From mfocault Sun Oct 31 23:27:51 1999 From: mfocault (Adam Cosper) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 21:27:51 -0800 Subject: question on PIC sanctions Message-ID: Why would you need to fiat that.. For example lifting Helms-Burton towards cuba automatically gives power back to the president to do just that. --- Darius Wilkins wrote: > If you have a solvency advocate that favors a > plan with flexibility, > i.e. a plan that can change as conditions > warrant--which could allow the > spiking of almost every PIC (I think), is it fair? > It's just that I saw > something in an Arab newspaper with this person > advocating a law repealing > general sanctions and creating a sanctions board to > moniter any abuse of the > repeal or add sanctions as needed. > > > Darius Wilkins > BTW I remember the foreign language quote thread few > years back. Is it ok to > use evidence translated by a computer program from > Arabic or Spanish? > ===== __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com From laneg Sun Oct 31 23:50:17 1999 From: laneg (Lane, Gina) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 23:50:17 -0600 Subject: name-change amendment Message-ID: Hi Terry-- Your question on the name change is a good one. I'll offer my own interpretation -- The name, "Cross Examination Debate Association" sounds exclusive -- it sounds like we are trying to define ourselves by a characteristic, cross-examination, that is not exclusive nor unique to our organization. It also doesn't identify ourselves with higher education. "Collegiate Debate Association" is a more inclusive name; it represents the trend within our organization to serve a variety of debate formats and organizations. It clearly identifies us as an organization connected to higher education. It also connects us to our past by providing a similar sounding acronym. Thanks for asking-- Gina Lane President, Cross-Examination Debate Association > ---------- > From: Terry West > Sent: Sunday, October 31, 1999 11:07 PM > To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; laneg at WILLIAM.JEWELL.EDU > Subject: Re: name-change amendment > > I'm not necessarily opposed to the concept of a name change; haven't > decided how I will vote yet. But I am troubled by the rationale thus far > advanced, which (as I understand it) is "cross-ex doesn't really protray > us well; it confuses people, collegiate debate association will make this > all better." I really am not trying to flame anyone; I really don't > understand. Here are my questions: > > 1--Won't people ask us how we can claim to be THE "Collegiate Debate > Association" when we aren't event the LARGEST > group of debaters in the US? > > 2--Why is CDA any more accurate than CEDA? Other organizations do > cross-ex, yes. Other organizations are collegiate, and > debate, too. > > Honest, I want to know: what am I missing here? > > Terry > SUU > > >>> "Lane, Gina" 10/28/99 03:17PM >>> > Hi again-- > > I haven't noticed much discussion about the constitutional amendments, so > I > thought I would try to solicit some discussion before NCA. > > ARTICLE I and throughout the document: Replace Cross Examination Debate > Association with Collegiate Debate Association. submitted by Linda > Collier, UMKC > > ______________ > > We have been discussing a possible name change for the organization for at > least 4-5 years. The situation is this: Cross Examination Debate > Association doesn't really do a very good job of describing our > organization. In fact, some have jokingly called us, "friends of > cross-ex." > Internally, the organization's name may not matter very much -- > intercollegiate debate continues regardless of the name. Externally, the > name does matter. 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. > > The proposed name change is: CDA -- Collegiate Debate Association. This > was the number one alternative in the poll taken this Fall by Sam Nelson > 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. In many ways, this proposal is a good compromise between > the > need to avoid radical change and the need to change -- we will say the > acronym, CDA, in exact same way we say CEDA now. > > If a majority vote for the amendment at the NCA business meeting, it will > then be sent to the full membership for a final vote before being > implemented. Two-thirds of those voting among the full membership must > vote > in favor of the amendment for it to pass. > > Changing the name is the first step towards creating an intercollegiate > debate organization in step with the needs of a new millennium. > > Thank you for your consideration of this important step. > > Dr. Gina Lane > President, Cross Examination Debate Association > William Jewell College > >From Mon Nov 1 01:16:43 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 37606 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 01:20:41 -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 BAA16522 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 01:20:39 -0500 Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo-d10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id eOPG0E.Jju (4410); Mon, 1 Nov 1999 01:16:44 -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: <0.6c4af028.254e8a4b at aol.com> Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 01:16:43 EST Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Michael Bear Bryant Subject: Re: name-change amendment Comments: To: laneg at william.jewell.edu In a message dated 10/31/99 10:52:03 PM Mountain Standard Time, laneg at WILLIAM.JEWELL.EDU writes: > "Collegiate Debate Association" is a more inclusive name; it represents the > trend within our organization to serve a variety of debate formats and > organizations. It clearly identifies us as an organization connected to > higher education. It also connects us to our past by providing a similar > sounding acronym. > > Thanks for asking-- > > Gina Lane 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? MW Bryant >From Mon Nov 1 01:06:27 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 37733 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 02:05:59 -0500 Precedence: bulk Received: from saluki-mailsmtp.siu.edu (saluki-mailsmtp.siu.edu [131.230.252.26]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA27102 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 02:05:57 -0500 Received: from saluki-mail.siu.edu (saluki-mail.siu.edu [131.230.252.17]) by saluki-mailsmtp.siu.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id BAA101588 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 01:05:32 -0600 Received: from tupelo (port15.aixdialin.siu.edu [131.230.253.15]) by saluki-mail.siu.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id BAA65404 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 01:06:27 -0600 X-Sender: slusher at saluki-mail.siu.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-ID: <199911010706.BAA65404 at saluki-mail.siu.edu> Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 01:06:27 -0600 Reply-To: slusher at SIU.EDU To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Eric Slusher Subject: Re: name-change amendment At 01:16 AM 11/1/99 EST, you wrote: >In a message dated 10/31/99 10:52:03 PM Mountain Standard Time, >laneg at WILLIAM.JEWELL.EDU writes: > >> "Collegiate Debate Association" is a more inclusive name; it represents the >> trend within our organization to serve a variety of debate formats and >> organizations. It clearly identifies us as an organization connected to >> higher education. It also connects us to our past by providing a similar >> sounding acronym. >> >> Thanks for asking-- >> >> Gina Lane > >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? > >MW Bryant 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 From zambezi Fri Oct 1 00:31:19 1999 From: zambezi (MCKEEHAN) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 00:31:19 -0500 Subject: Round Robin Mayhem-Through 4 Message-ID: Since those of us watching at home don't have a green chalkboard with cumulative results to look at I have put together standings through race 4 Iowa 3-1 Michigan State 3-1 Emory 2-1 Kentucky 2-1 Michigan 2-1 Kansas 2-2 (Rock Chalk Jayhawks) Southern Cal 1-3 Wake Forest 1-3 UMKC 0-4 Rojo Grande >From Fri Oct 1 01:41:31 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 67038 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 01:42:53 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from smtp.uky.edu (smtp.uky.edu [128.163.2.17]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA70650 for ; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 01:42:51 -0400 Received: from pop.uky.edu (pop.uky.edu [128.163.2.16]) by smtp.uky.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA20715; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 01:42:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pop.uky.edu ([12.75.223.109]) by pop.uky.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA01941; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 01:42:47 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 (Macintosh; U; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------7058E37ED304DEFEC4225A34" Message-ID: <37F4577B.B671FF01 at pop.uky.edu> Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 01:41:31 -0500 Reply-To: jwpatt0 at pop.uky.edu To: Team Topic Debating in America From: "J.W. Patterson" Subject: Round 7 - Round Robin Comments: To: cx-l at debate.net --------------7058E37ED304DEFEC4225A34 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Good Evening, Mr. and Ms. North and South America, and all ships at sea, let's go to press. I am Michael Tetzlaff at the Ramada Inn Debate Racetrack at the 28th annual Univeristy of Kentucky Round Robin. The Results for the Seventh race are in at ...2:00 Track 1 - Affirmative: Kansas Trainer: Scott Harris Mike Eber David Magariel Negative: Wake Forest Trainer Ross Smith Emma Filstrup Wes Lotz Staurd: Dave Hingstman And the winner is .... Track 2 - Affirmative: Emory Trainer: Melissa Wade John Paul Lupo Michael Horowitz Negative: Kentucky Trainer: Roger Solt Brian Ray Paul Jensen Stuard: Will Repko And the winner is ... Track 3 - Affirmative: Iowa Trainer: David Hingstman Andy Ryan Kristin Langwell Negative: Michigan Trainer: Steve Mancuso Chris Pudelski \ Gabe Scannapeico Stuard: Nate Smith And the winner is ... Track 4 - Affirmative: USC Trainer: Paul Derby Steven Stetson Andy Silverman Negative: Michigan State Trainer: Will Repko Steve Donald Aaron Monick Staurd: Melissa Wade And the winner is ... And we can't always get what P wants ... --------------7058E37ED304DEFEC4225A34 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit  

   Good Evening, Mr. and Ms. North and South America, and all ships at sea, let's go to press.

     I am Michael Tetzlaff at the Ramada Inn Debate Racetrack at the 28th annual Univeristy of Kentucky Round Robin.

    The Results for the Seventh race are in at ...2:00

Track 1 -

Affirmative: Kansas
    Trainer:  Scott Harris

    Mike Eber
    David Magariel
 

Negative:  Wake Forest
    Trainer Ross Smith

    Emma Filstrup
    Wes Lotz

Staurd:  Dave Hingstman

And the winner is ....

Track 2 -

Affirmative: Emory
    Trainer:  Melissa Wade

    John Paul Lupo
    Michael Horowitz

Negative:  Kentucky
    Trainer:  Roger Solt

    Brian Ray
    Paul Jensen

Stuard:  Will Repko

And the winner is ...

Track 3 -

Affirmative:  Iowa
    Trainer: David Hingstman

    Andy Ryan
    Kristin Langwell

Negative: Michigan
   Trainer: Steve Mancuso

    Chris Pudelski                 \
    Gabe Scannapeico

Stuard:  Nate Smith

And the winner is ...

Track 4 -

Affirmative:  USC
   Trainer:  Paul Derby

    Steven Stetson
    Andy Silverman

Negative:  Michigan State
   Trainer:  Will Repko

    Steve Donald
    Aaron Monick

Staurd:  Melissa Wade

And the winner is ...

And we can't always get what P wants ...
 
  --------------7058E37ED304DEFEC4225A34-- >From Fri Oct 1 01:41:37 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 67043 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 01:43:01 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from smtp.uky.edu (smtp.uky.edu [128.163.2.17]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA70148 for ; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 01:42:58 -0400 Received: from pop.uky.edu (pop.uky.edu [128.163.2.16]) by smtp.uky.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA20724; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 01:42:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pop.uky.edu ([12.75.223.109]) by pop.uky.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA01962; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 01:42:54 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 (Macintosh; U; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------C66851C3AF9ECDEB72998FAD" Message-ID: <37F45782.2C5A0CF at pop.uky.edu> Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 01:41:37 -0500 Reply-To: jwpatt0 at pop.uky.edu To: Team Topic Debating in America From: "J.W. Patterson" Subject: Round 6 - Run for the Roses Comments: To: cx-l at debate.net --------------C66851C3AF9ECDEB72998FAD Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Good Evening, Mr. and Ms. North and South America, and all ships at sea, let's go to press. I am Michael Tetzlaff at the Ramada Inn Debate Racetrack at the 28th annual Univeristy of Kentucky Round Robin. The Results for the Sixth race are in at ...1:41 Track 1 - Affirmative: Wake Trainer: Ross Smith Emma Filstrup 3/28 Wes Lotz 4/28 Negative: Emory Trainer: Melissa Wade Jon Paul Lupo 2/28 Michael Horowirz 1/28 Staurd: Roger Solt And the winner is ... Emory Track 2 - Affirmative: Kentucky Trainer: Roger Solt Brian Ray 3/28 Paul Jensen 4/27 Negative: Iowa Trainer: David Hingstman Andy Ryan 1/29 Kristin Langwell 2/28.5 Stuard: Scott Harris And the Winner is .. Iowa Track 3 - Affirmative: Michigan Trainer: Steve Mancuso Chris Pudelski 1/28 Gabe Scannapeico 2/28 Negative: USC Trainer: Paul Derby Roger Stetson 3/27.5 Andy Silverman 4/27.5 Stuard: Will Repko And the winner is ... Michigan Track 4 - Affirmative: Michigan State Trainer: Will Repko Steve Donald 1/28 Aaron Monick 2/28 Negative: UMKC Trainer: Josh Hoe Matt Baisley 3/28 Josh Coffman 4/28 Staurd: Dave Hingstman And the winner is .... Michigan State And you can't always get what you want... --------------C66851C3AF9ECDEB72998FAD Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit    Good Evening, Mr. and Ms. North and South America, and all ships at sea, let's go to press.

     I am Michael Tetzlaff at the Ramada Inn Debate Racetrack at the 28th annual Univeristy of Kentucky Round Robin.

    The Results for the Sixth race are in at ...1:41
 

Track 1 -

Affirmative:  Wake
    Trainer:  Ross Smith

    Emma Filstrup              3/28
    Wes Lotz                    4/28
 
 
 

Negative:  Emory
    Trainer:  Melissa Wade

    Jon Paul Lupo                2/28
    Michael Horowirz            1/28

Staurd:  Roger Solt

And the winner is ...  Emory

Track 2 -

Affirmative:  Kentucky
    Trainer:  Roger Solt

    Brian Ray                        3/28
    Paul Jensen                    4/27

Negative:  Iowa
   Trainer: David Hingstman

    Andy Ryan                     1/29
    Kristin Langwell            2/28.5

Stuard:  Scott Harris

And the Winner is .. Iowa

Track 3 -

Affirmative:  Michigan
    Trainer: Steve Mancuso

    Chris Pudelski                    1/28
    Gabe Scannapeico              2/28
 

Negative:  USC
    Trainer:  Paul Derby

    Roger Stetson                   3/27.5
    Andy Silverman                4/27.5

Stuard:  Will Repko

And the winner is ... Michigan

Track 4 -

Affirmative:  Michigan State
    Trainer:  Will Repko

    Steve Donald             1/28
    Aaron Monick             2/28

Negative:  UMKC
    Trainer: Josh Hoe

    Matt Baisley                3/28
    Josh Coffman               4/28

Staurd:  Dave Hingstman

And the winner is .... Michigan State
 

And you can't always get what you want... --------------C66851C3AF9ECDEB72998FAD-- >From Fri Oct 1 02:03:06 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 67251 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 02:05:09 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from smtp.uky.edu (smtp.uky.edu [128.163.2.17]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA69726 for ; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 02:04:58 -0400 Received: from pop.uky.edu (pop.uky.edu [128.163.2.16]) by smtp.uky.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA22817; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 02:04:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pop.uky.edu ([12.75.223.56]) by pop.uky.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA05016; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 02:04:28 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 (Macintosh; U; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------82C7BE61B7456B9AD294908D" Message-ID: <37F45C86.42475200 at pop.uky.edu> Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 02:03:06 -0500 Reply-To: jwpatt0 at pop.uky.edu To: Team Topic Debating in America From: "J.W. Patterson" Subject: Round 7 - Round Robin Comments: To: cx-l at debate.net --------------82C7BE61B7456B9AD294908D Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Good Evening, Mr. and Ms. North and South America, and all ships at sea, let's go to press. I am Michael Tetzlaff at the Ramada Inn Debate Racetrack at the 28th annual Univeristy of Kentucky Round Robin. The Results for the Seventh race are in at ...2:00 Track 1 - Affirmative: Kansas Trainer: Scott Harris Mike Eber 1/28.5 David Magariel 4/27.5 Negative: Wake Forest Trainer Ross Smith Emma Filstrup 3/28 Wes Lotz 2/28 Staurd: Dave Hingstman And the winner is .... Wake Forest Track 2 - Affirmative: Emory Trainer: Melissa Wade John Paul Lupo 1/28 Michael Horowitz 2/28 Negative: Kentucky Trainer: Roger Solt Brian Ray 4/27.5 Paul Jensen 3/27.5 Stuard: Will Repko And the winner is ... Kentucky Track 3 - Affirmative: Iowa Trainer: David Hingstman Andy Ryan 1/28 Kristin Langwell 3/28 Negative: Michigan Trainer: Steve Mancuso Chris Pudelski 2/28 Gabe Scannapeico 4/28 Stuard: Nate Smith And the winner is ... Michigan Track 4 - Affirmative: USC Trainer: Paul Derby Steven Stetson 1/28 Andy Silverman 4/27 Negative: Michigan State Trainer: Will Repko Steve Donald 2/28 Aaron Monick 3/27 Staurd: Melissa Wade And the winner is ... USC And we can't always get what P wants ... --------------82C7BE61B7456B9AD294908D Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit  

   Good Evening, Mr. and Ms. North and South America, and all ships at sea, let's go to press.

     I am Michael Tetzlaff at the Ramada Inn Debate Racetrack at the 28th annual Univeristy of Kentucky Round Robin.

    The Results for the Seventh race are in at ...2:00

Track 1 -

Affirmative: Kansas
    Trainer:  Scott Harris

    Mike Eber                        1/28.5
    David Magariel                    4/27.5
 

Negative:  Wake Forest
    Trainer Ross Smith

    Emma Filstrup                    3/28
    Wes Lotz                            2/28
 
Staurd:  Dave Hingstman

And the winner is .... Wake Forest

Track 2 -

Affirmative: Emory
    Trainer:  Melissa Wade

    John Paul Lupo                    1/28
    Michael Horowitz                   2/28

Negative:  Kentucky
    Trainer:  Roger Solt

    Brian Ray                            4/27.5
    Paul Jensen                        3/27.5

Stuard:  Will Repko

And the winner is ...  Kentucky

Track 3 -

Affirmative:  Iowa
    Trainer: David Hingstman

    Andy Ryan                        1/28
    Kristin Langwell               3/28

Negative: Michigan
   Trainer: Steve Mancuso

    Chris Pudelski                     2/28
    Gabe Scannapeico                4/28

Stuard:  Nate Smith

And the winner is ...  Michigan

Track 4 -

Affirmative:  USC
   Trainer:  Paul Derby

    Steven Stetson              1/28
    Andy Silverman                4/27

Negative:  Michigan State
   Trainer:  Will Repko
 
    Steve Donald                  2/28
    Aaron Monick                    3/27

Staurd:  Melissa Wade

And the winner is ...  USC

And we can't always get what P wants ...
 
  --------------82C7BE61B7456B9AD294908D-- >From Fri Oct 1 02:23:10 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 67363 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 02:24:33 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from smtp.uky.edu (smtp.uky.edu [128.163.2.17]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA73824 for ; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 02:24:31 -0400 Received: from pop.uky.edu (pop.uky.edu [128.163.2.16]) by smtp.uky.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA24806; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 02:24:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pop.uky.edu ([12.75.223.65]) by pop.uky.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA07790; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 02:24:27 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 (Macintosh; U; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------E9B88F0E9A265CBF776BA218" Message-ID: <37F46136.A46729B3 at pop.uky.edu> Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 02:23:10 -0500 Reply-To: jwpatt0 at pop.uky.edu To: Team Topic Debating in America From: "J.W. Patterson" Subject: Round 8 - UK Round Robin Comments: To: cx-l at debate.net --------------E9B88F0E9A265CBF776BA218 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Good Evening, Mr. and Ms. North and South America, and all ships at sea, let's go to press. I am Michael Tetzlaff at the Ramada Inn Debate Racetrack at the 28th annual Univeristy of Kentucky Round Robin. The Results for the Eighth race are in at ...2:20 Track 1 - Affirmative: Kentucky Trainer: Roger Solt Paul Jensen 3/27 Brian Ray 2/27.5 Negative: Kansas Trainer: Scott Harris Mike Eber 1/29 Dave Magariel 4/27 Stuard: Paul Derby And the winner is ... Track 2 - Affirmative: Michigan Trainer: Steve Mancuso Chris Pudelski 2/28.5 Gabe Scannapeico 4/28.5 Negative: Emory Trainer: Melissa Wade Mike Horowitz 1/28.5 John Paul Lupo 3/28.5 Stuard: Dave Hingstman And the winner is .... Michigan Track 3 - Affirmative: Michigan State Trainer: Will Repko Aaron Monick 1/27.5 Steve Donald 4/27.5 Negative: Iowa Trainer: Dave Hingstman Kristin Langwell 3/27.5 Andy Ryan 2/27.5 Stuard: Ross Smith And the winner is ... MSU Track 4 - Affirmative: UMKC Trainer: Josh Hoe Josh Coffman 3/27.5 Matt Baisley 1/27.5 Negative: USC Trainer: Paul Derby Roger Stetson 2/27.5 Andy Silverman 4/27 Staurd: Scott Harris And the winner is ... UMKC And you can't always get what you want ... --------------E9B88F0E9A265CBF776BA218 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit  

   Good Evening, Mr. and Ms. North and South America, and all ships at sea, let's go to press.

     I am Michael Tetzlaff at the Ramada Inn Debate Racetrack at the 28th annual Univeristy of Kentucky Round Robin.

    The Results for the Eighth race are in at ...2:20

Track 1 -

Affirmative: Kentucky
    Trainer:  Roger Solt

    Paul Jensen                          3/27
    Brian Ray                            2/27.5

Negative:  Kansas
    Trainer:   Scott Harris

    Mike Eber                            1/29
    Dave Magariel                        4/27

Stuard:  Paul Derby

And the winner is ...

Track 2 -

Affirmative:  Michigan
    Trainer:  Steve Mancuso

 
    Chris Pudelski                         2/28.5
    Gabe Scannapeico                    4/28.5
 

Negative:  Emory
    Trainer:  Melissa Wade

    Mike Horowitz                            1/28.5
    John Paul Lupo                              3/28.5

Stuard:  Dave Hingstman

And the winner is .... Michigan

Track 3 -

Affirmative:  Michigan State
    Trainer:  Will Repko

    Aaron Monick            1/27.5
    Steve Donald            4/27.5

Negative:  Iowa
    Trainer:  Dave Hingstman

    Kristin Langwell        3/27.5
    Andy Ryan                2/27.5

Stuard:  Ross Smith

And the winner is ... MSU

Track 4 -

Affirmative:  UMKC
    Trainer:  Josh Hoe

    Josh Coffman                    3/27.5
    Matt Baisley                        1/27.5
 
Negative:  USC
    Trainer:  Paul Derby

    Roger Stetson                     2/27.5
    Andy Silverman                4/27

Staurd:  Scott Harris

And the winner is ... UMKC

And you can't always get what you want ...
 
  --------------E9B88F0E9A265CBF776BA218-- >From Fri Oct 1 02:39:03 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 67478 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 02:39:43 -0400 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 CAA44538 for ; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 02:39:41 -0400 Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo-d10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v22.4.) id 2SOZ0g2L7l (4568); Fri, 1 Oct 1999 02:39:04 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 26 Message-ID: <18c33a1e.2525b107 at aol.com> Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 02:39:03 EDT Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Michael Bear Bryant Subject: Re: MTSU Speech/Wild Wild West Comments: To: girl-genius at angelfire.com In a message dated 9/30/99 10:46:34 PM Mountain Daylight Time, girl-genius at ANGELFIRE.COM writes: > > Still sorta disappointed that discussion on sexual > orientation loses out to other things that don't > affect us from day to day. Didn't mean for it to die > such a horrible death. Doesn't everyone here believe > in the power of speech/language/words? Why is it so > difficult for us to talk about these things then? > > still wincing from the burns > novice > Shawnessy Because YOUR words equated being a GLBT with being a pedophile. You defended those words to the point that most of us simply didn't care to hear your rationalization of religious perspective. The way YOU framed the issue is what made it so hard to continue discourse on that subject. I applaud your diversity efforts and wish you well. MW Bryant >From Fri Oct 1 02:48:51 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 67594 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 02:50:18 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from smtp.uky.edu (smtp.uky.edu [128.163.2.17]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA55684 for ; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 02:50:13 -0400 Received: from pop.uky.edu (pop.uky.edu [128.163.2.16]) by smtp.uky.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA27028; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 02:50:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pop.uky.edu ([12.75.223.35]) by pop.uky.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA11129; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 02:50:09 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 (Macintosh; U; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------005C5CD83B2CFD265EECFA6A" Message-ID: <37F4673A.9971927 at pop.uky.edu> Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 02:48:51 -0500 Reply-To: jwpatt0 at pop.uky.edu To: Team Topic Debating in America From: "J.W. Patterson" Subject: Round 9 - Run for the Roses Comments: To: cx-l at debate.net --------------005C5CD83B2CFD265EECFA6A Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Good Evening, Mr. and Ms. North and South America, and all ships at sea, let's go to press. I am Michael Tetzlaff at the Ramada Inn Debate Racetrack at the 28th annual Univeristy of Kentucky Round Robin. The Results for the Ninth race are in at ...2:45 Track 1 - Affirmative: Wake Trainer: Ross Smith Emma Filstrup 3/27.5 Wes Lotz 2/28 Negative: Kentucky Trainer: Roger Solt Brian Ray 1/28 Paul Jensen 4/27 Stuard: Nate Smith And the winner is ... Kentucky Track 2- Affirmative: Kansas Trainer: Scott Harris Mike Eber 2/28 Dave Magerial 4/27 Negative: Michigan Trainer: Steve Mancuso Chris Pudelski 1/28 Gabe Scannapeico 3/28 Stuard: Melissa Wade And the winner is ... Michigan Track 3 - Affirmative: Emory Trainer: Melissa Wade John Paul Lupo 2/28.5 Michael Horowitz 3/28 Negative: Michigan State Trainer: Will Repko Aaron Monick 4/28 Steve Donald 1/29 Staurd: Scott Harris And the Winner is ... Emory Track 4 - Affirmative: Iowa Trainer: Dave Hingstman Andy Ryan 3/28 Kristin Langwell 1/28 Negative: UMKC Trainer: Josh Hoe Josh Coffman 4/27.5 Matt Baisley 2/28 Staurd: Steve Mancuso And the winner is ... Iowa That's it .. and the Winners are ... --------------005C5CD83B2CFD265EECFA6A Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit  

   Good Evening, Mr. and Ms. North and South America, and all ships at sea, let's go to press.

     I am Michael Tetzlaff at the Ramada Inn Debate Racetrack at the 28th annual Univeristy of Kentucky Round Robin.

    The Results for the Ninth race are in at ...2:45
 

Track 1 -

Affirmative:  Wake
    Trainer:  Ross Smith

    Emma Filstrup          3/27.5
    Wes Lotz                2/28

Negative:  Kentucky
    Trainer:  Roger Solt

    Brian Ray                    1/28
    Paul Jensen                4/27

Stuard:  Nate Smith

And the winner is ...  Kentucky

Track 2-

Affirmative:  Kansas
    Trainer:  Scott Harris

    Mike Eber                2/28
    Dave Magerial            4/27

Negative:  Michigan
    Trainer:  Steve Mancuso

    Chris Pudelski                       1/28
    Gabe Scannapeico                3/28
 
Stuard:  Melissa Wade

And the winner is ... Michigan

Track 3 -

Affirmative:  Emory
    Trainer:  Melissa Wade

    John Paul Lupo                2/28.5
    Michael Horowitz            3/28

Negative:  Michigan State
    Trainer:  Will Repko

    Aaron Monick                4/28
    Steve Donald                1/29

Staurd:  Scott Harris

And the Winner is ...  Emory

Track 4 -

Affirmative:  Iowa
    Trainer:  Dave Hingstman

    Andy Ryan                           3/28
    Kristin Langwell                1/28

Negative:  UMKC
    Trainer:  Josh Hoe

    Josh Coffman                    4/27.5
    Matt Baisley                        2/28

Staurd:  Steve Mancuso

And the winner is ... Iowa

That's it .. and the Winners are ... --------------005C5CD83B2CFD265EECFA6A-- From elliottdarren Fri Oct 1 01:51:24 1999 From: elliottdarren (DARREN ELLIOTT) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 01:51:24 CDT Subject: What are we doing? Message-ID: A few thoughts below as I avoid a paper and am awaiting the posting of the KY RR Run for the Roses. I knew it'd be a late night! >From: Shawnessy Scott >There's 3 issues on the table that I think are worth >discussing (or re-discussing, as I'm pretty new here) >1. Speed (Performance) >2. Motive (Winning) >3. Relevance > >Speed >As a new debater I'm pretty annoyed that I have to speak >at the speed of light to become a top debater. I keep >asking about this and the answer I get is "coverage". But >it seems to me if people didn't start out with an 80 page >1AC or 15 off cases in the 1NC all of that wouldn't be >necessary. Do you have to speak that fast? No. Debate is a game that has evolved. The debaters playing the game have led the evolution. Debaters have led the charge for speed. It's not like somebody developed a speed rule-go fast or perish. It evolved that way. What I do find interesting is that you question below, why is winning so important? It must be right, or you and others wouldn't be upset at the notion that lack of speed puts you at a competitive disadvantage. Yeah debate is educational, but if winning weren't the end result for almost all of us, the speed question would be moot. >Motive >Just winning was talked about a lot during the service >amendment discussion and although it has it's merits... >should it be the primary focus? Besides the hours of >research many do, where's the education taking place? >Sean mentioned advocacy. I have a great deal of respect for Sean. I also respect the many who DO believe in their arguments. My question is why does there need to be education beyond the research? I'm not saying there shouldn't be, just asking the question. Until that queston is answered are we justified in attacking the merits of fast debate? And why do fast debates and education have to be mutually exclusive? I think debate in its current form allows for breadth and depth-something you rarely find in any other academic setting. >Relevance >Ever tried to explain policy debate to a LOGICAL person? >I'm the first to admit that the person I was talking to >isn't a representative for all non-debaters out there, >but I started getting a sense of how ridiculous it all >is if we can't explain the POINT. I'm curious about the >various opinions on that. Never tried to explain it to an illogical person either. Begin by explaining what I said above. Debate ='s breadth and depth. Very few other academic settings do that. As for the point? What's the point of football, intramurals, or campus clubs for that matter? All serve their own purpose to a limited audience. Why does debate have to transcend some lofty, higher goals? >humbly >novice >Shawnessy Scott > Always wondering why we think we need to be more than what we are. Darren Elliott "CHIEF" Asst. Debate Coach Wichita State University ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From wv_chic Fri Oct 1 02:14:00 1999 From: wv_chic (Jodie Robinson) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 07:14:00 GMT Subject: the internet and debate Message-ID: Does this idea not scare anyone but me? I do understand that this would open up the world of debate to those who otherwise might not be able to access it, but (and maybe this is an archaic concept) isn't there something to be said for old-fashioned face-to-face communication. In today's world of high-speed modems, fax, e-mail etc., where we are opened to a new global community, isn't interaction on a personal level something we should value more? I am not against technology. I would not be able to use this forum without the above mentioned items. I do feel however, that the education that comes from debate not only happens in the round and at the tournament, but from community involvement as a whole. There are those times when students who would never cross paths any other way, come together and share views and ideas in hotel lobbies, and between rounds that can teach them just as much. This is valuable interaction with those from different walks of life that would be lost in this cyber-debate world. I'm not saying I'd like to buy the community a coke as we all sit around and sing songs, but our commitment should be focused on something more than just the in-round argumentation. If, we cross-apply many of the earlier arguments from the class attendance discussion, we learned that a majority of learning can take place from experiences outside the classroom. Let's not give that up so easily. Jodie Robinson ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com >From Fri Oct 1 03:15:14 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 67987 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 03:16:38 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from smtp.uky.edu (smtp.uky.edu [128.163.2.17]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA42318 for ; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 03:16:36 -0400 Received: from pop.uky.edu (pop.uky.edu [128.163.2.16]) by smtp.uky.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA29233; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 03:16:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pop.uky.edu ([12.75.223.98]) by pop.uky.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA14536; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 03:16:32 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 (Macintosh; U; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------2019052318CCAE12CE5D2D5A" Message-ID: <37F46D65.A8B6D8 at pop.uky.edu> Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 03:15:14 -0500 Reply-To: jwpatt0 at pop.uky.edu To: Team Topic Debating in America From: "J.W. Patterson" Subject: FINAL RESULTS - THOROUGHBRED RR @ UK Comments: To: cx-l at debate.net --------------2019052318CCAE12CE5D2D5A Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Good Evening, Mr. and Ms. North and South America, and all ships at sea, let's go to press. I am Michael Tetzlaff at the Ramada Inn Debate Racetrack at the 28th annual Univeristy of Kentucky Round Robin. The Results are in ... Team Race ------------- Win Michigan Place Emory Show Michigan State Speaker Race --------------- Win Chris Pudelski Place John Paul Lupo Show Mike Eber Thats it from the 1999 UK Thoroughbred Round Robin... --------------2019052318CCAE12CE5D2D5A Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit  
   Good Evening, Mr. and Ms. North and South America, and all ships at sea, let's go to press.

     I am Michael Tetzlaff at the Ramada Inn Debate Racetrack at the 28th annual Univeristy of Kentucky Round Robin.

    The Results are in ...
 

Team Race
-------------

Win  Michigan

Place Emory

Show  Michigan State
 

Speaker Race
---------------

Win  Chris Pudelski
 

Place    John Paul Lupo
 

Show     Mike Eber
 
 

