From mkrueger  Tue Nov 30 23:35:04 1999
From: mkrueger (mkrueger)
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 23:35:04 -0600
Subject: ceda and ndt dates
Message-ID: <TUE.30.NOV.1999.233504.0600.MKRUEGER@MTSU.EDU>

i assume that you mean 2000

Mar 17-20 CEDA Nationals at Johnson County Community College
Mar 24-27 NDT at the University of Missouri-Kansas City

in 2001

Mar 24-27 CEDA Nationals at Middle Tennessee State University
Mar 29-April 1 NDT at TBA (tentatively scheduled)

hope this helps.

krueger


>===== Original Message From UWG Debate Team <dbteam at westga.edu> =====
>what are the dates for ceda nats and the ndt?
>thanks, hester

Michael A. Krueger
Director of Debate
Middle Tennessee State University
Box 43
Murfreesboro, TN 37132
(615) 898-5607
http://www.mtsu.edu/~debate/



From cjclevenger  Mon Nov  1 01:06:58 1999
From: cjclevenger (Clint J. Clevenger)
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 01:06:58 CST
Subject: harvard?
Message-ID: <MON.1.NOV.1999.010658.CST.CJCLEVENGER@HOTMAIL.COM>

anyone know what is going on there?

cj
umkc debate

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

>From  Mon Nov  1 07:21:14 1999
Message-Id: <MON.1.NOV.1999.072114.0600.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 39098 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 08:21:37
 -0500
Precedence: bulk
Received: from mailhost.netdot.com ([206.50.22.9]) by list.uvm.edu
 (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA22930 for <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Mon,
 1 Nov 1999 08:21:35 -0500
Received: from [209.39.34.44] [209.39.34.44] by mailhost.netdot.com with ESMTP
 (SMTPD32-5.05) id A3B789C30234; Mon, 01 Nov 1999 07:20:55 -0600
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express Macintosh Edition - 4.5 (0410)
Mime-version: 1.0
X-Priority: 3
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <199911010720763.SM00227@[209.39.34.44]>
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 07:21:14 -0600
Reply-To: doyle at netdot.com, doyle at sfasu.edu
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Doyle Srader <doyle at NETDOT.COM>
Subject: Truly inscrutable

Check out:

http://bushsucks.com/

Scratching my head over this.

Doyle Srader
Lecturer, Speech Communication
Stephen F. Austin State University

"Human blunders usually do more to shape history than human wickedness."
  -- A. J. P. Taylor



From tlyden  Mon Nov  1 07:44:28 1999
From: tlyden (todd lyden)
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 05:44:28 PST
Subject: Truly inscrutable
Message-ID: <MON.1.NOV.1999.054428.PST.TLYDEN@HOTMAIL.COM>

this is because Bush was trying to circumvent all the people trying to buy
the sites dealing with him


>From: Doyle Srader <doyle at NETDOT.COM>
>Reply-To: doyle at netdot.com, doyle at sfasu.edu
>To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU
>Subject: Truly inscrutable
>Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 07:21:14 -0600
>
>Check out:
>
>http://bushsucks.com/
>
>Scratching my head over this.
>
>Doyle Srader
>Lecturer, Speech Communication
>Stephen F. Austin State University
>
>"Human blunders usually do more to shape history than human wickedness."
>   -- A. J. P. Taylor

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



From kjast13+  Mon Nov  1 08:04:23 1999
From: kjast13+ (Kevin Ayotte)
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 09:04:23 -0500
Subject: NCA panel on kritiks and their permutations
Message-ID: <MON.1.NOV.1999.090423.0500.KJAST13@PITT.EDU>

I thought I would send a plug for a panel at NCA which will focus primarily
on kritiks and permutations of kritiks.  The format is designed to
primarily be a roundtable discussion, with several short papers introducing
some problematics and a response by Pat Gehrke, to be followed by a lengthy
open period of discussion.

        KRITIKS: THE STATE OF THE ART
Chair: Max Schnurer, University of Pittsburgh
                "Critical Erasure: Permutations of Kritiks and the Deconstruction of
Knowledge."  Kevin J. Ayotte, University of Pittsburgh
                "Kritikal Praxis Revisited: Revenge of the Particular Intellectual."
David F. Breshears, University of Texas, Austin
                "Critiquing Aesthetically: Theoretical Intersections with Policy."  Marcy
Halpin, University of Pittsburgh
                "Enacting Kritiking through Permutations: Texts that Protect and Texts
that Produce."  Brian Lain, University of Iowa
                "(Per)formative Contradictions: Misunderstanding the Importance of
Action."  Joseph P. Zompetti, Wayne State University
                "Critiquing Debate: Unsettling the Settlers."  Maxwell Schnurer,
University of Pittsburgh
Respondent: Pat J. Gehrke, Penn State University

Hope to see you there.



Kevin Ayotte
University of Pittsburgh



From hunt  Mon Nov  1 09:42:08 1999
From: hunt (Steven Hunt)
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 07:42:08 -0800
Subject: Brent asks questions
In-Reply-To: <D3D80BF67346D311AE9000805F655685507D00@GABRIEL>
Message-ID: <MON.1.NOV.1999.074208.0800.HUNT@LCLARK.EDU>

BBrent
Brent:
I would allow the questioning in CA as I would expect it would show if the
student really knew her/his paradigm and was applying it well.
I would vote against dropping pts on ballots. Sometimes pts help make a pt
by the critic/judge. Sometimes you can see a bit of a trend in pts. they
are therefor helpful to coaches.
Steve Hunt

q

On Sun, 31 Oct 1999, Northup, Brent wrote:

> Colleagues:
>
> A quick Monday question needing a Monday answer.
>
> The NIET has two items on the agenda that will be voted on Wednesday..
>
> How do you feel about these two items:
>
> 1. adding question and answers to CA ...judge questions for 30 seconds,
> student answers for two minutes. This would be only for nationals, but often
> tournaments use NIET rules.
>
> 2. The national office proposes dropping points from ballots. Totally. So
> that the rank is the only thing that appears. Breaking from prelims would
> then be on some "inverted rank" system like high school.
>
> Brent is inclined to vote against both items, but I want to see if I'm
> representing you well.
>
> Please respond Monday, November 1.
>
> Brent
>
> P.S. NFC standings will be readied the week after NCA. One stress at a time.
> Carroll is hiring, for intercultural and public relations (one position).
>
>

>From  Mon Nov  1 11:02:41 1999
Message-Id: <MON.1.NOV.1999.110241.0500.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 40907 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 11:01:00
 -0500
Precedence: bulk
Received: from nova.bsuvc.bsu.edu (NOVA.BSUVC.BSU.EDU [147.226.56.70]) by
 list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA21162 for
 <edebate at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 11:00:53 -0500
Received: from BSUVC.bsu.edu by BSUVC.bsu.edu (PMDF V5.2-31 #35953) id
 <01JHTK8YMIB68ZKH3X at BSUVC.bsu.edu> for edebate at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 1
 Nov 1999 11:02:41 EST
X-VMS-To: IN%"edebate at LIST.UVM.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Message-ID: <01JHTK8YMIB88ZKH3X at BSUVC.bsu.edu>
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 11:02:41 -0500
Reply-To: 00MHBAUER at BSUVC.BSU.EDU
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: mike Bauer <00mhbauer at BSUVC.BSU.EDU>
Subject: Alan Dove only

Alan would you backchannel me?
Thanks,
Mike Bauer

>From  Mon Nov  1 11:11:27 1999
Message-Id: <MON.1.NOV.1999.111127.EST.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 41147 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 11:12:55
 -0500
Precedence: bulk
Received: from imo-d07.mx.aol.com (imo-d07.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.39]) by
 list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA22574 for
 <eDebate at list.uvm.edu>; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 11:12:48 -0500
Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo-d07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id
 yFEK0nHvA5 (4366); Mon, 1 Nov 1999 11:11:28 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 26
Message-ID: <0.35b05528.254f15af at aol.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 11:11:27 EST
Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Michael Bear Bryant <MWBRYANT at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: name-change amendment
Comments: To: slusher at siu.edu

In a message dated 11/1/99 12:06:12 AM Mountain Standard Time,
slusher at SIU.EDU writes:

>
>  Why does it really matter?  Should ADA and the NDT change too because they
> claim
>  to represent debate in "America" or in the "Nation"?  What about the AFA's
> claim
>  to represent all "forensics" in "America"?  We are a college debate
>  organization.
>  The name fits what we do.  Who cares?
>
>  slusher

I care. Obviously, that's an insignificant concern on your part. The fact
that other organizations use deceptive names is hardly a justification for
original deception. Is that how your mind works? Do other ethical lapses
justify your own? What a wonderful kritik of "uniqueness" as a tool of
policy-making!

NDT came about as a name when that was the only type of debate. ADA never
attempted to create an overarching national umbrella organization, so there
wasn't inherent deception in that name choice. Since the AFA represents NDT,
CEDA, Parli, and LD, it can make the claim that it, at least through it's
mechanisms, does have an impact on the vast majority of collegiate debate in
this country.

This is all about money. It's all about claims from the Open Society
Institute that CEDA doesn't represent enough of collegiate debate to warrant
control over UDL funding that they are pitching. When we choose a deceptive
name to increase the probability of getting bureaucratic control over such
funding, what have we become? I think the UDL's do some great things, but do
we really want to choose a name based off schemes to control Soros' blood
money? Has anyone ever investigated how Soros can afford to be the world's
greatest private philanthropist? Even the superficial stories in the general
media paint a picture of Soros that should be examined by everyone deciding
that money somehow transcends it's source of creation.

President Lane says the name is justified because CEDA now represents a
variety of formats. Really? One non-policy division making is enough to
advance that claim? When I was defending the non-policy alternative, there
was no shortage of members telling me that policy debate is really what this
organization should focus on.  I guess it's OK for those folks to forget
their objection to other formats, as long as money's involved. Right? I guess
those other formats will come crawling on their knees if we control all the
wonderful Soros funds, right?

How about just calling ourselves "NEDO." Stands for Non-Ethical Debate
Organization.... Oh, I guess that wouldn't facilitate the money flow.

Why do you think they went for PR advice in the first place,

Michael Bryant



From hunt  Mon Nov  1 10:21:52 1999
From: hunt (Steven Hunt)
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 08:21:52 -0800
Subject: Harvard
Message-ID: <MON.1.NOV.1999.082152.0800.HUNT@LCLARK.EDU>

Are there any results from Harvard yet, like speaker awards and breaking
teams? According to my calculations octafinals should be over.
Steve Hunt
Lewis & Clark


q



From kjast13+  Mon Nov  1 11:22:28 1999
From: kjast13+ (Kevin Ayotte)
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 12:22:28 -0500
Subject: NCA panel on kritiks and their permutations
Message-ID: <MON.1.NOV.1999.122228.0500.KJAST13@PITT.EDU>

Sorry for the clutter, but I received a reminder from Steve Herro observing
that I hadn't listed the time/place of the panel.  My bad :)  The panel on
kritik permutations will be in Room 907, on the 9th floor of the Spertus
Institute.  I checked the NCA webpage, and I guess this is the Spertus
Institute of Jewish Studies located about a block from the Hilton.  The
panel takes place on Thursday, from 2:00pm to 3:15pm.



Kevin Ayotte
University of Pittsburgh



From Shannonv  Mon Nov  1 11:43:45 1999
From: Shannonv (Shannon)
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 09:43:45 -0800
Subject: Brent asks questions
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.4.10.9911010740400.7454-100000@haystack.lclark.ed u>
References: <D3D80BF67346D311AE9000805F655685507D00@GABRIEL>
Message-ID: <MON.1.NOV.1999.094345.0800.SHANNONV@CLATSKANIE.COM>

Brent,

I have no opinion on the CA question. However I do have one for the
dropping of points. I would be happy to see that happen. I just returned
from a tournament in Northern California where I worked in the tab room and
saw them use such a system there. It provides an easier way of tabbing
scores and also in the opinion of those down there provides easier
interpretation for critics and also makes it easier on students. While I
see Steve's point on sometimes having the points to serve as a Message to
students...I saw judges in California actually just speak their displeasure
on the ballot in addition to the circling of the POOR rate.


Shannon Valdivia
Mt. Hood



From dsrader  Mon Nov  1 11:16:11 1999
From: dsrader (Doyle W Srader)
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 12:16:11 -0500
Subject: Truly inscrutable
Message-ID: <MON.1.NOV.1999.121611.0500.DOYLE@SFASU.EDU>

On Mon, 1 Nov 1999, todd lyden wrote:

> this is because Bush was trying to circumvent all the people trying to buy
> the sites dealing with him

I understand why the campaign reserved the URL with InterNIC. I was aware
they'd done that. What I don't understand is why they actually linked it
to their site. That's just weird.

Doyle Srader
Lecturer, Speech Communication
Stephen F. Austin State University

"The trouble with our Texas Baptists is that we do not hold them under
 water long enough."
   -- William Brann



From laneg  Mon Nov  1 13:12:05 1999
From: laneg (Lane, Gina)
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 13:12:05 -0600
Subject: name-change amendment
Message-ID: <MON.1.NOV.1999.131205.0600.LANEG@WILLIAM.JEWELL.EDU>

Bear echoes Terry West's concern about the name change:  Specifically, he
writes:
> How does this respond to the argument that such a name is deceptive in
> that
> our organization can't even make the claim that we represent the majority
> of
> collegiate debate?
>
I still believe the name is an appropriate one, even if we aren't the
largest debate organization on the planet.  The prevailing philosophy of
this organization seems to be one of inclusion -- we are open to alternate
formats and have issues and concerns about intercollegiate debate which
stretch across organizational boundaries.  As long as I can remember, this
organization has resisted exclusivity and instead supported measures which
encourage support for all debaters -- i.e. "the big tent" approach.  This
summer we discussed increasing our communication with the parliamentary
debate community to let them know of initiatives we are taking they might be
interested in.  Therefore, we seem to be an organization that is more
concerned about global issues regarding intercollegiate debate, and not
issues uniquely tied to one community.

Bear says in a post today that relying on the alternate format is not a
substantial claim because only one division of nonpolicy has made this year.
I'm addressing this in my president's report, but the short answer is -- we
need to give alternate formats time (my guess is--at least five years)
before we decide they have succeeded or failed.  The earliest CEDA
tournaments were very small as well.

Bear also writes with concerns about the Soros Foundation, but I am unaware
of any specific communication CEDA may have had in the past with Soros (that
doesn't mean it didn't happen -- I'm just not aware of it).

Finally, the name should be able to stand the test of time.  In the future,
the organization may grow larger -- it may shrink and disappear.
Regardless, I believe the name will still fit.

I'm glad we're airing these concerns.  Thanks for the question.

Gina Lane
President, Cross Examination Debate Association

>From  Mon Nov  1 16:37:50 1999
Message-Id: <MON.1.NOV.1999.163750.0400.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 45355 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 15:36:23
 -0500
Precedence: bulk
Received: from smtp2.erols.com (smtp2.erols.com [207.172.3.235]) by
 list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA18564 for
 <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 15:36:19 -0500
Received: from erols.com (209-122-237-207.s588.tnt2.nyw.ny.dialup.rcn.com
 [209.122.237.207]) by smtp2.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id
 PAA08576 for <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 15:41:15 -0500
 (EST)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; I; PPC)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <699F3A6D1BD1D011948400007786CA9203603E4A at shaman.jewell.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <381DF9C9.234A8465 at erols.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 16:37:50 -0400
Reply-To: a.dove at erols.com
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Alan Dove <a.dove at EROLS.COM>
Organization: Nature
Subject: Re: name-change amendment

Hey, folks:

The objections raised to the name-change strike me as kind of odd.  As I
understand it, the problem Bear has is that the new name implies that
we're the main organization for collegiate debate.  He charges that this
is an ethical problem, and that it is being done (perhaps) to facilitate
getting money from George Soros.  Even if the latter is true, I don't
see what the ethical problem is.  Other organizations are perfectly free
to name themselves, and our choice of the name "Collegiate Debate
Association" does not, in any important way, restrict their ability to
name themselves whatever they want.  There are plenty of other names
that would sound equally broad, some of which have already been taken by
even smaller organizations.

Bear doesn't seem to object to the National Debate Tournament or the
American Debate Association, since they didn't have specific objectives
of becoming the overarching debate organization.  But I think that
suggests they would be in an even more questionable ethical position,
since "National Debate Tournament" is a form of false advertising if
you're not the only one.  Then again, the World Debating Championships
are an even more flawed designation.  My point is not that "ethical
violations" by other debate organizations justify our name change, but
that these other organizations are not violating any clear ethical
principle.  I think it's perfectly okay to name your organization
whatever you want it to be, since the name itself is not explicitly
stating a claim.  If it were, there would be hundreds or perhaps
thousands of perfectly good organizations guilty of this "violation,"
and there is no particular impact to it.  The Unitarian Universalist
church is about as world-dominating a name as I can think of, but the
idea of Unitarians taking over the planet sounds like the basis of a
comedy skit (John Cleese: "Join our Unitarian crusade." Terry Gilliam,
next to him:"Unless you don't want to."  Cleese: "We'll take over the
world."  Gilliam: "But only if that's okay with you.").

Let's say we call ourselves the Collegiate Debate Association.  That's
what CEDA says it wants to be - an inclusive organization dealing with
collegiate debate.  There are no superlatives in it - the proposed name
is not "The One and Only Collegiate Debate Association," or "The World's
Largest Debate Association," or "The Supreme Almighty Debate Council."
The name "Collegiate Debate Association" would accurately describe the
mission and intended scope of the organization.

There is also no particular impact on other organizations.  If NPDA or
APDA sees the new designation of CDA as some kind of power play, they
are free to rename themselves in a variety of ways.  How about the
"World Debating Society," "Collegiate Debate Organization," "College
Debate Council," or "Collegiate Debate Union"  Those all sound pretty
massive to me.  This also answers the objection about lobbying Soros for
money (though I'm not quite clear on why that's such a huge problem,
even if true): all of the other debating organizations are perfectly
free to do the same, using the same tactic.  If Mr. Soros decides that
the College Debate Union is a better place to send his money, he's free
to cut the checks.

          --Alan

--
__________
Alan Dove, Ph.D.
N3IMU
http://www.erols.com/a.dove/



From kenneth.delaughder  Mon Nov  1 14:37:33 1999
From: kenneth.delaughder (Kenneth DeLaughder)
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 13:37:33 -0700
Subject: Chief..wichita or delete
Message-ID: <MON.1.NOV.1999.133733.0700.KENNETH.DELAUGHDER@ENMU.EDU>

Hey chief,
Ijsut cleaned out my email stuff, and my lines to trippy to get a review
through (damn line noise)... backchannel me, you know what I want :)
Ken



From kenneth.delaughder  Mon Nov  1 14:40:12 1999
From: kenneth.delaughder (Kenneth DeLaughder)
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 13:40:12 -0700
Subject: SMS...Juragua
Message-ID: <MON.1.NOV.1999.134012.0700.KENNETH.DELAUGHDER@ENMU.EDU>

Hey folk,
Martin hasnt hooked me up, so Ill ask the general masses, Like Nickle or
Bone... or Hey.. Kilpatrick :)  Someone wanna backchannel me, Id like to
get som eJuragua cites from you...asap...


Ken
Emporia



From sternhag  Mon Nov  1 14:46:52 1999
From: sternhag (Fred Sternhagen)
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 14:46:52 -0600
Subject: Coaching opening
Message-ID: <MON.1.NOV.1999.144652.0600.STERNHAG@CORD.EDU>

                           POSITION VACANCY IN FORENSICS AND SPEECH
COMMUNICATION


The Position:  Full time position, three-year appointment with possibility
for renewal up to six years.  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.

The department has 13 full-time and 4 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.

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 desktop computers.

Qualifications:  Masters degree required for appointment, Ph.D. preferred.
The following are selection criteria for the position:
        Excellence in classroom teaching.  Graduate assistantships are appropriate.
        Demonstrated preparation and experience in teaching public speaking.
        Demonstrated ability to coach within the context of an integrated speech
and debate program.
        Demonstrated preparation and experience in teaching an area of
specialization appropriate to the               departmental curriculum.   See web site
for more detail.
http://www.cord.edu/dept/registrar/catalog/departments/comm.html
        Personal philosophy in sympathy with the aims and objectives of a liberal
arts college of the
                Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.
        Masters degree in Speech Communication completed by August 1, 2000.

Beginning Date:  Position begins August 2000.

Application Procedure:  Send letter of application, resume, transcripts and
three letters of recommendation to:
        Cindy Larson-Casselton, Chair Search Committee
        Department of Speech Communication and Theatre Art
        Concordia College
        Moorhead, MN 56562
        Telephone:  218-299-3333     FAX:  218-299-4256
        e-mail: clarson at cord.edu

File review will begin immediately and will continue until the position is
filled.

Concordia College offers a competitive salary and benefits package and is
an equal opportunity employer.


***************************
   Fred Sternhagen
   SCTA Department
   Concordia College
   Moorhead, MN   56562
   218-299-3731
***************************



From hunt  Mon Nov  1 15:25:43 1999
From: hunt (Steven Hunt)
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 13:25:43 -0800
Subject: Harvard Results
Message-ID: <MON.1.NOV.1999.132543.0800.HUNT@LCLARK.EDU>

I imagine the tournament managers are still busy. Anybody who has dropped
out have the results through like quarters or so.
SBH
Lewis & Clark

q

>From  Mon Nov  1 15:43:56 1999
Message-Id: <MON.1.NOV.1999.154356.0600.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 46376 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 16:44:56
 -0500
Precedence: bulk
Received: from m11.boston.juno.com (m11.boston.juno.com [205.231.100.194]) by
 list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA21744 for
 <eDebate at list.uvm.edu>; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 16:44:14 -0500
Received: (from vandy.debate at juno.com) by m11.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id
 EQDCDDBE; Mon, 01 Nov 1999 16:43:20 EST
X-Mailer: Juno 2.0.11
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-5,10-25,27-30,32-35,39-40,42-43,45-46,48-53,55-56,58-59,61-62,64-67,69-70,73-76,78-88,92-93,95-96,98-101,103-104,106-107,109-114,117-118,120-121,126-127,129-132,134-137,139-144,146-147,149-150,152-153,155-156,158-165,167-168,170-174,176-181,189-190,192-193,199-200,203-206,209-210,216-217,222-223,225-226,233-234,237-242,246-247,249-250,252-253,256-257,259-262,264-271,273-274,283-284,290-293,297-306,316-317,320-323,330-331,337-340,342-346,348,350-353,355-356,358-359,361-364,366-367,371-372,374-377,379-380,382-385,390-391,393-396,401-402,412-413,415-416,422-423,425-428,431-432,434-439,445-446,451-454,461-462,464-467,471-472,474-477,483-484,486-489,491-498,504-505,510-516,520-526,530-538,544-545,550-556,560-566,570-580,582-583,587-590,592-593,596-597,603-604,607-608,610-611,614-616,623-624,628-629,631-634,642-649,657-658,660-661,664-665,667-672,677-678,686-692,694-699
X-Juno-Att: 0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <19991101.154358.-327671.0.vandy.debate at juno.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 15:43:56 -0600
Reply-To: vandy.debate at JUNO.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: vandy.debate at JUNO.COM
Subject: Constitution Revision Committee Report

November 1, 1999

Constitutional Revision Committee Report
To be presented at the CEDA Business Meeting in Chicago, November 1999


The Constitutional Revision Committee met in August to prepare
constitutional amendments that would make the document more consistent
with current practices.  Committee members attending the meeting were M.
L. Sandoz, Greg Simerly, and Russ Church.  The committee will propose the
following 55 amendments at NCA.

A hard copy of these will be available at NCA.


M. L. Sandoz
Director, Vanderbilt Debate
615-322-3784 Office
615-322-2307 Office
615-673-7340 Home


ARTICLE IV: OFFICERS AND THEIR DUTIES

        Section 3. The First Vice President's duties are to:

                A. Prepare a budget for his/her year as President in consultation with
                the Executive-Secretary and Treasurer;

Proposed amendment #1:  Delete Article IV Section 3A.

Rationale:  This is proposed as an addition to the Treasurer's duties
(Article IV Section 6).

        Section 4. The Second Vice President's duties are to:

                C.  Serve as the National Communication Association Convention
                liaison, which includes scheduling meeting times and ensuring
                officers' and regional representatives' names are included in the
                program;

Proposed amendment #2:  Delete "and ensuring officers' and regional
representatives' names are included in the program."

Rationale:  This is proposed as an addition to the Exec. Sec. duties
(Article IV section 5).

Proposed amendment #3:  Add "I. Notify the membership of such convention
information as meeting times, hotel facilities and CEDA programs."

Rationale:  To remain consistent with current practices.

        Section 5. The Executive Secretary's duties are to:

                        A. Conduct elections for officers of the Association and
on such other           matters as the Executive Council may direct;

Proposed amendment #4:  Add "If the executive secretary's name appears on
the ballot, the First Vice President will conduct the election."

Rationale:  To protect the executive secretary and remove personal
interest from the process.

                E. Notify the membership of such convention information as meeting
                times, hotel facilities and CEDA programs;

Proposed amendment #5:  Delete Article IV section 5E.

Rationale:  Proposed as an addition to the second vice president's duties
(Article IV section 4.

Proposed amendment #6:  Add "L. To ensure that officers' and regional
representatives' names are included in the National Communication
Association Convention Program ."

Rationale:  To remain consistent with current practices.

Proposed amendment #7:  Add "M. Accept membership applications to CEDA,
receive all membership dues and other payments to the Association."

Rationale:  To remain consistent with current practices.

Proposed amendment 8:  Add "L.  Approve the applications to host
CEDA-sanctioned tournaments."

Rationale:  Consistent with current practices.

        Section 6. The Treasurer's duties are to:

                B.  Accept membership applications to CEDA, receive all membership
                dues and other payments to the Association and pay all expenses of
                the Association that are authorized by the President or Executive
                Council;

Proposed amendment #9:  Delete "Accept membership applications to CEDA,
receive all membership dues and other payments to the Association and"

Rationale:  Proposed as an addition to the executive secretary's duties
(Article IV section 5).

                        I. Submit to annual audits; and

Proposed amendment #10:  Delete "annual" and follow "audits" with "as
required by the executive council."

Rationale:  Audits may be needed more or less frequently and their need
can easily be monitored by the executive council.

Proposed amendment #11:  Add "K.  Prepare a budget for his/her year  in
consultation with the Executive-Secretary and President."

Rationale:  To meet current practice.

        Section 7. Each of the Regional Representatives' duties are to:

Proposed amendment #12:  Add "F.  Facilitate the election for student
representative to the executive council.  The election should be
completed by October 1."

Rationale:  To encourage smooth transition of student representation on
the council.

Proposed amendment #13:  Add "G.  If a regional representative is unable
to attend an executive council meeting, she or he may appoint a
substitute with voting privileges from the region.  If no substitute is
appointed by the regional representative, the president may appoint a
substitute with voting privileges from the region."

Rationale:  To ensure regions are represented at the executive council
meetings.

        Section 10. The Executive Council shall:

                E. by majority vote approve the applications to host CEDA-approved
                tournaments; and

Proposed amendment #14:  Delete Article IV section 10E.

Rationale:  This is currently one of the duties of the executive
secretary.

        Section 11: Student Representatives.

                B. The duties of the Student Representatives are to:

                        1. Report the concerns of student debaters to the Executive
                        Council.
                        2. Oversee the selection process of their committee                     members.
                        3. Select two representatives from their committee to serve on                  the
Topic Selection Committee

Proposed amendment #15:  Change B. to read "B.  The duties of the Student
Representatives Committee are to:

Rationale:  To indicate that the role of each student representative is
as a committee member.

Proposed amendment #16:  Delete the word "student" from Article IV
section 11B1.

Rationale:  Redundancy.

Proposed amendment #17: Delete Article IV section 11B2.

Rationale:  There are no committee members.

Proposed amendment #18:  From Article IV section 11B3, delete
"representatives from their committee" and replace with "debaters."

Rationale:  The student representatives on the topic committee can be any
eligible debater.

ARTICLE V: NOMINATIONS AND ELECTIONS


        Section 4. No single institution shall be represented on the Executive
Council by      more than one person at a time.

Proposed amendment #19:  Delete Article V section 4.

Rationale:  Currently, this restricts student representation.

        Section 5. Officers shall serve the following terms, commencing June 1
        following their election:  After serving as Second Vice President for
one year, that  individual  becomes First Vice President for one year and
then assumes the        Presidency for one year.  The Executive Secretary and
Treasurer serve for     staggered three-year terms.  Members from the
regions on the Executive        Council serve two-year terms.  The regions of
The East, North Central, Rocky  Mountain, Southern California and South
Central shall elect their       representatives in even numbered years.

Proposed amendment #20:  Delete the sentence "The Executive Secretary and
Treasurer serve for staggered three-year terms."

Rationale:  Currently this is in conflict with Article V section 6D which
reads "If the office of Executive Secretary or Treasurer becomes vacant,
the President will hold a special election as described Section f of this
Article. The term of the new Executive Secretary or Treasurer will run
until June 1 of the calendar year three years after the date of the
election."

Proposed amendment #21:  Add the following to the end of Article V
section 5:  "The executive council may authorize a special election to
restore the staggering of terms for regional representatives."

Rationale:  To provide a method of restoring staggered terms.

        Section 6. Vacancies, whether occasioned by death, resignation, or
severance       of connection with forensics at the school the individual
represents, shall be    dealt with as follows.

                        E. If a vacancy occurs among the regional
representatives, the            President will appoint a replacement for the
remaining term of the           representative being replaced if the term is less
than one calendar               year.  If the term is more than one calendar year,
the President will hold                 a special election as described Section F of
this Article.

Proposed amendment #22:  Amend Article V section 6E to read:  "If a
vacancy occurs among the regional representatives, the President will
either 1) appoint a replacement for the remaining term of the
representative or 2) call a special election as described in section F of
this Article."

Rationale:  To maintain more constant representation on the executive
council.

                F. If the President is required to hold a special election by the terms
of              this article, he/she, with the advice of the Executive Council, will
                nominate at least two individuals to run for the vacant office and
instruct                the Executive Secretary to hold a special election.  The
President may           appoint an individual to act as Executive Secretary,
Treasurer or            Regional Representative until such time as the newly
elected person          takes office.

Proposed amendment #23:  Replace the word "hold" in the first sentence
with "call for."  The amended version will read:  F.  If the President is
required to call for~E"

Rationale:  Grammar.

ARTICLE VII: ANNUAL BUSINESS MEETINGS OF THE ASSOCIATION

        Section 2. Business meetings shall be held annually at the fall national
        convention of the National Communication Association and at the
Association's   National Tournament.  The Executive  Secretary will give
members ample notice    of the times and places of these meetings.

Proposed amendment #24:  Delete "The Executive  Secretary will give
members ample notice of the times and places of these meetings."

Rationale:  This information is provided to the membership in the NCA
program and the National Tournament schedule.

                        D. Proxy votes are to be submitted to the President at
the start of each               business meeting.  The President will count only
those proxy ballots             that are complete and signed.

Proposed  amendment #25:  Replace the word "president"  each time with
"Executive Secretary."

Rationale:  This would be consistent with current practices.

        Section 8. Any vote that results in a tie will be considered to have
failed and the  President will not vote to break ties

Proposed amendment #26:  Delete Article VII section 8.

Rationale:  This section is unnecessary because of Article VII section 7.

ARTICLE VIII: AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION AND BYLAWS

        Section 3. Alternative Amendment Procedures for the Constitution and
Bylaws

                C. Within 45 days of the publication of the proposed amendment, the
                Executive Secretary will mail a ballot to the membership containing a
                copy of the proposed amendment, along with a summary of the             arguments
for and against the amendment.  The author of the               amendment will have
the opportunity to submit the reasons for the           amendment and the
President may designate an individual to outline                objections to the
amendment.  Both of these individuals shall have                access to the comments
received by the Executive Secretary.  Balloting                 will cease at midnight
30 days after the ballots were distributed.

Proposed amendment #27:  Delete the following "along with a summary of
the arguments for and against the amendment.  The author of the amendment
will have the opportunity to submit the reasons for the amendment and the
President may designate an individual to outline objections to the
amendment.  Both of these individuals shall have access to the comments
received by the Executive Secretary."

Rationale:  This is currently being done via E-debate.

                        E. A majority of the Executive Council may vote to
exclude the time                period from the conclusion of the CEDA National
Tournament until July           1 from the time period in items B and C of this
Section.

Proposed amendment #28:  Delete Article VII section 3E.

Rationale:  With E-debate, this is now unnecessary.

BYLAWS

        I.   Membership Dues and Budget:

                Section 2:  The Treasurer, in consultation with the other Executive
                Officers (President, Vice-Presidents and Executive-Secretary) should
                present a budget of anticipated income and expenses and existing
                resources as a guide for the financial activity of the Association.
                This budget shall be presented to the Executive Council no later than
                the any Summer meeting of each year.  If there is no scheduled          summer
meeting, then the Treasurer should provide the budget to the
                Executive-Secretary by August 1 who will distribute the budget to the
                Executive Council. The Executive Council may vote to amend any part of
                the budget by a simple majority vote.

Proposed amendment #29:  Delete the word "any" from the second sentence.
The second sentence would then read: "This budget shall be presented to
the Executive Council no later than the summer meeting of each year."

Rationale:  There is only one summer meeting.

                Section 3:  Legitimate CEDA related expenses of the officers of the
                Association will be reimbursed from the Association's funds. Travel,
                lodging and food at National Communication Association Conventions
                will not be covered.  Additionally, the President, Executive Secretary,
                Treasurer and National Tournament Computer Manager/Operator will
                receive annual honoraria in amounts established by the Executive
                Council.

Proposed amendment #30:  Add "and the editor of the association's
journal" to the final sentence."  The sentence would then read
"Additionally, the President, Executive Secretary, Treasurer and National
Tournament Computer Manager/Operator and the editor of the association's
journal will receive annual honoraria in amounts established by the
Executive Council."

Rationale:  This would match current practices.

        II. Current Regions of the Association: The following geographical areas
shall   constitute the current regions of the Association:

                1.  Northwest--Alaska, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Helena, Mt.
                2.  The West--zip codes 9300-9700 and Reno, Nevada.
                3.  Southern California--zip  codes 9000-9299, Las Vegas and Arizona.
                4.  Rocky Mountain--Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, New Mexico, Montana                and
El Paso, Texas.
                5.  North Central--Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, South Dakota, North
                Dakota, Nebraska and Illinois.
                6.  Mid-America--Missouri, Kansas and Oklahoma.
                7.  East Central--Ohio, Indiana, Michigan  and West Virginia.
                8.  South Central--Louisiana and Texas
                9.  Southeast Central--Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, Mississippi               and
Alabama.
                10. Southeast--North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida.
                11. The East--Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Hampshire,               Vermont,
New York, Pennsylvania, D.C., Maryland, and Virginia.

Proposed amendment #31:  Add Hawaii to the Southern California region and
Connecticut to the East region.

Rationale:  To include all 50 states.

         III. Standing Committees:  The standing committees of this Association
shall   include :

                Section 7: Professionalism Committee.  This committee shall promote
                the professional development of director/coaches, coaches, and the
                graduate/undergraduate assistants associated with debate programs               and
the marketing of intercollegiate debating.

Proposed amendment #32:  Replace the word "Professionalism" with
"Professional Development."

Rationale:  This would provide a more accurate name for the committee.

Proposed amendment #33:  Delete "and the marketing of intercollegiate
debating."

Rationale:  This is currently being accomplished through the Public
Relations committee.

        IV. Topic Selection

                 Section 2: In early May the committee will report to the Executive
                Secretary no fewer than three problem areas to be voted upon by the
                general membership. 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:

Proposed amendment #34:  Delete the phrase "In early May" and replace it
with "Within the two weeks following the National tournament."

Rationale:  To provide a better timeframe for topic selection process.

                Section 3: The Executive Secretary will distribute a topic selection
ballot          to all CEDA members in early July. Only mailed ballots received
by the          designated deadline of August 1  will be accepted.  If August 1
falls on                Saturday or Sunday, the deadline will be on the preceding
Friday.

Proposed amendment #35:  Add the words "or faxed" to the second sentence,
delete the word "designated" from the second sentence, add the words
"designated by the Executive Secretary" to the second sentence, and
delete the words "of August 1" from the second sentence.  Also add a
third sentence which reads:  "The designated deadline must be no more
than five days before the topic announcement date."  The sentences would
then read:  "Only mailed or faxed ballots received by the deadline
designated by the Executive Secretary will be accepted. The designated
deadline must be no more than five days before the topic announcement
date."

Rationale:  To allow the Executive Secretary to adjust the deadline to
fit her/his schedule.

                Section 4: The topics will be selected through a weighted preferential
                voting system  The first choice within each category of a ballot
receives                five points, second selection four, etc. In order to be
counted, not all                choices on the ballot need be ranked.  The topic
receiving the most              weighted votes within each category will be
selected.

Proposed amendment #36:  Add the following phrase to the beginning of the
second sentence:  "For example, if there are five topics on the ballot,."

Rationale:  For clarification.

                Section 5: The fall CEDA topics will be announced on August 1.  If
                August 1 falls on Saturday or Sunday, the topics will be announced on
                the preceding Friday.

Proposed amendment #37:  Amend Article IV section 5 to read:  "The CEDA
topics will be announced on the last Friday in July.

Rationale:  Simplification.

        V. Tournament Sanctioning:

                Section 1: For a CEDA tournament to carry sweepstakes points, it must
                be sanctioned by the Executive Secretary and listed in the official
                Calendar of CEDA Tournaments. To apply for tournament sanctioning,
                the college or organization must request the CEDA Executive Secretary
                for approval to hold a CEDA tournament at least 60 days in advance of
                the scheduled tournament.

Proposed amendment #38:  Add the word "initial" to the second sentence.
The sentence would then read:  "To apply for initial tournament
sanctioning, the college or organization must request the CEDA Executive
Secretary for approval to hold a CEDA tournament at least 60 days in
advance of the scheduled tournament."

Rationale:  To remain consistent with current practices.

                Section 2:  Tournaments once sanctioned by the Executive Council
                continues to be approved until the tournament is not held for two
                consecutive years. If an approved tournament has been canceled by its
                host school two years in succession, then a written explanation must
                be offered to and accepted by the Executive Secretary before that
                tournament will be placed again on the Official CEDA Calendar. Any
                tournaments finding themselves in this position will be so notified.

Proposed amendment #39:  Replace the words "Council continues" in the
first sentence with "Secretary continue."

Rationale:  Current practices and grammar.

                Section 3:  Approval of a tournament as qualifying to award CEDA
                sweepstakes points may be rescinded by a two-thirds vote at a
                business meeting of CEDA, provided a month's prior notice has been
                given that it will be on the agenda for that business meeting.

Proposed amendment #40:  Replace the words "business meeting of CEDA"
with the words "meeting of the Executive Council."

Rationale:  To remain consistent with current practices.

                Section 7: CEDA approved tournaments for the first semester of a year
                may commence no sooner than the third Friday of  September.             Regional
workshops on CEDA debate and the topics are encouraged          between
announcement time and commencement of  the official fall                season.  The
Executive Council will conduct the Association's National               Tournament to
end the season, at which time Sweepstakes Awards                shall be presented.

Proposed amendment #41:  Delete the phrase "for the first semester of a
year."

Rationale:  Simplification.

Proposed amendment #42:  Replace the words "Executive Council" with
"President."

Rationale:  To be consistent with current practices.

        VII. Eligibility to Earn Points in CEDA Debate

                Section 4:  Adjudication Procedures for Bylaw VII:

                        D.  If evidence is unclear, or if any party to the complaint                    wishes
to appeal, the matter shall be forwarded to the CEDA                    Executive Council
for resolution. The Executive Secretary shall                   forward to all members
of the Executive Council by a copy of                   the complaint and all evidence
submitted by the parties. All                   appeals must be filed within two-weeks
of notification.

                                2. After a two-week review period, the CEDA                             President shall
poll the Executive Council members                              by phone to determine whether a
decision regarding                              the alleged violation can be rendered by phone or
                                whether an evidentiary hearing is needed.  A majority                           vote of the
Executive Council is required to dispose                                the case.

Proposed amendment #43:  Following the word "phone," add "or
e-mail."

Rationale:  To encourage more voter participation.

                                        a. If a majority of the Executive Council                                       renders a decision by
phone, that decision                                    will be reported to the Executive Secretary,
                                        who will notify the parties involved of the                                     decision and adjust
CEDA points in a                                        manner consistent with  the decision.

Proposed amendment #44: Following the word "phone," add "or
e-mail."

Rationale:  To encourage more voter participation.

                                        b. If a majority of the Executive Council votes                                         in favor of a
hearing or if the Executive                                     Council fails to render a majority
decision by                                     phone ballot, a hearing shall be scheduled                                      at the
next regular meeting of the council.

Proposed amendment #45:  Following the word "phone," add "or
e-mail."

Rationale:  To encourage more voter participation.

         VIII. Transfer Student Eligibility

                D.  If evidence is unclear, or if any party to the complaint wishes to
                appeal, the matter shall be forwarded to the CEDA Executive Council
                for resolution.  The Executive Secretary shall forward all members of
                the Executive Council by registered mail, a copy of the complaint and
all             evidence submitted by the parties. All appeals must be filed within
two-            weeks of notification.

                                         2. After a two week review period, the CEDA
President shall                         poll the council members by phone to determine whether
a                       decision regarding the alleged violation can be rendered by                     phone
or whether an evidentiary hearing is needed.  A majority                        of the
Executive Council is required to dispose the case.

Proposed amendment #46:  Following the word "phone," add "or
e-mail."

Rationale:  To encourage more voter participation.

                                                a.  If a majority of the council renders a
decision by                             phone, that decision will be reported to the Executive
                                Secretary, who will notify the parties involved of the                          decision
and adjust CEDA points appropriate to the                               decision.

Proposed amendment #47:  Following the word "phone," add "or
e-mail."

Rationale:  To encourage more voter participation.

                                b.  If a majority of the council votes in favor of a                            hearing or
if the Executive Council fails to render a                              majority decision by phone
ballot, a hearing shall be                              scheduled at the next regular meeting of
the council.

Proposed amendment #48:  Following the word "phone," add "or
e-mail."

Rationale:  To encourage more voter participation.

        XI. National Tournament Research Procedures

                Section 6:  CEDA Research Committee Responsibilities

                        D.  The Research Committee Chair shall notify proposals of                      their
disposition.

Proposed amendment #49:  Replace the word "proposals" with "applicants"
and add "of their proposals" to end the sentence.  The sentence would
then read:  "The Research Committee Chair shall notify applicants of the
disposition of their proposals."

Rationale:  Grammar.

        XII. Awards.   Among the awards given by the Association at the National
        Tournament are the following:

                Section 1:  Scholastic Debater Award, which  will be given annually to
a               maximum of thirty CEDA debaters for outstanding achievement in
                debate, scholastics and community service.

                                B.  Selection Process.  The President will appoint a
selection                       committee.  Nominations must be in writing, including as
                        much supporting material as appropriate. Nominations may                        come from
any member school. Recipients may not be from                   the same school.  The
selection committee as much as                  appropriate should encourage diversity
in the selection                        process.

Proposed amendment #50:  Replace "Recipients may not be from the same
school" with "No more than two students from a given school shall receive
this award."

Rationale:  To be less restrictive and to allow larger squads fairer
representation with this award.

                Section 2:  All-American Debate Squad Award, which will be given
                annually to a maximum of  thirty CEDA debaters for their competitive
                success; good conduct; and squad contributions.


                        B.  Selection Process.  There will be at least one recipient                    from
each of the CEDA districts and at-large recipients (who                         may come from
any district) to total no more than thirty.  At                         least two recipients
must be from community college                  programs. The President will appoint a
selection committee.                    Nominations will come from regional
representatives. Only                   one recipient per school, per year, will be
allowed.

 Proposed amendment #51:  Delete "Nominations will come from regional
representatives. Only one recipient per school, per year, will be
allowed." and replace with "No more than two students from a given school
shall receive this award."

Rationale:  To be less restrictive and to allow larger squads fairer
representation with this award.

        Section 8: The National Public Debate Award.

                C. The CEDA President shall designate appropriate individuals or a
                committee  to receive, evaluate, and archive materials.  The
individuals             or committee may elect to give up to three awards
(recognized by          plaques or trophies) and may also recognize as many
Honorable               Mention entrants as they deem appropriate.  Each awardee and
                Honorable Mention will receive recognition through letters sent to the
                appropriate officers of their academic institutions.  Portfolios will
be              submitted to the designated individual or
                committee representative no later than the entry due date of the CEDA
                national tournament.

Proposed amendment #52:  Replace the word "awardee" with "recipient."

Rationale:  Grammar.

        XVII. Suggestions for Tournament Administration:  Many items related to
        tournament administration are not ethical issues.  Furthermore, except
for     provisions contained in Bylaws V of the CEDA Constitution, the Cross
        Examination Debate Association leaves tournament administration
procedures      to local hosts.  In order to assist students and coaches who
seek information        about  tournament procedures, this Suggestions for
Tournament Administration       sets forth some guidelines which typify the
operations of many debate       tournaments.

                Section 3:.  Guidelines for tournament invitations which promote fair
                competition should include:

                        F.  Explanation of judge assignment procedures used (i.e.,
                        "random," "power," etc.). Invitations should indicate whether a
                        judge preference/strike system will be used.

Proposed amendment #53:  Replace the word "power" with the words
"mutually preferred."

Rationale:  Reflects current practices.

        XVIII. EVIDENCE POLICY

                C.  Competitors shall be prohibited from using evidence without
                allowing their judges and opponents to examine the evidence on
                request, and without providing on request sufficient documentation on
                the source of the evidence which would allow another person to locate
                the quotation in its original form.

Proposed amendment #54:  Delete the words "be prohibited from using
evidence without" and change "allowing" to "allow" in the first clause,
and delete the word "without" and change the word "providing" to
"provide" in the second clause.  This section would then read
"Competitors shall allow their judges and opponents to examine the
evidence on request, and provide on request sufficient documentation on
the source of the evidence which would allow another person to locate the
quotation in its original form.

Rationale:  Simplification.

                D.  Adjudication Procedures for by-law XVII:
                        4.  When a challenge is made after the CEDA National
                        Tournament, the following procedures apply:
                                g.  Once a decision is made the President will report                           the result
in writing to all parties.

Proposed amendment #55:  Delete XVIII D4 g.

Rationale:  XVIII D4 f(3) delegates this task to the Executive Secretary.


___________________________________________________________________
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 Nov  1 14:01:01 1999
Message-Id: <MON.1.NOV.1999.140101.0500.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 46776 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 17:27:48
 -0500
Precedence: bulk
Received: from alpha.selu.edu (alpha.selu.edu [147.174.1.7]) by list.uvm.edu
 (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA25046 for <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Mon,
 1 Nov 1999 17:27:37 -0500
Received: from selu.edu by selu.edu (PMDF V5.2-32 #39798) id
 <01JHTQGEX0689I58OS at selu.edu> for edebate at list.uvm.edu; Mon, 1 Nov
 1999 16:27:09 CDT
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Message-ID: <01JHTQGEX14I9I58OS at selu.edu>
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 14:01:01 -0500
Reply-To: selliott at SELU.EDU
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Scott Elliott <selliott at SELU.EDU>
Organization: Southeastern Louisiana University
Subject: Mardi Gras Tournament Invitation, March. 3-5, 2000

Dear Colleagues:

You are cordially invited to the Mardi Gras Speech and Debate tournament hosted by Southeastern Louisiana University, March 3-5, 2000. We will be offering Open, Junior Varsity, and Novice policy debate as well as a non-policy division using the CEDA topic and AFA Individual events.

We are continuing our tradition of setting our schedule so you can enjoy the Mardi Gras Festivities Saturday evening. The I.E. and Debate schedule will allow you and your students to enjoy Mardi Gras parades in Metarie or New Orleans. Also, the first elmination round allows for plenty of recovery time on Sunday.

Please make any hotel and travel arrangements as soon as possible. Remember, Mardi Gras is the largest block party in the United States. Every year we have people call the week before the tournament saying "Gee, we can't find any rental cars or plane flights into Louisiana." Don't let this happen to you.

If you have questions concerning the tournament, please contact me at:
selliott at selu.edu   or 504-549-5408

HOTEL INFORMATION

The Tournament Hotels are the Holiday Inn-Hammond and The EconoLodge-Hammond. The share the same parking lot.  The Holiday Inn (tracking code SDT) is $81.25 per night for rooms with double beds.  504-345-0556.  We have a limited block of rooms at the Holiday Inn.  The Econolodge is $49.95 per night for rooms with double beds. (Tracking code is also SDT). The Econolodge number is 504-542-9425.

Other Hotels in the Hammond Area (all within 3 miles of campus):
Ramada Inn, 42309 S. morrison Blvd, Hammond 504-542-1000
Western Inn 14175 Hwy 190, Hammond, 504-542-8555
Days Inn 2150 SW Railroad  504-419-1000
Comfort 2001 SW Railroad  504-345-1900

THIS TOURNAMENT ABIDES BY THE CEDA STATEMENT ON SEXUAL DISCRIMINATION

TRANSPORTATION INFORMATION
Air Travel: We suggest Flights into the New Orleans airport. Once you arrive at
the N.O. Airport, take I-10 West 10 miles to I-55. Travel North on I-55 for 22
miles. Take the S. Morrison Street Exit. The Econolodge and Holiday Inn will be on your left.

Car or Van: Hammond is at the junction of I-55 and I-12. From the east, take I-10 to I-12 to Hammond.
>From the West, take I-10 to I-12 (the split is in Baton Rouge) straight to Hammond.

>From the North, take I-55 down to Hammond.

HOW TO GET TO SLU
Late registration will be held at D. Vickers Hall, SLU. From the Holiday Inn: Take Morrison. Travel North about four miles. At the Stoplight, turn right onto University Parkway. Travel about one mile. You are now at SLU. D. Vickers Building is across the street from the SLU Library.

Debate Entry Information
Debate: Open, JV, Novice, policy debate and a non-policy division if it makes.
Six preliminary rounds and appropriate out rounds. Divisions will not be collapsed unless it is absolutely necessary. We have had all three divisions make it to quarters last year. The Debate format will be 8-3-5 with 8 minutes prep. Novice and JV eligibility is in keeping with CEDA rules. THE WILL BE A 15 MINUTE FORFIET RULE IN EFFECT. We have only enforced it a few times, but we try to get the rounds finished as quickly as possible.  TABROOM: Mike Krueger of MTSU will be running a stellar operation again this year.
Fees: $60.00 per team.  NO UNCOVERED TEAMS WILL BE ALLOWED THIS YEAR. You must cover your entries. Each judge counts toward two teams.

E-mail entries to: selliott at selu.edu.   Phone: 504-549-5408  fax 504-549-3960.

DEBATE TOURNAMENT SCHEDULE
Thursday March 2nd. 6:00 to 11:00 p.m.  Early Registration and Reception at the Holiday Inn. New Orleans Room.

Friday, March 3.
1:00pm to 2:30 p.m. Late Registration
3:00pm              Pairings for Rounds 1 and 2 Released (presets)
3:30                Round One Debate Begins  (forfiets begin at 3:45)
5:30                Round Two Debate Begins  (foreits at 5:45)
7:30                Round Three Debate Begins

Saturday March 4.
8:00-9:00       Parings for round Four released. Coffee and King Cake
9:00            Round Four Debate  (for. at 9:15)
11:00           Round Five Debate (for at 11:15)
1:00            Round Six Debate  (for. at 1:15)

When you are done, you can go to Mardi Gras. Breaks will be posted at D. VickersASAP and Back at the Tournament Hotel (Holiday Inn) by 9:00p.m. or earlier Saturday Evening.

Sunday March 5
8:00am  Coffee and King Cake
9:00 am Pairings released
10:00 am 1st Elimination Round begins  (forfiets at 10:15 a.m.)
12:00   Awards Ceremony
        Next Elimination Round will be announced: Each team will be given 30 minutes after the announcement of the pairings to get to their rounds and to begin speaking.


IE Entry Information
Thursday March 2  Early Registration at the hotel

Friday March 3
12:00-3:30      Late Registration
3:30            Extemp Draw
4:00-5:00       Rd. 1 Flight A
5:15-6:15       Rd.1 flight B
6:15            Extemp. Draw
6:45-7:15       Rd.2 Flight A

Saturday March 4
8:00            Rd. 1 Flight C
9:30            Rd. 2 Flight B
11:00           Lunch
12:30           Rd. 2 Flight C
1:30            Extemp Draw
2:00            Finals Flight A

Sunday March 5
9:00            Finals Flight B
10:30           Finals Flight C
12:00           Awards Ceremony


Scott M. Elliott, Ph.D
Southeastern Louisiana University
504-549-5408   selliott at selu.edu



From kminch  Mon Nov  1 17:06:11 1999
From: kminch (Kevin Minch)
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 17:06:11 -0600
Subject: ADOF Position at Truman State
Message-ID: <MON.1.NOV.1999.170611.0600.KMINCH@TRUMAN.EDU>

I posted this a couple of months ago, but here's a reminder to anyone
potentially interested in this position.  We will have representatives at
NCA Placement for informal discussions about the job. . .

COMMUNICATION/FORENSICS:  Truman State University, Missouri's public
liberal arts and sciences university, announces the following tenure track
position in Communication/Forensics beginning Fall 2000:  Assistant
Professor of Communication and Assistant Director of Forensics.  The
successful candidate will have an excellent graduate and undergraduate
record and experience in forensics and forensics administration.  This
person will be able to teach public speaking, argumentation, oral advocacy
and debate, and courses in an area of specialty.  Ph.D. preferred, A.B.D.
considered.

Truman competes in intercollegiate parliamentary debate, CEDA/NDT policy
debate, and individual events; the ideal candidate will be qualified to
coach in at least two of these areas.  Students have won the State debate
championships for much of the past decade, placed in AFA finals, and
competed in elimination rounds of NPDA.

Send letter of application, vita, undergraduate transcripts, graduate
transcripts (copies of both acceptable now), three recent letters of
recommendation, names and phone numbers (and e-mail addresses if possible)
of three references, and evidence of teaching effectiveness to ADOF Search
Committee, Division of Language and Literature, MC 310, Truman State
University, Kirksville, MO  63501.  Faculty representatives will be
available at NCA Placement Service.  Reviews will begin January 14, 2000,
and continue until position is filled.  Truman is an EEO institution
committed to cultural diversity and compliance with the Americans with
Disabilities Act and welcomes applications from minority candidates.
Kevin Minch, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor and Director of Forensics
Division of Language and Literature
310 McClain Hall
Truman State University
Kirksville, MO  63501
(660) 785-5677 Office
(660) 665-7092 Home



From kenneth.delaughder  Mon Nov  1 17:48:07 1999
From: kenneth.delaughder (Kenneth DeLaughder)
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 16:48:07 -0700
Subject: Klemz...SIU
Message-ID: <MON.1.NOV.1999.164807.0700.KENNETH.DELAUGHDER@ENMU.EDU>

could you backchannel me when you get the chance
Ken

>From  Mon Nov  1 18:56:23 1999
Message-Id: <MON.1.NOV.1999.185623.EST.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 47545 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 19:30:18
 -0500
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 TAA22930 for
 <EDEBATE at list.uvm.edu>; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 19:30:15 -0500
Received: from Pacedebate at aol.com by imo24.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id
 nGLSa11406 (4597) for <EDEBATE at list.uvm.edu>; Mon, 1 Nov 1999
 18:56:23 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 14
Message-ID: <0.cfdb5d8e.254f82a7 at aol.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 18:56:23 EST
Reply-To: Pacedebate at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Pace Debate <Pacedebate at AOL.COM>
Subject: Harvard octos pairings

wake fl v emory hm
dartmouth bg v emory lh
texas ge v iowa lr
emory cr v kansas em
west georgia sh v msu dm
michigan ps v umkc cb
gonzaga mk v wake forest ac



From sharris  Mon Nov  1 18:35:23 1999
From: sharris (SCOTT HARRIS)
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 18:35:23 -0600
Subject: Harvard Results
Message-ID: <MON.1.NOV.1999.183523.0600.SHARRIS@FALCON.CC.UKANS.EDU>

Excuse me if I'm inaccurate on anything

Finals
Emory LH and Emory HM closes out

Semis
Emory HM (aff) 2-1 over Kansas EM
Emory LH (aff) 3-0 over Texas GE

Quarters
Kansas EM (neg) 3-0 over Emory BG
Texas GE (neg)  3-0 over Wake AC
Emory LH (aff)  2-1 over MSU DM
Emory HM (neg) 2-1  over Mich PS

Octas

Emory HM (neg) over Wake FL
Emory BG (neg) over MSU BC
Texas GE (neg) over Iowa LR
Emory LH (neg) over Dartmouth BG
Mich PS  (aff) over UMKC BC
MSU DM (neg)  over W. Georgia SH
Wake AC (neg) over Gonzaga MK
Kansas EM (neg) over Emory CR


5-3 's not clearing in order

Ky JR
Pace KP
Redlands GM
NU SJ
Kansas MM
W. Georgia BS
Mich SM
MSU ML
Gtown WF
Wake DS

6 5-3's did clear

I am not posting speaker awards because Ross wants to go to dinner.




#####LOCO IN LAWRENCE#####
(Nuts In Newton)



From gachten  Mon Nov  1 18:11:14 1999
From: gachten (Achten, Greg)
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 16:11:14 -0800
Subject: 2nd Vice President's Report
Message-ID: <MON.1.NOV.1999.161114.0800.GACHTEN@PEPPERDINE.EDU>

Here is my report for the 1999 NCA. If you have any questions or if I have
ommitted something you feel is important please let me know.

Greg Achten

2nd Vice President's Report 1999 NCA
Greg Achten, Pepperdine University

I. Topic Committee
                A.      2000-2001 Topic Paper Presentations at 1999 NCA:
There are 4 topic papers being presented at this year's NCA. The presenters
are Toby Arquette of Northwestern University, Heather Walters and Martin
Harris of SMSU, Tony Jones of CSU Los Angeles, and Bob Alexander of the
University of West Florida. These presentations will be Saturday from 12:30
-1:45 P.M. in Room 907, Ninth Floor of the Spertus Institute. Each of these
authors has dedicated a great deal of time to the production of these papers
and I hope the community will turn out to hear these presentations.
                B.      Call for papers: Despite the existence of several
quality topic papers, I am well aware of the difficulty involved in writing
a topic paper before the NCA. As such we will be accepting papers for the
2000-2001 topic until 1 month prior to the CEDA National Tournament. If you
are interested in writing a topic paper please contact me at your earliest
convenience.


II. Research Committee
                A.      Membership: Two people have already expressed
interest in serving on the research committee. Those people are Pat Gehrke
of Penn. State and Kristin Dybvig of Arizona State.  Anyone else who may be
interested in serving on this committee should contact me.
                B.      Research Projects: Any research conducted at the
National tournament must be approved by the Research Committee as well as
the human subjects boards at the host institution (Johnson County Community
College) and at Pepperdine. Anyone interested in conducting research at this
year's National Tournament should contact me and I will provide you with a
packet, which details the guidelines for conducting this research.

III. NCA 2000
                A.      Panel Submissions: Although it may seem early, it is
time to start thinking about submissions for the 2000 NCA. I will be
accepting panel proposals until February 1. Anyone interested in creating or
chairing a panel should let me know.
                B.      Topic Papers: Much like this year, we will have a
panel of topic papers at the 2000 NCA. We can never have too many topic
papers!

IV. 2002 Nationals Host
                I am looking for a host for the 2002 CEDA National
Tournament. Anyone who is even potentially interested should let me know. It
is never too early to start thinking about hosting nationals.



From gachten  Mon Nov  1 18:06:20 1999
From: gachten (Achten, Greg)
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 16:06:20 -0800
Subject: Topic Paper Presentations at NCA
Message-ID: <MON.1.NOV.1999.160620.0800.GACHTEN@PEPPERDINE.EDU>

If you will be at the NCA, you should seriously consider attending the
presentation of topic papers for the 2000-2001 CEDA/NDT season. The
presentation will be will be Saturday from 12:30 -1:45 P.M. in Room 907,
Ninth Floor of the Spertus Institute. There are 4 papers being presented.
The authors of these papers are Toby Arquette of Northwestern University,
Heather Walters and Martin Harris of SMSU, Tony Jones of CSU Los Angeles,
and Bob Alexander of the University of West Florida. These presentations
give you a chance to get a feel for the topic papers and actually ask the
authors of the papers questions. This is also a chance to honor the work of
the topic paper authors, which in the past has been a rather thankless job.
Hope you can make it.


Greg Achten
Pepperdine University

>From  Mon Nov  1 22:29:07 1999
Message-Id: <MON.1.NOV.1999.222907.EST.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 49339 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 22:29:43
 -0500
Precedence: bulk
Received: from imo-d07.mx.aol.com (imo-d07.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.39]) by
 list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA28928 for
 <EDEBATE at list.uvm.edu>; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 22:29:42 -0500
Received: from Zompetti at aol.com by imo-d07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id
 nBZY0ZE5Eb (4560) for <EDEBATE at list.uvm.edu>; Mon, 1 Nov 1999
 22:29:07 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 26
Message-ID: <0.f4db8e0.254fb483 at aol.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 22:29:07 EST
Reply-To: Zompetti at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Joe Zompetti <Zompetti at AOL.COM>
Subject: Michigan State Only

Would someone from MSU please backchannel me?

Thanks,
zompetti



From bauscsa4  Mon Nov  1 21:41:11 1999
From: bauscsa4 (Stefan Bauschard)
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 22:41:11 -0500
Subject: NCA, Ed Theory, & UDLs
In-Reply-To: <0.f4db8e0.254fb483@aol.com>
Message-ID: <MON.1.NOV.1999.224111.0500.BAUSCSA4@WFU.EDU>

Hello all,

I want to draw your attention to a couple of panels at NCA that will look
at educatiional theory to evaluate the debate game.  Two presentations by
Barbara Stone of the Imagination Group and Joel Rollins of UT have are, I
think, of particular relvance to UDL inclusion.

ACADEMIC FORENSICS AS A PEDAGOGY OF INCLUSION


When: Friday, November 05, 3:30-4:45 p.m.
Where: Conf 5G, Fifth Floor, Chicago Hilton
Sponsor: National Federation Interscholastic Speech & Debate Association
Chair: Stefan A. Bauschard, Boston College
"From City to Suburb: Supporting Inner City Students Through Forensics."
Barbara Stone, Imagination Group
"Can Debate Be a Pedagogy for the Oppressed? Reflecting on the Writings of
Paolo Friere." Joel D. Rollins, University of Texas
"Mirror, Mirror on the Wall, Who Is the Most Intelligent of Them All?
Exploring the Potential for Policy Debate to Provide Opportunities for
Students with Non-Traditional Intelligences." Stefan A. Bauschard, Boston
College
Respondents:
David M. Berube, University of South Carolina
Roy J. Schwartzman, University of South Carolina


DEBATING TO LEARN: THE EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATIONS FOR THE DEBATE EXPERIENCE
When: Thursday, November 04, 11:00-12:15 p.m.
Where: Conf 4L, Fourth Floor, Chicago Hilton
Sponsor: National Federation Interscholastic Speech & Debate Association
Chair: Stefan A. Bauschard, Boston College
"From Argumentation to Argumentativeness and Back Again: Metaphoric
Restoration of Civil-ization." Roy J. Schwartzman, University of South
Carolina
"Topoi and Contemporary Argumentation." Joseph P. Zompetti, Mercer
University
"Taking Notes Seriously: Assessing a Positive Relationship Between Flowing
and Taking Notes in the Classroom." Michael R. Berry, King's College
Respondents:
Barbara Stone, Imagination Group
Joel D. Rollins, University of Texas


See everyone in Chicago,

Stefan Bauschard
Boston College

>From  Mon Nov  1 19:48:44 1999
Message-Id: <MON.1.NOV.1999.194844.0800.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 49558 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 22:49:12
 -0500
Precedence: bulk
Received: from bobo.nws.orst.edu (bobo.nws.orst.edu [128.193.4.11]) by
 list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA30662 for
 <eDebate at list.uvm.edu>; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 22:49:02 -0500
Received: from hercules.nws.orst.edu (hercules.nws.orst.edu [128.193.4.32]) by
 bobo.nws.orst.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA04979; Mon, 1 Nov
 1999 19:48:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: by hercules.nws.orst.edu with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id
 <40A3AR3K>; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 19:48:55 -0800
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0)
Message-ID: <33FEA12D4ABFD1119D9000A0C9699E0005929CC9 at hercules.nws.orst.edu>
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 19:48:44 -0800
Reply-To: tgoodnow at ORST.EDU
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: tgoodnow at ORST.EDU
Subject: Re: Brent asks questions
Comments: To: bnorthup at carroll.edu, hunt at lclark.edu
Comments: cc: bduggan at boisestate.edu, cedwards at pcc.edu, mfranke at willamette.edu,
 amandaf at teleport.com, bhewes at lcsc.edu, purcell at spu.edu,
 lattin at up.edu, bmarshal at linfield.edu, cbragg at orion1.csi.cc.id.us,
 cjaffe at georgefox.edu, CraigR at sfcc.spokane.cc.wa.us,
 dkosloski at clark.edu, drwaller at nnu.edu, inches at plu.edu,
 embree at ricks.edu, frappier at calvin.gonzaga.edu,
 gary.gillespie at ncag.edu, gkuper at ups.edu, simegreg at isu.edu,
 biddlej at wou.edu, hansonjb at whitman.edu, KELLYB at clackamas.cc.or.us,
 kmmcdon at cc.wwu.edu, lgalizio at pcc.edu, blakjack at cyberhighway.net,
 deepeco at seattleu.edu, mdugaw at lcc.ctc.edu, rpeacor at rio.com,
 trapp at willamette.edu, sfisher at cbc2.org, mathiess at pacificu.edu,
 shannonv at clatskanie.com, afsaw at uaa.alaska.edu, afslj1 at uaa.alaska.edu,
 TKnapp at orst.edu, christiv at rocky.edu, IE-L at cornell.edu

I'd have to ditto Steve's comments.  For mostly the same reasons!
Trischa

        ----------
        From:  Steven Hunt[SMTP:hunt at lclark.edu]
        Sent:  Monday, November 01, 1999 7:42 AM
        To:  Northup, Brent
        Cc:  CEDA; bduggan at boisestate.edu; cedwards at pcc.edu;
mfranke at willamette.edu; nfc amanda feller; nfc beth hewes; nfc Bill Purcell;
nfc Bohn Lattin; nfc brenda marshal; nfc chris bragg; nfc clella jaffe; nfc
Craig Rickett; nfc Dave Kosloski; nfc dennis waller; nfc ed inch; nfc Eric
Embree; nfc frappier; nfc gary gillespie; nfc glen kuper; nfc greg simerly;
nfc Jeanette Biddle; nfc jim hanson; nfc kelly brennan; nfc kelly mcdonald;
nfc larry galizio; NFC mack sermon; nfc Mark West; nfc mike dugaw; nfc rick
peacor; nfc robert trapp; NFC sallie fisher; nfc Sam Matthies; nfc shannon
valdivia; nfc shawnalee whitney; NFC steve johnson; nfc trischa knapp; nfc
vicki Christi; IE
        Subject:  Re: Brent asks questions

        BBrent
        Brent:
        I would allow the questioning in CA as I would expect it would show
if the
        student really knew her/his paradigm and was applying it well.
        I would vote against dropping pts on ballots. Sometimes pts help
make a pt
        by the critic/judge. Sometimes you can see a bit of a trend in pts.
they
        are therefor helpful to coaches.
        Steve Hunt

        q

        On Sun, 31 Oct 1999, Northup, Brent wrote:

        > Colleagues:
        >
        > A quick Monday question needing a Monday answer.
        >
        > The NIET has two items on the agenda that will be voted on
Wednesday..
        >
        > How do you feel about these two items:
        >
        > 1. adding question and answers to CA ...judge questions for 30
seconds,
        > student answers for two minutes. This would be only for nationals,
but often
        > tournaments use NIET rules.
        >
        > 2. The national office proposes dropping points from ballots.
Totally. So
        > that the rank is the only thing that appears. Breaking from
prelims would
        > then be on some "inverted rank" system like high school.
        >
        > Brent is inclined to vote against both items, but I want to see if
I'm
        > representing you well.
        >
        > Please respond Monday, November 1.
        >
        > Brent
        >
        > P.S. NFC standings will be readied the week after NCA. One stress
at a time.
        > Carroll is hiring, for intercultural and public relations (one
position).
        >
        >




From forensics  Mon Nov  1 22:21:01 1999
From: forensics (Forensics)
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 20:21:01 -0800
Subject: Lying...Disclosure--CX binding??
References: <0.c9f6faf8.254c4c65@aol.com>
Message-ID: <MON.1.NOV.1999.202101.0800.FORENSICS@CITYMAIL.LACC.CC.CA.US>

I would like to echo what both Tony and Bear had to say on this issue. I
lost a split decision in Octos at CEDA Nats in '89 because one of the judges
refused to hold the 1A to his answers in cx and allowed the 2A to do a
complete 180 on the arguments his partner had given away.

My specific comment regarding this issue is for all those who would debate
in front of me: If you make an answer in cx, I will hold you to it no matter
what evidence you may discover in your files between speeches.

What I find most interesting about this issue is the time in which it has
surfaced. In today's world of tag-team cx (which I fully and wholly
support), how does something like this even happen? If you don't want your
partner to make a specific answer, don't let him/her do it. If you are
unaware enough to have let it get out during the cx, you should expect to
take the consequences for that mistake.

Ken Sherwood
Co-Director of Forensics
Los Angeles City College
(323) 953-4453
----- Original Message -----
From: Tony King <AKing50 at AOL.COM>
To: <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
Sent: Saturday, October 30, 1999 5:28 AM
Subject: Re: Lying...Disclosure--CX binding??


> In a message dated 10/29/99 11:48:56 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> jared_1978 at HOTMAIL.COM writes:
>
> << I have read this thread about lying in debate rounds with considerable
>  interest, and i have a few cents to throw into the discussion.  last
weekend
>  at wichita we were in a debate round (nevermind who with) and the
negative
>  ran a interstate conflict disad.  now after the 1nc i asked the 1n about
the
>  link, and they conceded to me that the case does not bite the disad.  so
in
>  the 2ac i cross apply their concession to the disad and go on, now
>  everything should be fine right?  wrong, the 1nr gets up and says that
they
>  have misread their evidence and that we actually do link to the disad
makes
>  the analysis and some additional answers.  now their argument is that
they
>  didnt realize until right before the 1nr that they misread their
evidence, i
>  say nay.  jason (1ar) gets up and screams abuse explains the trade off
and
>  time in both the 2ac and the 1ar and says the round should be over b/c of
>  the abuse.  now round is over and we end up winning on a feminism debate,
>  here's my problem.  we all know that lying pre and in-round happens but
the
>  final decision is the judges, however if the judge will not pull the
trigger
>  on a dishonest, blatently lying debater then what penalty exists for that
>  debater?  had our feminism cards not been as good as they were in the
round
>  the judge would have voted against us completely ignoring what happened
in
>  the round.  is this right?  i think not, how could it be?  look we can
all
>  take the moral high ground and say lying is wrong in debate for debators,
>  but wouldn't it be just as wrong for the critic to let it happen with no
>  penalty?  just a thought, everyone have a good weekend and best of luck
to
>  all of those headed to harvard.
>   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> I don't know if I, as a critic, would vote on abuse, depends on how it is
> argued.  But what ever happened to Cross Examination being binding??  In
> other words, after the concession is given in CX, why does it go any
> farther??  I remember several times when i debated, critics either didn't
> listen to CX or they didn't make it count for anything.  If you get a
> concession in CX, i don't see why the cards matter on that issue.  In the
> case above, when the team says "it doesn't link" then as far as i am
> concerned, that is an admission that the position doesn't link that is
> binding.  If CX isn't binding, then it is worthless.  It would allow
people
> to distort stories on disads, etc.  Just my .02, back to judging rounds
> today,  peace.
>
> Tony King
> Los Rios Debate



From tjpav  Mon Nov  1 23:28:46 1999
From: tjpav (Thomas Pavlovich)
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 05:28:46 GMT
Subject: Lying...Disclosure--CX binding??
Message-ID: <TUE.2.NOV.1999.052846.GMT.TJPAV@HOTMAIL.COM>

I would just like to say that we really don't need to be having this debate
on lying in cross ex.  If you don't get caught then no one will know it is a
lie.  It's know different then running a false position in order to win.  If
you know that the other team won't figure out the lie then I have no
problems not telling the truth.  And if you get caught then you are going to
lose the round anyway so it doesn't matter if you were lying.  In debate
rounds we are often forced to debate positions we don't believe, and cross
ex would just be an extention of that.   It's not like anyone ever listens
to cross ex anyway.

Thomas Pavlovich
Holy Cross Debate


>From: Forensics <forensics at CITYMAIL.LACC.CC.CA.US>
>Reply-To: Forensics <forensics at CITYMAIL.LACC.CC.CA.US>
>To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU
>Subject: Re: Lying...Disclosure--CX binding??
>Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 20:21:01 -0800
>
>I would like to echo what both Tony and Bear had to say on this issue. I
>lost a split decision in Octos at CEDA Nats in '89 because one of the
>judges
>refused to hold the 1A to his answers in cx and allowed the 2A to do a
>complete 180 on the arguments his partner had given away.
>
>My specific comment regarding this issue is for all those who would debate
>in front of me: If you make an answer in cx, I will hold you to it no
>matter
>what evidence you may discover in your files between speeches.
>
>What I find most interesting about this issue is the time in which it has
>surfaced. In today's world of tag-team cx (which I fully and wholly
>support), how does something like this even happen? If you don't want your
>partner to make a specific answer, don't let him/her do it. If you are
>unaware enough to have let it get out during the cx, you should expect to
>take the consequences for that mistake.
>
>Ken Sherwood
>Co-Director of Forensics
>Los Angeles City College
>(323) 953-4453
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Tony King <AKing50 at AOL.COM>
>To: <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
>Sent: Saturday, October 30, 1999 5:28 AM
>Subject: Re: Lying...Disclosure--CX binding??
>
>
> > In a message dated 10/29/99 11:48:56 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> > jared_1978 at HOTMAIL.COM writes:
> >
> > << I have read this thread about lying in debate rounds with
>considerable
> >  interest, and i have a few cents to throw into the discussion.  last
>weekend
> >  at wichita we were in a debate round (nevermind who with) and the
>negative
> >  ran a interstate conflict disad.  now after the 1nc i asked the 1n
>about
>the
> >  link, and they conceded to me that the case does not bite the disad.
>so
>in
> >  the 2ac i cross apply their concession to the disad and go on, now
> >  everything should be fine right?  wrong, the 1nr gets up and says that
>they
> >  have misread their evidence and that we actually do link to the disad
>makes
> >  the analysis and some additional answers.  now their argument is that
>they
> >  didnt realize until right before the 1nr that they misread their
>evidence, i
> >  say nay.  jason (1ar) gets up and screams abuse explains the trade off
>and
> >  time in both the 2ac and the 1ar and says the round should be over b/c
>of
> >  the abuse.  now round is over and we end up winning on a feminism
>debate,
> >  here's my problem.  we all know that lying pre and in-round happens but
>the
> >  final decision is the judges, however if the judge will not pull the
>trigger
> >  on a dishonest, blatently lying debater then what penalty exists for
>that
> >  debater?  had our feminism cards not been as good as they were in the
>round
> >  the judge would have voted against us completely ignoring what happened
>in
> >  the round.  is this right?  i think not, how could it be?  look we can
>all
> >  take the moral high ground and say lying is wrong in debate for
>debators,
> >  but wouldn't it be just as wrong for the critic to let it happen with
>no
> >  penalty?  just a thought, everyone have a good weekend and best of luck
>to
> >  all of those headed to harvard.
> >   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >
> > I don't know if I, as a critic, would vote on abuse, depends on how it
>is
> > argued.  But what ever happened to Cross Examination being binding??  In
> > other words, after the concession is given in CX, why does it go any
> > farther??  I remember several times when i debated, critics either
>didn't
> > listen to CX or they didn't make it count for anything.  If you get a
> > concession in CX, i don't see why the cards matter on that issue.  In
>the
> > case above, when the team says "it doesn't link" then as far as i am
> > concerned, that is an admission that the position doesn't link that is
> > binding.  If CX isn't binding, then it is worthless.  It would allow
>people
> > to distort stories on disads, etc.  Just my .02, back to judging rounds
> > today,  peace.
> >
> > Tony King
> > Los Rios Debate

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



From brobbins  Mon Nov  1 23:56:48 1999
From: brobbins (Douglas Robbins)
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 00:56:48 -0500
Subject: Kant Crushes Hitler
Message-ID: <TUE.2.NOV.1999.005648.0500.BROBBINS@LAW.UPENN.EDU>

>
>I understand Kant's belief that intentions are the basis for morality, and
>that attempting to fulfill duty is moral. However, how does one respond to
>the argument that "Hitler had good intentions" etc.
>
>Andrew Hansen

Looking at intenions is only one part of Kant's much more sophisticated
moral structure.

To answer out of Hitler is as follows:

1.  One must intend to comport with moral duty.  It's not good enough that
you intend to do something that you personally think is the right thing to
do.  That's mere radical subjectivism.

2.  You utilize the categorical imperative ("CI")  in order to rule out
immoral acts.  Such acts will be prohibited by duty.  Intentions to perform
acts that violate the CI are intrinsically evil.

3.  The CI asks (there are three ways to ask the question but Kant thinks
they all amount to the same thing) can you take the maxim of your action so
as to make it a universalizable law.  In this case Hitler commits genocide
(this is the "maxim").  Thus we ask, well, what would happen if everyone
committed genocide (this is "universalizing the maxim")?  The answer is in
such a hypothetical, there would be no one to commit genocide in the first
place, because we would all be dead, because we're all committing genocide
against one another.  Thus the act of committing genocide is an inherent
contradiction; that is, to do it, is to not be able to do it.  Note:  The
issue here is not, "would it be *bad* if everyone committed genocide?"
That's the wrong way to read Kant.

4.  Hitler violates the CI.  His intentions do not comport with
rationallity, and are evil.  He fails to uphold his moral duty, and may not
claim to act in a way that is either rational, autonomous, or keeping with
dignity.

Douglas Robbins



From atauber  Tue Nov  2 00:21:28 1999
From: atauber (Alan Michael Tauber)
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 22:21:28 -0800
Subject: A little help
Message-ID: <MON.1.NOV.1999.222128.0800.ATAUBER@GLADSTONE.UOREGON.EDU>

I'm sure this has been asked a hundred times or so, but does anyone know
of a website with all the case lists for the year?

Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks,

Alan
UO

There is a wierd power in a spoken word... And a word carries far -- very
far -- deals destruction through time as the bullets go flying through
space.

             Joseph Conrad


Quantum mechanics: The dreams stuff is made of.

>From  Tue Nov  2 04:08:55 1999
Message-Id: <TUE.2.NOV.1999.040855.EST.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 38076 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 04:09:34
 -0500
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 EAA09546 for
 <EDEBATE at list.uvm.edu>; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 04:09:32 -0500
Received: from AKing50 at aol.com by imo12.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id
 nMXQa09341 (4072) for <EDEBATE at list.uvm.edu>; Tue, 2 Nov 1999
 04:08:55 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 41
Message-ID: <0.b800ac1c.25500427 at aol.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 04:08:55 EST
Reply-To: AKing50 at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Tony King <AKing50 at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: Lying...Disclosure--CX binding??

In a message dated 11/1/99 9:30:08 PM Pacific Standard Time,
tjpav at HOTMAIL.COM writes:

<< I would just like to say that we really don't need to be having this debate
 on lying in cross ex.  If you don't get caught then no one will know it is a
 lie.  It's know different then running a false position in order to win.  If
 you know that the other team won't figure out the lie then I have no
 problems not telling the truth.  And if you get caught then you are going to
 lose the round anyway so it doesn't matter if you were lying.  In debate
 rounds we are often forced to debate positions we don't believe, and cross
 ex would just be an extention of that.   It's not like anyone ever listens
 to cross ex anyway.
  >>>>>>>>>>>>

I think you miss the point of the original and follow up posts.  The point
isn't that you are arguing a position you don't believe, but that people
deliberately lie in cross ex in order to mislead people, then get up and say
just the opposite in their speeches.  For example, if i say that the Clinton
disad is based on popularity, so you read all your popularity turns, then i
say popularity doesn't matter, it is political capital in speeches.  Or if a
team doesn't read an impact, ie, clinton needs political capital to pass
treaty x, and leave it as that.  in cx, i say that treaty x is good, so you
link turn the disad.  Then in the 2nc i read that treaty x is bad and call
your link turns links.

The point is that cross ex is binding, otherwise there is no point to it
other than 3 free minutes of prep time.  The point of cross ex, from what i
was taught, was clarification, not deception.  And, by the way, I DO LISTEN
to CX when i judge.

And maybe if we are advocating things we don't believe to be true, at
whatever level, maybe we should reevaluate what we debate, as individuals.  I
certainly won't tell anyone that they can't run a position in front of me as
a critic.  However, I am proud of my debaters for finding arguments that they
believe in and care about to debate.  Debate isn't an ends, very few debaters
retire as debaters (though some coaches come close), debate is a means to an
ends, in my humble opinion.  I try to teach my debaters to be advocates, to
find things they believe in and make their debate experience worth something
in their lives.  I think you learn something from most debate positions, even
clinton, but I am glad my debaters found things important to them instead of
selling themselves out for a trophy (though they have won a few of those
too).

If lying in debate, the arguments we run in debate, the tactics we use in
debate aren't a concern to individuals, if we don't care about ethics in
debate, what does that say about us??  What kinds of things are we teaching
our students??  What message does it send??  How would our administrations
perceive us knowing those things??  While this is a competitive event,
granted, sometimes I wonder about its benefits.  Then I will see the world
open up to someone new, and realize it is worth it.

I try to be someone who judges soley on the flow, someone who tries to limit
the amount of intervention and bias, since i find it unfair to make the
students read my mind to know what to argue and how.  But sometimes, I think
that stance as a critic is counterproductive to debate.  I realize that to
others, that level of intervention that i do contemplate is arbitrary to
others, and maybe even to myself.  But that thought still occurs, and it is
becoming more and more frequent that i think about it.  That bothers me, a
lot.  I shouldn't have to tell debaters not to yell or harass other debaters,
I shouldn't have to tell debaters to be ethical, or be forced to vote on
something like ethics, I shouldn't have to feel bad because a team was so
afraid of an argument that they spread the other team out drastically because
they couldn't answer it well, and thus, i voted based on the flow.  There are
many other things like that, and when i find some level of consistency to
this, i will add it to my role of critic.  until then, i guess i am stuck,
but ethics and education should play some role.
Just the optimist,
Tony King
Los Rios Debate



From kenneth.delaughder  Tue Nov  2 04:07:40 1999
From: kenneth.delaughder (Kenneth DeLaughder)
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 03:07:40 -0700
Subject: Harvard Intel
Message-ID: <TUE.2.NOV.1999.030740.0700.KENNETH.DELAUGHDER@ENMU.EDU>

anyone got any intel on cases folks ran, political disad stories and the
like?  Anything would be appreciated...

always collectin the info...

Ken
Emporia Debate



From Gary.N.Larson  Tue Nov  2 07:40:50 1999
From: Gary.N.Larson (Gary N. Larson)
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 07:40:50 -0600
Subject: STA update
Message-ID: <TUE.2.NOV.1999.074050.0600.GARY.N.LARSON@WHEATON.EDU>

Based on tournament reports from the weekend, I am still
interested in hearing about ANY remaining glitches, problems,
error messages, computer lockups, or even your annoyances about
the operation of STA this fall.  I am trying to address as many
problems as possible before the weekend.

Sincerely,

GARY



From LCKanak  Tue Nov  2 07:55:29 1999
From: LCKanak (Lisa Kanak)
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 07:55:29 -0600
Subject: FW: Pretty park email
Message-ID: <TUE.2.NOV.1999.075529.0600.LCKANAK@IBM.NET>

Please read below.  Sorry for inconveniencing you!

Lisa C. Kanak

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Walker [mailto:twalker at isone.com]
Sent: Monday, November 01, 1999 6:58 PM
To: Wanda Smith; Thomas F. Elmer; Steven MacDougall; Phil Hunt; Noni2345;
Mike Lavoie; mike bohnenkamp; Mike & Patty Becker; Merrill Santy; MeLissa
Stolte; Lisa Kanak; Lisa Greenwood; Larry Walker; Kim Kilgore; Kim Kilgore;
Keith Nadeau; jwinningham; Jonathan Winningham; John Holliday; Jean Brown;
Jay Niederman; James & Penny Seal; Jack Corbett; Heather Holter Hall; Ed
Bourque; Dottie Wright; David Winningham; David Sedlacek; David Jenkins;
David Jenkins; David Jenkins; David Jenkins; Dave Sanschagrin; Darlene
Hargis; Christopher Wright; Annie M Bourque; Anita Cann; Amy & Dennis
Cornish; Alice Corbett; Alice Corbett
Subject: Pretty park email

Seems like I was the victim of this VIRUS called "PrettyPark.exe" that was
sent to everyone the other day.  From what I can find out it was sent to me
by one of Heidi's friends using NCIA service provider.  This is not to say
that this is where it originated, but it was sent to me as a harmless email
and by clicking it activated it sending everyone one in my address book.  If
by some chance you have not activated---DONT!!  My brother Larry, the
computer guru for Cabletron, sent me this link to clean it up.  I apologize
for any inconvenience and yes I will update my virus software so this will
not happen again.

Tom

I got e-mail from you this weekend.  Looks like you may have a virus!

This tells you how to get rid of it.
http://www.symantec.com/avcenter/venc/data/prettypark.worm.html

My mail system at work detected it and trashed it before I could open it!

Larry
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/19991102/db4b6681/attachment.htm 


From jwpatt00  Tue Nov  2 10:36:43 1999
From: jwpatt00 (J.W. Patterson)
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 11:36:43 -0500
Subject: TOC QUALS:  NO JESUIT, MANCHESTER
Message-ID: <TUE.2.NOV.1999.113643.0500.JWPATT00@POP.UKY.EDU>

A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 1749 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/19991102/d9dc4730/attachment.bin 


From ldi22  Tue Nov  2 10:54:04 1999
From: ldi22 (Laurie Ishak)
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 08:54:04 PST
Subject: SURVEY-Please help again
Message-ID: <TUE.2.NOV.1999.085404.PST.LDI22@HOTMAIL.COM>

(**for those of you who have already done this please ignore**)

my goal is to receive 150 responses to this survey so that i have a
respectable sampling size--so in an effort to reach that goal, i will repost
this every week or so. thank you for your cooperation


>
>Hi. For those of you who don't know me, my name is Laurie Ishak and I am a
>Graduate Teaching Assistant and assistant debate coach at Wichita State
>University.  I am conducting a research project on intercollegiate debate
>issues.  I would greatly appreciate you taking 3-5 minutes to complete this
>survey. Your anonymity will be respected. If you would like to backchannel
>me with answers, that would be great. If you would prefer to print out the
>questions and fax the responses, that would be great as well. fax #
>316-978-3006 please put in care of Laurie Ishak. And again thanks!
>
>1. Are you male or female?
>
>2. How many years have you been in intercollegiate debate?
>
>3. Is your current debate partner male or female?
>
>4. What percentage of your squad is male? female?
>
>5. Is it typical for you to break at tournaments?
>
>6. Is your coach male? female?
>
>7. Do you consider yourself somewhat competitive? extremely competitive?
>explain.
>
>8. On average, do you feel confident in constructive and rebuttal speeches?
>explain.
>
>9. On average, do you feel confident in cross-examination in a round?
>explain.
>
>10. On average, do you feel confident in post-round discussions with the
>judge? explain.
>
>11. On average, do you think debaters are rewarded or punished by judges
>for
>being aggressive in rounds?
>
>12. Do you think it's possible to be overly aggressive in rounds and if so
>is that a problem for you?
>
>13.  Is it difficult for you as a debater to handle overly aggressive
>competitors?
>
>14. What do you think is one quality every national champion debater should
>possess?
>
>15. If you could change one aspect of your debate style what would it be?
>
>
>Thank you for your time!!
>
>
>Laurie Ishak
>WSU
>
>______________________________________________________
>Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

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



From treadwaygj  Tue Nov  2 11:05:54 1999
From: treadwaygj (Glenda Treadaway)
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 12:05:54 -0500
Subject: First VP Report
Message-ID: <TUE.2.NOV.1999.120554.0500.TREADWAYGJ@CONRAD.APPSTATE.EDU>

First Vice President's Report
        Cross Examination Debate Association Business Meeting
        National Communication Association Convention
        November 1999
        Submitted by Dr. Glenda J. Treadaway
        Appalachian State University

I.      2001 - CEDA Nationals

        Dr. Russell Church will be discussing a possible bid on behalf of
Middle Tennessee State University.  Details will be available at the
meetings at NCA.  I would like to thank Mike Krueger, Director of Debate
at Middle Tennessee State for his hard work putting this bid together.
I will post details as they become available on edebate.

II      Awards Committee

        One of the most important events at our National Tournament Awards
Ceremony is the awarding of the Academic All-American and All-American
Debate Awards, as well as the Brownlee Award to an outstanding forensic
educator.  The committee will be finalized by March 1, 2000 and all
attempts will be made to make this committee geographically
representative.  If you are interested in serving on this committee,
please let me know.  The committee will meet at CEDA Nationals to select
the CEDA Academic All-American Debater Awards, All-American Debater
Awards, and the Brownlee Award.  The deadline for nominations is March
1, 2000. (See attached applications for all three awards.)

III.    Summer Meeting

        Once again Scott and Gina Jensen have agreed to host the summer
meetings in St. Louis.  I would like to thank them for their continued
support and hospitality.  I will be checking with Greg Achten and the
members of the Topic Committee before selecting a final date, but it
will be mid to late June 2000.














1999-2000 Cross Examination Debate Association
Nomination Form for All-American and Academic All-American Awards.
Deadline: March 1, 2000 Return nomination to: Dr. Glenda J. Treadaway,
Department of Communication, Appalachian State University, Boone, NC
28608, Phone #: 828-262-2222, Fax #: 828-262-2543, Email:
treadwaygj at conrad.appstate.edu

Nominator's Name:                       Student's Name and School:

Year:                                   Years of High School Debate:

Years of College Debate:                College GPA (for Academic All American):

Major:                  Nomination for:             All American or
Academic All-American

List the top ten college debate awards:


Describe the nominee's academic progress (Academic All-American Only):


Describe specific situations where the nominee exceeded the norm in
working on debate:


Describe specific situations where the nominee helped others on his/her
squad:


Describe the nominee's service for others in the debate community:


Describe the nominee's service for others in his/her local community


Attest to the nominee's professional behavior toward others (judges and
other competitors):


Nominee School's President/Chancellor:


Local Papers:



1999-2000 Cross Examination Debate Association
Nomination Form for Brownlee Award

The Brownlee Award is given each year to recognize a director/coach who
has contributed significantly to CEDA in the areas of education,
scholarship, and service.

Deadline: March 1, 2000.  Return nomination to: Dr. Glenda J. Treadaway,
Department of Communication, Appalachian State University, Boone, NC
28608, Phone #: 828-262-2222, Fax #: 828-262-2543, Email:
treadwaygj at conrad.appstate.edu

Nominator's name:

Nominee's Name and School:

Nominee School's President/Chancellor:

Describe the individual's accomplishments:



From jared_1978  Tue Nov  2 12:03:28 1999
From: jared_1978 (Jared Waters)
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 10:03:28 PST
Subject: Lying...Disclosure--CX binding??
Message-ID: <TUE.2.NOV.1999.100328.PST.JARED1978@HOTMAIL.COM>

  It's not like anyone ever listens to cross ex anyway.

Thomas Pavlovich
Holy Cross Debate

THIS IS THE PROBLEM! I think that this debate obviously needs to happen, b/c
there are people out there thinking the way thomas does.  why shouldnt you
listen to cx if you are judging?  why should we try and justify lying if the
other team cant figure it out.  debater's ought to be secure enough in
themselves and their evidence to not have to lie, lying and getting away
with it doesnt make you a smart or good debater, in my opinion it means you
are weak, sneaky weasel of a debater.  the smart and good debaters are the
one's who are open with everyone, disclose fully and still win debate
rounds, based on their skill and evidence.  just my 3 cents.

jared
sam houston state debate

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



From jwpatt00  Tue Nov  2 12:20:04 1999
From: jwpatt00 (J.W. Patterson)
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 13:20:04 -0500
Subject: TOC QUALS:  NO JESUIT, MANCHESTER
Message-ID: <TUE.2.NOV.1999.132004.0500.JWPATT00@POP.UKY.EDU>

A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 1774 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/19991102/37c5573c/attachment.bin 


From m_baisley  Tue Nov  2 13:29:37 1999
From: m_baisley (Matthew Baisley)
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 11:29:37 PST
Subject: Lost Clothing--Harvard
Message-ID: <TUE.2.NOV.1999.112937.PST.MBAISLEY@HOTMAIL.COM>

   I lost an orange and black jacket this weekend..If someone found it I
would really appreciate a response.  Thanks and sorry for the clutter


matt
umkc debate

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

>From  Tue Nov  2 14:32:28 1999
Message-Id: <TUE.2.NOV.1999.143228.EST.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 45251 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 14:33:08
 -0500
Precedence: bulk
Received: from imo-d10.mx (imo-d10.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.42]) by list.uvm.edu
 (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA20820 for <EDEBATE at list.uvm.edu>; Tue,
 2 Nov 1999 14:33:07 -0500
Received: from Pacedebate at aol.com by imo-d10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id
 nMAK0HBC5T (4183) for <EDEBATE at list.uvm.edu>; Tue, 2 Nov 1999
 14:32:28 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 14
Message-ID: <0.5278e7db.2550964c at aol.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 14:32:28 EST
Reply-To: Pacedebate at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Pace Debate <Pacedebate at AOL.COM>
Subject: clinton intel

Ken asked for clinton info from Harvard.

WTO, Wye River, UN dues, African debt relief and Iowa's sanctions on pakistan
were all run but those have all been run previously.

Seemed like a fair number of teams were running winners win versions like
Clinton needs a foreign policy win now the plan gives him one and he uses
that to get China into the WTO, China in the WTO is bad.

See y'all at Wake,

Tim

>From  Tue Nov  2 14:59:34 1999
Message-Id: <TUE.2.NOV.1999.145934.EST.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 45750 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 15:00:38
 -0500
Precedence: bulk
Received: from imo-d04.mx.aol.com (imo-d04.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.36]) by
 list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA20830 for
 <EDEBATE at list.uvm.edu>; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 15:00:32 -0500
Received: from Pacedebate at aol.com by imo-d04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id
 nKKG0u9xVX (4183) for <EDEBATE at list.uvm.edu>; Tue, 2 Nov 1999
 14:59:35 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 14
Message-ID: <0.9cf72d74.25509ca6 at aol.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 14:59:34 EST
Reply-To: Pacedebate at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Pace Debate <Pacedebate at AOL.COM>
Subject: Pepperdine and Harvard

On behalf of the Pace Debate squad I wanted to send out a sincere thank you
to both Pepperdine and Harvard.
Pepperdine delivers cookies to you in the middle of rounds and Sherry Hall
leads the Harvard crew in providing the best "tournament food" in the country.
Pepperdine hosts their tournament in classrooms overlooking the beach and
Harvard in the hallowed halls of the Ivy League adjoined by hopping Cambridge.
I could go on and on about how these tournaments are different in good ways
but suffice it to say they both are excellent hosts providing outstanding
competition and we really appreciate it.
Harvard and Pepperdine make it worth traveling coast to coast on back to back
weekends.

Thanks again,

Tim



From dave  Tue Nov  2 14:23:05 1999
From: dave (David L. Steinberg)
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 15:23:05 -0500
Subject: Monte Stevens
Message-ID: <TUE.2.NOV.1999.152305.0500.DAVE@MIAMI.EDU>

Monte,

        Please backchannel or call me.  Thanks!

Dave Steinberg
786-242-1155 (H)
305-284-5553 (W)

>From  Tue Nov  2 16:21:09 1999
Message-Id: <TUE.2.NOV.1999.162109.EST.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 46762 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 16:21:45
 -0500
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 QAA24902 for
 <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 16:21:43 -0500
Received: from Sgw8 at aol.com by imo23.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id nQRRa07459
 (4228) for <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 16:21:09 -0500
 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 17
Message-ID: <0.507db801.2550afc5 at aol.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 16:21:09 EST
Reply-To: Sgw8 at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Darius Wilkins <Sgw8 at AOL.COM>
Subject: Sorry, really want to reask the question on translations

     Is it ok to use U of Bagdad stuff with it being translated by a
computer?  What kind of information should I give in the cite if it is ok?

By the way, the scenario that I found is not like Helms Burton, or maybe just
the reverse of it.  We REMOVE sanctions, then reapply specific sanctions as
needed.

                                                      Darius Wilkins
Oh! and all those worms, particularly the one that decided sneaking in cards
and lying to the other team about whether they read it or not, should stay in
that gorgeous apple you hear?  You're making the customers nervous about the
store!



From omcst+  Tue Nov  2 15:30:43 1999
From: omcst+ (Omri M Ceren)
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 16:30:43 -0500
Subject: Sorry, really want to reask the question on translations
In-Reply-To: <0.507db801.2550afc5@aol.com>
Message-ID: <TUE.2.NOV.1999.163043.0500.OMCST@PITT.EDU>

On Tue, 2 Nov 1999, Darius Wilkins wrote:

>      Is it ok to use U of Bagdad stuff with it being translated by a
> computer?  What kind of information should I give in the cite if it is ok?

This seems to be a bad idea. Computer translators are just slightly more
reliable than polygraph tests... On a good day.

Omri.

------
Dragonmen must fly
When threads are in the sky
                             --- Pernese Ballad
------
Contact Info:
   Email: omcst+ at pitt.edu
   AIM: photonh2o
   ICQ: 14078609
   Yahoo Messenger: photon_of_pern
------



From smithr  Tue Nov  2 17:59:04 1999
From: smithr (Ross Smith)
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 18:59:04 -0500
Subject: DIXIE entrants READ THIS
Message-ID: <TUE.2.NOV.1999.185904.0500.SMITHR@WFU.EDU>

We have about 160 teams that want to debate.

I have been trying the last 2 weeks to get enough space for that on campus,
but am less and less optimistic.

It has been suggested, and I heard support from folks at Harvard, that were
we to offer a JV tournament, 30 of the teams would be willing and/or would
prefer that alternative.

The concept: an 8 round JV tournament on campus and 130 teams at the high
school. Both tournaments could run efficiently. JV tourney would get all
amenities, judge pref, elims, etc. Plus, we would treat them very nicely on
campus.

I already have commitments from some teams. Those of you on the waiting list
might improve your chances as would those of you who want to bring more than
4 teams.

This would be a strong JV division.

We are now accepting entries from amongst those who have already entered or
tried to enter the Dixie.

>From  Tue Nov  2 19:20:34 1999
Message-Id: <TUE.2.NOV.1999.192034.0600.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 49488 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 20:21:57
 -0500
Precedence: bulk
Received: from m11.boston.juno.com (m11.boston.juno.com [205.231.100.194]) by
 list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA24688 for
 <eDebate at list.uvm.edu>; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 20:21:55 -0500
Received: (from vandy.debate at juno.com) by m11.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id
 EQGA89V5; Tue, 02 Nov 1999 20:21:21 EST
X-Mailer: Juno 2.0.11
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 2-63
X-Juno-Att: 0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <19991102.192211.-499583.1.vandy.debate at juno.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 19:20:34 -0600
Reply-To: vandy.debate at JUNO.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: vandy.debate at JUNO.COM
Subject: Vanderbilt entries

Here are the entries so far for the Vanderbilt tournament.  Most schools
that are expected to join us have not yet sent entries.  The deadline is
Monday.

7 schools
8 open teams
10 JV teams
18 novice teams


Alabama
        Open    Lamberth/Carroll
                Pfister/Gordon
        JV      Inghram?Jester
                Banks/Bonham
                Phillips/LaCour
                Gonzalez/Stein
                Miller/Minor
        Novice  Pruitt/Scott
                May/Parrish
        Judges  Crenshaw, Prisco, Shaw
Cumberland
        Novice  Frietas/Worsley
                Hitch/Stevens
                Burchette/Frusher
        Judges  Kinser, O'Leary 1/2
Loyola
        Open    Kerman/Hill
                Eggers/McCarley
        JV      Danish/Massa
                Shambailca/Lizak
        Novice  Mahmood/Kinstler
        Judges  Romanelli
Mercer
        Open    Abbott/Woodard
                Dykes/Thatcher
        JV      Cisneros/Noel
                Brock/Morrison
        Novice  Dodd/Wilbert
        Judge   Zompetti
Morehouse
        Open    Coxon/Thompson
        Novice  Flippin/Lowery
                Cooper/Franklin
        Judges  Garner, McPhatter
Samford
        Open    one team
        Novice  five teams
        Judges  three
Tennessee Tech
        JV      Ratledge/Williams
        Novice  Canavan/Wells
                Bynum/Hume
                Bucholz/Marshall
                Wheeler/Jones
        Judges  Kash, Sams, Vandevelder



M. L. Sandoz
Director, Vanderbilt Debate
615-322-3784 Office
615-322-2307 Office
615-673-7340 Home

___________________________________________________________________
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 debate  Tue Nov  2 21:47:09 1999
From: debate (Gusta Elfving)
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 22:47:09 -0500
Subject: Fantasy Basketball League
Message-ID: <TUE.2.NOV.1999.224709.0500.DEBATE@AMERICAN.EDU>

Excuse the clutter...

If anyone is interested in joining another or new Fantasy Basketball
League, please let me know by back-channel.  The league ID# is 58471.
The name is The Unified Forensics League and it is open to anyone (I
cross-posted to the IE-L, Parli-L, and E-Debate).  Oh yeah...the
password is "4n6."  No snickering about the password please.  I'm not
feeling particularly clever right now and it was easy.
Or simply sign up at www.yahoo.com
Gusta Elfving
American University



From laneg  Tue Nov  2 21:58:52 1999
From: laneg (Lane, Gina)
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 21:58:52 -0600
Subject: NCA, President's Report
Message-ID: <TUE.2.NOV.1999.215852.0600.LANEG@WILLIAM.JEWELL.EDU>

 Cross Examination Debate Association National Communication Association Convention Chicago, IL November 2, 1999  Report of the President
  Dear Colleagues--
I am proud to be serving as your president as we approach the last year of
the millennium.  Intercollegiate debate is an vibrant community that
consistently creates excellent thinkers who push the envelope of critical
thinking; debaters are always prepared to challenge each other
intellectually.  However, what has particularly impressed me in the last few
years has been the willingness of debaters to examine vital issues in the
"real world" and extend their critical awareness from the "debate world"
into the dynamic arena of public advocacy.  I have given much of my adult
life to intercollegiate debate, and I find my own participation is one of a
constantly evolving member in this community of learners.  As we begin to
grapple with a new identity and mission statement, I hope we hold onto the
values that we have always held in common -- we are an inclusive community
that loves the logical force of argument and its ability to make us more
informed, more compassionate and more articulate beings.
This year's NCA is approximately three weeks earlier than usual, however,
thanks to a productive summer meeting, we have many important issues on the
table.  We have great people in this organization who are willing to devote
several hours of service on top of coaching.  To all of you who have
volunteered your time,  the members of this organization and I owe you a
great debt of thanks.
  CEDA Nationals 2000  CEDA Nationals will be held March 16-20, 2000 at Johnson County Community
College, Overland Park, KS.  Dr. Amy Fugate, Director of Forensics at JCCC,
is our host.  She has done an incredible amount of work  planning this
event.   Overland Park is within the Kansas City   metropolitan area, and is
about a 45 minute drive from Kansas City International Airport.   The
tournament hotel is The Doubletree Hotel , 10100 College Boulevard, Overland
Park KS  66210, (913)451-6100.  Tournament events will either be scheduled
on campus or at the Doubletree.  The tournament rate is $79 per night.  A
limited number of deluxe suites (workrooms plus limited sleeping
accommodations) are available at $175 per night.  The cutoff date for this
rate is February 15.  You must tell the Doubletree you are coming in for the
CEDA National Tournament.  Major car/van rental agencies operate out of Kansas City International.  We
do not expect to offer local transportation.    JCCC is perhaps the nation's most beautiful community college.  It is an
outstanding public facility.  Ninety percent of the tournament rooms will be
in interconnecting buildings.  Limited food service will be available on
campus; several fast food operations are within five minutes of campus.    While JCCC has enough rooms to accommodate the size of a normal nationals,
the proximity of the NDT and the addition of the nonpolicy division will
probably create a overload on our room capacity.  Therefore, I will be
enforcing a four team per school limit, regardless of division entered, and
will take a first-entered wait list on additional teams.   Tournament assumptions:  I expect to follow the same tournament procedures
as last year.  After consulting with Gary Larson, Wayne Kraemer and others,
I have changed the tournament schedule (attached) and welcome any feedback
until December 1.  I will also be circulating a survey in November to get
feedback on tournament procedures, especially the addition of the nonpolicy
division.  I welcome your input.  I plan to make the nationals invite
available in December.   Debate in a new millennium  As we come to the end of this millennium, there are many challenges ahead
for intercollegiate debate.  We must work together to create a vision for
intercollegiate debate that bridges the past and the future.  We have
discussed some of these issues for several years; it is now time to move
forward.

1. Organizational identity  This NCA meeting will determine is we are ready as an organization to take
the first step toward a new identity.  We will be voting to change the name
of our organization to "CDA -- Collegiate Debate Association."   This was
the number one alternative in the poll taken this Fall by Sam Nelson and
Mike Davis at the University of Rochester.  It came in first ahead of other
suggested names and ahead of leaving the current name intact.  Collegiate
Debate Association is a simple name that reflects who we are and should
stand the test of time.  Our ability to promote the organization to external
constituencies, such as major funders/donors, media outlets, high schools,
academia, etc. does depend upon the clarity of our message -- our name is an
important part of that message.


2. Organization Mission  Several of your colleagues are working with me to create a mission statement
for the organization.  We are looking at the common values and aspirations
of the organization, as well as some historical documents.  It is our goal
to present the mission statement to you for your approval at the 2000
Nationals.
3. Public Relations
Linda Collier has done a remarkable job as head of this initiative.  While
she is still willing to offer input, her other professional demands have
increased to a level in which it is no longer feasible for her to remain the
point person on public relations.  I need a talented individual who is
willing to offer time at nationals and beyond to coordinate the public
relations efforts for the organization.  Interested individuals should
contact me immediately.

4. Fundraising  David Berube and the Professional Development committee are working on a
fundraising document to help support future initiatives of the organization.
We really can't begin fundraising until the name change issue is resolved.
I have seen a draft document from David, and it looks outstanding.
5. Nonpolicy Division  During the summer meeting, the Executive Council and I discussed the
importance of supporting the new nonpolicy topic and division by encouraging
tournaments in each region to offer divisions.  As a result, several
tournaments have offered these divisions, and at this date, at least one
tournament has successfully hosted a division.  While this may seem
discouraging, let me remind you that the early years of CEDA had small
tournaments as well.  We will not be able to label this new division as a
success or a failure for at least five years.  Our next step is to let other
programs know that the nonpolicy option exists.  Mike Eaves, as chair of the
program development committee, is writing a letter to parliamentary debate
programs informing them of this new division.  If you are hosting a
tournament with this division, please let Mike know as soon as possible.
Mike says he expects to get a letter out before Thanksgiving.
6. Contemporary Debate and Argumentation  I would like to take this time to publicly thank Terry Winebrenner for his
outstanding and professional leadership as editor of Contemporary Debate and
Argumentation.  Terry is serving in his last year as editor, which means it
is time for us to look for a new editor.  Mike Bauer is chairing the search
committee, and will have an announcement at NCA regarding this search.  If
you are interested, you should contact Mike at 00mhbauer at bsuvc.bsu.edu.
7. Constitutional Revisions  ML Sandoz and the Constitutional Revision committee took on the tedious task
of examining the constitution to rid it of internal inconsistencies or
inconsistencies with current practices.  The result is a 50+ list of
constitutional amendments designed to fix these problems.  We will be taking
care of these amendments at NCA.  I would just like to say thank you to ML
and her committee for all of the hours of work they put in to improve the
constitution.
8. Other initiatives  Work is ongoing on several committees.  Besides the initiatives mentioned
above, I expect reports at NCA from the Technology Project Team, the Young
Coaches Support Project, and others.   As a final note, I am happy to try to assist you with your own campus
relations are other issues.  If you need a service letter or a letter of
support, please let me know.            Sincerely,      Dr. Gina Lane   President, Cross Examination Debate Association

TENTATIVE CEDA Nationals Tournament Schedule Johnson County Community College March 16-20, 2000  Thursday, March 16, 2000  4:00 - 6:00 pm               Executive Council meeting, Doubletree Hotel 7:00 - 9:00 pm              Public Debate, Doubletree Hotel 7:00 - 10:00 pm Registration and Opening Reception, Doubletree Hotel 9:00 - 10:00 pm    Student Meeting, Doubletree Hotel  Friday, March 17, 2000  6:30am               Release Round 1 pairings at Doubletree 7:00am           Continental Breakfast, on campus 7:00am         Release Round 1 pairings on campus 8:30am               Round 1 11:30am Round 2 3:00pm  Round 3 6:30pm  Round 4  Saturday, March 18, 2000  6:30am               Release Round 5 pairings, Doubletree 7:00am             Continental Breakfast, on campus 7:00am         Release Round 5 pairings on campus 8:30am               Round 5 12:00pm Round 6 3:30pm  Round 7 6:00pm  forum 7:00pm    Round 8 10:00pm President's Reception, Gina Lane's Suite, Doubletree Hotel  S!
 unday, March 19, 2000  6:30am              Release of partial quad-octos round (5-3) (all judges
obligated) at hotel 7:00am              Continental Breakfast, on campus 7:30am         Release of partial quad-octos round (5-3) on campus 9:00am              Partial Quad-Octos round 9:00am         National Business Meeting, campus 1:00pm        Triple-Octofinal Round 5:00pm   Double-Octofinal Round 7:30pm   Reception, lobby of Yardley Hall 8:00pm Awards Ceremony, Yardley Hall (on campus)  Monday, March 20, 2000 (all rounds at Doubletree hotel)  7:30am              Continental Breakfast, Doubletree Hotel 7:30am          Release pairings, Octofinals  9:00am            Octofinal round 10:15am Release of packets to eliminated schools 12:00pm        Quarterfinal Round 3:00pm       Semi-Final Round 6:00pm Final Round

>From  Tue Nov  2 23:11:07 1999
Message-Id: <TUE.2.NOV.1999.231107.EST.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 50723 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 23:11:49
 -0500
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 XAA17870 for
 <eDebate at list.uvm.edu>; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 23:11:46 -0500
Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo20.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id
 nNXCa14300 (4368) for <eDebate at list.uvm.edu>; Tue, 2 Nov 1999
 23:11:07 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 26
Message-ID: <0.36177914.25510fdb at aol.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 23:11:07 EST
Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Michael Bear Bryant <MWBRYANT at AOL.COM>
Subject: Attn: District Nine NDT Programs

Jason Jarvis needs to know if and when we intend to hold a District 9 NDT
qualifying tournament.

So, we need the following info from District programs.

1. Who intends to attend such a tournament? I strongly urge that an actual
tournament take place. I have always opposed the deals Bjork wanted to strike
to avoid holding this tournament.

2. What dates are preferred? I believe that all NDT districts are held on one
of two weekends:
Feb 26-27:  Conflicts with Whitman
Mar 4-5:    Conflicts with NW CEDA Champs and Mardi Gras.

3. What place is preferred?

Jarvis has suggested ASU. I've suggested Ogden. If you have other choices,
please articulate them. Let me know your preference for a tournament
location.

I know it may seem early to work these things out, since for the last 12
years we've not worked these details out until mid-January. That seems
unacceptable for Mr. Jarvis, who seems to need some immediate answers. So,
please respond to me on these issues.

MW Bryant,
No, Jason, I think I can deal with heart surgery and District Rep duties, at
the same time... If I learn that I can't, I'll step down and let the District
choose someone else. It could be you....I wouldn't vote for you, but you
could win...

>From  Tue Nov  2 23:39:44 1999
Message-Id: <TUE.2.NOV.1999.233944.EST.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 36975 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 23:40:25
 -0500
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 XAA03750 for
 <eDebate at list.uvm.edu>; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 23:40:24 -0500
Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo16.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id
 nSWKa12219 (4368) for <eDebate at list.uvm.edu>; Tue, 2 Nov 1999
 23:39:44 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 26
Message-ID: <0.83b258ee.25511690 at aol.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 23:39:44 EST
Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Michael Bear Bryant <MWBRYANT at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: NCA, President's Report

In a message dated 11/2/99 9:04:40 PM Mountain Standard Time,
laneg at WILLIAM.JEWELL.EDU writes:

>
>  4. Fundraising  David Berube and the Professional Development committee
are
> working on a
>  fundraising document to help support future initiatives of the
organization.
>  We really can't begin fundraising until the name change issue is resolved.
>  I have seen a draft document from David, and it looks outstanding.

Several people took me to task, backchannel, for being such a conspiracy-nut
when I insinuated that the name change necessity is predicated on a desire to
access Soros funds....

Check out Gina's own words. Now you understand why the organization HAS to
overlook Berube's past?

Wow. Real professionalism.

Bear



From laneg  Tue Nov  2 23:14:00 1999
From: laneg (Lane, Gina)
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 23:14:00 -0600
Subject: fundraising concerns
Message-ID: <TUE.2.NOV.1999.231400.0600.LANEG@WILLIAM.JEWELL.EDU>

Bear--

David Berube isn't insisting on the resolution of the name change -- I am.
My point is this -- we can't send a letter out to funders until we decide
what name we want those funders to give money to.  I'm sorry if I gave you a
different impression.

If we even get close to accomplishing any fundraising while I am still
president or on the executive council, I will keep your concerns about undue
influence of any funder in mind as we examine any proposals.  I am sure
others on the executive council will share your concern.

Thanks --

Gina


Date:    Tue, 2 Nov 1999 23:39:44 EST
From:    Michael Bear Bryant <MWBRYANT at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: NCA, President's Report

In a message dated 11/2/99 9:04:40 PM Mountain Standard Time,
laneg at WILLIAM.JEWELL.EDU writes:

>
>  4. Fundraising  David Berube and the Professional Development committee
are
> working on a
>  fundraising document to help support future initiatives of the
organization.
>  We really can't begin fundraising until the name change issue is
resolved.
>  I have seen a draft document from David, and it looks outstanding.

Several people took me to task, backchannel, for being such a conspiracy-nut
when I insinuated that the name change necessity is predicated on a desire
to
access Soros funds....

Check out Gina's own words. Now you understand why the organization HAS to
overlook Berube's past?

Wow. Real professionalism.

Bear



From bg20351  Tue Nov  2 23:27:35 1999
From: bg20351 (Siejen Yin)
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 00:27:35 -0500
Subject: ENTRIES FOR BINGHAMTON TOURNAMENT
Message-ID: <WED.3.NOV.1999.002735.0500.BG20351@BINGHAMTON.EDU>

Entries for the Binghamton Tournament are due by 8pm tonite, WEDNESDAY,
November 3, 1999.  After that time, all additional or changes to entries
will be charged an extra fee.

To Date, The Following Schools have Officially Submitted Entries:
-Alleghany College
-Cornell University
-Cumberland College
-Dartmouth College
-Mansfield University
-University of Vermont
-West Virginia University

If all other schools could please submit their entries when they have a
chance, we would really appreciate it.

An Official Team List will be Posted on Thursday Morning.

Also, as entries have been rolling in over the course of the past few days,
an error was discovered on the Original Invite.  The Cost of an Uncovered
Team is $100.00 in addition to the Basic Entry Fee of $50.00 (not the
$25.00 that was posted on the Invite).  We suggest all schools who have
extra judges to please volunteer to judge at our tournament this weekend.
We realize that it is a big favor that we are asking of the Forensics
Community, but, our budget constraints continues to pose a problem.  Any
assistance would be greatly appreciated.  I sincerely apologize for any
confusion or inconvenience this may cause any of you.

Should any of you have any additional questions or concerns, please feel
free to contact us.

Thanks again for your support.  And We Look Forward to seeing all of you in
Binghamton this weekend.


Sincerely,
Siejen Yin
President/Co-Tournament Director
Binghamton Speech & Debate Team



Siejen Yin
CIW #06479
Binghamton University
P.O. Box 6006
Binghamton, NY 13902-6006
(607) 777-3969



"...To help someone else if the greatest gift of all to yourself..."

"...We are all more Alike than Unlike..."
                -Maya Angelou



From sarah.chan  Tue Nov  2 23:18:16 1999
From: sarah.chan (Sarah E. Chan)
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 00:18:16 EST
Subject: gov's cup and advocacy
Message-ID: <WED.3.NOV.1999.001816.EST.SARAH.CHAN@JUNO.COM>

First off, a big thanks to the Los Rios crew and the tab room staff for
keeping the tournament running smoothly.  I swear that I will never do
CEDA and parli at the same tournament, but I did enjoy the experience.

Now, a note on a round 6 parli ballot asked us (Nick and myself, the Los
Rios team of Victor and LaRoy, and our critic Ed Lee) why we didn't feel
that assigning a win and loss did the round justice...

The resolution was Environmental protection is more beneficial than
economic growth.  We ran a case that argued that nature and the
environment have intrinisic value, humans shouldn't be the only measuring
point for policy, etc.  Victor and LaRoy decided that they did not want
to justify economic growth so they extended upon our arguments, bringing
up the idea of nature's sacredness and feminist dialogue.  We felt that
they shouldn't be punished for being on the "wrong" side of the
resolution, continued an ecofeminist discussion and advocated a double
win or double loss.  Both teams felt that we would rather have an honest
discussion about how we felt, rather than focus on refuting the other
team's arguments.  We thought that in-round advocacy was important, the
ballot less important.

Take care,
Sarah
SJSU debate/Chico tag-a-long
"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 pkupfer  Tue Nov  2 23:26:07 1999
From: pkupfer (Peter Kupfer)
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 23:26:07 -0600
Subject: ISU...
Message-ID: <TUE.2.NOV.1999.232607.0600.PKUPFER@NIU.EDU>

Could Somone from ISU please backchannel me.

