW4gaHVtYW5zLiAgU29t ZSBvdXRicmVha3Mgb2YgZGlzZWFzZSBoYXZlIGFscmVhZHkgYmVlbiBsaW5r ZWQgdG8gZ2VuZXRpY2FsbHkgZW5naW5lZXJlZCBmb29kcy57XGNzMTZcc3Vw ZXIgXGNoZnRuIHtcZm9vdG5vdGVcZnRuYWx0IFxwYXJkXHBsYWluIA1cczE1 XG5vd2lkY3RscGFyIFxmNjFcZnMyMCBcdGFiIA1ccGFyIFx0YWIge1xjczE2 XHN1cGVyIFxjaGZ0biB9VGhlIFVuaW9uIG9mIENvbmNlcm5lZCBTY2llbnRp c3RzLCAxNC59fQ0gIEZvciBleGFtcGxlLCBhIGJyZWFrb3V0IG9mIEVvc2lu b3BoaWxpLW15YWxnaWEgc3luZHJvbWUgKEVNUykgaW4gMTk5MiB3YXMgbGlu a2VkIHRvIGEgYmF0Y2ggb2Ygc3ludGhldGljIGFtaW5vIGFjaWQuICBNb3Jl IHRoYW4gMSw1MDAgcGVvcGxlIHdlcmUgZWZmZWN0ZWQgYW5kIDM4IHBlb3Bs ZSB3ZXJlIGtpbGxlZC4gICJUaGUgVW5pdGVkIFN0YXRlcyB3YXMgYWJsZSB0 byBjb250cm9sIHRoaXMgZXBpZGVtaWMgYmVjYXVz ZSBvZiBzdXBlcmkNb3IgcmVzb3VyY2VzIGFuZCB0ZWNobm9sb2d5LCBidXQg bWFueSBkZXZlbG9waW5nIGNvdW50cmllcyB3b3VsZCBub3QgYmUgYWJsZSB0 byBxdWlja2x5IGFuZCBlZmZlY3RpdmVseSBoYW5kbGUgdGhpcyB0eXBlIG9m IHNpdHVhdGlvbi4gIERldmVsb3BpbmcgY291bnRyaWVzIGFyZSBhdCBncmVh dGVyIHJpc2sgb2Ygc3VjaCBkaXNlYXNlcyBkZXZhc3RhdGluZyB0aGVpciBw b3B1bGF0aW9uIGFuZCBhZ3JpY3VsdHVyZS4ie1xjczE2XHN1cGVyIA1cY2hm dG4ge1xmb290bm90ZVxmdG5hbHQgXHBhcmRccGxhaW4gXHMxNVxub3dpZGN0 bHBhciBcZjYxXGZzMjAgDVxwYXIgXHRhYiB7XGNzMTZcc3VwZXIgXGNoZnRu IH1HcmF6aWFubywgMTg5LiB9fSAgIFRoZXJlIGlzIGFsc28gdGhlIHJpc2sg dGhhdCBiaW9nZW5pYyBvcmdhbmlzbXMsIGR1ZSB0byBhIGxhY2sgb3IgcmVz ZWFyY2gsICBjb3VsZCBjb25jZWl2YWJseSBjcmVhdGUgYW5kICJlY29sb2dp Y2FsIGJvbWIiIHRoYXQgY291bGQgZGVzdHJveSBib3RoIGFncmljdWx0dXJl IGFuZCB0aGUgZW52aXJvbm1lbnQue1xjczE2XHN1cGVyIFxjaGZ0biANe1xm b290bm90ZVxmdG5hbHQgXHBhcmRccGxhaW4gXHMxNVxub3dpZGN0bHBhciBc ZjYxXGZzMjAgDVxwYXIgXHRhYiB7XGNzMTZcc3VwZXIgXGNoZnRuIH1UaGUg VW5pb24gb2YgQ29uY2VybmVkIFNjaWVudGlzdHM6IDE0Ln19DVxwYXIgXHBh cmQgXHNsNDgwXHNsbXVsdDBcd2lkY3RscGFyIFx0YWIgU2V2ZXJhbCBjb25j ZWl2YWJsZSBjYXNlcyBtaWdodCBkZWFsIHdpdGggdGhlIHdheSB0aGF0IGdl cm1wbGFzbSBpcyBkZXJpdmVkLiAgVW5kZXIgdGhlIGN1cnJlbnQgbGF3LCB0 aGVyZSBhcmUgdmVyeSBmZXcNIHByb3RlY3Rpb25zIGZvciBpbmRpZ2Vub3Vz IGdlcm1wbGFzbSwgIGFsdGhvdWdoIHRoZXJlIGhhdmUgcmVjZW50bHkgYmVl biBzZXZlcmFsIHByb2plY3RzIHRoYXQgaGF2ZSBzb3VnaHQgdG8gY29tcGVu c2F0ZSBuYXRpb25zIGZvciB0aGVpciBnZW5ldGljIHJlc291cmNlcy4gIElu IENvc3RhIFJpY2EsIGEgcGhhcm1hY2V1dGljYWwgZmlybSBib3VnaHQgdGhl IGdlbmV0aWMgcmlnaHRzIChjb25zdHJ1ZWQgaW4gdGhlIHNhbWUgd2F5IGFz IG1pDW5lcmFsIHJpZ2h0cykgZnJvbSBhIHBhcnRpY3VsYXIgcGF0Y2ggb2Yg cmFpbiBmb3Jlc3QuICBTaW1pbGFybHksIHRoZSBVbml0ZWQgU3RhdGVzIGlz IGN1cnJlbnRseSBlbmdhZ2VkIGluIGRlYmF0ZXMgYWJvdXQgdGhlIHZhbHVl IG9mIGl0cyBvd24gZ2VuZXRpYyByZXNvdXJjZXMgYWZ0ZXIgYSByZWxhdGlv bnNoaXAgYmV0d2VlbiB0cmVlcyBmb3VuZCBvbiBmZWRlcmFsIGxhbmRzIGFu ZCBhbiBhbnRpLWNhbmNlciBkcnVnIG5hbWVkIHRheG9sIA13YXMgZXN0YWJs aXNoZWQuICBUaGUgRmVkZXJhbCBHb3Zlcm5tZW50IGJlY2FtZSBjb25jZXJu ZWQgd2l0aCB0aGUgcHJvYmxlbSBvZiAiYmlvcHJvc3BlY3RpbmciLS11c2lu ZyBmZWRlcmFsIHJlc291cmNlcyB0byBnZW5lcmF0ZSBiaW90ZWNobm9sb2d5 Lg1ccGFyIFxwYXJkIFxzbDQ4MFxzbG11bHQwXHdpZGN0bHBhciBcdGFiIA1X aGlsZSBiaW9wcm9zcGVjdGluZyBoYXMgYmVlbiBhIGNvbmNlcm4gb2YgdGhl IEZlZGVyYWwgR292ZXJubWVudCwgbWFueSBzdGF0ZXMgaGF2ZSByZWNlbnRs eSBiZWNvbWUgY29uY2VybmVkIHdpdGggdGhlIHVzZSBvZiBwZXJzb25hbCBi aW9sb2dpY2FsIHJlc291cmNlcy4gIFNldmVyYWwsIHN0YXRlcyBoYXZlIHNv dWdodCB0byBjbGFyaWZ5IHByb3BlcnR5IHJpZ2h0cyBpbiByZWdhcmQgdG8g Z2VuZXRpYyBtYXRlcmlhbHMuICBHZW9yZ2lhLA0gT3JlZ29uLCBOZXcgWW9y aywgYW5kIFBlbm5zeWx2YW5pYSBoYXZlIG1hZGUgYXR0ZW1wdHMgdG8gY3Jl YXRlIGEgcHJvcHJpZXRhcnkgaW50ZXJlc3QgaW4gb25lJ3Mgb3duIGdlbmV0 aWMgbWF0DWVyaWFsIGFuZCBwcm90ZWN0IGluZGl2aWR1YWwgcmlnaHRzLiAg Q3VycmVudGx5LCBzZXZlcmFsIGNvdXJ0IGNhc2VzIGhhdmUgZmFpbGVkIHRv IGNsYXJpZnkgdGhlIHJlbGF0aW9uc2hpcCBiZXR3ZWVuIGluZGl2aWR1YWxz LCBnZW5ldGljIHJlc291cmNlcywgYW5kIHJlc2VhcmNoIGluc3RpdHV0aW9u cy4gIEluIHBhcnRpY3VsYXIsIHRoZSBjYXNlIG9mIHtcdWwgDU1vb3JlIHYu IFJlZ2VudHMgb2YgdGhlIFVuaXZlcnNpdHkgb2YgQ2FsaWZvcm5pYX0sICIg Z3JhbnRzIGZyZWUgcmVpZ24gdG8gdGhlIGJpb3RlY2hub2xvZ3kgaW5kdXN0 cnkgdG8gdXNlIGdlbmV0aWMgcmF3IG1hdGVyaWFscy4ie1xjczE2XHN1cGVy IFxjaGZ0biB7XGZvb3Rub3RlXGZ0bmFsdCBccGFyZFxwbGFpbiBcczE1XG5v d2lkY3RscGFyIFxmNjFcZnMyMCBcdGFiIA1ccGFyIFxwYXJkIFxzMTVcbm93 aWRjdGxwYXIgXHRhYiB7XGNzMTZcc3VwZXIgXGNoZnRuIH17XHVsIE1vb3Jl IHYuIFJlZ2VudCBvZiB0aGUgVW5pdmVyc2l0eSBvZiBDYWxpZm9ybmlhfS4g NzkzIFAuMmQgNDc5OyBNaWNoYWVsIE0uSi4gTGluLiAiQ29uZmVycmluZyBh IEZlZGVyYWwgUHJvcGVydHkgUmlnaHQgaW4gR2VuZXRpYyBNYXRlcmlhbDog IFN0ZXBwaW5nIGludG8gdGhlIEZ1dHVyZSB3aXRoIHRoZUdlbmV0aWMgUHJp dmFjeSBBY3QsIiB7XHVsIA1BbWVyaWNhbiBKb3VyYW5sIG9mIExhdyBhbmQg TWVkZWNpbmV9IDIyICgxOTk2KTogMTEwLn19ICBUaGUgZ2lzdCBvZiB0aGUg Y2FzZSB3YXMgdGhhdCBhbiBpbmRpdmlkdWFsJ3MgcmlnaHRzIHRvIHRoZWly IGdlbmV0aWMgbWF0ZXJpYWxzIGVuZGVkIG9uY2UgdGhlIG1hdGVyaWFscyB3 ZXJlIHJlbW92ZWQuICBSZWNlbnRseSwgQ29uZ3Jlc3MgaGFzIHByb3Bvc2Vk IGEgR2VuZXRpYyBQcml2YWN5IEFjdCB0DWhhdCB3b3VsZCBleHRlbmQgcHJv cGVydHkgcmlnaHQgdG8gaW5kaXZpZHVhbHMgd2hvIGNvdWxkIGNlZGUgdGhl bSBmb3IgY2xlYXJseSBkZWZpbmVkIHJlYXNvbnMuICBUaGUgbGF3IGlzIGN1 cnJlbnRseSBpbiBjb21taXR0ZWUgYW5kIG5vdCBs aWtlbHkgdG8gcGFzcyBpbiB0aGUgbmVhciBmdXR1cmUuDVxwYXIgXHBhcmQg XHNsNDgwXHNsbXVsdDBcd2lkY3RscGFyIFx0YWIgDVRoZSBkZXZlbG9wbWVu dCBvZiBpbmNyZWFzaW5nbHkgYWNjdXJhdGUgZ2VuZXRpYyBjb2RpbmcgaGFz IHByb21wdGVkICBhbiBpbmNyZWFzZWQgY29uY2VybiBmb3IgdGhlIHV0aWxp dHkgb2YgdGhlc2UgdGVzdHMuICBGZWFyaW5nIGEgZXVnZW5pYyBwb3RlbnRp YWwsIG1hbnkgc3RhdGVzIGhhdmUgYmVlbiBpbmNyZWFzaW5nbHkgY29uY2Vy bmVkIHdpdGggdGhlIHVzZSBvZiBnZW5ldGljIHRlc3RzIHRvIGhlbHAgdG8g ZGV0ZXJtaW5lIGluc3VyDWFuY2UgcmlzayBvciBldmVuIHByb21vdGluZyBz ZXggc2VsZWN0aW9uLiAgVGhlIGZlYXIgaXMgdGhhdCBvdXIgaW5jcmVhc2Vk IGtub3dsZWRnDWUgYWJvdXQgZ2VuZXRpY3MgbWF5IG9uZSBkYXkgYWxsb3cg dXMgdG8gc2VsZWN0IGZvciBhbmQgYWdhaW5zdCBjZXJ0YWluIHRyYWl0cywg cHJvbW90aW5nIGEgdHlwZSBvZiBwYXNzaXZlIGdlbm9jaWRlLCBjb21tb2Rp ZnlpbmcgbGlmZSwgIG9yIG1hc3NpdmVseSBpbmNyZWFzaW5nIHRoZSBudW1i ZXIgb2YgYWJvcnRpb25zLg1ccGFyIFxwYXJkIFxzbDQ4MFxzbG11bHQwXHdp ZGN0bHBhciBcdGFiIFRoZXJlIGlzIGFsc28gYSBjb25jZXJuIHRoYXQgdGhl IGdlbmV0aWNpemF0aW9uIG9mIGluZm9ybWF0aW9uLCB0aHJvdWdoIHtcaSBp biB2aXRyb30NIGZlcnRpbGl6YXRpb24gYW5kIG90aGVyIGZvcm1zIG9mIGdl bmV0aWMgdGVzdGluZywgbWF5IGRyYW1hdGljYWxseSBhbHRlciB0aGUgcm9s ZSBvZiBnZW5kZXIgaW4gc29jaWV0eS4gIEZlbWluaXN0cywgaW4gcGFydGlj dWxhciwgYXJlIGNvbmNlcm5lZCB0aGF0IHRoZSByZWR1Y3Rpb24gb2YgYWxs IGRpZmZlcmVuY2UgdG8gZ2VuZXRpYyBjb2RlcyB0cml2aWFsaXplcyB0aGVp ciBzb2NpYWwgaW1wb3J0YW5jZS4gIEFkZGl0aQ1vbmFsbHksIGZlbWluaXN0 cyBhcmUgY29uY2VybmVkIHRoYXQgZ2VuZXRpYyBpbmZvcm1hdGlvbiBhZHZh bnRhZ2VzIG1lbiBieSBnaXZpbmcgdGhlbSBtb3JlIG9wdGlvbnMgcmVsYXRp dmUgdG8gd29tZW4uDVxwYXIgXHBhcmQgXHNsNDgwXHNsbXVsdDBcd2lkY3Rs cGFyIFx0YWIgDVRoZSBncmVhdGVzdCBhbW91bnQgb2YgZGViYXRlIHJlZ2Fy ZGluZyBiaW90ZWNobm9sb2d5LCBob3dldmVyLCBpcyByZXNlcnZlZCBmb3Ig cGF0ZW50IHByb3RlY3Rpb24uICBDdXJyZW50bHksIHRoZSBVbml0ZWQgU3Rh dGVzIGlzIG9uZSBvZiBvbmx5IGEgZmV3IG5hdGlvbnMgdGhhdCByZWNvZ25p emUgcGF0ZW50cyBvbiBsaXZpbmcgb3JnYW5pc21zLiAgVGhpcyB1bnBhcmFs bGVsZWQgcHJvdGVjdGlvbiBoYXMgaGVscGVkIHRvIG1ha2UgdGhlDSBVbml0 ZWQgU3RhdGVzIHRoZSB1bmRpc3B1dGVkIGxlYWRlciBpbiBiaW90ZWNobm9s b2d5IGRldmVsb3BtZW50LiAgIFRoaXMgc3RhdHVzIGhhcyBoYWQgYSBjb3Vw bGUgb2YgbmVnYXRpdmUgaW1wbGljYXRpb25zLg1ccGFyIFxwYXJkIFxzbDQ4 MFxzbG11bHQwXHdpZGN0bHBhciBcdGFiIEZpcnN0LCBtYW55IGYNZWFyIHRo YXQgcGF0ZW50aW5nIGFuaW1hbHMgdHJpdmlhbGl6ZXMgdGhlaXIgbGl2ZXMu ICBXaGlsZSB0aGUgcHJpbWUgcHVycG9zZSBvZiBiaW90ZWNobm9sb2d5IGhh cyBiZWVuIGFuaW1hbCBodXNiYW5kcnksIHJlY2VudCBsZWdhbCBkZXZlbG9w bWVudHMgaGF2ZSBjaGFuZ2VkIHRoZSBsZWdhbCBzdGF0dXMgb2YgYW5pbWFs cy4gIFRoZSBlc3NlbmNlIG9mIGJpb3RlY2hub2xvZ3kgcmVkdWNlcyBhbmlt YWxzIHRvIGNvbW1vZGl0aWVzLiBUaGUgDUh1bWFuZSBTb2NpZXR5IGhhcyBi ZWVuIHBhcnRpY3VsYXJseSB2b2NhbCBpbiB0aGVpciByZWplY3Rpb24gb2Yg YW5pbWFsIHBhdGVudGluZy4gIFRoZXkgZmVhciB0aGF0IGFwcGxpY2F0aW9u IG9mIHRoZSBwYXRlbnQgc3lzdGVtIHRvIGFuaW1hbCB0ZWNobm9sb2d5IHdp bGwgaW5jcmVhc2UgZ2VuZXRpYyByZXNlYXJjaCBvbiBhbmltYWxzLCByZXN1 bHRpbmcgaW4gdGhlIHZpb2xhdGlvbiBvZiB0aGVpciByaWdodHMgYW5kIGNh dXNlIGFuaW1hbA0gc3VmZmVyaW5nLiAgVGhleSBhbHNvIG1haW50YWluIHRo YXQgdGhlIHByb2Nlc3Mgb2YgcGF0ZW50aW5nIGxpdmluZyBvcmdhbmlzbXMg d2lsbCBwb3NlIHVuYWNjZXB0YWJsZSByaXNrcyB0byB0aGUgZW52aXJvbm1l bnQsIGRlcGxldGUgZ2VuZXRpYyBkaXZlcnNpdHksIGFsdGVyIHRoZSBzdHJ1 Y3R1cmUgb2YgQW1lcmljYW4gYWdyaWN1bHR1cmUsICBhbmQgZW5jb3VyYWdl IGh1bWFuIGJlaW5ncyB0byAicGxheSBHb2QuIntcY3MxNlxzdXBlciANXGNo ZnRuIHtcZm9vdG5vdGVcZnRuYWx0IFxwYXJkXHBsYWluIFxzMTVcbm93aWRj dGxwYXIgXGY2MVxmczIwIA1ccGFyIFxwYXJkIFxzMTVcbm93aWRjdGxwYXIg XHRhYiB7XGNzMTZcc3VwZXIgXGNoZnRuIH1Kb2huIEEuIEhveXQuICB7XHVs IA1QYXRlbnRzIGFuZCB0aGUgQ29uc3RpdHV0aW9uOiAgVHJlbnNnZW5jaSBB bmltYWxzOiBIZWFyaW5nIEJlZm9yZSB0aGUgU3ViY29tbWl0dGVlIG9uIGNv dXJ0cywgQ2l2aWwgTGliZXJ0aWVzIGFuZCB0aGUgYWRtaW5pc3RyYXRpb24g b2YgSnVzdGljZSBvZiB0aGUgSG91c2Ugb2YgUmVzcHJlbnRhdGl2ZSBDb21t aXR0ZWUgb24gdGhlIEp1ZGljYXJ5fSAxMDB0aCBDb25nLiwgMXN0IFNlc3Mu ICgxOTg4KTogNjQtNjUufX0gIA1ccGFyIFxwYXJkIFxzbDQ4MFxzbG11bHQw XHdpZGN0bHBhciBcdGFiIA1UaGVyZSBhcmUgb3RoZXIgcHJvYmxlbXMgd2l0 aCB0aGUgcGF0ZW50IHN5c3RlbS4gIEFzIHdpdGggY29udmVudGlvbmFsIHJl c291cmNlcywgbWFueSBuYXRpb25zIGRvIG5vdCBmZWVsIHRoZXkgaGF2ZSBj b21wbGV0ZSBjb250cm9sIG92ZXIgdGhlaXIgZ2VuZXRpYyByZXNvdXJjZXMu ICBJbiBtYW55IGluc3RhbmNlcywgbm9uLWluZHVzdHJpYWwgbmF0aW9ucyBo YXZlIGxvc3QgcmlnaHRzIHRvIHRoZWlyIG93biBn ZW5ldGljIGRpdmVyc2l0eQ0gdG8gbGFyZ2UgY29yDXBvcmF0aW9ucyB0aGF0 IGhhdmUgdGhlIHNhdnZ5IGFuZCBjYXBpdGFsIHRvIHBhdGVudCB0aGUgbWF0 ZXJpYWwuICBUaGlzIGlzIHBhcnRpY3VsYXJseSB0cnVlIGluIHJlZ2FyZCB0 byBzZWVkcyB3aGVyZSBuYXR1cmFsIG9yIGluZGlnZW5vdXMgaHlicmlkcyBo YXZlIGJlZW4gcGF0ZW50ZWQgYW5kIGNvbW1vZGlmaWVkLiAgVGhlIG9yaWdp bmFsIHByb2R1Y2VycyBvZiB0aGUgc2VlZHMsIGFmdGVyIHBhdGVudGluZywg b25seSBoYXZlIGFjY2Vzcw0gdG8gdGhlIHNlZWRzIGJ5IGJ1eWluZyB0aGVt IGZyb20gdGhlIGNvbXBhbmllcyB0aGF0IGplYWxvdXNseSBwcm90ZWN0IHRo ZWlyIHBhdGVudHMuICBBZGRpdGlvbmFsbHksIHRoZSBwYXRlbnQgc3lzdGVt J3MgY29uc3RyaWN0aW9uIG9mIHRoZSBmcmVlIGZsb3cgb2YgZ2VybSBwbGFz bSBwcm9tb3RlcyBtb25vY3JvcHBpbmcgd2hpY2ggdW5kZXJjdXRzIG91ciB0 ZW51b3VzIGJpb2RpdmVyc2l0eSwgYW5kIHByb3RlY3RzIHRoZSBtb25vcG9s aWUNcyBvZiBhIGZldyBsYXJnZSBzZWVkIGNvbXBhbmllcy57XGNzMTZcc3Vw ZXIgXGNoZnRuIHtcZm9vdG5vdGVcZnRuYWx0IFxwYXJkXHBsYWluIFxzMTVc bm93aWRjdGxwYXIgXGY2MVxmczIwIA1ccGFyIFxwYXJkIFxzMTVcbm93aWRj dGxwYXIgXHRhYiB7XGNzMTZcc3VwZXIgXGNoZnRuIH1QYXVsIFIuIEVocmxp Y2ggYW5kIEVkd2FyZCBPLiBXaWxzb24uICAiQmlvZGl2ZXJzaXR5IFN0dWRp ZXM6ICBTY2llbmNlIGFuZCBQb2xpY3ksIiB7XHVsIFNjaWVuY2V9IDI1MyAo MTk5MSk6IDc1OC59fQ0gIFRoZXNlIHByb2JsZW1zIGFyZSBsaWtlbHkgdG8g YmUgZXhhY2VyYmF0ZWQgaW4gdGhlIGNvbnRleHQgb2YgbmV3IGZyZWUgdHJh ZGUgcmVnaW1lcyB3aGljaCB3aWxsIGVuY291cmFnZSBub24taW5kdXN0cmlh bCBuYXRpb25zIHRvIG1vdmUgdG93YXJkIGxhcmdlLXNjYWxlIGFncmlidXNp bmVzcy10eXBlIGZhcm1pbmcgaW4gb3JkZXIgdG8gYmVjb21lIGNvbXBldGl0 aXZlIHdpdGggdGhlIG5vLWxvbmdlciBzdWJzaWRpemVkIGluZHVzdHJpYWwN IG5hdGlvbnMue1xjczE2XHN1cGVyIFxjaGZ0biB7XGZvb3Rub3RlXGZ0bmFs dCBccGFyZFxwbGFpbiBcczE1XG5vd2lkY3RscGFyIFxmNjFcZnMyMCANXHBh ciBccGFyZCBcczE1XG5vd2lkY3RscGFyIFx0YWIge1xjczE2XHN1cGVyIFxj aGZ0biB9SmFuZXQgTWNEb25hbGQuICAiR3JlZWluZyB0aGUgR0FUVDogSGFy bW9uaXNpbiBGcmVlIFRyYWRlIGFuZCBFbnZpcm9ubWVudGFsIFByb3RlY3Rp b24gaW4gdGhlIE5ldyBXb3JsZCBPcmRlciwiIHtcdWwgRW52aXJvbm1lbnRh bCBMYXcgfSAyMyAoMTk5Myk6IDQwMy59fQ0gIFdoaWxlIG1vc3QgaXNzdWVz IGhhdmUgY29vbGVkIGluIHRoZSBOb3J0aC9Tb3V0aCBkZWJhdGVzIG9mIHRo ZSAxOTcwcywgZ2VuZXRpYyBwYXRlbnRpbmcgY29udGludWVzIHRvIGJlIGEg c29yZSBpc3N1ZSBhbmQgYSBmbGFzaHBvaW50IGZvciBiYWQgZmVlbGluZ3Mg b24gYm90aCBzaWRlcy4NXHBhciBccGFyZCBcc2w0ODBcc2xtdWx0MFx3aWRj dGxwYXIgXHRhYiBJbiBhZGRpdGlvbiB0byB0aGUgZWZmZWN0cyBvZiBnZW5l dGljIHBhdGVudGluDWcgb24gbm9uLWluZHVzdHJpYWwgbmF0aW9ucywgdGhl cmUgYXJlIGVxdWFsbHkgaW1wb3J0YW50IGltcGxpY2F0aW9ucyBmb3IgVW5p dGVkIFN0YXRlcyBhZ3JpY3VsdHVyZS4gIEp1c3QgYXMgbm9uLWluZHVzdHJp YWwgbmF0aW9ucyB3aWxsIGF0dGVtcHQgdG8gYmVuZWZpdCBmcm9tIGZyZWUg dHJhZGUgcmVnaW1lcyBieSBtb3ZpbmcgdG93YXJkIG5vbi1zdWJzaWRpemVk IGFncmlidXNpbmVzcywgdGhlIFVuaXRlZCBTdGF0ZXMgd2lsbCBkbyB0aA1l IHNhbWUuICBOb3Qgb25seSB3aWxsIHRoaXMgc3BlbGwgdGhlIGVuZCBmb3Ig dGhlIGZhbWlseSBmYXJtLCBidXQgd2lsbCBhbHNvIGVuY291cmFnZSBtb25v Y3VsdHVyZSBhbmQgZmFjdG9yeSBmYXJtcyB3aGljaCBhcmUgaGFyZGVyIG9u IHRoZSBlbnZpcm9ubWVudCBhbmQgbGl2ZXN0b2NrLg1ccGFyIFxwYXJkIFxz bDQ4MFxzbG11bHQwXHdpZGN0bHBhciBcdGFiIFRoZXJlIGFyZSBzZXZlcmFs IHBvc3NpYmxlIHNvbHV0aW9ucyB0byB0aGVzZSBwcm9ibGVtLiAgT25lIHdv dWxkIGJlIHRvIGJhbiB0aGUgcGF0ZW50aW4NZyBvZiBsaXZpbmcgb3JnYW5p c21zLiAgU3VjaCBhIHByb2dyYW0gbWlnaHQgYmUgbW9kZWxlZCBhcyBwYXJ0 IG9mIHRoZSBHQVRUIGFncmVlbWVudCBhbmQgd291bGQgZW1waGFzaXplIHRo ZSBiaW9kaXZlcnNpdHkgZm91bmQgaW4gY3VycmVudCBzbWFsbC1zY2FsZSBh Z3JpY3VsdHVyZS4gIEEgc2Vjb25kIHNvbHV0aW9uIG1pZ2h0IGludm9sdmUg YSBwYXRlbnQgY2xlYXJpbmdob3VzZSB3aGVyZSByb3lhbHRpZXMgd291bGQg YmUgcGFpZCB0byB0DWhlIGluZGlnZW5vdXMgcHJvZHVjZXJzIG9mIGdlcm0g cGxhc20uICBUaGUgY29uY2VybiBvZiBub24taW5kdXN0cmlhbCBjb3VudHJp ZXMgaGFzIGJlZW4gdGhhdCB0aGV5IGdldCB2ZXJ5IGxpdHRsZSBiZW5lZml0 cyBmcm9tIHRoZWlyIGluZGlnZW5vdXMgZ2VuZXRpYyByZXNvdXJjZS4gIFdv cmtpbmcgaW4gYSBmYXNoaW9uIHNpbWlsYXIgdG8gQVNDQVAsIG5hdGlvbnMg Y291bGQgYmUgcGFpZCBmb3IgdGhlIHVzZSBvZiB0aGVpciBnZW5ldGljIA1t YQ10ZXJpYWwuICAgVGhlcmUgYXJlIGVhc3kgY291bnRlci1tZWFzdXJlcyB0 byBzdWNoIHByb2dyYW1zLCBzdWNoIGFzIHN5bnRoZXRpYyBob3Jtb25lcyB0 aGF0IGFsdGVyIHRoZSBjaGVtaWNhbCBzdHJ1Y3R1cmUgb2YgbmF0dXJlIGdl cm0tcGxhc20gc2xpZ2h0bHkuICBIb3dldmVyLCB0aGVyZSBhcmUgc29tZSB0 aGF0IGFkdm9jYXRlIHRoaXMgYXMgYSB3YXkgdG8gc29sdmUgcHJvYmxlbXMg YXNzb2NpYXRlZCB3aXRoIHRoZSB0ZWNobm9sb2d5IGcNYXAue1xjczE2XHN1 cGVyIFxjaGZ0biB7XGZvb3Rub3RlXGZ0bmFsdCBc cGFyZFxwbGFpbiBcczE1XG5vd2lkY3RscGFyIFxmNjFcZnMyMCANXHBhciBc cGFyZCBcczE1XG5vd2lkY3RscGFyIFx0YWIge1xjczE2XHN1cGVyIFxjaGZ0 biB9SmFjayBLbG9wcGVuYnVyZy4ge1x1bCBTZWVkcyBhbmQgU292ZXJlaWdu dHk6ICB0aGUgVXNlIGFuZCBDb250cm9sIG9mIFBsYW50IEdlbnRpYyBSZXNv dXJjZXN9ICgxOTg4KS59fQ1ccGFyIFxwYXJkIFxzbDQ4MFxzbG11bHQwXHdp ZGN0bHBhciBcdGFiIA1BIGZpbmFsIGdlbmVyYWwgYXJlYSBvZiBjb250cm9s IGludm9sdmVzIGxpYWJpbGl0eSBhbmQgYmlvdGVjaG5vbG9neS4gIEl0IGhh cyBiZWNvbWUgYXBwYXJlbnQgdGhhdCBpdCBpcyB2ZXJ5IGRpZmZpY3VsdCB0 byBwcmVkaWN0IHdoYXQgd2lsbCBoYXBwZW4gd2l0aCBhIHBhcnRpY3VsYXIg YmlvdGVjaG5vbG9neSBvbmNlIGl0IGlzIHJlbGVhc2VkLiAgSG93ZXZlciwg ZGVzcGl0ZSB0aGUgdW5rbm93biByaXNrcywgdmVyeSBsaXR0bGUgaA1hcyBi ZWVuIGRvbmUgdG8gcHJvdGVjdCB0aGUgcHVibGljIGZyb20gdGhlIHVuaXF1 ZSBkYW5nZXJzIGFzc29jaWF0ZWQgd2l0aCBiaW90ZWNobm9sb2d5LiAgSW5z dGVhZCwgYmlvdGVjaG5vbG9neSBoYXMgYmVlbiB0cmVhdGVkIGxpa2Ugb3Ro ZXIgdGVjaG5vbG9naWVzLCBwYXJ0aWN1bGFybHkgY2hlbWlzdHJ5LiAgVGhl IGNvbnNlcXVlbmNlIGlzIHRoYXQgY29ycG9yYXRpb25zIGluY3VyIHZlcnkg bGl0dGxlIGxlZ2FsIGxpYWJpbGl0eSBmb3INIGJpb3RlY2hub2xvZ3kgdGhh dCBoYXMgYmVlbiBhcHByb3ZlZCBieSB0aGUgZ292ZXJubWVudC4gIFdoYXQg bGlhYmlsaXR5IGV4aXN0cyBpcyBtaXRpZ2F0ZWQgYnkgdGhlIG5hdHVyYWwg bXV0YXRpb24gb2YgZ2VybSBwbGFzbSBvdmVyIHRpbWUgc28gdGhhdCBpdCBp cyBkaWZmaWN1bHQgdG8gcGluLXBvaW50IHdoYXQgZ2VybXBsYXNtIGNhdXNl ZCB3aGF0IHByb2JsZW0uICAgU3VjaCBsb3cgbGV2ZWxzIG9mIGxpYWJpbGl0 eSBhbmQgbGFjayBvDWYgY2xhcml0eSBlbmNvdXJhZ2UgY29ycG9yYXRpb25z IHRvIGludmVzdCBoZWF2aWx5IGluIHRlY2hub2xvZ2llcyB0aGF0IHRoZXkg ZG8gbm90IGNvbXBsZXRlbHkgdW5kZXJzdGFuZCBhbmQgbWFrZXMgaXQgZGlm ZmljdWx0IHRvIGFzc2VzcyBkYW1hZ2Ugb3ZlciB0aW1lLntcY3MxNlxzdXBl ciBcY2hmdG4ge1xmb290bm90ZVxmdG5hbHQgXHBhcmRccGxhaW4gXHMxNVxu b3dpZGN0bHBhciBcZjYxXGZzMjAgDVxwYXIgXHRhYiB7XGNzMTZcc3VwZXIg XGNoZnRuIH1HcmF6aWFubywgMjA5Ln19DVxwYXIgXHBhcmQgXHNsNDgwXHNs bXVsdDBcd2lkY3RscGFyIFx0YWIgDVRoZSBzZWNvbmQgYXJlYSBvZiBjYXNl cyBoYXMgdG8gZG8gd2l0aCB0aGUgcmVndWxhdGlvbiBvZiBwYXJ0aWN1bGFy IGJpb3RlY2hub2xvZ2llcy4gIEVhY2ggYmlvdGVjaG5vbG9neSBhbmQgcmVz ZWFyY2ggbWV0aG9kIGhhcyBpdHMgb3duIG1hbm5lciwgbmF0dXJlLCBhbmQg ZGFuZ2Vycy4gIEZyb20gYm92aW5lIGdyb3d0aCBob3Jtb25lIHRvIGdlbmV0 aWNhbGx5IGFsdGVyZWQgZGlzZWFzZSByZXNpc3RhbnQgdG9tYXRvZXMsIGVh Y2ggdGVjDWhub2xvZ3kgaGFzIGl0cyBvd24gaW1wbGljYXRpb25zLCBiZW5l Zml0cyBhbmQgaGF6YXJkcy4gIEluIGdlbmVyYWwsIHRoZXNlIHByb2JsZW1z IGRlYWwgbW9yZSB3aXRoIHB1YmxpYyBmZWFyIHRoYW4gd2l0aCBzY2llbnRp ZmljYWxseSBwcm92ZW4gZGFuZ2VycywgYnV0IHB1YmxpYyBzdXBwb3J0IGlz IGltcG9ydGFudC4NXHBhciBccGFyZCBcc2w0ODBcc2xtdWx0MFx3aWRjdGxw YXIgXHRhYiANT3RoZXIgcHJvamVjdHMgdGhhdCBkZXNlcnZlIHNvbWUgaW52 ZXN0aWdhdGlvbiBhcmUgdGhlIEh1bWFuIEdlbm9tZSBQcm9qZWN0IHdoaWNo LCB3aXRoIGludGVybmF0aW9uYWwgaGVscCwgaGFzIHNvdWdodCB0byBtYXAg b3V0IGh1bWFuIGdlbmVzLiAgTWFueSBldGhpY2lzdHMgd2FybiB0aGF0IHN1 Y2gga25vd2xlZGdlIGlzIGRhbmdlcm91cyBpbiB0aGF0IGl0IG1heSBhbHRl ciB0aGUgd2F5IHRoYXQgd2UgdGhpbmsgYWJvdXQgaHVtYW5zIGINeSBwcm9t b3RpbmcgYSB1dGlsaXRhcmlhbiBvcmllbnRhdGlvbiB0b3dhcmQgaHVtYW4g Y29uZGl0aW9ucy4NXHBhciBccGFyZCBcc2w0ODBcc2xtdWx0MFx3aWRjdGxw YXIgXHRhYiBUaGVzZSBjb25jZXJucyBoYXZlIGJlZW4gcGFydGljdWxhcmx5 IGZlbHQgaW4gcmVnYXJkIHRvIHNlYXJjaGVzIGZvciBwYXJ0aWN1bGFyIGdl bmVzLiBGb3IgZXhhbXBsZSwgdGhlIHNlYXJjDWggZm9yIGEgImdheSBnZW5l IiBoYXMgcHJvdm9rZWQgYW4gaW50ZW5zZSBjb250cm92ZXJzeSBiZWNhdXNl IGl0IGhhcyBiZWVuIHVzZWQgdG8ganVzdGlmeSBzb2x1dGlvbnMgZm9yIGEg Y29uc3RpdHV0ZWQgaG9tb3NleHVhbCBwcm9ibGVtLiAgTWFueSBob21vc2V4 dWFscyBoYXZlIHVuZGVyZ29uZSAidHJlYXRtZW50cyIgdG8gY2hhbmdlIHRo ZWlyIHNleHVhbCBvcmllbnRhdGlvbiBhbmQgY3VyZSB0aGVpciBkaXNlYXNl LiAgRXZlbiB0aGUgbQ1vdGl2YXRpb24gdG8gZmluZCBhIG9yaWdpbiB0byBo b21vc2V4dWFsaXR5IHJldmVhbHMgYSBob21vcGhvYmlhIHRoYXQgbWF5IHVs dGltYXRlbHkgYmUgcmV2ZWFsZWQgaW4gcHJlbmF0YWwgdGVzdHMgZm9yIGhv bW9zZXh1YWxpdHkue1xjczE2XHN1cGVyIFxjaGZ0biB7XGZvb3Rub3RlXGZ0 bmFsdCBccGFyZFxwbGFpbiBcczE1XG5vd2lkY3RscGFyIFxmNjFcZnMyMCAN XHBhciBccGFyZCBcczE1XG5vd2lkY3RscGFyIFx0YWIge1xjczE2XHN1cGVy IFxjaGZ0biB9VWRvIFNjaHVrbGVuaywgRWR3YXJkIFN0ZWluLCBKYWNpbnRh IEtlcnJpbiwgYW5kIFdpbGxpYW0gQnluZS4gICJ0aGUgRXRoaWNzIG9mIEdl bmV0aWMgUmVzZWFyY2ggb24gU2V4dWFsIE9yaWVudGF0aW9uLCIge1x1bCBI YXN0aW5ncyBDZW50ZXIgUmVwb3J0fSAyNyAoMTk5Nyk6IDYtMTMufX0NXHBh ciBccGFyZCBcc2w0ODBcc2xtdWx0MFx3aWRjdGxw YXIgXHRhYiBUaGVyZSBhcmUgb3RoZXIgY29udHJvdmVyc2llcy4gIFNvbWUg cGFyZW50cyB3aXNoIHRoYXQgdGhlaXIgY2hpbGRyZW4gc2hhcmUgdGhlaXIg ZGlzYWJpbGl0eS4gIFNvLCBkZWFmIHBhcmVudHMgd2lzaCB0byBoDWF2ZSBj aGlsZHJlbiB0aGF0IGFyZSBkZWFmLS1hbmQgY291bGQgc29vbiBiZSBhYmxl IHRvIGNob29zZSBzdWNoIGFuIG9wdGlvbi4gIFNpbWlsYXJseSwgdGhlcmUg YXJlIG90aGVyIGVuaGFuY2VtZW50cyBhdmFpbGFibGUgdG8gcGFyZW50czsg aW50ZWxsaWdlbmNlLCBoYWlyIGNvbG9yLCBleWUgY29sb3IsIGF0aGxldGlj IHByZWRpc3Bvc2l0aW9uIGFyZSBhbGwgYXZhaWxhYmxlIGZyb20gc3Blcm0g YmFua3MuICBBbHRob3VnaCB0aGUgc3RhdA1lIG9mIHRoZSBhcnQgaXMgbm90 IGFibGUgdG8gZ3VhcmFudGVlIG91dGNvbWVzLCBwcmVkaWN0aW9ucyBhcmUg dGhhdCBpdCBzb29uIHdpbGwue1xjczE2XHN1cGVyIFxjaGZ0biB7XGZvb3Ru b3RlXGZ0bmFsdCBccGFyZFxwbGFpbiBcczE1XG5vd2lkY3RscGFyIFxmNjFc ZnMyMCANXHBhciBccGFyZCBcczE1XG5vd2lkY3RscGFyIFx0YWIge1xjczE2 XHN1cGVyIFxjaGZ0biB9R2xlbm4gTWNHZWUuICB7XHVsIFRoZSBQZXJmZWN0 IEJhYnk6ICBBIFByYWdtYXRpYyBBcHByb2FjaCB0byBHZW5ldGljc30gKExh bmhhbTogIFJvd21hbiBhbmQgTGl0dGxlZmllbGQsIDE5OTcpOyBHbGVubiBN Y0dlZSwgIlBhcmVudGluZyBpbiBhbiBFcmEgb2YgR2VuZXRpY3MsIiB7XHVs IEhhc3RpbmdzIENlbnRlciBSZXBvcnR9DSAyNyAoMTk5Nyk6IDE2LTIyLn19 DVxwYXIgXHBhcmQgXHNsNDgwXHNsbXVsdDBcd2lkY3RscGFyIFx0YWIgQWRk aXRpb25hbGx5LCB0ZWNobm9sb2dpZXMgdGhhdCBoYXZlIGJlZW4gdXNlZCB0 byBkcmFtYXRpY2FsbHkgaW1wcm92ZSB0aGUgcXVhbGl0eSBvZiBBbWVyaWNh biBhZ3JpY3VsdHVyZSwgaGF2ZSBub3QgYmVlbiBwb3NpdGl2ZWx5IHJlY2Vp dmVkIGJ5IG91ciB0cmFkaW5nIHBhcnRuZXJzLiAgQXNpZA1lIGZyb20gdGhl IGZlYXIgdGhhdCB0aGUgdHJhbnNnZW5pYyBmb29kcyBtaWdodCBiZSBkYW5n ZXJvdXMsIHRoZXJlIGFyZSBzaWduaWZpY2FudCBldGhpY2FsIHF1ZXN0aW9u cyByZWdhcmRpbmcgZ2VuZXRpY2FsbHkgYWx0ZXJlZCBmb29kcy4gIEV1cm9w ZWFuIHBhcnRuZXJzIGhhdmUgYWxyZWFkeSBub3RlZCB0aGF0IGdlbmV0aWNh bGx5IGFsdGVyZWQgZm9vZHMgdmlvbGF0ZSBXb3JsZCBUcmFkZSBPcmdhbml6 YXRpb24gcGh5dG9zYW5pdGFyeSANYW5kIGVudmlyb25tZW50YWwgcmVndWxh dGlvbnMuICBIb3dldmVyLCB0aGUgcmVzaXN0YW5jZSB0byB0cmFuc2dlbmlj IGNyb3BzIGlzIG5vdCBzaW1wbHkgYSBjdWx0dXJhbCBwcm9ibGVtLiAgIlN1 cnZleXMgcmV2ZWFsIHRoYXQgbWFueSBhZHVsdHMgYXNzb2NpYXRlIGV0aGlj YWwgaXNzdWVzIHdpdGggZ2VuZXRpYyBlbmdpbmVlcmluZyBhcHBsaWVkIHRv IGZvb2QsIGFuZCB0aGF0IGFkdWx0cyB3aG8gaWRlbnRpZnkgdGhlbXNlbHZl cyBhcyByDWVsaWdpb3VzIGFyZSBzaWduaWZpY2FudGx5IG1vcmUgbGlrZWx5 IHRvIGV4cHJlc3MgdGhlIHZpZXcgdGhhdCBnZW5ldGljYWxseSBlbmdpbmVl cmVkIGZvb2QgcmFpc2VzIGV0aGljYWwgaXNzdWVzLiJ7XGNzMTZcc3VwZXIg XGNoZnRuIHtcZm9vdG5vdGVcZnRuYWx0IFxwYXJkXHBsYWluIFxzMTVcbm93 aWRjdGxwYXIgXGY2MVxmczIwIA1ccGFyIFxwYXJkIFxzMTVcbm93aWRjdGxw YXIgXHRhYiB7XGNzMTZcc3VwZXIgXGNoZnRuIH1UaG9tcHNvbiwgMzU7IFRo b21hcyBIb3ZhbiBhbmQgUGF0cmljaWFsIEtlbmRhbGwuICB7XHVsIENvbnN1 bWVyIEF0dGl0dWRlcyBhYm91dCBGb29kIEJpb3RlY2hub2xvZ3l9IChSYWxl aWdoOiBOb3J0aCBDYXJvbGluYSBDb29wZXJhdGl2ZSBFeHRlbnNpb24gU2Vy dmljZSwgMTk5MykufX0gDVxwYXIgXHBhcmQgXHNsNDgwXHNsbXVsdDBcd2lk Y3RscGFyIFx0YWIgDVRoZXJlIGFyZSBzZXZlcmFsIHJlYXNvbnMgdGhhdCB0 aGUgZ292ZXJubWVudCBzaG91bGQgYmVjb21lIGluY3JlYXNpbmdseSBhY3Rp dmUgaW4gdGhlIHJlZ3VsYXRpb24gb2Ygc3VjaCBiaW90ZWNobm9sb2d5LiAg SW4gdGhlIFVuaXRlZCBTdGF0ZXMgdGhlcmUgYXJlIG5vIGxhd3MgdGhhdCBn dWFyYW50ZWUgdGhlIGxhYmVsbGluZyBvZiB0cmFuc2dlbmljIGZvb2RzLiAg Tm90IG9ubHkgZG9lcyB0aGlzIGxhY2sgb2YgaW5mb3JtYXRpb24gaW5jDXJl YXNlIHB1YmxpYyBhcHByZWhlbnNpb24gYWJvdXQgdGhlIGZvb2RzIHRoYXQg dGhleSBpbmdlc3QsIGJ1dCBpdCBhbHNvIGRlbmllcyB0aGVtIGluZm9ybWF0 aW9uIG5lY2Vzc2FyeSB0byBtYWtpbmcgYW4gaW5mb3JtZWQgY2hvaWNlIGFi b3V0IHRoZWlyIG93biBsaWFiaWxpdGllcy4NXHBhciBccGFyZCBcc2w0ODBc c2xtdWx0MFx3aWRjdGxwYXIgXHRhYiANSW4gdGhlIG1lZGljYWwgZmllbGQs IHByaWNlIGNvbnRyb2xzIGFyZSBhIGxhcmdlIGNvbmNlcm4uICBPZnRlbiwg ZHJ1Z3MgZGVyaXZlZCBmcm9tIGJpb3RlY2hub2xvZ3kgdGVuZCB0byBjb3N0 IG11Y2ggbW9yZSB0aGFuIHRyYWRpdGlvbmFsIGRydWdzLiAgVGhlcmUgYXJl IHR3byBleHBsYW5hdGlvbnMgZm9yIHRoaXMuICBQaGFybWFjZXV0aWNhbCBj b21wYW5pZXMgYXJndWUgdGhhdCB0aGUgaGlnaCBjb3N0cyByZWZsZWN0IGxv c3QgZGV2ZWwNb3BtZW50YWwgY2FwaXRhbC4gIE5vdCBvbmx5IGRvIHRoZSBk cnVncyB0aGF0IHdvcmsgY29zdCBhIGxvdCwgYnV0IGZvciBldmVyeSBkcnVn IHRoYXQgaXMgbWFudWZhY3R1cmVkLCAxMDAgdGhhdCBkbyBub3Qgd29yayBo YXZlIHRvIGJlIGRldmVsb3BlZC4gIFRoZSBoaWdoIGNvc3RzIG9mIGRydWdz LCBzdWNoIGFzIEFaVCwgc2ltcGx5IHJlZmxlY3QgdGhlIGNvc3Qgb2YgcHJv ZHVjdGlvbi4gIEhlYWx0aCBjDWFyZSBhZHZvY2F0ZXMsIG9uIHRoZSBvdGhl ciBoYW5kLCBhcmd1ZSB0aGF0IHRoZSBwaGFybWFj ZXV0aWNhbCBtb25vcG9saWVzIGFsbG93IHRoZW0gdG8gY2hhcmdlIHdoYXRl dmVyIHRoZXkgd2FudCwgd2hpY2ggaXMgZXNwZWNpYWxseSB1bmp1c3QuICBJ biByZWdhcmQgdG8gZHJ1Z3MsIG92ZXJjaGFyZ2luZyBpcyByZWdyZXNzaXZl IHNpbmNlIGl0IHRhcmdldHMgaW5kaXZpZHVhbHMgbGVhc3QgYWJsZSB0byBw YXksIHRoZSBlbGRlcmx5LCBwbw1vciwgYW5kIHNpY2suICBUaGlzIHJlZ3Jl c3NpdmUgcG9saWN5IHJlc3VsdHMgZWl0aGVyIGluIHNvbWUgcG9wdWxhdGlv bnMgYmVpbmcgZGVuaWVkIHRoZSBiZW5lZml0cyBvZiBuZXcgZHJ1Z3MsIG9y LCBpbiBnb3Zlcm5tZW50IGFzc2lzdGFuY2UgYmVpbmcgdGF4ZWQgdG8gdGhl IGxpbWl0LiAgTXVjaCBvZiB0aGUgaGVhbHRoIGNhcmUgaW5kdXN0cnkncyBo eXBlci1pbmZsYXRpb24gbWF5IGJlIGV4cGxhaW5lZCBieSBtYXNzaXZlIGlu Y3JlYXMNZXMgaW4gdGhlIGNvc3RzIG9mIGRydWcgdHJlYXRtZW50cy4gIFRo ZXJlIGFyZSBhIHZhcmlldHkgb2YgY29zdCBjb250cm9sIHNjaGVtZXMgdGhh dCB3b3VsZCBoZWxwIHRvIGFtZWxpb3JhdGUgdGhpcyBwcm9ibGVtLg1ccGFy IFxwYXJkIFxzbDQ4MFxzbG11bHQwXHdpZGN0bHBhciBcdGFiIA1JbiBhZGRp dGlvbiB0byBhIGNvbmNlcm4gZm9yIGluZGl2aWR1YWwgZHJ1Z3MsIGZvb2Rz LCBhbmQgb3RoZXIgZ2VuZXRpYyBlbmhhbmNlbWVudHMsIHRoZXJlIGFyZSBn ZW5lcmljIHJlYXNvbnMgdG8gcmVndWxhdGUgYmlvdGVjaG5vbG9neS4gIFdl IGhhdmUgYmVjb21lIHVzZWQgdG8gZGViYXRpbmcgYW50aHJvcG9jZW50cmlz bSBvbiB0aGUgbmVnYXRpdmUgYXMgYSBjcml0aXF1ZS4gIEhvd2V2ZXIsIGlu IHJlZ2FyZCB0byBiaW90ZWNobm9sbw1neSwgYW50aHJvcG9jZW50cmlzbSBz ZWVtcyB0byBiZSB0aGUgcnVsZSBvZiB0aGUgZGF5LiAgVGhlcmVmb3JlLCBp dCB3b3VsZCBiZSBhIHBvdGVudGlhbCBhZHZhbnRhZ2UgYXJlYSB0byBpbmNy ZWFzZWQgcmVndWxhdGlvbi4gIExpa2V3aXNlLCBjcml0aXF1ZXMgb2Ygc2Np ZW5jZSBhbmQgbW9kZXJuaXNtIHdvdWxkIGJvdGggYmUgYWR2YW50YWdlIGFy ZWFzIGF2YWlsYWJsZSB0byB0aGUgYWZmaXJtYXRpdmUuIA1ccGFyIFxwYXJk IFxzbDQ4MFxzbG11bHQwXHdpZGN0bHBhciBcdGFiIA1PdGhlciBnZW5lcmlj IGFkdmFudGFnZSBhcmVhcyBtaWdodCBpbmNsdWRlIHNsaXBwZXJ5IHNsb3Bl IGFyZ3VtZW50cyBvciBjcml0aXF1ZXMgb2YgZXVnZW5pY3MsIHRyYWRlLCBh bmQgY3JpdGlxdWVzIG9mIHRoZSBjb21tb2RpZmljYXRpb24gb2YgbGlmZS4g IEFsbCBvZiB0aGVzZSBhcmUgZmlybWx5IGdyb3VuZGVkIGluIHRoZSBiaW90 ZWNobm9sb2d5IGxpdGVyYXR1cmUuICBUaGVyZSBpcyBhbHNvIGEgcmVsYXRp b25zaGlwIGJldHdlZW4gYg1pb3RlY2hub2xvZ3kgcmVzZWFyY2ggYW5kIHRo ZSBwcm9kdWN0aW9uIGFuZCBxdWFsaXR5IG9mIGJpb3dlYXBvbnMuDVxwYXIg XHBhcmQgXHNsNDgwXHNsbXVsdDBcd2lkY3RscGFyIA1ccGFyIFxwYXJkIFxx Y1xzbDQ4MFxzbG11bHQwXHdpZGN0bHBhciBOZWdhdGl2ZSBHcm91bmQ6ICBE aXNhZHZhbnRhZ2UgQXJlYXMNXHBhciBccGFyZCBcc2w0ODBcc2xtdWx0MFx3 aWRjdGxwYXIgDVxwYXIgXHBhcmQgXHNsNDgwXHNsbXVsdDBcd2lkY3RscGFy IFx0YWIgRm9yY2luZyB0aGUgYWZmaXJtYXRpdmUgdG8gaW5jcmVhc2UgcmVz dHJpY3Rpb25zIG9uIGJpb3RlY2hub2xvZ3kgcmVzdWx0cyBpbiBhIGxhcmdl IG5lZ2F0aXZlIGdyb3VuZC4gIEZvciBsaW5rcywgaXQgaXMgYmVzdCB0byBs b29rIHRvd2FyZCBpbmhlcmVuY3kuIA1ccGFyIFxwYXJkIFxzbDQ4MFxzbG11 bHQwXHdpZGN0bHBhciBcdGFiIA1Nb3N0IG9mIHRoZSByZWFzb24gdGhhdCBi aW90ZWNobm9sb2d5IGlzIG5vdCByZWd1bGF0ZWQgaGFzIHRvIGRvIHdpdGgg dGhlIHJlbGF0aW9uc2hpcCBiZXR3ZWVuIFVTIGxlYWRlcnNoaXAgaW4gdGhl IHRlY2hub2xvZ3ksIGl0cyBwb3RlbnRpYWwgcHJvZml0LCBhbmQgdGhlIHJp c2tpbmVzcyBvZiBpdHMgaGlnaCBjYXBpdGFsIGNvc3RzLiAgQ29uc2VxdWVu dGx5LCBtYW55IGJpb3RlY2hub2xvZ3kgY29tcGFuaWVzIGFyZ3VlIHRoYXQg Y2FwaQ10YWwgaW52ZXN0bWVudHMgYXJlIGZ1bmdpYmxlIGJldHdlZW4gcHJv amVjdHMuICBGb3IgZXhhbXBsZSwgcmVkdWNpbmcgdGhlIHByb2ZpdGFiaWxp dHkgb2YgYSBkcnVnIGluIG9uZSBhcmVhIHdpbGwgcmV0YXJkIHByb2dyZXNz IGluIHNvbWUgb3RoZXIgdmFsdWFiDWxlIGFyZWEgYmVjYXVzZSBiaW90ZWNo bm9sb2d5IGNvbXBhbmllcyBqdWdnbGUgdGhlIGNvc3RzIG9mIG5ldyByZXNl YXJjaCB3aXRoIHRoZSBwcm9maXRzIGZyb20gb2xkIHJlc2VhcmNoLiAgU2lu Y2UsIGVzcGVjaWFsbHkgaW4gcmVnYXJkIHRvIGRydWdzLCB0aGVyZSBpcyBv bmx5IGEgc2hvcnQgbW9ub3BvbHkgZm9yIG5ld2x5IGRldmVsb3BlZCBwcm9q ZWN0cywgYmlvdGVjaG5vbG9neSBjb21wYW5pZXMgbXVzdCBtYWtlIHRoZSBt b3N0IHdpdA1oIHdoYXQgdGhleSBoYXZlLiAgDVxwYXIgXHBhcmQgXHNsNDgw XHNsbXVsdDBcd2lkY3RscGFyIFx0YWIgDUluIGFkZGl0aW9uIHRvIHRoZSBi ZW5lZml0cyBvZiB0aGUgcHJvZHVjdHMgdG8gYmUgcmVndWxhdGVkLCB3ZSBh cmUgY3VycmVudGx5IG9uIHRoZSBicmluayBvZiBhIHZhcmlldHkgb2YgYmlv dGVjaG5vbG9neSBicmVha3Rocm91Z2hzOyBhIGN1cmUgZm9yIEFJRFMsIHNv bHV0aW9ucyB0byBwb2xsdXRpb24gcHJvYmxlbXMsIGZvb2QgdGVjaG5vbG9n aWVzIHRoYXQgd2lsbCBhbGxvdyB1cyB0byBrZWVwIHVwIHdpDXRoIHRoZSBy YXRlIG9mIHBvcHVsYXRpb24gZ3Jvd3RoLiAgRnVydGhlciByZWd1bGF0aW9u IG1heSBqZW9wYXJkaXplIGFueSBvbmUgb2YgdGhlc2UgYXJlYXMgYnkgZGVu eWluZyB0aGVtIHRoZSBwcm9maXRzIG5lY2Vzc2FyeSB0byBkZXZlbG9wIHRo ZSBwcm9kdWN0Lg1ccGFyIFxwYXJkIFxzbDQ4MFxz bG11bHQwXHdpZGN0bHBhciBcdGFiIA1UaGVyZSBhcmUgb3RoZXIgd2F5cyB0 aGF0IHJlZ3VsYXRpb25zIG1heSByZXN0cmljdCB0aGUgcHJvZml0YWJpbGl0 eSBvZiBiaW90ZWNobm9sb2d5IGluZHVzdHJpZXMuICBGb3IgZXhhbXBsZSwg dGhlIHJlYXNvbiB0aGF0IHRoZSBVbml0ZWQgU3RhdGVzIGlzIGEgbGVhZGVy IGluIGJpb3RlY2hub2xvZ3kgaXMgYmVjYXVzZSB0aGUgZ292ZXJubWVudCBp cyBwZXJjZWl2ZWQgYXMgdmVyeSBmcmllbmRseS4gIFVubGlrZSB0cmFkaXRp b25hbCBpbg1kdXN0cmllcyB0aGF0IHJlcXVpcmUgc3BhY2UsIGVuZXJneSwg bGFib3IsIHRyYW5zcG9ydGF0aW9uLCBhbmQgb3RoZXIgZXNzZW50aWFscywg YmlvdGVjaG5vbG9neSBpcyBtb3N0DSBpbnRlcmVzdGVkIGluIHByb2R1Y2lu ZyBpbnRlbGxlY3R1YWwgcHJvcGVydHkuICBJbiB0aGlzIHNlbnNlLCBpdCBp cyBtb3N0bHkgc2VydmljZSBvcmllbnRlZC4gIFVubGlrZSB0cmFkaXRpb25h bCBpbmR1c3RyeSwgaXQgd291bGQgbm90IHRha2UgYSBsb3QgZm9yIGEgY29t cGFueSB0byBtb3ZlIGJldHdlZW4gc3RhdGVzIG9yIGV2ZW4gdG8gb3RoZXIg Y291bnRyaWVzLiAgQ29uc2VxdWVudGx5LCB0aGUgcmlzayB0aGF0IGZ1dHVy ZSByZWd1bA1hdGlvbnMgbWF5IHJlc3VsdCBpbiBhIGNhcGl0YWwgb3IgYnVz aW5lc3MgZmxpZ2h0IGFyZSBxdWl0ZSBoaWdoLg1ccGFyIFxwYXJkIFxzbDQ4 MFxzbG11bHQwXHdpZGN0bHBhciBcdGFiIE90aGVyIGNvc3RzIGluY3VycmVk IG1pZ2h0IGNvbWUgYXMgYSBjb25zZXF1ZW5jZSBvZiB0b3J0IGxpYWJpbGl0 eS4gIEdvdmVybm1lbnQgcmVndWxhdGlvbiBpcyBvbmUgd2F5IHRvIG1ha2Ug YSBjYXNlIHRoYXQgYSByYXRoZXIgY29tbW9uIHByb2R1Y3QgbWlnaHQgYmUg ZGFuZ2Vyb3VzLiAgVGhlIHJlc3VsdCBvZiByZWd1bGF0aW8NbnMgb24gc29t ZSB0eXBlcyBvZiBjb21tb25seSBhdmFpbGFibGUgdGVjaG5vbG9naWVzLCBl c3BlY2lhbGx5IGRydWdzIGFuZCBmb29kLCBtaWdodCBiZSBhIGZsdXJyeSBv ZiB0b3J0IGxpdGlnYXRpb24gd2hpY2ggbWlnaHQgd2Vha2VuIHRoZSBVbml0 ZWQgU3RhdGVzIGJpb3RlY2hub2xvZ3kgaW5kdXN0cnkgYW5kIGVuY291cmFn ZSBldmVuIG1vcmUgaW5kdXN0cmlhbCBmbGlnaHQuDVxwYXIgXHBhcmQgXHNs NDgwXHNsbXVsdDBcd2lkY3RscGFyIFx0YWIgDUZpbmFsbHksIHRoZXJlIGFy ZSBtYW55IHRyYWRlIGltcGxpY2F0aW9ucyBmb3IgYmlvdGVjaG5vbG9neS4g IEFscmVhZHksIEdBVFQgYW5kIHRoZSBXVE8gYXJlIHRyeWluZyB0byBzb3J0 IG91dCB0aGUgcGxhY2Ugb2YgYmlvdGVjaG5vbG9neSBpbiB0aGUgZ2xvYmFs IHRyYWRpbmcgc3lzdGVtLiAgTWFqb3IgY2hhbmdlcyBpbiB0aGUgVVMgYmlv dGVjaG5vbG9neSBpbmR1c3RyeSBtYXkgYmUgbW9kZWxlZCBieSBvdGhlciBj b3VudHJpZXMsIHVwDXNldCB0aGVtLCBvciB1cHNldCBkb21lc3RpYyBjb21w YW5pZXMNLiAgQmVjYXVzZSByZWd1bGF0aW9ucyBhcmUgY29uc2lkZXJlZCBu b24tdGFyaWZmIGJhcnJpZXJzLCB0aGV5IGFyZSBpbXBvcnRhbnQgcGFydHMg b2YgdGhlIFVuaXRlZCBTdGF0ZXMgdHJhZGluZyByZWdpbWUuICBGb3IgZXhh bXBsZSwgaW5jcmVhc2luZyBzdGFuZGFyZHMgZm9yIGRvbWVzdGljIGJpb3Rl Y2hub2xvZ3kgbWlnaHQgaGF2ZSB0aGUgZWZmZWN0IG9mIGV4Y2x1ZGluZyBm b3JlaWduIGNvbXBldGl0aW9uLiAgT3IsIGl0IG1pZ2h0IGhhDXZlIHRoZSBl ZmZlY3Qgb2YgbWFraW5nIFVTIGJpb3RlY2hub2xvZ3kgbGVzcyBjb21wZXRp dGl2ZSB3aXRoIEphcGFuIGFuZCBHZXJtYW55LiAgQSBkZWNyZWFzZSBpbiBV UyBjb21wZXRpdGlvbiBtaWdodCBlbmNvdXJhZ2UgdGhlIFVuaXRlZCBTdGF0 ZXMgdG8gZmlsZSBhIHN1aXQgd2l0aCB0aGUgV1RPIG9yIHRvIGVzY2FsYXRl IGEgdHJhZGUgd2FyIHdpdGggZWl0aGVyIG9mIHRoZXNlIG5hdGlvbnMuDVxw YXIgXHBhcmQgXHNsNDgwXHNsbXVsdDBcd2lkY3RscGFyIFx0YWIgSW4gYWRk aXRpb24gdG8gdGhlc2UgaW50cg1pbnNpYyBkaXNhZHZhbnRhZ2VzLCBiaW90 ZWNobm9sb2d5IGlzIGEgaGlnaCBwcm9maWxlIGluZHVzdHJ5LiAgVW5pdmVy c2l0eSBvZiBXaXNjb25zaW4gc29jaW9sb2dpc3QgRnJlZGVyaWNrIEJ1dHRl bCBub3RlcyB0aGF0IG1lZGljYWwgYmlvdGVjaG5vbG9neSBhY2NvdW50cyBm b3IgOTAgcGVyY2VudCBvZiB0aGUgcHJvZHVjdHMgZnJvbSBnZW5ldGljIGVu Z2luZWVyaW5nLCBmb29kIGJpb3RlY2hub2xvZ3kgYWNjb3VudHMgZm9yIDkw IHBlcmMNZW50IG9mIHRoZSBjb250cm92ZXJzeS57XGNzMTZcc3VwZXIgXGNo ZnRuIHtcZm9vdG5vdGVcZnRuYWx0IFxwYXJkXHBsYWluIFxzMTVcbm93aWRj dGxwYXIgXGY2MVxmczIwIA1ccGFyIFx0YWIge1xjczE2XHN1cGVyIFxjaGZ0 biB9Y2l0ZWQgaW4gVGhvbXBzb24sIDM1Ln19ICBDb25zZXF1ZW50bHksIG1v c3QgcG9saXRpY2FsIGRpc2FkdmFudGFnZXMgd291bGQgYmUgcmVsZXZhbnQu DVxwYXIgXHBhcmQgXHNsNDgwXHNsbXVsdDBcd2lkY3RscGFyIA1ccGFyIFxw YXJkIFxxY1xzbDQ4MFxzbG11bHQwXHdpZGN0bHBhciBOZWdhdGl2ZSBHcm91 bmQtLUNvdW50ZXJwbGFucw1ccGFyIFxwYXJkIFxzbDQ4MFxzbG11bHQwXHdp ZGN0bHBhciANXHBhciBccGFyZCBcc2w0ODBcc2xtdWx0MFx3aWRjdGxwYXIg XHRhYiBUaGVyZSBhcmUgc2V2ZXJhbCBkaWZmZXJlbnQgbWVjaGFuaXNtcyBm b3IgY29udHJvbGxpbmcgYmlvdGVjaG5vbG9neSB0aGF0IGRvIG5vdCBpbnZv bHZlIHRoZSBVbml0ZWQgU3RhdGVzIGluY3JlYXNpbmcgaXRzIG93biByZWd1 bGF0aW9uDXMuICBGb3IgZXhhbXBsZSwgdGhlIFVuaXRlZCBTdGF0ZXMgY291 bGQgY2hvb3NlIHRvIHJlbW92ZSBpdHMgb2JqZWN0aW9ucyB0byB0aGUgQmlv ZGl2ZXJzaXR5IENvbnZlbnRpb24gYW5kIHRvIGZvbGxvdyBpdHMgbWFuZGF0 ZXMuICBJdCBjb3VsZCBjaG9vc2UgdG8gaGFybW9u aXplIGl0cyByZWd1bGF0aW9ucyB3aXRoIG91ciB0cmFkaW5nIHBhcnRuZXJz IGFuZCB3aXRoIHRoZSBFdXJvcGVhbiBVbmlvbiB3aGljaCBoYXMgYmVlbiBh Y3RpdmVseQ0gaW52b2x2ZWQgaW4gY3JlYXRpbmcgYmlvdGVjaG5vbG9neSBn dWlkZWxpbmVzLiAgQW5kLCB0aGVyZSBhcmUgYSB2YXJpZXR5IG9mIGZyZWUg bWFya2V0IGFwcHJvYWNoZXMgdG8gY29udHJvbGxpbmcgYmlvdGVjaG5vbG9n eTsgZnJvbSBpbmZvcm1hbCBwcm9mZXNzaW9uYWwgYWdyZWVtZW50cyBvciBm dXJ0aGVyIHRheCBjcmVkaXRzIHRvIGxpY2Vuc2luZyBhZ3JlZW1lbnRzIHdo aWNoIHJlc3RyaWN0IGhvdyBpbmZvcm1hdGlvbiBtYXkgYmUgdXMNZWQuICBU aGVyZSBhcmUgYWxzbyBvdGhlciByZXBvcnRpbmcgZ3VpZGVsaW5lcywgc3Vj aCBhcyBFbnZpcm9ubWVudGFsIEltcGFjdCBTdGF0ZW1lbnRzLCB0aGF0IHdv dWxkIHVzZSBwdWJsaWMgcHJlc3N1cmUgdG8gZm9yY2UgY29tcGFuaWVzIGlu dG8gY29tcGxpYW5jZS4NXHBhciBccGFyZCBcc2w0ODBcc2xtdWx0MFx3aWRj dGxwYXIgXHRhYiANQWRkaXRpb25hbGx5LCBtYW55IHN0YXRlcyBhbHJlYWR5 IGhhdmUgcmVndWxhdGlvbnMgcmVnYXJkaW5nIHRoZSB1c2Ugb2YgYmlvdGVj aG5vbG9neSBpbiB0aGVpciBvd24gYm9yZGVycy4gIEZlZGVyYWwgcmVndWxh dGlvbnMgd291bGQgcHJlZW1wdCB0aGlzIHJpZ2h0ICh3aXRoIGZlZGVyYWxp c3QgaW1wbGljYXRpb25zKSBhbmQga2VlcCB0aGVtIGZyb20gYWN0aW5nIGFz IGxhYm9yYXRvcmllcyBvZiBpbm5vdmF0aW9uLg1ccGFyIFxwYXJkIFxzbDQ4 MFxzbG11bHQwXHdpZGN0bHBhciBcdGFiIEZpbmFsbHksIG1vc3QgZmVkZXJh bCByZWd1bGF0aW9uIGhhcyBjb21lIGFzIGEgcmVzdWx0IG9mIHNldmVyYWwg Y291cnQgY2FzZXMuICBBIHZpYWJsZSBjb3VudGVycGxhbiBtaWdodCBiZSB0 byBoYQ12ZSB0aGUgY291cnRzIGFkYXB0IHRoZWlyIHJ1bGluZ3MgaW4gcmVn YXJkIHRvIGJpb3RlY2hub2xvZ3kuICBUaGlzIGlzIGVzcGVjaWFsbHkgdGhl IGNhc2Ugd2l0aCB0aGUgcGF0ZW50aW5nIG9mIGxpdmluZyBvcmdhbmlzbXMu IA1ccGFyIFxwYXJkIFxzbDQ4MFxzbG11bHQwXHdpZGN0bHBhciANXHBhciBc cGFyZCBccWNcc2w0ODBcc2xtdWx0MFx3aWRjdGxwYXIgTmVnYXRpdmUgR3Jv dW5kLS1Dcml0aXF1ZXMNXHBhciBccGFyZCBcc2w0ODBcc2xtdWx0MFx3aWRj dGxwYXIgDVxwYXIgXHBhcmQgXHNsNDgwXHNsbXVsdDBcd2lkY3RscGFyIFx0 YWIgDU1vc3Qgb2YgdGhlIGNyaXRpcXVlIGdyb3VuZCB0aGF0IHdlIGhhdmUg YmVjb21lIHVzZWQgdG8gaGFzIGJlZW4gbW92ZWQgdG8gdGhlIEFmZmlybWF0 aXZlIChzaW5jZSB0aGV5IHdpbGwgYmUgbGltaXRpbmcgdGVjaG5vbG9neSku ICBIb3dldmVyLCB0aGVyZSBhcmUgc2V2ZXJhbCBjcml0aXF1ZXMgc3RpbGwg YXZhaWxhYmxlLiAgRm9yIGV4YW1wbGUsIHByb3BlcnR5IHJpZ2h0cyBjcml0 aXF1ZXMgc3VjaCBhcyBvYmplY3RpdmlzbSAgb3Igc3RhDXRpc20gbWlnaHQg YXBwbHkgdG8gcGFydGljdWxhciBjYXNlcy4gIE1vc3Qgb2YgdGhlIGNyaXRp cXVlIGdyb3VuZCwgaG93ZXZlciwgd291bGQgcmV2b2x2ZSBhcm91bmQgdGhl IGFmZmlybWF0aXZlXHJxdW90ZSBzIGRlbmlhbCBvZiB0ZWNobm9sb2d5IHZl cnN1cyB0aGUgbmVnYXRpdmUncyBkZW5pYWwgb2Ygc3RhdGUgYWN0aW9uOyAg d2hhdCBhcHBlYXJzIHRvIGJlIGEgZmFpciBkaXN0cmlidXRpb24gYXQgdGhp cyB0aW1lLg1ccGFyIFx0YWIgDUFkZGl0aW9uYWxseSwgbmVnYXRpdmUgbWln aHQgYXJndWUgdGhhdCBhZCBob2MgY2hhbmdlIGluIHJlZ3VsYXRpb24gbWln aHQgcmVzdWx0IGluIGEgbWFza2luZyBvZiB0aGUgcmVhbCByaXNrcyBvZiBi aW90ZWNobm9sb2d5LiAgVGhpcyBtaWdodCBjcmVhdGUgYSBzaXR1YXRpb24g d2hlcmUgdGhlIGdvdmVybm1lbnQgY2VydGlmaWVzIHRoYXQgYSBwcm9kdWN0 IGlzIHNhZmUgd2hlbiBpdCBtYXkgbm90IGJlIHNvIG9yIG1heSByZXF1aXJl IG1vDXJlIGluc3BlY3Rpb24gYnkgY29uc3VtZXJzLiAgTW9yZSBpbXBvcnRh bnRseSwgaXQgbWlnaHQgYWxsb3cgcGVvcGxlIHRvIGF2b2lkIGRlYWxpbmcg d2l0aCB0aGVpciBjb3JlIGFzc3VtcHRpb25zIGFib3V0IGh1bWFuaXR5XHJx dW90ZSBzIHJlbGF0aW9uc2hpcCB0byBuYXR1cmUgb3IgYWJvdXQgdGhlIHJv bGUgb2Ygc2NpZW5jZSBpbiBvcmdhbml6aW5nIGN1bHR1cmUuDVxwYXIgXHBh cmQgXHNsNDgwXHNsbXVsdDBcd2lkY3RscGFyIA1ccGFyIFxwYXJkIFxxY1xz bDQ4MFxzbG11bHQwXHdpZGN0bHBhciBQb3RlbnRpYWwgUmVzb2x1dGlvbnMN XHBhciBccGFyZCBcc2w0ODBcc2xtdWx0MFx3aWRjdGxwYXIgDVxwYXIgXHBh cmQgXHNsNDgwXHNsbXVsdDBcd2lkY3RscGFyIFx0YWIgDUJpb3RlY2hub2xv Z3ksIG9uIGl0cyBvd24sIGlzIGEgY2F0ZWdvcnkgc28gYmVoZW1vdGggdGhh dCBpdCBpcyB2aXJ0dWFsbHkgbWVhbmluZ2xlc3MuICBJdCBjdXJyZW50bHkg aW5jbHVkZXMgdmlydHVhbGx5IGFueSBiaW9sb2dpY2FsIGVuaGFuY2VtZW50 LiAgVGhlIGdvYWwgaW4gd3JpdGluZyBhIHJlc29sdXRpb24gc2hvdWxkIGJl IHRvIGxpbWl0IGJpb3RlY2hub2xvZ3kgaW4gc3VjaCBhIHdheSB0aGF0IHRo ZSBtYWluIGFyZWFzIG9mIGNvDW50cm92ZXJzeSBhcmUgY292ZXJlZCB3aGls ZSBleGNsdWRpbmcgbGVzcyBnZXJtYW5lIGFyZWFzLiAgRm9yIGV4YW1wbGUs IGFib3J0aW9uLCBjb3NtZXRpYyBzdXJnZXJ5LCBhbmQgdmFjY2luZXMgY291 bGQgYWxsIGJlIGNvbnNpZGVyZWQgYSB0eXBlDSBvZiBiaW90ZWNobm9sb2d5 IHNpbmNlIHRoZXkgaW52b2x2ZSBiaW9sb2dpY2FsIGVuaGFuY2VtZW50LiAg SG93ZXZlciwgd2hpbGUgdGhlc2UgYXJlYXMgYXJlIGNvbnRyb3ZlcnNpYWws IHRoaXMgaW50ZXJwcmV0YXRpb24gb2YgYmlvdGVjaG5vbG9neSBpcyBwcm9i YWJseSB0b28gYnJvYWQgZm9yIGEgdmlhYmxlIHRv cGljLg1ccGFyIFx0YWIgDUdlbmV0aWMgZW5naW5lZXJpbmcgc2VlbXMgdG8g YmUgY2VudHJhbCB0byBjb250ZW1wb3JhcnkgZGViYXRlcyBhYm91dCBhZHZh bmNlbWVudHMgaW4gYmlvdGVjaG5vbG9neS4gIFdoaWxlIHRpbWVsZXNzIGRl YmF0ZXMgb24gdGhlIHJlbGF0aW9uc2hpcCBiZXR3ZWVuIGtub3dsZWRnZSBh bmQgYmlvbG9neSBtaWdodCBiZSBpbnRlcmVzdGluZywgdGhleSB3b3VsZCBu b3QgYmUgcGFydGljdWxhcmx5IHRpbWVseS4gIEluc3RlYWQsIHdlIHNob3Vs DWQgbGltaXQgYmlvdGVjaG5vbG9neSB0byB0aG9zZSBhcmVhcyB0aGF0IGFy ZSBjb250cm92ZXJzaWFsLiAgIE15IHJldmkNZXcgbm90ZXMgdGhhdCB0aGUg Zm9sbG93aW5nIGFyZWFzIGFyZSBvZiBzaWduaWZpY2FudCBjb250cm92ZXJz eTogY2xvbmluZywgZ2VuZXRpYyB0ZXN0aW5nLCB0cmFuc2dlbmljIHJlc2Vh cmNoLCBkZXZlbG9wbWVudCBhbmQgbWFya2V0aW5nLiAgVGhlc2Ugc2VlbSB0 byBjb3ZlciB0aGUgbWFpbiBhcmVhcyBoYXZpbmcgdG8gZG8gd2l0aCBnZW5l dGljIHJlc2VhcmNoICh3aGljaCBtaWdodCBiZSBhIGdvb2QgdGVybSkuICBU aGVyZWZvcmUsIEkgDW9mZmVyIHRoZSBmb2xsb3dpbmcgcmVzb2x1dGlvbnMg Zm9yIGNvbnNpZGVyYXRpb246DVxwYXIgXHBhcmQgXHNsNDgwXHNsbXVsdDBc d2lkY3RscGFyIA1ccGFyIFxwYXJkIFxzbDQ4MFxzbG11bHQwXHdpZGN0bHBh ciBSZXNvbHZlZDogIFRoZSBVbml0ZWQgU3RhdGVzIEZlZGVyYWwgR292ZXJu bWVudCBzaG91bGQgaW5jcmVhc2UgcmVzdHJpY3Rpb25zIG9uIGdlbmV0aWMg cmVzZWFyY2gsIGRldmVsb3BtZW50IGFuZC9vciBtYXJrZXRpbmcuDVxwYXIg XHBhcmQgXHNsNDgwXHNsbXVsdDBcd2lkY3RscGFyIA1ccGFyIFxwYXJkIFxz bDQ4MFxzbG11bHQwXHdpZGN0bHBhciBSZXNvbHZlZDogIFRoZSBVbml0ZWQg U3RhdGVzIEZlZGVyYWwgR292ZXJubWVudCBzaG91bGQgc3Vic3RhbnRpYWxs eSBpbmNyZWFzZSBpdHMgcmVndWxhdGlvbiBvZiBiaW90ZWNobm9sb2d5Lg1c cGFyIFxwYXJkIFxzbDQ4MFxzbG11bHQwXHdpZGN0bHBhciANXHBhciBccGFy ZCBcc2w0ODBcc2xtdWx0MFx3aWRjdGxwYXIgUmVzb2x2ZWQ6ICBUaGUgVW5p dGVkIFN0YXRlcyBnb3Zlcm5tZW50IHNob3VsZCBzdWJzdGFudGlhbGx5IGlu Y3JlYXNlIGl0cyByZWd1bGF0aW9uIG9mIGJpb3RlY2hub2xvZ3kgaW4gb25l IG9yIG1vcmUgb2YgdGhlIGZvbGxvd2luZyBhcmVhczogIGNsb25pbmcsIGlu dGVsbGVjdHVhbCBwcm9wZXJ0eSByaWdodHMsIGdlbmV0aWMgZW5naW5lZXJp bmcuDVxwYXIgXHBhcmQgXHNsNDgwXHNsbXVsdDBcd2lkY3RscGFyIA1ccGFy IFxwYXJkIFxzbDQ4MFxzbG11bHQwXHdpZGN0bHBhciANUmVzb2x2ZWQ6ICBU aGUgVW5pdGVkIFN0YXRlcyBnb3Zlcm5tZW50IHNob3VsZCBzdWJzdGFudGlh bGx5IGluY3JlYXNlIGl0cyByZWd1bGF0aW9uIG9mIHRoZSBiaW90ZWNobm9s b2d5IGluZHVzdHJ5IGluIG9uZSBvciBtb3JlIG9mIHRoZSBmb2xsb3dpbmcg YXJlYXM6ICBmb29kLCBwaGFybWFjZXV0aWNhbHMsIG1lZGljaW5lLCBhZ3Jp Y3VsdHVyZSwgbWlsaXRhcnkgKHBpY2sgYSBjb3VwbGUpLg1ccGFyIFxwYXJk IFxzbDQ4MFxzbG11bHQwXHdpZGN0bHBhciANXHBhciBccGFyZCBcc2w0ODBc c2xtdWx0MFx3aWRjdGxwYXIgUmVzb2x2ZWQ6ICBUaGUgVW5pdGVkIFN0YXRl cyBnb3Zlcm5tZW50IHNob3VsZCBzdWJzdGFudGlhbGx5IGluY3JlYXNlIGl0 cyByZWd1bGF0aW9uIG9mIHRoZSBmb29kLCBhZ3JpY3VsdHVyYWwsIGFuZC9v ciBtZWRpY2FsIGJpb3RlY2hub2xvZ3kgaW5kdXN0cmllcy4gDVxwYXIgXHBh cmQgXHNsNDgwXHNsbXVsdDBcd2lkY3RscGFyIA1ccGFyIFJlc29sdmVkOiAg VGhlIGNvc3RzIG9mIGJpb3RlY2hub2xvZ3kgb3V0d2VpZ2ggaXRzIGJlbmVm aXRzLg1ccGFyIA1ccGFyIFxwYXJkIFxzbDQ4MFxzbG11bHQwXHdpZGN0bHBh ciBSZXNvbHZlZDogIFRoZSBVbml0ZWQgU3RhdGVzIEZlZGVyYWwgR292ZXJu bWVudCBzaG91bGQgc3Vic3RhbnRpYWxseSBpbmNyZWFzZSByZWd1bGF0aW9u IG9mIGdlbmV0aWMgZW5naW5lZXJpbmcuDVxwYXIgXHBhcmQgXHNsNDgwXHNs bXVsdDBcd2lkY3RscGFyIA1ccGFyIFxwYXJkIFxzbDQ4MFxzbG11bHQwXHdp ZGN0bHBhciBSZXNvbHZlZDogIFRoZSBVbml0ZWQgU3RhdGVzIGdvdmVybm1l bnQgc2hvdWxkIHN1YnN0YW50aWFsbHkgaW5jcmVhc2UgcmVzdHJpY3Rpb25z IG9uIGJpb3RlY2hub2xvZ3kgaW4gb25lIG9yIG1vcmUgb2YgdGhlIGZvbGxv d2luZyBhcmVhczogY2xvbmluZywgZ2VuZXRpYyB0ZXN0aW5nLCBnZW5ldGlj IGVuZ2luZWVyaW5nLiAgDVxwYXIgXHBhcmQgXHNsNDgwXHNsbXVsdDBcd2lk Y3RscGFyIA1ccGFyIFNvbWUgY29uY2VybnM6DVxwYXIgXHBhcmQgXGZpLTM2 MFxsaTM2MFxzbDQ4MFxzbG11bHQwXHdpZGN0bHBhciBcYnVsbGV0IFx0YWIg UmVzdHJpY3Rpb24gb2YgcmVndWxhdGlvbj8gIEhpc3RvcnkgcHJvdmVzIHRo YXQgcmVndWxhdGlvbiBoYXMgdGhlIHBvdGVudGlhbCB0byBiZSBiaS1kaXJl Y3Rpb25hbCAoaW5jcmVhc2luZyBvciBkZWNyZWFzaW5nIHRoZSBhbW91bnQg b2YgYmlvdGVjaG5vbG9neSkuDVxwYXIgXHBhcmQgXGZpLTM2MFxsaTM2MFxz bDQ4MFxzbG11bHQwXHdpZGN0bHBhciBcYnVsbGV0IFx0YWIgDUxpc3Qgb3Ig bm8gbGlzdD8gIFRoZSByZXNvbHV0aW9ucyBvZiB0aGUgcmVjZW50IHBhc3Qg d2VyZSBzaW1wbGUgYW5kIHRvIHRoZSBwb2ludC4gIE5vdyB0aGV5IGFyZSBj aXJjdWl0b3VzIGFuZCBkaWZmaWN1bHQuICBFdmVuIGluIHRoZSBtaWRkbGUg b2YgdGhlIHNlYXNvbiwgaXQgaXMgb2Z0ZW50aW1lcyBkaWZmaWN1bHQgdG8g cmVtZW1iZXIgZXhhY3RseSB3aGF0IHdhcyBvbiB0aGUgbGlzdC4gIEhvd2V2 ZXIsIGEgbGFjayBvZiBsaW1pdGENdGlvbiwgc3VjaCBhcyB1c2luZyB0aGUg d29yZCAiYmlvdGVjaG5vbG9neSIgYWxvbmUsIG1h eSBvcGVuIHRoZSB3YXkgZm9yIGEgdmFyaWV0eSBvZiBzbWFsbCBjYXNlcyB0 aGF0IGFyZSBub3QgcGFydCBvZiB0aGUgY3VycmVudGx5IGNvbnRlc3RlZCBs aXRlcmF0dXJlLg1ccGFyIFxidWxsZXQgXHRhYiANLiAuIC4gaW4gdGhlIFVu aXRlZCBTdGF0ZXM/ICBUaGUgcmVzb2x1dGlvbiBjYWxscyBmb3IgVVMgYWN0 aW9uLCBidXQgaXMgdGhlcmUgYSBuZWVkIHRvIGxpbWl0IGl0IHRvIHRoZSBV bml0ZWQgU3RhdGVzPyAgQ29uY2VpdmFibHkgdGhlIFVTIGdvdmVybm1lbnQg bWF5IHdhbnQgdG8gYmFuIGJpb3RlY2hub2xvZ3kgZnJvbSBvdGhlciBwbGFj ZXMuICBJcyB0aGlzIGEgcG90ZW50aWFsIHByb2JsZW0/ICBJIGRvIG5vdCBz ZWUgb25lIG5vdy0tYQ1uZCwgYmFubmluZyBiaW90ZWNobm9sb2d5IGZyb20g b3RoZXIgcGxhY2VzIHdvdWxkIHByb2JhYmx5IGp1c3QgYmUgYSBiYWQgaWRl YS4NXHBhciBcYnVsbGV0IFx0YWIgSG93IHNtYWxsIGlzIHRvbyBzbWFsbD8g IFdvdWxkIGl0IGJlIHdvcnRod2hpbGUgdG8gZGViYXRlIHNpbmdsZSBpbnN0 YW5jZXMgb2YgYmlvdGVjaG5vbG9neSB0aGF0IG1pZ2h0IGJlIGJhZD8gIEZv ciBleGFtcGxlLCBzaG91bGQgYW4gYWZmaXJtYXRpDXZlIHJlc3RyaWN0IGEg c2luZ2xlIGh5YnJpZCBvciBhIHNpbmdsZSByZXNlYXJjaCBwcm9qZWN0IHRo YXQgaXMgdW5wcm9kdWN0aXZlPyAgSW4gdGhlIHBhc3Qgd2UgaGF2ZSB1c2Vk IHBocmFzZXMgc3VjaCBhcyAib25lIG9yIG1vcmUiIG9yICJzdWJzdGFudGlh bCIgdG8gcHJvdmlkZXMgc29tZSBzb3J0IG9mIGNoZWNrIG9uIHRoZSBzaXpl IG9mIGNhc2VzLg1ccGFyIFxwYXJkIFxmaS0zNjBcbGkzNjBcc2w0ODBcc2xt dWx0MFx3aWRjdGxwYXIgXGJ1bGxldCBcdGFiIE5vdGUgdGhhdCBjbG9uaW5n IGlzIG5vdCB0cmFuc2dlbmljLiAgSXQgdXNlcyB0aGUgRE5BIG9yIGFuIGFu aW1hbCB0byByZXByb2R1Y2UgaXRzZWxmLiAgSW4gdGhpcyBzZW5zZSwgaXQg aXMgbW9yZSBvZiBhIHRyYW5zZmVyIHRoYW4gdHJhbnNnZW5pYy0tYW5kIHNo b3VsZCBub3QgYmUgY29sbGFwc2VkIHdpdGggaXQuDVxwYXIgXHBhcmQgXGZp LTM2MFxsaTM2MFxzbDQ4MFxzbG11bHQwXHdpZGN0bHBhciANXHBhciBccGFy ZCBccWNcZmktMzYwXGxpMzYwXHNsNDgwXHNsbXVsdDBcd2lkY3RscGFyIFBy YWdtYXRpYyBSZWFzb25zIHRvIENob29zZSBCaW90ZWNobm9sb2d5DVxwYXIg XHBhcmQgXGZpLTM2MFxsaTM2MFxzbDQ4MFxzbG11bHQwXHdpZGN0bHBhciAN XHBhciBccGFyZCBcc2w0ODBcc2xtdWx0MFx3aWRjdGxwYXIgXHRhYiBJbiBh ZGRpdGlvbiB0byBpdHMgY29udGVtcG9yYXJ5IHJlbGV2YW5jZSwgdGhlcmUg YXJlIG1hbnkgcmVhc29ucyB0byBjaG9vc2UgdGhlIGJpb3RlY2hub2xvZ3kg dG9waWMuICANXHBhciBccGFyZCBcc2w0ODBcc2xtdWx0MFx3aWRjdGxwYXIg XHRhYiANVGhlIGJpb3RlY2hub2xvZ3kgdG9waWMgY2FuIGJlIGVhc2lseSBy ZXNlYXJjaGVkLiAgVGhlIGludGVybmV0IGhhcyBzZXZlcmFsIGRpZmZlcmVu dCBzb3VyY2VzIGZvciBpbmZvcm1hdGlvbi4gIFRvcGljcyBzdWNoIGFzIGNs b25pbmcsIGFuaW1hbCByaWdodHMsIEFJRFMgYW5kIGV2ZW4gYWdyaWN1bHR1 cmUgaGF2ZSBzZXZlcmFsIHRoaW5rIHRhbmtzIGRlZGljYXRlZCB0byB0aGVt LiAgQWRkaXRpb25hbGx5LCBlYWNoIHN0YXRlIGhhcyBhbiANYWdyaWN1bHR1 cmFsIGNvbGxlZ2Ugd2hpY2ggd2lsbCBoYXZlIGxhcmdlIGNvbGxlY3Rpb25z IGRlZGljYXRlZCB0byBiaW90ZWNobm9sb2d5LiAgRXZlbiBhdCBzbWFsbCBs aWJlcmFsIGFydHMgY29sbGVnZXMsIGhvd2V2ZXIsIHRoZXJlIGFyZSBtYW55 IHJlc291cmNlcyBhdmFpbGFibGUgZm9yIHJlc2VhcmNoLiAgTWFpbnN0cmVh bSBzY2llbmNlIGpvdXJuYWxzIHN1Y2ggYXMge1x1bCBEaXNjb3Zlcn0sIHtc dWwgU2NpZW5jZX0gYW5kIHtcdWwgDVRoZSBIdW1hbmlzdH0gb2ZmZXIgbG90 cyBvZiBjb3ZlcmFnZSBvZiBiaW90ZWNobm9sb2d5LiAgQWxzbywgc2V2ZXJh bCBwb3B1bGFyIG5ld3NtYWdhemluZXMgaGF2ZSBvZmZlcmVkIGNvdmVyIHN0 b3JpZXMgb24gYmlvdGVjaG5vbG9naWNhbCBpc3N1ZXMuICAgc2ltaWxhcmx5 IHRoZSB7XHVsIEhhc3RpbmcncyBDZW50ZXIgUmVwb3J0fSwge1x1bCBCaW9l dGhpY3N9DSBhbmQgc2V2ZXJhbCBvdGhlciBKb3VybmFscyBkZWFsIHNwZWNp ZmljYWxseSB3aXRoIGdlbmV0aWMgcmVzZWFyY2ggaXNzdWVzLiAgSW4gbGVn YWwgYXJlYXMsIG1vc3Qgb2YgdGhlIGludGVsbGVjdHVhbCBwcm9wZXJ0eSBy aWdodHMgZGlzY3Vzc2lvbnMgb2NjdXIgaW4gbWFpbnN0cmVhbSBqb3VybmFs cy4gDVxwYXIgXHBhcmQgXHNsNDgwXHNsbXVsdDBcd2lkY3RscGFyIFx0YWIg QWxzbywgcmF0aGVyIHRoYW4gcmVwcmVzZW50aW5nIGEgc2luZ2xlIGxpdGVy YXR1cmUsIGJpb3RlY2hub2xvZ3kgaXMgcmVwcmVzZW50ZWQgaW4gbWFueSBk aWZmZXJlbnQgbGl0ZXJhdHVyZXMuICBGcm9tIGJpb2xvZ3kgYW5kIGMNaGVt aXN0cnkgdG8gZXRoaWNzLCByZWxpZ2lvbiwgbGF3IGFuZCB0aGUgc29jaWFs IHNjaWVuY2VzLCB0aGVyZSBhcmUgYSB2YXJpZXR5IG9mIHRlbnNpb25zIHRo YXQgcGVybWVhdGUgdGhlIG1lZXRpbmcgb2YgY3VsdHVyZSBhbmQgc2NpZW5j ZS4gIEZvciB0aGlzIHJlYXNvbiwgaXQgaXMgd29ydGh5IG9mIG91ciBub3Rp Y2UuICBXZSBoYXZlIG5vdCBkZWJhdGVkIGEgc2NpZW50aWZpYyBvciBhIGxl Z2FsIHRvcGljIGluIGEgZmV3IHllYXIgYW5kDSBhIGJpb3RlY2hub2xvZ3kg dG9waWMgaGVscCB0byBwcm9tb3RlIG5ldyByZXNlYXJjaCBzaW5jZSBpdCB3 aWxsIGJlIGRpZmZpY3VsdCB0byByZWN5Y2xlIGJhY2tmaWxlcyBhbmQgY29u dGludWUgdG8gY29tcGV0ZS4gIEFsc28sIHVubGlrZSBhIGZvcmVpZ24gcG9s aWN5IHRvcGljLCBtb3N0IG9mIHRoZSBrbm93bGVkZ2VhYmxlIGxpdGVyYXR1 cmUgZXhpc3RzIG9uIHBhcGVyIHJhdGhlciB0aGFu IGluIExleGlzL05leGlzIGJhbmtzLiAgVGhlIA10eXBlIG9mIGV4cGVydGlz ZSBuZWNlc3NhcnkgdG8gY29tbWVudCBvbiB0aGVzZSBpc3N1ZXMgd2lsbCBo ZWxwIHRvIGNvbWJhdCBvdXIgY3VycmVudCBlbXBoYXNpcyBvbiBjb250ZW1w b3JhcnkgbmV3c3BhcGVyIGRhdGFiYXNlcyBhbmQgcGVyaGFwcyBwcm9tb3Rl IGEgbW9yZSBzY2hvbGFybHkgdHlwZSBvZiByZXNlYXJjaC4NXHBhciBccGFy ZCBcc2w0ODBcc2xtdWx0MFx3aWRjdGxwYXIgXHRhYiANRmluYWxseSwgYmlv dGVjaG5vbG9neSBpcyBpbnRlcmVzdGluZyBiZWNhdXNlIGl0IHJlcHJlc2Vu dHMgYSBwb2ludCB3aGVyZSBtYW55IHdhcnJhbnRzIGNyb3NzLCBhbmQgd2ls bCBjb25zZXF1ZW50bHkgdGVzdCB0aGUgc2tpbGxzIG9mIG91ciBkZWJhdGVy cy4gIFNlZW1pbmdseSBpbmNvbW1lbnN1cmFibGUgZmllbGRzIHN1Y2ggYXMg cmVsaWdpb24sIGxhdywgYW5kIHNjaWVuY2UgY3Jvc3MgYXQgYmlvdGVjaG5v bG9neS4gIEl0IGlzIGluIG8NdXIgaW50ZXJlc3QgdG8gZ2l2ZSBvdXIgc3R1 ZGVudHMgdGhlIGFiaWxpdHkgdG8gYXJndWUgdGhyb3VnaCB0aGVzZSBtYW55 IGRpZmZlcmVudCB0eXBlcyBvZiBpbXBhY3RzLiANXHBhciBccGFyZCBcc2w0 ODBcc2xtdWx0MFx3aWRjdGxwYXIgDVxwYXIgXHBhcmQgXHFjXHNsNDgwXHNs bXVsdDBcd2lkY3RscGFyIEJpYmxpb2dyYXBoeQ1ccGFyIFxwYXJkIFxzbDQ4 MFxzbG11bHQwXHdpZGN0bHBhciANXHBhciBccGFyZCBccWNcc2w0ODBcc2xt dWx0MFx3aWRjdGxwYXIgUmVjZW50IEJvb2tzIGFuZCBIZWFyaW5ncw1ccGFy IFxwYXJkIFxzbDQ4MFxzbG11bHQwXHdpZGN0bHBhciANXHBhciBccGFyZCBc ZmktNzIwXGxpNzIwXHNsNDgwXHNsbXVsdDBcd2lkY3RscGFyIHtcdWwgQmlv dGVjaG5vbG9neSBhbmQgQW50aWJpb3RpY3N9IChOZXcgWW9yazogRGVra2Vy LCAxOTk3KS4NXHBhciB7XHVsIEJpb3RlY2hub2xvZ3kgYW5kIFBhdGVudGlu ZyBJc3N1ZXN9IChCZWx0c3ZpbGxlLCBNRDogVVNEQSwgMTk5NikuDVxwYXIg e1x1bCBCaW90ZWNoIGFuZCBJbnRlZ3JhdGVkIFBlc3QgTWFuYWdlbWVudH0g KE94b24sIFVLOiBDQUIgSW50ZXJuYXRpb25hbCwgMTk5NikuDVxwYXIge1x1 bCBCaW90ZWNobm9sb2d5IFJldm9sdXRpb24/fSAoT3hmb3JkLCBVSzogQmxh Y2t3ZWxsIFB1Ymxpc2hlcnMsIDE5OTUpLg1ccGFyIFxwYXJkIFxmaS03MjBc bGk3MjBcc2w0ODBcc2xtdWx0MFx3aWRjdGxwYXIge1x1bCBCaW90ZWNobm9s b2d5OiAgU2NpZW5jZSwgRW5naW5lZXJpbmcgYW5kIEV0aGljYWwgQ2hhbGxl bmdlcyBmb3IgdGhlIDIxc3QgQ2VudHVyeX0gKFdhc2hpbmd0b246IEpvc2Vw aCBIZW5yeSBQcmVzcywgMTk5NikuDVxwYXIgQnVyY2hmaWVsZCwgS2VubmV0 aC4gIHtcdWwgQmlvdGVjaG5vbG9neSBhbmQgdGhlIEZlZGVyYWwgQ2lyY3Vp dH0gKFdhc2hpbmd0b246IEJOQSBCb29rcywgMTk5NSkuDVxwYXIgQ2VudGVy IGZvciBCaW9ldGhpY3MgYW5kIEh1bWFuIERpZ25pdHkuICB7XHVsICBHZW5l dGljIEV0aGljczogRG8gdGhlIEVuZHMgSnVzdGlmeSB0aGUgR2VuZXM/fSAo R3JhbmQgUmFwaWRzOiBFZXJkbWFucywgMTk5NykuDVxwYXIgRG9iZXJ0LCBS YXltb25kLiAge1x1bCBCaW90ZWNobm9sb2d5IFJpc2sgQXNzZXNzbWVudC9C aW9zYWZldHl9IChCZWx0c3ZpbGxlLCBNRDogVVNEQSwgMTk5NikuDVxwYXIg XHBhcmQgXGZpLTcyMFxsaTcyMFxzbDQ4MFxzbG11bHQwXHdpZGN0bHBhciBH QU8uIHtcdWwgQmlvdGVjaG5vbG9neSBSJkQsIFJlZm9ybSBhbmQgTWFya2V0 IENoYW5nZX0gKFdhc2hpbmd0b246IEdQTywgMTk5NSkuDVxwYXIge1x1bCBH ZW5ldGljcyBhbmQgU29jaWV0eX0gKE5ldyBZb3JrOiBXaWxzb24sIDE5OTUp Lg1ccGFyIFxwYXJkIFxmaS03MjBcbGk3MjBcc2w0ODBcc2xtdWx0MFx3aWRj dGxwYXIgR3JhY2UsIEVyaWMuICB7XHVsIEJpb3RlY2hub2xvZ3kgVW56aXBw ZWQ6IFByb21pc2VzIGFuZCBSZWFsaXRpZXN9IChXYXNoaW5ndG9uOiBKb3Nl cGggSGVucnkgUHJlc3MsIDE5OTcpLg1ccGFyIEphcnZpcywgTG92ZWxsLiAg e1x1bCBUaGUgUG90ZW50aWFsIEVmZmVjdCBvZiBOZXcgQmlvdGVjaG5vbG9n aWVzIG9uIHRoZSBEYWlyeSBJbmR1c3RyeX0gKEJvdWxkZXI6IFdlc3R2aWV3 IFByZXNzLCAxOTk2KS4NXHBhciBLbG9wcGVuYmVyZywgSmFjay4ge1x1bCBT ZWVkcyBhbmQgU292ZXJlaWdudHk6IFRoZSBVc2UgYW5kIGNvbnRyb2wgb2Yg UGxhbnQgR2VuZXRpYyBSZXNvdXJjZXN9ICgxOTg4KS4NXHBhciBLcmltc2t5 LCBTaGVsZG9uLiB7XHVsIEFncmljdWx0dXJhbCBCaW90ZWNobm9sb2d5IGFu ZCB0aGUgRW52aXJvbm1lbnR9IChVcmJhbmE6IFVJTCBQcmVzcywgMTk5Niku DVxwYXIgXHBhcmQgXGZpLTcyMFxsaTcyMFxzbDQ4MFxzbG11bHQwXHdpZGN0 bHBhciBMZW9uYXJkLCBTY290dC4gIHtcdWwgQmlvdGVjaG5vbG9neSBhbmQg QmlvZXRoaWNzfSAoQmVsdHN2aWxsZSwgTUQ6IFVTREEsIDE5OTYpLg1ccGFy IFxwYXJkIFxmaS03MjBcbGk3MjBcc2w0ODBcc2xtdWx0MFx3aWRjdGxwYXIg TGVvbmFyZCwgU2NvdHQuICB7XHVsIEJpb3RlY2hub2xvZ3kgYW5kIExlZ2lz bGF0aXZlIFJlZ3VsYXRpb259IChCZWx0c3ZpbGxlLCBNRDogVVNEQSwgMTk5 NikuDVxwYXIgXHBhcmQgXGZpLTcyMFxsaTcyMFxzbDQ4MFxzbG11bHQwXHdp ZGN0bHBhciBMZW9uYXJkLCBTY290dC4gIHtcdWwgQmlvdGVjaG5vbG9neSBh bmQgUHVibGljIFBlcmNlcHRpb259IChCZWx0c3ZpbGxlLCBNRDogVVNEQSwg MTk5NikuDVxwYXIgXHBhcmQgXGZpLTcyMFxsaTcyMFxzbDQ4MFxzbG11bHQw XHdpZGN0bHBhciBNYXRoZXIsIFJvYmluLiAge1x1bCBBIEdhcmRlbiBvZiBV bmVhcnRobHkgRGVsaWdodHM6ICBCaW9lbmdpbmVlcmluZyB0aGUgRnV0dXJl IG9mIEZvb2R9IChOZXcgWW9yazogUGVuZ3VpbiwgMTk5NSkuDVxwYXIgXHBh cmQgXGZpLTcyMFxsaTcyMFxzbDQ4MFxzbG11bHQw XHdpZGN0bHBhciBNYXVsaWssIFN1bWlsLiAge1x1bCBNb2xlY3VsYXIgQmlv dGVjaG5vbG9neX0gKE5ldyBZb3JrOiBXaWxleS1MaXNzLCAxOTk3KS4NXHBh ciBNY0tlbHZleSwgTWF1cmVlbi4gIHtcdWwgRXZvbHV0aW9uYXJ5IElubm92 YXRpb25zfSAoTmV3IFlvcms6IE94Zm9yZCBVUCwgMTk5NikuDVxwYXIgXHBh cmQgXGZpLTcyMFxsaTcyMFxzbDQ4MFxzbG11bHQwXHdpZGN0bHBhciBNZWls YW5kZXIsIEdpbGJlcnQuICB7XHVsIEJpb2V0aGljczogQSBQcmltZXIgZm9y IENocmlzdGlhbnN9IChHcmFuZCBSYXBpZHM6IEVlcmRtYW5zLCAxOTk2KS4N XHBhciBOYXRpb25hbCBBZ3JpY3VsdHVyYWwgQmlvdGVjaG5vbG9neSBDb3Vu Y2lsLiB7XHVsIEFncmljdWx0dXJhbCBCaW90ZWNobm9sb2d5fSAoSXRoYWNh OiBOYXRpb25hbCBBZ3JpY3VsdHVyYWwgQmlvdGVjaG5vbG9neSBDb3VuY2ls LCAxOTk2KS4NXHBhciBOYXRpb25hbCBTY2llbmNlIGFuZCBUZWNobm9sb2d5 IENvdW5jaWwuICB7XHVsIEJpb3RlY2hub2xvZ3kgZm9yIHRoZSAyMXN0IENl bnR1cnl9IChXYXNoaW5ndG9uOiBHUE8sIDE5OTUpLg1ccGFyIFxwYXJkIFxm aS03MjBcbGk3MjBcc2w0ODBcc2xtdWx0MFx3aWRjdGxwYXIgT0VDRC4gIHtc dWwgQmlvbG9naWNhbCBDb250cm9sfSAoTmV3IFlvcms6IENhbWJyaWRnZSBV UCwgMTk5NSkuDVxwYXIgXHBhcmQgXGZpLTcyMFxsaTcyMFxzbDQ4MFxzbG11 bHQwXHdpZGN0bHBhciBPVEEuICB7XHVsIE1lZXRpbmcgdGhlIENoYWxsZW5n ZTogIFVTIEluZHVzdHJ5IEZhY2VzIHRoZSBUd2VudHktRmlyc3QgQ2VudHVy eTogIFRoZSBVUyBCaW90ZWNobm9sb2d5IEluZHVzdHJ5fSAoV2FzaGluZ3Rv bjogR1BPLCAxOTk3KS4NXHBhciBccGFyZCBcZmktNzIwXGxpNzIwXHNsNDgw XHNsbXVsdDBcd2lkY3RscGFyIE91ZWxsZXR0ZSwgUGllcnJlLiAge1x1bCBU aGUgRGV1cyBNYWNoaW5lfSAoTmV3IFlvcms6IFBvY2tldCBCb29rcywgMTk5 NikuDVxwYXIgXHBhcmQgXGZpLTcyMFxsaTcyMFxzbDQ4MFxzbG11bHQwXHdp ZGN0bHBhciBQdXJkeSwgTGF1cmEuICB7XHVsIFJlcHJvZHVjaW5nIFBlcnNv bnM6ICBJc3N1ZXMgaW4gRmVtaW5pc3QgQmlvZXRoaWNzfSAoSXRoYWNhOiBD b3JuZWxsIFVQLCAxOTk2KS4NXHBhciBTaGl2YSwgVmFuZGFuYS4gIHtcdWwg QmlvcGlyYWN5OiAgdGhlIFBsdW5kZXIgb2YgTmF0dXJlIGFuZCBLbm93bGVk Z2V9IChCb3N0b246IFNvdXRoIEVuZCBQcmVzcywgMTk5NykuDVxwYXIgXHBh cmQgXGZpLTcyMFxsaTcyMFxzbDQ4MFxzbG11bHQwXHdpZGN0bHBhciB7XHVs IFRlY2hub2xvZ3kgVHJhbnNmZXIgb2YgUGxhbnQgQmlvdGVjaG5vbG9neX0g KEJvY2EgUmF0b24sIEZMOiBDUkMgUHJlc3MsIDE5OTcpLg1ccGFyIFRvbmcs IFJvc2VtYXJpZS4gIHtcdWwgRmVtaW5pc3QgQXBwcm9hY2hlcyB0byBCaW9l dGhpY3N9IChCb3VsZGVyOiBXZXN0dmlldywgMTk5NykuDVxwYXIgXHBhcmQg XGZpLTcyMFxsaTcyMFxzbDQ4MFxzbG11bHQwXHdpZGN0bHBhciBVbmlvbiBv ZiBDb25jZXJuZWQgU2NpZW50aXN0cy4gIHtcdWwgVGhlIE5lZWQgZm9yIEdy ZWF0ZXIgUmVndWxhdGlvbiBhbmQgQ29udHJvbCBvZiBHZW5ldGljIEVuZ2lu ZWVyaW5nOiAgQSBTdGF0ZW1lbnQgYnkgU2NpZW50aXN0cyBjb25jZXJuZWQg YWJvdXQgQ3VycmVudCBUcmVuZHMgaW4gdGhlIE5ldyBCaW90ZWNobm9sb2d5 fSAoMTk5NCkuDVxwYXIgXHBhcmQgXGZpLTcyMFxsaTcyMFxzbDQ4MFxzbG11 bHQwXHdpZGN0bHBhciBVUyBDb25ncmVzcywgSG91c2UgQ29tbWl0dGVlIG9u IFNjaWVuY2UsIFN1YmNvbW1pdHRlZSBvbiBUZWNobm9sb2d5LCB7XHVsIEJp b3RlY2hub2xvZ3kgYW5kIHRoZSBFdGhpY3Mgb2YgQ2xvbmluZ30sIDUgTWFy Y2ggMTk5Ny4NXHBhciBccGFyZCBcZmktNzIwXGxpNzIwXHNsNDgwXHNsbXVs dDBcd2lkY3RscGFyIFVTIENvbmdyZXNzLiBIb3VzZSBDb21taXR0ZWUgb24g U2NpZW5jZSwgU3BhY2UsIGFuZCBUZWNobm9sb2d5LiAgU3ViY29tbWl0dGVl IG9uIFRlY2hub2xvZ3kgYW5kIGNvbXBldGl0aXZlbmVzcy4gIHtcdWwgQ29t bWVyY2lhbGl6YXRpb24gb2YgQmlvdGVjaG5vbG9neX0gNiBEZWNlbWJlciAx OTkxLg1ccGFyIFVTIENvbmdyZXNzLCBIb3VzZSBDb21taXR0ZWUgb24gdGhl IEp1ZGljaWFyeS4gIFN1YmNvbW1pdHRlZSBvbiBJbnRlbGxlY3R1YWwgUHJv cGVydHkgYW5kIEp1ZGljaWFsIEFkbWluaXN0cmF0aW9uLiAge1x1bCBCaW90 ZWNobm9sb2d5IFBhdGVudCBQcm90ZWN0aW9uIEFjdCBvZiAxOTkxOiAgSGVh cmluZ3Mgb24gSFIgMTQxN30gKFdhc2hpbmd0b246IEdQTywgMTk5MSkuDVxw YXIgXHBhcmQgXGZpLTcyMFxsaTcyMFxzbDQ4MFxzbG11bHQwXHdpZGN0bHBh ciANXHBhciBccGFyZCBccWNcZmktNzIwXGxpNzIwXHNsNDgwXHNsbXVsdDBc d2lkY3RscGFyIEpvdXJuYWxzDVxwYXIgXHBhcmQgXGZpLTcyMFxsaTcyMFxz bDQ4MFxzbG11bHQwXHdpZGN0bHBhciANXHBhciBccGFyZCBcZmktNzIwXGxp NzIwXHNsNDgwXHNsbXVsdDBcd2lkY3RscGFyIEFkYWlyLCBKb2huLiAgIlRo ZSBCaW9wcm9zcGVjdGluZyBRdWVzdGlvbjogIFNob3VsZCB0aGUgVW5pdGVk IFN0YXRlcyBDaGFyZ2UgQmlvdGVjaG5vbG9neSBDb21wYW5pZXMgZm9yIHRo ZSBDb21tZXJjaWFsIFVzZSBvZiBQdWJsaWMgV2lsZCBHZW5ldGljIFJlc291 cmNlcz8iIHtcdWwgRWNvbG9neSBMYXcgUXVhcnRlcmx5fSAyNCAoMTk5Nyk6 IDEzMS4NXHBhciBBZGxlciwgUmVpZC4gICJDb250cm9sbGluZyB0aGUgQXBw bGljYXRpb25zIG9mIEJpb3RlY2hub2xvZ3k6ICBBIENyaXRpY2FsIEFuYWx5 c2lzIG9mIHRoZSBQcm9wb3NlZCBNb3JhdG9yaXVtIG9uIEFuaW1hbCBQYXRl bnRpbmcsIiB7XHVsIEhhcnZhcmQgSm91cm5hbCBvZiBMYXcgYW5kIFRlY2hu b2xvZ3l9IDEgKDE5ODgpOiAxLg1ccGFyIFxwYXJkIFxmaS03MjBcbGk3MjBc c2w0ODBcc2xtdWx0MFx3aWRjdGxwYXIgQmFrZXIs IEVpbGVlbi4gIlBhdGVudHMsIFBsYW50cywgYW5kIEJpb3RlY2hub2xvZ3kt LVBvbGljeSBhbmQgTGF3LCIge1x1bCBXZXN0ZXJuIFN0YXRlcyBMYXcgcmV2 aWV3fSAxNCAoMTk4Nyk6IDUyOS4NXHBhciBccGFyZCBcZmktNzIwXGxpNzIw XHNsNDgwXHNsbXVsdDBcd2lkY3RscGFyIEJvc3NlbG1hbm4sIEtsYXVzLiAg IlBsYW50cyBhbmQgUG9saXRpY3M6ICBUaGUgSW50ZXJuYXRpb25hbCBMZWdh bCBSZWdpbWUgQ29uY2VybmluZyBCaW90ZWNobm9sb2d5IGFuZCBCaW9kaXZl cnNpdHksIiB7XHVsIENvbG9yYWRvIEpvdXJuYWwgb2YgSW50ZXJuYXRpb25h bCBMYXcgYW5kIFBvbGljeX0gNyAoMTk5NSk6IDExMS4NXHBhciBccGFyZCBc ZmktNzIwXGxpNzIwXHNsNDgwXHNsbXVsdDBcd2lkY3RscGFyIEJyYWRsZXks IEN1cnRpcy4gICJGb2N1czogIEJpb2RpdmVyc2l0eSBhbmQgQmlvdGVjaG5v bG9neSwiIHtcdWwgQ29sb3JhZG8gSm91cm5hbCBvZiBMYXcgYW5kIFBvbGlj eX0gNyAoMTk5NSk6IDEwNy4NXHBhciBccGFyZCBcZmktNzIwXGxpNzIwXHNs NDgwXHNsbXVsdDBcd2lkY3RscGFyIEJyaXNiZWUsIERvcm90aHkuICAiUHJl cGFyaW5nIGZvciBhIEJsdWUgUmV2b2x1dGlvbjogIFJlZ3VsYXRpbmcgdGhl IEVudmlyb25tZW50YWwgUmVsZWFzZSBvZiBUcmFuc2dlbmljIEZpc2gsIiB7 XHVsIFZpcmdpbmlhIGVudmlyb25tZW50YWwgTGF3IEpvdXJuYWx9IDEyICgx OTkzKTogNjI1Lg1ccGFyIFxwYXJkIFxmaS03MjBcbGk3MjBcc2w0ODBcc2xt dWx0MFx3aWRjdGxwYXIgQnJvZGFuc2t5LCBEYW5pZWwuICJJbnRlcm5hdGlv bmFsIExhdyBhbmQgdGhlIFByb3RlY3Rpb24gb2YgQmlvbG9naWNhbCBEaXZl cnNpdHksIiB7XHVsIFZhbmRlcmJpbHQgSm91cm5hbCBvZiBUcmFuc25hdGlv bmFsIExhd30gMjggKDE5OTUpOiA2MjMuDVxwYXIgQ2Fycm9sbCwgQW15LiAg Ik5vdCBBbHdheXMgdGhlIEJlc3QgTWVkaWNpbmU6ICBCaW90ZWNobm9sb2d5 IGFuZCB0aGUgR2xvYmFsIEltcGFjdCBvZiBVUyBQYXRlbnQgTGF3LCIge1x1 bCBBbWVyaWNhbiBVbml2ZXJzaXR5IExhdyBSZXZpZXd9IDQ0ICgxOTk1KTog MjQzMy4NXHBhciBDb2dobGFuLCBBbmR5LiAgIlN3ZWVwaW5nIFBhdGVudCBT aG9ja3MgR2VuZSBUaGVyYXBpc3RzLCIge1x1bCBOZXcgU2NpZW50aXN0fSAo MSBBcHJpbCAxOTk1KTogNC4NXHBhciBccGFyZCBcZmktNzIwXGxpNzIwXHNs NDgwXHNsbXVsdDBcd2lkY3RscGFyIERvd25lcywgRGF2aWQuICAiTmV3IERp cGxvbWFjeSBmb3IgdGhlIEJpb2RpdmVyc2l0eSBUcmFkZTogIEJpb2RpdmVy c2l0eSwgYmlvdGVjaG5vbG9neSwgYW5kIEludGVsbGVjdHVhbCBQcm9wZXJ0 eSBpbiB0aGUgY29udmVudGlvbiBvbiBCaW9sb2dpY2FsIERpdmVyc2l0eSwi IHtcdWwgVG91cm8gSm91cm5hbCBvZiBUcmFuc25hdGlvbmFsIExhd30NIDQg KDE5OTMpOiAxLg1ccGFyIFxwYXJkIFxmaS03MjBcbGk3MjBcc2w0ODBcc2xt dWx0MFx3aWRjdGxwYXIgRmVpdCwgSXJ2aW5nLiAgIkJpb3RlY2hub2xvZ3kg UmVzZWFyY2ggYW5kIHRoZSBFeHBlcmltZW50YWwgVXNlIEV4Y2VwdGlvbiB0 byBQYXRlbnQgSW5mcmluZ2VtZW50LCIge1x1bCBQYXRlbnQgYW5kIFRyYWRl bWFyayBPZmZpY2UgU29jaWV0eX0gNzEgKDE5ODkpTCA4MTkuDVxwYXIgXHBh cmQgXGZpLTcyMFxsaTcyMFxzbDQ4MFxzbG11bHQwXHdpZGN0bHBhciBHb2xk bWFuLCBLYXJlbi4gICJDb21wZW5zYXRpb24gZm9yIHRoZSBVc2Ugb2YgQmlv bG9naWNhbCBSZXNvdXJjZXMgdW5kZXIgdGhlIGNvbnZlbnRpb24gb24gQmlv bG9naWNhbCBEaXZlcnNpdHk6ICBDb21wYXRpYmlsaXR5IG9mIGNvbnNlcnZh dGlvbiBNZWFzdXJlcyBhbmQgQ29tcGV0aXRpdmVuZXNzIG9mIHRoZSBCaW90 ZWNoIEluZHVzdHJ5LCIge1x1bCANTGF3IGFuZCBQb2xpY3kgaW4gSW50ZXJu YXRpb25hbCBCdXNpbmVzc30gMjUgKDE5OTQpOiA2OTUuDVxwYXIgXHBhcmQg XGZpLTcyMFxsaTcyMFxzbDQ4MFxzbG11bHQwXHdpZGN0bHBhciBHb3JlLCBB bC4gICJQbGFubmluZyBhIE5ldyBCaW90ZWNobm9sb2d5IFBvbGljeSwiIHtc dWwgSGFydmFyZCBKb3VybmFsIG9mIExhdyBhbmQgVGVjaG5vbG9neX0gKDE5 OTEpOiAxOS4NXHBhciBccGFyZCBcZmktNzIwXGxpNzIwXHNsNDgwXHNsbXVs dDBcd2lkY3RscGFyIEdyYXppYW5vLCBLYXJlbi4gICJCaW9zYWZldHkgUHJv dG9jb2w6ICBSZWNvbW1lbmRhdGlvbnMgdG8gRW5zdXJlIHRoZSBTYWZldHkg b2YgdGhlIEVudmlyb25tZW50LCIge1x1bCBDb2xvcmFkbyBKb3VybmFsIG9m IEludGVybmF0aW9uYWwgTGF3IGFuZCBQb2xpY3l9IDcgKDE5OTUpOiAxNzku DVxwYXIgXHBhcmQgXGZpLTcyMFxsaTcyMFxzbDQ4MFxzbG11bHQwXHdpZGN0 bHBhciBHcmVlbGV5LCBIZW5yeS4gICJDb25mbGljdHMgaW4gdGhlIEJpb3Rl Y2hub2xvZ3kgSW5kdXN0cnksIiB7XHVsIEpvdXJuYWwgb2YgTGF3LCBNZWRp Y2luZSwgYW5kIEV0aGljc30gMjMgKDE5OTUpOiAzNTQuDVxwYXIgSGFtaWx0 b24sIEpvYW4gYW5kIENhdGhlcmluZSBZYW5nLiAgIkFyZSB0aGUgcGF0ZW50 IFBvbGljZSBHYW5naW5nIFVwIG9uIEJpb3RlY2g/IiB7XHVsIFNjaWVuY2Ug YW5kIFRlY2hub2xvZ3l9ICgxMyBKdW5lIDE5OTQpOiAxMi4NXHBhciBccGFy ZCBcZmktNzIwXGxpNzIwXHNsNDgwXHNsbXVsdDBcd2lkY3RscGFyIEhhcmR5 LCBDaGVyeWwuICAiUGF0ZW50IFByb3RlY3Rpb24gYW5kIFJhdyBNYXRlcmlh bHM6ICB0aGUgQ29udmVudGlvbiBvbiBCaW9sb2dpY2FsIERpdmVyc2l0eSBh bmQgaXRzIEltcGxpY2F0aW9ucyBmb3IgVVMgUG9saWN5IG9uIHRoZSBEZXZl bG9wbWVudCBhbmQgY29tbWVyY2lhbGl6YXRpb24gb2YgQmlvdGVjaG5ub2xv Z3ksIiB7XHVsIA1VLiBQZW5uc3lsdmFuaWEgSm91cm5hbCBvZiBJbnRlcm5h dGlvbmFsIEJ1c2luZXNzIExhd30gKDE5OTQpOiAyOTkuDVxwYXIgXHBhcmQg XGZpLTcyMFxsaTcyMFxzbDQ4MFxzbG11bHQwXHdp ZGN0bHBhciBJdmV5LCBMYXVyYS4gICJJbnN1ZmZpY2llbnQgUHJvdGVjdGlv biBvZiBQYXRpZW50cycgUmlnaHRzIGluIHRoZSBCaW90ZWNobm9sb2dpY2Fs IE1hcmtldCwiIHtcdWwgR2VvcmdpYSBMYXcgUmV2aWV3fSAyNSAoMTk5MSkg NDg5Lg1ccGFyIFxwYXJkIFxmaS03MjBcbGk3MjBcc2w0ODBcc2xtdWx0MFx3 aWRjdGxwYXIgS2ltLCBKdWR5LiAgIk91dCBvZiB0aGUgTGFiIGFuZCBJbnRv IHRoZSBGaWVsZDogIEhhcm1vbml6YXRpb24gb2YgRGVsaWJlcmF0ZSBSZWxl YXNlIFJlZ3VsYXRpb25zIGZvciBHZW5ldGljYWxseSBNb2RpZmllZCBPcmdh bmlzbXMsIiB7XHVsIEZvcmRoYW0gSW50ZXJuYXRpb25hbCBMYXcgSm91cm5h bH0gMTYgKDE5OTIpOiAxMTYwLg1ccGFyIFxwYXJkIFxmaS03MjBcbGk3MjBc c2w0ODBcc2xtdWx0MFx3aWRjdGxwYXIgS3VobG1hbiwgR2luYS4gICJBbGxp YW5jZXMgZm9yIHRoZSBmdXR1cmU6ICBjdWx0aXZhdGluZyBhIENvb3BlcmF0 aXZlIEVudmlyb25tZW50IGZvciBCaW90ZWNoIFN1Y2Nlc3MsIiB7XHVsIEJl cmtlbGV5IFRlY2hub2xvZ3kgTGF3IEpvdXJuYWx9IDExICgxOTk2KTogMzEx Lg1ccGFyIFxwYXJkIFxmaS03MjBcbGk3MjBcc2w0ODBcc2xtdWx0MFx3aWRj dGxwYXIgTGluLCBNaWNoYWVsIE0uSi4gIkNvbmZlcnJpbmcgYSBmZWRlcmFs IFByb3BlcnR5IFJpZ2h0IGluIEdlbmV0aWMgTWF0ZXJpYWw6ICBTdGVwcGlu ZyBpbiB0aGUgRnV0dXJlIHdpdGggdGhlIEdlbmV0aWMgUHJpdmFjeSBBY3Qs IiB7XHVsIEFtZXJpY2FuIEpvdXJuYWwgb2YgTGF3IGFuZCBNZWRpY2luZX0g MjIgKDE5OTYpTCAxMDkuDVxwYXIgXHBhcmQgXGZpLTcyMFxsaTcyMFxzbDQ4 MFxzbG11bHQwXHdpZGN0bHBhciBNYWhlciwgTGluZGEuICAiVGhlIEVudmly b25tZW50IGFuZCB0aGUgRG9tZXN0aWMgUmVndWxhdG9yeSBGcmFtZXdvcmsg Zm9yIEJpb3RlY2hub2xvZ3ksIiB7XHVsIEVudmlyb25tZW50YWwgTGF3IGFu ZCBMaXRpZ2F0aW9ufSA4ICgxOTkzKUwgMTMzLg1ccGFyIFNvdXRod2ljaywg S2FyZW4uICAiRG9uJ3QgVGFrZSBUaGUgUmVwdWJsaWNhbnMgRm9yIEdyYW50 ZWQsIiB7XHVsIEJpb3ZlbnR1cmUgVmlld30gKDEgTm92ZW1iZXIgMTk5NSku DVxwYXIgU3RvcmVsbGEsIEpvaG4uICAiRmllcnMgYW5kIEJlbGw6ICBUaGUg RmVkZXJhbCBDaXJjdWl0IENvdXJ0IGFuZCB0aGUgUGF0ZW50YWJpbGl0eSBv ZiBHZW5lcywiIHtcdWwgQmlvdGVjaG5vbG9neSBMYXcgUmVwb3J0ZXJ9IDEz ICgxOTk0KTogNDU5Lg1ccGFyIFN0b25lLCBSaWNoYXJkLiAgIlN3ZWVwaW5n IFBhdGVudHMgUHV0IEJpb3RlY2ggQ29tcGFuaWVzIG9uIHRoZSBXYXJwYXRo LCIge1x1bCBTY2llbmNlfSAyNjggKDE5OTUpOiA2NTYuDVxwYXIgXHBhcmQg XGZpLTcyMFxsaTcyMFxzbDQ4MFxzbG11bHQwXHdpZGN0bHBhciBTdHJlbHpl ciwgQWRhbS4gICJVUyBCaW90ZWNobm9sb2d5IEludGVsbGVjdHVhbCBQcm9w ZXJ0eSBSaWdodHMgYXMgYW4gT2JzdGFjbGUgdG8gdGhlIFVOQ0VEIENvbnZl bnRpb24gb24gQmlvbG9naWNhbCBEaXZlcnNpdHk6ICBJdCBKdXN0IERvZXNu J3QgTWF0dGVyLCIge1x1bCBUcmFuc25hdGlvbmFsIExhd30gNiAoMTk5Myk6 IDI3MS4NXHBhciBccGFyZCBcZmktNzIwXGxpNzIwXHNsNDgwXHNsbXVsdDBc d2lkY3RscGFyIA1TemVjc3ksIEFsZWsuICAiRnJvbSB0aGUgVGVzdCBUdWJl IHRvIHRoZSBEaW5uZXIgVGFibGUgaW4gUmVjb3JkIFRpbWU6ICBMaWJlcmFs aXppbmcgRWZmZWN0cyBvbiBEb21lc3RpYyBhbmQgaW50ZXJuYXRpb25hbCBS ZWd1bGF0b3J5IEZyYW1ld29ya3MgZm9yIENvbnRyb2xsZWQgRW52aXJvbm1l bnRhbCBJbnRyb2R1Y3Rpb24gb2YgRW5naW5lZXJlZCBBZ3JpY3VsdHVyYWwg T3JnYW5pc21zLCIge1x1bCANRGlja2Vuc29uIEpvdXJuYWwgb2YgRW52aXJv bm1lbnRhbCBMYXcgYW5kIFBvbGljeX0gMiAoMTk5Myk6IDE3Ny4NXHBhciBc cGFyZCBcZmktNzIwXGxpNzIwXHNsNDgwXHNsbXVsdDBcd2lkY3RscGFyIFZh cm1hLCBBbml0YSBhbmQgRGF2aWQgQWJyYWhhbS4gICJETkEgaXMgRGlmZmVy ZW50OiAgTGVnYWwgT2J2aW91c25lc3MgYW5kIHRoZSBCYWxhbmNlIEJldHdl ZW4gQmlvdGVjaCBJbnZlbnRvcnMgYW5kIHRoZSBNYXJrZXQsIiB7XHVsIEhh cnZhcmQgSm91cm5hbCBvZiBMYXcgYW5kIFRlY2hub2xvZ3l9IDkgKDE5OTYp OiA1My4NXHBhciBccGFyZCBcZmktNzIwXGxpNzIwXHNsNDgwXHNsbXVsdDBc d2lkY3RscGFyIFdpbGtlcywgSC4gR2Fycmlzb24uICAiUGxhbnQgR2VuZXRp YyBSZXNvdXJjZXM6IFdoeSBQcml2YXRpemUgYSBQdWJsaWMgR29vZCwiIHtc dWwgQmlvc2NpZW5jZX0gMzcgKDE5ODcpOiAyMTUuDVxwYXIgXHBhcmQgXHNs NDgwXHNsbXVsdDBcd2lkY3RscGFyIFxwYWdlIA1ccGFyIH0= --Part9803061513.C-- --Part9803061512.B-- From srader Fri Mar 6 15:01:40 1998 From: srader (Doyle Srader) Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 14:01:40 -0700 Subject: Janas' paper translated, 1 of 4 Message-ID: And mine'll be up by the end of the weekend. Biotechnology as a Topic Area Submitted by Michael Janas Samford University Birmingham, AL 35229 mjjanas at samford.edu G. Thomas Goodnight argues that the public sphere has collapsed into the technical sphere. By this he means that we have ceded much political authority to scientists because we perceive ourselves as lacking relevant knowledge to speak to "technical" issues. The consequence is that we have little detailed knowledge of the scientific method. And, in fact, few people profess enough knowledge to comment forcefully on any scientific issue. This collapse of sphere is demonstrated in academic debate. As a community of debaters, both CEDA and NDT, we have not engaged headlong a scientific debate since the space topics of the early 1980s. There are several reasons we can offer for this, the tension between the surety of science and the probability of debate, a lack of interest on the part of debaters, an ideological bias toward attorneys rather than scientists. However, in these justifications we have let many of the most important political developments of our age slip by us, given that the fields of science, law, theology, and policy are daily more intertwined. Biotechnology is one of the fastest growing segments of our economy and is projected to grow into the near future. "Between 1985 and 1990, the number of biotechnology patent applications filed in the United States grew by fifteen percent annually." By the year 2000, biotechnology sales are expected to increase to more than $50 billion dollars annually. Vice President Al Gore has referred to "the pot of gold at the end of the biotechnology rainbow." Attorney Gina Kuhlman noted, [T]he exploding biotechnology industry holds the potential to create jobs and to become this nation's most important source of economic development, leading America to the forefront of this young but exploding industry. The vitality of biotechnology is critical to combating diseases, to job creation, to economic development nationally, and the maintenance of American competitiveness in the world economy. Biotechnology's potential to develop life-saving drugs and help power America's economy requires sustained development in the field of endeavor, which can best be achieved through cooperation between universities and industry. The possibility offered by biotechnology breakthroughs has fostered government officials to recognize that biotechnology is a "national critical technology," that is "essential for the United States to develop further the long-term national security and economic prosperity of the United States." However, while biotechnology has become and important part of the United States Definitions Biotechnology is a term that defies definition. In general, this expansive field includes "many facets of medical research from drug discovery and design, to gene therapy and the diagnosis of genetic diseases, to the use of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) evidence to identify individuals and genetic characteristics." Technically, the government has defined biotechnology as any technique that uses living cells, tissues, or genetic material to create, improve, or "develop micro-organisms for specific uses--including. . . techniques such as gene cloning and cell fusion." The United Nations defines biotechnology as, "any technological application that uses biological systems, living organisms, or derivatives thereof, to make or modify products or processes for living use." University of Aukland professor Klaus Bosselmann defines: Biotechnology can be defined as the creation of new varieties of plants, animals, and microorganism. In a sense, humankind has been modifying plants and animals for thousands of years, but the term 'biotechnology' has become popular with the rise of genetic engineering. Genetic engineering tends to be associated with that term, although there seems to be no reason why traditional selection methods used in plant and animal breeding should not also be regarded as biotechnology. According to Lisa Conte, President and CEO of Shaman Pharmaceuticals, Biotechnology "is fundamentally a technology that either improves on, or increases the quantity of natural products." Attorney Gina Kuhlman notes that: "Biotechnology is the application of engineering and technological principles to living organisms or their components to produce new inventions or processes. The field of biotechnology comprises the following groups: university and federal research laboratories and biotechnology/pharmacology companies." National Institute of Health instructor, Reid Adler, defines biotechnology as "various genetic engineering techniques, developed during the past 20 years, which permit the controlled transfer of specific genes or groups of genes from one cell or genes or groups of genes from one cell of organism to another, thereby creating cells or organisms that would not likely occur in nature or through conventional breeding practices." Legislative Atmosphere For all biotechnology In the United States, the government has reticent regarding biotechnology regulation. Then UN abassador Madeline Albright fought the UN biodiversity agreement because it represented a potential impingement on the freedom of US biotechnology companies to move germ plasm around the globe. Also, concerned with the capital-intensive nature of biotechnology research and the potential economic rewards of biotechnology finds, US political leaders have been unwilling to stand in the way of biotechnology companies who claim to be already burdened with high capital costs. In fact, biotechnology research is so expensive that many biotechnology companies live on the edge of bankruptcy. While the biotechnology industry is expected to react the $100 billion mark by the year 2000, from $16 billion in 1992, most biotechnology companies face an uncertain future. In 1993, fewer than one percent of biotech companies were profitable. Net losses for the industry totaled $3.6 billion in 1993, and increase of six percent over 1992. Most biotechnology companies have less than 18 months of funding in reserves and have a burn rate of 25 percent (the rate at which capital is raised relative to expenditure). The consequence of the gap between potential and actual profitability has made potentially costly control of the industry very difficult. In general, there are only a few places where stable legal regimes control the growth of the biotechnology industry; and these are largely in the form of subsidies. For example, the Bayh-Dole Trademark Act which passed into law in 1980 permits universities and other nonprofit organizations to retain the intellectual property rights to inventions resulting from research supported by federal grant. The Steven-Wyndler Technology Innovation Act, also passed in 1980, created the Office of Technology Transfer at the National Institute of Health to investigate projects for use by government of private industry. It also created the Center for the Utilization of Federal Technology to provide industry with information on federally developed technology with potential for commercial application. Additionally, the Federal Technology Transfer Act, passed in 1986, permits agreements between Federal laboratories and private firms where Federal laboratories must share the royalties from patents with the investigating scientists and allows the Federal Government to offer exclusive licenses to private research partners. Finally, the Orphan Drug Act of 1983 grants biotechnology companies a seven year monopoly on medication developed for rare diseases and provides them with tax credits up to fifty percent of the annual testing expenses on medications developed for rare diseases. Other positive regulations offered by the Federal Government include one of the world's most inclusive patent protections. Unlike many other nations, particularly third world nations, the United States offers patent protection for most products of biotechnology, including living animals and plants. The effect of this unparalleled protection for intellectual property rights has been to stimulate the growth of the United States' biotechnology industry by insuring against patent piracy and has made the United States the center of the world's biotechnology industry. Klaus Bosselmann continues: [T]he US probably leads the world in the scope of protections that it offers to biotechnological inventions in that "invented" living organisms can be patented and that plant varieties can be both patented and protected under plant variety statutes. . . there have been two general trends in IPRs concerning biological organisms in this century: the scope of patents has gradually increased to accommodate advances in biotechnology, and there has been a trend of internationalizing and standardizing patent control so that a plant breeder or inventor of a biotechnological product can claim protection not only in the inventor's own country but in other countries that are signatories of intellectual property conventions. These trends have been most noticeable in countries where biotechnology is the most advanced. With the advent of the GATT and TRIPS, both these trends are likely to continue if not accelerate. Broad US protections have proved to be a model for the world. Both Japan and Germany have modeled US patent protections in attempts to shield their own industries from competition and to keep them from moving to the United States. While there have been several mechanisms through which the Federal Government has sought to support United States biotechnology regimes from high capital start-up costs, competition, and intellectual property infringement, there are several ways that the Federal Government has tried to limit the scope of biotechnology. However, because of the risky nature of biotechnology investment, these laws have tended to be ad hoc and uncoordinated. After the cloning of the Scottish sheep, president Clinton signed an executive order banning the use of federal moneys for cloning research with the intent of creating a human being. His action was directed at public concern more than a concern for the actual dangers of human cloning technology, which most scientists believe to be a long into the future (a Senate resolution that sought to institutionalize the ban failed in Februarym 1998). However, the use of the executive order points toward the lack of a coherent federal policy regarding the control of biotechnology. Rather than overt controls, the Federal Government has sought to treat biotechnology in the same way that it has traditionally treated chemistry. For example, the FDA offered in 1992 guidelines for transgenic plant foods. The goal of the guidelines was to establish transgenic foods as similar to traditional chemical additives and to apply the same level of scrutiny to genetically enhanced foods as to chemicals. Consequently, additives such as Bovine Growth Hormone (bST) were treated in the same way as any other additive, with very little attention given to the unique qualities and dangers of genetically altered materials. The same was true of federal attempts to regulate genetically altered tomatoes that were designed to resist rotting. Similarly, biotechnology derived drugs are tested with the same rigor as traditional drugs. There is no acknowledgment of any differences between biotechnology and other technologies. Finally, there are incidental controls on the use of biotechnologies. For example, laws such as the CERCLA isolate particularly proven technologies for environmental reclamation, often these lists exclude biotechnologies. The consequence is that biotechnological inventions, because they are new, do not get the same consideration as traditional techniques despite the fact that they may be more useful. While the Federal Government has been reticent in regard to restrictions of biotechnology, states have been more active. Closer to their constituents, and typically less concerned with large biotechnology corporations, several states have taken the lead in limiting the use of biotechnology. In states where biotechnology competes with traditional agriculture, they have been willing to restrict the use of particular biotechnologies to enhance the competitiveness of their traditional economies. Examples include limitations on bST in Wisconsin and Vermont and a variety of limitation on genetically altered tobbacco seeds in many Southern states. Most regulations, however, are informal. They are enacted through the mechanisms that promote research: universities, government labs, and private responsibility. While there are few legally binding restrictions, there are several different guidelines that researchers must follow to be in compliance with the grants or organizations that fund their research. On the whole, private good will has regulated the development of the biotechnology industry. In summary, biotechnology is not a carefully regulated area. With an eye on its ultimate profitability, high risk, and high front-end capital inputs, legislators have been reticent about regulating biotechnology as anything other than a subset of chemistry. The chemistry model, in many instances, has proven an inadequate metaphor for confronting some of the unique problems associated with the spread of biotechnology. From srader Fri Mar 6 15:02:54 1998 From: srader (Doyle Srader) Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 14:02:54 -0700 Subject: Janas' paper translated, 2 of 4 Message-ID: Affirmative Case Areas The infant state of regulation leads to an open field of possible case areas involving increased regulation of biotechnology. There are two general varieties of regulation; regulations that alter the process by which biotechnology will develop, and, regulations involving particular types of biotechnology. The former involve a few general categories, the latter involve a may possible permutations. Biotechnology possesses a lot of promise. From miracle drugs for curing AIDS to solving for pollution and even growing the United States economy, biotechnology holds the key to many future improvements in the human condition. Unfortunately, it also possesses a lot of danger. One has only to walk down a rural Georgia road or a New England forest in the middle of summer to see some of the hazards of messing with nature. In Georgia one might find kudzu, a bright green blanket of a weed that covers every country road, tree, and abandoned house--virtually everything that can not move fast enough to get out of the way. In New England, the gypsy moth caterpillars eat the leaves off of all of the trees, leaving the forest in summer, much like it would be in the middle of winter--bare. When you walk through the forest, all you can hear is a gentle rain of caterpillar droppings. Each region of the country has its own horror story, from starlings to commercial salmon to zebra muscles, there has been very little control over the inadvertent introduction of alien species. The risks associated with the inadvertent introduction is highest during initial tests of a biotechnology. This is because it is difficult to completely predict how a new species will interact in a new environment. In many instances, the risk is that a new species of plant or animal might do better when introduced into a new environment once it has been removed from its natural predators. History demonstrates that this has often been the case. There are other unintended risks. The easy mixing of germ plasm has increased the risk that new species will escape into the world, or that new species will enhance current species leading to super weeds or animals, immune to most traditional threat and threatening indigenous wildlife. Because biotechnological improvements are treated in roughly the same manner as new chemicals, there are very few controls regarding the inadvertent release of new species into the wild. While many individual states have controls, and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has suggested some guidelines, these controls provide inadequate insurance for the dangers of biotechnology testing. There are only rudimentary controls regulating biotechnology. There "are no domestic laws that specifically regulate its use. Further, the laws currently in place the might deal with biotechnology generally exempt this category of organisms from their regulatory regimes." However, there are laws that require assessment of possible environmental risks. Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) are required for most potentially hazardous activities, but even these EIS requirements designed to control chemical waste do little regarding the unique hazards associated with biotechnology. In many instances, it is not clear whether an environmental impact statement needs to be filled out for biotechnology testing. There are many different potential harms to premature or inadvertent introduction of transgenic species of plants and animals. Biogenic engineering could potentially disrupt the dynamic pattern of relationships that undergird evolutionary and ecological stability. Additionally, transgenic viruses or weeds can choke out indigenous varieties or threaten humans. Some outbreaks of disease have already been linked to genetically engineered foods. For example, a breakout of Eosinophili-myalgia syndrome (EMS) in 1992 was linked to a batch of synthetic amino acid. More than 1,500 people were effected and 38 people were killed. "The United States was able to control this epidemic because of superior resources and technology, but many developing countries would not be able to quickly and effectively handle this type of situation. Developing countries are at greater risk of such diseases devastating their population and agriculture." There is also the risk that biogenic organisms, due to a lack or research, could conceivably create and "ecological bomb" that could destroy both agriculture and the environment. Several conceivable cases might deal with the way that germplasm is derived. Under the current law, there are very few protections for indigenous germplasm, although there have recently been several projects that have sought to compensate nations for their genetic resources. In Costa Rica, a pharmaceutical firm bought the genetic rights (construed in the same way as mineral rights) from a particular patch of rain forest. Similarly, the United States is currently engaged in debates about the value of its own genetic resources after a relationship between trees found on federal lands and an anti-cancer drug named taxol was established. The Federal Government became concerned with the problem of "bioprospecting"--using federal resources to generate biotechnology. While bioprospecting has been a concern of the Federal Government, many states have recently become concerned with the use of personal biological resources. Several, states have sought to clarify property rights in regard to genetic materials. Georgia, Oregon, New York, and Pennsylvania have made attempts to create a proprietary interest in one's own genetic material and protect individual rights. Currently, several court cases have failed to clarify the relationship between individuals, genetic resources, and research institutions. In particular, the case of Moore v. Regents of the University of California, " grants free reign to the biotechnology industry to use genetic raw materials." The gist of the case was that an individual's rights to their genetic materials ended once the materials were removed. Recently, Congress has proposed a Genetic Privacy Act that would extend property right to individuals who could cede them for clearly defined reasons. The law is currently in committee and not likely to pass in the near future. The development of increasingly accurate genetic coding has prompted an increased concern for the utility of these tests. Fearing a eugenic potential, many states have been increasingly concerned with the use of genetic tests to help to determine insurance risk or even promoting sex selection. The fear is that our increased knowledge about genetics may one day allow us to select for and against certain traits, promoting a type of passive genocide, commodifying life, or massively increasing the number of abortions. There is also a concern that the geneticization of information, through in vitro fertilization and other forms of genetic testing, may dramatically alter the role of gender in society. Feminists, in particular, are concerned that the reduction of all difference to genetic codes trivializes their social importance. Additionally, feminists are concerned that genetic information advantages men by giving them more options relative to women. The greatest amount of debate regarding biotechnology, however, is reserved for patent protection. Currently, the United States is one of only a few nations that recognize patents on living organisms. This unparalleled protection has helped to make the United States the undisputed leader in biotechnology development. This status has had a couple of negative implications. First, many fear that patenting animals trivializes their lives. While the prime purpose of biotechnology has been animal husbandry, recent legal developments have changed the legal status of animals. The essence of biotechnology reduces animals to commodities. The Humane Society has been particularly vocal in their rejection of animal patenting. They fear that application of the patent system to animal technology will increase genetic research on animals, resulting in the violation of their rights and cause animal suffering. They also maintain that the process of patenting living organisms will pose unacceptable risks to the environment, deplete genetic diversity, alter the structure of American agriculture, and encourage human beings to "play God." There are other problems with the patent system. As with conventional resources, many nations do not feel they have complete control over their genetic resources. In many instances, non-industrial nations have lost rights to their own genetic diversity to large corporations that have the savvy and capital to patent the material. This is particularly true in regard to seeds where natural or indigenous hybrids have been patented and commodified. The original producers of the seeds, after patenting, only have access to the seeds by buying them from the companies that jealously protect their patents. Additionally, the patent system's constriction of the free flow of germ plasm promotes monocropping which undercuts our tenuous biodiversity, and protects the monopolies of a few large seed companies. These problems are likely to be exacerbated in the context of new free trade regimes which will encourage non-industrial nations to move toward large-scale agribusiness-type farming in order to become competitive with the no-longer subsidized industrial nations. While most issues have cooled in the North/South debates of the 1970s, genetic patenting continues to be a sore issue and a flashpoint for bad feelings on both sides. In addition to the effects of genetic patenting on non-industrial nations, there are equally important implications for United States agriculture. Just as non-industrial nations will attempt to benefit from free trade regimes by moving toward non-subsidized agribusiness, the United States will do the same. Not only will this spell the end for the family farm, but will also encourage monoculture and factory farms which are harder on the environment and livestock. There are several possible solutions to these problem. One would be to ban the patenting of living organisms. Such a program might be modeled as part of the GATT agreement and would emphasize the biodiversity found in current small-scale agriculture. A second solution might involve a patent clearinghouse where royalties would be paid to the indigenous producers of germ plasm. The concern of non-industrial countries has been that they get very little benefits from their indigenous genetic resource. Working in a fashion similar to ASCAP, nations could be paid for the use of their genetic material. There are easy counter-measures to such programs, such as synthetic hormones that alter the chemical structure of nature germ-plasm slightly. However, there are some that advocate this as a way to solve problems associated with the technology gap. A final general area of control involves liability and biotechnology. It has become apparent that it is very difficult to predict what will happen with a particular biotechnology once it is released. However, despite the unknown risks, very little has been done to protect the public from the unique dangers associated with biotechnology. Instead, biotechnology has been treated like other technologies, particularly chemistry. The consequence is that corporations incur very little legal liability for biotechnology that has been approved by the government. What liability exists is mitigated by the natural mutation of germ plasm over time so that it is difficult to pin-point what germplasm caused what problem. Such low levels of liability and lack of clarity encourage corporations to invest heavily in technologies that they do not completely understand and makes it difficult to assess damage over time. The second area of cases has to do with the regulation of particular biotechnologies. Each biotechnology and research method has its own manner, nature, and dangers. From bovine growth hormone to genetically altered disease resistant tomatoes, each technology has its own implications, benefits and hazards. In general, these problems deal more with public fear than with scientifically proven dangers, but public support is important. Other projects that deserve some investigation are the Human Genome Project which, with international help, has sought to map out human genes. Many ethicists warn that such knowledge is dangerous in that it may alter the way that we think about humans by promoting a utilitarian orientation toward human conditions. These concerns have been particularly felt in regard to searches for particular genes. For example, the search for a "gay gene" has provoked an intense controversy because it has been used to justify solutions for a constituted homosexual problem. Many homosexuals have undergone "treatments" to change their sexual orientation and cure their disease. Even the motivation to find a origin to homosexuality reveals a homophobia that may ultimately be revealed in prenatal tests for homosexuality. There are other controversies. Some parents wish that their children share their disability. So, deaf parents wish to have children that are deaf--and could soon be able to choose such an option. Similarly, there are other enhancements available to parents; intelligence, hair color, eye color, athletic predisposition are all available from sperm banks. Although the state of the art is not able to guarantee outcomes, predictions are that it soon will. Additionally, technologies that have been used to dramatically improve the quality of American agriculture, have not been positively received by our trading partners. Aside from the fear that the transgenic foods might be dangerous, there are significant ethical questions regarding genetically altered foods. European partners have already noted that genetically altered foods violate World Trade Organization phytosanitary and environmental regulations. However, the resistance to transgenic crops is not simply a cultural problem. "Surveys reveal that many adults associate ethical issues with genetic engineering applied to food, and that adults who identify themselves as religious are significantly more likely to express the view that genetically engineered food raises ethical issues." There are several reasons that the government should become increasingly active in the regulation of such biotechnology. In the United States there are no laws that guarantee the labelling of transgenic foods. Not only does this lack of information increase public apprehension about the foods that they ingest, but it also denies them information necessary to making an informed choice about their own liabilities. In the medical field, price controls are a large concern. Often, drugs derived from biotechnology tend to cost much more than traditional drugs. There are two explanations for this. Pharmaceutical companies argue that the high costs reflect lost developmental capital. Not only do the drugs that work cost a lot, but for every drug that is manufactured, 100 that do not work have to be developed. The high costs of drugs, such as AZT, simply reflect the cost of production. Health care advocates, on the other hand, argue that the pharmaceutical monopolies allow them to charge whatever they want, which is especially unjust. In regard to drugs, overcharging is regressive since it targets individuals least able to pay, the elderly, poor, and sick. This regressive policy results either in some populations being denied the benefits of new drugs, or, in government assistance being taxed to the limit. Much of the health care industry's hyper-inflation may be explained by massive increases in the costs of drug treatments. There are a variety of cost control schemes that would help to ameliorate this problem. In addition to a concern for individual drugs, foods, and other genetic enhancements, there are generic reasons to regulate biotechnology. We have become used to debating anthropocentrism on the negative as a critique. However, in regard to biotechnology, anthropocentrism seems to be the rule of the day. Therefore, it would be a potential advantage area to increased regulation. Likewise, critiques of science and modernism would both be advantage areas available to the affirmative. Other generic advantage areas might include slippery slope arguments or critiques of eugenics, trade, and critiques of the commodification of life. All of these are firmly grounded in the biotechnology literature. There is also a relationship between biotechnology research and the production and quality of bioweapons. From srader Fri Mar 6 15:04:21 1998 From: srader (Doyle Srader) Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 14:04:21 -0700 Subject: Janas' paper translated, 3 of 4 Message-ID: Negative Ground: Disadvantage Areas Forcing the affirmative to increase restrictions on biotechnology results in a large negative ground. For links, it is best to look toward inherency. Most of the reason that biotechnology is not regulated has to do with the relationship between US leadership in the technology, its potential profit, and the riskiness of its high capital costs. Consequently, many biotechnology companies argue that capital investments are fungible between projects. For example, reducing the profitability of a drug in one area will retard progress in some other valuable area because biotechnology companies juggle the costs of new research with the profits from old research. Since, especially in regard to drugs, there is only a short monopoly for newly developed projects, biotechnology companies must make the most with what they have. In addition to the benefits of the products to be regulated, we are currently on the brink of a variety of biotechnology breakthroughs; a cure for AIDS, solutions to pollution problems, food technologies that will allow us to keep up with the rate of population growth. Further regulation may jeopardize any one of these areas by denying them the profits necessary to develop the product. There are other ways that regulations may restrict the profitability of biotechnology industries. For example, the reason that the United States is a leader in biotechnology is because the government is perceived as very friendly. Unlike traditional industries that require space, energy, labor, transportation, and other essentials, biotechnology is most interested in producing intellectual property. In this sense, it is mostly service oriented. Unlike traditional industry, it would not take a lot for a company to move between states or even to other countries. Consequently, the risk that future regulations may result in a capital or business flight are quite high. Other costs incurred might come as a consequence of tort liability. Government regulation is one way to make a case that a rather common product might be dangerous. The result of regulations on some types of commonly available technologies, especially drugs and food, might be a flurry of tort litigation which might weaken the United States biotechnology industry and encourage even more industrial flight. Finally, there are many trade implications for biotechnology. Already, GATT and the WTO are trying to sort out the place of biotechnology in the global trading system. Major changes in the US biotechnology industry may be modeled by other countries, upset them, or upset domestic companies. Because regulations are considered non-tariff barriers, they are important parts of the United States trading regime. For example, increasing standards for domestic biotechnology might have the effect of excluding foreign competition. Or, it might have the effect of making US biotechnology less competitive with Japan and Germany. A decrease in US competition might encourage the United States to file a suit with the WTO or to escalate a trade war with either of these nations. In addition to these intrinsic disadvantages, biotechnology is a high profile industry. University of Wisconsin sociologist Frederick Buttel notes that medical biotechnology accounts for 90 percent of the products from genetic engineering, food biotechnology accounts for 90 percent of the controversy. Consequently, most political disadvantages would be relevant. Negative Ground--Counterplans There are several different mechanisms for controlling biotechnology that do not involve the United States increasing its own regulations. For example, the United States could choose to remove its objections to the Biodiversity Convention and to follow its mandates. It could choose to harmonize its regulations with our trading partners and with the European Union which has been actively involved in creating biotechnology guidelines. And, there are a variety of free market approaches to controlling biotechnology; from informal professional agreements or further tax credits to licensing agreements which restrict how information may be used. There are also other reporting guidelines, such as Environmental Impact Statements, that would use public pressure to force companies into compliance. Additionally, many states already have regulations regarding the use of biotechnology in their own borders. Federal regulations would preempt this right (with federalist implications) and keep them from acting as laboratories of innovation. Finally, most federal regulation has come as a result of several court cases. A viable counterplan might be to have the courts adapt their rulings in regard to biotechnology. This is especially the case with the patenting of living organisms. Negative Ground--Critiques Most of the critique ground that we have become used to has been moved to the Affirmative (since they will be limiting technology). However, there are several critiques still available. For example, property rights critiques such as objectivism or statism might apply to particular cases. Most of the critique ground, however, would revolve around the affirmative Additionally, negative might argue that ad hoc change in regulation might result in a masking of the real risks of biotechnology. This might create a situation where the government certifies that a product is safe when it may not be so or may require more inspection by consumers. More importantly, it might allow people to avoid dealing with their core assumptions about humanity Potential Resolutions Biotechnology, on its own, is a category so behemoth that it is virtually meaningless. It currently includes virtually any biological enhancement. The goal in writing a resolution should be to limit biotechnology in such a way that the main areas of controversy are covered while excluding less germane areas. For example, abortion, cosmetic surgery, and vaccines could all be considered a type of biotechnology since they involve biological enhancement. However, while these areas are controversial, this interpretation of biotechnology is probably too broad for a viable topic. Genetic engineering seems to be central to contemporary debates about advancements in biotechnology. While timeless debates on the relationship between knowledge and biology might be interesting, they would not be particularly timely. Instead, we should limit biotechnology to those areas that are controversial. My review notes that the following areas are of significant controversy: cloning, genetic testing, transgenic research, development and marketing. These seem to cover the main areas having to do with genetic research (which might be a good term). Therefore, I offer the following resolutions for consideration: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should increase restrictions on genetic research, development and/or marketing. Resolved: The United States Federal Government should substantially increase its regulation of biotechnology. Resolved: The United States government should substantially increase its regulation of biotechnology in one or more of the following areas: cloning, intellectual property rights, genetic engineering. Resolved: The United States government should substantially increase its regulation of the biotechnology industry in one or more of the following areas: food, pharmaceuticals, medicine, agriculture, military (pick a couple). Resolved: The United States government should substantially increase its regulation of the food, agricultural, and/or medical biotechnology industries. Resolved: The costs of biotechnology outweigh its benefits. Resolved: The United States Federal Government should substantially increase regulation of genetic engineering. Resolved: The United States government should substantially increase restrictions on biotechnology in one or more of the following areas: cloning, genetic testing, genetic engineering. Some concerns: Restriction of regulation? History proves that regulation has the potential to be bi-directional (increasing or decreasing the amount of biotechnology). List or no list? The resolutions of the recent past were simple and to the point. Now they are circuitous and difficult. Even in the middle of the season, it is oftentimes difficult to remember exactly what was on the list. However, a lack of limitation, such as using the word "biotechnology" alone, may open the way for a variety of small cases that are not part of the currently contested literature. . . . in the United States? The resolution calls for US action, but is there a need to limit it to the United States? Conceivably the US government may want to ban biotechnology from other places. Is this a potential problem? I do not see one now--and, banning biotechnology from other places would probably just be a bad idea. How small is too small? Would it be worthwhile to debate single instances of biotechnology that might be bad? For example, should an affirmative restrict a single hybrid or a single research project that is unproductive? In the past we have used phrases such as "one or more" or "substantial" to provides some sort of check on the size of cases. Note that cloning is not transgenic. It uses the DNA or an animal to reproduce itself. In this sense, it is more of a transfer than transgenic--and should not be collapsed with it. Pragmatic Reasons to Choose Biotechnology In addition to its contemporary relevance, there are many reasons to choose the biotechnology topic. The biotechnology topic can be easily researched. The internet has several different sources for information. Topics such as cloning, animal rights, AIDS and even agriculture have several think tanks dedicated to them. Additionally, each state has an agricultural college which will have large collections dedicated to biotechnology. Even at small liberal arts colleges, however, there are many resources available for research. Mainstream science journals such as Discover, Science and The Humanist offer lots of coverage of biotechnology. Also, several popular newsmagazines have offered cover stories on biotechnological issues. similarly the Hasting's Center Report, Bioethics and several other Journals deal specifically with genetic research issues. In legal areas, most of the intellectual property rights discussions occur in mainstream journals. Also, rather than representing a single literature, biotechnology is represented in many different literatures. From biology and chemistry to ethics, religion, law and the social sciences, there are a variety of tensions that permeate the meeting of culture and science. For this reason, it is worthy of our notice. We have not debated a scientific or a legal topic in a few year and a biotechnology topic help to promote new research since it will be difficult to recycle backfiles and continue to compete. Also, unlike a foreign policy topic, most of the knowledgeable literature exists on paper rather than in Lexis/Nexis banks. The type of expertise necessary to comment on these issues will help to combat our current emphasis on contemporary newspaper databases and perhaps promote a more scholarly type of research. Finally, biotechnology is interesting because it represents a point where many warrants cross, and will consequently test the skills of our debaters. Seemingly incommensurable fields such as religion, law, and science cross at biotechnology. It is in our interest to give our students the ability to argue through these many different types of impacts. From srader Fri Mar 6 15:08:08 1998 From: srader (Doyle Srader) Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 14:08:08 -0700 Subject: Janas' paper translated, 4 of 4, bibliography Message-ID: Bibliography Recent Books and Hearings Biotechnology and Antibiotics (New York: Dekker, 1997). Biotechnology and Patenting Issues (Beltsville, MD: USDA, 1996). Biotech and Integrated Pest Management (Oxon, UK: CAB International, 1996). Biotechnology Revolution? (Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers, 1995). Biotechnology: Science, Engineering and Ethical Challenges for the 21st Century (Washington: Joseph Henry Press, 1996). Burchfield, Kenneth. Biotechnology and the Federal Circuit (Washington: BNA Books, 1995). Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity. Genetic Ethics: Do the Ends Justify the Genes? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997). Dobert, Raymond. Biotechnology Risk Assessment/Biosafety (Beltsville, MD: USDA, 1996). GAO. Biotechnology R&D, Reform and Market Change (Washington: GPO, 1995). Genetics and Society (New York: Wilson, 1995). Grace, Eric. Biotechnology Unzipped: Promises and Realities (Washington: Joseph Henry Press, 1997). Jarvis, Lovell. The Potential Effect of New Biotechnologies on the Dairy Industry (Boulder: Westview Press, 1996). Kloppenberg, Jack. Seeds and Sovereignty: The Use and control of Plant Genetic Resources (1988). Krimsky, Sheldon. Agricultural Biotechnology and the Environment (Urbana: UIL Press, 1996). Leonard, Scott. Biotechnology and Bioethics (Beltsville, MD: USDA, 1996). Leonard, Scott. Biotechnology and Legislative Regulation (Beltsville, MD: USDA, 1996). Leonard, Scott. Biotechnology and Public Perception (Beltsville, MD: USDA, 1996). Mather, Robin. A Garden of Unearthly Delights: Bioengineering the Future of Food (New York: Penguin, 1995). Maulik, Sumil. Molecular Biotechnology (New York: Wiley-Liss, 1997). McKelvey, Maureen. Evolutionary Innovations (New York: Oxford UP, 1996). Meilander, Gilbert. Bioethics: A Primer for Christians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996). National Agricultural Biotechnology Council. Agricultural Biotechnology (Ithaca: National Agricultural Biotechnology Council, 1996). National Science and Technology Council. Biotechnology for the 21st Century (Washington: GPO, 1995). OECD. Biological Control (New York: Cambridge UP, 1995). OTA. Meeting the Challenge: US Industry Faces the Twenty-First Century: The US Biotechnology Industry (Washington: GPO, 1997). Ouellette, Pierre. The Deus Machine (New York: Pocket Books, 1996). Purdy, Laura. Reproducing Persons: Issues in Feminist Bioethics (Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1996). Shiva, Vandana. Biopiracy: the Plunder of Nature and Knowledge (Boston: South End Press, 1997). Technology Transfer of Plant Biotechnology (Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 1997). Tong, Rosemarie. Feminist Approaches to Bioethics (Boulder: Westview, 1997). Union of Concerned Scientists. The Need for Greater Regulation and Control of Genetic Engineering: A Statement by Scientists concerned about Current Trends in the New Biotechnology (1994). US Congress, House Committee on Science, Subcommittee on Technology, Biotechnology and the Ethics of Cloning, 5 March 1997. US Congress. House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. Subcommittee on Technology and competitiveness. Commercialization of Biotechnology 6 December 1991. US Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary. Subcommittee on Intellectual Property and Judicial Administration. Biotechnology Patent Protection Act of 1991: Hearings on HR 1417 (Washington: GPO, 1991). Journals Adair, John. "The Bioprospecting Question: Should the United States Charge Biotechnology Companies for the Commercial Use of Public Wild Genetic Resources?" Ecology Law Quarterly 24 (1997): 131. Adler, Reid. "Controlling the Applications of Biotechnology: A Critical Analysis of the Proposed Moratorium on Animal Patenting," Harvard Journal of Law and Technology 1 (1988): 1. Baker, Eileen. "Patents, Plants, and Biotechnology--Policy and Law," Western States Law review 14 (1987): 529. Bosselmann, Klaus. "Plants and Politics: The International Legal Regime Concerning Biotechnology and Biodiversity," Colorado Journal of International Law and Policy 7 (1995): 111. Bradley, Curtis. "Focus: Biodiversity and Biotechnology," Colorado Journal of Law and Policy 7 (1995): 107. Brisbee, Dorothy. "Preparing for a Blue Revolution: Regulating the Environmental Release of Transgenic Fish," Virginia environmental Law Journal 12 (1993): 625. Brodansky, Daniel. "International Law and the Protection of Biological Diversity," Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 28 (1995): 623. Carroll, Amy. "Not Always the Best Medicine: Biotechnology and the Global Impact of US Patent Law," American University Law Review 44 (1995): 2433. Coghlan, Andy. "Sweeping Patent Shocks Gene Therapists," New Scientist (1 April 1995): 4. Downes, David. "New Diplomacy for the Biodiversity Trade: Biodiversity, biotechnology, and Intellectual Property in the convention on Biological Diversity," Touro Journal of Transnational Law 4 (1993): 1. Feit, Irving. "Biotechnology Research and the Experimental Use Exception to Patent Infringement," Patent and Trademark Office Society 71 (1989)L 819. Goldman, Karen. "Compensation for the Use of Biological Resources under the convention on Biological Diversity: Compatibility of conservation Measures and Competitiveness of the Biotech Industry," Law and Policy in International Business 25 (1994): 695. Gore, Al. "Planning a New Biotechnology Policy," Harvard Journal of Law and Technology (1991): 19. Graziano, Karen. "Biosafety Protocol: Recommendations to Ensure the Safety of the Environment," Colorado Journal of International Law and Policy 7 (1995): 179. Greeley, Henry. "Conflicts in the Biotechnology Industry," Journal of Law, Medicine, and Ethics 23 (1995): 354. Hamilton, Joan and Catherine Yang. "Are the patent Police Ganging Up on Biotech?" Science and Technology (13 June 1994): 12. Hardy, Cheryl. "Patent Protection and Raw Materials: the Convention on Biological Diversity and its Implications for US Policy on the Development and commercialization of Biotechnnology," U. Pennsylvania Journal of International Business Law (1994): 299. Ivey, Laura. "Insufficient Protection of Patients' Rights in the Biotechnological Market," Georgia Law Review 25 (1991) 489. Kim, Judy. "Out of the Lab and Into the Field: Harmonization of Deliberate Release Regulations for Genetically Modified Organisms," Fordham International Law Journal 16 (1992): 1160. Kuhlman, Gina. "Alliances for the future: cultivating a Cooperative Environment for Biotech Success," Berkeley Technology Law Journal 11 (1996): 311. Lin, Michael M.J. "Conferring a federal Property Right in Genetic Material: Stepping in the Future with the Genetic Privacy Act," American Journal of Law and Medicine 22 (1996)L 109. Maher, Linda. "The Environment and the Domestic Regulatory Framework for Biotechnology," Environmental Law and Litigation 8 (1993)L 133. Southwick, Karen. "Don't Take The Republicans For Granted," Bioventure View (1 November 1995). Storella, John. "Fiers and Bell: The Federal Circuit Court and the Patentability of Genes," Biotechnology Law Reporter 13 (1994): 459. Stone, Richard. "Sweeping Patents Put Biotech Companies on the Warpath," Science 268 (1995): 656. Strelzer, Adam. "US Biotechnology Intellectual Property Rights as an Obstacle to the UNCED Convention on Biological Diversity: It Just Doesn't Matter," Transnational Law 6 (1993): 271. Szecsy, Alek. "From the Test Tube to the Dinner Table in Record Time: Liberalizing Effects on Domestic and international Regulatory Frameworks for Controlled Environmental Introduction of Engineered Agricultural Organisms," Dickenson Journal of Environmental Law and Policy 2 (1993): 177. Varma, Anita and David Abraham. "DNA is Different: Legal Obviousness and the Balance Between Biotech Inventors and the Market," Harvard Journal of Law and Technology 9 (1996): 53. Wilkes, H. Garrison. "Plant Genetic Resources: Why Privatize a Public Good," Bioscience 37 (1987): 215. From srader Fri Mar 6 15:58:55 1998 From: srader (Doyle Srader) Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 14:58:55 -0700 Subject: Srader's topic paper Message-ID: This is my topic paper. Yes, I know, the NCA program said Gordon Stables and I were going to present a topic paper on regulating college athletics. Didn't turn out that way. Long story. At any rate ... The proposal: Federal income tax reform I propose that the community adopt as its problem area the reform of federal income tax. This paper is not a final product: it's an opening salvo in an ongoing project. Before I propose topics and survey possible arguments, I have five overarching arguments in favor of adoption of this topic to lay out. First of all, the policy of rotating topic areas to maximize diversity is not only educationally sound, but almost imperative. Several years ago, the NDT topic committee adopted a rule under which NDT would debate a foreign policy topic, a domestic topic, a legal topic, and then a "wild card" topic which could be any of the three. While this policy produced more questions than answers, it was a well-intended effort, and it highlights one of the decision points for potential topics: is it sufficiently different from recent topics to expand the educational opportunities of people currently competing, or is it the same-old same-old? Tax reform, depending on the topic wording, could be counted either as a domestic topic or a legal one. We've had our foreign policy topic. Time to move to another sphere of debating. Second, tax reform falls under a particular sub-category of topic that has been neglected for a few years, at least on the NDT side (3): an economics topic. The last topic I can remember under which economic issues were of vital importance in nearly every debate was the 1990-91 trade topic. That's seven years in the past. Economic issues have cropped up in little, isolated pockets on other NDT topics, including the South Asia development assistance topic and the regulation of environmental pollutants topic, but it's been a terribly long time since we had a topic under which economic issues were the primary subject matter. Many debaters actually enjoy debating economics, and many of those who view the topic with horror would undoubtedly benefit from an opportunity to learn more about it. Third, and perhaps most importantly, debating about how income taxes are collected and how disputes are settled would provide debaters with equipment for living. Now, before I proceed with this, I want to emphasize that I do not think all, or even most, debate topics need to be directly relevant to debaters' everyday lives. I'm a big fan of a liberal arts education, and a big believer in the notion that debaters in particular and students in general should learn about a wide variety of topics simply because erudition is a good thing, because the world is too full of wonderful things for us to know only about those that pass within shouting distance. Nevertheless, I doubt that most debaters are in danger of learning about too few pure enrichment topics in favor of too many instrumentally useful topics: we seem to have a tendency to pick our topics in the wild world of exotica. There are good reasons to care about the state of development assistance in South Asia, but it really has never become relevant to my everyday doings since April 1993, except as a storehouse of war stories and old arguments that are dusted off now and again. But EVERY SINGLE ONE of your debaters will have to file income tax returns. The probability approaches certainty that at least a few, and more likely several, will receive inquiries from the Internal Revenue Service about at least one return. I feel very good about the possibility that through our activity, we might load up our competitors with the kind of knowledge that's a powerful defense against mistakes, and a powerful aid to avoiding mistakes of their own. And hearing from the IRS is no laughing matter. I'll have a lot more to say about this in the potential affirmatives part of the paper, but the IRS doesn't balk for a moment at the notion of disallowing one of your deductions from ten years ago, and then demanding payment on that income at interest compounded from the day you filed. The damage can run into big money. It's a big enough danger and a real enough danger that the opportunity to help prepare your students to weather it isn't one you should pass up lightly. Now, there is the plausible objection that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and that if debaters dig into the tax code with the card-mining mindset, what they'll come out of it with is the kind of incomplete knowledge that's just enough to get one into trouble. Put another way, despite our occasional forays into legal topics, I've yet to hear of a debater who became such an expert that a law firm looked to hire her straight out of college. My response is that one needn't have a professional's expertise in the field to find some knowledge useful. A few years ago we debated criminal procedure in pretrial detention, and despite the fact that I doubt I could run through the correct procedure to arrest Ed Panetta for squirreling away his wife's millions, I still learned enough to make me a more informed, and more cautious, citizen, more aware of the hazards of which one might run afoul in an encounter with federal officials. Fourth, this is an issue about which informed public dialogue could do a lot of good. I have three subpoints to this argument. First of all, I think that the debate topics we choose do serve to seed discussion in a larger public. We send hundreds, perhaps thousands of students out into the world, armed with the skills of advocacy and persuasion that the activity teaches, and also armed with extensive, deep, grounded, application-heavy knowledge of a number of specialized fields, and as Gordon Mitchell has remarked on countless occasions, it's just a shame that we rev up such an amazing neurological firestorm and then let it quietly dissipate at the end of the year. Debate has the potential to be a turbo-charge to public discussion of the topics it chooses. The first step is to pick topics upon which public discussion can have a substantial impact. That's my segue into my next point. We don't always do so. Again, I like the Southeast Asia topic, and I anticipate that Pineda and Sowards will arrive armed with opportunities for students to be active in promoting a number of social goods through application of their research and their communication skills. Nevertheless, different issues draw different degrees of decisionmaker interest in public opinion. My simple comparison: U.S. foreign policy towards Southeast Asia, versus federal tax law - on which issue might one predict that policymakers would factor public opinion more heavily into their decisionmaking? Seems fairly obvious. Most foreign policy is laid out following discussions between diplomats and think-tank drones, whereas most tax policy is made by legislators whose ears are still ringing from the latest angry phone call from a constituent. Now, there is the plausible counterargument that the antidote to policymakers' reliance on expertise in certain issue areas is for a larger segment of the public to become informed. Yet it seems to me that we have to recognize our limitations, that we have to realize that all we're doing is empowering a cadre of communicators who might aid the process of bringing about change through public mobilization. Try though we might to recruit, we probably can never swell our ranks to numbers that qualify debaters as a genuine bloc of public opinion (4). The third and final part of my argument is that the problems with how we enforce federal tax law are problems that would benefit from a ratcheting upward of public scrutiny, especially the peculiar sustained ratcheting that we might bring to bear. Again and again in the works I've read, I've seen the comment that too many people only notice problems with federal taxes through sound bites. The issue follows a sine wave: every few years, Congress complains that the IRS isn't collecting enough taxes. They thus augment the agency's powers and give them a renewed mission to go after evaders. Within a few years, the IRS's typical federal bureaucratic bumbling brings a stream of wronged citizens stampeding into committee rooms, eager to tell their horror stories and demand the heads of IRS agents on a platter. In response, Congress guts the IRS's enforcement authority. A few years later still, Congress notices that tax revenues are down and reports of tax evasion are up, and the cycle begins again. It seems that one of the possible positive steps we could take toward braking this cycle would be to heap together our aggregate knowledge of the problem in hopes of fomenting INFORMED clusters of opinion, rather than the constructions of spin and public relations that characterize the usual efforts at tax reform. Remember, folks, tax reform last happened in 1989. It also happened in 1951. It also happened in the twenties. We don't seem to be getting it right by leaving it to ordinary decisionmaking. While griping about taxes is perennial, scandals about tax collection, and a cycle from nonenforcement to hyperenforcement, are not. We can do better. My fifth and final preliminary argument in favor of a tax topic is the merest one, but still merits mention. We have little micro-debates about taxes an awful lot. We talk about tax incentives, about carbon taxes, capital gains taxes, etc. It's one of those building blocks of plans and disads that's so constant that it's almost invisible. I think it would do us good to take one year and take a closer look. I think for at least a few years, and for years after that in the knowledge of coaches, our debates on that particular facet of debate practice would be deeper, better informed, more sophisticated. That's the overview. Now, for the case areas. Potential affirmative cases: This is just a laundry list. Absent a topic wording, it's hard to say what direction people will go. I actually think this might not be a bad subject area for a bidirectional topic: it seems as though if we follow past patterns, people would start out the year running affirmatives that cut into the IRS' enforcement powers, and would claim IRS horror stories and various corruption arguments as the case harm. Plans would be small, links would be available, but not plentiful, and 1ACs would be vivid enough to make your ears bleed. A few teams would start out the year actually increasing the IRS' power, would notice that they were link-turning most people's disads, and that the advantages they claimed were actually bigger. Soon, most teams would have a raft of arguments both for increasing and decreasing IRS power, and the evolution of new affirmatives would shift to finesse cases, cases that streamlined things without it being at all clear in the 1AC (5) whether the plan made the IRS stronger or weaker. That seems like an acceptable topic evolution to me. On the other hand, we could attempt to write the topic to require a weakening or a strengthening of IRS authority. If that option is selected, the best way to go is to require affirmatives to strengthen the IRS. As William Southworth and others have noted, one of the best ways to offset the typical affirmative win skew is to write the topics such that affirmatives are pressured towards defending conservative action. Judges as a rule are a fairly liberal bunch, and persuading them to slap another coat of armor plating on top of the Iron Fist can be an uphill battle. (6) Finally, there's a vein of debate to be had in overhauling the IRS. Their computer problems are scary. They're understaffed, mismanaged, organizationally discombobulated, and just generally in a bad way. One of the recurring themes in writings about the IRS is the impenetrable institutional culture, about which I'll say a lot more in the negative arguments section, but this is an agency badly in need of a shakedown. That internal overview aside, here is a brief, non-exhaustive list of affirmative case areas: Audits. The auditing system is badly messed up. Audits are undertaken for political reasons, for petty reasons, and through some pretty nasty methods. Strong evidence suggests that Clinton ordered that the IRS audit the Heritage Foundation just for being the Heritage Foundation. The hearings on IRS corruption conducted at various intervals throughout this year turned up a mountain of stories of people being audited because they'd been rude to an IRS agent, or to a friend of an IRS agent, etc., etc. The backdated disallowance of deductions is only one of the nasty tactics the IRS deploys during these expeditions: another particularly nasty one is what's called the "Economic Reality" audit, or more ominously, the Lifestyle Audit. IRS agents ask you anything, absolutely anything, they want, and compare your answers to your claimed income. Questions can be as innocuous as "What do you like to do on your vacation? What kind of hobbies do you have?" Or they can get a lot worse. If you refuse to answer a question, you aren't cooperating. Not cooperating with the IRS can make the water a lot hotter very rapidly. One of the chief roots of this problem is the quota system. Congress keeps strongarming the IRS to "abolish" collection quotas, but they never quite go away. They were abolished in 1989. They were abolished several times prior to that abolition. But IRS employees are whistleblowing left and right that the quotas are still how their performance is evaluated. Managers are urged to get closure on cases, meaning that they don't negotiate, they demand immediate payment, they impose liens or even seize property as their first, not last, step. Very out of control. The challenge is to find a way around this. Any leashing of the IRS would encounter the problems of its institutional culture, which does a bang-up job of generating PR images and band-aid reforms while continuing to do what the directors feel is necessary to collect taxes. A dozen authors have a dozen proposals, ranging from scrapping the entire agency, firing everyong, tearing down the buildings and salting the soil, to milder moves like setting up citizen grievance and oversight boards. Plenty of advocates, plenty of plans. Exemptions. Churches are exempt. Should they be? Some churches run some hefty for-profit programs. A lot of tax-exempt charities show some troubling signs of large-scale fraud. Some tax-exempt organizations have turned up as ways of laundering money. More specifically, tax deductions may be the government's single biggest social engineering tool. There are deductions for a zillion and a half laudable purposes, from feeding your kids to donating to charity to installing environment-friendly gizmos. Lots of folks advocate reform schemes for more strictly limiting and overseeing the granting of exempt status to churches and charities, and everyone from militia members to presidential candidates have proposals for simplifying the whole deduction system, including the ever populist flat tax, whose return you could submit on a postcard. IRS infrastructure: The Internal Revenue Service was the first federal agency to use computers. Brace yourself: they still have them. No, not in a museum. In the offices, being used every day, or at least whenever the scotch tape is holding. That's problem number one. Problem number two is that the databases are decentralized. They're all over the place. Problem number three is that the IRS hasn't done jack to prepare for the Y2K (year 2000) bug in their operating systems. (7) Problems four, five, six, onward to problem one zillion await discovery by enterprising debaters. My preliminary survey of the literature included tons of comments that the IRS' working systems had every possible problem in the book, that they resembled Rube Goldberg machines held together by Divine Mercy. Lots of the taxpayer abuse problems are also a result of infrastructural weaknesses. They flat don't have enough people. The ones they do have aren't trained. The trained ones have low morale and a high attrition rate. The job is terrible. Their managers pass on the pressure from Congress. The public hates them. The generally poor working conditions and terrible preparation of the IRS workforce just magnifies a hundredfold the bureaucratic problems in the organization. Law enforcement. Anyone remember how they caught Capone? One of the best ways of trapping crimelords, druglords in particular, is to nail them for income tax evasion. The enforcement system for income tax gives law enforcement the opportunity to keep everyone under some pretty close scrutiny, and to spot some telltales of criminal acts. There are always ways of tweaking the system so that more folks get caught. Those four are the most often discussed. There are also debates about the corporate tax burden, about the ethical implications of taxation (progressive vs. regressive, etc.), different kinds of taxation (consumption, value added, national sales, flat), and the list continues. If there's interest in this topic area, a relatively mild effort at searching should turn up even more affirmative case areas linked to federal taxation. Negative arguments CLINTON. Yes, it's first. Nothing, including Earth colliding with an asteroid the size of Jupiter, could stop debaters from running Clinton. If the topic said "Resolved, do something that doesn't link to Clinton," eager negative teams would just run it anyway with a D-subpoint that said "And this makes you non-topical as well!" This year we've got the worst prospects for running Clinton that we've seen in an eon (8), but I have yet to hear a debate without it (9). My argument is, if we're stuck with it, let's at least pick a topic that raises the hope of quality link debates, and tax reform sure as blazes does that. The initial link cards are fiery, going into great detail about what exactly taxpayers find aggravating about changes in tax law: unpredictability, confusion, a feeling of coercion, a worry that more enforcement power means more of a threat, etc. Good building blocks for link explanations. People write lengthy columns, and lots of them, balancing political considerations against one another, pointing the way for debaters to compare the links to the link turns. I'm gradually easing off my former anti-Clinton kick: it seems as though debates on how proposals are spun for public approval, what communicative tactics are coupled with legislative initiatives, is a valuable thing to learn to a great degree of sophistication. And since we're stuck with it, we might as well not embarrass ourselves with the quality of the argument, or lack thereof. ECONOMY. There were some decent debates about this on the pollution topic, but this topic would be the Mother of all economy debates, and the link evidence on both sides would, much like the Clinton debates, be rich and intricate. The standby initial link would be unpredictability: people make long-range plans based on certain assumptions of which tax burden or tax strategy can be a central one. Changes, even benevolent changes, can be disruptive, especially in the short term. But then again, there's scarcely a single advocate of any kind of tax reform, including the vanilla infrastructure-type reforms, who doesn't make an argument about helping the economy. Good link cards are at least a positive move toward good debating, especially when it's a deep, two-sided debate. TAXPAYER RESENTMENT. It's not just for a Clinton link anymore. People write in public opinion research, political science, sociology, and a bunch of other fields, about the potential for tax grumbling to erode away the legitimacy of a government. Scholars currently writing are warning about a growing distrust and cynicism concerning the federal government, and the one lightning rod for all of this is the tax. Mass public disaffectation with the government could do more than make Clinton an impact-turn debate: it might finally break the ossified channel of political disads into "popularity/political capital/bipartisanship/focus" and other usual suspects, and dredge up some new implications of public revolt against the government. We're not working this link at the margin anymore: with this topic, it's a raging torrent. paper from last year into this year as a disad/harm area. The militia/anti-federal government groups spend more energy yammering about taxes than they do breathing. Any change in tax operations could be spun into the conspiracy narrative. The impacts are domestic terrorism, which, if you've been following the little feature sidebars through the McVeigh and Nichols trials, could be as big as a gigantic megalopolis like New York wiped off the earth by a nuke, by botulin toxin, by a designer virus, etc. A couple of interesting solvency-type arguments have surfaced in the stuff I read. First is IRS ENFORCEMENT SHIFT: in the past, when Congress has slapped restrictions on IRS operations, they've been remarkably resourceful at finding new, and arguably worse, ways of doing the same thing. Curtail their access to taxpayers' financial records? No sweat. They'll just threaten credit agencies until they get a look at the same financial info through a secondary source. Then there's SMALL REFORMS BUY OFF RADICAL ACTION, which is getting a lot of press with the package of IRS reforms that have already passed the House. As I mentioned previously, the IRS are maestros of getting the heat turned down by setting up a few photo-ops and making a few cosmetic changes. The mood to challenge the legitimacy of the federal income tax, or at least to wipe clean our current tax collection apparatus and start over, has grown past the right-wing randomites and is now the off-the-record position of many Republican congressmembers. A defense of fragging everything and starting over could be quite appealing, and the link evidence talking about the necessity of maintaining a rolling boil of public opinion and cutting off any piecemeal appeasement moves is available and good. Finally, as I've alluded to several times in this paper, there's the IRS CULTURE, which steadfastly resists all reform efforts. And last, but certainly not least, should we have an income tax at all? A healthy literature exists, although tapped chiefly by political activists characterized by the media as crackpots, in support of the argument that the sixteenth amendment was illegal, that the federal government ought to have no power to tax, and that the people need to take back their government by abolishing the federal income tax. For those debaters who like going over the top, it never hurts to have authors who advocate banning the topic. PROPOSED TOPIC WORDINGS Resolved, that the United States federal government should substantially curtail the power of the Internal Revenue Service. Resolved, that the United States federal government should substantially increase the power of the Internal Revenue Service. These two are the simplest. I think they also might do the most to lead debaters into the kind of useful knowledge I mentioned earlier. The biggest magnet for cases on the first topic is audit reform, followed by reforms of the power to impose liens and seize property. But there exist many, many more IRS tools of the trade about which enterprising young law students have written articles calling for their curtailment. The first topic would foster a working knowledge of what the IRS could do, under what circumstances they could do it, what you could (and should not) do to trigger such action, and what reforms would be appropriate. The second topic is the first topic with a conservative wording. At the beginning of the year, the most popular cases would likely be law enforcement. Or, perhaps, people might institutionalize IRS powers, claiming politicization was the real problem. Over the course of the year I think people would withdraw to affirmatives which streamlined the organization's operations, claiming improved efficiency and attempting to dodge disadvantage links. I doubt such efforts would be successful - come on, IRS action escaping notice? But that seems like the trajectory debaters would take. Resolved, that rules and/or statutes governing the calculation and/or remittance of the United States federal income tax should be substantially changed. The "rules and/or statutes governing" language served us well on the criminal procedure topic, I think. This topic would let people play with deductions, tax incentives, etc. It would also allow cases which softened the IRS's ability to collect on retroactive disallowals, as I discussed earlier. For that matter, it would allow cases that toughened up those practices. For people with plentiful arcane mathematical, business, or economic knowledge, it would allow other tweakings of the tax code for various purposes. While this has the potential to be the most dull topic, I have two arguments in favor of it. First, and I'm being at least 85% serious, it's time that the mathematics wonks have a topic of their own. We steer students toward all sorts of sexy issues, from big guns to victims of human rights violations to global warming, but as a community constituted by a commitment to games of decisionmaking, we've gone a long, long time without applying our abilities to more mundane decisionmaking problems that actually occupy a substantial segment of the creative energies of our policymakers. Legislators might spend one day in a legislative session doing things to bring down the risk of armed conflict, or to make the world a cleaner place to live. But weeks and weeks are spent on tables, calculations, budgets, etc. making the figures balance. The second argument I have is an appeal to history: almost every debater I've ever asked about the health care topic says that it was one of their favorites. Not a terribly sexy topic area: the core issue was containment of cost. People's plans were successful insofar as they straightened out the logistics of low ( or moderate) cost delivery of health care. Sounds almost as dull as the tax code. But because the framers wrote a tight topic that sat atop a gigantic body of literature, worded so restrictively that debaters had to prepare for one another, the competitors reported afterwards that they did some of their best debating on that topic. Something to think about. Resolved, that the United States federal government should substantially simplify the Internal Revenue Code in one or more of the following areas: deductions, exempt organizations, capital gains. Tax simplification is a cottage industry. It follows IRS abuse as the issue that gets the most press. I've yet to find a term of art definition, or even just a good, coherent, deliberate definition of the term by a credentialed advocate, but I'm sure that it's just around the corner. Flat tax would be topical under this. So, conceivably, could the other tax alternatives, including consumption and national sales taxes. I do worry that this topic could resurrect cases like the carbon tax, but maybe that's not such a bad thing. The three areas I picked fairly randomly, just coming up with issue areas that I saw discussed a lot in my survey. This is more a topic structure than an actual topic proposal. Before this went up for consideration, it would need heavy surgery. Mostly I like the idea of tax simplification being the verb in the topic. Resolved, that one or more United States federal courts should overrule one or more precedent lines governing the collection of federal income tax in the United States. Ah, the economic policymaking of the federal judiciary. Anyone remember the earliest applications of the Equal Protection clause? We've had a bunch of legal topics over the years, but never one that dealt with the courts' impact on commerce. There might be a better term out there than "precedent line," but the idea I'm trying to capture is that one can't just overrule one decision. You've got to find a place where a majority opinion (or, arguably, a minority one, and doubtless Texas will find another enterprising young law student) includes one of the comments like "In a long line of cases (Srader v. Tiersky, Jekyll v. Hyde, Panetta v. Gorham, Skarb v. Human Race, et seq.) we have held that regressive income taxes violate the first, fourth, and nineteenth amendments ... " and then overrule that holding. Mostly I tossed this in so that we'd have the option to make this a legal topic. The possibilities for a legal angle on the topic is, I admit, an underexplored option. This is still a preliminary project, and the legal literature isn't the easiest place to begin learning about the subject. Have you ever tried to read law review articles on tax law? Resolved, that the United States federal government should substantially increase the Internal Revenue Service's capacity to collect federal income taxes. I'm fairly sure that we can do better than "capacity," but I'm stuck for the right word. The idea here is that the topic would combine increased authority with the possibility of infrastructure upgrades. You could give the IRS greater auditing powers and fix their imploding computer system, or either one separately. Last, but not least: Resolved, that the United States federal government should substantially change rules and/or statutes governing IRS operations in one or more of the following areas: audits, access to taxpayers' financial information, property seizure. This is my attempt at a bidirectional topic. Again, possibilities for better "one or more" areas exist. But a bidirectional topic, as I argued above, might make for a smoother year-long evolution, with debaters preparing to debate stricter enforcement versus curtailment of abuse. That might make for a more balanced and satisfying debate. CONCLUDING REMARKS First, I don't have the bibliography done yet. I've read a lot of stuff, but I haven't settled on which works would make a good primer on the subject. That'll be along shortly. Second, I suppose I should make some reference back to my attempt at scholarship at the outset of this paper: I think federal tax reform is an issue with plenty of literature, including many advocated reforms, which is both highly current and highly mature, not always an easy balance to achieve. It's been a hot topic for three quarters of a century, and it's also shaping up to be the centerpiece of the 1998 election. Third and finally, I sincerely think that this would be a good topic. It's timely, it's different from recent topics, it's news we can use, it's overflowing with advocacy literature, it just provides a ton of educational bonuses. If I had to pick a topic wording right now, I'd probably pick either the last one, the bidirectional one, or the "increase capacity" wording, which would push affirmatives into defending the harsh side of the topic while still allowing expansion room into infrastructure reform. At any rate, all the students we work with are going to engage with this particular phenomenon at least once a year for the rest of their lives, and some will have more intense and potentially adverse encounters, so it seems to me that giving them a head start while the literature is hot is an enticing opportunity. NOTES (1) Not that I am suggesting that the framers of the Southeast Asia topic paper failed to do so. In fact, a more important guideline might be that the topic committee actually pay attention to, and FOLLOW, the recommendations of the topic paper authors. (2) Of course, in an attack of severest hypocrisy, I've used such non-concrete words in every one of the topic wordings in this paper. I'll say it again: this is a work in progress. (3) Which is all I can really comment upon: I had some limited contact with CEDA folks during my NDT years, but not nearly enough to sustain my opinions across their experience. (4) That is, with the exception of the Emory squad, who, I'm told, have their own ZIP code. (5) Or even at any point before the 2AR, if Cates sticks around for a fifth year. (6) Old John Sharp RFD: "I just can't vote to affirm the state." (7) Many older computer programs abbreviate dates to the last two digits. In the year 2000, all of those computers will think the year is 1900, and will flip out. Fixing this problem is a lengthy, labor-intensive task. The IRS doesn't plan to begin addressing it until October 1998, which experts say is far too late. (8) Foreign policy, in an obscure part of the world, consisting chiefly of programs that involve giving out satellite images or encouraging diplomats to talk. And STILL I hear Clinton every round. (9) Except for the WOMP round. It would've been interesting if they'd run Clinton Bad along with it, and said "It's a net benefit to the counterplan - WOMP would destroy Clinton's political capital!" At least I would've gotten a chuckle out of an otherwise joyless and painful debate. Lastly, for those who might be interested in my attempts at pseudo-scholarship, this is the section that lead off the NCA version of the paper. I put it at the end in an appendix for your purposes because I figured you'd rather get right to the meat of the matter. This is the third year that I've followed closely the process of selecting the topic for intercollegiate policy debate. Two years ago, I participated heavily in the conversation on the two debate listservs, CEDA-L and NDT-L, about the proposed environmental pollutants topic. Last year, I actually wrote a topic paper, first as a short exploration of the literature and then as a more extensive catalog of possible wordings and potential case areas and negative arguments. This year, I'm jumping into the process at the earliest stage yet. Before I get to my proposal, I want to set down some of the opinions I've developed over the past two years as to the function that this process serves. Topic papers first of all should reflect an exploration of the literature. The one best test of a debate topic is its connection to a body of writings from which debaters can draw support for their arguments. I propose four criteria for judging the quality of literature backstopping a topic. First, does it conform to what we do? This year's topic has done the community good because it's posed debaters with challenges that depart from the tasks set out by previous topics, but one of the common complaints that I think bears a fair degree of merit is the complaint that very, very few scholars propose United States action toward the topic nations of the kind described in the topic. Put more simply, there aren't any solvency cards. People writing topic papers should begin by verifying that the raw materials of debate exist, that advocates do actually support action by the topic actor in the manner prescribed by the topic.(1) The second criterion is volume. It's not necessarily the case that more is better, but it is true that if the assemblage of writings on the topic subject matter is too, too limited, then the topic runs out of steam before the season ends. Debaters need new directions to explore, new approaches to fend off their own boredom and to keep the degree of challenge they pose to their competitors sufficiently high. A good topic will be supported by a relatively buxom supply of writings. The third criterion is currency. The topic should be one of current interest, one to which a large amount of coverage is being devoted both by scholars and by journalists. Public controversies have lifespans, or at least cycles, and a debate topic which is adopted off-cycle will suffer from a dearth of current literature, and, more importantly, is more likely to stagnate before season's end just because new approaches are only being found in older writings. It's a good tonic for debaters' torpor that highly current topics take odd directions. Dormant issues aren't good debate topics. The fourth and final criterion is maturity. Novelty is not a good quality of a subject matter for debate. If the core areas of the topic subject matter have only recently begun to draw media coverage and scholarly attention, then it's likely that a shallow consensus will exist in favor of one side of the issue. Topics upon which opposing groups of advocates have compiled strong cases for their respective stances are better positioned for the needs of debaters in researching arguments for both sides. One particular corollary of this characteristic is that if terms of art exist to describe the contours of the subject, so much the better. One of the best topic papers I've ever seen was Shaun Martin's proposal for the right to privacy topic many years ago. I told my Baylor teammates that that topic would win, simply because the crafting of the topic was so skillful and the words had such solid, useful meanings. A lot of that promise was squandered, but no one ever said that debaters would take well-balanced and well-crafted topics and turn them into textbook debates. At best, we can attempt to lay a quality foundation, and words that have very detailed, very precise, and very uncontroversial meanings make for better debating than topics larded up with goop like "substantially." (2) In assessing the suitability of a topic for debate, topic paper authors ought to explore, in as grounded an approach as is possible, the likely development of the topic, should it be adopted. The principle tasks involved in completing this exploration include proposing topic wordings, outlining potential affirmative cases, suggesting negative arguments, and making arguments for the timeliness and debatability of the subject matter. In the remaining sections of this paper, I will carry out those tasks, although not necessarily in that order ... 