From amackie Tue Jun 1 00:47:49 1999 From: amackie (Aiman Mackie) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 01:47:49 -0400 Subject: Different Interps and the Kahl-Repko paper Message-ID: Hi, I'm not sure if you've been able to look at the paper that I forwarded to the list, but here it is again: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~rtanter/ROGUE.htm I think anyone writing or thinking about writing a wording paper should probably think about some of the ideas put forth thus far. For example, the recently released Kahl-Repko paper recommends resolutions dealing with US adversaries--the "rogue" states of the world. According to the Herring paper (that I forwarded above) this fall under the "conservative" view and perhaps even the "liberal" view. Briefly, Herring defines the conservative perspective on "rogue states" as: "is appropriate for the very serious threats to the United States (and the West more generally)..." and the liberal perspective as "exaggerates the still real threats to the United States.." As a matter of fact, he even addresses the issue of "Constructive Engagement." He, of course, labels this as fitting the conservative side. He writes: "In contrast, advocates of engagement and rehabilitation are in favour of threats, force and economic sanctions only if they have a reasonable chance of changing the rogue state's behaviour. They tend to see compliance as more significant than past misconduct and the nature of the regime or leader. They see rogue states as living in what he calls a 'basement of fear' driven more by paranoia and fear than opportunity. As a result, they tend to expect rogue states to be irrational and unlikely to bow to military threats, military force and economic sanctions. Deterrence is likely to fail and may even provoke aggressive behaviour. They tend to advocate engagement even though (retributionists argue) engagement tends not to be very successful in modifying their behaviour." But what is my point, so far? The point is, there is clearly another perspective that should be considered. I think more exciting debates AND more ground can be available (for probably both sides) if a "radical" perspective is used in the wording of the resolutions. Students of int'l. relations KNOW that "rogue" states and their leaders don't behave irrationally. There are many theories out there that explain why states behave the way they do. You've got the very "basic" theories about domestic politics influencing foreign policy (like wagging the dog type theories) to the more complex motivational psychology and deterrence theories. Consequently, if advocates of constructive engagement indeed formulate their policies based on their misguided belief that these "rogue" nations act irrationally, then it is inconceivable how any plans could be effectual in solving our "rogue" problem. (I've got tons of sites if anyone wants to know more about these theories). However, as I stated earlier, another main reason for using a perspective similar to the "radical" perspective is as follows: Herring labels this section of his paper, "The Radical Perspective: The United States and its Allies are Rogue States." He cites several examples of American "rogue"ish behavior. He even includes Israel. He writes, "Israel has an extensive record of behaviour rogue. It has persistently defied UN Security Council resolutions, has secretly built up a substantial nuclear arsenal, has been involved in assisting the acquisition of nuclear weapons by South African, officially approves of torture in its jails, invaded Lebanon in 1982, has occupied and terrorised much of southern Lebanon ever since, and uses terrorist tactics against Palestinians. Frequently Israel has been able to avoid international censure due to the threatened or actual veto of the United States on the UN Security Council." Under definition of a rogue state, Israel (as an example) is a rogue. But for reasons given above (and others) it hasn't been placed on the FBI's or Dep't. of State's rogue nations' list. I think this is exactly the aspect that would be missed under resolutions that ONLY include the traditional "rogues." Not only would debate on this be more exciting, but the educational value is enormous as well. Of course, the main problem that I see with this, is the enforcement mechanism. However, I think that there could be room to combine the perspectives. While the resolution can still operate with the USFG as its mechanism, the countries that would be included would extend beyond those that were/are enemies of the West. Thanks for reading and I would like to hear your thoughts on this... Best, Aiman PS. For those of you into Foucault, etc. Herring discusses this view and its implications on the rogue concept. I don't have a site for the paper since it was sent to me when it wasn't published yet. However, Dr. Herring's address is on there for you to contact him. Aiman F. Mackie Senior, Political Science and French Studies University of Michigan, Ann Arbor -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/19990601/0302f416/attachment.htm From mabouzai Tue Jun 1 06:29:56 1999 From: mabouzai (Mohammed Abouzaid) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 07:29:56 -0400 Subject: 'Star Wars' Character: Annoying Goofball or Racial Stereotype Message-ID: Cross Posting from the Postcolonial List. I thought some might be interested in a lager look at stereotypes in Star Wars. Mohammed Abouzaid Richmond Debate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Cross posting from another list, Linguistic Anthropology: But as for your comment: "I think it is in one of the earlier movies that there is enough Ewok and Jabba the Hut dialogue to be able to hear anything. I haven't watched in a while but I remember some subtitling so there must have been at least a few short sentences." I have listened to this over and over, since I use this in my "Language and Popular Culture" course. Jabba does speak recognizable syllables; his first words (in the original version) are: [o: suda:] and his statements are subtitled. (The Ewok's utterances are not.) But what I think is more interesting is the whole sociology of language (who speaks what to whom, when, where and why) in Star Wars, and in sci-fi in general. I concentrate on showing my students the following: a. all humans speak English; no human speaks anything else but English. No French (Swahili, etc.), no Huttese, no nothin'. b. Some humans *understand* other lgs., e.g. Han Solo understands Chewbacca (who speaks "Wookiegab"), so they carry on their conversations in a kind of "mutual passive bilingualism". c. other creatures have language, but it is translated (if we need to know it) by droids, e.g. C3PO, who "speaks 6 million languages". (I always wonder who programmed him to do this, since no human on any planet seems to know enough about any other lgs. to be able to even begin to program this.) Note that in this American view of the future, no human will ever need to know any other language, and English will do us all just fine. d. other creatures vocalize, but when it's not translated, it's used to confuse or amuse us, in the same way that horrible foreigners in American disaster films are not translated if their shouts (while hijacking an airplane, etc.) are meant to instill fear, rather than be actual representations of "real" language. And sometimes creatures will code-switch (to English, what else?) if we are intended to know what they are saying. Subtitling is used very sparingly. e. Even in multilingual situations where C3PO acts as translator (protocoll droid) he doesn't always translate in an authentic bilingual manner, i.e. Jabba (e.g.) is expected to understand English, so C3PO doesn't translate for him, just the other way around. (In this scene, Leah is impersonating a bounty-hunter, a bionic one I guess, and speaks through an electronic device that either distorts her speech, or is deliberately electronic in origin, so C3PO does translate for her. But here this language is used to *deceive* so it's all right for a human to be depicted this way, ie. faking droid-language.) f. these depictions raise issues of "authenticity," which my students have trouble dealing with, i.e. what is an authentic use of language? what is an authentic multilingual conversation like? how authentic is Hollywood likely to be? (not very) ETc. Hal Schiffman Shashwati ------------------------------------------------------ Shashwati Talukdar 45-34 43rd St., Sunnyside, NY 11104 shashwati at ibm.net --- from list postcolonial at lists.village.virginia.edu --- "WHICH COUNTRY? I'VE NEVER FELT THAT I BELONGED exclusively to one country, nor have I been able to identify "patriotically" with any other than losing causes. Patriotism is best thought of as an obscure dead language, learned prehistorically but almost forgotten and almost unused since. Nearly everything normally associated with it--wars, rituals of nationalistic loyalty, sentimentalized (or invented) traditions, parades, flags, etc.--is quite dreadful and full of appalling claims of superiority and pre-eminence. But perhaps those are all the results of applied patriotism. Is theoretical patriotism really that much better? Thinking affectionately about home is all I'll go along with." Edward Said From bandoleras_1999 Tue Jun 1 09:21:07 1999 From: bandoleras_1999 (p.j. bandoleras) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 07:21:07 -0700 Subject: Star Wars and Religion Message-ID: your post shows yor true colors. i am glad that there are happy people in the world like you, who think they are more intellectual than they really are. zorro. --- "Michael A. Krueger" wrote: > what an ass you are. > I ask these questions in response to saad's post. > If in fact Jesus and Anakin are parallels as he > claims, which is base on > episode one, then what about what we know of anakin > in episodes 4-6? > > You don't need to be a jerk about this and tell > me... no, order me... to > find something better. Why don't you find something > better and get off > the list. > > And indeed, I do ask people to flesh out arguments > and I do look for some > level of consistency. > > krueger > > > On Mon, 31 May 1999, p.j. bandoleras wrote: > > > are these the kind of questions you ask yourself > when you are judging > > ???? > > > > find something better to do with your time > > --zorro > > > > --- Krueger wrote: > > > Could you flesh out this parallel for me? > > > Since I know what happens in the next movie, I > was > > > just wondering about Jesus' > > > twins? Where are they? Or were Luke and Leia a > > > "metaphor?" > > > > > > Jesus turned evil and served an evil master? > > > > > > Curious, > > > > > > Mike > > > > > > Roger Saad wrote: > > > > > > > I have deleted most of the messages over the > last > > > weeke so if somone already > > > > said his sorry. But George Lucas meant for > Anakin > > > to parallel Jesus Christ. > > > > His mother being Mary. The immaculate > conception. > > > In an interview he said > > > > that he wanted to get people to think about > thei > > > relationship with Jesus. > > > > > > > > Roger > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________________________ > > > > Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit > > > http://www.msn.com > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Michael Krueger > > > Director of Debate > > > Middle Tennessee State University > > > Box 43 > > > Murfreesboro, TN 37132 > > > (615) 898-5607 (office) > > > (615) 898-5826 (fax) > > > http://www.mtsu.edu/~debate/ > > > http://www.mtsu.edu/~debate/mdi.html > > > http://www.mtsu.edu/~mkrueger/ > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________ > > Do You Yahoo!? > > Get your free @yahoo.com address at > http://mail.yahoo.com > > > > > > Michael Krueger > Director of Debate > Middle Tennessee State University > http://www.mtsu.edu/~debate/ > http://www.mtsu.edu/~debate/mdi.html > 615.898.5607 > > Berry, Buck, Mills, and Stipe in '87 > > It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel > fine. > _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com From treadwaygj Tue Jun 1 09:17:34 1999 From: treadwaygj (Glenda Treadaway) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 10:17:34 -0400 Subject: 3rd Resolutional Wording Paper Message-ID: Dear Debate Community, Here is the third resolutional wording paper. Thanks go out to Jason Hernandez for his work on this project Glenda US Sanctions and Embargo Policy Jason Hernandez, University of Michigan In the post-Cold War world, American policymakers have had great difficulty in deciding how to deal with a handful of states in the international system that have been branded as "rogue states" by the United States. Even the most casual observer would find it obvious that the United States lacks a coherent strategy for its foreign policy towards these states. Out of a broad array of options, economic sanctions have become a weapon of choice of the United States and the international community (Henriksen , 1999). Economic sanctions can take the form of limits on exports or imports, denials of fishing rights, restrictions on international finance and lending, denials of visas or aircraft landing rights, freezing or seizing another country's assets, or cutting off or reducing foreign aid (Gibson, 1999). The United States has imposed a vast array of sanctions on the nations discussed in this paper for behavior the United States deems inappropriate. The policy literature is teeming with debates over the purpose, effectiveness and consequences of US sanctions, sanctions which are frequently unilateral. A topic centering US economic sanctions would place the debate community in the middle of one of the most interesting, lively and timely foreign policy issues since the fall of the Soviet Union. Proposed Topic Wording Two essential components for a strong debate topic are designing a balanced topic and creating a topic where there is a sizable literature that advocates US action. A topic that focuses on US economic sanctions/embargo would satisfy these two criteria. Many have been concerned that a sanctions/embargo topic would be overly biased in favor of the affirmative. However, these arguments are too alarmist. Although a great deal of literature may advocate lifting US sanctions, there is also a healthy literature that advocates reformulating our sanctions to make them more effective, providing counterplan ground and allowing the negative to side-step potential uniqueness issues. Political opposition in the US to an affirmative plan would be substantial, providing a strong link to politics disadvantages. Many policymakers argue that demonstrating US weakness to one "rogue state" would lead other states to question US resolve, allowing the negative to argue that one or all "rogue states" would become more recalcitrant as a result of the plan. Many smaller cases would be susceptible to international counterplans such as fiating Japanese aid provision (or having the US ask Japan to provide aid to avoid issues of international fiat). Finally, significant overtures towards engagement by the US would have large geopolitical consequences for nations such as China, Israel, Japan and Russia. That being said, an economic sanctions/embargo resolution also has a significant number of policymakers that advocate changing our current policies. Proposed topic wordings: 1. Resolved: The United States Government should substantially reverse its economic sanctions against one or more of the following: Iran, Iraq, Cuba, North Korea [or any country list deemed appropriate by the topic committee]. 2. Resolved: The United States Government should reverse the embargo against one or more of the following: Iran, Iraq, Cuba, North Korea [or any country list deemed appropriate by the topic committee]. A Discussion of the Word "Reverse" The word "reverse" as it appears in the proposed resolution in this paper provides the appropriate balance between negative ground and affirmative ground. "Reverse" is defined as "Moving, acting, or organized in a manner contrary to the usual; a change to an opposite position, condition or direction" (American Heritage Dictionary, Third Edition). In the resolutional context, the word "reverse" allows the affirmative to both lift current sanctions against topic countries and arguably to take a pro-active step toward further engagement of the topic countries. For example, to "reverse" allows an affirmative to lift the US economic embargo against Cuba and possibly fund an Export-Import Bank project in Cuba. Allowing the affirmative to go beyond the initial step of lifting the current embargo is essential for affirmative ground. A majority of the literature that criticizes our current policy toward "rogue states" advocates the removal of sanctions as a first step toward some other engagement policy prohibited by our current sanctions.(Discussing all of the relevant policy proposals that advocate "lifting sanctions, plus" is beyond the scope of this paper, for a discussion of potential policies see Steve Mancuso's paper on the topic countries and the original "rogue states" topic paper written by Jason Hernandez and Steve Mancuso.) Furthermore, "reverse" is a superior term for the resolution in comparison to words like "eliminate" or "remove". These words are overly restrictive and would impair the affirmative's ability to incorporate needed provisions into their plans that serve as the heart of the policy debate on rogue states. The direction of words like "eliminate" or "remove" would only allow the affirmative to lift sanctions. Pro-active policy recommendations that should take place after the removal of sanctions would not be topical. "Reverse" captures the benefits of words like "eliminate" or "remove" because the affirmative can choose solely to lift sanctions with the word "reverse" in the resolution. Contextual use of the word "reverse" demonstrates that an affirmative which chose to abandon US support for sanctions but took no other pro-active steps toward engagement would be topical. An article from the New Republic discussing the recent loosening of some US sanctions demonstrates that solely lifting sanctions is topical: "This year," the official says, "there were reverses. Sanctions were lifted against Colombia and Vietnam, and there is a recognition that there is a bias toward engagement toward Cuba. ... You could see some China sanctions lifted in June' when Clinton visits Beijing" (The New Republic, 1998). Contextual support for the word "reverse" in relation to Cuban sanctions demonstrates that lifting sanctions constitutes a reversal of sanctions: "In January, the Clinton administration reversed course and agreed to allow sales of food to Cuba, a target of U.S. sanctions for four decades, although that program is still being worked out" (The Houston Chronicle, 1999). "Economic Sanctions" An economic sanction is defined as a restriction on normal commercial relations with the targeted country. This basically involves restrictions on trade, investment and other cross-border economic activities. Denial of Most Favored Nation (MFN) status is considered a sanction within this definition because the United States grants MFN status or better to countries that account for more than 99 percent of global exports, and thus denial of MFN would clearly be abnormal. Normal commercial relations are also defined to include programs of the Export-Import Bank of the United States (Exim Bank), the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC), the Overseas Private Investment Company (OPIC), and the Trade and Development Agency (TDA)...The reduction or suspension of economic aid can be, and sometimes is, considered an economic sanction, although such official financial support to target country governments is defined here as a positive incentive - or "carrot"- and thus an alternative to the punitive stick of sanctions on normal commerce (Preeg, 1999). The wording "economic sanctions" allows the affirmative to choose the sanctions lifted by their plan. For example, an affirmative could choose to lift economic sanctions that are imposed due to proliferation efforts but choose to keep sanctions that are directed toward religious persecution. This wording would also allow the affirmative to take the "sanctions, plus" approach to plan writing. Most definitions of sanctions include the denial of aid as a sanction. This allows the affirmative to lift sanctions and provide financial incentives/aid to the target country. Sanctions is plural in the resolution so that the affirmative must lift more than one sanction in their plan. "Embargo" An "embargo" is defined as a government-imposed ban on trade with a specific country. For example, the U.S. has a trade embargo on Cuba; a similar embargo imposed on trade with Vietnam was lifted in 1994. Sometimes an embargo can be imposed on a particular commodity only, as when the U.S. imposed a grain embargo on the Soviet Union as a protest against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 (Fast Times Political Dictionary). The United States currently has an embargo against all of the topic nations listed in the proposed resolutions. An embargo topic would make affirmative plans much more predictable for the negative, as well as much larger than a potential sanctions topic. This resolution requires the affirmative to reverse "the embargo" meaning that the affirmative would lift the entire body of sanctions which comprise the embargo toward the target country. With an embargo topic, the size of the plan would be dictated by the size of the embargo. In Cuba's case the embargo stretches over many activities and goods, in the case of US sanctions towards the Soviet Union in 1979 the embargo only covered one agricultural product. The size of the embargo for the topic nations more closely mirrors the Cuban embargo than the Soviet embargo. Voting for this topic would avoid the pitfalls of very small plans that target very narrow sanctions. One potential drawback to an embargo topic is the likelihood of partially plan inclusive counterplans as a negative strategy. Since the affirmative would remove all sanctions under the US embargo, the negative can counterplan to remove the embargo with the exception of a single sanction or group of sanctions. This may prove to be destabilizing because the negative need only find a small net benefit to a counterplan that would otherwise capture all of the advantages presented in the 1AC. Furthermore, this topic may be too limiting, leaving the affirmative with too few options. Partially plan inclusive counterplans of this nature may not prove to be the many headed hydra it presents itself as. Counterplans of this nature may not compete with the plan. The affirmative could argue a permutation where the entire embargo is lifted as per the plan and a separate piece of specific sanctions legislation is passed by the Congress as an independent piece of legislation. This would allow the affirmative to rebuff partially plan inclusive counterplans. A Discussion of Other Proposed Topics A resolution which focused on sanctions or the embargo would be superior to a topic that increased constructive engagement or normalization of relations for three reasons. First, a sanctions or embargo topic would capture the benefits of constructive engagement or normalization with better protection of negative ground. An affirmative would be forced to lift sanctions under the topics proposed in this paper. In contrast, it is unclear whether plans under constructive engagement/normalization that may send humanitarian aid, send more diplomats or reduce troop levels would require the affirmative to lift any sanctions. Negative preparation would be greatly enhanced if the affirmative was required to lift sanctions before taking any of these steps. Second, a sanctions or embargo topic is unidirectional. There is no confusion: under the proposed topics the affirmative has no choice but to make softline concessions toward the topic nation. The term constructive engagement can, however, mean policy measures that are more hardline than softline. Even if there is only a small amount of confusion over the terms normalization and constructive engagement that is more confusion than would be present if either of the proposed topics is chosen. Third, plans would be larger under sanctions or embargo wording. Sanctions appears as a plural word in the topic meaning that the affirmative would need to lift two or more sanctions to meet the requirements of topicality. The term embargo means a whole set of sanctions, requiring the affirmative to remove the entire embargo. Constructive engagement and normalization, even with the inclusion of the word "substantially', would produce a topic with much smaller plans that are targeted toward one industry, one company or one agricultural product. Conclusion A topic which focused on sanctions or the embargo would be a superior debate topic because it provides the best balance between affirmative ground and negative ground. Affirmatives would be able to propose policies as they appear in the literature and negatives would have a reasonable expectation of what those policy changes might be. Affirmatives would be forced to discuss major issues in US foreign policy rather than allowing them to narrow their policies to avoid the heart of the debate. Bibliography American Heritage Dictionary, Third Edition, p. 1544. Fast Times Political Dictionary, http://www.fast-times.com/political/dictE.html Gibson, Susan, Emory International Law Review, volume 13, Spring 1999, p. nexis Henriksen, Thomas, "Using Power and Diplomacy To Deal With Rogue States", Hoover Institution Publication, February 1999, http://wwwhoover.stanford.edu/publications/epp/94/94a.html "The Houston Chronicle", April 29, 1999, p. nexis "The New Republic", May 25, 1998, p. nexis Preeg, Ernest, Feeling Good or Doing Good with Sanctions, 1999, p. 4 From averageloser Tue Jun 1 09:30:25 1999 From: averageloser (dash rip rock) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 07:30:25 -0700 Subject: stah-woes Message-ID: haven't seen the film yet, so i cannot participate in this intriguing debate....but clearly lucas is a fan of mythology, and star wars certainly portrays universal myths and dialogues of good versus evil (hell, darth vader always wore black, and luke always wore white [remember the bit in CHASING AMY where the black guy called luke the 'aryan poster boy'?]). Star Wars was such an example of Campbell's MONOMYTH that luke skywalker graces the cover of later editions of the tome....i dunno if the film reentrenches racist stereotypes...i'm sure i'll go see it...maybe i should get my COMPLETE IDIOT'S GUIDE TO UNDERSTANDING WHAT A RACIST EVIL MAN GEORGE LUCAS IS and tote it with me to the movies.... _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com From ewarner Tue Jun 1 09:38:41 1999 From: ewarner (Ede Warner-jr) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 10:38:41 -0400 Subject: 3rd Resolutional Wording Paper In-Reply-To: <3753EB7D.EA5C59E8@conrad.appstate.edu> Message-ID: Can someone either send me or point me towards the 1st Resolutional Wording paper...Thanks From deloach Tue Jun 1 09:42:09 1999 From: deloach (MARK DELOACH) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 09:42:09 CST6CDT Subject: WFA Panels Message-ID: Hello Everyone! This is just a friendly reminder that the deadline for panel submissions for the 2000 Western Forensic Association Convention is rapidly approaching. The convention will be held February 25-29, 2000, in Sacramento, CA If any of you have panel submissions, I would be most happy to receive them and have them considered for presentation. The deadline for submissions is June 14. If any of you have individual papers, or if there are two people who would be interested in putting together a panel, let me know and I will be happy to coordinate those panels. I look forward to hearing from you. Mark Mark DeLoach Associate Professor, Communication Studies University of North Texas Denton, TX 76203 (940) 565-2588 >From Tue Jun 1 11:44:39 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 37864 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 11:46:06 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo15.mx.aol.com (imo15.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.5]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA23130 for ; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 11:46:04 -0400 Received: from HeLLaPrEp7 at aol.com (3962) by imo15.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id nIFGa02575 for ; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 11:45:02 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 214 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 11:44:39 EDT Reply-To: HeLLaPrEp7 at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Tejinder Singh Subject: Re: 3rd Resolutional Wording Paper << 1. Resolved: The United States Government should substantially reverse its economic sanctions against one or more of the following: Iran, Iraq, Cuba, North Korea [or any country list deemed appropriate by the topic committee]. >> It seems redundant (and somewhat nonsensical) to me to say that something should be "substantially reversed." Reverse is a binary term...either something has been reversed or it has not. I don't think that something can be partially reversed...can it? The only scenario I can envision for where a partial reversal would occur is if some sanctions were lifted and not others. In that case, I think a clearer wording (though I am not sure of the impacts on ground/topicality) would be to say that "the US government should reverse a substantial number of its economic sanctions against one or more of the following: [countries here]." Cheers, Tejinder Singh From treadwaygj Tue Jun 1 11:06:54 1999 From: treadwaygj (Glenda Treadaway) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 12:06:54 -0400 Subject: 4th Topic Wording Paper Message-ID: Dear Debate Community, Here is the 4th wording paper. This will address some of the questions earlier about what countries should/be in the resolution. Thanks to Steve Mancuso who did a great job writing this paper and organizing the efforts of the other writers. Thanks for your hard work. Glenda AN UPDATE ON "ENGAGING ROGUE NATIONS" WHICH NATIONS TO DEBATE? STEVE MANCUSO, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN SUMMARY The purpose of this paper is two-fold. First, it updates the original topic paper concerning changes in American policy toward the nations listed in the various resolutions. Second, it discusses the merits of the inclusion of each of the eight nations being considered for this topic area: Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Serbia, Sudan, and Syria The strength of this topic area is the ability to frame a resolution that focuses debate on actual foreign policy proposals. The first two sections of this paper update and expand on the original topic paper in discussing a suggested framework for topic wording to optimize this real world "fit" for both the affirmative and negative. For each nation discussed, a bibliography is provided of articles concerning American policy toward that country. The third section of this paper discusses the eight possible nations. It advocates that four nations be included for sure: Cuba, Iran, Iraq and North Korea. The latter three of these seem obvious. Inclusion of Cuba has been a bit more controversial in our community discussion, but appears justified on a closer examination of the literature. This paper also advocates that if a fifth nation is to be included, that it be Syria. This is primarily because of how its inclusion would bring the newly re-energized Middle East peace process back into debate at an important time. Sudan and Libya are two nations where there is not much more than an inkling of literature advocating the lifting of American sanctions, or adopting a policy of engagement. If there is a concern about the geographic breadth of the resolution as presented in the original topic paper, these seem like the most appropriate nations to eliminate. Finally, Serbia is a wild card. It is virtually impossible to predict what stage the conflict will be in by September, and for that reason this paper does not recommend its inclusion. But it is difficult to argue with its current primacy in our foreign policy, the important doctrinal lessons to be gained from analyzing our actions, and the notion that Milosevic has certainly taken on the mantle of the "rogue-est of rogues." I. GENERAL RESOLUTION FRAMEWORK A. The topic should be worded to REQUIRE the affirmative to do MORE than create additional humanitarian-based exceptions to current economic sanctions. The current system of economic sanctions and embargoes is being reformed gradually by the Clinton Administration. Economic transactions between the United States and the nations in the topic paper are generally prohibited in the form of general economic embargo by several laws. Congress and the President, however, can, and have created specific exceptions to those blanket embargoes. For example, the United States already permits some humanitarian assistance to Iraq, North Korea and Cuba. Iraq receives aid through the "Oil for Food" program controlled by the United Nations. North Korea receives food, oil and other aid through the KEDO nuclear agreement. Limited amounts of food, pesticides and other products have recently been allowed to be sold to Cuba. The President further announced on April 28 that he wishes to exempt food, medicine and other humanitarian items (wheat, corn, feed, soybeans, edible oils, meat, fish, baby food and formula) to other sanctioned nations. The new policy would primarily effect Iran, Libya and Sudan. This modification of our sanctions policy means that restrictions on humanitarian sales only apply to a nation who is in an on-going armed conflict with the United States, or to a nation who is diverting food and medicine for military purposes. There is wide and bipartisan support for this modification of our sanctions policy in the Congress, primarily from agricultural-state members. In specific instances, however, there remain pockets of resistance even to this limited lifting of sanctions. For instance, this week the House Agriculture Committee rejected the lifting of sanctions to allow additional agricultural sales to Cuba. Given this environment, a sound topic should require that the affirmative do more than just add to the current trend of exempting humanitarian assistance, for example, by adding clothing (surely the textile states would love this) to the list of exempted products. Such an affirmative would be nearly impossible to defeat given: (1) the overwhelming uniqueness problems for any disadvantages; (2) the potentially tiny nature of the affirmative plan; and (3) the relatively lopsided nature of the policy literature concerning humanitarian aid and trade. B. The topic should PERMIT the affirmative to adopt more engagement than merely lifting sanctions. A topic that focuses solely on lifting economic sanctions or the "embargo" on the nations in the list would be perfectly viable. I do not think that the affirmative should be required to go beyond repealing the economic sanctions or embargoes against the listed nations. However, in some cases sensible American policy makers would consider the inclusion of positive incentives to go along with the lifting of trade restrictions. If the affirmative wishes to adopt a larger constructive engagement policy, say complete "normalization" of relations with one of the listed nations, they should be able to do so. For instance, an affirmative that wanted to improve relations with Iraq, by lifting sanctions, surely should be able to ban the repeated bombing of Iraqi cities and military targets. Furthermore, any successful policy of engagement with the North Korean government would arguably have to include the increased provision of economic assistance. Similarly, increased aid to Syria, in addition to lifting the economic embargo, would further encourage them to move more rapidly on the Israel-Syria track of the Middle East peace process. To be clear, under this approach, the affirmative would still have to eliminate economic sanctions or the embargo. But they would be able, if they so chose, to present more coherent and complete policies IF we can frame a resolution that allowed them to go beyond just these steps. C. The resolution should include at least three or four nations. Some have advanced the notion that the resolution is so broad that we would be better served by limiting the topic to one nation. I believe if we take appropriate steps in wording the resolutions we would alleviate much of the basic concern about the breadth of the topic. Moreover, after discussing the possibility of limiting the resolution to one nation with several people I came to the conclusion that doing so was undesirable for these reasons. First, if we decided to limit the topic to one nation there is no clear-cut, or even approximate, sense of which nation that should be. Strong cases could be made for Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, and possibly even Serbia. Second, people felt like they voted for a resolution that analyzed our overall foreign policy approach toward a class of nations, not just our specific foreign policy toward one. The sense is that we selected a "rogue states" topic, not an Iraq topic or a North Korea topic. Third, the policy literature would likely not be broad enough to support a year-long discussion focused solely on one of these nations, such as Iraq. While there have been resolutions in the past that have focused on one nation (Mexico, China and Russia), these are nations where the U.S. already had extensive relations, and consequently was contemplating policy actions in a number of areas. With the "rogue" nations, almost by definition, there are only a limited number of actions under consideration, even by those who favor engagement. This suggests that a topic focusing on only one country would be overly restrictive of affirmative ground. It also suggests that given the relatively limited number of types of viable forms of engagement per country, having four or five nations in the rsolution would not overly disadvantage the negative. Finally, including several nations in the list would protect our topic from the risk of being completely overrun by current events. For instance, suppose we chose to debate about liberalizing policy toward Iraq, but in October the United States and Iraq got into a war. How would we sustain the debate topic? Another example would be a resolution limited to engaging North Korea. While the odds of the adoption of a radical new engagement policy are not high, they are also not zero. If in February the Congress and North Korea agreed to the current proposal by William Perry (discussion forthcoming in the North Korea section) it would seriously undermine the viability of the resolution. Selecting numerous nations for the list in the resolution would protect us from one, or even two, being swamped by real world policy change. D. A strong topic requires both high-quality and predictable affirmative ideas, and compelling and accessible negative ground. A resolution, ideally, would feature affirmative cases and plans that became obvious in the early stages of research, or even from common knowledge. If these affirmatives are strong, with specific plan advocacy in easy-to-find literature, the need for debaters to search for obscure and poorly defended affirmative plans would be greatly reduced. Such a resolution would provide the affirmative effective ground, but also provide the negative with an expectation upon which to base their preparation. For the negative, the resolution should plainly suggest not only a predictable set of the core affirmative cases, but also common themes among those affirmatives. While perfect symmetry is obviously impossible, the literature should be relatively balanced, with major policy advocates on the negative side of the resolution, ideally discussing the specific affirmative plan. The policy area in the resolution should be easy to research, with information available in multiple types of sources. Finally the resolution should be worded in such a way as to focus debates on the most important and contested issues in that area. There are people who are entirely skeptical of the ability of our community to predict with any accuracy the strength of affirmative and negative ground at the beginning of the year, and think it a foolish enterprise. They point to the countless number of ideas that appear in January and February on every topic that were not foreseen in July and August. This view is undoubtedly correct, up to a point, but probably applies more to topics with relatively obscure content than to those with a robust and specific literature. Despite the inherent limitations in our ability to predict accurately every argument, we should not give up trying to discern and construct a balance in what we can foresee, as surely this is better than not attempting it at all. II. GENERAL COMMENTS ON NEGATIVE GROUND It has been observed by almost everyone that there are many strong affirmative cases on this resolution. Indeed, accessible policy literature provides numerous specific proposals, with extensive rationales, for the United States to implement. They advocate America adopt more accommodating foreign policies toward most of the nations listed in the topic paper. It should be recognized that this attribute represents a dramatic improvement over some recent topics where specific advocacy of plans was, putting it mildly, scant. The question then becomes, does the negative have a reasonable chance? Can they develop sound alternatives and arguments from a relatively accessible literature? Admittedly, I would not want to have to wage the battle on the negative solely from the pages of Foreign Affairs, The Washington Quarterly, and similar journals. But the negative has many more resources easily available than just the mainstream foreign policy periodicals. First, what is the negative ground? The negative can defend that the nation(s) in question are truly outlaws with regard to sponsoring terrorism, smuggling and producing drugs, constructing weapons of mass destruction, and the treatment of their own people. Given this, economic support of the regime(s) may transfer the necessary resources to intensify their nefarious behavior. The negative can also defend the efficacy of sanctions to encourage moderation of the topic nation. While it will probably be difficult for the negative to win that economic sanctions or embargoes are effective, in general, there is specific literature for each nation suggesting that economic restrictions are working there. Furthermore, sanctions may provide the impetus for civilian populations to rise up against their current leaders. The negative can also sustain the argument that hard-line stances against these regimes are crucial to futher regional goals or relationships with allies important to overall U.S. foreign policy. For instance, American containment of Iran and Iraq may give the Israelis the confidence to make concessions which facilitate the peace process. Similiarly, American policies toward North Korea may reassure South Korea. Etc. The negative will also be able to argue that engagement with important regional players might upset American relations with Russia, China, Israel, or Japan. Negative ground against an Iran does not merely consist in defending U.S. policy as working specifically within Iran. In fact the best negative ground may be about South Korea, Pakistan or Turkey. Finally, the negative can argue that weakening our resolve against topic nations would undermine American credibility in fighting terrorism, drugs, and weapons of mass destruction, and also deterring regional aggression by other "rogues." How can the negative sustain the uniqueness of these perception-based arguments given the recent softening in the area of humanitarian assistance? Humanitarian aid or trade is easily distinguished in the eyes of most experts as primarily helping the citizens of a target nation rather than the regime. A broader lifting of trade sanctions or embargo would clearly benefit the national economy and strengthen the prestige and capacity of the target government. Secondly, where will the negative find the evidence? The mainstream policy literature is not as one-sided as it might appear at first glance. Afterall the policies we have in place have been there for a very long time (in some cases 50 years) and have been defended numerous times. Does it seem like it would be that difficult to find books denouncing Saddam Hussein or Fidel Castro? Furthermore it is easy to find articles in the mainstream policy literature on the so-called secondary issues, such as our relations with Israel, our anti-terrorism credibility, our need to give Russia spheres of influence, our need to improve relations with China, our fight against WMD proliferation, etc. These "secondary" issues are often our most important rationales for our sanctions policy, not the specific effect our policy has on the target government's behavior -- and they are easy to research. In addition to the standard base of newspapers, journals, books and government testimony, the negative also has the internet at their side. For each nation in the resolution, there are strong interest groups who are prolific at producing reports denouncing any softening of our policies toward these regimes. They extensively document the human rights abuses, aggressive foreign policies, and other misbehavior of each of the nations we will be debating. Examples of these web sites will be provided in the third section of this paper. III. DISCUSSION OF SELECTED NATIONS A. IRAN It is no secret that the Clinton Administration is at least somewhat interested in thawing relations with Iran. This interest was sparked with the May 23, 1997 election of Muhammad Khatami as the 7th President of Iran. Thus far Clinton's "baby steps" toward Iran consist of creating selected humanitarian exceptions to our embargo of Iran, and a few appeasing statements about the regime. Those who wish to offer overtures to Iran base their policy on the assumption that there are two factions in the country, one moderate, and one conservative. According to this thesis, the moderates, who presumably were the group that elected Khatami, are nationalists, but also realists about the benefits of modernity. The conservative groups, in contrast, are ideological and view modernism as a tool for the advancement of their religious ends. Engagement with Iran would encourage privatization, democratization, and the economic development of a middle class, all of which would strengthen the position of these moderates. Prior to these recent overtures the Clinton Administration policy had been very hostile toward Iran. Clinton adopted a policy of unilateral "dual contaiment" of Iran and Iraq in 1993. In 1992 he signed the Iran-Iraq Arms Non-Proliferation Act which implemented broad export controls against Iran and in 1996 the Congress passed the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act, which aimed at curtailing and preventing economic investment in Iran. Most members of Congress remained unalterably opposed to moderation of American policy toward Iran. The basis of this containment policy is the belief that Iran sponsors terrorism and is intent on acquiring weapons of mass destruction. The crux of the debate over American policy toward Iran is (a) to what extent has Iran moderated, and does Khatami represent a leader with which we can cooperate, (b) does a moderate faction even exist in Iran, (c) to what extend can change in U.S. policy affect the political alignment in Iran, and (d) to what extent can a leadership in Iran accommodate U.S. interests without itself losing power. Bibliography Bahgat, Gawdat, "Beyond Containment: US-Iranian Relations at a Crossroads," SECURITY DIALOGUE, 1997, 28:4 pp. 453-464. Clawson, Patrick, "Iran," in ECONOMIC SANCTIONS AND AMERICAN DIPLOMACY, (Edit. Ricard Haass), 1998, pp. 85-103. Clawson, Patrick, "Dual Containment as an Effective Competitive Strategy," 1998, www.wizard.net/~npec/papers/clawson.htm Fuller, Graham, "Repairing U.S.-Iranian Relations," MIDDLE EAST POLICY, October 1998, pp. 140-144. Gerges, Fawaz, "Washington's Misguided Iran Policy," SURVIVAL, Winter 1996-97, pp. 5-15. Kam, Ephraim, "The Iranian Threat: Cause for Concern, Not Alarm," STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT, October 1998, www.tau.ac.il/jcss/v1n3p1.html Monshipouri, Mahmood, "Iran's Search for the New Pragmatism," MIDDLE EAST POLICY, October 1998, p. 95-112. "Khatami's Record: Year 1," www.iran-e-azad.org/english/khatami/index.html B. IRAQ As long as Saddam Hussein remains in power in Iraq the range of engagement policies the United States could consider with respect to Iraq is limited. The United States currently participates in the U.N.-led sanctions regime against Iraq, established during and after the Gulf War. This regime includes the "Oil for Food" program that permits Iraq to sell limited quantities of oil to the U.N. in exchange for humanitarian supplies. The "Oil for Food" program has met with limited success thus far for several reasons. Saddam Hussein refused to participate until 1996, and since then he has obstructed its implementation (Gause, 1999 p. 59.) In 1998, at the urging of the United States, the value of oil exchanged was increased from $2 billion to $5.256 billion and expanded from covering just food and medicine, to water, electricity and education (UN Resolution 1153). There is overwhelming evidence that sanctions against Iraq have caused widespread human suffering. There is also compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein remains determined to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Balancing these two competing foreign policy goals, not to mention human rights, sponsorship of terrorism, commerce and trade, will be the crux of the debates on Iraq. For example, in the most recent issue of Foreign Affairs, F. Gregory Gause III advocates the immediate lifting of aspects of the sanctions which most hurt the Iraqi people. Gause also calls for conditioning the broader lifting of sanctions on concessions by Iraq on production of weapons of mass destruction and greater access to inspect facilities. The affirmative could advocate the Gause proposal. Negative ground would include a defense of current sanctions in inhibiting Iraq's acquisition of conventional forces and WMD. It would also include attacks on the solvency of humanitarian advantages given Saddam's questionable record of taking care of his own people. The negative could also defend a counterplan to aid opposition groups to Saddam, including military assistance. This latter policy is advocated by conservative think tanks and several members of Congress. Bibliography Bahgat, Gawdat, "Beyond Sanctions: U.S. Policy Toward Iraq, INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, 13:4, April 1997 pp. 57-68. Gause, F. Gregory III, "Getting It Backward on Iraq," FOREIGN AFFAIRS, May/June 1999, pp. 54-65. Halliday, Denis, "The Impact of the UN Sanctions on the People of Iraq," JOURNAL OF PALESTINE STUDIES, Winter 1999, pp. 29-37. Kazemzadeh, Masoud, "Thinking the Unthinkable: Solving the Problem of Saddam Hussein for Good, MIDDLE EAST POLICY, June 1998, pp. 73-85. Melby, Eric, "Iraq," in ECONOMIC SANCTIONS AND AMERICAN DIPLOMACY, (Edit. Richard Haass), 1998, pp. 107-123. MIDDLE EAST POLICY, "Symposium: After Saddam, What Then for Iraq?" February 1999, pp. 1-26. Phillips, James, "Why the United States should Help the Iraqi Opposition," HERITAGE FOUNDATION EXECUTIVE MEMORANDUM, #563, December 14, 1998, www.heritage.org/library/execmemo/em563.html Rice, Matt, "Iraq's Breakout Potential," PROLIFERATION BRIEF, 1:12, September 22, 1998, ceip.org/programs/npp/brief12.htm United States Institute of Peace, "Thinking Out Loud: Policies Toward Iraq," SPECIAL REPORT, February 17, 1999, www.usip.org/oc/sr/sr990217.html Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, "Iraq Forum: Where do we go from Here - Four Views," March 1999 pp. 22-27. Zunes, Stephen, "Confrontation with Iraq: A Bankrupt U.S. Policy," MIDDLE EAST POLICY, June 1998, pp. 87-107. C. NORTH KOREA It would be difficult to imagine a more productive time to debate American policy toward North Korea. The Clinton Administration is about to receive a report from former Secretary of Defense William Perry concerning the revamping of the U.S. posture toward Pyongyang. Perry has just returned from North Korea where he discussed a deal whereby the United States will offer to lift gradually the economic embargo that we have imposed on North Korea for the past 50 years in exchange for tough concessions by North Korea on a wide range of issues, including much greater transparency with respect to their nuclear weapons sites. (New York Times May, 21, 1999) The Clinton Administration has also recently agreed to provide North Korea with over $100 million in food aid in exchange for the inspection of a reported nuclear weapons production site in Kumchangri mountain. That inspection has been completed, but the results have not yet been made public. (Washington Post May 19, 1999) Finally there have been repeated and recent incidents of the involvement of the North Korean government in drug smuggling and heroin production, which have been strongly criticized by American officials. (Washington Post march 26, 1999) The Clinton Administration's desire to gradually soften our policy toward North Korea runs smack into the desires of Congressional Republicans to do just the opposite. Republicans see these moves by the Clinton Administration as appeasement of an untrustworthy and dangerous regime. They see only the credible threat of military deterrence as the only way to prevent North Korean aggression and use of weapons of mass destruction. (Chicago Tribune April 2, 1999; Washington Times May 20, 1999) In the past few days Representative Benjamin Gilman (R-NY), Chairman of the House International Relations Committee, has submitted the "North Korea Threat Reduction Act of 1999" for passage. The Gilman bill would remove the option for the President to waive additional sanctions; requires keeping the current economic embargo until North Korea ends its long-range missile program; authorizes $10 million for an early warning defense system; and authorizes $30 million for North Korean refugees in China. In essence, as one critic has put it, the Gilman Bill "essentially writes current sanctions against North Korea into law..." (NAPSNet at nautilus.org). This contrast in approaches to North Korea represents the two sides of the debate topic, with the affirmative basically taking the side of the Clinton Administration and the Perry Initiative. The negative could defend the position that Gilman and the Congressional Republicans are taking. Should North Korea reject the Perry approach, then the question of "what to do next?" will add to the flurry of analysis that should already accompany these recent actions. Bibliography Almeida, Pedro and O'Hanlon, Michael, "Impasse in Korea: A Conventional Arms- Accord Solution?" SURVIVAL, Spring 1999, pp. 58-72. Brookes, Peter, "Time to Revise North Korea Policy," STRATEGIC REVIEW, Winter 1999, pp. 72-74 Fisher, Richard, "Time to Stop North Korea's Missile Blackmail," HERITAGE FOUNDATION EXECUTIVE MEMORANDUM #550, September 8, 1998. Harrison, Selig, "The U.S. Should Aid North Korea," NEWSDAY, March 28, 1997 Jonhchul, Park, "U.S. Policy Toward North Korea: Strategy, Perception, and Inter- Korean Relations," THE JOURNAL OF EAST ASIAN AFFAIRS, Summer/Fall 1998, pp. 529-550 Jordan, Amos A., and Ku, Jae H., "Coping with North Korea," THE WASHINGTON QUARTERLY, 21:1 Winter 1998 pp. 33-46 Levin, Norman D., "What if North Korea Survives?" SURVIVAL, Winter 1997-98, pp. 156-74 Mazarr, Michael, "Korea: A Time to be Bold?" THE NATIONAL INTEREST, Spring 1998, pp. 91-97 Tanter, Raymond, "North Korea: Contain and Embrace," in ROGUE REGIMES, 1998 (St. Martin's Press) pp. 217-260 Washington Post, "U.S. Wrestles With Policy on North Korea: Famine, Nuclear Threat Raise Stakes in Debate," March 13, 1999 Washington Times, "GOP in Congress urges overhaul of U.S. North Korea Policy," May 20, 1999 Yasuhiko, Yoshida, "Pyongyang's Airborne Threat to Improved Diplomatic Ties," JAPAN QUARTERLY, January-March 1999, pp. 10-16 D. CUBA The Clinton Administration's policy toward Cuba is also gradually being reviewed. On January 5, 1999, the Administration softened a few areas of the embargo. We lifted some restrictions on American NGOs, resumed direct mail service, and allowed some U.S. companies to sell limited amounts of food, fertilizer, and farm equipment to independent farmers and private restaurants. On May 13, 1999 the Administration further announced a new "people-to-people" policy that includes expanded direct charter flights, a streamlined visa application process, and permission for any U.S. resident to send up to $1200 per year to people in Cuba (previously only relatives could do this). The exchange of professional baseball games between the Cuban national team and the Baltimore Orioles was also widely reported. Notwithstanding the apparent mild thaw in the White House's view of Cuba, on the whole, the United States still maintains a strictly enforced, unrelenting economic embargo of Cuba. As the Department of State pointed out, recent steps "are not about doing business, not about tourism, and not about normalizing government-to-government relations" with Cuba. Furthermore the President has only limited power to soften our embargo. Only Congress can lift the trade ban. Attitudes in Congress toward Cuba are not changing as fast as some have alleged. In the past two weeks, for example, the House Agriculture Committee defeated a proposal to expand humanitarian food sales to Cuba. The dominant American policy remains the Cuban Democracy Act of 1992 which tightened the embargo which was passed in 1961, and made it illegal for U.S. subsidiaries to do business with Cuba. In 1996 the Helms-Burton Act further closed the noose around Cuba by threatening sanctions against and foreign companies who did business in Cuba. WE SHOULD INCLUDE CUBA IN OUR RESOLUTION: (1) There is a wide and deep literature on the trade embargo with Cuba. This literature is not nearly as one-sided as a casual reading might imply. There are numerous interest groups, with helpful websites that oppose Castro and any weakening of American resolve against Cuba. On balance the literature might lean affirmative, but not overwhelmingly so. The bibliography at the end of this section should be indicative of the fact that this is not a one-sided debate. (2) Many participants in our community are Hispanic, with close family ties to Cuba. In fact many participants may have had parents who lived in Cuba and left during the 1959 revolution. To these students, debating the embargo in Cuba represents an important personal connection between their "debate lives" and the real world. Thus, debating Cuba would be meaningful for these students in the same sense that it was meaningful for woman and racial minorities to debate the civil rights topic. (3) Including Cuba would not substantially expand the relevant literature. Some have expressed a fear that including Cuba in the resolution would open up research burdens to include "an entire additional hemisphere." To some extent this concern is mitigated by Cuba's decreasing international role. They are no longer directly fomenting revolution throughout Latin America, they no longer have tens of thousands of troops in Africa, and they are no longer a surrogate for the Soviet Union. While the Cuban economic system may potentially serve as a model for other similar nations, and therefore its desirability would be a matter of debate, the "hemispheric-wide" research burdens is quite a stretch. The debate about sanctions policy toward Cuba is no longer about cataclysm - it is not about terrorism, not about weapons of mass destruction, not about superpower proxies. This is a reason the debate will stay focused and contained on Cuba itself. Bibliography Abrahms, Elliot, "When Trade Lets Down the Flag," AMERICAN PURPOSE, Spring/Summer 1998, 12:1, www.eppc.org/library/ampurp/vol12n1.html BOSTON COLLEGE INTERNATIONAL AND COMPARATIVE LAW REVIEW, "The Helms-Burton Act: A Legal and Effective Vehicle for Redressing U.S. Property Claims in Cuba and Accelerating the Demise of the Castro Regime," Summer 1998 p. 497 Center for Security Policy, "Life Support for Castro Redux: Clinton Doesn't Have Time for Blue-Ribbon Commission, Goes Direct to Gutting the Embargo," January 6, 1999, www.security-policy.org/papers/1999/99-C4.html Diaz-Balart, Lincoln, "The Need to Maintain the U.S. Embargo Against the Castro Dictatorship," April 27, 1999, www.nocastro.com/embargo/h2351.htm Jacoby, Jeff, "The Cuban Embargo's Moral Justification," April 2, 1998, www.nocastro.com/archives/jeff.htm New York Times, "Cubans Skeptical About Expanded Contacts," January 6, 1999 Purcell, Susan Kauffman, "Cuba," in ECONOMIC SANCTIONS AND AMERICAN DIPLOMACY, (Edit. Richard Haass), 1998 pp. 35-55 Reich, Otto, "Testimony Before the House International Relations Committee," FEDERAL NEWS SERVICE, March 24, 1999 Sweeney, John, "Why the Cuban Trade Embargo Should be Maintained," HERITAGE BACKGROUNDER, #1010, November 10, 1994 E. SYRIA If the topic committee wishes to add a fifth nation to the topic list, I would recommend it be Syria. Syria remains one of the seven nations on the United States Department of State Terrorist List, but it does not face a sanction regime as comprehensive as the other six. The United States has maintained active diplomatic relations with Syria and tried to engage Syria in the Middle East peace process. In contrast to the other six nations, the United States does not prohibit private commercial relations or lobby against international financial assistance to Syria. America does retain prohibitions on foreign aid, government trade promotion and loan guarantees from the Export-Import Bank (and similar agencies) to Syria. [Important note: we do not have a general embargo against Syria, referring to the prohibition of trade and commerce - so Syria should probably not be included in the list if an "embargo" topic is selected.] If Syria were included, the principle area of debate would revolve around the issues surrounding the Middle East peace process. The Israel-Syria track, principally concerned with the return of the Golan Heights to Syria, has been stalled for the past two years under the leadership of Benjamin Netanyahu. The Golan Heights were captured by Israel in the 1967 Six-Day War, and remain under their control. Prior to Netanyahu's election in 1996 there had been some progress in the Israel-Syria track. There was evidence that 69-year-old Syrian President Hafez Assad was willing to compromise and negotiate with Israel, offering a pledge of peace, and international monitors on the Golan, in exchange for its return. Secretary of State Warren Christopher made over 20 trips to Syria. Netanyahu's election put an end to any real or perceived momentum to reach an agreement. However, most experts expect that with the recent election of Ehud Barak of the Labor Party as Israel's Prime Minister, the Middle East peace process will be given new life. Despite the prospects for advancing Middle East peace, engaging Syria remains a controversial proposition. Syria is still suspected in connection with the sponsoring of international terrorism and the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction. Assad has a less than stellar human rights record. Many Israelis do not trust the Syrian leaders. Furthermore there is the issue of who will follow Assad into the Syrian Presidency, and what the character of that transition will be. The literature concerning American policy toward Syria has taken a "time out" over the past two years. Up through 1996 there were numerous articles advocating the United States loosen its prohibitions on economic aid toward Syria to encourage the peace process. In the past two years the number of such articles has declined dramatically, as the Israel-Syria track foundered. With the recent Israeli election it is likely that the calls for changes in American policy will resume. Inclusion of Syria into our topic will bring the issues of the Middle East peace process squarely into our debates. Given the likelihood that this process has received an important jump start thanks to the Israeli electorate, it may be extremely timely for our community to be examining these issues. Bibliography Ben Meir, Alon, "Why Syria Must Regain the Golan to Make Peace," MIDDLE EAST POLICY COUNCIL, October 1997, www.mepc.org/journal/9710_benmeir.html Beres, Louis Rene, "Golan Demilitarization?" MIDSTREAM, January 1999, pp. 2-3 Center for Non-proliferation Studies, "Syria's Scuds and Chemical Weapons," March 1999, cns.miis.edu/research/wmdme/syrscud.htm Hajjar, Sami, "The Israel-Syria Track," MIDDLE EAST POLICY, February 1999, pp. 112-127 Knudsen, Erik, "United States-Syrian Diplomatic Relations: The Downward Spiral of Mutual Political Hostility," JOURNAL OF SOUTH ASIAN AND MIDDLE EASTERN STUDIES, XIX:4, Summer 1996, pp. 55-77. Lawson, Fred, "Can U.S. Economic Assistance Alter Syria's Posture Toward Israel?" MIDDLE EAST POLICY, IV:4, October 1996, pp. 102-109. Robinson, Glenn, "Elite Cohesion, Regime Succession and Political Instability in Syria," MIDDLE EAST POLICY, V:4, January 1998 pp. 159-179. Shad, Tahir, "Syrian Foreign Policy in the Post-Soviet Era," ARAB STUDIES QUARTERLY, 17:1 Winter-Spring1995, pp. 77-94 Tanter, Raymond, "Syria: Contain or Embrace," in ROGUE REGIMES, 1998 (St. Martin's Press) pp. 169-195. F. LIBYA Little more than one month ago the Libyan government turned over the two individuals who have been indicted as suspects in the Pan Am 103 bombing over Lockerbie, Scotland. On April 5, the United Nations suspended the international sanctions regime that had been in place against Libya since the Lockerbie incident. The U.N. is scheduled to make a final decision on the Libyan sanctions on July 4. However, the changing tide of international opinion regarding Libya has not extended to the United States. The United States unilaterally maintains a virtual trade embargo against Libya, which mainly impacts the oil industry. The 1996 Iran-Libya Sanctions Act remains in force, and there is little sentiment in Congress to soften our policy toward Libya. Libya's assets in the United States remain frozen. It remains illegal to trade with or travel to Libya. This week the Senate voted 98-0 to instruct the President to use every amount of his leverage to dissaude the U.N. from permanently lifting the sanctions on Libya. Once the two bombing suspects go to trial, their verdict is likely to effect future relations between the United States, the world, and Libya. If the men are found guilty, and in any way tied to the Libyan government, most experts expect that sanctions will be renewed, and perhaps even strengthened. If the two men are acquitted, Libya may ask to be compensated for the economic effects of the sanctions on their nation. A few commentators have argued for lifting economic sanctions toward Libya. Their case is generally based upon the interests of American oil companies, or based upon the need to improve relations with our allies who are potentially subject to the secondary sanctions of ILSA. Recently a proposal was floated to lift sanctions if the Libyan government compensated the Lockerbie families, a step the Libyan government is extremely unlikely to take. Compared to the previous nations discussed in this paper, the issues surrounding our sanctions on Libya are relatively under-covered in a survey of the literature. Libya has substantially moderated their foreign policy behavior, and accusations of their sponsorship of international terrorism are comparatively mild. On the other hand, there may be a new flurry of literature and arguments given the recency of related international events. Bibliography "Easing of Sanctions against Libya Urged," TAMPA TRIBUNE, March 5, 1998 p. 6. Jones, Rodney, "Libya" in TRACKING NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION, 1998, pp. 215- 219 Levins, Harry, "Libyan-U.S. Hostility Has Been Brewing for a Long Time," ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH, January 3, 1998, p. 15. Maddox, Bronwen, "America Appears to have Lost the Stomach for Sanctions War," THE TIMES, February 12, 1998, lexis-nexis Margolis, Eric, "There's No Villain Like and Old Villain," TORONTO SUN, December 7, 1997, p. C7. "No Let Up: Ending Sanctions Would Give Gadhafi a Victory," HOUSTON CHRONICLE, January 10, 1998, p. 34. Rose, Gideon, "Libya," ECONOMIC SANCTIONS AND AMERICAN DIPLOMACY, (Edit. Richard Haass), 1998, pp. 129-149 Segall, Wynn, "Export Controls and Economic Sanctions," THE INTERNATIONAL LAWYER, 31:393, Summer 1997, pp. 393. Tanter, Raymond, "Contain or Embrace," in ROGUE REGIMES, 1998, (St Martin's Press), pp. 121-168. Tucker, David, "Responding to Terrorism," WASHINGTON QUARTERLY, Winter 1998, 21:1, pp. 103. G. SUDAN Sanctions have been in place against Sudan for a couple of years. Sudan remains on the Department of State Terrorist List. The Sudanese government, still engaged in their brutal civil war, is desperately looking to engage the world. On May 21 they announced that they would sign the Chemical Weapons Convention and various anti-terrorism documents. The Clinton Administration has taken a few small steps to improve relations with this government. In addition to creating the April 28 exemptions for food and medicine sales to Sudan, the United States unfroze the bank account of Saleh Idris, the owner of the pharmaceutical company which American Tomahawk missiles destroyed last year in our counter-terrorist strike. This unfreezing was widely interpreted as an apology and admission of a mistaken attack. The human rights record of the Sudanese government is appalling, with recent documentation of human slave trade, and a call by various human rights organization for a hard-line U.S. policy. Further there remains some suspicion of their involvement in production of chemical weapons. Lobby groups for American business have testified in opposition to our sanctions on Sudan, and several commentators, including other human rights groups, believe that the sanctions have caused nothing but increased suffering of the Sudanese people. There is literature on both sides of the debate concerning lifting sanctions on, and engaging Sudan, although this literature is not as extensive as for the first several nations listed in this paper. The geopolitical stakes in Sudan are relatively minor, which hurts the negative ground to some extent. On the other hand the Sudanese government is particularly terrible by many accounts, strengthening affirmative ground. Bibliography (Special thanks to John Foy for providing me insight and a long list of cites on Sudan.) Ali, Imatong, "Don't Neglect the 'Modern Forces'," THE WASHINGTON REPORT ON MIDDLE EAST AFFAIRS, July/August 1995, pp. 43-44. Ijaz, Mansoor, "Renewed Ties with Sudan -- A Shrewd Move by Albright," CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR, October 1, 1997, 89:215, p. 19. JOURNAL OF COMMERCE, "Bull in a China Shop," July 15, 1997 Lancaster, John, "U.N. Official Cautious on Sudanese Flight Ban: Sanction Seen as Obstacle to Aid Deliveries," WASHINGTON POST, February 7, 1997, 120:64 p. A30. Lelyveld, Michael "U.S. Exporters Caught in Sanctions Cross-Fire," Journal of Commerce, March 30, 1998 Peterson, Scott, "Why Can't We Be Friends?" CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR, September 4, 1998 Phares, Walid, "The Sudanese Battle for American Opinion," MIDDLE EAST QUARTERLY, V:1, March 1998, pp. 19-31. Prendergast, John, "Tie Humanitarian Assistance to Substantive Reform," THE WASHINGTON REPORT ON MIDDLE EAST AFFAIRS, July/August 1995, pp. 42-43. "Sudan in Spotlight as U.S. Imposes Embargo," AFRICA NEWS, November 10, 1997, lexis-nexis USA Engage, "Sudan Sanctions Counterproductive," November 4, 1997, www.usaengage.org/news/971104pr.html "U.S. Sanctions could Sink Sudan's Shaky Economy," Agence France Presse, November 5, 1997, lexis-nexis THE WASHINGTON POST, "The Horror in Sudan," August 4, 1998 From treadwaygj Tue Jun 1 11:15:12 1999 From: treadwaygj (Glenda Treadaway) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 12:15:12 -0400 Subject: 5th Resolutional wording paper Message-ID: Dear debate community, Here I go again. Here is the 5th resolutional wording paper. Thanks to Wesley Calvert for his hard work on this paper. Glenda Topic Wording Paper Development Assistance to Rogue States by Wesley Calvert, Augustana College Development assistance is a US foreign aid program that is often swept under the rug. While discomfort is often expressed that it represents imperialist or environmentally destructive interests, we often find that we are unable to reconcile the potential advantages with inaction. As a resolution action on the Rogue States topic, it provides the advantages of a unified body of negative ground, a requirement of relatively large plan action, and good solvency debate on important issues. A. Language Nicholas Eberstadt, of Harvard and the American Enterprise Institute, writes, In 1949, in President Harry S. Truman's inaugural address to Congress, what is now commonly described as "foreign aid" was initially proposed. Originally called "technical assistance," this form of economic diplomacy is now known as "development assistance" or "development aid." Unlike Marshall Plan aid, the focus of development aid was regions and countries where productivity, and per capita incomes, had never been high. While its particulars have evolved and its scope has greatly broadened since its inception, all development aid policies provide resources to recipient governments with the intention of hastening the local pace of material advance and (directly or indirectly) raising local living standards. (Eberstadt, "Foreign Aid," 148) This definition is consistent with the use of the term in other literature. Further, it includes only aid given to governments. This would preserve the spirit of the topic paper in requiring affirmatives to advocate engagement of the topic countries, and would also limit affirmatives to a more predictable group with more predictable disadvantage ground. For instance, assistance to the Kurds in Iraq would not be affirmative ground. It would, however, be counterplan ground against an affirmative that claimed to solve for them. Additionally, this definition excludes humanitarian or disaster relief assistance, which adds uniqueness to disadvantages. In particular, programs such as the food aid to North Korea and Sudan do not seek to "hasten the pace of material advance." Eberstadt supports this distinction in US Foreign Aid Policy (10), as does Griffin (679). This humanitarian assistance takes little political commitment from the US at home and is not perceived abroad as a major foreign policy commitment. Congressional constituencies are generally friendly to emergency aid, and such aid is not expected by foreign powers to be a long-term devotion to the long-term betterment of relations (see, for instance, Gustavson and Lee-Rudolph 146). It means a lot less to keep your enemies from starving for a few years than to help them develop their full material potential. Even absent the contextual definition, status quo food programs and similar actions are excluded. The great source of over-broad definitions, Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (10 ed.) defines "development" as "1. The act, process or result of developing 2. the state of being developed 3. a developed tract of land," and "develop" as "...to work out the possibilities of 3a: to make active or promote the growth of b (1) to make available or usable (2) to make suitable for commercial or residential purposes c: to move ... from the original position to one providing more opportunity for effective use," and so on. Any of the definitions given by Webster's retains "development" as a limiting word. Something must be done to "develop" -- to advance, improve, or upgrade -- the target nation, rather than merely sustain life in it. A development assistance wording will also exclude military (Berg 69-70) and security (Eberstadt, Aid Policy, 11, 12, 55, 56) assistance. Berg is specific in excluding aid to foreign militaries: There is not much ambiguity about the military assistance component, which in 1988-90 accounted for some 37% of all "formal" assistance. It is not "development aid." All resources are fungible, of course, and military assistance may in some circumstances substitute for local resources with positive effects on the economy. But this is hardly assured, and other scenarios are at least as likely, so that aid to the military cannot be regarded as "development aid." The distinction between "aid" and "assistance" is not important in this context. Berg's warrant is that giving stuff to the military is not closely related to giving stuff for development. This narrows the topic and steers it away from the military and security issues that were debated in the 1997-1998 topic. The use of the words "economic assistance" would include military / security assistance (Spanier and Hook 124) and possibly the humanitarian assistance now in effect in some of the topic countries. The use of "economic assistance" as a topic wording is not recommended. At this point we can consider some wordings that are recommended. 1. Resolved: That the United States Federal Government should increase its development assistance to one or more of the following nations: [insert topic nations]. 2. Resolved: That the United States Federal Government should establish a development assistance project in one or more of the following nations: [insert topic nations]. These resolutions are primarily limited by the actor (United States Federal Government, which includes USAID) and the type of action (development assistance). Especially in the case of Resolution 2, the possibility exists that action through multilateral organizations, such as the World Bank and other multilateral development banks, could be found to be topical. Resolution 1 avoids this problem with the presence of the word "to." Additional checks on indirect assistance and multilateral activity may be provided as in Resolutions 3 and 4. 3. Resolved: That the United States Federal Government should increase its bilateral development assistance to one or more of the following nations: [insert topic nations]. 4. Resolved: That the United States Federal Government should establish a bilateral development assistance project in one or more of the following nations: [insert topic nations]. These wordings, however, may be found to exclude cases that extend to one nation participation in a preexisting program. Further, a sufficient check on multilateral action is provided in Resolution 1. On the other hand, allowing multilateral projects could be desirable. 5. Resolved: That the United States Federal Government should increase its development assistance through bilateral or multilateral programs, to one or more of the following nations: [insert topic nations]. Due to the current ban on US assistance to the topic countries, solvency literature may be more plentiful if we allow cases that advocate US support for multilateral projects, or the establishment of multilateral projects. However, this would dramatically increase the scope of affirmative ground. Moreover, such an allowance would require a more complex wording, opening up greater potential for distortion by affirmatives trying to justify marginal cases. This paper will focus on the bilateral wordings. The word "substantially," while it has been common in the resolutions of recent years, is not recommended for these resolutions. The word is usually intended to limit the size of the affirmative plan action, but seldom accomplishes this purpose, since an exclusive definition is difficult to find. Its only use is frequently to justify time-suck topicality violations. Moreover, large plan actions will be required because of the current sanctions, as discussed in section C, on negative ground. The inclusion of "substantially" is not required. B. Affirmative Ground The particular nations included in the resolution wording will have a significant impact on the cases actually run. However, from a few countries named in the topic paper, some general ideas can be gathered. 1. Sudan For the Sudan, some telecommunications projects are proposed (Riverson, Bedoumra, Yousif), similar to what USAID does in Egypt now. Agricultural plans are also debated, with food security, famines, and resource wars (Anderson and Woodrow) as a major advantage area for many possible affirmatives. Brian Atwood told a White House conference in 1994, Food security is the common theme. We are working with other donors on a regional strategy to help this region achieve food security. To do this, a viable strategy will involve liberalizing agricultural markets, liberalizing trade patterns, improving ports and transportation systems, training in agricultural technique, the supply of fertilizer and seed, irrigation systems, water storage systems, and of course population programs, and last, but not least, stronger and more democratic governments. (Atwood p. l/n) Other affirmatives would deal with medical surveillance or treatment facilities (Rice, Goldberg). Advantages to such cases would include ebola, malaria, and other diseases, including unknown emerging or reemerging diseases. 2. North Korea For North Korea, a variety of development programs have been suggested, including a Korean Development Corporation focused on bringing the heavy industry and high-tech industry capabilities of the North up to the level of the South (Kim, Philo). Advantages to such plans would include improved North-South relations and soft reunification. Significant debate exists on different kinds of reunification, and on whether any, or which ones, are good (see, for example, Moon). Other advantages generic to North Korea policies are improved relations and proliferation. Roy presents a strong argument that bad relations with other nations are the reason for North Korea's "rogue" behavior, and the point is strongly contested, as by Levin in the same issue of Survival. The Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization (KEDO) is likely to be an area for big cases. A product of the "Agreed Framework" of 1994, KEDO is an attempt to give North Korea the benefit of nuclear energy without giving it nuclear weapons. This is, of course, a starting ground for enormous proliferation debates. For a start on the literature of KEDO, I recommend the listed works by Albright, Gregg and Reiss, and Cossa. 3. Cuba Literature on assistance to Cuba is significantly more sparse than that on many countries. Nevertheless, there is some debate on assistance on environmental issues, law enforcement against drug traffickers, and poverty alleviation (Mead). 4. Iran Iran also has a smaller literature, but there are a few recommendations for policy to Iran, such as telecommunications programs (Mowlana). Potential advantage areas include Caspian Sea geopolitics and oil (Croissant). C. Negative Ground Negative ground is abundant. Of particular interest are the counterplans. A foreign policy action by the US is naturally conducive to action by other nations. In the case of development assistance, Canada will be a major counterplan actor. Other possible actors are the multinational development banks and private organizations. Disadvantage ground will also be plentiful, including such longtime favorites as US hegemony, geopolitical positions including Russia and China, and political processes of target nations. The proactive and long-term nature of development assistance will also make shunning arguments highly salable. One benefit of a development assistance topic over many other proposed wordings is the larger generic negative ground. Development itself is a tenuous concept, and solvency literature heavily debates the problems of basing it on foreign assistance (see, for example, Deng, as well as Cole and Huntington). Removal of sanctions, constructive engagement, and normalization, at least, allow affirmatives to choose actions whose consequences are entirely specific to one country. Uniqueness is a point that needs some defense. Obviously the United States gives food aid and other humanitarian assistance to topic countries in the status quo. However, as discussed above, such assistance is perceived differently than development assistance which is longer-term and more interested in increasing the capabilities of the nation, rather than keeping the people alive. For instance, while food aid to North Korea may not disturb the US alliance with Japan, US aid for the development of heavy industry in North Korea might draw suspicion. While sending food to internally displaced persons in the Sudan probably does not constitute such egregious cultural hegemony as a plan to increase the availability of telecommunications, or to re-engineer agricultural techniques or markets. The size of the affirmative will be limited by the existing sanctions against the "rogue" states. The nations proposed on the topic paper are listed on the State Department's list of nations that sponsor terrorism, and are consequently ineligible for all aid except some humanitarian packages. Thus, any of the resolutions suggested would require a plan action either to remove a country from this list or modify the implications of the list for the target country. Either enabling action would provide important disadvantage ground. D. Getting Honest: The Drawbacks to Development Assistance We all know that every wording proposed has problems. While this paper advocates a development assistance wording, I will now explore what the weaknesses of this wording might be. I believe that, on balance, development assistance would make a great year of debates, it seems risky to wait for somebody to stumble across an objection. Rather, I intend to set forth some misgivings I have, so that the community may consider whether it is willing to live with them, rather than the problems with the other wordings. The first potential problem with these wordings is a shortage of solvency literature. There certainly is solvency literature, particularly for Sudan and North Korea, but it is thin. Given that the United States is currently not allowed to take resolutional action, relatively few analysts have devoted time to write about cases. The second is uniqueness. While the distinction made in the earlier section gets us a good deal of uniqueness for a lot of positions, I still have some concerns about the uniqueness of economic and geopolitical disadvantages on the smaller topical cases. While there will certainly be ground left (changes in terrorism list policy will have to be included anyway), and while the arguments above are some help, it might be possible for affirmatives to avoid major parts of the negative arsenal by simply choosing a plan smaller than current humanitarian assistance. These are the only two noteworthy problems I see with this topic. If we can live with them to the extent that they are true, then we should debate development assistance. Individual programs should examine the literature to determine the extent of these problems and their willingness to debate the topic in spite of them. Our reluctance to endure these problems should also be weighed against our reluctance to accept the problems posed by other wordings. E. The Conclusion of the Matter Development assistance would not be a perfect wording. It would, however, be a good wording. Any of the resolutions recommended in this paper present a limited range of affirmative options, a central body of negative ground, which may focus on development assistance as such, and strong counterplan ground to provide close solvency debate on such timely, timeless, and important advantages as poverty, starvation, disease, and proliferation, in addition to the more general area of international relations. Works Cited Albright, Madeline. FY2000 Budget Request for Foreign Operations. Hearing of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. May 20, 1999, FNS, LN. Anderson, Mary B. and Peter J. Woodrow. "Reducing Vulnerability to Drought and Famine: Developmental Approaches to Relief." The Challenge of Famine. John Osgood Field, Ed. 131-146. Atwood, Brian. "Promoting Development in Africa." Speech to White House Conference on Africa, Room 450, Old Executive Office Building. June 26, 1994, FNS, LN. Bedoumra, Kordje. "Constraints in Financing Telecommunications in Africa's Least Developed Countries." Telecommunications and Development in Africa, B. A. Kiplagat and M. C. M. Werner, Eds. IOS Press, 1994. Berg. "" In From Confrontation to Conflict. 1991. Cole, David C., and Richard Huntington. Between a Swamp and a Hard Place, 1997. Cossa, Ralph A. "Support a Worthwhile Package Deal with North Korea." International Herald Tribune, March 19, 1999. LN. Croissant, Michael P. "U. S. Interests in the Caspian Sea Basin." Comparative Strategy 16 (1997): 353-367 Deng, Francis M. "Eyes on Abyei: Competing Perspectives on Rural Development." in Cole and Huntington Between a Swamp and a Hard Place. 1997. Eberstadt, Nicholas. "Foreign Aid." Encyclopedia of US Foreign Relations, Jentleson and Paterson, eds. 4 vols. 1997. Vol. 2. Pp. 147-149. ---. U. S. Foreign Aid Policy: A Critique. New York: Foreign Policy Association, 1990. Goldberg, Jeffery. "Our Africa Problem." NYT March 2, 1997, LN. Gregg, Donald B., and Mitchell B. Reiss. "Washington Should try Engagement With Pyongyang." International Herald Tribune, March 12, 1999. LN. Griffin, Keither. "" In Development and Change 22 (1991) ca 679. Gustavson, Kristin R., and Jinmin Lee-Rudolph. "Political and Economic Human Rights Violations in North Korea." In North Korea After Kim Il Sung, Henriksen and Mo, Eds. 1997. Kim, Sungwoo. "Could a Pan-Korea Development Corporation Promote Economic Cooperation between South and North Korea?" Journal of Social, Political, and Economic Studies, Summer 1998. 177-188. Levin, Norman D. "Feel Their Pain (If You Like), But Watch Their Actions." Survival v. 38, no. 4 (Winter 1996-1997) pp. 41-43. Mead, Walter Russell. "Rum and Coca-Cola: The United States and the New Cuba." World Policy Journal, Fall 1995. 29-53. Moon, Chung-In. "The North Korean Problem and the Role of South Korea." in North Korea After Kim Il Sung, Henriksen and Mo, Eds. 1997. Mowlana, Hamid. "Development of Telecommunications Policy in Iran." Telecommunications in Western Asia and the Middle East. Eli M. Noam, Ed. 1997. Philo, Byoung-Lo, Kim. Two Koreas in Development. 1992. Riverson, L. Kwabena. Telecommunications Development. 1993. Roy, Denny. "North Korea as an Alienated State." Survival v. 38, no. 4 (Winter 1996-1997) pp. 22-36. Spanier, John, and Steven Hook. American Foreign Policy Since World War II, 14th ed. Washington: CQ, 1997. Rice, Susan. Brahm Fischer Lecture, Oxford University. Africa News, May 22, 1999, LN. Yousif, Idriss Ahmed. "Privatization of the Telecommunication Sector in the Sudan." Telecommunications and Development in Africa, B. A. Kiplagat and M. C. M. Werner, Eds. IOS Press, 1994. \\ //\\ //+===+--- Wesley Calvert (309) 794-8591 \\ // \\ // |= |___ Augustana College, Rock Island, IL \\// \\// +===____| wcc at helios.augustana.edu The Lord has done great things for me, of which I am very glad. From treadwaygj Tue Jun 1 13:18:36 1999 From: treadwaygj (Glenda Treadaway) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 14:18:36 -0400 Subject: 6th Resolutional Wording Paper Message-ID: Dear Debate Community, Here is the 6th Resolutional Wording Paper. I would like to thank Damien Pfister and Jason Jarvis for their hard work on this. Glenda Normalization Topic Wording Paper Damien Pfister, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL Jason Jarvis, Augustana College, Rock Island, IL OVERVIEW: In the foreign policy literature concerning pariah states, "normalize" is used often. Literally, it means, "to make normal," and this is how scholars in the field utilize the word. The trick with crafting a resolution utilizing "normalize" is, of course, the division of ground. Many scholars indicate anything that makes relations "more normal," for example, humanitarian assistance, trade agreements, etc, is a "normalization" of relations. This would make negative ground more difficult to predict, as "normalization" would be similar to "change" with a direction. However, the verb form of normalization, normalize, might solve many of these problems since it suggests a particular goal and end point within the context of a specific policy. Affirmatives would be forced to create a policy that "normalizes" relations, rather than merely advocate a policy that falls under the purview of a process of normalization. As the definitions section below explains, normalize suggests an endpoint reached in which relations are "normal." This definition might prevent affirmatives from lifting just one economic sanction, since that action would leave other economic sanctions in place, and thus not be "normal" economic relations. The contextual definitions lend credence to this interpretation. The outline of the rest of the paper is as follows: First, we examine the normalization of relations with Vietnam as a case study in understanding the process of normalization in American foreign policy. Second, we present a detailed discussion of what "normalization" means within the foreign policy literature. In this section we discuss the benefits and problems of potential resolutional wordings and suggest what we believe is the best topic wording. Third, we examine some of the affirmative and negative positions on a potential "rogue states" topic by looking at particular nation-states that are likely to be included under this year's topic. Finally, we examine some potential advantage areas and generic negative ground. Vietnam: The Case Study Vietnam is the country with which the United States has most recently normalized relations. The current status of the US-Vietnam relationship is based upon diplomatic normalization, with economic normalization following at a slower pace. This new relationship can be instructive for our needs, since we can examine what normalization has entailed in the past in order to make some broader predictions about what normalization of the United States' foreign policy towards the so called "pariah states" would mandate. Davis Frye, writing in the Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law in October of 1996, explains in detail the case of Vietnam: Recently~Ein response to Vietnam's renewed cooperation with U.S. foreign objectives, President Clinton has lifted the trade embargo against that country and has established U.S. diplomatic relations with Vietnam. Before Vietnam may achieve its goal of truly normalized relations with the United States, it must obtain a U.S. grant of most favored nation trading status, thereby opening American borders to Vietnamese goods and encouraging U.S. investment in Vietnam. To produce such treatment, three conditions specified by the Trade Act of 1974 must be met. These include an executive order waiving the requirements of the Jackson-Vanik Amendment to the Act, a bilateral trade agreement between Vietnam and the United States, and congressional approval of the commercial agreement~E In April of 1991, President Bush presented Vietnamese officials with a four-phase "roadmap," outlining the steps for normalizing relations with the United States~E.Pursuant to Phase II of the roadmap, President Bush provided humanitarian aid to Vietnam, restored telecommunication links between the two countries, and permitted U.S. commercial sales of basic supplies to Vietnam in 1992. President Clinton, having endorsed Bush's strategy for normalization of U.S. relations with Vietnam, lifted the trade embargo against Vietnam on February 3, 1994. Subsequently, on July 11, 1995, Clinton announced the establishment of U.S. diplomatic relations with Vietnam, thus embarking on Phase IV of Bush's roadmap to normalization. According to President Clinton, such a political step would not only aid in securing the fate and additional remains of U.S. POWs and MIAs, but would also promote U.S. relations with a peaceful Asia. Secretary of State Warren Christopher, in response to Clinton's announcement, opened the U.S. embassy in Hanoi on August 8, 1995. These newly-established diplomatic relations with Vietnam have positioned the United States for the completion of its political and economic normalization with Vietnam. There are a number of important points that Frye highlights. First, he indicates that "truly normalized" relations require MFN status. This would provide significant negative ground, as issues of MFN are extremely controversial. Second, Frye indicates that Congress would have to assent to the commercial pact, which would probably be negotiated by the executive branch and then voted on by Congress. This should be instructive for considerations of the agent in the resolution. Third, he illustrates that normalization is a process, not necessarily an endpoint. Fourth, this passage gives some examples of how economic relations were normalized: humanitarian assistance, telecommunication links, commercial sales, and the lifting of the trade embargo. All of these could be potential affirmative case areas. Further examples of normalization, as listed by Dick Clark, include "narcotics control cooperation, science and technology ties, and a copyright agreement." Clark goes on to detail various other non-economic recommendations for normalization including working toward visits by the president or the first lady to Vietnam (most probably in the context of a broader visit to Asia or Southeast Asia) and by Vietnam's highest leaders to the United States, expanding channels for security discussions, delegation visits, joint training, work on demining and other security work between the two countries, and furthering and expanding the deliberate and developing military-to-military cooperation that has been spearheaded by the US Department of Defense and the Vietnamese Ministry of Defense. This list should give the community a good idea of exactly what normalization involves. Now that normalization with Vietnam in the diplomatic sphere has taken place, economic normalization has become the focus of attention. The following comments by Clark explain the current policies being pursued in an effort to normalize economic relations with Vietnam: Both in Washington and Hanoi, attention shifted in 1996 from political normalization-highlighted by diplomatic normalization in August 1995-to what is now generally termed economic normalization. That process involves, first, waiving application of the Jackson-Vanik status with respect to freedom of emigration in Vietnam. This process was completed through congressional action in the summer of 1998, after Vietnam and the United States agreed on implementation of the [Rover] emigration program. The next and complex phase of economic normalization is the conclusion of a bilateral trade agreement and its ratification by the House of Representatives and the Senate, a necessary prerequisite to congressional discussion and decision on MFN trade status for Vietnam. Negotiations on the bilateral trade agreement have lagged in Hanoi and Washington for several years. Washington has presented a four-chapter draft dealing with intellectual property, trade in services (including accounting, financial, and legal services), trade in goods, and investment protection that the United States considers representative of modern global trading requirements~EEconomic normalization involves trade negotiators in the United States and Vietnam achieving a bilateral trade agreement. It also requires Congress to approve MFN status for Vietnam. THE AGENT: UNITED STATES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT Normalizing relations will require the flexibility of the entire United States Federal Government. The executive and the legislative branch both have the power to impose economic and diplomatic sanctions on other nation-states, so allowing affirmatives to use both branches would be necessary to be consistent with the solvency advocates' intent. Narrowing the agent in the resolution to just the executive branch, for example, would limit out cases dealing with Iran, because the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act and other legislation prevents any action normalizing relations. Similarly, limiting the agent to just the legislative branch would ensure awkward affirmative cases in terms of diplomatic normalization and consultation. The literature appears to support the entirety of the U. S. federal government as the agent of action. THE RECIPIENT: NATION-STATES This will probably be the least controversial potential word in the resolution. However, an imprecise term could expand ground in unpredictable ways, as the word "nation" did in the Southeast Asia resolution. "Nation-state" is the more precise term used in political science. Since "nation" describes a group of people, and "state" describes a government, "nation-state" is used to merge both ideas into one workable term. Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary defines nation-state as "a form of political organization under which a relatively homogenous people inhabits a sovereign state." The same dictionary defines country as "a political state or nation or its territory." Finally, it defines nation as "a politically organized nationality, a community of people composed of one or more nationalities and possessing a more or less defined territory and government, or a territorial division containing a body of people of one or more nationalities and usually characterized by relatively large size and independent status." THE ACTION: NORMALIZE RELATIONS Definitions: The most difficult task in researching this wording was to determine what constitutes "normalization" of relations with another country. While the term is used throughout the foreign policy literature, very few sources actually provide coherent explanations of what is, and is not, "normalization." However, there are a few books that actually provide an "official" definition. As we will discuss below, the lack of formal definitions has its advantages and drawbacks. The primary drawback to the term normalization is the potential for affirmatives to interpret the term broadly to allow any affirmative that "does something" with a topic nation. The "dictionary" definitions (Webster's, and foreign policy dictionaries, etc.) would seem to allow expansive interpretations of the word as it would appear in the resolution. However, there are two reasons that the resolution that we advocate below does not fall into that trap. First, the contextual usage of the terms "normalize" and "normalization" provide immediate (though somewhat inconsistent) checks on affirmative ground. In the discussion of the first resolution, we offer the example of a case that might unfreeze Iranian Assets in an attempt to normalize economic relations with Iran. An interview with a senior Iranian diplomat indicates that unfreezing assets is a good idea, but that such an action would be a pre-condition for taking actions to normalize relations. However, releasing the assets would not constitute normalization itself. Subsequently, the affirmative would not be topical, and can be contextually defended as negative counterplan ground. A side benefit of the wide usage of the term in the literature will be intricate, lively and innovative topicality debates. These topicality debates would not overshadow the substantive issues, however, since the literature provides a substantive check on possible affirmative cases. Second, use of specific modifiers will prevent the "send beanie babies to Sudan" affirmative. Exclusion of "cultural normalization" from the topic will prevent small affirmatives that take actions that would not constitute fundamental changes in current American foreign policy. Basic Dictionary Definitions: Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines normalize as "to bring or restore (as relations between countries) to a normal condition." The Oxford Dictionary of English defines normalize as "bring or return to a normal or standard condition or state." As an example, it provides "Vietnam and China agreed to normalize relations in 1991." As these definitions suggest normalizing relations requires standardization in treatment of other countries. "Normal," of course, is an ill-defined concept, but it certainly does not involve economic sanctions placed on other nation-states. Moreover, the following definitions serve to explicate the concept more thoroughly. A Dictionary of Political Thought, Roger Scruton, (ISBN: 0060150440), 1982, p 327 Normalization: "Used after the Second World War to refer to the re-establishment of friendly relations between states, rulers and peoples. Also a euphemism for the forced resumption of unwanted ties, as in the normalization of Czechoslovakia after 1968, following the intervention of the Soviet Army." An initial fear raised by this definition is that it might lend itself to cases that would like to invade a particular country, such as escalation of the wars in either Iraq or Serbia. However, the contextual literature provides a check on cases that might attempt to claim "that is normal." No solvency advocates that we have run across use normalization in this context. In this instance, the dictionary even uses the term "friendly" relations between countries, and notes that the Soviet explanation or usage of the term is a euphemism. This definition also raises the prospect that the term might be used to justify policies that affect a particular group or set of individuals (recalling such incredibly topical affirmatives as the Kirin refugees on Southeast Asia). However, by crafting the resolution so that it indicates relations between states and national governments this problem could also be avoided. The definitions below (and the history of the term) also do not support such an interpretation of normalization. Brewers Politics (Revised Edition), Nicholas Comfort, (ISBN: 0304346594), 1995, p 414 Normalization: "The process of re-establishing relations with a country with whom one has had no formal diplomatic contacts. The term was used by Richard Nixon and the Chinese leader Mao Tse-Tung and Chou En-Lai in 1972 to describe the process of establishing contacts, broken 23 years before when the Communists finally defeated the Nationalist Chinese. Contacts were gradually developed and formalized, and full diplomatic relations were restored by the Carter Administration in 1979." The Dictionary of 20th Century World Politics; Jay Shafritz, Phil Williams, and Donald Calinger, 1993 Normalization: "The process of establishing (or re-establishing) diplomatic relations that were previously severed or severely strained." Diplomatic Relations: "(1) All of the formal interactions of states after they have recognized each other. To facilitate these interactions (or relations), they exchange ambassadors (and other diplomatic personnel) who establish embassies (or other missions) from which they conduct their business. (2) The channels of diplomacy. (3)Normal relations between states. These can be cut off, often as a prelude to the opening of hostilities." These definitions are useful for a few reasons. Initially they note that normalization is a relatively new concept in international relations. The origins of the term are said to be post-World War II and more specifically in the cessation of hostilities between the United States and China during Nixon's presidency (this explains its currency in the literature as a term and the lack of formal definitions). Second, normalization is seen to be a process centered on the (re)creation of non-extant relationships. The important aspect of these definitions is the scope of the action that "normalize" requires. These definitions require affirmatives to make a substantive change to status quo policy towards the enumerated states. The topic committee and debate community should consider using the verb form "normalize" instead of the noun form "normalization," in the resolution because "normalize" suggests an endpoint to be achieved, i.e. normal relations. This would provide more predictable ground because it would force affirmatives to make larger changes to United States' foreign policy. The definitions above indicate that to normalize relations requires a re-establishment of relations-not just overtures towards re-establishment of relations. This would force affirmatives to engage the topic countries in a substantive manner, rather than just beginning the process of engagement. Plans that lifted a small sanction policy clearly would not return relations between the United States and X country to a normal condition, since economic sanctions would still exist and diplomatic relations would still be "abnormal." Additionally, the use of adjectives to pinpoint the type of normalization that should be achieved would create a more fair division of ground. It is important to note that normalization (in practice) is more multifaceted than these definitions would lead one to believe. Dick Clark, the VP and Director of the Aspen Institute, discussed the process of normalizing relations between the United States and Vietnam. He explains that: "The overriding theme of this meeting [on normalizing relations with 'rogue states'] was that the tasks of "real normalization"-the regularization of economic, political, cultural, academic, non-governmental, and other forms of cooperation between Vietnam and the United States-are even more complex than the tasks of diplomatic normalization. Diplomatic normalization, however politically complex it seemed at the time, was essentially a limited goal around which coalitions could be built in each country and a host of sensitive issues put off for the future." This study can be found at: http://www.stanleyfdn.org/confrpts/vantage/vietnam98.html Clark's comments provide a useful segue-way into the next issue, which is the importance of the contextual literature in creating limits on the scope of the topic and in providing a practical understanding of normalization. Clark notes that "real normalization" constitutes more than just diplomacy. In fact (as noted in the introduction) normalization can take place in a variety of different arenas. This is important in considering how to craft a topic centered on normalizing relations. In an effort to provide better insight on these issues, we examine two resolutions and discuss their potential problems and benefits. We offer the first resolution in order to examine and clarify the reasons why we support inclusion of the phrase "political and/or economic" to modify the types of normalization that the affirmative should be allowed to advocate. (1) Resolved: The USFG should adopt a policy of normalization with one or more of the following nation-states: [insert topic list here] Initially, it should be noted that the literature itself provides contextual checks on the scope of normalization with regard to particular countries. An article in the Washington Post on March 28 of 1999 demonstrates this point with respect to Iran. The author, Sean Boyne (a reporter for Jane's Intelligence Review) was interviewing Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Seyyed Sadegh Kharrazi: I asked him what the United States would have to do to bring about normal relations with Iran. "Just a change of tone will not solve anything," he said. "Who are the Americans to put an empty spoon in our mouths? The Americans should offer their apology to the Iranian nation. They should release the frozen assets of Iran, and remove their sanctions. If they did so then it [normalization of relations] could be considered. This piece of evidence seems to create a clear bright line between actions such as unfreezing Iranian assets, lifting sanctions and normalization of relations. Lifting sanctions and unfreezing assets would constitute negative counterplan ground as they are actions that are preconditions to normalization. While cards like the one from Boyne above would seem to provide limits to the first resolution, relying on evidence of this sort creates the danger that affirmative ground with respect to particular countries may be hard to limit. Richard Haass, a prolific anti-sanctions writer and Director of the Foreign Policy Studies Program at Brookings, reveals the breadth of what normalization could entail in recent testimony to the House of Representatives. On March 3, he entered testimony critical of US sanctions against India and Pakistan, and advocated normalization as an alternative: The United States should work with India and Pakistan to help them implement confidence building measures (CBMs) announced at the Lahore summit. Such CBMs--including agreements to provide advance notice of ballistic missile flight tests, enhance communications links, and enter into accords modeled on the U.S.- Soviet Incidents at Sea and Accidental Measures agreements- deserve not only our verbal support but intelligence and technical assistance if warranted and welcomed. Further "bus diplomacy" and parliamentary exchanges should be encouraged, as should additional CBMs and other aspects of normalization, including trade, tourism, and educational and cultural exchange. The entire transcript can be found in FDCH Testimony on March 3. Haass highlights the necessity of a modifier in the resolution for the type of normalization that is to be allowed. In addition, his comments demonstrate that reliance on normalization as a term of art creates the inherent danger that there will be very little limit on some areas of the resolution. As Haas notes, cultural normalization affirmatives would be topical under this resolution. Things such as scientific or academic exchanges, tourism, etc would seem to create and unmanageable burden on the negative (for solvency evidence on scientific exchanges with Cuba, see below). Therefore, we recommend that the topic committee embrace the following resolution for next years debate topic: (2) Re: The USFG should adopt a policy to normalize political/diplomatic and/or economic relations with one or more of the following nation-states: [insert list] We believe that "normalize" is superior to normalization in wording the topic. The discussion of the first resolution above illustrated this claim. The real questions that need to be answered are what modifiers will be used in crafting the topic. There are basically three realms of foreign relations where normalization occurs: diplomatic and political, economic, and cultural. Diplomatic normalization involves restoring relations, establishing embassies, maintaining consultations of the foreign government, etc. Economic normalization entails sanctions, bilateral trade agreements, MFN status, and other issues dealing with trade and economic sanctions. Cultural normalization primarily involves academic, artistic, and athletic exchanges. Exclusion of cultural normalization seems to be imperative due to the wealth of tiny affirmatives it would allow. There has been extensive discussion on EDEBATE about eliminating affirmatives which would "send textbooks to Iran." Allowing cultural normalization would validate this type of affirmative. Lexis searches done on Cuba turned up just such an affirmative immediately. If the resolution allowed cultural normalization then a potential affirmative would be scientific exchanges with Cuba, or continued baseball games with Cuba. The following piece of evidence from the Los Angeles Times on December 21, 1998 demonstrates this point with regard to scientists: Scientists in both nations argue that their collaborations can-and do-serve as a catalyst toward normalizing relations between the U.S. and Cuba. "At the official level, I think science already is seen as a factor in the relaxation of tensions between the two countries," said Cuban American science historian Pedro Pruna, who was born in Havana, educated in Moscow and is now writing the Smithsonian-sponsored history book. . . . [he continues] I've always thought that science is one of the best ways to get the healing process going." While the claim that there is no negative literature against Cuba is (to some degree) spurious, the claim that there is no negative against Cuban-American baseball games or scientific exchanges would seem to have a great deal of merit. For this reason cultural exchanges should be excluded. It is also important to keep in mind that excluding cultural normalization does not prevent a complete investigation of the literature surrounding normalization. The majority of the literature focuses on political and economic normalization. Additionally, leaving cultural normalization out creates immediate negative ground, as these cases become potential counterplans. While a science counterplan would not necessarily capture all case harms, it is likely that it would serve to capture some of the advantages of increased normalization while remaining small enough to avoid disadvantages linked to larger changes in United States policy. Why economic and political relations? This resolution focuses on economic and political relations instead of military or cultural issues. This focus is justified for a number of reasons. First, it meets the criterion of topic diversity. A topic that focused on military relations with other countries would be highly duplicative of the Southeast Asia topic, which about half of current debaters have discussed already. Topic diversity is one of the most important standards that the community should use to determine which resolution it adopts because it is pedagogically sound. Second, most of the literature focuses on economic and political relations. Many pro-business groups and think tanks are at the forefront of the anti-sanctions movement, which channels much of the evidence towards corporate and diplomatic interests rather than exclusive military considerations. Third, a focus on economic and political sanctions will place humyn rights at the center of many affirmative policy changes. While the resolutional wording we propose will prevent small-scale humanitarian assistance cases, the advantage areas and rationales for changing our current relationships, often revolve around the impact our policies have on the people within these countries. The famine in North Korea is an excellent example of how economic and political isolation can devastate the innocent population of a "pariah" state. A resolution that requires a change in economic and political policy will place these issues at the center of many debates. We are unconvinced that allowing both political and economic normalization would unfairly inhibit negative ground for a few reasons. First, affirmatives would have the option of doing either or both. An affirmative which sought to increase their advantages by pursuing a comprehensive normalization policy which included economic and political normalization would undoubtedly create bigger links to disadvantages such as political process disadvantages (in the US and in the topic countries), relations positions, shunning, etc. Not including cultural normalization allows advantage specific counterplan ground that would serve as a clear check for the negative. Second, the discussion of particular countries will illustrate that each country has a particular set of circumstances that may require a different policy initiative to normalize relations. Iran, for example, seems to need more effort in the economic sphere, while North Korea might benefit most from a politically based solution. The Nation-states: The next section of the paper deals exclusively with specific countries. This is not an effort to make claims about which countries should be included or excluded [Steve's paper will do that]. However, it is an attempt to examine how our recommended resolutions would play out and create affirmative and negative ground with respect to countries that will likely be in the topic. Cuba: The literature on normalization of relations with Cuba is, as expected, expansive. The Atlantic Council working group, on normalization of relations with Cuba gathered to produce a Road Map for Restructuring Future US relations with Cuba. This "roadmap" functions as a "detailed guide for policy-makers who will be tasked with implementing a future process of normalization. This paper provides a comprehensive summary of the range of issues that will need to be addressed once the decision to normalize relations is made. The issues include: claims, assistance, travel, immigration, communications, law enforcement, trade, investment and security." This is the basic list that normalization of relations with Cuba entails. Clearly, there are a number of different issues here, ranging from economic to immigration. The working group created more specific recommendations. The full recommendations can be found at: http://www.acus.org/Publications/policypapers/internationalsecurity/USCubaExec.html. We have briefly summarized the important economic relations issues here, deleting extraneous commentary: 1) Once a decision has been reached to embark on a program for restoring normal relations with Cuba, the president should appoint a senior coordinator in Washington to oversee the implementation process, including the management of aid and assistance programs, liaison work with multinational organizations and the establishment of contacts with Cuban officials. 2) The Department of State should negotiate an agreement with the Cuban government to establish as soon as possible a mechanism for dealing with U.S. citizen confiscation claims against Cuba. This agreement should set forth a process that expeditiously frees up as much property as possible from claims; for example, the process could move quickly on the certified claims while simultaneously devising a mechanism to settle the remaining claims in a just and equitable manner~EMeanwhile, claim holders will be reassured that a fair process of settlement is underway and that they need not attempt to bring pressure to impede or postpone other aspects of the normalization process. 3) The U.S. government should encourage prompt Cuban accession into international organizations like the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank once Cuba satisfies readmission requirements, while supporting the lifting of the Cuban government's suspension in the Organization of American States. 4) Restoring normal relations will require immediate lifting of the trade embargo and other economic sanctions. The U.S. government should also encourage a process that facilitates the granting of Most Favored Nation status to Cuba. The Export-Import Bank and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation should take the lead in expanding incentive programs for U.S.-based trade and investment, assuming that Cuba has embarked on a plan for resolving its outstanding debt and meets other normal requirements by these institutions. 