Peter Kupfer
Northern Illinois University



From gronjm02  Wed Nov  3 00:22:30 1999
From: gronjm02 (Jason Gronberg)
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 01:22:30 -0500
Subject: Looking for Jen from Binghamton
Message-ID: <WED.3.NOV.1999.012230.0500.GRONJM02@WFU.EDU>

Hey Jen,

Give me a backchannel if you're not busy.

Jason
Wake Forest

>From  Wed Nov  3 01:37:16 1999
Message-Id: <WED.3.NOV.1999.013716.EST.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 38014 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 01:38:05
 -0500
Precedence: bulk
Received: from imo-d08.mx.aol.com (imo-d08.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.40]) by
 list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA21074 for
 <EDEBATE at list.uvm.edu>; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 01:37:53 -0500
Received: from AKing50 at aol.com by imo-d08.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id
 nMINo5oCF_ (4235) for <EDEBATE at list.uvm.edu>; Wed, 3 Nov 1999
 01:37:16 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 41
Message-ID: <0.98a29517.2551321c at aol.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 01:37:16 EST
Reply-To: AKing50 at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Tony King <AKing50 at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: gov's cup and advocacy

In a message dated 11/2/99 9:22:50 PM Pacific Standard Time,
sarah.chan at JUNO.COM writes:

<< First off, a big thanks to the Los Rios crew and the tab room staff for
 keeping the tournament running smoothly.  I swear that I will never do
 CEDA and parli at the same tournament, but I did enjoy the experience.
 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

This tournament is especially hard for those who are involved, since it gives
the opportunity for parli and policy debaters to compete in both events in
the same weekend without having to give up their own event.  3 of the 4
debaters were debating both, and I wouldn't be suprised if Ed was judging a
lot of both (I know i judged about 14 debate rounds this weekend).  It is an
experience, many enjoy, all admit it is exhausting, but come back to do it
again.
>>>>>>>>>>>

 Now, a note on a round 6 parli ballot asked us (Nick and myself, the Los
 Rios team of Victor and LaRoy, and our critic Ed Lee) why we didn't feel
 that assigning a win and loss did the round justice...

 The resolution was Environmental protection is more beneficial than
 economic growth.  We ran a case that argued that nature and the
 environment have intrinisic value, humans shouldn't be the only measuring
 point for policy, etc.  Victor and LaRoy decided that they did not want
 to justify economic growth so they extended upon our arguments, bringing
 up the idea of nature's sacredness and feminist dialogue.  We felt that
 they shouldn't be punished for being on the "wrong" side of the
 resolution, continued an ecofeminist discussion and advocated a double
 win or double loss.  Both teams felt that we would rather have an honest
 discussion about how we felt, rather than focus on refuting the other
 team's arguments.  We thought that in-round advocacy was important, the
 ballot less important. >>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>

As the debate coach for Los Rios, I am proud of my debaters for caring about
what they believe in, instead of advocating something they don't believe to
be true.  They would have had to advocate growth good in their minds, and
they didn't believe that to be true.  I would support them making this
decision in any round they felt this way.
I would also like to say i am proud of Sarah (my good friend) and Nick for
not punishing them for this stance they took.  This is the Sarah Chan that i
have known for almost 3 years, who cares about people, ideas, etc., over
winning a ballot.
I know that LaRoy and Victor enjoyed that round and learned from it and the
discussion.  (Sarah has been doing in depth research on Eco-Feminism for over
a year now).
To me, Debate is about learning to be an advocate (one of many different
benefits to debate).  I hope they keep their convictions to do what they
believe in and not sell out.  That is how change is created, small steps in
life.
Peace,
Tony King
Los Rios Debate



From tlb2b  Wed Nov  3 07:25:23 1999
From: tlb2b (Terrance Lamonte Bond)
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 07:25:23 -0600
Subject: harry niske or one of the concordia debate team members
Message-ID: <WED.3.NOV.1999.072523.0600.TLB2B@FRANK.MTSU.EDU>

Could Harry or one of the Concordia debaters that attended Loyola this
past weekend please backchannel me? Thanks.


Terrance Bond
MTSU



"I'm not policing what you think and dream......."

Tori Amos---to venus and back



From Gary.N.Larson  Wed Nov  3 07:49:10 1999
From: Gary.N.Larson (Gary N. Larson)
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 07:49:10 -0600
Subject: STA training at NCA - UPDATE
Message-ID: <WED.3.NOV.1999.074910.0600.GARY.N.LARSON@WHEATON.EDU>

Reminder:  Note below the details concerning STA training at NCA.
I would appreciate it if those who have indicated that they wish
to attend would confirm that intention in the next 24 hours so
that I can provide sufficient materials.  There are also a couple
of open slots if you have not contacted me previously.  I will
supply software for installation but if you have a chance to
download from my ftp site it will save some time.

Thanks,

GARY

UPDATE:

It is now confirmed that the STA training sessions at the NCA
convention will be at the Hilton.  We will be in the Pullman
Boardroom on the 4th Floor

        Thursday, 6:30-9:30 PM OR Friday, 6:30-9:30 PM
Introductory
session

The ADVANCED session will be in the same location but will be on
SUNDAY AM rather than SATURDAY AM (due to meeting room
conflicts).  The session will begin at 8:30 and will run until
approximately 11:00, though I will stay longer if questions still
remain unanswered.

Please confirm your intent to participate and whether or not you
will need a computer.  Deadline for registration is October 28.
First come-first served.

Sincerely,

GARY

PS Please cross-post to other lists.  Thanks


As I suggested last spring, I will be offering training in the
use of the Smart Tournament Administrator during the NCA
convention.  To minimize conflict with ongoing programs at the
convention, I will offer instruction at three times:

Beginning instruction (for those new to STA or those who have
used it only occasionally)

        Thursday, 6:30-9:30 PM  OR  Friday, 6:30-9:30 PM

        This session will walk through the entire process from
loading
and configuring the
          software through standard operating procedures for
running a tournament.  Participants
            will be supplied with a copy of the software, a hard
copy of
the manual and an entire
          set of test files for the purpose of running the
tutorial.

Intermediate/Advanced instruction (for those who have attended
Thursday or Friday session
      ANDOR those       who have significant experience with STA)

        Saturday, 9:30 AM - 12:00 NOON

        This session will address questions that tournament
directors
have faced using the software.
           It will also discuss problem solving and adapting the
software to unique tournament
           models.  Participants will be urged to submit issues
for
discussion in advance of the
           session.  This session will be highly interactive.

For those who supply their own laptop computer and portable
printer, there will be NO cost for the
sessions.  For those without computers, they will be supplied for
a cost of $50.00.  Connection to a networked printer can be
provided for $10.00 - the latter is optional since copies of all
printed outputs will be provided to all participants.

I am in the process of trying to find a suitable site downtown
for the seminar.  If that can't be achieved, we will revert to my
original plan of meeting on the Wheaton campus.  You you be able
to take public transportation (the Metra) directly to campus or
have transportation provided by one of our vans for a nominal
fee.  Details will follow once we are certain of location.

Sincerely,

GARY

Please post this message to other debate list-serves (CX-L,
Parli-L, etc.).  Thanks



From Regina.Paulose  Wed Nov  3 08:17:21 1999
From: Regina.Paulose (Regina Menachery Paulose)
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 09:17:21 -0500
Subject: shout out to Loyola
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GHP.4.10.9911030723170.10237-100000@frank.mtsu.edu>
Message-ID: <WED.3.NOV.1999.091721.0500.REGINA.PAULOSE@STUDENTS.MIAMI.EDU>

Hey I just wanted to give props to Romanelli, Bill, Walter, Allison,
Bridget, and the rest of the crew at Loyola for having a really fun
tournament. Like always you guys did a great job hosting and even though
we stayed at the "ass" it was alot of fun.

peace
reg
















From twwesq  Wed Nov  3 09:02:44 1999
From: twwesq (Trevor Wells)
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 07:02:44 PST
Subject: Kentucky Supreme Court Election Results
Message-ID: <WED.3.NOV.1999.070244.PST.TWWESQ@HOTMAIL.COM>

Hi All:

For those of you who have been waiting anxiously and patiently for the
results of the Fifth Judicial District Election for the Kentucky Supreme
Court . . .

Justice James E. Keller [a.k.a. "David Arnett's Father-in-Law" and "Boss and
Mentor of Trevor Wells"] retained his seat on the Kentucky Supreme Court
with a 10,000 vote majority (56% of the vote) over challenger Phillip
Shepherd.

That is all.  I'll see you at Wake Forest.

Trevor

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



From jwpatt00  Wed Nov  3 10:59:10 1999
From: jwpatt00 (J.W. Patterson)
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 11:59:10 -0500
Subject: JUDGES NEEDED
Message-ID: <WED.3.NOV.1999.115910.0500.JWPATT00@POP.UKY.EDU>

ATTENTION COLLEGE DEBATERS:

Now is the time to earn cold-hard cash for Christmas spending.  The
University of Kentucky needs judges for our Ohio Valley High School
Tournament Friday, Saturday, and
Sunday, December 3, 4, and 5.  The tournament will begin on Friday
afternoon and conclude Sunday.  We need judges for either all or a portion
of this time.

If you are interested, please contact me for details.  Also, please pass
this message on to
others who you might think are interested.

Sincerely,

J.W. Patterson
University of Kentucky



From lluscri  Wed Nov  3 11:32:45 1999
From: lluscri (II Luscri)
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 11:32:45 -0600
Subject: Calender and Webpage
Message-ID: <WED.3.NOV.1999.113245.0600.LLUSCRI@ARTSCI.WUSTL.EDU>

I am working on Updating Webster University's webpage
(http://gorlok.cjb.net) and anyone who would like to email me a link to
their webpage, please do and we will reference your page in our links
section. Also, last year at the end of the season I made a calender of all
the Speech and Debate tournaments that I knew of and that people sent me
information about and posted it on our webpage. For those of you who never
saw it, it included information about the tournament (dates,
location, divisions, debate formats, etc.), and a contact name, phone
number, and email for the tournament director. I am wondering if people
found this service useful, and if I should make one again at the end of
this season for the 2000-2001 season. Please backchannel me with any
comments.

Thanks,

II Luscri
Webster



From jpkelly  Wed Nov  3 11:47:05 1999
From: jpkelly (John Patrick Kelly)
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 11:47:05 -0600
Subject: Harvard Win %
Message-ID: <WED.3.NOV.1999.114705.0600.JPKELLY@GLORIA.CORD.EDU>

Does anypne know the Aff:Neg win ratio at Harvard?

I was just wondering if it was as unequal in prelims as elims since out of
14 out rounds only 4 affs won.

John Kelly
Concordia College Debate



From jlupo  Wed Nov  3 13:27:58 1999
From: jlupo (Jon paul Lupo)
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 14:27:58 -0500
Subject: MSU Iran Aff
Message-ID: <WED.3.NOV.1999.142758.0500.JLUPO@EMORY.EDU>

Could someone from Michigan State who runs the Iran aff backchannel me
sorry for the clutter


********************************************************************
 Jon Paul Lupo                                     404-251-4320
Emory University                                  JLUPO at EMORY.EDU

 "The one constant through all the years, Ray, has been
 baseball. America has rolled by like an army of steamrollers.
 It's been erased like a blackboard, rebuilt, and erased again. But
 baseball has marked the time.This field, this game, is a part
 of our past, Ray. It reminds us of all that once was good,
 and that could be again. Oh, people will come,Ray. People will
 most definitely come." -- Terence Mann (Jones).



From debate  Wed Nov  3 13:53:47 1999
From: debate (Gusta Elfving)
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 14:53:47 -0500
Subject: AU Tourney-No CEDA
Message-ID: <WED.3.NOV.1999.145347.0500.DEBATE@AMERICAN.EDU>

Community,
It is with regret that I inform you that the The Capital Classic at
American University on December 3-5, 1999 will not be hosting a CEDA
division.  I deeply apologize for any inconvenience that this may
cause.  Our cancellation stems from consideration of many factors
including scheduling, tab staff and turn-out.  Although we actively
sought solutions to these dilemmas, I feel that it is most fair to the
teams that had shown interest to cancel.  If we do it, we want to do it
right and at this juncture we can not.  However, the other divisions
(NPDA, LD and IE) are shaping up nicely and we look forward to hosting a
wonderful tournamnet.  Our intent is to run a succesful tournament this
year that will set the stage for inclusion of CEDA at next year's
tournament.  Once again, I apolgize for any hardship and look forward to
still seeing many of you here in December or elsewhere in the future.
Gusta Elfving-SDOF
American University



From asnider  Wed Nov  3 14:19:22 1999
From: asnider (Alfred C. Snider)
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 15:19:22 -0500
Subject: Novice swing partner for Binghamton
Message-ID: <WED.3.NOV.1999.151922.0500.ASNIDER@ZOO.UVM.EDU>

While we have 14 novice teams entered, we have a student with one
tournament experience who really wants to go but has no partner. Let us
know if you are interested. He's a really good kid.

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 2000 - make
plans now - http://debate.uvm.edu/wdi.html

>From  Wed Nov  3 15:22:05 1999
Message-Id: <WED.3.NOV.1999.152205.EST.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 39111 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 15:22:51
 -0500
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 PAA35088 for
 <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 15:22:44 -0500
Received: from AlwysFishn at aol.com by imo15.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id
 nCFVa03806 (6097) for <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Wed, 3 Nov 1999
 15:22:05 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL NetMail version 2.0
Message-ID: <0.3a291937.2551f36d at aol.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 15:22:05 EST
Reply-To: AlwysFishn at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: AlwysFishn at AOL.COM
Subject: Vanderbilt Tournament

Here's an update to the entries for the Vanderbilt Tournament.

 12 schools
 9 open teams
 17 JV teams
 25 novice teams


 Alabama
     Open    Lamberth/Carroll
         Pfister/Gordon
     JV  Inghram?Jester
         Banks/Bonham
         Phillips/LaCour
         Gonzalez/Stein
         Miller/Minor
     Novice  Pruitt/Scott
         May/Parrish
     Judges  Crenshaw, Prisco, Shaw

 Cumberland
     Novice  Frietas/Worsley
         Hitch/Stevens
     Judges  Kinser,

 Florida
     JV  Aldridge/France
     Novice  Angellis/Childers
     Judges  Kish

 Georgia
     Open  Parekh/McGrath
     JV  Buttigieg/Brock
     Judges  Rufo  and  Galloway

 Louisville
     JV  Webster/Rodgers
     Novice  Brush/Shuff
         Toole/Carr
         Rheaume/Wilkie
     Judges  Bito  and  Cunningham

 Marquette
     JV  Chapman/Krubsack
     Novice  LoPiccalo/Shelton
         Zulawski/Kirby
     Judges  Dasney

 Loyola
     Open    Kerman/Hill
         Eggers/McCarley
     JV  Danish/Massa
         Shambailca/Lizak
     Novice  Mahmood/Kinstler
     Judges  Romanelli
 Mercer
     Open    Abbott/Woodard
         Dykes/Thatcher
     JV  Cisneros/Noel
         Brock/Morrison
     Novice  Dodd/Wilbert
     Judge   Zompetti
 Morehouse
     Open    Coxon/Thompson
     Novice  Flippin/Lowery
         Cooper/Franklin
     Judges  Garner, McPhatter
 Samford
     Open    one team
     Novice  five teams
     Judges  three

 SELA
     JV  3 teams
     Novice 1-2 teams

 Tennessee Tech
     JV  Ratledge/Williams
     Novice  Canavan/Wells
         Bynum/Hume
         Bucholz/Marshall
         Wheeler/Jones
     Judges  Kash, Sams, Vandevelder



 M. L. Sandoz
 Director, Vanderbilt Debate
 615-322-3784 Office
 615-322-2307 Office
 615-673-7340 Home

>From  Wed Nov  3 15:26:12 1999
Message-Id: <WED.3.NOV.1999.152612.EST.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 39206 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 15:26:50
 -0500
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 PAA35198 for
 <EDEBATE at list.uvm.edu>; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 15:26:49 -0500
Received: from JoeCarver at aol.com by imo19.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id
 nUKWa01795 (3974) for <EDEBATE at list.uvm.edu>; Wed, 3 Nov 1999
 15:26:12 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 243
Message-ID: <0.517b46aa.2551f464 at aol.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 15:26:12 EST
Reply-To: JoeCarver at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Joe Carver <JoeCarver at AOL.COM>
Subject: USAFA

    Would anyone who is on a squad planning to attend the elegant affair at
the Air Force Academy next weekend please backchannel so that we can begin to
formulate an idea of who will be competing.  Thanks a bunch.

Joe Carver
CEU Debate

>From  Wed Nov  3 16:58:29 1999
Message-Id: <WED.3.NOV.1999.165829.EST.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 40930 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 16:59:10
 -0500
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 QAA15844 for
 <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 16:59:04 -0500
Received: from AlwysFishn at aol.com by imo25.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id
 nYFa004501 (4072) for <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Wed, 3 Nov 1999
 16:58:30 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="part1_0.f5fb2da.25520a05_boundary"
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 27
Message-ID: <0.f5fb2da.25520a05 at aol.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 16:58:29 EST
Reply-To: AlwysFishn at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: AlwysFishn at AOL.COM
Subject: Fwd: Vanderbilt Tournament

--part1_0.f5fb2da.25520a05_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

In a message dated 11/3/99 12:22:05 PM Pacific Standard Time, AlwysFishn
writes:

<< Here's an update to the entries for the Vanderbilt Tournament.

  14 schools
  13 open teams
  17 JV teams
  26 novice teams


  Alabama
      Open    Lamberth/Carroll
          Pfister/Gordon
      JV  Inghram?Jester
          Banks/Bonham
          Phillips/LaCour
          Gonzalez/Stein
          Miller/Minor
      Novice  Pruitt/Scott
          May/Parrish
      Judges  Crenshaw, Prisco, Shaw

  Cumberland
      Novice  Frietas/Worsley
          Hitch/Stevens
      Judges  Kinser,

  Florida
      JV  Aldridge/France
      Novice  Angellis/Childers
      Judges  Kish

  Georgia
      Open  Parekh/McGrath
      JV  Buttigieg/Brock
      Judges  Rufo  and  Galloway

  Louisville
      JV  Webster/Rodgers
      Novice  Brush/Shuff
          Toole/Carr
          Rheaume/Wilkie
      Judges  Bito  and  Cunningham

  Loyola
      Open    Kerman/Hill
          Eggers/McCarley
      JV  Danish/Massa
          Shambailca/Lizak
      Novice  Mahmood/Kinstler
      Judges  Romanelli

 Marquette
      JV  Chapman/Krubsack
      Novice  LoPiccalo/Shelton
          Zulawski/Kirby
      Judges  Dasney

 Mercer
      Open    Abbott/Woodard
          Dykes/Thatcher
      JV  Cisneros/Noel
          Brock/Morrison
      Novice  Dodd/Wilbert
      Judge   Zompetti

  Miami
       2 open teams

  Morehouse
      Open    Coxon/Thompson
      Novice  Flippin/Lowery
          Cooper/Franklin
      Judges  Garner, McPhatter

 MTSU
      Open    Gaston/Woodward
           Bond/Carter
      Novice   Miedel/Jennings
      Judges  Butler, Osborne

  Samford
      Open    one team
      Novice  five teams
      Judges  three

  SELA
      JV  3 teams
      Novice 1-2 teams

  Tennessee Tech
      JV  Ratledge/Williams
      Novice  Canavan/Wells
          Bynum/Hume
          Bucholz/Marshall
          Wheeler/Jones
      Judges  Kash, Sams, Vandevelder



  M. L. Sandoz
  Director, Vanderbilt Debate
  615-322-3784 Office
  615-322-2307 Office
  615-673-7340 Home
  >>


--part1_0.f5fb2da.25520a05_boundary
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Disposition: inline

Return-path: AlwysFishn at aol.com
From: AlwysFishn at aol.com
Full-name: AlwysFishn
Message-ID: <0.3a291937.2551f36d at aol.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 15:22:05 EST
Subject: Vanderbilt Tournament
To: edebate at list.uvm.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL NetMail version 2.0

Here's an update to the entries for the Vanderbilt Tournament.

 12 schools
 9 open teams
 17 JV teams
 25 novice teams


 Alabama
     Open    Lamberth/Carroll
         Pfister/Gordon
     JV  Inghram?Jester
         Banks/Bonham
         Phillips/LaCour
         Gonzalez/Stein
         Miller/Minor
     Novice  Pruitt/Scott
         May/Parrish
     Judges  Crenshaw, Prisco, Shaw

 Cumberland
     Novice  Frietas/Worsley
         Hitch/Stevens
     Judges  Kinser,

 Florida
     JV  Aldridge/France
     Novice  Angellis/Childers
     Judges  Kish

 Georgia
     Open  Parekh/McGrath
     JV  Buttigieg/Brock
     Judges  Rufo  and  Galloway

 Louisville
     JV  Webster/Rodgers
     Novice  Brush/Shuff
         Toole/Carr
         Rheaume/Wilkie
     Judges  Bito  and  Cunningham

 Marquette
     JV  Chapman/Krubsack
     Novice  LoPiccalo/Shelton
         Zulawski/Kirby
     Judges  Dasney

 Loyola
     Open    Kerman/Hill
         Eggers/McCarley
     JV  Danish/Massa
         Shambailca/Lizak
     Novice  Mahmood/Kinstler
     Judges  Romanelli
 Mercer
     Open    Abbott/Woodard
         Dykes/Thatcher
     JV  Cisneros/Noel
         Brock/Morrison
     Novice  Dodd/Wilbert
     Judge   Zompetti
 Morehouse
     Open    Coxon/Thompson
     Novice  Flippin/Lowery
         Cooper/Franklin
     Judges  Garner, McPhatter
 Samford
     Open    one team
     Novice  five teams
     Judges  three

 SELA
     JV  3 teams
     Novice 1-2 teams

 Tennessee Tech
     JV  Ratledge/Williams
     Novice  Canavan/Wells
         Bynum/Hume
         Bucholz/Marshall
         Wheeler/Jones
     Judges  Kash, Sams, Vandevelder



 M. L. Sandoz
 Director, Vanderbilt Debate
 615-322-3784 Office
 615-322-2307 Office
 615-673-7340 Home

--part1_0.f5fb2da.25520a05_boundary--



From jstone  Wed Nov  3 16:35:59 1999
From: jstone (J. E. Stone)
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 17:35:59 -0500
Subject: Illegal Drugs--A Topic Paper
Message-ID: <WED.3.NOV.1999.173559.0500.JSTONE@RICHMOND.EDU>

                                Topic Paper:  Illegal Drugs

                        Edited by:  Jason Stone and Andrea Whalen

Contributors:  Mohammed Abouzaid, Joe Keeton, Jason Stone, and Andrea Whalen

I.  Context

The context surrounding the debate regarding illegal drugs is easy to
discuss.  Members of our society are awash in information about this
subject.  A nightly newscast hardly goes by without a story on drugs,
public service messages abound and the students in our schools are taught
about the dangers of drugs beginning in elementary school.  The issue of
drugs permeates our society.  It is estimated that in 1996 12 million
Americans used illicit drugs.  The federal government spent $16 billion
dollars to combat drug use in 1998.  That is more than was spent on foreign
aid, the Environmental Protection Agency, public broadcasting, or the
National Endowments for the Arts and the Humanities, and the EEOC combined.
 The nation's anti-drug campaign has had mixed success.  In 1998, 54.1% of
twelfth graders had tried some type of illicit drug. Some scientific
research is beginning to confirm that our nation's D.A.R.E. programs might
actually increase drug use by sparking young people's curiosity about the
issue.  State and federal governments differ about the legality of medical
marijuana.  Advocates say we need decriminalization, legalization,
certification, education, incarceration, prevention, intervention, and
invasion.  Clearly there are many debatable issues within this topic area.

II.  Potential Areas of Debate

A. The Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 -

The Controlled Substances Act (CSA), Title II of the Comprehensive Drug
Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, is the legal basis for the
governments fight against drugs. This law is a consolidation of numerous
laws regulating the manufacture and distribution of narcotics, stimulants,
depressants, hallucinogens, anabolic steroids, and chemicals used in the
illicit production of controlled substances. (DEA web site
http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/abuse/chap1/control/control.html ).  This act
defines the drugs considered criminal, the regulations pertaining to these
drugs and penalties that may be imposed if convicted of drug offenses.

B. Legalization or Decriminalization

1. Medical Marijuana

Several states have adopted legislation that deregulates the distribution
and the use of medical marijuana.  The D.E.A. has indicated that they will
challenge all of these rulings.  Advocates within the legal community say
the Supreme Court should act one way or the other in an act of Judicial
activism to codify the use of medical marijuana into federal precedent.  In
essence the court would leaving the decision up to the states.  There is a
lot of research on both sides of this issue.  A Supreme Court counterplan
either way would have some good ground.  It shouldn't link to political
process/elections/Clinton.  One could run federalism/states and judicial
activism.  This resolution would also have all sorts of really good case
cards and disadvantage ground.

2.  Other Countries' Experiences

A few other countries have legalized or decriminalized the use of all or
some of their drugs.  Lots of web sites compare and contrast U.S. and other
countries crime, use, and policies.  Also provides empirical examples of
how legalization would/might work.

3. Legalization

Legalization would be a great affirmative area.  Advocates of legalization
say that it will fix all of the problems of the fighting a "War on Drugs".
All sorts of advocates say that we should legalize some drugs or all drugs.
 Conservatives and liberals alike agree that the government should legalize
drugs.  Legalization would definitely change policy from the status quo.
Legalization could claim any of the harms of the current system as its
advantage.  That would give the affirmative a lot of good impacts to weigh.
 The negative gets great links to the U.S. & Andean economies, political
process and elections in the first semester, alternative agent of action
counterplans, fighting drugs good.  Finally, the legalization of only
marijuana would stop 1 million Americans from serving mandatory minimums in
our nation's prisons.

C.  "War on Drugs"

A topic on Drugs offers a fair and predictable ground of discursive
kritiks.  There is a significant body of literature attacking the discourse
of the War on Drugs, for example its use of the term "addiction" (Akers
91), but also how the concept of "War on Drugs" is used to deceive the
public (Johns 92).  In addition, several authors criticize the "War on
Drugs" as the ultimate example of governmental technological control, which
is achieved by controlling the discourse on Drugs (Essex 96).  Depending on
the specific wording of the topic, these arguments could form the basis of
critical arguments, to be used by either the affirmative, or the negative.


D.  Supply Side vs. Demand Side Programs

A substantial portion of the drug literature seeks to negotiate the
dialectic between funding for supply                            side drug
reduction programs and demand side programs.  The supply side advocates
contend that fighting the "War on Drugs" will reduce the amount of drugs on
the street and because of the laws of supply and demand increase the
scarcity, and hence, the cost of these drugs.  This increase in price will
make addiction cost prohibitive.  The supply side "Drug War" is fought in
Central and South America , on the streets of America's ghettos, the
suburbs of America's cities, and in America's heartland where some farmers
have found that growing marijuana and hashish for a single season can
generate more money than a decade worth of farming other crops.  The supply
side fight is the primary justification for the exportation of U.S. drug
policy to Latin America.  Demand side advocates state that the reason
America has a drug problem is because American citizens demand drugs.  By
increasing treatment and education programs, demand side advocates in the
drug debate hope to prevent the drug problem.  Believers in the
demand-centered focus contend that we will always fail to win this war.

E. Foreign Policy Implications

Not only does the War on Drugs affect United States National Policy, but it
also effects our foreign relations with other countries.  Over the last few
years, the United States has increased its foreign spending to nations that
pledged to stop the flow of drugs.  This policy decision has many
consequences and opens a large amount of ground on both sides of the
debate.  Issues that can be discussed include Covert Operations, Foreign
Aid, Foreign Spending, Monitoring International Trade Routes, Immigration
Policies, Internal Reactions to US Foreign Policy, Imperialism and
Colonialism.

1. Covert Operations

Covert Operations could potentially play a large role in this topic.  Much
of our drug policy is handled by the State Department, and the Central
Intelligence Agencies.  Visiting their web sites, at www.state.gov, and
www.cia.gov, and doing a simple search for drug policies will return a
large amount of items dealing with the harms of drugs, as well as some
solvency advocates.

2. Certification

One can also look at this issue from the other side of the coin.  Our
foreign aid and spending is conditional upon the receiving country
complying with our demands.  Every year we "certify" other countries
efforts to fight the "Drug War".  This would serve as a link into
imperialism, as well as coercion.  Also, nongovernmental organizations are
beginning to form their own drug policies. This provides counter plan and
disad ground that can center on US Drug Policy versus that of the European
Union, ASEAN, Organization of American States and the United Nations.

3. Foreign Aid

Obviously our Drug Policy deals with Foreign Aid, and Spending.  This
debate has the potential to be very in depth, especially with the 2000
Elections occurring toward the end of the first semester.  Both Candidates
are already taking positions on the drug debate, and both candidates have
quasi admitted to using drugs in the past.  With official positions on the
War on Drugs by both candidates, Clinton debates will have specific links
to specific plans.  Also budget and spending debates will be key, because
there are advocates and opponents for the costs of every drug policy idea
that has been introduced in Washington.

F. D.A.R.E.

D.A.R.E. stands for Drug Abuse Resistance Education.  This year 35 million
school children around the world--26 million in the U.S.-will receive
information on drugs from D.A.R.E.  It was founded in 1983 in Los Angeles
and is now being implemented in nearly 75 percent of the school districts
in America and in more than 44 countries around the world.  D.A.R.E. uses
teachers, police officers and community leaders to inform students, usually
beginning in the fifth or sixth grade, about drugs and alcohol
(http://www.dare-america.com/index2.htm).  This program has stirred
controversy, however.  In one long-term study it has been proven
ineffective (Lynam, et al, 1999).  Worse still was a 1998 report by
researchers at the University of Illinois (Rosenbaum, D.P. & Hanson, G.S.)
(http://mall.turnpike.net/~jnr/uic.htm) showing that suburban students who
attended D.A.R.E. were more likely to use drugs because of the curiosity
aroused by the curriculum.  Another criticism of the program is its stance
that all drugs, including alcohol and tobacco, are equally bad.  Other
programs to teach the nation's youth about drugs do exist.  One such
program is Life Skills Training.  Ten million dollars will be spent in the
next five years to study the efficacy of this program (Gonnerman, 1999).
The debate over the drug education of our youth continues.

G. Narcoterrorism

In many countries, the rich drug lords rule.  Their money and ability to by
influence corrupt this nation and many others.  In countries like Columbia,
the drug czars are so powerful they routinely by and/or kill members of
parliament, the judiciary, the military, and law enforcement.  Drug
literature has come to view this subversion of power and assault on the
legitimacy of the elected government as narcoterrorism.  Authors differ
about what impact legalization would have on the drug barons of Latin
America and Asia.

H. Criminal Justice System

1. Sentencing Alternatives

Currently drug offenders are sentenced using mandatory minimums.  If a
defendant is caught with X amount of drug Y then that defendant will,
minimally, do Z amount of time.  The criminal justice system has adopted a
cookie-cutter style approach to sentencing drug offenders.  Many judges and
policy advocates think that it is time to do away with this type of
justice.  Often judges throw out cases because a conviction would send the
offender to jail for a very long period of time.  Mandatory minimums rob
judges of the opportunity to exercise their discretion when they conclude
that the situation of the defendant is special.

2. Prison Overcrowding

Those mandatory minimums mean that a lot of drug offenders go to jail for a
very long time.  Eventually, the prisons become full.  Prison overcrowding
is a really big impact.  Some of you might remember that this issue
received some pretty significant discussion on the violent crime topic.
Prison overcrowding dehumanizes inmates, increases tensions-making riots
more likely, and leads to increased same-sex rape in prison.  There are
lots of books about the subject.  The literature definitely links to this
postion.

I. Strong impacts to the economy

1. U.S.

The U.S. spends lots money on the drug war.  Some people argue that the
economy is bolstered by all that government spending.  Others contend that
the money spent on interdiction efforts is wasted.  No real sense in
spending all that money to fight a fight that can't be won.  Regardless of
which side is proven to be the truth, because the U.S. spends so much money
on the drug war the links to the economy could be very defined and
articulated.

2.  Emerging markets (i.e. Latin America)

Much of the Latin American economy has become dependent upon drug
trafficking for stability.                          Farmers make three
times the profits growing illegal drugs as they do regular crops.  Many
Andean nations' economies are supported by the drug trade.  If the
affirmative or the negative legalizes, taxes, and distributes drugs, then
those economies dependent on drug revenues will crash.

III.  Advantages accrued by selecting this topic

? Recruiting - This topic presents a unique opportunity to bolster
recruiting efforts for the following three reasons:  (1) Student Interest,
(2) Student Familiarity, and (3) Interdisciplinary Focus.

First, it will be easy to attract new debaters to this topic.  The media
shines its spotlight on the drug issue.  We believe that students will be
more likely to respond to posters/announcements about this topic than other
things that we have debated in recent years.

Second, as discussed in the context section, students are familiar with the
drug issue.  Many of them according to statistics have tried drugs. The
White House Drug Policy web site
http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/drugfact/f_and_f/contents.html
estimates that 48.1% of 18-25 year olds have tried some form of illegal
drug.  Most of them have been involved in D.A.R.E. programs or some other
drug education program.  Some of them come from families that have been
ripped apart by horrors of drug abuse.  Unlike other topics, the students
already know some of the field specific jargon that seems to alienate some
novice debaters. That existing conceptual framework should catapult their
development into full-blown card-cutting JV and open level debaters in a
comparatively short period of time.  Think about it.  Novice recruits are
asked to learn argumentation theory, policy theory, time limits, an
entirely new vocabulary (some say language), and delve into a topic about
which they know nothing.  This is an extraordinarily tall order.  Many
short circuit, never to be heard from again.  This topic would ease that
transition by giving the novi something familiar to debate about.  However,
for the more experienced debater the shear number of potential policies in
this area should be exciting. Despite our familiarity with some of the
issues, there is still ample uncharted argumentative space in the topic
area.

Third, this topic transcends disciplines.  For example psychology majors
can study the effects of drug use on the brain and the individual.
Criminal Justice or Pre-Law majors would be interested in the legal and
civil implications.  Communication majors can study the rhetoric of the
"Drug War". Specifically, Communication majors can study how using these
masculine metaphors has created a self-fulfilling prophecy.  Math majors
can crunch the statistics about use, etc.  This is an important argument.
Anybody who has tried to write an academic grant any time lately has seen
how important it is to be interdisciplinary.  Satisfying this buzz word
opens up the purse strings to programs everywhere.

? Literature - The breadth and depth of the literature associated with this
topic and its availability make this topic ideal.

The literature is broad, deep and available.  Many different authors
express a wide range of opinions regarding this issue. And the depth of
their analysis will provide quality research to back students' arguments.
Third, almost every library in the nation has good holdings in either books
or governmental documents that provide in-depth analysis about the policy
considerations associated with this topic.  There are numerous solvency
advocates for all sorts of plans and counterplans. A simple key word search
on the internet reveals thousands of web sites, hundreds of which could
yield high quality information.  This is important to small programs.
Although every program can't afford the state-of-the-art in information
research technology, any team with a modem can be competitive on this
topic.  Additionally, even if your library doesn't have very good holdings
about this issue, then they will be more likely to purchase something
regarding drug policy than other more obscure, less visible topics.
 ? Status Quo Static - Let's face it.  The nation's drug policy isn't going
to change any time soon.  Even though Clinton is a lame duck, he wouldn't
dare to complicate his political lot by taking up the "hot potato".  The
Congress won't act in an election year.  Policies, particularly those
involving medical marijuana might change at the state level, but federal
drug policy should remain constant.  The implication of this is that the
affirmative will change the status quo and the disads will be unique.  This
facilitates a deeper discussion of the topic literature, rather than a
treadmill of constant postdates.

? Good political ground for negative.  In today's political climate,
changing the status quo on drugs would require an incredibly bold policy
initiative.  Honestly, this topic would probably provide the only true
Clinton, bipart, and political capital stories that you've ever heard.
Particularly in the first semester, when the elections loom large.

III)   Resources:

Rotberg and Mills 1998 (Robert I. Rotberg and Gerg Mills, Editors War and
Peace in Southern Africa: Crime, Drugs, Armies, and Trade, 1998)

Walker 1999 (Samuel Walker, Sense and Nonsense about Crime and Drugs: A
Policy Guide, 1998)

Baum 1996 (Dan Baum, Smoke and Mirrors: The War on Drugs and the Politics
of Failure, 1996)

Bertram & all 1996 (Eva Bertram, Morris Blachman, Kenneth Sharpe, and Peter
Adreas, Drug War Politics: The Price of Denial , 1996)

Chesney-Lind 1997 (Meda Chesney-Lind, The Female Offender: Girls, Women,
and Crime , 1997)

Akers 1991 (Ronald L. Akers "Addiction: the troublesome concept" Journal of
Drug Issues, Fall 1991 v21 n4 p777)

Johns 1992 (Christina Jacqueline Johns, Power, Ideology, and the War on
Drugs 1992)

Essex 1996 (David J. Essex "An Unscientific Postscript" Psychnews
International Volume 1, Issue 7 Nov-Dec 1996)

"Losing Ground against Drugs:  The Erosion of America's Border:  Hearing
Before the Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate" (S. HRG 104-877)

Yablonsky  1997 (Lewis Yablonsky, Gangsters: Fifty Years of Madness, Drugs,
and Death on the Streets of America, 1997)

Jonnes 1996 (Jill Jonnes, Hep-Cats, Narcs, and Pipe Dreams: A History of
America's Romance with Illegal Drugs, 1996)

Swan 1999 (Daniel C., Peyote Religious Art: Symbols of Faith and Belief, 1999)

McCaffrey 1997 (Barry R. McCaffrey, What America's Users Spend on Illegal
Drugs, 1988-1995, Fall 1997)

Howell and Decker 1999 (James C. Howell and Scott H. Decker, "The Youth
Gangs, Drugs, and Violence Connection", Juvenile Justice Bulletin, January
1999)

Narcotic Drugs Money Laundering: Agreement between the United States of
America and Ecuador (Treaties and Other International Acts Series 12741)

http://www.lindesmith.org/  The Lindesmith Center - The Lindesmith Center
is a drug policy research institute. This site features a searchable
database of thousands of library documents from both academic and popular
literature focusing on drug policy from economic, criminal justice, and
public health perspectives, and a subject index of full-text materials
online. They also host an ongoing seminar series and send out mailings
regarding upcoming events and publications via both e-mail and smail.
E-mail uplbeniquez at sorosny.org if you would like to be on their mailing list.

Status quo bad link: http://mall.turnpike.net/~jnr/dare.htm (Think For
Yourself:  A Public Policy Reading Room)

Article: "Project DARE: No Effects at 10-Year Follow-Up," Donald R. Lynam,
Ph.D., Richard Milich, Ph.D., Rick Zimmerman, Ph.D., Scott P. Novak, T.K.
Logan, Ph.D., Catherine Martin, Carl Leukefeld, DSW, and Richard Clayton,
Ph.D., University of Kentucky, Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, Vol. 67, No. 4. (1999) Full text of the article is available
from the APA Public Affairs Office or at
http://www.apa.org/journals/ccp/ccp674590.html.

Gonnerman, J. (1999). Truth or D.A.R.E.:  The Dubious Drug-Education
Program Takes New York. The Village Voice, April 7.


IV) Potential Resolutions

Policy:

Resolved: That one or more of the penalties prescribed by the Comprehensive
Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 should be made less severe.

Resolved:  That the U.S. Federal Government should legalize one or more of
the following:  marijuana, cocaine, heroin, amphetamines, or anabolic
steroids.

Resolved:  That the U.S. Federal Government should increase the use of the
military in efforts to prevent drugs from entering the United States.

Resolved:  That the U.S. Federal Government should allow the use of
marijuana for medical purposes.

Resolved:  That the U.S. Federal Government should terminate the process of
certifying the governments of other  nations as effective drug fighters.

Nonpolicy:

Resolved:  That the United States' prohibition of illegal drugs does more
harm than good.

Resolved:  That the United States' prohibition of drugs is immoral.

Resolved:  That the rights of individuals to consume medical marijuana are
more important the obligation of the state to pursue a policy of zero
tolerance.

Jason Stone
Instructor of Speech
University of Richmond
Richmond, VA 23173
jstone at richmond.edu
(804) 289-8269 - office
(804) 287-6884 - debate forum
(804) 287-6496 - fax



From roger37  Wed Nov  3 17:06:04 1999
From: roger37 (Roger Saad)
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 15:06:04 PST
Subject: Illegal Drugs--A Topic Paper
Message-ID: <WED.3.NOV.1999.150604.PST.ROGER37@HOTMAIL.COM>

This has potential to be an intersting topic, but don't you think that there
should be a topic that allows for the complete legalization of all drugs?
It will make it hard for the affirmative to capture their advantages,
especially kritik type advantages if this is not an option.  The government
says, well, you can have (insert laundry list) but you still can't do drugs
xyz, makes it hard to win a war on drugs type adv.  Perhaps tinkering with
the "one or more of the following drugs" could be changed to at least one or
more of the following drugs" that way the topic would not be as exclusive.

Roger
KU

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



From jared_1978  Wed Nov  3 17:31:46 1999
From: jared_1978 (Jared Waters)
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 15:31:46 PST
Subject: jessica at johnson county
Message-ID: <WED.3.NOV.1999.153146.PST.JARED1978@HOTMAIL.COM>

jessica,
could you please email me back, you may have already done that but our
server is screwed up so try again please..


jared
sam houston state debate

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



From swing_errr  Wed Nov  3 17:57:08 1999
From: swing_errr (Brad Phillips)
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 15:57:08 PST
Subject: Attn: Raines from Emory or anyone else--Cites request
Message-ID: <WED.3.NOV.1999.155708.PST.SWINGERRR@HOTMAIL.COM>

Kelly Congdon told me to email you and you would be able to get me cites
from the NATO DA that you run on Iraq.  Hopefully you or someone from Emory
will be able to hook us up on the information.  Thanks.

Brad Phillips
~UMKC DEBATE

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



From mcmulpm5  Wed Nov  3 18:10:25 1999
From: mcmulpm5 (patrick)
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 19:10:25 -0500
Subject: Need Homewood-Flossmore Info--please cross post
In-Reply-To: <19991103235708.822.qmail@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <WED.3.NOV.1999.191025.0500.MCMULPM5@WFU.EDU>

I need to know the schedule for the Homewood Flossmore high school
tournament this friday. If anyone here knows, or can cross-post to the
cx-L, i would appreciate it.

Thanks

Patrick McMullen



From L_Phillips  Wed Nov  3 18:43:57 1999
From: L_Phillips (Leslie Phillips - Lexington High School)
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 20:43:57 -0400
Subject: Judging in Newburgh, November 12-13
Message-ID: <WED.3.NOV.1999.204357.0400.LPHILLIPS@SCH.CI.LEXINGTON.MA.US>

Newburgh Free Academy (New York) seeks hired judges for its policy division
Nov. 12-13.   The tournament begins about 3:30 pm on Friday and continues
into the evening on Saturday.   It's a high quality tournament (quarters
TOC qual) with an excellent atmosphere.    For further information and
terms of compensation, contact Professor Sheryl Kaczmarek,
sherylkaz at aol.com or 914-563-7594.

Les Phillips
assistant to Miss Sheryl



From dperkins  Wed Nov  3 18:43:36 1999
From: dperkins (Dallas Perkins)
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 19:43:36 -0500
Subject: Harvard Win %
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSI.3.96.991103114548.6712A-100000@gloria.cord.edu>
Message-ID: <WED.3.NOV.1999.194336.0500.DPERKINS@FAS.HARVARD.EDU>

aff won clear majority of rounds in prelims, I remember somebody looked.
I'll see if I can display exact stats.  Does anybody know if STA
conveniently displays this datum?
dp

On Wed, 3 Nov 1999, John Patrick Kelly wrote:

> Does anypne know the Aff:Neg win ratio at Harvard?
>
> I was just wondering if it was as unequal in prelims as elims since out of
> 14 out rounds only 4 affs won.
>
> John Kelly
> Concordia College Debate
>



From bigred  Wed Nov  3 18:55:39 1999
From: bigred (Johnson, Kenneth)
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 16:55:39 -0800
Subject: do you need judges in idaho???
Message-ID: <WED.3.NOV.1999.165539.0800.BIGRED@SEATTLEU.EDU>

anybody from the boise area!!!

i'll be in town around december 12ish...

any tournaments in the idaho around that time...

ken johnson
seattleu debate
(once upon a time, meridian high school debate:)



From bg20351  Wed Nov  3 21:35:48 1999
From: bg20351 (Siejen Yin)
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 22:35:48 -0500
Subject: LIST of ENTRIES-BINGHAMTON TOURNAMENT
Message-ID: <WED.3.NOV.1999.223548.0500.BG20351@BINGHAMTON.EDU>

Any other schools planning on attending the Binghamton Tournament this
weekend, please submit your entries ASAP to:
E-mail Address: <bg20351 at binghamton.edu>
Fax: (607) 777-6501-ATTN: SA Binghamton Speech & Debate Team


To Date The Following Schools Have Entered the Binghamton Tournament:

Allegeny College
Novice:
Jim Salandro & Tamara Pavasovic
Rosa Diaz & Trent Rumbaugh

Judges:
Beth Gardner (Novice)-1/2 Commitment
Rupa Ranganathan (Novice)-1/2 Commitment


Cornell University
Novice:
Paul Wenzel & Maurice Duccing
Herb Wilmooth & Chris Konek
Shannon Smith & Alberto Leff

JV:
Anapurna Singh & Lara Douglas
Josh Widmann & John Bradford

Judges:
Mike Cole (5 Rounds-Sat. Only)
Beth Kronik (5 Rounds-Sat. Only)
Beth Gardner (2 Rounds-5th and 6th Round)
Jethro Hayman (3 Rounds)


Cumberland College
Novice:
John Hitch & Aaron Stevens
Melanie Worsley & Alice Freitas

Judge:
Kevin M O'Leary


Dartmouth College
Novice:
Matt Neill & Henry Shi

Judge:
Bill Russell


Mansfield Universiy
Novice:
Heidi Hook & Julie Kantz
Matt Henry & Jacob Huff
Amina Ahmad & Tanya Morgan
Mike Kittle & (Possible Swing)

Judge:
Larry Watts


Marist
2 Novice Teams
1 JV Team


NAVY
Novice:
Von Fernandez & Fidel Sanchez
David Bartlow & Brent Richardson

JV:
Mike Bruno & Tim Johnson

Judges:
CDR Brad Taylor
Captain Chris Rodriguez


University of Rochester
7 Novice Teams
3 JV Teams


University of Vermont
Novice:
Reynolds-Ronhagen
Etherington-Sullivan
Parmett-Gervais
Alexander-Towne
Lunte-Gilpatric
Malley-Weidhorn
Miller-Robinson
Clark-McDonald
Johnson-Knops
Mullany-Chartan
Dempsey-Borman
Deming-Cardile
Dooling-Eisenstadt
Gana-Eagle (Trinity)

JV:
Morgan-Winfield
Douglas-Fishbone
Pagan-Robertson

Judges:
Ellis
Brill
Wilkerson
Schwartz
Hewitt
Parmett
Jacobsen (1/2 commitment)
Snider (Novice-Full)
Lockwood (Novice-Full)


West Point
Novice:
Phil Suh & Steve Hemnan

JV:
Derek Reeves & Dan Janes
Andy Scott & John Finch
Tim Sikes & Simon Kim

Judges:
Derek Bennett (Novice-3 Rounds)
Luke Harris (Novice-3 Rounds)
Mike Wright (4 Rounds)
Ike Wilson (5 Rounds)


West Virginia University
Novice:
Jessica Taylor & Jeremy Wilson
Kim Bandy & Eric Zuchhowski

JV:
Nicole Newlon & Lynna Palmer
Jennifer Dixon & Jason Evans
Joshua Boggs & Mary Bess

Judge:
Dan Overbey


TAB DIRECTORS:
Mike Davis (University of Rochester)
Dan Overbey (West Virginia University)

TOTAL NUMBER OF SCHOOLS=11 Schools

TOTAL Novice Teams=40 Teams
TOTAL JV Teams=16 Teams
TOTAL NUMBER OF TEAMS=56 TEAMS

Thank You for your Support.  We look forward to seeing you all of you this
weekend.  Should you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to
contact us.

Take Care and See Yall in Bingo-Land.


Sincerely,

Siejen Yin
President/Co-Tournament Director
Binghamton Speech & Debate Team




Siejen Yin
CIW #06479
Binghamton University
P.O. Box 6006
Binghamton, NY 13902-6006
(607) 777-3969



"...To help someone else if the greatest gift of all to yourself..."

"...We are all more Alike than Unlike..."
                -Maya Angelou



From apkemp  Wed Nov  3 21:31:27 1999
From: apkemp (Andrew Kemp)
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 21:31:27 -0600
Subject: Illegal Drugs--A Topic Paper
In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19991103173559.00895210@facstaff.richmond.edu>
Message-ID: <WED.3.NOV.1999.213127.0600.APKEMP@GLORIA.CORD.EDU>

That was a wonderful Topic Paper. I think you all make great arguments in
favor of such a topic. Need I say that it might be personally interesting
and important to a number of people in this community?

Congratulations on a great idea for next years resolution!

Andrew Kemp
------------------
PO Box 4308
Concordia College
Moorhead, MN 56562
------------------
(218) 299-3970
Livedalen Hall 111
------------------
"It's All Good!"



From apkemp  Wed Nov  3 21:33:51 1999
From: apkemp (Andrew Kemp)
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 21:33:51 -0600
Subject: Illegal Drugs--A Topic Paper
In-Reply-To: <19991103230605.87613.qmail@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <WED.3.NOV.1999.213351.0600.APKEMP@GLORIA.CORD.EDU>

We could also make the resolution say something akin to my most favorite
phrase I have ever heard in a resolution. It would go something like this:

"...by legalizing all or nearly all..."

Take Care.

Andrew Kemp
------------------
PO Box 4308
Concordia College
Moorhead, MN 56562
------------------
(218) 299-3970
Livedalen Hall 111
------------------
"It's All Good!"

On Wed, 3 Nov 1999, Roger Saad wrote:

> This has potential to be an intersting topic, but don't you think that there
> should be a topic that allows for the complete legalization of all drugs?
> It will make it hard for the affirmative to capture their advantages,
> especially kritik type advantages if this is not an option.  The government
> says, well, you can have (insert laundry list) but you still can't do drugs
> xyz, makes it hard to win a war on drugs type adv.  Perhaps tinkering with
> the "one or more of the following drugs" could be changed to at least one or
> more of the following drugs" that way the topic would not be as exclusive.
>
> Roger
> KU
>
> ______________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>



From doverbey  Wed Nov  3 22:27:45 1999
From: doverbey (Daniel Overbey)
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 23:27:45 -0500
Subject: Mike Bruno
Message-ID: <WED.3.NOV.1999.232745.0500.DOVERBEY@OSF1.GMU.EDU>

Bruno, backchannel me...or if anyone else can put me in touch with him...

Dan

Daniel Overbey
Assistant Debate Coach
West Virginia University

>From  Wed Nov  3 22:52:34 1999
Message-Id: <WED.3.NOV.1999.225234.0600.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 36988 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 23:49:00
 -0500
Precedence: bulk
Received: from goose.prod.itd.earthlink.net (goose.prod.itd.earthlink.net
 [207.217.120.18]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id
 XAA37512 for <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 23:48:54 -0500
Received: from GrapevineHSDebate (dialup-209.246.129.56.Dallas1.Level3.net
 [209.246.129.56]) by goose.prod.itd.earthlink.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with
 SMTP id UAA10411 for <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 20:48:51
 -0800 (PST)
References: <Pine.OSF.3.96.991103232659.20191A-100000 at osf1.gmu.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Message-ID: <000701bf2680$6a9237a0$3881f6d1 at GrapevineHSDebate>
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 22:52:34 -0600
Reply-To: gvinedebate at EARTHLINK.NET
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Jane Boyd <gvinedebate at EARTHLINK.NET>
Subject: Ross Smith or Alan Lauden

Ross or Alan,

Please contact me... I have a student that might be interested in Wake...

Jane Boyd
Grapevine, Texas


----- Original Message -----
From: Daniel Overbey <doverbey at OSF1.GMU.EDU>
To: <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 1999 10:27 PM
Subject: Mike Bruno


> Bruno, backchannel me...or if anyone else can put me in touch with him...
>
> Dan
>
> Daniel Overbey
> Assistant Debate Coach
> West Virginia University
>

>From  Thu Nov  4 02:33:06 1999
Message-Id: <THU.4.NOV.1999.023306.EST.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 38172 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 02:33:43
 -0500
Precedence: bulk
Received: from imo-d05.mx.aol.com (imo-d05.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.37]) by
 list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA36722 for
 <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 02:33:41 -0500
Received: from AlwysFishn at aol.com by imo-d05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id
 nSDFU2Fmx_ (4557) for <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Thu, 4 Nov 1999
 02:33:06 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="part1_0.5288aa51.255290b2_boundary"
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 27
Message-ID: <0.5288aa51.255290b2 at aol.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 02:33:06 EST
Reply-To: AlwysFishn at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: AlwysFishn at AOL.COM
Subject: Fwd: Vanderbilt Tournament

--part1_0.5288aa51.255290b2_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

WOW!!! Those tournament team entries just keep flying in.  Here's the Latest
update as of 1:30am on the 3rd of November.  Keep on sending them.  If you
have emailed vandy.debate.edu, we have your entries, but I just couldn't get
on M.L.'s email account.  She'll be back on monday though.  Glad to hear from
all of you

--james porter

  16 schools
  17 open teams
  17 JV teams
  27 novice teams


  Alabama
      Open    Lamberth/Carroll
          Pfister/Gordon
      JV  Inghram?Jester
          Banks/Bonham
          Phillips/LaCour
          Gonzalez/Stein
          Miller/Minor
      Novice  Pruitt/Scott
          May/Parrish
      Judges  Crenshaw, Prisco, Shaw

  Cumberland
      Novice  Frietas/Worsley
          Hitch/Stevens
      Judges  Kinser,

  Emory
      3 open teams
      1 novice team

  Florida
      JV  Aldridge/France
      Novice  Angellis/Childers
      Judges  Kish

  Georgia
      Open  Parekh/McGrath
      JV  Buttigieg/Brock
      Judges  Rufo  and  Galloway

  Georgia State
       1 open +?

  Louisville
      JV  Webster/Rodgers
      Novice  Brush/Shuff
          Toole/Carr
          Rheaume/Wilkie
      Judges  Bito  and  Cunningham

  Loyola
      Open    Kerman/Hill
          Eggers/McCarley
      JV  Danish/Massa
          Shambailca/Lizak
      Novice  Mahmood/Kinstler
      Judges  Romanelli

 Marquette
      JV  Chapman/Krubsack
      Novice  LoPiccalo/Shelton
          Zulawski/Kirby
      Judges  Dasney

 Mercer
      Open    Abbott/Woodard
          Dykes/Thatcher
      JV  Cisneros/Noel
          Brock/Morrison
      Novice  Dodd/Wilbert
      Judge   Zompetti

  Miami
       2 open teams

  Morehouse
      Open    Coxon/Thompson
      Novice  Flippin/Lowery
          Cooper/Franklin
      Judges  Garner, McPhatter

 MTSU
      Open    Gaston/Woodward
           Bond/Carter
      Novice   Miedel/Jennings
      Judges  Butler, Osborne

  Samford
      Open    one team
      Novice  five teams
      Judges  three

  SELA
      JV  3 teams
      Novice 1-2 teams

  Tennessee Tech
      JV  Ratledge/Williams
      Novice  Canavan/Wells
          Bynum/Hume
          Bucholz/Marshall
          Wheeler/Jones
      Judges  Kash, Sams, Vandevelder



  M. L. Sandoz
  Director, Vanderbilt Debate
  615-322-3784 Office
  615-322-2307 Office
  615-673-7340 Home
  >>


-----------------
Forwarded Message:
Subj:   Vanderbilt Tournament
Date:   11/3/99 12:22:05 PM Pacific Standard Time
From:   AlwysFishn
To: edebate at list.uvm.edu

Here's an update to the entries for the Vanderbilt Tournament.

 12 schools
 9 open teams
 17 JV teams
 25 novice teams


 Alabama
     Open    Lamberth/Carroll
         Pfister/Gordon
     JV  Inghram?Jester
         Banks/Bonham
         Phillips/LaCour
         Gonzalez/Stein
         Miller/Minor
     Novice  Pruitt/Scott
         May/Parrish
     Judges  Crenshaw, Prisco, Shaw

 Cumberland
     Novice  Frietas/Worsley
         Hitch/Stevens
     Judges  Kinser,

 Florida
     JV  Aldridge/France
     Novice  Angellis/Childers
     Judges  Kish

 Georgia
     Open  Parekh/McGrath
     JV  Buttigieg/Brock
     Judges  Rufo  and  Galloway

 Louisville
     JV  Webster/Rodgers
     Novice  Brush/Shuff
         Toole/Carr
         Rheaume/Wilkie
     Judges  Bito  and  Cunningham

 Marquette
     JV  Chapman/Krubsack
     Novice  LoPiccalo/Shelton
         Zulawski/Kirby
     Judges  Dasney

 Loyola
     Open    Kerman/Hill
         Eggers/McCarley
     JV  Danish/Massa
         Shambailca/Lizak
     Novice  Mahmood/Kinstler
     Judges  Romanelli
 Mercer
     Open    Abbott/Woodard
         Dykes/Thatcher
     JV  Cisneros/Noel
         Brock/Morrison
     Novice  Dodd/Wilbert
     Judge   Zompetti
 Morehouse
     Open    Coxon/Thompson
     Novice  Flippin/Lowery
         Cooper/Franklin
     Judges  Garner, McPhatter
 Samford
     Open    one team
     Novice  five teams
     Judges  three

 SELA
     JV  3 teams
     Novice 1-2 teams

 Tennessee Tech
     JV  Ratledge/Williams
     Novice  Canavan/Wells
         Bynum/Hume
         Bucholz/Marshall
         Wheeler/Jones
     Judges  Kash, Sams, Vandevelder



 M. L. Sandoz
 Director, Vanderbilt Debate
 615-322-3784 Office
 615-322-2307 Office
 615-673-7340 Home

--part1_0.5288aa51.255290b2_boundary
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Disposition: inline

Return-path: AlwysFishn at aol.com
From: AlwysFishn at aol.com
Full-name: AlwysFishn
Message-ID: <0.f5fb2da.25520a05 at aol.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 16:58:29 EST
Subject: Fwd: Vanderbilt Tournament
To: edebate at list.uvm.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="part2_0.5288aa51.25520a05_boundary"
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 27


--part2_0.5288aa51.25520a05_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

In a message dated 11/3/99 12:22:05 PM Pacific Standard Time, AlwysFishn
writes:

<< Here's an update to the entries for the Vanderbilt Tournament.

  14 schools
  13 open teams
  17 JV teams
  26 novice teams


  Alabama
      Open    Lamberth/Carroll
          Pfister/Gordon
      JV  Inghram?Jester
          Banks/Bonham
          Phillips/LaCour
          Gonzalez/Stein
          Miller/Minor
      Novice  Pruitt/Scott
          May/Parrish
      Judges  Crenshaw, Prisco, Shaw

  Cumberland
      Novice  Frietas/Worsley
          Hitch/Stevens
      Judges  Kinser,

  Florida
      JV  Aldridge/France
      Novice  Angellis/Childers
      Judges  Kish

  Georgia
      Open  Parekh/McGrath
      JV  Buttigieg/Brock
      Judges  Rufo  and  Galloway

  Louisville
      JV  Webster/Rodgers
      Novice  Brush/Shuff
          Toole/Carr
          Rheaume/Wilkie
      Judges  Bito  and  Cunningham

  Loyola
      Open    Kerman/Hill
          Eggers/McCarley
      JV  Danish/Massa
          Shambailca/Lizak
      Novice  Mahmood/Kinstler
      Judges  Romanelli

 Marquette
      JV  Chapman/Krubsack
      Novice  LoPiccalo/Shelton
          Zulawski/Kirby
      Judges  Dasney

 Mercer
      Open    Abbott/Woodard
          Dykes/Thatcher
      JV  Cisneros/Noel
          Brock/Morrison
      Novice  Dodd/Wilbert
      Judge   Zompetti

  Miami
       2 open teams

  Morehouse
      Open    Coxon/Thompson
      Novice  Flippin/Lowery
          Cooper/Franklin
      Judges  Garner, McPhatter

 MTSU
      Open    Gaston/Woodward
           Bond/Carter
      Novice   Miedel/Jennings
      Judges  Butler, Osborne

  Samford
      Open    one team
      Novice  five teams
      Judges  three

  SELA
      JV  3 teams
      Novice 1-2 teams

  Tennessee Tech
      JV  Ratledge/Williams
      Novice  Canavan/Wells
          Bynum/Hume
          Bucholz/Marshall
          Wheeler/Jones
      Judges  Kash, Sams, Vandevelder



  M. L. Sandoz
  Director, Vanderbilt Debate
  615-322-3784 Office
  615-322-2307 Office
  615-673-7340 Home
  >>


--part2_0.5288aa51.25520a05_boundary
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Disposition: inline

Return-path: AlwysFishn at aol.com
From: AlwysFishn at aol.com
Full-name: AlwysFishn
Message-ID: <0.3a291937.2551f36d at aol.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 15:22:05 EST
Subject: Vanderbilt Tournament
To: edebate at list.uvm.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL NetMail version 2.0

Here's an update to the entries for the Vanderbilt Tournament.

 12 schools
 9 open teams
 17 JV teams
 25 novice teams


 Alabama
     Open    Lamberth/Carroll
         Pfister/Gordon
     JV  Inghram?Jester
         Banks/Bonham
         Phillips/LaCour
         Gonzalez/Stein
         Miller/Minor
     Novice  Pruitt/Scott
         May/Parrish
     Judges  Crenshaw, Prisco, Shaw

 Cumberland
     Novice  Frietas/Worsley
         Hitch/Stevens
     Judges  Kinser,

 Florida
     JV  Aldridge/France
     Novice  Angellis/Childers
     Judges  Kish

 Georgia
     Open  Parekh/McGrath
     JV  Buttigieg/Brock
     Judges  Rufo  and  Galloway

 Louisville
     JV  Webster/Rodgers
     Novice  Brush/Shuff
         Toole/Carr
         Rheaume/Wilkie
     Judges  Bito  and  Cunningham

 Marquette
     JV  Chapman/Krubsack
     Novice  LoPiccalo/Shelton
         Zulawski/Kirby
     Judges  Dasney

 Loyola
     Open    Kerman/Hill
         Eggers/McCarley
     JV  Danish/Massa
         Shambailca/Lizak
     Novice  Mahmood/Kinstler
     Judges  Romanelli
 Mercer
     Open    Abbott/Woodard
         Dykes/Thatcher
     JV  Cisneros/Noel
         Brock/Morrison
     Novice  Dodd/Wilbert
     Judge   Zompetti
 Morehouse
     Open    Coxon/Thompson
     Novice  Flippin/Lowery
         Cooper/Franklin
     Judges  Garner, McPhatter
 Samford
     Open    one team
     Novice  five teams
     Judges  three

 SELA
     JV  3 teams
     Novice 1-2 teams

 Tennessee Tech
     JV  Ratledge/Williams
     Novice  Canavan/Wells
         Bynum/Hume
         Bucholz/Marshall
         Wheeler/Jones
     Judges  Kash, Sams, Vandevelder



 M. L. Sandoz
 Director, Vanderbilt Debate
 615-322-3784 Office
 615-322-2307 Office
 615-673-7340 Home

--part2_0.5288aa51.25520a05_boundary--

--part1_0.5288aa51.255290b2_boundary--



From swhalen  Thu Nov  4 02:36:14 1999
From: swhalen (Shawn T Whalen)
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 00:36:14 -0800
Subject: NCA NDT Committee Meeting Update
Message-ID: <THU.4.NOV.1999.003614.0800.SWHALEN@SFSU.EDU>

Seems like this is at least as important as who cleared last weekend...

The NDT Committee voted for an amended version of District 8's proposal
for joint program participation at the NDT. It passed 6-5 so it needs to
pass again with a simple majority before it REALLY passes.

The dates for district tournaments are the last two weekends in February.
First round bids are due on the 10th of February.

Substantial revisions were made to the declaration of eligibility policy.
Everyone wishing to attend the NDT will need to submit documents verifying
that they are undergraduate students in good standing at their institution
on or before February 8th.  Those documents need to be sent to John
Fritch.  I understand that more will be posted on this soon.

Fees for this years NDT will be $375 per team or less, depending on
additional donations.  This fee would include the banquets, 4days of
breakfast, and three days of lunch.

Hotels will be cheaper and closer.

NDT rankings are now posted at www.liberty.edu/debate.

Congratulations to Greg Achten and Heidi Hamilton for their appointments
to the Bid Allocation Committee.  To Greg Achten and Kate Palcheski for
their appointments to the judge philosophy committee.  And, to Glen
Frappier and somone who was at the meeting (explaining why I didn't write
it down) to the Tournament Advisory Committee.

One final item, the NDT Committee sent forth a resolution to the AFA
asking that the fall semester time block end on December 25th.  The AFA
referred that proposal to committee which means that this year's Nichols
(the USC tournament) will continue to count as a fall semester tournament
for NDT eligibility purposes.

Shawn Whalen

Director of Forensics
San Francisco State University
swhalen at sfsu.edu
(415) 338-3173



From robertm  Thu Nov  4 07:46:42 1999
From: robertm (Roberts Email)
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 07:46:42 -0600
Subject: McNeese State University "I Have a Dream" Swing Jan 14-16, 2000
Message-ID: <THU.4.NOV.1999.074642.0600.ROBERTM@LACI.NET>

Hi everyone! Please find below a copy of the invitation to our annual "I Have a Dream" Swing. The second half our of tournament will be hosted by the Houston Area League of Forensics. We will be mailing out the hard copy of our invitation in the next two weeks. We are leaving for NCA in Chicago today, so if you have any questions please get in touch with us on Tuesday. Thanks! Hope to see you in January!    



Amy Veuleman

Assistant Director of Forensics, McNeese State

The Louisiana Eta Chapter of Pi Kappa Delta and the McNeese Department of Speech and Theatre Arts invite you to enjoy warm temperatures along with excellent competitive and educational forensic opportunities at the 4th Annual "I Have A Dream Swing" Forensic Tournaments. The second half of the swing tournament, sponsored by the Houston Area League of Forensics (HALF), will be on the McNeese campus. 

The "I Have A Dream" Swing will feature all eleven AFA-NIET individual events, two divisions of CEDA/NDT debate, an open division of parliamentary debate, as well as countless awards and tons o? fun! 

An efficient tournament is virtually guaranteed as our good friends Scott and Gina Jenson (Webster University) head the debate tab room and Mike Jones (Del Mar) heads the individual events tab room with the assistance from Daphne Coffey (San Jacinto-South) who we welcome back to our campus. Additionally, we offer several special features: 

*The food is great! The temperatures are fantastic! It?s a great way to find 

warmth in the cold of December.

*Who says there is no such thing as a free lunch!? We will provide 

a free lunch on Saturday. 

*Full opportunities for students who wish to compete in both debate 

and individual events (in AFA patterns). 

We hope to see you in January for an exciting weekend! 



Forensically, 



Robert L. Markstrom                       Amy Veuleman 

Director of Forensics                      Assistant Director of Forensics 

Tournament Director 







Susan Kelso Scott Alderson

Head, Department of Speech and President, McNeese Debate Council

Theatre Arts 









TENTATIVE TOURNAMENT SCHEDULE

2000 I HAVE A DREAM SWING 


Thursday, 13 January MCNEESE STATE UNIVERSITY

7:00-10:00p.m. Registration at Microtel 

Friday, 14 January 

8:00 Debate, Round One

8:00-10:30 Late Registration, Farrar Hall 

9:30 Debate, Round Two

11:15 Extemp Draw

11:30 Individual Events, Round One, "B"

12:45 Individual Events, Round One, "A"

2:00 Debate, Round Three

3:30 Individual Events, Round One, "C"

4:45 Debate, Round Four

6:15 Individual Events, Round Two, "A"

7:30 Individual Events, Round Two, "C"

Saturday, 15 January

7:15 Continental Breakfast

7:45am Extemp Draw

8:00 Individual Events, Round Two, "B"

9:15 Debate, Round Five 

10:45 Debate, Round Six

12:45pm Extemp Draw

1:00 Individual Events

*Semi-finals (events with 45+ entries)

*Finals, "A" + ext & poi

2:15 Individuals Events 

*Finals, "C" + per & duo 

3:30 Individual Events

*Remaining Finals

4:00 Debate, Elimination Round One 

6:15 Awards

7:00 Debate, Elimination Rounds Continue 

Sunday, 16 January 

7:15am Continental Breakfast

7:45 Extemp Draw

8:00 Round One, "B"

9:15 Round One, "A"

10:30 Round One, "C"

11:45 Extemp Draw

12:00pm Round Two, "B"

1:15 Round Two, "A"

2:30 Round Two "C" 

3:45 Extemp Draw

4:00 Semifinals (events with 45+ entries)

Finals, "B" + inf & pro

5:15 Finals, "C" + imp

6:30 Remaining Finals

8:15 Awards

NOTES


Only students with eligibility remaining will be allowed to participate in the tournaments. 

Open divisions in all eleven AFA-NIET events will be offered in three flights and two rounds. All AFA rules and time limits will be used in each event. 

No presentation should be composed of material used by the student prior to September 1, 1999. Likewise, no student may use a selection or cutting in more than one event. As outlined in AFA guidelines for performance of literature, only one original selection may be used in program of oral interpretation. 

Flight A: Impromptu, Informative, and Prose 

Flight B: Duo, Ext, Persuasive, and POI

Flight C: ADS, CA, DI, and Poetry

Extemporaneous Speaking Topics

All rounds will feature questions from either socio-domestic, economic, or international arenas. 

Breaking Brackets

Brackets will not be broken in individual events semi-finals or debate elimination rounds. 

Host Entries

McNeese will enter students in the first half of the tournament only under the following circumstances: 

    1.. fill slots will increase the number of legs in individual events or elimination rounds in debate
    2.. students with limited experience
    McNeese students will be allowed to enter the second tournament without such restrictions.

    Parliamentary Debate

    NPDA Nationals does not forbid debaters from reading materials or talking to coaches during prep. time. The social norm in this area is to allow the debaters to only look up terms. Since this tournament is not the National tournament, debaters should be encouraged to develop their argumentation on their own. This means that debaters will be allowed to look up terms during prep., but should avoid accessing files or seeking outside assistance during prep. Time limits will be 7-8-8-8 with 4-5 rebuttals. 

    CEDA Time Limits 

    CEDA will use the 8-3-5 format with 8 prep. (Using the extended time limits of CEDA Nationals would prevent us from allowing cross-over between CEDA and Individual Events.)

    Transportation

    In the instance that schools are interested in flying, the Lake Charles Airport services Continental Express and American Eagle. Schools might also look into renting vehicles and flying into Houston (2-2.5 hours away), Baton Rouge (2 hours away), or Lafayette (1 hour away). McNeese is happy to provide complimentary transportation to schools flying into Lake Charles.

    Tournament Hotel

    The tournament hotel will be the Microtel. The tournament rate will be $46.00. Call (318) 527-1000 for reservations. This block of rooms will be released on January 1, 2000. Please reference McNeese Speech and Debate. If you have any problems please ask for Louwanna. 

    Tournament formulas

    The following sweepstakes formula will be used during the tournaments:

    IE Points will be determined by the following formula:

    Prelim. Rankings 1 = 3 points Finalist: 1st = 6 points 

    2 = 2 points 2nd = 5 points

    3 = 1 points 3rd = 4 points

    Semi-finalists earn 1 point 4th = 3 points

    5th = 2 points 

    others = 1 point

    Debate points will be determined by the following formula:

    5 points for each Prelim. win

    10 points for each elimination team

    Only the top 5 entries in an event earn team sweepstakes points.

    Team Sweepstakes Ties will be broken by: 1. Number of Finalists

    2. Number of events in Finals

    c.. Number of firsts, then number of seconds, etc

Individual Sweepstakes ties will be broken by: 1. Number of Finals

        1.. Number of Events entered
        2.. Number of firsts, then number of seconds, etc

Debate Speaker Awards will be determined by: 1. Speaker points

        1.. Totals minus hi and lo 
        2.. Totals minus two hi and two lo 
        3.. Ranks
        4.. Judge Variance 
        5.. Opposition wins
        1.. Wins of team
Individual Event finals will be decided by: 1. Majority of 1?s

        1.. Total Ranks
        2.. Judges preference
        3.. Points
        4.. All ties will then be averaged for the calculation of sweepstakes points.
Fees and Judging

Tournament fees will be assessed as follows: 

CEDA Teams $50.00 Individual Event Entries $8.00

Parliamentary Teams $40.00 Uncovered IE Entries $9.00

Lincoln-Douglas Entries $20.00 

Uncovered Team Debate Entries $70.00

Uncovered LD entries $35.00

All drops occurring after Wednesday night will be charged twice the amount of the original entry.

One debate judge covers two debate teams/four LD entries. One individual event judge covers six entries per conflict pattern. As with most tournaments, we would be much more pleased with your judges than your money. The tournament hosts reserve the right to turn away any schools with large entries and minimal/no judges to cover the entry. Contact us early should you have a need to hire several judges! 

HALF will use the same fee structure for their tournament. Make checks for the McNeese tournament out to "McNeese Forensics" and checks for the HALF Swing to "Houston Area League of Forensics". 

NOTE: The entry fees have been increased this year to help offset the losses from the last two years. This tournament has not come close to breaking even the last two years.



Awards

1. All finalists in individual events will receive awards. (Two awards will be awarded per duo team.) 

2. Top Novice awards will be given to the top novice in each individual event. 

3. Top three in pentathalon will receive awards (must have an interp., PA, and a limited prep). 

4. Each member of a CEDA and Parliamentary team will receive awards for elimination rounds. 

5. Top five speaker awards will be given for all divisions of team debate. 

6. Top three sweepstakes awards will be given for Individual Events Sweepstakes, Debate Sweepstakes, 

and Overall Sweepstakes (must have done I.E.?s and debate).

7. The Bill Casey Traveling Trophy will also be awarded to the school with the highest cumulative total 

from the past. Schools competing in both individual events and debate earn points towards this award. 

Entry Deadline

Given the early Friday start, your entry MUST be in our hands no later than 5:00 Tuesday, January 11, Fees will be assessed as of 12:00 noon Wednesday, January 12. Entries for BOTH tournaments should be sent/phoned to Robert Markstrom. While you are welcome to send your entry, we would prefer phoned or faxed entries. Please phone your entry to one of the following numbers (faxed entries are encouraged):

Robert Markstrom?s office 318-475-5940

800-622-3352, ext. 5940

FAX 318-475-5922

Home 318-474-1919

Email robertm at laci.net

If you have questions specifically for Mike Jones concerning the Houston Area League of Forensics Tournament, he can be contacted at the following number: 



Schools wishing to send entries should mail them to: 

Robert Markstrom 

Speech and Theater Arts 

P.O. Box 90420

Lake Charles, LA 70609

Please be certain to mail entries in time for them to arrive by the Tuesday deadline. 



McNeese State University Entry Form

Due by 5:00 PM January 11, 2000

School: ______________________________________ School Code: ____________

Director:_____________________________________ Phone: _________________

Address: _____________________________________ _________________



Please mark novice entries with an "N" (Novice = first collegiate year in the genre of events)

    1.. ________________________ Imp Inf Pro Duo Ext Per POI ADS CA DI Poe LD
    2.. ________________________ Imp Inf Pro Duo Ext Per POI ADS CA DI Poe LD
    3.. ________________________ Imp Inf Pro Duo Ext Per POI ADS CA DI Poe LD
    4.. ________________________ Imp Inf Pro Duo Ext Per POI ADS CA DI Poe LD
    5.. ________________________ Imp Inf Pro Duo Ext Per POI ADS CA DI Poe LD
    6.. ________________________ Imp Inf Pro Duo Ext Per POI ADS CA DI Poe LD
    7.. ________________________ Imp Inf Pro Duo Ext Per POI ADS CA DI Poe LD
    8.. ________________________ Imp Inf Pro Duo Ext Per POI ADS CA DI Poe LD
    9.. ________________________ Imp Inf Pro Duo Ext Per POI ADS CA DI Poe LD
    10.. ________________________ Imp Inf Pro Duo Ext Per POI ADS CA DI Poe LD
    11.. ________________________ Imp Inf Pro Duo Ext Per POI ADS CA DI Poe LD
    12.. ________________________ Imp Inf Pro Duo Ext Per POI ADS CA DI Poe LD
    13.. ________________________ Imp Inf Pro Duo Ext Per POI ADS CA DI Poe LD
    14.. ________________________ Imp Inf Pro Duo Ext Per POI ADS CA DI Poe LD
    15.. ________________________ Imp Inf Pro Duo Ext Per POI ADS CA DI Poe LD


TEAMS

    1.. ________________________ _______________________ Open Novice Parli Duo
    2.. ________________________ _______________________ Open Novice Parli Duo
    3.. ________________________ _______________________ Open Novice Parli Duo
    4.. ________________________ _______________________ Open Novice Parli Duo
    5.. ________________________ _______________________ Open Novice Parli Duo
    6.. ________________________ _______________________ Open Novice Parli Duo
CRITICS

1. _________________________ Debate IE Both

2. _________________________ Debate IE Both

3. _________________________ Debate IE Both

4. _________________________ Debate IE Both

Entries can be made through the following numbers: FAX (318-475-5922) Office: (318-475-5940)


Houston Area League of Forensics Entry Form

Due by 5:00 PM January 11, 2000

School: ______________________________________ School Code: ____________

Director:_____________________________________ Phone: _________________

Address: _____________________________________ _________________



Please mark novice entries with an "N"

    1.. ________________________ Imp Inf Pro Duo Ext Per POI ADS CA DI Poe LD
    2.. ________________________ Imp Inf Pro Duo Ext Per POI ADS CA DI Poe LD
    3.. ________________________ Imp Inf Pro Duo Ext Per POI ADS CA DI Poe LD
    4.. ________________________ Imp Inf Pro Duo Ext Per POI ADS CA DI Poe LD
    5.. ________________________ Imp Inf Pro Duo Ext Per POI ADS CA DI Poe LD
    6.. ________________________ Imp Inf Pro Duo Ext Per POI ADS CA DI Poe LD
    7.. ________________________ Imp Inf Pro Duo Ext Per POI ADS CA DI Poe LD
    8.. ________________________ Imp Inf Pro Duo Ext Per POI ADS CA DI Poe LD
    9.. ________________________ Imp Inf Pro Duo Ext Per POI ADS CA DI Poe LD
    10.. ________________________ Imp Inf Pro Duo Ext Per POI ADS CA DI Poe LD
    11.. ________________________ Imp Inf Pro Duo Ext Per POI ADS CA DI Poe LD
    12.. ________________________ Imp Inf Pro Duo Ext Per POI ADS CA DI Poe LD
    13.. ________________________ Imp Inf Pro Duo Ext Per POI ADS CA DI Poe LD
    14.. ________________________ Imp Inf Pro Duo Ext Per POI ADS CA DI Poe LD
    15.. ________________________ Imp Inf Pro Duo Ext Per POI ADS CA DI Poe LD


DUO TEAMS

    1.. ________________________ _______________________ 
    2.. ________________________ _______________________ 
    3.. ________________________ _______________________ 
    4.. ________________________ _______________________ 
    5.. ________________________ _______________________ 
    6.. ________________________ _______________________ 
CRITICS

1. _________________________ 

2. _________________________ 

3. _________________________ 

4. _________________________ 

Entries can be made through the following numbers: FAX (318-475-5922) Office: (318-475-5940)



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/19991104/0cb5ffa7/attachment.html 


From asnider  Thu Nov  4 09:44:51 1999
From: asnider (Alfred C. Snider)
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 10:44:51 -0500
Subject: New Debate Videos on Debate Central
Message-ID: <THU.4.NOV.1999.104451.0500.ASNIDER@ZOO.UVM.EDU>

Debate Central Broadcasting [http://debate.uvm.edu/broadcast.html]
announces its latest additions to our growing video libary. We currently
use RealPlayer [http://www.real.com] but we will soon also use QuickTime
and invite people to do a comparison.

DEBATE UPDATE 10-22-99
Andy Ellis and others review recent tournament results and discuss plan
inclusive counterplans. Focus on USA policy debate. 30 min.

FLASHPOINT #207: Pakistan Coup
Discussion of recent coup in Pakistan and its effect on international
relations and security. 30 min.

FLASHPOINT #208: Sanctions on Iraq
Discussion of effects and morality of economic sanctions on Iraq. 30 min.

Basic Policy Debate Part One: Walk Through of a Debate
Alfred C. Snider, Vermont Debaters, 30 min.

Basic Policy Debate Part Five: Introduction to Affirmative Debating
Alfred C. Snider & Justin Parmett, Univ. of Vermont, 30 min.

Basic Policy Debate Part Six: Topicality
Alfred C. Snider & Andy Ellis, Univ. of Vermont, 30 min.

Basic Policy Debate Part Eight: Counterplans
Alfred C. Snider & Jackie Massey, Univ. of Vermont, 30 min.

The Critique Process, John Meany, Claremont Colleges
Lecture from World Debate Institute 1999, 40 min.

Final Round, Univ. of Rochester, 1999
Univ. of Vermont Snider-Morgan aff vs. Cornell Univ. Kronk-Cole. Includes
parts of judge critique.

COMING SOON:

NPDA 1999 Final Round
Worlds Format Parliamentary Debate on Trade Blocs
More Basic Policy videos
Puiblic debate on Legal Remedies for White Privilege

WE WANT: Videos you might have to add to our library.

Stand by for announcement of the first live internet debate which the
entire world can watch live, between Cornell University and the University
of Vermont. Coming in December.



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 2000 - make
plans now - http://debate.uvm.edu/wdi.html



From jlupo  Thu Nov  4 11:36:48 1999
From: jlupo (Jon paul Lupo)
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 12:36:48 -0500
Subject: Kentucky JR
Message-ID: <THU.4.NOV.1999.123648.0500.JLUPO@EMORY.EDU>

could one of you guys (or someone who knows how to get intouch with one of
them) please email me


********************************************************************
 Jon Paul Lupo                                     404-251-4320
Emory University                                  JLUPO at EMORY.EDU

 "The one constant through all the years, Ray, has been
 baseball. America has rolled by like an army of steamrollers.
 It's been erased like a blackboard, rebuilt, and erased again. But
 baseball has marked the time.This field, this game, is a part
 of our past, Ray. It reminds us of all that once was good,
 and that could be again. Oh, people will come,Ray. People will
 most definitely come." -- Terence Mann (Jones).



From tgibson  Thu Nov  4 12:55:27 1999
From: tgibson (Thomas Russell Gibson)
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 12:55:27 -0600
Subject: clarification of events
Message-ID: <THU.4.NOV.1999.125527.0600.TGIBSON@POST.CIS.SMU.EDU>

I realize this is for debate, but I need some questions answered quick.
In dramatic interp and duo dramatic, do the competitors have to have
their pieces in hand while performing.  Also, ist there a no direct
interaction rule in place in duo, including looking at partner and
touching?  Other questions, what is most like HS Orig Oratory:
persuasive, informative, or after dinner speaking?
Any quick response would be loved by me!

Thanx,
Russell Gibson

SMU Debate/Forensics Prez



From tgibson  Thu Nov  4 12:56:42 1999
From: tgibson (Thomas Russell Gibson)
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 12:56:42 -0600
Subject: UT Tyler
Message-ID: <THU.4.NOV.1999.125642.0600.TGIBSON@POST.CIS.SMU.EDU>

If anyone is interested in sharing Extemp tubs with a new program at UT
Tyler, could you please contact me?  Thank You!

Russell Gibson

SMU Debate



From jwpatt00  Thu Nov  4 13:04:22 1999
From: jwpatt00 (J.W. Patterson)
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 14:04:22 -0500
Subject: TOC QUALS: CALHOUN AND EGR
Message-ID: <THU.4.NOV.1999.140422.0500.JWPATT00@POP.UKY.EDU>

A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 1370 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/19991104/8f319ea2/attachment.bin 


From jbrey  Thu Nov  4 13:09:06 1999
From: jbrey (James Brey)
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 14:09:06 -0500
Subject: Brian Ray
Message-ID: <THU.4.NOV.1999.140906.0500.JBREY@GARNET.ACNS.FSU.EDU>

Hey Brian, Send me your Email address, I have a question for you.

Brey




Dr. James Brey
356 Diffenbaugh
Florida State University
Tallahassee, Fl
32306


No longer lend your strength to that which you wish to be free from.


My Academic Homepage:  www.comm.fsu.edu/courses
FSU  Debate  Homepage:  www.comm.fsu.edu/debate



From jrellis  Thu Nov  4 15:53:55 1999
From: jrellis (Jared Ellis)
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 13:53:55 -0800
Subject: MSU Donald or Monick
Message-ID: <THU.4.NOV.1999.135355.0800.JRELLIS@LCLARK.EDU>

Could one of you guys backchannel me when you get the chance?

Jared Ellis
LC

>From  Thu Nov  4 14:11:17 1999
Message-Id: <THU.4.NOV.1999.141117.0800.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 47696 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 17:13:22
 -0500
Precedence: bulk
Received: from mail01-lax.pilot.net (mail-lax-1.pilot.net [205.139.40.18]) by
 list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA09652 for
 <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 17:13:21 -0500
Received: from mailgw.capgroup.com (unknown-23-140.pilot.net [204.48.23.140])
 by mail01-lax.pilot.net with ESMTP id OAA04276 for
 <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 14:13:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtplink.capgroup.com (unknown-64-237.capgroup.com
 [148.107.64.237]) by mailgw.capgroup.com with SMTP id OAA22461 for
 <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 14:13:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: by smtplink.capgroup.com(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.5  (863.2 5-20-1999))
 id 8825681F.0079F0E0 ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 14:11:55 -0800
X-Lotus-FromDomain: CG
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-ID: <8825681F.0079EE65.00 at smtplink.capgroup.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 14:11:17 -0800
Reply-To: Sue_Lowrie at CAPGROUP.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Sue_Lowrie at CAPGROUP.COM
Subject: NCA overflow hotel?

Hey everyone...sorry to waste a message...but does anyone know the name and/or
number
of the overflow hotel (the one across the street from the main one)?  If you do
and could send it
to me via this e-mail address it would be much appreciated!

Thanks!

Sue



From mattbatt1  Thu Nov  4 16:46:36 1999
From: mattbatt1 (Domenic Battistella)
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 14:46:36 PST
Subject: Lost Bag at Harvard
Message-ID: <THU.4.NOV.1999.144636.PST.MATTBATT1@HOTMAIL.COM>

I lost a black leather bag containing a CD book, keys, timers, and an
airline ticket.  If if anybody attending the Harvard tournament is in
posession of such a bag and it doesnt belong to you, please backchannel me.

Thanks,
Dom Battistella
West GA Debate

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

>From  Thu Nov  4 16:46:11 1999
Message-Id: <THU.4.NOV.1999.164611.0500.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 48222 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 17:50:51
 -0500
Precedence: bulk
Received: from alpha.selu.edu (alpha.selu.edu [147.174.1.7]) by list.uvm.edu
 (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA31212 for <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Thu,
 4 Nov 1999 17:50:49 -0500
Received: from selu.edu by selu.edu (PMDF V5.2-32 #39798) id
 <01JHY340D3809I5HDH at selu.edu> for edebate at list.uvm.edu; Thu, 4 Nov
 1999 16:46:50 CDT
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Message-ID: <01JHY340D45U9I5HDH at selu.edu>
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 16:46:11 -0500
Reply-To: selliott at SELU.EDU
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Scott Elliott <selliott at SELU.EDU>
Organization: Southeastern Louisiana University
Subject: Did the November Rankings come out?

my computer was down last weekend, did the Novemebr rankings come out?
Scott Elliott
SE Louisiana.



From ludebate  Thu Nov  4 17:19:11 1999
From: ludebate (Liberty Debate)
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 18:19:11 -0500
Subject: Anyone from Redlands
Message-ID: <THU.4.NOV.1999.181911.0500.LUDEBATE@LIBERTY.EDU>

I here you all run the Supreme Court Counterplan.  If you can, please send
me your solvency cites to eiwha at go.com

Thank you- Leah Frazier



From kenneth.delaughder  Thu Nov  4 17:29:29 1999
From: kenneth.delaughder (Kenneth DeLaughder)
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 16:29:29 -0700
Subject: JV swing partner for UCO
Message-ID: <THU.4.NOV.1999.162929.0700.KENNETH.DELAUGHDER@ENMU.EDU>

If anyone ahs a JV debater that they would like to take to the University
of Central Oklahoma tournament, please contact me, I have a debater
available for that weekend.

Ken DeLaughder
Emporia Debate

>From  Thu Nov  4 21:50:58 1999
Message-Id: <THU.4.NOV.1999.215058.EST.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 49563 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 21:51:37
 -0500
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 VAA31168 for
 <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 21:51:35 -0500
Received: from AlwysFishn at aol.com by imo27.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id
 nXPUa23354 (2617) for <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Thu, 4 Nov 1999
 21:50:58 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 27
Message-ID: <0.8beb5476.2553a012 at aol.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 21:50:58 EST
Reply-To: AlwysFishn at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: AlwysFishn at AOL.COM
Subject: vandy tourny update

Here's the Latest update as of 9:00pm of the 4th of November.  Keep on
sending them.  If you have emailed vandy.debate.edu, we have your entries,
but I just couldn't get on M.L.'s email account.  If you haven't sent in your
entries. . . and you know who you are. . . e-mail either me or M.L. and we'll
even put your names on the big list!!   Glad to hear from all of you.

--james porter

  17 schools
  16 open teams
  19 JV teams
  27 novice teams


  Alabama
      Open    Lamberth/Carroll
          Pfister/Gordon
      JV  Inghram?Jester
          Banks/Bonham
          Phillips/LaCour
          Gonzalez/Stein
          Miller/Minor
      Novice  Pruitt/Scott
          May/Parrish
      Judges  Crenshaw, Prisco, Shaw

  Cumberland
      Novice  Frietas/Worsley
          Hitch/Stevens
      Judges  Kinser,

  Emory
      3 open teams
      1 novice team

  Florida
      JV  Aldridge/France
      Novice  Angellis/Childers
      Judges  Kish

  Georgia
      Open  Parekh/McGrath
      JV  Buttigieg/Brock
      Judges  Rufo  and  Galloway

  Georgia State
       1 open +?

  Louisville
      JV  Webster/Rodgers
      Novice  Brush/Shuff
          Toole/Carr
          Rheaume/Wilkie
      Judges  Bito  and  Cunningham

  Loyola
      Open    Kerman/Hill
          Eggers/McCarley
      JV  Danish/Massa
          Shambailca/Lizak
      Novice  Mahmood/Kinstler
      Judges  Romanelli

 LSU
      JV  Smith/Harver
      Judge: Goins

 LSU/GSU
      JV  Winters (LSU)/Mathis (GSU)
      Judge:  Goins

 Marquette
      JV  Chapman/Krubsack
      Novice  LoPiccalo/Shelton
          Zulawski/Kirby
      Judges  Dasney

 Mercer
      Open    Abbott/Woodard
          Dykes/Thatcher
      JV  Cisneros/Noel
          Brock/Morrison
      Novice  Dodd/Wilbert
      Judge   Zompetti

  Miami
       2 open teams

  Morehouse
      Novice  Flippin/Lowery
          Cooper/Franklin
      Judges  Coxon (nov),  Garner (elims)

 MTSU
      Open    Gaston/Woodward
           Bond/Carter
      Novice   Miedel/Jennings
      Judges  Butler, Osborne

  Samford
      Open    one team
      Novice  five teams
      Judges  three

  SELA
      JV  3 teams
      Novice 1-2 teams

  Tennessee Tech
      JV  Ratledge/Williams
      Novice  Canavan/Wells
          Bynum/Hume
          Bucholz/Marshall
          Wheeler/Jones
      Judges  Kash, Sams, Vandevelder



  M. L. Sandoz
  Director, Vanderbilt Debate
  615-322-3784 Office
  615-322-2307 Office
  615-673-7340 Home
  >>



From shorty140  Thu Nov  4 22:16:34 1999
From: shorty140 (Jeff)
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 23:16:34 -0500
Subject: Melissa Wade or Ed Panetta
Message-ID: <THU.4.NOV.1999.231634.0500.SHORTY140@HOTMAIL.COM>

If Melissa Wade @ Emory or Ed Panetta @ UGA could backchannel me about
throwing Georgia H.S. tournaments it would be greatly appreciated.  Or if
anyone else in Georgia has experience throwing H.S. tournaments please
backchannel me.


Thank you,


Jeff



From allyngibson  Thu Nov  4 22:02:35 1999
From: allyngibson (Allyn Gibson)
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 23:02:35 -0500
Subject: Looking for Liberty types
Message-ID: <THU.4.NOV.1999.230235.0500.ALLYNGIBSON@JUNO.COM>

Could someone connected with Liberty University please backchannel?  It
would be greatly appreciated.

Allyn Gibson
Debate Liberation Front


==========

"Did you know every time you open your mouth strange sounds come out?"
     -- Pinky, to the Brain



From dennis  Fri Nov  5 08:20:46 1999
From: dennis (doug dennis)
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 09:20:46 -0500
Subject: hester or sharp
Message-ID: <FRI.5.NOV.1999.092046.0500.DENNIS@MACALESTER.EDU>

can one of you backchannel me asap?  thanks.

doug
mac college



From hcspc014  Fri Nov  5 09:46:58 1999
From: hcspc014 (william sheffield)
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 07:46:58 -0800
Subject: NCA overflow hotel?
In-Reply-To: <8825681F.0079EE65.00@smtplink.capgroup.com>
Message-ID: <FRI.5.NOV.1999.074658.0800.HCSPC014@CSUN.EDU>

Sue,

There are actually two hotels next to the Hilton.  The Blackstone is to
the north, and the Essex is to the south.  I don't havbe numbers, but I
hope this helps.

Bill

Bill Sheffield, Director of Forensics
CSUN Speech & Debate Team
CSU-Northridge
Dept. of Communication Studies
Northridge, CA 91330-8257
office: 818/677-3043     debate room:  818/677-2028
email:  hcspc014 at csun.edu     debateprof at juno.com
URL:  http://speech.csun.edu/forensics


On Thu, 4 Nov 1999 Sue_Lowrie at CAPGROUP.COM wrote:

> Hey everyone...sorry to waste a message...but does anyone know the name and/or
> number
> of the overflow hotel (the one across the street from the main one)?  If you do
> and could send it
> to me via this e-mail address it would be much appreciated!
>
> Thanks!
>
> Sue
>



From se_region  Fri Nov  5 11:06:30 1999
From: se_region (Deon Garner)
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 09:06:30 PST
Subject: Morehouse College High School Tournament
Message-ID: <FRI.5.NOV.1999.090630.PST.SEREGION@HOTMAIL.COM>

Below is the initial announcement of the Morehouse College Maroon Tiger High
School Debate Tournament.  This is the first of its kind here at Morehouse,
so we are very excited and anxious about the endeavor.  I am mailing this to
the collegiate community for two reasons.  (1) We are petitioning the
community for judges.  If there is anyone in the Atlanta area that would
like to earn a few bucks on the weekend of the 22nd in January, please
backchannel ASAP.  We are putting together our judging list beginning now.
The pay will be good, and it is a two-day tournament.  If you desire
housing, PLEASE let me know EARLY, and we can possibly work something out,
but these options will be few.  (2)  I know a lot of college debaters coach
high school programs.  I want to extend a personal invitation to you and
your high school forensics programs to join us in January for our first
high-school debate tournament.
______________________________________________________________________


Hello all,

My name is Deon Garner, and I am the CEDA Debate Coach at Morehouse College
in Atlanta, Georgia.  The Morehouse College Debate is pleased to announce
its 2000 Morehouse College Maroon Tiger Debate Tournament.  The event will
be held Friday and Saturday January 22 and January 23, 2000.

We look forward to offering two divisions of switch-side policy debate on
the national high-school topic plus two divisions of Lincoln-Douglas Debate
on the topic at that time.  Additionally, we will have an individual events
tournament that will feature 7 individual speaking event categories.  All
details will be included in the next communication.

The tournament has a ZERO-TOLERANCE policy of racial discrimination and/or
harassment and sexual discrimination and/or harassment.  We encourage judges
to penalize teams that engage in such actions and/or discourse within the
debate round.  The tournament officials will take appropriate action if such
behavior is exhibited by those other than student participants.

We hope you consider joining us in Atlanta.  We plan to have lunch on
Saturday, refreshments for sale throughout the event, a relaxed two-day
schedule that will allow you to tour Atlanta if you so desire, great
trophies, a number of amenities.

If you are interested in attending, please email me immediately and inform
me of your initial interest.  If you will be flying in from out of town, the
Hartsfield International Airport (which is an EXCELLENT and efficient
airport) is app.  25 minutes south of the campus.  If you need
transportation from the airport or between the campus and the hotel (this
information will distributed later) we MAY be able to provide some
assistance.

We are excited about this endeavor and hope you decide to share in our
excitement here in Atlanta, Georgia.

Yours,

Jeff Coxon, Student Tournament Coordinator

Deon Garner, Debate Coach, Morehouse College

Broderick McGrady, Director of Forensics, Morehouse College

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



From carsonau  Fri Nov  5 14:12:03 1999
From: carsonau (Austin Carson)
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 12:12:03 -0800
Subject: Dartmouth BG only
Message-ID: <FRI.5.NOV.1999.121203.0800.CARSONAU@PILOT.MSU.EDU>

yo fellas

i need the name of that rare journal that you read cards from in our prelim round, i wrote it down but lost that scrap of paper.

thanks--

austin carson
msu debate
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/19991105/9f80c771/attachment.html 


From rschwart  Fri Nov  5 11:26:40 1999
From: rschwart (Rae L. Schwartz)
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 12:26:40 -0500
Subject: binghamton?
In-Reply-To: <0.8beb5476.2553a012@aol.com>
Message-ID: <FRI.5.NOV.1999.122640.0500.RSCHWART@ZOO.UVM.EDU>

could somone please post the team list for binghamton
thaank you
rae
uvm



From siver  Fri Nov  5 11:39:14 1999
From: siver (Christi Siver)
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 09:39:14 -0800
Subject: Becky Gallentine
In-Reply-To: <Pine.OSF.4.10.9910280030350.31225-100000@is06.fas.harvard.edu>
Message-ID: <FRI.5.NOV.1999.093914.0800.SIVER@LCLARK.EDU>

I have a student who is planning on doing a speech on Becky Gallentine for
the Linfield Tournaments event, In Honor of Women.  If anyone has
transcripts of Becky's speeches, please let me know.

thanks

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Elmo, the very tiny monster......aka Christi Leigh Siver, from San
Antonio, where they know what picante sauce is supposed to taste
like.....
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@



From bg20351  Fri Nov  5 12:13:28 1999
From: bg20351 (Siejen Yin)
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 13:13:28 -0500
Subject: TEAM LIST FOR BINGHAMTON TOURNAMENT
In-Reply-To: <Pine.A41.4.10.9911051225210.38536-100000@elk.uvm.edu>
References: <0.8beb5476.2553a012@aol.com>
Message-ID: <FRI.5.NOV.1999.131328.0500.BG20351@BINGHAMTON.EDU>

Here's the Latest on the Binghamton Tournament:

We Will Break to Octo-Finals in the Novice Division.

We will break to Semi-Finals in the JV Division.  In order to Break to
Quarter-Finals in the JV Division, We will Need One More JV Team.

If any school would like to send one more JV TEAM or any schools interested
in forming a HYBRID JV TEAM, PLEASE CONTACT ME ASAP at (607)777-3969 or
e-mail me at <bg20351 at binghamton.edu>.

Here's the Latest Count:
TOTAL NUMBER OF SCHOOLS=12 Schools

TOTAL Novice Teams=40 Teams
TOTAL JV Teams=15 Teams
TOTAL NUMBER OF TEAMS=55 TEAMS



And Now for the List of Teams...

List of Teams Attending the Binghamton  Tournament:

Allegheny College
Novice:
Jim Salandro & Tamara Pavasovic
Rosa Diaz & Trent Rumbaugh

Judges:
Beth Gardner-1/2 Commitment
Rupa Ranganathan (Novice)-1/2 Commitment


Cornell University
Novice:
Paul Wenzel & Maurice Duccing
Herb Wilmooth & Chris Konek
Shannon Smith & Alberto Leff

JV:
Anapurna Singh & Lara Douglas
Josh Widmann & John Bradford

Judges:
Mike Cole (5 Rounds-Sat. Only)
Beth Kronik (5 Rounds-Sat. Only)
Beth Gardner (2 Rounds-5th and 6th Round)
Jethro Hayman (3 Rounds)


Cumberland College
Novice:
John Hitch & Aaron Stevens
Melanie Worsley & Alice Freitas

Judge:
Kevin M O'Leary


Dartmouth College
Novice:
Matt Neill & Henry Shi

Judge:
Bill Russell


Mansfield Universiy
Novice:
Heidi Hook & Julie Kantz
Matt Henry & Jacob Huff
Amina Ahmad & Tanya Morgan
Mike Kittle & Dan Eskesen

Judge:
Larry Watts


Marist
Novice:
Possible Hybrid with Vermont

JV:
Mark Smith & Brad Stevenson


NAVY
Novice:
Von Fernandez & Fidel Sanchez
David Bartlow & Brent Richardson

JV:
Mike Bruno & Tim Johnson

Judges:
CDR Brad Taylor
Captain Chris Rodriguez


University of Rochester
7 Novice Teams
3 JV Teams


Trinity College:
Novice:
Gana-Eagle


University of Vermont
Novice:
Reynolds-Ronhagen
Etherington-Sullivan
Parmett-Gervais
Alexander-Towne
Lunte-Gilpatric
Malley-Weidhorn
Miller-Robinson
Clark-McDonald
Johnson-Knops
Mullany-Chartan
Dempsey-Borman
Deming-Cardile
Dooling-Eisenstadt
(Marist/Vermont Hybrid)

JV:
Morgan-Winfield
Douglas-Fishbone
Pagan-Robertson

Judges:
Ellis
Brill
Wilkerson
Schwartz
Hewitt
Parmett
Jacobsen (1/2 commitment)
Snider (Novice-Full)
Lockwood (Novice-Full)


West Point
Novice:
Phil Suh & Steve Hemnan

JV:
Andy Scott & John Finch
Tim Sikes & Simon Kim

Judges:
Derek Bennett (Novice-3 Rounds)
Luke Harris (Novice-3 Rounds)
Mike Wright (4 Rounds)
Ike Wilson (5 Rounds)


West Virginia University
Novice:
Jessica Taylor & Jeremy Wilson
Kim Bandy & Eric Zuchhowski

JV:
Nicole Newlon & Lynna Palmer
Jennifer Dixon & Jason Evans
Joshua Boggs & Mary Bess

Judge:
Dan Overbey


TAB DIRECTORS:
Mike Davis (University of Rochester)
Dan Overbey (West Virginia University)


Thank You for your Support.  We look forward to seeing all of you this
weekend.  Should you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to
contact us.

Take Care and See Yall This Weekend.


Sincerely,

Siejen Yin
President/Co-Tournament Director
Binghamton Speech & Debate Team



Siejen Yin
CIW #06479
Binghamton University
P.O. Box 6006
Binghamton, NY 13902-6006
(607) 777-3969



"...To help someone else if the greatest gift of all to yourself..."

"...We are all more Alike than Unlike..."
                -Maya Angelou



From bg20351  Fri Nov  5 13:02:00 1999
From: bg20351 (Siejen Yin)
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 14:02:00 -0500
Subject: BREAKS at TOURNAMENTS
Message-ID: <FRI.5.NOV.1999.140200.0500.BG20351@BINGHAMTON.EDU>

Hey Guys!

Will Sam Nelson, Tuna, or Brett O'Donnell backchannel me ASAP?
Or anyone who is familiar with Breaks at Tournaments either under ADA/CEDA
rules, please backchannel me ASAP?

I have a quick question in regards to breaks at this weekend's tournament.

Thanks in Advance for your Assistance.

Sincerely,
Siejen Yin
Binghamton University



Siejen Yin
CIW #06479
Binghamton University
P.O. Box 6006
Binghamton, NY 13902-6006
(607) 777-3969



"...To help someone else if the greatest gift of all to yourself..."

"...We are all more Alike than Unlike..."
                -Maya Angelou



From lesjober  Fri Nov  5 15:33:35 1999
From: lesjober (The Eternal Flame)
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 15:33:35 -0600
Subject: ISU
Message-ID: <FRI.5.NOV.1999.153335.0600.LESJOBER@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU>

Tournament invite needed.  If you can email it to me by 430, we can get
the University to pay for our fees and then it doesn't have to come out of
my pocket . . . :( I've been trying to get Khalil to communicate that we
need it!!!

Sorry for the urgency, I was under the impression that we'd get it.

Laura



From lindsayh  Fri Nov  5 16:27:16 1999
From: lindsayh (lindsayh)
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 14:27:16 -0800
Subject: Right to Choose in Jeapordy
Message-ID: <FRI.5.NOV.1999.142716.0800.LINDSAYH@USC.EDU>

News and information to protect reproductive rights
from Minnesota NARAL

Items
1.  Court Upholds "Partial-Birth" Bans
2.  Supreme Court May Rule

1.  Court Upholds "Partial-Birth" Bans
On Tuesday, October 26, the 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals upheld two
bans on so-called "partial-birth" abortions, one in Wisconsin and one in
Illinois.  The ruling marked the first time that a federal appeals court has
upheld a "partial-birth" ban.  Laws banning "partial-birth" abortions in
other states have been overturned because they are so vague that they can be
interpreted to ban virtually all abortions, making the laws
unconstitutional.    In the 5-4 decision, the 7th Circuit Court ruled that
the Illinois and Wisconsin bans could be applied in a constitutional manner.
The 7th Circuit ruling directly conflicts with a ruling last month by the
8th Circuit, which declared "partial-birth" bans in Arkansas, Iowa, and
Nebraska unconstitutional.

2.  Supreme Court may rule
With a split in the circuit courts' interpretation of the Constitution as it
applies to "partial-birth" bans, it becomes increasingly likely that the
U.S. Supreme Court will rule on the matter.  The Court has not ruled on
abortion since 1992, when it narrowly reaffirmed that a woman has a
constitutional right to abortion, but also ruled that states could impose
numerous restrictions on that right.  The court currently has 3 pro-choice
justices, 3 anti-choice justices, and 3 mixed justices, making it anyone's
guess as to how they would rule on a "partial-birth" ban.

The potential for the Supreme Court to hear an abortion case in the next few
years only further highlights the importance of the 2000 presidential
election.  With several justices nearing retirement age, the next president
will have the opportunity to appoint at least 2 or 3 justices to the Supreme
Court.  If the next abortion case is not heard until after these
appointments, and if the appointments are made by an anti-choice president,
Roe v. Wade could be overturned.

Action:  Forward this e-mail to two of your friends who may not realize how
important it is to have a pro-choice president to appoint justices who will
affirm Roe.


--
Minnesota NARAL
550 Rice St.
St. Paul, MN 55103
651-602-7655 (phone)
651-602-7658 (fax)
prochoicemn at mtn.org (e-mail)
http://www.mtn.org/mnnaral (WWW)

Protect the Right to Choose.  Vote Pro-Choice.



From girl-genius  Fri Nov  5 21:02:31 1999
From: girl-genius (Shawnessy Scott)
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 1999 03:02:31 0000
Subject: Right to Choose in Jeapordy
Message-ID: <SAT.6.NOV.1999.030231.0000.GIRLGENIUS@ANGELFIRE.COM>

What's a "partial-birth"? I'm making the huge
assumption here that the court(s) had significant
reasons to rule that way on an issue this volatile.
Perhaps I could understand better if I knew the
distinction, legal or medical, between the
definitions of partial-birth and abortion.

and I think the term is "pro-life", not "anti-choice"

novice
Shawnessy



On Fri, 5 Nov 1999 14:27:16    lindsayh wrote:
>News and information to protect reproductive rights
>from Minnesota NARAL
>
>Items
>1.  Court Upholds "Partial-Birth" Bans
>2.  Supreme Court May Rule
>
>1.  Court Upholds "Partial-Birth" Bans
>On Tuesday, October 26, the 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals upheld two
>bans on so-called "partial-birth" abortions, one in Wisconsin and one in
>Illinois.  The ruling marked the first time that a federal appeals court has
>upheld a "partial-birth" ban.  Laws banning "partial-birth" abortions in
>other states have been overturned because they are so vague that they can be
>interpreted to ban virtually all abortions, making the laws
>unconstitutional.    In the 5-4 decision, the 7th Circuit Court ruled that
>the Illinois and Wisconsin bans could be applied in a constitutional manner.
>The 7th Circuit ruling directly conflicts with a ruling last month by the
>8th Circuit, which declared "partial-birth" bans in Arkansas, Iowa, and
>Nebraska unconstitutional.
>
>2.  Supreme Court may rule
>With a split in the circuit courts' interpretation of the Constitution as it
>applies to "partial-birth" bans, it becomes increasingly likely that the
>U.S. Supreme Court will rule on the matter.  The Court has not ruled on
>abortion since 1992, when it narrowly reaffirmed that a woman has a
>constitutional right to abortion, but also ruled that states could impose
>numerous restrictions on that right.  The court currently has 3 pro-choice
>justices, 3 anti-choice justices, and 3 mixed justices, making it anyone's
>guess as to how they would rule on a "partial-birth" ban.
>
>The potential for the Supreme Court to hear an abortion case in the next few
>years only further highlights the importance of the 2000 presidential
>election.  With several justices nearing retirement age, the next president
>will have the opportunity to appoint at least 2 or 3 justices to the Supreme
>Court.  If the next abortion case is not heard until after these
>appointments, and if the appointments are made by an anti-choice president,
>Roe v. Wade could be overturned.
>
>Action:  Forward this e-mail to two of your friends who may not realize how
>important it is to have a pro-choice president to appoint justices who will
>affirm Roe.
>
>
>--
>Minnesota NARAL
>550 Rice St.
>St. Paul, MN 55103
>651-602-7655 (phone)
>651-602-7658 (fax)
>prochoicemn at mtn.org (e-mail)
>http://www.mtn.org/mnnaral (WWW)
>
>Protect the Right to Choose.  Vote Pro-Choice.
>


Angelfire for your free web-based e-mail. http://www.angelfire.com



From kcripe  Sat Nov  6 00:51:56 1999
From: kcripe (kellie Cripe)
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 1999 01:51:56 -0500
Subject: YOUR CHANCE TO PROVE YOU CARE MORE THAN IN A ROUND!!!!!  PLEASE
 READ AND ACT
Message-ID: <SAT.6.NOV.1999.015156.0500.KCRIPE@AMERICUS.NET>

Last year many of you debated, judged or heard rounds discussing the rights
of mothers to breastfeed.  This is an important message regarding an
upcoming convention to update the international Labour Organizations stance
on maternity rights and breastfeeding rights.  Please read it and make your
own decisions of how you can help.


Kellie Cripe

RE: ILO CAMPAIGN - ACT NOW !
Strengthen the new ILO Convention on Maternity Protection
From: Sarah Amin, WABA Secretariat, Penang

Dear Colleagues,

To enable you to participate in the ILO campaign, the Coalition on
Maternity Protection has provided a revised model letter for you and/or
the groups you belong to use as a sample for your own letters to
influence your ministry of labour and others in the government and
unions regarding the on-going process of revising the ILO Convention on
Maternity Protection. Please ignore the previous model letter sent to
you.

As you may know, your government will be sending a response to the
International Labour Organisation (ILO) on the current draft proposed
Convention and Recommendation by November 30, 1999. In June 2000, your
government will be represented at the next ILO Conference which decides
on the final texts of the ILO Convention and Recommendation on Maternity
Protection.

We hope we can count on your help in this important campaign.  This is
only the second time since 1919 that the Convention has been revised. It
is therefore important that all sectors (breastfeeding advocates, trade
unions, women's organisations, ministries of health and labour,
employers, etc.) be involved in ensuring that the next revision of the
ILO Convention on Maternity Protection clearly supports women's rights
to strong maternity entitlements.

We urge you to keep the WABA Secretariat and/or the GIFA/IBFAN office
informed of any developments on the ILO Campaign in your country and, to
send us a copy of any letter(s) you/your organisations sends out to your
Ministry of Labour and/or Health based on the model letter provided.

For your information, the WABA Secretariat is sending a mail out
containing various items concerning the ILO Campaign.  It includes:

f) an Action Alert prepared by GIFA/IBFAN on the 30 November 1999
deadline and information on the process of giving feedback on the ILO
questionnaire;

g) a hard copy of the model letter (as attached below);

h) a sheet explaining the outcomes of the ILO conference in terms of
breastfeeding provisions entitled "Implications of the New Draft ILO
Convention on Maternity Protection."

i) A letter from the WABA Women and Work Task Force/ARUGAAN entitled
"Ideas for National Level Advocacy on the ILO Campaign." This letter
suggests other national level actions that you/your organisation can
undertake to support this Campaign;

j) A hard copy of the ILO revised draft text of the Convention and
Recommendation on Maternity Protection (proposed conclusions revised as
of 16 June 1999); and

k) A report/proceedings of WABA's international workshop on
Breastfeeding, Women and Work: Human Rights and Creative Solutions held
in Quezon City, Philippines in June, 1998.  The report is in the form of
a magazine and gives a background for the broader issues surrounding the
ILO Campaign.

Please let us know if you would like a copy of this mail out and give us
your full mailing address.

We look forward to your comments and communications on actions taken to
support the ILO Campaign.  Thank you.

Yours sincerely,


Sarah Amin
WABA Secretariat
World Alliance for Breastfeeding Action

email
WABA <secr at waba.po.my>
GIFA <philipec at iprolink.ch>


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

MODEL LETTER

(TO BE SENT TO MINISTRY OF LABOUR, MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND OTHER
ORGANISATIONS URGING THEM TO ALSO LOBBY THE GOVERNMENT)



Dear ___________________

I am writing on behalf of [name of group] with regard to the ongoing
revision of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) Maternity
Protection Convention (103) and Recommendation (95).

We understand that the Government is drafting a reply to the Proposed
Convention concerning the revision of the Maternity Protection
Convention (revised) 1952 by 30 November 1999, after consultation with
employer and employee groups - as presented in Report IV (1), Maternity
protection at work, Fourth item on the agenda at the June 2000 ILO
Conference, which can be found on the internet at

http://www.ilo.org/public/english/10ilc/ilc88/rep-iv-1.htm

This reply will be taken into consideration in the drafting of the final
Convention to be agreed upon next June in Geneva.

We urge (the Government)/(your organisation to write to the Government)
to support in the Convention

1.  the continued inclusion of breastfeeding breaks (rather than
downscaling this Article 9 to the Recommendation which does not require
ratification),

2. an increase in the period of paid maternity leave from 12 weeks to 17
weeks,

3. inclusion of facilities for breastfeeding or expression of breast
milk at the workplace (rather than only in the Recommendation), and

4. text specifying that the costs for providing these entitlements
should not be borne solely by employers.

Also, within the Recommendation, support
5. an increase from the currently suggested 16 weeks to 6 months (26
weeks) for the period of paid maternity leave.

Our arguments for the importance of these measures are as follows:

*  UNICEF and the The World Health Assemby recommend exclusive
breastfeeding until the infant is about six months of age because of the
substantial health benefits this offers to both mother and child.
Without workplace support for breastfeeding women, this cannot be
achieved.


*  Currently very few working women are able to exclusively breastfeed
for the recommended period of six months. As more health professionals
learn about the benefits of exclusive breastfeeding and advise women to
practice it, increasing numbers of women will feel themselves under
unfair pressure. What is best for the health of mothers and their babies
will be impossible for them to achieve due to their conditions of work.

*  As a principle of equity and anti-discrimination, these entitlements
should be available to all female employees.

*  This ILO Convention is the most appropriate place to address
breastfeeding/nursing breaks as a logical extension of issues relating
to the rights of women in the work force who are pregnant or have given
birth.

*  The benefits of implementing longer paid leave and
breastfeeding/nursing breaks far outweigh any perceived disadvantages.
For employers, these include the retention of valued employees,
increased productivity and reduced absenteeism.  For employees, these
include enhanced physical and emotional well-being. For government and
public health authorities these include reduced health care costs as
breastfed babies are sick less often.

These issues are discussed in more detail in the following website, set
up as part of a campaign organised by the coalition on maternity
protection, including the World Alliance for Breastfeeding Action (WABA)
and the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN):
http://www.waba.org.br/working.htm

We urge that the Ministry of Labour consult widely in formulating its
response to the Draft Convention and Recommendation, particularly with
the Ministry of Health and/or Social Affairs.

Yours faithfully, etc.


........................



--------- End Forwarded Message ---------



--
Join the most exciting community of women on the web!
iVillage.com's FREE membership gets you private email,
your own home page, special discounts and sweepstakes,
and dozens of problem-solving tools.
http://www.ivillage.com/frame/join_email.html

--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------

    GRAB THE GATOR! FREE SOFTWARE DOES ALL THE TYPING FOR YOU!
Tired of filling out forms and remembering passwords? Gator fills in
forms and passwords with just one click! Comes with $50 in free coupons!
  <a href=" http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/gator4 ">Click Here</a>

------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Breast is Best!!
Please share your point-of-view on some BF topics, vote in our biweekly
survey at: http://www.onelist.com/surveycenter/ABreastIsBest



From omcst+  Sat Nov  6 08:25:51 1999
From: omcst+ (Omri M Ceren)
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 1999 09:25:51 -0500
Subject: Right to Choose in Jeapordy
In-Reply-To: <PDLDBJAKOIMPGAAA@angelfire.com>
Message-ID: <SAT.6.NOV.1999.092551.0500.OMCST@PITT.EDU>

On Sat, 6 Nov 1999, Shawnessy Scott wrote:

> What's a "partial-birth"? I'm making the huge
> assumption here that the court(s) had significant
> reasons to rule that way on an issue this volatile.
> Perhaps I could understand better if I knew the
> distinction, legal or medical, between the
> definitions of partial-birth and abortion.

That's the entire problem. There is no strict definition for what
constitutes a partial birth abortion. That's why the laws keep getting
struck down - because potentially, their vague language allow the states
to ban abortion in virtually any form.

Omri.