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 Pacedebate Fri Mar 6 19:56:02 1998 From: Pacedebate (Pacedebate) Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 20:56:02 EST Subject: Wanted info on teams qualifying through districts Message-ID: I'm trying to get a list of the teams qualifying through districts. Currently I have District 5, 8, and 9. Anyone with the info from the other districts I'd appreciate it if you would send it my way. Thanks, Tim From epanetta Sat Mar 7 09:37:37 1998 From: epanetta (edward panetta) Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 10:37:37 -0500 Subject: ADA Tournament Message-ID: 1) Entry Status We only have a handful of entries at this point. I'd appreciate it if people who are able to could enter by Monday night. That will help us with the room and food count. The entry forms are found on the GA Debate web site under the ADA link. www.uga.edu/~spc/Debate/debate.html 2) Judge Philosophy Statements Judges should turn in the philosophy statements by tuesday afternoon. At this point we only have five. 3) Posting entries to list. For those of you who have sent me notes asking for the teams entered, Joe Bellon will post a list of entries on Wednesday. Regards, Ed >From Sat Mar 7 12:53:28 1998 Message-Id: Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 12:53:28 -0500 Reply-To: deon_garner at STUDENTS.MOREHOUSE.EDU To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Deon Garner Subject: Joe Bellon Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=US-ASCII If there is anyone who has Joe Bellon's email, can you please forward it to me; I've the scan edebate function and apparently he's not on edebate. Thanks, Deon From ifjxh Sat Mar 7 15:02:30 1998 From: ifjxh (Joshua Hoe) Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 13:02:30 PST Subject: Tokarski article...Help Message-ID: Does anyone have a copy of the Tokarski piracy "article" that they can fax or e-mail me....If so, I would like to read it....Backchannel me if you have it I will get back to you. Thanks in advance. Josh ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From ifjxh Sat Mar 7 15:14:54 1998 From: ifjxh (Joshua Hoe) Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 13:14:54 PST Subject: Greenwald ev from Emory Message-ID: Does anyone have a copy of the Greenwald defo solvency article Emory runs? If you do could yuou backchannel me? Thanks in advance...Josh ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com >From Sat Mar 7 19:57:27 1998 Message-Id: Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 19:57:27 +0100 Reply-To: Earnest.L.Neighbors at samford.edu To: Team Topic Debating in America From: "Earnest L. Neighbors" Subject: John Sullivan Comments: To: Pacedebate In-Reply-To: <44b4db97.3500a934 at aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII John should backchannel me or call at 205 870 2049 because my messages get sent back as undeliverable mail. Len ----------------------------------------- Earnest L. Neighbors Email: Earnest.L.Neighbors at samford.edu Samford University From dbaker5 Sat Mar 7 20:00:26 1998 From: dbaker5 (Don Baker) Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 21:00:26 -0500 Subject: Teams Clearing at Towson Message-ID: At the end of 7 preliminary rounds, we have the list of teams who will be debating tomorrow. All 4-3's cleared in all divisions except for novice, in which there was one 4-3 that didn't clear. There will be partial octs in Open, partial double octs in J.V., and straight octs in novice. The teams are listed in no particular order other than alphabetical. Chesapeake Classic (Open) Air Force BS (Shawn Briscoe & Luke Savoie) Eastern New Mexico BF (Matt Barreto & Glueboy Foy) Emporia TH (Tara Tate & Shannon Holland) George Mason/Pittsburgh KC (Pete Krein & Lisa Corrigan) Middle Tennessee IC (Laurie Ishak & Daniel Crews) NYU/Columbia WW (Jake Wiegler & Heather Wilson) Southern Illinois MV (Matt Moore & Joey Vuglia) Southern Illinois SS (Eric Slusher & Geoff Smith) Vanderbilt RP (Vinay Reddy & Gabrielle Prisco) Junior Varsity Nationals Air Force DT (Chris DiNote & Jess Trafecanty) Cornell HC (Melinda Hightower & Mike Cole) Cornell MM (Matt Miller & Rob Melton) Cornell SK (Caren Spencer & Beth Kronk) Duke NM (For some reason I don't have their names, sorry) Emporia GB (Rob Gilligan & Marie Baenig) Emporia NA (Tony Nation & Brad Areheart) George Mason IR (Jay Igiel & Richard Reed) George Mason KG (Lucious Kahng & Jason Gronberg) Johnson County OS (Tom O'Toole & Adam Sokoloff) Kansas State LZ (Josh Longbottom & Kevin Zollman) Kansas State MS (Hugh McCollough & Andrew Spencer) Liberty FV (Leah Frazier & Hannah Vick) Liberty RT (Rochelle Ringsmuth & Michael Tilley) Marquette DK (Tim Dale & Kiley Kane) Methodist GP (Suzan Graves & Alexis Parmenter) Navy WS (Adam Weinstein & Matt Sullivan) NYU RB (Kathryn Rubino & Kate Brindle) Penn State LW (Someone whose last name begins with L & Carrie Weletz) Pepperdine MM (Jenna McGrath & Thomas Manakides) Pepperdine ZG (Brenda Zeimet & Alexis Gorton) San Jose State WC (Marcus Walton & Sara Chan) South Carolina TK (John Trotti & Matt Katz) Texas San Antonio JM (Robert Jones & Leigh Mayo) Vermont SM (Sarah Sinder & Helen Morgan) Novice Nationals Air Force HM (Rashad Howard & Amanda Myers) Ball State KE (Kristin Kasting & Lindsy Elkins) Ball State PL (Donny Peters & Kelly Lipp) Capital KV (Alisha Ketner & Dominic Verdell) Cornell EO (Jennifer Edwards & Kelly Olino) Depaul DW (Julie Darr & Rich Wiltse) Duke AA (Chris Ayers & Imran Alahbi) Eastern New Mexico DC (Dunn & Conklin) Illinois State PF (Jeff Powell & Emily Fleisher) Liberty TW (Shanna Twigg & Katey Walker) Liberty WY (Jared Woodard & Nick Yingst) Louisville HD (Melodie Humphery & Haley DeVanna) Methodist TC (Greg Thomas & Daniel Carpenter) North Carolina SM (John Stonestreet & Aaron Mayer) Northern Illinois DP (Jeff Drury & Donald Price) Pepperdine SA (Merideth Sullivan & Emily Allardyce) Pittsburgh BD (Chris Burdick & Mark Denardis) Rochester MS (Lauren Michaels & Adam Shapiro) Rochester MW (Dan Myers & Todd Walters) Rochester PW (Merideth Pelton & Jonathan White) Sacramento State VK (Marie VanAssendelft & Nicole Kipp) San Jose State XK (Jim Xhang & Alex Kramer) South Carolina DB (Deirdre Dhaenens & Jeremy Bowers) South Carolina JC (Joanne Johnston & Daniel Chappell) Texas San Antonio KH (Jonathan Kruse & Ross Hytnen) Vanderbilt CM (Leigh Crouch & Sam Moore) Vanderbilt MM (Katie Miller & Jason Manning) Vanderbilt RC (Adam Rosen & Rinku Chaterji) Vermont HS (Charles Hoag & Matt Sweeny) Wheaton MS (Josh Montgomery & Vincent Scalfani) Wheaton ZB (Lindsey Zimmerman & Torrey Babson) Wisconsin Oshkosh ST (Todd Simonis & David Torbenson) Congrats to all that made it out. Don Baker *********************************************************************** * Don Baker * * Towson University Debate * * dbaker5 at tiger.towson.edu * *********************************************************************** From Pacedebate Sun Mar 8 00:58:18 1998 From: Pacedebate (Pacedebate) Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 01:58:18 EST Subject: wanted: results from District 2, 3 and 7 Message-ID: I have the results from all the district tournaments but these 3. If you could help finish my list I would appreciate it. Thanks, Tim From MWBRYANT Sun Mar 8 09:57:32 1998 From: MWBRYANT (MWBRYANT) Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 10:57:32 EST Subject: NW CEDA Champs Elims Message-ID: Elim Field - 13th Annual Northwest CEDA Champs All 4-2's ended up clearing, resulting in a partial octos: Gonzaga KH Gonzaga VM Gonzaga YV Lewis & Clark EH Lewis & Clark SH Oregon BL Puget Sound GR Puget Sound VB Weber DA Whitman HS From Kenneth.DeLaughder Sun Mar 8 15:18:13 1998 From: Kenneth.DeLaughder (Kenneth DeLaughder) Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 14:18:13 -0700 Subject: Towson results? Message-ID: anyone heard anything more from Towson? Ken From laneg Sun Mar 8 15:25:54 1998 From: laneg (Lane, Gina) Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 15:25:54 -0600 Subject: topic papers Message-ID: Several of you have inquired about what the potential topic papers are for next year. Two papers have been posted: Michael Janas on Biotechnology and Doyle Srader on Tax Reform. Eric Slusher is working on a paper on Civil Rights, Lisa Heller is working on a paper about Corporate Media Dominance, and John Meany is working on a paper about Human Sexuality issues. If you are interested in writing a topic paper for the 1998-99 year, the guidelines are below. If you are interested in appearing on an NCA topic paper panel (99-00) in November, I still have two slots left. Please contact me with your idea ASAP. _________________ guidelines: What should a topic paper include? A defense of the topic area: significance to policy-making, substance of issues, debatability, possible affirmative and negative approaches; how easily can the topic be researched: what are the depth and breadth of sources available; suggested wordings for the topic, potential topicality concerns. Please include a full bibliography. After the topic committee meets at nationals and we bid a fond farewell to the Southeast Asia topic, we will authorize Greg Simerly to send out a ballot with the five selections for the debate community's approval. The big picture: 1. Topic papers must be postmarked to Gina Lane no later than March 11 OR you may email me a copy no later than Tuesday, March 17 OR you may handdeliver 10 copies to me at the tournament hotel before 10:00 pm Thursday, March 19. Mail to: Gina Lane, Dept, of Communication, William Jewell College, Liberty, MO 64068; email laneg at william.jewell.edu. 2. If you are interested in being a topic paper author, please contact me ASAP so I'll know to look for your paper. From krakg Sun Mar 8 21:27:11 1998 From: krakg (Gil Krakowsky) Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 22:27:11 -0500 Subject: Novice Nationals? Message-ID: Anybody know who cleared at Novice Nat's? Krak Michigan Debate From dgenco Sun Mar 8 21:52:26 1998 From: dgenco (Dave Kingston) Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 21:52:26 -0600 Subject: test ignore this message Message-ID: Sorry to waste the bandwith, but 2 days and NO messages....seems wierd. Dave From hwalters Sun Mar 8 22:20:37 1998 From: hwalters (Heather L Walters) Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 23:20:37 -0500 Subject: Towson Results In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Been driving people to the airport all day so I do not know very much, but for the impatient in Portales and others some limited results. Open Finals SIU MV v ENMU BF 2-1? ENMU BF Semis SIU MV vs GMU/PITT KC 2-1 SIU MV SIU SS vs ENMU BF ENMU advancing Junior Semis Pepperdine v Liberty RT Pepperdine v Cornell CH Cornell CH v Liberty RT Massey, Harris, Walters* the squirrely squirrel :) On a 2-1 Cornell CH is crowned JV Nationals Champion Novice Sac St VK v Liberty WY That is all I know, look for official tomorrow From Broveraf Mon Mar 9 00:22:13 1998 From: Broveraf (Adrienne F. Brovero) Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 01:22:13 -0500 Subject: Novice Nationals? Message-ID: In random order: Wake Ellis/Lotz Wake Bonura/Covey Wake Powell/Yopp Wake Achison/Ryan Georgia Eastwood/Stein UMKC UNC Hussain/Fogarty Michigan Feldman/Samson Louisville Westbrook/Lee Emory EG Emory Bailey/Ghali Emory Harkin/T Kansas Hudson/Seymour Kansas MR NU Johnson/Kastenek NU Johnson/Kay-Oliphant I apologize to those whose last names I don't know -adri u of m ---------- From: Gil Krakowsky[SMTP:krakg at UMICH.EDU] Sent: Sunday, March 08, 1998 10:27 PM To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU Subject: Novice Nationals? Anybody know who cleared at Novice Nat's? Krak Michigan Debate From BERCHNORTO Mon Mar 9 08:01:38 1998 From: BERCHNORTO (BERCHNORTO) Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 09:01:38 EST Subject: naive questions Message-ID: Help!! I am a (very) new faculty adviser, and I am confused about all of the nationals I have been following on the list. Could someone please explain to me the difference between the nationals that took place this weekend (novice, JV, and was there a varsity?), the ADA Nationals in Athens, and the NDT in Utah. I was able to find out how teams qualify for NDT, but how do they qualify for the others? Is there somewhere that these procedures are written down? I'm guessing that this past weekend's tournaments were CEDA and next weekend is ADA, but are there other distinctions? Any help that could be offered (even if it's just to point me in the direction of a Web page) would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. --Neil Berch, West Virginia University From jz9n Mon Mar 9 08:53:24 1998 From: jz9n (phillip thomson) Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 09:53:24 -0500 Subject: regions/districts? Message-ID: What feelings exist toward redistricting or redefining regions so as to better coordinate a schools ability to compete in both CEDA and NDT. In district eight we face difficulties in scheduling a district tournament that does not interfere with a schools ability to participate in CEDA regionals. If the districts and regions were the same, the process would be much easier. I don't even know what organization would deal with such an issue. Thanks, Scott Thomson Marist College From Arnie.Madsen Mon Mar 9 09:03:24 1998 From: Arnie.Madsen (Arnie Madsen) Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 09:03:24 -0600 Subject: 1998 NDT Qualifiers Message-ID: I am sorry that I didn't respond earlier to the many requests for this list, but I was out of the office from Thursday at 5:00 through the weekend. What follows is, I believe, the complete list of qualifiers for the 1998 National Debate Tournament. Congratulations to all for a fine season, and good luck in Salt Lake City. First-Round At-Large Dartmouth HL Emory FH Emory KS Fullerton HL Georgetown KS Georgia CM Harvard ES Iowa PR Kansas AM Kansas EM Michigan SW Michigan State CS North Texas HM Northwestern GS Texas GR West Georgia BC District I Southern California Stetson & Hurder Southern California Harrison & Revelins Redlands Miller & Wetzell Chico State Lowrie & Cupp Fullerton Choe & Hernandez District II Whitman Harris & Symonds Whitman Clarke & Scoville District III Baylor Coulter & Coulter Baylor Palmer & Brasure Texas Evans & Grove Southwest Missouri Payne & Vega Trinity ( ) & ( ) Kansas State Denny & West Missouri Kansas City ( ) & ( ) District IV Iowa Podgorski & Scott Macalester Alme & Garen District V Michigan State BD Northwestern SS Wayne State AS Michigan KR Augustana IL Wayne State GL Miami Ohio John Carroll FS District VI Samford Johnson & Stetson Wake Forest Filstrup & Rufo Wake Forest Atchison & Green Georgia Matos & Teagle North Carolina Schneider & Hussain West Georgia Smith & Lantz Kentucky Ray & Jensen Louisville Lee & Westbrook District VII George Mason Krein & Weiner Liberty Lawrence & Burns Georgetown Botvinnik & Simensen James Madison Minkove & Willemin Liberty Sieglakoff & Tilley Pittsburgh Ellwood & Corrigan George Washington Ducommon & Mast District VIII Dartmouth Mead & Garen Pace Peterson & Bell District IX Eastern New Mexico Baretto & Foy Weber Menzies & Anthony Arizona State Skarb & Martin New Mexico Stalley & Clark Weber Dilsaver & Muranaka Second-Round At-Large Emory Todd & Tabak George Mason Igiel & Reed George Washington Stubbs & Thummala John Carroll Lavelle & Wiley Kansas State Glaser & Zollman Mercer Cockrell & Drake Miami Florida Paulose & Wulken Michigan Pudelski & Scannapieco Michigan State Hoffman & Monick Nevada Las Vegas Kimbrough & Robertson Northwestern Anderson & Nemecek Pace Kloster & Petrey Southern California Bevan & Markowski Southwest Missouri Atkins & Kilpatrick Wake Forest Geppert & Rhodes -- 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 jrigdon Mon Mar 9 10:01:13 1998 From: jrigdon (Jennifer Rigdon) Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 10:01:13 -0600 Subject: Towson!! Message-ID: I may not be the first, but I know I will be one of many to thank Ken broda-Bahm and the entire Towson crew for a great tournament - The tournament ran on time (post fire drill, of course!), everyday they had a wide variety of snack-type foods, bagels & coffee in the morning, oj, soda (iced down in tubs, no less), the tab staff was really accomodating (thanks Gary Larson), the ballot table staff was VERY patient, and the whole tournament was a great experience! And of course the Inner Harbor area of Baltimore was worth the whole trip! Thanks Ken and crew for a great tournament - we'll be back next year!! jen :) SEMO Forensics 573/651-2514 "I'd rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints..." Billy Joel From ZHHUTTO Sun Mar 8 22:45:31 1998 From: ZHHUTTO (Heath Hutto) Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 10:45:31 +600 Subject: threat construction Message-ID: Hi, I'm researching the issue of threat construction and am looking for any help in finding cites. Any help would be greatly appreciated, please backchannel. I said you needed a boyfriend, not a person. Sterling, Jeffrey Just think of AIDS as the guest that won't leave, the one we all hate. But you have to remember: Hey! It's still our party. Darius, Jeffrey If the king finds out that you are not a lady the police will take you to the Tower of London where your head will be chopped off as a warning to other presumptuous flower girls. Higgins, Pygmalion Heath B. Hutto Wilbur D. Mills University Studies High School Debate From cara Mon Mar 9 10:55:15 1998 From: cara (Cara E. Cupp) Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 08:55:15 -0800 Subject: need 1/2 critic for ndt nats In-Reply-To: <1F376490B47@mills.k12.ar.us> Message-ID: Sue and I are in need of a critic to cover four rounds for us at NDT nats. Of course we are willing to pay but cannot afford to fly you out there. If you can help us out or know of anyone who could help out please get back to us ASAP. Thank You Cara Cupp CSU Chico From lkahng Mon Mar 9 11:18:46 1998 From: lkahng (lucius K) Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 12:18:46 -0500 Subject: Iowa U Refugees Aff In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Sorry for the bother/clutter. I'm looking for Iowa's new Refugee plan text and if time permiting, the advantages. thank you, lucius George Mason U. WW /__\ | oo | _WWWWW_ (|_()_|) / o o \ (+)(+) LUCIUS KAHNG \__/ (| __o__ |) / \ /|\/|\ \ \___/ / \ -==- / lkahng at gmu.edu |||||| /___\ \ / \ lucius at earthling.net |||||| |=========| <\/\/\/> |||||| |=========| / \ From dbaker5 Mon Mar 9 11:46:58 1998 From: dbaker5 (Don Baker) Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 12:46:58 -0500 Subject: Towson Results Message-ID: Open Partial Octs: (9) NYU/Columbia WW over (8) Air Force BS 3-0 Quarters: (1) Eastern New Mexico BF over (9) NYU/Columbia WW 2-1 (2) GMU/Pittsburgh KC over (7) Middle Tennessee IC 3-0 (3) Southern Illinois MV over (6) Vanderbilt RP 3-0 (4) Southern Illinois SS over (5) Emporia TH 2-1 Semis: (1) Eastern New Mexico BF over (4) Southern Illionis SS 2-1 (3) Southern Illinois MV over (2) GMU/Pittsburgh KC 2-1 Finals: (1) Eastern New Mexico BF over (3) Southern Illinois MV 2-1 Speakers: 1. Pete Krein - GMU/Pittsburgh 2. Joey Vuglia - Southern Illinois 3. Matt Barreto - Eastern New Mexico 4. Tara Tate - Emporia 5. Glueboy Foy - Eastern New Mexico 6. Matt Moore - Southern Illinois 7. Lisa Corrigan - GMU/Pittsburgh 8. Gabrielle Prisco - Vanderbilt 9. Eric Slusher - Southern Illinois 10. Jacob Wiegler - NYU/Columbia Junior Varsity Nationals Partial Double Octs: The Top 7 seeds received byes (8) Cornell MM over (25) Methodist GP 2-1 (9) Liberty RT over (24) San Jose State WC 3-0 (10) Pepperdine MM over (23) Penn State LW 3-0 (11) George Mason IR over (22) Cornell SK 3-0 (12) NYU RB over (21) Marquette DK 2-1 (20) Kansas State MS over (13) South Carolina TK 2-1 (14) Johnson County OS over (19) Air Force DT 3-0 (18) Liberty FV over (15) Navy WS 3-0 (17) Emporia NA over (16) George Mason KG 2-1 Octafinals: (1) Kansas State LZ over (17) Emporia NA 3-0 (2) Texas San Antonio JM over (18) Liberty FV 3-0 (3) Cornell HC over (14) Johnson County OS 3-0 (4) Pepperdine ZG over (20) Kansas State MS 3-0 (5) Emporia GB over (12) NYU RB 3-0 (11) George Mason IR over (6) Duke NM 3-0 (10) Pepperdine MM over (7) Vermont SM 2-1 (9) Liberty RT over (8) Cornell MM Quarters: (9) Liberty RT over (1) Kansas State LZ 2-1 (10) Pepperdine MM over (2) Texas San Antonio 3-0 (3) Cornell HC over (11) George Mason 2-1 (4) Pepperdine ZG over (5) Emporia GB 2-1 Semis: (3) Cornell HC over (10) Pepperdine MM 3-0 (9) Liberty RT over (4) Pepperdine ZG 3-0 Finals: (3) Cornell HC over (9) Liberty RT 2-1 Speakers: 1. Alexis Gorton - Pepperdine 2. Josh Longbottom - Kansas State 3. Rob Gilligan - Emporia 4. Sarah Snider - Vermont 5. Leigh Mayo - Texas San Antonio 6. Alisa Nave - Duke 7. Mike Cole - Cornell 8. Andy Meudt - Air Force 9. Melinda Hightower - Cornell 10. Brenda Zeimet - Pepperdine 11. Robert Jones - Texas San Antonio 12. Matt Katz - South Carolina 13. Matt Miller - Cornell 14. Tom O'Toole - Johnson County 15. Rochelle Ringsmuth - Liberty 16. Matt Sullivan - Navy 17. Dave Marquard - Duke 18. Rob Melton - Cornell 19. Brad Areheart - Emporia 20. Lucius Kang - George Mason Novice Nationals Double Octafinals: (1) Pepperdine SA over (32) Methodist TC 3-0 (2) Eastern New Mexico DC over (31) DePaul DW 2-1 (30) Vanderbilt RC over (3) Rochester MW 3-0 (4) Liberty WY over (29) Texas San Antonio KH 3-0 (5) South Carolina DB over (28) Rochester MS 3-0 (6) Sacramento State VK over (27) Ball State PL 3-0 (7) Liberty TW over (26) Wheaton ZB 2-1 (25) Ball State KE over (8) Rochester PW 2-1 (24) Capital KV over (9) Pittsburgh BD 2-1 (23) San Jose State XK over (10) South Carolina JC 3-0 (11) Duke AA over (22) Vanderbilt MM 2-1 (12) Vermont HS over (21) Wheaton MS 2-1 (13) Cornell EO over (20) Louisville HD 3-0 (14) Northern Illinois DP over (19) Air Force HM 2-1 (15) Vanderbilt CM over (18) UW-Oshkosh ST 3-0 (17) North Carolina SM over (16) Illinois State PF 2-1 Octafinals: (1) Pepperdine SA over (17) North Carolina SM 2-1 (15) Vanderbilt CM over (2) Eastern New Mexico DC 2-1 (4) Liberty WY over (13) Cornell EO 3-0 (5) South Carolina DB over (12) Vermont HS 3-0 (6) Sacramento State VK over (11) Duke AA 3-0 (23) San Jose State XK over (7) Liberty TW 2-1 (14) Northern Illinois DP over (30) Vanderbilt RC 2-1 (25) Ball State KE over (24) Capital KV 3-0 Quarters: (1) Pepperdine SA over (25) Ball State KE 3-0 (4) Liberty WY over (5) South Carolina DB 3-0 (6) Sacramento State VK over (14) Northen Illinois DP 3-0 (15) Vanderbilt CM over (23) San Jose State XK 2-1 Semis: (4) Liberty WY over (1) Pepperdine SA 3-0 (6) Sacramento State VK over (15) Vanderbilt CM 3-0 Finals: (6) Sacramento State VK over (4) Liberty WY 3-0 Speakers: 1. Amanda Myers - Air Force 2. Emily Allardyce - Pepperdine 3. Chris Burdick - Pittsburgh 4. Rashad Howard - Air Force 5. Imran Alahbi - Duke 6. Daniel Chappell - South Carolina 7. Shanna Twigg - Liberty 8. Leigh Crouch - Vanderbilt 9. Jim Xhang - San Jose State 10. Merideth Pelton - Rochester 11. Joanne Johnston - South Carolina 12. Katey Walker - Liberty 13. Katie Miller - Vanderbilt 14. Jonathan White - Rochester 15. Haley DeVanna - Louisville 16. Dunn - Eastern New Mexico 17. Dan Myers - Rochester 18. Akash Desai - Rochester 19. Meredith Sullivan - Pepperdine 20. Josh Montgomery - Wheaton And now the Top Judges awards. Each team gets to rank their critics, which are tabulated to find the judge that is most liked. The top 3 finishers got awards (which were lamps) 1. Miller - Vermont 2. Ryan - Capital 3. Castillo - Rochester 4. Davis - Mercer 5. Von Burg - Pittsburgh 6. Schnurer - Pittsburgh 7. Hall - Penn State 8. Stevens - Kansas State 9. Harris - Towson 10. Hovden - Vermont 11. Bauer - Ball State 12. Dove - NYU 13. Clayton - Rochester 14. Achten - Pepperdine 15. Butt - George Mason 16. Ingram - North Carolina 17. Munson - Illinois State 18. Charron - NYU 19. McMullen - Mary Washington 20. Herro - UW-Oshkosh Congrats to all, and I do hope everyone had a good time last weekend. Don Baker Towson University From Michelin.Massey Mon Mar 9 12:54:23 1998 From: Michelin.Massey (Michelin Christopher Massey) Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 11:54:23 -0700 Subject: did you host a toc qualifier? Message-ID: if you hosted one of the tournaments below, please contact dr. patterson asap. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 11:44:44 -0500 (EST) From: "J.W. Patterson" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: MARS HILL RESULTS; another Vestavia Hills correction, missing TOC MISSING TOURNAMENT RESULTS As the March 13 deadline for TOC deadline approaches, we are still missing certification from the following tournaments. THE TOC REGISTRAR, LINDA BARKER, HAS BEEN INSTRUCTED NOT TO ACKNOWLEDGE TOC ENTERIES WHICH USE THESE TOURNAMENTS AS QUALIFIERS. Harvard (two person policy) (a plea has been sent to Dallas Perkins and Sherry Hall) Florida Blue Key (LD) Puyallup, WA (policy) Carrolton (policy) Georgia (policy) (several pleas have been sent to Ed Panetta). Pennsylvania (LD and policy) Pinecrest (LD) Pacific Lutheran (LD and policy) (this tournament is not to be confused with the Washington TOC, that tournament is not a TOC qualifier.) Calhoun, GA (policy) Churchill (policy) Dallas Jesuit (policy) North Miami Beach (LD) T.W. Andrews (LD) From rpeacor Mon Mar 9 14:18:28 1998 From: rpeacor (Rick Peacor) Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 12:18:28 -0800 Subject: NW CEDA Champs results Message-ID: Here are the final results for the 13th Annual Northwest CEDA Championships: Partial Octafinals: Gonzaga?Yake & Voight defeated Puget Sound?Gilbrough & Reif (3-0) Weber?Dilsaver & Anthony defeated Lewis & Clark?Hanson & Sayre (3-0) Quarterfinals: Whitman?Harris & Symonds defeated Gonzaga?Yake & Voight (3-0) Lewis & Clark?Ellis & Hesterberg defeated Weber?Dilsaver & Anthony (3-0) Gonzaga?Voight & Moburg-Jones defeated Puget Sound?Veillon & Bailey (3-0) Gonzaga?Kelly & Hummell advanced over Oregon?Bauer & Lininger [withdrew due to illness (3-0)] Semifinals: Whitman HS defeated Gonzaga KH (2-1) Gonzaga VM defeated Lewis & Clark EH (2-1) Finals: Whitman HS defeated Gonzaga VM (3-0) Congratulations to Sean, Adam, Jon and Aaron on a great tournament. Speaker Awards: 1. Katie Bauer?Oregon 2. (Tie) Jared Ellis?Lewis & Clark 2. (Tie) Jon Voight?Gonzaga 4. Adam Symonds?Whitman 5. Nick Hesterberg?Lewis & Clark 6. Aaron Moburg-Jones--Gonzaga 7. (Tie) Sean Harris?Whitman 7. (Tie) Scott Bailey?Puget Sound 9. Casey Kelly?Gonzaga 10. Jeff VanHorn?Western Washington From DRTUNA Mon Mar 9 15:54:40 1998 From: DRTUNA (DRTUNA) Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 16:54:40 EST Subject: What's Up W/ CEDA Nats? Message-ID: In a message dated 3/5/98 11:40:19 AM, MWBRYANT at AOL.COM wrote: <> First, I am expecting a number of other entries. We have some today. However, I expect the tournament will be a bit smaller. Larson predicts 165. I don't predict. Second, will it impact the schedule? Yes, it may mean several things. It may mean no 5-3 round. It may also mean fewer than 64 teams clearing, because you MUST have a 5-3 record to clear at CEDA Nats. In terms of the schedule, it will impact Sunday, with the result being the awards assembly being earlier than it normally is and earlier than the schedule says. Thanks for asking. Tuna >From Mon Mar 9 15:29:33 1998 Message-Id: Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 15:29:33 MST7MDT Reply-To: WEST at CENTRUM.CN.SUU.EDU To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Terry West Organization: Southern Utah University Subject: Re: What's Up W/ CEDA Nats? I believe the President is wrong. See below: On Mon, 9 Mar 1998, DRTUNA wrote: > Second, will it impact the schedule? Yes, it may mean several things. It may > mean no 5-3 round. It may also mean fewer than 64 teams clearing, because you > MUST have a 5-3 record to clear at CEDA Nats. In terms of the schedule, it > will impact Sunday, with the result being the awards assembly being earlier > than it normally is and earlier than the schedule says. I believe Dr. Snider's assumption that you "MUST" have a 5-3 record to clear at CEDA nats to be another merging in his mind of CEDA with NDT. Perusing my copy of the CEDA constitution, I find the following: 1. By-law 2-H states that the elimination rounds formula for sanctioning CEDA sweepstakes points justifies a "double-double" (triple) octo round if 115 teams or more are entered. This, of course, was the procedure for the first several years of the CEDA national tournament, and resulted in some 5-3's not being cleared based on points as the tournament grew to over 200 teams (not enough for a full quad-oc). 2. By-law 9 (passed a few years ago) sought to rectify the 5-3 missed on points issue by stating that the CEDA national would have "the appropriate number of elimination rounds to ensure that all teams with 5 or more wins compete in elimination rounds." Note: nowhere does this say that you "MUST" have 5 wins to compete; it just guarantees that if you have 5, there will be appropriate elimination rounds. The point: If numbers remain the same (115 or more teams), and if fewer than 64 teams have 5- 3 or better records, CEDA should follow its sweepstakes formula and the tradition of EVERY SINGLE CEDA TOURNAMENT IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNIVERSE and break a full 64-team triple octo bracket. Rationale: 1) Sweepstakes procedures are important to a number of programs. Why make CEDA nats the only tournament not following those procedures? 2) Why allow a unilateral interpretation to mandate that you "MUST" have a 5-3 record or better to advance to eliminations? That might be a good idea; it might not. But it ought to be a vote, not fiat. 3) This is the smallest CEDA national in history. Why do even more things guaranteed to make it smaller next year? Terry West Southern Utah > Thanks for asking. > > Tuna From mikeber Mon Mar 9 16:49:27 1998 From: mikeber (EBER) Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 16:49:27 -0600 Subject: What's Up W/ CEDA Nats? In-Reply-To: <2E81BA93157@CENTRUM.CN.SUU.EDU> Message-ID: If their are less than 64 teams with a 5-3 or better record, why would we want to clear the extra set of 4-4's? I always thought that you needed to debate your very best to clear at any national tournament. If the issue is just about points, then maybe CEDA nationals can have a penta-octofinal round where 128 teams clear, everyone gets some points and a bonus round to warm up for the quads.... random 2 cents as I further avoid studying, mike eber On Mon, 9 Mar 1998, Terry West wrote: > I believe the President is wrong. See below: > > On Mon, 9 Mar 1998, DRTUNA wrote: > > > > Second, will it impact the schedule? Yes, it may mean several things. It may > > mean no 5-3 round. It may also mean fewer than 64 teams clearing, because you > > MUST have a 5-3 record to clear at CEDA Nats. In terms of the schedule, it > > will impact Sunday, with the result being the awards assembly being earlier > > than it normally is and earlier than the schedule says. > > I believe Dr. Snider's assumption that you "MUST" have a 5-3 record > to clear at CEDA nats to be another merging in his mind of CEDA with > NDT. Perusing my copy of the CEDA constitution, I find the following: > > 1. By-law 2-H states that the elimination rounds formula for > sanctioning CEDA sweepstakes points justifies a "double-double" > (triple) octo round if 115 teams or more are entered. This, of > course, was the procedure for the first several years of the CEDA > national tournament, and resulted in some 5-3's not being cleared > based on points as the tournament grew to over 200 teams (not enough > for a full quad-oc). > > 2. By-law 9 (passed a few years ago) sought to rectify the 5-3 > missed on points issue by stating that the CEDA national would have > "the appropriate number of elimination rounds to ensure that all > teams with 5 or more wins compete in elimination rounds." Note: > nowhere does this say that you "MUST" have 5 wins to compete; it just > guarantees that if you have 5, there will be appropriate elimination > rounds. > > The point: > > If numbers remain the same (115 or more teams), and if fewer than 64 > teams have 5- 3 or better records, CEDA should follow its sweepstakes > formula and the tradition of EVERY SINGLE CEDA TOURNAMENT IN THE > HISTORY OF THE UNIVERSE and break a full 64-team triple octo bracket. > Rationale: > > 1) Sweepstakes procedures are important to a number of programs. > Why make CEDA nats the only tournament not following those procedures? > > 2) Why allow a unilateral interpretation to mandate that you "MUST" > have a 5-3 record or better to advance to eliminations? That might > be a good idea; it might not. But it ought to be a vote, not fiat. > > 3) This is the smallest CEDA national in history. Why do even > more things guaranteed to make it smaller next year? > > Terry West > Southern Utah > > > > Thanks for asking. > > > > Tuna > From ifjxh Mon Mar 9 17:34:01 1998 From: ifjxh (Joshua Hoe) Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 15:34:01 PST Subject: Information exchange.... Message-ID: I would appreciate it if anyone could give me recent information on the following teams cases: Samford (Johnson and Stetson) Pace (Kloster and Peterson) George Washington (Ducommon and Mast) Miami Ohio UMKC (Coffman/Baisley) I will certainly give up any info that I have that you need in exchange :). Thanks in advance!!!! Josh Joshua B. Hoe Research Assistant University of North Texas ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From BriscoeSF98.CS17.USAFA Mon Mar 9 17:48:17 1998 From: BriscoeSF98.CS17.USAFA (Cadet Shawn F. Briscoe, x4501) Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 16:48:17 MST Subject: Towson Message-ID: Hello- Could somebody please backchannel me the results for Towson... for some reason I didn't get them... Thanks, Shawn Briscoe USAFA From rick Mon Mar 9 17:06:55 1998 From: rick (Rick Koerber) Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 16:06:55 -0700 Subject: FW: What's Up W/ CEDA Nats? Message-ID: I'm in agreement with Terry! Rick Koerber President - National Business Solutions LLC E mailto:rick at nbsweb.com 240 South Wolcott @236 Casper, WY 82601 phone:307-473-8121 fax:307-235-3174 http://www.globalcentral.com http://www.nbsweb.com -----Original Message----- From: Terry West [SMTP:WEST at CENTRUM.CN.SUU.EDU] Sent: Monday, March 09, 1998 8:30 AM To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU Subject: Re: What's Up W/ CEDA Nats? I believe the President is wrong. See below: On Mon, 9 Mar 1998, DRTUNA wrote: > Second, will it impact the schedule? Yes, it may mean several things. It may > mean no 5-3 round. It may also mean fewer than 64 teams clearing, because you > MUST have a 5-3 record to clear at CEDA Nats. In terms of the schedule, it > will impact Sunday, with the result being the awards assembly being earlier > than it normally is and earlier than the schedule says. I believe Dr. Snider's assumption that you "MUST" have a 5-3 record to clear at CEDA nats to be another merging in his mind of CEDA with NDT. Perusing my copy of the CEDA constitution, I find the following: 1. By-law 2-H states that the elimination rounds formula for sanctioning CEDA sweepstakes points justifies a "double-double" (triple) octo round if 115 teams or more are entered. This, of course, was the procedure for the first several years of the CEDA national tournament, and resulted in some 5-3's not being cleared based on points as the tournament grew to over 200 teams (not enough for a full quad-oc). 2. By-law 9 (passed a few years ago) sought to rectify the 5-3 missed on points issue by stating that the CEDA national would have "the appropriate number of elimination rounds to ensure that all teams with 5 or more wins compete in elimination rounds." Note: nowhere does this say that you "MUST" have 5 wins to compete; it just guarantees that if you have 5, there will be appropriate elimination rounds. The point: If numbers remain the same (115 or more teams), and if fewer than 64 teams have 5- 3 or better records, CEDA should follow its sweepstakes formula and the tradition of EVERY SINGLE CEDA TOURNAMENT IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNIVERSE and break a full 64-team triple octo bracket. Rationale: 1) Sweepstakes procedures are important to a number of programs. Why make CEDA nats the only tournament not following those procedures? 2) Why allow a unilateral interpretation to mandate that you "MUST" have a 5-3 record or better to advance to eliminations? That might be a good idea; it might not. But it ought to be a vote, not fiat. 3) This is the smallest CEDA national in history. Why do even more things guaranteed to make it smaller next year? Terry West Southern Utah > Thanks for asking. > > Tuna From zambezi Mon Mar 9 18:26:41 1998 From: zambezi (MCKEEHAN) Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 18:26:41 -0600 Subject: Novice Nationals? Message-ID: Any news from the novice nationals at Northwestern? Grant >From Mon Mar 9 19:40:56 1998 Message-Id: Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 19:40:56 -0500 Reply-To: jmw28 at CORNELL.EDU To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Jessica Wojtysiak Subject: DSR's MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Anyone know who's planning on attending this weekend? -jessica >From Mon Mar 9 19:37:40 1998 Message-Id: Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 19:37:40 -0500 Reply-To: Mark_W_Yopp at MTA.WFU.EDU To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Mark Yopp! Subject: Re: Novice Nationals? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii This is what I can Reconstruct: Octas Michigan FS (Neg) def Wake PY Wake EL (Aff) def NU JK Kansas MR (Neg) def Wake BC Emory BG (Aff) def Georgia ES UNC FH (Neg?) def Kansas HS NU JKO (Neg) def UMKC Wake AR (Aff) def Emory EG Emory HT (Neg) def. Louisville LW Quarters Wake AR (Neg) def Michigan FS Emory HT (Aff) def Wake EL Emory BG (Neg) def UNC FH NU JKO def Kansas MR Semis Emory HT (Neg) def Wake AR Emory BG (Neg) def NU JKO Finals Emory closes out Later Yopp! >From Mon Mar 9 15:59:32 1998 Message-Id: Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 15:59:32 MST7MDT Reply-To: WEST at CENTRUM.CN.SUU.EDU To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Terry West Organization: Southern Utah University Subject: Re: What's Up W/ CEDA Nats? At least several reasons in response to the below: 1) There is no "extra set" of 4-4's. Nobody knows until the tournament happens how many 5-3's or 4-4's there will be. The argument in favor of clearing all the 5-3's was that given the largeness of the tournament, and disparity of the judge pool, points was a poor way to divide the teams. Mutual preference advocates make the same argument about disparity to justify their judge assignment system. The same would seem to hold true for the issue of clearing a number of teams re: the constitutional formula. If two very good 4-3 teams are matched in the 8th round, the one that's 4-4 at the end may be a better team than the 5-3 survivor of a 4-3 match between two "lucky" teams. 2) The 1-64 bracket has more seeding integrity. If you clear less than 64, your run-off has to be a partial triple. Winners of that round are most probably much higher seeds than the top seeds would expect to debate in the first out round of a bracket of 64. 3) Your argument about clearing everyone is a lame strawfigure fallacy. Nobody argued for that. I argued to follow CEDA constitutional and traditional procedures. What is your argument for a unilateral change in the Constitution without a vote of the membership? Terry West SUU > Date sent: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 16:49:27 -0600 (CST) > From: EBER > To: Terry West > Copies to: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU > Subject: Re: What's Up W/ CEDA Nats? > > > > If their are less than 64 teams with a 5-3 or better record, why would > we want to clear the extra set of 4-4's? I always thought that you needed > to debate your very best to clear at any national tournament. If the issue > is just about points, then maybe CEDA nationals can have a penta-octofinal > round where 128 teams clear, everyone gets some points and a bonus round > to warm up for the quads.... > > random 2 cents as I further avoid studying, > > mike eber > > > On Mon, 9 Mar 1998, Terry West wrote: > > > I believe the President is wrong. See below: > > > > On Mon, 9 Mar 1998, DRTUNA wrote: > > > > > > > Second, will it impact the schedule? Yes, it may mean several things. It may > > > mean no 5-3 round. It may also mean fewer than 64 teams clearing, because you > > > MUST have a 5-3 record to clear at CEDA Nats. In terms of the schedule, it > > > will impact Sunday, with the result being the awards assembly being earlier > > > than it normally is and earlier than the schedule says. > > > > I believe Dr. Snider's assumption that you "MUST" have a 5-3 record > > to clear at CEDA nats to be another merging in his mind of CEDA with > > NDT. Perusing my copy of the CEDA constitution, I find the following: > > > > 1. By-law 2-H states that the elimination rounds formula for > > sanctioning CEDA sweepstakes points justifies a "double-double" > > (triple) octo round if 115 teams or more are entered. This, of > > course, was the procedure for the first several years of the CEDA > > national tournament, and resulted in some 5-3's not being cleared > > based on points as the tournament grew to over 200 teams (not enough > > for a full quad-oc). > > > > 2. By-law 9 (passed a few years ago) sought to rectify the 5-3 > > missed on points issue by stating that the CEDA national would have > > "the appropriate number of elimination rounds to ensure that all > > teams with 5 or more wins compete in elimination rounds." Note: > > nowhere does this say that you "MUST" have 5 wins to compete; it just > > guarantees that if you have 5, there will be appropriate elimination > > rounds. > > > > The point: > > > > If numbers remain the same (115 or more teams), and if fewer than 64 > > teams have 5- 3 or better records, CEDA should follow its sweepstakes > > formula and the tradition of EVERY SINGLE CEDA TOURNAMENT IN THE > > HISTORY OF THE UNIVERSE and break a full 64-team triple octo bracket. > > Rationale: > > > > 1) Sweepstakes procedures are important to a number of programs. > > Why make CEDA nats the only tournament not following those procedures? > > > > 2) Why allow a unilateral interpretation to mandate that you "MUST" > > have a 5-3 record or better to advance to eliminations? That might > > be a good idea; it might not. But it ought to be a vote, not fiat. > > > > 3) This is the smallest CEDA national in history. Why do even > > more things guaranteed to make it smaller next year? > > > > Terry West > > Southern Utah > > > > > > > Thanks for asking. > > > > > > Tuna > > > > From nkw2a Mon Mar 9 22:30:34 1998 From: nkw2a (Natalie Kay Hatch Woodward) Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 22:30:34 -0600 Subject: ENMU Only Message-ID: Sorry to clog up everyone's e-mail (and yes, I tried scanning), but I am trying to get in touch with Dunn from ENMU. Thanks, Natalie MTSU "I would rather learn from one bird how to sing than teach ten thousand stars how not to dance." -- ee cummings "They sicken of the calm, who know the storm" -- Dorothy Parker "Offer me solutions, offer me alternatives, and I decline. Its the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine." -- REM "Hold back the edges of your gowns, Ladies, we are going through hell." -- William Carlos Williams From ericemerson Mon Mar 9 23:06:51 1998 From: ericemerson (eric emerson) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 00:06:51 -0500 Subject: toc application Message-ID: steve, here is my letter that i will attach with your at large application. please review it and tell me what you think. eric March 12, 1998 1701 N. Austin Ave. Georgetown, Tx 78626 (512) 342-8212 To the Selection Committee for the Tournament of Champions, I am writing this letter to submit the debate team of Stephen Anderson and Loren Dent from Georgetown High School for an at large bid to the Tournament of Champions. As a first year debate coach, I believe that this team, comprised of two juniors, has shown an exponential learning curve and remarkable potential for not only this years Tournament of Champions, but also for more to come. As a recent graduate of the University of Texas and former first round debater, I recognize the skills and expertise that the T.O.C. demands. I believe that this team has not only shown all the necessary skills to qualify, but they have also shown a commitment to work and learning that will guarantee that will improve even in the months to come. Of the three teams that I have previously assisted in coaching to the T.O.C., I believe that Stephen and Loren are competitive with all and I have the same possibility of reaching the elimination rounds. Their growth as a team has been hindered by administrative restrictions placed on our debate limiting our ability to travel outside of Texas. Much of our efforts have been diverted by our attempts toward establishing a national quality program in the Austin area. Of the T.O.C. qualifiers and similar quality tournaments that they attended, they reached the elimination rounds of Greenhill, Memorial, Clark, the University of Texas, and the T.F.A. State Tournament. In addition, they were invited to the Woodlands Round Robin and Stephen Anderson received speaker awards at 3 of the above listed tournaments. Stephen and Loren have shown remarkable skills and potential. They have proven through their competitive success that they have the skills to be nationally competitive. Because of these reasons, we respectfully request that you accept their bid for an at-large seed in the Tournament of Champions. Sincerely, Eric Emerson Director of Forensics Georgetown High From dougdennis Mon Mar 9 23:27:27 1998 From: dougdennis (doug dennis) Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 21:27:27 PST Subject: jccc Message-ID: is there a team list for the tourney? is it possible to be backchanneled an invite? thanks and sorry for the clutter doug um-rolla ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From joudmc Tue Mar 10 00:10:42 1998 From: joudmc (David Mark Cheshier) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 01:10:42 -0500 Subject: NDT Ranking Report (2 of 3 for 1997-1998) Message-ID: 1997-1998 NDT National Rankings Report II This message contains the cumulated ranking report for National Debate Tournament competition. As ranking director, I am charged with producing three such reports over the course of the academic year; this is the second report. The third appears in April, after the conclusion of the competitive season. This ranking includes results from 53 tournaments, but obviously many others have not been included. In every case of which I was aware, I made contact with the tournament director. At any point in time (until publication of the final report) I will add results from any tournament which meets the rankings requirements, and so I encourage you to forward results to me. Your school will receive a hard copy of this report by mail, sometime during the next two weeks. Here is how these point totals are derived: Each school is permitted to count their best eight tournament performances. Points earned by the top two performing teams at each tournament are summed to produce a school total for that event. Teams receive points (ranging from 8-16) for preliminary round wins, and more points for elimination round participation (e.g., a unanimous win counts for 6 points, a split win for 5 pts., a split loss 4, unanimous defeat 3). Points in the overall ranking make no distinction between divisions, and all count equally. A separate listing ranks schools based only on their varsity or open division points earned. Overall point totals are separately listed by district, and junior/community college results are pulled out to produce a top three ranking of those schools. Rankings are listed for any tournament which used the common policy topic, and for which comprehensive results were available. This report shows points earned by all schools in attendance at a tournament, whether or not they are NDT subscribers. Therefore, your school may be ranked although you have not yet chosen to affiliate with the NDT by paying the token dues membership. The final report only lists points earned by subscribing schools. If you discover an error, do not hesitate to notify me, and corrections will be integrated into the next ranking. I want to thank those tournament directors who were so kind in providing me with timely reports of their results. David Cheshier Asst Prof and Dir of Debate, Dept of Communication Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA O 404-651-2621 F 404-651-2621 ______________________________________________________________________________ RANKING REPORT 2 -- 3/6/98 TOP 10 OVERALL TOP 10 VARSITY 1 Liberty 515 1 Emory 495 2 Emory 495 2 Michigan State 439 3 George Mason 451 3 Kansas 438 4 Michigan State 444 4 Southern Illinois 429 5 Kansas 438 5 Southern California 424 6 Southern California 429 6 Northwestern 408 6 Southern Illinois 429 7 Michigan 394 8 Northwestern 408 8 Wake Forest 376 9 Michigan 394 9 UM - Kansas City 344 10 Navy 389 10 Texas 342 TOP 3 COMMUNITY COLLEGES 1 College of Eastern Utah 137 2 Johnson County 108 3 South Orange County 60 ______________________________________________________________________________ TOURNAMENTS INCLUDED IN THIS REPORT: Appalachian State University, Arkansas Tech University, Augustana College (IL), Baylor University, CSU Long Beach, Capital Cities Debates, Colorado College, Cornell University, Dartmouth College Round Robin, Duquesne University, Emporia State University, George Mason University, George Washington University, Johnson County CC, Kings College, Lewis & Clark University, Liberty University, Middle Tennessee State University, NE Louisiana State University, Northwestern University, PSCFA Fall Warmup, Pennsylvania State University, Redlands University Round Robin, San Diego State University, Southern Illinois University, SIU Round Robin, University of Central Oklahoma, University of Colorado Boulder, University of Kentucky, Univ. of Kentucky Round Robin, University of Missouri Kansas City, University of Missouri St. Louis, University of Nevada Las Vegas, UNC Chapel Hill, University of Northern Iowa, University of North Texas, University of Puget Sound, University of Richmond, University of South Carolina, University of Southern California, University of Utah, University of Wisconsin Oshkosh, U.S. Naval Academy, Valdosta State University, Wake Forest University, Wayne State University, Weber State University Round Robin, West Point US Military Academy, Western States Forensics Tournament, Western Washington University, Whitman College, Wichita State University, William Jewell College (open only) ______________________________________________________________________________ OVERALL RANKINGS 1 Liberty 515 2 Emory 495 3 George Mason 451 4 Michigan State 444 5 Kansas 438 6 Southern California 429 7 Southern Illinois 429 8 Northwestern 408 9 Michigan 394 10 Navy 389 11 Wake Forest 381 12 UMKC 372 13 Eastern New Mexico 342 14 Texas 342 15 Alabama 341 16 Georgetown 337 17 Gonzaga 335 18 Iowa 332 19 Wayne State 325 20 Boston College 323 21 Dartmouth 315 22 Towson 295 23 Mary Washington 291 24 Vermont 291 25 Arizona State 284 26 George Washington 280 27 South Carolina 280 28 West Georgia 277 29 Emporia 276 30 Kansas State 276 31 Georgia 271 32 Cornell 261 33 Trinity 261 34 Harvard 258 35 Whitman 251 36 North Texas 247 37 Redlands 245 38 Louisville 241 39 Macalaster 240 40 SW Missouri 239 41 Pace 237 42 Baylor 235 43 Pittsburgh 234 44 CSU Fullerton 221 45 John Carroll 221 46 SW Texas 212 47 Samford 201 48 Southern Utah 197 49 Vanderbilt 192 50 Fort Hays 184 51 CSU Chico 174 52 Duquesne 174 53 Northwest College 174 54 Rochester 171 55 Methodist 170 56 Nevada Las Vegas 169 57 New Mexico 168 58 Wheaton 168 59 Utah 167 60 Miami (FL) 161 61 Lewis & Clark 160 62 Air Force 159 63 Mercer 151 64 Augustana (IL) 149 65 Kentucky 148 66 Pepperdine 147 67 Wichita State 145 68 Western Washington 143 69 Kings 139 70 Central Oklahoma 137 71 Eastern Utah 137 72 Miami (OH) 136 73 Florida 135 74 MTSU 134 75 Richmond 134 76 Allegheny 131 77 Clemson 131 78 Penn State 131 79 James Madison 130 80 Loyola (IL) 130 81 Puget Sound 127 82 UNC Chapel Hill 126 83 West Virginia 126 84 Arkansas State 119 85 CSU Long Beach 118 86 Army 114 87 Northern Iowa 110 88 Northern Illinois 109 89 Johnson County CC 108 90 Central Methodist 102 91 Hillsdale 102 92 San Francisco State 100 93 Weber State 100 94 Oregon 99 95 CSU Bakersfield 98 96 Augustana (SD) 96 97 Illinois State 95 98 McNeese 95 99 Cameron 91 100 Clarion 91 101 Florida State 91 102 SW Missouri 91 103 Syracuse 87 104 Duke 86 105 Michigan Dearborn 83 106 San Diego State 83 107 Arkansas Tech 82 108 Capital 82 109 Valdosta 80 110 Depaul 79 111 Webster 77 112 William Jewell 77 113 Texas Dallas 76 114 Casper 75 115 Georgia State 75 116 Tennessee Tech 74 117 Abilene Christian 67 118 Truman State 67 119 SE Missouri 66 120 Marshall 65 121 NYU 63 122 SUNY Binghamton 63 123 Texas San Antonio 62 124 South Orange County CC 60 125 Loyola Marymount 58 126 Morehouse 58 127 Ithaca 57 128 Marquette 56 129 UC Berkeley 56 130 Scranton 55 131 Shepherd 53 132 Austin Peay 51 133 Ball State 49 134 Pacific Lutheran 47 135 Cumberland 46 136 Appalachian State 44 137 Cleveland State 44 138 Los Angeles City 44 139 Furman 42 140 Michigan Flint 40 141 Pasadena CC 40 142 Notre Dame 39 143 LSU Shreveport 34 144 Claremont 33 145 Sam Houston State 33 146 Case Western 31 147 Seattle 31 148 CSU Santa Clara 29 149 Colorado 29 150 USC Spartanburg 29 151 Cal Poly Pomona 28 152 Sacramento JC 24 153 San Jose State 23 154 CSU Sacramento 22 155 Mansfield 22 156 Wisconsin Oshkosh 20 157 Xavier 20 158 Louisiana Tech 19 159 South Dakota State 19 160 UNC Charlotte 19 161 Buffalo 16 162 Los Rios CC 16 163 Moorpark 16 164 LSU 15 165 Concordia 11 166 Henderson State 11 167 Marist 11 168 Orange Coast CC 11 169 University of Washington 11 170 Washington Univ. (MO) 11 171 SW Louisiana 11 172 Texas Tech 10 173 SE Oklahoma 10 174 Central Arkansas 9 175 CSU Northridge 9 176 Hill College 9 177 Northampton CC 8 178 Texas Dallas 8 ______________________________________________________________________________ VARSITY RANKINGS 1 Emory 495 2 Michigan State 439 3 Kansas 438 4 Southern Illinois 429 5 Southern California 424 6 Northwestern 408 7 Michigan 394 8 Wake Forest 376 9 UMKC 344 10 Texas 342 11 Gonzaga 335 12 Iowa 332 13 Liberty 323 14 Dartmouth 315 15 George Mason 301 16 Georgetown 300 17 George Washington 280 18 West Georgia 277 19 Wayne State 275 20 Georgia 271 21 Arizona State 267 22 Alabama 259 23 Kansas State 259 24 Harvard 253 25 North Texas 247 26 Baylor 235 27 Trinity 228 28 Whitman 227 29 Towson 225 30 Redlands 223 31 Macalaster 217 32 Pace 213 33 Eastern New Mexico 206 34 CSU Fullerton 203 35 Samford 201 36 SW Texas 199 37 Cornell 193 38 SW Missouri 193 39 CSU Chico 174 40 John Carroll 166 41 Fort Hays 163 42 Miami (FL) 161 43 Pittsburgh 161 44 Lewis & Clark 160 45 Nevada Las Vegas 158 46 South Carolina 152 47 New Mexico 150 48 Augustana (IL) 149 49 Louisville 149 50 Kentucky 148 51 Air Force 147 52 Emporia 147 53 Mercer 128 54 Puget Sound 127 55 Southern Utah 126 56 Utah 124 57 Western Washington 119 58 Mary Washington 112 59 UNC Chapel Hill 110 60 Navy 109 61 Pepperdine 109 62 Florida 104 63 James Madison 104 64 Northwest College 104 65 Richmond 104 66 Weber State 100 67 Oregon 99 68 Vermont 97 69 McNeese 95 70 Arkansas State 94 71 Florida State 90 72 Wichita State 90 73 Wheaton 88 74 Miami (OH) 87 75 Augustana (SD) 85 76 Boston College 82 77 Duquesne 77 78 Army 75 79 Loyola (IL) 75 80 Rochester 74 81 Abilene Christian 67 82 Georgia State 64 83 Depaul 63 84 Loyola Marymount 58 85 Syracuse 58 86 CSU Bakersfield 51 87 Pacific Lutheran 47 88 CSU Long Beach 45 89 MTSU 43 90 Northern Iowa 41 91 Northern Illinois 40 92 Notre Dame 39 93 Cameron 37 94 Texas San Antonio 37 95 SE Missouri 35 96 Claremont 33 97 Tennessee Tech 33 98 Arkansas Tech 32 99 Marquette 32 100 NYU 32 101 Vanderbilt 32 102 San Francisco State 30 103 Colorado 29 104 Pasadena CC 28 105 Cal Poly Pomona 28 106 LSU Shreveport 27 107 Kings 26 108 Los Angeles City 24 109 Sacramento JC 24 110 William Jewell 23 111 CSU Northridge 22 112 Marshall 22 113 Webster 22 114 Illinois State 21 115 Valdosta 21 116 Casper 20 117 Hillsdale 20 118 Michigan Dearborn 20 119 Seattle 20 120 Xavier 20 121 Johnson County CC 19 122 Louisiana Tech 19 123 Morehouse 19 124 Sam Houston State 18 125 Duke 17 126 Moorpark 16 127 San Diego State 12 128 Allegheny 11 129 Furman 11 130 Henderson State 11 131 Marist 11 132 Orange Coast CC 11 133 Univ. of Washington 11 134 Eastern Utah 10 135 Appalachian State 9 136 Central Arkansas 9 137 Central Methodist 9 138 CSU Northridge 9 139 UC Berkeley 9 140 Ball State 8 141 Cerritos CC 8 142 San Jose State 8 143 Texas Dallas 8 ______________________________________________________________________________ DISTRICTS DISTRICT 1 1. Southern California 429 2. Redlands 245 3. CSU Fullerton 221 4. CSU Chico 174 5. Pepperdine 147 6. CSU Long Beach 118 7. San Francisco State 100 8. CSU Bakersfield 98 9. San Diego State 83 10. South Orange Co. CC 60 11. Loyola Marymount 58 12. UC Berkeley 56 13. Los Angeles City CC 44 14. Pasadena CC 40 15. Claremont 33 16. CSU Santa Clara 29 17. Cal Poly Pomona 28 18. Sacramento JC 24 19. San Jose State 23 20. CSU Sacramento 22 21. Los Rios CC 16 22. Orange Coast CC 11 23. CSU Northridge 9 DISTRICT 2 1. Gonzaga 335 2. Whitman 251 3. Northwest College 174 4. Lewis & Clark 160 5. Western Washington 143 6. Puget Sound 127 7. Oregon 99 8. Pacific Lutheran 47 9. Seattle 31 10. Univ. of Washington 11 DISTRICT 3 1. Kansas 438 2. UM Kansas City 372 3. UT Austin 342 4. Emporia 276 5. Kansas State 276 6. Trinity 261 7. North Texas 247 8. Southwest Missouri 239 9. Baylor 235 10. Southwest Texas 212 11. Fort Hays 184 12. Wichita State 145 13. Central Oklahoma 137 14. Arkansas State 119 15. Johnson County CC 108 16. Central Methodist 102 17. McNeese 95 18. Cameron 91 19. Southwest Missouri 91 20. Arkansas Tech 82 21. Webster 77 22. William Jewell 77 23. UT Dallas 76 24. Abilene Christian 67 25. Truman State 67 26. Southeast Missouri 66 27. UT San Antonio 62 28. Cumberland 46 29. LSU Shreveport 34 30. Sam Houston State 33 31. Xavier 20 32. Louisiana Tech 19 33. Moorpark 16 34. LSU 15 35. Henderson State 11 36. Washington Univ. 11 37. Southwest Louisiana 11 38. Texas Tech 10 39. Southeast Oklahoma 10 40. Central Arkansas 9 41. Hill College 9 42. UT Dallas 8 DISTRICT 4 1. Iowa 332 2. Macalaster 240 3. Northern Iowa 110 4. Augustana (SD) 96 5. South Dakota State 19 6. Concordia 11 DISTRICT 5 1. Michigan State 444 2. Southern Illinois 429 3. Northwestern 408 4. Michigan 394 5. Wayne State 325 6. John Carroll 221 7. Wheaton 168 8. Augustana (IL) 149 9. Miami (OH) 136 10. Loyola (IL) 130 11. Northern Illinois 109 12. Hillsdale 102 13. Illinois State 95 14. Michigan Dearborn 83 15. Capitol 82 16. DePaul 79 17. Marquette 56 18. Ball State 49 19. Cleveland State 44 20. Michigan Flint 40 21. Notre Dame 39 22. Case Western 31 23. Wisconsin Oshkosh 20 DISTRICT 6 1. Emory 495 2. Wake Forest 381 3. Alabama 341 4. South Carolina 280 5. West Georgia 277 6. Georgia 271 7. Louisville 241 8. Samford 201 9. Vanderbilt 192 10. Miami (FL) 161 11. Mercer 151 12. Kentucky 148 13. Florida 135 14. MTSU 134 15. Clemson 131 16. UNC Chapel Hill 126 17. Florida State 91 18. Duke 86 19. Valdosta 80 20. Georgia State 75 21. Tennessee Tech 74 22. Morehouse 58 23. Austin Peay 51 24. Appalachian State 44 25. Furman 42 26. USC Spartanburg 29 27. UNC Charlotte 19 DISTRICT 7 1. Liberty 515 2. George Mason 451 3. Navy 389 4. Georgetown 337 5. Towson 295 6. Mary Washington 291 7. George Washington 280 8. Pittsburgh 234 9. Duquesne 174 10. Methodist 170 11. Kings 139 12. Richmond 134 13. Allegheny 131 14. Penn State 131 15. James Madison 130 16. West Virginia 126 17. Clarion 91 18. Marshall 65 19. Scranton 55 20. Shepherd 53 21. Mansfield 22 22. Northampton CC 8 DISTRICT 8 1. Boston College 323 2. Dartmouth 315 3. Vermont 291 4. Cornell 261 5. Harvard 258 6. Pace 237 7. Rochester 171 8. Army 114 9. Syracuse 87 10. NYU 63 11. SUNY Binghamton 63 12. Ithaca 57 13. Buffalo 16 14. Marist 11 DISTRICT 9 1. Eastern New Mexico 342 2. Arizona State 284 3. Southern Utah 197 4. Nevada Las Vegas 169 5. New Mexico 168 6. Utah 167 7. Air Force 159 8. Eastern Utah 137 9. Weber State 100 10. Casper 75 11. Colorado 29 ________________________________End of Report____________________________ From MWBRYANT Tue Mar 10 00:46:06 1998 From: MWBRYANT (MWBRYANT) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 01:46:06 EST Subject: What's Up W/ CEDA Nats? Message-ID: If more time might be available due to the elimination of quad octos, what's the possibility of getting ten minutes of prep time? I realize there are many potential barriers to this consideration, but I thought I'd just inquire regarding the feasibility of such a consideration. Thanks for your response, Michael Bryant From DRTUNA Tue Mar 10 09:00:46 1998 From: DRTUNA (DRTUNA) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 10:00:46 EST Subject: What's Up W/ CEDA Nats? Message-ID: In a message dated 3/9/98 5:30:36 PM, WEST at CENTRUM.CN.SUU.EDU wrote: >I believe Dr. Snider's assumption that you "MUST" have a 5-3 record >to clear at CEDA nats to be another merging in his mind of CEDA with >NDT. Terry, it really pisses me of that you think you can read my mind and find some sort of evil motive behind everything I seem to do. I have spent a lot of time in the last five years trying to be nice to you and to be polite to you. Yet, all I get is a lot of suspicion. If you think I am part of an NDT plot then you offer an eloquent critique of your own thought process. I am told by past Presidents and Gary Larson that you must be 5-3 to qualify. That's the extent of my plot. I look forward to a time when I am not CEDA President so that I can respond to your messages in a different way. More on the issue later, but I wanted to indicate that I am sick and tired of this kind of distrust of everything I try to do. Have a nice day, Tuna From mkrueger Tue Mar 10 09:28:40 1998 From: mkrueger (mike krueger) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 09:28:40 -0600 Subject: ad homs Message-ID: Hmmmmm. Nothing like a few ad homs to wake me up in the morning. Does technology desensitize us to where we don't think of people as people anymore? Sometimes e-debate makes me believe that argument. 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 asnider Tue Mar 10 09:55:28 1998 From: asnider (Alfred C. Snider) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 10:55:28 -0500 Subject: CEDA Program Development Guide is Online Message-ID: The CEDA Program Development Guide is now online at: http://debate.uvm.edu/progguide.html Bookmark it for future use. This is the largest single installation of debate support material I know of. It represents a substantial service to the entirety of debate EVERYWHERE. Glenda Treadaway of Appalachain State University is the editor and driving force behind this project. She edited and collected the materials and had them turned into text files. All thanks go to her and to her contributors. I look forward to her term as CEDA President. Watch for additional sections being added soon. Here is a preview: CEDA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT GUIDE Edited by GLENDA JENKINS TREADAWAY Chair, CEDA Program Development Committee Appalachian State University Program Development Committee Members Edward S. Inch C. Thomas Preston Ronna S. Liggett World Wide Web Document Created by Alfred C. Snider University of Vermont TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements & Contributors WHAT IS CEDA? CEDA and How to Join Sample CEDA Tournament List Student Eligibility Email us and Join! BIBLIOGRAPHIES General Debate Bibliographies Value of Debate Bibliography and Justifying Debate INTRODUCTION TO CEDA DEBATING Glossaries of Debate Terms Format of a Debate Speaker Responsibilities Debating the Topic Affirmative Theory Negative Theory Stock Issues Attacking the Affirmative Case Disadvantages Criteria Counterplans Organization Note Taking Cross Examination Evidence and Research Researching the Internet Debate Paradigms COACHING GUIDE Recruiting Students Taking Novices to their First Tournament Encouraging Novices Teaching a Debate Class Travel Guidelines Coaching & Travel Taking a Team to a CEDA Tournament Faculty Assessment for Tenure & Promotion Resources Needed for a Top 50 Program 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 Arnie.Madsen Tue Mar 10 10:14:02 1998 From: Arnie.Madsen (Arnie Madsen) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 10:14:02 -0600 Subject: NDT Qualifiers -- PLEASE READ -- URGENT Message-ID: NDT Qualifiers: If you are on the list of teams that has qualified for the 1998 National Debate Tournament at the University of Utah, YOU NEED TO FAX YOUR TEAM/ COACH DATA FORM TO DONN PARSON TODAY! That is your entry form for the tournament, lists the team names, the judges accompanying the team, and any additional coaches. That information is critical for pre-tournament planning, and is also essential for printing of the tournament booklet. If you do not have a copy of the TEAM/COACH DATA FORM, one is available on- line. Go to the NDT Home Page at http://www.uni.edu/ndt and follow the link to the NDT Director's page. Print a copy of the form, fill it out, and then fax it to Donn. Donn's fax number is 785 864 5203 If you have questions, 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 Tue Mar 10 10:16:54 1998 From: Gary.N.Larson (Gary Larson) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 10:16:54 -0600 Subject: What's Up W/ CEDA Nats? In-Reply-To: <2E81BA93157@CENTRUM.CN.SUU.EDU> Message-ID: Since I have been implicated in the "plot," let me explain my position on 4-4's clearing at Nationals. 1) I sincerely hope that we have sufficient entries to make the discussion moot. I think the real issue that must be faced by our community is how we have so many fewer teams even with unprecedented crossover debating. Theories abound: location, travel difficulties, earlier date, overall loss of membership, tournament procedures, etc. Each of these will require careful consideration in the coming months. 2) Concerning the more immediate issue: Tradition at CEDA Nats can't really help us on this one. For the entire history of the tournament, entries have been sufficient to insure that no 4-4 team was in the top 64. Local tournament experience has been rather variable. It is true that many tournaments over the years have done everything possible to get to the magic 15, 29 etc. and then broke everyone possible (even 2-4, 3-5's on rare occasions). With CEDA points ruling, there has certainly been incentive to do this, though I imagine a more defensible rationale to be to give outroud experience to more students. But, as executive secretary I also processed tournament results with partial brackets, tournaments with fewer outrounds than the constitution "permitted" (not mandated) and even tournaments with no outrounds. 3) The constitution only tells us the maximum number of elimination rounds that can count for points and that CEDA Nats must make accomodations to at least break all 5-3's. For general tournaments, tournament directors have absolute discretion as to how many teams qualify and by what procedure (e.g. a tournament could break teams based on points rather than record). My sense of the legislative history of the 5-3 amendment was that the "winning" argument was that points were not sufficiently reliable to exclude teams from breaking based solely on speaker points. While from a tournament management point of view I was uncomfortable to add another round, the membership saw the advantage of creating a "bright-line." I agree with Terry that the constitution does NOT mandate that we CAN'T break 4-4's, but my reading of the amendment and the concern over speaker points as a determinant for breaking leads me to the opinion that if the amendment means that if 65 teams have 5-3 records we have one additional round to determine seed 64 it should also mean that if 63 teams have 5-3 records we should not break the single 4-4 team (which might have only .5 triple-adjusted points over seed 65). To cross the bright line re-opens the controversy that produced the amendment in the first place. 4) As to the charge of unilateral action and/or being infected by NDT thinking, I believe that I first raised the question when I saw Tuna at the William Jewell tournament. I shared my fear that CEDA Nats would prove to be small (since confirmed). In attempted to finalize the schedule, I suggested that at somewhere between 165-180 it was likely that we would not have 64+ 5-3 teams. After talking about the potential loss of the 5-3 partial round, I asked Tuna what would happen if FEWER than 64 teams had 5-3 records. I also indicated that my sense of the amendment (I was exec secy at the time) was that people should not break based on speaker points. I also believe that particularly for nationals, having a "winning" record is the uniquely defensible bright-line. It is not until the past week that the hypothetical has become potentially real. If necessary, I think the executive council can discuss the issue next Thursday, but I don't believe that it requires a plebiscite. I do invite all concerned parties to express their views however. 5) Misc. args: Points are important. Perhaps, but this one is a stretch. Additional points are only earned if 4-4 teams win ballots in their elimination round. Anthing is possible and folk wisdom indicates that at CEDA Nats anything is LIKELY. But statistics do not bear this out. Given the possibility of wagering on the NCAA tournament with the caveat that I must always select the higher seeded team and wagering on CEDA Nats under the same constraints, I would clearly wager on CEDA nats. With the open disclosure of ALL decisions this year (posted), everyone in the tournament will know the 4-4 teams that clear and the record of their opponents. I suspect that the real "scandal" in the minds of most would be if and when the 4-4 team beat the 8-0 team. Now I clearly believe that "underdogs" should be given absolutely equal chance to win and that we shouldn't assume that an upset is WRONG, but I just doubt that too many of them will happen (one reason I don't favor open disclosure of all records). I believe a better argument for including 4-4's is HONOR of breaking at CEDA nats. This is far more compelling than the instrumental value of their potential points. I don't have an absolute take-out for this argument. Honor is important. The chance to debate is important. A 64th seed has never conceded the round against #1, and occasionally they have won. But I believe 5-3 is an appropriate bright-line. Sincerely, Gary From Arnie.Madsen Tue Mar 10 10:17:44 1998 From: Arnie.Madsen (Arnie Madsen) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 10:17:44 -0600 Subject: NDT Judging Philosophies Message-ID: NDT Qualifiers: All judges at the NDT must submit a judging philosophy form in advance of the tournament. All philosophies must be submitted directly to Mike Berry at King's College, no later than March 19th. Mike prefers that you send the philosophies via fax at 785 864 5203 Most judges should already have a philosophy written, because you likely needed it for Districts/ADA/CEDA. Please submit the philosophies ASAP, but no later than March 19, so Mike can go to press on time. -- 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 jmw8286 Tue Mar 10 10:31:44 1998 From: jmw8286 (Jacob Weigler) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 11:31:44 -0500 Subject: bought a fighter plane today (fwd) Message-ID: In these currency troubled times, a new step in agressive marketing. jake -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: Democratic Socialists of America Subject: dsanet: Fyi... Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 09:26:37 -0800 (PST) Size: 6431 Url: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/19980310/e4b417cf/attachment.mht From joshcoffman Tue Mar 10 11:02:10 1998 From: joshcoffman (josh coffman) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 09:02:10 PST Subject: SIU Message-ID: HEY could one of you all backchannel me---thanks Josh ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From bauscsa4 Tue Mar 10 11:02:43 1998 From: bauscsa4 (Stefan Bauschard) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 12:02:43 -0500 Subject: Hitchhiker Web Deployment In-Reply-To: <35055967.574E@iglobal.net> Message-ID: Next year's Hitchhiker pages are up and ready for your viewing/reading pleasure. This year's pages have a number of features: *Over 70 links to specific full-text documents to get you started with next year's research *A List of web cites which have documents that are card-intensive, including three Russian newspapers *A copy of the early release of a Hitchhiker essay on starting your topic research which was distributed at the Harvard High School Tournament *An early explanation of what promise to be some of the most debated issues on next year's topic. The Hitchhiker pages are a complement to the book, the Hitchhiker's Companion to the 1998-1999 CX Debate Topic. Next year's book will feature all of the following plus much more: *Editing by Alan Coverstone. Alan is the debate coach at Montgomery Bell Academy *An annotated bibliography of close to 2000 sources, approximately 500 of which will be from the internet. *Explanation of 10-15 different affirmative advantages and over thirty potential plans to solve the harms. All of the main arguments relating to these issues are previewed. *Ten generic disadvantage shells with advice on debating the disadvantages as well as five topic-specific critiques. *Background essay on Russian history and on the complicated recent developments in the Former Soviet Union * An article on how to strategize on this year's resolution. What are the core controversies and arguments? *A number of essays on research skills, including how to use the internet effectively, how to stay on top of current events, how to research against new affirmatives, and how to use electronic citation databases *Essays on debate pedagogy. This is *not* another debate handbook. It is a research and argument preparation guide that is focused on next year's debate topic. The book itself will be available in late May/early June. It can be ordered by contacting Jeff Rutledge (jrut at iglobal.net) at Paradigm Research (www.iglobal.net/paradigm/) Until the book is ready, and even after you have received your's, enjoy the Hitchhiker Pages www.iglobal.net/paradigm/hitchhiker/main.html As you college debaters prepare for the NDT, don't forget the Hitchhiker's Companion page for the Asia topic at http://www.iglobal.net/paradigm/hitchhiker/asia.html Enjoy! Stefan Bauschard Cathedral Preparatory School Paradigm Research From BriscoeSF98.CS17.USAFA Tue Mar 10 11:21:26 1998 From: BriscoeSF98.CS17.USAFA (Cadet Shawn F. Briscoe, x4501) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 10:21:26 MST Subject: Towson 2 Message-ID: Hello- I think my e-mail is all messed up. Could someone please backchannel me the results from Towson. Thanks, Shawn Briscoe USAFA From hunt Tue Mar 10 11:28:31 1998 From: hunt (Steven Hunt) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 09:28:31 -0800 Subject: CEDA Program Development Guide is Online In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Great idea and thanks to Glenda and Tuna for getting this up and going. If people have not seen Glenda's CEDA printed program guide, they ought to get a copy. It contains great debate information for both new programs and old. Steve Hunt Lewis & Clark From mkrueger Tue Mar 10 11:30:48 1998 From: mkrueger (mike krueger) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 11:30:48 -0600 Subject: Josh Hoe Message-ID: Josh; What is your fax number I got the wrong one it seems (the one that I have is 817-565-3630, and it doesn't work or at least didn't when I tried it) 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 AREHEARB Tue Mar 10 12:48:15 1998 From: AREHEARB (BRAD) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 12:48:15 CT Subject: Wake Forest Only Message-ID: Could someone please send me the cites to the morality underview to the Vietnam demining case you were running at the Heart? Thanks in advance, Brad From andyspencer Tue Mar 10 13:14:21 1998 From: andyspencer (ANDY SPENCER) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 11:14:21 PST Subject: Cyberterrorism Message-ID: Has any body heard any cases dealing with cyberterrorism? If you have could you briefly explain it to me? Thanks and good luck to all at nationals. Andy Spencer Panola College ______________________________________________ "You can't be a real country unless you have a beer and an airline - it helps if you have some kind of a football team, or some nuclear weapons, but at the very least you need a beer." --Frank Zappa ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From debate Tue Mar 10 13:20:31 1998 From: debate (greg simerly) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 13:20:31 -0600 Subject: MPJ Message-ID: The amendment for mutual preference judging at nationals passes 53-8. From MWBRYANT Tue Mar 10 13:33:18 1998 From: MWBRYANT (MWBRYANT) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 14:33:18 EST Subject: Cyberterrorism Message-ID: In a message dated 98-03-10 14:15:02 EST, you write: << Has any body heard any cases dealing with cyberterrorism? If you have could you briefly explain it to me? >> I've heard it as a scenario to information warfare in encryption cases. SE Asia is moving toward information-based economies, their failure to obtain strong encryption opens their information infrastructure to risks from hacking, the impacts of which include the risk of deliberate cyberterrorism to cause havoc. That's the scenario I've heard. Bear Weber State From mrberry Tue Mar 10 13:39:22 1998 From: mrberry (Berry Mike) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 14:39:22 -0500 Subject: Judge Philosophies Message-ID: For all Judges, The information Arnie relayed about where to send the judge philosophies is not quite accurate. I can get them that way but I would prefer the following methods. The most preferred is to send it via a plain text email to my email address (mrberry at rs01.kings.edu). That way I can send a reply indicating receipt of the philosophy. The 01 in the email address is a zero one not an "O" or "l". The second preferred method is via fax to the following number 717-826-5988. The least preferred method is to send them via fax to the number initially published 717-825-9049. The sooner I can get them the better. This would make my life easier and less hectic. By the way, if anyone needs a judge for the NDT, I am available as a full judge and am looking to defray the cost of going out there. Let me know if you need someone. Thanks for all your help. Mike Berry From Arnie.Madsen Tue Mar 10 13:41:08 1998 From: Arnie.Madsen (Arnie Madsen) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 13:41:08 -0600 Subject: List of Missing NDT Entry Forms Message-ID: NDT Qualifiers: Listed below are the teams who have NOT YET SUBMITTED their Team/Coach Data Form for the 1998 NDT. The Team/Coach Data Form is the official entry form for the tournament, and the information is also needed to allow printing of the tournament booklet. PLEASE FAX A COPY OF THE TEAM/COACH DATA FORM TO DONN PARSON TODAY! Donn's fax number is 785 864 5203 First-Round At-Large Dartmouth HL Emory FH Emory KS Harvard ES Iowa PR Michigan State CS Northwestern GS District I Southern California Stetson & Hurder Southern California Harrison & Revelins District II Whitman Harris & Symonds Whitman Clarke & Scoville District III Southwest Missouri Payne & Vega Kansas State Denny & West District V Michigan State BD Northwestern SS Wayne State AS Michigan KR Augustana IL Wayne State GL Miami John Carroll FS District VI Wake Forest Filstrup & Rufo Wake Forest Atchison & Green Georgia Matos & Teagle District VII George Mason Krein & Weiner Liberty Lawrence & Burns Georgetown Botvinnik & Simensen Liberty Sieglakoff & Tilley Pittsburgh Ellwood & Corrigan George Washington Ducommon & Mast District VIII Dartmouth Mead & Garen District IX Eastern New Mexico Baretto & Foy Weber Menzies & Anthony New Mexico Stalley & Clark Weber Dilsaver & Muranaka Second-Round At-Large Emory Todd & Tabak George Mason Igiel & Reed George Washington Stubbs & Thummala John Carroll Lavelle & Wiley Kansas State Glaser & Zollman Mercer Cockrell & Drake Miami Paulose & Wulken Michigan Pudelski & Scannapieco Michigan State Hoffman & Monick Nevada Las Vegas Kimbrough & Robertson Northwestern Anderson & Nemecek Pace Kloster & Petrey Southern California Bevan & Markowski Southwest Missouri Atkins & Kilpatrick Wake Forest Geppert & Rhodes -- 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 mikeber Tue Mar 10 13:41:56 1998 From: mikeber (EBER) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 13:41:56 -0600 Subject: What's Up W/ CEDA Nats? In-Reply-To: <2E89BAD3F26@CENTRUM.CN.SUU.EDU> Message-ID: I still don't know WHY we would want to clear teams without a winning record--the clear standard I thought the community agreed upon for what determines whether a team makes the cut. Onto the line by line.... > 1) There is no "extra set" of 4-4's. Nobody knows until the > tournament happens how many 5-3's or 4-4's there will be. The > argument in favor of clearing all the 5-3's was that given the > largeness of the tournament, and disparity of the judge pool, points > was a poor way to divide the teams. Mutual preference advocates make > the same argument about disparity to justify their judge assignment > system. The same would seem to hold true for the issue of clearing a > number of teams re: the constitutional formula. If two very good 4-3 > teams are matched in the 8th round, the one that's 4-4 at the end may > be a better team than the 5-3 survivor of a 4-3 match between two > "lucky" teams. My preference for having JUST 5-3's clear avoids this problem. Whatever points you get, your goal is winning 5 debates. There may in fact be a 4-4 team who got a tough draw and is better than than the 5-3 who barely won against a low 4-3 in round 8 but this is simply the nature of the game. If we begin to clear more than just 5-3's because the "top 4-4's are good too" then WHY DOESN'T THIS JUSTIFY CLEARING THE 3-5's WHO ARE VERY GOOD AND GOT AN EVEN WORSE DRAW AND/OR BAD DECISION? The reason this would never be done is that the standard for clearing is a WINNING RECORD and that standard excludes even the very best 4-4's. There has to be this bright line or then we begin to have extra rounds to determine which of the 4-4's are going to make the cut (If there are 50 5-3's then we need another round where ALL 4-4's debate to determine who the top 14 are based on rounds, not points, because points can be somewhat arbitrary) The very fact the we recognize points can be somewhat arbitrary PROVES WHY ROUNDS WON SHOULD BE THE SOLE CRITERIA FOR CLEARING. > > 2) The 1-64 bracket has more seeding integrity. If you clear less > than 64, your run-off has to be a partial triple. Winners of that > round are most probably much higher seeds than the top seeds would > expect to debate in the first out round of a bracket of 64. I don't understand. The round where the top seeds debate wouldnt be triple-octos anymore--it would be the DOUBLES where the seeds make perfect sense. And a partial triples doesn't skew the seeds. If there are 40 5-3's then the partial triples would have the bottom16 teams debate for the 24-32 seeds in the doubles. The top teams get a bye and debate the whoever wins. > 3) Your argument about clearing everyone is a lame strawfigure > fallacy. Nobody argued for that. I argued to follow CEDA > constitutional and traditional procedures. What is your argument for > a unilateral change in the Constitution without a vote of the > membership? First, unilateral changes in the Constitution aren't neccessary. There is no law that mandates a full round of 64 take place--only that the 5-3's must clear. Second, when has it ever been "tradition" to allow a 4-4 team into out rounds at nationals????? I think tradition is exactly the opposite: you have to be 5-3 or better to clear. If you happen to be a low 5-3 the tournament will make accomodations and have a partial whatever round so you get a chance to make the next cut. If you have a 4-4 record you may have lost some close break rounds but the cut is by definition highly competitive. Third, my argument about "why not clear 128 so we get more points" isn't a strawfigure fallacy. It is the logical extension of the claim that more is automatically better in out rounds. My point seems absurd but the answer to proves my argument. The REASON we think it to be absurd to clear everyone or all the 3-5's is BECAUSE YOU NEED TO WIN A CERTAIN NUMBER OF ROUNDS (5) TO BE IN OUT-ROUNDS. sincerely, mike eber > > > > Date sent: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 16:49:27 -0600 (CST) > > From: EBER > > To: Terry West > > Copies to: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU > > Subject: Re: What's Up W/ CEDA Nats? > > > > > > > > > If their are less than 64 teams with a 5-3 or better record, why would > > we want to clear the extra set of 4-4's? I always thought that you needed > > to debate your very best to clear at any national tournament. If the issue > > is just about points, then maybe CEDA nationals can have a penta-octofinal > > round where 128 teams clear, everyone gets some points and a bonus round > > to warm up for the quads.... > > > > random 2 cents as I further avoid studying, > > > > mike eber > > > > > > On Mon, 9 Mar 1998, Terry West wrote: > > > > > I believe the President is wrong. See below: > > > > > > On Mon, 9 Mar 1998, DRTUNA wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Second, will it impact the schedule? Yes, it may mean several things. It may > > > > mean no 5-3 round. It may also mean fewer than 64 teams clearing, because you > > > > MUST have a 5-3 record to clear at CEDA Nats. In terms of the schedule, it > > > > will impact Sunday, with the result being the awards assembly being earlier > > > > than it normally is and earlier than the schedule says. > > > > > > I believe Dr. Snider's assumption that you "MUST" have a 5-3 record > > > to clear at CEDA nats to be another merging in his mind of CEDA with > > > NDT. Perusing my copy of the CEDA constitution, I find the following: > > > > > > 1. By-law 2-H states that the elimination rounds formula for > > > sanctioning CEDA sweepstakes points justifies a "double-double" > > > (triple) octo round if 115 teams or more are entered. This, of > > > course, was the procedure for the first several years of the CEDA > > > national tournament, and resulted in some 5-3's not being cleared > > > based on points as the tournament grew to over 200 teams (not enough > > > for a full quad-oc). > > > > > > 2. By-law 9 (passed a few years ago) sought to rectify the 5-3 > > > missed on points issue by stating that the CEDA national would have > > > "the appropriate number of elimination rounds to ensure that all > > > teams with 5 or more wins compete in elimination rounds." Note: > > > nowhere does this say that you "MUST" have 5 wins to compete; it just > > > guarantees that if you have 5, there will be appropriate elimination > > > rounds. > > > > > > The point: > > > > > > If numbers remain the same (115 or more teams), and if fewer than 64 > > > teams have 5- 3 or better records, CEDA should follow its sweepstakes > > > formula and the tradition of EVERY SINGLE CEDA TOURNAMENT IN THE > > > HISTORY OF THE UNIVERSE and break a full 64-team triple octo bracket. > > > Rationale: > > > > > > 1) Sweepstakes procedures are important to a number of programs. > > > Why make CEDA nats the only tournament not following those procedures? > > > > > > 2) Why allow a unilateral interpretation to mandate that you "MUST" > > > have a 5-3 record or better to advance to eliminations? That might > > > be a good idea; it might not. But it ought to be a vote, not fiat. > > > > > > 3) This is the smallest CEDA national in history. Why do even > > > more things guaranteed to make it smaller next year? > > > > > > Terry West > > > Southern Utah > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for asking. > > > > > > > > Tuna > > > > > > > > From afugate Tue Mar 10 13:45:00 1998 From: afugate (Amy Fugate) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 13:45:00 -0600 Subject: Scott Harris only Message-ID: Scott, Do you have any teams for jv nationals? If so, please send me their names. Thanks, Amy Fugate From asnider Tue Mar 10 13:53:41 1998 From: asnider (Alfred C. Snider) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 14:53:41 -0500 Subject: Mutually Preferred Judging & CEDA Nats Message-ID: We will be using the following procedure for MPJ at Nationals. Judge preference sheets turned in before 10 pm Thursday will be honored for the whole tournament. Judge Preference sheets turned in before the beginning of Round 1 will be honored in all rounds after Round 2. No sheets will be accepted after the start of Round 1. Each team will be given an opportunity to designate 40% of judges as A, 30% as B, 25% as C, and 5% as strikes. There will be no regional constraints. Judges will be assigned randomly by the computer in an attempt to give each debate a mutual A. We project that 90% of all debates will receive a mutual A, 10% will receive a mutual B, and 0% will receive a mutual C, although there can be no guarantees. When all rounds cannot receive a mutual A, the computer will randomly select the debates to receive a mutual B. When judges fail to appear to judge their assigned round, last minute substitutions will have to be made without the guarantee of mutual preference. Within this system it is our goal to have all judges fulfill their commitments. Further, if the tab room is aware of such information, judges will not be scheduled to hear a team with whom they have been or are about to be associated. Now if you will excuse me, I'm on my way to have a celebratory drink. Just one, then back to work. 