Some scrimmage results
Mon Oct 5 21:19:08 CDT 1998
I don't know it all, but I know a bit.
Preempt: The following is *all* *I* *remember*.
Top speaker in open was Ben Voight, Gonzaga.
Gonzaga (Schroeder/Voight) d. Southern Utah (Stricker/Forgive Me)
Arizona State (McGill/Williams) d. Utah (Bevan/Monk)
Gonzaga d. Arizona State.
I *believe* all of the above were 3-0.
Southern Utah d. Eastern New Mexico. Don't know names. Mea culpa.
Recognizing the Renaissance Competitor department:
Luke Stricker from Southern Utah University made the elims in open policy
debate, and I think he got a speaker award as well. Plus, he and his very
talented partner placed first in Dramatic Duo. Talk about multitalented!
Steve Herro is the Pat Wheaton of the west. He collected info on affirmatives,
and has expressed willingness to post such info in a day or two. Be patient.
Don't nag him.
Director of Forensics
Arizona State University
For more information about debate at Arizona State:
>From Mon Oct 5 22:30:56 1998
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
spool id 0009 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 5 Oct 1998 23:36:13 -0400
Received: from alpha.selu.edu (alpha.selu.edu [126.96.36.199]) by list.uvm.edu
(AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id XAA15392 for
<edebate at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Mon, 5 Oct 1998 23:36:10 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from selu.edu by selu.edu (PMDF V5.1-9 #D3128) id
<01J2MM1N01DSB12HZA at selu.edu> for edebate at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 5 Oct
1998 22:35:01 CDT
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Message-ID: <01J2MM2I5NX2B12HZA at selu.edu>
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1998 22:30:56 -0500
Reply-To: selliott at SELU.EDU
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: selliott at SELU.EDU
Organization: Southeastern Louisiana University
Subject: Re: Negative? Yup.
In-Reply-To: "Your message dated Mon, 05 Oct 1998 08:25:55 -0400"
<199810060022.UAA10793 at lab.housing.fsu.edu>
I agree with Mike at one level. Yes, I always grant people some leeway. However,a lot of the authors of case solvency articles say that T7 should just be reinterpreted, not amended. Since the term legislation is so distinctive in this resolution, I think it should be an issue in the round. Perhaps not an "ethics" issue like "YOu fabbed your evidence!" But certainly one that should lend a lot of
credence to a court counter-plan--more than what one would normally give it.
If I say in a round: "Your own solvency advocate supports doing the counter-plan." And, i provide the evidence, then i believe the affirmative has a lot of explaining to do.
More information about the Mailman