Thats it from the 1999 UK Thoroughbred Round Robin... --------------2019052318CCAE12CE5D2D5A-- From kelley513 Fri Oct 1 08:00:25 1999 From: kelley513 (Kelley Skillin) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 06:00:25 -0700 Subject: What are we doing? Message-ID: Sorry if this is slightly incoherent but I've been up all night helping for KY...Now that that's taken care of I just have a few replies... Several people wrote to me for coming down too hard on Sean. I didn't mean to. I only meant to point out that his argument had collapsed to "maybe I'm wrong, but this is the way it is in Texas," and that statement simply isn't true. The problems he names are not unique to Texas. Also, if I can come up with numerous examples of debaters that have broken "the mold" why doesn't that prove that there is no mold? My point is that there were several generalizations made about debate and what judges want that I don't think are true of everyone. Additionally, I fail to believe that my experiences in the activity are unique to only me. There have been other "slow" teams that have succeeded despite the "flaw" of not being able to read at 90 miles an hour. I'm not even in the debate of whether speed is good or bad--I'm saying it isn't necessary (to a certain extent). I've found that what a lot of debaters mistake for speed is actually efficiency in presenting the arguments. As for winning...that was not the most important thing to me. I got into debate for the educational aspects, and stayed in for the social aspects and the chance to say what I wanted to say in a forum that although not always receptive to what I had to say, was certainly more receptive than much of the general population. Which brings me to advocacy. I never ran a case I didn't believe in personally, and a lot of time on the negative my partner and I chose to run arguments we believed in. At the Utah NDT, Jon and I agreed that we didn't care whether we won, we just wanted to have fun and say some things we thought needed to be said. We agreed that we would run feminism all year. That was before the topic came out which turned out to be conducive to the argument. We got lucky. We still would've run the argument whether it was particularly relevant or not (although I'm inclined to believe it's always relevant). We wanted to say things in rounds and that's what we valued. Which goes back to my original argument, which is that much of what Sean originally complained about is a product of individual choices the debater(s) make. Jon and I also made the choice to write a slow persuasive 1AC for the second semester. It was an issue (sexual harassment) that we both cared about and felt that it needed to be presented in a manner that let others know of its importance to us. That answers most of the motive questions except for one. Shawnessy asked when do we get around to debating an author's argument in its purity...I have found that this rarely happens in any setting, academic or otherwise. Classes may be offered on a certain specific subject, but rarely focus on only one author. Additionally, this is once again a personal choice. Emory ran Spanos 63 negative rounds in a row (if I remember the # correctly) and won on it 62 times. Several other teams regularly only went for one argument in the entire negative block and won. It's all about choice. As for relevance, that's also up to the individual. You take out of this activity what you choose to. I had many negative experiences in my time in debate. I started out as someone who had never debated in high school and then learned to debate at a community college in a district where no other cc debated. Two strikes already and add to that the fact that I'm female. But I was taught that instead of placing blame on judges or my sex, etc. to focus that energy on improving my arguments. Ted Urban (my first coach) told me from the beginning that if you beat a team badly enough, judges won't vote against you no matter what disadvantages you have coming into the round. I still believe this. Those "negative" factors may influence a judge in close rounds, and I'm willing to believe that a few judges will still vote against you no matter how good you were, however, the energy is still better spent on improving your argumentation. Finally, I'm a pretty logical person as are many other debaters and we have been able to grasp policy debate. Many of the people closest to me are not debaters. Although I get tired sometimes of having to explain things in "lay" terms, they all understand what it is I do/did and why I choose to do it. Many of them have seen me debate and thought it was pretty cool. As for its relevance to life--that's one you have to figure out for yourself. I could sit here and tell you what I gained from debate (and Shawnessy, if you would like to discuss that feel free to backchannel me), but it's going to be different for each person. It all depends on what you value in and/or want from this activity. And that's true about life in general as well. It's all about what you make it. Kelley Jon-did you ever imagine that I would end up defending this activity? I certainly didn't! ===== __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com From Gary.N.Larson Fri Oct 1 08:39:35 1999 From: Gary.N.Larson (Gary N. Larson) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 08:39:35 -0500 Subject: Kentucky Message-ID: I will be at a conference all day and then flying to Lexington. If you have a problem contact JW. I will be back on-line LATE tonight. Thanks for your help. If you have NOT done your pref sheets, send them ASAP. If you are in Lexington and don't have e-mail, get a paper copy of the form from JW at registration and fill it out TONIGHT. Sincerely, GARY From matth474 Fri Oct 1 10:14:38 1999 From: matth474 (matt holland) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 08:14:38 PDT Subject: Fullerton BN Message-ID: If someone could get me there email addresses or backchannel me there 1ac source cites I would appreciate it Thanks in advance Matt Holland McNeese ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From roubidou Fri Oct 1 13:21:46 1999 From: roubidou (Douglas Roubidou) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 11:21:46 -0700 Subject: Stacy Sowards In-Reply-To: <19991001151438.52107.qmail@hotmail.com> Message-ID: Could Stacy backchannel me Thanks Douglas > From smithr Fri Oct 1 13:17:57 1999 From: smithr (Ross Smith) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 14:17:57 -0400 Subject: Cap City nearly full Message-ID: Here's what I have: Cap City Entries 1999 (60 teams) GEORGETOWN Georgetown would like to enter 4 teams. GEORGIA Wally Eastwood & Meredith Stein Robbie Quinn & Shawn Powers Jeff Ranew & Patricia Kelley Judges: Ed Panetta Gordon Stables KENTUCKY Ky. would like to bring four teams to Cap City. TOWSON Towson would like to enter one team in the Cap Cities tournament DARTMOUTH Five teams: Alex Berger and Adam Garen Kumar Garg and Josh Skora Andrew Leong and Nicole Serrano REL Rubin and John Turner Nathan Sabel and Eric Zampol Judges Steve Lehotsky Bill Russell Ken Strange KANSAS Mike Eber and Grant McKeehan MIAMI (FL) The University of Miami would like to bring at least 2 and possibly 3 teams to the tournament. REDLANDS Consider us in, Miller & Graffagnini! BOSTON COLLEGE Lisa Langdon/Jared Fields MICHIGAN Carl Sammartino and Adriana Midence Gabe Scannapieco and John Oden Tim Stucka and Steve Benken Judges Jason Hernandez 6 rounds Steve Mancuso 6 rounds HARVARD 2 teams WAKE FOREST 6 teams CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY Ivan Susak/Joe Lauer Matt Dunn/Sarah Wilson Judge: Mike Dutcher MICHIGAN STATE Aaron Monick & Steve Donald Matt Blair & Austin Carson Anjali Vats & Alison Woidan Calum Matheson & Geoff Lundeen Louis Brown & John Branester NORTHWESTERN 2 teams MARY WASHINGTON 1 team GEORGE WASHINGTON 2 teams GEORGE MASON Je"Mara Atwood and Bary Hausrath. Judge will be either Peter Krein or Chris McIntosh. LIBERTY John Ross and Jared Woodard Stephen Carter and Nick Seim Travis Ausland and Wil Haupfear David Cooper and Rebekah Meador Judges Mike Hall Bill Lawrence Michael Tilley maybe more WEST GEORGIA 2 or 3 teams EMORY Stephen Bailey and Kamal Ghali Alison Chase and John Rains Adam Goldstein and David Harkin Nicole Hudak and Jeremy Hendon Eric Russ and Rania Nassredine Dan Albert and Kurt Kastorf Evan Granowitz and Lance Cook Judges are D.Heidt and S. Heidt we'll see if we can stir some alums in DC OTHERS (who have indicated interest but have not "entered"): Pitt, Louisville, JMU? From ccrensh Fri Oct 1 13:28:20 1999 From: ccrensh (ccrensh) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 13:28:20 -0500 Subject: Only if it's helpful Message-ID: Dear Community, I wanted to share a part of my response to Shawnessy. Read further only if it's helpful. Hope you all are doing well. Best, Carrie Shawnessy writes (designated by the >s): >Debate isn't all it's cracked up to be, and probably not >what it should be. Whether or not you personally identify >with Mike's experiences as a debater doesn't really matter, >as long as you realize that isn't an isolated freak account >of what debate is like. It's also true that not everyone >will be able to identify with Kelly's experiences either. For sure. Debate is not perfect. But I think it's very important to make sure that we evaluate it in a balanced fashion because the only way to fix bad things about it is to make sure that we see them in the context of the good things about debate. Keep what's good. Change what's bad. > >There's 3 issues on the table that I think are worth >discussing (or re-discussing, as I'm pretty new here) >1. Speed (Performance) >2. Motive (Winning) >3. Relevance > >Speed >As a new debater I'm pretty annoyed that I have to speak >at the speed of light to become a top debater. I keep >asking about this and the answer I get is "coverage". But >it seems to me if people didn't start out with an 80 page >1AC or 15 off cases in the 1NC all of that wouldn't be >necessary. The whole idea behind topicality arguments >(correct me if I'm wrong) is to limit the resolution to >a finite amount of cases/research to increase education >by getting in-depth understanding. It seems to me that the >quality of arguments would be downright brilliant if we >didn't have to spread ourselves so thin. There is also the >issue of what debate is supposed to teach us as far as >presenting arguments. It might be easier to focus on >presence, presentation, and persuasion if we weren't >reading stacks of cards and frontlines. > First, I think your assumption that you have to speak at the speed of light to become a top debater is flawed and would ask you to reconsider it. In fact, some of the best debaters don't speak particularly fast. I'm thinking here of a team that I saw just this last weekend that is not particularly fast, but is incredibly smart. They succeed and continue to succeed at the top levels of debate. I have known many many debaters who fit into this mode. In fact, the best debaters know exactly when to slow down. If you've gotten this impression in part from our drills at practice, I really want to let you know that the purpose of those is not to just make you speak quickly. First, if you can speak quickly and clearly at a high rate of speed, you will always be able to speak clearly at a slow rate of speed. In addition, speed reading has unique benefits. The more one practices reading quickly, the faster and better one's comprehension becomes. One might think "hey, I don't comprehend what I'm reading at that rate," but the longer you do it, the faster your comprehension becomes. There are whole classes devoted to speed reading as an important tool for effective information processing. If you've ever taken a speed reading course, you'll know that when you use the techniques of speed reading at first, your comprehension seems low, but the more you practice the technique, the greater your comprehension becomes. Second, all of the public speaking studies indicate that people comprehend speakers at a _MUCH_ faster rate than a normal conversational rate of speech. That's why people get so bored during speeches. So, the longer you're in debate, the easier it is for you to understand speakers who are quicker. Your brain can do it from the beginning; it's just what one is used to or not. Third, if one can be persuasive at a high rate of speed, one can always be persuasive at a slower rate of speed. It is never appropriate to speak quickly for a critic that is not used to it or does not prefer it. However, speaking quickly and persuasively for trained critics who are comfortable comprehending a quick rate is still good practice for speaking persuasively at a slower rate of speed. Fourth, your lament about broad topics is very meritorious and much discussed. However, I'm not sure that it's _inherently_ tied to the issue of speed. The problem with always tying them together is that no matter how much you limit a topic and still make it debatable, it will always be complex. We now live in a world of ever increasing amounts and access to massive amounts of information. Speaking quickly is good practice for engaging in quick and effective information processing. Even if you choose to speak slowly, it's good to be challenged by a quick speaker because you are forced to effectively and concisely congnitively process and respond to a large amount of information. There are other good reasons for understanding the practice of quick speaking and these are just a few. >Motive >Just winning was talked about a lot during the service >amendment discussion and although it has it's merits... >should it be the primary focus? Besides the hours of >research many do, where's the education taking place? >Sean mentioned advocacy. I know in the few research >assignments I've taken that I've gotten sort of tunnel >vision and only scanned for paragraphs of immediate >relevance. Even though I understand it's not really >practical, shouldn't we really get a feel for what >authors are saying (Marx, Foucault, bell hooks) instead >of cutting the 2 sentences that could win us a round? >I debated a round where the aff team made a point to >mention they were presenting the plan exactly as their >author/solvency advocate wrote it. My answer: "So what?" >Now it occurs to me that the professors, etc. who spend >valuable time researching the topic and forming these >plans/opinions may not just do it so we can pull out >an excerpt in card-to-card combat. When do we get around >to debating an author's viewpoint in its purity? or did >i miss that part... Well, then I think we need to talk about how you're doing your research. The best way to do research is to read and comprehend the entire article/book and the complexity of the issue as the author(s) present it. Then, excerpt representative evidence that gives good reasons for the claim(s) made. There has been a trend toward longer cards in debate that I think is a good one. The best debaters really do understand what the authors are saying in depth and can defend their assumptions. > >Relevance >Ever tried to explain policy debate to a LOGICAL person? >I'm the first to admit that the person I was talking to >isn't a representative for all non-debaters out there, >but I started getting a sense of how ridiculous it all >is if we can't explain the POINT. I'm curious about the >various opinions on that. Please feel free to enlighten >me. (Not that I don't think there's a point to debate, >I just think maybe there's a more important one that >I don't see just yet). Start with the question of what >it has to do with it's relevance to life in general. There are _so_ many ways that it's directly relevant to life in general, it's hard to even know where to begin. Here are just a few. First, the skills. There are a ton of studies indicating that the skills one learns in debate are directly relevant to success in later life. (I have written documents sumarizing these studies for various purposes like arguing for an endowment plan, recruiting material, TDL promotion, etc. that I would be happy to share with anyone who is interested.) A few of those skills in these studies are research, critical/analytical thinking, training for the information age e.g. information retrieval, processing, evaluation, pre-professional training, communication skills, etc. But to be honest, what's really convinced me is my own personal experience. I would not be where I am today, a debate coach that gets to work with you, a tenured University professor, etc., were it not for debate. I grew up in a home in which it was expected for "girls" to be demure and pleasing. The skills I learned in debate helped me overcome the barriers that gender stereotyping threw in my path. Second, the perspective. I am convinced after 12 years of coaching and 8 years of debating that switch side debating opens minds and doors. Debate teaches the habit of examining multiple sides of every issue to come to a considered decision. Third, the people. There is no doubt in my mind that the most wonderful thing about debate is the people in it. To be in a group of people that value high quality argument is a wonderful and often rare thing--something that I treasure every day. Listen, I don't want to try to talk you into anything. If debate's not for you then I certainly respect that. However, I have to tell you, as I've told you many times before, that I think you are quite talented and smart and debate has alot to offer you just as you have alot to offer debate. And, I sincerely mean when I say that if you have any concerns, I will make time for you. I just need you to let me know. Best, Carrie > >humbly >novice >Shawnessy Scott > > >Angelfire for your free web-based e-mail. http://www.angelfire.com Carrie Crenshaw, Ph.D. Director of Debate and Associate Professor of Communcation Studies University of Alabama ___________________________________________________________________ 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. Carrie Crenshaw, Ph.D. Director of Debate and Associate Professor of Communcation Studies University of Alabama From rgreene77 Fri Oct 1 15:35:46 1999 From: rgreene77 (rebecca greene) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 16:35:46 EDT Subject: Cap City nearly full Message-ID: Hi, For those of you who don't know me out there, I'm a former debater for Mary Wash who debated 4 years NDT/CEDA debate in college and now am a recent college grad working in DC. I am judging for some smaller schools this year. Since I am in DC and none of the teams who have requested my services recently as a judge are planning on attending Cap Cities, I would like to let everyone to know that I would love to judge at Cap Cities if anyone needs a judge. Had a great time at Cap Cities these last 2 years and would love to run into some friends. Just backchannel me at this email addy. Becca Greene >From: Ross Smith >Reply-To: Ross Smith >To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU >Subject: Cap City nearly full >Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 14:17:57 -0400 >MIME-Version: 1.0 >From owner-edebate at LIST.UVM.EDU Fri Oct 01 13:26:12 1999 >Received: from [132.198.101.121] by hotmail.com (3.1) with ESMTP id >MHotMailB9BE6280010CD820F3B284C665790B5C40; Fri Oct 01 13:26:12 1999 >Received: from list.uvm.edu by smtpgate.uvm.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT >v1.1a) with SMTP id <0.6927EC10 at smtpgate.uvm.edu>; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 13:18:11 >-0500 >Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) >with spool id 72442 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 >14:18:18 -0400 >Precedence: bulk >Received: from f1n3.spenet.wfu.edu (f1n3.sp2net.wfu.edu [152.17.8.13]) by > list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA58230 for >; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 14:18:15 -0400 >Received: from Pez (slip166-72-233-33.ky.us.prserv.net [166.72.233.33]) by > f1n3.spenet.wfu.edu (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.7) with SMTP id OAA36680 >for ; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 14:17:56 -0400 >X-Sender: smithr at pop.wfu.edu >X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) >Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19991001181757.0074cc18 at pop.wfu.edu> >Sender: Team Topic Debating in America > >Here's what I have: > >Cap City Entries 1999 (60 teams) > >GEORGETOWN >Georgetown would like to enter 4 teams. > >GEORGIA >Wally Eastwood & Meredith Stein >Robbie Quinn & Shawn Powers >Jeff Ranew & Patricia Kelley > >Judges: >Ed Panetta >Gordon Stables > >KENTUCKY >Ky. would like to bring four teams to Cap City. > >TOWSON >Towson would like to enter one team in the Cap Cities tournament > >DARTMOUTH >Five teams: >Alex Berger and Adam Garen >Kumar Garg and Josh Skora >Andrew Leong and Nicole Serrano >REL Rubin and John Turner >Nathan Sabel and Eric Zampol > >Judges >Steve Lehotsky >Bill Russell >Ken Strange > >KANSAS >Mike Eber and Grant McKeehan > >MIAMI (FL) >The University of Miami would like to bring at least 2 and possibly 3 teams >to the tournament. > >REDLANDS >Consider us in, Miller & Graffagnini! > >BOSTON COLLEGE >Lisa Langdon/Jared Fields > >MICHIGAN >Carl Sammartino and Adriana Midence >Gabe Scannapieco and John Oden >Tim Stucka and Steve Benken > >Judges >Jason Hernandez 6 rounds >Steve Mancuso 6 rounds > >HARVARD >2 teams > >WAKE FOREST >6 teams > >CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY >Ivan Susak/Joe Lauer >Matt Dunn/Sarah Wilson > >Judge: Mike Dutcher > >MICHIGAN STATE >Aaron Monick & Steve Donald >Matt Blair & Austin Carson >Anjali Vats & Alison Woidan >Calum Matheson & Geoff Lundeen >Louis Brown & John Branester > >NORTHWESTERN >2 teams > >MARY WASHINGTON >1 team > >GEORGE WASHINGTON >2 teams > >GEORGE MASON >Je"Mara Atwood and Bary Hausrath. Judge will >be either Peter Krein or Chris McIntosh. > >LIBERTY >John Ross and Jared Woodard >Stephen Carter and Nick Seim >Travis Ausland and Wil Haupfear >David Cooper and Rebekah Meador > >Judges >Mike Hall >Bill Lawrence >Michael Tilley >maybe more > >WEST GEORGIA >2 or 3 teams > >EMORY >Stephen Bailey and Kamal Ghali >Alison Chase and John Rains >Adam Goldstein and David Harkin >Nicole Hudak and Jeremy Hendon >Eric Russ and Rania Nassredine >Dan Albert and Kurt Kastorf >Evan Granowitz and Lance Cook > >Judges are D.Heidt and S. Heidt >we'll see if we can stir some alums in DC > >OTHERS (who have indicated interest but have not "entered"): Pitt, >Louisville, JMU? ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com >From Fri Oct 1 17:05:15 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 74014 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 17:06:04 -0400 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 RAA62656 for ; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 17:06:02 -0400 Received: from MGWalton at aol.com by imo-d04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v22.4.) id nXOB0DOyxt (3967) for ; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 17:05:15 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows sub 11 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 17:05:15 EDT Reply-To: MGWalton at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Marcus Walton Subject: USC High School Tourney Any USC folk out there: Leland High School would really like to send you guys some cash and send our debaters to your tournament. Where can we get an invite? Marcus Walton Debate Coach Leland High School From amackie Fri Oct 1 18:37:40 1999 From: amackie (Aiman Fouad Mackie) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 19:37:40 -0400 Subject: Disney World and American Culture: Under Israeli Hostage Message-ID: Thought this might be of interest to y'all... "ADC Press Release: Arab-Americans Dismayed by Visit to Disney World Israel Exhibit Washington D.C., October 1 v Officials from the national office of The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) joined a local delegation from the Arab American Community Center (AACC) in Orlando, Fl., today to view the new Israel exhibit at Disney World. At a press conference held just outside Disney World, local and national Arab-American leaders expressed dismay at the clear focus of the Israel exhibit on occupied Arab East Jerusalem. The exhibit takes visitors though faux stone gates representing the entrances to the Old City in occupied East Jerusalem. These walls are adorned with a large panorama foregrounding occupied East Jerusalem, with its world famous Palestinian Christian and Muslim sites such as Church of the Holy Sepulcher and the Dome of the Rock and Al-Aqsa Mosque. In the two films that complete the exhibit, no mention whatever is made of the Palestinian people or the brutal military occupation that the Muslim and Christian Palestinian residents of occupied East Jerusalem endure daily. Moreover, no mention is made of the last 1,400 years and the extraordinary Arab Christian and Muslim role in shaping the character, culture and history of the Holy City. The clear political message is a claim of Israeli Jewish exclusivity and dominance in a city that is in no way part of Israel. East Jerusalem is universally recognized as being under foreign military occupation. It was recognized as such in UN Security Council Resolution 242 in 1967. Israelbs annexation of Arab East Jerusalem in 1980 was unanimously rejected by the Security Council, including the United States, which emphasized the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force. The U.S. has never recognized Jerusalem as a part of Israel, and the U.S. embassy is located in Tel Aviv, as are almost all embassies in Israel because of the strong international consensus against the occupation of East Jerusalem Disney has dropped all references to Jerusalem as the "capital of Israel" and included disclaimers that it does not endorse any political implications of the Israel exhibit, which was partially designed and funded by the Israeli Foreign Ministry. But a further correction of this grossly distorted record is required, and ADC renews its call for a Palestinian exhibit at Disney World as a necessary step. ADC Communications Director Hussein Ibish said that "Disney appears to have wanted to put together a celebration of world cultures. Unfortunately, rather than entering into the spirit of this project, Israel has hijacked another peoplebs culture and heritage and is holding Disney World hostage in the process. The distortion of the history and present circumstances of Jerusalem at this exhibit is shameless and breathtaking, and its insidious political motivation is clear." -Aiman U of M From kenneth.delaughder Fri Oct 1 22:22:30 1999 From: kenneth.delaughder (Kenneth DeLaughder) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 21:22:30 -0600 Subject: Saloom and Iraq In-Reply-To: <769f74b1.25252bcc@aol.com> Message-ID: While I have a great deal of respect for the teams running Iraq, Rachels post does lead me to make one comment about this topic, I think the "constructive engagement" part of the topic is being lost in our rush to say that merely lifting sanctions is topical. What do you mean Ken? Well most of the Iraw cases I've seen merely lift sanctions and don't do anything further (except some WMD inspection spikey stuff for the WMD turns). Sure it might be easy to defend santions policies as horrible, but I already see affirmatives running from the "constructive engagement" part of the rez by merely claiming that ending a US policy toward, Iraq in particular, is enough action... maybe cuz they don't wanna defend engaging saddam... hmmmm... One other note, I think this kind of request smack of definite affirmative bias, I would tell teams that if they wanna run their "not enough kids are dying" blocks... run 'em. If you're running Iraq and get all flustered about it, we'll maybe you'd better think about that term ADVOCACY and that your "objective" NGOs cards jsut might be as much Iraqi propaganda as the claims that neg evidence is "state department hacks" for an interesting debate on that subject... See Clawson Versus Masri, NPR, Talk of the town, 1999... Burbon imports, Ferris wheels, and selling baby food... OH MY... I think I'd rather read cards that say some of those "truths" than ignoring why the iraqi military has more time to spend on killing kurds and bulldozing villages than food distribution. Don't be scared of debating those teams straight up folks, feel free to advocate any viewpoint you wish. I certainly hope this topic doesnt devolve to scare tactics on judges who are afraid to pull the trigger because our community has already made up its mind that some things are true. If that happens... someone send me some Iraq cites so we can change cases thinks Saddam ought to care more than we do, Ken D. Hornet Debate On Thu, 30 Sep 1999, Rachel Saloom wrote: > hey all > just an aside about the topic (this is *not* about any specific round but rather a general comment)... > before everyone is quick to pull out their generic "life is fine in baghdad" blocks or "not enuf children are dying" > responses at kentucky this weekend > think about what youre saying...is it really worth it? > there are ways to be negative and lets hope its not that > rachel > west ga > http://members.aol.com:/spewer77/womynindebate.htm > >From Sat Oct 2 00:56:44 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 37478 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Sat, 2 Oct 1999 01:56:22 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from m2.boston.juno.com (m2.boston.juno.com [205.231.101.199]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA73072 for ; Sat, 2 Oct 1999 01:56:19 -0400 Received: (from gabp at juno.com) by m2.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id EMWD8WWK; Sat, 02 Oct 1999 01:55:52 EDT X-Mailer: Juno 3.0.13 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 2-3,18-19,30-35 X-Juno-Att: 0 X-Juno-RefParts: 0 Message-ID: <19991002.005720.-10109.5.gabp at juno.com> Date: Sat, 2 Oct 1999 00:56:44 -0500 Reply-To: gabp at JUNO.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Gabrielle Prisco Subject: Thanks and Reflections I just wanted to post a belated thank you to Mike, Russ, Glenda and the MTSU debaters for a wonderful weekend in the 'Boro. As always, the tournament was run efficiently and well and the hospitality was generous. As I told many of my debaters, the MTSU tournament is one of the nearest and dearest to my heart. First off, it was the very first tournament I ever competed at. As long as I live, that is a memory I will treasure. It was at MTSU that I walked out of my first round knowing that I had stumbled across something that would change who I was. I knew from that first day that I was in love with this activity. Since then, there have been many people and moments and arguments that have served to strengthen that love and commitment but I will always remember first realizing the power of debate on the steps of a building in Murfreesboro. Along those lines, I would like to extend a thanks to M.L. Sandoz who encouraged me from even before that very first tournament. In many ways, she gave this activity to me. Being back at MTSU, this time as a coach, I am reminded of the power of that gift. I am so fortunate to have her and Carrie Crenshaw as my coaching role models--I know not of two stronger and more able people from which to learn. The tournament is also special to me in a newer, and sadder way. It is special because it is a time in which we can collectively remember and honor Scott Pejaver. A person whose love and humor is missed. After the first ever Pejaver debates, I posted to Edebate (I think it was my first ever post to the list) that I hoped to honor Scott by having more fun in rounds. I never did start carrying toys in my tub. I did (and do), however, try to remember to smile more and sweat the little stuff less. In many ways, my stickers grows out of that pledge and that commitment. I think that Mike and the MTSU folk paid a loving and fitting tribute to Scott. I know it was hard for them, especially to those who knew and miss Scott, and I am grateful for their effort. Thanks for reading. Take care, Gabrielle Alabama Debate ___________________________________________________________________ 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 Sat Oct 2 06:40:07 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 37756 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Sat, 2 Oct 1999 06:40:43 -0400 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 GAA32594 for ; Sat, 2 Oct 1999 06:40:41 -0400 Received: from Spewer77 at aol.com by imo-d05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v22.4.) id nSPJ0EabO5 (3945) for ; Sat, 2 Oct 1999 06:40:08 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 41 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 2 Oct 1999 06:40:07 EDT Reply-To: Spewer77 at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Rachel Saloom Subject: Re: Saloom and Iraq im at kentucky now so i dont have much time but quickly for now my argument was never that you shouldnt debate "straight up" (although i definitely dont have a problem if you choose not to do so) if you want to read those args more power to you i was just encouraging people to think before they speak, something unusual for debate i know if after you've thought about it those are still args you want to make then thats your choice more later im sure rachel From veronicabarreto Sat Oct 2 13:32:25 1999 From: veronicabarreto (Veronica Barreto) Date: Sat, 2 Oct 1999 11:32:25 -0700 Subject: Saloom and Iraq Message-ID: Here's my take on that phenomenon.... Part of the reason why people aren't particularly concerned with the constructive engagement portion of the resolution is because it's a waste of the 1AC's breath. Whatever an affirmative can do to engage any country can merely be counterplanned. That means 1NC gets to stand up and say na na na neiner we do your constructive engagement and we'll gradually/temporarily/partially/won't lift sanctions. Oh yeah and all those advantages you read to constructive engagement -- we capture those. Which leaves the affirmative at square one defending the lifting of sanctions. It's a resolutional flaw we're stuck with. Sanctions debates will be huge but few people will ever discuss the constructive engagement portions of their plans. So strategically, your 1AC time is better served preempting arguments and claiming advantages specific to the way your plan lifts sanctions that can't be counterplanned away. I doubt that any team running Iraq or any of the other four affirmatives are shying away from constructively engaging nation-states, rather they may understand the futility of taking that position. That's my hypothesis. Veronica Miami Debate --- Kenneth DeLaughder wrote: > While I have a great deal of respect for the teams > running Iraq, Rachels > post does lead me to make one comment about this > topic, I think the > "constructive engagement" part of the topic is being > lost in our rush to > say that merely lifting sanctions is topical. What > do you mean Ken? Well > most of the Iraw cases I've seen merely lift > sanctions and don't do > anything further (except some WMD inspection spikey > stuff for the WMD > turns). Sure it might be easy to defend santions > policies as horrible, > but I already see affirmatives running from the > "constructive engagement" > part of the rez by merely claiming that ending a US > policy toward, Iraq in > particular, is enough action... maybe cuz they don't > wanna defend engaging > saddam... hmmmm... ===== Veronica Barreto University of Miami "Logic is just another form of the imagination" -- Fransisco Clemente "Handle yourself your head, handle others with your heart" __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com From sowards Sat Oct 2 15:17:25 1999 From: sowards (Stacey K. Sowards) Date: Sat, 2 Oct 1999 15:17:25 -0500 Subject: Emporia tournament Message-ID: Can someone from Emporia send me a copy of your tournament invitation, assuming you are having a tournament. Thanks Stacey Sowards University of Michigan at Dearborn From erm892f Sat Oct 2 21:32:12 1999 From: erm892f (Eric Morris) Date: Sat, 2 Oct 1999 21:32:12 -0500 Subject: Saloom and Iraq Message-ID: >Part of the reason why people aren't particularly >concerned with the constructive engagement portion of >the resolution is because it's a waste of the 1AC's >breath. Whatever an affirmative can do to engage any >country can merely be counterplanned. That means 1NC >gets to stand up and say na na na neiner we do your >constructive engagement and we'll >gradually/temporarily/partially/won't lift sanctions. >Oh yeah and all those advantages you read to >constructive engagement -- we capture those. Which >leaves the affirmative at square one defending the >lifting of sanctions. It's a resolutional flaw we're >stuck with. 1. I don't really consider it a resolutional flaw so much as a resolutional choice. We knew about this risk before voting, if we followed the -L discussion. This topic allowed affirmatives, however, to go beyond sanction lifting, as many of the solvency articles I've read say you should. 2. I think you can lift the sanctions but not engage if the benefits are all from sanction lifting. Both are PICs that are non - topical, and hence predictable given the resolution's wording. At a minimum, both approaches are equally sound unless the plan only lifts sanctions and has some jive about the word 'including'. 3. You could still engage and rely on cards saying 'Country X won't play with us absent sanction removal'. I've seen those cards on many of the topic countries. 4. I think people don't engage as much as they might because plans that rely on increasing US influence in order to solve are more susceptible to a variety of K's that might not be as relevant to just lifting sanctions. Good points, however. Eric Morris SMS From kenneth.delaughder Sat Oct 2 23:48:32 1999 From: kenneth.delaughder (Kenneth DeLaughder) Date: Sat, 2 Oct 1999 22:48:32 -0600 Subject: Saloom and Iraq In-Reply-To: <19991002183225.2857.rocketmail@web1001.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Very interesting, but not if your constructive engagement is blocked by anything but a total sanctions removal, those affs do exist, jsut seems like afffs want all the good ground.. more power to them, but I think we shoullda just left constructive engagement out if its not gonna be used... and shouldnt they HAVE to to be topical? hmmm Ken On Sat, 2 Oct 1999, Veronica Barreto wrote: > Here's my take on that phenomenon.... > > Part of the reason why people aren't particularly > concerned with the constructive engagement portion of > the resolution is because it's a waste of the 1AC's > breath. Whatever an affirmative can do to engage any > country can merely be counterplanned. That means 1NC > gets to stand up and say na na na neiner we do your > constructive engagement and we'll > gradually/temporarily/partially/won't lift sanctions. > Oh yeah and all those advantages you read to > constructive engagement -- we capture those. Which > leaves the affirmative at square one defending the > lifting of sanctions. It's a resolutional flaw we're > stuck with. Sanctions debates will be huge but few > people will ever discuss the constructive engagement > portions of their plans. So strategically, your 1AC > time is better served preempting arguments and > claiming advantages specific to the way your plan > lifts sanctions that can't be counterplanned away. I > doubt that any team running Iraq or any of the other > four affirmatives are shying away from constructively > engaging nation-states, rather they may understand the > futility of taking that position. That's my > hypothesis. > > Veronica > Miami Debate > > --- Kenneth DeLaughder > wrote: > > While I have a great deal of respect for the teams > > running Iraq, Rachels > > post does lead me to make one comment about this > > topic, I think the > > "constructive engagement" part of the topic is being > > lost in our rush to > > say that merely lifting sanctions is topical. What > > do you mean Ken? Well > > most of the Iraw cases I've seen merely lift > > sanctions and don't do > > anything further (except some WMD inspection spikey > > stuff for the WMD > > turns). Sure it might be easy to defend santions > > policies as horrible, > > but I already see affirmatives running from the > > "constructive engagement" > > part of the rez by merely claiming that ending a US > > policy toward, Iraq in > > particular, is enough action... maybe cuz they don't > > wanna defend engaging > > saddam... hmmmm... > > > ===== > Veronica Barreto > University of Miami > > "Logic is just another form of the imagination" > -- Fransisco Clemente > > "Handle yourself your head, handle others with your heart" > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com > From cleahy Sun Oct 3 00:46:32 1999 From: cleahy (Catherine M. Leahy) Date: Sat, 2 Oct 1999 22:46:32 -0700 Subject: If it's helpful-yes Message-ID: Hello -I'm new to edebate! Here is my thought on Carrie's post: I whole heartedly believe that debate can be educational and competitive at the same time. When I first started-it intimidated me-freightened me. I didn't want to get up and look uncapable. Don't let the speed intimidate you. Carrie pointed out that speed in fact increases your rate of comprehension. This year I'm trying to flow as many practice rounds and open teams as I can-so that my flows improve, but I've also noticed that as time goes on-the arguments become clearer even at the fastest of speed. Also-if it wasn't educational-why do we have institutions of higher education promoting it? I'm excited about this year-and as my rate of speeking increases-I'm excited about what I will have gained in knowledge and ability. If you believe in it enough-you will win and have learned. Cat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/19991002/64d1b690/attachment.html From warming_files Sun Oct 3 15:01:39 1999 From: warming_files (J T) Date: Sun, 3 Oct 1999 13:01:39 PDT Subject: metz & smith at kentucky? Message-ID: if anyone can backchannel some info from kentucky...how are metz and smith from SIU doing? thanks jt ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From bauscsa4 Sun Oct 3 19:12:25 1999 From: bauscsa4 (Stefan Bauschard) Date: Sun, 3 Oct 1999 20:12:25 -0400 Subject: Comprehensive Caselist Past Iowa In-Reply-To: <199910011836.NAA11922@bama.ua.edu> Message-ID: As reported, the caselist only loaded until IOWA CH. It now loads all the way through, including the negative. Again, it is at http://www.levinelawoffice.com/caselist.htm Stefan From jason Sun Oct 3 22:51:51 1999 From: jason (Jason Regnier) Date: Sun, 3 Oct 1999 22:51:51 -0500 Subject: Saloom and Iraq Message-ID: I think this brings up an interesting point with regards to constructive engagement. Instead of just assuming "constructive engagement" means that the affirmative must do more, recognize that the resolution does not require more. "including" means "including but not limited to," Affirmative shouldn't be forced into defending some extra conception of constructive engagement unless they decide to. I wont get into the ground issues unless further pressed, but i think that people shouldn't just assume that constructive engagement must include more. Jason -----Original Message----- From: Veronica Barreto To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU Date: Saturday, October 02, 1999 1:30 PM Subject: Re: Saloom and Iraq >Here's my take on that phenomenon.... > >Part of the reason why people aren't particularly >concerned with the constructive engagement portion of >the resolution is because it's a waste of the 1AC's >breath. Whatever an affirmative can do to engage any >country can merely be counterplanned. That means 1NC >gets to stand up and say na na na neiner we do your >constructive engagement and we'll >gradually/temporarily/partially/won't lift sanctions. >Oh yeah and all those advantages you read to >constructive engagement -- we capture those. Which >leaves the affirmative at square one defending the >lifting of sanctions. It's a resolutional flaw we're >stuck with. Sanctions debates will be huge but few >people will ever discuss the constructive engagement >portions of their plans. So strategically, your 1AC >time is better served preempting arguments and >claiming advantages specific to the way your plan >lifts sanctions that can't be counterplanned away. I >doubt that any team running Iraq or any of the other >four affirmatives are shying away from constructively >engaging nation-states, rather they may understand the >futility of taking that position. That's my >hypothesis. > >Veronica >Miami Debate > >--- Kenneth DeLaughder >wrote: >> While I have a great deal of respect for the teams >> running Iraq, Rachels >> post does lead me to make one comment about this >> topic, I think the >> "constructive engagement" part of the topic is being >> lost in our rush to >> say that merely lifting sanctions is topical. What >> do you mean Ken? Well >> most of the Iraw cases I've seen merely lift >> sanctions and don't do >> anything further (except some WMD inspection spikey >> stuff for the WMD >> turns). Sure it might be easy to defend santions >> policies as horrible, >> but I already see affirmatives running from the >> "constructive engagement" >> part of the rez by merely claiming that ending a US >> policy toward, Iraq in >> particular, is enough action... maybe cuz they don't >> wanna defend engaging >> saddam... hmmmm... > > >===== >Veronica Barreto >University of Miami > >"Logic is just another form of the imagination" > -- Fransisco Clemente > >"Handle yourself your head, handle others with your heart" >__________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com From erm892f Sun Oct 3 22:52:12 1999 From: erm892f (Eric Morris) Date: Sun, 3 Oct 1999 22:52:12 -0500 Subject: Saloom and Iraq Message-ID: Would not the affirmative's counter-interpretation be inconsistent with the 'but not limited to' because it is 'limited to' the removal of sanctions? Ground aside, I don't see how this definition supports any other interpretation. Can you explain to me why 'but not limited to' allows the affirmative to limits its CE to sanction removal? Eric Morris Asst. Debate Coach, SMSU - Dept. of Comm./Media, Craig 370 (H) (417) 863-9056 (O) (417) 836-6564 erm892f at mail.smsu.edu -----Original Message----- From: Jason Regnier To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU Date: Sunday, October 03, 1999 10:47 PM Subject: Re: Saloom and Iraq >I think this brings up an interesting point with regards to constructive >engagement. Instead of just assuming "constructive engagement" means that >the affirmative must do more, recognize that the resolution does not require >more. "including" means "including but not limited to," Affirmative >shouldn't be forced into defending some extra conception of constructive >engagement unless they decide to. I wont get into the ground issues unless >further pressed, but i think that people shouldn't just assume that >constructive engagement must include more. > >Jason > >-----Original Message----- >From: Veronica Barreto >To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU >Date: Saturday, October 02, 1999 1:30 PM >Subject: Re: Saloom and Iraq > > >>Here's my take on that phenomenon.... >> >>Part of the reason why people aren't particularly >>concerned with the constructive engagement portion of >>the resolution is because it's a waste of the 1AC's >>breath. Whatever an affirmative can do to engage any >>country can merely be counterplanned. That means 1NC >>gets to stand up and say na na na neiner we do your >>constructive engagement and we'll >>gradually/temporarily/partially/won't lift sanctions. >>Oh yeah and all those advantages you read to >>constructive engagement -- we capture those. Which >>leaves the affirmative at square one defending the >>lifting of sanctions. It's a resolutional flaw we're >>stuck with. Sanctions debates will be huge but few >>people will ever discuss the constructive engagement >>portions of their plans. So strategically, your 1AC >>time is better served preempting arguments and >>claiming advantages specific to the way your plan >>lifts sanctions that can't be counterplanned away. I >>doubt that any team running Iraq or any of the other >>four affirmatives are shying away from constructively >>engaging nation-states, rather they may understand the >>futility of taking that position. That's my >>hypothesis. >> >>Veronica >>Miami Debate >> >>--- Kenneth DeLaughder >>wrote: >>> While I have a great deal of respect for the teams >>> running Iraq, Rachels >>> post does lead me to make one comment about this >>> topic, I think the >>> "constructive engagement" part of the topic is being >>> lost in our rush to >>> say that merely lifting sanctions is topical. What >>> do you mean Ken? Well >>> most of the Iraw cases I've seen merely lift >>> sanctions and don't do >>> anything further (except some WMD inspection spikey >>> stuff for the WMD >>> turns). Sure it might be easy to defend santions >>> policies as horrible, >>> but I already see affirmatives running from the >>> "constructive engagement" >>> part of the rez by merely claiming that ending a US >>> policy toward, Iraq in >>> particular, is enough action... maybe cuz they don't >>> wanna defend engaging >>> saddam... hmmmm... >> >> >>===== >>Veronica Barreto >>University of Miami >> >>"Logic is just another form of the imagination" >> -- Fransisco Clemente >> >>"Handle yourself your head, handle others with your heart" >>__________________________________________________ >>Do You Yahoo!? >>Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com > From West Sun Oct 3 23:25:14 1999 From: West (Terry West) Date: Sun, 3 Oct 1999 22:25:14 -0600 Subject: Results from the Red Rock Message-ID: Results from the Southern Utah University Red Rock Scrimmage, Oct 2 and 3: Novice CEDA: Arizona State/SUU hybrid (Desmond/Klag) over Idaho State (Mays/Swetnam) 1-0 (one judge used for round 6 breakout in four team division. Speaks: 1. Swetnam--Idaho St 2. Mays--Idaho St 3. McLemore--Arizona St 4. Falvey--Arizona St 5. Desmond--Arizona St *Note: Klag (SUU) had top speaker points; declined as host school Jr CEDA: Semis: Casper BP over Idaho St AS (3-0) CEU BB over Idaho St BD (2-1) Finals: CEU over Casper (3-0) Speaks: 1. Buch--Idaho St 2. Barella--Casper 3. Warner--CEU 4. Andrus--Idaho St 5. Bentley--CEU *Note: Hallmeyer (CEU) should have received a speak as well (2nd); we will ship it. Open CEDA: Semis: Weber ZW over Cal-St Bakersfield CM-L (2-1) CSUB PW advances over CSUB MC Finals: CSUB PW over Weber ZW (2-1) Speaks: 1. Peterson--CSUB 2. Cosper--CSUB 3. Wells--CSUB 4. Blevins--Wyoming 5. Zahller--Weber Congratulations to all who participated in small, but highly competitive, divisions. The caliber of competition in this small group was amazing. Debate in the Western US may be smaller in number, but it's high in quality. Terry West Southern Utah From arsenalgunners2 Sun Oct 3 23:42:44 1999 From: arsenalgunners2 (Mick Souders) Date: Sun, 3 Oct 1999 21:42:44 PDT Subject: Political Disads Message-ID: Could some one send me a list of all the Politics scenarios they know of being debated right now? Not ones that you think COULD be debated, but ones that you have actually have heard of being run. Mick Souders Seattle U. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From monte Mon Oct 4 01:14:48 1999 From: monte (Frank L Stevens) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 01:14:48 -0500 Subject: Kentucky Message-ID: Don't want to start an e-debate controversy, but if anyone there is checking e-mail, could ya send the list of teams clearing to e-debate? Thanks. Monte Stevens Kansas State University From veronicabarreto Mon Oct 4 02:50:27 1999 From: veronicabarreto (Veronica Barreto) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 00:50:27 -0700 Subject: Saloom and Iraq Message-ID: I think you're right and this also addresses the point that Ken made earlier. I've come to conceptualize the resolution like this... The policy of constructive engagement that the resolution requires the affirmative adopt is like a box. The other specification the resolution makes is that inside that box must lie the lifting of sanctions. Which leaves open the option of putting other things in that box that would be consistent with constructive engagement, but does not make actions other than the lifting of sanctions a prerequisite for topicality. Also, I'm not sure what ground would be lost as a result of this interpretation. Any constructive engagement links would apply to the lifting of sanctions and as I already mentioned anything other than the lifting of sanctions can quickly be mooted out of a debate anyway. If an affirmative wants to do something other than lift sanctions, more power to you. I, by no means, intend to say that it is untopical to do anything other than lift sanctions, but by the same token I understand that in the majority of cases it's not strategically advantageous. There is no basis for saying that solely lifting sanctions is illegitimate. I think we're starting to face that this resolution is headed in that direction. Veronica Miami Debate --- Jason Regnier wrote: > I think this brings up an interesting point with > regards to constructive > engagement. Instead of just assuming "constructive > engagement" means that > the affirmative must do more, recognize that the > resolution does not require > more. "including" means "including but not limited > to," Affirmative > shouldn't be forced into defending some extra > conception of constructive > engagement unless they decide to. I wont get into > the ground issues unless > further pressed, but i think that people shouldn't > just assume that > constructive engagement must include more. > > Jason > ===== Veronica Barreto University of Miami "Logic is just another form of the imagination" -- Fransisco Clemente "Handle yourself your head, handle others with your heart" __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com >From Mon Oct 4 06:09:19 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 38534 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 06:09:53 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo19.mx.aol.com (imo19.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.9]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA14790 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 06:09:52 -0400 Received: from Pacedebate at aol.com by imo19.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v22.4.) id nXFKa23994 (4399) for ; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 06:09:19 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 14 Message-ID: <72a7bf8f.2529d6cf at aol.com> Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 06:09:19 EDT Reply-To: Pacedebate at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Pace Debate Subject: unofficial kentucky info Teams advancing (the number is prelim wins) Dartmouth BG - 6 Emory CR - 5 Emory GB - 8 bye in doubles Emory HL - 7 bye in doubles Emory HM - 7 bye in doubles Gonzaga KM - 6 Iowa CF - 6 Iowa LR - 7 bye in doubles Kansas EM - 7 bye in doubles Kansas St. HZ - 6 Louisville CC - 5 Louisville WL - 6 Michigan SP - 6 Michigan State MD - 6 bye in doubles Pace KP - 6 Southern Cal HH - 6 Southern Cal SS - 6 SIU SM - 5 Texas GE - 5 Texas SR - 6 UMKC CB - 5 Wake AC - 5 Wake FL - 6 bye in doubles West Georgia SH - 6 bye in doubles PRE - SEASON NOVICE National Championship Catholic WD Georgia PQ Iowa CH MSU ML Northwestern GS SMS CK Texas DM Wake EK From Varga001 Mon Oct 4 08:56:05 1999 From: Varga001 (Varga001) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 08:56:05 -0500 Subject: No subject Message-ID: Clubbing them with speed Is what inspired pride Looking from the outside Starts to tear me up inside My counterplan was straight-turned and my cards were over-tagged I lagged in responsibility So emptiness is bragged I should done it right The way adults do Now songs of mocking birds I sing and My fire has just turned blue Smile, the tide will rise Your ship is on the way Today I shall turn around and glide above the bay Thank you all for helping me I will not be left behind Because today I realized The debate is in my mind Vain From brobbins Mon Oct 4 09:20:40 1999 From: brobbins (Douglas Robbins) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 10:20:40 -0400 Subject: The Debate Novel Message-ID: I am happy to announce the newly updated webpage "The Debate Novel," is now online. This page offers a sample chapter of the first novel about intercollegiate debate. Please visit at http://law.upenn.edu/~brobbins to find out when the full work will be available. Cordially, Douglas Robbins (last post on this subject until next year) >From Mon Oct 4 08:59:18 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 41800 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 10:46:49 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from web.net (root at web.net [192.139.37.21]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA64664 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 10:46:19 -0400 Received: from ggallon([154.5.20.199]) (33584 bytes) by web.net via sendmail with P:smtp/R:bind_hosts/T:inet_zone_bind_smtp (sender: ) id for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 08:59:18 -0400 (EDT) (Smail-3.2.0.107 1999-Sep-8 #2 built 1999-Sep-15) Received: from ggallon at PCstarnet.com by ggallon at pcstarnet.com (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id XAA05135 for ; Mon, 4 October 1999 09:59:34 -0700 (EDT) X-PMFLAGS: 10322341.10 X-UIDL: 10293287_192832.222 Message-ID: ggallon at pcstarnet.com Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 08:59:18 -0400 Reply-To: ggallon at pcstarnet.com To: Team Topic Debating in America Comments: Authenticated Sender is From: cibe at WEB.NET Subject: Hog Factory Pollution in Canada THE GALLON ENVIRONMENT LETTER SPECIAL 506 Victoria Ave., Montreal, Quebec H3Y 2R5 Email cibe at web.net, Website http://www.gallon.elogik.com Vol. 3, No. 30, September 30, 1999 *************************************************************** INDUSTRIAL HOG FARMING IN CANADA BECOMING A MAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEM Not much has been heard about it. But new "Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations" (CAFO's) related to hog meat production have sprung up across Canada, particularly in Quebec, Alberta and Ontario. And they are causing an environmental crisis. Yet, other than encouraging industry to implement voluntary environmental codes, which appear not to be working, the provincial and federal governments are not responding adequately to the new environmental challenge. Traditionally, governments have protected farmers from the more stringent environmental requirements made of industry. However, the new hog production method is not really farming at all. Rather, it is factory production involving hug amounts of industrial chemical management. Therefore it should be treated like an industry and face the full force of industrial pollution controls. Factory hog farming involves boxing in thousands of pigs in a plant. Like a factory, the feed stock (grain etc.) goes in, along with antibiotics, and other meat enhancement chemicals. Out the other end of the hog factory comes urea, ammonia, feces, BOD, and other chemicals that are causing air pollution, methane and other greenhouse gas emissions, and are polluting rivers and wiping fisheries. The hog "factory" wastes are also suspected of contributing to bacterial breakouts including pfiesteria piscicida. This is the first of a two part series by the Canadian Institute for Business and the Environment (CIBE) on industrial hog operations in Canada and in the United States. It turns out that the U.S. is taking strong actions, passing laws to curb uncontrolled hog operations, while the provinces and the Government of Canada are somewhat behind. The purpose is to give enough information that Canada can act to close the environmental loophole that has allowed these operations to pollute rivers, contribute to global warming, contaminate lands, and cloak communities in hog stench. ************************************************************************** 20,000 PRODUCERS MANAGE 17.9 BILLION HOGS IN CANADA The production of pork is a major part of agriculture in Canada. In 1995 approximately 17.9 million hogs were raised by 20,000 producers, bringing over two billion dollars in farm cash receipts. The industry provides nearly 100,000 jobs and is a significant contributor to the country's trade balance. More than $1.15 billion of live hogs and pork products ? over one third of production ? were exported in 1995 to more than fifty-five countries. Source, The Canadian Hog Council, at http://www.canpork.ca/codeeon.html ************************************************************ HOG PRODUCTION HAS BECOME INDUSTRIAL CHEMICAL FARMING It's not really farming. It is extreme, intensive production of hogs for meat. The process produces concentrated amounts of waste toxics including urine and excrement. The animals are crammed into industrial buildings and raised in commercial plants that generate large waste discharges. They are not really farms, they are virtual chemical plants. Canada, with few controls on these massive operations, because they are considered farms, has become a hot spot for installing these massive operations. Quebec and Alberta, as well as Ontario have become the new locations for the large industrial hog production facilities. We have been informed that operators from Europe, where there are tougher environmental laws, are beginning to move their operations to "pollution havens" in Canada. The U.S. has some of the same problems. North Carolina, for example, has become the pollution hotbed for hog factory farms in that country. In Canada, you can visit the Alberta Pork Congress at the website http://www.assocworldwide.com/apc/home.html ******************************************************************** WHAT ARE THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS WITH HOG WASTE DISCHARGES? While human waste is extensively treated and disinfected, hog waste is sent to open-air waste lagoons with almost no treatment, and then sprayed on land (Sobsey, 1998). The environmental problems with hog wastes include, o Vaporization and fugitive air emissions from factory plants causing air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions o spills and leaks to the surrounding land allowing groundwater and surface water contamination o lack of aeration lagoons and secondary treatment facilities to neutralize the hog waste before they are discharged or spread on land o spreading untreated sewage on farmland as an organic fertilizer when in fact it doesn't fertilize but runs off to the nearest river and lake, contaminating drinking water and recreation areas o intentional direct piped discharges of hog waste to waterways and potential for bacteria epidemics of pfiesteria piscicida. For more information on the various hog producers associations go to the website at http://aceis.agr.ca/misb/aisd/redmeat/sites.html ************************************************************************ STOP MISTAKING HOG FACTORIES AS FAMILY FARMS Pollution problems from hog factories are made worse by the lack of a thought-out regulatory framework. For the most part, hog factories are still regulated much like the small farms they have replaced. State and provincial regulators and lawmakers, initially caught off guard by the massive explosion in hog populations in Canada and the United States. As a result, governments have not yet adopted the new laws required to control the environmental and health problems caused by the numbers and concentrations of the new hog factories phenomena. Progress on adopting more effective environmental and health regulations has been opposed by the hog industry, which environmental groups in the U.S. found, "has vigorously fought attempts to adopt new rules on how hog waste is managed.." The hog industry argues that present laws are sufficient, and more regulation is unnecessary. Yet every other industry in America that generates significant waste is subject to comprehensive regulation and stringent environmental standards designed to protect public health and the environment. Source the U.S. Environmental Defense Fund's (EDF) website http://www.hogwatch.org/ ******************************************************************** HIGHWAY 10 FROM MONTREAL TO QUEBEC'S EASTERN TOWNSHIPS, AND HIGHWAY 417 FROM MONTREAL TO CANADA'S NATIONAL CAPITAL, OTTAWA, STINK CIBE decided to do this special after our family was drenched in stench during a beautiful Summer weekend outing to country -- in the Quebec Eastern Townships. The stink is unbearable for the thousands of us in cars heading out of the city of Montreal for a fresh air drive into the country, and for the thousands of people in the small farm communities nearby the hog sheds.. We hit patches of the hog stench as we drove along Highway 10 to Sherbrooke and the Eastern Townships. Several weeks later, as we were driving to the nation's capital, Ottawa on Hwy. 417, we were hit by the same smell as we crossed the border into Ontario. The concentrated hog operations are discharging to the air, ground and water in a constant stream. And, supposed neutralized hog waste is being spread on farmland as fertilizer, when is still "green" and not fully processed into beneficial fertilizer. The smell alone is making beautiful Canada, not so beautiful. ****************************************************************** HOG PRODUCTION GREW TO MEET GROWING DEMAND IN SOUTHEAST ASIA, EASTERN EUROPE AND LATIN AMERICA Industrial hog production has grown rapidly in Canada and in the United States, due to what was a growing demand for ham, bacon and other hog meat by the newly industrialized countries in Southeast Asia, the Middle East, and from Eastern Europe. Provincial governments in Quebec, Alberta and Ontario helped the hog producers massively expand their operations in the late 1980's and early 1990's. There has even been encouragement for hog producers to relocate from the more stringent countries, like The Netherlands, to what some have called, the "pollution havens" in Canada. Financial and quick approvals support has been offered by governments in Canada to encourage what turned out to be an over population of hog farms in Canada. Quebec, for example, Quebec has assisted hog farmers that expand in their province with more than $100 million in industrial farming subsidies). The provincial governments also gave tacit indications that no restrictive environmental laws would be passed. Again, in Quebec, the provincial Ministry of Environment and Fauna (MEF), has downloaded most of its previous responsibilities to the local governments after slashing the environment budget by over 60%. **************************************************************** NORTH CAROLINA OPENED ANOTHER "POLLUTION HAVEN", FOR AWHILE North Carolina competed with Canada to have major new industrial hog factories locate in its state. It offered cheap land on the flood plains and lax environmental laws in the early 1990's. Hog production in North Carolina mushroomed over the last decade. Despite a decreasing number of hog farms, the number of hogs has increased threefold from 2.6 million hogs in 1987 to ten million hogs in 1998. The change from small independent farms with small herds to large industrial style operations creates a need for new waste management systems. Swine waste in North Carolina is currently managed predominately through anaerobic lagoons and sprayfields. This technology meets current federal and state standards but they are not enough. There are approximately 2,400 major swine facilities in North Carolina with approximately 4,000 active anaerobic lagoons. In addition, there are another 650 inactive swine lagoons. North Carolina's hogs produce 19 million tons of feces and urine a year, or over 50,000 tons every single day. That's more waste in one year than the entire human population of Charlotte, North Carolina produces in 58 years. Most of North Carolina's hogs are concentrated in the eastern coastal plain, an economically important and ecologically sensitive network of wetlands, rivers, and coastline. Of the 60% of rivers and streams in North Carolina that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency identified as "impaired," it found that agricultural runoff (from hogs, poultry and cattle), animal waste, was the largest contributor to pollution. The laissez faire approach changed radically in 1995, when the public in North Carolina was rattled by a 35 million gallon spilled of hog wastes that killed 10 million fish. Immediate steps were taken to establish new legislation to control the hog factories and eliminate the "haven" tag North Carolina had. North Carolina moved quickly to implement environmental laws that would control hog factories. It realized that not only was the environment being damaged but that the tourist and fishing economies were being damaged. See the website of the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources at http://www.ehnr.state.nc.us/EHNR/ ********************************************************************** CANADIAN BANKS HELPED FINANCE HOG FACTORIES AND ARE NOW PARTIALLY LIABLE According to R.A. (Bob) Funk of Scotia Bank, who was also the Chair of the Canadian Bankers' Association's Agricultural Advisory Group, "Canadian banks have a very significant investment in Canada's hog industry." What the banks failed to do was conduct environmental due diligence on the new industrial operations they were financing. As a result, they could be partially liable for making possible the massive pollution that is now going on in Canada. Belatedly, Funk from Scotia Bank said that, "it is important for the banks to ensure that the hog operators conduct proper environmental studies and implement proper measures. Go to the Canadian bankers' Association (CBA) for more information on their environmental work, at website http://www.cba.ca/ ************************************************************************ CONCERN OVER LARGE HOG FACTORIES IN ONTARIO The Globe and Mail reported this week that farmers around new hog factories are up in arms about the creation of these polluting plants, in the Lake Huron region. It reported that, " the mostly rural community on the shores of the world's fifth-largest freshwater lake (Lake Huron) has been the focus not only of environmental pollution concerns, but also the effect large factory farms are having on the land, the structure of the traditional family farm and the economy. Concerns have also been raised regarding an apparent lack of controls not only on the storage and use of the manure from these large farms, but also in the actual construction of the farms and where they are built." There are 400,000 hogs in Huron County. And the Globe and Mail reported that, "the problem of huge livestock-processing complexes is something that has concerned residents along the lake all the way from Sarnia to Owen Sound. Public-health officials are also worried." Dr. Murray McQuigge, Medical Officer of Health with the Bruce- Grey-Owen Sound Health Unit, sent a memo to Bruce County Council saying that, "there have been studies that show downstream pollution by antibiotic-resistant bacteria," the memo stated. "Although this cannot be directly linked to hog farms, there is a high index of suspicion that this is the case. What is known is that in large farm productions that require large use of antibiotics, there are increasing concerns about the production of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Dr. McQuigge also said that there is, "increasing concern in Huron County that poor nutrient management on farms is leading to the degradation of the quality of ground water, streams and lakes. "Our information from Huron Health Unit is that once large hog barns are constructed, there does not appear to be monitoring mechanism in place to ensure best practices are followed." In Ashfield Township, where the pig-manure incident took place, a group called Presenting Recommendations On Township Environmental Concerns Together, or PROTECT, is leading the actions ensuring a clean environment and protection for the tourist and fishing economies against the hog pollution. Anita Frayne, a spokeswoman for PROTECT, said the group was formed in 1997 after a hog producer bought land and applied for a building permit for a large farming operation in Ashfield Township. In addition, the Sarnia regional office of the Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE), Chris Hutt, senior environmental officer, stated that, "two newly built barns had been leaking and work orders had been issued by the ministry." One barn housed 3,400 feeder hogs and the second held 2,100 sows. Joe Terpstra of Brussels, Ont., owner of the property, has appealed some of those orders. Source the Globe and Mail article entitled, "Farmers near Lake Huron raising stink over pollution from large pig farms", by Ken Kilpatrick, Special to The Globe and Mail, September 28, 1999. You can find the full article at http://www.GlobeAndMail.CA/hubs/national.html and type in "hogs" in the seven day search line on the left of the screen. ******************************************************************* ONTARIO CHARGES HOG OPERATION WITH POLLUTION The Ontario hog producer, Hay Bay Genetics Inc., located at RR # 2, Napanee, Ontario, was charged in Provincial Court Napanee, Ontario on March 15, 1999, with 11 counts of violating pollution prevention sections of the federal Fisheries Act. Mr. Ron Davis, President of the company and Mr. Mark Davis, Farm Manager were also charged. The first appearance to respond to these charges is scheduled for March 26, 1999. It is alleged that the company and Messrs. Davis permitted the deposit of barnyard storm sewer effluent in an area and under conditions whereby the effluent could enter Lake Ontario's Bay of Quinte. The Fisheries Act subsection 36(3) prohibits the deposit of any deleterious substance of any type in any place or under any conditions where the deleterious substance (or any deleterious substance that results from such deposit), may enter water frequented by fish. Barnyard effluent is a deleterious substance and Hay Bay on the Bay of Quinte is frequented by fish. It is also alleged that the company and Messrs. Davis failed to comply with an Inspector's Direction which required taking measures to counteract, mitigate or remedy the adverse effects of such deposits. These offences are punishable on a first offence, to a fine not exceeding $300,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to both. The charges were laid by Environment Canada following an investigation conducted by the Ontario Regional Office of the Environmental Protection Branch. For More Information contact Peter Levedag Environment Canada Ph. (416) 739-5901 email Peter.Levedag at ec.gc.ca ***************************************************** CANADA EXPORTS 2.6 MILLION HOGS A YEAR TO THE U.S. PROCESSING AND PACKAGING PLANTS Canadian hog producers export about 50,000 hogs per week (2.6 million a year) for slaughter in the United States. Federally inspected hog slaughter in Quebec ran at 160,000 per week in 1998. Canadian federally inspected hog slaughter for the final quarter of 1998 slaughtered a record 337,000 which was 22.5% above the corresponding period in 1997. For more information contact Edouard Asnong, President, Canadian Pork Council, Ph. (450) 248-2375. Also visit the Canadian Pork Council at website http://www.canpork.ca/ ******************************************************************* QUEBEC BECOMES BATTLE GROUND OVER INDUSTRIAL HOG PRODUCTION More than 35 million cubic meters of manure and manure liquid are produced each year in Quebec, And the Quebec Ministry of Environment and Fauna (MEF) reduced its budget for environmental protection by over 50% and has devolved the responsibility to the municipal level. Yet the municipalities have neither the resources nor the will to control hog companies that bring in jobs and tax revenues, and that seek protection from environmental laws as farmers. It has resulted in the creation of a number of community groups to call on governments to take the appropriate actions. For example, Charles-Eug?ne Blanchet, warden of the MRC of Bellechasse and mayor of Saint-Charles, stated that the "Quebec Minist?re de l'Environnement et de la Faune has quite simply lost control of the situation as far as management of manure from pork production". He added that, "The ministry doesn't have enough bureaucrats to manage manure in an environmentally sound way." The community found that in Quebec, "over one-third of Quebec's farm operations still do not comply with standards for manure. The Pesticides Act hasn't prevented increasing use over the last ten years. Erosion is virtually uncontrolled, bringing with it the contamination of watercourses by fertilizers and pesticides. And the Minist?re de l'Agriculture has transformed 20,000 kilometers of natural watercourses into agricultural drainage ditches, with the result that 90% of farmland is deteriorating and over fertilization affects 63% of the land under intensive cultivation." Source, website http://www.cec.org/templates/registrytext.cfm?