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 afugate Tue Mar 10 13:46:02 1998 From: afugate (Amy Fugate) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 13:46:02 -0600 Subject: John Fritch only Message-ID: John, Do you have any teams for jv nationals? If so, please send me their names. Thanks, Amy Fugate From afugate Tue Mar 10 13:47:38 1998 From: afugate (Amy Fugate) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 13:47:38 -0600 Subject: Roger Biles only Message-ID: Roger, You indicated last weekend that you were sending three teams to jv nats. Could you please send me their names? Thanks, Amy Fugate From jnmayer Tue Mar 10 13:47:46 1998 From: jnmayer (Jon Warren) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 13:47:46 -0600 Subject: Holding Math Hostage Message-ID: Does U.S. copyright law apply to encryption algorithims and/or cryptographic front-ends in countries to which those programs may not be transmitted under U.S. law?? -----Original Message----- From: MWBRYANT To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU Date: Tuesday, March 10, 1998 1:33 PM Subject: Re: Cyberterrorism >In a message dated 98-03-10 14:15:02 EST, you write: > ><< Has any body heard any cases dealing with cyberterrorism? If you have > could you briefly explain it to me? > >> > >I've heard it as a scenario to information warfare in encryption cases. SE >Asia is moving toward information-based economies, their failure to obtain >strong encryption opens their information infrastructure to risks from >hacking, the impacts of which include the risk of deliberate cyberterrorism to >cause havoc. > >That's the scenario I've heard. > >Bear >Weber State > From MWBRYANT Tue Mar 10 14:04:31 1998 From: MWBRYANT (MWBRYANT) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 15:04:31 EST Subject: CEDA Nats & Speaker Points Message-ID: As we approach CEDA Nationals, I think it is important to remind judges to be reasonable in the assignment of speaker points. This is particularly critical given Dr. Snider's reliance on straight hi-lo brackets throughout prelims. The traditional CEDA Nats point fairy somehow wants to win everyone's love by handing out blanket thirties. 1st speakers at CEDA Nats have averaged four to five thirties across eight prelims, and that's just simply ridiculous. The new CEDA reformist wants to punish people who don't obey their moral standards. I refuse to believe Danny Whittaker deserved zero speaker points in a round last year. That zero guaranteed he hit the top seed team in each bracket for each round of the tournament that was left. Judging ain't about winning love or inflicting your mindset of civility on the debaters. I dare say there isn't any debater at CEDA Nats that will deserve either a thirty or a zero. Don't knock a team out of the tournament or give your friends the easy ride out. Assign points with the same reasonableness that you judge the issues in the round. To do otherwise, marks you as critic that has no business judging. Maybe we should list the average points handed by each judge in the judging data that you know Snider will compile. Just be reasonable, Bear Weber St >From Tue Mar 10 13:05:41 1998 Message-Id: Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 13:05:41 MST7MDT Reply-To: WEST at CENTRUM.CN.SUU.EDU To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Terry West Organization: Southern Utah University Subject: Re: What's Up W/ CEDA Nats? In a message dated 3/10/98, DRTUNA at AOL.COM wrote: > > Terry, it really pisses me of that you think you can read my mind and find > some sort of evil motive behind everything I seem to do. > > I have spent a lot of time in the last five years trying to be nice to you and > to be polite to you. Yet, all I get is a lot of suspicion. If you think I am > part of an NDT plot then you offer an eloquent critique of your own thought > process. Would this include the summer discussion witnessed by several and UNDENIED by you in which you laid plans for your "New World Order" debate organization and specified that we must exclude "people like Terry West"? I've given you chance after chance to respond to this via backchannel, and you haven't done so. Now several may ask: "Why should we be concerned; this is obviously a personal issue between Dr.s Snider and West." Fair enough, until you start to deconstruct the meaning of "people like" Terry West. Who are these people? Anyone who thinks this is just aimed at me is kidding themselves. > > I am told by past Presidents and Gary Larson that you must be 5-3 to qualify. > That's the extent of my plot. Maybe you've been told that. As President, one would think it desirable that you read the Constitution. It doesn't say that. And Dr. Larson's post doesn't say that either. He says he thinks it would be a good idea, and that it was irrelevant in the past. It isn't irrelevant now, and your unilateral scrapping of the sweepstakes point formula opens a whole new line of argument, which I will address in response to Gary's post, which at least makes an attempt to engage the arguments instead of the old "wounded fish" whine. > > I look forward to a time when I am not CEDA President so that I can respond to > your messages in a different way. Go for it. I'm not hard to find. > > More on the issue later, but I wanted to indicate that I am sick and tired of > this kind of distrust of everything I try to do. You generate that distrust through your secret meetings and unilateral actions. I'm sick and tired of that. So there. Terry West Southern Utah > > Have a nice day, > > Tuna > From bodonnel Tue Mar 10 14:06:59 1998 From: bodonnel (brett O'doonell) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 15:06:59 -0500 Subject: Missing District VII NDT Data Forms (Gordon Mitchell) Message-ID: Gordon, I don't have your e-mail address, but fax Dr. Parson the team coach data forms we filled out at the district tournament. Thanks. Brett From dbaker5 Tue Mar 10 14:17:54 1998 From: dbaker5 (Don Baker) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 15:17:54 -0500 Subject: slusher or smith Message-ID: Eric or Sickboy, I need to get a hold of y'all. Please backchannel me as soon as possible. Thanks. Don *********************************************************************** * Don Baker * * Towson University Debate * * dbaker5 at tiger.towson.edu * *********************************************************************** >From Tue Mar 10 13:45:41 1998 Message-Id: Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 13:45:41 MST7MDT Reply-To: WEST at CENTRUM.CN.SUU.EDU To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Terry West Organization: Southern Utah University Subject: Re: What's Up W/ CEDA Nats? Important that I respond to Gary, who at least takes the time to address the issues at hand. While we disagree, there is room for discussion. On 10 Mar 1998, Gary Larson wrote: > Since I have been implicated in the "plot," let me explain my position on > 4-4's clearing at Nationals. Want to make it clear; I didn't implicate Gary. Dr. Snider uses, it appears inaccurately, Gary's position as argument from authority for ignoring my arguments. > > 1) I sincerely hope that we have sufficient entries to make the > discussion moot. I think the real issue that must be faced by our > community is how we have so many fewer teams even with unprecedented > crossover debating. Theories abound: location, travel difficulties, > earlier date, overall loss of membership, tournament procedures, etc. > Each of these will require careful consideration in the coming months. I agree. But our current President cavalierly dismisses any thoughts that our turn to make our organization more like NDT may have anything at all to do with it. I think data from the past is an important indicator of many of our current problems. We can continue to ignore those trends, but we do so at the peril of becoming like lots of the NDT community was when I was doing nothing BUT NDT coaching in the early 90's--meeting at tournaments and asking "what's happened to debate in this country; why isn't anyone doing it anymore?" Well, they WERE doing it; just most of them were doing it in CEDA. Now, most of them are doing it in Parli. And all our little quick fixes (Public Sphere) are as likely to solve this problem as Rookie Division solved it for NDT. Anyway, you're right; it's a whole set of issues that should be discussed rationally. > > 2) Concerning the more immediate issue: Tradition at CEDA Nats can't > really help us on this one. For the entire history of the tournament, > entries have been sufficient to insure that no 4-4 team was in the top 64. > Local tournament experience has been rather variable. It is true that > many tournaments over the years have done everything possible to get to > the magic 15, 29 etc. and then broke everyone possible (even 2-4, 3-5's on > rare occasions). With CEDA points ruling, there has certainly been > incentive to do this, though I imagine a more defensible rationale to be > to give outroud experience to more students. But, as executive secretary > I also processed tournament results with partial brackets, tournaments > with fewer outrounds than the constitution "permitted" (not mandated) and > even tournaments with no outrounds. Gary, you're right. While there have been exceptions, the overwhelming trend over the years has been to follow the CEDA formula for outrounds counting for sweeps points. The outround experience rationale isn't even one I used, but I agree with you. However, we should remember that one of the foremost original justifications of the CEDA sweeps system was to level the playing field between the haves and have-nots, and the regional and national circuit. Thus, only your top two teams count; at least theoretically, schools with 8 teams have no advantage. Thus, we give REGIONAL sweepstakes awards as well as the national championships. We are getting to a point now where any program that cannot travel the "national circuit" should begin to ask themselves: "What does CEDA have to offer my program?" If we unilaterally chuck the sweepstakes procedures at the whim of the President, the positive answers to that question become fewer. > > 3) The constitution only tells us the maximum number of elimination > rounds that can count for points and that CEDA Nats must make > accomodations to at least break all 5-3's. Agreed. And I note that Gary does NOT, as Dr. Snider claims, say here that you MUST have a 5-3 to break at CEDA nats. This was my original, and unrefuted, point. > For general tournaments, > tournament directors have absolute discretion as to how many teams qualify > and by what procedure (e.g. a tournament could break teams based on points > rather than record). My sense of the legislative history of the 5-3 > amendment was that the "winning" argument was that points were not > sufficiently reliable to exclude teams from breaking based solely on > speaker points. While from a tournament management point of view I > was uncomfortable to add another round, the membership saw the advantage > of creating a "bright-line." I agree with Terry that the constitution > does NOT mandate that we CAN'T break 4-4's, but my reading of the > amendment and the concern over speaker points as a determinant for > breaking leads me to the opinion that if the amendment means that if 65 > teams have 5-3 records we have one additional round to determine seed 64 > it should also mean that if 63 teams have 5-3 records we should not break > the single 4-4 team (which might have only .5 triple-adjusted points over > seed 65). To cross the bright line re-opens the controversy that produced > the amendment in the first place. And not to do it changes the fundamental nature of our organization from its inception in a way which I have argued above is harmful. And not to do it also sets a precedent for unilateral reinterpretation of (or complete ignoring of) sections of the constitution which would appear to be in conflict--even if not clearly "rule-bound," certainly by implication. > > 4) As to the charge of unilateral action and/or being infected by NDT > thinking, I believe that I first raised the question when I saw Tuna at > the William Jewell tournament. I shared my fear that CEDA Nats would > prove to be small (since confirmed). In attempted to finalize the > schedule, I suggested that at somewhere between 165-180 it was likely that > we would not have 64+ 5-3 teams. After talking about the potential loss > of the 5-3 partial round, I asked Tuna what would happen if FEWER than 64 > teams had 5-3 records. I also indicated that my sense of the amendment (I > was exec secy at the time) was that people should not break based on > speaker points. I also believe that particularly for nationals, having a > "winning" record is the uniquely defensible bright-line. It is not until > the past week that the hypothetical has become potentially real. If > necessary, I think the executive council can discuss the issue next > Thursday, but I don't believe that it requires a plebiscite. I do invite > all concerned parties to express their views however. Here is where Gary and I fundamentally disagree. At the point at which we decide to act solely based on what our hierarchial leadership "believes" to be the "intent" of a by-law amendment, we are no different from past organizations (not just the NDT) which have been criticized for making their decisions in a way that excludes most of the membership. This year has marked a return to the secretive, exclusionary decision-making that was a criticism of the earliest years of CEDA, as well as the NDT. Some of our leaders have shown not just a blatant disregard, but an embarassing ignorance, of our Constitutional principles. Clearly, this year will be a CEDA nationals like no other. I believe it will be marked by more and more schools saying "glad we didn't spend the bucks to go there!" and more and more saying "geez, wish we handn't spent the bucks to do this!" I believe it will be marked by more and more schools saying "we never had a chance; even if the other team hadn't spoken--we lose." I believe it will feed the arguments of those who believe that CEDA has become pedagogically bankrupt and that the alternatives are other (perhaps yet unformed) organizations. Maybe I owe Scott Elliot an apology; maybe the time for revolution is at hand. "Fight the power!" takes on different meanings when them becomes us. > > 5) Misc. args: Points are important. Perhaps, but this one is a > stretch. Additional points are only earned if 4-4 teams win ballots in > their elimination round. Anthing is possible and folk wisdom indicates > that at CEDA Nats anything is LIKELY. But statistics do not bear this > out. Given the possibility of wagering on the NCAA tournament with the > caveat that I must always select the higher seeded team and wagering on > CEDA Nats under the same constraints, I would clearly wager on CEDA nats. > With the open disclosure of ALL decisions this year (posted), everyone in > the tournament will know the 4-4 teams that clear and the record of their > opponents. I suspect that the real "scandal" in the minds of most would > be if and when the 4-4 team beat the 8-0 team. Now I clearly believe that > "underdogs" should be given absolutely equal chance to win and that we > shouldn't assume that an upset is WRONG, but I just doubt that too many of > them will happen (one reason I don't favor open disclosure of all > records). You may be right. But in being so, you feed my argument that the trends we are following are leading to our doom. And if your argument is true, why even have the elimination rounds at all? Decide based on the seeding, since now only an absolute idiot would vote for a 5-3 coming out of the partial triple against the 8-0 or 7- 1 team. > > I believe a better argument for including 4-4's is HONOR of breaking at > CEDA nats. This is far more compelling than the instrumental value of > their potential points. I don't have an absolute take-out for this > argument. Honor is important. The chance to debate is important. A 64th > seed has never conceded the round against #1, and occasionally they have > won. But I believe 5-3 is an appropriate bright-line. You actually make as strong an argument for 1-64 as I did; maybe stronger. Is 5-3 really a clear bright line? I'm just waiting to sit in that 4-3 match, as I did last year, and hear teams whose arguments basically boil down to "don't eliminate me from my last tournament ever" (although one debater from each of the debate teams who did that to me last year are back debating anyway. Hm.). But I'm sure with all our open disclosure, nobody will let their decisions be swayed by the knowledge that they can clearly eliminate one team from the tournament, and guarantee another will clear, based solely on THEIR ballot. Naw--CEDA isn't political. My disagreement with Gary on this issue is simply one of belief, not personality. I respect Gary, because he isn't running for anything. And his actions have always been consistent with his words. As most know, I'm actively trying to remove myself from the CEDA Executive Council. Had not our regional rep election resulted in a tie, I would have already done so. But we're trying to get a student rep elected, and I don't want to leave that job undone while we await a special run-off election for regional rep. So I'm still here. But I won't vote in the Exec Council meetings at CEDA nats, and I sincerely hope that our future councils re-affirm a commitment to the principles upon which our organization was founded. If we aren't able to do that, I sincerely hope we just abolish the sucker and bury it. Let a new organization (or new organizations) form. Either way, we must have an identity or not. What will it be? Terry West Southern Utah University Terry West Southern Utah > > Sincerely, > > Gary > From afugate Tue Mar 10 15:09:46 1998 From: afugate (Amy Fugate) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 15:09:46 -0600 Subject: NJDDT Entries Message-ID: The following are the teams who have officially registered for the NJDDT. We are currently at Octafinals and I have e-mails out to a couple of schools I haven't yet heard from. The bad news is that the weather has turned cold in the midwest, but the good news is that once you're inside you don't have to go out of the building! Looking forward to seeing all of you this weekend. Amy Fugate Baylor University Meredith Black & Meagan Martin Joseph Coppola & Alan Henson Trey Nixon & Shaun Alexander Judge: Matt Gerber College of Eastern Utah Toni Nielson & Brian McDonald Zack Westerfield & Mike Zahller Judge: Chris Harper Emporia State University 3 teams ( I think, I need to get names from ESU coaches) Judges: Fort Hays State University John Clune & Andrew Halverson Judge: Joey Boyle Johnson County C.C. Tom O'Toole & Adam Sokoloff Judge: Rich McCollum Kansas State University Josh Longbottom & Kevin Zollman Andrew Spencer & Hugh McCollough Kasssie McEntire & Josh Hughes Chris Crowder & Jerry Eddy Judges: Brent Siemers & Monte Stevens Southern Utah Kasey Reardon & Stacie Stapley Nate Arenddesen & Heather Smith Judge: Terry West Truman State University Ryan Kennedy & Shane Necham Holly Ahrens & Rob Layne Judge: Hired University of Central Oklahoma Tony Sherbert & Shawn Blankenship Jason Heard & Greg Moore Judges: Chad Hill and Aaron Price UMKC Tommy Curry & Adam Whyte Josh Coffman & Matt Baisley Stephen Green & Ben White Judges: Myron King, Eric Jenkins, Dave Kingston University of Missouri St. Louis Marianne Chance & Graham Berryman (swing team with William Jewell) 2nd Team Judge: Tom Preston University of Nevada Las Vegas Tonna Purtle & Mercedes McGill Marissa Geffen & Anthony Spotts University of Texas Dallas Jason Jordan & Vasile Stanescu Lisa Anselmi & Trevan Fuller Judge: Stephanie Steele Wichita State University Brian Gough & James Harris Judges: Jeff Jarman & Doug Roubidoux William Jewell College Jenn Davis & Aubrey Harris Matt McGee & Louie Petit Judges: Gina Lane & Steve Woods From FPIRIZAR Tue Mar 10 16:49:35 1998 From: FPIRIZAR (Frank P. Irizarry) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 17:49:35 EST Subject: STOP THE BITCHIN' AND WHININ' !!! Message-ID: Terry West from Southern Utah writes: "Clearly, this year will be a CEDA nationals like no other. I believe it will be marked by more and more schools saying "glad we didn't spend the bucks to go there!" and more and more saying "geez, wish we handn't spent the bucks to do this!" I believe it will be marked by more and more schools saying "we never had a chance; even if the other team hadn't spoken--we lose." I believe it will feed the arguments of those who believe that CEDA has become pedagogically bankrupt and that the alternatives are other (perhaps yet unformed) organizations.Maybe I owe Scott Elliot an apology; maybe the time for revolution is at hand. "Fight the power!" takes on different meanings when them becomes us." Frank Irizarry responds: I don't Know how many folks out there agree with me and quite frankly, I don't really care, but I am sick and tired of all the unconstructive bitching and whining that is taking place on this listserv lately. Being in the East, I have an opportunity to interact with Tuna and Sam Nelson every weekend and I know how much they are putting into this years CEDA Nats and I know how much they give to our organization. I think it sucks to have to read gloom and doom messages like Terry's bemoaning the death of CEDA Nats before the tournament even happens. I know Sam nelson has worked real hard to make this years tournament a kick ass tournament and I think it's sad to denigrate the hard work of a colleague before their year long project even comes to fruition! I know Tuna for a long time and I know CEDA and Debate as a whole mean a lot to him, and I know he's been busting his ass performing the thankless task as President of our organization to the best of his ability. In a time when we are trying to increase the diversity of our community while dealing with declining numbers of programs and tournaments as well as a proliferation of other debate venues ON TOP OF attempting to debate a merged topic and deal with the desires and constraints of two Debate organizations, I think the demands of all of our executives, especially the president, are at an unprecedented level. To all of you that like to bitch and moan so much, have you ever taken the time to post a message to edebate thanking Tuna for the hard work he's put in or maybe a quick shout out to Sam Nelson for agreeing to host this years Tournament when no one else (besides USC) wanted to host? I think we need to thank all the members of our organization whose unpaid and overworked job duties allow us all to do what we do. Instead of throwing pot shots at Tuna about his leadership and how much this years Nats is going to be a schwag tournament, why not try and come up with some constructive ideas? I think it's wholly unconstructive to say "I don't like the way my organization is evolving so I think I'll bail", or "I don't like the direction of our organization so I'm going to resign from CEDA Council", or how about "I don't like the location of this years tournament so I won't attend." What's up with that? If you want to go, than just go, no need for a dramatic exit. If you don't want to be a leader in the organization than don't be a leader. If you don't want to go to CEDA Nats, than don't go. All I know is that we are at a point where we need to start discussing things constructively instead of throwing cheep shots at one another. Lastly, let me make it clear that this message is not directed at anyone in particular. A quote from Terry West exists at the top of the message because I was reading his post when I decided to send this message and also because I think Terry voices the sentiment of a vocal minority in our community. This message is not meant to be a personal attack on anyone, just a lone plea to stop the madness on the listserv. For me, the bottom line is that if ya can't come correct, don't come at all! frank irizarry syracuse debate >From Tue Mar 10 15:20:14 1998 Message-Id: Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 15:20:14 MST7MDT Reply-To: WEST at CENTRUM.CN.SUU.EDU To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Terry West Organization: Southern Utah University Subject: Re: STOP THE BITCHIN' AND WHININ' !!! Specific responses to Mr. Irizzary below, but first a couple of overviews: 1) I object to the sexist term "bitchin'" at the title of this post. It is not my title; I am responding to Mr. Irizzary. 2) I object to Mr. Irizzary's characterization of my post as "whining." I make reasoned arguments based upon empirical observation and quotes from the CEDA constitution. We shall examine Mr. Irizzary's reasoning below. 3) It seems to be a rather common tactic of some of my opponents lately to seek to escape rhetorical responsibility for what they write. I am perplexed at Mr. Irizzary's attacks on me throughout this post, then his attempt to indicate that he is NOT attacking me. Which is it, Frank? Now to specifics. On 10 March 1998, "Frank P. Irizzary" writes: > I don't Know how many folks out there agree with me and quite frankly, I > don't really care, but I am sick and tired of all the unconstructive > bitching and whining that is taking place on this listserv lately. What is unconstructive about asking that our organizations historical traditions and constitutional provisions be followed and that Executive fiat be limited? Why do you choose to characterize this as "bitching" and "whining"? > Being in the East, I have an opportunity to interact with Tuna and Sam > Nelson every weekend and I know how much they are putting into this > years CEDA Nats and I know how much they give to our organization. I > think it sucks to have to read gloom and doom messages like Terry's > bemoaning the death of CEDA Nats before the tournament even happens. Hmmmm. Methinks there be some major butt-kissin' going on here. Where was your post when Dr. Sniders confidante and New World Order partner Professor Berube declared CEDA dead? And what does "being from the East" have to do with a damn thing? I > know Sam nelson has worked real hard to make this years tournament a > kick ass tournament and I think it's sad to denigrate the hard work of a > colleague before their year long project even comes to fruition! LIAR. I dare you to show me one item in my post that can even remotely be construed as a criticism of Sam Nelson. I know > Tuna for a long time and I know CEDA and Debate as a whole mean a lot to > him, and I know he's been busting his ass performing the thankless task > as President of our organization to the best of his ability. CEDA and debate mean a lot to me, too, Irizzary. And I think what we've been doing in the past year sucks a lot worse than any criticism of it. In a time > when we are trying to increase the diversity of our community while > dealing with declining numbers of programs and tournaments as well as a > proliferation of other debate venues ON TOP OF attempting to debate a > merged topic and deal with the desires and constraints of two Debate > organizations, I think the demands of all of our executives, especially > the president, are at an unprecedented level. And my post specifically addresses what I believe to be causes of the decline. Is your point that we are to blindly follow the hierarchy? Is dissent no longer tolerated. Professor Broda-Bahm (also from the EAST) assures me that Dr. Snider's policies have no resemblance to dictatorship. Is the stifling of dissent consistent with that statement? FIGHT THE POWER!!! DOWN WITH THE OPPRESSORS!!! > > To all of you that like to bitch and moan so much, have you ever taken > the time to post a message to edebate thanking Tuna for the hard work > he's put in or maybe a quick shout out to Sam Nelson for agreeing to > host this years Tournament when no one else (besides USC) wanted to > host? I think we need to thank all the members of our organization > whose unpaid and overworked job duties allow us all to do what we do. Again, you're the one throwing the strawfigure. I think our Executive Council (including myself) made the unanimity of our gratitude to Sam Nelson very clear. As for Dr. Snider, he persists in pretending that everyone who disagrees with one of his heavy- handed declarations is picking on him and doesn't have the best interests of the students at heart and whatever else he can think of that avoids addressing the argument at hand. I hereby publicly thank Dr. Tuna for his hard work; and I mean it. Ironically, I agree with much of what he does. I disagree about some. And I specifically disagree about unilateral declarations that are inconsistent with our organization's successful tradition and constitutional implications. Why do you persist in referring to that as "bitching and whining"? > > Instead of throwing pot shots at Tuna about his leadership and how much > this years Nats is going to be a schwag tournament, why not try and come > up with some constructive ideas? I think it's wholly unconstructive to > say "I don't like the way my organization is evolving so I think I'll > bail", or "I don't like the direction of our organization so I'm going > to resign from CEDA Council", or how about "I don't like the location of > this years tournament so I won't attend." What's up with that? If you > want to go, than just go, no need for a dramatic exit. If you don't > want to be a leader in the organization than don't be a leader. If you > don't want to go to CEDA Nats, than don't go. All I know is that we are > at a point where we need to start discussing things constructively > instead of throwing cheep shots at one another. > Is your brain even on? I think supporting our successful tradition and constitution to be pretty damn constructive. I think it's very constructive to remove oneself from a corrupted system and work for change from the outside. And where in the blue bloody blazes are you getting this stuff about not liking the location of this year's tournament? I never said that; hell, I've never even BEEN to Rochester. I'm looking forward to it. So what's YOUR constructive solution--unilateral reinterpretation of whatever we don't like? > Lastly, let me make it clear that this message is not directed at anyone > in particular. A quote from Terry West exists at the top of the message > because I was reading his post when I decided to send this message and > also because I think Terry voices the sentiment of a vocal minority in > our community. IF IT'S NOW A MINORITY, IT'S BECAUSE THE MAJORITY WENT TO PARLI! >This message is not meant to be a personal attack on > anyone, just a lone plea to stop the madness on the listserv. For me, > the bottom line is that if ya can't come correct, don't come at all! BULLSHIT! It's clearly aimed at me; own up to it. And I'll be damned if I'll conform to your standard of "correct." I've compromised in supporting the President's pet project (mpj) on a one year experimental basis--against EVERY PEDAGOGICAL BELIEF I'VE EVER MAINTAINED ABOUT INTERCOLLEGIATE DEBATE! I've bent over backwards for this guy, but I'll be damned if I'll bend over. Terry West Speaking for himself > > frank irizarry > syracuse debate > From FPIRIZAR Tue Mar 10 17:52:42 1998 From: FPIRIZAR (Frank P. Irizarry) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 18:52:42 EST Subject: looking for Lewis & Clark Message-ID: could someone from Lewis & Clark please backchannel me. Thanks. frank irizarry syracuse debate >From Tue Mar 10 17:35:18 1998 Message-Id: Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 17:35:18 -0500 Reply-To: jmw28 at CORNELL.EDU To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Jessica Wojtysiak Subject: East Region Student Representative MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Just a reminder, Those students interested in running for our region's student rep for next year, get your coach to nominate you to me before CEDA nationals. (Unless you want me running unopposed. :) I'll compile the ballots to be distributed to each east region school at nationals, so that results can be compiled quickly and the rep can know what the plan is. Also, remember to attend the nationals student meeting. -jessica From FPIRIZAR Tue Mar 10 17:59:17 1998 From: FPIRIZAR (Frank P. Irizarry) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 18:59:17 EST Subject: Forwarded: Re: STOP THE BITCHIN' AND WHININ' ! Message-ID: From: Claytonjjc Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 17:16:28 EST To: FPIRIZAR at VPA.SYR.EDU Subject: Re: STOP THE BITCHIN' AND WHININ' !!! I couldn't agree with frank more. We (Sam, Isaac, Myself, Tuna, and other members of the Community) have been working very hard to make this a wonderful experience for all members of our community. I do think it's important not to forget that there are people that have dedicated large sections of their lives to making CEDA Nationals a success. We hope it can be the walk across the country to the great white north, the banks of lake ontario, where we all find that we can share, be friends, be academic nemeses, and go home with a feeling of accomplishment. Not trying to be a martyr, jeff clayton Assistant Coach, University of Rochester Debate Team >From Tue Mar 10 16:53:57 1998 Message-Id: Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 16:53:57 -0600 Reply-To: rchurch at frank.mtsu.edu To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Russell Church Organization: Middle Tennessee State University Subject: We Are Asking The Wrong Question! Comments: cc: Carrie Crenshaw MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I would like to propose that next year's President Carrie Crenshaw appoint a committee to study the reasons for the poor attendance at this year's National. This should be a study and should be carefully done. I think speculation about why people are not attending is not helpful -- except to form hypotheses. Regards, Russell Church 615-898-5607 (Office) 615-898-2640 (Department Secretary) 615-898-5826 (Fax) MTSU Box 43 Murfreesboro, Tn. 37132 RESEARCH ON THE LEXIS-NEXIS WEB SITE AT MTSU! http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe 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 Tue Mar 10 13:49:35 1998 Message-Id: Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 13:49:35 MST7MDT Reply-To: WEST at CENTRUM.CN.SUU.EDU To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Terry West Organization: Southern Utah University Subject: Re: Mutually Preferred Judging & CEDA Nats Comments: To: "Alfred C. Snider" I can hardly wait to see whose teams the computer randomly selects to receive the rounds that are not "mutual A." I can also hardly wait to see how judges are assigned in those rounds where a judge fails to meet a commitment. Deep in the thralls of paranoia, Terry West Southern Utah > Date sent: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 14:53:41 -0500 > Send reply to: "Alfred C. Snider" > From: "Alfred C. Snider" > Subject: Mutually Preferred Judging & CEDA Nats > To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU > We will be using the following procedure for MPJ at Nationals. > > Judge preference sheets turned in before 10 pm Thursday will be honored for > the whole tournament. Judge Preference sheets turned in before the > beginning of Round 1 will be honored in all rounds after Round 2. No sheets > will be accepted after the start of Round 1. Each team will be given an > opportunity to designate 40% of judges as A, 30% as B, 25% as C, and 5% as > strikes. > > There will be no regional constraints. Judges will be assigned randomly by > the computer in an attempt to give each debate a mutual A. We project that > 90% of all debates will receive a mutual A, 10% will receive a mutual B, > and 0% will receive a mutual C, although there can be no guarantees. When > all rounds cannot receive a mutual A, the computer will randomly select the > debates to receive a mutual B. When judges fail to appear to judge their > assigned round, last minute substitutions will have to be made without the > guarantee of mutual preference. Within this system it is our goal to have > all judges fulfill their commitments. Further, if the tab room is aware of > such information, judges will not be scheduled to hear a team with whom > they have been or are about to be associated. > > Now if you will excuse me, I'm on my way to have a celebratory drink. Just > one, then back to work. > > 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 Tue Mar 10 15:54:57 1998 Message-Id: Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 15:54:57 MST7MDT Reply-To: WEST at CENTRUM.CN.SUU.EDU To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Terry West Organization: Southern Utah University Subject: Re: Forwarded: Re: STOP THE BITCHIN' AND WHININ' ! Just a repeat in case anyone didn't get it. Anyone who insinuates that I have had anything but praise for Sam Nelson and the Rochester folks in terms of their work on cedanats is a damn liar. I defy anyone to show me ANYTHING in ANY of my posts that says otherwise. Terry West SUU > Priority: normal > Date sent: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 18:59:17 EST > Send reply to: "Frank P. Irizarry" > From: "Frank P. Irizarry" > Organization: Syracuse University, VPA > Subject: Forwarded: Re: STOP THE BITCHIN' AND WHININ' ! > To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU > From: Claytonjjc > Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 17:16:28 EST > To: FPIRIZAR at VPA.SYR.EDU > Subject: Re: STOP THE BITCHIN' AND WHININ' !!! > > I couldn't agree with frank more. We (Sam, Isaac, Myself, Tuna, and > other > members of the Community) have been working very hard to make this a > wonderful > experience for all members of our community. I do think it's important > not to > forget that there are people that have dedicated large sections of their > lives > to making CEDA Nationals a success. We hope it can be the walk across > the > country to the great white north, the banks of lake ontario, where we > all find > that we can share, be friends, be academic nemeses, and go home with a > feeling > of accomplishment. > > Not trying to be a martyr, > > jeff clayton > Assistant Coach, University of Rochester Debate Team > From afugate Tue Mar 10 17:07:39 1998 From: afugate (Amy Fugate) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 17:07:39 -0600 Subject: Update: NJDDT Entries Message-ID: The following are the teams who have officially registered for the NJDDT. We are currently at Octafinals and I have e-mails out to a couple of schools I haven't yet heard from. The bad news is that the weather has turned cold in the midwest, but the good news is that once you're inside you don't have to go out of the building! Looking forward to seeing all of you this weekend. Amy Fugate Baylor University Meredith Black & Meagan Martin Joseph Coppola & Alan Henson Trey Nixon & Shaun Alexander Judge: Matt Gerber College of Eastern Utah Toni Nielson & Brian McDonald Zack Westerfield & Mike Zahller Judge: Chris Harper Emporia State University Tony Nation & Brad Areheart Luke Simmons & Marie Baenig Rob Gilligan & Monica Stuby Judges: Darren Elliot & Rodger Biles Fort Hays State University John Clune & Andrew Halverson Judge: Joey Boyle Johnson County C.C. Tom O'Toole & Adam Sokoloff Judge: Rich McCollum Kansas State University Josh Longbottom & Kevin Zollman Andrew Spencer & Hugh McCollough Kasssie McEntire & Josh Hughes Chris Crowder & Jerry Eddy Judges: Brent Siemers & Monte Stevens Southern Utah Kasey Reardon & Stacie Stapley Nate Arenddesen & Heather Smith Judge: Terry West Southwest Missouri State University Troy Payne & Matt Vega Andy Atkins & Joe Kilpatrick Trenton Gorman & Chris Wilt Karen Eckert & Shawn Bone Judges: Truman State University Ryan Kennedy & Shane Necham Holly Ahrens & Rob Layne Judge: Hired University of Central Oklahoma Tony Sherbert & Shawn Blankenship Jason Heard & Greg Moore Judges: Chad Hill and Aaron Price UMKC Tommy Curry & Adam Whyte Josh Coffman & Matt Baisley Stephen Green & Ben White Judges: Myron King, Eric Jenkins, Dave Kingston University of Missouri St. Louis Marianne Chance & Graham Berryman (swing team with William Jewell) 2nd Team Judge: Tom Preston University of Nevada Las Vegas Tonna Purtle & Mercedes McGill Marissa Geffen & Anthony Spotts University of Texas Dallas Jason Jordan & Vasile Stanescu Lisa Anselmi & Trevan Fuller Judge: Stephanie Steele Wichita State University Brian Gough & James Harris Judges: Jeff Jarman & Doug Roubidoux William Jewell College Jenn Davis & Aubrey Harris Matt McGee & Louie Petit Judges: Gina Lane & Steve Woods From asnider Tue Mar 10 17:16:33 1998 From: asnider (Alfred C. Snider) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 18:16:33 -0500 Subject: CEDA Nats & Speaker Points Message-ID: I fully agree with Mike Bryant on this one. I see a dangerous pattern when I am in the control room at Nats -- someone who is judging a round they are having a hard time deciding, so they give out blanket 30's to all four students. These judges are easy to spot when you read the cumulative sheets. WHEN YOU GIVE BLANKET 30'S MORE THAN ONCE IT STARTS TO LOOK SUSPICIOUS. I believe that MPJ will reduce this problem. ALL JUDGES WILL KNOW THAT THE TWO TEAMS REALLY WANT THEM. You have their permission to do your best and be honest with points. EVERY TIME SOMEONE GIVES A 30 TO SOMEONE FOR ANY REASON OTHER THAN EXTREME EXCELLENCE, THEY ARE PUNISHING THE OTHER STUDENTS. Sure, it is a gift 30, but it hurts others. On the other hand, if you see an awesome debate and you feel one or more 30's are called for, then more power to you. Please feel free to describe it to us on the list. I love to hear about students performing excellently. Mr. Bryant is correct in that I will be publishing a list of average points for each judge. Abusive point awards will be easy to spot. Tuna >The traditional CEDA Nats point fairy somehow wants to win everyone's love by >handing out blanket thirties. 1st speakers at CEDA Nats have averaged four to >five thirties across eight prelims, and that's just simply ridiculous. > >The new CEDA reformist wants to punish people who don't obey their moral >standards. I refuse to believe Danny Whittaker deserved zero speaker points in >a round last year. That zero guaranteed he hit the top seed team in each >bracket for each round of the tournament that was left. > >Judging ain't about winning love or inflicting your mindset of civility on the >debaters. I dare say there isn't any debater at CEDA Nats that will deserve >either a thirty or a zero. > >Don't knock a team out of the tournament or give your friends the easy ride >out. Assign points with the same reasonableness that you judge the issues in >the round. > >To do otherwise, marks you as critic that has no business judging. Maybe we >should list the average points handed by each judge in the judging data that >you know Snider will compile. > >Just be reasonable, > >Bear >Weber St 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 FPIRIZAR Tue Mar 10 18:48:39 1998 From: FPIRIZAR (Frank P. Irizarry) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 19:48:39 EST Subject: STOP THE BITCHIN' AND WHININ' !!! Message-ID: FRANK'S RESPONSES TO TERRY ARE IN CAPITAL LETTERS SO AS TO DISTINGUISH COMMENTS AND RESPONSES AND FOR NO OTHER REASON Specific responses to Mr. Irizzary below, but first a couple of overviews: 1) I object to the sexist term "bitchin'" at the title of this post. It is not my title; I am responding to Mr. Irizzary. THE TERM BITCHIN' WAS NOT MEANT TO BE SEXIST. ACCORDING TO THE CONCISE OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY THE TERM "BITCH" IS DEFINED AS "TO SPEAK SCATHINGLY, COMPLAIN, BE SPITEFUL OR UNFAIR TO." AT NO POINT IN MY MESSAGE WAS ANYTHING I SAID MEANT TO BE CONSTRUED AS SEXIST. IN ADDITION TO NOT KNOWING THE ETYMOLOGY OF THE WORD, IT IS A COMMON COLLOQUIAL EXPRESSION THAT WHEN USED IN THE FORM I'VE USED IT IN, DOES NOT DENOTE ANYTHING SEXIST. NOW IF I SAID YOU WERE ACTING LIKE A BITCH BY COMPLAINING AND WHINING, THAT COULD BE CONSTRUED AS SEXIST. PLEASE DO NOT ATTEMPT TO PORTRAY ME AS SEXIST DUE TO YOUR LACK OF ETYMOLOGICAL UNDERSTANDING OR COLLOQUIAL USAGE OF MY LANGUAGE. 2) I object to Mr. Irizzary's characterization of my post as "whining." I make reasoned arguments based upon empirical observation and quotes from the CEDA constitution. We shall examine Mr. Irizzary's reasoning below. YOU ARE CORRECT TERRY THAT YOU AND MANY OTHERS DO HAVE SOME LEGITIMATE CONCERNS AND YOU DO HAVE THE FOUNDATION FOR REASONED ARGUMENT BUT MY POINT WAS SOLELY GEARED TOWARD THE RHETORIC THAT YOU AND OTHERS CHOSE TO USE WHEN GETTING YOUR POINTS ACROSS. THERE IS NO REASON WE NEED TO ABANDON CIVILITY FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT 3) It seems to be a rather common tactic of some of my opponents lately to seek to escape rhetorical responsibility for what they write. I am perplexed at Mr. Irizzary's attacks on me throughout this post, then his attempt to indicate that he is NOT attacking me. Which is it, Frank? I AM NOT YOUR OPPONENT. I AM YOUR COLLEAGUE AND IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO GET TO KNOW ME, MAYBE I CAN BE YOUR FRIEND. I REJECT YOUR NOTION THAT SIMPLY MAKING AN OBSERVATION ABOUT THE LACK OF CIVILITY ON THIS LISTSERV MAKES ME YOUR OPPONENT. THE MERE FACT THAT I MENTION THINGS THAT WERE NOT MENTIONED IN YOUR POST ALONE SHOWS THAT ALTHOUGH I USE A QUOTE FROM YOU AT THE TOP OF MY POST, I AM NOT SINGLING YOU OUT. ADDITIONALLY, I DON'T SEE WHERE I WAS ATTACKING YOU IN MY POST. Now to specifics. On 10 March 1998, "Frank P. Irizzary" writes: > I don't Know how many folks out there agree with me and quite frankly, I > don't really care, but I am sick and tired of all the unconstructive > bitching and whining that is taking place on this listserv lately. What is unconstructive about asking that our organizations historical traditions and constitutional provisions be followed and that Executive fiat be limited? Why do you choose to characterize this as "bitching" and "whining"? BECAUSE OF THE MANNER AND RHETORIC YOU AND OTHERS USE WHEN TRYING TO GET YOUR POINTS ACROSS. I AM NOT CONDEMNING THE MESSAGE, JUST THE WAY THE MESSAGE IS PACKAGED. > Being in the East, I have an opportunity to interact with Tuna and Sam > Nelson every weekend and I know how much they are putting into this > years CEDA Nats and I know how much they give to our organization. I > think it sucks to have to read gloom and doom messages like Terry's > bemoaning the death of CEDA Nats before the tournament even happens. Hmmmm. Methinks there be some major butt-kissin' going on here. Where was your post when Dr. Sniders confidante and New World Order partner Professor Berube declared CEDA dead? And what does "being from the East" have to do with a damn thing? HMMMM. LET'S SEE. IF I RANT AND RAVE LIKE A LUNATIC THAN I AM A "REVOLUTIONARY" BUT IF I GIVE PROPS WHERE I BELIEVE PROPS ARE DUE, I'M AN ASS-KISSER. GROW UP TERRY. AS FAR AS BERUBE'S POST, I'M NOT QUITE SURE WHY I DIDN'T RESPOND TO IT SPECIFICALLY. I'M NOT SURE WHY THIS IS AN ARGUMENT. LASTLY, THE ONLY REASON I MENTIONED BEING FROM THE EAST WAS FOR THE FACT THAT I (UNLIKE OTHERS WHO CHOSE TO LEVY THEIR VENOMOUS ATTACKS) INTERACT WITH TUNA AND SAM EVERY WEEKEND AND I SEE WHAT THEY ARE DOING. NO MORE NO LESS. WHAT'S YOUR POINT. I > know Sam nelson has worked real hard to make this years tournament a > kick ass tournament and I think it's sad to denigrate the hard work of a > colleague before their year long project even comes to fruition! LIAR. I dare you to show me one item in my post that can even remotely be construed as a criticism of Sam Nelson. REREAD THE LAST LINE TERRY, I NEVER SAID YOU WERE CRITICIZING SAM, JUST THE TOURNAMENT THAT HE HAS BEEN BUSTING HIS ASS TO PUT TOGETHER FOR THE LAST YEAR. ADDITIONALLY, I THINK THAT BY WRITING OFF A TOURNAMENT THAT SOMEONE HAS BEEN WORKING HARD TO ARRANGE BEFORE IT EVEN HAPPENS IS A SLAP IN THE FACE OF THE INDIVIDUAL THAT HAS BEEN WORKING HARD AT BEING A GOOD HOST. I know > Tuna for a long time and I know CEDA and Debate as a whole mean a lot to > him, and I know he's been busting his ass performing the thankless task > as President of our organization to the best of his ability. CEDA and debate mean a lot to me, too, Irizzary. And I think what we've been doing in the past year sucks a lot worse than any criticism of it. THAT'S FRANK. PLEASE DON'T CALL ME BY MY LAST NAME SINCE YOU REALLY DON'T KNOW ME. ADDITIONALLY, YOU CAN TRY TO SPELL MY LAST NAME CORRECTLY. IT'S IRIZARRY. SHOW SOME RESPECT. WHAT EXACTLY SUCKS? I'M NOT SURE WHAT YOU ARE REFERRING TO. In a time > when we are trying to increase the diversity of our community while > dealing with declining numbers of programs and tournaments as well as a > proliferation of other debate venues ON TOP OF attempting to debate a > merged topic and deal with the desires and constraints of two Debate > organizations, I think the demands of all of our executives, especially > the president, are at an unprecedented level. And my post specifically addresses what I believe to be causes of the decline. Is your point that we are to blindly follow the hierarchy? Is dissent no longer tolerated. Professor Broda-Bahm (also from the EAST) assures me that Dr. Snider's policies have no resemblance to dictatorship. Is the stifling of dissent consistent with that statement? FIGHT THE POWER!!! DOWN WITH THE OPPRESSORS!!! NEVER SAID DISSENT WAS BAD. JUST THAT WE SHOULD USE SOME TACT AND COURTESY WHEN DISCUSSING OUR THOUGHTS AND FEELINGS WITH ONE ANOTHER. AS IS THE CASE WITH ANY COMMUNITY, THERE IS ALWAYS DISSENT AND THERE ARE ALSO POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE WAYS OF DEALING WITH IT. YOU TERRY ARE ACTING IN A NEGATIVE WAY AND THAT'S NOT NICE. > > To all of you that like to bitch and moan so much, have you ever taken > the time to post a message to edebate thanking Tuna for the hard work > he's put in or maybe a quick shout out to Sam Nelson for agreeing to > host this years Tournament when no one else (besides USC) wanted to > host? I think we need to thank all the members of our organization > whose unpaid and overworked job duties allow us all to do what we do. Again, you're the one throwing the strawfigure. I think our Executive Council (including myself) made the unanimity of our gratitude to Sam Nelson very clear. As for Dr. Snider, he persists in pretending that everyone who disagrees with one of his heavy- handed declarations is picking on him and doesn't have the best interests of the students at heart and whatever else he can think of that avoids addressing the argument at hand. I hereby publicly thank Dr. Tuna for his hard work; and I mean it. Ironically, I agree with much of what he does. I disagree about some. And I specifically disagree about unilateral declarations that are inconsistent with our organization's successful tradition and constitutional implications. Why do you persist in referring to that as "bitching and whining"? IT'S THE WAY YOU GET YOUR MESSAGE ACROSS TERRY, PLAIN AND SIMPLE. DON'T BE SO RUDE. > > Instead of throwing pot shots at Tuna about his leadership and how much > this years Nats is going to be a schwag tournament, why not try and come > up with some constructive ideas? I think it's wholly unconstructive to > say "I don't like the way my organization is evolving so I think I'll > bail", or "I don't like the direction of our organization so I'm going > to resign from CEDA Council", or how about "I don't like the location of > this years tournament so I won't attend." What's up with that? If you > want to go, than just go, no need for a dramatic exit. If you don't > want to be a leader in the organization than don't be a leader. If you > don't want to go to CEDA Nats, than don't go. All I know is that we are > at a point where we need to start discussing things constructively > instead of throwing cheep shots at one another. > Is your brain even on? I think supporting our successful tradition and constitution to be pretty damn constructive. I think it's very constructive to remove oneself from a corrupted system and work for change from the outside. And where in the blue bloody blazes are you getting this stuff about not liking the location of this year's tournament? I never said that; hell, I've never even BEEN to Rochester. I'm looking forward to it. So what's YOUR constructive solution--unilateral reinterpretation of whatever we don't like? YES TERRY, MY BRAIN IS ON. THE WHOLE THING ABOUT LOCATION DEALS WITH OTHER WHINES THAT I'VE HEARD FROM OTHER FOLKS. YOU ARE CORRECT THAT YOU NEVER MENTIONED LOCATION IN YOUR POST AND I MADE IT CLEAR THAT I WAS RESPONDING TO A NUMBER OF THINGS I'D READ WHEN I MADE MY INITIAL POST. LASTLY, PLEASE SEND A WARRANT TO BACK UP YOUR CLAIM AS TO WHY CHANGE FROM THE OUTSIDE WOULD BE BEST FOR OUR ORGANIZATION. I THINK CHANGE IS BETTER FROM THE INSIDE. IT'S MORE PRODUCTIVE, LESS ADVERSARIAL, MORE COLLEGIAL AND ACTUALLY CAN BE USED CONSTRUCTIVELY FOR POSITIVE CHANGE. WHEN YOU SEND ME YOUR WARRANT, MAYBE THEN I'LL BE ABLE TO RESPOND. > Lastly, let me make it clear that this message is not directed at anyone > in particular. A quote from Terry West exists at the top of the message > because I was reading his post when I decided to send this message and > also because I think Terry voices the sentiment of a vocal minority in > our community. IF IT'S NOW A MINORITY, IT'S BECAUSE THE MAJORITY WENT TO PARLI! ALL I'M SAYING IS THAT THOSE WHO CHOSE TO WHINE ARE THE VOCAL MINORITY OF OUR COMMUNITY. >This message is not meant to be a personal attack on > anyone, just a lone plea to stop the madness on the listserv. For me, > the bottom line is that if ya can't come correct, don't come at all! BULLSHIT! It's clearly aimed at me; own up to it. And I'll be damned if I'll conform to your standard of "correct." I've compromised in supporting the President's pet project (mpj) on a one year experimental basis--against EVERY PEDAGOGICAL BELIEF I'VE EVER MAINTAINED ABOUT INTERCOLLEGIATE DEBATE! I've bent over backwards for this guy, but I'll be damned if I'll bend over. TERRY, LIKE I STATED IN MY ORIGINAL POST, I WAS READING YOUR POST WHEN I FINALLY SAID ENOUGH IS ENOUGH BUT I CAN ASSURE YOU THAT I HAD OTHER POSTS IN MIND WHEN I SENT MY POST. TO BE QUITE HONEST, YOU DON'T HAVE TO CONFORM TO ANY STANDARD OF CORRECTNESS. ONE OF THE BEAUTIES OF FREE SPEECH AND OF THIS LISTSERV IS THAT YOU ARE TOTALLY ALLOWED TO BE AN ASSHOLE IF YOU CHOSE. I THINK YOU'RE AN ASSHOLE TERRY, PLAIN AND SIMPLE. WHEN I FIRST STARTED RESPONDING TO YOUR MESSAGE (WHICH I HADN'T READ THROUGH, I JUST HIT REPLY AND WENT THROUGH SECTION BY SECTION) I STATED THAT MAYBE WE CAN BE FRIENDS. AS I READ THROUGH YOUR POST, I GOT TO READ ABOUT YOU CALLING ME A LIAR, CALLING ME BY MY LAST NAME WHICH YOU MISPELLED, CALLING ME AN AN ASS-KISSER, AND CALLING ME BRAIN DEAD. THAT'S NOT VERY NICE. FROM THIS POINT ON TERRY YOU CAN PLAY "ANGRY WHITE MALE DEBATE REVOLUTIONARY" ALL YOU WANT. I LIKE TO DISCUSS THINGS WITH MY COLLEAGUES ON THIS LISTSERV BUT I'M NOT GOING TO SIT AROUND AND LET YOU INSULT ME. YOU ARE A DISTURBED MAN OBVIOUSLY. YOU NEED PSYCHOLOGICAL HELP. PLEASE GET IT IF YOU CAN'T ACT IN A CIVIL FASHION. WITH WARMEST REGARDS, FRANK IRIZARRY SYRACUSE DEBATE From asnider Tue Mar 10 17:55:41 1998 From: asnider (Alfred C. Snider) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 18:55:41 -0500 Subject: What's Up W/ CEDA Nats? Message-ID: I hope everyone will pardon my levity. I have been taught to use a comic perspective from time to time so that I can laugh to keep from crying. This is one of those times. Terry West writes: >In a message dated 3/10/98, DRTUNA at AOL.COM wrote: >> >> Terry, it really pisses me of that you think you can read my mind and find >> some sort of evil motive behind everything I seem to do. >> >> I have spent a lot of time in the last five years trying to be nice to >>you and >> to be polite to you. Yet, all I get is a lot of suspicion. If you think I am >> part of an NDT plot then you offer an eloquent critique of your own thought >> process. > >Would this include the summer discussion witnessed by several and >UNDENIED by you in which you laid plans for your "New World Order" >debate organization and specified that we must exclude "people like >Terry West"? I've given you chance after chance to respond to this >via backchannel, and you haven't done so. Great, now you have spies in my living room! It may come as no surprise that during the last 5 years I have, from time to time, muttered under my breath about my frustration with our relationship. Good luck, Terry. I like the use of the word "UNDENIED." >Now several may ask: "Why should we be concerned; this is obviously >a personal issue between Dr.s Snider and West." Fair enough, until >you start to deconstruct the meaning of "people like" Terry West. >Who are these people? Anyone who thinks this is just aimed at me is >kidding themselves. Who are "people like Terry West"? I guess your behavior describes you. That makes it a very small group. In fact, you are so unique I think it is a group of one. >> I am told by past Presidents and Gary Larson that you must be 5-3 to qualify. >> That's the extent of my plot. > >Maybe you've been told that. As President, one would think it >desirable that you read the Constitution. It doesn't say that. And >Dr. Larson's post doesn't say that either. He says he thinks it >would be a good idea, and that it was irrelevant in the past. It >isn't irrelevant now, and your unilateral scrapping of the >sweepstakes point formula opens a whole new line of argument, which I >will address in response to Gary's post, which at least makes an >attempt to engage the arguments instead of the old "wounded fish" >whine. Well, I read the constitution and it says we can have MPJ without amending. Others disagreed. I read the constitution about allowing two candidates. Others disagreed. I read the constitution about the ability to have a mail vote on MPJ, and finally the Executive Committee agreed with me. I'm not doing too well on reading the constitution in ways that others agree with. The result is that I now consult with the elders in our organization first to gain a "sense of the constitution." I regret that process is inadequate. Gee, Terry, the last several CEDA Nats invitations have said the same thing and you haven't noticed it yet. Glad my mentioning of it woke you up. The arguments against 4-4 teams clearing at Nationals have been made by others. I believe that WINNERS qualify for elims at Nationals, not .500 teams. Feel free to call for a vote at Nationals or feel free to impeach me. >> More on the issue later, but I wanted to indicate that I am sick and tired of >> this kind of distrust of everything I try to do. > >You generate that distrust through your secret meetings and >unilateral actions. I'm sick and tired of that. So there. Gee, I expect a strong "Nyyaah, Nyyaah" at the end of that sentence as well. Aha, the conspiracy again. Let's face it, Terry, it's everywhere and you are not. Surrender while you still can. I believe that I have tried to be the most open CEDA President in history. I may have done a poor job, others can decide that, but at least I did it openly. Over and over again I have attempted to engage the community in a discussion about anything which we find important. I was the first one to fully engage all comments about the topic selection process and the topics. I was the first one to poll the community about Nationals procedures. I was the first one to conduct Executive Committee business online so that we could get more people involved. I was the first one to be public about the flexibility which has long existed about Nats entries. I was the first one to point out the 5-3 only clause which has existed in the invitation for a long time. If you choose to see "secret meetings and unilateral actions" instead, that's your business. Many of my difficulties may actually be traced to being open about things. It certainly makes it easy to notice things you don't like. But, that's my way, and I'll stick to it. 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 asnider Tue Mar 10 18:09:42 1998 From: asnider (Alfred C. Snider) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 19:09:42 -0500 Subject: Mutually Preferred Judging & CEDA Nats Message-ID: Terry West, in the following paragraph, insults Gary Larson and his computer program. If there is anything we might all agree on, it is that Gary is a person of the highest integrity and his computer tab exertise has made this activity a lot more enjoyable to all of us. Gary Larson is, in my view, beyond reproach as someone who is committed to fairness. Your insult of him deserves an apology. I guess he's just another hard working person trying to makie things better that you have chosen to throw sludge at. Well, you can slam me all you want, but I'm not going to stand by and hear you say that Gary uses his computer program to cheat. At Towson Gary was able to put a mutual A into EVERY ROUND BUT ONE AT THE TOURNAMENT, AND THAT INCLUDES JUDGE SUBSTITUTIONS. It was a remarkable feat and we owe him our thanks, not our insults. Yeah, its paranoia all right. And it is very sad and destructive. >I can hardly wait to see whose teams the computer randomly selects to >receive the rounds that are not "mutual A." I can also hardly wait >to see how judges are assigned in those rounds where a judge fails to >meet a commitment. > >Deep in the thralls of paranoia, > >Terry West >Southern Utah > >> Date sent: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 14:53:41 -0500 >> Send reply to: "Alfred C. Snider" >> From: "Alfred C. Snider" >> Subject: Mutually Preferred Judging & CEDA Nats >> To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU > >> We will be using the following procedure for MPJ at Nationals. >> >> Judge preference sheets turned in before 10 pm Thursday will be honored for >> the whole tournament. Judge Preference sheets turned in before the >> beginning of Round 1 will be honored in all rounds after Round 2. No sheets >> will be accepted after the start of Round 1. Each team will be given an >> opportunity to designate 40% of judges as A, 30% as B, 25% as C, and 5% as >> strikes. >> >> There will be no regional constraints. Judges will be assigned randomly by >> the computer in an attempt to give each debate a mutual A. We project that >> 90% of all debates will receive a mutual A, 10% will receive a mutual B, >> and 0% will receive a mutual C, although there can be no guarantees. When >> all rounds cannot receive a mutual A, the computer will randomly select the >> debates to receive a mutual B. When judges fail to appear to judge their >> assigned round, last minute substitutions will have to be made without the >> guarantee of mutual preference. Within this system it is our goal to have >> all judges fulfill their commitments. Further, if the tab room is aware of >> such information, judges will not be scheduled to hear a team with whom >> they have been or are about to be associated. >> >> Now if you will excuse me, I'm on my way to have a celebratory drink. Just >> one, then back to work. >> >> 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 >> 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 ifjxh Tue Mar 10 18:16:25 1998 From: ifjxh (Joshua Hoe) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 16:16:25 PST Subject: Tuna and CEDA nationals Message-ID: Hello.... All of you who seem suprised at the way Tuna has performed his duties as president should be scolded for paying to little attention: Tuna has been for MPJ longer than he has been the President. Tuna said one of his goals was to foster this as an administrative change were he to run the tournament Tuna has always (as long as I have known him) been a believer in the living rather than static school of constitutional interpretation. he is the CEDA version of the anti-Bork. It should come as no suprise that he is trying to find ways to include as many entries as is possible. BTW how many of you who are comlaining about this are also in the group grousing because it is "the smallest CEDA nationals in history?" Anyway, all of these supposedly radical acts that many accuse Tuna of committing were part of his own reasons to elect him years ago. If you agree with him or totally disagree you have to admit he has been one of the few politicians in recent memory to follow up on his campaign promises. Anyway, I think Tuna is doing the best possible job at a thankless task (Admittedly, a job he volunteered for). I think if everyone would argue passionately for or against the object of disgreement rather than the person we would probably be better off. Josh Joshua B. Hoe Research Assistant University of North Texas ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com >From Tue Mar 10 17:18:07 1998 Message-Id: Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 17:18:07 MST7MDT Reply-To: WEST at CENTRUM.CN.SUU.EDU To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Terry West Organization: Southern Utah University Subject: Re: STOP THE BITCHIN' AND WHININ' !!! I only need to respond to two parts of this: On 10 Mar 1998, Frank P. Irizarry wrote: > ALL I'M SAYING IS THAT THOSE WHO CHOSE TO WHINE ARE THE VOCAL MINORITY > OF OUR COMMUNITY. > Mr. Irizarry, CEDA IS the minority. Don't you get it? There are more schools, teams, debaters, and coaches in parli than in ceda. I think that's a shame. And ceda continues to dwindle. And you still characterize my arguments as a whine, and you're wrong. > I THINK YOU'RE AN ASSHOLE TERRY, PLAIN AND > SIMPLE. WHEN I FIRST STARTED RESPONDING TO YOUR MESSAGE (WHICH I HADN'T > READ THROUGH, I JUST HIT REPLY AND WENT THROUGH SECTION BY SECTION) I > STATED THAT MAYBE WE CAN BE FRIENDS. AS I READ THROUGH YOUR POST, I GOT > TO READ ABOUT YOU CALLING ME A LIAR, CALLING ME BY MY LAST NAME WHICH > YOU MISPELLED, CALLING ME AN AN ASS-KISSER, AND CALLING ME BRAIN DEAD. > THAT'S NOT VERY NICE. FROM THIS POINT ON TERRY YOU CAN PLAY "ANGRY > WHITE MALE DEBATE REVOLUTIONARY" ALL YOU WANT. I LIKE TO DISCUSS THINGS > WITH MY COLLEAGUES ON THIS LISTSERV BUT I'M NOT GOING TO SIT AROUND AND > LET YOU INSULT ME. YOU ARE A DISTURBED MAN OBVIOUSLY. YOU NEED > PSYCHOLOGICAL HELP. PLEASE GET IT IF YOU CAN'T ACT IN A CIVIL FASHION. > Well, now. There's a real reasoned argument from "the East." Responses: 1) Your name-calling is certainly as vulgar and rude as ANYTHING you can point to in my posts. 2) Why do you choose to characterize me by my gender and racial characteristics? I haven't done that to anyone else. I'm greatly offended. You ought to be ashamed. 3) Your degree in psychiatry comes from where? This is libel, plain and simple. But you've come by the tactic honestly (from your mentors)--if you pick a fight and can't win, call your opponent insane. 4) This is absolutely hilarious. I'm waiting to see how fairly dissenting programs and their directors will be treated by this brave new world of ceda. You're doing everything I've always believed true. Terry West SUU > WITH WARMEST REGARDS, > > FRANK IRIZARRY > SYRACUSE DEBATE > From mkrueger Tue Mar 10 18:20:03 1998 From: mkrueger (mike krueger) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 18:20:03 -0600 Subject: six degrees of Russell Church Message-ID: A new game instead of Kevin Bacon... The only rule: The two linkages must be formal working together... Coach-coach Debater-Debater Coach-debater You get the idea... For example: Russ Church and David Berube 1. Paul Kerr works for David Berube at USC. 2. Paul Kerr was Steve Woods debater at Vermont. 3. Steve Woods was my teammate at Kansas State. 4. I'm Russ' assistant at MTSU. Why this is entertaining I don't know... but it does prove how incestuous the activity is. 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 Tue Mar 10 19:29:17 1998 Message-Id: Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 19:29:17 -0500 Reply-To: deon_garner at STUDENTS.MOREHOUSE.EDU To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Deon Garner Subject: Why edebate? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=US-ASCII I am a bit disturbed (to put it lightly) as to the arguing that has taken place, as of late, on edebate. Why choose edebate? There is no real benefit to publicizing such harsh words about one person from another over the public listserve. Now, don't get me wrong . . . I'm all for a "heated" discussion about the issues in an attempt to draw others to comment and possibly resolve whatever problem has been set forth. And I know that these "heated" discussions can make tempers fly. However, when the crux of the discussion is: "I dare you to show me . . . blah, blah, blah," OR You are a LIAR OR stop your "'bitchin' (sic) and moanin" The discussion turns into a personal battle that should be kept within the confines of the two email accounts. This type of behavior is neither constructive or conducive to CEDA or the activity. You got mad, okay . . . I am not saying one should hold in her or his ire, but he or she should be mindful that this is a PUBLIC listserve that is a representation of the Cross-Examination Debate Association, its administrators, its debaters, its SPONSORS, and ANYONE ELSE affiliated with it. I was going to bite my tongue, but forget it . . . Whenever there is some CORNY, CHEESY psuedo-issue at the center of some psuedo-debate, it is, for the most part between professors or administrators. Stop the madness! This is not a "What the world needs now is love sweet love" speech (he he he he - LOL - I crack me up sometimes). This is a "Get a grip and get over yourself!" speech. No, I am not talking to Terry West or Frank Irrizarry (sp?) or Dr. Snider, or anyone in particular. So I don't want any CRAP about how I'm downing people, when I say we shouldn't that. I think professors and coaches, AND the CEDA community in general needs to be cognizant of what they post to edebate. The problem of "searching for Deon Garner, please backchannel" on edebate is invisible compared to some of these past STUPID posts that contained absolutely ZERO substance. Who cares if you can out-argue your "opponent" over BS? I think the minority of the community does . . . >From a student's perspective, Deon, Captain Morehouse Debate >From Tue Mar 10 19:33:40 1998 Message-Id: Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 19:33:40 -0500 Reply-To: deon_garner at STUDENTS.MOREHOUSE.EDU To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Deon Garner Subject: ADA teams Comments: To: bigsquid at aol.