5) U.S. aid and assistance programs for Cuba should be carefully targeted and monitored. Assuming that the conditions in the U.S. Congress will not favor large appropriations of bilateral aid, the U.S. government's role should focus mainly on stimulating and coordinating efforts among private and international donors. To that effect, the United States should request that the World Bank constitute at the earliest possible time a consultative group on Cuba. Finally, all aid programs should be designed to have limited duration and encourage the processes of political reform, economic self-reliance, domestic and foreign investment, and positive trade relationships. Emergency aid should continue to be available to Cuba as long as conditions on the island require it, especially if a future transition turns chaotic. Christine Quickenden, in the The American University Journal of International Law & Policy in 1997, is another advocate that insists the United States normalize its relations with Cuba. She writes "The United States should reform its outdated Cuban policy and work within a multilateral framework to negotiate the normalization of relations with Cuba~EGiven that American policies isolating Cuba have failed to achieve redress for the outstanding American property claims, the United States should consider negotiating a compensation agreement with Havana. There is an element of urgency, however, to settling the American property claims issue as soon as possible. Legislators must rewrite United States law to legalize lifting the embargo or normalizing relations. Compensation is further complicated by the fact that Havana is rapidly seeking, and receiving, international investment." Here, Quickenden includes lifting the embargo as part of normalizing relations, which would provide some solid negative ground. The early reports on debating Cuba were grim on the ability of the negative to refute affirmative claims. Much of this seems to have been little more than hype. While it is true that there is a plethora of literature advocating change in our policy, it is inaccurate to suggest that there are no negative arguments. It is interesting to note that while we have made some overtures to Cuba, there is literature indicating that the current system is doing too little, too slowly. Cuba is an excellent example of the question of the pace of normalization coming into play. Advocates of reforms are themselves divided over whether change should happen before or after Castro leaves power. An article in the Rocky Mountain News on January 9, 1999 indicates that, "Our inability to move faster toward normalization is a 'corrupt aspect' of U.S. foreign policy." If the affirmative were required to make immediate changes, the negative can then suggest that the pace of reform should remain slow as it is in the status quo. Rather than hurting the negative, it would seem current trends might provide a stronger position for the negative. Additionally, there IS literature that advocates our current sanctions policy. A recent document released by the Federal News Service provides clear evidence that all is not settled in the Cuba debate. On March 24, 1999 Professor Irving Horowitz of Rutgers University said the following before a House Subcommittee hearing on the status of our changing relationship with Cuba: Debate on what should be American policy toward Castro's Cuba is in fact a debate for the soul of American foreign policy as such. This is a debate in which the national interests of the state and its people are juxtaposed against the private interests of some elements of the commercial and industrial sector . . . Every effort at normalization of relations is interpreted as a sign of a lack of American resolve, and thus has been met by everything from shooting down civilian aircraft to arrests and prosecutions of even the mildest critics of the regime . . . .To start with, the weight of empirical evidence as to the tyrannical and dictatorial nature of Castro is so overwhelming, that even those who advocate a lifting of the embargo are compelled, often grudgingly, to admit that the issue is one of tactics and logistics, not principles. Even opponents of current American foreign policy dare not make fatuous claims about the Castro regime as it enters its final and desperate years. This is from a person at an established research university, not from Jesse Helms, or people who clearly just want to buy Cuban cigars, so much for a lack of ground. Iran: Iran is another probable topic country. Christophe de Roquefeuil, of the Agence France Presse, writes on June 18 of 1998 of possibilities for rapprochement between the United States and Iran: Iran welcomed on Thursday the landmark offer by its sworn enemy the United States to begin restoring ties after an 8-year rupture but said it must be backed up by concrete steps. "Words must be followed by deeds," Foreign Minister Kamal Kharazi said during a visit to Madrid, calling for the United States to back up its gesture by getting rid of unilateral oil sanctions slapped on the Islamic republic. In a groundbreaking speech Wednesday, US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright acknowledged changes in Iran since the May 1997 election of moderate President Mohammad Khatami and said the two countries must explore ways to build confidence. "As the wall of mistrust comes down, we can develop with the Islamic republic, when it is ready, a roadmap leading to normal relations, " she said. It was the first time Washington has held out the prospect of normalized relations since the 1980 diplomatic break after Iranian revolutionaries toppled the US-backed shah and took 52 diplomats hostage in the US embassy in Tehran. However, all is not settled between the United States and Iran. The Journal of Commerce on May 13, 1999 indicates that the rhetoric about normalization is still merely talk: It [Iran] is hampered by the United States, which cannot forget its experiences during the revolution 20 years ago. Washington still insists that more change is needed before it will consider normalizing relations with Tehran. It persists in threatening foreign companies, under the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act, seeking to invest in Iran and prevents U.S. companies, particularly in the oil sector, from doing so. More specific steps to normalizing relations were generated by Gary Sick, the executive director of Gulf/2000 and professor of international affairs. The entire study can be found at http://www.stanleyfdn.org/confrpts/USFP/SPC98/iraniraq98.html. He writes that the United States should help the business community by easing unilateral sanctions; e.g., on offshore projects, and considering issues related to future pipeline projects; e.g., the Turkmenistan-Turkish Pipeline. Since the business community has difficulty deciphering policies on the pipeline in the Caspian Sea, it will be difficult to use the threat of sanctions. As a "trial balloon," the United States might gradually lift sanctions and see what ensues. Business would like some commitment for the future-once sanctions are lifted. The administration could allow US companies and firms to negotiate and enter into executory contracts upon the lifting of sanctions. Concerning Caspian Sea developments, the group agreed that Iran must be included in discussions, although arrangements also should be set up in a way that benefits the United States. Negotiations and talks on Caspian Sea projects involving Iran would serve as symbolic gestures and lead into discussions on other issues. It might accelerate a process without making it irrevocable and could be done without any change to the executive order, requiring no congressional approval. The benefits of normalizing relations with Iran would be huge: Normalization of relations with Iran, it has been argued in the US, will open up an enormous economic opportunity for U.S. businesses and allow Washington to achieve greater stability and balance in the Middle East, the Persian Gulf, Central Asia, and the Caucasus, all volatile regions where Iran has carved out a special position for itself. (The Hindu, January 8, 1998) Negative ground on a normalization topic would include, at the very least a "Khatami Credibility" position. The article just cited from The Hindu, concludes with the following observation: Whatever risks Clinton may be taking are nothing compared with those Khatami has decided to run in reaching out to the US. In signaling his readiness to engage "the Great Satan," Khatami is courting trouble from the established political order dominated by the clergy and may be treading on the regime's revolutionary ideology, at the heart of which lies unflinching antagonism toward the US. Despite the massive mandate he won in the presidential election, Khatami is not at the top of the political heap. That space belongs to Ayatollah Khamenei, spiritual and political leader of the Islamic Republic. In a sermon delivered in December, Khamenei denied that there was any attempt to normalize relations with the US and accused the Western media of propagating the view that there might be a tendency in Iran toward reconciliation. A conservative daily, Jomhuri-ye Islami, declared in an editorial that "any positive signal toward the Americans means betraying the legacy of the late Imam Khomeini," the revered founder of the Islamic Republic. And shortly before Khatami went on CNN, the daily Tehran Times published an opinion poll cautioning against an initiative toward the US. As this piece of evidence makes clear, normalization with the United States risks a backlash by Iranian hardliners, a scenario that could easily spark a coup in Iran and create a situation in the Middle East that is significantly more dangerous than our current relationship with Iran. Impact stories could range from the spread of radical Islam, to terrorism or the destruction of the Middle East Peace Process. Korea: The situation in North Korea is especially grave. While the problems with their nuclear weapons program have received the majority of media attention, North Korea is in the midst of one of the worst famines of the century. It has been reported that the situation is worse than the plight of Ethiopia during the 1980's. The Christian Century reports in February of 1998 that "Jaspar Becker [a journalist] estimates that 1 million people have died-and he mentions cannibalism. He believes that the regime is prepared to sacrifice up to 70 percent of the population. Becker compares the situation to the 1958-1961 famine that followed the Great Leap Forward in China." The extent of the famine has placed the foreign policy establishment on full alert and raised fears of a North Korean lashout. The basis for our current relationship with North Korea is the "Agreed Framework." The Framework seemed like a good idea but has significant problems due to the fact that it is not a formal treaty and was designed at a time when most analysts believed that North Korea was about to collapse internally. The Framework was never set up to deal with North Korea as it currently exists at the end of the decade. As David Wright reports on March 1, 1999 in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, this agreement has been the cornerstone upon which North Korea believed relations with the United States would be normalized. However, the agreement has yet to produce such an outcome, and North Korean faith in the efficacy of the agreement is fading fast: North Korea apparently believed the Agreed Framework was the beginning of a process of engagement with the United States, which would lead to an easing of sanctions. That has not happened. Further, from North Korea's perspective, the United States lacks the political will to significantly change the relationship between the two countries. This may be leading to North Korean cynicism about negotiations and US intentions-or about presidential ability to deliver on future promises of political normalization and economic assistance. The Hindu points to the fact that our current policy seems to operate on four uncoordinated tracks: the agreed framework, the four party peace talks, missile talks, and food aid (March 3, 1999). This has led to a situation in which too many different groups are attempting to achieve conflicting goals. On one hand the South Korean leadership seeks engagement, while the Republican's in the US Congress and the Japanese LDP are seeking containment of an ever more erratic Kim Jong Il. The conflicting goals have created a huge mess in Korea policy. Subsequently the debate about what should be done with North Korea is huge. There are a number of analysts like David Wright who suggest that the United States should pursue a policy of political normalization: According to experts on North Korea, such as Tony Namking of the Atlantic Council, the North Korean desire to be treated with respect and to begin a process of normalizing relations with the United States is even greater than its desire for economic assistance. To be sure, it is also concerned about its economy and its ability to feed its people, and measures that would help in these areas would be needed in a negotiation package. But political normalization with the United States is the key issue that ultimately must be on the table. (Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, March 1,1999) Additionally, Daniel Oberdorfer, of Johns Hopkins University, suggests a number of proactive steps the United States could take to normalize economic relations. He includes "taking initiative to extend three-way relations toward economic issues, especially focused on economic training for North Koreans, changing US policy that blocks North Korean access to international organizations, like the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, etc~E[and] using USAID funds to support changes in North Korea through NGO programs" as ways to enhance the United States-North Korea relationship. The entire study and recommendations can be found at http://www.stanleyfdn.org/confrpts/USFP/SPC98/Nkorea98.html. The chaotic nature of current Korea policy makes this one of the richest areas for debate about normalizing US relations. While the affirmative could claim advantages such as proliferation, famine, and North Korean/Japan relations the negative would have equally fertile ground. Negatives, at a minimum could argue US/China relations, Chinese Hegemony (due to increased North Korean/Japanese ties), political process positions, defend the Agreed Framework, or argue for increased sanctions and an enhanced policy of containment. GROUND ISSUES: Uniqueness: In many cases, the United States is normalizing its relations with the "rogue states." Humanitarian exemptions have been created for several countries and Clinton and other administration officials have made overtures towards normalization. However, the core economic sanctions and embargoes are unlikely to be repealed in the near future, especially with the Republican Congress and major pieces of legislation like ILSA and Helms-Burton. Full political normalization is as unlikely. The concerns expressed already by some people are, we believe, exaggerated. The wording papers that focus on individual countries will likely be instructive in settling these questions about uniqueness, and we will leave it to those authors to explain more extensively the dynamics of particular sanction policies on individual countries. The uniqueness problems in the other direction, increasing sanctions, are far more problematic. The United States has not been shy about imposing unilateral sanctions on other countries. For a comprehensive listing of recent sanctions, go to http://www.usaengage.org/studies/nam3.html#table1. This web-site is a good starting point for anybody doing research on this topic. Ominously, the Cox Report on China, espionage, and US nuclear secrets will likely deliver even more unilateral sanctions on China, as the Republican Congress whips itself into a furor. Christopher Cox, the author of the report, is already calling for multilateral and unilateral sanctions on China. This will devastate many generic disadvantages on any topic that requires affirmatives to increase sanctions. Affirmative Creativity: The resolution we propose balances affirmative creativity with protection of negative ground. In most cases, the affirmative would be required to, at a minimum, lift sanctions and/or other legislation which prevents basic engagement and normal relations between the United States and the nation-state the plan is directed towards. These actions could include establishing normal political relations, creation of trade agreements and the granting of MFN status. Yet, the affirmative has some leeway in detailing how this process occurs. The affirmative can manipulate the order and time of sanctions removal. The affirmative could also specify conditions for MFN. The affirmative could also be more proactive in its approach to isolated states by specifying particular types of development assistance or trade agreements. Additionally, the affirmative could emphasize a mix of both political and economic normalization tactics. A significant amount of the literature seems to be interrelated. In many cases the distinctions between political and economic normalization are not made, and normalization in general is advocated. The specific policy recommendations will often suggest a combination of political and economic actions that should be done together to induced complete normalization and interaction between the United States and a particular country. Much of the advantage ground has been covered in the original topic paper, and will be covered more extensively in the country-specific wording paper being prepared by Steve Mancuso. A short list of some of these advantage areas include: Decreasing Presidential power: Executive abuses of sanctioning power tilt the balance of power Increasing international law: Unilateral sanctions are discouraged by the UN Business confidence/free trade: Businesses dislike sanctions Cultural imperialism: US sanctions attempt to place "Western" values on other countries Decreasing extraterritorial application of law: US sanctions currently effect third party states Realism bad: Current US policy is based on realism Threat construction: Isolation and demonization of "rogue states" is arguably based on threat construction Orientalism: US sanctions are based on otherisation and homogenisation from a Western standpoint Improved relations: Canada, Russia, China, the Mid-East, and the EU all dislike US sanctions policy Oil prices: Repealing oil embargoes would increase the supply of oil Agriculture: Normalizing relations would improve agriculture export markets for the US Poverty alleviation/Humanitarian assistance: Sanctions depress local economies and deny aid Political reform: Constructive engagement encourages peaceful regime change Interestingly, the affirmative would have critical ground as possible case advantages, which has rarely been a possibility with recent resolutions. Normalizing relations would require the rejection of policy analysis that relies, for example, on "threat construction." Negative Ground: This topic provides excellent negative ground. Here is an initial list of arguments that would be common on a normalization resolution. --Disadvantages Tripolarity: The plan increases relations with one country, which decreases relations with another country. Alliances: US sanctions policy is important to some US alliances, like US-Israel, US-Japan and US-ROK alliances. Protectionism good/free trade bad: Decreasing sanctions would open markets overseas. Economy: Various instantiations of this will exist, of course. One possible example could be interest rate hikes based on increased growth due to enhanced economic relations with topic countries. Political: Links exist for disadvantages relating to both United States politics and the internal politics of the objects of US action. --Counterplans Agent: Within the United States, the Presidency and the Congress both have the power to impose and remove sanctions. Affirmatives that repeal an executive order could be counterplanned out with Congressional action, and vice versa, with the attendant net benefits. Direction: This resolution requires engagement, but some literature does support an escalation of sanctions. This could take two routes: unilateral and multilateral. The US could increase types of sanctions, penalties, or perhaps make a territorial law extraterritorial. Other actors could create a multilateral sanctions regime. The UN has several countries under multilateral sanction-Iraq being the most prominent. A number of regional actors also have the ability and propensity to increase isolation of regional countries. The Western European Union, Organization of American States, and Organization of African Unity are three such regional organizations that have the legal authority to create a binding sanctions regime. Margaret Doxey's book, International Sanctions in Contemporary Perspective, published in 1996, has a more detailed explanation of the history and propensity of these regional and international organizations. The Utility of International Economic Sanctions, edited by David Leyton Brown, is another book that explicates sanctions in a multilateral context. Exclusion: Exclusion counterplan ground does exist with this wording, as it will on most. Negatives will have the option of doing the plan, absent one particular sanction or embargo, or lifting the economic embargo, but not diplomatic isolation. For example, a counterplan could lift the economic embargo but keep the arms embargo against Serbia, and claim that lifting the arms embargo would give Serbia more power. Exclusion counterplans would be a substantial check on most affirmatives, establishing some concrete and predictable negative ground. Some people, in previous discussions on edebate, have expressed some concern with a topic that gives the negative this much exclusion counterplan ground. We have some quick responses: 1) Better to give the negative this ground than the affirmative. With these exclusion counterplans, the negative would almost always have a strategy against each of the countries in the resolution. Constructing a resolution that decreases sanctions, without forcing the affirmative to make a substantial change, would be much worse than the alternative of exclusion counterplans. 2) This is not an overwhelming burden for the affirmative. Once research begins on the individual cases, criticisms of individual sanction policies will make themselves apparent. For example, in doing just the generic research on sanctions and normalization, we have found a number of responses to the exclusion counterplan that I used as an example above. 3) Many exclusion counterplans will not be able to capture the affirmative advantages, which would still ensure predictable affirmative ground. --Critical Ground Postpositivism: Traditional post-positivist criticisms like feminism, postmodernism, and postcolonialism will likely apply. Cultural Imperialism: Opening foreign markets paves the way for the McDonaldization of the world and further cultural homogenization. Development: Part of normalization is trade pacts and development assistance. A variety of criticisms of these policies abound in development literature. Shunning: Country X is bad, we should shun them. There certainly will be enough links to this position, as many of the possible topic countries (like the US) have serious humyn rights problems. Foucault: A resolution that includes the word "normalize" almost begs for some form of Foucauldian criticism. Areas for Additional and Suggested Research: It goes without saying that our examination of the literature on normalization was less than exhaustive. Our recommendations rely solely on the research we have been able to conduct over the past two weeks. Nonetheless, we feel that this topic is a promising area for next years debate resolution and would encourage others to investigate the literature prior to topic deliberations. We welcome questions, comments or suggestions for improving the wording of the resolution we advocate. There some cites that we were unable to obtain and at least one case study (China during the Nixon administration) that we were unable to investigate to our satisfaction. Ultimately our goal is to provide the best resolution possible for the debate community. Input from others is helpful and vital to achieving this goal. Therefore, we offer the following suggestions for extended research: (1) Investigation of potential topic countries not included in our discussion above. These include: Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Libya, and Burma. (2) Research into the processes surrounding normalization with China under Nixon. Given that one definition indicates Nixon and his Chinese counterparts coined the term, this historical information might be useful. (3) Obtaining the following cites which we could not find: American Foreign Relations: Basic Documents 1977-1980 ; p 974-978; contains comments by Cyrus Vance which the footnote it was found in suggested were exclusively about what "normalization" entails. Digest of United States Practices in International Law 1977 p18-19. Another footnote, but no comments about how useful these pages might be. (4) Generating a more exhaustive list of solvency advocates. The country specific wording paper will be of help here, but we imagine that even more research could be done on potential affirmatives. The authors would like to thank Tim Mahoney and Gabrielle Prisco for their insights during the writing of this wording paper. Their help is appreciated. From harrissr Tue Jun 1 14:17:26 1999 From: harrissr (Sean Harris) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 12:17:26 -0700 Subject: Rebecca Galentine: 1971-1999 Message-ID: Dear debate friends, Becky passed away yesterday morning, May 31st. She was in the hospital for the last couple of days, and they were able to make it as pain-free as possible. I know that all of you were concerned for Becky. Becky's family and everyone here in Seattle truly appreciates all the support the debate community has given. Debate was Becky's antidote to cancer, and even when she wasn't able to respond, the many messages of support were incredibly important to her. Joey has requested that in lieu of sending flowers people make a donation to the 2Chicks Foundation. All the information you need is at their website, http://www.2chicks.org. If you wish to send a card, the address is: Joey Austin 541 N. 75th St. Seattle, WA 98103 Joey's roommate (and former Whitman debater) Erin Carlson is the primary contact person; if you want information about the formal services, you can call her at 206.297.3311. Or you can email me at this address and I'll send you information as it becomes available. Peace, Sean Harris From nuraido Tue Jun 1 14:53:26 1999 From: nuraido (Kellie Clancy) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 12:53:26 PDT Subject: Racism, Civil Rights, in TPM Message-ID: Here's a thought: Most movies are dominated by one race or another ~ mostly white characters, mostly black characters, etc... What if Lucas wanted a genuinely diversified movie? considering the fact he had so many different life forms to represent, maybe he wanted to represent all different races as well. Sure, considering the fact that Anakin and Obi-Wan etc... are white in future movies, he was somewhat limited in casting humans, but as to the non-Humaniods, why did they all have to have American/British accents? I think that regardless of which character had which accent, we would have been able to draw unflattering parallels. But somehow I doubt that Lucas intended to create a racist movie. maybe he was just having fun with voices.... >From: Joshua Hoe >Reply-To: Joshua Hoe >To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU >Subject: Re: Racism, Civil Rights, in TPM >Date: Sat, 29 May 1999 10:08:35 PDT > >This is why these things are so subjective - he sure sounded italian to >me....I will look around and see if Lucas has said anything about that >one...I read the MSNBC post ad sent that guy a compilation of the e-debate >discussion. Anyay, you may be right? But I really doubt that Lucas would >stoop to that stereotype...come on he and Speilberg are like best >buds....hard to believe. Josh > >>From: Joseph Fisher >>Reply-To: joseph.fisher at home.com >>To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU >>Subject: Re: Racism, Civil Rights, in TPM >>Date: Sat, 29 May 1999 10:37:30 -0400 >> >>I read an article on MSNBC the other day which makes another really good >>observation about racism in Star Wars. This observation is that the hook >>nosed alien who owned Anakin was a Jew. This can be noticed by his Yiddish >>accent and his comment: "Your Jedi mind tricks don't work on me, the only >>ting I understand is money" Or something to that effect. Absolutely awful, >>and I think you all would agree. >> >>Joseph Fisher >>ROyal Oak Kimball Debate >>joseph.fisher at home.com >> >> >> >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Team Topic Debating in America [mailto:EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU]On >> > Behalf Of Joshua Hoe >> > Sent: Saturday, May 29, 1999 3:28 AM >> > To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU >> > Subject: Re: Racism, Civil Rights, in TPM >> > >> > >> > Hey smart ass...There was a huge discussion about the potential racism >>in >> > Binks and the trade fed last week.....Jesus, at least read the >> > posts before >> > you start mocking people.......Get a life. Josh >> > >> > >From: Prehistoric Turtle >> > >Reply-To: Anakin1698 at AOL.COM >> > >To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU >> > >Subject: Racism, Civil Rights, in TPM >> > >Date: Sat, 29 May 1999 02:15:15 EDT >> > > >> > >And another thing -- >> > > >> > >all of you people think that you are educated by debating. Why no >> > >complaints >> > >about Jar-Jar? All that 'Mesah', 'Yousah' shit--can you imagine >>forcing >> > >some >> > >poor black guy saying 'Mesah', and 'you sah'? What the fuck is up >>with >> > >that? >> > > (and of course, Jar-Jar is a bumbling idiot--a 1990s version >> > of "I ain't >> > >know nothing 'bout birthin' no babies"...) >> > > >> > >I am disillusioned about debate-- I thought debating a whole >> > year of civil >> > >rights would educate some of you, but NO! Here you are traipsing >>along >> > >pretending TPM is somehow an example of where 1999 culture should be >>and >> > >no-one, even you people supposedly educated by a civil rights topic >>even >> > >mentions Jar-Jar-- the Stepin Fetchit of the 1990s. >> > > >> > >I hope that debating rogue states educates you more than civil rights >> > >did--but at least most of the rogue states have a bunch of white >> > people as >> > >citizens, thus our societal concern will probably be greater. >> > > >> > >(and, yes Mr. Newman-- I am aware of the otherization that the term >>Rogue >> > >states implies-- but I am trying to reach a whole subsection of >> > people who >> > >debated how to increase civil rights without critiquing Jar-Jar's >>'Mesah' >> > >and >> > >'Yousah' rhetoric-- so, I am going slow and using words they might >> > >recognize-- like rogue states.) >> > > >> > >Prehistoric Turtle >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > Hello folks; >> > > > In the great tradition of John Quincy Adams I will submit >> > this message >> > > > anonymously-- too bad if you don't like it. >> > > > >> > > > The Phantom Menace was an average movie. Very average. I >> > can suggest >> > > > probably a hundred movies made in the last fifteen years that >>would >> > >make >> > > > better use of your time. >> > > > >> > > > However, I thought one thing was rather amusing. Reading all the >>in >> > >-depth >> > > > anal-retentive analysis was educational in the sense that all of >>the >> > >people >> > > > writing this crap were debaters who at various times have >>complained >> > >about >> > > > bad judging and getting repped out and all the other shit that >>goes >> > >along >> > > > with bitching and moaning about debate. >> > > > >> > > > Here is the analogy. Poor judge (bad judge) goes into round X and >> > >judges >> > > > debate featuring an up and coming (but anonymous) team from City >> > >College. >> > > > Prestigious University runs their same old shit and debates rather >> > > > lacklustelry. >> > > > >> > > > Average/mediocre judge votes for Prestigious University--why? >>because >> > >the >> > > > judge expected P-U to win, and assessed all of their arguments in >>the >> > > > framework that P-U was going to win. City College bitches and >>moans >> > >(like >> > > > Jenny Jones--and it rhymes =) but can't get the ballot... >> > > > >> > > > What is going on here? >> > > > >> > > > Well--the same shit that is going on with all you folks who are >> > >analyzing >> > > > Star Wars , Episode I like it means something. ("Whatsis >> > name put his >> > >hand >> > > > on metal railings and Nabooville is made of wood....) Get a >>fucking >> > >grip-- >> > > > this movie is a marketing device and you people have bought >> > into it ("I >> > >have >> > > > only seen it twice and don't have it memorized"). It is a >>bullshit >> > >claptrap >> > > > fake mythology film. Brian DePalma when walking out of Star Wars >> > >(Episode >> > > > IV) pronounced it some of the worst shit he had ever seen. Sure >>he >> > >might >> > >or >> > > > might not be bitching about something he don't understand, but he >>is >> > >right-- >> > > > even Episode IV is a premeditated Western (anyone ever see >> > Red River?- >> > >or >> > > > even Mutiny on the Bounty --choose the Charles Laughton version) >>that >> > >gets >> > > > audience support because it is slightly different but still the >>same. >> > > > >> > > > There is no difference between all of you idiots proclaiming the >> > >Phantom >> > > > Menace great and making all this in-depth pretend analysis >> > about it and >> > >a >> > > > bad >> > > > judge voting for Presitigious University over City College >> > because this >> > > > judge >> > > > expected City College to lose. All of you people thought The >>Phantom >> > >Menace >> > > > was going to be great and REPUTATION HAS DICTATED YOUR DECISION. >>Ne >> > > > difference between movie reviews and debate decisions. >> > > > >> > > > So, frankly, I am going to make a list of all the people who have >> > >submitted >> > > > Edebate messages about TPM. Additionally, I am going to >> > keep track of >> > >all >> > > > the bitching and moaning about bad decisions in the next >> > year. And all >> > >of >> > > > you people who think that TPM is the be-all and end-all of movies >>but >> > >hate >> > > > to >> > > > get repped out are going to look like idiots-- there are much >>better >> > >movies >> > > > than TPM. >> > > > >> > > > But you all, supposedly independent observers, have bought into >>the >> > >bullshit >> > > > and bought into the marketing and are just as much a victim of rep >>as >> > >any >> > > > poor judge trying to choose between City College and Presitigious >> > >University. >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > And all of you, I am sure, think that you are independent >>mavericks >> > >capable >> > > > of thinking what you want--bullshit--you are thinking what >> > you are told >> > >by >> > > > Lucas, etc., >> > > > >> > > > It is pathetic. >> > > > >> > > > Prehistoric Turtle >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- >> > > > Return-Path: >> > > > Received: from rly-zb05.mx.aol.com (rly-zb05.mail.aol.com >> > >[172.31.41.5]) >> > >by >> > > > air-zb02.mail.aol.com (v59.24) with SMTP; Sat, 29 May 1999 01:51:00 >> > >-0400 >> > > > Received: from LIME.EASE.LSOFT.COM (lime.ease.lsoft.com >> > [209.119.1.41]) >> > > > by rly-zb05.mx.aol.com (8.8.8/8.8.5/AOL-4.0.0) >> > > > with ESMTP id BAA06932; >> > > > Sat, 29 May 1999 01:49:45 -0400 (EDT) >> > > > Received: from PEAR.EASE.LSOFT.COM (209.119.0.19) by >> > >LIME.EASE.LSOFT.COM ( >> > > > LSMTP for Digital Unix v1.1b) with SMTP id >> > ><2.0020E455 at LIME.EASE.LSOFT.COM>; >> > > > Sat, 29 May 1999 1:48:28 -0400 >> > > > Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP >>release >> > >1.8d) >> > > > with >> > > > spool id 37155 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Sat, 29 May >>1999 >> > >01:49:35 >> > > > -0400 >> > > > Precedence: bulk >> > > > Received: from imo16.mx.aol.com (imo16.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.6]) >>by >> > > > list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA18294 for >> > > > ; Sat, 29 May 1999 01:49:34 -0400 >> > > > Received: from Anakin1698 at aol.com (8034) by imo16.mx.aol.com >>(IMOv20) >> > >id >> > > > nCALa15511 for ; Sat, 29 May 1999 >> > >01:49:00 >> > > > -0400 (EDT) >> > > > MIME-Version: 1.0 >> > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >> > > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >> > > > X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 13 >> > > > Message-ID: >> > > > Date: Sat, 29 May 1999 01:48:59 EDT >> > > > Reply-To: Anakin1698 at AOL.COM >> > > > Sender: Team Topic Debating in America >> > > > From: Prehistoric Turtle >> > > > Subject: Phantom Menace/Bad Judging is your problem >> > > > To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU >> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________________________ >> > Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com >> > >> > > >_______________________________________________________________ >Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com From mjgottlieb Tue Jun 1 14:58:09 1999 From: mjgottlieb (Michael J Gottlieb) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 14:58:09 -0500 Subject: next year In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: well, it doesn't look like i'm going to be in kansas next year. my parents are most likely staying around, and my sister is taking off for boston, which makes an east coast option way better for me next year. there's still a chance, but it's not very likely right now. i'm sorry, it would've been fun. mike From ifjxh Tue Jun 1 15:03:01 1999 From: ifjxh (Joshua Hoe) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 13:03:01 PDT Subject: Rebecca Galentine: 1971-1999 Message-ID: What a senseless loss of one of the greatest individuals I have ever met. Debate truly lost one of its greatest friends yesterday. At the very least we should celebrate the many great things that she brought to our lives and cherish life just that much more. Goodbye Becky.....I will miss you. Josh Joshua B. Hoe University of North Texas >From: Sean Harris >Reply-To: Sean Harris >To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU >Subject: Rebecca Galentine: 1971-1999 >Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 12:17:26 -0700 > >Dear debate friends, > >Becky passed away yesterday morning, May 31st. She was in the hospital for >the last couple of days, and they were able to make it as pain-free as >possible. > >I know that all of you were concerned for Becky. Becky's family and >everyone here in Seattle truly appreciates all the support the debate >community has given. Debate was Becky's antidote to cancer, and even when >she wasn't able to respond, the many messages of support were incredibly >important to her. > >Joey has requested that in lieu of sending flowers people make a donation >to >the 2Chicks Foundation. All the information you need is at their website, >http://www.2chicks.org. > >If you wish to send a card, the address is: > >Joey Austin >541 N. 75th St. >Seattle, WA 98103 > >Joey's roommate (and former Whitman debater) Erin Carlson is the primary >contact person; if you want information about the formal services, you can >call her at 206.297.3311. Or you can email me at this address and I'll >send >you information as it becomes available. > >Peace, > >Sean Harris _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com From ifjxh Tue Jun 1 15:05:56 1999 From: ifjxh (Joshua Hoe) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 13:05:56 PDT Subject: next year Message-ID: ????????? Josh >From: Michael J Gottlieb >Reply-To: Michael J Gottlieb >To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU >Subject: next year >Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 14:58:09 -0500 > >well, > >it doesn't look like i'm going to be in kansas next year. >my parents are most likely staying around, and my sister >is taking off for boston, which makes an east coast option >way better for me next year. there's still a chance, but >it's not very likely right now. > >i'm sorry, it would've been fun. > >mike _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com From mjgottlieb Tue Jun 1 15:18:45 1999 From: mjgottlieb (Michael J Gottlieb) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 15:18:45 -0500 Subject: please delete my last post. In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19990601145809.00a6a634@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> References: Message-ID: I feel like the Duck, Please disregard my last message. Thanks Mike >From Tue Jun 1 15:28:03 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 39129 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 16:30:52 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from mailer2.mail.vanderbilt.edu (mailer2.mail.Vanderbilt.Edu [129.59.1.212]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA17722 for ; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 16:30:50 -0400 Received: from 129.59.167.223 (A167223.N1.Vanderbilt.Edu [129.59.167.223]) by mailer2.mail.vanderbilt.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1/VU-3.0.2) with SMTP id PAA07809 for ; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 15:30:48 -0500 (CDT) X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Macintosh; I; 68K) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <37544252.300 at vanderbilt.edu> Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 15:28:03 -0500 Reply-To: nicholas.d.ellinger at vanderbilt.edu To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Nick Ellinger Organization: Owen Graduate School of Management Subject: Wording Papers and Framer's Intent First, let me say, to everyone who has submitted a topic wording paper, exceptional work. The amount of work and thought that y'all put into these is apparent and this community will have a difficult time choosing among these well-presented options. The actual thrust of my post, however, is this: Do topic wording papers give some actual ground to the framer's intent T argumentation? Historically, the framer's intent argument has broken down to "This case is outside what the framer's intended." "Says who? Is not!" "Is too!" and so on. Now, if we adopt a resolution based on one of these papers, can we use the paper as evidence as intent. For example, could I, in a debate against unfreeze Iranian assets, assuming we chose the normalization topic, cite Pfister and Jarvis, in '99: "First, the contextual usage of the terms "normalize" and "normalization" provide immediate (though somewhat inconsistent) checks on affirmative ground. In the discussion of the first resolution, we offer the example of a case that might unfreeze Iranian Assets in an attempt to normalize economic relations with Iran. An interview with a senior Iranian diplomat indicates that unfreezing assets is a good idea, but that such an action would be a pre-condition for taking actions to normalize relations. However, releasing the assets would not constitute normalization itself. Subsequently, the affirmative would not be topical, and can be contextually defended as negative counterplan ground." I'm just wondering how judges out there would feel that it is legitimate to cite a wording paper in a topicality debate. Opinions? Nick Ellinger From kghali Tue Jun 1 15:34:14 1999 From: kghali (Kamal Ghali) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 16:34:14 -0400 Subject: Help In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19990601151845.00a671f4@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> Message-ID: Sorry for using this forum, but I am in a bit of a bind. I'm looking for housing this summer in Washington DC. I know it's late, but if anyone needs a roommate or wants to sublet, please backchannel me as soon as possible. Sorry for the inconvenience, and thanks for any help. Kamal Ghali >From Tue Jun 1 16:45:26 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 39358 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 16:45:49 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from x1.boston.juno.com (x1.boston.juno.com [205.231.100.21]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA17610 for ; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 16:45:47 -0400 Received: (from pgxenak at juno.com) by x1.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id EB298CF2; Tue, 01 Jun 1999 16:44:52 EDT X-Mailer: Juno 2.0.11 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-3,5-6,25-26,31-34,39-40,43-44,46-47,53-55,57,59-60,62-63,65,67-69,71,73,75-78,80,82,84,86,88,90,92,94-95,97,99,101,103,105-108,110,112,114,116,118,120,122,124-127,129,131,133-136,138,140,142-145,147,149-151,153,155,157,159,161-162,164,166,168,170-174,176-177,179-181,186-191 X-Juno-Att: 0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <19990601.164640.-389315.1.pgxenak at juno.com> Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 16:45:26 -0400 Reply-To: pgxenak at JUNO.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Paul Xenakis Subject: The Relevance of Secondary Sanctions 1. Resolved: The United States Government should substantially reverse its economic sanctions against one or more of the following: Iran, Iraq, Cuba, North Korea [or any country list deemed appropriate by the topic committee]. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------- The role that secondary sanctions will potentially have on a "sanctions" topic has seemingly been underestimated if not ignored. The above resolution would likely provide for cases that reversed laws such as the Iran-Lybia Sanctions Act, the Iran Missile Proliferation Act, as well as the Helms-Burton Act. Such sanction policies are even highlighted by Steve Mancuso as acts that are central to US (sanction) policy toward Iran, Lybia, and Cuba, respectively. These laws mandate the imposition of sanctions, absent a presidential waiver, against "parties" that do not act in a manner consistent with the US policies toward sanctioned nations. For example, The United States has imposed sanctions against Russian companies that have contributed to Iranian energy development. Moreover, EU nations have also been threatened with sanctions for similar behavior. These US actions, however, seem to be the very substance of the economic sanctions against *Iran*, as they effectively prevent the econmomic development of that nation. Secondary sanctions against countries such as Russia are used to enforce the US sanction policy against Iran. Similarly, the US similarly imposes secondary sanctions against foreign bodies under Helms-Burton as a means of enforcing its sanction policy against Cuba. Regardless of the direct recipient of secondary sanctions, such measures are intended to have the same effect as primary sanctions. Even primary sanctions involve a third party as they constrict the behavior of domestic, non-governmental companies. The same is true of secondary sanctions only the companies, or actors are foreign. This has at least two ramifications: 1) Secondary sanctions against foreign *companies* that deal with the government of a "rogue" may be considered sanctions against that nation's government. Plans could maybe reverse such sanctions. This would perhaps negate the inclusion of "government" into the reolution as proposed by Biza and Colin. 2) The topic may necessarily include action toward nations other than those listed in the resolution, such as the reversal of sanctions imposed on Russia or China for helping Iran develop missiles or nuclear warheads. Maybe this concern is over-stated, but at the very least this is something to consider when thinking about a "sanctions" topic. For those who desire contextual evidence of the above assertions, the following exerpts demonstrate secondary sanctions against Russian companies, EU nations and other bodies are described as "economic sanctions against" the the nations that might be listed in the resolution such as Iran. Of course this is a very preliminary search, better evidence is sure to be found. Insight on the News July 20, 1998, Monday, Final Edition A key sanctions statute now under attack, the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act, or ILSA, was enacted in August 1996 to address concerns that the Iranian government was supporting international terrorism and developing weapons of mass destruction. The legislation requires the president to impose sanctions on any investor of $40 million or more in the development of Iranian or Libyan petroleum resources. These sanctions were in addition to those imposed in the previous year by the executive orders of the Clinton administration which halted all U.S. trade and investment with Iran. Against the backdrop of political changes inside Iran, and a highly publicized waiver of ILSA sanctions against a French company, Total SA, and its Russian and Malaysian partners involved in a $2 billion investment in an Iranian gas and oil project, a debate has begun about the usefulness and effectiveness of ILSA and the economic sanctions against Iran. ABA, The International Lawyer, 1998 Similar concerns also motivated the Administration to navigate a skillful course through the diplomatic minefield set by the extraterritorial sanctions initiatives of 1996 against Cuba, Iran and Libya. Despite the heated objections of Congressional critics, no significant punitive actions against foreign investments were taken under either the Helms-Burton law against Cuba or the ILSA law against Iran and Libya. The Administration's restrained approach was dictated by lingering sensitivity to the negative reactions to both laws of private sector interests, overseas allies, and a practical recognition that such inaction was politically feasible in a nonelection year. However, the fundamental conflicts with the European Union and other U.S. allies that arose in 1996 over the Helms-Burton and ILSA laws were still unresolved at the end of the year. Basic questions of international law, and corresponding objections from close foreign allies against U.S. unilateral and extraterritorial sanctions policies, can be expected to continue to undermine U.S. multilateral trade and foreign policy initiatives in 1998. FDCH Political Transcripts, September 28, 1998 KHARRAZI: U.S. policies aimed at retarding economic prosperity of Iran and the region remain in place, despite their harmful implications for free and rule-based global commerce and trade on the one hand, and regional stability and progress on the other. Direct and secondary sanctions against Iran and its American and third country trading partners are being vigorously pursued. The United States even continues to actively oppose and obstruct, to the detriment of American companies and European and regional countries, the transfer of gas and oil from Central Asia and the Caucasus through Iran, neglecting economic, technical and environmental advantages of this option. Investor's Business Daily, September 23, 1998 The U.S. has passed what are called '' secondary sanctions'' against foreign firms that trade with Cuba. That has ''caused major diplomatic heartburn,'' Haass said. By trying to strengthen the embargo against Cuba, the U.S. threatens ties with its allies. Middle East Economic Digest July 10, 1998 The conference comes at a time when the US has relaxed secondary sanctions against Iran, allowing several deals, including a $2,000 million investment, by a consortium led by France's Total, and including Gazprom of Russia and Petronas of Malaysia, in phases two and three of South Pars Middle East Economic Digest January 2, 1998 The verbal exchanges between the two countries come as the US considers how to react to challenges to its secondary sanctions legislation against energy investments in Iran. Washington has yet to act against consortia, led by France's Total and Bow Valley of Canada, investing in, respectively, the offshore South Pars gas field and the offshore Balal oil field (MEED 14:11:97). The Clinton administration approved sanctions legislation in 1995 and 1996 reluctantly, under pressure from Congress, and is believed to be looking for ways of avoiding applying the sanctions. Of particular concern is the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act of 1996, which American, European and other allies say involves an unacceptable effort to impose US laws on others. White House efforts to reverse or radically change US policy on Iran is likely to meet strong resistance in Congress. Jewish lobby groups in the US are also reported to be putting pressure on the administration to stick to its previous policy. Change is seen as inevitable, but may be slow in coming. The Oil and Gas Journal October 13, 1997 The most likely scenario, however, is rejection of the U.S.-imposed sanctions by the rest of the world. Similar to the Helms-Burton bill for secondary sanctions against Cuba, the D'Amato bill could also result in court cases brought about by the affected companies with the support of their respective governments, or legal proceedings in international courts regarding violations of World Trade Organization rules. I'm not sure if a balance can be reached--maybe it already exists, but "direct" or "primary" could be inserted into the resolution before "economic sanctions". However, this would exclude reversals of policies such as Helms-Burton, ILSA, and other laws that many view as central to the topic. Paul Xenakis ___________________________________________________________________ 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/getjuno.html or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] From ccooper Tue Jun 1 15:41:56 1999 From: ccooper (Chris Cooper) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 16:41:56 -0400 Subject: Wording Papers and Framer's Intent Message-ID: Does anyone really take a "framers' intent" T argument seriously anyway? Frankly, I've never understood why the "framers'" intent is relevent to anything...and wholly as unpersuasive as reading debate theory "evidence" from other coaches. :-P Coop -----Original Message----- From: Nick Ellinger To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU Date: Tuesday, June 01, 1999 4:49 PM Subject: Wording Papers and Framer's Intent >First, let me say, to everyone who has submitted a topic wording paper, >exceptional work. The amount of work and thought that y'all put into >these is apparent and this community will have a difficult time choosing >among these well-presented options. > >The actual thrust of my post, however, is this: Do topic wording papers >give some actual ground to the framer's intent T argumentation? > >Historically, the framer's intent argument has broken down to "This case >is outside what the framer's intended." "Says who? Is not!" "Is too!" >and so on. > >Now, if we adopt a resolution based on one of these papers, can we use >the paper as evidence as intent. For example, could I, in a debate >against unfreeze Iranian assets, assuming we chose the normalization >topic, cite Pfister and Jarvis, in '99: > >"First, the contextual usage of the terms "normalize" and >"normalization" provide immediate (though somewhat inconsistent) checks >on affirmative ground. In the discussion of the first resolution, we >offer the example of a case that might unfreeze Iranian Assets in an >attempt to normalize economic relations with Iran. An interview with a >senior Iranian diplomat indicates that unfreezing assets is a good idea, >but that such an action would be a pre-condition for taking actions to >normalize relations. However, releasing the assets would not constitute >normalization itself. Subsequently, the affirmative would not be >topical, and can be contextually defended as negative counterplan >ground." > >I'm just wondering how judges out there would feel that it is legitimate >to cite a wording paper in a topicality debate. Opinions? > >Nick Ellinger > From mkuss Tue Jun 1 17:53:24 1999 From: mkuss (Matthew Kuss) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 15:53:24 -0700 Subject: "Substantially reverse...?" Message-ID: I am not sure this is even possible... most def's of reverse I have found dont allow for qualitative reversals... to reverse sanctions would be to do the exact oppsoite of them... not sure how substantial comes into play... Any ideas? Matt "Video games, not parents, are to blame for many of these teenage crimes. I'm certain it was Frogger that taught my son to jaywalk." From mabouzai Tue Jun 1 16:30:38 1999 From: mabouzai (Mohammed Abouzaid) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 17:30:38 -0400 Subject: What about the non-policy resolution! Message-ID: This may be a repetition of what has been said before, but I wanted to thank all those who were involved in writing the wording papers. I found all of them to offer an in-depth analysis of the areas which were covered. On the other hand, none of the paper except for Hoe's (My sincere apologies to any of the other authors if I skipped that part of their paper) discussed the potential non-policy resolution. Does any one else but I feel this is an important omission? How should we correct this? I fear it will be difficult to start a discussion on the non-policy resolution as it might become ignored in the apparently more important discussion of what policy resolution to have. Maybe ought to be a separate paper on the non-policy resolution (I am blaming myself first for not having thought of that before). I hope that we will nonetheless take this issue as seriously as it needs to be taken. Mohammed Abouzaid Richmond Debate "Which country? I've never felt that I belonged exclusively to one country, nor have I been able to identify "patriotically" with any other than losing causes. Patriotism is best thought of as an obscure dead language, learned prehistorically but almost forgotten and almost unused since. Nearly everything normally associated with it--wars, rituals of nationalistic loyalty, sentimentalized (or invented) traditions, parades, flags, etc.--is quite dreadful and full of appalling claims of superiority and pre-eminence. But perhaps those are all the results of applied patriotism. Is theoretical patriotism really that much better? Thinking affectionately about home is all I'll go along with." -- Edward Said From asnider Tue Jun 1 17:35:18 1999 From: asnider (Alfred C. Snider) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 17:35:18 -0500 Subject: Topic Wording Papers on the web Message-ID: At the CEDA website - http://debate.uvm.edu/ceda.html I seem to be missing wording paper #3 which I will add when I receive it. Best wishes, and now back to the HS handbook. Tuna Alfred Charles Snider -- Lawrence Professor of Forensics, University of Vermont Mail: 475 Main Street, UVM, Burlington, VT 05405-4225, Phone: 802-238-8345 mobile, 802-656-0097 office, Fax: 802-656-4275; DEBATE CENTRAL: Debate's Biggest Website http://debate.uvm.edu/; WORLD DEBATE INSTITUTE 1999 - make plans now - http://debate.uvm.edu/ndi.html From West Tue Jun 1 16:37:58 1999 From: West (Terry West) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 15:37:58 -0600 Subject: Wording Papers and Framer's Intent Message-ID: Q--Would "framer's intent" T. arguments quoting topic papers be valid? A--I don't see why you couldn't quote the topic paper (it's published via e-mail with relatively easy public access). Whether the T. argument would get you anywhere depends on the following: --Does anyone care about framers intent? --Are the framers the paper writers or the topic committee? --Will judges vote on that particular T argument regardless of framers intent? --Will judges vote on T? --Will judges vote on T against certain schools if you run the argument? --Will judges vote against you on T if certain other schools run the argument? Answer all of the above, and I think you have the answer. I'd certainly listen to "framer's intent" as a judge; I'm just not sure it would be my primary consideration. I intend no rudeness above; just thinking that the broader issues would need to be considered first. Terry West Southern Utah >>> Nick Ellinger 06/01 2:28 PM >>> First, let me say, to everyone who has submitted a topic wording paper, exceptional work. The amount of work and thought that y'all put into these is apparent and this community will have a difficult time choosing among these well-presented options. The actual thrust of my post, however, is this: Do topic wording papers give some actual ground to the framer's intent T argumentation? Historically, the framer's intent argument has broken down to "This case is outside what the framer's intended." "Says who? Is not!" "Is too!" and so on. Now, if we adopt a resolution based on one of these papers, can we use the paper as evidence as intent. For example, could I, in a debate against unfreeze Iranian assets, assuming we chose the normalization topic, cite Pfister and Jarvis, in '99: "First, the contextual usage of the terms "normalize" and "normalization" provide immediate (though somewhat inconsistent) checks on affirmative ground. In the discussion of the first resolution, we offer the example of a case that might unfreeze Iranian Assets in an attempt to normalize economic relations with Iran. An interview with a senior Iranian diplomat indicates that unfreezing assets is a good idea, but that such an action would be a pre-condition for taking actions to normalize relations. However, releasing the assets would not constitute normalization itself. Subsequently, the affirmative would not be topical, and can be contextually defended as negative counterplan ground." I'm just wondering how judges out there would feel that it is legitimate to cite a wording paper in a topicality debate. Opinions? Nick Ellinger From asnider Tue Jun 1 17:41:17 1999 From: asnider (Alfred C. Snider) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 17:41:17 -0500 Subject: World Debate Institute deadlines and applications Message-ID: We are still trying to type everything we have received into the database. Andy Ellis [who actually has to deal with all the mail and the faxes and email messages] tells me that we are doing VERY WELL in terms of numbers. We will publish a list later. In any case, because of our backlog, there is STILL TIME to apply for a scholarship as well as miss a potential late fee. At least email us and tell us you are attending. I am still waiting for names from several coaches who have reserved spots. We won't have scholarship news for at least two days. We will need to read all of this stuff carefully. By the way, we are more than glad to accept late applications all through the Summer. And now, back to the HS handbook.... Tuna Alfred Charles Snider -- Lawrence Professor of Forensics, University of Vermont Mail: 475 Main Street, UVM, Burlington, VT 05405-4225, Phone: 802-238-8345 mobile, 802-656-0097 office, Fax: 802-656-4275; DEBATE CENTRAL: Debate's Biggest Website http://debate.uvm.edu/; WORLD DEBATE INSTITUTE 1999 - make plans now - http://debate.uvm.edu/ndi.html From monte Tue Jun 1 17:39:40 1999 From: monte (Frank L Stevens) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 17:39:40 -0500 Subject: Rebecca Galentine: 1971-1999 In-Reply-To: <19990601200301.64522.qmail@hotmail.com> Message-ID: becky's life was spent helping others whether it be through debate, charity, or education. she was a remarkable person who will be missed by everyone who ever met her. the impact she has had on our community is evident everywhere. everyone should take a moment and be thankful that people like becky galentine are in their lives. she will be missed dearly. peace, Monte Stevens Kansas State University On Tue, 1 Jun 1999, Joshua Hoe wrote: > What a senseless loss of one of the greatest individuals I have ever met. > Debate truly lost one of its greatest friends yesterday. At the very least > we should celebrate the many great things that she brought to our lives and > cherish life just that much more. Goodbye Becky.....I will miss you. > > > Josh > > > > Joshua B. Hoe > University of North Texas > > >From: Sean Harris > >Reply-To: Sean Harris > >To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU > >Subject: Rebecca Galentine: 1971-1999 > >Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 12:17:26 -0700 > > > >Dear debate friends, > > > >Becky passed away yesterday morning, May 31st. She was in the hospital for > >the last couple of days, and they were able to make it as pain-free as > >possible. > > > >I know that all of you were concerned for Becky. Becky's family and > >everyone here in Seattle truly appreciates all the support the debate > >community has given. Debate was Becky's antidote to cancer, and even when > >she wasn't able to respond, the many messages of support were incredibly > >important to her. > > > >Joey has requested that in lieu of sending flowers people make a donation > >to > >the 2Chicks Foundation. All the information you need is at their website, > >http://www.2chicks.org. > > > >If you wish to send a card, the address is: > > > >Joey Austin > >541 N. 75th St. > >Seattle, WA 98103 > > > >Joey's roommate (and former Whitman debater) Erin Carlson is the primary > >contact person; if you want information about the formal services, you can > >call her at 206.297.3311. Or you can email me at this address and I'll > >send > >you information as it becomes available. > > > >Peace, > > > >Sean Harris > > > _______________________________________________________________ > Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com > From cornell7 Tue Jun 1 14:20:05 1999 From: cornell7 (Erik Cornellier) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 12:20:05 -0700 Subject: Cheers! Message-ID: Community Just wanted to take a second out of yours and my busy schedule to thank all of the people writing these topic wording papers. They are all excellent, and the effort put into them is obvious. This is the best mobilization I have seen to word a topic well. You are doing a great service to us all. Thanks again! Erik Cornellier Assistant Director of Debate 2445 East Burnt Tree Ln. Apt. 12 East Lansing, Mi. 48823 Home: (517) 351-3619 Office: (509) 323-6654 Email: cornell7 at pilot.msu.edu From mkrueger Tue Jun 1 18:25:07 1999 From: mkrueger (Krueger) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 18:25:07 -0500 Subject: topic wording papers Message-ID: Hey we also have topic wording papers and the original paper in text form on our website. http://www.mtsu.edu/~debate/topic.html The papers should be easy to identify and print. Happy reading! mike -- Michael Krueger Director of Debate Middle Tennessee State University Box 43 Murfreesboro, TN 37132 (615) 898-5607 (office) (615) 898-5826 (fax) http://www.mtsu.edu/~debate/ http://www.mtsu.edu/~debate/mdi.html http://www.mtsu.edu/~mkrueger/ From girl-genius Tue Jun 1 18:58:06 1999 From: girl-genius (Shawnessy Scott) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 23:58:06 0000 Subject: My namesake post.. shuddering Message-ID: Been almost 2 weeks without the Internet (moved and it took me a week to get the phone hooked up) and I had over 500 wonderful messages to sort through. Got it down to 100, all concerning sanctions and I've been doing some very very prelim research and I'm freaked out about the amount of ground there is. So far there's good stuff for possible cases on blocking all property and interests in government of country X ban on exports (name particular one that would hurt country X most) ban on aid like food & medicine to country X prolif blockades as far as neg How are these sanctions enforced? Not always, but quite possibly by the military. The Clinton Administration is against making sanctions against China. very sketchy stuff i'll be back after I read all this stuff glad to be back the novice Shawnessy Angelfire for your free web-based e-mail. http://www.angelfire.com From ifjxh Tue Jun 1 19:12:11 1999 From: ifjxh (Joshua Hoe) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 17:12:11 PDT Subject: What about the non-policy resolution! Message-ID: The topic committee will develop a non-policy version of all of the potential topics at the June 16-18th meeting in St Louis. Josh >From: Mohammed Abouzaid >Reply-To: Mohammed Abouzaid >To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU >Subject: What about the non-policy resolution! >Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 17:30:38 -0400 > >This may be a repetition of what has been said before, but I wanted >to thank all those who were involved in writing the wording papers. >I found all of them to offer an in-depth analysis of the areas which >were covered. >On the other hand, none of the paper except for Hoe's (My sincere >apologies to any of the other authors if I skipped that part of their >paper) discussed the potential non-policy resolution. Does any one >else but I feel this is an important omission? How should we correct >this? I fear it will be difficult to start a discussion on the >non-policy resolution as it might become ignored in the apparently >more important discussion of what policy resolution to have. Maybe >ought to be a separate paper on the non-policy resolution (I am >blaming myself first for not having thought of that before). I hope >that we will nonetheless take this issue as seriously as it needs to >be taken. > >Mohammed Abouzaid >Richmond Debate > >"Which country? I've never felt that I belonged exclusively to one >country, nor have I been able to identify "patriotically" with any >other than losing causes. Patriotism is best thought of as an obscure >dead language, learned prehistorically but almost forgotten and >almost unused since. Nearly everything normally associated with >it--wars, rituals of nationalistic loyalty, sentimentalized (or >invented) traditions, parades, flags, etc.--is quite dreadful and >full of appalling claims of superiority and pre-eminence. But perhaps >those are all the results of applied patriotism. Is theoretical >patriotism really that much better? Thinking affectionately about >home is all I'll go along with." > -- Edward Said _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com From girl-genius Tue Jun 1 19:13:09 1999 From: girl-genius (Shawnessy Scott) Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 00:13:09 0000 Subject: Farewell to Oppression & racism- I wish Message-ID: It is with a heavy heart that I bid farewell to my pet thread of conversation. An intro and then my last (and very brief) thoughts: First, I've got a co-op job this summer in Maryland. There's over a hundred of us here from various schools (from Purdue to Mississippi State) and there are exactly 3 black people, and 1 Puerto Rican. The three of us are black females. It's an experience that I'm not sure I'm entirely comfortable with. I get to hear them discuss the unfairness of minorities getting all the jobs and scholarships (while I kind of smile at the irony). I have a roommate, Kate, who's really sweet. And she's also really white, from Purdue. She brought back vivid memories of Kuss and Hoppock's arguments for the whites who've never been around any blacks before. I pray daily for patience. My other roommate is from an HBCU (Historically Black Colleges & Universities), Florida A&M and has been educating me a litte about Rastas (rastafarians) and the racism that changed what we know as the Bible. man, I said this was going to be short... ok here goes No line by line thanks to Gab & Krueger (Jedi masters of argument) and to Kuss, Hoppock, DW and others who carried on the discussion while I was gone It did (and will continue to) get out of hand. "Oppression and racism" isn't a thread on edebate it's part of our daily lives. We will always end up agreeing to disagree, because we're all too good of friends to let a difference of opinion separate us, but think about the people in America who aren't fortunate enough to have that kind of bond between sexes and races. Remember that when we leave this email discussion and debate rounds we live what we believe, and inevitably change minds by what we do. It doesn't matter if we come to a conclusion, just realize that your conclusion isn't the only one and certainly not the only right one. For the "neithers" , those neither black nor white, I apologize that you have to fit in this kind of messed up society where you have to be one or the other. Even Asians have to pick a race. As far as "white blindness" is concerned, we don't want the blind leading the blind... but I don't assume that I'm the only one who can see things clearly. Allow yourself to be led from time to time on things you don't know everything about, as I will continue to do. Thanks and I hope I don't have to say goodbye to the education that has benefited us all so much as a result of this the novice Shawnessy Angelfire for your free web-based e-mail. http://www.angelfire.com From ifjxh Tue Jun 1 19:14:36 1999 From: ifjxh (Joshua Hoe) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 17:14:36 PDT Subject: Rebecca Galentine: 1971-1999 Message-ID: I just wanted to ad one thing - my thoughts go out to Joey and all of Becy's family and friends. Josh >From: Frank L Stevens >To: Joshua Hoe >CC: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU >Subject: Re: Rebecca Galentine: 1971-1999 >Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 17:39:40 -0500 (CDT) > >becky's life was spent helping others whether it be through debate, >charity, or education. she was a remarkable person who will be missed by >everyone who ever met her. the impact she has had on our community is >evident everywhere. everyone should take a moment and be thankful that >people like becky galentine are in their lives. she will be missed >dearly. peace, > >Monte Stevens >Kansas State University > > >On Tue, 1 Jun 1999, Joshua Hoe wrote: > > > What a senseless loss of one of the greatest individuals I have ever met. > > Debate truly lost one of its greatest friends yesterday. At the very least > > we should celebrate the many great things that she brought to our lives and > > cherish life just that much more. Goodbye Becky.....I will miss you. > > > > > > Josh > > > > > > > > Joshua B. Hoe > > University of North Texas > > > > >From: Sean Harris > > >Reply-To: Sean Harris > > >To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU > > >Subject: Rebecca Galentine: 1971-1999 > > >Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 12:17:26 -0700 > > > > > >Dear debate friends, > > > > > >Becky passed away yesterday morning, May 31st. She was in the hospital for > > >the last couple of days, and they were able to make it as pain-free as > > >possible. > > > > > >I know that all of you were concerned for Becky. Becky's family and > > >everyone here in Seattle truly appreciates all the support the debate > > >community has given. Debate was Becky's antidote to cancer, and even when > > >she wasn't able to respond, the many messages of support were incredibly > > >important to her. > > > > > >Joey has requested that in lieu of sending flowers people make a donation > > >to > > >the 2Chicks Foundation. All the information you need is at their website, > > >http://www.2chicks.org. > > > > > >If you wish to send a card, the address is: > > > > > >Joey Austin > > >541 N. 75th St. > > >Seattle, WA 98103 > > > > > >Joey's roommate (and former Whitman debater) Erin Carlson is the primary > > >contact person; if you want information about the formal services, you can > > >call her at 206.297.3311. Or you can email me at this address and I'll > > >send > > >you information as it becomes available. > > > > > >Peace, > > > > > >Sean Harris > > > > > > _______________________________________________________________ > > Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com > > > _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com From ifjxh Tue Jun 1 19:14:48 1999 From: ifjxh (Joshua Hoe) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 17:14:48 PDT Subject: Rebecca Galentine: 1971-1999 Message-ID: I just wanted to ad one thing - my thoughts go out to Joey and all of Becky's family and friends. Josh >From: Frank L Stevens >To: Joshua Hoe >CC: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU >Subject: Re: Rebecca Galentine: 1971-1999 >Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 17:39:40 -0500 (CDT) > >becky's life was spent helping others whether it be through debate, >charity, or education. she was a remarkable person who will be missed by >everyone who ever met her. the impact she has had on our community is >evident everywhere. everyone should take a moment and be thankful that >people like becky galentine are in their lives. she will be missed >dearly. peace, > >Monte Stevens >Kansas State University > > >On Tue, 1 Jun 1999, Joshua Hoe wrote: > > > What a senseless loss of one of the greatest individuals I have ever met. > > Debate truly lost one of its greatest friends yesterday. At the very least > > we should celebrate the many great things that she brought to our lives and > > cherish life just that much more. Goodbye Becky.....I will miss you. > > > > > > Josh > > > > > > > > Joshua B. Hoe > > University of North Texas > > > > >From: Sean Harris > > >Reply-To: Sean Harris > > >To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU > > >Subject: Rebecca Galentine: 1971-1999 > > >Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 12:17:26 -0700 > > > > > >Dear debate friends, > > > > > >Becky passed away yesterday morning, May 31st. She was in the hospital for > > >the last couple of days, and they were able to make it as pain-free as > > >possible. > > > > > >I know that all of you were concerned for Becky. Becky's family and > > >everyone here in Seattle truly appreciates all the support the debate > > >community has given. Debate was Becky's antidote to cancer, and even when > > >she wasn't able to respond, the many messages of support were incredibly > > >important to her. > > > > > >Joey has requested that in lieu of sending flowers people make a donation > > >to > > >the 2Chicks Foundation. All the information you need is at their website, > > >http://www.2chicks.org. > > > > > >If you wish to send a card, the address is: > > > > > >Joey Austin > > >541 N. 75th St. > > >Seattle, WA 98103 > > > > > >Joey's roommate (and former Whitman debater) Erin Carlson is the primary > > >contact person; if you want information about the formal services, you can > > >call her at 206.297.3311. Or you can email me at this address and I'll > > >send > > >you information as it becomes available. > > > > > >Peace, > > > > > >Sean Harris > > > > > > _______________________________________________________________ > > Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com > > > _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com From girl-genius Tue Jun 1 19:16:18 1999 From: girl-genius (Shawnessy Scott) Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 00:16:18 0000 Subject: Black WomEn's Hair Message-ID: Gab and Gusta Elfvig thanks for recognizing and educating from the other end. Some of us can only say so much before people stop listening. contemplating the roots of my hair (any pun is unintentional) the novice Shawnessy Angelfire for your free web-based e-mail. http://www.angelfire.com From girl-genius Tue Jun 1 19:27:00 1999 From: girl-genius (Shawnessy Scott) Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 00:27:00 0000 Subject: Joe's Counter-Kritik Message-ID: I followed only about 20 messages on this thread before I became physically ill... Said only half-jokingly, I'm sorry that people have such sad plights but honestly! Women and homosexuals are just going to have to wait in line after black people. At least in MY mind. Don't have a cow all PC people. I would like to see more followup on those 2 questions. Joe's got a point. I find it quite interesting that so many people jumped in to defend some different letter in the spelling of "women/womyn" but didn't care to put their 2 cents in on certain other equally important discussions. I almost took that personally. More power to those who really believe in the movement, and especially to Gab, but I'm behind Kate O'Konski and Matt Williams. There were lots of posts to educate people about the truths surrounding sexism but my feelings were a little too hurt to read them, I'm afraid. To Scott Elliot about the freedom to spell... What-EVER. We're taught in school that there's a right spelling and that there's a wrong one. Is that oppression? (oops, I used a bad word) I'm not saying schools are all righteous, but the point has been made. Personally I didn't know the significance of that 'y' spelling until this thread educated me, but now that I know... How is the word 'women' oppressing me? Why can't we just change our thinking and make 'men' just a part of the word 'women'? Call ourselves something else like 'chicks' like the gays took the word 'queer'? Hey with all these great minds and passionate speeches for feminism... where's the deluge of education about racism and how something as small as spelling could be racist? being provoking once again the novice Shawnessy Angelfire for your free web-based e-mail. http://www.angelfire.com From girl-genius Tue Jun 1 19:54:46 1999 From: girl-genius (Shawnessy Scott) Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 00:54:46 0000 Subject: A Prediction... Texas Message-ID: Man, all the good discussions are over before I get to them :( A Prediction... Texas (paraphrases) Texas is next (gun culture) - Darius Wilkins Could be, but why make predictions? Morals and people responsible, not guns - Daniel Overbey Talk to some Canadians and get back with me. There will always be temptations to do wrong things, but it's easier to take away the temptation than to try and change an entire society. Even gradually, while children are dying. (what a shame, a few white kids die when black kids (and kids of all races for that matter) have to go to inner city schools every day where they are not safe) Kmart & Rosie - Joe Fischer Rosie did not endorse K-Mart with the intention of advertising weapons. Tom Selleck endorsed the NRA with that full intention and knowlege. K-Mart, like Wal-mart, sells a whole lotta other stuff than guns. What else does the NRA sell? Gun culture has effects - Josh Hoe Right on, Josh. I'm sure that's what the media and our nation's leaders are talking about right this minute. They'll talk until the next one, but by then we'll be desensitized to it and it won't matter. Where's the solution? You personally aren't responsible for coming up with one, but if everybody's having the discussion we're having than who's doing anything about it? Freedom has a price. The END. Joe Fischer Such eloquence! I know that's not a direct quote but that's the idea I got from your message. How much are you willing to pay, after you've fought for your freedom and paid? What's too high a price? Why does that have to be the exchange? It's like (stupid example coming) when Ariel had to give her voice to the witch Ursula in Disney's The Little Mermaid to get her freedom to have legs and stuff. Isn't the price a little high? Mighty Krueger speaks once again Chris Diamant is the MAN! Control not abolition - Josh Hoe Interesting theory... We're in debate, we know about legalities and wording.. What can you think of that people can't get around? (see above statement about Canada) rusty, but I have a lot of free time now the novice Shawnessy Angelfire for your free web-based e-mail. http://www.angelfire.com From girl-genius Tue Jun 1 19:57:24 1999 From: girl-genius (Shawnessy Scott) Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 00:57:24 0000 Subject: Star Wars and Bickering (if you've seen it) Message-ID: hello all star wars fans >Ok. >Forgive short patience and terse words after sorting through 30 pages of email. > >Thoughts on Star Wars >I didn't like Jar Jar, I thought they were making fun of black people, but that was just in the back of my mind. I thought he was ridiculous. Why don't you ask some little kids what they think? > >I think the movie lacked only 1 thing: another woman. >There should have been some love interest for Obi-Wan or Quai-Jon (whatever his name is). That would've brought something for the non-sci-fi women to go see, and the romantic tension would have added to the suspense. >Also, I like Samuel L. Jackson, but he should've been a Storm Trooper or something with no lines like that. >Very tacky commentary, but Obi-Wan and Quai-Jon were cute, so a girl might pay a little more attention to the advertisements. What do the guys have? Just Queen Amidala in her strange makeup. >But then again, I don't guess many people can compete with Princess Leia and her thing with Han Solo. >And back to the other thing... political agendas hidden in a Star Wars movie? You guys are worse than Jerry from Conspiracy Theory. (that he was partially right is not the point) >just a commentary >the novice >Shawnessy > > >Angelfire for your free web-based e-mail. http://www.angelfire.com > Angelfire for your free web-based e-mail. http://www.angelfire.com From shummell Tue Jun 1 19:58:37 1999 From: shummell (Shawn Hummell) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 17:58:37 -0700 Subject: A memorial service for Becky In-Reply-To: <19990602001437.31470.qmail@hotmail.com> Message-ID: Dear friends - A service for Becky will be held in Seattle on either Saturday or Sunday of this week. We are still working out the details, but for those of you who are interested in coming and want more information, please backchannel to this address and I will provide information as it becomes available. All of us here in Seattle appreciate your thoughts and good wishes. Shawn From ehrlenmeyerflask Tue Jun 1 20:02:29 1999 From: ehrlenmeyerflask (Aaron Klemz) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 18:02:29 PDT Subject: No subject Message-ID: Hello everybody, I am attempting to find my way to Seattle for Becky's services, which I understand are being held this weekend. If anyone is driving from the Midwest (I know it is a long way, but the bus may be my only alternative), and wants to split gas and driving with a qualified individual, who's company isn;t all that bad, please call me at 618-549-4984 or email me soon. I can get any Midwestern city and meet you. Thanks for any help that you can provide. Aaron Klemz SIU _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com From kenneth.delaughder Tue Jun 1 20:41:02 1999 From: kenneth.delaughder (Kenneth DeLaughder) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 19:41:02 -0600 Subject: Rebecca Galentine: 1971-1999 In-Reply-To: <000f01beac63$63bca600$9ba9f5d1@hpcustomer> Message-ID: Today another one of my friends is gone, and Im not quite sure what to say about that, except that they left me a richer person, in many ways. I remember hangin out at Emporia, I remember working on the Young Coaches forum, I remember being told really excitedly about the Seattle Debate Foundation, I remember comparing diseases and having her telling me that life went on... but its not as much fun as it used to be... I hope I can make it to the Northwest to say goodbye as well. I can't name many nicer and cooler people I've ever known. Rest in peace, as much peace as you gave everyone else. My love to all she left behind, I hope we all have one tenth her courage. its 4:20..gotta run Beck..:) KenD -- it was always one word to her On Tue, 1 Jun 1999, Sean Harris wrote: > Dear debate friends, > > Becky passed away yesterday morning, May 31st. She was in the hospital for > the last couple of days, and they were able to make it as pain-free as > possible. > > I know that all of you were concerned for Becky. Becky's family and > everyone here in Seattle truly appreciates all the support the debate > community has given. Debate was Becky's antidote to cancer, and even when > she wasn't able to respond, the many messages of support were incredibly > important to her. > > Joey has requested that in lieu of sending flowers people make a donation to > the 2Chicks Foundation. All the information you need is at their website, > http://www.2chicks.org. > > If you wish to send a card, the address is: > > Joey Austin > 541 N. 75th St. > Seattle, WA 98103 > > Joey's roommate (and former Whitman debater) Erin Carlson is the primary > contact person; if you want information about the formal services, you can > call her at 206.297.3311. Or you can email me at this address and I'll send > you information as it becomes available. > > Peace, > > Sean Harris > From strick9r Tue Jun 1 21:12:56 1999 From: strick9r (Internet) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 21:12:56 -0500 Subject: Announcement Message-ID: I'd like to congratulate former University of Central Oklahoma debater, Ashley Bowser, who has just accepted the Debate Coach position at Emporia High School in Emporia, Kansas. It's good to have you in Emporia, Ashley. Glen Strickland Debate Coach Emporia State University From dperkins Tue Jun 1 21:43:57 1999 From: dperkins (Dallas Perkins) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 22:43:57 -0400 Subject: No subject Message-ID: I knew it as soon as I saw Sean Harris listed in my in-box. I'd known before, I guess, but one can always hope for miracles. But there it was, and somehow I knew that the waiting and hoping were over. I did the strangest thing. I read all my other messages first, skipping Sean's, delaying dealing with the final certainty of it all. It even occurred to me that I might delete the message without ever opening it. I might have done it too, I'm such a coward, but I thought maybe it was good news, and anyway, Becky would have thought me ridiculous. She was the bravest person I ever knew, to not read the message out of sheer cowardice seemed absurd. So there it was, all doubt gone. I seek consolation in the end of pain, in the inspiration and accomplishment left behind. Nothing helps much. We have lost a great friend and colleague. dp From smithr Tue Jun 1 21:52:20 1999 From: smithr (Ross Smith) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 22:52:20 -0400 Subject: Framer's Intent, theory ev., ev. Message-ID: easy to laugh, Coop, but just what is "evidence" _evidence_ of? A good Solt card on debate theory might: a) have more explanatory content than many a debater offers in the typical theory debate, and b) be "authoritative", carrying the weight of expert opinion on the question at hand, opinion backed by long experience and deep consideration of the question at hand, backed up by an extensive written record. Solt on theory or the Times Picayune on social security reform? Or a law student on civil rights? As for T, meaning does seem to depend on usage and context (last I checked, anyway). With the kind of discussion being had now, there are no longer some unknown, mythical "framers"' issuing the resolution from debate's Olympus. The community is framing the topic. The internet has enabled discussion that never existed before. So, PERHAPS, something akin to "framers' intent" which, admittedly, was once easily dismissed, is now available as evidence to bring to the T table. Notice, limits, the extent of ground, ability to prepare, these are purposes of T. But we have to say that the words MEAN that this is the notice served, this is the ground, here's what to prepare for. Might references to this list discussion not be more relevant than Black's Law at times? --Ross >From Tue Jun 1 23:31:42 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 37000 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 23:34:14 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo22.mx.aol.com (imo22.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.66]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA20202 for ; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 23:34:12 -0400 Received: from Rsmithpgh at aol.com (14415) by imo22.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id 7WLDa19847; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 23:31:40 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 13 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 23:31:42 EDT Reply-To: Rsmithpgh at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Fred Phelps Subject: Becky Gallantine Comments: To: dperkins at fas.harvard.edu I once had the pleasure, with Becky Gallentine, Ben Stuckart and a few other close friends, of listening to some tunes that made us smile. This one really says 'hello' to me. Additionally, the man who wrote this tune, Eric Idle, is also dead. When I think of Becky, a particular moment at the University of Oregon debate tournament in the fall of 1995 comes to mind--when we were all enioying life and we listened to this tune: "Whenever life gets you down, Mrs Brown and things seem hard and tough and people are stupid and obnoxious and daft and you feel that you have had quite enough. Just remember that you are standing on a planet that's evolving and revolving at 900 miles an hour. That is orbiting at 19 miles a second, so it is reckoned, a sun that is the source of all our power The sun, and you and me and all that the stars that we can see are moving at a million miles a day. In an out of spiral arm at 40,000 miles an hour in the galaxy we call the Milky Way. Our galaxy itself contains a 100 billion stars it is a 100,000 light years side to side It bulges at the middle 16,000 light years thick but out by us, it's just 3,000 light years wide. We're thirty thousand light years from Galactic Central Point, we go around every 200 million years in this emerging and expanding universe. The universe keeps on expanding and expanding in all other directions it can whiz As fast as it can go at the speed of light you know 12 million miles a minute and that is the fastest speed there is So, remember when you're felling very small and insecure How amazingly unlikely is your birth And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space because there is bugger all here in earth." Eric Idle, Monty Python There is undoubtedly less intelligent life on earth now than there was 24 hours ago at this time. If there is anyone reading this who believes that you are performing a public service by being in debate, look to Miss Gallantine. She was public service. Period. But I can remember her laughing at this little tune-- and being cognizant (I guess) that we are all damn insignificant. She was, without question, less insignificant than the rest of us. Tony From veronicabarreto Tue Jun 1 23:13:44 1999 From: veronicabarreto (Veronica Barreto) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 21:13:44 -0700 Subject: Joe's Counter-Kritik Message-ID: Hey there: I know this thread is pretty much dead but I just had to answer your post... --- Shawnessy Scott wrote: > I followed only about 20 messages on this thread > before I became physically ill... > Said only half-jokingly, I'm sorry that people have > such sad plights but honestly! Women and homosexuals > are just going to have to wait in line after black > people. At least in MY mind. Don't have a cow all PC > people. First off, I don't really consider myself a PC type, but I am a citizen of this world. I'm sorry I didn't realize there was a line for subjugated classes. ;) Why do groups fighting hierarchies have set up a hierarchy of who gets taken care of first? Sociological problems are not like a hospital waiting room. Idealistically, we should address oppression, the bad word as you call it, every time we encounter it regaurdless of what it is based on. And what happens to intersectional forms of oppression? Should a black woman fight stereotypes based on her race and not on her gender. Don't worry no cow between my legs -- well not the last time I checked anyways. > I would like to see more followup on those 2 > questions. > Joe's got a point. I find it quite interesting that > so many people jumped in to defend some different > letter in the spelling of "women/womyn" but didn't > care to put their 2 cents in on certain other > equally important discussions. I almost took that > personally. I don't think you can assume what people believe according to what posts they chose to repond to or not. I usually don't post on edebate but I had a few extra minutes today. That doesn't mean that I don't think other issues that have been posted in the past are any less important. Besides, this listserve is constantly discussing issues regaurding race -- the phantom menace thread case in point. > More power to those who really believe in the > movement, and especially to Gab, but I'm behind Kate > O'Konski and Matt Williams. There were lots of posts > to educate people about the truths surrounding > sexism but my feelings were a little too hurt to > read them, I'm afraid. I'm sincerely sorry you feel that way. I doubt that was anyone's intention, nor is it mine. Although I don't quite understand why your feelings were hurt, but I would like to. I'd like a bit of clarification on that -- do gender issues just make you uncomfortable? > To Scott Elliot about the freedom to spell... > What-EVER. We're taught in school that there's a > right spelling and that there's a wrong one. Is that > oppression? (oops, I used a bad word) I'm not saying > schools are all righteous, but the point has been > made. Yeah, the school system is an agent that reifies oppression. Louis Althusser points to it as an ISA, an ideological state apparatus (i.e. a system that propagates certain modes of thinking that we interpellate and that ultimately form our identities and in doing so shapes our behavior). Try reading a math textbook from the eighties. Susie homemaker needs to know how many apples she'll need to bake her pie, while Chuck needs to find out how much his business should charge for his product. At least that's what I grew up with. As for Scott Elliot "right on, man!" My advice to you, for a week try using the alternate spelling. You gain a certain feeling of purposeful agency from taking advantage of that freedom to spell. Every time you write it you know why and you think about it and it keeps you very aware. I know that I tried out that experiment and found it very enlightening. Not only did it make me conscious of the gender subjugation that occurs on a daily basis around me and the language I use but my readers as well. I use it in every aspect of my life even academic papers. Every single professor that has read one of my papers has taken note and to my surprise even understood my use of language. > Personally I didn't know the significance of that > 'y' spelling until this thread educated me, but now > that I know... How is the word 'women' oppressing > me? Why can't we just change our thinking and make > 'men' just a part of the word 'women'? Call > ourselves something else > like 'chicks' like the gays took the word 'queer'? > We have made "men" just part of women for how long....I think actively participating in something is incredibly helpful (see above) The alternative spelling with a "y" is just some people's way of doing that. Sure there may be other ways of doing it but, as we say in the debate world, why would that be net beneficial? Does using the "y" create some kind of harm or is there any kind of additional advantage (that is mutually exclusive of the alternate spelling) to doing something else. > Hey > with all these great minds and passionate speeches > for > feminism... > where's the deluge of education about racism and how > something as small as spelling could be racist? That was perhaps the intention of last year's topic. Those who wanted to take advantage of it did. And if you think the debate community is tolerant of racist language or behavior, you have another thing coming. Racial discourse is constantly evolving on edebate and at tournaments and in rounds and in our squad rooms and in backchannels. Again I don't understand why there has to be a trade off -- why does discussing one issue mean that the other is completely ignored? This is a polyphonic community where many discussions occur simultaneously, no need to discourage one discussion to propel another. Just some of my thoughts, Veronica > being provoking once again > the novice > Shawnessy > > > Angelfire for your free web-based e-mail. > http://www.angelfire.com > === Veronica Barreto University of Miami (305) 689-5798 "Logic is just another form of the imagination" -- Fransisco Clemente _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com From arsenalgunners2 Wed Jun 2 00:19:33 1999 From: arsenalgunners2 (Mick Souders) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 22:19:33 PDT Subject: ADI Message-ID: Could I get the ADI information sent to me this year? My information should in the files from last year, but if its not, you can email me to get my address. Mick Souders Seattle University _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com >From Wed Jun 2 03:30:43 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 37078 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 03:31:33 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo13.mx.aol.com (imo13.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.3]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA17646 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 03:31:30 -0400 Received: from Lotzca at aol.com (14385) by imo13.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id nHAVa02106 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 03:30:43 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 4 Message-ID: <3818734e.248637a3 at aol.com> Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 03:30:43 EDT Reply-To: Lotzca at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Chris Lotz Subject: Re: Framer's Intent, theory ev., ev. In a message dated 6/1/99 9:52:42 PM Central Daylight Time, smithr at WFU.EDU writes: > As for T, meaning does seem to depend on usage and context (last I checked, > anyway). With the kind of discussion being had now, there are no longer some > unknown, mythical "framers"' issuing the resolution from debate's Olympus. > The community is framing the topic. The internet has enabled discussion that > never existed before. So, PERHAPS, something akin to "framers' intent" > which, admittedly, was once easily dismissed, is now available as evidence > to bring to the T table. Evidence of what? The fact that there is an ongoing topic discussion does not mean that this discussion should shape topicality debates. People will have different reasons for voting for different resolutions, not necessarily the same sentiments of their peers who speak openly on the "L" or author topic papers. For example, I might be inclined to vote for a particular resolution because I think it will have great agent counterplan evidence while authors of the paper and proponents of that same resolution believe the topic is great for kritik ground. So there can be no overriding community consensus or "framers intent." And even if most of the supporters of one particular resolution all base their support for that resolution for the same identical reasons, what does that suggest? Not much, because far less than a majority of the members of the community will have spoken (after all, selection of a particular resolution is rarely by unanimity or a decisive margin). Debaters should avoid speculating about "framer's intent" based on misguided and misinformed perceptions about the whims of the community during the resolution framing period and instead, find better ways to defend the merits of their own topicality interpretations and arguments. That's all folks, Chris Lotz Baylor Law > --Ross From simmonbm Wed Jun 2 03:03:07 1999 From: simmonbm (Brian Simmonds) Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 01:03:07 -0700 Subject: Becky's Service from Portland Message-ID: I'm planing to drive from Portland to Seattle this weekend to attend memorial services for Becky Galentine. If anyone needs a ride from Portland or somewhere else on I-5, I'm sure we could work something out. Brian Whitman From kenneth.delaughder Wed Jun 2 05:42:48 1999 From: kenneth.delaughder (Kenneth DeLaughder) Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 04:42:48 -0600 Subject: Announcement In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.19990601211256.0080c320@mail.cadvantage.com> Message-ID: Ill second that motion. Hey Bowser, get in touch with me soon, we should talk about a few things! congrats! wooo hooo Ken On Tue, 1 Jun 1999, Internet wrote: > I'd like to congratulate former University of Central Oklahoma debater, > Ashley Bowser, who has just accepted the Debate Coach position at Emporia > High School in Emporia, Kansas. It's good to have you in Emporia, Ashley. > > Glen Strickland > Debate Coach > Emporia State University > From broda Wed Jun 2 06:59:36 1999 From: broda (Kenneth T. Broda-Bahm) Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 07:59:36 -0400 Subject: Rebecca Galentine: 1971-1999 Message-ID: "Imagine that you enter a parlor. You come late. When you arrive, others have long preceded you, and they are engaged in a heated discussion, a discussion too heated for them to pause and tell you exactly what it is about. In fact, the discussion had already begun long before any of them got there, so that no one present is qualified to retrace for you all the steps that had gone before. You listen for awhile, until you decide that you have caught the tenor of the argument; then you put in your oar. Someone answers; you answer [her]; another comes to your defense; another aligns himself against you, to either the embarrassment or gratification of your opponent, depending upon the quality of your ally's assistance. However, the discussion is interminable. The hour grows late, you must depart. And you do depart, with the discussion still vigorously in progress." - Kenneth Burke, but with an empty chair and an awkward silence. I count myself lucky that I was there when Becky caught the tenor of the argument and put in her oar, and that for at least a brief and shining time she was my friend. From dperkins Wed Jun 2 07:22:19 1999 From: dperkins (Dallas Perkins) Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 08:22:19 -0400 Subject: Topic Papers Message-ID: I have been generally quite pleased with the substance of the topic papers, and commend the authors. I have not read all of them carefully, but I have scanned them all and read parts carefully. It looks like a fun area. However, I have a concern. It seems to me that the framers are facing a serious problem in terms of writing a topic that accomplishes what everybody seems to want. What does everybody want? It seems to me that Mancuso captured it pretty well in his paper: We want the aff to have to make large, wholesale, systemic changes in overall sanctions policy, not merely create a few exceptions to a policy already shot full of exceptions. At the same time, we want the aff to have the flexibility to go beyond merely ending sanctions, perhaps ending the threat of military confrontation, or increasing aid, or establishing formal diplomatic relations. All of these seem to be part of what is called normalization, and without them, an affirmative policy may indeed be quite hollow. How are these two goals to be met? Alas, I don't really think anybody has found acceptable language, and it's not for lack of trying. The Hernandez paper has some provocative suggestions, but it seemed to me that none of them reliably met the first criterion: In each case, the aff could topically make small, isolated changes in overall sanctions policy towards a country. Consider, "a policy to normalize relations." While such a policy might attack a broad range of sanctions, it seems to me quite clear that affs would prevail by taking SMALL STEPS TOWARDS NORMALIZATION. They may not normalize ALL RELATIONS, but they take a step in that direction. Even using Mancuso's worst scenario, an aff that added the clothing exception to other humanitarian exceptions would surely win topicality with the irrefutable claim that they had normalized relations in the area of clothing exports, and the topic never said that they had to normalize ALL RELATIONS. Some normalization is enough, and they did some. Of course, one coule write a topic which said that ALL SANCTIONS against some country or countries had to be removed. While this more than sufficiently limits affirmative ground (there would basically be one plan per topic country), it enables the negative to counterplan with a single, perhaps frequently trivial, exception, ot the overall removal of sanctions. This seems an undue strategic advantage, and in any event will lose the focus on the big picture policy debate the framers (and all of us) yearn for. Another aspect of the discussion has me a little worried. Mancuso urges that affs have the flexibility to do much more than merely reduce or eliminate sanctions, that they be allowed to change our military policy, for example, all as part of an overall effort to normalize relations and engage. This seems reasonable, as little may be accomplished otherwise. However, consider how the topic is thus expanded: an affirmative can adopt a few small changes in sanctions policy, then add on a ban on military intervention, claiming most of he big advantages from the latter. Steve avers that the aff would still be required to to defend the sanctions part of the plan, but that helps the neg ONLY IF THE TOPIC LANGUAGE MAKES THE SANCTIONS PART OF THE PLAN BE REALLY SUBSTANTIAL, and so far nobody has proposed any language that does that without going so far as to allow exceptions counterplans. If I had any proposals, I'd share them, but I don't. This is not an easy drafting problem. dp From reno Wed Jun 2 08:11:10 1999 From: reno (Skip Eno) Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 08:11:10 -0500 Subject: A Friend to all of us In-Reply-To: <199906020039.UAA29095@lab.housing.fsu.edu> Message-ID: Becky never met a stranger--she related to all of us, from the first moment, as friends. I think her Buddha nature permeated all of her encounters, and I know she had an uncanny focus on most all of the important realities in a world choked by illusions. The work that she accomplished during her short orbit was deep and enduring, far more insightful than usual in so few years. I think Becky was the hardest worker-player I have ever met. Perhaps the most delightful awareness I will carry the rest of my life arises from Becky's amazing sense of irreverence. She saw the humor in everything, including her own suffering. Her "off the cuff" nature made her completely accessible and admirable. I think she and Buddha must have met somewhere along the road, and they had a good laugh. Some of the final thoughts Becky and I shared centered on a book, "Zen Seeds." We, like all of us in this life, share a metaphor. In each seed so many lives, past present future, exist simultaneously. Take up one of Becky's--there were so many--nurture it and cross it with your own--she lives in the new growth of her legacy and the fertile soil of our hearts. My heart and soul are fuller with Becky. In deepest sympathy and celebration to Joey and Becky's immediate and extended families. Skip Eno From ccooper Wed Jun 2 08:56:56 1999 From: ccooper (Chris Cooper) Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 09:56:56 -0400 Subject: Framer's Intent, theory ev., ev. Message-ID: Ross: I agree with your assessment of "evidence". I think I've come to understand that "evidence" is self-justifying...an interpretive dance is just as legitimate if it communicates as a quote from lexxis. I may have dismissed framers' intent too quickly. If a debater read a piece of "evidence" that provided warrants for the inclusion/exclusion of certain interpretations based on the community's discussions pre-resolution than I would listen to those warrants and evaluate them. Nevertheless, it is somewhat laughable to hear a debater quote someone you know as expert authority on debate theory. Your personal knowledge of that person (and their general state of mind) is going to affect your evaluation of the warrants. Consider the different ways in which you would evaluate a piece of "evidence" from Hingstman versus one from Berube. I think if I found myself favoring the latter over the former I'd have to take a L-O-N-G cigarette break.... Coop -----Original Message----- From: Ross Smith To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU Date: Tuesday, June 01, 1999 11:11 PM Subject: Re: Framer's Intent, theory ev., ev. >easy to laugh, Coop, but just what is "evidence" _evidence_ of? > >A good Solt card on debate theory might: > >a) have more explanatory content than many a debater offers in the typical >theory debate, and >b) be "authoritative", carrying the weight of expert opinion on the question >at hand, opinion backed by long experience and deep consideration of the >question at hand, backed up by an extensive written record. > >Solt on theory or the Times Picayune on social security reform? Or a law >student on civil rights? > >As for T, meaning does seem to depend on usage and context (last I checked, >anyway). With the kind of discussion being had now, there are no longer some >unknown, mythical "framers"' issuing the resolution from debate's Olympus. >The community is framing the topic. The internet has enabled discussion that >never existed before. So, PERHAPS, something akin to "framers' intent" >which, admittedly, was once easily dismissed, is now available as evidence >to bring to the T table. > >Notice, limits, the extent of ground, ability to prepare, these are purposes >of T. But we have to say that the words MEAN that this is the notice served, >this is the ground, here's what to prepare for. Might references to this >list discussion not be more relevant than Black's Law at times? > >--Ross > From BILESROD Wed Jun 2 09:09:23 1999 From: BILESROD (Rodger Biles) Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 09:09:23 -0500 Subject: Memories of Becky Message-ID: There are so many things which leap to mind when i stop to think of Becky. She was a joy to judge when she competed...she was even a bigger joy to observe as she evolved into a teacher and coach. She was an instinctive teacher as is evidenced by how she turned this community into activists over the breast cancer issue. She taught us all that suffering is not a private thing and when one person is in pain we are all diminished. I will always carry in my heart her smile and laugh. It was impossible to be around Becky and not be smiling. She brought such joy to life and to those who observed her life. Her impact on us is undeniable. It is one of those strange situations in life when we all knew that her passing was close and inevitable....yet the sense of loss is dramatic. We knew it was coming..yet it is hard to accept. Val and I send our warmest wishes and heart felt condolences to Joey, Becky's family, and Becky's debate family. Rodger From ccooper Wed Jun 2 09:57:20 1999 From: ccooper (Chris Cooper) Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 10:57:20 -0400 Subject: The Novice certainly is... Message-ID: Shawnessy Scott blinds us with her brilliance: "Women and homosexuals are just going to have to wait in line after black people. At least in MY mind. " Bombast of unparalelled ignorance, revealing just how little the Novice has learned. Opressions are not neatly compartmentalized, set into a hierarchy and given a triage number. Veronica put it best: the world of the oppressed is not a hospital waiting room where those with the best insurance (read: claim of victimization) get served first. How utterly naive. Until we begin to combat modes of oppression - the action not the consequences - we will only reconstruct the forms of oppression (as Shawnessy does above) with all of their attendant hierarchies. No Shawnessy...chicks and fags need wait for no one. We will take our freedom at will and ponder why you continue to stand in line like so much chattle. COOP -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/19990602/e93e62a6/attachment.html From jwpatt00 Wed Jun 2 10:38:24 1999 From: jwpatt00 (J.W. Patterson) Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 11:38:24 -0400 Subject: TOC: OFFICIAL POLICY RESULTS Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 5591 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/19990602/a307f339/attachment.bin From girl-genius Wed Jun 2 10:51:50 1999 From: girl-genius (Shawnessy Scott) Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 15:51:50 0000 Subject: The Novice certainly is... Message-ID: Coop, you post to the list and you're fair game read on: Chris Cooper wrote: >Shawnessy Scott blinds us with her brilliance: > >"Women and homosexuals are just going to have to wait in line after black people. At least in MY mind. " > >Bombast of unparalelled ignorance, revealing just how little the Novice has learned. That wasn't designed to display my brilliance or lack thereof. Think of it this way (if, and only if you're of an open mind): Voting first they changed the laws regarding blacks then they changed for women Affirmative Action first enacted for blacks (among others) and women then Hispanics joined in the 70s perhaps a future for gays (in the line of historically disadvantaged groups getting fairness and compensation, perhaps) Specific laws and remedies for discrimination blacks first start helping to define discrimination as far as racism is concerned women say yeah, laws concerning sexual discrimination come into play gays are next (see the sex/gender posting thing) It's a line. It's like stairs where we make steps. Right now most of America is conviced that racism is wrong. Sexism was close behind, although what's acceptable is still being defined. Heterosexism is just beginning to surface as a wrong. You can't lump them together and push the "SOLVE" button. There's a process involved in reality that says people can only deal with so much at once. By that I mean the legal system is real slow to change. Interracial marriage is still illegal in Alabama. How can you expect these people to jump automatically to solving for women's and gays' rights? >Opressions are not neatly compartmentalized, set into a hierarchy and given a triage number. Veronica put it best: the world of the oppressed is not a hospital waiting room where those with the best insurance (read: claim of victimization) get served first. How utterly naive. I admit to naivete. I think you guys are the ones missing reality and also forgetting all the stuff about backlash. We may not be afraid of it in rounds, and it's not a reason to stop progress, but it does have an effect on the way we do things. There is no best or worst or most oppressed. There ARE categories and levels, however, in the mind of every American. I'm willing to go out on a limb and say that Americans do rank these things and right now the degree of comfort we have with making active attempts to solve racism (after a hundred years of slow, slow process), sexism and heterosexism will be next (in that order, yes) to be solved. We'll be able to make parallels and comparisons in movements, and in previous laws. >Until we begin to combat modes of oppression - the action not the consequences - we will only reconstruct the forms of oppression (as Shawnessy does above) with all of their attendant hierarchies. I'm not reconstructing anything, least of all oppression. I can see that any attempts at honesty are not welcome on this list. Let me just pick my mask back up and go back to hiding behind the widely accepted facade of political correctness and only share my opinions when they agree with everyone else's. What a valuable lesson to have learned from debate. >No Shawnessy...chicks and fags need wait for no one. We will take our freedom at will and ponder why you continue to stand in line like so much chattle. what-EVER! I can see now all the freedom that women and homosexuals are just reaching out to grab! Welcome back to reality, and please put the crack rock down. It's an uphill battle, a struggle, one movement stands on the shoulders or draws from the victories of the others. And where did you come to the conclusion that I was standing in line "like so much chattel"? I'm sure that's what my recent deluge of posts on racism have been all about. Me, just waiting around for freedom to happen. People always take the opportunity to poke giant holes in unrealistic cases in rounds, but think about the practicality of what you're saying. In theory it's fine to talk about taking oppression in one huge chunk and attacking all of it, but that'll be the vaguest and least successful law in all of history. Focus and order are needed to solve any problem, and any problem-solver knows that you have to separate it into manageable parts, and get at the root before you can deal with it. back in the game the novice Shawnessy P.S. - You should know better than to call me out on perceived idiotic statements. Considering the number of activists, etc. on this list do you really think I'd make a blanket offensive statement with absolutely no logic behind it? I was afraid at one point that I'd be attending the funerals of Fischer and Massey. Angelfire for your free web-based e-mail. http://www.angelfire.com From sac82434 Wed Jun 2 11:56:52 1999 From: sac82434 (Tiffany VampyreCat StPatrickWells) Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 09:56:52 -0700 Subject: Ans. Shawnessy Scott In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 2 Jun 1999, Shawnessy Scott wrote: > Voting > first they changed the laws regarding blacks > then they changed for women > Affirmative Action > first enacted for blacks (among others) and women > then Hispanics joined in the 70s > perhaps a future for gays (in the line of historically disadvantaged > groups getting fairness and compensation, perhaps) Why is making people wait for fairness good? Are you saying that we have to stick to the way things were done in the past? I don't think that arguement holds any weight with me. "Because we've always done things that way" has never convinced me to do anything. Are you saying that we must allow systems of oppression to continue to operate wherever we see them because we must pick one type of oppression and fight only that type of oppression? I just don't get it. Why? > Specific laws and remedies for discrimination > blacks first start helping to define discrimination > as far as racism is concerned > women say yeah, laws concerning sexual discrimination come into play > gays are next (see the sex/gender posting thing) It doesn't have to be separated like that. Just because one person spoke up first, does that mean that all the other voices must remain silent? > It's a line. It's like stairs where we make steps. Right now most of >America is conviced that racism is wrong. Sexism was close behind, >although what's acceptable is still being defined. Heterosexism is just >beginning to surface as a wrong. You can't lump them together and push >the "SOLVE" button. There's a process involved in reality that says >people can only deal with so much at once. By that I mean the legal >system is real slow to change. Interracial marriage is still illegal in >Alabama. How can you expect these people to jump automatically to >solving for women's and gays' rights? You're defining a world I don't want to live in. Whatever the consequences, I won't sit silent when I see what I believe is oppression. You can choose to ignore gender issues in favor of what are known as race issues; I think it's a false dilemma. I don't expect anyone to jump automatically to any new position. I am perfectly willing to speak up and tell them why they should care, how I think the oppression is harming people, and ask them to help interrupt systems of oppression. People don't always listen. Sometimes their eyes glaze over, and they ignore me. Sometimes they laugh. I take it as a sign that they at least heard me. Maybe it helps to be heard. The problem I have with you saying "wait in line" is that there is no need to wait. You are trying to paint a world in which anyone who speaks against any injustice that isn't in your particular area of concern is somehow involved in uniquely oppressing you. You haven't convinced me. > >Opressions are not neatly compartmentalized, set into a hierarchy and >>given a triage number. Veronica put it best: the world of the >>oppressed is not a hospital waiting room where those with the best >>insurance (read: claim of victimization) get served first. How utterly >>naive. > > I admit to naivete. I think you guys are the ones missing reality and >also forgetting all the stuff about backlash. We may not be afraid of it >in rounds, and it's not a reason to stop progress, but it does have an >effect on the way we do things. You are right the first time, backlash is not a reason to stop progress. There is no best or worst or most >oppressed. There ARE categories and levels, however, in the mind of >every American. I'm willing to go out on a limb and say that Americans >do rank these things and right now the degree of comfort we have with >making active attempts to solve racism (after a hundred years of slow, >slow process), sexism and heterosexism will be next (in that order, yes) >to be solved. We'll be able to make parallels and comparisons in >movements, and in previous laws. > I don't want to be out on that limb with you. Oppression is bad, whatever it's based on. > >Until we begin to combat modes of oppression - the action not the >>consequences - we will only reconstruct the forms of oppression (as >>Shawnessy does above) with all of their attendant hierarchies. > > I'm not reconstructing anything, least of all oppression. I can see >that any attempts at honesty are not welcome on this list. Let me just >pick my mask back up and go back to hiding behind the widely accepted >facade of political correctness and only share my opinions when they >agree with everyone else's. What a valuable lesson to have learned from >debate. > I'm not asking you to put on a mask, to hide, or to be silent. I'm asking you not to tell me to be silent on issues of gender (womyn's rights/ homosexual rights/sexual orientation issues). I hope you change your mind, and that you decide that speaking out against oppression doesn't have to be limited to one category at a time. > >No Shawnessy...chicks and fags need wait for no one. We will take >>our freedom at will and ponder why you continue to stand in line like so >>much chattle. > > what-EVER! I can see now all the freedom that women and homosexuals >are just reaching out to grab! Welcome back to reality, and please put >the crack rock down. It's an uphill battle, a struggle, one movement >stands on the shoulders or draws from the victories of the others. And >where did you come to the conclusion that I was standing in line "like >so much chattel"? I'm sure that's what my recent deluge of posts on >racism have been all about. Me, just waiting around for freedom to >happen. People always take the opportunity to poke giant holes in >unrealistic cases in rounds, but think about the practicality of what >you're saying. In theory it's fine to talk about taking oppression in >one huge chunk and attacking all of it, but that'll be the vaguest and >least successful law in all of history. Focus and order are needed to >solve any problem, and any problem-solver knows that you have to >separate it into manageable parts, and get at the root before you can >deal with it. > The focus and order you say are needed do not necessitate silence on issues of gender. The focus and order can come in the form of a personal committment to speak up, to refuse to remain silent. I don't know exaclty where the root of oppression is. I suspect that it may be embedded in the language with which I form my thoughts. Still, I won't refuse to struggle, I feel I must oppose oppression when and where I can. You won't convice me to "wait in line." I'm hoping I can convince you not to wait in line either. Tiffany From tessa111 Wed Jun 2 12:05:22 1999 From: tessa111 (Elizabeth Dudash) Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 10:05:22 PDT Subject: ADI question Message-ID: Are there still spots open for ADI? My partner and I are still wanting to attend, and I want to make sure before I send in the money. Thanks, Sam Meyer Miami Debate _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com From ccooper Wed Jun 2 12:03:28 1999 From: ccooper (Chris Cooper) Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 13:03:28 -0400 Subject: The Novice certainly is... Message-ID: Shawnessy: I think you try to justify your statements by appealing to the fallacy that law determines freedom from oppression and that it propells social change rather than follows it. The liberatory social movements of the early civil rights era utilized consciousness-raising sessions to condition a consciousness of modes of oppression. These sessions took almost the reverse course of what you have suggested. Reflecting upon the opressed situation of another revealed the intersectionality of the forms of oppression, exposing common modes. Thus, individuals in consiousness-raising settings began to understand how sexism reinforced heterosexism and how racism and sexism intermingled in the demasculization of people of color. Unfortunately, from those beginnings, many of these social movements fell into the same sort of unhealthy solipsism that misguides your attempts to identify the subject of oppression through the lens of the oppressor (blacks, gays, women, etc.). This caused many of these social movements to fragment along the lines of opressed identities. When Sartre examined the reflexive part of praxis as part of his attempt to save Marxist theory from its deterministic bent, he uses the example of scarcity as the source of commodification of human beings, which is the manifestation of class oppression. According to Sartre, people cannot recognize their mutual humanity, their basic freedom to create history together, because they are opposed to one another in a fundamental sense. Because of the scarcity of material value, some will be designated as expendables. Some people will be designated as non-human in relation to scarce resources and every person will bear the mark of non-humanity since it is possible that they too can be so designated. In the same vein (and following the form of oppression with which I am most familiar), queer people cannot recognize their mutual humanity because some people will be designated the sexual "other" in relatio to the boundaries of acceptable sexual identity and every queer person (that is, every non-heterosexual) will bear the mark of non-humanity since it is possible that they too can be so designated. Failing to recognize the limiting siutation that this mark of otherness imposes upon EVERY other individual creates competition between oppressed individuals. It is this competition for recognition of full humanity that drives assimilationist strategies in any liberatory movement. Ironically, it is because all bear this same mark of non-humanity (by the mere possibility of being so designated) which renders all accomodationist strategies hopeless. Your vision of social change is hopelessly marred with the assumption that resource mobilization (by this I mean political resources, the ability to change policy) is or has ever been a successful strategy for social change. But this accomodationist approach to social change may backfire. First, because it will never completely work, as the fate of the assimilated German Jews all too tragically demonstrates. What incentive do you have to come back for me when you have crossed the threshold from the world of the other? Should I just trust you because you're a good person? What proof do I have that once you've been accepted you will help to pull me across the line? Second, even if resource mobilization strategies managed top overcome the practical barriers to true social trnasformation, assimilation has as its victims certain folks who will never comform to accepted stndards. In my culture that means people like drag queens, sado-masochistic subcultures, NAMBLA... Your vicion of social change leaves intact a social structure that sustains itself by constantly defining who's in, and as a result, who'd out. In such a system, some "Other" will always be constructed as a repository for the culture's most uncomfortable fears. Whent eh times get rough, the Other will inevitably be blamed. In short, even the promises of institutional and legal reform that you seek may never be enought o address the root of the problem - just ask James Byrd or Matthew Shephard. Coop PS. And I call you out on these things not because I'm trying to force some PC mask upon you but because I think you're wrong. The PC red-herring isn't much of a defense. -----Original Message----- From: Shawnessy Scott To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU Date: Wednesday, June 02, 1999 12:11 PM Subject: Re: The Novice certainly is... >Coop, you post to the list and you're fair game > >read on: > >Chris Cooper wrote: >>Shawnessy Scott blinds us with her brilliance: >> >>"Women and homosexuals are just going to have to wait in line after black people. At least in MY mind. " >> >>Bombast of unparalelled ignorance, revealing just how little the Novice has learned. > >That wasn't designed to display my brilliance or lack thereof. Think of it this way (if, and only if you're >of an open mind): >Voting >first they changed the laws regarding blacks >then they changed for women >Affirmative Action >first enacted for blacks (among others) and women >then Hispanics joined in the 70s >perhaps a future for gays (in the line of historically disadvantaged groups getting fairness and compensation, perhaps) >Specific laws and remedies for discrimination >blacks first start helping to define discrimination >as far as racism is concerned >women say yeah, laws concerning sexual discrimination come into play >gays are next (see the sex/gender posting thing) > >It's a line. It's like stairs where we make steps. Right now most of America is conviced that racism is wrong. Sexism was close behind, although what's acceptable is still being defined. Heterosexism is just beginning to surface as a wrong. You can't lump them together and push the "SOLVE" button. There's a process involved in reality that says people can only deal with so much at once. By that I mean the legal system is real slow to change. Interracial marriage is still illegal in Alabama. How can you expect these people to jump automatically to solving for women's and gays' rights? > >>Opressions are not neatly compartmentalized, set into a hierarchy and given a triage number. Veronica put it best: the world of the oppressed is not a hospital waiting room where those with the best insurance (read: claim of victimization) get served first. How utterly naive. > >I admit to naivete. I think you guys are the ones missing reality and also forgetting all the stuff about backlash. We may not be afraid of it in rounds, and it's not a reason to stop progress, but it does have an effect on the way we do things. There is no best or worst or most oppressed. There ARE categories and levels, however, in the mind of every American. I'm willing to go out on a limb and say that Americans do rank these things and right now the degree of comfort we have with making active attempts to solve racism (after a hundred years of slow, slow process), sexism and heterosexism will be next (in that order, yes) to be solved. We'll be able to make parallels and comparisons in movements, and in previous laws. > >>Until we begin to combat modes of oppression - the action not the consequences - we will only reconstruct the forms of oppression (as Shawnessy does above) with all of their attendant hierarchies. > >I'm not reconstructing anything, least of all oppression. I can see that any attempts at honesty are not welcome on this list. Let me just pick my mask back up and go back to hiding behind the widely accepted facade of political correctness and only share my opinions when they agree with everyone else's. What a valuable lesson to have learned from debate. > >>No Shawnessy...chicks and fags need wait for no one. We will take our freedom at will and ponder why you continue to stand in line like so much chattle. > >what-EVER! I can see now all the freedom that women and homosexuals are just reaching out to grab! Welcome back to reality, and please put the crack rock down. It's an uphill battle, a struggle, one movement stands on the shoulders or draws from the victories of the others. And where did you come to the conclusion that I was standing in line "like so much chattel"? I'm sure that's what my recent deluge of posts on racism have been all about. Me, just waiting around for freedom to happen. People always take the opportunity to poke giant holes in unrealistic cases in rounds, but think about the practicality of what you're saying. In theory it's fine to talk about taking oppression in one huge chunk and attacking all of it, but that'll be the vaguest and least successful law in all of history. Focus and order are needed to solve any problem, and any problem-solver knows that you have to separate it into manageable parts, and get at the root before you can deal with it. > >back in the game >the novice >Shawnessy >P.S. - You should know better than to call me out on perceived idiotic statements. Considering the number of activists, etc. on this list do you really think I'd make a blanket offensive statement with absolutely no logic behind it? I was afraid at one point that I'd be >attending the funerals of Fischer and Massey. > > > > >Angelfire for your free web-based e-mail. http://www.angelfire.com > From mroston Wed Jun 2 12:15:23 1999 From: mroston (Michael Roston the eminently practical) Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 12:15:23 -0500 Subject: TOC: OFFICIAL POLICY RESULTS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > OCTO FINAL ROUND > > Glenbrook South d. Head Royce (Aff) 2-1 *Arnett, Langwell, ^^^^^^^^ > Fitzmier > > Brophy Prep d.GBN(Aff) 3-0 Repko, Steele, Langwell ^^^^^^^^ hey all you high school kids out there. this is proof that you should come to debate at Iowa. after all, peter mccollum cleared twice at this year's William Jewell Tournament, and Kristin Langwell judged two rounds at once at the TOC. We're so cool that we can do two things at once at the same tournament. I'm sure Ross will say that Kristin picked up this skill debating at Wake, but she never judged two rounds at once there, so come to Iowa, no Wake! thanks JW for the perfect opportunity for more Iowa propaganda! :) -Michael Roston looking out for no one "From Buffy the Vampire Slayer to Todd Solondz's "Welcome To The Dollhouse," and a string of comically-bitter teen movies from Hollywood, pop culture has been trying to get this message out for years. For many kids - often the best and brightest -- school is a nightmare. People who are different are reviled as geeks, nerds, dorks. The lucky ones are excluded, the unfortunates are harassed, humiliated, sometimes assaulted literally as well as socially. Odd values - unthinking school spirit, proms, jocks - are exalted, while the best values - free thinking, non-conformity, curiousity - are ridiculed. Maybe the one positive legacy the Trenchcoat Mafia left was to ensure that this message got heard, by a society that seems desperate not to hear it." -Jon Katz From msc2a Wed Jun 2 12:32:03 1999 From: msc2a (Matthew Scott Carter) Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 12:32:03 -0500 Subject: 'Star Wars' Character: Annoying Goofball or Racial Stereotype In-Reply-To: Message-ID: If edebate has convinced me of one thing, it's that Star Wars is utterly and completely racist. The characters of Jar Jar and Watto are totally unacceptable. In my outrage at these veiled insults, I have begun a quest to root out all of the evil trash the Hollywood is throwing at us. Already I have found startling amounts of allusions and imagery that would shock any decent person in several seemingly innocuous movies. Let's take a look at a notable example. The evil known as: A Bug's Life While some may see this as a cute Disney film, I can only find racist and anthropocentric propoganda. The evil grasshoppers, of course, are lazy and eat all the ants' food. The grasshoppers, however, are from Mexico and do nothing but hang out in a bar while the ants work for them. This is clearly a message that Mexican Americans are lazy and let everyone else do their work. Also, the anthropocentric message rings clear because the bad bugs have six limbs and the good ones have four...indicating that alien or nonhuman features are automatically bad. I am dismayed and outraged at such propoganda in these films. Where will it end? Sarcastically submitted for your approval, EvilMatt MTSU On Tue, 1 Jun 1999, Mohammed Abouzaid wrote: > Cross Posting from the Postcolonial List. I thought some might be > interested in a lager look at stereotypes in Star Wars. > Mohammed Abouzaid > Richmond Debate > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Cross posting from another list, Linguistic Anthropology: > > But as for your comment: > > "I think it is in one of the earlier movies that there is enough Ewok and > Jabba the Hut dialogue to be able to hear anything. I haven't watched in > a while but I remember some subtitling so there must have been at least a > few short sentences." > > I have listened to this over and over, since I use this in my "Language > and Popular Culture" course. Jabba does speak recognizable syllables; his > first words (in the original version) are: [o: suda:] and his statements > are subtitled. (The Ewok's utterances are not.) > > But what I think is more interesting is the whole sociology of language > (who speaks what to whom, when, where and why) in Star Wars, and in sci-fi > in general. I concentrate on showing my students the following: > > a. all humans speak English; no human speaks anything else but > English. No French (Swahili, etc.), no Huttese, no nothin'. > > b. Some humans *understand* other lgs., e.g. Han Solo understands > Chewbacca (who speaks "Wookiegab"), so they carry on their conversations > in a kind of "mutual passive bilingualism". > > c. other creatures have language, but it is translated (if we > need to know it) by droids, e.g. C3PO, who "speaks 6 million languages". > (I always wonder who programmed him to do this, since no human on any > planet seems to know enough about any other lgs. to be able to even begin > to program this.) Note that in this American view of the future, no human > will ever need to know any other language, and English will do us all just > fine. > > d. other creatures vocalize, but when it's not translated, it's > used to confuse or amuse us, in the same way that horrible foreigners in > American disaster films are not translated if their shouts (while > hijacking an airplane, etc.) are meant to instill fear, rather than be > actual representations of "real" language. And sometimes creatures will > code-switch (to English, what else?) if we are intended to know what they > are saying. Subtitling is used very sparingly. > > e. Even in multilingual situations where C3PO acts as translator > (protocoll droid) he doesn't always translate in an authentic bilingual > manner, i.e. Jabba (e.g.) is expected to understand English, so C3PO > doesn't translate for him, just the other way around. (In this scene, > Leah is impersonating a bounty-hunter, a bionic one I guess, and speaks > through an electronic device that either distorts her speech, or is > deliberately electronic in origin, so C3PO does translate for her. But > here this language is used to *deceive* so it's all right for a human to > be depicted this way, ie. faking droid-language.) > > f. these depictions raise issues of "authenticity," which my > students have trouble dealing with, i.e. what is an authentic use of > language? what is an authentic multilingual conversation like? how > authentic is Hollywood likely to be? (not very) ETc. > > Hal Schiffman > > Shashwati > > > ------------------------------------------------------ > Shashwati Talukdar > > 45-34 43rd St., > Sunnyside, NY 11104 > > > shashwati at ibm.net > > > > > --- from list postcolonial at lists.village.virginia.edu --- > "WHICH COUNTRY? I'VE NEVER FELT THAT I BELONGED exclusively to one > country, nor have I been able to identify "patriotically" with any > other than losing causes. Patriotism is best thought of as an obscure > dead language, learned prehistorically but almost forgotten and > almost unused since. Nearly everything normally associated with > it--wars, rituals of nationalistic loyalty, sentimentalized (or > invented) traditions, parades, flags, etc.