&varlan=english&documentid=86&format=2 ******************************************************************* QUEBEC FARM COMMUNITIES APPEAL TO THE COMMISSION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL COOPERATION (CEC) On April 9, 1997, a coalition of 18 farm communities and environmental organizations sent an appeal to the NAFTA Commission for Environmental Cooperation raising concerns that the Quebec Government and the Government of Canada were not enforcing their own laws in dealing with the new hog factories. They stated in their submission under Articles 14 and 15 of the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC) that, there is, "a failure to enforce" many environmental standards where agriculture is concerned. To be more specific, for years the government of Quebec has been failing to enforce certain environmental protection standards regarding the agricultural pollution emanating from livestock operations, particularly those of pork producers." The submission further stated that, "this failure to enforce the standards that apply to such agricultural activities has serious consequences for the health of Quebec watercourses, and, consequently, that of shoreline populations. Agricultural development which is not viable from a sustainable development perspective causes significant environmental problems, leading to various economic and social costs. The complete appeal can be found at the website http://www.cec.org/templates/registrytext.cfm?&varlan=English&DocumentID=78&format=2 *********************************************************************** QUEBEC GOVERNMENT ADMITS HOG FACTORIES NOT IN COMPLIANCE The Quebec Minist?re de l'Environnement et de la Faune du Qu?bec (MEF) itself states, in its document entitled Vision strat?gique 1. Les grands enjeux 1996-2001 that, "the volume of manure stored in facilities that do not comply with regulations exceeds 9 million cubic meters per year and the spreading surface available near the production sites is only sufficient for 3.6 million cubic meters per year ". Furthermore, the document entitled, "?tat de l'environnement au Qu?bec 1992", chap. 7 : L'activit? agricole, published by the Minist?re de l'Environnement du Qu?bec, mentions that "In 1991, there were still approximately 10,000 livestock operations that had not complied with the regulations". Source, http://www.cec.org/templates/registrytext.cfm?&varlan=English&DocumentID=78&format=2 ************************************************************** A 5,000 HOG FACTORY OPPOSED IN QUEBEC Alain Bouchard wrote in Le Soleil, November 10, 1996, that, in June of 1995, the Quebec Minist?re de l'Environnement et de la Faune (MEF) gave Gestion Lido inc. of Saint-Lambert authorization to build a giant pig farm in Saint-?tienne, Quebec. The company would build four large sheds housing 5,000 piglets. A large open lagoon would be built to deal with the liquid and solid wastes coming from the facility. Local citizens through their community group, Option- Recyclage Chaudi?re Appalaches expressed concern about the serious local impacts of the plant. Another group, the Soci?t? de la Grande Pl?e Bleue stated that, "We would we be stuck with 5,000 more unauthorized pigs on the South Shore (of the St. Lawrence River), if the MEF is left to its own devices on this matter." You can visit the Quebec Ministry of Agriculture's website at http://www.gouv.qc.ca/minorg/indexa.htm ******************************************************************* MASSIVE NEW HOG OPERATIONS IN CHAUDIERE APPALACHIAN REGION OF QUEBEC The Montreal newspaper Le Soliel reported that, "the Minist?re de l'Environnement et de la Faune (MEF) has lost control of the pork production industry in the Chaudi?re Appalachian region. Delinquent producers are raising large illegal herds. The ministry is powerless to slow in dealing with the growth of large manure surpluses." The concerns were expressed in a report endorsed by the Quebec environment and agriculture ministries, the Chaudi?re-Appalachian municipal regional council and the organization representing the hog producers themselves. The report entitled, "Les surplus de fumier dans le bassin Chaudi?re-Etchemin", indicates that nearly one-third of pig herds are not listed officially. The report found that the villages of Saint- Bernard, Saint-Elz_elar, Saint-Patrice-de-Beaurivage and Saint- Narcisse-de-Beaurivage account for more than one-quarter of regional hog production, and generate enormous surpluses of pig manure, estimated at one million cubic meters of hog manure. The report was presented to The Deputy Minister of the MEF, Denys Jean. Many of the streams and rivers in the region have been severely harmed by the new, and sometime illegal, hog production, says the report. The Yamaska River, the Richelieu River, and the Chaudi?re River are among those that have been most severely damaged by the growth of hog production in Quebec, reports Le Soleil. Source, "Illegal Pig Herds Environment Ministry Can't Keep Up With Manure Surpluses" by Michel Corbeil, Le Soleil, Montreal, February 28, 1996. You can to the Quebec Ministry of the Environment and Fauna website at http://www.mef.gouv.qc.ca/en/index.htm ***************************************************************** MORE THAN $100 MILLION IN SUBSIDIES PROVIDED BY QUEBEC GOVERNMENT TO HOG PRODUCERS The Quebec Groupe de recherche et d'int?r?t public (PIRG) at the Universit? du Qu?bec ? Montr?al (GRIP-UQAM) has produced a report on factory hog production entitled, "One Step Forward, Three Steps Back". It reports that, "the 1994-95 public report of the Quebec V?rificateur g?n?ral shows that the Government of Quebec had granted pork producers $100 million in excess of what would be normal to provide to farmers. The group reported that, "for most of these factory hog companies, this financial compensation is excessive and more than covers their production costs. The fiscal privilege that the government grants to this polluting industry is unacceptable in the current economic context." The group's report found that, "the pork- production industry is the top environmentally harmful agricultural activity in Canada. According to the report of the V?rificateur g?n?ral (1995-96), this industry is the main source of manure surpluses which cause severe contamination in many watersheds. Instead of properly processing and detoxicifying the chemical hog wastes, the Quebec government is allowing the raw virtually untreated toxins to be spread on farmland. A study published in 1995 by the Centre de recherche et d'exp?rimentation en sols run by the Minist?re de l'Agriculture, des P?cheries et de l'Alimentation (MAPA) and its partners, found that hog waste spreading practices consider only the nitrogen requirements of the crop being produced, without taking into account the quantity the soil can truly handle, and the other toxics in the waste." An assessment carried out by the Programme d'aide ? l'am?lioration de la gestion des fumiers (PAAGF) shows that 74% of the hog livestock operations in the Richelieu River basin do not comply with the regulations on pollution prevention in livestock operations. ****************************************************************** CANADA CREATES A HOG ENVIRONMENTAL STRATEGY The Hog Environmental Management Strategy (HEMS) is a joint initiative of AAFC and the Canadian Pork Council. The Hog Environmental Management Strategy Steering Committee is comprised of representatives of all affected branches within AAFC and the Canadian Pork Council. The steering committee provides direction to the Hog Environmental Management Strategy. HEMS will address the environmental challenges of expanded pork production by seeking effective and affordable new technologies and management practices; providing assistance to provincial producers' associations to develop and implement communication and public education strategies and programs; and supporting research and the transfer of information on hog-related environmental topics. The HEMS national workshop in Toronto kicked off the development of a national action plan to fill in the gaps in research and technology transfer identified during earlier consultations with the industry and the provinces. For more information you can contact Ted Pidgeon (secretary) of the Committee based at the Ministry of Agriculture and Agro-Food at email martati at em.agr.ca Go to the Environment Bureau of Agriculture Canada at website http://aceis.agr.ca/policy/environment/home.html ********************************************************************* CANADA AGRICULTURE MINISTRY PROVIDES SMALL ENVIRONMENT FUND WITH CANADIAN HOG INDUSTRY Lyle Vanclief, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC), announced funding of $2.0 million to address the environmental challenges associated with the expanding hog industry. Mr. Vanclief made the announcement at Hog Environmental Management Strategy National Workshop in Toronto. AAFC will use $1 million for research and technology development for solutions to manure management, building design, feeding efficiency and agronomics of manure application. This will be in addition to the research already undertaken in these areas by AAFC. "The hog industry and government are working together to answer the environmental challenges of odour, soil and water degradation, and air pollution because environmentally sound solutions make for good business and good neighbours," said Mr. Vanclief. "Also, by reducing greenhouse- gas emissions from hog operations, we can help meet our international commitments made at Kyoto to reduce Canada's emissions of certain greenhouse gases by six percent of 1990 levels by the year 2012." An additional $1 million from AAFC will be set aside to match the hog industry's investments to address hog environmental issues. The Canada Pork Council is committing $1 million for this purpose, meaning up to $3.0 million in total will be available for future initiatives - $2.0 million from AAFC and $1 million from the Council. For more information contact, Michael Presley, Environment Bureau, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Ottawa, Phone: (613) 759-7308, Cell: (613) 799-3692, Email: preslma at em.agr.ca Visit the Ministry of Agriculture and Agro Food website at http://aceis.agr.ca/newintre.html ********************************************************************** HOG INDUSTRY IN CANADA HAS A VOLUNTARY ENVIRONMENTAL CODE OF PRACTICE The hog industry in Canada asked Canadian Government and the provinces not to implement additional command and control regulations to reduce wastes from their factory operations. They promised instead to develop and implement their own industry led "voluntary environmental code of practice".The principal objectives are, "to provide a means of assuring our national and international consumers that Canadian hog producers use environmentally sound agricultural practices".The code can help provincial and local governments to develop their own voluntary codes of environmentally sound practices which can be incorporated into regulations affecting hog producers. The new code will assist Canadian hog producers with various options for managing their farms in an environmentally sound manner. The new voluntary code will also assist producers and the financial sector with a code to use when assessing whether individual producers are practicing due diligence in their operations to avoid potential environmental pollution liability. The Code focuses on three major areas. They are (1) Protecting land, water and air resources, (2) Ensuring a positive public perception of the hog industry, and (3) Meeting legal requirements. Go to the Canadian Pork Council website to read the full Code at http://www.canpork.ca/codes.html ******************************************** *************************************************************** $180.90 ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTION TO GALLON ENVIRONMENT LETTER Subscribe to "The Gallon Environment Letter". The 8 to 10 page newsletter is loaded with up to date business and policy information that your company, government agency, or organization can use immediately. It is provided twice a month. It is also accompanied by the "Green Jobs Available Report" that is sent to you once a month. Subscribe now. Send a cheque for $180.90 a year ($169.00+ $11.90 GST) and help finance the research that delivers inside information and breaking news on environment business in Canada and the world. Make your cheque out to, "Gallon Letter", 506 Victoria Ave., Montreal, Quebec, H3Y 2R5. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Copyright (c) 1999 Canadian Institute for Business and the Environment, Montreal All rights reserved. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx From deloach Mon Oct 4 10:23:53 1999 From: deloach (MARK DELOACH) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 10:23:53 CST6CDT Subject: 1999 University of North Texas Tournament Message-ID: Dear Colleagues: The UNT Debate Forum and the Department of Communication Studies at UNT is pleased to invite you and your debate students to attend the 1999 edition of the William DeMougeot Debates. The tournament will be held on the campus of the University of North Texas in Denton TX on December 3-6, 1999. We pride ourselves on our hospitality and our efficiency, and hope that this year's tournament will be bigger and better than ever. We offer eight preliminary rounds in Open and Junior Divisions, breaking to appropriate elimination rounds (guaranteeing that all teams with winning records will participate in elimination rounds). Appropriate speaker awards and team trophies will be provided in both divisions. The tournament will also provide a continental breakfast each morning before preliminary rounds. Along with Josh Hoe and Tara Tate, I hope that you will join us in Denton on December 3-6, 1999. Sincerely, Mark B. DeLoach University of North Texas --------------------------------------------------------------------- FORMAT We will offer eight preliminary rounds in both Open and Junior division. We will clear all teams with a winning record into the elimination rounds. Rounds 1-4 will be preset in order to maximize geographical diversity and to balance the strength of opposition (in as much as is possible). Rounds 5 & 7 will be power-matched high/high, and Rounds 6 & 8 will be power-matched high/low within brackets. JUDGING One qualified judge must be provided to cover your judging obligations. We expect that judges should have completed their undergraduate degree and debating experience. One judge is required for each two teams entered in the tournament, and judges with only one team to cover are expected to judge 4-5 rounds. All judges are expected to be available through the first complete elimination round, or one round past the elimination of their final team. A few judges are available for hire at the rate of $80/uncovered team, but you should let me know as soon as possible about needs for hired judges. While we recognize that there are some debates that are difficult to decide in the traditional sense, or that there are some situations where traditional win/loss decisions might not be the most appropriate resolution, we do ask that judges vote for one and only one team in any given debate. TRANSPORTATION The tournament will provide a shuttle, free of charge, for those teams needing transportation. The shuttle will pick up and return any persons flying into either DFW Airport or Dallas Love Field, and will also provide transportation from the tournament hotel to and from the campus each day. Please let us know as soon as possible about transportation needs. HOTEL The tournament hotel this year is the Radisson in Denton. The phone number at the hotel is (940) 565-8499. The rate that we have been guaranteed is $69/night for 1-4 persons. Please make reservations as soon as possible, and let the hotel know that you are with the "North Texas Debate" group. If the hotel is full, or if you wish to find other alternatives, please call Mark DeLoach at (940) 565-4856 or drop me an e-mail at deloach at unt.edu for more information. REGISTRATION Registration will be in the lobby of the Radisson (our tournament hotel) from 7:00 pm to 10:00 pm. If you have problems arriving during the registration time, I encourage you to call the tournament hotel at (940) 565-8499 so that they can give us a message. FEES Entry fees are $50/team. Checks should be made out to the UNT Debate Forum. Judging fees are set at $80/uncovered team. ENTRY INFORMATION We ask that you provide the following information, either by phone call, e-mail, or fax. The addresses/numbers are listed after the information request. 1. School, Director, Address, Office/Home Phone, and E-Mail address 2. First and Last Names of each team 3. Division for each team 4. Full Names of all judges, conflicts for those judges, and how you would like the commitment distributed 5. If any judges would like to be hired at $20/round over their commitment, let me know 6. Transportation Needs This information can be sent via: 1. Land Mail. Mark DeLoach, Department of Communication Studies, P.O. Box 305268, Denton, TX 76203-5268 2. Phone: (940) 565-4856 3. E-Mail: deloach at unt.edu 4. Fax: (940) 565-3630 TENTATIVE SCHEDULE Friday, December 3 7:00-10:00 pm Registration, Lobby, Radisson Hotel Saturday, December 4 8:00 am Pairings Released at the Radisson & on Campus 9:00 am Round One 11:30 am Round Two 3:00 pm Round Three 5:30 pm Round Four Sunday, December 5 7:00 am Pairings Released at the Radisson & on Campus 8:00 am Round Five 11:30 am Round Six 3:00 pm Round Seven 6:00 pm Round Eight Teams Advancing to Elimination Rounds Announced at Radisson as soon as possible Monday, December 6 8:00 am Pairings Released at Radisson & on Campus 9:00 am First Elimination Round Awards Presented after First Elimination Round Further Elimination Rounds To Follow As Soon As Possible Mark DeLoach Associate Professor, Communication Studies University of North Texas Denton, TX 76203 (940) 565-2588 Mark DeLoach Associate Professor, Communication Studies University of North Texas Denton, TX 76203 (940) 565-2588 From jstone Mon Oct 4 10:38:43 1999 From: jstone (J. Stone) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 11:38:43 -0400 Subject: Saloom and Iraq In-Reply-To: <345fde9f.2528d98c@aol.com> Message-ID: Could it be that Affirmative's are abusing the resolution because negatives are letting them. I judged 4 rounds at South Carolina and not a single negative team ran T. I think that anything will go on the affirmative until the negatives start tosssing down on T. I also think that the lack of T. early in the year bodes ill for how the resolution will be debated later in the semester. Meaning that the T debates in the beginning of the year very much frame what is considered by community consensus to be topical for the rest of the year. If everything is topical now than the affirmatives will never debate the resolution. Don't get me wrong I don't want to hear T. I'm not a T hack. I don't see any harm in testing the affirmatives' blocks. I didn't see that happening. Jason, At 12:08 PM 10/03/1999 EDT, you wrote: >In a message dated 10/3/99 4:49:40 AM !!!First Boot!!!, >kenneth.delaughder at ENMU.EDU writes: > ><< Very interesting, but not if your constructive engagement is blocked by > anything but a total sanctions removal, those affs do exist, jsut seems > like afffs want all the good ground.. more power to them, but I think we > shoullda just left constructive engagement out if its not gonna be used... > > and shouldnt they HAVE to to be topical? > > hmmm > > Ken > >> > > >I think Ken's posts are very telling of the way the topic is going. To be >honest, not only should the Aff be topical, Ken, but the Aff should fit >within the grammatical framework of the resolution!!!!!! > >Here's what I mean....the resolution says to adopt a policy of CE (what Ken >is suggesting isn't happening too much) and then, WITHIN COMMAS, the >resolution says to remove some sanctions. The commas set off a >non-restrictive clause, meaning that the AFFIRMATIVE DOESN'T EVEN HAVE TO >REMOVE SANCTIONS in order to be topical!!!!! > >In all seriousness, the only thing an aff. has to do is do CE. The >non-restrictive clause, aka an "appositive," doesn't change the meaning of >the independent clause (or sentence), it merely suggests something *in >addition to*. In this case, an affirmative, to be topical, wouldn't even >have to remove sanctions. > >Now, some will say that this opens up the floodgates to the topic....not >really. There are only 5 countries (3 of which are strategic) and there >isn't a whole lot of literature on what the US could do to constructively >engage each of them. If we bound Affirmatives like we ought to and force >them to have some solvency advocates, this interpretation -- one of >grammatical accuracy -- wouldn't explode the topic. > >Or, if you dislike my interpretation, then we should be a little more careful >with how we grammatically construct resolutions. Before someone jumps down >my throat and says "write a topic paper...." let me just say that we were >all for the "rogue" nations topic, but had no idea this resolution would be >the result of such an initial vote. > >In all honesty, this resolution does provide the affirmative with a ton of >ground....and they don't even have to lift sanctions! > >respectfully, >zomp > > 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 berube Mon Oct 4 10:31:38 1999 From: berube (David Berube. Ph.D. Assoc. Prof., Speech Communication) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 11:31:38 -0400 Subject: New email address for Berube Message-ID: New email address berube at sc.edu Please discontinue berube at garnet.cla.sc.edu Thanks From hunt Mon Oct 4 11:40:05 1999 From: hunt (Steven Hunt) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 09:40:05 -0700 Subject: Entries to Lewis & Clark Pioneer Invitation Oct 8-10, 1999 Message-ID: Please remember that entries to the L&C Pioneer Invitational Oct 8-10 are due today Monday, Oct 4. Please READ the RULES carefully and enter your students only in the divisions and events they are eligible for. Our definitions or novice/junior are pretty strict. Remember that novices can only enter one event per pattern in IE's. Juniors may enter only two events per pattern in IE's. We need careful instructions on your judges. Are they available at all times? IF THERE ARE TIME restrictions, we need them clearly designated. Are they judging both debate and IE?s are there any limitations on types of debate or events or divisions they can judge? Do they have any conflicts judging any schools or specific people? If so, we need careful instructions on this too. Remember to keep a copy of your entry for yourself to be double cked at the Crowne Plaza Thursday Oct 7 9:00-l0:30 or Friday Morning 8:30-9:00 AM Thayer Dining rooms Lewis & Clark Templeton Center (The student union) The Crowne Plaza is exit 292 I-5. Lewis & Clark is the Terwilliger exit on I-5. Once entries are in I shall post policy entries then the rest. Steve Hunt Lewis & Clark College FAX 503-768-7620 E mail hunt at lclark.edu q >From Mon Oct 4 12:49:05 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 44122 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 12:50:06 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo25.mx.aol.com (imo25.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.69]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA40040 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 12:50:00 -0400 Received: from Pacedebate at aol.com by imo25.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v22.4.) id nYDNa20770 (4312) for ; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 12:49:21 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 14 Message-ID: <9c60ad3e.252a3481 at aol.com> Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 12:49:05 EDT Reply-To: Pacedebate at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Pace Debate Subject: more unofficial kentucky results Partial double octas Dartmouth over Louisville CC Gonzaga KM over Emory CR Pace KP over Iowa CF Southern Cal SS over Kansas State HZ Wake Forest AC over Louisville WL UMKC CB over Michigan SP Southern Cal HH over Texas GE Texas SR over Southern Illinois SM Octas Emory GB vs USC SS Emory HM vs Pace KP Iowa LR vs Wake AC Emory HL vs USC HH Kansas EM vs Dartmouth BG West Georgia SH vs Gonzaga KM Michigan State MD vs Michigan SP Wake FL vs Texas SR Top 10 Speakers 1. Mike Eber 2. Rachel Saloom 3. Larry Heftman 4. Jeff McNabb 5. Kamal Ghali 6. Andy Ryan 7. Mike Horowitz 8. J.V. Reed 9. Steve Donald 10. Sarah Holbrook >From Mon Oct 4 13:31:13 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 44822 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 13:31:56 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo23.mx.aol.com (imo23.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.67]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA28220 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 13:31:53 -0400 Received: from Pacedebate at aol.com by imo23.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v22.4.) id nMZIa05746 (4312) for ; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 13:31:13 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 14 Message-ID: <1157834c.252a3e61 at aol.com> Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 13:31:13 EDT Reply-To: Pacedebate at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Pace Debate Subject: that's why they are unofficial :) One mistake was pointed out to me here is the correct. Michigan SP beat UMKC CB in partial doubles so Michigan SP is now debating Michigan State MD sorry about that, Tim From Regina.Paulose Mon Oct 4 12:51:30 1999 From: Regina.Paulose (Regina Menachery Paulose) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 13:51:30 -0400 Subject: EMORY ONLY In-Reply-To: <19991001065124.85774.qmail@hotmail.com> Message-ID: Hey whichever one of you gets this can you please send me the cites to the state is burning argument you all ran at South Carolina ? peace reg ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Laugh and the world laughs with you - snore and you sleep alone -- Anthony Burgess ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From rea2 Mon Oct 4 13:27:02 1999 From: rea2 (Bob Alexander) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 13:27:02 -0500 Subject: Valdosta Tournament Results Message-ID: Below are the results for this weekends Valdosta State University tournament. Parli-Speaks: 5th-161 Points-Georgia College: Daneke 4th-167 Points-Morehouse: Stewart 3rd-169 Points-University of West Florida: Cruz Tie For First at 174 Points 2nd-174 Points, Adjusted to 117 Points: Univeristy of West Florida: Dewey 1st-174 Points, Adjusted to 118 Points: Georgia College: Holcombe Parli Quarterfinals Georgia College HD 3-0 over Florida SM Morehouse SM 3-0 over Florida ES Georgia College/Valdosta JD 3-0 over Florida GP West Florida DC 2-1 over Florida FM Parli Semifinals: Georgia College HD 3-0 over Morehouse SM West Florida DC 3-0 over Georgia College/Valdosta JD Parli FINALS: West Florida DC 3-0 over Georgia College HD OPEN SPEAKS: 5th, with 160 points; from Florida: Brynes 4th, with 160.5 points; from Morehouse: Thompson 3rd, with 163 points; from Florida State: Velhurst 2nd, with 165.5 points; from Southeast Louisiana: Gauthier 1st, with 167.5 points; from Florida State: Hegedus OPEN FINALS: Florida State VP (AFF) 2-1 over Tennessee SR NOVICE SPEAKS: 5th Place, with 154.8 points: Florida Community College at Jacksonville: Kohorn 4th Place, with 156 points: Flordia Community College at Jacksonville: Martino 3rd Place, with 157 points: Florida Community College at Jacksonville: Griffis 2nd Place, with 157.2 points: Southeast Louisiana University: O~RNeal 1st Place, with 159.6 points: Morehouse: Lowery NOVICE FINALS: FCCJ MG 3-0 over Morehouse FL ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Bob Alexander Asst. Coach, UWF Speech and Debate Team rea2 at students.uwf.edu Office: 850-474-3365 >From Mon Oct 4 14:33:27 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 46319 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 14:33:51 -0400 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 OAA58292 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 14:33:49 -0400 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 TLH25MYX; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 14:33:05 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Message-ID: <000001bf0e96$f3491700$fd06020a at te146.liberty.edu> Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 14:33:27 -0400 Reply-To: bodonnel at liberty.edu To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Brett O'Donnell Subject: Sam Nelson Sam, Could you please backchannel me. Thanks, Brett Liberty University Debate From rgreene77 Mon Oct 4 13:46:18 1999 From: rgreene77 (rebecca greene) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 14:46:18 EDT Subject: anyone from king's Message-ID: Hi, This is Becca. I need some help and don't know the most efficient way of going about this and am hoping this will work. I need to get in contact with the Wilkes-Barre police regarding the break in to my car at the tournament hotel. I got a number from Mike Berry last week which when I called had changed, but what it said to do instead of giving a new number was call 911 which obviously from Virginia won't do me much good. When I tried looking up the number on yahoo yellow pages, it listed a mulitude of numbers and I of course had no idea which one would be the correct one to call. So, I was wondering if any of you could do me the tremendous favor of finding and sending me the correct number. I wish I had known these things when I was broken into, but I've never dealt with police before other than my one speeding ticket and didn't know what to do. Thanks so much in advance and thanks for being so helpful while I was staying at the tournament. Y'all were great, really you were. Becca ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From ssnider Mon Oct 4 14:34:55 1999 From: ssnider (Sarah J. Snider) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 15:34:55 -0400 Subject: Sam Nelson In-Reply-To: <000001bf0e96$f3491700$fd06020a@te146.liberty.edu> Message-ID: Sam, please backchannel me as well about your tournament schedule. Thanks- Sarah From jstone Mon Oct 4 16:47:32 1999 From: jstone (J. Stone) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 17:47:32 -0400 Subject: UR Spider Classic Message-ID: Hello All, Everything appears to be going well. Entries are due by Wednesday at 5:30pm. Brett O'Donnel will be running the tab room. Pictures of our new open division travel trophy are now available online at: http://www.arts.richmond.edu/thtr_spch/debate/photoalbum99.html Check it out. You know it would look awesome in your trophy case. So enter those teams in open and claim your prize. It's just like lotto: You gotta be in it to win it. Keep those entries comin, Jason 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 seantiffee Mon Oct 4 16:40:49 1999 From: seantiffee (sean tiffee) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 14:40:49 PDT Subject: A moment of clarity Message-ID: Don't worry, this won't be nearly as long and boring (well, at least not as long) as my original post. I rarely post to this list and don't think I've ever posted twice regarding a single thread... but I've decided to break new ground, spread my wings and fly like an eagle (run like the wind... sorry, thought I was reading those extropy cards again). I think what happened with the discussion of my original post is fairly indicative of what happens in the rounds I was originally discussing. My original post rambled about a lot of things (some of which were notably incoherent), however, it seems to me that it has "evolved" (that is the appropriate terminology for new args in the rebuttals, isn't it?) into something quite different with no reference point back to what I originally said. That probably either means that no one got the point of what I said (not likely seeing as how smart the community is) or no one cared (more likely). Again, I admit that I'm speaking in generalities as I did receive several backchannels that were encouraging. I would like to address a few of the things being said, rooting them back in my original post. Call it being defensive or call it rooting my args to the 2AC, it really doesn't matter. 1. Speed. I never said that fast debate was bad. I think that, overall, a quicker debate is a better debate (see Dr. Crenshaw's post for a better explanation as to why). I only asked why EVERY debate had to be fast and why there was a knee-jerk reaction to go as fast as you can (however fast that may be) every round. Dr. Crenshaw is absolutely correct that the elite debaters do slow down at the appropriate time. Congrats to those that have transcended the need to blaze at every given opportunity. I hope more people learn from their success (I know I never did). 2. Over-competitiveness. I never said that competition was bad. I only wondered why winning consumed the community. The first question I always try to ask the teams from Southwest after the round was if they had fun. This didn't really become that large of an issue, and was discussed in my original post primarily from the "would you post the UNI results NOW, in the name of all that is holy!!" things I was seeing on the L. 3. Open letter to everyone who asked me for the Trainer cites. Most of you just missed the point, didn't you? In my entire ramblings you picked out one sentence and focused on it. Never mind my aired ethical problem that I have with what I think we do to the life-work of some people, never mind that I had an epiphany regarding our place in the scheme of society, never mind that I asked for help finding the Emory team that I wanted to apologize to... never mind any of that, "would you please just post the UNI results, I mean give me cite NOW!!" If I seem jaded, maybe it's because I am, to an extent. The debate community is filled with some of the most wonderful people I have ever had the pleasure of meeting. It is overflowing with people who will change the world... and I don't just mean attempt to change the world, I mean actually change it. I am not at all happy with the state of affairs in our world and could easily slip into a brooding depression, but knowing there are people like you all out there gives me hope... Unless we all care more about winning a ballot or election to do anything. Again, I'm speaking in generalities (not everyone is like this) and I'm not trying to take the moral high ground (I was the same way, if not worse). I'm just starting to question if maybe we're losing sight of what I know we all want debate to be. Maybe we're not, and I'm crying that the sky is falling for no reason, but maybe we are and just are so consumed by our own tunnel-vision to see it. I love debate, I love the debate community and I don't think we're headed to hell in a handbasket. I'm just afraid that we've strayed slightly from the road I think we all want to be on. I'm done... and, just for the record, I will post those Trainer cites on the L as soon as I put them on the net. I'm doing it, however, only because Prof Trainer asked me to do so to spread his word NOT because I'm anxious to hear the cards in a round. I do it out of respect for him and because I, like Trainer, want you to read his words. Sean SWT ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From hunt Mon Oct 4 18:49:15 1999 From: hunt (Steven Hunt) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 16:49:15 -0700 Subject: Early policy entries L&C Oct 8-l0, 1999 many more to come Message-ID: Policy Entries L&C as of Monday morning Oct 4 many more to come Senior Policy University of Puget Sound Michael LeFevre and Michael Gilbrough Whitman Brian Simmonds and thad Blank Courtney Gardner and Emily Cordo Jessica Clarke and charles Olney University of Miami (Fl) Veronica Barreto and Regina Paulose Sharda Ramsook and Jeff Geldens Gonzaga Casey Kelly and Aaron Moburg Jones Beth Weirman and Bill Schroeder Chris Losnegard and Serena Gordon Taylor Elliott and Jon Heinonen Weber State Stacey Stapley and Brandon Mark Zach Westerfield and Mike Zahller Lewis & Clark Jared Hager and Aleava Sayre Nick Hesterberg and Amy Collinge Junior Policy University of Puget Sound Maegan Parker and Chris Abbott Megan Mooney and Sarah Bousman Chris Gulugian-Taylor and Ron Ringuette Geoff Zeiger and Dianna tingg Jon Howland and Jennifer Eidum Whitman Bobby deGrouchy and Mario Cava Keola Whittaker and Brian Ward Richard Detheridge and Lauren Ritter Idaho State Brad Cole and Tyler Thornton Carlin Andrus and Tyler Smith Ira Bunch and Jeff Dearing Becca Tanner and Jeremy Yuill Lewis & Clark Chris Phan and Katy Micka Please tell me if you have already entered and are not on the list. Please tell me if names are misspelled. Steve Hunt Lewis & Clark College q From jstone Mon Oct 4 19:35:07 1999 From: jstone (J. Stone) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 20:35:07 -0400 Subject: UR entries as of Monday night Message-ID: Hello All, Here's who we have entered so far. Entry Deadline is Wednesday at 5:30. Please let me know as soon as possible. 1999 Spider Classic Entries as of 8:30pm 10/04/1999 Binghampton Open- Joe Schatz & J Marks. Judge: Jenn Geiss Boston College. Novice--Brian Kane & James Hsu Novice--Kevin Hartzell & Chris Masefield Judges: Stefan Bauschard (3 rounds) and John Katsulas (3 rounds). Both round 6 off. Mansfield University Anji Nolan and Mike Kittle-Novice Unnamed Novice Team Judges: Larry Watts & Duane Hyland (Fri & Sat Only) Mary Washington Amber Tussing & Judy Goss (Varsity) Herbert Conley & Robert Bowen (Novice) Judges: Tim O'Donnell (4 rounds) Ann O'Donnell (2 rounds on Saturday only) Pittsburgh University: Andrew Stangl and Cynthia Kinnan (Varsity) Judge: Ron Von Burg University of South Carolina Open teams--Erin Bailey & Maggie McAllister Ankit Patel & Jason Bethel Judge: Jennifer Edwards Towson University: Two novice teams: Sabrina Chase and Michael Harvey Alex Mwangi and Jon Stefanuca One varsity team: Steve Amenta and Renee Jackson Judge: Beth Skinner West Virginia: JV--Joshua Boggs and Mary Bess Lynna Palmer and Nicole Newlon Stephen Marshall and Joshua Whitehair Jennifer Dixon and Jody Jones Novice--Annelee Boyle and Jeremy Wilson Samantha Jones and Jennelle Harper Judges: Daniel Overbey & Mark Schaefer Thanks, Jason 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 Mon Oct 4 21:18:09 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 51506 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 21:19:25 -0400 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 VAA70494 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 21:19:19 -0400 Received: from Cnfuzzd at aol.com by imo-d09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v22.4.) id nPEJ0UrsYB (4561) for ; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 21:18:10 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 214 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 21:18:09 EDT Reply-To: Cnfuzzd at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: John Nickle Subject: kentucky results Hey all, been awhile since we heard anything out of kentucky, was wondering if anyone could post some results, especially wondering about sms's first-year team. Oh, and im not doing this out of concern for my teammates and friends, but out of some lust for competitive success. peace nickle i also love to waste bandwidth. From dmag Mon Oct 4 20:48:20 1999 From: dmag (MAGARIEL) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 20:48:20 -0500 Subject: kentucky results In-Reply-To: Message-ID: sems is going on right now.... Iowa LR (Neg) vs. Michigan PS (aff) Emory HL met Emory BG in sems and i think BG is moving on to finals. exhauseted in lexington..... David From lluscri Mon Oct 4 21:27:55 1999 From: lluscri (II Luscri) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 21:27:55 -0500 Subject: Fullerton Message-ID: could someone from fullerton please backchannel me about the "conditioning aid on human rights" counterplan. thanks in advance. II From shorty140 Mon Oct 4 22:47:54 1999 From: shorty140 (Jeff) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 23:47:54 -0400 Subject: LSU-Baton Rouge Tournament Message-ID: I was wondering what schools and teams were going to traveling to the Debate Tournament at LSU-Baton Rouge from Oct. 22-24. From erm892f Mon Oct 4 23:45:02 1999 From: erm892f (Eric Morris) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 23:45:02 -0500 Subject: Back to the Dispositionality thread - Part I - Net Benefits Competition Message-ID: I primarily wish to react to this statement and a similar one from Berube (now deleted - it might have been a question). My response is delayed because I wanted to consult the Lichtman/Rohrer JAFA article in 1975. >I'm with you on this one Ryan. You can't "straight turn a CP." if there >is a disad to the CP (or a turn) >it just means the CP is not net beneficial and a policy maker should >choose the plan or the status quo It is my belief that most disads to a counterplan do not deny that the CP competes on 'net benefits' grounds. A CP could be worse than the plan and still be net benefits competitive. If you find that statement obvious, no need to read on. If not, please continue. First, take a look at the Lichtman/Rohrer article that introduces what we now call 'net benefits' competition. It clearly states in numerous places that this criteria for establishing competition asks whether the counterplan alone is superior to the combination of the plan and the counterplan. It does not ask whether the CP alone is superior to the plan alone. In at least 2 places, they clarify that after such competition is established, the decision calculus THEN becomes the relative merit of the plan versus counterplan, implying that such 'relative merit' is not what determines competition. While a 1975 article that assumes the CP must be non-topical and does not assume the advent of the permutation may have limited relevance to the practice of modern debate, it is a useful historical note that might help us understand what 'net benefits' competition is and why is came to be accepted as a standard for CP competition. However, I am not aware of any article which lays out a case for why the merit of plan vs. counterplan (instead of the merit of counterplan vs. plan+counterplan) should be a defining issue for CP competition. I know a lot of people have this impression about net benefits competition, although I don't know of any reason for it apart from the imprecision of oral history. Second, the CP alone vs. plan+CP test seems to more directly answer the question of competition. Competition is about forced choice - it answers the question 'even if the CP is a good idea, why not just do both'. The answer is either that you can't or that you should not. DAs to the combination, whether they are truly only applicable to the perm or whether they are DAs to the plan, are thus reasons why the CP is competative. Showing the CP is worse than the plan does deny that there may be unique reasons to not do both. The advent of permutations does not make this concept irrelevant. The negative claim of NB competition in the 1NC often matches the reasons in the 1975 article. Not knowing the specific permutations, they show that DAs/case turns which link to the plan (and not the CP) would probably link to any legitimate permutation. When the affirmative suggests perms that may be more intricate than 'do both,' the discussion becomes whether the CP alone is superior to any of those (presumably legitimate) permutations. Digression - The comparison should probably be limited to perms that the affirmative actually makes. Including any perms that can be thought up later in the round or by the judge is objectionable for reasons unrelated to CPs. Matt Roskoski believes that the perm "do the plan plus none of the CP" makes disads to the CP into reasons why the CP does not compete. I'm not sure that example is really a perm at all, but certainly it is not a typical or strategic affirmative response if the goal is to 'stick' negative with the CP and hence the DAs to the CP. There may be other reasons why you can/can't stick the negative with a CP - the discussion here of what net benefits means is somewhat distinct from how we want to deal with DAs to a CP in the final decision. This view does have some implications for the dispositionality / conditionality thread. It shows that 'straight-turning a CP' (a rhetorical choice no less confusion than calling this form of competition 'net benefits') does not, on face, deny that the CP competes. The argument has been made that dispositionality means conditionality because if I wanted to kick the CP to avoid DAs, I could just point out that the disads made the CP non-competitive. I don't think the DAs make the CP non-competitive, and thus I believe that dispositionality is a distinct concept. Imagine a case with a very small impact. Neg solves it with a 'net benefits' competition CP that has a mid-level impact DA as the net benefit. Aff does not argue the CP is noncompetitive (by the perm or otherwise) nor that the CP is theoretically illegit. Aff does run and win a high-impact DA which links only the to the CP. The mid-level DA still shows that the CP is net benefits competitive, which keeps it in the round. The DA to the CP outweighs the Neg's DA (some would say it 'outweighs the net benefit') and thus the plan alone is better than the CP alone. Dispositionality would not allow the Neg (or the judge) to revert to the status quo in this instance. Thus, DAs to the CP win the round for the affirmative even though, in this example, the negative's mid-level DA would have outweighed the small case advantage if the plan was being compared to the status quo. This example shows that dispositionality has a different effect than conditionality, at least under laboratory conditions. Caveats: 1. There are other ways to make the argument that a CP does not compete than saying 'perm'. Other recent posts have done a good job of pointing this out. Possibly conceding one of these arguments should establish that the CP does not compete and thus, by the logic of dispositionality, is a non-issue. 2. You don't have to agree with conditionality or dispositionality to view CPs in the way I have described. At most, you have to forfeit one of the reasons why conditionality is the same thing as dispositionality. The discussion of what the effect of proving a CP does not compete should have on the overall round could be informed by this view of CPs, but multiple conclusions are still possible. From hormone68 Tue Oct 5 00:24:13 1999 From: hormone68 (james herndon) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 22:24:13 PDT Subject: Back to the Dispositionality thread Message-ID: I've only been keeping up with the dispositionality arguments on a random basis. However, I do not believe that anyone else has provided the 2 cents I feel I can contribute. The way you straight turn a disad is by only making arguments that say the counterplan will have bad effects. In other words, you ONLY read disads. to the counterplan and turns to its solvency mechanism, etcetera, etcetera (as long as the arguments only say doing the counterplan is a bad idea). Similarly, if I were to straight turn a disad all i would say is either N/U's & link turns or impact turns. But, if I make any other argument like no internal link or no threshold or impact take outs(ANYTHING else), then I am not necessarily straight turning the disad; consequently, the negative would have a much easier time of kicking it. Now back to the world of the counterplan. If the aff makes arguments that are anything other than saying that the counterplan is a bad idea then they aren't straight turning the counterplan. Therefore, a perm or theoretical objections or anything other than saying counterplan is bad is no longer straight turning the disad. In the world of the disad. any argument that isn't straight turning it, makes it easier for the negative to kick it. Therefore, if the counterplan is dispositional, if any argument exists that doesn't prove a disadvantage to the counterplan then it can be kicked, because it isn't being straight turned. Nothing more, Nothing less. Net benefits do not matter. If a counter plan is straight turned (the way I describe) then a dispositional counterplan shouldn't be kicked. Theoretically speaking, james herndon mercer debate ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com >From Tue Oct 5 01:25:27 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 37749 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 01:26:10 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo26.mx.aol.com (imo26.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.70]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA24574 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 01:26:09 -0400 Received: from SycoArt at aol.com by imo26.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v22.4.) id nWMa006118 (3967) for ; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 01:25:28 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 26 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 01:25:27 EDT Reply-To: SycoArt at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Annonymus Person Subject: PLEASE CHECK THIS OUT I'm really sorry for the clutter but I thought that this site was worth the risk. I came across it while researching. It seems ligit and it only take 2 minutes Max. Thanks Help feed the Hungry The Hunger Site at the UN This is a really neat website. All you do is click a button and somewhere in the world some hungry person gets a meal to eat at no cost to you. The food is paid for by corporate sponsors. All you do is go to the site and click. But, you're only allowed one click per day so spread the word to others. Visit the site and pass the word. The Hunger Site http://www.thehungersite.com/ From sab504s Tue Oct 5 00:38:29 1999 From: sab504s (Shawn Bone) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 00:38:29 -0500 Subject: Frosh Breakout at Kentucky Message-ID: Any word on how the outrounds for the frosh went? I as well as Nickel just need the information to satisfy my competitive desire. I guess the entire SMS squad just wants to win. Shawn Bone SMS Debate From wnewnam Tue Oct 5 08:52:04 1999 From: wnewnam (Bill Newnam) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 09:52:04 -0400 Subject: [Fwd: Saloom and Iraq] Message-ID: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: Bill Newnam Subject: Re: Saloom and Iraq Date: Mon, 04 Oct 1999 14:24:03 -0400 Size: 5734 Url: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/19991005/308dd0b0/attachment.mht From tweiner1 Tue Oct 5 09:43:40 1999 From: tweiner1 (Timothy J Weiner) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 10:43:40 -0400 Subject: Cap City nearly full In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19991001181757.0074cc18@pop.wfu.edu> Message-ID: Ross, we have another team that is going to the tournament from Mason. Pat McCann and Butch Canter. And DeeDee Giroux, Rich Reed and I (Jake Weiner) will be there to judge in addition to what Chris and Pete have commited to, but I maybe be hired out already. Thanks Alot, Jake Weiner George Mason University On Fri, 1 Oct 1999, Ross Smith wrote: > Here's what I have: > > Cap City Entries 1999 (60 teams) > > GEORGETOWN > Georgetown would like to enter 4 teams. > > GEORGIA > Wally Eastwood & Meredith Stein > Robbie Quinn & Shawn Powers > Jeff Ranew & Patricia Kelley > > Judges: > Ed Panetta > Gordon Stables > > KENTUCKY > Ky. would like to bring four teams to Cap City. > > TOWSON > Towson would like to enter one team in the Cap Cities tournament > > DARTMOUTH > Five teams: > Alex Berger and Adam Garen > Kumar Garg and Josh Skora > Andrew Leong and Nicole Serrano > REL Rubin and John Turner > Nathan Sabel and Eric Zampol > > Judges > Steve Lehotsky > Bill Russell > Ken Strange > > KANSAS > Mike Eber and Grant McKeehan > > MIAMI (FL) > The University of Miami would like to bring at least 2 and possibly 3 teams > to the tournament. > > REDLANDS > Consider us in, Miller & Graffagnini! > > BOSTON COLLEGE > Lisa Langdon/Jared Fields > > MICHIGAN > Carl Sammartino and Adriana Midence > Gabe Scannapieco and John Oden > Tim Stucka and Steve Benken > > Judges > Jason Hernandez 6 rounds > Steve Mancuso 6 rounds > > HARVARD > 2 teams > > WAKE FOREST > 6 teams > > CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY > Ivan Susak/Joe Lauer > Matt Dunn/Sarah Wilson > > Judge: Mike Dutcher > > MICHIGAN STATE > Aaron Monick & Steve Donald > Matt Blair & Austin Carson > Anjali Vats & Alison Woidan > Calum Matheson & Geoff Lundeen > Louis Brown & John Branester > > NORTHWESTERN > 2 teams > > MARY WASHINGTON > 1 team > > GEORGE WASHINGTON > 2 teams > > GEORGE MASON > Je"Mara Atwood and Bary Hausrath. Judge will > be either Peter Krein or Chris McIntosh. > > LIBERTY > John Ross and Jared Woodard > Stephen Carter and Nick Seim > Travis Ausland and Wil Haupfear > David Cooper and Rebekah Meador > > Judges > Mike Hall > Bill Lawrence > Michael Tilley > maybe more > > WEST GEORGIA > 2 or 3 teams > > EMORY > Stephen Bailey and Kamal Ghali > Alison Chase and John Rains > Adam Goldstein and David Harkin > Nicole Hudak and Jeremy Hendon > Eric Russ and Rania Nassredine > Dan Albert and Kurt Kastorf > Evan Granowitz and Lance Cook > > Judges are D.Heidt and S. Heidt > we'll see if we can stir some alums in DC > > OTHERS (who have indicated interest but have not "entered"): Pitt, > Louisville, JMU? > From bietz Tue Oct 5 09:53:19 1999 From: bietz (Mike Bietz) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 09:53:19 -0500 Subject: Steve Clemmons Message-ID: Please backchannel me. bietz -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/19991005/0ee33891/attachment.html From lesjober Tue Oct 5 10:38:41 1999 From: lesjober (The Eternal Flame) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 10:38:41 -0500 Subject: Threat Construction cites Message-ID: Anyone wanting to be charitable and give Chicago Debate a hint about where to find the cards would be really really appreciated! Laura From lesjober Tue Oct 5 10:37:52 1999 From: lesjober (The Eternal Flame) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 10:37:52 -0500 Subject: John Butler or anyone else at NIU Message-ID: Sorry for the clutter, I just cannot currently locate you guys' email address and need driving directions from Chicago to the hotel in Dekalb! Thanks, Laura Sjoberg From kenneth.delaughder Tue Oct 5 11:49:37 1999 From: kenneth.delaughder (Kenneth DeLaughder) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 10:49:37 -0600 Subject: SMS entries? Message-ID: While Bone and Nickle are pouring over Kentucky results, do y'all have a preliminary idea who will be attending this weekend? Ill start the ball rolling, Emporia will ahve 1 Open team and 2 JV anyone interested in doing a disclosure list? Ill volunteer but my email at work is SLOW... so someone else help :) just wondering, since we didnt go roll in the bluegrass.. heh heh help me obi-wan ermo, youre my only hope Ken Hornet debate From kenneth.delaughder Tue Oct 5 11:51:46 1999 From: kenneth.delaughder (Kenneth DeLaughder) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 10:51:46 -0600 Subject: Clinton stories from Kentucky/new cases Message-ID: Subject explains it all, does Brovero or anyone else in the know who does good intell work, Mahoney perhaps? have an idea of Clinton stories/cites or new cases/positions broken at Kentucky? I will most certainly reciprocate with all I have to offer... i.e. not much :) Ken Hornet Debate From broveraf Tue Oct 5 12:06:47 1999 From: broveraf (Adri) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 13:06:47 -0400 Subject: Clinton stories from Kentucky/new cases In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hey Ken -- Clinton-wise: The only stories I knew of were: WTO (vast majority of teams) CTBT (not to much avail I suspect) Debt relief (Wake - don't have the cites here, can't relocate them) UN Dues ME/Wye KEDO Also, Lousiville resurrected the abortion rider da New affs -- dunno, though Dartmouth in their first outing runs Iran, and Harvard was running Iraq. There may have been more, but I haven't really gone through the scouting accordion yet to see what we've got...and I need seroius sleep, so I wnon't be doing so in the next 24 hours or so... hope ths helps, adrienne On Tue, 5 Oct 1999, Kenneth DeLaughder wrote: > Subject explains it all, does Brovero or anyone else in the know who does > good intell work, Mahoney perhaps? have an idea of Clinton stories/cites > or new cases/positions broken at Kentucky? > > I will most certainly reciprocate with all I have to offer... > > i.e. not much :) > > Ken > Hornet Debate > >From Tue Oct 5 12:07:22 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 44913 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 13:08:47 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from viper.uni.edu (viper.uni.edu [134.161.1.16]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA24562 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 13:07:24 -0400 Received: from uni.edu ([134.161.229.154]) by uni.edu (PMDF V5.2-32 #40224) with ESMTP id <01JGRWNFTT0E8X5NUV at uni.edu> for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 12:07:21 CDT MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 (Macintosh; I; PPC) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Accept-Language: en Message-ID: <37FA3049.43993E25 at uni.edu> Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 12:07:22 -0500 Reply-To: Catherine.Palczewski at uni.edu To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Catherine Palczewski Organization: University of Northern Iowa Subject: wayne roommates Greetings folks, UNI is attending Wayne State, and I was wondering if anyone had room for 1 woman, in exchange for me housing one of their men. Thanks, Cate Palczewski From jwpatt00 Tue Oct 5 12:31:49 1999 From: jwpatt00 (J.W. Patterson) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 13:31:49 -0400 Subject: kENTUCKY RESULTS Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 4928 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/19991005/a8336b00/attachment.bin From hunt Tue Oct 5 12:35:10 1999 From: hunt (Steven Hunt) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 10:35:10 -0700 Subject: Policy entries to L&C as of Monday evening Oct 4, 1999 Message-ID: Policy Entries L&C as of Monday night Oct 4 some more to come Senior Policy University of Puget Sound Michael LeFevre and Michael Gilbrough Whitman Brian Simmonds and thad Blank Courtney Gardner and Emily Cordo Jessica Clarke and charles Olney University of Miami (Fl) Veronica Barreto and Regina Paulose Sharda Ramsook and Jeff Geldens Gonzaga Casey Kelly and Aaron Moburg Jones Beth Weirman and Bill Schroeder Chris Losnegard and Serena Gordon Taylor Elliott and Jon Heinonen Weber State Stacey Stapley and Brandon Mark Zach Westerfield and Mike Zahller Lewis & Clark Jared Hager and Aleava Sayre Nick Hesterberg and Amy Collinge University of Oregon Alan Tauber and Aaron Kizer Jessica Bradley and Chris Crew Western Washington University Breana Forni and Julie Pitt Whitney Garrison and Christine Vicino Ross McDonald and Lindsay Naylor Cal State Chico Alia Khan and Jeremy Bowers Jim Hebert and Brenda McChesney Cal St University Bakersfield Jeremy Peterson and David Wells 22 teams so far at least quarters Junior Policy University of Puget Sound Maegan Parker and Chris Abbott Megan Mooney and Sarah Bousman Chris Gulugian-Taylor and Ron Ringuette Geoff Zeiger and Dianna tingg Jon Howland and Jennifer Eidum Whitman Bobby deGrouchy and Mario Cava Keola Whittaker and Brian Ward Richard Detheridge and Lauren Ritter Nicholas Thomas and Scott Daniel Idaho State Brad Cole and Tyler Thornton Carlin Andrus and Tyler Smith Ira Bunch and Jeff Dearing Becca Tanner and Jeremy Yuill Lewis & Clark Chris Phan and Katy Micka Owen Zahorcak and Brad Cole University of Oregon Erin Fender and Michael Nguyen University of Seattle Mick Souders and Ken Johnson Greta Smith/Samara Mohamed/Thomas Howard Albertson College of Idaho Jad Mahken and Darcy James Western Washington University Rachel Elkinton/Matt Grindy/Brian Lagreid Cal St Chico Casey Arbenz and Kyle Robertson 2l teams so far at least quarters Please tell me if you have already entered and are not on the list. Please tell me if names are misspelled. Please send me any revisions/deletions as soon as you know of same. Steve Hunt Lewis & Clark College q From deltoro Tue Oct 5 13:08:28 1999 From: deltoro (Gilbert DelToro) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 11:08:28 -0700 Subject: Aztec Invitational Message-ID: Could all schools please give me an estimate of the number of policy and parliamentary debate teams that you are planning to bring to the aztec next week. Thanks, Gilbert DelToro Also, Could someone post this to the parliamentary debate listserve, thanks From jwpatt00 Tue Oct 5 13:05:34 1999 From: jwpatt00 (J.W. Patterson) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 14:05:34 -0400 Subject: TOC: WAKE LD QUALS Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 1837 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/19991005/980f5d7f/attachment.bin From jwpatt00 Tue Oct 5 13:23:33 1999 From: jwpatt00 (J.W. Patterson) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 14:23:33 -0400 Subject: Kentucky Results Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 4912 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/19991005/fc052e5c/attachment.bin From jwpatt00 Tue Oct 5 13:28:43 1999 From: jwpatt00 (J.W. Patterson) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 14:28:43 -0400 Subject: Kentucky Results Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 5055 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/19991005/ea829af3/attachment.bin From hunt Tue Oct 5 14:37:05 1999 From: hunt (Steven Hunt) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 12:37:05 -0700 Subject: Lewis & Clark entries Message-ID: As of Tuesday Oct 5 l2:00 noon we are full (at least in debate) We don't have rooms for more entries unless you have already told me you will be getting in your complete accurate entry today. We still have some room in IE's. It looks like we will have about l20 teams in debate 80 parli and 40 policy. It seems as if we will have around 30 colleges and universities. It looks like some drizzle and rain Friday but maybe better days Sat and Sun. Tournament tab room Policy Kelly McDonald WW and Rick Peacor U of OR Parli Steve Johnson Alaska and Mellissa Franke Willamette IE's Ed INch PLU and Shawnalee Whitney Alaska Steve Hunt Lewis & Clark 503-768-7617 hunt at lclark.edu FAX 503-768-7620 q >From Tue Oct 5 14:58:12 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 47907 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 15:58:57 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from hecky.acns.nwu.edu (hecky.acns.nwu.edu [129.105.16.51]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA55288 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 15:58:32 -0400 Received: from localhost (rrs128 at localhost) by hecky.acns.nwu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id OAA16923 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 14:58:12 -0500 (CDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Message-ID: Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 14:58:12 -0500 Reply-To: rrs128 at HECKY.ACNS.NWU.EDU To: Team Topic Debating in America From: rrs128 at HECKY.ACNS.NWU.EDU Subject: Kamal Ghali Only delete this if you aren't a syrian american. Kamal: can you backchannel me (r-sparacino at nwu.edu) sooner rather than later? Ryan From jstone Tue Oct 5 15:01:20 1999 From: jstone (J. Stone) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 16:01:20 -0400 Subject: UR entries as of 4pm 10/5/99 Message-ID: Hello All, Here is the updated team list as of 4pm 10/5/99. Still 25 1/2 hours to get those entries in. Keep 'em comin. 1999 Spider Classic Entries as of 8:30pm 10/04/1999 Binghamton Open- Joe Schatz & J Marks. Judge: Jenn Geiss Boston College. Novice--Brian Kane & James Hsu Novice--Kevin Hartzell & Chris Masefield Judges: Stefan Bauschard (3 rounds) and John Katsulas (3 rounds). Both round 6 off. George Mason JV:Butch Canter and Pat McCann Tricia Webb and Melissa Silverman Novice: Katy Kasmai and Megan Wells Renee Loebs and Lynadria Ware Nick Malone and Shey Behbahani Leah Foster and Heather Westrom Lisa Russell and Rebecca Shibley Oname Thompson and Jay Vilar Mitchell Kato and Anthony Bozzi Judges: Niel Butt, Richard Reed, Jake Weiner, Pete Krein (Sat and Sun), Chris McIntosh (Sat and Sun). Johnson C. Smith University Novices-Brandy Offord and Monica Simpson Akelah Luke and Nicole Thompson Judge: Caroll M. Purgason Mansfield University Anji Nolan and Mike Kittle-Novice Unnamed Novice Team Judges: Larry Watts & Duane Hyland (Fri & Sat Only) Mary Washington Amber Tussing & Judy Goss (Varsity) Herbert Conley & Robert Bowen (Novice) Judges: Tim O'Donnell (4 rounds) Ann O'Donnell (2 rounds on Saturday only) Pittsburgh University: Andrew Stangl and Cynthia Kinnan (Varsity) Judge: Ron Von Burg University of South Carolina Open teams--Erin Bailey & Maggie McAllister Ankit Patel & Jason Bethel Judge: Jennifer Edwards Towson University: Two novice teams: Sabrina Chase and Michael Harvey Alex Mwangi and Jon Stefanuca One varsity team: Steve Amenta and Renee Jackson Judge: Beth Skinner Trinity University JV-Joseph Calaway & Howard Wilen David Denton & Marcus Denton Judges: Chris Lotz & Frank Harrison 3 a piece with rd 6 off. UVA JV- Marilyn Yang and Neethi Kang JV-Judson Frye and Jim Apple Judges: hired West Virginia: JV--Joshua Boggs and Mary Bess Lynna Palmer and Nicole Newlon Stephen Marshall and Joshua Whitehair Jennifer Dixon and Jody Jones Novice--Annelee Boyle and Jeremy Wilson Samantha Jones and Jennelle Harper Judges: Daniel Overbey & Mark Schaefer 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 Tue Oct 5 15:13:29 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 48283 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 16:11:37 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from Alpha.nlu.edu (alpha.nlu.edu [192.135.131.100]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA55168 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 16:11:30 -0400 Received: by alpha.nlu.edu (MX V5.1-X An7g) id 27; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 15:13:29 -1300 Message-ID: <009DF2CC.A4936D48.27 at alpha.nlu.edu> Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 15:13:29 -1300 Reply-To: sphobbs at ALPHA.NLU.EDU To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Jodee Hobbs Subject: University of Louisiana-Monroe Bicker entries? So far we have about 16 schools committed to attending the Bicker Debates. But we are unsure on numbers of debate entries. If you could, please e-mail back the number of CEDA/NDT (specify novice or open) & L-D entries that you will be bringing. It will help us know how many trophies to get, etc. Also, as in the past, if you need some help getting here, let me know and I will do what I can to make the tournament more affordable for you. If you need an invite, ask and you shall receive. jodee hobbs director of forensics university of louisiana-monroe (nlu) (318)342-3182 (318)342-8133 (home) sphobbs at alpha.nlu.edu From ALennon Tue Oct 5 15:13:16 1999 From: ALennon (Alexander Lennon) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 16:13:16 -0400 Subject: 4th ANNUAL TAYLOR INTERNSHIP @ CSIS Message-ID: Each year, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) offers one paid internship (of up to one full calendar year) for a policy debater in college. Students may start the internship either in the summer of fall 2000. Interns are eligible to compete for full-time staff positions as they become available throughout CSIS. The purpose of the award is to promote professional development among intercollegiate policy debaters who have an interest in public policy. (And, uh, to give you folks an alternative to being a lawyer...or at least seeing what it's like.) Both previous recipients have had newspaper op-eds published in their own name. Eligibility: Candidates for the award must currently be undergraduate (including seniors this year) policy debaters. Major field(s) of study should be related to international affairs. Applicants are expected to have strong writing skills, an exemplary debate record, an interest in international affairs, strong communication skills, as well as demonstrated leadership potential and maturity. A first round bid (or a really good excuse why you didn't get one this year) is not essential, but viewed very favorably. Application: If you would like to apply for an internship, please submit a cover letter and resume by March 1 (you've got some time), to: Alex Lennon Editor-in-Chief The Washington Quarterly CSIS 1800 K St., NW Washington DC 20006 or by e-mail to: alennon at csis.org Late applications will NOT be accepted (even if sent electronically). Please feel free to direct any ?s to me by e-mail. If you have any questions about CSIS and the range of its work, please check out www.csis.org (and please check the website before asking me any questions - they may be answered there). About Dr. Taylor: The William J. Taylor, Jr. internship was established to recognize the outstanding training intercollegiate debate gives students. The award honors Dr. Taylor's commitment to the activity. Dr. Taylor, recently retired, was the Senior Vice President for International Security Affairs at CSIS. A former U.S. Army colonel, he was elected to the Infantry Officer Candidate Hall of Fame. Dr. Taylor was a professor and director of national security studies as well as the director of debate for West Point (just don't ask me when). He is the author, coauthor, or coeditor of 16 books and more than 300 articles on international security affairs. He has been responsible for brining many debaters to CSIS--including Mike Mazarr, the 1986 NDT Finalist from Georgetown, and Alex Lennon, the 1990 NDT champion from Harvard. Recent recipients include: 1999-2000 Chris McIntosh, University of Georgia 1998-1999 Corey Stoughton, University of Michigan 1997-1998 Kelly Dunbar, Baylor University >From Tue Oct 5 16:12:59 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 48343 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 16:13:42 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo16.mx.aol.com (imo16.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.6]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA14722 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 16:13:36 -0400 Received: from CUDb8R at aol.com by imo16.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v22.4.) id nQPRa00116 (3966) for ; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 16:12:59 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 27 Message-ID: <9977321f.252bb5cb at aol.com> Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 16:12:59 EDT Reply-To: CUDb8R at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Kirk Wilson Subject: Arkansas State University! Since the Bi-Prov was cancelled, are you guys traveling to any other tournament this weekend? Kirk Wilson CU Debate >From Tue Oct 5 16:14:04 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 48382 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 16:14:48 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo23.mx.aol.com (imo23.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.67]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA44350 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 16:14:42 -0400 Received: from CUDb8R at aol.com by imo23.