------
Dragonmen must fly
When threads are in the sky
                             --- Pernese Ballad
------
Contact Info:
   Email: omcst+ at pitt.edu
   AIM: photonh2o
   ICQ: 14078609
   Yahoo Messenger: photon_of_pern
------

>From  Sat Nov  6 10:56:36 1999
Message-Id: <SAT.6.NOV.1999.105636.0500.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 64089 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 10:50:07
 -0500
Precedence: bulk
Received: from argyle.richmond.edu (argyle.richmond.edu [141.166.188.18]) by
 list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA21494 for
 <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 10:50:06 -0500
Received: from p0j9v0 (smh225246.richmond.edu [141.166.225.246]) by
 argyle.richmond.edu (8.9.0/8.9.0) with SMTP id KAA18977 for
 <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 10:50:05 -0500 (EST)
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 IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0
Importance: Normal
Message-ID: <NCBBILCCCLOKELFEIFMPMEPECBAA.jkeeton at richmond.edu>
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 1999 10:56:36 -0500
Reply-To: jkeeton at richmond.edu
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Joseph Keeton <jkeeton at RICHMOND.EDU>
Subject: Definition of Partial Birth Abortion
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.96L.991106092425.3284A-100000 at unixs2.cis.pitt.edu>

In 1998 Virginia passed two bills which banned partial birth abortions, to
date they have not been seriously challenged in the courts.

Both bills define partial birth abortions as such;

The bill also defines "partial birth abortion" as an abortion in which the
person performing the abortion deliberately and intentionally delivers a
living fetus or a substantial portion thereof into the vagina for the
purpose of performing a procedure the person knows will kill the fetus,
performs the procedure, kills the fetus and completes the delivery.

This was from SB 552 in 1998, HB 1154 in 1998 has the same definition.

Joe Keeton
University of Richmond


-----Original Message-----
From: Team Topic Debating in America [mailto:EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU]On
Behalf Of Omri M Ceren
Sent: Saturday, November 06, 1999 9:26 AM
To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU
Subject: Re: Right to Choose in Jeapordy


On Sat, 6 Nov 1999, Shawnessy Scott wrote:

> What's a "partial-birth"? I'm making the huge
> assumption here that the court(s) had significant
> reasons to rule that way on an issue this volatile.
> Perhaps I could understand better if I knew the
> distinction, legal or medical, between the
> definitions of partial-birth and abortion.

That's the entire problem. There is no strict definition for what
constitutes a partial birth abortion. That's why the laws keep getting
struck down - because potentially, their vague language allow the states
to ban abortion in virtually any form.

Omri.

------
Dragonmen must fly
When threads are in the sky
                             --- Pernese Ballad
------
Contact Info:
   Email: omcst+ at pitt.edu
   AIM: photonh2o
   ICQ: 14078609
   Yahoo Messenger: photon_of_pern
------

>From  Sat Nov  6 11:08:00 1999
Message-Id: <SAT.6.NOV.1999.110800.EST.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 64243 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 11:08:38
 -0500
Precedence: bulk
Received: from imo-d09.mx.aol.com (imo-d09.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.41]) by
 list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA27126 for
 <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 11:08:37 -0500
Received: from AlwysFishn at aol.com by imo-d09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id
 nQXD0cp2WB (6096); Sat, 6 Nov 1999 11:08:00 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL NetMail version 2.0
Message-ID: <0.51946f8e.2555ac60 at aol.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 1999 11:08:00 EST
Reply-To: AlwysFishn at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: AlwysFishn at AOL.COM
Subject: vandy tourny update
Comments: cc: vandy.debate at juno.com

Here's the complete (hopefully) update of our tournament as of Saturday, the 6th of November.  If you have emailed your request and it does not appear here, email vandy.debate at juno.com AND alwysfishn at aol.com  If you haven't sent in your entries. . . and you know who you are. . . e-mail either me or M.L. and we'll
 even put your names on the big list!!   Glad to hear from all of you.

 --james porter

   18 schools
   15 open teams
   20 JV teams
   29 novice teams


   Alabama
       Open    Lamberth/Carroll
           Pfister/Gordon
       JV  Inghram?Jester
           Banks/Bonham
           Phillips/LaCour
           Gonzalez/Stein
           Miller/Minor
       Novice  Pruitt/Scott
           May/Parrish
       Judges  Crenshaw, Prisco, Shaw

   Cumberland
       Novice  Frietas/Worsley
           Hitch/Stevens
       Judges  Kinser,

   Emory
       Open  Gorezynski/Bridgford
           Klink/Henderson
       JV  Jenkins/Somers
       Novice  Morgan/Mehta
       Judge: Falconer

   Florida
       JV  Aldridge/France
       Novice  Angellis/Childers
       Judges  Kish

   Georgia
       Open  Parekh/McGrath
       JV  Buttigieg/Brock
       Judges  Rufo  and  Galloway

   Georgia State
        1 open +?

   Louisville
       JV  Webster/Rodgers
       Novice  Brush/Shuff
           Toole/Carr
           Rheaume/Wilkie
       Judges  Bito  and  Cunningham

   Loyola
       Open    Kerman/Hill
           Eggers/McCarley
       JV  Danish/Massa
           Shambailca/Lizak
       Novice  Mahmood/Kinstler
       Judges  Romanelli

  LSU
       JV  Smith/Harper
       JV  Winters (LSU)/Mathis (GSU)
       Judge:  Goins

  Marquette
       JV  Chapman/Krubsack
       Novice  LoPiccalo/Shelton
           Zulawski/Kirby
       Judges  Dasney

  Mercer
       Open    Abbott/Woodard
           Dykes/Thatcher
       JV  Cisneros/Noel
           Brock/Morrison
       Novice  Dodd/Wilbert
       Judge   Zompetti

   Miami
        2 open teams

   Morehouse
       Novice  Flippin/Lowery
           Cooper/Franklin
       Judges  Coxon (nov),  Garner (elims)

  MTSU
       Open    Gaston/Woodward
            Bond/Carter
       Novice   Miedel/Jennings
       Judges  Butler, Osborne

   Samford
       Open    one team
       Novice  five teams
       Judges  three

   SELA
       JV  3 teams
       Novice 1-2 teams

   University of the South - Sewanee
       Novice Dunn/Georgiev
           Hearty/Allen

   Tennessee Tech
       JV  Ratledge/Williams
       Novice  Canavan/Wells
           Bynum/Hume
           Bucholz/Marshall
           Wheeler/Jones
       Judges  Kash, Sams, Vandevelder



   M. L. Sandoz
   Director, Vanderbilt Debate
   615-322-3784 Office
   615-322-2307 Office
   615-673-7340 Home
   >>

>From  Sat Nov  6 11:34:53 1999
Message-Id: <SAT.6.NOV.1999.113453.EST.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 64427 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 11:35:34
 -0500
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 LAA29710 for
 <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 11:35:33 -0500
Received: from AlwysFishn at aol.com by imo22.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id
 nCMBa17246 (6092); Sat, 6 Nov 1999 11:34:53 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL NetMail version 2.0
Message-ID: <0.132b0092.2555b2ad at aol.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 1999 11:34:53 EST
Reply-To: AlwysFishn at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: AlwysFishn at AOL.COM
Subject: vandy tourny update (yes again)
Comments: cc: vandy.debate at juno.com

 Here's the complete (hopefully) update of our tournament as of Saturday, the
 6th of November.  If you have emailed your request and it does not appear
 here, email vandy.debate at juno.com AND alwysfishn at aol.com  If you haven't sent
 in your entries. . . and you know who you are. . . e-mail either me or M.L.
 and we'll
  even put your names on the big list!!   Glad to hear from all of you.

  --james porter

    19 schools
    16 open teams
    21 JV teams
    30 novice teams


    Alabama
        Open    Lamberth/Carroll
            Pfister/Gordon
        JV  Inghram?Jester
            Banks/Bonham
            Phillips/LaCour
            Gonzalez/Stein
            Miller/Minor
        Novice  Pruitt/Scott
            May/Parrish
        Judges  Crenshaw, Prisco, Shaw

    App State
        1 JV team
        1 Novice team

    Cumberland
        Novice  Frietas/Worsley
            Hitch/Stevens
        Judges  Kinser,

    Emory
        Open  Gorezynski/Bridgford
            Klink/Henderson
        JV  Jenkins/Somers
        Novice  Morgan/Mehta
        Judge: Falconer

    Florida
        JV  Aldridge/France
        Novice  Angellis/Childers
        Judges  Kish

    Georgia
        Open  Parekh/McGrath
        JV  Buttigieg/Brock
        Judges  Rufo  and  Galloway

    Georgia State
         1 open +?

    Louisville
        JV  Webster/Rodgers
        Novice  Brush/Shuff
            Toole/Carr
            Rheaume/Wilkie
        Judges  Bito  and  Cunningham

    Loyola
        Open    Kerman/Hill
            Eggers/McCarley
        JV  Danish/Massa
            Shambailca/Lizak
        Novice  Mahmood/Kinstler
        Judges  Romanelli

   LSU
        JV  Smith/Harper
        JV  Winters (LSU)/Mathis (GSU)
        Judge:  Goins

   Marquette
        JV  Chapman/Krubsack
        Novice  LoPiccalo/Shelton
            Zulawski/Kirby
        Judges  Dasney

   Mercer
        Open    Abbott/Woodard
            Dykes/Thatcher
        JV  Cisneros/Noel
            Brock/Morrison
        Novice  Dodd/Wilbert
        Judge   Zompetti

    Miami
         2 open teams

    Morehouse
        Novice  Flippin/Lowery
            Cooper/Franklin
        Judges  Coxon (nov),  Garner (elims)

   MTSU
        Open    Gaston/Woodward
             Bond/Carter
        Novice   Miedel/Jennings
        Judges  Butler, Osborne

    Samford
        Open    two teams
        Novice  five teams
        Judges  three

    SELA
        JV  3 teams
        Novice 1-2 teams

    University of the South - Sewanee
        Novice Dunn/Georgiev
            Hearty/Allen

    Tennessee Tech
        JV  Ratledge/Williams
        Novice  Canavan/Wells
            Bynum/Hume
            Bucholz/Marshall
            Wheeler/Jones
        Judges  Kash, Sams, Vandevelder



    M. L. Sandoz
    Director, Vanderbilt Debate
    615-322-3784 Office
    615-322-2307 Office
    615-673-7340 Home
    >>

>From  Sat Nov  6 12:25:34 1999
Message-Id: <SAT.6.NOV.1999.122534.EST.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 64778 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 12:26:13
 -0500
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 MAA32884 for
 <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 12:26:12 -0500
Received: from AlwysFishn at aol.com by imo12.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id
 nDNGa02501 (2712); Sat, 6 Nov 1999 12:25:34 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL NetMail version 2.0
Message-ID: <0.509a357a.2555be8e at aol.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 1999 12:25:34 EST
Reply-To: AlwysFishn at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: AlwysFishn at AOL.COM
Subject: tourny vandy update
Comments: cc: vandy.debate at juno.com

  Here's the complete (hopefully) update of our tournament as of Saturday, the
  6th of November.  If you have emailed your request and it does not appear here, email vandy.debate at juno.com AND alwysfishn at aol.com  WE MAY NOT HAVE IT.  While we have enough rooms to handle all the teams on this list, we are getting close to reaching room capacity, we will be honoring first come, first serve.  Many school are bringing uncovered teams, so if any judges are willing to judge past their obligation, or if any school are wanting to bring extra judges, please let us know.  If you haven't
 sent in your entries. . . and you know who you are. . . e-mail me and M.L.
  and we'll
   even put your names on the big list!!   Glad to hear from all of you.

   --james porter

     19 schools
     16 open teams
     21 JV teams
     30 novice teams


     Alabama
         Open    Lamberth/Carroll
             Pfister/Gordon
         JV  Inghram?Jester
             Banks/Bonham
             Phillips/LaCour
             Gonzalez/Stein
             Miller/Minor
         Novice  Pruitt/Scott
             May/Parrish
         Judges  Crenshaw, Prisco, Shaw

     App State
         1 JV team
         1 Novice team

     Cumberland
         Novice  Frietas/Worsley
             Hitch/Stevens
         Judges  Kinser,

     Emory
         Open  Gorezynski/Bridgford
             Klink/Henderson
         JV  Jenkins/Somers
         Novice  Morgan/Mehta
         Judge: Falconer

     Florida
         JV  Aldridge/France
         Novice  Angellis/Childers
         Judges  Kish

     Georgia
         Open  Parekh/McGrath
         JV  Buttigieg/Brock
         Judges  Rufo  and  Galloway

     Georgia State
          1 open +?

     Louisville
         JV  Webster/Rodgers
         Novice  Brush/Shuff
             Toole/Carr
             Rheaume/Wilkie
         Judges  Bito  and  Cunningham

     Loyola
         Open    Kerman/Hill
             Eggers/McCarley
         JV  Danish/Massa
             Shambailca/Lizak
         Novice  Mahmood/Kinstler
         Judges  Romanelli

    LSU
         JV  Smith/Harper
         JV  Winters (LSU)/Mathis (GSU)
         Judge:  Goins

    Marquette
         JV  Chapman/Krubsack
         Novice  LoPiccalo/Shelton
             Zulawski/Kirby
         Judges  Dasney

    Mercer
         Open    Abbott/Woodard
             Dykes/Thatcher
         JV  Cisneros/Noel
             Brock/Morrison
         Novice  Dodd/Wilbert
         Judge   Zompetti

     Miami
          2 open teams

     Morehouse
         Novice  Flippin/Lowery
             Cooper/Franklin
         Judges  Coxon (nov),  Garner (elims)

    MTSU
         Open    Gaston/Woodward
              Bond/Carter
         Novice   Miedel/Jennings
         Judges  Butler, Osborne

     Samford
         Open    two teams
         Novice  five teams
         Judges  three

     SELA
         JV  3 teams
         Novice 1-2 teams

     University of the South - Sewanee
         Novice Dunn/Georgiev
             Hearty/Allen

     Tennessee Tech
         JV  Ratledge/Williams
         Novice  Canavan/Wells
             Bynum/Hume
             Bucholz/Marshall
             Wheeler/Jones
         Judges  Kash, Sams, Vandevelder



     M. L. Sandoz
     Director, Vanderbilt Debate
     615-322-3784 Office
     615-322-2307 Office
     615-673-7340 Home
     >>



From blksage  Sat Nov  6 13:38:02 1999
From: blksage (The Black Sage)
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 1999 11:38:02 -0800
Subject: Shrinking Topic
Message-ID: <SAT.6.NOV.1999.113802.0800.BLKSAGE@HOME.COM>

The topic is shrinking pretty fast, along with Aff case areas! I hope we
still have a topic come March! I haven't seen a case list in a while. Can
someone put one up?

Sage



From blksage  Sat Nov  6 13:42:30 1999
From: blksage (The Black Sage)
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 1999 11:42:30 -0800
Subject: North Korea Aff
Message-ID: <SAT.6.NOV.1999.114230.0800.BLKSAGE@HOME.COM>

My team wants to run North Korea. I don't know how others are running it.
Does anyone have any feedback or ideas other than Prolif and KEDO? We had to
eveacuate our Iran Aff since The Iyatollah decided to start jailing
reformist and U.S. supporters for Apostacy.........nice guy.......

>From  Sat Nov  6 15:07:43 1999
Message-Id: <SAT.6.NOV.1999.150743.EST.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 66413 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 15:09:08
 -0500
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 PAA33420 for
 <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 15:08:53 -0500
Received: from SNbkwm at aol.com by imo14.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id
 xSSQa10857 (4261); Sat, 6 Nov 1999 15:07:43 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="part1_0.9c1dd11e.2555e48f_boundary"
X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 41
Message-ID: <0.9c1dd11e.2555e48f at aol.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 1999 15:07:43 EST
Reply-To: SNbkwm at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Matthew Singer <SNbkwm at AOL.COM>
Subject: Fwd: Movie about Julia Burke
Comments: To: cx-l at debate.net

--part1_0.9c1dd11e.2555e48f_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

i hadn't seen this come across either of these lists yet, and i knew people
would be interested.

--part1_0.9c1dd11e.2555e48f_boundary
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Disposition: inline

Return-Path: <ld-l-approval at world.std.com>
Received: from  rly-zb05.mx.aol.com (rly-zb05.mail.aol.com [172.31.41.5]) by
        air-zb02.mail.aol.com (v62.15) with ESMTP; Sat, 06 Nov 1999 15:01:25
        -0500
Received: from  europe.std.com (europe.std.com [199.172.62.20]) by
        rly-zb05.mx.aol.com (v62.10) with ESMTP; Sat, 06 Nov 1999 15:01:09
        -0500
Received: (from daemon at localhost)
        by europe.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA01374
        for ld-l-outgoing; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 14:55:42 -0500 (EST)
Received: from hotmail.com (law2-f250.hotmail.com [216.32.181.250])
        by europe.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA01051
        for <ld-l at europe.std.com>; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 14:50:58 -0500 (EST)
Received: (qmail 11270 invoked by uid 0); 6 Nov 1999 19:50:28 -0000
Message-ID: <19991106195028.11269.qmail at hotmail.com>
Received: from 205.188.198.188 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP;
        Sat, 06 Nov 1999 11:50:26 PST
X-Originating-IP: [205.188.198.188]
From: "Natalie Thomas" <n_thomas99 at hotmail.com>
To: ld-l at europe.std.com
Subject: FWD: fwd: Movie about Julia Burke
Date: Sat, 06 Nov 1999 12:50:26 MST
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Sender: ld-l-approval at world.std.com
Precedence: list
Reply-To: ld-l at europe.std.com
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I recieved this from a friend who went to school w/ Julia Burke and i
remembered there were people on the LDL that knew her and were concerned so
i figured yall would be interested in this and could help.
I took out the address and numbers - just in case. But you can still email
them.

Natalie Thomas
{Boise State}

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hi!
Below are two recent e-mails I received from Brittany McLean,  a debater in
Texas who is making a movie tribute about Julia, and willing and able to
distribute copies free of charge to everyone who wants one.  She has
considerable experience and expertise in directing short movies, as well as
access to incredible film equipment and a committed team of workers already
in place.  She and I have talked by several e-mail and phone conversations,
and I have great confidence and excitement about her project.  I am
delighted to be of assistance in any way I can.
Brittany has already invited several people to submit various materials for
inclusion, and she has asked me to solicit materials from additional friends
and family, so that she can create a full and interesting depiction of
Julia.
You can send whatever you wish to her at the addresses below.
(Debaters may choose to bring things directly to her at the upcoming
Glenbrooks tournament in Chicago, November 20-22 where she will be
debating.)  She has promised to return all materials sent to her, by
mid-December.  The materials should be delivered to her from now until
Monday, November 22 as she is off school during the entire Thanksgiving
week, and will be doing the bulk of the movie-making work at that time.
Feel free to contact Brittany at the addresses below, or me, with
questions of any kind.
-- MARILYN BURKE (CallMeHuls at aol.com -- or phone -----
Brittany McLean
Grapevine, Texas 76051
E-mail:  Tygrlili5 at aol.com
_______________________________

10/25/99
Dear Mr.and Mrs. Burke,
My name is Brittany McLean and I debate for Grapevine High School in
Texas. I never had the chance to meet Julia, but I did watch her final round
at St. Mark's last year and I was truely impressed.  I only know Julia
through pictures and personal stories that I've heard from Dan, Becky and
others that loved her.  I keep thinking to myself, "Wow, she could have been
me, she could have been anybody", and it scares me.  After I had heard what
happened I cried for what seemed like hours, because it was only 3 or 4 days
earlier that I had seen this amazing girl.  Her death affected me to an
extent
that I found strange, because we didn't know each other.
So, here's my question.  When I'm not debating I co-run the school news
station and direct short movies.  I have access to incredible film equipment
at my school and I really want to make a tribute video for all her family
and friends.  I talked about it with Shalmon and he thought it was a great
idea, but of course I wanted your ideas before I do anything.  I want to
send out a big e-mail to everyone she knew and ask for pictures, stories,
inside jokes, quotes, videos, nicknames, favorite songs, movies, colors,
etc., anything
that could be used, including funny and mischevious things that are
characteristic of her.  (All materials will be returned of course:)  )
Anything can pretty much be put into this video that you would like.  Of
course I would put some footage of Dan's speech at the breakfast and things
like that.  Everything in my power will be done to make the video available
for anyone who wanted a copy free of charge.  It would be hard to express in
words my desire to make this video for you and all the people that still
love her so much.
Let me know what you think; my hope is that I can get all the materials by
the Glenbrooks and then get it out to everyone by Christmas.  I see it as a
chance to not miss out twice on getting to know her.  I hope to hear from
you soon!  Call me for any reason.
Brittany McLean

________________________

10/26/99
Hey Everyone,
I've been talking to Dan and Julia's mom, Marylin, about making a tribute
video for all of Julia's friends and family.  Like I was telling her mom, I
only know her through the stories and pictures that I've seen, but I really
feel compelled to do this.  I have access to amazing film equipment and
since that's what I do when I'm not debating, I think it could be great if
everyone gets involved.  What I want from you guys are any pictures, videos,
personal stories, quotes, anything that you would like to be included.
Everything
will be taken great care of but if you are still reluctant, you can make
color copies of your photos and videos, and they'll be sent back by
mid-December.  I want to collect all the materials by the Glenbrooks to have
it done so the Burkes can give it away to their family and her friends by
Christmas.  I will make it possible for everyone who wants a copy to recieve
one free of charge.  If you want to contribute I would really apprecitate it
since you are the ones that she knew and loved best.  Just let me know if
you have any ideas or concerns.
I hope to hear from you all soon-
Brittany
P.S. I know i forgot  a million people when I sent this, please forward it
if you know someone I forgot about

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send a message to 'majordomo at world.std.com' with the
single phrase 'unsubscribe ld-l' in the message body.
Address other inquiries to ld-l-owner at world.std.com

--part1_0.9c1dd11e.2555e48f_boundary--

>From  Sat Nov  6 15:09:45 1999
Message-Id: <SAT.6.NOV.1999.150945.EST.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 66481 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 15:10:24
 -0500
Precedence: bulk
Received: from imo-d02.mx.aol.com (imo-d02.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.34]) by
 list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA17144 for
 <EDEBATE at list.uvm.edu>; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 15:10:22 -0500
Received: from CoopDB8 at aol.com by imo-d02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id
 nSXB0qV5LJ (660) for <EDEBATE at list.uvm.edu>; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 15:09:45
 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 27
Message-ID: <0.5bcb5345.2555e509 at aol.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 1999 15:09:45 EST
Reply-To: CoopDB8 at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: The Coop <CoopDB8 at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: Right to Choose in Jeapordy

I understand if someone on the list wants to start a thread on abortion or
whatever, but is it necessary to simply block and copy the propaganda of
particular interest groups in order to curry support from list members?  I
would hate to see that escalate to where I am reading material developed by
the John Birch Society or somesuch on the list.

As an aside...if the state allows an abortion because it DOESN'T constitute a
"death" aren't we allowing the state to determine the definition of life just
as much as we would if the state banned abortion?

COOP
University of Miami



From mstein  Sat Nov  6 16:40:45 1999
From: mstein (Meredith A. Stein)
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 1999 17:40:45 -0500
Subject: Right to Choose in Jeapordy
In-Reply-To: <0.5bcb5345.2555e509@aol.com>
Message-ID: <SAT.6.NOV.1999.174045.0500.MSTEIN@ARCHES.UGA.EDU>

I think that subjects like abortion and other controversial subjects do
not necessarily need to be discussed on this list, but everyone should
know what's going on.  It allows us all to be better educated which
really can't hurt.  Seeing that this list discusses things like fantasy
sports and other things that don't relate to debate, I don't think it's
fair to draw the line just because some people don't agree with
abortion.  As I have always been told whenever I have bitched about
irrelevant posts on here, you always have your delete key to hit if you
don't want to read it.

On Sat, 6 Nov 1999, The Coop wrote:

> I understand if someone on the list wants to start a thread on abortion or
> whatever, but is it necessary to simply block and copy the propaganda of
> particular interest groups in order to curry support from list members?  I
> would hate to see that escalate to where I am reading material developed by
> the John Birch Society or somesuch on the list.
>
> As an aside...if the state allows an abortion because it DOESN'T constitute a
> "death" aren't we allowing the state to determine the definition of life just
> as much as we would if the state banned abortion?
>
> COOP
> University of Miami
>

Meredith

"Work like you don't need the money,
Love like you've never been hurt,
And dance like no one's watching."



From simegreg  Sat Nov  6 20:00:16 1999
From: simegreg (Greg Simerly)
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 1999 19:00:16 -0700
Subject: news from CEDA business meetings
Message-ID: <SAT.6.NOV.1999.190016.0700.SIMEGREG@ISU.EDU>

Here's what happened at the Fall CEDA business meetings with the proposed
amendments to the CEDA constitution: housekeeping issues; novice and junior
eligiblity issues; and the name change issue.

HOUSEKEEPING AMENDMENTS
The Constitutional Revision Committee presented its report, and the 55
proposed amendments that were sent to the membership were accepted en
masse.  Most of these changes are inconsequential word changes.  Some other
changes simply move sections around to make the document more cohesive.

Nothing major, but FYI:
-student regional rep elections should be completed by Oct. 1 of the year
that the student serves as student regional rep
-if a coach regional rep can't attend a business meeting, he/she may
appoint a substitute
-more than one person from the same school can be on the Exec Council at
the same time
-topic process: topic committee comes up with topic area ballot within two
weeks of nationals (rather than "in early May"); topic ballot deadline is
now five days before topic release date;  topic release date is now last
Friday in July (rather than August 1).
-no more than two debaters from the same school can receive the All
American debater award, and no more than two debaters from the same school
can receive the Academic All American award (formerly, it was just one from
each school for each award).

As I said above, all other changes are rather innocuous.  See my previous
posting of those amendments if you're curious, and then I'd be glad to
answer any questions.


NOVICE & JUNIOR ELIGIBLITY
The next item was the the proposed amendment on novice and junior eligibility

It passed 13 for and 12 against.

This is NOW, as of November 6, 1999, the CEDA eligibility rule for novice
and junior.  Some debaters who were novice eligible yesterday may not be
novice eligible now.  Likewise, some debaters who were junior eligible
yesterday may not be now.  Directors/coaches/persons-in-charge are
obligated to inform me if there are debaters competing in novice or junior
who are not now eligible to be in that division.  My email is
simegreg at isu.edu.

This is NOW the CEDA novice and junior varsity eligibility rule:

BY-LAW VII, Section 3.A-C, replace with:
"A novice is defined as an individual with no more than 24 rounds of team
policy debate
at the high school or college level, or CEDA non-policy debate.  Once
debaters start as a
novice they remain a novice for the entire academic year.  However, if
debaters have not
advanced to elimination rounds at two tournaments during that first year of
novice
eligibility they are entitled to a second year of eligibility until
advancing to elimination
rounds in two tournaments or upon completion of the second academic year.
Upon
completion of novice eligibility, debaters will be eligible to debate in
junior varsity for
two academic years, or until they advance to the final round of three open,
junior varsity
or varsity tournaments, or until they qualify for the National Debate
Tournament.  An
exception will be made for Junior Varsity national tournaments.  A waiver
process for
this section may be established by the Executive Council for extraordinary
situations."


NAME CHANGE
The final item was the name change proposal.  The proposal was to change
from the Cross Examination Debate Association to the Collegiate Debate
Association.

An amendment to the proposal, to make us the National Collegiate Debate
Association,  failed 14-6.

The original name change proposal failed 13-15.



Cheers,
Greg


Greg Simerly
Idaho State University

Communication & Theatre
Box 8115-ISU
Pocatello, Idaho 83209

O (208) 236-5962
F       236-4598
simegreg at isu.edu



From hansonjb  Sat Nov  6 21:56:33 1999
From: hansonjb (Jim Hanson)
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 1999 19:56:33 -0800
Subject: news from CEDA business meetings, jv definition
In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.19991106190016.007a7410@isu.edu>
Message-ID: <SAT.6.NOV.1999.195633.0800.HANSONJB@WHITMAN.EDU>

greg

what does "An exception will be made for Junior Varsity national
tournaments" mean? what constitutes a "jv national tournament?" examples:
--u. southern california and long beach (which attract teams from all over)
--lewis and clark (which, as i remember, attracted a few teams from the
rockies and some teams from northern and mid california)

additional question: for the tournaments that have the "exception," does
that mean there is no longer a 2 year limitation on being in junior
division, so, therefore anyone could be in junior division at those
tournaments?

respectfully

jim hanson
whitman college

NOVICE & JUNIOR ELIGIBLITY
The next item was the the proposed amendment on novice and junior
eligibility

It passed 13 for and 12 against.

This is NOW, as of November 6, 1999, the CEDA eligibility rule for novice
and junior.  Some debaters who were novice eligible yesterday may not be
novice eligible now.  Likewise, some debaters who were junior eligible
yesterday may not be now.  Directors/coaches/persons-in-charge are
obligated to inform me if there are debaters competing in novice or junior
who are not now eligible to be in that division.  My email is
simegreg at isu.edu.

This is NOW the CEDA novice and junior varsity eligibility rule:

BY-LAW VII, Section 3.A-C, replace with:
"A novice is defined as an individual with no more than 24 rounds of team
policy debate
at the high school or college level, or CEDA non-policy debate.  Once
debaters start as a
novice they remain a novice for the entire academic year.  However, if
debaters have not
advanced to elimination rounds at two tournaments during that first year of
novice
eligibility they are entitled to a second year of eligibility until
advancing to elimination
rounds in two tournaments or upon completion of the second academic year.
Upon
completion of novice eligibility, debaters will be eligible to debate in
junior varsity for
two academic years, or until they advance to the final round of three open,
junior varsity
or varsity tournaments, or until they qualify for the National Debate
Tournament.  An
exception will be made for Junior Varsity national tournaments.  A waiver
process for
this section may be established by the Executive Council for extraordinary
situations."


NAME CHANGE
The final item was the name change proposal.  The proposal was to change
from the Cross Examination Debate Association to the Collegiate Debate
Association.

An amendment to the proposal, to make us the National Collegiate Debate
Association,  failed 14-6.

The original name change proposal failed 13-15.



Cheers,
Greg


Greg Simerly
Idaho State University

Communication & Theatre
Box 8115-ISU
Pocatello, Idaho 83209

O (208) 236-5962
F       236-4598
simegreg at isu.edu



From sarah.chan  Sun Nov  7 00:55:41 1999
From: sarah.chan (Sarah E. Chan)
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 1999 01:55:41 EST
Subject: linfield partner needed
Message-ID: <SUN.7.NOV.1999.015541.EST.SARAH.CHAN@JUNO.COM>

I'm looking for a swing partner for the Linfield tournament in Oregon,
Nov. 12-14.  We've already got plane tickets so if someone can save me
from debating in parli, I'd appreciate it.  I've been debating for 2 1/2
years, I like the 1A/1N, but I also run the 2s.

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 siver  Sun Nov  7 12:37:42 1999
From: siver (Christi Siver)
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 1999 10:37:42 -0800
Subject: 1999 Heart of American
Message-ID: <SUN.7.NOV.1999.103742.0800.SIVER@LCLARK.EDU>

Can Stacey Sowards or Sarah Partlow backchannel me?  I think you might
have a transcript of one of Becky's speeches in your email.  Thanks

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Elmo, the very tiny monster......aka Christi Leigh Siver, from San
Antonio, where they know what picante sauce is supposed to taste
like.....
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@



From shorty140  Sun Nov  7 13:21:44 1999
From: shorty140 (Jeff)
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 1999 14:21:44 -0500
Subject: App State
Message-ID: <SUN.7.NOV.1999.142144.0500.SHORTY140@HOTMAIL.COM>

Trying to get an idea of which teams and schools will be going to App. State
next weekend


Jeff
Morehouse Debate



From gronjm02  Sun Nov  7 13:46:57 1999
From: gronjm02 (Jason Gronberg)
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 1999 14:46:57 -0500
Subject: Liberty Team List?
Message-ID: <SUN.7.NOV.1999.144657.0500.GRONJM02@WFU.EDU>

Wondering if there is one yet.

Jason
WFU



From ewarner  Sun Nov  7 14:07:24 1999
From: ewarner (Ede Warner, Jr.)
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 1999 15:07:24 -0500
Subject: Liberty Team List?
Message-ID: <SUN.7.NOV.1999.150724.0500.EWARNER@LOUISVILLE.EDU>

Probably not.  Brett is still in mourning from the Golden Gopher upset in not-so-happy valley!!

Ede Warner, Jr., Ph.D.
Associate Director of Communication/Director of Debate
University of Louisville
(502) 852-7126
Fax (502) 852-8166


-----Original Message-----
From:   Jason Gronberg [SMTP:gronjm02 at WFU.EDU]
Sent:   Sunday, November 07, 1999 2:47 PM
To:     EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU
Subject:        Liberty Team List?

Wondering if there is one yet.

Jason
WFU

>From  Sun Nov  7 15:14:54 1999
Message-Id: <SUN.7.NOV.1999.151454.EST.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 39721 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Sun, 7 Nov 1999 15:15:34
 -0500
Precedence: bulk
Received: from imo-d02.mx.aol.com (imo-d02.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.34]) by
 list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA20454 for
 <EDEBATE at list.uvm.edu>; Sun, 7 Nov 1999 15:15:33 -0500
Received: from Buxbox at aol.com by imo-d02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id
 nOEG0LzhwT (3964) for <EDEBATE at list.uvm.edu>; Sun, 7 Nov 1999
 15:14:54 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 41
Message-ID: <0.e4b99b18.255737be at aol.com>
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 1999 15:14:54 EST
Reply-To: Buxbox at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Jon Schwartz <Buxbox at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: Liberty Info

I was wondering if someone could backchannel me with the tournament schedule
for the Liberty tournament next weekend. I'd really appreciate it.

Thanks in advance,
Jon Schwartz
GWU '02



From West  Sun Nov  7 14:57:40 1999
From: West (Terry West)
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 1999 13:57:40 -0700
Subject: news from CEDA business meetings, jv definition
Message-ID: <SUN.7.NOV.1999.135740.0700.WEST@SUU.EDU>

Jim,

These are good questions, but I'm not sure they're really for Greg.  The ADA folks who pushed this through in a very small business meeting with lots of proxy votes contend that these issues are not going to cause interpretation problems for the Executive Secretary--that the ADA experience proves that coaches will simply achieve understanding beforehand.  Perhaps the proponents of the new definitions will answer the questions below?

Terry West
Southern Utah U

>>> Jim Hanson <hansonjb at WHITMAN.EDU> 11/06/99 08:56PM >>>
greg

what does "An exception will be made for Junior Varsity national
tournaments" mean? what constitutes a "jv national tournament?" examples:
--u. southern california and long beach (which attract teams from all over)
--lewis and clark (which, as i remember, attracted a few teams from the
rockies and some teams from northern and mid california)

additional question: for the tournaments that have the "exception," does
that mean there is no longer a 2 year limitation on being in junior
division, so, therefore anyone could be in junior division at those
tournaments?

respectfully

jim hanson
whitman college

NOVICE & JUNIOR ELIGIBLITY
The next item was the the proposed amendment on novice and junior
eligibility

It passed 13 for and 12 against.

This is NOW, as of November 6, 1999, the CEDA eligibility rule for novice
and junior.  Some debaters who were novice eligible yesterday may not be
novice eligible now.  Likewise, some debaters who were junior eligible
yesterday may not be now.  Directors/coaches/persons-in-charge are
obligated to inform me if there are debaters competing in novice or junior
who are not now eligible to be in that division.  My email is
simegreg at isu.edu.

This is NOW the CEDA novice and junior varsity eligibility rule:

BY-LAW VII, Section 3.A-C, replace with:
"A novice is defined as an individual with no more than 24 rounds of team
policy debate
at the high school or college level, or CEDA non-policy debate.  Once
debaters start as a
novice they remain a novice for the entire academic year.  However, if
debaters have not
advanced to elimination rounds at two tournaments during that first year of
novice
eligibility they are entitled to a second year of eligibility until
advancing to elimination
rounds in two tournaments or upon completion of the second academic year.
Upon
completion of novice eligibility, debaters will be eligible to debate in
junior varsity for
two academic years, or until they advance to the final round of three open,
junior varsity
or varsity tournaments, or until they qualify for the National Debate
Tournament.  An
exception will be made for Junior Varsity national tournaments.  A waiver
process for
this section may be established by the Executive Council for extraordinary
situations."


NAME CHANGE
The final item was the name change proposal.  The proposal was to change
from the Cross Examination Debate Association to the Collegiate Debate
Association.

An amendment to the proposal, to make us the National Collegiate Debate
Association,  failed 14-6.

The original name change proposal failed 13-15.



Cheers,
Greg


Greg Simerly
Idaho State University

Communication & Theatre
Box 8115-ISU
Pocatello, Idaho 83209

O (208) 236-5962
F       236-4598
simegreg at isu.edu



From filsen00  Sun Nov  7 15:05:46 1999
From: filsen00 (Emma Filstrup)
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 1999 16:05:46 -0500
Subject: diversity, debate, and the dixie
Message-ID: <SUN.7.NOV.1999.160546.0500.FILSEN00@WFU.EDU>

dear community,

as you may know, wake forest's dixie classic tournament is coming up
soon.

last year, we held a forum on saturday night to discuss diversity in
debate with a focus on gender.  although that is a topic close to my
heart, and i'm sure will be discussed again this year, after receiving
some suggestions  i think that broadening the scope of the forum this
year will be both valuable and productive.

*additionally,* i am organizing some community service-type projects to
supplement our activities at the dixie.  after a lot of conversations
about what we can do to encourage diversity in debate, i've decided to
focus on ways in which we can serve as role models and encourage the
role models of the future to stay in debate.  one idea involves setting
up a database of people interested in mentoring young debaters,
especially udl debaters and others from marginalized or underprivileged
groups.  other possible activities include ribbon distribution, shirt
ordering, contribution of stories and other materials which we could
post on the web (possibly using rachel's wonderful womynindebate
homepage as a clearinghouse), and group hugs.  :)

although not all of you will attend the dixie, i think this is an
important matter for the whole community.  so here' s your chance - what
would you like a diversity in debate forum to look like?  are you
interested in attending at all?  hearing speakers, participating in
group discussions, or both?  do you think saturday night is a good time
for it?  might you be willing to bring dinner there so it wouldn't run
over as late?  i am more than willing to implement ideas, but i need
your help to make this forum both participatory and inclusive.  please
email me at filsen00 at wfu.edu with your suggestions and comments.

thanks!

emma filstrup
wake forest debate

>From  Sun Nov  7 15:59:54 1999
Message-Id: <SUN.7.NOV.1999.155954.0500.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 40728 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Sun, 7 Nov 1999 17:05:50
 -0500
Precedence: bulk
Received: from OMEGA.SELU.EDU (omega.selu.edu [147.174.1.8]) by list.uvm.edu
 (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA16650 for <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Sun,
 7 Nov 1999 17:05:49 -0500
Received: from selu.edu by selu.edu (PMDF V5.2-32 #39798) id
 <01JI285FDBXS9I5JJK at selu.edu> for edebate at list.uvm.edu; Sun, 7 Nov
 1999 16:04:41 CDT
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Message-ID: <01JI28DGKNPG9I5JJK at selu.edu>
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 1999 15:59:54 -0500
Reply-To: selliott at SELU.EDU
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Scott Elliott <selliott at SELU.EDU>
Organization: Southeastern Louisiana University
Subject: CEDA RUle changes in the middle of the year.

I find it quite unacceptable that CEDA changes the rules whenever a business meeting comes up. So, 26 or 27 people get to change the rules in the Middle of the Semester?!! I would even be able to accept that we allow rule changes to begin at the end of semsters, but this seems to me to be a bit unfair.
This is to me another example of how a small group can dictate how the organization is run. And, of course the answer is, "if you don't like it, fly on your own expense to business meetings and vote." It is not the voting that so much bother me as the willy-Nilly changing of the rules in the middle of the year.
Example: At the Next business meeting--whenever the hell that is--I could stack the vote switch novice and JV eligibility back. This is a crock and a hell of a way to run an organization.

Scott M. Elliott, Ph.D.
SELA

>From  Sun Nov  7 16:07:10 1999
Message-Id: <SUN.7.NOV.1999.160710.0500.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 40827 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Sun, 7 Nov 1999 17:08:25
 -0500
Precedence: bulk
Received: from alpha.selu.edu (alpha.selu.edu [147.174.1.7]) by list.uvm.edu
 (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA33272 for <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Sun,
 7 Nov 1999 17:08:23 -0500
Received: from selu.edu by selu.edu (PMDF V5.2-32 #39798) id
 <01JI285FDBXS9I5JJK at selu.edu> for edebate at list.uvm.edu; Sun, 7 Nov
 1999 16:07:14 CDT
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Message-ID: <01JI28MHBIB49I5JJK at selu.edu>
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 1999 16:07:10 -0500
Reply-To: selliott at SELU.EDU
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Scott Elliott <selliott at SELU.EDU>
Organization: Southeastern Louisiana University
Subject: Why are some parts of the CEDA constitution sent out to the
 general community for a vote and others not?

Scott Elliott



From dennis  Sun Nov  7 16:26:32 1999
From: dennis (doug dennis)
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 1999 17:26:32 -0500
Subject: ron bratt from catholic
Message-ID: <SUN.7.NOV.1999.172632.0500.DENNIS@MACALESTER.EDU>

can you backchannel me when you get a chance?  thanks.

doug
mac college



From dennis  Sun Nov  7 16:27:14 1999
From: dennis (doug dennis)
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 1999 17:27:14 -0500
Subject: uco team entries?
Message-ID: <SUN.7.NOV.1999.172714.0500.DENNIS@MACALESTER.EDU>

can someone post the team list for uco?

thanks

doug
mac college



From scprest  Sun Nov  7 18:14:07 1999
From: scprest (Tom Preston)
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 1999 19:14:07 -0500
Subject: Study Break Dec. 4  Invitation
Message-ID: <SUN.7.NOV.1999.191407.0500.SCPREST@UMSL.EDU>

November 8, 1999

Dear                    :


You are invited to attend the thirteenth annual Study Break Debate
Tournament, co-sponsored by Washington University, Webster University, and
the University of Missouri-St. Louis, December 4, 1999.  This year's novice
debate tournament is being held here on the campus of the University of
Missouri-St. Louis.

As usual, the tournament features four rounds of novice and JV policy
debate, and four rounds of JV parliamentary debate.  The tournament is
designed primarily for the debaters from area debate classes, but beginning
debaters from the circuit are also welcome--the JV divisions are for those
who also happen to have high school experience.  All debaters with fewer
than four complete semesters of debating experience may compete in the JV
divisions, and any type of debate counts toward the three tournaments that
would constitute a semester, irrespective of high school experience.
Novices have fewer than two semesters, INCLUDING high school experience.

The tournament has four rounds plus a final "showcase" round in each
division.  All 2-2 or better teams will receive awards, as well as at least
thirty per cent of the speakers in each division.

The awards are nice, but modest.  There will be a flat $50.00 fee for up to
five entries in debate--each entry above the five teams will cost $20.00
each.  We try to keep the fees down as much as possible to keep the
tournament affordable.    A judge must be provided to cover every two
teams--the hired judge cost is $100.00 per uncovered team, and we reserve
the right to reject uncovered entries if we cannot find a judge to cover
them.

We very much look forward to seeing you on the UMSL campus December 4.
Enclosed (for those receiving this from snail mail) please find a campus
map.  Entry deadline is December 1, Wednesday, at 5:00 PM, and fees are
charged as of entry at that time.


Sincerely,


C. Thomas Preston, Jr.
Director of Forensics
University of Missouri-St. Louis Study Break Debate Tournament Notes

Schedule--December 4, 1999


8:30-9:30       Registration, Third Floor Lucas Lobby

9:30            Round I Debate (parli topics announced at 9:30 IN ROOMS)

11:30           Round II Debate

1:00            Lunch on your own

2:30            Round III Debate

4:30            Round IV Debate

7:00, or ASAP   Awards, followed by final rounds



See Dr. Preston at tournament for directions to eating establishments--

Motel Accommodations Nearby     Henry VIII 314-731-3040
Days Inn at Airport                     314-423-6770
Travelodge 9645 Nat. bridge             314-890-9000
Hampton Inn Airport                     314-427-3400


Entry fee is a flat $50.00 total for up to five teams; then, $20.00 per
team over 5
One judge covers two teams.
Uncovered hired judge fee is $100.00 PER TEAM (try to enter BY NOVEMBER 25
if you
        plan to have uncovered teams, and ask Tom about the direct judge
contact option,
        but ONLY if your are desperate.)

The parli divisions will follow the 7-8-8-8-4-5 format.
The CEDA/NDT divisions will follow the 9-3-6 format with 8 minutes preptime.

ENTRY DEADLINE IS DECEMBER 1 AT 5:00 PM.

 ENTRY BLANK STUDY BREAK TOURNAMENT


NAME____________________________SCHOOL___________________

PHONE___________________FAX___________EMAIL______________

ADDRESS __________________________________

                __________________________________


Novice Policy CEDA/NDT Teams (first and Last Names Please--use extra space
if needed)

1.  _____________________________________
2.  _____________________________________
3.  _____________________________________
4.  _____________________________________
5.  _____________________________________
JV Policy Teams CEDA/NDT Teams
1.  _____________________________________
2.  _____________________________________
3.  _____________________________________
4.  _____________________________________
5.  _____________________________________
JV Parliamentary Teams
1.  _____________________________________
2.  _____________________________________
3.  _____________________________________
4.  _____________________________________
5.  _____________________________________
Judges:
1.  _____________________________________
2.  _____________________________________
3.  _____________________________________
4.  _____________________________________
5.  _____________________________________

Use extra paper/space if necessary--Faxing and emailing is preferred over
calling:  Fax the entry at 314-516-5816; email at scprest at umsl.edu; call at
314-516-5498; or write so that it is RECEIVED by 5 December 1 at the
address noted above.



From privethedge  Sun Nov  7 21:27:58 1999
From: privethedge (Duane Hyland)
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 1999 19:27:58 -0800
Subject: American U Tourney
Message-ID: <SUN.7.NOV.1999.192758.0800.PRIVETHEDGE@YAHOO.COM>

Hi, can someone send me the invitation, or at least
the particulars, to the American University Tourney. I
need to know the cost per team, divisions,
lodging...all good stuff if the tourney is hosting a
policy section. THanks, Duane


=====

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com



From privethedge  Sun Nov  7 21:29:09 1999
From: privethedge (Duane Hyland)
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 1999 19:29:09 -0800
Subject: Binghamton Varsity Team
Message-ID: <SUN.7.NOV.1999.192909.0800.PRIVETHEDGE@YAHOO.COM>

Hi, I was wondering if one of the Binghamton Varsity
debaters who runs the Repressive Tolerance argument
could back channel me? I've searched for the work by
Mercuse, but I've not been able to locate it and I
need more information. THanks, DUane


=====

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com



From bi4kate  Sun Nov  7 22:36:36 1999
From: bi4kate (Katie Kat)
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 1999 20:36:36 -0800
Subject: KENTUCKY, HELP!
Message-ID: <SUN.7.NOV.1999.203636.0800.BI4KATE@YAHOO.COM>

Brian or Paul (or anyone else on the Kentucky squad
running Iran),
Please backchannel me....I need some cites from your
aff.  Thanks! :)-Katie from K-State
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com



From mch766s  Sun Nov  7 23:27:14 1999
From: mch766s (Martin Che Harris)
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 1999 23:27:14 -0600
Subject: CEDA RUle changes in the middle of the year.
Message-ID: <SUN.7.NOV.1999.232714.0600.MCH766S@MAIL.SMSU.EDU>

   Or you could send your proxy to someone you trust and have them vote for
you ahead of time.  That is why the proposals are sent to the list 30 days
in advance.


-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Elliott <selliott at SELU.EDU>
To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
Date: Sunday, November 07, 1999 4:05 PM
Subject: CEDA RUle changes in the middle of the year.


>I find it quite unacceptable that CEDA changes the rules whenever a
business meeting comes up. So, 26 or 27 people get to change the rules in
the Middle of the Semester?!! I would even be able to accept that we allow
rule changes to begin at the end of semsters, but this seems to me to be a
bit unfair.
>This is to me another example of how a small group can dictate how the
organization is run. And, of course the answer is, "if you don't like it,
fly on your own expense to business meetings and vote." It is not the voting
that so much bother me as the willy-Nilly changing of the rules in the
middle of the year.
>Example: At the Next business meeting--whenever the hell that is--I could
stack the vote switch novice and JV eligibility back. This is a crock and a
hell of a way to run an organization.
>
>Scott M. Elliott, Ph.D.
>SELA



From mch766s  Sun Nov  7 23:31:21 1999
From: mch766s (Martin Che Harris)
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 1999 23:31:21 -0600
Subject: news from CEDA business meetings, jv definition
Message-ID: <SUN.7.NOV.1999.233121.0600.MCH766S@MAIL.SMSU.EDU>

   I believe there are currently three "JV Nationals".  The JV division of
ADA NATS, Towson's proclaimed JV Nationals and JCCC's proclaimed JV
Nationals.  Why are those three "Nationals", because they call themselves
that by occuring at the end of the year, and the community treats them as
such.  Thus social contract, via consent, makes them JV Nationals.
Potentially if others called themselves "JV NAtionals", like Kentucky does
Fall Novice Nationals, then they would count as well, unless others amended
the Bylaws again to clarify.


-----Original Message-----
From: Terry West <West at SUU.EDU>
To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
Date: Sunday, November 07, 1999 2:58 PM
Subject: Re: news from CEDA business meetings, jv definition


>Jim,
>
>These are good questions, but I'm not sure they're really for Greg.  The
ADA folks who pushed this through in a very small business meeting with lots
of proxy votes contend that these issues are not going to cause
interpretation problems for the Executive Secretary--that the ADA experience
proves that coaches will simply achieve understanding beforehand.  Perhaps
the proponents of the new definitions will answer the questions below?
>
>Terry West
>Southern Utah U
>
>>>> Jim Hanson <hansonjb at WHITMAN.EDU> 11/06/99 08:56PM >>>
>greg
>
>what does "An exception will be made for Junior Varsity national
>tournaments" mean? what constitutes a "jv national tournament?" examples:
>--u. southern california and long beach (which attract teams from all over)
>--lewis and clark (which, as i remember, attracted a few teams from the
>rockies and some teams from northern and mid california)
>
>additional question: for the tournaments that have the "exception," does
>that mean there is no longer a 2 year limitation on being in junior
>division, so, therefore anyone could be in junior division at those
>tournaments?
>
>respectfully
>
>jim hanson
>whitman college
>
>NOVICE & JUNIOR ELIGIBLITY
>The next item was the the proposed amendment on novice and junior
>eligibility
>
>It passed 13 for and 12 against.
>
>This is NOW, as of November 6, 1999, the CEDA eligibility rule for novice
>and junior.  Some debaters who were novice eligible yesterday may not be
>novice eligible now.  Likewise, some debaters who were junior eligible
>yesterday may not be now.  Directors/coaches/persons-in-charge are
>obligated to inform me if there are debaters competing in novice or junior
>who are not now eligible to be in that division.  My email is
>simegreg at isu.edu.
>
>This is NOW the CEDA novice and junior varsity eligibility rule:
>
>BY-LAW VII, Section 3.A-C, replace with:
>"A novice is defined as an individual with no more than 24 rounds of team
>policy debate
>at the high school or college level, or CEDA non-policy debate.  Once
>debaters start as a
>novice they remain a novice for the entire academic year.  However, if
>debaters have not
>advanced to elimination rounds at two tournaments during that first year of
>novice
>eligibility they are entitled to a second year of eligibility until
>advancing to elimination
>rounds in two tournaments or upon completion of the second academic year.
>Upon
>completion of novice eligibility, debaters will be eligible to debate in
>junior varsity for
>two academic years, or until they advance to the final round of three open,
>junior varsity
>or varsity tournaments, or until they qualify for the National Debate
>Tournament.  An
>exception will be made for Junior Varsity national tournaments.  A waiver
>process for
>this section may be established by the Executive Council for extraordinary
>situations."
>
>
>NAME CHANGE
>The final item was the name change proposal.  The proposal was to change
>from the Cross Examination Debate Association to the Collegiate Debate
>Association.
>
>An amendment to the proposal, to make us the National Collegiate Debate
>Association,  failed 14-6.
>
>The original name change proposal failed 13-15.
>
>
>
>Cheers,
>Greg
>
>
>Greg Simerly
>Idaho State University
>
>Communication & Theatre
>Box 8115-ISU
>Pocatello, Idaho 83209
>
>O (208) 236-5962
>F       236-4598
>simegreg at isu.edu



From aliakhan  Sun Nov  7 23:23:47 1999
From: aliakhan (Alia N. Khan)
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 1999 21:23:47 -0800
Subject: Northridge Tournament
In-Reply-To: <199911072257.RAA25385@lab.caw.fsu.edu>
Message-ID: <SUN.7.NOV.1999.212347.0800.ALIAKHAN@MAIL.CSUCHICO.EDU>

Hi,
My partner and I are going down to the Northridge Tournament during the
weekend of November 19-21. I was just wondering if anyone was heading back
to Northern California after the tournament because I need a ride back up.
Thanks,
Alia from Chico State University.


Alia Khan
California State University, Chico
_________

"Be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for humankind."



From donaldst  Mon Nov  8 00:29:35 1999
From: donaldst (Steven Dean Donald)
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 01:29:35 -0500
Subject: Michigan Debaters
Message-ID: <MON.8.NOV.1999.012935.0500.DONALDST@PILOT.MSU.EDU>

Could Gabe, Chris, Adriana, or Carl please email me at one of your earliest
conveniences?  Thank you and good night.

Steven D.
donaldst at pilot.msu.edu

>From  Mon Nov  8 09:13:29 1999
Message-Id: <MON.8.NOV.1999.091329.0600.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 38874 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 09:05:43
 -0500
Precedence: bulk
Received: from mail.utexas.edu (wb2-a.mail.utexas.edu [128.83.126.136]) by
 list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA27042 for
 <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 09:05:26 -0500
Received: (qmail 22391 invoked by uid 0); 8 Nov 1999 14:05:16 -0000
Received: from dial-124-33.ots.utexas.edu (HELO mail.utexas.edu)
 (128.83.221.177) by umbs-smtp-2 with SMTP; 8 Nov 1999 14:05:16 -0000
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 (Macintosh; I; PPC)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <Pine.GSO.3.96.991104001212.13417A-100000 at apollo.sfsu.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854";
 x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <3826E6D3.77987D52 at mail.utexas.edu>
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 09:13:29 -0600
Reply-To: jd.rollins at mail.utexas.edu
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: joel david rollins <jd.rollins at MAIL.UTEXAS.EDU>
Subject: Re: NCA NDT Committee Meeting Update
Comments: To: Shawn T Whalen <swhalen at SFSU.EDU>,
 Amy Fugate <afugate at johnco.cc.ks.us>,
 kevin kuswa <k.kuswa at mail.utexas.edu>,
 Susan Stanfield <suebell at ksu.edu>,
 Jeff Jarman <jarman at elliott.es.twsu.edu>,
 ROBERT Bolen <SJRB at ATUVM.ATU.EDU>,
 "Roy H. Eno" <reno at lonestar.jpl.utsa.edu>,
 Eric Jenkins <Esjenkins at hotmail.com>,
 David Breshears <d.breshears at mail.utexas.edu>,
 wayne kraemer <WK02 at swt.edu>, david kingston <dgenco at earthlink.net>,
 Matt Caligur <mattc at hbu.edu>, Mark Deloach <deloach at unt.edu>,
 Scott Elliott <selliott at selu.edu>,
 Michael Fisher <mfisher at aztec.astate.edu>,
 Patrick Garner <pgarner at harding.edu>,
 Scott Harris <sharris at falcon.cc.ukans.edu>,
 Frank Harrison <Fharriso at trinity.edu>,
 Debbie Hatton <scm_dah at shsu.edu>, Martha Haun <mhaun at uh.edu>,
 Jeff Hobbs <hobbsj at nicanor.acu.edu>,
 Jorji Jarzabek <mjarzabek2 at aol.com>,
 Scott Jensen <Jensen_Scott/web_media at webster.edu>,
 Gina Lane <laneg at william.jewell.edu>,
 Tom Preston <scprest at UMSLVMA.UMSL.EDU>, David Ray <ray at uamont.edu>,
 Gary Rees <grees01 at mail.coin.missouri.edu>,
 Jack Rogers <jrogers at mail.uttyl.edu>,
 David Scott <Scottd at cherokee.nsuok.edu>,
 Bennett Strange <strange at andria.lacollege.edu>,
 Glen Strickland <Stricklg at esumail.emporia.edu>,
 Jeanine Tagg <htagg at aol.com>, David Williams <mqdav at ttacs.ttu.edu>,
 Jodee Hobbs <hobbs at spock.nlu.edu>, jodee <sphobbs at ALPHA.NLU.EDU>,
 bill shanahan <wshanaha at fhsu.edu>, jan hovden <jhovden at ucok.edu>,
 stephanie steele <ssteele at utdallas.edu>,
 "John Fritch, PhD" <jef229f at mail.smsu.edu>,
 cary voss <cary.voss at angelo.edu>,
 jeremy hutchins <jhutchin at jccc.net>,
 Laura Nathan <lrnathan at mail.utexas.edu>,
 chris burk <cburk at mail.utexas.edu>,
 bradley bain <bd.bain at mail.utexas.edu>,
 j reed <j.v.reed at mail.utexas.edu>,
 daniela dwyer <ddwyer4281 at aol.com>,
 jairus grove <jairus at mail.utexas.edu>,
 kirk evans <nkirkevans at mail.utexas.edu>,
 garrick pursley <w.wallace at mail.utexas.edu>,
 Adam Lee <ARLEE at mail.utexas.edu>,
 Matthew Tiffee <thetiffster at worldnet.att.net>,
 Jas Brar <Jbrar at mail.utexas.edu>,
 Kara Weinstein <kweinstein at mail.utexas.edu>,
 matt liebman <mliebman at mail.utexas.edu>,
 Eric Wessels <wps01 at flash.net>, Jesse Cohen <jeleco at mail.utexas.edu>,
 Matt Connolly <mconnolly at mail.utexas.edu>,
 Michael Wilt <mwilt at mail.utexas.edu>,
 Stephen Stetson <stephen.stetson at mail.utexas.edu>,
 Pamela Bowman <plbowman at worldnet.att.net>,
 AARON GARZA <aaron.garza at gte.net>,
 Chase Hoffman <khalizad at mail.utexas.edu>,
 katie <kem at mail.utexas.edu>, Jonathon McCartney <Aetius80 at aol.com>,
 Seth Poulos <howling_rage at mail.utexas.edu>,
 Teri Aufdembrink <EmoMuffin at aol.com>,
 stroube <jackattack7 at hotmail.com>,
 ryan glinski <glinski at mail.utexas.edu>,
 Patience Blythe <sativa24 at hotmail.com>,
 "Mr. Jesse Hernandez" <jhern at mail.utexas.edu>,
 loren dent <lorendent at mail.utexas.edu>,
 Kippie Brar <taggin at hotmail.com>,
 "Heather N. Emmert" <heathere at mail.utexas.edu>,
 Eric Sublett <esublett at mail.utexas.edu>,
 eric melin <melinem at flash.net>, Dave Tung <Dave10280 at aol.com>,
 "Cynthia J. Kim" <cindy.kim at mail.utexas.edu>,
 Brad Drummond <UTexasBrad at aol.com>,
 Barbara Tunkis <btunkis at mail.utexas.edu>,
 Martha Berry <Marthaj at mail.utexas.edu>

shawn noted most of the important business from the ndt meeting EXCEPT there
was a clarification of the grandfather clause for eligibility under the 5
year/10 semester rule.  in was clarified that the rule was not to  apply to
those debating in ceda only prior to '96, the merger year.

joel

Shawn T Whalen wrote:

> Seems like this is at least as important as who cleared last weekend...
>
> The NDT Committee voted for an amended version of District 8's proposal
> for joint program participation at the NDT. It passed 6-5 so it needs to
> pass again with a simple majority before it REALLY passes.
>
> The dates for district tournaments are the last two weekends in February.
> First round bids are due on the 10th of February.
>
> Substantial revisions were made to the declaration of eligibility policy.
> Everyone wishing to attend the NDT will need to submit documents verifying
> that they are undergraduate students in good standing at their institution
> on or before February 8th.  Those documents need to be sent to John
> Fritch.  I understand that more will be posted on this soon.
>
> Fees for this years NDT will be $375 per team or less, depending on
> additional donations.  This fee would include the banquets, 4days of
> breakfast, and three days of lunch.
>
> Hotels will be cheaper and closer.
>
> NDT rankings are now posted at www.liberty.edu/debate.
>
> Congratulations to Greg Achten and Heidi Hamilton for their appointments
> to the Bid Allocation Committee.  To Greg Achten and Kate Palcheski for
> their appointments to the judge philosophy committee.  And, to Glen
> Frappier and somone who was at the meeting (explaining why I didn't write
> it down) to the Tournament Advisory Committee.
>
> One final item, the NDT Committee sent forth a resolution to the AFA
> asking that the fall semester time block end on December 25th.  The AFA
> referred that proposal to committee which means that this year's Nichols
> (the USC tournament) will continue to count as a fall semester tournament
> for NDT eligibility purposes.
>
> Shawn Whalen
>
> Director of Forensics
> San Francisco State University
> swhalen at sfsu.edu
> (415) 338-3173


--

Joel D. Rollins, PhD
Director of Debating
Director, UTNIF
Jesse Jones Communication Center, CMA 7.114
The University of Texas at Austin
Austin, TX 78712
email: jd.rollins at mail.utexas.edu
UTNIF Web cite:  http://www.utexas.edu/coc/speech/debate/adi.html

>From  Mon Nov  8 09:49:01 1999
Message-Id: <MON.8.NOV.1999.094901.0500.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 39801 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 09:50:16
 -0500
Precedence: bulk
Received: from iris.liberty.edu (iris.liberty.edu [207.239.144.36]) by
 list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA12990 for
 <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 09:50:14 -0500
Received: from te146.liberty.edu (TE146 [10.2.6.253]) by iris.liberty.edu with
 SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2448.0) id
 VXDRZZ4N; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 09:49:54 -0500
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
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Message-ID: <000201bf29f8$64da0060$fd06020a at te146.liberty.edu>
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 09:49:01 -0500
Reply-To: bodonnel at liberty.edu
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Brett O'Donnell <bodonnel at LIBERTY.EDU>
Subject: Liberty Tournament Team List

Below is a teamlist for the Liberty Debate Tournament this weekend (Nov.
12-14).  Please enter as soon as possible and check your entry for accuracy
on this list.  Space is going fast, so enter early.  Also, my hired judging
is just about wiped out, so please cover your judging.

Brett O'Donnell

Liberty University Debate


Boston College

Varsity:
Jared Fields/Lisa Landon

Novice:
Kevin Collins/Lynze Fox
Mario Poweell/Paul Sutton
Kevin Hartzell/Chris Masefield

Judges:
John Katsulas
Stefan Bauschard

Duke

3 teams

Judge:
Rich O'Dor

Harvard

Varsity:
Doug Shively/Keia Cole

Judges:
Dallas Perkins
Sherry Hall

James Madison

Varsity:
One team

JV:
One team

Novice:
Ten Teams

Judges:
Barb Pickering
Pete Bsumek
Eric Minkove (pending)

John Carroll

Varsity:
Ben Sovacool/Katie Lavelle

JV:
Brandi Clouston/Jen Bozman
Jessica Dillon/Jim Paluf

Novice:
Kim Parks/Steven Klinger

Judges:
Brent Brossmann
Kelly Young

Mary Washington

Varsity:
Judy Goss/Amber Tussing

JV:
Matt Hoell/Cathy Rothaug

Novice:
Robert Bowen/Herbert Conley
Bonnie Ryan/Nora Cronin

Varsity:
Tim O'Donnell

Michigan

Varsity:
Ashley Amaya/Megan McMillan
John Oden/Tim Stucka

Judges:
Steve Mancuso


Navy

Varsity:
Mike Bruno/Tim Johnson

Novice:
Pete Steveson/John Hiler
Alisha Hamilton/Von Fernandes
Dave Bartlow/Austin Gullet
Dome Pholtavee/Brent Richardson
Fidel Sanchez/Sara Walters
Dave Major/Eric Gonzales
Kat Sampson/Dan Singer

Judges:
Jonny Chase
Brad Taylor
Chris Rodriguez
Jeff Hunt

University of South Carolina

Four teams

University of Virginia

Varsity:
Jim Apple/Neethi Kang

JV:
Judson Frye/Dave Simpson
Ben Bateman/Ben Rottenborn

Judges:
Earl Croasman
Corey Rayburn

Wake Forest

Varsity:
Three or four teams

JV:
One Team

Novice:
Five or four Teams

Judges:
Allan Louden

West Virginia

JV:
Stephen Marshall/Joshua Whitehair
Mary Bess/Joshua Boggs
Jennifer Dixon/Jason Evans

Novice:
Annelee Boyle/Samantha Jones
Kimberly Bandy/Jessica Taylor

Judges:
Daniel Overbey
Mark Schaefer
Jodie Robinson



From meaves  Mon Nov  8 08:53:24 1999
From: meaves (Michael_Eaves)
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 09:53:24 -0500
Subject: Who's going to FCCJ @ Jacksonviile?
In-Reply-To: <s8258561.024@suu.edu>
Message-ID: <MON.8.NOV.1999.095324.0500.MEAVES@VALDOSTA.EDU>

Community:

who is going to the Florida Community College tournament in Jacksonville
this weekend?

We will have parli and CEDA teams there--

we especially want to know who from CEDA or NDT will be at the
tournament--

thanks

Mike Eaves
Valdosta State
912-259-5116 o



From jhovden  Mon Nov  8 09:00:26 1999
From: jhovden (Jan Hovden)
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 09:00:26 -0600
Subject: UCO entries
Message-ID: <MON.8.NOV.1999.090026.0600.JHOVDEN@UCOK.EDU>

Here are the UCO entries as of Monday at 8:50 am.  As of now, I only
have flight information from NYU.  If other people flying would send me
their flight info, I would appreciate it.

Jan

Arizona State

Open
Takis Makridis and John Kircher
Edwin Aralica and Aaron Karabell

Judge
Todd Grahm

Kansas

Open
Nathan Rodriguez and Tom Seymour
Roger Saad and Justin Tinsley

JV
Seth Wood and John Breeding

Judges
Rich McCollum
Val Renegar

Macalester

Open
Katie Kauf and Ilya Winham

Judge
Doug Dennis

Michigan State

Open
Orion Smith and Tara O'Dowd
Louis Brown and John Branstetter
Tanya Palet and Debater X

Judges
Jason Trice
Jason Russell

NYU
Ricky Garner and Nate Gorelick

Judge
Will Baker

Texas - Austin
6-7 Teams

Texas - Dallas

Open
Jason Jordan and Justin Kirk
Vasile Stanescu and Aaron Fuqua

Judge
Lisa Jordan

>From  Mon Nov  8 10:20:14 1999
Message-Id: <MON.8.NOV.1999.102014.0500.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 40515 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 10:21:15
 -0500
Precedence: bulk
Received: from rs01.kings.edu (rs01.kings.edu [192.204.88.2]) by list.uvm.edu
 (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA35402 for <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Mon,
 8 Nov 1999 10:21:12 -0500
Received: from mrberry95.kings.edu ([10.1.112.214]) by rs01.kings.edu
 (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with SMTP id KAA34318 for
 <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 10:22:54 -0500 (EST)
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 V5.00.2014.211
Importance: Normal
Message-ID: <001901bf29fc$c18cf0c0$d670010a at kings.edu>
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 10:20:14 -0500
Reply-To: mrberry at kings.edu
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Mike Berry <mrberry at KINGS.EDU>
Subject: Rebecca Green

Rebecca, could you please backchannel me.  I need to confirm that you are
judging for us at the Liberty tournament.


Mike



From woodss  Mon Nov  8 09:34:35 1999
From: woodss (Woods, Steve)
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 09:34:35 -0600
Subject: CEDA RUle changes in the middle of the year.
Message-ID: <MON.8.NOV.1999.093435.0600.WOODSS@WILLIAM.JEWELL.EDU>

I think Scott brings up a point that should be addressed.

Perhaps there should be an amendment to the Constittuion which requires that
any changes to eligibility or the procedural rules of the organization must
be voted on by mail ballot.

Martin says: "Use a proxy"

However, a proxy is a locked vote.  It is not flexible in terms of listening
to debate, nor is it useful should something become amended.

While not everyone is on the edebate, there is certainly better, and
cheaper, access to the list than a mid year business meeting.  Edebate could
also facilitate the type of debate and discussion that occurs at the
business meeting.

Anyone interested in proposing such an amendment or the type of wording that
it would take?

What are the arguments against? Backlog, slowness, expense?

Some thoughts,
Steve

> ----------
> From:         Martin Che Harris
> Reply To:     Martin Che Harris
> Sent:         Sunday, November 7, 1999 11:27 PM
> To:   EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU
> Subject:      Re: CEDA RUle changes in the middle of the year.
>
>    Or you could send your proxy to someone you trust and have them vote
> for
> you ahead of time.  That is why the proposals are sent to the list 30 days
> in advance.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Elliott <selliott at SELU.EDU>
> To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
> Date: Sunday, November 07, 1999 4:05 PM
> Subject: CEDA RUle changes in the middle of the year.
>
>
> >I find it quite unacceptable that CEDA changes the rules whenever a
> business meeting comes up. So, 26 or 27 people get to change the rules in
> the Middle of the Semester?!! I would even be able to accept that we allow
> rule changes to begin at the end of semsters, but this seems to me to be a
> bit unfair.
> >This is to me another example of how a small group can dictate how the
> organization is run. And, of course the answer is, "if you don't like it,
> fly on your own expense to business meetings and vote." It is not the
> voting
> that so much bother me as the willy-Nilly changing of the rules in the
> middle of the year.
> >Example: At the Next business meeting--whenever the hell that is--I could
> stack the vote switch novice and JV eligibility back. This is a crock and
> a
> hell of a way to run an organization.
> >
> >Scott M. Elliott, Ph.D.
> >SELA
>



From mabouzai  Mon Nov  8 09:49:02 1999
From: mabouzai (Mohammed Abouzaid)
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 10:49:02 -0500
Subject: ADA rules
Message-ID: <MON.8.NOV.1999.104902.0500.MABOUZAI@RICHMOND.EDU>

Are ADA rules available anywhere in cyberspace?  I need to know the
specifics of eligibility requirements.

Mohammed Abouzaid
Richmond Debate



From BobJordan  Mon Nov  8 09:52:24 1999
From: BobJordan (Bob Jordan)
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 09:52:24 -0600
Subject: ADA rules
In-Reply-To: <l03130301b44c5a94b365@[141.166.220.7]>
References: <l03130301b44c5a94b365@[141.166.220.7]>
Message-ID: <MON.8.NOV.1999.095224.0600.BOBJORDAN@MAIL.SMSU.EDU>

http://www2.bc.edu/~katsulas/rules.html

>Are ADA rules available anywhere in cyberspace?  I need to know the
>specifics of eligibility requirements.
>
>Mohammed Abouzaid
>Richmond Debate



From sharris  Mon Nov  8 10:38:26 1999
From: sharris (SCOTT HARRIS)
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 10:38:26 -0600
Subject: information on NFL Nats
Message-ID: <MON.8.NOV.1999.103826.0600.SHARRIS@FALCON.CC.UKANS.EDU>

Could someone backchannel me the dates of NFL Nationals.  It doesn't
appear on the NFL homepage.

#####LOCO IN LAWRENCE#####

>From  Mon Nov  8 11:58:09 1999
Message-Id: <MON.8.NOV.1999.115809.EST.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 43050 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 11:59:06
 -0500
Precedence: bulk
Received: from hotmail.com (f107.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.107]) by
 list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA20112 for
 <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 11:58:46 -0500
Received: (qmail 79076 invoked by uid 0); 8 Nov 1999 16:58:10 -0000
Received: from 38.30.214.220 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Mon, 08 Nov 1999
 08:58:09 PST
X-Originating-IP: [38.30.214.220]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Message-ID: <19991108165810.79075.qmail at hotmail.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 11:58:09 EST
Reply-To: t-arquette at nwu.edu
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Toby Arquette <tj_arquette at HOTMAIL.COM>
Subject: NCA 2000 PANEL ON QUEER ISSUES IN DEBATE AND FORENSICS

Okay all,

I am taking the initiative post-NCA to organize a panel on queer issues in
debate and forensics.  As some might recall, I made mention of a queer
caucus this summer.  Well, a variety of people approached me this weekend
about organizing a panel for papers next year on this topic at NCA.  Hence,
while I do believe that an undergrad should take initiative on the queer
caucus (given this is an undergrad-participation activity), I do not mind
starting the "institutional ball rolling" so to speak.

So if you have paper abstracts or papers that you might be interested in
presenting in this panel (or ideas for its structure, more paper issues,
etc.), please email me or Greg Atkins.

Some recommended (but not exclusive) topics that might be of interest
include:

1.  GLBT voices in academic debate
2.  Learning from the debate communities tolerance...moving GLBT-debate
community dialogue out of the "private sphere of debate"
3.  Homophobia or heterosexism - discussive choice of labels
4.  Identity splinters - debater, gay person, gay debater??
5.  Gender stereotyping
6.  Emotive appeals - debating against pro-gay rights arguments with a gay
judge
7.  Gay issue trivilization in academic debate
8.  Interpersonal communication between GLBT and non-GLBT members in the
community - "fags vs. breeders"

Just some ideas that have crossed my mind over the years.  Feel free to
steal them and write about them or anything else that might interest you.

Best wishes,

Toby J. Arquette
Northwestern University &
Center for Strategic and International Studies,
International Communication Studies Program

t-arquette at nwu.edu

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

>From  Mon Nov  8 12:23:20 1999
Message-Id: <MON.8.NOV.1999.122320.0500.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 43796 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 12:31:33
 -0500
Precedence: bulk
Received: from nova.bsuvc.bsu.edu (NOVA.BSUVC.BSU.EDU [147.226.56.70]) by
 list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA11960 for
 <edebate at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 12:31:25 -0500
Received: from BSUVC.bsu.edu by BSUVC.bsu.edu (PMDF V5.2-31 #35953) id
 <01JI3F2YNGA88WW0RS at BSUVC.bsu.edu> for edebate at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 8
 Nov 1999 12:23:20 EST
X-VMS-To: IN%"edebate at LIST.UVM.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Message-ID: <01JI3F2YNZKI8WW0RS at BSUVC.bsu.edu>
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 12:23:20 -0500
Reply-To: 00MHBAUER at BSUVC.BSU.EDU
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: mike Bauer <00mhbauer at BSUVC.BSU.EDU>
Subject: Brent Siemers an Jan Hovden

Will you please back channel concerning nominations please.
Thanks,
Mike Bauer



From rchurch  Mon Nov  8 11:36:57 1999
From: rchurch (Russell Church)
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 11:36:57 -0600
Subject: Need Email Address for Jeff Jarman
Message-ID: <MON.8.NOV.1999.113657.0600.RCHURCH@MTSU.EDU>

 Thanks!

 Regards,

 Russell Church
 Chair
 Speech & Theatre
 Voice:  615-898-2640
 Fax:  615-898-5826

 Cell phone:  615-579-6914

 DO RESEARCH ON LEXIS NEXIS UNIVERSE!
 http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe

 SPEECH & THEATRE
 http://www.mtsu.edu/~libarts/claspeechtheat.html

 VISIT THE MTSU DEBATE TEAM HOME PAGE!
 http://www.mtsu.edu/~debate/

 MID-SOUTH DEBATE INSTITUTE
 http://www.mtsu.edu/~msdi

 SEARCHING FOR GRAD PROGRAMS IN COMMUNICATION STUDIES
 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 PROGRAMS
 http://www.mtsu.edu/~libarts/africanamerican.html

>From  Mon Nov  8 13:08:29 1999
Message-Id: <MON.8.NOV.1999.130829.EST.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 44365 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 13:09:46
 -0500
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 NAA32940 for
 <EDEBATE at list.uvm.edu>; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 13:09:44 -0500
Received: from CoopDB8 at aol.com by imo18.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id
 mHDNa22485 (3929); Mon, 8 Nov 1999 13:08:29 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 27
Message-ID: <0.318ea235.25586b9d at aol.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 13:08:29 EST
Reply-To: CoopDB8 at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: The Coop <CoopDB8 at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: Right to Choose in Jeapordy
Comments: To: mstein at arches.uga.edu

Whoa.  Chillax.

I wasn't making an argument against "irrelevent" threads.  In fact, I recall
saying that I completely understand starting a thread about abortion.  In
fact, some may welcome the debate.

What I was commenting on was blocking and copying propaganda from other
sources as an appeal to edebate members.  I would rather see your personal
feelings regarding the court decisions that were cited than NARAL's "call to
action" copied to the list.

COOP
University of Miami



From matth474  Mon Nov  8 12:22:22 1999
From: matth474 (matt holland)
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 10:22:22 PST
Subject: Kansas
Message-ID: <MON.8.NOV.1999.102222.PST.MATTH474@HOTMAIL.COM>

could someone from the kansas squad backchannel me with your grand
negotiator cites

thx in advance
Matt Holland
McNeese State

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

>From  Mon Nov  8 14:00:11 1999
Message-Id: <MON.8.NOV.1999.140011.0500.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 45099 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 14:01:08
 -0500
Precedence: bulk
Received: from rs01.kings.edu (rs01.kings.edu [192.204.88.2]) by list.uvm.edu
 (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA10162 for <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Mon,
 8 Nov 1999 14:01:06 -0500
Received: from mrberry95.kings.edu ([10.1.112.214]) by rs01.kings.edu
 (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with SMTP id OAA21274 for
 <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 14:02:51 -0500 (EST)
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
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211
Message-ID: <000001bf2a1b$7b8bb420$d670010a at kings.edu>
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 14:00:11 -0500
Reply-To: mrberry at kings.edu
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Mike Berry <mrberry at KINGS.EDU>
Subject: Judge for Liberty

Hi,

I am looking to hire a judge for the Liberty tournament this weekend.  I
will house, feed and pay you well.  Let me know if you can be bought off.

Mike Berry
King's College



From jef229f  Mon Nov  8 12:58:59 1999
From: jef229f (John Fritch)
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 12:58:59 -0600
Subject: CEDA RUle changes in the middle of the year.
Message-ID: <MON.8.NOV.1999.125859.0600.JEF229F@MAIL.SMSU.EDU>

It seems to me that the argument Steve raises against a proxy is a problem
with the mail or email ballot method.  The mechanism of the mail ballot
necessitates an inflexible procedure.

That said, I am not against voting on these issues in a mail ballot after
they have been voted on at the business meeting.

One other thought...it struck me as a bit odd that perhaps that NDT
Committee is more "democratic" in terms of percentage of members of the
organization represented at the meetings.  13 votes were cast at the NDT
Committee meeting and there was one abstention.  I think that there were
about 23 votes cast at the CEDA meeting before proxies were counted.  My
hunch is that CEDA has quite a few more members than the NDT.

John Fritch
SMS

----------
>From: "Woods, Steve" <woodss at WILLIAM.JEWELL.EDU>
>To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU
>Subject: Re: CEDA RUle changes in the middle of the year.
>Date: Mon, Nov 8, 1999, 9:34 AM
>

>I think Scott brings up a point that should be addressed.
>
>Perhaps there should be an amendment to the Constittuion which requires that
>any changes to eligibility or the procedural rules of the organization must
>be voted on by mail ballot.
>
>Martin says: "Use a proxy"
>
>However, a proxy is a locked vote.  It is not flexible in terms of listening
>to debate, nor is it useful should something become amended.
>
>While not everyone is on the edebate, there is certainly better, and
>cheaper, access to the list than a mid year business meeting.  Edebate could
>also facilitate the type of debate and discussion that occurs at the
>business meeting.
>
>Anyone interested in proposing such an amendment or the type of wording that
>it would take?
>
>What are the arguments against? Backlog, slowness, expense?
>
>Some thoughts,
>Steve
>
>> ----------
>> From:         Martin Che Harris
>> Reply To:     Martin Che Harris
>> Sent:         Sunday, November 7, 1999 11:27 PM
>> To:   EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU
>> Subject:      Re: CEDA RUle changes in the middle of the year.
>>
>>    Or you could send your proxy to someone you trust and have them vote
>> for
>> you ahead of time.  That is why the proposals are sent to the list 30 days
>> in advance.
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Scott Elliott <selliott at SELU.EDU>
>> To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
>> Date: Sunday, November 07, 1999 4:05 PM
>> Subject: CEDA RUle changes in the middle of the year.
>>
>>
>> >I find it quite unacceptable that CEDA changes the rules whenever a
>> business meeting comes up. So, 26 or 27 people get to change the rules in
>> the Middle of the Semester?!! I would even be able to accept that we allow
>> rule changes to begin at the end of semsters, but this seems to me to be a
>> bit unfair.
>> >This is to me another example of how a small group can dictate how the
>> organization is run. And, of course the answer is, "if you don't like it,
>> fly on your own expense to business meetings and vote." It is not the
>> voting
>> that so much bother me as the willy-Nilly changing of the rules in the
>> middle of the year.
>> >Example: At the Next business meeting--whenever the hell that is--I could
>> stack the vote switch novice and JV eligibility back. This is a crock and
>> a
>> hell of a way to run an organization.
>> >
>> >Scott M. Elliott, Ph.D.
>> >SELA
>>



From jef229f  Mon Nov  8 13:04:10 1999
From: jef229f (John Fritch)
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 13:04:10 -0600
Subject: news from CEDA business meetings, jv definition
Message-ID: <MON.8.NOV.1999.130410.0600.JEF229F@MAIL.SMSU.EDU>

I believe these exceptions were first found in the CEDA rules which limited
the number of elim round appearances a debater could have.  As a result, I
am not sure the ADA folks are necessarily the originators of the phrase.

I would also be a little leery of Terry's description of the meeting.  As I
recall, there were 4 ADA folks present and the proxy vote was fairly
limited.  In fact, Greg Simerly was trying to decide if some of the proxies
were legitimate and he announced that it didn't matter because it passed
without those proxies.

John Fritch
SMS

----------
>From: Martin Che Harris <mch766s at MAIL.SMSU.EDU>
>To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU
>Subject: Re: news from CEDA business meetings, jv definition
>Date: Sun, Nov 7, 1999, 11:31 PM
>

>   I believe there are currently three "JV Nationals".  The JV division of
>ADA NATS, Towson's proclaimed JV Nationals and JCCC's proclaimed JV
>Nationals.  Why are those three "Nationals", because they call themselves
>that by occuring at the end of the year, and the community treats them as
>such.  Thus social contract, via consent, makes them JV Nationals.
>Potentially if others called themselves "JV NAtionals", like Kentucky does
>Fall Novice Nationals, then they would count as well, unless others amended
>the Bylaws again to clarify.
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Terry West <West at SUU.EDU>
>To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
>Date: Sunday, November 07, 1999 2:58 PM
>Subject: Re: news from CEDA business meetings, jv definition
>
>
>>Jim,
>>
>>These are good questions, but I'm not sure they're really for Greg.  The
>ADA folks who pushed this through in a very small business meeting with lots
>of proxy votes contend that these issues are not going to cause
>interpretation problems for the Executive Secretary--that the ADA experience
>proves that coaches will simply achieve understanding beforehand.  Perhaps
>the proponents of the new definitions will answer the questions below?
>>
>>Terry West
>>Southern Utah U
>>
>>>>> Jim Hanson <hansonjb at WHITMAN.EDU> 11/06/99 08:56PM >>>
>>greg
>>
>>what does "An exception will be made for Junior Varsity national
>>tournaments" mean? what constitutes a "jv national tournament?" examples:
>>--u. southern california and long beach (which attract teams from all over)
>>--lewis and clark (which, as i remember, attracted a few teams from the
>>rockies and some teams from northern and mid california)
>>
>>additional question: for the tournaments that have the "exception," does
>>that mean there is no longer a 2 year limitation on being in junior
>>division, so, therefore anyone could be in junior division at those
>>tournaments?
>>
>>respectfully
>>
>>jim hanson
>>whitman college
>>
>>NOVICE & JUNIOR ELIGIBLITY
>>The next item was the the proposed amendment on novice and junior
>>eligibility
>>
>>It passed 13 for and 12 against.
>>
>>This is NOW, as of November 6, 1999, the CEDA eligibility rule for novice
>>and junior.  Some debaters who were novice eligible yesterday may not be
>>novice eligible now.  Likewise, some debaters who were junior eligible
>>yesterday may not be now.  Directors/coaches/persons-in-charge are
>>obligated to inform me if there are debaters competing in novice or junior
>>who are not now eligible to be in that division.  My email is
>>simegreg at isu.edu.
>>
>>This is NOW the CEDA novice and junior varsity eligibility rule:
>>
>>BY-LAW VII, Section 3.A-C, replace with:
>>"A novice is defined as an individual with no more than 24 rounds of team
>>policy debate
>>at the high school or college level, or CEDA non-policy debate.  Once
>>debaters start as a
>>novice they remain a novice for the entire academic year.  However, if
>>debaters have not
>>advanced to elimination rounds at two tournaments during that first year of
>>novice
>>eligibility they are entitled to a second year of eligibility until
>>advancing to elimination
>>rounds in two tournaments or upon completion of the second academic year.
>>Upon
>>completion of novice eligibility, debaters will be eligible to debate in
>>junior varsity for
>>two academic years, or until they advance to the final round of three open,
>>junior varsity
>>or varsity tournaments, or until they qualify for the National Debate
>>Tournament.  An
>>exception will be made for Junior Varsity national tournaments.  A waiver
>>process for
>>this section may be established by the Executive Council for extraordinary
>>situations."
>>
>>
>>NAME CHANGE
>>The final item was the name change proposal.  The proposal was to change
>>from the Cross Examination Debate Association to the Collegiate Debate
>>Association.
>>
>>An amendment to the proposal, to make us the National Collegiate Debate
>>Association,  failed 14-6.
>>
>>The original name change proposal failed 13-15.
>>
>>
>>
>>Cheers,
>>Greg
>>
>>
>>Greg Simerly
>>Idaho State University
>>
>>Communication & Theatre
>>Box 8115-ISU
>>Pocatello, Idaho 83209
>>
>>O (208) 236-5962
>>F       236-4598
>>simegreg at isu.edu



From mkrueger  Mon Nov  8 13:03:53 1999
From: mkrueger (Krueger)
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 13:03:53 -0600
Subject: 2001 NDT?
Message-ID: <MON.8.NOV.1999.130353.0600.MKRUEGER@FRANK.MTSU.EDU>

Anyone know when or where the 2001 NDT will be held?

Thanks!

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 satsune  Mon Nov  8 13:10:20 1999
From: satsune (Sean Nevala)
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 11:10:20 -0800
Subject: Northridge cases.
Message-ID: <MON.8.NOV.1999.111020.0800.SATSUNE@YAHOO.COM>

I am going trying to get a case list of teams going to
Northridge. If you back channel me at
satsune at hotmail.com with your case I will give you a
copy of any teams that reply and also provide our
information for JV and Open.


Sean Nevala
CSULA Debate



=====

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com



From jef229f  Mon Nov  8 13:13:31 1999
From: jef229f (John Fritch)
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 13:13:31 -0600
Subject: 2001 NDT?
Message-ID: <MON.8.NOV.1999.131331.0600.JEF229F@MAIL.SMSU.EDU>

Ummm....not yet.

Care to host the NDT?  There has now been a precedent set for having CEDA
Nationals and the NDT in the same city!!!

John Fritch
SMS

----------
>From: Krueger <mkrueger at FRANK.MTSU.EDU>
>To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU
>Subject: 2001 NDT?
>Date: Mon, Nov 8, 1999, 1:03 PM
>

>Anyone know when or where the 2001 NDT will be held?
>
>Thanks!
>
>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 hcspc014  Mon Nov  8 13:41:35 1999
From: hcspc014 (william sheffield)
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 11:41:35 -0800
Subject: Hired Judges for CSUN Tournament
Message-ID: <MON.8.NOV.1999.114135.0800.HCSPC014@CSUN.EDU>

Just soliciting for anyone interested in hiring out to judge at our
tournament on Nov. 19-21, 1999.

If you live in the Los Angeles area, and are interested (or know anyone
else interested), please backchannel me ASAP.

The tournament schedule is available at http://speech.csun.edu/forensics
(go to the invite link and scroll down to the schedule).

Thanks,

Bill


Bill Sheffield, Director of Forensics
CSUN Speech & Debate Team
CSU-Northridge
Dept. of Communication Studies
Northridge, CA 91330-8257
office: 818/677-3043     debate room:  818/677-2028
email:  hcspc014 at csun.edu     debateprof at juno.com
URL:  http://speech.csun.edu/forensics



From mkrueger  Mon Nov  8 13:39:47 1999
From: mkrueger (Krueger)
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 13:39:47 -0600
Subject: 2001 NDT?
References: <199911081914.NAA18265@frank.mtsu.edu>
Message-ID: <MON.8.NOV.1999.133947.0600.MKRUEGER@FRANK.MTSU.EDU>

Heh.

While it would be nice to have the NDT and CEDA nationals in the same
place, I am only insane enough to host CEDA Nats.

On the other hand, Samford, West Georgia, Emory, Georgia, Louisville,
and Kentucky are all "traditional" NDT schools that are within 4
hours...  and Alabama and Vanderbilt are traditional CEDA schools within
4 hours...

Just a thought.

Mike

John Fritch wrote:
>
> Ummm....not yet.
>
> Care to host the NDT?  There has now been a precedent set for having CEDA
> Nationals and the NDT in the same city!!!
>
> John Fritch
> SMS
>
> ----------
> >From: Krueger <mkrueger at FRANK.MTSU.EDU>
> >To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU
> >Subject: 2001 NDT?
> >Date: Mon, Nov 8, 1999, 1:03 PM
> >
>
> >Anyone know when or where the 2001 NDT will be held?
> >
> >Thanks!
> >
> >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/

--
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  Mon Nov  8 14:54:03 1999
Message-Id: <MON.8.NOV.1999.145403.0600.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 46108 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 14:45:36
 -0500
Precedence: bulk
Received: from mail.utexas.edu (wb1-a.mail.utexas.edu [128.83.126.134]) by
 list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA22112 for
 <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 14:45:32 -0500
Received: (qmail 15436 invoked from network); 8 Nov 1999 19:45:26 -0000
Received: from dial-123-26.ots.utexas.edu (HELO mail.utexas.edu)
 (128.83.221.122) by umbs-smtp-1 with SMTP; 8 Nov 1999 19:45:26 -0000
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 (Macintosh; I; PPC)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854";
 x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <3827369A.AA41114D at mail.utexas.edu>
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 14:54:03 -0600
Reply-To: jd.rollins at mail.utexas.edu
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: joel david rollins <jd.rollins at MAIL.UTEXAS.EDU>
Subject: update on eligibility rules, dates

there has been some question about when first and scond round
applications are due, given the eligibility rules that the committee
passed.

as i understand it, the rule that was passed stated, in short, that "to
be eligible to the NDT, a student must provide  to the NDT chair by
February 8th an official document from appropriate university officials
verifying that he/she is registered as an undergraduate student and is
in good standing  at the school for which he/she is participating, as of
February 1st immediately preceding the NDT in which he/she wishes to
participate."

the rule is longer thatn this, but that is the gist.  this means that
EVERYONE with the potential of going to the NDT must have said document
to Fritch by the 8th.  Much unnecessary paperwork?????  for fritch to
decide.  it does seem like a hassle and an unnecessary cost for those
having to pay for such documents from the registrar.  but that is the
rule, as i see it.  the dates  for submissions:

first round at large bids
must be received by committee members by Feb 10th, 2000 (5PM, CST)

Districts
Declaration of intent to attend districts by Feb 15th, 2000

Second round at large must be received by committee members by March
2nd, 2000.

joel

Joel D. Rollins, PhD
Director of Debating
Director, UTNIF
Jesse Jones Communication Center, CMA 7.114
The University of Texas at Austin
Austin, TX 78712
email: jd.rollins at mail.utexas.edu
UTNIF Web cite:  http://www.utexas.edu/coc/speech/debate/adi.html



From RJMCDAD  Mon Nov  8 13:46:52 1999
From: RJMCDAD (Rob McDade)
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 14:46:52 -0500
Subject: Stacey Sowards
Message-ID: <MON.8.NOV.1999.144652.0500.RJMCDAD@ILSTU.EDU>

Please backchannel Molly Munson:  mlmunso at ilstu.edu

Rob McDade
Illinois State Debate

>From  Mon Nov  8 14:51:29 1999
Message-Id: <MON.8.NOV.1999.145129.0500.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 46369 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 14:52:52
 -0500
Precedence: bulk
Received: from iris.liberty.edu (iris.liberty.edu [207.239.144.36]) by
 list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA11590 for
 <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 14:52:48 -0500
Received: from te146.liberty.edu (TE146 [10.2.6.253]) by iris.liberty.edu with
 SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2448.0) id
 VXDRZ77D; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 14:52:26 -0500
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
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Message-ID: <000101bf2a22$a6210620$fd06020a at te146.liberty.edu>
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 14:51:29 -0500
Reply-To: bodonnel at liberty.edu
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Brett O'Donnell <bodonnel at LIBERTY.EDU>
Subject: Liberty Tournament Team List-Update 2

Below is the second updated team list for the tournament this weekend.  We
are at eighty teams total.  Space is limited so enter early.  The entry
deadline is Wednesday.  Any drops after Wednesday at 5:00 pm will be charged
the entry fee because I will be charged by our food service.  Please check
your entry on this sheet and send names of debaters if you have not done so.

Varsity-20 teams

JV-17 teams

Novice-43 teams

Boston College

Varsity:
Jared Fields/Lisa Landon

Novice:
Kevin Collins/Lynze Fox
Mario Poweell/Paul Sutton
Kevin Hartzell/Chris Masefield

Judges:
John Katsulas
Stefan Bauschard

Duke

Varsity:
Erin Abrams/Alisa Nave
Hosea Chang/Jon Shih

JV:
Tom Jones/Gopi Kumar

Judge:
Rich O'Dor

George Mason

Varsity:
Jay Igiel/Frances Tufts

JV:
Adrian Voicu/Steve Williams
Bary Hausrath/Butch Canter
Tim Gleason/Tricia Webb

Novice:
Heather Westron/Leah Foster
Renee Loebs/Lynadria Ware
Katy Kasmai/Megan Wells
Mike Webb/Shey Bebahani
Mitchell Kato/Allison Lauderdale

Judges:
Jomel Angat
Richard Reed
Jake Weiner
Peter Krein
Chris McIntosh
Dee Dee Giroux

George Washington

Varsity:
Jon Schwartz/Heather Barnes

Judge:
Jason Mika

Harvard

Varsity:
Doug Shively/Keia Cole

Judges:
Dallas Perkins
Sherry Hall

James Madison

Varsity:
One team

JV:
One team

Novice:
Ten Teams

Judges:
Barb Pickering
Pete Bsumek
Eric Minkove (pending)

John Carroll

Varsity:
Ben Sovacool/Katie Lavelle

JV:
Brandi Clouston/Jen Bozman
Jessica Dillon/Jim Paluf

Novice:
Kim Parks/Steven Klinger

Judges:
Brent Brossmann
Kelly Young

King's

Novice:
4 teams

Judges:
Jude Pannell
Rebecca Greene
Mike Berry

Marshall University

Varsity:
Christian Hess/Jason Houser

JV:
Joshua Saunders/Ryan McCullough

Judge:
Kristine Greenwood

Mary Washington

Varsity:
Judy Goss/Amber Tussing

JV:
Matt Hoell/Cathy Rothaug

Novice:
Robert Bowen/Herbert Conley
Bonnie Ryan/Nora Cronin

Judge:
Tim O'Donnell

Michigan

Varsity:
Ashley Amaya/Megan McMillan
John Oden/Tim Stucka

Judges:
Steve Mancuso


Navy

Varsity:
Mike Bruno/Tim Johnson

Novice:
Pete Steveson/John Hiler
Alisha Hamilton/Von Fernandes
Dave Bartlow/Austin Gullet
Dome Pholtavee/Brent Richardson
Fidel Sanchez/Sara Walters
Dave Major/Eric Gonzales
Kat Sampson/Dan Singer

Judges:
Jonny Chase
Brad Taylor
Chris Rodriguez
Jeff Hunt

Penn State

Varsity:
Devin Chwastyk/Veronica Finkelstein

JV:
Jeff Klenk/Mike Sawyer

Novice:
Tom ?/Joe Bangert

Judges:
Pat Gehrke
Dan Bloomingdale

Towson

Varsity:
One Team

Novice:
One Team

Judge:
Beth Skinner

University of Richmond

Novice:
Roisin McGuckin/James Cain

Judge:
Jason Stone
Scott Luchetti

University of South Carolina

Varsity:
Erin Bailey/Maggie McAllister

JV:
Ankit Pate/Jason Bethel

Novice:
Markesha Miller/Andrew Touzel

Judge:
Jen Edwards

University of Virginia

 JV:
Judson Frye/Dave Simpson
Ben Bateman/Ben Rottenborn

Judges:
Earl Croasman

Wake Forest

Varsity:
Three or four teams

JV:
One Team

Novice:
Five or four Teams

Judges:
Allan Louden

West Virginia

JV:
Stephen Marshall/Joshua Whitehair
Mary Bess/Joshua Boggs
Jennifer Dixon/Jason Evans

Novice:
Annelee Boyle/Samantha Jones
Kimberly Bandy/Jessica Taylor

Judges:
Daniel Overbey
Mark Schaefer
Jodie Robinson










Liberty University Debate



From mdickman  Mon Nov  8 13:59:17 1999
From: mdickman (Michael R. Dickman)
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 14:59:17 -0500
Subject: Binghamton?
Message-ID: <MON.8.NOV.1999.145917.0500.MDICKMAN@CC.CUMBER.EDU>

Hi all.. Not to rush anyone, and I'm sure it was a late Sunday Night, but is there any word on the breaks etc. out of Binghamton?

Mike



From bg20351  Mon Nov  8 14:09:29 1999
From: bg20351 (Siejen Yin)
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 15:09:29 -0500
Subject: Binghamton?
In-Reply-To: <01BF29F9.D8797FE0@mdickman.ccnet>
Message-ID: <MON.8.NOV.1999.150929.0500.BG20351@BINGHAMTON.EDU>

Sorry for the Delay.

A copy of the results from the Binghamton Tournament Later Today.

Thanks,
Siejen Yin


At 02:59 PM 11/8/99 -0500, Michael R. Dickman wrote:
>Hi all.. Not to rush anyone, and I'm sure it was a late Sunday Night, but
is there any word on the breaks etc. out of Binghamton?
>
>Mike
>
Siejen Yin
CIW #06479
Binghamton University
P.O. Box 6006
Binghamton, NY 13902-6006
(607) 777-3969



"...To help someone else if the greatest gift of all to yourself..."

"...We are all more Alike than Unlike..."
                -Maya Angelou

>From  Mon Nov  8 15:35:37 1999
Message-Id: <MON.8.NOV.1999.153537.EST.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 47475 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 15:36:26
 -0500
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 PAA27406 for
 <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 15:36:18 -0500
Received: from EMarlowWSU at aol.com by imo25.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id
 nDOa007537 (4250) for <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Mon, 8 Nov 1999
 15:35:37 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 41
Message-ID: <0.1fb5dd6e.25588e19 at aol.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 15:35:37 EST
Reply-To: EMarlowWSU at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Eric Marlow <EMarlowWSU at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: Seeking bids for the 2000 Val Browning Weber Round Robin

    I would like to take this opportunity to solicit bids from the community
for participation in the 2000 Val Browning Weber Round Robin.  Due to the
change in dates for the Great Salt Lake Invitational Tournament, this year we
will host the round robin on the 11-12 of January.  Most of the people we
asked said they needed the day off in between to recoup and prep, so we have
maintained that for this year by moving the tournament to one day earlier.

    Traditionally, the Round Robin has sponsored competition between some of
the finest teams in CEDA and NDT, and we look forward to doing so again this
year.  We will offer banquets both nights of the tournament that will be
covered by entry fees.  We will once again be hosting the tournament entirely
in the Ogden Marriott (formerly the Ogden Park).  We will offer 7 rounds of
competition in two flighted divisions using the 1999-2000 CEDA topic with
9-3-6 time limits and 10 minutes of preparation time.  Awards will be given
to all teams qualifying for the elimination rounds as well as very attractive
speaker awards for the top five speakers.

    Those interested in being selected to attend the tournament should submit
information as soon as possible.  Please send the first and last names of the
team applying, the institution they represent, and information detailing the
current or past success of the team.  Only 16 teams will be selected so self
promotion is encouraged in the application process.  Please be sure that a
team can actually be in Ogden to participate before submitting bids.  This
will speed the process of filling out the field and getting information to
all participants.

    Those attending would need to arrive in Salt Lake City on the 10th.  We
are unable (due to insurance liability) to offer airport shuttle service, so
we encourage you to either rent a vehicle or use the airport shuttle service.
 In the case of an emergency, we might be able to help with transportation at
a substantial additional cost.  Please do not wait until the last minute to
make arrangements.

    If you have any questions or want to submit a bid please send them to me
via email or you can reply to the numbers that I have listed below.  Please
do not contact Bear for these things.  As many of you know, Bear is
undergoing some pretty serious health problems, and his doctors have begged
him not to stress himself unnecessarily, so please direct your inquiries to
me rather than him.

    The deadline for application is December 1st.  Please submit your bids as
soon as possible so we can begin the process of creating a competitive and
enjoyable field of participants.  Scheduled as we are next to the Great Salt
Lake Invitational Tournament this offers a great opportunity for people to
get more bang out of budget dollars than you can by going to a single
tournament.  So come join us in the valley of the Great Salt Lake for a week
of terrific competition and hospitality.

Here are the administrative details:

Tournament Hotel:
The tournament will occur entirely in the Ogden Marriott so we encourage you
to stay there while you are in Ogden.  The hotel has a block of rooms
reserved which will be released on December 20th, and the rate is a flat $63
per night with a 9.25% tax.  You can call either 1-800 421-7599 or
801-627-1190 for reservations, and be sure to mention "Weber Debate" to get
the guaranteed rate.  The hotel is located at 247 24th Street in Ogden.

Other Ogden Hotels:
Comfort Suites      801-621-2545
Days Inn            801-399-5671
Motel 6             801-627-2880
Radisson            801-627-1900

Entry Fee:
Entry fees are $70 per team with accompanying critic and $150 per team
without a critic.  There are very few locally available judges for hire so we
encourage you to bring critics rather than hiring them.

Send applications or direct inquiries to:
Eric Marlow
Acting Director of Forensics
Weber State University
email:  emarlowwsu at aol.com
office: 801 626-6438
home: 801 334-7119
fax: 801- 627-7975

Looking forward to seeing you in January,
Eric Marlow



From jhovden  Mon Nov  8 15:37:59 1999
From: jhovden (Jan Hovden)
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 15:37:59 -0600
Subject: UCO entries
Message-ID: <MON.8.NOV.1999.153759.0600.JHOVDEN@UCOK.EDU>

Here are the updated UCO entries.  Don't forget to send flight
information if you need transportation from the airport.

Jan

Arizona State

Open
Takis Makridis and John Kircher
Edwin Aralica and Aaron Karabell

Judge
Todd Grahm

Baylor

Open
Blake Thomas and Matt Brigham

JV
Meredyth Childress and Sabrina Neff

Judge
Kelley Skillin
Kansas

Open
Nathan Rodriguez and Tom Seymour
Roger Saad and Justin Tinsley

JV
Seth Wood and John Breeding

Judges
Rich McCollum
Val Renegar

Kansas State

Open
Katie Hatziavramidis and Kevin Zollman
Melissa Newton and Kyle Wilson
Alex Garrett and Michael Schultz

JV
Matt Hoppock and Ben Sharp
Justin Meier and Tyler Tigue

Judges
Sue Stanfield
Justin Green
Scott Herndon
Monte Stevens
Isaac West (Not available on Saturday)

Macalester

Open
Katie Kauf and Ilya Winham

Judge
Doug Dennis

Michigan State

Open
Orion Smith and Tara O'Dowd
Louis Brown and John Branstetter
Tanya Palet and Debater X

Judges
Jason Trice
Jason Russell

NYU
Ricky Garner and Nate Gorelick

Judge
Will Baker

North Texas

Open
John Hines and Jason Sykes
Holly Fortner and Lauren Hildebrand
Scott Gottbreht and Julian Gagnon
Matt Shaffstall and Sloan Callen

Judges
Tara Tate
Mark Deloach

Texas - Austin

6-7 Teams

Texas - Dallas

Open
Jason Jordan and Justin Kirk
Vasile Stanescu and Aaron Fuqua

Judge
Lisa Jordan

UMKC

Open
Coffman and Baisley
Rutledge and Leuty

JV
Reeves and Goodin
Clevenger and J. Whyte
Ousley and Sobek
Phillips and McClure

Judges
Sean Harris
Clay Rhodes
Kelly Congdon
Brent Siemers

Vermont

Open
Sarah Snider and Helen Morgan

JV
Anthony Pagan and Jaime Robertson

Judge
Justin Parmett



From hcspc014  Mon Nov  8 16:40:08 1999
From: hcspc014 (william sheffield)
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 14:40:08 -0800
Subject: NCA Panel
Message-ID: <MON.8.NOV.1999.144008.0800.HCSPC014@CSUN.EDU>

My apologies to people subscribed to edebate and the IE listserve.  That
message was intended for the people subscribed to the parli and Pi Kappa
Delta listserves.

Again, my apologies.

Bill

Bill Sheffield, Director of Forensics
CSUN Speech & Debate Team
CSU-Northridge
Dept. of Communication Studies
Northridge, CA 91330-8257
office: 818/677-3043     debate room:  818/677-2028
fax:  818/677-2663
email:  hcspc014 at csun.edu     debateprof at juno.com
URL:  http://speech.csun.edu/forensics



From elliottdarren  Mon Nov  8 17:58:34 1999
From: elliottdarren (DARREN ELLIOTT)
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 17:58:34 CST
Subject: Rule changes, Woods, Elliott, & Fritch!  Common Ground?!
Message-ID: <MON.8.NOV.1999.175834.CST.ELLIOTTDARREN@HOTMAIL.COM>

Hmmm, I'm in a rather agreeing mood tonight.  But I have some suggestions as
well.

Given the recent discussions (again) on the "state of debate", shrinkage,
etc. it seems to me that some steps that could easily be taken to prevent
further alienation of the membership should be embarked upon.

First, Scott (no relation) is probably right that rule changes mid-stream do
more to upset the process than help it.  Unless of course some unforseen
emergency dictates changing the rules.  But come on, we've lived with our
eligibility requirements/definitions this long.  Didn't seem urgent to
change them in November.  For some on the margins this may seem as an
attempt to further the idea of "elite (whatever that is) rule".  Scott makes
a good point.

As for Steve Woods, his argument about proxy votes makes a lot of sense.  It
is possible for people's minds to change given compelling debate.  Hell,
that's what we're all about isn't it?  Proxy votes prevent that.  Fritch
makes a good counterpoint in terms of mail ballots not changing this.  So
where is the middle ground?

Steve has my support for an amendment to change things.  It does seem odd
that our organization institutes major changes when very few members are
present.  Not everyone can afford to attend NCA or summer business meetings.
  Although not ideal, a lot more of the membership attends CEDA Nats.  So
here's the suggestion.  We need to formulate an amendment for CEDA Nats that
requires that the membership be afforded the opportunity to vote on all
future amendments through mail ballots.  I'm also open to the suggestion
that these ideas be taken up at the business meetings as well and then put
to the general membership afterwards (Fritch's idea).

I definetly think we need to increase access to the general membership, thus
the first part of what I say above is definetly true.  Anyone see any
disadvantages to the second part that Fritch originally alluded to?  We
should get on this soon so it can be ready to go at CEDA Nats.  Looking
forward to input!

Darren Elliott
"CHIEF"
Asst. Debate Coach Wichita State University

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



From hcspc014  Mon Nov  8 16:13:55 1999
From: hcspc014 (william sheffield)
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 14:13:55 -0800
Subject: Another NCA panel
Message-ID: <MON.8.NOV.1999.141355.0800.HCSPC014@CSUN.EDU>

I'm trying to put together another panel to submit for next year's NCA.
This panel will actually focus on the theme of the convention
"engagement."  The idea is to discuss the involvement of the
"non-forensics" community in the forensics activity.  For example, if you
have a program similar to Pt. Loma's "Forensics Fellows," where they
solicite interaction from faculty from other departments to discuss topics
of interest with the parli debaters, and would be interested in presenting
a paper on that experience, I would be willing to put that panel together
(sorry for the lengthy sentence!).

Konrad, would you be willing to discuss Pt. Loma's program on the panel?
Tom Kuster also expressed interest in participating.  Others?

Please backchannel me if you are interested.

Thanks,

Bill



Bill Sheffield, Director of Forensics
CSUN Speech & Debate Team
CSU-Northridge
Dept. of Communication Studies
Northridge, CA 91330-8257
office: 818/677-3043     debate room:  818/677-2028
fax:  818/677-2663
email:  hcspc014 at csun.edu     debateprof at juno.com
URL:  http://speech.csun.edu/forensics



From hcspc014  Mon Nov  8 16:27:09 1999
From: hcspc014 (william sheffield)
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 14:27:09 -0800
Subject: Theory & Practice Panel at NCA
Message-ID: <MON.8.NOV.1999.142709.0800.HCSPC014@CSUN.EDU>

I have had some great interest in participating on this panel.

So far, I am working to list the following people, other than myself, on
the panel:


        Skip Rutledge, Pt. Loma Nazarene University (Govt defense of the
        sq in parli)

        Kevin Jones, Azusa Pacific University (examination of use/abuse of
        parli procedure)

        Mike Eaves, Valdosta State University (specific knowledge quandry
        in parli)

        Steven Venette, North Dakota State University (parli debate as
        form of social argumentation)

        Mike Bartanen, Pacific Lutheran University (need for more focused
        juding models in parli)

        Jason Steck, Creighton University (identifying and redressing
        'abuse' in parli)

        Bill Sheffield, CSU, Northridge (comparative analysis of research
        practices, responsibilites, and needs between parli and CEDA/NDT)


I would be interested in one other participant on the panel.  Backchannel
me if you're interested.

Thanks to all who have replied,

Bill



Bill Sheffield, Director of Forensics
CSUN Speech & Debate Team
CSU-Northridge
Dept. of Communication Studies
Northridge, CA 91330-8257
office: 818/677-3043     debate room:  818/677-2028
fax:  818/677-2663
email:  hcspc014 at csun.edu     debateprof at juno.com
URL:  http://speech.csun.edu/forensics

>From  Mon Nov  8 16:50:40 1999
Message-Id: <MON.8.NOV.1999.165040.0500.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 37659 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 20:48:57
 -0500
Precedence: bulk
Received: from nova.bsuvc.bsu.edu (NOVA.BSUVC.BSU.EDU [147.226.56.70]) by
 list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA16870 for
 <edebate at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 20:48:53 -0500
Received: from BSUVC.bsu.edu by BSUVC.bsu.edu (PMDF V5.2-31 #35953) id
 <01JI3O1MTJF48ZDZT3 at BSUVC.bsu.edu> for edebate at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 8
 Nov 1999 16:50:41 EST
X-VMS-To: IN%"edebate at LIST.UVM.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Message-ID: <01JI3O1MTT2A8ZDZT3 at BSUVC.bsu.edu>
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 16:50:40 -0500
Reply-To: 00MHBAUER at BSUVC.BSU.EDU
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: mike Bauer <00mhbauer at BSUVC.BSU.EDU>
Subject: Call for Nominations for Editor of Contemp. Arg. and Debate

Members of the Cross Examination Debate Association are invited to submit
nominations, includinf self nomination, for the Editor of Contemporary
Argumentation and Debate.  The position will begin in the spring of 2000 and
extend for a three year term. The Constitution describes the responsibilities
of the Editor as:  "A. Select an editorial board (all should be members of the
forensics staffs at CEDA-member schools and an attempt should be made to
include persons from a variety of CEDA regions) and
B. Be responsible for all aspects of preperation and printing of the journal,
including adherence to a timely publication schedule."

Candidates should include a letter of intent, a current curriculum vita, a
writing sample, and a statement of philosophy and/or appraoch to the
editorial task.  The statement of philosophy should include a vision of
potential subject matter and/or special issues.
Please send 5 copies of these materials to Mike Bauer, Chair Nominating
Committee, A.C. 414, Ball State University, Muncie, IN 47306.  Phone
number is 765-285-1956.  All materials must be recived by February 1, 2000.
Mike

>From  Mon Nov  8 16:55:04 1999
Message-Id: <MON.8.NOV.1999.165504.0500.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 37679 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 20:49:04
 -0500
Precedence: bulk
Received: from nova.bsuvc.bsu.edu (NOVA.BSUVC.BSU.EDU [147.226.56.70]) by
 list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA20024 for
 <edebate at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 20:48:59 -0500
Received: from BSUVC.bsu.edu by BSUVC.bsu.edu (PMDF V5.2-31 #35953) id
 <01JI3OGW1DOM8ZDZT3 at BSUVC.bsu.edu> for edebate at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 8
 Nov 1999 16:55:04 EST
X-VMS-To: IN%"edebate at LIST.UVM.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Message-ID: <01JI3OGW1DOO8ZDZT3 at BSUVC.bsu.edu>
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 16:55:04 -0500
Reply-To: 00MHBAUER at BSUVC.BSU.EDU
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: mike Bauer <00mhbauer at BSUVC.BSU.EDU>
Subject: Call for committee members for editor of C.A.D.

I am putting together a nominating committee to make a recommendation to the
executive committee for the new editor of C.A.D.  Interested people should
have some experience with publications.  Please let me know ASAP if you are
interested as I have 2 spaces left on this committee.
Thanks,
Mike



From hansonjb  Mon Nov  8 17:23:58 1999
From: hansonjb (Jim Hanson)
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 15:23:58 -0800
Subject: change CEDA votes to balloting
Message-ID: <MON.8.NOV.1999.152358.0800.HANSONJB@WHITMAN.EDU>

I plan to submit a proposal to remove voting on amendments and Bylaws
changes at the national business meetings and switch it to by ballot. Its
rationale is:
1. People are confused about when and how the process of making amendments
and changing Bylaws occur.
2. Many people do not and cannot attend the national business meetings.
Proxies are confusing and people do not use them.
3. The current rules allow just 12 voting members present to constitute a
quorum at business meetings; as a result, less than 10% of the membership
can make decisions affecting the entire organization.
4. People want to be able to vote and provide their input on important
issues. This proposal makes every effort to encourage this.

I encourage you to read this proposal and I welcome comments and suggestions
on this proposal. I plan to submit it for the business meeting at CEDA
Nationals with the hope that it will be the last business meeting at which
we vote and that it will increase the openness and accessibility of our
organization.

jim hanson
whitman college
hansonjb at whitman.edu

-----------
ARTICLE IV: Section 10; Subsection J. shall be deleted and changed.

Current:
J. The Executive Council should refrain from making decisions which can or
should be made by a general business meeting or a general vote of the
membership.

Change to:
J. The Executive Council should refrain from making decisions that can or
should be made by a vote of the membership.

-------------
ARTICLE V: Section 2 and Section 3 shall be changed.

Current:
Section 2. Nominations shall be submitted by the Nominating Committee at the
first annual business meeting of the Association, at which time additional
nominations for any office may be submitted by any member present.
Section 3. No later than 30 days after a business meeting, the Executive
Secretary shall submit to the membership by mail or email a ballot
containing the names of all nominees. Members will vote for national
officers and the representative of their particular region. Ballots may be
returned to the Executive Secretary by mail, email or fax. Phone balloting
will not be accepted. Balloting shall cease at midnight, 30 days after
submission of the ballot. A plurality of ballots returned will elect. In the
event of a tie between the two leading contenders for an office, their names
shall be resubmitted to the membership.

Change to:
Section 2. Nominations may be submitted to the Nominating Committee at any
time prior to and including during the business meeting at the National
Tournament.
Section 3. No later than 10 days after the last day of the National
Tournament, the Executive Secretary shall submit to the membership by mail,
email, fax, and/or web site a ballot containing the names of all nominees.
Members will vote for national officers and the representative of their
particular region. Ballots may be returned to the Executive Secretary by
mail, email or fax. Phone balloting will not be accepted. Balloting shall
cease at midnight, 21 days after the ballot has been sent. A plurality of
ballots returned will elect. In the event of a tie between the two leading
contenders for an office, their names shall be resubmitted to the membership
within ten days of the posting of election results for a vote whose
balloting shall cease at midnight 21 days after the ballot has been sent.

----------
ARTICLE VII: ANNUAL BUSINESS MEETINGS OF THE ASSOCIATION
This title and its Section 1 through 9 shall be deleted and changed.

Current:
ARTICLE VII: ANNUAL BUSINESS MEETINGS OF THE ASSOCIATION
Section 1. Members attending the annual business meetings of the Association
constitute its governing body. Changes to the Bylaws may be made at annual
business meetings. Between business meetings, the Executive Council will
make such rules as are necessary to support the purposes of the Association.
Actions of the Executive Council will have the force of Bylaws. Members will
be notified of the Executive Council's actions and at the next business
meeting will have the opportunity to approve or reject continuation of those
rules.
Section 2. Business meetings shall be held annually at the fall national
convention of the National Communication Association and at the
Association's National Tournament. The Executive Secretary will give members
ample notice of the times and places of these meetings.
Section 3. Each regular or affiliate member institution will have one vote.
Section 4. In order to conduct any business other than hearing and
discussing reports, a quorum of representatives of at least 12 institutions
must be personally present (proxy votes do not count for a quorum).
Section 5. Proxy voting at business meetings will be allowed under the
following conditions
A? The Executive Secretary will distribute with the agendas for the national
business meetings a proxy form for each business item that requires a vote
of the membership;
B, Members who do not attend the business meetings may complete, sign and
send these forms to the national meetings with another voting member,
C. No member institution may vote more than five proxies in addition to its
own vote;
D. Proxy votes are to be submitted to the President at the start of each
business meeting. The President will count only those proxy ballots that are
complete and signed .
E. Proxy votes apply to main motions but not secondary motions,
F. In the event that successful amendments to a main motion substantially
alter its intent, the President may rule that proxies are void.
Section 6. If a quorum exists at the business meeting, members (and proxy
voters)
may modify the Bylaws by majority vote. Proposed amendments to the
constitution will be discussed and if they receive a majority vote of
members (and proxy voters), they will be submitted to the entire membership
by mail, at which time they will require a two?thirds vote to pass.
Section 7. The presiding officer at a business meeting will be entitled to
vote as the representative of his/her institution.
Section 8. Any vote that results in a tie will be considered to have failed
and the
President will not vote to break ties
Section 9. Parliamentary authority for the organization will be Robert's
Rules of Order
Newly Revised.

change to:
ARTICLE VII: BUSINESS MEETINGS OF THE ASSOCIATION
Section 1. Business Discussion Meetings shall occur at the National
Communication Association and the Association~Rs National Tournament.
Section 2. The Executive Secretary will give members ample notice of the
times and places of these meetings.
Section 3. These meetings shall provide opportunities for discussing but not
voting on changes to the CEDA constitution and Bylaws, projects, and other
issues important to the CEDA organization.
Section 4. Members should submit their request for a discussion on such
issues to the Executive Secretary 21 days before these meetings occur to
ensure that the item will be included in the meeting agenda. However, any
issue may be raised during remaining new business time during the meeting.