--is quite dreadful and > full of appalling claims of superiority and pre-eminence. But perhaps > those are all the results of applied patriotism. Is theoretical > patriotism really that much better? Thinking affectionately about > home is all I'll go along with." > Edward Said > ___________________________________________________________________ EvilMatt {{{I believe in God, I just don't trust anybody who works for him.}}} "If you can't think of anything nice, say something nasty." -Life's Little Destruction Book "Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh." -George Bernard Shaw "I love to go to the schoolyard and watch the children jump and scream, but they don't know I'm using blanks." -Jack Handey, Deep Thoughts "Q: What's black and white and red and black and white and red? A: Two zebras fighting over a dead baby." - Cindy Simmons Visit http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/Library/9675 Sign the guestbook or else.... From southwor Wed Jun 2 12:58:47 1999 From: southwor (Bill Southworth) Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 10:58:47 -0700 Subject: 'Star Wars' Character: Annoying Goofball or Racial Stereotype In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I have avoided this entire discussion, however, this term is thrown around quite easily by a lot of people, especially on this listserv. I do not know the man personally, however, I do know some people who do and have worked with him. Based on their assessments, what I have read about him personally and the 60 Minutes Interview; I really think characterizing George Lucas as a racist (which is clearly what is being done) is both wrong and irresponsible. On Wed, 2 Jun 1999, Matthew Scott Carter wrote: > If edebate has convinced me of one thing, it's that Star Wars is utterly > and completely racist. The characters of Jar Jar and Watto are totally > unacceptable. In my outrage at these veiled insults, I have begun a quest > to root out all of the evil trash the Hollywood is throwing at us. > Already I have found startling amounts of allusions and imagery that would > shock any decent person in several seemingly innocuous movies. Let's take > a look at a notable example. > > The evil known as: A Bug's Life > > While some may see this as a cute Disney film, I can only find racist > and anthropocentric propoganda. The evil grasshoppers, of course, are > lazy and eat all the ants' food. The grasshoppers, however, are from > Mexico and do nothing but hang out in a bar while the ants work for them. > This is clearly a message that Mexican Americans are lazy and let everyone > else do their work. Also, the anthropocentric message rings clear > because the bad bugs have six limbs and the good ones have > four...indicating that alien or nonhuman features are automatically bad. > > I am dismayed and outraged at such propoganda in these films. Where will > it end? > > Sarcastically submitted for your approval, > > EvilMatt > MTSU > > > On Tue, 1 Jun 1999, Mohammed Abouzaid wrote: > > > Cross Posting from the Postcolonial List. I thought some might be > > interested in a lager look at stereotypes in Star Wars. > > Mohammed Abouzaid > > Richmond Debate > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Cross posting from another list, Linguistic Anthropology: > > > > But as for your comment: > > > > "I think it is in one of the earlier movies that there is enough Ewok and > > Jabba the Hut dialogue to be able to hear anything. I haven't watched in > > a while but I remember some subtitling so there must have been at least a > > few short sentences." > > > > I have listened to this over and over, since I use this in my "Language > > and Popular Culture" course. Jabba does speak recognizable syllables; his > > first words (in the original version) are: [o: suda:] and his statements > > are subtitled. (The Ewok's utterances are not.) > > > > But what I think is more interesting is the whole sociology of language > > (who speaks what to whom, when, where and why) in Star Wars, and in sci-fi > > in general. I concentrate on showing my students the following: > > > > a. all humans speak English; no human speaks anything else but > > English. No French (Swahili, etc.), no Huttese, no nothin'. > > > > b. Some humans *understand* other lgs., e.g. Han Solo understands > > Chewbacca (who speaks "Wookiegab"), so they carry on their conversations > > in a kind of "mutual passive bilingualism". > > > > c. other creatures have language, but it is translated (if we > > need to know it) by droids, e.g. C3PO, who "speaks 6 million languages". > > (I always wonder who programmed him to do this, since no human on any > > planet seems to know enough about any other lgs. to be able to even begin > > to program this.) Note that in this American view of the future, no human > > will ever need to know any other language, and English will do us all just > > fine. > > > > d. other creatures vocalize, but when it's not translated, it's > > used to confuse or amuse us, in the same way that horrible foreigners in > > American disaster films are not translated if their shouts (while > > hijacking an airplane, etc.) are meant to instill fear, rather than be > > actual representations of "real" language. And sometimes creatures will > > code-switch (to English, what else?) if we are intended to know what they > > are saying. Subtitling is used very sparingly. > > > > e. Even in multilingual situations where C3PO acts as translator > > (protocoll droid) he doesn't always translate in an authentic bilingual > > manner, i.e. Jabba (e.g.) is expected to understand English, so C3PO > > doesn't translate for him, just the other way around. (In this scene, > > Leah is impersonating a bounty-hunter, a bionic one I guess, and speaks > > through an electronic device that either distorts her speech, or is > > deliberately electronic in origin, so C3PO does translate for her. But > > here this language is used to *deceive* so it's all right for a human to > > be depicted this way, ie. faking droid-language.) > > > > f. these depictions raise issues of "authenticity," which my > > students have trouble dealing with, i.e. what is an authentic use of > > language? what is an authentic multilingual conversation like? how > > authentic is Hollywood likely to be? (not very) ETc. > > > > Hal Schiffman > > > > Shashwati > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > Shashwati Talukdar > > > > 45-34 43rd St., > > Sunnyside, NY 11104 > > > > > > shashwati at ibm.net > > > > > > > > > > --- from list postcolonial at lists.village.virginia.edu --- > > "WHICH COUNTRY? I'VE NEVER FELT THAT I BELONGED exclusively to one > > country, nor have I been able to identify "patriotically" with any > > other than losing causes. Patriotism is best thought of as an obscure > > dead language, learned prehistorically but almost forgotten and > > almost unused since. Nearly everything normally associated with > > it--wars, rituals of nationalistic loyalty, sentimentalized (or > > invented) traditions, parades, flags, etc.--is quite dreadful and > > full of appalling claims of superiority and pre-eminence. But perhaps > > those are all the results of applied patriotism. Is theoretical > > patriotism really that much better? Thinking affectionately about > > home is all I'll go along with." > > Edward Said > > > > ___________________________________________________________________ > EvilMatt > > {{{I believe in God, I just don't trust anybody who works for him.}}} > > "If you can't think of anything nice, say something nasty." > -Life's Little Destruction Book > > "Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases > to be serious when people laugh." > -George Bernard Shaw > > "I love to go to the schoolyard and watch the children jump and > scream, but they don't know I'm using blanks." > -Jack Handey, Deep Thoughts > > "Q: What's black and white and red and black and white and red? > A: Two zebras fighting over a dead baby." > - Cindy Simmons > > Visit http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/Library/9675 > Sign the guestbook or else.... > From jwpatt00 Wed Jun 2 13:12:53 1999 From: jwpatt00 (J.W. Patterson) Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 14:12:53 -0400 Subject: TOC: Correction Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 1926 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/19990602/946166b7/attachment.bin From ehrlenmeyerflask Wed Jun 2 13:39:29 1999 From: ehrlenmeyerflask (Aaron Klemz) Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 11:39:29 PDT Subject: Aaron's found his way . . . Message-ID: Thanks to those who offered their assistance, but I have found a cheap(er) plane ticket to Seattle this weekend. Hope to see many there. If you're going, and you have space in a car or anything - please post that information for others who might need it. If it means that one more person can make it - the effort is worth it. Aaron Klemz SIU *********************************************************** Aaron Klemz / Assistant Debate Coach / Southern Illinois U. "I have heard what the talkers were talking the talk of beginning and end But I do not talk of the beginning or the end. There was never more inception than there is now, Nor any more youth or age than there is now, And will never be more perfection than there is now, Nor any more heaven or hell than there is now." Uncle Walt "Song of Myself" _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com From mkrueger Wed Jun 2 13:52:32 1999 From: mkrueger (Krueger) Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 13:52:32 -0500 Subject: 'Star Wars' Character: Annoying Goofball or Racial Stereotype References: Message-ID: I think if (at least I) we learned anything this year, it is that there doesn't have to be EXPLICIT racism exhibited by a person to be a racist or to be perceived as a racist. Sure, the guy doesn't go around in white cape and hood, sure the guy hires black actors, sure the guy doesn't seem like a racist. But that doesn't mean that a person can't be a racist and do things that are racist. I don't consider myself to be a racistl; yet I have to CONSTANTLY self monitor because I have been raised in a racist society. So, saying that Lucas isn't a racist isn't very compelling to me. Was he self reflexive about the characatures I mean characters in Start Wars TPM? I don't know. But if you look at the gunga (sp) thy certainly seem to exhibit some vocalic and other patterns associated with racist depicitions of blacks. And, then at the end of the movie, the coup de gras for me was the parade seen with the gunga members of the parade. Have any of you seen the marchers from Southern University? Oh my. It could have been them, which seems to reinforce that stereotype completely. So, the argument that Lucas isn't a racist is easy to make. But that is on the surface. Look for the transparent racism, and you might see it. mike Bill Southworth wrote: > I have avoided this entire discussion, however, this term is thrown > around quite easily by a lot of people, especially on this listserv. > I do not know the man personally, however, I do know some people who > do and have worked with him. Based on their assessments, what I have > read about him personally and the 60 Minutes Interview; I really think > characterizing George Lucas as a racist (which is clearly what is > being done) is both wrong and irresponsible. -- Michael Krueger Director of Debate Middle Tennessee State University Box 43 Murfreesboro, TN 37132 (615) 898-5607 (office) (615) 898-5826 (fax) http://www.mtsu.edu/~debate/ http://www.mtsu.edu/~debate/mdi.html http://www.mtsu.edu/~mkrueger/ From gucoaches Wed Jun 2 13:49:54 1999 From: gucoaches (gudebate) Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 11:49:54 -0700 Subject: Aaron's found his way . . . Message-ID: On that note, i'm picking Klemz up at SeaTac on Friday afternoon. If anyone else out there in debateland is in need of transpo from the airport please let me know and i'll do what I can. Glen -----Original Message----- From: Aaron Klemz To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU Date: Wednesday, June 02, 1999 11:40 AM Subject: Aaron's found his way . . . >Thanks to those who offered their assistance, but I have found a cheap(er) >plane ticket to Seattle this weekend. Hope to see many there. > >If you're going, and you have space in a car or anything - please post that >information for others who might need it. If it means that one more person >can make it - the effort is worth it. > >Aaron Klemz >SIU > >*********************************************************** >Aaron Klemz / Assistant Debate Coach / Southern Illinois U. > >"I have heard what the talkers were talking >the talk of beginning and end >But I do not talk of the beginning or the end. >There was never more inception than there is now, >Nor any more youth or age than there is now, >And will never be more perfection than there is now, >Nor any more heaven or hell than there is now." > >Uncle Walt "Song of Myself" > > >_______________________________________________________________ >Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com > From mkuss Wed Jun 2 16:21:55 1999 From: mkuss (Matthew Kuss) Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 14:21:55 -0700 Subject: 'Star Wars' Character: Annoying Goofball or Racial Stereotype In-Reply-To: <37557D6D.6704220D@frank.mtsu.edu> Message-ID: Okay then. Someone name a film which has multiples races in it that no one can PERCEIVE to be racist. If no such film exists, then this discussion is muddled. Mike speaks of the transparent racism involved, but to what level is "transparent racism" a pure creation of those watching the film? If it is not possible to make a film that is completely non-racist, then on what comparative level can we say that TPM is? I have yet to see the film, but I have read enough to know that it seems odd to watch someone's movie then determine that the individual that made the movie is racist. ESPECIALLY when the racism assertions are on the level of 'transparent racism,' something which has yet to be defined clearly. This of course goes back to the huge racism thread we just had... people seem so eager to place the label of 'racist' on someone, without even knowing them... >Sure, the guy doesn't go around in white cape and hood, > sure the guy hires > black actors, sure the guy doesn't seem like a racist. But that > doesn't mean that a > person can't be a racist and do things that are racist. Of COURSE he 'can' be a racist, and can do things that are racist, but that statement is true for anyone that ever walked this Earth. So on that level, so what? > I don't > consider myself to be > a racist; yet I have to CONSTANTLY self monitor because I have > been raised in a racist > society. Well, now we know about you. We still dont know about Lucas. > So, saying that Lucas isn't a racist isn't very compelling to me. I agree. We cannot tell if he is or isnt. However, most who have said that he is based it on the movie, most who said he isnt based it on personal behaviors or testimony, such as the post you responded to, which indicates that he spoke with several people that worked with him and saw a personal interview. > Was he self reflexive about the characatures I mean characters in > Start Wars TPM? I > don't know. If being self-reflective is the way to avoid the label of 'racist,' and since we cant EVER know if someone has been self-reflective, then why bother even worrying about if that person is or isnt racist? (at least on the transparent level) > But if you look at the gunga (sp) thy certainly seem > to exhibit some > vocalic and other patterns associated with racist depicitions of > blacks. And, then at > the end of the movie, the coup de gras for me was the parade > seen with the gunga > members of the parade. Have any of you seen the marchers from > Southern University? Oh > my. It could have been them, which seems to reinforce that > stereotype completely. That may be true. I still dont think that he could have done ANYTHING to avoid some sort of racial slant to things. And if he had just left out 'black' characters, that would have been racist as well. Now, if Lucas was black... would that still be racist? Are the marchers at Southern University proud of the way they march? Are the characters in the movie shown to be directly inferior due to the way they march? > So, the argument that Lucas isn't a racist is easy to make. But > that is on the > surface. > Look for the transparent racism, and you might see it. Anyone can see it anywhere. In every movie ever made. It loses meaning. If EVERYTHING is 'transparently racist' then at what level does it retain any importance or meaning? Matt From mkrueger Wed Jun 2 14:40:08 1999 From: mkrueger (Krueger) Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 14:40:08 -0500 Subject: jar jar and racism Message-ID: This isn't just an e-debate phenomenon. please read. Los Angeles Times May 26, 1999, Wednesday, MOVIES: 'STAR WARS' CHARACTERS LIKE JAR JAR BINKS, NUTE GUNRAY AND WATTO PROMPT COMPARISONS TO INSENSITIVE STEREOTYPES. BYLINE: ERIC HARRISON, TIMES STAFF WRITER BODY: Even before the newest entry in the "Star Wars" saga opened last week, a comic-book store clerk in Seattle had organized a group called the International Society for the Extermination of Jar Jar Binks and set up a Web site with an address that sounds like a battle cry: http://www.jarjarmustdie.com. From all indications, the digital animated character who debuted in "Star Wars: Episode I The Phantom Menace" is irritating moviegoers across North America. A floppy-eared amphibian who speaks a Caribbean-flavored pidgin English, Jar Jar has a snout like a sea horse and an anteater's quick darting tongue. He has been described variously as an annoying distant cousin to Disney's character Goofy and as a racially offensive throwback to Stepin Fetchit. "I've talked to 100 people and nobody likes him," says John Hernandez, 29, a Los Angeles county worker who was among the first to see the movie. "When I came out of the theater people were talking about how annoying he was. At first I thought I was the only one, but I've heard it everywhere." Rarely has a movie character--and a glorified cartoon character at that--inspired so much vehemence. Much of the criticism centers on what some see as Jar Jar's stereotypical racial traits. An Internet discussion group dedicated to him on deja.com had more than 13,000 postings as of Tuesday morning, many along the lines of this one: "He's written like a character out of an Uncle Remus story, and does everything but call Qui-Gon (the Liam Neeson character) 'Massah.' " Some other Internet postings compare Jar Jar to the radio and TV characters "Amos 'n' Andy." One writer says of the movie: "It could be 'Sambo Wars.' " Lynne Hale, a spokeswoman for Lucasfilm, called such interpretations "absurd." "There is nothing in 'Star Wars' that is racially motivated," she said in a statement. " 'Star Wars' is a fantasy movie set in a galaxy far, far away. It is populated with humans, aliens, creatures, droids, robots and other fantastic creatures. . . . To dissect this movie as if it has a direct reference to the world that we know today is absurd." Still, some people say the racial references are obvious. Audience members have complained that Nute Gunray, the evil Viceroy of the Federation, seems based on Asian stereotypes. And Watto, young slave Anakin Skywalker's sleazy owner, strikes some viewers as an offensive caricature of an Arab. In addition, the Gungan, the primitive tribe of which Jar Jar is a member, is ruled by a fat, buffoonish character, seemingly a caricature of a stereotypical African chieftain. Even though Jar Jar was performed by a black actor who says he had free rein to create the character, movie reviewer Joe Morgenstern, in an essay last week in the Wall Street Journal, called Jar Jar "a Rastafarian Stepin Fetchit on platform hoofs, crossed annoyingly with Butterfly McQueen." The complaints call to mind the animated cartoons of the 1930s and 1940s, some of which used animal species knowingly to represent specific racial groups. (Think of the jive-talking, jazz-singing crows in Disney's 1941 classic "Dumbo.") Todd Boyd, a USC cinema studies professor, says the practice continues in animation today, although in subtler form and sometimes for different purposes. Many American animated cartoons were blatantly, unrepentantly racist before their makers bowed to protests in the 1950s. Today, racial subtexts are more likely to promote brotherhood. Sometimes, though, even those cartoons skate on thin ice. In "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" (1988) the sympathetic cartoon characters--"Toons," they're called, and they inhabit Toontown--were clearly treated as a racial group separate from the human race. But while the movie did not seem in any way an endorsement of racism, Boyd says he was struck by how much "Toon" sounded like "Coon," a derogatory term used against African Americans. "It seemed so obviously racial that I didn't want to believe that one could get away with being so overt and not know it and have no one else pick up on it," he says. "It was so obvious to me, and yet it wasn't made into an issue." He thinks that is because non-human cartoon characters and fantastic settings can obscure the subtextual messages of movies. "If you take 'American History X' and say the character's a racist, people have no problem understanding that," he says. "But if you were to suggest that 'Roger Rabbit' had issues that were problematic racially the response would probably be, 'It's a cartoon.' The assumption seems to be that if something is geared for children then it couldn't be sophisticated enough to carry those sorts of messages." To be sure, many viewers--particularly younger ones at whom George Lucas says the film is aimed--love these characters and see nothing offensive about them. Elliot Hartsen, a Seattle college student who saw the movie last week, said Jar Jar was "under my age bracket," but said, "If the movie is going to generate long-term appeal it has to appeal to the young generation. These are people who will be into it when the next series comes out." But others leave the theater asking what was Lucas thinking. The filmmaker is a famous cinephile who crams his films with borrowings and references to other works, from Saturday morning serials to classic westerns, from war movies to Japanese samurai films. "Phantom Menace," far more than the earlier movies in the series, also seems to show the influence of old Disney cartoons. (It even recycles the cartoon visual gag of a big fish gobbling up a smaller one only to get swallowed by one that's even bigger.) Jar Jar and the other digital characters behave more or less realistically and interact with human actors in an almost seamless fashion, yet the movie could be described with little exaggeration as an elaborate, state-of-the-art cartoon featuring live action. (With three times as many computer-generated shots as any film in history, very little of this 2-hour, 12-minute movie is free of animation or digital enhancement.) The question is whether Lucas, in rummaging through an earlier generation's musty cartoon archives, had trouble separating what is valuable and good from outdated attitudes best left undisturbed. Problem With Race Dates Back to First 'Star Wars' Grumbling about Lucas' work has never before been this public, but some viewers have found his handling of race problematic since he released the first "Star Wars" movie in 1977. Grousers privately noted that the movie had Wookies, robots, jazz-playing aliens and--inexplicably in this far-off galaxy--white people who spoke with British accents. But nowhere on screen were there humanoids with non-pink skin. Lucas seemed to be trying to make up for that in "The Empire Strikes Back" (1980) and "Return of the Jedi" (1983) by introducing Billy Dee Williams as Lando Calrisian. But by then his strategy was clear. Different racial groups were represented by aliens, much like those old cartoons that used animals as stand-ins for racial groups. Thus Calrisian's race was insignificant while Chewbacca, the big, strong, over-emotional Wookie, could be seen as the hairy equivalent of Mr. T. The frequent put-downs directed at Chewbacca underscored that, while he may be individually loved and needed, his kind was looked down upon. "I'd rather kiss a Wookie," Princess Leia spits when Han Solo gets flirtatious. "He's only a Wookie," C-3P0 says of Chewbacca in "Empire," even while being carried on the Wookie's back. In an interview with Leonard Maltin on the digitally mastered video of "Return of the Jedi," Lucas says he'd originally intended to introduce Wookies as a "primitive race" in the third film of the trilogy. After he decided to use Chewbacca in all three films and give him the ability to fly spaceships and perform complex tasks, he created a substitute race of pint-sized Wookies for "Jedi" and called them Ewoks. The Gungan are the Ewoks of "Phantom Menace." This tribe of incompetent but happy natives with their vainglorious leader comes straight out of the movies and cartoons of another era. That the Ewoks and the Gungan both save the day and that both movies end with the advanced and primitive races joined together in harmony is of little consequence; it's clear who holds the upper hand. "Dumbo's" crows save the day, too (and sing that movie's most infectious song to boot), but by using exaggerated stereotypes the cartoon's creators still indefensibly hold a race of people up to ridicule and perpetuate attitudes that permeated the culture in the 1940s. All of this said, it should be noted that many of the people who detest the character of Jar Jar say it has nothing to do with race. One Internet user observed: "He is the worst character in 'Star Wars' history, a pathetic excuse to sell toys." Jeremy Mueller, the 23-year-old who founded the International Society for the Extermination of Jar Jar Binks, says that he started his jarjarmustdie.com Web site five days before "Phantom Menace" opened when he saw television shows about the movie that gave a flavor of what the character would be like. "They were quoting lines from the movie, including, 'Oh, da force is maxi big,' " he says. And on the back of the Jar Jar action figure, he says, were lines that the character utters: "Mesa called Ja Ja Binks." "How can you like a character like that?" Mueller asks. "It's a great movie, but Jar Jar really detracted from the movie as a whole." -- Michael Krueger Director of Debate Middle Tennessee State University Box 43 Murfreesboro, TN 37132 (615) 898-5607 (office) (615) 898-5826 (fax) http://www.mtsu.edu/~debate/ http://www.mtsu.edu/~debate/mdi.html http://www.mtsu.edu/~mkrueger/ From mabouzai Wed Jun 2 14:57:55 1999 From: mabouzai (Mohammed Abouzaid) Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 15:57:55 -0400 Subject: 'Star Wars' Character: Annoying Goofball or Racial Stereotype In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I do not know the reasons for this delayed reaction to the criticism of Star Wars. If you had read the post I had forwarded from the post-colonial list, you may have seen that it was not one more attack on TPM being racist. The entire issue the author of the post was dealing with, which I found interesting and which I agreed with, was the issue of language in Star Wars movies (Which can be studied as an example of the wider sci fi world), and authenticity. I am not saying "reject Star Wars" because it is racist, but rather that the movie (Like most hollywood production, and most written fiction) gives a "inauthentic" image of our world, and imagines other worlds in ways which are often ethnocentric (i.e: by having every human speak english). I have not seen TPM yet, but I'm probably going to see it, and I'll probably enjoy it. That in no way contradicts the call for awareness about the way movies portray their imagined worlds. Mohammed Abouzaid Richmond Debate >If edebate has convinced me of one thing, it's that Star Wars is utterly >and completely racist. The characters of Jar Jar and Watto are totally >unacceptable. In my outrage at these veiled insults, I have begun a quest >to root out all of the evil trash the Hollywood is throwing at us. >Already I have found startling amounts of allusions and imagery that would >shock any decent person in several seemingly innocuous movies. Let's take >a look at a notable example. > >The evil known as: A Bug's Life > >While some may see this as a cute Disney film, I can only find racist >and anthropocentric propoganda. The evil grasshoppers, of course, are >lazy and eat all the ants' food. The grasshoppers, however, are from >Mexico and do nothing but hang out in a bar while the ants work for them. >This is clearly a message that Mexican Americans are lazy and let everyone >else do their work. Also, the anthropocentric message rings clear >because the bad bugs have six limbs and the good ones have >four...indicating that alien or nonhuman features are automatically bad. > >I am dismayed and outraged at such propoganda in these films. Where will >it end? > >Sarcastically submitted for your approval, > >EvilMatt >MTSU From laneg Wed Jun 2 14:56:36 1999 From: laneg (Lane, Gina) Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 14:56:36 -0500 Subject: Becky's words Message-ID: > Hello all-- > > I came into my office this afternoon and was hit hard with the news of > Becky's death. It's hard to believe she is gone -- harder still, if you > do what I did, and go back through the archives and read her words. I've > selected some of her posts to reprint here -- she was amazingly > self-revealing and self-reflective, passionate, courageous, and funny as > hell. I'll miss her greatly. > Gina Lane > 4/9/96 -- "femi-nazis" > > The first time I walked into the bar my boyfriend works at after losing my > > hair, some insurance salesman looking moron sat down next to me at the bar > > and started making fun of "femi-nazis" and making references to me. > > I didn't go off on the guy about what an idiot he was or the fact that I > have > breast cancer and my haircut isn't a political statement. The reason is > that > I try to allow for diverse views. The bottom line is that I understand > that > not everyone is educated and hatred is usually an expression of ignorance. > > Besides, he didn't know I have breast cancer (like that's an excuse for > being > an asshole) and I had more fun telling the bartender what he said and then > > watching him try and get another drink:-) > > But, c'mon now. Really? Feminists are like Hitler? Give me a fucking > break. I really don't remember the last time I heard a group of empowered > > women advocate the gendercide of all of our brothers. There are > extremeists on every issue and they are usually the ones to get igored and > > mocked, but your reaction pits you on the opposite end of the extreme: > You > get about as much credibility as those you criticize. > > > Date: Thu, 02 May 1996 18:36:23 -0700 > > ok, so over the last few months i have received hundreds of messages from > many of you asking what the deal is, etc. for anyone not interested in > this > update ala becky's breast cancer and the likely diatribe to follow:), you > may still find value. [i'm reading... -- mark] if anyone has questions > they > want to backchannel, feel free. > *********************************************************************** > > i just got home from my LAST chemotherapy treatment. yes, that's right, > only 5 *short* months and whala, remission! so the next time you see me i > > might have hair (if i decide to grow it back:), and i'll have better > excuses > for my abysmal judging than oops, sorry i wasn't listening to the 2ac, i > noticed my eyebrows were falling out:) > > so what does this mean? well, i am extremely lucky (and extremely smart). > i > self discovered an 8 millimeter tumor and had it immediately extracted and > > tested. when diagnosed, i dove into the literature so that i could be in > the > same conversation with my medical team. when presented with a treament > plan, > i executed it. so the bottom line is, i did the right thing and will not > die. > > so why do i tell you this? because i am atypical; i am a 25 year old > female > with breast cancer awareness. when i found a lump i knew enough about > risks > and consequences that i was empowered to take quick and decisive action. > many young women (young in the breast cancer world is younger than 40) do > not > know they are at risk, even those with a family history. many young women > > who ACTUALLY DO self breast exams do not go to the doctor when they find a > > lump. many young women who go to the doctor with a lump feel reassured > into > inaction when told that "statistically it is unlikely." in a world where > 1 in 8 of us will get this disease inevitably, we have to do a better job > than that. > > the sky is not falling. this happened to me and it won't necessary happen > to > you. but your doctor doesn't know unless they have facts and data. and > you > don't know if you are not aware of your breast health. and the statistics > at > least prove some of us will present [becky says that word means "get > breast > cancer" -- mark] in our twenties. ok, small risk, big impact. but the > impact is pretty fucking big. > > i think the reason many women are in this situation is just the lack of > information. however, we can all realize that there are massive social > constructs around beauty. women identify their breasts with feminity, > beauty, sexuality, etc. i respect this; it is natural. however, despite > the > messages we receive daily from the mass media, breasts are NOT our > feminity, > beauty, sexuality, etc. after 25 years i am a hell of a lot more than the > > four pounds of flesh i lost in this battle. besides, us debaters ought to > > know that winning the war is key. > > breast cancer is not about breasts or no breasts, hair or no hair, it's > quite > simply a decision about living. i made without blinking the decision to > have > a bi-lateral masectomy. i am still a beautiful, strong, empowered woman; > arguably more so than same time last year. so why toot my own horn? > > y'all. i have talked with some of you in the debate community who are at > risk. i have talked with some of you in the debate community who have > found > lumps. ladies, i think, without causing a crisis, this is information > that > is important. be aware of it. educate yourself and if you don't know > how, > ask me. > > check out the web site http://www.2chicks.org - it will kick your ass to > read > what these ladies are doing. one of the silver linings for me is i now > know > a great way to apply my debate skills:) > > so many of you have reached out to me and the support frees me to focus on > > getting better. a list just wouldn't express the magnitude. > > thank you. > > becky galentine > a survivor > > > Date: Sat, 1 Mar 1997 16:55:59 -0800 (PST) > From: Rebecca Galetine > To: Andy Ellis > Subject: Re: final on monkeys > > any time andy ellis misspells my name -- he can polish my shoes with his > lips... > > becky galentine > > p.s. just got back from a great day hanging out with the broda-bahms! > guess this place doesn't suck so bad after all... > > On Sat, 1 Mar 1997, Andy Ellis wrote: > > > well it's saturday evening and the deadline has passed for entries for > > ceda nats and it seems no one is willing to take up the monkeys bet. so > > > to guarantee that the monkeys can go next year here is the fund raiser. > > > keep a jar next to your computer and put the designated amount of money > > into the jar for each event that occurs on the l. (of course this can > > also be played as a drinking game by substituting the amount of cash for > > > drinks of the beverage of your choice.) > > > > 1. if you delete a post of bear's without reading it -- 1 cent > > 2. monte stevens asks for corndog or sully to backchannel him -- 1 cent > > 3. broda-bahm or korcok use a word that you are sure is in the english > > language, but you are equally sure that they are the only two that know > > what it means -- 2 cents > > 4. every time someone from umkc posts something without a subject -- 2 > > cents > > 5. every time someone ACCIDENTLY forwards something to the list which > > they were SURE they only sent to their friends -- 2 cents > > 6. everytime haefle calls lemoine an idiot, moron, dumbass, etc. -- 2 > cents > > 7. everytime you accidently read one of bear's posts because of that > > damn aol account -- 2 cents > > 8. everytime lemoine uses perfect english in a post -- 3 cents > > 9. everytime becky galantine flames a debater from towson -- 3 cents > > 10. everytime lemoine calls haefle an idiot, moron, dumbass, etc. -- 3 > cents > > 11. everytime martin harris posts something without refering to a round > > he debated in back in the day -- 4 cents > > 12. for every new profession of mahoney's that stannard finds on lexis > -- > > 4 cents > > 13. whenever lechtreck posts do not invole plan-plan or have those damn > > arrows -- 5 cents > > 14. everytime you read a lemoine post and have a hickish accent in your > > head -- 5 cents > > 15. if broda-bahm/korcok discussions and haefle/lemoine discussions are > > ever of the same intellectual value -- 100 bucks (which would also be > > 10000 drinks or drink everything in sight) > > > > DISCLAIMER: these are not intended to be at all serious complaints or > > hacks. we felt like having fun and we highly respect all of the people > > mentioned above. the above just stems from our loss of cable television > > > and spending our spare time reading the L. if anyone would like to add > > anything feel free. happy drinking and hopefully we'll see the monkeys > > at ceda nats in 1998. > > > > Don Baker & Andy Ellis > > Towson State University > > > > p.s. bear - we really do read your posts. > > > > From: Rebecca Galetine > To: Andy Ellis > > Subject: Re: final on monkeys > > he can stand in line at nationals... > > On Sat, 1 Mar 1997, Andy Ellis wrote: > > > Don was typing, thats two cents though. > > Don says that in order to make for his mistake he will shine your shoes > > with his lips ANYTIME you want. > > Andy > > > > > Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 02:24:02 -0700 > From: Becky Galentine > Subject: Beauty v Breast Cancer Round II > > Now that I am back from Maui, and have had a week to digest what is > unfolding as my life, I thought I'd let the "debate community" know what > is up. I have done my best to reach out to specific people, however, if > I neglected anyone I should have spoken with personally I apologize. > Trust me when I say I've had a lot of distractions. > > So, I know a lot of people aren't subscribed over the summer, and I > would appreciate, where appropriate, that you let people know what's > up... > > A little over a year ago I sent a message to this list announcing the > end to my fight against cancer. Got new boobs, rejoined debate, grew my > hair, and basically went back to being a 20 something... > > I assured myself and others of its end... > > Unfortunately, it turns out I was bullshitting the lot of us. > > It's back > > Plura-lining -- the space between your chest wall and lung. Metastatic. > > If you know me you know I am an ass kicker and have a lot of fight > left. I sincerely don't think it will get me this time either, although > I am coming to serious grips that I will have to compete against this > fucking disease for the rest of my life. If you haven't guessed, it can > kiss my ass. > > I don't really know what else to say. I meet with my team of doctors a > week from today to discuss the treatment, what to expect, not to expect, > blah blah blah. > > It will be taxing treatment. Probably a year or more. In-patient. > Taxol derivatives. > > I will be at some debate tournaments, but not many, and not judging or > doing my usual amounts of partying. If you can make it to the Northwest > it's definitely the surest way to count on seeing me in the next 12 to > 18 months. > > Before I end this message, I thought I'd leave those of you who can > appreciate my sense of humor a list of the positive things I am > discovering about my situation: > > 1. No more work -- Yep, that's it. Three more meetings and considered > me permanently disabled. But not for at least a year of absense at full > salary. > 2. No more pregnancy risk or periods. > 3. Great savings on hair products ( It cost nearly a hundred bucks to > turn me into a blonde! ) > 4. Excellent access to medicine > 5. Get to be the center of attention > 6. The ultimate trump card -- for example, no Jim, I will not cover > you, go take your lazy butt across campus and judge novice parli > yourself. > > Becky Galentine > > > Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 13:36:57 -0700 > Reply-To: Becky Galentine > Subject: My annual reminder -- October is Breast Cancer Awareness > Month > > First the usual statistics -- 1 in 8 women in this country will get it. > 1 in 100 will die from it. women who detect it early tend not to fall > in the latter category (although the jury is still out on me). > > So, every time I go to work out at the hospital, or speak in public, or > do some event, I meet another woman in her 20s with no family history. > Maybe not every time, but either the water in Seattle is > disproportionately breast cancer causing, or more and more young women > are getting this disease. > > Now what? I'd bet that everyone reading this message knows at least one > woman they care about (hopefully you women readers care about > yourselves). Sometime this month, tell them you want them to do self > breast exams REGULARLY because you love them and don't want them to be 1 > in 100. > > Finally, the *pink* ribbon is not a faded aids ribbon;) > > Becky Galentine > > Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 09:01:11 -0700 > Reply-To: Becky Galentine > > you are sincerely invited to go fuck yourself. becky galentine > > Randal Pittelli wrote: > > > What month is prostate cancer awareness month? > > > > -Randy Pittelli > > > > Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 20:03:23 -0700 > From: Becky Galentine > Subject: Baby Jo Died and we all watched it on the listserv > > I've been pissed off all day at thing more important than what happens > here in cyber space, but recent kelly young and bob lechtrek comments > have given me a nice avenue for two things i would like to say to > however many people are reading this tired thread. > > 1. I am devastated that Baby Jo died of cancer. I knew him well during > the time we were both debating. Mostly, because a friend was dying, and > that I viewed his early death as a tragedy of great proportion. I also, > however, mourned for shallow reasons. I hoped so much someday someone > wouldn't be posting updates on my health, because I wasn't able to. I > wan't you to know what this is like while I'm alive because I don't want > anyone else to get taken by surprise. Baby Jo was devastated when he > heard I had breast cancer -- mostly because of my age. The whole time > we sat there talking about it at nationals his cancer was growing inside > him and there was nothing he could do. In retrospect, that image kills > me, cause here I was representing my awareness with a brother who would > die 18 months later. It shouldn't have happened to Baby Jo, and now I > am terrified it will happen to me and if you think it's a non-topical > fluke, then, whoever you are you are FUCKING BLIND about what's > happening in the debate community and I have no time for you. > > 2. There are very few posts to this listserv which I consider > relevant. Put any request for cites email addresses or other easily > researched information into this category and call it "Spam you should > be embarrassed to post." Debate teaches research skills after all. > However, I think that the best way we can enforce what we want out of > this listserv is to hit the delete key. Again, a very basic computer > skill, which I am amazed is not used with more frequency. Frankly, I > can't remember when the debate list *I* read was anything more than > musings from friends, case lists, tourney info and occasional theory or > topic discussions. To me, that's what it should be. Why don't you > worry about creating what you think it should be through your own > actions... > > becky > > Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 01:11:53 -0700 > From: Becky Galentine > Subject: Re: NDT-CEDA joint topic > > just to show i think about more than breast cancer awareness month... > and that chemotherapy causes insomnia and rambling... > > > ALSO, THE SWIFT, ALMOST COARSE TRANSITION OF CEDA TO POLICY > > i don't care to get into the particulars of a thread about the so called > CEDA inferiority complex. i do, however, think that to those who > weren't around for the transition, it is important to realize a couple > of things. > > it was not swift. i started debating in the fall of 89 and the topic > was resolved: that violence is a justified response to political > oppression (i know, YIKES!). probably needless to say there were a lot > of teams still doing biz like just war theory (hi gonzaga) and huge > counterwarrants like non-violence is good, but even WAY back then;) (and > most certainly before) the "national circuit" was leading the rest of > the nation in a *huge debate* over whether the affirmative had the right > to pick an example and defend it, disregarding the question of whether > it *proved* anything about the resolution. sure, at that point, not > many (if any?) teams had plans, but they were parametricizing down to > tiny examples of violent responses, blah blah blah... > > so, as i see it (and admittingly all this transition started before my > time) from like 89 to 92 CEDA debates struggled almost every round with > that question. in the early stages, the resolution was winning out. > however, as the debate developed a couple of things happened worth > noting -- teams began making procedural arguments about how the > affirmative *had* to advocate a plan (or at least say what the > implication for policy was to direct ground - anyone remember k state's > mechanisms argument?) as the natural extension of the > value/criteria/decision rule/whatever you like to call it they > advocated; the debate began to tilt in favor or the affirmative right to > pick an example and defend it as a stand alone from the resolution; and > (from my perspective) a huge backlash mounted against having to defend > it all, or even some. > > in the spring of 1992 the topic was resolved that advertising degrades > the quality of life in the united states. i don't remember debating a > lot of cases with plans, but they were all *very* specific examples like > billboards, whole earth images, tobacco, nuclear power, vegetarianism, > and so on. i also remember a common response to anything smacking of > *old school* theory was fighting an uphill battle. teams would pour > multiple tens of arguments on them, hedging their bets on undercovering > generic disads and so on. i also remember umkc making an argument all > the time to the tune of we don't say it, mean it, represent it, prove > it, in fact, it really serves no purpose;) (ok, and overclaim, but i'm > trying to illustrate the shift in thinking) > > so since we couldn't fall back on good ol' whole res;) things started to > change pretty dramatically. some teams still ran resolutionally based > arguments in sheeps clothing, like haefele's mass noun topicality, or > our most topicality or language critiques or biz like that as the > fallback (i mean, we can all imagine how hard it is to win topicality > without a plan;):) > > by the spring of 1993, even though the word *should* didn't appear in > the topic (it was something like resolved that implementation of the > udhr is more important than preserving state sovereignty) i remember > having one or two negative debates without a plan, and we for sure made > arguments about why it's absence was a voting issue. it was like we all > decided that implementation was enough -- we didn't need should to > advocate policies. sure, not everyone was doing this on the udhr > topic. and some teams ran cases with and without, and likely the > national circuit wasn't representative, but the transition at that point > was well underway, if not inevitible. > > i finished debating in the spring of 94 (creative use of eligibility) > and the topic was resolved that united states military intervention is > appropriate to foster democracy in the post cold war world (or something > like that). no should. by this time virtually everyone had a plan. > most negatives ran counterplans in most of their rounds. as jp lacy and > i get to know each other better we realize that a lot of the arguments > (selective engagement, executive order, interbranch conflict, and so on) > overlapped. > > there was no more whole res. hell, there was even a backlash against > critiques in CEDA (maybe still is with some) during some of these years > and the couple that followed. once were done with criteria we > apparantly were also done with the turns;) > > ok, i realize this is getting long. but my point is that the transition > was not swift and it was not painless and it was not an easy one to > win. after i graduated, CEDA got religion about what was happening and > made the *final* adjustments. should. year long topics. the joint > topic and so on. i can see from how a young person's perspective, > really only the last year or two could constitute the transition to > policy. but it's such a vast simplification of the case. > > becky galentine > whitman colllege > > Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 07:49:07 -0800 > Reply-To: Becky Galentine > From: Becky Galentine > Subject: CEDA Nationals Attendees: YOUNG COACHES FORUM > > > Hello all, myself and the Whitman folks are headed to the airport in an > hour, and I wanted to drop a quick line to remind you all (that's any > interested coach, hell, you know me, students can come *after* the > student meeting) to come to the young coaches forum. Aside from the > messages Ken D. gave, I see about five reasons: > > 1. I will be there, and chairing -- just what you always envisioned;) > (and if my sorry, chemo worn out ass can make it across the country, > then your ass should be able to take an hour's rest to come down > stairs;) > 2. Working on a wrestling match afterward between Sean Lemoine and Jim > Haefele. Current alternate is Will Brewer. > 3. Per Tim Mahoney's '94 judging philosophy, it's time we "take it > back!" > 4. We'll keep a list of the notable absents and we have ways of dealing > with you. > 5. You have to shave your head to prove your sorry to me. Don't worry, > my students, as you may have noticed, carry a razor with them. > > Have a safe trip. > > Becky > > Date: Sun, 3 May 1998 21:49:47 -0700 > From: Becky Galentine > Subject: Beauty v. Breast Cancer: In sum > > Anyone who thinks this is a waste of time is formally invited to hit > delete and/or kiss my ass. > > After talking with a few folks at the TOC I realized that most of my > debate friends have not heard the epilogue to the horrible treatment I > subjected myself to in February. I think Dumas posted while I was in > the hospital, and I think a lot of folks got scared by the news of how > sick I was. > > By way of reminder, I started the season with a 3 centimeter tumor in my > plura lining (sack which surrounds the lung). I had 6 > Taxol/Carboplatinum chemotherapy treatments, and (what is called) high > dose chemotherapy which put me in the hospital for 25 days and still > wrecks havoc on my gi system;) > > In November, a CT Scan demonstrated that the tumor had reduced by about > half. In January, another CT Scan showed that the so called tumor was > "barely discernable." > > About a week after the NDT I had a blood test called a tumor marker. It > measures a particular enzyme that the body produces when breast cancer > cells are proliferating in the body. A "normal" measurement is 30 or > less. I started round II with a 125. The test I took in April showed > my marker at 23, well in the normal range. In other words, chemo solves > breast cancer prolif (or at least delays it/drives it underground;). > > A week later, I had a CT scan which shows NO VISIBLE CANCER. A week > later my marker had fallen, further, to 13. > > What, then, does this mean? > > For now, breast cancer seems to be at bay. There is a small > (statistical) chance that it will stay in remission forever. A better > chance that I will live to fight round III. But one battle at a time. > > Next blood test May 12. Next CT Scan July/August. > > Thanks again to all the Becky supporters out there. There's definitely > a reason I "came back" to debate when I got cancer the first time. > > Becky Galentine > > > Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 08:33:31 -0700 > Reply-To: Becky Galentine > Subject: Volunteer coaching > > I don't want to entirely step into the frey regarding the "decay of policy > debate." Us coaching types have been discussing the future of policy > debate up > here for a few weeks, and I am guardedly optimistic that we will make > progress. > > I want to talk about volunteering as a coach. Mainly because I sense a > reluctance for folks who are interested but not quite "back in" the game > do not > sign up because they fear the workability issues. Likewise, I doubt many > administrators recruit volunteers. Jim didn't recruit me. One of the > debaters > did. There are a lot of us out there. And we don't necessarily have to > be > alum. God knows I couldn't have gone to Whitman. Those kids actually > study;) > > I have some experience at it. I have coached Whitman college on a > volunteer > basis for two years and plan for a third. I coached a little Redmond high > school called Eastlake this past year. Next year, in addition to > travelling > with JP, Adam and the gang, I plan to spend at least two days a week > working > with a program in the NW who has suffered a lot of numbers. > > When I started I was a full timer in the real world. I had to show up > later to > some tournaments than my team, sometimes I couldn't go, and sometimes I > had > explaining to do at work. I was not poor, in fact commanded a handsome > salary > for a 24 year old, which further enabled me to volunteer. My second full > year > of coaching, I was battling breast cancer, and still made it to 13 > hs/college > tournaments. And now, thanks to LTD, as long as I am healthy, I will be > positioned to volunteer with debate programs into the sunset. > > My point is, if someone working a full time job or battling cancer can > find the > time to give back, maybe you can too. The workability issues will > eventually > find their rhythm if you really want them too. > > And if anyone ever wanted to sponsor a nationwide, or even regional, > volunteer > network, I would love to help coordinate it. > > .02, > > Becky Galentine > Whitman College > > Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 21:25:09 -0700 > Reply-To: Becky Galentine > Subject: Beauty v. Breast Cancer: Round III Bad News and Good News > > Bad News: My cancer is back. I have known this since early July but > had my head in the sand for most of the summer due to my desire to enjoy > myself and the fact that finding out I have cancer again so soon after > high dose is pretty devastating mentally. > > It's in the same place as before -- the plura lining and my tumor marker > was very high when I started treatment in late August. It was at 191. > > Well, I have had six treatments of Navelbine chemotherapy to date. I am > happy to report: > > Good News: Not only do I still have my beautiful bleach blonde hair, > and am experiencing way less nausea than before, but a recent blood test > indicates that the CHEMOTHERAPY IS WORKING. > > So, in the broad scheme of things, I don't really know what all of this > means. I will be in treatment until this goes away or I die, not to be > crass. > > I feel really healthy, and I think as I run into you over the season you > will agree that I look better than in like a decade. > > So, I guess that's it. If you have any questions, or want to drop me a > backchannel, feel free. > > > Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 13:10:09 -0700 > From: Becky Galentine > Subject: Whitman's own Jessica and Becky regarding Women in Debate: > Reflections on Emporia > > This weekend I was doing the 2A in a pretty normal debate round. The > 2NC read some cards I thought deserved some serious cross-examination > scrutiny, so I began the c-x by re-reading the cards in question in a > sarcastic tone. No sooner than I had read the first sentence I saw the > judge turn to his ballot to write a comment. Being the recipient of > "bitch" comments in the past, I knew immediately what he was writing. > > After the tournament, my suspicions were confirmed. In addition to a > comment along the lines of "2A-lose the attitude in the cx it is rude & > degrades the round" I received a rank of 4 and some very low speaker > points. > > This situation reminded me of the "women in debate" thread awhile ago > and I wanted to share a few of my thoughts on this subject. During that > thread, two dominant stereotypes of women who debate were mentioned: > "cute" and "bitch." My experience this weekend elucidated for me how > entrapment between these two stereotypes consigns women to failure. > > The Supreme Court case Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins illustrates my > point. Ann Hopkins, after achieving career success with an "aggressive," > "masculine," get-ahead attitude, was denied partnership for failing to > walk and dress femininely. The Supreme Court ruled for the plaintiff, > finding that: "... An employer who objects to aggressiveness in women > but whose positions require this trait places women in an intolerable > and impermissible catch 22: out of a job if they behave aggressively and > out of a job if they do not." > > Debate traps women in the same double bind as the accountants at Price > Waterhouse. Act aggressively and earn a 25, act demure, quiet, and > "feminine" and be ignored. Coming into college debate with low > confidence in my talents and abilities, an attitude I believe is common > to many female debaters, I spoke softly and with fear. The result: I > felt ignored by judges and competitors alike, overshadowed by loud and > confident male partners. > > My male partners and opponents have never seemed to face the same catch > 22. They are able to get away with a huge degree of insult and sarcasm, > including reference to "strategic errors" made by the other team, > calling arguments "crap," and general cross examination loudness and > battery. > > It would be easy to pass off the ballot comment I received as an > anomaly, a single instance of sexism overshadowed by the larger, more > liberal community, but I wonder if other critics don't hold the same > unwritten opinions of my "rude attitude." > > Until we examine and bring to public scrutiny underlying stereotypes and > double binds faced by women in this activity, the goal of inclusivity > will remain elusive. > > Until then, I'll keep my attitude, thank you. > > Jessica Clarke > > p.s. > Ma Galentine is on a rampage. i'm honestly a bit disappointed in myself > for not getting on this tip sooner. for the past two years a consistent > coaching message of mine has been *confidence* and *presence* as the key > things she needed to compliment her fierce argument style. i am > extremely proud of the debater she has become and is becomming and this > weekend at emporia, i saw a lady transformed. > > That is, until i fucked up our strike sheet and we got a judge who > apparently couldn't reconcile jessica's cuteness with her quick wit and > willingness to go after bad evidence in the cross-ex. Jessica clarke > was discriminated against because of her gender at the emporia > tournament. I want to punch the guy who said she degraded the round. > no -- YOU degrade the round, and indeed, the activity. > > I, too, debated with an agressive partner (any one remember David > Devereaux) and I, too, was burdended by existing at the intersection of > cute and bitch. I can totally relate to jessica's feeling that you have > the choice of "acting like a girl" and having male judges disrespect > your debating, not hear your arguments, instead wanting to fuck you, or > "acting like one of the guys" and being labeled a bitch. > > I guess jessica may have to strap in for some more 25s, since I predict > my friend from the strike vaccuum is not the only sexist asshole in the > activity. However, to those of you who intend to use words like whine, > and bitch and attitude when judging my female debaters, you better be > ready to step. When a woman makes a slam or joke or goes after a > terrible argument, it is no different than when a man does. > > Becky Galentine > > p.p.s. jp and adam -- please don't get mad at us for speaking up, > although we should have asked first and all. you know us women. > > > Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 01:16:25 -0800 > Sender: Team Topic Debating in America > Subject: beauty v. breast cancer: more *great* news > > as i get ready to leave for wake, i realize that countless people who > don't know yet will ask me this weekend what's going on and i thought > with a quick update, those of you who still don't know "how i'm doing" > will, and can spare me having to indulge in the details over and over. > although, i am as always available to ask any questions, i just don't > like giving bad news a hundred times. gets to be a bummer. > > so, as the opening paragraph suggests, things aren't going well. > > the treatment i was on is no longer working, and indeed, the cancer has > progressed. the tumors in my plura are now big enough to cause my plura > lining to inflame, resulting in much pain, and pain medication. in > fact, last tuesday, the doctor sent me home with two demoral shots in my > system. > > i also have new cancer, in my liver. a 4cm spot. oh shit is right. > > there is also a lovely little swollen lymph node next to my clavical > which is hopefully *not* the next batch of cells waiting to proliferate. > > so shit looks kinda bad. here's what i'm doing > > i switched to taxotere and have had two treatments. it makes me tired > and my hair will probably fall out during the tournament. i am bringing > my clippers...if anyone's interested in shaving. on the herbal front, i > am eating herbs to protect my liver (echinacea, dandelion, milk thistle, > and siberian ginseng), vita a, algae and shark cartliage. i have the > number of a naturopath to call after wake and my friend at the uw is > talking to the heads of the major u.s. cancer centers for me over the > next two weeks to find out if there's anything going that could help > me. as my dear friend shawn hummell told me, "it's time for us to get > radical." i'm also trying to be a born again health nut. > > i don't know how long i will be in this treatment. either until it > works and i don't have cancer or until we determine that it's not > working and the cancer is progressing further and then we switch to > something else. so, one possibility is that i am in treatment for the > rest of my life. and one very harsh possibility is that i may have > celebrated my last birthday (yesterday i turned 28). hopefully and > probably not, but this shit seems to grow pretty quickly and has anyone > else noticed how well it responds to treatment? > > there's more. > > many know, and were invited to join, that joey and i were getting > married in december. because of my recent developments we decided that > by december we wouldn't be able to enjoy a wedding as much as the > present time -- i still look great and feel vital after all and > increasingly am learning to live for the day. > > i am happy to announce that joey and i were married last saturday, > november 11. we were married by marla devereaux, used to be marla > paul. we had about 40 guests, including many ex-debaters, and it was, > if i may say, very elegant and excellent all around. by the coast > tournaments i should have pictures to show, and once i get the video > sound edited (the beauty of digital) i will have a clean copy to show > people at future tourneys. as marla devereaux said after he kissed the > bride, i now pronounce to you joey austin and becky galentine:) i'm > sure you'll see me showing off my ring this weekend, and raving about > what a fabulous occasion and all. i just wish there would have been > more time to accomodate my out of town debate friends. > > for everyone who planned to join us in december, i'm sorry, but am sure > you understand. chat with me this weekend and i will fill you in on the > highlights. > > i know everyone, even me - especially after this week, is busy getting > ready for wake, so i'll leave it at that. hope to see you in > winston-salem. > > becky galentine > whitman college > > Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 10:05:13 -0800 > Sender: Team Topic Debating in America > From: Becky Galentine > Subject: wasting strikes on useless bastards > > something has been bothering me a lot this morning as i read through the > hoards of email which accumulated during wake and it's aftermath on my > body. > > why should i have to use strikes to get rid of sexist, racist, or > whateverist assholes? just because they don't have the ethics to remove > themselves from the judging pool, we end up having to spend strikes on > these worthless morons. > > most tournaments do not offer enough strikes to be able to deal with the > *usual* issues strikes address, without having to protect your femaile > debaters from sexual harrassment, or at a minimum extreme negative > stereotyping. > > i think tournaments should offer the equivalent to a "conflict of > interest" sheet for coaches to fill out. if i think someone is a sexist > pig and or can produce evidence that he/she/it should not be judging my > debaters then i shouldn't have to use a strike. > > i think it's time the community stop making excuses for these lesser > members. we need to remove them from the gene pool. > > thoughtfully, > becky galentine > > > Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 00:56:27 -0800 > From: Becky Galentine > Subject: :( I won't be at Northwestern, a health update by Becky > Galentine > > After swearing to myself last year that I would not let cancer make me > miss our second trip to Northwestern, I must finally swallow the reality > that I can't come with my team to Chicago this weekend. I was really > looking forward to seeing a lot of folks, not least of which are Jess, > Adam and JP who live 300 miles away from me. I have had the chance to > contact many appropriate people regarding my status, but I haven't > finished and this is a quick way to get the word out. > > Also, for those of you to whom this message is directed, you know that > debate is pretty much how I keep fighting this disease. It's one of the > places I have left where I can be strong and be there for my debaters, > instead of always needing my caregivers to provide my every service. In > very certain terms, coaching debate has extended my life. Watching them > grow and become the debaters I've seen in them is better for me then any > of these useless fucking chemo drugs I keep taking. > > I skipped the California swing so that I would be "well enough" for West > Georgia (and Northwestern) and that turned out to be a great decision. > But it did pretty much do me in. Those who were there and know me know > that for the first time in my history with this activity, I slept in > until 1pm on the second day of the tournament. I was so short of breath > I laid under a coat and essentially panted during round 7. But I got > through the weekend -- with a lot of help from my friends in the > community and the tournament administration. > > When I got home I crashed pretty hard physically. I was supposed to > have the week off from chemotherapy which would have been a nice way to > recover. But alas, the day I left for West Georgia I got some bad news > -- the latest treatment I was on -- the one I've been on since my > wedding and Wake Forest and all, is no longer working. So, the day > after we got back I had another chemotherapy, which when added to the > physical impact of the tournament, was more than this little gal could > handle. > > Unfortunately I was unable to take chemotherapy the following week. The > reason: My white blood cell counts (a primary indicator of immune > system strength) were too low to safely receive treatment. I woke up > one morning with fluid in my lungs, enough to severely impair my > breathing. My tumor marker is now high enough that my oncologist thinks > the fluid represents my breast cancer spreading. Yet again. So now we > can reasonably predict I have breast cancer in my right pleura lining, > my liver and both my lungs. Yes, a chest X-ray reveals a couple of > inches worth of fluid in both lungs. > > Yes, oh fuck. This is extremely shitty. I'm not exactly sure how to > sugar coat the fact I may be getting an oxygen prescription tomorrow. > I'm just not that good with words. Maybe should have done IE's:) > > This past Monday I started a new chemotherapy which is called Doxol but > is spelled totally different. If you are interested, let me know and I > will send you the correct spelling. I don't know much about it yet, I > am playing catch up -- after all, there's not a lot of time for extended > research when your marker is doubling every month or to put it more > bluntly, your cancer is doubling as well. > > The way this new chemo works is I have an intravenous dose once every 21 > days until either we A) determine the cancer is gone or B) determine the > treatment is no longer working. As with most of these new cancer > fighting drugs, it has low success -- 20 to 30 percent chance of working > well enough to rid my body of any visible cancer. > > In addition to this new chemo, I am investigating whether there is > anything going on at the UW or other major cancer centers around the > country which may benefit me. I also have the name of an excellent > Naturopath. I can't take those new drugs you've read about in the > popular press given the chemical makeup of my cancer, but am always open > to fresh suggestion for recapturing my health. > > Joey just cautioned me that people are going to freak and think I am > much worse off than in actuality when they read this. I want to head > that off. I am solidly mediocre with high hopes for improvement. We > aren't giving up. I just want to give it to you straight. > > You know me, I am a tough chick and a fighter. And even after three > tiring years, I still have a lot of fight in me and increasingly find > myself with reasons to live -- my marriage with Joey, coaching debate, > seeing my dream -The Seattle Debate Foundation- become real, and the > lifelong friendships I have developed in this community during the last > decade. > > That's enough for now. I'll keep you posted if anything significant > happens. I am likely grounded for the rest of February, however, will > be at NW CEDA Champs and the Nationals if it takes a nurse, a wheelchair > and a tank of oxygen. > > Becky Galentine > Whitman College > > Date: Thu, 18 Mar 1999 01:45:34 -0800 > From: Becky Galentine > Subject: A health update before the nationals > > I can't believe I am posting this, as I have made such a big deal > publicly about being at nationals and seeing Adam and Jessica complete > their run together. Would have been nice. I was kidding myself, > apparantly. > > Learned a lot of health shit this week. Here are the lowlights: > - Tumor marker is >3000 (For those of you who would like this in > perspective, it was at 300 during West Georgia, and the highest I had > ever heard it was after Wake when it was 430. Normal is 30.) > - White counts extremely low. I am teetering on the edge of having the > necessary immunity to stay out of the hospital. I am so low energy that > I am spiking daily fevers since chemo. Suffice it to say I *would* get > sick at nationals given the high impact the swing and weather would have > *and* all you health debaters out there. This time if I were to get > sick, that could be the end of me. > - Cancer has spread since last CAT Scan (October), indeed. That is > when we discovered a 4cm spot on my liver. That spot has now become the > entire left lobe of my liver - it's essentially dead - which puts me in > danger of failure, and death. For example, if my liver continues to > decline at the previous rate, I've got somewhere between 2 and 4 months > to live. Yes, oh fuck. And, no, I didn't think it could get this > bad/scary so soon. > - Switched chemotherapy once again and am back on a weekly treatment > schedule as opposed to the last version which was every 21 days. We'll > see how that goes. I see the University of Washington tomorrow to talk > about other options, and a Naturopath on April 1. > > So, I can't go. To either. I am totally heartbroken that I will not > get to see Jessica and Adam complete their partnership and I am > devastated that I will miss Adam's last debate. I have poured myself in > debate as a refuge from cancer, and now the cancer has such control > that, well, you get the idea. > > I have talked to only a few of you on the phone. I would really like to > talk with *those I would normally chat on the phone with* whenever it's > convenient. You know who you are and if you need our number, > backchannel please. Or if you would rather me call you, please send me > your phone number. > > For the best source of information I would chat with Sean Harris > (formerly of Whitman, now of UPS), Kate Shuster, JP Lacy, Jessica Clarke > and Adam Symonds. In addition to maintaining contact during the swing, > I have fully disclosed to them what is going on in immesurable detail. > > I hate delivering this kind of blow to some of you. I found it to be > quite a blow to myself. Considering I'm afraid I won't see many of you > again, I found it to be a big blow indeed. So many of you have helped > me get this far and continue to send me white light and good thoughts > and goodies and what not to remind me that there is a very big and > powerful force standing behind me. > > Thanks again to Sara, Scott, Val, Stacey and everyone at Kansas for > their efforts to increase Breast Cancer Awareness in the community. I > would say that you all have had a great effect. Congratulations, and > thanks. > > I don't really know what else to say. Which is a common theme of the > people I have spoken with directly. This sucks worse than anything I > have dealt with so far and I am terrified about my chances. I will be > contacting some of you in further detail, but please, anyone with > questions, feel free to send me some mail. I will even try to answer. > > Peace and Awareness > Becky Galentine > Whitman College > > p.s. I want to personally thank Kate Shuster and Melissa Wade for their > generous offer of Kate's time to help JP coach Adam and Jessica in my > absence. I think the spirit that this type of offer represents further > warrants my opinion that Emory University - top to bottom in terms of > all the levels to the monolith - is one of the most caring squads in the > country. Thanks again - we are all really looking forward to getting to > work more closely with Kate. Lord knows she can do everything I do and > more;)!!! > > Please forward this message to anyone who you know that would want a > Becky update but who are not on edebate. I know there are some key > players I miss by only posting here. And maybe one of you could print a > couple copies of this message to share with people who are already > headed for Carbondale and who may not have email access. Again, thanks. > > > > From sharris Wed Jun 2 15:05:24 1999 From: sharris (SCOTT HARRIS) Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 15:05:24 -0500 Subject: jar jar and racism In-Reply-To: <37558895.9274CACF@frank.mtsu.edu> Message-ID: Toon rhymes with Coon---- proof. Ronald Wilson Reagan---666----proof. And some people think Clinton links are a reach. #####LOCO IN LAWRENCE##### From jasonph Wed Jun 2 15:17:46 1999 From: jasonph (Jason Peter Hernandez) Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 16:17:46 -0400 Subject: "Substantially reverse...?" In-Reply-To: <000001beac81$8e12ada0$ac04588f@chewbacca> Message-ID: Failure to include the word "substantially" before "reverse" would lend to negative topicality arguments that the aff must reverse all sanctions. Including "substantially" allows the affirmative to remove some but not be required to reverse all sanctions. If you want the aff to reverse all sanctions you should look at the embargo topic. To "substantially reverse its economic sanctions" would allow the afiirmative to reverse prolif sanctions on Iran but keep sanctions for sponsoring terrorism. Jason On Tue, 1 Jun 1999, Matthew Kuss wrote: > I am not sure this is even possible... most def's of reverse I have found > dont allow for qualitative reversals... to reverse sanctions would be to do > the exact oppsoite of them... not sure how substantial comes into play... > > Any ideas? > > Matt > > "Video games, not parents, are to blame for many of these teenage crimes. > I'm certain it was Frogger that taught my son to jaywalk." > From bradhall Wed Jun 2 15:49:31 1999 From: bradhall (Brad Hall) Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 15:49:31 -0500 Subject: jar jar and racism References: <37558895.9274CACF@frank.mtsu.edu> Message-ID: The Phantom Menace may not be the only of the Star Wars trilogy to include possible racism. Brad Manhattan HS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------ >From http://www.ihatestarwars.com/racism.html: "The Star Wars series is filled racist characters and situations, yet it never attempts to dispel such beliefs as wrong. Perhaps the most disturbing thing is that racism is not just featured, but it is actively encouraged as a noble ideal. My first argument involves the cast of the original movie. In the first film, the only non-white member of the cast is James Earl Jones, who is not even seen in the film and is actually not credited in the original release of the film, a clear example of race discrimination. Following the casting through the series, a minority actor is finally allowed to be seen on the screen in The Empire Strikes Back, but the character is a lying, double-crossing scoundrel. By the end of the film, you are convinced that he is not worthy of trust, and by extension, since he is the only African American in the movie, neither are blacks as a whole. And let's not forget, the actor is Billy Dee Williams. This was obviously a token role, or else they would have found a much better actor. The racism continues in Return of the Jedi. In the end celebration scene, Lando is standing alone in the background, jiving to the music, while all the other major characters are grouped together in the foreground. The meaning is clear - Lando is being excluded because of his skin color. Not only that, but the scene is reinforcing the pointless stereotype that black people have more rhythm than whites. One incident does not prove the case. But there is yet more light to be shed on this subject. The setting of the film allows for many more instances of racism. For example, you have the scene where the droids are not allowed into the bar on Tatooine. An astute viewer will notice the implied homosexual relationship between the droids. Clearly, when the bartender says, "We don't allow their kind here," he is condemning their homosexual relationship. Do Luke and Ben do anything about it? No, and yet they are the heroes of the film. Thus, the film is suggesting that discrimination is OK under certain circumstances. However, by allowing this kind of thinking an inch we run the danger of it taking an entire mile. Even the way that the Jedi refer to the Force is racist. The Light Side is good and the Dark Side is bad. Clearly, this is stating that white is good and black is bad. Let's not forget that the Dark Side represents fear, anger, and hate. Is it fair then to assume that they are trying to say that the emotions of fear, anger and hate should rightly be directed towards the black race? I think it is clear that that is precisely what the producers of Star Wars want you to think. Clearly the Empire is synonymous with blacks in the films. Through this relationship, blacks are further degraded through suggestions than they are stupid. For instance, the Empire makes many completely vapid mistakes. The most classic examples are the two death stars, both of which were SENSELESSLY left open to attack. Also, the Empire further displays it's own stupidity in being unable to repel an attack from a primitive, stone age race, the Ewoks. Here's a hint guys. If you want to kill Ewoks you don't use fragile walking machines, you use NAPALM! In short, Star Wars penetrates into the minds of our youth an essence of racism and discrimination. It is quite clear that the producers of the film are in favor only of white people and has beliefs very similar to those of Nazi Germany. " From girl-genius Wed Jun 2 15:59:42 1999 From: girl-genius (Shawnessy Scott) Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 20:59:42 0000 Subject: Ans. Shawnessy Scott Message-ID: Posts to the list get replied to on the list, Tiffany: I won't go line by line not because I don't have the time or because I don't care enough, but because I think you're outraged and you won't hear what I have to say before we get a few things straight. Please put down your weapons. 1. "Because we've always done things that way" is nowhere in anything I've ever said. If you truly believe in your heart that we can solve all the world's oppression at once with a radical new method, please do enlighten the list. We've been looking for solutions for quite a while now. 2. I never requested anyone's silence. Speak out and continue to fight, but please realize that homosexuals, for example, have only just begun to speak out whereas blacks have been speaking out for a hundred years. What that means is not that we're better, but that homosexuals may just have to wait a little longer before they start on the road to getting their freedoms, just like blacks did. It won't take as long as ours, I know. Why? Because blacks and women in this country have paved the way for disadvantaged groups to speak up. They have, through much struggle, come up with the actions that work. Because of those groups and their preliminary battles against oppresion, gays may have an easier or at least shorter time. But there is STILL a line. And that's the reason. 3. This post wasn't designed to change anyone's mind. I'd never waste my time trying to convince all feminists and gays (or whatever the correct term is) that they're going to have to support the black movement before their struggle can come that far. Supporting the black struggle means America has done so much to try and legally stop racism, and educate against it (at least in theory) that supporting this movement can only help others. Feminists and gays will begin to make analogies in their speeches to us and the freedoms we've won... If you are still absolutely horrified and can't begin to understand where I got that from then we'll have to agree to disagree. 4. By all means, do as you choose. Race and gender/feminist issues are not automatically one-or-the-other things you have to choose between. My theory is that focus will equal effectiveness. Speak out on everything and you may not be listened to as much because (some) people will see you as maybe just someone who likes to fight about everything. (that's a general, not a personal 'you') Speak out on one issue, or better yet one specific aspect of an issue and you may be received better as a person who has given all aspects deep thought, but chosen to take a stand on the one that means the most to you, or the one that you think will be most successful. the world is what you make it but people rarely live to see what they've made Hasn't anyone ever told you to choose your battles? seriously but not maliciously the novice Shawnessy On Wed, 2 Jun 1999 09:56:52 Tiffany (VampyreCat) StPatrickWells wrote: >On Wed, 2 Jun 1999, Shawnessy Scott wrote: >> Voting >> first they changed the laws regarding blacks >> then they changed for women >> Affirmative Action >> first enacted for blacks (among others) and women >> then Hispanics joined in the 70s >> perhaps a future for gays (in the line of historically disadvantaged >> groups getting fairness and compensation, perhaps) > >Why is making people wait for fairness good? >Are you saying that we have to stick to the way things were done in the >past? I don't think that arguement holds any weight with me. >"Because we've always done things that way" has never convinced me to do >anything. >Are you saying that we must allow systems of oppression to continue to >operate wherever we see them because we must pick one type of oppression >and fight only that type of oppression? >I just don't get it. Why? > >> Specific laws and remedies for discrimination >> blacks first start helping to define discrimination >> as far as racism is concerned >> women say yeah, laws concerning sexual discrimination come into play >> gays are next (see the sex/gender posting thing) > >It doesn't have to be separated like that. Just because one person spoke >up first, does that mean that all the other voices must remain silent? > >> It's a line. It's like stairs where we make steps. Right now most of >>America is conviced that racism is wrong. Sexism was close behind, >>although what's acceptable is still being defined. Heterosexism is just >>beginning to surface as a wrong. You can't lump them together and push >>the "SOLVE" button. There's a process involved in reality that says >>people can only deal with so much at once. By that I mean the legal >>system is real slow to change. Interracial marriage is still illegal in >>Alabama. How can you expect these people to jump automatically to >>solving for women's and gays' rights? > >You're defining a world I don't want to live in. Whatever the >consequences, I won't sit silent when I see what I believe is oppression. >You can choose to ignore gender issues in favor of what are known as race >issues; I think it's a false dilemma. > >I don't expect anyone to jump automatically to any new position. I am >perfectly willing to speak up and tell them why they should care, how I >think the oppression is harming people, and ask them to help interrupt >systems of oppression. People don't always listen. Sometimes their eyes >glaze over, and they ignore me. Sometimes they laugh. I take it as a >sign that they at least heard me. Maybe it helps to be heard. > >The problem I have with you saying "wait in line" is that there is no >need to wait. You are trying to paint a world in which anyone who speaks >against any injustice that isn't in your particular area of concern is >somehow involved in uniquely oppressing you. You haven't convinced me. > >> >Opressions are not neatly compartmentalized, set into a hierarchy and >>>given a triage number. Veronica put it best: the world of the >>>oppressed is not a hospital waiting room where those with the best >>>insurance (read: claim of victimization) get served first. How utterly >>>naive. > >> I admit to naivete. I think you guys are the ones missing reality and >>also forgetting all the stuff about backlash. We may not be afraid of it >>in rounds, and it's not a reason to stop progress, but it does have an >>effect on the way we do things. > >You are right the first time, backlash is not a reason to stop progress. > >There is no best or worst or most >>oppressed. There ARE categories and levels, however, in the mind of >>every American. I'm willing to go out on a limb and say that Americans >>do rank these things and right now the degree of comfort we have with >>making active attempts to solve racism (after a hundred years of slow, >>slow process), sexism and heterosexism will be next (in that order, yes) >>to be solved. We'll be able to make parallels and comparisons in >>movements, and in previous laws. > > >I don't want to be out on that limb with you. Oppression is bad, whatever >it's based on. > > >> >Until we begin to combat modes of oppression - the action not the >>>consequences - we will only reconstruct the forms of oppression (as >>>Shawnessy does above) with all of their attendant hierarchies. > >> I'm not reconstructing anything, least of all oppression. I can see >>that any attempts at honesty are not welcome on this list. Let me just >>pick my mask back up and go back to hiding behind the widely accepted >>facade of political correctness and only share my opinions when they >>agree with everyone else's. What a valuable lesson to have learned from >>debate. > > >I'm not asking you to put on a mask, to hide, or to be silent. I'm asking >you not to tell me to be silent on issues of gender (womyn's rights/ >homosexual rights/sexual orientation issues). I hope you change >your mind, and that you decide that speaking out against oppression >doesn't have to be limited to one category at a time. > >> >No Shawnessy...chicks and fags need wait for no one. We will take >>>our freedom at will and ponder why you continue to stand in line like so >>>much chattle. > >> what-EVER! I can see now all the freedom that women and homosexuals >>are just reaching out to grab! Welcome back to reality, and please put >>the crack rock down. It's an uphill battle, a struggle, one movement >>stands on the shoulders or draws from the victories of the others. And >>where did you come to the conclusion that I was standing in line "like >>so much chattel"? I'm sure that's what my recent deluge of posts on >>racism have been all about. Me, just waiting around for freedom to >>happen. People always take the opportunity to poke giant holes in >>unrealistic cases in rounds, but think about the practicality of what >>you're saying. In theory it's fine to talk about taking oppression in >>one huge chunk and attacking all of it, but that'll be the vaguest and >>least successful law in all of history. Focus and order are needed to >>solve any problem, and any problem-solver knows that you have to >>separate it into manageable parts, and get at the root before you can >>deal with it. > > >The focus and order you say are needed do not necessitate silence on >issues of gender. The focus and order can come in the form of a personal >committment to speak up, to refuse to remain silent. > >I don't know exaclty where the root of oppression is. I suspect that it >may be embedded in the language with which I form my thoughts. Still, I >won't refuse to struggle, I feel I must oppose oppression when and where >I can. You won't convice me to "wait in line." I'm hoping I can convince >you not to wait in line either. > >Tiffany > Angelfire for your free web-based e-mail. http://www.angelfire.com >From Wed Jun 2 16:07:41 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 37098 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 17:11:56 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from wfrpc.dst.fl.us (server.wfrpc.dst.fl.us [206.105.46.100]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA17076 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 17:08:15 -0400 Received: from TERM-26 (TERM-26 [206.105.46.84]) by wfrpc.dst.fl.us (NTMail 3.02.09) with ESMTP id ra041929 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 16:07:44 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01d) Message-ID: <21074467104754 at wfrpc.dst.fl.us> Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 16:07:41 -0500 Reply-To: chismc at WFRPC.DST.FL.US To: Team Topic Debating in America From: chismc at WFRPC.DST.FL.US Subject: help me obi wan...... i have yet to see this film, so i can't really comment.....but didn't lando get to fly the millenium falcon? hell, i'd like to fly the millenium falcon someday...all of these posts sound just like that aforementioned bit in chasing amy......maybe c3po was gay...i dunno..i have met, and i have interviewed anthony daniels twice, and he acts exactly like 3po, so make what you want out of that.... seems to me that obi wan was just a big chickenhawk looking to score with that young innocent luke skywalker...... From pbermel Wed Jun 2 16:20:13 1999 From: pbermel (Peter Bermel) Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 17:20:13 -0400 Subject: jar jar and racism In-Reply-To: <006701bead39$6c028c40$bf56fea9@bradhall> Message-ID: Please spare us from further diatribes written by people not even on the listserve as to the alleged racism of Star Wars. This article, in particular, seems to be the poorly written work of a highly biased author (ihatestarwars.com). Can any sober individuals take seriously the argument that the dark side of the force is supposed to represent African-Americans? I don't think so. Even if Star Wars is in some ways transparently racist (as has been more eloquently argued elsewhere), I fail to see why we should focus on this movie. Please. It's a movie, bigger than most to be sure, but not _real life_. It doesn't even claim to _represent_ real life. Maybe you will say that makes it even more dangerous, but I think that just makes the message just much more diffuse. What does your common sense suggest to you? Or do you think that's irrelevant? If you want to combat racism, I would suggest taking a proactive approach in your community. Support a neighborhood homeless shelter. Assist the creation and growth of UDLs. Discuss ways that we can stop discrimination happening in our world rather than deconstructing commercialized fluff. Do you think anyone in the real world will take a paper on Jar-Jar Binks seriously? Hardly, I could barely take that L.A. Times article by Eric Harrison seriously, in which he made his agenda clear through damning epiphanies like the revelation that "toons" rhymes with "coons." Just asking for some perspective, Peter Bermel ------------------------------------------------------------ | Peter Bermel | 4109 Oak Park Rd. | | peter_bermel at unc.edu | Raleigh, NC 27612 | | http://www.unc.edu/~pbermel | (919) 781-7148 | ------------------------------------------------------------ On Wed, 2 Jun 1999, Brad Hall wrote: > The Phantom Menace may not be the only of the Star Wars trilogy to include > possible racism. > > Brad > Manhattan HS > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ------------------------ > From http://www.ihatestarwars.com/racism.html: > > "The Star Wars series is filled racist characters and situations, yet it > never attempts to dispel such beliefs as wrong. Perhaps the most disturbing > thing is that racism is not just featured, but it is actively encouraged as > a noble ideal. > > My first argument involves the cast of the original movie. In the first > film, the only non-white member of the cast is James Earl Jones, who is not > even seen in the film and is actually not credited in the original release > of the film, a clear example of race discrimination. > > Following the casting through the series, a minority actor is finally > allowed to be seen on the screen in The Empire Strikes Back, but the > character is a lying, double-crossing scoundrel. By the end of the film, you > are convinced that he is not worthy of trust, and by extension, since he is > the only African American in the movie, neither are blacks as a whole. And > let's not forget, the actor is Billy Dee Williams. This was obviously a > token role, or else they would have found a much better actor. > > The racism continues in Return of the Jedi. In the end celebration scene, > Lando is standing alone in the background, jiving to the music, while all > the other major characters are grouped together in the foreground. The > meaning is clear - Lando is being excluded because of his skin color. Not > only that, but the scene is reinforcing the pointless stereotype that black > people have more rhythm than whites. One incident does not prove the case. > But there is yet more light to be shed on this subject. The setting of the > film allows for many more instances of racism. > > For example, you have the scene where the droids are not allowed into the > bar on Tatooine. An astute viewer will notice the implied homosexual > relationship between the droids. Clearly, when the bartender says, "We don't > allow their kind here," he is condemning their homosexual relationship. Do > Luke and Ben do anything about it? No, and yet they are the heroes of the > film. Thus, the film is suggesting that discrimination is OK under certain > circumstances. However, by allowing this kind of thinking an inch we run the > danger of it taking an entire mile. > > Even the way that the Jedi refer to the Force is racist. The Light Side is > good and the Dark Side is bad. Clearly, this is stating that white is good > and black is bad. Let's not forget that the Dark Side represents fear, > anger, and hate. Is it fair then to assume that they are trying to say that > the emotions of fear, anger and hate should rightly be directed towards the > black race? I think it is clear that that is precisely what the producers of > Star Wars want you to think. > > Clearly the Empire is synonymous with blacks in the films. Through this > relationship, blacks are further degraded through suggestions than they are > stupid. For instance, the Empire makes many completely vapid mistakes. The > most classic examples are the two death stars, both of which were > SENSELESSLY left open to attack. Also, the Empire further displays it's own > stupidity in being unable to repel an attack from a primitive, stone age > race, the Ewoks. Here's a hint guys. If you want to kill Ewoks you don't use > fragile walking machines, you use NAPALM! > > In short, Star Wars penetrates into the minds of our youth an essence of > racism and discrimination. It is quite clear that the producers of the film > are in favor only of white people and has beliefs very similar to those of > Nazi Germany. " > From omcst+ Wed Jun 2 16:37:37 1999 From: omcst+ (Omri M Ceren) Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 17:37:37 -0400 Subject: SW triology racist? (ans Hall) In-Reply-To: <006701bead39$6c028c40$bf56fea9@bradhall> Message-ID: On Wed, 2 Jun 1999, Brad Hall wrote: > "The Star Wars series is filled racist characters and situations, yet it > never attempts to dispel such beliefs as wrong. Perhaps the most disturbing > thing is that racism is not just featured, but it is actively encouraged as > a noble ideal. I'm going to argue that if you can view Star Wars and conclude that it "actively encourages [racism] as a noble ideal" you might be looking for something to confirm some preconcieved notions of your own. Some of the hasty conclusions drawn below seem to rest on some pretty racist stereotypes. > Following the casting through the series, a minority actor is finally > allowed to be seen on the screen in The Empire Strikes Back, but the > character is a lying, double-crossing scoundrel. By the end of the film, you > are convinced that he is not worthy of trust, and by extension, since he is > the only African American in the movie, neither are blacks as a whole. And > let's not forget, the actor is Billy Dee Williams. This was obviously a Pyschologists have alot to say about projection - maybe you should consider seeing one. Just because _you're_ convinced that what one African American does is a "reflection on his race" (ahh... the 1950s) doesn't mean the rest of us do. Please refrain from informing me that by the end of the movie I'll be convinced. Oh, and maybe you and your shrink can watch Empire again, this time more cloesly, and realize that Lando is a good guy. :) > Lando is standing alone in the background, jiving to the music, while all > the other major characters are grouped together in the foreground. The > meaning is clear - Lando is being excluded because of his skin color. Not Wow. I didn't see that. Is this what they call "pulling at straws"? > only that, but the scene is reinforcing the pointless stereotype that black > people have more rhythm than whites. One incident does not prove the case. This is a joke, right? > For example, you have the scene where the droids are not allowed into the > bar on Tatooine. An astute viewer will notice the implied homosexual > relationship between the droids. Clearly, when the bartender says, "We don't > allow their kind here," he is condemning their homosexual relationship. Do OK, first of all I don't see the implied homosexual relationship. Maybe I haven't been as up as I should be in the cultural queer studies lit, but I don't see it. On the whole, I'd be a little more careful in emulating Rev. Falwell's example and outting people... or droids, for that matter. But I have a more lucid point, I think: maybe the bartender was refering to the fact that they're droids. > Let's not forget that the Dark Side represents fear, > anger, and hate. Is it fair then to assume that they are trying to say that > the emotions of fear, anger and hate should rightly be directed towards the > black race? I think it is clear that that is precisely what the producers of > Star Wars want you to think. I guess is it would be fair to say that if it had _any_ grounding in the movie. Praytell explain how you draw the idea that the Dark Side needs to be responded with through hate and violence when the entire movie is aimed at the exact _opposite_ conclusion: that the only way to beat back fear is with goodness and kindness? > Clearly the Empire is synonymous with blacks in the films. Through this > relationship, blacks are further degraded through suggestions than they are Clearly synonymous. The first thing that I think about when I see the white-clad storm troopers and the Anglo emperor is "African American." > In short, Star Wars penetrates into the minds of our youth an essence of > racism and discrimination. It is quite clear that the producers of the film > are in favor only of white people and has beliefs very similar to those of > Nazi Germany. " Ahhh.. this is wonderful. Lets take a series of movies dedicated to the glory of the gaurdians of truth and justice in a republic of infinitly different intellegent life forms and equate them with the gassing of 12 million people. I think that even after reading this entirely worthy contribution to the discussion, I'm still less than persuaded. Omri. ------ Language casts sheaves of reality upon the social body... stamping it and violently shaping it. -- Wittig ------ From hansonjb Wed Jun 2 16:39:50 1999 From: hansonjb (Jim Hanson) Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 14:39:50 -0700 Subject: Northwest Student Representative Message-ID: hi please send me your name or nominate someone else to be the student CEDA representative for the Northwest. this position is for someone who wants to make a difference in Northwest policy debate--you can schedule meetings, connect with people via email, and represent our district at the national student meeting. jim hanson hansonjb at whitman.edu >From Wed Jun 2 17:51:42 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 37779 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 17:56:19 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo21.mx.aol.com (imo21.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.65]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA21278 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 17:56:17 -0400 Received: from AmanK75 at aol.com (4532) by imo21.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id nYMZa03188 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 17:51:57 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 9 Message-ID: <85078509.2487016e at aol.com> Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 17:51:42 EDT Reply-To: AmanK75 at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: John Collins Subject: Jar Jar and Racism, hmmmmm, NO Has anyone ever told you people that you read to far into things. Maybe every once and a while a movie is just a movie like its intended to be. To make these unclear and plainly stupid assumptions about every movie is stupid. If you dig deep enough into anything your going to find something wrong with it. Obviously, the fact that you people know that much about the movie series Star Wars in itself is pathetic. But the fact that you waste even more of your time analyzing every detail of the movie is sickening, and I can't believe that next year I'm going to amongst you people in the highschool debate circle. Quite frankly it scares me. I want each of you who wrote about the movie Star Wars to work on getting a life. Because later on, you know when all the star wars movies or out of theaters and the last copies are out at the video store, you going to need a life. So I guess what I'm saying in the nicest way possible that I can, is please acknowledge you suck and shutup about your stupid movie. From mkuss Wed Jun 2 18:56:33 1999 From: mkuss (Matthew Kuss) Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 16:56:33 -0700 Subject: "Substantially reverse...?" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I guess I grew tired of entire debates around the word substantial. What does that apply to? Substantially reverse... how does one measure that? It is a easy trap for a RVI on T... I dont see how an Aff can justify the word 'substantially' on a definitional level, looking only at plan text. I think neg would have a fun time on T with that word. > To "substantially reverse its economic sanctions" would allow the > afiirmative to reverse prolif sanctions on Iran but keep sanctions for > sponsoring terrorism. So how would aff explain what 'substantial' is? Without looking to any solvency cards? Matt >From Wed Jun 2 17:57:46 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 37920 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 17:59:10 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo26.mx.aol.com (imo26.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.70]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA21248 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 17:59:07 -0400 Received: from HeLLaPrEp7 at aol.com (2619) by imo26.