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v22.4.) id nWCDa05746 (3966) for ; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 16:14:05 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 27 Message-ID: <15ca3b9e.252bb60c at aol.com> Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 16:14:04 EDT Reply-To: CUDb8R at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Kirk Wilson Subject: Sam Houston State Is there a rough list of what CEDA teams are attending the tournament this weekend? Kirk Wilson Cameron University Debate >From Tue Oct 5 16:17:43 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 48680 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 16:17:55 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from stimpy.ir.miami.edu (stimpy.ir.miami.edu [129.171.32.32]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA55076 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 16:17:48 -0400 Received: from umiami.ir.miami.edu by umiami.ir.miami.edu (PMDF V5.2-32 #40230) id <01JGS5DV65GW90OLJD at umiami.ir.miami.edu> for edebate at list.uvm.edu; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 16:17:43 EDT MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Message-ID: Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 16:17:43 -0400 Reply-To: dave at MIAMI.EDU To: Team Topic Debating in America From: "David L. Steinberg" Subject: swing/partner for Lewis and Clark Unfortunately, one of our debaters is suddenly unable to attend the Lewis and Clark tournament. Jeff Geldens, however, would very much like to participate in the tournament. If you are available and would like to partner with an excellent debater in senior policy debate, please let us know. Thanks! dave David L. Steinberg (305) 284-5553 (O) P.O. Box 248127 (305) 284-3648 (F) University of Miami (786) 242-1155 (H) Coral Gables, FL 33124 Dave at Miami.Edu From jared_1978 Tue Oct 5 15:29:58 1999 From: jared_1978 (Jared Waters) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 13:29:58 PDT Subject: Sam Houston Entries as of 10/5 3:30 pm Message-ID: These are the schools that are entered in CEDA so far, a more comprehensive list will come tommorrow. Abilene Christian Southeast Lousiana UT-Dallas UT-San Antonio LSU Southwest Texas Sam Houston State Angleo State McNeese University jared sam houston state debate ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From jef229f Tue Oct 5 16:00:13 1999 From: jef229f (John Fritch) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 16:00:13 -0500 Subject: SMS Judgins Message-ID: We are VERY short on judging. If anyone would be interested in being hired as a judge at $20/round, please contact me. You can call me at 417-836-6612. Thanks, John Fritch SMS >From Tue Oct 5 16:33:26 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 49904 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 17:32:47 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from saluki-mailsmtp.siu.edu (saluki-mailsmtp.siu.edu [131.230.252.26]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA03696 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 17:32:45 -0400 Received: from saluki-mail.siu.edu (saluki-mail.siu.edu [131.230.252.17]) by saluki-mailsmtp.siu.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA89406 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 16:32:19 -0500 Received: from tupelo (port34.aixdialin.siu.edu [131.230.253.34]) by saluki-mail.siu.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id QAA23958 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 16:33:26 -0500 X-Sender: slusher at saluki-mail.siu.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-ID: <199910052133.QAA23958 at saluki-mail.siu.edu> Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 16:33:26 -0500 Reply-To: slusher at SIU.EDU To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Eric Slusher Subject: Hockey Fans If anyone out there would like to play fantasy hockey on CNNSI we've got a division going. If you wanna play or if you are playing and wanna switch your division to play with some debate folks backchannel me and I will hook you up with the password. Right now it's just me, Matt Moore and Glen Frappier. slusher >From Tue Oct 5 17:52:09 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 50197 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 17:52:51 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo28.mx.aol.com (imo28.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.72]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA03730 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 17:52:46 -0400 Received: from Buxbox at aol.com by imo28.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id nLATa29482 (3974) for ; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 17:52:10 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 41 Message-ID: <0.ba347c1e.252bcd09 at aol.com> Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 17:52:09 EDT Reply-To: Buxbox at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Jon Schwartz Subject: Re: Chris Cooper Could someone pleas backchannel me with Chris Cooper's new e-mail address. THis is for jason mika. Jon Schwartz GWU '02 From sab504s Tue Oct 5 17:40:59 1999 From: sab504s (Shawn Bone) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 17:40:59 -0500 Subject: Michigan only Message-ID: Can someone from the Michigan squad backchannel me the cites for your terrorism disad. I will be happy to respond with any cites that you need from us here at SMS. Thanks in advance. Shawn Bone SMS Debate From jared_1978 Tue Oct 5 17:46:03 1999 From: jared_1978 (Jared Waters) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 15:46:03 PDT Subject: Sam Houston entries as of 5:30 pm Message-ID: Here is the current list of teams, please note we are still accepting entries, and we are still awaiting southwest texas' entry. OPEN Martin and Matthey UTSA Holland and Richey McNeese/ACU Jordan and Kirk UTD Stanescu and Fuqua UTD Weaver and Vail UTD Swain and Lipnick UTD Scites and Smith SEL Monistrere and Hyden SEL McDonald and Phillips ACU Dunber and Potter ACU Moffett and Erwin Angelo State Wilson and Wilson Cameron Colon and McCurty Cameron Smith and Harper LSU NOVICE McDonald and Golando UTSA Burside and Lay UTD Waddill and Meyers UTD Gauthier and Foster SEL Beanne and O'Neal SEL Dunham and Murray Cameron Easley and Abrego Sam Houston please send other entries ASAP! jared sam houston state debate ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From jef229f Tue Oct 5 19:29:26 1999 From: jef229f (John Fritch) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 19:29:26 -0500 Subject: SMS Entries Message-ID: So far, we have 22 teams in open, 12 in JV, and 3 in novice (counting a SMS team). Also, we are INCREDIBLY short of judges. Alabama Pfister & Gordon Phillips & Lacour (JV) Gonazalez & Stein (JV) Judges: Prisco, Jester UCO Potts & Evans Valencia & Foster Johnson & Mooney (JV) Lehman &Tkach (NOV) Judges: Moore, Hovden Emory Russ & Nasreddine Lynn & McGough Crittenden & Rodu Somers & Jenkins (JV) Judge: Newman Emporia Shepard & Maurer Moore & Hultz (JV) Whitehair & Brouhard (JV) Judge: DeLaughder JCCC Mozisek & Rowe Fortney & Snapp (JV) Judge: Hutchins Kansas State Newton & Roddy Richardson & Wilson Shultz & Sharp (JV) Tigue & Meier (JV) Judges: Knapple, West, Stanfield Macalester Kauf & Wilham Judge: Dennis Texas Nathan & Dwyer Drummond & Bowman Glinski & Poulous Garza & Kim Connelly & Liebman Compton & Tongue Tunkis & Melin (JV) Emertt & Berry (JV) Judges: Rollins, Jenkins, Stroube Wichita Holland & O?Toole Jarris & Gillum Fellows & McDonald (JV) Judges: Elliott, Ishak William Jewell Davis & Petit Hershewe & Lawson BAccus & Girouard Gicinto & Haney (NOVICE) Juges: Lane, Woods John Fritch SMS From raoul2 Tue Oct 5 20:05:27 1999 From: raoul2 (Matthew Stephen Levendusky) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 21:05:27 -0400 Subject: Looking for John W. from JMU Message-ID: Ignore if you're not from JMU or if you don't know John Willimen's (sp?--sorry) email address. For anyone else, if you have have his address, I'd greatly appreciate it, I need some cites from him. Thanks-- Matt PSU From monte Tue Oct 5 20:06:55 1999 From: monte (Frank L Stevens) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 20:06:55 -0500 Subject: Bama Message-ID: I need to talk to wiley or damien. could one of you e-mail me please. Monte Stevens Kansas State University >From Tue Oct 5 19:08:48 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 51793 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 21:18:14 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from baylor.edu (ccis08.baylor.edu [129.62.1.2]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA49494 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 21:18:06 -0400 Received: from ccis01.baylor.edu by baylor.edu (PMDF V5.2-31 #33495) with ESMTP id <01JGSDP8WJ0WB8OGFG at baylor.edu> for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 20:16:13 CDT 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 UAA09298 for ; Tue, 05 Oct 1999 20:13:54 -0500 (CDT) MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII X-Authenticated: Message-ID: Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 19:08:48 -0600 Reply-To: Meredith_Black at BAYLOR.EDU To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Meredith Black Subject: Macalester only please Could someone from Macalester please backchannel me the cites for your Halliday author on the Iraq affirmative.' Thanks, meredith black baylor debate From roger37 Tue Oct 5 21:16:44 1999 From: roger37 (Roger Saad) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 19:16:44 PDT Subject: Alabama GP Message-ID: Damien, Could you Backchanel me. Thanks Roger KU Debate ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From jordan440 Tue Oct 5 21:33:26 1999 From: jordan440 (Jason & Lisa) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 21:33:26 -0500 Subject: Emporia? Message-ID: I know the invite got sent out, but I deleted it and I need to know the dates. Specifically if it is a Monday tournament Dlightfully dumb, Jason Jordan UTDallas Debate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/19991005/dd4ff372/attachment.htm From silverma Tue Oct 5 22:21:31 1999 From: silverma (andy silverman) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 20:21:31 -0700 Subject: PAUL BELLUS ONLY PLEASE Message-ID: can paul bellus backchannel me. sorry for the clutter andrew silverman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/19991005/e0a1befc/attachment.html From TM0JRB1 Wed Oct 6 00:18:17 1999 From: TM0JRB1 (John Butler) Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 00:18:17 -0500 Subject: NIU TOURNAMENT ENTRIES Message-ID: Entries for the NIU tournament, as of 10/5/99. This assumes that those who entered in the JV Division will move up to Varsity. I have to collapse JV and V. The listed dealine for registration is not until tomorrow evening, but this might be of some interest to those who plan to attend. Please check this for accuracy if you have already entered. Let me know of any changes. I will continue to add teams as they come in. John Butler Northern Illinois University Novice Division: 11-12 teams CWRU: Brian Morre and Ted (Last) John Carroll: Sarah Kalina and Steve Klinger MTSU: Meg Miedel and Loreida Jennings NIU: 4 teams Wheaton: 4-5 teams Open Division: 18 Augustana: Veronica Smith and Chad Kent (JV) Ball State: Donny Peters and Jayne Henson CWRU: Vinnie Liu and Corey Kemper Lynn Revette and Max Tusin (JV) JCU: Ben Sovacool and Chris Diamant Katie Lavelle and Liz Wiley Brad Presutto and Jessica Dillon Jen Bozman and Brandi Clouston (JV) Jim Paluf and Brandy Kusinski (JV) MTSU: Stacie Murphy and Matt Carter Terrance Bond and Natalie Woodward NIU: 3-4 teams UNI: Jen Rawe and Adam Briddell Melissa Peterson and Emily Rose DeHart Jason Humke and Cori Kuhn >From Wed Oct 6 07:29:19 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 54777 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 08:29:37 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from wfrpc.dst.fl.us (server.wfrpc.dst.fl.us [206.105.46.100]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA64532 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 08:29:34 -0400 Received: from TERM-08 (TERM-08 [206.105.46.84]) by wfrpc.dst.fl.us (NTMail 3.02.09) with ESMTP id ka054246 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 07:29:20 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01d) Message-ID: <12292067804243 at wfrpc.dst.fl.us> Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 07:29:19 -0500 Reply-To: chismc at WFRPC.DST.FL.US To: Team Topic Debating in America From: chismc at WFRPC.DST.FL.US Subject: macho and smart? WOW! for what it's worth, the new issue of MEN'S HEALTH has an article by an associate editor who claims to have debated in high school some time back.... From hunt Wed Oct 6 10:58:23 1999 From: hunt (Steven Hunt) Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 08:58:23 -0700 Subject: Policy Entries L&C as of Wednesday Morning Oct 6, 1999 Message-ID: Policy Entries L&C as of Wednesday Morning Oct 6 should be 95% complete Senior Policy University of Puget Sound Michael LeFevre and Michael Gilbrough Whitman Brian Simmonds and thad Blank Courtney Gardner and Emily Cordo Jessica Clarke and charles Olney University of Miami (Fl) Veronica Barreto and Regina Paulose Jeff Geldens ***** Is looking for a swing senior partner anybody have anybody to do a hybrid team???****** Gonzaga Casey Kelly and Aaron Moburg Jones Beth Weirman and Bill Schroeder Chris Losnegard and Serena Gordon Taylor Elliott and Jon Heinonen Weber State Stacey Stapley and Brandon Mark Zach Westerfield and Mike Zahller Lewis & Clark Jared Hager and Aleava Sayre Nick Hesterberg and Amy Collinge University of Oregon Alan Tauber and Aaron Kizer Jessica Bradley and Chris Crew Western Washington University Breana Forni and Julie Pitt Whitney Garrison and Christine Vicino Ross McDonald and Lindsay Naylor Cal State Chico Alia Khan and Jeremy Bowers Jim Hebert and Brenda McChesney Cal St University Bakersfield Jeremy Peterson and David Wells 21- 22 teams so far at least quarters Junior Policy University of Puget Sound Maegan Parker and Chris Abbott Megan Mooney and Sarah Bousman Chris Gulugian-Taylor and Ron Ringuette Geoff Zeiger and Dianna tingg Jon Howland and Jennifer Eidum Whitman Bobby deGrouchy and Mario Cava Keola Whittaker and Brian Ward Richard Detheridge and Lauren Ritter Nicholas Thomas and Scott Daniel Idaho State Brad Cole and Tyler Thornton Carlin Andrus and Tyler Smith Ira Bunch and Jeff Dearing Becca Tanner and Jeremy Yuill Lewis & Clark Chris Phan and Katy Micka Owen Zahorcak and Brad Cole University of Oregon Erin Fender and Michael Nguyen University of Seattle Mick Souders and Ken Johnson Greta Smith/Samara Mohamed/Thomas Howard Albertson College of Idaho Jad Mahken and Darcy James Western Washington University Rachel Elkinton/Matt Grindy/Brian Lagreid Cal St Chico Casey Arbenz and Kyle Robertson Santa Clara University Rachel Kirkbridge and Kristin Bartlett McKinsey Miller and Khanh Bui 23 teams so far at least quarters Please tell me if you have already entered and are not on the list. Please tell me if names are misspelled. Please send me any revisions/deletions as soon as you know of same. Steve Hunt Lewis & Clark College q From jstone Wed Oct 6 11:18:34 1999 From: jstone (J. Stone) Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 12:18:34 -0400 Subject: UR entries as of Noon Message-ID: Subject says it all. Still waiting to hear from ALLEGANY, CATHOLIC, CORNELL, DUSQUESNE, GEORGETOWN, KINGS, LIBERTY, METHODIST, TENNESSEE TECH, TRINITY UNIVERSITY, UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA, VANDERBUILT, UNIVERSITY OF WEST VA, WAKE FOREST. ENTRY DEADLINE IS 5:30PM TODAY!!! As of now 8 Varsity team, 10 JV teams, and 23 novice teams. 1999 Spider Classic Entries as of Noon 10/06/1999 Binghamton Open- Joe Schatz & J Marks. Judge: Jenn Geiss Boston College. Novice--Brian Kane & James Hsu Novice--Kevin Hartzell & Chris Masefield Judges: Stefan Bauschard (3 rounds) and John Katsulas (3 rounds). Both round 6 off. George Mason JV:Butch Canter and Pat McCann Tricia Webb and Melissa Silverman Novice: Katy Kasmai and Megan Wells Renee Loebs and Lynadria Ware Nick Malone and Shey Behbahani Leah Foster and Heather Westrom Lisa Russell and Rebecca Shibley Oname Thompson and Jay Vilar Mitchell Kato and Anthony Bozzi Judges: Niel Butt, Richard Reed, Jake Weiner, Pete Krein (Sat and Sun), Chris McIntosh (Sat and Sun). Johnson C. Smith University Novices-Brandy Offord and Monica Simpson Akelah Luke and Nicole Thompson Judge: Caroll M. Purgason Mansfield University Anji Nolan and Mike Kittle-Novice Unnamed Novice Team Judges: Larry Watts & Duane Hyland (Fri & Sat Only) Mary Washington Amber Tussing & Judy Goss (Varsity) Herbert Conley & Robert Bowen (Novice) Judges: Tim O'Donnell (4 rounds) Ann O'Donnell (2 rounds on Saturday only) Naval Academy: Varsity Michael Bruno / Timothy Johnson Phillip Sprincin / Matthew Sullivan Novice- Jonathan Hiler / David Major Pete Stevenson / Paul Rutz Jatooporn Pholtavee / Eric Gonzales Von Fernandes / David Bartlow Brent Richardson / Fidel Sanchez Judges: Chris Rodriguez, Jeffrey Hunt, Jonny Chase (Novice Only) Pittsburgh University: Andrew Stangl and Cynthia Kinnan (Varsity) Judge: Ron Von Burg University of South Carolina Open teams--Erin Bailey & Maggie McAllister Ankit Patel & Jason Bethel Judge: Jennifer Edwards Towson University: Two novice teams: Sabrina Chase and Michael Harvey Alex Mwangi and Jon Stefanuca One varsity team: Steve Amenta and Renee Jackson Judge: Beth Skinner Trinity University JV-Joseph Calaway & Howard Wilen David Denton & Marcus Denton Judges: Chris Lotz & Frank Harrison 3 a piece with rd 6 off. UVA JV- Marilyn Yang and Neethi Kang JV-Judson Frye and Jim Apple Judges: hired West Virginia: JV--Joshua Boggs and Mary Bess Lynna Palmer and Nicole Newlon Stephen Marshall and Joshua Whitehair Jennifer Dixon and Jody Jones Novice--Annelee Boyle and Jeremy Wilson Samantha Jones and Jennelle Harper Judges: Daniel Overbey & Mark Schaefer Thanks a lot. See ya'll soon!!! Jason 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 Wed Oct 6 12:31:31 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 59100 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 12:32:30 -0400 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 MAA58240 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 12:32:17 -0400 Received: from JoeCarver at aol.com by imo-d03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v22.4.) id nAADOhbcY_ (3978) for ; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 12:31:31 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 243 Message-ID: <89365d9c.252cd363 at aol.com> Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 12:31:31 EDT Reply-To: JoeCarver at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Joe Carver Subject: Korcok Please backchannel me at your convenience. Joe Carver CEU Debate From car8k Wed Oct 6 12:22:15 1999 From: car8k (Corey Rayburn) Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 13:22:15 -0400 Subject: Cap Cities Judge for Hire Message-ID: If anyone needs a judge for Cap Cities, I'll be around on that weekend. I hope to see everyone there. Corey Rayburn University of Virginia Law >From Wed Oct 6 13:23:57 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 59715 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 13:23:23 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from smtp3.erols.com (smtp3.erols.com [207.172.3.236]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA42518 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 13:23:01 -0400 Received: from erols.com (209-122-226-226.s480.tnt1.nyw.ny.dialup.rcn.com [209.122.226.226]) by smtp3.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA19425; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 13:22:54 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; I; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: <37FB8585.808BB629 at erols.com> Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 13:23:57 -0400 Reply-To: a.dove at erols.com To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Alan Dove Organization: Nature Subject: Columbia University Gotham Debates 20-21 November Comments: To: ceda-debate at forums.nyu.edu, "Hanes, Russ" Hey, folks: Below, I have included a plain text version of the invitation for the Gotham Debates, to be hosted by the Columbia University Policy Debate Team 20-21 November, 1999 in New York City. With Sam Nelson's permission, we will also bring a hard-copy version of the invitation to the Rochester tournament for distribution in team packets. If you need a hard-copy invitation and are not attending Rochester, please send me an email with your fax number or postal address and I will fax or mail a copy to you. I can also email it to you as an attachment in Word 98 format. Email is by far the easiest way to contact me, and is therefore the preferred entry method. Fax and phone entries will also be accepted. Nothing is cheap in the NYC area, but Russ Hanes has done an outstanding job of negotiating a deep discount on the hotel and an amazingly cheap parking arrangement. As stated in the invitation, the tournament hotel will release our block of rooms on 29 October, and the rate after that will double, so please reserve early. --Alan -- __________ Alan Dove, Ph.D. Director, Columbia University Policy Debate http://www.erols.com/a.dove/ COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY Policy Debate Team 5 October 1999 Dear Director of Debate, On behalf of the entire Columbia University Policy Debate Team, we would like to invite you to the first Gotham Debates, to be held on the weekend of 20-21 November on the campus of Columbia University in the city of New York. The tournament will include six preliminary rounds and an appropriate number of elimination rounds in Novice, Junior Varsity, and Open division Cross Examination Debate Association (CEDA) debate. In addition to the CEDA divisions, we will also host a Public Forum Debate (PFD) tournament, consisting of three rounds, on 21 November. The PFD tournament at Columbia last Spring was the largest PFD competition of the year. We welcome schools wishing to bring competitors for both events, but because the PFD rounds will overlap with CEDA elimination rounds, we cannot allow any individual competitor to participate in both events. We look forward to seeing you in New York City. Sincerely, Alan Dove, Ph.D. Director, Columbia University Policy Debate Russ Hanes President, Columbia University Policy Debate Gotham Debates Tournament Information Tournament Director: Alan Dove a.dove at erols.com 917 359 2342 (phone) Resolution: Rounds in the CEDA tournament will use the 1999-2000 CEDA resolution, "Resolved: that the United States Federal Government should adopt a policy of constructive engagement, including the removal of all or nearly all economic sanctions, with the government(s) of one or more of the following nation-states: Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Syria, North Korea. Rounds in the PFD tournament will use either an impromptu scenario given to competitors at the start of the round, or a limited-research topic which will be released at least two weeks before the tournament on our Web site and various listservs. Format: Time limits for CEDA debate will be 8-3-5 (8 minute constructives, 3 minute cross-examination, 5 minute rebuttals) with 10 minutes preparation time per side. Sanctioning and eligibility: The Gotham Debates CEDA tournament has been sanctioned by CEDA, and we will use the CEDA definitions of Novice, Junior Varsity, and Open eligibility. Entry Fees: $60 per two-person team for CEDA. Entries for the CEDA tournament must be received no later than 6:00pm on Wednesday, 17 November. After this time, we will charge a $25 late fee for drops and team changes, and a $50 fee for judge drops. Each judge covers two teams, and schools will be charged an additional $75 per uncovered team. PFD registration is $10 per competitor (or per team if a team division is offered). PFD competitors will be registered on the day of the competition. Gotham Debates Tournament Information (continued) Tournament Hotel: We have reserved a block of rooms at the Marriott in Teaneck, NJ, which is approximately 20 minutes from the campus. They can be reached at (201) 836-0600. Ask the hotel staff for the Columbia University Policy Debate Tournament rate. The group rate is $90/night, and the deadline for this rate is 29 October. The normal rate is twice the discounted one, so it behooves you to register on time. We will sign teams in for the tournament and distribute parking permits and tournament booklets at this hotel from 8:00pm to 11:00pm Friday night. For those who insist on staying in the city and are willing to pay $209/night for that luxury, the Quality Hotel at 215 West 94th Street (212 866 6400) is convenient to the tournament. Parking at this hotel is also more difficult. Parking: Parking a van in Manhattan is ordinarily a daunting prospect. Fortunately, the University is permitting us to offer parking on College Walk, the main walkway through the center of the campus. The only catch is that the parking office needs some information. If you know the plate number, color, make, and model of the vehicle you will be bringing to the tournament, please provide that information on the registration form. Otherwise, just tell us how many vans or cars you will be bringing, and provide the other information once you arrive. A $20 parking permit that you can purchase when you sign in at the tournament will allow you to park on campus all day Saturday and Sunday. For those who have not spent time in New York City, I cannot adequately express how good a deal this really is. Gotham Debates CEDA Tournament Entry Form Preferred Entry Method: Email this information to a.dove at erols.com Alternative Entry Method: Fax this form to Alan Dove, 212 928 0423 School Name Team Mailing Address Contact/Coach Name: Phone: Email: Vehicle Tag Number and Description (if available - see "Parking," above): Debater 1 Name Debater 2 Name Team Code Division (N,J,O) Judge Name Full or Half Coverage Constraints Gotham Debates CEDA Tournament Fee Calculator Description Quantity x Cost Each Total CEDA Teams x $60 Uncovered Teams x $75 Late Team Changes x $25 Late Judge Drops x $50 Total: Make All Checks Payable to Columbia University Gotham Debates Directions To the Tournament Hotel: From I-95 North/New Jersey Turnpike, head towards the George Washington Bridge and 15W ~V16W ~V 18W. Take exit 70 towards Leonia (Rt 93)/Leonia. The hotel should be very obvious by now. Stay left at the fork in the ramp. Merge onto East Degraw Ave. Turn right onto South John Street. Then left back onto Frank W Burr Blvd. The Marriott is located at 100 Frank W Burr Blvd. >From I-80 East: merge into I-95 North. Follow directions from there. >From I-95 South: on approaching the city, take the I-95 South/I-678 South/Cross Bronx Expressway towards the George Washington Bridge. From the GWB, stay on the New Jersey Turnpike, heading towards I-80 locally. Take exit 70 towards Teaneck (Rt 93)/Leonia. The hotel should be very obvious by now. Turn left onto Glenwood Ave, right onto Frank W Burr Blvd. The Marriott is located at 100 Frank W Burr Blvd. Flying: We recommend flying into Newark. It is cheaper and more convenient. Continental often has excellent student rates. If you must, LaGuardia is convenient too. Avoid JFK. >From the Hotel to the Tournament: Take I-95 North and cross the George Washington Bridge (GWB) (2 miles from exit to GWB). Pay close attention to the signs as you cross the bridge. Exit onto the Henry Hudson Parkway going South/Downtown. Go approximately 2 miles to take the 125th Street exit. Go past the Fairway supermarket, then turn left at the traffic light and go under the highway, and you will be on 125th Street. At the second light, turn right onto Broadway (immediately before the elevated subway tracks). You will pass the campus on your left at 116th Street and Broadway, but you cannot make a left turn there. Instead, turn right on 115th Street, then right on Riverside Drive, then right onto 116th Street and drive directly up to the main gate. If you have picked up your parking permit from us already, show it to the guard in the booth next to the gate, who may act incredulous at first. Explain that you are here for the Policy Debate tournament, that this has all been approved through the Parking Office and the Security Office, and that they should contact Dr. Alan Dove if they have any questions. Try to sound authoritative, but not confrontational. Once you have negotiated entry, proceed through the gate, parking on the right side of College Walk. If you do not have a parking permit, pull your van up parallel to the sidewalk outside the main gate and send someone in on foot to pick up your permit. Pairings and breakfast will be in the lobby of Hamilton Hall, which is located on the south side of College Walk, east of the playing fields. From steveman Wed Oct 6 09:30:16 1999 From: steveman (Steve Mancuso) Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 14:30:16 +0000 Subject: Dispositionality, Kentucky, Side Bias Message-ID: Congratulations to Dr. JW Patterson, Roger Solt, Gary Larson and their staff for running two excellent tournaments in Lexington this past week. Dispositionality. I think much of the confusion regarding dispositionality comes from the lumping of two very distinct concepts into one. I think it is useful to separate dispositionality into two theories. In one conception of dispositionality, the negative defends their right always to revert to the status quo. This could be called "Negative Dispositionality" or "Strong Dispositionality." I think this is the conception that Roger Solt, Ross Smith et. al. had at the beginning. The way this was differentiated from conditionality was that the negative adopted a self-imposed limit of "only one" counterplan. The other common conception of dispositional counterplans is that the negative can concede the counterplan only if the affirmative lets them ("makes theory arguments"). This is often described as parallel to the affirmative decision whether or not to straight turn a disadvantage. In this conception, it is the affirmative, not the negative, that controls when the counterplan drops out. This could be called "Affirmative Dispositionality" or "Weak Dispositionality." Under Negative Dispositionality, there is reduced penalty or risk in running disadvantages that either contradict or do not add together with the counterplan, as the negative on its own volition can bail on the CP. Many of the criticisms that people have made against conditionality apply to this conception of dispositionality. Under Affirmative Dispositionality, since the affirmative can concede the disadvantage and the counterplan and stick the negative with the disadvantageous CP, the negative is at heightened risk in running contradictory arguments. Under Affirmative Dispositionality the negative should not be able to concede the counterplan on "net benefits," in any form of a net benefits test, including a permutation. As someone recently pointed out, when the affirmative proves the counterplan is not net beneficial they are making an argument similar to a turn on a disadvantage. If the goal of advocates of dispositionality is to draw a parallel between these counterplans and disadvantages, and to distance themselves from the perceived abuses of conditional counterplans, then the negative should not be able to concede the counterplan on any net benefit grounds. Finally, a statistic on the topic and side bias. According to Gary Larson there were 207 affirmative wins and 208 negative wins at Kentucky, including elimination rounds. Steve Mancuso University of Michigan From jef229f Wed Oct 6 13:33:30 1999 From: jef229f (John Fritch) Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 13:33:30 -0500 Subject: SMS Entries Message-ID: 26 open. 11 JV (an Alabama dropped). 3 Novice (incl. an SMS) John Fritch Alabama Pfister & Gordon Gonazalez & Stein (JV) Judges: Prisco, Jester UCO Potts & Evans Valencia & Foster Johnson & Mooney (JV) Lehman &Tkach (NOV) Judges: Moore, Hovden Cornell Miller & Melton Kronk & Cole Judge: Hayman Emory Russ & Nasreddine Lynn & McGough Crittenden & Rodu Somers & Jenkins (JV) Judge: Newman Emporia Shepard & Maurer Moore & Hultz (JV) Whitehair & Brouhard (JV) Judge: DeLaughder JCCC Mozisek & Rowe Fortney & Snapp (JV) Judge: Hutchins Kansas Tinsley & Saad Walsh & Woods Judges: Van Cleave, Partlow Kansas State Newton & Roddy Richardson & Wilson Shultz & Sharp (JV) Tigue & Meier (JV) Judges: Knapple, West, Stanfield Macalester Kauf & Wilham Judge: Dennis Texas Nathan & Dwyer Drummond & Bowman Glinski & Poulous Garza & Kim Connelly & Liebman Compton & Tongue Tunkis & Melin (JV) Emertt & Berry (JV) Judges: Rollins, Jenkins, Stroube Wichita Holland & O?Toole Jarris & Gillum Fellows & McDonald (JV) Judges: Elliott, Ishak William Jewell Davis & Petit Hershewe & Lawson BAccus & Girouard Gicinto & Haney (NOVICE) Juges: Lane, Woods John Fritch SMS From dbteam Wed Oct 6 14:17:23 1999 From: dbteam (UWG Debate Team) Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 15:17:23 -0400 Subject: Dispositionality, Kentucky, Side Bias In-Reply-To: <37FB5CF8.4F5D@umich.edu> Message-ID: thanks for the info on the aff/neg win/loss numbers. hopefully this will help calm unnecessary fears of an aff bias. i think that the neg % will increase as the year goes along. i'm not doing much research(phd classes are sucking up all my library "capital"), but i just don't see this topic expanding all that much for the aff. as more and more teams get their strategies together, the advantage of the neg block will begin to outpace the usual aff check of the "new" aff. as for the dispositionality thread, i wanted to add a comment from the perspective of someone who tends to vote neg more than most yet leans aff on the ol' "what's the status of the cp?" debate. i find that i'm more persuaded by the "if SQ is better than plan at the end of the debate, vote neg" than "our version of conditionality(whether it be dispositionality or 'we'll only run one cp') isn't abusive." this is not to say that i think the argument is alaways a winner. just that in the debates that i've judged, i think the neg is better able to explain the "SQ is always an option" arg than trying to fumble for the right term to describe the fact that they're not confident enough in their strategy to defend just the cp. i believe i first heard this SQ option answer from a wake team. it probably helped that prestes was saying it(i usually was taken in by his condescending 'do i really have to say it or isn't obvious to everyone' tone. i really enjoyed judging he and daveed). but it just seems like the neg has less to defend when they say that, ultimately, the plan must be superior to the status quo. when the neg tries to say 'it's conditional/dispositional/hypotheoretical/ thenetbenefitisreallyshakysowemayhavetokickitlater', they inevitably sound like they are just scared to retain stable advocacy. now before i get reprimanded for my poor understanding of theory, remember that i'm admitting that i tend to lean aff on this argument. it may be useful to know that there might be a way to get folks like me to accept a strategy of cp or SQ without worrying about what to call it. hester On Wed, 6 Oct 1999, Steve Mancuso wrote: > Congratulations to Dr. JW Patterson, Roger Solt, Gary Larson and their > staff for running two excellent tournaments in Lexington this past week. > > Dispositionality. I think much of the confusion regarding > dispositionality comes from the lumping of two very distinct concepts > into one. I think it is useful to separate dispositionality into two > theories. > > In one conception of dispositionality, the negative defends their right > always to revert to the status quo. This could be called "Negative > Dispositionality" or "Strong Dispositionality." I think this is the > conception that Roger Solt, Ross Smith et. al. had at the beginning. > The way this was differentiated from conditionality was that the > negative adopted a self-imposed limit of "only one" counterplan. > > The other common conception of dispositional counterplans is that the > negative can concede the counterplan only if the affirmative lets them > ("makes theory arguments"). This is often described as parallel to the > affirmative decision whether or not to straight turn a disadvantage. In > this conception, it is the affirmative, not the negative, that controls > when the counterplan drops out. This could be called "Affirmative > Dispositionality" or "Weak Dispositionality." > > Under Negative Dispositionality, there is reduced penalty or risk in > running disadvantages that either contradict or do not add together with > the counterplan, as the negative on its own volition can bail on the CP. > Many of the criticisms that people have made against conditionality > apply to this conception of dispositionality. > > Under Affirmative Dispositionality, since the affirmative can concede > the disadvantage and the counterplan and stick the negative with the > disadvantageous CP, the negative is at heightened risk in running > contradictory arguments. > > Under Affirmative Dispositionality the negative should not be able to > concede the counterplan on "net benefits," in any form of a net benefits > test, including a permutation. As someone recently pointed out, when > the affirmative proves the counterplan is not net beneficial they are > making an argument similar to a turn on a disadvantage. If the goal of > advocates of dispositionality is to draw a parallel between these > counterplans and disadvantages, and to distance themselves from the > perceived abuses of conditional counterplans, then the negative should > not be able to concede the counterplan on any net benefit grounds. > > > Finally, a statistic on the topic and side bias. According to Gary > Larson there were 207 affirmative wins and 208 negative wins at > Kentucky, including elimination rounds. > > Steve Mancuso > University of Michigan > >From Wed Oct 6 15:25:27 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 62005 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 15:26:05 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo29.mx.aol.com (imo29.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.73]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA24494 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 15:26:03 -0400 Received: from Sgw8 at aol.com by imo29.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v22.4.) id nTXYa24736 (3969) for ; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 15:25:27 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 27 Message-ID: <51da7d33.252cfc27 at aol.com> Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 15:25:27 EDT Reply-To: Sgw8 at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Darius Wilkins Subject: names for c/ps...inherency? Hey, I never really learned the difference between the two other than you don't want to do dispositional cps. Anyways, can a c/p be non-inherent-as a means to prove SQ ability to solve? Darius Wilkins From gp3 Wed Oct 6 14:34:56 1999 From: gp3 (glenn prince) Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 19:34:56 GMT Subject: Tom Preston Message-ID: Could Tom Preston backchannel me please? Glenn Prince Arkansas State University ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From jared_1978 Wed Oct 6 14:46:44 1999 From: jared_1978 (Jared Waters) Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 12:46:44 PDT Subject: FINAL TEAM LIST FOR SAM, I THINK.... Message-ID: this should be it, unless we get some more late entries...... OPEN Martin and Matthey UTSA Holland and Richey McNeese/ACU Jordan and Kirk UTD Stanescu and Fuqua UTD Weaver and Vail UTD Swain and Lipnick UTD Scites and Smith SEL Monistrere and Hyden SEL McDonald and Phillips ACU Dunber and Potter ACU Moffett and Erwin Angelo State Wilson and Wilson Cameron Colon and McCurty Cameron Smith and Harper LSU Myers and Lightsey SWT Waters and Wheeler SWT Seiler and Clarke SWT NOVICE McDonald and Golando UTSA Burside and Lay UTD Waddill and Meyers UTD Gauthier and Foster SEL Beanne and O'Neal SEL Dunham and Murray Cameron Easley and Abrego Sam Houston ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From slo1279 Wed Oct 6 15:06:46 1999 From: slo1279 (Scott O'Donnell) Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 16:06:46 EDT Subject: Oil Disad Message-ID: Can anyone help me out? I'm looking for good sites to find cards on the Oil Disad. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. Scott O Clarion Debate ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From jbrey Wed Oct 6 15:12:03 1999 From: jbrey (James Brey) Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 16:12:03 -0400 Subject: No subject Message-ID: Does anyone know of a link which lists all previous CEDA resolutions? If so, can you send it to me! THANKS 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 LCKanak Wed Oct 6 15:19:23 1999 From: LCKanak (Lisa Kanak) Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 15:19:23 -0500 Subject: Looking for judges Message-ID: I am looking for qualified CX people who would be willing to judge for me in/around Dallas, TX the following weekends: October 15-16 (R.L. Turner in Carrollton) Nov. 12-13 (Hockaday in Dallas) Dec. 3-4 (South Garland) We are traveling from Fort Smith, Arkansas. If you are willing and/or interested, please back-channel me ASAP, so we can work out the details. Thank you! Lisa C. Kanak From erm892f Wed Oct 6 15:18:59 1999 From: erm892f (Eric Morris) Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 15:18:59 -0500 Subject: Dispositionality, Kentucky, Side Bias Message-ID: If the point is that Neg's explain 'SQ always an option' better, this may be. However, isn't this argument really conditionality on steroids - not only could the Neg revert to the SQ anytime (including the 2NR) but the judge also could if the decision found that the SQ was better than the plan which was, in turn, better than the CP. Do you see 'SQ is always an option' as an answer to the arguments that Aff often make claiming a voting issue because the CP was cond/dispo and hence abusive? Or, are you saying Neg's do better to pretend not to know what cond/dispo mean and repeat the 'SQ is always an option' mantra as a different, distinct, and somehow less abusive theoretical option than either cond/dispo? Eric Morris Asst. Debate Coach, SMSU - Dept. of Comm./Media, Craig 370 (H) (417) 863-9056 (O) (417) 836-6564 erm892f at mail.smsu.edu -----Original Message----- From: UWG Debate Team To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU Date: Wednesday, October 06, 1999 2:18 PM Subject: Re: Dispositionality, Kentucky, Side Bias >thanks for the info on the aff/neg win/loss numbers. hopefully this will >help calm unnecessary fears of an aff bias. i think that the neg % will >increase as the year goes along. i'm not doing much research(phd classes >are sucking up all my library "capital"), but i just don't see this topic >expanding all that much for the aff. as more and more teams get their >strategies together, the advantage of the neg block will begin to outpace >the usual aff check of the "new" aff. > as for the dispositionality thread, i wanted to add a comment from >the perspective of someone who tends to vote neg more than most yet leans >aff on the ol' "what's the status of the cp?" debate. i find that i'm more >persuaded by the "if SQ is better than plan at the end of the debate, vote >neg" than "our version of conditionality(whether it be >dispositionality or 'we'll only run one cp') isn't abusive." this is not >to say that i think the argument is alaways a winner. just that in the >debates that i've judged, i think the neg is better able to explain the >"SQ is always an option" arg than trying to fumble for the right term to >describe the fact that they're not confident enough in their strategy to >defend just the cp. i believe i first heard this SQ option answer from a >wake team. it probably helped that prestes was saying it(i usually was >taken in by his condescending 'do i really have to say it or isn't obvious >to everyone' tone. i really enjoyed judging he and daveed). but it just >seems like the neg has less to defend when >they say that, ultimately, the plan must be superior to the status quo. >when the neg tries to say 'it's conditional/dispositional/hypotheoretical/ >thenetbenefitisreallyshakysowemayhavetokickitlater', they inevitably sound >like they are just scared to retain stable advocacy. > now before i get reprimanded for my poor understanding of theory, >remember that i'm admitting that i tend to lean aff on this argument. >it may be useful to know that there might be a way to get folks like me to >accept a strategy of cp or SQ without worrying about what to call it. >hester >On Wed, 6 Oct 1999, Steve Mancuso wrote: > >> Congratulations to Dr. JW Patterson, Roger Solt, Gary Larson and their >> staff for running two excellent tournaments in Lexington this past week. >> >> Dispositionality. I think much of the confusion regarding >> dispositionality comes from the lumping of two very distinct concepts >> into one. I think it is useful to separate dispositionality into two >> theories. >> >> In one conception of dispositionality, the negative defends their right >> always to revert to the status quo. This could be called "Negative >> Dispositionality" or "Strong Dispositionality." I think this is the >> conception that Roger Solt, Ross Smith et. al. had at the beginning. >> The way this was differentiated from conditionality was that the >> negative adopted a self-imposed limit of "only one" counterplan. >> >> The other common conception of dispositional counterplans is that the >> negative can concede the counterplan only if the affirmative lets them >> ("makes theory arguments"). This is often described as parallel to the >> affirmative decision whether or not to straight turn a disadvantage. In >> this conception, it is the affirmative, not the negative, that controls >> when the counterplan drops out. This could be called "Affirmative >> Dispositionality" or "Weak Dispositionality." >> >> Under Negative Dispositionality, there is reduced penalty or risk in >> running disadvantages that either contradict or do not add together with >> the counterplan, as the negative on its own volition can bail on the CP. >> Many of the criticisms that people have made against conditionality >> apply to this conception of dispositionality. >> >> Under Affirmative Dispositionality, since the affirmative can concede >> the disadvantage and the counterplan and stick the negative with the >> disadvantageous CP, the negative is at heightened risk in running >> contradictory arguments. >> >> Under Affirmative Dispositionality the negative should not be able to >> concede the counterplan on "net benefits," in any form of a net benefits >> test, including a permutation. As someone recently pointed out, when >> the affirmative proves the counterplan is not net beneficial they are >> making an argument similar to a turn on a disadvantage. If the goal of >> advocates of dispositionality is to draw a parallel between these >> counterplans and disadvantages, and to distance themselves from the >> perceived abuses of conditional counterplans, then the negative should >> not be able to concede the counterplan on any net benefit grounds. >> >> >> Finally, a statistic on the topic and side bias. According to Gary >> Larson there were 207 affirmative wins and 208 negative wins at >> Kentucky, including elimination rounds. >> >> Steve Mancuso >> University of Michigan >> > From k.kuswa Wed Oct 6 15:33:10 1999 From: k.kuswa (kevin kuswa) Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 16:33:10 -0400 Subject: Dispositionality, Kentucky, Side Bias Message-ID: hello. a quick thought on this thread: does the idea of "reverse topicality" solve the narrow nature of the topic? Reverse topicality would simply argue that we have to have strict scrutiny on topicality so that we know exactly where to look for new affirmative ideas. In this case, forcing affirmatives to defend a POLICY of constructive engagement (as distinct from one instance of constructively engaging a country) may limit out cases that ban sanctions and do one small gesture of engagement. At the same time, this violation would allow us to advocate a more diverse array of policy guidelines, the Sullivan principles in South Africa being one example. Just a thought--it does seem to me that topicality may be a way to expand the scope of the topic in a more predictable way. Instead of answering the question: "What does this team run?" with the name of a country, we could answer the question with the type of constructive engagement policy (diplomatic, political-military, investment based) and the name of the country. kevin At 03:17 PM 10/6/99 -0400, you wrote: >thanks for the info on the aff/neg win/loss numbers. hopefully this will >help calm unnecessary fears of an aff bias. i think that the neg % will >increase as the year goes along. i'm not doing much research(phd classes >are sucking up all my library "capital"), but i just don't see this topic >expanding all that much for the aff. as more and more teams get their >strategies together, the advantage of the neg block will begin to outpace >the usual aff check of the "new" aff. > as for the dispositionality thread, i wanted to add a comment from >the perspective of someone who tends to vote neg more than most yet leans >aff on the ol' "what's the status of the cp?" debate. i find that i'm more >persuaded by the "if SQ is better than plan at the end of the debate, vote >neg" than "our version of conditionality(whether it be >dispositionality or 'we'll only run one cp') isn't abusive." this is not >to say that i think the argument is alaways a winner. just that in the >debates that i've judged, i think the neg is better able to explain the >"SQ is always an option" arg than trying to fumble for the right term to >describe the fact that they're not confident enough in their strategy to >defend just the cp. i believe i first heard this SQ option answer from a >wake team. it probably helped that prestes was saying it(i usually was >taken in by his condescending 'do i really have to say it or isn't obvious >to everyone' tone. i really enjoyed judging he and daveed). but it just >seems like the neg has less to defend when >they say that, ultimately, the plan must be superior to the status quo. >when the neg tries to say 'it's conditional/dispositional/hypotheoretical/ >thenetbenefitisreallyshakysowemayhavetokickitlater', they inevitably sound >like they are just scared to retain stable advocacy. > now before i get reprimanded for my poor understanding of theory, >remember that i'm admitting that i tend to lean aff on this argument. >it may be useful to know that there might be a way to get folks like me to >accept a strategy of cp or SQ without worrying about what to call it. >hester >On Wed, 6 Oct 1999, Steve Mancuso wrote: > >> Congratulations to Dr. JW Patterson, Roger Solt, Gary Larson and their >> staff for running two excellent tournaments in Lexington this past week. >> >> Dispositionality. I think much of the confusion regarding >> dispositionality comes from the lumping of two very distinct concepts >> into one. I think it is useful to separate dispositionality into two >> theories. >> >> In one conception of dispositionality, the negative defends their right >> always to revert to the status quo. This could be called "Negative >> Dispositionality" or "Strong Dispositionality." I think this is the >> conception that Roger Solt, Ross Smith et. al. had at the beginning. >> The way this was differentiated from conditionality was that the >> negative adopted a self-imposed limit of "only one" counterplan. >> >> The other common conception of dispositional counterplans is that the >> negative can concede the counterplan only if the affirmative lets them >> ("makes theory arguments"). This is often described as parallel to the >> affirmative decision whether or not to straight turn a disadvantage. In >> this conception, it is the affirmative, not the negative, that controls >> when the counterplan drops out. This could be called "Affirmative >> Dispositionality" or "Weak Dispositionality." >> >> Under Negative Dispositionality, there is reduced penalty or risk in >> running disadvantages that either contradict or do not add together with >> the counterplan, as the negative on its own volition can bail on the CP. >> Many of the criticisms that people have made against conditionality >> apply to this conception of dispositionality. >> >> Under Affirmative Dispositionality, since the affirmative can concede >> the disadvantage and the counterplan and stick the negative with the >> disadvantageous CP, the negative is at heightened risk in running >> contradictory arguments. >> >> Under Affirmative Dispositionality the negative should not be able to >> concede the counterplan on "net benefits," in any form of a net benefits >> test, including a permutation. As someone recently pointed out, when >> the affirmative proves the counterplan is not net beneficial they are >> making an argument similar to a turn on a disadvantage. If the goal of >> advocates of dispositionality is to draw a parallel between these >> counterplans and disadvantages, and to distance themselves from the >> perceived abuses of conditional counterplans, then the negative should >> not be able to concede the counterplan on any net benefit grounds. >> >> >> Finally, a statistic on the topic and side bias. According to Gary >> Larson there were 207 affirmative wins and 208 negative wins at >> Kentucky, including elimination rounds. >> >> Steve Mancuso >> University of Michigan >> > From robert.bolen Wed Oct 6 16:02:13 1999 From: robert.bolen (Robert Bolen) Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 16:02:13 -0500 Subject: University of Louisiana-Monroe Bicker entries? In-Reply-To: <199910052133.RAA13874@lab.caw.fsu.edu> Message-ID: Jodee, I have a $5100 travel budget for the year. Does this qualify me for a discount or whatever. I will try to bring 2 novice CEDA teams and a parli team plus about four entries in Extemp and Imp. My wife and I much prefer to judge Parli and the non-interpretive IEs. They are easier for us to keep up with in our old age. Bob At 03:13 PM 10/5/99 -1300, you wrote: >So far we have about 16 schools committed to attending the Bicker Debates. But >we are unsure on numbers of debate entries. If you could, please e-mail back >the number of CEDA/NDT (specify novice or open) & L-D entries that you will >be bringing. It will help >us know how many trophies to get, etc. > >Also, as in the past, if you need some help getting here, let me know and I >will do what I can to make the tournament more affordable for you. > >If you need an invite, ask and you shall receive. > >jodee hobbs >director of forensics >university of louisiana-monroe (nlu) >(318)342-3182 >(318)342-8133 (home) >sphobbs at alpha.nlu.edu > > > >From Wed Oct 6 15:12:25 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 64123 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 17:18:24 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from gate002.ocs.lsu.edu (gate002.ocs.lsu.edu [130.39.75.29]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA30206 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 17:18:16 -0400 Received: by gate002.ocs.lsu.edu(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.3 (733.2 10-16-1998)) id 86256802.006F9A84 ; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 15:19:00 -0500 X-Lotus-FromDomain: LSU Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Message-ID: <86256802.006F9849.00 at gate002.ocs.lsu.edu> Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 15:12:25 -0500 Reply-To: dgoins at LSU.EDU To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Darren Goins Subject: Hybrid Partner for Crimson Classic at U of AL Greetings Colleagues, I am Darren C. Goins, the DOF at LSU. I am looking for a hybrid partner for one of my debaters for the Alabama tournament in the non-policy or policy division. We are entering one policy team and this hybrid--so I have the judging requirement covered. If you have a debater in need of a partner for either policy or non-policy, please let me know asap so we can both register in time for the Monday deadline. Sincerely, Darren C. Goins Director of Forensics The Mixon Lyceum of LSU From stannardmatt Wed Oct 6 16:30:13 1999 From: stannardmatt (matt stannard) Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 14:30:13 PDT Subject: swing partner needed for emporia Message-ID: Wyoming needs a JV-level swing partner for one of our competitors, the inimitable Trent Greene. Backchannel me if you can provide one. Also, Delaughder, can you contact me asap regarding some of the arrangements we have discussed? best, stannard office: (307) 766-6690 ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From edebate Wed Oct 6 17:50:16 1999 From: edebate (x x x) Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 17:50:16 -0500 Subject: Vanderbilt Tournament Message-ID: Here is the hotel information. Rooms and rates are being held until October 29th. The invitation will be mailed and posted next week. Both are very close to campus. ClubHouse Inn 615-244-0150 Rate: $76 single/double $86 quad/triple Group ID is Debate tournament This hotel has free "hot breakfast," a restaurant that stays open until 10pm, exercise room, does not charge for local calls, serves complimentary evening beverages, and provides free coffee and tea 24 hrs. Also, the Downtown Trolley stops at the hotel. Guest House Inn: 615-329-1000 or 1-800-777-4904 Rate: $63.95, Group ID is CGPVB ___________________________________________________________________ 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 smithr Wed Oct 6 18:06:32 1999 From: smithr (Ross Smith) Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 19:06:32 -0400 Subject: Cap City FULL -- drops, judges, $$$ sought Message-ID: The Capital City Debates are filled to capacity or beyond. Let me know if you are listed below but will not be bringing the numbers you originally entered. We hope a few of you drop out. We hope to find just the right number of good judges. We find ourselves having to pay so much for security guards at the GW buildings that we may face a fee surcharge unless a cash donor is found. Segal has donated the trophies (draw your own conclusions re their quality). Cap City Entries 1999 (66 teams, room for 64 teams) GEORGETOWN Georgetown would like to enter 4 teams. GEORGIA Wally Eastwood & Meredith Stein Robbie Quinn & Shawn Powers Jeff Ranew & Patricia Kelley Judges: Ed Panetta Gordon Stables KENTUCKY Ky. would like to bring four teams to Cap City. TOWSON Towson would like to enter one team in the Cap Cities tournament DARTMOUTH Five teams: Alex Berger and Adam Garen Kumar Garg and Josh Skora Andrew Leong and Nicole Serrano REL Rubin and John Turner Nathan Sabel and Eric Zampol Judges Steve Lehotsky Bill Russell Ken Strange KANSAS Mike Eber and Grant McKeehan MIAMI (FL) The University of Miami would like to bring at least 2 and possibly 3 teams to the tournament. REDLANDS Consider us in, Miller & Graffagnini! BOSTON COLLEGE Lisa Langdon/Jared Fields MICHIGAN Carl Sammartino and Adriana Midence Gabe Scannapieco and John Oden Tim Stucka and Steve Benken Judges Jason Hernandez 6 rounds Steve Mancuso 6 rounds HARVARD 4 teams WAKE FOREST 6 teams CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY Ivan Susak/Joe Lauer Matt Dunn/Sarah Wilson Judge: Mike Dutcher MICHIGAN STATE Aaron Monick & Steve Donald Matt Blair & Austin Carson Anjali Vats & Alison Woidan Calum Matheson & Geoff Lundeen Louis Brown & John Branester NORTHWESTERN 4 teams MARY WASHINGTON 1 team GEORGE WASHINGTON 2 teams GEORGE MASON Je"Mara Atwood and Bary Hausrath Pat McCann and Butch Canter DeeDee Giroux, Rich Reed and I (Jake Weiner) will be there to judge in addition to what Chris MacIntosh and Pete Krein have committed to, but I maybe be hired out already. LIBERTY John Ross and Jared Woodard Stephen Carter and Nick Seim Travis Ausland and Wil Haupfear David Cooper and Rebekah Meador Judges Mike Hall, Bill Lawrence and Heather Hall WEST GEORGIA 2 or 3 teams EMORY Stephen Bailey and Kamal Ghali Alison Chase and John Rains Adam Goldstein and David Harkin Nicole Hudak and Jeremy Hendon Eric Russ and Rania Nassredine Dan Albert and Kurt Kastorf Evan Granowitz and Lance Cook Judges are D.Heidt, Jenny Alme, and S. Heidt OTHERS (who have indicated interest but have not "entered"): Pitt, Louisville From jared_1978 Wed Oct 6 18:14:42 1999 From: jared_1978 (Jared Waters) Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 16:14:42 PDT Subject: this is the final list, please God let it be the final list! Message-ID: OPEN Martin and Matthey UTSA Holland and Richey McNeese/ACU Jordan and Kirk UTD Stanescu and Fuqua UTD Weaver and Vail UTD Swain and Lipnick UTD Scites and Smith SEL Monistrere and Hyden SEL McDonald and Phillips ACU Dunber and Potter ACU Moffett and Erwin Angelo State Wilson and Wilson Cameron Colon and McCurty Cameron Smith and Harper LSU Myers and Lightsey SWT Waters and Wheeler SWT Seiler and Clarke SWT NOVICE McDonald and Golando UTSA Burside and Lay UTD Waddill and Meyers UTD Gauthier and Foster SEL Dunham and Murray Cameron Easley and Abrego Sam Houston ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From jstone Wed Oct 6 18:20:41 1999 From: jstone (J. Stone) Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 19:20:41 -0400 Subject: Team & School list 99 Spider Classic Message-ID: Dear Community, Here is the final team list for the 99 Spider Classic. Novice will break to octafinals, JV to quarters and Open to semis. I am incredibly excited about our entries. I just got back from the engravers and we have got some dramatically improved hardware to give out on Sunday. I wish you all a safe and speedy trip to Richmond. Binghamton Open- Joe Schatz & J Marks. Judge: Jenn Geiss Boston College. Novice--Brian Kane & James Hsu Novice--Kevin Hartzell & Chris Masefield Judges: Stefan Bauschard (3 rounds) and John Katsulas (3 rounds). Both round 6 off. Catholic Novice:Christine Pham/Ellis Oster Matt Burchfield/Lisa Meagher Thomas O'Gorman/Celia Messing Julianne Foley/James Wiezorek Danielle Verney/Alex Duke Chris Flores/Natalie Savarese Edie Sneeringer/Mary Wiegand Junior Varsity: Paul Strait/Kenny LeMaire Tony Poliseno/Luke O'Connell Timeka Drew/Cassandra Oryl Varsity: Michael Pomorski/Kirsten Fochtman Judges: Paul Kerr (full), Michael Dutcher (full), Glen Johnson (full - novice & j.v), Jaime Rodriguez (full, novice only)** Duane Hyland (No rd 1 no outrounds half - we are splitting him with Mansfield) George Mason JV:Butch Canter and Pat McCann Tricia Webb and Melissa Silverman Novice: Katy Kasmai and Megan Wells Renee Loebs and Lynadria Ware Nick Malone and Shey Behbahani Leah Foster and Heather Westrom Lisa Russell and Rebecca Shibley Oname Thompson and Jay Vilar Mitchell Kato and Anthony Bozzi Judges: Niel Butt, Richard Reed, Jake Weiner, Pete Krein (Sat and Sun), Chris McIntosh (Sat and Sun). Johnson C. Smith University Novices-Brandy Offord and Monica Simpson Akelah Luke and Nicole Thompson Judge: Caroll M. Purgason Kings College Novice--Jim Gray & Amy Laure Lisa Collins & Liz Jordan Justin Bartos & Jeff Patrician Judges: Rebecca Greene full (no round one) Mike Berry 1/2 (please no round two or six) Liberty Varsity--Leah Frazier and Nick Yingst JV--David Cooper and Rebekah Meador Katie McGovern and Janeri Rivero Dan Brown and Laura Gall Novice--Scott Jones and Tim Meador Michael Bartlett and Julie Outten Rachel Coleman and Mary Elmore Matt Berg and Ryan Cunningham Judges: Michael Hall, Heather Hall, Michael Tilley, Bill Lawrence, Abe Pafford Mansfield University Anji Nolan and Mike Kittle-Novice Sean Carpenter & ? (Not out round eligible) Judges: Larry Watts & Duane Hyland (Fri & Sat Only) Mary Washington Amber Tussing & Judy Goss (Varsity) Herbert Conley & Robert Bowen (Novice) Judges: Tim O'Donnell (4 rounds) Ann O'Donnell (2 rounds on Saturday only) Naval Academy: Varsity Michael Bruno / Timothy Johnson Phillip Sprincin / Matthew Sullivan Novice- Pete Stevenson / Paul Rutz Von Fernandes / David Bartlow Brent Richardson / Fidel Sanchez Jonathan Hiler / Jatooporn Pholtavee Judges: Chris Rodriguez, Jeffrey Hunt, Jonny Chase (Novice Only) Pittsburgh University: Andrew Stangl and Cynthia Kinnan (Varsity) Judge: Ron Von Burg Towson University: Two novice teams: Sabrina Chase and Michael Harvey Alex Mwangi and Jon Stefanuca One varsity team: Steve Amenta and Renee Jackson Judge: Beth Skinner Trinity University JV-Joseph Calaway & Howard Wilen David Denton & Marcus Denton Judges: Chris Lotz & Frank Harrison 3 a piece with rd 6 off. University of Richmond Novice- Theresa Gould & Others (not out round eligible) UVA JV- Marilyn Yang and Neethi Kang JV-Judson Frye and Jim Apple Judges: hired West Virginia: JV--Joshua Boggs and Mary Bess Lynna Palmer and Nicole Newlon Stephen Marshall and Joshua Whitehair Jennifer Dixon and Jody Jones Novice--Annelee Boyle and Jeremy Wilson Samantha Jones and Jennelle Harper Judges: Daniel Overbey & Mark Schaefer 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 dougdennis Wed Oct 6 19:05:16 1999 From: dougdennis (doug dennis) Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 17:05:16 PDT Subject: texas- eric jenkins Message-ID: backchannel me as soon as you get a chance. peace. doug mac college ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From smithr Wed Oct 6 21:24:24 1999 From: smithr (Ross Smith) Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 22:24:24 -0400 Subject: dispositionality and side bias Message-ID: 1) The current aff or neg win % sems to be a terrible way to evaluate the legitimacy of an argument. I don't much like playing poker with wild cards; and if my opponent gets to name their own wild card just because I have been winning, that's a game I won't play. Should the aff get a 1000 life head start if the affs win 60%? 2) Mancuso labeled as Aff Dispositionality (AD), the basic argument that the negative can always revert to the status quo. Someone else called it AD on Steroids if the status quo is always an option for the judge. Not mentioned yet is Aff/Neg Dispositionality (AND), a position that Solt, others, and I believe to be logical, educational, and fair. AND recognizes that the introduction of a counterplan (unless it is truly and completely mutually exclusive) logically creates multiple policy options: the plan alone, permutation(s), the counterplan alone, and the status quo. The judge as policy analyst/endorser votes for the best policy. If the best policy includes the entire affirmative plan, then the affirmative plan should be adopted, and the affirmative wins. If the best policy does not include the entire affirmative plan then the affirmative plan is not desirable and the aff loses. AND recognizes that both the permutation and the status quo are logical policy options that cannot be wished away by either team. AND is an affirmative plan focused approach. The one question in the debate is, "Is the affirmative plan desirable?" The negative might say, "No, we think it is not only worse than the status quo, but that it is also worse than our counterplan." The aff might say, "True enough, but the permutation of our plan with all or part of your counterplan is better than the status quo and better than the counterplan. If you need some more terminology, then you might think of the situation wherein the aff wins that the best policy is the permuation as the situation in which the counterplan has been "straight turned." However, I think it advisable to stay away from jargon in these discussions and in your theory debates. 3) One must weigh the values lost and gained by embracing certain theoretical perspectives. Those who would reject AND are saying that the logical consistency and the accuracy of policy judgement that AND is based on is outweighed by a combination of one or more of the following: 1) reduced depth of discussion, 2) increased difficulty for the affirmative, 3) an educational loss in the teaching of "advocacy" skills, or 4) something else unknown to me. As to these claims I believe the first is wrong or backwards, the second is a good thing for educational and knowledge gaining reasons, the third is wrong, backwards or trivial, and that the fourth awaits explanation. I might comment more later. --Ross From satsune Wed Oct 6 22:18:33 1999 From: satsune (Sean Nevala) Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 20:18:33 -0700 Subject: site for South Korea d/a, Kedo d/a, and Nato CP d/a please!!! Message-ID: Hello I am calling out for a little assistance in regards to the above arguments. I have not been to a tournament yet and I am looking to get some info on the above positions. You can back channel me if you want. Any assistance would be appreciated. I need scenarios and cites. Thanks Sean CSULA Debate. ===== __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com From lrnathan Wed Oct 6 22:51:58 1999 From: lrnathan (laura nathan) Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 22:51:58 -0500 Subject: North Korea cites Message-ID: If anyone has cites for the cards saying that Congress seeks to reverse Clinton's lifting of economic sanctions, could you please backchannel those to me asap? Thanks in advance, laura texas From kenneth.delaughder Thu Oct 7 00:33:24 1999 From: kenneth.delaughder (Kenneth DeLaughder) Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 23:33:24 -0600 Subject: THanks Adri :) Message-ID: I deleted the email before I could reply, so Ill waste some bandwidth, cuz public thanks is ofen cool. Thanks to Brovero for helpin me out with Kentucky stuff and postin it to the net. Im sure she was tired and her info helped us out a bunch... Some NDT elitists arent all that bad :) *thats a joke...* I think the communication about cases has improved since the merger, 100 fold. And Adri has always been willing to help me out. so thanks, intell freak and born again card cutter... LOL, Ken PS.. fore someone get s all mad!: THanks to the others who backchanneled as well see ya in springfield From dperkins Thu Oct 7 00:36:17 1999 From: dperkins (Dallas Perkins) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 01:36:17 -0400 Subject: AND: Aff-Neg Dispositionality Message-ID: The theory Ross sets out is a strong form of the debate theory known as Hypothesis Testing. His formulation of the judge's task--pick the best world, ask if all the aff plan is included--precisely captures the key elements of that elegant and powerful theory. Notice that Ross has the honesty not to water down the implications of his logic. There are no logical limits on how many alternative best worlds EITHER side of the debate may suggest be considered. (I emphasize the "either" because it is clear that the aff may suggest that its plan would be good in some hypothetical world other than the status quo, by attaching extratopical plan provisions in 1AC, or even suggesting additional changes after hearing the disads.) Ross is also honest enough to admit that many have their reservations about the grandiosity of an attempt to juggle a dozen or so hypothetical worlds, all while trying to predict which will be best and then locate oneself upon the winner, and manage to shove your opponent out. It is surely a game for geniuses, and I admire all who aspire to do it well. A good friend of mine once called it, "Science Fiction Hypothesis Testing." Now, who was that? Can't seem to remember. dp From kenneth.delaughder Thu Oct 7 00:40:39 1999 From: kenneth.delaughder (Kenneth DeLaughder) Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 23:40:39 -0600 Subject: GLue or Stannard Message-ID: backchannel me with phone numbers...or email I deleted it everything is cool for next week the dog is in the yard Ken :) >From Thu Oct 7 01:58:10 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 67513 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 01:58:50 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo24.mx.aol.com (imo24.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.68]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA22706 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 01:58:49 -0400 Received: from SMDebate at aol.com by imo24.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id nAYJa06973 (4246) for ; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 01:58:11 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 26 Message-ID: <0.1484d944.252d9072 at aol.com> Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 01:58:10 EDT Reply-To: SMDebate at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: David Baker Subject: The End Is Near... If you plan to put a college program ad (2 facing pages) in the St. Mark's Tournament Program, I need it no later than the early part of next week. The ad will also be displayed on a big board next to the pairings. If you are coming to the tournament, even if you do not plan to put an ad in the program, please let me know so I can list your college in the program. This is not a trick to get judges. We have lots of them. This is a free service to get the college and high school community together. No salesperson will call. Please send camera ready art to: David Baker St. Mark's School of Texas 10600 Preston Road Dallas, Texas 75230 From db8coach Thu Oct 7 01:46:23 1999 From: db8coach (Bob Lechtreck) Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 23:46:23 -0700 Subject: dispositionality and side bias Message-ID: Damn, I wasn't gonna get involved........ A few disagreements. Ross Smith said: >>>>>>>>>> AND recognizes that the introduction of a counterplan (unless it is truly and completely mutually exclusive) logically creates multiple policy options: the plan alone, permutation(s), the counterplan alone, and the status quo. >>>>>>>>>> I disagree. If the permutation is actually a policy option, wouldn't it be an advocacy shift by the aff.? I doubt that many aff plans include the c/plan in their text. This is why I have always believed that a c/plan is a TEST of the opportunity cost of the plan. It is NOT an advocated choice (more on this below). Neither is the perm advocated. All it is, is a TEST of the competitiveness of the c/plan. I have never understood how a perm can be a policy option without being a shift for the team advocating the perm. >>>>>>>>>> The judge as policy analyst/endorser votes for the best policy. >>>>>>>>>> Another disagreement. In a plan focus debate, the choice is either to vote FOR the aff plan, or AGAINST the aff plan. Using the opportunity cost model for c/plans, the c/plan is simply a reason to reject the aff plan. If doing the aff plan means missing out on something better (the c/plan), then you would reject the aff plan. I am always interested in the basis for a c/plan which is advocated, and why a permutation as a policy option does not constitute a shift in advocacy. Peace, Bob Lechtreck Bakersfield College "Putting out fires, and damn good debaters." From smithr Thu Oct 7 02:50:17 1999 From: smithr (Ross Smith) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 03:50:17 -0400 Subject: dispositionality and side bias Message-ID: Eric Morris posed some questions: > >1. Mancuso suggested that this (or another) theory might limit the >negative to a single counterplan. Such a limitation seems practically, >not theoretically, grounded. Is that limitation part of your AND >theory or a separate issue? > It's a practical question, largely separate. Theoretically, more c-plans can be better. A logical/practical limit is that each needs distinct net benefits. >2. What about the possibility of multiple perms? I can see some reasons >for letting Aff have these, given that perm answers are often vague until >the 2AC makes them. This makes the number of possible 'best' policies >which can favor the affirmative rise, perhaps dramatically. If the >answer to question #1 is yes, however, it may be quite imbalancing. >Any opinion about multiple permutations assuming this view of CP >disposition? > Affs who run more than one perm while complaining about one conditional c-plan seem to be on thin ice. I do not understand the notion that vague perms justify more perms. Precise perms are clearly preferred by the logic of sound policy analysis. Given the nature of the net benefits arguments, there seems to be a limit to the number of perms that are of any use to the aff. The threat of multiple perms is hardly daunting to a well constructed negative position. The negative may wish to satisfy those who value reciprocity by arguing that the aff gets one perm plus the plan alone while the neg gets the counterplan or the status quo. >3. At the risk of using theory jargon, this solution functionally means >the Aff could 'advocate' a permutation. Does this fact raise any concern >for you? NO. As long as the aff is defending the entire plan as part of the perm, the aff has not abandoned its advocacy. I do not think the judge should ignore available policy options. In this instance, the negative said that this was a legitimate, available option. How does it become illigitimate or unavailable? The neg may pay a steep price if it advances a counterplan that solves the only disad to the plan! Seems the neg was not negating the aff plan at all. In essence, the neg said, "Here's a plan spike you can add." Thus, conditionality is not necessarily without risk for the negative. What if the CP fiat is dismissed for a variety of reasons: a >conceded lack of competition, a lack of fiat legitimacy, etc. Would >you view this theory as saying the CP is irrelevant or instead say such >objections might warrant a voting issue? Would you agree that this >might also dismiss the permutation from consideration as a possible >'best policy'. None of the above? If the aff proves the fiat of the counterplan is illigitimate and the negative grants that argument, then the counterplan and the permutation are no longer available policy options. I do not understand how lack of net benefits competitiveness could eliminate the permutation from consideration as a best policy unless you mean that one considered it and concluded it was not the best policy. I do not believe fiat is related to competitiveness. The former tells you which policies are may be assessed. The latter is a means of assessing the desirability of policies. > >Sorry to burden you with logistics, since I can speculate as to the answers >to these questions. I'm just wondering what you think... > >Eric Morris >SMS > >Eric Morris >Asst. Debate Coach, Dept. of Comm./Media >Southwest Missouri State University >Office: (417) 836-6564 >e-mail: erm892f at mail.smsu.edu > > > From smithr Thu Oct 7 03:16:05 1999 From: smithr (Ross Smith) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 04:16:05 -0400 Subject: dispositionality and side bias Message-ID: At 11:46 PM 10/6/99 -0700, you wrote: >Damn, I wasn't gonna get involved........ > >A few disagreements. > > >Ross Smith said: > >>>>>>>>>>> >AND recognizes that the introduction of a counterplan (unless it is truly >and completely mutually exclusive) logically creates multiple policy >options: the plan alone, permutation(s), the counterplan alone, and the >status quo. >>>>>>>>>>> > >I disagree. You disagree that the permutation is a logical policy alternative? It clearly is. The question is whether or not the affirmative can win if that logical policy alternative is proven to be the most desirable one. > If the permutation is actually a policy option, wouldn't it be >an advocacy shift by the aff.? No. There is no shift AWAY FROM the plan. The aff says we said our entire plan, as presented in the 1AC should be adopted. We still advocate that it be adopted, albeit along with something else. There is certainly no reason to reject adoption of the affirmative plan in this instance. >I doubt that many aff plans include the >c/plan in their text. Indeed. But if they did, the negative might argue that the fiat of same was illigitimate because non-topical or some such. But in the c-plan case, the negative had argued that the fiat of the c-plan was legitimate (one hopes). > >This is why I have always believed that a c/plan is a TEST of the >opportunity cost of the plan. It is NOT an advocated choice (more on this >below). Neither is the perm advocated. All it is, is a TEST of the >competitiveness of the c/plan. Both, however, are tests OF something. They test the desirability of the affirmative plan. A successful c-plan proves that the aff plan fails the test. A desirable c-plan proves the plan passes. By the way, I am not sure what you mean by "advocated." > >I have never understood how a perm can be a policy option without being a >shift for the team advocating the perm. Well, I hope I have helped. > >>>>>>>>>>> >The judge as policy analyst/endorser votes for the best policy. >>>>>>>>>>> > >Another disagreement. In a plan focus debate, the choice is either to vote >FOR the aff plan, or AGAINST the aff plan. Using the opportunity cost model >for c/plans, the c/plan is simply a reason to reject the aff plan. If doing >the aff plan means missing out on something better (the c/plan), then you >would reject the aff plan. Correct. Correct. Correct. When you vote "FOR" the perm you are not voting "AGAINST" the aff plan, you are voting "FOR" it, albeit as part of a larger policy package. I guess the question is, why would you vote against the plan in that case? > >I am always interested in the basis for a c/plan which is advocated, and why >a permutation as a policy option does not constitute a shift in advocacy. What is unstated in all of this is the logical alternative to my position. What logical basis is there for negative conditionality that does not admit the possibilty of voting aff when the perm is the best policy? > >Peace, > >Bob Lechtreck >Bakersfield College >"Putting out fires, and damn good debaters." > > > From smithr Thu Oct 7 03:47:08 1999 From: smithr (Ross Smith) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 04:47:08 -0400 Subject: AND: Aff-Neg Dispositionality Message-ID: At 01:36 AM 10/7/99 -0400, Dallas Perkins wrote: >The theory Ross sets out is a strong form of the debate theory known as >Hypothesis Testing. His formulation of the judge's task--pick the best >world, ask if all the aff plan is included--precisely captures the key >elements of that elegant and powerful theory. Lest you confuse folks with terminology, let me note some very important distinctions between what I set out and what Hypo Testing is understood to be: 1) I think the affirmative team should have a precise, fairly detailed plan. Hypo Testers, like many of the affs I saw at Kentucky this weekend seem to think that restating the resolution with a promise to clarify in c-x is adequate. 2) I think the affirmative must stick to their entire plan. Hypotesters, like many a current debater seem to think that whether or not their plan includes lifting a particular sanction can depend on whether or not the negative team runs a particular counterplan. 3) I do not think counterplans need to be non-topical. Hypotesters do. Dallas and the anti-PIC crowd are the hypotesters of today. 4) For me, the question of the debate is, "Is the plan desirable?" For the hypotester the question is, "Is the resolution true?" > >Notice that Ross has the honesty not to water down the implications of his >logic. There are no logical limits on how many alternative best worlds >EITHER side of the debate may suggest be considered. (I emphasize the >"either" because it is clear that the aff may suggest that its plan would >be good in some hypothetical world other than the status quo, by attaching >extratopical plan provisions in 1AC, or even suggesting additional changes >after hearing the disads.) Dealt with above, for the most part. One plan, stick with it. Extratopical provisions? If so, you must stick with them. Additions to the plan not proposed by the negative team? No. > >Ross is also honest enough to admit that many have their reservations >about the grandiosity of an attempt to juggle a dozen or so hypothetical >worlds, all while trying to predict which will be best and then locate >oneself upon the winner, and manage to shove your opponent out. It is >surely a game for geniuses, and I admire all who aspire to do it well. Nope. Thanks for the compliment, but it is really quite simple. Arguments that go to the desirability of the affirmative plan inherently are comparative. The status quo is always a baseline. I have yet to be shown an example of this confounding complexity. People juggle these dozens of hypothetical worlds everytime they decide what to do for dinner. Plus, I was talking about one c-plan and the status quo versus one aff plan and whatever relevant perms the aff could find. Note that if the neg is at all intelligent, the complexity is reduced since while many perms might be possible, the neg tries to run a set of arguments that makes no perm desirable. Most perms can be dismissed without straining the brain. So as to maintain my reputation for honesty, I will say that multiple conditional counterplans aren't too tough to consider, either, in my opinion. But I will leave that out for now. >A good friend of mine once called it, "Science Fiction Hypothesis Testing." >Now, who was that? Can't seem to remember. It was "Science Fiction Model" in response to "Social Science Model". Those of you disappointed that I did not defend Hypothesis Testing should contact David Cheshier. --Ross From rgreene77 Thu Oct 7 09:47:48 1999 From: rgreene77 (rebecca greene) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 10:47:48 EDT Subject: need help asap: richmond tournament Message-ID: I will admit to being lazy and not plowing through all the posts. Can anyone tell me the schedule for the tournament? ie. when do rounds begin on friday and sat? this qould be quite helpful in making arrangements about when i need to be there since i may need to go home fri evening to sign the new lease to my house. thanks in advance. becca ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From wnewnam Thu Oct 7 09:52:25 1999 From: wnewnam (Bill Newnam) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 10:52:25 -0400 Subject: AND: Aff-Neg Dispositionality References: <1.5.4.32.19991007084708.0073ced0@pop.wfu.edu> Message-ID: I was not going to do this.... I think Ross tries to apologize for himself to much in response to what in Dallas' mind is clearly an ad hominem. But, I take issue with Ross' characterization of hypothesis testing. Ross Smith wrote: > At 01:36 AM 10/7/99 -0400, Dallas Perkins wrote: > >The theory Ross sets out is a strong form of the debate theory known as > >Hypothesis Testing. His formulation of the judge's task--pick the best > >world, ask if all the aff plan is included--precisely captures the key > >elements of that elegant and powerful theory. > > Lest you confuse folks with terminology, let me note some very important > distinctions between what I set out and what Hypo Testing is understood to be: > > 1) I think the affirmative team should have a precise, fairly detailed plan. > Hypo Testers, like many of the affs I saw at Kentucky this weekend seem to > think that restating the resolution with a promise to clarify in c-x is > adequate. > Much like Ross, I have noticed a trend toward vague plans but oddly enough that has occurred at the same time that there has been a retreat from hypotesting. I think one of the faults of hypotesting and its detractors was exactly the notion that the whole resolution was the focus of the test. That absurd conclusion certainly does not follow from the scientific method upon which its model is premised. In fact, that mischaracterization led to many of the bad arguments associated with hypothesis testing which led to its demise and the rise of pics (another event that has increased as hypothesis testing has become less in vogue.) > > 2) I think the affirmative must stick to their entire plan. Hypotesters, > like many a current debater seem to think that whether or not their plan > includes lifting a particular sanction can depend on whether or not the > negative team runs a particular counterplan. > Permutation debate, especially as defended in Ross' initial post, that the aff can advocate the permutation and use it to claim the disad as a net benefit, is not much different than what is suggested above. If hypothesis testing focused on what the plan, as an example of the resolution, is attempting to test rather than whether or not the resolution as a whole is true, then the aff cannot run away from their test. > > 3) I do not think counterplans need to be non-topical. Hypotesters do. > Dallas and the anti-PIC crowd are the hypotesters of today. > Actually, while it is true that most hypotesters thought topical counterplans were an illegitimate strategy, that assumed you operated from the position that the affs goal is to prove the entire resolution true. However, if you see the affs goal as attempting to prove the resolution is probably true in this instance, then the negative merely has to rejoin with the argument that the resolution is probably not true in this instance. Now, the anti-pic crowd could generate an argument that proving the resolution true should not be allowed as a disproof if they choose, but that is a matter of practice as Ross described it in one post rather than theory. But there is nothing inherent in hypotesting which requires the rejection of the topical counterplan. I do not believe debate can resolve the grand hypothesis, but every debate tests the instantiated hypothesis. > > 4) For me, the question of the debate is, "Is the plan desirable?" For the > hypotester the question is, "Is the resolution true?" > > That is the point is it not? In its original configuration, the question was framed is the resolution probably true? That is a bad hypothesis, it does not make hypothesis testing bad anymore than asking is there a God? makes hypothesis testing bad. It is not an appropriate question for hypothesis. However, is the resolution true in the instance of the plan is an excellent question. The more precise the plan, the more you generate the kind of debates Ross seems to be seeking. > > > >Notice that Ross has the honesty not to water down the implications of his > >logic. There are no logical limits on how many alternative best worlds > >EITHER side of the debate may suggest be considered. (I emphasize the > >"either" because it is clear that the aff may suggest that its plan would > >be good in some hypothetical world other than the status quo, by attaching > >extratopical plan provisions in 1AC, or even suggesting additional changes > >after hearing the disads.) > > Dealt with above, for the most part. One plan, stick with it. Extratopical > provisions? If so, you must stick with them. Additions to the plan not > proposed by the negative team? No. > All of these can be included if hypothesis testing is characterized as I described above. > > > >Ross is also honest enough to admit that many have their reservations > >about the grandiosity of an attempt to juggle a dozen or so hypothetical > >worlds, all while trying to predict which will be best and then locate > >oneself upon the winner, and manage to shove your opponent out. It is > >surely a game for geniuses, and I admire all who aspire to do it well. > > Nope. Thanks for the compliment, but it is really quite simple. Arguments > that go to the desirability of the affirmative plan inherently are > comparative. The status quo is always a baseline. I have yet to be shown an > example of this confounding complexity. People juggle these dozens of > hypothetical worlds everytime they decide what to do for dinner. Plus, I was > talking about one c-plan and the status quo versus one aff plan and whatever > relevant perms the aff could find. Note that if the neg is at all > intelligent, the complexity is reduced since while many perms might be > possible, the neg tries to run a set of arguments that makes no perm > desirable. Most perms can be dismissed without straining the brain. So as to > maintain my reputation for honesty, I will say that multiple conditional > counterplans aren't too tough to consider, either, in my opinion. But I will > leave that out for now. > I must agree with this, but I would add the caveat that the possibility also exists that the affirmative failed to fulfill the burden of proving the resolution is probably true, thus allowing for the possibility that the negative is responsible for "defending" anything. The affirmative, however, is responsible for proving something. > > >A good friend of mine once called it, "Science Fiction Hypothesis Testing." > >Now, who was that? Can't seem to remember. > > It was "Science Fiction Model" in response to "Social Science Model". > > Those of you disappointed that I did not defend Hypothesis Testing should > contact David Cheshier. > > Actually, I believe you have defended hypothesis testing quite well. You just don't want to admit it. bill n emory > --Ross From jackhammer Thu Oct 7 09:57:03 1999 From: jackhammer (Jack Hammer) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 10:57:03 -0400 Subject: A World Without Counterplans Message-ID: In the discussion of counterplan disposition, Mr. Smith made this comment: 'The one question in the debate is, "Is the affirmative plan desirable?"' Assume for a minute that this is true. What does it mean? I looked up some definitions of "desirable." "Worth seeking or doing as advantageous, beneficial, or wise: advisable <~legislation>." "Worth having or seeking, as by being useful, advantageous, or pleasing.... Worth doing." Sounds like this would make counterplans completely irrelevant. They do not deny that the affirmative plan is desirable. They only present other options that may ALSO be desirable. The discussion between Perkins and Smith seems to suggest that he really means "is the affirmative plan the MOST desirable thing in the world?" But stop for a minute and picture a world where there are no counterplans. If the affirmative position is "lift nearly all sanctions," the negative position is "do NOT lift those sanctions." Other options, like "lift sanctions AFTER the budget bills are passed," "lift ALL sanctions," "TIGHTEN sanctions," or "lift sanctions by executive order" are moot. Why would that be a bad place to live? Both sides know what is going on when they enter a round. Negatives would have to clash with the affirmative arguments. Affirmatives would have to defend themselves. Decisions would come down to whether sanctions are good or bad, not whether there are clear distinctions between "conditionality" and "dispositionality," or whether one side can spin around some abstract dogma about "permutations" better than the other side. I think that a world without counterplans would be a good place for debaters. I don't know if coaches and judges would find it as friendly or not. If you want to try imagining such a world, here is a specific question for you to consider: would it be easier to be a NOVICE in this world? Or, if you are a coach, revise that to: would it be easier to start a new program, recruit novices off campus, prepare them, and retain them in the program long-term? From smithr Thu Oct 7 10:59:58 1999 From: smithr (Ross Smith) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 11:59:58 -0400 Subject: A World Without Counterplans Message-ID: A competitive counterplan that is better than the affirmative plan proves that the affirmative plan is not worth doing if the counterplan is an available policy option. You might search the archives for a thorough discussion of the subject initiated by Perkins and responded to by Korcok and me, among others. For instance, your plan, "Let's go to McDonalds," might be defeated by my counterplan, "Let's eat the free tournament pizza," if your only advantage was to meet caloric needs and I won the argument that one should be frugal. In that case, going to McD's is not worth doing. Yes, a world with no counterplans may be simpler. So would a world without disads. I have found that novices have no trouble with counterplans. They make sense. They are employed in everyday life. Novices might find it easier to run a generic counterplan than to go "straight-up" on every case. I guess it depends on the topic and the plan they are debating against. Yes, counterplans do make it tougher to be affirmative. Affirmative novices as well as their varsity counterparts would love it if the negative were prohibited from running counterplans. The point is that requiring affs to defend their plans against counterplans as well as against the status quo is a more intellectually rigorous test of the plans. At 10:57 AM 10/7/99 -0400, Jack Hammer wrote: >In the discussion of counterplan disposition, Mr. Smith made this comment: >'The one question in the debate is, "Is the affirmative plan desirable?"' >Assume for a minute that this is true. What does it mean? I looked up >some definitions of "desirable." "Worth seeking or doing as advantageous, >beneficial, or wise: advisable <~legislation>." "Worth having or seeking, >as by being useful, advantageous, or pleasing.... Worth doing." Sounds >like this would make counterplans completely irrelevant. They do not deny >that the affirmative plan is desirable. They only present other options >that may ALSO be desirable. The discussion between Perkins and Smith seems >to suggest that he really means "is the affirmative plan the MOST desirable >thing in the world?" > >But stop for a minute and picture a world where there are no counterplans. >If the affirmative position is "lift nearly all sanctions," the negative >position is "do NOT lift those sanctions." Other options, like "lift >sanctions AFTER the budget bills are passed," "lift ALL sanctions," >"TIGHTEN sanctions," or "lift sanctions by executive order" are moot. > >Why would that be a bad place to live? Both sides know what is going on >when they enter a round. Negatives would have to clash with the >affirmative arguments. Affirmatives would have to defend themselves. >Decisions would come down to whether sanctions are good or bad, not whether >there are clear distinctions between "conditionality" and >"dispositionality," or whether one side can spin around some abstract dogma >about "permutations" better than the other side. > >I think that a world without counterplans would be a good place for >debaters. I don't know if coaches and judges would find it as friendly or >not. If you want to try imagining such a world, here is a specific >question for you to consider: would it be easier to be a NOVICE in this >world? Or, if you are a coach, revise that to: would it be easier to start >a new program, recruit novices off campus, prepare them, and retain them in >the program long-term? > > From db8coach Thu Oct 7 11:42:34 1999 From: db8coach (Bob Lechtreck) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 09:42:34 -0700 Subject: dispositionality and side bias Message-ID: Ross Smith said: >>>>>>>>>> You disagree that the permutation is a logical policy alternative? >>>>>>>>>> Very much. Tests are not alternatives, they are merely tests. If the test proves that there is no forced choice between the aff plan and the c/plan, then the c/plan fails to be a reason to reject the aff plan. If the test fails, then the c/plan competes and IS a reason to reject the aff plan. >>>>>>>>>> It clearly is. >>>>>>>>>> That's the part I disagree with. My understanding of the theory, both c/plans and permutations, does not allow for advocacy of the c/plan or the perm as policy options. I base this on the economic model of opportunity cost, from which I believe c/plans are taken. >>>>>>>>>> No. There is no shift AWAY FROM the plan. The aff says we said our entire plan, as presented in the 1AC should be adopted. We still advocate that it be adopted, albeit along with something else. There is certainly no reason to reject adoption of the affirmative plan in this instance. >>>>>>>>>> Advocacy is more than just subtraction. So you would not be concerned if aff kept adding plans in later speeches to make sure they get to outweigh whatever disads are in the round? I would scream abuse at the top of my lungs, and I dare say you would too. >>>>>>>>>> But in the c-plan case, the negative had argued that the fiat of the c-plan was legitimate (one hopes). >>>>>>>>>> Nope. Tests don't need fiat. The aff could argue that they are not a viable opportunity because of fiat problems, but there is no need to argue them as an advocated option. >>>>>>>>>> Both, however, are tests OF something. They test the desirability of the affirmative plan. A successful c-plan proves that the aff plan fails the test. >>>>>>>>>> Agreed. But when does this test become an advocated choice? >>>>>>>>>> By the way, I am not sure what you mean by "advocated." >>>>>>>>>> An example: Wake Forest has enough money left for one last tournament. Ross says: We should go to Heart (plan). They have great teams, great judging, and good food (advs). Bob says: But if you go to Heart, you will not be able to go to CEDA Nats, and it is a better tournament (c/plan - an opportunity cost of the plan). They have great teams, great judging, good food, and they have bigger trophies (net benefit). The purpose of the c/plan is to show that by doing the aff plan, you must miss out on something better. So if the judge agrees that there is a better opportunity lost, s/he would reject the aff plan. In the example above, I never said that you SHOULD go to CEDA nats. I only said that doing the aff plan would lose a better opportunity. There may be even better choices than CEDA Nats (NDT perhaps). All we know is that Heart is NOT the best choice and should be rejected. This is what I mean about c/plans not being advocated. All they do is show that a better alternative must be forgone, NOT that the c/plan "should" be done. >>>>>>>>>> When you vote "FOR" the perm you are not voting "AGAINST" the aff plan, you are voting "FOR" it, albeit as part of a larger policy package. >>>>>>>>>> You missunderstand my point. When you vote FOR the perm, you are only agreeing that there is no forced choice and the c/plan is NOT a reason to reject the aff plan. You do not actually "do" both plans. You are simply saying that the c/plan does not compete, and the TEST has failed in it's mission to reject the aff plan. >>>>>>>>>> What is unstated in all of this is the logical alternative to my position. >>>>>>>>>> I hope that has become clearer in this post. If you read the theory of opportunity cost, it is even clearer. I fear my explanations do not always go deep enough. Peace, Bob Lechtreck Bakersfield College "Putting out fires, and damn good debaters." From jstone Thu Oct 7 12:07:02 1999 From: jstone (J. Stone) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 13:07:02 -0400 Subject: need help asap: richmond tournament In-Reply-To: <19991007144748.24244.qmail@hotmail.com> Message-ID: Sure Rebecca, --1999 SPIDER CLASSIC TOURNAMENT SCHEDULE-- Thursday, October 7 7-10 PM: Registration at the tournament hotel 10 PM: Coach's party Friday, October 8 3:00 - 4:00 PM: Registration at tournament site (Jepson Hall) 4:00 PM: Pairings Released 4:30 PM: Round 1 6:30 PM: Round 2 10 PM: Coach's party Saturday, October 9 8:00 AM: Breakfast at tournament site, Pairings released 8:30 AM: Round 3 (Based on Rounds 1 & 2) 10:30 AM: Round 4 (Based on Rounds 1 & 2) 12:30 PM: Lunch (Provided on campus) 1:30 PM: Pairings for Round 5 released 2:00 PM: Round 5 (Based on Rounds 1-4) 4:30 PM: Round 6 (Based on Rounds 1-5) Teams breaking announced at the Hotel site after Round 6 Sunday, October 10 8:00 AM: Breakfast at tournament site, Elimination Pairings released 8:30 AM: First Elimination Round 11:00 AM: Award Ceremony Further Elim rounds follow after the ceremony At 10:47 AM 10/07/1999 EDT, you wrote: >I will admit to being lazy and not plowing through all the posts. Can >anyone tell me the schedule for the tournament? ie. when do rounds begin >on friday and sat? this qould be quite helpful in making arrangements about >when i need to be there since i may need to go home fri evening to sign the >new lease to my house. thanks in advance. > >becca > >______________________________________________________ >Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com > > 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 deongarner Thu Oct 7 12:19:02 1999 From: deongarner (Deon Garner) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 10:19:02 PDT Subject: Univ. of Alabama Tournament Message-ID: Hello, First, there are a number of people that I need to email to talk with and apologize to. I am finally getting things in order, so I will contact you soon. If you think I need to talk with you, you are probably on my list. Don't worry, I will contact you ASAP. I wanted to get an early indication of the team/schools that will be at Alabama this weekend. We may have one varsity team debating. I am also interested in knowing how the Non-Policy division is panning out; are there any programs preparing for the Non-Policy division. If it makes, I would like to enter a team there also. Thanks, Deon ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From Jeff_Jarman Thu Oct 7 12:32:29 1999 From: Jeff_Jarman (Jeff Jarman) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 12:32:29 -0500 Subject: Hotel Reminder: Wichita State University Message-ID: Make your reservations soon if you are planning on attending. Let me know if you have problems or have any questions. Jeff LODGING: Once again, we have changed hotels. The Broadview Hotel will be our host hotel for the tournament. The hotel is located at 400 W. Douglas. Please indicate that your are attending with *Forensics 99* when making your reservation. A large block of rooms have been reserved until October 11, 1999. The room rate is $54.00 per room (up to 4) plus tax. This is a great rate since the Broadview is a Grand Heritage Hotel. Call them directly at 316-262-5000. The hotel is located at the intersection of Douglas and Waco. Everyone is strongly encouraged to stay at the tournament hotel. Pairings will be released at the hotel each morning. Elims on Sunday will be at the hotel. >From Thu Oct 7 12:42:01 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 76557 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 13:48:30 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from m2.boston.juno.com (m2.boston.juno.com [205.231.101.199]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA42430 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 13:44:22 -0400 Received: (from gabp at juno.com) by m2.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id ENCJJXUL; Thu, 07 Oct 1999 13:40:37 EDT X-Mailer: Juno 3.0.13 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Juno-Att: 0 X-Juno-RefParts: 0 Message-ID: <19991007.124233.-85043.6.gabp at juno.com> Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 12:42:01 -0500 Reply-To: gabp at JUNO.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Gabrielle Prisco Subject: U. Of Alabama Crimson Classic Invitation Dear Colleagues: You are cordially invited to attend the Crimson Classic Debate Tournament and the Alabama Swing Individual Events Tournament. We are pleased to co-host the I.E. Swing tournament with Jefferson State Community College. All tournaments will be held on the U of A campus. We hope you will take advantage of having one location for all three tournaments, and make plans to attend. The Crimson Classic Debate will be held October 15-17 The Alabama I.E. Swing Tournament will consist of: The Camellia Classic Individual Events Tournament (first-half of the Alabama Swing) hosted by Jeff State, October 15-16 The Crimson Classic Individual Events Tournament (second half of the Alabama Swing) hosted by U of A, October 16-17 In the following pages you will find tournament information for all three forensic events. As always, we promise you efficient management, good competition, and plenty of ~Ssouthern~T hospitality. If we can be of further assistance please call on us. See you in October. Sincerely, Frank M. Thompson, Jr. Carrie Crenshaw Janice Stuckey Director of Forensics Director of Debate Director of Forensics Individual Events Debate Jeff. State College Alabama Forensic Council Alabama Forensic Council CRIMSON CLASSIC DEBATE TOURNAMENT October 15-17, 1999 Open and novice debate divisions with six preliminary rounds and appropriate elimination rounds. Preliminary rounds three through six will be power matched. Debate format will be 8-3-5 with an 8 minute prep rule. We will have a novice division only if we have at least ten novice teams. A novice debater is one who is in their first year of debate. This includes high school experience. A school may enter up to a maximum of eight teams. This includes the combination of both divisions. This is a sanctioned CEDA Tournament. FEES: $40 per team JUDGES: All judges must be actively coaching faculty, or graduate students, or persons with college debate experience. All judges will be responsible for judging one round past the elimination of their students. Each school will be expected to provide one judge for every two teams entered or fraction there of -- 1-2 teams equal one judge, 3-4 teams equal two judges, etc. The cost of a hired debate judge is $80.00 per team not covered by a judge. HIRED JUDGES MUST BE REQUESTED ONE WEEK IN ADVANCE - WE DO NOT WANT YOUR MONEY - PLEASE BRING JUDGES! DEADLINES: All entries must be received by 4:00 Monday, October 11, 1999. Drops in debate can be phoned in until noon on Thursday, October 15. After this time we will impose a late-drop fee of an additional $25.00 per debate team/$50.00 per judge drop. AWARDS: Awards will be presented to all teams advancing to elimination rounds and appropriate speaker awards. The top three schools with the best record in debate will be awarded sweepstakes. LODGING: We have reserved a block of rooms at the following motels -- all are located on McFarland Blvd./Highway 82 West. Refer to the Crimson Classic Speech and Debate Tournament whem making reservations. Travel Lodge (45 rooms) is $45.00 plus tax for 1-4 people -- 205-553-1550. Deadline for this motel is October 1. Shoney~Rs Inn (30 rooms blocked) -- $49.00 plus tax 1-4 people -- 205-556- 7950. La Quinta - $52.00 plus tax for 1-4 people -- 349-3270. Best Western - $64.00 plus tax for 1-4 people -- 205-556-9690. Deadline for this price is September 14. PlEASE MAKE YOUR RESERVATIONS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE at all locations to guarantee these rates. Tuscaloosa has one of the largest Arts & Crafts festivals in the Southeast the weekend of our tournament -- it is very important that you make your reservations early. CRIMSON CLASSIC DEBATE TOURNAMENT 1999 SCHEDULE Friday, October 15, 1999 2:00 - 3:00 Registration - Lobby of Phifer Hall, College of Communication 4:00 - 6:00 ROUND I 6:00 - 8:00 ROUND II Saturday, October 16, 1999 8:00 - 10:00 ROUND III 10:30- 12:30 ROUND IV 12:30 - 1:30 LUNCH BREAK 1:30 - 3:30 ROUND V 4:00 - 6:00 ROUND VI Sunday, October 17, 1999 8:00 am Debate Assembly 8:30 Elimination Rounds Begin THE ALABAMA SWING INDIVIDUAL EVENTS TOURNAMENT 1999 SCHEDULE CAMELLIA CLASSIC TOURNAMENT JEFFERSON STATE COMMUNITY COLLEGE HOST Friday, October 15, 1999 1:00 p.m. - 2:00 p.m. Registration - FOR BOTH TOURNAMENTS Lobby of Phifer Hall, College of Communication 2:00 p.m. Opening Assembly - 216 Phifer Hall 2:30 Extemp Draw - 216 Phifer Hall 3:00 - 4:15 Round I Flight A 4:15 Extemp Draw - 216 Phifer Hall 4:45 - 6:00 Round II Flight A 6:00 - 7:15 Round I Flight B 7:15 - 8:30 Round II Flight B 8:30 - 9:45 Round I Flight C Saturday, October 16, 1999 7:30 - Fruit and Orange Juice & LATE REGISTRATION FOR THOSE ATTENDING ONLY THE CRIMSON CLASSIC HALF OF THE SWING 8:00 am - 9:15 Round II Flight C 9:15 Semis Extemp Draw 9:30 - 10:30 Semis/Finals A & B 10:30 - 11:30 Semis/Finals C 11:00 Finals Extemp Draw 11:30 - 12:30 Remaining Finals 1:30 Awards Assembly 216 Phifer Hall 2:00 - 3:30 Lunch/Break Saturday, October 16, 1999 CRIMSON CLASSIC TOURNAMENT THE UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA HOST 3:30 Extemp Draw 216 Phifer Hall 4:00 - 5:15 Round I Flight A 5:15 Extemp Draw 5:45 - 7:00 Round II Flight A 7:00 - 8:15 Round I Flight B 8:15 - 9:00 Round II Flight B Sunday, October 17, 1999 7:30 am Fruit and Orange Juice 8:00 - 9:15 Round I Flight C 9:15 - 10:30 Round II Flight C 10:30 Semis Extemp Draw 10:30 - 11:30 Semis/Finals A & B 12:00 Finals Extemp Draw 12:30 - 1:30 Semis/Finals C 2:00 - 3:00 Remaining Finals 4:30 Awards Assembly 216 Phifer THE ALABAMA I.E. SWING TOURNAMENT Crimson Classic/Camellia Classic October 15-17, 1999 There will be two preliminary rounds with finals. Events that have over 40 entries will go to semis. A school may not enter more than six people in each event, and only the top three entries in an event from any school will count toward sweepstakes awards. Material must not have been used by the student before September 1, 1999. Competitors may enter up to three events in a grouping, but it is up to you to make it to the round on time -- judges will not wait! FEES: $7.00 per event JUDGES: All judges must be actively coaching faculty, or graduate students, or persons with forensic experience. All judges will be responsible for judging one round past the elimination of their students -- this means all judges are obligated to judge events in all three flights which go straight to finals. Each school will be expected to provide one judge for every six slots entered. The cost for hired judges will be $8.00 per uncovered slot. HIRED JUDGES MUST BE REQUESTED ONE WEEK IN ADVANCE - WE DO NOT WANT YOUR MONEY - PLEASE BRING JUDGES! DEADLINES: All entries must be received by 4:00 p.m. Monday, October 11, 1999. I.E. drops can be phoned in until Wednesday October 13 at noon. After this time we will impose a late-drop fee of an additional $10.00 per I.E. slot, and $50.00 per judge dropped. AWARDS: Awards will be given to all finalists and semi-finalists, top novice in each event, and to all trithon/pentathlon finalists. To qualify for the trithon/pentathlon award a student must be entered in five events and these must be a combination of an interpretation event, prepared speaking event, and a limited prep event. The trithon/pentathlon awards are based on prelim rounds only - finals do not count. The top three schools will receive a school sweepstakes award, and awards will be given to the Top Three Junior Colleges at each tournament. Finally, a "Swing Sweepstakes" award will be given to the top three schools attending both parts of the swing. LODGING: We have reserved a block of rooms at the following motels -- all are located on McFarland Blvd./Highway 82 West. Refer to the Crimson Classic Speech and Debate Tournament when making reservations. Travel Lodge -- (45 rooms blocked) $45.00 plus tax for 1-4 people -- 205- 553-1550. Deadline for this motel is October 1. Shoney's Inn (30 rooms blocked) --$49.00 plus tax for 1-4 people -- 205- 556-7950. La Quinta - $52.00 plus tax for 1-4 people -- 205-349-3270. Best Western -- $64.00 plus tax for 1-4 people -- 205-556-9690. PLEASE MAKE YOUR RESERVATIONSAS SOON AS POSSIBLE at all locations to guarantee these rates. Tuscaloosa has one of the largest Arts & Crafts Festivals in the Southeast the weekend of our tournament - - it is very important that you make your reservations early. TOURNAMENT RULES AND FLIGHTS - ALABAMA SWING FLIGHT A: Extemporaneous Speaking: Contestant will be given three topics in the general area of current events, choose one, and have 30 minutes to prepare a speech. Maximum time 7 minutes. Limited notes are permitted. Prose Interpretation: A selection/selections of prose material, which may be drawn from more than one source. Play cuttings are prohibited. Manuscript required. Maximum times - 10 minutes. Communication Analysis: An original speech by the student designed to offer an explanation and/or evaluation of a communication event such as a speech, movement, film, book, etc., through the use of rhetorical principles. Audio-visual aids may be used. Manuscript/notes may be used. Maximum time - 10 minutes. Duo Interpretation: A cutting from a play involving the portrayal of two or more characters presented by two individuals. Material may be from stage, screen, or radio. Manuscript is required and the focus should be off-stage. Maximum time - 10 minutes. FLIGHT B: Informative Speaking: An original, factual speech by the student on a realistic subject to fulfill the general aim to inform the audience. Audio- visual aids may be used but are not required. Multiple sources should be cited in the speech. Delivery should be from memory. Maximum time - 10 minutes. Poetry Interpretation: A selection or selections of poetry which may be drawn from one or more sources. Play cuttings are prohibited. Manuscript is required. Maximum time - 10 minutes. After Dinner Speaking: An original speech designed to exhibit sound speech composition, thematic coherence, direct communicative public speaking skills and GOOD TASTE. The speech should not resemble a night club act, an impersonation, or comic dialogue. Audio-visual aids may be used. Delivery should be from memory. Maximum time - 10 minutes. Program Oral Interpretation: A program of literature around a central theme. The material must be composed of material from at least two different genre (prose/poetry/play) of literature. Manuscript is required. Maximum time - 10 minutes. FLIGHT C: Dramatic Interpretation: A cutting from a play which represents one or more characters. This material may be drawn from stage, screen, or radio. Use of manuscript is required. Maximum time - 10 minutes. Impromptu Speaking: Each contestant will be given a topic and/or object and have seven minutes to prepare and give the speech - they should divide their time accordingly. One note card may be used. Persuasive Speaking: An original speech by the student designed to inspire, reinforce, or change the beliefs, attitudes, values, or actions of the audience. Multiple sources should be used and cited in the speech. Delivery should be from memory. Maximum time - 10 minutes. Audio- visual aids may be used. CRIMSON CLASSIC INDIVIDUAL EVENTS TOURNAMENT October 15-17, 1999 Deadline: Monday October 11, by 4:00 p.m. Mail To : Frank Thompson Phone: Office (205) 348-8077 Director of Forensics Home (205) 339-0135 P.O. Box 870172 University of Alabama Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0172 FAX #: 1-205-348-8080 - PLEASE FAX YOUR ENTRY IF POSSIBLE! CAMELLIA CLASSIC INDIVIDUAL EVENTS TOURNAMENT October 15-17, 1999 Deadline: Monday October 11, by 4:00 p.m. Mail To : Frank Thompson Phone: Office (205) 348-8077 Director of Forensics Home (205) 339-0135 P.O. Box 870172 University of Alabama Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0172 FAX #: 1-205-348-8080 - PLEASE FAX YOUR ENTRY IF POSSIBLE! 1999 CRIMSON CLASSIC Tournament Speech Statement The Crimson Classic affirms the importance of all tournament participants' cooperation in creating an educational and competitive environment that is fair, humane, and responsible while, at the same time, encourage debates that are devoted to full and robust argument about a diverse range of ideas. Specifically: 1. We encourage judges and students to talk about the expectations that they have for creating a debate that focuses on ideas rather than on personal attacks. 2. We encourage debaters to communicate with respect rather than attacking each other or the judge. 3. We encourage judges to communicate with respect rather than attacking or devaluing students. 4. We encourage debaters and judges to reject discourse which devalues other members of our community based on their race, age, gender, class, sexual or religious orientation, or any reason that is not directly related to the arguments that they present. 5. We encourage students and judges to communicate with each other when they observe instances of verbally aggressive attacks rather than silently watching something that they object to. 6. We encourage judges to consider rewarding courteous and respectful behavior toward judges and other competitors when assigning speaker points. 7. We encourage judges to consider, within the context of their judging paradigm, docking speaker points and perhaps awarding a loss if serious and/or repeated demeaning communication disrupts the opportunity for debaters to compete fairly or for the judge to evaluate the debate fairly. SIU Tournament Invitation adaptation from "Advocating Humane Discourse," Kristine Bartanen, University of Puget Sound and Jim Hanson Whitman College, The Forensic of Pi Kappa Delta, Fall 1994, pp. 20-21 Thanks Greg! DIRECTIONS Tuscaloosa is located 55 miles southwest of Birmingham, AL. The majority of participants will travel I-59/20 -- they become the same interstate from Birmingham on into Mississippi. A few might travel highway 82 east. If on I-59/20 you will take a right turn on to the McFarland Blvd. exit. The motels are located on McFarland Blvd. To get to Campus from the Travel Lodge you will take a left turn on to McFarland -- from Shoney's Inn you will take a right turn on to McFarland. You will need to take the University Blvd. exist. University Blvd. will take you directly to the middle of campus. Phifer Hall/College of Communication will be on your left at the corner of University Blvd. and Colonial Drive. Parking: Those debating should park in the lot behind ten Hoor Building - - in fact, it will be the only place to park! Those doing individual events will need to park behind Phifer Hall next to the football stadium. *************************************************** Dr. Frank Thompson Director of Forensics Associate Professor Speech Communication The University of Alabama College of Communication Box 870172 Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0172 Phone: 205-348-8077 Fax: 205-348-8080 E-mail:fthompso at ccom.ua.edu *************************************************** ___________________________________________________________________ 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 jared_1978 Thu Oct 7 13:04:37 1999 From: jared_1978 (Jared Waters) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 11:04:37 PDT Subject: this is the SAM final team list, i refuse to change it again... Message-ID: Unfourtunately novice division did not make, we had some late drops today, so we are going to collapse novice and open. what we will do however, is protect the novices for the first two rounds and then they are on their own. We will have semi's and final's for novice on sunday, we will break the top 4 novices after the prelims. If anyone has any problems please email me back ASAP or you can call us, you have the number. Waddill and Meyers UTD (n) Burnside and Lay UTD (n) Jordan and Kirk UTD Stanescu and Fuqua UTD Weaver and Vail UTD Swain and Lipnick UTD McDonald and Golando UTSA (n) Martin and Matthey UTSA Holland and Richey McNeese/ACU Gauthier and Smith SELA Monistrere and Hyden SELA McDonald and Phillips ACU Dunbar and Potter ACU Wilson and Wilson Cameron Colon and McCurty Cameron Smith and Harper LSU Myers and Lightsey SWT Waters and Wheeler SWT Seiler and Clarke SWT Moffett and Erwin Angelo State see ya'll friday! ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From monty0 Thu Oct 7 13:45:25 1999 From: monty0 (james Thompson) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 11:45:25 PDT Subject: MAI at WTO??? Message-ID: I HAVE HEARD THAT THE MAI WILL BE DISCUSSED AND CONSIDERED AT THE WTO THIS NOVEMBER, DOES ANYBODY KNOW IF THIS IS CORRECT AND IF SO A CITE THAT EXPLAINS THE DETAILS OF THIS NOVEMBERS MEETING REGARDING MAI? THANKS ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From strick9r Thu Oct 7 14:03:03 1999 From: strick9r (Internet) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 14:03:03 -0500 Subject: Information on Emporia Tournament Message-ID: I have posted the Emporia (Pflaum) invitation twice already on Edebate. However, several have still indicated a need for the invitation. Rather than using bandwidth to repost, please send email to me if you need a copy. I will also post an official team list as soon as a few more entries come in. Thanks Glen Strickland From jackhammer Thu Oct 7 14:12:39 1999 From: jackhammer (Jack Hammer) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 15:12:39 -0400 Subject: dispositionality and side bias Message-ID: I'm going to follow Mr. Smith's advice of reading through some edebate archives before getting TOO far into this subject, but my unsolicited opinion of this example is that it is not a debate. If we make the example INTO a debate-analogy, I don't think it supports your point on "advocating." I think my disagreement might come down to some metaphysical issue of what it MEANS to be negative, but I'm not that sure yet. >An example: > >Wake Forest has enough money left for one last tournament. > >Ross says: We should go to Heart (plan). They have great teams, great >judging, and good food (advs). > >Bob says: But if you go to Heart, you will not be able to go to CEDA Nats, >and it is a better tournament (c/plan - an opportunity cost of the plan). >They have great teams, great judging, good food, and they have bigger >trophies (net benefit). >The purpose of the c/plan is to show that by doing the aff plan, you must >miss out on something better. So if the judge agrees that there is a better >opportunity lost, s/he would reject the aff plan. >In the example above, I never said that you SHOULD go to CEDA nats. I only >said that doing the aff plan would lose a better opportunity. There may be >even better choices than CEDA Nats (NDT perhaps). All we know is that Heart >is NOT the best choice and should be rejected. >This is what I mean about c/plans not being advocated. All they do is show >that a better alternative must be forgone, NOT that the c/plan "should" be >done. Revising your example: our coach says you and I are going to tournament A next week. That is the status quo. I grumble to you that I think we should go to tournament B. That is my affirmative plan. You can agree with me (no debate), argue that we should go to A (you are negative defending the status quo and sucking up to the coach), or argue that we should really stay home next week and research (you are negative running a counterplan). But it seems to me that you can only do at most ONE of those three. Of course you chose to stand in front of me and say "we COULD go to tournament A, or we could stay home and research, or we could go to tournament C, or we could forge some receipts and go to Vegas." My response would probably be "okay, what do YOU think we should do?" If you took a position we could then have a debate. BUT if you said "I don't know and I don't care, I am not advocating ANYTHING, I am only 'testing' your belief by saying that it might not be the best of all options," I would conclude that you are not willing to argue in good faith and I'd just shrug my shoulders and walk away. It's a pointless, no-win situation to defend something against nothing. Now Mr. Smith's example: 'For instance, your plan, "Let's go to McDonalds," might be defeated by my counterplan, "Let's eat the free tournament pizza," if your only advantage was to meet caloric needs and I won the argument that one should be frugal. In that case, going to McD's is not worth doing.' Also not a full analogy to a debate. Let's say we are sitting around between debates (status quo). I say "we should go to Mickey-D's" (plan). Smith says "let's eat the free pizza here. That would be better because it is free" (counterplan). That's much more reasonable to me than saying "let's do something-ANYTHING-else. I don't care WHAT we do as long as we DO NOT go to McD. I just want to prove you wrong, no matter what you say." No, I am advocating burgers and he is advocating pizza. One or the other of us should win! Either way, we get food. In other words, "the status quo is [NOT] always an option." If we wind up sitting around hungry, NEITHER of us has "won" in any meaningful sense. From dperkins Thu Oct 7 14:40:53 1999 From: dperkins (Dallas Perkins) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 15:40:53 -0400 Subject: A final word on dispositionality Message-ID: First, I am NOT a member of the anti-PIC crowd. Second, Ross provides an excellent explication of "later hypotesting," or "plan-focused hypotesting," and correctly distinguishes it from the purer form developed by Zarefsky and Patterson. It's nice that "whole rez" is rejected, and that fixed plans are endorsed by the more modern version. Everybody should keep their eye on the ball (it is playoff season): the question is whether a team may suggest MULTIPLE comparisons and claim victory by succeeding at any one. Discourse on this thread has amply demonstrated that "conditionality" of argument is inevitable in debate. Link take-outs kill impact turns, extratopicality arguments zap the links to disads, permutations are frequently multiple and never quite fully advocated. However, this is quite different from allowing teams to advance multiple comparisons (as when the neg tries to appropriate both the counterplan and the status quo as ground on which it may ultimately prevail) as the initial basis for decision. The slow movement of consensus on this issue, reflecting the collective judgment of hundreds of players over literally decades of experience, is that both sides should be limited to one bite at the apple. There are thousands of debates each season, more than enough to explore most of the interesting possible comparisons of topical and non-topical ideas. To insist that each hour or two be spent on a rather complete examination of only one such comparison, with all of the complex and inevitably conditional arguments which must be juggled in even that modest enterprise, seems plausible. dp From dperkins Thu Oct 7 14:47:30 1999 From: dperkins (Dallas Perkins) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 15:47:30 -0400 Subject: Harvard Hotel Rooms: Urgent Message-ID: The Sheraton Newton jsut called and told me they have five hotel rooms available for the Harvard Tournament. The tournament rate will be good through tomorrow, Friday. If you are staying at one of the spillover hotels and want to move, call them immediately. dp >From Thu Oct 7 15:59:19 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 78546 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 15:59:56 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo12.mx.aol.com (imo12.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.2]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA17100 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 15:59:54 -0400 Received: from Pacedebate at aol.com by imo12.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id nAPZa09341 (4253) for ; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 15:59:20 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 14 Message-ID: <0.68ab83ca.252e5597 at aol.com> Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 15:59:19 EDT Reply-To: Pacedebate at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Pace Debate Subject: District 8 info - CT, Maine, Mass, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, VT If you are in District 8 and you have not received information regarding our upcoming district meeting and would like to get that info please drop me a backchannel. Thanks, Tim Mahoney Director of Debate, Pace University District 8 chair From hormone68 Thu Oct 7 15:01:40 1999 From: hormone68 (james herndon) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 13:01:40 PDT Subject: Damien only Message-ID: damien, could you please backchannel me, I have a question for you, or some other alabama debater to answer. thanks in advance, james herndon mercer debate ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From jef229f Thu Oct 7 15:09:24 1999 From: jef229f (John Fritch) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 15:09:24 -0500 Subject: SMS entries--most recent Message-ID: Alabama Pfister & Gordon Gonazalez & Stein (JV) Judges: Prisco, Jester Baylor Brigham & Thomas Childress & Webb (JV) Judge: Skillin UCO Potts & Evans Valencia & Foster Johnson & Mooney (JV) Lehman &Tkach (NOV) Judges: Moore, Hovden Cornell Miller & Melton Kronk & Cole Judge: Hayman Emory Russ & Nasreddine Lynn & McGough Crittenden & Rodu Somers & Jenkins (JV) Judge: Newman Emporia Shepard & Maurer Moore & Hultz (JV) Whitehair & Brouhard (JV) Judge: DeLaughder JCCC Mozisek & Rowe Fortney & Snapp (JV) Judge: Hutchins Kansas Tinsley & Saad Walsh & Woods Judges: Van Cleave, Partlow Kansas State Newton & Roddy Mabry & Wilson (JV) Shultz & Sharp (JV) Tigue & Meier (JV) Judges: Knapple, West, Stanfield Macalester Kauf & Wilham Judge: Dennis UMKC Whyte & Leuty Coffman & Baisley Galley & Rutledge Sobek & Reeves (JV) McClure & Lupton (JV) Judges: Congdon, Rhodes, Siemers, Harris Texas Nathan & Dwyer Drummond & Bowman Glinski & Poulous Garza & Kim Connelly & Liebman Compton & Tongue Tunkis & Melin (JV) Emertt & Berry (JV) Judges: Rollins, Jenkins, Stroube, Burke Wichita Holland & O?Toole Jarris & Gillum Fellows & McDonald (JV) Judges: Elliott, Ishak William Jewell Hershewe & Lawson BAccus & Girouard Gicinto & Haney (NOVICE) Juges: Lane, Woods John Fritch SMS >From Thu Oct 7 17:45:35 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 80522 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 17:46:17 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo14.mx.aol.com (imo14.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.4]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA09668 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 17:46:16 -0400 Received: from SNbkwm at aol.com by imo14.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id nEAHa02562 (3858) for ; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 17:45:36 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 41 Message-ID: <0.615b76f3.252e6e7f at aol.com> Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 17:45:35 EDT Reply-To: SNbkwm at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Matthew Singer Subject: Re: A World Without Counterplans I just have one thing to add this discussion. Jack Hammer wrote: > The discussion between Perkins and Smith seems > to suggest that he really means "is the affirmative plan the MOST desirable > thing in the world?" Just to attempt to keep things in perspective, not every position can or will be run in a debate, and the best plans may not be pertinent. Therefore, while it may seem like a minor issue, the question in my mind is "is the entire affirmative plan PART of the most desirable thing in the ROUND?" peace, matt singer From amackie Thu Oct 7 18:01:40 1999 From: amackie (Aiman Fouad Mackie) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 19:01:40 -0400 Subject: NBC and Constructing the Ultimate Rogue! Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 07 Oct 1999 18:12:17 -0700 From: "Media at adc.org" Reply-To: adc at adc.org To: updates at adc.org Subject: ADC: Protest [iso-8859-1] NBC^?s Slander and Incitment against Arabs in [iso-8859-1] ^?The West [iso-8859-1] Wing^? ADC Action Alert: Protest NBC~Rs Slander and Incitment against Arabs in ~SThe West Wing~T The following letter was sent today by ADC President Hala Maksoud to NBC CEO Robert C. Wright and producer John Wells regarding the first two episodes of the new television series, ~SThe West Wing.~T Please also contact NBC, Wright and Wells to let them know that this outrageous defamation is utterly unacceptable and irresponsible. Please use Hala Maksoud~Rs letter below as talking points for your own communications. Please email or fax Robert C. Wright, President of NBC at (212) 664-5830 or John Wells, producer of ~SThe West Wing~T at (818) 977-9048 HALA MAKSOUD~RS LETTER TO NBC CEO ROBERT WRIGHT: October 7, 1999 Robert C. Wright President, NBC Television By Fax: (212) 664-5830 Dear Mr. Wright, I write to you as President of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), the largest grassroots Arab-American organization in the country, to express our profound shock and dismay at the first two episodes of your new series ~SThe West Wing.~T Among the storylines in these two episodes was that the Republic of Syria had, for no apparent reason, shot down an unarmed American airforce jet killing over 50 Americans. The United States government responds by attacking four ~Smilitary targets~T in Syria, in the words of one of the characters, ~Scrippling Syria~Rs intelligence and surface-to-air capabilities.~T This storyline constitutes a slander and calumny against the Syrian nation and the Syrian people, who have never been involved in any way in such an incident. In fact, there have been three instances of unarmed planes being downed by surface-to-air missiles, none involving Syria. These include Israel~Rs downing of a Libyan airliner, the Soviet Union~Rs downing of a Korean airliner and the United States~R downing of an Iranian airliner. There has been no instance of any such action by Syria. By creating a fictional story that blames a real and actually existing nation, government and people for such a heinous crime, NBC has slandered an entire nation in the most unfair manner possible. The President calls these fictional Syrian crimes ~Sunwarranted, unprovoked and cold-blooded,~T but that might better describe the episode itself. Moreover, this slander against Syria deliberately promotes fear and hatred of Syria, Syrians and Arabs in general. Why was Syria chosen as the villain in this instance? What would have prevented NBC from concocting a fictional nation to play this role? Why are we not surprised that, as usual, the villains in this fantastic scenario are Arabs? How would NBC, the producers, or the rest of American society react if Israel, not Syria, were accused of such a fictional crime? This slander is analogous to NBC identifying a living person, and constructing a scenario around an atrocity that this person has supposedly committed. If we, for example, were to publish a novel, in which one Robert C. Wright, CEO of NBC were conducting a set of serial killings, this would be outrageously irresponsible and an unforgivable insult to yourself. By doing the same thing to an existing nation, government and people, NBC has acted no less irresponsibly. The ~Sretaliatory strike~T taken by the United States against Syria, and the passionate arguments made by the heroic lead character of the series, the President portrayed by Martin Sheen, for a response that would mean ~Stotal disaster~T for Syria, constitute direct and unforgivable incitement to violence against the Syrian people and nation. The clear thrust of the story is that Syria is a country that is capable of shooting down unarmed aircraft and which may well merit a military attack by the United States. There is serious discussion of actions that involve ~Scarpet-bombing Damascus~T and creating ~Sthousands of [Syrian] civilian casualties.~T Once again, this can only be described as the most egregious and malicious incitement against Syrians in particular and Arabs in general. There is no excuse for the harm that NBC has done in the first two episodes of ~SThe West Wing.~T These programs will forever remain a disgrace to NBC and no amends can undo the damage. We sincerely hope that you will ensure that future episodes of ~SThe West Wing~T and other NBC programing refrain from such defamation and incitement to violence. Yours, Hala Maksoud, Ph.D. President cc: John Wells, Producer ~SThe West Wing~T ________ ______ American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee /\ |_ ___ \ / ____| 4201 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Suite 300 / \ | | \ | | | Washington, D.C. 20008, U.S.A. / /\ \ | | | | | | Tel: (202) 244-2990, Fax: (202) 244-3196 / ____ \ _| |_ / | | |____ E-mail: adc at adc.org /_/ \_\________/ \______| Web : http://www.adc.org Be Active, Become A Member: http://www.adc.org/membership.html ======================================================================== ADC is the largest Arab-American grassroots organization in the United States. It was founded in 1980 by former Senator James Abourezk. To receive membership information, please send us your name and mailing address or visit our website. To receive or stop receiving ADC's email updates, send a message to with the following in the body: to subscribe type "subscribe updates" to unscubscribe type "unsubscribe updates" ======================================================================== From schellj Thu Oct 7 19:56:32 1999 From: schellj (Jennifer Scheller) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 20:56:32 -0400 Subject: Allegheny College director of speech Message-ID: First, thank you to everyone who was kind enough to write to our administration in support of our program. Your letters definitely helped to educate the new dean of our college on the value of debate. Unfortunately, they are not budging on the position description and continue to claim that debate was not mentioned in it because the comm arts department does not believe that any debate oriented person would be interested in the job. However, I have been assured by numerous administrators that the so-called ideal candidate would still be someone who could fulfill the other portions of the job description and coach debate. Therefore, I encourage you to apply for the position if you are interested. The official position description is included below. I will be on the search committee and will of course be pulling for any debate oriented applicants. If you have questions about the position, the school or our program, please feel free to email me. Also, please pass this along to others who may be interested but aren't on edebate. Thanks, Jen Scheller President, Allegheny Debate Team Assistant Professor/Director of Speech: Allegheny College, a highly selective 175-year old private liberal arts college in Northwest Pennsylvania, invites applicants for a tenure-track position in communication with responsibilities coordinating a new college-wide interdisciplinary program in speaking. In addition to serving as Director of Speech, the successful candidate will teach courses and conduct research in their area of interest. Candidates with expertise in new technologies, environmental studies, rhetoric of science, intercultural communication, or gender studies are particularly encouraged, but all fields within communication are welcome to apply. Faculty are also expected to participate in a college-wide freshman/sophomore liberal studies program that emphasizes writing and speaking. Ph.D. required. Teaching load: 3/2. Send letter of application, vita, evidence of teaching effectiveness, published article or other sample of scholarship, and three letters of recommendation by January 15 to Director of Speech Search Chair Communication Arts Department Box 45 Allegheny College Meadville, PA 16335 The Department will be conducting preliminary interviews at the NCA Convention in Chicago. AC is an Equal Opportunity Employer. Women and minorities are encouraged to apply. From PatG Thu Oct 7 21:30:58 1999 From: PatG (Pat J. Gehrke) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 22:30:58 -0400 Subject: NCA Room: Tues/Wed Night Only Message-ID: I have to come into Chicago before the rest of my party, so if anyone out there is looking for a place to crash for Tuesday and Wednesday nights ONLY, let me know. Anything you can pitch in towards the costs is better than me eating the whole room cost for those nights. I have a room at the Congress Plaza Hotel, just up the street from the towers. Alternatively, if you are coming in on Tuesday and have space for one more body for Tuesday and Wednesday night, I would happily move my reservation to share your room. I will rarely be in the room and I sleep quietly. Thanks, Pat Pat J. Gehrke, Speech and Debate Team Director 234 Sparks Building Penn State University PatG at psu.edu University Park, PA 16802 (814) 865-7751 From erm892f Thu Oct 7 22:33:30 1999 From: erm892f (Eric Morris) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 22:33:30 -0500 Subject: Fort Hays and North Texas Only Message-ID: If anyone from UNT or FHSU is currently online, please contact me or Fritch ASAP about the SMS tournament. You can e-mail or you could also call me at home (417) 863-9056 until about 11:30pm cst. Thanks much, sorry about bandwidth, etc. Eric Morris Asst. Debate Coach, SMSU - Dept. of Comm./Media, Craig 370 (H) (417) 863-9056 (O) (417) 836-6564 erm892f at mail.smsu.edu >From Thu Oct 7 23:51:29 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 82075 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 23:52:22 -0400 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 XAA32590 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 23:52:21 -0400 Received: from Safrond1 at aol.com by imo-d07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id nZCO0XmYDG (3932) for ; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 23:51:29 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 27 Message-ID: <0.daab11d9.252ec441 at aol.com> Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 23:51:29 EDT Reply-To: Safrond1 at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Jennifer Dixon Subject: Van, TX Is there anyone associated with Van High School Debate in Van, TX on the listserve? Actually, anyone in the east Texas area (Smith, Van Zandt Co, etc,) who knows anyone from Van HS. If so, can somebody backchannel me? Many thanks! Jen Dixon West Virginia University From sab504s Fri Oct 8 00:14:51 1999 From: sab504s (Shawn Bone) Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1999 00:14:51 -0500 Subject: One Humble Request Message-ID: If anyone has some good answers to terrorist talk could you backchannel me the cites. I will respond with anything from the SMS files that you want/need. Thanks in advance. Shawn Bone SMS Debate From parcherj Fri Oct 8 09:45:56 1999 From: parcherj (Jeff Parcher) Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1999 10:45:56 -0400 Subject: A final word on dispositionality References: Message-ID: > The slow movement of consensus on this issue, reflecting the collective > judgment of hundreds of players over literally decades of experience, is > that both sides should be limited to one bite at the apple. I find this way off the mark. It seems to me that the slow movement of the community on this issue has been toward allowing the negative one counterplan AND the SQ. As a coach predisposed to have my teams run conditional/dispositional counterplans, I cannot remember having lost a debate or having had a counterplan dropped from the round on the argument that dispositionality/conditionality is illegit. There are VERY few judges for whom we must adapt our counterplan strategy to complete abandonment of the SQ. Even with Dallas or Katsulas in the back of the room, the counterplan can be functionally conditional on such theory arguments as PICs illegit, no negative fiat, topical CPs illegit, can't fiat the court, etc. Also, I find the answers to perms justify conditionality to be woefully inadequate. "The perm is not advocated," is practically meaningless. The perm is advocated for the purpose of rejecting the counterplan in the same way as the counterplan is advocated to reject the plan. Whether the judge actually votes for a permutation or rejects the counterplan because "of the knowledge that the permutation hypothetically could be done" seems a meaningless distinction for the negative who loses the counterplan and according to these theorists the opportunity to revert to the SQ. This reality crushes nearly all "conditionality bad" arguments I have heard in debates and surely is a massive intellectual hole in the position of those defending that argument here on the listserve. JP From jwpatt00 Fri Oct 8 10:59:59 1999 From: jwpatt00 (J.W. Patterson) Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1999 11:59:59 -0400 Subject: VALLEY TOC QUALIFIERS Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 1926 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/19991008/1f1c0eeb/attachment.bin From masst188+ Fri Oct 8 11:22:18 1999 From: masst188+ (Maxwell Schnurer) Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1999 12:22:18 -0400 Subject: Non-Debate:Duquesne protest activity Message-ID: Anyone who is coming to Pittsburgh for the Duquesne tournament is welcome at a protest against McDonalds on that friday (the 22nd). If you are interested in learning more about the International movement against McDonalds, check out McSpotlight at http://www.mcspotlight.org/home.html If you are interested in coming to the action, drop me a line or give me a call 412-687-4547. Viva, King Maxwell's Radical Resources: http://www.pitt.edu/~masst188/ From jwpatt00 Fri Oct 8 11:42:37 1999 From: jwpatt00 (J.W. Patterson) Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1999 12:42:37 -0400 Subject: TOC: QUALIFYING TOURNAMENTS Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 4849 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/19991008/d968197e/attachment.bin From deloach Fri Oct 8 13:18:31 1999 From: deloach (MARK DELOACH) Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1999 13:18:31 CST6CDT Subject: NDT ad hoc committees Message-ID: Greetings from your NDT Board Chair. I am seeking volunteers to serve on two ad hoc committees. The first is an ad hoc committee to recommend a policy to the NDT Board concerning use of NDT alumni data for research purposes. Ed Panetta and Steve Mancuso have already volunteered for this committee. The second is an ad hoc committee to seek legal advice and recommend a policy concerning compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act at the national tournament. Dallas Perkins and David Hingstman have already volunteered for this committee. If you would be willing to serve on either committee, please send an e-mail to: gossett at unt.edu and I'll be in contact with you. Thanks. --Gossett Mark DeLoach Associate Professor, Communication Studies University of North Texas Denton, TX 76203 (940) 565-2588 From jackhammer Fri Oct 8 18:07:51 1999 From: jackhammer (Jack Hammer) Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1999 19:07:51 -0400 Subject: A World Without Counterplans Message-ID: >A competitive counterplan that is better than the affirmative plan proves >that the affirmative plan is not worth doing if the counterplan is an >available policy option. You might search the archives for a thorough >discussion of the subject initiated by Perkins and responded to by Korcok >and me, among others. For instance, your plan, "Let's go to McDonalds," >might be defeated by my counterplan, "Let's eat the free tournament pizza," >if your only advantage was to meet caloric needs and I won the argument >that one should be frugal. In that case, going to McD's is not worth doing. In my original message I got into the definition of "desirable" only to make the point that your position is not that the affirmative plan must be proven "desirable" but that it be proven "more desirable" than a counterplan and "the most desirable" of all competing options. Since one or more of your messages yesterday defended the idea of "counterplan OR status quo" and maybe even multiple counterplans, I think we agree on this characterization. I STILL think it is a useful thought experiment to ask if the debate experience would be better or worse if there were no counterplans. But for now I'm not going to argue that counterplans have no basis in theory. As for your example, though, if your frugality argument outweighed my caloric advantage then the counterplan is moot and you win without it. If it doesn't outweigh, then I would think we would have proven that my plan IS desirable and that your counterplan is MORE desirable, if as you said yesterday "The status quo is always a baseline." I think that is where our disagreement lies. I would say that the status quo is a baseline unless there is a counterplan, at which point the counterplan becomes the baseline for measuring desirability of the plan. >Yes, a world with no counterplans may be simpler. So would a world without >disads. My point was not simplicity. I just think that all things considered it would be a more (for lack of a better word) desirable world. >I have found that novices have no trouble with counterplans. They make >sense. They are employed in everyday life. Novices might find it easier to >run a generic counterplan than to go "straight-up" on every case. "Easy" isn't the most important thing either. Say a novice team wants to run a case lifting nearly all our sanctions on Cuba. My hunch is that they would expect negatives to say that sanctions are good and should not be lifted. That would "make sense." But they might wind up continually debating against counterplans like "lift absolutely all sanctions" or "lift sanctions but not until the budget is passed" or "lift sanctions by executive order." It would be frustrating to lose to people who mostly agreed with them, and it would be particularly frustrating to lose to a team that tried to be Noam Chomsky and Pat Buchanan in the same debate. These counterplans are not necessarily bad in theory. I'm just saying debate would be better without them. >The point is that requiring affs to defend their plans against counterplans >as well as against the status quo is a more intellectually rigorous test of >the plans. But in situations where a decision comes down to quibbling over competitiveness or what is or is not an acceptable permutation, that does not seem intellectually rigorous either. And some counterplans wind up testing very marginal or incidental aspects of the plan. Congressional hearings should primarily be an intellectually rigorous test of proposed legislation. If the goal of a debate round was to have the most rigorous test of ideas, the coaches or the international relations professors would be debating. And I think that counterplans--especially multiple counterplans or counterplans that can be dropped for the status quo--result in a less intellectually rigorous test of the negative side of the topic even if they more rigorously test the affirmative side. Should not both sides be tested? From jackhammer Fri Oct 8 23:36:26 1999 From: jackhammer (Jack Hammer) Date: Sat, 9 Oct 1999 00:36:26 -0400 Subject: A final word on dispositionality Message-ID: On Fri, 8 Oct 1999 10:45:56 -0400, Jeff Parcher wrote: >Even with Dallas or Katsulas in the back of the room, the counterplan >can be functionally conditional on such theory arguments as PICs >illegit, no negative fiat, topical CPs illegit, can't fiat the court, etc. >Also, I find the answers to perms justify conditionality to be woefully >inadequate. "The perm is not advocated," is practically meaningless. The >perm is advocated for the purpose of rejecting the counterplan in the same >way as the counterplan is advocated to reject the plan. Whether the judge >actually votes for a permutation or rejects the counterplan because "of the >knowledge that the permutation hypothetically could be done" seems a >meaningless distinction for the negative who loses the counterplan and >according to these theorists the opportunity to revert to the SQ. I think I would agree with this view of counterplans if I thought that a counterplan was just an argument. But I don't. And I think (based on some of the other counterplan discussions on edebate this week) that I would agree with you if I thought that the purpose of the negative team in a debate was just to provide a "test" of the affirmative. But I think it is a comparative test of both teams. You and Mr. Perkins disagree on what the consensus position is on this subject. I do not know which one of you is right. And I'm not sure I want to get into a full-scale discussion of all aspects of this subject. I'll start by trying to explain what I meant in the above paragraph, and see if that leads anywhere. As I understand the term "permutation" right now, it is just an argument, in the same way that there are topicality arguments or disadvantage arguments. But a counterplan is not an argument. It is a position. It is in a figurative sense at least a place . . . a place from which arguments are then launched. Those arguments are used to try to justify the position, just as the affirmative deploys arguments to justify its position (the affirmative plan). The affirmative has to advocate a plan because that is their position in the debate. That is "where they are coming from." And the negative has to advocate some position as a basis for their arguments. To use the Smith example again, I say burgers and he counterplans with pizza. We each have arguments to justify our choice. That is a debate. But what if he says "I do not care what we get as long as it is not burgers! Pizza, tacos, tofu, the grasshoppers under that bush, even burgers from some place other than the place you want to go to, I don't care. In fact I would have been willing to get burgers but now I say no just because that is what you want." That would not be much of a debate, when the negative doesn't care what happens as long as it is not that one thing that the affirmative wants. And that is what it amounts to, I think, if one says that the affirmative must take a position and defend it but the role of the negative is just to "test" the affirmative. When someone argues against a proposal in good faith it is because they prefer some other alternative. If the negative team has several counterplans, or if they have a counterplan plus the option of switching to the status quo, then they are just mechanical no- bots. I don't think that is how most people argue, and people who do argue that way are not worth arguing with. I think that most people argue against something only because there is some other competing thing that they are for. If I say "lift some sanctions," I cannot imagine anyone simultaneously saying "lift even more sanctions" and "lift no sanctions at all." So I do not think that a counterplan is just an argument, and it should not be treated as an argument. And I do not think that one side in a debate has to take a position while the other side just offers conditional tests. Real negatives have a position, and the debate is a test of the two positions compared to each other. That seems fair and also realistic. From girl-genius Sat Oct 9 04:07:05 1999 From: girl-genius (Shawnessy Scott) Date: Sat, 9 Oct 1999 09:07:05 0000 Subject: NEC-Music From Another Room Message-ID: This will be a brief commercial break from Rogue states, tournament invites, and dispositionality. Ever been somewhere and heard music from another room or voices where it sounded like something interesting was going on somewhere else? Listen: 1) Debate is coming into a huge opportunity in colleges to increase diversity due to the impact of the UDL's across the country. Sarah Ryan made a comment to me about how much she wants to recruit these students. We tell these students that scholarships and opportunities are available for them in college, but are they really? There are scholarships in college, but they usually go to the elites, not those who really need the money. What can be done? I am working on a) proposals to get more universities and community colleges funded, with budget and scholarship money, b) to create a database or some method of putting UDL students in contact with universities. 