-------------
ARTICLE VIII: AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION AND BYLAWS
This article shall be deleted and replaced.

Current:
ARTICLE VIII: AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION AND BYLAWS

Section 1. Amendments to the Constitution
A. An amendment to the Constitution may be initiated by any member school.
B. Amendments to the Constitution must be submitted to the Executive
Secretary
30 days prior to a business meeting to be discussed at that meeting, The
Executive Secretary will communicate proposed amendments to the membership
no later than 15 days prior to the business meeting
C. A majority vote of the schools represented at the business meeting will
be necessary for a proposed constitutional amendment to be sent to the
membership;
D. Within 10 days following the business meeting, the Executive Secretary
will distribute by mail or email a ballot containing all proposed
constitutional amendments. Balloting will cease at midnight 30 days after
the date of the business meeting;
E. Constitutional amendments require a two?thirds vote by school
representatives voting by mail, email, or fax.

Section 2. Amendment to the Bylaws
A. An amendment to the Bylaws may be initiated by any member school;
B. Amendments to the Bylaws must be submitted to the Executive Secretary no
later than 30 days prior to a business meeting to be considered at that
meeting. The Executive Secretary will communicate proposed amendments to the
membership no later than 15 days prior to the business meeting;
C. Bylaw amendments require a majority vote by school representatives and
proxies voting at the business meeting.

Section 3. Alternative Amendment Procedures for the Constitution and Bylaws
A. An amendment may be proposed by a two?thirds vote of the Executive
Council or by a petition of 5% of the current CEDA membership to the CEDA
Executive Secretary and the CEDA President.
B. The proposed amendment shay be distributed to the membership. Members
will have 30 days to send comments on the proposed amendment to the
Executive Secretary.
C. Within 45 days of the publication of the proposed amendment, the
Executive Secretary will mail a ballot to the membership containing a copy
of the proposed amendment, along with a summary of the arguments for and
against the amendment. The author of the amendment will have the opportunity
to submit the reasons for the amendment and the President may designate an
individual to outline objections to the amendment. Both of these individuals
shall have access to the comments received by the Executive Secretary.
Balloting will cease at midnight 30 days after the ballots were distributed.
Revised October 1998
D. A three?fourths vote of all members voting will be required to enact an
amendment initiated under this section.
E. A majority of the Executive Council may vote to exclude the time period
from the conclusion of the CEDA National Tournament until July 1 from the
time period in items B and C of this Section.

Change to:
ARTICLE VIII: AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION AND BYLAWS
Section 1. Members are encouraged to post their proposals for changes to the
constitution and Bylaws to listservs, web pages, and other arenas that the
CEDA community accesses before submission to the Executive Secretary so that
discussion and improvement of the proposal can occur.
Section 2. Members should submit their proposals to the Executive Secretary.
Any suggested amendments or Bylaw changes submitted to the Executive
Secretary as of the date of the Business Discussion Meeting shall be placed
on the ballot.
Section 3. The Executive Secretary shall provide notice via email and/or web
posting within the 7 days prior to the Business Discussion Meeting stating
the deadline for acceptance of amendments and changes to the Bylaws.
Section 4. The Executive Secretary shall distribute the ballot including all
amendments and Bylaw changes to CEDA members via email, fax, regular mail,
and/or web posting within ten days after the last day of the NCA fall
convention and within ten days after the last day of the National CEDA
Tournament.
Section 5. Each regular or affiliate member institution and each student
representative will have one vote.
Section 6. Any vote modifying the Bylaws will require a majority vote of at
least 25% of the paid membership to pass.
Section 7. Any vote amending the constitution will require a 2/3 vote of at
least 25% of the paid membership to pass.
Section 8. Paid membership numbers shall be counted as of the last day of
the balloting.
Section 9. Any CEDA executive shall be entitled to vote as the
representative of his/her institution.
Section 10. Any vote that results in a tie will be considered to have failed
and the President will not break ties.
Section 11. All balloting will cease at midnight 21 days after the ballot is
distributed.
Section 12. The Executive Secretary shall provide notice of the deadline for
acceptance of ballots within the 7 days prior to the deadline.
Section 13. The Executive Council shall make such rules as are necessary to
support the purposes of the Association. Actions of the Executive Council
will have the force of Bylaws. Members will be notified of the Executive
Council~Rs actions and at the next vote will have the opportunity to approve
or reject the continuation of those rules by submitting a Bylaw change.
Section 14. Alternative Amendment Procedures for the Constitution and Bylaws
A. An amendment may be proposed by a two-thirds vote of the Executive
Council or by a petition of 5% of the current CEDA membership to the CEDA
Executive Secretary and the CEDA President.
B. The proposed amendment shall be sent to the membership within 10 days of
its receipt.
C. Any vote using this election method that modifies the Bylaws will require
a majority vote of at least 50% of the paid membership to pass.
D. Any vote using this election method that amends the constitution will
require a 2/3 vote of at least 50% of the paid membership to pass.
E. Paid membership numbers shall be counted as of the last day of the
balloting.
F. Any CEDA executive shall be entitled to vote as the representative of
his/her institution.
G. Any vote that results in a tie will be considered to have failed and the
President will not break ties.
H. Balloting will cease at midnight 21 days after the ballots were
distributed.
I. A majority of the Executive Council may vote to exclude the time period
from the conclusion of the CEDA National Tournament until July 1 from the
time period in items B and H of this section.



From ivokeller  Mon Nov  8 16:03:54 1999
From: ivokeller (I I)
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 22:03:54 GMT
Subject: PACE ONLY
Message-ID: <MON.8.NOV.1999.220354.GMT.IVOKELLER@HOTMAIL.COM>

Could someone at Pace please backchannel me?

Ivo Keller
Berkeley Debate

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



From ivokeller  Mon Nov  8 16:04:42 1999
From: ivokeller (I I)
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 22:04:42 GMT
Subject: KENTUCKY ONLY
Message-ID: <MON.8.NOV.1999.220442.GMT.IVOKELLER@HOTMAIL.COM>

Could someone at Kentucky please backchannel me?

Ivo Keller
Berkeley Debate

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



From lrnathan  Mon Nov  8 20:23:14 1999
From: lrnathan (Jairus Grove)
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 20:23:14 -0600
Subject: Mike Horowitz only
Message-ID: <MON.8.NOV.1999.202314.0600.LRNATHAN@MAIL.UTEXAS.EDU>

Mike,

Could you please email me the cites for your 1AC as wells as the cite for
the Murray evidence for interpretive realism that you read against us at
Harvard? My email address is jairus at mail.utexas.edu



Thanks in advance,

Jairus
Texas

>From  Mon Nov  8 21:54:26 1999
Message-Id: <MON.8.NOV.1999.215426.EST.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 39051 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 21:55:27
 -0500
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 VAA13054 for
 <EDEBATE at list.uvm.edu>; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 21:55:25 -0500
Received: from DavidCLang at aol.com by imo19.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id
 nWSNa12208 (3977) for <EDEBATE at list.uvm.edu>; Mon, 8 Nov 1999
 21:54:26 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 41
Message-ID: <0.61152b29.2558e6e2 at aol.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 21:54:26 EST
Reply-To: DavidCLang at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: David Lang <DavidCLang at AOL.COM>
Subject: Paging Jake Foster from Northwestern

Jake, can you backchannel me please?  Thanks.

David Lang
NFA '99 / Pace U '03

"A man entered a newspapers's pun contest, sending ten different entries in
hopes that one would win.  As it turned out, no pun in ten did." -- Carolina
Country

>From  Mon Nov  8 22:16:06 1999
Message-Id: <MON.8.NOV.1999.221606.EST.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 36965 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 23:36:12
 -0500
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 XAA17524 for
 <EDEBATE at list.uvm.edu>; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 23:36:12 -0500
Received: from Capnsntch at aol.com by imo19.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id
 nRZHa18732 (3706) for <EDEBATE at list.uvm.edu>; Mon, 8 Nov 1999
 22:16:07 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 26
Message-ID: <0.61d71cd.2558ebf6 at aol.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 22:16:06 EST
Reply-To: Capnsntch at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Matt Opalka <Capnsntch at AOL.COM>
Subject: to all those attending the UCO tourney...

 Hey all,

Trying to get a caselist prepaired for the UCO tournament if you all are
interested in having a prelim. caselist ready at registration or before first
round if youll backchannel me with all the relevant info ASAP (by wednesday
night/thursday morning) I'll make it happen... Plans and advantage areas
would be great for right now we'll do a comprehensive case book at the
tournament and have it ready sunday...See you all in Ok. this weekend.

Thanks

matt
UCO Debate



From karrottop  Mon Nov  8 22:33:23 1999
From: karrottop (Michael Campbell)
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 22:33:23 -0600
Subject: condolences
Message-ID: <MON.8.NOV.1999.223323.0600.KARROTTOP@MAIL.UTEXAS.EDU>

im not sure if i should be the one to post this, but the debate
community has lost a great man this past weekend...  Dr.  Harold Lawson,
of Central Missouri State University passd away Saturday night in his
sleep....  we are all still in shock, as i just found out moments
ago...  this is a sad day for the debate community, and all our thoughts
are with his family and his team at CMSU...  God Bless you all, and May
you rest in peace Dr.  Lawson....

Mike Campbell
Texas Public Debate

--
Mikie

"Do not go gentle into that good night
Old age should burn and rave at close of day
Rage, rage against the dying of the light..."

   -  Dylan Thomas



From elliottdarren  Mon Nov  8 22:36:23 1999
From: elliottdarren (DARREN ELLIOTT)
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 22:36:23 CST
Subject: Ideas on procedures at CEDA Nats.Placement of judges,
 and non-policy!
Message-ID: <MON.8.NOV.1999.223623.CST.ELLIOTTDARREN@HOTMAIL.COM>

In Gina's President's report she encouraged everyone to offer ideas for how
things can be done at CEDA Nats.  I think she said she'd lie these by Dec.
1st.  I encourage everyone to think of the CEDA Nats you've been a part of.
What did you like?  What didn't you like?  Send these comments and
suggestions to Gina.  Post them to the e to encourage others' views.  That
being said, here's my suggestion.

This isn't meant to offend anyone, but since most posts offend someone, I
might as well have my say.

My suggestion has to do with the non-policy division.  Assuming it makes at
CEDA Nats, I'd like to suggest a procedure for assigning judges to said
division.  I think it should be based on the following criteria.

1.  First assign judges who's schools have representatives in the division.
(Obvioulsy if size is an issue then this may be problematic)

2.  Solicit volunteers from our community of judges who will be there
already with policy teams and will be willing to judge the non-policy
division.

3.  As a last resort draw from the policy pool.

Now before people start to flame, let me say a couple things.  It can cut
both ways.  If you ONLY have non-policy teams, you shouldn't have to judge
policy.  If you ONLY have non-policy teams they should use you in policy if
you want to be used (the volunteer thing).  Finally, the policy pool should
only draw from the non-policy pool as last resort (with volunteers to do
both, and schools entered in both as obviously pre-empting these
conclusions).

Without listing ALL the rationales, the one I find most compelling is what
I'll call the educational/competitive framework.  If I only have policy
teams, then I should judge the policy division.  It helps me help my
debaters to know what other policy teams are doing.  I can better educate my
teams which leads to competitive success (well hopefully).  Likewise, if a
policy-only judge gets placed in non-policy rounds then they are 1.  Not
able to help their own teams, and 2.  Often not likely/willing to help the
non-policy teams in post-round critiques for various reasons.  Maybe they've
heard no non-policy rounds and they just don't get it.

Maybe there needs to be separate preference sheets for both, but that is an
issue for Gary Larson and the size of the tournament I'd guess.

There are more reasons but that's the gist of why I think judges should be
assigned this way at CEDA Nats.

Now feel free to flame.

Darren Elliott
"CHIEF"
Asst. Debate Coach Wichita State University


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

>From  Mon Nov  8 17:52:07 1999
Message-Id: <MON.8.NOV.1999.175207.0500.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 37256 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 23:42:39
 -0500
Precedence: bulk
Received: from iris.liberty.edu (iris.liberty.edu [207.239.144.36]) by
 list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA20172 for
 <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 23:42:37 -0500
Received: from te146.liberty.edu (TE146 [10.2.6.253]) by iris.liberty.edu with
 SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2448.0) id
 VXDRZ96P; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 17:53:03 -0500
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 V4.72.2106.4
Importance: Normal
Message-ID: <000e01bf2a3b$e21dbce0$fd06020a at te146.liberty.edu>
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 17:52:07 -0500
Reply-To: bodonnel at liberty.edu
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Brett O'Donnell <bodonnel at LIBERTY.EDU>
Subject: Liberty Team List-Update 3

This is the final update of the day.  All of the information below is
current from what I have received as of 6:00 pm, Monday.  Please send
specific entry data (names of debaters) as soon as possible, if you have not
already done so.  Just a little more space left.  We are at 92 teams total.



Liberty University Debate Tournament

Varsity-23 teams

JV-24 teams

Novice-45 teams

Boston College

Varsity:
Jared Fields/Lisa Landon

Novice:
Kevin Collins/Lynze Fox
Mario Poweell/Paul Sutton
Kevin Hartzell/Chris Masefield

Judges:
John Katsulas
Stefan Bauschard

Catholic University

Varsity:
Joe Lauer/Michael Pomorski
Sarah Wilson/Matt Dunn

Junior Varsity:
Luke O'Connell/Tony Poliseno
Timeka Drew/Patrick Waldinger
Paul Strait/Kenny LeMaire

Novice:
Thomas O'Gorman/Celia Messing
Chris Flores/Christine Pham
Richard Sampson/Cassandra Oryl
Alex Duke/Danielle Verney
Ellis Oster/Natalie Savarese
Lisa Meagher/Matt Burchfield

Judges:
Ron Bratt
Paul Kerr
Michael Dutcher
Eric Grynaviski
Rebecca Greene
Glen Johnson
Jeremy Adair


Duke

Varsity:
Erin Abrams/Alisa Nave
Hosea Chang/Jon Shih

JV:
Tom Jones/Gopi Kumar

Judge:
Rich O'Dor

Duquesne

Novice:
Erin Mullaney/Jessica Custer

Judges:
Jim Dutcher
Sig Fuchs

George Mason

Varsity:
Jay Igiel/Frances Tufts

JV:
Adrian Voicu/Steve Williams
Bary Hausrath/Butch Canter
Tim Gleason/Tricia Webb

Novice:
Heather Westron/Leah Foster
Renee Loebs/Lynadria Ware
Katy Kasmai/Megan Wells
Mike Webb/Shey Bebahani
Mitchell Kato/Allison Lauderdale

Judges:
Jomel Angat
Richard Reed
Jake Weiner
Peter Krein
Chris McIntosh
Dee Dee Giroux

George Washington

Varsity:
Jon Schwartz/Heather Barnes

Judge:
Jason Mika

Harvard

Varsity:
Doug Shively/Keia Cole

Judges:
Dallas Perkins
Sherry Hall

James Madison

Varsity:
John Willemin/Dan Blaeuer

JV:
Nicole Bigley/Christy Graham
Cate Morrison/Michelle Lancaster

Novice:
Julie Lane/Diane Mislevy
Todd Cooper/Deana Vetter
Brian Gooch/Grace Oh
Katie Farmer/Tara Ambrose
Katy Shea/Megan Wilkinson
Chris France/Andy Wilson

Judges:
Barb Pickering
Pete Bsumek
Eric Minkove (pending)

John Carroll

Varsity:
Ben Sovacool/Katie Lavelle

JV:
Brandi Clouston/Jen Bozman
Jessica Dillon/Jim Paluf

Novice:
Kim Parks/Steven Klinger

Judges:
Brent Brossmann
Kelly Young

King's

Novice:
Jim Gray/Amy Laura
Justin Bartos/Jeff Partician
Lisa Collins/Liz Jordan
Joe Castigilia/Joe McCullogh

Judges:
Jude Pannell
Mike Berry

Marshall University

Varsity:
Christian Hess/Jason Houser

JV:
Joshua Saunders/Ryan McCullough

Judge:
Kristine Greenwood

Mary Washington

Varsity:
Judy Goss/Amber Tussing

JV:
Matt Hoell/Cathy Rothaug

Novice:
Robert Bowen/Herbert Conley
Bonnie Ryan/Nora Cronin

Judge:
Tim O'Donnell

Methodist College

JV:
Ron Berry/Susanne Graves

Judge:
Todd Lyden

Michigan

Varsity:
Ashley Amaya/Megan McMillan
John Oden/Tim Stucka

Judges:
Steve Mancuso

Navy

Varsity:
Mike Bruno/Tim Johnson

Novice:
Pete Steveson/John Hiler
Alisha Hamilton/Von Fernandes
Dave Bartlow/Austin Gullet
Dome Pholtavee/Brent Richardson
Fidel Sanchez/Sara Walters
Dave Major/Eric Gonzales
Kat Sampson/Dan Singer

Judges:
Jonny Chase
Brad Taylor
Chris Rodriguez
Jeff Hunt

Penn State

Varsity:
Devin Chwastyk/Veronica Finkelstein

JV:
Jeff Klenk/Mike Sawyer

Novice:
Tom ?/Joe Bangert

Judges:
Pat Gehrke
Dan Bloomingdale

Towson

Varsity:
One Team

Novice:
One Team

Judge:
Beth Skinner

Trinity University

Varsity:
Casey Low/Andrew Payne

JV:
1 or 2 teams

Judges:
Frank Harrison
Chris Lotz

University of Richmond

Novice:
Roisin McGuckin/James Cain

Judge:
Jason Stone
Scott Luchetti

University of South Carolina

Varsity:
Erin Bailey/Maggie McAllister

JV:
Ankit Pate/Jason Bethel

Novice:
Markesha Miller/Andrew Touzel

Judge:
Jen Edwards

University of Virginia

 JV:
Judson Frye/Dave Simpson
Ben Bateman/Ben Rottenborn

Judges:
Earl Croasman

Wake Forest

Varsity:
Three or four teams

JV:
One Team

Novice:
Five or four Teams

Judges:
Allan Louden

West Virginia

JV:
Stephen Marshall/Joshua Whitehair
Mary Bess/Joshua Boggs
Jennifer Dixon/Jason Evans

Novice:
Annelee Boyle/Samantha Jones
Kimberly Bandy/Jessica Taylor

Judges:
Daniel Overbey
Mark Schaefer
Jodie Robinson

>From  Mon Nov  8 18:11:24 1999
Message-Id: <MON.8.NOV.1999.181124.0500.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 37261 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 23:42:40
 -0500
Precedence: bulk
Received: from iris.liberty.edu (iris.liberty.edu [207.239.144.36]) by
 list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA20188 for
 <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 23:42:39 -0500
Received: from te146.liberty.edu (TE146 [10.2.6.253]) by iris.liberty.edu with
 SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2448.0) id
 VXDRZ0CM; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 18:12:17 -0500
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
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Message-ID: <000001bf2a3e$93bded60$fd06020a at te146.liberty.edu>
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 18:11:24 -0500
Reply-To: bodonnel at liberty.edu
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Brett O'Donnell <bodonnel at LIBERTY.EDU>
Subject: Jeff Parcher

Jeff, Could you backchannel me please.

Brett O'Donnell

Liberty University Debate



From meaves  Mon Nov  8 22:50:18 1999
From: meaves (Michael_Eaves)
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 23:50:18 -0500
Subject: NCA-Elgibility
In-Reply-To: <000001bf2a3e$93bded60$fd06020a@te146.liberty.edu>
Message-ID: <MON.8.NOV.1999.235018.0500.MEAVES@VALDOSTA.EDU>

As SE CEDA rep, I can say that the "intent" of the amendment was good--I
see far too many novice debaters who AREN'T novice and the current rule
encouraged debaters to stay in novice and earn CEDA points.

However, I and others felt uncomfortable about voting things through so
easily--there was a call on Thursday to talk and table motions at the Exec
Council meeting, but this idea was seen as "stalling" or "fillibustering",
which I saw as simple democracy.
That same attitude, unfortunately, carried over into the amendments and
business on friday and saturday--after all, we had 52 amendments from the
constitution committee alone that got a block vote of 50 votes all at
once--a total disregard for the way Greg had prepared the segments and
outlined a "series" of amendments that deserved more dicussion, the
elgibility issue being one of those.  The name change should have been a
mail vote, as was the NCA issue from itsprevious name of SCA.

Parli has gained much ground with 270 schools--Scott El. is right that we
need to be more sensitive to current members that are still around.
mike eaves
valdosta st

>From  Mon Nov  8 18:17:41 1999
Message-Id: <MON.8.NOV.1999.181741.0600.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 37942 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 00:20:14
 -0500
Precedence: bulk
Received: from r2.boston.juno.com (r2.boston.juno.com [205.231.101.50]) by
 list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA15320 for
 <eDebate at list.uvm.edu>; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 00:20:13 -0500
Received: from m11.boston.juno.com (m11.boston.juno.com [205.231.100.194]) by
 r2.boston.juno.com (8.8.6.Beta0/8.8.7/juno-1.1) with ESMTP id
 TAAAA04714 for <eDebate at list.uvm.edu>; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 19:25:09 -0500
 (EST)
Received: (from vandy.debate at juno.com) by m11.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id
 EQXMX3W7; Mon, 08 Nov 1999 19:17:10 EST
X-Mailer: Juno 2.0.11
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 1-146
X-Juno-Att: 0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <19991108.181743.-225003.1.vandy.debate at juno.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 18:17:41 -0600
Reply-To: vandy.debate at JUNO.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: vandy.debate at JUNO.COM
Subject: Vanderbilt entries

After putting everything together after my return from NCA, here's what I
have now.  Please check for my mistakes.



     21 schools
     17 open teams
     21 JV teams
     31 novice teams

Please notice that we are looking for a swing in novice and one in open.

Still waiting to confirm Kentucky


  Alabama
        Open    Lamberth/Carroll
                        Pfister/Gordon
        JV      Inghram?Jester
                        Banks/Bonham
                        Phillips/LaCour
                        Gonzalez/Stein
                        Miller/Minor
         Novice         Pruitt/Scott
                        May/Parrish
         Judges         Crenshaw, Prisco, Shaw

App State
        JV      1 team
        Novice          1 team

Arkansas Tech
        Open    Young/Morris
        JV      Adkison/Whitlow

Cumberland
         Novice         Frietas/Worsley
                        Hitch/Stevens
         Judges         Kinser

Emory
        Open    Gorezynski/Bridgford
                Klink/Henderson
        JV      Jenkins/Somers
        Novice          Morgan/Mehta
        Judge   Falconer

Florida
                JV      Aldridge/France
        Novice          Angellis/Childers
        Judges  Kish

Georgia
        Open    Parekh/McGrath
                JV      Buttigieg/Brock
        Judges  Rufo  and  Galloway

Georgia State
          1 open +?

Louisville
                JV      Webster/Rodgers
                Novice          Brush/Shuff
                        Toole/Carr
                        Rheaume/Wilkie
                Judges  Bito  and  Cunningham


Loyola
        Open    Kerman/Hill
                        Eggers/McCarley
                JV      Danish/Massa
                Shambailca/Lizak
         Novice         Mahmood/Kinstler
         Judges         Romanelli

LSU
                JV      Smith/Harper
                        Winters (LSU)/Mathis (GSU)
                Judge:          Goins

Marquette
                JV      Chapman/Krubsack
                Novice          LoPiccalo/Shelton
                        Zulawski/Kirby
                Judges  Dasney

Mercer
        Open    Abbott/Woodard
                Dykes/Thatcher
                JV      Brock/Morrison
        Novice          Dodd/Wilbert
                Cisneros - looking for a swing
                Judge           Zompetti

Miami
        Open    2 teams

Morehouse
                Novice  Flippin/Lowery
                        Cooper/Franklin
                Judges  Coxon (nov),  Garner (elims)

MTSU
        Open    Gaston/Woodward
                        Bond/Carter
        Novice   Miedel/Jennings
                Judges  Butler, Osborne

Samford
                Open    Rivers/Radford
                Novice  Wilkin/Oliver
                Lester/Ross
                O'Kelley/Adams
                Thomason/Breland
                Mayze/Howell
                Judges  Coulter, Janas, Johnson

SELA
                JV      Sietze/Smith
                Monistere/Hyden
                Novice  Gauthier/Foster
                Zimmerman/O'Neal
        Judge   Elliott

University of the South - Sewanee
                Novice  Dunn/Georgiev
                        Hearty/Allen

Tennessee Tech
        JV      Ratledge/Wheeler
                Canavan/Williams
                Novice  Bynum/Hume
                        Bucholz/Marshall
                        Bynlim/Hume
                Judges  Kash, Sams

Tennessee
        Open    Sands/looking for a swing
        Novice  Cole/Robbins


M. L. Sandoz
Director, Vanderbilt Debate
615-322-3784 Office
615-322-2307 Office
615-673-7340 Home

___________________________________________________________________
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 grees01  Mon Nov  8 21:05:58 1999
From: grees01 (Gary Rees)
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 21:05:58 -0600
Subject: Harold Lawson passed away
Message-ID: <MON.8.NOV.1999.210558.0600.GREES01@MAIL.COIN.MISSOURI.EDU>

I just heard from a former debater that Harold Lawson, longtime forensics
and debate coach, currently at Central Missouri State University in
Warrensburg Missouri died of a heart attack this past weekend.  I would
appreciate it if anyone who knows about funeral arrangements could post
something to the relevant listservs.

Gary Rees
Central Methodist College
Fayette, MO 65248 660-248-3392 x273



From jairus  Mon Nov  8 17:23:40 1999
From: jairus (Jairus Grove)
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 17:23:40 -0600
Subject: Mike Horowitz only
Message-ID: <MON.8.NOV.1999.172340.0600.JAIRUS@MAIL.UTEXAS.EDU>

Mike,

Could you please email me the cites for your 1AC as wells as the cite for
the Murray evidence for interpretive realism that you read against us at
Harvard?



Thanks in advance,

Jairus
Texas



From West  Mon Nov  8 21:27:05 1999
From: West (Terry West)
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 20:27:05 -0700
Subject: change CEDA votes to balloting
Message-ID: <MON.8.NOV.1999.202705.0700.WEST@SUU.EDU>

I'm in favor of Jim's proposal, and would add another reason:  while many of our student voting reps are present at the business meeting at CEDA nationals, few can afford the $100/night plus plane fare and $50/day for food to attend NCA (not to mention the ridiculous membership fees).  I'm not sure I saw a single student rep at the meetings.  And while we could argue that forensic programs with student reps should pay their way to NCA, I don't think very many students would sacrifice tournament activity for NCA.

Terry
SUU

>>> Jim Hanson <hansonjb at WHITMAN.EDU> 11/08/99 04:23PM >>>
I plan to submit a proposal to remove voting on amendments and Bylaws
changes at the national business meetings and switch it to by ballot. Its
rationale is:
1. People are confused about when and how the process of making amendments
and changing Bylaws occur.
2. Many people do not and cannot attend the national business meetings.
Proxies are confusing and people do not use them.
3. The current rules allow just 12 voting members present to constitute a
quorum at business meetings; as a result, less than 10% of the membership
can make decisions affecting the entire organization.
4. People want to be able to vote and provide their input on important
issues. This proposal makes every effort to encourage this.

I encourage you to read this proposal and I welcome comments and suggestions
on this proposal. I plan to submit it for the business meeting at CEDA
Nationals with the hope that it will be the last business meeting at which
we vote and that it will increase the openness and accessibility of our
organization.

jim hanson
whitman college
hansonjb at whitman.edu

-----------
ARTICLE IV: Section 10; Subsection J. shall be deleted and changed.

Current:
J. The Executive Council should refrain from making decisions which can or
should be made by a general business meeting or a general vote of the
membership.

Change to:
J. The Executive Council should refrain from making decisions that can or
should be made by a vote of the membership.

-------------
ARTICLE V: Section 2 and Section 3 shall be changed.

Current:
Section 2. Nominations shall be submitted by the Nominating Committee at the
first annual business meeting of the Association, at which time additional
nominations for any office may be submitted by any member present.
Section 3. No later than 30 days after a business meeting, the Executive
Secretary shall submit to the membership by mail or email a ballot
containing the names of all nominees. Members will vote for national
officers and the representative of their particular region. Ballots may be
returned to the Executive Secretary by mail, email or fax. Phone balloting
will not be accepted. Balloting shall cease at midnight, 30 days after
submission of the ballot. A plurality of ballots returned will elect. In the
event of a tie between the two leading contenders for an office, their names
shall be resubmitted to the membership.

Change to:
Section 2. Nominations may be submitted to the Nominating Committee at any
time prior to and including during the business meeting at the National
Tournament.
Section 3. No later than 10 days after the last day of the National
Tournament, the Executive Secretary shall submit to the membership by mail,
email, fax, and/or web site a ballot containing the names of all nominees.
Members will vote for national officers and the representative of their
particular region. Ballots may be returned to the Executive Secretary by
mail, email or fax. Phone balloting will not be accepted. Balloting shall
cease at midnight, 21 days after the ballot has been sent. A plurality of
ballots returned will elect. In the event of a tie between the two leading
contenders for an office, their names shall be resubmitted to the membership
within ten days of the posting of election results for a vote whose
balloting shall cease at midnight 21 days after the ballot has been sent.

----------
ARTICLE VII: ANNUAL BUSINESS MEETINGS OF THE ASSOCIATION
This title and its Section 1 through 9 shall be deleted and changed.

Current:
ARTICLE VII: ANNUAL BUSINESS MEETINGS OF THE ASSOCIATION
Section 1. Members attending the annual business meetings of the Association
constitute its governing body. Changes to the Bylaws may be made at annual
business meetings. Between business meetings, the Executive Council will
make such rules as are necessary to support the purposes of the Association.
Actions of the Executive Council will have the force of Bylaws. Members will
be notified of the Executive Council's actions and at the next business
meeting will have the opportunity to approve or reject continuation of those
rules.
Section 2. Business meetings shall be held annually at the fall national
convention of the National Communication Association and at the
Association's National Tournament. The Executive Secretary will give members
ample notice of the times and places of these meetings.
Section 3. Each regular or affiliate member institution will have one vote.
Section 4. In order to conduct any business other than hearing and
discussing reports, a quorum of representatives of at least 12 institutions
must be personally present (proxy votes do not count for a quorum).
Section 5. Proxy voting at business meetings will be allowed under the
following conditions
A? The Executive Secretary will distribute with the agendas for the national
business meetings a proxy form for each business item that requires a vote
of the membership;
B, Members who do not attend the business meetings may complete, sign and
send these forms to the national meetings with another voting member,
C. No member institution may vote more than five proxies in addition to its
own vote;
D. Proxy votes are to be submitted to the President at the start of each
business meeting. The President will count only those proxy ballots that are
complete and signed .
E. Proxy votes apply to main motions but not secondary motions,
F. In the event that successful amendments to a main motion substantially
alter its intent, the President may rule that proxies are void.
Section 6. If a quorum exists at the business meeting, members (and proxy
voters)
may modify the Bylaws by majority vote. Proposed amendments to the
constitution will be discussed and if they receive a majority vote of
members (and proxy voters), they will be submitted to the entire membership
by mail, at which time they will require a two?thirds vote to pass.
Section 7. The presiding officer at a business meeting will be entitled to
vote as the representative of his/her institution.
Section 8. Any vote that results in a tie will be considered to have failed
and the
President will not vote to break ties
Section 9. Parliamentary authority for the organization will be Robert's
Rules of Order
Newly Revised.

change to:
ARTICLE VII: BUSINESS MEETINGS OF THE ASSOCIATION
Section 1. Business Discussion Meetings shall occur at the National
Communication Association and the Association*s National Tournament.
Section 2. The Executive Secretary will give members ample notice of the
times and places of these meetings.
Section 3. These meetings shall provide opportunities for discussing but not
voting on changes to the CEDA constitution and Bylaws, projects, and other
issues important to the CEDA organization.
Section 4. Members should submit their request for a discussion on such
issues to the Executive Secretary 21 days before these meetings occur to
ensure that the item will be included in the meeting agenda. However, any
issue may be raised during remaining new business time during the meeting.

-------------
ARTICLE VIII: AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION AND BYLAWS
This article shall be deleted and replaced.

Current:
ARTICLE VIII: AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION AND BYLAWS

Section 1. Amendments to the Constitution
A. An amendment to the Constitution may be initiated by any member school.
B. Amendments to the Constitution must be submitted to the Executive
Secretary
30 days prior to a business meeting to be discussed at that meeting, The
Executive Secretary will communicate proposed amendments to the membership
no later than 15 days prior to the business meeting
C. A majority vote of the schools represented at the business meeting will
be necessary for a proposed constitutional amendment to be sent to the
membership;
D. Within 10 days following the business meeting, the Executive Secretary
will distribute by mail or email a ballot containing all proposed
constitutional amendments. Balloting will cease at midnight 30 days after
the date of the business meeting;
E. Constitutional amendments require a two?thirds vote by school
representatives voting by mail, email, or fax.

Section 2. Amendment to the Bylaws
A. An amendment to the Bylaws may be initiated by any member school;
B. Amendments to the Bylaws must be submitted to the Executive Secretary no
later than 30 days prior to a business meeting to be considered at that
meeting. The Executive Secretary will communicate proposed amendments to the
membership no later than 15 days prior to the business meeting;
C. Bylaw amendments require a majority vote by school representatives and
proxies voting at the business meeting.

Section 3. Alternative Amendment Procedures for the Constitution and Bylaws
A. An amendment may be proposed by a two?thirds vote of the Executive
Council or by a petition of 5% of the current CEDA membership to the CEDA
Executive Secretary and the CEDA President.
B. The proposed amendment shay be distributed to the membership. Members
will have 30 days to send comments on the proposed amendment to the
Executive Secretary.
C. Within 45 days of the publication of the proposed amendment, the
Executive Secretary will mail a ballot to the membership containing a copy
of the proposed amendment, along with a summary of the arguments for and
against the amendment. The author of the amendment will have the opportunity
to submit the reasons for the amendment and the President may designate an
individual to outline objections to the amendment. Both of these individuals
shall have access to the comments received by the Executive Secretary.
Balloting will cease at midnight 30 days after the ballots were distributed.
Revised October 1998
D. A three?fourths vote of all members voting will be required to enact an
amendment initiated under this section.
E. A majority of the Executive Council may vote to exclude the time period
from the conclusion of the CEDA National Tournament until July 1 from the
time period in items B and C of this Section.

Change to:
ARTICLE VIII: AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION AND BYLAWS
Section 1. Members are encouraged to post their proposals for changes to the
constitution and Bylaws to listservs, web pages, and other arenas that the
CEDA community accesses before submission to the Executive Secretary so that
discussion and improvement of the proposal can occur.
Section 2. Members should submit their proposals to the Executive Secretary.
Any suggested amendments or Bylaw changes submitted to the Executive
Secretary as of the date of the Business Discussion Meeting shall be placed
on the ballot.
Section 3. The Executive Secretary shall provide notice via email and/or web
posting within the 7 days prior to the Business Discussion Meeting stating
the deadline for acceptance of amendments and changes to the Bylaws.
Section 4. The Executive Secretary shall distribute the ballot including all
amendments and Bylaw changes to CEDA members via email, fax, regular mail,
and/or web posting within ten days after the last day of the NCA fall
convention and within ten days after the last day of the National CEDA
Tournament.
Section 5. Each regular or affiliate member institution and each student
representative will have one vote.
Section 6. Any vote modifying the Bylaws will require a majority vote of at
least 25% of the paid membership to pass.
Section 7. Any vote amending the constitution will require a 2/3 vote of at
least 25% of the paid membership to pass.
Section 8. Paid membership numbers shall be counted as of the last day of
the balloting.
Section 9. Any CEDA executive shall be entitled to vote as the
representative of his/her institution.
Section 10. Any vote that results in a tie will be considered to have failed
and the President will not break ties.
Section 11. All balloting will cease at midnight 21 days after the ballot is
distributed.
Section 12. The Executive Secretary shall provide notice of the deadline for
acceptance of ballots within the 7 days prior to the deadline.
Section 13. The Executive Council shall make such rules as are necessary to
support the purposes of the Association. Actions of the Executive Council
will have the force of Bylaws. Members will be notified of the Executive
Council*s actions and at the next vote will have the opportunity to approve
or reject the continuation of those rules by submitting a Bylaw change.
Section 14. Alternative Amendment Procedures for the Constitution and Bylaws
A. An amendment may be proposed by a two-thirds vote of the Executive
Council or by a petition of 5% of the current CEDA membership to the CEDA
Executive Secretary and the CEDA President.
B. The proposed amendment shall be sent to the membership within 10 days of
its receipt.
C. Any vote using this election method that modifies the Bylaws will require
a majority vote of at least 50% of the paid membership to pass.
D. Any vote using this election method that amends the constitution will
require a 2/3 vote of at least 50% of the paid membership to pass.
E. Paid membership numbers shall be counted as of the last day of the
balloting.
F. Any CEDA executive shall be entitled to vote as the representative of
his/her institution.
G. Any vote that results in a tie will be considered to have failed and the
President will not break ties.
H. Balloting will cease at midnight 21 days after the ballots were
distributed.
I. A majority of the Executive Council may vote to exclude the time period
from the conclusion of the CEDA National Tournament until July 1 from the
time period in items B and H of this section.

>From  Tue Nov  9 07:14:03 1999
Message-Id: <TUE.9.NOV.1999.071403.0600.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 40223 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 08:14:12
 -0500
Precedence: bulk
Received: from pop.webster.edu (pop.webster.edu [198.246.0.22]) by list.uvm.edu
 (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA19396 for <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Tue,
 9 Nov 1999 08:14:10 -0500
Received: from hppcwohfnymt.webster.edu (xlate-1-239.webster.edu
 [198.246.1.239]) by pop.webster.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id
 GAA11188; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 06:49:57 -0600 (CST)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <38281E1B.4884 at webster.edu>
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 07:14:03 -0600
Reply-To: jensensc at webster.edu
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Scott Jensen <jensensc at WEBSTER.EDU>
Organization: Webster University
Subject: The Passing of Dr. Lawson
Comments: To: pikap-l at nicanor.acu.edu, parli-L <parli at willamette.edu>,
 IE-L at CORNELL.EDU

On behalf of both the Pi Kappa Delta National Council, as well as Gina
and the Webster University forensics community, I send my heartfelt
prayers to Harold Lawson's immediate family, as well as to his Central
Missouri State forensics family.  Dr. Lawson was a man who was
passionate about the forensics activity.  While he believed strongly in
his ideals, he worked continuously to find ways to serve the broader
forensics community in a way that was sincere and genuine.  Harold and I
did not always agree on forensics matters, but I deeply respect that he
considered me a friend and colleague, personifying what our activity
strives to teach--arguments and people are not the same.  I will miss
Harold's energy, his sense of humor, and his sense of giving to an
activity that I dearly love.

As others have already said, Harold's legacy will live on in his
students, and in a very strong and respected Central Missouri State
program that he devoted the later years of his life to building.  We
have lost a great resource in our activity, and a great friend in our
lives.

God Bless,

Scott

--
Scott Jensen
Director of Forensics
President, Pi Kappa Delta
Webster University
470 East Lockwood Ave
St. Louis, MO  63119

314-968-7439--office
314-963-6106--fax
jensensc at webster.edu

Check out Webster Forensics!!!
http://gorlok.cjb.net
http://www.geocities.com/collegepark/center/5311/

"I am a Bear of very little brain and long words bother me."
        --Pooh Bear

"Is a dream a lie if it don't come true?"
        --Bruce Springsteen

"I refuse to accept the idea that the 'isness' of man's present nature
makes him morally
incapable of reaching up for the 'oughtness' that forever confronts
him."
        --Martin Luther King, Jr.



From jhendon  Tue Nov  9 08:18:28 1999
From: jhendon (Jeremy M. Hendon)
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 09:18:28 -0500
Subject: Adam or Jordan Hurder
Message-ID: <TUE.9.NOV.1999.091828.0500.JHENDON@LEARNLINK.EMORY.EDU>

Could one of you backchannel me.

Thanks

Jeremy

>From  Tue Nov  9 09:47:54 1999
Message-Id: <TUE.9.NOV.1999.094754.EST.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 41848 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 09:48:36
 -0500
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 JAA15556 for
 <EDEBATE at list.uvm.edu>; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 09:48:33 -0500
Received: from Zompetti at aol.com by imo17.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id
 nIRLa27645 (3948) for <EDEBATE at list.uvm.edu>; Tue, 9 Nov 1999
 09:47:55 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 26
Message-ID: <0.2006916b.25598e1a at aol.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 09:47:54 EST
Reply-To: Zompetti at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Joe Zompetti <Zompetti at AOL.COM>
Subject: Vandy Novice Swing Partner Needed

Does anyone going to the Vanderbilt tournament have a novice debater that
could be paired with one of mine????

David will be coming along anyway and he has done a ton of work!  There has
been a last minute change in his Mercer partner.  It would be a terrible
shame if he couldn't debate.  He's a great guy, hard worker, and has lots of
evidence.  Any takers????

zompetti
Mercer debate



From jhovden  Tue Nov  9 09:03:29 1999
From: jhovden (Jan Hovden)
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 09:03:29 -0600
Subject: UCO entries Tuesday at 9:00 am
Message-ID: <TUE.9.NOV.1999.090329.0600.JHOVDEN@UCOK.EDU>

31 Open and 10 JV

Abilene Christian

Open
Garyn Dunbar and Katie Richey

JV
Joshua McDonald and Alicia Phillips

Arizona State

Open
Takis Makridis and John Kircher
Edwin Aralica and Aaron Karabell

Judge
Todd Grahm

Baylor

Open
Blake Thomas and Matt Brigham

JV
Meredyth Childress and Sabrina Neff

Judge
Kelley Skillin

Chico

Open
Jim Herbert and Jeremy Bowers
Alia Kahn and Casey Arbenz
Brenda McChesney and Kylie Robertson

Judges
Kristi Morioka
Jeremy Hathaway

Johnson County

Open
Korryn Mozisek and Jessica Rowe

Judge
Jeremy Hutchins

Kansas

Open
Nathan Rodriguez and Tom Seymour
Roger Saad and Justin Tinsley

JV
Seth Wood and John Breeding

Judges
Rich McCollum
Val Renegar

Kansas State

Open
Katie Hatziavramidis and Kevin Zollman
Melissa Newton and Kyle Wilson
Alex Garrett and Michael Schultz

JV
Matt Hoppock and Ben Sharp
Justin Meier and Tyler Tigue

Judges
Sue Stanfield
Justin Green
Scott Herndon
Monte Stevens
Isaac West (Not available on Saturday)

Macalester

Open
Katie Kauf and Ilya Winham

Judge
Doug Dennis

Michigan State

Open
Orion Smith and Tara O'Dowd
Tanya Palit and John Branstetter

Judges
Jason Trice
Jason Russell

NYU
Ricky Garner and Nate Gorelick

Judge
Will Baker

North Texas

Open
John Hines and Jason Sykes
Holly Fortner and Lauren Hildebrand
Scott Gottbreht and Julian Gagnon
Matt Shaffstall and Sloan Callen

Judges
Tara Tate
Mark Deloach

Texas - Austin

Open
Laura Nathan and Daniela Dwyer
Loren Dent and Jonathan McCartney
Matt Leibman and Pam Bowman
Jas Brar and Kippie Brar
Seth Poulos and Ryan Glinski

Judges
Eric Jenkins
David Breshears
Ron Greene

Texas - Dallas

Open
Jason Jordan and Justin Kirk
Vasile Stanescu and Aaron Fuqua

Judge
Lisa Jordan

UMKC

Open
Coffman and Baisley
Rutledge and Leuty

JV
Reeves and Goodin
Clevenger and J. Whyte
Ousley and Sobek
Phillips and McClure

Judges
Sean Harris
Clay Rhodes
Kelly Congdon
Brent Siemers

Vermont

Open
Sarah Snider and Helen Morgan

JV
Anthony Pagan and Jaime Robertson

Judge
Justin Parmett

>From  Tue Nov  9 11:08:24 1999
Message-Id: <TUE.9.NOV.1999.110824.0500.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 43912 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 11:09:46
 -0500
Precedence: bulk
Received: from iris.liberty.edu (iris.liberty.edu [207.239.144.36]) by
 list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA05174 for
 <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 11:09:45 -0500
Received: from te146.liberty.edu (TE146 [10.2.6.253]) by iris.liberty.edu with
 SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2448.0) id
 VXDR5FTP; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 11:09:22 -0500
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 V4.72.2106.4
Importance: Normal
Message-ID: <000001bf2acc$a69d87e0$fd06020a at te146.liberty.edu>
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 11:08:24 -0500
Reply-To: bodonnel at liberty.edu
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Brett O'Donnell <bodonnel at LIBERTY.EDU>
Subject: Liberty Team List-Update 4

Below is the most current team list.  If you have not entered or sent in
names, please do so immediately.  Temps today are going to be near 80 in
Lynchburg.  We are at 100 teams.



Liberty University Debate

Varsity-24 teams

JV-27 teams

Novice-49 teams

Boston College

Varsity:
Jared Fields/Lisa Langdon

Novice:
Kevin Collins/Lynze Fox
Mario Poweell/Paul Sutton
Kevin Hartzell/Chris Masefield

Judges:
John Katsulas
Stefan Bauschard

Catholic University

Varsity:
Joe Lauer/Michael Pomorski
Sarah Wilson/Matt Dunn

Junior Varsity:
Luke O'Connell/Tony Poliseno
Timeka Drew/Patrick Waldinger
Paul Strait/Kenny LeMaire

Novice:
Thomas O'Gorman/Celia Messing
Chris Flores/Christine Pham
Richard Sampson/Cassandra Oryl
Alex Duke/Danielle Verney
Ellis Oster/Natalie Savarese
Lisa Meagher/Matt Burchfield

Judges:
Ron Bratt
Paul Kerr
Michael Dutcher
Eric Grynaviski
Rebecca Greene
Glen Johnson
Jeremy Adair


Duke

Varsity:
Erin Abrams/Alisa Nave
Hosea Chang/Jon Shih

JV:
Tom Jones/Gopi Kumar

Judge:
Rich O'Dor

Duquesne

Novice:
Erin Mullaney/Jessica Custer

Judges:
Jim Dutcher
Sig Fuchs

George Mason

Varsity:
Jay Igiel/Frances Tufts

JV:
Adrian Voicu/Steve Williams
Bary Hausrath/Butch Canter
Tim Gleason/Tricia Webb

Novice:
Heather Westron/Leah Foster
Renee Loebs/Lynadria Ware
Katy Kasmai/Megan Wells
Mike Webb/Shey Bebahani
Mitchell Kato/Allison Lauderdale

Judges:
Jomel Angat
Richard Reed
Jake Weiner
Peter Krein
Chris McIntosh
Dee Dee Giroux

George Washington

Varsity:
Jon Schwartz/Heather Barnes

Judge:
Jason Mika

Harvard

Varsity:
Doug Shively/Keia Cole

Judges:
Dallas Perkins
Sherry Hall

James Madison

Varsity:
John Willemin/Dan Blaeuer

JV:
Nicole Bigley/Christy Graham
Cate Morrison/Michelle Lancaster

Novice:
Julie Lane/Diane Mislevy
Todd Cooper/Deana Vetter
Brian Gooch/Grace Oh
Katie Farmer/Tara Ambrose
Katy Shea/Megan Wilkinson
Chris France/Andy Wilson

Judges:
Barb Pickering
Pete Bsumek
Eric Minkove (pending)

John Carroll

Varsity:
Ben Sovacool/Katie Lavelle

JV:
Brandi Clouston/Jen Bozman
Jessica Dillon/Jim Paluf

Novice:
Kim Parks/Steven Klinger

Judges:
Brent Brossmann
Kelly Young

King's

Novice:
Jim Gray/Amy Laura
Justin Bartos/Jeff Partician
Lisa Collins/Liz Jordan
Joe Castigilia/Joe McCullogh

Judges:
Jude Pannell
Mike Berry

Marshall University

Varsity:
Christian Hess/Jason Houser

JV:
Joshua Saunders/Ryan McCullough

Judge:
Kristine Greenwood

Mary Washington

Varsity:
Judy Goss/Amber Tussing

JV:
Matt Hoell/Cathy Rothaug

Novice:
Robert Bowen/Herbert Conley
Bonnie Ryan/Nora Cronin

Judge:
Tim O'Donnell

Methodist College

JV:
Ron Berry/Susanne Graves

Judge:
Todd Lyden

Michigan

Varsity:
Ashley Amaya/Megan McMillan
John Oden/Tim Stucka

Judges:
Steve Mancuso

Navy

Varsity:
Mike Bruno/Tim Johnson

Novice:
Pete Steveson/John Hiler
Alisha Hamilton/Von Fernandes
Dave Bartlow/Austin Gullet
Dome Pholtavee/Brent Richardson
Fidel Sanchez/Sara Walters
Dave Major/Eric Gonzales
Kat Sampson/Dan Singer

Judges:
Jonny Chase
Brad Taylor
Chris Rodriguez
Jeff Hunt

Penn State

Varsity:
Devin Chwastyk/Veronica Finkelstein

JV:
Jeff Klenk/Mike Sawyer

Novice:
Tom Keiser/Joe Bangert

Judges:
Pat Gehrke
Dan Bloomingdale

Pittsburgh

Varsity:
Eric English/Andrew Stangl

JV:
Andy Stephany/Adam Webber
Heather Logue/Laura Hutchings
Bri Mezuk/Scott Gurewitz

Novice:
Dawne Bolinger/Kat Schell
Harold Jones/Cindy Yogmas
Joe Reickenbacher/Christine Browne
Tanisha Jones/Liberty Swing

Judges:
Marcy Halpin
Gordon Mitchell
Eli Holloway
Dave Helwich
Max Schnurer

Towson

Varsity:
One Team

Novice:
One Team

Judge:
Beth Skinner

Trinity University

Varsity:
Casey Low/Andrew Payne

JV:
1 or 2 teams

Judges:
Frank Harrison
Chris Lotz

University of Richmond

Novice:
Roisin McGuckin/James Cain

Judge:
Jason Stone
Scott Luchetti

University of South Carolina

Varsity:
Erin Bailey/Maggie McAllister

JV:
Ankit Pate/Jason Bethel

Novice:
Markesha Miller/Andrew Touzel

Judge:
Jen Edwards

University of Virginia

 JV:
Judson Frye/Dave Simpson
Ben Bateman/Ben Rottenborn

Judges:
Earl Croasman

Wake Forest

Varsity:
Three or four teams

JV:
One Team

Novice:
Five or four Teams

Judges:
Allan Louden

West Virginia

JV:
Stephen Marshall/Joshua Whitehair
Mary Bess/Joshua Boggs
Jennifer Dixon/Jason Evans

Novice:
Annelee Boyle/Samantha Jones
Kimberly Bandy/Jessica Taylor

Judges:
Daniel Overbey
Mark Schaefer
Jodie Robinson



From npoulakos  Tue Nov  9 10:29:18 1999
From: npoulakos (niko poulakos)
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 08:29:18 -0800
Subject: Swing partner needed for ISU
Message-ID: <TUE.9.NOV.1999.082918.0800.NPOULAKOS@YAHOO.COM>

Dan Vinokurov of DePaul University (freshman, j.v.
level debater, 2 years high school experience) needs a
partner for the upcoming ISU tournament.  I believe
the tournament will collapse varsity and j.v. into one
open division.  Dan would be more than happy to debate
with someone from either division.  To contact him,
email mvinok1 at wans.net; or, get in touch with me me,
Niko Poulakos (Coach) npoulakos at yahoo.com (773)
325-4696.

=====

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com



From jef229f  Tue Nov  9 10:28:46 1999
From: jef229f (John Fritch)
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 10:28:46 -0600
Subject: Rule changes, Woods, Elliott, & Fritch!  Common Ground?!
Message-ID: <TUE.9.NOV.1999.102846.0600.JEF229F@MAIL.SMSU.EDU>

The disad is that the business meetings still have the ability to BLOCK
changes.  However, I am not so sure that the disadvantage of blocking
changes at the business meeting is that big of a disadvantage compared to
the ability to discuss these issues in an open setting and refine the
writing of some well intended ideas.

I know that my feelings on both the eligibility rule and the name change
were GREATLY affected by the discussions (although my votes were not
swayed).  I went from STRONGLY against the name change to moderately
against.  And, I went from SLIGHTLY in favor of the eligibility rule to
STRONGLY in favor by the end of the meeting given the alternatives.

It seems highly ironic to me that one of the effects of the call for mail
ballots only would be to discourage oral debate and persuasion...an activity
in which I see a great value.

John Fritch
SMS

----------
>From: DARREN ELLIOTT <elliottdarren at HOTMAIL.COM>
>To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU
>Subject: Rule changes, Woods, Elliott, & Fritch!  Common Ground?!
>Date: Mon, Nov 8, 1999, 5:58 PM
>

>Hmmm, I'm in a rather agreeing mood tonight.  But I have some suggestions as
>well.
>
>Given the recent discussions (again) on the "state of debate", shrinkage,
>etc. it seems to me that some steps that could easily be taken to prevent
>further alienation of the membership should be embarked upon.
>
>First, Scott (no relation) is probably right that rule changes mid-stream do
>more to upset the process than help it.  Unless of course some unforseen
>emergency dictates changing the rules.  But come on, we've lived with our
>eligibility requirements/definitions this long.  Didn't seem urgent to
>change them in November.  For some on the margins this may seem as an
>attempt to further the idea of "elite (whatever that is) rule".  Scott makes
>a good point.
>
>As for Steve Woods, his argument about proxy votes makes a lot of sense.  It
>is possible for people's minds to change given compelling debate.  Hell,
>that's what we're all about isn't it?  Proxy votes prevent that.  Fritch
>makes a good counterpoint in terms of mail ballots not changing this.  So
>where is the middle ground?
>
>Steve has my support for an amendment to change things.  It does seem odd
>that our organization institutes major changes when very few members are
>present.  Not everyone can afford to attend NCA or summer business meetings.
>  Although not ideal, a lot more of the membership attends CEDA Nats.  So
>here's the suggestion.  We need to formulate an amendment for CEDA Nats that
>requires that the membership be afforded the opportunity to vote on all
>future amendments through mail ballots.  I'm also open to the suggestion
>that these ideas be taken up at the business meetings as well and then put
>to the general membership afterwards (Fritch's idea).
>
>I definetly think we need to increase access to the general membership, thus
>the first part of what I say above is definetly true.  Anyone see any
>disadvantages to the second part that Fritch originally alluded to?  We
>should get on this soon so it can be ready to go at CEDA Nats.  Looking
>forward to input!
>
>Darren Elliott
>"CHIEF"
>Asst. Debate Coach Wichita State University
>
>______________________________________________________
>Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com



From jef229f  Tue Nov  9 10:40:02 1999
From: jef229f (John Fritch)
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 10:40:02 -0600
Subject: change CEDA votes to balloting
Message-ID: <TUE.9.NOV.1999.104002.0600.JEF229F@MAIL.SMSU.EDU>

A couple of questions...

1.  Why would business meetings continue to exist?

2.  The amendment calls for the amendment to be mailed out within 5 days of
receipt.  Is that a little extreme?  It seems as if this would make amending
the Constitution/Bylaws an almost never-ending procedure, and, if timed
right, could probably attract less than 10% of the voters.  Send it in so
that the 21 days will end about the time of CEDA Nationals or the New Year.

3.  Are there any other organizations that change their Bylaws by mail
ballot?  It doesn't seem unusual to me that an organization has different
rules for changing bylaws and the constitution.

I guess my point is just that this is NOT an easy procedure to rectify no
matter how we try to go about it.  Lots of people don't vote in the topic
selection process.  And, the necessarily static nature of the mail ballot
frightens me a bit.

John Fritch
SMS

----------
>From: Jim Hanson <hansonjb at WHITMAN.EDU>
>To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU
>Subject: change CEDA votes to balloting
>Date: Mon, Nov 8, 1999, 5:23 PM
>

>I plan to submit a proposal to remove voting on amendments and Bylaws
>changes at the national business meetings and switch it to by ballot. Its
>rationale is:
>1. People are confused about when and how the process of making amendments
>and changing Bylaws occur.
>2. Many people do not and cannot attend the national business meetings.
>Proxies are confusing and people do not use them.
>3. The current rules allow just 12 voting members present to constitute a
>quorum at business meetings; as a result, less than 10% of the membership
>can make decisions affecting the entire organization.
>4. People want to be able to vote and provide their input on important
>issues. This proposal makes every effort to encourage this.
>
>I encourage you to read this proposal and I welcome comments and suggestions
>on this proposal. I plan to submit it for the business meeting at CEDA
>Nationals with the hope that it will be the last business meeting at which
>we vote and that it will increase the openness and accessibility of our
>organization.
>
>jim hanson
>whitman college
>hansonjb at whitman.edu
>
>-----------
>ARTICLE IV: Section 10; Subsection J. shall be deleted and changed.
>
>Current:
>J. The Executive Council should refrain from making decisions which can or
>should be made by a general business meeting or a general vote of the
>membership.
>
>Change to:
>J. The Executive Council should refrain from making decisions that can or
>should be made by a vote of the membership.
>
>-------------
>ARTICLE V: Section 2 and Section 3 shall be changed.
>
>Current:
>Section 2. Nominations shall be submitted by the Nominating Committee at the
>first annual business meeting of the Association, at which time additional
>nominations for any office may be submitted by any member present.
>Section 3. No later than 30 days after a business meeting, the Executive
>Secretary shall submit to the membership by mail or email a ballot
>containing the names of all nominees. Members will vote for national
>officers and the representative of their particular region. Ballots may be
>returned to the Executive Secretary by mail, email or fax. Phone balloting
>will not be accepted. Balloting shall cease at midnight, 30 days after
>submission of the ballot. A plurality of ballots returned will elect. In the
>event of a tie between the two leading contenders for an office, their names
>shall be resubmitted to the membership.
>
>Change to:
>Section 2. Nominations may be submitted to the Nominating Committee at any
>time prior to and including during the business meeting at the National
>Tournament.
>Section 3. No later than 10 days after the last day of the National
>Tournament, the Executive Secretary shall submit to the membership by mail,
>email, fax, and/or web site a ballot containing the names of all nominees.
>Members will vote for national officers and the representative of their
>particular region. Ballots may be returned to the Executive Secretary by
>mail, email or fax. Phone balloting will not be accepted. Balloting shall
>cease at midnight, 21 days after the ballot has been sent. A plurality of
>ballots returned will elect. In the event of a tie between the two leading
>contenders for an office, their names shall be resubmitted to the membership
>within ten days of the posting of election results for a vote whose
>balloting shall cease at midnight 21 days after the ballot has been sent.
>
>----------
>ARTICLE VII: ANNUAL BUSINESS MEETINGS OF THE ASSOCIATION
>This title and its Section 1 through 9 shall be deleted and changed.
>
>Current:
>ARTICLE VII: ANNUAL BUSINESS MEETINGS OF THE ASSOCIATION
>Section 1. Members attending the annual business meetings of the Association
>constitute its governing body. Changes to the Bylaws may be made at annual
>business meetings. Between business meetings, the Executive Council will
>make such rules as are necessary to support the purposes of the Association.
>Actions of the Executive Council will have the force of Bylaws. Members will
>be notified of the Executive Council's actions and at the next business
>meeting will have the opportunity to approve or reject continuation of those
>rules.
>Section 2. Business meetings shall be held annually at the fall national
>convention of the National Communication Association and at the
>Association's National Tournament. The Executive Secretary will give members
>ample notice of the times and places of these meetings.
>Section 3. Each regular or affiliate member institution will have one vote.
>Section 4. In order to conduct any business other than hearing and
>discussing reports, a quorum of representatives of at least 12 institutions
>must be personally present (proxy votes do not count for a quorum).
>Section 5. Proxy voting at business meetings will be allowed under the
>following conditions
>A? The Executive Secretary will distribute with the agendas for the national
>business meetings a proxy form for each business item that requires a vote
>of the membership;
>B, Members who do not attend the business meetings may complete, sign and
>send these forms to the national meetings with another voting member,
>C. No member institution may vote more than five proxies in addition to its
>own vote;
>D. Proxy votes are to be submitted to the President at the start of each
>business meeting. The President will count only those proxy ballots that are
>complete and signed .
>E. Proxy votes apply to main motions but not secondary motions,
>F. In the event that successful amendments to a main motion substantially
>alter its intent, the President may rule that proxies are void.
>Section 6. If a quorum exists at the business meeting, members (and proxy
>voters)
>may modify the Bylaws by majority vote. Proposed amendments to the
>constitution will be discussed and if they receive a majority vote of
>members (and proxy voters), they will be submitted to the entire membership
>by mail, at which time they will require a two?thirds vote to pass.
>Section 7. The presiding officer at a business meeting will be entitled to
>vote as the representative of his/her institution.
>Section 8. Any vote that results in a tie will be considered to have failed
>and the
>President will not vote to break ties
>Section 9. Parliamentary authority for the organization will be Robert's
>Rules of Order
>Newly Revised.
>
>change to:
>ARTICLE VII: BUSINESS MEETINGS OF THE ASSOCIATION
>Section 1. Business Discussion Meetings shall occur at the National
>Communication Association and the Association~Rs National Tournament.
>Section 2. The Executive Secretary will give members ample notice of the
>times and places of these meetings.
>Section 3. These meetings shall provide opportunities for discussing but not
>voting on changes to the CEDA constitution and Bylaws, projects, and other
>issues important to the CEDA organization.
>Section 4. Members should submit their request for a discussion on such
>issues to the Executive Secretary 21 days before these meetings occur to
>ensure that the item will be included in the meeting agenda. However, any
>issue may be raised during remaining new business time during the meeting.
>
>-------------
>ARTICLE VIII: AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION AND BYLAWS
>This article shall be deleted and replaced.
>
>Current:
>ARTICLE VIII: AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION AND BYLAWS
>
>Section 1. Amendments to the Constitution
>A. An amendment to the Constitution may be initiated by any member school.
>B. Amendments to the Constitution must be submitted to the Executive
>Secretary
>30 days prior to a business meeting to be discussed at that meeting, The
>Executive Secretary will communicate proposed amendments to the membership
>no later than 15 days prior to the business meeting
>C. A majority vote of the schools represented at the business meeting will
>be necessary for a proposed constitutional amendment to be sent to the
>membership;
>D. Within 10 days following the business meeting, the Executive Secretary
>will distribute by mail or email a ballot containing all proposed
>constitutional amendments. Balloting will cease at midnight 30 days after
>the date of the business meeting;
>E. Constitutional amendments require a two?thirds vote by school
>representatives voting by mail, email, or fax.
>
>Section 2. Amendment to the Bylaws
>A. An amendment to the Bylaws may be initiated by any member school;
>B. Amendments to the Bylaws must be submitted to the Executive Secretary no
>later than 30 days prior to a business meeting to be considered at that
>meeting. The Executive Secretary will communicate proposed amendments to the
>membership no later than 15 days prior to the business meeting;
>C. Bylaw amendments require a majority vote by school representatives and
>proxies voting at the business meeting.
>
>Section 3. Alternative Amendment Procedures for the Constitution and Bylaws
>A. An amendment may be proposed by a two?thirds vote of the Executive
>Council or by a petition of 5% of the current CEDA membership to the CEDA
>Executive Secretary and the CEDA President.
>B. The proposed amendment shay be distributed to the membership. Members
>will have 30 days to send comments on the proposed amendment to the
>Executive Secretary.
>C. Within 45 days of the publication of the proposed amendment, the
>Executive Secretary will mail a ballot to the membership containing a copy
>of the proposed amendment, along with a summary of the arguments for and
>against the amendment. The author of the amendment will have the opportunity
>to submit the reasons for the amendment and the President may designate an
>individual to outline objections to the amendment. Both of these individuals
>shall have access to the comments received by the Executive Secretary.
>Balloting will cease at midnight 30 days after the ballots were distributed.
>Revised October 1998
>D. A three?fourths vote of all members voting will be required to enact an
>amendment initiated under this section.
>E. A majority of the Executive Council may vote to exclude the time period
>from the conclusion of the CEDA National Tournament until July 1 from the
>time period in items B and C of this Section.
>
>Change to:
>ARTICLE VIII: AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION AND BYLAWS
>Section 1. Members are encouraged to post their proposals for changes to the
>constitution and Bylaws to listservs, web pages, and other arenas that the
>CEDA community accesses before submission to the Executive Secretary so that
>discussion and improvement of the proposal can occur.
>Section 2. Members should submit their proposals to the Executive Secretary.
>Any suggested amendments or Bylaw changes submitted to the Executive
>Secretary as of the date of the Business Discussion Meeting shall be placed
>on the ballot.
>Section 3. The Executive Secretary shall provide notice via email and/or web
>posting within the 7 days prior to the Business Discussion Meeting stating
>the deadline for acceptance of amendments and changes to the Bylaws.
>Section 4. The Executive Secretary shall distribute the ballot including all
>amendments and Bylaw changes to CEDA members via email, fax, regular mail,
>and/or web posting within ten days after the last day of the NCA fall
>convention and within ten days after the last day of the National CEDA
>Tournament.
>Section 5. Each regular or affiliate member institution and each student
>representative will have one vote.
>Section 6. Any vote modifying the Bylaws will require a majority vote of at
>least 25% of the paid membership to pass.
>Section 7. Any vote amending the constitution will require a 2/3 vote of at
>least 25% of the paid membership to pass.
>Section 8. Paid membership numbers shall be counted as of the last day of
>the balloting.
>Section 9. Any CEDA executive shall be entitled to vote as the
>representative of his/her institution.
>Section 10. Any vote that results in a tie will be considered to have failed
>and the President will not break ties.
>Section 11. All balloting will cease at midnight 21 days after the ballot is
>distributed.
>Section 12. The Executive Secretary shall provide notice of the deadline for
>acceptance of ballots within the 7 days prior to the deadline.
>Section 13. The Executive Council shall make such rules as are necessary to
>support the purposes of the Association. Actions of the Executive Council
>will have the force of Bylaws. Members will be notified of the Executive
>Council~Rs actions and at the next vote will have the opportunity to approve
>or reject the continuation of those rules by submitting a Bylaw change.
>Section 14. Alternative Amendment Procedures for the Constitution and Bylaws
>A. An amendment may be proposed by a two-thirds vote of the Executive
>Council or by a petition of 5% of the current CEDA membership to the CEDA
>Executive Secretary and the CEDA President.
>B. The proposed amendment shall be sent to the membership within 10 days of
>its receipt.
>C. Any vote using this election method that modifies the Bylaws will require
>a majority vote of at least 50% of the paid membership to pass.
>D. Any vote using this election method that amends the constitution will
>require a 2/3 vote of at least 50% of the paid membership to pass.
>E. Paid membership numbers shall be counted as of the last day of the
>balloting.
>F. Any CEDA executive shall be entitled to vote as the representative of
>his/her institution.
>G. Any vote that results in a tie will be considered to have failed and the
>President will not break ties.
>H. Balloting will cease at midnight 21 days after the ballots were
>distributed.
>I. A majority of the Executive Council may vote to exclude the time period
>from the conclusion of the CEDA National Tournament until July 1 from the
>time period in items B and H of this section.

>From  Tue Nov  9 11:43:43 1999
Message-Id: <TUE.9.NOV.1999.114343.0500.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 44705 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 11:50:13
 -0500
Precedence: bulk
Received: from nova.bsuvc.bsu.edu (NOVA.BSUVC.BSU.EDU [147.226.56.70]) by
 list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA16106 for
 <edebate at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 11:49:59 -0500
Received: from BSUVC.bsu.edu by BSUVC.bsu.edu (PMDF V5.2-31 #35953) id
 <01JI4RMOMD0M8ZE62B at BSUVC.bsu.edu> for edebate at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 9
 Nov 1999 11:43:43 EST
X-VMS-To: IN%"edebate at LIST.UVM.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Message-ID: <01JI4RMOMD0O8ZE62B at BSUVC.bsu.edu>
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 11:43:43 -0500
Reply-To: 00MHBAUER at BSUVC.BSU.EDU
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: mike Bauer <00mhbauer at BSUVC.BSU.EDU>
Subject: FINAL nominations

Dear Community,
The following list is the final list of nominations. I believe the ballot
will come out in the next 30 days according the Constitution.
2nd Vice President
Mike Bauer, Ball State
Jeff Jarman, Wichita State
Sam Nelson, Rochester
Terry West, Southern Utah
Shawn Whalen, San Fransisco State

Topic Committee (1 open position)
Stefan Bauschard, Boston College
Mike Davis, Rochester
Martin Harris, SW Missouri State
Scott Harris, Kansas
Michael Hester, West Georgia
Bill Newman, Emory
Beth Skinner, Towson State
Jason Stone, Richmond

East: Mike Berry, King's College; Alan Dove, Columbia
East Central: Ben Voth, Miami
Mid America: Ken DeLaughder, Emporia, Jan Hovden, Central Oklahoma;
             Brent Siemers, UMKC
North Central: John Butler, Northern Illinois; David Romanelli, Loyola
Northwest: Kelly McDonald, Western Washington
Rocky Mountain: Michael Bryant, Weber State
Southeast: David Berube, South Carolina; James Brey, Florida State
           David Steinberg, Miami
West: Kristina Schriver, Cal State Chico; Terry Winebrenner Cal Poly- San
      Luis Obispo
That's it,
Mike Bauer



From woodss  Tue Nov  9 10:52:31 1999
From: woodss (Woods, Steve)
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 10:52:31 -0600
Subject: Mail Ballot ideas
Message-ID: <TUE.9.NOV.1999.105231.0600.WOODSS@WILLIAM.JEWELL.EDU>

Hey all,

some clarifications:

*some have argued that mail is as inflexible as proxies.  This could be
true. reason I thnk it may not be is that if people participate in the
discussion on the list up until the date that votes are due then people can
still change their minds after hearing arguments.  Proxies are locked in,
voting by mail can at least be flexible until the date the ballot is due.

* John Fritch makes a good point to the effect of we are a verbal activity,
why moot that aspect with a mail ballot?  Again, this is a possibility,
however the arguments could be made at a business meeting, its just that the
vote doesn't ake place then.  Also, and this is flawed I admit, having
discussion on the list is far easier, cheaper, and feasible to many than
paying to attend multiple business meetings each year.  It is also possible
that the list does not have the disadvantages of time constraints that exist
at most business meetings.  Also students get equal access to voice their
opinions.  Seems imperfect, but better.


Steve



From mkrueger  Tue Nov  9 11:01:58 1999
From: mkrueger (Krueger)
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 11:01:58 -0600
Subject: novice/jv amendment
Message-ID: <TUE.9.NOV.1999.110158.0600.MKRUEGER@FRANK.MTSU.EDU>

<snip>

> Upon
> completion of novice eligibility, debaters will be eligible to debate
in
> junior varsity for
> two academic years, or until they advance to the final round of three
open,
> junior varsity
> or varsity tournaments, or until they qualify for the National Debate
> Tournament.

<snip>

Uh, i am curious why there would be eligibility stipulations based on
the "National Debate Tournament" and what that "National Debate
Tournament" would be.

All debaters are eligible for the "National Debate Tournament" as far
as
I am concerned and as far as CEDA is concerned.  The only National
Debate Tournament is CEDA Nationals, which all persons can compete in.
Remember, the NDT is associated with the AFA, which CEDA has an
affiliation with, but is not part and parcel of.

The other national debate tournaments--including "Novice Nationals"
hosted by Northwestern and "Novice Nationals" hosted by Towson
University, the "Junior Varsity National Debate Tournaments" hosted by
Johnson County and Towson, and ADA Nationals--also seem to undermine
this amendment.  Since all are in the same vein as the NDT--not a CEDA
National tournament but one that can gain sanctioning by the CEDA
organization, it seems to mean that once someone "qualifies" i.e.
enters, they are no longer eligble to compete in Junior Varsity.  And,
especially since "the" isn't capitalized, I see no reason to view the
amendment interpretation to be THE NDT.

The implication?  Anyone who qualifies for a "National Debate
Tournament" no longer has eligibility.  I suppose that means someone
could have novice eligbility and have no JV eligibility.  Remember that
qualification means a "student in good standing."
So, if you are a "student in good standing" then you no longer have JV
eligibility, according to strict interpretation.  I don't give a damn
what intent is.

Does this mean that NO ONE is eligible for Junior Varsity?  Does this
mean the amendment is flawed?  I would argue that it is and should be
tossed out since it effectively eliminates Junior Varsity debate.

My two cents.

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/

--
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 mkrueger  Tue Nov  9 11:02:40 1999
From: mkrueger (Krueger)
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 11:02:40 -0600
Subject: novices at MTSU
Message-ID: <TUE.9.NOV.1999.110240.0600.MKRUEGER@FRANK.MTSU.EDU>

Dear Novices at MTSU:

I would like to issue a public apology.
I advanced 8 teams to an octofinal that didn't count for CEDA points.
I am afraid that given the new novice eligibility rules that I have
done
y'all a great disservice.  This might effect where you can debate for
the
rest of your careers.

I had thought that I was doing the right thing.  However, in
retrospect,
I
realize the error of my ways.

I hope this doesn't hurt you extensively.

With sincere regrets,

Michael 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/

--
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 Nov  9 12:19:37 1999
Message-Id: <TUE.9.NOV.1999.121937.EST.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 45542 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 12:20:22
 -0500
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 MAA18466 for
 <eDebate at list.uvm.edu>; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 12:20:15 -0500
Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo25.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id
 wRJVa06707 (4365); Tue, 9 Nov 1999 12:19:37 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 26
Message-ID: <0.6b07534d.2559b1a9 at aol.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 12:19:37 EST
Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Michael Bear Bryant <MWBRYANT at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: Rule changes, Woods, Elliott, & Fritch!  Common Ground?!
Comments: To: jef229f at mail.smsu.edu

In a message dated 11/9/99 9:31:36 AM Mountain Standard Time,
jef229f at MAIL.SMSU.EDU writes:

>
>  It seems highly ironic to me that one of the effects of the call for mail
>  ballots only would be to discourage oral debate and persuasion...an
activity
>  in which I see a great value.
>
>  John Fritch

Why can't this be accomplished on the list? Granted, it would require CEDA
officials/reform proponents to show up more frequently for list discussions,
but it's now clear that there are far more representatives of programs on
this list than will probably ever show up for an NCA Business Meeting.

BTW, your self-backslapping on why NDT is more representative than CEDA is
exactly the kind of organizational sniping that we don't need. Why not
compare the NDT Committee to CEDA's Executive Council? And since most NDT
programs are now CEDA dues payers, how can you really make that comparison?
Oh, I see...only if you start with the twisted assumption that a small
committee of representatives to a smaller organization means better
representation. But, the NDT Committee only governs one tournament, right?
You need to get your stories straight... At least, try to think about the
pictures you choose to paint with your own rhetoric.

Smaller organization, smaller ambitions, and a twisted need to claim you
represent something more than CEDA.

Doesn't sound healthy!

Bear

>From  Tue Nov  9 12:26:57 1999
Message-Id: <TUE.9.NOV.1999.122657.EST.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 45703 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 12:27:38
 -0500
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 MAA19780 for
 <eDebate at list.uvm.edu>; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 12:27:37 -0500
Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo23.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id
 eMDAa21164 (4365); Tue, 9 Nov 1999 12:26:58 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 26
Message-ID: <0.83efeb52.2559b361 at aol.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 12:26:57 EST
Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Michael Bear Bryant <MWBRYANT at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: Mail Ballot ideas
Comments: To: woodss at william.jewell.edu

In a message dated 11/9/99 10:01:26 AM Mountain Standard Time,
woodss at WILLIAM.JEWELL.EDU writes:

> Also, and this is flawed I admit, having
>  discussion on the list is far easier, cheaper, and feasible to many than
>  paying to attend multiple business meetings each year.  It is also possible
>  that the list does not have the disadvantages of time constraints that
exist
>  at most business meetings.  Also students get equal access to voice their
>  opinions.  Seems imperfect, but better.

Actually, I made these same arguments about four years ago. Check the
archives. I was told by the CEDA bureaucrats that not everyone was on the
list. Well, we got over a thousand on the list now and thirty people showing
up for NCA business meetings. Easy comparison. Those meetings are a travesty
if there's more than three items on the agenda, because ALMOST NO DISCUSSION
gets to take place. All I can say is that Fritch obviously hasn't been at too
many CEDA Biz Meetings.

But real democracy could be a frightening thing. Is it really part of any
future visions for CEDA?

I doubt it,

Bear

>From  Tue Nov  9 11:31:47 1999
Message-Id: <TUE.9.NOV.1999.113147.0500.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 46009 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 12:33:54
 -0500
Precedence: bulk
Received: from OMEGA.SELU.EDU (omega.selu.edu [147.174.1.8]) by list.uvm.edu
 (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA13814 for <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Tue,
 9 Nov 1999 12:33:52 -0500
Received: from selu.edu by selu.edu (PMDF V5.2-32 #39798) id
 <01JI4RD0BQE89I5KFT at selu.edu> for edebate at list.uvm.edu; Tue, 9 Nov
 1999 11:33:18 CDT
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Message-ID: <01JI4RKPJKIG9I5KFT at selu.edu>
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 11:31:47 -0500
Reply-To: selliott at SELU.EDU
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Scott Elliott <selliott at SELU.EDU>
Organization: Southeastern Louisiana University
Subject: Which National Tournament--Answer to Mike Krueger.

Now Mike, you know that there is only one "REAL NATIONAL TOURNAMENT." It is called the National Debate Tournament (NDT) for a very specific reason. CEDA Nationals is nice, interesting, but there is only one NDT.

Scott Elliott

>From  Tue Nov  9 12:33:54 1999
Message-Id: <TUE.9.NOV.1999.123354.EST.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 46059 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 12:35:01
 -0500
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 MAA15910 for
 <eDebate at list.uvm.edu>; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 12:35:00 -0500
Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo25.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id
 fIGEa15614 (4365); Tue, 9 Nov 1999 12:33:54 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 26
Message-ID: <0.6254f6d5.2559b502 at aol.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 12:33:54 EST
Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Michael Bear Bryant <MWBRYANT at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: novice/jv amendment
Comments: To: mkrueger at frank.mtsu.edu

In a message dated 11/9/99 10:05:05 AM Mountain Standard Time,
mkrueger at FRANK.MTSU.EDU writes:

>
>  Does this mean that NO ONE is eligible for Junior Varsity?  Does this
>  mean the amendment is flawed?  I would argue that it is and should be
>  tossed out since it effectively eliminates Junior Varsity debate.
>
>  My two cents.
>
>  mike

Well, obviously, your interpretation is flawed if no one is left eligible for
JV. Since the rule change says "the National Debate Tournament," it clearly
is specific to one tournament, which we all know is ran by another
organization. Notice that NDT is capitalized, supporting my interpretation of
specificity. No one has ever called CEDA Nationals the NDT. Why do you think
the name "NDT" represents CEDA Nats? Which CEDA Nats tournament has ever
required "qualification"?

Bear



From West  Tue Nov  9 11:39:04 1999
From: West (Terry West)
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 10:39:04 -0700
Subject: novice/jv amendment
Message-ID: <TUE.9.NOV.1999.103904.0700.WEST@SUU.EDU>

The reason, Mike, appears to be that the NDT is important and CEDA is not.  This amendment was an ADA/NDT tell the stupid idiots in CEDA how they should run their organization amendment.  We've been succumbing to that type of pressure ever since we decided we really didn't know anything about debate along about 1992 or 1993.  The proponents of this amendment totally ignored the way that eligibility diputes must be resolved under the CEDA constitution, totally ignored the needs of other regions of the country, and blatantly claimed that the amendment had to be accepted as it was because the CEDA system (which many of us ignorant CEDA peons thought was doing quite well throughout the '80's) was terrible.

Now that we've decided a name change will not automatically make things better, I hope we'll start to regain some organizational pride and realize that CEDA used to stand for some pretty good principles and got a lot of things right.  It's as we've changed more into other organizations that the slippage has occurred.  Is it really more logical to assume that this is all mere coincidence?

Terry West
SUU

>>> Krueger <mkrueger at FRANK.MTSU.EDU> 11/09/99 10:01AM >>>
<snip>

> Upon
> completion of novice eligibility, debaters will be eligible to debate
in
> junior varsity for
> two academic years, or until they advance to the final round of three
open,
> junior varsity
> or varsity tournaments, or until they qualify for the National Debate
> Tournament.

<snip>

Uh, i am curious why there would be eligibility stipulations based on
the "National Debate Tournament" and what that "National Debate
Tournament" would be.

All debaters are eligible for the "National Debate Tournament" as far
as
I am concerned and as far as CEDA is concerned.  The only National
Debate Tournament is CEDA Nationals, which all persons can compete in.
Remember, the NDT is associated with the AFA, which CEDA has an
affiliation with, but is not part and parcel of.

The other national debate tournaments--including "Novice Nationals"
hosted by Northwestern and "Novice Nationals" hosted by Towson
University, the "Junior Varsity National Debate Tournaments" hosted by
Johnson County and Towson, and ADA Nationals--also seem to undermine
this amendment.  Since all are in the same vein as the NDT--not a CEDA
National tournament but one that can gain sanctioning by the CEDA
organization, it seems to mean that once someone "qualifies" i.e.
enters, they are no longer eligble to compete in Junior Varsity.  And,
especially since "the" isn't capitalized, I see no reason to view the
amendment interpretation to be THE NDT.

The implication?  Anyone who qualifies for a "National Debate
Tournament" no longer has eligibility.  I suppose that means someone
could have novice eligbility and have no JV eligibility.  Remember that
qualification means a "student in good standing."
So, if you are a "student in good standing" then you no longer have JV
eligibility, according to strict interpretation.  I don't give a damn
what intent is.

Does this mean that NO ONE is eligible for Junior Varsity?  Does this
mean the amendment is flawed?  I would argue that it is and should be
tossed out since it effectively eliminates Junior Varsity debate.

My two cents.

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/

--
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 lesjober  Tue Nov  9 11:43:46 1999
From: lesjober (The Eternal Flame)
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 11:43:46 -0600
Subject: novice/jv amendment
In-Reply-To: <0.6254f6d5.2559b502@aol.com>
Message-ID: <TUE.9.NOV.1999.114346.0600.LESJOBER@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU>

Another question: So, I have freshman that have more than 24 rounds of
debate experience, and thus no novice eligibility. But, in the amendment,
it seems like jv eligibility comes after the end of novice eligibility, .
. . so did their "jv" eligibility start their sophomore or junior years in
high school and end before they got to college? or are they jv for two
years regardless of this experience?

Laura
U Chicago

On Tue, 9 Nov 1999, Michael Bear Bryant wrote:

> In a message dated 11/9/99 10:05:05 AM Mountain Standard Time,
> mkrueger at FRANK.MTSU.EDU writes:
>
> >
> >  Does this mean that NO ONE is eligible for Junior Varsity?  Does this
> >  mean the amendment is flawed?  I would argue that it is and should be
> >  tossed out since it effectively eliminates Junior Varsity debate.
> >
> >  My two cents.
> >
> >  mike
>
> Well, obviously, your interpretation is flawed if no one is left eligible for
> JV. Since the rule change says "the National Debate Tournament," it clearly
> is specific to one tournament, which we all know is ran by another
> organization. Notice that NDT is capitalized, supporting my interpretation of
> specificity. No one has ever called CEDA Nationals the NDT. Why do you think
> the name "NDT" represents CEDA Nats? Which CEDA Nats tournament has ever
> required "qualification"?
>
> Bear
>



From lesjober  Tue Nov  9 11:44:50 1999
From: lesjober (The Eternal Flame)
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 11:44:50 -0600
Subject: Swing partner needed for ISU
In-Reply-To: <19991109162918.7728.rocketmail@web302.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <TUE.9.NOV.1999.114450.0600.LESJOBER@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU>

I'm going to email the U Chicago Team and see if I get a response, its
likely that I will and we can afford to bring another person.

Laura

On Tue, 9 Nov 1999, niko poulakos wrote:

> Dan Vinokurov of DePaul University (freshman, j.v.
> level debater, 2 years high school experience) needs a
> partner for the upcoming ISU tournament.  I believe
> the tournament will collapse varsity and j.v. into one
> open division.  Dan would be more than happy to debate
> with someone from either division.  To contact him,
> email mvinok1 at wans.net; or, get in touch with me me,
> Niko Poulakos (Coach) npoulakos at yahoo.com (773)
> 325-4696.
>
> =====
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com
>

>From  Tue Nov  9 11:35:21 1999
Message-Id: <TUE.9.NOV.1999.113521.0500.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 46443 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 12:45:48
 -0500
Precedence: bulk
Received: from OMEGA.SELU.EDU (omega.selu.edu [147.174.1.8]) by list.uvm.edu
 (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA19302 for <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Tue,
 9 Nov 1999 12:45:45 -0500
Received: from selu.edu by selu.edu (PMDF V5.2-32 #39798) id
 <01JI4RNNPMLS9I5KFT at selu.edu> for edebate at list.uvm.edu; Tue, 9 Nov
 1999 11:45:07 CDT
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Message-ID: <01JI4RP7JX0G9I5KFT at selu.edu>
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 11:35:21 -0500
Reply-To: selliott at SELU.EDU
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Scott Elliott <selliott at SELU.EDU>
Organization: Southeastern Louisiana University
Subject: Yeah! Now that i think about it, We did get screwed at MTSU.

Just joking Mike,
But this new rule change--especially in the middle of the year really screwed things up.
Example: Had SELA known about the change in rules, we would not have attended the following tournaments--Valdosta, Sam Houston, or LSU-Baton Rouge.
Why? Because the divisions were too small to justify our limited eligibility.
What do I mean? Well, at many of those tournaments, the divisions collapsed. That meant that some of my teams that were novice or even JV were now in open. But because the divisions were small and my teams were good, they broke. However, because they were small the divisions were not large enough to justify the
eligibility/ceda point value ratio. For my program, which uses sweepstakes points and rankings to secure funding on a tournament by tournament basis--read, if we don't do well we don't travel--it means that I will only travel them to big tournaments that are quater-finals in each division minimally.

In other words, regional debate has been dealt another blow. Why would I support a small tournament like Valdosta or LSU or McNeese when it ends up screwing my program in the long run.

Finally, whether people thought about it or not, I feel that my team is being punished RETROACTIVELY by this change. We made travel decisions based on the old rules. Now with the new changes, we have effectively screwed ourselves out of finishing in the top ten in the nation---which is a big deal for such a small program. Becuase I chose to support small regional tournamnets and my teams broke at those small tournaments to elimination rounds, I am now getting fucked over by the NCA business meeting.

Just another reason to toss up my hands and say screw the entire activity.

Scott M. Elliott

>From  Tue Nov  9 12:50:21 1999
Message-Id: <TUE.9.NOV.1999.125021.0500.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 46513 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 12:46:28
 -0500
Precedence: bulk
Received: from apollo.capital.edu (apollo.capital.edu [192.153.31.27]) by
 list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA19028 for
 <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 12:46:09 -0500
Received: from hs178.capital.edu ([205.133.187.178]) by apollo.capital.edu
 (8.9.3/8.8.8) with SMTP id MAA07133 for <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Tue,
 9 Nov 1999 12:50:38 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.03Gold (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <38285EDD.510C at capital.edu>
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 12:50:21 -0500
Reply-To: skoch at capital.edu
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: "Stephen C. Koch" <skoch at CAPITAL.EDU>
Organization: Capital U. Dept. of  Communication
Subject: Lawson in Memoriam

Dear Folks,

We tend to have short institutional memories in the debate community.
It should be added about Dr. Harold Lawson that he was top speaker of
the 1962 NDT, having had a stellar debate career at Emporia.  From my
experience, he was an irrepressible personality of incredible force and
will. He loved debate in all its forms and steadfastly resisted becoming
an old curmudgeon, even as he explored alternative debate forms in his
later career.

He also held a J.D. and practiced criminal law for a portion of his
career.  As I recall, he directed programs variously at Ohio State
University and here at Capital in the years he was in Columbus, and
later served as a dean at Emerson College in Boston before deciding to
return to debate, his first love, about a decade ago.

Many others could speak from longer and more intimate association with
Harold, but his strong impression upon me compells me to comment just a
little. He judged me often when I debated at the University of Iowa a
long time ago, and always amiably (and sometimes turbulently) served as
a mentor to me and other young coaches in the late sixties and through
the seventies.  Harold's fire could be alternatively ferocious and
humorous. One moment he could be Hunter S. Thompson and the next a cool
logic machine. I know of no one quite like him in the debate community
today.  It is hard for me to think of intercollegiate debate without
Harold.

I realize most of the current subscribers to this list did not know him,
nor of his very interesting and long association with the activity, but
I hope you can join me in honoring the memory of this very unique member
of our community.

Sincerely,

Stephen

--
Dr. Stephen Koch, Chairman
Department of Communication
Spielman Hall, Capital University
Columbus, OH 43209
skoch at capital.edu
614-236-6320
614-236-6820 fax

>From  Tue Nov  9 12:52:15 1999
Message-Id: <TUE.9.NOV.1999.125215.EST.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 46719 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 12:52:55
 -0500
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 MAA05174 for
 <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 12:52:51 -0500
Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo13.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id
 vQLa024528 (4365); Tue, 9 Nov 1999 12:52:16 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 26
Message-ID: <0.89fb3fdc.2559b94f at aol.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 12:52:15 EST
Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Michael Bear Bryant <MWBRYANT at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: novice/jv amendment
Comments: To: West at suu.edu

Terry,

The National Debate Tournament, ran by the NDT Committee, is the only one
that students "qualify" for, undercutting your analysis on why CEDA Nats is
covered by the Amendment. Claiming that a simple entry means the same as
"qualifies" also seems a logical leap. Grammatically, the capitalization of
"THE" is not required to denote a specific tournament.

Though I don't agree with your interpretation of the amendment, I greatly
respect your analysis on why CEDA should not be using NDT as a criteria for
any definition of eligibility.  Can someone who defended this concept please
explain why mixing two different organizations in this manner is a desirable
idea? Fritch, you said you supported - why?

Bear

In a message dated 11/9/99 10:39:47 AM Mountain Standard Time, West at SUU.EDU
writes:

>
>  Uh, i am curious why there would be eligibility stipulations based on
>  the "National Debate Tournament" and what that "National Debate
>  Tournament" would be.
>
>  All debaters are eligible for the "National Debate Tournament" as far
>  as
>  I am concerned and as far as CEDA is concerned.  The only National
>  Debate Tournament is CEDA Nationals, which all persons can compete in.
>  Remember, the NDT is associated with the AFA, which CEDA has an
>  affiliation with, but is not part and parcel of.
>
>  The other national debate tournaments--including "Novice Nationals"
>  hosted by Northwestern and "Novice Nationals" hosted by Towson
>  University, the "Junior Varsity National Debate Tournaments" hosted by
>  Johnson County and Towson, and ADA Nationals--also seem to undermine
>  this amendment.  Since all are in the same vein as the NDT--not a CEDA
>  National tournament but one that can gain sanctioning by the CEDA
>  organization, it seems to mean that once someone "qualifies" i.e.
>  enters, they are no longer eligble to compete in Junior Varsity.  And,
>  especially since "the" isn't capitalized, I see no reason to view the
>  amendment interpretation to be THE NDT

>From  Tue Nov  9 13:02:10 1999
Message-Id: <TUE.9.NOV.1999.130210.EST.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 46977 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 13:03:33
 -0500
Precedence: bulk
Received: from imo-d06.mx.aol.com (imo-d06.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.38]) by
 list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA19762 for
 <eDebate at list.uvm.edu>; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 13:03:32 -0500
Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo-d06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id
 4OSJXEVy8_ (4365); Tue, 9 Nov 1999 13:02:11 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 26
Message-ID: <0.2482d5df.2559bba2 at aol.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 13:02:10 EST
Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Michael Bear Bryant <MWBRYANT at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: novice/jv amendment
Comments: To: lesjober at midway.uchicago.edu

In a message dated 11/9/99 10:46:38 AM Mountain Standard Time,
lesjober at midway.uchicago.edu writes:

> Another question: So, I have freshman that have more than 24 rounds of
>  debate experience, and thus no novice eligibility. But, in the amendment,
>  it seems like jv eligibility comes after the end of novice eligibility, .
>  . . so did their "jv" eligibility start their sophomore or junior years in
>  high school and end before they got to college? or are they jv for two
>  years regardless of this experience?
>
>  Laura
>  U Chicago
>

Here's my interpretation:

If they debated more than 24 rounds in HS, they are forced to start their
collegiate career in either JV or Open. They can stay in JV until they've
cleared to finals at three tournaments (open or JV) or until they qualify for
the NDT.

It seems, like usual, that many other people interpret this very differently.
For example, some claim that "the NDT" represents any end-of-the-year
tournament. I think that's a ridiculous interpretation, but those in favor of
extra-constituional removal of the new rule seem willing to interpret this to
fit their outrage.

I didn't support the change in eligibility rules, but the arguments being
made against the rule seem a bit "over-stated" for my taste.

Bear

>From  Tue Nov  9 13:13:00 1999
Message-Id: <TUE.9.NOV.1999.131300.EST.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 47176 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 13:13:34
 -0500
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 NAA18508 for
 <eDebate at list.uvm.edu>; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 13:13:33 -0500
Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo14.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id
 nOGKa10716 (4365) for <eDebate at list.uvm.edu>; Tue, 9 Nov 1999
 13:13:00 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 26
Message-ID: <0.60bb7668.2559be2c at aol.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 13:13:00 EST
Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Michael Bear Bryant <MWBRYANT at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: novice/jv amendment

Ok, here's a problem I see with the new eligibility rule:

It effectively discourages community colleges from taking part in NDT
qualification efforts. If they do qualify, their debaters are no longer
eligible for JV competition, which constitutes the major focus of most CC
programs. They couldn't even go to CC Nats, which occurs after NDT.

This may sound like a "so what?" but as Chair of District 9, I can tell you
it probably means the difference between being able to conduct an
NDT-qualification tournament and not being able to hold one, at least here in
the Mountain region.

Why would people in NDT (Terry says they were from ADA) want to
disenfranchise community college programs in such a manner?

Bear



From jef229f  Tue Nov  9 12:25:46 1999
From: jef229f (John Fritch)
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 12:25:46 -0600
Subject: Rule changes, Woods, Elliott, & Fritch!  Common Ground?!
Message-ID: <TUE.9.NOV.1999.122546.0600.JEF229F@MAIL.SMSU.EDU>

>
>Why can't this be accomplished on the list? Granted, it would require CEDA
>officials/reform proponents to show up more frequently for list discussions,
>but it's now clear that there are far more representatives of programs on
>this list than will probably ever show up for an NCA Business Meeting.

I guess I see a bit of a value in the CEDA business meetings.  I know that I
met and better understood some of the people whom I most disagreed with
after attending the business meetings.  I tend to think that when the
business meetings were better attended, they did hold some value for the
organization and for the development of a culture for the community.  I
think that something needs to be done to preserve that.

>
>BTW, your self-backslapping on why NDT is more representative than CEDA is
>exactly the kind of organizational sniping that we don't need. Why not
>compare the NDT Committee to CEDA's Executive Council? And since most NDT
>programs are now CEDA dues payers, how can you really make that comparison?
>Oh, I see...only if you start with the twisted assumption that a small
>committee of representatives to a smaller organization means better
>representation. But, the NDT Committee only governs one tournament, right?
>You need to get your stories straight... At least, try to think about the
>pictures you choose to paint with your own rhetoric.

The failures of email and my truncated message.  I did not intend that
comment as organization sniping or praising of the NDT.  I DID mean it as an
example of how the business meetings are NOT as effective as they should be
for CEDA.  I was frustrated at the lack of people at the CEDA business
meeting and at the decision making process.  I just do not think that
shifting to an entirely list based decision making process is the answer.

John Fritch
>
>Smaller organization, smaller ambitions, and a twisted need to claim you
>represent something more than CEDA.
>
>Doesn't sound healthy!
>
>Bear



From jef229f  Tue Nov  9 12:35:39 1999
From: jef229f (John Fritch)
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 12:35:39 -0600
Subject: novice/jv amendment
Message-ID: <TUE.9.NOV.1999.123539.0600.JEF229F@MAIL.SMSU.EDU>

>Though I don't agree with your interpretation of the amendment, I greatly
>respect your analysis on why CEDA should not be using NDT as a criteria for
>any definition of eligibility.  Can someone who defended this concept please
>explain why mixing two different organizations in this manner is a desirable
>idea? Fritch, you said you supported - why?

I supported the concept because it expands eligibility for students in
novice who need more time in novice.  And, because it gives those same
students more time in JV.  The move from novice to open in 2 years is
EXTREMELY difficult.  Many of these students never make it to open.  One
more year of debate is good for these people.

Also, the discussion of the "NDT" and "CEDA" nature of the business meeting
is a little unfair.  Some of the "NDT" people voted against the amendment
and some of the "CEDA" people voted for it.  (I am not saying you are doing
this, Bear...but, I think some are and I just thought of this.)

John Fritch
SMS

>From  Tue Nov  9 13:46:48 1999
Message-Id: <TUE.9.NOV.1999.134648.EST.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 47699 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 13:47:29
 -0500
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 NAA21238 for
 <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 13:47:27 -0500
Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo24.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id
 wSBKa18589 (4365); Tue, 9 Nov 1999 13:46:48 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 26
Message-ID: <0.50c06575.2559c618 at aol.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 13:46:48 EST
Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Michael Bear Bryant <MWBRYANT at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: novice/jv amendment
Comments: To: jef229f at mail.smsu.edu

In a message dated 11/9/99 11:37:47 AM Mountain Standard Time,
jef229f at mail.smsu.edu writes:

>
>  I supported the concept because it expands eligibility for students in
>  novice who need more time in novice.  And, because it gives those same
>  students more time in JV.  The move from novice to open in 2 years is
>  EXTREMELY difficult.  Many of these students never make it to open.  One
>  more year of debate is good for these people.

Easy to agree. But that doesn't really seem to be the focus of disagreement.
Why peg eligibility to NDT qualification? Can you see how, from the
perspective of a district that relies on community college participation,
this change appears to be more proof that the realities of participation in
the "far-off" reaches are ignored? Why would any CC ever contemplate
participating in district-qualifiers if they lose eligibility to compete in
junior?

Oh well, so what if District 9 can't get it's act together to hold a
qualifying tournament for NDT. It's clearly our own fault, right?

Bear



From sharris  Tue Nov  9 12:49:59 1999
From: sharris (SCOTT HARRIS)
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 12:49:59 -0600
Subject: novice/jv amendment
In-Reply-To: <199911091837.NAA18976@list.uvm.edu>
Message-ID: <TUE.9.NOV.1999.124959.0600.SHARRIS@FALCON.CC.UKANS.EDU>

I'm with Bear in not understanding what the purpose of restricting JV
eligibility of those who qualify for NDT.  Does this mean a debater can't
compete at JV nationals with one partner if they qualify for NDT with a
different partner?

I don't get it.




On Tue, 9 Nov 1999, John Fritch wrote:

> >Though I don't agree with your interpretation of the amendment, I greatly
> >respect your analysis on why CEDA should not be using NDT as a criteria for
> >any definition of eligibility.  Can someone who defended this concept please
> >explain why mixing two different organizations in this manner is a desirable
> >idea? Fritch, you said you supported - why?
>
> I supported the concept because it expands eligibility for students in
> novice who need more time in novice.  And, because it gives those same
> students more time in JV.  The move from novice to open in 2 years is
> EXTREMELY difficult.  Many of these students never make it to open.  One
> more year of debate is good for these people.
>
> Also, the discussion of the "NDT" and "CEDA" nature of the business meeting
> is a little unfair.  Some of the "NDT" people voted against the amendment
> and some of the "CEDA" people voted for it.  (I am not saying you are doing
> this, Bear...but, I think some are and I just thought of this.)
>
> John Fritch
> SMS
>

#####LOCO IN LAWRENCE#####

>From  Tue Nov  9 13:55:25 1999
Message-Id: <TUE.9.NOV.1999.135525.EST.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 47859 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 13:56:10
 -0500
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 NAA18002 for
 <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 13:56:07 -0500
Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo23.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id
 nJDa017719 (4365); Tue, 9 Nov 1999 13:55:25 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 26
Message-ID: <0.189daefd.2559c81d at aol.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 13:55:25 EST
Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Michael Bear Bryant <MWBRYANT at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: novice/jv amendment
Comments: To: Alysia07 at aol.com

In a message dated 11/9/99 11:42:42 AM Mountain Standard Time, Alysia07
writes:

> Just a quick answer to why the NDT is included...  When Sam, Mike and I
> drafted the rule, the idea was that any JV level debater that qualifies for
> the NDT should probably be going varsity.  Because of the magnitude of
> schools that are involved in both organizations, it seems a necessary check
> to prevent unfair levels of competition at the JV level (i.e., people who
> qualify for the NDT a couple of weeks before JV Nationals still competing
in
> JV at Towson)  The calls for a eligibility rule change seemed to focus
around
> abuses of the system, and we were just trying to circumvent more.  If you
> have any other questions, I would be glad to answer them.
>

Well, Sam just lost my vote for 2nd VP. Did y'all think about what impact
this has on community colleges? Obviously not....

Thanks for effectively preventing a District Tournament in District 9.

BTW, qualification for NDT doesn't really prove a person is overqualified for
junior divisions. We all know that the nature of many Districts result in a
number of junior-level debaters attending the NDT. This myth that NDT
represents the "best-of-the-best" needs to be put to rest as a form of
communitarian propaganda.

Michael Bryant



From sharris  Tue Nov  9 12:57:30 1999
From: sharris (SCOTT HARRIS)
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 12:57:30 -0600
Subject: novice/jv amendment
In-Reply-To: <0.50c06575.2559c618@aol.com>
Message-ID: <TUE.9.NOV.1999.125730.0600.SHARRIS@FALCON.CC.UKANS.EDU>

Bear,

Its not just JUCO's who are effected.  Imagine yourself with a small squad
at the end of the year through attrition where you are left with a senior
and several frosh who are competing in JV.  In order to try and qualify
your senior to NDT you have to risk the JV eligibility of the frosh you
pair with the senior.  I don't understand that kind of forced choice.

#####LOCO IN LAWRENCE#####



From nms926  Tue Nov  9 13:03:37 1999
From: nms926 (Nathan M Smith)
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 13:03:37 -0600
Subject: Chicago Urban Debate
Message-ID: <TUE.9.NOV.1999.130337.0600.NMS926@LULU.ACNS.NWU.EDU>

To: ALL CHICAGO AREA EDEBATE READERS

We're putting out a last minute desparation plea for judges this upcoming
weekend, Friday and Saturday November 12-13.  Despite the broad support we
receive from friends of debate in the Chicago area, the growing size of
our tournaments (110 teams) puts us in an ever greater need for qualified
judging.

The tournament runs from 3:45-8 on Friday and 8am to 8pm on Saturday.  The
tournament is located at 1744 W. Pryor, Chicago IL, located just off the
Dan Ryan at 111th Street.  Volunteer judges will receive detailed
directions, free meals at the tournament, and $40 stipend for full time
judges, pro-rated for part-time help.  We can also help in a limited way
with transportation.

If your interested in helping out, please e-mail me at this address or
call the Chicago Debate Hotline, anytime 24/7 at 773 665 9383. We'd love
to have you for even just one debate.

Thanks

Nate Smith
Assistant Coordinator, CDC



From rchurch  Tue Nov  9 13:24:28 1999
From: rchurch (Russell Church)
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 13:24:28 -0600
Subject: [Fwd: 2001 Conference Planning Task Force]
Message-ID: <TUE.9.NOV.1999.132428.0600.RCHURCH@MTSU.EDU>

I have sent this message out to a lot of persons from diverse debate
communities.  I wanted all to know about this event.  I invite
discussion inquiries and recommendations.  I do not subscribe to edebate
so please send me your comments, etc. to my email address.

 Dear Friends:

 Gina Lane has asked me to assemble a planning task force for a Summer
2001 Conference on Academic Debate.  The Task Force will define the
nature and scope of the conference.  I am working now with this title:

 Academic Debate in the Third Millennium:  Reflecting on Our Past,
Analyzing the Present and Exploring the Future

 I am also thinking that there would be a nationally prominent keynote
speaker, student involvement, panels with peer reviewed and invited
presenters and respondents, published proceedings, international
participation and perhaps one final developmental session led by a
facilitator.  Although there would be some developmental aspect  to
this conference, I think we should go beyond that focus.

 Of course, the conference would be in an attractive location. We would
seek financial support and endorsement from a variety of debate
organizations, AFA, etc. and corporate and/or foundation support.

 What are some of the issues to be decided?  Should the scope/focus be
limited to policy debate, evidence based debate?  How much of the
conference should be developmental in nature?  Of course, dates,
location, support, expanding the base of participation are also
important parts  of the discussion.  All issues are unresolved at this
point.

If you are interested in the Task Force or have comments, please contact
me.

 Regards,

 Russell Church
 Chair
 Speech & Theatre
 Voice:  615-898-2640
 Fax:  615-898-5826

 Cell phone:  615-579-6914

 DO RESEARCH ON LEXIS NEXIS UNIVERSE!
 http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe

 SPEECH & THEATRE
 http://www.mtsu.edu/~libarts/claspeechtheat.html

 VISIT THE MTSU DEBATE TEAM HOME PAGE!
 http://www.mtsu.edu/~debate/

 MID-SOUTH DEBATE INSTITUTE
 http://www.mtsu.edu/~msdi

 SEARCHING FOR GRAD PROGRAMS IN COMMUNICATION STUDIES
 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 PROGRAMS
 http://www.mtsu.edu/~libarts/africanamerican.html

>From  Tue Nov  9 14:21:42 1999
Message-Id: <TUE.9.NOV.1999.142142.EST.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 48456 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 14:22:57
 -0500
Precedence: bulk
Received: from imo-d02.mx.aol.com (imo-d02.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.34]) by
 list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA19284 for
 <EDEBATE at list.uvm.edu>; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 14:22:51 -0500
Received: from JoeCarver at aol.com by imo-d02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id
 nDPD0A3gfu (3966) for <EDEBATE at list.uvm.edu>; Tue, 9 Nov 1999
 14:21:43 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 243
Message-ID: <0.fa3cd59.2559ce46 at aol.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 14:21:42 EST
Reply-To: JoeCarver at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Joe Carver <JoeCarver at AOL.COM>
Subject: JV/ Novice

I have read with great interest the discussion about the new rules and the
more I read, the more narrow minded and abusive the rule becomes.
First,  some districts have been ravaged by nonpolicy debate meaning that a
perfectly average junior team may qualify for the NDT.
Secondly, the reward for many of my students here at the College of Eastern
Utah is the Junior National Tournament.  It is a genuine reflection of the
distance that they have travelled and improvements that they have made in the
course of the year.  Now the reward for this labor - regardless of the degree
of success that it has been met with yearlong and solely on the evidence of a
district tournament - is to deprive them of the opportunity to win a "junior
national championship."  It seems clear that the smart choice for a program
like us is to skip the NDT qualifier.  As a result the new rule acts as an
incentive to avoid an educating experience.
Thirdly,  who are these inherent abusers of the eligibility rule?  I don't
know a debater or coach who has dreamt of toiling in junior long beyond their
required time for the sake of a few hollow wins.  I would think that programs
like ours would be the most likely offenders and yet half of my policy squad
competes solely in Open.
The new rule may throw a wrench into the maniacal plans of the habitual rule
violators but it seems to have prioritized addressing these folks at my
students cost.
Joseph Carver
CEU Debate



From debate  Tue Nov  9 14:44:58 1999
From: debate (Vermont Debate)
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 15:44:58 -0500
Subject: Concessions to the ADA, and the eligibilty amendment
Message-ID: <TUE.9.NOV.1999.154458.0500.DEBATE@ZOO.UVM.EDU>

It is my understanding than one of the primary reasons for the rule changes
was the potential desanctioning of ADA tournaments.
I am about as willing to allow the eligibility rules to be changed by the
ada as i am to allow the religous right to dictate what books our children
read because the religous right is the only repersented group on school
boards. If it means the ada tournaments are excluded from sanctioning so be
it. The only thing the ada provides ceda is the  ability for regional
tournaments to have better filled out divisions . That is important and
i'll get to that in a minute, but for the time being my claim is that we
should not change our rules to accomadate them, if desanctioning is a
problem for ada schools that indicates to me that those tournamnets and
their programs have more to gain by our rule change than we do. If their
tournaments are not ceda sanctioned then they will likely be smaller and
ceda sanctioned tournaments occuring on the same weekend would be
supported. If ada schools made the choice to go to the ceda tournament then
so be it but they would have to conform to our rules, that is the rule they
impose on anyone who attends their tournaments. I say let them be out of
compliance and force the crisis and the reordering of team structure on to
them, I'll address the eligibility issue itself down below, but this was a
political loss for a weak ceda organization, we let the ada dictate a
change in a policy that is only problematic for them.

I'll admit that there was not ample discussion on the l, but i also contend
that the ceda institution is not functioning, there was never much of an
indication that the change would actualy take effect september 6th and i
blame the organization and the 13 people who voted against the amendment
for not making that point overwhelmingly clear. I'll draw my analogy from
the ctbt, clinton began a slightlyu precursory discussion of the ctbt at
variious points, but he never spent the political capital nessecary to get
the votes he just didn't. In much the same way those opposing this rule
change did not spend the capital to make this a big enough issue that there
was public concern, on the other hand there was nothing to be gained for
the suppporters of the amendment making it a public because probaly already
had their votes counted. Just as responsible as clinton is for the failure
of the ctbt the 13 opposing votes are responsible for the passage of this
amendment.

I I agree that the political work had to be done to organize the defeating
votes, however it is my contention that it was not. I don't really care
about the way in which the democracy fuctions i care about the fact that
the ceda organization could not muster the votes to fight off a contigent
predominatly interested in ada rules.  There may well be importance to
hashing out debate at the meeting, however my contention has changed
somewhat and is more located in the following statement. " The midyear rule
change is unfair to ceda and overly and unnessicarily burdensome on
traditionaly ceda programs, while benefitting ada programs who already fit
the definition of novice. The ceda organization showed its political
uselessness in failing to  rally the votes to defeat this amendment which
forces predominatly ceda schools to change their squad structure while
allowing traditional ada schools to maintain their squad structure."

all of the other ceda schools will be in the same boat, however the ada
schools who where violating our rules for sanctioning are in a comparitivly
better situation because they can maintain their structure.
I'm not really concerned about the students of ours that this effects i
think they will do ok., that does not mean that the safety valve that we
provided them with when we persuaded them to go jv has not been removed. If
this rule had not been made in the middle of the year and announced the day
before many tournaments started then we would have not given them that
safety valve at the beginning of the year, we did and now we have to take
it away. One further complaint, (this is a hypothetical) we might have sent
teams in novice this weekend who where eligible on fridaywhen they got on
the bus but when they woke up saturday morning where not eligible. Is this
really the least bit fair? Another question does that mean that binghampton
will not be sanctioned  because it defines divisions in the way that was
acceptable up until saturday morning when the tournament started however
violates the constitutional requirement for sanctiong as of november 6th,
when greg said the rule takes place.

This is an unfortunate political loss for an increasingly ineffective ceda
institution, part of this can attributed to the inability of the community
to react to a proposed midyear rule change, this failure in the political
system can be attributed both to the weakness of the organization and the
midseason timing of the amendment when most of the mebers of this community
are to busyt with academica nd debate commitmits to worry about a rule that
did not receive the political attention it deserved even from those voting
against it. Part of it can also be attrubuted to the ADA's ability to
mobilize enough support to ram through an amendment that uniquely benefits
their programs, given the weakness in our institutions it does not seem
farfetched that sometime in the near future T will be a voter because of
CEDA rules.

One prempt, I am not saying that the ada made up all of the votes for this
amendment, that would almost be a more acceptable loss, i am saying that a
primary reason to pass the amendment was to allow ada tournaments to be
ceda sanctioned.

Andy Elis



From jef229f  Tue Nov  9 13:44:47 1999
From: jef229f (John Fritch)
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 13:44:47 -0600
Subject: novice/jv amendment
Message-ID: <TUE.9.NOV.1999.134447.0600.JEF229F@MAIL.SMSU.EDU>

John Fritch
SMS

----------
>From: SCOTT HARRIS <sharris at FALCON.CC.UKANS.EDU>
>To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU
>Subject: Re: novice/jv amendment
>Date: Tue, Nov 9, 1999, 12:49 PM
>

>I'm with Bear in not understanding what the purpose of restricting JV
>eligibility of those who qualify for NDT.  Does this mean a debater can't
>compete at JV nationals with one partner if they qualify for NDT with a
>different partner?
>
>I don't get it.
>
>
JV nationals are "exempted," I believe...but, that is just one tournament.

Does the rule have problems?  Yes.

However, I thought...and still do...that it is better than the old rule.

John Fritch
SMS

>From  Tue Nov  9 14:52:27 1999
Message-Id: <TUE.9.NOV.1999.145227.EST.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 49007 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 14:54:08
 -0500
Precedence: bulk
Received: from imo-d02.mx.aol.com (imo-d02.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.34]) by
 list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA20672 for
 <eDebate at list.uvm.edu>; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 14:54:06 -0500
Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo-d02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id
 qAXP0MR3MO (3869); Tue, 9 Nov 1999 14:52:28 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 26
Message-ID: <0.a3303260.2559d57b at aol.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 14:52:27 EST
Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Michael Bear Bryant <MWBRYANT at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: Concessions to the ADA, and the eligibilty amendment
Comments: To: debate at zoo.uvm.edu

In a message dated 11/9/99 12:39:15 PM Mountain Standard Time,
debate at ZOO.UVM.EDU writes:

> Andy Elis

News Warning! Dangerous Anti-Spelling Drugs Placed in Burlington Water Supply
Causes Debaters to Forget How to Spell Their Own Names...

Thanks for the "inside" narrative!



From jef229f  Tue Nov  9 13:56:31 1999
From: jef229f (John Fritch)
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 13:56:31 -0600
Subject: novice/jv amendment
Message-ID: <TUE.9.NOV.1999.135631.0600.JEF229F@MAIL.SMSU.EDU>

>>  I supported the concept because it expands eligibility for students in
>>  novice who need more time in novice.  And, because it gives those same
>>  students more time in JV.  The move from novice to open in 2 years is
>>  EXTREMELY difficult.  Many of these students never make it to open.  One
>>  more year of debate is good for these people.
>
>Easy to agree. But that doesn't really seem to be the focus of disagreement.
>Why peg eligibility to NDT qualification? Can you see how, from the
>perspective of a district that relies on community college participation,
>this change appears to be more proof that the realities of participation in
>the "far-off" reaches are ignored? Why would any CC ever contemplate
>participating in district-qualifiers if they lose eligibility to compete in
>junior?

I can see your point.  I don't think it is the case that the realities are
"ignored" as much as the relation to NDT qualification was not discussed.
It seems to me that this was passed largely because of the experiences and
desires of the ADA regional experience.  While the ADA is geographically
closer together and not reliant on community colleges, I would say that I
voted for the rule BECAUSE I thought it would help regional debate in the
novice and JV divisions.  I would support lots of changes to the current
eligibility rule.  BUT, I do want LONGER access to novice and JV divisions.

>
>Oh well, so what if District 9 can't get it's act together to hold a
>qualifying tournament for NDT. It's clearly our own fault, right?

Of course not.

I voted for the rule because of how I could visualize novices and JV
debaters BENEFITTING from the new rule over the old eligibility rule.

John Fritch
SMS

>
>Bear

>From  Tue Nov  9 15:01:23 1999
Message-Id: <TUE.9.NOV.1999.150123.EST.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 49264 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 15:01:58
 -0500
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 PAA16916 for
 <EDEBATE at list.uvm.edu>; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 15:01:57 -0500
Received: from AKing50 at aol.com by imo21.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id
 nOEIa28828 (6397) for <EDEBATE at list.uvm.edu>; Tue, 9 Nov 1999
 15:01:24 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 41
Message-ID: <0.4ecfb3ee.2559d793 at aol.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 15:01:23 EST
Reply-To: AKing50 at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Tony King <AKing50 at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: novice/jv amendment

With all due respect,
I don't see how it prevents attending Phi Rho Pi, I don't believe it has any
such rule about attending NDT and Phi Rho Pi in the same year, or even a
previous year that would prevent this, as evidenced by Community Colleges
that have done both.  While I do believe that it would apply to what Joe was
referring to with NDT quals and JV nats, but it doesn't change Phi Rho Pi
that i know of.  If so, please show me how.  Sincerely,
Tony King
Los Rios CC Debate

In a message dated 11/9/99 10:13:55 AM Pacific Standard Time,
MWBRYANT at AOL.COM writes:

<< Ok, here's a problem I see with the new eligibility rule:

 It effectively discourages community colleges from taking part in NDT
 qualification efforts. If they do qualify, their debaters are no longer
 eligible for JV competition, which constitutes the major focus of most CC
 programs. They couldn't even go to CC Nats, which occurs after NDT.

 This may sound like a "so what?" but as Chair of District 9, I can tell you
 it probably means the difference between being able to conduct an
 NDT-qualification tournament and not being able to hold one, at least here in
 the Mountain region.

 Why would people in NDT (Terry says they were from ADA) want to
 disenfranchise community college programs in such a manner?