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id nVMNa01220 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 17:57:47 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 214 Message-ID: <8d12c9d5.248702da at aol.com> Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 17:57:46 EDT Reply-To: HeLLaPrEp7 at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Tejinder Singh Subject: Re: Ans. Shawnessy Scott Disclaimer: This is kinda long and unorganized, and as of now I'm not sure if I have a point...bear with me if ya choose to read it. I'm not sure if the conclusions I'm drawing are correct...but it seems to me that one side of the discussion (Shawnessy) is trying to describe the world as it is, while everybody else is talking about what it should be. The only real advocacy I've seen on Shawnessy's side of the equation is that problems should be addressed with specific, focussed solutions. This is probably true. Legislation, movements, etc, that fail to specify goals and tasks often are relatively ineffective, or easily co-opted. But the really cool thing to realize is that there are a lot of people reading from this list. Just because one person can not solve all of the world's problems doesn't really mean that all the people can't. I think it is somewhat wrong to say that women's rights or gay rights will necessarily come after a decrease in racism, or to say that indeed they should come after a decrease in racism. In my opinion, it matters not which comes first; it simply matters that equality for human beings (and I guess animals too, for you vegetarians) actually arrives...and hopefully arrives soon. I think treating this like a race, where one persecuted group is supposedly entitled to win by receiving their rights first trivializes the actual business of bringing about those rights. I am not sure if I've made sense yet...but I'm going to address some of the things I just read... << 1. "Because we've always done things that way" is nowhere in anything I've ever said. If you truly believe in your heart that we can solve all the world's oppression at once with a radical new method, please do enlighten the list. We've been looking for solutions for quite a while now. >> There probably is no blanket solution...but a good place to start is for all of us to try and not be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. I think each person can relatively effectively regulate all of their own behavior, toward all persecuted groups. As for solving problems outside of ourselves...I see no reason that as a body of people, working collectively to reduce discrimination/inequality as a whole, can not bring about some changes. <<2. I never requested anyone's silence. Speak out and continue to fight, but please realize that homosexuals, for example, have only just begun to speak out whereas blacks have been speaking out for a hundred years. What that means is not that we're better, but that homosexuals may just have to wait a little longer before they start on the road to getting their freedoms, just like blacks did. It won't take as long as ours, I know. Why? Because blacks and women in this country have paved the way for disadvantaged groups to speak up. They have, through much struggle, come up with the actions that work. Because of those groups and their preliminary battles against oppresion, gays may have an easier or at least shorter time. But there is STILL a line. And that's the reason.>> The only really sorta disturbing thing about this paragraph is that it seems to imply that the way things are is the way they should be, i.e. that homosexuals should wait longer for their emancipation than blacks, because they started later. I think homophobia may vanish before racism, and there is really no way to prove that argument, but there is no way to disprove it either. Only time will really tell in the end. But as I articulated earlier...who cares? As long as everybody's free in the end, why should it matter who gets to go first? << 3. This post wasn't designed to change anyone's mind. I'd never waste my time trying to convince all feminists and gays (or whatever the correct term is) that they're going to have to support the black movement before their struggle can come that far. Supporting the black struggle means America has done so much to try and legally stop racism, and educate against it (at least in theory) that supporting this movement can only help others. Feminists and gays will begin to make analogies in their speeches to us and the freedoms we've won... If you are still absolutely horrified and can't begin to understand where I got that from then we'll have to agree to disagree.>> Sure, supporting one movement probably helps others, but I don't see that as a reason to support one to the exclusion of others. I'll talk about that in a second after this next paragraph. << 4. By all means, do as you choose. Race and gender/feminist issues are not automatically one-or-the-other things you have to choose between. My theory is that focus will equal effectiveness. Speak out on everything and you may not be listened to as much because (some) people will see you as maybe just someone who likes to fight about everything. (that's a general, not a personal 'you') Speak out on one issue, or better yet one specific aspect of an issue and you may be received better as a person who has given all aspects deep thought, but chosen to take a stand on the one that means the most to you, or the one that you think will be most successful. >> That's a lotta "maybe"s. I think it's an interesting theory that focus equals effectiveness. In terms of legislation or organization, that is most probably true. But I don't think it holds as true on the individual level. My debate partner and I spent every aff round arguing for equal rights for poor Russian women that got forced into prostitution; some would call it an economic issue, others a matter of gender, and still others a race issue. Indeed it may be all these things. I don't feel that my advocacy on the behalf of these individuals diluted the effectiveness of statements I made against racism or ageism or in favor of gay rights. Never have I been disregarded as a left-winged hippie...(probably because I am pretty militaristic...) If anything, I think that the breadth of my advocacy has lended me more credibility, as I am able to appreciate more perspectives, and therefore incorporate them. I think that your argument assumes that people only have the capability to advocate on the behalf of one group and do it well. You seem to act under the assumption that if I were to ask for multiple social changes, the result would be that I would do many things and do them badly. But if we are capable of doing multiple things and doing them well, then why not? Another kinda cool thing about trying to do something right is that only very rarely can you make the problem worse. I am a firm believer in the concept that "every little bit helps." Even if everybody is operating at peak efficiency...things are getting done, and I applaud the efforts of those who work constructively to bring about social change, be it for the rights of blacks, whites, latinos, jews, gays, women, children, or animals (for you vegetarians). Statements saying that there is a right or wrong way to go about making things better seem to be pretty bold, because since no one group has achieved complete freedom, we don't know if they are correct or not...and proving them seems to be very difficult. I think the best way to go is for everybody to simply do what they can. If we can manage to do that, then I'm not sure if it matters which issue we work to solve; as they will inevitably all be solved. Just so I don't get misinterpreted...that last statement is nothing more than a comment on how much faith I have in you of the debate community and in human beings in general to eventually move to a more enlightened state. I think I've taken enough of your time now... Cheers, Tejinder Singh From hansonjb Wed Jun 2 17:02:14 1999 From: hansonjb (Jim Hanson) Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 15:02:14 -0700 Subject: NW Policy Tournaments, 1999-2000 Message-ID: hi i'm listing out the northwest policy tournaments for the 1999-2000 year. come one, come all. please send me corrections, errors, etc. as i will send out a revised list as soon as i get information. jim :) uw, battle in seattle: sept. 25-27, sat-mon contact glen frappier at frappier at calvin.gonzaga.edu lewis and clark, portland, or: oct. 8-10, fri-sun contact steve hunt at hunt at lclark.edu u. of oregon, eugene, or: oct. 22-24, fri-sun contact rick peacor at rpeacor at rio.com linfield (mid november), plu (early-mid january), utah (mid-january) may have policy debate but i am not sure about these. contact brenda marshall at bmarshal at linfield.edu; ed inch at inches at plu.edu; i don't know who the contact person is at utah. brenda and ed, if you could email your plans on this, that would be great. idaho state, pocatello, id (a short drive from salt lake city, ut): jan 28-30, fri-sun contact greg simmerly at simegreg at isu.edu western washington, bellingham, wa: feb. 4-6, fri-sun contact kelly mcdonald at kmmcdon at henson.cc.wwu.edu whitman college, walla walla, wa: feb. 25-27, fri-sun (i may go 25-26 fri-sat for policy debate if that is what the community wants) contact jim hanson at hansonjb at whitman.edu northwest ceda championship, unknown location: mar. 3-5, fri-sun contact rick peacor or glenn kuper at gkuper at ups.edu jim hanson whitman college hansonjb at whitman.edu From ifjxh Wed Jun 2 17:30:13 1999 From: ifjxh (Joshua Hoe) Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 15:30:13 PDT Subject: New topic paper thoughts Message-ID: Just got through the whole set of topic papers and here are my thoughts: 1. My paper - I agree with Parcher about modifications and am willing to leave out Russia and China if that is the general mood. I do think that it would be a huge mistake to leave out India and Pakistan in any final wording. 2. Constructive Engagement - Thought this was my fave paper probably because it has a little more flexibility for the aff while including a whole new set of generic negative args built into the topic. I think the substantially increase wording is a necessary check since our relations with some of those countries could be seen as constructive in the SQ. 3. Santions/Embargoes - Liked this one too -As I have said before I do not mind bi-directionality if it is essential to a good investigation of the literature and it is directed in a way that retains predictable and effective ground for the negative which is why I like the constructive engagement paper a little bit better. 4. I thought Steve's suggestions and examination was interesting, informative, and educational. 5. I am not real excited about development assistance because it just does not seem to get at the root of the problems between us and the nations we label as "rogue." I guess I think that we should focus on failures in hard foreign policy but direct the solutions more toward diplomacy than just assistance. Maybe I am wrong on the way this would play out but I think that the heart of this topic is diplomacy....and that a development assistance action unnecessarily limits the affirmative ground to providing the assistance but not the conditions and steps used to create a different relationship between us and the other country/nation state. 6. I think normalization is either over-optimistic about normalization mandating an end state (what are normalized relations) or there would not be enough diversity of affirmative options to support a year long topic. I could easily be wrong on this one.....It was just my initial feeling. On the whole a very good paper. I wanted to say that in my two terms on the topic committee it has been really fun to see the process grow - I remember very well feeling gleefully heretical as Tuna moved to make it more democratic or just happy to see the community kick in better and better and more developed suggestions under Carrie and Gena and now multiple wording papers under Glenda....We have really seen a ton of growth in this process in the last few years. As a member of the committee I would like to thank all of the people who wrote papers for lightening my summer work load! Josh _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com >From Wed Jun 2 18:59:25 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 38557 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 19:01:13 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo27.mx.aol.com (imo27.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.71]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA05262 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 19:01:12 -0400 Received: from Sgw8 at aol.com (3889) by imo27.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id nLBZa26942 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 18:59:26 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 18 Message-ID: <69025a81.2487114d at aol.com> Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 18:59:25 EDT Reply-To: Sgw8 at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Darius Wilkins Subject: competition for attention Toby Sanders and me had a knock 'em down, drag 'em out debate on what we should focus on: racism or sexism on our way to the Vandy tourney. I said racism Toby said sexism I said racism first because all 'isms are based on the fear/ignorance/relation/attempt at empathy with the OTHER. Analysing Racism/jingoism/nationalism/tribalism is comparitively easier, because all you need is a clear gimlet eye for logic. Sexism, heterosexism have quite a few logic loops that demand a value--emotions. I mean, how do you value/respect your wife or girlfriend?(males only) Compare that with all the competing theories of how you SHOULD value/respect your wife or girlfriend. As most people pair off male/female, it gets hard to judge your fathers or wives on a sexism basis because sexism as a whole is all about how you treat your most dearly beloved ones. Then it comes down to--I love my wife--and that's it. Take a sniff of Ibsen, everybody! Then, think on this level, while it's clearly idiocy to believe that color makes any difference in who's a better football player or banker...sex makes a bigger difference. I mean, it is on-face logical to believe that men are better than women in sports or (rarely/sometimes) business. After all, it is men who hold most athletic records and women are shown to think in very different ways (at times) Then again, I'm alot bigger than Venus Williams; indeed of most women. However, Venus Williams can hit a ball much harder than I could, more than most people excepting some of the pro men. In business, many women try to be more masculine than the men are (interesting study shows how some women with fake cloth penises can get better treatment than others). However, the sex-typed white male way of doing things is only one way of several that may succeed. I don't want to deal with homosexuality in this discussion because it's ( to me) really an extrapolation of sexism. I will say this: one major theme of homophobic is that you are misusing the equipment God gave you. That should give you an idea of the tangled issues of homosexuality/sexual minorities. It gets hard under the morass of issues in sexism and heterosexism to deal with in a decisive and effective way. Which is why I advocated racism first. Once conquered, it can act as a crowbar to pry away sexism where the two intersect--thus giving a real foothold into prying apart the male franchise. Darius Wilkins P.S. Under no condition do I advocate just doing one of them or which is most important. Toby won sexism more important. I just believe that getting a success is the most important solution to the next problem. From msc2a Wed Jun 2 13:31:56 1999 From: msc2a (Matt Carter) Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 18:31:56 -0000 Subject: 'Star Wars' Character: Annoying Goofball or Racial Stereotype References: Message-ID: Bill Southworth wrote: > I have avoided this entire discussion, however, this term is thrown > around quite easily by a lot of people, especially on this listserv. > I do not know the man personally, however, I do know some people who > do and have worked with him. Based on their assessments, what I have > read about him personally and the 60 Minutes Interview; I really think > characterizing George Lucas as a racist (which is clearly what is > being done) is both wrong and irresponsible. > ME: Ummm...yeah. I was being sarcastic. I think the whole racism in Star Wars thing is pretty silly, which is why I targeted just about the most innocent movie of all time (A Bug's Life) and extended the concept. Sorry it might not have come across that way in email :) More power to you. EvilMatt MTSU >From Wed Jun 2 19:55:20 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 39024 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 19:57:04 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo18.mx.aol.com (imo18.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.8]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA22568 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 19:57:03 -0400 Received: from Perrymj at aol.com (8025) by imo18.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id nAAHa02628 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 19:55:21 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 13 Message-ID: <73c39fb2.24871e68 at aol.com> Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 19:55:20 EDT Reply-To: Perrymj at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Michael Perry Subject: Re: Framer's Intent, theory ev., ev. In a message dated 6/2/99 1:32:07 AM Mountain Daylight Time, Lotzca at AOL.COM writes: > Debaters should avoid speculating about "framer's intent" based on > misguided and misinformed perceptions about the whims of the community > during > the resolution framing period and instead, find better ways to defend the > merits of their own topicality interpretations and arguments. Maybe debaters should also avoid speculating about "populatrity" opinion based on misguided and misinformed perceptions about the whims of the public from random polls and instead, find better ways to defend the merits of their own link arguments. And maybe debaters should also avoid speculating about the implication of "krtitiks" based on the misguided and misinformed perceptions about philosophical criticism and instead, find better ways to defend the merits of their own moral systems and arguments. And maybe debaters should also avoid speculating about "policy" based on the (mis)guided and (mis)informed perceptions of obscure college professors and graduate students and instead, find better ways to defend the merits of their own policy proposals. My point should be clear...what's the distinction between these types of "evidence?" Mike >From Wed Jun 2 20:19:41 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 37072 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 20:20:29 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo15.mx.aol.com (imo15.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.5]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA23050 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 20:20:28 -0400 Received: from Spewer77 at aol.com (319) by imo15.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id nWKAa02576 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 20:19:41 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 9 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 20:19:41 EDT Reply-To: Spewer77 at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Rachel Saloom Subject: Becky and womyn in debate web page hello everyone i have done a page for becky on the womyn in debate web site jessica suggested that i use the collection of posts that gina posted to edebate today if you would like to see it its at http://members.aol.com:/womynindb8/becky.htm i wish everyone safe travels this weekend rachel west ga http://members.aol.com:/womynindebate.htm >From Wed Jun 2 20:27:15 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 37171 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 20:28:45 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo13.mx.aol.com (imo13.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.3]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA07168 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 20:28:43 -0400 Received: from Spewer77 at aol.com (319) by imo13.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id nQKQa02106; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 20:27:16 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 9 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 20:27:15 EDT Reply-To: Spewer77 at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Rachel Saloom Subject: Re: Becky and womyn in debate web page one correction the web site for becky is http://members.aol.com:/womynindb8/becky.htm the general womyn in debate web site is http://members.aol.com:/spewer77/womynindebate.htm sorry for the repost rachel west ga From db8rboy Wed Jun 2 20:16:02 1999 From: db8rboy (P L) Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 18:16:02 -0700 Subject: Star Wars Stuff Message-ID: This is my first answering to ANYTHING on this list after a couple years of observing.I just came from reluctantly seeing the movie...if you want to see a movie w/ some more overt racism/sexism...educate yourself by seeing "Midsummer Night's...." First of all...I agree w/ those who say that those discussing this should get a life...that is why I cannot believe I am lowering myself like this. Anyway...these are just my thoughts and questions....I admit most are not really thought out...so attack if you must, if that is how you respond to things that do not fit into your ideal (better choice would be to learn w/ an open mind. Okay...for my own learning...how is depicting the Gunda (sp?) in a Caribbean culture, racist. I noted the "evidence" and can see one's point on the depiction of this group in the aforementioned cultural terms...I am aware that there are many cultures in the Caribbean (I guess lumping all of the cultures together would be a type of racism). SO please tell me in a logical, rational, non-emotion filled manner how this is racist...I do hope to learn from this rather than bitching like some. I guess this would be a hippocritical paragraph to the first but it was an observation. Why is there no complaints about the "evil" Trading Federation (was that the name?) having Asian accents....this to me (using the view of some of the "outers") would place certain Asian peoples into a bad view. Did this occur to anyone or does it not fit into some views of racism? I thought the movie was interesting on several aspects. First...look at it from a political science view. The way the Senate and everything was portrayed can give perspectives about the US, UK, China, and even Nigeria. From the science fiction point the movie presented new ideas...forgot my example but just think. Also, look from the view of a cinemetographer (sp?)....amazing shots. Well, just remember that I am doing this for my own personal education...so if you respond, use logical and not let personal emotions/feelings cloud your mind (yes, I have read the post about emotion being behind logic..don't care regarding this post). Damn...I just wasted so much time responding to something like this when I should have been reading for future debate....I do thank those in advance for constructive remarks _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com From omcst+ Wed Jun 2 20:32:50 1999 From: omcst+ (Omri M Ceren) Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 21:32:50 -0400 Subject: Getting a life (was Re: Star Wars Stuff) In-Reply-To: <19990603011602.1631.rocketmail@web1005.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 2 Jun 1999, P L wrote: > yourself by seeing "Midsummer Night's...." First of all...I agree w/ > those who say that those discussing this should get a life...that is A life? What site can I download that from? Omri. Pitt. >From Wed Jun 2 22:57:14 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 38473 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 22:58:54 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo24.mx.aol.com (imo24.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.68]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA22476 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 22:58:53 -0400 Received: from Sgw8 at aol.com (364) by imo24.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id nZOTa06834 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 22:57:19 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 18 Message-ID: <9fbf5768.2487490a at aol.com> Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 22:57:14 EDT Reply-To: Sgw8 at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Darius Wilkins Subject: Males only Look, wives and girlfriends have a different context in a heterosexual light. Which is why I put males only. Yes to lesbian/gay contexts, but I seriously doubt those people have anywhere near the kind of sexuality/identity issues as male female relations that I was talking about. And yes, wives and girlfriends are capable of the same idiotic exclusions as their boyfriends and husband. But sexism is generally the other way around. Darius Wilkins >From Wed Jun 2 23:10:29 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 38592 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 23:12:10 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo25.mx.aol.com (imo25.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.69]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA22622 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 23:12:07 -0400 Received: from CAITI16 at aol.com (324) by imo25.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id nUAFa14682 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 23:10:31 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 86 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 23:10:29 EDT Reply-To: CAITI16 at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Caitrin Muldoon Subject: Re: jar jar and racism In a message dated 99-06-02 16:53:39 EDT, bradhall at FLINTHILLS.COM writes: << "The Star Wars series is filled racist characters and situations, yet it never attempts to dispel such beliefs as wrong. Perhaps the most disturbing thing is that racism is not just featured, but it is actively encouraged as a noble ideal. Actively encouraged, eh? When I was little, and saw the movies in the theaters, I sure missed that whole brainwashing feature of Lucas' movie. Come on. My first argument involves the cast of the original movie. In the first film, the only non-white member of the cast is James Earl Jones, who is not even seen in the film and is actually not credited in the original release of the film, a clear example of race discrimination. Clearly. Following the casting through the series, a minority actor is finally allowed to be seen on the screen in The Empire Strikes Back, but the character is a lying, double-crossing scoundrel. By the end of the film, you are convinced that he is not worthy of trust, and by extension, since he is the only African American in the movie, neither are blacks as a whole. And let's not forget, the actor is Billy Dee Williams. This was obviously a token role, or else they would have found a much better actor. As Omri pointed out, Lando Calrissian was a GOOD guy FORCED into a difficult situation. Didn't he help destroy the Death Star 2 in Return of the Jedi? Talk to Samuel L. Jackson about this one....he has some interesting points... The racism continues in Return of the Jedi. In the end celebration scene, Lando is standing alone in the background, jiving to the music, while all the other major characters are grouped together in the foreground. The meaning is clear - Lando is being excluded because of his skin color. Not only that, but the scene is reinforcing the pointless stereotype that black people have more rhythm than whites. One incident does not prove the case. But there is yet more light to be shed on this subject. The setting of the film allows for many more instances of racism. First of all, Lando, while important to the success of the rebels, he was not among the primary protagonists of the film. The twins, Luke and Leia, were key in their relationship to the Force, and Han Solo was the unwitting champion of their struggle, in a respect. Also, like Omri said, the part does NOT comprise the whole. He does not set the example for an entire race - isn't that entire argument a bit prejudicial in its own reasoning? For example, you have the scene where the droids are not allowed into the bar on Tatooine. An astute viewer will notice the implied homosexual relationship between the droids. Clearly, when the bartender says, "We don't allow their kind here," he is condemning their homosexual relationship. Do Luke and Ben do anything about it? No, and yet they are the heroes of the film. Thus, the film is suggesting that discrimination is OK under certain circumstances. However, by allowing this kind of thinking an inch we run the danger of it taking an entire mile. Omigosh, I guess my inferior mind somehow missed this point, too. C3P0 and R2-D2 were heroes of the films, as well. Man, the author of this treatise was reading too deeply into these films, as evidenced by this constructed subtext. Goodness. Even the way that the Jedi refer to the Force is racist. The Light Side is good and the Dark Side is bad. Clearly, this is stating that white is good and black is bad. Let's not forget that the Dark Side represents fear, anger, and hate. Is it fair then to assume that they are trying to say that the emotions of fear, anger and hate should rightly be directed towards the black race? I think it is clear that that is precisely what the producers of Star Wars want you to think. Yeah, obviously Emperor Palpatine represents "The Man" as a puppeteer of oppression. Too risk sounding ad hom, there is some serious crack smoking inherent in this logic. Palpatine was so Anglo-Saxon looking that this claim is laughable. And as Omri already pointed out, the Storm troopers and other troops were pretty much all white (not to mention generally British...) Now THERE'S a commentary waiting to happen - the colonizing Brits, no longer satisfied with their possessions (i.e., India) take on the universe...er, a galaxy far, far away....after all, this was a long time ago... Gee... Clearly the Empire is synonymous with blacks in the films. Through this relationship, blacks are further degraded through suggestions than they are stupid. For instance, the Empire makes many completely vapid mistakes. The most classic examples are the two death stars, both of which were SENSELESSLY left open to attack. Also, the Empire further displays it's own stupidity in being unable to repel an attack from a primitive, stone age race, the Ewoks. Here's a hint guys. If you want to kill Ewoks you don't use fragile walking machines, you use NAPALM! Hmmm....no discourse on the -ism against small, furry animals? I mean, how dare we assume that their technology is stone age and that they are naive enough to worship a droid? As for the actual argument - clearly, both sides make obvious mistakes, in the eyes of the audience. However, the point of the films exists in the fact that they are intended as a battle of good versus evil, of epic proportions. As in the old westerns of yesteryear, the hero wears white, ala the famed moving picture cowboy, William S. Hart, who popularized wearing a white hat so that in the grainy film, the villian could be delineated from the hero by audiences. And so it has ingrained itself into pop culture. The color black, NOT the race, is associated with things sinister and dark. In short, Star Wars penetrates into the minds of our youth an essence of racism and discrimination. It is quite clear that the producers of the film are in favor only of white people and has beliefs very similar to those of Nazi Germany. " I'm not sure Hitler would agree with you....on the opposite end of the political and moral spectrum from him, I sure do not. Caiti FSU >From Wed Jun 2 23:18:06 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 38673 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 23:19:50 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo15.mx.aol.com (imo15.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.5]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA05154 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 23:19:48 -0400 Received: from ROTCGyrl at aol.com (14376) by imo15.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id nAJCa02577 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 23:18:06 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 13 Message-ID: <177c714.24874dee at aol.com> Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 23:18:06 EDT Reply-To: ROTCGyrl at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Debbie Prieto Subject: Re: The Novice certainly is... I just can't resist staying out of this one.... So I guess that makes me fair game too.... =) Merely an observation... but as a Hispanic woman.... I'll be damned before someone tells me I have to wait in line for my "liberation." If everyone waits for another to "liberate" and catch up with what I or another think is acceptible, then I have failed to educate another on something that they do not know enough about. After all, what is racism, sexism, etc... it's fear based on xenophobic ignorance. If one is in the unique position to serve as educator, then the same individual also is a liberator - liberating not only the "oppressed", but also the "oppressor" by sheding light on unexplored areas of thoughts and ideas... Refusing to moo, or be put out to pasture for that matter.. Debbie Prieto >From Wed Jun 2 23:24:20 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 38757 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 23:29:42 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo24.mx.aol.com (imo24.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.68]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA07176 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 23:29:41 -0400 Received: from AmanK75 at aol.com (4539) by imo24.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id nUJFa06484 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 23:25:48 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 9 Message-ID: <4cc61584.24874f64 at aol.com> Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 23:24:20 EDT Reply-To: AmanK75 at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: John Collins Subject: Star Wars...............um............Sucks Earlier I noted that you little "Star Wars is Racist" people were pathetic. Apparently pathetic was not a strong enough term. First off, Star Wars isn't even that great. Secondly, there are no hidden messages in movies. They are there for one purpose, to entertain. For you people who don't realize that, well your um how do i say this nicely....hmmmmmm.....oh ok......your losers. Thirdly, let it go people. Talk about taking something way to far. You can debate whether Star Wars is racist forever, but what it all comes down to is, is it really worth it? The answer, well that's no. No it is not worth it to discuss racism in a movie for a week. For those of you who can't figure this out, I'm sorry. I'm sorry that your a bunch of diluted, demented retards who can't tell the difference between a breast and a large balloon. As far as I'm concerned you people are worthless. I could be nice and politely tell you to shutup, but you guys don't seem to comprehend how incredibly stupid you sound. That's why I've come to the conclusion that Star Wars or anything remotely related to Star Wars must suck. From cornell7 Wed Jun 2 23:21:25 1999 From: cornell7 (Erik Cornellier) Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 21:21:25 -0700 Subject: Star Wars...............um............Sucks In-Reply-To: <4cc61584.24874f64@aol.com> Message-ID: At 11:24 PM 6/2/99 EDT, you wrote: >Earlier I noted that you little "Star Wars is Racist" people were pathetic. >Apparently pathetic was not a strong enough term. First off, Star Wars isn't >even that great. Secondly, there are no hidden messages in movies. They are >there for one purpose, to entertain. For you people who don't realize that, >well your um how do i say this nicely....hmmmmmm.....oh ok......your losers. >Thirdly, let it go people. Talk about taking something way to far. You can >debate whether Star Wars is racist forever, but what it all comes down to is, >is it really worth it? The answer, well that's no. No it is not worth it to >discuss racism in a movie for a week. For those of you who can't figure this >out, I'm sorry. I'm sorry that your a bunch of diluted, demented retards who >can't tell the difference between a breast and a large balloon. As far as >I'm concerned you people are worthless. I could be nice and politely tell >you to shutup, but you guys don't seem to comprehend how incredibly stupid >you sound. That's why I've come to the conclusion that Star Wars or anything >remotely related to Star Wars must suck. > > Listen genius... cultural icons in the media have serious effects on the thinking of people of all ages and all walks of life. Even if the movie is meant to entertain, it may still reflect negative stereotypes that are common in society. I do not believe that Star Wars contains negative stereotypes, but that doesn't make it any less important to critically examine the media instead of accepting it as is. Ignor(e)-ance is ignoring the signs of oppression in front of our faces. "diluted, demented retards" are infamous for using this strategy. Maybe you should join the club. Erik Cornellier Assistant Director of Debate Gonzaga University 2445 East Burnt Tree Ln. Apt. 12 East Lansing, Mi. 48823 Home: (517) 351-3619 Office: (509) 323-6654 Email: cornell7 at pilot.msu.edu From zambezi Wed Jun 2 23:23:22 1999 From: zambezi (MCKEEHAN) Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 23:23:22 -0500 Subject: Star Wars...............um............Sucks In-Reply-To: <4cc61584.24874f64@aol.com> Message-ID: John, Your post lacked both taste and substance. Use the delete key rather than posting said garbage. Save your references to "demented retards" for tommorrow's recess. I'm out. On Wed, 2 Jun 1999, John Collins wrote: > Earlier I noted that you little "Star Wars is Racist" people were pathetic. > Apparently pathetic was not a strong enough term. First off, Star Wars isn't > even that great. Secondly, there are no hidden messages in movies. They are > there for one purpose, to entertain. For you people who don't realize that, > well your um how do i say this nicely....hmmmmmm.....oh ok......your losers. > Thirdly, let it go people. Talk about taking something way to far. You can > debate whether Star Wars is racist forever, but what it all comes down to is, > is it really worth it? The answer, well that's no. No it is not worth it to > discuss racism in a movie for a week. For those of you who can't figure this > out, I'm sorry. I'm sorry that your a bunch of diluted, demented retards who > can't tell the difference between a breast and a large balloon. As far as > I'm concerned you people are worthless. I could be nice and politely tell > you to shutup, but you guys don't seem to comprehend how incredibly stupid > you sound. That's why I've come to the conclusion that Star Wars or anything > remotely related to Star Wars must suck. > From girl-genius Wed Jun 2 23:31:19 1999 From: girl-genius (Shawnessy Scott) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 04:31:19 0000 Subject: The Novice certainly is... Message-ID: Wow, I'm constantly in awe of the greats.. But here's to fair game: Debbie Prieto wrote: >I just can't resist staying out of this one.... So I guess that makes me fair >game too.... =) > > >Merely an observation... but as a Hispanic woman.... >I'll be damned before someone tells me I have to wait in line for my >"liberation." I hate to use the term lightly but you said it, so here you are, damned. Aren't you waiting now? Even your individual active steps, or the total actions of an entire movement are all in an order where first things may not have to, but will come first. Please view this as discourse and not blatant oppression (or whatever it's bound to be seen as by the people who seem to be hunting me down): I watched part of a round you debated (I was really tired and slept through half of it, but only half) and there was some pretty good van talk about your performance. I think someone referred to you giving part of one of your speeches in Spanish. I thought wow, she's Hispanic, I never would've guessed. Her English is really... Then I threw on my mental brakes and go, what the heck am I talking about? I had to stop right there and examine some assumptions I'd made and I can only wonder what I would have been thinking had I known you were Hispanic before the round. My next question was what the heck difference does it make whether you're Hispanic or.. or Mongolian? What relevance does it have on anything whatsoever? None. I'm not using my sad lapse to indict America, but I think Americans' thinking runs along those lines most of the time unconsciously, even after years and years of being told that racism is wrong. Now something relatively new to our conscience, the idea that women are equal as in almost the same as a man (radically different, I think, from previous women's rights movements) comes up and you're saying there is no line, you can just challenge assumptions left and right and gain instant victory and 500 points... It doesn't work that way. Process is slow. We've made progress, sexism is next. >If everyone waits for another to "liberate" and catch up with what I or >another think is acceptible, then I have failed to educate another on >something that they do not know enough about. After all, what is racism, >sexism, etc... it's fear based on xenophobic ignorance. If one is in the >unique position to serve as educator, then the same individual also is a >liberator - liberating not only the "oppressed", but also the "oppressor" by >sheding light on unexplored areas of thoughts and ideas... Ok so you're liberated. That's great for your individual consciousness and I'm really glad your mind is that free. Challenge everything you can, it's all part of the struggle. Gradually, things will begin to chip away. Practically, focus is best and once you crumble the foundation of those 'isms' (to borrow a phrase) which I think is racism in this country, the rest will quickly, or at least more quickly, follow. >Refusing to moo, or be put out to pasture for that matter.. > >Debbie Prieto > It's us, sadly, (blacks), that seem to have been put out to pasture while the secure and self-righteous bash Affirmative action and claim our day is over and that we've won. Question though, If there are all these oppressive norms left to challenge have we really won anything at all? And won't America be surprised in 30 or so years when they realize Hispanics aren't just Negroes from a different country? I'm referring to the black-white dichotomy that I myself continue to operate under, and the fact that all minorities eventually end up getting grouped with or compared to blacks. ah, well more food for thought moo the novice Shawnessy Angelfire for your free web-based e-mail. http://www.angelfire.com From omcst+ Wed Jun 2 23:35:12 1999 From: omcst+ (Omri M Ceren) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 00:35:12 -0400 Subject: Star Wars...............um............Sucks In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990602212125.00860c40@pilot.msu.edu> Message-ID: Go Erik!!!! :) And I never did get a chance to congratulate you on the Gonzo move... I trust we'll be seeing alot of you next year? On Wed, 2 Jun 1999, Erik Cornellier wrote: > I do not believe that Star Wars contains negative stereotypes, but that > doesn't make it any less important to critically examine the media instead > of accepting it as is. Ignor(e)-ance is ignoring the signs of oppression > in front of our faces. "diluted, demented retards" are infamous for using > this strategy. Maybe you should join the club. Omri. ------ Language casts sheaves of reality upon the social body... stamping it and violently shaping it. -- Wittig ------ From sowards Wed Jun 2 23:43:15 1999 From: sowards (Stacey K. Sowards) Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 23:43:15 -0500 Subject: Doyle Srader only Message-ID: Doyle - I need your mailing address please. Hope you are having a good summer! Stacey >From Thu Jun 3 00:50:57 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 37713 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 00:45:40 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from osf1.gmu.edu (osf1.gmu.edu [129.174.1.13]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA17272 for ; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 00:45:38 -0400 Received: from patrick (ppp031.dialup.gmu.edu [129.174.102.45]) by osf1.gmu.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id AAA15379; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 00:45:35 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <375609B1.6455 at osf1.gmu.edu> Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 00:50:57 -0400 Reply-To: pgarrett at osf1.gmu.edu To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Patrick Garrett Subject: Re: Star Wars...............um............Sucks Comments: To: MCKEEHAN > On Wed, 2 Jun 1999, John Collins wrote: > > > Earlier I noted that you little "Star Wars is Racist" people were pathetic. > > Apparently pathetic was not a strong enough term. First off, Star Wars isn't > > even that great. Secondly, there are no hidden messages in movies. They are > > there for one purpose, to entertain. For you people who don't realize that, > > well your um how do i say this nicely....hmmmmmm.....oh ok......your losers. 'I think that that sort of attitude is just a cop-out, and that people who hold that view have no place in this class.' Dr. Blair to Darcy Corson A.P. English 1996, T.A. Edison H.S. Alexandria VA (paraphrased) This might be an inappropriate quote, but it struck at the heart of the situation then, and I think that it is applicable now. To make this sort of argument is the same as saying artists are just drawing pictures and that it has no meaning, and it is to deny the artistic significance of a director's work. I agree with others, hit the Delete key. Patrick Garrett > > Thirdly, let it go people. Talk about taking something way to far. You can > > debate whether Star Wars is racist forever, but what it all comes down to is, > > is it really worth it? The answer, well that's no. No it is not worth it to > > discuss racism in a movie for a week. For those of you who can't figure this > > out, I'm sorry. I'm sorry that your a bunch of diluted, demented retards who > > can't tell the difference between a breast and a large balloon. As far as > > I'm concerned you people are worthless. I could be nice and politely tell > > you to shutup, but you guys don't seem to comprehend how incredibly stupid > > you sound. That's why I've come to the conclusion that Star Wars or anything > > remotely related to Star Wars must suck. > > >From Thu Jun 3 02:08:34 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 37957 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 02:09:11 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo19.mx.aol.com (imo19.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.9]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA07368 for ; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 02:09:09 -0400 Received: from ROTCGyrl at aol.com (14376) by imo19.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id 2JCGa02744; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 02:08:34 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 13 Message-ID: <4eb6a1e8.248775e2 at aol.com> Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 02:08:34 EDT Reply-To: ROTCGyrl at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Debbie Prieto Subject: Re: The Novice certainly is... Comments: To: girl-genius at angelfire.com girl-genius at ANGELFIRE.COM writes: > Wow, I'm constantly in awe of the greats.. Damn... thanks =) > >Merely an observation... but as a Hispanic woman.... > >I'll be damned before someone tells me I have to wait in line for my > >"liberation." > > I hate to use the term lightly but you said it, so here you are, damned. > Aren't you waiting now? Even your individual active steps, or the total > actions of an entire movement are all in an order where first things may not > have to, but will come first. Nope. You shouldn't have snipped the rest of my message. I think it's incorrect to WAIT for others to accept me/you/"others". I try to educate by doing things that I find acceptible. Remember, racism/sexism etc are based in issues of ignorance. Educate and others will learn. Learning creates acceptance. Granted, education is a slow process to change attitudes en masse, but I think it's outright wrong to assume it's inaction and waiting. Think grassroots. > Please view this as discourse and not blatant oppression (or whatever it's > bound to be seen as by the people who seem to be hunting me down): > I watched part of a round you debated (I was really tired and slept through > half of it, but only half) and there was some pretty good van talk about your > performance. I think someone referred to you giving > part of one of your speeches in Spanish. I thought wow, she's Hispanic, I > never would've guessed. Her English is really... Then I threw on my mental > brakes and go, what the heck am I talking about? I had to stop right there > and examine some assumptions I'd made and I can only wonder what I would have > been thinking had I known you were Hispanic before the round. My next > question was what the heck difference does it make whether you're Hispanic or. > . or Mongolian? What relevance does it have on anything whatsoever? None. I'm glad you were able to come to these conclusions.. but would you have pondered them if you hadn't known I was Hispanic? If I had never uttered a word in Spanish in a debate round, would others challenge their "normative" claims on what a Hispanic debater should sound like? Or should look like? Speak like? I had a unique opportunity in that round to educate individuals on what it meant to really "critique whiteness", so I took it. See? My education process even shook you to use mental brakes =) > I'm not using my sad lapse to indict America, but I think Americans' > thinking runs along those lines most of the time unconsciously, even after > years and years of being told that racism is wrong. Yes, but there's a difference between knowing racism is wrong and taking time out to know a person of another race. Look, I'm going to be pretty frank.. there are all kinds of people in this world... and they come in all sorts.... I have the fortune of living in a multicultural city and having attended a truly global university... that's just the flavor of Miami. Only by experiencing "differentness" can we learn not to fear it. It's something that only the individual can experience.. I can't transplant what I've done and what I've learned to another.... man, if that were possible... hell I'd have gotten a physics major or something =) > new to our conscience, the idea that women are equal as in almost the same as > a man (radically different, I think, from previous women's rights movements) > comes up and you're saying there is no line, you can just challenge > assumptions left and right and gain instant victory and 500 points... It > doesn't work that way. Process is slow. We've made progress, sexism is next. Wrong. I think that process is slow if we allow it to be. Why has there been progress in the area of racism? Because there are individuals who have fought against it at all levels of society. Is is ever going to 100% go away? No. Is sexism ever going to go away 100%? No. Can it be remedied? You betcha. Can we do better? HELL YES. If you never challenge the assumption, you can bet your bottom dollar that the assumption will stay unchanged until someone has the gumption to do it. And I'm pretty impatient, so maybe I'll just take on the challege ; ) Same deal. Sexism (in the homosexual and heterosexual arenas) is being attacked. It's all about getting over the fear of the "other". See above. > >If everyone waits for another to "liberate" and catch up with what I or > >another think is acceptible, then I have failed to educate another on > >something that they do not know enough about. After all, what is racism, > >sexism, etc... it's fear based on xenophobic ignorance. If one is in the > >unique position to serve as educator, then the same individual also is a > >liberator - liberating not only the "oppressed", but also the "oppressor" > by > >sheding light on unexplored areas of thoughts and ideas... > > Ok so you're liberated. That's great for your individual consciousness and I' > m really glad your mind > is that free. Challenge everything you can, it's all part of the struggle. Hmm... I wonder if I'm the only one that reads a bit of attitude into that statement... I was recently given this pin... 51% sweetheart, 49% bitch.. don't push it =) > Gradually, things will begin to chip away. Practically, focus is best and > once you crumble the foundation of those 'isms' (to borrow a phrase) which I > think is racism in this country, the rest will quickly, or at least more > quickly, follow. I'm kinda confused as to what you mean here... if, as you say above, racism is slow to change, and has changed significantly, why haven't attitudes towards lesbians, gays, and women changed as quickly as you say they should? Moreover, I think that each -ism is different... I think you need to experience each one to not be afraid of it.. > It's us, sadly, (blacks), that seem to have been put out to pasture while > the secure and self-righteous bash Affirmative action and claim our day is > over and that we've won. Blacks, Hispanics, and all minorites are put to pasture if your claim is true. Question though, If there are all these oppressive > norms left to challenge have we really won anything at all? Sounds pretty nihilistic to me. Just because there are uphill battles doesn't mean that they aren't worth fighting. Apparently, given the discussion that has occurred post the season, others find it worth fighting for as well.... And won't America > be surprised in 30 or so years when they realize Hispanics aren't just > Negroes from a different country? I'm referring to the black-white dichotomy > that I myself continue to operate under, and the fact that all minorities > eventually end up getting grouped with or compared to blacks. I guess I see it differently... I don't operate in a black-white dichotomy. I operate in a human dichotomy.... either you're one, or you're not. I was pretty irate when I read these last few phrases of yours. I am proud of my background and of my heritage, as humble and as common as any hard worker. I resent that I would be lumped into any other minority group, simply because I am proud of being who and what I am. And there is nothing wrong with feeling a sense of pride for where I come from. I'm curious as to what you mean by Hispanics being the nest Negroes in 30 years... care to explain? Just a 'spic trying to deconstruct, and REconstruct what it means to speak Spanish... Debbie Prieto From roger37 Thu Jun 3 02:15:31 1999 From: roger37 (Roger Saad) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 00:15:31 PDT Subject: Star Wars and Religion Message-ID: That wasn't relevant to Lucas's point, he just wanted to get people to think about the immaculate conception and jesus. from what i understand, he had no intention of carrying out an extended metaphor >From: Krueger >To: Roger Saad >CC: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU >Subject: Re: Star Wars and Religion >Date: Mon, 31 May 1999 11:46:21 -0500 >MIME-Version: 1.0 >From mkrueger at frank.mtsu.edu Mon May 31 09:48:07 1999 >Received: from [161.45.128.109] by hotmail.com (1.5) with SMTP id >MHotMailB91C084600C3D820B657A12D806DC8070; Mon May 31 09:48:07 1999 >Received: from frank.mtsu.edu ([161.45.19.90] (may be forged))by >frank.mtsu.edu (8.8.6 (PHNE_17190)/8.8.6) with ESMTP id LAA05247;Mon, 31 >May 1999 11:47:12 -0500 (CDT) >Message-ID: <3752BCDD.2A0D9EF at frank.mtsu.edu> >Organization: Middle Tennessee State University >X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) >References: <19990531145118.51965.qmail at hotmail.com> > >Could you flesh out this parallel for me? >Since I know what happens in the next movie, I was just wondering about >Jesus' >twins? Where are they? Or were Luke and Leia a "metaphor?" > >Jesus turned evil and served an evil master? > >Curious, > >Mike > >Roger Saad wrote: > > > I have deleted most of the messages over the last weeke so if somone >already > > said his sorry. But George Lucas meant for Anakin to parallel Jesus >Christ. > > His mother being Mary. The immaculate conception. In an interview he >said > > that he wanted to get people to think about thei relationship with >Jesus. > > > > Roger > > > > _______________________________________________________________ > > Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com > > > >-- >Michael Krueger >Director of Debate >Middle Tennessee State University >Box 43 >Murfreesboro, TN 37132 >(615) 898-5607 (office) >(615) 898-5826 (fax) >http://www.mtsu.edu/~debate/ >http://www.mtsu.edu/~debate/mdi.html >http://www.mtsu.edu/~mkrueger/ > > _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com From harrissr Thu Jun 3 02:23:39 1999 From: harrissr (Sean Harris) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 00:23:39 -0700 Subject: Rebecca Galentine: 1971-1999 References: <000f01beac63$63bca600$9ba9f5d1@hpcustomer> Message-ID: I knew I would screw something up. Becky was born in 1970, not 1971. Sorry, Beck. I wanted to say thanks to everyone who has expressed their support, it's greatly appreciated. Sean Harris From jvuglia Thu Jun 3 02:41:46 1999 From: jvuglia (Joseph Vuglia) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 02:41:46 CDT Subject: Goodbye Message-ID: It's 2:00am, and I've nearly completed boxing up my life in wonderful Carbondale, Illinois. Tomorrow I begin my trip back to California, and before I leave, I wanted to give my goodbyes and thanks to the people in the activity that have made this decade an experience that I will carry with me forever. (To those of you I never met, and maybe some of you that I have, you can probably go ahead and hit now) I gotta go way back to thank Linda Fisher-Waltz, who gave me a C as my first grade in debate class back in 1988. Next in line is a huge thank you to Richard L. Beers, I great old man and former director of forensics at my alma mater, Bullard HS, who was the first person to ever show any confidence in me as a debator. Next would have to be my old friend Zack Anderson, a high scool team-mate who is singly responsible for my resurrection as a college student and debator. The success I had debating for SIU, and the degree I managed to finally complete after 8 years, are due to Zack talking me back into school after I dropped out. I owe you, big time, Zack. Thanks to Jordan, Lincoln, Ellen, Greg and all the other folks responsible for my first incarnation as a debator at San Diego State. To the many teammates from SIU, past and present, it was a blast: Glen and Bill, I learned a lot from the many beat-downs you guys gave me and Zack. Glen is an awesome coach as well as friend. I wish you continued success at Gonzaga and in life. To Yuri, I say thanks for the friendship and advice over the years, and I wish for you and your family much happyness. Huge thanks to Matt Moore, a great partner, roommate, and friend. Klemz, what can I say beyond thanks for keeping us all entertained here in C'dale. Thanks also, for all the work you've done for the squad. Geoff and Slusher, you guys rock, and it was a pleasure traveling everywhere with you guys in 98' You both helped me learn a lot, and I thank you. Little Zack - thanks for being an all around great guy. James - the smoothest person I know. Vote for him if you see his name on a ballot in the future. Jen - it was actually a whole lot of fun. Much success in your new coaching job, and don't forget to hire me as a judge next year. BC - thanks for being there to listen to me vent the frustration that increasingly overwhelmed me in grad school. You are a great friend. Metz - F--kin' Metz! is a phrase I heard once to often. Look out for him and Sickboy next year, they're gonna tear it up. To everyone else out there I had the pleasure of knowing, thanks- but I'm horrible with names. I still can't fathom all the things I've done, places I've been, and people I've met during the last ten years of debate. Many memories will stay with me, but its time to start a new post-debate chapter in my life. Almost everything important I've ever learned can be attributed to debate and to all of the people that make up the activity. I don't regret leaving, but nonetheless I'll miss the life. Joe Vuglia jvuglia at hotmail.com _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com From simmonbm Thu Jun 3 03:37:15 1999 From: simmonbm (Brian Simmonds) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 01:37:15 -0700 Subject: Northwest Student Representative In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I nominate Jessica Clarke of Whitman College. On Wed, 2 Jun 1999, Jim Hanson wrote: > hi > > please send me your name or nominate someone else to be the student CEDA representative for the Northwest. this position is for someone who wants to make a difference in Northwest policy debate--you can schedule meetings, connect with people via email, and represent our district at the national student meeting. > > jim hanson > hansonjb at whitman.edu > >From Thu Jun 3 09:30:59 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 40113 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 09:32:38 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo26.mx.aol.com (imo26.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.70]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA22292 for ; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 09:32:36 -0400 Received: from AmanK75 at aol.com (4532) by imo26.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id nKDZa01068 for ; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 09:31:00 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 9 Message-ID: <3c0c4a22.2487dd93 at aol.com> Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 09:30:59 EDT Reply-To: AmanK75 at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: John Collins Subject: Star Wars......still.......sucks Hey It's nice to know you people have something inside you besides debate theory and Star Wars. Way to go I'm happy for you. However, I could care less, so try doing something more constructive with your time like jumping off a cliff for instance. Oh and sorry about the demented retards. Perhaps that was insensitive of me. I probably should have used a stronger phrase. Do I think I'm funny? Not really. Do I care? Not really. Does your little cultural icon suck? In my opinion yes. I'm sorry that's hard for you to grasp, my bad. From bandoleras_1999 Thu Jun 3 09:15:19 1999 From: bandoleras_1999 (p.j. bandoleras) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 07:15:19 -0700 Subject: The Novice certainly is... Message-ID: i dont seem to understand what this means. sorry i cute off a little bit of it..i am not that coordinated as i would like to be. i think your view of the world being only in a white/black dichtomy is wrong. It doesnt mean that literally. Actually most of the authors on the topic seems to lump everyone in the black dichotmoy and then sepreate the whites. Suprised? I am not ..cause not matter what color you are.. you have to face the same struggle but in a different way..right ? > > I watched part of a round you debated (I was > really tired and slept > through > > half of it, but only half) and there was some > pretty good van talk about > your > > performance. I think someone referred to you > giving > > part of one of your speeches in Spanish. I > thought wow, she's Hispanic, I > > never would've guessed. Her English is really... _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com From omcst+ Thu Jun 3 10:23:02 1999 From: omcst+ (Omri M Ceren) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 11:23:02 -0400 Subject: Star Wars......still.......sucks In-Reply-To: <3c0c4a22.2487dd93@aol.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 3 Jun 1999, John Collins wrote: > Hey It's nice to know you people have something inside you besides debate > theory and Star Wars. Way to go I'm happy for you. However, I could care We do? Why am I always the last one to find out about these things? Can you let me in on what we've got other than debate and Star Wars, cause frankly I agree: all the space being taken up by us Star Wars geeks would be much better served if we could all emulate your worthy example and just bash people. What I learned from Star Wars ----------------------------- "Who's more foolish? The fool, or the fool who follows the fool?" becomes "Who's more of a geek? The Star Wars geek, or the inarticulate and defensive moron who takes time to make fun of the Star Wars geek and then rationalizes it." Next week is Star _Trek_ week. Everyone has to post in Klingon :P, Omri. ------ Language casts sheaves of reality upon the social body... stamping it and violently shaping it. -- Wittig ------ From jennyalme Thu Jun 3 10:36:34 1999 From: jennyalme (jenny alme) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 08:36:34 PDT Subject: ADI Deadline July 15th Message-ID: Several people have written thinking that they were too late registering for the ADI. Not even close! The cut off for the late registration fee is July 15th. After that, you are still welcome to apply but will have to pay a late fee. Early registrations are welcome but do not worry about being too late for awhile. Jenny Alme Assistant Director Arizona Debate Institute _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com From drake_b Thu Jun 3 10:43:40 1999 From: drake_b (drake_b) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 11:43:40 -0400 Subject: Advice for Mr. Collins Message-ID: >===== Original Message From John Collins ===== >Hey It's nice to know you people have something inside you besides debate >theory and Star Wars. Way to go I'm happy for you. However, I could care >less, so try doing something more constructive with your time like jumping >off a cliff for instance. Oh and sorry about the demented retards. Perhaps >that was insensitive of me. I probably should have used a stronger phrase. >Do I think I'm funny? Not really. Do I care? Not really. Does your >little cultural icon suck? In my opinion yes. I'm sorry that's hard for you >to grasp, my bad. Dude, what is your problem? When you were five, did someone beat you up, kick you in the teeth, spit on your Michael Jackson T-shirt, then take your candy away, and now you're trying to get over some inferiority complex? I think the views, thoughts and feelings of those on this list-serve have value and meaning. I have choosen to occasionally debate and respect all the points of view that are expressed in this forum. You have made an alternative choice. You have choosen to degrade the ideas and interpretation of those ideas by others. You will personally have to deal with the consequences of that decision. What you are doing does not command respect. You may not care, which is fine. However, I care about the quality of conversation and free expression of ideas. If you have nothing constructive to add to the conversation, and you would rather make immature personal attacks, do it on your own time and stop wasting mine. The Advice? Hit delete if you don't like the subject line. The Drake Mercer University From lesjober Thu Jun 3 10:53:52 1999 From: lesjober (The Eternal Flame) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 10:53:52 -0500 Subject: Gender Revisited Message-ID: A question that is on my final for Catherine MacKinnon's Sex Equality Class (its an 8 hour take home final that I'm doing right now, but I didn't pick this question to write on, for various reasons, including but not limited to 'I didn't know the answer') . . . anyhow I found it a really really interesting thing to think about in light of the debate topic last year. (2) The Council of Europe has defined the concept of "gender mainstreaming" as "the (re)organization, improvement, development, and evaluation of policy processes, so that a gender equality perspective is incorporated in all policies at all levels and at all stages, by the actors normally involved in policy making."_Gender Mainstreaming_ (Final Report of Activities of the Group of Specialists on Mainstraming, 26 March 1998). Does anything in the United States law accomplish this? If not, should it be done, and if so, how? Food for thought. Laura Sjoberg U Chicago Debate From lyondb8r Thu Jun 3 11:27:32 1999 From: lyondb8r (susanne graves) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 09:27:32 PDT Subject: Star Wars......still.......sucks Message-ID: Well aren't you just the smartest little cookie out of the box. See, I realize that disagreements arise, hell I've started millions, but if everyone participating in the Star Wars discussion is so stupid, and demented, etc. and should just jump off of a cliff, then what are you. You don't even comment on the argument at hand, you simply insult, is that your purpose, and if everyone debating the merits of TPM is wasting their time, then what are you doing. See, in my opinion you are a bored, lonely, attention-starved parasite whose only joy is upsetting people by using verbal abuse, well, its a free country, you are certainly entitled to your say, but if its such a waste of time why bother? If people want to debate whether or not its alright to drop trou in public they can do so and shouldn't have to deal with a little subbie like you telling them their wasting thier time and that they should kill themselves. The real question is who's less intelligent, the ones talking or the one trying to chime in with irrelevant nonsence? Susanne Graves Methodist P.S. Always ready to validate someones insults by returning, 30-love. > >Hey It's nice to know you people have something inside you besides debate >theory and Star Wars. Way to go I'm happy for you. However, I could care >less, so try doing something more constructive with your time like jumping >off a cliff for instance. Oh and sorry about the demented retards. >Perhaps >that was insensitive of me. I probably should have used a stronger phrase. >Do I think I'm funny? Not really. Do I care? Not really. Does your >little cultural icon suck? In my opinion yes. I'm sorry that's hard for >you >to grasp, my bad. _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com From girl-genius Thu Jun 3 11:52:53 1999 From: girl-genius (Shawnessy Scott) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 16:52:53 0000 Subject: Star Wars and who sucks Message-ID: Does anyone besides me find this funny? I crack up every time I start reading these posts. Here's why: First off, as an example, I used to fight with my sister all the time over every little thing. She would swear she was right about something, and I'd say she was wrong and spend countless hours trying to convince her to death. One particularly stupid instance was whether or not there was such a thing as "ten-hundred". Every point we ever argued was stupid because she's FIVE YEARS YOUNGER THAN ME! Any tattling or retorting I did was just sinking to her level. And here I start reading posts on edebate and see the same kind of thing happening, the "older" or supposedly enlightened ones not being emotionally capable of letting a little, insignificant point pass. No it's too huge a deal to ignore, you have to not only crush Collins into the dust by revealing to him your superior and more mature point of view, and make him see it, but you also have to at the same time prove how above it all you are. Just like some little kids. Secondly, in the interest of free speech and also annoying spam, everyone is free to make statements. Say what's on your mind. But please at least disguise it as civil and non-confrontational, and it would be nice to also have a point. Collins isn't the only person that thinks the Star Wars thread is bordering on the ridiculous, but other posts did not imply that everyone participating in that discussion was a moron. Everybody has to have the last word and can't let ignorant people be ignorant sometimes, or let someone's mistake pass Personally, I have better things to do than to start a civil war over a dumb comment Has anybody noticed that everyone's turned to attacking Collins and abandoned the real discussion that was going on about Star Wars? my .02: Don't argue with people who aren't listening, and you can't always prove a point to everybody, even if you're right. the novice Shawnessy Angelfire for your free web-based e-mail. http://www.angelfire.com >From Thu Jun 3 13:29:56 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 44768 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 13:31:17 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo15.mx.aol.com (imo15.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.5]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA07210 for ; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 13:31:14 -0400 Received: from SMDebate at aol.com (577) by imo15.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id xBZGa02575; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 13:29:56 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Mac sub 83 Message-ID: <83092f33.24881594 at aol.com> Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 13:29:56 EDT Reply-To: SMDebate at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: David Baker Subject: Still looking for Bauschard Comments: To: cx-l at debate.net If anybody knows Stefan's whereabouts, please give him this message: I need you to call me or reply to this post. Thanks, David Baker St. Mark's From ccooper Thu Jun 3 12:31:17 1999 From: ccooper (Chris Cooper) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 13:31:17 -0400 Subject: queer as a synonym Message-ID: >coop, > >I'm confused as to why you use "queer" as a synonym for "homosexual". I >don't think it's an acceptable synonym. Not to mention the damage it's done >in our society in the viewing of homosexual people. It's inherently a >negative term....Why use a negative term to categorize people? > >matthew > Matt: Sorry to have confused you. I do not mean queer to be synonymous with homosexual. Assuming that other people may bristle at the term in the same way you do, I give you: "Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Coop's Use of 'Queer'" (This is a bit lengthy, but should answer yopur question and perhaps elicit more...) When I use the term "queer" I do not mean it to substitute for an unwieldy list of engendered classifications such as gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered, etc. Queer is much more than that. Queer is about creating a situation for anyone who refuses to identify as the subject of compulsory heterosexuality, turning on its head the assumption of identity as the subject of oppression. In other words, rather than identify myself AS the subject of oppression, I choose to identify myself THROUGH the rejection of the subject of heteronormativity. Queerness, for me, is a posture of opposition rather than a simple statement about my sexuality. It is about principles, not particularities. It is about acknowledging and celebrating difference, embracing what sets me apart. The great convenience in the term "queer" lies most immediately in its gender and race neutrality. This is only to remark that for many young Americans, the term "gay" is widely understood to mean "white", "male", "materialistic", and "thirty-something". On the contrary, "queer" asserts an identity that celebrates the difference within a wider picture of sexual and social diversity. The up-side of "queer" lies in its ability to articulate the complex, shifting contempoprary alignment of class, race, gender, age, and sexuality in the lives of individuals who frequently face multiple forms of oppression. But "queer" in the sense that I use it is not just a classification either. It is the starting point for a system of politics which skirts the edges of Identity Politics without adhering to a strict integralism. For example, to describe oneself as "homosexual" has more than just identity-based implications. The description immediately inhabits a psuedo-scientific theory of sexuality which more properly belongs to the Victorian age than to post-modernity. The most "homosexuals" can (politely) ask for is tolerance since the "homosexual" has already accepted marginalization in his or her core identity by accepting a psycho-social definition of sexual identity. Homosexual identity, like gay or lesbian or bisexual (etc.) identities, is thus understood as a stretegic position which priviledges heterosexuality. "Queer", on the other hand, opposes society itself, protesting not just the normal behavior of the social, but the IDEA of the normal. It embraces the label of perversity, using it to call attention to the "norm" in "normal," be it hetero or homo. "Queer" thus asserts an in-your-face difference with an edge of defiant seperatism. It asserts its own identity, free from convention, odd, out there and proud of it, and other's response to it is either their problem or their wake-up call. "Queer" does not so much rebel against its outsider status as revel in it. Do not confuse my use of the term "queer" as merely a reappropriation of profane language either. While that may be the welcomed by-product of the use of "queer", its use CAN NOT be sanitized. It is never NOT going to be heard as a term in relation to shame; and it is never NOT going to be heard as a term in relation to childhood stigma. Its very denotation conjurs up otherness and oddity. The operations of creating identity that are propelled by attempts to shame sort of leak out around the edges of shaming practices and speech-acts. But speech-acts have both a reflexive and interpretive function. Use of "queer" therefore effects more than the user. That is partly why the proposition that there is something inherently destabalizing about the rhetoric of "queer" doesn't just mean destabalizing in the sense of deconstructing the assimilationist strategies offered by the Shawnessy Scott's of the world. "Queer" does not magically resolve the problems of gender-constructed sexuality, but it serves to alert its adherents to some of the most pressing problems which "gay" and "lesbian" politics have not been able to resolve, especially in relations BETWEEN gay men and lesbians, and the general tendency of prevailing models of social change to suppress the actual diversity of "queer" sex in the name of "gay community" values. Thus, an account of "queer" culture would have to be woven around such glamorous, if disparate figures as Oscar Wilde (and the rent-boys he employed), Rimbaud, Tom of Finland (if you don't know - I'm certain there's a webpage), Jean Genet, Madonna, and ME because what we all have in common is the way our work and our lives have challenged the authority of the dominant epistemology of sexuality. We are - in the literal sense of the word - "queer". Are you? COOP From ccooper Thu Jun 3 13:25:01 1999 From: ccooper (Chris Cooper) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 14:25:01 -0400 Subject: The Novice remains so... Message-ID: Oh dear....if it weren't for my complete lack of motivation to do any "real" work, I wouldn't bother. But it's frustrating to put a lot of thought into a response to The Novice only to have it ignored by the person who feigns a thirst for true discourse. The Novice: If change in laws >don't in any way reflect a change in social status or something then what the >heck are we arguing about policy for? Let's just forget about it and focus >on real amorphous stuff like vague notions of the definition of freedom and >the individual and the movement and so on. > Coop: I think one of things we DID focus on last year was the INABILITY of policy to address the root causes of oppression or to propel radical social change. We TALK about this stuff in order to realize that our efforts are better placed elsewhere. That doesn't mean that policy change CAN'T help - only that it is hardly the panacea it is made out to be and in many cases simply a symbolic change that distracts and demobilizes the forces for true social change. The Novice: Racism a nd sexism were not intermingled before 1970 or >whenever. It's just recently that people have started questioning the lack of >female slave narratives, etc. Coop: Are you kidding me? Ever read Tony Morrison's "Beloved"? Now these are fictional accounts of a past time, but they provide examples of common-place "intermingling" of racism and sexism well before the 1970's. It may be that an awareness of the intersection of these oppressions by the academic community did not come about until the 1970's...but that's wholly irrelevent. The Novice: Step out of the library, away from the intellectual >nurturing of the university environment, leave the comfort of your own home, >and step out into the reality of what people are writing about. What drives >someone to start a movement? Do they have all those things floating around in >their head or do they just swallow injustice until they feel sick of it, and don't >know anything else to do but fight because they can't take anymore? Coop: Hello Sister!! I'm not at a university (yet)...and I'm not in a library. I work and live in downtown Washington DC. Don't presume to know ANYthing about me. When my parent's didn't welcome me at home after my freshman year I came to DC and worked night-shifts downtown and hung out with the street people who frequent Dupont Circle until all hours of the morning. I have stood on the front lines and I have been as critical of post-structuralist criticisms of identity politics as you appear to be (without knowing it, and certainly less eloquently). I devoted my entire senior honors thesis to trying to formulate a social movement theory that embraced identity politics without falling prey to these very legitimate criticisms. I haven't yet succeeded. Point is: I have stood on the front lines and I have witnessed suffering, but don't presume to lump my thoughts with others who you accuse of escaping to the relative safety of ivory towers. That's not me. The Novice: >When you're fighting a war against injustices you pick your battles, count your >losses and save the knowledge for a future reckoning, and realize that you won't >and can't win everything, and certainly not all at once. > Coop: Can't? I'm not sure. I certainly think I can. I think you misrepresent what freedom fighting is all about. You seem to be under the impression that the oppressed fight FOR their rights - wrestle them (finally) from the oppressor through acknowledgement in legal doctrine and statute. Have you lived on the front lines? This is not how it works. The oppressed fight to GET their rights...they fight to keep them from being TAKEN. Like two guys walking down the street hand-in-hand. Like a mixed race couple attending a rural high school prom. Like a woman jogging at night through central park. We excercise our freedom as we choose and the only fight is in facing the consequences. In this way, all battles are already won...just in some cases the consequences may be extraordinary. But to "pick and choose" asks us to give up some of those freedoms from the get-go. What of the HIV-positive lesbian of color? Your worldview would ask her to divide her fight along identity constructions that are dictated by the very same people who oppress her. How does freedom fighting like that make any sense? Since when is it for the oppressor to dictate how the oppressed reatian their freedom? That's absurd. The Novice: Some people believe >one person can change the world. I believe that's true, but I don't consider >myself to be that person. Logically, there's only so much one person can accomplish. >That's not limiting what they can do, but rather the scope of their actions. The >greatest people had focus, put all their energies into this one thing that made them >great. They picked this one thing that they believed in with all their heart and >put everything they had into it, and succeeded. Other things had to come in second, >had to be ordered and prioritized. Coop: I think you're re-writing history here. The greatest minds and the most accomplished freedom fighter in history have in common their adherence to an inclusive view of oppression, a recognition of the limit-situation created by MODES of oppression rather than forms. Look at Ghandi's writings (which inspired MLK), look at Malcolm X (especially toward the latter part of his struggle), look at the writings of On-Yong Su-Kyi (sp?) the Burmese freedom fighter, or Paulo Freire the Brazilian liberation theologian....I think you are limiting your definition of "success" to legislative change, while these people accomplished something FAR more powerful - a change of mind. The Novice: >Does it make logical sense that gays will get all their justified rights in the next >two years after what, the 10 year Gay Pride rise while women still sit fuming about >the political pats on the head they keep getting after oh, who knows how many years >of struggle? Coop: Why do you exhibit such liberational jealosy (to coin a term) - that is, why does ANYone's liberation threaten your own? And, for your information, the queer social movement has been around for far more than 10 years. Even so...as your statements below so crduely demonstrate...we've got a long LONG way to go, so I wouldn't worry about us beating the women's movement to the "freedom finish line". The Novice: Actually I thank you. I don't think I've ever written quite this well. You force me to articulate what usually starts out as half-formed impressions or just feelings. Coop: Wow. Scary. But keep trying...you might stumble upon composition one of these days. The Novice: I won't tiptoe around the fact that >I think homosexuality, the sexual practice I mean, is disgusting, unnatural, and >against God. Coop: What is "the sexual practice" of homosexuality? I thought "homosexuality" designated a particular sexual orientation, not a particular sexual practice. Please clarify - and shed some light on why you think it's disgusting. Personally, I can find no expression of love between two human beings to be "disgusting" - but that's me. As for the manifestation of that expression, I don't presume to know what forms that takes between people and I certainly don't care enough to have an opinion on it. Why do you? Unnatural? Please explain? Does this mean that you think it is not consistent with the expression of love between two people in the state of nature? Does that mean that you hold the same opinions about the use of condoms or, say, having sex in a bed? Against God? I've spent my whole life on this one. My father's a fundamentalist minister. Our entire relationship is circumscribed by this question.....don't even get me started sister... Keep trying, Coop From hoppock Thu Jun 3 14:12:40 1999 From: hoppock (Matthew Hoppock) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 12:12:40 PDT Subject: queer as a synonym Message-ID: coop, remeber that this was just inquiry. I have a widely based consensus (At least in my circle of friends) as to why it's acceptable or not acceptable. Just looking for your justification coop says: >>Queer is about creating a situation for anyone who refuses to identify >>as the subject of compulsory heterosexuality, turning on its head the assumption of identity as the subject of oppression. In other words, rather than identify myself AS the subject of oppression, I choose to identify myself THROUGH the rejection of the subject of heteronormativity. Queerness, for me, is a posture of opposition rather than a simple statement about my sexuality. It is about principles, not particularities. It is about acknowledging and celebrating difference, embracing what sets me apart. my reply: You sound like Camus in The Rebel. Why create a situation of opposition? I understand why you would respond to heteronormativity with opposition, but why just assume that all situations will be inherently meant to alienat the homosexual? (to me, usage of homo/hetero is the same as gay/straight. the only difference is that gay/straight makes a negative/positive dichotomy...the nature of the word straight is "I'm what you're supposed to be") coop says: >>The great convenience in the term "queer" lies most immediately in its gender and race neutrality. This is only to remark that for many young Americans, the term "gay" is widely understood to mean "white", "male", "materialistic", and "thirty-something". my reply: I had no idea that the word "gay" had any connotation of the sort. At least in personal experience, gay meant homosexual...Why does it mean "white" or "male" or "materialistic" or "thirty-something". ID there a reason that you view it in that way? coop says: >>On the contrary, "queer" asserts an identity that celebrates the difference within a wider picture of sexual and social diversity. The up-side of "queer" lies in its ability to articulate the complex, shifting contempoprary alignment of class, race, gender, age, and sexuality in the lives of individuals who frequently face multiple forms of oppression. my reply: but coop, how does it do that. it's one word. Explain how usage of the word "queer" examines the complexities of these classifications. How does it allign all of these classesin the lives of the oppressed? I think you're assuming connotation for the word "queer" and the word "gay" that don't really exist. coop says: ...to describe oneself as "homosexual" has more than just identity-based implications. The description immediately inhabits a psuedo-scientific theory of sexuality which more properly belongs to the Victorian age than to post-modernity. my reply: this isn't true. What makes the term scientific? is it because it isn't based on slang? seems to me a that a word NOT based on american slang would be the least dangeroius in discussions. When did post-modernism get rid of pseudo-science? coop says: The most "homosexuals" can (politely) ask for is tolerance since the "homosexual" has already accepted marginalization in his or her core identity by accepting a psycho-social definition of sexual identity. isn't that what "queer" asks for? I don't think that the term "homosexual" asks for anything...your explanation is based on the fact that if it isn't shocking, it won't get you anywhere. I think that's not only dangerous inherently, but it gives ground to the opposition..."queer" as you said will always have the stigma of grade-school name-calling. it will always be associated with shame. SO, why shrink into the slang and come out with words that are so full of constructed meaning? I think it would be much harder to tack on unjusitifed denotation to the word "homosexual"... I thought that was the goal of the gay-rights movement. Why is tolerance too low of a goal? Doesn't tolerance translate into rights...acceptance? Coop says: Homosexual identity, like gay or lesbian or bisexual (etc.) identities, is thus understood as a stretegic position which priviledges heterosexuality. my reply: in your reply, please give a reason why homosexual identity priveliges the heterosexual. You're coming at this from the assumption that homo is negative and hetero is positive. I don't think the words say that. Additionally, doesn't this apply to your argument that "queer" furthers the identity of the homosexual by making them absolutely odd? well, I would think that this would privelege the heterosexual even more...right? correct me, or fill in missing logic if I'm off-base here. coop says: "Queer", on the other hand, opposes society itself, protesting not just the normal behavior of the social, but the IDEA of the normal. It embraces the label of perversity, using it to call attention to the "norm" in "normal," be it hetero or homo. my reply: Why oppose the system that you're petitionaing for acceptance? Why embrace the label of perversity? I dont' think that homosexuality is perverse, and for you to feed that to the opposition doesn't get you anywhere...I agree that the socially acceptable norm should always be questioned (especially in this case), but I don't think that labelling a sexual orientation as "perverse" does this. coop says: "Queer" thus asserts an in-your-face difference with an edge of defiant seperatism. It asserts its own identity, free from convention, odd, out there and proud of it, and other's response to it is either their problem or their wake-up call. "Queer" does not so much rebel against its outsider status as revel in it. my reply: okay, so you want seperatism? That absolutely moves in the wrong direction. Why not live with eachother as equals? instead, you choose to stigmatize yourself for what? It is liberating to be able to say "look at me, I'm weird and proud", but that doesn't get us anywhere in society. Why not question the actual theory behind weird/normal? you say that usage of the word "queer" does this, but here you say that it actually revels in not being normal. Why not just reject the thought of normalcy in the first place? coop says >>Do not confuse my use of the term "queer" as merely a reappropriation of profane language either. While that may be the welcomed by-product of the use of "queer", its use CAN NOT be sanitized. It is never NOT going to be heard as a term in relation to shame; and it is never NOT going to be heard as a term in relation to childhood stigma. Its very denotation conjurs up otherness and oddity. my reply: you really confuse me here, bud. You want your label to be associated with shame, otherness, and oddity? why? coop says: Thus, an account of "queer" culture would have to be woven around such glamorous, if disparate figures as Oscar Wilde (and the rent-boys he employed), Rimbaud, Tom of Finland (if you don't know - I'm certain there's a webpage), Jean Genet, Madonna, and ME because what we all have in common is the way our work and our lives have challenged the authority of the dominant epistemology of sexuality. We are - in the literal sense of the word - "queer". my reply: you take this away from something being related to sexual orientation, and move into a term meaning "sexually unaccepted". I don't understand what celebrating unacceptedness does. There shouldn't be a normal/weird dichotomy in sex. Your usage doesn't help to rid us of that dichotomy...it entrenches the stigma of certain sexual activities or associations as bad or shameful. I'm not understanding why this is a positive thing. maybe I'm going at this the wrong way. take care matthew _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com From hoppock Thu Jun 3 14:40:08 1999 From: hoppock (Matthew Hoppock) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 12:40:08 PDT Subject: The Novice remains so... Message-ID: This is going ot be a long and drawn-out thread (I hope). I can feel it already >>Coop: Why do you exhibit such liberational jealosy (to coin a term) - >>that is, why does ANYone's liberation threaten your own? And, for your information, the queer social movement has been around for far more than 10 years. Even so...as your statements below so crduely demonstrate...we've got a long LONG way to go, so I wouldn't worry about us beating the women's movement to the "freedom finish line".>> Actually, the homosexual social movement has been around just as long as the women's movement. Its formal inception into the american culture was at Stonewall, but I don't think it's fair to say that that is when homosexuals began the movement. Both movements have a long way to go (hand in hand I hope), but we can't itemize them...cut them up into nice little sections and order them on our to-do list. IT all happens at the same time. The frontlines aren't just in down-town DC...they are everywhere. everywhere that doesn't accept the orientation that many humans exhibit. The frontlines are right here in Kansas. >I won't tiptoe around the fact that >I think homosexuality, the sexual practice I mean, is disgusting, >unnatural, and >against God. I think that this sort of religious justification for argument is accpeted (I know I know, I'm a big PC goblin that is coming to censor you...or not), and should be allowed to be eloquated as loudly as possible. I don't, however, feel that you are correct. Coop is right. being homosexual is about emotion more than it is about action. If you are attracted to people of the same sex, then you are...that's the foundation of being gay/lesbian/bisexual. Homosexuality isn't about sexual practice...many many many people are homosexual and live a heterosexual lifestyle. coop says: Personally, I can find no expression of love between two human beings to be "disgusting" - but that's me. As for the manifestation of that expression, I don't presume to know what forms that takes between people and I certainly don't care enough to have an opinion on it. Why do you? my reply: here's where I start to odisagree with coop. While I'm on the same page most of the way, I dont' think that "all" forms of love are acceptable. I think that a relationship in its true form has to be affirming to all members involved...meaning that it affirms them in themself as well as with the other participants. brothers loving brothers, I dont' think it's healthy or affirming (I may be wrong)...Old men loving young boys (while I shudder at the practice, I am unsure of this statement)...I dont' think that a young boy is mature enough to affirm himself in a relationship with an older man. I don't know if these are good examples, but I do agree that it's not disgusting. coop says: Against God? I've spent my whole life on this one. My father's a fundamentalist minister. Our entire relationship is circumscribed by this question.....don't even get me started sister... matt says: there is a really good book out just published about 4 years ago called "what the bible really says about homosexuality". It has opened my eyes very widely to the bible's position. I'm just now trying to get upthe guts to ask my father to read it. he is of the same orientation as coop's. Although I haven't experinced the same things as coop, I understand their nature (due to many heated dinner-table conversations)...and I don't think that god shuns humans loving humans. that's as far as I'll go in this forum matthew _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com From sternhag Thu Jun 3 15:25:22 1999 From: sternhag (Fred Sternhagen) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 15:25:22 -0500 Subject: Job opening; coaching and teaching Message-ID: * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * FACULTY POSITION AND FORENSICS COACHING CONCORDIA COLLEGE; MOORHEAD, MN * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Position: Full time position, one-two year appointment with possibilities for renewal up to six years. Master~Rs degree required for appointment. Persons ossessing the Ph.D. are encouraged to apply. Position begins August, 1999. Duties and Responsibilities: Normal teaching load is three courses (four credits each) per semester. Coaching duties compensated with released time. Summer school teaching is possible for additional compensation. Advisement of undergraduate majors, participation in departmental projects, and involvement in college-wide activities is required. Candidates should be prepared to teach the college required basic public speaking course; other basic course offerings in the department; and to coach and travel in a successful, national level, integrated speech and debate program. Preference is for candidates with preparation to coach both debate and individual events. Candidates who are prepared to coach in only debate or individual events are encouraged to apply. Selection Criteria: 1. Excellence in classroom teaching. Graduate assistantships are appropriate. 2. Demonstrated preparation and experience in teaching public speaking. 3. Demonstrated ability to coach within the context of an integrated speech and debate program. 4. Demonstrated preparation and experience in teaching an area of specialization appropriate to the department's curriculum. 5. Personal philosophy in sympathy with the aims and objectives of a liberal arts college of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. 6. Masters degree in Speech Communication completed by August 1, 1999. Salary/Rank: Competitive; dependent on qualifications and level of experience. Department: 13 full-time and 6 part-time faculty. Three faculty are in theatre; two full time and two part-time are primarily in media studies; the balance are in communication studies. All department faculty teach the college required basic public speaking course. Facilities: Individual faculty offices and all course offerings are housed in the Olin Communication Center. Classrooms are video equipped and all faculty have access to campus networked computer facilities as well as departmentally owned desk top computers. Application Deadlines: File review will begin immediately and will continue until the position is filled. Application: Send letter of application, resume, transcripts and three letters of recommendation to: Dr. Cynthia Carver, Chair Department of Speech Communication and Theatre Art Concordia College Moorhead, MN 56562 Telephone: 218-299-3154 FAX: 218-299-4256 e-mail: carver at cord.edu *************************** Fred Sternhagen SCTA Department Concordia College Moorhead, MN 56562 218-299-3731 *************************** From girl-genius Thu Jun 3 15:55:47 1999 From: girl-genius (Shawnessy Scott) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 20:55:47 0000 Subject: The Novice remains so... Message-ID: --if you've got the time, read on: answering both replies, because the second post just agreed with everything Coop said This was backchannel made public: Chris Cooper wrote: >Oh dear....if it weren't for my complete lack of motivation to do any "real" >work, I wouldn't bother. But it's frustrating to put a lot of thought into >a response to The Novice only to have it ignored by the person who feigns a >thirst for true discourse. Who's that? I'm not ignoring anything, but there's 2 things you should know about me. 1) Words with more than 2 syllables throw me, and abstract theories don't do anything but confuse me. When people message me with long passages that sound as though they've been taken from the latest study on social movement written by Dr. Sociologist... well, I do the best I can to first translate it into the kind of English I understand best and then try to frame it as if I were having an actual face-to-face conversation with the person and they were trying to express a part of their thinking to me. Sounds pretty stupid, I know, but it's what happens when one throws out William Faulkner for Stephen King. 2)"the novice" isn't a nickname or a sarcastic ego trip thing. I'm new at debate, and I admit to being 18 and quite naive about the world. I challenge a lot of stuff for the heck of it, and ignore other things because I don't know any better. There's no feigning here. Why would I keep this up if I didn't want to learn anything? I'm certainly not changing anybody else's mind. I'm definitely not impressing anyone. I'm not good at feigning anything, actually. >Coop: I think one of things we DID focus on last year was the INABILITY of >policy to address the root causes of oppression or to propel radical social >change. We TALK about this stuff in order to realize that our efforts are >better placed elsewhere. That doesn't mean that policy change CAN'T help - >only that it is hardly the panacea it is made out to be and in many cases >simply a symbolic change that distracts and demobilizes the forces for true >social change. So it doesn't address the root causes. How do you know when you've won if you don't have some sort of proof? I think the law follows movements, and even in cases where it's only symbolic it's a mark on the semi-permanent record of the nation that we were here and we accomplished something. I'm not giving up on the legal system. It's too scary to abandon it as fruitless when it's supposed to be set up for our benefit. It's like those people who refuse to go to doctors because they think doctors are all quacks. There has to be some purpose for them going through all those years of medical school. It doesn't make them God, but it does mean that this is what we've come up with as a system for healing people, a lot of people use it, and in many cases it works. That may be a bad parallel but I tried. Anyway I sorta agree with you, but that leaves me with no weapons to fight the large-scale war. Sure it's a start with influencing everyone you meet, but the movements aim for social change, and social change is usually marked by a change in the folkways, morees, and laws of the society. >Coop: Are you kidding me? Ever read Tony Morrison's "Beloved"? Now these >are fictional accounts of a past time, but they provide examples of >common-place "intermingling" of racism and sexism well before the 1970's. >It may be that an awareness of the intersection of these oppressions by the >academic community did not come about until the 1970's...but that's wholly >irrelevent. Your last sentence is what I was trying to get at. Intersection wasn't really the main concern until these enlightened times. I think it's very relevant because if there was no awareness of the intersections of oppressions there was no movement or agent for change in that direction. >Coop: Hello Sister!! I'm not at a university (yet)...and I'm not in a >library. I work and live in downtown Washington DC. Don't presume to know >ANYthing about me. When my parent's didn't welcome me at home after my >freshman year I came to DC and worked night-shifts downtown and hung out >with the street people who frequent Dupont Circle until all hours of the >morning. I have stood on the front lines and I have been as critical of >post-structuralist criticisms of identity politics as you appear to be >(without knowing it, and certainly less eloquently). I devoted my entire >senior honors thesis to trying to formulate a social movement theory that >embraced identity politics without falling prey to these very legitimate >criticisms. I haven't yet succeeded. Point is: I have stood on the front >lines and I have witnessed suffering, but don't presume to lump my thoughts >with others who you accuse of escaping to the relative safety of ivory >towers. That's not me. I'm not your sister, sorry. (well meant) Flow with the metaphor. It's not a safety of Ivory towers thing. It's a comfort zone. Even those who have experienced things and worse things first hand get out of the situation, and then forget its rawness, and their anger at those who were having lofty intellectual discussions and did nothing. That's not something against you personally. I can see you're making the effort to solve things the way you know how. I don't want to compare situations, it just seems kind of presumtuous of us to discuss these issues and how true solvency is here or there while people are being beaten bloody and emotionally battered. I don't feel that we ever really connected about racism issues. (don't roll your eyes just yet there's a point coming) My parents tell me not to bother with it because white people couldn't possibly understand. If I chose to believe them I'd cease to have a reason for living, or even making the attempt to talk to white people at all. What would be the point? Here's the pitch, and example: I read in Rolling Stone about some hip-hop artists who are doing a collaboration against police brutality. That's an old, familiar issue with blacks. My dad does everything but actually put his foot over mine on the brakes when we drive through Mississippi because he's so afraid the cops will catch us for speeding, beat him, and throw us both in jail just because they can. Go try talking to a person that's been beaten like that about how the law and policy changes don't solve anything. They'll tell you they knew that already. Then tell them your theory about advancing all movements at once and attacking oppression in all its forms every time you see it, and how that's going to solve everything. They'll just shake their head, probably with Tupac's that's just the way it is some things will never change as anthem in their heads. People want active solutions, direct goals they'll see accomplished. They get discouraged when confronted with monolithic oppression and our best and brightest say here's this amorphous, theoretical solution. It should work. For fear you've missed what I'm saying... We've got to come WAY down. People actually and actively suffering are never content to discuss. We need to get in touch with the harsh reality and the people. >Coop: Can't? I'm not sure. I certainly think I can. I think you >misrepresent what freedom fighting is all about. You seem to be under the >impression that the oppressed fight FOR their rights - wrestle them >(finally) from the oppressor through acknowledgement in legal doctrine and >statute. Have you lived on the front lines? This is not how it works. No, and I'm not sure whether or not I'm sorry for not having had that experience. >The oppressed fight to GET their rights...they fight to keep them from being >TAKEN. Like two guys walking down the street hand-in-hand. Like a mixed >race couple attending a rural high school prom. Like a woman jogging at >night through central park. We excercise our freedom as we choose and the >only fight is in facing the consequences. In this way, all battles are >already won...just in some cases the consequences may be extraordinary. Uh, the reason they're oppressed is because people already took the rights from them. I think I understand, though. You mean some Thomas Jefferson stuff like each person has certain unalienable rights, etc. ? I can go with that, I think, but it depends on cases. Prohibition goes with your example, but voting was a right women never had. They had to fight to get it. >But to "pick and choose" asks us to give up some of those freedoms from the >get-go. What of the HIV-positive lesbian of color? Your worldview would >ask her to divide her fight along identity constructions that are dictated >by the very same people who oppress her. How does freedom fighting like >that make any sense? Since when is it for the oppressor to dictate how the >oppressed reatian their freedom? That's absurd. Not give up, just wait. Pick your battles, save some for later, and you may have to abandon others (I never got my 40 acres and a mule). 1865. Bam, all of a sudden blacks are free. I'm sure they would like to have had all the rights then but they had to pick a couple and work on that. Jeez, education STILL isn't straight, although we've gotten the opportunity part pretty good. You know what? I'm tired of this opressor-dictated stuff. Why don't I change my name to something African or Muslim so I can get out of this white "Christian- name" bondage that names us after our oppressors. Identity constructions are ideas. We can fight those battles here on paper and in our minds where they began. But oppression is something physical, something forced... we never even came to a consensus on whether there was such a thing as non-active oppression. So why should I start shadow-boxing? What about her? First of all I'm going to make the horrendous assumption that she's black. Well guess what? She has to check that little box on the job application, too, that doesn't have a space for terminal disease or sexual orientation. When people see her they won't immediately know she has HIV, or even necessarily that she's homosexual. They'll know right off that she's black, though. I say start with the most immediate violation, then once they come to know her as an individual and not a black individual they'll be able to use that to deal with her sexual preference, and only true love transcends that disease. >The Novice: > >Coop: I think you're re-writing history here. The greatest minds and the >most accomplished freedom fighter in history have in common their adherence >to an inclusive view of oppression, a recognition of the limit-situation >created by MODES of oppression rather than forms. Look at Ghandi's writings >(which inspired MLK), look at Malcolm X (especially toward the latter part >of his struggle), look at the writings of On-Yong Su-Kyi (sp?) the Burmese >freedom fighter, or Paulo Freire the Brazilian liberation theologian....I >think you are limiting your definition of "success" to legislative change, >while these people accomplished something FAR more powerful - a change of >mind. grrrr. Never claimed to be a history buff. Who all marched with MLK for civil rights? His speeches were to bring unity to us and encourage us to fight, that we could make a difference. Ghandi's heart was with his people. Malcolm X, in my opinion, didn't have anything good to say until the latter part of his struggle. I most certainly am NOT about picking up a shotgun and killing white people, becoming a Muslim and changing my name, or going back to the "Motherland". Don't know that Burmese person, or the Brazilian one but I'll check it out. They all had focused objectives. Malcolm X was certainly not about feminism. Ghandi wasn't waving his Gay Pride flag. They attacked the mental aspect of oppression because that's where it began, the things that affected them. on a side note, The Joy Luck Club was a good book (and movie). I thought wow, Chinese people have problems too? I did an awesome research paper on it and I'm really into that kind of identity struggle Chinese Americans are having. I can include that in black identity struggles, but that's not going to be my focus. >Coop: Why do you exhibit such liberational jealosy (to coin a term) - that >is, why does ANYone's liberation threaten your own? And, for your >information, the queer social movement has been around for far more than 10 >years. Even so...as your statements below so crduely demonstrate...we've >got a long LONG way to go, so I wouldn't worry about us beating the women's >movement to the "freedom finish line". Because IT ALL CAN'T COME AT ONCE. It is absolutely not logically possible. It isn't jealousy, it's more like selfishness actually. Not that being selfish is better. Define far more than 10 years, please, I'd be interested in hearing that bit of history I missed (seriously). And your last sentence is exactly my point. I haven't gotten around to digesting your "queer" dissertation but I'm always up for education. >Coop: Wow. Scary. But keep trying...you might stumble upon composition >one of these days. *sigh* I take it you weren't impressed. Oh, well. >Coop: What is "the sexual practice" of homosexuality? I thought >"homosexuality" designated a particular sexual orientation, not a particular >sexual practice. Please clarify - and shed some light on why you think it's >disgusting. I guess I'm stumbling around this homosexuality stuff because I don't speak the language. I was trying to clarify that I am against two people of the same sex engaging in sexual relations with one another, consensual or not. That's as explicit as I can be. Disgusting is by no means a scientific term. I just think it's really nasty and it turns my stomach. Does that mean I run and hide from gay people and make rude comments about them? Not at all. People can do whatever they want, as long as they don't do it around me. Before you jump at that, here's another terrible example. My roommate is a Seventh Day Adventist and therefore doesn't eat meat. So I don't buy any hamburgers or anything and chow down in front of her. I think it's the same deal. >Personally, I can find no expression of love between two human beings to be >"disgusting" - but that's me. As for the manifestation of that expression, >I don't presume to know what forms that takes between people and I certainly >don't care enough to have an opinion on it. Why do you? I don't know anything about their relationships but I'm sure some love is involved somewhere, like all relationships. People of the same sex can love each other. Interesting question about why I care. I often ask myself why I persist in sharing my opinions here when no one particularly wants to hear them. I'm sorry but that kind of love manifestation is just as wrong as adultery, where a married person and someone other than his/her spouse love each other and may want to express it in some way. If you think so what about that then we really have no basis for conversation. It would be like me quoting Bible verses to a Hindu to try and back up my arguments. >Unnatural? Please explain? Does this mean that you think it is not >consistent with the expression of love between two people in the state of >nature? Does that mean that you hold the same opinions about the use of >condoms or, say, having sex in a bed? I think it is absolutely unnatural. I hate to pull the "Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve" example. In another way, mating in nature is always a process to reproduce. There is sexual production and asexual production. There is no homosexual reproduction. In regards to relationships involving heterosexuals where one may be sterile, nature may or may not have had anything to do with the reason they can't have kids. As far as the studies on flux and increase in homosexual relationships during periods of overpopulation... nothing concrete has been proven, just as it has not been concretely proven that homosexuals do not have some choice in deciding their sexual orientation. I'm sure quite a lot of people can appreciate the beauty of God's creations, male and female, and may during a point in their lives go through experimentation where they explore their sexuality. Inclinations toward homosexuality are, I think, like genetic tendencies towards alcoholism. You may have a weakness, but it's up to you to choose to fight it or not fight it. I have all sorts of opinions about contraceptives but I can honestly say that I don't sit around contemplating where and in what manner people should or shouldn't have sex. Automatically public places are out, I think, as a general rule, and same-sex or other immoral sex is just wrong. >Against God? I've spent my whole life on this one. My father's a >fundamentalist minister. Our entire relationship is circumscribed by this >question.....don't even get me started sister... I won't. Everyone I know has a bone to pick with God. Talk to Him about it, if you like. I'm not His spokesperson and I may have a real screwed-up interpretation of His word. And that sounds like a personal problem to me. Wish I could help. If you have the inclination, give me your personal take on Romans, Chapter 1 in its entirety, since I don't want to pick verses out of context. Better yet, if you're one of those "King James is evil" people there are Hebrew bibles in Christian bookstores that give clearer and less biased interpretation. If, however, you're atheist or pantheist, or you just believe that everybody'll be all right with every and anything they want to believe about a "higher power", I'll try not to step on your toes by continuing the discussion. It would be pointless. >Keep trying, > >Coop I think I can I think I can... the novice Shawnessy Angelfire for your free web-based e-mail. http://www.angelfire.com From mkrueger Thu Jun 3 16:19:16 1999 From: mkrueger (Krueger) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 16:19:16 -0500 Subject: Save $75 on Mid South Debate Institute Message-ID: Just a reminder to register early for the Mid South Debate Institute and save a little cash! If your registration is postmarked by June 10, you save $75.00! Check out our web page at: http://www.mtsu.edu/~debate/mdi.html Oh, and for those who are making plane reservations, we will pick you up anytime day or night. Our two graduate assistants (Ben Osborne and Andrew Butler) are meant to drive! The Nashville airport is conveniently located a mere 30-45 minutes away (depending on traffic), so picking you up when YOU schedule your flight--either going or coming--is our priority! And Southwest has some phenomenal deals right now: $51 each way to/from Columbus $63 each way to/from Houston Hobby $49 each way to/from Jacksonville $34 each way to/from Kansas City Looking forward to seeing you in the 'boro in late July! Mike -- Michael Krueger Director of Debate Middle Tennessee State University Box 43 Murfreesboro, TN 37132 (615) 898-5607 (office) (615) 898-5826 (fax) http://www.mtsu.edu/~debate/ http://www.mtsu.edu/~debate/mdi.html http://www.mtsu.edu/~mkrueger/ From ccooper Thu Jun 3 16:17:07 1999 From: ccooper (Chris Cooper) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 17:17:07 -0400 Subject: queer as a synonym Message-ID: Ugh....I thought my explanation was pretty exhaustive, but I'll try and be clearer. :-) >coop, > >remeber that this was just inquiry. I have a widely based consensus (At >least in my circle of friends) as to why it's acceptable or not acceptable. >Just looking for your justification > >my reply: >You sound like Camus in The Rebel. Why create a situation of opposition? I >understand why you would respond to heteronormativity with opposition, but >why just assume that all situations will be inherently meant to alienat the >homosexual? (to me, usage of homo/hetero is the same as gay/straight. the >only difference is that gay/straight makes a negative/positive >dichotomy...the nature of the word straight is "I'm what you're supposed to >be") Coop: *I'm* not the one who has created the oppositional situation. That's the environment under which I have been constructed. Now the choice is this: I can fight the situation by attempting to subvert my outside status, to seek "acceptance", legitimacy granted by the normative. OR - I can choose to attack the inside/outside boundary. One way that I feel does this is to turn the hierarchy of the boundary on it's head by embracing the very thing that is meant to shame me. If I can do so in a way that also obscures the boundary (ie...obliterates the safe margins between same-sex and other-sex desire) than I have accomplished a type of identity politics that avoids reconstructing binaries. >my reply: >I had no idea that the word "gay" had any connotation of the sort. At least >in personal experience, gay meant homosexual...Why does it mean "white" or >"male" or "materialistic" or "thirty-something". ID there a reason that you >view it in that way? Coop: *I* don't view it that way (and I'm glad to hear that you don't either). The statement that I made (quite deliberately) was that for a large number of young Americans the term "gay" connotes these things...it may be either a stereotype that is imposed by compulsory heterosexuality as it moves to tolerate a particular type of queerness in order to further marginalize another, or it may be a self-imposed stereotype because the most visible queer advocacy organizations seem dominated by these types of individuals. Either way...the connotation is seen as exclusding by many. Remember, however, that my point was that I DON'T use the term to avoid a long list of engendered identities that presumably avoid the connotation. I only said that was a welcomed by-product. >my reply: >but coop, how does it do that. it's one word. Explain how usage of the >word "queer" examines the complexities of these classifications. How does >it allign all of these classesin the lives of the oppressed? >I think you're assuming connotation for the word "queer" and the word "gay" >that don't really exist. > Historically there have been women and men and others who have had sexual/romantic relationships with other women and men and others but have not assumed the label "lesbian" or "gay" and would be excluded by a politics based on these identities. Here's a good example....a guy I just met was telling me that he had a girlfriend and they would occasionally bring a third into their sexual interaction. Sometimes a guy, sometimes a girl. In either situation, the interaction was desirable to each party. Now...when a girl was present does that indicate that the guy is straight and the girls "bi"? When another guy was present is the girl straight and the guys "bi"? Does "bi" even exist or is a "bi" person really just "gay" or "straight" depending upon who there with at the time? There aremany possible configurations of the relationship between desire, practice, and identity - far more configurations than there are social categories to describe them. Yet those categories are to limit the oppressed in their response? "Queer" encompasses otherness in all its multiple forms. It has no etimology separate from its separateness. Thus, someone can't be "straight" and "gay" but they can be "straight" and "queer". >coop says: >...to describe oneself as "homosexual" has more than just identity-based >implications. The description immediately inhabits a psuedo-scientific >theory of sexuality which more properly belongs to the Victorian age than to >post-modernity. > >my reply: >this isn't true. What makes the term scientific? is it because it isn't >based on slang? seems to me a that a word NOT based on american slang >would be the least dangeroius in discussions. When did post-modernism get >rid of pseudo-science? Oh jesus....don't you know the etimology of the word homosexual? Even if you don't....it is based on psudeo-sciense because it asserts as its root that the identity is based primarily on sex. The homo part of it implies both a scientific bent, and a sexist assumption. Homo derives from the latin "man" and has since evolved into a prefix meaning same or like. Even so...we use the prefix to denote relatively antiseptic and static scientific terms - Homo Sapian...homothallic. It implies a precision that just isn't so. Think of it this way....we could describe black people by a purely scientific term: Negro or Negroid. But we don't. For a couple of reasons. It implies an identity construction that is completely scientific and calculable and static. It is also pejorative (at least when used by the oppressor). I think "queer" is much more accurate because it lacks accuracy. I also like it because *I* chose it. > >coop says: >The most "homosexuals" can (politely) ask for is tolerance >since the "homosexual" has already accepted marginalization in his or her >core identity by accepting a psycho-social definition of sexual identity. > >isn't that what "queer" asks for? I don't think that the term "homosexual" >asks for anything...your explanation is based on the fact that if it isn't >shocking, it won't get you anywhere. I think that's not only dangerous >inherently, but it gives ground to the opposition..."queer" as you said will >always have the stigma of grade-school name-calling. it will always be >associated with shame. SO, why shrink into the slang and come out with >words that are so full of constructed meaning? I think it would be much >harder to tack on unjusitifed denotation to the word "homosexual"... > See above. The denotation tacked onto the word "homosexual" is already there. It is an iprecise and dangerous word. Dangerous because it implies an acceptance of the psudo-scientific paradigm for identity construction. Simply because "queer" will never NOT be associated with attempts at shaming doesn't mean that its use gives ground to the opposition. What ground does the opposition have when the word is robbed of its abililty to shame - or rather when the shame that is propelled by the word is turned on its head by its embrace by those who are shamed? >I thought that was the goal of the gay-rights movement. Why is tolerance >too low of a goal? Doesn't tolerance translate into rights...acceptance? > Whoa there cowboy! Huh-uh!! Tolerance implies allowing or permitting...it implies that the power to do or not do lies in the hands of the oppressor. In it's most denotative tolerance is the amount of variation allowed from the standard, which implies a world in which there will always be a constructed other even as the boundaries of what is in and what is out are constantly redefined. "Queer" seeks no tolerance. It will take bring its freedoms to a theater near you and your response is your problem. >my reply: >in your reply, please give a reason why homosexual identity priveliges the >heterosexual. You're coming at this from the assumption that homo is >negative and hetero is positive. I don't think the words say that. >Additionally, doesn't this apply to your argument that "queer" furthers the >identity of the homosexual by making them absolutely odd? well, I would >think that this would privelege the heterosexual even more...right? >correct me, or fill in missing logic if I'm off-base here. > This harcanes back to that psuedo-science argument. It implies a static, calculable sexual identity that can be so defined precisely because it is a deviation from the norm. It not only is a term coined by the oppressor, but its use buys into the paradigm that most justifies the oppression. "Homosexuals" will never be a statistical majority. "Queers" already are. >my reply: >Why oppose the system that you're petitionaing for acceptance? Why embrace >the label of perversity? I dont' think that homosexuality is perverse, and >for you to feed that to the opposition doesn't get you anywhere...I agree >that the socially acceptable norm should always be questioned (especially in >this case), but I don't think that labelling a sexual orientation as >"perverse" does this. Ah...here's where you must be getting off track my friend. I am petitioning no one for "acceptance". I don't need acceptance. It'd be nice, but wholly unecesarry. What I am doing is excercising my freedom and attempting to limit the consequences. It is THERE that help from others is needed. For example, if I put a picture of my significant other up on my desk at work...I shouldn't lose my job for it. If I come out of a bar holding hands with my boyfriend I shouldn't be shot at. If I flirt with a guy in a bar I shouldn't be decieved into taking a ride with him only to be pistol-whipped, tied to fence and left to die. What I am seeking is not MY ability to act in a certain way...but a limitation on YOUR ability to RE-act to my actions. Different. >my reply: >okay, so you want seperatism? That absolutely moves in the wrong direction. > Why not live with eachother as equals? instead, you choose to stigmatize >yourself for what? It is liberating to be able to say "look at me, I'm >weird and proud", but that doesn't get us anywhere in society. Why not >question the actual theory behind weird/normal? you say that usage of the >word "queer" does this, but here you say that it actually revels in not >being normal. Why not just reject the thought of normalcy in the first >place? That's eaxctly what "queer" does. Again, remember I'm not the one who created the environment of otherness. "Queer" does not argue FOR separatism...it attempts to subvert the idea of "separate" that already exists by robbing it of the pejorative. >coop says >>>Do not confuse my use of the term "queer" as merely a reappropriation of >profane language either. While that may be the welcomed by-product of the >use of "queer", its use CAN NOT be sanitized. It is never NOT going to be >heard as a term in relation to shame; and it is never NOT going to be heard >as a term in relation to childhood stigma. Its very denotation conjurs up >otherness and oddity. > >my reply: >you really confuse me here, bud. You want your label to be associated with >shame, otherness, and oddity? why? I think you need to re-read my original post slowly. "Queer" will never not be associated with difference. That's why the term is appropriate. It destabalizes the notion of oddity because EVERYONE can be so labeled (as opposed to "homosexual" which is a calculable, psuedo-objective identity marker). > >my reply: >you take this away from something being related to sexual orientation, and >move into a term meaning "sexually unaccepted". I don't understand what >celebrating unacceptedness does. There shouldn't be a normal/weird >dichotomy in sex. Your usage doesn't help to rid us of that dichotomy...it >entrenches the stigma of certain sexual activities or associations as bad or >shameful. I'm not understanding why this is a positive thing. > I think your stumbling block here is an understanding of the starting point. You assume that there exists a sexual-orientationally nuetral place. Starting from that place, embracing the term "queer" would appear to construct difference. But there is not nuetral. In this world, you are straight until proven guilty. The otehrness is prescribed. If that is the starting place, than asserting neutrality gets you nowhere because it requires an acceptance of the dichotomy in constructed by the other. Sure you can gain "equality" but only under the conditions that the oppressor dictates ("Alright...it's okay to be gay as long as you stay in the inner-cities, dress conservatively, stay away from children, and keep your affection in the privacy of your bedroom."). There will ALWAYS be some other constructed as the repository for society's fears. Unlike Shawnessy, I'm unwilling to barter my "acceptance" using other people's lives. Huh-uh. "Queer" established difference outside of constructions of sexual practice. And it does so witht eh assertion that difference is ubiqitous (and it is - when you start asking the right questions it becomes apparent). And you never answered my question: aren't you queer? COOP From mabouzai Thu Jun 3 16:32:35 1999 From: mabouzai (Mohammed Abouzaid) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 17:32:35 -0400 Subject: queer as a synonym In-Reply-To: <022c01beae06$6f4e6cc0$7300005a@chris> References: <022c01beae06$6f4e6cc0$7300005a@chris> Message-ID: >And you never answered my question: aren't you queer? Is anyone not queer? Mohammed Abouzaid Richmond Debate >COOP "The language we are speaking is his before it is mine. How different are the words home, Christ, ale, master, on his lips and on mine! I cannot speak or write these words without unrest of spirit. His language, so familiar and so foreign, will always be for me an acquired speech. I have not made or accepted its words. My voice holds them at bay. My soul frets in the shadow of his language." -- James Joyce >From Thu Jun 3 18:38:24 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 48346 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 18:33:15 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from osf1.gmu.edu (osf1.gmu.edu [129.174.1.13]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA18262 for ; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 18:33:12 -0400 Received: from patrick (ppp167.dialup.gmu.edu [129.174.102.181]) by osf1.gmu.