3) Communication styles. I believe it was Ed Lee, but i could be wrong, who once said that debate robbed minorities and women of their natural communication style for a more masculine, structured style. is there a way to deal with this?? is the community even aware of it?? how do you flow it?? how do you evaluate it?? is this too oppressive or is it necessary?? all important questions that must be asked. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The reason this program was started at the University of Richmond is because of a letter sent by president Clinton to schools all over the US. His initiative is called "One America." Now, I may be the only one who is shocked, but my first response was: Why the hell do we want to create a "homogeneous" body to call "One America"? Would'nt a title that would accept the differences inherent within american society be more relevant to the issue? It was not a title that was going to keep me away from participating. The other thing to know is that the University of Richmond is a white, conservative school. The best organized groups are so-called "Christian groups," and to give you an idea of how virulent they are, they were able to block the coming of an entertainment group (the Warrens) who make their trade from "ghost stories"," because, according the "Fellowship of Christian Athletes" and others, the Warrens spread Satanism and are therefore an "offense to the religious beleifs of the majority of students on this campus." Intrigued? You're invited to go to www.onelist.com and join debate_diversity. We want to make a difference. Novice Shawnessy p.s. - Hope the authors don't mind but the comments were too good not to share with everyone. Angelfire for your free web-based e-mail. http://www.angelfire.com From bg20351 Sat Oct 9 10:15:51 1999 From: bg20351 (Siejen Yin) Date: Sat, 9 Oct 1999 11:15:51 -0400 Subject: 1999-2000 NFA/AFA & CEDA/ADA DIRECTORY/CALENDAR In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19991006192041.00822840@facstaff.richmond.edu> Message-ID: Hey Guys! I was wondering if someone could tell me how I could get a hold of the most recent copy of the NFA/AFA/CEDA/ADA Directory & Calendar. I have an older copy of the Intercollegiate Tournament Calendar published through AFA, but, I have yet been able to receive a recent Directory of various Forensics Organizations. If someone could please direct me to the right person/organization/website, I would really appreciate it. Thank in advance for your time and assistance. Thank You, Siejen Yin President Binghamton University 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 mkrueger Sat Oct 9 17:34:48 1999 From: mkrueger (mkrueger) Date: Sat, 9 Oct 1999 17:34:48 -0500 Subject: NIU Results Message-ID: Here are the results as of now for the M. Jack Parker Invitational. Gotta love those 2 day tournaments. Open Quarters John Carroll SL v. U Chicago BW DePaul DM v. Loyola ME DePaul HW v. UNI RB UChicago SS v. MTSU BW Speaks 1. Sovacol-John Carroll 2. Woodward-MTSU 3. Marcus-DePaul 4. Lavelle-John Carroll 5. Bishop-UChicago Novice Quarters MTSU MJ v. Wheaton CT UNI HD v. Wheaton GG UW-Oshkosh v. Wheaton WB Augustana SK v. Loyola DS Speaks 1. Miedel-MTSU 2. Humpke-UNI 3. Smth-Augustana 4. Danish-Loyola 5. Thums-UW-Oshkosh Thanks and have a great day! mike From mkrueger Sat Oct 9 19:32:19 1999 From: mkrueger (mkrueger) Date: Sat, 9 Oct 1999 19:32:19 -0500 Subject: NIU Update Message-ID: Updated... We are in Semi Finals Open Quarters John Carroll SL v. U Chicago BW JCU 3-0 DePaul DM v. Loyola ME DePaul DM 3-0 DePaul HW v. UNI RB UNorthern Iowa RB 3-0 UChicago SS v. MTSU BW MTSU BW 2-1 OPEN SEMIS JCU SL v. Northern Iowa RB DePaul DM v. MTSU BW Speaks 1. Sovacol-John Carroll 2. Woodward-MTSU 3. Marcus-DePaul 4. Lavelle-John Carroll 5. Bishop-UChicago Novice Quarters MTSU MJ v. Wheaton CT MTSU 3-0 UNI HD v. Wheaton GG UNorthern Iowa HD 3-0 UW-Oshkosh TT v. Wheaton WB Wheaton WB 3-0 Augustana SK v. Loyola DS Loyola DS 3-0 NOVICE SEMIS MTSU MJ v. Loyola DS Northern Iowa HD v. Wheaton WB Speaks 1. Miedel-MTSU 2. Humpke-UNI 3. Smth-Augustana 4. Danish-Loyola 5. Thums-UW-Oshkosh Thanks and have a great day! Mike Michael A. Krueger Director of Debate Middle Tennessee State University Box 43 Murfreesboro, TN 37132 (615) 898-5607 http://www.mtsu.edu/~debate/ From louden Sat Oct 9 19:42:33 1999 From: louden (Allan Louden) Date: Sat, 9 Oct 1999 20:42:33 -0400 Subject: Spend Spring Semster in England Message-ID: It is time to take advantage of this opportunity before time runs out. Tryout at NCA this November. The Committee for International Discussion and Debate (CIDD) of the National Communication Association Announces Tryouts for A tour of Great Britain (includes stops in Scotland, Ireland, & Portugal) Approximate tour dates: End of January to Mid-March, 2000 Tryouts will be held in Chicago, Illinois, November 6th & 7th, 1999 If you are interested in trying out for the British tour please notify Allan Louden at the following: Allan Louden Director of Debate Wake Forest University Box 7347 Reynolda Station Winston Salem, NC 27109 Telephone: (336) 758-5408 FAX: (336) 758-4691 Email: louden at wfu.edu Best method for contact is e-mail Those indicating interest will be provided a packet of information indicating the application instructions, interview format, interview times, lodging options, etc. Expenses for attending the tryouts and lodging are the responsibility of the applicants (Meals provided by CIDD during the interviews). Two students will be selected to represent the US on the all expense paid tour. Indication of interest in application much be received by October 20 Allan D. Louden, Dir. of Debate Wake Forest University Box 7347, Reynolda Station Winston-Salem, NC 27109 (336) 758-5408 (336) 758-4691 (fax) http://www.wfu.edu/~debate http://www.wfu.edu/~louden From mkrueger Sat Oct 9 21:26:08 1999 From: mkrueger (mkrueger) Date: Sat, 9 Oct 1999 21:26:08 -0500 Subject: NIU Update Message-ID: We move to finals. Michael A. Krueger Director of Debate Middle Tennessee State University Box 43 Murfreesboro, TN 37132 (615) 898-5607 http://www.mtsu.edu/~debate/ From mkrueger Sat Oct 9 21:29:24 1999 From: mkrueger (mkrueger) Date: Sat, 9 Oct 1999 21:29:24 -0500 Subject: NIU Update Message-ID: Attempt two. Sorry about the last try. We move to finals. Open Quarters John Carroll SL v. U Chicago BW, JCU 3-0 DePaul DM v. Loyola ME, DePaul DM 3-0 DePaul HW v. UNI RB, UNorthern Iowa RB 3-0 UChicago SS v. MTSU BW, MTSU BW 2-1 OPEN SEMIS JCU SL v. Northern Iowa RB, Northern Iowa RB 2-1 DePaul DM v. MTSU BW, DePael DM 3-0 FINALS DePaul DM v. Northern Iowa RB Speaks 1. Sovacol-John Carroll 2. Woodward-MTSU 3. Marcus-DePaul 4. Lavelle-John Carroll 5. Bishop-UChicago Novice Quarters MTSU MJ v. Wheaton CT, MTSU MJ 3-0 UNI HD v. Wheaton GG, UNorthern Iowa HD 3-0 UW-Oshkosh TT v. Wheaton WB, Wheaton WB 3-0 Augustana SK v. Loyola DS, Loyola DS 3-0 NOVICE SEMIS MTSU MJ v. Loyola DS, MTSU MJ 3-0 Northern Iowa HD v. Wheaton WB, Northern Iowa HD 3-0 NOVICE FINALS MTSU MJ v. Northern Iowa HD Speaks 1. Miedel-MTSU 2. Humpke-UNI 3. Smth-Augustana 4. Danish-Loyola 5. Thums-UW-Oshkosh Thanks and have a great day! Mike Michael A. Krueger Director of Debate Middle Tennessee State University Box 43 Murfreesboro, TN 37132 (615) 898-5607 http://www.mtsu.edu/~debate/ From jared_1978 Sat Oct 9 23:48:24 1999 From: jared_1978 (Jared Waters) Date: Sat, 9 Oct 1999 21:48:24 PDT Subject: sunday at sam breaks.... Message-ID: these are the breaks for the sam tournament: OPEN McNeese HR SELA GS SELA SC SWT ML SWT WW SWT SC UTD JK UTD SF NOVICE Cameron DM Sam EA UTD WA UTSA MG ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From mkrueger Sun Oct 10 09:53:42 1999 From: mkrueger (mkrueger) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 09:53:42 -0500 Subject: NIU Results Message-ID: complete results. Open Quarters John Carroll SL v. U Chicago BW, JCU 3-0 DePaul DM v. Loyola ME, DePaul DM 3-0 DePaul HW v. UNI RB, UNorthern Iowa RB 3-0 UChicago SS v. MTSU BW, MTSU BW 2-1 OPEN SEMIS JCU SL v. Northern Iowa RB, Northern Iowa RB 2-1 DePaul DM v. MTSU BW, DePaul DM 3-0 FINALS DePaul DM v. Northern Iowa RB, DePaul (N) 2-1 Speaks 1. Sovacol-John Carroll 2. Woodward-MTSU 3. Marcus-DePaul 4. Lavelle-John Carroll 5. Bishop-UChicago Novice Quarters MTSU MJ v. Wheaton CT, MTSU MJ 3-0 UNI HD v. Wheaton GG, UNorthern Iowa HD 3-0 UW-Oshkosh TT v. Wheaton WB, Wheaton WB 3-0 Augustana SK v. Loyola DS, Loyola DS 3-0 NOVICE SEMIS MTSU MJ v. Loyola DS, MTSU MJ 3-0 Northern Iowa HD v. Wheaton WB, Northern Iowa HD 3-0 NOVICE FINALS MTSU MJ v. Northern Iowa HD, MTSU MJ (N) 3-0 Speaks 1. Miedel-MTSU 2. Humpke-UNI 3. Smth-Augustana 4. Danish-Loyola 5. Thums-UW-Oshkosh Thanks and have a great day! Mike Michael A. Krueger Director of Debate Middle Tennessee State University Box 43 Murfreesboro, TN 37132 (615) 898-5607 http://www.mtsu.edu/~debate/ From hunt Sun Oct 10 11:18:06 1999 From: hunt (Steven Hunt) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 09:18:06 -0700 Subject: L&C lst results Sunday Oct 10 Message-ID: Senior Policy Gonzaga Casey Kelly Aaron Moburg Jones lst seed Lewis & Clark Amy Colinge and Nick Hesterberg 3rd seed Lewis & Clark Jared Hager and Aleava Sayre 3rd seed University of Miami Veronica Barreto and Regina Paulose 6th seed Western Washington Breanna Forni and Julie Pitt 7th seed Whitman Emily Cordo and Courtney Gardner 4th seed Whitman College Jessica Clarke and Charles Olney 2nd seed SBH q From hunt Sun Oct 10 11:21:03 1999 From: hunt (Steven Hunt) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 09:21:03 -0700 Subject: Lewis & Clark Tournament Sunda Oct l0 so far results Message-ID: Junior Policy Debate UPS Diana tingg and Geoff Zeiger lst seed Lewis & Clark Brad Cole and Owen Zahorcak 2nd seed Gonzaga Jon Heinonen and Taylor Elliot 3rd seed Seattle Ken Johnson and Mick Souders 4th seedc Whitman Brian ward and Keola Whittaker 5th see UPS Chris Gulugian-Taylor and Ron Ringuette 6th seed Lewis & Calrk Chris Phan and Katy Micka 7th seed UPS Jennifer Eidum and Jon Howland 8th seed SBH q From dbteam Sun Oct 10 11:58:49 1999 From: dbteam (UWG Debate Team) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 12:58:49 -0400 Subject: need ky results sheet In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19991006230632.00726278@pop.wfu.edu> Message-ID: westga needs a results sheet from kentucky. either bring one to cap city or fax one to me at 770-830-2322. thanks, hester From ssnider Sun Oct 10 12:26:57 1999 From: ssnider (Sarah J. Snider) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 13:26:57 -0400 Subject: Jethro Hayman please.... Message-ID: if you are out there jethro or if anyone knows his address please drop me a line.... Sj >From Sun Oct 10 13:42:50 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 39127 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Sun, 10 Oct 1999 13:43:33 -0400 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 NAA43376 for ; Sun, 10 Oct 1999 13:43:27 -0400 Received: from LordLeo01 at aol.com by imo-d10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id nOYW0nqS5J (4215) for ; Sun, 10 Oct 1999 13:42:50 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 41 Message-ID: <0.c8b483d2.25322a1a at aol.com> Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 13:42:50 EDT Reply-To: LordLeo01 at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Jakob Stewart Subject: admissions statistics Im looking for admissions and scholarship statistics about debaters. (thats if any exist) Ive read that debaters are more likely to get excepted to colleges than the "average student." just wondering if thats true. Also, Im wondering about any scholarship info available. thanks Jakob Waco Hi debate TX >From Sun Oct 10 14:23:01 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 39286 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Sun, 10 Oct 1999 14:23:35 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from hotmail.com (law2-f164.hotmail.com [216.32.181.164]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA43350 for ; Sun, 10 Oct 1999 14:23:32 -0400 Received: (qmail 7306 invoked by uid 0); 10 Oct 1999 18:23:01 -0000 Received: from 207.239.144.34 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Sun, 10 Oct 1999 11:23:01 PDT X-Originating-IP: [207.239.144.34] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: <19991010182301.7305.qmail at hotmail.com> Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 14:23:01 EDT Reply-To: curiousg at iname.com To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Stephen Carter Subject: iowa only can someone from iowa please backchannel me? thanks steve ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From lzrdbrth69 Sun Oct 10 18:08:31 1999 From: lzrdbrth69 (Elisabeth Goodwin) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 19:08:31 EDT Subject: Paging: Alex Berger Message-ID: This message is a request from Jon Sharp, could Alex Berger please e-mail Jon at FNORDGA at aol.com. Thank you, Elisabeth Goodwin West Georgia ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From hunt Sun Oct 10 19:25:51 1999 From: hunt (Steven Hunt) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 17:25:51 -0700 Subject: Results Lewis & Clark Pioneer Invitational Oct l0, 1999 Message-ID: Senior Finals Gonzaga Kelly Moburg Jones defeats Whitman Jessica Clark Charles Olney 3-0 Semis Gonzaga KM defeated Lewis & Clark Hager and Sayre 3-0 Whitman defeated Lewis & Clark Hesterberg and Collinge 2-l Qtrs Gonzaga KM defeated UPS GL 3-0 L&C CH defeated Miami BP 3-0 L&C HS defeated Whitman CG 2-l Whitman CO defeated WWU 2-l Junior UPS TZ defeats Seattle JS 2-l Semis UPS TZ defeated Seattle 2-l Gonzaga HE defeated L&C CZ 2-l Qtrs UPS GTR defeatd Gonzaga HE 2-l L&C CZ defeated UPS 3-0 Seattle JS defeated Whitman WW 2-l UPS TZ defeated L&C MP 3-0 Steve Hunt Lewis & Clark q From matth474 Sun Oct 10 20:16:04 1999 From: matth474 (matt holland) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 18:16:04 PDT Subject: sam houston results (unofficial) Message-ID: Just got back from sam, this is how open panned out Quarters Sam/SWTSU vs UT Dallas SELA vs SWTSU UT Dallas vs McNeese/ACU SWTU vs SELA (I think) Semi's UT Dallas vs SWTSU WW UTD 3-0 UT Dallas vs SELA UTD 3-0 UT Dallas closes out finals I don't remember speaker awards but I am sure someone from Sam will post them soon. Sorry I couldn't be more specific but incase anyone wanted to know Matt McNeese State ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From schnippy Sun Oct 10 21:11:35 1999 From: schnippy (Greg Schnippel) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 22:11:35 -0400 Subject: UPDATE: New Internet Research Tool -- UPGRADES Message-ID: WEB JUNKIE UPDATE JUNKIE URL: http://www.gyre.org/login.html **[If you are new to Web Junkie or if you are just curious what this is about, click here: http://www.gyre.org/junkie_debate.html ]** Thanks to everyone who visited the site and created an account. I received a lot of valuable feedback and response to the initial rollout of 'Web Junkie' and have implemented the following changes based on user requests. [1] There is now a button in the 'Junkie Remote' box for editing the current resource. Example - you are currently viewing a resource and you realize that you set the frequency too high/low. This new feature allows you to edit the resource without having to interrupt your current searching/browsing. [2] There is a new 'open' account that anyone can add to. I have disabled the 'delete' function for this account to allow anyone to add their favorite URLS into a community file. This file will ignore the frequency and 'last date viewed' fields since it will be used by more than one person. username: rogue_free password: debate Log in and add some of your favorite URLs to the community file or simply check out what others have left. I intend to just let this file grow as an experiment but I reserve the right to delete any 'objectionable' URLS so play nice. [3] I have added a new button on the main page that allows you to add an 'automated search'. It works like the regular junkie file except that it allows you to run a specific search string (ex. "clinton and +'north korea' and 'nuclear war' and +'popular') in a specific search engine (ex. yahoo!, excite, lycos, etc.) every X number of days. [4] Shiny new buttons and an enhanced help area. If you need assistance at any point in the process, click the bright 'HELP' button on the bottom of the screen. Again, thanks to everyone for the feedback. JUNKIE URL: http://www.gyre.org/login.html Greg Schnippel From deltoro Sun Oct 10 20:21:12 1999 From: deltoro (Gilbert DelToro) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 19:21:12 -0600 Subject: Hired Judges at 1999 Aztec Invitational Message-ID: As the entry for the 1999 Aztec continues to grow, we have decided to hire judges in order to facilitate a smooth running tournament. We will pay $10.00 for I.E. and parliamentary debate rounds and $15.00 for policy debate rounds. If you are interested, please contact Gilbert DelToro asap. It is expected that any hired judge would be available for the debate round on saturday night at 6pm. We will especially need judges at that time. Contact me at the email address above or at my office: 619-594-4639. Thanks, Gilbert Skip or Konrad, could you post this to the parliamentay debate listserve. >From Sun Oct 10 23:08:45 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 42002 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Sun, 10 Oct 1999 23:09:22 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo23.mx.aol.com (imo23.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.67]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA25744 for ; Sun, 10 Oct 1999 23:09:20 -0400 Received: from Cnfuzzd at aol.com by imo23.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id nBZMa17430 (4403) for ; Sun, 10 Oct 1999 23:08:45 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 243 Message-ID: <0.e6bed614.2532aebd at aol.com> Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 23:08:45 EDT Reply-To: Cnfuzzd at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: John Nickle Subject: sms results First, i want to send a big thanks out to everyone at the tournament. It was a highly reasonable experience, and everyone helped out to make sure things went smoothly, except ken, who takes no responsibility. Dont miss tomorrows post which will feature outrounds, speaker awards, and the results of 32 seasons of World Series of Fish. Finally, mad shoutout to texas for breaking 7 teams in both divisions combined. TEAMS BREAKING IN OPEN Alabama pg Cornell MM Emory LM Emory RN Emporia SM JCCC MR Kanas TS Texas BD Texas CL Texas DN Texas GK Texas GP UMKC CB UMKC WC UMKC WL WSU OH TEAMS BREAKING IN JUNIOR VARSITY Emporia MH Emporia WB Kansas state MW Kansas state SS Kansas State TM Texas EB Texas TM Wichita state FM thanks for playing and see ya tomorrow peace john nickle From simegreg Mon Oct 11 00:03:30 1999 From: simegreg (Greg Simerly) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 23:03:30 -0600 Subject: Oct. 1 Exec-Sec Rpt, 1 of 3 Message-ID: 1999-00 CROSS EXAMINATION DEBATE ASSOCIATION October 1 Executive-Secretary Report Starting this month, to save time and money, very few members will receive hard copy of Exec-Sec Reports; almost everyone will receive email versions. I've sent an email copy directly to every member that provided an email address. If you'd rather just receive a copy off eDebate, just let me know, and I won't send it to you directly. If you received hard copy, please send your email address to me so I can send you the electronic version. I've enclosed a list of paid members. If you need a membership dues form, please email Greg, simegreg at isu.edu. CEDA National Sweepstakes rankings are enclosed. CEDA meetings at NCA are scheduled as follows: Executive Council Meeting: Thursday, November 4, 1999, 3:30-4:45 p.m. PDR 2, Third Floor, Chicago Hilton Business Meeting I: Friday, November 05, 8:00-9:15 a..m. PDR 4, Third Floor, Chicago Hilton Business Meeting II: Saturday, November 06, 3:30-4:45 p.m. Conf 4C, Fourth Floor, Chicago Hilton If you need more info about other panels, check the NCA web site at www.natcom.org Cheers, Greg CEDA Executive-Secretary 1999-00 CROSS EXAMINATION DEBATE ASSOCIATION Paid members as of October 7 Air Force Albertson Angelo State Appalachian Augustana (IL) Augustana (SD) Azusa Pacific Baylor Boston College Brevard CC Butte Cal Poly - SLO Cameron Capital Carroll Casper Catawba College Catholic Univ Clarion Clemson Concordia (MN) Cornell CSU-Chico CSU-Fullerton CSU-Long Beach Cumberland Cypress Dartmouth DePauw Dillard Eastern New Mexico Embry-Riddle Emporia Florida Florida CC-Jacksonville Foreman-Takano, Deborah George Mason Georgia Georgia Clg & St Univ Grand Rapids CC Gustavus Adolphus Harding Harvey, Craig Idaho State Univ Illinois College Illinois State James Madison Johnson C. Smith Univ Johnson County Jordan, Robert Kansas State Kingwood Clg Lafayette College Lewis & Clark Liberty Logue, Brenda J. Louisiana College Louisville Loyola (IL) LSU-Baton Rouge LSU-Shreveport Marist Marquette Marshall Matsumoto, Shigeru Mercer Miami (FL) Middle Tennessee New York Univ North Dakota State Northern Iowa Northwest Clg Oregon Otterbein Penn State Pepperdine Redlands Richmond Sacramento City Sam Houston San Jose State Scranton Shelton, Michael South Carolina Southeast Missouri Southern Utah Southwest Missouri Southwest Texas SUNY-Binghamton Tennessee Tennessee Tech Texas Tech Trinity University Truman State U of the Pacific UMKC USC-Spartanburg UT-Austin UT-Dallas UT-El Paso UT-San Antonio UT-Tyler Utah Valdosta State Valparaiso Wake Forest Washington Washington (St. Louis) Wayne State Webster Wesleyan West Point Western Washington Wheaton Whitman Wichita State Wofford Greg Simerly Director of Debate, Idaho State University Executive-Secretary, Cross Examination Debate Association Chair, Argumentation & Forensics Interest Group, CSCA Communication & Theatre Box 8115-ISU Pocatello, ID 83209 O (208) 236-5962 F (208) 236-4598 "ISU Debate: we love to fly, and it shows" Alternate slogans from the community: "ISU Debate: we HAVE to fly, and it shows" -Bill Sheffield "ISU Debate: we love to fly when it snows" -Matt Stannard "ISU Debate: if we don't fly, we're no shows" -Frank Irizarry From simegreg Sun Oct 10 22:37:11 1999 From: simegreg (Greg Simerly) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 21:37:11 -0600 Subject: Oct. 1 Exec-Sec Rpt, 2 of 3 Message-ID: 1999-00 CROSS EXAMINATION DEBATE ASSOCIATION National sweepstakes rankings This ranking includes Northern Iowa (except for tiebreaker points), South Carolina RR, South Carolina, Fresno, WWU, SUU, L&C. A school and tournament breakdown of points follows these rankings. Rank/school/total points/total tiebreakers 1 Emory SE 55.5 7 2 Alabama SEC 43 6 3 Gonzaga NW 36 8 4 E Utah* RM 33 13 5 Idaho St NW 33 7 6 CSU-B W 31 9 7 Lewis & Clark NW 28 6 8 S Calf SCA 27 6 9 Whitman NW 26 5 10 SE Louisiana SC 24 8 11 Puget Sound NW 24 5 12 Kansas MA 24 0 13 Arizona St SCA 23 3 14 Berkeley W 22 6 15 Michigan St EC 21 9 16 Emporia St MA 21 0 17 Iowa NC 20 0 18 W Georgia SE 18 1 19 Michigan EC 17 0 20 UMKC MA 17 0 21 Wake Forest SE 17 0 22 CSU-Chico W 16 2 23 Vermont E 15 3 24 W Wash NW 15 0 25 Cal Poly SLO W 14 5 26 Weber St RM 14 3 27 Kentucky SEC 14 0 28 Mercer SE 13 5 29 Louisville SEC 13 0 30 Northwestern NC 13 0 31 Santa Rosa* W 12 4 32 Georgetown E 12 3 33 Ark St SEC 12 1 34 Seattle NW 12 0 35 Casper* RM 11 3 36 Texas SC 11 0 37 Oregon NW 10 0 38 S Carolina SE 9 1 SFSU W 9 1 Vanderbilt SEC 9 1 41 Ark Tech SEC 9 0 Miami (FL) SE 9 0 43 Towson E 8 3 44 Florida SE 8 1 Georgia SE 8 1 45 Baylor SC 8 0 Morehouse SE 8 0 Wyoming RM 8 0 49 LSU-BR SC 7 1 50 CSU-Fllrton SCA 7 0 Macalester NC 7 0 SW Missouri MA 7 0 53 Marshall EC 6.5 0.5 54 MTSU SEC 6 2.5 55 Auggie (IL) NC 6 0 Capital EC 6 0 Clemson SE 6 0 Cumberland SEC 6 0 Fort Hays MA 6 0 John Carroll EC 6 0 Johnson Cnty* MA 6 0 Liberty E 6 0 Pace E 6 0 Samford SEC 6 0 Wayne St EC 6 0 66 McNeese SC 5 2.5 S Utah RM 5 2.5 68 Navy E 5 0 Pitt E 5 0 Utah RM 5 0 71 Biola SCA 4 0 Concordia Clg NC 4 0 Georgia St SE 4 0 Illinois St NC 4 0 San Jose St W 4 0 Tenn Tech SEC 4 0 77 Valdosta St SE 3.5 0 78 Geo Mason E 3 0 Kansas St MA 3 0 Pepperdine SCA 3 0 Richmond SE 3 0 San Diego St SCA 3 0 Wichita St MA 3 0 William J MA 3 0 85 Case Westrn EC 2 0 CSU-Sac W 2 0 JC Smith U SE 2 0 Santa Clara W 2 0 89 Albertson NW 1 0 Chicago NC 1 0 E New Mex RM 1 0 Florida St SE 1 0 Mich-Dearborn EC 1 0 UMSL MA 1 0 Wash U MA 1 0 96 Abiline Christ SC 0 0 Air Force RM 0 0 Allegheny E 0 0 Angelo St SC 0 0 App St SE 0 0 Ark-Monticello SEC 0 0 Auggie (SD) NC 0 0 Bakersfield* W 0 0 Ball State EC 0 0 Boston Col E 0 0 Brevard CC* SE 0 0 Cameron MA 0 0 Carroll RM 0 0 Catholic E 0 0 Cent Meth MA 0 0 Cent Missouri MA 0 0 Cent Ok MA 0 0 Charleston SE 0 0 Citadel SE 0 0 Claremont SCA 0 0 Clarion E 0 0 Cleveland St CC* SEC 0 0 Col Basin CC* NW 0 0 Colorado RM 0 0 Colorado Coll RM 0 0 Columbia E 0 0 Cornell E 0 0 CSU-Fresno W 0 0 CSU-Hayward W 0 0 CSU-LB SCA 0 0 Cypress* SCA 0 0 Dartmouth E 0 0 DePaul NC 0 0 DePauw EC 0 0 Duke SE 0 0 Duquesne E 0 0 El Paso CC* SC 0 0 Fresno City Clg W 0 0 George Wash E 0 0 Georgia Clg SE 0 0 Harding SEC 0 0 Harvard E 0 0 Henderson SEC 0 0 Hillsdale EC 0 0 Illinois Clg NC 0 0 Ithica E 0 0 Jacksonsville SE 0 0 James Mdsn E 0 0 Kings E 0 0 Kingwood SC 0 0 Linfield NW 0 0 Los Rios* W 0 0 Louisiana Col SC 0 0 Loyola (CA) SCA 0 0 Loyola (IL) NC 0 0 LSU-Shreveport SC 0 0 Mansfield E 0 0 Marist E 0 0 Marquette NC 0 0 Mary Wash E 0 0 Methodist (NC) SE 0 0 Modesto* W 0 0 N Dakota St NC 0 0 N Illinois NC 0 0 N Iowa NC 0 0 N Texas SC 0 0 NE Louisiana SC 0 0 Nevada-Reno W 0 0 New Mexico RM 0 0 New York U E 0 0 North Carolina SE 0 0 Northampton E 0 0 Notre Dame EC 0 0 NW College* RM 0 0 Otterbein EC 0 0 Pacific NW 0 0 Pacific Luth NW 0 0 Panola JC* SC 0 0 Pasadina CC* SCA 0 0 Redlands SCA 0 0 Rochester E 0 0 S Colo RM 0 0 S Nevada* SCA 0 0 Sam Houston SC 0 0 San Jacinto* SC 0 0 Santa Cruz W 0 0 SE Missouri MA 0 0 SE Oklahoma MA 0 0 SIU NC 0 0 St. Mary's SC 0 0 SUNY-Bing E 0 0 SW Louisiana SC 0 0 SW ST (MN) NC 0 0 SW Texas SC 0 0 Syracuse E 0 0 Trinity (TX) SC 0 0 Truman St MA 0 0 Tyler JC SC 0 0 USC-Sprtnbrg SE 0 0 UT-Dallas SC 0 0 UT-El Paso SC 0 0 UT-San Anton SC 0 0 UT-Tyler SC 0 0 UW-Oshkosh NC 0 0 W Ky SEC 0 0 W Va EC 0 0 Webster MA 0 0 Wesleyan SE 0 0 West Point E 0 0 Wheaton NC 0 0 Wofford SE 0 0 Xavier (LA) SC 0 0 Greg Simerly Director of Debate, Idaho State University Executive-Secretary, Cross Examination Debate Association Chair, Argumentation & Forensics Interest Group, CSCA Communication & Theatre Box 8115-ISU Pocatello, ID 83209 O (208) 236-5962 F (208) 236-4598 "ISU Debate: we love to fly, and it shows" Alternate slogans from the community: "ISU Debate: we HAVE to fly, and it shows" -Bill Sheffield "ISU Debate: we love to fly when it snows" -Matt Stannard "ISU Debate: if we don't fly, we're no shows" -Frank Irizarry From simegreg Sun Oct 10 22:37:26 1999 From: simegreg (Greg Simerly) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 21:37:26 -0600 Subject: Oct. 1 Exec-Sec Rpt, 3 of 3 Message-ID: 1999-00 CROSS EXAMINATION DEBATE ASSOCIATION Sweepstakes points/tiebreakers earned for each school at each tournament This tells you how many points I have recorded for each tournament. For example, Alabama earned at the MTSU tournament 14 sweepstakes points and 3 tiebreaker points; at the S Carolina round robin, 13 points and 3 tiebreaker points; and at S Carolina, 16 points but no tiebreakers. If a tournament isn't listed here, it's likely that the tournament director hasn't reported it. Abiline Christ Air Force ALABAMA: MTSU 14/3, SC RR 13/3, SC 16, ALBERTSON: L&C 1, Allegheny Angelo St App St ARIZONA ST: SUU 6, SC RR 3, SC 14/3, ARK ST: MTSU 12/1, ARK TECH: MTSU 9, Ark-Monticello AUGIE (IL): UNI 6, Auggie (SD) Austin Peay Azusa Pacific Bakersfield* Ball State BAYLOR: UNI 8, BERKELY: Fresno 14/6, UNI 8, Biola Boston Col Brevard CC* CAL POLY SLO: Fresno 14/5, Cameron CAPITAL: MTSU 6, Carroll CASE WESTERN: UNI 2, CASPER*: SUU 11/3, Catholic Cent Meth Cent Missouri Cent Ok Charleston CHICAGO: UNI 1, Citadel Claremont Clarion CLEMSON: MTSU 6, Cleveland St CC* Col Basin CC* Colorado Colorado Coll Columbia CONCORDIA CLG: UNI 4, Cornell CSU-B: Fresno 13/3, SUU 15/6, L&C 3, CSU-CHICO: Fresno10/2, L&C 6, CSU-FULLERTON: Fresno 4, UNI 3, CSU-Fresno CSU-Hayward CSU-LB CSU-SAC: Fresno 2, CUMBERLAND: MTSU 6, Cypress* Dartmouth DePaul DePauw Duke Duquesne E NEW MEX: UNI 1, E UTAH*: Fresno 20/8, SUU 13/5, El Paso CC* EMORY: MTSU 1.5, SC RR 14/6,SC 20/1, UNI 20, EMPORIA: UNI 21, FLORIDA: MTSU 8/1, FLORIDA ST: UNI 1, FORT HAYS: UNI 6, Fresno City Clg GEORGE MASON: UNI 3, George Wash GEORGETOWN: SC 12/3, GEORGIA: SC 8/1, Georgia Clg: GEORGIA ST: SC 4, GONZAGA: WWU 9, L&C 24/8, UNI 3, Harding Harvard Henderson Hillsdale IDAHO ST: MTSU 18/5, SUU10/2, L&C 5, Illinois Clg ILLINOIS ST: UNI 4, IOWA: UNI 20, Jacksonsville James Mdsn JC SMITH U: MTSU 2, JOHN CARROLL: UNI 6, JOHNSON CCC*: UNI 6, KANSAS: UNI 24, KANSAS ST: UNI 3, KENTUCKY: UNI 14, Kings Kingwood LEWIS & CLARK: WWU 10/4, L&C 18/2, LIBERTY: UNI 6, Linfield Los Rios* Louisiana Col LOUISVILLE: MTSU 6, UNI 7, Loyola (CA) Loyola (IL) LSU-BR: MTSU 7/1, LSU-Shreveport MACALASTER: UNI 7, Mansfield Marist Marquette MARSHALL: MTSU 6.5/.5, Mary Wash MCNEESE: MTSU 5/2.5, MERCER: SC RR 0, SC 13/5, Methodist (NC) MIAMI (FL): SC RR 1, SC 3, L&C 5, MICH-DEARBORN: UNI 1, MICHIGAN: UNI 17, MICHIGAN ST: SC RR 6, UNI 15, Modesto* MOREHOUSE: 8, MTSU: MTSU 5/2.5, SC RR 1, N Dakota St N Illinois N Iowa N Texas NAVY: UNI 5, NE Louisiana Nevada-Reno New Mexico New York U North Carolina Northampton NORTHWESTERN: UNI 13, Notre Dame NW College* OREGON: WWU 5, L&C 5, PACE: UNI 6, Pacific Pacific Luth Panola JC* Pasadina CC* PEPPERDINE: Fresno 3, PITT: UNI 5, PUGET SOUND: WWU 7, L&C 17/5, Redlands RICHMOND: SC 3, Rochester S CALIFORNIA: SC RR 6/1, UNI 7, S CAROLINA: SC RR 3, SC 6/1, S Colo S Nevada* S UTAH: Fresno 2, SUU 3/2.5, Sam Houston SAMFORD: UNI 6, SAN DIEGO ST: Fresno 3, San Jacinto* SAN JOSE ST: Fresno 4, Santa Clara Santa Cruz SANTA ROSA*: Fresno 12/4, SE LOUISIANA: MTSU 24/8, SE Missouri SE Oklahoma SEATTLE: WWU 4, L&C 8, SFSU: Fresno 9/1, SIU St. Mary's SUNY-Bing SW Louisiana SW MISSOURI: UNI 7, SW ST (MN) SW Texas Syracuse TENN TECH: MTSU 4, TEXAS: UNI 11, TOWSON: MTSU 8/3, Trinity (TX) Truman St Tyler JC U of Pacific UMKC: UNI 17, UMSL: MTSU 1, UNCC UNLV USC-Sprtnbrg UTAH: SUU 5, UT-Dallas UT-El Paso UT-San Anton UT-Tyler UW-Oshkosh VALDOSTA ST: MTSU 3.5, VANDY: MTSU 9/1, VERMONT: SC RR 2, SC 10/3, UNI 3, W GEORGIA: SC RR 4, SC 14/1, W Ky W Va WAKE FOREST: SC RR 3, UNI 14, Walters State* WASH U: MTSU 1, WAYNE ST: UNI 6, WEBER ST: SUU 9/3, Webster Wesleyan West Point WESTERN WASH: WWU 7, L&C 8, Wharton Wheaton WHITMAN: WWU 11/5, L&C 15, WICHITA ST: UNI 3, WILLIAM JEWELL: UNI 3, Wofford WYOMING: SUU 2, UNI 6, Xavier (LA) Greg Simerly Director of Debate, Idaho State University Executive-Secretary, Cross Examination Debate Association Chair, Argumentation & Forensics Interest Group, CSCA Communication & Theatre Box 8115-ISU Pocatello, ID 83209 O (208) 236-5962 F (208) 236-4598 "ISU Debate: we love to fly, and it shows" Alternate slogans from the community: "ISU Debate: we HAVE to fly, and it shows" -Bill Sheffield "ISU Debate: we love to fly when it snows" -Matt Stannard "ISU Debate: if we don't fly, we're no shows" -Frank Irizarry From meaves Mon Oct 11 08:00:14 1999 From: meaves (Michael_Eaves) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 09:00:14 -0400 Subject: CEDA NATS???? Dates?? In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.19991010213711.007ab100@isu.edu> Message-ID: I need the exact dates for CEDA NATS. I need to lock in on cheap northwest flights. March somthing. thanks. mike eaves valdosta state From jwpatt00 Mon Oct 11 09:19:19 1999 From: jwpatt00 (J.W. Patterson) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 10:19:19 -0400 Subject: TOC: WAKE POLICY QUALS Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 1894 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/19991011/8f6f28dd/attachment.bin From privethedge Mon Oct 11 09:50:22 1999 From: privethedge (Duane Hyland) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 07:50:22 -0700 Subject: Richmond Results? Message-ID: Hi, just wondering if anyone out there has the results from Richmond? Which, by the way, was an OUTSTANDING TOURNAMENT!!:) My hat is off to Jason and the rest of the Spiders for there great treatment of us!!:) No rush, just trying to find out if one of our novice teams broke. Duane, Mansfield U. ===== __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com >From Mon Oct 11 11:35:18 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 42030 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 11:36:03 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo26.mx.aol.com (imo26.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.70]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA22608 for ; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 11:35:53 -0400 Received: from Sgw8 at aol.com by imo26.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id nNISa26506 (3969) for ; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 11:35:18 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 41 Message-ID: <0.c1eafe6c.25335db6 at aol.com> Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 11:35:18 EDT Reply-To: Sgw8 at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Darius Wilkins Subject: Today is October 11 And it is gay/bi/lesbian come out day. If you have thought about leaving the cramped closet, make it today that you tell your family and friends! In order to get food from the neighborhood soup kitchen, you have to be visible! When there's enough of the multiflavors in the soup kitchen, let's buy it out and remake it into a coffeehouse! Rainforest friendly coffee anyone? Seditious talk come with it you know! Darius Wilkins P.S. (Hopefully) When you leave, leave the door open so everybody else can get out if they want. From abowser Mon Oct 11 06:52:19 1999 From: abowser (Ashley Bowser) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 11:52:19 +0000 Subject: paging STEVE DONALD!!! Message-ID: Reply to: paging STEVE DONALD!!! Sorry for the clutter, but I would like to touch base with Steve...... Ashley Bowser EHS Debate From simegreg Mon Oct 11 12:27:42 1999 From: simegreg (Greg Simerly) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 11:27:42 -0600 Subject: Oct. 1 Exec-Sec Rpt, 2 of 3 Message-ID: >Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 07:31:30 -0500 (CDT) >From: Andrew Kemp >To: Greg Simerly >Subject: Re: Oct. 1 Exec-Sec Rpt, 2 of 3 > > >DO the rabkings only include certain tournaments, how come they do not >inlcude Wheaton? I can only include tournament results that have been submitted to me. Wheaton results have not been submitted to me. I wish I could include results that I didn't have. This job would be easier. Cheers, Greg > >Andrew Kemp >---------------- >PO Box 4308 >Concordia College >Moorhead, MN 56562 >------------------ >(218) 299-2970 >Livedalen Hall 111 > > Greg Simerly Director of Debate, Idaho State University Executive-Secretary, Cross Examination Debate Association Chair, Argumentation & Forensics Interest Group, CSCA Communication & Theatre Box 8115-ISU Pocatello, ID 83209 O (208) 236-5962 F (208) 236-4598 "ISU Debate: we love to fly, and it shows" Alternate slogans from the community: "ISU Debate: we HAVE to fly, and it shows" -Bill Sheffield "ISU Debate: we love to fly when it snows" -Matt Stannard "ISU Debate: if we don't fly, we're no shows" -Frank Irizarry From simegreg Mon Oct 11 12:33:03 1999 From: simegreg (Greg Simerly) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 11:33:03 -0600 Subject: No subject Message-ID: >To: "Deon Garner" >From: Greg Simerly >Subject: Re: Oct. 1 Exec-Sec Rpt, 1 of 3 >In-Reply-To: <19991011154158.10802.qmail at hotmail.com> > >At 08:41 AM 10/11/1999 PDT, you wrote: >>Greg, >> >>Hi there. I hope all is well. I saw that Morehouse was ommitted from your >>list of paid members. >> >>Is that an oversight on our part or your part? No, but thanks for your vote of confidence. I've received a purchase order, but no check for dues. Cheers, Greg >> >>Thanks, >> >>Deon >> >>______________________________________________________ >>Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com >> Greg Simerly Director of Debate, Idaho State University Executive-Secretary, Cross Examination Debate Association Chair, Argumentation & Forensics Interest Group, CSCA Communication & Theatre Box 8115-ISU Pocatello, ID 83209 O (208) 236-5962 F (208) 236-4598 "ISU Debate: we love to fly, and it shows" Alternate slogans from the community: "ISU Debate: we HAVE to fly, and it shows" -Bill Sheffield "ISU Debate: we love to fly when it snows" -Matt Stannard "ISU Debate: if we don't fly, we're no shows" -Frank Irizarry From simegreg Mon Oct 11 12:42:14 1999 From: simegreg (Greg Simerly) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 11:42:14 -0600 Subject: MTSU novice octa points Message-ID: > >Hey Greg, >I thought we earned 27 CEDA points at MTSU. Octa-finals in novice at MTSU wasn't pointworthy. There wasn't the requisite 29 teams in the division. So, even though the round was held, it does not earn points for those teams involved. Cheers, Greg Greg Simerly Director of Debate, Idaho State University Executive-Secretary, Cross Examination Debate Association Chair, Argumentation & Forensics Interest Group, CSCA Communication & Theatre Box 8115-ISU Pocatello, ID 83209 O (208) 236-5962 F (208) 236-4598 "ISU Debate: we love to fly, and it shows" Alternate slogans from the community: "ISU Debate: we HAVE to fly, and it shows" -Bill Sheffield "ISU Debate: we love to fly when it snows" -Matt Stannard "ISU Debate: if we don't fly, we're no shows" -Frank Irizarry From steveman Mon Oct 11 08:52:23 1999 From: steveman (Steve Mancuso) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 13:52:23 +0000 Subject: Hired Judging for Cap City Message-ID: I'm looking to hire 4 rounds of judging for the Cap City tournament. If anyone is interested please respond. Thanks. Steve Mancuso University of Michigan From jwpatt00 Mon Oct 11 12:45:45 1999 From: jwpatt00 (J.W. Patterson) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 13:45:45 -0400 Subject: TOC: UNIVERSITY OF PA. QUALS Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 1341 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/19991011/fa6689d0/attachment.bin From jwpatt00 Mon Oct 11 13:01:45 1999 From: jwpatt00 (J.W. Patterson) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 14:01:45 -0400 Subject: TOC: MONTICELLO QUALS Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 1066 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/19991011/769f9094/attachment.bin From se_region Mon Oct 11 14:09:38 1999 From: se_region (Deon Garner) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 12:09:38 PDT Subject: Sam Houston Case/Argument List Message-ID: Hey all, I was wondering is there was a case/argument lost put out or compiled before/during/after the SMS tournament? If I could get any help on the teams that were there, I would sincerely appreciate it. Also, is there an indication of what schools will be at LSU next weekend? Thanks, Deon ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From langwka5 Mon Oct 11 14:48:32 1999 From: langwka5 (Kristin A Langwell) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 15:48:32 -0400 Subject: TEXAS EVINS/GROVE? In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.19991010213726.007abba0@isu.edu> Message-ID: hey ya'll, was hoping you could provide us with some information about your narrative affirmative. plan text, explanation and cites would be appreciated. thanks much, kristin iowa 2000 From se_region Mon Oct 11 15:10:13 1999 From: se_region (Deon Garner) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 13:10:13 PDT Subject: Sam Houston Caselist-sorry Message-ID: In my last message, i accidentally asked for a case list from SMS. I was inquiring about Sam Houston. Thanks, Deon ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From hoppock Mon Oct 11 16:15:49 1999 From: hoppock (matthew hoppock) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 16:15:49 -0500 Subject: NEC-Music From Another Room References: Message-ID: shawnessy, you say: > 3) Communication styles. I believe it was Ed Lee, but i could be wrong, who > once said that debate robbed minorities and women of their natural > communication style for a more masculine, structured style. is there a way > to deal with this?? is the community even aware of it?? how do you flow > it?? how do you evaluate it?? is this too oppressive or is it necessary?? > all important questions that must be asked. response: what is the "natural" communication style for ALL women and ALL minorities? you seem to indicate that one exists...at the point that you place all women and all minorities into a category that has no exceptions. I would agree that from the iception of platonic thinking (st. thomas aquinas writes a bunch on it) that women have been viewed as more emotional and men as more rational or structured. But, just because this stereotype exists, why do you essentialize all women into those roles? I don't think it's inherent in being a man or a woman to prefer either speaking style (or either way of thinking). I personally tend to be much more emotional than logical in some decision-making processes. Additionally, why does their communications style of CHOICE necessarrily have to be DIFFERENT than that of men or the majority or whatever? This seems to set up a system where women and minorities (minorities is such a bad term for this type of label anyway) are constructed as the "other". How does debate "rob" anyone of anything...I chose to become involved in debate and I'm assuming that you did too. Why do you construct all women and all minoritites as victims...such an over-powering force is obviously too large to deconstruct. If it's something that none of us can control and is happeing on the level of totality, then why do anything about it? do you see how this type of rhetoric can tend to passify the public? matthew From karrottop Mon Oct 11 17:34:06 1999 From: karrottop (Mike Campbell) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 17:34:06 -0500 Subject: UTD Message-ID: could somone at UTD (preferably somone possibly interested in IPDA (Public Debate)) backslap me... karrottop at mail.utexas.edu hating computer labs, Mike TPD From hormone68 Mon Oct 11 17:42:01 1999 From: hormone68 (james herndon) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 15:42:01 PDT Subject: HELP?! Message-ID: if anyone out there has any capitalism kritik cites, and i know someone must have them, please backchannel them my way. thanks and sorry for the clutter, james herndon mercer debate ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From jstone Mon Oct 11 17:59:31 1999 From: jstone (J. E. Stone) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 18:59:31 -0400 Subject: UR Results Message-ID: Dear Community, The subject line says it all. However, before I give the results of the last Spider Classic. I think the tournament was a smashing success. We hosted 60 teams, representing 17 squads, from 9 different states. I have a lot of people I must thank. First, Brett O'Donnell of Liberty University ran one of the most efficent and on time tab rooms that I have ever seen. Brett even managed to get round 5 off 15 minutes early!!! Second, Mike Berry of Kings College helped me negotiate so many of the ins and outs of what I needed to be directing the tournament staff to be doing. (On top of fulfilling his judging requirement). Both of these gentlemen did an outstanding service to the activity, and I thank them. Third, I would like to would also like to thank my debaters: Sara, Kelly, Joe, and Mohammed. They worked so hard. I'm very proud to be their coach. Scott Luchetti my assistant coach was invaluable. Because it was fall break the five of them basically ran the whole thing. They did an awesome job. Fourth, I would like to thank my old debate partner from Southeastern LA Tony Fagan who made the trek from Jackson, MS to help out with the tournment. I could always count on Tony to solve problems as they occured. Also, Kenny Hanson, who came up from Columbia, SC to judge and helped out with other stuff. It was great to have two people so close to me around for the tournament. Fifth, I would like to thank all the coaches and collegues that I have had over the years. Each of you taught me something that came in handy this weekend. I am forever indebted to you all. Sixth, I would like to thank all the administrators and University employees who made this special event possible: Michelle Eicher, Sue Murphy at the Jepson School, LueEllen Blackwelder in the Business School, Last but certainly not least, I would like to thank Andrea and Ian for putting up with my exhaustion and keeping me sane this year. Here are the results: Varsity Speakers: 1. Amber Tussing (Mary Washington) 170 2. Michael Pomorski (Catholic) 169 3. J. Marks (Binghamton) 169 4. Andrew Stangl (Pitt) 167.5 5. Joe Schatz (Binghamton) 167 JV Speakers: 1. Sara Wilson (Catholic) 169 2. Joshua Whitechair (West VA) 167.5 3. David Cooper (Liberty) 167 4. Luke O'Connell (Catholic) 167 5. Laura Gall (Liberty) 166 6. Rebekah Meador (Liberty) 165 7. Janeri Rivero (Liberty) 163 8. Stephen Marshall (West Va) 165 Novice Speakers: 1. Brain Kane (Boston College) 167.5 2. Chris Flores (Catholic) 166.5 3. Scott Jones (Liberty) 166 4. Matt Berg (Liberty) 166 5. Thomas O'Gorman (Catholic) 165 6. Chad Flick (Wake) 164.5 7. Katy Kasmai (George Mason) 165.5 8. Julie Outten (Liberty) 165.5 9. Ryan Cunningham (Liberty) 164.5 10. Jonathan Hiler (Navy) 165 Varsity Outrounds: Semis: Binghamton MS (neg) defeated Catholic FP 2-1 Liberty FY (Aff) defeated Pitt KS 2-1 The Protagoras Cup Championship: Liberty-Leah Frazier & Nick Yingst (Aff)defeated Binghamton-J.Schatz & J.Marks 3-0 JV Outrounds: Quarterfinals: Liberty CM Advances over Liberty MR Catholic PO (Aff) defeated West VA NP 3-0 George Mason CM (Neg) defeated Catholic OW 2-1 West VA MW (Aff) defeated Catholic LS 2-1 Semis: Libery CM (Neg) defeated West VA MW 3-0 Catholic PO (Neg) defeated George Mason CM 3-0 Finals: Catholic PO (Aff) defeated Liberty CM 3-0 Novice Outrounds: Octafinals: Boston College HK (Neg) defeated Liberty BO 3-0 Liberty BC (Aff) defeated George Mason KW 2-1 Catholic FS (Neg) defeated George Mason LW 3-0 Catholic MO Advances Over Catholic DV West VA HJ (Neg) defeated Catholic OP 3-0 Navy StRu (Aff) defeated King's BP 2-1 Liberty JM (Aff) defeated Catholic BM 2-1 Wake FG defeated Navy BF 3-0 Quarters: Boston College HK (Neg) defeated Wake Forest FG 3-0 Liberty BC Advances Over Liberty JM Catholic FS (Neg) defeated Navy StRu 3-0 Catholic MO (Neg) defeated West VA HJ 3-0 Semis: Catholic MO (Aff) defeated Boston College HK 2-1 Liberty BC (Aff) defeated Catholic FS 3-0 Finals: Liberty BC (Aff) defeated Catholic MO 3-0 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 lacyjp Mon Oct 11 20:53:51 1999 From: lacyjp (JP Lacy) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 18:53:51 -0700 Subject: dispositionality and side bias In-Reply-To: <011c01bf1090$953b74e0$2700a5d1@kcfd54> Message-ID: On Wed, 6 Oct 1999, Bob Lechtreck wrote: >This is why I have always believed that a c/plan is a TEST of the >opportunity cost of the plan. It is NOT an advocated choice (more on this > below). Neither is the perm advocated. All it is, is a TEST of the > competitiveness of the c/plan. I don't get it. Counterplans are advocated. Here is an example: Two fires are reported at the same time. Fire #1 is in a dumpster in the middle of a parking lot. Fire #2 is about to engulf a hospital. The fire station can only respond to one fire. Plan: Respond to fire #1. Counterplan: Respond to fire #2. If the judge believes that the counterplan is the best idea, they had better respond to fire #2. --JP Lacy From hunt Mon Oct 11 21:00:25 1999 From: hunt (Steven Hunt) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 19:00:25 -0700 Subject: A Public thank you Message-ID: The Lewis & Clark Pioneer Invitational Oct 8-10, 1999 was larger than ever with 33 colleges and universities, nearly 100 parli teams, nearly 45 policy teams, and hundreds of IE entrants. It could not have been run fairly, efficiently, and graciously without the incredible help of several people who I would like to thank most profusely. Parli Debate Steve Johnson U of Alaska Anchorage Melissa Franke and Brian Shipley Willamette Policy Debate Kelly McDonald of Western Washington University Rick Peacor of University of Oregon Individual Events Ed Inch Pacific Lutheran University Shawnalee Whitney U of Alaska Anchorage You folks did a tremendous job!!!!!! You are great, competent, professionals!!!! Steve Hunt Lewis & Clark College q From db8coach Mon Oct 11 21:43:42 1999 From: db8coach (Bob Lechtreck) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 19:43:42 -0700 Subject: dispositionality and side bias Message-ID: >>>>>>>>>> I don't get it. Counterplans are advocated. Here is an example: >>>>>>>>>> I will answer the example below, but I think we need a little more than just: "Counterplans are advocated". What is your theoretical grounding for a c/plan? >>>>>>>>>> Two fires are reported at the same time. Fire #1 is in a dumpster in the middle of a parking lot. Fire #2 is about to engulf a hospital. The fire station can only respond to one fire. Plan: Respond to fire #1. Counterplan: Respond to fire #2. If the judge believes that the counterplan is the best idea, they had better respond to fire #2. >>>>>>>>>> Hahahaha, I love the example. No, there may be a third fire in a very crowded school. We don't know. All we know FOR SURE, is that we shouldn't respond to fire #1. Whether or not we respond to fire #2 is up for discussion (another fire even more important?), but fire #1 is definitely out. This is what I mean about your theoretical grounding. If the purpose of the c/plan is to reject the aff plan (otherwise, why is competition important), then the c/plan only needs to test the desirability of the plan. If you think the c/plan is a better option, then you reject the aff plan. It doesn't mean you accept the c/plan. But the fire example was fun, Peace, Bob Lechtreck Bakersfield College "Putting out fires, and damn good debaters". From brian Mon Oct 11 21:50:13 1999 From: brian (Brian Wassom) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 22:50:13 -0400 Subject: Singapore debaters need coaches' help Message-ID: Greetings; I was contacted by a former U.S. debater, now serving with the US army in Singapore, who is seeking help learning how to coach the teams there. Singapore teams debate in the "World Series" style, and he needs information "on coaching and a module-based content scheme to inculcate information progressively." If any of you experienced coaches out there could offer him some pointers, I'm sure it would be very beneficial for a number fo students. This person's name is Ramesh Muthusamy, and his email address is meshar at pacific.net.sg . Thanks! ************************************************** Brian D. Wassom, Esq. Law Clerk, Hon. Alice M. Batchelder U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Medina, OH home: 330.721.8202 / brian at wassom.com office: 330.764.6030 / bwassom at ck6.uscourts.gov fax: 330.725.7760 web: http://wassom.com/ AOL IM: Wassdoggg ICQ: 21897455 "He who gets wisdom loves his own soul; he who cherishes understanding prospers." Proverbs 19:8 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/19991011/b53d0637/attachment.html From lacyjp Mon Oct 11 21:53:09 1999 From: lacyjp (JP Lacy) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 19:53:09 -0700 Subject: dispositionality and side bias In-Reply-To: <007601bf145b$9b8c35e0$3b02a5d1@db8coach> Message-ID: On Mon, 11 Oct 1999, Bob Lechtreck wrote: > What is your theoretical grounding for a > c/plan? Rational Choice. > Plan: Respond to fire #1. > > Counterplan: Respond to fire #2. > > If the judge believes that the counterplan is the best idea, they had > better respond to fire #2. > >>>>>>>>>> > > Hahahaha, I love the example. No, there may be a third fire in a very > crowded school. Why wouldn't you respond to the worst *known* fire in the vicinity? I still don't understand why you would sit around and let the hospital burn. --JP Lacy From db8coach Mon Oct 11 22:31:08 1999 From: db8coach (Bob Lechtreck) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 20:31:08 -0700 Subject: dispositionality and side bias Message-ID: >>>>>>>>>> > What is your theoretical grounding for a c/plan? Rational Choice. >>>>>>>>>> Then why have competition? If you are choosing the best of TWO choices, why does the c/plan have to compete. Remember, there is noone who advocated doing both. Aff said do XYZ and neg said do ABC. Neither team advocated doing ABCXYZ. So why have competition if you have two choices and you choose one of them. Plus, I am not sure how "rational choice" is theoretically grounded. >>>>>>>>>> Why wouldn't you respond to the worst *known* fire in the vicinity? I still don't understand why you would sit around and let the hospital burn. >>>>>>>>>> I would. But in your example, you do not show whether or not there is a third fire. You only mention two of them. There could be a third or fourth choice waiting out there. That's why I would say that the only thing we know for sure is that we reject the first fire. Yes, there is every likelyhood that we would respond to the second fire, but we are not locked into it. We are ONLY locked into rejection of the first. In any event, you have to begin at the beginning, and in a plan focus debate, the c/plan is a reason for rejection of the aff plan. THAT'S why there is competition (if the c/plan is not relevant - reason to reject the aff plan - then it is not evaluated). And as a reason to reject the aff plan, the c/plan does NOT have to be an advocated choice, only a missed opportunity. Peace, Bob Lechtreck Bakersfield College "Putting out fires, and damn good debaters". From kenneth.delaughder Mon Oct 11 22:52:58 1999 From: kenneth.delaughder (Kenneth DeLaughder) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 21:52:58 -0600 Subject: spew downs are us Message-ID: After getting home form SMS, and dodging some work, I just thought I would air something that I commented on in an octas round that I judged today at SMS. Its about counterplan debates.. well some debates might go down this wayon other issues, but its been happening alot on counterplans... Its the "I can run anything I want if I can put up enough of an answer wall in a speech to make people not want to challenge me on it" style of argument. Its been happening laot of counterplan theory debates, which is maybe why alot of judges arent even bothering to sort through the crap anymore, walls of answers are made by the negative block, and the 1ar and no one ever bothers to address jack. (this is a generality, not a round specific thing, although it was happening to some extent) sooo, I know I talked about the speed of the activity with some folk at JCCC, including debaters and coaches, who think that maybe we are getting a little out of control, and maybe Im starting to think on some issues they may be right... If the block puts up a wall of theory arguments on why they can do anything they please, and the 1ar cant cover, so they default to their own set of arguments that they cant, I dont liuke sorting through that confusing theory debate... what happens... negative wins that stuff by default... Coaches have told me they dont really listen to PICs bad, etc, because its devolved so badly... Reminds me of whats happening with topicality... By the way, does anyone really debate T anymore? Where is Dave Fillipi! I heard one coach saying this weekend "who cares if its really topical, as long as you can find some literature that hints at a topic countryy, so just say lit checks abuse and most judges go.. oh yeah, go do some research dammit..." bein the lone coach.. on this squad, it kinda makes me think maybe I wont get sleep as this topic explodes... anyway, I know, somewhat disjointed, but the thought are the same, lets see how many answers, and mind you alot of this isnt BLIPPY, they have warrants, we can spew down, and anything becomes possible, debate gets somewhere lost in this shuffle, maybe Id better think about my philosophy some, but thats good isn't it? and just for kicks :) Also.. ya know, Ill be damned if I know why my teams can run Dynamic systems THeory, aka COmplexity theory, and get ad hommed by coaching staffs, but any damn liberal kritik idea that the other folk run that talk about issues like feminism, eco fem, fem ir, or some other reductionist junk that the postmodernists write get embraced to rethink our wicked ways... sheesh folks... We know how Galileo felt, but Ill default to the Nessa Horwich standard, run it until they get it :) smiley noted for the humor/ignorant.. heh heh thanks to SMS... I love the baby carrots... off to bed Ken From mkrueger Mon Oct 11 22:57:08 1999 From: mkrueger (mkrueger) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 22:57:08 -0500 Subject: sms results? Message-ID: i know i know. but i am curious about what happened. thanks, mike Michael A. Krueger Director of Debate Middle Tennessee State University Box 43 Murfreesboro, TN 37132 (615) 898-5607 http://www.mtsu.edu/~debate/ >From Mon Oct 11 23:59:11 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 37564 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 00:58:33 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from saluki-mailsmtp.siu.edu (saluki-mailsmtp.siu.edu [131.230.252.26]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA47664 for ; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 00:58:31 -0400 Received: from saluki-mail.siu.edu (saluki-mail.siu.edu [131.230.252.17]) by saluki-mailsmtp.siu.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id XAA92720 for ; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 23:58:05 -0500 Received: from tupelo (port43.aixdialin.siu.edu [131.230.253.43]) by saluki-mail.siu.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id XAA27250 for ; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 23:59:11 -0500 X-Sender: slusher at saluki-mail.siu.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-ID: <199910120459.XAA27250 at saluki-mail.siu.edu> Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 23:59:11 -0500 Reply-To: slusher at SIU.EDU To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Eric Slusher Subject: Re: dispositionality and side bias At 06:53 PM 10/11/99 -0700, you wrote: >On Wed, 6 Oct 1999, Bob Lechtreck wrote: >>This is why I have always believed that a c/plan is a TEST of the >>opportunity cost of the plan. It is NOT an advocated choice (more on this >> below). Neither is the perm advocated. All it is, is a TEST of the >> competitiveness of the c/plan. > >I don't get it. Counterplans are advocated. Here is an example: > >Two fires are reported at the same time. Fire #1 is in a dumpster in the >middle of a parking lot. Fire #2 is about to engulf a hospital. The fire >station can only respond to one fire. > >Plan: Respond to fire #1. > >Counterplan: Respond to fire #2. > >If the judge believes that the counterplan is the best idea, they had >better respond to fire #2. Or, they had better not respond to fire #1 because they can only respond to one and it should be fire #2. It's a subtle difference that really doesn't matter to the outcome of the debate - but it does matter to a conceptualization of opportunity cost. slusher >From Tue Oct 12 01:37:54 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 37813 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 01:38:32 -0400 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 BAA51264 for ; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 01:38:29 -0400 Received: from Bmpasourus at aol.com by imo-d09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id nWEF05qWo8 (4324) for ; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 01:37:54 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 26 Message-ID: <0.74dc6373.25342332 at aol.com> Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 01:37:54 EDT Reply-To: Bmpasourus at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: James Wright Subject: complexity theory?? yeah i read someone talking about on the group and i havent seen it in our region so if someone could hook me up with a thesis that would be nice From STRICKLG Tue Oct 12 08:09:02 1999 From: STRICKLG (Glen Strickland) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 08:09:02 -0500 Subject: Pflaum Debates Message-ID: Here is a preliminary list for the National Pflaum Debates. For those of you who will be attending, I remind you that registration will be Friday evening (7pm to 10pm) in the lobby of King Hall on the university campus. Also, if there is anyone out there willing to be hired at $15 per debate, please contact me immediately. And it would help if those of you who will be judging send me your conflicts asap. Some of you already have, and that is very helpful. All of us at ESU look forward to seeing you in Emporia this weekend. Glen Strickland 45th NATIONAL PFLAUM DEBATES EMPORIA STATE UNIVERSITY Early: TEAM/JUDGE LIST Augustana College (South Dakota) Dom Washington/Allison Proctor (JV) Judge: Heather Aldridge Concordia College Harry Niska/Andrew Kemp (Open) John Kelly/Chris Stinson (Open) Keesha Tillmon/Sarah Toop (JV) Judge: Fred Sternhagen Ft. Hays State University Andrew Halverson/Jason Regnier (Open) Joseph Ramsey/Brent Saindon (Open) Judge: Tony Penders George Mason University Jay Igiel/Frances Tufts (Open) Judge: Warren Decker University of Iowa Clay Cleveland/Amy Herrick (Open) Ted Moore/Daniel Prada (Open) Sherene Judeh/Tara Voss (Open) Sherwin Amiran/Jenny Wing (Open) Judges: Michele Choe & Jon Wiebel University of Michigan Dearborn Taimaa Hussein/Carlos Rangel (Open) Judge: Stacey Sowards University of Northern Iowa Adam Briddell/Jen Rawe (Open) Judge: Cate Palczewski University of North Texas Jason Sykes/John Hines (Open) Lauren Hildebrand/Holly Fortner (Open) Julian Gagnon/Scotty Gottbreht (Open) Matt Shaftstall/Sloan Callum (Open) Judges: Josh Hoe & Tara Tate University of Wyoming James Blevins/Steve Lunsford (Open) One JV team Judge: John Foy Wichita State University Shannon Holland/Tom O'Toole (Open) James Harris/Kat Gillum (Open) Brian Gough/Tony Nation (Open) Darah Fellows/Melissa Angle (JV) Judges: Darren Elliott & Ishak >From Tue Oct 12 03:42:20 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 39131 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 09:25:53 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo16.mx.aol.com (imo16.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.6]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA47732 for ; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 09:25:48 -0400 Received: from CliffUTenn at aol.com by imo16.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id nHCZa12219 (4402) for ; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 03:42:21 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 26 Message-ID: <0.8e6e0784.2534405c at aol.com> Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 03:42:20 EDT Reply-To: CliffUTenn at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Cliff Sands Subject: Oil Help! To all who can help, Can anyone who has the WDI Oil File please give me some cites of the cards that indicate lifiting economic sanctions would increase oil consumption. Thank You Cliff Sands UTenn Debate From louden Tue Oct 12 09:48:13 1999 From: louden (Allan Louden) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 10:48:13 -0400 Subject: WFU Dixie Classic Announcment Message-ID: The entry information for the Franklin R. Shirley Dixie Classic Debates is now available at: http://www.wfu.edu/Student-organizations/debate/Dixiepage.html Please not entry deadlines (Oct 27th) for a guaranteed slot. Hotel information also at the homepage. Allan D. Louden, Dir. of Debate Wake Forest University Box 7347, Reynolda Station Winston-Salem, NC 27109 (336) 758-5408 (336) 758-4691 (fax) http://www.wfu.edu/~debate http://www.wfu.edu/~louden From roger37 Tue Oct 12 00:50:34 1999 From: roger37 (Roger Saad) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 22:50:34 PDT Subject: spew downs are us Message-ID: Since I was in the Octos round the Ken was reffering to and was the 2nc spewing down theory arguements, I would like to comment. First, I am glad that I didn't go for feminism in this debate otherwise Ken may not have picked us up. Secondly, I am not sure why if the negative has WARRANTS for their arguments as to WHY their theory arguements such as PICs and Conditionallity and Performative contradictions are justified that there is anything wrong with the negative making lots of arguemants. In the Deabte Ken is reffering to, it was very strategic for the affrimative to make me spend a lot of my 2nc being defensive on theory arguments as opposed to spending more time extending case turns or making responses to their treat construction position which in the end did not win the aff the debate, but they did pick up a ballot on it. The other thing making lots of arguments did was help justify some of the affirmative theory arguments on a permutation to a c/p which in the end the affirmative was probably winning a risk that the theory behind their permutation was legitimate. I guess the point I am trying to make is, smart 1ars can realize what they need to do and which theory arguments they need to answer. If a 1ar needs to win a PIC is bad or conditionallity is bad, then answering 10 2nc/1nr arguements can be done in time efficient ways. Besides we're negative and Like Greg Achten says it's hard to be negative. Roger KU ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From deongarner Tue Oct 12 00:51:55 1999 From: deongarner (Deon Garner) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 22:51:55 PDT Subject: No subject Message-ID: scan edebate o'dor scan edebate duke ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From roger37 Tue Oct 12 00:56:12 1999 From: roger37 (Roger Saad) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 22:56:12 PDT Subject: sms results? Message-ID: Quarters Teams that dropped in Qaurters Emory LN over Texas DN 2-1 UMKC BC over Texas GN? 3-0 UMKC WC over Kansas TS 2-1 Alabama GP over Emporia MM? 2-1 semi's Emory (Lynn and McGough) (aff) vs. UMKC (Baisley and Cauffman) UMKC WC vs. Alabama GP ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From deongarner Tue Oct 12 00:57:45 1999 From: deongarner (Deon Garner) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 22:57:45 PDT Subject: sorry about that last message Message-ID: My mistake, Deon ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From asnider Tue Oct 12 09:48:47 1999 From: asnider (Alfred C. Snider) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 10:48:47 -0400 Subject: New Debate Videos available for free on the Internet 10-12-99 Message-ID: DEBATE CENTRAL BROADCASTING [http://debate.uvm.edu/broadcast.html] offers a wide variety of Internet videos for debaters and coaches using RealPlayer [http://www.real.com]. Here are the new additions to our viewing library: Melissa Wade, Emory University & America's most successful college debate coach, lectures on Cross Examination. From the World Debate Institute. 