 Bear
  >>

>From  Tue Nov  9 15:13:23 1999
Message-Id: <TUE.9.NOV.1999.151323.EST.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 49728 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 15:14:01
 -0500
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 PAA17126 for
 <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 15:13:58 -0500
Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo25.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id
 nSLEa06707 (3869); Tue, 9 Nov 1999 15:13:23 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 26
Message-ID: <0.c67db54d.2559da63 at aol.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 15:13:23 EST
Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Michael Bear Bryant <MWBRYANT at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: novice/jv amendment
Comments: To: AKing50 at aol.com

In a message dated 11/9/99 1:00:35 PM Mountain Standard Time, AKing50 writes:

> With all due respect,
>  I don't see how it prevents attending Phi Rho Pi, I don't believe it has
any
> such rule about attending NDT and Phi Rho Pi in the same year, or even a
> previous year that would prevent this, as evidenced by Community Colleges
> that have done both.  While I do believe that it would apply to what Joe
was
> referring to with NDT quals and JV nats, but it doesn't change Phi Rho Pi
> that i know of.  If so, please show me how.  Sincerely,
>  Tony King
>  Los Rios CC Debate

What it does is prevent CEDA from counting the junior points earned after NDT
qualification tournaments in late February, eg, Towson, JCCC, DSR-TKA Junior
Div, Phi Rho Pi, and possibly few others. Since most CCs rely on point
standing for critical PR purposes, why would they send any junior-point
eligible students to an NDT District qualifier and risk access to critical
post-season points?
With all due respect,
MW Bryant

>From  Tue Nov  9 15:32:39 1999
Message-Id: <TUE.9.NOV.1999.153239.EST.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 50111 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 15:33:16
 -0500
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 PAA18398 for
 <EDEBATE at list.uvm.edu>; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 15:33:14 -0500
Received: from BERCHNORTO at aol.com by imo23.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id
 nPCMa21164 (3958) for <EDEBATE at list.uvm.edu>; Tue, 9 Nov 1999
 15:32:40 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 64
Message-ID: <0.15b4745d.2559dee7 at aol.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 15:32:39 EST
Reply-To: BERCHNORTO at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Neil Berch <BERCHNORTO at AOL.COM>
Subject: It's all my fault

Yes, it's all my fault.  I'm the Director at one of those evil ADA schools
(though our fall schedule includes 4 ADA tournaments, plus Richmond,
Rochester, App. St., and Wake--what is an ADA school?).  Despite being part
of the evil cabal operated by Jerry Falwell, I would have voted AGAINST the
change had I been at NCA.  But I'm a political scientist, so why would I go
to NCA?  I thought of sending Greg a proxy no vote, but I was too lazy.
Besides, I knew the change had no chance of passing (if only the students in
my Parties and Elections class could hear me now!).  Still, I would have gone
to the trouble of voting no if I had known that the resolution would take
effect immediately.  That's unfair in a variety of ways.  Indeed, when I read
Greg's post on Saturday night, my first thought was the same as one expressed
by Andy Ellis.  I wondered whether I had sent any novices to Binghamton who
had lost their novice eligibility while there (actually, that's impossible
since Binghamton used the ADA novice definition; there could conceivably have
been a problem for someone in JV).  And I certainly would have taken the time
to send in a proxy if I'd heard the powerful arguments from District 9.  I'm
guessing that those folks didn't make those arguments on the list before the
vote, because they didn't think this had a chance to pass (either that or I
missed them).

Here's the thing:  at the novice level, not very many people are affected.  I
know, because I've had to keep track of two types of eligibility all along.
I started the year with one experienced debater who was eligible for novice
in ADA and CEDA.  She'd had 20 rounds last year, but burnt no eligibility for
CEDA purposes (one tournament one semester and two in the other).  She was
over the limit for ADA (their rule is 18 rounds; I certainly hope this will
be changed now--in fact, I wish that would be immediate as well), but she'd
never broken.  She broke in her first two tournaments this year.  Thus, she
lost her ADA eligibility.  On Saturday night, I had to count her rounds again
(by the way, we're so honest that I'm counting two rounds she debated at Navy
before her partner got sick; those rounds aren't even in the cum sheet)
before determining that she is still eligible under CEDA rules.  Certainly,
not everyone had such a lucky outcome, but I really think few debaters are
involved in this direction.  On the other hand, some debaters who had a full
year of novice with little or no competitive success can now return to
novice.  Certainly, at the JV level there are greater implications, but again
it will work both ways (some will get an extra year of JV eligibility unless
they make it to three finals).  I think the NDT provision and the JV
Nationals provision are both problematic as explained by others in numerous
posts (and yes, those both do come from ADA rules).

So, for most people, I don't think we're talking about major impacts.
Indeed, I would venture to guess that, the protestations of Mr. Ellis not
withstanding, very few if any Vermont debaters will be impacted.  HOWEVER,
THERE ARE A FEW PROGRAMS AND REGIONS THAT WILL BE HURT QUITE SEVERELY.  That,
and the problems caused by immediate implementation, do make this a bad
decision.  They also certainly point toward the use of mail ballots to
overcome lazy people like me.
With regret,
Neil Berch
West Virginia University
P.S.  Before anyone jumps on the ADA's case too much, they ought to note the
49 novice teams entered at Liberty this weekend.  And to return to that
thread, I note that James Madison, Wake Forest, and Pittsburgh (all of whom
have national varsity programs) are debuting (between them) 13 or 14 novice
teams.  You can do both!



From rchurch  Tue Nov  9 14:38:16 1999
From: rchurch (Russell Church)
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 14:38:16 -0600
Subject: Berube Was Right!
Message-ID: <TUE.9.NOV.1999.143816.0600.RCHURCH@MTSU.EDU>

I bet everyone looks at this.  Berube suggested at NCA CEDA meeting that
we needed to convene a quick committee to fix the problems in the new
novice eligibility rule.  We should have followed his advice.  The new
rule immediately disqualifies a lot of novices who planned this year
under the existing rules.   We need to fix this and fix this fast.

There is enough concern and votes to petition for either repealing this
amendment immediately or doing other things that would make our ADA
friends very unhappy.  The votes are there and petitions are now being
prepared.

However, I encourage some of the ADA leaders or reps and CEDA executive
council members to meet on line and fix this fast.  I suggest this needs
to happen now.  I will be glad to help in any small or big way.

I DO HOPE THAT OUR ADA FRIENDS WILL HAVE THE SAME PASSION AND COMPASSION
FOR ALL THE STUDENTS WHO ARE IMMEDIATELY DISFRANCHISED AND TRYING TO
DEBATE IN CEDA TOURNAMENTS THIS WEEKEND.




 Regards,

 Russell Church
 Chair
 Speech & Theatre
 Voice:  615-898-2640
 Fax:  615-898-5826

 Cell phone:  615-579-6914

 DO RESEARCH ON LEXIS NEXIS UNIVERSE!
 http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe

 SPEECH & THEATRE
 http://www.mtsu.edu/~libarts/claspeechtheat.html

 VISIT THE MTSU DEBATE TEAM HOME PAGE!
 http://www.mtsu.edu/~debate/

 MID-SOUTH DEBATE INSTITUTE
 http://www.mtsu.edu/~msdi

 SEARCHING FOR GRAD PROGRAMS IN COMMUNICATION STUDIES
 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 PROGRAMS
 http://www.mtsu.edu/~libarts/africanamerican.html



From mkrueger  Tue Nov  9 14:35:24 1999
From: mkrueger (Krueger)
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 14:35:24 -0600
Subject: novice/jv amendment
References: <0.6254f6d5.2559b502@aol.com>
Message-ID: <TUE.9.NOV.1999.143524.0600.MKRUEGER@FRANK.MTSU.EDU>

Bear--

I think you make my point.
Explained below.

MWBRYANT at aol.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 11/9/99 10:05:05 AM Mountain Standard Time,
> mkrueger at FRANK.MTSU.EDU writes:
>
> >
> >  Does this mean that NO ONE is eligible for Junior Varsity?  Does this
> >  mean the amendment is flawed?  I would argue that it is and should be
> >  tossed out since it effectively eliminates Junior Varsity debate.
> >
> >  My two cents.
> >
> >  mike
>
> Well, obviously, your interpretation is flawed if no one is left eligible for
> JV.

My point exactly.  It COULD be interpreted that way.  I know what the
authors of the amendment meant, but that means nothing.  as I
backchanneled to one of the authors,

"i know and fully understand the INTENT of the rule.  I just find it to
be assinine.
The NDT is NOT affiliated with CEDA, except that it CAN BE (but is not
generally) sanctioned.  Thus, it makes absolutely no sense to have a
qualification based on a tournament that is solely affiliated with
another organization."

and

"Also, there are qualifications outlined in the CEDA constitution, and
those are that "students are in good standing."

My point is that this amendment is poorly worded and makes little sense
in terms of its application.  I KNOW the intent, but when interpreting
an amendment, everything needs to be clearly laid out so there is no
confusion.  In a constitution, there must be internal consistency to
pretect the integrity of the constitution."

Since this is the case, and the executive council has the ability to
interpret the constitution and by-laws (as is explained in the
constitution), then they could look at the internal integrity and
consistency for what constitutes the "National Debate Tournament."

Remember, the "National Debate Tournament" appears nowhere in the
constitution, but the term "National CEDA Tournament" and "National
Tournament" appear several times.  When gauging meaning, the executive
council could interpret it the way that I have outlined above, which
means the amendment is flawed in the way that it is worded.

Since the rule change says "the National Debate Tournament," it clearly
> is specific to one tournament,

Why?  It (the NDT) isn't in the constitution, it occurs often after ceda
nats, thus making it ineligible for sanctioning.  Other tournaments have
"National Debate Tournament" attached to it in official documents (such
as official calendars) or at least close (and I had forgotten Phi Rho
Pi, PKD, and DSR-TKA), and those tournaments are sanctioned, so they
have even closer ties to CEDA than the NDT.

If you are looking for interpretation by the Exec Council, it seems
entirely reasonable they ignore intent and look at the integrity and
internal consistency of current documents.

It ain't my fault a poorly worded amendment made it through.

And, the argument that it makes JV go away so it must be a bad
interpretation is wrong--it just means that an interpretation exists--in
my eyes that is superior because of the reasons articulated above--which
precludes JV debate.


which we all know is ran by another
> organization. Notice that NDT is capitalized, supporting my interpretation of
> specificity.

Yes and "National CEDA Tournament" and "National Tournament" are
capitalized in the CEDA constitution and they are capitalized on the
sanctioning documents.  So?
Like I said, I know what it meant, but I also know that there is no
mention of the NDT (the one associated with AFA) mentioned in CEDA
documents.  For the purposes of CEDA, that tournament DOES NOT EVEN
EXIST.

By the way, since that tournament doesn't exist, and results don't have
to go to the exec sec., and since qualifiers don't have to go to the
exec sec, how is it enforced?
Yet another part of the bumbling effort.  It wasn't accounted for and
not required in the amendment.

No one has ever called CEDA Nationals the NDT. Why do you think
> the name "NDT" represents CEDA Nats?

I don't think that it does.  I think that it could be.
there is a difference between COMMUNITY interpretation and
interpretation of the CONSTITUTION.  My argument is that when examining
the constitution and the other documents, the "National Debate
Tournament" sponsored by the AFA is largely if not wholely irrelevent.

Which CEDA Nats tournament has ever
> required "qualification"?

Eligibility, my friend.  A student in good standing is the only
qualification.
and remember, qualification doesn't exist in the CEDA world and in CEDA
documentation.
Heck, it didn't use to say that in the constitution, right?  that is why
documentation of being a student in good standing is required with
entry.




>
> Bear


Perhaps I might be picking a nit, but when eligibility is partially
determined by attending a tournament that doesn't exist in the CEDA
world...  well, that makes no sense to me.

The amendment has other flaws in my humble opinion--  for example, a
novice last weekend that might no longer be a novice (since no
"grandfathering,"), the advantage that novice college debaters have over
high school debaters (no exceptions for people that competed the exact
same amount of time in high school), and so on.  This one just happens
to functionally be inconsistent with the constitution, and therefore,
imho, should be abandoned.

There might be some good things we could do to change the definition of
novice and jv, but this ain't one of them.

my $.05

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 Nov  9 15:48:36 1999
Message-Id: <TUE.9.NOV.1999.154836.EST.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 50546 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 15:49:12
 -0500
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 PAA19790 for
 <EDEBATE at list.uvm.edu>; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 15:49:10 -0500
Received: from AKing50 at aol.com by imo12.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id
 nEIYa09282 (6397) for <EDEBATE at list.uvm.edu>; Tue, 9 Nov 1999
 15:48:36 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 41
Message-ID: <0.c0d73f91.2559e2a4 at aol.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 15:48:36 EST
Reply-To: AKing50 at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Tony King <AKing50 at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: novice/jv amendment

In a message dated 11/9/99 12:14:23 PM Pacific Standard Time,
MWBRYANT at AOL.COM writes:

<< What it does is prevent CEDA from counting the junior points earned after
NDT
 qualification tournaments in late February, eg, Towson, JCCC, DSR-TKA Junior
 Div, Phi Rho Pi, and possibly few others. Since most CCs rely on point
 standing for critical PR purposes, why would they send any junior-point
 eligible students to an NDT District qualifier and risk access to critical
 post-season points?
 With all due respect,
 MW Bryant
  >>>>>>>>>>>>

First, your claim of MOST community colleges pointing to CEDA points would be
incorrect.  While it might apply to CEU, it doesn't apply to many that I know
of.  Most that I know of don't live off of debate focus, they may have debate
teams, but their budgets come from overall points, not debate focused.
Second, those points are within Phi Rho Pi, or in reference to nationals and
the awards they bring home.  Their administrations, generally, care about the
tournament trophies and Phi Rho Pi national medals, though i realize a couple
of them deviate, many don't.  Third, if it doesn't prevent their Phi Rho Pi
eligibility, which it doesn't, why would it stop most of the Community
colleges from making districts??  I realize that CEU, as Joe pointed to,
would ruin JV Nats for them, but still wouldn't stop Phi Rho Pi.
Besides, aren't only teams who are willing to go to the NDT supposed to be at
Quals??  If they aren't planning on going to the NDT, what is their purpose
in going to quals??  I realize this happens in many regions, but bringing
teams to quals that aren't planning on going to the NDT doesn't sound ethical
within the bounds of my understanding of who is supposed to be there, ie,
teams that are going to go if they make it.  Could that be a method of
bumping more teams in that wouldn't normally make it??  For example, if
district X would normally get 4 bids, but you throw in 5 CC teams, giving it
6 bids (hypothetically), now say 3 of those teams qualify, so 3 of 6 would be
CC teams, and they don't go, so the bids slide down in the region, so teams
7-9 would be going to the NDT.  Any way you look at it, at least 2 teams that
wouldnt' have gone before, go now.
In some regions, more bids are needed than others.  Face it, some regions are
tougher than others, and that even changes from year to year, so it is hard
to say which regions get screwed until after bids are given out.
That doesn't hurt the Community Colleges at all, it hurts the university
teams that want to go to the NDT, so call it for what it is.  It does hurt
your district as far as NDT quals goes, yes, but in general, for most
community colleges, it doesn't hurt them at all.
Peace,
Tony King
Los Rios CC Debate



From hansonjb  Tue Nov  9 14:58:27 1999
From: hansonjb (Jim Hanson)
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 12:58:27 -0800
Subject: change CEDA votes to balloting
In-Reply-To: <199911091635.IAA24307@marcus.whitman.edu>
Message-ID: <TUE.9.NOV.1999.125827.0800.HANSONJB@WHITMAN.EDU>

john

responses below.

-----Original Message-----
From: John Fritch [mailto:jef229f at mail.smsu.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 1999 8:40 AM
To: Jim Hanson; EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU
Subject: Re: change CEDA votes to balloting


A couple of questions...

1.  Why would business meetings continue to exist?
--------purely to discuss issues; i think its fair to say their perceived
value would be pretty minimal and attendance would probably fizzle even
more. if important projects and issues are advanced for the meetings, then
attendance will match how compelling they are.

2.  The amendment calls for the amendment to be mailed out within 5 days of
receipt.  Is that a little extreme?  It seems as if this would make amending
the Constitution/Bylaws an almost never-ending procedure, and, if timed
right, could probably attract less than 10% of the voters.  Send it in so
that the 21 days will end about the time of CEDA Nationals or the New Year.
-----------i'm honestly confused by this. the executive-secretary would be
given 10 days after the last day of the tournament/nca meeting to mail out
the ballot. also, if you are referring to the section where people can
submit amendments at times other than around the nca/nationals time period;
that rule already exists in the current constitution although with different
deadlines. could you explain what you mean by this? i don't want to make
turnaround times difficult.

3.  Are there any other organizations that change their Bylaws by mail
ballot?  It doesn't seem unusual to me that an organization has different
rules for changing bylaws and the constitution.
-----------don't know about this; however, i am also suggesting that npda do
the same.

I guess my point is just that this is NOT an easy procedure to rectify no
matter how we try to go about it.  Lots of people don't vote in the topic
selection process.  And, the necessarily static nature of the mail ballot
frightens me a bit.
John Fritch
SMS
-------------agreed that the business meeting approach has value but not
when so few members show up; the current process disenfranchises too many
people and the listserv is a pretty robust arena for discussion.

jim hanson
whitman college

----------
>From: Jim Hanson <hansonjb at WHITMAN.EDU>
>To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU
>Subject: change CEDA votes to balloting
>Date: Mon, Nov 8, 1999, 5:23 PM
>

>I plan to submit a proposal to remove voting on amendments and Bylaws
>changes at the national business meetings and switch it to by ballot. Its
>rationale is:
>1. People are confused about when and how the process of making amendments
>and changing Bylaws occur.
>2. Many people do not and cannot attend the national business meetings.
>Proxies are confusing and people do not use them.
>3. The current rules allow just 12 voting members present to constitute a
>quorum at business meetings; as a result, less than 10% of the membership
>can make decisions affecting the entire organization.
>4. People want to be able to vote and provide their input on important
>issues. This proposal makes every effort to encourage this.
>
>I encourage you to read this proposal and I welcome comments and
suggestions
>on this proposal. I plan to submit it for the business meeting at CEDA
>Nationals with the hope that it will be the last business meeting at which
>we vote and that it will increase the openness and accessibility of our
>organization.
>
>jim hanson
>whitman college
>hansonjb at whitman.edu
>
>-----------
>ARTICLE IV: Section 10; Subsection J. shall be deleted and changed.
>
>Current:
>J. The Executive Council should refrain from making decisions which can or
>should be made by a general business meeting or a general vote of the
>membership.
>
>Change to:
>J. The Executive Council should refrain from making decisions that can or
>should be made by a vote of the membership.
>
>-------------
>ARTICLE V: Section 2 and Section 3 shall be changed.
>
>Current:
>Section 2. Nominations shall be submitted by the Nominating Committee at
the
>first annual business meeting of the Association, at which time additional
>nominations for any office may be submitted by any member present.
>Section 3. No later than 30 days after a business meeting, the Executive
>Secretary shall submit to the membership by mail or email a ballot
>containing the names of all nominees. Members will vote for national
>officers and the representative of their particular region. Ballots may be
>returned to the Executive Secretary by mail, email or fax. Phone balloting
>will not be accepted. Balloting shall cease at midnight, 30 days after
>submission of the ballot. A plurality of ballots returned will elect. In
the
>event of a tie between the two leading contenders for an office, their
names
>shall be resubmitted to the membership.
>
>Change to:
>Section 2. Nominations may be submitted to the Nominating Committee at any
>time prior to and including during the business meeting at the National
>Tournament.
>Section 3. No later than 10 days after the last day of the National
>Tournament, the Executive Secretary shall submit to the membership by mail,
>email, fax, and/or web site a ballot containing the names of all nominees.
>Members will vote for national officers and the representative of their
>particular region. Ballots may be returned to the Executive Secretary by
>mail, email or fax. Phone balloting will not be accepted. Balloting shall
>cease at midnight, 21 days after the ballot has been sent. A plurality of
>ballots returned will elect. In the event of a tie between the two leading
>contenders for an office, their names shall be resubmitted to the
membership
>within ten days of the posting of election results for a vote whose
>balloting shall cease at midnight 21 days after the ballot has been sent.
>
>----------
>ARTICLE VII: ANNUAL BUSINESS MEETINGS OF THE ASSOCIATION
>This title and its Section 1 through 9 shall be deleted and changed.
>
>Current:
>ARTICLE VII: ANNUAL BUSINESS MEETINGS OF THE ASSOCIATION
>Section 1. Members attending the annual business meetings of the
Association
>constitute its governing body. Changes to the Bylaws may be made at annual
>business meetings. Between business meetings, the Executive Council will
>make such rules as are necessary to support the purposes of the
Association.
>Actions of the Executive Council will have the force of Bylaws. Members
will
>be notified of the Executive Council's actions and at the next business
>meeting will have the opportunity to approve or reject continuation of
those
>rules.
>Section 2. Business meetings shall be held annually at the fall national
>convention of the National Communication Association and at the
>Association's National Tournament. The Executive Secretary will give
members
>ample notice of the times and places of these meetings.
>Section 3. Each regular or affiliate member institution will have one vote.
>Section 4. In order to conduct any business other than hearing and
>discussing reports, a quorum of representatives of at least 12 institutions
>must be personally present (proxy votes do not count for a quorum).
>Section 5. Proxy voting at business meetings will be allowed under the
>following conditions
>A? The Executive Secretary will distribute with the agendas for the
national
>business meetings a proxy form for each business item that requires a vote
>of the membership;
>B, Members who do not attend the business meetings may complete, sign and
>send these forms to the national meetings with another voting member,
>C. No member institution may vote more than five proxies in addition to its
>own vote;
>D. Proxy votes are to be submitted to the President at the start of each
>business meeting. The President will count only those proxy ballots that
are
>complete and signed .
>E. Proxy votes apply to main motions but not secondary motions,
>F. In the event that successful amendments to a main motion substantially
>alter its intent, the President may rule that proxies are void.
>Section 6. If a quorum exists at the business meeting, members (and proxy
>voters)
>may modify the Bylaws by majority vote. Proposed amendments to the
>constitution will be discussed and if they receive a majority vote of
>members (and proxy voters), they will be submitted to the entire membership
>by mail, at which time they will require a two?thirds vote to pass.
>Section 7. The presiding officer at a business meeting will be entitled to
>vote as the representative of his/her institution.
>Section 8. Any vote that results in a tie will be considered to have failed
>and the
>President will not vote to break ties
>Section 9. Parliamentary authority for the organization will be Robert's
>Rules of Order
>Newly Revised.
>
>change to:
>ARTICLE VII: BUSINESS MEETINGS OF THE ASSOCIATION
>Section 1. Business Discussion Meetings shall occur at the National
>Communication Association and the Association~Rs National Tournament.
>Section 2. The Executive Secretary will give members ample notice of the
>times and places of these meetings.
>Section 3. These meetings shall provide opportunities for discussing but
not
>voting on changes to the CEDA constitution and Bylaws, projects, and other
>issues important to the CEDA organization.
>Section 4. Members should submit their request for a discussion on such
>issues to the Executive Secretary 21 days before these meetings occur to
>ensure that the item will be included in the meeting agenda. However, any
>issue may be raised during remaining new business time during the meeting.
>
>-------------
>ARTICLE VIII: AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION AND BYLAWS
>This article shall be deleted and replaced.
>
>Current:
>ARTICLE VIII: AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION AND BYLAWS
>
>Section 1. Amendments to the Constitution
>A. An amendment to the Constitution may be initiated by any member school.
>B. Amendments to the Constitution must be submitted to the Executive
>Secretary
>30 days prior to a business meeting to be discussed at that meeting, The
>Executive Secretary will communicate proposed amendments to the membership
>no later than 15 days prior to the business meeting
>C. A majority vote of the schools represented at the business meeting will
>be necessary for a proposed constitutional amendment to be sent to the
>membership;
>D. Within 10 days following the business meeting, the Executive Secretary
>will distribute by mail or email a ballot containing all proposed
>constitutional amendments. Balloting will cease at midnight 30 days after
>the date of the business meeting;
>E. Constitutional amendments require a two?thirds vote by school
>representatives voting by mail, email, or fax.
>
>Section 2. Amendment to the Bylaws
>A. An amendment to the Bylaws may be initiated by any member school;
>B. Amendments to the Bylaws must be submitted to the Executive Secretary no
>later than 30 days prior to a business meeting to be considered at that
>meeting. The Executive Secretary will communicate proposed amendments to
the
>membership no later than 15 days prior to the business meeting;
>C. Bylaw amendments require a majority vote by school representatives and
>proxies voting at the business meeting.
>
>Section 3. Alternative Amendment Procedures for the Constitution and Bylaws
>A. An amendment may be proposed by a two?thirds vote of the Executive
>Council or by a petition of 5% of the current CEDA membership to the CEDA
>Executive Secretary and the CEDA President.
>B. The proposed amendment shay be distributed to the membership. Members
>will have 30 days to send comments on the proposed amendment to the
>Executive Secretary.
>C. Within 45 days of the publication of the proposed amendment, the
>Executive Secretary will mail a ballot to the membership containing a copy
>of the proposed amendment, along with a summary of the arguments for and
>against the amendment. The author of the amendment will have the
opportunity
>to submit the reasons for the amendment and the President may designate an
>individual to outline objections to the amendment. Both of these
individuals
>shall have access to the comments received by the Executive Secretary.
>Balloting will cease at midnight 30 days after the ballots were
distributed.
>Revised October 1998
>D. A three?fourths vote of all members voting will be required to enact an
>amendment initiated under this section.
>E. A majority of the Executive Council may vote to exclude the time period
>from the conclusion of the CEDA National Tournament until July 1 from the
>time period in items B and C of this Section.
>
>Change to:
>ARTICLE VIII: AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION AND BYLAWS
>Section 1. Members are encouraged to post their proposals for changes to
the
>constitution and Bylaws to listservs, web pages, and other arenas that the
>CEDA community accesses before submission to the Executive Secretary so
that
>discussion and improvement of the proposal can occur.
>Section 2. Members should submit their proposals to the Executive
Secretary.
>Any suggested amendments or Bylaw changes submitted to the Executive
>Secretary as of the date of the Business Discussion Meeting shall be placed
>on the ballot.
>Section 3. The Executive Secretary shall provide notice via email and/or
web
>posting within the 7 days prior to the Business Discussion Meeting stating
>the deadline for acceptance of amendments and changes to the Bylaws.
>Section 4. The Executive Secretary shall distribute the ballot including
all
>amendments and Bylaw changes to CEDA members via email, fax, regular mail,
>and/or web posting within ten days after the last day of the NCA fall
>convention and within ten days after the last day of the National CEDA
>Tournament.
>Section 5. Each regular or affiliate member institution and each student
>representative will have one vote.
>Section 6. Any vote modifying the Bylaws will require a majority vote of at
>least 25% of the paid membership to pass.
>Section 7. Any vote amending the constitution will require a 2/3 vote of at
>least 25% of the paid membership to pass.
>Section 8. Paid membership numbers shall be counted as of the last day of
>the balloting.
>Section 9. Any CEDA executive shall be entitled to vote as the
>representative of his/her institution.
>Section 10. Any vote that results in a tie will be considered to have
failed
>and the President will not break ties.
>Section 11. All balloting will cease at midnight 21 days after the ballot
is
>distributed.
>Section 12. The Executive Secretary shall provide notice of the deadline
for
>acceptance of ballots within the 7 days prior to the deadline.
>Section 13. The Executive Council shall make such rules as are necessary to
>support the purposes of the Association. Actions of the Executive Council
>will have the force of Bylaws. Members will be notified of the Executive
>Council~Rs actions and at the next vote will have the opportunity to approve
>or reject the continuation of those rules by submitting a Bylaw change.
>Section 14. Alternative Amendment Procedures for the Constitution and
Bylaws
>A. An amendment may be proposed by a two-thirds vote of the Executive
>Council or by a petition of 5% of the current CEDA membership to the CEDA
>Executive Secretary and the CEDA President.
>B. The proposed amendment shall be sent to the membership within 10 days of
>its receipt.
>C. Any vote using this election method that modifies the Bylaws will
require
>a majority vote of at least 50% of the paid membership to pass.
>D. Any vote using this election method that amends the constitution will
>require a 2/3 vote of at least 50% of the paid membership to pass.
>E. Paid membership numbers shall be counted as of the last day of the
>balloting.
>F. Any CEDA executive shall be entitled to vote as the representative of
>his/her institution.
>G. Any vote that results in a tie will be considered to have failed and the
>President will not break ties.
>H. Balloting will cease at midnight 21 days after the ballots were
>distributed.
>I. A majority of the Executive Council may vote to exclude the time period
>from the conclusion of the CEDA National Tournament until July 1 from the
>time period in items B and H of this section.



From jhovden  Tue Nov  9 15:06:51 1999
From: jhovden (Jan Hovden)
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 15:06:51 -0600
Subject: Judging at UCO
Message-ID: <TUE.9.NOV.1999.150651.0600.JHOVDEN@UCOK.EDU>

We are a little tight on judging for UCO right now.  If anyone is
willing to hire for extra rounds would you please e-mail me.  We pay
$20.00 a round.

Jan



From West  Tue Nov  9 15:29:25 1999
From: West (Terry West)
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 14:29:25 -0700
Subject: JV/ Novice
Message-ID: <TUE.9.NOV.1999.142925.0700.WEST@SUU.EDU>

According to the ADA/NDT block, abuse of novice and jv divisions in CEDA is rampant and widespread.  Of course, no evidence was given in support of this.  There was only the claim that if we didn't knuckle under to this rule change, ADA members wouldn't be able to keep supporting our tournaments.  That's unfortunate, but it seems they have now manipulated the system to play the same points game they decry in the old system.  Now they can keep a debater all four years and never advance them beyond jv and still get as many points as they want out of it.  Oh, eventually the debater might win enough to be forced into open, but it will take longer than it does in the West.

Interestingly, I seem to recall that one of the major proponents of using this change to save regional debate in the ADA area criticized my proposal for cutting CEDA points at quarters last Spring as "a regional program trying to tell the rest of us how to run out programs."  Hmph.

Terry West
Southern Utah

>>> Joe Carver <JoeCarver at AOL.COM> 11/09/99 12:21PM >>>
I have read with great interest the discussion about the new rules and the
more I read, the more narrow minded and abusive the rule becomes.
First,  some districts have been ravaged by nonpolicy debate meaning that a
perfectly average junior team may qualify for the NDT.
Secondly, the reward for many of my students here at the College of Eastern
Utah is the Junior National Tournament.  It is a genuine reflection of the
distance that they have travelled and improvements that they have made in the
course of the year.  Now the reward for this labor - regardless of the degree
of success that it has been met with yearlong and solely on the evidence of a
district tournament - is to deprive them of the opportunity to win a "junior
national championship."  It seems clear that the smart choice for a program
like us is to skip the NDT qualifier.  As a result the new rule acts as an
incentive to avoid an educating experience.
Thirdly,  who are these inherent abusers of the eligibility rule?  I don't
know a debater or coach who has dreamt of toiling in junior long beyond their
required time for the sake of a few hollow wins.  I would think that programs
like ours would be the most likely offenders and yet half of my policy squad
competes solely in Open.
The new rule may throw a wrench into the maniacal plans of the habitual rule
violators but it seems to have prioritized addressing these folks at my
students cost.
Joseph Carver
CEU Debate



From West  Tue Nov  9 15:35:10 1999
From: West (Terry West)
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 14:35:10 -0700
Subject: novice/jv amendment
Message-ID: <TUE.9.NOV.1999.143510.0700.WEST@SUU.EDU>

Lack of clarity on my part.  I never meant to insinuate that CEDA nats was covered by the amendment.  Someone asked why it wasn't discussed.  My point was, and is, that this was an amendment by and for ADA and NDT based on the desires of a particular region and the rest of the country be damned.

Terry

>>> Michael Bear Bryant <MWBRYANT at AOL.COM> 11/09/99 10:52AM >>>
Terry,

The National Debate Tournament, ran by the NDT Committee, is the only one
that students "qualify" for, undercutting your analysis on why CEDA Nats is
covered by the Amendment. Claiming that a simple entry means the same as
"qualifies" also seems a logical leap. Grammatically, the capitalization of
"THE" is not required to denote a specific tournament.

Though I don't agree with your interpretation of the amendment, I greatly
respect your analysis on why CEDA should not be using NDT as a criteria for
any definition of eligibility.  Can someone who defended this concept please
explain why mixing two different organizations in this manner is a desirable
idea? Fritch, you said you supported - why?

Bear

In a message dated 11/9/99 10:39:47 AM Mountain Standard Time, West at SUU.EDU
writes:

>
>  Uh, i am curious why there would be eligibility stipulations based on
>  the "National Debate Tournament" and what that "National Debate
>  Tournament" would be.
>
>  All debaters are eligible for the "National Debate Tournament" as far
>  as
>  I am concerned and as far as CEDA is concerned.  The only National
>  Debate Tournament is CEDA Nationals, which all persons can compete in.
>  Remember, the NDT is associated with the AFA, which CEDA has an
>  affiliation with, but is not part and parcel of.
>
>  The other national debate tournaments--including "Novice Nationals"
>  hosted by Northwestern and "Novice Nationals" hosted by Towson
>  University, the "Junior Varsity National Debate Tournaments" hosted by
>  Johnson County and Towson, and ADA Nationals--also seem to undermine
>  this amendment.  Since all are in the same vein as the NDT--not a CEDA
>  National tournament but one that can gain sanctioning by the CEDA
>  organization, it seems to mean that once someone "qualifies" i.e.
>  enters, they are no longer eligble to compete in Junior Varsity.  And,
>  especially since "the" isn't capitalized, I see no reason to view the
>  amendment interpretation to be THE NDT

>From  Tue Nov  9 16:38:26 1999
Message-Id: <TUE.9.NOV.1999.163826.EST.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 51576 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 16:39:04
 -0500
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 QAA17246 for
 <EDEBATE at list.uvm.edu>; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 16:39:02 -0500
Received: from BERCHNORTO at aol.com by imo24.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id
 nSIKa24235 (4073) for <EDEBATE at list.uvm.edu>; Tue, 9 Nov 1999
 16:38:26 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 64
Message-ID: <0.d6305b7b.2559ee52 at aol.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 16:38:26 EST
Reply-To: BERCHNORTO at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Neil Berch <BERCHNORTO at AOL.COM>
Subject: before y'all kill each other

Here's a suggestion that just might be in the interest of all our students:
What if the CEDA Executive Committee were to stay the implementation of this
rule until the end of the year?  Surely, there must be an emergency provision
that allows this to take place (perhaps if the proposers of the amendment
were to endorse a stay in the interests of the students who are harmed by
immediate implementation, that would help).  Then, someone could introduce an
amendment returning the eligibility rules to their status as of last week, it
could be voted on at the Business meeting in March after much thoughtful
debate, and democracy would prevail.  Everyone lives happily ever after (and
indeed, a compromise amendment could even be crafted).  Any chance?
--Neil Berch
West Virginia University

>From  Tue Nov  9 16:43:06 1999
Message-Id: <TUE.9.NOV.1999.164306.EST.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 51672 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 16:44:06
 -0500
Precedence: bulk
Received: from imo-d01.mx.aol.com (imo-d01.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.33]) by
 list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA13828 for
 <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 16:43:43 -0500
Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo-d01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id
 nZFL0HCaOA (3869); Tue, 9 Nov 1999 16:43:06 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 26
Message-ID: <0.134da400.2559ef6a at aol.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 16:43:06 EST
Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Michael Bear Bryant <MWBRYANT at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: novice/jv amendment
Comments: To: AKing50 at aol.com

In a message dated 11/9/99 1:49:41 PM Mountain Standard Time, AKing50 at AOL.COM
writes:

>
>  First, your claim of MOST community colleges pointing to CEDA points would
> be
>  incorrect.  While it might apply to CEU, it doesn't apply to many that I
> know
>  of.  Most that I know of don't live off of debate focus, they may have
> debate
>  teams, but their budgets come from overall points, not debate focused.

What are you talking about? I'm talking about CEDA points. CEU is enough of
an example for me. It would certainly deter them from attending the District
9 NDT Qualifier. You admit that, below.

>  Second, those points are within Phi Rho Pi, or in reference to nationals
and
>  the awards they bring home.  Their administrations, generally, care about
> the
>  tournament trophies and Phi Rho Pi national medals, though i realize a
> couple
>  of them deviate, many don't.  Third, if it doesn't prevent their Phi Rho Pi
>  eligibility, which it doesn't, why would it stop most of the Community
>  colleges from making districts??  I realize that CEU, as Joe pointed to,
>  would ruin JV Nats for them, but still wouldn't stop Phi Rho Pi.

Straw man fallacy. Didn't say it would stop any tournament. Just determines
which can count for CEDA junior eligibility. Ruining JV Nats for CEU isn't
bad enough? Not enough bodies on your flow, Tony?

>  Besides, aren't only teams who are willing to go to the NDT supposed to be
> at
>  Quals??  If they aren't planning on going to the NDT, what is their purpose
>  in going to quals??  I realize this happens in many regions, but bringing
>  teams to quals that aren't planning on going to the NDT doesn't sound
> ethical
>  within the bounds of my understanding of who is supposed to be there, ie,
>  teams that are going to go if they make it.  Could that be a method of
>  bumping more teams in that wouldn't normally make it??  For example, if
>  district X would normally get 4 bids, but you throw in 5 CC teams, giving
it
>  6 bids (hypothetically), now say 3 of those teams qualify, so 3 of 6 would
> be
>  CC teams, and they don't go, so the bids slide down in the region, so teams
>  7-9 would be going to the NDT.  Any way you look at it, at least 2 teams
> that
>  wouldnt' have gone before, go now.

Tony, watch my lips. You're an asshole. Nobody goes to the District 9
tournament just to puff up numbers. Everybody there wants to go to NDT.
Community colleges have made it to NDT, some have even debated in the elims
of NDT. If I wanted to guarantee my own team's slots out, as you so callously
infer, I'd do what Becky Bjork did for years and just not hold a tournament.
But, foolish me, I think a tournament with the major district teams (and CEU
is a major district squad) is a good idea. BTW, just to put your numbers on
current track, District Nine had eight teams at last year's tournament and
three slots out. If we lose the two CEU teams, we don't have enough for a
tournament and go to two slots or less.

>  In some regions, more bids are needed than others.  Face it, some regions
> are
>  tougher than others, and that even changes from year to year, so it is hard
>  to say which regions get screwed until after bids are given out.
>  That doesn't hurt the Community Colleges at all, it hurts the university
>  teams that want to go to the NDT, so call it for what it is.  It does hurt
>  your district as far as NDT quals goes, yes, but in general, for most
>  community colleges, it doesn't hurt them at all.

Why don't we call it for what it really is - you want District 9 slots to be
reallocated to California. Don't you realize that sending your teams to
districts just unethically pumps up the slots for USC and Fullerton? Out here
in the dying wasteland of District 9, we actually respect our CC colleagues.
We believe that their desire to attend NDT is just as "real" as some other
school calling themselves a "university." We don't think that placing CC's in
the doublebind of choosing between their CEDA points and attendance at NDT
does much to encourage them to stay in policy debate.

Why are you folks in California being so short-sighted? First you wipe out
district 9's biggest tournament - the GSL - and now you champion discouraging
CEU from allowing us to hold a district tournament.

Yes, some Districts do oscillate in toughness. Some, as Northwest NDT did for
over a decade, just die out. But to see the open inter-district tetesterone
wipe out an entire region would be a crime.

You can say peace, son, but you really ought to mean the word if you use it.
I don't think you do.

Bear

>  Peace,
>  Tony King
>  Los Rios CC Debate



From West  Tue Nov  9 15:54:14 1999
From: West (Terry West)
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 14:54:14 -0700
Subject: novice/jv amendment
Message-ID: <TUE.9.NOV.1999.145414.0700.WEST@SUU.EDU>

Let's see.  Fullerton declares war on the University of Utah to get back at a director of forensics who is no longer there.

Tony King declares war on CEU because. . .????

As District IX rep, I'm beginning to feel like Charlie Brown in the song, paraphrased as "Why's California always pickin' on us?"  C'mon, folks, y'all are doing fine!  Evidence-intensive debate has made a good comeback in California.  We've enjoyed traveling to Fresno, San Diego State, Pepperdine.  Will be at least at Long Beach; hopefully more this year.  Would like to do it in the future.  Why are y'all trying to kill us?  Don't you like us?  Did we offend?  I mean, really--what's the point in declaring war on people who are not your enemies?

Terry
SUU

>>> Michael Bear Bryant <MWBRYANT at AOL.COM> 11/09/99 02:43PM >>>
In a message dated 11/9/99 1:49:41 PM Mountain Standard Time, AKing50 at AOL.COM
writes:

>
>  First, your claim of MOST community colleges pointing to CEDA points would
> be
>  incorrect.  While it might apply to CEU, it doesn't apply to many that I
> know
>  of.  Most that I know of don't live off of debate focus, they may have
> debate
>  teams, but their budgets come from overall points, not debate focused.

What are you talking about? I'm talking about CEDA points. CEU is enough of
an example for me. It would certainly deter them from attending the District
9 NDT Qualifier. You admit that, below.

>  Second, those points are within Phi Rho Pi, or in reference to nationals
and
>  the awards they bring home.  Their administrations, generally, care about
> the
>  tournament trophies and Phi Rho Pi national medals, though i realize a
> couple
>  of them deviate, many don't.  Third, if it doesn't prevent their Phi Rho Pi
>  eligibility, which it doesn't, why would it stop most of the Community
>  colleges from making districts??  I realize that CEU, as Joe pointed to,
>  would ruin JV Nats for them, but still wouldn't stop Phi Rho Pi.

Straw man fallacy. Didn't say it would stop any tournament. Just determines
which can count for CEDA junior eligibility. Ruining JV Nats for CEU isn't
bad enough? Not enough bodies on your flow, Tony?

>  Besides, aren't only teams who are willing to go to the NDT supposed to be
> at
>  Quals??  If they aren't planning on going to the NDT, what is their purpose
>  in going to quals??  I realize this happens in many regions, but bringing
>  teams to quals that aren't planning on going to the NDT doesn't sound
> ethical
>  within the bounds of my understanding of who is supposed to be there, ie,
>  teams that are going to go if they make it.  Could that be a method of
>  bumping more teams in that wouldn't normally make it??  For example, if
>  district X would normally get 4 bids, but you throw in 5 CC teams, giving
it
>  6 bids (hypothetically), now say 3 of those teams qualify, so 3 of 6 would
> be
>  CC teams, and they don't go, so the bids slide down in the region, so teams
>  7-9 would be going to the NDT.  Any way you look at it, at least 2 teams
> that
>  wouldnt' have gone before, go now.

Tony, watch my lips. You're an asshole. Nobody goes to the District 9
tournament just to puff up numbers. Everybody there wants to go to NDT.
Community colleges have made it to NDT, some have even debated in the elims
of NDT. If I wanted to guarantee my own team's slots out, as you so callously
infer, I'd do what Becky Bjork did for years and just not hold a tournament.
But, foolish me, I think a tournament with the major district teams (and CEU
is a major district squad) is a good idea. BTW, just to put your numbers on
current track, District Nine had eight teams at last year's tournament and
three slots out. If we lose the two CEU teams, we don't have enough for a
tournament and go to two slots or less.

>  In some regions, more bids are needed than others.  Face it, some regions
> are
>  tougher than others, and that even changes from year to year, so it is hard
>  to say which regions get screwed until after bids are given out.
>  That doesn't hurt the Community Colleges at all, it hurts the university
>  teams that want to go to the NDT, so call it for what it is.  It does hurt
>  your district as far as NDT quals goes, yes, but in general, for most
>  community colleges, it doesn't hurt them at all.

Why don't we call it for what it really is - you want District 9 slots to be
reallocated to California. Don't you realize that sending your teams to
districts just unethically pumps up the slots for USC and Fullerton? Out here
in the dying wasteland of District 9, we actually respect our CC colleagues.
We believe that their desire to attend NDT is just as "real" as some other
school calling themselves a "university." We don't think that placing CC's in
the doublebind of choosing between their CEDA points and attendance at NDT
does much to encourage them to stay in policy debate.

Why are you folks in California being so short-sighted? First you wipe out
district 9's biggest tournament - the GSL - and now you champion discouraging
CEU from allowing us to hold a district tournament.

Yes, some Districts do oscillate in toughness. Some, as Northwest NDT did for
over a decade, just die out. But to see the open inter-district tetesterone
wipe out an entire region would be a crime.

You can say peace, son, but you really ought to mean the word if you use it.
I don't think you do.

Bear

>  Peace,
>  Tony King
>  Los Rios CC Debate

>From  Tue Nov  9 14:57:36 1999
Message-Id: <TUE.9.NOV.1999.145736.0700.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 51922 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 17:03:22
 -0500
Precedence: bulk
Received: from post1.inre.asu.edu (post1.inre.asu.edu [129.219.13.100]) by
 list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA17954 for
 <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 17:02:52 -0500
Received: from general5.asu.edu (general5.asu.edu [129.219.10.162]) by asu.edu
 (PMDF V5.2-31 #31135) with ESMTP id <0FKY002CRAC5SK at asu.edu> for
 EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue,  9 Nov 1999 14:57:41 -0700 (MST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by general5.asu.edu
 (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id OAA22955; Tue, 09 Nov 1999 14:57:37 -0700
 (MST)
X-Sender: mysore at general5.asu.edu
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.991109145336.789M-100000 at general5.asu.edu>
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 14:57:36 -0700
Reply-To: Jason.Jarvis at ASU.EDU
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Jason Jarvis <Jason.Jarvis at ASU.EDU>
Subject: Will there be a district tourney? (part 2)
Comments: To: Michael Bear Bryant <MWBRYANT at AOL.COM>
In-Reply-To: <0.60bb7668.2559be2c at aol.com>

Will District 9 be having a tournament?  I'd like to know so we can plan our
travel schedule. One of the 2 designated weekends conflicts with Heart...I
believe Weber and ASU (others?) have offerred to host the tournament.

Jason
Arizona State



> It effectively discourages community colleges from taking part in NDT
> qualification efforts. If they do qualify, their debaters are no longer
> eligible for JV competition, which constitutes the major focus of most CC
> programs. They couldn't even go to CC Nats, which occurs after NDT.
>
> This may sound like a "so what?" but as Chair of District 9, I can tell you
> it probably means the difference between being able to conduct an
> NDT-qualification tournament and not being able to hold one, at least here in
> the Mountain region.

>From  Tue Nov  9 17:02:51 1999
Message-Id: <TUE.9.NOV.1999.170251.EST.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 51952 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 17:03:56
 -0500
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 RAA16002 for
 <EDEBATE at list.uvm.edu>; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 17:03:36 -0500
Received: from Davismk13 at aol.com by imo20.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id
 nYHCa14357 (4232) for <EDEBATE at list.uvm.edu>; Tue, 9 Nov 1999
 17:02:52 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 41
Message-ID: <0.b813ff7e.2559f40b at aol.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 17:02:51 EST
Reply-To: Davismk13 at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Mike Davis <Davismk13 at AOL.COM>
Subject: CEDA Novice/ JV definition

It appears I did not send this to the whole list before.

In a message dated 11/7/99 3:58:17 PM Eastern Standard Time, West at SUU.EDU
writes:

<< These are good questions, but I'm not sure they're really for Greg.  The
ADA folks who pushed this through in a very small business meeting with lots
of proxy votes contend that these issues are not going to cause
interpretation problems for the Executive Secretary--that the ADA experience
proves that coaches will simply achieve understanding beforehand.  Perhaps
the proponents of the new definitions will answer the questions below?

 Terry West
 Southern Utah U

 >>> Jim Hanson <hansonjb at WHITMAN.EDU> 11/06/99 08:56PM >>>
 greg

 what does "An exception will be made for Junior Varsity national
 tournaments" mean? what constitutes a "jv national tournament?" examples:
 --u. southern california and long beach (which attract teams from all over)
 --lewis and clark (which, as i remember, attracted a few teams from the
 rockies and some teams from northern and mid california)

 additional question: for the tournaments that have the "exception," does
 that mean there is no longer a 2 year limitation on being in junior
 division, so, therefore anyone could be in junior division at those
 tournaments? >>

I am not going to get involved in the discussion about what occurred at NCA
since I was not there, but as one of the proponents of the amendment I will
explain how it came about.

At the CEDA summer conference I raised a concern that in the East many of the
benefits of a joint topic were being jeopardized because "CEDA" tournaments
were not able to be "ADA" sanctioned and vice versa. I pointed this out not
to change eligibility rules, but I wanted a ruling on whether or not CEDA
would continue to sanction ADA tournaments. This led to a discussion of why
we don't all use the same rules. Because Sam Nelson and myself raised the
concern and were most directly effected by it (out of those attending the
Summer Conference) we were charged by the executive council with trying to
unify the rules between the two organizations.

I hope this provides some background and I agree that there should be some
sort of mail ballot on the find amendment, but as I said I prefer not to get
involved in passage. We proposed this amendment since this is the forum
available for doing so. If the forum were different I would have proposed the
forum there.

On to Jim's questions. See Martin's answer about "JV Nationals".

As for the two year limit question. Debaters now get two years after there
novice eligibility is used up. This means that individuals who debated in
high school get two years of JV and individuals who didn't get one year of
novice and two years of high school.

I hope this helps and if you have any more questions I hope I can help,

Mike Davis

>From  Tue Nov  9 17:03:07 1999
Message-Id: <TUE.9.NOV.1999.170307.EST.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 51957 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 17:03:57
 -0500
Precedence: bulk
Received: from imo-d02.mx.aol.com (imo-d02.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.34]) by
 list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA20944 for
 <EDEBATE at list.uvm.edu>; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 17:03:53 -0500
Received: from JoeCarver at aol.com by imo-d02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id
 nNZSZNeEa_ (3966) for <EDEBATE at list.uvm.edu>; Tue, 9 Nov 1999
 17:03:07 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 243
Message-ID: <0.3cdd0963.2559f41b at aol.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 17:03:07 EST
Reply-To: JoeCarver at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Joe Carver <JoeCarver at AOL.COM>
Subject: JV Eligibility

I am in no way retracting my criticisms of the new rule but I want Professor
Bryant to rest assured that CEU will attend the District Qualifier.  You see,
 half of our debaters have already run out of junior eligibility thanks to
their performances at Fresno, SUU  and Pepperdine this fall.  I renew my
dsipleasure wit the rule but will happily fight hard for a chance to send my
kids to the NDT.

Joe Carver
CEU Debate

>From  Tue Nov  9 17:11:21 1999
Message-Id: <TUE.9.NOV.1999.171121.EST.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 52292 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 17:12:16
 -0500
Precedence: bulk
Received: from imo-d10.mx (imo-d10.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.42]) by list.uvm.edu
 (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA17264 for <eDebate at list.uvm.edu>; Tue,
 9 Nov 1999 17:12:11 -0500
Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo-d10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id
 vWDE0DiYWE (3869); Tue, 9 Nov 1999 17:11:21 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 26
Message-ID: <0.c6800f95.2559f609 at aol.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 17:11:21 EST
Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Michael Bear Bryant <MWBRYANT at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: Will there be a district tourney? (part 2)
Comments: To: Jason.Jarvis at asu.edu

In a message dated 11/9/99 2:57:56 PM Mountain Standard Time,
Jason.Jarvis at asu.edu writes:

>
>  Will District 9 be having a tournament?  I'd like to know so we can plan
our
>  travel schedule. One of the 2 designated weekends conflicts with Heart...I
>  believe Weber and ASU (others?) have offerred to host the tournament.
>
>  Jason
>  Arizona State

So far, the vote has been 3-2 in favor of the last weekend in February.
People seem open to any tournament location. I'm trying to convince Terry
West to host the tournament in Ceda City (we think we can convince them on
the name change ;-), since it seems to be the most centrally-located
position. Tempe is too far for us and Wyoming, and I can understand the vice
versa.

So, yes, we're planning a tournament, last weekend in February, probably at
SUU.

More details not available until January, which will still be earlier than
it's ever been in the last 12 years...

Calm down, Jason... Base cost projections on your recent SUU costs.

Bear

>From  Tue Nov  9 17:14:26 1999
Message-Id: <TUE.9.NOV.1999.171426.EST.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 52409 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 17:15:22
 -0500
Precedence: bulk
Received: from imo-d02.mx.aol.com (imo-d02.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.34]) by
 list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA21590 for
 <eDebate at list.uvm.edu>; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 17:15:21 -0500
Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo-d02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id
 nTWP5NHhk_ (3869); Tue, 9 Nov 1999 17:14:27 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 26
Message-ID: <0.ae78bed3.2559f6c2 at aol.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 17:14:26 EST
Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Michael Bear Bryant <MWBRYANT at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: JV Eligibility
Comments: To: JoeCarver at aol.com

In a message dated 11/9/99 3:05:57 PM Mountain Standard Time,
JoeCarver at AOL.COM writes:

> I am in no way retracting my criticisms of the new rule but I want Professor
>  Bryant to rest assured that CEU will attend the District Qualifier.  You
see,
>
>   half of our debaters have already run out of junior eligibility thanks to
>  their performances at Fresno, SUU  and Pepperdine this fall.  I renew my
>  dsipleasure wit the rule but will happily fight hard for a chance to send
my
>  kids to the NDT.
>
>  Joe Carver
>  CEU Debate

Excellent. I guess California won't get our extra slots.

Too bad,

Bear

>From  Tue Nov  9 17:12:44 1999
Message-Id: <TUE.9.NOV.1999.171244.0500.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 52455 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 17:15:58
 -0500
Precedence: bulk
Received: from celeste.INS.CWRU.Edu (root at celeste.INS.CWRU.Edu [129.22.8.214])
 by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA13634 for
 <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 17:15:57 -0500
Received: from jasonhab.cwru.edu (b62362.STUDENT.CWRU.Edu [129.22.243.154]) by
 celeste.INS.CWRU.Edu with SMTP (8.8.8+cwru/CWRU-3.6) id RAA08878;
 Tue, 9 Nov 1999 17:15:54 -0500 (EST) (from jsh17 at po.cwru.edu for
 <edebate at list.uvm.edu>)
X-Sender: jsh17 at pop.cwru.edu
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.19991109171244.007cc540 at pop.cwru.edu>
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 17:12:44 -0500
Reply-To: jsh17 at PO.CWRU.EDU
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Jason Habig <jsh17 at PO.CWRU.EDU>
Subject: NFA tournament info?

Can anyone out there with tournament info (invite, hotel info, etc.) for
the high school tournament at Newburg Free Academy in NY get backchannel me...

Thanks in advance

jason habig

cwru/st. ignatius debate

>From  Tue Nov  9 17:17:53 1999
Message-Id: <TUE.9.NOV.1999.171753.EST.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 52618 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 17:18:42
 -0500
Precedence: bulk
Received: from imo-d02.mx.aol.com (imo-d02.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.34]) by
 list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA17108 for
 <eDebate at list.uvm.edu>; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 17:18:35 -0500
Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo-d02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id
 nEKRhYb89_ (3869); Tue, 9 Nov 1999 17:17:54 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 26
Message-ID: <0.cd613e9b.2559f791 at aol.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 17:17:53 EST
Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Michael Bear Bryant <MWBRYANT at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: CEDA Novice/ JV definition
Comments: To: Davismk13 at aol.com

In a message dated 11/9/99 3:04:40 PM Mountain Standard Time,
Davismk13 at AOL.COM writes:

>
>  As for the two year limit question. Debaters now get two years after there
>  novice eligibility is used up. This means that individuals who debated in
>  high school get two years of JV and individuals who didn't get one year of
>  novice and two years of high school.
>

Did you mean to say "junior eligibility" instead of "high school" on the end?
If not, this doesn't seem to make sense....

Bear

>From  Tue Nov  9 17:24:50 1999
Message-Id: <TUE.9.NOV.1999.172450.EST.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 52781 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 17:25:30
 -0500
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 RAA15874 for
 <EDEBATE at list.uvm.edu>; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 17:25:27 -0500
Received: from Davismk13 at aol.com by imo22.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id
 nELIa17246 (4232); Tue, 9 Nov 1999 17:24:50 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 41
Message-ID: <0.2b99a28e.2559f932 at aol.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 17:24:50 EST
Reply-To: Davismk13 at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Mike Davis <Davismk13 at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: before y'all kill each other
Comments: To: BERCHNORTO at aol.com

In a message dated 11/9/99 4:39:45 PM Eastern Standard Time,
BERCHNORTO at AOL.COM writes:

<< Here's a suggestion that just might be in the interest of all our students:
 What if the CEDA Executive Committee were to stay the implementation of this
 rule until the end of the year?  Surely, there must be an emergency provision
 that allows this to take place (perhaps if the proposers of the amendment
 were to endorse a stay in the interests of the students who are harmed by
 immediate implementation, that would help).  Then, someone could introduce an
 amendment returning the eligibility rules to their status as of last week, it
 could be voted on at the Business meeting in March after much thoughtful
 debate, and democracy would prevail.  Everyone lives happily ever after (and
 indeed, a compromise amendment could even be crafted).  Any chance?
 --Neil Berch
 West Virginia University >>

As someone who proposed the amendment I was told it would not go into effect
until the end of the year. This was to help programs make the adjustment. I
would be one hundred percent for holding it off until next year.

Mike

>From  Tue Nov  9 17:25:59 1999
Message-Id: <TUE.9.NOV.1999.172559.EST.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 52844 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 17:26:43
 -0500
Precedence: bulk
Received: from imo-d07.mx.aol.com (imo-d07.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.39]) by
 list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA19326 for
 <EDEBATE at list.uvm.edu>; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 17:26:36 -0500
Received: from Davismk13 at aol.com by imo-d07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id
 nIPA_Q7dz_ (4232); Tue, 9 Nov 1999 17:26:00 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 41
Message-ID: <0.4ed2d6af.2559f977 at aol.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 17:25:59 EST
Reply-To: Davismk13 at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Mike Davis <Davismk13 at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: CEDA Novice/ JV definition
Comments: To: MWBRYANT at aol.com

In a message dated 11/9/99 5:19:21 PM Eastern Standard Time, MWBRYANT at AOL.COM
writes:

<< >
 >  As for the two year limit question. Debaters now get two years after there
 >  novice eligibility is used up. This means that individuals who debated in
 >  high school get two years of JV and individuals who didn't get one year of
 >  novice and two years of high school.
 >

 Did you mean to say "junior eligibility" instead of "high school" on the end?
 If not, this doesn't seem to make sense....
  >>

Yes. Sorry this was a typing mistake. Thanks for point it out.

Mike

>From  Tue Nov  9 17:31:52 1999
Message-Id: <TUE.9.NOV.1999.173152.EST.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 53005 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 17:32:31
 -0500
Precedence: bulk
Received: from imo-d09.mx.aol.com (imo-d09.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.41]) by
 list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA15010 for
 <EDEBATE at list.uvm.edu>; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 17:32:30 -0500
Received: from AKing50 at aol.com by imo-d09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id
 nUUI0y5BxL (6398) for <EDEBATE at list.uvm.edu>; Tue, 9 Nov 1999
 17:31:52 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 41
Message-ID: <0.83f266e5.2559fad8 at aol.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 17:31:52 EST
Reply-To: AKing50 at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Tony King <AKing50 at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: novice/jv amendment

In a message dated 11/9/99 1:43:06 PM Pacific Standard Time, MWBRYANT writes:

<<
 >
 >  First, your claim of MOST community colleges pointing to CEDA points
would
 > be
 >  incorrect.  While it might apply to CEU, it doesn't apply to many that I
 > know
 >  of.  Most that I know of don't live off of debate focus, they may have
 > debate
 >  teams, but their budgets come from overall points, not debate focused.

 What are you talking about? I'm talking about CEDA points. CEU is enough of
an example for me. It would certainly deter them from attending the District
9 NDT Qualifier. You admit that, below.
 >>>>>>>>>>
Bear, you don't deny that most of the Community College programs are not CEDA
points driven.  However, your original claim pointed to that.  My main point
is dealing with your characterization of MOST community colleges being CEDA
points driven, and that just ISN'T true!!  CEU is your one example, but that
is the exception, not the norm, thus NOT MOST!!
>>>>>>>>>>>

 >  Second, those points are within Phi Rho Pi, or in reference to nationals
and
 >  the awards they bring home.  Their administrations, generally, care about
 > the
 >  tournament trophies and Phi Rho Pi national medals, though i realize a
 > couple
 >  of them deviate, many don't.  Third, if it doesn't prevent their Phi Rho
Pi
 >  eligibility, which it doesn't, why would it stop most of the Community
 >  colleges from making districts??  I realize that CEU, as Joe pointed to,
 >  would ruin JV Nats for them, but still wouldn't stop Phi Rho Pi.

 Straw man fallacy. Didn't say it would stop any tournament. Just determines
which can count for CEDA junior eligibility. Ruining JV Nats for CEU isn't
bad enough? Not enough bodies on your flow, Tony?
 >>>>>>>>>>>>>

Since your thesis was that MOST programs are CEDA points driven, you have to
account for more than one program and one tournament.  I am not the one with
the grand claims of MOST to support my position.  I can tell you that Los
Rios, Santa Rosa, Moorpark, Saddleback, etc., community colleges don't depend
on CEDA points rankings and haven't in the past.  I respect CEU, they run a
GREAT program, and I really like and care about the debaters from there that
i know.  I even tried to help Josh find a scholarship when he gets back from
mission.  And it still doesn't "ruin" their Phi Rho Pi results, and it
doesn't mean they can't find another reward for their team, or maybe the NDT
is more important to go to than JV NATS, i guess it presents a true forced
choice (and i thought mutual exclusivity was dead).
.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 >  Besides, aren't only teams who are willing to go to the NDT supposed to
be
 > at
 >  Quals??  If they aren't planning on going to the NDT, what is their
purpose
 >  in going to quals??  I realize this happens in many regions, but bringing
 >  teams to quals that aren't planning on going to the NDT doesn't sound
 > ethical
 >  within the bounds of my understanding of who is supposed to be there, ie,
 >  teams that are going to go if they make it.  Could that be a method of
 >  bumping more teams in that wouldn't normally make it??  For example, if
 >  district X would normally get 4 bids, but you throw in 5 CC teams, giving
it
 >  6 bids (hypothetically), now say 3 of those teams qualify, so 3 of 6
would
 > be
 >  CC teams, and they don't go, so the bids slide down in the region, so
teams
 >  7-9 would be going to the NDT.  Any way you look at it, at least 2 teams
 > that
 >  wouldnt' have gone before, go now.

 Tony, watch my lips. You're an asshole. Nobody goes to the District 9
tournament just to puff up numbers. Everybody there wants to go to NDT.
Community colleges have made it to NDT, some have even debated in the elims
of NDT. If I wanted to guarantee my own team's slots out, as you so callously
infer, I'd do what Becky Bjork did for years and just not hold a tournament.
But, foolish me, I think a tournament with the major district teams (and CEU
is a major district squad) is a good idea. BTW, just to put your numbers on
current track, District Nine had eight teams at last year's tournament and
three slots out. If we lose the two CEU teams, we don't have enough for a
tournament and go to two slots or less.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Wow, why did i know that being matter of fact about issues, without attacking
anyone would get me called names by Bear??  Bear, I know it is possible for
you to have discussions without attacks, and that is my intent, think you
could try too??  thank you.  Bear, I have a lot of respect for you and your
program, please don't deminish that.
Also, I know schools go to many district tournaments to "puff up" the
numbers, it is reality that no one wants to speak publically about.  I know
of teams that got in, in District 9, and others, because Community colleges
qualified and never had the budget to afford to take the bids.  You even
admit that CEU, who hasn't taken a bid that i know of and gone to the NDT,
is key to getting a tournament and bids.  I know you aren't doing it to
protect your own teams, i know you care more about debate as a whole than
that, but it happens and you and others should admit it.
>>>>>>>>>>>

 >  In some regions, more bids are needed than others.  Face it, some regions
 > are
 >  tougher than others, and that even changes from year to year, so it is
hard
 >  to say which regions get screwed until after bids are given out.
 >  That doesn't hurt the Community Colleges at all, it hurts the university
 >  teams that want to go to the NDT, so call it for what it is.  It does hurt
 >  your district as far as NDT quals goes, yes, but in general, for most
 >  community colleges, it doesn't hurt them at all.

 Why don't we call it for what it really is - you want District 9 slots to be
reallocated to California. Don't you realize that sending your teams to
districts just unethically pumps up the slots for USC and Fullerton? Out here
in the dying wasteland of District 9, we actually respect our CC colleagues.
We believe that their desire to attend NDT is just as "real" as some other
school calling themselves a "university." We don't think that placing CC's in
the doublebind of choosing between their CEDA points and attendance at NDT
does much to encourage them to stay in policy debate.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>

First, Los Rios doesn't attend district quals.  Second, I dont' care where
they are allocated to, it doesn't impact me.  Third, i was thinking of the
midwest or southeast or some other district where it is a blood bath to get
the slots, but I am sure other districts are just as deserving.  And here in
california, most of the universities do respect the community colleges.  But
many of the community colleges, unfortunately, don't want the universities
there (and those community colleges went to parli for reasons that i won't go
into here), and the community colleges with respect and that want to interact
are still here and doing well (though that number is lower than i would
like).  Considering that only a few even leave that money for actually
attending the NDT, i dont' think it is much of a trade off, and it doesn't
trade off with CC nats.  California conspiracy answers below.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 Why are you folks in California being so short-sighted? First you wipe out
district 9's biggest tournament - the GSL - and now you champion discouraging
CEU from allowing us to hold a district tournament.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

First, all of my years in a university debate program, we always went to GSL,
and I even competed in district 9, so i do understand what you mean.
Second, my program doesn't even have the budget for tournaments outside the
region other than Phi Rho Pi, so it doesn't hurt GSL at all, and many CC
programs can't travel out of the state other than nationals, and some even
can't go to nationals, so that doesn't impact your region with my statements
on CC's.  While I have lived most of my debate career in Ca, i have never
heard of a conspiracy, and I do know most of the predominant coaches, and I
have NEVER heard of a conspiracy to end district 9 or GSL.  I have not, nor
will i "champion" ending your district tournament or any other.  But you have
now brought your "MOST" claim down to only CEU and YOUR district tournament,
proving my point.
>>>>>>>>

 Yes, some Districts do oscillate in toughness. Some, as Northwest NDT did
for over a decade, just die out. But to see the open inter-district
tetesterone wipe out an entire region would be a crime.
>>>>>>>>>>
And i don't advocate that "inter-district tetesterone (sic)", or wiping out a
region.
>>>>>>>>>>

 You can say peace, son, but you really ought to mean the word if you use it.
I don't think you do.
>>>>>>>>>>  >>

I think you are projecting your relations with others on me then.  You are
creating attributes about me that are not there.  When i say it, I mean it.
I respect you and your program and your region.  Don't begin to think i
don't, but don't diminish that respect by making mischaracterizations and
personal attacks, because that isn't where i intend to take this, now or
ever.
Peace,
Tony King
Los Rios Debate



From meaves  Tue Nov  9 16:36:07 1999
From: meaves (Michael_Eaves)
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 17:36:07 -0500
Subject: SE CEDA and Elgibility rule
In-Reply-To: <38288638.C5E0729A@mtsu.edu>
Message-ID: <TUE.9.NOV.1999.173607.0500.MEAVES@VALDOSTA.EDU>

For what its' worth, in my attendance on Friday and then Steinberg's
Saturday attendance, SE CEDA abstained from voting for this apparently
quick, and ill-conceived amendment.

mike eaves
valdosta state

I vote we return to the old rule for elgibility, talk about issue further
and vote to change rule, if any, to begin fall 2000.

>From  Tue Nov  9 17:35:40 1999
Message-Id: <TUE.9.NOV.1999.173540.EST.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 53138 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 17:36:21
 -0500
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 RAA11002 for
 <EDEBATE at list.uvm.edu>; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 17:36:19 -0500
Received: from Davismk13 at aol.com by imo24.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id
 nMKHa01320 (4232) for <EDEBATE at list.uvm.edu>; Tue, 9 Nov 1999
 17:35:40 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 41
Message-ID: <0.c40f462.2559fbbc at aol.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 17:35:40 EST
Reply-To: Davismk13 at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Mike Davis <Davismk13 at AOL.COM>
Subject: Everyone needs to calm down a little

I have been watching the jv/novice eligibility discussions and I understand
that some people are angry with the new rule, but I think that when resort to
name calling it gets out of hand and prevents an intelligent discussion.
Everyone seems to be blaming the ADA/NDT/me and Sam. I will take the blame
only to the extent that I proposed the amendment that I was charged to at the
CEDA Summer Conference (I wish now that I had left the task to someone else).
The blame (or credit) otherwise lies in those who voted for the resolution.
Every single person who voted is obviously a CEDA member and have just as
much of right to vote as anyone else. If 13 "CEDA" schools voted for it and
12 "CEDA" schools voted against it then it passed.

I want to repeat I think there is a better way (I'm not sure what it is) to
pass amendments that would have addressed these concerns ahead of time. If
these concerns were made before NCA I would have been happy to answer
questions or alter the amendment, but when the possible amendments were
posted no one raised these concerns. And after reading this discussion I wish
they had. I certainly never wanted to pass an amendment that had so much
opposition (an opposition that I did not know about until after it had
passed).

I am willing to continue a discussion of this issue as long as I am not being
personally attacked. I am interested in discussion about what happened at NCA
as well as I was not there.

Respectfully,
Mike



From shorty140  Tue Nov  9 16:37:58 1999
From: shorty140 (Jeff)
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 17:37:58 -0500
Subject: Cliff Sands
Message-ID: <TUE.9.NOV.1999.173758.0500.SHORTY140@HOTMAIL.COM>

this is jeff from morehouse, email me about the partnership situation at
vandy this weekend, we may have a solution. when you email me, leave your
number and I will call you, if that is better, cuz I'll be really busy for
the next two days



From West  Tue Nov  9 16:45:13 1999
From: West (Terry West)
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 15:45:13 -0700
Subject: apology for lack of clarity
Message-ID: <TUE.9.NOV.1999.154513.0700.WEST@SUU.EDU>

Sorry if my earlier post appeared to paint "California" with too broad a brush.  It was my intent to indicate my (and my district's) firendship with the vast majority of California forensics programs we have encountered, but to press a small minority that seems to be attempting open warfare to explain their motives and actions.  We were happy to have California represented at the Red Rock this year for the 1st year in a long time (CSU-Bakersfield cleared 3 teams to semis and won the tournament).  As I said earlier, we have been elated with out travel to California thus far.  Repeat:  I believe there are a relatively small number of programs who seem intent to lob mortars into our district.  I don't know why they're doing it; I don't know what they think they are gaining.  But it is not most of California.  Sorry if I seemed to imply it was.

Terry
SUU



From kenneth.delaughder  Tue Nov  9 16:50:41 1999
From: kenneth.delaughder (Kenneth DeLaughder)
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 15:50:41 -0700
Subject: Harold Lawson
Message-ID: <TUE.9.NOV.1999.155041.0700.KENNETH.DELAUGHDER@ENMU.EDU>

I jsut wanted to add my condolences to the entire Lawson family and the
Missouri Forensics community.  Having known Harold from my time of
interaction on the Missouri Southern Debate Team, I can truly say it is a
loss for the forensics community.  I may not have ever really liked
officiated debate, but it certtainly was an attempt to try new things, and
thats a spirit this community could definitely use.

Dr. Lawson is forever immortalized on the Emporia State University Wall of
Champions in a picture from the 1961 NDT.  Being a hornet now myself, I
appreciate his contributions to this program, and to the community at
large.

thanks,

Ken DeLaughder
Hornet Debate



From research_king  Tue Nov  9 17:02:52 1999
From: research_king (John Reeves)
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 15:02:52 PST
Subject: Someone from
Message-ID: <TUE.9.NOV.1999.150252.PST.RESEARCHKING@HOTMAIL.COM>

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



From research_king  Tue Nov  9 17:05:03 1999
From: research_king (John Reeves)
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 15:05:03 PST
Subject: Can some one from Emory Backchannel me
Message-ID: <TUE.9.NOV.1999.150503.PST.RESEARCHKING@HOTMAIL.COM>

I'm trying to get the cites for the red spread argument with cuba.  if some
one on the emory squad could backchannel me with those cites I would
apriciate it.

John "BC" Reeves
UMKC Debate

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

>From  Tue Nov  9 18:18:07 1999
Message-Id: <TUE.9.NOV.1999.181807.0500.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 54127 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 18:41:46
 -0500
Precedence: bulk
Received: from m3.boston.juno.com (m3.boston.juno.com [205.231.100.198]) by
 list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA20468 for
 <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 18:41:41 -0500
Received: (from urtyrant at juno.com) by m3.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id
 EQZ56F9B; Tue, 09 Nov 1999 18:38:46 EST
References: <l03130301b44c5a94b365@[141.166.220.7]>
 <v04220804b44ca21cbd3a@[146.7.112.123]>
X-Mailer: Juno 1.49
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0,7-13
Message-ID: <19991109.181808.16766.0.urtyrant at juno.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 18:18:07 -0500
Reply-To: urtyrant at JUNO.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: "Benjamin R. Bates" <urtyrant at JUNO.COM>
Subject: CEDA Yearbook

Hey all,
I'm looking to get a photocopy of an article in the 1988 CEDA Yearbook
(now Contemporary ARgumentation and debate, I believe).  The article I
need a copy of is one by Prof. Gill about decontextualization of
arguments through "causal chains" of resoning in debate arguments.  If
you have a copy of the 1988 CEDA Yearbook and are willing to help me get
a copy of this article, it would be much appreciated.  Will pay for
copying and postage.
BEN
Benjamin R. Bates
brbates at arches.uga.edu
110 Terrell Hall
Univ. of Georgia
Athens, GA 30602

___________________________________________________________________
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  Tue Nov  9 17:48:26 1999
Message-Id: <TUE.9.NOV.1999.174826.0500.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 54255 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 18:59:01
 -0500
Precedence: bulk
Received: from OMEGA.SELU.EDU (omega.selu.edu [147.174.1.8]) by list.uvm.edu
 (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA15068 for <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Tue,
 9 Nov 1999 18:58:59 -0500
Received: from selu.edu by selu.edu (PMDF V5.2-32 #39798) id
 <01JI54ODGD4W9I5O4Y at selu.edu> for edebate at list.uvm.edu; Tue, 9 Nov
 1999 17:57:53 CDT
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Message-ID: <01JI54QQAYES9I5O4Y at selu.edu>
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 17:48:26 -0500
Reply-To: selliott at SELU.EDU
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Scott Elliott <selliott at SELU.EDU>
Organization: Southeastern Louisiana University
Subject: I agree with Mike. All I want is to not change the rules in the
 middle of the game.

Can you imagine the NCAA issuing new eligibility rules in the middle of the year or right before the final determination of the bowl championship?
It is just crazy to change such rules in the middle of a semester. Not to mention that nobody has answered back my criticism that this new rule has retroactive implications. I am being punished for 1) playing by the rules and 2) supporting very small regional tournaments and finally, doing good job coaching.
1) My decisions for team pairings and tournament schedules was based upon the eligibility rules. Becuase of that I went to small tournamnets. Now, becuase I
wnet to small tournaments with collapsed divisions, I have placed myself in a
bad eligibilty versus propensity to gain point situation. I would not go to a small tournament anymore because the cost to eligibility is outwieghed by the potetial small benefits. Example--why would I go to Valdosta or LSU and waste my
team's eligibility for points that only come from 6 rounds and finals. Instead, I will save my team for only large tournaments that break to octos or quarters in seperate divisions. I am screwed because I support regional debate tournaments.
Finally, I screwed for being a good coach. My novice teams win two tournamnets off the bat, go to a poorly attended regional tournamnet and make it to finals. Now, for the rest of the year---four years--I have essentially novice debaters getting crushed in Open tournaments. Yeah! That will keep people in the activity!
Scott Elliott

>From  Tue Nov  9 17:59:00 1999
Message-Id: <TUE.9.NOV.1999.175900.0500.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 54304 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 19:00:48
 -0500
Precedence: bulk
Received: from OMEGA.SELU.EDU (omega.selu.edu [147.174.1.8]) by list.uvm.edu
 (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA10788 for <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Tue,
 9 Nov 1999 19:00:46 -0500
Received: from selu.edu by selu.edu (PMDF V5.2-32 #39798) id
 <01JI54ODGD4W9I5O4Y at selu.edu> for edebate at list.uvm.edu; Tue, 9 Nov
 1999 18:00:22 CDT
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Message-ID: <01JI553ST1JW9I5O4Y at selu.edu>
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 17:59:00 -0500
Reply-To: selliott at SELU.EDU
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Scott Elliott <selliott at SELU.EDU>
Organization: Southeastern Louisiana University
Subject: Calm down?! I have teams that I had to re-pair for this weekend
 at Vanderbilt.

Thjis amendment, even if overturned has already screwed my team pairings for Vandy. According to these rules, I could have a fourth tournament novice debating
Lupo and Horowitz or any other Varsity team. You are damn right I am pissed.
Scott Elliott



From scprest  Tue Nov  9 17:17:53 1999
From: scprest (Tom Preston)
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 18:17:53 -0500
Subject: Gateway Results 1999
Message-ID: <TUE.9.NOV.1999.181753.0500.SCPREST@UMSL.EDU>

TO:  THE COMMUNITY--

>From our cumulative scoring sheets, here are the results of the 14th annual
Gateway Debate Tournament, held October 29-30, 1999, at the University of
Missouri-St. Louis.  Thank you to all who attended.  If we made any
mistake, please let us know.

After giving it until Thursday for corrections (Look esp. at debate finals
as I have trouble reading my own chicken scratch), I'll go ahead and report
to the various sanctioning agencies.


Tom


Results
14th Gateway Debate Tournament
University of Missouri-St. Louis

Novice Parliamentary Debate (17 teams, quarterfinals)

Quarterfinals

Wabash WS over Hillsdale CE     3-0
Truman SL over CMSU CL          3-0
Wabash KD over Truman SH        3-0
CMSU CH over Hillsdale KC       2-1

Semifinals

Truman SL over Wabash WS        2-1
CMSU CH over Wabash KD          3-0

Finals

CMSU CH over Truman WS          2-1


JV Parliamentary Debate  (15 teams, quarterfinals)

Quarterfinals

Truman KM over SBU CM                   3-0
Florida College WC over Hillsdale BB    3-0
Longview CM over SBU/UMSL               2-1
SBU SM over Florida College MR          2-1

Semifinals

Florida College WC over Truman KM       2-1
Longview CM over SBU SM         3-0

Finals

Longview CM over Florida College WC     3-0


Open Parliamentary Debate (26 teams, quarterfinals)

Quarterfinals

MOSO DM over Washington BP              2-1
Florida FC over Hillsdale SS                    2-1
Washington JR over Concordia WW         3-0
Truman MS aver McNeese SS               2-1 Semifinals

MOSO DM over Florida                    3-0
Truman MS over Washington               3-0

Finals

Truman MS over MOSO DM                  2-1


NFA LD Debate (5 contestants, finals)

Finals

CMSU-B over Central Michigan L          3-0


IPDA Debate (17 contestants, quarterfinals)

Quarterfinals

CMSU-K over Ark St. P                   3-0
CMSU-C over Ark. St. I                  2-1
CMSU-W over CMSU-K                      3-0
LA Col. F over CMSU-G                   2-1

Semifinals

CMSU-K over CMSU-C                      3-0
CMSU-G over La Col. F                   3-0

Finals

CMSU Closeout                           3-0






The Individual Events

Prose--61 contestants, semifinals

Excellent Awards

Dukes, Florida (sems)
Trunnell, Illinois State (sems)
Meyer, Truman State (sems)
Compton, Florida College
May, Florida College (sems)
Phillips, Central Missouri (sems)
Menard, SW Baptist
Moschetta, SW Baptist
MaCracken, Arkansas State
Murray, Missouri Western
Walker, Tennessee State (sems)
Saenz, Central Missouri

Finalists

1st--Koch, Illinois State
2nd--Strle, Illinois State
3rd--Kretzer, SW Baptist
4th--Trunnell, Illinois State
5th--Olson, Illinois State
6th--Yirsa, SW Baptist


Impromptu Speaking--74 contestants, semifinals

Excellent Awards

Dukes, Florida
Coppernoll, Florida
Beckett, Illinois State
Geiger, Illinois State
Richardson, Florida College
Bailey, SW Baptist (sems)
Altrui, Arkansas State
Kmilek, North Central (sems)
Sides, McNeese State
Bloodworth, Central Missouri
Caspari, Central Missouri (sems)
Cooper, Central Missouri (sems)
Kuttenkuler, Central Missouri
Williams, Central Missouri (sems)
Da Silva, Webster
Purtyman, Webster

Finalists

1st Place--Foster, Florida
2nd Place--Soderstrom, McNeese State
3rd Place--Moscaritola, Florida
4th Place--Roberson, North Central
5th Place--Cate, Longview
6th Place--Kelly, Illinois State
7th Place--Clarke, Illinois State


Extemporaneous Speaking (43 Contestants, Finals)

Excellent Awards

Dukes, Florida
Clarke, Illinois State
Beckett, Illinois State
Geiger, Illinois State
Richardson, Florida College
Kaylor, SW Baptist
Garrett, Central Missouri

Finalists

1st Place--Moscaritola, Florida
2nd Place--Kelley, Illinois State
3rd Place--Bloodworth, Central Missouri
4th Place--Bailey, SW Baptist
5th Place--Mecham, Truman State
6th Place--Altrui, Arkansas State


Duo Interpretation (28 teams, finals)

Excellent Awards

Tucker and Walker, Tennessee State
Cate and Duncan, Longview

Finalists

1st Place--Cooper and Jamison, Illinois State
2nd Place--Bailey and Kretzer, SW Baptist
3rd Place--Tucker and Styles, Tennessee State
4th Place--Ayala and Duncan, Longview
5th Place--McDowell and Saenz, Central Missouri
6th Place--Caspari and Saenz, Central Missouri


Duo Improvisation (21 teams, finals)

Finalists

1st Place--Walter and Tucker, Tennessee State
2nd Place--McDowell and Saenz, Central Missouri
3rd Place--Rust and Harris, Webster
4th Place--Caspari and Williams, Central Missouri
5th Place--Hughes and Walters, Longview
6th Place--Styles and Brumfield, Tennessee State


Programmed Oral Interpretation (22 contestants, finals)

Excellent Award

Day, Tennessee State

Finalists

1st Place--Tucker, Tennessee State
2nd Place--Class, SW Baptist
3rd Place--Hanrahan, Illinois State
4th Place--Dukes, Florida
5th Place--Haxer, Central Michigan
6th Place--Moschetta, SW Baptist


Poetry Interpretation (40 contestants, finals)

Excellent Awards

Jamison, Illinois State
Telfer, Illinois State
Yirsa, SW Baptist
Anderson, Ripon
Caspari, Central Missouri
McKinney, Longview

Finalists

1st Place--Weiss, Illinois State
2nd Place--Saenz, Central Missouri
3rd Place--Koch, Illinois State
4th Place--White, Missouri Western
5th Place--Barbeer, North Central
6th Place--Roberson, North Central


Persuasive Speaking--24 Contestants (finals)

Finalists

1st Place--Strle, Illinois State
2nd Place--Stevens, SW Baptist
3rd Place--Mecham, Truman State
4th Place--Clarke, Illinois State
5th Place--Trunnell, Illinois State
6th Place--McDonald, SW Baptist
7th Place--Hingtgen, Arkansas State


Communication Analsysis--18 Contestants (finals)

Finalists

1st Place--Bailey, SW Baptist
2nd Place--McCann, Illinois State
3rd Place--Kazinski, North Central
4th Place--McDonald, SW Baptist
5th Place--Cooper, Illinois State
6th Place--Kelley, Illinois State
 Informative Speaking--32 Contestants (finals)*********

Excellent Awards

Kelley, Illinois State
Olsen, Illinois State
Stevens, SW Baptist
McDonald, SW Baptist

Finalists*********

1st Place--Foster, Florida
2nd Place--Kelley, Illinois State*
3rd Place--Bailey SW Baptist
4th Place--Clarke, Illinois State
5th Place--Day, Tennessee State
6th Place--Davidson, SW Baptist

*****As might be noted, Kelley was inadvertently taken into finals for
Illinois State, and the mistake was caught after the final round has taken
place.   As will be reported to AFA, ANDREW BECKETT  should have been
advanced into the final round.  The UMSL staff apologizes to the ISU
program and its students for the mistake.  An award is being sent to ISU
shortly to recognize Beckett's accomplishement.

After Dinner Speaking--24 Contestants (finals)

Excellent Award

McCann, Illinois State

Finalists

1st Place--Geiger, Illinois State
2nd Place--Roberson, North Central
3rd Place--Ingmire, Central Missouri
4th Place--Class, SW Baptist
5th Place--Harris, Webster
6th Place--Kretzer, SW Baptist


Dramatic Interpretation--23 Contestants (finals)

Excellent Award

Kampen, Illinois State

Finalists

1st Place--Jamison, Illinois State
2nd Place--Kretzer, SW Baptist
3rd Place--Brumfield, Tennessee State
4th Place--Duncan, Longview
5th Place--McCrackin, Arkansas State
6th Place--Day, Tennessee State

DEBATE SWEEPSTAKES--CENTRAL MISSOURI
IE SWEEPSTAKES--ILLINOIS STATE
NFA TRAVELING AWARD--CENTRAL MISSOURI
IPDA TRAVELING AWARD--CENTRAL MISSOURI
PARLIAMENTARY TRAVELING AWARD--WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY

OVERALL SWEEPSTAKES--SW BAPTIST

>From  Tue Nov  9 19:31:07 1999
Message-Id: <TUE.9.NOV.1999.193107.EST.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 54612 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 19:31:44
 -0500
Precedence: bulk
Received: from imo-d10.mx (imo-d10.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.42]) by list.uvm.edu
 (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA15174 for <eDebate at list.uvm.edu>; Tue,
 9 Nov 1999 19:31:44 -0500
Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo-d10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id
 nIKR6_13f_ (3988); Tue, 9 Nov 1999 19:31:07 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 26
Message-ID: <0.6b0c38a3.255a16cb at aol.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 19:31:07 EST
Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Michael Bear Bryant <MWBRYANT at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: Everyone needs to calm down a little
Comments: To: Davismk13 at aol.com

Relax, Mike, I'm the personal attacker and it's only focused at King's
transparent rhetoric.

I don't think anyone's attacked you.

Bear



From PatG  Tue Nov  9 20:05:13 1999
From: PatG (Pat J. Gehrke)
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 21:05:13 -0500
Subject: If it looks like a duck...
In-Reply-To: <38288638.C5E0729A@mtsu.edu>
Message-ID: <TUE.9.NOV.1999.210513.0500.PATG@PSU.EDU>

Seems to me the whole drive for these new eligibility standards is really
about preserving certain schools points accounting methods so that they can
keep pointing to high point rankings to preserve their funding.

Fair enough, but let's try calling it what it is.  Eligibility rules have
danced and dodged the ugly truth that their primary motivation is more
competitive than pedagogical, which makes them mutant beasts without any
real sense...

So, I propose we change the eligibility rules to be based on CEDA points
accrued rather than semesters debated and tournaments advanced... How about
it?  We can whip up some specific point margins and then propose them for a
vote at CEDA nats, to go into effect June 1 of 2000.

Here's a rough idea, though these are just starting numbers.  Students
accrue one point for every ballot they win, just like a team does (no
splitting or dividing, please).  Hell, let's just call 'em ballots:

0-40 CEDA ballots = Novice
41-120 CEDA ballots = Junior
>120 CEDA ballots = Varsity

This prevents all sandbagging, allows nontraditional debate careers,
protects eligibility for people who have emergencies or crises that force
them out for a semester or mid-semester, and protects points and rankings
hungry schools from having to bump up their students before they have
accrued enough points at the lower levels.  No exceptions, no
two-tournaments-is-not-a-semester crap, just clean and easy points.

How about it?  After some dialogue here, I will make a specific proposal for
The CEDA, NDT, and ADA business meetings for the end of the Spring Semester.

This semester/time-block/academic year stuff is a mess.  If we're going to
do this balancing act to insulate ranking-dependent ADA and CEDA programs,
let's call it what it is and bring the criteria back to what it really tries
to control: the rankings.

Yeah, now I imagine you'll try to argue that the new rule is pedagogically
motivated.  That's as likely as me becoming a Baconian rational possitivist.

Pat
Penn State



From drwiese  Tue Nov  9 20:30:09 1999
From: drwiese (Danielle Wiese)
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 20:30:09 -0600
Subject: Illinois State University Tournament Announcements
Message-ID: <TUE.9.NOV.1999.203009.0600.DRWIESE@ILSTU.EDU>

Hi everyone!!!!

We are finalizing arrangements for our tournament this weekend.  Just a reminder that entries are needed by 5:00 pm tomorrow.  If you are interested in making a late entry--the invitation is provided below.  We have a number of teams registered and we will post a final team to e-debate tomorrow evening.  We have some exciting events planned for those attending---school v. school trivia contests, and some exciting gifts from "local sponsors."  If you have teams in the open division, I'd also like to encourage you to bring a few blank video cassettes--many of our competition rooms are supplied with recording equipment---watching yourself on tape is an excellent way to improve debating skills!!!

If you have any questions please don't hesistate to backchannel me.

Looking foward to seeing you in Normal!!

Danielle R. Wiese
Graduate Assistant
Illinois State University 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/19991109/0bda737d/attachment.htm 


From privethedge  Tue Nov  9 21:06:40 1999
From: privethedge (Duane Hyland)
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 19:06:40 -0800
Subject: A Plea for District Seven Schools
Message-ID: <TUE.9.NOV.1999.190640.0800.PRIVETHEDGE@YAHOO.COM>

Hi, this is mainly directed at schools in District
Seven, but anyone else who believes in the cause of
keeping debate alive at the collegiate level can feel
free to jump in.

For those of you who have been around District Seven
since 1988 you know of the efforts that Mansfield
University, under the direction of Larry Watts, has
made in the area of debate.  You also know, or have
heard from Larry, or me, the trials and tribulations
of keeping a program going at a small, state run
institution.

The money for Mansfield Debate has run out (silly
Committee on Finance thought that $500.00 was enough
to fund a policy debate program!!:( Shame on them) and
it is time for us to once again beg the University for
funding (well, I'm an alum so I won't be doing the
begging in person,unfortunately).

I was thinking that if the heads of the debate teams
at the various dDistrict Seven schools (you know who
you are) could write to the President of Mansfield
University that we might finally convince them to
release some more money in our directions.

All you need to do, and we would be very great-full
for this, is to send a letter to:

    President John R. Halstead
    North Hall
    Mansfield University
    Mansfield, PA  16933

I'm sure that an effort of letter writing might
convince President Halstead that debate is worth
keeping for the University (especially since the
University has a competitive IE program) and that
Mansfield Debate has made some accomplishments over
the years.

I know that I, and the former and current Mansfield
debaters would appreciate your efforts.

 THank you for your Time, Duane


=====

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com

>From  Tue Nov  9 23:28:18 1999
Message-Id: <TUE.9.NOV.1999.232818.EST.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 55601 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 23:28:53
 -0500
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 XAA13884 for
 <eDebate at list.uvm.edu>; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 23:28:52 -0500
Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo23.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id
 nENLa21164 (3895) for <eDebate at list.uvm.edu>; Tue, 9 Nov 1999
 23:28:18 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 26
Message-ID: <0.c5ff4d21.255a4e62 at aol.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 23:28:18 EST
Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Michael Bear Bryant <MWBRYANT at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: apology for lack of clarity

In a message dated 11/9/99 3:45:57 PM Mountain Standard Time, West at SUU.EDU
writes:

>  Repeat:  I believe there are a relatively small number of programs who
seem
> intent to lob mortars into our district.  I don't know why they're doing
it;
> I don't know what they think they are gaining.  But it is not most of
> California.  Sorry if I seemed to imply it was.
>
>  Terry
>  SUU

Let me be the first to apologize for too broad a brushstroke. Most California
programs, particularly Omar and those CSU-Bakersfield folk, are some of the
coolest folks around.

Even the California people who I accuse of wanting to punish District 9 seem
to be really nice people. That only makes their own rationalizations that
much more troubling...

Didn't mean to engage in "enemy-creation" with the entire state,

Bear

>From  Tue Nov  9 23:31:56 1999
Message-Id: <TUE.9.NOV.1999.233156.EST.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 54817 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 23:32:33
 -0500
Precedence: bulk
Received: from imo-d06.mx.aol.com (imo-d06.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.38]) by
 list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA20276 for
 <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 23:32:31 -0500
Received: from STVherro at aol.com by imo-d06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id
 nEMLlQ.1F_ (3957) for <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Tue, 9 Nov 1999
 23:31:56 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 26
Message-ID: <0.e67eaf18.255a4f3c at aol.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 23:31:56 EST
Reply-To: STVherro at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Steve Herro <STVherro at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: Southwest Airlines Internet Specials November 9, 1999

i am sure most of you directors watch this kind of stuff...but for those of
you who do not, this is a list of special internet fares southwest offers.
this is one of the best offerings i have seen from southwest, so i thought i
would pass it along.....

steve

In a message dated 11/9/1999 5:38:50 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
special-offers-admin at mail.southwest.com writes:

<<
 Southwest Airlines Click 'n SaveSM E-mail Update for
 November 9, 1999

 Please pass this great news on to your friends! To subscribe
 to Southwest Airlines Click 'n Save E-mail Updates,
 visit http://www.southwest.com/email

 Southwest Airlines Click 'n Save Internet Specials at
 http://www.southwest.com/hotfares

 ** These fares are valid for travel November 30, 1999
 through March 31, 2000, except for December 17, 18, 23,
 24, 26, 30, and 31, 1999 and January 2, 2000 and must
 be purchased online at www.southwest.com by midnight
 Pacific Standard Time November 11, 1999. ** Please see
 Other Terms and Conditions of these fares at the end
 of this e-mail.

 The fares listed do not include airport-assessed passenger
 facility charges (PFCs) of up to $12 roundtrip. Roundtrip
 purchase and overnight stay are required. Fares do not
 include a federal excise tax of up to $2.50 that will be
 imposed on each flight segment of your itinerary. A flight
 segment is defined as a takeoff and a landing.

 Fares shown are each way based on roundtrip purchase

 Albuquerque:
  $89 each way to/from Boise
  $89 each way to/from Detroit
  $35 each way to/from El Paso
  $80 each way to/from Houston Bush Intercontinental
  $80 each way to/from Houston Hobby
  $89 each way to/from Kansas City
  $64 each way to/from Los Angeles
  $75 each way to/from Oklahoma City
  $35 each way to/from Phoenix
  $86 each way to/from Sacramento
  $89 each way to/from Tampa Bay

 Amarillo:
  $35 each way to/from Dallas Love
  $60 each way to/from Houston Bush Intercontinental
  $60 each way to/from Houston Hobby
  $69 each way to/from Las Vegas
  $89 each way to/from San Diego

 Austin:
  $35 each way to/from Houston Hobby
  $89 each way to/from Los Angeles
  $41 each way to/from Midland/Odessa
  $70 each way to/from New Orleans

 Baltimore/Washington:
  $50 each way to/from Birmingham
  $48 each way to/from Chicago Midway
  $52 each way to/from Detroit
  $89 each way to/from Harlingen (South Padre Island)
  $89 each way to/from Houston Hobby
  $66 each way to/from Jackson
  $30 each way to/from Providence
  $89 each way to/from Salt Lake City
  $59 each way to/from Tampa Bay

 Birmingham:
  $50 each way to/from Baltimore/Washington
  $60 each way to/from Chicago Midway
  $75 each way to/from Detroit
  $62 each way to/from Houston Hobby
  $61 each way to/from Long Island/Islip
  $89 each way to/from Las Vegas
  $36 each way to/from New Orleans

 Boise:
  $89 each way to/from Albuquerque
  $89 each way to/from Detroit
  $89 each way to/from Houston Hobby
  $52 each way to/from Las Vegas

 Burbank:
  $89 each way to/from Detroit
  $89 each way to/from Houston Hobby
  $89 each way to/from Jackson
  $36 each way to/from Oakland
  $31 each way to/from Phoenix
  $89 each way to/from San Antonio

 Chicago Midway:
  $48 each way to/from Baltimore/Washington
  $60 each way to/from Birmingham
  $35 each way to/from Columbus
  $35 each way to/from Detroit
  $86 each way to/from Ft. Lauderdale
  $89 each way to/from Houston Hobby
  $39 each way to/from Kansas City
  $64 each way to/from Manchester
  $89 each way to/from Oakland
  $89 each way to/from San Diego
  $89 each way to/from San Francisco

 Cleveland:
  $89 each way to/from Houston Hobby
  $41 each way to/from Indianapolis
  $43 each way to/from St. Louis
  $88 each way to/from Tulsa

 Columbus:
  $35 each way to/from Chicago Midway
  $89 each way to/from Houston Hobby
  $89 each way to/from Los Angeles
  $59 each way to/from Orlando
  $89 each way to/from Phoenix

 Corpus Christi:
  $89 each way to/from Detroit
  $37 each way to/from Houston Hobby
  $64 each way to/from Little Rock
  $89 each way to/from St. Louis

 Dallas Love:
  $35 each way to/from Amarillo
  $55 each way to/from El Paso
  $35 each way to/from Houston Bush Intercontinental
  $35 each way to/from Houston Hobby
  $35 each way to/from Little Rock
  $35 each way to/from Lubbock
  $35 each way to/from San Antonio
  $35 each way to/from Tulsa

 Detroit:
  $89 each way to/from Albuquerque
  $52 each way to/from Baltimore/Washington
  $75 each way to/from Birmingham
  $89 each way to/from Boise
  $89 each way to/from Burbank
  $35 each way to/from Chicago Midway
  $89 each way to/from Corpus Christi
  $89 each way to/from El Paso
  $89 each way to/from Ft. Lauderdale
  $89 each way to/from Harlingen (South Padre Island)
  $67 each way to/from Hartford/Springfield
  $89 each way to/from Houston Hobby
  $39 each way to/from Indianapolis
  $74 each way to/from Jackson
  $87 each way to/from Jacksonville
  $57 each way to/from Kansas City
  $89 each way to/from Las Vegas
  $79 each way to/from Little Rock
  $89 each way to/from Los Angeles
  $41 each way to/from Louisville
  $68 each way to/from Manchester
  $89 each way to/from Midland/Odessa
  $52 each way to/from Nashville
  $89 each way to/from New Orleans
  $89 each way to/from Oakland
  $83 each way to/from Oklahoma City
  $59 each way to/from Omaha
  $89 each way to/from Ontario
  $89 each way to/from Orlando
  $89 each way to/from Phoenix
  $89 each way to/from Portland
  $68 each way to/from Providence
  $49 each way to/from Raleigh-Durham
  $89 each way to/from Reno/Tahoe
  $89 each way to/from Sacramento
  $41 each way to/from St. Louis
  $89 each way to/from Salt Lake City
  $89 each way to/from San Antonio
  $89 each way to/from San Diego
  $89 each way to/from San Francisco
  $89 each way to/from San Jose
  $89 each way to/from Seattle
  $89 each way to/from Tampa Bay
  $83 each way to/from Tulsa

 El Paso:
  $35 each way to/from Albuquerque
  $55 each way to/from Dallas Love
  $89 each way to/from Detroit
  $82 each way to/from Houston Bush Intercontinental
  $82 each way to/from Houston Hobby
  $61 each way to/from Las Vegas
  $79 each way to/from Oklahoma City
  $57 each way to/from San Antonio
  $83 each way to/from San Jose

 Ft. Lauderdale:
  $86 each way to/from Chicago Midway
  $89 each way to/from Detroit
  $86 each way to/from Houston Hobby
  $30 each way to/from Jacksonville
  $89 each way to/from Phoenix
  $89 each way to/from St. Louis
  $30 each way to/from Tampa Bay

 Harlingen (South Padre Island):
  $89 each way to/from Baltimore/Washington
  $89 each way to/from Detroit
  $37 each way to/from Houston Hobby
  $37 each way to/from San Antonio

 Hartford/Springfield:
  $67 each way to/from Detroit
  $89 each way to/from Houston Hobby

 Houston Bush Intercontinental:
  $80 each way to/from Albuquerque
  $60 each way to/from Amarillo
  $35 each way to/from Dallas Love
  $82 each way to/from El Paso
  $54 each way to/from Little Rock
  $47 each way to/from Lubbock
  $52 each way to/from Midland/Odessa
  $54 each way to/from Oklahoma City
  $55 each way to/from Tulsa

 Houston Hobby:
  $80 each way to/from Albuquerque
  $60 each way to/from Amarillo
  $35 each way to/from Austin
  $89 each way to/from Baltimore/Washington
  $62 each way to/from Birmingham
  $89 each way to/from Boise
  $89 each way to/from Burbank
  $89 each way to/from Chicago Midway
  $89 each way to/from Cleveland
  $89 each way to/from Columbus
  $37 each way to/from Corpus Christi
  $35 each way to/from Dallas Love
  $89 each way to/from Detroit
  $82 each way to/from El Paso
  $86 each way to/from Ft. Lauderdale
  $37 each way to/from Harlingen (South Padre Island)
  $89 each way to/from Hartford/Springfield
  $84 each way to/from Indianapolis
  $89 each way to/from Long Island/Islip
  $40 each way to/from Jackson
  $74 each way to/from Jacksonville
  $76 each way to/from Kansas City
  $89 each way to/from Las Vegas
  $54 each way to/from Little Rock
  $89 each way to/from Los Angeles
  $82 each way to/from Louisville
  $47 each way to/from Lubbock
  $89 each way to/from Manchester
  $52 each way to/from Midland/Odessa
  $64 each way to/from Nashville
  $39 each way to/from New Orleans
  $89 each way to/from Oakland
  $54 each way to/from Oklahoma City
  $89 each way to/from Omaha
  $89 each way to/from Ontario
  $76 each way to/from Orlando
  $89 each way to/from Phoenix
  $89 each way to/from Portland
  $89 each way to/from Providence
  $81 each way to/from Raleigh-Durham
  $89 each way to/from Reno/Tahoe
  $89 each way to/from Sacramento
  $66 each way to/from St. Louis
  $89 each way to/from Salt Lake City
  $35 each way to/from San Antonio
  $89 each way to/from San Diego
  $89 each way to/from San Francisco
  $89 each way to/from San Jose
  $89 each way to/from Seattle
  $89 each way to/from Spokane
  $76 each way to/from Tampa Bay
  $55 each way to/from Tulsa

 Indianapolis:
  $41 each way to/from Cleveland
  $39 each way to/from Detroit
  $84 each way to/from Houston Hobby
  $35 each way to/from St. Louis
  $63 each way to/from Tampa Bay

 Jackson, MS:
  $66 each way to/from Baltimore/Washington
  $89 each way to/from Burbank
  $74 each way to/from Detroit
  $40 each way to/from Houston Hobby

 Jacksonville:
  $87 each way to/from Detroit
  $49 each way to/from Nashville
  $30 each way to/from Ft. Lauderdale
  $74 each way to/from Houston Hobby
  $76 each way to/from Providence

 Kansas City:
  $89 each way to/from Albuquerque
  $39 each way to/from Chicago Midway
  $57 each way to/from Detroit
  $76 each way to/from Houston Hobby
  $35 each way to/from Oklahoma City
  $89 each way to/from Phoenix
  $89 each way to/from Sacramento
  $89 each way to/from Salt Lake City

 Las Vegas:
  $69 each way to/from Amarillo
  $89 each way to/from Birmingham
  $52 each way to/from Boise
  $89 each way to/from Detroit
  $61 each way to/from El Paso
  $89 each way to/from Houston Hobby
  $89 each way to/from Manchester
  $89 each way to/from Orlando
  $59 each way to/from Portland
  $38 each way to/from Salt Lake City
  $59 each way to/from Seattle
  $89 each way to/from Tampa Bay

 Little Rock:
  $64 each way to/from Corpus Christi
  $35 each way to/from Dallas Love
  $79 each way to/from Detroit
  $54 each way to/from Houston Bush Intercontinental
  $54 each way to/from Houston Hobby
  $60 each way to/from Lubbock
  $56 each way to/from Oklahoma City

 Long Island/Islip:
  $61 each way to/from Birmingham
  $89 each way to/from Houston Hobby
  $89 each way to/from Los Angeles
  $69 each way to/from St. Louis

 Los Angeles:
  $64 each way to/from Albuquerque
  $89 each way to/from Austin
  $89 each way to/from Columbus
  $89 each way to/from Detroit
  $89 each way to/from Houston Hobby
  $89 each way to/from Long Island/Islip
  $89 each way to/from Louisville
  $89 each way to/from Nashville
  $89 each way to/from Manchester
  $36 each way to/from Oakland
  $44 each way to/from Reno/Tahoe
  $36 each way to/from San Jose
  $89 each way to/from Tampa Bay
  $31 each way to/from Tucson

 Louisville:
  $41 each way to/from Detroit
  $82 each way to/from Houston Hobby
  $89 each way to/from Los Angeles

 Lubbock:
  $35 each way to/from Dallas Love
  $47 each way to/from Houston Bush Intercontinental
  $47 each way to/from Houston Hobby
  $60 each way to/from Little Rock

 Manchester:
  $64 each way to/from Chicago Midway
  $68 each way to/from Detroit
  $89 each way to/from Houston Hobby
  $89 each way to/from Las Vegas
  $89 each way to/from Los Angeles
  $89 each way to/from New Orleans
  $72 each way to/from Orlando

 Midland/Odessa:
  $41 each way to/from Austin
  $89 each way to/from Detroit
  $52 each way to/from Houston Bush Intercontinental
  $52 each way to/from Houston Hobby
  $85 each way to/from Ontario
  $62 each way to/from Phoenix

 Nashville:
  $52 each way to/from Detroit
  $64 each way to/from Houston Hobby
  $49 each way to/from Jacksonville
  $89 each way to/from Los Angeles
  $36 each way to/from New Orleans
  $55 each way to/from Orlando
  $89 each way to/from Portland

 New Orleans:
  $70 each way to/from Austin
  $36 each way to/from Birmingham
  $89 each way to/from Detroit
  $39 each way to/from Houston Hobby
  $89 each way to/from Manchester
  $36 each way to/from Nashville
  $80 each way to/from St. Louis

 Oakland:
  $36 each way to/from Burbank
  $89 each way to/from Chicago Midway
  $89 each way to/from Detroit
  $89 each way to/from Houston Hobby
  $36 each way to/from Los Angeles
  $36 each way to/from Ontario
  $30 each way to/from Reno/Tahoe
  $48 each way to/from Salt Lake City
  $40 each way to/from San Diego
  $44 each way to/from Seattle

 Oklahoma City:
  $75 each way to/from Albuquerque
  $83 each way to/from Detroit
  $79 each way to/from El Paso
  $54 each way to/from Houston Bush Intercontinental
  $54 each way to/from Houston Hobby
  $35 each way to/from Kansas City
  $56 each way to/from Little Rock
  $89 each way to/from Phoenix

 Omaha:
  $59 each way to/from Detroit
  $89 each way to/from Houston Hobby
  $89 each way to/from Providence
  $31 each way to/from St. Louis

 Ontario, CA:
  $89 each way to/from Detroit
  $89 each way to/from Houston Hobby
  $85 each way to/from Midland/Odessa
  $36 each way to/from Oakland
  $36 each way to/from Sacramento
  $48 each way to/from Salt Lake City
  $36 each way to/from San Jose

 Orlando:
  $59 each way to/from Columbus
  $89 each way to/from Detroit
  $76 each way to/from Houston Hobby
  $89 each way to/from Las Vegas
  $72 each way to/from Manchester
  $55 each way to/from Nashville
  $89 each way to/from Phoenix
  $72 each way to/from Providence
  $89 each way to/from Seattle

 Phoenix:
  $35 each way to/from Albuquerque
  $31 each way to/from Burbank
  $89 each way to/from Columbus
  $89 each way to/from Detroit
  $89 each way to/from Ft. Lauderdale
  $89 each way to/from Houston Hobby
  $89 each way to/from Kansas City
  $62 each way to/from Midland/Odessa
  $89 each way to/from Oklahoma City
  $89 each way to/from Orlando
  $52 each way to/from Reno/Tahoe
  $50 each way to/from Salt Lake City
  $57 each way to/from San Francisco
  $53 each way to/from San Jose
  $81 each way to/from Seattle
  $89 each way to/from Tampa Bay

 Portland:
  $89 each way to/from Detroit
  $89 each way to/from Houston Hobby
  $59 each way to/from Las Vegas
  $89 each way to/from Nashville
  $30 each way to/from Spokane

 Providence:
  $30 each way to/from Baltimore/Washington
  $68 each way to/from Detroit
  $89 each way to/from Houston Hobby
  $76 each way to/from Jacksonville
  $89 each way to/from Omaha
  $72 each way to/from Orlando
  $89 each way to/from Tulsa

 Raleigh-Durham:
  $49 each way to/from Detroit
  $81 each way to/from Houston Hobby

 Reno/Tahoe:
  $89 each way to/from Detroit
  $89 each way to/from Houston Hobby
  $44 each way to/from Los Angeles
  $30 each way to/from Oakland
  $52 each way to/from Phoenix
  $36 each way to/from Salt Lake City
  $30 each way to/from San Jose
  $49 each way to/from Spokane
  $55 each way to/from Tucson

 Sacramento:
  $86 each way to/from Albuquerque
  $89 each way to/from Detroit
  $89 each way to/from Houston Hobby
  $89 each way to/from Kansas City
  $36 each way to/from Ontario
  $40 each way to/from San Diego
  $49 each way to/from Seattle

 St. Louis:
  $43 each way to/from Cleveland
  $89 each way to/from Corpus Christi
  $41 each way to/from Detroit
  $89 each way to/from Ft. Lauderdale
  $66 each way to/from Houston Hobby
  $35 each way to/from Indianapolis
  $69 each way to/from Long Island/Islip
  $80 each way to/from New Orleans
  $31 each way to/from Omaha

 Salt Lake City:
  $89 each way to/from Baltimore/Washington
  $89 each way to/from Detroit
  $89 each way to/from Houston Hobby
  $89 each way to/from Kansas City
  $38 each way to/from Las Vegas
  $48 each way to/from Oakland
  $48 each way to/from Ontario
  $50 each way to/from Phoenix
  $36 each way to/from Reno/Tahoe
  $63 each way to/from Tucson

 San Antonio:
  $89 each way to/from Burbank
  $35 each way to/from Dallas Love
  $89 each way to/from Detroit
  $57 each way to/from El Paso
  $37 each way to/from Harlingen (South Padre Island)
  $35 each way to/from Houston Hobby
  $89 each way to/from San Diego

 San Diego:
  $89 each way to/from Amarillo
  $89 each way to/from Chicago Midway
  $89 each way to/from Detroit
  $89 each way to/from Houston Hobby
  $40 each way to/from Oakland
  $40 each way to/from Sacramento
  $89 each way to/from San Antonio

 San Francisco:
  $89 each way to/from Chicago Midway
  $89 each way to/from Detroit
  $89 each way to/from Houston Hobby
  $57 each way to/from Phoenix

 San Jose:
  $89 each way to/from Detroit
  $83 each way to/from El Paso
  $89 each way to/from Houston Hobby
  $36 each way to/from Los Angeles
  $36 each way to/from Ontario
  $53 each way to/from Phoenix
  $30 each way to/from Reno/Tahoe
  $44 each way to/from Seattle

 Seattle:
  $89 each way to/from Detroit
  $89 each way to/from Houston Hobby
  $59 each way to/from Las Vegas
  $44 each way to/from Oakland
  $89 each way to/from Orlando
  $81 each way to/from Phoenix
  $49 each way to/from Sacramento
  $44 each way to/from San Jose
  $30 each way to/from Spokane
  $89 each way to/from Tucson

 Spokane:
  $89 each way to/from Houston Hobby
  $30 each way to/from Portland
  $49 each way to/from Reno/Tahoe
  $30 each way to/from Seattle

 Tampa Bay:
  $89 each way to/from Albuquerque
  $59 each way to/from Baltimore/Washington
  $89 each way to/from Detroit
  $30 each way to/from Ft. Lauderdale
  $76 each way to/from Houston Hobby
  $63 each way to/from Indianapolis
  $89 each way to/from Las Vegas
  $89 each way to/from Los Angeles
  $89 each way to/from Phoenix

 Tucson:
  $31 each way to/from Los Angeles
  $55 each way to/from Reno/Tahoe
  $63 each way to/from Salt Lake City
  $89 each way to/from Seattle

 Tulsa:
  $88 each way to/from Cleveland
  $35 each way to/from Dallas Love
  $83 each way to/from Detroit
  $55 each way to/from Houston Bush Intercontinental
  $55 each way to/from Houston Hobby
  $89 each way to/from Providence

 Southwest Airlines Click 'n Save Internet Specials
 Other Terms and Conditions:

 Tickets must be purchased through the Southwest Airlines
 web site at http://www.southwest.com The fares listed
 above are per person for each way of travel. Click 'n Save
 Internet Specials require roundtrip travel and an overnight
 stay. Fares listed are for general information only and
 are not a reflection of current seat availability. Travel
 may originate in either direction. Roundtrip travel must
 be between the same origin airport and the same destination
 airport.

 Click 'n Save Internet Specials are nonchangeable and
 nonrefundable. Ticketless Travel Online may only be
 purchased with a credit card. Customers holding funds from
 a previously unused trip on Southwest Airlines or Customers
 who have Southwest Airlines vouchers will not be able to use
 those forms of payment for Ticketless Travel Online.

 Click 'n Save Internet Specials may not be combined with
 any other fares. Seats are limited and won't be available
 on some flights that operate during very busy travel times
 and holiday periods. Any change to the reservation (flights,
 dates, cities, and/or names of passengers) once purchased
 will result in a fare increase. Standby travel requires an
 upgrade to the full unrestricted fare.

 Of course, if your favorite city is not listed, we have many
 other incredible fares to all Southwest cities. To find more
 great fares on Southwest Airlines, please visit Ticketless
 Travel Online or check our Fares Information online at
 http://www.southwest.com

 ************************************************************
 Book your Southwest Airlines Ski Vacation to New Mexico and
 enjoy one FREE half-day group ski or snowboard lesson, plus
 your second day of ski is FREE! Don't delay...book today at
 http://www.swavacations.com/index1.htm
 ************************************************************

 This is a post only mailing from Southwest Airlines.
 Please do not attempt to respond to this message.

 Copyright 1999 Southwest Airlines Co. All Rights Reserved.
  >>



From hansonjb  Tue Nov  9 22:31:41 1999
From: hansonjb (Jim Hanson)
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 20:31:41 -0800
Subject: sr. parli debater needed for air force
Message-ID: <TUE.9.NOV.1999.203141.0800.HANSONJB@WHITMAN.EDU>

hi

we had a last minute cancellation and we're looking for someone to debate
with one of our parli debaters, brant olson. brant is a good debater and is
easy to get along with.

if you have an extra debater available for the air force tournament (nov.
12-14), please e-mail me at hansonjb at whitman.edu

we'll pay the entry fees.

thanks!

jim hanson
hansonjb at whitman.edu



From elisiaco  Tue Nov  9 22:56:27 1999
From: elisiaco (Elisia L. Cohen)
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 20:56:27 -0800
Subject: Heads up for those interested in coming to USC for the New
 Year
References: <006f01bf2b23$8351f760$20bf578a@mreno>
Message-ID: <TUE.9.NOV.1999.205627.0800.ELISIACO@USC.EDU>

Hi everyone,
    While many people might have seen David Damus's post about the USC tourney in September and responded to him... I'm going to be running the tab room and am interested in a preliminary count of the number of teams and judges you may bring before we meet to discuss tournament logistics. An official entry sent to me at this moment is not necessary, just a head count.  If you could reply to me ASAP (and send any information you might have sent to Dave earlier), it would be helpful. 

For your convenience, the tournament invitation David sent out in September is below. More tournament information will be forthcoming in the next few weeks.

Thank you,

Elisia Cohen
Graduate Assistant
Trojan Debate

Dear Friends,

While I know it is a bit early, I would like to invite you to the end of a 
decade celebration at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, 
California on December 29, 30, 31, 1999.

While I will be sending out formal invitations in the next few weeks, it is 
important that you make your hotel reservations ASAP. As you know, Y2K and 
2,000 are approaching. Los Angeles will host several LARGE events in downtown 
Los Angeles to celebrate the event (I know, technically it is not the end of 
the Century, but tell the media & the masses...they think it is and will 
celebrate accordingly...)

Thus, I have secured the following arrangement with the Tournament Hotel: 
Hyatt Regency Los Angeles ((213) 683-1234--tell them you are with the USC 
Alan Nichols Debate Tournament): $85.00 per night through 12/31/99 (you may 
sleep up to 4 in a room--it is a flat rate). If you wish to spend the New 
Year in Los Angeles the rate at the Hyatt will be approximately $230.00 per 
room per that evening. 

If you are continuing on to Long Beach or Redlands, you can leave the 
12/31/99 to avoid the extra cost. Also, we have modified the tournament to 
end no later than 6:00 p.m. on 12/31/99 to facilitate the New Year. (6 rounds 
with elims starting day 2, as per our survey we took at last years 
tournament.)

We are planning a large party at the Dinner on 12/30/99 with live 
entertainment and promise a good time by all. Los Angeles will be sold out, 
so you really need to plan now. The normal room rate at the Hyatt is $230.00 
per night with a 3 night minimum. They WILL NOT add rooms to our block. I had 
to fight hard to keep us there...so when all rooms are gone, they are gone. 
Also, when the date passes for the block, any unsold rooms will be released 
back to the hotel.

Y-2-K FEARS:--Like most of you, I have read the horrors of Y-2-K. I can tell 
you that the City of Los Angeles has been conducting EXTENSIVE power grid 
testing, emergency procedures and the airport has already simulated the 
12/31/99 to 2000 dates without a hitch. While I cannot guarantee you nothing 
will go wrong, I can tell you that the weather will be warmer than most 
places, that we have plenty of candles and that in all honesty, I feel the 
City and the Campus are Y-2-K compliant. The first real test came on 9/9/99. 
As some of you know, this date was also supposed to  trigger failures in old 
computer systems. We came out fine. I hope this fear does not deter the 
community from celebrating together under one roof.

If you have any special needs, please feel free to call me directly at (213) 
697-7275, ext.13 (office) or at home at (626) 797-0099.