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id SAA28885; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 18:33:06 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <3c0c4a22.2487dd93 at aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <375703DF.6BE3 at osf1.gmu.edu> Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 18:38:24 -0400 Reply-To: pgarrett at osf1.gmu.edu To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Patrick Garrett Subject: Re: Star Wars......still.......sucks Comments: To: AmanK75 at AOL.COM John Collins wrote: > > Hey It's nice to know you people have something inside you besides debate > theory and Star Wars. Way to go I'm happy for you. However, I could care > less, so try doing something more constructive with your time like jumping > off a cliff for instance. Oh and sorry about the demented retards. Perhaps > that was insensitive of me. I probably should have used a stronger phrase. > Do I think I'm funny? Not really. Do I care? Not really. Does your > little cultural icon suck? In my opinion yes. I'm sorry that's hard for you > to grasp, my bad. I'm not someone who would generally advocate censorship, but I find that the adhoms are somewhat offensive and the overall attitude of the writer inexcusable. Congratulations, you don't care about Star Wars, thats really very fascinating, and I'm glad that you have the ability to formulate an opinion, but I question your methods of expression. The 'L' is not only a forum for people interested in the activity to discuss theory, issues, or events but it is also a way for people who see each other on occassion to carry out a conversation, that may not be possible until tournaments start up again. I would also argue that people involved with this activity are also some of the smartest people that I have ever come in contact with, so its interesting to see what they say on other issues. I respect those individuals who have asked for there to be a decrease in the Star Wars traffic, as a response I have reduced significantly any postings I may have initiated, and have instead waited for quality of issues instead of quantity (not meaning insult to the religion discussion, where I have been following but have been busy), thus hoping to avoid the wrath of some who do not wish to get overloaded or who want to avoid finding all of the nuances of Star Wars. Was your post necessary? Was it even appropriate? You might percieve this subject to be irrelevent, but in some ways I might find some of the other discusions to be useless or uninteresting as well, but my feeling that way is not a justification for a rant, that is not meant to be intellectual or intelligent. In this forum, respect is crucial, this does not only mean respecting a particular individual but also requires a general respect of all ideas. If this were a debate, or even an academic discussion, your actions would have been sanctioned, if this were a post to some other list, even one that was seriously focused on Star Wars or some other less serious topic, your post would have been blocked pending re-edit. I do not advocate the sanctioning of thoughts, I do advocate the rejection of of posts that serve no educational, or intelligent purpose, that is purely designed to hurt. I value your opinion, please keep it to yourself next time. Patrick Garrett From laneg Thu Jun 3 17:41:05 1999 From: laneg (Lane, Gina) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 17:41:05 -0500 Subject: CEDA Topic Meeting/Summer Meeting Schedule Message-ID: Hello Colleagues-- I know many of you are planning to attend the CEDA Summer meeting June 16-20. It would be helpful to me to know how many of you are planning on attending. Please backchannel me to let me know if you plan to attend the topic meeting and/or the summer meeting. Here is the meeting schedule and agenda: Wednesday, June 16 Sheraton Inn Westport St. Louis, MO Topic Committee Meeting (nonmembers are welcome to observe and participate, but will have no voting privileges) 2:00pm - 6:00 pm Thursday, June 17 Topic Committee Meeting (nonmembers are welcome to observe and participate, but will have no voting privileges) 9:00am - 6:00 pm Friday, June 18 9:00 am - 12:00 pm Topic Committee, final deliberations Summer Meeting 2:00pm Welcome and Introductions 2:15-5:00pm CEDA in the New Millenium -- Discussion leader: Linda Collier (this discussion will examine CEDA's identity and brainstorm for organizational name changes. Saturday, June 19 9:00am-12:00pm Organizational Business (Officer Reports, Committee/Project Team Reports, Committee/Project Team membership, 1999-2000) Strategies for Implementing the Value Resolution 2000 Nationals Planning ( Tentative Schedule, Adding the Value Resolution division, other procedures--please be prepared to comment on positive and negative aspects of the national tournament, and bring any suggestions for change) 1:30-5:00pm Developmental Conference (how is it developing?): Glenda Treadaway Membership Support Strategies (Eligibility requirements (novice, jv, etc); Young coaches, Program Support, Outside funding, Outreach efforts Sunday, June 20 10:00am-12:00 pm Follow-up Discussion and Action Commitments I am excited about the future of our organization, and I hope to see you in St. Louis in June. Sincerely, Dr. Gina Lane President, Cross Examination Debate Association William Jewell College >From Thu Jun 3 19:04:52 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 48705 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 19:05:57 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo28.mx.aol.com (imo28.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.72]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA21456 for ; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 19:05:56 -0400 Received: from AmanK75 at aol.com (2619) by imo28.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id nCQEa02054 for ; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 19:04:53 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 9 Message-ID: <320bd1a4.24886414 at aol.com> Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 19:04:52 EDT Reply-To: AmanK75 at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: John Collins Subject: Star Wars 3.......Can't Stop Sucking Ouch! Slam! I'm hurting now. I thought I was rude and disrespectful, but look at you people. Should I feel remorse for saying Star Wars sucks? Probably not because it does such immensely. Am I stupid for saying it sucks? I don't know, but that's up to you. Just because you people can't take a little heat doesn't mean you have to take it out on me. I'm generally a nice guy, but talking about racism in a movie that doesn't even exist is pretty stupid to me. I'm sorry that you people can't stop sucking. I wish I could help you get away from the habit of sucking, but it's not my fault you suck so much. I hope someday you can find a new way of life that is different from the suckiness your involved in now. If you want to verbally abuse me, fine I can take it. It's no big deal. Besides I like when people try to make themselves feel good by telling me I'm stupid. I'm not writing this e-mail to make you people feel bad(even though you should cause you suck), I'm just writing it to let you know that your movie is a piece of crap. I can't help it. George Lucas made the movie not me. Some day all you people are going to die. When you do please have something on your mind besides Star Wars. I'll pray for each and every one of you at night. I'll pray that you'll stop sucking and find a deeper meaning in life other than Star Wars. But let's get a few things straight, so you know where you stand. A)You Suck B)You suck a lot C)Your movie sucks D)Your a disgrace to humanity E)Your never going to achieve anything great in life because you can't seem to grasp that it's just a movie F)I could care less about anything anyone of you has to say because you suck G)I'm sorry that you suck Well good luck to all of you on your mission in life. I'd wish you good luck, but I can't because you suck. From spartlow Thu Jun 3 18:16:27 1999 From: spartlow (Sarah Partlow) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 18:16:27 -0500 Subject: Star Wars 3.......Can't Stop Sucking In-Reply-To: <320bd1a4.24886414@aol.com> Message-ID: Speaking of something that sucks . . . examine your vocabulary! Your lack of any articulate indictment of the discussion on the L suggests that the substance of your argument also sucks. Sarah At 07:04 PM 6/3/99 EDT, John Collins wrote: >Ouch! Slam! I'm hurting now. I thought I was rude and disrespectful, but >look at you people. Should I feel remorse for saying Star Wars sucks? >Probably not because it does such immensely. Am I stupid for saying it >sucks? I don't know, but that's up to you. Just because you people can't >take a little heat doesn't mean you have to take it out on me. I'm generally >a nice guy, but talking about racism in a movie that doesn't even exist is >pretty stupid to me. I'm sorry that you people can't stop sucking. I wish I >could help you get away from the habit of sucking, but it's not my fault you >suck so much. I hope someday you can find a new way of life that is >different from the suckiness your involved in now. If you want to verbally >abuse me, fine I can take it. It's no big deal. Besides I like when people >try to make themselves feel good by telling me I'm stupid. I'm not writing >this e-mail to make you people feel bad(even though you should cause you >suck), I'm just writing it to let you know that your movie is a piece of >crap. I can't help it. George Lucas made the movie not me. Some day all >you people are going to die. When you do please have something on your mind >besides Star Wars. I'll pray for each and every one of you at night. I'll >pray that you'll stop sucking and find a deeper meaning in life other than >Star Wars. > >But let's get a few things straight, so you know where you stand. > >A)You Suck >B)You suck a lot >C)Your movie sucks >D)Your a disgrace to humanity >E)Your never going to achieve anything great in life because you can't seem >to grasp that it's just a movie >F)I could care less about anything anyone of you has to say because you suck >G)I'm sorry that you suck > >Well good luck to all of you on your mission in life. I'd wish you good >luck, but I can't because you suck. > > From mabouzai Thu Jun 3 18:26:42 1999 From: mabouzai (Mohammed Abouzaid) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 19:26:42 -0400 Subject: Star Wars 3.......Can't Stop Sucking In-Reply-To: <320bd1a4.24886414@aol.com> References: <320bd1a4.24886414@aol.com> Message-ID: John, I have a very simple question for you: Why does star wars suck? Mohammed Abouzaid (You'll get a cookie if you answer this question coherently and then explain the 8 (or so) steps which you take you to the conclusion of the following arguments) >A)You Suck >B)You suck a lot >C)Your movie sucks >D)Your a disgrace to humanity >E)Your never going to achieve anything great in life because you can't seem >to grasp that it's just a movie >F)I could care less about anything anyone of you has to say because you suck >G)I'm sorry that you suck From omcst+ Thu Jun 3 18:36:30 1999 From: omcst+ (Omri M Ceren) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 19:36:30 -0400 Subject: Star Wars 3.......Can't Stop Sucking In-Reply-To: <320bd1a4.24886414@aol.com> Message-ID: Dude - who _are_ you? Can you crawl back under the rock you came from? Please? What if we start a collection and give you a bunch of nickles to take home with you? What if they're really _shiny_ nickles? You'ld like that, right? Would you be willing to go away then? Omri. ------ Language casts sheaves of reality upon the social body... stamping it and violently shaping it. -- Wittig ------ >From Thu Jun 3 19:34:16 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 49072 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 19:37:02 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo22.mx.aol.com (imo22.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.66]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA05122 for ; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 19:36:55 -0400 Received: from Sgw8 at aol.com (8033) by imo22.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id nMMDa21338 for ; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 19:34:26 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 18 Message-ID: <46ef6c09.24886af8 at aol.com> Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 19:34:16 EDT Reply-To: Sgw8 at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Darius Wilkins Subject: star wars huh? Whoa ho ho! We got a real flame war with real vocabulary! Y'all, when a missionary like Dr. Collins come around, 'tis best to smile and get along. Due to my extensive habit of turning the other cheek, I find this works best at shutting up mean people because it turns them into nice people. Failing that, hit your own advice to Dr. Collins:{delete} Darius Wilkins From lyondb8r Thu Jun 3 18:45:26 1999 From: lyondb8r (susanne graves) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 16:45:26 PDT Subject: Star Wars 3.......Can't Stop Sucking Message-ID: Oh my god!!!!!! Okay, tell me that your not serious!! Please! Cause see, I'm sitting here having to thank you for making me laugh so damn hard. You have to be the most ridiculous person I've ever heard of. I don't care that you think Star Wars is stupid. I don't care that you think that Star Wars sucks. In fact, you can even think that people discussing it is stupid. But what the hell do you care? Are they hurting you by discussing its merits? Are you being injured? Cause last I checked there was no pain involved in deleting messages? Or are you a special case? Your answers to everyone are "you suck" you are losers because you suck? Come on, what type of argument is that, or is it just the whole insulting thing that you enjoy? Because if it is there are plenty of chat rooms that you can bug on AOL, so check them out and when you learn how to think, come back to us. Susanne Graves Methodist College > >Ouch! Slam! I'm hurting now. I thought I was rude and disrespectful, but >look at you people. Should I feel remorse for saying Star Wars sucks? >Probably not because it does such immensely. Am I stupid for saying it >sucks? I don't know, but that's up to you. Just because you people can't >take a little heat doesn't mean you have to take it out on me. I'm >generally >a nice guy, but talking about racism in a movie that doesn't even exist is >pretty stupid to me. I'm sorry that you people can't stop sucking. I wish >I >could help you get away from the habit of sucking, but it's not my fault >you >suck so much. I hope someday you can find a new way of life that is >different from the suckiness your involved in now. If you want to verbally >abuse me, fine I can take it. It's no big deal. Besides I like when >people >try to make themselves feel good by telling me I'm stupid. I'm not writing >this e-mail to make you people feel bad(even though you should cause you >suck), I'm just writing it to let you know that your movie is a piece of >crap. I can't help it. George Lucas made the movie not me. Some day all >you people are going to die. When you do please have something on your >mind >besides Star Wars. I'll pray for each and every one of you at night. I'll >pray that you'll stop sucking and find a deeper meaning in life other than >Star Wars. > >But let's get a few things straight, so you know where you stand. > >A)You Suck >B)You suck a lot >C)Your movie sucks >D)Your a disgrace to humanity >E)Your never going to achieve anything great in life because you can't seem >to grasp that it's just a movie >F)I could care less about anything anyone of you has to say because you >suck >G)I'm sorry that you suck > >Well good luck to all of you on your mission in life. I'd wish you good >luck, but I can't because you suck. _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com From cornell7 Thu Jun 3 22:04:46 1999 From: cornell7 (Erik Cornellier) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 20:04:46 -0700 Subject: Star Wars 3.......Can't Stop Sucking In-Reply-To: <320bd1a4.24886414@aol.com> Message-ID: This really cool guy wrote... > >But let's get a few things straight, so you know where you stand. > >A)You Suck >B)You suck a lot >C)Your movie sucks >D)Your a disgrace to humanity >E)Your never going to achieve anything great in life because you can't seem >to grasp that it's just a movie >F)I could care less about anything anyone of you has to say because you suck >G)I'm sorry that you suck > >Well good luck to all of you on your mission in life. I'd wish you good >luck, but I can't because you suck. > > If this is what it's like to suck, then I'm just gonna have to keep on suckin' Keep it real Erik Cornellier Assistant Director of Debate Gonzaga University 2445 East Burnt Tree Ln. Apt. 12 East Lansing, Mi. 48823 Home: (517) 351-3619 Office: (509) 323-6654 Email: cornell7 at pilot.msu.edu From damojo Thu Jun 3 22:23:27 1999 From: damojo (Jason) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 22:23:27 -0500 Subject: Maybe we do all suck. Message-ID: Dunno, just a thought, but I think the "Star Wars sucks" posts (or rather the response to it) highlights one of my major frustrations with academia and debate which is our inability to take a step back and laugh at ourselves. I mean for just a second we should all look at the work and thought we're putting into something and recognize it for what for most of the time it is: a waste of time. To me the post was funny. Four of them might have been excessive, but it did appear that the post wasn't getting through to people. Academics and debaters are useful and intellegent people, but we should realize that we are people and subject to doing things that suck and getting made fun of for it. I think it would be difficult to see the discussion of Jar Jar which went on for way too long (the initial post made us think that should have been good enough) as an endeavour so serious as to warrant the attention it was given. I normally don't appreciate flaming messages, but these certainly livened up what had definitely been a boring thread. So Remember: "If you can't laugh at yourself, then maybe you're just not funny" Not so humorous as I'd like us all to be, Jason Jordan UTDallas Debate P.S. Send flames to your own delete file (Save us all some time) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/19990603/b404f133/attachment.htm From girl-genius Thu Jun 3 22:37:09 1999 From: girl-genius (Shawnessy Scott) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 03:37:09 0000 Subject: Ans. Shawnessy Scott Message-ID: I don't want to mangle your name too badly, so can I just call you TJ for now? Terrible anglo-ization or whatever, but nothing's badly meant by it. read on: TJ >I'm not sure if the conclusions I'm drawing are correct...but it seems to me >that one side of the discussion (Shawnessy) is trying to describe the world >as it is, while everybody else is talking about what it should be. The only >real advocacy I've seen on Shawnessy's side of the equation is that problems >should be addressed with specific, focussed solutions. This is probably true. >Legislation, movements, etc, that fail to specify goals and tasks often are >relatively ineffective, or easily co-opted. Novice: Yeah, it got a little personal but that's part of what I'm trying to say. The majority of it, actually. Thanks. TJ But the really cool thing to >realize is that there are a lot of people reading from this list. Just >because one person can not solve all of the world's problems doesn't really >mean that all the people can't. I think it is somewhat wrong to say that >women's rights or gay rights will necessarily come after a decrease in >racism, or to say that indeed they should come after a decrease in racism. In >my opinion, it matters not which comes first; it simply matters that equality >for human beings (and I guess animals too, for you vegetarians) actually >arrives...and hopefully arrives soon. I think treating this like a race, >where one persecuted group is supposedly entitled to win by receiving their >rights first trivializes the actual business of bringing about those rights. Novice: Please don't misunderstand anything I say as trivializing a movement. I don't enjoy making people feel small. The original original post I made was all about MY thinking. The biggest issue in my mind is racism. The biggest issue in Veronica's mind is feminism, I think. The biggest issue in someone else's mind may be gay rights. It isn't a race, it's a stair-step deal. We make progress, they make progress based on our progress. Not that they can't make it in new and different areas, but it will all come back to this, or back to Ghandi, or whoever happened to be the "first" in line and gave the world/nation these novel new principles, or proved that this is or is not the way to get your rights. In a perfect world, in our minds, and in this discussion "it simply matters that equality for human beings arrives." That's important. We should hold these ideals, and I never dispute that one, but there's going to have to be a first, a groundbreaker, a pioneer, a revolution based on those firsts, and... whatever the heck it is I was trying to say before about the order thing. TJ >There probably is no blanket solution...but a good place to start is for all >of us to try and not be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. I think each person >can relatively effectively regulate all of their own behavior, toward all >persecuted groups. As for solving problems outside of ourselves...I see no >reason that as a body of people, working collectively to reduce >discrimination/inequality as a whole, can not bring about some changes. Novice: None of that conflicts with what I'm saying at all. At least I sure hope not. I'll try to be a good person in general and not do any of that, and not allow others around me to do it without me at least saying something. That collective body of people, I think, is 3 bodies of people working at their own particular aspect, which is working. It's like that bill in the legislature that supports something great like children's education and more benefits for the elderly, but get's lumped with some other provision or amendment to raise taxes, or some other thing controversial like abolishing welfare for group X. The whole thing will be voted down by a vast majority, although each provision may be good by itself and have a supporting group. Different kinds of people won't be ready to support the whole thing in its entirety for various reasons. (I'm hoping a comparison is starting to take place) Lumping feminists, blacks and Hispanics, and homosexuals together to fight all oppression in one big group will just get "voted" down. People won't be able to handle all of it at once, the societal mindset doesn't change quite that progressively, quickly or easily. So there has to be a line, sort of, based on what people are closest to being ready for. The other movements aren't silent, they're just waiting their turn, aware that realistically there's going to be a long struggle ahead. Waiting, and I stress this, is not necessarily passive. It can be a period of planning, organization, preparation of the public for what will be coming, and that is freedom for all people. Make any sense? TJ >The only really sorta disturbing thing about this paragraph is that it seems >to imply that the way things are is the way they should be, i.e. that >homosexuals should wait longer for their emancipation than blacks, because >they started later. I think homophobia may vanish before racism, and there is >really no way to prove that argument, but there is no way to disprove it >either. Only time will really tell in the end. But as I articulated >earlier...who cares? As long as everybody's free in the end, why should it >matter who gets to go first? Novice: You have a right to that opinion, and you're right about there being no way to prove it. The way things are is probably never the way things should be, but we have to deal with it all the same until it changes. Just out of curiosity, would it have made any difference at all if I had gone for sexism instead of racism? If I had made the statement that this country wouldn't change until it recognized women as equals, and then we could move forward to changing racism and heterosexism? TJ >Sure, supporting one movement probably helps others, but I don't see that as >a reason to support one to the exclusion of others. I'll talk about that in a >second after this next paragraph. Novice: Why does everybody have to take center stage? Why does there even have to be one? It's like the lunch line. Everybody's hungry, and whoever got in line first isn't somehow better than all the people at the end. There isn't an exclusion factor involved, like a social club or something. Sure, everyone could run to the front of the line and demand to be fed at the same time, but that would be less efficient than the order. TJ >That's a lotta "maybe"s. I think it's an interesting theory that focus equals >effectiveness. In terms of legislation or organization, that is most probably >true. But I don't think it holds as true on the individual level. My debate >partner and I spent every aff round arguing for equal rights for poor Russian >women that got forced into prostitution; some would call it an economic >issue, others a matter of gender, and still others a race issue. Indeed it >may be all these things. I don't feel that my advocacy on the behalf of these >individuals diluted the effectiveness of statements I made against racism or >ageism or in favor of gay rights. Never have I been disregarded as a >left-winged hippie...(probably because I am pretty militaristic...) If >anything, I think that the breadth of my advocacy has lended me more >credibility, as I am able to appreciate more perspectives, and therefore >incorporate them. I think that your argument assumes that people only have >the capability to advocate on the behalf of one group and do it well. You >seem to act under the assumption that if I were to ask for multiple social >changes, the result would be that I would do many things and do them badly. >But if we are capable of doing multiple things and doing them well, then why >not? Novice: I've been tried and convicted for making assumptions and firm statements without facts to back it up so I'm stuck in the world of "perhaps", "possibly", "in my opinion", and "maybe". In rounds didn't you have to address those as separate advantages? (just curious) I think there's a limit to spreading yourself out, yes. You may do a million and one things excellently. I just don't think it's very likely. I'm the individual, talking about the movements, to try and change the legislation. I'm a member of both SWE (Society of Women Engineers) and NSBE (National Society of Black Engineers). At a certain point, I'm going to have to choose between each club's functions. Not forever and irrevocably, but if they're having a meeting on the same day, I can't go to both. If both groups are doing tutoring, I'm going to have to pick which group to go with. SWE will do tutoring in the interest of helping young girls in math and science. NSBE will do tutoring in the interest of encouraging minorites, especially black students, to go into engineering and the sciences. Which one is better than the other? Neither. NSBE is just closer to my heart. Why don't I do some sort of intersectional thing and target black females? I think that's way too broken down. I'd like to inculde a large-scale group without including just everybody in the world and diluting my focus. That's my very simplistic take on choosing a movement. TJ Another kinda cool thing about trying to do something right is that only >very rarely can you make the problem worse. I am a firm believer in the >concept that "every little bit helps." Even if everybody is operating at peak >efficiency...things are getting done, and I applaud the efforts of those who >work constructively to bring about social change, be it for the rights of >blacks, whites, latinos, jews, gays, women, children, or animals (for you >vegetarians). Statements saying that there is a right or wrong way to go >about making things better seem to be pretty bold, because since no one group >has achieved complete freedom, we don't know if they are correct or not...and >proving them seems to be very difficult. I think the best way to go is for >everybody to simply do what they can. If we can manage to do that, then I'm >not sure if it matters which issue we work to solve; as they will inevitably >all be solved. Just so I don't get misinterpreted...that last statement is >nothing more than a comment on how much faith I have in you of the debate >community and in human beings in general to eventually move to a more >enlightened state. I think I've taken enough of your time now... Novice: Haven't you ever had someone try to help with something and only get in the way? I can play two instruments... I stick with the one I'm best at. Person X and Person Y (jeez, too much math has me assigning people like variables) want to help with a task. Person X can get it done in 10 minutes flat, Person Y may take an hour, but be really good at doing this other thing. Bad examples, probably, but I'm saying focus is good. Your last statements were so epic I think I'd better just let them stand alone, shining in the annals of edebate history (no sarcasm). And hey, I've got nothing but free time. Thanks for joining the discussion always good to pick fights with new people when you hit brick walls with the old ones (joking) novice Shawnessy to Tejinder (and only half-jokingly to others): Please submit all statements of deep offense separately from the productive messages you would like to send, so that I can send a private apology and publicly respond to impersonal arguments, for the sake of increasing discourse and discussion. For future reference I have been known to: a) make offensive generalizations b) make unfounded assumptions c) use sarcasm to respond to posts I particularly disagree with d) assume people care about my opinions e) be naive and unapologetic f) revive old stuff just because I feel like talking about it g) make mistakes in general Everyone feel free to fill in anything I missed and keep it on hand for reference purposes in case I unintentionally wound your tender feelings. Angelfire for your free web-based e-mail. http://www.angelfire.com From girl-genius Thu Jun 3 22:48:17 1999 From: girl-genius (Shawnessy Scott) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 03:48:17 0000 Subject: The Novice certainly is... Message-ID: accepting all challenges: p.j. bandoleras wrote: >i dont seem to understand what this means. sorry i cute off a little >bit of it..i am not that coordinated as i would like to be. i think >your view of the world being only in a white/black dichtomy is wrong. >It doesnt mean that literally. Actually most of the authors on the >topic seems to lump everyone in the black dichotmoy and then sepreate >the whites. Suprised? I am not ..cause not matter what color you are.. >you have to face the same struggle but in a different way..right ? I'm being set straight by the Hispanic women of the world, I think, so you might as well get a kick or two in. News, though, the black/white dichotomy isn't my view of the world. It's my view of America, and actually America's view of America, I think, that we have just begun to challenge. Somebody mentions hey, did you know Chinese immigrants built the railroad across this country? I do a mental rewind and think about the 2 lines in my American history book that mentioned something to that effect. Slavery and the Civil War were a good chapter or two. Hispanics? Well, I can't remember ever reading anything about Hispanics at all in the American history book, except maybe the Alamo thing. Separating the whites into what? I find myself mildly curious. Yeah, you're right. I was just making an attempt to be honest and say that I had this whole racist train of thought about Hispanic people, which I know little or nothing about. There was no intended offense in that post. (see disclaimer on Ans. Shawnessy post to Tejinder Singh) novice Shawnessy Angelfire for your free web-based e-mail. http://www.angelfire.com From dmag Thu Jun 3 23:13:16 1999 From: dmag (MAGARIEL) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 23:13:16 -0500 Subject: Star Wars 3.......Can't Stop Sucking In-Reply-To: <320bd1a4.24886414@aol.com> Message-ID: A) Number of times "suck" appears in this post - 13 B) Total number of intelligent comments in this post - 0 David On Thu, 3 Jun 1999, John Collins wrote: > Ouch! Slam! I'm hurting now. I thought I was rude and disrespectful, but > look at you people. Should I feel remorse for saying Star Wars sucks? > Probably not because it does such immensely. Am I stupid for saying it > sucks? I don't know, but that's up to you. Just because you people can't > take a little heat doesn't mean you have to take it out on me. I'm generally > a nice guy, but talking about racism in a movie that doesn't even exist is > pretty stupid to me. I'm sorry that you people can't stop sucking. I wish I > could help you get away from the habit of sucking, but it's not my fault you > suck so much. I hope someday you can find a new way of life that is > different from the suckiness your involved in now. If you want to verbally > abuse me, fine I can take it. It's no big deal. Besides I like when people > try to make themselves feel good by telling me I'm stupid. I'm not writing > this e-mail to make you people feel bad(even though you should cause you > suck), I'm just writing it to let you know that your movie is a piece of > crap. I can't help it. George Lucas made the movie not me. Some day all > you people are going to die. When you do please have something on your mind > besides Star Wars. I'll pray for each and every one of you at night. I'll > pray that you'll stop sucking and find a deeper meaning in life other than > Star Wars. > > But let's get a few things straight, so you know where you stand. > > A)You Suck > B)You suck a lot > C)Your movie sucks > D)Your a disgrace to humanity > E)Your never going to achieve anything great in life because you can't seem > to grasp that it's just a movie > F)I could care less about anything anyone of you has to say because you suck > G)I'm sorry that you suck > > Well good luck to all of you on your mission in life. I'd wish you good > luck, but I can't because you suck. > From sjvarda Thu Jun 3 23:24:55 1999 From: sjvarda (Scott J Varda) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 23:24:55 -0500 Subject: Ans. Shawnessy Scott In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >Novice: >None of that conflicts with what I'm saying at all. At least I sure >hope not. I'll try to be a good person in general and not do any of >that, and not allow others around me to do it without me at least saying >something. That collective body of people, I think, is 3 bodies of >people working at their own particular aspect, which is working. It's >like that bill in the legislature that supports something great like >children's education and more benefits for the elderly, but get's >lumped with some other provision or amendment to raise taxes, or some >other thing controversial like abolishing welfare for group X. The >whole thing will be voted down by a vast majority, although each >provision may be good by itself and have a supporting group. Different >kinds of people won't be ready to support the whole thing in its >entirety for various reasons. (I'm hoping a comparison is starting to >take place) Lumping feminists, blacks and Hispanics, and homosexuals >together to fight all oppression in one big group will just get >"voted" down. People won't be able to handle all of it at once, the >societal mindset doesn't change quite that progressively, quickly or >easily. So there has to be a line, sort of, based on what people are >closest to being ready for. The other movements aren't silent, they're >just waiting their turn, aware that realistically there's going to be >a long struggle ahead. Waiting, and I stress this, is not necessarily >passive. It can be a period of planning, organization, preparation of >the public for what will be coming, and that is freedom for all people. >Make any sense? No, it doesn't. The same bullshit was spouted by abolitionists and suffragettes in the pre-civil war period of our country. The same thing happened after the civil war, and around the turn of this century. One group says, "lets fix our problem first," then we'll get to yours." Yeah, maybe it works in terms of legal rights (if you define "works" as changes the way things are over a period of a hundred years or more.) Coop's post was right on. (Sorry if I'm not specifying which one...) How does group "X" know that, after helping secure the freedom for group "Y," group "Y" will return and take up the cause for the freedom of group "X"????? They don't. Instead, coalitional movements are the way to go. Group X, and group Y, and group Z, and all the members of the priveledged white straight male majority who think it is bullshit for their power to be had at the expense of other groups. Who is standing in the way of this mass mobilization? It isn't one group or another keeping one group or another down, it is all of us with priveledges of any sort. Those of us who aren't slowed by society's perception of their race, or their sex, or their gender, or their affinity, or their class-standing, or their age. Do the math. The women who aren't powerful CEO's with a nanny, and perceived as white. PLUS The men and women of this country who are hindered by society's perception of their "race". PLUS Those of us who are held back by their social or class standing. PLUS Those of us who are beaten down by our government or the media for their far left social views. PLUS Those of us who are HATED for the perception of sin in our sexual affinity. PLUS Those of us who are "old." PLUS white, straight, males who refuse to excel on the backs of the masses who aren't white straight or male. Now, I dare you to try and run society without those people. Hell, I dare you to try and run a single state of the union without those people. Why does there have to be "a line"?? Fight it all. Reject it all. Oppression is wrong. If you see it, no matter where. Stop it. Use non-violent resistance, use coercion, use manipulation. Just stop it. And stop this insistence on "my group first!" It robs us all of socially powerful people, who are useful and necessary to stop oppression everywhere. Yes, shawnessy, I heartily include you in that equation. varda -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/19990603/6a123068/attachment.html From hoppock Thu Jun 3 23:29:56 1999 From: hoppock (Matthew Hoppock) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 21:29:56 PDT Subject: why do things "Suck" Message-ID: This is just a little tid-bit of questioning for you all to chew on. I'm not quite sure how many of you care, so I'm going out on a limb here in mentioning it...but hey, what else is edebate for in the summer? I just opened my inbox and found like 30 billion messages most of which had titles that used the word "Sucks". I am not sure how far we've come to question our own language in the debate community (I'm a new member, sorry:), but this is a question that I have been milling over for about a year now. Why do we use the word "sucks" to mean that something is bad? The only real answer I can find relates back to sex. At least where I'm from, "sucks" doesn't mean "sucks eggs" or "Sucks ass"....it usually means "sucks penis". Why do we have to make this referrence? IT almost transforms oral sex into a negative thing...kind of like a type of slavery...It is always associated negatively due to our prevalent use of the word...Why can't we use words like "stinks" or "is stupid"? just a thought, let me know what you think? (as a strict and very strict warning (shawnessy), please don't label me a PC monger or some evil demon of political correctness out to censor you all and tell you what words to say. I'm really only looking for insight from the rest of the community..you can go on using the word if you want) _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com >From Fri Jun 4 00:45:37 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 51341 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 00:47:39 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo27.mx.aol.com (imo27.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.71]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA05220 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 00:47:37 -0400 Received: from AmanK75 at aol.com (3948) by imo27.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id nSRDa26412 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 00:45:38 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 9 Message-ID: <58aa8b5d.2488b3f1 at aol.com> Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 00:45:37 EDT Reply-To: AmanK75 at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: John Collins Subject: Star Wars 4........Let it go Oh sorry about the language. The term "sucks" is vulgar and inhumane. My bad, but there is jsut no other term to use. I don't care about you people. Yet you keep writing replies thinking I do. You suck. Let it go. I did. Have fun, try not to suck, and leave me alone. Keep in mind it's not my fault you suck. >From Fri Jun 4 07:50:27 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 52699 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 08:51:07 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from wfrpc.dst.fl.us (server.wfrpc.dst.fl.us [206.105.46.100]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA17794 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 08:51:05 -0400 Received: from TERM-26 (TERM-26 [206.105.46.84]) by wfrpc.dst.fl.us (NTMail 3.02.09) with ESMTP id la042001 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 07:50:30 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01d) Message-ID: <12502999300026 at wfrpc.dst.fl.us> Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 07:50:27 -0500 Reply-To: chismc at WFRPC.DST.FL.US To: Team Topic Debating in America From: chismc at WFRPC.DST.FL.US Subject: Re: Star Wars 3.......Can't Stop Sucking..neither can your grammar In-Reply-To: <320bd1a4.24886414 at aol.com> mr collins: you do know the difference between "your" and "you're," right? also, i am still waiting for an explanation of WHY star wars sucks........ From jatwood Fri Jun 4 08:08:15 1999 From: jatwood (JeMara J Atwood) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 09:08:15 -0400 Subject: Looking for Rob Burns...... Message-ID: If anyone in knows Rob Burns email address or how I could get in touch with him can you please let me know. Thanks. Je'Mara Atwood From sandra_mcculloug Fri Jun 4 09:01:40 1999 From: sandra_mcculloug (Sandra McCullough) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 14:01:40 GMT Subject: why do things Message-ID: On this whole sux thing, I thought it would be interesting to put this little tid-bit in. I used to use the term "Sucks" in about every conversation, until a certain insightful high school debate coach put the brakes on it. She, too, had your opinion that the word sucks demeans the act of oral sex. She had a different opinion though. She felt that using the term obviously referred to the act of oral sex between gay men. Hence, the terms THAT SUCKS, uselessly demean the character and choice of being gay. Once she explained to me her opinion on the words, I stopped using them. Since that time, I overcame a lot of naivity, and realized that gay men are not the only ones on earth who participate in oral sex. And oral sex is not even a completely homosexual act. At that level, the terms had new meaning to me. THAT SUCKS is a phrase that uselessly demeans a natural act (or not so natural, for those less informed)between two people. Be it an expression of love or lust, it doesn't matter. Using the terminology alone makes the act seem dirty. Just useless information to continue a strange and touchy discussion, Sandra >From: Matthew Hoppock >Reply-To: Matthew Hoppock >To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU >Subject: why do things "Suck" >Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 21:29:56 PDT > >This is just a little tid-bit of questioning for you all to chew on. I'm >not quite sure how many of you care, so I'm going out on a limb here in >mentioning it...but hey, what else is edebate for in the summer? > >I just opened my inbox and found like 30 billion messages most of which had >titles that used the word "Sucks". I am not sure how far we've come to >question our own language in the debate community (I'm a new member, >sorry:), but this is a question that I have been milling over for about a >year now. > >Why do we use the word "sucks" to mean that something is bad? The only >real >answer I can find relates back to sex. At least where I'm from, "sucks" >doesn't mean "sucks eggs" or "Sucks ass"....it usually means "sucks penis". >Why do we have to make this referrence? IT almost transforms oral sex into >a negative thing...kind of like a type of slavery...It is always associated >negatively due to our prevalent use of the word...Why can't we use words >like "stinks" or "is stupid"? > >just a thought, let me know what you think? > >(as a strict and very strict warning (shawnessy), please don't label me a >PC >monger or some evil demon of political correctness out to censor you all >and >tell you what words to say. I'm really only looking for insight from the >rest of the community..you can go on using the word if you want) > > >_______________________________________________________________ >Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com From ewarner Fri Jun 4 09:23:58 1999 From: ewarner (Ede Warner, Jr.) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 10:23:58 -0400 Subject: FW: STILL Looking for Western Kentucky Message-ID: Still trying to garner contact information on Western Kentucky forensics coach? Does anyone know! -----Original Message----- From: Ede Warner, Jr. [SMTP:ewarner at LOUISVILLE.EDU] Sent: Thursday, May 20, 1999 12:14 PM To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU Subject: Looking for Western Kentucky Trying to find out who is the current coach at Western Kentucky. I've heard it is no longer Judy Woodring. Any help. Contact information would be good too. From omcst+ Fri Jun 4 10:12:51 1999 From: omcst+ (Omri M Ceren) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 11:12:51 -0400 Subject: Star Wars 3.......Can't Stop Sucking..neither can your grammar In-Reply-To: <12502999300026@wfrpc.dst.fl.us> Message-ID: On Fri, 4 Jun 1999 chismc at WFRPC.DST.FL.US wrote: > you do know the difference between "your" and "you're," right? I'll take the liberty to speak for Mr. Collins: "No." > also, i am still waiting for an explanation of WHY star wars > sucks........ If I may again presume to speak in Mr. Collins's good name: "It has too many big words." Just trying to help, Omri. ------ Language casts sheaves of reality upon the social body... stamping it and violently shaping it. -- Wittig ------ >From Fri Jun 4 11:19:13 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 54737 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 11:20:23 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo27.mx.aol.com (imo27.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.71]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA22540 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 11:20:21 -0400 Received: from AmanK75 at aol.com (4544) by imo27.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id nYIIa27309 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 11:19:13 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 9 Message-ID: <9468942d.24894871 at aol.com> Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 11:19:13 EDT Reply-To: AmanK75 at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: John Collins Subject: Star Wars....shutup Blah blah blah blah blah. Don't you people ever shutup. Maybe my grammar is bad, who cares? Maybe I'm writing about absolutely nothing, who cares? Maybe I suck, who cares? The fact of the matter is I was just kidding around and you people can't take it. I'm sorry, did I sound to sincere? My bad, I probably should have said what I meant, which was that I don't care about anything going on here. The only reason I started posting was to get you people to stop talking about Jar Jar Binks and racism in Star Wars because the idea of that in itself is stupid. I'm sorry if you can't understand where I'm coming from, although I don't really care. From jtvancle Fri Jun 4 10:37:13 1999 From: jtvancle (VANCLEAVE JEFFREY THOMAS) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 10:37:13 -0500 Subject: Star Wars....shutup In-Reply-To: <9468942d.24894871@aol.com> Message-ID: If you don't care, don't post anymore. Jeff On Fri, 4 Jun 1999, John Collins wrote: > Blah blah blah blah blah. Don't you people ever shutup. Maybe my grammar is > bad, who cares? Maybe I'm writing about absolutely nothing, who cares? > Maybe I suck, who cares? The fact of the matter is I was just kidding around > and you people can't take it. I'm sorry, did I sound to sincere? My bad, I > probably should have said what I meant, which was that I don't care about > anything going on here. The only reason I started posting was to get you > people to stop talking about Jar Jar Binks and racism in Star Wars because > the idea of that in itself is stupid. I'm sorry if you can't understand > where I'm coming from, although I don't really care. > From drake_b Fri Jun 4 10:56:32 1999 From: drake_b (drake_b) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 11:56:32 -0400 Subject: Star Wars and Mr. Collins Message-ID: ===== Original Message From John Collins AmanK75 at AOL.COM ===== >Maybe I suck, who cares? The fact of the matter is I was just kidding around >and you people can't take it. I'm sorry, did I sound to sincere? The word "too" not "to" are not the same. For example contrast the sentence, "Star Wars has too many big words." With the sentence, "Go to Hell, Mr. Collins." Each uses the homophone of "to" also known as "too" "two" and "2" in different ways. The Drake Mercer University >From Fri Jun 4 12:59:42 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 56019 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 13:02:18 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo24.mx.aol.com (imo24.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.68]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA13004 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 13:02:16 -0400 Received: from Sgw8 at aol.com (317) by imo24.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id nZRNa02623 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 12:59:43 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 18 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 12:59:42 EDT Reply-To: Sgw8 at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Darius Wilkins Subject: please quit the invective... Look, my rare fruit elist starts going off on Kashmir...don't ask me how that one got started, but anyways... All 'o y'all need to stop belittlin' Dr. Collin's grammer...elists have never been the spot fo' meticulous spelling or gramma in the first place. Y'all actin' like chilluns desprite to show off how uppity you are. I don't like Mr. Collins attitude, but I have every right to be an asshole and you have every right to ignore me. Darius Wilkins From L_Phillips Fri Jun 4 12:16:39 1999 From: L_Phillips (Leslie Phillips - Lexington High School) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 13:16:39 -0400 Subject: why do things In-Reply-To: <19990604140141.95596.qmail@hotmail.com> Message-ID: 1) For that matter, consider the full implications of "I got fucked" as synonymous with "something horribly unfair happened to me." Or even "fuck you." 2) An entirely different matter: "That sucks" or "That really sucks" used to mean "That's really catastrophic/terrible/disgustingly bad." Now it means, "That's unpleasant." or "That's somewhat inconvenient." Soon it will mean, "That exists." Les Phillips >On this whole sux thing, I thought it would be interesting to put this >little tid-bit in. I used to use the term "Sucks" in about every >conversation, until a certain insightful high school debate coach put the >brakes on it. She, too, had your opinion that the word sucks demeans the >act of oral sex. She had a different opinion though. She felt that using >the term obviously referred to the act of oral sex between gay men. Hence, >the terms THAT SUCKS, uselessly demean the character and choice of being >gay. > >Once she explained to me her opinion on the words, I stopped using them. >Since that time, I overcame a lot of naivity, and realized that gay men are >not the only ones on earth who participate in oral sex. And oral sex is not >even a completely homosexual act. At that level, the terms had new meaning >to me. THAT SUCKS is a phrase that uselessly demeans a natural act (or not >so natural, for those less informed)between two people. Be it an expression >of love or lust, it doesn't matter. Using the terminology alone makes the >act seem dirty. > >Just useless information to continue a strange and touchy discussion, > >Sandra > > >>From: Matthew Hoppock >>Reply-To: Matthew Hoppock >>To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU >>Subject: why do things "Suck" >>Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 21:29:56 PDT >> >>This is just a little tid-bit of questioning for you all to chew on. I'm >>not quite sure how many of you care, so I'm going out on a limb here in >>mentioning it...but hey, what else is edebate for in the summer? >> >>I just opened my inbox and found like 30 billion messages most of which had >>titles that used the word "Sucks". I am not sure how far we've come to >>question our own language in the debate community (I'm a new member, >>sorry:), but this is a question that I have been milling over for about a >>year now. >> >>Why do we use the word "sucks" to mean that something is bad? The only >>real >>answer I can find relates back to sex. At least where I'm from, "sucks" >>doesn't mean "sucks eggs" or "Sucks ass"....it usually means "sucks penis". >>Why do we have to make this referrence? IT almost transforms oral sex into >>a negative thing...kind of like a type of slavery...It is always associated >>negatively due to our prevalent use of the word...Why can't we use words >>like "stinks" or "is stupid"? >> >>just a thought, let me know what you think? >> >>(as a strict and very strict warning (shawnessy), please don't label me a >>PC >>monger or some evil demon of political correctness out to censor you all >>and >>tell you what words to say. I'm really only looking for insight from the >>rest of the community..you can go on using the word if you want) >> >> >>_______________________________________________________________ >>Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com > > >_______________________________________________________________ >Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com From kjast13+ Fri Jun 4 12:26:57 1999 From: kjast13+ (Kevin Ayotte) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 13:26:57 -0400 Subject: The novice and COOP Message-ID: I am more than confident that COOP is more than capable of handling this thread, but it looked like so much fun that I just couldn't resist jumping in. It conjures up memories of that lovely list discussion that cropped up around the Ellen show :) Shawnessy Scott wrote: >>Coop: Why do you exhibit such liberational jealosy (to coin a term) - that >>is, why does ANYone's liberation threaten your own? And, for your >>information, the queer social movement has been around for far more than 10 >>years. Even so...as your statements below so crduely demonstrate...we've >>got a long LONG way to go, so I wouldn't worry about us beating the women's >>movement to the "freedom finish line". > >Because IT ALL CAN'T COME AT ONCE. It is absolutely not logically possible. >It isn't jealousy, it's more like selfishness actually. Not that being >selfish is better. This still makes no sense, as Chris has been arguing. Are you defending a theory of "rights fatigue," where the public will simply get tired of all these different rights claims by different groups and nothing will be accomplished? Sucks to defens a self-defeating theory like that, since it certainly doesn't leave much hope for those who don't make it to that finish-line first. I don't want to speak for COOP, but the point of the critique of identity politics to which he is referring is that most oppressions are related. You don't really do much about sexism if black women are still looked at as sexualized slaves (in the office or as "welfare queens"), and you don't do much about sexism if homophobia remains unchallenged. A significant part of homophobia is derived from the fear of challenged gender norms, norms which constrain straight women as much as they do gey men or transsexuals or any other gendered "category." Incrementalism might be the sad fact of policy changes, but that doesn't disallow movement strategies that push the boundary ahead of that wave against all types of oppression. I believe you mentioned earlier [in a part that i snipped] that laws are the "benchmark" of social change - that's the point, laws tend to follow the attitude changes that make politically possible the change in legislative voting. > Define far more than 10 years, please, I'd be interested >in hearing that bit of history I missed (seriously). The Mattachine Society was one of the initial gay rights organizations, founded in the 1950s in San Francisco (I believe, I don't have my references available). Beyond that there was the Gay Liberation Front, long before the queer nation stuff of the 1980s. Even the Stonewall Riots occurred in 1969. If you want to get technical, one can find earlier movements, but my point is that this 10 year history is a bit off. > And your last >sentence is exactly my point. I haven't gotten around to digesting your >"queer" dissertation but I'm always up for education. > You might want to wade through it. Chris' explanation supports many of the arguments he is making on the movements/finish-line stuff above. > > >>Coop: Wow. Scary. But keep trying...you might stumble upon composition >>one of these days. > >*sigh* I take it you weren't impressed. >Oh, well. > >>Coop: What is "the sexual practice" of homosexuality? I thought >>"homosexuality" designated a particular sexual orientation, not a particular >>sexual practice. Please clarify - and shed some light on why you think it's >>disgusting. > >I guess I'm stumbling around this homosexuality stuff because I don't speak >the language. I was trying to clarify that I am against two people of the >same sex engaging in sexual relations with one another, consensual or not. That's >as explicit as I can be. Disgusting is by no means a scientific term. I just >think it's really nasty and it turns my stomach. Does that mean I run and hide >from gay people and make rude comments about them? Not at all. People can >do whatever they want, as long as they don't do it around me. Before you jump >at that, here's another terrible example. My roommate is a Seventh Day Adventist >and therefore doesn't eat meat. So I don't buy any hamburgers or anything >and chow down in front of her. I think it's the same deal. > I'm not sure this discussion really had to come out, but your statements below seem to justify COOP's prompting here. If we take your explanation immediately above seriously, I guess I might agree to a certain extent. I probably wouldn't have particularly wanted to see a man and woman having sex in my dorm room, and I probably wouldn't want to see two men having sex right in front of me (during my normal daily routine as opposed to some porn:) ), but I don't think our aesthetic preferences for public displays of affection was Chris' point in asking this question about what it is you find "disgusting." Perhaps the larger point is that this response examplifies all of the bad things about "tolerance" that COOP has already cited. What if the analogy were that I thought African-Americans were really kind of disgusting and didn't want to see them in my personal presence? I might tolerate civil rights, but what if I never wanted them as my friends, co-workers, teachers, etc? Would you be content with that kind of social change? What is the limit of "seeing homesexuality" - two people of the same-sex holding hands, kissing, any of those other assorted behaviors that straight couple do EVERYWHERE without the slightest thought that they might get beaten up or killed because of that PDA? Perhaps reading COOP's explanation of "queerness" really would help, because it seems that the "root" of the problem that you kept referring to above has a lot more to do with the general creation of abject, despised groups, of all sorts of colors, races, genders, and sexualities, than the oppression of singular group categories (it just happens in slightly different ways). >>Personally, I can find no expression of love between two human beings to be >>"disgusting" - but that's me. As for the manifestation of that expression, >>I don't presume to know what forms that takes between people and I certainly >>don't care enough to have an opinion on it. Why do you? > >I don't know anything about their relationships but I'm sure some love is >involved somewhere, like all relationships. People of the same sex can love >each other. Interesting question about why I care. I often ask myself why I >persist in sharing my opinions here when no one particularly wants to hear >them. I'm sorry but that kind of love manifestation is just as wrong as >adultery, where a married person and someone other than his/her spouse love >each other and may want to express it in some way. If you think so what about >that then we really have no basis for conversation. It would be like me >quoting Bible verses to a Hindu to try and back up my arguments. > You're a fan of Trent Lott's, aren't you? The equation of homosexuality (I'm using your referent terms, but I tend to think Trent would find them just as applicable to many other aspects of "queerness," don't you?) with "adultery," and "alcoholism" below, only left out Trent's reference to kleptomania or you would have had a home run. I'm actually having a very tough time getting around the condescending tone of this last section, so let me work through it. "Their relationships" is a fascinating maneuver to otherize and categorize an entire range of queer people under this umbrella of what you explain here. The sheer arrogance of suggesting that "their relationships" "must have love in there somewhere" really suggests there must be something unique and special about heterosexual relationships. Is it the glowing love you see at frat. parties, where men truly respect the women they get drunk? Or perhaps its the low rate of divorce among heterosexual marriages that proves the unique capacity of one man and one woman to love each other. Whatever. I'm not going to say there aren't an awful lot of promiscuity in the gay community (as if that were some kind of moral judgment anyway), but it is simply DISINGENUOUS to posit some kind of unique capability for loving in heterosexual relationships. Perhaps we wouldn't have much of a basis for conversation about this, but I find your side of the discourse wholly insufficient, so I think I'll share my side. >>Unnatural? Please explain? Does this mean that you think it is not >>consistent with the expression of love between two people in the state of >>nature? Does that mean that you hold the same opinions about the use of >>condoms or, say, having sex in a bed? > >I think it is absolutely unnatural. I hate to pull the "Adam and Eve not >Adam and Steve" example. In another way, mating in nature is always a >process to reproduce. There is sexual production and asexual production. >There is no homosexual reproduction. In regards to relationships involving >heterosexuals where one may be sterile, nature may or may not have had >anything to do with the reason they can't have kids. As far as the studies >on flux and increase in homosexual relationships during periods of >overpopulation... nothing concrete has been proven, just as it has not >been concretely proven that homosexuals do not have some choice in >deciding their sexual orientation. I'm sure quite a lot of people can >appreciate the beauty of God's creations, male and female, and may during >a point in their lives go through experimentation where they explore their >sexuality. Inclinations toward homosexuality are, I think, like genetic >tendencies towards alcoholism. You may have a weakness, but it's up to you >to choose to fight it or not fight it. I have all sorts of opinions about >contraceptives but I can honestly say that I don't sit around contemplating >where and in what manner people should or shouldn't have sex. Automatically >public places are out, I think, as a general rule, and same-sex or other >immoral sex is just wrong. Well, this is always a fun debate. Strap in. If you actually want to defend reproduction as the sole basis for sexual activity, fine, but you're on the losing side of that battle. If you start throwing Biblical verses at me, I guess we really won't be having a conversation, but I'm fairly confident that the debate community won't be persuaded by my "God will intervene to stop nuclear war" cards on the Clinton Disad next year. So, let's talk about sex. Do you honestly want to defend procreation as the intent behind every legitimate sex act? Don't tell me you'd condemn your parents for doing it just to have fun? Why do men go to strip clubs or watch "Baywatch"? I doubt it's because they really intend to procreate with those women (actually reproduce children, not just the fun of trying). Sex is also about emotional and physical attachment, independent of reproduction, and it certainly happens in straight, as well as queer, relationships. If you want some more fun on the biology of sex, check out Bruce Bagemihl's _Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity_, St. Martin's Press. Same-sex pairings and couplings occur across many different species in nature. I'm not going to follow this nature argument to the end, because the very concept of what is "natural" is suspect itself. We've learned alot from attempts to establish a "natural" order of racial/ethnic hierarchies, and the warrant for a government enforcing a particular concept of the natural has simply NEVER been demonstrated. I'm really disappointed to see these conversations happening in a community I consider to generally be considerably more enlightened. We debate about questions of domestic and foreign policy, and there are brilliant minds on this debate circuit. But I've never, ever understood exactly what one gets out denigrating another group of people. There are lots of people I don't like in the world, but I can't think of very many that I've called "disgusting" in a public discussion. Perhaps Milosevic, for promoting genocide, or the men who dragged Baird to his death in Texas, or the guys who crucified Matthew Shepard. Perhaps it's just because I've never been remotely compelled by the religious side of this issue, but I always wonder exactly what people like this have to get out of their position on the "unnaturalness" of anything but heterosexuality. What exactly do you hope to get out of your advocacy? I always ask that every time I write a block for my team or that I make an argument in a public forum, and I've never found the rhetorical justification of the continued oppression of any group of people to be a laudable goal. >the novice >Shawnessy > > Kevin Ayotte University of Pittsburgh From tinman Fri Jun 4 13:20:13 1999 From: tinman (Nick Teman) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 13:20:13 -0500 Subject: University of Florida Debate Message-ID: Hello, would someone involved with the debate program at the University of Florida please backchannel me? I have a few questions. Thank you very much, Nick Teman Niceville High Debate >From Fri Jun 4 14:40:46 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 58051 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 14:41:22 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo20.mx.aol.com (imo20.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.10]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA23226 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 14:41:21 -0400 Received: from AKing50 at aol.com (3936) by imo20.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id nTMBa07332 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 14:40:46 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 10 Message-ID: <40c4d202.248977ae at aol.com> Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 14:40:46 EDT Reply-To: AKing50 at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Tony King Subject: Looking for Whalen Shawn, backchannel me Tony King ADOF Pepperdine From treadwaygj Fri Jun 4 14:24:45 1999 From: treadwaygj (Glenda Treadaway) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 15:24:45 -0400 Subject: Nonpolicy resolutions Message-ID: Dear Debate community, After an email conversation with Ken Broda-Bahm, he has given me premission to post to the listserve his suggestions for non-policy resolutions. Thanks to Ken for giving this some thought and allowing me to post it. Glenda > Kenneth T. Broda-Bahm wrote: > > > > What follows is some unsolicited advice on non-policy topics for the > > ballot this year. While I am as interested as anyone in the topic which > > will likely dominate national competition this year, I feel some > > responsibility as the by-law amendment author to comment on the > > non-policy topic. While this isn't a formal topic paper, I do want to > > discuss some of the issues and literatures raised in other topic papers > > and put a non-policy spin on them. > > > > Process > > > > First a word on the process itself. The by-law change states that, "In > > early July the committee will report to the Executive Secretary no fewer > > than three resolutions corresponding to the winning topic area in each > > of the following categories: > > a. . Policy resolutions phrased so as to affirm the value of future and > > specific governmental change, and suggesting a broad but predictable > > array of potential affirmative plans. > > b. Non-policy resolutions phrased so as to generally affirm the truth > > or value of an idea, condition or action, but not to simply affirm the > > desirability or worth of future change." > > > > The first item of note is that the change requires two separate slates > > of ballots. Josh Hoe recently wrote "The topic committee will develop a > > non-policy version of all of the > > potential topics at the June 16-18th meeting in St Louis" but that is > > not required. The list of non- policy topics does not need to parallel > > the list of policy topic - e.g., it isn't required that you produce a > > policy version and a non-policy version of each. Instead there should > > be a list of good policy topics (3 or more) and a list of good > > non-policy topics (3 or more, though I would recommend that you just > > stick to 3, since there isn't yet a huge demand for variety here and it > > would be better to keep the list limited to the best three). > > > > Secondly, in describing what a "non-policy" topic is, this language > > calls for neither a vague endorsement of a policy direction as > > "justified" nor a comparison of abstract terms of value. A non-policy > > topic, as much as a policy topic, can be based on the concrete issues > > which infuse the topic-area literature. The chief functional difference > > should be that the topic does not entail an affirmative plan. The > > intent behind this proposal was to allow a forum for debate on a focused > > issue within the topic area, avoiding the specificity of negative > > preparation which is required by a parametric resolution which entails > > multiple plans. The goal is to foster intelligent debate on a question > > which is more friendly to generic preparation on both sides of the > > resolution. > > > > My goal in this letter is to suggest some possible wordings and to mount > > a preliminary defense of their debatability. First, I need to admit > > that I am not yet steeped in topic literature, but I think we should > > remember that non-policy questions are not characterized by a separate > > literature. The articles cited in the topic area paper address > > questions wich are both non-policy (are sanctions effective?) and policy > > (should we increase engagement?) in nature. > > > > Reactions to currently proposed non-policy wordings > > > > The Hernandez/Mancuso paper can be credited for not focusing exclusively > > on policy questions. Perhaps thinking that the ballot would include one > > non-policy topic, as has been the previous practice, the authors > > included three arguably non-policy topics. I'd like to comment on these > > topics, then look at Josh Hoe's proposed non-policy topic, and finally > > move on to some suggestions of my own. > > > > "Resolved: American notions of terrorism should be redefined" > > > > This strikes me as an extraordinarily loose phrasing. "Terrorism" is a > > very fluid term which is already being continually redefined to > > accommodate new threats, new technologies, new political interests. > > Negating would functionally require proving that present definitions are > > perfect. In addition, the topic is non-directional, contains an > > definitionally imprecise and plural subject (notions). It seems clear > > that this topic is designed to capture the content of the language > > critique of "terrorist" labeling, but it seems unnecessary for the topic > > language to do this. It seems that any debate on this topic area will > > include the potential for such a critique, if for no other reason than > > that the topic countries are drawn from a list of state sponsors of > > terrorism. > > > > "International economic freedom should outweigh narrow national security > > interests." > > > > Ignoring the biased wording entailed in requiring the negative to defend > > "narrow" interests, it seems too easy to demonstrate that economic > > freedom promotes national security. While a topic focusing on > > international versus national foreign policy goals make sense, it seems > > inevitable that a resolution which required debaters to treat national > > interests and international interests _as if the two were independent_ > > would ultimately fail in the face of a thousand cards showing that the > > U.S. wins when the world wins. > > > > "Resolved: Realist threat construction of rogue states is a > > self-fulfilling prophesy." > > > > A principal problem with this topic is that the negative is required to > > defend, not threats themselves, but "threat construction" a phrase which > > is extensively defined in critical geo- politics literatures and is > > generally understood as meaning the rhetorical evocation of enemies, > > scenarios, and risks. The non-reality of such "threats" is part and > > parcel of common definitions of "threat construction." Most threat > > construction authors also seem to agree that it is a self- fulfilling > > prophesy to at least some degree. The problem is that realists defend > > the existence of _threats_, but they don't defend the value of "threat > > construction." In order to focus on the threats versus threat > > construction debate, it would make more sense to phrase the resolution > > something like, "Resolved: that the threat posed by rogue states is more > > rhetorically evoked than real." Still, consistent with my reaction to > > the first topic, it seems unnecessary to base the resolution on one > > critique when grounds for that critique will exist for most topics which > > can be predicted under this area. > > > > Of the ~Qcommissioned' topic papers posted so far (6), only the paper > > written by Josh Hoe includes a non-policy wording: > > > > "Resolved: That increased nonproliferation efforts are more effective > > than increased engagement of proliferant states." > > > > This topic seems to presume an opposition between "engagement" and > > "nonproliferation efforts," which I am not sure the literature would > > support. If engagement promotes stability, and stability promotes > > non-proliferation (both seem to be reasonable claims), then wouldn't > > engagement be a nonproliferation "effort"? In addition to the > > inevitable union of the two sides of the resolution, this topic is also > > worded so as to call for an "increase" of specific "efforts" from the > > affirmative, so it seems predictable that this topic would involve the > > same planning (& perhaps the same plans) as would the policy resolution, > > as well as some degree of parameterization regarding which "proliferant > > states" one discussed. To promote better opposition, a word like > > "sanctions" could be substituted for "efforts" but my second objection > > remains. A quasi-policy resolution calling for the defense of action > > and direction from the affirmative would not meet our goal of fostering > > debate in two different formats. > > > > I believe that it is inevitable that the framing of the non-policy topic > > will receive less attention than the policy topic. Rightly so - the > > majority of our debates will center on the policy topic, the topic which > > unites us with NDT. At the same time, it would be a shame if an > > experiment in broadening our debate offering suffered due to a > > hastily-prepared resolution. I don't believe that the above resolutions > > would lead to very good debates. I have some suggestions. > > > > Proposed Topics > > > > A. Resolved: that United States foreign policy reliance on economic > > sanctions against rogue nations is unethical. > > > > Focusing on the practice of attempting to bring about governmental > > change by arguably holding a nation's economy and civilian livelihood at > > ransom, this topic invokes the classic dispute between consequentialist > > and deontic theories of obligation while at the same time being grounded > > in the more practical issue of the efficacy and worth of sanctions as a > > policy instrument. I believe that this topic would possess several > > advantages. > > 1. It would meet the goal of promoting focused but non-parametric > > debate. The resolution calls for an ethical judgement of present > > policy, not a proposal of future policy. While a logical implication > > of criticizing sanctions may be the elimination or alteration of > > sanctions, affirmatives would not be reasonably required to explain > > exactly what, if anything, should replace economic sanctions. If > > sanctions are considered unethical, then the _next_ question would be > > determine what should replace them, but the initial assessment should > > not depend on the alternative invoked. Even if affirmatives opted to > > defend a specific replacement for economic sanctions, negatives would > > still retain the generic ground of defending economic sanctions as at > > least ethical if not desirable. > > 2. Economic sanctions can be considered the heart of the topic. A > > brief review of topic literature indicates that Josh Hoe is right that > > one of the most common impact areas is nuclear proliferation, but one of > > the most common link areas is surely economic sanctions. Evidence on > > economic sanctions is easily researched and abundant. > > 3. The wording is balanced. "Reliance on" rather than "use of" for > > example, makes the issue less absolute and denies the negative the > > opportunity to disprove by showing one instance of ethical sanctions. > > Specifying "foreign policy" as well as "against rogue nations" also > > limits the ethical dispute to the topic area. > > > > B. Resolved: that, on balance, sanctions against state sponsors of > > terrorism have been ineffective. > > > > Focusing on the utility rather than the ethics of sanctions, this second > > suggested topic would ask affirmatives to generally indict the utility > > of sanctions toward rogue nations. I see the following advanatages. > > 1. As in the case of topic A, the resolution has the advantage of > > focusing on sanctions - arguably, the most general issue involved in our > > dealings with these nations. > > 2. Also as in the case of topic A, the resolution calls for a general > > assessment of current policy, rather than the proposal of future > > policy. Again, there may be clear implications along with the > > assumption that ineffective policies should be abandoned. Strictly > > read, however, the resolution would not require the affirmative to > > detail a program for replacing sanctions. In addition, the phrase "on > > balance" should prevent affirmatives from attempting proof by seizing on > > a particular sanction or set of sanctions. Many sources within the > > literature generally address the issue of sanctions on the whole (see > > bibliography). > > > > C. Resolved: that constructive engagement has been underemphasized in > > United States foreign policy toward rogue nations. > > > > This topic follows the pattern set by the first two of calling for a > > static assessment of current policy, this time focusing more > > specifically on constructive engagement. Constructive engagement, like > > economic sanctions, is a general issue within the topic area and it > > seems reasonable to predict that it will be debatable both as a general > > concept and as it regards our overall policy toward the topic nations. > > 1. Again, the topic does not require planning. Increased constructive > > engagement is the clear implication, but an advocate would not need to > > detail a program of engagement in order to logically warrant the claim > > that currently engagement has been underemphasized. > > 2. This topic may be more balanced and more realistic in the sense that > > it does not call for an absolute judgement on current sanctions-based > > policy. They are not required to be proven absolutely > > ethical/unethical, absolutely effective/ineffective. Instead the focus > > is on whether they have been relied upon too much in the given political > > context. > > > > A Few Comments on Wordings > > > > 1. The object phrase of the resolution (e.g., ~Qstate sponsors of > > terrorism;' ~Qrogue states/nations;' a list of countries; what list?) is > > likely to be the subject of intense discussion at the topic committee > > meeting. I believe that the object phrase which is considered most > > debatable can easily be inserted into the above topics in order to a.) > > create consistency across the topic choices; or b.) represent variety > > for the purpose of the ballot. > > 2. The evaluative term in all of the proposed resolutions might > > properly be considered vague. "Unethical," "ineffective," > > "underemphasized" are all fairly subjective terms which would not be > > much improved upon through standard dictionary definitions. Apart from > > being an inevitability, I believe that this is a strength and not a > > weakness in non-policy wordings. It should remember that a common, and > > I think sensible strategy on non-policy topics is to advocate and defend > > a criterion for resolutional evaluation. In other words, the question > > os "what standard should we use in assessing the ethics, the > > effectiveness, or the appropriate emphasis of a foreign policy?" is a > > question which should be debated and not simply "solved" through the > > framing of the resolution. > > > > Bibliography > > > > Based on a quick review, the following recent sources seem to generally > > address the issues of sanctions, constructive engagement, and an > > evaluative assessment of current policy. > > > > "Sanctions of mass destruction" Foreign Affairs, May-June, 1999; > > > > "Just sanctions" Human Rights Quarterly, Feb. 1999; > > > > "What sanctions epidemic?" Foreign Affairs, Jan-Feb., 1999). > > > > "Trade embargoes, sanctions and blockades - Some overlooked human > > rights issues" Journal of World Trade, August 1998. > > > > "Political pain and civilian gain - Humanitarian impacts of economic > > sanctions" International Journal, Summer 1998. > > > > "Revisiting Economic Sanctions Reconsidered" Journal of Peace Research, > > 1998. > > > > "Why economic sanctions still do not work." International Security, > > Summer 1998. > > > > "The sanctions glass - Half full or completely empty?" International > > Security, Summer 1998. > > > > "The corporate takeover of foreign policy. The sanctions sellout." New > > Republic, May 25 1998. > > > > "What is wrong with inflicting shame sanctions?" Yale Law Journal, Jan. > > 1998. > From Regina.Paulose Fri Jun 4 14:30:11 1999 From: Regina.Paulose (Regina Menachery Paulose) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 15:30:11 -0400 Subject: Shawnessy-another miami answer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 4 Jun 1999, Shawnessy Scott wrote: > I don't want to mangle your name too badly, so can I just call > you TJ for now? Terrible anglo-ization or whatever, but nothing's > badly meant by it. > read on: Indian girl: Umm... I dont seem to understand this. Why cant you just write his name? You seem to have enough time on your hands to continue this thread... > Novice: > Please don't misunderstand anything I say as trivializing a movement. > I don't enjoy making people feel small. The original original post I > made was all about MY thinking. The biggest issue in my mind is racism. > The biggest issue in Veronica's mind is feminism, I think. The biggest > issue in someone else's mind may be gay rights. It isn't a race, it's > a stair-step deal. We make progress, they make progress based on our > progress. Not that they can't make it in new and different areas, but > it will all come back to this, or back to Ghandi, or whoever happened > to be the "first" in line and gave the world/nation these novel new > principles, or proved that this is or is not the way to get your rights. > In a perfect world, in our minds, and in this discussion "it simply > matters that equality for human beings arrives." That's important. We > should hold these ideals, and I never dispute that one, but there's > going to have to be a first, a groundbreaker, a pioneer, a revolution > based on those firsts, and... whatever the heck it is I was trying to > say before about the order thing. > GINA: I am having a hard time understanding what you are saying here. I have to admit you have done well in pissing off a couple of my teammates. But I will continue to read this post becuase i am attempting to understand what you are saying about the natural order of rights. > Novice: > None of that conflicts with what I'm saying at all. At least I sure > hope not. I'll try to be a good person in general and not do any of > that, and not allow others around me to do it without me at least saying > something. That collective body of people, I think, is 3 bodies of > people working at their own particular aspect, which is working. It's > like that bill in the legislature that supports something great like > children's education and more benefits for the elderly, but get's > lumped with some other provision or amendment to raise taxes, or some > other thing controversial like abolishing welfare for group X. The > whole thing will be voted down by a vast majority, although each > provision may be good by itself and have a supporting group. Different > kinds of people won't be ready to support the whole thing in its > entirety for various reasons. (I'm hoping a comparison is starting to > take place) Lumping feminists, blacks and Hispanics, and homosexuals > together to fight all oppression in one big group will just get > "voted" down. People won't be able to handle all of it at once, the > societal mindset doesn't change quite that progressively, quickly or > easily. So there has to be a line, sort of, based on what people are > closest to being ready for. The other movements aren't silent, they're > just waiting their turn, aware that realistically there's going to be > a long struggle ahead. Waiting, and I stress this, is not necessarily > passive. It can be a period of planning, organization, preparation of > the public for what will be coming, and that is freedom for all people. > Make any sense? Regina: Umm...there is a line ??? Ummm...so have you seen one for the persecuted 3 world women anywhere? Cause i would love to help in trying to organize our fight. I mean we keep getting told by many western feminists that the way we live our lives is wrong. When exactly...is it our turn ? Do you have the appointment book ? can you pencil me in? (Please note the sarcasm). > Novice: > You have a right to that opinion, and you're right about there being no > way to prove it. The way things are is probably never the way things > should be, but we have to deal with it all the same until it changes. > Just out of curiosity, would it have made any difference at all if I > had gone for sexism instead of racism? If I had made the statement that > this country wouldn't change until it recognized women as equals, and > then we could move forward to changing racism and heterosexism? > Reg: I think had you gone for sexism you still would have brought this many people into it..cause you probably would have said there is a line for the type of women who can fight for their rights first before others. Novice: > Why does everybody have to take center stage? Why does there even have > to be one? It's like the lunch line. Everybody's hungry, and whoever > got in line first isn't somehow better than all the people at the end. > There isn't an exclusion factor involved, like a social club or > something. Sure, everyone could run to the front of the line and > demand to be fed at the same time, but that would be less efficient > than the order. Regi: I wish that you really hadnt said this. I mean this whole time I was thinking to myself...no...that cant be right. She would not place a heirarchy on people who have been oppressed by heirarchies..but you did. Well I dont like your lunch line. And your wrong in thinking that your lunch line doesnt have an exclusion factor. It excludes anyone to going up to the front of the line. How do you measure who belongs there ? I think that for a fact there were others who were persecuted before the groups you claim were. What about the subordination of the east by the west ? What happened to all those people ? Did you just forget about them? Or did they already have their turn ? Damn..dont tell me I missed that one. Oh and by the way... if your lunch line was in miami...GIRL ! I can tell you now you wouldnt have an order or any coherence to it. It would be all the people with money first and the rest of "us" last. > Novice: > I've been tried and convicted for making assumptions and firm statements > without facts to back it up so I'm stuck in the world of "perhaps", > "possibly", "in my opinion", and "maybe". In rounds didn't you have > to address those as separate advantages? (just curious) I think there's > a limit to spreading yourself out, yes. You may do a million and one > things excellently. I just don't think it's very likely. I'm the > individual, talking about the movements, to try and change the > legislation. I'm a member of both SWE (Society of Women Engineers) and > NSBE (National Society of Black Engineers). At a certain point, I'm > going to have to choose between each club's functions. Not forever > and irrevocably, but if they're having a meeting on the same day, I > can't go to both. If both groups are doing tutoring, I'm going to have > to pick which group to go with. SWE will do tutoring in the interest of > helping young girls in math and science. NSBE will do tutoring in the > interest of encouraging minorites, especially black students, to go > into engineering and the sciences. Which one is better than the other? > Neither. NSBE is just closer to my heart. Why don't I do some sort of > intersectional thing and target black females? I think that's way too > broken down. I'd like to inculde a large-scale group without including > just everybody in the world and diluting my focus. That's my very > simplistic take on choosing a movement. Geenah: Can you explain how that analogy fits into your argument ? And i find it appalling that you feel it would "dilute" your focus to focus on other groups. When you help someone...I hope you dont sit there and think to yourself..."ohhhh nooo ! I cant help her...she is not a black female"...I mean this is at least what this paragraph seems to indicate. My focus on helping the plight of women of the 3w doesnt only narrow down to indian women. I have to agree though with you... simplistic.. you take is. waiting to get an appointment... geenah From Regina.Paulose Fri Jun 4 14:31:41 1999 From: Regina.Paulose (Regina Menachery Paulose) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 15:31:41 -0400 Subject: Nonpolicy resolutions In-Reply-To: <375827FD.EAEAE64C@conrad.appstate.edu> Message-ID: i would appreciate it if someone could explain what the advantage to having a non policy resolution would be ? peace reg ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Between stimulus and response is our greatest power--the freedom to choose. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From chandra.garrett Fri Jun 4 14:40:55 1999 From: chandra.garrett (Chandra Garrett) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 13:40:55 -0600 Subject: Star Wars....shutup In-Reply-To: <9468942d.24894871@aol.com> Message-ID: I don't get it. Seriously, I'm not really concerned about Mr. Collins' grammar or even perhaps the pointless insults in all of his posts. What I don't get is, why does he keep posting to a debate listserve? I've been quiet for a good long while, now, because Lord knows my mouth (or my keyboard, rather :) has gotten me into a number of silly flame wars. But something from one of Mr. Collins' earlier posts has stuck in my mind: his comments against edebate in general for not having anything better to do than discuss Star Wars and debate theory. Hm. Mr. Collins, my personal challenge to you is this: go to a camp this summer. Learn some debate theory. Cut some cards, get sucked (no pun intended) into the debate world and learn what a supportive and wonderful community it can be. Wow, I miss it already. Anyway, I'm headed out of town so this is prob'ly lousy timing on my behalf, but I think that if Mr. Collins' passion could be (ha ha) used for good, instead of evil, he could be a real asset to the community. Off to the beautiful mountains... Chandra (formerly) ENMU Debate Durango HS asst. coach p.s. Ken, would you backchannel me, please; Sandi may have mentioned that I need to get an address from you. Thanks. ************************************************************************ "There cannot be a crisis this week. My schedule is already full." Henry Kissinger, telling the story of my life "God made all the stars out of nothing. He just went pppbbbllttht! and there they were!" Larry the Cucumber, revealing the wonders of God to Jr. Asparagus "Well. I'd say that about does it, Spooky." A dispenser of wisdom and liquor to Mulder, "Fight the Future" From shummell Fri Jun 4 14:59:49 1999 From: shummell (Shawn Hummell) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 12:59:49 -0700 Subject: Becky's Memorial Service Message-ID: Friends - The family, as of yesterday, has decided to hold a service this Saturday at the Seattle World Trade Center In Belltown Seattle. The address is 2200 Alaskan Way and can be found using mapquest.com. For driving directions, simply enter your starting address and destination and a detailed map will be provided. The time of the service will be between 4-630p. There will a half hour of time for speakers and the rest will be spent in a social reception with food and drink. The family invites all of those who would like to come and celebrate Becky's life. Shawn From awsst10+ Fri Jun 4 15:14:52 1999 From: awsst10+ (Andrew W Stangl) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 16:14:52 -0400 Subject: Pat Gehrke or Delete Message-ID: could you backchannel me, i have some questions about the campus discussion you held over same sex benefits. thanks Live from South Oakland, Andrew Stangl >From Fri Jun 4 16:46:37 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 59490 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 16:48:29 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo29.mx.aol.com (imo29.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.73]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA14062 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 16:48:28 -0400 Received: from ROTCGyrl at aol.com (14412) by imo29.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id nOCCa12236 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 16:46:42 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 13 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 16:46:37 EDT Reply-To: ROTCGyrl at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Debbie Prieto Subject: Shawnessy- Yet another miami answer > > I've been tried and convicted for making assumptions and firm statements > > without facts to back it up so I'm stuck in the world of "perhaps", > > "possibly", "in my opinion", and "maybe". In rounds didn't you have > > to address those as separate advantages? (just curious) I think there's > > a limit to spreading yourself out, yes. You may do a million and one > > things excellently. I just don't think it's very likely. I'm the > > individual, talking about the movements, to try and change the > > legislation. I'm a member of both SWE (Society of Women Engineers) and > > NSBE (National Society of Black Engineers). At a certain point, I'm > > going to have to choose between each club's functions. Not forever > > and irrevocably, but if they're having a meeting on the same day, I > > can't go to both. If both groups are doing tutoring, I'm going to have > > to pick which group to go with. SWE will do tutoring in the interest of > > helping young girls in math and science. NSBE will do tutoring in the > > interest of encouraging minorites, especially black students, to go > > into engineering and the sciences. Which one is better than the other? > > Neither. NSBE is just closer to my heart. Why don't I do some sort of > > intersectional thing and target black females? I think that's way too > > broken down. I'd like to inculde a large-scale group without including > > just everybody in the world and diluting my focus. That's my very > > simplistic take on choosing a movement. Why don't you? Why don't you start a National Society for Black Women Engineers? If this is something that you feel so strongly about, then who gives a flying shit if it's "too broken down"? Don't wait for everything to be handed to you. Don't wait for the others to "liberate" you. Don't expect for things to be cut in black and white.. for there are shades inbetween (take that literally and figuratively). Don't Moo. Just Move. Do something that will help you work out the issues you are experiencing. On an overall note, don't take a high horse attitude. You're not the first to feel "different" by being an intersectional minority, nor will you be the last. Take action if there's something that really pisses you off. Bitching on Edebate is good therapy, however, it will accomplish little else. Regina, Veronica and I are only but a few women/wimmin/womyn of this world who have experienced the SAME thing that you feel about your issues of race AND gender. We are not here to make enemies... just to open your eyes to other intersectional experiences. Moving it or losing it, An equality feminist who's not afraid to speak what's true. AKA: The Militant Hispanic PS: I'll actually be on vacation, so I'll have to TEAR myself away from this discussion for a few. Enjoy! From lsims Fri Jun 4 14:56:17 1999 From: lsims (Laura Sims) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 14:56:17 -0500 Subject: Position Announcement Message-ID: NOTICE: Search Extended Director of Debate. Administrative/Professional (nine month term appointment. We anticipate conducting a national search during 1999-2000 for a permanent Director of Debate). The Department of Speech Communication, SIUC, seeks individual to provide leadership to nationally-ranked CEDA debate program, including supervision of graduate student coaches. Create on-campus and community debate and forensics programs to contribute to departmental educational mission. Teach such undergraduate courses as argumentation & debate and persuasion. Participate in the service and governance functions of the department. Minimum requirements include a master's degree in Speech Communication (or related field) and CEDA coaching experience at the national level, and two years of undergraduate teaching experience. Effective date of appointment will be August 16, 1999. Applications accepted until position is filled. To apply send letter of application, curriculum vitae, three current letters of reference, and a writing sample to Phillip J. Glenn, Chair, Department of Speech Communication, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL 62901-6605. Southern Illinois University Carbondale is an AFFIRMATIVE ACTION/EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER. Laura J. Sims Office Manager Speech Communication Department Southern Illinois University Carbondale, IL 62901-6605 Phone: 618/453-2214 Fax: 618/453-2812 From cua_timeka Fri Jun 4 16:25:50 1999 From: cua_timeka (timeka drew) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 14:25:50 -0700 Subject: Shawnessy and all of her problems Message-ID: --- Debbie Prieto wrote: > Don't wait for everything to be handed to you. > Don't wait for the others to > "liberate" you. Don't expect for things to be cut > in black and white.. for > there are shades inbetween (take that literally and > figuratively). The reason for this post is mainly to try to integrate another idea into this already brilliant one...although I am new to the world of edebate, and have been following the discussions, but have failed to post, I think...along with hopefully others in the debate community, that groups that target "blacks" and "women", in and of themselves defeat the purpose of what they are trying to accomplish, which is TRUE unadulterated liberation, and the knowledge that not only are the blacks and women as good, but that they can get there without extra help or groups that tend not only to make others look upon them as "crutches", and without these people, these "minorities" (as society has coined them) being categorized. I personally believe that and categorization has a backwards effect on the progress of whatever movement you prescribe to. How can we ever achieve equality in our little subsections and specialized interests. I believe that the problem that Shawnessy is having with whom to focus her interests lies within the problem of society wanting to break all of the "minorities" into these little sections, that way, hopefully all of the intersections will never come together, and the hispanics, blacks, women, etc. will always be struggling within their respective groups to gain power and respect, clinging onto the support of those in their "group" because it is easier that way. That is not the path to liberation. Just in case anyone thinks that I am being racist, the contrary is true, I am a bi-racial aspiring civil rights lawyer, but I prefer the race of "human". I hope I at least could spurn some healthy debate, thats what we all do best right?? Thanks. Timeka CUA Debate _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com >From Fri Jun 4 16:36:08 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 59877 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 17:38:12 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from Mercury.unix.acs.cc.unt.edu (mercury.acs.unt.edu [129.120.220.1]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA22454 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 17:38:10 -0400 Received: from venus.acs.unt.edu (venus.acs.unt.edu [129.120.220.72]) by Mercury.unix.acs.cc.unt.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA18036; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 16:38:09 -0500 (CDT) Received: from gateway (gras3.local.general.dialup.unt.edu [129.120.219.3]) by venus.acs.unt.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id QAA18454; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 16:38:08 -0500 (CDT) Priority: NORMAL X-Mailer: Simeon for Win32 Version 4.1.1 Build (16) X-Authentication: none MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Message-ID: Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 16:36:08 -0500 Reply-To: tlt0014 at unt.edu To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Tara Lucinda Tate Subject: Re: Star Wars 4........Let it go Comments: To: AmanK75 at AOL.COM In-Reply-To: <58aa8b5d.2488b3f1 at aol.com> Just wondering if anyone else has briefly contemplated the advantages of having a monitored list serv due to Mr. Collins' rantings. Good grief... Just curious.... All for free speech but that doesn't mean we have to warm up to your insults, Tara Tate UNT BTW, nothing in this post should imply that I think that Mr. Collins cares. On Fri, 4 Jun 1999 00:45:37 EDT John Collins wrote: > Oh sorry about the language. The term "sucks" is vulgar and inhumane. My > bad, but there is jsut no other term to use. I don't care about you people. > Yet you keep writing replies thinking I do. You suck. Let it go. I did. > Have fun, try not to suck, and leave me alone. Keep in mind it's not my > fault you suck. From mabouzai Fri Jun 4 16:59:40 1999 From: mabouzai (Mohammed Abouzaid) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 17:59:40 -0400 Subject: Nonpolicy resolutions Message-ID: First of all, thanks to Ken for complementing the efforts of the wording paper authors. I had a few things to not about his proposals for non-policy resolutions. Secondly, let me warn everyone reading the following: I have absolutely no experience with non-policy debate (Except for judging a few LD high school rounds). I am extremely interested in it as a way of opening the community to diverse perspectives, which is why I'm trying to contribute the little I can. > > > > A. Resolved: that United States foreign policy reliance on economic > > > sanctions against rogue nations is unethical. > > > > 3. The wording is balanced. "Reliance on" rather than "use of" for > > > example, makes the issue less absolute and denies the negative the > > > opportunity to disprove by showing one instance of ethical sanctions. > > > Specifying "foreign policy" as well as "against rogue nations" also > > > limits the ethical dispute to the topic area. The resolution sounds good to me, except for the use of "rogue nations." On a first level, the word is found offensive by many people (Not by me personally, but I still think we should avoid it if possible). These are highly untested proposals: 1. replace "rogue" by "foreign". It would expand the aff ground a little, given that the US has economic sanctions against most countries of the world which are far from being considered by any US agent as "rogue". The Neg would still have most of the "bad countries" to prove the ethical nature of sanctions. 2. Keep the wording of "use." I think that might not make the debate switch that far to the neg, since the aff has the weight of a bunch of kritiks that would argue definitely against the morality of ANY US sanctions. 3. (Even I don't like this one) replace "rogue" by a list of countries. Maybe adding "all of the following" would help. It gives clear neg ground (Find one country in the list against which use of sanctions is ethical), while keeping rather fair aff ground (If you have 5 countries for example, you should be able to prepare some args as to why sanctions are unethical for all of them, the cards are not that hard to find) I would personally prefer to see an "ethics/morality" resolution (I guess I could call it value) rather than a "fact" resolution. There are several reasons for that. First of all, that allows us to move beyond the usual framework we're used to in policy debate, that of measuring the worth of policies based on Impacts. A facts resolution would keep us in that mindset (i.e: how effective is in reality "how effective is it in achieving the US foreign policy objectives). There is still ground for kritik (which often attempt to answer the "morality" of the action) ground, but I don't think it's going to be much more common than it is in policy debate (Just looking at the amount of discussion there is about uniqueness of DA's is for me enough to justify looking at a resolution which moves completely away from that (hmm, I just though of something. Is there any counterplan ground on a factual resolution? If I argue that this specific change in US policy would render it more effective, is that reason enough to say that US foreign policy is effective?). Let me get back on track. Yeah, so a value resolution which thrust us right in the "morality" debate which is so often avoided in policy debate. It might even be possible for it to act as a positive influence on policy debate itself, and make it move towards a radical perspective of how to create policy, away from the big phallic impacts. The other reason I would prefer a policy resolution is because I have met several former LD high school debaters who shrink away from debate because of the word "policy." A value wording might be the most effective way of getting them back in our community (This in now way implies that we would get even most of them back, all I'm saying is that some might) That's all I have for now. Mohammed Abouzaid Richmond Debate (Not in any way meant to imply this is the (un)official opinion of the Richmond Debate team or that of any member. Just meant to tell you where I'm from) "The language we are speaking is his before it is mine. How different are the words home, Christ, ale, master, on his lips and on mine! I cannot speak or write these words without unrest of spirit. His language, so familiar and so foreign, will always be for me an acquired speech. I have not made or accepted its words. My voice holds them at bay. My soul frets in the shadow of his language." -- James Joyce >From Fri Jun 4 18:17:30 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 60078 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 18:18:38 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from f04n07.cac.psu.edu (f04s07.cac.psu.edu [128.118.141.35]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA20516 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 18:18:37 -0400 Received: from PSUSystem.cac.psu.edu (tnt1-145-92.cac.psu.edu [128.118.145.92]) by f04n07.cac.psu.edu (8.8.7/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA50254; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 18:18:35 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2377.0 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Message-ID: <000001beaed8$098da7c0$5c917680 at PSUSystem.cac.psu.edu> Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 18:17:30 -0400 Reply-To: pjg154 at psu.edu To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Pat J Gehrke Subject: Re: Position Announcement Comments: To: Laura Sims In-Reply-To: It seems there is a trend for DoF positions to be moving toward adminsitrative/professional positions, and many are becoming renewable fixed-term appointments. These jobs seem particularly unappealing when compared to even a mediocre tenure-line teaching job. SIU's recent extension of their search for a director might be a promising sign that former debaters and current coaches that are very strong candidates can also get jobs outside of forensics. Maybe soon the pendulum will begin to swing back and universities will start to once again realize that the only way to recruit and retain a really excellent director of forensics is to offer a tenure-track position. With hope that someday PSU and SIU and many others will make their DoF positions tenure-line, Pat Pat J. Gehrke, Debate and Speech Team Director 234 Sparks Building pjg154 at psu.edu Pennsylvania State University (814) 865-7751 University Park, PA 16802 http://www.personal.psu.edu/pjg154 "[An accusation of] 'sophistry' is a slogan used by ordinary common sense against educated reason, just as the expression 'visionary dreaming' sums up, once and for all, what philosophy means to those who are ignorant of it." -- G.W.F. Hegel, Phenomenology of Spirit. -----Original Message----- From: Team Topic Debating in America [mailto:EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU]On Behalf Of Laura Sims Sent: Friday, June 04, 1999 3:56 PM To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU Subject: Position Announcement Importance: High NOTICE: Search Extended Director of Debate. Administrative/Professional (nine month term appointment. We anticipate conducting a national search during 1999-2000 for a permanent Director of Debate). The Department of Speech Communication, SIUC, seeks individual to provide leadership to nationally-ranked CEDA debate program, including supervision of graduate student coaches. Create on-campus and community debate and forensics programs to contribute to departmental educational mission. Teach such undergraduate courses as argumentation & debate and persuasion. Participate in the service and governance functions of the department. Minimum requirements include a master's degree in Speech Communication (or related field) and CEDA coaching experience at the national level, and two years of undergraduate teaching experience. Effective date of appointment will be August 16, 1999. Applications accepted until position is filled. To apply send letter of application, curriculum vitae, three current letters of reference, and a writing sample to Phillip J. Glenn, Chair, Department of Speech Communication, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL 62901-6605. Southern Illinois University Carbondale is an AFFIRMATIVE ACTION/EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER. Laura J. Sims Office Manager Speech Communication Department Southern Illinois University Carbondale, IL 62901-6605 Phone: 618/453-2214 Fax: 618/453-2812 From girl-genius Fri Jun 4 18:12:55 1999 From: girl-genius (Shawnessy Scott) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 23:12:55 0000 Subject: Last words Message-ID: Last words: Answers, final words, from things I wrote long ago in anger: (warning, offensive material) "1)What do you do when one day you wake up and they tell you that you are black? I can or can't imagine the children suddenly realizing none of their dreams are possible. Some of them persevered and were constantly, constantly beaten down. My eyes hurt. One day you're playing and you want to rule the world, you think you can, maybe you have the ability for it. The next day you're told you don't even belong there, not on this part of the free Earth. There's a place for people like you, but you've never been there. Do we need to be discovered? 2)Racism, only half-done, lies as a secondhand priority, less important now than the women, the WOMEN. I could be sweet or cackle a harsh and bitter laugh. Now, in these advanced and enlightened times, if one so chose she could decide NOT to be a woman! Laughable, I suppose, but consider this: what, may I ask, does one do if she decides not to be black anymore? 3)I am. There is no was for us. Three generations ago we were in slavery. Then 1865 came and we are told now in history class that the time before that is unimportant, and that it is better to pretend none of it ever happened. In the greater picture of America, built on our backs and with our tears and rivers of blood, slavery is just a small blemish, to be casually remarked upon and then quickly gotten over. We can claim nothing from those brave people, because we know nothing of them. Unless we search desperately, with as much blessing as Alex Haley, our history is only dust. They shake their heads, pointing to the annals of nineteenth- century literature. Look! A slave narrative, they tell us. Who was that slave? Who is my great-great grandmother? Was she one of those daring souls who escaped North? Was she freed? Did she know her children? What was her name? All are taken for granted by the healthy and well-fed whites and white women who proudly clutch the cross of feminism as though it were something weighty to bear. 4)Yes, the Harlem Renaissance. Somewhere in the first half of the twentieth century, black people decided to say something. They said it in words, put it in books and music. Should I be amazed? Should I be glad that I have this small crumb of accomplishment to glory in? I find it amazingly arrogant of the world to assume we had nothing to say before that. We first had to win the right to read and write. Music was something no one had given us, but it wasn't until a century had passed that it was recognized as art. Why am I resentful? 