45 min. David Kingston, Informix, Inc. & former CEDA National champion, lectures on Negative Strategy. From the World Debate Institute. 45 min. For Novices: Stock Issues in Policy Debate, Alfred C. Snider & Justin Parmett, University of Vermont. 30 min. For Novices: Note Taking & Flowing in Policy Debate, Alfred C. Snider & Justin Parmett, University of Vermont. 30 min. Alabama vs. Emory, Final Round of 9th National Round Robin, University of South Carolina, 9/99. Let us know how the sound quality is. 2 hours. DEBATE UPDATE 10-1-99: A new freuent DCB show featuring results, news, and issues from the national policy debate circuit in the USA. Andy Ellis is the host. 30 min. More to come.... We are seeking good quality videotapes of high school rounds as well as parliamentary debates. If you aren't using these, why not? 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 louden Tue Oct 12 10:31:58 1999 From: louden (Allan Louden) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 11:31:58 -0400 Subject: Dixie Classic Debates Message-ID: Some are having trouble with the link at the homepage, which is not yet resolved. So here is the text the old fashioned way. 43rd FRANKLIN R. SHIRLEY DIXIE CLASSIC NOVEMBER 20-22, 1999 Wake Forest University Louden (336) 758-5408, louden at wfu.edu; Smith (336) 758-5268, smithr at wfu.edu; Squad Room. (336) 758-5267; Fax (336) 758-4691 FEATURES: "WHAT MAKES THE DIXIE A 'CLASSIC'" ? Most extensive case list of the year, available overnight each day ? Best competition of the Fall semester ? Only two presets, with Six Power matched debates and double octas ? Realistic Schedule - the train basically runs on time THINGS YOU NEED TO KNOW: Registration will take place at the Adam's Mark (425 N. Cherry St.; Downtown) from 6:30 p.m. until 10:30 p.m. Friday night, November 20th. If you are unable to register at that time, make arrangements via e-mail. You can call the offices from 9:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m., or the Desk at the Adam's Mark will patch you through to the tabulation area from 7:00 p.m. until 11:00 p.m. (336) 725-3500. TOURNAMENT SITE: We have not finalized if the tournament will be held at Mt. Tabor High School or on Campus. We will post this when known. ENTRY LIMITATIONS: The division is Open only. Each school is limited to four (4) teams. After October 27th additional teams from a school may be allowed to enter depending on classroom availability. We hope this will allow us to accommodate all the schools who wish to enter. Bottom line: if you want to come, enter early, even if you only have a single team. If you want to bring a lot of teams, hope the tournament doesn't fill up by October 27th. The tournament will be capped at 130 teams. JUDGES: A qualified judge must be provided to cover your judging obligations. One judge for up to two teams, or two judges for three teams is required. There may be a possibility of hiring a judge for $120.00 per team, but with the number of teams last year it was difficult to find judges. Judging obligations extend through the octa-final round or one round beyond that in which your team is eliminated. Because we must attend the banquet by the scheduled time, we ask that all judges render a decision no later than two and one-half hours after the scheduled start of the round. FORMAT & RULES: The 9-3-6 cross-examination format - ten minutes prep. Rounds one and two will be balanced presets, attempting to maximize geographical diversity of both judge and opponent. Elimination rounds will begin at the double-octa-final level. If fewer than thirty-two teams have records of 5-3 or better, a partial double-octa bracket will be filled, with byes into octas being determined according to seeding. ? High/lows will be dropped to determine seeds for teams with the same record. ? Brackets will be broken for elimination rounds. ? We will use side equalization for elimination rounds. Flip rounds will be randomly determined by the tab room and sides will be assigned at posting. ? We use a version of Gary Larson's ordinal/nine category judge preference system. ? Upon the conclusion of the debate we ask that you (a) make a decision, voting for one and only one team, (b) turn in the white copy of the ballot, and then (c) reveal your decision to the teams, discussing your reason for decision. You may find the ballot more useful to highlight "ways to improve" than a further resolution of the "round specific issues." FEES: Entry fees are $125.00 per two person team. There will be a $25.00 banquet fee for each person in addition to one per team (g. g., entry fee covers a team and one coach. A fourth coach or research assistants will need to purchase an additional banquet ticket). There are quality amenities. Stand assured we always lose ample $s hosting the Dixie. The tournament winner will gain custody of the Franklin R. Shirley Cup, now in the possession of Emory Univ. for one year. Though not purchased out of tournament fees, receptions are provided for all coaches and judges (sorry, debaters) on Friday, Saturday, Sunday. On Monday night everyone remaining in Winston-Salem is invited to the "survivors party." HOUSING: We have reserved a block of rooms at the Adam's Mark. The rates are $70.00 per room (plus tax) - Single, Double, Triple or Quad. Also, the receptions, registration, and elimination rounds will be held in the hotel. Please CONFIRM your reservations with the Adam's Mark NO LATER THAN November 1. The Adam's Mark's number is (336) 725-3500. The Adam's Mark is located downtown (425 N. Cherry St. - location of the Wake's NDT). Contact reservations for rooms. If there is a problem contact Mike Usher. (Fax, 336-721-2240). TRANSPORTATION :We will provide shuttle service between the Adam's Mark, Mt. Tabor HS or Wake Forest during the tournament. Those requiring transportation from the airports, or other local terminals should read and return the transportation form provided. Please note that there is a $25.00 per person fee for those using our transportation service. 43rd FRANKLIN R. SHIRLEY DIXIE CLASSIC TOURNAMENT SCHEDULE (Note: The Dixie runs on time. Pairings are often available as much as 20 minutes before the times listed below.) Friday, November 19 at the Adam's Mark - Coliseum Registration, Lobby 6:30-10:30 PM Coach/Judge Reception, Adam's Mark 9:30 PM- 1:00 AM Saturday, November 20 Pairings, Rounds I and II (available Friday night) and Ballot Desk 7:30 AM Round I required starting time 8:30 AM Round II required starting time 10:30 AM Lunch (on your own) 11:00 PM All Ballots should be in 1:30 PM Pairings, Round III, (high/low within brackets) 1:45 PM Round III required starting time 2:30 PM All Ballots should be in 5:00 PM Pairings, Round IV (high/Low), 5:15 PM Round IV required starting time 6:00 PM Coaches' Reception, Adam's Mark Inn 9:30 PM - 1:00 AM Sunday, November 21 Pairings, Rounds V and VI (high/high and high/low respectively) Adam's Mark 7:15 AM Round V Required starting time 8:30 AM Round VI - required starting time 11:00 AM Lunch (on your own) 1:00 PM All Ballots should be in 1:30 PM Pairings, Round VII (hi-low) 1:45 PM Round VII required starting time 2:30 PM All Ballots should be in 5:00 PM Pairings, Round VIII (high/low) 5:15 PM Round VIII required starting time 6:15 PM Food service begins, Benson Center 4th level- Reynolda Campus 8:15 PM Awards presentation, Announcement Clearing Teams 9:15 PM Coaches' Reception, Adam's Mark 10:30 PM - 1:00 Monday, November 22, at the Adam's Mark Pairings, Double-Octa-Final Rounds - The Adam's Mark - West Tower, Lower level 7:00 AM Double-Octa-Final Rounds required starting time 8:00 AM Further elimination rounds follow ASAP. ENTRY INFORMATION Since very few entries arrive by mail we ask that you read this sheet and return the requested information in a usable and complete form. Please return the following information by October 27, 1999 to Ross Smith:: Wake Forest Debate Box 7324, Reynolda Station Winston-Salem, NC 27109 FAX #: (336) 758-4691 E-Mail: smithr at wfu.edu 1] School, Director, Address, Office & Home phone, e-mail address 2] List of teams: Please provide first and last names for each team as well as information as to the team's competitive quality for pre-setting purposes. 3] Judges: Indicate how many you will request to hire (@$120.00/team). Availability is not guaranteed: 4] Indicate for each judge who is attending their full name, any conflict of interests for that judge, and the number of prelim rounds beyond the prelim obligation the judge is willing to judge. Upon request we will pay $20.00 per round for these extra rounds. All judges are obligated through Octa-finals. If you will be available beyond that: Quarters and Semi Finals please indicate the latest each judge will be available. 5] Case List: As soon as possible please provide the tournament the most recently read copy of the each teams affirmative plan, 1AC outline, 1AC citations. We produce a case list available at registration, as well as an updated version each morning of the tournament. The case list is a prodigious project and benefits all. Your providing the basic information prior to the tournament makes this service a much more doable task. Please e-mail this information to Ross Smith (smithr at wfu.edu) 6] Transportation: Please provide the number of people, which airport, flight number and time of arrival and departure NOTE: Wake Forest will provide free transportation to and from the Winston-Salem airport (if one can find way in?), the bus station, and between WFU and the Adam's Mark. There will be a $25.00 fee per person charged for transportation to and from Greensboro, payable at registration. Greensboro is the endorsed airport with most major carriers. 7] Van rental can be arranged with TRIANGLE RENT-A-CAR, Toll free #: 1-800- 365-4745 Allan D. Louden, Dir. of Debate Wake Forest University Box 7347, Reynolda Station Winston-Salem, NC 27109 (336) 758-5408 (336) 758-4691 (fax) http://www.wfu.edu/~debate http://www.wfu.edu/~louden From jackhammer Tue Oct 12 10:37:10 1999 From: jackhammer (Jack Hammer) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 11:37:10 -0400 Subject: dispositionality and side bias Message-ID: In the discussion of counterplan advocacy, multiple counterplans, and counterplans that can be dropped in favor of the status quo, some of the arguments have been based on the idea that a counterplan is an "opportunity cost." In the archives I found a long discussion of this written by Michael Korcok (who footnotes a 1989 article I have not read). I don't think the theory (at least his version of it) supports the uses that are made here. Korcok: 'This definition is properly understood to mean that the opportunity cost of an action is the value of the "best" foregone alternative action: the "best" action is the one which would presumably be chosen by a rational choice-maker confronted with alternative actions.' Later on: 'But opportunity costs only exist within contexts of choice, that is, whenever decisionmakers must choose between alternative courses of action. It is not any alternative action which must be foregone if a posited action is undertaken which could be an opportunity cost: only those actions foregone which are open to choice in a given decisionmaking context are potential opportunity costs.' If a negative offers a counterplan they are (explicitly or implicitly) saying that this is the best alternative action. To use the "fire" example, if there are four fires and they decide to go to fire #1, that implies that they think it is the best choice. If someone counterplans by saying "go to fire #2," they must think that is the best choice. The counterplan does not just say "I don't know where you should go; I'm just saying 'do NOT go to fire #1.'" No one but a fire bug would just sit there and engage the fire fighters in endless discussion of whether the initial choice was "best" without advocating an alternative. In the context of a debate there are only two sides and therefore only two choices. And if the negative says "maybe fire #2, maybe fire #3, maybe keep the status quo," that seems to imply that the negative team does not have any clue as to the best alternative and they are just trying to fiddle while the town burns. If you like the "opportunity cost" idea, think of it this way for a minute. The affirmative team is initially advancing a plan as a "test" of the "opportunity cost" of retaining the status quo. So any privilege or power that you want to offer to the negative should go the affirmative--the plan is not advocated, there can be multiple plans, and so on. As I said a few days ago, a counterplan is not just an argument. It is a place from which the negative can argue. At best an opportunity cost is a counterplan advantage, not the counterplan itself. And it makes sense only if the negative has already selected the counterplan as their place from which to argue. Everyone has to have a place from which to argue. Erewhon is not an option. From Jeff_Jarman Tue Oct 12 11:04:30 1999 From: Jeff_Jarman (Jeff Jarman) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 11:04:30 -0500 Subject: Hotel Reminder: Wichita State University Message-ID: CALL IMMEDIATELY: The block was released yesterday, but you can still get the rate if you call now. Make your reservations soon if you are planning on attending. Let me know if you have problems or have any questions. Jeff LODGING: Once again, we have changed hotels. The Broadview Hotel will be our host hotel for the tournament. The hotel is located at 400 W. Douglas. Please indicate that your are attending with *Forensics 99* when making your reservation. A large block of rooms have been reserved until October 11, 1999. The room rate is $54.00 per room (up to 4) plus tax. This is a great rate since the Broadview is a Grand Heritage Hotel. Call them directly at 316-262-5000. The hotel is located at the intersection of Douglas and Waco. Everyone is strongly encouraged to stay at the tournament hotel. Pairings will be released at the hotel each morning. Elims on Sunday will be at the hotel. From smithr Tue Oct 12 10:59:16 1999 From: smithr (Ross Smith) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 11:59:16 -0400 Subject: Send Dixie entries to me!!!! Message-ID: Please. Yes, Louden can forward them to me. But then my Dixie 99 mailbox has a bunch of messages that all look like they are from Louden. The invite asks you to send me the entry. I know it's easy to hit reply to Louden's message, just trying to make sure I get the needed info and can confirm by replying to you, etc. If you send your entry and label your message something like, "Idaho State's Dixie Entry" that is ideal. Thanks, and I am looking forward to the second-to-last Dixie of the millenium! --Ross >From Tue Oct 12 09:01:10 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 42564 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 12:01:47 -0400 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 MAA32630 for ; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 12:01:20 -0400 Received: from email2.asu.edu (email2.asu.edu [129.219.10.158]) by asu.edu (PMDF V5.2-31 #31135) with ESMTP id <0FJH00K9LZ63YA at asu.edu> for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 09:01:16 -0700 (MST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by email2.asu.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id JAA19737 for ; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 09:01:11 -0700 (MST) X-Sender: lwulkan at email2.asu.edu MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Message-ID: Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 09:01:10 -0700 Reply-To: Lawrence.Wulkan at ASU.EDU To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Lawrence.Wulkan at ASU.EDU Subject: Old UMKC Coaches or Debaters ONLY Back on the ocean development topic, you all ran an OPA 1990 case. Do any of you remember the plan text or even better the law review that the plan came from? Any information about this would be great! Thanks in advance. Larry Wulkan ljw at asu.edu From abryan Tue Oct 12 11:04:11 1999 From: abryan (a. ryan) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 11:04:11 -0500 Subject: spew downs are us In-Reply-To: <19991012055034.69546.qmail@hotmail.com> Message-ID: i have a couple of questions/comments about this theory spew down issue... (1) can it be flowed? you said there were warrants in those arguments, and if you can write down the warrants, it seems to be a full argument and in that way no different than a speedy analytical pmn to the case. if it can't be flowed, it pretty much seems to be game over for the negative. the aff could always capitalize on the non responsive nature of the negative and win often. (2) the general problem is not the rate of speed, but rather the refusal to listen to theory arguments. i've heard a lot of people discuss the difference between substantive debate and theory issues. the ballot doesn't make that distinction. it refers to who did the better debating, and it seems the team who won an argument that should take preference above all others should win. yet some people are hesitant to throw the "real" debate to the side and punish the team who was winning their clinton da because their cp is illegitimate. this problem can be seen on topicality as well. judges find interpretations reasonable even if they may allow the affirmative to dodge the true meaning of the words in the resolution. the result is on theory arguments the 1ar often times haphazardly extends them just to get the 2nr to undercover other issues. finally, if the general complaint is the speed of arguments, we should probably just slow it down a bit. but slow and steady won't win the race when your opponents can go fast and never have to slow down. in this case, only the judges can control the speed. Andy Ryan University of Iowa 100 Burge Hall #4405 Iowa City, IA 52242 (319) 353 1846 And now you're mine/rest with your dream in my dream/love and pain and work should all sleep now/the night turns on its invisible wheels and you are pure next to me-- Pablo Neruda From gwilson Tue Oct 12 11:24:40 1999 From: gwilson (GRANT WILSON) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 10:24:40 -0600 Subject: Pioneer Trails Results Message-ID: The Pioneer Trails Tournament was held in Casper, WY on October 8 & 9. There were 14 CEDA teams entered: Casper - Schultz & Ogaard Casper - Phillips & Barella Eastern Utah - Bentley & Brown Eastern Utah - Eames & Warner Eastern Utah - Hallmeyer & Weiner Eastern Utah - Schaerrer & Tusi Northwest - Howell & Lowery Southern Utah - Dillard & Awsumb Southern Utah - Gross & Turley Southern Utah - Smith & Klag Southern Utah - Ward & Richens Wyoming - Blevins & Lunsford Wyoming - Green & Masters In the Semi-Final Round: Wyoming BL defeated Eastern Utah BB on a 3-0 Decision Casper SO defeated Southern Utah DA on a 3-0 Decision In the Final Round: Wyoming BL defeated Casper SO on a 2-1 Decision. Grant Grant W. Wilson Communication Department Casper College 125 College Dr. Casper, WY 82601 (307) 268-1593 From STRICKLG Tue Oct 12 11:43:05 1999 From: STRICKLG (Glen Strickland) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 11:43:05 -0500 Subject: Pflaum Debates: Official Schedule Message-ID: Here is an official schedule for rounds at the Pflaum Debate Tournament....Substitute this schedule for the original one in the invitation. Glen Strickland 45th Annual George R.R. Pflaum Debates October 16-18, 1999 Friday, October 15, 1999 7:00-10:00 PM early registration in Lobby of King Hall Saturday, October 16, 1999 7:30-8:15 AM late registration, Lobby of King Hall 8:30 AM pairings released, Lobby of King Hall 9:00-11:00 AM Round One 11:30-1:30 PM Round Two 2:00-4:00 PM Round Three 4:30-6:30 PM Round Four Sunday, October 17, 1999 7:15 AM refreshments, Memorial Union Ballroom 7:30 AM pairings released 8:00-10:00 AM Round Five 11:30-1:30 PM Round Six 3:00-5:00 PM Round Seven 6:30-8:30 PM 1st Elim Round Monday, October 18, 1998 7:45 AM refreshments, Memorial Union Ballroom 8:15 AM Awards Assembly, Memorial Union Ballroom 9:00 AM elimination rounds continue ***The Pflaum Tournament upholds the principles of the statement on discrimination and sexual harassment and the statement on ethical principles of the CEDA organization*** ****SMOKING IS NOT PERMITTED IN UNIVERSITY BUILDINGS**** ***KANSAS STATE LAW*** MOTEL ROOMS FOR PFLAUM DEBATES As indicated in the cover letter, several major convention groups will be in Emporia during the Pflaum Debate weekend. You really should call as soon as possible (IMMEDIATELY) to make sure that you are able to house yourself and your students. From girl-genius Tue Oct 12 11:57:03 1999 From: girl-genius (Shawnessy Scott) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 16:57:03 0000 Subject: NEC-Music From Another Room Message-ID: -- >shawnessy, > >you say: >> 3) Communication styles. I believe it was Ed Lee, but i could be wrong, >who >> once said that debate robbed minorities and women of their natural >> communication style for a more masculine, structured style. is there a >way >> to deal with this?? is the community even aware of it?? how do you flow >> it?? how do you evaluate it?? is this too oppressive or is it >necessary?? >> all important questions that must be asked. I say: Just for the sake of clarity, this was not my comment, only an excerpt from a discussion currently taking place on the debate_diversity listserv that I thought would be of interest to some. >response: >what is the "natural" communication style for ALL women and ALL minorities? >you seem to indicate that one exists...at the point that you place all women >and all minorities into a category that has no exceptions. I would agree >that from the iception of platonic thinking (st. thomas aquinas writes a >bunch on it) that women have been viewed as more emotional and men as more >rational or structured. But, just because this stereotype exists, why do >you essentialize all women into those roles? I don't think it's inherent in >being a man or a woman to prefer either speaking style (or either way of >thinking). I personally tend to be much more emotional than logical in some >decision-making processes. Additionally, why does their communications >style of CHOICE necessarrily have to be DIFFERENT than that of men or the >majority or whatever? This seems to set up a system where women and >minorities (minorities is such a bad term for this type of label anyway) are >constructed as the "other". I say: It's not necessary to simplify the issue to "all" women and minorities to make this a relevant discussion. If it is even a question of "many" or a noted characteristic (such as black dialect, when all blacks most definitely do not speak this way) then we should examine why current structure and style are the accepted norm and whether or not there is room for change or flexibility. On the issue of women being emotional, their (or our, I should say) communication styles tend to be more polite, as in not speaking out of turn, and less aggressive/assertive. Not my opinion, only something we discussed in a sociology class. Whether this is a choice or a result of societal stereotyping and/or conditioning, I don't know. Lastly, I think we have to be careful with the distinction between recognizing differences in individuals and "otherization". And if you consider the basis for current norms (formed from predecessors being hetero white males) it seems to me that this will be a move more towards recognizing individuality than forcing people into groups with group standards. more response: >How does debate "rob" anyone of anything...I chose to become involved in >debate and I'm assuming that you did too. Why do you construct all women >and all minoritites as victims...such an over-powering force is obviously >too large to deconstruct. If it's something that none of us can control and >is happeing on the level of totality, then why do anything about it? do you >see how this type of rhetoric can tend to passify the public? I say: Well if you have been "robbed", this means that someone has come (while you are aware or unaware) and taken something that belongs to you without your consent. You can be robbed of items as well as things like chances in life, which you may not realize the value of until much later. I imagine that everyone enters debate assuming it will *add* something to their lives, but if you suddenly realize that while you've gained something (such as a strategic kind of aggressiveness in cross-ex), something else has been taken away from you that you were not necessarily willing to give up (such as friendly politeness), then it's safe to say something has been taken from you, and you have been robbed, though that may be a strong word. Secondly, I can't really see how the issue of totality affects anything. We are talking about a specific activity, debate, and how it's style and structure may be confining or so rigid as to constrict the natural communication styles of some people. It's not a huge, monolithic problem like society's construction of gender roles. You can as a judge or coach be receptive to students' different approaches to persuasion and willing to learn a few things from people who are sort of nonconformist. But as I said before... this discussion is for another listserv (debate_diversity at onelist.com), and all are welcome to join. novice Shawnessy Angelfire for your free web-based e-mail. http://www.angelfire.com From hxmorgan Tue Oct 12 11:59:15 1999 From: hxmorgan (Helen Morgan) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 12:59:15 -0400 Subject: University of Rochester tournament teams Message-ID: Could somebody please post a list of the teams that are planning to attend the University of Rochester tournament this weekend? Thank you, Helen Vermont From tweiner1 Tue Oct 12 12:07:07 1999 From: tweiner1 (Timothy J Weiner) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 13:07:07 -0400 Subject: Ken Strange please In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hey Ken could you e-mail me, Thanks Jake Weiner >From Tue Oct 12 13:14:57 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 44493 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 13:15:49 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo22.mx.aol.com (imo22.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.66]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA63764 for ; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 13:15:47 -0400 Received: from Davismk13 at aol.com by imo22.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id qQNHa19934 (4235); Tue, 12 Oct 1999 13:14:57 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 27 Message-ID: <0.f168c900.2534c691 at aol.com> Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 13:14:57 EDT Reply-To: Davismk13 at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Mike Davis Subject: Re: University of Rochester tournament teams Comments: To: hxmorgan at zoo.uvm.edu Here's what we have so far. Entry Deadline is tomorrow so I expect many more entries then (Cornell, West Point, Marist, The Cartel, Syracuse, etc.). We will also enter a lot of Rochester teams to help fill out the divisions. University of Rochester Tournament Entries Open Vermont Morgan-Snider Lockwood-Douglas JV West Virginia George Sidiropolis and Jason Evans Vermont Fishbone-Serfer Novice West Virginia Samantha Jones and Jennelle Harper Eric Zuchowski and Kimberly Bandy Vermont Jewers-Zarenner (Vermont-Trinity) McDonald-Pagan Malley-Weidhorn Miller-Bernstein Parsons-Robinson Towne-Alexander Henschel-Thompson Gana-Engle (Trinity) Cruise-Littlefield (Trinity) Clark-Winfield Gilpatric-Luntz Mullany-Chartan Dooling-Eisenstadt Cardile-Demming Borsman-Dempsey Ronshagen-Reynolds Etherington-Sullivan Gervais-Parmett Dartmouth Matt Neill and Henry Shi Judges Overby - West Virginia Strange - Dartmouth Massey - Vermont Jacobson - Vermont Parmett - Vermont Schwartz - Vermont Ellis - Vermont Wilkerson (novice) - Vermont Hewitt (novice) - Vermont McGreevy - Vermont Cedarfield - Vermont Pitterson - Rochester Strudivant - Rochester Gulati - Rochester Kelley - Rochester Smith - Rochester From wkerman Tue Oct 12 12:30:17 1999 From: wkerman (Walter J. Kerman) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 12:30:17 -0500 Subject: Stacy Sowards In-Reply-To: <0.f168c900.2534c691@aol.com> Message-ID: Could you please backchannel me in reguards to the Rambler just need a fax number Sincerly, Walter Kerman Loyola University Chicago Debate Check out Loyola Debate http://www.luc.edu/depts/commun/debate/ From aaron.garza Tue Oct 12 12:36:37 1999 From: aaron.garza (AARON GARZA) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 12:36:37 -0500 Subject: spew downs are us Message-ID: -----Original Message----- From: AARON GARZA To: Roger Saad Date: Tuesday, October 12, 1999 12:04 PM Subject: Re: Re: spew downs are us >Hello, > I was the 1ar that ken was referring to in his post. I'm not sure what >he meant by "1ar doesn't address jack." I don't see why a 1ar should be >forced to answer a bunch of theory arguments, when conceding them gets >him/her more ground. The reason i didn't answer all of the 1ar theory >arguments, wasn't because i was afraid to answer them. I was just able to >concede most of them in order to justify the 2ac severance permutation >(i.e.--best policy making, should defend multiple policies, perms check >abuse, net benefits check abuse), which solved everything in the round (or >so i thought, i guess..) ;). I don't think 1ar's are shying away from >theory debates. Rather, i think that they are realizing there are times to >answer the thirty theory arguments put out in the block, but there are also >times to use those thirty theory arguments in their favor. If I would have >tryed to answer all the theory, not only was there a risk i could have >dropped something that would lose me the CP debate, but i would've spent >half of my time doing it. So, i conceded my opponent's arguments, and he >was stuck to making "He didn't say he was advocating the permutation", as >his only argument in the 2nr. I think it worked to our advantage to do what >i did. Well, in conclusion i feel that a smart 1ar won't have to answer all >the blippy block arguments. I think that he or she will be able to look at >the flow and use their own arguments to get leverage for things they wanna >do. > >Well, back to sleep Zzzzzzzzz............ > >Aaron Garza >Texas > From sharris Tue Oct 12 13:28:02 1999 From: sharris (SCOTT HARRIS) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 13:28:02 -0500 Subject: Send Dixie entries to me!!!! In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19991012155916.00743760@pop.wfu.edu> Message-ID: Are you "advocating" sending it to you or is not sending it to you simply an opportunity cost of sending it to Alan? On Tue, 12 Oct 1999, Ross Smith wrote: > Please. > > Yes, Louden can forward them to me. But then my Dixie 99 mailbox has a bunch > of messages that all look like they are from Louden. > > The invite asks you to send me the entry. > > I know it's easy to hit reply to Louden's message, just trying to make sure > I get the needed info and can confirm by replying to you, etc. > > If you send your entry and label your message something like, "Idaho State's > Dixie Entry" that is ideal. > > Thanks, and I am looking forward to the second-to-last Dixie of the millenium! > > --Ross > #####LOCO IN LAWRENCE##### From jcorcora Tue Oct 12 13:51:49 1999 From: jcorcora (Joe Corcoran) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 11:51:49 -0700 Subject: Santa Rosa JC Results In-Reply-To: Message-ID: The results of the Santa Rosa Junior College Results, held October 8-10, 1999. Open CEDA Sems: Vanderbilt RP Defeats Chico HM 2-1 Diablo Valley College JM Defeats Los Rios BS 2-1 Open CEDA Finals: Diablo Valley College JM Defeats Vanderbilt RP 2-1 Junior CEDA Finals: Vanderbilt JF defeats Los Rios WM 2-1 Novice CEDA Quarters: Vanderbilt AV defeats Santa Rosa YC 2-1 Sacramento State MW defeats Santa Rosa CG 3-0 Santa Rosa TM defeats Cal Poly San Luis Obispo DM 2-1 Sacramento State CG defeats Santa Rosa WC 3-0 Novice CEDA Semifinals: Santa Rosa TM defeats Sacramento State CG 2-1 Vanderbilt AV defeats Sacramento State MW 3-0 Novice CEDA Finals: Vanderbilt AV defeats Santa Rosa TM 2-1 Novice Speaker Awards 1. Emery Yim-Santa Rosa 114 Adjusted 2. Attila Panczel-Santa Rosa 110 Adjusted, 166 Total 3. April Clark-Santa Rosa 110 Adjusted, 164 Total 4. Jen Gregory-Sacramento State 110 Adjusted, 163 Total 5. Chante Gordon-Santa Rosa 109 Adjusted 6. Andi Derrick-Cal Poly San Luis Obispo 7. Kevin Moore-Cal Poly San Luis Obispo 8. Matt Cody-Santa Rosa 9. Max Watson-Santa Rosa 10. Leslie McDaniels-Sac State Junior Speaker Awards 1. Becky Anderson-Chico State 113 Adjusted 2. Matt Joye-Diablo Valley College 110 Adjusted 3. Anne MacMullan-Diablo Valley College 109 Adjusted, 164 Total 4. Aaron Hess-Chico State 109 Adjusted, 159 Total 5. Jason Fernandez-Vanderbilty, 107.8 Adjusted Open Speaker Awards 1. James Porter-Vanderbilt, 114.6 Adjusted 2. Adam Rosen-Vanderbilt, 113.6 Adjusted 3. Victor Brazelton-Los Rios, 110.8 Adjusted 4. Laroy Smith-Los Rios, 110.6 Adjusted 5. Jared Anderson-Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, 110 From ifjxh Tue Oct 12 13:57:52 1999 From: ifjxh (Joshua Hoe) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 11:57:52 PDT Subject: Rochester only please Message-ID: Can someone from Rochester backchannel me please....Josh Hoe ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com >From Tue Oct 12 14:46:33 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 47294 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 15:47:00 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from gate002.ocs.lsu.edu (gate002.ocs.lsu.edu [130.39.75.29]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA42450 for ; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 15:46:52 -0400 Received: by gate002.ocs.lsu.edu(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.3 (733.2 10-16-1998)) id 86256808.006D3EFA ; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 14:53:15 -0500 X-Lotus-FromDomain: LSU Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Message-ID: <86256808.006D3CAF.00 at gate002.ocs.lsu.edu> Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 14:46:33 -0500 Reply-To: dgoins at LSU.EDU To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Darren Goins Subject: Please re-post October Rankings Could someone please repost the national rankings please. From BobJordan Tue Oct 12 14:51:47 1999 From: BobJordan (Bob Jordan) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 14:51:47 -0500 Subject: Please re-post October Rankings In-Reply-To: <86256808.006D3CAF.00@gate002.ocs.lsu.edu> References: <86256808.006D3CAF.00@gate002.ocs.lsu.edu> Message-ID: They are available in the eDebate archive: http://list.uvm.edu/archives/edebate.html The listings begin with tag line: Oct. 1. >Could someone please repost the national rankings please. From hathman Tue Oct 12 14:52:17 1999 From: hathman (Jeremy Hathaway) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 12:52:17 PDT Subject: Need UCO and KC Swing specific dates please?? Message-ID: could someone send me the info asap. please Hath CSU-Chico ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From laneg Tue Oct 12 14:57:54 1999 From: laneg (Lane, Gina) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 14:57:54 -0500 Subject: Jewell invite, 1/7 - 1/9 Message-ID: Hello friends-- The invitation for the William Jewell College debate tournament is below. Brent Siemers assures me he will be posting the UMKC invite soon. The two tournaments make up the Kansas City Swing, January 3-9, 2000!! Hope to see you then-- Gina Lane William Jewell College _________________________________ October 12, 1999 Dear Colleagues, We cordially invite you and your squad to attend the William Jewell College Georgia B. Bowman Debate Tournament Friday, January 7 through Sunday, January 9. We are the second half of the KC Swing with UMKC, and we'll be offering the swing award to the school whose top four teams amass the most victories between the two tournaments. This year's tournament will feature Open and Junior Varsity divisions on the 1999-00 collegiate policy debate topic. Time limits will be 9-3-6 with 10 minutes prep. A form of judging preference will be used depending on the size of the judging pool. Please enter early! One of our buildings (Jewell Hall) is under renovation this year. We will be using rooms and other creative spaces all over campus -- when they're gone, we will have to take a waiting list on entries. As usual, we will be providing plenty of hospitality (including the famous WJC hot cider) amid some excellent competition. We are happy to announce the fourth year of our WJC Women's Leadership in Debate Award. Last year's winner was Dr. Carrie Crenshaw of the University of Alabama. We are asking for nominations from the debate community. Please see the enclosed form. The College is located north of downtown Kansas City on I-35. Take I-35 north to the Liberty/Kansas Ave. (Hwy 152) exit. Follow Kansas east thru the Liberty square to Lightburne. Turn right on Lightburne and drive 2 blocks to Mill St. Turn left on Mill, look off the entrance to the College after approx. 3 blocks. White Science Center is the first building on the north side of campus. The tournament headquarters will be in White Science Center and the adjoining building, Marston Hall. Unload your evidence at the ground floor entrance of WJC. There is a ramp entrance to WJC from the quad. Registration will be in the first floor lobby of Marston Hall. Happy Holidays and we hope to see you in Liberty in 2000! Sincerely, Gina Lane Co-Director of Debate Steve Woods Co-Director of Debate SCHEDULE Friday, January 7 11:30-12:30: pairings and registration 1:00-3:15 round 1 3:45-6:00 round 2 6:00-7:00 dinner provided 7:15- 9:45 round 3 Saturday, January 8 7:30 continental breakfast and pairings 8:15-10:30 round 4 11:15-1:30 round 5 1:30 - 2:30 lunch provided 2:45-5:00 round 6 6:00-8:30 first outround Sunday, January 9 7:30 continental breakfast and pairings 8:30-10:30 second outround 11:30 awards, Peters Theatre, Brown Hall 1:00 outrounds continue (food available throughout the day) FEES: Entry fees will be $80 per debate team. These fees cover trophies, hospitality (including an extra meal this year), and other tournament costs. Judging fees will be $80 per uncovered team. One judge covers two teams. Please bring judges. We will probably hire additional judges ($15 per round) that you bring beyond your judging requirement. PARTICIPANT ASSUMPTIONS: We understand that it is difficult to adjudicate debate rounds, yet we ask judges to abide by the following assumptions: All judges must decide that one team wins each round and one team loses each round. Judges must assess speaker points for each speaker. A judge who accompanies a team to the tournament and enters into the judging pool implicitly agrees to follow the rules of the tournament. If an alternate experience is desired, all five participants must agree to withdraw themselves from the tournament for the duration of that debate round. The tab room will accordingly award forfeits. AWARDS Appropriate awards will be given to all debaters reaching elimination rounds, as well as the top speakers in each division of debate. Sweepstakes awards will also be given based on the school which accumulates the most wins between all of the divisions. LODGING: Mention the William Jewell College / UMKC Debate tournament for these rates. Contact us if you need alternate arrangements. Harrah's Hotel and Casino 1 Riverboat Drive North Kansas City, MO 800-427-7247 $70.00 + tax. December 19 is the reservation deadline for the rest of you who don't mind driving to the casinos . . . Baymont Inn I-35 and Armour Road 2214 Taney North Kansas City, MO (816)221-1200 $52.95 + tax. December 27 is the reservation deadline The Belmont Inn is within ten-fifteen minutes of all the casinos -- twenty to thirty minutes from the tournaments. Finally, if you are interested in separate lodging for the Jewell tourney-- Fairfield Inn I-35 & Hwy 152 Church Road (access road on west side of I 35) Liberty - Kansas City, MO (816)792-4000 $56.00 + tax. December 20 is the reservation deadline. Comfort Inn Suites I-35 and Hwy 152 (Liberty exit) Church Road (access road on west side of I 35) Liberty - Kansas City, MO (816)781-7273 $65.99 + tax. Liberty is conveniently located 15 minutes north of Kansas City on I-35. We are approximately 30 minutes east of the Kansas City airport. We will be happy to provide shuttle service for the nominal fee of $15.00 per debate team. If you need shuttle service, please let us know by Sunday, January 2. If you mail in your entry, please indicate on the bottom of the entry form your flight information and how many people will be in your party . ENTRY DEADLINE: All entries must be in the hands of the tournament director no later than 5:00 pm on Wednesday, January 5. All changes must be made before noon on Thursday, January 6. Fees will be calculated at that time. We will be doing an early registration at the UMKC tournament on Thursday. Based on the unavailability of mail or fax service at Jewell over the holidays, we would prefer you either call or email. Call your entries in to Gina Lane: office: (816)781-7700 x5493, home: (816)792-0466, or email: laneg at william.jewell.edu. You may also contact Steve Woods: office, (816)781-7700 x5478, home: (816)415-0325, or email: woodss at william.jewell.edu. If you use high tech (email), include a phone number, fax, or email address where we can reach you for a confirmation (include weekend information). We will contact you ASAP. October 12, 1999 Dear Friends in the Debate Community, Please join us in awarding our fourth annual WJC women's leadership award in debate. Our wish is to recognize an outstanding role model and advocate for women in intercollegiate debating. Past winners include: Dr. Carrie Crenshaw, University of Alabama - 1998; Becky Galentine, Whitman College - 1997; Dr. Brenda Logue, Towson State University - 1996. This letter is our chance to explain our ideas about this award, then seek your nominations for a person who you feel is worthy of such recognition. William Jewell College has an outstanding history of women's participation in forensics. We are proud of the leadership provided by our outstanding women coaches throughout the years, and by the large number of WJC women debaters and competitors. As a squad, we recognize the importance of addressing issues of women's participation in forensics as a community. We also feel that the college debate community as a whole is increasing its awareness of the issue of gender in debate. It is in a spirit of appreciation of those who have increased awareness and opened doors that we wish to recognize an outstanding contributor to women's participation in debate. We would like the community to help us with this award, and seek for a person worthy of such recognition. There are no strict guidelines that accompany these nominations. There are numerous ways in which individuals have contributed to make our activity more gender inclusive. Perhaps you know of an outstanding role model for women, maybe there is an important mentor who has helped foster a competitor or coaching career. This individual could be a coach, graduate assistant, alum, friend of debate, or administrator. Please submit your nominations by December 15th. Please include a letter of support for your nominee and any other supporting materials which you believe are appropriate. Our squad will review the nominations and recognize this individual at our tournament awards assembly in January. For further information, please consult the contact information provided on the tournament invite. We appreciate your time and support for what we hope is a celebration of inclusiveness and recognition for some of the most important people in our community--those who care enough about debate to make sure all competitors can participate equally! Sincerely, Dr. Gina Lane Co-Director William Jewell Debate Dr. Steve Woods Co-Director William Jewell Debate and the William Jewell College Debate Squad From research_king Tue Oct 12 15:26:41 1999 From: research_king (John Reeves) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 13:26:41 PDT Subject: help a poor man out Message-ID: hey you all should try this. this site pays you just for being online. all you have to do is set up an account and make sure the ticker is up and running everyminute you are on the internet. this is especially true for the lansing debate team who is low on money. no scams or gimmiks. the advertisers pay you to keep the bar running go to this address: itwww.alladvantage.com/go.asp?refid=EWT-392 just cut and paste the adress and the web site will tell you how to set it up ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From hcspc014 Tue Oct 12 15:51:11 1999 From: hcspc014 (william sheffield) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 13:51:11 -0700 Subject: help a poor man out In-Reply-To: <19991012202642.67991.qmail@hotmail.com> Message-ID: John, I think one of the stipulations on getting people to join is not to spam lists. Am I right? 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 Tue, 12 Oct 1999, John Reeves wrote: > hey you all should try this. this site pays you just for being online. all > you have to do is set up an account and make sure the ticker is up and > running everyminute you are on the internet. this is especially true for > the lansing debate team who is low on money. no scams or gimmiks. the > advertisers pay you to keep the bar running > > go to this address: > > itwww.alladvantage.com/go.asp?refid=EWT-392 > > > just cut and paste the adress and the web site will tell you how to set it > up > > ______________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com > From kelley513 Tue Oct 12 17:06:49 1999 From: kelley513 (Kelley Skillin) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 15:06:49 -0700 Subject: Fwd: FW: Women's safety--PLEASE READ! Message-ID: > Tips that not everyone may know--pass them on to the > women in your lives... > > Subject: FW: Women's safety > > I have to share some things I have learned in my job > with you. > > In my job, I review criminal and psychiatric files > of > imprisoned sex offenders who are approaching their > release date. I decide if they are likely to > re-offend based on certain criteria and then civilly > commit them to a sex offender treatment facility if > I > decide that they are at significant risk to > re-offend. I have read hundreds and hundreds of > files, and have taken note of some of the mistakes > women make. Let me preface this by saying that a > woman is NEVER EVER EVER at fault for being raped or > attacked, but there are definitely ways to reduce > your > risk of being a victim. > > Here are the most common mistakes women make that > could result in them getting kidnapped, attacked, > and/or raped: > > 1. Getting into the attacker's car when he pulls a > gun and orders you to get into his vehicle. > > Most attackers don't want to shoot you...they want > you > to get into the car so that they can drive you to a > deserted place and torture you. Don't comply. Run > screaming. It is MUCH more likely than not that he > will just move on to an easier target. > > 2. Pulling over when a man drives alongside of you > pointing at your car pretending something is wrong. > > If this happens, drive to the nearest well-lit and > populated gas station and look the car over yourself > (or ask an attendant). Never pull over. Believe it > or not, many women have fallen for this for fear of > their car spontaneously exploding in the middle of > the > road. Not likely. > > 3. Not locking your doors while driving. > > I have read several cases where the attacker simply > walks up to a woman's car while she's at a traffic > light and jumps in with his gun or knife drawn. > > 4. Opening your front door when you have not > positively identified who is there. > > If you don't have a peephole, get one. I've seen > countless cases where that attacker gains access to > his victims simply by knocking on their door. Don't > let an attacker get into your home. He then has a > private, relatively soundproof place to attack you. > > 5. Not being alert in parking lots. > > If you go to the grocery store at night, don't be > shy > about asking for an escort to your car. Too many > women are abducted from parking lots or even raped > in > the parking lot. Look in your backseat before > entering your car. Cars provide endless hiding > places > for attackers, both inside them and between them. > Be > aware of your surroundings by looking to the left > and > right and behind you with your head up all the time. > > You may appear paranoid and look funny to others, > but > an attacker will think twice about approaching > someone > who appears so aware of what's going on. > > 6. Trusting a clean cut, honest looking stranger. > > I see mug shots of every sex offender in the state > of > Florida. They do not look like monsters. They > often > look like they could be your friendly grocer, bank > teller, waiter, neighbor, clergy, doctor, etc. They > are every age between 15 and 90, and probably > beyond. > Only a small minority actually look scary. I just > read a case yesterday of a man with only one leg who > beat up his victim with his crutch before he raped > her. Who would have ever thought a one-legged man > could be a rapist? > > 7. Trusting people to be alone with your children. > > This is a difficult one, because child molesters end > up being the LAST person the parents would believe > is > the molester. Most of the child molesting cases I > see > involve the stepfather, the uncle, the sister's > boyfriend, the mother's boyfriend, the grandfather, > the babysitter, the neighbor, the family friend, the > youth camp director, day care worker, etc. Although > rare, even women can be molesters. In every case, > the > perpetrator is a nice guy, trusting, good with > children, and the family is baffled or even in > disbelief that the person could be abusing their > child. When it comes to your children, be > suspicious > of everyone, no matter who they are. And pay > attention to what your child says and how he/she > reacts to the mention of different people in their > lives. > > I didn't mean to make anyone uncomfortable with > this, > but I am at work right now, and realized that this > e-mail is a way I can reach many women at one time. > I > have the dirty job of reading all these files, and > it > makes me feel good to know that I can share some > inferences from what I have learned. This is not an > exhaustive list of what not to do, but just some > things that I have observed more than just a few > times. > > Pass this on to the women in your lives. > > > > ===== > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com > ===== __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com From mkrueger Tue Oct 12 16:59:11 1999 From: mkrueger (Krueger) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 16:59:11 -0500 Subject: Vanderbilt Tournament References: <19991006.175017.-4096537.0.edebate@juno.com> Message-ID: so, uh, when are the dates of the tournament? I -think- it is the 12-14 of November, but I am unsure. Thanks. Mike x x x wrote: > Here is the hotel information. Rooms and rates are being held until > October 29th. The invitation will be mailed and posted next week. > > Both are very close to campus. > > ClubHouse Inn 615-244-0150 Rate: $76 single/double $86 quad/triple > Group ID is Debate tournament > This hotel has free "hot breakfast," a restaurant that stays open > until 10pm, exercise room, does not charge for local calls, > serves complimentary evening beverages, and provides free > coffee and tea 24 hrs. Also, the Downtown Trolley stops at the hotel. > > Guest House Inn: 615-329-1000 or 1-800-777-4904 > Rate: $63.95, Group ID is CGPVB > > ___________________________________________________________________ > 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. -- 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 Oct 12 17:56:52 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 49756 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 18:56:16 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from saluki-mailsmtp.siu.edu (saluki-mailsmtp.siu.edu [131.230.252.26]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA17750 for ; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 18:56:15 -0400 Received: from saluki-mail.siu.edu (saluki-mail.siu.edu [131.230.252.17]) by saluki-mailsmtp.siu.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA08504 for ; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 17:55:49 -0500 Received: from tupelo (port57.aixdialin.siu.edu [131.230.253.57]) by saluki-mail.siu.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id RAA56048 for ; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 17:56:52 -0500 X-Sender: slusher at saluki-mail.siu.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-ID: <199910122256.RAA56048 at saluki-mail.siu.edu> Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 17:56:52 -0500 Reply-To: slusher at SIU.EDU To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Eric Slusher Subject: Re: dispositionality and side bias At 11:37 AM 10/12/99 -0400, you wrote: >In the discussion of counterplan advocacy, multiple counterplans, and >counterplans that can be dropped in favor of the status quo, some of the >arguments have been based on the idea that a counterplan is an "opportunity >cost." In the archives I found a long discussion of this written by >Michael Korcok (who footnotes a 1989 article I have not read). I don't >think the theory (at least his version of it) supports the uses that are >made here. As far as advocacy of counterplans goes - you're wrong. Voting negative means nothing more than non-acceptance of the plan. You don't vote FOR counterplans only against the plan. The simple meaning of the word "negative" implies it. Harris loves to poke fun at me because the ballot only asks which team did the better debating, Aff or Neg? Well, that's nice, but that in no way dismisses the opportunity cost concept that voting for the negative team because they debated so well that they won their cp means voting FOR the cp. You vote FOR teams not FOR counterplans. Lechtreck's illustration of the difference between competitive counterplans and noncompetitive plan-plans nails it right on the head. But, don't take my word for it. If you dealve deeper into the archives you might have found this post by Korcok from a few years ago...... -------------------------------------------------------------------- grounding counterplans as opportunity costs of a plan obligates a negative to advocate them in no way that i am aware of. counterplans represent true (opportunity) costs of plan action like disadvantages represent simple (direct) costs of plan action: in neither case does a negative somehow take on an advocacy burden. the part everyone forgets: counterplans evaluate plans ONLY. they are not independently being evaluated in a debate. just because we ought NOT to take plan action because a competitive counterplan is preferable does NOT mean that we SHOULD take counterplan action -- the counterplan, if IT were being evaluated, might well be rejected as well -- it's opportunity costs might be an even better competitive alternative. i have previously pointed this out by observing that competition is NOT a transitive relation. the logic of counterplans makes them conditional: they are REASONS not to adopt the plan (that's what COMPETITION does). if any given REASON to reject the plan fails, that does not thus automatically become some sort of WARRANT for the plan. straight-turned counterplans, IF the status quo or another counterplan competes with plan and is better than the turned counterplan, become IRRELEVANT to evaluation of the plan (demonstrably not the opportunity cost of plan action). similarly, NONCOMPETITIVE counterplans (or noncompetitive components of a counterplan) are NOT reasons to adopt or not adopt the plan. true, one can "augment" the logic of counterplans with all manner of crud like "but conditional counterplans mean 2AC has to think more than God intended: the remedy is to make 2NC spend 3 minutes tap dancing..." and that is what intrinsicness perms and advocated perms and dispositionality and replanning and other such come to in the end... the fundamental ground issues for any debate on any resolution are FOCUS and ADVOCACY: FOCUS identifies the issue(s) the ballot gets decided by and ADVOCACY identifies who must support which issue(s). i think that any debate theory worth spit has to LINK advocacy to focus. that's because getting to choose focus is a MASSIVE ground advantage. (for the vast majority of resolutions -- for some, where there seem to be only 7 "worthwhile" topical plans, it isn't that much of a ground advantage, true, and affirmative only wins 55% of the time when one would think they'd be losing in record numbers). if one side of a debate gets to choose the focus of the debate, then the only chance at ground equalization is to impose upon them a unilateral advocacy burden. there are other ways to link focus and advocacy. counterplans aren't advocated because of the implicit ground deal between the affirmative and the negative, the core parametric agreement: the affirmative unilaterally advocates their resolutional example and whether that example ought to be done will be the focus of the debate. counterplans are reasons NOT to adopt the affirmative plan. the negative still gets screwed in this deal it seems to me: the aff gets to call the shots about what plan decides the substantive debate and the ONLY thing the negative gets is no advocacy burden. but it is MUCH better than alternative aff plans, perm advocacy shifts, intrinsicness perms, advocated intrinsicness persm, replanning, random bullshit de jure #3, etc... plan-plan strikes another deal: both the affirmative and negative advocate their resolutional plans and which is preferable decides the ballot. now negative takes on an advocacy burden but takes along with it equal participation in determining the focus of a debate: THAT is why plan-plan was also called COMPARISON FOCUS debate. the negative plan doesn't have to compete BECAUSE it is advocated, ie on an equal standing as the affirmative plan with respect to the ballot. anyway, michael korcok From lacyjp Tue Oct 12 18:52:55 1999 From: lacyjp (JP Lacy) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 16:52:55 -0700 Subject: dispositionality and side bias In-Reply-To: <199910122256.RAA56048@saluki-mail.siu.edu> Message-ID: Trust me, every time I vote for a counterplan or a permutation, I vote FOR the counterplan or the permutation. --JP Lacy On Tue, 12 Oct 1999, Eric Slusher wrote: > At 11:37 AM 10/12/99 -0400, you wrote: > >In the discussion of counterplan advocacy, multiple counterplans, and > >counterplans that can be dropped in favor of the status quo, some of the > >arguments have been based on the idea that a counterplan is an "opportunity > >cost." In the archives I found a long discussion of this written by > >Michael Korcok (who footnotes a 1989 article I have not read). I don't > >think the theory (at least his version of it) supports the uses that are > >made here. > > As far as advocacy of counterplans goes - you're wrong. Voting negative > means nothing more than non-acceptance of the plan. You don't vote FOR > counterplans only against the plan. The simple meaning of the word > "negative" implies it. Harris loves to poke fun at me because the ballot > only asks which team did the better debating, Aff or Neg? Well, that's > nice, but that in no way dismisses the opportunity cost concept that voting > for the negative team because they debated so well that they won their cp > means voting FOR the cp. You vote FOR teams not FOR counterplans. > Lechtreck's illustration of the difference between competitive counterplans > and noncompetitive plan-plans nails it right on the head. > > But, don't take my word for it. If you dealve deeper into the archives > you might have found this post by Korcok from a few years ago...... > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > grounding counterplans as opportunity costs of a plan > obligates a negative to advocate them in no way that i am > aware of. counterplans represent true (opportunity) costs > of plan action like disadvantages represent simple (direct) > costs of plan action: in neither case does a negative > somehow take on an advocacy burden. > > the part everyone forgets: counterplans evaluate plans ONLY. > they are not independently being evaluated in a debate. > just because we ought NOT to take plan action because a > competitive counterplan is preferable does NOT mean that we > SHOULD take counterplan action -- the counterplan, if IT > were being evaluated, might well be rejected as well -- it's > opportunity costs might be an even better competitive > alternative. i have previously pointed this out by > observing that competition is NOT a transitive relation. > > the logic of counterplans makes them conditional: they are > REASONS not to adopt the plan (that's what COMPETITION > does). if any given REASON to reject the plan fails, that > does not thus automatically become some sort of WARRANT for > the plan. straight-turned counterplans, IF the status quo or > another counterplan competes with plan and is better than > the turned counterplan, become IRRELEVANT to evaluation of > the plan (demonstrably not the opportunity cost of plan > action). similarly, NONCOMPETITIVE counterplans (or > noncompetitive components of a counterplan) are NOT reasons > to adopt or not adopt the plan. > > true, one can "augment" the logic of counterplans with all > manner of crud like "but conditional counterplans mean 2AC > has to think more than God intended: the remedy is to make > 2NC spend 3 minutes tap dancing..." > and that is what intrinsicness perms and advocated perms and > dispositionality and replanning and other such come to in > the end... > > the fundamental ground issues for any debate on any > resolution are FOCUS and ADVOCACY: FOCUS identifies the > issue(s) the ballot gets decided by and ADVOCACY identifies > who must support which issue(s). > > i think that any debate theory worth spit has to LINK > advocacy to focus. > that's because getting to choose focus is a MASSIVE ground > advantage. > (for the vast majority of resolutions -- for some, where > there seem to be only 7 "worthwhile" topical plans, it isn't > that much of a ground advantage, true, and affirmative only > wins 55% of the time when one would think they'd be losing > in record numbers). if one side of a debate gets to choose > the focus of the debate, then the only chance at ground > equalization is to impose upon them a unilateral advocacy > burden. there are other ways to link focus and advocacy. > > counterplans aren't advocated because of the implicit ground > deal between the affirmative and the negative, the core > parametric agreement: > > the affirmative unilaterally advocates their resolutional > example and whether that example ought to be done will be > the focus of the debate. > > counterplans are reasons NOT to adopt the affirmative plan. > > the negative still gets screwed in this deal it seems to > me: the aff gets to call the shots about what plan decides > the substantive debate and the ONLY thing the negative gets > is no advocacy burden. but it is MUCH better than > alternative aff plans, perm advocacy shifts, intrinsicness > perms, advocated intrinsicness persm, replanning, random > bullshit de jure #3, etc... > > plan-plan strikes another deal: > > both the affirmative and negative advocate their > resolutional plans and which is preferable decides the > ballot. > > now negative takes on an advocacy burden but takes along > with it equal participation in determining the focus of a > debate: THAT is why plan-plan was also called COMPARISON > FOCUS debate. the negative plan doesn't have to compete > BECAUSE it is advocated, ie on an equal standing as the > affirmative plan with respect to the ballot. > > anyway, > michael korcok > From debatenerd Tue Oct 12 19:31:32 1999 From: debatenerd (Steve Miller) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 17:31:32 PDT Subject: Who is competing at the Aztec in San Diego Message-ID: Who is competing at the AZTEC in San Diego this weekend? Is there anybody putting together a teamlist or a caselist for it? If not I am willing to do so. Thanks Steve ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From blksage Tue Oct 12 20:13:08 1999 From: blksage (The Black Sage) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 18:13:08 -0700 Subject: Terrorism Cites Message-ID: Hey! Does anyone have any good terrorism cites? I wanna help my novices throw togeather a decent terrorism D/A! Thanks, Shelton From aaron.garza Tue Oct 12 20:06:50 1999 From: aaron.garza (AARON GARZA) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 20:06:50 -0500 Subject: H2O Wars Message-ID: Hi, Does anyone have negative cites for Syria/Water Wars cases. Any help would be appreciated. thanks. Aaron Garza Texas From LCKanak Tue Oct 12 20:42:42 1999 From: LCKanak (Lisa Kanak) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 20:42:42 -0500 Subject: Education Tidbits Message-ID: Evolving Debate . . . "Kentucky's Department of Education last week replaced the word "evolution" with the term "change over time" in its state testing materials. Officials admit, however, that evolution will still be the standard for the state's curriculum. In New Mexico, meanwhile, the state education board voted not to allow any teaching of alternate theories to evolution." Limiting Vouchers . . . "The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday refused to reconsider a lower-court ruling that Maine may subsidize vouchers to students of non-religious schools, but deny them to students in religious schools. The action applies only to Maine and sets no precedent." Safer Sex" Takes Hit: Abstinence Backers Highlight HPV "A new study from a pro-'safer-sex' group confirms what abstinence supporters have said for years: Promiscuity breeds disease. The Alan Guttmacher Institute, formerly connected with Planned Parenthood, estimated last week that two-thirds of all sexually active, unmarried women and teens are at risk of getting a sexually transmitted disease (STD) through multiple sex partners." "Abstinence backers, such as Republican Congressman Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, are trying to highlight the threat posed by one little-known STD, and the negligible impact that the 'safer sex' ideology has on stopping it. The human papilloma virus, or HPV, is an incurable disease that most often manifests as warts in the genital area, and can lead to cervical cancer. HPV is spread predominantly - though not entirely - through sexual contact. The statistics are surprising. Some 20 million women and men have HPV, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. Five thousand women a year die as a direct consequence of HPV, said Michael Schwartz a Coburn aide. Virtually every case of cervical cancer is associated with HPV, Schwartz said. The federal government does not regularly track HPV - a fact that Coburn, a practicing obstetrician-gynecologist, and the Family Research Council (FRC) are trying to remedy. " "According to the American Social Health Association (ASHA), the idea that condoms protect against HPV is 'a dangerous myth.' Condoms are likely to be less protective against STDs that spread through skin-to-skin contact, such as HPV, said an ASHA fact sheet titled, "HPV Myths and Misconceptions." Focus on the Family, Citizen Issues Alert, October 13, 1999, vol. 2, Number 50. Lisa C. Kanak From jackhammer Tue Oct 12 22:20:15 1999 From: jackhammer (Jack Hammer) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 23:20:15 -0400 Subject: dispositionality and side bias Message-ID: >>In the discussion of counterplan advocacy, multiple counterplans, and >>counterplans that can be dropped in favor of the status quo, some of the >>arguments have been based on the idea that a counterplan is an "opportunity >>cost." In the archives I found a long discussion of this written by >>Michael Korcok (who footnotes a 1989 article I have not read). I don't >>think the theory (at least his version of it) supports the uses that are >>made here. >As far as advocacy of counterplans goes - you're wrong. Voting negative >means nothing more than non-acceptance of the plan. You don't vote FOR >counterplans only against the plan. You have restated the position I was arguing against. That does not by itself prove me wrong. Your last two sentences above sound like you take the position that (as in the "fire" example and the "pizza" example) the negative team in a debate is purely obstructionist. As I said in several previous messages, if someone just said "I do not care WHAT happens as long as you do not get your way" I wouldn't bother arguing with them. But if they took a competing position and defended it, then we could have a balanced debate. When a judge votes for a counterplan, they are saying that the counterplan is better than the plan. The judge has two choices, and voting "against" the affirmative plan necessitates voting "for" the counterplan. It is the same thing. Voting affirmative means nothing more than non-acceptance of the status quo (or the counterplan). > The simple meaning of the word "negative" implies it. I think this particular argument leads you to several dead ends. It could mean the team cannot propose but only oppose, which would reasonably mean that there should be no counterplans at all. It could mean negating the resolution, but I do not think anyone wants to go there. And it could mean negating the plan, which could include countering it with a different plan, but would still mean the negative is defending it as a more desirable alternative. >You vote FOR teams not FOR counterplans. If this also implies that a vote for an affirmative team does NOT mean a vote for the affirmative plan, then it leads nowhere. Otherwise, it is a very imbalanced view. >grounding counterplans as opportunity costs of a plan >obligates a negative to advocate them in no way that i am >aware of. counterplans represent true (opportunity) costs >of plan action like disadvantages represent simple (direct) >costs of plan action: in neither case does a negative >somehow take on an advocacy burden. In several messages I have tried to argue that a counterplan is not itself an "argument," any more than a plan is an "argument." The simple meaning of the word "plan" implies this. Here goes again. The advantages of a competitive counterplan (and thus, comparative disadvantages to the plan) would be the opportunity cost of adopting an affirmative plan. The counterplan itself cannot possibly be a "cost." Costs and benefits are arguments. Plans and counterplans are not and can not possibly be arguments. They are places from which arguments can be made. This is just a quick summary of some of my previous messages. >the part everyone forgets: counterplans evaluate plans ONLY. A good thing to forget, since it begs the question. Affirmative plans also "only" evaluate the status quo. And the advantages of that plan are "only" opportunity costs that are incurred by keeping the status quo. >they are not independently being evaluated in a debate. Correct. Neither the plan nor the counterplan can be independently evaluated, since there must be a comparison. That is why, in order for the negative arguments to make sense and to be complete, they must come from some place. >just because we ought NOT to take plan action because a >competitive counterplan is preferable does NOT mean that we >SHOULD take counterplan action If it is better then we should do it! And if the plan is better than the counterplan, we should do that! Why not do the better alternative? >the logic of counterplans makes them conditional: they are >REASONS not to adopt the plan (that's what COMPETITION >does). A counterplan is not a reason nor is it an argument. Negative arguments are reasons to reject the plan. Those arguments are comparative by nature, so they mean nothing if they are not based in a defense of some policy (status quo or counterplan). >counterplans are reasons NOT to adopt the affirmative plan. Counterplans are not reasons, nor are they arguments. From ehrlenmeyerflask Tue Oct 12 23:00:11 1999 From: ehrlenmeyerflask (Aaron Klemz) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 23:00:11 CDT Subject: dispositionality and side bias Message-ID: Korcok rises from the grave and croaks: :) > >just because we ought NOT to take plan action because a > >competitive counterplan is preferable does NOT mean that we > >SHOULD take counterplan action Goldberg spears him and bellows: If it is better then we should do it! And if the plan is better than the counterplan, we should do that! Why not do the better alternative? Klemz: Well, I don't think that any of us operate under the delusion that we actually do anything. This here discussion is pretty much unresolvable. It has nothing to do with the truth of either position (counterplans as competing policies vs. counterplans as opportunity costs). This debate is not semantics - it is about articulating a vision for what constitutes the debate we want to see and finding a theory that can support that vision. - Before you think I'm too wacky, consider that the "truth" of any of these theoretical questions is not to be found, anywhere. We choose certain theories for the kinds of debates they foster - invoking the "quality of education" is a frequent tactic, or arguing that this or that theory promotes a "fair division of ground." And even the question of what constitutes a "fair division of ground" is hazy - and in the end, that is exactly where the real battles on theory are fought. Too much theory (counterplan and otherwise) has lost track of the ultimate futility of self-justification. I like Korcok's theory because he has justified on the battleground that I mentioned above, while the problems with the policy advocacy approach haven't been touched (the problems for debate practice when affirmatives are allowed to "shift" advocacy, by replanning or advocating a permutation.) But, at the very least, I think it's important not to lose track of the forest for the trees. Korcok again: > >the logic of counterplans makes them conditional: they are > >REASONS not to adopt the plan (that's what COMPETITION > >does). GOLD - BERG : A counterplan is not a reason nor is it an argument. Negative arguments are reasons to reject the plan. Those arguments are comparative by nature, so they mean nothing if they are not based in a defense of some policy (status quo or counterplan). Klemz: You leave no space for critical arguments that do not defend policies, but provide good reasons for rejecting them. You leave no room for negative arguments that reject the use of statist policy-making for controlling the world. Heck, you may think those arguments are crap - but they sure don't defend the status quo or the counterplan, and your theory disallows them. ANYWAY - the real question is: what is it that we want from counterplan theory, and how do we get there? If we recognize "education" and "competitive fairness" as core values informing the debate enterprise and influencing theory, it seems far more productive to examine which theory promotes these values best. Perhaps there are other values we want theory to support. This kind of examination of theory seems to be the right move. We need to meta-theorize about debate before we theorize. Aaron ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Aaron Klemz / Graduate Debate Assistant / Southern Illinois University at Carbondale email - ehrlenmeyerflask at hotmail.com / US Mail 705 W. College St, Carbondale IL 62901 "From this hour I ordain myself loos'd of limits and imaginary lines, Going where I list, my own master total and absolute, Listening to others, considering well what they say, Pausing, searching, receiving, contemplating, Gently, but with undeniable will, divesting myself of the holds that would hold me." Walt Whitman, "Song of the Open Road" ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com >From Wed Oct 13 00:02:43 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 37186 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 00:11:35 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo14.mx.aol.com (imo14.