Best regards,

David Damus
Director of Forensics
University of Southern California

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/19991109/0a319f42/attachment.html 


From perrmj02  Tue Nov  9 23:00:19 1999
From: perrmj02 (Michael J. Perry)
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 00:00:19 -0500
Subject: Southwest Airlines Internet Specials November 9, 1999
References: <0.e67eaf18.255a4f3c@aol.com>
Message-ID: <WED.10.NOV.1999.000019.0500.PERRMJ02@WFU.EDU>

Speaking of airfares, United has a new (I think?) program for college students.
Fares are based on total round trip miles, and the maximum domestic fare (over
4000 miles) is $299 plus fees.  My ticket home for break was originally $580,
but I changed my reservation and am now paying $208.  Seems like a pretty good
deal.  I think there are also frequent flyer mile bonuses and stuff.  You just
have to have a college ID to present when you check in to get the discounted
fares.
http://www.collegetravelnetwork.com/

Steve Herro wrote:

> i am sure most of you directors watch this kind of stuff...but for those of
> you who do not, this is a list of special internet fares southwest offers.
> this is one of the best offerings i have seen from southwest, so i thought i
> would pass it along.....
>
> steve
>
> In a message dated 11/9/1999 5:38:50 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
> special-offers-admin at mail.southwest.com writes:
>
> <<
>  Southwest Airlines Click 'n SaveSM E-mail Update for
>  November 9, 1999
>
>  Please pass this great news on to your friends! To subscribe
>  to Southwest Airlines Click 'n Save E-mail Updates,
>  visit http://www.southwest.com/email
>
>  Southwest Airlines Click 'n Save Internet Specials at
>  http://www.southwest.com/hotfares
>
>  ** These fares are valid for travel November 30, 1999
>  through March 31, 2000, except for December 17, 18, 23,
>  24, 26, 30, and 31, 1999 and January 2, 2000 and must
>  be purchased online at www.southwest.com by midnight
>  Pacific Standard Time November 11, 1999. ** Please see
>  Other Terms and Conditions of these fares at the end
>  of this e-mail.
>
>  The fares listed do not include airport-assessed passenger
>  facility charges (PFCs) of up to $12 roundtrip. Roundtrip
>  purchase and overnight stay are required. Fares do not
>  include a federal excise tax of up to $2.50 that will be
>  imposed on each flight segment of your itinerary. A flight
>  segment is defined as a takeoff and a landing.
>
>  Fares shown are each way based on roundtrip purchase
>
>  Albuquerque:
>   $89 each way to/from Boise
>   $89 each way to/from Detroit
>   $35 each way to/from El Paso
>   $80 each way to/from Houston Bush Intercontinental
>   $80 each way to/from Houston Hobby
>   $89 each way to/from Kansas City
>   $64 each way to/from Los Angeles
>   $75 each way to/from Oklahoma City
>   $35 each way to/from Phoenix
>   $86 each way to/from Sacramento
>   $89 each way to/from Tampa Bay
>
>  Amarillo:
>   $35 each way to/from Dallas Love
>   $60 each way to/from Houston Bush Intercontinental
>   $60 each way to/from Houston Hobby
>   $69 each way to/from Las Vegas
>   $89 each way to/from San Diego
>
>  Austin:
>   $35 each way to/from Houston Hobby
>   $89 each way to/from Los Angeles
>   $41 each way to/from Midland/Odessa
>   $70 each way to/from New Orleans
>
>  Baltimore/Washington:
>   $50 each way to/from Birmingham
>   $48 each way to/from Chicago Midway
>   $52 each way to/from Detroit
>   $89 each way to/from Harlingen (South Padre Island)
>   $89 each way to/from Houston Hobby
>   $66 each way to/from Jackson
>   $30 each way to/from Providence
>   $89 each way to/from Salt Lake City
>   $59 each way to/from Tampa Bay
>
>  Birmingham:
>   $50 each way to/from Baltimore/Washington
>   $60 each way to/from Chicago Midway
>   $75 each way to/from Detroit
>   $62 each way to/from Houston Hobby
>   $61 each way to/from Long Island/Islip
>   $89 each way to/from Las Vegas
>   $36 each way to/from New Orleans
>
>  Boise:
>   $89 each way to/from Albuquerque
>   $89 each way to/from Detroit
>   $89 each way to/from Houston Hobby
>   $52 each way to/from Las Vegas
>
>  Burbank:
>   $89 each way to/from Detroit
>   $89 each way to/from Houston Hobby
>   $89 each way to/from Jackson
>   $36 each way to/from Oakland
>   $31 each way to/from Phoenix
>   $89 each way to/from San Antonio
>
>  Chicago Midway:
>   $48 each way to/from Baltimore/Washington
>   $60 each way to/from Birmingham
>   $35 each way to/from Columbus
>   $35 each way to/from Detroit
>   $86 each way to/from Ft. Lauderdale
>   $89 each way to/from Houston Hobby
>   $39 each way to/from Kansas City
>   $64 each way to/from Manchester
>   $89 each way to/from Oakland
>   $89 each way to/from San Diego
>   $89 each way to/from San Francisco
>
>  Cleveland:
>   $89 each way to/from Houston Hobby
>   $41 each way to/from Indianapolis
>   $43 each way to/from St. Louis
>   $88 each way to/from Tulsa
>
>  Columbus:
>   $35 each way to/from Chicago Midway
>   $89 each way to/from Houston Hobby
>   $89 each way to/from Los Angeles
>   $59 each way to/from Orlando
>   $89 each way to/from Phoenix
>
>  Corpus Christi:
>   $89 each way to/from Detroit
>   $37 each way to/from Houston Hobby
>   $64 each way to/from Little Rock
>   $89 each way to/from St. Louis
>
>  Dallas Love:
>   $35 each way to/from Amarillo
>   $55 each way to/from El Paso
>   $35 each way to/from Houston Bush Intercontinental
>   $35 each way to/from Houston Hobby
>   $35 each way to/from Little Rock
>   $35 each way to/from Lubbock
>   $35 each way to/from San Antonio
>   $35 each way to/from Tulsa
>
>  Detroit:
>   $89 each way to/from Albuquerque
>   $52 each way to/from Baltimore/Washington
>   $75 each way to/from Birmingham
>   $89 each way to/from Boise
>   $89 each way to/from Burbank
>   $35 each way to/from Chicago Midway
>   $89 each way to/from Corpus Christi
>   $89 each way to/from El Paso
>   $89 each way to/from Ft. Lauderdale
>   $89 each way to/from Harlingen (South Padre Island)
>   $67 each way to/from Hartford/Springfield
>   $89 each way to/from Houston Hobby
>   $39 each way to/from Indianapolis
>   $74 each way to/from Jackson
>   $87 each way to/from Jacksonville
>   $57 each way to/from Kansas City
>   $89 each way to/from Las Vegas
>   $79 each way to/from Little Rock
>   $89 each way to/from Los Angeles
>   $41 each way to/from Louisville
>   $68 each way to/from Manchester
>   $89 each way to/from Midland/Odessa
>   $52 each way to/from Nashville
>   $89 each way to/from New Orleans
>   $89 each way to/from Oakland
>   $83 each way to/from Oklahoma City
>   $59 each way to/from Omaha
>   $89 each way to/from Ontario
>   $89 each way to/from Orlando
>   $89 each way to/from Phoenix
>   $89 each way to/from Portland
>   $68 each way to/from Providence
>   $49 each way to/from Raleigh-Durham
>   $89 each way to/from Reno/Tahoe
>   $89 each way to/from Sacramento
>   $41 each way to/from St. Louis
>   $89 each way to/from Salt Lake City
>   $89 each way to/from San Antonio
>   $89 each way to/from San Diego
>   $89 each way to/from San Francisco
>   $89 each way to/from San Jose
>   $89 each way to/from Seattle
>   $89 each way to/from Tampa Bay
>   $83 each way to/from Tulsa
>
>  El Paso:
>   $35 each way to/from Albuquerque
>   $55 each way to/from Dallas Love
>   $89 each way to/from Detroit
>   $82 each way to/from Houston Bush Intercontinental
>   $82 each way to/from Houston Hobby
>   $61 each way to/from Las Vegas
>   $79 each way to/from Oklahoma City
>   $57 each way to/from San Antonio
>   $83 each way to/from San Jose
>
>  Ft. Lauderdale:
>   $86 each way to/from Chicago Midway
>   $89 each way to/from Detroit
>   $86 each way to/from Houston Hobby
>   $30 each way to/from Jacksonville
>   $89 each way to/from Phoenix
>   $89 each way to/from St. Louis
>   $30 each way to/from Tampa Bay
>
>  Harlingen (South Padre Island):
>   $89 each way to/from Baltimore/Washington
>   $89 each way to/from Detroit
>   $37 each way to/from Houston Hobby
>   $37 each way to/from San Antonio
>
>  Hartford/Springfield:
>   $67 each way to/from Detroit
>   $89 each way to/from Houston Hobby
>
>  Houston Bush Intercontinental:
>   $80 each way to/from Albuquerque
>   $60 each way to/from Amarillo
>   $35 each way to/from Dallas Love
>   $82 each way to/from El Paso
>   $54 each way to/from Little Rock
>   $47 each way to/from Lubbock
>   $52 each way to/from Midland/Odessa
>   $54 each way to/from Oklahoma City
>   $55 each way to/from Tulsa
>
>  Houston Hobby:
>   $80 each way to/from Albuquerque
>   $60 each way to/from Amarillo
>   $35 each way to/from Austin
>   $89 each way to/from Baltimore/Washington
>   $62 each way to/from Birmingham
>   $89 each way to/from Boise
>   $89 each way to/from Burbank
>   $89 each way to/from Chicago Midway
>   $89 each way to/from Cleveland
>   $89 each way to/from Columbus
>   $37 each way to/from Corpus Christi
>   $35 each way to/from Dallas Love
>   $89 each way to/from Detroit
>   $82 each way to/from El Paso
>   $86 each way to/from Ft. Lauderdale
>   $37 each way to/from Harlingen (South Padre Island)
>   $89 each way to/from Hartford/Springfield
>   $84 each way to/from Indianapolis
>   $89 each way to/from Long Island/Islip
>   $40 each way to/from Jackson
>   $74 each way to/from Jacksonville
>   $76 each way to/from Kansas City
>   $89 each way to/from Las Vegas
>   $54 each way to/from Little Rock
>   $89 each way to/from Los Angeles
>   $82 each way to/from Louisville
>   $47 each way to/from Lubbock
>   $89 each way to/from Manchester
>   $52 each way to/from Midland/Odessa
>   $64 each way to/from Nashville
>   $39 each way to/from New Orleans
>   $89 each way to/from Oakland
>   $54 each way to/from Oklahoma City
>   $89 each way to/from Omaha
>   $89 each way to/from Ontario
>   $76 each way to/from Orlando
>   $89 each way to/from Phoenix
>   $89 each way to/from Portland
>   $89 each way to/from Providence
>   $81 each way to/from Raleigh-Durham
>   $89 each way to/from Reno/Tahoe
>   $89 each way to/from Sacramento
>   $66 each way to/from St. Louis
>   $89 each way to/from Salt Lake City
>   $35 each way to/from San Antonio
>   $89 each way to/from San Diego
>   $89 each way to/from San Francisco
>   $89 each way to/from San Jose
>   $89 each way to/from Seattle
>   $89 each way to/from Spokane
>   $76 each way to/from Tampa Bay
>   $55 each way to/from Tulsa
>
>  Indianapolis:
>   $41 each way to/from Cleveland
>   $39 each way to/from Detroit
>   $84 each way to/from Houston Hobby
>   $35 each way to/from St. Louis
>   $63 each way to/from Tampa Bay
>
>  Jackson, MS:
>   $66 each way to/from Baltimore/Washington
>   $89 each way to/from Burbank
>   $74 each way to/from Detroit
>   $40 each way to/from Houston Hobby
>
>  Jacksonville:
>   $87 each way to/from Detroit
>   $49 each way to/from Nashville
>   $30 each way to/from Ft. Lauderdale
>   $74 each way to/from Houston Hobby
>   $76 each way to/from Providence
>
>  Kansas City:
>   $89 each way to/from Albuquerque
>   $39 each way to/from Chicago Midway
>   $57 each way to/from Detroit
>   $76 each way to/from Houston Hobby
>   $35 each way to/from Oklahoma City
>   $89 each way to/from Phoenix
>   $89 each way to/from Sacramento
>   $89 each way to/from Salt Lake City
>
>  Las Vegas:
>   $69 each way to/from Amarillo
>   $89 each way to/from Birmingham
>   $52 each way to/from Boise
>   $89 each way to/from Detroit
>   $61 each way to/from El Paso
>   $89 each way to/from Houston Hobby
>   $89 each way to/from Manchester
>   $89 each way to/from Orlando
>   $59 each way to/from Portland
>   $38 each way to/from Salt Lake City
>   $59 each way to/from Seattle
>   $89 each way to/from Tampa Bay
>
>  Little Rock:
>   $64 each way to/from Corpus Christi
>   $35 each way to/from Dallas Love
>   $79 each way to/from Detroit
>   $54 each way to/from Houston Bush Intercontinental
>   $54 each way to/from Houston Hobby
>   $60 each way to/from Lubbock
>   $56 each way to/from Oklahoma City
>
>  Long Island/Islip:
>   $61 each way to/from Birmingham
>   $89 each way to/from Houston Hobby
>   $89 each way to/from Los Angeles
>   $69 each way to/from St. Louis
>
>  Los Angeles:
>   $64 each way to/from Albuquerque
>   $89 each way to/from Austin
>   $89 each way to/from Columbus
>   $89 each way to/from Detroit
>   $89 each way to/from Houston Hobby
>   $89 each way to/from Long Island/Islip
>   $89 each way to/from Louisville
>   $89 each way to/from Nashville
>   $89 each way to/from Manchester
>   $36 each way to/from Oakland
>   $44 each way to/from Reno/Tahoe
>   $36 each way to/from San Jose
>   $89 each way to/from Tampa Bay
>   $31 each way to/from Tucson
>
>  Louisville:
>   $41 each way to/from Detroit
>   $82 each way to/from Houston Hobby
>   $89 each way to/from Los Angeles
>
>  Lubbock:
>   $35 each way to/from Dallas Love
>   $47 each way to/from Houston Bush Intercontinental
>   $47 each way to/from Houston Hobby
>   $60 each way to/from Little Rock
>
>  Manchester:
>   $64 each way to/from Chicago Midway
>   $68 each way to/from Detroit
>   $89 each way to/from Houston Hobby
>   $89 each way to/from Las Vegas
>   $89 each way to/from Los Angeles
>   $89 each way to/from New Orleans
>   $72 each way to/from Orlando
>
>  Midland/Odessa:
>   $41 each way to/from Austin
>   $89 each way to/from Detroit
>   $52 each way to/from Houston Bush Intercontinental
>   $52 each way to/from Houston Hobby
>   $85 each way to/from Ontario
>   $62 each way to/from Phoenix
>
>  Nashville:
>   $52 each way to/from Detroit
>   $64 each way to/from Houston Hobby
>   $49 each way to/from Jacksonville
>   $89 each way to/from Los Angeles
>   $36 each way to/from New Orleans
>   $55 each way to/from Orlando
>   $89 each way to/from Portland
>
>  New Orleans:
>   $70 each way to/from Austin
>   $36 each way to/from Birmingham
>   $89 each way to/from Detroit
>   $39 each way to/from Houston Hobby
>   $89 each way to/from Manchester
>   $36 each way to/from Nashville
>   $80 each way to/from St. Louis
>
>  Oakland:
>   $36 each way to/from Burbank
>   $89 each way to/from Chicago Midway
>   $89 each way to/from Detroit
>   $89 each way to/from Houston Hobby
>   $36 each way to/from Los Angeles
>   $36 each way to/from Ontario
>   $30 each way to/from Reno/Tahoe
>   $48 each way to/from Salt Lake City
>   $40 each way to/from San Diego
>   $44 each way to/from Seattle
>
>  Oklahoma City:
>   $75 each way to/from Albuquerque
>   $83 each way to/from Detroit
>   $79 each way to/from El Paso
>   $54 each way to/from Houston Bush Intercontinental
>   $54 each way to/from Houston Hobby
>   $35 each way to/from Kansas City
>   $56 each way to/from Little Rock
>   $89 each way to/from Phoenix
>
>  Omaha:
>   $59 each way to/from Detroit
>   $89 each way to/from Houston Hobby
>   $89 each way to/from Providence
>   $31 each way to/from St. Louis
>
>  Ontario, CA:
>   $89 each way to/from Detroit
>   $89 each way to/from Houston Hobby
>   $85 each way to/from Midland/Odessa
>   $36 each way to/from Oakland
>   $36 each way to/from Sacramento
>   $48 each way to/from Salt Lake City
>   $36 each way to/from San Jose
>
>  Orlando:
>   $59 each way to/from Columbus
>   $89 each way to/from Detroit
>   $76 each way to/from Houston Hobby
>   $89 each way to/from Las Vegas
>   $72 each way to/from Manchester
>   $55 each way to/from Nashville
>   $89 each way to/from Phoenix
>   $72 each way to/from Providence
>   $89 each way to/from Seattle
>
>  Phoenix:
>   $35 each way to/from Albuquerque
>   $31 each way to/from Burbank
>   $89 each way to/from Columbus
>   $89 each way to/from Detroit
>   $89 each way to/from Ft. Lauderdale
>   $89 each way to/from Houston Hobby
>   $89 each way to/from Kansas City
>   $62 each way to/from Midland/Odessa
>   $89 each way to/from Oklahoma City
>   $89 each way to/from Orlando
>   $52 each way to/from Reno/Tahoe
>   $50 each way to/from Salt Lake City
>   $57 each way to/from San Francisco
>   $53 each way to/from San Jose
>   $81 each way to/from Seattle
>   $89 each way to/from Tampa Bay
>
>  Portland:
>   $89 each way to/from Detroit
>   $89 each way to/from Houston Hobby
>   $59 each way to/from Las Vegas
>   $89 each way to/from Nashville
>   $30 each way to/from Spokane
>
>  Providence:
>   $30 each way to/from Baltimore/Washington
>   $68 each way to/from Detroit
>   $89 each way to/from Houston Hobby
>   $76 each way to/from Jacksonville
>   $89 each way to/from Omaha
>   $72 each way to/from Orlando
>   $89 each way to/from Tulsa
>
>  Raleigh-Durham:
>   $49 each way to/from Detroit
>   $81 each way to/from Houston Hobby
>
>  Reno/Tahoe:
>   $89 each way to/from Detroit
>   $89 each way to/from Houston Hobby
>   $44 each way to/from Los Angeles
>   $30 each way to/from Oakland
>   $52 each way to/from Phoenix
>   $36 each way to/from Salt Lake City
>   $30 each way to/from San Jose
>   $49 each way to/from Spokane
>   $55 each way to/from Tucson
>
>  Sacramento:
>   $86 each way to/from Albuquerque
>   $89 each way to/from Detroit
>   $89 each way to/from Houston Hobby
>   $89 each way to/from Kansas City
>   $36 each way to/from Ontario
>   $40 each way to/from San Diego
>   $49 each way to/from Seattle
>
>  St. Louis:
>   $43 each way to/from Cleveland
>   $89 each way to/from Corpus Christi
>   $41 each way to/from Detroit
>   $89 each way to/from Ft. Lauderdale
>   $66 each way to/from Houston Hobby
>   $35 each way to/from Indianapolis
>   $69 each way to/from Long Island/Islip
>   $80 each way to/from New Orleans
>   $31 each way to/from Omaha
>
>  Salt Lake City:
>   $89 each way to/from Baltimore/Washington
>   $89 each way to/from Detroit
>   $89 each way to/from Houston Hobby
>   $89 each way to/from Kansas City
>   $38 each way to/from Las Vegas
>   $48 each way to/from Oakland
>   $48 each way to/from Ontario
>   $50 each way to/from Phoenix
>   $36 each way to/from Reno/Tahoe
>   $63 each way to/from Tucson
>
>  San Antonio:
>   $89 each way to/from Burbank
>   $35 each way to/from Dallas Love
>   $89 each way to/from Detroit
>   $57 each way to/from El Paso
>   $37 each way to/from Harlingen (South Padre Island)
>   $35 each way to/from Houston Hobby
>   $89 each way to/from San Diego
>
>  San Diego:
>   $89 each way to/from Amarillo
>   $89 each way to/from Chicago Midway
>   $89 each way to/from Detroit
>   $89 each way to/from Houston Hobby
>   $40 each way to/from Oakland
>   $40 each way to/from Sacramento
>   $89 each way to/from San Antonio
>
>  San Francisco:
>   $89 each way to/from Chicago Midway
>   $89 each way to/from Detroit
>   $89 each way to/from Houston Hobby
>   $57 each way to/from Phoenix
>
>  San Jose:
>   $89 each way to/from Detroit
>   $83 each way to/from El Paso
>   $89 each way to/from Houston Hobby
>   $36 each way to/from Los Angeles
>   $36 each way to/from Ontario
>   $53 each way to/from Phoenix
>   $30 each way to/from Reno/Tahoe
>   $44 each way to/from Seattle
>
>  Seattle:
>   $89 each way to/from Detroit
>   $89 each way to/from Houston Hobby
>   $59 each way to/from Las Vegas
>   $44 each way to/from Oakland
>   $89 each way to/from Orlando
>   $81 each way to/from Phoenix
>   $49 each way to/from Sacramento
>   $44 each way to/from San Jose
>   $30 each way to/from Spokane
>   $89 each way to/from Tucson
>
>  Spokane:
>   $89 each way to/from Houston Hobby
>   $30 each way to/from Portland
>   $49 each way to/from Reno/Tahoe
>   $30 each way to/from Seattle
>
>  Tampa Bay:
>   $89 each way to/from Albuquerque
>   $59 each way to/from Baltimore/Washington
>   $89 each way to/from Detroit
>   $30 each way to/from Ft. Lauderdale
>   $76 each way to/from Houston Hobby
>   $63 each way to/from Indianapolis
>   $89 each way to/from Las Vegas
>   $89 each way to/from Los Angeles
>   $89 each way to/from Phoenix
>
>  Tucson:
>   $31 each way to/from Los Angeles
>   $55 each way to/from Reno/Tahoe
>   $63 each way to/from Salt Lake City
>   $89 each way to/from Seattle
>
>  Tulsa:
>   $88 each way to/from Cleveland
>   $35 each way to/from Dallas Love
>   $83 each way to/from Detroit
>   $55 each way to/from Houston Bush Intercontinental
>   $55 each way to/from Houston Hobby
>   $89 each way to/from Providence
>
>  Southwest Airlines Click 'n Save Internet Specials
>  Other Terms and Conditions:
>
>  Tickets must be purchased through the Southwest Airlines
>  web site at http://www.southwest.com The fares listed
>  above are per person for each way of travel. Click 'n Save
>  Internet Specials require roundtrip travel and an overnight
>  stay. Fares listed are for general information only and
>  are not a reflection of current seat availability. Travel
>  may originate in either direction. Roundtrip travel must
>  be between the same origin airport and the same destination
>  airport.
>
>  Click 'n Save Internet Specials are nonchangeable and
>  nonrefundable. Ticketless Travel Online may only be
>  purchased with a credit card. Customers holding funds from
>  a previously unused trip on Southwest Airlines or Customers
>  who have Southwest Airlines vouchers will not be able to use
>  those forms of payment for Ticketless Travel Online.
>
>  Click 'n Save Internet Specials may not be combined with
>  any other fares. Seats are limited and won't be available
>  on some flights that operate during very busy travel times
>  and holiday periods. Any change to the reservation (flights,
>  dates, cities, and/or names of passengers) once purchased
>  will result in a fare increase. Standby travel requires an
>  upgrade to the full unrestricted fare.
>
>  Of course, if your favorite city is not listed, we have many
>  other incredible fares to all Southwest cities. To find more
>  great fares on Southwest Airlines, please visit Ticketless
>  Travel Online or check our Fares Information online at
>  http://www.southwest.com
>
>  ************************************************************
>  Book your Southwest Airlines Ski Vacation to New Mexico and
>  enjoy one FREE half-day group ski or snowboard lesson, plus
>  your second day of ski is FREE! Don't delay...book today at
>  http://www.swavacations.com/index1.htm
>  ************************************************************
>
>  This is a post only mailing from Southwest Airlines.
>  Please do not attempt to respond to this message.
>
>  Copyright 1999 Southwest Airlines Co. All Rights Reserved.
>   >>



--
Michael J. Perry
Wake Forest University
P.O. Box 28125
Winston-Salem, NC 27109
(336) 758-6625



From hll4459  Tue Nov  9 17:01:52 1999
From: hll4459 (Dr. Harold L. Lawson)
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 00:01:52 +0100
Subject: Honoring Harold Lawson
Message-ID: <WED.10.NOV.1999.000152.0100.HLL4459@CMSU2.CMSU.EDU>

Harold's sincere request was to have no service in connection with his
funeral.  Mrs. Lawson has honored that request and no funeral services will
be held.  Certainly, Harold would be pleased by the number and warmth of
responses to the news of his death.  Keeping with the spirit of Harold's
request and to celebrate his life dedicated to competitive debate and
forensics, a scholarship fund will be created in his honor.  In lieu of
flowers, please send donations for the Harold Lawson Scholarship Fund to:

                Harold Lawson Scholarship Fund
                Central Missouri State University Foundation
                Warrensburg, Missouri 64093
                ATT: Shanna K. Files

Please direct any questions concerning the Fund to:

                Shanna K. Files
                Corridinator of Annual Fund
                Smiser Alumni Center
                Warrensburg, Missouri 64093
                Office-(660) 543-4434
                Fax-(660) 543-4705

Harold L. Lawson, Ph.D., J.D
Director of Forensics
Professor of Communication
136 Martin
Central Missouri State University
Warrensburg, MO 64093
Telephone:  660-543-4459
Fax:  660-543-8006
Warrensburg Residence Phone:  660-429-5963
Pittsburg (KS) Residence Phone:  316-231-3825
Pittsburg (KS) email:  blawson at terraworld.net
Car Phone:  316-235-9836



From hcspc014  Tue Nov  9 23:46:56 1999
From: hcspc014 (william sheffield)
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 21:46:56 -0800
Subject: CSUN Epicenter Classic (Nov. 19-21)
Message-ID: <TUE.9.NOV.1999.214656.0800.HCSPC014@CSUN.EDU>

Although the tournament entry deadline isn't until next week, I just
wanted to get a rough idea of what to expect so that we can plan
accordingly.  If everyone on these listserves that is planning on
attending could backchannel me with a rough guesstimate of your entries
(ie - "x" policy teams, "x" parli teams, "x" IE slots), I would greatly
appreciate it.

We are planning for a great weekend, and are excited to host our friends
on the CSUN campus.

Thanks for your time,

Bill



Bill Sheffield, Director of Forensics
CSUN Speech & Debate Team
CSU-Northridge
Dept. of Communication Studies
Northridge, CA 91330-8257
office: 818/677-3043     debate room:  818/677-2028
fax:  818/677-2663
email:  hcspc014 at csun.edu     debateprof at juno.com
URL:  http://speech.csun.edu/forensics



From elliottdarren  Wed Nov 10 00:04:20 1999
From: elliottdarren (DARREN ELLIOTT)
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 00:04:20 CST
Subject: I agree with Mike. All I want is to not change the rules in
 the middle of the game.
Message-ID: <WED.10.NOV.1999.000420.CST.ELLIOTTDARREN@HOTMAIL.COM>

>From: Scott Elliott <selliott at SELU.EDU>

>Can you imagine the NCAA issuing new eligibility rules in the middle of the
>year or right before the final determination of the bowl championship?

They'd only do it if they could screw K-State football!

Darren Elliott
"CHIEF"
Asst. Debate Coach Wichita State University

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



From sarah.chan  Wed Nov 10 00:27:01 1999
From: sarah.chan (Sarah E. Chan)
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 01:27:01 EST
Subject: nov/jv eligibility
Message-ID: <WED.10.NOV.1999.012701.EST.SARAH.CHAN@JUNO.COM>

Still mulling over the rule...
I like how novices don't lose their standing during a year ("Once
debaters start as a novice they remain a novice for the entire academic
year"), which seems to answer people's concerns about debaters losing
novice eligibility NCA weekend, but I'm not sure.
Two tournaments in outrounds seems harsh though since for jv, they have
to make it to a final round.  It seems that this may push novices up
after a year while potentially making jv larger for teams that don't deal
with the NDT (like ours).
I am incredibly confused about the exception for JV national tournaments.
 So if someone wins a JV national tournament, they still have jv
eligibility?
At first glance, it seems that one of my open debaters now has jv
eligibility which is good since he really only did 2 or 3 tournaments a
semester last year.  On the other hand, I'm partnerless so if I pull
someone up, they could potentially get screwed.

Changing the rule mid-year is definately a negative in my mind.

Take care,
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 jef229f  Wed Nov 10 00:44:20 1999
From: jef229f (jef229f)
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 00:44:20 -0600
Subject: NCAA trivia and RE: I agree with Mike. All I want is to not
 change the rules in the middle of the game.
Message-ID: <WED.10.NOV.1999.004420.0600.JEF229F@MAIL.SMSU.EDU>

Sports trivia...the NCAA did change basketball rules after the start of the
season once.  Does anyone know the rule that was changed?

John Fritch
SMS

>===== Original Message From DARREN ELLIOTT <elliottdarren at HOTMAIL.COM> =====
>>From: Scott Elliott <selliott at SELU.EDU>
>
>>Can you imagine the NCAA issuing new eligibility rules in the middle of the
>>year or right before the final determination of the bowl championship?
>
>They'd only do it if they could screw K-State football!
>
>Darren Elliott
>"CHIEF"
>Asst. Debate Coach Wichita State University
>
>______________________________________________________
>Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

John Fritch
SMS



From PapeD  Wed Nov 10 01:03:13 1999
From: PapeD (Pape, Dean)
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 01:03:13 -0600
Subject: Happy Harold Stories
Message-ID: <WED.10.NOV.1999.010313.0600.PAPED@MAIL.RIPON.EDU>

What a remarkable contribution Dr. Harold Lawson has made to many of our
lives, and certainly to all of the forensics activities which we enjoy. The
warmth from the people who have posted to these listservs is a wonderful
testament to all of the lives he touched.

But what I remember best about Harold was his sense of humor. In fact, on
our way to the UMSL tournament, I thought I might run into Harold so I was
preparing my first-year students by telling them Harold Lawson stories. And
let's face it, if you really knew Harold Lawson, you would have had some
Harold Lawson stories to share!

Let's see. There was the tournament where students went down to get more
towels for their rooms (one of those deals when they book 4 people to a room
but only have two sets of towels). Anyway, the students were denied getting
any more towels. So a dripping wet Harold Lawson walks down to the lobby, up
to the counter, and says, "My name is Harold Lawson, I have a Ph.D. and a
J.D. and I want some #!$@!* towels!" He came back with a gigantic pile of
them!

Harold loved the Chinese buffet. In fact, when I did my grad school
interview, I was told to take off the tie and come to King Chef with members
of the team. Harold and I and the rest of the team talked forensics and ate
wonton soup and piles of whatever lay on the buffet. His famous line: "That
looks disgusting. I'll have to try some."

Harold rarely got along with his computer. In fact, he would call it names,
none of them printable on this list! You would walk past his office and hear
Harold talking to himself; when you poked  your head in the door, there
Harold would be, hitting the side of his computer. When he really got
frustrated he would call out "Deano!" from this office; his face would turn
red, his knee would start shaking, and he would rub the top of his short
head of hair and grumble as I tried to explain in simple English why he just
deleted his document.

The other time you might hear Harold grumbling from his office is because he
would be ordering food from King Chef to be delivered, and the guy on the
other end would never know how to speak English, nor would he know where the
Martin building was on Central Missouri's campus.

I recall the day that Harold had broken one of the side buckles for his
pants (you know, those adjustable pants you can buy so the waistband fits
just as you want it); well, as he came out of the forensics practice room
with his hands full of books, we heard this "whoops" from Harold, and Scott
Gordon whipped around and said "Don't look!" to others as Harold dropped the
books to pick up his drawers. His face was red, but he was laughing all the
way down the hall!

Of course, he had a meeting with the department that day, so I was trying to
fix this buckle for him. So I'm down on my knees trying to pin Harold's
pants when the Dean walks in to ask him if he's ready for the meeting. You
can just about imagine how many laughs the team got out of that story.

Rooming with Harold was a real treat. He snored so bad that if you didn't
get to sleep first, you were done for. I recall rooming with Harold and
Kendall Phillips in a small room at the Red Light Inn or whatever it was
called, some dinky motel rumored to be run by the mafia (not that I didn't
enjoy the red carpeting covering the walls). Well, there I was, pulling the
pillow around my head, as two snorers kept me awake until 4 a.m. Of course,
I was the lucky one. I recall a freshman by the name of Scott Kuttenkuler
who had to room with Harold one trip, and Harold got up in the middle of the
night, ran into the bed post, and yelled... well, let's just say it rhymed
with truck. I don't think Scott has recovered yet, and he's a senior now.

You had to love it when Harold was your shotgun on forensics trips and you
were a graduate coach driving the van. He would tell strange stories, sing
bizarre songs, and recite dirty limericks, anything to keep you awake.
Usually the entire van was roaring to these hilarious bits made up on the
spot.

One night for an argumentation theory graduate course he decided we all
needed to really get to the heart of the theorists, really dig into the
material and apply this stuff to real life. So I hosted a seminar at my
apartment complete with "refreshments" courtesy of Harold, and he would tell
us law school stories and create fictional scenarios with guys by the name
of Jack Daniels and Jim Beam. "So Jack and Jim are having an argument, and
Jack..."

With all of these stories, I can't forget that one of Harold's best traits,
bar none, was showing his absolute brilliance while not making you feel like
an idiot at the same time. I remember the one time Harold and I judged
together-- an LD final round panel at DSR-TKA. The team was taking bets as
we walked into the room as to whether we would split, and, if so, who would
be the squirrel in the three-person panel. Well, Harold and I split; oddly
enough, Harold was the squirrel. As we left the room and discussed our split
decision, I explained why I voted as I did. Harold then went through an
18-point analysis of why he voted, citing specific evidence and moments in
the debate without a legal pad in front of him. When I tried to counter with
one meager point, he went through an 18-point analysis of why I voted the
way I did. Then he looked at me and said, "You're probably right.  Let's go
get some Chinese food."

That's probably enough for now. Thanks for reading thus far. If you want to
share a Harold story, but not with the entire list, please backchannel me at
paped at ripon.edu I am compiling all of this, and would love to hear some fun
stuff about Harold L. Lawson-- my mentor, my friend, and someone I miss
very, very dearly. My best to his wife, Bev, to his team at Central
Missouri, and to all of those who loved him dearly. He will be missed, but
never forgotten.

Deano Pape
Assistant Professor of Speech/Director of Forensics
Ripon College
Ripon, WI
paped at ripon.edu



From cornell7  Wed Nov 10 02:30:48 1999
From: cornell7 (Erik Cornellier)
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 00:30:48 -0800
Subject: Scott Deatherege, Tuna, and J.W. Patterson
Message-ID: <WED.10.NOV.1999.003048.0800.CORNELL7@PILOT.MSU.EDU>

Could you please send me the mailing/administrative addresses of the KNDI,
Coon-Hardy, and the WDI?  I need them for law/grad school applications.
Thanks for your help!

Erik Cornellier
Erik Cornellier
Assistant Director of Debate
Gonzaga University
Home: (509) 835-4016
Office: (509) 323-6654
Email: cornellier at gonzaga.edu

>From  Wed Nov 10 08:37:53 1999
Message-Id: <WED.10.NOV.1999.083753.EST.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 58339 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 08:38:29
 -0500
Precedence: bulk
Received: from imo-d01.mx.aol.com (imo-d01.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.33]) by
 list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA16066 for
 <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 08:38:28 -0500
Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo-d01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id
 nETMvVQx7_ (3845) for <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Wed, 10 Nov 1999
 08:37:53 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 26
Message-ID: <0.6512d9fa.255acf31 at aol.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 08:37:53 EST
Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Michael Bear Bryant <MWBRYANT at AOL.COM>
Subject: New Email-Based Virus

Be careful even highlighting email from folks you don't know!

Bear
______________________________________________________________________

'Seinfeld' Computer Virus Emerges
E-mail Virus Doesn't Need To Be Opened To Be Activated

By RON HARRIS
.c The Associated Press

SAN FRANCISCO (Nov. 10) - Computer security experts are warning of a
dangerous new e-mail virus, one able to destroy information even when users
don't fully open their messages.

''Bubbleboy,'' apparently nicknamed after an episode of the TV show
''Seinfeld,'' is the first known e-mail virus that doesn't even need to be
fully opened to be activated. Just highlighting the e-mail's subject line in
Microsoft Outlook Express activates its hidden code.

It also takes every address in a computer's e-mail program and passes the
virus along.

Researchers at Network Associates, a Santa Clara computer security company,
said ''Bubbleboy'' could become the framework for the easy delivery of a host
of malicious programs.

''This ushers in the next evolution in viruses. It breaks one of the
long-standing rules that you have to open an e-mail attachment to become
infected,'' spokesman Sal Viveros said. ''That's all changed now.''

''Bubbleboy'' was e-mailed late Monday to Network Associates and the company
put a free software patch capable of blocking the attack on its Web site the
next day.

The company isn't certain who sent the virus, but researchers believed the
threat is so serious that they notified the FBI, said Vincent Gullotto,
director of the company's virus detection team.

''It could basically disable your PC easily,'' Gullotto said. ''This could be
a watershed.''

The virus sent Monday night was more playful than destructive as it worked
its way through a computer's hard drive, renaming the computer's registered
owner as ''Bubbleboy'' and making other ''Seinfeld'' references.

Such a display can be a warning salvo. Gullotto said more destructive
versions of the virus could soon follow.

''This could be the catalyst,'' Gullotto said. ''While the Melissa virus was
'hell coming to dinner,' we have reassessed that and know that something
bigger, meaner and nastier is on its way.''

The Melissa computer virus clogged e-mail systems around the world when it
hit in March, but many computer users were able to avoid trouble by deleting
e-mails without reading them. Like previous e-mail viruses, Melissa wreaked
havoc only after users double-clicked an attachment to the seemingly benign
messages.

''Bubbleboy'' only requires that the e-mail be previewed on the Inbox screen
of Microsoft's Outlook Express, a popular e-mail program. As soon as the
e-mail is highlighted, without so much as a click of a mouse, it infects the
computer.

The virus appears as a black screen with the words ''The Bubbleboy incident,
pictures and sounds'' in white letters.

It affects computers with Windows 98, Windows 2000 and some versions of
Windows 95 that also use Microsoft's Internet Explorer 5.0 and Outlook
Express Web browser and e-mail programs, Gullotto said. It apparently does
not affect Netscape's e-mail programs.

Even without Network Associates' software patch, there is an easy fix.
Enabling Microsoft's highest-security e-mail filter will keep the virus from
entering.

Microsoft spokesman Adam Sohn said Tuesday night that anyone who downloaded
the August upgrade to Internet Explorer 5.0 already is protected from
''Bubbleboy.''


 AP-NY-11-10-99 0452EST



From gp3  Wed Nov 10 08:57:55 1999
From: gp3 (glenn prince)
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 14:57:55 GMT
Subject: UCO swing partner needed
Message-ID: <WED.10.NOV.1999.145755.GMT.GP3@HOTMAIL.COM>

Let me know if anyone out there needs/wants to swing this weekend at UCO.  I
know it is late in the game...
Glenn
Ark State

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

>From  Wed Nov 10 10:04:30 1999
Message-Id: <WED.10.NOV.1999.100430.0500.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 61747 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 11:13:57
 -0500
Precedence: bulk
Received: from alpha.selu.edu (alpha.selu.edu [147.174.1.7]) by list.uvm.edu
 (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA14786 for <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Wed,
 10 Nov 1999 11:13:53 -0500
Received: from selu.edu by selu.edu (PMDF V5.2-32 #39798) id
 <01JI62TJYK0W9I5RTT at selu.edu> for edebate at list.uvm.edu; Wed, 10 Nov
 1999 10:13:16 CDT
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Message-ID: <01JI62TJYKYQ9I5RTT at selu.edu>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 10:04:30 -0500
Reply-To: selliott at SELU.EDU
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Scott Elliott <selliott at SELU.EDU>
Organization: Southeastern Louisiana University
Subject: Preserving eligibility and making the rankings represent the real
 status of programs.

First, I believe that novice debaters should get one year of eligibility. That is two academic semesters.
Second, I believe the way to make the rankings more representative is to adjust the point system.  Novice debate wins count as onepoint per ballot, JV two points per ballot and Varsity 4 points per ballot. This would be more representative of the state of policy debate.
Third, an alternative would be to have separate rankings for each division and then a larger ranking, similar--dare I say it--to the NDT reports I've seen.

I think the seperate rankings for divisions would help a lot of programs. For
example, I haven't had a varsity debate team in about three years. I may not ever have one again. (Why? Most of my debaters join as juniors, or have to drop out to get jobs--it is a very poor state) So, a seperate ranking system for the team I do field would be more represntative of my program's accomplishments within its division while not skewing a national varsity ranking.

Finally, in response to Gherke. He is right. Some programs do use the rankings to justify thier budgets. Welcome to Capitalism/competition 101. EVERYTHING has to be justified. Philosophy and pedagogy does not mean a damn thing during budget hearings and pleas for more money.
Scott Elliott



From se_region  Wed Nov 10 10:19:03 1999
From: se_region (Deon Garner)
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 08:19:03 PST
Subject: novice swing at vandy
Message-ID: <WED.10.NOV.1999.081903.PST.SEREGION@HOTMAIL.COM>

I have a novice debater by the name of Alfonso Lowry who needs  a partner
for Vandy.

Alfonso and his partner wer 5-1 at MTSU (quarters) and VSU (finals).  Al
received the 5th, 1st, and 2nd place novice speaks at MTSU, VSU, and LSU
respectively.

He's normally the 1a/2n but can do all 4 positions.

any takers . . . ?

thanks
deon

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

>From  Wed Nov 10 11:29:38 1999
Message-Id: <WED.10.NOV.1999.112938.EST.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 62017 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 11:30:17
 -0500
Precedence: bulk
Received: from imo-d09.mx.aol.com (imo-d09.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.41]) by
 list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA16848 for
 <EDEBATE at list.uvm.edu>; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 11:30:16 -0500
Received: from Davismk13 at aol.com by imo-d09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id
 nCPS0w5qyi (4068) for <EDEBATE at list.uvm.edu>; Wed, 10 Nov 1999
 11:29:38 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 41
Message-ID: <0.1c94dc19.255af772 at aol.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 11:29:38 EST
Reply-To: Davismk13 at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Mike Davis <Davismk13 at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: Preserving eligibility and making the rankings represent the
 real        ...

In a message dated 11/10/99 11:14:31 AM Eastern Standard Time,
selliott at SELU.EDU writes:

<< First, I believe that novice debaters should get one year of eligibility.
That is two academic semesters.
 Second, I believe the way to make the rankings more representative is to
adjust the point system.  Novice debate wins count as one point per ballot,
JV two points per ballot and Varsity 4 points per ballot. This would be more
representative of the state of policy debate.
 Third, an alternative would be to have separate rankings for each division
and then a larger ranking, similar--dare I say it--to the NDT reports I've
seen. >>

The only problem I see with this problem is that in areas of the country
where novice/jv divisions get collapsed (or don't exist to begin with)
individual who beat a fellow jv teams in a collapsed open division would lose
twice as much eligibility than if both divisions had made.

I am very interested and intrigued over a ballot count since I think it is a
truer measure than any system that exists, or has existed. I do think that
all novices should get at least a full of year novice regardless of success.

Mike



From KEL1773  Wed Nov 10 10:52:21 1999
From: KEL1773 (KEL1773)
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 11:52:21 -0500
Subject: research on top debate/forensics programs
Message-ID: <WED.10.NOV.1999.115221.0500.KEL1773@EMAIL.MSN.COM>

Hello--

I am putting together a literature review of research studying top
debate/forensics programs since 1991 (in particular, research that
identifies key elements/characteristics of programs that are critical to
their success).

If anyone has suggestions on articles to look for, I would appreciate it.

Thanks,
Kelly Young
John Carroll Debate



From jhovden  Wed Nov 10 12:01:00 1999
From: jhovden (Jan Hovden)
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 12:01:00 -0600
Subject: UCO entries
Message-ID: <WED.10.NOV.1999.120100.0600.JHOVDEN@UCOK.EDU>

47 Open, 13 JV and 7 Novice

We are still waiting on entries from Arkansas State and Emporia.  I
anticipate that JV will make quarters.

Abilene Christian

Open
Garyn Dunbar and Katie Richey

JV
Joshua McDonald and Alicia Phillips

Arizona State

Open
Takis Makridis and John Kircher
Edwin Aralica and Aaron Karabell

Judge
Todd Grahm

Baylor

Open
Blake Thomas and Matt Brigham

JV
Meredyth Childress and Sabrina Neff

Judge
Kelley Skillin

Chico

Open
Jim Herbert and Jeremy Bowers
Alia Kahn and Casey Arbenz
Brenda McChesney and Kylie Robertson

Judges
Kristi Morioka
Jeremy Hathaway

Emory

Open
Adam Goldstein and David Harkin

Eric Russ and Laura Wienstien
Joey Tavery and Rudy Mehrbani
Jeremy Hendon and Mike Garemko
Chris Hammond and Ryan Clough
Kurt Kastorf and Evan Granowitz
Josh Lynn and Lance Cook
Alexandro Rodu and Rania Nasreddine

Johnson County

Open
Korryn Mozisek and Jessica Rowe

Judge
Jeremy Hutchins

Kansas

Open
Nathan Rodriguez and Tom Seymour
Roger Saad and Justin Tinsley

JV
Seth Wood and John Breeding

Judges
Rich McCollum
Val Renegar

Kansas State

Open
Katie Hatziavramidis and Kevin Zollman
Melissa Newton and Kyle Wilson
Alex Garrett and Michael Schultz

JV
Justin Meier and Tyler Tigue

Judges
Sue Stanfield
Justin Green
Scott Herndon
Monte Stevens
Isaac West (Not available on Saturday)

Florida State

Open
John Cayangyang and Vince Binder

Macalester

Open
Katie Kauf and Ilya Winham

Judge
Doug Dennis

Michigan State

Open
Orion Smith and Tara O'Dowd
Tanya Palit and John Branstetter

Judges
Jason Trice
Jason Russell

NYU
Ricky Garner and Nate Gorelick

Judge
Will Baker

North Texas

Open
John Hines and Jason Sykes
Holly Fortner and Lauren Hildebrand
Scott Gottbreht and Julian Gagnon
Matt Shaffstall and Sloan Callen

Judges
Tara Tate
Mark Deloach

Southwest Missouri State

Open
John Nickle and Megan Pyle

JV
Shaun Anders and Laurel Taylor

Judges
Eric Morris
Martin Harris
Heather Walters

Texas - Austin

Open
Laura Nathan and Daniela Dwyer
Loren Dent and Jonathan McCartney
Matt Leibman and Pam Bowman
Jas Brar and Kippie Brar
Seth Poulos and Ryan Glinski

Judges
Eric Jenkins
David Breshears
Ron Greene

Texas - Dallas

Open
Jason Jordan and Justin Kirk
Vasile Stanescu and Aaron Fuqua

JV
Benjamin Vail and Paula Liporick

Novice
Mary Ann Burnside and Wayne Myers
Kim Loy and James Wadill

Judges
Lisa Jordan
Stephanie Steele

Texas- San Antonio

JV
J. R. Quintanilla and Glenn Martin

Novice
Michael Matthey and Monica Miles
Marty Golando and Anne McDonald
Jarrod Theirath and Manual ?

Judges

Lorena Donnalin

UMKC

Open
Coffman and Baisley
Rutledge and Leuty

JV
Reeves and Goodin
Clevenger and J. Whyte
Ousley and Sobek
Phillips and McClure

Judges
Sean Harris
Clay Rhodes
Kelly Congdon
Brent Siemers

Vermont

Open
Sarah Snider and Helen Morgan

JV
Anthony Pagan and Jaime Robertson

Judge
Justin Parmett

Wichita State

Open
Shannon Holland and Tom O'Toole
James Harris and Jerry McDonald

JV
Kat Gillum and Sarah Fellows

Judges
Laurie Ishak
Darren Elliot

William Jewell

Open
Mindy Baccus and Louie Petit
Tom Hershew and James Lawson
Mike Giroaurd and Dave Olson

Novice
Nick Gicinto and Heather Haney
Melissa Carmenati and Josh Jueh

Judges
Steve Woods
Gina Lane
Jenn Davis (Novice Only)



From silverma  Wed Nov 10 12:01:35 1999
From: silverma (andy silverman)
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 10:01:35 -0800
Subject: HOROWITZ OR LUPO
Message-ID: <WED.10.NOV.1999.100135.0800.SILVERMA@USC.EDU>

I was wondering if i could get the cites to the red spread disad and other case specific cuba disads you guys were reading at Kentucky and Harvard.

thanks,
andy silverman

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/19991110/82966564/attachment.htm 


From bg20351  Wed Nov 10 12:23:20 1999
From: bg20351 (Siejen Yin)
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 13:23:20 -0500
Subject: 1999 BINGHAMTON DEBATE TOURNAMENT RESULTS
Message-ID: <WED.10.NOV.1999.132320.0500.BG20351@BINGHAMTON.EDU>

To Friends of the Debate Community:


On behalf of the Binghamton Speech and Debate Team, we would like to thank
Mike Davis, Dan Overbey, Tuna, Sam
Nelson, Mike Berry & Brett O'Donnell, as well as All of the Eleven Schools
who made it out to our Tournament this past weekend.  It is with your
continual support, guidance, and dedication that we were able to run a
successful tournament.  We had a Total of 34 Teams in the Novice Division
and 13 Teams in the JV Division.

Enclosed are the Results of the 10th Annual Southern Tier Forensics Festival.

Thank You All for Coming.

Congratulations and Good Luck to All of You on the Rest of Your Competitive
Season.

Sincerely,

Siejen Yin                      Jenn Geiss
President                       Debate Coach



And Now on to Awards....


Winner of the 1999 Peter Beadle Sweepstakes Award:
1. Cornell University
2. United States Military Academy
3. Dartmouth College

1999 Southern Tier Forensics Festival Judging Awards:
1. Jolene Chan (Binghamton University)
2. Hewitt (University of Vermont)
3. Michael Cole (Cornell University)

Top 5 JV Speakers:
1. Tim Johnson (USNA-166Pts.)
2. Adam Shapiro (Rochester-166Pts.)
3. Anapurna Singh (Cornell-165Pts.)
4. John Finch (USMA-164.5 Pts.)
5. Simon Kim (USMA-165Pts.)

Top 10 Novice Speakers:
1. Miller (Vermont-170Pts.)
2. Shannon Smith (Cornell-168Pts.)
3. Tamara Pavasovic (Allegheny-167Pts.)
4. Towne (Vermont-166Pts.)
5. Gilpatric (Vermont-165Pts.)
6. Alexnder (Vermont-164Pts.)
7. David Ditch (Rochester-165.5Pts.)
8. Gervais (Vermont-163.5Pts.)
9. John Hitch (Cumberland-163.5Pts.)
10. Steve Hemnan (USMA-163.5 Pts.)


JV Outrounds:
1st Place JV-Vermont Morgan&Winfield
2nd Place JV-Vermont Pagan&Robertson

Finals
Vermont MW Advances over Vermont PR

Semis
Vermont PR defeated USMA SK 2-1
Vermont MW defeated Rochester WN 3-0

Partial Quarters
Rochester WN advances to Semis without Debating
USMA SK advances to Semis without Debating
Vermont MW defeated Navy BJ 3-0
Vermont PR defeated USMA SF 2-1



Novice Outrounds:
1st Place Novice-Dartmouth Matt Neil & Henry Shi
2nd Place Novice-Cumberland Melanie Worsley & Alice Freitas

Finals
Dartmouth NS defeated Cumberland WF 3-0

Semis
Cumberland WF advances over Cumberland HS
Dartmouth NS defeated USMA HS 2-1

Quarters
Cumberland WF defeated Cornell LS 2-1
Cumberland HS defeated Vermont PG 2-1
USMA HS defeated Cornell DW 3-0
Dartmouth NS defeated Vermont TA 2-1

Octofinals
Cornell LS defeated Vermont LG 3-0
Cumberland WD defeated Rochester DW 2-1
Vermont PG advances over Vermont KJ
Cumberland HS defeated Vermont MR 3-0
Cornell DW defeated Vermont CM 3-0
USMA HS defeated Rochester MW 2-1
Vermont TA advances over Vermont MW
Dartmouth NS defeated Allegheny PS 3-0





Siejen Yin
CIW #06479
Binghamton University
P.O. Box 6006
Binghamton, NY 13902-6006
(607) 777-3969



"...To help someone else if the greatest gift of all to yourself..."

"...We are all more Alike than Unlike..."
                -Maya Angelou



From karrottop  Wed Nov 10 12:21:04 1999
From: karrottop (Michael Campbell)
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 12:21:04 -0600
Subject: Happy Harold Stories
References: <2BD2DCAF6140D3118A3F0008C733F2550B6569@triton.ripon.edu>
Message-ID: <WED.10.NOV.1999.122104.0600.KARROTTOP@MAIL.UTEXAS.EDU>

i dont have many Lawson stories, i am just a sophomore, but had pleasure
of debateing him in many many rounds...  one that stuck out in my mind
was on teh fairness of the miss america pagent...  Harlod made an
argument that while the swimsuit competetion wasnt fair and "while the
ladies would probably like the competetion removed, well, being the
dirty old man i am, id like to see the swimsuits removed..."  how do you
turn that???  *L*  i think i was rolling in the floor, during a
round...  well, like i said, i dont have many stories, i just remember
him as a feared opponent, and a wonderful man...  he was everything
debate should be, a briliant orator, with great argumentation, a
delightful sense of humor, and one of the most ethical debators i
know...  once again my condolences to his family both immediate and
forensics...

PS  if you have any more Harold stories, or if anyone else has them id
love to hear them...

--
Mikie

"Do not go gentle into that good night
Old age should burn and rave at close of day
Rage, rage against the dying of the light..."

   -  Dylan Thomas



From PatG  Wed Nov 10 12:44:28 1999
From: PatG (Pat J. Gehrke)
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 13:44:28 -0500
Subject: Preserving eligibility and making the rankings represent the
 real status of programs.
Message-ID: <WED.10.NOV.1999.134428.0500.PATG@PSU.EDU>

On Wednesday, November 10, 1999 10:05 AM, Scott Elliott
[SMTP:selliott at selu.edu] wrote:
> First, I believe that novice debaters should get one year of eligibility.
That is two academic semesters.
> Second, I believe the way to make the rankings more representative is to
adjust the point system.  Novice debate wins count as onepoint per ballot,
JV two points per ballot and Varsity 4 points per ballot. This would be
more representative of the state of policy debate.
> Third, an alternative would be to have separate rankings for each
division and then a larger ranking, similar--dare I say it--to the NDT
reports I've seen.
>
> I think the seperate rankings for divisions would help a lot of programs.
For
> example, I haven't had a varsity debate team in about three years. I may
not ever have one again. (Why? Most of my debaters join as juniors, or have
to drop out to get jobs--it is a very poor state) So, a seperate ranking
system for the team I do field would be more represntative of my program's
accomplishments within its division while not skewing a national varsity
ranking.
>
> Finally, in response to Gherke. He is right. Some programs do use the
rankings to justify thier budgets. Welcome to Capitalism/competition 101.
EVERYTHING has to be justified. Philosophy and pedagogy does not mean a
damn thing during budget hearings and pleas for more money.
> Scott Elliott

Just three brief comments:  The multiplication/division might be an
interesting issue to discuss is terms of points and rankings.  I don't
think we need to do it for eligibility standards to be based on ballots.
 We can keep it simple and just determine some ballot count numbers that we
think make good cut-offs.

Now, as for the guaranteed one year of novice, this is tricky.  How does
one simultaneously protect nontraditional students or students that suffer
from crises or emergencies that interrupt their novice time and at the same
time prevent sandbagging novices to by stretching out their eligibility
over two years?  See, what I don't want is a rule that says that the
students who can only do one tournament each semester because they want to
try debate but has too many other things in their life to do more than that
one tournament has to suddenly go Junior after those two tournaments.  By
the same merit, I don't like the rule that says that if you only do two
tournaments in a semester it does not count at all toward eligibility.  So,
the ballot counting method seems more reasonable, since the student that
can only do two tournaments a semester still loses some eligibility based
on the ballots accrued during those two tournaments, but not nearly as much
as the student that attends five tournaments with a similar win-loss
record.  But, I certainly think this merits much more discussion.

As for the capitalism and budget justification story, as I said in my
initial foray into this proposal, I recognize that to be a necessary
element of this whole process.  I know that it is important for some
programs, and even if I don't like it, that is my tough luck.  All I am
saying is that the ballot counting method is a far more precise and
on-point way of dealing with the issue at hand.

Now, an initial foray at a wording.  This is rough, but I hope it can start
some discussion:

A student shall qualify for the novice division if s/he has won no more
than a combined total of 60 ballots in high school team policy debate,
college team policy debate (including, but not limited to, CEDA, NDT, ADA,
and NEDA format debating), and CEDA value debate.
A student shall qualify for the junior varsity division if s/he has won no
more than a combined total of 180 ballots in college team policy debate
(including, but not limited to CEDA, NDT, ADA, and NEDA format debating),
CEDA value debate, and college parliamentary debate.
Any student currently eligible to compete and in good academic standing
with her/his university may enter the varsity division.
A student's eligibility shall change effective immediately following the
conclusion of the last round of each tournament in which the student
competes.

Comments?  Revisions?  Suggestions?
How important is the "one year" standard for novice debate?
Does anyone have a problem with the idea that a student could shift
eligibility mid-semester?
Do you think it better to count ballots or rounds, since ballots makes out
rounds worth more than prelims?

Hoping for more dialogue on this issue,

Pat



From kyoung  Wed Nov 10 13:24:57 1999
From: kyoung (kelly young)
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 14:24:57 -0500
Subject: Jack Rogers only
Message-ID: <WED.10.NOV.1999.142457.0500.KYOUNG@JCU.EDU>

Sorry to clutter edebate--

Jack,

I have tried to email you but the address given to me by the edebate
scan is not being accepted.  Could you email me back.  I have a question
for you.

Kelly Young
Assist DOD
John Carroll U Debate

>From  Wed Nov 10 14:49:34 1999
Message-Id: <WED.10.NOV.1999.144934.0500.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 65297 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 14:51:05
 -0500
Precedence: bulk
Received: from iris.liberty.edu (iris.liberty.edu [207.239.144.36]) by
 list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA15100 for
 <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 14:51:03 -0500
Received: from te146.liberty.edu (TE146 [10.2.6.253]) by iris.liberty.edu with
 SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2448.0) id
 VXDR54K0; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 14:50:32 -0500
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
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Message-ID: <000101bf2bb4$b62be1a0$fd06020a at te146.liberty.edu>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 14:49:34 -0500
Reply-To: bodonnel at liberty.edu
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Brett O'Donnell <bodonnel at LIBERTY.EDU>
Subject: Liberty Team List-Update 5

Below is the updated team list for the Liberty Debate Tournament.  I still
need the names of the Towson Debaters and the final Trinity JV entry.  The
deadline for drops is today at 5:00 pm.  After the deadline the entry fee
will still be assessed.

The weather should be partly sunny with temps in the 60's throughout the
weekend.

You may register at the hotel on Thursday from 7-10 pm (ask the front desk
for location) or at Liberty on Friday from 12-3 pm.

Liberty University Debate

Varsity-23 teams

JV-27 teams

Novice-43 teams

Boston College

Varsity:
Jared Fields/Lisa Langdon

Novice:
Kevin Collins/Lynze Fox
Mario Poweell/Paul Sutton
Kevin Hartzell/Chris Masefield

Judges:
John Katsulas
Stefan Bauschard

Catholic University

Varsity:
Joe Lauer/Michael Pomorski
Sarah Wilson/Matt Dunn

Junior Varsity:
Luke O'Connell/Tony Poliseno
Timeka Drew/Patrick Waldinger
Paul Strait/Kenny LeMaire

Novice:
Thomas O'Gorman/Celia Messing
Chris Flores/Christine Pham
Richard Sampson/Cassandra Oryl
Alex Duke/Danielle Verney
Ellis Oster/Natalie Savarese
Lisa Meagher/Matt Burchfield

Judges:
Ron Bratt
Paul Kerr
Michael Dutcher
Eric Grynaviski
Rebecca Greene
Glen Johnson
Jeremy Adair


Duke

Varsity:
Erin Abrams/Alisa Nave

JV:
Tom Jones/Gopi Kumar

Judge:
Rich O'Dor

Duquesne

Novice:
Erin Mullaney/Jessica Custer

Judges:
Jim Dutcher
Sig Fuchs

George Mason

Varsity:
Jay Igiel/Frances Tufts

JV:
Adrian Voicu/Steve Williams
Bary Hausrath/Butch Canter
Tim Gleason/Tricia Webb

Novice:
Heather Westron/Leah Foster
Renee Loebs/Lynadria Ware
Katy Kasmai/Megan Wells
Mike Webb/Shey Bebahani
Mitchell Kato/Allison Lauderdale

Judges:
Jomel Angat
Richard Reed
Jake Weiner
Peter Krein
Chris McIntosh
Dee Dee Giroux

George Washington

Varsity:
Jon Schwartz/Heather Barnes

Judge:
Jason Mika

Harvard

Varsity:
Doug Shively/Keia Cole

Judges:
Dallas Perkins
Sherry Hall

James Madison

Varsity:
John Willemin/Dan Blaeuer

JV:
Nicole Bigley/Christy Graham
Cate Morrison/Michelle Lancaster

Novice:
Julie Lane/Diane Mislevy
Todd Cooper/Deana Vetter
Brian Gooch/Grace Oh
Katie Farmer/Tara Ambrose
Katy Shea/Megan Wilkinson
Chris France/Andy Wilson

Judges:
Barb Pickering
Pete Bsumek
Eric Minkove (pending)

John Carroll

Varsity:
Ben Sovacool/Katie Lavelle

JV:
Brandi Clouston/Jen Bozman
Jessica Dillon/Jim Paluf

Judges:
Brent Brossmann
Kelly Young

King's

Novice:
Jim Gray/Amy Laura
Justin Bartos/ Lisa Collins
Joe Castigilia/Joe McCullogh

Judges:
Jude Pannell
Mike Berry

Marshall University

Varsity:
Christian Hess/Jason Houser

JV:
Joshua Saunders/Ryan McCullough

Judge:
Kristine Greenwood

Mary Washington

Varsity:
Judy Goss/Amber Tussing

JV:
Matt Hoell/Cathy Rothaug

Novice:
Robert Bowen/Herbert Conley
Bonnie Ryan/Nora Cronin

Judge:
Tim O'Donnell



Methodist College

JV:
Ron Berry/Susanne Graves

Judge:
Todd Lyden

Michigan

Varsity:
Ashley Amaya/Megan McMillan
John Oden/Tim Stucka

Judges:
Steve Mancuso

Navy

Varsity:
Mike Bruno/Tim Johnson

Novice:
Pete Steveson/John Hiler
Alisha Hamilton/Von Fernandes
Dave Bartlow/Austin Gullet
Dome Pholtavee/Brent Richardson

Judges:
Jonny Chase
Brad Taylor
Chris Rodriguez

Penn State

Varsity:
Devin Chwastyk/Veronica Finkelstein

JV:
Jeff Klenk/Mike Sawyer

Novice:
Tom Keiser/Joe Bangert

Judges:
Pat Gehrke
Dan Bloomingdale

Pittsburgh

Varsity:
Eric English/Andrew Stangl
Omri Ceren/Tony Todero

JV:
Andy Stephany/Adam Webber
Heather Logue/Laura Hutchings
Bri Mezuk/Scott Gurewitz

Novice:
Dawne Bolinger/Kat Schell
Harold Jones/Cindy Yogmas
Joe Reickenbacher/Christine Browne
Tanisha Jones/Richmond Novice

Judges:
Marcy Halpin
Gordon Mitchell
Eli Holloway
Dave Helwich
Max Schnurer

Towson

Varsity:
One Team

Novice:
One Team

Judge:
Beth Skinner

Trinity University

Varsity:
Casey Low/Andrew Payne

JV:
1 or 2 teams

Judges:
Frank Harrison
Chris Lotz

University of Richmond

JV:
Joe Keeton/Kelly Fergeson

Novice:
Pittsburgh Novice/James Cain

Judge:
Jason Stone
Scott Luchetti

University of South Carolina

Varsity:
Erin Bailey/Maggie McAllister

JV:
Ankit Pate/Jason Bethel

Novice:
Markesha Miller/Andrew Touzel

Judge:
Jen Edwards

University of Virginia

 JV:
Judson Frye/Dave Simpson
Ben Bateman/Ben Rottenborn

Judges:
Earl Croasman

Wake Forest

Varsity:
Rebecca Eaton/Kevin Kneupper
Lindsay Littlefield/Bingham Powell
Cyclone Covey/Paul Stockamore


NOVICE:
Badriyyah Al-Islam/Jamila Porter
Audrey Allen/Heather Hazen
Chad Flick/Stacy Gomes
Alice Ma/Audrey Young

JUDGES:
Sandra McCullough
Allan Louden
Tomihiro Kanke (Novice only)
Aaron Harmon (may be there, wll let you know)


West Virginia

JV:
Stephen Marshall/Joshua Whitehair
Mary Bess/Joshua Boggs
Jennifer Dixon/Jason Evans

Novice:
Annelee Boyle/Samantha Jones
Kimberly Bandy/Jessica Taylor

Judges:
Daniel Overbey
Mark Schaefer
Jodie Robinson



From jbruschke  Wed Nov 10 14:44:23 1999
From: jbruschke (Bruschke, Jon)
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 12:44:23 -0800
Subject: Graduate Assistantships at CSU Fullerton
Message-ID: <WED.10.NOV.1999.124423.0800.JBRUSCHKE@EXCHANGE.FULLERTON.EDU>

CSU Fullerton has as many as 5 graduate assistantships available to students
interested in working with our speech and debate program.  The CSU Fullerton
Master's program has the top Intercultural Communication faculty in the
world, and is strong in the areas of argument, rhetoric, and interpersonall
communication.  The department is committed to debate outreach, and we
currently work with 3 under-served high schools in Orange County and are
working with the Open Society Institute to form a Southern California Urban
Debate League beginning in the fall of 2000.  The speech and debate team
supports over 30 students competing at all levels; we typically field 2
national policy debate teams, 4 to 8 regional and local debate teams, and a
full slate of individual events competitors.  Stipends are competitive and
tuition is very reasonable.  Interested students should contact either Dr.
Jon Bruschke (714-278-3272; jbruschke at fullerton.edu) or Dr. Jeanine
Congalton (714-278-3575; kcongalton at fullerton.edu).

----------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Jon Bruschke
Dept. of Speech Communication, California State University Fullerton
714-278-3272 (office) 714-278-3377 (fax)
To discover the world's greatest rock band, check out:
http://commfaculty.fullerton.edu/jbruschke/mgb%20doc.html



From gachten  Wed Nov 10 14:50:53 1999
From: gachten (Achten, Greg)
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 12:50:53 -0800
Subject: Graduate Assistantships at Pepperdine
Message-ID: <WED.10.NOV.1999.125053.0800.GACHTEN@PEPPERDINE.EDU>

Hello,

I anticipate hiring at least one graduate assistant for the following
academic year. Pepperdine is a small liberal arts college with approximately
3,000 undergraduate and graduate students, located in the Santa Monica
Mountains overlooking Malibu, CA. The asssitantship offers a tuition waiver
and a stipend as compensation for working with the debate team. The
assistant is charged with coaching, travel, and judging responisiblities in
addition to some light administrative work. Because this is a non-teaching
position, the only responsiblities for the graduate assistnatship are debate
related. The program at Pepperdine is designed to be a 1 year Masters
degree, with the possibility of continued funding for a second year to
complete thesis work. Anyone interested in the position should feel free to
backchannel me at this address or call me at 310-456-4524.

Greg Achten
Director of Forensics
Pepperdine University



From shorty140  Wed Nov 10 14:56:14 1999
From: shorty140 (Jeff)
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 15:56:14 -0500
Subject: Swing Partner for Vandy
Message-ID: <WED.10.NOV.1999.155614.0500.SHORTY140@HOTMAIL.COM>

Looking for a novice and a junior varsity swing partner for two people from
Morehouse College at Vanderbilt.



From jhovden  Wed Nov 10 15:17:43 1999
From: jhovden (Jan Hovden)
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 15:17:43 -0600
Subject: UCO entries
Message-ID: <WED.10.NOV.1999.151743.0600.JHOVDEN@UCOK.EDU>

I think this should be close to the final list of teams.

Jan

49 Open, 16 JV and 7 Novice

Abilene Christian

Open
Garyn Dunbar and Katie Richey

JV
Joshua McDonald and Alicia Phillips

Arizona State

Open
Takis Makridis and John Kircher
Edwin Aralica and Aaron Karabell

Judge
Todd Grahm

Arkansas State

Open
1 team

JV
1 team

Judge
Gordie Miller

Baylor

Open
Blake Thomas and Matt Brigham

JV
Meredyth Childress and Sabrina Neff

Judge
Kelley Skillin

Chico

Open
Jim Herbert and Jeremy Bowers
Alia Kahn and Casey Arbenz
Brenda McChesney and Kylie Robertson

Judges
Kristi Morioka
Jeremy Hathaway

Emory

Open
Adam Goldstein and David Harkin

Eric Russ and Laura Wienstien
Joey Tavery and Rudy Mehrbani
Jeremy Hendon and Mike Garemko
Chris Hammond and Ryan Clough
Kurt Kastorf and Evan Granowitz
Josh Lynn and Lance Cook
Alexandro Rodu and Rania Nasreddine

Emporia

Open
Sam Mauer and Curtis Shepard

JV
Phil Hultz and S. J. Moore
Jerome Brouhard and Kristen Whitehair

Judge
Ken DeLaughder

Johnson County

Open
Korryn Mozisek and Jessica Rowe

Judge
Jeremy Hutchins

Kansas

Open
Nathan Rodriguez and Tom Seymour
Roger Saad and Justin Tinsley

JV
Seth Wood and John Breeding

Judges
Rich McCollum
Val Renegar

Kansas State

Open
Katie Hatziavramidis and Kevin Zollman
Melissa Newton and Kyle Wilson
Alex Garrett and Michael Schultz

JV
Justin Meier and Tyler Tigue

Judges
Sue Stanfield
Justin Green
Scott Herndon
Monte Stevens
Isaac West (Not available on Saturday)

Florida State

Open
John Cayangyang and Vince Binder

Macalester

Open
Katie Kauf and Ilya Winham

Judge
Doug Dennis

Michigan State

Open
Orion Smith and Tara O'Dowd
Tanya Palit and John Branstetter

Judges
Jason Trice
Jason Russell

NYU
Ricky Garner and Nate Gorelick

Judge
Will Baker

North Texas

Open
John Hines and Jason Sykes
Holly Fortner and Lauren Hildebrand
Scott Gottbreht and Julian Gagnon
Matt Shaffstall and Sloan Callen

Judges
Tara Tate
Mark Deloach

Southwest Missouri State

Open
John Nickle and Megan Pyle

JV
Shaun Anders and Laurel Taylor

Judges
Eric Morris
Martin Harris
Heather Walters

Texas - Austin

Open
Laura Nathan and Daniela Dwyer
Loren Dent and Jonathan McCartney
Matt Leibman and Pam Bowman
Jas Brar and Kippie Brar
Seth Poulos and Ryan Glinski

Judges
Eric Jenkins
David Breshears
Ron Greene

Texas - Dallas

Open
Jason Jordan and Justin Kirk
Vasile Stanescu and Aaron Fuqua

JV
Benjamin Vail and Paula Liporick

Novice
Mary Ann Burnside and Wayne Myers
Kim Loy and James Wadill

Judges
Lisa Jordan
Stephanie Steele

Texas- San Antonio

JV
J. R. Quintanilla and Glenn Martin

Novice
Michael Matthey and Monica Miles
Marty Golando and Anne McDonald
Jarrod Theirath and Manual ?

Judges

Lorena Donnalin

UMKC

Open
Coffman and Baisley
Rutledge and Leuty

JV
Reeves and Goodin
Clevenger and J. Whyte
Ousley and Sobek
Phillips and McClure

Judges
Sean Harris
Clay Rhodes
Kelly Congdon
Brent Siemers

Vermont

Open
Sarah Snider and Helen Morgan

JV
Anthony Pagan and Jaime Robertson

Judge
Justin Parmett

Wichita State

Open
Shannon Holland and Tom O'Toole
James Harris and Jerry McDonald

JV
Kat Gillum and Sarah Fellows

Judges
Laurie Ishak
Darren Elliot

William Jewell

Open
Mindy Baccus and Louie Petit
Tom Hershew and James Lawson
Mike Giroaurd and Dave Olson

Novice
Nick Gicinto and Heather Haney
Melissa Carmenati and Josh Jueh

Judges
Steve Woods
Gina Lane
Jenn Davis (Novice Only)



From jhovden  Wed Nov 10 15:30:14 1999
From: jhovden (Jan Hovden)
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 15:30:14 -0600
Subject: UCO flight info
Message-ID: <WED.10.NOV.1999.153014.0600.JHOVDEN@UCOK.EDU>

Right now I have flight information from: Arizona State, Vermont,
Michigan State, Chico
and NYU.  If anyone else needs transportation, please let me know.

Jan



From West  Wed Nov 10 15:34:14 1999
From: West (Terry West)
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 14:34:14 -0700
Subject: novice/jv amendment
Message-ID: <WED.10.NOV.1999.143414.0700.WEST@SUU.EDU>

Since this seems to be some sort of concern on your part about how you're perceived as a judge (I have no idea why that's in the discussion), I suggest you backchannel me if you really want answers.  We can talk about your flow or something.

Terry
SUU

>>> Tony King <AKing50 at AOL.COM> 11/09/99 09:59PM >>>
This is getting just completely irresponsible on the part of a few people.
First, I would like to know when and where I declared "war" on anyone, much
less CEU??  Second, I have a lot of respect for CEU, their debaters and Dean,
and the faculty there that I have talked to, why would i "declare war" on
them?  I would love to hear my motive.  Third, I COACH at a COMMUNITY COLLEGE
(Los Rios), why would I attack community colleges??  As a matter of fact, I
even defended CEU as being able to attend NDT quals and Phi Rho Pi, which was
the original intent of the first post, hmmm, wouldn't I not want them at Phi
Rho Pi (where we will be) if I was attacking them or wanted to help out my
own team??  Fourth, I have never attacked District 9, I even debated there
for a year, and greatly enjoyed it, and I have attended GSL for the last 4
years (heck, I even answered questions that your debaters had Terry for 1 1/2
hours after a round i judged them-they picked it up- to help them at Long
Beach last year).  I even applied for a job in the region this year, and a
very good coach got it over me.  All my friends have told me only good things
about the region, and I tend to agree.  I have given cites and even cards to
the CEU debaters in the past.  Wow, this all sounds like I want to kill CEU
debate, District 9 and only save california???  I don't think so.

I have had Terry get mad at me after decisions, saying these same types of
things.  I don't know if this is an attempt to intimidate me for future
ballots (sorry, my flow dictates, not you) or what.  I do know that no one in
District 9 is hated or disliked by me (except maybe Jackson  and Jessica for
beating me on that damn PALS case --sarcasm), and I have gone out of my way
to help a couple of SUU and CEU debaters at times.  Terry, if this is still
over a couple ballots, get over it, I have no grudge or dislike for your
teams, it is the way I saw the rounds.
Bear, if you think I hate district 9 or have some agenda for california, you
overestimate me and what I do politically.  I am a Second Year Grad Student,
politics are not my thing and I have NO influence on regional politics, nor
do i have an interest in them.  All I care about is helping students in
debate and classes and getting my PhD.  That is it, simple.  Anything else,
you are reading in to it.
I have much respect for both of you, Bear you helped me at Vermont when i was
a debater, Terry, you helped me when i was at Chico at times.  And I thank
you for those times, and find your claim of my "war" foundationless, and a
strawperson argument.  Sorry, I am about peace and learning,
Peace,
Tony king
Los Rios Debate

In a message dated 11/9/99 1:58:54 PM Pacific Standard Time, West at SUU.EDU
writes:

<< Let's see.  Fullerton declares war on the University of Utah to get back
at a director of forensics who is no longer there.

 Tony King declares war on CEU because. . .????

 As District IX rep, I'm beginning to feel like Charlie Brown in the song,
paraphrased as "Why's California always pickin' on us?"  C'mon, folks, y'all
are doing fine!  Evidence-intensive debate has made a good comeback in
California.  We've enjoyed traveling to Fresno, San Diego State, Pepperdine.
Will be at least at Long Beach; hopefully more this year.  Would like to do
it in the future.  Why are y'all trying to kill us?  Don't you like us?  Did
we offend?  I mean, really--what's the point in declaring war on people who
are not your enemies?
  >>



From apkemp  Wed Nov 10 15:38:57 1999
From: apkemp (Andrew Kemp)
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 15:38:57 -0600
Subject: Paging Doug Dennis.
Message-ID: <WED.10.NOV.1999.153857.0600.APKEMP@GLORIA.CORD.EDU>

Email me, s'il vous plait,

Merci.

Andrew Kemp
------------------
PO Box 4308
Concordia College
Moorhead, MN 56562
------------------
(218) 299-3970
Livedalen Hall 111
------------------
"It's All Good!"



From debate  Wed Nov 10 16:57:58 1999
From: debate (Vermont Debate)
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 17:57:58 -0500
Subject: Why not change the topic during the middle of the year
Message-ID: <WED.10.NOV.1999.175758.0500.DEBATE@ZOO.UVM.EDU>

So i have been thinking, syria is not debated very much this year. I also
know of at least 13 libraries around the country that don't have very good
syria sections. I think this is unfair and makes a small contigent of
schools unable to deal with that part of the topic. I am therefore looking
into crafting an amendment that i can sneak into some ill attended ceda
business meeting that will remove syria from  the topic and replace it with
libya, because i want my teams to be able to run a United States of Africa
position. With all hope by the time we go to the next tournament that
directly coincides with a ceda business meeting i will be able to change
the topic so that when my teams get up round one and say observation  one
the sanctions on libya are bad. I just can't wait for the look of shock on
the negatives face when we read back the new amendment as the 2ac ans to
their libya topicality.

The precedent for such intrest group supporting behavior has been set, the
question now is how far can it go.

Andy



From mch766s  Wed Nov 10 17:06:49 1999
From: mch766s (Martin Che Harris)
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 17:06:49 -0600
Subject: Novel Novice idea
Message-ID: <WED.10.NOV.1999.170649.0600.MCH766S@MAIL.SMSU.EDU>

  Hey I got an idea.  Why don't we stop micromanaging ourselves to death,
and let people debate.  Six years ago, we had healthy large JV divisions in
Mid-America, because people like Sean Lemoine, Sean Riffel, and Kiernan
Ringenberger (and dozens others) debated in Junior as long as they had
eligibility.  The competition gave many medium grade and newer JV debaters
great learning opportunities, and a place to debate without having to debate
open all the time.  Now we got people talking about having to collapse JV
and open (all over the country) all the time, and rarely ever a novice
tournament in Mid-America.  We crafted these silly hoops you have to jump
through so you have to be a physics major to figure out whether you have
eligibility.  You have to fill out a 20 question survey now to figure out
which one of the conditions you meet.
   If nothing else about Pat's rule it is parsimonous as hell.   I mean how
elegant, 40 rounds and you move up.  I prefer one year novice two years of
JV for everyone PERIOD, but anythings better then the micromanaging crap
that goes on now.  Why do you lose eligibility because you are good?  The
problem with Elliott's "solution" is point chasing is ALWAYS zero-sum.  It
is A way to sell debate, not THE way.  Everyone has their own scheme to
"engineer" the point rankings to see themselves come out on top, it is
ridiculous.

   That is it for now.  GO DEBATE!

Martin


p.s.  You don't need to amend the Constitution to have mail ballots, those
are allowed in the status quo, but if people REALLY prefer that to the
business meeting setting, you better do a LOT of thinking about the process,
and put a bunch of date restrictions on when things can be done, or you will
bankrupt the budget on mailings, and if you think the process is political
now, just wait to see the kinds of games you can play with petition changes,
when people start counter petitions to mess up the text around where one of
the other petitions is trying to do something.  There is a reason why most
states have Referendum petitions as a BACKUP system.  They are a MESS to run
everyday business with.

>From  Wed Nov 10 17:58:16 1999
Message-Id: <WED.10.NOV.1999.175816.EST.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 38250 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 17:58:54
 -0500
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 RAA17472 for
 <EDEBATE at list.uvm.edu>; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 17:58:53 -0500
Received: from DavidCLang at aol.com by imo15.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id
 nZUJa09656 (4331) for <EDEBATE at list.uvm.edu>; Wed, 10 Nov 1999
 17:58:18 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 41
Message-ID: <0.cf2226ab.255b5288 at aol.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 17:58:16 EST
Reply-To: DavidCLang at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: David Lang <DavidCLang at AOL.COM>
Subject: Looking for Northwestern

Pace is looking for a cite exchange with your squad, anybody out there?

David Lang
NFA '99 / Pace U '03

"A man entered a newspapers's pun contest, sending ten different entries in
hopes that one would win.  As it turned out, no pun in ten did." -- Carolina
Country



From tweiner1  Wed Nov 10 17:21:25 1999
From: tweiner1 (Timothy J Weiner)
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 18:21:25 -0500
Subject: Why not change the topic during the middle of the year
In-Reply-To: <l03130302b44fa666afc9@[132.198.123.46]>
Message-ID: <WED.10.NOV.1999.182125.0500.TWEINER1@OSF1.GMU.EDU>

Why don't you try searching the WorldCat database (or something similar)
in the reference department of your library, then taking those citations
to the local neighborhood Interlibrary Loan department and request them.
This would probably be a much easier solution.

Jake

On Wed, 10 Nov 1999, Vermont Debate wrote:

> So i have been thinking, syria is not debated very much this year. I also
> know of at least 13 libraries around the country that don't have very good
> syria sections. I think this is unfair and makes a small contigent of
> schools unable to deal with that part of the topic. I am therefore looking
> into crafting an amendment that i can sneak into some ill attended ceda
> business meeting that will remove syria from  the topic and replace it with
> libya, because i want my teams to be able to run a United States of Africa
> position. With all hope by the time we go to the next tournament that
> directly coincides with a ceda business meeting i will be able to change
> the topic so that when my teams get up round one and say observation  one
> the sanctions on libya are bad. I just can't wait for the look of shock on
> the negatives face when we read back the new amendment as the 2ac ans to
> their libya topicality.
>
> The precedent for such intrest group supporting behavior has been set, the
> question now is how far can it go.
>
> Andy
>

>From  Wed Nov 10 16:34:20 1999
Message-Id: <WED.10.NOV.1999.163420.0700.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 38714 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 18:34:31
 -0500
Precedence: bulk
Received: from post1.inre.asu.edu (post1.inre.asu.edu [129.219.13.100]) by
 list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA15948 for
 <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 18:34:29 -0500
Received: from general3.asu.edu (general3.asu.edu [129.219.10.157]) by asu.edu
 (PMDF V5.2-31 #31135) with ESMTP id <0FL0003K69HDY7 at asu.edu> for
 edebate at list.uvm.edu; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 16:34:26 -0700 (MST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by general3.asu.edu
 (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id QAA18303 for <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Wed,
 10 Nov 1999 16:34:21 -0700 (MST)
X-Sender: mysore at general3.asu.edu
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.991110163130.709F-100000 at general3.asu.edu>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 16:34:20 -0700
Reply-To: Jason.Jarvis at ASU.EDU
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Jason Jarvis <Jason.Jarvis at ASU.EDU>
Subject: Fiesta entries?

Entries are not due until November 30th, but I was trying to get a head count
so we could predict which divisions will actually make.
If you are planning on entering the tournament if you could drop me an email
with estimates of how many teams you would be bringing I would appreciate it.

Thanks,

Jason Jarvis
Arizona State

>From  Wed Nov 10 18:02:51 1999
Message-Id: <WED.10.NOV.1999.180251.0600.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 39029 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 19:26:15
 -0500
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 TAA15880 for
 <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 19:26:13 -0500
Received: from localhost (jtj930 at localhost) by hecky.acns.nwu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7)
 with SMTP id SAA08449 for <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Wed, 10 Nov 1999
 18:02:51 -0600 (CST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Message-ID: <Pine.HPP.3.93.991110180209.7982A-100000 at hecky.acns.nwu.edu>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 18:02:51 -0600
Reply-To: jtj930 at HECKY.ACNS.NWU.EDU
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Trace Johnson <jtj930 at HECKY.ACNS.NWU.EDU>
Subject: Lewis & Clark

Looking ford or Nick from Lewis and Clark. Please backchannel me ASAP.


Love
Trace

>From  Wed Nov 10 19:28:06 1999
Message-Id: <WED.10.NOV.1999.192806.0500.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 39094 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 19:28:08
 -0500
Precedence: bulk
Received: from bingsun2.cc.binghamton.edu (bg20351 at bingsun2.cc.binghamton.edu
 [128.226.6.4]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA10932
 for <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 19:28:07 -0500
Received: from localhost (bg20351 at localhost) by bingsun2.cc.binghamton.edu
 (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA13120 for <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Wed,
 10 Nov 1999 19:28:06 -0500 (EST)
X-Authentication-Warning: bingsun2.cc.binghamton.edu: bg20351 owned process
 doing -bs
X-Sender: bg20351 at bingsun2
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.BU-L4.10.9911101923450.10913-100000 at bingsun2>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 19:28:06 -0500
Reply-To: bg20351 at BINGHAMTON.EDU
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: "Siejen Yin." <bg20351 at BINGHAMTON.EDU>
Subject: Harris from West Point

Sorry for the Clutter Guys...

But will Luke Harris from West Point please backchannel me?

I have a question in regards to the judging/decision made in quarterfinals
in the round of Cornell vs. Cumberland at the Binghamton Tournament
this past weekend...

Thanks in Advance for your time and Cooperation


Siejen Yin
Binghamton Speech & Debate



From debate  Wed Nov 10 20:20:53 1999
From: debate (Vermont Debate)
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 21:20:53 -0500
Subject: Why not change the topic during the middle of the year
Message-ID: <WED.10.NOV.1999.212053.0500.DEBATE@ZOO.UVM.EDU>

>
>>Why don't you try searching the WorldCat database (or something similar)
>>in the reference department of your library, then taking those citations
>>to the local neighborhood Interlibrary Loan department and request them.
>>This would probably be a much easier solution.
>
>Thats somewhat my point, it would take an awfuly strict reading of my post
>to think that i was really suggesting that we change the topic because
>some people don't have syria books in their library. In the case that you
>wished i where more specific i do not really believe that we should change
>the topic in the middle of the year, i think that is as ridculous as
>changing the eligibilty rule in the middle of the year.
>
>Wishing i did not have to clarify the seemingly obvious.
>
>Andy
>
>>>
>
>
>

>From  Wed Nov 10 21:10:01 1999
Message-Id: <WED.10.NOV.1999.211001.EST.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 39570 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 21:10:31
 -0500
Precedence: bulk
Received: from imo-d10.mx (imo-d10.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.42]) by list.uvm.edu
 (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA16944 for <EDEBATE at list.uvm.edu>; Wed,
 10 Nov 1999 21:10:26 -0500
Received: from BERCHNORTO at aol.com by imo-d10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id
 nJLHTBXpe_ (4546) for <EDEBATE at list.uvm.edu>; Wed, 10 Nov 1999
 21:10:02 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 64
Message-ID: <0.2ba4934b.255b7f79 at aol.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 21:10:01 EST
Reply-To: BERCHNORTO at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Neil Berch <BERCHNORTO at AOL.COM>
Subject: another oddity

I'm assuming that the SELU debaters in question all started the year with at
least 24 rounds.  But, try a similar but slightly different situation.
Assume someone started with less than 24 rounds (perhaps zero).  Assume that
their coach, a supporter of regional debate in a region with not very many
novice teams, entered them in 3 small tournaments.  Assume that all of those
tournaments ended up collapsing novice and JV and that this debater (or team)
made it to finals in all three mostly by beating up on other novices.  This
could involve winning very few outrounds.  According to the new rule, they
would be ineligible for JV.  However, according to the new rule, they would
still be eligible for novice (they are guaranteed a full year of novice).
Thus, they could compete in open or novice, but not in JV (which is where
they might very well belong).  Oops.
--Neil Berch
West Virginia University



From tweiner1  Wed Nov 10 20:33:58 1999
From: tweiner1 (Timothy J Weiner)
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 21:33:58 -0500
Subject: Michigan State please!
In-Reply-To: <0.2ba4934b.255b7f79@aol.com>
Message-ID: <WED.10.NOV.1999.213358.0500.TWEINER1@OSF1.GMU.EDU>

Hi guys could one of you back channel me thanks

Jake
GMU

>From  Wed Nov 10 23:04:38 1999
Message-Id: <WED.10.NOV.1999.230438.EST.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 40049 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 23:05:25
 -0500
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 XAA14552 for
 <EDEBATE at list.uvm.edu>; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 23:05:19 -0500
Received: from Capnsntch at aol.com by imo12.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id
 nJWAa16993 (4389) for <EDEBATE at list.uvm.edu>; Wed, 10 Nov 1999
 23:04:38 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 26
Message-ID: <0.ea37d772.255b9a56 at aol.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 23:04:38 EST
Reply-To: Capnsntch at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Matt Opalka <Capnsntch at AOL.COM>
Subject: to all attending UCO this weekend

hey everybody,

    I'm trying to do a pre- tournament caselist for everyone this
weekend...if you all missed my first post please respond to this one if
possible...if youll send plan/advantage areas I'll get a list ready for
registration/ first round or bring a list to registration if you cant
backchannel me and ill get it done for 1st round, hopefully, thanks again and
see you all in OK this weekend...

Matt
UCO



From jstone  Wed Nov 10 23:16:20 1999
From: jstone (J. E. Stone)
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 00:16:20 -0500
Subject: Max Schnurer ONLY
Message-ID: <THU.11.NOV.1999.001620.0500.JSTONE@RICHMOND.EDU>

King Max,

Could you please backchannel me?

Thanks,

Jason Stone
Jason Stone
Instructor of Speech
University of Richmond
Richmond, VA 23173
jstone at richmond.edu
(804) 289-8269 - office
(804) 287-6884 - debate forum
(804) 287-6496 - fax



From misterpowers  Wed Nov 10 23:32:58 1999
From: misterpowers (Matthew Powers)
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 21:32:58 PST
Subject: Looking for Wake(Cyclone)
Message-ID: <WED.10.NOV.1999.213258.PST.MISTERPOWERS@HOTMAIL.COM>

Will anyone from Wake backchannel me...especially Cyclone...I am in need of
a cite that was on the 'Slavery' position that was ran against Cuba at
Harvard...more specifically the C. card that indicates that the Aff. should
be rejected...yadda yadda
Thanks,
Matthew Powers
Debaters of the Lost Ark @ GSU

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



From se_region  Wed Nov 10 23:51:12 1999
From: se_region (Deon Garner)
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 21:51:12 PST
Subject: Ride to Vandy this weekend
Message-ID: <WED.10.NOV.1999.215112.PST.SEREGION@HOTMAIL.COM>

Hello all,

I really feel silly as this is the second time that I have bummed a ride to
a tournament, but if there is anyone in the Atlanta area who has an extra
seat, I would love to grab it.

Thanks a BILLION in advance!!

Deon

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



From bsiemers  Thu Nov 11 00:35:00 1999
From: bsiemers (Brent Siemers)
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 01:35:00 -0500
Subject: Swing partner for JV at UCO
Message-ID: <THU.11.NOV.1999.013500.0500.BSIEMERS@IDIR.NET>

A few days ago someone was looking for a swing partner at UCO.  One of our
first years backed out on short notice so if there is still that
possibility, could you back channel me before 2:00 on Thursday (CST).

Thanks,
Brent Siemers
Assistant Director of Debate--UMKC
816-235-1336



From dennis  Wed Nov 10 23:50:23 1999
From: dennis (doug dennis)
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 00:50:23 -0500
Subject: jan tournament schedule
Message-ID: <THU.11.NOV.1999.005023.0500.DENNIS@MACALESTER.EDU>

can someone backchannel me an official tournament schedule for the entire
month of janary?  thanks in advance



From bauscsa4  Thu Nov 11 06:25:02 1999
From: bauscsa4 (Stefan Bauschard)
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 07:25:02 -0500
Subject: CSM High School Debate Reference
In-Reply-To: <l03130304b44fd87472b6@[132.198.123.46]>
Message-ID: <THU.11.NOV.1999.072502.0500.BAUSCSA4@WFU.EDU>

"The jury of eight turbaned clerics sat along one wall, as low-key as if
judging a high school debate. The audience shifted in
plastic chairs or stood in the back along a curving wooden staircase. "

Christian Science Monitor, November 10, 1999 "Iran power struggle: clerics
duel"  p. 1

I wonder what the clerics would think of Foucault or what the debaters
would think of their "lay" judges??

Stefan

>From  Thu Nov 11 06:34:37 1999
Message-Id: <THU.11.NOV.1999.063437.0600.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 38725 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 07:34:56
 -0500
Precedence: bulk
Received: from mailhost.netdot.com ([206.50.22.9]) by list.uvm.edu
 (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA13394 for <eDebate at list.uvm.edu>; Thu,
 11 Nov 1999 07:34:54 -0500
Received: from [209.39.34.29] [209.39.34.29] by mailhost.netdot.com with ESMTP
 (SMTPD32-5.05) id A7C739602A8; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 06:34:15 -0600
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express Macintosh Edition - 4.5 (0410)
Mime-version: 1.0
X-Priority: 3
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <199911110634885.SM00230@[209.39.34.29]>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 06:34:37 -0600
Reply-To: doyle at netdot.com, doyle at sfasu.edu
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Doyle Srader <doyle at NETDOT.COM>
Subject: Re: CSM High School Debate Reference

On Thu, 11 Nov 1999 07:25:02 -0500, Stefan Bauschard wrote:

> "The jury of eight turbaned clerics sat along one wall, as low-key as if
> judging a high school debate. The audience shifted in
> plastic chairs or stood in the back along a curving wooden staircase. "
>
> Christian Science Monitor, November 10, 1999 "Iran power struggle: clerics
> duel"  p. 1
>
> I wonder what the clerics would think of Foucault or what the debaters
> would think of their "lay" judges??

I'm more worried about the eight-person panel. "The decision is FOUR-FOUR
for ... uhhh ... ummmmmmmmmmmmmm ... The debaters will now proceed to a
sudden death cage match to break the tie."

Doyle Srader
Lecturer, Speech Communication
Stephen F. Austin State University
http://www.netdot.com/doyle/

"The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite
 of a profound truth may well be another profound truth."
 -- Niels Bohr

>From  Thu Nov 11 07:44:46 1999
Message-Id: <THU.11.NOV.1999.074446.EST.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 38820 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 07:45:23
 -0500
Precedence: bulk
Received: from imo-d02.mx.aol.com (imo-d02.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.34]) by
 list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA17238 for
 <EDEBATE at list.uvm.edu>; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 07:45:21 -0500
Received: from BERCHNORTO at aol.com by imo-d02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id
 nXKDaSleg_ (2615) for <EDEBATE at list.uvm.edu>; Thu, 11 Nov 1999
 07:44:46 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 64
Message-ID: <0.403c5586.255c143e at aol.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 07:44:46 EST
Reply-To: BERCHNORTO at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Neil Berch <BERCHNORTO at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: another oddity

Greg Achten correctly points out in a back channel that the oddity I
described (someone being eligible for novice but not for JV) could happen
under the old CEDA rules (i.e., last week's rules).  Indeed, with a slight
modification, it could also happen under the ADA rules.  This suggests rather
strongly that a fourth approach is needed.  It also has no impact on the
persuasive arguments made by the two gentlemen from the Beehive State (that
would be Utah) and especially the arguments made by coaches who have planned
schedules around reasonable assumptions about student eligibility.  Clearly,
the thing to do is find a way to stay implementation of the rule until the
end of the academic year, giving enough time for people to propose all sorts
of alternatives (though Gehrke's alternative is not the way to go
either--imagine the mess involved in trying to determine how many ballots a
debater won over the course of a high school career).
--Neil Berch
West Virginia University



From dennis  Thu Nov 11 08:08:51 1999
From: dennis (doug dennis)
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 09:08:51 -0500
Subject: unt
Message-ID: <THU.11.NOV.1999.090851.0500.DENNIS@MACALESTER.EDU>

can sikes hines or shaft backchannel me?

thanks

doug
mac college



From se_region  Thu Nov 11 09:13:19 1999
From: se_region (Deon Garner)
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 07:13:19 PST
Subject: Non-Policy at App. State
Message-ID: <THU.11.NOV.1999.071319.PST.SEREGION@HOTMAIL.COM>

Hello all,

Just wondering if any other schools have decided to patronize the Non-policy
division at App. State next weekend.  Again, this would be the novel chance
to get those "classroom" novices into the activity.  It was done in the
Eastern Region at Rochester, so there isn't a reason as to why the division
cannot make in the Southeast Region at Appalachian State.

Glenda has told me that she would like to host the division, but she is not
sure if it will make.  I would be wonderful if we had a healthy non-policy
division at one of the last tournaments of the semester for the Southeast
Region.

Deon
Morehouse

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



From jhovden  Thu Nov 11 09:16:22 1999
From: jhovden (Jan Hovden)
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 09:16:22 -0600
Subject: Pairings at UCO
Message-ID: <THU.11.NOV.1999.091622.0600.JHOVDEN@UCOK.EDU>

We have made one minor modification to the schedule that we posted in
our invite.  We plan on releasing pairings on Friday at the tournament
hotel at about noon.

Jan



From jhovden  Thu Nov 11 09:26:02 1999
From: jhovden (Jan Hovden)
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 09:26:02 -0600
Subject: UCO entries update
Message-ID: <THU.11.NOV.1999.092602.0600.JHOVDEN@UCOK.EDU>

I think the only changes in entries since i last posted are the addition
of Jon Paul Lupo and Allison Chase from emory in open.  An Ark
State/Abiline Christian swing team, Prince and Potter, in JV and the
drop of the Kansas jv team.

Jan



From andorra  Thu Nov 11 09:47:30 1999
From: andorra (Andorra)
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 09:47:30 -0600
Subject: Greenhill/St. Marks Caselists
Message-ID: <THU.11.NOV.1999.094730.0600.ANDORRA@TELEPATH.COM>

If anyone knows where I can get a case list for Greenhill and/or St.
Marks, please b/c me.

-Billy Lieurance
Edmond North, Oklahoma



From jwpatt00  Thu Nov 11 10:20:05 1999
From: jwpatt00 (J.W. Patterson)
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 11:20:05 -0500
Subject: TOC QUALS:  LONG BEACH
Message-ID: <THU.11.NOV.1999.112005.0500.JWPATT00@POP.UKY.EDU>

A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 6747 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/19991111/1066e7b3/attachment.bin 


From nicholas.d.ellinger  Thu Nov 11 14:38:42 1999
From: nicholas.d.ellinger (Ellinger, Nicholas David)
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 14:38:42 -0600
Subject: Lastest Vanderbilt Entries
Message-ID: <THU.11.NOV.1999.143842.0600.NICHOLAS.D.ELLINGER@VANDERBILT.EDU>

See you all tomorrow!

Alabama
        Open    Enslen Lamberth / LeNee Carroll
                Damien Pfister / Wiley Gordon
        JV      Candace Inghram / John Jester
                Shaun Banks / Tia Bonham
                Tameka Phillips / Chris LaCour
                Lisa Gonzalez / Ted Stein
                Nikole Miller / Randall Minor
        Novice  Andrea Pruitt / Shawnessy Scott
                Dana May / Charles Parrish
        Judges  Carrie Crenshaw, Garielle Prisco, JuliaShaw

App State
        Novice  Jensen/Colston
        Swing see Cumberland

Arkansas Tech
        JV      Young/Morris
                Adkison/Whitlow

Capital
        Novice  Sara Banfield / Jodi Panko
                Matt Allen / John Swords
                Sarah Kirk awaiting swing
        Judges  Sarah Ryan, Ryan Reid

Cumberland
        Novice  Alice Frietas / Melanie Worsley
                Josh Hitch / Jordan (App St)
        Judges  Nathan Kinser

Emory
        JV      Stephanie Jenkins / Patrick Somers
        Novice  Spencer Jones / Ravi Mehta
        Judge   Russ Falconer

Florida
        JV      Jim Aldridge / Pauline France
        Judges  Gerald Kish

Georgia
        Open    Rakesh Parekh / Kate McGrath
        JV      Dustin Buttigieg / Bakari Brock
        Judges  Ken Rufo and Ryan Galloway

Georgia State
        Open    Matthew Powers / Charlie Alessi
        Swing see Morehouse
        Judges  David Cheshier

Louisville
        JV      Sandra Webster / Sandy Rodgers
        Novice  Jennifer Brush / Andrea Shuff
                Nick Toole / Kris Carr
                Laura Rheaume / Sharalyn Wilkie
        Judges  Rafael Bito and Kenda Cunningham

Loyola
        Open    Walter Kerman / Bill Hill
                Alison Eggers / Bridget McCarley
        JV      Jennifer Danish / Justin Massa
                Aaron Shambailca / Jennifer Lizak
        Novice  Almera Mahmood / Krissy Kinstler
        Judges  David Romanelli

LSU
        JV      Andrew Smith / Weston Winters
        Judge:  Darren Goins

Marquette
        JV      Jeremy Chapman / Stacy Krubsack
        Novice  Kat LoPiccalo / Shawn Shelton
                Jon Zulawski / Adam Kirby
        Judges  Jim Dasney

Mercer
        Open    Blake Abbott / Jamie Woodard
                Dawn Dykes / Elizabeth Thatcher
        JV      James Brock / Buddy Morrison
                Megan Noel / David Cisneros
        Novice  Ryan Dodd / Keiristin Wilbert
        Judge   Joe Zompetti

Miami
        Open    Jeff Geldens / Deerack Asencio
                Regina Paulose / Veronica Baretto
        Judge   Christopher Cooper

Morehouse
        Open    Jeff Coxon / Cliff Sands (UT)
        JV      Alfonso Lowery / Erik Mathis (GA St)
        Novice  Dash Cooper / Howard Franklin
        Judges  Deon Garner

MTSU
        Open    Gaston / Woodward
                Bond / Carter
        Novice  Miedel/Jennings
                Judges  Butler, Osborne

Samford
        Open    Chris Rivers / James Radford
        Novice  Kristin Wilkin / Lance Oliver
                Natalie Lester / Caren Lei Ross
                Lucy O'Kelley / Emily Adams
                Elizabeth Thomason / Angela Breland
                Elizabeth Mayze / Carey Howell
        Judges  Ben Coulter, Mike Janas, Davi Johnson

SELA
        JV      Carl Gauthier / Ashley Smith
                Angel Monistere / Zach Hyden
        Judge   Elliott

SIU
        Novice  Langer/Trueblood
        Judges  Bile, Campbell

University of the South - Sewanee
        Novice  Dunn/Georgiev
                Hearty/Allen

Tennessee Tech
        JV      Jay Ratledge / James Wheeler
                Anne Canavan / Layla Williams
        Novice  Jason Bynum / Steve Hume
                Eric Bucholz / Paul Marshall
        Judges  Graham Kash, David Sams

Tennessee
        Novice  Jeremy Cole / Kelly Robbins
        Swing see Morehouse



From debate  Thu Nov 11 16:01:26 1999
From: debate (Vermont Debate)
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 17:01:26 -0500
Subject: Looking For Tournament Invites and Job Announcements
Message-ID: <THU.11.NOV.1999.170126.0500.DEBATE@ZOO.UVM.EDU>

Debate Central is undergoing restructuring and updating, keep watching for
updates about the new debate central.

Right now we are looking for several kinds of information.

1) Tournament invitations- We are looking for all tournament invitations
for tournaments that occur from this point forward (for example we include
liberty and UCO). If you have a webpage on which the invitation can be
found please send that address to debate at zoo.uvm.edu, we will link directly
to your page.
If this is not an option than please send any tournament invitation you
would like posted over email and we will serve it as an html file. We are
seeking invitations for all kinds of tournament. CEDA/NDT, High School,
NPDA, APDA, IE etc.

2) Jobs, Graduate Assistantships, Etc.-We are looking to be able to provide
a comprehensive resource on the jobs available within the community. If you
have a job opening or assistantship position of any kind you can email it
to us at  debate at zoo.uvm.edu.

Thank you in advance for your help and keep reading for more updates about
the new debate central.

Andy Ellis
Technoscribe
Debate Central



From simegreg  Thu Nov 11 15:12:45 1999
From: simegreg (Greg Simerly)
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 14:12:45 -0700
Subject: Council email deliberations
Message-ID: <THU.11.NOV.1999.141245.0700.SIMEGREG@ISU.EDU>

Council members:

Gina Lane has asked me to call special deliberations and then in two weeks
a vote on the following:

Because of the magnitude of concerns regarding the new novice/jv eligibility
rule, the Executive Council proposes the following:

1) The Executive Council will set aside enforcement of the new novice/jv
eligibility rule  until the end of CEDA Nationals.

2) The Executive Secretary will continue to sanction ADA tournaments even if
they do not comply with the CEDA definition of novice or junior varsity.
The Executive Secretary requests that affected coaches and tournament
directors inform him of students who are not in compliance with CEDA
eligibility rules and should therefore not receive CEDA points at a
particular competition.

3) The President will appoint a committee made up of CEDA and ADA
representatives, including the CEDA Executive Secretary, to examine the new
changes in eligibility standards; the committee will offer any amendments to
the new eligibility rule no later than the Spring Business Meeting.

4) If no amendments or changes are passed at the Spring Business Meeting,
the new eligibility rule will go into effect after CEDA Nationals.


This is the procedure that we're supposed to follow.  We discuss the issue
for two weeks, then I call for an official vote.


I'll answer an obvious question: does the Council have the
right/power/ability to "set aside" a By-Law change?  Basically, the Council
can do whatever it wants.  And, there is precedent for the Council to set
aside By-Laws (mail vote on mutual pref a coupla years ago).

We should now discuss the pros-n-cons of this.

Cheers,
Greg


Greg Simerly
Idaho State University

Communication & Theatre
Box 8115-ISU
Pocatello, Idaho 83209

O (208) 236-5962
F       236-4598
simegreg at isu.edu



From jef229f  Thu Nov 11 15:32:13 1999
From: jef229f (John Fritch)
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 15:32:13 -0600
Subject: Council email deliberations
Message-ID: <THU.11.NOV.1999.153213.0600.JEF229F@MAIL.SMSU.EDU>

I think this is a good idea.

John Fritch
SMS

----------
>From: Greg Simerly <simegreg at ISU.EDU>
>To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU
>Subject: Council email deliberations
>Date: Thu, Nov 11, 1999, 3:12 PM
>

>Council members:
>
>Gina Lane has asked me to call special deliberations and then in two weeks
>a vote on the following:
>
>Because of the magnitude of concerns regarding the new novice/jv eligibility
>rule, the Executive Council proposes the following:
>
>1) The Executive Council will set aside enforcement of the new novice/jv
>eligibility rule  until the end of CEDA Nationals.
>
>2) The Executive Secretary will continue to sanction ADA tournaments even if
>they do not comply with the CEDA definition of novice or junior varsity.
>The Executive Secretary requests that affected coaches and tournament
>directors inform him of students who are not in compliance with CEDA
>eligibility rules and should therefore not receive CEDA points at a
>particular competition.
>
>3) The President will appoint a committee made up of CEDA and ADA
>representatives, including the CEDA Executive Secretary, to examine the new
>changes in eligibility standards; the committee will offer any amendments to
>the new eligibility rule no later than the Spring Business Meeting.
>
>4) If no amendments or changes are passed at the Spring Business Meeting,
>the new eligibility rule will go into effect after CEDA Nationals.
>
>
>This is the procedure that we're supposed to follow.  We discuss the issue
>for two weeks, then I call for an official vote.
>
>
>I'll answer an obvious question: does the Council have the
>right/power/ability to "set aside" a By-Law change?  Basically, the Council
>can do whatever it wants.  And, there is precedent for the Council to set
>aside By-Laws (mail vote on mutual pref a coupla years ago).
>
>We should now discuss the pros-n-cons of this.
>
>Cheers,
>Greg
>
>
>Greg Simerly
>Idaho State University
>
>Communication & Theatre
>Box 8115-ISU
>Pocatello, Idaho 83209
>
>O (208) 236-5962
>F       236-4598
>simegreg at isu.edu



From laneg  Thu Nov 11 15:34:19 1999
From: laneg (Lane, Gina)
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 15:34:19 -0600
Subject: rationale
Message-ID: <THU.11.NOV.1999.153419.0600.LANEG@WILLIAM.JEWELL.EDU>

Dear colleagues--

I am proposing this Executive Council action to help us decide if the new
novice/jv eligibility rule is a problem we need or want to fix.  I believe
the discussion on edebate this week has pointed to several problems that
were not aired out either in advance of or during the NCA business meeting.

The Executive Council can take this action, according to Article VII of the
CEDA Constitution.  See Article VII Section 1:  "Between business meetings,
the Executive Council will make such rules as are necessary to support the
purposes of the association.  Actions of the Executive Council will have the
force of bylaws.  Members will be notified of the Executive Council's
actions and at the next business meeting will have the opportunity to
approve or reject continuation of those rules."

Your Executive Council representative will vote on this proposal in two
weeks.  Please feel free to direct your feedback to any and all Council
representatives.

As for the proposals to increase member input on bylaw changes, I would
recommend an amendment to change bylaw amendment approval to match
constitutional amendment approval -- any changes must be approved by a
business meeting (which allows for the open meeting give and take,
amendments, etc.); approved amendments are then sent to the membership for
final approval.

Sincerely,

Gina Lane
President, Cross Examination Debate Association



From gachten  Thu Nov 11 15:37:58 1999
From: gachten (Achten, Greg)
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 13:37:58 -0800
Subject: Council email deliberations
Message-ID: <THU.11.NOV.1999.133758.0800.GACHTEN@PEPPERDINE.EDU>

I support this. I think that there are good reasons to begin the calcuation
of eligibility at the beginning of the year rather than the middle. While I
am in favor of the change, I do support delaying its implementation. I would
also be willing to serve on the committee to evaluate/recommend changes in
the rule.

Greg Achten

-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Simerly [mailto:simegreg at isu.edu]
Sent: Thursday, November 11, 1999 1:13 PM
To: Lane, Gina; Glenda Treadaway; Achten, Greg; Russell Church;
simegreg at isu.edu; A. Snider; smnn at uhura.rochester.edu; mike Bauer;
EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Jim Hanson; Terry West; vandy.debate at JUNO.COM;
WK02 at ACADEMIA.SWT.EDU; Michael_Eaves; opsata at usc.edu; Shawn Whalen
Subject: Council email deliberations


Council members:

Gina Lane has asked me to call special deliberations and then in two weeks
a vote on the following:

Because of the magnitude of concerns regarding the new novice/jv eligibility
rule, the Executive Council proposes the following:

1) The Executive Council will set aside enforcement of the new novice/jv
eligibility rule  until the end of CEDA Nationals.

2) The Executive Secretary will continue to sanction ADA tournaments even if
they do not comply with the CEDA definition of novice or junior varsity.
The Executive Secretary requests that affected coaches and tournament
directors inform him of students who are not in compliance with CEDA
eligibility rules and should therefore not receive CEDA points at a
particular competition.

3) The President will appoint a committee made up of CEDA and ADA
representatives, including the CEDA Executive Secretary, to examine the new
changes in eligibility standards; the committee will offer any amendments to
the new eligibility rule no later than the Spring Business Meeting.

4) If no amendments or changes are passed at the Spring Business Meeting,
the new eligibility rule will go into effect after CEDA Nationals.


This is the procedure that we're supposed to follow.  We discuss the issue
for two weeks, then I call for an official vote.


I'll answer an obvious question: does the Council have the
right/power/ability to "set aside" a By-Law change?  Basically, the Council
can do whatever it wants.  And, there is precedent for the Council to set
aside By-Laws (mail vote on mutual pref a coupla years ago).

We should now discuss the pros-n-cons of this.

Cheers,
Greg


Greg Simerly
Idaho State University

Communication & Theatre
Box 8115-ISU
Pocatello, Idaho 83209

O (208) 236-5962
F       236-4598
simegreg at isu.edu



From richard_pineda  Thu Nov 11 16:12:58 1999
From: richard_pineda (Richard Pineda)
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 14:12:58 -0800
Subject: Wiese/McDade: ASAP Please
Message-ID: <THU.11.NOV.1999.141258.0800.RICHARDPINEDA@YAHOO.COM>

Hello,


On of our entries - Ogletree and Day has fallen apart.
 We can have Ogletree debate by himself or if there is
a swinger around that would work.

Salinas and I are leaving tonight, so if you could let
us know before 9 we can figured out if this guy is
coming or not?


Thanks and sorry for the problems,

Dick

=====
Richard Pineda
Wayne State University

5200 Anthony Wayne Drive, #1011
Detroit, MI 48202
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com



From dennis  Thu Nov 11 17:11:09 1999
From: dennis (doug dennis)
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 18:11:09 -0500
Subject: coop
Message-ID: <THU.11.NOV.1999.181109.0500.DENNIS@MACALESTER.EDU>

coop

please backchannel me.

doug
macalester college



From taylorm  Thu Nov 11 20:49:27 1999
From: taylorm (Matt)
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 18:49:27 -0800
Subject: Urgent Message about Long Beach Tourny
Message-ID: <THU.11.NOV.1999.184927.0800.TAYLORM@CSULB.EDU>

Hello. I hope all is well.  According to the responses I have received
so far, the Long Beach tourny is in trouble.  At the moment we have less
teams attending the open tournament than those attending the round robin
at Redlands.

As a result, I need to get actual numbers asap. Those schools budgeting
and planning for two tournaments need to know what to expect.  Ideally
we would combine the second half of the swing so that those of you
coming would have two excellent tournaments.  Unfortunately, Redlands is
unable to accomodate more than the 21 teams they have already invited.

Please let me know your plans as soon as possible.  We have enjoyed
hosting the second half of the CA swing in the past and hope that our
low numbers are simply a result of not hearing from many of you that are
planning to attend.

Peace,
matt



From swhalen  Thu Nov 11 21:49:12 1999
From: swhalen (Shawn Whalen)
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 19:49:12 -0800
Subject: Council email deliberations
References: <3.0.6.32.19991111141245.00796630@isu.edu>
Message-ID: <THU.11.NOV.1999.194912.0800.SWHALEN@SFSU.EDU>

This sounds like a good idea.  I'd make one addition to this proposal.  In
addition to continuing to sanction ADA tournaments for the remainder of this
year, we could allow tournaments to adopt either the old CEDA eligibility rules
for their divisions, or the proposal that passed at NCA.

Shawn

Greg Simerly wrote:

> Council members:
>
> Gina Lane has asked me to call special deliberations and then in two weeks
> a vote on the following:
>
> Because of the magnitude of concerns regarding the new novice/jv eligibility
> rule, the Executive Council proposes the following:
>
> 1) The Executive Council will set aside enforcement of the new novice/jv
> eligibility rule  until the end of CEDA Nationals.
>
> 2) The Executive Secretary will continue to sanction ADA tournaments even if
> they do not comply with the CEDA definition of novice or junior varsity.
> The Executive Secretary requests that affected coaches and tournament
> directors inform him of students who are not in compliance with CEDA
> eligibility rules and should therefore not receive CEDA points at a
> particular competition.
>
> 3) The President will appoint a committee made up of CEDA and ADA
> representatives, including the CEDA Executive Secretary, to examine the new
> changes in eligibility standards; the committee will offer any amendments to
> the new eligibility rule no later than the Spring Business Meeting.
>
> 4) If no amendments or changes are passed at the Spring Business Meeting,
> the new eligibility rule will go into effect after CEDA Nationals.
>
> This is the procedure that we're supposed to follow.  We discuss the issue
> for two weeks, then I call for an official vote.
>
> I'll answer an obvious question: does the Council have the
> right/power/ability to "set aside" a By-Law change?  Basically, the Council
> can do whatever it wants.  And, there is precedent for the Council to set
> aside By-Laws (mail vote on mutual pref a coupla years ago).
>
> We should now discuss the pros-n-cons of this.
>
> Cheers,
> Greg
>
> Greg Simerly
> Idaho State University
>
> Communication & Theatre
> Box 8115-ISU
> Pocatello, Idaho 83209
>
> O (208) 236-5962
> F       236-4598
> simegreg at isu.edu



From marcwilson96  Thu Nov 11 22:18:39 1999
From: marcwilson96 (Marc Wilson)
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 04:18:39 GMT
Subject: Jobs!!!!
Message-ID: <FRI.12.NOV.1999.041839.GMT.MARCWILSON96@HOTMAIL.COM>

Greetings...
Hello to everyone out there I haven't seen in a while...

Earlier this year, I became a co-founder of Appian Corporation
(www.appiancorp.com), a consulting and software company specializing in data
warehousing, e-commerce personalization, and wireless internet applications.
  We are growing at a very rapid pace, and need to add a significant number
of people.

Given my background in debate (Dartmouth Class of 96), I know the quality of
people that are out their on the circuit. The communications, research, and
analytical capabilities that collegiate debaters have far exceed the skills
of typical "A" students at the top schools.

Those interested in finding out more information can email me directly at
wilson at appiancorp.com or visit our web site at www.appiancorp.com.

Thanks
Marc Wilson

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

>From  Fri Nov 12 00:42:43 1999
Message-Id: <FRI.12.NOV.1999.004243.EST.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 37321 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 00:43:19
 -0500
Precedence: bulk
Received: from imo23.mx.aol.com (imo23.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.67]) by
 list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA17146 for
 <EDEBATE at list.uvm.edu>; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 00:43:18 -0500
Received: from Sdbtr at aol.com by imo23.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id
 nOTWa03804 (4334) for <EDEBATE at list.uvm.edu>; Fri, 12 Nov 1999
 00:42:43 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 26
Message-ID: <0.cd71c67f.255d02d3 at aol.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 00:42:43 EST
Reply-To: Sdbtr at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Sarah Stone <Sdbtr at AOL.COM>
Subject: CSU Bakersfield

could someone from csub please backchannel me ASAP ?

~Sarah Stone
CSU Long Beach



From hansonjb  Fri Nov 12 00:30:24 1999
From: hansonjb (Jim Hanson)
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 22:30:24 -0800
Subject: Council email deliberations, question re the ADA rules
In-Reply-To: <382B8E38.F1679D8D@sfsu.edu>
Message-ID: <THU.11.NOV.1999.223024.0800.HANSONJB@WHITMAN.EDU>

question:

what ada division rules conflict with ceda's old division rules thereby
disqualifying ada competitors/competitions from ceda sweepstakes points?

jim hanson
whitman college



From rchurch  Fri Nov 12 00:48:27 1999
From: rchurch (Russell Church)
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 00:48:27 -0600
Subject: Council email deliberations
References: <3.0.6.32.19991111141245.00796630@isu.edu>
 <382B8E38.F1679D8D@sfsu.edu>
Message-ID: <FRI.12.NOV.1999.004827.0600.RCHURCH@MTSU.EDU>

I favor Gina's proposal.