5)1965. The generation of our parents and grandparents when God himself had to send a message to our people that they had the power to change the world. He had to, because no one would believe the message coming from a simple man unless it was God-inspired. We can smile and be proud of those few years during that great movement. No one asks, no one wonders why it took flashing media images of police setting dogs on and beating children for them to realize that racism existed and affected everyone, and that it wasn't fair. We had to march on the capital. We had to form national organizations. We had to riot. People died. 6)My parents never speak of it. The high school where they spent their days being terrorized by white students is now a middle school. The high school has moved to a new site, rebuilt and renamed, but the racism moved with it. No one speaks openly about it. Only in private discussion and hushed whispers could I find out what was really behind black, high school age students leaving to go to schools outside our city. My parents didn't tell me, but I know they were the first to integrate. I remember my mother talking about the strict regulations they put on black students. Something about rulers and the length of their dresses. She never told me of other things I am sure she endured, so I am sure another part of my history is lost. She, like I and all the other black people today, believes what she has been told. She believes it's over, so why talk about it? Why color her children's bright perceptions of life with the darkness that marked hers? It would not matter so much to me if I were equally sure that in white families their parents also kept their hearts to themselves. No one can persuade me that there is nothing of those screaming, hating students in the parents today. They have only become more quiet, less overt because racism has become socially unacceptable. Do they have a right to keep these things from us? 7)Now we get to the crux of the matter. Slavery is over, physically, legally, but not mentally. It was only a few days ago that I realized my people are still in chains. There is a dog, chained to a tree. The chain is exactly this length, and the dog is not even released for short walks. Years later, or even months later as I am not sure how long it takes to train a dog, the dog is still running in circles around the tree though the chain has been removed. Humans are much more intelligent than dogs and therefore more easily trained? It's hard for me to accept that there is some small part of our minds that we fight every day, that cannot conceive of us ever being anything. You would be surprised at the amount of blacks that laugh at the idea that a black person will ever hold the presidential office. People say Colin Powell didn't run because he knew he would be assassinated. Women, indeed. A white woman will hold office before they will ever let a black or Hispanic even touch the president's chair in the Oval office. Do you know what I had to do to write this? What it took? How deep I had to go into myself to find this? It's in every one of us and I'm speaking for those who don't know how to put it into words." That's chunks of a 4-page document I sat down and wrote one night, running on sheer emotion. I never finished it because when I came to a few hours later I realized no one would ever read it so it was pointless. People have been wondering how I could say what I said about women and gays getting in line well here it is, in the spirit it was meant from the original post. I'm not afraid to be honest. My tiny little mind just can't move on to other things yet. I can't group the movements and fight all oppression together. I don't even see it as being equal. I don't feel their struggles, I feel mine. You can help me or you can ignore me, but that is my final word on it. not worthy to be a novice? Shawnessy Angelfire for your free web-based e-mail. http://www.angelfire.com From girl-genius Fri Jun 4 18:14:06 1999 From: girl-genius (Shawnessy Scott) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 23:14:06 0000 Subject: Apology and the end Message-ID: An apology: This won't be what you thought it was, so if you're no longer interested feel free to move on, or take the stellar and recurring advice to hit the delete key on what you consider to be trash. I've offended one too many people and, as promised, I'm retiring. This isn't the place I thought it was, and probably the wrong forum for the entirety of my arguments. I've curbed and edited and modified at the requests of others, only to find that it wasn't enough for still other people, and that it is not permissible to be an imperfect person in the world of edebate. I'm not quite callous enough to continue to step on people's toes, spend countless hours trying to patch it up all while trying to salvage my original point, only to have people post back to me about what an evil and ignorant person I am, or stop speaking to me together... I'm not quite callous enough to continue to try that hard and not be affected at all by continuous rejection, or be ok and just get used to the fact that I'm going to hurt at least twenty-five people's feelings every time I make a post. This isn't the place I thought it was because I seem to be under some mistaken impressions. One, I thought that it was this great forum for free speech, where anyone could comment on anything they happened to think of, as long as it wasn't completely inane and as long as it wasn't blatantly and purposefully offensive. Two, I thought that this was more of a community of intellectual people interested in continuing conversation, and getting feedback, expanding minds, changing perspectives, sending mail sometimes just to say hi or to make invitations to everyone... not an extention of debate rounds. I just can't understand people trying to run T and Clinton on my personal opinions. This isn't what I wanted to learn from debate, but some people have a striking resemblence in actions to the early Catholic Christians. Like some Christians, you can't be satisfied to let people believe differently from you, you have to go out and convert people. Like some Christians, you can't understand that there's more sides to an issue than right and wrong, and that it's not always your role to play judge and jury. Like some Christians, you can't deal with differences of opinion and agree to disagree about some trivial or even not-so- trivial matters for the sake of civility and friendship. Every time I post, I get the edebate version of The Inquisition, where I'd better believe everything in the debate catechism or I get nearly crucified. Well before I get excommunicated, I'm bowing out. Since I'm used to the inevitability of everyone on the list that I do or don't know taking every single sentence personally, I'll apologize in advance because I don't enjoy being offensive to the point that people start seeing me as a real asshole. To the unanswered posts and the people I've left hanging, I'm obssessed with having the last word. Call it a personal problem, or whatever, but I did answer every post line-by-line and may continue to. I just won't be posting to the list where I could mistakenly wound someone's inner child. To the righteously offended who thought we'd become pretty good friends, or at least had a little respect for me, the relationships still stand. Feel free to email me any time, and I'll answer promptly as I usually do. Backchannel. peace and God Bless the novice Shawnessy I'm not sick but I'm not well... -Flagpole Sitta Blame it on my mental illness. Angelfire for your free web-based e-mail. http://www.angelfire.com From cornell7 Fri Jun 4 18:49:38 1999 From: cornell7 (Erik Cornellier) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 16:49:38 -0700 Subject: Becky Message-ID: After almost a week, I have finally worked up the guts to say something about Becky. Her passing has been almost incomprehensible to me. She has always seemed immortal to me, even as the inevitability of fate was drawing closer. It was her ability to connect authentically with people through all adversity that made her so powerful in my eyes, and it is through those connections that she will remain immortal despite the end of her physical life. How cool was Becky? Unfathomably -. My heart goes out to Joey, her family, and everyone else who has been wrenchingly forced to come to grips with the gross lack of justice inherent in the impermance of physical life. My thanks go out to all of those who have come together, both here in Seattle and here in the realm of EDEBATE, to collectively deal with the pain, frustration, and awkwardness of this experience. Finally, my thanks go out to Becky, who has taught me more than almost anyone about how to love others and myself. Your legacy will live on whether you knew it would or not. Erik Cornellier Assistant Director of Debate Gonzaga University 2445 East Burnt Tree Ln. Apt. 12 East Lansing, Mi. 48823 Home: (517) 351-3619 Office: (509) 323-6654 Email: cornell7 at pilot.msu.edu >From Fri Jun 4 20:13:23 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 60530 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 20:14:39 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo29.mx.aol.com (imo29.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.73]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA07416 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 20:14:38 -0400 Received: from Rsmithpgh at aol.com (8001) by imo29.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id 2JULa12120; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 20:13:24 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 13 Message-ID: <365a5545.2489c5a3 at aol.com> Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 20:13:23 EDT Reply-To: Rsmithpgh at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Fred Phelps Subject: Re: Apology, homosexual disgustingness Comments: To: girl-genius at angelfire.com Girl-genius: I am not sure whatever you meant by 'the novice' and will ignore the appellation. I have always thought a novice was someone who was learning to debate but hadn't quite gotten the idea that they should research their own arguments. Quite a bit different than programs who think a novice is someone who they can make fit the definition that Towsons' novice nationals holds. I have seen many novices debate less than three semesters per year for three years and still pretend they are novices. That is a different thread. (One that will be entitled 'whining programs who try to win in novice division and still can't...' :-) Girl Genius: An apology: > > This won't be what you thought it was, so if you're no longer interested > feel free to move on, or take the stellar and recurring advice to hit > the delete key on what you consider to be trash. > > I've offended one too many people and, as promised, I'm retiring. > This isn't the place I thought it was, and probably the wrong > forum for the entirety of my arguments. I've curbed and edited and > modified at the requests of others, only to find that it wasn't enough > for still other people, and that it is not permissible to be an imperfect > person in the world of edebate. I'm not quite callous enough to continue > to step on people's toes, spend countless hours trying to patch it up all > while trying to salvage my original point, only to have people post > back to me about what an evil and ignorant person I am, or stop > speaking to me together... I'm not quite callous enough to continue to > try that hard and not be affected at all by continuous rejection, or > be ok and just get used to the fact that I'm going to hurt at least > twenty-five people's feelings every time I make a post. Tony: Ain' that a shame... One of the endearing qualities of this list-serv is that most people subscribing to it have ridiculous IQs. So, you hurt people's feelings. So what? Maybe it isn't that you were doing anything? Maybe it was that people thought you should be educated? Believing that homosexual sex is 'disgusting' may not be wrong but it ain't gonna get you (or your opponents) the Nobel Peace Prize. So, people came down on you and now you are bummed. Figure it out, --all sex is disgusting!!! (it was a great joke when I heard it-- 'How do you know that God is a civil engineer? Because he put the prime recreation spots right next to the major sanitation disposal units.") Frankly, if you can't get a big laugh out of a guy placing his peepee next to a girls' weewee and getting pleasure out of it then you ain't got a very big sense of humour. Sure you think it is disgusting-- but how is all sex not disgusting? "He wants me to put my what next to his what?" And as far as being concerned as to not offend people? C'mon- on this list-serv? You could write that the world is round and get 30 people pissed off. On of the attractions that this list-serv promotes is the opportunity for 500 + high IQ people to insult you every time you post..... You should be proud that you have elicited less than 20..... Girl-novice genius" > This isn't the place I thought it was because I seem to be under > some mistaken impressions. One, I thought that it was this great forum > for free speech, where anyone could comment on anything they happened to > think of, as long as it wasn't completely inane and as long as it > wasn't blatantly and purposefully offensive. Tony: That is still true. Telling Coop that his sexual proclivities are 'disgusting' is completely inane and apparently purposefully offensive. Hell, telling me that my sexual proclivities are disgusting would be more accurate. Frankly, you are wrong. Wrong, wrong , wrong. All sex is disgusting. Heterosexual and homosexual. It was Dan Savage (the great sexual advice columnist) who described the private parts of a a naked woman as a "cracked ham dropped from a great height and split open on the sidewalk"--maybe that fires other men up, but I am pretty darn heterosexual and that description still gags me.... Girl Genius: Two, I thought that this > was more of a community of intellectual people interested in continuing > conversation, and getting feedback, expanding minds, changing > perspectives, sending mail sometimes just to say hi or to make > invitations to everyone... not an extention of debate rounds. I just > can't understand people trying to run T and Clinton on my personal > opinions. Tony: You are confused. I haven't voted on T or Clinton in a long time-- I have voted on complete ignorance before though. If you think that your feelings about homosexual activity ("disgusting") mean that the rest of us should agree you are nutso!!!! Hell, I thought the prehistoric turtle had more to say than this. The bottom line is that you have given the impression that your personal belief ('homosexual sex is disgusting') means something. The only thing it means is that you are ignorant. Read some Greek history. Homosexuality is not wrong. In fact, it is more normal than you apparently would wish. Girl genius: > This isn't what I wanted to learn from debate, but some people > have a striking resemblence in actions to the early Catholic Christians. > Like some Christians, you can't be satisfied to let people believe > differently from you, you have to go out and convert people. Like > some Christians, you can't understand that there's more sides to an > issue than right and wrong, and that it's not always your role to play > judge and jury. Like some Christians, you can't deal with differences > of opinion and agree to disagree about some trivial or even not-so- > trivial matters for the sake of civility and friendship. Every time I > post, I get the edebate version of The Inquisition, where I'd better > believe everything in the debate catechism or I get nearly crucified. > Well before I get excommunicated, I'm bowing out. > Tony: This is called the fallacy of the false alternative. The two choices are not "I say homosexual sex is disgusting" and "I get nearly crucified". First of all, you are over-dramatizing. No one is ever going to crucify you no matter what you say--so, comparing yourself to Christ or whatever you are doing is either funny or ignorant, I haven't decided. Second of all, all we are asking is that you get educated--that is all. Just because you are not attracted to homosexual sex doesn't mean that is wrong, it just means that you are not attracted to homosexual sex. Just because you are not attracted to homosexual sex doesn't mean shit, folks. It just means that we are not inviting you to our next orgy. Your feelings don't mean anything except that you are feeling it. Girl genius: > Since I'm used to the inevitability of everyone on the list that I do > or don't know taking every single sentence personally, I'll apologize > in advance because I don't enjoy being offensive to the point that > people start seeing me as a real asshole. > To the unanswered posts and the people I've left hanging, I'm > obssessed with having the last word. Call it a personal problem, or > whatever, but I did answer every post line-by-line and may continue to. > I just won't be posting to the list where I could mistakenly wound > someone's inner child. > To the righteously offended who thought we'd become pretty good friends, > or at least had a little respect for me, the relationships still stand. > Feel free to email me any time, and I'll answer promptly as I usually > do. Backchannel. Tony: I am not interested in backchanneling; I have too much shit to do this weekend. I think that you need to seriously consider the fact that a lot of people who are very smart think that you are very wrong. This is not an occasion to focus on your screen name "Girl-genius" but rather to focus on the fact that virtually everyone who has answered you is very smart. You might be wrong. Not any answer you have made has accepted the fact that your feelings might in fact be leading you wrongly. Check out "Godhatesfags.com" if you really want an education in wrongheadedness. You seem to be really cool in your heart. There are a lot of very smart people on this list serv, though and you are disregarding all of their thoughts. Not smart. It is possible that your personal problems might simply be your personal problems. Something that is your personal problem might not be a societal problem or a civil rights problem. It might just be your problem. Tony Penders >From Fri Jun 4 19:56:32 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 60690 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 20:56:48 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from hecky.acns.nwu.edu (hecky.acns.nwu.edu [129.105.16.51]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA19194 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 20:56:33 -0400 Received: from localhost (rrs128 at localhost) by hecky.acns.nwu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id TAA05816 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 19:56:32 -0500 (CDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Message-ID: Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 19:56:32 -0500 Reply-To: rrs128 at HECKY.ACNS.NWU.EDU To: Team Topic Debating in America From: rrs128 at HECKY.ACNS.NWU.EDU Subject: NDT final round tape does anyone have a copy of the tape from the NDT final round?? (i'm looking in your direction, Lawrence Kansas) my suspicion is that this tape is lost, just like the one from last year. my brother wants to see it (yes, he's a strange dude) if anyone knows anything abouyt this, please backchannel me. ryan ps - star wars rules, you wierdos who are trying to make it into some deep statement about jar jar the rasta stereotype need to find something more constructive to do with your time (like start working for next years topic) From colleen Thu Jun 3 15:23:11 1999 From: colleen (Colleen Carter) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 15:23:11 -0500 Subject: one question Message-ID: Okay I know I am still new in the debate world and have not had the chance to meet everyone in the debate community but is John Collins a member of the debate community. I am just wondering. I am not trying to mean or anything or take sides in the debate that is happening on the L. I am just a wondering novice. Colleen Carter Webster University Vice Pres. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/19990603/3a164aba/attachment.htm From rchurch Sat Jun 5 15:11:44 1999 From: rchurch (Russell Church) Date: Sat, 5 Jun 1999 15:11:44 -0500 Subject: One Year Non-Debate Position at MTSU Message-ID: We have a one year position open here for the fall. We could be somewhat flexible in teaching assignments. Person should be able to teach public speaking and interpersonal. Please forward this message to anyone you know who might be interested. I could hire very quickly. Regards, Russell Church Chair Speech & Theatre 615-898-2640 MID-SOUTH DEBATE INSTITUTE http://www.mtsu.edu/~debate/mdi.html DO RESEARCH ON LEXIS NEXIS UNIVERSE! http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe VISIT THE MTSU DEBATE TEAM HOME PAGE! http://www.mtsu.edu/~debate/ SEARCHING FOR GRAD PROGRAMS IN SPEECH COMMUNICATION http://www.natcom.org/ComProg/gpdhtm/graddir.htm SEARCHING FOR GRAD SCHOOLS IN ALL DISCIPLINES http://www.gradschools.com WANT TO STUDY ABROAD? http://www.studyabroad.com Interdisciplinary Minors and Affiliated Programs http://www.mtsu.edu/~libarts/cladepartments.html African American Studies Program http://www.mtsu.edu/~libarts/africanamerican.html From cua_timeka Sat Jun 5 16:09:36 1999 From: cua_timeka (timeka drew) Date: Sat, 5 Jun 1999 14:09:36 -0700 Subject: Last words Message-ID: " I can't group the movements and fight all oppression together. I don't even see it as being equal. I don't feel their struggles, I feel mine. You can help me or you can ignore me, but that is my final word on it." Shawnessy, Although I obviously do not agree with your approach, I at least before this last post admired your drive, the ambition that you seem to have, or at least the ambition that I thought you had, albeit different than mine, I felt you had passion for the right reasons. I do not mean this in any way to be an attack on you, I feel that you are probably a wonderful person with a lot of passion, and who am I to judge, right?? But we all have our opinions, and in your plea for help or rejection I choose to put in my two cents, for what it is worth. We are ALL persecuted in one way or another in this life Shawnessy, and the way that we let that shape us as a person is how we respond to it. If every battle that you fight in your life is one of personal gratification, one that you feel is meant to personally liberate you, one that YOU will win, for YOU, because you are the one struggling, you are the one with the pain, and if other people are helped, hey, thats cool too, you will inevitably crash and burn. The reason is not because you are not good enough, or because you have not been persecuted, it is because you are fighting with anger and rage, the same thing that the great Malcolm X did, before coming to his senses (and of course being murdered for it) and realizing that we are all in this together. You must realize that the progress that those of us, you included, are trying to make in regards to equality will most likely not be finished in our lifetimes, and to be able to fight effectively takes an incredible amount of not only dedication and ambition, but a setting aside of the rage, anger and hatred that can come with the categorization and exclusion of all of our HUMAN brothers and sisters. As far as those of us on edebate whom you feel are personally persecuting and trying to convert you (the whole Catholic Christian thing)...wake up and take a big strong breath of the air that those of us in the REAL WORLD breathe, it is all not going to be roses whatever you choose to fight for, and you will most likely receive much more negative feedback than positive, so get used to it, but dont generalize and whine because not everyone loves what you have to say, it is all a part of growth and experience, and you might as well get used to it now...in the bubble of college, which is relatively safe in comparison. Much luck, Timeka Catholic University Debate P.S. You have to ask yourself the question is it really that you CANT fight all oppression together, or is it that you dont want to?? Because I fully intend to, and I really think that you are mislead if you feel it simply CANT be done. _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com From jh0324 Sat Jun 5 19:23:04 1999 From: jh0324 (Ignatius J. Reily) Date: Sat, 5 Jun 1999 19:23:04 -0500 Subject: shunning cites Message-ID: if a knowing person would backchannel me the cite for the shunning critique, s/he would forever have my gratitude and what not. thanks, heard >From Sat Jun 5 21:27:15 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 62221 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Sat, 5 Jun 1999 21:29:46 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo12.mx.aol.com (imo12.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.2]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA23338 for ; Sat, 5 Jun 1999 21:29:45 -0400 Received: from Sgw8 at aol.com (3875) by imo12.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id nVDAa10677 for ; Sat, 5 Jun 1999 21:27:15 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 18 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 5 Jun 1999 21:27:15 EDT Reply-To: Sgw8 at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Darius Wilkins Subject: last words If Morehouse hosts a tourney next year, come by, meet some REAL brothas, Ms Scott. By the way, keep in touch with me; I don't think I have your email. I think much that was said in response to Ms. Scott's last post reflect a community that doesn't get it, at least the vocal members. I'm not talking about race, I'm talking about a combative aspect to these posts on the list. I'm talking about how people must feel that they "win" on a meaningless argument. In the end, I'm talking about the world-class insularity that resides in this community. In case you still don't get what I'm talking about we don't have discussions--we have gladitorial combat. Insisting that you are wrong instead of why do you make that argument. Debate has really only made us so confident of our righteousness, we become obnoxious to the folks outside. You are so confident, you spill cards, logic, and spam in lecturing to someone else. In the end, we are all becoming incoherent voices that fails to convince anyone of anything. Read up what happened to the Sophists, I beg of you... True argumentation and mindset changing is only with the consent of two individuals putting their mindsets at risk to change. More than one, or it doesn't work. What I see are people slinging arrows of logic trying to convince others that are as they, their hearts protected by the cold disbelief; skepticism of anything not in their mindsets. Do it for something that means something, if only a little, like wins. Not here. Damn, nobody ever learned any verbal aikido. Darius Wilkins P.S. It's too freakin' hard to convince people that it's not losing if you change your mind... P.S.S. Does everyone intend forensic debate to be a contest on who can dump data best, rather than communicating ideas? From david.glass Sat Jun 5 16:35:38 1999 From: david.glass (DAVID GLASS) Date: Sat, 5 Jun 1999 21:35:38 +0000 Subject: 10 reasons to assist Edgemont Message-ID: Subject: Time:9:27 PM OFFICE MEMO 10 reasons to assist Edgemont Date:6/5/99 top ten reasons to help Edgemont Debate next year... 10. Conveniently located near Exxon gas station. 9. Supportive school administration will nod at you and say "oh, so you're the assistant debate coach." 8. Decorative mugs and pads with the word "Edgemont" prominently featured. 7. Wealthy suburban neighborhood could allow you to see how something can go wrong even in "a place like this." 6. Lack of side-walks and local culture gives added reason to value New York City, which is just ten miles away. 5. Extremely intelligent students make you realize that you weren't so special after all, at that age. 4. Supportive and entertaining work atmosphere will make you re-evaluate your priorities, skip law school, and become a high school teacher. 3. Head coach wears black all the time, has a bald spot, and walks around muttering "critiques...the hell with them critiques..." 2. Students begin every practice-round speech by saying "this isn't going to be very good." And the number one reason you should help Edgemont Debate next year: 1. We'll pay you a boat-load of cash. so if you're gonna be in New York City - drop me an email. -djg Edgemont From privethedge Sat Jun 5 20:51:32 1999 From: privethedge (Duane Hyland) Date: Sat, 5 Jun 1999 18:51:32 -0700 Subject: Could Somebody with the Baylor HS Institute Please B/C Me? Message-ID: Hi, One of my students has been sent registration papers for the wrong session. Could someone get back to me, sooner rather than later?? THanks. Duane _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com From jason Sat Jun 5 23:08:06 1999 From: jason (Jason Regnier) Date: Sat, 5 Jun 1999 23:08:06 -0500 Subject: Star Wars Race Wars Message-ID: Well, even if Lucas is racist, he still met his affirmative action quotas. If I'm not mistaken (and I very well could be) there was only 1 human on the Jedi Master Council and he was a black man. Jason Regnier From race Sun Jun 6 01:21:49 1999 From: race (David Rhaesa) Date: Sun, 6 Jun 1999 00:21:49 -0600 Subject: Dylan Message-ID: Just got back from Dylan at the Fillmore here in Denver and thought I'd tell y'all that if the Dylan-Simon tour comes near you it is worth it. Simon showed up at the end of the show and they played "Sound of Silence," "I Walk the Line," "Blue Moon of Kentucky (for J.W.)," and fittingly "Forever Young." The tour kicks off tomorrow in Colorado Springs and comes back Monday night just for me to see another run. Bob wore a black western shirt with white design. Paul wore a windbreaker and blue baseball cap. enjoy the summers!!!!!!! david From hoppock Sun Jun 6 01:41:58 1999 From: hoppock (Matthew Hoppock) Date: Sat, 5 Jun 1999 23:41:58 PDT Subject: ignatius shunning sites Message-ID: I tried to send this backchannel, but it wouldn't seem to go there are a lot of really good sites. I'll give you what I have. the most flaming cards come from the gordon and gordon stuff, but the most analytical comes elsewhere. here you go I'll list in random order 1. Joy Gordon, Brooklyn journal of international law, "the concept of human rights; the history and meaning of politicization", 1998 (lexis) there are really only three good cards in this article but they are really good. 2. Haim and Rivca Gordon, "sartre and evil", 1995 thi is where most people get all of their cards from. the book is easy to find, but I wouldn't think it's the best on analysis. it will fill in the holes, though...and your implication evidence is great from this book. The only problem is that they aren't talking about international politics....just that we should shun bad people. 3. Eric H. Beversluis, Public Affairs Quarterly, April 1989 this is one of the only articles that actually says the word "shunning". it's also a good article for implication evidence...he gives good alternative cards. again, I question whether or not his analysis is meant for international application, but it's been a year since I read the book. I don't really remember. 4. Jean-Paul Sartre "Anti-semite and Jew", 1948 this book is almost completely about shunning anti-semitism. Sartre is hard to wade through, but this is where I got most of my good cards. It's really only useful if you're shunning anti-semitism...if not, nevermind 5. David Lumsdaine, "moral vision in international politics", 1993 he answers the argument that morals are a bad motivation for foreign policy....his cards are awesome. finally 6. Ted Carpenter and Doug Bandow, Federal News Service, March 13, 1997 there is really only one good card fomr this. it says that foreign aid props up evil regimes. that's it I think that camus writes some stuff, but I never cut anythig of his. I think it was baylor that was running a form of shunning that they called "the rebel"...it would probably containt he camus sites and a few others. I hope this helps Also, if you find a way to focus primarily on anti-semitism, I havea ton more stuff. I just don't feel like adding it if it's useless matthew _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com From plutox Sun Jun 6 02:18:57 1999 From: plutox (M. Williams) Date: Sun, 6 Jun 1999 01:18:57 -0600 Subject: The Rebel [was Re: ignatius shunning sites] Message-ID: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > I think that camus writes some stuff, but I never cut anythig of his. I > think it was baylor that was running a form of shunning that they called > "the rebel"...it would probably containt he camus sites and a few others. I > hope this helps >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The book I believe you are refering to is Albert Camus' 1956 book which is titled _The_Rebel_ hence the name of the argument you cite. I ran some Camus cards on this year's HS topic as part of a kritik of deterrence. Here's a card (it's not the best one, but I don't want to dig out my entire file right now) that essentially sums up much of what Camus writes about in _The_Rebel_: p. 280 "The poets themselves, confronted with the murder of their fellow men, proudly declare that their hands are clean. The whole world absent-mindedly turns its back on these crimes; the victims have reached the extremity of their disgrace: they are a bore. In ancient times the blood of murder at least produced a religious horror and in this way sanctified the value of life. The real condemnation of the period we live in is, on the contrary, that it leads us to think that it is not blood-thirsty enough. BLOOD IS NO LONGER VISIBLE (emphasis mine); it does not bespatter the faces of our pharisees visibly enough. This is the extreme of nihilism: blind and savage murder becomes an oasis and the imbecile criminal seems positively refreshing in comparison with our highly intelligent executioners." Later, Matthew Williams >From Sun Jun 6 12:58:21 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 62352 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Sun, 6 Jun 1999 12:59:21 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo13.mx.aol.com (imo13.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.3]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA12342 for ; Sun, 6 Jun 1999 12:59:20 -0400 Received: from MGWalton at aol.com (7816) by imo13.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id nYQKa02105 for ; Sun, 6 Jun 1999 12:58:21 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 205 Message-ID: <18cb1575.248c02ad at aol.com> Date: Sun, 6 Jun 1999 12:58:21 EDT Reply-To: MGWalton at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Marcus Walton Subject: Final round tapes OK, Where can I get tapes of CEDA Nats and/ or NDT final rounds? What about other big tournaments? Anyone tape those or do we just break out the video cameras at National tournaments? Thanks, Marcus Walton SJSU & Leleand Speech and Debate From bandoleras_1999 Sun Jun 6 12:23:33 1999 From: bandoleras_1999 (p.j. bandoleras) Date: Sun, 6 Jun 1999 10:23:33 -0700 Subject: Apology and the end Message-ID: i am sorry people have driven you away from this forum. this forum does that. it does not accept people who have radical points of view. not that i agree with ANYTHING you said.... as for yuor analogy using christians..being pentacostal..i have to disagree..not all of us fit your stereotype. --zorro --- Shawnessy Scott wrote: > An apology: > > This won't be what you thought it was, so if you're > no longer interested > feel free to move on, or take the stellar and > recurring advice to hit > the delete key on what you consider to be trash. > > I've offended one too many people and, as promised, > I'm retiring. > This isn't the place I thought it was, and > probably the wrong > forum for the entirety of my arguments. I've curbed > and edited and > modified at the requests of others, only to find > that it wasn't enough > for still other people, and that it is not > permissible to be an imperfect > person in the world of edebate. I'm not quite > callous enough to continue > to step on people's toes, spend countless hours > trying to patch it up all > while trying to salvage my original point, only to > have people post > back to me about what an evil and ignorant person I > am, or stop > speaking to me together... I'm not quite callous > enough to continue to > try that hard and not be affected at all by > continuous rejection, or > be ok and just get used to the fact that I'm going > to hurt at least > twenty-five people's feelings every time I make a > post. > This isn't the place I thought it was because I > seem to be under > some mistaken impressions. One, I thought that it > was this great forum > for free speech, where anyone could comment on > anything they happened to > think of, as long as it wasn't completely inane and > as long as it > wasn't blatantly and purposefully offensive. Two, I > thought that this > was more of a community of intellectual people > interested in continuing > conversation, and getting feedback, expanding minds, > changing > perspectives, sending mail sometimes just to say hi > or to make > invitations to everyone... not an extention of > debate rounds. I just > can't understand people trying to run T and Clinton > on my personal > opinions. > This isn't what I wanted to learn from debate, > but some people > have a striking resemblence in actions to the early > Catholic Christians. > Like some Christians, you can't be satisfied to let > people believe > differently from you, you have to go out and convert > people. Like > some Christians, you can't understand that there's > more sides to an > issue than right and wrong, and that it's not always > your role to play > judge and jury. Like some Christians, you can't deal > with differences > of opinion and agree to disagree about some trivial > or even not-so- > trivial matters for the sake of civility and > friendship. Every time I > post, I get the edebate version of The Inquisition, > where I'd better > believe everything in the debate catechism or I get > nearly crucified. > Well before I get excommunicated, I'm bowing out. > > Since I'm used to the inevitability of everyone on > the list that I do > or don't know taking every single sentence > personally, I'll apologize > in advance because I don't enjoy being offensive to > the point that > people start seeing me as a real asshole. > To the unanswered posts and the people I've left > hanging, I'm > obssessed with having the last word. Call it a > personal problem, or > whatever, but I did answer every post line-by-line > and may continue to. > I just won't be posting to the list where I could > mistakenly wound > someone's inner child. > To the righteously offended who thought we'd become > pretty good friends, > or at least had a little respect for me, the > relationships still stand. > Feel free to email me any time, and I'll answer > promptly as I usually > do. Backchannel. > > > peace and God Bless > the novice > Shawnessy > > I'm not sick but I'm not well... -Flagpole Sitta > > Blame it on my mental illness. > > > > > > > Angelfire for your free web-based e-mail. > http://www.angelfire.com > _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com From tlb2b Sun Jun 6 13:29:20 1999 From: tlb2b (Terrance Lamonte Bond) Date: Sun, 6 Jun 1999 13:29:20 -0500 Subject: Apology and the end In-Reply-To: <19990606172333.19729.rocketmail@web1001.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No one DROVE Shawnessy away from the forum. She chose to leave. Sure, she alienated herself from a sizeable portion of subscribers via her marginalizing comments, but she certainly could have anticipated that.........I'm still having a hard time figuring out how the hell I'm going to stand behind myself(given my homosexuality and minority sub-status). And no, people probably don't accept the "radical" (relatively speaking) opinions of others........quite frankly, the onus is not upon me to accept the opinions of someone with whom I disagre. So, blame the "big bad monster that is EDEBATE" if you want, but Shawnessy's decision to abandon argumentative ship was her decision. If she truly beileves in her judgments, she shouldn't be afraid to defend them at every opportunity. TERRANCE MTSU On Sun, 6 Jun 1999, p.j. bandoleras wrote: > i am sorry people have driven you away from this forum. this forum does > that. it does not accept people who have radical points of view. not > that i agree with ANYTHING you said.... > > as for yuor analogy using christians..being pentacostal..i have to > disagree..not all of us fit your stereotype. > > --zorro > --- Shawnessy Scott wrote: > > An apology: > > > > This won't be what you thought it was, so if you're > > no longer interested > > feel free to move on, or take the stellar and > > recurring advice to hit > > the delete key on what you consider to be trash. > > > > I've offended one too many people and, as promised, > > I'm retiring. > > This isn't the place I thought it was, and > > probably the wrong > > forum for the entirety of my arguments. I've curbed > > and edited and > > modified at the requests of others, only to find > > that it wasn't enough > > for still other people, and that it is not > > permissible to be an imperfect > > person in the world of edebate. I'm not quite > > callous enough to continue > > to step on people's toes, spend countless hours > > trying to patch it up all > > while trying to salvage my original point, only to > > have people post > > back to me about what an evil and ignorant person I > > am, or stop > > speaking to me together... I'm not quite callous > > enough to continue to > > try that hard and not be affected at all by > > continuous rejection, or > > be ok and just get used to the fact that I'm going > > to hurt at least > > twenty-five people's feelings every time I make a > > post. > > This isn't the place I thought it was because I > > seem to be under > > some mistaken impressions. One, I thought that it > > was this great forum > > for free speech, where anyone could comment on > > anything they happened to > > think of, as long as it wasn't completely inane and > > as long as it > > wasn't blatantly and purposefully offensive. Two, I > > thought that this > > was more of a community of intellectual people > > interested in continuing > > conversation, and getting feedback, expanding minds, > > changing > > perspectives, sending mail sometimes just to say hi > > or to make > > invitations to everyone... not an extention of > > debate rounds. I just > > can't understand people trying to run T and Clinton > > on my personal > > opinions. > > This isn't what I wanted to learn from debate, > > but some people > > have a striking resemblence in actions to the early > > Catholic Christians. > > Like some Christians, you can't be satisfied to let > > people believe > > differently from you, you have to go out and convert > > people. Like > > some Christians, you can't understand that there's > > more sides to an > > issue than right and wrong, and that it's not always > > your role to play > > judge and jury. Like some Christians, you can't deal > > with differences > > of opinion and agree to disagree about some trivial > > or even not-so- > > trivial matters for the sake of civility and > > friendship. Every time I > > post, I get the edebate version of The Inquisition, > > where I'd better > > believe everything in the debate catechism or I get > > nearly crucified. > > Well before I get excommunicated, I'm bowing out. > > > > Since I'm used to the inevitability of everyone on > > the list that I do > > or don't know taking every single sentence > > personally, I'll apologize > > in advance because I don't enjoy being offensive to > > the point that > > people start seeing me as a real asshole. > > To the unanswered posts and the people I've left > > hanging, I'm > > obssessed with having the last word. Call it a > > personal problem, or > > whatever, but I did answer every post line-by-line > > and may continue to. > > I just won't be posting to the list where I could > > mistakenly wound > > someone's inner child. > > To the righteously offended who thought we'd become > > pretty good friends, > > or at least had a little respect for me, the > > relationships still stand. > > Feel free to email me any time, and I'll answer > > promptly as I usually > > do. Backchannel. > > > > > > peace and God Bless > > the novice > > Shawnessy > > > > I'm not sick but I'm not well... -Flagpole Sitta > > > > Blame it on my mental illness. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Angelfire for your free web-based e-mail. > > http://www.angelfire.com > > > > _________________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com > From apkemp Sun Jun 6 22:59:42 1999 From: apkemp (Andrew Kemp) Date: Sun, 6 Jun 1999 22:59:42 -0500 Subject: URL for Rogue Topic Papers Message-ID: I should have paid attention earlier, sorry for the clutter; would someone backchannel me the URL for the topic papers. Thanks in advance. Andy >From Mon Jun 7 01:21:32 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 61440 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 01:21:32 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from ns.bigbear.net (lai-ca4b-175.ix.netcom.com [209.110.245.175]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id BAA09772; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 01:21:21 -0400 Message-ID: <199906070521.BAA09772 at list.uvm.edu> Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 01:21:32 -0400 Reply-To: toukol at MINDSPRING.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: toukol at MINDSPRING.COM Subject: Homeworkers Needed! Dear Future Associate, You Can Work At Home & Set Your Own Hours. Start earning Big Money in a short time NO Newspaper Advertising! Your job will be to stuff and mail envelopes for our company. You will receive $.25 for each and every envelope you stuff and mail out. Just follow our simple instructions and you will be making money as easy as 1~E 2~E 3 For example stuff and mail 200 envelopes and you will receive $50.00. Stuff and mail 1000 and you will receive $250.00. Stuff and mail 2000 and you will receive $500.00 and more Never before has there been an easier way to make money from home! Our Company's Home Mailing Program is designed for people with little or no experience and provides simple, step by step instructions. There is no prior experience or special skills necessary on your part, Just stuffing envelopes. We need the help of honest and reliable home workers like you. Because we are overloaded with work and have more than our staff can handle. We have now expanded our mailing program and are expecting to reach millions more with our offers throughout the US and Canada. Our system of stuffing and mailing envelopes is very simple and easy to do! You will not be required to buy envelopes or postage stamps. We will gladly furnish all circulars at no cost to you. We assure you that as a participant in our program you will never have to mail anything objective or offensive. There are no quotas to meet, and there no contracts to sign. You can work as much, or as little as you want. Payment for each envelope you send out is Guaranteed! Here is what you will receive when you get your first Package. Inside you will find 100 envelopes, 100 labels and 100 sales letters ready to stuff and mail As soon as you are done with stuffing and mailing these first letters, your payment will arrive shortly, thereafter. All you have to do is to order more free supplies and stuff and mail more envelopes to make more money. Our sales literature which you will be stuffing and mailing will contain information outlining our highly informative manuals that we are advertising nationwide. As a free gift you will receive a special manual valued at $24.95, absolutely free, just for joining our Home Mailers Program. Plus you will get your own special code number, so that we will know how much you are to get paid. And to make re-ordering of more envelopes, that our company supplies very simple for you. We are giving you this free bonus because we want you to be confident in our company and to ensure that we will be doing business with you for a long time. Benefits Of This Job: 1. You do not have to quit your present job, to earn more money at home 2. You can make between $2,500 to $4,500 a month depending on the amount of time you are willing to spend stuffing and mailing envelopes 3. This is a great opportunity for the students, mothers, disabled persons or those who are home bodies. To secure your position and to show us that you are serious about earning extra income at home we require a one-time registration fee of $35.00. This fee covers the cost of your initial start up package, which includes 100 envelopes, 100 labels and 100 sales letters and a manual, your registration fee will be refunded back to you shortly thereafter. Money Back Guarantee! We guarantee that as soon as you stuff and mail your first 300 envelopes You will be paid $75.00 and your registration fee will be refunded. Many of you wonder why it is necessary to pay a deposit to get a job. It is because we are looking for people that seriously want to work from home. * If 3.000 people told us they wanted to start working from home and we sent out 3.000 packages free to every one. And then half of the people decided not to work, this would be a potential loss of more than $60,000 in supply's and shipping that we have sent out to people that don't want to work We have instituted this policy to make sure that you really want to work and at least finish your first package. To Get Started Today Please Enclose Your Registration Fee of $35 Check,Cash Or Money Order and fill out the application below and mail to: AHWA CO 425 S Fairfax Blvd., STE 306 Los Angeles, CA 90036 Name_____________________________________________________ Address___________________________________________________ City____________________________________ State______________ Zip Code________________ Telephone Number(s)_________________________________________ E-mail Address______________________________________________ For all orders, please allow seven (7) days for delivery and up to 10 days. Cash and Money Orders will result in faster shipping of your package. From hoppock Mon Jun 7 00:31:42 1999 From: hoppock (Matthew Hoppock) Date: Sun, 6 Jun 1999 22:31:42 PDT Subject: I don't understand (solicited mail) Message-ID: community, I just got this message...it said it came from edebate. is this true? did everyone else get this? I am bothered if there is solicited mail coming through the debate list-serve about things having nothing to do with debate. I don't advocate regulation or censorship in any way...just a little bit of personal discretion... matthew ----Original Message Follows---- Dear Future Associate, You Can Work At Home & Set Your Own Hours. Start earning Big Money in a short time NO Newspaper Advertising! Your job will be to stuff and mail envelopes for our company. You will receive $.25 for each and every envelope you stuff and mail out. Just follow our simple instructions and you will be making money as easy as 1~E 2~E 3 For example stuff and mail 200 envelopes and you will receive $50.00. Stuff and mail 1000 and you will receive $250.00. Stuff and mail 2000 and you will receive $500.00 and more Never before has there been an easier way to make money from home! Our Company's Home Mailing Program is designed for people with little or no experience and provides simple, step by step instructions. There is no prior experience or special skills necessary on your part, Just stuffing envelopes. We need the help of honest and reliable home workers like you. Because we are overloaded with work and have more than our staff can handle. We have now expanded our mailing program and are expecting to reach millions more with our offers throughout the US and Canada. Our system of stuffing and mailing envelopes is very simple and easy to do! You will not be required to buy envelopes or postage stamps. We will gladly furnish all circulars at no cost to you. We assure you that as a participant in our program you will never have to mail anything objective or offensive. There are no quotas to meet, and there no contracts to sign. You can work as much, or as little as you want. Payment for each envelope you send out is Guaranteed! Here is what you will receive when you get your first Package. Inside you will find 100 envelopes, 100 labels and 100 sales letters ready to stuff and mail As soon as you are done with stuffing and mailing these first letters, your payment will arrive shortly, thereafter. All you have to do is to order more free supplies and stuff and mail more envelopes to make more money. Our sales literature which you will be stuffing and mailing will contain information outlining our highly informative manuals that we are advertising nationwide. As a free gift you will receive a special manual valued at $24.95, absolutely free, just for joining our Home Mailers Program. Plus you will get your own special code number, so that we will know how much you are to get paid. And to make re-ordering of more envelopes, that our company supplies very simple for you. We are giving you this free bonus because we want you to be confident in our company and to ensure that we will be doing business with you for a long time. Benefits Of This Job: 1. You do not have to quit your present job, to earn more money at home 2. You can make between $2,500 to $4,500 a month depending on the amount of time you are willing to spend stuffing and mailing envelopes 3. This is a great opportunity for the students, mothers, disabled persons or those who are home bodies. To secure your position and to show us that you are serious about earning extra income at home we require a one-time registration fee of $35.00. This fee covers the cost of your initial start up package, which includes 100 envelopes, 100 labels and 100 sales letters and a manual, your registration fee will be refunded back to you shortly thereafter. Money Back Guarantee! We guarantee that as soon as you stuff and mail your first 300 envelopes You will be paid $75.00 and your registration fee will be refunded. Many of you wonder why it is necessary to pay a deposit to get a job. It is because we are looking for people that seriously want to work from home. * If 3.000 people told us they wanted to start working from home and we sent out 3.000 packages free to every one. And then half of the people decided not to work, this would be a potential loss of more than $60,000 in supply's and shipping that we have sent out to people that don't want to work We have instituted this policy to make sure that you really want to work and at least finish your first package. To Get Started Today Please Enclose Your Registration Fee of $35 Check,Cash Or Money Order and fill out the application below and mail to: AHWA CO 425 S Fairfax Blvd., STE 306 Los Angeles, CA 90036 Name_____________________________________________________ Address___________________________________________________ City____________________________________ State______________ Zip Code________________ Telephone Number(s)_________________________________________ E-mail Address______________________________________________ For all orders, please allow seven (7) days for delivery and up to 10 days. Cash and Money Orders will result in faster shipping of your package. _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com >From Mon Jun 7 02:58:00 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 61682 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 02:59:19 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from f04n07.cac.psu.edu (f04s07.cac.psu.edu [128.118.141.35]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA20360 for ; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 02:59:18 -0400 Received: from PSUSystem.cac.psu.edu (tnt1-145-248.cac.psu.edu [128.118.145.248]) by f04n07.cac.psu.edu (8.8.7/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA37308 for ; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 02:59:15 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2377.0 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Message-ID: <000101beb0b3$14d524a0$f8917680 at PSUSystem.cac.psu.edu> Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 02:58:00 -0400 Reply-To: pjg154 at psu.edu To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Pat J Gehrke Subject: Re: Homeworkers Needed! In-Reply-To: <199906070521.BAA09772 at list.uvm.edu> The return address on this spam appears to be bogus. My response to them was bounced back. As a result, I have forwarded their email to the FTC's spam control center at uce at ftc.gov. I encourage others who are disturbed by the intrusion of spam into the listserve to do the same. Quantity of emails they receive does matter. Additionally, I filed a complaint with SpamScam at their web site, http://www.junkemail.org/scamspam/ The more we squeak, the more likely we get greased. Pat Pat J. Gehrke, Debate and Speech Team Director 234 Sparks Building pjg154 at psu.edu Pennsylvania State University (814) 865-7751 University Park, PA 16802 http://www.personal.psu.edu/pjg154 "[An accusation of] 'sophistry' is a slogan used by ordinary common sense against educated reason, just as the expression 'visionary dreaming' sums up, once and for all, what philosophy means to those who are ignorant of it." -- G.W.F. Hegel, Phenomenology of Spirit. -----Original Message----- From: Team Topic Debating in America [mailto:EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU]On Behalf Of toukol at MINDSPRING.COM Sent: Monday, June 07, 1999 1:22 AM To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU Subject: Homeworkers Needed! Dear Future Associate, You Can Work At Home & Set Your Own Hours. Start earning Big Money in a short time NO Newspaper Advertising! Your job will be to stuff and mail envelopes for our company. You will receive $.25 for each and every envelope you stuff and mail out. Just follow our simple instructions and you will be making money as easy as 1 2 3 For example stuff and mail 200 envelopes and you will receive $50.00. Stuff and mail 1000 and you will receive $250.00. Stuff and mail 2000 and you will receive $500.00 and more Never before has there been an easier way to make money from home! Our Company's Home Mailing Program is designed for people with little or no experience and provides simple, step by step instructions. There is no prior experience or special skills necessary on your part, Just stuffing envelopes. We need the help of honest and reliable home workers like you. Because we are overloaded with work and have more than our staff can handle. We have now expanded our mailing program and are expecting to reach millions more with our offers throughout the US and Canada. Our system of stuffing and mailing envelopes is very simple and easy to do! You will not be required to buy envelopes or postage stamps. We will gladly furnish all circulars at no cost to you. We assure you that as a participant in our program you will never have to mail anything objective or offensive. There are no quotas to meet, and there no contracts to sign. You can work as much, or as little as you want. Payment for each envelope you send out is Guaranteed! Here is what you will receive when you get your first Package. Inside you will find 100 envelopes, 100 labels and 100 sales letters ready to stuff and mail As soon as you are done with stuffing and mailing these first letters, your payment will arrive shortly, thereafter. All you have to do is to order more free supplies and stuff and mail more envelopes to make more money. Our sales literature which you will be stuffing and mailing will contain information outlining our highly informative manuals that we are advertising nationwide. As a free gift you will receive a special manual valued at $24.95, absolutely free, just for joining our Home Mailers Program. Plus you will get your own special code number, so that we will know how much you are to get paid. And to make re-ordering of more envelopes, that our company supplies very simple for you. We are giving you this free bonus because we want you to be confident in our company and to ensure that we will be doing business with you for a long time. Benefits Of This Job: 1. You do not have to quit your present job, to earn more money at home 2. You can make between $2,500 to $4,500 a month depending on the amount of time you are willing to spend stuffing and mailing envelopes 3. This is a great opportunity for the students, mothers, disabled persons or those who are home bodies. To secure your position and to show us that you are serious about earning extra income at home we require a one-time registration fee of $35.00. This fee covers the cost of your initial start up package, which includes 100 envelopes, 100 labels and 100 sales letters and a manual, your registration fee will be refunded back to you shortly thereafter. Money Back Guarantee! We guarantee that as soon as you stuff and mail your first 300 envelopes You will be paid $75.00 and your registration fee will be refunded. Many of you wonder why it is necessary to pay a deposit to get a job. It is because we are looking for people that seriously want to work from home. * If 3.000 people told us they wanted to start working from home and we sent out 3.000 packages free to every one. And then half of the people decided not to work, this would be a potential loss of more than $60,000 in supply's and shipping that we have sent out to people that don't want to work We have instituted this policy to make sure that you really want to work and at least finish your first package. To Get Started Today Please Enclose Your Registration Fee of $35 Check,Cash Or Money Order and fill out the application below and mail to: AHWA CO 425 S Fairfax Blvd., STE 306 Los Angeles, CA 90036 Name_____________________________________________________ Address___________________________________________________ City____________________________________ State______________ Zip Code________________ Telephone Number(s)_________________________________________ E-mail Address______________________________________________ For all orders, please allow seven (7) days for delivery and up to 10 days. Cash and Money Orders will result in faster shipping of your package. From race Mon Jun 7 06:34:44 1999 From: race (David Rhaesa) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 05:34:44 -0600 Subject: David O'Connor Message-ID: If anyone has contact info for David O'Connor please backchannel. Thanks in advance and whatever I'm supposed to say about the clutter. still something after all these years, david rhaesa in denver >From Mon Jun 7 07:56:32 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 62203 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 07:58:18 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo26.mx.aol.com (imo26.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.70]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA18646 for ; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 07:58:15 -0400 Received: from DRTUNA at aol.com (14446) by imo26.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id iLBAa02073; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 07:56:32 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Mac - Post-GM sub 52 Message-ID: <92ae01d7.248d0d70 at aol.com> Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 07:56:32 EDT Reply-To: DRTUNA at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Alfred Snider Subject: Re: I don't understand (solicited mail) Comments: To: hoppock at hotmail.com eDebate has automated spam controls, and we catch a couple each week and keep them off the list, but this one seems to have gotten through. Sorry, but we try. Tuna eDebate listowner In a message dated 6/7/99 5:32:42 AM, hoppock at hotmail.com writes: >community, > >I just got this message...it said it came from edebate. is this true? > did >everyone else get this? I am bothered if there is solicited mail coming >through the debate list-serve about things having nothing to do with debate. >I don't advocate regulation or censorship in any way...just a little bit >of >personal discretion... > >matthew > From mkrueger Mon Jun 7 07:32:55 1999 From: mkrueger (Michael A. Krueger) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 07:32:55 -0500 Subject: URL for Rogue Topic Papers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: They are on debate central and our site, which is http://www.mtsu.edu/~debate/topic.html happy reading! mike On Sun, 6 Jun 1999, Andrew Kemp wrote: > I should have paid attention earlier, sorry for the clutter; would someone > backchannel me the URL for the topic papers. > > Thanks in advance. > > Andy > Michael Krueger Director of Debate Middle Tennessee State University http://www.mtsu.edu/~debate/ http://www.mtsu.edu/~debate/mdi.html 615.898.5607 Berry, Buck, Mills, and Stipe in '87 It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine. From Regina.Paulose Mon Jun 7 08:17:55 1999 From: Regina.Paulose (Regina Menachery Paulose) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 09:17:55 -0400 Subject: I don't understand (solicited mail) In-Reply-To: <19990607053143.19072.qmail@hotmail.com> Message-ID: yes i got that same message. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Between stimulus and response is our greatest power--the freedom to choose. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >From Mon Jun 7 10:30:41 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 64511 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 11:27:10 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from m18.boston.juno.com (m18.boston.juno.com [205.231.101.191]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA18122 for ; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 11:27:08 -0400 Received: (from jhizm at juno.com) by m18.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id ECH6EBFP; Mon, 07 Jun 1999 11:26:50 EDT X-Mailer: Juno 1.49 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-1,4,6,8-10 Message-ID: <19990607.103044.23950.0.Jhizm at juno.com> Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 10:30:41 -0500 Reply-To: jhizm at JUNO.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Joe W Kilpatrick Subject: Need the Yucca Mountain impact cites hey. i'm looking for the cites for the ecological disaster impact cards about the Yucca Mountain depository. if you can help me with the cites or text of the cards, i'd be much appreciative. thanks. joe kilpatrick SMSU "extend me grace. . . " - the choir ___________________________________________________________________ Get the Internet just the way you want it. Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month! Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj. >From Mon Jun 7 10:50:02 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 64808 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 11:46:16 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from m18.boston.juno.com (m18.boston.juno.com [205.231.101.191]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA14890 for ; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 11:46:12 -0400 Received: (from jhizm at juno.com) by m18.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id ECH7HDV6; Mon, 07 Jun 1999 11:45:59 EDT X-Mailer: Juno 1.49 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-1,5-6,8,10-12 Message-ID: <19990607.105004.23958.0.Jhizm at juno.com> Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 10:50:02 -0500 Reply-To: jhizm at JUNO.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Joe W Kilpatrick Subject: Another nuke waste request another request. i'm also looking for cites that outline the warrants supporting temporary storage of waste at a central depository until Yucca is completed, as opposed to on-site storage. if you know of such journals/articles, etc., please drop me a line. thanks again, joe kilpatrick SMSU "extend me grace. . . " - the choir ___________________________________________________________________ Get the Internet just the way you want it. Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month! Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj. From ifjxh Mon Jun 7 11:07:05 1999 From: ifjxh (Joshua Hoe) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 09:07:05 PDT Subject: The Topic Message-ID: I have to admit that I am a little concerned. Last year we had to have someone condense the comments about the topic this year, if we did that, it would be approximately a page long. Is everyone on vacation or have they just begun to trust us :). Anyway, it really helps to have strong community discussion...It frames much of the topic committees work. Anyway, hope everyone is doing well! Josh _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com From cwalts Mon Jun 7 12:10:59 1999 From: cwalts (Charles Walts) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 12:10:59 -0500 Subject: topic nations Message-ID: Well, Josh might get his wish with this post. The problem that I am having with the wording papers is that they do not outline which nations that the topic would be aimed at. Josh's paper, and a the others, outline possible nations, but they say [insert topic nations here] or something to that effect. My question is why? Why dont the papers just come out and say which nations the action would be towards. For me, the best list would come from the US DoD's list, its what the orginal topic paper focused on and seems to fit the literature best. So, any topic should just be limited to those nations on the list. If we include other nations, such as China and Russia, then the topic would be exposive for a research burden. Josh states in his wording paper that no true discussion can occur about "rogues" without including Russia and China. I agree, but why include them in the wording of the resolution. let the negative run their arms sales disads or hege positions. Once the debate can be resolved on which nations to write the topic towards, a better discussion of what action to take can occur. We can talk and talk and talk about constructive engagement, or threat reduction programs, but there does that get us if we have no idea which countries the programs would be towards?? seeking answers Charles Walts ENMU Debate cwalts at camalott.com From msc2a Mon Jun 7 12:33:16 1999 From: msc2a (Matthew Scott Carter) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 12:33:16 -0500 Subject: Apology and the end In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Umm...ok...I don't want to draw fire (and personally have not be closely reading the argument that sparked this incident), but the fact is that the debate community, for all its preaching of tolerance, seems to me the most intolerant community when it comes to different ideas. You're right. We don't have to agree with everyone, but we don't have to always be involved in knock down drag out (email) screaming matches that eventually convince one of the participants that his or her life is worse as a result of constant conflict on edebate because the stronger majority simply WILL NOT let the argument die. And don't deny that we (yes I do as well) do this. We're like the Borg: disagreement is futile. You WILL see things this way because EVERYBODY on edebate just KNOWS it's the CORRECT, ENLIGHTENED way to see things (e.g. shawnessy's "marginalizing" views). So, this is a desparate plea to all who have offended (which as I said is most of us including myself) to knock it off. As a side note, if I get a nasty response to this it would be absolutely hilarious. EvilMatt MTSU On Sun, 6 Jun 1999, Terrance Lamonte Bond wrote: > No one DROVE Shawnessy away from the forum. She chose to leave. Sure, > she alienated herself from a sizeable portion of subscribers via > her marginalizing comments, but she certainly could have anticipated > that.........I'm still having a hard time figuring out how the hell > I'm going to stand behind myself(given my homosexuality and minority > sub-status). And no, people probably don't accept the "radical" > (relatively speaking) opinions of others........quite frankly, the > onus is not upon me to accept the opinions of someone with whom > I disagre. So, blame the "big bad monster that is EDEBATE" if you > want, but Shawnessy's decision to abandon argumentative ship > was her decision. If she truly beileves in her judgments, she shouldn't > be afraid to defend them at every opportunity. > > TERRANCE > MTSU > > > > > On Sun, 6 Jun 1999, p.j. bandoleras wrote: > > > i am sorry people have driven you away from this forum. this forum does > > that. it does not accept people who have radical points of view. not > > that i agree with ANYTHING you said.... > > > > as for yuor analogy using christians..being pentacostal..i have to > > disagree..not all of us fit your stereotype. > > > > --zorro > > --- Shawnessy Scott wrote: > > > An apology: > > > > > > This won't be what you thought it was, so if you're > > > no longer interested > > > feel free to move on, or take the stellar and > > > recurring advice to hit > > > the delete key on what you consider to be trash. > > > > > > I've offended one too many people and, as promised, > > > I'm retiring. > > > This isn't the place I thought it was, and > > > probably the wrong > > > forum for the entirety of my arguments. I've curbed > > > and edited and > > > modified at the requests of others, only to find > > > that it wasn't enough > > > for still other people, and that it is not > > > permissible to be an imperfect > > > person in the world of edebate. I'm not quite > > > callous enough to continue > > > to step on people's toes, spend countless hours > > > trying to patch it up all > > > while trying to salvage my original point, only to > > > have people post > > > back to me about what an evil and ignorant person I > > > am, or stop > > > speaking to me together... I'm not quite callous > > > enough to continue to > > > try that hard and not be affected at all by > > > continuous rejection, or > > > be ok and just get used to the fact that I'm going > > > to hurt at least > > > twenty-five people's feelings every time I make a > > > post. > > > This isn't the place I thought it was because I > > > seem to be under > > > some mistaken impressions. One, I thought that it > > > was this great forum > > > for free speech, where anyone could comment on > > > anything they happened to > > > think of, as long as it wasn't completely inane and > > > as long as it > > > wasn't blatantly and purposefully offensive. Two, I > > > thought that this > > > was more of a community of intellectual people > > > interested in continuing > > > conversation, and getting feedback, expanding minds, > > > changing > > > perspectives, sending mail sometimes just to say hi > > > or to make > > > invitations to everyone... not an extention of > > > debate rounds. I just > > > can't understand people trying to run T and Clinton > > > on my personal > > > opinions. > > > This isn't what I wanted to learn from debate, > > > but some people > > > have a striking resemblence in actions to the early > > > Catholic Christians. > > > Like some Christians, you can't be satisfied to let > > > people believe > > > differently from you, you have to go out and convert > > > people. Like > > > some Christians, you can't understand that there's > > > more sides to an > > > issue than right and wrong, and that it's not always > > > your role to play > > > judge and jury. Like some Christians, you can't deal > > > with differences > > > of opinion and agree to disagree about some trivial > > > or even not-so- > > > trivial matters for the sake of civility and > > > friendship. Every time I > > > post, I get the edebate version of The Inquisition, > > > where I'd better > > > believe everything in the debate catechism or I get > > > nearly crucified. > > > Well before I get excommunicated, I'm bowing out. > > > > > > Since I'm used to the inevitability of everyone on > > > the list that I do > > > or don't know taking every single sentence > > > personally, I'll apologize > > > in advance because I don't enjoy being offensive to > > > the point that > > > people start seeing me as a real asshole. > > > To the unanswered posts and the people I've left > > > hanging, I'm > > > obssessed with having the last word. Call it a > > > personal problem, or > > > whatever, but I did answer every post line-by-line > > > and may continue to. > > > I just won't be posting to the list where I could > > > mistakenly wound > > > someone's inner child. > > > To the righteously offended who thought we'd become > > > pretty good friends, > > > or at least had a little respect for me, the > > > relationships still stand. > > > Feel free to email me any time, and I'll answer > > > promptly as I usually > > > do. Backchannel. > > > > > > > > > peace and God Bless > > > the novice > > > Shawnessy > > > > > > I'm not sick but I'm not well... -Flagpole Sitta > > > > > > Blame it on my mental illness. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Angelfire for your free web-based e-mail. > > > http://www.angelfire.com > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________ > > Do You Yahoo!? > > Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com > > > ___________________________________________________________________ EvilMatt {{{I believe in God, I just don't trust anybody who works for him.}}} "If you can't think of anything nice, say something nasty." -Life's Little Destruction Book "Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh." -George Bernard Shaw "I love to go to the schoolyard and watch the children jump and scream, but they don't know I'm using blanks." -Jack Handey, Deep Thoughts "Q: What's black and white and red and black and white and red? A: Two zebras fighting over a dead baby." - Cindy Simmons Visit http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/Library/9675 Sign the guestbook or else.... From mkrueger Mon Jun 7 13:40:13 1999 From: mkrueger (Krueger) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 13:40:13 -0500 Subject: Topic Papers References: Message-ID: I have to agree with Prof. Perkins here. Has anyone thought about framing a resolution around removing a country from the state department's list of terrorist countries? I know that would leave teams with few affirmatives, but at least it avoids the exception counterplan. I know the links to disads wouldn't be terribly big, but they would be unique. Just trying to figure out how topics can be framed, mike Dallas Perkins wrote: > I have been generally quite pleased with the substance of the topic > papers, and commend the authors. I have not read all of them carefully, > but I have scanned them all and read parts carefully. It looks like a fun > area. However, I have a concern. It seems to me that the framers are > facing a serious problem in terms of writing a topic that accomplishes > what everybody seems to want. > > What does everybody want? It seems to me that Mancuso captured it pretty > well in his paper: We want the aff to have to make large, wholesale, > systemic changes in overall sanctions policy, not merely create a few > exceptions to a policy already shot full of exceptions. At the same time, > we want the aff to have the flexibility to go beyond merely ending > sanctions, perhaps ending the threat of military confrontation, or > increasing aid, or establishing formal diplomatic relations. All of these > seem to be part of what is called normalization, and without them, an > affirmative policy may indeed be quite hollow. > > How are these two goals to be met? Alas, I don't really think anybody has > found acceptable language, and it's not for lack of trying. The Hernandez > paper has some provocative suggestions, but it seemed to me that none of > them reliably met the first criterion: In each case, the aff could > topically make small, isolated changes in overall sanctions policy towards > a country. Consider, "a policy to normalize relations." While such a > policy might attack a broad range of sanctions, it seems to me quite clear > that affs would prevail by taking SMALL STEPS TOWARDS NORMALIZATION. They > may not normalize ALL RELATIONS, but they take a step in that direction. > Even using Mancuso's worst scenario, an aff that added the clothing > exception to other humanitarian exceptions would surely win topicality > with the irrefutable claim that they had normalized relations in the area > of clothing exports, and the topic never said that they had to normalize > ALL RELATIONS. Some normalization is enough, and they did some. > > Of course, one coule write a topic which said that ALL SANCTIONS against > some country or countries had to be removed. While this more than > sufficiently limits affirmative ground (there would basically be one plan > per topic country), it enables the negative to counterplan with a single, > perhaps frequently trivial, exception, ot the overall removal of > sanctions. This seems an undue strategic advantage, and in any event will > lose the focus on the big picture policy debate the framers (and all of > us) yearn for. > > Another aspect of the discussion has me a little worried. Mancuso urges > that affs have the flexibility to do much more than merely reduce or > eliminate sanctions, that they be allowed to change our military policy, > for example, all as part of an overall effort to normalize relations and > engage. This seems reasonable, as little may be accomplished otherwise. > However, consider how the topic is thus expanded: an affirmative can > adopt a few small changes in sanctions policy, then add on a ban on > military intervention, claiming most of he big advantages from the latter. > Steve avers that the aff would still be required to to defend the > sanctions part of the plan, but that helps the neg ONLY IF THE TOPIC > LANGUAGE MAKES THE SANCTIONS PART OF THE PLAN BE REALLY SUBSTANTIAL, and > so far nobody has proposed any language that does that without going so > far as to allow exceptions counterplans. > > If I had any proposals, I'd share them, but I don't. This is not an easy > drafting problem. > > dp -- Michael Krueger Director of Debate Middle Tennessee State University Box 43 Murfreesboro, TN 37132 (615) 898-5607 (office) (615) 898-5826 (fax) http://www.mtsu.edu/~debate/ http://www.mtsu.edu/~debate/mdi.html http://www.mtsu.edu/~mkrueger/ From jef229f Mon Jun 7 13:43:11 1999 From: jef229f (John Fritch, PhD) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 13:43:11 -0500 Subject: Position Announcement Message-ID: Pat and all, I am a little less hopeful than you. I think I have a bit of a grasp of the nature of the problem, I just don't know how to fix it. Two MAJOR problems that I see: 1. We are victims of our own success. The coaches that have been outstanding have also been outstanding teachers and have LARGE academic families. Donn Parson and George Ziegelmueller and some of the "old timers" that are long gone sparked huge changes in our field. It is always interesting to me to look at the list of people that went through the Kansas PhD program and where they are in the field. Anyhow, my point is that debate coaches were INCREDIBLY successful teachers and were the reason that so many communication departments got so big. The down side is that the enlargement of departments meant that we attracted more and more people who have no idea what a debate is. Many of the people in my own department were mentored by people that were originally debate types and these "second generation" people have no idea why there mentors were in debate. Unfortunately, many of these people just aren't as sharp, either, and so current debaters don't even want to major in communications many times. I think this is a bit of a vicious cycle. 2. The commitment of universities and colleges to graduate education and research. Debate is best supported at institutions where undergraduate teaching is most valued. The problem is that the PhD granting institutions really don't care as much about undergraduate teaching and it makes tenure a difficult thing for DoF's to get. The end result is that fewer and fewer PhD granting institutions have a strong commitment to training DoF's as a part of their mission. This means that the MA and BA granting institutions will have a harder time finding the quality applicants that they have been able to find in the past. I know...this is incoherent...just got back from family vacation...sunburned my FEET at a water park...OUCH! John Fritch SMS ---------- >From: Pat J Gehrke >To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU >Subject: Re: Position Announcement >Date: Fri, Jun 4, 1999, 5:17 PM > >It seems there is a trend for DoF positions to be moving toward >adminsitrative/professional positions, and many are becoming renewable >fixed-term appointments. These jobs seem particularly unappealing when >compared to even a mediocre tenure-line teaching job. SIU's recent >extension of their search for a director might be a promising sign that >former debaters and current coaches that are very strong candidates can also >get jobs outside of forensics. Maybe soon the pendulum will begin to swing >back and universities will start to once again realize that the only way to >recruit and retain a really excellent director of forensics is to offer a >tenure-track position. > >With hope that someday PSU and SIU and many others will make their DoF >positions tenure-line, > >Pat > >Pat J. Gehrke, Debate and Speech Team Director >234 Sparks Building pjg154 at psu.edu >Pennsylvania State University (814) 865-7751 >University Park, PA 16802 > >http://www.personal.psu.edu/pjg154 > >"[An accusation of] 'sophistry' is a slogan used by ordinary common sense >against educated reason, just as the expression 'visionary dreaming' sums >up, once and for all, what philosophy means to those who are ignorant of >it." -- G.W.F. Hegel, Phenomenology of Spirit. > >-----Original Message----- >From: Team Topic Debating in America [mailto:EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU]On >Behalf Of Laura Sims >Sent: Friday, June 04, 1999 3:56 PM >To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU >Subject: Position Announcement >Importance: High > > >NOTICE: Search Extended > >Director of Debate. Administrative/Professional (nine month term >appointment. We anticipate conducting a national search during 1999-2000 >for a permanent Director of Debate). The Department of Speech >Communication, SIUC, seeks individual to provide leadership to >nationally-ranked CEDA debate program, including supervision of graduate >student coaches. Create on-campus and community debate and forensics >programs to contribute to departmental educational mission. > >Teach such undergraduate courses as argumentation & debate and persuasion. >Participate in the service and governance functions of the department. >Minimum requirements include a master's degree in Speech Communication (or >related field) and CEDA coaching experience at the national level, and two >years of undergraduate teaching experience. Effective date of appointment >will be August 16, 1999. > >Applications accepted until position is filled. To apply send letter of >application, curriculum vitae, three current letters of reference, and a >writing sample to Phillip J. Glenn, Chair, Department of Speech >Communication, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL 62901-6605. >Southern Illinois University Carbondale is an AFFIRMATIVE ACTION/EQUAL >OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER. > >Laura J. Sims >Office Manager >Speech Communication Department >Southern Illinois University >Carbondale, IL 62901-6605 >Phone: 618/453-2214 >Fax: 618/453-2812 From steveman Mon Jun 7 10:54:37 1999 From: steveman (Steve Mancuso) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 15:54:37 +0000 Subject: Terrorism List Topic References: <375C120D.A34A547D@frank.mtsu.edu> Message-ID: The problem with a resolution that simply takes country A off the terrorism list is that it would not require that alternative methods of sanctioning be prohibited. The Congress/President could simply re-establish sanctions under any number of other currently existing laws or new laws. Iran and Libya could be sanctioned under ILSA, Iraq under the NNPA 92, Cuba under Helms Burton. North Korea could fit under the NNPA 92 as well. Furthermore a resolution limited to just taking a country off the list would not permit the affirmative to do anything more than that. No aid or conditioning of aid or removal of sanctions could be implemented. I'm afraid that a topic like this would not match up to the literature very well. I know that I suggested a topic exactly like this in the original topic paper, but since then I've done more thinking and have reached the opposite conclusion. Steve Mancuso Michigan From debate Mon Jun 7 15:55:34 1999 From: debate (Vermont Debate) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 15:55:34 -0500 Subject: No subject Message-ID: Dear Debate Community, After several weeks of combing through more than 100 applications and considering the competing needs of each applicant the World Debate Institute has awarded over $25,000 to assist students and coaches in attending this year's debate workshops. Hopefully these grants, though not as large as we wish, will help all who need assistance in attending "Bootcamp for the Brain." If you applied for a scholarship, you should be receiving mail within the next few days detailing the amount of your grant. However, if you need to know faster than the Postal Service can inform you there are several ways we can help you find out. You can send email to debate at zoo.uvm.edu with the subject heading: SCHOLARSHIP?. If you prefer you can also do this through the web by pointing your browsers to http://debate.uvm.edu/wdi99help.html. For privacy and security reasons we ask that you include some bit of information from your application (i.e. address, phone number, etc.). If you need information or assistance all don't hesitate to contact us. Andy Ellis Technoscribe World Debate Institute From debate Mon Jun 7 16:16:25 1999 From: debate (Vermont Debate) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 16:16:25 -0500 Subject: WDI'99 Help Page is Online Message-ID: Do you have questions you need to ask the World Debate Institute. Has my application arrived in Vermont? Did I get a scholarship? What Amount? When do the shuttles run from Boston and Manchester? Do I need to bring my own sheets? How will I eat when I am in Burlington? Can I really endure? Is it to late to apply? Will I have fun? What is a Technoscribe? If any of these questions have crossed your mind, or if you have other questions then direct your browsers to http://debate.uvm.edu/wdi99help.html . This page will provide you with a web based E-Mail form which will allow you to send us your questions. We will then answer them as quickly as possible. If your question is relevant to the general pubic we will post it on the page so others with the same questions can find the answers they are looking for. For those traditionalists amongst us, E-Mail debate at zoo.uvm.edu. Subject: WDI Help This will provide the same service as the web based alternative. So in sum ask away. Andy Ellis Technoscribe World Debate Institute From debate Mon Jun 7 16:26:09 1999 From: debate (Vermont Debate) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 16:26:09 -0500 Subject: WDI Announces Scholarships for 1999 Workshops Message-ID: Dear Debate Community, After several weeks of combing through more than 100 applications and considering the competing needs of each applicant the World Debate Institute has awarded over $25,000 to assist students and coaches in attending this year's debate workshops. Hopefully these grants, though not as large as we wish, will help all who need assistance in attending "Bootcamp for the Brain." If you applied for a scholarship, you should be receiving mail within the next few days detailing the amount of your grant. However, if you need to know faster than the Postal Service can inform you there are several ways we can help you find out. You can send email to debate at zoo.uvm.edu with the subject heading: SCHOLARSHIP?. If you prefer you can also do this through the web by pointing your browsers to http://debate.uvm.edu/wdi99help.html. For privacy and security reasons we ask that you include some bit of information from your application (i.e. address, phone number, etc.). If you need information or assistance all don't hesitate to contact us. Andy Ellis Technoscribe (Though apparently not capable of including a subject in edebate announcements) World Debate Institute >From Mon Jun 7 16:26:45 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 37957 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 16:32:14 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo19.mx.aol.com (imo19.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.9]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA10150 for ; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 16:32:12 -0400 Received: from MGWalton at aol.com (7804) by imo19.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id nBZVa01253 for ; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 16:26:46 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows sub 11 Message-ID: <9dccc190.248d8505 at aol.com> Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 16:26:45 EDT Reply-To: MGWalton at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Marcus Walton Subject: Re: Final round tapes OK. I have gotten five or so requests to forward info about final round tapes. But no info about who or where I can find such tapes. Help, please? Anyone? How about this? What if I go into business for myself and tape all of them and then sell them to members fo the communcity for $99.99? Of course, they won't be as valuable as the Jerry Springer Too Hot for TV tapes, but hey, I'll make a living, right? Marcus From simegreg Mon Jun 7 15:48:13 1999 From: simegreg (Greg Simerly) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 14:48:13 -0600 Subject: Final round tapes Message-ID: >From: Marcus Walton >Subject: Re: Final round tapes >To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU > >OK. I have gotten five or so requests to forward info about final round >tapes. But no info about who or where I can find such tapes. Help, please? >Anyone? > >How about this? What if I go into business for myself and tape all of them >and then sell them to members fo the communcity for $99.99? Of course, they >won't be as valuable as the Jerry Springer Too Hot for TV tapes, but hey, >I'll make a living, right? > >Marcus > CEDA has, as far back as I can remember (no jokes, please) never been in the business of selling final round tapes. In the late 80s/early 90s, two private individuals sold copies of final rounds with transcripts. As I recall, CEDA provided the tape to them since they were willing to devote the time and do the work. $99.99? Given the time required to copy tapes, even hightech fast copying, and the time it takes to do an accuarate transcript and verify cards, you must work cheap! :) Cheers, Greg Greg Simerly Director of Debate, Idaho State University Executive-Secretary, Cross Examination Debate Association Communication & Theatre Box 8115-ISU Pocatello, ID 83209 O (208) 236-5962 F (208) 236-4598 "ISU Debate: we love to fly, and it shows" Alternate slogans from the community: "ISU Debate: we HAVE to fly, and it shows" -Bill Sheffield "ISU Debate: we love to fly when it snows" -Matt Stannard "ISU Debate: if we don't fly, we're no shows" -Frank Irizarry >From Mon Jun 7 15:52:03 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 38246 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 16:52:40 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from wfrpc.dst.fl.us (server.wfrpc.dst.fl.us [206.105.46.100]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA20134 for ; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 16:52:34 -0400 Received: from TERM-26 (TERM-26 [206.105.46.84]) by wfrpc.dst.fl.us (NTMail 3.02.09) with ESMTP id ua042166 for ; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 15:52:05 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01d) Message-ID: <20520593101549 at wfrpc.dst.fl.us> Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 15:52:03 -0500 Reply-To: chismc at WFRPC.DST.FL.US To: Team Topic Debating in America From: chismc at WFRPC.DST.FL.US Subject: Re: Final round tapes In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.19990607144813.00796610 at isu.edu> Wouldn't you have to get the permission of the folks in the round also? just wondering.... i remember buying the transcripts SEVERAL years ago....i also remember watching a few final round tapes..... From gkuper Mon Jun 7 16:14:11 1999 From: gkuper (Glenn Kuper) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 14:14:11 -0700 Subject: Final round tapes In-Reply-To: <9dccc190.248d8505@aol.com> Message-ID: I want to echo the concerns Marcus has about the ability to find tapes and transcripts of final rounds. I think they are an excellent tool for teaching as well as scholarly research. I know CEDA final rounds used to be taped and transcribed, but are not anymore. Does CEDA sell video rights for the final round, and if so, how would one go about acquiring such rights? What about NDT? I think we are missing a great chance to provide the community with a valuable tool. Glenn Kuper UPS At 04:26 PM 6/7/99 EDT, you wrote: >OK. I have gotten five or so requests to forward info about final round >tapes. But no info about who or where I can find such tapes. Help, please? >Anyone? > >How about this? What if I go into business for myself and tape all of them >and then sell them to members fo the communcity for $99.99? Of course, they >won't be as valuable as the Jerry Springer Too Hot for TV tapes, but hey, >I'll make a living, right? > >Marcus > > From tweiner1 Mon Jun 7 16:31:39 1999 From: tweiner1 (Timothy J Weiner) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 17:31:39 -0400 Subject: Pat McCann are you out there??? In-Reply-To: <19990606064159.91174.qmail@hotmail.com> Message-ID: Pat this is Jake, back channel me this week. Thanks Jake >From Mon Jun 7 17:39:21 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 38887 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 17:44:57 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo20.mx.aol.com (imo20.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.10]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA15822 for ; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 17:44:55 -0400 Received: from DRTUNA at aol.com (401) by imo20.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id nEITa07597 for ; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 17:39:29 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Mac - Post-GM sub 52 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 17:39:21 EDT Reply-To: DRTUNA at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Alfred Snider Subject: Video debates on the web Debate Central (http://debate.uvm.edu) is willing to encode final round tapes for broadcast over the web if we can find copies and if we can get permission. Check out http://debate.uvm.edu/broadcast.html for currently available streaming video. We currently have one debate on US Leadership, a public debate held at UVM. We will soon be adding two new debates as soon as we get the new encoding station cranked up, probably next week. 1999-2000 High School topic. A mini-debate for new debaters to watch. Staged by UVM debaters who took a break from their handbook work. Filmed at a TV studio.Novice friendly, public friendly. English as the official language of the USA. A full debate staged by Ken Broda-Bahm, featuring three debaters from Eastern Europe debating in English about English. Fulmed at a TV studio. Novice friendly, public friendly. More news later on this. Tuna From sharris Mon Jun 7 17:05:06 1999 From: sharris (SCOTT HARRIS) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 17:05:06 -0500 Subject: tenure tracks In-Reply-To: <199906071844.OAA19286@list.uvm.edu> Message-ID: I'm not embarassed at all to hold a position which has been converted from tenure status to non tenure status. I happen to believe it to be a good thing for myself and for the program. When I held a tenure track position debate was viewed by my department and the University as the least important aspect of my job. My letters of evaluation would say something to the effect of "you are spending too much time on that debate stuff and need to do more publishing. It is in the interest of the future of the program if you blow off a few years of students in debate and publish like mad instead." I had to apologize for time spent on debate. Now that my job title is debate coach the signals that I get from the department and the University are much different. They reflect a commitment from the University and the department that they value the work I do with the debate team. The fact that a University hires debate coaches to coach debate rather than be tenure track does not reflect a view that debate is not valued by the University. I think it avoids what was a major problem for many Universities to give the coach tenure and have them stop coaching debate so they have to hire a new faculty member. That vicious cycle creates many potential problems. There is also the problem that every time a debate coach in a tenure track position is denied tenure it forces the department to fight for the existence of the program. I also happen to personnaly believe that the tenure process is one of the worst things to ever happen to the academy. I have no problem with holding a non tenure track position. I am not advocating that all debate jobs be non tenure track but I think we should recognize that each University needs to solve its unique problems in its own way. If a University supports a debate program is far more important than whether they run it through a Coms Department, through Political Science, through an Alumni program or through Student Affairs. The most important fight is for the existence of well supported debate programs in the first place. #####LOCO IN LAWRENCE##### >From Mon Jun 7 17:20:11 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 39259 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 18:20:18 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from out5.ibm.net (out5.ibm.net [165.87.194.243]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA10052 for ; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 18:20:17 -0400 Received: from lisak (slip-32-100-181-195.ar.us.ibm.net [32.100.181.195]) by out5.ibm.net (8.8.5/8.6.9) with SMTP id WAA39960; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 22:20:04 GMT MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Importance: Normal Message-ID: <000801beb134$44af2fa0$2cb56420 at lisak> Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 17:20:11 -0500 Reply-To: LCKanak at ibm.net To: Team Topic Debating in America From: "Lisa C. Kanak" Subject: Some quick defense facts . . . Comments: To: "CX-L (E-mail)" As we head into the Congressional budgetary season -- I thought some of you might like some quick defense facts . . . * 20% of tactical aircraft on the front lines in the Arabian Gulf are not mission capable due to the cannibalization of working aircraft, vehicles and other hardware for spare parts (not enough money to purchase spare parts). * nearly 25,000 military personnel (that's nearly 10% of our active duty forces) are eligible for, or on food stamps. * Overall, our forces have been cut in half since 1989. * Military tempo (that's the number of missions our military is sent on) has TRIPLED since the end of the Cold War in the face of budget cuts and troop size decline (that means, fewer people are doing a whole lot more work -- it is a wonder more mistakes haven't happened in Bosnia, Kosovo and around the world). * Only 28% of pilots are reenlisting in the Air Force (read: it costs more money to train new ones, and the new ones are a lot less skilled, meaning more accidents) * Current military fundling levels are below that of pre-World War II This is just the tip of the iceberg folks . . . If you're wondering where the defense budget money is going (what there is of it), a portion is going to non-military related activities that have been placed within the defense budget including, but not limited to by any means: Center for Environmental Excellence Electric vehicle research High Frequency Active Auroral Research Small Business Development Landfill in Alaska National Automotive Center There are actually 10 pages of itemized budget authorizations totalling MILLIONS of dollars And those of you who would like to rag on THAAD . . . this is NOT the conservative ballistic missile program -- this is CLINTON's. He has chosen to fund THAAD over AEGIS because THAAD won't work (sly guy!), or ever be very effective. You see, THAAD attempts to hit the missile when it's moving at its fastest rate -- meaning it's a lot more difficult to "kill" -- AEGIS attempts to hit the missile when it's in the launch phase (slowest, and easiest to track). Congress has authorized additional money for AEGIS -- Clinton, spends it on THAAD. So, if you're going to complain about THAAD -- talk to the White House. THAAD is the White House's answer to the Missile Defense Act of 1999. This is how they can say they are "for" missile defense, and send out cables around the world telling all of our "friends" in China, Russia, etc., that the U.S. will not deploy a missile defense. I get like this when I have to write on defense topics . . . not looking for a debate, just a voice. Lisa Kanak From b-campbell Mon Jun 7 17:32:23 1999 From: b-campbell (bc) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 17:32:23 -0500 Subject: found final round tapes? Message-ID: i was checking out a bibliography of debate theory written by steve hunt (lewis and clark) on debate central and here's was one source: >American Forensics Association Executive Secretary James W Pratt Box 256 >River Falls, WI 54033. Championship Debates and Speeches annual national >final transcripts of final rounds NDT, CEDA, etc. This is the parent >organization for Argument and Advocacy this was written in 1997. does anyone know if this is true and/or are is it still being done? know how to access this electronically? BC "the pure being of revelation is not possible without meaning, which is the interpretation or re-symbolization of tradition. not system but commentray is the legitimate form through which truth is approached." Department of Speech Communication Mailcode 6605 SIUC Carbondale, IL 62901 618-453-1896 From phillijm Mon Jun 7 18:21:13 1999 From: phillijm (Jared Phillips and Loan Lam) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 16:21:13 -0700 Subject: Final round tapes References: <3.0.3.32.19990607141411.00fa4830@mail.ups.edu> Message-ID: Why not include a fee in the entry fee of these tournaments to videotape and transcribe the final rounds, or outrounds? The fee could either cover the cost of a graduate student from the institution holding nationals to do the work, or subcontract it out to a private firm. As for the copyright of the round, does anyone know who they actually belong to? -jmp ----- Original Message ----- From: Glenn Kuper To: Sent: Monday, June 07, 1999 2:14 PM Subject: Re: Final round tapes > I want to echo the concerns Marcus has about the ability to find tapes and > transcripts of final rounds. I think they are an excellent tool for > teaching as well as scholarly research. I know CEDA final rounds used to > be taped and transcribed, but are not anymore. Does CEDA sell video rights > for the final round, and if so, how would one go about acquiring such > rights? What about NDT? I think we are missing a great chance to provide > the community with a valuable tool. > > Glenn Kuper > UPS > > > At 04:26 PM 6/7/99 EDT, you wrote: > >OK. I have gotten five or so requests to forward info about final round > >tapes. But no info about who or where I can find such tapes. Help, please? > >Anyone? > > > >How about this? What if I go into business for myself and tape all of them > >and then sell them to members fo the communcity for $99.99? Of course, they > >won't be as valuable as the Jerry Springer Too Hot for TV tapes, but hey, > >I'll make a living, right? > > > >Marcus > > > > From mroston Mon Jun 7 20:37:21 1999 From: mroston (Michael Roston the eminently practical) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 20:37:21 -0500 Subject: Parli-L?? Message-ID: does anyone know how to get onto the parliamentary debate listserv? most of the directions I've found on the web have involved the listproc at Willamette, but when I tried to subscribe, the listproc didn't recognize Parli-L. It also didn't respond to my requests of what listservs it actually hosts. Is it moved elsewhere, or undergone a changed name? thanks in advance... -Michael Roston looking out for no one "From Buffy the Vampire Slayer to Todd Solondz's "Welcome To The Dollhouse," and a string of comically-bitter teen movies from Hollywood, pop culture has been trying to get this message out for years. For many kids - often the best and brightest -- school is a nightmare. People who are different are reviled as geeks, nerds, dorks. The lucky ones are excluded, the unfortunates are harassed, humiliated, sometimes assaulted literally as well as socially. Odd values - unthinking school spirit, proms, jocks - are exalted, while the best values - free thinking, non-conformity, curiousity - are ridiculed. Maybe the one positive legacy the Trenchcoat Mafia left was to ensure that this message got heard, by a society that seems desperate not to hear it." -Jon Katz From sykesunt Mon Jun 7 23:50:12 1999 From: sykesunt (Jason Sykes) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 23:50:12 -0500 Subject: [Fwd: 20th Heidegger Conference at UNT] Message-ID: Keith Wayne Brown wrote: > Please pass along information on this call for papers > to your students and colleagues. > > CALL FOR PAPERS > > HEIDEGGER 2000 > > "The Many Heideggers: > Interpreting the Future of Heideggerean Studies" > April 20 - April 22, 2000 > University of North Texas > Denton, TX > > The Department of Philosophy and Religion Studies at > the University of North Texas is proud to announce the > Twentieth Conference on the Life and Philosophy of > Martin Heidegger. "The Many Heideggers" theme seeks > to address how Heidegger interpreted his own work, how > his thought was interpreted by his contemporaries, and > the various "successors" who have used Heidegger as a > starting point for a new direction in philosophy. The > Heidegger 2000 conference is primarily interested in > how these diverse interpretations lay the ground for > ontological studies in the 21st Century. We are > accepting any paper and panel proposals that fit this > theme. Submissions from graduate students will also > be considered. We are especially looking for > participants who want to address the following issues: > > Martin Heidegger and Karl Jaspers > Heideggerean Philosophy and Environmental Ethics > The Future of Heidegger Studies > Is English Inadequate for Ontological Research? > > Due date for submissions is October 15, 1999. Papers > should be limited to twenty (20) minutes reading time. > Completed papers or 500 word abstracts will be > accepted for consideration. Panel proposals should be > limited to 1000 words and present the overall agenda > of the panel as well as specific contributions of each > participant. Papers and panels should be structured > to spark conversation and dialog among conference > attendees. The Organizers will seek to publish a > Proceedings of the best papers and panels presented at > the conference. > > Please submit proposals on or before October 15, 1999: > > via e-mail: > Keith Brown kwatabee at yahoo.com > > via post: > Keith Wayne Brown > 20th Heidegger Conference > Dept of Philosophy > P. O. Box 310920 > Denton, TX 76203-0920 > > via fax: > (940) 565-4448 > Attn: Keith W. Brown > 20th Heidegger Conference > > Conference Founder: > Richard M. Owsley > > Conference Chair: > Keith W. Brown > > Program Committee: > John V. James > Timothy M. Riley > Michael Thompson > > === > Peace Love Anarchy > Kwatabee Cardinal Nworb, 23rd Abbot > Abbey of the Sacred Living Circumlocution > > "You cannot live your life forever in brackets-- > Prosletyze by Circumlocution!!!" > > _________________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com From pacedebate Tue Jun 8 00:25:51 1999 From: pacedebate (Timothy Mahoney) Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 01:25:51 -0400 Subject: Constructive engagement: a proposal for an alternative wording Message-ID: I propose the following wording: RESOLVED: THAT THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT SHOULD ADOPT A POLICY OF CONSTRUCTIVE ENGAGEMENT, that includes a removal of all unilateral economic sanctions, WITH THE GOVERNMENT(S) OF ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: CUBA, IRAN, IRAQ, AND NORTH KOREA [OR AN ANALOGOUS GROUP OF COUNTRIES CHOSEN BY THE TOPIC COMMITTEE]. This proposal attempts to address the concerns that Dallas Perkins raised in his email. He wrote: "What does everybody want? It seems to me that Mancuso captured it pretty well in his paper: We want the aff to have to make large, wholesale, systemic changes in overall sanctions policy, not merely create a few exceptions to a policy already shot full of exceptions. At the same time, we want the aff to have the flexibility to go beyond merely ending sanctions, perhaps ending the threat of military confrontation, or increasing aid, or establishing formal diplomatic relations. All of these seem to be part of what is called normalization, and without them, an affirmative policy may indeed be quite hollow." I'm not sure if everybody agrees with Dallas but his vision is certainly what I would like to see and I believe my suggestion provides it. The resolution requires that the affirmative take a fairly large policy action. Namely, the removal of all unilateral economic sanctions. At the same time it provides the affirmative with a substantial amount of flexibility. The affirmative can curtail military activity, increase development assistance, and/or pursue joint diplomatic initiatives as a part of the new policy that removes economic sanctions. One of the primary objections to a resolution that requires the affirmative to remove all economic sanctions is the fear of exclusionary counterplans. I believe that this concern is overstated. Four reasons: 1) Lots of advantages the cplan won't solve - I can think of four types: a) "kritiky" ones like orientalism, threat construction, cultural imperialism, etc. b) international trade leadership advantages and the associated trade agreements/organizations like WTO, GATT and NAFTA. c) specific country relations advantages based on the backlash caused by unilateral sanctions. d) multilateralism good - our ability to form multilateral coalitions is undermined by our unilateral sanctions policy this effects not only our ability to enforce sanctions but also the credibility of other multilateral organizations that we belong to. 2) No solvency - If the net benefit to the counterplan is of the "we have to stop X country from getting this tech" variety then the affirmative will have a pile of good "unilateral sanctions fail miserably" evidence to answer it with in addition to good cards that indicate unilateral sanctions undermine multilateral approaches that are more effective. 3) Theory debate - the legitimacy of exclusionary counterplans is hardly a given in our community. I'd be willing to bet that the affirmative would win more "exclusionary counterplans are illegitimate" debates than the negative would win topicality debates where they argue that sending baseball teams to Cuba isn't a policy of constructive engagement. Joseph A. Manero The Washington Post March 24, 1999, Pg. A27 "Major League Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig and the Clinton administration have apparently bought into the misguided notion that constructive engagement with Fidel Castro will bring the United States and Cuba closer together. Their collective endorsement of the Baltimore Orioles' trip to Havana this week to play the Cuban national team comes at a time when Castro has ..." 4) More balanced research - it's a better research burden for the aff to have than for the negative. Dallas mentioned that the affirmative would be subject to trival exceptions but this is essentially what we force the negative to deal with if we don't create a topic that mandates removal of all economic sanctions. The main difference being that the negative has to research the exceptions to EVERY country versus the aff which only has to research the exceptions to whichever country they pick. I have one other concern which revolves around the inherency of North Korea cases under a constructive engagement resolution that doesn't require removal of all sanctions. Consider the following piece of evidence from the South China Morning Post November 21, 1998 Pg. 14 "When the US struck the 1994 agreement for Pyongyang to end its nuclear programme in return for a light-water reactor, it was South Korea which was pursuing a hardline approach towards the North, while the Clinton administration wanted constructive engagement. The wheel has turned full circle. Now Washington is losing patience with repeated foot-dragging by North Korea. Tempers have been inflamed by its outrageous demand for US$ 300 million in return for allowing inspection of an underground site suspected of being a secret nuclear weapons plant. That has prompted President Bill Clinton to order a review of policy towards Pyongyang, and there is now a real prospect of Congress cutting off funding for the fuel shipments which constitute an integral part of the 1994 accord. But the South is urging caution. Even as the US spoke yesterday of compelling evidence of nuclear-related activities at the underground site, President Kim Dae-jung was describing these as mere suspicions. He said it was best not to escalate a situation that could be resolved by "calm, patience and persistence". At today's meeting with Mr Clinton, President Kim is sure to reiterate the need to continue a policy of constructive engagement that Washington seems to favour less. He is reluctant to allow anything to derail his 'sunshine policy': neither a suspected incursion by a northern vessel nor reports Pyongyang is still expanding its missile programme." This evidence seems to indicate that current U.S. policy with North Korea is a policy of constructive engagement which means one of two things, either a) North Korea affirmatives aren't inherent and that country is effectively mooted out of the topic or b) The affirmative is allowed to define "a constructive engagement policy" as any policy that improves our relations with another government. I think option b is more likely and I think it will spill over to the topicality answers for other countries. After all if "minor policy change X isn't topical then you might as well take North Korea out of the resolution." Overall, I think the wording paper on constructive engagement is very good and I appreciate their efforts. I submit my proposal not as one that should be substituted for the original wording proposed by the authors but instead as one that should appear in conjunction with it on the ballot. I invite comments via backchannel or posted to Edebate. Thanks, Tim Addendum: Some contextual uses of the terms "constructive engagement" used in relation to the topic countries. I did several internet and/or lexis searches using the terms constructive engagement. The vast majority of recent articles deal with China - there are literally thousands of articles involving china and constructive engagement. There are also quite a few articles using the phrase constructive engagement and burma. None of the cards dealing with Burma and China are included here. If you are interested in the exact search terms I used feel free to backchannel me. The Gazette (Montreal) June 17, 1998, Pg. A10 JULIAN BELTRAME It wasn't quite the slap heard around the world. But normally cautious Canadian ambassador Raymond Chretien caused quite a stir here with his impolitic comments to a Miami Herald reporter that seemed to suggest the death of Cuban-American leader Jorge Mas Canosa was "good news." Speaking at a round-table discussion with U.S. journalists last week, Chretien hinted that significant changes were occurring in Cuba and that the United States is moving toward Canada's policy of constructive engagement with the Fidel Castro regime and away from the hard line adopted by Canosa. "The visit by the Pope, the death of one of the leaders, Canosa there, a radical from the fringes of this issue ... all this is good news," he said. James M. Cooper* California Western International Law Journal Spring, 1998 28 Cal. W. Int'l L.J. 391 Uses the term constructive engagement but advocates "Equally unlikely is that a total reversal of U.S. policy towards Cuba can occur in quick succession. The best first gesture by the United States, and one which would be a measure of good faith shown to her trading partners, would be the repeal of the Helms-Burton Act. The Creative Problem Solving approach to the Castro conundrum requires that the inane regime created by the Helms-Burton Act be scrapped, thereby providing at least a partial lifting of the overall economic embargo." Star Tribune (Minneapolis, MN) February 22, 1999, Pg. 10A Given the 24 years that elapsed between India's first nuclear test and its "coming out" as a true nuclear state, the United States certainly didn't lack time to devise a creative and effective policy that both discouraged further tests and, if they occurred, moved to manage a new nuclear reality in South Asia. But it did lack will. U.S. policy should have emphasized constructive engagement with both India and Pakistan _ honoring and supporting India as an emerging big power, legitimizing its security concerns, and helping Pakistan keep its head above water while reforming its economy and battling corruption. That, plus a strong U.S. commitment to cut its own nuclear arsenal, might have prevented the tests last May and certainly would have made easier the management of the post-test strategic situation in South Asia. The Times (London) December 21, 1998, Sir, General Sir Michael Rose argues (article, December 18) that unless the West aims at ridding Iraq of Saddam and his regime it "would do better to abandon its strategy of confrontation, and attempt a policy of constructive engagement". (the article referred to here is, I believe, both cited and quoted in the original wording paper) The Christian Science Monitor June 30, 1998, Pg. 1 Scott Peterson, Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor Even as President Clinton woos China with a policy of constructive engagement, Iran - another longtime adversary - seems to be getting quite different treatment, despite new overtures. Eventual detente between Iran and the United States might appear logical, even inevitable. But the obstacles to overcoming nearly two decades of animosity, harmful rhetoric, and ingrained spy-versus-spy fear are great. Though many Iranians and Americans say their nations could be at a "turning point" - witness the excitement over the US-Iran World Cup soccer match June 21 and Mr. Clinton's call for "reconciliation" minutes before - deliberate steps so far point to very different styles. The Daily Yomiuri (Tokyo) March 12, 1999, Pg. 1 Akinori Uchida Yomiuri Shimbun Former U.S. Ambassador to Japan Michael Armacost, in a recently released article, proposed that the United States, Japan and South Korea establish a "comprehensive constructive engagement" policy toward North Korea, under which the three would cooperate to ease economic sanctions and would jointly contribute humanitarian aid to the communist state. The article, "Japan and the Unification of Korea: Challenges for U.S. Policy Coordination," was jointly written by Armacost and Kenneth Pyle, a professor of University of Washington. In it, Armacost, who currently serves as president of the Brookings Institution, and Pyle urged Japan to play a greater role to attain a settlement of the North Korean issue, by cooperating with the United States and South Korea. "Japan is not likely to take the lead in Korean diplomacy. But it cannot be taken for granted," the article said. Similar views are expected to be included in a report currently being compiled by U.S. Policy Coordinator for North Korea William Perry. To encourage North Korea to maintain stability in the region, the report proposed three actions: * Japan should pass bills related to Japan-U.S. defense cooperation guidelines. * Japan, the United States and South Korea should be in close consultation on the North Korean issue. Trilateral joint studies of the Theater Missile Defense system should be promoted. The writers also proposed that the three countries dismantle economic sanctions against North Korea and normalize diplomatic relations with the country. "More broadly, the United States might offer additional aid and economic assistance in return for economic reform and/or substantial movement in North-South relations," they said. The aim of the "comprehensive constructive engagement" policy would be to overcome tension over suspected nuclear facilities and suspected development and exportation of ballistic missiles by North Korea. They called on Japan in particular to normalize diplomatic relations with North Korea and to support Pyongyang's bid to qualify for assistance from the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank. To settle the Korean issue and to achieve reunification of North and South, Japan will play a key role, they said. "Japan will be called upon to play a major role in supporting the North's economic revival and integration into the regional economy," the article said. They also proposed "six powers" security consultation between the two Koreas, the United States, Japan, Russia and China. Michelle Arendt * Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law Winter, 1998 30 Case W. Res. J. Int'l L. 251 Following from this theory is the conclusion that the reasonable [*285] approach to Cuba would be to adopt a policy along the lines of the constructive engagement policy that has been pursued with China. Reestab lishing relations with Cuba by ending the embargo and engaging in economic relations will lead to further opportunities to promote political reforms through negotiations and dialogue. Kevin Martin. Columbia Journal of European Law Winter / Spring, 1997 3 Colum. J. Eur. L. 320 The U.S.