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=US-ASCII Any word on who will be at ADA yet? Thanks Deon From MWBRYANT Tue Mar 10 18:31:08 1998 From: MWBRYANT (MWBRYANT) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 19:31:08 EST Subject: We Should Not Stifle Discourse Message-ID: I must object to the label of "bitching and whining" being applied to anyone in the debate community who is just defending their interpretation of the rules. The trick of questioning the mental competence of anyone objecting to current bureacratic leaders or their policies is a blatant step at dehumanizing certain members of this organization. The next step in that path is the attempt to manufacture organizational consensus that some members are so disturbed that it's OK to ignore them. I am appalled at suggestions that we shouldn't openly argue amongst ourselves. Imagine that! What is the overwhelming need for the illusion of organizational unity? Are we at war? Is this a security issue? We should all resist the temptation to parametricize the issue of diversity down to the number of novices. Isn't it obvious that real diversity involves an attempt to appreciate and understand ALL perspectives, even those in direct opposition to our own cherished perspectives? I applaud Pf Snider for his efforts at making this year's CEDA Nats special. I also applaud Terry West for his long-standing defense of CEDA constitutionalism. I think it's ashame that people like Terry West feels so alienated from the CEDA bureaucracy, but what do you expect when secret communications from the Chair of the PROFESSIONALISM community accidentally verify all the nasty rumors you've heard? What do you expect when the President feels that he has to explain why he shouldn't have to respond to the accusations of elitist judgementalism? Our job as members of this organization does not consist of a mandate to stand aside and let elected leaders do whatever they feel is necessary to carry out their good intentions. If you're not willing to engage those disagreeing with you why choose to be a leader of a DEBATE organization? If accusations are so insane, why have they never been denied. Not once. We're all just humans struggling to do what we think is best. Despite the perceptions of evil intent that seem to be frequently levied on both sides, I genuinely feel that none of us are really evil or are devoid of potential contributions to this organization. The only real evil is when we allow free discourse, and yes, DEBATE, to be silenced in the name of making our leaders efforts easier or creating the false illusion of being more unified than we know we are. If we meet the number for triple octos, we should break the full bracket, just like every other CEDA tournament. Don't let NDT folks sell you on their shiny chimera of "excellence." NDT has steadily been moving toward clearing more teams over the past twenty years. It was octos only when I debated. Then it was 5-3's with 13 ballots. The rationale was no one should clear unless they won a majority of the 24 prelim ballots. Very analogous to Eber's arguments against allowing 4-4's to clear. But you know what? Didn't NDT just change to clear all 5-3's up to a full double octos? That means that it is possible to clear at NDT on as few as 10 out of the 24 ballots. If the membership is strongly opposed, let them express the desire to only let 5-3's out in the Business Meeting before CEDA Nats. If necessary, put out yet another emergency ballot. The mandate for MPJ shouldn't set the precedent for not even polling the membership on issues as critical these. Failure to do so might be a far greater threat to CEDA than calling Tuna "The Man." Imagine that... One last thing, Terry West never denigrated Sam Nelson or the Univ of Rochester in any way. I read those posts carefully. Why the attempt to shift the direction of discourse? Michael Bryant Weber State >From Tue Mar 10 17:40:00 1998 Message-Id: Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 17:40:00 MST7MDT Reply-To: WEST at CENTRUM.CN.SUU.EDU To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Terry West Organization: Southern Utah University Subject: Re: What's Up W/ CEDA Nats? Well, I guess levity is better than response? On 10 Mar 1998, asnider @zoo.uvm.edu wrote: > I hope everyone will pardon my levity. I have been taught to use a comic > perspective from time to time so that I can laugh to keep from crying. This > is one of those times. I, too, would like to address "everyone." But I'm not so presumptuous. > > Terry West writes: > > > > >Would this include the summer discussion witnessed by several and > >UNDENIED by you in which you laid plans for your "New World Order" > >debate organization and specified that we must exclude "people like > >Terry West"? I've given you chance after chance to respond to this > >via backchannel, and you haven't done so. > > Great, now you have spies in my living room! It may come as no surprise > that during the last 5 years I have, from time to time, muttered under my > breath about my frustration with our relationship. Good luck, Terry. I > like the use of the word "UNDENIED." And still undenied. Gee, Tuna, I'm sorry you're frustrated with our relationship. I'm frustrated with it as well. You are the one who makes enemies lists of those who oppose your policies. You are the one who couches arguments in terms of whether your argument opponent "cares" about the students. But I've never tried to exclude you from the organization. > > >Now several may ask: "Why should we be concerned; this is obviously > >a personal issue between Dr.s Snider and West." Fair enough, until > >you start to deconstruct the meaning of "people like" Terry West. > >Who are these people? Anyone who thinks this is just aimed at me is > >kidding themselves. > > Who are "people like Terry West"? I guess your behavior describes you. That > makes it a very small group. In fact, you are so unique I think it is a > group of one. Hm. You didn't answer the question, did you? Is that really what you meant last summer? A very small group of one? Have you any right at all to describe my group as small, you who are giving us the smallest cedanats in history? I'd still contend that the fact that your "majority" grows as the organization grows SMALLER is a strike against you, not the merit badge you seem to think. > Well, I read the constitution and it says we can have MPJ without amending. > Others disagreed. I read the constitution about allowing two candidates. > Others disagreed. I read the constitution about the ability to have a mail > vote on MPJ, and finally the Executive Committee agreed with me. I'm not > doing too well on reading the constitution in ways that others agree with. > The result is that I now consult with the elders in our organization first > to gain a "sense of the constitution." I regret that process is inadequate. > > Gee, Terry, the last several CEDA Nats invitations have said the same thing > and you haven't noticed it yet. Glad my mentioning of it woke you up. Slippery way of avoiding the constitutional issue. You're right; you're NOT doing a very good job of reading the constitution in ways others do. As for the last several ceda nats invitations, you are being deliberately deceptive. They do indeed say that no 4-4's will clear, but it is also clear that they are ASSUMING the necessity of the partial quad because of the "all 5-3's guaranteed an elim" rule. They obviously didn't assume the small size of the tournament, which puts us back to the formula. > The arguments against 4-4 teams clearing at Nationals have been made by > others. I believe that WINNERS qualify for elims at Nationals, not .500 > teams. Feel free to call for a vote at Nationals or feel free to impeach > me. Never called for either. Hoped you would do the right thing. I don't think the arguments others have made on the 4-4 issue are necessarily stellar. Regardless, the arguments should have been made and voted on, not imposed by Executive fiat. > > >> More on the issue later, but I wanted to indicate that I am sick and tired of > >> this kind of distrust of everything I try to do. > > > >You generate that distrust through your secret meetings and > >unilateral actions. I'm sick and tired of that. So there. > > Gee, I expect a strong "Nyyaah, Nyyaah" at the end of that sentence as well. Well, I was trying a little levity of my own. I expect you to start icon-ing teardrops over my distrust of everything you do. > > Aha, the conspiracy again. Let's face it, Terry, it's everywhere and you > are not. Surrender while you still can. > No, I won't surrender. You'll have to kill me. And then I'll haunt you. You see, you've made this into "who cares most about students." I didn't start that line--you did; a long time ago. And I'll tell you what I see when I look at the decline in CEDA programs and the decline in schools attending nationals. I don't just see the students who will be in this year's tournament or this summer's institute. I see the larger numbers who don't get to debate policy any more because their programs have either disappeared or do parli. I see those who hang on at the remaining schools but don't get to travel much because there are fewer opportunities and resources for them. And I see you continuing to do things that will ensure the decline continues. And I will fight you on it every single time. Terry West SUU >From Tue Mar 10 17:45:07 1998 Message-Id: Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 17:45:07 MST7MDT Reply-To: WEST at CENTRUM.CN.SUU.EDU To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Terry West Organization: Southern Utah University Subject: Re: Mutually Preferred Judging & CEDA Nats Tuna, Now you're just a garden variety liar. I never insulted Gary Larson. If he's indeed solely in charge of the computer, I have nothing to worry about. Your previous post seemed to me to indicate that you personally would choose judges if the computer didn't work as planned. If that is not the case, I have no argument. If it is, I'll be watching. Come on, Tuna, stand up on your hind legs. Quit trying to deflect criticism by claiming you are defending someone else. Terry West SUU > Date sent: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 19:09:42 -0500 > To: WEST at CENTRUM.CN.SUU.EDU > From: asnider at zoo.uvm.edu (Alfred C. Snider) > Subject: Re: Mutually Preferred Judging & CEDA Nats > Copies to: edebate at list.uvm.edu > Terry West, in the following paragraph, insults Gary Larson and his > computer program. If there is anything we might all agree on, it is that > Gary is a person of the highest integrity and his computer tab exertise has > made this activity a lot more enjoyable to all of us. > > Gary Larson is, in my view, beyond reproach as someone who is committed to > fairness. Your insult of him deserves an apology. > > I guess he's just another hard working person trying to makie things better > that you have chosen to throw sludge at. Well, you can slam me all you > want, but I'm not going to stand by and hear you say that Gary uses his > computer program to cheat. > > At Towson Gary was able to put a mutual A into EVERY ROUND BUT ONE AT THE > TOURNAMENT, AND THAT INCLUDES JUDGE SUBSTITUTIONS. It was a remarkable > feat and we owe him our thanks, not our insults. > > Yeah, its paranoia all right. And it is very sad and destructive. > > >I can hardly wait to see whose teams the computer randomly selects to > >receive the rounds that are not "mutual A." I can also hardly wait > >to see how judges are assigned in those rounds where a judge fails to > >meet a commitment. > > > >Deep in the thralls of paranoia, > > > >Terry West > >Southern Utah > > > >> Date sent: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 14:53:41 -0500 > >> Send reply to: "Alfred C. Snider" > >> From: "Alfred C. Snider" > >> Subject: Mutually Preferred Judging & CEDA Nats > >> To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU > > > >> We will be using the following procedure for MPJ at Nationals. > >> > >> Judge preference sheets turned in before 10 pm Thursday will be honored for > >> the whole tournament. Judge Preference sheets turned in before the > >> beginning of Round 1 will be honored in all rounds after Round 2. No sheets > >> will be accepted after the start of Round 1. Each team will be given an > >> opportunity to designate 40% of judges as A, 30% as B, 25% as C, and 5% as > >> strikes. > >> > >> There will be no regional constraints. Judges will be assigned randomly by > >> the computer in an attempt to give each debate a mutual A. We project that > >> 90% of all debates will receive a mutual A, 10% will receive a mutual B, > >> and 0% will receive a mutual C, although there can be no guarantees. When > >> all rounds cannot receive a mutual A, the computer will randomly select the > >> debates to receive a mutual B. When judges fail to appear to judge their > >> assigned round, last minute substitutions will have to be made without the > >> guarantee of mutual preference. Within this system it is our goal to have > >> all judges fulfill their commitments. Further, if the tab room is aware of > >> such information, judges will not be scheduled to hear a team with whom > >> they have been or are about to be associated. > >> > >> Now if you will excuse me, I'm on my way to have a celebratory drink. Just > >> one, then back to work. > >> > >> 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 > >> > > 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 Mar 10 17:47:10 1998 Message-Id: Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 17:47:10 MST7MDT Reply-To: WEST at CENTRUM.CN.SUU.EDU To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Terry West Organization: Southern Utah University Subject: Re: STOP THE BITCHIN' AND WHININ' !!! Actually, one more important thing: I apologize for misspelling Mr. Irizarry's last name in some parts of the post. It was unintentional; my eyes aren't that good anymore. Terry SUU From FPIRIZAR Tue Mar 10 20:21:12 1998 From: FPIRIZAR (Frank P. Irizarry) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 21:21:12 EST Subject: STOP THE BITCHIN' AND WHININ' !!! Message-ID: Terry, What you're saying isn't a whine, it's how you (and others) say it. Additionally, I don't speak for "the East" I speak for myself. The reason I believe that you are an asshole is precipitated by the fact that: 1) you addressed me with a lot of contampt and disrespect 2) you told me I was an ass-kisser 3) you told me my brain was shut off 4) you rudely referred to me by my last name and proceeded to spell it incorrectly 5) you called me a liar Instead of coming up with a long protracted response to your ad hom's, I decided it was easier to just let you know that you meet my conceptual framework for what an asshole is. I have no degree in Psychiatry but where I come from, people that attack others the way you attacked me are either crazy or they're assholes. Which one are you. I didn't pick a fight, I made an observation and you turned it into a fight. Additionally, I think I won since you chose not to respond to most of my arguments. If you can't engage in civil discussion, than take your toys and go home. With warmest regards, A happy white male frank irizarry syracuse debate >From Tue Mar 10 19:02:46 1998 Message-Id: Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 19:02:46 -0600 Reply-To: RAWEJ9647 at UNI.EDU To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Jen Rawe Subject: discussion MIME-version: 1.0 Frankly, I am getting quite tired of the personal insults clogging up the list serve. That is just my 2 cents worth. Jen >From Tue Mar 10 18:02:50 1998 Message-Id: Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 18:02:50 MST7MDT Reply-To: WEST at CENTRUM.CN.SUU.EDU To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Terry West Organization: Southern Utah University Subject: Re: STOP THE BITCHIN' AND WHININ' !!! "Take your toys and go home"? Would this be your pro-inclusion argument? And your responses to my arguments re: the 1-64 policy would be what? Terry West SUU > Priority: normal > Date sent: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 21:21:12 EST > Send reply to: "Frank P. Irizarry" > From: "Frank P. Irizarry" > Organization: Syracuse University, VPA > Subject: Re: STOP THE BITCHIN' AND WHININ' !!! > To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU > Terry, > > What you're saying isn't a whine, it's how you (and others) say it. > Additionally, I don't speak for "the East" I speak for myself. The > reason I believe that you are an asshole is precipitated by the fact > that: > > 1) you addressed me with a lot of contampt and disrespect > 2) you told me I was an ass-kisser > 3) you told me my brain was shut off > 4) you rudely referred to me by my last name and proceeded to spell it > incorrectly > 5) you called me a liar > > Instead of coming up with a long protracted response to your ad hom's, I > decided it was easier to just let you know that you meet my conceptual > framework for what an asshole is. I have no degree in Psychiatry but > where I come from, people that attack others the way you attacked me are > either crazy or they're assholes. Which one are you. I didn't pick a > fight, I made an observation and you turned it into a fight. > Additionally, I think I won since you chose not to respond to most of my > arguments. If you can't engage in civil discussion, than take your toys > and go home. > > With warmest regards, > A happy white male > frank irizarry > syracuse debate > From MWBRYANT Tue Mar 10 19:07:20 1998 From: MWBRYANT (MWBRYANT) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 20:07:20 EST Subject: six degrees of Russell Church Message-ID: In a message dated 98-03-10 19:29:25 EST, Krueger writes: << 1. Paul Kerr works for David Berube at USC. 2. Paul Kerr was Steve Woods debater at Vermont. 3. Steve Woods was my teammate at Kansas State. 4. I'm Russ' assistant at MTSU. Why this is entertaining I don't know... but it does prove how incestuous the activity is. Mike >> Uh, yeah, and Steve Woods was recruited into debate by Dwaine Hemphill, past K St debate coach and my former college debate partner, who worked with Tuna in the maelstrom that was the old G'town institute. Steve's first institute lab leader was me, I did my graduate work under and shared an apartment with Tuna at Wayne State and have done multiple institute labs with Kerr and Berube. Jeff Bile was my first assistant. Incestuous? You bet. But a bigger implication that needs to be emphasized right now is that it also means that a lot of us carry around historical emotional baggage that causes us to overreact when we feel that past loyalties have either been disregarded or taken for granted. That's ashame. But the tragedy grows much larger when 1. We avoid discussion of REAL organizational issues. 2. We pretend to be psychologists or therapists and make libelous declarations regarding each other's mental conditions. 3. We use status to constantly promulgate our relative superiority, often on the basis of values only recently or strategically embraced. 4. We level hypocritical accusations to divert focus from our own lack of desire to address issues. If we can't treat people disagreeing with us as humans (and humans do get mad when libelous assertions start getting hurled), we've simply chosen the wrong activity. Shake off the ad hom adornments. They're just the icing. I'm tired of being called insane, paranoid, and on aggression-enhancing drugs by the person who's supposed to be my elected REPRESENTATIVE. I really understand Terry West's anger at these UNPROFESSIONAL actions. These actions should stop. As the parli folks say, fer shame! Michael Bryant Weber State From FPIRIZAR Tue Mar 10 20:32:34 1998 From: FPIRIZAR (Frank P. Irizarry) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 21:32:34 EST Subject: STOP THE BITCHIN' AND WHININ' !!! Message-ID: Terry, I agree with Deon. I said what I had to say. If you chose to persist in the discussion, please backchannel me. frank From race Tue Mar 10 19:38:37 1998 From: race (David Bruce Rhaesa) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 19:38:37 -0600 Subject: a question of reality Message-ID: as i wandered heart of america and notice the level of interest in policy argument taken even by those employing less than traditional argument strats and comparing it with the interactions i had elsewhere in lawrence i had to wonder whether dis-interest is a legitimate ground for criticism. once upon a time the affirmative would have to provide a level of interest in their justification or presumption would be sufficient for a negative victory. sometimes it seems that the kritiking has brought people full circle and so i have been wondering some since Heart of America whether a disaffiliation kritik might not be viable. i am certain that judges must admit times when they've felt that they had more interesting things they'd rather be doing and honestly would be tempted by a kritik of interest. the distinterested or non-policy-interested kritik might also help debaters justify the amount of time they choose to employ on policy oriented studies vis-a-vis other avenues of learning. and it also might provide the possibility of non-political-interested debate subjects. this is not to say that my experience at Heart of America was negative. I thought that debate continues to improve in many ways. My only criticism of the current trend is that the enthymemes are so extreme and the internal cohesion so nearly non-existent on both sides of the political capital debates (and similar arguments) that they were next to impossible to follow in detail. It seemed that individuals were rewarded somewhat for structural incoherence on these arguments as judges worked so hard to find coherence where it may or may not have been. I'm certain if i were working on the topic that this point of view would be somewhat different. d From ifjxh Tue Mar 10 19:49:19 1998 From: ifjxh (Joshua Hoe) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 17:49:19 PST Subject: Tokarsky found Message-ID: I finally got a copy...Thanks for all of the help...I am still chasing down the Greenwald article....I will try to find a way to make them available if I can. Josh ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From pudelski Tue Mar 10 20:29:09 1998 From: pudelski (Christopher Richard Pudelski) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 21:29:09 -0500 Subject: Can someone please.... Message-ID: brighten my day and inform me of any upcoming high school tournaments or high school qualifiers in your area. Email addresses of tournament directors would be appreciated. Much love, Chris and the Firm U of M From hwalters Tue Mar 10 20:29:42 1998 From: hwalters (Heather L Walters) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 21:29:42 -0500 Subject: CEDA Nats & Speaker Points (STRIKE WARNING) In-Reply-To: <64d34283.35059cd2@aol.com> Message-ID: With the passage of MPJ and Bear's recent plea I thought it fair to warn all now. I have, do, and will give anywhere between 29.5 and ZERO points. I mostly agree that few if any people ever deserve thirties but I have seen practices that approach the low end of civility in debate and will be treated as such. Unnecessary ad homs, arguments which are delivered with contempt and incivility, as well as ethical lapses (clipping cards, stealing time, evading cross-ex) will be met with SIGNIFICANTLY lower speaker points. There is no reason to be indignant and rude in rounds. If you have a problem with this then excercise your ability to strike. You can be passionate about your arguments without dehumanizing the other team. MARTIN CHE HARRIS From DRTUNA Tue Mar 10 20:45:11 1998 From: DRTUNA (DRTUNA) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 21:45:11 EST Subject: Mutually Preferred Judging & CEDA Nats Message-ID: In a message dated 3/10/98 7:45:50 PM, WEST at CENTRUM.CN.SUU.EDU wrote: >Now you're just a garden variety liar. I never insulted Gary Larson. > If he's indeed solely in charge of the computer, I have nothing to >worry about. Your previous post seemed to me to indicate that you >personally would choose judges if the computer didn't work as >planned. If that is not the case, I have no argument. If it is, >I'll be watching. This is my last public posting to Terry West for quite a while, I believe. The invitation clearly indicates that Gary is in charge of computer operations, as he has been for some time. To claim that you did not know Gary would be operating the computer means you are far more uninformed about the operations of CEDA Nationals than I would have guessed. Terry, if at any time you want to come into the Tab Room, please do, as long as you are not disruptive. you are welcome. So, I guess it's only I who would cheat using the computer, not Gary, eh? If you think I would "fix" Nationals then I now understand your hysteria against me. If you believe that, I guess I am not able to do anything else except to say that I have tried, and in your case I have failed. Tuna From joshcoffman Tue Mar 10 20:50:10 1998 From: joshcoffman (josh coffman) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 18:50:10 PST Subject: K-State, Baylor,UNLV, CEU, SUU Message-ID: Hey Could Someone ,from the above, who is going to JV nats @JCCC this weekend email me. Thanks Josh--UMKC ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From FPIRIZAR Tue Mar 10 22:38:01 1998 From: FPIRIZAR (Frank P. Irizarry) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 23:38:01 EST Subject: CEDA Nats & Speaker Points (STRIKE WARNING) Message-ID: Martin Harris is the bomb! I agree with him 100%. If you're willing to spend a strike on Martin, than save one for me too. ready to pull the trigger with my man from Maryland, frank irizarry syracuse debate Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 21:29:42 -0500 Reply-to: Heather L Walters From: Heather L Walters Subject: Re: CEDA Nats & Speaker Points (STRIKE WARNING) To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU With the passage of MPJ and Bear's recent plea I thought it fair to warn all now. I have, do, and will give anywhere between 29.5 and ZERO points. I mostly agree that few if any people ever deserve thirties but I have seen practices that approach the low end of civility in debate and will be treated as such. Unnecessary ad homs, arguments which are delivered with contempt and incivility, as well as ethical lapses (clipping cards, stealing time, evading cross-ex) will be met with SIGNIFICANTLY lower speaker points. There is no reason to be indignant and rude in rounds. If you have a problem with this then excercise your ability to strike. You can be passionate about your arguments without dehumanizing the other team. MARTIN CHE HARRIS From Jackie.Massey Tue Mar 10 21:25:25 1998 From: Jackie.Massey (Jackie Massey) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 20:25:25 -0700 Subject: Defending all actors! Message-ID: This weekend I was conversing with M&M salukis and he had one of the same concerns that I have. Maybe this will divert focus away from the ad hom bouts. You know like Clinton cant focus on two things at once. Uh Persina GUlf, UH Budget uh Lewinsky oh no WOrld War. ANy way Is it right that the affirmative teams must defend every other possible country in the world doing their plan. Iceland elections as a net benefit ectc. Are this others that believe the same! I think these counterplans are becoming abusive. Even if AUstralia can do plan, does that compete with the US should do plan? I know this has become excepted, but does argument theory get put on the back burner for forced choice policy decisions? Peace,, Massey ENMU From hwalters Tue Mar 10 21:38:08 1998 From: hwalters (Heather L Walters) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 22:38:08 -0500 Subject: Defending all actors! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Alright one last post before bed. Short answer is get a plan that is not easily done by other countries/has a benefit only the US gets. On the Mid-East topic I never once heard have Zimbabwe send tripwire forces to the Golan to spark a peace agreement despite running it half of the semester. Reason? Not a prayer of sparking solvency. Dozens of cards and reasons why US action was key. Heard a couple of alternate actors with different mechanisms but that is because that was in the literature and we had answers. If the cplan is good for the debate that occurs in the literature then why not the debate in the round? MArtin Che Harris From race Tue Mar 10 21:47:30 1998 From: race (David Bruce Rhaesa) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 21:47:30 -0600 Subject: A Question of Reality #2 Message-ID: One of the points made in the topic paper last Spring concerning the Southeast Asian resolution was the "fact" that in foreign policy circles Southeast Asia was ignored. Interestingly, discussion of this "factor" was something i noticed nearly nothing about in the portions of debates i followed at Heart of America. It seems that the reason this factor is "ignored" is that affirmative teams are fiating past the inherent barrier discussed in the topic paper. This seems to me to be a prime example of the illusion of fiat. The majority of the discussions were un-realistic in that they were not subjects considered deserving of attention in foreign policy circles. The discussions on both sides of the debates would not make it on the agendas of politicians or foreign policy scholars. It seems that the negative should force the affirmative to overcome this ignoring by means other than fiat. Perhaps the means of doing this is a kritik of disinterestedness suggests in a less than serious manner in my previous post. What would such a kritik look like? It would demonstrate the "facts" and "factors" of the foreign policy agenda and force the affirmative to defend placing their plan and case onto the agenda by means of persuasion and argument rather than fiat. thanks for listening - all for tonight. DR From southwor Tue Mar 10 22:01:45 1998 From: southwor (Bill Southworth) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 20:01:45 -0800 Subject: discussion In-Reply-To: <01IUIFUDDEGY8WXY60@uni.edu> Message-ID: Completely from an outsiders view I would completely concur! On Tue, 10 Mar 1998, Jen Rawe wrote: > Frankly, I am getting quite tired of the personal insults clogging up the list > serve. That is just my 2 cents worth. > > Jen > From MWBRYANT Tue Mar 10 22:04:25 1998 From: MWBRYANT (MWBRYANT) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 23:04:25 EST Subject: CEDA Nats & Speaker Points (STRIKE WARNING) Message-ID: Martin and Frank's desire to "pull the trigger" is somewhat disturbing. OK, Frank, let's look at it another way. You just had a big fight where you accused Terry West of being uncivil. I'm going to assume that you would have no hesitation in giving him a "0" for being uncivil and rude. You were mad. You know it. We discoursed. I filled you in on the background, of which you seemed unaware. At least to me (I saved it) you seemed to imply that maybe you had just gotten to caught up in something that wasn't entirely clear to you. Do you see how shit can happen? Scott Thompson, of Marist, gave Danny Whittaker a zero for saying the word "Fuck." I don't necessarily condone that action, but I hear obscenities in virtually every debate I judge. Now, I just know that Scott's background as a grad ass for Bjork at U of U has nothing to do with it. And I don't think his involvement in trying to recruit Danny to transfer to Utah would have much of an impact. And I know the long-standing Weber-Utah animosities must've filled him with delight as he gave that zero and assured that the Weber team would hit the top seed team in the bracket every round. If somebody gives someone a zero it better be a pretty heinous crime. Justifying a zero off C-X evasiveness is about as rational as Martin "Che" Harris is thin. Maybe you folks that are so gung-ho regarding "trigger- pulling" need to feel what it's like to be on the other side of that barrel. Don't worry Martin, we learned our lesson regarding you last year. Be Reasonable, Bear From sellis1 Tue Mar 10 22:41:22 1998 From: sellis1 (Andy Ellis) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 23:41:22 -0500 Subject: CEDA Nats & Speaker Points (STRIKE WARNING) In-Reply-To: <9ae97691.35060d4b@aol.com> Message-ID: While I respect the wishes of Martin and Frank to see a educational and interesting debate, bears post brings up an important issue. Debaters need to know what judges consider uncivil. For example if in bears example On Tue, 10 Mar 1998, MWBRYANT wrote: > Martin and Frank's desire to "pull the trigger" is somewhat disturbing. OK, > Frank, let's look at it another way. You just had a big fight where you > accused Terry West of being uncivil. I'm going to assume that you would have > no hesitation in giving him a "0" for being uncivil and rude. > > You were mad. You know it. We discoursed. I filled you in on the background, > of which you seemed unaware. At least to me (I saved it) you seemed to imply > that maybe you had just gotten to caught up in something that wasn't entirely > clear to you. > > Do you see how shit can happen? > > Scott Thompson, of Marist, gave Danny Whittaker a zero for saying the word > "Fuck." I don't necessarily condone that action, but I hear obscenities in > virtually every debate I judge. Now, I just know that Scott's background as a > grad ass for Bjork at U of U has nothing to do with it. And I don't think his > involvement in trying to recruit Danny to transfer to Utah would have much of > an impact. And I know the long-standing Weber-Utah animosities must've filled > him with delight as he gave that zero and assured that the Weber team would > hit the top seed team in the bracket every round. > > If somebody gives someone a zero it better be a pretty heinous crime. > Justifying a zero off C-X evasiveness is about as rational as Martin "Che" > Harris is thin. Maybe you folks that are so gung-ho regarding "trigger- > pulling" need to feel what it's like to be on the other side of that barrel. > > Don't worry Martin, we learned our lesson regarding you last year. > > Be Reasonable, > > Bear > From sellis1 Tue Mar 10 22:43:36 1998 From: sellis1 (Andy Ellis) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 23:43:36 -0500 Subject: CEDA Nats & Speaker Points (STRIKE WARNING) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: oops sorry about that, meant to cancel it and accidently sent it instead, Andy Towson From mroston Tue Mar 10 22:45:45 1998 From: mroston (M. Roston) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 22:45:45 -0600 Subject: To Billy from NIU Message-ID: ooops, I had this big email disaster where every message I had recieved from the last month and a half disappeared, especially the one you sent me with all of harvard's cites. could I get it from you again? the orangutans stuff. thanks -michael iowa From sarah.chan Tue Mar 10 23:14:25 1998 From: sarah.chan (Sarah E. Chan) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 00:14:25 EST Subject: Thanks to Towson! Message-ID: >From the five of us at SJSU, we'd like to thank everyone at Towson and everyone who helped, for a great weekend. It was our first time out there since CEDA was restarted, and we all want to come back. Rounds were on time, the hospitality was great, the awards were cool... Sarah SJSU debate San Jose, CA _____________________________________________________________________ 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 Tue Mar 10 23:32:18 1998 From: rrao (Ravi) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 23:32:18 -0600 Subject: Defending all actors! Message-ID: Rather than just limiting yourself as the affirmative to plans that Zimbabwe CANNOT do, how 'bout pushing the Neg to show some propensity for their actor to actually act. There are a lot of things Australia CAN do but WONT. Chances are, sending in a navy to patrol the SCS is one of those things. Holding the Negative to a propensity test limits CP's to agents that would be covered in the literature, and thus makes for a good debate. Should the negative be allowed to fiat ANY actor, they push the debate from the "real world" into an imaginary realm where their actor has some propensity to act, and that's where most of the abuse occurs. Remember, in dealing with Southeast Asia, or whatever, the USFG has some propensity to act. As for India sending nuclear reactor technology to Singapore- good luck! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/19980310/42ab4877/attachment.htm From lwulkan Tue Mar 10 23:36:14 1998 From: lwulkan (Lawrence Jay Wulkan) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 00:36:14 -0500 Subject: ENMU ONLY Message-ID: Matt, Glue, Massey, need some cites, just a couple, please back channel me ASAP. Thanks guys. Larry From Pacedebate Wed Mar 11 00:27:31 1998 From: Pacedebate (Pacedebate) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 01:27:31 EST Subject: Judges needed for the NDT Message-ID: I'm in need of two judges for the NDT. If you have partial or full availability please backchannel me to discuss compensation. Thanks, Tim Mahoney Director of Debate, Pace University >From Tue Mar 10 23:37:15 1998 Message-Id: Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 23:37:15 -0800 Reply-To: slusher at LEXIS-NEXISMAIL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Eric Slusher Subject: Re: Defending all actors! In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Country of the week is getting tough to defend against and "plan responsibility" is getting rougher every weekend. Maybe it's abusive but Sickboy and I have been somewhat succesfull arguing that a more natural competition standard be used on Alternate Agent counterplans. The question is, "Does US action trade-off with the actions of another country in the affirmative's harm area?" In other words....if the US acts on landmines does a country like Canada get forced out of the landmine game. The burden on the negative is to present a net-benifit which stems from that country's action rather than Clinton, etc. A disad relating to Canada not acting rather than the US acting. The disad seems sufficent to check plan responsibility and you still get to capture the case solvency....so your disad ain't gotta be the best in the world. Kinda stolen from Korcok....but taken a little further. I dunno...seems reasonable. -slusher------ ---siu debate- From ama826s Wed Mar 11 04:57:21 1998 From: ama826s (andy atkins) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 04:57:21 -0600 Subject: CEDA Nats & Speaker Points (STRIKE WARNING) In-Reply-To: <9ae97691.35060d4b@aol.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 10 Mar 1998, MWBRYANT wrote: > Martin and Frank's desire to "pull the trigger" is somewhat disturbing. OK, > Frank, let's look at it another way. You just had a big fight where you > accused Terry West of being uncivil. I'm going to assume that you would have > no hesitation in giving him a "0" for being uncivil and rude. > > You were mad. You know it. We discoursed. I filled you in on the background, > of which you seemed unaware. At least to me (I saved it) you seemed to imply > that maybe you had just gotten to caught up in something that wasn't entirely > clear to you. > > Do you see how shit can happen? > > Scott Thompson, of Marist, gave Danny Whittaker a zero for saying the word > "Fuck." I don't necessarily condone that action, but I hear obscenities in > virtually every debate I judge. Now, I just know that Scott's background as a > grad ass for Bjork at U of U has nothing to do with it. And I don't think his > involvement in trying to recruit Danny to transfer to Utah would have much of > an impact. And I know the long-standing Weber-Utah animosities must've filled > him with delight as he gave that zero and assured that the Weber team would > hit the top seed team in the bracket every round. > > If somebody gives someone a zero it better be a pretty heinous crime. > Justifying a zero off C-X evasiveness is about as rational as Martin "Che" > Harris is thin. Maybe you folks that are so gung-ho regarding "trigger- > pulling" need to feel what it's like to be on the other side of that barrel. > > Don't worry Martin, we learned our lesson regarding you last year. > > Be Reasonable, > > Bear > Thats not quite the whole story I was on the other end of round against Danny, it wasn't just the generic use of the "f" word it was the fact that he told me and my partner (Joe Kilpatrick) to "f" off as a response to one of the arguments that I had made. Although I do not feel that this was a personal attack I do feel that it was rude and uncalled for. As for him and his partner having to hit tougher competition because he said this then well he is lucky he didn't lose the round because we decided not to use a language kirtik on him which would have knocked him down a bracket. If a judge in this situation is not allowed to give a zero then I not exactly sure what does justify one. This is just my view of the world. Andy Atkins sms debate From jd.rollins Wed Mar 11 08:23:47 1998 From: jd.rollins (Joel David Rollins) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 08:23:47 -0600 Subject: a ? of reality: rewarded for incoherence Message-ID: i'm not sure apout an apathy kritik, if i'm reading you correctly. i already call the clinton DA the "kritik of action". perhaps my response is visceral, perhpas it would appear too much as a paradox. i'm not sure. i do wish to comment on your notion that teams are rewarded for incoherence. this is true at many levels. they are rewarded when 2ac's miunderstand superficial shells--they are rewarded when 1n arguments are barely explained and 2ac's are expected to understand all the implications. incoherence is rewarded in another way: many cards are just not understandable as they are read and or highlighted--debaters are often unwilling to say that args are incoherent--possibly because too many judges are willing to piece it together at the end of the debate; possibly because debaters don't want to be percieved as whining...i'm not sure. when i used to debate, in the very olden days, cards were read somewhat quickly, but slow enough (except by kentucky and louisville) to whereyou could still pick out flaws in them without having to reread them all. for judges to accept evidence that they themselves cannot understand when it is read seems to be "incoherent". i also find it interesting that kritiks are held to a higher level of coherence that convetional disads. i'm not complaining about rigorous argument, not at all, but i think that this gets at something david was saying--that the enthymemes are so taken for granted with many arguments--we know the structure of the political popularity disads and the like, so many arguments do not have to be made (despite the fact that NO REPUTABLE ACADEMIC WOULD ADVOCATE THEM). however, in the debate community these notions are taken, not as truth, but as a shared fantastic playground. we have created a fantasy theme, so to speak, where we share these understandings and many understandings are given weight BECAUSE they are shared rhetorical tokens. joel From papacat Wed Mar 11 08:33:00 1998 From: papacat (Pat J. Gehrke) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 06:33:00 PST Subject: Links & Points Message-ID: Just a quick note, as I really must get back to work. At Syracuse I noticed a couple of teams arguing disads with barely an assertion of an internal link to their disads. The disads had nothing close to the evidence they needed to make the connections they wanted to make. I gave those disads -zero- weight in the round. This was a relatively unpopular move, as it seems the cultural norm of the community is to weigh any impact read in the round in someone's favor (either the originator or the other debaters, depending on the turn debate). One of the problems with many agent counterplans is that they are coupled with really bad disads, but because the counterplan "could maybe" solve, the disad gets some weight. I, personally, am unwilling to evaluate a disad that has zero link or zero internal link. Trade-off disads are notorious for lacking any zero-sum or trade-off evidence. This does not mean I ignore low-risk disads. It means I do not evaluate disads that the aff can point to a significant lack of evidenced connection necessitated by the disad thesis. If a team can't make the requisite connections to put together a complete disad, then they don't have a disad. Risk of a link because the impact was read is bogus. When a critical element of the link story becomes unfounded assertion, and the aff can point this out, I think the disad goes away. Regarding points, I think the big bagel (0) is pretty harsh, but I am given to knock teams a few if I feel they are being verbally abusive. I knocked one debater a point or two for spending the 2AR degrading and berating the 2NR. I have knocked debaters a point or two for yelling or snapping at each other in cross-ex. I find these persuasively unappealing and simply poor strategies. As a part of my evaluation of the competency of the debaters (which I understand points to be), these poor choices are reflected in those points. Did I do these things as a debater? Yep, sometimes I did... and I've made a whole load of other mistakes in my life too. Telling the other team to F-Off is pretty harsh words, and I would knock someone a couple points for that, though probably not down to 0. It isn't just about civility and decency, for me. It also just simply displays a lower skill and aptitude of language and debate at that particular moment, similar to missing an answer or reading the wrong front-line. Best to all, Pat Gehrke penn state ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From asnider Wed Mar 11 08:42:58 1998 From: asnider (Alfred C. Snider) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 09:42:58 -0500 Subject: Gentlemen, please Message-ID: I seem to be in a quandry. I am not supposed to respond according to some, yet as tournament director of CEDA Nats am I supposed to not respond? I hope all will appreciate this double bind. Tuna >Tuna and Terry... > >You are both people whom I consider to be friends and valued >colleagues. I have great respect for each of you. This continuing public >fued is unseemly and unbecoming of both of you. I think each of you >have made your points. Please, I encourage each of you to let it go. > >Peace, > >rodger 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 d.breshears Wed Mar 11 08:34:28 1998 From: d.breshears (David Breshears) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 08:34:28 -0600 Subject: Defending all actors? Message-ID: Wow. I just had a flashback to the old days of "minor repairs" & "justification." But, somehow, I don't think Ravi's intending to go old school here. In answer to your question, the check on unlimited negative fiat and preposterous counterplans is and has been the burden of solvency: if you've got a card that says Zimbabwe has tripwire forces that could be stationed on the Golan (and that they'd be enough of a reassurance to Syria that they'd come to the table), then you get the Zimbabwe counterplan. If your argument is that a negative must also show "propensity" for such an action, then I think you're on theoretically shaky ground. The same logic that says there are things Australia (or Zimbabwe) could do for/to the region, but probably wouldn't, holds true for the affirmative - thus, inherency. As for the US doing any of the cases on this year's topic (other than demining/debombing, which is already being done, or the negotiation of a SOFA with the Philippines, which is already being negotiated) - good luck! Hoping to avoid the downward spiral into "absolute PMN's", Dave -----Original Message----- From: Ravi To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU Date: Tuesday, March 10, 1998 11:29 PM Subject: Defending all actors! Rather than just limiting yourself as the affirmative to plans that Zimbabwe CANNOT do, how 'bout pushing the Neg to show some propensity for their actor to actually act. There are a lot of things Australia CAN do but WONT. Chances are, sending in a navy to patrol the SCS is one of those things. Holding the Negative to a propensity test limits CP's to agents that would be covered in the literature, and thus makes for a good debate. Should the negative be allowed to fiat ANY actor, they push the debate from the "real world" into an imaginary realm where their actor has some propensity to act, and that's where most of the abuse occurs. Remember, in dealing with Southeast Asia, or whatever, the USFG has some propensity to act. As for India sending nuclear reactor technology to Singapore- good luck! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/19980311/d9f21a97/attachment.html From asnider Wed Mar 11 09:20:07 1998 From: asnider (Alfred C. Snider) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 10:20:07 -0500 Subject: CEDA Nationals Details Message-ID: As we get closer I will be posting information about specific events. Many people, especially our hosts Sam Nelson, Isaac Castillo, Jeff Clayton, and all the Rochester students have been working very hard to make this year's CEDA Nationals fun and efficient. TWO DANCE PARTIES WITH FAMOUS DEBATE DJS! SUNDAY AND MONDAY NIGHTS! EXHIBITION DEBATE AGAINST A VISITING TEAM FROM JAPAN! PRESIDENT'S RECEPTION OPEN TO COACHES, JUDGES, *AND* STUDENTS! LARGE SELECTION OF FOOD VENDORS RIGHT ON CAMPUS! OPEN RESULTS -- WHEN YOU REALLY HAVE TO KNOW! INTERDENOMINATIONAL RELIGIOUS SERVICE ON SUNDAY MORNING! SERIOUS PLANNING TO MINIMIZE ROOM MOVEMENT BETWEEN ROUNDS! Stay tuned for more.... I only get a chance to host this thing once, so I want to makew it 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 asnider Wed Mar 11 09:20:28 1998 From: asnider (Alfred C. Snider) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 10:20:28 -0500 Subject: Thursday 3-19-98 at CEDA Nats Message-ID: Thursday is normally arrival day for those attending CEDA Nationals. This year at the University of Rochester there will be a number of events for those arriving early. PARKING: In the hotel complex. 15 passenger vans receive free parking at a lot around the corner. EXECUTIVE COUNCIL MEETING 4-6 PM in the Sheraton Four Points Riverside (location posted in lobby) This meeting is open to the public but most of the talking will be done by Council members. The Council will be considering the business of the tournament, will hear reports from officers, will consider how to manage the business meeting on the following day, and will consider any new business. Thrills, excitement, INVOLVEMENT! Come and find out what's up. REGISTRATION AND OPEN RECEPTION 7-10 PM in the Sheraton Four Points Riverside The East Region and the University of Rochester have joined to host this reception for all arriving participants. FREE FOOD! Come and snack with us. It is important that you register during this time. If you have any problems while in transit, please call and leave a message for me at the hotel. 716-546-6400. See the 9th Wonder of the World, the CEDA Nationals Mutual Preference Judging Sheet! NATIONAL STUDENT MEETING 9-10 PM in the Sheraton as well. Student Reps and students are encouraged to attend this meeting. CEDA has acted to include students directly in our governance, and the Topic Committee is just one example. There is no agenda from us for this meeting, and we hope that students will discuss issue they feel are important. I promise not to speak at this meeting but only listen, and I urge other coaches to do the same. ALSO AVAILABLE: A Copy Center in the Hotel for that last minute briefing. Hotel Bar and Restaurant. More news and schedules coming as we get closer. 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 race Wed Mar 11 09:14:26 1998 From: race (David Bruce Rhaesa) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 09:14:26 -0600 Subject: a ? of reality: rewarded for incoherence Message-ID: Joel David Rollins wrote: > > i'm not sure apout an apathy kritik, if i'm reading you correctly. i > already call the clinton DA the "kritik of action". perhaps my response > is visceral, perhpas it would appear too much as a paradox. i'm not > sure. > > i do wish to comment on your notion that teams are rewarded for > incoherence. this is true at many levels. they are rewarded when 2ac's > miunderstand superficial shells--they are rewarded when 1n arguments are > barely explained and 2ac's are expected to understand all the > implications. incoherence is rewarded in another way: many cards are > just not understandable as they are read and or highlighted--debaters > are often unwilling to say that args are incoherent--possibly because > too many judges are willing to piece it together at the end of the > debate; possibly because debaters don't want to be percieved as > whining...i'm not sure. > > when i used to debate, in the very olden days, cards were read somewhat > quickly, but slow enough (except by kentucky and louisville) to whereyou > could still pick out flaws in them without having to reread them all. > for judges to accept evidence that they themselves cannot understand > when it is read seems to be "incoherent". > > i also find it interesting that kritiks are held to a higher level of > coherence that convetional disads. i'm not complaining about rigorous > argument, not at all, but i think that this gets at something david was > saying--that the enthymemes are so taken for granted with many > arguments--we know the structure of the political popularity disads and > the like, so many arguments do not have to be made (despite the fact > that NO REPUTABLE ACADEMIC WOULD ADVOCATE THEM). however, in the debate > community these notions are taken, not as truth, but as a shared > fantastic playground. we have created a fantasy theme, so to speak, > where we share these understandings and many understandings are given > weight BECAUSE they are shared rhetorical tokens. > > joel Cori Dauber used to hold (and maybe she still does) that debaters should write a sentence between the tag and the evidence that is explanatory of the enthymemes being made between tag and evidence. It was not always necessary for these to be read in rounds i suppose but the process of doing it made the debaters more coherent on the claims structurally and enthyemetically. It seems from viewing the political action disads that nobody has these sentences and that the sentences aren't forthcoming. The coherence was not merely of speed. It was an alteration to chaos as a format. In the olden days when Joel and I would romp in some debates usually the answers to a disad while listed as one long set of numbers would be grouped as link answers, uniqueness answers, internal link answers, etc. along with the organizational thought of the disadvantages we faced. Now it seems the organizational strategy is a bit of one then a bit of another and see what sprinkles through. somehow this probably relates to speaker points but i don't know for certain how :) d From MWBRYANT Wed Mar 11 09:36:00 1998 From: MWBRYANT (MWBRYANT) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 10:36:00 EST Subject: CEDA Nats & Speaker Points (STRIKE WARNING) Message-ID: Wrong, you have only a small part of the story. This story has antecedents that stretched back several years. Thompson was getting even and making a point. It's part of a decade long conflict between Weber and Utah. Yes, Danny shouldn't have used those words. Anyone that knows Danny like Thompson did knows that's part of his nature. Danny has a different cultural and family background and probably uses far too many obscenities. He didn't deserve a zero and Thompson knew the implications of his actions. A loss would have been 100X better for that team. A loss with regular points would've put them at the top of an easier bracket, which would've benefitted them greatly in the hi-lo pairings. Instead, Thompson was aware that giving them a win and a zero guaranteed they'd hit the top seed team in higher brackets all the way through. I'm sorry, but I remain convinced you don't understand that this entire conflict is just the repeat of a very similar conflict between Bjork and I. I remain convinced that judges that punish my debaters to get even with some action of mine don't deserve to be behind a ballot. Be reasonable, Bear From srader Wed Mar 11 09:44:05 1998 From: srader (Doyle Srader) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 08:44:05 -0700 Subject: six degrees of Russell Church In-Reply-To: <7b7dec1c.3505e3ca@aol.com> Message-ID: > In a message dated 98-03-10 19:29:25 EST, Krueger writes: > > << > 1. Paul Kerr works for David Berube at USC. > 2. Paul Kerr was Steve Woods debater at Vermont. > 3. Steve Woods was my teammate at Kansas State. > 4. I'm Russ' assistant at MTSU. > > Why this is entertaining I don't know... but it does prove how > incestuous the activity is. > > Mike > >> Toby Arquette is an assistant at Baylor. Baylor is my alma mater. Toby's first college debate ever was against me. The judge was Ed Panetta. The debate world sometimes feels like it's no bigger than a marble. From MWBRYANT Wed Mar 11 09:47:42 1998 From: MWBRYANT (MWBRYANT) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 10:47:42 EST Subject: Unanswered Questions Message-ID: Here's a question I asked several days ago: ___________________________________________________________________ If more time might be available due to the elimination of quad octos, what's the possibility of getting ten minutes of prep time? I realize there are many potential barriers to this consideration, but I thought I'd just inquire regarding the feasibility of such a consideration. Thanks for your response, Michael Bryant ____________________________________________________________________ No response, except a post from DeLaughder, agreeing. While I'm delighted at all the neat entertainment planned for Nats, is there anyway the schedule could be changed to allow the 10 minutes of prep that seemed to be the clear preference of Snider's survey? I'll be glad to give up some party time for better debates, Bear From asnider Wed Mar 11 10:23:11 1998 From: asnider (Alfred C. Snider) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 11:23:11 -0500 Subject: More Nats entries Message-ID: The trusty USPO has brought us: Puget Sound 3 teams Pac Lutheran 1 team New Mexico 2 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 hunt Wed Mar 11 10:15:48 1998 From: hunt (Steven Hunt) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 08:15:48 -0800 Subject: We Should Not Stifle Discourse In-Reply-To: <168f4086.3505db4e@aol.com> Message-ID: Discourse, controversy, and debate are good. Nonetheless, there are certain standards of civility which should be maintained in all arguments. We should be modelling this civility ourselves and teaching it to our students. People can vigorously disagree without calling one another names. People can argue without claiming the other side is lying and cheating. Peope who make claims should provide their support for the same. Also, some arguments can and should be public. Some arguments should be private. In many cases arguments need to be fought out in private at least for awhile before they are "ready" "ripe" to go public. People need to get information and be accurate before going public.Also, as anyone knows who has cranked out an e mail note in spontaneous anger, people should think before writing. These may seem to be little things that "everybody knows" but the common sense of many of these admonitions is not being followed very well on E debate in recent days. Steve Hunt Lewis & Clark From epanetta Wed Mar 11 10:20:50 1998 From: epanetta (edward panetta) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 11:20:50 -0500 Subject: ADA Entries Message-ID: Here is the updated list of entries to date for ADA Nats. WEATHER UPDATE!! Please be aware that the forecast for this weekend calls for highs in the upper 40s and lows in the 20s. This is not spring, nor should you pack in anticipation of the normally sunny skies of Atlanta. Bring a coat. If you have entered, and you are not listed below, please contact me immediately. We look forward to seeing you on Friday. Boston College (3 JV, 1 novice) Marmol & Staiti (JV) Cameratta & Fields (JV) Briscoe & Wilson (JV) Kane & Langdon (N) Samford (1 varsity) Stetson & Buzachero GMU (2 V, 1JV, 1 Novice) Krein & Weiner (V) Igiel & Reed (V) Kahng & Adair (JV) Adams & Carroll (N) Navy (1 V, 2 JV) Callahan & Johnson (V) Schumacher & Sprincin (JV) Bruno & House (JV) Duquesne (1 V) Kimicata & Miller Mary Washington (2 JV) Tussing & Greene Rodeffer & Sherman Liberty (2 V, 2 JV, 3 N) Burns & Lawrence (V) Siegalkoff & Tilley (V) Ringsmuth & Vick (JV) Atwood & Frazier (JV) Twigg & Walker (N) Woodard & Yingst (N) Farley & Gordon (N) King's College (1 JV, 1 N) Pannell & Rodriguez (JV) Ammon & Lisko (N) Duke (2 JV) Marquard & Alabhai Nave & Krivinskas Univ. of Miami (3 V, 1 N) Wulkan & Paulose (V) Barreto & Horsley (V) Prieto & Geldens (V) Hernandez & Sagre (N) State Univ. of West GA (1 V) Barksdale & Saloom Methodist College (1 JV, 1 N) Parmenter & Graves (JV) Charpenter & Thomas (N) Clarion (2 N) Sapp & Coyer Rilling & Moeslein Wayne State (1 V) Skillin & Andrus Clemson (1 N) Heye & Lark MTSU (3 N) Woddward & Murphy Palumbo & Carter Bond & Dixon Morehouse (1 V, 2 N) Garner & Smith (V) McPhatter & Patterson (N) Wilkins & Christian (N) Univ of South Carolina (1 V, 1 JV, 2 N) McFadden & Rose (V) Katz & Trotti (JV) Bowers & Dhaenens (N) Johnston & Chappell (N) Western Washington (1 JV) Sarruf & Garrison Univ. of Scranton (1 N) Finn & Figured Trinity (1 V, 2 JV) Lotz & Mesches (V) Hayes & Massey (JV) Low & Payne (JV) Emory (3 V) Todd & Tabak Sahni & Hansford Heftman & McNabb Kentucky (1 V) Jensen & Ray Univ. of Georgia (2 V) Matos & Teagle Eastwood & Nolley From sulliv75 Wed Mar 11 10:23:27 1998 From: sulliv75 (John Sullivan) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 11:23:27 -0500 Subject: Unanswered Questions Message-ID: I'll help break the silence with another little-relevant message of support. What are the arguments against ten minutes? Doesn't seem like it can add more than 20 minutes on to any given day, and that's with 5 debates. Admittedly I haven't looked at the schedule for this year yet, maybe I'm wrong about that. -John -MSU ---------- > From: MWBRYANT > To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU > Subject: Unanswered Questions > Date: Wednesday, March 11, 1998 10:47 AM > > Here's a question I asked several days ago: > > ___________________________________________________________________ > If more time might be available due to the elimination of quad octos, what's > the possibility of getting ten minutes of prep time? > > I realize there are many potential barriers to this consideration, but I > thought I'd just inquire regarding the feasibility of such a consideration. > > Thanks for your response, > > Michael Bryant > ____________________________________________________________________ > > > No response, except a post from DeLaughder, agreeing. > > While I'm delighted at all the neat entertainment planned for Nats, is there > anyway the schedule could be changed to allow the 10 minutes of prep that > seemed to be the clear preference of Snider's survey? > > I'll be glad to give up some party time for better debates, > > Bear From bauscsa4 Wed Mar 11 10:40:00 1998 From: bauscsa4 (Stefan Bauschard) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 11:40:00 -0500 Subject: Debate Humor: Warming In-Reply-To: <19980310.210815.6487.1.Sarah.Chan@juno.com> Message-ID: I asked a question on the midterm for my college argumentation class relating to global warming. I asked, "How would you prove to a lay person that the earth is warming? Keep in mind our discussion of using scientific argument in the public sphere." I received two interesting answers. "I would prove that argument through lying through my teeth, as that is the only way to conclusively prove such an argument. First, I would collect enough sources to sound credible on the subject, making myself able to quote their bogus reasoning and statistics. Then I would look for grounding to show that what they're saying is possible. Then I would use persistence until they gave up. Otherwise, the argument cannot be won." "The earth is warming. This is due to the depletion of the ozone layer. Ultraviolet rays effect our skin, our farms receive too much sun." From MWBRYANT Wed Mar 11 10:56:36 1998 From: MWBRYANT (MWBRYANT) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 11:56:36 EST Subject: Fwd: Mailer Daemons??? Message-ID: I think this might explain a lot over the last few days. Bear << Forwarded Message: Subj: Mailer Daemons??? LOL (Long) Date: 98-03-07 12:53:02 EST From: AOLTechURT Church officials called in to perform exorcism on girl, PC FRESNO, CA - A young girl was possessed by an evil spirit from America Online's Mail Delivery Subsystem late Tuesday night while she attempted to E- mail a pen-pal in St. Louis, according to Fresno law enforcement and church officials. According to reports, the daemon was awakened when Susie Whitman, age 5, was attempting to send E-mail to her friend Stacie in St. Louis from her father's account on AOL. "From what we've been able to determine," said Bruce Stefford, head of the local America Online Technical Assistance Department, "Susie mistyped Stacie's correct internet E-mail address, 'hellokitty at juno.com,' entering instead 'helokitty at juno.com.' "Normally when you misaddress E-mail from AOL to an outside internet provider, you'd just get the misaddressed e-mail sent back to you with a 'Host Unknown' error. In this case, however, a Mailer-Daemon was invoked through the system, which has since been using Susie herself as its host." Susie's parents are understandably concerned. "I use that account for work," said Fred Whitman, father of the possessed girl. "How long before I can get on again?" When asked for her own comments on the spiritual invasion, Susie herself was quoted as saying "THERE IS NO SUSIE - THERE IS ONLY JABUUL, EATER OF SOULS. JABUUL IS MANY. JABUUL IS LEGION." As in all tech cases involving the supernatural, Stefford has called on church officials to assist. Shortly after being alerted of the Whitman matter, Stefford immediately called on long-time associate Father Dan Schepisi to head up the exorcism. "The evil spirit, or daemon, is of the 'mailer' variety," said Father Schepisi. "And as such, it is not very strong - but we must move quickly to purge its foul, unholy presence from the PC, and Susie, herself." Steve Case, reached at his compound in Martha's Vineyard, expressed his "intense concern" over the matter. The exorcism is not without danger, to both exorcist and possessed. "The daemon does not want to return to the Mail Delivery Subsystem, and as such will say anything and do anything to distract its tormentors," said Schepisi. In fact, Stefford himself came under attack as he assisted in the exorcism, as the daemon uttered words of a personal nature to him. "WE'VE GOT YOUR E-MAIL TO YOUR MOTHER DOWN HERE WITH US, STEFFORD," the Mailer-Daemon was reported as saying to Stefford. The Tech man had to temporarily excuse himself from the exorcism. "It just hit me the wrong way," said a visibly shaken Stefford. "I in fact DID recently lose an E-mail that I sent to my mother. I know that's how these daemons work, though: they mix the truth with lies." Schepisi could not say how long the procedure might take, but was certain that "local rates will not be affected" by the purging of the daemon. >> -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: AOLTechSLV Subject: Fwd: Mailer Daemons??? LOL (Long) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 16:12:17 EST Size: 3809 Url: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/19980311/8699d5f8/attachment.mht From Gary.N.Larson Wed Mar 11 11:19:46 1998 From: Gary.N.Larson (Gary Larson) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 11:19:46 -0600 Subject: Unanswered Questions In-Reply-To: <62bbd84b.3506b221@aol.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 11 Mar 1998, MWBRYANT wrote: > Here's a question I asked several days ago: > > ___________________________________________________________________ > If more time might be available due to the elimination of quad octos, what's > the possibility of getting ten minutes of prep time? > > I realize there are many potential barriers to this consideration, but I > thought I'd just inquire regarding the feasibility of such a consideration. > > Thanks for your response, > > Michael Bryant > ____________________________________________________________________ > Unfortunately, "if" the 5-3 round were to be eliminated, that would only affect the schedule on Sunday. Round 1-3 on Friday and 4-7 on Saturday would not be impacted at all. In order to add more minutes to the round, we would either have to have the assurance that all rounds would start promptly, all judges and debaters maintained a running clock to avoid the interminable delays between the "I'm up" and the actual start of the timed speech and/or reduce the time between the end of the round and the return of the decision. Absent these, I'm concerned about our ability to stay on the announced schedule. If we add additional prep time to the rounds and do not otherwise become more efficient, the result is simply that the days will run longer. Sincerely, Gary > > No response, except a post from DeLaughder, agreeing. > > While I'm delighted at all the neat entertainment planned for Nats, is there > anyway the schedule could be changed to allow the 10 minutes of prep that > seemed to be the clear preference of Snider's survey? > > I'll be glad to give up some party time for better debates, > > Bear > From mhalpin Wed Mar 11 11:36:29 1998 From: mhalpin (Marcy Halpin) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 11:36:29 -0600 Subject: CEDA Nats & Speaker Points--Civility Message-ID: Quote: "Debaters need to know what judges consider uncivil." 1. It should be a given that you treat each other and your critic with respect in the round. I think that this often does not happen--and debaters often try to take this to extremes. These extremes should warrant the extreme speaker points. I am horrified by rounds where DEBATERS BLATANTLY IGNORE the judge's beginning comments of BE NICE / CIVIL / RESPECTFUL OF EACH OTHER. 2. I just don't buy this. Debaters should be civil in rounds no matter what. Civility to your colleagues should not be contingent on WHO your judge is. If you want to debate, then debate. Don't come into a round attacking the other team and their arguments. 3. Similarly, I don't know of any judge that encourages rudeness and stands up and cheers when someone tells their opponent to 'f-off' in a round. Some judges are simply less willing to mark speaker points accordingly. 4. So it is CEDA Nats. This does not warrant the debater being a JERK. It is the opposing team's CEDA Nats too. So big old team A decides to run the tire tracks over team B because they can get away with it? There is a point of intervention that probably should happen by the judge--and probably at the level of speaker points. Team B didn't come to CEDA Nats (or to any tournament for that matter) to be ABUSED by Team A. PLEASE, beat the arguments. . . not the person. 