I guess Shawn does not see as many problems as I do with the ADA rule,
but I am really opposed to Shawn's modification.  We should not expand
even for a year a rule that has so many conceptual and operational flaws
--

1.  both expands and contracts novice eligibility at the same time --
quite an accomplishment
2.  expands jv and gives incentives for debaters to not advance to
varsity
3.  conceptually goes in two directions at once
4.  defies understanding by debaters and coaches

and much more....i understand a lot of this is on edebate....

let's work out a solution during the interim...

who can oppose this....?

Shawn Whalen wrote:
>
> This sounds like a good idea.  I'd make one addition to this proposal.  In
> addition to continuing to sanction ADA tournaments for the remainder of this
> year, we could allow tournaments to adopt either the old CEDA eligibility rules
> for their divisions, or the proposal that passed at NCA.
>
> Shawn
>
> Greg Simerly wrote:
>
> > Council members:
> >
> > Gina Lane has asked me to call special deliberations and then in two weeks
> > a vote on the following:
> >
> > Because of the magnitude of concerns regarding the new novice/jv eligibility
> > rule, the Executive Council proposes the following:
> >
> > 1) The Executive Council will set aside enforcement of the new novice/jv
> > eligibility rule  until the end of CEDA Nationals.
> >
> > 2) The Executive Secretary will continue to sanction ADA tournaments even if
> > they do not comply with the CEDA definition of novice or junior varsity.
> > The Executive Secretary requests that affected coaches and tournament
> > directors inform him of students who are not in compliance with CEDA
> > eligibility rules and should therefore not receive CEDA points at a
> > particular competition.
> >
> > 3) The President will appoint a committee made up of CEDA and ADA
> > representatives, including the CEDA Executive Secretary, to examine the new
> > changes in eligibility standards; the committee will offer any amendments to
> > the new eligibility rule no later than the Spring Business Meeting.
> >
> > 4) If no amendments or changes are passed at the Spring Business Meeting,
> > the new eligibility rule will go into effect after CEDA Nationals.
> >
> > This is the procedure that we're supposed to follow.  We discuss the issue
> > for two weeks, then I call for an official vote.
> >
> > I'll answer an obvious question: does the Council have the
> > right/power/ability to "set aside" a By-Law change?  Basically, the Council
> > can do whatever it wants.  And, there is precedent for the Council to set
> > aside By-Laws (mail vote on mutual pref a coupla years ago).
> >
> > We should now discuss the pros-n-cons of this.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Greg
> >
> > Greg Simerly
> > Idaho State University
> >
> > Communication & Theatre
> > Box 8115-ISU
> > Pocatello, Idaho 83209
> >
> > O (208) 236-5962
> > F       236-4598
> > simegreg at isu.edu

--

 Regards,

 Russell Church
 Chair
 Speech & Theatre
 Voice:  615-898-2640
 Fax:  615-898-5826

 Cell phone:  615-579-6914

 DO RESEARCH ON LEXIS NEXIS UNIVERSE!
 http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe

 SPEECH & THEATRE
 http://www.mtsu.edu/~libarts/claspeechtheat.html

 VISIT THE MTSU DEBATE TEAM HOME PAGE!
 http://www.mtsu.edu/~debate/

 MID-SOUTH DEBATE INSTITUTE
 http://www.mtsu.edu/~msdi

 SEARCHING FOR GRAD PROGRAMS IN COMMUNICATION STUDIES
 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 PROGRAMS
 http://www.mtsu.edu/~libarts/africanamerican.html

>From  Fri Nov 12 01:44:40 1999
Message-Id: <FRI.12.NOV.1999.014440.EST.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 37677 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 01:48:20
 -0500
Precedence: bulk
Received: from imo-d09.mx.aol.com (imo-d09.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.41]) by
 list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA03918 for
 <EDEBATE at list.uvm.edu>; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 01:48:19 -0500
Received: from Davismk13 at aol.com by imo-d09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.4.) id
 5.0.ac6435f1 (4590); Fri, 12 Nov 1999 01:44:41 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 41
Message-ID: <0.ac6435f1.255d1158 at aol.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 01:44:40 EST
Reply-To: Davismk13 at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Mike Davis <Davismk13 at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: Council email deliberations, question re the ADA rules
Comments: To: hansonjb at whitman.edu

In a message dated 11/12/99 1:31:27 AM Eastern Standard Time,
hansonjb at WHITMAN.EDU writes:

<< what ada division rules conflict with ceda's old division rules thereby
 disqualifying ada competitors/competitions from ceda sweepstakes points? >>

The fact that a person who started debating in college would get one year of
novice and two years of jv meant that they could be a jv debater until the
end of their third year of competition. Under the old CEDA rules they only
got until the end of their second year of competition.

Mike Davis



From hansonjb  Fri Nov 12 00:54:37 1999
From: hansonjb (Jim Hanson)
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 22:54:37 -0800
Subject: rationale
In-Reply-To: <699F3A6D1BD1D011948400007786CA9203603E65@shaman.jewell.edu>
Message-ID: <THU.11.NOV.1999.225437.0800.HANSONJB@WHITMAN.EDU>

gina and others on the ec and edebate

while i am concerned about explicitly overturning a bylaw (that's a pretty
broad reading of our power), at this point in the discussion, i lean toward
holding off on enforcement of the new definition. in making our decision,
i'd like to see us provide a clear reason why this particular case justifies
dismissing what the bylaw pretty clearly says so that we do not set a
precedent for future use of our power in ways that would be more nefarious.

i personally think that both the former and the newly amended definitions of
novice and junior are not well crafted. junior debaters are forced to move
up too soon for some tournaments particularly in districts where teams only
need to win one and sometimes no elim to be in the junior finals round. i
also think the novice definition of the new rule is both too flexible and
too stringent; students should not be in novice division for 2 years
(unless, i guess, their only other option is a strongly competitive senior
division); on the other hand, advancing to elims twice is a pretty quick
push into junior division.

i kind of like pat gerhke's proposal of x wins but the more i think about
this issue, the more i am somewhat inclined to think that we should just let
each tournament set the standard. in the northwest, we have a rule that you
move from junior to senior when you've been in 5 quarters or higher rounds
in college debate or in hs toc champion tournaments. this definition works
very well, i think, for our region--though i doubt it would work well
elsewhere. if we left it to tournament directors to define the divisions,
the teams in a division, are by definition, competing against similarly
competitive teams. why not just let this be the standard? i guess i believe
that almost any national definition is going to conflict with differing
interests and needs in specific regions. i'm genuinely curious about
arguments against this.

i also respect your suggestion to have all changes go through ballot mail
but that still leaves measures having to get through the business
meeting--which in some cases is impossible because of time constraints and
which still means that a small group of people get to decide which issues
get voted on. i just fundamentally don't agree with requiring people to pay
costwise and timewise to attend business meetings that happen in the middle
of a school week; or to send in a proxy, a process that is confusing and
that frequently is made irrelevant by amendments to the issues the proxies
seek to vote on (so, the proxy doesn't even count).

jim hanson
whitman college
nw ceda representative


-----Original Message-----
From: Lane, Gina [mailto:laneg at william.jewell.edu]
Sent: Thursday, November 11, 1999 1:34 PM
To: 'Team Topic Debating in America'; 'smnn at uhura.cc.rochester.edu';
asnider at zoo.uvm.edu; Becky Opsata; ccrensh; enslen lamberth; Gina Lane;
Glenda Treadaway; Greg Achten; Greg Simerly; Jeff Jarman; Jim Hanson;
Mike Bauer; Mike Eaves; ML Sandoz; Russ Church; Shawn Whalen; Terry
West; Terry Winebrenner; Wayne Kraemer
Subject: rationale


Dear colleagues--

I am proposing this Executive Council action to help us decide if the new
novice/jv eligibility rule is a problem we need or want to fix.  I believe
the discussion on edebate this week has pointed to several problems that
were not aired out either in advance of or during the NCA business meeting.

The Executive Council can take this action, according to Article VII of the
CEDA Constitution.  See Article VII Section 1:  "Between business meetings,
the Executive Council will make such rules as are necessary to support the
purposes of the association.  Actions of the Executive Council will have the
force of bylaws.  Members will be notified of the Executive Council's
actions and at the next business meeting will have the opportunity to
approve or reject continuation of those rules."

Your Executive Council representative will vote on this proposal in two
weeks.  Please feel free to direct your feedback to any and all Council
representatives.

As for the proposals to increase member input on bylaw changes, I would
recommend an amendment to change bylaw amendment approval to match
constitutional amendment approval -- any changes must be approved by a
business meeting (which allows for the open meeting give and take,
amendments, etc.); approved amendments are then sent to the membership for
final approval.

Sincerely,

Gina Lane
President, Cross Examination Debate Association



From bob.alexander  Fri Nov 12 06:32:10 1999
From: bob.alexander (Bob Alexander)
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 07:32:10 -0500
Subject: (The Fat-Boy Manifesto) 2000-2001 CEDA/NDT Topic Paper: Federal
 Obesity Policy
References: <Pine.HPP.3.96.991108143336.5432D-100000@hp9k2.csun.edu>
 <000101bf2cce$623b45c0$981445cf@commarts.uwf.edu>
Message-ID: <FRI.12.NOV.1999.073210.0500.BOB.ALEXANDER@MINDSPRING.COM>




Federal Obesity Policy




CEDA/NDT Policy Debate Topic Paper: 2000-2001






Bob Alexander, Joseph M. Ganakos, Joe Boyd,

                                   U. of West Florida           U. of West Florida                      U. of Louisiana-Monroe 













National Communication Association, 1999



As the United States of America has moved away from its hands-on, agrarian roots and transformed itself into a mercantile economy, the fabric of our lives has been torn asunder. Where once the Aristotelian "golden mean" of moderation ruled our lives, we have become a model of conspicuous consumption. Yet this isn't confined to our desire to keep up with the "Joneses", to purchase a Waverunner or a time-share condo in the Virgin Islands. We also dispose of processed and nutritionally superfluous foodstuffs with the same voracious appetite we reserve for products found in the Sharper Image catalog.

In the past two decades, America has become the most obese nation in the world. With a strong economy and increasingly sedentary lifestyles, the citizenry of the United States faces an epidemic ("Obesity", 1999c). At no point in American history has there been a health crisis so pervasive that it directly affects better than a third of all Americans and one-quarter of America's young. Moreover, the real and abstract costs of this trend boggle the mind. Better than 300,000 people die annually from obesity-related diseases ("Obesity", 1999d). A recent study notes that treatment of obesity exceeds $238 billion dollars annually ("Obesity: 20%", 1999a). Add to this the psychological costs experienced by each victim of obesity and the true volatility of this situation becomes apparent. At the turn of the millenium, this genuine national emergency demands attention not only from scientists and physicians but from the body of social scholars as well.

By incorporating this topic into the 2000-2001 CEDA debate year, this discourse will undoubtedly lead to a greater understanding of the social ramifications of the current situation by both the participants in debate but the greater world of academia. This topic, without reservation, affects every citizen and will advance both the public interest and the potential for novice-level recruitment. Everyone has an opinion on this issue, everyone has had it in someway exert influence over their life. By lucid and comprehensive treatment of this condition as the epidemic that it appears to be, the critical persuasive element of debate will be more than fulfilled.

"Your Butt is Wide, Well Mine Is Too" - Weird Al Yankovic

Simply put, obesity in America is at an all-time high. According to the October 1999 Special Issue Journal of the American Medical Association, the prevalence of obesity (being 30% or greater above optimal body weight) has increased from 12.0% in 1991 to 17.9% in 1998 (Mokdad et al., 1999). With children, the situation is even more dire. In the 1950's, less than one in 20 children were categorized as obese; now, that number is nearly one in four (Feeney, 1999). These statistics are supported by scores of others that demonstrate how dangerous a threat this nationwide condition represents.

  a.. The American Heart Association notes that there is a 48% increase in obesity among children over the past four decades.
  b.. Some 80% of adolescents who leave their teenage years obese remain so as adults, increasing their risk for serious health problems (Feeney, 1999).
  c.. In the Southeast, the obesity rate jumped 67.2% from 1991-1998. Georgia led the nation with a 101.8% increase ("Obesity rate", 1999).
  d.. The greatest magnitude of increase was found in the following groups: 18- to 29-year-olds, 7.1% to 12.1%, those with some college education (10.6% to 17.8%), and those of Hispanic ethnicity, 11.6% to 20.8% (Must, et al., 1999).
  e.. Nearly 55% of American adults fall into the World Health Organization definition of being overweight ("Obesity", 1999b).
  f.. 94 million American adults and children are overweight (Freudenheim, 1999b).
"I like Big Butts (And I Cannot Lie)" - Sir Mix-A-Lot

Beyond the simple statistics of what percentage of Americans are overweight or obese, there exists the nationwide problems created by this "epidemic". In America, the true impact of the situation can be both qualified and quantified. Currently, American's spend $33 billion annually on weight-loss products (Freudenheim, 1999a). Beyond the previously cited direct medical costs, there are the expenses incurred by the businesses and organizations that depend on obese individuals. Absenteeism and lost productivity attributed to obesity is estimated to exceed $47 billion (Freudenheim, 1999a). To combat this problem, many companies are spending millions of dollars to combat obesity by implementing in-house gymnasiums ("Employers Focus", 1999) and fitness programs (Hill, 1999).

  a.. The American Obesity Association has called on the National Institutes of Health to increase the $103 million it spends on obesity research annually by 500%. This sum would be equal to $1.10 per every obese American (McFarling, 1999).
  b.. The American Heart Association has called on the Florida Legislature to commit $20 million to encourage more physical education in schools in order to combat obesity ("Kids' Obesity", 1999).
  c.. According to researchers at the University of Michigan, health care costs for obese male employees of a Chicago bank averaged $4,047 (spread over three years) for a total $718 higher than the all-male average. Obese women accrued $10,926 in health care costs (over the same period) for a total $4,182 higher that the all-female average (Freudenheim, 1999a).
  d.. According to a study conducted by the American Cancer Society, obese individuals have a significantly higher rate of early death ("Obesity: Correlates", 1999b). 
  e.. Elevated body-fat levels lead to excessive potential for heart disease, high blood pressure and certain types of cancer ("Putting On", 1999) and type 2 diabetes mellitus, gallbladder disease, high blood cholesterol or osteoarthritis (Must, et al., 1999).
  f.. Employers can be held liable for creating an abusive work environment that might foster jokes and innuendoes making light of obese employees (Grimsley, 1998).
  g.. The prescription diet medication Fen-Phen was removed from shelves after researchers linked it to heart-valve damage. Meridia, which can elevate blood pressure, remains one of the top five prescriptions in the U.S. (Kalb, 1999).
"Fat Bottomed Girls . . . " - Queen

Though the social consequences of obesity are tremendous, they pale in comparison to the trials the individuals suffering from obesity must endure. Throughout the nation, evidence abounds of discrimination and abuse of overweight and obese Americans. According to a Center for Disease Control study, children as young as 10 notice - and avoid - peers who are overweight. Children as young as 6 associate being fat with a wide variety of negative characteristics such as laziness and sloppiness. One out of every 10 overweight children is clinically depressed (Feeney, 1999). With such societal preconceptions leading to difficulty in adapting to interpersonal interaction, the difficulties faced by the obese are in many ways more serious than the financial costs associated with the condition.

  a.. 42% of Journal of the American Medical Association study participants reported that their health care professional advised them to lose weight (Galuska, Will, Serdula & Ford, 1999).
  b.. Obese women are less likely to marry, more likely to be poor, and less likely to complete higher education. Weight prejudice is also found in being less favored in hiring and apartment rentals (Feeney, 1999).
  c.. 52% of Americans say they don't worry about their body fat as long as they don't appear fat ("Putting On", 1999).
  d.. Kendra Kennon, formerly a Southwest Airlines flight attendant, was fired for being obese. She has filed a law suit and is pending trial. The court refused to stipulate in early motions that discrimination based upon age is not protected by laws regarding race, age, gender, or disability (Sixel, 1999).
  e.. In San Francisco, a protest was held outside a San Francisco gym that had put up a sign that featured space aliens proclaiming, 'When they come they'll eat the fat ones first!' (Epstein, 1999).
  f.. Most current pharmaceutical treatments for obesity involve significant side effects. Xenical, one of the most heralded prescriptions on the 1990's, brings intestinal cramping, oily spotting, gas, fecal urgency, and oily or loose stools ("Obesity's the Target", 1999).
  g.. A National Institute of Health study found that 90% of all diets fail. Jeanne Toombs of NIH noted that "People fail diets rather than diets failing them" (Brown, 1999).


"Well the Fat Girl, She Ain't No Damn Good" - Lyle Lovett

As the gravity of the situation is apparent, steps must be taken to provide relief not only for the individuals who suffer from obesity but to the nation's economy and psyche as well. Throughout the nation, recommendation pour in from scientists, physicians, nutritionists, public-interest groups, lawmakers, and everyone else under the sun on how to solve this crisis. To date, no single solution appears to be foolproof.

  a.. Participants at the American Obesity Association conference held in Washington, D.C. held that high fat foods should be taxed; making insurers cover weight loss programs ("Taxing", 1999) ; lengthening the school day to give students more exercise; and spending more on research to determine the causes of obesity (Daniels, 1999).
  b.. Louisiana State Representative Renee Gill Pratt proposed House Bill 271 to create the Louisiana Council on Obesity Prevention and Management. She fell six votes shy of passage ("Briefing", 1999).
  c.. Many companies are trying harder to promote exercise and nutrition regimens for workers to reduce health risks and the costs associated with being overweight (Freudenheim, 1999).
  d.. Certain medical experts note that, without a national anti-obesity campaign (similar to current anti-tobacco campaigns) fear that the trend will continue (Kolata, 1999).
  e.. In San Francisco, legislators may soon make it illegal to discriminate against the obese. Board of Supervisors President Tom Ammiano notes that, "When I was a teacher I particularly witnessed the persecution of kids who are heavy. We're programmed to think it's funny, but it's not." Board of Supervisors Attorney Carole Cullum went on record as saying, "It's the last safe group to discriminate against. It's time that it's not safe anymore." (Gordon, 1999).
  f.. Dr. Thomas Robinson, in the Journal of the American Medial Association, recommended that reducing television, videotape, and video game may be a promising, population-based approach to prevent childhood obesity (Robinson, 1999).
Potential Resolutions

Resolved: That the U.S. Federal Government should pass a fat tax.

Resolved: That the U.S. Federal Government should subsidize the sale of healthy foods.

"It's a toxic food environment in which Americans are constantly exposed to unhealthful foods.." (Kushner, 1999, 1F) and perhaps the best method to counter this toxic environment is through economic incentive. Kelly Brownell, Director of the Center for Eating and Weight Disorders at Yale, argues that we're facing an epidemic, and "believes the government should subsidize the sale of healthy food, increase the cost of non-nutritional foods through taxes and regulate food advertising to discourage unhealthy practices" (Greenberg, 1999, p.18). The latter of the above resolutions offers fat-tax implications, as a way to pay for subsidies, as well as support for healthy food, thereby bringing all elements of obesity harms into the debate, with a limited set of policy actions. Additionally, Brownell's policy advocacy will be detailed in his book, which is currently in-press, and should be released early next year (Greenberg, 1999).

Resolved: That the U.S. Federal Government should increase regulation of food advertisements.

(more specific: focus on "junk food advertisements" and/or add the final phrase "targeted at children")

Dr. Kelly D. Brownell of the Yale Center for Eating and Weight Disorders notes that "we get upset about Joe Camel, yet we tolerate our children seeing 10,000 commercials a year that promote foods that are every bit as unhealthy.Junk food advertisements should be regulated.just as they are on tobacco and alcohol" ("Nutty Professor" pgrph. 4). Additionally, an 8-year State of California Department of Health Services study released in September of 1999 noted that expanding numbers of people "are eating fast food, getting fatter and fatter, and blithely admit they can't help it because they are coerced by clever TV ads pushing high-calorie snacks." (Minton, 1999, p.A1). The California research replicates numerous studies completed across the nation which argue for more stringent regulation of food advertisements.

Resolved: That the F.D.A. should treat food as an over the counter drug.

Resolved: That the U.S. Federal Government should increase regulation of food labeling.

As America becomes more "health-conscious," junk food manufacturers add nutrient claims to labels, and "the nutrients help persuade adults that it's OK to buy such products, and the sugar, wacky colors and flavors appeal to kids-a marriage made in heaven from a marketing point of view" (Marchione, 1999, p.1). "A 1994 law exempted herbal remedies and additives from the rigorous regulations drugs go through to be approved in this country. As a result, makers of dietary supplements can imply on their labels that the products bestow certain health benefits-as long as they don't promise to treat or cure diseases" (Sevrens, 1999, p.Food-4). Sevrens continues that "the Kellog Co. announced it was launching a 21-product line of foods containing psyllium, a seed husk that acts as a laxative. Called Ensemble, the new cereals, cookies, pastas, breads and frozen entrees are all purported to help lower cholesterol. Both Lipton and Johnson & Johnson unveiled margerines made out of soybean extract that the makers say will help reduce cholesterol levels. And numerous orange juice producers have been adding calcium to their products promising drinkers they will help reduce their odds of developing osteoporosis.(and) the introduction of coffee, candy and other snack foods fortified with plant extracts has taken the concept to a new level. They are being marketed as being more healthful because of herbal additions. Experts say this is a dubious claim." F.D.A. regulations would never allow many of the unsubstantiated health claims made by "functional foods" with herbal additives to appear on "drugs," yet these claims go virtually unchecked, and Americans self-prescribe remedies everyday.

Resolved: That the U.S. Federal Government should increase its regulation of food manufacturers.

(for more specificity: include the phrase "to decrease obesity" and/or change the direction of action to "junk food manufacturers")

Resolved: That the U.S. Federal Government should enact legislation to combat obesity.

Specific policy proposals are available not only through advocacy of the aforementioned special interest groups and think-tanks, but also through state legislation. "Several states and municipalities already levy higher taxes on softdrinks and junk food, including such taxpayer-friendly destinations as Maine, Chicago, and Washington, D.C." ("Nutty Profesor," 1999, pgrph. 6). Further, the definition of "obesity" can be found through new state laws as well; for example, Act 1316 of the 1999 Louisiana State Legislature states that "The state health officer shall classify obesity as a disease in all cases where the person's body mass index (BMI) is 30 kg/m2, or where a person's body mass index (BMI) is 27 kg/m2 or greater and the person suffers from one or more of the following conditions or diseases: 1) Type II diabetes, 2) Impaired glucose tolerance, 3) Hyperinsulinemia, 4) Dyslipidemia, 5) Hypertension, 6) Cardiovascular disease, 7) Gastric reflux disease, 8) Gall bladder disease, 9) Osteoarthritis of the hips or knees, 10) Sleep apnea, or 11) Cerebrouvascular disease" (p. 1). 



Works Cited

Briefing book: News and views from the Louisiana Capitol. (1999, April 17). The New Orleans Times-Picayune, p. A4.

Brown, D. (1999, January 17). Their message: Big can be beautiful; Burlington-based group seeks 'size acceptance'. The Boston Globe, p. 13.

Daniels, M.A. (1999, September 25). Watch out, the obesity police are on the prowl. Kansas City Star, p. 31.

Epstein, E. & Hoover, K. (1999, February 18). Ammiano takes aim at fat bias: Supervisor wants laws to cover hefty individuals. The San Francisco Chronicle, p. A16.

Feeney, S.A. (1999, November 3). A heavy burden for kids to bear. The New York Daily News, p. 46.

Freudenheim, M. (1999a, September 15). Study says overweight adults push up cost of health care. The New York Times, p. C18.

Freudenheim, M. (1999b, September 15). Employers focus on weight as a workplace health issue. The New York Times, p. A15.

Galuska, D.A., Will, J.C., Serdula, M.K. & Ford, E.S. (1999). Are health care professionals advising obese patients to lose weight?. Journal of the American Medical Association, 262, 1576-1578.

Gordon, R. (1999, February 19). San Francisco mulls banning overweight bias. San Francisco Examiner, p. A16.

Greenberg, B. (1998, November 23). Yale prof proposes regulating fatty foods like cigarettes. Marketing News, 18.

Grimsley, K.D. (1998, November 15). When employees don't get the picture on cruel office jokes. The Washington Post, p. H04.

HB1921 (1999, August 15). Louisiana Legislature: 1999 Regular Session [online]. Available: http://www2.legis.state.la.us/sessioninfo/current_session_information.htm

Hill, S. (1999, October 26). Obesity is soaring in America. Associated Press Online [On-line]. Available: http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe 

Jacoby, J. (1998, November 12). The bullies' next target: Junk food. The Boston Globe, p.A25.

Kalb, C., Underwood, A. & Reno, J. (1999, October 18). Weighing the health risks in your body. Newsweek [On-line]. Available: http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe

Kids' obesity prompts new proposals on exercising. (1999, March 14). Miami Herald, p. 6.

Kolata, G. (1999, October 31). The fat war: Hope amid the harm. The New York Times, p. A1.

Kushner, N. (1999, May 24). Don't let fast food weigh you down; take control of high-fat portions. The Plain Dealer, p.1F.

Marchione, M. (1999, August 23). They don't make junk food like they used to. Milwaukee Journal Sentinal, .1.

McFarling, U.L. (1999a, September 16). Obesity experts charge government ignores growing epidemic. San Diego Union-Tribune, p. A-10

Minton, T. (1999, September 22). Little exercise, lots of junk food; 8-year state study warns of increase in long-term health problems. The San Francisco Chronicle, p.A1.

Mokdad, A.H., Serdula, M.K., Dietz, W.H., Bowman, B.A. & Marks, J.S. (1999). The spread of the obesity epidemic in the United States, 1991-1998. Journal of the American Medical Association, 262, 1519-1522.

Must, A., Spadano, J., Coakley, E.H., Field, A.E., Colditz, G. & Dietz, W.H. (1999). The disease burden associated with overweight and obesity. Journal of the American Medical Association, 262, 1523-1529.

Obesity: 20% of Americans obese, exceeding $240B annually. (1999a, September 15). American Health Line [On-line]. Available: http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe

Obesity: Correlates closely with early death. (1999b, October 7). American Health Line [On-line]. Available: http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe

Obesity: America's waistline expands to epidemic levels. (1999c, October 27). American Health Line [On-line]. Available: http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe

Obesity: Tax on fatty food, longer school day considered. (1999d, September 16). American Health Line [On-line]. Available: http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe 

Obesity rate is rising fastest in the South. (1999, October 27). The New York Times, p. A21.

Obesity's the target. (1999, May 2). The Boston Globe, p. E4.

Putting on weight. (1999, August 30). Drug Store News [On-line]. Available: http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe/printdoc

Robinson, T.N. (1999). Reducing children's television viewing to prevent obesity: Randomized Controlled Trial. Journal of the American Medical Association, 282, 1561-1567.

Severens, J. (1999, September 29). Jazzed-up junk food has a downside. The San Diego Union-Tribune, .Food-4.

Sixel, L.M. (1999, October 8). Bias takes toll on heavy people. The Houston Chronicle, p. 1.

Taxing the pounds away. (1999, September 23). The New Orleans Times-Picayune, p. B6.

The Nutty Professor. (1999, November 1). Ciizens Against Government Waste[online]. Available: http://www.leggs.com/articles/9710/govwaste.L/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/19991112/f6196940/attachment.htm 


From Berube  Fri Nov 12 09:50:31 1999
From: Berube (David Berube)
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 10:50:31 -0500
Subject: NEW MA program at South Carolina takes shape.
Message-ID: <FRI.12.NOV.1999.105031.0500.BERUBE@GWM.SC.EDU>

I've been working on our new graduate program in speech communication. I thought you might find the following relevant. We will have some support for graduate assistantship(s) in debate. We will need others to teach laboratory sections of the basic course(s).

This is not official.

MASTER'S DEGREE IN
SPEECH COMMUNICATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA, COLUMBIA

The department of Theatre & Speech at the University of South Carolina is proud to announce a new interdisciplinary masters degree program in speech communication.

The program enables students to take courses across the curriculum in departments of rhetoric (English), linguistics, political sciences, journalism, mass communication.  We are interested in tailoring each masters study program to the interests and goals of each student. New courses in cultural studies, business, risk theory, argumentation, and debating are being added.

The program revolves around certain points of focus. We already have much of the course work in place. The major focus will be in argumentation.  Since the current faculty are expert in that area, we will build on our strengths.

CORE FACULTY

David Berube, Associate Professor, Ph.d. New York University.
Kevin Sargent, Assistant Professor, Ph.d. Northwestern University.
Roy Schwartzman, Assistant Professor, Ph.d. University of Iowa
Charles Wilbanks, Associate Professor, Ph.d. University of Nebraska and
remaining faculty from across campus.

How do I get information?
? Information on the graduate school is at http://www.gradschool.sc.edu/grad_student_info.html.
? The graduate school bulletin is at http://www.sc.edu/bulletin/grad/.
? More information by emailing berube at sc.edu.

How do I apply?

? First, apply online at http://web.csd.sc.edu/app/grad/. You will be applying for admission to the graduate program in Theatre/Speech with an emphasis in Speech.
? Second, take your G.R.E.'s or M.A.T.'s and have the scores reported to the graduate admissions office.
? Third, send official transcripts, two letters of recommendation to graduate admissions and a writing sample to graduate admissions and the Department of Theatre, Speech and Dance.  You can email your sample to berube at sc.edu or wilbanks at sc.edu.
? Fourth, apply for a graduate assistantship as soon as possible.

TENTATIVE
GRADUATE COURSE OF STUDY IN
SPEECH COMMUNICATION

Projected  requirements include (9) credit hours from the following:
THSP 547        Persuasive Communication (3). Analysis of the process and functions of persuasive communication (analysis of public speaking).
THSP 549        Survey of Performance Texts (3). Analysis, evaluation, and application of principal rhetoric theories. Includes analysis of performance texts.
THSP 700        Research Methods (3). Examination of research procedures and methodologies appropriate to graduate studies in speech communication.
AND
THSP 799        Thesis Preparation (1-9 cr.)

Unlike some graduate programs, we have drawn from the best coursework across our campus to offer the graduate students a broad understanding of communication studies. We feel the compiled course offerings allow us to produce the finest teachers and pre-doctoral students. In consultation with a graduate adviser, students will select a course of study that both meets their needs and interests.

And up to 18 credit hours from the following:

THSP 511        Arguments in Cultural Studies. (3) The study of arguments drawn from popular culture emphasizing the poaching, and deconstruction of claims and warrants to build and repair axiologies.
GEOG 530        Environmental Hazards. (3) Human and environmental contributions to the generation and management of hazards originating from extreme natural events to technological failures. Contemporary public policy issues at the national and international level.
THSP 541        Speech Criticism. (3) Detailed analysis and evaluation of the research models utilized in the criticism of public address. Application of one or more critical methods will be required.
JOUR 542        Public Opinion and Propaganda. (3) Propaganda as persuasive communication; public opinion and its role in society.
THSP 543        Legal Communication. (3) Communication questions and skills employed by lawyers, judges, litigants, and jurors in criminal and civil judicial processes; special emphasis on interviewing, negotiation, and litigation.
THSP 544        Arguments in Science and Technology. (3) The study of arguments drawn from science and technology emphasizing how scientific methodologies are modified and corrupted to make persuasive appeals.
THSP 545a       American Public Address: Colonial to 1900. (3) The oral discourse of selected American speakers whose speeches have played a significant role in shaping and reflecting the nation's development from the colonial period to 1900.
THSP 545b       American Public Address: 1900 to present. (3) The oral discourse of selected American speakers whose speeches have played a significant role in shaping and reflecting the nation's development from 1900 to present.
THSP 546        Alternative Voices. (3). The oral discourse of selected American speakers drawn from groups such as women, African Americans, and other populations traditionally underrepresented in the canons of public address.
THSP 548        Contemporary Campaign Rhetoric. (3) Analysis and evaluation of the suasory speechmaking of political figures seeking state or national offices. Offered only in fall semester in which national elections are held.
WOST 555        Language and Gender. (3)  The course will explore an approach to gender and language use that emphasizes the ground in social social practice of truth.
THSP 560        Advanced Argumentation and Debate. (3) A study of argument fields and methodologies, including descriptive and normative research of discourse and advanced contest debating.
JOUR 562        The Journalism of Science and Technology. (3) Explores the role of the media in shaping perceptions of scientific issues and public policy. Emphasis on methods of communicating technical information to various publics.
 THSP 563       Great Debates. (3) A study of debates at the Constitutional Convention, Lincoln-Douglas debates (1858), vice-presidental and presidential debates, and other national debates.
THSP 564        Speech Writing and Advocacy. (3) In process.
THSP 599        Special Topics in Theatre and Speech. (3) Reading and research on selected topics. Course content varies and will be announced in the schedule of classes by suffix and title. May be repeated once as topics vary.
THSP 701        Teaching Speech Communication. (3) In process.
THSP 702        Directing Debate and Forensics. (3) Training in the direction and coaching of interscholastic and intercollegiate programs in contest debates and forensic events.
JOUR 702        Communication Theory. (3). Considerations in the development of communication theory, with emphasis on theoretical formulations derived in the behavioral sciences and applications to communication situations.
JOUR 710        Organizational Communication. (3) Communication within organizations. Theory and research in internal organizational communications, and current issues of concern in the field.
GINT 720        Political Communication. (3)  The role of communication in  creating collective political reality, with particular  attention to how governmental, economic, professional, and  cultural factors influence media organizations.
ENGL 792        Classical Rhetoric. (3) A survey of ancient Greek and Roman rhetorical theory, the backgrounds of composition.
ENGL 793        Rhetorical Theory and Practice, Medieval to Modern. (3) A survey of the major theories of rhetoric and composition from medieval to modern times focusing on 1500 to 1800.
ENGL 794        Modern Rhetorical Theory. (3) A survey of twentieth century contributions to rhetorical theory as applied to writing.
ANTH 780        Ethnography of Communication. (3) Ethnographic analysis of communication in groups and institutes in different cultures.
THSP 796, 797   Special Projects (1-3 cr. Each).

David M. Berube, Ph.D
Assoc. Prof., Speech Communication &
Director of Carolina Debate
University of South Carolina 29208
Dept. of Speech and Theatre
803-777-6663
803-777-0055 (fax)
berube at sc.edu and dmberube at mindspring.com



From rlcongo  Fri Nov 12 10:47:17 1999
From: rlcongo (Rebecca Lynne Congo)
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 10:47:17 -0600
Subject: SOA Protest!
Message-ID: <FRI.12.NOV.1999.104717.0600.RLCONGO@STUDENTS.WISC.EDU>

To all community members:
November is the 10th anniversary of the assasination of 6 Jesuit priests, a
housekeeper, and her daughter by School of the Americas graduates.  To
honor their memory, and that of the thousands of other killed by SOA
graduates, next weekend (November 19-21) is the 10th anniversary
commemertion and vigil.  This is taking place at Ft. Benning, GA, home of
the SOA.  Approximatly 10,000 people are expected!
  Even if you are unable to attend, I hope that all community members will
at least take a few minutes to think about the conseqenses of US policy in
Latin America, and the world.
  As I first learned of the SOA through debate, I though this an
appropriate posting.
  I hope to see some of you at Ft. Benning next weekend!  For more
information, check the School of Americas Watch homepage at www.soaw.org

Thank you.

Rebecca Congo
RLCongo at students.wisc.edu
University of Wisconsin-Madison



From Berube  Fri Nov 12 11:59:13 1999
From: Berube (David Berube)
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 12:59:13 -0500
Subject: Email address for Jack Rogers?
Message-ID: <FRI.12.NOV.1999.125913.0500.BERUBE@GWM.SC.EDU>

Could someone help me with Jack Rogers email address, please?



David M. Berube, Ph.D
Assoc. Prof., Speech Communication &
Director of Carolina Debate
University of South Carolina 29208
Dept. of Speech and Theatre
803-777-6663
803-777-0055 (fax)
berube at sc.edu and dmberube at mindspring.com

>From  Fri Nov 12 14:12:27 1999
Message-Id: <FRI.12.NOV.1999.141227.EST.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 48697 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 14:13:06
 -0500
Precedence: bulk
Received: from imo-d02.mx.aol.com (imo-d02.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.34]) by
 list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA17926 for
 <EDEBATE at list.uvm.edu>; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 14:13:05 -0500
Received: from JoeCarver at aol.com by imo-d02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.4.) id
 n.0.5530be8c (3971) for <EDEBATE at list.uvm.edu>; Fri, 12 Nov 1999
 14:12:27 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 243
Message-ID: <0.5530be8c.255dc09b at aol.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 14:12:27 EST
Reply-To: JoeCarver at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Joe Carver <JoeCarver at AOL.COM>
Subject: Seeking Josh Hoe

Please backchannel me at your earliest convenience.

Joe Carver
CEU debate



From gabriels  Fri Nov 12 13:27:13 1999
From: gabriels (Gabe S.)
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 14:27:13 -0500
Subject: Michigan State Only...sorry...
Message-ID: <FRI.12.NOV.1999.142713.0500.GABRIELS@UMICH.EDU>

I don't have the address for MSU debaters, so...
Could Donald, Potato Head, Will, Calum, or Russell send me all the cites
you read on the Obouchi DA.  The shell and the extensions from our round 2
at harvard?  Thanks.

Gabe

PS...Donald, you never told us what you wanted about a week ago.

>From  Fri Nov 12 14:36:23 1999
Message-Id: <FRI.12.NOV.1999.143623.0700.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 51567 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 16:36:29
 -0500
Precedence: bulk
Received: from post1.inre.asu.edu (post1.inre.asu.edu [129.219.13.100]) by
 list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA21942 for
 <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 16:36:27 -0500
Received: from general4.asu.edu (general4.asu.edu [129.219.10.154]) by asu.edu
 (PMDF V5.2-31 #31135) with ESMTP id <0FL3008O8TCPO3 at asu.edu> for
 edebate at list.uvm.edu; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 14:36:26 -0700 (MST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by general4.asu.edu
 (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id OAA19575 for <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Fri,
 12 Nov 1999 14:36:24 -0700 (MST)
X-Sender: mysore at general4.asu.edu
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.991112142458.12771C-100000 at general4.asu.edu>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 14:36:23 -0700
Reply-To: Jason.Jarvis at ASU.EDU
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Jason Jarvis <Jason.Jarvis at ASU.EDU>
Subject: Fiesta preliminary team list

A couple of people were curious who was coming to the Fiesta tournament in
December. All of the information below is preliminary as official entries are
not due for a while, but I thought I would post what I know so far for those
who are interested.

Augustana, IL - 1 open

College of Eastern Utah - ?

CSU Bakersfield - ?

CSU Fullerton - 2 open, 1 novice, up to 15 IE slots

Pepperdine - 1 open, 1 jv, 1-3 novice

Southern Cal - "a bunch" of parli teams

Utah - 1 open, 1 open parli, 3 IE'ers

Weber - 2 open, 1 open parli, 2 novice parli


In addition rooms have been reserved for Snow College (parli, IE), UTEP
(parli, IE), St. Cloud State (MN) (IE, parli?), and Air Force (policy, parli,
ie?) at the tournament hotel.  We also expect IE and parli entries from
Glendale CC, and Northern Arizona University.

Arizona State will also have one open and potentially one novice team (which
will not clear or get awards) in the policy debate portion of the tournament.

regards,

Jason Jarvis
Arizona State



From claytonjjc  Fri Nov 12 15:49:18 1999
From: claytonjjc (Jeff Clayton)
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 16:49:18 -0500
Subject: AC?
Message-ID: <FRI.12.NOV.1999.164918.0500.CLAYTONJJC@AOL.COM>

I'm looking for Kelly Steele and hoping to find him before the end of the century.  Please help.

Sorry for the clutter.

Thanks,

Jeff Clayton

8508 Salem Way
Bethesda, MD 20814
claytonjjc at aol.com

>From  Fri Nov 12 18:17:38 1999
Message-Id: <FRI.12.NOV.1999.181738.EST.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 52380 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 18:18:17
 -0500
Precedence: bulk
Received: from imo25.mx.aol.com (imo25.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.69]) by
 list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA15258 for
 <EDEBATE at list.uvm.edu>; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 18:18:16 -0500
Received: from BrophyDB8 at aol.com by imo25.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.4.) id
 n.0.1dca4fb6 (4417) for <EDEBATE at list.uvm.edu>; Fri, 12 Nov 1999
 18:17:38 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 41
Message-ID: <0.1dca4fb6.255dfa12 at aol.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 18:17:38 EST
Reply-To: BrophyDB8 at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Larry Wulkan <BrophyDB8 at AOL.COM>
Subject: Transcripts For CEDA Nationals

Can someone tell me how to get, electronic would be best but i am not picky,
a copy of the final round between MSU and Gonzaga?  Thanks... Sorry for the
clutter...Larry

>From  Fri Nov 12 18:44:32 1999
Message-Id: <FRI.12.NOV.1999.184432.EST.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 52544 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 18:45:08
 -0500
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 SAA26668 for
 <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 18:45:07 -0500
Received: from LordLeo01 at aol.com by imo15.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.4.) id
 n.0.c89972ec (3989) for <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Fri, 12 Nov 1999
 18:44:32 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 41
Message-ID: <0.c89972ec.255e0060 at aol.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 18:44:32 EST
Reply-To: LordLeo01 at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Jakob Stewart <LordLeo01 at AOL.COM>
Subject: Clinton Senarios

hey  Im looking for what Clinton senarios are being run on the college topic
backchannel me if you have some info

thanks
Jakob
Waco Hi debate TX

>From  Fri Nov 12 20:51:31 1999
Message-Id: <FRI.12.NOV.1999.205131.EST.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 52969 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 20:52:07
 -0500
Precedence: bulk
Received: from imo-d03.mx.aol.com (imo-d03.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.35]) by
 list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA25196 for
 <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 20:52:07 -0500
Received: from DRTUNA at aol.com by imo-d03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.4.) id
 n.0.53bbf602 (3856) for <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Fri, 12 Nov 1999
 20:51:32 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 56
Message-ID: <0.53bbf602.255e1e23 at aol.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 20:51:31 EST
Reply-To: DRTUNA at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: "A. Snider" <DRTUNA at AOL.COM>
Subject: What to do about eligibility until then? Tuna's solution

I am profoundly disturbed by the way in which my efforts to get and keep
students involved in debate has been hampered by the "eligibility" void we
seem to find ourselves in.

What shall we do at the Columbia tournament, for example, on 11/20-21/99?

You know what, I don't really care about the official rules at this point. My
debaters are angry and confused, so my solution is this. I'm going to enter
them at Columbia in divisions that Alan Dove, tournament director, and I
think are appropriate.  If we get points, fine, if we don't, fine.

While I find all of this disturbing, it has made me feel like the progress of
our students and our program, and also the progress of the East as a region,
is less and less an artifact of the CEDA organization and more and more all
about our ability to help ourselves and organize ourselves.

The real challenge facing our region right now is to make sure that solid
directors take up at the four schools which seem to have good openings for
next year:
    Ithaca College - 5 year appointment and a budget commitment
    Marist College - good position and strong school support
    Syracuse University - new emphasis on debating and a good position
    Allegheny College - a new faculty position and a great group of students

If we can make sure good people apply for and get 3 of these 4 jobs our
region will be very healthy. CEDA isn't going to save us, we have to make
sure and do it ourselves.

Which brings me back to eligibility. In the meantime, Alan and I will try and
figure it out for ourselves.

I would yell and scream about this mess but I have little right to. I was
about to try and spark a major discussion about this before NCA but I
deferred to my 16 teams prepping to debate, my research assignment, tab a
100+ team novice tournament in NYC for the NYUDL, and my efforts to expand
the video library of Debate Central and prepare for the upcoming live
internet video debate. I now regret that I did not raise the issues everyone
sees so clearly now back then. My apologies. Mike Bauer had a post which
began to discuss these issues, but I didn't respond and neither did others.

I honestly can't tell whether I need to be more or less involved with the
CEDA organization. I didn't attend the NCA meeting because my school won't
pay for it and I simply can't afford to pay $1200 to go to the meeting.

Time will tell, but for now, I feel like we are on our own.

Sorry to be so negative.

Tuna
AKA Alfred C. Snider
University of Vermont

>From  Fri Nov 12 20:54:45 1999
Message-Id: <FRI.12.NOV.1999.205445.EST.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 53049 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 20:55:22
 -0500
Precedence: bulk
Received: from imo25.mx.aol.com (imo25.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.69]) by
 list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA17030; Fri, 12 Nov 1999
 20:55:21 -0500
Received: from DRTUNA at aol.com by imo25.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.4.) id
 n.0.71cd79c8 (3856); Fri, 12 Nov 1999 20:54:45 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 56
Message-ID: <0.71cd79c8.255e1ee5 at aol.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 20:54:45 EST
Reply-To: DRTUNA at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: "A. Snider" <DRTUNA at AOL.COM>
Subject: Please help recruit teachers and staff for the UDL Listserv
Comments: To: udl at list.uvm.edu

If you are a part of an Urban Debate League program or proposal, please get
those you know involved in the UDL Listserv. You can go to
http://debate.uvm.edu/udl/udl.html and join.

Staff and coaches only, please, no students. Those not directly involved in
the program are asked to lurk and backchannel, please.

We need to get the word out about this.

Tuna
AKA Alfred C. Snider



From silverma  Fri Nov 12 20:07:22 1999
From: silverma (andy silverman)
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 18:07:22 -0800
Subject: KAMAL ONLY PLEASE
Message-ID: <FRI.12.NOV.1999.180722.0800.SILVERMA@USC.EDU>

KAMAL
i was wondering if i could get a) your link cites to the israel disad that you guys read and b) the cites the leverage and appeasement turns you guys read against north korea.

thanks kamal,
andy silverman
usc debate
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/19991112/1ca7ac29/attachment.html 


From hansonjb  Fri Nov 12 21:43:00 1999
From: hansonjb (Jim Hanson)
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 19:43:00 -0800
Subject: re what to do about eligibility unitl then . . . a proposal
Message-ID: <FRI.12.NOV.1999.194300.0800.HANSONJB@WHITMAN.EDU>

tuna's email encourages regional efforts. i don't know if he will agree with
what i propose below but i do think his email is indicative of the effort we
need to be making at the regional level to address our regional problems,
rather than at the national level. in that vein, i offer the following as a
new approach to defining divisions.

Change Definition of Divisions to Regional Ones

Rationale:
National definitions ignore the needs of regions where we are able to
identify what will work with our programs. As examples, my understanding is
that the ADA wanted to let third year students who have not won more than 3
awards to avoid getting slaughtered in senior division. The Northwest has
established a definition of junior division that five quarterfinalist awards
means you advance to senior division; this definitional change has
precipitated the largest junior division in years while pushing able
students into senior division. These are just two examples of the
definitions two regions have used to establish definitions for their
communities. Novice and junior divisions are primarily made up of students
that compete within their region, so why establish national standards that
conflict with regions~R attempts to bolster and maintain novice and junior
division? Further, when national circuit tournaments do offer junior and
novice division, they are forced to use definitions designed for regional
competition. The result? Moderately experienced students who have won a few
trophies at local tournaments are forced into senior division at national
circuit tournaments and get slaughtered.

Let~Rs change to a regional approach and get regional representatives working
with their members to address their own region~Rs problems rather than
legislating national standards to solve problems that exist only in one or
two regions and that damage initiatives to help novice and junior division.
This proposal will have the added benefit of encouraging regional
representatives and members to think through the kind of participation
levels they want to achieve in their region. I urge adoption of the
following proposal.

Amend Article IV Section 7 so that Regional Representatives moderate efforts
to define divisions
Add F. Moderate discussions and elections concerning definitions of
divisions at tournaments in the region.

Change to Section 3: Points and Definitions for Divisions
A. Each region shall establish its own definitions for divisions. The
regional representative shall use discussion, consensus, and/or votes to
determine which definition shall be used in the region. Definitions should
be established after the passage of this Section by September 1 and sent to
the Executive Secretary. After this definition has been established, changes
should be made after the national tournament and before September 1 and
should require at least 2/3 agreement of the members of a region. Changes
during the debate season should not occur except in highly unusual and
critically needed situations and by at least 4/5 agreement of the members of
a region.
B. In developing the definition, the representative should tell the members
of the region that they should: 1) assure that each division that is defined
will have enough teams to make; 2) promote and support divisions for less
experienced debaters; 3) not force less experienced and less competitive
teams into higher divisions; 4) not permit more experienced and more
competitive teams to stay in inexperienced division; 5) include different
definitions for tournaments in their region that attract teams from outside
the district so that lesser experienced students are not forced into
difficult ~Snational circuit~T senior divisions and that they should consult
with teams outside of the district who attend these tournaments about these
~Snational circuit~T definitions.
C. All tournaments held in the region are required to use the region~Rs
definitions of divisions or a more restrictive definition of a division than
that voted on by the region.
D. The Executive Secretary shall not count any sweepstakes points for any
teams in a division in violation of a region~Rs definition.

respectfully

jim hanson
whitman college



From hansonjb  Sat Nov 13 02:20:22 1999
From: hansonjb (Jim Hanson)
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1999 00:20:22 -0800
Subject: EVERYONE send your recruiting info
Message-ID: <SAT.13.NOV.1999.002022.0800.HANSONJB@WHITMAN.EDU>

hi

i am encouraging you to send information about your college/university's
program.

are you a student but your school isn't mentioned here? ask your coach to
send info.

do you have info on the page but you want to update it?

did you know the page with this info has been visited 2654 times in the past
11 months? i'll be announcing its update to many hs programs soon--over 500
plus i'll be sending it to a variety of listservs.

http://www.whitman.edu/offices_departments/rhetoric/72colleges.htm

send me your info! send it to hansonjb at whitman.edu

this info is for ceda, ndt, npda, apda, niet, nfa, cc, jc, pi kappa, dsr,
phi rho pi schools--anyone!

jim hanson
whitman college
hansonjb at whitman.edu

i have information for the following 76 schools.

Abilene Christian University *

Appalachian State University *

Arizona State University *

Augustana College *

Baylor University *

Bethany Lutheran College *

Bethel College (MN) *

Boise State University *

Boston College *

Bridgewater College *

California State University, Chico *

California State University at Fullerton. *

California State University at Long Beach *

Capital University *

Carroll College *

Case Western Reserve University *

The Catholic University of America *

Central Methodist College *

College of Eastern Utah *

Concordia University *

Creighton University Omaha, NE *

East Central University *

Eastern New Mexico University *

Fort Valley State University *

George Mason University *

Glendale Community College *

IMPACT COALTION *

Idaho State University *

Indiana-Purdue Fort Wayne *

Indiana University *

Lewis & Clark College *

Louisiana College *

Mary Washington College *

McKendree College *

Mercer University *

Middle Tennessee State University *

Minnesota State University, Mankato *

University of Missouri-St. Louis *

Morehouse College *

Northwest College *

Northwest Nazarene College *

Northwestern University *

Ohio University *

The Ohio State University *

Pace University *

Pacific Lutheran University *

Pennsylvania State University *

Pepperdine University *

Portland Community College *

Ripon College *

Saint Joseph's College *

San Francisco State University *

Spokane Falls Community College *

Stanford University *

Texas Tech University *

Towson University *

Trinity University *

The University of Chicago *

University of Georgia *

University of Pennsylvania *

University of Pittsburgh *

University of Richmond *

University of South Carolina *

University of Texas *

University of Vermont *

University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire *

Volunteer State Community College *

Wake Forest University *

Washburn University *

Weber State University *

WEBSTER UNIVERSITY *

Western Michigan University *

Whitman College *

Willamette University *

William Carey College *

William Jewell College *



From hansonjb  Sat Nov 13 02:50:38 1999
From: hansonjb (Jim Hanson)
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1999 00:50:38 -0800
Subject: EVERYONE send recruiting tips
Message-ID: <SAT.13.NOV.1999.005038.0800.HANSONJB@WHITMAN.EDU>

hi

i encourage you to post and/or send me recruiting tips to be included in a
document that i will post sometime soon (next 2 weeks). i have about 10 sets
of suggestions at this point but i'd sure like to be able to provide a
broader set of ideas.

what do you do to get more novices?

how do you connect with high school programs?

what have you done to increase outreach to diverse groups of students?

your ideas can help other programs reach out to bring more people into our
community.

jim hanson
whitman college
hansonjb at whitman.edu



From hansonjb  Sat Nov 13 02:50:39 1999
From: hansonjb (Jim Hanson)
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1999 00:50:39 -0800
Subject: info you should send about your program
Message-ID: <SAT.13.NOV.1999.005039.0800.HANSONJB@WHITMAN.EDU>

ooops

forgot this; send this info:

1. School Name2. Director of Forensics
3. Director's credentials
4. Other coaches and their credentials
5. Email address of the director (for people to contact you about your
program)6. Willing to have email address shown?
7. Web Page Address
8. Program does Policy, Parliamentary, NFA LD, IE~Rs, other
9. Type of School:
Liberal Arts
University
Speciality School
Junior/Community College
Other (describe)
10. Mission statement/Description of your program
11. Scholarship Availability

send it to hansonjb at whitman.edu

i'll update the page shortly after receiving your school's information.

jim hanson
whitman college
hansonjb at whitman.edu



From bg21599  Sat Nov 13 09:36:06 1999
From: bg21599 (Joe Schatz)
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1999 10:36:06 -0500
Subject: lost evidence
Message-ID: <SAT.13.NOV.1999.103606.0500.BG21599@BINGHAMTON.EDU>

If anyon found, or took by mistake, a 31 pocket acordian folder at
Binghamton's tournament with 2ac answers for feminism and cuba please
back channel me. Almost all the blocks in it should be have "binghamton"
written on it in the upper left hand corner.

--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
 josePh n>
   bg21599 at binghamton.edu
  author of: "A Story Retold"
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

>From  Sat Nov 13 11:07:28 1999
Message-Id: <SAT.13.NOV.1999.110728.EST.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 55539 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Sat, 13 Nov 1999 11:08:08
 -0500
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 LAA15438 for
 <eDebate at list.uvm.edu>; Sat, 13 Nov 1999 11:08:07 -0500
Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo19.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.4.) id
 n.0.4465ae0e (4010); Sat, 13 Nov 1999 11:07:28 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 45
Message-ID: <0.4465ae0e.255ee6c0 at aol.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1999 11:07:28 EST
Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Michael Bear Bryant <MWBRYANT at AOL.COM>
Subject: Calling the Alien Overlord
Comments: To: DRTUNA at aol.com

In a message dated 11/12/99 6:52:23 PM Mountain Standard Time, DRTUNA at AOL.COM
writes:

> I honestly can't tell whether I need to be more or less involved with the
>  CEDA organization. I didn't attend the NCA meeting because my school won't
>  pay for it and I simply can't afford to pay $1200 to go to the meeting.
>
>  Time will tell, but for now, I feel like we are on our own.
>
>  Sorry to be so negative.
>
>  Tuna

Bear-to-Alien Overlords! Come in Alien Overlords (no, not NDT, the REAL alien
overlords!),

Long-term mission accomplished - Tuna reverses position and rags on CEDA...
Since I interpret this as a sign of the coming end of this planet, please
beam me up!

And all it took was threatening the eligibility of his beloved novices.

Bear,
Official Alien Provocateur



From elisiaco  Sat Nov 13 14:45:50 1999
From: elisiaco (Elisia L. Cohen)
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1999 12:45:50 -0800
Subject: USC Tourney Heads Up 2
References: <LOBBJBGKICPCCBKDJLIIEEGGCIAA.hansonjb@whitman.edu>
Message-ID: <SAT.13.NOV.1999.124550.0800.ELISIACO@USC.EDU>

I have heard from some schools.  I will post a list after Wake Forest of
schools who have indicated interest.  If you have not replied to me yet,
please do so.  Dave is spending a lot of time making tournament/New Year
plans and I am interested in hearing from schools that have traditionally
gone to our tournament that will NOT be attending (such as those likely to
be at Redlands and Long Beach), as well so that we can peg our numbers down
from the hypothetical so and so usually enters late...

Thanks,
Elisia Cohen
Trojan Debate



From shorty140  Sun Nov 14 01:09:11 1999
From: shorty140 (Jeff)
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 1999 02:09:11 -0500
Subject: Appalachian State Tournament
Message-ID: <SUN.14.NOV.1999.020911.0500.SHORTY140@HOTMAIL.COM>

trying to get a preliminary listing of those teams or schools that will
attending the App State tournament next weekend.


thank you,


jeff
morehouse debate

>From  Sun Nov 14 05:35:34 1999
Message-Id: <SUN.14.NOV.1999.053534.0600.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 37747 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Sun, 14 Nov 1999 06:34:21
 -0500
Precedence: bulk
Received: from mail.utexas.edu (wb1-a.mail.utexas.edu [128.83.126.134]) by
 list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id GAA16930 for
 <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Sun, 14 Nov 1999 06:34:20 -0500
Received: (qmail 964 invoked from network); 14 Nov 1999 11:34:19 -0000
Received: from dial-94-12.ots.utexas.edu (HELO mail.utexas.edu) (128.83.249.60)
 by umbs-smtp-1 with SMTP; 14 Nov 1999 11:34:19 -0000
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 (Macintosh; I; PPC)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854";
 x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <382E9E74.ECA0203E at mail.utexas.edu>
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 1999 05:35:34 -0600
Reply-To: jd.rollins at mail.utexas.edu
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: joel david rollins <jd.rollins at MAIL.UTEXAS.EDU>
Subject: UCO

any word on who cleared?  of ocurse, no one from texas called to let us
know.
joel
--

Joel D. Rollins, PhD
Director of Debating
Director, UTNIF
Jesse Jones Communication Center, CMA 7.114
The University of Texas at Austin
Austin, TX 78712
email: jd.rollins at mail.utexas.edu
UTNIF Web cite:  http://www.utexas.edu/coc/speech/debate/adi.html



From meaves  Sun Nov 14 07:06:05 1999
From: meaves (Michael_Eaves)
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 1999 08:06:05 -0500
Subject: Appalachian State Tournament
In-Reply-To: <199911140709.CAA21804@list.uvm.edu>
Message-ID: <SUN.14.NOV.1999.080605.0500.MEAVES@VALDOSTA.EDU>

Sorry,

Valdosta State can't make it this year--the date is a problem for us.

Mike Eaves
VSU

We'll be at
U of Miami
McNeese
Gator
SELA
SE CEDA regions
CEDA Nats

>From  Sun Nov 14 12:20:21 1999
Message-Id: <SUN.14.NOV.1999.122021.0500.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 39082 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Sun, 14 Nov 1999 12:20:35
 -0500
Precedence: bulk
Received: from mailhub.mercer.edu (mailhub.mercer.edu [168.17.194.202]) by
 list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA25588 for
 <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Sun, 14 Nov 1999 12:20:33 -0500
Received: from acadmn.mercer.edu by Mercer.EDU (PMDF V5.1-10 #D3633) with ESMTP
 id <01JIBSREGR0E000OXN at Mercer.EDU> for edebate at list.uvm.edu; Sun, 14
 Nov 1999 12:20:22 EST
Received: from ACADMN.MERCER.EDU by ACADMN.MERCER.EDU (PMDF V5.1-12 #36335) id
 <01JIBSRDZTUO0003KK at ACADMN.MERCER.EDU> for edebate at list.uvm.edu; Sun,
 14 Nov 1999 12:20:21 -0500 (EST)
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Message-ID: <Pine.PMDF.3.95.991114121816.4628B-100000 at ACADMN.MERCER.EDU>
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 1999 12:20:21 -0500
Reply-To: whitmore_wb at ACADMN.MERCER.EDU
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Whit Whimore <whitmore_wb at ACADMN.MERCER.EDU>
Subject: any vandy updates

if someone knows something it would be cool it you could backchannel
 or just post the results .thanks



From mfocault  Sun Nov 14 13:00:57 1999
From: mfocault (Adam Cosper)
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 1999 11:00:57 -0800
Subject: Northridge
Message-ID: <SUN.14.NOV.1999.110057.0800.MFOCAULT@YAHOO.COM>

hey people...

Who is planning on attending northridge?  CSUB will
bring two open teams and one JV team.  Any info will
be greatly appreciated.

=====

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com



From mhoro01  Sun Nov 14 14:29:01 1999
From: mhoro01 (Michael Horowitz)
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 1999 15:29:01 -0500
Subject: UCO Results?????
Message-ID: <SUN.14.NOV.1999.152901.0500.MHORO01@EMORY.EDU>

Does anyone know results from Central Oklahoma??

mike

******************************************************************************
Box 22740                               6781 North Avenida de las Palazas
Emory University                        Tucson, AZ 85750
Atlanta, GA 30322                       (520) 577-3937
(404) 351-4320



From rjmcdad  Sun Nov 14 15:07:31 1999
From: rjmcdad (Rob McDade)
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 1999 16:07:31 -0500
Subject: ISU Results
Message-ID: <SUN.14.NOV.1999.160731.0500.RJMCDAD@ILSTU.EDU>

Results from the 1999 Redbird Classic Debate Tournament at Illinois State:

Open:

Quarters:
Iowa LV (A) def. Wayne St. BJ 3-0
Iowa MR (A) def. Mich-Dearborn HuR 3-0
Iowa AC (A) def. DePaul DM 3-0
Ball St. MP (A)  def. DePaul HT 3-0

Semis:
Iowa LV (A) def. Ball St. MP 3-0

Iowa Close Out

JV Breakout Final:

Mich-Dearborn / DePaul VJ (N) def. NIU KM 2-1

Novice:

Semis:
Chicago MC (N) def. Wayne St. JM 2-1
NIU AD (N) def. Miami BP 2-1

Finals:
NIU AD (N) def. Chicago MC 2-1

Congratulations to all and thank you for joining us in Normal . . .



From jhovden  Sun Nov 14 16:58:16 1999
From: jhovden (Jan Hovden)
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 1999 16:58:16 -0600
Subject: UCO results
Message-ID: <SUN.14.NOV.1999.165816.0600.JHOVDEN@UCOK.EDU>

We will be posting a case list later tonight or tomorrow.

jan

Novice

UTSA closes out finals

Junior

Quarters

UMKC RG def UTSA QM 3-0
Ark State/ACU PP def WSU GF 3-0
William Jewell GO def Emporia HM 2-1
UMKC/SMS PR def ACU AP 2-1

Semis
Ark State/ACU def UMKC RG 3-0
UMKC/SMS def William Jewell 2-1

Open

Octos

UMKC CB def NYU GG 3-0
KSU HZ def UNT SH 3-0
Emory GH def UNT FH 3-0
Texas BB def Emory HeGo 3-0
Emory CL def Emory HC
UMKC RL def Texas DM 2-1
ASU MK def UNT GG 3-0
Kansas RS def Emory KG 2-1

Quarters

KSU HZ def UMKC CB 2-1
Emory GH def Texas BB 3-0
Emory CL def UMKC RL 2-1
ASU MK def Kansas 2-1

Semis
Emory GH vs. KSU HZ  - Miller, M. Harris, Morris
Emory CL vs. ASU MK - S. Harris, Stevens, Walters

Novice
5th Myers - UT Dallas
4th Haney - William Jewel
3rd Loy - UT Dallas
2nd Matthey UTSA
1st Lehman UCO

JV
10 Prince Ark State
9 Fellow Wichita
8.  Tigue KSU
7.  Phillips ACU
6.  Reeves UMKC
5.  Whitehair Emporia
4.  McDonald Acu
3.  Gillum WSU
2.  Goodin UMKC
1.  Moore Emporia

Open
10.  Goldstein Emory
9.  Holland WSU
8.  Hines UNT
7.  Chase Emory
6.  Snider Vermont
5.  Zolman KSU
4.  Kircher ASU
3.  Makidris ASU
2.  Lupo Emory
1.  Baisley UMKC



From jhovden  Sun Nov 14 18:44:25 1999
From: jhovden (Jan Hovden)
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 1999 18:44:25 -0600
Subject: more UCO results
Message-ID: <SUN.14.NOV.1999.184425.0600.JHOVDEN@UCOK.EDU>

JV
Ark St./ACU def SMS/UMKC on a 3-0

Open
KSU HZ def Emory GH on a 3-0
Emory CL def ASU on a 3-0
It's ok Mike, your first round bid is safe.



From janhovden  Sun Nov 14 22:49:28 1999
From: janhovden (Jan Hovden)
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 1999 22:49:28 CST
Subject: UCO finals
Message-ID: <SUN.14.NOV.1999.224928.CST.JANHOVDEN@HOTMAIL.COM>

Emory CL def KSU HZ on a 2-1.  Sean Harris and Hovden voted negative and
Russle voted affirmative.

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

>From  Mon Nov 15 07:29:30 1999
Message-Id: <MON.15.NOV.1999.072930.0600.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 39186 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 08:28:11
 -0500
Precedence: bulk
Received: from mail.utexas.edu (wb3-a.mail.utexas.edu [128.83.126.138]) by
 list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA26578 for
 <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 08:28:10 -0500
Received: (qmail 9775 invoked by uid 0); 15 Nov 1999 13:28:09 -0000
Received: from dial-25-5.ots.utexas.edu (HELO mail.utexas.edu) (128.83.128.165)
 by umbs-smtp-3 with SMTP; 15 Nov 1999 13:28:09 -0000
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 (Macintosh; I; PPC)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <19991115044928.17760.qmail at hotmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854";
 x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <38300AA4.ED347EE0 at mail.utexas.edu>
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 07:29:30 -0600
Reply-To: jd.rollins at mail.utexas.edu
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: joel david rollins <jd.rollins at MAIL.UTEXAS.EDU>
Subject: Re: UCO finals
Comments: To: Jan Hovden <janhovden at HOTMAIL.COM>

yeah katie!  you've taken more ballots off lupo in one debate than we have
in two years!

joel

Jan Hovden wrote:

> Emory CL def KSU HZ on a 2-1.  Sean Harris and Hovden voted negative and
> Russle voted affirmative.
>
> ______________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com


--

Joel D. Rollins, PhD
Director of Debating
Director, UTNIF
Jesse Jones Communication Center, CMA 7.114
The University of Texas at Austin
Austin, TX 78712
email: jd.rollins at mail.utexas.edu
UTNIF Web cite:  http://www.utexas.edu/coc/speech/debate/adi.html



From Regina.Paulose  Mon Nov 15 08:24:45 1999
From: Regina.Paulose (Regina Menachery Paulose)
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 09:24:45 -0500
Subject: UT DALLAS
In-Reply-To: <Pine.PMDF.3.95.991114121816.4628B-100000@ACADMN.MERCER.EDU>
Message-ID: <MON.15.NOV.1999.092445.0500.REGINA.PAULOSE@STUDENTS.MIAMI.EDU>

PLease backchannel me... I cant find any of your email addresses.

peace
















From simegreg  Mon Nov 15 10:51:26 1999
From: simegreg (Greg Simerly)
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 09:51:26 -0700
Subject: for Sam
Message-ID: <MON.15.NOV.1999.095126.0700.SIMEGREG@ISU.EDU>

>To: simegreg at isu.edu
>From: Mail Administrator<Postmaster at ux4.isu.edu>
>Reply-To: Mail Administrator<Postmaster at ux4.isu.edu>
>Subject: Mail System Error - Returned Mail
>Date: Sun, 14 Nov 1999 14:54:41 -0700
>
>This Message was undeliverable due to the following reason:
>
>Your message was not delivered because the destination computer was
>not reachable within the allowed queue period.  The amount of time
>a message is queued before it is returned depends on local configura-
>tion parameters.
>
>Most likely there is a network problem that prevented delivery, but
>it is also possible that the computer is turned off, or does not
>have a mail system running right now.
>
>Your message was not delivered within 3 days.
>Host uhura.rochester.edu is not responding.
>
>The following recipients did not receive your message:
>
>     <smnn at uhura.rochester.edu>
>
>Please reply to Postmaster at ux4.isu.edu
>if you feel this message to be in error.
>
>
>Reporting-MTA: dns; ux4.isu.edu
>Received-From-MTA: dns; [134.50.1.9] [134.50.1.9]
>Arrival-Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 14:06:25 -0700
>Received: from [134.50.1.9] by ux4.isu.edu (Netscape Messaging Server 3.6)
>           with SMTP id AAA6157; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 14:06:25 -0700
>Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19991111141245.00796630 at isu.edu>
>X-Sender: simegreg at isu.edu
>X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32)
>Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 14:12:45 -0700
>To: "Lane, Gina" <laneg at william.jewell.edu>
>       , Glenda Treadaway <treadwaygj at conrad.appstate.edu>
>       , "Achten, Greg" <gachten at PEPPERDINE.EDU>
>       , Russell Church <rchurch at mtsu.edu>,simegreg at isu.edu,
>        "A. Snider" <DRTUNA at AOL.COM>,smnn at uhura.rochester.edu,
>        mike Bauer <00mhbauer at BSUVC.BSU.EDU> jaffjarman at isu.edu,
>       EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU, Jim Hanson <hansonjb at WHITMAN.EDU>
>       ,Terry West <West at SUU.EDU>, vandy.debate at JUNO.COM,
>       WK02 at ACADEMIA.SWT.EDU, Michael_Eaves <meaves at VALDOSTA.EDU>
>       ,opsata at usc.edu, Shawn Whalen <swhalen at SFSU.EDU>
>From: Greg Simerly <simegreg at isu.edu>
>Subject: Council email deliberations
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
>Council members:
>
>Gina Lane has asked me to call special deliberations and then in two weeks
>a vote on the following:
>
>Because of the magnitude of concerns regarding the new novice/jv eligibility
>rule, the Executive Council proposes the following:
>
>1) The Executive Council will set aside enforcement of the new novice/jv
>eligibility rule  until the end of CEDA Nationals.
>
>2) The Executive Secretary will continue to sanction ADA tournaments even if
>they do not comply with the CEDA definition of novice or junior varsity.
>The Executive Secretary requests that affected coaches and tournament
>directors inform him of students who are not in compliance with CEDA
>eligibility rules and should therefore not receive CEDA points at a
>particular competition.
>
>3) The President will appoint a committee made up of CEDA and ADA
>representatives, including the CEDA Executive Secretary, to examine the new
>changes in eligibility standards; the committee will offer any amendments to
>the new eligibility rule no later than the Spring Business Meeting.
>
>4) If no amendments or changes are passed at the Spring Business Meeting,
>the new eligibility rule will go into effect after CEDA Nationals.
>
>
>This is the procedure that we're supposed to follow.  We discuss the issue
>for two weeks, then I call for an official vote.
>
>
>I'll answer an obvious question: does the Council have the
>right/power/ability to "set aside" a By-Law change?  Basically, the Council
>can do whatever it wants.  And, there is precedent for the Council to set
>aside By-Laws (mail vote on mutual pref a coupla years ago).
>
>We should now discuss the pros-n-cons of this.
>
>Cheers,
>Greg
>
>
>Greg Simerly
>Idaho State University
>
>Communication & Theatre
>Box 8115-ISU
>Pocatello, Idaho 83209
>
>O (208) 236-5962
>F       236-4598
>simegreg at isu.edu
>


Greg Simerly
Idaho State University
Executive-Secretary, Cross Examination Debate Association

Communication & Theatre
Box 8115-ISU
Pocatello, Idaho 83209

O (208) 236-5962
F       236-4598
simegreg at isu.edu

>From  Mon Nov 15 13:54:55 1999
Message-Id: <MON.15.NOV.1999.135455.EST.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 43844 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 13:55:43
 -0500
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 NAA35472 for
 <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 13:55:36 -0500
Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo16.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.4.) id
 n.0.d0150963 (4005) for <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Mon, 15 Nov 1999
 13:54:55 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 45
Message-ID: <0.d0150963.2561b0ff at aol.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 13:54:55 EST
Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Michael Bear Bryant <MWBRYANT at AOL.COM>
Subject: Air Force Academy results?

Individual trapped in Ogden seeks info on outcome of AFA tournament in
Colorado Springs.



From don1299  Mon Nov 15 13:11:23 1999
From: don1299 (Donny Peters)
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 11:11:23 PST
Subject: technology and debate
Message-ID: <MON.15.NOV.1999.111123.PST.DON1299@HOTMAIL.COM>

I'm planning to do a paper on the effects of technology on debate.  I was
wondering if there is any published material on the subject.  Any
information would be greatly appreciated.

Donny Peters
Ball State Debate

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



From wk02  Mon Nov 15 13:18:14 1999
From: wk02 (Wayne Kraemer)
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 13:18:14 -0600
Subject: Council email deliberations
References: <3.0.6.32.19991111141245.00796630@isu.edu>
Message-ID: <MON.15.NOV.1999.131814.0600.WK02@SWT.EDU>

I am in agreement with this proposal.  Additionally, I would like to see
the committee include AFA/NDT representation to work toward a more
uniform standard.

Wayne Kraemer
Southwest Texas



From collierl  Mon Nov 15 14:05:05 1999
From: collierl (Linda Collier)
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 14:05:05 -0600
Subject: NDT hotel reservation information
Message-ID: <MON.15.NOV.1999.140505.0600.COLLIERL@UMKC.EDU>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/19991115/48865de1/attachment.htm 


From arao  Mon Nov 15 14:15:57 1999
From: arao (Anand Rao)
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 15:15:57 -0500
Subject: Clarion Novice Tournament- Nov. 20, 1999
Message-ID: <MON.15.NOV.1999.151557.0500.ARAO@MAIL.CLARION.EDU>

Last call-

Anyone interested in attending the Clarion University Novice Debate
Tournament, please let me know by tomorrow, Tuesday, Nov. 26, 1999. This is
for true-novice debaters- primarily from your argumentation and debate
classes. There are no fees, and we will hold 3 debates, starting at 10am.

For more information, or if you are able to attend, contact me asap at
arao at clarion.edu, or (814) 226-2476.


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

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



From drwiese  Mon Nov 15 15:00:43 1999
From: drwiese (Danielle Renee Wiese)
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 15:00:43 -0600
Subject: Redbird Classic Tournament results
Message-ID: <MON.15.NOV.1999.150043.0600.DRWIESE@ILSTU.EDU>

The Following individuals received speaker awards at the Redbird Classic:

In Novice:

5.  Dave Barasch (Miami University-OH)
4.  Hollie Jones (Wayne State University)
3.  Jason Humke (Univ. of Northern Iowa)
2.  Robyn Williams (Univ. Of Michigan-Dearborn)
1.  Mariam Saad  (Univ. of Michigan-Dearborn)

In Open:

10.  Taimaa Hussein (Univ. of Michigan-Dearborn)
9.  Clay Cleveland (Iowa)
8.  Amanda McRae (Ball State)
7.  A.J. DiLorenzo (DePaul Univ)
6.  Bryan Rahning (Iowa)
5.  Peter McCollum (Iowa)
4.  Matt Marcus (DePaul Univ)
3.  Tara Voss (Iowa)
2.  Steve Caperton (Univ. of Michigan-Dearborn)
1.  Kristen Langwell (Iowa)

>From  Mon Nov 15 16:41:15 1999
Message-Id: <MON.15.NOV.1999.164115.EST.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 46962 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 16:42:08
 -0500
Precedence: bulk
Received: from imo22.mx.aol.com (imo22.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.66]) by
 list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA10704 for
 <EDEBATE at list.uvm.edu>; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 16:42:01 -0500
Received: from Capnsntch at aol.com by imo22.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.4.) id
 n.0.367dfe5d (4538) for <EDEBATE at list.uvm.edu>; Mon, 15 Nov 1999
 16:41:16 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 38
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by list.uvm.edu id QAA25846
Message-ID: <0.367dfe5d.2561d7fb at aol.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 16:41:15 EST
Reply-To: Capnsntch at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Matt Opalka <Capnsntch at AOL.COM>
Subject: UCO OPEN NEGATIVE DISCLOSURE

 1999 Joe C. Jackson Negative Disclosure

ACU DR
    OFF CASE POSITIONS AND CITES:
    BREAKDOWN OF THE BLOCK:
    2NC
    1NR
    NEGATIVE TRICKS
    2NR POSITIONS:


ASU AK
    OFF CASE POSITIONS AND CITES:
- Russia - Liven '99, LA Times 10/22-99
- China - Washington Times 9/11/99
- The Progressive 11/99
- Russia/China CP
- Clinton UN Dues - International Herald Tribune 11/99
- Case Cards
    BREAKDOWN OF THE BLOCK:
    2NC
- Russia
- CP
    1NR
- Case
- China
    NEGATIVE TRICKS
- Card on Russia is not a turn it is a stronger link because plan is riged
outcome, it is a slap in the face
    2NR POSITIONS:
- Case cards


ASU AK
    OFF CASE POSITIONS AND CITES:



    BREAKDOWN OF THE BLOCK:
    2NC
    1NR
    NEGATIVE TRICKS
    2NR POSITIONS:


ASU MK
    OFF CASE POSITIONS AND CITES:



    BREAKDOWN OF THE BLOCK:
    2NC
    1NR
    NEGATIVE TRICKS
    2NR POSITIONS:

Ark-ST  TW

    OFF CASE POSITIONS AND CITES:



    BREAKDOWN OF THE BLOCK:
    2NC
    1NR
    NEGATIVE TRICKS
    2NR POSITIONS:


BAYLOR TB   (CUBA)
    OFF CASE POSITIONS AND CITES:
- Sanctions Credibility DA
- Case Takeouts
- Turns on Humanitarian
- Drug Solvency
- Juragua
- Military intervention Turns
- Clinton-China-WTO DA - political capital - China UN good
- Dillon (Security) Kritik
- Topicality - policy
    BREAKDOWN OF THE BLOCK:
    2NC
- Case Arguments and Turns
- Topicality
    1NR
- Dillon
- Sanctions Credibility (kicked)
- Clinton
    NEGATIVE TRICKS  (NA)
    2NR POSITIONS:
- Clinton
- Juragua
- Case Takeouts




CHICO HB   (CUBA - 1. FOOD AND GENOCIDE  2. MORALITY   3. WTO COLLAPSE)
    OFF CASE POSITIONS AND CITES:
     Fem IR:
- Johnson '97 - snowball from one action
- Tinkner '92 - uphold core values of SQ
- Spretnak '89 - each rejection fades patriarchy
- Sisson-Russon and Peterson '93 - must reject selfrepeating system
- Hoagland '88 - separation = alternative.  Participation supports the system
- Bender '88 - Failure to kritik patriarchy reconstitutes it
- Sylvester '94 - Debate is the site for change
Solvency
- Plan won't pass
- Uncritical endorsement of the Status Quo
- Debate as policy is bad
    BREAKDOWN OF THE BLOCK:
    2NC
     - Takes 1-14 of the 1AC
    1NR
     - Takes 15-22  and Solvency
    NEGATIVE TRICKS - Only go for Fem IR in the block
    2NR POSITIONS:
- Fem IR


CHICO KA   (UNKNOWN)

    OFF CASE POSITIONS AND CITES:
- India, China, Russia Alliance - Marshall '99
- Inflation - Hagar (Financial Times '99) & Mead impact
- Bio-regionalism - purchase, Chamslay, Boockin, Sale
- Fem IR - Tinkner, Perterson, Sisson Russon, Webber
    BREAKDOWN OF THE BLOCK:
    2NC
     - Bio-regionalism & Alliance
    1NR
     - Fem IR & Solvency
    NEGATIVE TRICKS
     - NA
    2NR POSITIONS:
- Bio-regionalism usually



CHICO MR  (UNKNOWN)


OFF CASE POSITIONS AND CITES:
- T - constructively engage
- T - adopt
- Plan Vagueness
- Three's a crowd D/A
- CP - do plan minus mfant formula
- Solvency
- Clinton D/A
    BREAKDOWN OF THE BLOCK:
    2NC
- CP
- Clinton D/A
- Solvency
    1NR
- Solvency
- T - constructively engage
- Threes a crowd
    NEGATIVE TRICKS
    2NR POSITIONS:
- Solvency
- Threes a crowd
- CP




Emory CL
    OFF CASE POSITIONS AND CITES:



    BREAKDOWN OF THE BLOCK:
    2NC
    1NR
    NEGATIVE TRICKS
    2NR POSITIONS:


EMORY GH
    OFF CASE POSITIONS AND CITES:



    BREAKDOWN OF THE BLOCK:
    2NC
    1NR
    NEGATIVE TRICKS
    2NR POSITIONS:


EMORY HC

    OFF CASE POSITIONS AND CITES:



    BREAKDOWN OF THE BLOCK:
    2NC
    1NR
    NEGATIVE TRICKS
    2NR POSITIONS:


EMORY  HEGO
    OFF CASE POSITIONS AND CITES:



    BREAKDOWN OF THE BLOCK:
    2NC
    1NR
    NEGATIVE TRICKS
    2NR POSITIONS:


EMORY JC   (EITHER IRAN OR IRAQ?)
    OFF CASE POSITIONS AND CITES:
- Appeasement
- Consult Russia CP
- T - constructive engagement
- Algerian Oil
- Isreal
    BREAKDOWN OF THE BLOCK:
    2NC
- Appeasement
- Isreal
- C/P
- Oil
    1NR
- T - Constructive Engagement
- Case
    NEGATIVE TRICKS
    2NR POSITIONS:
- Case
- Oil



EMORY KG
    OFF CASE POSITIONS AND CITES:



    BREAKDOWN OF THE BLOCK:
    2NC
    1NR
    NEGATIVE TRICKS
    2NR POSITIONS:



EMORY RN
    OFF CASE POSITIONS AND CITES:
- Kritik - Mikey
- Juragua
- Red Spread
- Interdiction
- T-Constructive Engagement
    BREAKDOWN OF THE BLOCK:
    2NC
- Kritik
- Case
- T-CE
    1NR
     - DA'S
    NEGATIVE TRICKS
    2NR POSITIONS:
     - Kritik and case



EMORY RW  (NORTH KOREA)
    OFF CASE POSITIONS AND CITES:
- Perry C/P
- Inherency
- Solvency
- Appeasement
- Tri-lateralism
- Advantage (famine)
- T
    BREAKDOWN OF THE BLOCK:
    2NC
- Perry C/P
- Tri-lateralism
- Famine
    1NR
- Inherency
- Appeasement
- T
    NEGATIVE TRICKS
    2NR POSITIONS
- Perry
- Tri-lateralism
- Appeasement



EMORY TM
    OFF CASE POSITIONS AND CITES:
- CP - condition lifting sanctions on United Nations Security Council
agreement to do weapons inspection - Ritter
- Oil
- Realism
- Russian Coop in Security Council
- Extra T
    BREAKDOWN OF THE BLOCK:
    2NC
- Kritik
- CP
- Russia
    1NR
- Extra T
- Case
- Oil
    NEGATIVE TRICKS
    2NR POSITIONS:
- Kritik
- Extra T



EMPORIA MS    (UNKNOWN)
    OFF CASE POSITIONS AND CITES:
- Trade Bill - Africa Trade Legislation Key to WTO conference
- Israel - Opacity Kritik - decrease in US/Israeli RX = Disclosure
    BREAKDOWN OF THE BLOCK:
    2NC
- Kick Israel
- Trade Bill
    1NR
     - Case
    NEGATIVE TRICKS
    2NR POSITIONS
- Clinton
- Case



FSU  CB  (IRAQ)
    OFF CASE POSITIONS AND CITES:
- Delay CP
- Clinton
- Shunning
- Russian Nationalism
    BREAKDOWN OF THE BLOCK:
    2NC
- CP
- Clinton
    1NR
- Shunning
- Case
    NEGATIVE TRICKS
    2NR POSITIONS
- CP
- Clinton
- Case



JCCC MR   (NORTH KOREA DETERRANCE)
    OFF CASE POSITIONS AND CITES:
- Economy - Walker, Weise, Financial Times (to name a few)
- Credibility - Heinrickson
- T - Vandovich '98
    BREAKDOWN OF THE BLOCK:
    2NC
- Case
- Credibility
    1NR
- Economy
- T
    NEGATIVE TRICKS
- go for what you're winning
    2NR POSITIONS:
- Economy
- Case Turns



K-STATE GS
    OFF CASE POSITIONS AND CITES:



    BREAKDOWN OF THE BLOCK:
    2NC
    1NR
    NEGATIVE TRICKS
    2NR POSITIONS:



K-STATE HZ   (CUBA/BIT)
    OFF CASE POSITIONS AND CITES:
- Marxism
- Drugs
- Cerds C/P
- Dissimulation
    BREAKDOWN OF THE BLOCK:
    2NC
- CP
- Case
    1NR
- Case
- Marxism
    NEGATIVE TRICKS
    2NR POSITIONS
- Marxism

K-State NW
    OFF CASE POSITIONS AND CITES:
- Israel
- Ban Exports C/P
- Marxism (Terry '95, Ryan '82)
    BREAKDOWN OF THE BLOCK:
    2NC
- C/P
- Marxism
    1NR
- Israel
- Case
    NEGATIVE TRICKS
    2NR POSITIONS:
- CP
- Marxism


KANSAS RS    (N. KOREA)
    OFF CASE POSITIONS AND CITES:
- Clinton Links:
- UPI 9/13/99
- CFR Task Force 10/4/99
(http://foreignrelations.org/public/pubs/nkoreatask.html)
- National Journal 10/23/99
- AFP 9/16/99
- Food Aid Turn (Duning, 'Over the line', '99, p. 279)
    BREAKDOWN OF THE BLOCK:
    2NC
    1NR
    NEGATIVE TRICKS
    2NR POSITIONS:
- Clinton
- Food Aid Turns
- War t/o's


KANSAS ST    (UNKNOWN)
    OFF CASE POSITIONS AND CITES:
- Feminism - Steans '98
- Clinton - UN dues
- Taliban
- IMF PIL
- Sub-Fed Sanctions
- Case
    BREAKDOWN OF THE BLOCK:
    2NC
- IMF
- Advantage Sub-Fed Sanctions
    1NR
- Clinton
- Feminism
    NEGATIVE TRICKS
    2NR POSITIONS
- Feminism
- IMS CP

MAC KW  (UNKNOWN)
    OFF CASE POSITIONS AND CITES:
- CRT
- Reverse Inherency
- Mexico
- Clinton - Chechnya Scenerio
- Case
    BREAKDOWN OF THE BLOCK:
    2NC
- Clinton
- CRT
    1NR
- Mexico
- Case
    NEGATIVE TRICKS
    2NR POSITIONS
- CRT



MSU OS  (IRAQ)
    OFF CASE POSITIONS AND CITES:
- Clinton - Wye Accords
- Exports PC - Do plan but don't export specific products to Iraq
- Rice D/A - US rice exports trade off with SEA rice exports
- Tobacco D/A - US Tobacco exports kill
- Pesticides D/A - US pesticides exports kill
- Marxism Kritik
    BREAKDOWN OF THE BLOCK:
    2NC
- Case Turns
- Marxism
    1NR
- CP
- Pesticides DA
    NEGATIVE TRICKS
    2NR POSITIONS:
- Marxism



MSU PB    (CUBA)
    OFF CASE POSITIONS AND CITES:
- Tobacco
- Pesticides
- Rice
- Toxic Waste
- Export C/P
    BREAKDOWN OF THE BLOCK:
    2NC
     - Everything except what the 1N goes for
    1NR
- Food Advantage
- Tobacco
- Rice
    NEGATIVE TRICKS
    2NR POSITIONS
- CP
- Toxic Waste
- Pesticides



NYU GG  (UNKNOWN)
    OFF (ON) CASE POSITIONS AND CITES:
- Development - Trainer
- Statism - Carter
- T-Vagueness
- T-Constructive Engagement
- Counterplan
    BREAKDOWN OF THE BLOCK:
    2NC
- Development
- Statism
- Vagueness
    1NR
- CP
- T-Constructive Engagement
- Solvency
    NEGATIVE TRICKS
     - Be right and pick the good answers
    2NR POSITIONS
- Development
- Vagueness
- Prolif
- T-Constructive engagement
- CP
- Statism



SMS NP
    OFF CASE POSITIONS AND CITES:
- Clinton winners win, WTO bad
- Sanctions Credibility - Henrickson '99
- Iraq rearm
- Iraq stats flawed
- CP modify O.F.F. so Iraq can purchase water purification technology
    BREAKDOWN OF THE BLOCK:
    2NC
- Clinton
- Plan Flawed
- CP
- Iran Advantage
    1NR
- Iraq rearm
- Humanitarian Aid
- O.F.F. Good
    NEGATIVE TRICKS
     - Argue that WTO leads to internal reform in 2NC as new MPX to Clinton
    2NR POSITIONS:
- Planflaw
- Clinton
- Rearm
- Stats Flawed
- "Jan I want my drinks"



UMKC CB
    OFF CASE POSITIONS AND CITES:
- US Iraq CP to lift sanctions without andy conditions "Sanctions will be
lifted" w/in 20 Assurance First LN 10/28/98
- T-Constructive Engagement is not re-imposition of sanctions "Directory of
American Foreign Affairs '93
- International Law DA - plan removes Iraqi War Debts (Brower '92, Middle
east Executive Reports LN)
    BREAKDOWN OF THE BLOCK:
    2NC
- CP
- Case
    1NR
- Topicality
- International Law
    NEGATIVE TRICKS
    2NR POSITIONS:
- CP SOLVES BETTER


UMKC CW    (IRAQ)
    OFF CASE POSITIONS AND CITES:
- Condition CP on weapons inspector
- Grand Negotiator
- Oil
- Vagueness - Nearly All
    BREAKDOWN OF THE BLOCK:
    2NC
- CP
- Rearm Turn
    1NR
- Oil
- Grand Negotiator
- Case Answers
    NEGATIVE TRICKS
    2NR POSITIONS
- CP
- Rearm T



UMKC RL    (UNKNOWN)
    OFF CASE POSITIONS AND CITES:
- TSEA (?) - Financial times (10-28-99),Kim '99, Chicago Tribune '96
- Obuchi
- Conditions CP
    BREAKDOWN OF THE BLOCK:
    2NC
- CP
- Case Debate
    1NR
- Obuchi
- TSEA
    NEGATIVE TRICKS
    2NR POSITIONS
- TSEA
- CP
- Case



UNT FH   (IRAQ)
    OFF CASE POSITIONS AND CITES:
- T-Just remove sanctions
- Orientalism
- Israel
- Debt Relief
- Gendered States
    BREAKDOWN OF THE BLOCK:
    2NC
- T
- Orientalism
- Debt Relief
- Israel
    1NR
- Case
- Gendered States
    NEGATIVE TRICKS
     - Precision Standard - must define all words!
    2NR POSITIONS
- T
- Orientalism


UNT GG
    OFF CASE POSITIONS AND CITES:



    BREAKDOWN OF THE BLOCK:
    2NC
    1NR
    NEGATIVE TRICKS
    2NR POSITIONS:



UNT  SC
    OFF CASE POSITIONS AND CITES:
- T-can only lift sanctions
- Israel - threat perception
- Genocide Trivialization
- Solvency - check & Retreat, oil for food
    BREAKDOWN OF THE BLOCK:
    2NC
- T
- Genocide
    1NR
- Case
    NEGATIVE TRICKS
     - We're Trickless
    2NR POSITIONS
- T



UNT SH   (SYRIA)
    OFF CASE POSITIONS AND CITES:
- T-Gov to Gov
- T-Constructivly engage only lift sanctions
- T-Immediate
- C/P just do engagement
- Debt Relief
- Israel D.A. - Steinsberg '98, Sher '95, Steinsberg '98
- Mediteranianism D/A - Lesch '99, Moody '97, Rissler & Mellon '96
- Dynamic Compassion - Altman '88
    BREAKDOWN OF THE BLOCK:
    2NC
- Case
- Israel
- Mediteranianism
    1NR
- CP
- Clinton
    NEGATIVE TRICKS
    2NR POSITIONS
- CP
- Case Turns
- CP solvency
- Clinton
- Mediteranianism



TEXAS-AUSTIN  BB   (UNKNOWN)
    OFF CASE POSITIONS AND CITES:
- CP-Exclude nearly from plan
- Caspian oil - you lower prices this is bad for Caspian Development leads to
reduction in economy leads to war
- Postcolonialism (East San Juan) - you allow Iraq back into capitalist
system leads to capitalist takover and crushes Iraq culture
- Geopolitics - geopolitical lenses can't solve
- T-must be a broad based constructive engagement policy, lifting sanctions
alone doesn't mean it's constructive engagement
    BREAKDOWN OF THE BLOCK:
    2NC
- CP
- Caspian
- Postcolonialism
- geopolitics
    1NR
- All Case
- Solvency
- Morality
- Terrorism
    NEGATIVE TRICKS
    2NR POSITIONS
- CP
- Caspian
- Case Arguments



UT-AUSTIN DM  (CUBA?)
    OFF CASE POSITIONS AND CITES:
- T-Constructive Engage
- Clinton-WTO
- Development Kritik: Cambell '98, Weldes '96, San Juan '95
- Counter Advocacy: Mitchell '98
Turns
- Tourism: Belleville '98, Independent 10/13/98
- Nationalism: Suchlicki '96
- Regime collapse: Salazar '95
- Human Rights: Schwab '99
    BREAKDOWN OF THE BLOCK:
    2NC
- Development
- Counter Advocacy
    1NR
- Clinton
- Case Turns
    NEGATIVE TRICKS
    2NR POSITIONS
- Case
- Development
- Counter Advocacy



UT-AUSTIN  LB    (UNKNOWN)
    OFF CASE POSITIONS AND CITES:
- Pity Retoric Kritik: Bouillriard '83 - Pegging policies on hunger rhetoric
is bad = opposition & imperalism
- T-constructive engagement is not lifting sanctions
- Vagueicality - must specify what you lift
- Geopolitics kritik - US uses threats to builts itself up leading to
globalization domination and imperalism
- Counter Advocacy - do the plan with no pity rhetoric and lift all sanctions
unconditionally
- Nuclearism kritik on case using nukes in a game simulation leads to bad
thought
    BREAKDOWN OF THE BLOCK:
    2NC
- Counter Advocacy
- Solvency
- Pity Kritik
    1NR
- T (4 and a half minutes)
- Securitization kritik (Geopolitics)
    NEGATIVE TRICKS
    2NR POSITIONS
- NA


TEXAS DN   (IRAN)
    OFF CASE POSITIONS AND CITES:
- Development - Tucker
- Khatami Credibility
- T-constructive engagement
- T-all or nearly all
- Case
    BREAKDOWN OF THE BLOCK:
    2NC
- Khatami Credibility
- Case (solvency)
    1NR
- Development
- Oil Advantages
    NEGATIVE TRICKS
    2NR POSITIONS
- Development
- Case



UT-AUSTIN PG
    OFF CASE POSITIONS AND CITES:
- T-adopt = broad policy
- T-consult not topical
- Development Kritik
- Clinton - winners win TSEA bad
- Russia Consultation CP
    BREAKDOWN OF THE BLOCK:
    2NC
- T-Constructive Engagement
- CP
    1NR
- T-consult
- Solvency
    NEGATIVE TRICKS
     - Keep plan text until the middle of the 1AC
    2NR POSITIONS:
     - Both T's



UT-DALLAS JK   (IRAQ)
    OFF CASE POSITIONS AND CITES:
- T-Constructive engagement means must be softline
- T-Constructive engagement means must stop funding Iraqi Insurgents
- Targeted Sanctions CP: Lopez & Cortright '97
(www.forthfreedom.org/sanctions/financialsanctionssmartsanctions.html),
Conroy '98 (fourthfreedom.org/unsymposium/rconroy.html)
- Shunning
- Globalization
    BREAKDOWN OF THE BLOCK:
    2NC
     - Shunning
    1NR
- Targeted Sanctions CP
- Globalization
    NEGATIVE TRICKS
- We sing in Gaelic while juggling our tubs.
    2NR POSITIONS
- Shunning
- CP



UT-DALLAS SF  (UNKNOWN)
    OFF CASE POSITIONS AND CITES:
- Shunning
- DeDevelopment
- Russia
- Hardline T
- Vagueness
    BREAKDOWN OF THE BLOCK:
    2NC
- Russia
- DeDevelopment
    1NR
- Hardline
- Shunning
    NEGATIVE TRICKS
    2NR POSITIONS
- DeDevelopment



VERMONT SM
    OFF CASE POSITIONS AND CITES:
     BREAKDOWN OF THE BLOCK:
    2NC
    1NR
    NEGATIVE TRICKS
    2NR POSITIONS:


WJC BP  (IRAQ)
    OFF CASE POSITIONS AND CITES:
- Lopez and Cortwright '98
- Grand Negotiator (Henrickson '98)
- Clinton - Everyone knows the cites and do you really want Jewell's Clinton
Cards anyway?
- T-Constructive Engagement
    BREAKDOWN OF THE BLOCK:
    2NC
- CP
- Clinton
- Proliferation
    1NR
- T
- Credibility
    NEGATIVE TRICKS
    2NR POSITIONS
- CP
- Clinton
- Prolif
- Dehumanization


WJC HL
    OFF CASE POSITIONS AND CITES:
- Clinton
- China
- Asean
- T
- Food Ans
- Deontology
- War Ans
    BREAKDOWN OF THE BLOCK:
    2NC
- War Answers
- China
- Asean
    1NR
- Food
- Clinton
    NEGATIVE TRICKS
     - We are not smart enough for tricky
    2NR POSITIONS:
- Clinton
- Asean
- Case Evidence


WSU HM   (CUBA)
    OFF CASE POSITIONS AND CITES:
- Incrementalism CP
- Juragua
- Clinton
- T-Economic
    BREAKDOWN OF THE BLOCK:
    2NC
- Incrementalism CP
- Juragua
    1NR
- T-Economic
- Clinton WTO
    NEGATIVE TRICKS
     - We make them think we're not good and then~E..
    2NR POSITIONS
- CP
- Juragua



WSU  HO  (N. KOREA)
    OFF CASE POSITIONS AND CITES:
- Consultation CP - US will consult Japan and S. Korea in addition to plan
- Japan DA: US and Japan coordinate NK policies now (Montagnon 10/20/99),
US/Japan coop key to alliance (Ellings and Simon '96), Alliancebreak = War
(Manning '94)
- Jong Credibility - Jong regime unstable (7/10/99 Economist), Engagement
with US lowers Jong's Credibility (Efron '99), Strong key to NK stability
(Subin '98), Instability = war (Foreign Affairs, Ahn '94)
- S. Korea DA - US/SK relations strong, coopa dn hardline policies key to
relations, decrease in relations = war
- T-CE must be carrot and stick
    BREAKDOWN OF THE BLOCK:
    2NC
- CP
- Japan
- SK
    1NR
- T
- Jong
- Case
    NEGATIVE TRICKS
    2NR POSITIONS
- CP
- SK
- Case

>From  Mon Nov 15 16:43:52 1999
Message-Id: <MON.15.NOV.1999.164352.EST.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 47091 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 16:44:37
 -0500
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 QAA36452 for
 <EDEBATE at list.uvm.edu>; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 16:44:32 -0500
Received: from Capnsntch at aol.com by imo15.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.4.) id
 n.0.6671971a (4538) for <EDEBATE at list.uvm.edu>; Mon, 15 Nov 1999
 16:43:53 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 38
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by list.uvm.edu id QAA33164
Message-ID: <0.6671971a.2561d898 at aol.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 16:43:52 EST
Reply-To: Capnsntch at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Matt Opalka <Capnsntch at AOL.COM>
Subject: UCO OPEN AFFIRMATIVE DISCLOSURE

1999 Joe. C. Jackson Debate Tournament Affirmative Disclosure


Abilene Christian DR

Plan: The USFG will remove all remaining unilateral sanctions or restrictions
on NK, agree to formally end the Korean war of 1953, disband the military
armistace commission and the UN command, offer to establish a trilateral
mutual security commission and implement a program of food aid and medical
assistance. F & E through normal means. We'll clarify.

Advantages:

1AC Cites:

2AC Tricks:


Arizona State MK:


Plan: The USFG will adopt a policy of CE w/ the DPRK including the imm.
Removal of all remaining ec. SX on the Government of NK & through the
establishment of normalized diplomatic & economic relations w/ the DPRK.
Implementation throug normal means.

Advantages: Brinkmanship, Instability, Prolif.

1AC Cites:
Brinkmanship - Asia political News 9-27-99 ? "Berlin only"~EMann 9-15-99 (LA
Times) ? "crisis inevitable"~EUSTA 6-18-99 crisis = Nuclear~E Minneapolis Star
Tribune 1-3-99 ? Conflict kills millions.
Instability - Peninsula on brink, BBC 9-4-99~EOh' 1999? explosion ='s firy
death
Proliferation - Perry 9-20-99, Nautilus Organization? SQ not
sustainable~EHouston Chronicle 9-18-99? Mutual distinct = conflict.
Solvency - Wolfstal~EWit~ESigal

2AC Tricks: Uniqueness updates for 4 minutes


Arizona State AK:


Plan:

Advantages:         ?     ?     ?     Same as ASU MK

1AC Cites:

2AC Tricks:


Ark. State

Plan: Lift all sanctions & CE (What I don't know I guess it's a secret)

Advantages: Child Mortality, Social breakdown, Threat construction

1AC Cites:

2AC Tricks:


Baylor TB

Plan: USFG will immediately lift all ecomomic SX on Cuba and will engage in
diplomacy towards Cuba consisting of construction dialogue and diplomatic
talks. F & E through normal means.

Advantages: Humanitarian & Transition.

1AC Cites: Cuba sx fail - Dhooge, Arizona Journal of Intntl and comparative
law 97, Human rights watch,
http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/cuba/Cuba996-12.htm .
Embargo X Quality of life in Cuba - Peter Schwab 1999, Cuba: Confronting the
US Embargo, Gary 1998, US economic & trade policy toward Cuba before
subcommittee on trade of committee on ways and means, Kirkpatrick 1998, Same
Committee, Fuller 1998, Same committee.
Political Transition - Preeg 1999, Feeling good or doing good with sanctions,
Ratliff 1998, July 31st, Kolko 1997.

2AC Tricks:


Chico HB

Plan: The USFG should adopt a policy of CE incl the removal of the HB, Cuban
Assete Controls Regulations, removal of the anti - terrorism and effective
death penalty act, CDA, TWEA, w/ express purpose of ending US pursuit of Cuba
per Cynthia Weber.

Advantages: Cycle of war.

1AC Cites: OB I-Castration anxiety now, Weber 99
    OB II - Cuba key to US heg in SQ, Weber 99
    ADV. Cycle Of War - Hegemon. Masc. In SQ = Patriarchal Tickner 1997,
Patriarch. = Hierarch. Threat survival, Peterson, Sisson, Russon, 1993.
    SOLVENCY - rereading sarassine metaphor solves, Weber 1999, all are part
of body politic, weber 1999,
    UNDERVIEW - metaphor = best, Gross 1996, We can change IR, Whitworth
1994, Individual Rejection key, Johnson 1997.

2AC Tricks: Herbert tends to wax philosophical in the 1AR. We like to
straight turn disads. Bowers wears ties during prelims.


Chico KA

Plan:

Advantages:     ?     ?     ?     Same as Chico HB

1AC Cites:

2AC Tricks:


Chico MR

Plan:

Advantages:     ?     ?     ?     Same as Chico HB

1AC Cites:

2AC Tricks:

Emory CL

Plan: The US congress will adopt a policy of CE w/ the nation state of Cuba,
including the imm. Removal of all or nearly all economic sx, specif. the CDA,
libertad, & the negotiation of a BIT.

Advantages:

1AC Cites:
A1 - Sanctions are immoral - Neal may 7th 1998, FNS~EGazette 1998 "moral blot"
A2 - WTO - Smith 1999, www.us.net/cip/9903ipr.htm , Solis 1997, 19 loyola
International & Comparative Law Journal 709 ~E SPI 5-1-99~E Spicer.
A3 - War - Preeg, Feeling good or doing good w/ economic sanctions~E Clissold,
Toward a new Cuba?~E Portes 1998, The American Prospect, Borgue,~E Amato,
Capital Times, 10-11-99, Schultz, Cuba and the future~E Economist 1/17/98.

2AC Tricks:


Emory GH

Plan:

Advantages:     ?     ?     ?      Same as Emory CUBA AFF

1AC Cites:

2AC Tricks:


Emory RW

Plan: The USFG will adopt a policy of CE by committing to an immediate
removal of nearly all economic SX except for sx on high tech & strategic
arms, through all appropriate channels. The US will forgive Iraq of its war
debts and reparations and suspent all air strikes.

Advantages: Death, Morality

1AC Cites:
Sanctions Fail - Mortawi 1998~ECordesman 1997~EPerthes 1998
Death - Sheeram 1998~EHalliday 1998~ESimons 1999~ECBC News 1999~EMeuller &
Mueller 1999
Morality - Hochler ~ECalahan~EDallas Morning News~E
Solvency - Simons 1996~EZunes 1998~ESimons 1996~EParasilty 1999~EChomsky 1999

2AC Tricks:


Emory TM:

Plan: The USFG will do CE toward Iraq by immediately lifting nearly all
economic sanctions except those defined as high - technology, military
equipment, through all appropriate channels including an elimination of Iraqi
war debts and reparations.

Advantages: Starvation & Morality

1AC Cites:


2AC Tricks:


Emory HeGo

Plan: Iraq

Advantages: Starvation, Morality, Genocide.

1AC Cites:
Inherency - Mutawi 1998, Cordesman 1997
Starvation - Simmons 1999, Al - Alchban 1998, Helms 1996, IAC 1996, CBC News
1999.
Genocide - Simons 1996, Simons 1996
Morality - Kochler 1999, Brown 1995
Solvency - Simons 1996, Zunes 1998, Alnasrawi 1994.


2AC Tricks:


Emory HC

Plan:

Advantages:     ?    ?     ?      Same as Emory NORTH KOREA Affirmative

1AC Cites:

2AC Tricks:


Emory JC

Plan:

Advantages:     ?     ?     ?     Same as Emory IRAQ Affirmative

1AC Cites:

2AC Tricks:


Emory KG

Plan: USFG will adopt policy of CE - immediate removal of nearly all econ Sx,
except for those sx on high tech & strategic arms, through all appropriate
means. The US will forgive Iraq of its war debt & reparations & suspend all
air strikes. We'll clarify intent.

Advantages: Death, Morality

1AC Cites:
Sanctions Fail - Don't solve - Addulla Mutawi - Staff writer April 10 98~EIraq
opposes OFF - courtwright and Lopez - Journal of Intntl affairs 1999~E?
lashout - Cordesman - IRAQ, Sanctions and Beyond 1997.
Observation II Death - Kill Millions, Outweigh WMD
Observation III Morality - Inferring actor - Kuchler 8/22/99~EUse means to
Ends - Dallas Morning News 99
Observation IV - Solvency - Lifting key to rebuild econ. - Simons 1996, Zunes
1996, Purarilits 1999, Chomsky 1999.

2AC Tricks:


Emory RN

Plan:

Advantages:     ?     ?     ?     Same as Emory CL


1AC Cites:

2AC Tricks:


Emporia MS

Plan: The USFG will adopt a policy of CE with the government the nation state
of Cuba, including the immediate removal of all economic SX including but not
limited to the CDA and HB, and will fully cooperate with the Cuban Govt on
narcotics interdiction. F & E guaranteed.

Advantages: Below

1AC Cites:
Observation I - Inherency- Embargo prevents drug coop., Blume 99~EEmbargo
forces smuggling, lusane 1991,
Observation II - Life in Cuba Sux - Civil War, tanter 1998~E Humanitarian
Nightmare, cooper 1998~E Deontology~E Carribean drugs Cuba key~E Dirty War,
Zacrison~E
Contention III - Solves lashout, CFR 1999~E Miscalc. War, Walker 1996~EClissold.

2AC Tricks: They sometimes stand on their heads~E


JCCC MR

Plan: The USFG will adopt a policy of CE with the govt. of Iraq. Including
the following package of policy actions:
The president under his authority embodied in the IEEPA and in consultation
with the legislative branch of the US government will immediately:
- lift all unilat. Econ. SX against Iraq including the current embargo on oil.
- Cease ongoing air strikes
- Remove its support of SX against Iraq in the UN Sec. Council
- Increase contributions of humanitarian aid including food stuffs and
medical necessities
All policy actions will be used as an incentive for Iraq to resume weapons
inspections, but not conditioned on coop. Any action including sanctions,
taken against Iraq for what the US considers "objectionable"  behavior will
be diplomatic or military in nature. All policy actions will be taken in
accordance with the advocacy of Geoff Simmons and the IAC. F & E guaranteed
through normal means.

Advantages: Humanitarian

1AC Cites:
Contention I - Current Policy = isolation, zunes 1999~E
Contention II - SX = Govt reliance, Halliday~ESX prop up Saddam, Zunes 1999~ESQ
= repressive future regime, Roberts 1999~ESX crush the people, Kelly 1999.
Contention III - Sanctions condemn life, Simons 1999~ESX kll more than WMD,
Hamre 1999~EUS solely responsible, Simons 1999~EMust act now, Black 1999~Ecant
ignore crisis, Simons 1999.
Contention IV - Lift econ. & Milit. SX

2AC Tricks:


FSU CB:

Plan: In consult. With relevant allies we remove non military sanctions on
ability to sell Oil. Suspend all Iraqi obligations for Gulf War compensation.
Remove dual use restrictions. Lifting conditioned on Iraqi compliance w/ WMD
inspections, maintain Northern Watch & Iraqi cooperation w/ share the wealth.

Advantages: Humanitarian Crisis

1AC Cites: Institute of public accuracy~EFAO~EZunes~EGordon~EInternational Herald
Tribune~ESimons~EGauze~ECrosette~ESullivan.

2AC Tricks:


Kansas RS

Plan: The USFG should adopt a policy of CE w/ the Govt of Cuba including the
immediate removal of eco. SX and the establishment of a B.I.T.

Advantages: WTO, Human Suffering, Transition

1AC Cites:
News and Record 7-4-99~EWeiss, Political Gain and Civillian Pain, 1997,
Pg.235~ESt. Louis Post Dispatch, 2-7-99~ESan Diego Union Tribune, 10-18-99,
http://www.us.net/cip/9903ipr.htm , Solis, 1997, Seattle Post Intelligencer,
8-11-99~EFinancial Times 5-12-99~ECuba and the future, 1994~EBerry, The sword of
justice 1998~ECohen, International Ethics, 1985~EGarfield Forum for applied
Research and Public Policy, v14, Summer 1999.

2AC Tricks:


Kansas ST

Plan: The USFG will adopt a policy of constructive engagement which
restructures sanctions toward Iraq by immediately removing the general trade
embargo & pushing for removal of all non military sanctions on civilian
goods. US will stop air strikes that target civilians & prohibit funding of
Iraqi opposition groups. Reperation requirements will be suspended until
Iraq's eonomy has recovered.

Advantages:

1AC Cites: Courtright & Lopez 1999, Hoskins, Halliday

2AC Tricks:


Kansas State HZ

Plan:

Advantages:

1AC Cites:

2AC Tricks:


Kansas State NW

Plan: The USFG shall immediately adopt a policy to CE the govt of NK elim
nearly all econ. SX towards NK including the Agriculture Trade, & Development
Act, & Peace corps act, set up peace corp for food distr. & Ag. Trading.

Advantages: Famine


1AC Cites:
Observation I Inherency - Agence France Presse, Sept. 17th, 1999.
Observation II Famine - Cho, la times, aug. 20th 1998~ESullivan, Wash Post,
March 13th, 1999~E Usher, Dallas Morning News, Jul. 15th 1999~E Times newspaper
limited, 1/3/99~EHall, Tampa Tribune, 9/1/99~EHarrison, North korea after Kim
II Sung, 1998~EBoston Herald, October 25th 1999, Cox, Cong. Press Release,
October 14th 1999~EStruck, Famine in NK easing, Aug. 16th, 1999.

2AC Tricks: Hypnosis


Kansas State GS

Plan:

Advantages:

1AC Cites:

2AC Tricks:


Macalester KW

Plan: The USFG will adopy a policy CE, including the immediate removal of
nearly all economic sx. With the govt of Iraq as per the recc.s of Denis
Halliday and the IAC. This will include the following:
All non military sancions will be lifted. The US will veto any UN proposal to
do the same. The US will stop bombing Iraq w/o the consent of the entirety of
the UN security council as per UN policy. The USFG will reclassify those
items on the dual use list as per the standards currently in other nations.
The US will allow trade assistance by NGO's, and investment as per Halliday
and the IAC.

Advantages: See Below~E

1AC Cites:
Observation I - OFF cant solve humanitarian needs, Amorim, 1999~ESX
deliberately destroy food supply, Simons 1996~E4500 children per month, Ward
1998~Elack of pesticides ? new threat to food supply for entire Middle East,
CBS news 1998~ENo Moral Justification for killing children, Halliday
1999~Egenocidal stat sponsored mass murder, Chomsky 1999
Observation II - Non Mil. SX don't reward saddam only hope for people,
Halliday 1999~EMust lift sx and encourage trade to rebuild infrastructure,
IAC, 1999~EOFF proves problem = sx. Iraq will give food. South News, 1999~E
sanctions to stop BW legitimates them, Simons 1996~E? international consensus,
Gause 1999~EMoral Practical move, Gause 1999.
Underview - Dual use = ploy, Simons 1996~EAbsolute prohibitions must take
precedent, Nagel 1994~EIraqi non compliance = attempt to avoid blame, Simons
1996~Efood distribution = highest moral goal, Watson 1977, Consequences don't
matter (MLK card), Gerwirth 1994.

2AC Tricks:


Michigan State SO

Plan: In consultation with all relevant actors the USFG will adopt a policy
of CE with the Govt of DPRK by immediately lifting all currently existing
economic SX on the DPRK. Logistics guaranteed.

Advantages: Famine, Nuclearization.

1AC Cites:
Observation I Inherency - SQ fails noth Korea want sx lifted, Korea Times
9-26-99~ENK sees Quid pro Quo as unacceptable, Kim 10-22-99.
Advantage I Famine - Famine increasing now, ? collapse, Womyn suffer most,
Immoral to starve.
Advantage II Nuclearization - Brinkpersonship increasing, ? war, ? failure of
AF, ? escalating war
Solvency - Commit to engage solves AF, sanctions ? famine, contacts ? change,
Lift solves brinkpersonship, Unconditional lift solves, Lift solves SK/US
relations, NK doesn't like sx.

2AC Tricks:


Michigan State PB

Plan:


Advantages:     ?     ?     ?     Same as Michigan State OS

1AC Cites:

2AC Tricks:


NYU GG

Plan: The USFG will adopt a policy of CE w/ the govt of NK through the
immediate removal of all economic & military SX & stepwise dealerting of all
US nuclear forces as per Blair along w/ consult. W/ the NK govt. The US will
also diplomatically engage the NK govt in dialogues encouraging future coop
on nuclear arms control and disarm. Policies. Intent.


Advantages: Deterrence

1AC Cites: Dalby, Lifton, Klare, Lipschutz, Blair,

2AC Tricks:


North Texas HS

Plan: The usfg, as part of a constructive engagement policy, and in
consultation with all relevant allies and the united nations security
council, will immediately offer diplomatic recognition to Iraq in combonation
with:
- the removal of nearly all or all non - military sanctions - including but
not limited to - lifting of all limits on Iraq's ability to produce or sell
oil.
- Suspension of all Iraqi obligations for gulf war compensation
- The removal of all restrictions on dual-use requirements for food,
infrastructure or medicine
Finally the united  states will condition the continuation of the sanctions
relief represented by the plan on a new wmd inspection regime as describes by
gregory gause and stephen zunes as well as a continuation of the "share the
wealth" oil profit portions of unsc resolution 688.

We will defend the plan as removing all sanctions requirements in unsc
resolutions 661, 665, and 687 and substantially modifying requirements under
unsc 688- with esceptions noted.

All enforcement and funding through normal means and all speeches serve as
intent.

Advantages: Humanitarian Disaster ( 4500 kids a day)

1AC Cites:
Halliday 1999, Masri 1998, Sullivan 1999, FAO 1998, UN security council
reporter 1-30-99, Gordon 1999, Meuller & Meuller 1999, Simons 1996, Becker
1998, Janes Intellegence Review 1999, Zunes 1998, Gause 1999, IHT 1999,
Ritter ~E www.washingtoninstitute.org/watch/policy/policywatch1999/377

2AC Tricks: They don't do that.


North Texas FH

Plan:

Advantages:     ?     ?      ?     Same as North Texas HS

1AC Cites:

2AC Tricks:


North Texas GG

Plan:

Advantages:     ?     ?     ?     Same as North Texas HS

1AC Cites:

2AC Tricks:


North Texas SC

Plan:

Advantages:     ?     ?     ?     Same case as North Texas HS

1AC Cites:

2AC Tricks:


SMS NP

Plan: The USFG will constructively engage Cuba by immediately lifting all
econ. SX and by offering all tech. & scientific coop. On the building of the
Juragua Nuclear Power Plant per the Cuban wishes.

Advantages: Humanitarian Impacts, Psychological Screw.

1AC Cites: Observation I Inherency - Dept. of Treasury 1999.
Observation II - Humanitarian Problem - Emb. Keeps food away, Schwabb 1999~EUS
fault, Robinson 1999.
Observation III - Psychological Screw - Rigidity now, Gunn 1994~Ebad stuff b/c
of it ? turkey point.
Observation IV Solvency - try/die, Smith 1998~Eno investment in Cuba forced,
Schwabb 1999.

2AC Tricks:


Texas - Austin ND

Plan: USFG will adopt a policy of CE w/ the govt. of NK, including the
immediate removal of all economic sanctions. This policy will reaffirm The US
commitment under the 1994 AF, including maintenance of the trilateral
coordination committee, ending joint exercises, and normalization of
relations. F & E thru normal means. We'll clarif.

Advantages: KEDO, Yellow Sea

1AC Cites:
BBC 10/23/99, Satterwaite 1996, Bandow 1998.

2AC Tricks:


Texas - Austin DM

Plan: The USFG will through appropriate diplomatic channels immediately lift
nearly all economic sx. Via taking syria off the so called terrorist list as
part of a new policy of CE including: Training, intellegence, Equipment, and
communication. Funding and enforcement through normal means.

Advantages: Succession Crisis, Lebanese Escalation


1AC Cites:
Inherency - Attacks on lebanon increasing - BBC 9-30-99
Advantage I - Succession = Crisis - Robinson 1998, Euron 1994.
Advantage II - Lebanon ~EVenter 1999, Klare 1995, Schiff 1993, Blanche 1999.
Solvency - Benmier 1999, Haas 1999.

2AC Tricks:


Texas - Austin LB

Plan: USFG should adopt a plcy of CE by ending team spirit exercises
indefinitely, fully normalizing all diplomatic relations & using a directive
to determine the DMZ w/ NK. The policy of CE should include the imm. Removal
of all economic sanctions w/ NK.

