applying the topic to our practices

[Michael R. Dickman]

I respectfully agree with Gary on one point>  the season starts too early.  I for one wouldn't mind if we went way back to the day when oct. 1 was the start up date for ceda sanctioned tournaments.  We (the dof's, asst coaches etc.) don't get paid enough for the longest (or one of the longest) competitive intercollegiate seasons.  Students have, or should have, a life outside of debate, as well as the args that Gary makes on preparing novices below.

On his other argument he makes the mistake of thinking I have my novices up to speed!  NOT TRUE! :)  I just think they will learn more in getting kicked around for six rounds than they will listening to me talk about debate!  Still, I too wish I had an extra week or two to get them ready.

Mike
CC Debate

----------
From:   Gary N. Larson[SMTP:Gary.N.Larson at WHEATON.EDU]
Sent:   Monday, September 14, 1998 10:51 AM
To:     EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU
Subject:        FW: applying the topic to our practices

-----Original Message-----
From:   Gary N. Larson [mailto:Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu]
Sent:   Monday, September 14, 1998 9:46 AM
To:     Michael R. Dickman
Subject:        RE: applying the topic to our practices

As a strong advocate of novice debate, I respectfully disagree
with Michael's assessment.  I trust that a large number of squads
will send novice debaters to Austin Peay this weekend but I
believe the preparation cycle required for preparing a brand new
debater for tournament competition 2.5-4 weeks after the
beginning of the fall semester is a larger factor in travel
decisions this weekend.  Given that we recruit novice debaters
from incoming campus populations and/or our argumentation classes
(both true at Wheaton), we are really only talking about 1-2
weeks prep max and that includes full instruction about format,
speaker responsibilities, etc. etc. etc.

At Wheaton we have traditionally attempted to have rookie and
novice competition at the first practical moment.  Before
CEDA-sanctioned tournament competition moved up a week several
years back that meant we were on the first weekend.  Even on our
weekend we receive plaintive calls indicating that we are still
too early.  Perhaps it is an indictment of our activity that it
takes at least three to four weeks to be prepared for the first
tournament experience (particularly since we don't feed novices
camp briefs or even squad evidence), but I don't think we should
demean the efforts of a lot of coaches who are trying hard to
train novices.

I applaud those who can prepare rookies and novices to debate
this weekend.  Austin Peay is a great place.  Next weekend you
will discover that several tournaments emphasize novice and even
rookie competition (Wheaton, CSU-Fresno and Azusa Pacific have
Rookie and Novice; MTSU and King's both have large novice
divisions; several of these also have Parli and/or LD).  We all
welcome you to join us with your students who still won't feel
ready but will learn best by doing this activity with fellow
learners.

Sincerely,

GARY

-----Original Message-----
From:   Team Topic Debating in America
[mailto:EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU] On Behalf Of Michael R. Dickman
Sent:   Monday, September 14, 1998 7:28 AM
To:     EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU
Subject:        Re: applying the topic to our practices

To all:

The message ths sends depends on what happens next weekend.  If
everyone goes to the non-novice supporting tournaments then a
clear message will be sent, novice is somenthing to give lip
service to and nothing else, on the other hand, if schools put
their money where ther mouth is we may see a good size turn out
at Austin Peay!

Mike
CC Debate

----------
From:   Michael_Eaves[SMTP:meaves at VALDOSTA.EDU]
Sent:   Friday, September 11, 1998 10:35 PM
To:     EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU
Subject:        Re: applying the topic to our practices

yes--

is it no secret that Austin Peay is the ONLY tournament that
offers novice
debate next weekend--for the first tournament out--hyper-success
unfolds

none at USC or UNI

What message does that send?

mike eaves
vsu

>From  Mon Sep 14 11:41:24 1998
Message-Id: <MON.14.SEP.1998.114124.0600.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 19793 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 13:41:49
 -0400
Received: from ns.suu.edu (ns.suu.edu [134.250.2.3]) by list.uvm.edu
 (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with SMTP id NAA19610 for
 <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 13:41:48 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from centrum.cn.suu.edu ([134.250.80.2]) by ns.suu.edu with ESMTP for
 EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 11:40:31 -0600
Received: from CENTRUM/SpoolDir by centrum.cn.suu.edu (Mercury 1.40); 14 Sep 98
 11:41:47 MST7MDT
Received: from SpoolDir by CENTRUM (Mercury 1.40); 14 Sep 98 11:41:33 MST7MDT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Priority: normal
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b)
Message-ID: <199809141741.NAA19610 at list.uvm.edu>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 11:41:24 -0600
Reply-To: WEST at CENTRUM.CN.SUU.EDU
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Terry West <west at CENTRUM.CN.SUU.EDU>
Organization: Southern Utah University
Subject: Re: ken starr---mr. objectivity 1998
In-Reply-To: <15300200508671 at wfrpc.dst.fl.us>

You are indeed correct as to the below:

1)  Ken Starr is a political appointee of a Republican judge friend of
Jesse Helms that Jesse got appointed by either Reagan or Bush.

2)  He is indeed suspect of conflict of interest in the Paula Jones
case.

3)  He is most likely guilty of several violations of the law regarding
leaking grand jury testimony.

4)  He is making some big bucks out of this deal.

Waiting to hear Dan Burton's vote on impeachment,

Terry West


Priority:               normal
Date sent:              Mon, 14 Sep 1998 10:29:59 +0000
Send reply to:          chismc at SERVER.WFRPC.DST.FL.US
From:                   Chip Chism <chismc at SERVER.WFRPC.DST.FL.US>
Subject:                ken starr---mr. objectivity 1998
To:                     EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU

> i don't have all the fancy book-learnin' that some of the other folks
> on this list have, but i have my doubts about mr. starr's intentions.
>  I may be wrong, and if i am i need to be set right.  But wasn't
> starr a crony of reagan and his cabal?  and indeed did he not help
> write a brief whining about the evil nature of the independent
> counsel law?  and was he not a partner in the kirkland and ellis
> firm, a firm that helped advise ms. jones?  and did he not offer to
> write a brief on her behalf prior to becoming the IC?  i am sure he
> set aside all of his republican leaning when he investigated mr
> clinton, huh?  wasn't this whole investigation supposed to be about
> white water?  it ended up being about something white all right, but it sure
> wasn't water.....