5. I agree with the original posts that judges should be reasonable about awarding speaker points. I'm not sure that I would ever give a zero absent some sort of ethical violation. But at the same time, I DO NOT think that being a JERK warrants being rewarded with good speaker points, especially 'just because' it is nationals. Our debaters are all adults. They should be treating each other with respect. I would think that as coaches we would never want to see our debaters mistreated in rounds by their opponents. I would also hope that we would urge our debaters away from such practices and toward treating everyone with respect and civility. Marcy Halpin DePaul University From pgkst5 Wed Mar 11 11:33:12 1998 From: pgkst5 (Phil Kerpen) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 12:33:12 -0500 Subject: Debater Needs a Team Message-ID: Hi. My name is Phil Kerpen. You may have heard of me, although probably not. If you have heard of me, then the majority of what you've heard is probably untrue, because despite how hard I've struggled to be a legitimate member of the debate communities, high school and college, I've never been accepted in any way. Which is too bad. I withdrew from all of my classes about half an hour ago. Not a great thing to do, but I probably would have failed most of them. Because I haven't been going. I had last week, Spring Break, to catch up, but I blew it; I spent the entire weak cutting cards for a high school I coach instead... (I actually put out some real good stuff...) So that's that. I wasted another term. Last term, I failed three of my five classes. I just didn't write any of my papers. No reason, no crisis, no excuse-- I just didn't do my work. The only thinks I want to do are debate and coach debate. I'm absolutely certain that I want to be a debate coach as a profession. I can't imagine doing anything else. And even though I know that I need a degree to get a teaching/coaching job, I just can't motivate myself now that I'm not debating. School just seems so trivial educationally compared to debate. When I was debating, I wanted to get good grades; it motivated me both because of eligibility requirements, and because it generally made me feel good about what I was doing, where I was. Now I have no motivation at all. I went to most of my classes once or twice, total, this term. OK, now, if you've read this far, then you probably wonder why I'm not debating this year, since it's obviously not by my choice. Well, apparently, I ``undermined recruitment'' last year, when I answered a recruit's question honestly about the various social problems that there were on the team. This was unacceptable; I should have either lied or evaded the question, I was informed. (Not only did this recruit come to Pitt anyway, but she has very much struggled with the same issues that I warned her about, not surprisingly. But I'm still the bad guy.) You may also be interested to know that I was asked to leave high school a year early. That was related to some terrible political bickering, and the repercussions of an attempt to transfer to a rival debate school. So, obviously, I have a history of conflict with teams. That's not something I can deny. I am excessively passionate about debate, and at times that passion creates conflict. But I'm always honest about it, and I always accept decisions from coaches, even when I disagree with them, as long as those decisions are honest. Honesty is very important to me. And I know that if I have another chance, I can make it work. No, I can't prove that unless someone takes a chance. But I know. My academic situation is now quite poor. With the three F's I got last term, my QPA is now down around 2.6. My high school numbers are strong-- 1510, 95 average, but I have no idea how much those mean for a transfer. I have 50 credits, which makes me a sophomore and a half, and I have seven semesters of eligibility for debate. I don't have very much money, so since I'll almost certainly lose my scholarship now here at Pitt, I'll have to transfer. I should have transferred for the beginning of this year, but I figured that, even though I was not debating, things would be OK since I would coach. I was wrong. Coaching is great in a lot of ways, but it's still been frustrating to know that I could have been a good debater. And it has provided me with zero motivation for school. I don't know. I'm very, very lost right now. I'm just hoping that somebody can give me another chance. That's all. If you think you might be interested in taking a chance on a potentially very good debaters who has a lot of tough issues, please reply to this email with the relevant information. I'd certainly appreciate it. Thanks a lot. P.S. I Cc'ed this to cx-l and to my debaters because I think the high school debate community and my certainly my debaters deserve to know what's going on. If I'm wrong, they can always delete. Man, it's pathetic that I'm sitting in a computer lab crying like this. Sigh. -------- Philip G Kerpen -------- xem at EFNet -------- pgkerpen at AIM http://hsdebate.home.ml.org/ ``To be one's self and unafraid, whether right or wrong, is more admirable than the easy cowardice of surrender to conformity.'' --Irving Wallace From db8coach Wed Mar 11 11:32:30 1998 From: db8coach (Bob Lechtreck) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 09:32:30 -0800 Subject: NDT Ranking Report (2 of 3 for 1997-1998) Message-ID: At 01:10 AM 3/10/98 -0500, David Mark Cheshier wrote: Hi David, Just FYI.... >>>>>>>>>> 95 CSU Bakersfield 98 >>>>>>>>>> CSU Bakersfield does not have a debate team (although they DID go to 1 tournament this year in Parli.......). The Bakersfield you have seen at the tournaments is Bakersfield Community College. Thought you might like to know. Peace, Bob Lechtreck Bakersfield College "Putting out fires, and damn good debaters!!!" From mgremillion Wed Mar 11 09:55:39 1998 From: mgremillion (MWilliams) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 10:55:39 -0500 Subject: To West--the beginning of a CEDA post-Mortem. Message-ID: I went back to my Alma mater (University of West Florida) last weekend. I talked to a few of my team members back from the good ol' '80s and early 90s. After observing and judging rounds, these CEDA alumni were appalled to say the least. It wasn't the speed that caused concern. It was that the very nature and "epistemological scope" of CEDA had changed to much for their tastes. I use the term "taste" for a reason. The nature and style of debate that an organization chooses and a program chooses to participate in are really matters of aesthetics Bear Bryant and I have gone round and round about the virtues of Parly debate. I comes down to a matter of personal taste. The directions that CEDA has taken in the past three years are also functions of individuals' personal tastes. Primarily, in my overrated opinion, we as an organization have sought toplacate (or feed) the tastes of the top students within CEDA debate. I believe that as CEDA has grown (a lot of Organizational dynamics), the top echelons havedeveloped specialized skills, presentation formats and needs. Those needs are fed by the NDT "style" of debate. I'm not saying this is bad. In fact, I personally prefer this style of debate. It pleases me to listen to such debates.I am truly impressed by the level of sophistication that I saw at the NDT qualifier at MTSU. However, my tastes and the tastes of others do not represent the aesthetic of many that have left, will leave, and will never join the activity that we call CEDA debate. Issues such as MPJ, posting results (can't wait for the verbal assaults and maybe a physical one or two when a team realizes they have been eliminated),Policy only topics, year long topics, highly technical topics, are all matters of taste. It comes down to a question of I like it or don't like it. Eventually, the numbers of "I don't like" will outwiegh the numbers of "I Like" and my program will switch to something different. If you haven't noticed lately, the "I don't like CEDA" mentality has grow dramatically. Its growth can be seen in the decline of programs in CEDA relative to the NDT crossover effect. It is now time to begin thinking about the post-mortem. An analysis of what changes took place within CEDA that created such a negative aesthetic. Pointing the finger at Tuna, while amusing, is not really an answer. In fact, most of you should have noticed that I stopped talking about revolution a long time ago. What needs to be done is a somewhat objective analysis of what we liked about CEDA when the numbers were much stronger. Then we need to do one of two things: 1) A radical departure from CEDA. But Even I think that we have too damn many organizations. How many "National Champions" will be claimed this year? 2) Revolution from within. Not violent. I think that those of us that are dissatisfied with the direction of CEDA need to garner enough votes to implementour agenda. Whatever that agenda may be. There are many programs that still pay CEDA dues that do not actively participate in CEDA. There are also many small programs that cannot afford to send their coaches/directors to the business meetings. What we have to do is suck up enough proxy votes to override the votes of those opposed to our agenda. Its evil I know, but it is politics at its finest. So, those that do not "like" the direction of CEDA, let us do the first step in the analysis. WHat went wrong? My answer is that the resolutions really do matter. I saw a dramatic fall off begin with the selection and continuation of the Mexico topic. Oceans started the ball rolling. But, I personally saw program directors pulling out left and right with Mexico. And, I believe the trend is continuing. My proposed solution that we must garner enough proxy votes to overcome the established voting blocs: Oh My GOD!!! Semester long topics again. Even moreradically, no chance for an extension to a year long topic. If the elite students of CEDA want the year long topic so they can exhaust it by January and then simply default to Clinton cred debates, then there is an organization that meets their needs perfectly. However, for those coaches that are teaching novices and junior varsity, for those who have programs that will probably neverfeild an "national level" open team, then I believe the change back to semester long topics would go far toward attracting more students and more programs back to CEDA. Pre-empts: 1. I don't really care what the top 20% of CEDA debaters want. I really don't. That is not my constituency. I love watching and judging your debates. (Insert golf-clapping here) But my students are burned out on this topic, and I find it very difficult to recruit new students with the topic choices that we have had. 2. Don't really care to engage in the finger pointing anymore. I know I don't like some of the stuff I see going on. Can't change them myself. I therefore choose to mobilize the disenfranchised. 3. This is not a personal attack on Tuna--worry about making thise year's nationals run smoothly. Tuna or any other person in CEDA can't do anything unless we allow it. We have allowed things to degrade to the point where few want to participate. We now need to move to repair the organization. Scott M. Elliott, Ph.D. SELA From Arnie.Madsen Wed Mar 11 11:49:44 1998 From: Arnie.Madsen (Arnie Madsen) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 11:49:44 -0600 Subject: MISSING NDT ENTRY FORMS Message-ID: NDT Qualifiers: The following is the list of missing or incomplete TEAM/COACH DATA FORMS for the 1998 NDT. That form is the official entry form for the tournament, and the information is also required for the tournament booklet. The deadline for submission of these forms was YESTERDAY, MARCH 10. PLEASE FAX YOUR FORM TO DONN PARSON IMMEDIATELY. Donn's Fax Number is 785 864 5203. If you don't have a copy of the form, go to the NDT Home Page at http://www.uni.edu/ndt and follow the link to the Director's Home Page to print a copy of the form. If you have any questions, please let me know. First-Round At-Large Dartmouth HL Harvard ES Michigan State -- no judges listed for any teams Northwestern GS District I Southern California -- missing 4 rounds of judging District III Southwest Missouri Payne & Vega District V Michigan State BD Northwestern SS Wayne State AS Michigan KR Augustana IL Wayne State GL Miami John Carroll FS District VI Georgia Matos & Teagle -- email summary only District VII George Mason Krein & Weiner Liberty Lawrence & Burns Georgetown Botvinnik & Simensen Liberty Sieglakoff & Tilley Pittsburgh Ellwood & Corrigan George Washington Ducommon & Mast District VIII Dartmouth Mead & Garen District IX Weber Menzies & Anthony Weber Dilsaver & Muranaka Second-Round At-Large George Mason Igiel & Reed George Washington Stubbs & Thummala John Carroll Lavelle & Wiley Mercer Cockrell & Drake Michigan Pudelski & Scannapieco Northwestern Anderson & Nemecek Pace Kloster & Petrey Southwest Missouri Atkins & Kilpatrick -- 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 mmk1913 Wed Mar 11 12:01:28 1998 From: mmk1913 (Michael Miroslav Korcok) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 13:01:28 -0500 Subject: 2 steps back Message-ID: 1) CEDA Nationals is held after the NDT. who decided on this year's order? and is this the order just for this year? tons of teams will NOT travel the weekend before the NDT -- that is their top priority and they see CEDA Nationals as interfering. switch them back and those who care first about the NDT might see CEDA Nationals as a bonus/fun tournament. 2) move the release date back to September 1. over the previous 2 years, we voted to move the release date back first to August 14 then last year to August 1. both decisions were mistakes. the August 1st release date means lots of folks work on debate for all of August, increasing the effort they put into the activity. those unwilling or unable to lose their summers to debate start too far behind to catch up and so they quit or they make the effort to catch up for a month's worth of work during the school year. coaches are burned out and novices are ash. parli looks a lot better at 3 am ... thank you for reading, michael miroslav korcok From Damus Wed Mar 11 12:28:57 1998 From: Damus (Damus) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 13:28:57 EST Subject: JUDGES NEEDED FOR THE NDT Message-ID: The Trojans are in need of one and if possible two judges for the NDT. If anyone is interested, please let me know. Thanks & Best regards, David Damus DIrector of Forensics From ifjxh Wed Mar 11 12:31:22 1998 From: ifjxh (Joshua Hoe) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 10:31:22 PST Subject: To West--the beginning of a CEDA post-Mortem. Message-ID: I have a few problems with these arguments: 1. It makes no sense for the length of topic to be the determining factor in organizational viability: - A small topic (like this one) while maybe becoming boring allows all students the same access to a limited literature....While the topic has expanded to environmental cases it is still a very limited caselist compared to previous years. You have a full year to research a limited amount of cases and anyone can research Clinton answers if that is what you think is left of the topic. - A large topic per semester can kill any student. First, no Christmas break (you are too busy researching). Second, you have to attend more tournaments to get your rounds on the new topic before nationals. Third, your knowledge of the literature remains shallow and the learning you get from each topic dissolves into a jumble of half formed thoughts at the end of each semester.....I kind of remember a topic on art......a topic in oceans.....a topic on hand guns etc....And before you get all crazy on how I would not know I debated through this period. 2. The way you break it down is unfair. You really think that only the top 20% of the competitors in any year want a realistic shot at national glory? Do you really think that the way things are now favor "big" squads only. How do you think it worked before.....I seem to remember tournament success being about the same then...Teams that worked hard won teams that did not lost. And why are the top 20% out of your constituency? Are you certain this is true? Examples: I always get really frustrated with this artificial distinction. I have mostly worked with what I would call small programs (With the exception of UMKC and ASU) and have found ways to succeed. Most programs have up and down years - Some programs are only in your "constituency" part of the time. What about Ft. Hays in finals two years ago......UTSA in Quarters....... I can recite story after story of great small programs that proved that anyone who works hard can succeed in debate with a year long topic or two semester topics.....The real question you should ask yourself is how humane you want the year to be for your students and how much you want them to become familiar with the literature. What is the motivation for two topics... What is it about two topics that makes you happy but one topic makes you unhappy?????? Lastly, I have asked many times on this server for people to discuss concerns with the merger openly......At least Scott and Terry are finally starting to do so. In a way it is good for us to discuss these feelings openly in the community rather than act on them capricously Josh >From owner-edebate at list.uvm.edu Wed Mar 11 09:52:51 1998 >Received: from list.uvm.edu (132.198.101.67) by smtpgate.uvm.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1a) with SMTP id <0.75DC2870 at smtpgate.uvm.edu>; Wed, 11 Mar 1998 12:44:41 -0500 >Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with > spool id 50167 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 11 Mar 1998 12:44:39 > -0500 >Received: from OMEGA.SELU.EDU (omega.selu.edu [147.174.1.8]) by list.uvm.edu > (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id MAA17190 for > ; Wed, 11 Mar 1998 12:44:34 -0500 (EST) >Received: from selu.edu by selu.edu (PMDF V5.1-9 #24747) id > <01IUJD4NOZOW8ZXHTU at selu.edu> for Edebate at list.UVM.EDU; Wed, 11 Mar > 1998 11:43:25 CDT >MIME-version: 1.0 >Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII >Message-ID: <01IUJD4R3XUS8ZXHTU at selu.edu> >Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 10:55:39 -0500 >Reply-To: MWilliams >Sender: Team Topic Debating in America >From: MWilliams >Organization: Southeastern Louisiana University >Subject: Re: To West--the beginning of a CEDA post-Mortem. >To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU > >I went back to my Alma mater (University of West Florida) last weekend. I talked to a few of my team members back from the good ol' '80s and early 90s. After >observing and judging rounds, these CEDA alumni were appalled to say the least. >It wasn't the speed that caused concern. It was that the very nature and >"epistemological scope" of CEDA had changed to much for their tastes. I use the >term "taste" for a reason. The nature and style of debate that an organization >chooses and a program chooses to participate in are really matters of aesthetics Bear Bryant and I have gone round and round about the virtues of Parly debate. >I comes down to a matter of personal taste. The directions that CEDA has taken in the past three years are also functions of individuals' personal tastes. > Primarily, in my overrated opinion, we as an organization have sought toplacate (or feed) the tastes of the top students within CEDA debate. I believe >that as CEDA has grown (a lot of Organizational dynamics), the top echelons havedeveloped specialized skills, presentation formats and needs. Those needs are >fed by the NDT "style" of debate. I'm not saying this is bad. In fact, I >personally prefer this style of debate. It pleases me to listen to such debates.I am truly impressed by the level of sophistication that I saw at the NDT >qualifier at MTSU. However, my tastes and the tastes of others do not represent >the aesthetic of many that have left, will leave, and will never join the >activity that we call CEDA debate. > Issues such as MPJ, posting results (can't wait for the verbal assaults >and maybe a physical one or two when a team realizes they have been eliminated),Policy only topics, year long topics, highly technical topics, are all matters of taste. It comes down to a question of I like it or don't like it. Eventually, >the numbers of "I don't like" will outwiegh the numbers of "I Like" and my program will switch to something different. If you haven't noticed lately, the >"I don't like CEDA" mentality has grow dramatically. Its growth can be seen in >the decline of programs in CEDA relative to the NDT crossover effect. > It is now time to begin thinking about the post-mortem. An analysis of >what changes took place within CEDA that created such a negative aesthetic. >Pointing the finger at Tuna, while amusing, is not really an answer. In fact, >most of you should have noticed that I stopped talking about revolution a long >time ago. What needs to be done is a somewhat objective analysis of what we >liked about CEDA when the numbers were much stronger. Then we need to do one >of two things: 1) A radical departure from CEDA. But Even I think that we have too damn many organizations. How many "National Champions" will be claimed this year? 2) Revolution from within. Not violent. I think that those of us that are dissatisfied with the direction of CEDA need to garner enough votes to implementour agenda. Whatever that agenda may be. There are many programs that still >pay CEDA dues that do not actively participate in CEDA. There are also many small programs that cannot afford to send their coaches/directors to the business >meetings. What we have to do is suck up enough proxy votes to override the >votes of those opposed to our agenda. Its evil I know, but it is politics at its finest. > So, those that do not "like" the direction of CEDA, let us do the first >step in the analysis. WHat went wrong? > My answer is that the resolutions really do matter. I saw a dramatic >fall off begin with the selection and continuation of the Mexico topic. Oceans started the ball rolling. But, I personally saw program directors pulling out left and right with Mexico. And, I believe the trend is continuing. > My proposed solution that we must garner enough proxy votes to overcome >the established voting blocs: Oh My GOD!!! Semester long topics again. Even moreradically, no chance for an extension to a year long topic. If the elite >students of CEDA want the year long topic so they can exhaust it by January and then simply default to Clinton cred debates, then there is an organization that >meets their needs perfectly. However, for those coaches that are teaching >novices and junior varsity, for those who have programs that will probably neverfeild an "national level" open team, then I believe the change back to semester >long topics would go far toward attracting more students and more programs back >to CEDA. > Pre-empts: 1. I don't really care what the top 20% of CEDA debaters >want. I really don't. That is not my constituency. I love watching and judging >your debates. (Insert golf-clapping here) But my students are burned out on >this topic, and I find it very difficult to recruit new students with the topic >choices that we have had. > 2. Don't really care to engage in the finger pointing anymore. I know >I don't like some of the stuff I see going on. Can't change them myself. I therefore choose to mobilize the disenfranchised. > 3. This is not a personal attack on Tuna--worry about making thise year's nationals run smoothly. Tuna or any other person in CEDA can't do anything >unless we allow it. We have allowed things to degrade to the point where few >want to participate. We now need to move to repair the organization. >Scott M. Elliott, Ph.D. >SELA > > ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From jhovden Wed Mar 11 12:42:18 1998 From: jhovden (Jan Hovden) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 13:42:18 -0500 Subject: Nationals Team List Message-ID: Here is the updated list of teams for CEDA nationals. This list includes all of the entries that we have currently received. By my count, we have 159 teams entered...but don't rely on my ability to accurately count past 20 :). Jan Teams entered for the 1998 CEDA National Tournament Alabama Julia Shaw & Damien Pfister Esglen Lamberth & Wiley Gordon LeNee Carroll & Ben Osborne Appalachian State Rudy Dunlap & Lindsay Phipps Eleanor Norman & Jarrett Helms Arizona State Josh Martin & Justin Skarb John Kircher & Julie Sweet Edwin Aralica & David Williams Arkansas Tech Jimmy Wilson & Dena Bucker Rebecca Paschal & Sommer Faulkenberry Ball State Amanda McRae & Kathy Purvis Berkely Nathan Haratani & Randy Lushey Matt Macdonald & Mike Troncoso Cal Poly - SLO Dan Bolton & Kristen Hamilton Liney LaRoche & Angela Sandoval CSU - Chico Sue Lowrie & Cara Cupp Tony King & Dave Delano Gloria Sobolvarro & Paul Loupe CSU - Long Beach Heather Henkel & Kristine Clancy CSU - Sacramento Kristin Johnson & Jay Clarkson Jorge Medina & Ron Heard Capital Dominic Verdell & Alisha Ketner Central Methodist Shelly Meador & Leila Morgan Central Oklahoma Tony Sherbert & Shawn Blankenship Claremont Matt Grossmann & Camille Ryan Cornell Jessica Wojtysiak & Michael Cole Rob Melton & Matt Miller Melinda Hightower & Jennifer Edwards Beth Kronk & Caren Sencer Julie Chon & Cappy Lay Rogelio Galindo & Ying Lin Cumberland College Nathan Kinser & Curtis Brown Duke Imran Alibhai & Dan Krivinskas Dave Marquard & Alisa Nave Eastern New Mexico Matt Barreto & John Foy Katie Gilkinson & Shawn Wilkerson Mathew Dunn & David Keller Eastern Utah Brian McDonald & Toni Nielson Mike Zahller & Zack Westerfield Emory Stephen Heidt & Dan Fitzmeier Anne Marie Todd & Vic Tabak Nessa Horewitch & Shanara Reid Raj Ghoshal & Leslie Wade John Paul Lupo & Mike Horowitz Katie Matt & Alison Chase Stephen Bailey & Kamal Ghali Emporia Tara Tate & Shannon Holland Tony Nation & Brad Areheart Marie Baenig & Luke Simmons Florida State Erin Verhelst & Nick Brooks Brian Reddinger & Ari Allyn Andre Perez & John Layang Yang Fort Hays John Clune & Andrew Halverson George Mason Peter Krein & Mike Toguchi Gonzaga John Voigt & Aaron Moburg-Jones Josh Yake & Ben Voight Casey Kelly & Shawn Hummell Jason Leviton & Cliff Duke Johnson County Tom O'Toole & Adam Sokoloff Kansas Hajir Ardebili & Grant McKeehan Mike Eber & Amy Miller Steve Flinn & Scott Herndon Ryan Hudson & Tom Seymour David Magariel & Nathan Rodriguez Kansas State Grant Denny & Isaac West Sarah Glaser & Kevin Zollman Lewis & Clark Jared Ellis & Nick Hesterberg Loyola Marymount Leroy McClain & Cindy Morgan Macalester College Jennifer Alme & Kiva Garen Martha Wilson & James Hart Marquette Tim Dale & Kiley Kane McNeese Amiee Wernecke & Jarvis Parsons Jennifer Dula & Anthony James Miami (FL) Larry Wulkan & Regina Paulose Veronica Barreto & Kim Horsley Debbie Prieto & Jeff Geldens Michigan State John Sullivan & Erik Cornellier Aaron Monick & Katy Hoffman Alison Woidan & William Rand Tara O'Dowd & Orian Smith Middle Tennessee Laurie Ishak & Daniel Grews Missouri - Kansas City Jennifer Barker & Scott Betz Josh Coffman & Matt Baisley Adam Whyte & Tommy Curry Steven Green & Ben White Morehouse/Mercer Deon Garner & Kenny Hanson New Mexico Jackson Stalley & Jessica Clark Brandon Mark & Kelci Lowe New York Cartel Angla Teng & Jason Clark Kathryn Rubino & Kate Brindle Justine Daniels & Victoria Keiran Marius Hentea & Jake Weigler Heather Wilson & Diane Kruze Northampton Community College Tunya Butterfield & Jessica Brush North Texas Eli Holloway & Cody Morrow Melissa Horn & Kenda Cunningham Northeast Louisiana\Southeast Missouri Bob Alexander & Rebecca Congo Northern Iowa Jennifer Rawe & Melissa Peterson Oregon Katie Bauer & Jay Lininger Pace Jason Peterson & Taylor Petrey Pacific Lutheran Gwen Paillette & Angela Stacey Pepperdine Cober Pluckes & Kristina Sun Alexis Gorton & Brenda Zeimet Thomas Manakides & Jenna McGrath Pittsburgh Almas Sayeed & Andrew Stangl Brendan Delaney & Eric English Puget Sound Paul Veillon & Scott Bailey Michael LeFevre & Amy Stutesman Darrell Wanzer & Maxine Cram Richmond Mark Arnold & Ben Bates Joe Keeton & Scott Luchetti Rochester Chet Gulati & Ria Dimalanta Dan Myers & Todd Walters Kathreen McClung & Lauren Michaels Phil Segaloff & Akash Desai Adam Shapiro & Johathan White San Francisco State Autumn Boylan & Corey Martin Bree Antenncci & Helen Calip Amy Gaughran & Sueanne McNeil South Carolina Lane McFadden & Corey Rose Matthew Katz & John Trotti Southeast Missouri Rebecca Congo & Bob Alexander (Northeast Louisiana) Southeastern Louisiana Kevalyn Robertson & Jeffrety Waguespack Southern Illinois Eric Slusher &Geoff Smith Matt Moore & Joey Vuglia Southern Utah Luc Stricker & Sara Herrmann Kasey Reardon & Stacie Stapley Southwest Missouri James Martin & Wes Langford Trenton Gorman & Chris Wilt Shawn Bone & Melissa McMurdo Southwest Texas Travis LaCoss & Sean Tiffee Syracuse Kendra McCAnn & Emite Khader Texas - Dallas Jason Jordan & Vasile Stanescu Lisa Anselmi & Trevon Fuller Texas - San Antonio Javier Buentello & Javier Quintanilla Towson Don Baker & Steven Andrew Ellis Brian Bittner & Michelle Karl Kerry Doyle & Zia Faruqui Renee Jackson & Anca Pusca US Airforce Academy Marshall McMullen & Ryan Sullivan Shawn Briscoe & Luke Savioe Jessica Trafecanty & Chris Denote US Naval Academy Shannon Callahan & Adam Johnston Vanderbilt Gabrielle Prisco & Vinay Reddy Vermont Helen Morgan & Sarah Snider David Grover & Amanda Michel Greta Lockwood & Daniel Gareau Weber Dan Dilsaver & Aaron Muranaka West Georgia Brandyn Barksdale & Rachel Saloom Western Washington Julie Pitt & Jeff Van Horn Whitney Garrison & Michelle Sarruf Wheaton John Wilson & Lisa Carter Judy Swanson & David Wittig Whitman Sean Harris & Adam Symonds Jessica Clarke & Ryan Scoville Mike Caughey & Sean Collins Wichita Kristi Morioka & Jeremy Hathaway Brian Gough & James Harris William Jewell Jennifer Davis & Aubrey Harris Matt McGee & Louie Petit From mcmulpm5 Wed Mar 11 12:51:00 1998 From: mcmulpm5 (patrick) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 13:51:00 -0500 Subject: Room needed for ADA Nationals In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980311134218.006aec80@pop.uvm.edu> Message-ID: I am trying to switch my reservation for two queen size singles to one double room. if anyone has an extra double they won't need, please contact me ASAP thanks patrick mcmullen mary washington college From Jackie.Massey Wed Mar 11 12:58:16 1998 From: Jackie.Massey (Jackie Massey) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 11:58:16 -0700 Subject: To West--the beginning of a CEDA post-Mortem. In-Reply-To: <01IUJD4R3XUS8ZXHTU@selu.edu> Message-ID: I have a small interjection to make. I dont think it is the debate people are complaining about in CEDA, it is the political atmosphere that has become overwhelimingly oppresive. Maybe it was not the debate you liked at all, maybe because all of your friends were there you had no problem in deciding who to vote for. I love debate, no matter what organization hosts the tournament. Massey ENMU On Wed, 11 Mar 1998, MWilliams wrote: > I went back to my Alma mater (University of West Florida) last weekend. I talked to a few of my team members back from the good ol' '80s and early 90s. After > observing and judging rounds, these CEDA alumni were appalled to say the least. > It wasn't the speed that caused concern. It was that the very nature and > "epistemological scope" of CEDA had changed to much for their tastes. I use the > term "taste" for a reason. The nature and style of debate that an organization > chooses and a program chooses to participate in are really matters of aesthetics Bear Bryant and I have gone round and round about the virtues of Parly debate. > I comes down to a matter of personal taste. The directions that CEDA has taken in the past three years are also functions of individuals' personal tastes. > Primarily, in my overrated opinion, we as an organization have sought toplacate (or feed) the tastes of the top students within CEDA debate. I believe > that as CEDA has grown (a lot of Organizational dynamics), the top echelons havedeveloped specialized skills, presentation formats and needs. Those needs are > fed by the NDT "style" of debate. I'm not saying this is bad. In fact, I > personally prefer this style of debate. It pleases me to listen to such debates.I am truly impressed by the level of sophistication that I saw at the NDT > qualifier at MTSU. However, my tastes and the tastes of others do not represent > the aesthetic of many that have left, will leave, and will never join the > activity that we call CEDA debate. > Issues such as MPJ, posting results (can't wait for the verbal assaults > and maybe a physical one or two when a team realizes they have been eliminated),Policy only topics, year long topics, highly technical topics, are all matters of taste. It comes down to a question of I like it or don't like it. Eventually, > the numbers of "I don't like" will outwiegh the numbers of "I Like" and my program will switch to something different. If you haven't noticed lately, the > "I don't like CEDA" mentality has grow dramatically. Its growth can be seen in > the decline of programs in CEDA relative to the NDT crossover effect. > It is now time to begin thinking about the post-mortem. An analysis of > what changes took place within CEDA that created such a negative aesthetic. > Pointing the finger at Tuna, while amusing, is not really an answer. In fact, > most of you should have noticed that I stopped talking about revolution a long > time ago. What needs to be done is a somewhat objective analysis of what we > liked about CEDA when the numbers were much stronger. Then we need to do one > of two things: 1) A radical departure from CEDA. But Even I think that we have too damn many organizations. How many "National Champions" will be claimed this year? 2) Revolution from within. Not violent. I think that those of us that are dissatisfied with the direction of CEDA need to garner enough votes to implementour agenda. Whatever that agenda may be. There are many programs that still > pay CEDA dues that do not actively participate in CEDA. There are also many small programs that cannot afford to send their coaches/directors to the business > meetings. What we have to do is suck up enough proxy votes to override the > votes of those opposed to our agenda. Its evil I know, but it is politics at its finest. > So, those that do not "like" the direction of CEDA, let us do the first > step in the analysis. WHat went wrong? > My answer is that the resolutions really do matter. I saw a dramatic > fall off begin with the selection and continuation of the Mexico topic. Oceans started the ball rolling. But, I personally saw program directors pulling out left and right with Mexico. And, I believe the trend is continuing. > My proposed solution that we must garner enough proxy votes to overcome > the established voting blocs: Oh My GOD!!! Semester long topics again. Even moreradically, no chance for an extension to a year long topic. If the elite > students of CEDA want the year long topic so they can exhaust it by January and then simply default to Clinton cred debates, then there is an organization that > meets their needs perfectly. However, for those coaches that are teaching > novices and junior varsity, for those who have programs that will probably neverfeild an "national level" open team, then I believe the change back to semester > long topics would go far toward attracting more students and more programs back > to CEDA. > Pre-empts: 1. I don't really care what the top 20% of CEDA debaters > want. I really don't. That is not my constituency. I love watching and judging > your debates. (Insert golf-clapping here) But my students are burned out on > this topic, and I find it very difficult to recruit new students with the topic > choices that we have had. > 2. Don't really care to engage in the finger pointing anymore. I know > I don't like some of the stuff I see going on. Can't change them myself. I therefore choose to mobilize the disenfranchised. > 3. This is not a personal attack on Tuna--worry about making thise year's nationals run smoothly. Tuna or any other person in CEDA can't do anything > unless we allow it. We have allowed things to degrade to the point where few > want to participate. We now need to move to repair the organization. > Scott M. Elliott, Ph.D. > SELA > From srader Wed Mar 11 12:53:56 1998 From: srader (Doyle Srader) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 11:53:56 -0700 Subject: 2 steps back In-Reply-To: <3506D178.47DA5624@garnet.acns.fsu.edu> Message-ID: On Wed, 11 Mar 1998, Michael Miroslav Korcok wrote: > the August 1st release date means lots of folks work on debate for all > of August, increasing the effort they put into the activity. those > unwilling or unable to lose their summers to debate start too far behind > to catch up and so they quit or they make the effort to catch up for a > month's worth of work during the school year. coaches are burned out > and novices are ash. parli looks a lot better at 3 am ... A later topic release date has two problems: a. Frantic overdrive preparation. People skip class. People lose sleep. Getting up to speed on a topic in _three weeks_ or less is brutal. I can't imagine doing it on a small squad. I admit, I have no firsthand experience with that kind of schedule, but the hair-raising stories I've heard are uniform and compelling. b. Paper-thin argumentation at the first wave of tournaments. Heck, the debates were scattershot and confused back when the release date was July 15 (my birthday, start shopping now!). But there's no question in my mind that the big block of time at the beginning of the year, **used wisely**, is the best chance most folks have to prepare a few positions (their anchor affirmative, their core generics) in-depth and give a bunch of practice speeches about them. As an aid to argument development and an encourager of argument quality, nothing substitutes for big blocks of time. And by the way, here's a demonstration that two people not known for being the most tactful and polite participants in the debate listservs can disagree without insults and accusations. Doyle Srader Arizona State University (602) 965-5578 "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 SycoArt Wed Mar 11 13:14:03 1998 From: SycoArt (SycoArt) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 14:14:03 EST Subject: Cal Poly SLO Message-ID: Could someone please give me the E-mail address for the head coach at Cal Poly SLO Thanks Art From mgremillion Wed Mar 11 11:49:38 1998 From: mgremillion (MWilliams) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 12:49:38 -0500 Subject: Reply to Josh. Message-ID: I remeber Josh kicking my ass with "Toto good" at Nats eons ago. Now, I know there are a lot of varsity debaters and programs that coach almost exclusively varsity teams that think things are just hunky dory in debate land. They ain't. To answer some of Josh's commentary. If it ain't the topics, then what caused the dramatic decline of CEDA programs? It is not the lack of funds or programs just disappearing. They left for Parly or strictly I.E. programs. There has to be a reason. Them people I've talked to say it had a lot to do with the topics chosen. Irrational perhaps, but that is why they left. I guess I need to reiterate the difference between a "small program" and a "micro program." Those programs listed like Ft. Hays et al. are rebuilding with a goal of getting back to the final round. Many coaches, myself included. Realize that given the resources available, this is an unrealistic goal. We just want to teach argumentation skills to as many students as possible. The hope is that the forum of academic competition will motivate students to learn new information and skills. Sometimes, however, the topics scare students away before we have a chance to teach them. That is what has happened to many of my prospective debaters this year. So, if the topics are not the cause, what is. Josh, there is something about CEDA that Directors of programs are finding offensive. What is it. 2. My constituency. Why don't I represent ALL students in CEDA. Frankly,the top 20% belong to programs that are very active in CEDA business meetings. Or, like Eric Slusher, take action for themselves. There are many students who simply do not know how to take action. Or, their directors are either too apathetic or underfunded to actively participate. All democratic institutions with representatives have limited constituencies. I just openly admit where my political views lie. I believe that the students who need the year long mega-topics to explore their highest levels of creativity already have an outlet that is well established and well principled in this type of debate. If I were at a University that could support such a program, I would be advocating for the following resolution: Resolved: fill in your backfile. But I do not represent such an institution. Probably never will. I represent those students who just want to learn how to research and prepare arguments. I don't want to represnt those that live 24/7 for debate. National Champions delivering Pizzas ain't my bag anymore. Let the "National Circuit" play with the other National teams. But, open up CEDA for the micro programs and the mediocre debaters. Yes, I am championing mediocrity. There are a lot of GREAT students who will NEVER be great debaters. 3. Depth versus Breadth and the Semester long topic. No Josh, you are still looking at it from a "Gotta Win Nationals" perspective. That ain't my bag.Maybe novice nationals, but not open. I don't worry about nationals as a central goal. That is a mantra of the top 20% of the debaters. Believe it or not, some people really do not want to go into the depth of analysis that is seen in year long topics. Worrying about these progressively smaller case areas as the year goes by is not always the best goal. I would rather have my students learn a lot about two topics then learn TOO MUCH about one obscure topic. Really, how many people are going to gain anything by getting 2 more link take outs to a Vietnam/China disad. We all got the general point of the Southeast Asia topic by around Mid-term of Fall '97. Now we are just worrying about the details. In fact, the year long topic forces people to research more than semester long topics. There is an expectation now that you have to have specific cards to a specific case because of the year-long topic. I will bet $5.00 that a California team will tell my Louisiana team next week "We've been running this case all year, they should have case cards" as a response. The year Josh whipped me good, we went 6-2 at Nationals with just two briefcases. No tubs. I say we shouldn't have to cut cards specific to hardening foam versus lexfoam. It is technical material that does not serve a purpose other than furtherance of gamesmanship (sorry PC police!) for the top 20% in the field. I'm glad to see Josh and I having a discussion without calling each other names. Scott Elliott SELA From jhovden Wed Mar 11 13:42:46 1998 From: jhovden (Jan Hovden) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 14:42:46 -0500 Subject: Nationals Judge List Message-ID: This is the list of judges for CEDA nationals. All entries that we have received are included on this list. If schools didn't specify how many rounds each judge was going to cover, I arbitarily assigned them for you. If the breakup of rounds is not how you want it to be, you should let us know since the number of rounds each judge is committed for can affect the pref sheet. Thanks. Jan Judges for the 1998 CEDA National Tournament Alabama Carrie Crenshaw (tab) Ed Lee (4 + hire) Appalachian State Glenda Treadaway (Tab Room) Matthew Doggett (4 rounds) Arizona State Doyle Srader (8 rounds) Arkansas Tech Robert Bolen (4 rounds) Ball State Mike Bauer (4 rounds) Cal Poly - SLO TC Winebrenner (4 rounds) CSU - Chico Jethro Hayman (6 rounds) Kevin Kerwien (6 rounds) CSU - Long Beach Nick Rangel (2 rounds + hire) Victor Rodriguez (1 round + hire) Matt Stannard (1 round + hire) CSU - Sacramento Kimo Ah Yun (8 rounds) Capital Sarah Ryan (4 rounds + hire) Central Methodist Gary Rees (4 rounds + hire) Central Oklahoma Chad Hill (4 rounds + hire) Cornell Pam Stepp (6 rounds + hire) Jeff Archibald (7 rounds + hire) Jeff Tompkins (7 rounds + hire) Kristin Dybvig (out rounds only) Wynn Wilcox (hire) Jonathan Stanton (hire) Adam Chud (hire) Cumberland Michael Dickman (4 rounds + hire) Duke Richard O'Dor (8 rounds) Eastern New Mexico Jackie Massey (6 rounds + hire) Ken Delaughder (6 rounds + hire) Eastern Utah Chris Harper (8 rounds) Emory David Heidt (8 rounds) Jamie McKown (8 rounds) Ashley Fairchild (8 rounds) Melissa Wade (4 rounds) Emporia Rodger Biles (6 rounds) Darren Elliot (6 rounds + hire) Florida State Kristina Schriver (4 rounds) Mike Korcok (4 rounds + hire) Mike Jackman (4 rounds + hire) Fort Hays Joe Boyle (4 rounds) George Mason Jomel Angat (4 rounds) Gonzaga Jamey Dumas (8 rounds) Chad Rigsby (8 rounds) Johnson County Amy Fugate (2 rounds + hire) Rich McCollum (2 rounds + hire + rounds for K-State) Kansas Keven Minch (4 rounds) Sarah Partlow (4 rounds) Rod Phares (4 rounds) Val Renegar (4 rounds) Stacey Sowards (4 rounds) Kansas State Sue Stanfield (2 rounds) Christina Sabee (4 rounds) Rich McCollum (2 rounds) Monte Stevens (elims only) Lewis & Clark Steve Hunt (2 rounds) Nathan Hobbs (2 rounds) Loyola Marymount Mike Simpson (4 rounds) Macalester Jim Haefele (4 rounds plus hire) Will Brewer (4 rounds) Marquette Alex Inman (4 rounds) McNeese Robert Markstrom (8 rounds) Miami David Steingberg (4 rounds) Gavin Williams (4 rounds) David Helwich (4 rounds) Michigan State James Roper (8 rounds) Terry Johnson (8 rounds) Middle Tennessee Mike Krueger (4 rounds +hire) Missouri - Kansas City David Kingston (5 rounds) Eric Jenkins (6 rounds) Myron King (5 rounds) New Mexico Jordan Mills (8 rounds, prelims only) Tom Jewell (elims only) New York Cartel Sylvia Beltan (8 rounds) Bill Charron (4 rounds + hire) Will Baker (4 rounds + hire) Paul Young (8 rounds) North Texas Josh Hoe (2 rounds) Christy Lowery (3 rounds) Courtney Knapple (3 rounds) Northeast Louisiana Jodee Hobbs (4 rounds) Northern Iowa Cate Palczewski (2 rounds) Heather Dzuricky (2 rounds + hire) Oregon Nick Lougee (4 rounds) Pace Tim Mahoney (4 rounds) Pacific Lutheran Joe Hamell (4 rounds) Pepperdine Greg Achten (4 rounds) Becky Opsata (4 rounds) Marce Luck (4 rounds) Pittsburgh Ron Von Burg (2 rounds) Kevin Ayotte (3 rounds) Max Schnurer (3 rounds) Puget Sound Glenn Kuper (8 rounds) Richmond Lisa Heller (8 rounds) Rochester Gina Ercolini (8 rounds) Pat Gerhke (8 rounds) San Francisco State Shawn Whalen (6 rounds) Lisa Kawamura (6 rounds + hire) South Carolina Paul Kerr (8 rounds) David Berube (elims only) Southeast Louisiana Scott Elliot (4 rounds) Southern Illinois Glen Frappier (hire) Aaron Klemz (hire) Jeremy Hutchins (hire) Yuri Kostun (hire) David Woodbury (hire) Southern Utah Terry West (8 rounds) Southwest Missouri John Fritch (8 rounds) Southwest Texas Leah Castella (hire) Syracuse Geoff Anderson (2 rounds + hire) Bradley Meurrens (2 rounds + hire) Frank Irizarry (hire if needed) Texas - Dallas Stephanie Steele (8 rounds) Towson Kenneth Broda-Bahm (8 rounds) Martin Che Harris (8 rounds) US Airforce Rachel Woodward (8 rounds) Vanderbilt M. Sandoz (4 rounds) Vermont Jan Hovden (4 rounds + hire) Gordie Miller (4 rounds) Jeff Cederfield (4 rounds) Weber Eric Marlow (2 rounds) Michael Bryant (2 rounds) West Georgia Jon Sharp (4 rounds) Western Washington Grady Martin Wheaton Steve Thompson (2 + hire) Jay Chandra (2 + hire) Gary Larson (Tab) Whitman Jim Hanson (6 rounds) J.P. Lacy (6 rounds) Wichita State Jeffrey Jarman (4 rounds) Douglas Roubidoux (4 rounds) William Jewell Steve Woods (8 rounds) Hire Sean Lemoine From race Wed Mar 11 13:49:31 1998 From: race (David Bruce Rhaesa) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 13:49:31 -0600 Subject: a ? of reality: rewarded for incoherence Message-ID: Joel David Rollins wrote: > > i'm not sure apout an apathy kritik, if i'm reading you correctly. i > already call the clinton DA the "kritik of action". > joel distinterestedness is not necessarily apathy and my poor articulation and fledgling level of thought on the matter would easily make it seem so. one metaphor would be for the judge to figuratively assume the editorial position for a scholarly journal that relates somewhat to the overarching policy area in question. perhaps for foreign affairs, foreign policy, international security or the like. debate could obviously exist about what is the proper metaphorical editorship. the affirmative's case must be sufficient to get it on the agenda of such a journal. it seems to me that the unqiueness of the internal links from link to impact would become much more significant in such a perspective. for example, the impact cards concerning species exhaustion would not at all justify coverage of deforestation or orang abuse in southeast asia. these impacts would provide a generic discussion area of foreign policy worthy of consideration and the uniqueness of the malaysian or whatever other souteast asian claim to these impacts would be the ground for discussion. comparatively should we be disinterested in this case of species loss given the other areas of species loss that we could be covering. it is a radical departure from traditional theories of affirmative and negative ground, perhaps, but it seemed that the fiating over the agenda -setting inherency justified some level of investigation. at a different level of metaphor the judges decision could be similar to determination of committee consideration of the matter in Congress. Here uniqueness would be a factor, but also the more traditional tradeoffs of political natures that Joel describes as the critique of action. one thing i noticed at Heart was a willingness to accept the possibilities of alternative forms of arguments and so i thought i would drop these on the collective plate for consideration. they are not well thought out. they are not researched. they are merely ideas. whether y'all choose to take them from the realm of ideas and actually turn them into strategies is entirely up to you. I'm not pushing - just dealing these days. best, dr From srader Wed Mar 11 13:59:09 1998 From: srader (Doyle Srader) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 12:59:09 -0700 Subject: NCAA pool Message-ID: I have fond memories of the NCAA pool that Patrick Wheaton used to run back at Georgia. I think Gordon probably is keeping it alive. But Yahoo has an automated one, and even lets people make their own groups. So I made one called "Debate". If you feel the urge, drop off your picks at http://pickem.yahoo.com The group is Debate, and the password is cedandt. 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 sharris Wed Mar 11 14:18:58 1998 From: sharris (SCOTT HARRIS) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 14:18:58 -0600 Subject: Disclosure & Nationals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Having returned safely through the post nov nats blizzard I thought I would raise an issue for discussion as we head into nationals. Last year at the NDT (I must note that I didn't observe any of these problems at CEDA nats) there were several instances of highly questionable disclosure practices which greatly angered several people, myself included. This year at Nov Nats there are signs that we might be heading into disasters at the NDT. There were a couple of schools whose disclosure policies trouble me greatle. One team claimed that they were running a "new" case when they ran a case which had been run by their top team at another tournament. It is my understanding that in a subsequent round at Nov Nats they called the same case "new" even though they had previosly run it at the tournament. My debaters tell me that they were told that the school had had a squad meeting and had decided this was a legitimate use of the term "new." Another team refused to show their plan to the opposition when making minor wording changes to the plan (taking out the words "as per the recommendations of..." in one debate, and adding the words "or any means necessary" in another. This stood in stark contrast to Wake Forest who showed the plan after making a substantive change (limiting the applicability of the demining effort in Vietnam to a specific province). That same team was very assertive in demanding to see the other teams plan in elims quickly (before other rounds were even decided). Given the inconsistencies in disclosure practice in which "new" means different things to different people I don't know what to do. Perhaps I'm just too open in showing people our plans when we make minor wording changes to spike out a specific argument. If people don't want to allow another teams coaches to coach I have no problem with those like S. Carolina who adopt a consistent don't ask don't tell policy, or those who are willing to take the risks of running a truly new case. I have serious problems if disclosure becomes a tool of gamesmanship in which we play Clintonesque word games like "I did not break the laws of my country" (because I was at Oxford when I didn't inhale) in response to the question did you smoke mj. I have serious reservations about the kinds of lessons we teach our students for the future. Those who become lawyers may learn how to manipulate pretrial disclosure in their predebate disclosure practices. I am very disheartened about being in an activity that plays these kind of games. If anything can drive me out of an activity I love deeply this is the kind of thing that can. #####TROUBLED IN LAWRENCE##### From ifjxh Wed Mar 11 14:23:48 1998 From: ifjxh (Joshua Hoe) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 12:23:48 PST Subject: Reply to Josh. Message-ID: O.K. I get it now..... A few more questions..... First, if not competition than what? If it is only about teaching a few students argumentation skills than why does the current composition of CEDA deter that in any way......The students who get burned out learned what you wanted them to learn the ones that are still around are getting what they want too. You cannot really be arguing that people left because they get bored with a year long topic? What is the motive? I will make a more controversial argument. People do not leave CEDA or NDT or NEDA or whatever you want to call it for any other reason than this: They do not believe what we do is worthwile. All the time -limit, mutual preference, topic release mumbo jumbo is just that. We are missing the point entirely.....Some people like what we do (policy debate)....Some people like most of what we do and are constantly trying to tinker around the margins (CEDA was originally this kind of tinkering - but it seems the majority of the participating membership found more in common with the original format than they did with the tinkering)...Some people want wholescale enforced change (ADA and NEDA both enforce "rules" that accord the style of debate to the picture of value its practitioners hold necessary for the activity to remain academically defensible to them.....And finally, many people get tired of the game and just decide to do something totally different or play a different game (Parli etc.). The majority of people that I know who have left did it for this reason. They may say its because of "speed" or "judging elitism" or any other reason.....But they left because they stopped believing in it as worthwhile. Now, as I have said before. NO AMOUNT OF TINKERING WITH THE 'RULES' WILL BRING THESE FOLKS BACK!!!! They do not believe in us. They are happy doing what they are doing etc. As Tuna has said forensics is a BIG TENT. However, those that have stuck it out and remain in the team cross examination debate part of the tent can stop living in constant fear. We should have HONEST discussions about what we really do not like about debate as it is currently structured.. Problem: Topics are too long Solution: Diversity of approach within CEDA to debate in a calender year *** Example, CEDA now counts public sphere debate for sweepstakes. If you are bored with Southeast Asia your region or district can host a set of tournaments on any topic or set of topics that you want. How does the organization deny this opportunity? *** Example, discuss the things a program like yours hopes to get out of a debate season and then suggest ways that the current organizational construct can accomodate those needs. The options are not as stark as you potray them. Originally all CEDA tournaments had to use the CEDA topic because the two topic year was what distinguished us from NDT. Propose that within public sphere or some other name other topics be counted toward sweepstakes etc. We have demonstrated our will to keep one topic but not exclusively. Not all programs need to follow the same organizational model to be a member. Second, why is the option always love it or leave it or we will leave because it will not conform to our will? Why can't we celebrate the fact that different programs have different needs while still recognizing that at the root.....the very root...those of us who are still around are around for a reason.....We are masachistic enough to like team cross examination debate more than any other activity we have participated in. If we did not agree on this much we would not still be around. I do not want to participate in your non-competitive forum but I want to belong to CEDA. To me CEDA never stood for eight minute speeches, two topic years, or criteria observations.....CEDA, once it escaped from the hands of its makers, was the belief that everyone should be encouraged to participate.....that diversity should be encouraged. The distinction between CEDA and NDT was not about a "style of debate" it was only a difference in approaching the administrative style of an organization. I am certain we can both fit inside that tent. Finally, an organization will never find a quick-fix for what ails team debate. Some of its problems are illusionary...part of our seemingly insurmountable collective guilt about what we do. But blaming the organization or "a rule" for its failures will not find the core of that disatisfaction. And kicking the competitive elements or opinions from that element out of an activity seems to be the worst mockery of an answer . Josh p.s. I am glad we are being civil also......I do not really remember a time when we were uncivil......hmmmmmmmmm Anyway, I still love debate.....I still like the competition.....and I am still hopeful that there is a place for all us in the same tent.... Josh >From owner-edebate at list.uvm.edu Wed Mar 11 11:27:24 1998 >Received: from list.uvm.edu (132.198.101.67) by smtpgate.uvm.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1a) with SMTP id <0.721EF100 at smtpgate.uvm.edu>; Wed, 11 Mar 1998 14:24:48 -0500 >Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with > spool id 51683 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 11 Mar 1998 14:24:46 > -0500 >Received: from alpha.selu.edu (alpha.selu.edu [147.174.1.7]) by list.uvm.edu > (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id OAA10010 for > ; Wed, 11 Mar 1998 14:24:36 -0500 (EST) >Received: from selu.edu by selu.edu (PMDF V5.1-9 #24747) id > <01IUJH2SOWVK8ZY6H1 at selu.edu> for Edebate at list.UVM.EDU; Wed, 11 Mar > 1998 13:24:11 CDT >MIME-version: 1.0 >Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII >Message-ID: <01IUJH46TDIY8ZY6H1 at selu.edu> >Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 12:49:38 -0500 >Reply-To: MWilliams >Sender: Team Topic Debating in America >From: MWilliams >Organization: Southeastern Louisiana University >Subject: Reply to Josh. >To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU > >I remeber Josh kicking my ass with "Toto good" at Nats eons ago. >Now, I know there are a lot of varsity debaters and programs that coach almost exclusively varsity teams that think things are just hunky dory in debate land. >They ain't. >To answer some of Josh's commentary. If it ain't the topics, then what caused >the dramatic decline of CEDA programs? It is not the lack of funds or programs >just disappearing. They left for Parly or strictly I.E. programs. There has to >be a reason. Them people I've talked to say it had a lot to do with the topics chosen. Irrational perhaps, but that is why they left. I guess I need to reiterate the difference between a "small program" and a "micro program." Those programs listed like Ft. Hays et al. are rebuilding with a goal of getting back to >the final round. Many coaches, myself included. Realize that given the resources available, this is an unrealistic goal. We just want to teach argumentation >skills to as many students as possible. The hope is that the forum of academic >competition will motivate students to learn new information and skills. Sometimes, however, the topics scare students away before we have a chance to teach them. That is what has happened to many of my prospective debaters this year. >So, if the topics are not the cause, what is. Josh, there is something about >CEDA that Directors of programs are finding offensive. What is it. > 2. My constituency. Why don't I represent ALL students in CEDA. Frankly,the top 20% belong to programs that are very active in CEDA business meetings. >Or, like Eric Slusher, take action for themselves. There are many students who >simply do not know how to take action. Or, their directors are either too >apathetic or underfunded to actively participate. All democratic institutions >with representatives have limited constituencies. I just openly admit where >my political views lie. I believe that the students who need the year long >mega-topics to explore their highest levels of creativity already have an >outlet that is well established and well principled in this type of debate. >If I were at a University that could support such a program, I would be >advocating for the following resolution: Resolved: fill in your backfile. >But I do not represent such an institution. Probably never will. I represent >those students who just want to learn how to research and prepare arguments. >I don't want to represnt those that live 24/7 for debate. National Champions >delivering Pizzas ain't my bag anymore. Let the "National Circuit" play with the other National teams. But, open up CEDA for the micro programs and the >mediocre debaters. Yes, I am championing mediocrity. There are a lot of GREAT >students who will NEVER be great debaters. > 3. Depth versus Breadth and the Semester long topic. No Josh, you are >still looking at it from a "Gotta Win Nationals" perspective. That ain't my bag.Maybe novice nationals, but not open. I don't worry about nationals as a central goal. That is a mantra of the top 20% of the debaters. Believe it or not, some >people really do not want to go into the depth of analysis that is seen in >year long topics. Worrying about these progressively smaller case areas as the >year goes by is not always the best goal. I would rather have my students learn >a lot about two topics then learn TOO MUCH about one obscure topic. Really, >how many people are going to gain anything by getting 2 more link take outs >to a Vietnam/China disad. We all got the general point of the Southeast Asia >topic by around Mid-term of Fall '97. Now we are just worrying about the details. In fact, the year long topic forces people to research more than semester >long topics. There is an expectation now that you have to have specific cards >to a specific case because of the year-long topic. I will bet $5.00 that a >California team will tell my Louisiana team next week "We've been running this >case all year, they should have case cards" as a response. The year Josh whipped me good, we went 6-2 at Nationals with just two briefcases. No tubs. I say we shouldn't have to cut cards specific to hardening foam versus lexfoam. It is >technical material that does not serve a purpose other than furtherance of >gamesmanship (sorry PC police!) for the top 20% in the field. > I'm glad to see Josh and I having a discussion without calling each other names. >Scott Elliott >SELA > ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From barretom Thu Mar 12 14:16:05 1998 From: barretom (Matt Barreto) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 13:16:05 -0700 Subject: Looking For Isaac Castillo Message-ID: Isaac - back channel me... Barreto ENMU From Pacedebate Wed Mar 11 14:35:44 1998 From: Pacedebate (Pacedebate) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 15:35:44 EST Subject: 2 steps back Message-ID: In a message dated 3/11/98 6:02:11 PM, mmk1913 at GARNET.ACNS.FSU.EDU wrote: >1) CEDA Nationals is held after the NDT. > >who decided on this year's order? >and is this the order just for this year? > >tons of teams will NOT travel the weekend before the NDT -- that is >their top priority and they see CEDA Nationals as interfering. switch >them back and those who care first about the NDT might see CEDA >Nationals as a bonus/fun tou I agree 100%. The NDT Standing rules mandate when the NDT is held. I believe it has to be on or before the first weekend in April. CEDA nationals should be held after the NDT with at least one weekend between tournaments if at all possible. hang back, Timrnament. From shusterk Wed Mar 11 14:46:14 1998 From: shusterk (Catherine Shuster) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 15:46:14 -0500 Subject: Help needed compiling NDT team list Message-ID: Hey all, I am in the process of putting together my big list of teams for the NDT. If there is someone out there in cyber land who has a list they can send me, that would be *super* cool. If not, I need results from districts 1-3, district 7, and district 8. I'll be happy to trade intel with whoever can hook me up... Kampai, Kate From mgremillion Wed Mar 11 13:34:54 1998 From: mgremillion (MWilliams) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 14:34:54 -0500 Subject: Reply to Josh's Civil Discourse. Message-ID: I'll take the second argument first. Regarding the claim that people leave CEDA because they have lost faith in the organization or it is not "worthwhile" for them. Yes. I agree. That is my entire point. Somewhere, somehow, CEDA became a wate of time for many programs. I want to know why and how to resolve it. The second part of your argument I do not find compelling. To say that these programs will NEVER come back is to write them off entirely. That attitude will eventually create an entropic system in CEDA. It almost happned in NDT (according to popular myth). I believe there are people who would like to come back to CEDA if topics were different. Have you seen any parly rounds lately? They are becoming more like CEDA circa 1986 everyday. I've talked to some coaches (at least 10 that I can name). They have all said that they liked CEDA, wish that they could have evidence based debate programs, however, the current Topics are just too much. So, yes, CEDA is becoming "not worthwhile" to many programs. But, NO, we can't just write them off. Your first argument concerning People leaving becuase they are bored with the topic. Yes, I am bored with this topic. Thought it sucked when we voted for it. However, this topic I bet scared a lot of people off before they even got a chance. Now, that may be part of the machismo of academic debate--you know, the "We are the intellectual elite and you can't hang" concept of debate. However, I think topics can be developed that would encourage more students to debate. Here's an idea. Instead of the Public forum debate topics. How about another go at a national alternative topic? Non-policy and more concise. I know that I can recruit more students to debate over issues like Marijuana legalization, death penalty, etc., than this Piss in the direction of Mexico or Southeast Asiatopic. Scott Elliott >From Wed Mar 11 16:39:44 1998 Message-Id: Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 16:39:44 +0100 Reply-To: Earnest.L.Neighbors at samford.edu To: Team Topic Debating in America From: "Earnest L. Neighbors" Subject: Re: Unanswered Questions Comments: To: John Sullivan In-Reply-To: <199803111622.LAA35706 at pilot004.cl.msu.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII I don't want ten minute constructives because I don't want to hear 72 more uniqueness cards from the Baltimore Herald Post Marvel Comics '39 DeSoto Recycled Fit To Print Daybook Post Gazette. Len On Wed, 11 Mar 1998 11:23:27 -0500 John Sullivan wrote: > I'll help break the silence with another little-relevant message of > support. What are the arguments against ten minutes? Doesn't seem like it > can add more than 20 minutes on to any given day, and that's with 5 > debates. Admittedly I haven't looked at the schedule for this year yet, > maybe I'm wrong about that. > > -John > -MSU > > > ---------- > > From: MWBRYANT > > To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU > > Subject: Unanswered Questions > > Date: Wednesday, March 11, 1998 10:47 AM > > > > Here's a question I asked several days ago: > > > > ___________________________________________________________________ > > If more time might be available due to the elimination of quad octos, > what's > > the possibility of getting ten minutes of prep time? > > > > I realize there are many potential barriers to this consideration, but I > > thought I'd just inquire regarding the feasibility of such a > consideration. > > > > Thanks for your response, > > > > Michael Bryant > > ____________________________________________________________________ > > > > > > No response, except a post from DeLaughder, agreeing. > > > > While I'm delighted at all the neat entertainment planned for Nats, is > there > > anyway the schedule could be changed to allow the 10 minutes of prep that > > seemed to be the clear preference of Snider's survey? > > > > I'll be glad to give up some party time for better debates, > > > > Bear ----------------------------------------- Earnest L. Neighbors Email: Earnest.L.Neighbors at samford.edu Samford University From buad000c Wed Mar 11 15:36:40 1998 From: buad000c (Laurie Diane Ishak) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 15:36:40 -0600 Subject: steve herro Message-ID: looking for steve laurie mtsu From buad000c Wed Mar 11 15:37:48 1998 From: buad000c (Laurie Diane Ishak) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 15:37:48 -0600 Subject: ball state-andrea or jason Message-ID: i don't think either of these people are on e-debate and i can't find them, if you canhelp thanks laurie >From Wed Mar 11 16:44:50 1998 Message-Id: Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 16:44:50 +0100 Reply-To: Earnest.L.Neighbors at samford.edu To: Team Topic Debating in America From: "Earnest L. Neighbors" Subject: My joke wasn't funny because I'm stupid Comments: To: Doyle Srader In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII I thought they were talking about ten minute constructives, not ten minutes of prep time. I would like to adjust my joke to say 'I don't want more prep because I don't want to hear 72 well organized uniqueness cards from [insert previous]... Len ----------------------------------------- Earnest L. Neighbors Email: Earnest.L.Neighbors at samford.edu Samford University From afugate Wed Mar 11 15:45:20 1998 From: afugate (Amy Fugate) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 15:45:20 -0600 Subject: Update: NJDDT Entries Message-ID: This is the updated list as of 3:30pm on Wednesday. The good news is that the weather forcasters have predicted temperatures up into the 50's on Friday and Saturday. So this cold spell may be breaking. We'll see all of you this weekend. Amy Fugate Baylor University Meredith Black & Meagan Martin Joseph Coppola & Alan Henson Trey Nixon & Shaun Alexander Judge: Matt Gerber College of Eastern Utah Toni Nielson & Brian McDonald Zack Westerfield & Mike Zahller Judge: Chris Harper Emporia State University Tony Nation & Brad Areheart Luke Simmons & Marie Baenig Rob Gilligan & Monica Stuby Judges: Darren Elliot & Rodger Biles Fort Hays State University John Clune & Andrew Halverson Judge: Joey Boyle Johnson County C.C. Tom O'Toole & Adam Sokoloff Judge: Rich McCollum Kansas State University Josh Longbottom & Kevin Zollman Andrew Spencer & Hugh McCollough Kasssie McEntire & Josh Hughes Chris Crowder & Jerry Eddy Judges: Brent Siemers & Monte Stevens Southern Utah Kasey Reardon & Stacie Stapley Nate Arenddesen & Heather Smith Judge: Terry West Southwest Missouri State University Troy Payne & Matt Vega Andy Atkins & Joe Kilpatrick Trenton Gorman & Chris Wilt Karen Eckert & Shawn Bone Judges: John Fritch, Eric Morris, Paul Hood Truman State University Ryan Kennedy & Shane Necham Holly Ahrens & Rob Layne Judge: Hired University of Central Oklahoma Tony Sherbert & Shawn Blankenship Jason Heard & Greg Moore Judges: Chad Hill and Aaron Price UMKC Tommy Curry & Adam Whyte Josh Coffman & Matt Baisley Stephen Green & Ben White Judges: Myron King, Eric Jenkins, Dave Kingston University of Missouri St. Louis Amanda Jones & Matthew Crawford (Washington University) Judge: Tom Preston Doug Dennis University of Nevada Las Vegas Tonna Purtle & Mercedes McGill Marissa Geffen & Anthony Spotts University of Texas Dallas Jason Jordan & Vasile Stanescu Lisa Anselmi & Trevan Fuller Judge: Stephanie Steele Wichita State University Brian Gough & James Harris Judges: Jeff Jarman & Doug Roubidoux William Jewell College Jenn Davis & Aubrey Harris Matt McGee & Louie Petit Judges: Gina Lane & Steve Woods From strange Wed Mar 11 14:50:19 1998 From: strange (Bennett Strange) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 15:50:19 -0500 Subject: To West--the beginning of a CEDA post-Mortem. Message-ID: Obviously Haley has had a beneficial effect on Dr. Elliot for I am finding myself agreeing with him more often than not. Our program is one that still pays CEDA dues but did not enter a single CEDA round this year. I would prefer a research based debate format but the current trend in CEDA does not fit my mould of educational debate. Scott has done an excellent job with his discussion. Just let it stand with my applause for Dr. Elliot and my hardy support. Bennett At 10:55 AM 3/11/98 -0500, you wrote: >I went back to my Alma mater (University of West Florida) last weekend. I talked to a few of my team members back from the good ol' '80s and early 90s. After >observing and judging rounds, these CEDA alumni were appalled to say the least. >It wasn't the speed that caused concern. It was that the very nature and >"epistemological scope" of CEDA had changed to much for their tastes. I use the >term "taste" for a reason. The nature and style of debate that an organization >chooses and a program chooses to participate in are really matters of aesthetics Bear Bryant and I have gone round and round about the virtues of Parly debate. >I comes down to a matter of personal taste. The directions that CEDA has taken in the past three years are also functions of individuals' personal tastes. > Primarily, in my overrated opinion, we as an organization have sought toplacate (or feed) the tastes of the top students within CEDA debate. I believe >that as CEDA has grown (a lot of Organizational dynamics), the top echelons havedeveloped specialized skills, presentation formats and needs. Those needs are >fed by the NDT "style" of debate. I'm not saying this is bad. In fact, I >personally prefer this style of debate. It pleases me to listen to such debates.I am truly impressed by the level of sophistication that I saw at the NDT >qualifier at MTSU. However, my tastes and the tastes of others do not represent >the aesthetic of many that have left, will leave, and will never join the >activity that we call CEDA debate. > Issues such as MPJ, posting results (can't wait for the verbal assaults >and maybe a physical one or two when a team realizes they have been eliminated),Policy only topics, year long topics, highly technical topics, are all matters of taste. It comes down to a question of I like it or don't like it. Eventually, >the numbers of "I don't like" will outwiegh the numbers of "I Like" and my program will switch to something different. If you haven't noticed lately, the >"I don't like CEDA" mentality has grow dramatically. Its growth can be seen in >the decline of programs in CEDA relative to the NDT crossover effect. > It is now time to begin thinking about the post-mortem. An analysis of >what changes took place within CEDA that created such a negative aesthetic. >Pointing the finger at Tuna, while amusing, is not really an answer. In fact, >most of you should have noticed that I stopped talking about revolution a long >time ago. What needs to be done is a somewhat objective analysis of what we >liked about CEDA when the numbers were much stronger. Then we need to do one >of two things: 1) A radical departure from CEDA. But Even I think that we have too damn many organizations. How many "National Champions" will be claimed this year? 2) Revolution from within. Not violent. I think that those of us that are dissatisfied with the direction of CEDA need to garner enough votes to implementour agenda. Whatever that agenda may be. There are many programs that still >pay CEDA dues that do not actively participate in CEDA. There are also many small programs that cannot afford to send their coaches/directors to the business >meetings. What we have to do is suck up enough proxy votes to override the >votes of those opposed to our agenda. Its evil I know, but it is politics at its finest. > So, those that do not "like" the direction of CEDA, let us do the first >step in the analysis. WHat went wrong? > My answer is that the resolutions really do matter. I saw a dramatic >fall off begin with the selection and continuation of the Mexico topic. Oceans started the ball rolling. But, I personally saw program directors pulling out left and right with Mexico. And, I believe the trend is continuing. > My proposed solution that we must garner enough proxy votes to overcome >the established voting blocs: Oh My GOD!!! Semester long topics again. Even moreradically, no chance for an extension to a year long topic. If the elite >students of CEDA want the year long topic so they can exhaust it by January and then simply default to Clinton cred debates, then there is an organization that >meets their needs perfectly. However, for those coaches that are teaching >novices and junior varsity, for those who have programs that will probably neverfeild an "national level" open team, then I believe the change back to semester >long topics would go far toward attracting more students and more programs back >to CEDA. > Pre-empts: 1. I don't really care what the top 20% of CEDA debaters >want. I really don't. That is not my constituency. I love watching and judging >your debates. (Insert golf-clapping here) But my students are burned out on >this topic, and I find it very difficult to recruit new students with the topic >choices that we have had. > 2. Don't really care to engage in the finger pointing anymore. I know >I don't like some of the stuff I see going on. Can't change them myself. I therefore choose to mobilize the disenfranchised. > 3. This is not a personal attack on Tuna--worry about making thise year's nationals run smoothly. Tuna or any other person in CEDA can't do anything >unless we allow it. We have allowed things to degrade to the point where few >want to participate. We now need to move to repair the organization. >Scott M. Elliott, Ph.D. >SELA > Bennett Strange Associate Professor of Communication Arts Louisiana College Pineville, LA 71052 318-487-7321 From MWBRYANT Wed Mar 11 15:50:41 1998 From: MWBRYANT (MWBRYANT) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 16:50:41 EST Subject: Unanswered Questions Message-ID: I'll pretend Len wasn't being deliberately obtuse and point out that the issue was ten minutes of prep time and not ten minute constructives. Bear In a message dated 98-03-11 16:35:03 EST, you write: << I don't want ten minute constructives because I don't want to hear 72 more uniqueness cards from the Baltimore Herald Post Marvel Comics '39 DeSoto Recycled Fit To Print Daybook Post Gazette. Len On Wed, 11 Mar 1998 11:23:27 -0500 John Sullivan wrote: > I'll help break the silence with another little-relevant message of > support. What are the arguments against ten minutes? Doesn't seem like it > can add more than 20 minutes on to any given day, and that's with 5 > debates. Admittedly I haven't looked at the schedule for this year yet, > maybe I'm wrong about that. > > -John > -MSU >> >From Wed Mar 11 16:57:44 1998 Message-Id: Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 16:57:44 +0100 Reply-To: Earnest.L.Neighbors at samford.edu To: Team Topic Debating in America From: "Earnest L. Neighbors" Subject: Re: Why edebate? Comments: To: deon_garner at STUDENTS.MOREHOUSE.EDU In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Ever since heavyweight boxing moved to pay-per-view and hence out of my tax bracket, I have relied on EDEBATE for the satiation of my gladiotorial urge. I say bring it, whenever, however, whoever. Len On Tue, 10 Mar 1998 19:29:17 -0500 Deon Garner wrote: > I am a bit disturbed (to put it lightly) as to the arguing that > has taken place, as of late, on edebate. Why choose edebate? > > There is no real benefit to publicizing such harsh words about > one person from another over the public listserve. Now, don't > get me wrong . . . I'm all for a "heated" discussion about the issues > in an attempt to draw others to comment and possibly resolve whatever > problem has been set forth. And I know that these "heated" > discussions can make tempers fly. However, when the crux of > the discussion is: > > "I dare you to show me . . . blah, blah, blah," OR > > You are a LIAR OR > > stop your "'bitchin' (sic) and moanin" > > > The discussion turns into a personal battle that should be kept > within the confines of the two email accounts. This type of > behavior is neither constructive or conducive to CEDA or the > activity. You got mad, okay . . . I am not saying one should > hold in her or his ire, but he or she should be mindful that > this is a PUBLIC listserve that is a representation of the Cross-Examination > Debate Association, its administrators, its debaters, its SPONSORS, > and ANYONE ELSE affiliated with it. > > I was going to bite my tongue, but forget it . . . Whenever there > is some CORNY, CHEESY psuedo-issue at the center of some psuedo-debate, > it is, for the most part between professors or administrators. > Stop the madness! This is not a "What the world needs now is > love sweet love" speech (he he he he - LOL - I crack me up > sometimes). This is a "Get a grip and get over yourself!" speech. > > No, I am not talking to Terry West or Frank Irrizarry (sp?) or > Dr. Snider, or anyone in particular. So I don't want any CRAP > about how I'm downing people, when I say we shouldn't that. > > I think professors and coaches, AND the CEDA community in > general needs to be cognizant of what they post to edebate. > The problem of "searching for Deon Garner, please backchannel" > on edebate is invisible compared to some of these past STUPID > posts that contained absolutely ZERO substance. Who cares if > you can out-argue your "opponent" over BS? I think the minority > of the community does . . . > > From a student's perspective, > > Deon, Captain > Morehouse Debate ----------------------------------------- Earnest L. Neighbors Email: Earnest.L.Neighbors at samford.edu Samford University From cdauber Wed Mar 11 16:01:46 1998 From: cdauber (Cori Dauber) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 17:01:46 -0500 Subject: 2 steps back In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Sept. 1 is definitely a little later than Id be comfortable with, but August 15 made a big difference I thought -- especially in a situation where you are reluctant to call kids back to campus too soon because they're working summer jobs for tuition. Things are always ragged at the beginning, if only because you cant really focus until after the first tournament gives you a sense of where things are going, but, from a small squad, every extra day, I figure, just spots the larger programs another 200 page advantage. On Wed, 11 Mar 1998, Doyle Srader wrote: > On Wed, 11 Mar 1998, Michael Miroslav Korcok wrote: > > > the August 1st release date means lots of folks work on debate for all > > of August, increasing the effort they put into the activity. those > > unwilling or unable to lose their summers to debate start too far behind > > to catch up and so they quit or they make the effort to catch up for a > > month's worth of work during the school year. coaches are burned out > > and novices are ash. parli looks a lot better at 3 am ... > > A later topic release date has two problems: > > a. Frantic overdrive preparation. People skip class. People lose sleep. > Getting up to speed on a topic in _three weeks_ or less is brutal. I > can't imagine doing it on a small squad. I admit, I have no firsthand > experience with that kind of schedule, but the hair-raising stories I've > heard are uniform and compelling. > > b. Paper-thin argumentation at the first wave of tournaments. Heck, the > debates were scattershot and confused back when the release date was July > 15 (my birthday, start shopping now!). But there's no question in my mind > that the big block of time at the beginning of the year, **used wisely**, > is the best chance most folks have to prepare a few positions (their > anchor affirmative, their core generics) in-depth and give a bunch of > practice speeches about them. As an aid to argument development and an > encourager of argument quality, nothing substitutes for big blocks of > time. > > And by the way, here's a demonstration that two people not known for > being the most tactful and polite participants in the debate listservs > can disagree without insults and accusations. > > Doyle Srader > Arizona State University > (602) 965-5578 > > "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 hwalters Wed Mar 11 16:07:53 1998 From: hwalters (Heather L Walters) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 17:07:53 -0500 Subject: 2 steps back In-Reply-To: <3506D178.47DA5624@garnet.acns.fsu.edu> Message-ID: Am I wrong or would this destroy the joint topic process? I thought at Wake's NDT it was announced that joint topics would be used under a number of conditions only, one of which was august 1 release, a compromise from the traditional NDT release in July. On Wed, 11 Mar 1998, Michael Miroslav Korcok wrote: > 2) move the release date back to September 1. > > over the previous 2 years, we voted to move the release date back first > to August 14 then last year to August 1. both decisions were mistakes. MArtin Che Harris From ifjxh Wed Mar 11 16:09:33 1998 From: ifjxh (Joshua Hoe) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 14:09:33 PST Subject: Reply to Josh's Civil Discourse. Message-ID: You still miss part of my point.... You cannot write off the voting majority to create CEDA as it could be.....Even if you think the alternative of more topics per year is good......It lost. If that is the reason people left....we are not going to get them back without a palace coup (the unrepresented polish off the represented in a debate war in the steel cage the likes of which nobody has ever seen)...So, as some movie actor once said, now that we have discussed what we cannot do lets talk about what we can do.......But before that Which is it is the topics "too much" or boring....You cannot have it both ways...My original argument is that this is one of the smallest topics we have debated in years (oceans was larger, UNDHR was larger, Art was larger etc.....The literature is very easy to find and could not scare anybody away).....If the reason people left is because the topic is too small and therfore boring by semester is the real answer to make bigger topics????? Why????? Anyway, it is irrelevent to the larger picture..... Once we both get to the CEDA as it could be phase I think we agree....You can certainly propose an amendment that resembles what you describe in your letter. The tent could certainly include that idea within CEDA. My main point was that CEDA is an organization more than a style or rule of debate. Josh >From owner-edebate at list.uvm.edu Wed Mar 11 12:49:04 1998 >Received: from list.uvm.edu (132.198.101.67) by smtpgate.uvm.