-EU conflict is over the comparative efficacy and morality of sanctions and "constructive engagement." The EU asserts that it does not support any purported human rights abuses by the Castro government, but rather that it seeks to achieve improvements in Cuban human rights through dialogue, rather than sanctions. Sanctions, it is argued, fail to improve human rights, and merely increase economic hardship. The common policy of the Union calls for intensifying dialogue with the Cuban government, reminding that government of the importance of human rights, encouraging penal reforms, evaluating Cuban policies with respect to human rights in the same manner other countries are examined, providing ad hoc humanitarian aid, and economically supporting any opening of the Cuban economy. n16 The U.S. laws, in the opinion of some, are a hindrance to this EU strategy, retarding economic growth in Cuba and thereby delaying its civil and political development. Iranian Foreign Policy Under Khatami: Perils and Possibilities Amin Tarazi (http://www.ecssr.ac.ae/Activites/03uae.lecture61.htm) . Khatami's election, drawing 88% of voters and capturing 70% went against the grind of Iranian politics. . The popular support for Khatami is based on his promise to introduce more liberties, but it is food on people's tables that will determine his future after the initial euphoria. . To improve Iran's economic malaise, Khatami needs to open up the Iranian market to more foreign investments and reduce the rampant corruption, but he faces the US sanctions which though not working fully, will discourage many possible investors. . Therefore, Iran's foreign policy is to bring Iran out of isolation and make it a major player in the security and economy of Central Asia and the Caspian Sea region as well as the Arabian Gulf. The theme in Khatami's foreign policy seems to be constructive engagement making Iran indispensable in security and economic schemes of a vast region which contains the two world's largest oil and gas deposits. Raj Bhala* U.C. Davis Law Review Fall, 1997 31 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 1 By far the most controversial provisions in the Helms-Burton Act concern trafficking in confiscated property of U.S. nationals. The United States has the sovereign prerogative to give or withhold assistance from individual foreign countries on political grounds, and even from international financial institutions. These sanctions may be unwise because the breaching of commitments fosters ill will. The United States also has the sovereign prerogative to attempt to ostracize Cuba because of its government, though this sanction may be unwise; constructive engagement, which the United States has used in the past against China, n267 may be more effective. Critics of the Helms [*68] Burton Act consider the imposition of severe civil money damages for trafficking in confiscated property of U.S. nationals to be illegitimate. n268 Equally obnoxious is a denial of entry to the United States because of a tenuous connection to trafficking in confiscated property. n56 Richard C. Hottelet, Needed: An Overall Mideast Policy. Key Elements Are Engagement with Iran, Unity Against Iraq, and Candor With Israel's New Government, CHRISTIAN SCI. MONITOR, Oct. 22, 1996, at 19. The policy of critical dialogue involves continuing communication with the wrongdoing party instead of isolation. The idea is similar to "constructive engagement," a policy employed by the Reagan administration toward South Africa The Progressive July, 1994 Vol. 58 ; No. 7 ; Pg. 42; Karabell, Zachary review of a book By Robert Kaplan Until August 2, 1990, when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, the Bush Administration pursued a policy of constructive engagement toward Iraq. Having tilted to Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war, the U.S. Government viewed Iraq as a bulwark against a fundamentalist revolutionary Iran and Saddam as a predictable if brutal asset. In the aftermath of the Persian Gulf war, Bush Administration officials claimed there had been no alternatives to this policy of befriending Saddam, and they denied allegations of misconduct. As one senior Administration official told me in an interview, "Everybody knew Hussein's reputation, and no one thought he was a potential member of the Kiwanis Club. But could he become a better member of the region? It was worth exploring the possibility, and we didn't have a lot to lose." Not true; they had a lot to lose, and they did. The policy of engaging Saddam Hussein must rank as one of the major failures of recent American history. Saddam was not moderated, and he was only strengthened by American aid before the invasion of Kuwait. A brief look at his past behavior would have been enough to bury any hopes that he might become "moderate" or "reasonable," and no one could have seriously believed that he would not lash out militarily, in the face of intractable economic problems and his own megalomaniac ambitions. Yet calculations of American interests in the Middle East led the Reagan and Bush Administrations to ignore reality, avoid hard decisions, and bend over backward to accommodate Saddam Hussein. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------- Timothy W. Mahoney Director of Debate, Pace University "Once one is truly convinced that the law is an impersonal, objective code of justice rather than an expression of the will of the powerful, one is likely to be willing not only to relinquish a large measure of one's own freedom, but to enthusiastically support the state in the suppression of others' freedom as well." (John Hasnas, 1995, Assistant Prof. of Business Ethics at Georgetown and Senior Research Fellow at the Kennedy Institute of Ethics, Wisconsin Law Review, p. 232-3) ________________________________________________________ NetZero - We believe in a FREE Internet. Shouldn't you? Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html >From Tue Jun 8 01:56:24 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 37647 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 01:57:47 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo15.mx.aol.com (imo15.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.5]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA18216 for ; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 01:57:46 -0400 Received: from ROTCGyrl at aol.com (3952) by imo15.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id fJANa18282; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 01:56:26 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 4 Message-ID: <446e287d.248e0a88 at aol.com> Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 01:56:24 EDT Reply-To: ROTCGyrl at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Debbie Prieto Subject: Re: Apology and the end Comments: To: msc2a at frank.mtsu.edu You know, until each of you (in the you understood sense) have walked a mile in my or any other of us who have engaged in this conversation, or the STAR WARS one for that matter, you should watch what you say about BORG implications. Whatever. Issues of race and gender are important to me and to others because they are issues that we have to WAKE UP every day and FACE in a world which may seem unaccepting. Forgive me if that displaces your comfort zone. Go ahead and laugh now. I know someone out there isn't. Debbie Prieto In a message dated 6/7/99 1:34:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time, msc2a at FRANK.MTSU.EDU writes: << We don't have to agree with everyone, but we don't have to always be involved in knock down drag out (email) screaming matches that eventually convince one of the participants that his or her life is worse as a result of constant conflict on edebate because the stronger majority simply WILL NOT let the argument die. And don't deny that we (yes I do as well) do this. We're like the Borg: disagreement is futile. You WILL see things this way because EVERYBODY on edebate just KNOWS it's the CORRECT, ENLIGHTENED way to see things (e.g. shawnessy's "marginalizing" views). >> >From Tue Jun 8 04:29:00 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 37906 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 04:29:37 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo13.mx.aol.com (imo13.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.3]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA16878 for ; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 04:29:36 -0400 Received: from Mjstannard at aol.com (14445) by imo13.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id nTJGa05537 for ; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 04:29:00 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0.1 for Mac sub 84 Message-ID: <2314814d.248e2e4c at aol.com> Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 04:29:00 EDT Reply-To: Mjstannard at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Matt Stannard Subject: re-post of defiance (poem for becky) I posted this a few weeks ago when I heard Becky had taken a turn for the worse. It sums things up for me. defiance (for b.g.) from the time we stood too close screaming in wild competition to the day we looked at one another wearily to say a job well done there is defiance in your eyes of a kind irreducible to catalog mindset philosophy those who revere you may have stronger doctrine but you have stronger defiance; no one can touch it it has been seen rising from your white breathing body forming a halo of defiance about you and chasing the weak away like hurried war deserters yet inviting--should it be carefully read-- engagement! engage me! engage you! listen! talk! learn! live with one another--in defiance like an angry otherworldly messenger it doesn't define you but it surrounds you engage the earth engage the sky engage the dollar defy the notion that one can be defiance only from somewhere else (the centrist orientation we tease you about is answered by the defiance of your middle finger and words about the world as you see it and irrefutible proof that you have made it better) defiance the word itself points, points up, points up to another way a path of constant struggle and wary looking back tough love your small hands clenched in a fist as you spoke your face first pink then red you were painting intellectual passion your voice tone pitch ever refusing to squeak softly your pearls of verbal wisdom laced with rapid vulgarity each curse a celebration like a dionysian tribute to existence in defiance in the face of all that made you while the random growing matter blocked your way it would not break you--that's defiance matt stannard From treadwaygj Tue Jun 8 08:53:23 1999 From: treadwaygj (Glenda Treadaway) Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 09:53:23 -0400 Subject: Survey on Resolutional Wordings Message-ID: Dear Debate Community: Below is a survey that I have put together which contains various questions concerning resolutional wordings. (Yes, I will take credit and blame, if deemed necessary, for this obviously unscientific survey.) It is not an exhaustive list of questions, just ones that seemed to have been spurred by the release of the papers. If you would like to make other comments, please feel free to do so at the end of the survey. I also recognize the limitations of this survey since it will only reach those with access to email and subscribed to edebate. Many on the committee, incuding myself, still felt like it was worth the effort. Please feel free to include justifications or arguments for your position on any or all of these questions. Thanks, Glenda Survey (Please feel free to comment) Check one of the following: Debater _______ Coach __________ Other _________ 1) The winning resolution should require the Affirmative to: A)Increase _______ B) Decrease ________ export controls, economic sanctions, or threat reduction programs to decrease nuclear proliferation. 2) The winning resolution should require the Affirmative to: A)Increase _______ B) Decrease ________ constructive engagement C)Adopt ________a policy of constructive engagement. 3) The winning resolution should require the Affirmative to: A) Reverse _______ B) Increase ________ C) Decrease ________ its economic sanctions or embargo. 4) The winning resolution should require the Affirmative to: A) Increase ______ B) Decrease ________ development assistance. C)Establish ________ a development assistance project. 5) The winning resolution should be limited to: A) One _________ B) Two _________ C) Many __________ type(s) of actions such as export controls, economic sanctions, threat reduction, constructive engagement, and/or development assistance. 6) The resolutions should avoid bidirectionality. A) Yes __________ B) No ____________ 7) Bidirectionality is acceptable as long as the resolutional wording creates predictability. A) Yes __________ B) No ____________ 8) The resolution set should include the following actors: A) USFG _________ B) U.S. Congress ____________ C) Other _______ 9) Resolutions should use the word: A) Countries ___________ B) Nations _________ C) Nation-States ___________ 10) The resolution set should include the following countries/nations/nation-states: Check all that apply A) China _______ B) Cuba ________ C) India _______ D) Iran ________ E) Iraq ________ F) Libya _______ G) N. Korea ____ H) Pakistan ____ I) Russia ______ J) Syria _______ K) Sudan _______ L) Other _____________________________ 11. The winning resolution should contain the word "substantially." A) Yes ___________ B) No _____________ 12. Which of these potential wordings do you like best: (Circle the letter beside the resolution.) (IGNORE THE DIRECTIONAL PHRASES SUCH AS increase/decrease/establish/etc. - this was addressed in a question above. Questions 12-16 are designed to get your feedback on other wording choices within the resolutions.) A) Resolved: That the USFG should .....to decrease nuclear proliferation in one or more of the following .... B) Resolved: That the USFG should .....that decrease nuclear proliferation in one or more of the following .... C) Resolved: That the USFG should .... decreasing nuclear proliferation in one or more of the following .... D) Resolved: That the USFG should .... which legally require a reduction in nuclear proliferation in one or more of the following.... E) Resolved: That the USFG should ....which condition U.S. commercial trade or foreign assistance on nuclear proliferation goals in one or more of the following .... 13) Which of these potential wordings do you like best: (Circle the letter beside the resolution.) A) Resolved: That the USFG should adopt a policy of constructive engagement with the government(s) of one or more of the following.... B) Resolved: That the USFG should adopt a poilcy of constructive engagement toward one or more of the following.... C) Resolved: That the USFG should adopt a policy of constructive engagement, that includes a removal of all unilateral economic sanctions, with the government(s) of one or more of the following .... 14) Which of these potential wordings do you like best: (Circle the letter beside the resolution.) A) Resolved: That the USFG should substantially reverse its economic sanctions against one or more of the following.... B) Resolved: That the USFG should reverse a substantial number of its economic sanctions against one or more of the following.... C) Resolved: That the USFG should reverse its direct/primary economic sanctions against one or more of the following.... D) Resolved: That the USFG should reverse its embargo against one or more of the following.... 15) Which of these potential wordings do you like best: (Circle the letter beside the resolution.) A) Resolved: That the USFG should increase its development assistance to one or more of the following.... B) Resolved: That the USFG should increase its bilateral development assistance to one or more of the following.... C) Resolved: That the USFG should increase its development assistance through bilateral or multilateral programs to one or more of the following.... 16) Which of these potential wordings do you like best: (Circle the letter beside the resolution.) A) Resolved: That the USFG should adopt a policy of normalization with one or more of the following countries... B) Resolved: That the USFG should adopt a policy to normalize political/diplomatic and/or economic relations with one or more of the following countries/nations/nation-states.... 17) The winning topic should include: A) Export Controls _________ B) Economic sanctions ______ C) Threat reduction programs ________ D) Constructive engagement ________ E) Development Assistance _________ F) Normalization of Relations _________ F) Embargo __________ 18) Please rank the following nonpolicy topics. Also, please feel free to suggest other wordings. ________A) Resolved: That American notions of terrorism should be redefined. ________B) Resolved: That international economic freedom should outweigh narrow national security interests. ________C) Resolved: That realist threat construction of "terrorist states" is a self-fulfilling prphesy. ________D) Resolved: That increased nonproliferation efforts are more effective than increased engagement of proliferant states. ________E) Resolved: That United States foreign policy reliance on economic sanctions against "terrorist nations" is unethical. ________F) Resolved: That, on balance, sanctions against state sponsors of terrorism have been ineffective. ________G) Resolved: That constructive engagement has been underemphasized in United States foreign policy toward "terrorist states." 19) The nonpolicy resolutions should be reworded to replace the term, "terrorist states" with a phrase at the end of the resolution such as "in one or more of the following..." A)Yes ___________ B)No _____________ Other comments: From treadwaygj Tue Jun 8 09:14:49 1999 From: treadwaygj (Glenda Treadaway) Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 10:14:49 -0400 Subject: Survey Message-ID: Dear Debate Community: It has just been brought to my attention that to circle your preferred choice on email would be quite difficult (Duh! as my little girl would say to me). You may put an x by your preferred choice or delete the non-preferred choices. Thanks, Glenda From hullgd Mon Jun 7 23:43:50 1999 From: hullgd (Gordon Hull) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 23:43:50 -0500 Subject: Nonpolicy resolutions In-Reply-To: <375827FD.EAEAE64C@conrad.appstate.edu> Message-ID: I'll join the list of those who aren't exactly sure what the value topic is meant to achieve, but with that caveat, here's $.02... Ken quotes the rules: >> > b. Non-policy resolutions phrased so as to generally affirm the truth >> > or value of an idea, condition or action, but not to simply affirm the >> > desirability or worth of future change." This is an interesting wording - because it asks one to value an end, presumably one with specific content. What makes it interesting is that most of what contemporary ethics does is *avoid* trying to value ends - hence, e.g. Kant's effort to always affirm the principle of an action in universal terms. In other words, it seems to me that asking one to affirm the value of an idea (etc) is an invitation (I hope - deontololgy-vs-utilitarianism debates are really boring IMHO) not just to ask whether the policy "promotes the greatest good for the greatest number" or "reflects the moral law." Why does this matter? Here's Topc #1: >> > A. Resolved: that United States foreign policy reliance on economic >> > sanctions against rogue nations is unethical. This seems to me to very easily slide into deontology debates - but in so doing, winds up being unable to question the ends of U.S. policy. This topic is about means - hence, it doesn't allow questioning of anything other than whether the means are an OK way to achieve the end of being mean to "rogue" nations. If as an affirmative I say that "the U.S. shouldn't imperialistically judge the government of Iran," that does not per se affirm the resolution - as a negative, i could easily argue that the aff affirms the idea that a country should not be called rogue, but does not affirm the idea that, hyopthetically, given that a country is a rogue, sanctions are appropriate. The "it's a hypothetical proposition" defense isn't implausible, given the way ethics debates frequently proceed - from a "let us suppose" situation that has zero to do with a real one. Also, when Kant answered the objection that "nobody is as moral as you say they should be," he made an is/ought distinction and claimed that the principle was key, and that one shoudln't abandon principle just because some (or even all) people were too weak to follow it. Two specific suggestions from all this: (1) A topic like this needs to list countries - that gives affirmatives and negatives (a) the specificity of real situations and countries and peoples - which might hedge against the hyopthetical defense; and (b) the capacity to question what the abstract terms of international realtions refer to - is "Iraq" the people who live there, Saddam Hussein, etc. I know there's a body of literature in security studies trying to think of security in these terms. (2) One of the main philosophical issues behind such propositions is sovereignty of the nation-state. There's a lot of people thinking in terms of the value of the nation-state system... hence perhaps the topic should direct things that way... e.g. "Resolved that the U.S. attempt to use its foreign policy to [substantially] modify the domestic policies of one or more of the following [...] is unethical." I'm sure that's not very well worded, but it's at least got the idea across... I also realize that it will seem to dilute focus from economic sanctions. Two possible responses: (a) The usual route of attack is economic sanctions - you can't talk about efforts to "reform" Cuba without mentioning the embargo; (b) Sanctions are a means to the end - perhaps value debate should be about the ends? >> > B. Resolved: that, on balance, sanctions against state sponsors of >> > terrorism have been ineffective. Ken's right this one focuses on the utility of sanctions - and i think it turns into a policy proposition in disguise, and runs the risk of devolving into hypotesting debates. First of all, what does "on balance ... ineffective" mean? Effective in terms of what? On the one hand, it can be in terms of regime change or something like that - in which case, there's no negative ground. On the other hand, efficacy can be in terms of "progress toward" regime change - in which case there's no affirmative ground, because sanctions people always say things like "Saddam is weakening..." Second, how does one measure "on balance?" By adding up examples? If so, the affirmative can cite (eg Cuba) and the neg can produce the counterwarrant of (ok, actually, i can't think of a country where sanctions worked - let's suppose there's one called "influencetopia"). Which example is better - Cuba or influencetopia? Or, if the aff produces a huge list of failures, what if a success is particulary striking? And so on - none of these particularly seem like value debates... >> > C. Resolved: that constructive engagement has been underemphasized in >> > United States foreign policy toward rogue nations. I don't have a lot to add here - though it strikes me as interesting that this topic forces a comparison between "constructive engagement" and whatever the SQ policy is toward the given country. That may not be the abstract affirmation of a value, but is strikes me as a LOT more "real world." My concern would be about whether this topic necessitates "value" questions... Anyway, just some thoughts on a thread that probably deserves more attention than it's getting... gordon From mabouzai Tue Jun 8 10:48:16 1999 From: mabouzai (Mohammed Abouzaid) Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 11:48:16 -0400 Subject: Nonpolicy resolutions In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990607234350.00b6a0e4@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu> References: <3.0.1.32.19990607234350.00b6a0e4@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu> Message-ID: I have a little problem with a non-policy resolution that would attempt to probe the ends of US foreign policy: We would have the same non-policy resolution every time there is a foreign policy topic. >Two specific suggestions from all this: > >(1) A topic like this needs to list countries - that gives affirmatives and >negatives (a) the specificity of real situations and countries and peoples >- which might hedge against the hyopthetical defense; and (b) the capacity >to question what the abstract terms of international realtions refer to - >is "Iraq" the people who live there, Saddam Hussein, etc. I know there's a >body of literature in security studies trying to think of security in these >terms. I agree on one hand that we need to list the countries, but on the other hand we run into the problem of the aff not needing to uphold the "entirety" of the resolution, but only parts of it (i.e: sanctions against Sudan are "ethical," but not those against Cuba). It seems that part of the advantages of a non-policy topic is to have the aff defend the entire resolution, and not just part of it, because that would not make neg predictability possible. I thought maybe the problem could be solved by putting "all of the following countries," and having a reduced list (3 or 4) >(2) One of the main philosophical issues behind such propositions is >sovereignty of the nation-state. There's a lot of people thinking in terms >of the value of the nation-state system... hence perhaps the topic should >direct things that way... It would seem to me that if what we are looking for is a real philosophical debate, then there is no need to mention either the US, or any other country. I really don't think the "ethical nature" (Pardon my ignorance of matters of ethics, but you can get the point), is dependent upon who the actor is. I don't see why we could not frame a totally "abstract" resolution. The only problem is a possible balance toward the neg, since the aff would have to defend, for example, non-intervention in WWII (not that I agree with it, but that the literature is probably highly unbalanced). But maybe we could frame a resolution that would avoid that. e.g: Resolved: That the use of economic sanctions by a nation-state to enhance (?) its (national?) interests is unethical. One problem is: is there any negative ground? >e.g. "Resolved that the U.S. attempt to use its foreign policy to >[substantially] modify the domestic policies of one or more of the >following [...] is unethical." > >I'm sure that's not very well worded, but it's at least got the idea >across... I also realize that it will seem to dilute focus from economic >sanctions. Two possible responses: (a) The usual route of attack is >economic sanctions - you can't talk about efforts to "reform" Cuba without >mentioning the embargo; (b) Sanctions are a means to the end - perhaps >value debate should be about the ends? Except for my argument about repetition at every foreign policy topic, I just have the problem of neg ground predictability with "one or more." Mohammed Abouzaid Richmond Debate From simegreg Tue Jun 8 10:51:22 1999 From: simegreg (Greg Simerly) Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 09:51:22 -0600 Subject: Final round tapes Message-ID: I'll bring this up at the Executive Council meeting later this month. Surely there's a way to make it happen. Cheers, Greg >I want to echo the concerns Marcus has about the ability to find tapes and >transcripts of final rounds. I think they are an excellent tool for >teaching as well as scholarly research. I know CEDA final rounds used to >be taped and transcribed, but are not anymore. Does CEDA sell video rights >for the final round, and if so, how would one go about acquiring such >rights? What about NDT? I think we are missing a great chance to provide >the community with a valuable tool. > >Glenn Kuper >UPS > > >At 04:26 PM 6/7/99 EDT, you wrote: >>OK. I have gotten five or so requests to forward info about final round >>tapes. But no info about who or where I can find such tapes. Help, please? >>Anyone? >> >>How about this? What if I go into business for myself and tape all of them >>and then sell them to members fo the communcity for $99.99? Of course, they >>won't be as valuable as the Jerry Springer Too Hot for TV tapes, but hey, >>I'll make a living, right? >> >>Marcus >> >> > Greg Simerly Director of Debate, Idaho State University Executive-Secretary, Cross Examination Debate Association Chair, Argumentation & Forensics Interest Group, CSCA Communication & Theatre Box 8115-ISU Pocatello, ID 83209 O (208) 236-5962 F (208) 236-4598 "ISU Debate: we love to fly, and it shows" Alternate slogans from the community: "ISU Debate: we HAVE to fly, and it shows" -Bill Sheffield "ISU Debate: we love to fly when it snows" -Matt Stannard "ISU Debate: if we don't fly, we're no shows" -Frank Irizarry From steveman Tue Jun 8 06:54:41 1999 From: steveman (Steve Mancuso) Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 11:54:41 +0000 Subject: Constructive Engagement - Plus Message-ID: I really like Tim Mahoney's suggested innovation for the topic wording. I think it does an excellent job of requiring the affirmative to adopt a large plan, but gives them the added flexibility of letting them do more than lift the embargo (sanctions). I would suggest that we not limit it to unilateral sanctions, however. For instance, the sanctions against Iraq are primarily international. I would suggest the following friendly amended resolution: Resolved: that the United States Government should adopt a policy of constructive engagement that includes the reversal/removal of the economic embargo/all economic sanctions with the government(s) of one or more of the following: Cuba, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Syria. This proposal does not resolve the choice between "reversal" or "removal." I liked the word "reversal" proposed in the recent topic paper by Jason Hernandez' because it arguably permitted the affirmative to go beyond just lifting sanctions. Tim Mahoney's resolution captures that benefit by adding the part about constructive engagement. This proposal also does not resolve the choice between "economic embargo" and "all economic sanctions." Both of those wordings were explained in Jason's paper as well. Both have strong contextual support. I originally liked "economic embargo" over "economic sanctions" (Jason did not include the word "all") precisely because it required the aff to lift the broad prohibition of trade against these nations, and would therefore lead to a much narrower topic. The inclusion of the word "all" in Tim's resolution handles that just as well. One possible additional reason to prefer "economic embargo" over "all economic sanctions" is that it may provide the aff with the opportunity to say, if they want to, that while their plan lifts the GENERAL prohibition of trade with the nation, it could still permit certain pin-point sanctions. This could help them defend against plan-inclusive counterplans. Aff: "We'll defend that we lift all sanctions by lifting the embargo, but if you counterplan with banning all but one or two sanctions we reserve the right to say that's consistent with our plan..." (I'll admit that I have been unable to convince anyone here in Michigan of the merits of this argument, so....) Thanks to Tim Mahoney for making an extremely valuable contribution to the resolutional wording process. Steve Mancuso Michigan From ehrlenmeyerflask Tue Jun 8 12:07:43 1999 From: ehrlenmeyerflask (Aaron Klemz) Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 10:07:43 PDT Subject: tenure tracks Message-ID: I just wanted to thank Scott for his thoughtful comments. I think that in the case of SIU the administrative/professional position is a good fit for the school and debate team. I hope that the fact that it is a non-tenure line position will not deter folks from applying. If you have any questions about SIU's DOF position, please backchannel me. Aaron Klemz SIU >From: SCOTT HARRIS >Reply-To: SCOTT HARRIS >To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU >Subject: Re: tenure tracks >Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 17:05:06 -0500 > >I'm not embarassed at all to hold a position which has been converted from >tenure status to non tenure status. I happen to believe it to be a good >thing for myself and for the program. When I held a tenure track position >debate was viewed by my department and the University as the least >important aspect of my job. My letters of evaluation would say something >to the effect of "you are spending too much time on that debate stuff and >need to do more publishing. It is in the interest of the future of the >program if you blow off a few years of students in debate and publish like >mad instead." I had to apologize for time spent on debate. Now that my >job title is debate coach the signals that I >get from the department and the University are much different. They >reflect a commitment >from the University and the department that they value the work I do with >the debate team. The fact that a University hires debate coaches to coach >debate rather than be tenure track does not reflect a view that debate is >not valued by the University. I think it avoids what was a major problem >for many Universities to give the coach tenure and have them stop >coaching debate so they have to hire a new faculty member. That vicious >cycle creates many potential problems. There is also the problem that >every time a debate coach in a tenure track position is denied tenure it >forces the department to fight for the existence of the program. I also >happen to personnaly believe that the >tenure process is one of the worst things to ever happen to the academy. >I have no problem with holding a non tenure track position. I am not >advocating that all debate jobs be non tenure track but I think we should >recognize that each University needs to solve its unique problems in its >own way. If a University supports a debate program is far more >important than whether they run it through a Coms Department, through >Political Science, through an Alumni program or through Student Affairs. >The most important fight is for the existence of well supported debate >programs in the first place. > > > #####LOCO IN LAWRENCE##### _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com From laneg Tue Jun 8 13:20:09 1999 From: laneg (Lane, Gina) Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 13:20:09 -0500 Subject: Save $75 - MSDI Message-ID: Hi everyone-- The application deadline for Mid-South Debate Institute is not until July 1 -- but -- if you postmark your registration by June 10 (Thursday) and at least pay your $150 deposit, you save $75 from the $750 fee (factual information). So, mail your registration and deposit by Thursday, save $75. (the absolute truth) Remember, the $750 fee pays for tuition, hotel room and board, evidence set and really cool tshirt (slight use of hyperbole). Airline fares are very reasonable into Nashville. MSDI is July 29-August 8 at Middle Tennessee State University in exotic (OK, you decide) Murfreesboro, TN. Get all the details on the Emmy-winning (absolute lie) Mid-South Debate Institute web site at www.mtsu.edu/~debate/mdi.html. If you have any questions, please contact me. Dr. Gina Lane MSDI Institute Director William Jewell College From msc2a Tue Jun 8 14:02:07 1999 From: msc2a (Matthew Scott Carter) Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 14:02:07 -0500 Subject: Apology and the end In-Reply-To: <446e287d.248e0a88@aol.com> Message-ID: I rest my case. EvilMatt MTSU On Tue, 8 Jun 1999 ROTCGyrl at aol.com wrote: > > You know, until each of you (in the you understood sense) have walked a mile > in my or any other of us who have engaged in this conversation, or the STAR > WARS one for that matter, you should watch what you say about BORG > implications. > > Whatever. Issues of race and gender are important to me and to others > because they are issues that we have to WAKE UP every day and FACE in a world > which may seem unaccepting. > > Forgive me if that displaces your comfort zone. Go ahead and laugh now. I > know someone out there isn't. > > Debbie Prieto > > > > In a message dated 6/7/99 1:34:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > msc2a at FRANK.MTSU.EDU writes: > > << We don't have to agree with everyone, but we don't have to > always be involved in knock down drag out (email) screaming matches that > eventually convince one of the participants that his or her life is worse > as a result of constant conflict on edebate because the stronger majority > simply WILL NOT let the argument die. And don't deny that we (yes I do as > well) do this. We're like the Borg: disagreement is futile. You WILL see > things this way because EVERYBODY on edebate just KNOWS it's the CORRECT, > ENLIGHTENED way to see things (e.g. shawnessy's "marginalizing" views). > >> > ___________________________________________________________________ EvilMatt {{{I believe in God, I just don't trust anybody who works for him.}}} "If you can't think of anything nice, say something nasty." -Life's Little Destruction Book "Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh." -George Bernard Shaw "I love to go to the schoolyard and watch the children jump and scream, but they don't know I'm using blanks." -Jack Handey, Deep Thoughts "Q: What's black and white and red and black and white and red? A: Two zebras fighting over a dead baby." - Cindy Simmons Visit http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/Library/9675 Sign the guestbook or else.... From chk12 Tue Jun 8 09:12:36 1999 From: chk12 (Colin Kahl) Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 15:12:36 +0100 Subject: Constructive Engagement plus Message-ID: I think Steve Mancuso and Tim Mahoney are on to something. I have a few suggestions of my own. I agree that "unilateral" should not be in the topic, for the same reasons Steve mentioned. I don't think "reverse" needs to be in the topic Mahoney proposed, because having Constructive Engagment and a requirement to remove sanctions allows Affs to go beyond simply lifting sanctions (the only real reason to have "reverse" in the topic). I have two major concerns, however. The first relates to exclusionary CPs. Basically, I don't share Mahoney's optimism regarding how easy it will be for Affs to fend them off if "all" is in the topic. There are many, many people in the literature who suggest that we should narrowly tailor sanctions, which means that negatives will have tons of evidence supporting their exclusionary counterplans. This brings me to my second concern: I think it is imperative that we allow Affs to faithfully advocate plans in the literature. There are advocates for lifting "all" sanctions toward the proposed topic countries. But many advocates of softline policies toward these countries advocate a substantial tailoring of the sanctions, not their total removal. Very few, if any, serious scholars and policy-makers advocate removing all sanctions against Iraq, for example. Thus, I'm afraid a wording that required "all" would be overly restrictive to affirmatives and not sufficiently representative of the literature. Therefore I propose the following re-wording of Mahoney's topic: RESOLVED: THAT THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT SHOULD ADOPT OF POLICY OF CONSTRUCTIVE ENGAGEMENT, INCLUDING THE REMOVAL OF ALL OR NEARLY ALL ECONOMIC SANCTIONS, WITH THE GOVERNMENT(S) OF ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: CUBA, IRAN, IRAQ, AND NORTH KOREA. I think this topic achieves Dallas's goal of forcing the Aff to "make large, wholesale, systemic changes in overall sanctions policy." The phrase "all or nearly all" is not empty and operationally meaningless in the way that so-called limiting words like "substantially" and "significantly" are. "Nearly all" certainly means more the majority; to be topical, Affs will have to remove the bulk of US sanctions toward the target country. Potentially objectionable plans, such as Baseball exchanges with Cuba or sending blankets to the Kurds in Iraq, which may be topical under a "constructive engagement" or "substantially reverse economic sanctions" resolutions would not be topical. At the same time, putting "all or nearly all" into the topic Mahoney proposes would allow Affs to more faithfully advocate real world plans. First, it would allow Affs to go beyond simply lifting sanctions to ALSO increase humanitarian aid or reduce military coercion. Second, it would allow Affs to advocate the recommendations of scholars who call for a substantial tailoring, but not total elimination, of sanctions. It would also give Affs a better pre-round check against exclusionary counterplans. If the Aff was worried about one particular sanction being excluded, they could exclude it in the plan. Finally, I agree with Mahoney that this topic, or one similar to it, should not necessarily substitute the original constructive engagement topic. Rather, it should stand as another, narrower alternative on the ballot. From plutox Tue Jun 8 15:22:43 1999 From: plutox (M. Williams) Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 14:22:43 -0600 Subject: Constructive Engagement plus Message-ID: My revision: RESOLVED: THAT THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT SHOULD ADOPT OF POLICY OF CONSTRUCTIVE ENGAGEMENT, INCLUDING THE REMOVAL OF a majority of the ECONOMIC SANCTIONS, WITH THE GOVERNMENT(S) OF ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: CUBA, IRAN, IRAQ, AND NORTH KOREA. > The phrase > "all or nearly all" is not empty and operationally meaningless in the way > that so-called limiting words like "substantially" and "significantly" are. > "Nearly all" certainly means more the majority; to be topical, Affs will > have to remove the bulk of US sanctions toward the target country. My question is why not simplify the wording and simply state "a majority"? This seems as though it would preserve your intentions while creating a more tightly worded resolution. Matthew Williams >From Tue Jun 8 16:29:15 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 44294 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 16:41:55 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo14.mx.aol.com (imo14.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.4]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA22240 for ; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 16:41:54 -0400 Received: from Sgw8 at aol.com (4419) by imo14.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id nAJZa23907 for ; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 16:29:20 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 18 Message-ID: <2c115f9e.248ed71b at aol.com> Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 16:29:15 EDT Reply-To: Sgw8 at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Darius Wilkins Subject: a little something... I found this in a book by Tom Shachtman called "The Inarticulate Society: Eloquence and Culture in America" pg.231-2: In the modern era, the philosopher Jurgen Habermas has attempted to find a new understanding of democracy by examining what he calls its"comunicative bases," and his work has relevance for a disagreeing audience that would again become a true public. In Habermas's view, all societies are the products of social constructions of reality that are made manifest to its members through the process of communication. Whether the society consists of a bunch of hunters sitting around a campfire or a much larger and more sophisticated group, the defining communications come principally from those who are active in leading the society, and those comunications can be either genuine and truthful or nongenuine. The nongenuine are those that reveal the speaker's undue concern with pragmatic or strategic considerations. In genuine democratic political debate, the participants suspend strategic considerations in order to question, argue, and eventually construct the background consensus for any proposed action. A member of the public can determine whether a political communication is or is not genuine, Habermas holds, by putting what is said to four tests: 1. Is it understandable? That is: comprehensible, free from confusion or obfuscation? 2. Is it true? That is: congruent with reality as the speaker understands reality? 3. Is the speech truthful? That is: Does it reflect the genuine and sincere intentions of the participants? 4. Is the speech appropriate? that is: suitable to and reflective of the general interests of the participants? If all these conditions are met, there is the possibility of having a true debate, carried out in a manner that will assure that the final solution to a problem, once reached, will (as much as any solution can) satisfy most of the participants and those whom they represent. However, when any one of Habermas's conditions is not met, there is no debate. Instead, the audience is subjected to systematically distorted communication--speeches and writings in which strategic considerations are primary and predominant. In the absence of genuine communications and debate, the audience is immersed against its will in a situation where propaganda prevails, the news media's abilities to evaluate that propaganda are continually sabotaged, and public opinion is routinely subsumed and subverted to the politician's goals. Moreover, when the Habermasian condtions are not met, politicians who wish to communicate in a genuine way find themselves less able to do so and routinely lose out to the propagandists, who have no intention of speaking the truth. Tom Shachtman is the author of numerous nonfiction books, novels, and award-winning television documentaries. He taught writing for many years in the undergraduate film and TV division at New York University. The Habermas section derives from: The Theory of Communicative Action. Vol. 1: Reason and Rationslization of Society. Vol 2: Lifeworld and System: A Critique of Functionalist Reason. Trans Thomas McCarthy. Bosten: Beacon Press, 1981,1987 -----.Legitimization Crisis same as above, published in 1975 -----.Towards a Rational Society. Trans. by J.J. Shapiro. Boston: Beacon Press, 1970 Well, what do you think people? Although this is speaking of political debates, do you think us forensic debaters should be concerned about adhereing to Habermas's principles? Darius Wilkins >From Tue Jun 8 16:52:43 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 44385 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 16:55:33 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo12.mx.aol.com (imo12.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.2]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA09812 for ; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 16:55:31 -0400 Received: from Damus at aol.com (4543) by imo12.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id nXJWa10677 for ; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 16:52:43 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 4 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 16:52:43 EDT Reply-To: Damus at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: David Damus Subject: IMPORTANT E-MAIL THAT WILL DIRECTLY IMPACT YOU!!! Just thought I would forward this along...thought the debate community might want to act on this one... David Damus USC Dear Internet Subscriber: Please read the following carefully if you intend to stay online and continue using email: The last few months have revealed an alarming trend in the Government of the United States attempting to quietly push through legislation that will affect your use of the Internet. Under proposed legislation the U.S. Postal Service will be attempting to bilk email users out of "alternate postage fees". Bill 602P will permit the Federal Govt. to charge a 5 cent surcharge on every email delivered, by billing Internet Service Providers at source. The consumer would then be billed in turn by the ISP. Washington D.C. lawyer Richard Stepp is working without pay to prevent this legislation from becoming law. The U.S. Postal Service is claiming that lost revenue due to the proliferation of email is costing nearly $230,000,000 in revenue per year. You may have noticed their recent ad campaign "There is nothing like a letter". Since the average citizen received about 10 pieces of email per day in 1998, the cost to the typical individual would be an additional 50 cents per day, or over $180 dollars per year, above and beyond their regular Internet costs. Note that this would be money paid directly to the U.S. Postal Service for a service they do not even provide. The whole point of the Internet is democracy and non-interference. If the federal government is permitted to tamper with our liberties by adding a surcharge to email, who knows where it will end. You are already paying an exorbitant price for snail mail because of bureaucratic efficiency. It currently takes up to 6 days for a letter to be delivered from New York to Buffalo. If the U.S. Postal Service is allowed to tinker with email, it will mark the end of the "free" Internet in the United States. One congressman, Tony Schnell (r) has even suggested a "twenty to forty dollar per month surcharge on all Internet service" above and beyond the government's proposed email charges. Note that most of the major newspapers have ignored the story, the only exception being the Washingtonian which called the idea of email surcharge "a useful concept who's time has come" March 6th 1999 Editorial) Don't sit by and watch your freedoms erode away! Send this email to all Americans on your list and tell your friends and relatives to write to their congressman and say "No!" to Bill 602P. Kate Turner Assistant to Richard Stepp, Berger, Stepp and Gorman Attorneys at Law 216 Concorde Street, Vienna, Va.. From kenneth.delaughder Tue Jun 8 15:58:15 1999 From: kenneth.delaughder (Kenneth DeLaughder) Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 14:58:15 -0600 Subject: Greyhound Announcement Message-ID: Since no one has yet, and since he put it in his .sig at the bottom of his posts (heh) I would just like to extend my congratulations to Chuck Waltz of Abilene CHristian on becoming the newest is a fine line of GAs for the ENMU Greyhounds. Chuck could probably use the following items should you choose to donate them... NoDoz, buttpad --for all those scenic trips :) Duster -- it is Portales Shovel -- for when the duster fails Bigger shovel -- for the ENMU administration heh It's not easy to leave a program you love, but being in POrtales makes it easier (doulbe heh heh). So since we suckered him into being the greyhound love slave, I just thought I would take the time to congratulate him. And to my friend, I leave the program in good hands, with a better set of backfiles :) may success be yours... see ya this weekend! Ken now I gotta start saying... ESU debate From jniedfeldt-thomas Tue Jun 8 16:03:07 1999 From: jniedfeldt-thomas (John Niedfeldt-Thomas) Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 16:03:07 -0500 Subject: IMPORTANT E-MAIL THAT WILL DIRECTLY IMPACT YOU!!! Message-ID: Damus' message is wel-intentioned, but he has fallen victim to the latest internet hoax. See the following URL for more information if you are so inclined. http://urbanlegends.miningco.com/library/blemtax2.htm?pid=2733&cob=home >From Tue Jun 8 16:03:30 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 44601 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 17:04:09 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from wfrpc.dst.fl.us (server.wfrpc.dst.fl.us [206.105.46.100]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA21420 for ; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 17:04:04 -0400 Received: from TERM-26 (TERM-26 [206.105.46.84]) by wfrpc.dst.fl.us (NTMail 3.02.09) with ESMTP id ga042360 for ; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 16:03:32 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01d) Message-ID: <21033271202091 at wfrpc.dst.fl.us> Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 16:03:30 -0500 Reply-To: chismc at WFRPC.DST.FL.US To: Team Topic Debating in America From: chismc at WFRPC.DST.FL.US Subject: Re: IMPORTANT E-MAIL THAT WILL DIRECTLY IMPACT YOU!!! In-Reply-To: i heard this was a hoax...... From sharris Tue Jun 8 16:15:02 1999 From: sharris (SCOTT HARRIS) Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 16:15:02 -0500 Subject: Constructive Engagement plus In-Reply-To: <199906082021.OAA31411@srv.net> Message-ID: Actually I think I like Colin's "nearly all" phrase better. While it is a little ambiguous where that line might be drawn it requires much more than a simple majority of sanctions. It preserves some exclusion counterplan ground but eliminates minute exclusions. On Tue, 8 Jun 1999, M. Williams wrote: > My revision: > RESOLVED: THAT THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT SHOULD ADOPT OF POLICY OF > CONSTRUCTIVE ENGAGEMENT, INCLUDING THE REMOVAL OF a majority of the ECONOMIC > SANCTIONS, WITH THE GOVERNMENT(S) OF ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: CUBA, > IRAN, IRAQ, AND NORTH KOREA. > > > The phrase > > "all or nearly all" is not empty and operationally meaningless in the way > > that so-called limiting words like "substantially" and "significantly" > are. > > "Nearly all" certainly means more the majority; to be topical, Affs will > > have to remove the bulk of US sanctions toward the target country. > > My question is why not simplify the wording and simply state "a majority"? > This seems as though it would preserve your intentions while creating a more > tightly worded resolution. > > Matthew Williams > #####LOCO IN LAWRENCE##### From mkrueger Tue Jun 8 16:31:12 1999 From: mkrueger (Krueger) Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 16:31:12 -0500 Subject: Topic Meeting Rooms in St. Louis Message-ID: I have three rooms reserved for the topic meeting. However, I am not attending this year, and won't be taking any of our debaters with me. If you have need of rooms, please backchannel me and I can turn them over to you. krueger -- Michael Krueger Director of Debate Middle Tennessee State University Box 43 Murfreesboro, TN 37132 (615) 898-5607 (office) (615) 898-5826 (fax) http://www.mtsu.edu/~debate/ http://www.mtsu.edu/~debate/mdi.html http://www.mtsu.edu/~mkrueger/ >From Tue Jun 8 17:26:13 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 45192 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 17:35:39 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo15.mx.aol.com (imo15.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.5]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA14394 for ; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 17:35:38 -0400 Received: from JKM1993 at aol.com (8029) by imo15.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id nKFYa18282 for ; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 17:26:13 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Claris Emailer v2.0 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 17:26:13 EDT Reply-To: JKM1993 at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: John Meany Subject: Re: Constructive Engagement - Plus >Resolved: that the United States Government should adopt a policy of >constructive engagement that includes the reversal/removal of the >economic embargo/all economic sanctions with the government(s) of one or >more of the following: Cuba, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Syria. This language seems to indicate that the USG could adopt _any_ policy of constructive engagement, provided that an element of the policy is directed to one or more of Cuba, Iran,Iraq, North Korea, or Syria. Is this what you really want? In addition, the literature appears to offer an understanding of constructive engagement such that any policy that is not overtly hostile can be construed as 'constructive engagement'. The unit, "constuctive engagement", is increasingly part of the bureaucratic lexicon, inserted in speeches, policy papers, and historical analyses as a term substitution for more careful drafting of textual material. Constructive engagment does not describe a particular policy action or series of actions. Rather, it is a political term that describes any course of action decided upon by the government as a beneficial one (government can take any action that it wants, simply describing its course of action as "constructive" and "engaging". This permits the government to define objections to its policies, at home or abroad, as obstructionist, menacing and disruptive). Even hostile actions directed at a particular party are defensible as constructively engaging a third party. In what ways do the proponents of 'constructive engagement' imagine the limitations of policy action by the government with this term and how is that limitation set in the literature? Or is it the case that proponents of the term prefer complete freedom re policy action by the affirmative? John Meany Claremont Colleges From lotzw Tue Jun 8 16:55:09 1999 From: lotzw (Wesley Lotz) Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 14:55:09 PDT Subject: Constructive Engagement plus Message-ID: I have several thoughts/concerns about Colin Kahl's reformulation of the Mahoney resolution. He proposes that we word the topic... RESOLVED: THAT THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT SHOULD ADOPT OF POLICY OF CONSTRUCTIVE ENGAGEMENT, INCLUDING THE REMOVAL OF ALL OR NEARLY ALL ECONOMIC SANCTIONS, WITH THE GOVERNMENT(S) OF ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: CUBA, IRAN, IRAQ, AND NORTH KOREA. I think that this reformulated resolution will destroy negative ground and ensure that the aff wins "all or nearly all" of the debates for several reasons: (1)It seems inconsistent to argue that the affirmative should be armed with real-world policy literature while the negative should be deprived of literature for exclusionary counterplans. The resolution should be crafted to balance the literature rather than allow the aff to defend the consensus of the literature. (2) The phrase "nearly all" or even the word "majority" lacks contextual grounding, severely undermining predictability. This is especially true because existing sanctions are applied qualitatively rather than quantitatively. If there is a blanket trade ban in the status quo and the aff lifts all sanctions except for even 50 specific ones, they have still lifted "nearly all" or "a majority" of sanctions. (3) The revised wording allows the aff to spike out of not only exclusionary counterplans, but case turns as well. When you find out the specific turns a team reads against your case you can just carve exceptions in your plan with no strategic loss of ground. The negative can't successfully counterplan to not include the exception because that counterplan just lifts the sanctions of the plan plus one more sanction. This leaves the negative with virtually no viable counterplan ground. (4) The Mahoney resolution already strongly favors the affirmative, so deferring to the negative on this issue is warranted. The aff is allowed to authorize specific aid, incentives, and policies under the rubric of constructive engagement. They can even arguably fiat in an impact to the case by ending airstrikes, not declaring war on a country, etc. The negative needs some countervailing strategic options to balance ground. (5) The aff already has an arsenal of theoretical responses to the exclusionary counterplan strategy from permutations to abuse arguments. If the exclusionary counterplan is as unfair as people contend, debaters should be able to win that it is illegitimate and convince judges to vote on this issue. I think Mahoney's version of the resolution strikes the best balance between competitive concerns and the sanctions literature. Thanks to everyone involved for the effort put into the topic papers and wording process and the thoughtful consideration of these issues. Wesley Lotz, Wake Forest University _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com >From Tue Jun 8 17:24:59 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 45888 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 18:25:01 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from hecky.acns.nwu.edu (hecky.acns.nwu.edu [129.105.16.51]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA18314 for ; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 18:25:00 -0400 Received: from localhost (rrs128 at localhost) by hecky.acns.nwu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id RAA11511 for ; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 17:24:59 -0500 (CDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Message-ID: Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 17:24:59 -0500 Reply-To: rrs128 at HECKY.ACNS.NWU.EDU To: Team Topic Debating in America From: rrs128 at HECKY.ACNS.NWU.EDU Subject: PIC'n on the Rogues topic not much time for this rant, as i have a david zarefsky final to get back to studying for (i am, for once, being a good student) since star wars is the fashion of the day, i will employ darth vader's best line (a mutated version of it) "the ability to run a good case is insignificant when compared to the power of the PIC" as a true believer in the abusive, multiple conditional cp, georgetown wannabe, PIC (the dark side of debate), let me say that those of you who underestimate its utility and efficacy are doomed to lose many an aff next year. it is a rare occurrence these days to see a judge vote on PICs bad, due to (a) debater timidity - choosing to go for theory args against a CP are usually an all or nothing proposition for a 2ar, owing to time limitations (usually, such an attempt results in undercovering of a substantive issue, and thus, if the neg wins the theory they have an overwhelming chance of winning, due to technical errors. (b) judge biases - many of the most prominent judges (at least in my experience) are recent graduates of debate (the heidt bros, hajir, hessel, etc.) others, like a certain italien member of our coaching staff, do not hide their theorhetical bent towards the neg. result: extremely high threshold for the aff to win on these args. it may be an unfair generalization, but i think, on average, the younger the judge, the more receptive to the PIC sure there are some very popular judges like Mancuso and Duck who are still true to their beliefs and will clock in regularly on PICs bad, but their numbers are declining relative to the rest of the judging pool. result: PICS are a devestating negative option, and smart negatives, whenever presented with a good PIC (defined as steals whole 1ac, has big phat nuke war NB), will run it. i went on this rant, because i think people underestimate the utility of the PIC and the frequency that they will be employed with on next years topic. this is identical to the lack of respect people paid last year this time, to the courts cp, which was obviously foolish, given the high negative winning percentage on it. a topic with built in PIC ground for the negative will witness a very high slant towards the PIC, with little attention towards the substance of the case. my mother told me, "why bother debating the case when you can steal it with a PIC?" you may say that sparky needs an alternative topic wording, but thats another arg that judges never vote on any more :-) gleefully awaiting the greatest PIC topic of all time, ryan From ifjxh Tue Jun 8 17:49:44 1999 From: ifjxh (Joshua Hoe) Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 15:49:44 PDT Subject: PIC'n on the Rogues topic Message-ID: I hate to call out Sparky the Bean here but 1) What the heck is your point - pics are effective - legitimate - illegitimate????? 2) You leave many pretty good rationales for the PIC out of the rant: -- The negative should have theory deference because of inherent aff advatages (first and last, infinite prep, best lit etc) -- The negative should esp have PIC ground because the literature advantage of the advocacy of the plan cannot be compensated for through any other means -- There is no such thing as a PIC - it is a different plan - for example - orange is red and yellow but niether red nor yellow are orange...A "PIC" is really just a different plan that uses elements similar to the aff (red or yellow) to compete with the plan -- The aff should be ashamed if they cannot define a winnable solvency deficit to compensate for supposed lost ground. Heck, we lost on the mother of all PICs at the NDT - It forced us to defend the "amend" part of the plan but we had a solvency deficit - they just outweighed ours :)...If you do not like it write the plan differently or research better :) I could go on for days...but it seemed like you had a love hate thing going...Most importantly how could you leave Will and I out of any negative bias list :) Josh >From: rrs128 at HECKY.ACNS.NWU.EDU >Reply-To: rrs128 at HECKY.ACNS.NWU.EDU >To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU >Subject: PIC'n on the Rogues topic >Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 17:24:59 -0500 > >not much time for this rant, as i have a david zarefsky final to get back >to studying for (i am, for once, being a good student) >since star wars is the fashion of the day, i will employ darth vader's >best line (a mutated version of it) > >"the ability to run a good case is insignificant when compared to the >power of the PIC" > >as a true believer in the abusive, multiple conditional cp, georgetown >wannabe, PIC (the dark side of debate), let me say that those of you who >underestimate its utility and efficacy are doomed to lose many an aff next >year. it is a rare occurrence these days to see a judge vote on PICs bad, >due to >(a) debater timidity - choosing to go for theory args against a CP are >usually an all or nothing proposition for a 2ar, owing to time limitations >(usually, such an attempt results in undercovering of a substantive issue, >and thus, if the neg wins the theory they have an overwhelming chance of >winning, due to technical errors. >(b) judge biases - many of the most prominent judges (at least in my >experience) are recent graduates of debate (the heidt bros, hajir, hessel, >etc.) others, like a certain italien member of our coaching staff, do not >hide their theorhetical bent towards the neg. result: extremely high >threshold for the aff to win on these args. it may be an unfair >generalization, but i think, on average, the younger the judge, the more >receptive to the PIC > >sure there are some very popular judges like Mancuso and Duck who are >still true to their beliefs and will clock in regularly on PICs bad, but >their numbers are declining relative to the rest of the judging pool. >result: PICS are a devestating negative option, and smart negatives, >whenever presented with a good PIC (defined as steals whole 1ac, has big >phat nuke war NB), will run it. > >i went on this rant, because i think people underestimate the utility of >the PIC and the frequency that they will be employed with on next years >topic. this is identical to the lack of respect people paid last year >this time, to the courts cp, which was obviously foolish, given the high >negative winning percentage on it. a topic with built in PIC ground for >the negative will witness a very high slant towards the PIC, with little >attention towards the substance of the case. > >my mother told me, "why bother debating the case when you can steal it >with a PIC?" > >you may say that sparky needs an alternative topic wording, but thats >another arg that judges never vote on any more :-) > >gleefully awaiting the greatest PIC topic of all time, > >ryan _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com From chk12 Tue Jun 8 13:20:37 1999 From: chk12 (Colin Kahl) Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 19:20:37 +0100 Subject: Constructive Engagement plus Message-ID: A few thoughts on recent posts by Wes Lotz and Sparky. I think Sparky's right. We should not underestimate the power of the PIC. If we put the word "all" in the topic, Aff's will lose a ton of debates because very few people in the literature recommend lifting all sanctions against the proposed topic countries (with the exception of Cuba). Even those who want a substantial lessening of sanctions toward Iran, Iraq, and North Korea, for example, do not want them to be able to easily purchase technology and supplies that directly feed their nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs. The PIC to do the plan but not lift the sanctions on supercomputers and other dual use exports will solve 99.9% of the aff's advantage and significantly reduce the risk of WMD prolif (a huge net benefit in and of itself, not to mention the fact that the PIC would be less politically controversial than the Aff, and we all know what that means). A topic with the word "all" in it leaves almost no defense against these PICs except the VERY RISKY "PICs are bad" arguments. I am sensitive to Wes's concerns about negative ground. My goal is not to give the affirmative everything and leave the negative nothing. A topic with "all or nearly all" would not overly expand Aff ground for several reasons: First, even if it is difficult to quantitatively define what "nearly all" means, THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE FOR A PLAN THAT LIFTED ONE SANCTION (SUCH AS THE BAN ON TOURISM TO CUBA) TO PROVE IT WAS TOPICAL. This achieves the main objective of writing a topic that forces the Aff to do big things: eliminating the sanction of the week affirmatives. At the same time, as I argued in my earlier post, it would allow Affs to actually advocate plans in literature. This is important, not because it gives an overwhelming amount of ground to the Aff, but because it leaves them with a moderate supply of ground. I think the alernative ("all") is overlimiting. If Wes and others believe that there are many folks who advocate lifting ALL sanctions against any of the proposed countries, except Cuba, I encourage them to post a list of cites to the list. Second, these Affs would not be invulnerable, as Wes fears. They would all take big soft-line actions, guaranteeing plenty of disad and case turn ground (which we could probably all agree is more important to determining a good balance of affirmative and negative ground than writing a topic that guarantees an infinite amount of PIC ground for the Neg). Moreover, I think Wes's fear about plan spikes is exagerated. Affs could not put too many spikes against PICs, case turns, and disads into their plans without cutting into their solvency and risking being non-topical, both good negative arguments. Finally, the affirmative ability to adapt to negative strategies by re-writing their plan is nothing new. Good, hard-working negatives will be able to keep a step ahead as long as they keep working on the big cases and keep changing their strategy, even if they wanted to run PICs. In short, I think the phrase "all or nearly all" provides for a Goldilock's topic: one with Aff ground that is not too large and not too small, but just right. It allows for good big cases at the heart of the literature and provides a needed weapon against the PIC, while also leaving the negative plenty of ways to prepare and win. Colin Kahl University of Michigan >From Tue Jun 8 19:36:00 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 46269 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 19:37:47 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo25.mx.aol.com (imo25.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.69]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA16666 for ; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 19:37:46 -0400 Received: from DRTUNA at aol.com (585) by imo25.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id gEGZa11719; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 19:36:01 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Mac - Post-GM sub 52 Message-ID: <4524e958.248f02e0 at aol.com> Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 19:36:00 EDT Reply-To: DRTUNA at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Alfred Snider Subject: Re: Greyhound Announcement Comments: To: kenneth.delaughder at enmu.edu Yes, congratulations to Chuck, one of debate's really good guys and hard workers. I wish him all the best. As a former WDI most valuable he has already shown his stuff. Tuna PS: And how can Delaughder brag about getting out of Portales when he is.... From pacedebate Tue Jun 8 18:56:56 1999 From: pacedebate (Timothy Mahoney) Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 19:56:56 -0400 Subject: Constructive Engagement plus Message-ID: I just wanted to clarify that the resolutional wording I proposed doesn't force the affirmative to lift all sanctions. It would force them to lift all "unilateral economic" sanctions. The affirmative may be able to defend restrictions on dual use tech as military not economic sanctions (I've included a definition of economic sanctions at the end of this post). Additionally, there is very good evidence indicating that unilateral sanctions undermine our ability to enforce multilateral sanctions which means the aff has some pretty good offense against the types of counterplans that Colin indicates will be prevelant. This is in addition to the other potential advantages the affirmative will be able to run that the counterplan won't be able to solve for. I'm certainly not trying to say that their won't be PIC's. Sparky is correct that they are a potent negative weapon however I think this topic wording is unique in that it has some pretty good offense built in for affirmatives to use against the PIC. Definitions of economic sanctions. McCurdy '97 (Meghan, American University International Law Review, p. 397, J.D. Candidate Washington College of Law, American University) n6. See Michael P. Malloy, Economic Sanctions and United States Trade 11-13 (1990) (discussing the basics of economic sanctions). The term "economic sanctions" is defined differently among scholars as either "the deliberate government-inspired withdrawal, or threat of withdrawal, of "customary' trade or financial relations," or "coercive economic measures taken against one or more countries to force a change in policies, or at least to demonstrate a country's opinion about the other's policies." Id. at 12. Malloy describes economic sanctions as "any country-specific economic or financial prohibition imposed upon a target country or its nationals with the intended effect of creating dysfunction in commercial and financial transactions with respect to the specified target, in the service of specified foreign policy purposes." Id. at 13. Tim ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------- Timothy W. Mahoney Director of Debate, Pace University "Once one is truly convinced that the law is an impersonal, objective code of justice rather than an expression of the will of the powerful, one is likely to be willing not only to relinquish a large measure of one's own freedom, but to enthusiastically support the state in the suppression of others' freedom as well." (John Hasnas, 1995, Assistant Prof. of Business Ethics at Georgetown and Senior Research Fellow at the Kennedy Institute of Ethics, Wisconsin Law Review, p. 232-3) -----Original Message----- From: Colin Kahl [SMTP:chk12 at COLUMBIA.EDU] Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 1999 2:21 PM To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU Subject: Re: Constructive Engagement plus A few thoughts on recent posts by Wes Lotz and Sparky. I think Sparky's right. We should not underestimate the power of the PIC. If we put the word "all" in the topic, Aff's will lose a ton of debates because very few people in the literature recommend lifting all sanctions against the proposed topic countries (with the exception of Cuba). Even those who want a substantial lessening of sanctions toward Iran, Iraq, and North Korea, for example, do not want them to be able to easily purchase technology and supplies that directly feed their nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs. The PIC to do the plan but not lift the sanctions on supercomputers and other dual use exports will solve 99.9% of the aff's advantage and significantly reduce the risk of WMD prolif (a huge net benefit in and of itself, not to mention the fact that the PIC would be less politically controversial than the Aff, and we all know what that means). A topic with the word "all" in it leaves almost no defense against these PICs except the VERY RISKY "PICs are bad" arguments. I am sensitive to Wes's concerns about negative ground. My goal is not to give the affirmative everything and leave the negative nothing. A topic with "all or nearly all" would not overly expand Aff ground for several reasons: First, even if it is difficult to quantitatively define what "nearly all" means, THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE FOR A PLAN THAT LIFTED ONE SANCTION (SUCH AS THE BAN ON TOURISM TO CUBA) TO PROVE IT WAS TOPICAL. This achieves the main objective of writing a topic that forces the Aff to do big things: eliminating the sanction of the week affirmatives. At the same time, as I argued in my earlier post, it would allow Affs to actually advocate plans in literature. This is important, not because it gives an overwhelming amount of ground to the Aff, but because it leaves them with a moderate supply of ground. I think the alernative ("all") is overlimiting. If Wes and others believe that there are many folks who advocate lifting ALL sanctions against any of the proposed countries, except Cuba, I encourage them to post a list of cites to the list. Second, these Affs would not be invulnerable, as Wes fears. They would all take big soft-line actions, guaranteeing plenty of disad and case turn ground (which we could probably all agree is more important to determining a good balance of affirmative and negative ground than writing a topic that guarantees an infinite amount of PIC ground for the Neg). Moreover, I think Wes's fear about plan spikes is exagerated. Affs could not put too many spikes against PICs, case turns, and disads into their plans without cutting into their solvency and risking being non-topical, both good negative arguments. Finally, the affirmative ability to adapt to negative strategies by re-writing their plan is nothing new. Good, hard-working negatives will be able to keep a step ahead as long as they keep working on the big cases and keep changing their strategy, even if they wanted to run PICs. In short, I think the phrase "all or nearly all" provides for a Goldilock's topic: one with Aff ground that is not too large and not too small, but just right. It allows for good big cases at the heart of the literature and provides a needed weapon against the PIC, while also leaving the negative plenty of ways to prepare and win. Colin Kahl University of Michigan ________________________________________________________ NetZero - We believe in a FREE Internet. Shouldn't you? Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html From amackie Tue Jun 8 22:14:46 1999 From: amackie (Aiman Mackie) Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 23:14:46 -0400 Subject: Looking for Danielle Wiese Message-ID: Apologies for the clutter... If anyone has Danielle's email address or contact info. I would appreciate it if you could give me a backchannel. Danielle: If you get this message, please contact me--would like to talk to you about UM-D. Best, Aiman Aiman F. Mackie Senior, Political Science and French Studies University of Michigan, Ann Arbor -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/19990608/7ddaf10e/attachment.html From pfist001 Tue Jun 8 22:17:41 1999 From: pfist001 (pfist001) Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 22:17:41 -0500 Subject: pic's and "all" Message-ID: i think the threat of the plan inclusive counterplan is overblown, as i have argued previously. i do think that people are overclaiming the effectiveness of PICs to solve the case. that would presume, in the first place, that sanctions work ever. colin kahl's example about a PIC that lifts all sanctions except some proliferation controls doesn't take into account good arguments against it: 1) sanctions generally dont work. export controls have a slo track record, and with alternate suppliers plentiful, the solvency for this counterplan is mitigated. there is TONS of evidence about this. 2) the PIC doesnt solve critical implications. it perpetuates otherization, threat construction, etc. 3) relations disads/trade/economy disads. tim mahoney has already summarized this in his initial post. 4) impact turn the net benefit. they say prolif bad, you say prolif good. people might think this is the "wrong" side of the debate, but it seems like this is just something that should be debated out. during the year, not on edebate, i mean. :-) it seems like PICs get to the heart of the topic. do sanctions work? which sanctions work? what are the advantages? the negative might come out on top at the beginning of the year, but affirmatives will do a little more research and generate more answers to the PICs and then they would start winning... on ANY resolution, there will be PICs. i dont think that the existence of those arguments should INDEPENDENTLY justify or dejustify a particular resolution. schools that are gung ho about PICs will find a way to run them. at least it provides a little more predictability for the negative, which is where i think that the community should default. that said, i am not expressing any preference for any of the "modified" constructive engagement resolutions. i think that they all are interesting, and look forward to more discussion on them. damien pfister ua debate > A few thoughts on recent posts by Wes Lotz and Sparky. > > I think Sparky's right. We should not underestimate the power of the PIC. > If we put the word "all" in the topic, Aff's will lose a ton of debates > because very few people in the literature recommend lifting all sanctions > against the proposed topic countries (with the exception of Cuba). Even > those who want a substantial lessening of sanctions toward Iran, Iraq, and > North Korea, for example, do not want them to be able to easily purchase > technology and supplies that directly feed their nuclear, chemical, and > biological weapons programs. The PIC to do the plan but not lift the > sanctions on supercomputers and other dual use exports will solve 99.9% of > the aff's advantage and significantly reduce the risk of WMD prolif (a huge > net benefit in and of itself, not to mention the fact that the PIC would be > less politically controversial than the Aff, and we all know what that > means). A topic with the word "all" in it leaves almost no defense against > these PICs except the VERY RISKY "PICs are bad" arguments. > Government by clubs and firing squads, by artificial famine, mass imprisonment and mass deportation, is not merely inhumane (nobody cares much about that nowadays); it is demonstrably inefficient and, in an age of advanced technology, inefficiency is the sin against the Holy Ghost. A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the all-powerful executive of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves who do not have to be coerced, because they love their servitude. To make them love it is the task assigned, in present-day totalitarian states, to ministries of propaganda, newspaper editors, and school teachers. -------aldous huxley, brave new world revisited >From Wed Jun 9 03:01:34 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 37588 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 9 Jun 1999 03:02:21 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo20.mx.aol.com (imo20.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.10]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA14484 for ; Wed, 9 Jun 1999 03:02:19 -0400 Received: from CUDb8R at aol.com (4466) by imo20.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id nSPZa07332 for ; Wed, 9 Jun 1999 03:01:35 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 10 Message-ID: <3a7280eb.248f6b4e at aol.com> Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 03:01:34 EDT Reply-To: CUDb8R at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Kirk Wilson Subject: Bob Alexander Bob, please backchannel me ASAP! Kirk Wilson CU Debate From bandoleras_1999 Wed Jun 9 08:22:36 1999 From: bandoleras_1999 (p.j. bandoleras) Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 06:22:36 -0700 Subject: Apology and the end Message-ID: --- Matthew Scott Carter wrote: > Umm...ok...I don't want to draw fire (and personally > have not be closely > reading the argument that sparked this incident), > but the fact is that the > debate community, for all its preaching of > tolerance, seems to me the most > intolerant community when it comes to different > ideas. Well if you think so...then why didnt you defend her when she was on ? > You're right. We don't have to agree with everyone, > but we don't have to > always be involved in knock down drag out (email) > screaming matches that > eventually convince one of the participants that his > or her life is worse > as a result of constant conflict on edebate because > the stronger majority > simply WILL NOT let the argument die. And don't > deny that we (yes I do as > well) do this. We're like the Borg: disagreement is > futile. You WILL see > things this way because EVERYBODY on edebate just > KNOWS it's the CORRECT, > ENLIGHTENED way to see things (e.g. shawnessy's > "marginalizing" views). I think it is rather funny how you put "marginalizing" in quotes. I think the knock down email fights are cool. They really let everyone be themselves. > So, this is a desparate plea to all who have > offended (which as I said is > most of us including myself) to knock it off. Knock it off?? Oh no...and what will evil matt do to me if I dont ? > As a side note, if I get a nasty response to this it > would be absolutely > hilarious. I can see Miss Prieto (did I spell that right) from Miami is taking care of you already. > EvilMatt > MTSU --zorro _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com From broda Wed Jun 9 08:59:30 1999 From: broda (Kenneth T. Broda-Bahm) Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 09:59:30 -0400 Subject: Non-policy topics Message-ID: Regarding the wording of the by-law, Gordon Hull writes: This is an interesting wording - because it asks one to value an end, presumably one with specific content. What makes it interesting is that most of what contemporary ethics does is *avoid* trying to value ends - hence, e.g. Kant's effort to always affirm the principle of an action in universal terms. In other words, it seems to me that asking one to affirm the value of an idea (etc) is an invitation (I hope - deontololgy-vs-utilitarianism debates are really boring IMHO) not just to ask whether the policy "promotes the greatest good for the greatest number" or "reflects the moral law." By focusing on the "value of an idea, condition, or action" the wording doesn't seem to prefer consequential over deontic evaluation. It would seem to be up to the advocates to make arguments regarding whether we should assess by value ends or by valuing morality. Gordon continues Why does this matter? Here's Topc #1: >> > A. Resolved: that United States foreign policy reliance on economic >> > sanctions against rogue nations is unethical. This seems to me to very easily slide into deontology debates - but in so doing, winds up being unable to question the ends of U.S. policy. This topic is about means - hence, it doesn't allow questioning of anything other than whether the means are an OK way to achieve the end of being mean to "rogue" nations. Or the end of preventing nuclear proliferation, increasing human rights, or limiting the chance of war. Once ends are considered, and once advocates argue, as I expect they would, that the purpose and effect of an action is highly relevant in assessing its ethics, the debate is about much more than means. The topic doesn't pre-determine deontology. It would be up to the debaters to make arguments about whether the policy should be evaluated based upon adherence to principle alone, or based on consequences. From experience, I know that it is pretty tough to convince judges that all consequences should be ignored. Presuming a competent negative, it seems like many to most debates would focus on the purposes and consequences of sanctions, for good or ill. If as an affirmative I say that "the U.S. shouldn't imperialistically judge the government of Iran," that does not per se affirm the resolution - as a negative, i could easily argue that the aff affirms the idea that a country should not be called rogue, but does not affirm the idea that, hyopthetically, given that a country is a rogue, sanctions are appropriate. You make an argument for why the resolution would be interpreted as a general proposition, and not as a statement about Iran. Sounds like a good argument. You also seem to imply that interpreting the resolution as applying to _no countries_ because it is just a hypothetical statement about what would happen IF a country were a rogue would be a bad interpretation. I agree that such an interpretation would be a bad one, it would limit grounds and fly in the face of the current terms and practices of U.S. policy recognizing rogue states - but this is a T debate about whether one defines rogues as real or potential. But to cut to the bottom of the argument, I agree, as I did in my original message, that it may be a good idea to list countries. The "it's a hypothetical proposition" defense isn't implausible, given the way ethics debates frequently proceed - from a "let us suppose" situation that has zero to do with a real one. Also, when Kant answered the objection that "nobody is as moral as you say they should be," he made an is/ought distinction and claimed that the principle was key, and that one shoudln't abandon principle just because some (or even all) people were too weak to follow it. [snip] e.g. "Resolved that the U.S. attempt to use its foreign policy to [substantially] modify the domestic policies of one or more of the following [...] is unethical." This resolution replaces "economic sanctions" with a broad operational definition of economic sanctions. I'm not sure that is a good idea. "Economic sanctions" is a common term of art, appearing in the titles of countless articles. It seems like it would be enough to put that term in the resolution and let debaters dispute what it means. Given your wording, it seems too easy to say that _any_ foreign policy is in some way an "attempt to modify the domestic policy...." Why something like that would be always unethical, I'm not sure. I'm sure that's not very well worded, but it's at least got the idea across... I also realize that it will seem to dilute focus from economic sanctions. Two possible responses: (a) The usual route of attack is economic sanctions - you can't talk about efforts to "reform" Cuba without mentioning the embargo; That seems like a reason _to_ focus on sanctions. (b) Sanctions are a means to the end - perhaps value debate should be about the ends? As above, any ethical debate, given reasonably competent negative debaters, will be broadened to include ends. >> > B. Resolved: that, on balance, sanctions against state sponsors of >> > terrorism have been ineffective. Ken's right this one focuses on the utility of sanctions - and i think it turns into a policy proposition in disguise, and runs the risk of devolving into hypotesting debates. First of all, what does "on balance ... ineffective" mean? Effective in terms of what? Debaters, not resolutions, determine impacts and standards of judgement. The question of how sanctions should be measured is a substantive one. Debaters should argue over how the effectiveness of sanctions should be assessed. That is an advantage of non-policy wordings. On the one hand, it can be in terms of regime change or something like that - in which case, there's no negative ground. Sounds like a good argument against that interpretation, then. I can imagine a negative making such an argument. On the other hand, efficacy can be in terms of "progress toward" regime change - in which case there's no affirmative ground, because sanctions people always say things like "Saddam is weakening..." And such claims are irrefutable? Is regime change happening because of, or in spite of sanctions? Is Saddam made more or less popular by sanctions? Saying that there ~Qno affirmative ground' is saying that there is universal agreement in the literature that sanctions effectively promote progress toward regime change. ! ! Not only false, but if anything the literature seems to lean heavily the other way. Second, how does one measure "on balance?" By adding up examples? If so, the affirmative can cite (eg Cuba) and the neg can produce the counterwarrant of (ok, actually, i can't think of a country where sanctions worked - let's suppose there's one called "influencetopia"). Which example is better - Cuba or influencetopia? Cuba. Part of the art is that debaters come up with standards for comparing arguments: e.g., real examples are better than fictive ones. In the case of more reasonably chosen examples, it still doesn't seem too demanding to expect debaters to talk about whether the successes are more representative than the failures or vice versa. Or, if the aff produces a huge list of failures, what if a success is particulary striking? And so on - none of these particularly seem like value debates... Perhaps not, but it is a non-policy debate to the extent that it is not focused on proposing future changes. I suppose it is a matter of taste, but a debate in which the focus is on whether sanctions have or have not worked, a debate which compares examples of successes and failures in current and past policies ~W that seems like a good debate to me. -Ken Broda-Bahm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/19990609/12303c58/attachment.htm From wnewnam Wed Jun 9 09:03:18 1999 From: wnewnam (William E Newnam) Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 10:03:18 -0400 Subject: IMPORTANT E-MAIL THAT WILL DIRECTLY IMPACT YOU!!! In-Reply-To: <21033271202091@wfrpc.dst.fl.us> Message-ID: I have read this in a variety of newspapers as well. bill n emory On Tue, 8 Jun 1999 chismc at WFRPC.DST.FL.US wrote: > i heard this was a hoax...... > From msc2a Wed Jun 9 12:19:18 1999 From: msc2a (Matthew Scott Carter) Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 12:19:18 -0500 Subject: Apology and the end In-Reply-To: <19990609132236.15276.rocketmail@web1003.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hmmmmm... Not a lot of cogent arguments...sprinkled with ad homs....I do believe this was the very behavior I was indicting. But to reiterate... On Wed, 9 Jun 1999, p.j. bandoleras wrote: > Well if you think so...then why didnt you defend her when she was on ? Because I'm not principally interested in the conversation in question...whether I agree with her views or not is completely irrelevant. I was responding to after-the-fact posts justifying some email brutality by saying Shawnessy's views were "marginalizing," etc. My point is that there isn't a justification because the behavior is in itself marginalizing. Get it? > I think it is rather funny how you put "marginalizing" in quotes. I tend to use quotes when I quote other people. > I > think the knock down email fights are cool. They really let everyone > be themselves. Possibly, but when the community professes to love eduacted discourse so much, it seems pretty contradictory. > > > So, this is a desparate plea to all who have > > offended (which as I said is > > most of us including myself) to knock it off. > > Knock it off?? Oh no...and what will evil matt do to me if I dont > ? That wasn't an implied threat, it was a plea (hence the phrase "a desparate plea"). I personally don't want to do anything to you. I'm just trying to make us all a bit more consistent. > > As a side note, if I get a nasty response to this it > > would be absolutely > > hilarious. > > I can see Miss Prieto (did I spell that right) from Miami is taking > care of you already. > Yeah, Debbie sure took care of me, all right. I learned all about how I'm marginalizing people even further when I stand up for people who have been marginalized on the listserv because the majority says their opinions are marginalizing. You should save your superior argumentative skills for a much more challenging opponent than myself. EvilMatt MTSU > > --zorro > > > _________________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com > > ___________________________________________________________________ EvilMatt {{{I believe in God, I just don't trust anybody who works for him.}}} "If you can't think of anything nice, say something nasty." -Life's Little Destruction Book "Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh." -George Bernard Shaw "I love to go to the schoolyard and watch the children jump and scream, but they don't know I'm using blanks." -Jack Handey, Deep Thoughts "Q: What's black and white and red and black and white and red? A: Two zebras fighting over a dead baby." - Cindy Simmons Visit http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/Library/9675 Sign the guestbook or else.... From msc2a Wed Jun 9 12:20:48 1999 From: msc2a (Matthew Scott Carter) Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 12:20:48 -0500 Subject: IMPORTANT E-MAIL THAT WILL DIRECTLY IMPACT YOU!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I believe Nick wrote a very eloquent email on how this couldn't have been anything but a hoax. I thought it very entertaining. EvilMatt MTSU On Wed, 9 Jun 1999, William E Newnam wrote: > I have read this in a variety of newspapers as well. > > bill n > emory > > On Tue, 8 Jun 1999 chismc at WFRPC.DST.FL.US wrote: > > > i heard this was a hoax...... > > > ___________________________________________________________________ EvilMatt {{{I believe in God, I just don't trust anybody who works for him.}}} "If you can't think of anything nice, say something nasty." -Life's Little Destruction Book "Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh." -George Bernard Shaw "I love to go to the schoolyard and watch the children jump and scream, but they don't know I'm using blanks." -Jack Handey, Deep Thoughts "Q: What's black and white and red and black and white and red? A: Two zebras fighting over a dead baby." - Cindy Simmons Visit http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/Library/9675 Sign the guestbook or else.... >From Wed Jun 9 12:24:33 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 41458 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 9 Jun 1999 13:25:09 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from wfrpc.dst.fl.us (server.wfrpc.dst.fl.us [206.105.46.100]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA21206 for ; Wed, 9 Jun 1999 13:25:07 -0400 Received: from TERM-26 (TERM-26 [206.105.46.84]) by wfrpc.dst.fl.us (NTMail 3.02.09) with ESMTP id fa042411 for ; Wed, 9 Jun 1999 12:24:36 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Priority: normal References: X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01d) Message-ID: <17243679002471 at wfrpc.dst.fl.us> Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 12:24:33 -0500 Reply-To: chismc at WFRPC.DST.FL.US To: Team Topic Debating in America From: chismc at WFRPC.DST.FL.US Subject: Re: IMPORTANT E-MAIL THAT WILL DIRECTLY IMPACT YOU!!! In-Reply-To: i read in a variety of newspapers that elvis is still alive...apparently, he runs an ice cream shop with jim morrison.... From ccooper Wed Jun 9 12:30:20 1999 From: ccooper (Chris Cooper) Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 13:30:20 -0400 Subject: Apology and the end Message-ID: This is really quite inane, which is why I have kept out of it...but I have to ask EvilMatt...how were Shawnessy's comments "marginalized"? If the majority disagree with her does that constitute "marginalization"? What if she's just wrong? Coop -----Original Message----- From: Matthew Scott Carter To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU Date: Wednesday, June 09, 1999 1:41 PM Subject: Re: Apology and the end >Hmmmmm... > >Not a lot of cogent arguments...sprinkled with ad homs....I do believe >this was the very behavior I was indicting. > >But to reiterate... > >On Wed, 9 Jun 1999, p.j. bandoleras wrote: > >> Well if you think so...then why didnt you defend her when she was on ? > >Because I'm not principally interested in the conversation in >question...whether I agree with her views or not is completely irrelevant. >I was responding to after-the-fact posts justifying some email brutality >by saying Shawnessy's views were "marginalizing," etc. My point is that >there isn't a justification because the behavior is in itself >marginalizing. Get it? > >> I think it is rather funny how you put "marginalizing" in quotes. > >I tend to use quotes when I quote other people. > >> I >> think the knock down email fights are cool. They really let everyone >> be themselves. > >Possibly, but when the community professes to love eduacted discourse so >much, it seems pretty contradictory. > >> >> > So, this is a desparate plea to all who have >> > offended (which as I said is >> > most of us including myself) to knock it off. >> >> Knock it off?? Oh no...and what will evil matt do to me if I dont >> ? > >That wasn't an implied threat, it was a plea (hence the phrase "a >desparate plea"). I personally don't want to do anything to you. I'm >just trying to make us all a bit more consistent. > >> > As a side note, if I get a nasty response to this it >> > would be absolutely >> > hilarious. >> >> I can see Miss Prieto (did I spell that right) from Miami is taking >> care of you already. >> > >Yeah, Debbie sure took care of me, all right. I learned all about how I'm >marginalizing people even further when I stand up for people who have been >marginalized on the listserv because the majority says their opinions are >marginalizing. You should save your >superior argumentative skills for a much more challenging opponent than >myself. > > EvilMatt > MTSU >> >> --zorro >> >> >> _________________________________________________________ >> Do You Yahoo!? >> Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com >> >> > >___________________________________________________________________ >EvilMatt > >{{{I believe in God, I just don't trust anybody who works for him.}}} > >"If you can't think of anything nice, say something nasty." > -Life's Little Destruction Book > >"Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases >to be serious when people laugh." > -George Bernard Shaw > >"I love to go to the schoolyard and watch the children jump and > scream, but they don't know I'm using blanks." > -Jack Handey, Deep Thoughts > >"Q: What's black and white and red and black and white and red? > A: Two zebras fighting over a dead baby." > - Cindy Simmons > >Visit http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/Library/9675 >Sign the guestbook or else.... > From jef229f Wed Jun 9 13:08:30 1999 From: jef229f (John Fritch, PhD) Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 13:08:30 -0500 Subject: tenure tracks Message-ID: As usual, I almost totally agree with Scott. I hope my first post was not taken as an indictment of the positions which are not tenure track. In my view, the problem lies with the UNIVERSITIES which value research over undergraduate teaching. Debate coaching is, in my thinking, one of the most unique and valuable forms of undergraduate teaching. IF universities and colleges are going to give tenure, it should be given to teachers and scholars. (I had a dean once describe the role of teaching in the tenure process with the words "as long as you don't do damage".) I do disagree with Scott's indifference as to where a debate team should or could be housed. I am a firm believer in the notion that an understanding of rhetoric and argument are an essential component of learning in the debate process. I think that the arguments made about why debaters should ONLY make arguments they believe reflect a lack of grounding in the traditional notions of debate and argumentation and the value of the PROCESS of debate. *NOT QUITE SENILE IN SPRINGFIELD* John Fritch SMS ---------- >From: SCOTT HARRIS >To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU >Subject: Re: tenure tracks >Date: Mon, Jun 7, 1999, 5:05 PM > >I'm not embarassed at all to hold a position which has been converted from >tenure status to non tenure status. I happen to believe it to be a good >thing for myself and for the program. When I held a tenure track position >debate was viewed by my department and the University as the least >important aspect of my job. My letters of evaluation would say something >to the effect of "you are spending too much time on that debate stuff and >need to do more publishing. It is in the interest of the future of the >program if you blow off a few years of students in debate and publish like >mad instead." I had to apologize for time spent on debate. Now that my >job title is debate coach the signals that I >get from the department and the University are much different. They >reflect a commitment >from the University and the department that they value the work I do with >the debate team. The fact that a University hires debate coaches to coach >debate rather than be tenure track does not reflect a view that debate is >not valued by the University. I think it avoids what was a major problem >for many Universities to give the coach tenure and have them stop >coaching debate so they have to hire a new faculty member. That vicious >cycle creates many potential problems. There is also the problem that >every time a debate coach in a tenure track position is denied tenure it >forces the department to fight for the existence of the program. I also >happen to personnaly believe that the >tenure process is one of the worst things to ever happen to the academy. >I have no problem with holding a non tenure track position. I am not >advocating that all debate jobs be non tenure track but I think we should >recognize that each University needs to solve its unique problems in its >own way. If a University supports a debate program is far more >important than whether they run it through a Coms Department, through >Political Science, through an Alumni program or through Student Affairs. >The most important fight is for the existence of well supported debate >programs in the first place. > > > #####LOCO IN LAWRENCE##### >From Wed Jun 9 14:31:55 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 42500 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 9 Jun 1999 14:33:03 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo17.mx.aol.com (imo17.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.7]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA09814 for ; Wed, 9 Jun 1999 14:33:01 -0400 Received: from Jdgriswold at aol.com (3878) by imo17.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id nSSJa08017 for ; Wed, 9 Jun 1999 14:31:52 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 214 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 14:31:55 EDT Reply-To: Jdgriswold at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Jeff Griswold Subject: Re: Constructive Engagement Plus - A Question How do you think the community will interpret the "all or nearly all" removal of sanctions? For instance, if we look at sanctions from a general perspective, we can point to restrictions in the major fields of Business and Commerce, Diplomatic Relations, Military Relations, Trade, Financial Assistance, and Technology Transfers. If the Affirmative lifted Sanctions that previously restricted military and diplomatic relationships, general assistance, all financial assistance, and allowed US businesses to invest and build production facilities in these markets but retained sanctions on all imports and exports to and from the US, would that be considered topical under a "nearly all" wording? If you approach it from a general perspective, it might be topical given the removal of Sanctions in every other major category. On the other hand, with a narrow perspective, restrictions on Imports/Exports would include Agricultural Commodities, such as Wheat, Corn, Rice Soybeans, Fruits, and Vegetables, other exports/imports could be Textiles, Cotton, paper and paper products, plastics, computer parts, software, minerals, machinery, steel and so on. Quite a list and that's just the surface. From this perspective, I'm not sure that this would meet the "nearly all" criteria, as a major portion of our sanctions policy would still be intact. I would be interested to hear your response. As for the PIC's, it seems to me that you would get this in either scenario. To take the example above, if you were to end all sanctions except for exports, and if such a case were topical under the "nearly all" wording, what would prevent the negative from simply excluding another commodity, such as wheat, from being sanctioned? Capture the advantages and stick the affirmative with a bunch of fanatical cards from the wheat producers and their lobbyists that are going nuts and over these restrictions. If you ban all sanctions, your vulnerable to having the negative simply carve sanction "x" or "y" via the PIC. If you opt for a "nearly all" course of action and exclude sanctions "x" and "y" in the affirmative plan, the negative could CP with that exact plan, minus sanction "z". From laneg Wed Jun 9 13:36:36 1999 From: laneg (Lane, Gina) Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 13:36:36 -0500 Subject: CEDA Topic/Business Meeting, June 16-20 Message-ID: Hello everyone-- Many of you have backchannelled me to let me know you'll be attending the CEDA Summer meeting in St. Louis. Scott and Gina Jensen of Webster University have done a great job securing local arrangements for us. The meeting will be held June 16-20 in the Sheraton Westport Hotel in St. Louis. I've pasted the directions below, as well as another copy of the schedule. Remember, you are welcome to attend both the topic meetings and the summer business meeting. See you soon-- Gina Lane President, Cross Examination Debate Association William Jewell College Directions: > Flying... > Call the Sheraton from the courtesy phones near baggage claim. > They have a complimentary shuttle to and from Lambert. > Driving... > From East/South... > Get on Interstate 270 North/East and exit at Page East > (you will see signs announcing the Westport area and > the Sheraton Hotel). > > Follow the signs for Sheraton Westport. There are TWO > Sheratons--we are in the plaza. This is a tall gold > building that you can clearly see from the interstate. > It is just past the McDonalds. > > From West/North... > Get on Interstate 270 South/West and exit at Page East > (you will see signs announcing the Westport area and > the Sheraton Hotel). > > Follow the signs for Sheraton Westport. There are TWO > Sheratons--we are in the plaza. This is a tall gold > building that you can clearly see from the Interstate. > it is just past the McDonald. > > If these directions fall short of making you comfortable, you > might call the Sheraton at (314) 434-5010. > > Schedule, 1999 CEDA Topic/Summer Meeting Wednesday, June 16 Sheraton Inn Westport St. Louis, MO Topic Committee Meeting (nonmembers are welcome to observe and participate, but will have no voting privileges) 2:00pm - 6:00 pm Thursday, June 17 Topic Committee Meeting (nonmembers are welcome to observe and participate, but will have no voting privileges) 9:00am - 6:00 pm Friday, June 18 9:00 am - 12:00 pm Topic Committee, final deliberations Summer Meeting 2:00pm Welcome and Introductions 2:15-5:00pm CEDA in the New Millenium -- Discussion leader: Linda Collier (this discussion will examine CEDA's identity and brainstorm for organizational name changes. Saturday, June 19 9:00am-12:00pm Organizational Business (Officer Reports, Committee/Project Team Reports, Committee/Project Team membership, 1999-2000) Strategies for Implementing the Value Resolution 2000 Nationals Planning ( Tentative Schedule, Adding the Value Resolution division, other procedures--please be prepared to comment on positive and negative aspects of the national tournament, and bring any suggestions for change) 1:30-5:00pm Developmental Conference (how is it developing?): Glenda Treadaway Membership Support Strategies (Eligibility requirements (novice, jv, etc); Young coaches, Program Support, Outside funding, Outreach efforts Sunday, June 20 10:00am-12:00 pm Follow-up Discussion and Action Commitments From drake_b Wed Jun 9 14:03:31 1999 From: drake_b (drake_b) Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 15:03:31 -0400 Subject: IMPORTANT E-MAIL THAT WILL DIRECTLY IMPACT YOU!!! Message-ID: >===== Original Message From chismc at WFRPC.DST.FL.US ===== >i read in a variety of newspapers that elvis is still alive...apparently, >he runs an ice cream shop with jim morrison.... YOU READ THAT TOO!!! From sharris Wed Jun 9 14:19:13 1999 From: sharris (SCOTT HARRIS) Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 14:19:13 -0500 Subject: Constructive Engagement Plus - A Question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 9 Jun 1999, Jeff Griswold wrote: > If you ban all sanctions, your vulnerable to having the negative simply carve > sanction "x" or "y" via the PIC. If you opt for a "nearly all" course of > action and exclude sanctions "x" and "y" in the affirmative plan, the > negative could CP with that exact plan, minus sanction "z". > Thats what I like about that wording. The aff has to defend what they chose to include in the plan but not what was forced on them. They get to make some choices. That counterplan would work against a team once. A negative will have to have more than one strategy. #####LOCO IN LAWRENCE##### From chk12 Wed Jun 9 09:50:52 1999 From: chk12 (Colin Kahl) Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 15:50:52 +0100 Subject: Construtive Engagement plus Message-ID: Jeff Griswold raises two important questions. His first question is how broadly "nearly all" will be interpreted. Will it apply to sanctions in general categories (e.g. Bussiness and Commerce, Trade, Financial Assistance, etc.) or to sanctions on specific products (e.g. wheat and computers)? In other words, how do we "count" sanctions so that "nearly all" is meaningful? To be honest, I'm not sure how the community will come down on this question. I'm sure, knowing affirmatives, many will try to interpret the resolution in a way that allows them to run as many cases as possible. Nevertheless, this shouldn't scare us off. There will undoubtedly be ways to interpret "nearly all" that requires a majority of sanctions to be lifted and ways for the Negative to count up sanctions to suggest that small aff's don't meet this obligation. This suggests to me that EVEN IF THERE ARE MULTIPLE WAYS OF COUNTING THE NUBMER/CATEGORIES OF SANCTIONS, Negatives will always be able to find a more "limiting" definition and interpretation and argue that this interpretation is preferable. This isn't a silver bullet against small affs, but certainly does a better job of deterring small affs than a word like "substantially" or "significantly" would. Jeff's second question was about the inevitability of PICs regardless of whether the word in the resolution is "all" or "nearly all." Obviously, PICs can be run under either topic. If the Aff is required to lift all sanctions, the Negative can choose to exclude any one they want; if the Aff gets to choose which sanctions they lift, the Negative can still choose to exclude some of the ones the Aff picked (excuse the pun). Preferring "nearly all" to "all" does not hinge on ELIMINATING the possibility of PICs. However, the Aff's ability to choose the sanctions they lift DOES give the Aff several defenses against the PIC. First, if they have a solvency advocate for the bundle of sanctions they choose, there may be a significant solvency deficit between the plan and the PIC. Second, because they chose the sanctions in the first place, the Aff can better prepare "offense" and "defense" against the PIC. A topic that forces the Aff to remove "all" sanctions forces the Aff to prepare answers to as many PICs as there are aspects of US sanctions policy. That literally gives the Neg thousands of PIC options without giving the Aff any choice about which ones they want to debate. On the other hand, an Aff which gets to select the sanctions they lift knows from the beginning the discreet set of sanctions that can be PIC'd, and can much more easily prepare to beat them. So, the key question is not "to PIC or not to PIC" but rather "who gets to decide what gets PIC'd". I think the Aff should get to decide, given the near impossibility of the Aff successfully preparing for and defending the removal of every last aspect of US sanctions toward the topic countries. Colin Kahl University of Michigan From ge1382a Wed Jun 9 15:29:57 1999 From: ge1382a (Gusta Elfving) Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 16:29:57 -0400 Subject: 1999-2000 Tournament Schedule Message-ID: Community, I am proud to announce that American University in Washington, DC will be hosting "The Capitol Classic-An American Holiday" on December 3-5, 1999 on our main campus. Actually, the tournament is on December 4-5 with December 3 acting as a spill-over date if required. As it stands now, the 3rd will function as a day for sightseeing and shopping. We will arrange professional tours if requested, but we prefer to show visitors around ourselves. If so desired, you can always make your own plans or just come later. We will offer all of the AFA IE's (including our own special event), NFA-LD, and will be showcasing the NPDA portion of the tournament. We will also offer CEDA, if there is enough interest. American University students will most likely not compete, but may do so at our discresion. In addition to a comprehensive event offering, we will be awarding the farthest travelling team and a two divisions of sweepstakes (division breakdownsare yet to be determined). Of course, the finalists and the top novice will be recognized in each individual event as well as the top speakers in each debate division. However, instead of pentathalon awards, we will offer awards to the top individuals who participate in both debate and individual events. A fee schedule is in the works that will essentially act as an incentive for participation in NPDA and as a disincentive for not bringing judges. However, we hope to assist in reducing costs. With this in mind, a block of rooms is being reserved at the Holiday Inn-Georgetown at a VERY good rate for the District during the holdays. But that's not all...we have worked out a reduced affair agreement with one of the airlines. More specific information is forthcoming. Gusta Elfving-SDOF American University (202) 885-3160 (202) 885-3396-fax -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/19990609/d529e0c2/attachment.html From laneg Wed Jun 9 16:11:36 1999 From: laneg (Lane, Gina) Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 16:11:36 -0500 Subject: CEDA needs you! Message-ID: Dear Colleagues-- As you know from the multitude of messages I have been posting, CEDA is getting ready for its summer meeting in St. Louis. Part of that meeting is devoted to committee work and project teams of the organization. Now that all of the committees have chairs, I am in search of people who are interested in working on those committees. I have listed below a list of all the committees/teams and a description of their charge. If you are currently on one of these teams and would like to continue, or if you would like to sign up, please email me and let me know. I will forward your name to the committee chair. Your efforts and time are a huge part of what make this organization special. Thank you, Gina Lane President, Cross Examination Debate Association William Jewell College PROJECT TEAMS Advocates for Diversity Project chair: Will Baker, New York IMPACT Coalition 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. Committee on Discrimination and Sexual Harassment (CDSH) Chair: Jan Hovden, University of Central Oklahoma 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. Besides their work at the national tournament, I hope the CDSH will facilitate and review an educational program annually, informing members of the CEDA debate community about the definitions and interpretations of discrimination and sexual harassment and about procedures for initiating complaints. Constitutional Revision Committee chair: ML Sandoz, Vanderbilt University I am asking that a group of individuals take on the task of reviewing the CEDA constitution to make sure that its language is congruent with our current practices. Development Conference Project chair: Glenda Treadaway, Appalachian State University This project is designed to plan and implement a CEDA development conference. The plan should include recommendations on conference logistics as well as program ideas and goals. Ethics Committee chair: Sam Nelson, University of Rochester The purpose of the ethics committee is to adjudicate ethics disputes at the national tournament (all members must be present at the national tournament). National Tournament Staff chair: Gina Lane, William Jewell College This staff will administer the Association's National Tournament. Guidelines and procedures for administration appear in the Bylaws. Nominating Committee chair: Mike Bauer, Ball State University 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. Professionalism Project chair: David Berube, University of South Carolina Project Charge: Project members are charged with the task of promoting the professional activities of CEDA members including scholarship, teaching and service. This committee will also follow up on recommendations of the Quality of Life and Grants project teams. Program Development Project chair: Michael Eaves, Valdosta State University 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 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. CEDA Public Relations Project chair: Linda Collier, University of Missouri-Kansas City 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. The team is continuing its work on a CEDA Marketing Plan. The committee is in search of a new committee chair, who will work with Linda until she steps down after the NCA Convention. Public Sphere Project chair: Steve Koch, Capital University This project is designed to promote connections between the practice of intercollegiate debate and the public sociopolitical activities of community members. Project teams administer the Public Debate Program Awards, and develop plans for specific projects designed to promote the relevance of intercollegiate debate to the public sphere. Recruiting Initiative chair: Jim Hanson, Whitman College Jim Hanson is currently finishing work on a project to gather recruiting information on behalf of member schools. (No new members needed at this time). CEDA Research Project chair: Greg Achten, Pepperdine University This committee shall evaluate proposals for research to be conducted at the Association's National Tournament and approve only those proposals which meet standards for ethical and competent research. CEDA Organizational and Strategic Planning team chair: Gina Lane, William Jewell College This committee, which has already been named, will work on an updated name and identity statement for CEDA which is more in line with contemporary organizational practices. This committee will: 1) preparing an amendment to Article I of the CEDA Constitution to change the name of the organization to a name which better communicates its organizational identity (by November 1999); > 2) preparing a mission statement to amend Article II of the CEDA > Constitution in order to articulate the organization's goals and > distinctive purposes (by March 2000). > 3) preparing a strategic planning proposal for CEDA, which would include a > five year plan and specific initiatives for meeting objectives (by June > 2000). > Student Leadership Project Chair: Enslen Lamberth, University of Alabama Recent strides have been made to include more student representation in our 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. Technology Support Project chair: Pat Gehrke, Pennsylvania State The team is preparing a report for the NCA meeting on the use of technology and debate. (No new members needed at this time). Young Coaches Support Project: chair: Karla Leeper, Baylor University This new committee is designed to promote the professional development and support of young coaches, including graduate assistants and individuals in the first five years of their careers. This team will absorb and continue the work of the partnership project team. >From Wed Jun 9 19:12:52 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 45841 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 9 Jun 1999 19:14:40 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo15.mx.aol.com (imo15.