Advantages: Demining

1AC Cites:

2AC Tricks:





Texas - Austin BB

Plan:

Advantages:     ?     ?     ?     Same as Texas - Austin North Korea Affs

1AC Cites:

2AC Tricks:


Texas - Austin PG

Plan: The USFG should adopt a policy of CE of Iraq by immediately lifting all
economic sx ending no fly zones and stopping bombings

Advantages: Genocide & Racism

1AC Cites:
O1 - Not our place to speak~EChomsky 1998 ( "Rogue States" 4/98) - The Iraqi
people matter~EChomsky - a new perspective~ETwathail 1996, Gearold, At the end
of geopolitics? - Not our place to judge~E Chomsky, 1999, 2net forum.
O2 - Advocacy and solvency - Voices in the wilderness 9-29-99, Davidson 1997,
Chomsky, Herman, Saad, & Zinn 1998

2AC Tricks:


Texas - Dallas JK

Plan:

Advantages:     ?     ?     ?     Same as Texas Dallas SF

1AC Cites:

2AC Tricks:


Texas - Dallas SF

Plan: The USFG should adopt a policy of CE w/ the Govt of Iraq by lifting all
unilateral US economic Sx, ending funding & Support for Iraqi insurgent
groups, ending participation in enforcement of "no fly zones" and announcing
its support for the removal of all UN sanctions excepting for the arms
embargo.

Advantages: Children Die.

1AC Cites:

2AC Tricks:


UMKC CB

Plan: The USFG will adopt a policy of CE with the Govt o' Iraq, Including the
immediate removal of all econ. SX. As part of the CE polcy the US will push
for Iraqs Integration into the Intntl. Community by eliminating our
opposition to the lifting of UN econ SX against Iraq & work w/ Iraq to comply
w/ UN disarmament mandates.

Advantages: Humanitarian crisis.

1AC Cites:
Humanitarian Crisis - Skent 1998, Chomky 99, Unsanctioned Suffering 1996,
Inter Presse Service 8-12-99, Dennis Halliday 1998, Simmons 1998, Halliday
1999.
Advantage II - US Credibility - Goldberg November 17th, 1997,~E Palletiere,
Managing Strains In the coalition: What to do about Iraq,~ERitter  9-10-98, ~E
Chesnoff 10/5/99.
Solvency - Meuller 99, Pollack 1998~EGause 99~ECourtwright 1998, Ritter, Scott,
End Game, 1999.

2AC Tricks: Claim Sanctions collapse Inevitable



UMKC RL

Plan: The USFG will adopt a policy of Constructive Engagement with the
government of Iran. The US will immediately remove all economic sanctions
against Iran, including the immediate removal of all secondary sanctions from
Iran consistent with a policy of constructive engagement by initiating
dialogue and diplomacy between the US and Iran. F & E guaranteed.

Advantages: Big Oil ( East/West pipeline, causes WWIII w/ Russia, Iran
pipeline preferred route)

1AC Cites:

2AC Tricks:


Vermont SM

Plan: USFG will immediately lift all economic sx on the gvt of Cuba and
institute a CE policy that will initiate a joint sustainable development
research effort between the US dept of Agriculture and the Cuban Agriculture
Ministry.

Advantages: Food Crisis, Sustainable Agriculture.

1AC Cites:
Observation I - Embargo prevents transition to sustainable agriculture. -
Cobb 1998, Radelat 1998, Zures 1995, Kosset 1994
Observation II - Solvency lifting embargo key to making the transition to
sustainable agriculture, Cuba can be a world model. - Zunes 1995, Youngberg
1993, Dewalt 1991, Murphy 1997, Rosset 1994, Brizuelas 1994, Simon 1997,
Levins 1993.
Observation III - Advantage - Foodcrisis - Sustainable agriculture key to
prevent loss of genetic diversity and inevitable starvation. Altieri 1998,
Raeburn 1995, Barry 1995, Rosset 1999, Allen 1993, Doblowski and Willinan
1998.

2AC Tricks:


Wichita State HO

Plan: The USFG will pursue a policy of CE with Iraq including immediately
removing all SX restricting food, medicine, and development. In addition the
US will encourage Iraq to comply with UN Resolutions on WMDs. Funding &
Enforcement through normal means.

Advantages: Humanitarian & Iran

1AC Cites:
Observation I - US thwarts removal o' sanctions, Hoskins 1997
Advantage I - Humanitarian - 250 lives a month, IAC (NO DATE), Dixon 1998~ENo
dual use in Iraq, Gordon 1999.
Advantage II - Iran - Sanctions = Iran mil. Mod., Iran = blocks straits, =
war, Jane's Defense Weekly 1998, Blanche 1997.
Observation II - Solvency - Gause 1999, Cultiss 1999, Mueller 1999.

2AC Tricks:


Wichita State HM

Plan:

Advantages:     ?     ?     ?     Same as Wichita State HO

1AC Cites:

2AC Tricks:


William Jewell BP

Plan: The USFG will lift all sanctions towards on Cuba. 1. Cessation of
threatening military rhetoric. 2. Open any and all diplomatic channels as per
Cubas Request.

Advantages: Spanos, Feminism, Moral Imperative to act on people dying &
imperialistic policies.

1AC Cites:

2AC Tricks:



William Jewell HL

Plan:

Advantages:

1AC Cites:
Fernandez 1998, Schwabb 1999, Schultz 1994, Dhooge 1997, Gonzales 1994,
Arendt 1998, Moakly 1999, Cooper 1998, Witcher 1999, Webber 1999, Webber
1995, Tickner 1992, Ratliff & Fontane 1993

2AC Tricks:

>From  Mon Nov 15 16:45:43 1999
Message-Id: <MON.15.NOV.1999.164543.EST.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 47220 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 16:46:30
 -0500
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 QAA29704 for
 <EDEBATE at list.uvm.edu>; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 16:46:26 -0500
Received: from Capnsntch at aol.com by imo16.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.4.) id
 n.0.22158f9a (4538) for <EDEBATE at list.uvm.edu>; Mon, 15 Nov 1999
 16:45:44 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 38
Message-ID: <0.22158f9a.2561d907 at aol.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 16:45:43 EST
Reply-To: Capnsntch at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Matt Opalka <Capnsntch at AOL.COM>
Subject: UCO JUNIOR AFFIRMATIVE DISCLOSURE

UCO AFFIRMATIVE DISCLOSURE 1999 JV

ACU  MP
    PLAN TEXT
- Engage by 1. Lifting all economic sanctions except nuclear reactor
technology.  2. Sending an aid package.  3. Establish an agreement to form an
anti-drug alliance
    1AC STRUCTURE/CITES
- Schultz '94
- Arendt '98
- Gunn '94
- Schwab '99
    ADVANTAGE AREAS
- Prevent Civil War
- Increase US leadership
- Stop drug trafficking
- Stop famine/death
    2AC Relevant Tricks


Ark/ACU  PP
    PLAN TEXT
- Iran
- Lift sanctions
- Managed prolif
    1AC STRUCTURE/CITES
    ADVANTAGE AREAS
- Solvency for racism
- Language against Iran
    2AC RELEVANT TRICKS
- Charm


BAYLOR  CN
    PLAN TEXT
- The USFG will immediately lift all the economic sanctions on Cuba and will
constructively engage in diplomacy talks.  Funding and enforcement through
normal means.
    1AC STRUCTURE/CITES
1. Failed Cuban Sanctions policy
- Ineffectiveness (dhooge '97)
- Normalization (Human Rights Watch '99)
2. Tragedies
- Embargo causes hunger (Schwaab '99)
- Violation of Cuban HR (Schwaab '99
- CDA regs meaningless (Gary '98)
3. Embargo lifting is long overdue
- Lifting allows US investment in Cuba - social reform (Dunning '98)
- Solves transitions (Preehg '99)
- Moral O (Kolko 99)
    ADVANTAGE AREAS
    2AC RELEVANT TRICKS

ESU  HM
    PLAN TEXT
- USFG will adopt with Cuba including removing sanctions and coop with Cuba
on Drug interdiction
    1AC STRUCTURE/CITES
- BLUME '99
- LUSANE '91
- TANTER '98
- COOPER '98
- SCHWAB '99
- GORDON '99
- HOLDER-RHODES '97
- SCHULTZ '99
- RENNSELAR '97
- ZACKISON '99
- MCLEAN '99
- COUNCIL FOREIGN RELATIONS '99
- WALKER '96
- AROSTEGI '98
- CLISSOLD '99
    ADVANTAGE AREAS
    2AC RELEVANT TRICKS

EMPORIA  BW
    PLAN TEXT
- USFG LIFTS HB AND CONSTRUCTIVLY ENGAGES THROUGH CREATIVE PROBLEM SOLVING
1AC STRUCTURE/CITES
- COOPER '98
    ADVANTAGE AREAS
     - TRADE LIBERALIZATION
    2AC RELEVANT TRICKS
- ANSWERING THEIR ARGUMENTS

EMPORIA HM
    PLAN TEXT
    1AC STRUCTURE/CITES
    ADVANTAGE AREAS
    2AC RELEVANT TRICKS

K-STATE  MT
    PLAN TEXT
    1AC STRUCTURE/CITES
    ADVANTAGE AREAS
    2AC RELEVANT TRICKS


SMS  AT
    PLAN TEXT
- US shall adopt a policy of CE with Iraq including the immediate removal of
nearly all trade sanctions on civilian goods.  The US will restructure
military and weapon technology sanctions consistent with reciprocity approach
advocated by Cortright and lopez.  UN policy consistent with the plan.
    1AC STRUCTURE/CITES
- Romi Mahajan '99
- Chomsky Herman Said & Zinn '99
- Skinner '99
- Mueller '99
- Clark '99
    ADVANTAGE AREAS
    2AC RELEVANT TRICKS

UMKC  OS
    PLAN TEXT
    1AC STRUCTURE/CITES
    ADVANTAGE AREAS
    2AC RELEVANT TRICKS

UMKC  RG
    PLAN TEXT
- The USFG will adopt a policy of constructive engagement with the government
of Iran.  Those US sanctions, including ILSA will be immediately be removed
consistent with adopting an engagement policy to encourage low level dialogue
between the US and Iran.  Funding and enforcement as necessary.
    1AC STRUCTURE/CITES
    ADVANTAGE AREAS
    2AC RELEVANT TRICKS

UMKC/SMS  PR
    PLAN TEXT
    1AC STRUCTURE/CITES
    ADVANTAGE AREAS
    2AC RELEVANT TRICKS

UT-DALLAS  VL
    PLAN TEXT
- Remove all nonmilitary sanctions against Cuba and establish a system of
constructive engagement to promote human rights, democracy and safety for the
Cuban people.
    1AC STRUCTURE/CITES
- Inherency
- Humanitarian disaster/food & medicine
- Juragua nuclear reactor
- Investment
- Exporting
    ADVANTAGE AREAS
    2AC RELEVANT TRICKS


UTSA  QM
    PLAN TEXT
     - Lift nearly all economic sanctions by amending Helms Burton
    1AC STRUCTURE/CITES
    ADVANTAGE AREAS
    2AC RELEVANT TRICKS

VERMONT  PR
    PLAN TEXT
    1AC STRUCTURE/CITES
    ADVANTAGE AREAS
    2AC RELEVANT TRICKS

WJC  GO
    PLAN TEXT
     - The USFG will lift all or nearly all economic sanctions in Cuba and
constructively engage them with diplomatic talks, normalization of relations
and an end to the blah blah blah, bad handwriting.
    1AC STRUCTURE/CITES
    ADVANTAGE AREAS
    2AC RELEVANT TRICKS

WSO  GF
    PLAN TEXT
    1AC STRUCTURE/CITES
    ADVANTAGE AREAS
    2AC RELEVANT TRICKS

>From  Mon Nov 15 16:47:43 1999
Message-Id: <MON.15.NOV.1999.164743.EST.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 47307 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 16:48:53
 -0500
Precedence: bulk
Received: from imo-d05.mx.aol.com (imo-d05.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.37]) by
 list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA32520 for
 <EDEBATE at list.uvm.edu>; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 16:48:24 -0500
Received: from Capnsntch at aol.com by imo-d05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.4.) id
 n.0.99fd6d9b (4538) for <EDEBATE at list.uvm.edu>; Mon, 15 Nov 1999
 16:47:44 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 38
Message-ID: <0.99fd6d9b.2561d97f at aol.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 16:47:43 EST
Reply-To: Capnsntch at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Matt Opalka <Capnsntch at AOL.COM>
Subject: UCO JUNIOR NEGATIVE DISCLOSURE

 UCO NEGATIVE DISCLOSURE 1999 JV

ACU MP   (IRAQ)
    OFF CASE POSITIONS AND CITES:
- Russia - Sphere of influence link
- Nationalism impact
- US pursuing economic Hegemony
- Lifting Sanctions allows US business Penetration
- Leads to resource depletion and economic/social deviation
- UN/CP - independent of USFG, UN engages Iraq by lifting all sanctions and
introducing a strategic dialogue
    BREAKDOWN OF THE BLOCK:
    2NC
    1NR
    NEGATIVE TRICKS
    2NR POSITIONS:



ARK-ST LI
    OFF CASE POSITIONS AND CITES:
- Vagueness T
- Trade-Law kritik (Frank Garcia '99, Brooklyn Journal of International Law
volume 51)
- MAI - Staples '98
    BREAKDOWN OF THE BLOCK:
    2NC
    1NR
    NEGATIVE TRICKS
    2NR POSITIONS:

ARK/ACU PP
    OFF CASE POSITIONS AND CITES:
- Petras kritik (James Petras, The left Strikes Back:the class Conflict in
Latin America in the Age of Neoliberalism, 99)
- Rice DA
- Solvency Dump
    BREAKDOWN OF THE BLOCK:
    2NC
    1NR
    NEGATIVE TRICKS
    2NR POSITIONS:

BAYLOR CN
    OFF CASE POSITIONS AND CITES:
- China/WTO DA
- Solvency
- Advantage 1,2,3
- Juragua
    BREAKDOWN OF THE BLOCK:
    2NC
    1NR
    NEGATIVE TRICKS
    2NR POSITIONS:

EMPORIA BW   (IRAN)
    OFF CASE POSITIONS AND CITES:
- Isreal DA
- Complexity
- Trade-Aferican/Carriabean bill
- Engage but don't lift CP
- Prolif Takeouts
    BREAKDOWN OF THE BLOCK:
    2NC
    1NR
    NEGATIVE TRICKS
    2NR POSITIONS:

EMPORIA HM
    OFF CASE POSITIONS AND CITES:
    BREAKDOWN OF THE BLOCK:
    2NC
    1NR
    NEGATIVE TRICKS
    2NR POSITIONS:

K-STATE MT
    OFF CASE POSITIONS AND CITES:
    BREAKDOWN OF THE BLOCK:
    2NC
    1NR
    NEGATIVE TRICKS
    2NR POSITIONS:

SMS AT
    OFF CASE POSITIONS AND CITES:
    BREAKDOWN OF THE BLOCK:
    2NC
    1NR
    NEGATIVE TRICKS
    2NR POSITIONS:

UMKC  OS
    OFF CASE POSITIONS AND CITES:
- Shunning
- Tourism
- Castro Sucks
- Embargo Solves
- Property Rights
- Military Turn
    BREAKDOWN OF THE BLOCK:
    2NC
    1NR
    NEGATIVE TRICKS
    2NR POSITIONS:

UMKC  RG
    OFF CASE POSITIONS AND CITES:
- Exclude T3 CP
- Negotiator DA
- International Law DA
- Human rights DA - links off T3 is key to property rights shinning
alternative
- F-22 DA - US liable for damages not compensated by Castro - IL spending
tradesoff with f-22
    BREAKDOWN OF THE BLOCK:
    2NC
    1NR
    NEGATIVE TRICKS
    2NR POSITIONS:


UMKC/SMS  PR
    OFF CASE POSITIONS AND CITES:
- Smart SX CP
- WTO Bad Winners Win
- Intrastate conflict
- Otherization
    BREAKDOWN OF THE BLOCK:
    2NC
    1NR
    NEGATIVE TRICKS
    2NR POSITIONS:

UT-DALLAS  VL
    OFF CASE POSITIONS AND CITES:
- Shunning (Belursus)
- Economy (Mead '98)
- MAI (Moberg)
    BREAKDOWN OF THE BLOCK:
    2NC
    1NR
    NEGATIVE TRICKS
    2NR POSITIONS:


UTSA  QM
    OFF CASE POSITIONS AND CITES:
- Solvency
- Globalization
- Russian Nationalism
- Case Neg
    BREAKDOWN OF THE BLOCK:
    2NC
    1NR
    NEGATIVE TRICKS
    2NR POSITIONS:


VERMONT  PR
OFF CASE POSITIONS AND CITES:
    BREAKDOWN OF THE BLOCK:
    2NC
    1NR
    NEGATIVE TRICKS
    2NR POSITIONS:


WJC  GO
    OFF CASE POSITIONS AND CITES:
    BREAKDOWN OF THE BLOCK:
    2NC
    1NR
    NEGATIVE TRICKS
    2NR POSITIONS:


WSU  GF

    OFF CASE POSITIONS AND CITES:
- Turkey
- Jordan
- Saudi Arabia oil
- INC - Wermser '99
- Shunning - Beverslu
- Military Modernization
    BREAKDOWN OF THE BLOCK:
    2NC
    1NR
    NEGATIVE TRICKS
    2NR POSITIONS:

>From  Mon Nov 15 16:57:07 1999
Message-Id: <MON.15.NOV.1999.165707.0500.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 47608 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 16:57:56
 -0500
Precedence: bulk
Received: from smtp1.erols.com (smtp1.erols.com [207.172.3.234]) by
 list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA32700 for
 <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 16:57:49 -0500
Received: from erols.com (209-122-223-129.s129.tnt3.nyw.ny.dialup.rcn.com
 [209.122.223.129]) by smtp1.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id
 QAA03551 for <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 16:57:43 -0500
 (EST)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; I; PPC)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <383081AB.12519797 at erols.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 16:57:07 -0500
Reply-To: a.dove at erols.com
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Alan Dove <a.dove at EROLS.COM>
Organization: Nature
Subject: Columbia's Gotham Debates - Register Now

Hey, folks:

The Gotham Debates loom on the horizon, and we're gearing up for a
pretty sizable event this coming weekend.  So far, I have preliminary
information from Marist, and have deduced that USMA, King's College, and
Rochester are bringing unknown numbers of people.  Vermont has already
given me debaters' names (last names, at least) and divisions, and
Binghamton has given me full names of debaters.  NYU is also expected to
attend, but with Will Baker running tab, I'm not concerned about their
entry getting here on time.  I still need judges' names and constraints
from everyone.

If you plan to come to our tournament, please send complete information
as soon as possible.  You can send me an email, or you can register on
the Web (follow the links from http://128.59.173.136/Columbia/DB8.html).
 Or, if you insist, you can send me a fax - the number is on the Web
site.  The Web site also includes a copy of the invitation, and we will
post results to the site at the end of the tournament.

Because many teams have made alternate arrangements for housing, we will
not be registering teams on Friday night at the hotel.  I would
appreciate it if coaches could provide me with phone numbers where they
can be reached on Friday evening, and let me know what time they expect
to be there.  If we can confirm all of the team and judge information
Friday night, it will facilitate getting pairings out on time Saturday
morning.  If you are staying in the tournament hotel, just let me know
what name your rooms are reserved under.

Looking forward to seeing you in NYC this weekend.

          --Alan

--
__________
Alan Dove, Ph.D.
N3IMU
http://www.erols.com/a.dove/

>From  Mon Nov 15 17:07:41 1999
Message-Id: <MON.15.NOV.1999.170741.0500.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 47814 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 17:07:47
 -0500
Precedence: bulk
Received: from smtp1.erols.com (smtp1.erols.com [207.172.3.234]) by
 list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA30230 for
 <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 17:07:46 -0500
Received: from erols.com (209-122-223-129.s129.tnt3.nyw.ny.dialup.rcn.com
 [209.122.223.129]) by smtp1.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id
 RAA09386 for <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 17:07:34 -0500
 (EST)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; I; PPC)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <383081AB.12519797 at erols.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <38308422.3D237FD8 at erols.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 17:07:41 -0500
Reply-To: a.dove at erols.com
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Alan Dove <a.dove at EROLS.COM>
Organization: Nature
Subject: Re: Columbia's Gotham Debates - Register Now - Correction

Hey, folks:

There seems to have been an accident down at the plant.  The Columbia
Policy Debate home page has reverted to a version that was last updated
in June, so you will have difficulty accessing the Gotham Debates
invitation and registration from there.  I hope to have the problem
fixed sometime tonight or tomorrow, and apologize for the mix-up.

          --Alan

--
__________
Alan Dove, Ph.D.
N3IMU
http://www.erols.com/a.dove/



From jcorcora  Mon Nov 15 16:07:45 1999
From: jcorcora (Joe Corcoran)
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 14:07:45 -0800
Subject: Results of the Butte College Tourney
In-Reply-To: <s8258561.024@suu.edu>
Message-ID: <MON.15.NOV.1999.140745.0800.JCORCORA@FLOYD.SANTAROSA.EDU>

The following comprises the results for CEDA at the Butte Community
College CEDA tournament.

There was one division of 15 teams.

The following schools participated in some form of debate at Butte:
Los Rios, SRJC, Contra Costa, Las Positas, UOP, Fresno State, Ohlone,
Modesto Junior College, Delta, Chico State, San Francisco State, Monterey
Pennisula, Sacramento State, Berkeley.

Quarters
Los Rios LW defeats Santa Rosa PC, 2-1
Chico FB defeats Fresno State HM, 2-1
Chico MH defeats Santa Rosa GW, 3-0
Sac State GM defeats Santa Rosa TC, 3-0

Semis
Chico FB defeats Los Rios LW, 2-1
Sac State GM defeats Chico MH, 2-1

Finals
Sac State GM defeats Chico FB, 2-1

Prelims
Chico FB (Paul Freeman and Ryan Buckley) 4-2
Chico LM (Cat Leahy and Brooke McCall) 2-4
Chico MH (Jill Murray and Aaron Hess) 4-2
Fresno State HM (George Hopper and Amanda Moran) 4-2
Los Rios LW (Jennifer Louie and James Wright) 5-1
Sac State CW (Will Cannady and Chriss Williams) 3-3
Sac State GM (Jen Gregory and Leslie McDaniels) 5-1
Sac State LM (Kelly Lyon and Dan Mosier) 2-4
Sac State ST (Ron Simmons and Sara Thomas) 1-5
Sac State WP (Lynds Westerman and Artemi Pimental) 2-4
San Francisco State LB (Julie Lu and Tony Bernacchi) 2-4
San Francisco State RR (Chris Rogers and Kevin Rinker) 3-3
Santa Rosa GW (Chante Gordon and Max Watson) 4-2
Santa Rosa PC (Attila Panszel and Matt Cody) 3-3
Santa Rosa TC (Willow Tracy and April Clark) 4-2

Speaker Awards:
1. Jennifer Louie, Los Rios, 113.2 adjusted
2. Attila Panczel, Santa Rosa, 111.6 adjusted
3. Aaron Hess, Chico, 109.2 adjusted
4. April Clark, Santa Rosa, 108 adjusted, 164 total.
5. Jen Gregory, Sac State, 108 adjusted, 162 total.
6. Chante Gordon, Santa Rosa, 108 adjusted, 160 total.
7. Brooke McCall, Chico, 108 adjusted, 159 total.
8. Leslie McDaniels, Sac State, 107 adjusted, 160 total, 54 da
9. Paul Freeman, Chico, 107,160, 53 tie
9. Max Watson, Santa Rosa, 107, 160, 53 tie

>From  Mon Nov 15 17:53:21 1999
Message-Id: <MON.15.NOV.1999.175321.0500.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 48623 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 17:54:38
 -0500
Precedence: bulk
Received: from iris.liberty.edu (iris.liberty.edu [207.239.144.36]) by
 list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA12956 for
 <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 17:54:25 -0500
Received: from te146.liberty.edu (TE146 [10.2.6.253]) by iris.liberty.edu with
 SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2448.0) id
 WY2KPTXR; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 17:54:12 -0500
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 V4.72.2106.4
Importance: Normal
Message-ID: <000001bf2fbc$3766bbe0$fd06020a at te146.liberty.edu>
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 17:53:21 -0500
Reply-To: bodonnel at liberty.edu
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Brett O'Donnell <bodonnel at LIBERTY.EDU>
Subject: November 15 NDT Rankings

Below is the second NDT rankings report for the 1999-2000 season.  This
report will be mailed in hardcopy form today, November 15, 1999 as required
by the NDT rankings procedure.  If you believe there is an error in the
report, please contact me at 804-582-2080 or by e-mail.  I am missing
tournament results for many tournaments.  Please fax or send complete
results to me as soon as possible at:

Brett O'Donnell
Department of Debate
Liberty University
1971 University Blvd.
Lynchburg, VA 24502

Or fax to : 804-582-2113

Here is how these point totals are derived:  Each school is permitted to
count their best eight tournament performances.  Points earned by the top
two performing teams at each tournament are summed to produce a school
total for that event.  Teams receive points (ranging from 8-16) for
preliminary round wins, and more points for elimination round
participation (e.g., a unanimous win counts for 6 points, a split win for
5 pts., a split loss 4, a unanimous defeat 3).  Points in the overall
ranking make no distinction between divisions, and all count equally.  A
separate listing ranks schools based only on their varsity or open
division points earned.  Overall point totals are separately listed by
district, and junior/community college results are pulled out to produce a
top three ranking of those schools.

Rankings are listed for any tournament which used the common policy topic,
and for which comprehensive results were available.


NDT Rankings

Tournaments covered by this report
Cap Cities Debates
Casper College
Duquesne Debate Tournament
Fresno State
Johnson County Community College
King's College
Lewis and Clark
Louisiana State University
National Round Robin Debates-USC
Pepperdine University
Ricks College
Sam Houston State Tournament
San Diego State
Santa Rosa Junior College
South Carolina Earlybird
Southern Utah University
Southwest Missouri State
Tennessee State
University of Kentucky
University of Northern Iowa
University of Oregon
University of Richmond
Valdosta State
West Point
Western Washington Scrimmage



Rankings
Overall Rankings

1. Emory University     337
2. Liberty University   326
3. Catholic University  256
4. University of Southern California    228
5. University of Kansas 214
6. Wake Forest University       209
7. Gonzaga University   194
8. Idaho State University       189
9. University of Pittsburgh     185
10. Boston College      184
11. University of Alabama       179
12. University of Missouri-Kansas City  176
13. George Mason University     176
14. South Eastern Louisiana     170
15. Vanderbilt University       168
16. University of California-Berkeley   165
17. University of Iowa  160
18. Cornell University  159
19. Arizona State University    158
20. Emporia University  148
21. College of Eastern Utah     148
22. Michigan State University   147
23. Cal. State Unv. - Bakersfield       141
24. Whitman College     137
25. University of Michigan      136
26. Kansas State University     131
27. West Georgia College        131
28. U. S. Naval Academy 131
29. West Virginia University    131
30. University of Texas-Austin  127
31. Cal. State. Univ.-Chico     116
32. Pace University     115
33. Lewis & Clark College       113
34. Cal. State Unv. - Fullerton 112
35. Southwest Texas State       112
36. University of Puget Sound   110
37. Wayne State University      108
38. John Carroll University     107
39. San Francisco State 99
40. Cal Polytechnic State University    97
41. University of Vermont       96
42. Sacramento State University 95
43. Northwestern University     94
44. Morehouse College   94
45. Georgetown University       93
46. Casper College      91
47. University of Louisville    91
48. Wichita State University    89
49. SW Missouri State University        86
50. Towson State University     86
51. University of Rochester     86
52. William Jewell College      81
53. University of North Texas   80
54. University of Southern Utah 80
55. Penn State University       80
56. Western Washington University       77
57. Baylor University   75
58. University of Oregon        73
59. Trinity University  68
60. University of Georgia       68
61. University of Wyoming       68
62. University of Miami-FL      67
63. Santa Rosa Junior College   67
64. Fort Hays State College     65
65. Central Oklahoma University 64
66. Clarion University  64
67. Weber State University      63
68. Fresno State University     63
69. Biola University    63
70. University of Texas-Dallas  62
71. Johnson County CC   61
72. Binghamton University       61
73. King's College      60
74. Dartmouth University        58
75. Cal. State Unv. - Los Angeles       58
76. University of Kentucky      54
77. University of Florida       54
78. Seattle University  53
79. New York University 52
80. University of Texas - San Antonio   52
81. Clemson University  50
82. University of Richmond      49
83. Mary Washington College     48
84. Augustana College, IL.      47
85. Pepperdine University       46
86. Mercer University   46
87. Samford University  46
88. Cal. State Unv. - Longbeach 44
89. Allegheny College   44
90. Arkansas Tech University    41
91. Georgia State University    38
92. Hillsdale College   38
93. University of Arkansas      38
94. Florida State Univerisity   37
95. U. S. Military Academy      37
96. San Diego State University  37
97. University of Redlands      36
98. Macalaster College  36
99. Florida Community College - Jacksonville    36
100. Loyola Marymount University        35
101. University of Utah 35
102. Concordia College  34
103. Harvard University 34
104. Columbia University        34
105. Johnson C. Smith University        34
106. Illinois State University  33
107. Louisiana State University 33
108. University of Southern Illinois    32
109. University of Seattle      31
110. Marist College     30
111. University of Tennesee     30
112. Cumberland University      30
113. James Madison University   29
114. Los Rios CC        29
115. South Orange County        29
116. Capital University 27
117. Duquesne University        27
118. Northwest CC       25
119. Diablo Valley CC   25
120. Abilene Christian University       24
121. Cameron University 24
122. Duke University    24
123. Marshall University        24
124. Methodist College  22
125. Valdosta State University  22
126. Mansfield University       21
127. Miami University, OH       21
128. San Jose State University  21
129. Tennessee Tech     21
130. Middle Tennessee State University  20
131. Palomar University 20
132. Eastern New Mexico University      17
133. University of Virginia     17
134. Sam Houston University     16
135. Case Western Reserve U.    16
136. George Washington University       15
137. University of South Carolina       13
138. Angelo State University    12
139. Pasadena City College      12
140. Santa Clara University     11
141. Bakersfield Community College      11
142. University of Chicago      10
143. University of Michigan-Dearborn    9
144. Albertson College  9
145. LA City College    9
146. University of Missouri-St. Louis   8

Varsity Rankings

1. Emory University     337
2. University of Southern California    228
3. University of Kansas 210
4. Liberty University   181
5. Gonzaga University   174
6. University of California-Berkeley    165
7. University of Missouri-Kansas City   164
8. University of Iowa   160
9. Wake Forest University       148
10. Michigan State University   147
11. University of Pittsburgh    147
12. Cal. State Unv. - Bakersfield       141
13. Arizona State University    140
14. Catholic University 137
15. University of Michigan      136
16. West Georgia College        131
17. Whitman College     127
18. University of Texas-Austin  127
19. University of Alabama       116
20. Pace University     115
21. Lewis & Clark College       113
22. Southwest Texas State       112
23. Cal. State. Univ.-Chico     108
24. Cal. State Unv. - Fullerton 102
25. Northwestern University     94
26. Kansas State University     91
27. South Eastern Louisiana     89
28. Georgetown University       87
29. Cornell University  87
30. SW Missouri State University        86
31. Wayne State University      86
32. Vanderbilt University       81
33. University of North Texas   80
34. George Mason University     78
35. Western Washington University       75
36. Emporia University  72
37. University of Puget Sound   72
38. Wichita State University    71
39. William Jewell College      70
40. University of Georgia       68
41. University of Louisville    67
42. University of Miami-FL      67
43. Fort Hays State College     65
44. Baylor University   63
45. Weber State University      63
46. University of Southern Utah 63
47. University of Texas-Dallas  62
48. Towson State University     61
49. University of Vermont       61
50. John Carroll University     60
51. U. S. Naval Academy 60
52. University of Oregon        59
53. Dartmouth University        58
54. Casper College      56
55. San Francisco State 56
56. University of Kentucky      54
57. College of Eastern Utah     52
58. Cal Polytechnic State University    50
59. Augustana College, IL.      47
60. Pepperdine University       46
61. Samford University  46
62. University of Wyoming       45
63. Cal. State Unv. - Los Angeles       42
64. Biola University    41
65. University of Florida       40
66. Johnson County CC   38
67. Georgia State University    38
68. Binghamton University       38
69. Florida State Univerisity   37
70. Penn State University       37
71. University of Redlands      36
72. Macalaster College  36
73. Cal. State Unv. - Longbeach 35
74. Central Oklahoma University 35
75. Loyola Marymount University 35
76. Boston College      34
77. Harvard University  34
78. Idaho State University      32
79. University of Rochester     31
80. Mercer University   30
81. University of Arkansas      30
82. James Madison University    29
83. Los Rios CC 29
84. Morehouse College   29
85. Trinity University  28
86. Mary Washington College     28
87. San Diego State University  26
88. Northwest CC        25
89. Diablo Valley CC    25
90. Abilene Christian University        24
91. Cameron University  24
92. University of Utah  24
93. Duke University     24
94. Illinois State University   23
95. Columbia University 23
96. Clemson University  23
97. Seattle University  22
98. Concordia College   21
99. U. S. Military Academy      20
100. Middle Tennessee State University  20
101. University of Tennesee     19
102. University of Southern Illinois    17
103. Sam Houston University     16
104. Case Western Reserve U.    16
105. George Washington University       15
106. University of South Carolina       13
107. Angelo State University    12
108. University of Texas - San Antonio  12
109. Marshall University        12
110. New York University        11
111. Allegheny College  11
112. Louisiana State University 11
113. Fresno State University    11
114. Valdosta State University  11
115. University of Chicago      10
116. Miami University, OH       10
117. Eastern New Mexico University      9
118. University of Michigan-Dearborn    9
119. Palomar University 9
120. LA City College    9
121. Cumberland University      9
122. University of Missouri-St. Louis   8
123. Santa Clara University     0
124. Arkansas Tech University   0
125. Capital University 0
126. University of Richmond     0
127. Clarion University 0
128. King's College     0
129. Duquesne University        0
130. Mansfield University       0
131. Marist College     0
132. Methodist College  0
133. West Virginia University   0
134. Johnson C. Smith University        0
135. University of Virginia     0
136. Albertson College  0
137. Sacramento State University        0
138. Santa Rosa Junior College  0
139. San Jose State University  0
140. Bakersfield Community College      0
141. Florida Community College - Jacksonville   0
142. Pasadena City College      0
143. South Orange County        0
144. University of Seattle      0
145. Hillsdale College  0
146. Tennessee Tech     0

Community College Rankings

1. College of Eastern Utah      148
2. Johnson County CC    61
3. Florida Community College - Jacksonville     36
4. Los Rios CC  29
5. Northwest CC 25
6. Diablo Valley CC     25
7. Bakersfield Community College        11


Overall Rankings by District

District 1
1. University of Southern California    228

2. University of California-Berkeley    165

3. Cal. State Unv. - Bakersfield        141

4. Cal. State. Univ.-Chico      116

5. Cal. State Unv. - Fullerton  112

6. San Francisco State  99

7. Cal Polytechnic State University     97

8. Sacramento State University  95

9. Santa Rosa Junior College    67

10. Fresno State University     63

11. Biola University    63

12. Cal. State Unv. - Los Angeles       58

13. Pepperdine University       46

14. Cal. State Unv. - Longbeach 44

15. San Diego State University  37

16. University of Redlands      36

17. Loyola Marymount University 35

18. University of Seattle       31

19. Los Rios CC 29

20. South Orange County 29

21. Diablo Valley CC    25

22. San Jose State University   21

23. Palomar University  20

24. Santa Clara University      11

25. Bakersfield Community College       11

District 2
1. Gonzaga University   194

2. Idaho State University       189

3. Whitman College      137

4. Lewis & Clark College        113

5. University of Puget Sound    110

6. Western Washington University        77

7. University of Oregon 73

8. Seattle University   53

District 3
1. University of Kansas 214

2. University of Missouri-Kansas City   176

3. Emporia University   148

4. Kansas State University      131

5. University of Texas-Austin   127

6. Southwest Texas State        112

7. Wichita State University     89

8. SW Missouri State University 86

9. William Jewell College       81

10. University of North Texas   80

11. Baylor University   75

12. Trinity University  68

13. Fort Hays State College     65

14. Central Oklahoma University 64

15. University of Texas-Dallas  62

16. Johnson County CC   61

17. University of Texas - San Antonio   52

18. Arkansas Tech University    41

19. University of Arkansas      38

20. Cumberland University       30

21. Abilene Christian University        24

22. Cameron University  24

23. Sam Houston University      16

24. Angelo State University     12

25. University of Missouri-St. Louis    8

District 4
1. University of Iowa   160

2. Macalaster College   36

3. Concordia College    34

4. Albertson College    9

District 5
1. Michigan State University    147

2. University of Michigan       136

3. Wayne State University       108

4. John Carroll University      107

5. Northwestern University      94

6. Augustana College, IL.       47

7. Hillsdale College    38

8. Illinois State University    33

9. University of Southern Illinois      32

10. Capital University  27

11. Miami University, OH        21

12. Case Western Reserve U.     16

13. University of Chicago       10

14. University of Michigan-Dearborn     9

District 6
1. Emory University     337

2. Wake Forest University       209

3. University of Alabama        179

4. South Eastern Louisiana      170

5. Vanderbilt University        168

6. West Georgia College 131

7. Morehouse College    94

8. University of Louisville     91

9. University of Georgia        68

10. University of Miami-FL      67

11. University of Kentucky      54

12. University of Florida       54

13. Clemson University  50

14. Mercer University   46

15. Samford University  46

16. Georgia State University    38

17. Florida State Univerisity   37

18. Florida Community College - Jacksonville    36

19. Johnson C. Smith University 34

20. Louisiana State University  33

21. University of Tennesee      30

22. Duke University     24

23. Methodist College   22

24. Valdosta State University   22

25. Tennessee Tech      21

26. Middle Tennessee State University   20

27. University of South Carolina        13

District 7
1. Liberty University   326

2. Catholic University  256

3. University of Pittsburgh     185

4. George Mason University      176

5. U. S. Naval Academy  131

6. West Virginia University     131

7. Georgetown University        93

8. Towson State University      86

9. Penn State University        80

10. Clarion University  64

11. King's College      60

12. University of Richmond      49

13. Mary Washington College     48

14. Allegheny College   44

15. James Madison University    29

16. Duquesne University 27

17. Marshall University 24

18. Mansfield University        21

19. University of Virginia      17

20. George Washington University        15

District 8
1. Boston College       184

2. Cornell University   159

3. Pace University      115

4. University of Vermont        96

5. University of Rochester      86

6. Binghamton University        61

7. Dartmouth University 58

8. New York University  52

9. U. S. Military Academy       37

10. Harvard University  34

11. Columbia University 34

12. Marist College      30

District 9
1. Arizona State University     158

2. College of Eastern Utah      148

3. Casper College       91

4. University of Southern Utah  80

5. University of Wyoming        68

6. Weber State University       63

7. University of Utah   35

8. Northwest CC 25

9. Eastern New Mexico University        17

10. Pasadena City College       12

11. LA City College     9

Points by Tournament

Cap Cities Debates
Boston College - 12 / 12; Catholic University - 20 / 20; Dartmouth
University - 23 / 23; Emory University - 65 / 65; George Mason University -
9 / 9; Georgetown University - 29 / 29; Harvard University - 11 / 11;
Liberty University - 28 / 28; Mary Washington College - 9 / 9; Michigan
State University - 45 / 45; Northwestern University - 27 / 27; Towson State
University - 9 / 9; University of Georgia - 12 / 12; University of Kansas -
30 / 30; University of Miami-FL - 22 / 22; University of Michigan - 39 / 39;
University of Redlands - 36 / 36; Wake Forest University - 34 / 34; West
Georgia College - 34 / 34;

Casper College
Casper College - 25 / 25; College of Eastern Utah - 29 / 29; Northwest CC -
11 / 11; University of Southern Utah - 29 / 29; University of Wyoming - 36 /
36;

Duquesne Debate Tournament
Allegheny College - 0 / 22; Boston College - 0 / 37; Catholic University -
21 / 70; Clarion University - 0 / 33; Clemson University - 11 / 26; Duquesne
University - 0 / 8; George Mason University - 0 / 49; John Carroll
University - 0 / 24; Liberty University - 16 / 75; University of
Pittsburgh - 32 / 55; Wake Forest University - 0 / 28; Wayne State
University - 31 / 31; West Virginia University - 0 / 32;

Fresno State
Bakersfield Community College - 0 / 11; Biola University - 11 / 22; Cal
Polytechnic State University - 15 / 42; Cal. State Unv. - Bakersfield - 40 /
40; Cal. State Unv. - Los Angeles - 11 / 11; Cal. State. Univ.-Chico - 32 /
34; College of Eastern Utah - 0 / 28; Fresno State University - 0 / 20;
Pepperdine University - 12 / 12; Sacramento State University - 0 / 11; San
Diego State University - 15 / 15; San Francisco State - 33 / 33; San Jose
State University - 0 / 9; Santa Rosa Junior College - 0 / 40; University of
California-Berkeley - 59 / 59; University of Southern Utah - 11 / 11;

Johnson County Community College
Central Oklahoma University - 12 / 41; Emporia University - 38 / 43; Fort
Hays State College - 19 / 19; Johnson County CC - 12 / 12; Kansas State
University - 36 / 36; Sam Houston University - 16 / 16; Southwest Texas
State - 41 / 41; SW Missouri State University - 38 / 38; University of
Kansas - 49 / 49; University of Missouri-Kansas City - 26 / 26; University
of North Texas - 57 / 57; Wichita State University - 33 / 33; William Jewell
College - 38 / 49;

King's College
Allegheny College - 11 / 22; Binghamton University - 0 / 23; Boston
College - 22 / 42; Catholic University - 54 / 76; Clarion University - 0 /
31; Columbia University - 11 / 11; Cornell University - 15 / 75; Duquesne
University - 0 / 8; George Mason University - 25 / 37; George Washington
University - 15 / 15; James Madison University - 29 / 29; John Carroll
University - 38 / 60; Liberty University - 35 / 77; Marist College - 0 / 8;
Mary Washington College - 11 / 20; Methodist College - 0 / 22; New York
University - 0 / 41; Penn State University - 26 / 48; Trinity University -
16 / 27; U. S. Military Academy - 20 / 24; U. S. Naval Academy - 11 / 42;
University of Pittsburgh - 52 / 67; University of Rochester - 9 / 24; Wayne
State University - 12 / 34; West Virginia University - 0 / 56;

Lewis and Clark
Albertson College - 0 / 9; Cal. State Unv. - Bakersfield - 12 / 12; Cal.
State. Univ.-Chico - 24 / 24; Gonzaga University - 44 / 62; Idaho State
University - 0 / 24; Lewis & Clark College - 30 / 30; Santa Clara
University - 0 / 11; Seattle University - 0 / 31; University of Miami-FL -
16 / 16; University of Oregon - 11 / 23; University of Puget Sound - 15 /
48; Weber State University - 23 / 23; Western Washington University - 29 /
29; Whitman College - 47 / 47;

Louisiana State University
Morehouse College - 20 / 31; South Eastern Louisiana - 39 / 42; University
of Southern Illinois - 0 / 15; Vanderbilt University - 20 / 24;

National Round Robin Debates-USC
Arizona State University - 13 / 13; Emory University - 37 / 37; Mercer
University - 8 / 8; Michigan State University - 24 / 24; Middle Tennessee
State University - 9 / 9; University of Alabama - 35 / 35; University of
Miami-FL - 9 / 9; University of South Carolina - 13 / 13; University of
Southern California - 19 / 19; University of Vermont - 11 / 11; Wake Forest
University - 20 / 20; West Georgia College - 13 / 13;

Pepperdine University
Arizona State University - 33 / 44; Biola University - 9 / 20; Cal
Polytechnic State University - 11 / 24; Cal. State Unv. - Bakersfield - 24 /
24; Cal. State Unv. - Fullerton - 38 / 48; Cal. State Unv. - Longbeach - 11
/ 20; Cal. State Unv. - Los Angeles - 11 / 27; Cal. State. Univ.-Chico - 23
/ 29; College of Eastern Utah - 12 / 54; Fresno State University - 0 / 32;
Gonzaga University - 30 / 30; Idaho State University - 0 / 44; Loyola
Marymount University - 17 / 17; Middle Tennessee State University - 11 / 11;
Pace University - 52 / 52; Palomar University - 0 / 11; Sacramento State
University - 0 / 38; San Diego State University - 11 / 22; San Francisco
State - 11 / 45; Southwest Texas State - 28 / 28; Trinity University - 12 /
21; University of California-Berkeley - 53 / 53; University of Iowa - 39 /
39; University of Southern California - 39 / 39; University of Southern
Utah - 11 / 28; University of Texas - San Antonio - 0 / 40; Weber State
University - 15 / 15;

Ricks College
Casper College - 31 / 31; Idaho State University - 32 / 32; Northwest CC -
14 / 14;

Sam Houston State Tournament
Abilene Christian University - 24 / 24; Angelo State University - 12 / 12;
Cameron University - 24 / 24; Louisiana State University - 11 / 11; South
Eastern Louisiana - 37 / 37; Southwest Texas State - 43 / 43; University of
Texas - San Antonio - 12 / 12; University of Texas-Dallas - 62 / 62;

San Diego State
Arizona State University - 25 / 32; Biola University - 21 / 21; Cal. State
Unv. - Bakersfield - 24 / 24; Cal. State Unv. - Fullerton - 44 / 44; Cal.
State Unv. - Longbeach - 24 / 24; Cal. State Unv. - Los Angeles - 20 / 20;
LA City College - 9 / 9; Loyola Marymount University - 18 / 18; Palomar
University - 9 / 9; Pasadena City College - 0 / 12; Pepperdine University -
34 / 34; South Orange County - 0 / 29; University of Southern California -
57 / 57; University of Southern Utah - 12 / 12; University of Utah - 12 /
12;

Santa Rosa Junior College
Cal Polytechnic State University - 24 / 31; Cal. State. Univ.-Chico - 29 /
29; Diablo Valley CC - 25 / 25; Fresno State University - 11 / 11; Los Rios
CC - 29 / 29; Sacramento State University - 0 / 46; San Francisco State - 12
/ 21; San Jose State University - 0 / 12; Santa Rosa Junior College - 0 /
27; Vanderbilt University - 37 / 52;

South Carolina Earlybird
Arizona State University - 45 / 45; Emory University - 54 / 54; Georgetown
University - 33 / 39; Georgia State University - 16 / 16; Mercer
University - 22 / 38; University of Alabama - 47 / 47; University of
Georgia - 32 / 32; University of Miami-FL - 20 / 20; University of Southern
California - 35 / 35; University of Vermont - 30 / 34; West Georgia
College - 42 / 42;

Southern Utah University
Arizona State University - 24 / 24; Cal. State Unv. - Bakersfield - 41 / 41;
Casper College - 0 / 35; College of Eastern Utah - 11 / 37; Eastern New
Mexico University - 0 / 8; Idaho State University - 0 / 35; University of
Utah - 12 / 23; University of Wyoming - 9 / 9; Weber State University - 25 /
25;

Southwest Missouri State
Baylor University - 9 / 21; Central Oklahoma University - 23 / 23; Cornell
University - 26 / 26; Emory University - 43 / 43; Emporia University - 23 /
46; Johnson County CC - 15 / 27; Kansas State University - 17 / 57;
Macalaster College - 11 / 11; University of Alabama - 34 / 44; University of
Kansas - 32 / 32; University of Missouri-Kansas City - 68 / 68; University
of Texas-Austin - 47 / 47; Wichita State University - 26 / 44; William
Jewell College - 21 / 21;

Tennessee State
Arkansas Tech University - 0 / 41; Capital University - 0 / 27; Clemson
University - 12 / 24; Cumberland University - 9 / 30; Idaho State
University - 0 / 54; Johnson C. Smith University - 0 / 11; Louisiana State
University - 0 / 22; Marshall University - 12 / 24; Morehouse College - 0 /
36; South Eastern Louisiana - 0 / 67; Tennessee Tech - 0 / 21; Towson State
University - 23 / 23; University of Alabama - 0 / 53; University of
Arkansas - 30 / 38; University of Florida - 29 / 30; University of
Louisville - 0 / 24; University of Tennesee - 0 / 11; Valdosta State
University - 0 / 11; Vanderbilt University - 12 / 47;

University of Kentucky
Augustana College, IL. - 21 / 21; Baylor University - 22 / 22; Catholic
University - 22 / 22; Concordia College - 10 / 10; Dartmouth University - 35
/ 35; Emory University - 78 / 78; Florida State Univerisity - 10 / 10; Fort
Hays State College - 22 / 22; George Mason University - 22 / 22; Georgetown
University - 25 / 25; Georgia State University - 22 / 22; Gonzaga
University - 33 / 33; Harvard University - 23 / 23; Illinois State
University - 12 / 12; Kansas State University - 17 / 17; Michigan State
University - 30 / 30; Northwestern University - 24 / 24; Pace University -
34 / 34; Samford University - 24 / 24; SW Missouri State University - 25 /
25; University of California-Berkeley - 25 / 25; University of Georgia - 24
/ 24; University of Iowa - 61 / 61; University of Kansas - 42 / 42;
University of Kentucky - 9 / 9; University of Louisville - 34 / 34;
University of Michigan - 46 / 46; University of Missouri-Kansas City - 30 /
30; University of Missouri-St. Louis - 8 / 8; University of North Texas - 23
/ 23; University of Pittsburgh - 23 / 23; University of Southern
California - 47 / 47; University of Southern Illinois - 17 / 17; University
of Texas-Austin - 38 / 38; Wake Forest University - 51 / 51; Wayne State
University - 21 / 21; West Georgia College - 42 / 42;

University of Northern Iowa
Augustana College, IL. - 26 / 26; Baylor University - 32 / 32; Cal. State
Unv. - Fullerton - 20 / 20; Case Western Reserve U. - 16 / 16; Concordia
College - 11 / 24; Eastern New Mexico University - 9 / 9; Emory University -
60 / 60; Emporia University - 11 / 59; Florida State Univerisity - 9 / 9;
Fort Hays State College - 24 / 24; George Mason University - 22 / 22;
Gonzaga University - 16 / 16; Illinois State University - 11 / 21; John
Carroll University - 22 / 23; Johnson County CC - 11 / 22; Kansas State
University - 21 / 21; Liberty University - 23 / 23; Macalaster College - 25
/ 25; Miami University, OH - 10 / 21; Michigan State University - 48 / 48;
Northwestern University - 43 / 43; Pace University - 29 / 29; Samford
University - 22 / 22; SW Missouri State University - 23 / 23; U. S. Naval
Academy - 22 / 22; University of California-Berkeley - 28 / 28; University
of Chicago - 10 / 10; University of Iowa - 60 / 60; University of Kansas -
57 / 61; University of Kentucky - 45 / 45; University of Louisville - 33 /
33; University of Michigan - 51 / 51; University of Michigan-Dearborn - 9 /
9; University of Missouri-Kansas City - 40 / 52; University of Pittsburgh -
23 / 23; University of Southern California - 31 / 31; University of
Texas-Austin - 42 / 42; University of Vermont - 12 / 12; University of
Wyoming - 0 / 23; Wake Forest University - 43 / 43; Wayne State University -
22 / 22; Wichita State University - 12 / 12; William Jewell College - 11 /
11;

University of Oregon
Gonzaga University - 23 / 25; Lewis & Clark College - 53 / 53; University of
Oregon - 25 / 27; University of Puget Sound - 32 / 37; University of
Seattle - 0 / 31; Western Washington University - 21 / 23; Whitman College -
49 / 59;

University of Richmond
Binghamton University - 20 / 20; Boston College - 0 / 43; Catholic
University - 20 / 68; George Mason University - 0 / 37; Johnson C. Smith
University - 0 / 23; King's College - 0 / 31; Liberty University - 27 / 68;
Mansfield University - 0 / 21; Mary Washington College - 8 / 19; Towson
State University - 12 / 23; Trinity University - 0 / 20; U. S. Naval
Academy - 18 / 37; University of Pittsburgh - 17 / 17; University of
Richmond - 0 / 9; University of Virginia - 0 / 17; Wake Forest University -
0 / 33; West Virginia University - 0 / 43;

Valdosta State
Florida Community College - Jacksonville - 0 / 36; Florida State
Univerisity - 18 / 18; Morehouse College - 9 / 27; South Eastern Louisiana -
13 / 24; University of Florida - 11 / 24; University of Tennesee - 19 / 19;
Valdosta State University - 11 / 11;

West Point
Binghamton University - 18 / 18; Boston College - 0 / 50; Columbia
University - 12 / 23; Cornell University - 46 / 58; Duke University - 24 /
24; Duquesne University - 0 / 11; Hillsdale College - 0 / 38; King's
College - 0 / 29; Liberty University - 52 / 55; Marist College - 0 / 22; New
York University - 11 / 11; Penn State University - 11 / 32; Towson State
University - 17 / 31; U. S. Military Academy - 0 / 13; U. S. Naval Academy -
9 / 30; University of Richmond - 0 / 28; University of Rochester - 22 / 62;
University of Vermont - 8 / 39; Vanderbilt University - 12 / 45;

Western Washington Scrimmage
Gonzaga University - 28 / 28; Lewis & Clark College - 30 / 30; Seattle
University - 22 / 22; University of Oregon - 23 / 23; University of Puget
Sound - 25 / 25; Western Washington University - 25 / 25; Whitman College -
31 / 31;



Liberty University Debate

>From  Mon Nov 15 18:17:20 1999
Message-Id: <MON.15.NOV.1999.181720.0500.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 48963 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 18:17:38
 -0500
Precedence: bulk
Received: from smtp1.erols.com (smtp1.erols.com [207.172.3.234]) by
 list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA32644 for
 <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 18:17:32 -0500
Received: from erols.com (216-164-226-40.s294.tnt5.nyw.ny.dialup.rcn.com
 [216.164.226.40]) by smtp1.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id
 SAA18915 for <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 18:17:13 -0500
 (EST)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; I; PPC)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <3830947F.9C330157 at erols.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 18:17:20 -0500
Reply-To: a.dove at erols.com
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Alan Dove <a.dove at EROLS.COM>
Organization: Nature
Subject: Gotham Debates - Form Working Again

Hey, folks:

Okay, three messages from Alan about one subject.  Sorry for the
excessive use of bandwidth.  The Web form for Gotham Debates entries is
online and working again.

          --Alan

--
__________
Alan Dove, Ph.D.
N3IMU
http://www.erols.com/a.dove/



From m010735  Mon Nov 15 17:22:06 1999
From: m010735 (Michael Lee Bruno)
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 18:22:06 -0500
Subject: US Naval Academy Tournament Invite Jan 27-30
Message-ID: <MON.15.NOV.1999.182206.0500.M010735@NADN.NAVY.MIL>

Dear Colleague,

You are cordially invited to enter the Forty-second Annual Naval Academy
Debate Tournament which will be held January 27-30,2000.  We hope that
you and your debaters will join us for a weekend in Annapolis.

The tournament will be governed by the rules of the American Debate
Association.  If you are unfamiliar with them, we will be happy to send
you a copy.

There will be six preliminary rounds of debate (on the national topic)
followed by elimination rounds beginning with quarter-finals or
octo-finals - in varsity, junior varsity and novice divisions of
two-person, switch-side debate.  All debates will use the 9-3-6 format,
with ten minutes of preparation time for each team.  We are making the
shift to six rounds reluctantly.  Sampson and Mahan Halls are currently
undergoing complete interior renovation,  so the Academy does not have
sufficient classrooms available until later in the afternoon.

The novice division is open to debaters who have debated in fewer than
eighteen rounds of debate, in high school or college, prior to this
academic year or otherwise meet the eligibility rules of the ADA.

Junior division is open to debaters who:  (1) are in their first or
second year of college debate or, (2) qualified as a novice debater when
entering college and are in their first, second or third years of
college debate or otherwise meet the eligibility rules of the ADA.

We have only a limited number of rooms, but we will try to  accommodate
as many teams as you wish to enter.  The deadline for entering is
January 24, 2000, but early responses will be appreciated.  The
registration fee is $40.00 for each participant (coaches, debaters and
observers).  Please make checks payable to:  USNA Forensic Activity.

Each school is obligated to provide a qualified critic to judge three
preliminary rounds for each team it enters in the tournament and who
will be available to judge one round (two, if we break to octos) beyond
the school's elimination from the tournament.  We are unable to hold
double octos. A very limited number of hired judges will be available at
$75 per two-person team.

Permanent trophies will be awarded to all teams advancing to the quarter
final rounds and to the top ten individual speakers in each division.
The John Jay Pierpont Trophy, an eighteenth
century silver cup, will he presented to the school winning the varsity
division, so it can be displayed by that school for one year.

We have arranged with the Wyndham Garden Hotel for special room rates of
$60.00 per night plus tax - for up to two people. For three or four
persons, add an additional $10.00 per person.  Please contact the
Wyndham directly.  Its toll-free number is 1-800-351-9209 or
410-266-3131. Be sure to mention that you are attending the Naval
Academy Debate Tournament.  THE WYNDHAM WILL HOLD OUR BLOCK OF ROOMS
ONLY UNTIL JANUARY 13,2000.  Tournament registration and the coach's
meetings will be at the Wyndham.

We want to make your visit in Annapolis a pleasant one and we will make
every effort to eliminate as much tournament hassle as possible.
However, we need to introduce you to some rules and regulations in
effect in this military environment.  (1) The Navy has proclaimed NO
SMOKING in any of its buildings.  Sorry, smoking outside only.  (2)
Tournament participants who are of legal age may visit the Officers and
Faculty Club.  Appropriate dress for the Club is coat and tie in the
upstairs lounge.  Jeans or other casual wear is not allowed anywhere in
the Club.  If you wish a more casual atmosphere, we will provide you
with information on nearby establishments.

If you have any questions, please contact me at 410-293-6154 (fax:
410-293-3493 email: morrow at usna.edu).  You may also contact the Debate
Team Officer Representative, CDR Brad Taylor at 410~V293-6132 (email:
btaylor at usna.edu).

     Sincerely,




     Michael G. Morrow
     Tournament Coordinator FORTY-SECOND NAVAL ACADEMY DEBATE TOURNAMENT

 JANUARY 27-30, 2000


Thursday, January 27
6:00 PM - 10:30 PM Early Registration, Wyndham Garden


Friday, January 28
12:00-3:00 Registration, Rickover Hall
3:30 General Meeting, Rickover Hall
4:00 Round one
6:15 Round two
9:00 Dinner - on your own
10:00 Coaches Reception, Wyndham



Saturday, January 29
7:30 Continental Breakfast, Rickover Hall
8:00 Parings Distributed
8:30 Round three
10:45 Round four
1:00 Lunch, Rickover Hall
2:00 Round five
4:15 Round six
7:30 Banquet, King Hall
9:30 Coaches Reception, Wyndham


Sunday, January 30

7:30 Continental Breakfast, Rickover Hall
7:45 Parings Distributed
8:00 Elimination Rounds Begin

  FORTY-SECOND NAVAL ACADEMY DEBATE TOURNAMENT

 JANUARY 27-30, 2000


WILL YOU NEED TO HIRE JUDGES?   YES______  NO_______


NUMBER OF TEAMS   ______  X  $75   =    ______________


TOTAL NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS_____ X $40 ____________


TOTAL FEE _____________
FORTY-SECOND NAVAL ACADEMY DEBATE TOURNAMENT
 JANUARY 27-30,2000

SCHOOL_________________________________________TELEPHONE________________

DIRECTOR______________________________EMAIL______________________________

MAILING
ADDRESS__________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________

PLEASE GIVE US FIRST AND LAST NAMES.
VARSITY:  TEAM A__________________________AND__________________________
           TEAM B__________________________AND__________________________

           TEAM C__________________________AND__________________________

           TEAM D__________________________AND__________________________

JUNIOR:   TEAM A__________________________AND__________________________
           TEAM B__________________________AND__________________________

           TEAM C__________________________AND__________________________

           TEAM D__________________________AND__________________________

NOVICE:   TEAM A__________________________AND__________________________
           TEAM B__________________________AND__________________________

           TEAM C__________________________AND__________________________

           TEAM D__________________________AND__________________________

JUDGE:  1_______________________________SPECIAL
REQUESTS_________________

________________________________________________________________________

JUDGE:  2_______________________________SPECIAL
REQUESTS_________________

________________________________________________________________________

JUDGE:  3_______________________________SPECIAL
REQUESTS_________________

________________________________________________________________________

JUDGE:  4_______________________________SPECIAL
REQUESTS_________________

________________________________________________________________________
FORTY-SECOND NAVAL ACADEMY DEBATE TOURNAMENT
 JANUARY 27-30, 2000


 DIRECTIONS TO THE WYNDHAM GARDEN


Coming from the East on Route 50 - Take the Jennifer Road Exit - the off
ramp forks - take the fork to the right -  at the light turn left - the
Wyndham Garden will be on your left at the third  light into Restaurant
Park.  The hotel is located directly behind the restaurants.

Coming from the West on Route 50 - Take the 450/Parole exit - stay to
the right - go through the yield sign (this is West Street) - at the
second traffic light turn right onto Jennifer Road - make a right turn
at the first right into Restaurant Park.  The hotel is located directly
behind the restaurants.
You will see the Wyndham on the left just before you leave Route 50.



 DIRECTIONS TO THE NAVAL ACADEMY


>From the Wyndham - As you leave the hotel turn left at the light - go to
the first light and turn left - take the Route 50 east exit  - take the
Rowe Boulevard Exit (the exit divides - stay right) - once on Rowe move
to your left - you will pass three traffic lights - continue until you
reach the "T" turn - turn left onto College Ave - at the first traffic
light turn right - at the first light turn left onto Maryland Avenue -
drive onto Academy grounds and proceed straight ahead to the parking lot
at the end of Maryland Avenue.  Mahan Hall is at the end of the walk
from the parking lot.  You may park there, if there are open spaces.  If
not, take Maryland Avenue to the first street and turn right and then
turn left at the second street and into the big parking lot - spaces
will be reserved there.


>From Route 50 - Take the Rowe Boulevard Exit - (the exit divides - stay
right) - once on Rowe move to your left - you will pass three traffic
lights - continue until you reach the "T" turn - turn left onto College
Ave - at the first traffic light turn right - at the first light turn
left onto Maryland Avenue - drive onto Academy grounds and proceed
straight ahead to the parking lot at the end of Maryland Avenue.  You
may park there, if there are open spaces.  If not, take Maryland Avenue
to the first street and turn right and then turn left at the second
street and into the big parking lot - spaces will be reserved there.

>From  Mon Nov 15 19:14:03 1999
Message-Id: <MON.15.NOV.1999.191403.EST.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 49432 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 19:14:43
 -0500
Precedence: bulk
Received: from imo-d02.mx.aol.com (imo-d02.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.34]) by
 list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA33658 for
 <EDEBATE at list.uvm.edu>; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 19:14:40 -0500
Received: from JoeCarver at aol.com by imo-d02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.4.) id
 n.0.251bd051 (3967) for <EDEBATE at list.uvm.edu>; Mon, 15 Nov 1999
 19:14:03 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 243
Message-ID: <0.251bd051.2561fbcb at aol.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 19:14:03 EST
Reply-To: JoeCarver at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Joe Carver <JoeCarver at AOL.COM>
Subject: Glen Frappier

Please backchannel at your earlist convenience.

Joe Carver
CEU Debate



From rchurch  Mon Nov 15 18:23:31 1999
From: rchurch (Russell Church)
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 18:23:31 -0600
Subject: Need to Contact Jeff Bile
Message-ID: <MON.15.NOV.1999.182331.0600.RCHURCH@MTSU.EDU>

 Could someone send me an email address?  Thanks!

 Regards,

 Russell Church
 Chair
 Speech & Theatre
 Voice:  615-898-2640
 Fax:  615-898-5826

 Cell phone:  615-579-6914

 DO RESEARCH ON LEXIS NEXIS UNIVERSE!
 http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe

 SPEECH & THEATRE
 http://www.mtsu.edu/~libarts/claspeechtheat.html

 VISIT THE MTSU DEBATE TEAM HOME PAGE!
 http://www.mtsu.edu/~debate/

 MID-SOUTH DEBATE INSTITUTE
 http://www.mtsu.edu/~msdi

 SEARCHING FOR GRAD PROGRAMS IN COMMUNICATION STUDIES
 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 PROGRAMS
 http://www.mtsu.edu/~libarts/africanamerican.html



From echoi  Mon Nov 15 19:06:08 1999
From: echoi (Eun Young Choi)
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 20:06:08 -0500
Subject: Fwd Request:  Bradt Re:  Harvard HS Round Robin
Message-ID: <MON.15.NOV.1999.200608.0500.ECHOI@FAS.HARVARD.EDU>

Sorry for the Bandwidth.  Please help Andrew out!  Thanks a bunch.

eyc



---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 19:58:49 -0500 (EST)
From: Andrew Bradt <bradt at fas.harvard.edu>
To: Eun Young Choi <echoi at fas.harvard.edu>
Subject: favor.


EYC-- could you please post this to edebate?

Dear Debate People.

I was wondering if any of you (debaters and coaches) were former
participants/have attended the harvard round robin for high schools and
could fill me in on who won in past years.  I am trying to compile a list
of past champions for this year's round robin, and since many of you have
been attending/have attended the tournament as either a debater or a judge
for many years, I was hoping you might be able to fill in some gaps for
me.

Any help you could offer would be much appreciated.

Please respond to the following address:

bradt at fas.harvard.edu

Best,
Andrew Bradt
Harvard



From osdip  Mon Nov 15 19:46:39 1999
From: osdip (Ben Osborne)
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 17:46:39 PST
Subject: Topic Paper Question
Message-ID: <MON.15.NOV.1999.174639.PST.OSDIP@HOTMAIL.COM>

Just a general question, we MTSU folk are thinking of writing and submitting
a topic paper this year (if we still can) or next year. Just wanted to know
when the deadline is this year and who to contact regarding writing one.
Thanks!
Ben Osborne
MTSU

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

>From  Mon Nov 15 20:19:07 1999
Message-Id: <MON.15.NOV.1999.201907.0600.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 50632 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 21:24:51
 -0500
Precedence: bulk
Received: from ccis01.baylor.edu (ccis01.baylor.edu [129.62.1.18]) by
 list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA28928 for
 <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 21:24:49 -0500
Received: from [129.62.132.168] (debate-forum-2.baylor.edu [129.62.132.168]) by
 ccis01.baylor.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id UAA09965 for
 <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 20:24:43 -0600 (CST)
X-Authenticated: <Joseph_Coppola at ccis01.baylor.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Message-ID: <MailDrop1.2d7j-PPC.991115201907 at debate-forum-2.baylor.edu>
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 20:19:07 -0600
Reply-To: Joseph_Coppola at BAYLOR.EDU
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Joseph Coppola <Joseph_Coppola at BAYLOR.EDU>
Subject: MSU only
In-Reply-To: <0.367dfe5d.2561d7fb at aol.com>

Could someonefrom Michigan State email us their cites to their pesticides Da
and Rice Da from UCO thanks a lot.

>From  Mon Nov 15 21:31:32 1999
Message-Id: <MON.15.NOV.1999.213132.EST.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 50756 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 21:32:23
 -0500
Precedence: bulk
Received: from imo-d01.mx.aol.com (imo-d01.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.33]) by
 list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA12854 for
 <EDEBATE at list.uvm.edu>; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 21:32:22 -0500
Received: from Davismk13 at aol.com by imo-d01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.4.) id
 n.0.10b94f87 (4505) for <EDEBATE at list.uvm.edu>; Mon, 15 Nov 1999
 21:31:33 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 45
Message-ID: <0.10b94f87.25621c04 at aol.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 21:31:32 EST
Reply-To: Davismk13 at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Mike Davis <Davismk13 at AOL.COM>
Subject: Africa Topic Paper

I am compiling an Africa topic paper. Here's how I am doing it- I have
several volunteers who have offered to write portions of the topic paper
(Ede, Overby and Helwich). If there are other people who are interested in
helping out please let me know. Here's what I'm looking for: I would like
each person to write a portion of the paper and then I will do the compiling
and filling any spots that aren't covered by the sections I collect. I am
hoping that people can send me these portions by the beginning of January.
This would give me enough time to put everything together before the
deadline. Please let me know if you are interested in helping and what sort
of areas you would like to write about.

Mike Davis



From stannardmatt  Mon Nov 15 20:51:50 1999
From: stannardmatt (matt stannard)
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 18:51:50 PST
Subject: mike bauer
Message-ID: <MON.15.NOV.1999.185150.PST.STANNARDMATT@HOTMAIL.COM>

Mike, I lost your email address, but I wanted you to know I got the fax.
Thanks!

stannard

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

>From  Mon Nov 15 22:19:03 1999
Message-Id: <MON.15.NOV.1999.221903.EST.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 51040 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 22:20:06
 -0500
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 WAA28728 for
 <EDEBATE at list.uvm.edu>; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 22:20:04 -0500
Received: from Davismk13 at aol.com by imo11.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.4.) id
 n.0.71dfa3e9 (4505) for <EDEBATE at list.uvm.edu>; Mon, 15 Nov 1999
 22:19:03 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 45
Message-ID: <0.71dfa3e9.25622727 at aol.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 22:19:03 EST
Reply-To: Davismk13 at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Mike Davis <Davismk13 at AOL.COM>
Subject: Africa Topic Paper - I'm out of the loop

I was just told that an Africa Topic Paper was presented at NCA. I will
obviously not be writing one now and am not looking for volunteers. We should
all support this very worthy topic. Could whomever wrote this paper please
forward it to the list.

Mike Davis



From hlw267s  Mon Nov 15 21:24:32 1999
From: hlw267s (Heather Walters)
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 21:24:32 -0600
Subject: TOPIC PAPER:  SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA
Message-ID: <MON.15.NOV.1999.212432.0600.HLW267S@MAIL.SMSU.EDU>

Enclosed is a copy of the Africa topic paper that Martin and I presented at
NCA.  We have had other ideas on the topic that aren't included in this
version, but wanted to take this opportunity for community input as well.


AFRICA TOPIC PAPER

HEATHER WALTERS AND MARTIN HARRIS
SOUTHWEST MISSOURI STATE UNIVERSITY

I.  INTRODUCTION

        Over five years ago, President Clinton and other leaders participated in the
first White House Conference on Africa.  During this conference, Clinton
proclaimed that "in the post cold-war and post-apartheid world...we have
a...new responsibility to see Africa--to see it whole, to see it in specific
nations and specific problems and specific promise...we must develop a policy
[toward Africa] that...will lead to a safer and more prosperous world, a
better life for them and a better life for us" (Rice, May 13 1999).  Years
later, however, there is still tremendous need in Africa.  For decades, Africa
has been devastated by economic crisis, political instability, and disease.
It is home to many of the nations that the United Nations lists as the 25
poorest nations in the world (Robinson, 1999).  The countries in Africa are
attempting to fight back against great adversity by developing plans for an
"African renaissance" (Robinson, 1999).  There is still a good chance, though,
that the needs of Africa will grow worse before they get better.  This could
have grave implications for both Africa and the rest of the world.  Clearly,
"as we enter the new millennium, Africa will matter more and more to America
and Americans," twelve percent of whom can trace their roots to the continent
of Africa (Robinson, 1999).  These issues should be and deserve to be
discussed by this college debate community in 2000-2001.
        This paper will provide an overview of Africa as a topic area and why it
needs to be debated, discuss several relevant issues for affirmative and
negative ground, and provide outlines for potential resolutions within the
topic area.  The remainder of the paper will be divided into three sections.
Section 2 will discuss some context for issues affecting the continent of
Africa, why this topic is important, and potential argument areas within the
topic.  Section three will outline some possibilities for resolutions on the
topic.  Section four is a preliminary bibliography on the topic which should
demonstrate the ease in locating relevant information as well the timeliness
of the issues discussed within the paper.

II.  CONTEXT

        Basic concepts of development assistance were developed to help nations like
those in Africa back in the 1960's (Rieff, 1998).  Unfortunately, the needs
facing these nations have not gone away.  Errol Hendersen of the University of
Florida has explained the situation on the continent as "framed by the triple
challenges of democracy, development, and defense" (1997).  Several issues
exist within these categories that would provide viable ground for debate
should this be chosen as the topic area.
        One of the obvious issues facing the continent is that approximately 20% of
Sub-saharan Africa's population is affected by prolonged and devastating civil
wars.  There are several major conflicts in Africa either still in progress or
with just-reached and fragile peace agreements.  These conflicts are in
Angola, Democratic Republic of Congo, Sierra Leone, Ethiopia-Eritrea, Sudan,
Nigeria.  Still more countries are plagued with lower level conflicts or the
aftermath thereof, including Somalia, Burundi, Rwanda and Uganda (among
others).  All told, these conflicts have claimed nearly eight million lives,
about one quarter of those have been children (BIR, 1999).  Additionally, most
of those deaths have occurred in the last decade, or since the last Africa
topic was debated.  This paper will discuss a few of these conflicts in order
to give some specific background in considering this topic and which countries
to include in a topic.

        Angola--The country of Angola has recently reached a fragile peace agreement
and is attempting to bring an end to a brutal civil war that has plagued this
nation for twenty-five years, ever since it gained its independence in 1975.
Nearly 500,000 people have been killed in this civil war.  Humanitarian
conditions have deteriorated and many die every day as a result of hunger,
disease, and other effects of the war.  As of now, peace agreements have been
reached and the UN has sent 30 civilians to monitor the situation in Angola
(UN presence, 1999).  But, this peace is fragile, Angola is considering
acquiring large amounts of military equipment, and there are many humanitarian
issues yet to be resolved.

        Nigeria--This country is the most populous country in Sub-Saharan Africa and
West Africa's most dominant military power.  Economic and environmental issues
currently threaten the stability of the democracy now emerging in Nigeria.
Some argue that the country is on the brink of a civil war which could erase
the progress that the country has made toward stability and democracy
(Fleshman, 1999).  This country also faces issues of how to deal with
corruption and drug trafficking.

        Dem. Rep. of Congo--The conflict in the Congo "is the widest inter-state war
in Africa in modern history, involving at least nine nations, numerous
insurgent organizations, and more than 50,000 combatants.  It continues to
threaten to destabilize a broad swath of Africa--from the Red Sea to the
Atlantic Ocean" (Rice, Jan 30 1999).  Over one million people have been
displaced because of this war and one-fifth of the country's population are
suffering from extreme food shortages.  The Lusaka peace accords provide some
framework for ending this conflict, but scholars now fear that the accord
won't be properly implemented and the cease-fire could end (Santoro, 1999).

        Sierra Leone--This country's eight year civil war "sparked some of the worst
human rights violations on the planet" (Kempster, 1999).  A peace agreement
was signed in July, however, the country is still extremely dangerous and the
future of peace is perilous.  In addition, the country is suffering severe
infrastructure damage and economic decline. Furthermore, the country must face
important issues regarding its child soldiers as it tries to reintegrate these
traumatized children into society.


        There are at least two arguments that people might make against dealing with
African civil wars in this debate topic.  Some may claim that while these wars
have some humanitarian impact, African countries don't have "nuclear weapons"
so we need not be concerned.  This isn't necessarily the case, not only do the
humanitarian impacts deserve debate but there other security issues at stake
as well. Africa is one of, if not the hottest market for conventional arms
purchases and these weapons go directly into combat zones to further conflict
(Rice, 1999).  This proliferation serves to prolong and make conflict more
lethal on the continent that has more armed conflict than any other (BIR,
1999).  Some authors claim that we have more to worry about from these
conflicts than from WMD conflicts because these conventional weapons in these
type of civil wars have actually killed more people throughout history than
actual "weapons of mass destruction."
        Others may claim that the situation with these civil wars and sometimes
accompanying peace accords make the situation too volatile to effectively
debate.  However, it definitely should be possible to debate about the issues
in these countries no matter the peace accords.  There are likely to be
several issues in the aftermath/rebuilding after these conflicts that are just
as open to debate on whichever resolution is chosen.  For example, Somalia is
still suffering a prolonged humanitarian crisis despite the fact that major
conflict isn't currently the issue in that particular country.
        Of course, there are many other issues that could be discussed in addition
to/besides civil war.  Another example of a potential harm area involves
diseases, ie. AIDS.  The average life expectancy in Africa today is 51 years
of age (Dugan, 1999).  This number has declined, in large part, due to the
growing AIDS pandemic sweeping the continent.  Alarmingly, nearly 83% of all
AIDS-related deaths have occurred in Sub-Saharan Africa and the number of AIDS
cases in Africa continues to increase (Dugan, 1999).  The annual budget
devoted to dealing with such diseases in these countries is hopelessly low and
the social structure, in some cases, hasn't advanced enough to be able to deal
with the issues surrounding the disease either (Dugan, 1999).  And, there are
other diseases affecting Africa besides AIDS, like Ebola, malaria, etc.--all
communicable and which could possibly threaten other nations as well (Rice,
1999).
        Dealing with high population growth rates, environmental decline, and
agricultural productivity issues will be key to the future of Africa.  Food
security and available land are needed to avoid famine (Carter, 1999).
Agricultural development could be key to developing economies and to peace in
these regions.  Further damage to Africa's ecosystem could effect climate
conditions, disease spread, and cause environmental disaster worldwide.
        Also, today "four out of ten Africans live below the poverty line, on barely
one dollar a day" (Robinson, 1999).  Increased trade/investment/aid could
alleviate this economic stress and also possibly decrease the amount of civil
unrest on the continent as well.
        The point, of course, being that there are several different areas of harm
that could be debated on an Africa topic.  Civil war, disease, population
growth, environmental issues, agricultural productivity, etc.
        This topic area also provides plenty of potential ground for the negative.
This includes multiple counterplans, disadvantages, and critique
opportunities. There is ample literature and debate to be had about whether
the United States or some other regional organization is the best actor to
deal with the issues facing Africa in the next century.  These include
regional organizations such as the Southern African Development Community, The
East African Community, and the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa.
 Each of these organizations is becoming a growing force for dealing with
issues of economic growth and development in Africa.  Alternate actors could
also be other countries, NGO's, other charitable organizations, and the United
Nations.  Counterplans could completely disengage from Africa, use different
aid mechanisms, etc.
        There is substantial disadvantage ground.  There is always the political
genre of disadvantage.  This topic can also have sovereignty linked disads,
economy disads, hegemony disads, trade/investment linked positions,
competitiveness, and aid dependency arguments.
        Framework/critique arguments would be an option for debaters on this topic.
These arguments could be linked to development, cultural imperialism, human
rights, military intervention, sovereignty, etc.
        Africa is a topic area that this community needs to debate.  The issues
affecting the continent are clearly important to debate, the impacts to the
harms areas speak for themselves on that point. Unfortunately, these issues
have been largely ignored by US leadership, and perhaps that has been what has
led to our community ignoring these issues as well.  It is time that the
community learn about and discuss these important issues facing these
forgotten nations.  In other regions of the world these issues come up and are
widely discussed and immediately dealt with, often sparing no expense in the
process.  Why do we not respond in the same way to these issues in Africa as
we do to these issues when they are affecting countries in Europe or Asia.
This is something the debate community should be concerned about.  Those who
pride themselves on dealing with injustice everywhere, debating a diversity of
arguments, and general concepts of inclusion--this topic should be important
to you.  If why the community should debate a topic such as Africa isn't
immediately apparent to you, perhaps you should question why you want to again
discuss the same issues affecting the same countries again next year that the
community has been debating for the past several years.
        In the past, members of the community have argued against an Africa topic
claiming that it had recently been debated in the NDT. The Africa topic in the
NDT, though was debated in 1988-89.  Over a decade ago.  Additionally, the
issues affecting Africa today aren't really the same issues as were affecting
Africa eleven years ago.  Others claim that the community has debated Africa
before and the experience was not a pleasant one for the community/for them.
This is likely more a function of the wording of that prior resolution than
anything that should prevent the community from discussing the area again.
        A complaint within the community has been that the prior topic was, in
essence, Resolved: Africa.  This wasn't a problem for some people.  If this is
a problem for people, then limits could certainly be placed on parts of the
topic to prevent that from reoccurring.  The topic should not be rejected
because of prior bad experience that could be corrected in subsequent topic
wording efforts.  Potential limits will be discussed in more detail in section
three.
        Still others may be disappointed by the prospect of having two foreign policy
topics in a row--rogue states, then Africa.  It should be noted, however, that
the nations discussed would be completely distinct and there is not really a
chance that any of this year's affirmative cases could be reproduced and run
on the Africa topic.  In fact, whether a domestic topic or a foreign policy
topic is chosen, Africa may be one of the best opportunities to learn about
different area/issues and discuss new countries that are unlikely to be part
of any other topic area chosen.

III.  Potential Resolutions

        Given the background and importance of the Africa topic area, the following
preliminary resolutions are offered to spark discussion and provide a
framework for developing potential further resolutions in this area.
        My preliminary reading of Africa literature leads me to believe that the best
resolution might focus on the topic of "development assistance" to one or more
nations in Africa.  For those unfamiliar here is a definition of development
assistance found at www.tradeport.org/ts/refs/gloss/d.html:  "Development
Assistance refers to specific economic assistance provided by the Agency for
International Development.  DA includes "functional" accounts that emphasize
long-term development objectives for agriculture, rural development and
nutrition; population planning; health; child survival fund; AIDS prevention
and control; education and human resources development; private sector; energy
and environment; and science and technology corporation, as well as the
Development Fund for Africa..."  This would allow for debate on all of the
harm areas discussed in section 2.  In addition, there is debate in the
literature about whether or not "development assistance" is the best course
for Africa.  For example, the World Policy Journal in Winter 1998 claimed that
"the only solutions that will work involve a return to development
assistance", while others like Michael Maren in the book Road to Hell decry
the negative effects of foreign aid and assistance.
        If the community feels like development assistance is not the best term or
too broad, the topics could be limited/changed to "foreign aid", or specific
categories of assistance such as AIDS prevention or population planning.
Then, there may be other community members who have no problem with the
"change foreign policy" type topic and want to make the topics more broad.
These are all options open, of course, to community debate.
        The other main question to be dealt with in constructing a resolution seems
to be what countries to include.  One option is to include all of the
continent of Africa.  Some might be opposed due to supposed debating of
countries such as Egypt, Libya, or Sudan on other topics.  If this is an issue
there are several ways to limit the resolution by country.  One option seems
to be limiting the resolution to dealing with Sub-Saharan Africa, which does
contain slightly fewer countries, ie. Egypt and Libya aren't included,
although Sudan still is included.  The list of "Sub-Saharan" countries given
by the Bureau of African Affairs is Angola, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso,
Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Rep., Chad, Comoros, Congo,
Congo-Dem Rep of, Cote d'Ivoire, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea,
Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambi the, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Lesotho,
Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia,
Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra
Leone, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan, Swaziland, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda,
Zambia, Zimbabwe.  Now, this may seem like quite a few countries, but this
option does limit out those countries discussed on other resolutions and the
list of cases about these countries would still be limited by things such as
literature and need for solvency advocates, etc.   If this list is still too
broad the topic could be limited to a list of even fewer, say 4-10 countries.

This author would advocate a preliminary wording such as:

Resolved:  that the USFG should increase development assistance to one or more
of the countries/nation-states in Sub-Saharan Africa.

As discussed above other potential wordings include:

Resolved:  that the USFG should increase development assistance to one or more
countries/nation-states in Africa.

Resolved:  that the USFG should increase development assistance to one or more
of the following countries/nation-states:  (ex.) Democratic Republic of Congo,
Nigeria, Angola, Sierra Leone, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Somalia, Uganda.  (this list
could obviously be as inclusive or exclusive as desired).

        Again, keep in mind these resolutions are just preliminary ideas.  As
mentioned, another concept might be preferable to "development assistance",
different countries might be preferred, more modification/direction may want
to be inserted.  Some might note that these resolutions don't modify the
increase in anyway (ie. don't say "significantly" or "substantially").  That
is because those terms generally seem fairly useless when it come time to
debate or they lead to undesirable topicality arguments.  If the community
preferred those modifiers that could surely be discussed in more detail.

        Or, the community might like the topic area, but dislike all of these options
for resolution wordings.  If so, that could be changed at the resolution
wording paper stage of the topic process.  The thoughts expressed here are
very preliminary, if there are other resolution ideas those should be
considered as well before the area is rejected for lack of good resolution
statements.


IV.  Bibliography

Books:

Adjibolosoo, Senyo B-S. (1998). Addressing Misconceptions about African
Development:  Seeing beyond the Veil.

Brittain, Victoria. (1998). The Death of Dignity: Angola's Civil War.

Domatob, Jerry Kornia. (1998). Contemporary Issues in Sub-Saharan African
Political and Economic Development.

Ishikawa, Kaoru. (1998). Nation Building and Development Assistance in Africa:
 Different but Equal.

James, Valentine. (1999). Sustainable Development in Africa: Prospects for the
21st Century.

Keen, David. (1998). The Economic Function of Violence in Civil Wars.

Lewis, Peter. (1998). Africa: Dilemmas of Development and Change. Boulder:
Westview Press.

Maren, Michael. (1997). The Road to Hell: The Ravaging Effects of Foreign Aid
and International Charity. New York: The Free Press.

Mandaza, Ibbo. (1996). The Challenge of Southern African Regional Security: A
Review of Peace and Security in Southern Africa. Harare:  Sapes.

Roe, Emery. (1998). Except Africa: Remaking Development, Rethinking Power.

Rosen, James and Conly, Shanti. (1998). Africa's Population Challenge:
Accelerating Progress in Reproductive Health. Washington D.C.: Population
Action International.

Spikes, Daniel. (1993). Angola and the Politics of Intervention.

Twedt, Terge. (1998). Angels of Mercy or Development Diplomats:  NGO's and
Foreign Aid.

Wright, Steven. (1999).  African Foreign Policies.  Boulder: Westview Press.

Articles:

Africa News. (1999, October 12).  Africa at Large:  The African Development
Forum.  The Africa News, p. l/n.

Africa is turning into a wasteland. (1999, October 17). The Deseret News, pg.
l/n.

Carter, Jimmy. (1999, October 8). No peace until people have enough to eat.
Des Moines Register, p. 13.

Dugan, Ann. (1999, October 15). Star Tribune, pg. 25A.

Kempster, Norman. (1999, October 18). Albright's Africa tour to highlight US
goals. Los Angeles Times, pg. A6.

Nickerson, Colin. (1999, October 18). Albright to see peace's high price in
Sierra Leone. Boston Globe, pg. A1.

Rieff, David. (1998, Winter). In Defense of Afro-Pessimism. World Policy
Journal, http:worldpolicy.org/journal/rieff.html.

Robinson, Leonard. (1999, September 5). The Baltimore Sun, pg. 1C.

Santoro, Laura. (1999, October 18). Room for Optimism in Churning Africa.
Christian Science Monitor, pg. 1.

Salopek, Paul. (1999, October 18). Guerillas haunt jungles of Congo. Chicago
Tribune, pg. 1.

Simmons, Ann. (1999, October 18). Saving Sierra Leone's ex-child soldiers. LA
Times, pg. A1.

UN Presence for Angola. (1999, October 17). New York Times, pg. 15.

Van de Walle, Nicolas and Johnston, Timothy. (1996). Improving Aid to Africa,
ODC Policy Essay #21.


Internet Sources:

http://www.africa-confidential.com

http://www.sas.upenn.edu

http://www.africaindex.africainfo.no

http://www.africapolicy.org

http://www.africanews.org

http://www.usafricaonline.com

http://www.crisisweb.org/projects/af_links.htm#infolist

http://www.prairienet.org/acas

Bureau of African Affairs.  County Information.  US State Department.
http://www.state.gov/www/regions/africa/af_countryinfo.html.  Date accessed
10/18/99.

Bureau of Intelligence and Research. (1999, July). Arms and conflict in
Africa.  Available
http://www.state.gov/www/regions/africa/9907_africa_conflict.html

Fleshman, Michael. (1999, September 16). Nigeria:  Blood and Oil a special
report. The Prairie Fund. http://www.prairienet.org/acas/blood&oil.htm

Henderson, Errol. (1997). Book Review.  The Challenge of Southern African
Regional Security.  Available: http://web.africa.ufl.edu/asq/v1/3/5.html

Ndulu, Benno and van de Walle, Nicolas. Agenda for Africa's Economic Renewal.
http://www.odc.org/publications/psahara.html

Rice, Susan. (1999, January 30). United States Economic Policy Toward Africa
http://www.state.gov/www/regions/africa/990130_rice.html.

Rice, Susan. (1999, April 30). United States Policy in Africa:  Moving Forward
as Partners
http://www.state.gov/www/policy_remarks/1999/990430_rice_wvision.html.

Rice, Susan. (1999, May 13). United States Interests in Africa:  Post
Cold-War, Post-Apartheid
http://www.state.gov/www/policy_remarks/1999/990513_rice_oxford.html.

Rice, Susan. (1999, September 29).
http://www.state.gov/www/policy_remarks/1999/990929_rice_transport.html.

>From  Mon Nov 15 22:40:21 1999
Message-Id: <MON.15.NOV.1999.224021.EST.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 51237 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 22:41:00
 -0500
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 WAA12802 for
 <EDEBATE at list.uvm.edu>; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 22:40:59 -0500
Received: from Davismk13 at aol.com by imo14.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.4.) id
 n.0.e6af60b7 (4505) for <EDEBATE at list.uvm.edu>; Mon, 15 Nov 1999
 22:40:21 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 45
Message-ID: <0.e6af60b7.25622c25 at aol.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 22:40:21 EST
Reply-To: Davismk13 at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Mike Davis <Davismk13 at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: TOPIC PAPER:  SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA

I have been thinking about this for several months now and I think that we
must debate an Africa topic. The fact that African countries are excluded
from this years topic makes this even more urgent. As a debate community our
failure to deal with Africa as a topic area proves that when we create these
topic we do so for a Eurocentric, Western, Northern point of view. We talk a
lot about how enlightened we are, but most of us could not identify most of
the countries in Africa if asked to on a map. Ask yourself why this is? When
there is a humanitarian crisis or a civil war in an area of the world where
most of the inhabitants are white the U.S. rushes in and we all talk about
how horrible the atrocities are, but when the same thing happen in Africa we
either don't hear about it or it is the last story on the news, right after
the story about the dog who can bark the alphabet. Why is this? It's because
American policy makers have never felt that Africa was in our strategic
interest. Former President Jimmy Carter explains how racist our foreign
policy is in New York Times on May 27th of this year:

"One can traverse Africa, from the Red Sea in the northeast to the
southwestern Atlantic coast, and never step on peaceful territory. Fifty
thousand people have recently perished in the war between Eritrea and
Ethiopia, and almost two million have died during the 16-year conflict in
neighboring Sudan. That war has now spilled over into northern Uganda, whose
troops have joined those from Rwanda to fight in the Democratic Republic of
Congo (formerly Zaire). The other Congo (Brazzaville) is also ravaged by a
civil war, and all attempts to bring peace to Angola have failed. Although
formidable commitments are being made in the Balkans, where white Europeans
are being involved, no such concerted efforts are being made by leaders
outside of Africa to resolve the disputes. This gives the strong impression
of racism."

We talk about activism and we talk about the educational value of debate. It
seems to me like this topic would provide incredible opportunity to advance
both of these causes. I am throwing my full support towards this topic area
and urge all of you to do the same.

Mike Davis



From mkuss  Mon Nov 15 21:48:28 1999
From: mkuss (Matthew Kuss)
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 21:48:28 -0600
Subject: TOPIC PAPER:  SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA
Message-ID: <MON.15.NOV.1999.214828.0600.MKUSS@UWF.EDU>

What will be different after the topic is debated for a year? What sort of
massive social change was brought about from the civil rights topic?

I think it would be an excellent topic area, but that idea is not dependent
on you advancing the notion that we are all Eurocentric and Western. We are.
CEDA/NDT doesnt owe it to anyone to be something that it is not.

I hope that guilt doesnt become a criterion for topic selection.


>I have been thinking about this for several months now and I think that we
>must debate an Africa topic. The fact that African countries are excluded
>from this years topic makes this even more urgent. As a debate community
our
>failure to deal with Africa as a topic area proves that when we create
these
>topic we do so for a Eurocentric, Western, Northern point of view. We talk
a
>lot about how enlightened we are, but most of us could not identify most of
>the countries in Africa if asked to on a map. Ask yourself why this is?
When
>there is a humanitarian crisis or a civil war in an area of the world where
>most of the inhabitants are white the U.S. rushes in and we all talk about
>how horrible the atrocities are, but when the same thing happen in Africa
we
>either don't hear about it or it is the last story on the news, right after
>the story about the dog who can bark the alphabet. Why is this? It's
because
>American policy makers have never felt that Africa was in our strategic
>interest. Former President Jimmy Carter explains how racist our foreign
>policy is in New York Times on May 27th of this year:
>
>"One can traverse Africa, from the Red Sea in the northeast to the
>southwestern Atlantic coast, and never step on peaceful territory. Fifty
>thousand people have recently perished in the war between Eritrea and
>Ethiopia, and almost two million have died during the 16-year conflict in
>neighboring Sudan. That war has now spilled over into northern Uganda,
whose
>troops have joined those from Rwanda to fight in the Democratic Republic of
>Congo (formerly Zaire). The other Congo (Brazzaville) is also ravaged by a
>civil war, and all attempts to bring peace to Angola have failed. Although
>formidable commitments are being made in the Balkans, where white Europeans
>are being involved, no such concerted efforts are being made by leaders
>outside of Africa to resolve the disputes. This gives the strong impression
>of racism."
>
>We talk about activism and we talk about the educational value of debate.
It
>seems to me like this topic would provide incredible opportunity to advance
>both of these causes. I am throwing my full support towards this topic area
>and urge all of you to do the same.
>
>Mike Davis

>From  Mon Nov 15 22:58:59 1999
Message-Id: <MON.15.NOV.1999.225859.EST.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 51428 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 22:59:32
 -0500
Precedence: bulk
Received: from imo-d02.mx.aol.com (imo-d02.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.34]) by
 list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA32880 for
 <EDEBATE at list.uvm.edu>; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 22:59:31 -0500
Received: from Davismk13 at aol.com by imo-d02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.4.) id
 n.0.21f1d3cd (4505) for <EDEBATE at list.uvm.edu>; Mon, 15 Nov 1999
 22:58:59 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 45
Message-ID: <0.21f1d3cd.25623083 at aol.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 22:58:59 EST
Reply-To: Davismk13 at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Mike Davis <Davismk13 at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: TOPIC PAPER:  SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA

In a message dated 11/15/99 10:47:52 PM Eastern Standard Time, mkuss at UWF.EDU
writes:

<< What will be different after the topic is debated for a year? What sort of
 massive social change was brought about from the civil rights topic? >>

I think the change depends on who you are and what you get out of debate. I
believe that debate is about competition first, but I got more personally out
of judging on last year's topic than any other topic I have been involved
with.

And my point was two fold: One, that we might actually become more informed
about an area that many of have chose to ignore (if when debating or judging
one chooses not to involve themselves then they lose out on this benefit).
Two, we need to have good reasons why we are willing to ignore this area of
the world, again. I was not claiming that we should be made to feel guilty to
vote for this topic, but just that if we claim to be enlightened (a claim you
may be challenging here) then this is a topic that must be taken seriously.

I am also not saying that we owe it to anyone to vote for this topic. I am
simply saying we owe it to ourselves to debate something that is both
meaningful and provides for some very interesting debates. It sounds to me
like your arguments against it are more of a kritik of debate than of the
Africa topic. I think there are plenty of reasons it makes for a good topic
area, but I think those are better addressed by the topic paper.

Mike Davis

>From  Mon Nov 15 23:02:12 1999
Message-Id: <MON.15.NOV.1999.230212.EST.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 51547 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 23:02:49
 -0500
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 XAA32862 for
 <eDebate at list.uvm.edu>; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 23:02:48 -0500
Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo16.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.4.) id
 n.0.83234e88 (4006); Mon, 15 Nov 1999 23:02:13 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 45
Message-ID: <0.83234e88.25623144 at aol.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 23:02:12 EST
Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Michael Bear Bryant <MWBRYANT at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: TOPIC PAPER:  SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA
Comments: To: Davismk13 at aol.com

In a message dated 11/15/99 8:41:20 PM Mountain Standard Time,
Davismk13 at AOL.COM writes:

> I have been thinking about this for several months now and I think that we
>  must debate an Africa topic. The fact that African countries are excluded
>  from this years topic makes this even more urgent. As a debate community
our
>  failure to deal with Africa as a topic area proves that when we create
these
>  topic we do so for a Eurocentric, Western, Northern point of view.

Then how do you explain the 1988-89 policy topic on Africa? Are we growing,
as a community, more Eurocentric?

I wouldn't mind debating Africa. Weber did OK on that topic, though we spent
very little time discussing anything that had to do with Africa. But I think
the argument that the failure to have an Africa topic in the last ten years
proves our Eurocentrism is, as they spell in Burlington, "redeculous." (And
how do you explain the SE Asia topic, then?)

Why another foreign policy topic? Don't they all come down to the same
arguments? What's wrong with a focus on domestic policy? Frankly, I thought
last year's civil rights topic was a refreshing break from Russia and China
disads. The best topic I've worked on in 25 years was educational standards.
Choosing not to debate foreign policy every single year is hardly proof of
"Eurocentrism"!

Not that I'm promoting the obesity topic... ;-0

Bear



From osdip  Mon Nov 15 22:09:07 1999
From: osdip (Ben Osborne)
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 20:09:07 PST
Subject: Domestic/Foreign
Message-ID: <MON.15.NOV.1999.200907.PST.OSDIP@HOTMAIL.COM>

Just a question to those in the know. For as long as I have been in CEDA
debate and high school debate there has been a strong current for domestic
and then foreign topics. Any one know when the last time it went
Foreign/Foreign or Domestic/Domestic? I am just curious how strong of a tide
this is...Thanks!
Ben Osborne
MTSU

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

>From  Mon Nov 15 23:14:07 1999
Message-Id: <MON.15.NOV.1999.231407.EST.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 51758 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 23:14:45
 -0500
Precedence: bulk
Received: from imo27.mx.aol.com (imo27.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.71]) by
 list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA28886 for
 <eDebate at list.uvm.edu>; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 23:14:44 -0500
Received: from Davismk13 at aol.com by imo27.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.4.) id
 n.0.b5cf6352 (4505); Mon, 15 Nov 1999 23:14:08 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 45
Message-ID: <0.b5cf6352.2562340f at aol.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 23:14:07 EST
Reply-To: Davismk13 at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Mike Davis <Davismk13 at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: TOPIC PAPER:  SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA
Comments: To: MWBRYANT at aol.com

In a message dated 11/15/99 11:02:12 PM Eastern Standard Time, MWBRYANT
writes:

<< Then how do you explain the 1988-89 policy topic on Africa? Are we
growing, as >a community, more Eurocentric?
> I wouldn't mind debating Africa. Weber did OK on that topic, though we
spent very >little time discussing anything that had to do with Africa. But I
think the argument >that the failure to have an Africa topic in the last ten
years proves our Eurocentrism >is, as they spell in Burlington, "redeculous."
(And how do you explain the SE Asia >topic, then?)

I think that Martin and Heather address this better than I can here, but that
was ten years ago when many of us were still in high school or younger. I am
a firm believer that the issues that exist now in Africa are very different
from those discussed ten years ago. My argument was based on the fact that we
have both ignored Africa as a topic area and have failed to even include
African countries in this year's topic (even though there were plenty of
options).

> Why another foreign policy topic? Don't they all come down to the same
>arguments? What's wrong with a focus on domestic policy? Frankly, I thought
last >year's civil rights topic was a refreshing break from Russia and China
disads. The >best topic I've worked on in 25 years was educational standards.
Choosing not to >debate foreign policy every single year is hardly proof of
"Eurocentrism"! >>

I'll agree with you here. I don't think voting for domestic policy proves
that we are Eurocentric. This is what I think is the one convincing argument
against this topic paper. I think that Martin and Heather address this as
well and are correct in pointing out that the issues that will be discussed
are important enough to outweigh the impact of debating two foreign policy
topics in a row. I might be persuaded that the foreign policy after foreign
policy topic argument is true if I was presented with an equally as strong
domestic topic.

Mike



From tlb2b  Mon Nov 15 22:22:22 1999
From: tlb2b (Terrance Lamonte Bond)
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 22:22:22 -0600
Subject: TOPIC PAPER:  SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA
In-Reply-To: <000801bf2fe5$71b27400$0e00a8c0@matt>
Message-ID: <MON.15.NOV.1999.222222.0600.TLB2B@FRANK.MTSU.EDU>

Speak for yourself. CEDA/NDT is not a monolith and we are not all
Eurocentric and Western. And does the fact that the community might have
been Eurocentric and Western in the past dejustify trying to do somnething
about it, ie engaging discussions about non-Western nations?




"I'm not policing what you think and dream......."

Tori Amos---to venus and back








On Mon, 15 Nov 1999, Matthew Kuss wrote:

> Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 21:48:28 -0600
> From: Matthew Kuss <mkuss at UWF.EDU>
> To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU
> Subject: Re: TOPIC PAPER:  SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA
>
> What will be different after the topic is debated for a year? What sort of
> massive social change was brought about from the civil rights topic?
>
> I think it would be an excellent topic area, but that idea is not dependent
> on you advancing the notion that we are all Eurocentric and Western. We are.
> CEDA/NDT doesnt owe it to anyone to be something that it is not.
>
> I hope that guilt doesnt become a criterion for topic selection.
>
>
> >I have been thinking about this for several months now and I think that we
> >must debate an Africa topic. The fact that African countries are excluded
> >from this years topic makes this even more urgent. As a debate community
> our
> >failure to deal with Africa as a topic area proves that when we create
> these
> >topic we do so for a Eurocentric, Western, Northern point of view. We talk
> a
> >lot about how enlightened we are, but most of us could not identify most of
> >the countries in Africa if asked to on a map. Ask yourself why this is?
> When
> >there is a humanitarian crisis or a civil war in an area of the world where
> >most of the inhabitants are white the U.S. rushes in and we all talk about
> >how horrible the atrocities are, but when the same thing happen in Africa
> we
> >either don't hear about it or it is the last story on the news, right after
> >the story about the dog who can bark the alphabet. Why is this? It's
> because
> >American policy makers have never felt that Africa was in our strategic
> >interest. Former President Jimmy Carter explains how racist our foreign
> >policy is in New York Times on May 27th of this year:
> >
> >"One can traverse Africa, from the Red Sea in the northeast to the
> >southwestern Atlantic coast, and never step on peaceful territory. Fifty
> >thousand people have recently perished in the war between Eritrea and
> >Ethiopia, and almost two million have died during the 16-year conflict in
> >neighboring Sudan. That war has now spilled over into northern Uganda,
> whose
> >troops have joined those from Rwanda to fight in the Democratic Republic of
> >Congo (formerly Zaire). The other Congo (Brazzaville) is also ravaged by a
> >civil war, and all attempts to bring peace to Angola have failed. Although
> >formidable commitments are being made in the Balkans, where white Europeans
> >are being involved, no such concerted efforts are being made by leaders
> >outside of Africa to resolve the disputes. This gives the strong impression
> >of racism."
> >
> >We talk about activism and we talk about the educational value of debate.
> It
> >seems to me like this topic would provide incredible opportunity to advance
> >both of these causes. I am throwing my full support towards this topic area
> >and urge all of you to do the same.
> >
> >Mike Davis
>



From mkuss  Mon Nov 15 22:37:52 1999
From: mkuss (Matthew Kuss)
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 22:37:52 -0600
Subject: TOPIC PAPER:  SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA
Message-ID: <MON.15.NOV.1999.223752.0600.MKUSS@UWF.EDU>

>Speak for yourself. CEDA/NDT is not a monolith and we are not all
>Eurocentric and Western. And does the fact that the community might have
>been Eurocentric and Western in the past dejustify trying to do somnething
>about it, ie engaging discussions about non-Western nations?

I did not claim to speak for every individual in CEDA/NDT.  But I belive
there has been much discussion to the point that CEDA/NDT is just that-
Western. If that is the case, no one should be surprised that Western topics
are chosen. I never claimed that Africa wasnt worth debating- just that
guilt isnt a proper motivation for doing so. I dont think CEDA/NDT should be
faulted for in the past discussing issues that face people living in our own
country.

Additionally, I believe that this years topic, as well as Southeast Asia,
Mexico, and the HR topic were all non-Eurocentric. Where is the lack of
engaging in dicussions about non-Western nations you speak of? Have you seen
many rounds on this years topic? Last time I checked, Cuba and Iraq arent
all too Western.

>From  Mon Nov 15 23:48:45 1999
Message-Id: <MON.15.NOV.1999.234845.EST.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 37070 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 23:49:37
 -0500
Precedence: bulk
Received: from imo-d08.mx.aol.com (imo-d08.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.40]) by
 list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA33204 for
 <EDEBATE at list.uvm.edu>; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 23:49:36 -0500
Received: from Davismk13 at aol.com by imo-d08.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.4.) id
 n.0.3682e539 (4509) for <EDEBATE at list.uvm.edu>; Mon, 15 Nov 1999
 23:48:45 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 45
Message-ID: <0.3682e539.25623c2d at aol.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 23:48:45 EST
Reply-To: Davismk13 at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Mike Davis <Davismk13 at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: TOPIC PAPER:  SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA

In a message dated 11/15/99 11:37:29 PM Eastern Standard Time, mkuss at UWF.EDU
writes:

<< Additionally, I believe that this years topic, as well as Southeast Asia,
 Mexico, and the HR topic were all non-Eurocentric. Where is the lack of
 engaging in dicussions about non-Western nations you speak of? Have you seen
 many rounds on this years topic? Last time I checked, Cuba and Iraq arent
 all too Western. >>

This feeds my argument. We act in Mexico, Cuba and Iraq because it is in U.S.
interests. All of the countries you mention are directly effected by NATO
action and current U.S. policy action. And I have seen several dozen rounds
on this topic and most of the kritiks discuss how the United States justifies
it policy in these countries through Western means creating "rogue" nations
to justify our actions. Also when we do things like security assistance we
are hardly acting in a Non-western way. Most of the literature about how we
form our foreign policy in our own self-interests uses the fact that we have
not acted in Africa as the example of Eurocentrism. Critical Race Theorists
would argue that the belief that since we have talked about one typically
excluded group (I am not ready to concede yet that any of the countries you
mention are typically excluded) we have solved our undiscovered biases is
flawed until we are willing to take on all of these biases head on.

Mike

>From  Mon Nov 15 23:57:37 1999
Message-Id: <MON.15.NOV.1999.235737.EST.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 37180 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 23:58:23
 -0500
Precedence: bulk
Received: from imo-d03.mx.aol.com (imo-d03.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.35]) by
 list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA12804 for
 <eDebate at list.uvm.edu>; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 23:58:21 -0500
Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo-d03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.4.) id
 i.0.56bc8b5f (3851); Mon, 15 Nov 1999 23:57:38 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 45
Message-ID: <0.56bc8b5f.25623e41 at aol.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 23:57:37 EST
Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Michael Bear Bryant <MWBRYANT at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: Domestic/Foreign
Comments: To: osdip at hotmail.com

In a message dated 11/15/99 9:10:25 PM Mountain Standard Time,
osdip at HOTMAIL.COM writes:

> Just a question to those in the know. For as long as I have been in CEDA
>  debate and high school debate there has been a strong current for domestic
>  and then foreign topics. Any one know when the last time it went
>  Foreign/Foreign or Domestic/Domestic? I am just curious how strong of a
tide
>  this is...Thanks!

"Bear's List of Policy Topics of the Last 25 Years"
(Remember, CEDA didn't officially have a policy topic until 1995)

1974-75 Presidential powers
1975-76 Land use
1976-77 Consumer product safety
1977-78 Law enforcement
1978-79 Guaranteed employment
1979-80 Mass media regulation
1980-81 Military committments
1981-82 Labor unions
1982-83 W Hemisphere military intervention
1983-84 Hazardous waste
1984-85 Space exploration
1985-86 Educational standards
1986-87 1st Amendment
1987-88     NATO
1988-89 Africa
1989-90 Energy Policy
1990-91 East Asia
1991-92 Privacy policy
1992-93 South Asia
1993-94 Commander-in-chief powers (essentially a foreign policy topic)
1994-95 Judicial criminal code (NDT) / Oceans policy (CEDA)
1995-96 Mid-East (NDT) / Mexico (CEDA)
1996-97 Environment
1997-98 SE Asia
1998-99 Civil rights
1999-00 Economic sanctions

Before 1995 CEDA had two non-policy topics a year.



From hlw267s  Mon Nov 15 23:12:19 1999
From: hlw267s (Heather Walters)
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 23:12:19 -0600
Subject: TOPIC PAPER:  SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA
Message-ID: <MON.15.NOV.1999.231219.0600.HLW267S@MAIL.SMSU.EDU>

>===== Original Message From Davismk13 at AOL.COM =====
>In a message dated 11/15/99 11:02:12 PM Eastern Standard Time, MWBRYANT
>writes:
>
><< Then how do you explain the 1988-89 policy topic on Africa? Are we
>growing, as a community, more Eurocentric?
>> I wouldn't mind debating Africa. Weber did OK on that topic, though we
>spent very little time discussing anything that had to do with Africa. But I
>think the argument that the failure to have an Africa topic in the last ten
>years proves our Eurocentrism is, as they spell in Burlington, "redeculous."
>(And how do you explain the SE Asia topic, then?)

We, as a community, are basically engaging in the same behavior as the media.
The media fails to substantially cover issues relating to Africa.
Simultaneously, we, as a community have not discussed Africa for ten years
because we don't think the issues are "important enough" or "worthy" of our
discussion.  You say that we talked about Africa in 1988-89, but I am sure the
media has printed some token Africa stories as well.  Your argument does not
prove that the community has not been Eurocentric.  And, even if "large scale
social change" isn't achieved by debating an Africa topic, this debate
community should still avoid engaging in the same behavior as the racist
media.
Also, this isn't being argued as the only reason to vote for an Africa topic,
just one of many.

>> Why another foreign policy topic? Don't they all come down to the same
>>arguments? What's wrong with a focus on domestic policy? Frankly, I thought
>last >year's civil rights topic was a refreshing break from Russia and China
>disads. The >best topic I've worked on in 25 years was educational standards.
>Choosing not to >debate foreign policy every single year is hardly proof of
>"Eurocentrism"! >>

Not only are the issues, as Mike Davis said, "important enough to outweigh the
impact of debating two foreign policy topics in a row", but the reason that
people advocate some kind of foreign/domestic distinction in topics is because
of a fear that the same arguments would be repeated every year (that is even
the reason you give above).  I don't think this is an especially valid worry
with this topic, especially following the civil rights and rogue states
topics.  African issues are much different than issues being faced by other
countries in the world, even if talking about foreign policy.  With this
topic, you are unlikely to hear a repeat of many of the arguments made on
civil rights, rogue states, or even SE Asia.  The reason this topic is
interesting, at least to me, is because of the large number of issues that we
could talk about that I haven't been exposed to in the years that I have been
involved in debate.  For example, many topics have allowed me to learn about
Japan, but none have given me the opportunity to learn anything about Nigeria
or Sierra Leone.  I learned so much just by doing research to write a topic
paper.  Talking about new issues is a reason to support this topic and we
should not just assume that because Africa is an issue of "foreign policy"
that it would necessarily be the same as all other "foreign policy" topics.

Heather Walters
SMS



From mfocault  Tue Nov 16 03:29:40 1999
From: mfocault (Adam Cosper)
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 01:29:40 -0800
Subject: TOPIC PAPER:  SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA
Message-ID: <TUE.16.NOV.1999.012940.0800.MFOCAULT@YAHOO.COM>

The topic certainly sounds interesting, whether or not
we would be striking a blow against Eurocentrism. But
it seems like the resolution as worded may be a little
to large.  If their were 10 or more topic countries
and we did not have baseline action that all
affirmatives must take the research burden may hit
smaller squads pretty hard.  I haven't been in the
community long enough nor do I know the Africa
literature well enough but the proposed resolutions
sound a little like resolved: be nice to africa.  If
the Affirmative is held to one large action (like
lifting sanctions) we might get to see more case
debate :)


=====

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com

>From  Tue Nov 16 06:57:52 1999
Message-Id: <TUE.16.NOV.1999.065752.EST.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 38356 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 06:58:29
 -0500
Precedence: bulk
Received: from imo-d02.mx.aol.com (imo-d02.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.34]) by
 list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA32670 for
 <eDebate at list.uvm.edu>; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 06:58:28 -0500
Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo-d02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.4.) id
 w.0.c32e2abe (4415); Tue, 16 Nov 1999 06:57:53 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 45
Message-ID: <0.c32e2abe.2562a0c0 at aol.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 06:57:52 EST
Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Michael Bear Bryant <MWBRYANT at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: TOPIC PAPER:  SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA
Comments: To: hlw267s at mail.smsu.edu

In a message dated 11/15/99 10:16:07 PM Mountain Standard Time,
hlw267s at MAIL.SMSU.EDU writes:

> We, as a community, are basically engaging in the same behavior as the
media.
>
>  The media fails to substantially cover issues relating to Africa.
>  Simultaneously, we, as a community have not discussed Africa for ten years
>  because we don't think the issues are "important enough" or "worthy" of our
>  discussion.  You say that we talked about Africa in 1988-89, but I am sure
> the
>  media has printed some token Africa stories as well.  Your argument does
not
>  prove that the community has not been Eurocentric.

1. I don't think the media is racist. That's like the Nazis calling the media
pawns of liberal Jews. The media give us what we want, hence the elaborate
details of Bill & Monica. News of Oceania, South Asia, Latin America, and
Africa will always come up short compared, for example, to gossip about
Britian's royal family. Racism? I think the media does a pretty good job of
discussing race issues in America. Do you really mean isolationist?
2. If I grant your point, aren't you admitting that the literature will be
really limited? I don't believe it is, but this seems a critical link in your
reasoning.
3. The media doesn't ignore Africa. Americans, like you, have simply chosen
to wait for personal connections (like a debate topic) to seek out such info.
In reality, we discussed Africa at great length during the SE Asia topic,
since it was the primary trade-off scenario. We discussed African-American
issues at great length, last year. Personally, I've been following (via US
media and indigenous news broadcasts on shortwave) the elections in South
Africa and Nigeria, conditions brought on by civil war in the Congo, the
continuing arrests of int'l journalists in Kenya, the tolerance of
black-on-black slavery in the Sudan, the low-level airwar between Eritrea and
Ethiopia, and many more issues that make the US news, but few choose to read.

  And, even if "large
> scale
>  social change" isn't achieved by debating an Africa topic, this debate
>  community should still avoid engaging in the same behavior as the racist
>  media.

When you start with an unproven moral assumption, your logic can go far
astream. I think the most racist thing the media does is emphasize domestic
black-on-white crime more than the far more common incidences of
black-on-black crime. Does that mean we're racists if we don't debate a
domestic crime topic? Do you see where your  logic of racism leads?


>
>  Not only are the issues, as Mike Davis said, "important enough to outweigh
> the
>  impact of debating two foreign policy topics in a row", but the reason that
>  people advocate some kind of foreign/domestic distinction in topics is
> because
>  of a fear that the same arguments would be repeated every year (that is
even
>  the reason you give above).  I don't think this is an especially valid
worry
>  with this topic, especially following the civil rights and rogue states
>  topics.  African issues are much different than issues being faced by other
>  countries in the world, even if talking about foreign policy.

1. Aren't YOU be a little universalizing in your own racism? Are African
issues really that different from issues in SE Asia?
2. The following negative issues were the big ones in 1988: Clinton, spending
trade-offs w/ Latin America, regional actor and UN cplans, NGO cplns, human
rights backlashes, grass roots social movements, US-Euro relations, and
Russian compression. The big Affs were: removal of S African sanctions,
protecting Madagascar's bats, family planning/pop control, riverworms, and
closing US military bases on Diego Garcia (trust me, it's really a part of
Africa, just as is Brazil!). I'm sure Josh Hoe could tell you about the
Comoros Islands.

>   With this
>  topic, you are unlikely to hear a repeat of many of the arguments made on
>  civil rights, rogue states, or even SE Asia.

Right. Then why were the neg arguments on SE Asia so similar to the ones on
Africa a decade earlier? Watching the "dance of argument" over the past 25
years convinces me that debate doesn't do a whole lot for argumentative
creativity.

> The reason this topic is
>  interesting, at least to me, is because of the large number of issues that
> we
>  could talk about that I haven't been exposed to
> in the years that I have
> been
>  involved in debate.
>  For example, many topics have allowed me to learn about
>  Japan, but none have given me the opportunity to learn anything about
> Nigeria
>  or Sierra Leone.  I learned so much just by doing research to write a topic
>  paper.  Talking about new issues is a reason to support this topic and we
>  should not just assume that because Africa is an issue of "foreign policy"
>  that it would necessarily be the same as all other "foreign policy" topics.
>

Duh. What real reasons do you advance for why it won't be the same thing we
essentially end up discussing on every foreign topic? I'm glad you learned a
lot doing the topic paper, but who wouldn't make that claim when advancing a
topic paper? BTW, even with your topic, folks will learn little more about
Sierra Leone than to recognize that they have a lot of military coups and a
very unstable political situation over which we have almost no control. In
actuality, aren't there also tons of domestic topics over which we all might
benefit from more knowledge? And your example, Japan, proves that learning on
a region can occur without it being the official topic, right? When have you,
personally, ever debated on a "Japan" topic?

I just think that using a "change-oriented" rationale for foreign topics is a
cop out. Most of us will never have the opportunity or capability to
influence the political process in Sierra Leone or save specific species of
bats in Madagascar. Domestic topics, however, usually end up in discussions
that touch our daily lives and over which we can make differences. I'm not
arguing for ignoring Africa, either, since we should all still engage in
learning on our own and run it as an impact for our trade-off disads. Is it
racist to prefer a focus that may actually impact on US minorities? Isn't it
more racist to focus on the need to dictate policies to Africa while ignoring
much more achievable policy proposals to improve the domestic living
conditions
of African-Americans? This whole issue of which topic is less racist is a sad
statement on the level of logic we currently exert when selecting topics.

You should hear what I think about the obesity topic!  ;-)

Back to dealing with insomnia,

Bear,
if we're going to recycle old topics, what about space exploration and
development? Now that was an interestingly different topic. Any takers? I've
still got an awesome collection of "evil Alien" cards....



From jared_1978  Tue Nov 16 07:33:03 1999
From: jared_1978 (Jared Waters)
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 05:33:03 PST
Subject: TOPIC PAPER: SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA
Message-ID: <TUE.16.NOV.1999.053303.PST.JARED1978@HOTMAIL.COM>

ok folks,
this all seems to be a little bit ridiculous to me.  im pretty sure that im
not eurocentric, i pay zero attention to what happens in europe, it just
doesnt captivate my attentio