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1a) with SMTP id <0.24EF4E00 at smtpgate.uvm.edu>; Wed, 11 Mar 1998 15:48:32 -0500 >Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with > spool id 52947 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 11 Mar 1998 15:48:30 > -0500 >Received: from alpha.selu.edu (alpha.selu.edu [147.174.1.7]) by list.uvm.edu > (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id PAA24308 for > ; Wed, 11 Mar 1998 15:48:26 -0500 (EST) >Received: from selu.edu by selu.edu (PMDF V5.1-9 #24747) id > <01IUJKRDQ0C08ZVK9W at selu.edu> for Edebate at list.UVm.EDU; Wed, 11 Mar > 1998 14:47:13 CDT >MIME-version: 1.0 >Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII >Message-ID: <01IUJKSSFQZO8ZVK9W at selu.edu> >Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 14:34:54 -0500 >Reply-To: MWilliams >Sender: Team Topic Debating in America >From: MWilliams >Organization: Southeastern Louisiana University >Subject: Reply to Josh's Civil Discourse. >To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU > >I'll take the second argument first. Regarding the claim that people leave CEDA >because they have lost faith in the organization or it is not "worthwhile" for >them. Yes. I agree. That is my entire point. Somewhere, somehow, CEDA became >a wate of time for many programs. I want to know why and how to resolve it. >The second part of your argument I do not find compelling. To say that these >programs will NEVER come back is to write them off entirely. That attitude will >eventually create an entropic system in CEDA. It almost happned in NDT >(according to popular myth). I believe there are people who would like to come back to CEDA if topics were different. Have you seen any parly rounds lately? >They are becoming more like CEDA circa 1986 everyday. I've talked to some coaches (at least 10 that I can name). They have all said that they liked CEDA, wish >that they could have evidence based debate programs, however, the current >Topics are just too much. So, yes, CEDA is becoming "not worthwhile" to many programs. But, NO, we can't just write them off. > >Your first argument concerning People leaving becuase they are bored with the topic. Yes, I am bored with this topic. Thought it sucked when we voted for it. >However, this topic I bet scared a lot of people off before they even got a chance. Now, that may be part of the machismo of academic debate--you know, the >"We are the intellectual elite and you can't hang" concept of debate. However, >I think topics can be developed that would encourage more students to debate. >Here's an idea. Instead of the Public forum debate topics. How about another >go at a national alternative topic? Non-policy and more concise. I know that I >can recruit more students to debate over issues like Marijuana legalization, >death penalty, etc., than this Piss in the direction of Mexico or Southeast Asiatopic. >Scott Elliott > ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From Kenneth.DeLaughder Wed Mar 11 16:17:43 1998 From: Kenneth.DeLaughder (Kenneth DeLaughder) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 15:17:43 -0700 Subject: Post Morwhat? In-Reply-To: <1322491077-1533415@andria.lacollege.edu> Message-ID: I disagree with alot of the things going around in this discussion of a post-mortem of CEDA. In fact when talking to my DOF today about why CEDA Nats attendance is down, he said, paraphrased, because of the location. For example, ENMU is spending almost $3,000.00 to go to CEDA Nationals for transportation alone. Our itinerary is literally planes, trains and automobiles to keep costs down... and we are still spending lots of cash to send 2 judges and 3 teams. We also are going to the NDT. Add up the costs of the two national tournaments, and your talking as much as some programs budgets. Even when I was at Mo. Southern, we wouldnt have had the money to go. So before we start ringing in the death of CEDA, let's look at our maps. We couldn't drive from NM to NY, then to Salt Lake, and perform at our best... too many miles. I know that we shift CEDA hosting regions, but maybe central location should take precedence? I dunno. Item next. Some have said that they disagree with what CEDA is becoming, i.e. just like NDT. Although this trend was in high gear far before the merger, which to me is just a logical extension fo what squad like K State were doing in CEDA 6 years ago, the rush to leave CEDA isnt necessary. Certainly it is possible for those having certain pedagogical considerations to put more emphasis on different tournaments. Why not hold tournaments that appeal to these more "traditional" notions of CEDA. Certainly when ENMU goes to Air Force we have to adjust our styles, if we have a parli judge in teh back of the room we adjust, and when ENMU won Pi Kappa Delata Nationals last year, they adjusted. Adaptation is the hallmark of good debaters. Matt Barreto is the reigning Pi Kappa Delta National Chapmion and a top 25 qualifier for the NDT. John Foy is the Impromptu Speaking Champion at Air Force as well. When Scott speaks of his constituency as "not the top 20%" of CEDA, his definition of those debaters as "the top" sort of makes the point that alot of other schools would like to be competitive like they are as well. It can be done. There certainly is enough room in CEDA for all types of philophies. Leave the "national" CEDA/NDT circuit to do what it wants to do, leave others to form another more "traditional - national" circuit if they wish. If there is enough support for it, then people will come. Why is it necessary to leave the organization? Schools convince themselves that they cannot compete, that they need to leave, that they need to splinter. I am of the mind that we can all have the kinsd of debate we want, good research, good education, and a variety of pedagogies, all under the same organization. Does the Constitution prevent tournament rules? I can't find much to support that notion. the tent is still big, 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 Wed Mar 11 16:25:36 1998 Message-Id: Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 16:25:36 +0000 Reply-To: ad52 at columbia.edu To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Alan Dove Organization: Columbia University Subject: Biotechnology Topic MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hey, folks: I just finished reading the biotechnology topic paper, and wanted to provide a few comments, as well as a reversal of my previous position on having biotechnology as a topic area (in case anyone even remembered my previous position). First, the reversal. When it was suggested a few months back, I posted a reply saying that, as a scientist, I really didn't want to sit through a year of biotechnology debates - I hear enough bad science in rounds as it is, and didn't think the topic would lead us to a deeper understanding as a community. Backchannel discussions and reflection led to a more hopeful projection: I can virtually guarantee that at least one team will be deep on the science, making shallower coverage a competitive liability. Besides, with no offense intended towards Doyle, the tax reform topic bores the hell out of me. Now for some specific ideas. First, I favor "restrictions" over "regulations," since it gives directionality to the topic. Because of the broad nature of the field, though, "increasing restrictions" on biotechnology does not relegate the Affirmative to Luddite positions. Defining the germ plasm of indigenous plants as the property of the nation of origin, for example, would restrict bioprospecting, but would not entail a claim that biotech is inherently bad. Preventing certain types of patents would also be topical, as would regulations that extend anti-trust law to stop particularly offensive agricultural biotech corporate strategies. The list topics are also a good idea, rather than just leaving "biotechnology" open-ended. The term, as Janas notes, can be applied to a breathtaking variety of fields. Genomics, pharmaceuticals, and agricultural biotechnology would be broad, current choices which would allow most of the interesting cases discussed in the paper. The military angle is especially nebulous, and should probably be avoided, since much of the evidence which isn't classified is outright wrong. There are some flaming cards available about what military biotechnology projects are being pursued in the world today, many of which are either highly unlikely or outright impossible, but it would be difficult to disprove those claims in the context of a debate round. Thus, we would end up with rounds where a risk of human extinction by the Russian smallpox/Marburg chimeric virus is supposed to be weighed against species wipeout by Martian bacteria. I might end up in a clock tower, loading an automatic rifle after sitting through something like that. One of Janas's arguments for covering biotechnology is that debaters have not had a science topic since the early '80s. I would add that the general public (debaters included) seems dangerously uninformed about biotechnology, an area which is already impacting our lives, and which will change society at least as extensively as electricity, radio, powered flight or the silicon chip. It has long amazed me that debaters obsessively cut cards on things like nanotechnology and space when the implications of biotech are so much more immediate and drastic. The public thought that "Gattaca" was a film about a dystopia of the distant future, but I recently interviewed a researcher who is already working on cosmetic gene therapy - and has leads and investors. Gene-sequencing chips can already tell what allele of a breast cancer gene you carry in a test that requires only a few minutes and a few drops of blood. When this converges with completion of the Genome Project around 2000, a finger stick and a quick reading on a tricorder-like device will provide your doctor (or insurer) with your complete genetic profile. Meanwhile, biosensors can detect bacterial contamination of foods with exquisite sensitivity, and can tell which antibiotics will kill the bugs infecting a hospital patient. FDA approval is pending. The future is here. Let's talk about it. --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 spjarvis Wed Mar 11 16:51:20 1998 From: spjarvis (Jason Jarvis) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 16:51:20 CST Subject: Tokarsky found In-Reply-To: <19980311014919.20896.qmail@hotmail.com> Message-ID: I know a number of people have had a hard time trying to find the Greenwald article Emory uses for solvency. We didn't have much trouble ourselves, but I am beginning to think that is due to our ILL people being really effective. Regardless, if you want the article contact the following people: US Dept of Commerce, National Technical Information Service Springfield, VA 22161 #1 800 553 6847 www.ntis.gov "The United States and Environmental Security: Deforestation and Conflict in Southeast Asia" by Peter T. Greenwald, June 1992 Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA peace out, Jason augie, il > Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 17:49:19 PST > Reply-to: Joshua Hoe > From: Joshua Hoe > Subject: Tokarsky found > To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU > I finally got a copy...Thanks for all of the help...I am still chasing > down the Greenwald article....I will try to find a way to make them > available if I can. Josh > > ______________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com > "For me there is only the traveling on paths that have heart, on any path that may have heart. There I travel, and the only worthwhile challenge is to traverse its full length. And there I travel looking, looking, breathlessly." --Don Juan From lsd041 Wed Mar 11 18:17:31 1998 From: lsd041 (Scott Deatherage) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 18:17:31 -0600 Subject: 2 steps back Message-ID: With respect to Korcock's original post, two reactions: For those of us who favor a later release date, the issue really isn't the topic wording release date, it's the topic area date. I think August 1 or August 15 would work out fine, but when the area comes out on June 1, we are off to the races, wording or no. I agree wholeheartedly with Korcock's "lost summer" argument; I think that adheres in any system that has an early area release date. I do think, Mike, that September 1 is a bit late. I think that will threaten topic merger, and I think Doyle's arguments are far more persuasive with a release date that is this late. As to the relative placement of CEDA Nationals and the NDT, my suspicion is that the single factor which will continue to influence the placement of both tournaments is the availability of hosts. The Utah tournament, for instance, if placed where it is on the calender because that's the end of Utah's spring break, meaning that classrooms are available. Were we ever to hold the tournament, by contrast, it would have to be in early April for precisely the same reason. My two cents. SD >> On Wed, 11 Mar 1998, Michael Miroslav Korcok wrote: >> >> > the August 1st release date means lots of folks work on debate for all >> > of August, increasing the effort they put into the activity. those >> > unwilling or unable to lose their summers to debate start too far behind >> > to catch up and so they quit or they make the effort to catch up for a >> > month's worth of work during the school year. coaches are burned out >> > and novices are ash. parli looks a lot better at 3 am ... >> >> A later topic release date has two problems: >> >> a. Frantic overdrive preparation. People skip class. People lose sleep. >> Getting up to speed on a topic in _three weeks_ or less is brutal. I >> can't imagine doing it on a small squad. I admit, I have no firsthand >> experience with that kind of schedule, but the hair-raising stories I've >> heard are uniform and compelling. >> >> b. Paper-thin argumentation at the first wave of tournaments. Heck, the >> debates were scattershot and confused back when the release date was July >> 15 (my birthday, start shopping now!). But there's no question in my mind >> that the big block of time at the beginning of the year, **used wisely**, >> is the best chance most folks have to prepare a few positions (their >> anchor affirmative, their core generics) in-depth and give a bunch of >> practice speeches about them. As an aid to argument development and an >> encourager of argument quality, nothing substitutes for big blocks of >> time. >> >> And by the way, here's a demonstration that two people not known for >> being the most tactful and polite participants in the debate listservs >> can disagree without insults and accusations. >> >> Doyle Srader >> Arizona State University >> (602) 965-5578 >> >> "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 jhovden Wed Mar 11 17:28:47 1998 From: jhovden (Jan M. Hovden) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 18:28:47 -0500 Subject: Missing Judging Philosophies Message-ID: We are missing the following judging philosophies for CEDA nationals. Tuna has to have a copy of them by tomorrow night so that he can have the philosophy books printed. You can fax them to us at (802) 656-4275. Adam Chud - Cornell Joe Hammell - Pacific Lutheran Max Schnurer - Pittsburgh Gina Ercolini - Rochester Pat Gerhke - Rochester Jeff Cederfield - Vermont Mike Davis - Mercer If you are a school that wants to add judges, you also need to have judging philosophies in by tomorrow. Thank you, Jan From hunt Wed Mar 11 17:34:23 1998 From: hunt (Steven Hunt) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 15:34:23 -0800 Subject: Reply to Josh's Civil Discourse. In-Reply-To: <19980311220933.2061.qmail@hotmail.com> Message-ID: It is not only topics that have caused folks to leave policy debate (both NDT and now CEDA) Topics and the release date for topics is one possible cause of disaffection. Many people did like some value topics not all policy topics. Many people want smaller topics not giant topics. Many people would like a release date that does not suck up the summer. (Many also don't want December or Christmas break sucked up) I know some of these are mutually competing or contradictory desires. Some people like two topics per year. There are other causes. II. I like debate camps and think they are good. They help educate students and new coaches. They promote interesting debates on and discussions of argumentation and debate theory. However, if camps exist they give those who go an advantage, a head start on others. Many students need to work and can't go to camp. Some programs can't afford to help send students to camp. Under current conditions, camps give some such a head start that others feel way behind starting the year. III. Not all schools can attract experienced high school debaters.\ Scholarships and bigger programs tend to get the experienced quality h.s. debaters who are still committed and not burnt out. Under many conditions, these schools have a significant advantage over schools who have to train brand new debaters. I think the educational values of training novices and jrs are great but in those areas of the country w/o significant novice junior policy divisions sending inexperienced folks into senior policy right off is very very discouraging. IV. CASE Lists - in some ways case lists help small schools but in other ways they are very daunting/discouraging. Yes, you know what is being run but you can't do all the research. In some cases you have to go to big tournaments to get the case lists or get them early and completely. Yes, case lists provide better more informed debates between the programs who have them and use them. Case lists and disclosure is potentially good for more clash debate. However, small moderate moderate traveling programs are again at a disadvantage as well as getting some advantage from these. V. Preferential judging- sure we just voted for it. However, as many on the list have said before preferential judging helps most those big well staffed well traveled programs that know more judges and have more experience with more judges. VI. A National Travel Pattern- if you don't go to Wake, Heart, Northwestern, USC, Long Beach, N Iowa, Kentucky, Towson, (and or 5 or 6 other major national tournaments) you don't have much competitive chance in national senior competition. This was a problem in NDT requiring you to have a well funded big program. It is now a problem in CEDA. VII. Increases in technical theory. You have to know about several kinds of topicality. You have to know counterplan and permutation theory, You have to know about critiques. This makes argumentation more sophisticated but it makes the entry barriers to policy debate higher. VIII. Lexis Nexis or equivalent. You have got to have access to internet evidence. Sure some of this evidence is conclusionary crummy stuff but it overall on balance is helpful. Sure some have always had bigger and better libraries but the resource research advantages of some places are rather daunting. I know some of these things are both problems and advantages. I know some of these things are not new but have been around a long time. I know there is nothing that can be done about top level policy being somewhat elitist expensive and requiring incredible dedication. I know that is some ways debate is better than ever though in other ways it is worse. We should not be blaming the decline in policy debate,however, entirely on topics or any other single cause. There are lots of causes. The question becomes what can be done to make policy debate better and or more attractive to larger numbers. Can we be anything other than a very small highly technical non public sphere activity? and should we be? I have said lots of this before but I still think policy debate and CEDA NDT ADA need to be thinking about these things and doing what we can for the betterment or our activity our organizations and our educational missions. Steve Hunt Lewis & Clark From mcmulpm5 Wed Mar 11 17:36:50 1998 From: mcmulpm5 (patrick) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 18:36:50 -0500 Subject: Looking for Neil Butt In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi Neil, I need to talk to you about ADAs ASAP. thanks and if anyone read this and is annoyed b/c i didn't use SCAN EDEBATE, my email crashed, erasing my stored list of EDEBATE commands and the address to send them to (if it's different from the above) so if anyone would like to send me that list, i won't annoy you anymore :-) thanks patrick From parcherj Wed Mar 11 17:40:23 1998 From: parcherj (Jeff Parcher) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 18:40:23 -0500 Subject: Disclosure & Nationals Message-ID: I share Scott's concern about disclosure practices. I agree that there is a substantial problem in saying a case is new if it has been run by another team on that squad. I was practically shocked to hear that this had been done by a team earlier this year and am very dismayed to hear that it is spreading. In fact, if a case or a version of case has been run by other teams on the circuit, I believe a team should point out that the case is "only new to them" or say "it's a new version of something we think has been run." However, I do not agree that a team should disclose entirely new plan wordings. We deal with this by giving the opposition the old plan and saying that there will be a change and specifiy the area in which the change will occur. This allows the team some warning not to plan a strategy around that part of the plan while maintaining a fair element of surprise. Thus, we might say "same plan, new funding mechanism", or same plan mechanism "new country." There are some years in which resource deployment issues simply did not allow us to research an entirely new affirmative. We were, however, able to garner some of the benefits of surprise by deploying new "versions" or "twists." I think maintaining the ability to move around on the plan without announcing the details is an important strategic tool for smaller squads. I would be interested to know if others, besides Scott, find this practice objectionable. If many people agree with Scott, then I believe the only alternative is to adopt a practice whereby the plan is disclosed prior to ALL debates including those in which entirely new cases are to be presented. Otherwise we will have perennial problems figuring out how much of the plan has to change before it needs to be disclosed. Disclosing all plans would eliminate all disagreements about this. Jeff -----Original Message----- From: SCOTT HARRIS To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU Date: Wednesday, March 11, 1998 3:19 PM Subject: Disclosure & Nationals >Having returned safely through the post nov nats blizzard I thought I >would raise an issue for discussion as we head into nationals. Last year >at the NDT (I must note that I didn't observe any of these problems at >CEDA nats) there were several instances of highly questionable disclosure >practices which greatly angered several people, myself included. > >This year at Nov Nats there are signs that we might be heading into >disasters at the NDT. There were a couple of schools whose disclosure >policies trouble me greatle. One team claimed that they were running a >"new" case when they ran a case which had been run by their top team at >another tournament. It is my understanding that in a subsequent round at >Nov Nats they called the same case "new" even though they had previosly >run it at the tournament. My debaters tell me that they were told that >the school had had a squad meeting and had decided this was a legitimate >use of the term "new." Another team refused to show their plan to the >opposition when making minor wording changes to the plan (taking out the >words "as per the recommendations of..." in one debate, and adding the >words "or any means necessary" in another. This stood in stark contrast >to Wake Forest who showed the plan after making a substantive change >(limiting the applicability of the demining effort in Vietnam to a >specific province). That same team was very assertive in demanding to see >the other teams plan in elims quickly (before other rounds were even >decided). > >Given the inconsistencies in disclosure practice in which "new" means >different things to different people I don't know what to do. Perhaps I'm >just too open in showing people our plans when we make minor wording >changes to spike out a specific argument. If people don't want to allow >another teams coaches to coach I have no problem with those like S. >Carolina who adopt a consistent don't ask don't tell policy, or those who >are willing to take the risks of running a truly new case. I have serious >problems if disclosure becomes a tool of gamesmanship in which we play >Clintonesque word games like "I did not break the laws of my country" >(because I was at Oxford when I didn't inhale) in response to the question >did you smoke mj. I have serious reservations about the kinds of lessons >we teach our students for the future. Those who become lawyers may learn >how to manipulate pretrial disclosure in their predebate disclosure >practices. > > >I am very disheartened about being in an activity that plays these kind of >games. If anything can drive me out of an activity I love deeply this is >the kind of thing that can. > > #####TROUBLED IN LAWRENCE##### From jarvijl5 Wed Mar 11 17:45:36 1998 From: jarvijl5 (Jason L. Jarvis) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 18:45:36 -0500 Subject: How to find Greenwald In-Reply-To: <199803112257.RAA19354@list.uvm.edu> Message-ID: i know that this is a repost of the same message, but i realized I forgot to change the subject header and figured some people who cared might miss it.... jj On Wed, 11 Mar 1998, Jason Jarvis wrote: > I know a number of people have had a hard time trying to find the > Greenwald article Emory uses for solvency. We didn't have much > trouble ourselves, but I am beginning to think that is due to our ILL > people being really effective. Regardless, if you want the article > contact the following people: > > US Dept of Commerce, > National Technical Information Service > Springfield, VA 22161 > > #1 800 553 6847 > www.ntis.gov > > "The United States and Environmental Security: Deforestation and > Conflict in Southeast Asia" by Peter T. Greenwald, June 1992 > Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA > > peace out, > > Jason > augie, il > > > > Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 17:49:19 PST > > Reply-to: Joshua Hoe > > From: Joshua Hoe > > Subject: Tokarsky found > > To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU > > > I finally got a copy...Thanks for all of the help...I am still chasing > > down the Greenwald article....I will try to find a way to make them > > available if I can. Josh > > > > ______________________________________________________ > > Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com > > > > > > "For me there is only the traveling on paths that have heart, on any > path that may have heart. There I travel, and the only worthwhile > challenge is to traverse its full length. And there I travel > looking, looking, breathlessly." > --Don Juan > From gachten Wed Mar 11 17:45:00 1998 From: gachten (Achten, Greg) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 15:45:00 PST Subject: Reply to Josh. Message-ID: There were something like 150 teams at Towson. Novice made DOUBLES with 67 teams at one tournament. Clearly CEDA is dead. Greg ---------- From: MWilliams To: EDEBATE Subject: Reply to Josh. Date: Wednesday, March 11, 1998 12:49PM I remeber Josh kicking my ass with "Toto good" at Nats eons ago. Now, I know there are a lot of varsity debaters and programs that coach almost exclusively varsity teams that think things are just hunky dory in debate land. They ain't. To answer some of Josh's commentary. If it ain't the topics, then what caused the dramatic decline of CEDA programs? It is not the lack of funds or programs just disappearing. They left for Parly or strictly I.E. programs. There has to be a reason. Them people I've talked to say it had a lot to do with the topics chosen. Irrational perhaps, but that is why they left. I guess I need to reiterate the difference between a "small program" and a "micro program." Those programs listed like Ft. Hays et al. are rebuilding with a goal of getting back to the final round. Many coaches, myself included. Realize that given the resources available, this is an unrealistic goal. We just want to teach argumentation skills to as many students as possible. The hope is that the forum of academic competition will motivate students to learn new information and skills. Sometimes, however, the topics scare students away before we have a chance to teach them. That is what has happened to many of my prospective debaters this year. So, if the topics are not the cause, what is. Josh, there is something about CEDA that Directors of programs are finding offensive. What is it. 2. My constituency. Why don't I represent ALL students in CEDA. Frankly,the top 20% belong to programs that are very active in CEDA business meetings. Or, like Eric Slusher, take action for themselves. There are many students who simply do not know how to take action. Or, their directors are either too apathetic or underfunded to actively participate. All democratic institutions with representatives have limited constituencies. I just openly admit where my political views lie. I believe that the students who need the year long mega-topics to explore their highest levels of creativity already have an outlet that is well established and well principled in this type of debate. If I were at a University that could support such a program, I would be advocating for the following resolution: Resolved: fill in your backfile. But I do not represent such an institution. Probably never will. I represent those students who just want to learn how to research and prepare arguments. I don't want to represnt those that live 24/7 for debate. National Champions delivering Pizzas ain't my bag anymore. Let the "National Circuit" play with the other National teams. But, open up CEDA for the micro programs and the mediocre debaters. Yes, I am championing mediocrity. There are a lot of GREAT students who will NEVER be great debaters. 3. Depth versus Breadth and the Semester long topic. No Josh, you are still looking at it from a "Gotta Win Nationals" perspective. That ain't my bag.Maybe novice nationals, but not open. I don't worry about nationals as a central goal. That is a mantra of the top 20% of the debaters. Believe it or not, some people really do not want to go into the depth of analysis that is seen in year long topics. Worrying about these progressively smaller case areas as the year goes by is not always the best goal. I would rather have my students learn a lot about two topics then learn TOO MUCH about one obscure topic. Really, how many people are going to gain anything by getting 2 more link take outs to a Vietnam/China disad. We all got the general point of the Southeast Asia topic by around Mid-term of Fall '97. Now we are just worrying about the details. In fact, the year long topic forces people to research more than semester long topics. There is an expectation now that you have to have specific cards to a specific case because of the year-long topic. I will bet $5.00 that a California team will tell my Louisiana team next week "We've been running this case all year, they should have case cards" as a response. The year Josh whipped me good, we went 6-2 at Nationals with just two briefcases. No tubs. I say we shouldn't have to cut cards specific to hardening foam versus lexfoam. It is technical material that does not serve a purpose other than furtherance of gamesmanship (sorry PC police!) for the top 20% in the field. I'm glad to see Josh and I having a discussion without calling each other names. Scott Elliott SELA From grees01 Wed Mar 11 18:16:40 1998 From: grees01 (Gary Rees) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 18:16:40 -0600 Subject: Reply to Josh's Civil Discourse. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: There have now been several good, reasoned responses to problems or perceived problems in CEDA. Most of these themes are not new. I think easy or simplistic solutions are going to be hard to find. The playing field is not now, nor has it ever been level. BUT, overall, the August 1 topic release date has been net beneficial for us. Please remember, the population of debate camps is mostly small schools or small schools in terms of budget, dedicated research personnel, etc. Debate camp cannot compete with the large squad that has monstrous backfiles and churns out research by the tubfull--but it does allow small schools to have a competitive starting point, especially if the release date is early enough to allow topic-specific research during the camps. I find far more problematic the thought of trying to churn these out on our own either during the school start-up in September or the Christmas break. I know that we fall behind in research as the second semester progresses, but I don't think late release and/or two topics solves these problems. On a slightly different note, I recently attended a high school tournament and found myself wishing for faster, better, more theoretical debate. Never thought that would happen to me, but it has. I think we have a lot of good things going in current debate practice but need to do a better job of selling the benefits of current college policy debate. Thanks for reading. Gary Rees Central Methodist College Fayette, MO 65248 816-248-3392 x273 From jhovden Wed Mar 11 18:29:42 1998 From: jhovden (Jan M. Hovden) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 19:29:42 -0500 Subject: Missing Judging Philosophies In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Ooops, I left a couple of names off the original list. Steve Thompson (Wheaton) Jay CHandra (Wheaton) From ELLIOTTD Wed Mar 11 18:42:02 1998 From: ELLIOTTD (darren) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 18:42:02 CT Subject: Ceda Nats and Speaker Points (Strike Warning) Message-ID: In the year of irony as it is, our current two threads, one concerning making sure our students are civil in rounds, and the other filled with ad homs and personal attacks by program directors, stand as a testament to the idea of irony itself. I wonder if program directors, who knew going into their job evaluations would be ranked according to how they deal with their collea- gues they'd engage in such childish notions. Perhaps if they were ranked on a scale of 1 to 30, they'd think before they wrote. Maybe people are leaving because they detest such crap from those trusted to be in charge of programs. I admire Tuna for his silence for so long. He's displayed the character that a President should have. I don't blame him for his recent outbursts, there is only so much a person can take. (Oh no, there I go ass-kissing). No need to point it out now thank you! To be labeled a conspirator, a liar, and having deep dark motives, I'd be pissed too. Some of you have been watching to many bad mystery movies. There's much more I'd love to say, but I'll resist the urge for now! Respectfully, THE CHIEF From d.breshears Wed Mar 11 19:38:38 1998 From: d.breshears (David Breshears) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 19:38:38 -0600 Subject: To West--the beginning of a CEDA post-Mortem. Message-ID: I almost held back. Really. I did. I actually walked away, had a smoke, and tried to satisfy myself with Josh's response. But even Dr. Elliott's humble admission that Hoe used to kick him around with "toto good" didn't quench my desire to rant. So here goes... First of all, the obligatory echo of support for the ambiguous values of inclusion and participation trumpeted by Dr. E. Yes, we (in both the CEDA and NDT communities) are concerned about declining participation. Yes, we are concerned about the difficulties of expanding opportunities for less experienced/less skilled debaters. No, we are not all obsessed with the grail quest for a National Championship (although the proliferation of titles is making its attainment a more realistic possibility). Some of us actually aspire to develop programs which embrace the seemingly contradictory goals of participation and competition. With that said, I take umbrage at much of the rest of your message, Herr Doctor. Dr. E. writes: "Primarily, in my overrated opinion, we as an organization have sought toplacate (or feed) the tastes of the top students within CEDA debate. I believe that as CEDA has grown (a lot of Organizational dynamics), the top echelons have developed specialized skills, presentation formats and needs. Those needs are fed by the NDT "style" of debate. I'm not saying this is bad. In fact, I personally prefer this style of debate. It pleases me to listen to such debates.I am truly impressed by the level of sophistication that I saw at the NDT qualifier at MTSU. However, my tastes and the tastes of others do not represent the aesthetic of many that have left, will leave, and will never join the activity that we call CEDA debate. Issues such as MPJ, posting results (can't wait for the verbal assaults and maybe a physical one or two when a team realizes they have been eliminated),Policy only topics, year long topics, highly technical topics, are all matters of taste. It comes down to a question of I like it or don't like it. Eventually, the numbers of "I don't like" will outwiegh the numbers of "I Like" and my program will switch to something different. If you haven't noticed lately, the "I don't like CEDA" mentality has grow dramatically. Its growth can be seen in the decline of programs in CEDA relative to the NDT crossover effect." First, this is interesting conjecture, but is there anything other than your personal "taste" (and contact with folks who left the activity long before the merger) to back these assertions up? You may be right, but it's utter speculation at this point. I can name several programs that are no longer debating because their budgets have been whittled away to nothing, and still others that have withered because of (a)pathetic DOF's that have grown weary of the travel and refuse to accept/admit that it's time to do something else. This is important, because your political agenda seems to cater to exactly such folk. Second, what's wrong with folks deciding to do Parli? Seems to be an acceptable alternative to policy debate. One of the reasons CEDA and NDT merged is because we were doing essentially the same things. When I started coaching at North Texas, I was informed that the other assistant was some dude named Dave Genco who'd debated CEDA and won the National Championship. At the time, I figured that meant I was going to have to coach both the debaters and the other assistant, since he was coming from that backwards-ass swamp of a debate community. Needless to say, I was proven wrong, and the experience forced me to abandon my misconceptions about CEDA debate. I realized that we were more alike than organizational loyalists would like to admit, and Genco and I became active in the efforts to facilitate a merger. I say this only as a reality check for all the folks lamenting the death of CEDA (or at the least, its imminent demise). Your memory, I'm suggesting, is failing you, Dr. E. Things are not so different now - you've just lost touch. The Dr. continues: > It is now time to begin thinking about the post-mortem. An analysis of >what changes took place within CEDA that created such a negative aesthetic. >Pointing the finger at Tuna, while amusing, is not really an answer. In fact, >most of you should have noticed that I stopped talking about revolution a long >time ago. What needs to be done is a somewhat objective analysis of what we >liked about CEDA when the numbers were much stronger. Let's stop right there. Before we discuss your dubious (and farcical) plot to take over control of CEDA, I've got to take a moment to point out the obvious. How, pray tell, are we to perform a "somewhat objective" analysis of what was liked about CEDA when numbers were stronger? You've already admitted that this is all about questions of taste. How might one construct an objective evaluation of such a subjective phenomenon? Before you answer, I'd also like you to tell me who "we" are. It certainly doesn't include any of the folks debating on this year's topic. Accept for Judd Renken and Corey Rayburn, none of them were around when the numbers were much stronger (and they weren't debating CEDA). Who exactly are we supposed to reminisce with about those glory days? I take it this is how you arrive at your consensus on taste - poll only those old enough to have flashbacks of Woodstock. Note that Bennet Strange awoke from his slumber to second your post. Or was the heyday more recent than that? You must be a (relatively) young buck yourself if Hoe kicked you around. If that's the case, then I'm returning to my argument about your memory - things haven't changed that much in the past 10 years, and the decline in numbers certainly began before the introduction of two-semester topics. Before you begin the revolution, you may want to rethink the problem you're trying to solve. E. continues: > Then we need to do one > of two things: 1) A radical departure from CEDA. But Even I think that we have too damn many organizations. How many "National Champions" will be claimed this year? There already is a radical departure from CEDA and NDT. It's called Parli and IE's. However, there's something important that you seem to have forgotten. CEDA is still an alternative to NDT debate in many ways. Since the merger, CEDA's extensive circuit of regional tournaments has added variety and affordability to many NDT programs. While at North Texas, we travelled a predominantly CEDA schedule, and had our best showing of the year at CEDA Nationals. As for the Texas squad, the regional circuit provides us with an affordable alternative for younger teams for whom we are unable to justify the expense of a Kentucky, Wake or Northwestern. CEDA also revitalized the novice and junior divisions of traditionally NDT tournaments. At Wake Forest this year, participation wasn't the problem - they simply ran out of facilities. For those who are sounding the death knell of CEDA, I'd suggest you take a closer look at life after the merger before you scrap the experiment. Much less radical measures, such as the adoption of a new topic each semester for novice divisions, may be a better remedy than you propose (if one is indeed necessary. Dr. E. again: "2) Revolution from within. Not violent. I think that those of us that are dissatisfied with the direction of CEDA need to garner enough votes to implementour agenda. Whatever that agenda may be. There are many programs that still pay CEDA dues that do not actively participate in CEDA. There are also many small programs that cannot afford to send their coaches/directors to the business meetings. What we have to do is suck up enough proxy votes to override the votes of those opposed to our agenda. Its evil I know, but it is politics at its finest." This kills me. If you're serious, you are evil. Anyone that would participate in such a scheme is evil. That Bennet Strange applauds your remarks is proof that he, too, is evil. Hell, I'd suggest you, Bennet, and all the folks who think this is good idea SHOULD abandon CEDA and NDT and start your own evil, inbred debate organization in some far, far away place (I hear Canada is clamoring for debate). If you're not serious, then I thank you for the opportunity to vent in your general direction. E. again: "So, those that do not "like" the direction of CEDA, let us do the first >step in the analysis. WHat went wrong?" Answer: someone put you in charge of asking the questions... The rest of your post is more than adequately answered by Josh. I'll just close be restating my suggestion that you reconsider less radical measures. Organizational overhauls are seldom the place to start. In the meantime, for all you folks just lurking on the list who haven't been around for the past couple of years, let me just offer another aesthetic opinion: The activity is stronger since the merger. We have seen expanded opportunities for less experienced debaters and less-than-well-funded programs, while simultaneously elevating the quality of debates at the high end of the talent spectrum. This is not to suggest that things are sweet and dandy, but glitches such as the scheduling of the national tournaments, the release date for topics, and the potential for multiple topics for less-experienced and/or lazier debaters are issues that both organizations are equipped to deal with. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Dave From mmk1913 Wed Mar 11 20:34:12 1998 From: mmk1913 (Michael Miroslav Korcok) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 21:34:12 -0500 Subject: to those in denial Message-ID: the tent may be large enough, but the cost of admission is getting higher so attendance at the show is dropping. *Greg Achten is still in denial. he sees 130 teams at Towson in 3 divisions and thinks everything is fine. i think that this is a rationalizing mistake. that a DoF from California refuses to see the trouble is odd. as Ken pointed out, Towson was the biggest tournament of the year apart from CEDA Nats (and that will be touch-and-go). the East has worked hard at developing Novice division and SHAMES the rest of the US in this regard: that is a significant portion of the good turnout at CEDA Novice Nationals and is not a good indicator of CEDA health overall. CEDA membership continues to drop fast and the number of teams fielded is also falling. *Dave Breshears thinks everything is rosy because the NDT has been revitalized since the merger and those leaving do so because their DOFs are "(a)pathetic" and participation was dropping before merger, and, anyway, there is nothing wrong with Parli. i do think the NDT has been revitalized. the cost has been BOTH a participation decline AND a flight from CEDA to Parli. EVERYONE knew or should have known this would happen (i argued it loudly and rudely, after all). but some of us thought that it could be fixed later. well, later is NOW. those leaving for the most part are simply being rational. raise the costs of successful participation and some will leave: raise the resource demands enough and people and programs quit or stampede to Parli. the IRRATIONAL are those who will participate in this activity no matter what the cost to them in terms of relationships, financial expense, job security, and leisure time. these folks we call "VICTIMS". declining participation in policy debate is BAD because policy debate is GOOD for students, coaches, programs, and the world. that's why Dave thinks the NDT has been "revitalized" rather than just "altered". *Ken DeLaughder thinks the tent is big enough and that there's room for all. Rochester is small just because the travel is expensive. well, maybe that's part of it. the number of programs and students competing during the year is also dropping, though. and if some programs are choosing between the NDT and CEDA Nationals, that number is not large, so that's not much of the explanation, either. people are leaving and that's bad. thanks for reading, michael korcok From mmk1913 Wed Mar 11 20:37:49 1998 From: mmk1913 (Michael Miroslav Korcok) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 21:37:49 -0500 Subject: release date Message-ID: *Gary Rees mistakes the causes of participatory decline, i think. it's the same mistake he made 2 years and 40 CEDA member debate programs ago. it's not so much a question of EQUITY as it is a question of EFFORT required for a reasonable chance of competitive success. "on topic" summer camps MIGHT "level the field" for those students of "smaller" programs which are willing and able to attend them. the COMBINED camps might produce almost as much useful research over the first 2 weeks of August as a large debate program produces in those 2 weeks. everyone goes home and the large programs have 2 weeks to "incorporate" the camp work and get further ahead. JUST examining equity, PERHAPS the 2 weeks of camp and 2 weeks of research helps "small" programs more than "large" programs. PERHAPS. but the COST is effort, resources, and commitment. a month of the summer has gone to debate and it MUST go to debate and debate camp. students and programs NOT willing or able to commit August to debate are HOSED: hopelessly behind before the season has even started. ALL of us must work more and spend more and commit more to debate or have no chance to compete successfully. participation is inversely related to the quantity of EFFORT required for a reasonable chance of success. and students and coaches and programs ask themselves WHY they are spending that much when Parli is so costless and the bowling team has better fashion sense. *Doyle Srader makes two arguments, neither of which i think are incorrect, but both of which, i think, somewhat miss the point. From mmk1913 Wed Mar 11 20:39:11 1998 From: mmk1913 (Michael Miroslav Korcok) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 21:39:11 -0500 Subject: ARRGGGHHH!!!! Message-ID: give me back that last post! sent before it was done. darn it. oh well... me From ELLIOTTD Wed Mar 11 20:08:12 1998 From: ELLIOTTD (darren) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 20:08:12 CT Subject: To West-the beginning of a CEDA post-mortem Message-ID: Breshears is just plain correct in his post. 1. The community is stronger because of the merger. 2. Even if problems exist, complete structural overhaul is not necessary. The line-by-line: My good namesake Dr. Elliott misses the big picture on a couple of issues. He argues that we have sought to feed the tastes of the top students for too long. How so? By expanding the number of tournaments that people can travel to. The merger has done that. Have we done it by demanding more and better quality research? That too has happened. Have we done it through allowing the feared "borgs" to infiltrate our little CEDA world? Sure bigger programs with more coaches now do exist. But if this is feeding the tastes of the top 20%, why is that bad. You see it filters down to the other programs as well. This in turn forces people to commit themselves to high quality skills: research, argumenta- tive depth, and preparatory skills. A number of "small school" directors have supported the merger for this reason. He then points out "I saw a dramatic fall off begin with the selection of and continuation of the Mexico topic." Was it the topic, or was it these folks had some fears confirmed. That the organization was moving forward and they needed to move with it or jump ship. Josh is right, majority rules. Not everyone will ever agree on the topic at hand, 1 or 2 semesters long. Is that reason to abandon? Not hardly. The majority of fall off more likely was due to the idea of CEDA as an organization embracing new ideas that those who were anti-change rejected. Breshears is right, the real fall off started before the year-long topics and merger. Then Dr. Elliott indicates, "I don't really care what the top 20% of CEDA debaters want." That's fine. They're not the majority. They didn't solely control the issues that currently supposedly plague so many who left or will leave the activity. Directors get to vote, not the top 20% of debaters. Must be some directors out there who think what we're doing is worthwhile. Sure some may disagree. That's the nature of this beast we call debate. But taking your ball and going home is hardly the answer. The tent is indeed big and can serve a lot of needs. Josh makes a number of good points. He argues that there are many stories of small programs that excel, given the extra effort and determination. Going back to the idea of feeding the needs of the top echelons, the trickle down effect must be true. Additionally, Josh indicates that most leave because they don't believe in us anymore. He's right. They can put any excuse on it they want, but the point is they just want an easy way out, so on their way out the door they point the finger at something they had a distaste for. They are only masking their true feelings, and when we legitimize their decisions with statements that yes CEDA is doomed, then we only pave the way for lazy directors to take the easy way out. Finally, Josh is absolutely correct in the idea that CEDA is an organization not just a style or rule of debate. Here I take distinct pleasure in responding. Over the last few days the dis- course that has existed between a few folks has been reprehensible. These are the ones who can't justify their true feelings so they blame others and point the finger at the decline of CEDA being one person's fault. They need to grow up and realize that the way they conduct themselves has a direct impact on the programs on the fringe or those just getting started. Some of these folks have lost touch with the activity and they backlash against others to make up for their own inadequacies. Maybe these people should leave the activity! For the rest though who can engage in civil discourse, they can solve the problems that may or may not exist. People leave because they can't do their jobs anymore or because they dislike debate and what it does. I wish we could save some of these people, not all (see above). What we must realize is that the CEDA community has benefited greatly from student input, majority consensus, and yes THE MERGER. Finally, the merger has made debate stronger. Period. I debated in the CEDA that was in transition. That is I debated both the non-policy 1 semester topics and the 2 semester policy topics. As we moved towards that similarity with NDT, debate got better. What's funny is we've been kidding ourselves way too long in CEDA. We kept telling ourselves that our debate was better than NDT! We wanted to merge to show them that. Then it happened. What we found out was that the better, in-depth, argumentation was happening in NDT. Now some have gotten scared and want to abandon ship. We have seen the enemy and it is us! Rise to the challenge and make debate better for all. Embrace the in-depth research skilled debating that can now exist. That is what will make for a better organization, not some idea of radical change or overhaul! DARREN "THE CHIEF" ELLIOTT EMPORIA STATE DEBATE ASST. From mmk1913 Wed Mar 11 20:58:59 1998 From: mmk1913 (Michael Miroslav Korcok) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 21:58:59 -0500 Subject: release date Message-ID: *Gary Rees mistakes the causes of participatory decline, i think. it's the same mistake he made 2 years and 40 CEDA member debate programs ago. it's not so much a question of EQUITY as it is a question of EFFORT required for a reasonable chance of competitive success. "on topic" summer camps MIGHT "level the field" for those students of "smaller" programs which are willing and able to attend them. the COMBINED camps might produce almost as much useful research over the first 2 weeks of August as a large debate program produces in those 2 weeks. everyone goes home and the large programs have 2 weeks to "incorporate" the camp work and get further ahead. JUST examining equity, PERHAPS the 2 weeks of camp and 2 weeks of research helps "small" programs more than "large" programs. PERHAPS. but the COST is effort, resources, and commitment. a month of the summer has gone to debate and it MUST go to debate and debate camp. students and programs NOT willing or able to commit August to debate are HOSED: hopelessly behind before the season has even started. ALL of us must work more and spend more and commit more to debate or have no chance to compete successfully. participation is inversely related to the quantity of EFFORT required for a reasonable chance of success. and students and coaches and programs ask themselves WHY they are spending that much when Parli is so costless and the bowling team has better fashion sense. *Doyle Srader makes two arguments, neither of which i think are incorrect, but both of which, i think, somewhat miss the point. the frantic preparation is certainly that, but it seems to me that Cori's point is correct: just because folks have spent August researching doesn't mean they take it easier during September. not if they want to win. probably folks work harder per day when there are fewer days, but not enough to offset the extra time. the quality of argumentation early on is certainly correct. the greater quality is achieved by more total effort and commitment. that drives participation down. *Scott Deatherage mispells my name. but he also points out that NDT/CEDA timing is largely a function of when hosts can host. others have pointed that out as well. oh well. and he thinks the problem is topic area release time rather than resolution release time. but the resolution makes a big difference too. if it is just the topic area, there is less incentive to research if only because it is riskier and thus less likely to be of value given the effort. *Martin Harris wonders if moving the release date back threatens merger. naw... August 15 in no way. perhaps September 1 seems shocking to many in the NDT but that's just because they haven't done it that way yet. thank you for reading, michael korcok From sellis1 Wed Mar 11 21:13:43 1998 From: sellis1 (Andy Ellis) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 22:13:43 -0500 Subject: The death of debate and other myths In-Reply-To: Message-ID: It seems to me that about 5 times a year each of the listserves delves into a seemingly ehrlich induced conversation about the end of debate. While a real concern I think we as a community are to quick to make causal relationships which simply don't exist.Sure numbers are down for ceda nats this year, but numbers for JV and novice nats where huge, everybody seems to gloss over this.(I'm not just saying this because I go to towson) Why is this important? As we sit around andmake funeral plans there are junior and novice teams competing in huge fields, I'll conceed that this is not a trend that exists evrywhere in the country but never the less it is big compared to last year. Korcock says the east artifically inflates these numbers, it may but if i'm guessing right it was like 5 rochester teams 2 cornell teams 1 vermont team 2 usma teams and syracuse team.(If i left anybody off i'm sorry, Liberty and GMU are considered i'll get to that later), and the draw from the rest of the country was pretty good. the point is that on what appears to be a) a very small topic b) a very complex topic c)anything else bad about this topic that some of us should have complained a little more loudly abvout in the summer, lots of people without debate experience are being incorporated and are making it long enough into the year to make novice a very competitive division at nationals. Does this mean that in two years all of these people will still be debating? Of course not, a lot will drop the activity and the activity will drop a lot of them, but the fact that the novice divison is its largest in a long time on a teribly difficult topic should say something about the halth of debate. Novices are like the frogs of the debate community, if they start dying then there is a problem, there will always be the core group of committed open debaters, those people that korcok calls victims, but the victims alone cannot keep debate alive. Maybe the folks in the east (and i know we talk about this all the time) should stop putting everybody to shame and try to do something to help the rest of ceda model the success of novice in the east. The other issue, people leave and go to Parli. Yup it happens, and i wish them the best of luck and i hope it is a better and more enjoyable style of debate for them, I do not mourn their loss, and they will not take the organization down with them. It won't happen the victims/addicts will not let it happen. I truly believe that the debate community has a carrying capacity and when it gets to big to incorporate all of the members of the community, they go and form other communities, when it gets to small to function they accept some of the rules of the other community and come back together. If it is dying, and i don't think it will, then it is only a die back in CEDA numbers , more of a migration than a mass killing, lots of people are going to parli, they are still debating and still learning the value of argument, just in a different format. The point is simple, nothing can grow for ever and nothing can stay steady forever, numbers ebb and flow, it will correct itself eventualy. Andy Towson From ELLIOTTD Wed Mar 11 21:08:07 1998 From: ELLIOTTD (darren) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 21:08:07 CT Subject: to those in denial Message-ID: Mike, I don't think anyone is denying that participation is dropping off. Ok maybe some are, but not most. Greg isn't denying that. He merely states that CEDA is far from dead, and the doomsayers may want to notice that. Towson was huge, and granted most were novice teams, but JV made partial doubles and Open made partial Octos. Not bad for a tournament not centrally located and just two weeks before people have to pay all that money to go to one or both of the National tournaments. What people are denying is that the organization will die over some insignificant issues such as topic choices, MPJ, posted decisions or any other issue someone may grab hold of to get their own agenda heard. You say, "..participation is inversely related to the quantity of effort required for a reasonable chance of success." Many who have openly disagreed with the status quo have indicated they don't even have their eyes on the Nationals prize. So these people can't be leaving because they'll never win a National Championship. That's their argument, not mine. But what is wrong with expecting people to put out the effort needed to be successful? Is their a bright-line that we should establish characterizing what is considered reasonable effort, and too much effort? Why not let people figure that out for themselves. No one is forcing them to put out that effort. I know you'll say exactly, that's why they are leaving. If that's true, maybe they didn't have the desire to begin with. Then you say, "...the cost has been both a participation decline and a flight from CEDA to Parli." Answer Dave. What's wrong with that. If they don't want to be researching hounds then, Parli seems to be an accepted alternative. Those who leave may have never had the desire to do top-level policy anyways. Those that stay will adapt and become better because of it. I don't think we should advocate that our students not be held to the highest forms of excellence possible. If that means extra effort, desire, and determination, then so be it. At the risk of sounding elitist, I'll say something I think a lot of people want to, but for political reasons won't. Debate may have gotten smaller, (the costs), but it has gotten a lot better as well (the rewards). Is that wrong? I don't think so. Granted teams may have to put out more effort then ever before. If the extra effort drives you away, you didn't want to be here to begin with. Maybe some venue exists for these people. If it isn't CEDA/NDT, who are we to try and make them fit in if the risk is reducing our own levels of excellence? A lot of people probably agree, whether they'll say it or not! DARREN "THE CHIEF" ELLIOTT EMPORIA STATE DEBATE ASST. From BoisBrule Wed Mar 11 21:32:43 1998 From: BoisBrule (BoisBrule) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 22:32:43 EST Subject: To West--the beginning of a CEDA post-Mortem. Message-ID: Scott, now look what ya done gone and did! Man, I thought I'd seen it all! How about some accolades for Yuri next? I LOVE this game, Aaron Klemz SIU >From Wed Mar 11 22:50:10 1998 Message-Id: Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 22:50:10 -0500 Reply-To: nbutt at erols.com To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Neil Butt Subject: Re: Looking for Neil Butt Comments: To: patrick MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Pat, I think I called and left a message on your machine (I got a number from information, so I hope its you) We're leaving tomorrow morning - I thought Decker had talked to you about the hybrid team. Today he told me he hadn't - I don't know what to tell my debater. You can call me at (703) 239-0558 -Neil From bauscsa4 Wed Mar 11 21:54:15 1998 From: bauscsa4 (Stefan Bauschard) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 22:54:15 -0500 Subject: release date In-Reply-To: <35074A7D.7143EEC5@garnet.acns.fsu.edu> Message-ID: I think that the value of the early release date for any debate program is being incredibly exaggerated. I debated at a program that was smaller in size in terms of students but had an adequate number of resources. We always had to turn it into overdrive the week before UNI to get the affirmative done and a couple of generics. When I spent a year coaching at a smaller program things wer the same and when I went to Wake things were the same. If I remember correctly, the aff got finished just before we left for UNI, Adrienne wrote a GATT DA the week before the tournament after she stole the idea from a high school team at the Early bird, and John Huges had this bullshit counterplan. And hey, I found a good court credibility brink when we got to Iowa. I don't mean to belittle the concerns of small programs or say that Wake's resources do not provide a competitive advantage, but claiming that the early realease date has lcost 30 or 40 program seems to be a stretch. There is only so much value to summer work -- you don't know what the affirmatives of the teams you want to beat are, you don't know any of their 2AC answers, you don't know what the plan will do, you don't know any of their tricks. Only so much is anticipatable. Everyone goes home from the first tournament in the same boat -- they need to bust some serious ass. Perhaps that is where institutinal strengths provide an edge, but they don't come in the early release of the topic. Early release is nice. If nothing else it satisfies curiosity and gives you some time to think. Anyone can think, even when they are working. Debaters who spend the entire month of August cutting cards are few and far between. Stefan P.S with a late august realease, the schools that din't start until the third weekend of Sept (NW and Dartmouth, I think) would have a whopper of an advantage. >From Wed Mar 11 22:58:42 1998 Message-Id: Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 22:58:42 -0500 Reply-To: nbutt at erols.com To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Neil Butt Subject: Sorry MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sorry, that last message was supposed to be backchannel - wrong button. From lesjober Wed Mar 11 22:02:50 1998 From: lesjober (Laura Sjoberg) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 22:02:50 -0600 Subject: Release date Message-ID: Concerning release dates: Just a quick thought . .. the earlier the release date, the more disadvantage to a school that starts in early October. . . U Chicago is already at a disadvantage by starting that late; any earlier release date would just heighten that disadvantage. BTW, next year school starts here on the 5th of October. Laura U Chicago From Pacedebate Wed Mar 11 22:18:32 1998 From: Pacedebate (Pacedebate) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 23:18:32 EST Subject: Disclosure & Nationals Message-ID: In a message dated 3/11/98 6:43:49 PM, parcherj at MCI2000.COM wrote: <> I haven't found any disclosure policy that is CONSISTENT objectionable. It is when it seems as if one disclosure policy was used all year and then around nationals that policy seems to change. tim From Chandra.Garrett Wed Mar 11 22:23:42 1998 From: Chandra.Garrett (Chandra Garrett) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 21:23:42 -0700 Subject: the death of CEDA...? and the "flight" to parli Message-ID: There has been a lot posted on this issue, and a lot of viewpoints, going in all different directions. What I'm getting out of all of this is that many people believe that the death of CEDA (if there is indeed, one), regardless of the direct causes, is definitely intertwined with the large move of schools from policy, or "evidence-based" debate, to parliamentary debate. My question is this: is this move to parli really a rejection of policy debate? As someone, I forget who, mentioned in their post, parli is rapidly becoming less philosophy and more policy! My IE coach from last year did his master's thesis on "the death of parli" (as he put it, ironically enough) and he often talked about the drastic change in parli rounds that he judged- both in the "This house believes:" prompt and the directions that the debaters took the rounds themselves. I'm curious what everybody thinks this might mean to the greater issues about the decline in CEDA? It seems to me to that perhaps many schools moving to parli are not really changing styles. What happened to NEDA, etc? I think this change in parli is very key to the issue and really examines exactly why schools are leaving. I originally came to Eastern to parli and do IE's. I'm not sure yet what I think about the "death" of CEDA... I don't have enough policy experience to really put everything in context. But I do know that I love CEDA- I love policy, evidence-based debate, and it really worries me to think that if indeed, CEDA is dying, two years from now I might not have the forum to do what I love. Just my two cents, I look forward to seeing what everybody thinks, Chandra ENMU Debate *notice: this post does not represent the ideas or positions of the ENMU debate squad as a whole and should not reflect on the team nor its official standpoint. ...especially if I say something stupid. thank you.