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.5]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA19410 for ; Wed, 9 Jun 1999 19:14:38 -0400 Received: from Jdgriswold at aol.com (8002) by imo15.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id nRNUa17550 for ; Wed, 9 Jun 1999 19:12:51 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 214 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 19:12:52 EDT Reply-To: Jdgriswold at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Jeff Griswold Subject: Re: Constructive Engagement Plus - A Question Colin Kahl and others have some very good insights on this wording and I fully agree, given the choice of "all" or "all or nearly all," I would much prefer the later as it indeed presents the affirmative with more options. My concerns rest with the interpretation and division of ground with this resolution. An "all" or "all or nearly all" phrasing requires either a complete or significant removal of existing sanctions. Simply removing sanctions, for example, on agricultural and/or medical commodities, while in itself a grand exemption, would not be enough of a removal to meet the wording of this resolution as a significant amount of sanctions, including all financial assistance, trade on all other commodities, exchanges, diplomatic and military relations, technology transfers, private investments by US companies in some cases, and so on would still exist post plan action. Indeed, I believe the US has eased sanctions on agricultural and medical commodities/supplies to three possible topic countries that are currently under US unilateral sanctions: Iran, Sudan and Libya. That is a major concession by the US government but really doesn't dent the overall sanctions policy still in place with those countries. And that is my point. Defending all agricultural products from sanction exclusion, knowing the Negative can CP with your entire Affirmative but exclude one agricultural commodity, is difficult enough. But to go beyond that, to include all or nearly all US sanctions to be removed, is a huge burden. My point is that the Affirmative will be required to remove an overwhelming majority of Sanctions that are in place. A claim that the affirmative should be prepared to defend everything it selects as topic ground is a rather large, and in my opinion, unreasonable demand given the scope of the requirements thrust onto the Affirmative. There must be hundreds, if not thousands, of individual goods, technologies, commodities and aid programs that are subject to US sanctions. To use an example that Colin selected, suppose the Affirmative selected North Korea and argued for the removal of all sanctions except those relating supercomputers and other dual use technologies. That is a rather large exception as numerous goods and technologies may have dual use capabilities. But for the sake of argument, let us assume that the community would view such a plan as within the "nearly all" wording. What is to stop an affirmative from simply excluding steel shipments, claiming that these materials will be diverted and used for military/ WMD programs? Or manufactured machine parts that can be converted into armaments for certain weapons platforms? And here is another approach. A negative can exclude a given commodity simply due to potential harm it may cause to US producers and manufactures. For example, A negative could CP with the entire Affirmative but exclude, say, textiles in addition to supercomputers and duel use technologies, simply because N. Korean textiles are cheaper, using cheap labor and materials, and present a true threat to the US textile industry (Just an example). The negative can capture the majority if not all of the advantages offered with the Affirmative, argue their textile position and, if they want to expand the debate, argue that this industry is worthy of exemption based on the need for protectionism within the textile trade arena, and assuming the position has some sort of impact, be left in a rather nice position. The negative does not have to defend the removal of all sanctions or the importance of attaching sanctions to the objected item, rather it need only demonstrate that the removal of that item, in this example textiles, would be harmful and carry some sort of negative implication. Arguments that some sort of "signal" must be sent (Like a relations advantage of some sort) are mitigated by the initial exclusion of supercomputers and duel use technologies. It would be difficult to argue that the addition of one more item to the affirmative exemption would trigger a disadvantage that would not be applicable to the original exclusion. Sure, perhaps more of a possibility but if the Negative position is tight, it will more than likely carry the day. I agree with Scott Harris that it may be a one shot, one toury strategy as the affirmative could adjust to the Negitive exclusion, but I also believe that there are many resourceful teams as well as coaches that have the creative ability to find some obscure and not so obscure items out there that a certain organization or group thinks should be sanctioned. Besides that, simply changing the plan text may be dangerous. If you were to run the N. Korea case, excluding supercomputers and duel use tech and now textiles, the negative may simply utilize a PIC with a new industry, such as cotton, plastic, or steel and then argue, in addition to the needs for exclusion, that such industry with its hellish lobbyists would now freak that textiles received special protection from the US government. (I'm not sure if such an action would be considered protectionism or not, just a thought.) In addition, given the possible similarities in the industries, generic answers may fall victim to uniqueness problems created with the addition of the 1AC textile exemption. And to keep extending the exemptions in the 1AC is to really question the "all or nearly all" intentions of the topic. Personally, this is why I don't like PIC's. An argument against the Affirmative that lifts all or nearly all sanctions, such as the wheat, textile or WMD positions that we have discussed earlier, are really nothing more than disadvantages. A huge case can potentially swamp one of these disadvantages. That was one of the reasons you would run a large affirmative. However, is some sort of weird compensation, the community for the most part allows the negative to CP with the entire 1AC, excluding some or one particular item under the pretense that the Affirmative has to defend all of its selected ground. However, I believe that I am in the minority, and probably a small minority at that, which objects to the use of PIC's and, as such, I understand their place as a useful debate argument. It seems in this case that it could be huge. Perhaps the literature will limit the scope of such exemptions and all of this in for not. From bandoleras_1999 Wed Jun 9 18:49:14 1999 From: bandoleras_1999 (p.j. bandoleras) Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 16:49:14 -0700 Subject: Apology and the end Message-ID: How do I love thee ? Shall I compare thee to a summers day ? Is that the way everyone should have treated her ? If you are playing defense lawyer you need to think of something better my freind. I love you COOP. -zorro- --- Matthew Scott Carter wrote: > Hmmmmm... > > Not a lot of cogent arguments...sprinkled with ad > homs....I do believe > this was the very behavior I was indicting. > > But to reiterate... > > On Wed, 9 Jun 1999, p.j. bandoleras wrote: > > > Well if you think so...then why didnt you defend > her when she was on ? > > Because I'm not principally interested in the > conversation in > question...whether I agree with her views or not is > completely irrelevant. > I was responding to after-the-fact posts justifying > some email brutality > by saying Shawnessy's views were "marginalizing," > etc. My point is that > there isn't a justification because the behavior is > in itself > marginalizing. Get it? > > > I think it is rather funny how you put > "marginalizing" in quotes. > > I tend to use quotes when I quote other people. > > > I > > think the knock down email fights are cool. They > really let everyone > > be themselves. > > Possibly, but when the community professes to love > eduacted discourse so > much, it seems pretty contradictory. > > > > > > So, this is a desparate plea to all who have > > > offended (which as I said is > > > most of us including myself) to knock it off. > > > > Knock it off?? Oh no...and what will evil matt do > to me if I dont > > ? > > That wasn't an implied threat, it was a plea (hence > the phrase "a > desparate plea"). I personally don't want to do > anything to you. I'm > just trying to make us all a bit more consistent. > > > > As a side note, if I get a nasty response to > this it > > > would be absolutely > > > hilarious. > > > > I can see Miss Prieto (did I spell that right) > from Miami is taking > > care of you already. > > > > Yeah, Debbie sure took care of me, all right. I > learned all about how I'm > marginalizing people even further when I stand up > for people who have been > marginalized on the listserv because the majority > says their opinions are > marginalizing. You should save your > superior argumentative skills for a much more > challenging opponent than > myself. > > EvilMatt > MTSU > > > > --zorro > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________ > > Do You Yahoo!? > > Get your free @yahoo.com address at > http://mail.yahoo.com > > > > > > ___________________________________________________________________ > EvilMatt > > {{{I believe in God, I just don't trust anybody who > works for him.}}} > > "If you can't think of anything nice, say something > nasty." > -Life's Little Destruction Book > > "Life does not cease to be funny when people die any > more than it ceases > to be serious when people laugh." > -George Bernard Shaw > > "I love to go to the schoolyard and watch the > children jump and > scream, but they don't know I'm using blanks." > -Jack Handey, Deep Thoughts > > "Q: What's black and white and red and black and > white and red? > A: Two zebras fighting over a dead baby." > - Cindy Simmons > > Visit > http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/Library/9675 > Sign the guestbook or else.... > > _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com From tmurphy Wed Jun 9 19:41:52 1999 From: tmurphy (Thomas L. Murphy) Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 18:41:52 -0600 Subject: tenure tracks References: <199906091809.OAA22612@list.uvm.edu> Message-ID: As a retiree from a tenure-track position which involved directing a forensics program, I found these posts interesting. I lament the loss of tenure-track positions (a definite trend) for two reasons. First, I agree it means that universities do not attach the same value to intercollegiate debate that most of those reading this list. Second, though, it also means that debate educators are failing to some degree. Dr. Fritch writes, "Debate coaching is, in my thinking, one of the most unique and valuable forms of undergraduate teaching. IF universities and colleges are going to give tenure, it should be given to teachers and scholars. (I had a dean once describe the role of teaching in the tenure process with the words "as long as you don't do damage".)" I agree. The solution, in my opinion, is not to convert positions to administrative or non-tenure lines, but to provide more teaching release time for debate coaches. At one program, as the outgoing director, I was able to convince the administration that a tenure-track debate director should teach only one class per semester. One problem which has plagued debate educators, however, is that many have had difficulties with their research obligations. I thought that the slight resurgence in rhetorical and critical approaches in the late 1980s would have helped; it apparently did not. Dr. Fritch writes, "I do disagree with Scott's indifference as to where a debate team should or could be housed. I am a firm believer in the notion that an understanding of rhetoric and argument are an essential component of learning in the debate process. I think that the arguments made about why debaters should ONLY make arguments they believe reflect a lack of grounding in the traditional notions of debate and argumentation and the value of the PROCESS of debate." This is an area where intercollegiate debate really dropped the ball. Most debate educators, at least in the past, were the faculty members who taught argumentation, debate and related subjects. Argumentation, as a "sub-field" of communication, has declined somewhat over the years. At the same time, the "sub-fields" of critical thinking and informal logic, which are practically the same thing, have exploded. Why? Because we were always at debate tournaments! The "proper" place for housing a debate program is anyplace where the development of argumentation skills is valued. At this time, however, there is probably more progressive research in argumentation taking place in philosophy departments. I still don't understand why many of my former colleagues were unable to meet the research burdens required for tenure. There are sufficient publication outlets and academic opportunities. I also have concerns about the increase in non-tenure-track positions--what happens to the DOD/DOF who accepts such a position only to find out that she/he is out of a job ten years later with very little actual teaching experience and no publication record. What then? Has anyone ever thought that one reason many choose fields other than debate coaching do so because of these type of concerns? I would not be embarrassed to be in a non-tenure-track position, just worried. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: vcard.vcf Type: text/x-vcard Size: 206 bytes Desc: Card for Thomas L. Murphy Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/19990609/5018273e/attachment.vcf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: vcard.vcf Type: text/x-vcard Size: 205 bytes Desc: Card for Thomas L. Murphy Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/19990609/5018273e/attachment-0001.vcf From monte Wed Jun 9 23:03:20 1999 From: monte (Frank L Stevens) Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 23:03:20 -0500 Subject: Carrie Crenshaw Only Message-ID: Carrie, Could you backchannel me please? Thanks. Monte Stevens Kansas State University From hullgd Thu Jun 10 10:47:48 1999 From: hullgd (Gordon Hull) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 10:47:48 -0500 Subject: tenure tracks (and disciplinarity) In-Reply-To: <375F09D0.9E74AC6@swcp.com> References: <199906091809.OAA22612@list.uvm.edu> Message-ID: I'm career tracked for the academy but not as a debate coach - have even perhaps in a somewhat nonreflective way viewed the two as exclusive *for me*. The main reason I never thought about is that I'm not an argumentation scholar - my degree will be in philosophy, and that's where my academic subject interest lies... A couple of observations prompted by the last post or two: (1) Someone (maybe Scott Harris; my memory is failing) in the thread made the distinction between research universities and smaller liberal-arts schools. As someone facing the academic job market, and wanting a primarily research job, that distinction struck a chord. If (a) debate coaches are great teachers, (b) debate coaches don't have time for writing lots of articles and going to conferences, then (c) debate coaches will only achieve administrative favor as faculty members at places where teaching is valued. Unfortunately, (d) That's only at the smaller schools that have no MA/PdD programs in comm. and thus no graduate students etc. resources for debate. I repeat the argument mainly because in my limited academic job experience the teaching/research oriented job division runs pretty deep. In this regard, Thomas Murphy suggests that, "the solution, in my opinion, is not to convert positions to administrative or non-tenure lines, but to provide more teaching release time for debate coaches." Sounds good - and teaching only one class per semester is even grander. As a solution, though, it mainly benefits those at the teaching oriented programs, where normal loads are 3-4 classes a term... at the research schools with a 2-2 teaching load, that's only one less class per term (admittedly, 1/2), and this is offset by the fact that the courses tend to be smaller and in the coach's AOS. What strikes me as odd is that debate coaching doesn't get credit as RESEARCH. Debate coaches travel incessantly to "conferences," they learn vast amounts about both critical thinking and their topic areas, and even get together among themselves to argue and converse about critical thinking and their topic areas, even if only to question each others' decisions. Some of them get to be well known in their academic community for their opinions, and sought out for them. Sounds like the sorts of things that "traditional" research fora are supposed to provide. When you add in the obvious "community service" benefits, it seems like there's a pretty easy case to be made (this is utopic, i realize...) (2) Where a debate program should be housed is an odd question - on principle, i don't think it should matter, because i don't think that an "understanding of rhetoric and argument," as Dr. Fritch rightly says is "an essential component of learning in the debate process," is necessarily confined to coaches in comm. departments. Again, there's odd administrative things here - like where funding for graduate assistants comes from. Comm departments are a lot more receptive to the argument than others, i think... this is a problem: debaters who go into non-comm fields are basically locked out of serious grad-student coaching in all but very unusual circumstances. (3) (if you don't want to hear somewhat of a rant about academic philosophers, you might want to stop here :-) Tom Murphy writes: "Most debate educators, at least in the paat, were the faculty members who taught argumentation, debate and related subjects. Argumentation, as a "sub-field" of communication, has declined somewhat over the years. At the same time, the "sub-fields" of critical thinking and informal logic, which are practically the same thing, have exploded. Why? Because we were always at debate tournaments! The "proper" place for housing a debate program is anyplace where the development of argumentation skills is valued. At this time, however, there is probably more progressive research in argumentation taking place in philosophy departments." There's a lot here, but a few things having to do with the disciplinarity of the academy stand out: (a) That argumentation is the same thing as "informal logic" seems totally correct to me, but will occur as a news flash to 99.9% of philosophy departments. The almost universal bias there is that there is formal logic, which is symbols and stuff and which is what serious philosophers study, and informal logic, which is a watered down version of the formal version, and is what non-majors majors who aren't going on in philosophy take. I taught an "informal logic" course a couple of years ago - and facing the prospect of my own death from boredom in teaching a watered down formal course, i found the most "rhetoric-friendly" textbook i could, reread some chapters in toulmin, and tried to teach a sociology of knowledge oriented class. So we did stuff like go thru the presidential debates on videotape and try to see not just where the fallacies were (easy) but what how the candidates constructed their target voters etc. Rather than final exams, i had them go thru a process of writing policy position papers, critiquing somebody else's, and rebutting the critique to theirs. All of this was very rewarding - but it was also a hell of a lot of work, not because there was any hostility to the idea, but because nobody in the department who hadn't come from debate knew anything about the materials or how to teach something like this. Vanderbilt has one of the most open ("pluralistic") philosophy departments in the country, as well, and gives its grad students a lot of freedom in designing their courses. I suspect that what i tried wouldn't even be allowed at a lot of other places. We hosted a feminist philosophy conference last Feb. and one of the speakers was working on the hostility of traditional logic books to any kind of thinking that involves emotion (they just label it "fallacy" and go on), and working toward an alternative textbook... i suggested that although i hadn't read any of this, i was sure that comm and rhetoric scholars had been working on it for a while - she hadn't thought of this, and hadn't heard of toulmin - and she also felt like there was a fair amount of hostility toward her research in philosophy. (b) I won't speculate for long on the hostilty's roots, but i'll hazard two guesses. First, philosophy has traditionally defined itself as "not-rhetoric." Hence PLato in the Gorgias etc. Philosophers tend to see debate as sophistry, especially because it teaches you to be really good at advocating things that are false. Second, most anglo-american philosophers still have trouble with the idea that forms of knowing are historically grounded and relative to their historial episteme. Aside from the "continental" people who read foucault, the (mainly feminist) philosophers of science who take Kuhn seriously, the Rorty-inspired pragmatists and the Wittgenstenians (all of these are small minorities), most anglo-american philosophers either think history is useless or are straightforwardly positivist in reading it. Hence the lack of receptivity to rhetorical analysis... i've been repeatedly told that rhetorical analysis is "not philosophy" despite the fact that some pretty important philosophers (eg Marx and Nietzsche) spend a lot of their time doing just that. (c) One item of "good" news then: the field of "argumentation studies" is still up for grabs; at least, the philosophers haven't taken it! Sorry if this is a bit far afield - I think it's unfortunate that DOF positions aren't seen as tenurable in a lot of places, if nothing else because (regardless of what the debate community thinks) that probably reflects in many cases an administrative view of debate's (lack of) priority and value (obviously, each case is individual)... gordon From z955646 Thu Jun 10 11:41:42 1999 From: z955646 (Billy Cripe) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 11:41:42 -0500 Subject: IMPORTANT E-MAIL THAT WILL DIRECTLY IMPACT YOU!!! Message-ID: You are right that the PO isn't involved. However, there is a growing movement amidst businesses and ISP's to do just what the e-mail says. They will model the ATM fee's that are now standard for customers not belonging to the associated bank. At first people thought that banks would never get away with it (and there was legislation dealing with it and finally capping the possible fee) but there was never a major public response so now we pay $1.50 to get at our money. The e-mail details may have missed it, but dont adopt a no-care attitude. Contact your ISP and say NO to e-mail fees. See U.S. News and World Report June 7, 1999 page70. The article is entitled "At least the coffee and pens are still free: At the office, and at home, E-mail could cost you." The article is located also at: http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/990607/nycu/epost.htm regards. billy cripe Assistant Coach NIU From sandra_mcculloug Thu Jun 10 11:55:44 1999 From: sandra_mcculloug (Sandra McCullough) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 16:55:44 GMT Subject: Disciplinarity and College placement Message-ID: I have an interesting question to go along with this thread? How many Communication departments are housed in the College of Fine Arts compared to Communication departments housed in other Colleges within the University? We at Valdosta State are housed in the College of Fine Arts, where the famous Theatre and Music departments are. We have to struggle for money constantly. Not to mention the fact that we have to prove that we matter more than the other programs. I think that this may have an interesting impact upon the discussion. And if not, please backchannel me because I just may take this up as a research interest. Thanks!! Sandra >From: Gordon Hull >Reply-To: Gordon Hull >To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU >Subject: Re: tenure tracks (and disciplinarity) >Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 10:47:48 -0500 > >I'm career tracked for the academy but not as a debate coach - have even >perhaps in a somewhat nonreflective way viewed the two as exclusive *for >me*. The main reason I never thought about is that I'm not an >argumentation scholar - my degree will be in philosophy, and that's where >my academic subject interest lies... > >A couple of observations prompted by the last post or two: > >(1) Someone (maybe Scott Harris; my memory is failing) in the thread made >the distinction between research universities and smaller liberal-arts >schools. As someone facing the academic job market, and wanting a >primarily research job, that distinction struck a chord. If (a) debate >coaches are great teachers, (b) debate coaches don't have time for writing >lots of articles and going to conferences, then (c) debate coaches will >only achieve administrative favor as faculty members at places where >teaching is valued. Unfortunately, (d) That's only at the smaller schools >that have no MA/PdD programs in comm. and thus no graduate students etc. >resources for debate. I repeat the argument mainly because in my limited >academic job experience the teaching/research oriented job division runs >pretty deep. > >In this regard, Thomas Murphy suggests that, "the solution, in my opinion, >is not to convert positions to administrative or non-tenure lines, but to >provide more teaching release time for debate coaches." Sounds good - and >teaching only one class per semester is even grander. As a solution, >though, it mainly benefits those at the teaching oriented programs, where >normal loads are 3-4 classes a term... at the research schools with a 2-2 >teaching load, that's only one less class per term (admittedly, 1/2), and >this is offset by the fact that the courses tend to be smaller and in the >coach's AOS. What strikes me as odd is that debate coaching doesn't get >credit as RESEARCH. Debate coaches travel incessantly to "conferences," >they learn vast amounts about both critical thinking and their topic areas, >and even get together among themselves to argue and converse about critical >thinking and their topic areas, even if only to question each others' >decisions. Some of them get to be well known in their academic community >for their opinions, and sought out for them. Sounds like the sorts of >things that "traditional" research fora are supposed to provide. When you >add in the obvious "community service" benefits, it seems like there's a >pretty easy case to be made (this is utopic, i realize...) > >(2) Where a debate program should be housed is an odd question - on >principle, i don't think it should matter, because i don't think that an >"understanding of rhetoric and argument," as Dr. Fritch rightly says is "an >essential component of learning in the debate process," is necessarily >confined to coaches in comm. departments. Again, there's odd >administrative things here - like where funding for graduate assistants >comes from. Comm departments are a lot more receptive to the argument than >others, i think... this is a problem: debaters who go into non-comm fields >are basically locked out of serious grad-student coaching in all but very >unusual circumstances. > >(3) (if you don't want to hear somewhat of a rant about academic >philosophers, you might want to stop here :-) Tom Murphy writes: > >"Most debate educators, at least in the paat, were the faculty members who >taught argumentation, debate and related subjects. Argumentation, as a >"sub-field" of communication, has declined somewhat over the years. At the >same time, the "sub-fields" of critical thinking and informal logic, which >are practically the same thing, have exploded. Why? Because we were >always at debate tournaments! The "proper" place for housing a debate >program is anyplace where the development of argumentation skills is >valued. At this time, however, there is probably more progressive research >in argumentation taking place in philosophy departments." > >There's a lot here, but a few things having to do with the disciplinarity >of the academy stand out: > >(a) That argumentation is the same thing as "informal logic" seems totally >correct to me, but will occur as a news flash to 99.9% of philosophy >departments. The almost universal bias there is that there is formal >logic, which is symbols and stuff and which is what serious philosophers >study, and informal logic, which is a watered down version of the formal >version, and is what non-majors majors who aren't going on in philosophy >take. I taught an "informal logic" course a couple of years ago - and >facing the prospect of my own death from boredom in teaching a watered down >formal course, i found the most "rhetoric-friendly" textbook i could, >reread some chapters in toulmin, and tried to teach a sociology of >knowledge oriented class. So we did stuff like go thru the presidential >debates on videotape and try to see not just where the fallacies were >(easy) but what how the candidates constructed their target voters etc. >Rather than final exams, i had them go thru a process of writing policy >position papers, critiquing somebody else's, and rebutting the critique to >theirs. > >All of this was very rewarding - but it was also a hell of a lot of work, >not because there was any hostility to the idea, but because nobody in the >department who hadn't come from debate knew anything about the materials or >how to teach something like this. Vanderbilt has one of the most open >("pluralistic") philosophy departments in the country, as well, and gives >its grad students a lot of freedom in designing their courses. I suspect >that what i tried wouldn't even be allowed at a lot of other places. > >We hosted a feminist philosophy conference last Feb. and one of the >speakers was working on the hostility of traditional logic books to any >kind of thinking that involves emotion (they just label it "fallacy" and go >on), and working toward an alternative textbook... i suggested that >although i hadn't read any of this, i was sure that comm and rhetoric >scholars had been working on it for a while - she hadn't thought of this, >and hadn't heard of toulmin - and she also felt like there was a fair >amount of hostility toward her research in philosophy. > >(b) I won't speculate for long on the hostilty's roots, but i'll hazard two >guesses. First, philosophy has traditionally defined itself as >"not-rhetoric." Hence PLato in the Gorgias etc. Philosophers tend to see >debate as sophistry, especially because it teaches you to be really good at >advocating things that are false. Second, most anglo-american philosophers >still have trouble with the idea that forms of knowing are historically >grounded and relative to their historial episteme. Aside from the >"continental" people who read foucault, the (mainly feminist) philosophers >of science who take Kuhn seriously, the Rorty-inspired pragmatists and the >Wittgenstenians (all of these are small minorities), most anglo-american >philosophers either think history is useless or are straightforwardly >positivist in reading it. Hence the lack of receptivity to rhetorical >analysis... i've been repeatedly told that rhetorical analysis is "not >philosophy" despite the fact that some pretty important philosophers (eg >Marx and Nietzsche) spend a lot of their time doing just that. > >(c) One item of "good" news then: the field of "argumentation studies" is >still up for grabs; at least, the philosophers haven't taken it! > >Sorry if this is a bit far afield - I think it's unfortunate that DOF >positions aren't seen as tenurable in a lot of places, if nothing else >because (regardless of what the debate community thinks) that probably >reflects in many cases an administrative view of debate's (lack of) >priority and value (obviously, each case is individual)... > >gordon _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com From berube Thu Jun 10 12:01:20 1999 From: berube (David Berube) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 13:01:20 -0400 Subject: South Carolina Round Robin Message-ID: The following schools have indicated interest in the Carolina RR debates. Alabama Arizona State Emory Mercer Morehouse South Carolina Michigan State Rochester Vermont Wake Forest West Georgia SOME INTEREST/UNDECIDED Harvard If your interested, please chime in. HOW TO GET TO THE ROUND ROBIN --- Sixteen (16) teams will participate. Four bids are closed (2 will go to the host and tournament director's teams, 2 will go to schools who need the public relation but might not receive an invitation on previous records). Hence, we will invite twelve (12) teams from twelve (12) or less colleges and universities. In other words, some programs might receive two bids. No mixed teams from two different programs. We are not asking for an official bid procedure. We have discovered the committeee process has been cumbersome during the summer period. If you are interested in attending, email Berube and he will post a list of the schools and the number of bids per school (since most schools are unaware of the team pairings for the opening of the 99-00 season, we will trust the director/coach put together a team but we do not expect him/her to announce that pairing when they solicit a bid). Berube will base the list of invitees on recommendations solicited from colleagues. If you have any ideas, please tell me. Even if you are not solicitng a bid but want to tell me who you feel might deserve one, please tell me. Berube at garnet.cla.sc.edu and dmberube at mindspring.com No school will be represented by two teams in the same flight (if there are two teams from Smith U., one will be in the black flight, the other in the garnet flight). The flights will be established upon rankings which Berube will solicit from the participants upon their arrival to campus. We will split the teams into mock octafinal pairings for flight distribution 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 12, 13,16 in one flight and 2, 3, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14,15 in the other. We will modify the system to accommodate the previous rule. Each team must be accompanied by an acceptable critic (no exceptions). fax 803-777-0055 phone 803-777-6663 Berube at garnet.cla.sc.edu Dmberube at mindspring.com From berube Thu Jun 10 12:04:20 1999 From: berube (David Berube) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 13:04:20 -0400 Subject: Nominees for Coach of the Year solicited Message-ID: "DEDICATED TO THOSE TEACHERS WHO ADVANCE THE FORENSIC ART" The following people have won the Coach of the Year Award that is awarded each year at the South Carolina tournament. We are seeking nominations for 1999. Anyone can nominate anyone not currently on the following list. Nominees must be active collegiate coaches. 1967 Anabel Haygood U. Alabama 1968 Herb James Dartmouth College 1969 George Ziegelmueller Wayne State U. 1970 John Lynch St. Anselm's College 1971 James Unger Georgetown U. 1972 David Zarefsky Northwestern U. 1973 Thomas Kane U. Pittsburgh 1974 Daniel Bozik Augustana College 1975 Checter Gibson West Georgia College 1976 Bill Henderson U. Houston 1977 Cully Clark U. Alabama 1978 no award protesting SCA moving onto the weekend 1979 Tim Browning U. Arizona 1980 Donn Parsons U. Kansas 1981 J. W. Patterson U. Kentucky 1982 Ken Strange Dartmouth College 1983 Tim Hynes U. Louisville 1984 Walter Ulrich Vanderbilt U. 1985 Bill Balthrop U. North Carolina 1986 Robin Rowland & David Hingstman Baylor U. 1987 Jeff Bile Southern Illinois U. 1988 Alan Louden Wake Forest U. 1989 Daryl Scott Gonzaga U. 1990 Dallas Perkins Harvard U. 1991 Melissa Wade Emory U. 1992 Glen Strickland Emporia State U. 1993 A. C. Snider U. Vermont 1994 David Berube U. South Carolina 1995 Todd Graham Northwestern State U. 1996 Doug Duke U. Central Oklahoma 1997 Ross Smith Wake Forest U. 1998 Bill Newnam Emory U. From jef229f Thu Jun 10 12:33:04 1999 From: jef229f (John Fritch, PhD) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 12:33:04 -0500 Subject: Disciplinarity and College placement Message-ID: We are in the College of Liberal Arts. It includes music, theatre, art, foreign language, and english. This grouping is actually pretty good for us. People in those departments can understand that esoteric activities can have value and not make money! John Fritch SMS ---------- >From: Sandra McCullough >To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU >Subject: Re: Disciplinarity and College placement >Date: Thu, Jun 10, 1999, 11:55 AM > >I have an interesting question to go along with this thread? > >How many Communication departments are housed in the College of Fine Arts >compared to Communication departments housed in other Colleges within the >University? > >We at Valdosta State are housed in the College of Fine Arts, where the >famous Theatre and Music departments are. We have to struggle for money >constantly. Not to mention the fact that we have to prove that we matter >more than the other programs. > >I think that this may have an interesting impact upon the discussion. And >if not, please backchannel me because I just may take this up as a research >interest. > >Thanks!! >Sandra > >>From: Gordon Hull >>Reply-To: Gordon Hull >>To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU >>Subject: Re: tenure tracks (and disciplinarity) >>Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 10:47:48 -0500 >> >>I'm career tracked for the academy but not as a debate coach - have even >>perhaps in a somewhat nonreflective way viewed the two as exclusive *for >>me*. The main reason I never thought about is that I'm not an >>argumentation scholar - my degree will be in philosophy, and that's where >>my academic subject interest lies... >> >>A couple of observations prompted by the last post or two: >> >>(1) Someone (maybe Scott Harris; my memory is failing) in the thread made >>the distinction between research universities and smaller liberal-arts >>schools. As someone facing the academic job market, and wanting a >>primarily research job, that distinction struck a chord. If (a) debate >>coaches are great teachers, (b) debate coaches don't have time for writing >>lots of articles and going to conferences, then (c) debate coaches will >>only achieve administrative favor as faculty members at places where >>teaching is valued. Unfortunately, (d) That's only at the smaller schools >>that have no MA/PdD programs in comm. and thus no graduate students etc. >>resources for debate. I repeat the argument mainly because in my limited >>academic job experience the teaching/research oriented job division runs >>pretty deep. >> >>In this regard, Thomas Murphy suggests that, "the solution, in my opinion, >>is not to convert positions to administrative or non-tenure lines, but to >>provide more teaching release time for debate coaches." Sounds good - and >>teaching only one class per semester is even grander. As a solution, >>though, it mainly benefits those at the teaching oriented programs, where >>normal loads are 3-4 classes a term... at the research schools with a 2-2 >>teaching load, that's only one less class per term (admittedly, 1/2), and >>this is offset by the fact that the courses tend to be smaller and in the >>coach's AOS. What strikes me as odd is that debate coaching doesn't get >>credit as RESEARCH. Debate coaches travel incessantly to "conferences," >>they learn vast amounts about both critical thinking and their topic areas, >>and even get together among themselves to argue and converse about critical >>thinking and their topic areas, even if only to question each others' >>decisions. Some of them get to be well known in their academic community >>for their opinions, and sought out for them. Sounds like the sorts of >>things that "traditional" research fora are supposed to provide. When you >>add in the obvious "community service" benefits, it seems like there's a >>pretty easy case to be made (this is utopic, i realize...) >> >>(2) Where a debate program should be housed is an odd question - on >>principle, i don't think it should matter, because i don't think that an >>"understanding of rhetoric and argument," as Dr. Fritch rightly says is "an >>essential component of learning in the debate process," is necessarily >>confined to coaches in comm. departments. Again, there's odd >>administrative things here - like where funding for graduate assistants >>comes from. Comm departments are a lot more receptive to the argument than >>others, i think... this is a problem: debaters who go into non-comm fields >>are basically locked out of serious grad-student coaching in all but very >>unusual circumstances. >> >>(3) (if you don't want to hear somewhat of a rant about academic >>philosophers, you might want to stop here :-) Tom Murphy writes: >> >>"Most debate educators, at least in the paat, were the faculty members who >>taught argumentation, debate and related subjects. Argumentation, as a >>"sub-field" of communication, has declined somewhat over the years. At the >>same time, the "sub-fields" of critical thinking and informal logic, which >>are practically the same thing, have exploded. Why? Because we were >>always at debate tournaments! The "proper" place for housing a debate >>program is anyplace where the development of argumentation skills is >>valued. At this time, however, there is probably more progressive research >>in argumentation taking place in philosophy departments." >> >>There's a lot here, but a few things having to do with the disciplinarity >>of the academy stand out: >> >>(a) That argumentation is the same thing as "informal logic" seems totally >>correct to me, but will occur as a news flash to 99.9% of philosophy >>departments. The almost universal bias there is that there is formal >>logic, which is symbols and stuff and which is what serious philosophers >>study, and informal logic, which is a watered down version of the formal >>version, and is what non-majors majors who aren't going on in philosophy >>take. I taught an "informal logic" course a couple of years ago - and >>facing the prospect of my own death from boredom in teaching a watered down >>formal course, i found the most "rhetoric-friendly" textbook i could, >>reread some chapters in toulmin, and tried to teach a sociology of >>knowledge oriented class. So we did stuff like go thru the presidential >>debates on videotape and try to see not just where the fallacies were >>(easy) but what how the candidates constructed their target voters etc. >>Rather than final exams, i had them go thru a process of writing policy >>position papers, critiquing somebody else's, and rebutting the critique to >>theirs. >> >>All of this was very rewarding - but it was also a hell of a lot of work, >>not because there was any hostility to the idea, but because nobody in the >>department who hadn't come from debate knew anything about the materials or >>how to teach something like this. Vanderbilt has one of the most open >>("pluralistic") philosophy departments in the country, as well, and gives >>its grad students a lot of freedom in designing their courses. I suspect >>that what i tried wouldn't even be allowed at a lot of other places. >> >>We hosted a feminist philosophy conference last Feb. and one of the >>speakers was working on the hostility of traditional logic books to any >>kind of thinking that involves emotion (they just label it "fallacy" and go >>on), and working toward an alternative textbook... i suggested that >>although i hadn't read any of this, i was sure that comm and rhetoric >>scholars had been working on it for a while - she hadn't thought of this, >>and hadn't heard of toulmin - and she also felt like there was a fair >>amount of hostility toward her research in philosophy. >> >>(b) I won't speculate for long on the hostilty's roots, but i'll hazard two >>guesses. First, philosophy has traditionally defined itself as >>"not-rhetoric." Hence PLato in the Gorgias etc. Philosophers tend to see >>debate as sophistry, especially because it teaches you to be really good at >>advocating things that are false. Second, most anglo-american philosophers >>still have trouble with the idea that forms of knowing are historically >>grounded and relative to their historial episteme. Aside from the >>"continental" people who read foucault, the (mainly feminist) philosophers >>of science who take Kuhn seriously, the Rorty-inspired pragmatists and the >>Wittgenstenians (all of these are small minorities), most anglo-american >>philosophers either think history is useless or are straightforwardly >>positivist in reading it. Hence the lack of receptivity to rhetorical >>analysis... i've been repeatedly told that rhetorical analysis is "not >>philosophy" despite the fact that some pretty important philosophers (eg >>Marx and Nietzsche) spend a lot of their time doing just that. >> >>(c) One item of "good" news then: the field of "argumentation studies" is >>still up for grabs; at least, the philosophers haven't taken it! >> >>Sorry if this is a bit far afield - I think it's unfortunate that DOF >>positions aren't seen as tenurable in a lot of places, if nothing else >>because (regardless of what the debate community thinks) that probably >>reflects in many cases an administrative view of debate's (lack of) >>priority and value (obviously, each case is individual)... >> >>gordon > > >_______________________________________________________________ >Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com From wnewnam Thu Jun 10 14:13:11 1999 From: wnewnam (William E Newnam) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 15:13:11 -0400 Subject: Disciplinarity and College placement In-Reply-To: <199906101734.NAA20424@list.uvm.edu> Message-ID: Dear Community, I have avoided becoming involved in this thread for sometime. Emory University does not have a communication department. Thus, concerns about academic grounding of debate teams in the argumentation and rhetoric components of colleges ignores the fact that some universities simply do not have such departments. For years this operated to our detriment in only one way. We were unable to attract young graduate student coaches which is the backbone of many programs. Without such a department, we are housed in the Division of Campus Life. In that environment we have experienced a great deal of success gathering institutional support. We sell ourselves to this division in many ways: we are academic which provides the division with strong arguments when the faculty attacks the division for emphasizing non-academic interests. we provide a variety of services to the campus and to the community, whether it be outreach programs, campus leaders, advising faculty on using debate in the non-debate classroom, and, of course, admissions. our students are high achievers who are heavily involved in more than debate, thus helping us to integrate into the service demands of the institution. we have strong working relationships with many facets of the university which are necessary to run various parts of the program including residence halls (during workshops and tournaments), admissions (we are a major draw even for the many students who choose not to debate), facilities management (for transportation issues), and other infrastructure which makes running a debate team possible. And our mentoring of students plays very well into the goals and objectives of the division. Additionally, our placement gives us ready access to other parts of the division which helps our students enormously, for example, career planning, counseling center, health services, etc. All of these relationships would be far more removed and remote if it were not for our placement in Campus Life. I do not have a suggestion for where debate should be housed in any institution. To some degree, I believe that it varies with the school and the program. I think trying to universalize an ideal is a wasteful Platonic exercise. Programs should be run where they can garner the most support and do the most for students. For us, that is where we are. In that environment we have to work hard to maintain and build support internally. That singular mission has been one of the principle reasons Melissa has been able to strengthen and expand the Barkley Forum. The key thing is institution building within your university or college wherever you are housed. To some degree, I feel as though I am revisiting an issue I witnessed at the second Sedalia conference on the state of forensics, hosted by Northwestern many years ago. At that conference a committee under the direction of David Zarefsky crafted a document designed to increase University support for forensics. The document argued that debate is best located within communication departments. I spoke against the document. For one, it does little for those attempting to support or develop programs in colleges which lack such a department. Second, it ignored the fact that some communication departments resent debate. (many see it, as many of you know, as a resource drain which does not provide direct support for the department). I know of many programs which were ruined by department chairs who for some reason or another decided debate was bad. There has certainly been enough posts on this list serve where directors lamented that chairs thought debate taught poor communication skills, the spread you know. Third, it ignores the fact that debate is a multiservice process. Debate programs have special characteristics which transcend particular departments. Some of those I mentioned: admissions and recruiting, community outreach, cross-discipline support. In short, I do not think there is a right or wrong universal answer to this question. The program has to be looked at in context. What is the institution like? what is expected of the program? What can the program provide for the university? what can the university provide the program? These kinds of questions should guide the way a program is established and maintained. I do not believe, as I futilely argued to a slew of communication scholars over ten years ago, that debate must be housed in communication departments. In fact, in some instances communication department debate teams have been gutted by bitter and resentful chairs. This is not an issue to be decided with universal claims and instead must be determined on a case by case basis. sincerely, bill n emory On Thu, 10 Jun 1999, John Fritch, PhD wrote: > We are in the College of Liberal Arts. It includes music, theatre, art, > foreign language, and english. > > This grouping is actually pretty good for us. People in those departments > can understand that esoteric activities can have value and not make money! > > John Fritch > SMS > > ---------- > >From: Sandra McCullough > >To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU > >Subject: Re: Disciplinarity and College placement > >Date: Thu, Jun 10, 1999, 11:55 AM > > > > >I have an interesting question to go along with this thread? > > > >How many Communication departments are housed in the College of Fine Arts > >compared to Communication departments housed in other Colleges within the > >University? > > > >We at Valdosta State are housed in the College of Fine Arts, where the > >famous Theatre and Music departments are. We have to struggle for money > >constantly. Not to mention the fact that we have to prove that we matter > >more than the other programs. > > > >I think that this may have an interesting impact upon the discussion. And > >if not, please backchannel me because I just may take this up as a research > >interest. > > > >Thanks!! > >Sandra > > > >>From: Gordon Hull > >>Reply-To: Gordon Hull > >>To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU > >>Subject: Re: tenure tracks (and disciplinarity) > >>Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 10:47:48 -0500 > >> > >>I'm career tracked for the academy but not as a debate coach - have even > >>perhaps in a somewhat nonreflective way viewed the two as exclusive *for > >>me*. The main reason I never thought about is that I'm not an > >>argumentation scholar - my degree will be in philosophy, and that's where > >>my academic subject interest lies... > >> > >>A couple of observations prompted by the last post or two: > >> > >>(1) Someone (maybe Scott Harris; my memory is failing) in the thread made > >>the distinction between research universities and smaller liberal-arts > >>schools. As someone facing the academic job market, and wanting a > >>primarily research job, that distinction struck a chord. If (a) debate > >>coaches are great teachers, (b) debate coaches don't have time for writing > >>lots of articles and going to conferences, then (c) debate coaches will > >>only achieve administrative favor as faculty members at places where > >>teaching is valued. Unfortunately, (d) That's only at the smaller schools > >>that have no MA/PdD programs in comm. and thus no graduate students etc. > >>resources for debate. I repeat the argument mainly because in my limited > >>academic job experience the teaching/research oriented job division runs > >>pretty deep. > >> > >>In this regard, Thomas Murphy suggests that, "the solution, in my opinion, > >>is not to convert positions to administrative or non-tenure lines, but to > >>provide more teaching release time for debate coaches." Sounds good - and > >>teaching only one class per semester is even grander. As a solution, > >>though, it mainly benefits those at the teaching oriented programs, where > >>normal loads are 3-4 classes a term... at the research schools with a 2-2 > >>teaching load, that's only one less class per term (admittedly, 1/2), and > >>this is offset by the fact that the courses tend to be smaller and in the > >>coach's AOS. What strikes me as odd is that debate coaching doesn't get > >>credit as RESEARCH. Debate coaches travel incessantly to "conferences," > >>they learn vast amounts about both critical thinking and their topic areas, > >>and even get together among themselves to argue and converse about critical > >>thinking and their topic areas, even if only to question each others' > >>decisions. Some of them get to be well known in their academic community > >>for their opinions, and sought out for them. Sounds like the sorts of > >>things that "traditional" research fora are supposed to provide. When you > >>add in the obvious "community service" benefits, it seems like there's a > >>pretty easy case to be made (this is utopic, i realize...) > >> > >>(2) Where a debate program should be housed is an odd question - on > >>principle, i don't think it should matter, because i don't think that an > >>"understanding of rhetoric and argument," as Dr. Fritch rightly says is "an > >>essential component of learning in the debate process," is necessarily > >>confined to coaches in comm. departments. Again, there's odd > >>administrative things here - like where funding for graduate assistants > >>comes from. Comm departments are a lot more receptive to the argument than > >>others, i think... this is a problem: debaters who go into non-comm fields > >>are basically locked out of serious grad-student coaching in all but very > >>unusual circumstances. > >> > >>(3) (if you don't want to hear somewhat of a rant about academic > >>philosophers, you might want to stop here :-) Tom Murphy writes: > >> > >>"Most debate educators, at least in the paat, were the faculty members who > >>taught argumentation, debate and related subjects. Argumentation, as a > >>"sub-field" of communication, has declined somewhat over the years. At the > >>same time, the "sub-fields" of critical thinking and informal logic, which > >>are practically the same thing, have exploded. Why? Because we were > >>always at debate tournaments! The "proper" place for housing a debate > >>program is anyplace where the development of argumentation skills is > >>valued. At this time, however, there is probably more progressive research > >>in argumentation taking place in philosophy departments." > >> > >>There's a lot here, but a few things having to do with the disciplinarity > >>of the academy stand out: > >> > >>(a) That argumentation is the same thing as "informal logic" seems totally > >>correct to me, but will occur as a news flash to 99.9% of philosophy > >>departments. The almost universal bias there is that there is formal > >>logic, which is symbols and stuff and which is what serious philosophers > >>study, and informal logic, which is a watered down version of the formal > >>version, and is what non-majors majors who aren't going on in philosophy > >>take. I taught an "informal logic" course a couple of years ago - and > >>facing the prospect of my own death from boredom in teaching a watered down > >>formal course, i found the most "rhetoric-friendly" textbook i could, > >>reread some chapters in toulmin, and tried to teach a sociology of > >>knowledge oriented class. So we did stuff like go thru the presidential > >>debates on videotape and try to see not just where the fallacies were > >>(easy) but what how the candidates constructed their target voters etc. > >>Rather than final exams, i had them go thru a process of writing policy > >>position papers, critiquing somebody else's, and rebutting the critique to > >>theirs. > >> > >>All of this was very rewarding - but it was also a hell of a lot of work, > >>not because there was any hostility to the idea, but because nobody in the > >>department who hadn't come from debate knew anything about the materials or > >>how to teach something like this. Vanderbilt has one of the most open > >>("pluralistic") philosophy departments in the country, as well, and gives > >>its grad students a lot of freedom in designing their courses. I suspect > >>that what i tried wouldn't even be allowed at a lot of other places. > >> > >>We hosted a feminist philosophy conference last Feb. and one of the > >>speakers was working on the hostility of traditional logic books to any > >>kind of thinking that involves emotion (they just label it "fallacy" and go > >>on), and working toward an alternative textbook... i suggested that > >>although i hadn't read any of this, i was sure that comm and rhetoric > >>scholars had been working on it for a while - she hadn't thought of this, > >>and hadn't heard of toulmin - and she also felt like there was a fair > >>amount of hostility toward her research in philosophy. > >> > >>(b) I won't speculate for long on the hostilty's roots, but i'll hazard two > >>guesses. First, philosophy has traditionally defined itself as > >>"not-rhetoric." Hence PLato in the Gorgias etc. Philosophers tend to see > >>debate as sophistry, especially because it teaches you to be really good at > >>advocating things that are false. Second, most anglo-american philosophers > >>still have trouble with the idea that forms of knowing are historically > >>grounded and relative to their historial episteme. Aside from the > >>"continental" people who read foucault, the (mainly feminist) philosophers > >>of science who take Kuhn seriously, the Rorty-inspired pragmatists and the > >>Wittgenstenians (all of these are small minorities), most anglo-american > >>philosophers either think history is useless or are straightforwardly > >>positivist in reading it. Hence the lack of receptivity to rhetorical > >>analysis... i've been repeatedly told that rhetorical analysis is "not > >>philosophy" despite the fact that some pretty important philosophers (eg > >>Marx and Nietzsche) spend a lot of their time doing just that. > >> > >>(c) One item of "good" news then: the field of "argumentation studies" is > >>still up for grabs; at least, the philosophers haven't taken it! > >> > >>Sorry if this is a bit far afield - I think it's unfortunate that DOF > >>positions aren't seen as tenurable in a lot of places, if nothing else > >>because (regardless of what the debate community thinks) that probably > >>reflects in many cases an administrative view of debate's (lack of) > >>priority and value (obviously, each case is individual)... > >> > >>gordon > > > > > >_______________________________________________________________ > >Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com > From chk12 Thu Jun 10 09:42:51 1999 From: chk12 (Colin Kahl) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 15:42:51 +0100 Subject: Think about embargo Message-ID: It seems that many have expressed concern about PICs on next years topic. I think PICs are inevitable with any SANCTIONS topic, although it is clear that the bigger we force the Aff to be, the more PICs will become viable. The big problem/fear people have with picks is "trivial distinctions", i.e. the fact that PICs narrow the in-round discussion to very small issues that skirt the "core" aspects of the topic (and the 1AC). Ultimately, however, we will probably end up debating small issues one way or another on a SANCTIONS topic -- If the topic is written so that the Aff can be very small, then we will debate small cases; if the topic forces the Aff to be big, we will STILL debate small issues because PICs will reduce many debates to small distinctions between the plan and CP. So, if the debating of small issues is inevitable regardless of how we word the topic, we should decide as a community through discussion (and ultimately voting) which topic wording allows the best balance of ground. If we are going to pick a SANCTIONS topic, I think the best balance comes from forcing the Aff to be fairly big while still giving them some flexibility as a way to replicate the policies in the literature and as a "minimal" defense against PICs. That means a topic that says "all or nearly all" or some similar wording. One thing nobody is talking about, however, is Steve Mancuso and Jason Hernandez's discussion of an EMBARGO topic as a alternative to a SANCTIONS topic and a possible solution to the PICs problem. Since, in the real world, it is possible to repeal a broad-based embargo against a country (say Cuba or Iran) at time "t" and then pass small sanctions against that country at time "t+1", PICs with small exceptions may not compete on an embargo topic, especially if Affs word their plan and answer CX questions correctly. In addition to the embargo topic listed in Jason Hernandez's paper, other possible topic wordings might include: RESOLVED: THAT THE US GOVERNMENT SHOULD ADOPT A POLICY OF CONSTRUCTIVE ENGAGEMENT, INCLUDING THE REMOVAL OF ALL OR NEARLY ALL COMPONENTS OF ITS ECONOMIC EMBARGO, WITH THE GOVERNMENT(S) OF OF ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: CUBA, IRAN, IRAQ, AND NORTH KOREA. OR RESOLVED: THE THE US GOVERNMENT SHOULD REMOVE/REVERSE ALL OR NEARLY ALL COMPONENTS OF ITS ECONOMIC EMBARGO AGAINST ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: CUBA, IRAN, IRAQ, AND NORTH KOREA. OR some similar topic. I prefer these wordings to Jason's because I don't the word "substantially" ever has any meanings. These topics might (1) force the aff to be big, thereby guaranteeing Neg disad and case turn ground; (2) allow the affs to be flexible and go beyond the lifting of economic sanctions, thereby meeting the goal of facilitating a replication of real world policy proposals; (3) and provide another Aff weapon against PICs. I'm not personally advocating these topics, but I think they should be discussed. Colin Kahl University of Michigan From sarah.chan Thu Jun 10 14:47:50 1999 From: sarah.chan (Sarah E. Chan) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 15:47:50 EDT Subject: Sue Lowrie's whereabouts Message-ID: I need to get in touch with Sue ASAP. She's not responding to email so if anyone sees her or has a phone number, please let me know or tell her that I need her abstract for WSCA tomorrow. Thanks, Sarah SJSU debate "Go sell crazy someplace else. We're all stocked up here." -Melvin Udall in "As Good as it Gets" ___________________________________________________________________ Get the Internet just the way you want it. Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month! Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj. From bledbetter Thu Jun 10 15:26:22 1999 From: bledbetter (the masked 1AC) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 16:26:22 -0400 Subject: yahoo trouble Message-ID: has anyone else had any trouble accessing YAHOO's site? I cannot get into my yahoo email account, and neither can anyone in my office. My pal across town also cannot access www.yahoo.com.....has anyone heard of a problem with yahoo's server? Sign up for your FREE Wrestling Fanz email account at www.wrestlingfanz.com >From Thu Jun 10 16:56:14 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 41837 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 16:58:46 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo23.mx.aol.com (imo23.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.67]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA18674 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 16:58:18 -0400 Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com (3888) by imo23.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id nZCBa20927 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 16:56:15 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="part1_f385c86c.2491806e_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 13 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 16:56:14 EDT Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Michael Bear Bryant Subject: Fwd: New Virus --part1_f385c86c.2491806e_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I readily admit that the following may turn out to be another hoax. But, there's been a ton of posts on several lists and a number of USENET newsgroups in the past ten hours lamenting the damage that, supposedly, has already been caused. Please read and decide what to do for yourself. Remember, the "Melissa" virus was first thought to be a hoax, too. Back to listening to the rogue nations on shortwave radio, Bear _____________________________________________________________________ --part1_f385c86c.2491806e_boundary Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: Received: from rly-zc01.mx.aol.com (rly-zc01.mail.aol.com [172.31.33.1]) by air-zc04.mail.aol.com (v59.34) with SMTP; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 16:03:34 -0400 Received: from gigi.excite.com ([199.172.152.110]) by rly-zc01.mx.aol.com (8.8.8/8.8.5/AOL-4.0.0) with ESMTP id QAA10087; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 16:03:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from flash.excite.com ([199.172.152.79]) by gigi.excite.com (InterMail v4.01.01.02 201-229-111-106) with ESMTP id <19990610200339.UIVD2201.gigi at flash.excite.com>; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 13:03:39 -0700 From: "JDN" To: "Fred or Carolyn Howard" , "Randy Scott" , "Mike Bryant" Subject: Re: New Virus Message-Id: <929045010.2150.153 at excite.com> Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 13:03:30 PDT X-Mailer: Excite Mail X-Sender-Ip: 170.248.3.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Everybody, This is just a helpful notice to you. WARNING: If you receive an email with a file called "California",do not open the file. The file contains the WOBBLER virus. This information was announced yesterday morning from IBM; AOL states that this is a very dangerous virus, much worse than "Melissa", and that there is NO remedy for it at this time. Some very sick individual has succeeded in using the reformat function from Norton Utilities causing it to completely erase all documents on the hard drive. It has been designed to work with Netscape Navigator and Microsoft Internet Explorer. It destroys Macintosh and IBM compatible computers. This is a new, very malicious virus and not many people knowabout it. Pass this warning along to EVERYONE in your address book and please share it with all your online friends ASAP so that this threat may be stopped. #@#@Universe#@#@ _______________________________________________________ Get your free, private email at http://mail.excite.com/ --part1_f385c86c.2491806e_boundary-- From bauscsa4 Thu Jun 10 16:10:37 1999 From: bauscsa4 (Stefan Bauschard) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 17:10:37 -0400 Subject: Job Opening @ Cathedral Prep In-Reply-To: <40dba929.24908466@aol.com> Message-ID: I will be moving over the Boston College next year and so my coaching job at Cathedral Prep is open. There are a lot of teaching openings, depending on what you are interested in. There is at least one opening in every department, including my old computer job, which was probably the easiest teaching job in the school. There are also debate and argumentation courses to teach. Already being certified is not necessarily a requirment. Please backchannel me if you are intrested. Thanks;, Stefan Bauschard From barretom Thu Jun 10 16:28:19 1999 From: barretom (Matt Barreto) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 14:28:19 -0700 Subject: Virus Hoax Page Message-ID: It's a hoax... 99.9999% are hoaxes to see who is gullable enough to waste bandwidth to pass it on to others. They win when we forward it on to others, slow down E-mail servers and corporate networks. McAfee has a very indepth page of what is real and what is not: http://vil.mcafee.com/villib/hoax.asp The best thing to do is to go there, check it out and then just reply to the person who forwarded you the Email and give them this URL... Barreto === Matt Barreto barretom at yahoo.com (818) 682-4505 _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com >From Thu Jun 10 17:23:57 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 37073 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 17:28:58 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo17.mx.aol.com (imo17.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.7]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA09764 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 17:26:49 -0400 Received: from Jdgriswold at aol.com (14378) by imo17.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id nFQAa08561 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 17:23:57 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 214 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 17:23:57 EDT Reply-To: Jdgriswold at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Jeff Griswold Subject: Re: Constructive Engagement Plus - A Question I agree with Colin's reasoning and why the inclusion of "all or nearly all" may be more beneficial, but I still see a large area of Sanctioned items that would have to be repealed in order to be topical. In turn, the Affirmative, as Scott Harris points out, is responsible to defend each one of those items exempted. Why not a resolution that narrowed the choice, such as asserting categories after all or nearly all? For example: Resolved: The United States Government should adapt a policy of constructive engagement, including the lifting of all or nearly all of its Economic, Military, and/or Trade Sanctions with one or more of the following: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Sudan, North Korea (Or whatever countries are to be determined). Each of these categories is in itself a rather large component of US Sanctions, the negative still has ample ground and can still PIC the affirmative, make its soft-power/Constructive Engagement bad arguments, argue for the need to retain sanctions as a whole, and now can argue, if the affirmative decides to narrow its focus, that limited sanctions potentially undermines not only multi-lateral efforts but true constructive engagement efforts via the continuation of US unilateral sanctions. However, the categorization potentially narrows the affirmative pool of items that are to be removed, or lifted, from sanction which, in turn, gives the affirmative a better defense against the PIC as they would be even more familiar with topic ground. In addition, this gives affirmatives the choice of debating specific types of sanctions. Timothy Mahoney suggested using economic sanctions. Such a wording with the addition of the above categories provides the affirmative with the ability to narrow its focus to just that. If you want to debate just a military type of position, you have that option. If your desire is to discuss trade, you have the ability to do just that. With the hundreds and hundreds of commodities, financial aid packages, export and import issues, military transfers, aid programs, and exercises, diplomacy, medical and humanitarian assistance packages (those might be exempt from sanctions, I am not sure on this but perhaps someone could clarify), government and private investments that must fall under US sanction policy, how would the affirmative be prepared to debate all of that ground from a resolution that called for the lifting of all or nearly all sanctions across the board? To be honest, I fail to see this great affirmative advantage that several individuals have claimed exists with the wording of this resolution. If anything, I think the negative has the better ground for a couple of reasons: First, as we mentioned earlier, the PIC will be a nasty weapon against affirmatives. With the removal of such a large number of sanctions, negatives can easily isolate several items that should be carved out and sanctioned in the affirmative plan. Second, the entire Constructive Engagement debate is available for the negative to exploit. With the certainty that the Affirmative will initiate a Constructive Engagement policy of some sort with a country that is on the State Department's list, the negative has an open door to argue against soft-line and constructive engagement positions. Such positions are supported in the literature, especially with the countries that we are looking at (perhaps not Cuba), and should be available to the negative in most debate rounds. In addition, if the affirmative decides to carve out exceptions via the "nearly all" wording, there is room to argue that such exemptions cut against, if not undermine, constructive engagement efforts. If we were to use categories and the affirmative selected a particular category to remove, such as trade, this argument would have even more weight. Foreign and Domestic Credibility positions may also come into play. How would alliances, such as Israel and Japan, be affected by such a reversal in policy? Multi-lateral disadvantages, and possible CP's, will be available to the negative. Anyway, we could go on, but the point is there a wide variety of issues for the negative to debate. Third, with the inclusion of "all or nearly all" into the resolutional wording, your 1AC will be a Negative CP option to the affirmative. This of course assumes that your 1AC has an exemption. For instance, let us use Colin's example of the N. Korean affirmative that exempted supercomputers and duel use technologies with the WMD advantage. Suppose the next debate Colin is on the Negative and hears a North Korea case that removes all sanctions, or a case that removes nearly all of the sanctions but retains them for agriculture, or textiles. It really makes no difference what is excluded as Colin can simply CP with the entire Affirmative plan plus his exemption of supercomputers and duel use technologies. Now the ground has shifted as Colin is in essence debating his affirmative with the need only to win the WMD debate, something he is geared for given it's the main position of his own affirmative case. The advantage, in my opinion, is now with Colin as the affirmative is forced to beat back the WMD positions. And that type of debate could happen a lot if the specified country is the same. Seems to me that a large squad with numerous researchers could write one affirmative to each country and that would also serve as a potentially devastating CP. The reason affirmatives win more often than not is due to preparation, familiarity, and simple repetition. Negatives have to make more adjustments. With this resolution, your entire affirmative could serve as a vicious CP option. I'm not suggesting that this is necessarily a bad idea, as it indeed may level the playing field. But it is something I thought we should perhaps discuss and consider. From dguin Thu Jun 10 16:30:47 1999 From: dguin (Dave Guin) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 14:30:47 -0700 Subject: Fwd: New Virus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Bear, I truly appreciate the intention, but visit the URL below. http://www.datafellows.com/v-descs/wobbhoax.htm dave At 04:56 PM 6/10/99 EDT, Michael Bear Bryant wrote: >I readily admit that the following may turn out to be another hoax. But, >there's been a ton of posts on several lists and a number of USENET >newsgroups in the past ten hours lamenting the damage that, supposedly, has >already been caused. Please read and decide what to do for yourself. >Remember, the "Melissa" virus was first thought to be a hoax, too. > >Back to listening to the rogue nations on shortwave radio, > >Bear >_____________________________________________________________________ >Return-Path: >Received: from rly-zc01.mx.aol.com (rly-zc01.mail.aol.com [172.31.33.1]) by > air-zc04.mail.aol.com (v59.34) with SMTP; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 16:03:34 > -0400 >Received: from gigi.excite.com ([199.172.152.110]) > by rly-zc01.mx.aol.com (8.8.8/8.8.5/AOL-4.0.0) > with ESMTP id QAA10087; > Thu, 10 Jun 1999 16:03:32 -0400 (EDT) >Received: from flash.excite.com ([199.172.152.79]) by gigi.excite.com > (InterMail v4.01.01.02 201-229-111-106) with ESMTP > id <19990610200339.UIVD2201.gigi at flash.excite.com>; > Thu, 10 Jun 1999 13:03:39 -0700 >From: "JDN" >To: "Fred or Carolyn Howard" , > "Randy Scott" , "Mike Bryant" >Subject: Re: New Virus >Message-Id: <929045010.2150.153 at excite.com> >Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 13:03:30 PDT >X-Mailer: Excite Mail >X-Sender-Ip: 170.248.3.6 >MIME-Version: 1.0 >Content-Type: text/plain >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > >Hello Everybody, > >This is just a helpful notice to you. > >WARNING: If you receive an email with a file called "California",do not >open the file. The file contains the WOBBLER virus. This information was >announced yesterday morning from IBM; AOL states that this is a very >dangerous virus, much worse than "Melissa", and that there is NO remedy for >it at this time. Some very sick individual has succeeded in using the >reformat function from Norton Utilities causing it to completely erase all >documents on the hard drive. It has been designed to work with Netscape >Navigator and Microsoft Internet Explorer. It destroys Macintosh and IBM >compatible computers. This is a new, very malicious virus and not many >people knowabout it. Pass this warning along to EVERYONE in your address >book and please share it with all your online friends ASAP so that this >threat may be stopped. > >#@#@Universe#@#@ > > > > >_______________________________________________________ >Get your free, private email at http://mail.excite.com/ > From donandsara Thu Jun 10 16:10:36 1999 From: donandsara (don baker) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 14:10:36 PDT Subject: martin harris Message-ID: hey marty mar, i need to get a hold of you. if you get a chance backchannel me. and if he isn't on the l, can someone help me out with an email address, thanks. Don _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com From mkrueger Thu Jun 10 16:58:00 1999 From: mkrueger (Krueger) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 16:58:00 -0500 Subject: Mid South Debate Institute Message-ID: One last reminder... Though the easiest way to save $75 was to have your registration postmarked by today (which would be tough to do unless on the west coast), there is still time to save some money. You can take a chance and get it in the mail tomorrow, or you can express mail and get it here by Tuesday. Lots of folks have taken advantage of the earlybird registration bonus... We hope that more do. Looking forward to seeing many of you in late July! Mike -- Michael Krueger Director of Debate Middle Tennessee State University Box 43 Murfreesboro, TN 37132 (615) 898-5607 (office) (615) 898-5826 (fax) http://www.mtsu.edu/~debate/ http://www.mtsu.edu/~debate/mdi.html http://www.mtsu.edu/~mkrueger/ >From Thu Jun 10 18:00:10 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 37710 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 18:04:09 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo26.mx.aol.com (imo26.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.70]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA22908 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 18:04:08 -0400 Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com (3888) by imo26.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id rPOIa02073; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 18:00:07 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 13 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 18:00:10 EDT Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Michael Bear Bryant Subject: Re: Virus Hoax Page Comments: To: barretom at yahoo.com In a message dated 6/10/99 3:22:23 PM Mountain Daylight Time, barretom at YAHOO.COM writes: > It's a hoax... 99.9999% are hoaxes to see who is gullable enough to > waste bandwidth to pass it on to others. They win when we forward it > on to others, slow down E-mail servers and corporate networks. > Actually, I usually support your position, but I think your relying on a webpage that isn't updated daily. Just a few minutes ago, Reuters released the following: Scroll Down for Virus Protection Links Virus Attacking Computers in U.S., Europe Can Erase Files; Beware E-Mail with Zipped Documents Attached By Dick Satran Reuters SAN FRANCISCO (June 10) - Computer security experts warned Thursday of a new email-borne computer infection that's spreading over the Internet in a fashion similar to the widespread Melissa virus. The new infection, ``called the ExploreZip worm,'' can potentially erase files from a user's computer, making it inherently more dangerous than the Melissa virus, which gained notoriety for its ability to spread quickly but not because it destroyed any data. ExploreZip is known as a worm, not a virus, because it can't replicate itself. Computer viruses such as Melissa, which appeared in March, are written with the capability to reproduce through automation. But even if it can't reproduce itself, it's spreading quickly, experts said. Network Associates Inc., the computer security firm, said it gave ExploreZip a ``high risk'' classification because it doubled overnight and has already shown up on thousands of computers in the United States, France and Germany. The company said it believes the worm originated in Israel. The computer bug is cleverly disguised as an e-mail that appears to be a response to an earlier message, borrowing a page from Melissa, which appeared as a benign e-mail and surreptitiously sent messages to other users. ``I received your e-mail, and I shall reply ASAP,'' the ExploreZip message reads. ``Till then, take a look at the zipped docs.'' The computer experts warned users to delete that message. Users who respond by clicking on the attached file will launch the virus into their computer that will then destroy Microsoft Outlook, Express and possibly other e-mail related documents. Leading computer security companies Network Associates ( htt p://www.nai.com ), Symantec Corp. ( http:/ /symantec.com ) and Trend Micro Inc. ( http://www.antivirus.com ) all have offered virus protection patches that can be downloaded from their sites to identify and eliminate the bug. ``Apart from the using the anti-virus software, we just recommend that people not open any file that they can't verify the origin of,'' said a Network Associates official. _____________________________________________________________ Decide on your own! Do you want to risk your computer? Bear From bietz Thu Jun 10 17:08:57 1999 From: bietz (Mike Bietz) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 17:08:57 -0500 Subject: virus/worm Message-ID: Bear may have had the name wrong, but I got an email from Microsoft today saying they are going to be shutting down their email server because of this---> ------begin news article---------------------------- New Worm.ExplorerZip virus spreads over Net June 10, 1999 Web posted at: 4:31 p.m. EDT (2031 GMT) by Matthew Nelson (IDG) -- A new virus or worm, with the same modus operandi of the Melissa Virus, is currently spreading across the Internet, deleting large numbers of files and altering the Win.ini file when users reboot. Tentatively called the Worm.ExplorerZip virus, it is propagating itself using the same API as Melissa, and a message stating: "Hi [Name] ! I received your email and I shall send you a reply ASAP. Till then, take a look at the attached zipped docs. bye." The message comes along with a zip file named Zip_files.exe, which if activated, will show a fake error message to the user. An executable file will then alter the Win.ini file, instructing the client to run an explorer.exe file which is delivered by the virus in place of the standard operating system when the user reboots. The worm then searches the local file drive for the following file types and deletes them: .c, .cpp, .asm, .doc, .sls, and .ptp, thereby deleting Microsoft Word, Excel, and PowerPoint files. "What it will do is it will search through the C through Z drives and select randomly a set of files of varying extensions, and then it will zero out or kill the contents of an arbitrary extension of those files," said Carey Nachenberg, chief researcher at SARC, the Symantec Anti-virus Research Center, in Santa Monica, Calif. The worm does not send itself to users on an address book as Melissa did, but instead will monitor the inbox of an infected system for incoming mail. Once a message is received, Worm.ExplorerZip will then send an auto-reply to the sender of the message with the message above. The Worm does not alter the subject line of the e-mail, as Melissa did, but simply responds with the previous senders subject line, making it difficult to recognize, according to Vincent Gullatto, director of Avert Labs, for Network Associates in Beaverton, Ore. Worm.ExplorerZip is similar to a virus, but technically a "worm" program, as it delivers a payload and then moves to another machine instead of infecting an entire machine, according to Nachenberg. "A worm is specifically designed to spread itself from one computer to another," said Nachenberg. "It will infect a computer once, deploy its payload and then try to move on to other computers." SARC received a copy of the worm Sunday, June 6, from a user in Israel and issued a fix to its special service users the same day. Symantec's SARC made its Norton AntiVirus definitions generally available for download Wednesday night, according to Nachenberg. Network Associates is also issuing updates to its McAfee Anti-Virus scan as well, according to the company. Users should always be warned about launching executables, according to Nachenberg. "If people receive executables in the mail, they should not run them," Nachenberg said. "It's very dangerous to run executables, even if they look cute." Matthew Nelson is an InfoWorld senior writer. ---------- Michael Bietz Marketing Research Analyst- Creative Internet Solutions Apple Valley Debate 612.596.3322 From chk12 Thu Jun 10 12:28:01 1999 From: chk12 (Colin Kahl) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 18:28:01 +0100 Subject: Constructive Engagement Plus - A Question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Jeff's suggestion is an interesting one. As far as his wording, I have a few comments. The topic should not have the verb "lift" in it because (as dumb as this sounds) the word means both to "remove" and to "increase", thereby making the resolution bidirectional. "Remove" is a better verb. Also, I don't know enough about how US sanctions are broken down to comment on whether "Economic, Military, and/or Trade" makes sense as a way to compartmentalize sanctions. Is there a significant difference between "economic" and "trade sanctions"; don't trade sanctions fall into the broader category of economic sanctions? In other words, I like the idea of compartmentalization/specification in the topic (if we're going to pick a sanctions topic), but someone needs to do some research on the most appropriate categories to list. Colin Kahl University of Michigan >I agree with Colin's reasoning and why the inclusion of "all or nearly all" >may be more beneficial, but I still see a large area of Sanctioned items that >would have to be repealed in order to be topical. In turn, the Affirmative, >as Scott Harris points out, is responsible to defend each one of those items >exempted. > >Why not a resolution that narrowed the choice, such as asserting categories >after all or nearly all? For example: Resolved: The United States Government >should adapt a policy of constructive engagement, including the lifting of >all or nearly all of its Economic, Military, and/or Trade Sanctions with one >or more of the following: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Sudan, North Korea (Or whatever >countries are to be determined). Each of these categories is in itself a >rather large component of US Sanctions, the negative still has ample ground >and can still PIC the affirmative, make its soft-power/Constructive >Engagement bad arguments, argue for the need to retain sanctions as a whole, >and now can argue, if the affirmative decides to narrow its focus, that >limited sanctions potentially undermines not only multi-lateral efforts but >true constructive engagement efforts via the continuation of US unilateral >sanctions. However, the categorization potentially narrows the affirmative >pool of items that are to be removed, or lifted, from sanction which, in >turn, gives the affirmative a better defense against the PIC as they would be >even more familiar with topic ground. In addition, this gives affirmatives >the choice of debating specific types of sanctions. Timothy Mahoney >suggested using economic sanctions. Such a wording with the addition of the >above categories provides the affirmative with the ability to narrow its >focus to just that. If you want to debate just a military type of position, >you have that option. If your desire is to discuss trade, you have the >ability to do just that. >From Thu Jun 10 18:49:54 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 38231 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 18:51:16 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo28.mx.aol.com (imo28.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.72]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA05154 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 18:51:15 -0400 Received: from Jdgriswold at aol.com (7823) by imo28.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id nBOYa17124 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 18:49:57 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 214 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 18:49:54 EDT Reply-To: Jdgriswold at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Jeff Griswold Subject: Re: Constructive Engagement Plus - A Question Colin is correct regarding the use of the word "remove" as opposed to "lift"and I believe Steve Mancuso had pointed it out earlier in his original topic paper, but for whatever reason I used the word "lift". In addition, I was thinking of general assistance and aid packages vs. general import/export trade issues when I was writing. Perhaps a Financial Assistance category would make more of a distinction. Regardless, I completely agree that we would need to research this to really determine proper categories. In a message dated 6/10/99 3:27:01 PM Pacific Daylight Time, chk12 at COLUMBIA.EDU writes: << Jeff's suggestion is an interesting one. As far as his wording, I have a few comments. The topic should not have the verb "lift" in it because (as dumb as this sounds) the word means both to "remove" and to "increase", thereby making the resolution bidirectional. "Remove" is a better verb. Also, I don't know enough about how US sanctions are broken down to comment on whether "Economic, Military, and/or Trade" makes sense as a way to compartmentalize sanctions. Is there a significant difference between "economic" and "trade sanctions"; don't trade sanctions fall into the broader category of economic sanctions? In other words, I like the idea of compartmentalization/specification in the topic (if we're going to pick a sanctions topic), but someone needs to do some research on the most appropriate categories to list. >> >From Thu Jun 10 17:53:37 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 38308 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 18:52:46 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from out4.ibm.net (out4.ibm.net [165.87.194.239]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA21142 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 18:52:44 -0400 Received: from lisak (slip-32-100-181-17.ar.us.ibm.net [32.100.181.17]) by out4.ibm.net (8.8.5/8.6.9) with SMTP id WAA59806 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 22:52:40 GMT MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Importance: Normal Message-ID: <000601beb394$3d5eb060$24b56420 at lisak> Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 17:53:37 -0500 Reply-To: LCKanak at ibm.net To: Team Topic Debating in America From: "Lisa C. Kanak" Subject: Viruses aren't my thing, but . . I just thought you all would be interested to know that Merrill Lynch (int'l) shut down their e-mail system today in response to this virus. Obviously some people aren't treating this as a hoax. I should also mention that this is the first time in 3 years (that I'm aware of) in which Merrill Lynch has taken such action in response to a virus. They don't do this without probable cause. Lisa Kanak >From Thu Jun 10 18:37:23 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 38396 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 18:56:41 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo21.mx.aol.com (imo21.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.65]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA20582 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 18:56:40 -0400 Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com (8047) by imo21.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id rSKOa18150; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 18:37:14 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 13 Message-ID: <6df39e6e.24919823 at aol.com> Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 18:37:23 EDT Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Michael Bear Bryant Subject: Re: Virus Hoax Page Comments: To: barretom at yahoo.com In a message dated 6/10/99 3:22:23 PM Mountain Daylight Time, barretom at YAHOO.COM writes: > It's a hoax... 99.9999% are hoaxes to see who is gullable enough to > waste bandwidth to pass it on to others. They win when we forward it > on to others, slow down E-mail servers and corporate networks. > Gee, Matt, the hoax has caused both MSN and Yahoo to stop some services today. Bloomsberg News Service reports thousands of damaged computers. Sometimes gullibility works both ways. Don't be a tool, Bear, urging anyone in doubt to access whatever enews services they have available. >From Thu Jun 10 18:06:17 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 38517 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 19:05:31 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from topeka.cjnetworks.com (topeka.cjnetworks.com [206.52.158.250]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA23508 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 19:05:25 -0400 Received: from cjnetworks.com (Port251.cjnetworks.com [199.240.71.27]) by topeka.cjnetworks.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA04973; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 18:05:21 -0500 (CDT) X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <000601beb394$3d5eb060$24b56420 at lisak> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <376044E9.98DBC9DE at cjnetworks.com> Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 18:06:17 -0500 Reply-To: basitm at cjnetworks.com To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Basit Mustafa Subject: Re: Viruses aren't my thing, but . . Comments: To: LCKanak at ibm.net Comments: cc: barretom at yahoo.com dont confuse the two viruses! one of the ExploreZip virus, which IS malicious. the other is the WOBBLER virus, a completely BENIGN AND NONEXISTANT virus. bear is talking about WOBBLER which IS NOT a problem, but a product of gullibility, the other is the ExploreZip, which IS harmful. dont worry, baretto, washburn rural has your back "Lisa C. Kanak" wrote: > I just thought you all would be interested to know that Merrill Lynch > (int'l) shut down their e-mail system today in response to this virus. > Obviously some people aren't treating this as a hoax. > > I should also mention that this is the first time in 3 years (that I'm aware > of) in which Merrill Lynch has taken such action in response to a virus. > They don't do this without probable cause. > > Lisa Kanak From barretom Thu Jun 10 18:24:59 1999 From: barretom (Matt Barreto) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 16:24:59 -0700 Subject: HEY BEAR - Wobble is not the same as ExploreZip.worm Message-ID: --- Michael Bear Bryant wrote: > Gee, Matt, the hoax has caused both MSN and Yahoo to > stop some services > today. Bloomsberg News Service reports thousands of > damaged computers. > Sometimes gullibility works both ways. Bear... You forwarded a hoax about a virus known as "California" or "wobble"... If you had looked carefully you would have noticed that the actual virus is called ExploreZip.worm and the page I supplied for people to check does in fact it featured as their top story, as well as providing a DAT to clean the virus... Congratulations on pointing out that 5 news companies had pointed out a real virus, different than the hoax you warned the community about!!!! > > Don't be a tool, > Bear - Don't be a FOOL!!! Maybe next time I should check www.bearsviruscheck.com, eh? :-) Barreto PC/LAN Support Alfred Publishing Co., Inc. === Matt Barreto barretom at yahoo.com (818) 682-4505 _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com From ewarner Thu Jun 10 18:18:36 1999 From: ewarner (Ede Warner, Jr.) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 19:18:36 -0400 Subject: Tournaments in the Mid-East Message-ID: Looking for the 2000 ADA Nationals location? Also, what tournaments being held in Jan/Feb in this area...Miami of Ohio or Capital or Augustana... From barretom Thu Jun 10 18:29:49 1999 From: barretom (Matt Barreto) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 16:29:49 -0700 Subject: Viruses aren't my thing, but . . Message-ID: --- "Lisa C. Kanak" wrote: > I just thought you all would be interested to know > that Merrill Lynch > (int'l) shut down their e-mail system today in > response to this virus. Aaarrrrghhhhh! When i said 99.9999% of all emails regarding viruses are hoaxes I still mean it. Read carefully. The virus Bear eluded to was the California "Wobble" virus which has been circulating for many, many months. The virus that Merrill Lynch shutdown over was the ExploreZip.worm which is entirely different. > Obviously some people aren't treating this as a > hoax. Obviously you don't know the difference between the two viruses that are being discussed... For those still confused, here is some reading about the real: http://www.mcafee.com/viruses/explorezip/default.asp and the hoax virus: http://vil.mcafee.com/villib/dispHoax.asp?id=vh10170 Barreto === Matt Barreto barretom at yahoo.com (818) 682-4505 _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com From bsiemers Thu Jun 10 18:55:41 1999 From: bsiemers (Brent Siemers) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 19:55:41 -0400 Subject: Viruses aren't my thing, but I don't have to be an ass Message-ID: This discussion, like many, many others on this list serve in the last month is losing touch with civility. Somebody just wanted to tell others on the list to be careful because of the risk of damaging the data on your computer. Within three or four hours of the original post the responses going back and forth seem pretty mean-spirited. I would hope that we might have learned to communicate a little better with one another by now. Wondering why we call ourselves a community, Brent >--- "Lisa C. Kanak" wrote: >> I just thought you all would be interested to know >> that Merrill Lynch >> (int'l) shut down their e-mail system today in >> response to this virus. > >Aaarrrrghhhhh! When i said 99.9999% of all emails regarding viruses are >hoaxes I still mean it. Read carefully. The virus Bear eluded to was >the California "Wobble" virus which has been circulating for many, many >months. The virus that Merrill Lynch shutdown over was the >ExploreZip.worm which is entirely different. > >> Obviously some people aren't treating this as a >> hoax. > >Obviously you don't know the difference between the two viruses that >are being discussed... > >For those still confused, here is some reading about the real: >http://www.mcafee.com/viruses/explorezip/default.asp >and the hoax virus: >http://vil.mcafee.com/villib/dispHoax.asp?id=vh10170 > >Barreto >=== >Matt Barreto >barretom at yahoo.com >(818) 682-4505 >_________________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com > > Brent Siemers UMKC Debate >From Thu Jun 10 21:38:23 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 39448 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 21:41:50 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo11.mx.aol.com (imo11.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.1]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA11814 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 21:41:49 -0400 Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com (3870) by imo11.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id rNFEa13277; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 21:39:53 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 13 Message-ID: <477f3f7.2491c28f at aol.com> Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 21:38:23 EDT Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Michael Bear Bryant Subject: Re: Viruses aren't my thing, but . . Comments: To: barretom at yahoo.com In a message dated 6/10/99 5:29:56 PM Mountain Daylight Time, barretom at YAHOO.COM writes: > > Aaarrrrghhhhh! When i said 99.9999% of all emails regarding viruses are > hoaxes I still mean it. Read carefully. The virus Bear eluded to was > the California "Wobble" virus which has been circulating for many, many > months. The virus that Merrill Lynch shutdown over was the > ExploreZip.worm which is entirely different. > I post one message in the last month and get made fun of someone that got his degree in Portales. Read my first post. "California" is the name of the email cover that the attachment is being sent under. That's also been mentioned in the news releases. Yes, it's more of a "worm," than a virus. The attached news releases I forwarded made clear I was talking about the ExploreZip.worm. Barreto, next time you feel so much like insulting me, have the courage to do it to my face. I don't think you have one-third that courage. You were wrong. What is circulating today has closed major systems. Maybe I got the exact name wrong in my first post, but I hardly see where that justifies the type of personal slams you feel were necessary. Read the news, for godsakes. I'm not a viral expert, either. I'm sorry for my aggression in this matter, but I can't make a single fucking post without someone taking pot shots. It's not like major systems are shutting down over a hoax. Obviously, some people can't lose. Please, realize that Barreto's hoax is closing major systems today. I give up... Bear, noting that the Explore.Zip worm isn't on Barreto's page.... >From Thu Jun 10 21:48:50 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 39625 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 21:52:40 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo25.mx.aol.com (imo25.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.69]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA15230 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 21:52:37 -0400 Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com (3870) by imo25.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id nLAJa11359 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 21:48:57 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 13 Message-ID: <872919d7.2491c502 at aol.com> Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 21:48:50 EDT Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Michael Bear Bryant Subject: More Hoax Though I'm sure that someone from Portales will want to fight over it, you really ought to know the specifics. Released within the last two hours: Warning! PrettyPark & Worm: Two New Viruses for Microsoft Word and Outlook users Two new Microsoft Word 97 and Microsoft 2000 viruses, named PrettyPark and Worm, were discovered over this past weekend and are said to be spreading widely on the Internet. These viruses come as files attached to e-mail and are currently circulating the Internet with the file names "PrettyPark.EXE" and "zipped_files.exe." The e-mail containing one of these viruses may look similar to the sample e-mail provided below, or it may have no subject line at all. You can become infected with these viruses by downloading and opening an infected Microsoft Word document attached to an e-mail. You can also become infected by downloading an infected file inadvertently sent to you by an infected friend or colleague. Once the downloaded file is opened, an error message may be displayed and the virus will spread to Microsoft Word files created or edited on the infected computer. These viruses will also delete files on your computer. Note! This infected e-mail may come from, or look like it came from someone you know! Be alert for short e-mails that ask you to download an attached file. And always be cautious in downloading files from people or sources you do not know. Once your computer is infected, it will spread the viruses in one of two ways. If you also use Microsoft Outlook, the viruses will be automatically e-mailed as an attached file to the people in your Outlook address book. Those people will receive an e-mail like the one provided below. Second, you will inadvertently infect others if you send them infected Microsoft Word files attached to an e-mail message. Once infected, the viruses will make changes to your Microsoft Word settings that make it easier for it to spread itself. If you think you may have downloaded these viruses, please go to one of the sites listed below for instructions on how to remove them. There are no known effects to the AOL software at this time. ** Begin sample e-mail message ** Subj: Date: 6/10/99 4:44:05 PM Eastern Daylight Time File: zipped_files.exe (210,432 bytes) Hi! I received your email and I shall send you a reply ASAP. Till then, take a look at the attached zipped docs. bye ** End sample e-mail message ** How to protect yourself from the these viruses: * Install the latest versions anti-virus software on your computer as soon as possible. These viruses are very new and you should update your anti-virus software as soon as possible. Click here to download anti-virus software from the Computer Protection Center. * If you already have anti-virus software, make sure it is up to date. Most anti-virus companies have posted updates on their Web sites that will combat the PrettyPark and Worm viruses. Some of those sites are listed below. * If you use Microsoft Word, there are steps you can take to protect yourself by turning on macro virus detection in your Microsoft Word application. For more information on the PrettyPark and Worm viruses, how to protect your computer and how to remove it from your computer, visit these sites: Symantec AntiVirus Research Center: PrettyPark.Worm Symantec AntiVirus Research Center: Worm.ExploreZip CNET News.com Update _____________________________________________________________________ I hope the info is specific enough to pass Barreto's strict standards. I' m sorry if anything I sent earlier was slightly off. I'm only trying to warn folks that several viruses/worms have recently been released. Please follow the above advice. Barreto, I'm truly sorry I ever knew you. Bear >From Fri Jun 11 00:16:54 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 37289 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 00:17:46 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo26.mx.aol.com (imo26.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.70]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA20384 for ; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 00:17:44 -0400 Received: from Moose15240 at aol.com (4243) by imo26.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id nIDa014855 for ; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 00:16:58 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 10 Message-ID: <46090e0d.2491e7b6 at aol.com> Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 00:16:54 EDT Reply-To: Moose15240 at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Moose15240 at AOL.COM Subject: SUBSCRIPTION HELP Someone please backchannel me on how to subscribe to the list. Thanks in advance, Jason Wilson CU Debate >From Fri Jun 11 04:21:10 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 37175 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 04:21:44 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo17.mx.aol.com (imo17.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.7]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA21510 for ; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 04:21:43 -0400 Received: from PlaeDoh at aol.com (8049) by imo17.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id nDCJa08017; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 04:21:10 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0.1 for Mac sub 74 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 04:21:10 EDT Reply-To: PlaeDoh at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Danny Bell Subject: Re: More Hoax Comments: To: MWBRYANT at aol.com buy a mac.... avoid the unnecessary complexities. peas Danny Bell Pace "By its original meaning poetry means simply creation, and creation, as you know, can take very various forms. Any action which is the cause of a thing emerging from non-existence into existence might be called poetry, and all the processes in all the crafts are kinda of poetry, and all those who are engaged in them poets." Plato via Socrates via Diotima in the Symposium From rchurch Fri Jun 11 07:54:39 1999 From: rchurch (Russell Church) Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 07:54:39 -0500 Subject: In Search of Bob Bolen Message-ID: Email me. I want to follow up on MSDI questions. Regards, Russell Church Chair Speech & Theatre 615-898-2640 MID-SOUTH DEBATE INSTITUTE http://www.mtsu.edu/~debate/mdi.html DO RESEARCH ON LEXIS NEXIS UNIVERSE! http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe VISIT THE MTSU DEBATE TEAM HOME PAGE! http://www.mtsu.edu/~debate/ SEARCHING FOR GRAD PROGRAMS IN SPEECH COMMUNICATION http://www.natcom.org/ComProg/gpdhtm/graddir.htm SEARCHING FOR GRAD SCHOOLS IN ALL DISCIPLINES http://www.gradschools.com WANT TO STUDY ABROAD? http://www.studyabroad.com Interdisciplinary Minors and Affiliated Programs http://www.mtsu.edu/~libarts/cladepartments.html African American Studies Program http://www.mtsu.edu/~libarts/africanamerican.html From dfdye Fri Jun 11 10:18:36 1999 From: dfdye (David F. Dye) Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 10:18:36 -0500 Subject: More Hoax In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Or, just don't use microsoft products!!! Sounds like a better solution to me! Dave On Fri, 11 Jun 1999 04:21:10 EDT Danny Bell wrote: > buy a mac.... avoid the unnecessary complexities. > > peas > Danny Bell > Pace -- David Dye dfdye at samford.edu From gdeckler Fri Jun 11 10:20:43 1999 From: gdeckler (Deckler, Greg) Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 11:20:43 -0400 Subject: More Hoax Message-ID: This worm uses MAPI, Messaging Application Proramming Interface, to propagate its e-mail messages. Microsoft's Outlook, Novell's GroupWise and Lotus Notes are all MAPI compliant messaging systems and are therefore susceptible to the worm. In fact, a large number of messaging clients are either MAPI-based or at least support MAPI. Therefore, despite the fact that many of the reports and stories regarding this worm make it sound like only Microsoft's products are susceptible, this is not true. It is simply a case of reporters that know jack about technology. > -----Original Message----- > From: David F. Dye [mailto:dfdye at SAMFORD.EDU] > Sent: Friday, June 11, 1999 11:19 AM > To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU > Subject: Re: More Hoax > > > Or, just don't use microsoft products!!! Sounds like a > better solution to me! > > Dave > > > On Fri, 11 Jun 1999 04:21:10 EDT Danny Bell > wrote: > > > buy a mac.... avoid the unnecessary complexities. > > > > peas > > Danny Bell > > Pace > > -- > David Dye > dfdye at samford.edu > From clune Fri Jun 11 10:48:31 1999 From: clune (Johnathon M. Clune) Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 10:48:31 -0500 Subject: Windows vs. X References: Message-ID: Actually, the world would be better if people were smart enough to use Microsoft products more intelligently. Microsoft is the industry standard and thus the most targeted by computer degenerates. The reason that these viruses get around (more often than not) is because people lack intelligence in the use of software. Microsoft Outlook Express prompts the user with a warning concerning opening unknown documents. Microsoft Word and Excel both prompt a user each time they open a new document containing macros about the possibility of macro viruses. Both of these warning systems are default choices often disabled by users. I administer one UNIX and three NT labs at KU and we have a huge macro-virus problem with the WIntel machines, not necessarily because the software is more susceptible to virus, but because the user fails to discriminate between smart downloads and dumb ones and because they'll open any file they can get their hands on. And I suppose I should say that, while UNIX based systems are not suceptible to such small scale viri (Macro/Winsock/etc), they have been known to have touble in the past. For instance, the Worm developed in the late eighties by a computer science gradass at Cornell exploited a known Unix based security flaw. While windows hacking/phreaking is the "cool" thing for pre-pubescent HS students with alot of spare time on their hands, Unix hacking has been around as long as the OS and is where all the fun is. Big time hackers target Unix because it runs all of the big time servers. You might find it interesting that Microsoft directly competes with Sun Microsystems for market shares but Microsoft runs all of it's mainframing and serving off of Sun Based Unix systems. In the end, it's not the platform (Win32, Linux, Solaris, etc) or the software (Word, Perfect, Claris), it's the intelligence of the user. If people are dumb enough to open every *.doc and *.exe that comes their way they disserve to get "wiped out" (deja vu) every now and again. Clune Engineering Computer Services University of Kansas > Or, just don't use microsoft products!!! Sounds like a > better solution to me! > > Dave > > > On Fri, 11 Jun 1999 04:21:10 EDT Danny Bell > wrote: > > > buy a mac.... avoid the unnecessary complexities. > > > > peas > > Danny Bell > > Pace > > -- > David Dye > dfdye at samford.edu > From chk12 Fri Jun 11 07:45:38 1999 From: chk12 (Colin Kahl) Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 13:45:38 +0100 Subject: wondering about the topic Message-ID: I just signed on to edebate recently because I have been involved in putting together some topic wording proposals for next year's topic. I had been deterred from signing on for a long time because I feared getting overloaded with a ton of mail that had very little to do with debate. Anyway, my very short experience with edebate seems to vindicate this fear. It seems that 90% of the mail on the listserv has been banter over computer viruses. Doesn't anyone care about next year's topic? With the exception of a few posts, not much interest has been shown, despite the fact that the wording committee is clearly interested in input from members of edebate. Maybe people are just waiting to complain once the actual topic wordings get picked. Colin Kahl University of Michigan From gucoaches Fri Jun 11 13:20:44 1999 From: gucoaches (gudebate) Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 11:20:44 -0700 Subject: Topic Meetin Question Message-ID: I sent this post yesterday, but I guess it never made it to the list. I'll give it the second try. I have a question for the members of the topic committee. I assume you've all been keeping up with the discussion, reading the wording papers, doing your research etc. Do you plan on supporting a group of resolutions based on one wording paper with changes to country list, action verbs, agents, whatever. Or, do you plan on supporting a group of resolutions representative of the various wording papers. This may at first seem like a silly questions, but this will be my 4th topic meeting and i've seen the process go down different ways. Also, this is the first year we've had so many wording papers submitted. We can only put so many resolutions on the ballot, so i'm curious what you're thinking. Since it traditionally takes the committee the entire meeting time to come up with 5 resolutions, i figure theres a need to narrow the ballot down. At least the value resolutions dont take long, just take out the word should. Glen P.S. Colin's right. The topic discussion prior to the vote was hideously scant. It's just as lacking as we near ground zero. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/19990611/5e74a40d/attachment.htm From debate Fri Jun 11 14:54:33 1999 From: debate (Vermont Debate) Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 14:54:33 -0500 Subject: Betty maddox Message-ID: If anyone knows how i can get in touch with Betty Maddox, Please bckchannel me that information. I know she is not on the list. Sorry for the Clutter. Andy Ellis From ifjxh Fri Jun 11 13:58:48 1999 From: ifjxh (Joshua Hoe) Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 11:58:48 PDT Subject: wondering about the topic Message-ID: I have to agree with Colin here - a bunch of people put a ton of work into doing as much prep work as has been done (maybe ever) and there has pretty much been community silence (most of the discussion has come from people already invloved in the process).....I just do not understand it......last year we could have published books just from the email discussions - Maybe those suggesting that people will not be interested were right - except if that is the case, how did it win? Frustrated Josh >From: Colin Kahl >Reply-To: Colin Kahl >To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU >Subject: wondering about the topic >Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 13:45:38 +0100 > >I just signed on to edebate recently because I have been involved in >putting together some topic wording proposals for next year's topic. I had >been deterred from signing on for a long time because I feared getting >overloaded with a ton of mail that had very little to do with debate. >Anyway, my very short experience with edebate seems to vindicate this fear. >It seems that 90% of the mail on the listserv has been banter over computer >viruses. > >Doesn't anyone care about next year's topic? With the exception of a few >posts, not much interest has been shown, despite the fact that the wording >committee is clearly interested in input from members of edebate. Maybe >people are just waiting to complain once the actual topic wordings get >picked. > >Colin Kahl >University of Michigan _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com From ifjxh Fri Jun 11 14:01:05 1999 From: ifjxh (Joshua Hoe) Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 12:01:05 PDT Subject: Topic Meetin Question Message-ID: Uh, my understanding has been that some wording will come out of each wording paper - although there may be a move to exclude one or two and include like, say, the new constructive engagement wording. The reason the process changes is because different people are in charge each year.....I would have to disagree with you about the scope of the changes......P.S. were you at the topic meetings last year? Josh >From: gudebate >Reply-To: gudebate >To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU >Subject: Topic Meetin Question >Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 11:20:44 -0700 > >I sent this post yesterday, but I guess it never made it to the list. I'll >give it the second try. I have a question for the members of the topic >committee. I assume you've all been keeping up with the discussion, >reading the wording papers, doing your research etc. Do you plan on >supporting a group of resolutions based on one wording paper with changes >to country list, action verbs, agents, whatever. Or, do you plan on >supporting a group of resolutions representative of the various wording >papers. This may at first seem like a silly questions, but this will be my >4th topic meeting and i've seen the process go down different ways. Also, >this is the first year we've had so many wording papers submitted. We can >only put so many resolutions on the ballot, so i'm curious what you're >thinking. Since it traditionally takes the committee the entire meeting >time to come up with 5 resolutions, i figure theres a need to narrow the >ballot down. At least the value resolutions dont take long, just take out >the word should. > >Glen > > P.S. Colin's right. The topic discussion prior to the vote was hideously >scant. It's just as lacking as we near ground zero. > _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com From ifjxh Fri Jun 11 14:03:13 1999 From: ifjxh (Joshua Hoe) Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 12:03:13 PDT Subject: Topic Meetin Question Message-ID: I meant to put a smiley face at the end of the last part of the response to this.....I knew Glen was there :). Sorry....Josh p.s. Colin is clearly right >From: gudebate >Reply-To: gudebate >To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU >Subject: Topic Meetin Question >Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 11:20:44 -0700 > >I sent this post yesterday, but I guess it never made it to the list. I'll >give it the second try. I have a question for the members of the topic >committee. I assume you've all been keeping up with the discussion, >reading the wording papers, doing your research et