* ************************************************************************ "Everybody gets so much information all day long that they lose their common sense." Gertrude Stein "Some call it Rambling... but I prefer to think of it as genius at its most chaotic form." Christina Rossetti "Would you mind explaining the scientific nature of the 'whammy'?" Dana Scully, contemplating the subtleties of higher philosophy with Fox Mulder; "Pusher" From Kenneth.DeLaughder Wed Mar 11 22:24:30 1998 From: Kenneth.DeLaughder (Kenneth DeLaughder) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 21:24:30 -0700 Subject: CEDA: The next generation In-Reply-To: <980311.204827.CT.ELLIOTTD@ESUVM> Message-ID: To all, I sent Darren a high five for what he said, telling him that I'd like to continue coaching if he was representative of my peers I would becoaching with. THen I thought about exactly who those peers were. Who are we, the next generation of CEDA/NDT doctorates, those of us now slaving away in an activity that we love for little pay and endless bashing by squads who resent our presence coaching before rounds, people who can point to us as killing the activity because we are the gears of the Borgs (well some of us anyway :) ), whose of us who fall into that twilight zone of faculty and student. Assistant Coaches. Sometimes I think in all of these back and forths about debate we don't express our views. I try to speak out, Darren Elliot is vocal, Jason Jarvis tried to lead us all from the front of the pack, but by and large we just sit around and cut cards on that damnable Emory Defo case. We pride ourselves in how our teams do. Soon the generation of assistants that currently exist will want to eliminate that title and take over some of the programs that are run by those who bash each other on edebate today. We need to be part of the solution just like the DOFs do, because soon it will be our activity, not theirs, to guide. Get involved. I think the tent of CEDA is big enough for everyone. If programs want to limit ev or times or whatever in their tournament invites, then let them. They don't have to leave CEDA. Its been said time and time again CEDA is an organization, not a debate form. I agree. Lastly, don't disdain other forms of debate, or even I.E.s (dont hiss too loudly) the bigger you make your program, the more people you can include, and administrations like that. take charge...or at least speak up...its our activity as well... Ken DeLaughder Assistant, ENMU Debate >From Wed Mar 11 22:24:42 1998 Message-Id: Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 22:24:42 -0600 Reply-To: herro at VAXA.CIS.UWOSH.EDU To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Steve Herro Subject: Re: steve herro Comments: To: Laurie Diane Ishak In-Reply-To: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII yes???????????????? steve Steve Herro Director of Debate University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh (920) 424-7048 From Claytonjjc Wed Mar 11 22:28:12 1998 From: Claytonjjc (Claytonjjc) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 23:28:12 EST Subject: How to find Greenwald Message-ID: if anyone is having particular difficulties finding the article, let me know. I may be able to speed the process. You're nationals host, jeff clayton, U. of Rochester From DRTUNA Wed Mar 11 22:44:10 1998 From: DRTUNA (DRTUNA) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 23:44:10 EST Subject: Sanction em all big tent approach & evidence vs. no evidence Message-ID: Interesting reading Scott Elliott and Bennett Strange. I fought for an amendment which would give CEDA sanction to any debate tournament debating any topic, thus allowing us to give our membership maximum topic flexibility and adaptability. Instead, we got a "Public Debate" format using the main topic or offshoot. That's a start, but the topic still remains a problem, if it is at all. Most of those now worried about the topic problem stood on the sidelines. All of this discussion is very nice absent a solution. I am still willing to defend the "sanction em all" big tent approach. I may change my mind when faced by superior arguments, but for now that is my topic approach. Will anyone support that? But, the topic may not be the cause of the problem we are dealing with here. Evidence may be the problem. The problem is: a. We use evidence b. Excellence and specificity of evidence wins debates c. This makes debate difficult and a contest of wills and resources d. Not everyone has the will and the resources e. This turns some people off. As long as you have a and b, the rest follows. I therefore challenge the perspective of Prof. Strange, who wants evidence based debate (like a and b) but decries the logical result in c-d-e. Unfortunately, sir, once good evidence wins debates the rest is set in motion. I prefer evidence debate, but recognize that once you accept it, certain results accrue. Tuna From DRTUNA Wed Mar 11 22:53:04 1998 From: DRTUNA (DRTUNA) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 23:53:04 EST Subject: Reply to Josh's Civil Discourse. Message-ID: In a message dated 3/11/98 6:37:00 PM, hunt at LCLARK.EDU wrote: >V. Preferential judging- sure we just voted for it. However, as many on >the list have said before preferential judging helps most those big well >staffed well traveled programs that know more judges and have more >experience with more judges. I disagree. 1. Without regional constraints you can prefer your local judges. That combined with judges from a neighboring region can help you a lot. Regional constraints favor those with big travel. 2. Judge philosophies can help you pick judges which match your debate style. Pref can do that for you a lot more than random can. 3. If you have to find 40% A's (and there will be very few B-B matches) you can probably do that. A working knowledge of 40% can do it, and then they judge you, unlike in random where you can get everyone you don't know 60% of the time. 4. Good judges don't vote for you because they have "experience" with you. I think that sells our judges short. Just a thought. Tuna From race Wed Mar 11 23:09:56 1998 From: race (David Bruce Rhaesa) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 23:09:56 -0600 Subject: ten minute prep in elims? Message-ID: just a compromise thought thanks for reading d From mkrueger Wed Mar 11 23:22:47 1998 From: mkrueger (mike krueger) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 23:22:47 -0600 Subject: Prep time Message-ID: It is a damn farce anyway. NO team takes the amount of prep time that is alotted. Next time you judge, keep track of the prep time for real. Watch for: 1. Excessive c-x... then saying "I'm gonna a minute or two." (this is into prep time of course) 2. Excessive bullshit after saying "I'm up." this consists of a. moving boxes around to speak from (I guess no thinking allowed while moving boxes) b. asking partners for one last response c. looking for flows d. asking the other team for cards e. asking partner for cards f. last minute conferences with partner g. mouth stretches h. last minute thought gathering before speaking This is all that I can think of right off hand. All I know is that I have kept track of ACTUAL prep time at some tournaments (the beauty of multi-timers) and many teams have taken over 15 minutes. Back in the day you had judges keeping the prep time running and the bullshit stopped. All I am saying is that 8 minutes is a minimal check, but it really doesn't matter at all. 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 MWBRYANT Wed Mar 11 23:33:48 1998 From: MWBRYANT (MWBRYANT) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 00:33:48 EST Subject: Prep time Message-ID: In a message dated 98-03-12 00:23:30 EST, you write: << All I am saying is that 8 minutes is a minimal check, but it really doesn't matter at all. Mike >> Mike Krueger is correct. They'll take the time, anyway. Delay impacts not unique, therefore shouldn't even be balanced against the debaters' clear preference for the educational standard of ten. Maybe CEDA debaters wouldn't feel like they had to "cheat" a couple more minutes in if we gave them to them legally. 9-3-6 w/ 10 min prep is the standard. Why some weird permutation at Nats? Bear From sarah.chan Wed Mar 11 23:47:54 1998 From: sarah.chan (Sarah E. Chan) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 00:47:54 EST Subject: MPJ @ Towson Message-ID: Just wondering if there is a statistic about how many critics were not able to fulfill their commitments, and by how many rounds. 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 Thu Mar 12 00:19:17 1998 From: race (David Bruce Rhaesa) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 00:19:17 -0600 Subject: Palace Coups -- Josh only Message-ID: that sounds fun - shall we start with Donn or Tuna? david From sarah.chan Thu Mar 12 01:07:08 1998 From: sarah.chan (Sarah E. Chan) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 02:07:08 EST Subject: MPJ Message-ID: I'm not yet sure what I think about this but... >>V. Preferential judging- sure we just voted for it. However, as many on >>the list have said before preferential judging helps most those big well >>staffed well traveled programs that know more judges and have more >>experience with more judges. > >I disagree. > >1. Without regional constraints you can prefer your local judges. That >combined with judges from a neighboring region can help you a lot. >Regional constraints favor those with big travel. At Towson, there were only three judges from our region, including our own. We have only traveled outside our region twice. Even preferring every single critic I knew from Vermont, my teammates and I could only fill in half of the A's for preference. Our coach also only competed in our region so he wasn't a whole lot of help in this area either. >3. If you have to find 40% A's (and there will be very few B-B matches) >you can probably do that. A working knowledge of 40% can do it, and then >they judge you, unlike in random where you can get everyone you don't >know 60% of the time. We couldn't fill in our A's, at which point I wonder if it's better to take the roll of the computer versus knowing you have to adapt to a critic that your opponent prefers and you're clueless about. Honestly, for the most part, our judging was great, but I'm not convinced about this mutual preference idea. 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 sarah.chan Thu Mar 12 01:07:07 1998 From: sarah.chan (Sarah E. Chan) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 02:07:07 EST Subject: 2 steps back Message-ID: I like the August 1 date. As the only returning debater (with one semester of novice experience), the extra time gave me an opportunity to work on what I was going to be teaching the newcomers. I spent a substantial portion of the first three weeks of school just teaching basic debate theory, not even going into the intricacies of the topic. If I hadn't had some time to do research before school started (plus the two weeks at Vermont), there is on way that SJSU could have been competitive this year. Sure, our team didn't produce as much evidence as the bigger schools, but I like to think that the four of us produced some quality. Shrug, Sarah SJSU debate On Wed, 11 Mar 1998 17:01:46 -0500 Cori Dauber writes: >Sept. 1 is definitely a little later than Id be comfortable with, but >August 15 made a big difference I thought -- especially in a situation >where you are reluctant to call kids back to campus too soon because >they're working summer jobs for tuition. Things are always ragged at >the >beginning, if only because you cant really focus until after the first >tournament gives you a sense of where things are going, but, from a >small >squad, every extra day, I figure, just spots the larger programs >another >200 page advantage. > >On Wed, 11 Mar 1998, Doyle Srader wrote: > >> On Wed, 11 Mar 1998, Michael Miroslav Korcok wrote: >> >> > the August 1st release date means lots of folks work on debate for >all >> > of August, increasing the effort they put into the activity. >those >> > unwilling or unable to lose their summers to debate start too far >behind >> > to catch up and so they quit or they make the effort to catch up >for a >> > month's worth of work during the school year. coaches are burned >out >> > and novices are ash. parli looks a lot better at 3 am ... >> >> A later topic release date has two problems: >> >> a. Frantic overdrive preparation. People skip class. People lose >sleep. >> Getting up to speed on a topic in _three weeks_ or less is brutal. I >> can't imagine doing it on a small squad. I admit, I have no >firsthand >> experience with that kind of schedule, but the hair-raising stories >I've >> heard are uniform and compelling. >> >> b. Paper-thin argumentation at the first wave of tournaments. Heck, >the >> debates were scattershot and confused back when the release date was >July >> 15 (my birthday, start shopping now!). But there's no question in my >mind >> that the big block of time at the beginning of the year, **used >wisely**, >> is the best chance most folks have to prepare a few positions (their >> anchor affirmative, their core generics) in-depth and give a bunch >of >> practice speeches about them. As an aid to argument development and >an >> encourager of argument quality, nothing substitutes for big blocks >of >> time. >> >> And by the way, here's a demonstration that two people not known for >> being the most tactful and polite participants in the debate >listservs >> can disagree without insults and accusations. >> >> Doyle Srader >> Arizona State University >> (602) 965-5578 >> >> "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_ >> > _____________________________________________________________________ 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 Thu Mar 12 00:56:51 1998 From: race (David Bruce Rhaesa) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 00:56:51 -0600 Subject: topic area release date Message-ID: it seems like scott's comment on the relevance of the topic area release date has not been taken seriously enough - yet. if the topic area release date were July 15th it would allow time to do generic research about the general area that could be incorporated into specific arguments after the topic release date. i think scott said it better but it was still not taken seriously enough. when the topic comes out general research about the topic area provides a backdrop from which to develop those hundreds and hundreds of pages of briefs. it seems that we are kidding ourselves if we don't think people begin researching the topic area in early summer now. also this would probably improve high school institutes -- but that is something of a side issue maybe. dbr From race Thu Mar 12 00:59:24 1998 From: race (David Bruce Rhaesa) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 00:59:24 -0600 Subject: Bauschard on the Dartmouth advantage Message-ID: as i recall the 1AC for the "hair" affirmative that Martin and Wick ran at UNI their sophomore year (i recall they did well) was finished the night before the tournament or maybe even at breakfast of the first day on the First Amendment topic. Dartmouth debaters may be better at goofing off then any i've ever seen! :) dbr From papacat Thu Mar 12 02:02:40 1998 From: papacat (Pat J. Gehrke) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 00:02:40 PST Subject: Release Dates & Summer Institutes Message-ID: I really like the idea of moving the general topic area release date to a later date. July 1 would be better than June, as it would still allow a month for balloting. Student input in topic selection is very important, in my opinion, but is unlikely to decrease dramatically from early June to early July. What would be important, in my opinion, is for the balloting and discussion of the new topic area to begin as early as it does now, but simply extend the deadline for submitting the ballot and announcement date to accomodate a July 1 date. The specific topic wording release date for August 1 is important to maintain, in my opinion. I can not express how important insitute evidence was to me when I debated. No matter how crafty, crazy, or hard we debated, we needed the case-spec evidence. With rarely more than three people cutting cards, and all three of us working part-time jobs and taking full loads of classes, that summer institute evidence was crucial to the case-spec debates. Additionally, the early Fall Round-Robins required us to work like mad under the Sept. 1 release date. I remember debate binges prepping for South Carolina where Matt, Gina, and I didn't leave the squad room for nearly 72 hours. (Prison is the belly of the beast of modernity.) The earlier release date helped a medium-budget, small squad like the one I debated for immensely. We could actually prep sanely for our first tournaments. We had more functional topic-specific institute evidence. We could plan more meaningful aff cases and negative arguments before our first tournament. We could have preparatory evidence materials (mini-packets) compiled for novices wanting to get out into the debate world early in the fall. August 1 makes debate more sane and humane, at least for me. Who can better deal with only having 3 weeks between topic release and the first tournament? A borg-like machine with 4 grad asst's and 10 debaters on scholarship, or a squad with one debate coach and 3 debaters who also work part time? Moving to Sept. 1 crushes smaller programs. Moving to Aug. 15 merely knee-caps them. Pat Gehrke penn state ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From MGWalton Thu Mar 12 03:05:28 1998 From: MGWalton (MGWalton) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 04:05:28 EST Subject: 2 steps back Message-ID: In a message dated 98-03-11 17:08:56 EST, cdauber at EMAIL.UNC.EDU writes: << Sept. 1 is definitely a little later than Id be comfortable with, but August 15 made a big difference I thought -- especially in a situation where you are reluctant to call kids back to campus too soon because they're working summer jobs for tuition. Things are always ragged at the beginning, if only because you cant really focus until after the first tournament gives you a sense of where things are going, but, from a small squad, every extra day, I figure, just spots the larger programs another 200 page advantage. >> I have to disagree. No matter when the resolution is released, the larger schools will have a perceived advantage. I would just hope that by releasing the topic on Aug. 1, the people at small schools or those who don't want to return to school early, can do some research before the topic starts, without jeopardizing the first three weeks of school. I know I will be unable to spend the entire month of August researching (internship is in the way), but I will be able to spend a few hours each week (nights, weekends) researching, briefing etc. I think many other people can do the same. Personally, I think the sooner the topic is out, the better arguments will be developed, increasing education. But, I am sort of lazy and if the topic comes out too early, I will ignore it, as will many others. So Aug. 1 is a good compromise. Marcus Walton SJSU Debate From yudebate Thu Mar 12 03:30:22 1998 From: yudebate (Yeshiva Debate) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 01:30:22 PST Subject: Tournament Invitation Message-ID: Dear Fellow Debate Enthusiasts: Greetings from Elan Weinreb, Executive Officer of the Yeshiva University Debate Society. For those of you who do not know about us, the Yeshiva University Debate Society (YUDS) is a debate club affiliated with the Public Forum Debate League (PFDL). The PFDL is dedicated to providing students who have responsibilities beyond the classroom (such as family commitments, work, and Sabbath that prohibit an entire weekend of travel) the ability to debate in one-day tournaments. Since YUDS is part of an Orthodox Jewish institution, its members cannot debate on the Sabbath (Saturday). However, through the generosity of Will Baker and Andrew Jacobs, two men who have done an enormous amount of work in helping YUDS get off the ground, we have been able to participate in more than a few PFDL tournaments (6 to be exact. Take a look at our homepage at http://idt.net/~mediator/Yuds). Now, we'd like to pay back the favor (as any good league team should) by hosting a tournament on Sunday, March 29 -- a tournament to which all are invited. At our tournament (details to follow after this introduction), two of the league's major formats will be offered: Impromptu and Team Limited Research Debate. Impromptu debate emphasizes speed in critical thinking and creativity as a debater constructs a case "on-the-fly" in five minutes and then presents it. Team Limited Research Debate is modeled on the CEDA style of debate without the CEDA technical rules and jargon (It is thus a perfect form of debate for debaters who wish to train for CEDA tournaments or who wish to do CEDA-style debate but don't have all the time to prepare tons of evidence). Two teams argue fact, value, or policy resolutions with the evidence of their arguments coming from prepared sources (given by e-mail by tournament officials). No other evidence is "fair game" in this format. For more information about these two formats and the PFDL in general, see the PFDL webpage at http://tisias.home.ml.org or http://members.aol.com/tisias/test.htm. I know that many of you on this list live out-of-state and are part of the APDA. I further realize that parliamentary debate is not the same as traditional debate. Thus, if this tournament invitation does not apply directly to you, please forward it to someone who will take an interest in it (i.e., the "other" debate squad at your school, a friend who did L-D or T-D in high school, etc). Take note, however, that many of the skills of parliamentary debate are also stressed in PFDL formats. Finally, any help that you could give us (advice on contacts, e-mail addresses, etc.) would be greatly appreciated. The tournament information follows my signature. Thank you for your time and patience. Peace & Justice, Elan Weinreb Executive Officer, Yeshiva University Debate Society ----------------------------- YUDS http://debateyu.base.org "Chance favors the prepared mind." -- A. Einstein ----------------------------- Attention College Debaters/Coaches/Judges: YOU ARE INVITED !!!!!!!!!!!!! WHAT Public Forum Debate -- Impromptu and Team Limited Research Formats For more information, see http://tisias.home.ml.org or contact Elan Weinreb (see below). WHO All are welcome WHEN Sunday, March 29, 1998 11:30 A.M. -- 6:00 P.M. (approx.) Registration Begins at 11:00 A.M. WHERE Stern College for Women of Yeshiva University Midtown Center 245 Lexington Avenue (Between 34th and 35th Street) New York, NY 10016 CONTACT Elan Weinreb Executive Officer, Yeshiva University Debate Society Tel.: (212) 927-3422 E-mail: yudebate at hotmail.com Pinchas Shapiro President, Yeshiva University Debate Society Tel.: (212) 740-7294 E-mail: fcpres at hotmail.com REGISTRATION To participate in this PFD, contact Elan or Pinchas before 10:00 P.M., Wednesday, February 18. Registration will be locked out after this time. All articles and further tournament information will be sent via e-mail to everyone who has registered FEE $15 per entry HOW TO GET TO STERN COLLEGE? Call Pinchas. Hope to see you on the 29th, Elan Weinreb ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From mgremillion Thu Mar 12 06:02:12 1998 From: mgremillion (MWilliams) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 07:02:12 -0500 Subject: CEDA Post Mortem-Responses to Achten, Snider, Darren Elliott, and Message-ID: and Ken Delaughder. Greg's argument concerning Towson has big numbers. 1st. Its called a hasty generalization Greg. Second, many Regional Tournaments in the South Central Region can barely operate. On the flip side of Towson, the Gator TOurnament that used to go to Octos only had six open teams and could only go five rounds. I think my Hast G is more telling than your Hasty G. Tuna's argument to sanction them all. Interesting and scary that I may agree with Tuna on an issue. Ain't no love goin' on but it I think legitimizing alternative topics may be a way to go. Darren Elliott, no relation. Just wanted to protect you man from any ill effects I may cause in my EVIL plot to destroy the Debate World. Darren says expand the numbers of tournaments. I say not true for many parts of the country. The flight to Parly has virtually destroyed CEDA in my part of the country. Most of my drives to CEDA tournaments this year have been 10+ hours. 2. Majority Rules. That's right Darren. That's how Democracy works. I'm just trying to mobilize enough votes to win. Pretty Evil ain't it. 3. 20% don't control. I think they do. GO check out a book called the Irony of Democracy by THomas Dye. You know, all the elites stuff. I think the needs and dictates of the top 20% get met becuase those programs participate in the business meetings and voting. Now, of course you are going to say that it is simply good politics to let the majority rule and everyone can vote. I agree. Funny thing, that is all I am trying to do--create and mobilize a new voting bloc. 4. Pointing fingers. I point the finger at myself and other coaches who do not or will not vote for what they believe. Hell, I haven't even given a good ad hom in the last 10 posts. Last and Least is Breshears. First, don't use the "Dr." in the pejorative. I'm never used it as a rhetorical tool to sway audiences. Just call me Scott, or that son-of-a-bitch-from-lousyana. A lot of stuff to cover in your rant. I'm sure I missed some of the issues but I count 10. 1.Decrease because of budgets. True and not true. Yes some programs have dried up. Not true because programs have left for Parly or just cut debate entirely. My old school just went straight to I.E.s. True in a more insidious way, a turn if you will. More programs, for budgetary reasons, leaving CEDA because theregional circuit is drying up. Driving 10 hours one way just to get to a quaterfinals regional tournament is asking a lot. For many, it ain't worth the time or money. 2. What's wrong with parly. Not going to get into it. Its a matter of preferences and tastes. 3. Losing touch with the community. Dude, what do you mean? My program actively participates in CEDA tournaments. We went to 13 or 14 this year. Look at the Regional Rankings for OUR Region. Look at the program at the top of the list. I ain't losing touch. In fact, I believe your problem is that I stay in touch with those that are disenfranchised from the CEDA community. I actually say on edebate what many feel but do not want to engage in abusive discourse. 4. EVIL plot to overthrow CEDA. Get a grip. What I said was that by using the "rules" of proxy votes, we can mobilize a new voting bloc. What the hell is so evil about advocating your position and trying to change things you don't like. I find it AMAZING how people that advocate change in debate rounds, get really pissed when someone advocates changes that may piss on their parade. No takeovers. Don't want to be a Neo-Tuna whipping boy for a year. All I want are some changes. 5. Decline Began a long time ago. Yeah, so did species extinctions in the Jurassic Period. Irrrelevant to the conversation. The point is that a dramatic decline in programs began just a few years ago. Just look at the CEDA membershipabsent NDT crossover effects. 6. CEDA's extensive Regional Focus. Really? Where? It is rapidly becoming a National TOurnament focus institution. Many regional tournaments barely break to semis. Few can go to quarters without collapsing divisions. The regional focus is being lost with the merger. 7. Much less radical measures like new topics for Novices. Guess What! That is what I have been advocating for. I still think the topics matter and there has to be a way to craft topics that will encourage more students to engage in debate. 9. Near the end, you give the standard if you don't like it get the F--- out argument. Well that mentality can only work so long. I believe that was a standard form of argument given by southern whites to Martin Luther King. Why should I get out when I can mobilize for change from within. Why should I have to recreate the wheel. OOPs! 8. I'm EVIL. Yeah! Take a fukin' number. I've been called the Antichrist by the best of them. Yes, it is so EVIL to advocate for change within a democratic framework. I'm not saying we should blow-up CEDA anymore. I couldn't find a truck big enough to carry the bomb. My Anthrax shipment was lost by the postal service. My AK-47 is in the shop getting a new silencer. All I want are some changes. 10. Do Parly. See number 8 and 9. I'm not going to go into Parly world and try to change they way they do their thang. I'd much rather piss off peple in CEDA. They don't break down and cry as much. Plus, I know what CEDA is, has been, and could be if people are responsive to calls for change. One last thing, a 20 year prediction: CEDA/NDT will have to merge with Parly because the numbers in CEDA/NDT will fall below the level of critical mass needed to support itself. Gee! Has that ever happened before? Scott Elliott From STRICKLG Thu Mar 12 07:50:58 1998 From: STRICKLG (Glen Strickland) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 07:50:58 -0600 Subject: Lexis-Nexis phone lines? Message-ID: Last year Wichita State provided (for a nominal fee) phoneline connections for Lexis-Nexis. Has any provision been made at CEDA Nationals this year? I assume not or that we would have heard by now. Glen Strickland From meaves Thu Mar 12 08:18:01 1998 From: meaves (Michael_Eaves) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 09:18:01 -0500 Subject: To West--the beginning of a CEDA post-Mortem. In-Reply-To: <19980311183127.29296.qmail@hotmail.com> Message-ID: What about budgets-- small programs for me includes more than: NO lEXIS-NEXIS NO STAFF made up of one head coach, five assistants, two full-time researchers NO LIBRARY to speak of--except time, us news, and newsweek HOW "BOUT MONEY!!!!!..... Name me three programs who have excelled at the national level on a 4,000 dollar budget. That's the biggest budget we have had since my arrival in 1993--I was told point blank by some at USC-early bird that they spent that much in September at the first tournament ALONE!! Mike Eaves--Valdosta State From afugate Thu Mar 12 09:26:27 1998 From: afugate (Amy Fugate) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 09:26:27 -0600 Subject: NJDDT Participants Message-ID: For those of you driving in on Friday, there is a slight schedule change. Due to room problems, we will not start until 2:00 pm. Therefore, registration will be from 1:00 -2:00 on the second floor of the CEC. Amy Fugate From srader Thu Mar 12 09:28:19 1998 From: srader (Doyle Srader) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 08:28:19 -0700 Subject: Request for info for part two Message-ID: How's that for a cryptic subject line? Ken Strange suggested that those of us going to CEDA Nationals could do a nice thing by keeping the online community apprised of the progress, especially new arguments, floated by people who will also be at the NDT. The ethic of service burns brightly enough in me that I'm willing to do my part, but I need help. The two groups I'm most interested in enlisting are the Emory horde and the CEDA answer to Pat Wheaton, Tim Mahoney. But if you're also interested in putting in little bits of work to help spread the news, backchannel me. 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 jhovden Thu Mar 12 09:34:19 1998 From: jhovden (Jan Hovden) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 10:34:19 -0500 Subject: Judgin List - CEDA nats Message-ID: This is the updated list. Hopefully, it will be the last. jan Judges for the 1998 CEDA National Tournament Alabama Carrie Crenshaw (tab) Ed Lee (4 + hire) Appalachian State Glenda Treadaway (Tab Room) Matthew Doggett (hire) Arizona State Doyle Srader (8 rounds) Arkansas Tech Robert Bolen (4 rounds) Ball State Mike Bauer (4 rounds) Cal Poly - SLO TC Winebrenner (4 rounds) CSU - Chico Jethro Hayman (6 rounds) Kevin Kerwien (6 rounds) CSU - Long Beach Nick Rangel (2 rounds + hire) Victor Rodriguez (1 round + hire) Matt Stannard (1 round + hire) CSU - Sacramento Kimo Ah Yun (8 rounds) Capital Sarah Ryan (4 rounds + hire) Central Methodist Gary Rees (4 rounds + hire) Central Oklahoma Chad Hill (4 rounds + hire) Cornell Pam Stepp (6 rounds + hire) Jeff Archibald (7 rounds + hire) Jeff Tompkins (7 rounds + hire) Kristin Dybvig (out rounds only) Wynn Wilcox (hire) Jonathan Stanton (hire) Adam Chud (hire) Cumberland Michael Dickman (4 rounds + hire) Duke Richard O'Dor (8 rounds) Eastern New Mexico Jackie Massey (6 rounds + hire) Ken Delaughder (6 rounds + hire) Eastern Utah Chris Harper (8 rounds) Emory David Heidt (8 rounds) Jamie McKown (8 rounds) Ashley Fairchild (8 rounds) Melissa Wade (4 rounds) Emporia Rodger Biles (6 rounds) Darren Elliot (6 rounds + hire) Florida State Kristina Schriver (4 rounds) Mike Korcok (4 rounds + hire) Mike Jackman (4 rounds + hire) Fort Hays Joe Boyle (4 rounds) George Mason Jomel Angat (4 rounds) Gonzaga Jamey Dumas (8 rounds) Chad Rigsby (8 rounds) Johnson County Amy Fugate (2 rounds + hire) Rich McCollum (2 rounds + hire + rounds for K-State) Kansas Keven Minch (4 rounds) Sarah Partlow (4 rounds) Rod Phares (4 rounds) Val Renegar (4 rounds) Stacey Sowards (4 rounds) Kansas State Sue Stanfield (2 rounds) Christina Sabee (4 rounds) Rich McCollum (2 rounds) Monte Stevens (elims only) Lewis & Clark Steve Hunt (2 rounds) Nathan Hobbs (2 rounds) Loyola Marymount Mike Simpson (4 rounds) Macalester Jim Haefele (4 rounds plus hire) Will Brewer (4 rounds) Marquette Alex Inman (4 rounds) McNeese Robert Markstrom (8 rounds) Mercer Mike Davis (6 rounds) Heather Walters (8 rounds) Miami David Steingberg (4 rounds) Gavin Williams (4 rounds) David Helwich (4 rounds) Michigan State James Roper (8 rounds) Terry Johnson (8 rounds) Middle Tennessee Mike Krueger (4 rounds +hire) Missouri - Kansas City David Kingston (5 rounds) Eric Jenkins (6 rounds) Myron King (5 rounds) New Mexico Jordan Mills (8 rounds, prelims only) Tom Jewell (elims only) New York Cartel Sylvia Beltan (8 rounds) Bill Charron (4 rounds + hire) Will Baker (4 rounds + hire) Paul Young (8 rounds) North Texas Josh Hoe (2 rounds) Christy Lowery (3 rounds) Courtney Knapple (3 rounds) Northeast Louisiana Jodee Hobbs (4 rounds) Northern Iowa Cate Palczewski (2 rounds) Heather Dzuricky (2 rounds + hire) Oregon Nick Lougee (4 rounds) Pace Tim Mahoney (4 rounds) Pacific Lutheran Joe Hamell (4 rounds) Pepperdine Greg Achten (4 rounds) Becky Opsata (4 rounds) Marce Luck (4 rounds) Pittsburgh Ron Von Burg (2 rounds) Kevin Ayotte (3 rounds) Max Schnurer (3 rounds) Puget Sound Glenn Kuper (8 rounds) Richmond Lisa Heller (8 rounds) Rochester Gina Ercolini (8 rounds) Pat Gerhke (8 rounds) San Francisco State Shawn Whalen (6 rounds) Lisa Kawamura (6 rounds + hire) South Carolina Paul Kerr (8 rounds) David Berube (elims only) Southeast Louisiana Scott Elliot (4 rounds) Southern Illinois Glen Frappier (hire) Aaron Klemz (hire) Jeremy Hutchins (hire) Yuri Kostun (hire) David Woodbury (hire) Southern Utah Terry West (8 rounds) Southwest Missouri John Fritch (8 rounds) Southwest Texas Leah Castella (hire) Syracuse Geoff Anderson (2 rounds + hire) Bradley Meurrens (2 rounds + hire) Frank Irizarry (hire if needed) Texas - Dallas Stephanie Steele (8 rounds) Towson Kenneth Broda-Bahm (8 rounds) Martin Che Harris (8 rounds) US Airforce Rachel Woodward (8 rounds) Vanderbilt M. Sandoz (4 rounds) Vermont Jan Hovden (hire) Gordie Miller (4 rounds) Jeff Cederfield (hire) Weber Eric Marlow (2 rounds) Michael Bryant (2 rounds) West Georgia Jon Sharp (4 rounds) Western Washington Grady Martin Wheaton Steve Thompson (hire) Jay Chandra (hire) Gary Larson (Tab) Whitman Jim Hanson (6 rounds) J.P. Lacy (6 rounds) Wichita State Jeffrey Jarman (4 rounds) Douglas Roubidoux (4 rounds) William Jewell Steve Woods (8 rounds) Hire Sean Lemoine From jhovden Thu Mar 12 09:38:55 1998 From: jhovden (Jan Hovden) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 10:38:55 -0500 Subject: CEDA Nationals Team List Message-ID: We had four more teams added and three dropped so the total number of teams should be 160. Jan Teams entered for the 1998 CEDA National Tournament Alabama Julia Shaw & Damien Pfister Esglen Lamberth & Wiley Gordon LeNee Carroll & Ben Osborne Appalachian State Rudy Dunlap & Lindsay Phipps Eleanor Norman & Jarrett Helms Arizona State Josh Martin & Justin Skarb John Kircher & Julie Sweet Edwin Aralica & David Williams Arkansas Tech Jimmy Wilson & Dena Bucker Rebecca Paschal & Sommer Faulkenberry Ball State Amanda McRae & Kathy Purvis Berkely Nathan Haratani & Randy Lushey Matt Macdonald & Mike Troncoso Cal Poly - SLO Dan Bolton & Kristen Hamilton Liney LaRoche & Angela Sandoval CSU - Chico Sue Lowrie & Cara Cupp Tony King & Dave Delano Gloria Sobolvarro & Paul Loupe CSU - Long Beach Heather Henkel & Kristine Clancy CSU - Sacramento Kristin Johnson & Jay Clarkson Jorge Medina & Ron Heard Capital Dominic Verdell & Alisha Ketner Central Methodist Shelly Meador & Leila Morgan Central Oklahoma Tony Sherbert & Shawn Blankenship Claremont Matt Grossmann & Camille Ryan Cornell Jessica Wojtysiak & Michael Cole Rob Melton & Matt Miller Melinda Hightower & Jennifer Edwards Beth Kronk & Caren Sencer Cumberland College Nathan Kinser & Curtis Brown Duke Imran Alibhai & Dan Krivinskas Dave Marquard & Alisa Nave Eastern New Mexico Matt Barreto & John Foy Katie Gilkinson & Shawn Wilkerson Mathew Dunn & David Keller Eastern Utah Brian McDonald & Toni Nielson Mike Zahller & Zack Westerfield Emory Stephen Heidt & Dan Fitzmeier Anne Marie Todd & Vic Tabak Nessa Horewitch & Shanara Reid Raj Ghoshal & Leslie Wade John Paul Lupo & Mike Horowitz Katie Matt & Alison Chase Stephen Bailey & Kamal Ghali Emporia Tara Tate & Shannon Holland Tony Nation & Brad Areheart Marie Baenig & Luke Simmons Florida State Erin Verhelst & Nick Brooks Brian Reddinger & Ari Allyn Andre Perez & John Layang Yang Fort Hays John Clune & Andrew Halverson George Mason Peter Krein & Mike Toguchi Gonzaga John Voigt & Aaron Moburg-Jones Josh Yake & Ben Voight Casey Kelly & Shawn Hummell Jason Leviton & Cliff Duke Johnson County Tom O'Toole & Adam Sokoloff Kansas Hajir Ardebili & Grant McKeehan Mike Eber & Amy Miller Steve Flinn & Scott Herndon Ryan Hudson & Tom Seymour David Magariel & Nathan Rodriguez Kansas State Grant Denny & Isaac West Sarah Glaser & Kevin Zollman Lewis & Clark Jared Ellis & Nick Hesterberg Loyola Marymount Leroy McClain & Cindy Morgan Macalester College Jennifer Alme & Kiva Garen Martha Wilson & James Hart Marquette Tim Dale & Kiley Kane McNeese Amiee Wernecke & Jarvis Parsons Jennifer Dula & Anthony James Mercer Alysia Cockrell & Brian Drake Kenneth Hanson & Deon Garner (Moorehouse) Daniel Feldmmeier & Jeffery Coxon Erica Wyatt & Odis Williams Whitney Whitmore & Jaimie Woodard Miami (FL) Larry Wulkan & Regina Paulose Veronica Barreto & Kim Horsley Debbie Prieto & Jeff Geldens Michigan State John Sullivan & Erik Cornellier Aaron Monick & Katy Hoffman Alison Woidan & William Rand Tara O'Dowd & Orian Smith Middle Tennessee Laurie Ishak & Daniel Grews Missouri - Kansas City Jennifer Barker & Scott Betz Josh Coffman & Matt Baisley Adam Whyte & Tommy Curry Steven Green & Ben White Morehouse/Mercer Deon Garner & Kenny Hanson New Mexico Jackson Stalley & Jessica Clark Brandon Mark & Kelci Lowe New York Cartel Angla Teng & Jason Clark Kathryn Rubino & Kate Brindle Justine Daniels & Victoria Keiran Marius Hentea & Jake Weigler Heather Wilson & Diane Kruze Northampton Community College Tunya Butterfield & Jessica Brush North Texas Eli Holloway & Cody Morrow Melissa Horn & Kenda Cunningham Northeast Louisiana\Southeast Missouri Bob Alexander & Rebecca Congo Northern Iowa Jennifer Rawe & Melissa Peterson Oregon Katie Bauer & Jay Lininger Pace Jason Peterson & Taylor Petrey Pacific Lutheran Gwen Paillette & Angela Stacey Pepperdine Cober Pluckes & Kristina Sun Alexis Gorton & Brenda Zeimet Thomas Manakides & Jenna McGrath Pittsburgh Almas Sayeed & Andrew Stangl Brendan Delaney & Eric English Puget Sound Paul Veillon & Scott Bailey Michael LeFevre & Amy Stutesman Darrell Wanzer & Maxine Cram Richmond Mark Arnold & Ben Bates Joe Keeton & Scott Luchetti Rochester Chet Gulati & Ria Dimalanta Dan Myers & Todd Walters Kathreen McClung & Lauren Michaels Phil Segaloff & Akash Desai Adam Shapiro & Johathan White San Francisco State Autumn Boylan & Corey Martin Bree Antenncci & Helen Calip Amy Gaughran & Sueanne McNeil South Carolina Lane McFadden & Corey Rose Matthew Katz & John Trotti Southeast Missouri Rebecca Congo & Bob Alexander (Northeast Louisiana) Southeastern Louisiana Kevalyn Robertson & Jeffrety Waguespack Southern Illinois Eric Slusher &Geoff Smith Matt Moore & Joey Vuglia Southern Utah Luc Stricker & Sara Herrmann Kasey Reardon & Stacie Stapley Southwest Missouri James Martin & Wes Langford Trenton Gorman & Chris Wilt Shawn Bone & Melissa McMurdo Southwest Texas Travis LaCoss & Sean Tiffee Syracuse Kendra McCAnn & Emite Khader Texas - Dallas Jason Jordan & Vasile Stanescu Lisa Anselmi & Trevon Fuller Texas - San Antonio Javier Buentello & Javier Quintanilla Towson Don Baker & Steven Andrew Ellis Brian Bittner & Zia Faruqui Renee Jackson & Anca Pusca US Airforce Academy Marshall McMullen & Ryan Sullivan Shawn Briscoe & Luke Savioe Jessica Trafecanty & Chris Denote US Naval Academy Shannon Callahan & Adam Johnston Vanderbilt Gabrielle Prisco & Vinay Reddy Vermont Helen Morgan & Sarah Snider David Grover & Amanda Michel Greta Lockwood & Daniel Gareau Weber Dan Dilsaver & Aaron Muranaka West Georgia Brandyn Barksdale & Rachel Saloom Western Washington Julie Pitt & Jeff Van Horn Whitney Garrison & Michelle Sarruf Wheaton John Wilson & Lisa Carter Judy Swanson & David Wittig Whitman Sean Harris & Adam Symonds Jessica Clarke & Ryan Scoville Mike Caughey & Sean Collins Wichita Kristi Morioka & Jeremy Hathaway Brian Gough & James Harris William Jewell Jennifer Davis & Aubrey Harris Matt McGee & Louie Petit From mcm29 Thu Mar 12 10:00:23 1998 From: mcm29 (Pedro) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 11:00:23 -0500 Subject: Liberty only Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 447 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/19980312/d52a8f69/attachment.bin From wnewnam Thu Mar 12 10:06:04 1998 From: wnewnam (William E Newnam) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 11:06:04 -0500 Subject: a question of reality In-Reply-To: <3505EB1D.5169@midusa.net> Message-ID: I just wanted to note that I think that David makes an excellent point. I think it is well illustrated by many of the 1nc disad shells that are run. the standard structure is: A. IMF will be passed. B. the plan is unpopular C. without the imf bailout there will be an economic downfall It seems as though this very standard disad format does not require an affirmative answer since it lacks coherence. There are so many missing premises that it becomes debate by enthymeme. On the whole, I think that this is not solid argument. However, it also seems as though the better teams have better coherence and exploit the lack of coherence in other teams. Hopefully, as it tends to do, debate will probably correct these flaws in argument. bill n emory On Tue, 10 Mar 1998, David Bruce Rhaesa wrote: > as i wandered heart of america and notice the level of interest in > policy argument taken even by those employing less than traditional > argument strats and comparing it with the interactions i had elsewhere > in lawrence i had to wonder whether dis-interest is a legitimate ground > for criticism. > once upon a time the affirmative would have to provide a level of > interest in their justification or presumption would be sufficient for a > negative victory. sometimes it seems that the kritiking has brought > people full circle and so i have been wondering some since Heart of > America whether a disaffiliation kritik might not be viable. > i am certain that judges must admit times when they've felt that they > had more interesting things they'd rather be doing and honestly would be > tempted by a kritik of interest. the distinterested or > non-policy-interested kritik might also help debaters justify the amount > of time they choose to employ on policy oriented studies vis-a-vis other > avenues of learning. and it also might provide the possibility of > non-political-interested debate subjects. > > this is not to say that my experience at Heart of America was negative. > I thought that debate continues to improve in many ways. My only > criticism of the current trend is that the enthymemes are so extreme and > the internal cohesion so nearly non-existent on both sides of the > political capital debates (and similar arguments) that they were next to > impossible to follow in detail. It seemed that individuals were > rewarded somewhat for structural incoherence on these arguments as > judges worked so hard to find coherence where it may or may not have > been. I'm certain if i were working on the topic that this point of > view would be somewhat different. > > d > From asnider Thu Mar 12 10:41:20 1998 From: asnider (Alfred C. Snider) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 11:41:20 -0500 Subject: Wanted: Debater for Exhibition Debate vs. Japan at CEDA Nats Message-ID: There will be a public exhibition debate at CEDA Nationals between a CEDA sponsored team and the team from Japan currently touring. CEDA will be negative on the proposition that the Japan-USA defense alliance should be scrapped. Isaac Castillo of Rochester will be one person on the team of two, and we are seeking a second. This will be an audience-oriented event designed to promote international understanding and fun. If you are interested in being the other person on this team, please contact me. 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 lsd041 Thu Mar 12 11:29:14 1998 From: lsd041 (Scott Deatherage) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 11:29:14 -0600 Subject: to those in denial Message-ID: Brilliant, as always, Michael. (I did get that right, did I not?) While I'm not yet ready to sign-on to September 1, Korcok's arguments for later release are compelling. I wish to re-emphasize: the topic area release date needs change too. On some topics, like SEA, the wording was highly relevant, and research could not begin in earnest until August 1. Other topics, like environmental regulation, carry substantial research burden upon release of the area. Wording notwithstanding, Climate, Ethic, Nuclear Power, and others, all required immediate attention. One part of Korcok's argument struck a particularly responsive cord. So well worded, Ill simply borrow his prose: >those leaving for the most part are simply being rational. raise the >>costs of successful participation and some will leave: raise the >>resource demands enough and people and programs quit or stampede to >>Parli. the IRRATIONAL are those who will participate in this activity >>no matter what the cost to them in terms of relationships, financial >>expense, job security, and leisure time. these folks we call "VICTIMS". I've made arguments of this nature before, most noteably in the six round debate. Many reply with a similar wish: let's find a way to make this game rigorous, but survivable. Some say back to the dungeons with you--there's work to be done. This love it or leave it attitude is not only shortsighted, but as Korcok's dichotomy illustrates, foolheaded. It is a matter of perspective, friends, and it's time to find some reasonable ways to make this game more liveable. My two cents. SD At 09:34 PM 3/11/98 -0500, Michael Miroslav Korcok wrote: >the tent may be large enough, but the cost of admission is getting >higher so attendance at the show is dropping. > >*Greg Achten is still in denial. he sees 130 teams at Towson in 3 >divisions and thinks everything is fine. i think that this is a >rationalizing mistake. that a DoF from California refuses to see the >trouble is odd. > >as Ken pointed out, Towson was the biggest tournament of the year apart >from CEDA Nats (and that will be touch-and-go). the East has worked >hard at developing Novice division and SHAMES the rest of the US in this >regard: that is a significant portion of the good turnout at CEDA >Novice Nationals and is not a good indicator of CEDA health overall. > >CEDA membership continues to drop fast and the number of teams fielded >is also falling. > >*Dave Breshears thinks everything is rosy because the NDT has been >revitalized since the merger and those leaving do so because their DOFs >are "(a)pathetic" and participation was dropping before merger, and, >anyway, there is nothing wrong with Parli. > >i do think the NDT has been revitalized. the cost has been BOTH a >participation decline AND a flight from CEDA to Parli. EVERYONE knew or >should have known this would happen (i argued it loudly and rudely, >after all). but some of us thought that it could be fixed later. well, >later is NOW. > > >declining participation in policy debate is BAD because policy debate is >GOOD for students, coaches, programs, and the world. that's why Dave >thinks the NDT has been "revitalized" rather than just "altered". > >*Ken DeLaughder thinks the tent is big enough and that there's room for >all. Rochester is small just because the travel is expensive. > >well, maybe that's part of it. the number of programs and students >competing during the year is also dropping, though. and if some >programs are choosing between the NDT and CEDA Nationals, that number is >not large, so that's not much of the explanation, either. > >people are leaving and that's bad. > >thanks for reading, >michael korcok > > From lsd041 Thu Mar 12 11:34:08 1998 From: lsd041 (Scott Deatherage) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 11:34:08 -0600 Subject: release date Message-ID: Don't miss the very important last point in Korcok's post. Those of us with NDT roots are leary of September 1, but have never tried it. Perhaps we would learn to like taking a vacation in August, heading back to school with a fighting chance for positive attitude, mental health, and the like. SD At 09:58 PM 3/11/98 -0500, Michael Miroslav Korcok wrote: >*Gary Rees mistakes the causes of participatory decline, i think. it's >the same mistake he made 2 years and 40 CEDA member debate programs ago. >it's not so much a question of EQUITY as it is a question of EFFORT >required for a reasonable chance of competitive success. > >"on topic" summer camps MIGHT "level the field" for those students of >"smaller" programs which are willing and able to attend them. the >COMBINED camps might produce almost as much useful research over the >first 2 weeks of August as a large debate program produces in those 2 >weeks. everyone goes home and the large programs have 2 weeks to >"incorporate" the camp work and get further ahead. JUST examining >equity, PERHAPS the 2 weeks of camp and 2 weeks of research helps >"small" programs more than "large" programs. PERHAPS. > >but the COST is effort, resources, and commitment. a month of the >summer has gone to debate and it MUST go to debate and debate camp. >students and programs NOT willing or able to commit August to debate are >HOSED: hopelessly behind before the season has even started. ALL of us >must work more and spend more and commit more to debate or have no >chance to compete successfully. > >participation is inversely related to the quantity of EFFORT required >for a reasonable chance of success. and students and coaches and >programs ask themselves WHY they are spending that much when Parli is so >costless and the bowling team has better fashion sense. > >*Doyle Srader makes two arguments, neither of which i think are >incorrect, but both of which, i think, somewhat miss the point. > >the frantic preparation is certainly that, but it seems to me that >Cori's point is correct: just because folks have spent August >researching doesn't mean they take it easier during September. not if >they want to win. probably folks work harder per day when there are >fewer days, but not enough to offset the extra time. > >the quality of argumentation early on is certainly correct. the greater >quality is achieved by more total effort and commitment. that drives >participation down. > >*Scott Deatherage mispells my name. but he also points out that >NDT/CEDA timing is largely a function of when hosts can host. others >have pointed that out as well. oh well. and he thinks the problem is >topic area release time rather than resolution release time. > >but the resolution makes a big difference too. if it is just the topic >area, there is less incentive to research if only because it is riskier >and thus less likely to be of value given the effort. > >*Martin Harris wonders if moving the release date back threatens merger. >naw... August 15 in no way. perhaps September 1 seems shocking to many >in the NDT but that's just because they haven't done it that way yet. > >thank you for reading, >michael korcok > > From pbellus Thu Mar 12 10:48:43 1998 From: pbellus (Paul Bellus) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 11:48:43 -0500 Subject: Early Release Date Message-ID: I fail to understand why small programs desire later release dates. The educational advantage of having an extra month to explore the topic assists the debaters and coaches to gain a firm understanding of the topic and outlines the priorities for research. Through an indepth exploration into the topic everyone can determine how the topic fits the resources available to her/his team. A later release date pushes smaller teams into a corner scrambling for big generics and eliminates the potential for indepth case harms research. For educational purposes release the topic early. As the former coach at Samford University, I hoped for an earlier release date than August 1. My first year at Samford I had two (2) debaters on the team. The smallest number possible. My complaint with the release date was we did not have enough time to put together a variety of arguments to prepare us for the upcoming topic. Instead, we had a process counterplan, Clinton, Spending, and Islamist disads. Not a whole lot of innovation. The quality of the arguments were fine, but limited in applicability and utility. If we had an extra month to two weeks we could have put together a larger arsenal of arguments. Also, we would have had the time to generate specific harm area arguments, hence increasing the utility of our disadvantages. But, we were too short on time. All two of the debaters worked at "real jobs". When they came to school for the work week they felt overburdened by the task awaiting them. Each one completed an assignment over the summer after the release date, but we still had a lot of work waiting for us. Between practice rounds and researching the topic they spent every free minute of the three weeks before UNI getting ready for the upcoming debates. My experience is the trade-off in time during a shorter research period is more detrimental to the student's morale (not to mention grades) than a longer research period. My suggestion is to move the release date up not back. I believe we should return to a mid July release date. August 1 is still too late. It sacrifices quality fo argument early in the year and cuts against the educational purpose of researching a topic by imposing a limited time before that research must be used. Just a few thoughts at this time, Paul Bellus From wnewnam Thu Mar 12 10:45:14 1998 From: wnewnam (William E Newnam) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 11:45:14 -0500 Subject: Disclosure & Nationals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I am also concerned about a variety of practices about disclosure that have developed over the years. But before I address these concerns, I would like to offer that as far as I know no such practices that Scott discussed below were by the Emory team. If I am incorrect or if he has information to the contrary, I would appreciate a backchannel to clarify any such misconceptions or so that I may speak to my students and speak to them and hopefully teach the value of openness and collegiality. But the way this was discussed in an open forum without specific references which should be disclosed in private leaves me wondering--did my students do something like this and if so, I would like to know about it. These are the youngest of college students and we sometimes have to temper the competitive drives of those who have yet to feel comfortable in this collegiate debate setting. I feel like a good portion of the coaches role is to help to teach the students to respect each other, treat each other as colleagues, and enjoy the competition without letting it overwhelm you. As for particulars: On Wed, 11 Mar 1998, SCOTT HARRIS wrote: > This year at Nov Nats there are signs that we might be heading into > disasters at the NDT. There were a couple of schools whose disclosure > policies trouble me greatle. One team claimed that they were running a > "new" case when they ran a case which had been run by their top team at > another tournament. It is my understanding that in a subsequent round at > Nov Nats they called the same case "new" even though they had previosly > run it at the tournament. My debaters tell me that they were told that > the school had had a squad meeting and had decided this was a legitimate > use of the term "new." ***I sure hope this wasn't us. I know for a fact that our first years wrote new versions of deforestation themselves before this tournament including changing to specific countries, so it could have been. if so, please backchannel me. I can assure you they had no meeting that I was aware of, we can barely agree to meet for dinner. Another team refused to show their plan to the > opposition when making minor wording changes to the plan (taking out the > words "as per the recommendations of..." in one debate, and adding the > words "or any means necessary" in another. What is odd is that this team showed us that change before another debate. This stood in stark contrast > to Wake Forest who showed the plan after making a substantive change > (limiting the applicability of the demining effort in Vietnam to a > specific province). That same team was very assertive in demanding to see > the other teams plan in elims quickly (before other rounds were even > decided). Actually, in one our semis debates one of the wake forest teams changed their plan from going to the government to going to an NGO and did not show us the plan. I had no problem with that. They told us the plan remained essentially the same, but they were obviously trying to get out of the China debate. Fortunately, the team they were debating figured out that there was a topicality problem and won because it did not go to one of the Southeast Asian NATIONS. Frankly, the fact that the debaters had to figure that out on their own was a good test of their skills and presented them with a challenge which they rose to. I think it was good for their confidence as well. Here, I think, Scott hits the nail on the head. The inconsistency of disclosure practices has always concerned me. It seems as though what one person find excessive another person finds too restrained. I do not know that the solution is, but I agree that the inconsistency about it is going to generate tension. The first time, several years ago, when a coach from another team walked into a room in which I was talking with my debaters and essentially, demanded to see the plan, I was shocked. I had never seen that before and I was unsure how to handle it. AFter a pregnant pause, we offered the plan, but it did not seem right to me. It seemed as though if the debaters wanted to see the written material before the debate that would be okay since they would be seeing it during the debate. But I was very hesitant, myself, to look at the opposing teams plan until last year when the practice became so commonplace. It seems as though there is a very slim difference between that and reading the text of the 1ac. already it became common for people to ask what they claim. I witness cross-exs that occur before the debate begins. What does this mean? Does this plank mean you do that?, etc. etc. What concerns me about this level of disclosure is that it takes the debate out of the students hands and places it more in control of the coaches. Will timeouts be next? Even when I debated in the dark ages I remember watching a coach from another school coach a team during prep time of our debate when I went to get water. This year I had a debater complain that he saw a coach doing the same thing during a major elimination debate. I have seen coaches bring in briefs during a debate to distribute to his team and no one said a word. Were these written while the 1ac was speaking. Did the negative sneak extra preptime into the debate this way? Was their another participant in the debate? Was the coach a silent participant? These kinds of questions are all open to discussion, I believe. Fundamentally, while I enjoy coaching argumenta and helping my teams prepare for debates, I think that at some point is the student's activity. This is not basketball or football and i really don't think debate should be viewed that way. Coaches are teachers not participants and I think Scott raises a very important issue which we as a community should address. Where is the activity a student activity and where is it a coaches activity? What level of disclosure is appropriate will depend in large measure on the answer to that question. Then we can talk about disclosure. How long do we hold up the tournament for coaching? What do we about coaching during debates? Can students get evidence from elsewhere once the debate begins? All of these and many more are question posed by Scott's concerns and I think that these stem from a fundamental question about the role of coaching more than about the competitiveness of first year students at their national championships. respectfully, bill n emory > > Given the inconsistencies in disclosure practice in which "new" means > different things to different people I don't know what to do. Perhaps I'm > just too open in showing people our plans when we make minor wording > changes to spike out a specific argument. If people don't want to allow > another teams coaches to coach I have no problem with those like S. > Carolina who adopt a consistent don't ask don't tell policy, or those who > are willing to take the risks of running a truly new case. I have serious > problems if disclosure becomes a tool of gamesmanship in which we play > Clintonesque word games like "I did not break the laws of my country" > (because I was at Oxford when I didn't inhale) in response to the question > did you smoke mj. I have serious reservations about the kinds of lessons > we teach our students for the future. Those who become lawyers may learn > how to manipulate pretrial disclosure in their predebate disclosure > practices. > > > I am very disheartened about being in an activity that plays these kind of > games. If anything can drive me out of an activity I love deeply this is > the kind of thing that can. > > #####TROUBLED IN LAWRENCE##### > From MWBRYANT Thu Mar 12 11:03:53 1998 From: MWBRYANT (MWBRYANT) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 12:03:53 EST Subject: We Should Not Stifle Discourse Message-ID: In a message dated 98-03-11 11:17:52 EST, you write: << Reply-to: hunt at LCLARK.EDU (Steven Hunt) To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU Discourse, controversy, and debate are good. Nonetheless, there are certain standards of civility which should be maintained in all arguments. We should be modelling this civility ourselves and teaching it to our students. >> Problems w/ Pf. Hunt's moral mandate of civility: 1. Who's civility? Who sets the standard? Do we model British parliament? The OJ Simpson courtroom? Do you have a hand-out on civility standards from Miss Manners? If so, I'm sure Snider will put in the CEDA Nats package. If not, I'm sure we can rely on Berube for yet another first class pub. 2. What to do with the uncivil? Do we kick them out of our organizations? Do we leak rumors to their Dept chairs to "eliminate" the ungodly threat of uncivility? Do we dehumanize them by ignoring their discourse? Do we diminish their impact by constantly classifying them as mentally ill? 3. What if civility is just a smokescreen for covert uncivility? Is the goal of public civility so sacrosanct that we are mandated to be civil to people that spread deliberate lies and constant evaluations on such issues as diversity? Let me put it this way, if you knew someone was spreading lies that you killed someone, is it a professional mandate to be nice to them in public? It just seems that civility, more often than not, is hierarchial. Those with power and privilege have every reason to promote civility as a way of minimizing threats to their positions. Those outside the power structure that have to scream for months, before Berube accidentally verifies our "psychotically paranoid" descriptions of the constant derogatory evaluations shared by David and Tuna, may appear somewhat barbaric by comparison. 4, Does the need for civility outweigh rights of individual expression? If I'm truly an asshole, why is it right to try to force me to meet your standards of civility? Is it really more "professional" to be something you disdain? Why don't we have the rights to choose our own modes of communication? Is there room in this community for people whose worldview and modes of interaction are different than yours? If not, I think we need to pick a different word than "diversity" to use as one of our macro-goals... Randoms thoughts from CEDA's most uncivil psychotic. Just ask Tuna, he even went to the CEDA Exec Council to get permission to ignore me. What a patient and glorious leader.... Counting the days to Crenshaw, Michael Bryant From mdickman Thu Mar 12 11:07:54 1998 From: mdickman (Michael R. Dickman) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 12:07:54 -0500 Subject: the post mortem Message-ID: I just have to respond: The fact that Towson was up does not disprove elliots analysis that numbers are down. In fact it seems that there are two threads going on at once here. From my reading of all of the posts on this topic I would conclude that the merger has increased tournament size and diversity at the big national level tournaments. It has also had the opposite effect on regional tournaments. The Towson wekend may in fact be a pretty good exemplar of what is going on in the activity. While Towson is up, Florida is way down. When I first started going to florida in the late 80's it would easily make octo's in two divisions. By the 93-94 year the numbers were the same. Since then, the numbers have fallen dramatically! This year there were 16 teams total in both divisions. Now this could be chalked up to lots of other factors and those other factors surely play a part, but, overall, in the se/sec region, regional tournament were way down across the board. Most tournaments are collapsing down to one or maybe two divisions and quarters is now a good size, healthy tournament. My conclusion: The merger is great for the national circuit. It is bad for the regional one. At least this region. I wqould echo Scott's call for people who are not going to nats to give your proxy to someone you trust to vote something like your views! The regional circuit is drying up! Vote or die! Mike CC Debate ---------- From: Achten, Greg[SMTP:gachten at PEPPERDINE.EDU] Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 1998 6:45 PM To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU Subject: Re: Reply to Josh. There were something like 150 teams at Towson. Novice made DOUBLES with 67 teams at one tournament. Clearly CEDA is dead. Greg ---------- From: MWilliams To: EDEBATE Subject: Reply to Josh. Date: Wednesday, March 11, 1998 12:49PM I remeber Josh kicking my ass with "Toto good" at Nats eons ago. Now, I know there are a lot of varsity debaters and programs that coach almost exclusively varsity teams that think things are just hunky dory in debate land. They ain't. To answer some of Josh's commentary. If it ain't the topics, then what caused the dramatic decline of CEDA programs? It is not the lack of funds or programs just disappearing. They left for Parly or strictly I.E. programs. There has to be a reason. Them people I've talked to say it had a lot to do with the topics chosen. Irrational perhaps, but that is why they left. I guess I need to reiterate the difference between a "small program" and a "micro program." Those programs listed like Ft. Hays et al. are rebuilding with a goal of getting back to the final round. Many coaches, myself included. Realize that given the resources available, this is an unrealistic goal. We just want to teach argumentation skills to as many students as possible. The hope is that the forum of academic competition will motivate students to learn new information and skills. Sometimes, however, the topics scare students away before we have a chance to teach them. That is what has happened to many of my prospective debaters this year. So, if the topics are not the cause, what is. Josh, there is something about CEDA that Directors of programs are finding offensive. What is it. 2. My constituency. Why don't I represent ALL students in CEDA. Frankly,the top 20% belong to programs that are very active in CEDA business meetings. Or, like Eric Slusher, take action for themselves. There are many students who simply do not know how to take action. Or, their directors are either too apathetic or underfunded to actively participate. All democratic institutions with representatives have limited constituencies. I just openly admit where my political views lie. I believe that the students who need the year long mega-topics to explore their highest levels of creativity already have an outlet that is well established and well principled in this type of debate. If I were at a University that could support such a program, I would be advocating for the following resolution: Resolved: fill in your backfile. But I do not represent such an institution. Probably never will. I represent those students who just want to learn how to research and prepare arguments. I don't want to represnt those that live 24/7 for debate. National Champions delivering Pizzas ain't my bag anymore. Let the "National Circuit" play with the other National teams. But, open up CEDA for the micro programs and the mediocre debaters. Yes, I am championing mediocrity. There are a lot of GREAT students who will NEVER be great debaters. 3. Depth versus Breadth and the Semester long topic. No Josh, you are still looking at it from a "Gotta Win Nationals" perspective. That ain't my bag.Maybe novice nationals, but not open. I don't worry about nationals as a central goal. That is a mantra of the top 20% of the debaters. Believe it or not, some people really do not want to go into the depth of analysis that is seen in year long topics. Worrying about these progressively smaller case areas as the year goes by is not always the best goal. I would rather have my students learn a lot about two topics then learn TOO MUCH about one obscure topic. Really, how many people are going to gain anything by getting 2 more link take outs to a Vietnam/China disad. We all got the general point of the Southeast Asia topic by around Mid-term of Fall '97. Now we are just worrying about the details. In fact, the year long topic forces people to research more than semester long topics. There is an expectation now that you have to have specific cards to a specific case because of the year-long topic. I will bet $5.00 that a California team will tell my Louisiana team next week "We've been running this case all year, they should have case cards" as a response. The year Josh whipped me good, we went 6-2 at Nationals with just two briefcases. No tubs. I say we shouldn't have to cut cards specific to hardening foam versus lexfoam. It is technical material that does not serve a purpose other than furtherance of gamesmanship (sorry PC police!) for the top 20% in the field. I'm glad to see Josh and I having a discussion without calling each other names. Scott Elliott SELA From Kenneth.DeLaughder Thu Mar 12 11:20:57 1998 From: Kenneth.DeLaughder (Kenneth DeLaughder) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 10:20:57 -0700 Subject: To West--the beginning of a CEDA post-Mortem. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Just like ENMU would be killed by Nebraska in Collegiate football, your program will be at a competitive disadvantage in Division I "national circuit" debate. There is some minimum standard to compete what some would call the "top." Does this mean there is no place for Valdosta State in CEDA? Not at all. Maybe its time we looked at Divisions again, or some sort of alternative mechanism. Although Mike, you might try the world wide web, we use it almost as much as Lexis-Nexis now, its been more helpful in some instances (DEMINING!!!!). Perhaps the regional circuits really need to think about revitalizing themselves within a more alternative framework? Just looking to see if there are any answers there. Ken ENMU On Thu, 12 Mar 1998, Michael_Eaves wrote: > What about budgets-- > > small programs for me includes more than: > > NO lEXIS-NEXIS > NO STAFF made up of one head coach, five assistants, two full-time > researchers > NO LIBRARY to speak of--except time, us news, and newsweek > HOW "BOUT MONEY!!!!!..... > > Name me three programs who have excelled at the national level on a 4,000 > dollar budget. That's the biggest budget we have had since my arrival in > 1993--I was told point blank by some at USC-early bird that they spent > that much in September at the first tournament ALONE!! > > Mike Eaves--Valdosta State > From MWBRYANT Thu Mar 12 11:26:02 1998 From: MWBRYANT (MWBRYANT) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 12:26:02 EST Subject: Fat Jokes & Hypocrisy Message-ID: A number of chest-thumping "regulars" have taken me to task for the hypocritcal act of complaining about Snider's constant need to evaluate the psychological problems of others, while I am, at the same time, making fat jokes about DeLaughder and "Che" Harris. 1. The evaluation of psychological problems cuts to the attempt to dehumanize or discredit the views of other humans. As a general rule, we ought to leave those evaluations to the experts, you know, those with medical degrees. Tuna, quite frankly, out to be reflecting on his own mental condition, because reports from inside Burlington have been very troubling.... 2. We all got eyes. We can see Ken and Che. You can also see me. You won't see me whining over someone making fun of me being 100 lbs overweight. Bring it on. Be prepared for response. 3. My fat jokes say nothing about the need to ignore, discredit, or dehumanize. The fact that I am as large should be prima facie proof that none of those motives apply to the simple inference that Harris is not thin. Calm down, fellow Simians! Too much pre-Nats chest-thumping, Michael Bryant, obviously just throwing my weight around.... From mdickman Thu Mar 12 11:35:30 1998 From: mdickman (Michael R. Dickman) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 12:35:30 -0500 Subj