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.4]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA30206 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 00:03:25 -0400 Received: from SMDebate at aol.com by imo14.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id nPVUa02563 (4463) for ; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 00:02:44 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 26 Message-ID: <0.cd97ab46.25355e63 at aol.com> Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 00:02:43 EDT Reply-To: SMDebate at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: David Baker Subject: Ordering Ballots I just made my annual discovery that I don't have any LD ballots for our tournament next weekend. I also can't find a thing in my office, much less my SCA or NDT directory. Who do I order them from? Little help please. David Baker St. Mark's From ehrlenmeyerflask Tue Oct 12 23:03:10 1999 From: ehrlenmeyerflask (Aaron Klemz) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 23:03:10 CDT Subject: LSU Swing Partnership Message-ID: If anyone is attending the LSU Baton Rouge tournament and is looking for a varsity swing partner, SIU would love to talk to you. Tommy Curry would like to go, and we just don't have a partner for him. Backchannel me if interested. Aaron SIU ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Aaron Klemz / Graduate Debate Assistant / Southern Illinois University at Carbondale email - ehrlenmeyerflask at hotmail.com / US Mail 705 W. College St, Carbondale IL 62901 "From this hour I ordain myself loos'd of limits and imaginary lines, Going where I list, my own master total and absolute, Listening to others, considering well what they say, Pausing, searching, receiving, contemplating, Gently, but with undeniable will, divesting myself of the holds that would hold me." Walt Whitman, "Song of the Open Road" ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From rpeacor Tue Oct 12 23:04:46 1999 From: rpeacor (Rick Peacor) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 21:04:46 -0700 Subject: U of Oregon Invitation Message-ID: I have had several requests for a repost of the Invitation to the U of O tournament. Here it is. Dear Colleague: The University of Oregon Program of Debate and Public Discourse, the Robert D. Clark Honors College, and the Northwest Forensic Conference invites you and your students to attend the University of Oregon Forensic Tournament scheduled for Friday, October 22, Saturday, October 23, and Sunday, October 24. The tournament is a Northwest Designated tournament, and is sanctioned by both the Cross Examination Debate Association and the National Parliamentary Debate Association. We will offer the following: 1. Six preliminary rounds of CEDA debate, in Open and Junior Divisions with appropriate number of elimination rounds. 2. Six preliminary rounds of Parliamentary debate, in traditional Open and Junior divisions, and the Novice Debate division with appropriate elimination rounds. 3. The eleven AFA-NIET individual events. 4. A seasoned tab room staff made up of Northwest forensic educators who will ensure a smooth and efficient tournament experience. 5. Fall in the Northwest. Eugene is located 90 miles south of Portland, OR and 70 miles east of the Pacific Ocean in the Willamette valley. There are a variety of sights and activities in the area worth your time. So, come early and stay late. Please join us for education, competition and fun. Sincerely, Rick Peacor Tournament Director / Director of Intercollegiate Forensics David Frank Director of Debate and Public Discourse Peter Mohn Assistant Director of Forensics Nick Lougee Assistant Director of Forensics This tournament will adhere to the principles and practices outlined in the following documents: The Statement of Ethics for the Northwest Forensics Conference The Statement of Ethical Principals of the Cross Examination Debate Association The CEDA Statement on Discrimination and Sexual Harassment The Principles and Objectives of the Guild of American Forensics Educators The NPDA Statement on Code of Ethics Tournament Information Entry Deadline: Please return the enclosed entry forms, Fax, e-mail or telephone entries (e-mail is preferred) no later than 5 p.m., Monday, October 18, to: Rick Peacor Robert D. Clark Honors College University of Oregon Eugene, OR 97403 phone: 541-346-4186 fax: 541-346-2220 E-mail: rpeacor at rio.com Entry fees and hired judging fees will be assessed by 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, October 20. After that time fees may be increased but not reduced. Please report entry changes as soon as possible. Fees (These Fees are only preliminary estimates, and may change by next fall): Registration Fees: School Fee: $25.00 Debate Fee: $30.00 per team Individual Events: $ 5.00 per slot NFC Fee: $ 3.25 per contestant Judging Fees: Uncovered CEDA/NDT Team: $60.00 per team (One judge covers 2 teams) Uncovered Parliamentary Debate Team: $50.00 per team (One judge covers 2 teams) Uncovered Individual Events: $ 7.00 per slot (One judge covers 1-6 ie slots) Each school must provide the equivalent of one full-time judge in order for students to compete at this tournament. One judge covers two debate teams and one-eight individual events slots. Please bring judges. Judges are committed one round past the elimination of their teams or contestants. Checks should be made payable to the University of Oregon Forensics Program. Parking: Parking is limited, and campus security will ticket your vehicle if you do not have a permit on Friday. You can obtain a free visitors parking permit at the parking kiosk on 13th Avenue (from Franklin Blvd. turn on Agate, then turn right on 13th). You should then drop your students off at the Erb Memorial Union, before parking in the appropriate lot. You will not need a parking permit on Saturday or Sunday, but do not park at a meter on Saturday, or you will receive a ticket. Tournament Administration In accordance with the NFC guidelines for Sanctioned Tournaments, University of Oregon students will compete and will be eligible for awards. The tournament staff will include Directors of Forensics from throughout the region. Individual Events: Individual events will be pre-matched using a computer program. Drops will be processed as received by the tournament staff. Students will advance to elimination rounds based on the following hierarchy: total rank in prelims; total rating in prelims; adjusted prelim rank, dropping lowest rank; adjusted prelim rate, dropping lowest rating. The tournament will use a clean slate approach to determine winners from final rounds of individual events. When a tie on total ranks exists in the final round, the tie will be broken using this hierarchy: 1) judges preference; 2) if three or more are tied or if an even number of judges was used final round RATINGS will be used; 3) ranks from prelims; 4) ratings from prelims; 5) use final round only, but drop low rate and low rank, not necessarily from same ballot; 6) drop low rank and low rate from prelims. Debate: The first two rounds of debate will be pre-matched so please report drops promptly. The third, fourth and fifth preliminary round will be power-matched using a high-low in-bracket format. Round six will be matched high-high. Participants for elimination rounds in Parliamentary and Public debate will be determined on the basis of: (1) win-loss record; (2) adjusted cumulative speaker ratings after dropping highs and lows; (3) cumulative speaker ratings; (4) quality of competition (win-loss record of opposing teams). In CEDA debate, at a minimum, all teams with winning records will advance. The University of Oregon tournament will break brackets in elimination rounds to avoid teams from the same school debating each other. Sweepstakes: Sweepstakes points for the tournament will be calculated according to the following formula: CEDA/NDT Debate: 1st 20 points 2nd 14 points Semi-finalist 8 points Quarterfinalist 4 points Octafinalist 2 points Parliamentary Debate: 1st 15 points 2nd 10 points Semi-finalist 6 points Quarterfinalist 3 points Octafinalist 1 point Individual Events: 1st 10 points 2nd 7 points 3rd 4 points Finalist 1 point Event Information DEBATE: CEDA/NDT Debate (Open, Junior), Northwest Public Sphere Debate (Open) PARLIAMENTARY Debate (Open, Junior), NOVICE Debate (Parliamentary style) PATTERN A: Informative Speaking (N, J, S), Extemporaneous Speaking (N, J, S), ADS (J, S), Prose Interpretation (N, J, S), Duo Interpretation (J, S) PATTERN B: Persuasive Speaking (N, J, S), Impromptu (N, J, S), Communication Analysis (S), Program Oral Interp. (J, S), Dramatic Interpretation (J, S), Poetry (J, S) Students may enter up to two individual events in each conflict pattern. Students are responsible for making it to their rounds on time. Divisions: Open/Senior Division: Open to all students. Junior Division: Open to any student who has earned eight or fewer collegiate awards. In CEDA Debate, junior division is for students who have not won more than five quarterfinalist or higher trophies in college debate or high school Tournament of Champions qualifier tournaments in LD or policy debate. Novice Division: Open to any student who has earned three or fewer awards in collegiate competition and who has competed in no more than two semesters of competition at the high school and/or college level. Public Address, Interpretation and Debate events may be considered independently when placing students in appropriate divisions. In CEDA Debate, Parliamentary Debate and Duo Interpretation the team member with the highest division placement determines the division in which the teams are placed. Debate: CEDA/NDT Debate: 8-3-5 format, with 8 minutes maximum prep time per team. Debaters will use the 1999-2000 CEDA topic. NPDA: Parliamentary Style Debate: We will use NPDA rules and guidelines. Time limits will be 7-8-8-8-4-5. The debate starts with the beginning of the Prime Minister's speech. Students may use any resources they choose (books, Lexis/Nexis, magazine articles, briefs, people, etc.) during their preparation time. However, these materials may not be taken into the debating chamber. Topics will vary per round Novice, Junior and Senior Divisions. Novice Debate: Novice Debate is designed to be accessible to those students who have no debate experience but at the same time maintain a level of pedagogical rigor that will promote sound research, critical thinking, and advocacy skills. The rules for Novice Debate will be the same as for the Parliamentary Debate divisions with two exceptions. 1.) Points of Order will not be allowed by debaters. However, judges may call a Point of Order or a Point of Personal Privilege if a competitor engages in behavior contrary to the educational focus of the event, or that is detrimental to the decorum of a round. 2.) Particular resolutions that vary round-by-round will be drawn from a general topic area. The Topic Area for this tournament will be "education reform." Individual Events: Impromptu Speaking: topics will be of a proverb nature; 7 minutes for both preparation and speaking; limited notes are permitted. Informative Speaking: an original, factual speech. Audiovisuals may or may not be used. Multiple sources should be used and cited. Minimal notes permitted. 10 minutes. Prose Interpretation: a selection or selections of prose material of literary merit, which may be drawn from more than one source. Play cuttings and poetry are prohibited. Use of manuscript required. 10 minutes. Duo Interpretation: a cutting from a play or plays of literary merit, humorous or serious, involving the portrayal of two or more characters presented by two individuals. May be drawn from stage, screen or radio. No costumes, props, lighting, etc. Presentation from manuscript and the focus should be off-stage and not to each other. 10 minutes. Extemporaneous Speaking: Contestants are given three topics in the general area of current events. 30 minutes to prepare. 7 minutes. Limited notes permitted. Students will speak in the listed order. Posting of topics will be staggered. Persuasive Speaking: An original speech designed to inspire, reinforce or change beliefs, attitudes, values or actions of the audience. Audiovisuals may or may not be used. Multiple sources should be used and cited in the development of the speech. Minimal notes are permitted. 10 minutes. Program Oral Interpretation: a program of thematically linked selections of literary merit, chosen from two or three recognized genres of competitive interpretation (prose/poetry/drama). A substantial portion of the total time must be devoted to each of the genres used in the program. Different genre means the material must appear in separate pieces of literature. (e.g. a poem included in the short story that appears only in the short story does not constitute a second genre). Only one selection may be original. Use of manuscript required. 10 minutes. After Dinner Speaking: Original, humorous speech designed to exhibit sound speech composition, thematic coherence, direct communicative public speaking skills, and good taste. The speech should not resemble a nightclub act, an impersonation, or comic dialogue. Audio-visuals may or may not be used. Minimal notes permitted. 10 minutes. Communication Analysis: An original speech by the student designed to offer an explanation and/or evaluation of a communication event such as a speech, speaker, movement, poem, poster, film, campaign, etc. through the use of rhetorical principles. Audio-visuals may or may not be used. Manuscripts are permitted. 10 minutes. Drama Interpretation: A cutting which represents one or more characters from a play or plays of literary merit. This material may be drawn from stage, screen or radio. Manuscript required. 10 minutes. (AFA has passed a rule that will allow manuscripts to be optional in this event at a future national tournament.) Poetry Interpretation: A selection or selections of poetry of literary merit, which may be drawn from more than one source. Play cuttings are prohibited. Use of manuscript required. 10 minutes. Debate and Judge Entries School: Director of Forensics: School Phone: email address: Judges (Please List Events and any conflicts): Debate Entries (Please Include First and Last Names and identify the event and division): University of Oregon Forensic Tournament Tentative Tournament Schedule Friday, October 22 11:00-12:00 Registration (EMU Lobby) 12:00 Extemp Draw 12:30-1:45 Round 1-Pattern A 1:45-3:00 Round 1-Pattern B 2:00 CEDA/Public Rounds 1 & 2 pairings released 3:00-5:30 Round 1-CEDA/Public Debate 3:40 Round 1 NPDA Topic Announced 4:00-5:15 Round 1-NPDA Debate 5:45-8:00 Round 2-CEDA/Public Debate 5:20 Round 2 NPDA Topic Announced 5:45-7:15 Round 2 NPDA Debate 7:20 Round 3 NPDA Topic Announced 7:45-9:00 Round 3-NPDA Saturday, October 23 7:00 EMU Opens Continental Breakfast (Location TBA) 7:30 Extemp Draw 8:00-9:15 Round 2 Pattern A 9:15-10:45 Round 2 Pattern B 10:50 Round 4 NPDA Topic Announced 10:45-1:00 Round 3 CEDA/Public Debate 11:15-12:30 Round 4 NPDA Debate 12:30-1:15 Lunch 1:00 Extemp Draw 1:30-2:45 Round 3 Pattern A 2:45-4:45 Round 4 CEDA/Public Debate 2:50 Round 5 NPDA Topic Announced 3:15-4:30 Round 5 NPDA 5:00-7:15 Round 5 CEDA/Public Debate 7:15-8:15 Round 3 Pattern B 8:20 Round 5 NPDA Topic Announced 8:45-10:00 Round 5 NPDA 8:15-10:15 Round 6 CEDA/Pubic Debate Sunday, October 24 7:30 EMU Opens Continental Breakfast (Location TBA) 8:00 Extemp Draw 8:30-10:00 Finals Pattern A 10:10 Octafinals NPDA Topic Announced 10:00-12:00 Octafinals CEDA/Public Debate 10:30-12:00 Octafinals NPDA 12:00-1:30 Finals Pattern B 1:30-2:15 Lunch 2:15-4:15 Quarterfinals All Debate 4:30 Awards (Location TBA) ASAP Semifinals All Debate ASAP Finals All Debate Accommodations We have included a list of some of the hotels near campus. Rooms fill-up quickly. MAKE YOUR RESERVATIONS NOW! Shilo Inn 3350 Gateway Springfield, OR 1-800-222-2244 66 Motel (the cheapest) 755 E. Broadway Eugene, OR 541-342-5041 Campus Inn 390 E. Broadway Eugene, OR 541-343-3376 Travelodge 1859 Franklin Blvd. Eugene, OR 541-342-6383 Ramada Inn 225 Coburg Rd. Eugene, OR 541-342-5181 Rodeway Inn 3480 Hutton Rd. Springfield, OR 541-746-8471 Doubletree Hotel 3280 Gateway Rd. Springfield, OR 541-726-8181 Barrons Motel 1895 Franklin Blvd. (541) 342-6383 Best Western Green Tree 1759 Franklin Blvd. (541) 485-2727 Best Western New Oregon 1655 Franklin Blvd. (541) 683-3669 Eugene Hilton 66 East Sixth Avenue (541) 342-2000 Holiday Inn 225 Coburg Rd. (541) 342-5181 Phoenix Inn 850 Franklin (541) 344-0001 Quality Inn 2121 Franklin Blvd. (541) 342-1243 Red Lion 205 Coburg Rd. (541) 342-5201 If you are unable to find a place to stay you should call the Convention and Visitors Association of Lane County, Oregon. The Convention Services staff is aware of the University of Oregon Forensic Tournament, and will be happy to assist you in finding local accommodations. Sally McAleer Convention Sales & Services Coordinator (541) 484-5307 Peggy Raffin Convention Services Director 1-800-547-5445 >From Wed Oct 13 00:42:24 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 37630 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 00:43:07 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo29.mx.aol.com (imo29.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.73]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA14666 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 00:43:04 -0400 Received: from CliffUTenn at aol.com by imo29.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v22.4.) id nJDEa16946 (3971) for ; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 00:42:24 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 26 Message-ID: <2b169541.253567b0 at aol.com> Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 00:42:24 EDT Reply-To: CliffUTenn at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Cliff Sands Subject: Looking for deon garner If deon is out there please backchannel me asap.... Thanks Cliff Sands University of Tennessee Debate From mch766s Wed Oct 13 00:21:35 1999 From: mch766s (Martin Che Harris) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 00:21:35 -0500 Subject: dispositionality and side bias Message-ID: Yeah ran across similar gems while researching a paper I am writing on the reconstruction of trade off disadvantages using a label of them as a distinct form of pseudo-counterplan. Its point is far to complex to go into at this time, but I think if you wade through a couple of Bear's responses to opportunity cost as the backdrop for counterplans you might dig the dilemna in calling a counterplan a mere test. That is, opportunity cost theory requires propensity which the inherency of counterplans will always deny. Thus the theoretical foundation for counterplans is bankrupt if using economic opportunity cost as a justification since the proposed action is not truly an opportunity cost. Martin I think the world most REALLY becoming to an end. I find myself agreeing with Bear twice in one month. -----Original Message----- From: Eric Slusher To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU Date: Tuesday, October 12, 1999 5:56 PM Subject: Re: dispositionality and side bias >At 11:37 AM 10/12/99 -0400, you wrote: >>In the discussion of counterplan advocacy, multiple counterplans, and >>counterplans that can be dropped in favor of the status quo, some of the >>arguments have been based on the idea that a counterplan is an "opportunity >>cost." In the archives I found a long discussion of this written by >>Michael Korcok (who footnotes a 1989 article I have not read). I don't >>think the theory (at least his version of it) supports the uses that are >>made here. > >As far as advocacy of counterplans goes - you're wrong. Voting negative >means nothing more than non-acceptance of the plan. You don't vote FOR >counterplans only against the plan. The simple meaning of the word >"negative" implies it. Harris loves to poke fun at me because the ballot >only asks which team did the better debating, Aff or Neg? Well, that's >nice, but that in no way dismisses the opportunity cost concept that voting >for the negative team because they debated so well that they won their cp >means voting FOR the cp. You vote FOR teams not FOR counterplans. >Lechtreck's illustration of the difference between competitive counterplans >and noncompetitive plan-plans nails it right on the head. > >But, don't take my word for it. If you dealve deeper into the archives >you might have found this post by Korcok from a few years ago...... > >-------------------------------------------------------------------- > >grounding counterplans as opportunity costs of a plan >obligates a negative to advocate them in no way that i am >aware of. counterplans represent true (opportunity) costs >of plan action like disadvantages represent simple (direct) >costs of plan action: in neither case does a negative >somehow take on an advocacy burden. > >the part everyone forgets: counterplans evaluate plans ONLY. >they are not independently being evaluated in a debate. >just because we ought NOT to take plan action because a >competitive counterplan is preferable does NOT mean that we >SHOULD take counterplan action -- the counterplan, if IT >were being evaluated, might well be rejected as well -- it's >opportunity costs might be an even better competitive >alternative. i have previously pointed this out by >observing that competition is NOT a transitive relation. > >the logic of counterplans makes them conditional: they are >REASONS not to adopt the plan (that's what COMPETITION >does). if any given REASON to reject the plan fails, that >does not thus automatically become some sort of WARRANT for >the plan. straight-turned counterplans, IF the status quo or >another counterplan competes with plan and is better than >the turned counterplan, become IRRELEVANT to evaluation of >the plan (demonstrably not the opportunity cost of plan >action). similarly, NONCOMPETITIVE counterplans (or >noncompetitive components of a counterplan) are NOT reasons >to adopt or not adopt the plan. > >true, one can "augment" the logic of counterplans with all >manner of crud like "but conditional counterplans mean 2AC >has to think more than God intended: the remedy is to make >2NC spend 3 minutes tap dancing..." >and that is what intrinsicness perms and advocated perms and >dispositionality and replanning and other such come to in >the end... > >the fundamental ground issues for any debate on any >resolution are FOCUS and ADVOCACY: FOCUS identifies the >issue(s) the ballot gets decided by and ADVOCACY identifies >who must support which issue(s). > >i think that any debate theory worth spit has to LINK >advocacy to focus. >that's because getting to choose focus is a MASSIVE ground >advantage. >(for the vast majority of resolutions -- for some, where >there seem to be only 7 "worthwhile" topical plans, it isn't >that much of a ground advantage, true, and affirmative only >wins 55% of the time when one would think they'd be losing >in record numbers). if one side of a debate gets to choose >the focus of the debate, then the only chance at ground >equalization is to impose upon them a unilateral advocacy >burden. there are other ways to link focus and advocacy. > >counterplans aren't advocated because of the implicit ground >deal between the affirmative and the negative, the core >parametric agreement: > >the affirmative unilaterally advocates their resolutional >example and whether that example ought to be done will be >the focus of the debate. > >counterplans are reasons NOT to adopt the affirmative plan. > >the negative still gets screwed in this deal it seems to >me: the aff gets to call the shots about what plan decides >the substantive debate and the ONLY thing the negative gets >is no advocacy burden. but it is MUCH better than >alternative aff plans, perm advocacy shifts, intrinsicness >perms, advocated intrinsicness persm, replanning, random >bullshit de jure #3, etc... > >plan-plan strikes another deal: > >both the affirmative and negative advocate their >resolutional plans and which is preferable decides the >ballot. > >now negative takes on an advocacy burden but takes along >with it equal participation in determining the focus of a >debate: THAT is why plan-plan was also called COMPARISON >FOCUS debate. the negative plan doesn't have to compete >BECAUSE it is advocated, ie on an equal standing as the >affirmative plan with respect to the ballot. > >anyway, >michael korcok >From Wed Oct 13 01:16:53 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 37876 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 01:17:41 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo27.mx.aol.com (imo27.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.71]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA41322 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 01:17:29 -0400 Received: from AKing50 at aol.com by imo27.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id nATa023354 (4584) for ; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 01:16:54 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="part1_0.76f57a05.25356fc5_boundary" X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 41 Message-ID: <0.76f57a05.25356fc5 at aol.com> Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 01:16:53 EDT Reply-To: AKing50 at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Tony King Subject: Fwd: NEC-Music From Another Room --part1_0.76f57a05.25356fc5_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/12/99 2:11:00 PM Pacific Daylight Time, AKing50 writes: << In a message dated 10/11/99 2:13:39 PM Pacific Daylight Time, hoppock at HOTMAIL.COM writes: << > 3) Communication styles. I believe it was Ed Lee, but i could be wrong, who > once said that debate robbed minorities and women of their natural > communication style for a more masculine, structured style. is there a way > to deal with this?? is the community even aware of it?? how do you flow > it?? how do you evaluate it?? is this too oppressive or is it necessary?? > all important questions that must be asked. response: what is the "natural" communication style for ALL women and ALL minorities? you seem to indicate that one exists...at the point that you place all women and all minorities into a category that has no exceptions. ** First, I am the one whose comment was posted. Second, you insert the term ALL, that term is not there for a reason. There are studies of communication styles that do make those generalizations, that many women and minoritie cultures do tend to have a more narrative styles of speech, good or bad, it exists. I deliberately do NOT put the term ALL in there because there are usually exceptions to findings in research on many things, not just this one. So if anyone is dealing with ALL, it is you, not me. ** I would agree that from the iception of platonic thinking (st. thomas aquinas writes a bunch on it) that women have been viewed as more emotional and men as more rational or structured. But, just because this stereotype exists, why do you essentialize all women into those roles? ** First, where is this generalization coming from? No where in the post does it deal with "rational" vs "emotional". there is no link between structure and rationality that i see in this post or my previous post. Rationality or irrationality is not an argument i am making or addressing, go to the pomo literature if you want that discussion, but it doesn't apply here. Thus, i do not essentalize ALL (you love that all thing, don't you) women into any of these roles. The only comment i make is based on research done in the field of communication and brought up to me by a debater who cared to validate it through their experiences. You are the ALL person, not me. ** I don't think it's inherent in being a man or a woman to prefer either speaking style (or either way of thinking). ** Inherent no, but conditioned, educated, etc., it is, according to some of the gender research. It is not something people are born with, but it seems to be something that people are conditioned in to using based upon multiple factors that are layed out in the research. ** I personally tend to be much more emotional than logical in some decision-making processes. ** nonresponsive, see above ** Additionally, why does their communications style of CHOICE necessarrily have to be DIFFERENT than that of men or the majority or whatever? This seems to set up a system where women and minorities (minorities is such a bad term for this type of label anyway) are constructed as the "other". ** First, why does it have to be the same?? why is it ok that for a woman to get by, they have to conform to the masculine identity?? why is it that women are even asked to do this, while men are not?? The point of the original post was to suggest that this was an issue for discussion, and maybe an awareness that could be or should be raised. why can't both styles of communication interact?? The argument I make isn't that one should prevail, but is there a means to deal with the issue without making someone be forced to assimilate their communication style in order to have any chance to compete. Second, you don't explain how this portrays them as the "other", and personally, I don't see it. You may be interpreting it, but that is not the message being brought into this discussion on my part. My focus is that some people are being forced to change communication style, and that there might be alternative ways of evaluating debates so that they didn't have to, and still allow clash and good debate. And maybe there isn't, but it is a question that could be and should be addressed and evaluated. (and give me a new term if you don't like my terms, if i find it acceptable, i would be glad to encorporate it into my vocabulary). ** How does debate "rob" anyone of anything...I chose to become involved in debate and I'm assuming that you did too. ** ohhh, so if you dont' want to change to a masculine dominant form of communication, then leave?? america, love it or leave it?? Why should people be excluded from debate because of their communication style?? How do people entering debate at an age prior to awareness of their communication style or the implications of gender or other studies (NOT all) know that they are changing to a more masculine form of communication style? And why should the not debate? Aren't their ideas important too?? Debate, in my view, should include people, not exclude people. Why isn't there room for multiple communication styles?? ** Why do you construct all women and all minoritites as victims...such an over-powering force is obviously too large to deconstruct. If it's something that none of us can control and is happeing on the level of totality, then why do anything about it? ** First, it is not constructing them as victims. Second, with your argument, it only perpetuates their problem by ignoring it, since anytime i illustrate any problem, you interpret them as being victims, thus the problem is masked or never seen. Third, it is not "too large" to deconstruct, address or change. Fourth, there is no reason that we can't change it or adjust our ways of evaulating this that i have seen. Fifth, awareness, understanding, and rethinking can allow those voices to be heard in their own communication styles. Sixth, this argument that nothing can be done to change it only masks and allows it to continue due to the excuse that nothing can be done. If people want change, they can create it, afterall, they did create debate and it did evolve to its present form, and it can evolve to change all the time as it does. People make changes, institutions do not change by themselves, thus we can change it if we want to. ** do you see how this type of rhetoric can tend to passify the public? ** No, i can see how it can activate people to think about this discussion. I see how it can create an awareness. I see how it can allow people to discuss, debate, and come to a conclusion to create new understandings. The way you choose to frame the rhetoric could be pacifying, but to leave it as questions for discussion so that ideas may be brought forth for discussion and possible change shouldn't pacify the public at all. Maybe you should explain it. I see how your views are pacifying, but not how a discussion on this is. This original post was designed to create interest and discussion of many possible issues that relate to diversity. Any ideas that you might have to address the situation are welcomed, and you and all others are welcome to join the diversity in debate listserv that has been created to focus on these issues. Debate should welcome people, not stay as elitist as it has been at times, and debate will have the opportunity to show it isn't elitist each year with more and more UDL students coming out, can we help bring them into the fold? can we allow for more ideas? can we allow for more styles? can we allow for new people that aren't traditionally brought into debate?? can we allow ourselves to miss the opportunity to expand debate and include the long since excluded?? Do we just talk the talk or do we walk the walk?? I don't think we can afford to miss this opportunity to prove that we really do believe in those kritiks, that we really think that oppression is bad, that we really think that alternate ideas and frameworks are good, it is time to show it. It is time to find new ways to bring more people in, the NYUDL had around 160 teams for the UDL only tournament, hmmm, that is 320 new debaters in one UDL alone. There must be a lot of them across the country. We need to realize more and more debaters are being created and find spots to make our teams grow so that more than just the big schools can carry more teams, can set up better financial aid packages, so that more scholarships can be found. Just my 2 cents, peace Tony King Los Rios Debate >> >> --part1_0.76f57a05.25356fc5_boundary Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Return-path: AKing50 at aol.com From: AKing50 at aol.com Full-name: AKing50 Message-ID: <0.84a003bd.2534fde4 at aol.com> Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 17:11:00 EDT Subject: Re: NEC-Music From Another Room To: hoppock at HOTMAIL.COM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 41 In a message dated 10/11/99 2:13:39 PM Pacific Daylight Time, hoppock at HOTMAIL.COM writes: << > 3) Communication styles. I believe it was Ed Lee, but i could be wrong, who > once said that debate robbed minorities and women of their natural > communication style for a more masculine, structured style. is there a way > to deal with this?? is the community even aware of it?? how do you flow > it?? how do you evaluate it?? is this too oppressive or is it necessary?? > all important questions that must be asked. response: what is the "natural" communication style for ALL women and ALL minorities? you seem to indicate that one exists...at the point that you place all women and all minorities into a category that has no exceptions. ** First, I am the one whose comment was posted. Second, you insert the term ALL, that term is not there for a reason. There are studies of communication styles that do make those generalizations, that many women and minoritie cultures do tend to have a more narrative styles of speech, good or bad, it exists. I deliberately do NOT put the term ALL in there because there are usually exceptions to findings in research on many things, not just this one. So if anyone is dealing with ALL, it is you, not me. ** I would agree that from the iception of platonic thinking (st. thomas aquinas writes a bunch on it) that women have been viewed as more emotional and men as more rational or structured. But, just because this stereotype exists, why do you essentialize all women into those roles? ** First, where is this generalization coming from? No where in the post does it deal with "rational" vs "emotional". there is no link between structure and rationality that i see in this post or my previous post. Rationality or irrationality is not an argument i am making or addressing, go to the pomo literature if you want that discussion, but it doesn't apply here. Thus, i do not essentalize ALL (you love that all thing, don't you) women into any of these roles. The only comment i make is based on research done in the field of communication and brought up to me by a debater who cared to validate it through their experiences. You are the ALL person, not me. ** I don't think it's inherent in being a man or a woman to prefer either speaking style (or either way of thinking). ** Inherent no, but conditioned, educated, etc., it is, according to some of the gender research. It is not something people are born with, but it seems to be something that people are conditioned in to using based upon multiple factors that are layed out in the research. ** I personally tend to be much more emotional than logical in some decision-making processes. ** nonresponsive, see above ** Additionally, why does their communications style of CHOICE necessarrily have to be DIFFERENT than that of men or the majority or whatever? This seems to set up a system where women and minorities (minorities is such a bad term for this type of label anyway) are constructed as the "other". ** First, why does it have to be the same?? why is it ok that for a woman to get by, they have to conform to the masculine identity?? why is it that women are even asked to do this, while men are not?? The point of the original post was to suggest that this was an issue for discussion, and maybe an awareness that could be or should be raised. why can't both styles of communication interact?? The argument I make isn't that one should prevail, but is there a means to deal with the issue without making someone be forced to assimilate their communication style in order to have any chance to compete. Second, you don't explain how this portrays them as the "other", and personally, I don't see it. You may be interpreting it, but that is not the message being brought into this discussion on my part. My focus is that some people are being forced to change communication style, and that there might be alternative ways of evaluating debates so that they didn't have to, and still allow clash and good debate. And maybe there isn't, but it is a question that could be and should be addressed and evaluated. (and give me a new term if you don't like my terms, if i find it acceptable, i would be glad to encorporate it into my vocabulary). ** How does debate "rob" anyone of anything...I chose to become involved in debate and I'm assuming that you did too. ** ohhh, so if you dont' want to change to a masculine dominant form of communication, then leave?? america, love it or leave it?? Why should people be excluded from debate because of their communication style?? How do people entering debate at an age prior to awareness of their communication style or the implications of gender or other studies (NOT all) know that they are changing to a more masculine form of communication style? And why should the not debate? Aren't their ideas important too?? Debate, in my view, should include people, not exclude people. Why isn't there room for multiple communication styles?? ** Why do you construct all women and all minoritites as victims...such an over-powering force is obviously too large to deconstruct. If it's something that none of us can control and is happeing on the level of totality, then why do anything about it? ** First, it is not constructing them as victims. Second, with your argument, it only perpetuates their problem by ignoring it, since anytime i illustrate any problem, you interpret them as being victims, thus the problem is masked or never seen. Third, it is not "too large" to deconstruct, address or change. Fourth, there is no reason that we can't change it or adjust our ways of evaulating this that i have seen. Fifth, awareness, understanding, and rethinking can allow those voices to be heard in their own communication styles. Sixth, this argument that nothing can be done to change it only masks and allows it to continue due to the excuse that nothing can be done. If people want change, they can create it, afterall, they did create debate and it did evolve to its present form, and it can evolve to change all the time as it does. People make changes, institutions do not change by themselves, thus we can change it if we want to. ** do you see how this type of rhetoric can tend to passify the public? ** No, i can see how it can activate people to think about this discussion. I see how it can create an awareness. I see how it can allow people to discuss, debate, and come to a conclusion to create new understandings. The way you choose to frame the rhetoric could be pacifying, but to leave it as questions for discussion so that ideas may be brought forth for discussion and possible change shouldn't pacify the public at all. Maybe you should explain it. I see how your views are pacifying, but not how a discussion on this is. This original post was designed to create interest and discussion of many possible issues that relate to diversity. Any ideas that you might have to address the situation are welcomed, and you and all others are welcome to join the diversity in debate listserv that has been created to focus on these issues. Debate should welcome people, not stay as elitist as it has been at times, and debate will have the opportunity to show it isn't elitist each year with more and more UDL students coming out, can we help bring them into the fold? can we allow for more ideas? can we allow for more styles? can we allow for new people that aren't traditionally brought into debate?? can we allow ourselves to miss the opportunity to expand debate and include the long since excluded?? Do we just talk the talk or do we walk the walk?? I don't think we can afford to miss this opportunity to prove that we really do believe in those kritiks, that we really think that oppression is bad, that we really think that alternate ideas and frameworks are good, it is time to show it. It is time to find new ways to bring more people in, the NYUDL had around 160 teams for the UDL only tournament, hmmm, that is 320 new debaters in one UDL alone. There must be a lot of them across the country. We need to realize more and more debaters are being created and find spots to make our teams grow so that more than just the big schools can carry more teams, can set up better financial aid packages, so that more scholarships can be found. Just my 2 cents, peace Tony King Los Rios Debate >> --part1_0.76f57a05.25356fc5_boundary-- >From Tue Oct 12 23:13:15 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 38110 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 02:13:27 -0400 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 CAA26350 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 02:13:25 -0400 Received: from general3.asu.edu (general3.asu.edu [129.219.10.157]) by asu.edu (PMDF V5.2-31 #31135) with ESMTP id <0FJJ00GBM2MB57 at asu.edu> for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 23:13:23 -0700 (MST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by general3.asu.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id XAA05033 for ; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 23:13:17 -0700 (MST) X-Sender: lwulkan at general3.asu.edu MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Message-ID: Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 23:13:15 -0700 Reply-To: Lawrence.Wulkan at ASU.EDU To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Lawrence.Wulkan at ASU.EDU Subject: Ethics Question Here is an interesting question, can a debate team use the dissent of a Supreme Court decision claiming X action is unconstitutional, despite the fact that the majority decision rules otherwise. Specifically, I am thinking about cases over the last 30 years that hold that there is not a constitutional right to education. Is it ethical to use the dissent and then claim a constitutionality advantage? Larry Wulkan ljw at asu.edu 602-392-0808 From satsune Wed Oct 13 03:18:51 1999 From: satsune (Sean Nevala) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 01:18:51 -0700 Subject: Biola, Univ of Utah, Southern Utah cases anyone? Message-ID: Looking for case outlines or plan text... Any assistance would be appreciated. Sean CSULA Debate ===== __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com From apkemp Wed Oct 13 05:43:20 1999 From: apkemp (Andrew Kemp) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 05:43:20 -0500 Subject: Ethics Question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No, I do not believe it would be unethical to use evidence like that described below. This is one qualified person's opinion about X being consititutional or unconstitutional. Constitutionality or unconstitutionality is not really a matter of fact--just because the Supreme Court rules it is, does not make it so. If that were true, then definitively the death penalty would be acceptable and not unusual or cruel, because a high court has ruled it so--but there is certainly no consensus on that. You should only be careful to make sure you do not present the minority opinion as though it were a majority opinion or the actual urrent standing interpretation. Andrew Kemp ------------------ PO Box 4308 Concordia College Moorhead, MN 56562 ------------------ (218) 299-3970 Livedalen Hall 111 ------------------ "It's All Good!" On Tue, 12 Oct 1999 Lawrence.Wulkan at ASU.EDU wrote: > Here is an interesting question, can a debate team use the dissent of a > Supreme Court decision claiming X action is unconstitutional, despite the fact > that the majority decision rules otherwise. Specifically, I am thinking about > cases over the last 30 years that hold that there is not a constitutional > right to education. Is it ethical to use the dissent and then claim a > constitutionality advantage? > > Larry Wulkan > ljw at asu.edu > 602-392-0808 > >From Wed Oct 13 08:07:31 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 38955 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 08:12:49 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from MORRISVILLE.EDU (SNYMORVA.MORRISVILLE.EDU [136.204.1.1]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA72606 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 08:12:38 -0400 Received: from morrisville.edu by morrisville.edu (PMDF V5.1-7 #18385) id <01JH2UKKEC748Y4YDC at morrisville.edu> for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 08:07:32 EDT X-VMS-To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Message-ID: <01JH2UKKEVHU8Y4YDC at morrisville.edu> Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 08:07:31 -0400 Reply-To: WHITNEMR at MORRISVILLE.EDU To: Team Topic Debating in America From: WHITNEMR at MORRISVILLE.EDU Organization: SUNY College of Agriculture & Technology - Morrisville, New York Subject: Re: Ethics Question It is certainly "ethical" to use dissenting S.C. opinions, as long as you clearly label them "dissenting." Mark Whitney SUNY Morrisville From mdickman Wed Oct 13 07:16:07 1999 From: mdickman (Michael R. Dickman) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 08:16:07 -0400 Subject: Education Tidbits Message-ID: Yes, strangely enough, we in Kentucky will continue to teach 20th century science. We'll just call it something else!I guess the Kansas school board has done us all a favor by showing the world how silly you look when you insist that 19th century science be taught as we near the end of the 20th they have scared other states into doing the right thing....Thanks Kansas! Mike ---------- From: Lisa Kanak[SMTP:LCKanak at IBM.NET] Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 1999 9:42 PM To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU Subject: Education Tidbits Evolving Debate . . . "Kentucky's Department of Education last week replaced the word "evolution" with the term "change over time" in its state testing materials. Officials admit, however, that evolution will still be the standard for the state's curriculum. In New Mexico, meanwhile, the state education board voted not to allow any teaching of alternate theories to evolution." Limiting Vouchers . . . "The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday refused to reconsider a lower-court ruling that Maine may subsidize vouchers to students of non-religious schools, but deny them to students in religious schools. The action applies only to Maine and sets no precedent." Safer Sex" Takes Hit: Abstinence Backers Highlight HPV "A new study from a pro-'safer-sex' group confirms what abstinence supporters have said for years: Promiscuity breeds disease. The Alan Guttmacher Institute, formerly connected with Planned Parenthood, estimated last week that two-thirds of all sexually active, unmarried women and teens are at risk of getting a sexually transmitted disease (STD) through multiple sex partners." "Abstinence backers, such as Republican Congressman Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, are trying to highlight the threat posed by one little-known STD, and the negligible impact that the 'safer sex' ideology has on stopping it. The human papilloma virus, or HPV, is an incurable disease that most often manifests as warts in the genital area, and can lead to cervical cancer. HPV is spread predominantly - though not entirely - through sexual contact. The statistics are surprising. Some 20 million women and men have HPV, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. Five thousand women a year die as a direct consequence of HPV, said Michael Schwartz a Coburn aide. Virtually every case of cervical cancer is associated with HPV, Schwartz said. The federal government does not regularly track HPV - a fact that Coburn, a practicing obstetrician-gynecologist, and the Family Research Council (FRC) are trying to remedy. " "According to the American Social Health Association (ASHA), the idea that condoms protect against HPV is 'a dangerous myth.' Condoms are likely to be less protective against STDs that spread through skin-to-skin contact, such as HPV, said an ASHA fact sheet titled, "HPV Myths and Misconceptions." Focus on the Family, Citizen Issues Alert, October 13, 1999, vol. 2, Number 50. Lisa C. Kanak From STRICKLG Wed Oct 13 07:41:50 1999 From: STRICKLG (Glen Strickland) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 07:41:50 -0500 Subject: Emporia Tournament Entries Message-ID: As of 7am Wednesday 45th NATIONAL PFLAUM DEBATES EMPORIA STATE UNIVERSITY TEAM/JUDGE LIST Augustana College (South Dakota) Dom Washington/Allison Proctor (JV) Judge: Heather Aldridge Concordia College Harry Niska/Andrew Kemp (Open) John Kelly/Chris Stinson (Open) Judge: Fred Sternhagen Eastern New Mexico State University Redhorse/Hanson (Open) Judges: Charles Waits & Katie Gilkinson Ft. Hays State University Andrew Halverson/Jason Regnier (Open) Joseph Ramsey/Brent Saindon (Open) Judge: Tony Penders George Mason University Jay Igiel/Frances Tufts (Open) Judge: Warren Decker Johnson County Community College Korryn Mozisek/Jessica Rowe (Open) Jeremy Hutchins Southwest Missouri State University Troy Payne/Matt Vega (Open) Shawn Bone/Chris Roberds (Open) Judge: Eric Morris Southwest Texas State University Jason Myres/Jacob Lightsey (Open) Courtney Wheeler/Keith Waters (Open) University of Central Oklahoma John Potts/Jamie Evans (Open) Chris Valencia/Steven Foster (Open) Paul Mooney/Jan Lehman (JV) Judges: Jan Hovden & Matt Moore University of Iowa Clay Cleveland/Amy Herrick (Open) Ted Moore/Daniel Prada (Open) Sherene Judeh/Tara Voss (Open) Sherwin Amiran/Jenny Wing (Open) Judges: Michele Choe & Jon Wiebel University of Michigan Dearborn Taimaa Hussein/Carlos Rangel (Open) Judge: Stacey Sowards University of Northern Iowa Adam Briddell/Jen Rawe (Open) Judge: Cate Palczewski University of North Texas Jason Sykes/John Hines (Open) Lauren Hildebrand/Holly Fortner (Open) Julian Gagnon/Scotty Gottbreht (Open) Matt Shaftstall/Sloan Callum (Open) Judges: Josh Hoe & Tara Tate University of Wyoming James Blevins/Steve Lunsford (Open) One JV team Judge: John Foy Wayne state University Kristy Opalewski/Ben Hillard (Open) Wichita State University Shannon Holland/Tom O'Toole (Open) James Harris/Kat Gillum (Open) Brian Gough/Tony Nation (Open) Darah Fellows/Melissa Angle (JV) Judges: Darren Elliott & Ishak From tjacobse Wed Oct 13 08:27:16 1999 From: tjacobse (Trond Jacobsen) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 09:27:16 -0400 Subject: CP's and Opportunity Costs Message-ID: My hazy recollection is the late Mr. Branham at Bates wrote of CP's as opportunity costs nigh on 20 years ago...and here we are again. Theory is always older than we think, a natural process of intellectual evolution, I suppose. One quick comment and a question...those who view their role as a judge as voting for one or the other competing plans (when defense of SQ is abadoned, and as opposed to voting for or against the affirmative) surely apply the same standards and employ the same expectations and impose the same burdens on negative advocacy as on affirmative advocacy. Or no? I do not recall seeing this equivalence employed in practice, though the theoretical grounding to this approach (vote for one or the other plan) should fairly require such balance. Second, what happens, in the world where policies are adopted, that Congress in our minds, when you vote "for a perm"? Trond From RGreen Wed Oct 13 09:00:41 1999 From: RGreen (Greene, Rebecca) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 10:00:41 -0400 Subject: anyone need a judge for duquesne Message-ID: If anyone needs to hire a judge for duquesne, let me know. I'm available. Please let me know ASAP. becca Rebecca Autumn Greene Research Assistant Education Statistics Services Institute 1000 Thomas Jefferson St., NW, Suite # 400 Washington, D.C. 20007 (202)295-6923 rgreene at dc.air.org (202)944-5250(fax) From RGreen Wed Oct 13 09:09:00 1999 From: RGreen (Greene, Rebecca) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 10:09:00 -0400 Subject: anyone trying to reach rebecca greene Message-ID: Hi, If anyone has tried to reach me over the last two weeks, I have just found out that my email has been having a ton of problems at my hotmail account which is why I switched edebate to my work account. I am now receiving some emails that were sent 2 weeks ago and some that I tried to send haven't gotten through to people. So, try emailing me at this account. Additionally, I moved(or should I say am in the process of moving since I was away at a tournament) over the weekend. So, here is my new info for people trying to reach me. Home phone: 540-710-2445. Address: 311 Bowen Drive, Fredericksburg, Va 22407. My cell phone is still 540-847-2343 and my work info is still the same for now. becca Rebecca Autumn Greene Research Assistant Education Statistics Services Institute 1000 Thomas Jefferson St., NW, Suite # 400 Washington, D.C. 20007 (202)295-6923 rgreene at dc.air.org From pls8 Wed Oct 13 09:59:54 1999 From: pls8 (Pamela Stepp) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 10:59:54 -0400 Subject: No subject Message-ID: Policy Debate Community: Cornell is now conducting it's national search for ADOF. If you have any questions you can contact Dr. Pamela Stepp. She will be interviewing applicants at NCA in Chicago for this position. ADVERTISING LANGUAGE CORNELL UNIVERSITY, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATION Lecturer/Assistant Director of Forensics, Nine-month, non-tenure track position. One-year probationary appointment followed by three-year renewable terms. Start Date: August 20, 2000 Responsibilities include teaching four sections of introductory speech communication each semester and assisting with coaching dynamic, national-caliber forensics program emphasizing Individual Events and CEDA Debate. Frequent tournament travel. Applicants should possess a Masters degree with a minimum of one year college-level teaching experience and college forensics coaching experience in CEDA or NDT Debate and/or Individual Events. Salary is competitive, commensurate with background and experience. Attractive fringe benefits package. Applicants should submit a letter of application, vita, academic transcripts, and the names, addresses and telephone numbers of three references to Dr. Ralph B. Thompson Lecturer Search Committee Department of Communication Cornell University 320 Kennedy Hall Ithaca, New York 14853-4203 Cornell University is an equal opportunity affirmative action employer. Women and Minorities are encouraged to apply. Dr. Pamela Stepp 310 Kennedy Hall Department of Communication Cornell University Ithaca, New York 14853 Phone 607-255-7819 Fax: 607-254-1322 From jackhammer Wed Oct 13 10:18:23 1999 From: jackhammer (Jack Hammer) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 11:18:23 -0400 Subject: dispositionality and side bias Message-ID: On Wed, 13 Oct 1999 , Martin Che Harris wrote: > Yeah ran across similar gems while researching a paper I am writing on >the reconstruction of trade off disadvantages using a label of them as a >distinct form of pseudo-counterplan. Its point is far to complex to go into >at this time, but I think if you wade through a couple of Bear's responses >to opportunity cost as the backdrop for counterplans you might dig the >dilemna in calling a counterplan a mere test. That is, opportunity cost >theory requires propensity which the inherency of counterplans will always >deny. Thus the theoretical foundation for counterplans is bankrupt if using >economic opportunity cost as a justification since the proposed action is >not truly an opportunity cost. Sounds interesting. I haven't read the Branham article on opportunity costs, so I don't necessarily have a problem with the general idea. But I don't think the "general idea" supports some of the claims that have been made in this thread using "opportunity cost" as support. I have also seen another Branham article footnoted, "Counterplan as Disadvantage." Both of the articles sound interesting. But the 1979 one sounds like it greatly restricts counterplans (similar to what you are saying about having to prove a propensity for the action happening, without the ability to fiat a negative counterplan). If that article meshes with his article on opportunity cost, I don't think the people who are throwing the term "opportunity cost" around here would like the implications. But if those articles say that a negative team doesn't stand anywhere, doesn't believe anything, and exists only to "test" an affirmative team, I will still disagree. >From Wed Oct 13 10:31:50 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 42490 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 11:33:22 -0400 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 LAA44320 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 11:33:15 -0400 Received: from BSUVC.bsu.edu by BSUVC.bsu.edu (PMDF V5.2-31 #35953) id <01JH2ZIYSK4M8X4BQX at BSUVC.bsu.edu> for edebate at list.uvm.edu (ORCPT rfc822;+22edebate+22 at list.uvm.edu); Wed, 13 Oct 1999 10:31:50 EST X-VMS-To: IN%"edebate at list.uvm.edu." MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Message-ID: <01JH2ZIYSK4O8X4BQX at BSUVC.bsu.edu> Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 10:31:50 -0500 Reply-To: 00MHBAUER at BSUVC.BSU.EDU To: Team Topic Debating in America From: mike Bauer <00mhbauer at BSUVC.BSU.EDU> Subject: Ball State entries As of 10:00 am Wednesday Marquette 1 open 2 novice Illinois State 3 novice Marshall 2 open Miami, Oh 3 open 2 novice No. Ill 3 open 2 novice Capital 3 novice Loyola 1 open Waiting for more who have said they are coming. Mike >From Wed Oct 13 11:52:03 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 42734 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 11:52:49 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from konichiwa.cc.columbia.edu (IDENT:cu58474 at konichiwa.cc.columbia.edu [128.59.59.132]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA41366 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 11:52:27 -0400 Received: from localhost by konichiwa.cc.columbia.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA23791; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 11:52:04 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Message-ID: Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 11:52:03 -0400 Reply-To: lf9 at COLUMBIA.EDU To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Lewis Freeman Subject: ECA CONFERENCE CALL FOR PAPERS: APRIL 27-30, PITTSBURGH Comments: To: Susan Drucker THE EASTERN COMMUNICATION ASSOCIATION ANNOUNCES NOVEMBER 15, 1999 AS THE DEADLINE FOR PAPERS TO BE SUBMITTED TO CONFERENCE ORGANIZERS. The 91st annual convention of the Eastern Communication Association will be held April 27-30, 2000, at the Westin William Penn Hotel in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The convention theme is: "THE ARCHITECTURE OF COMMUNICATION: CONSTRUCTION AND DECONSTRUCTION." Architecture, like communication, is an ancient art and practice. The history of architecture is the history of civilization with every culture having its own architectural styles analogous to its own language. Architecture and building deal with construction, design, form, style and substance, all of which can be read, interpreted, de-constructed. Messages, relationships, communities, organizations, social networks, identities and laws are constructed and de-constructed. Analysis and criticism involves construction and deconstruction. Communication systems are designed, media systems built, social networks are constructed. We design, plan, assemble messages and media. Architecture and planning play a role in communication from providing opportunities for interaction to the information superhighway. Architecture is metaphor. The adoption of spatial terminology is a useful mechanism for making the revolutionary changes of the information age less strange, intimidating, and boundless. Pittsburgh, the home of the steel, of building materials, is an appropriate place to devote a conference to a theme which calls for an examination of the structure, infrastructure, substructure, and foundation of the study of the building of communication messages, relationships, environments and the tools of analysis used to determine their structure and strength. Panels and Papers addressing this topic from a broad range of perspectives and methodologies are appropriate. Possible topics include, but are not limited to the following: public vs. private life, the relationship of communication opportunities and media developments, special populations and special sites of communications, the symbolic function of the landscape, design and workplaces, creating social spaces, the construction and deconstruction of social networks, the social construction of gender, the deconstruction of political messages, the construction of the celebrity, spaces and public rituals, the construction and deconstruction of performance, the construction and deconstruction of the laws and ethics of communication. Special features of the convention will include Short courses, Spotlight on scholarship programs, and "Construction and Convergence" program. ECA welcomes scholars and students in disciplines other than communication and encourages them to submit panel proposals and papers. Theme panel proposal not directly related to one of the interest group areas should be sent to: Professor Susan Drucker, ECA First Vice President Department of Speech Communication and Rhetorical Studies Hofstra University, Dempster Hall Hempstead, NY 11049 E-Mail: sphsjd at office.hofstra.edu OR druckers at ix.netcom.com Proposals for Short Courses should be sent to: Professor Sue Barnes, ECA Short Course Program Chair Department of Communication and Media Studies Fordham University, Rose Hill Campus 441 E. Fordham Road Bronx, NY 10458 E-Mail: barnes at murray.fordham.edu Those interested in Special Programs should contact: Professor Susan Jasko, ECA Special Programs Chair Department of Communication Studies 250 University Ave. California University of Pennsylvania California, PA 15419 E-Mail: jasko at cup.edu Individuals and/or institutions wishing to place an advertisement in the 2000 convention program, or co-sponsor an event, should contact: Professor S. Diane McFarland, ECA Director of Marketing D'Youville College 31 Callodine Ave. Buffalo, NY 14226 E-Mail: dianemac at buffnet.net Individuals wishing to assist with registration & ushering should contact: Professor Jean Ann Streiff, ECA Second Vice President 1431 Walnut St. Pittsburgh, PA 15218-1472 E-Mail: jxsi at msn.com Traditional interest group papers and program proposals should be sent to the Interest Group Planner listed below. Please contact the primary planner as early as possible to determine specific submission guidelines. Deadline for submission of paper & program proposals is November 15, 1999. 2000 INTEREST GROUP PROGRAM PLANNERS American Society for the History of Rhetoric Molly Meijer Wertheimer Department of Speech Comm./Women Studies Penn State Hazleton Campus Hazleton, PA 18201 (570) 450-3051 (tel) (570) 450-3182 (fax) mmw9 at psu.edu Applied Communication Interest Group Don Swanson Department of Communication Monmouth University West Long Branch, NJ 07764 (732) 571-3635 (tel) (732) 571-3609 (fax) dswanson at mondec.monmouth.edu Argumentation and Forensics Interest Group Jeffrey Pierson Bridgewater College Bridgewater, VA (540) 828-5347 (tel) Jpierson at bridgewater.edu Communication and Law Interest Group Brian M. O'Connell Department of Computer Science Central Connecticut State University 1615 Stanley Street New Britain, CT 06050 (860) 832-2718 (tel) (860) 832-2712 oconnellB at ccsu.edu Community College Interest Group Nancy J. Willets Cape Cod Community College 2240 Iyanough Road West Barnstable, MA 02668 (508) 362-2131 x4440 (tel) nwillets at capecod.mass.edu Health Communication Interest Group Thomas Mickey Bridgewater State College Communication Studies Bridgewater, MA 02324 tmickey at bridgew.edu Human Information Technologies Interest Group Star Muir George Mason University Dept. of Communication, 3D6 Fairfax, VA 22030 (703) 330-6918 (tel) (703) 993-1096 (fax) smuir at gmu.edu Instructional Practices Interest Group Melissa B. Wanzer Canisius College 2001 Main Street Buffalo, NY 14208-1098 (716) 888-2119 (tel) (716) 888-3118 (fax) wanzer at canisius.edu Intercultural Communication Interest Group Ron Jackson Penn State Dept. of Speech Communication 226 Sparks Building University Park, PA 16802-5201 (814) 863-6260 jlr6 at psu.edu Interpersonal/Organizational Interest Group Theodore A. Avtgis P.O. Box 6293 130 Armstrong Hall Communication Studies Department Morgantown, WV 26506-6293 (304) 293-3905 (tel) tavtgis at wvu.edu Interpretation and Performance Studies Interest Group Jonathon Gray Southern Illinois University Dept. of Speech Communication Carbondale, IL 62901 (618) 453-2296 (tel) spcjmg at office.hofstra.edu Kenneth Burke Society Paul B. Stewart Department of Communication Roberts Wesleyan College 2301 Westside Drive Rochester, NY 14624 (716) 594-6332 (tel) stewartp at roberts.edu Mass Communication Interest Group John Chapin Department of Communications Penn State University, Beaver campus 100 University Drive Monaca, PA 15061 (724) 773-3877 (tel) jrc11 at psu.edu Nonverbal Communication Interest Group Virginia P. Richmond PO Box 6293-108 Armstrong Hall Communication Studies West Virginia University Morgantown, WV 26506-6293 (304) 293-3905 (tel) (304) 293-8667 (fax) vprich at wvu.edu Political Communication Interest Group William Denman Marshall University 400 Hal Green Blvd. Huntington, WV 25755 (304) 696-2476 (tel) Rhetoric and Public Address Interest Group Kara Shultz Bloomsburg University Communication Studies and Theatre Arts 1126 McCormick Center Bloomsburg, PA 17815-1301 (717) 389-4712 (tel) (717) 389-3516 (fax) kshultz at bloomu.edu Theory and Methodology Interest Group Rena Robinson 1473 Dromedary Drive Harrisonburg, VA 22801 (540) 568-6757 (tel) (540) 568-7878 (fax) robinsry at jmu.edu Voices of Diversity Interest Group Donna Kowal Department of Communication SUNY College at Brockport Brockport, NY 14420 (716) 395-5295 (tel) (716) 395-5771 (fax) dkowal at brockport.edu >From Wed Oct 13 11:57:57 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 42936 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 11:58:53 -0400 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 LAA14626 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 11:58:52 -0400 Received: from FacNDTWIN at aol.com by imo-d06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id nWFZ0x9aDL (4050) for ; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 11:57:58 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 10 Message-ID: <0.c0140f67.25360605 at aol.com> Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 11:57:57 EDT Reply-To: FacNDTWIN at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Veronica Macias-Lucero Subject: Re: Who is competing at the Aztec in San Diego California state university Bakersfield will be attending. And bring 2 teams only this time. In a message dated 10/12/99 5:32:50 PM Pacific Daylight Time, debatenerd at HOTMAIL.COM writes: << Who is competing at the AZTEC in San Diego this weekend? Is there anybody putting together a teamlist or a caselist for it? If not I am willing to do so. Thanks Steve ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-yd03.mx.aol.com (rly-yd03.mail.aol.com [172.18.150.3]) by air-yd03.mail.aol.com (v62.10) with ESMTP; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 20:32:49 -0400 Received: from LIME.EASE.LSOFT.COM (lime.ease.lsoft.com [209.119.1.41]) by rly-yd03.mx.aol.com (v61.13) with ESMTP; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 20:32:34 -0400 >> From dbteam Wed Oct 13 10:59:16 1999 From: dbteam (UWG Debate Team) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 11:59:16 -0400 Subject: westga's whistlin' dixie In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19991012155916.00743760@pop.wfu.edu> Message-ID: same three teams that are at cap city. if there's some elim bracket for first years, evans and goodwin qualify. hester and sharp as judges. On Tue, 12 Oct 1999, Ross Smith wrote: > Please. > > Yes, Louden can forward them to me. But then my Dixie 99 mailbox has a bunch > of messages that all look like they are from Louden. > > The invite asks you to send me the entry. > > I know it's easy to hit reply to Louden's message, just trying to make sure > I get the needed info and can confirm by replying to you, etc. > > If you send your entry and label your message something like, "Idaho State's > Dixie Entry" that is ideal. > > Thanks, and I am looking forward to the second-to-last Dixie of the millenium! > > --Ross > From RGreen Wed Oct 13 11:34:29 1999 From: RGreen (Greene, Rebecca) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 12:34:29 -0400 Subject: anyone needing to hire a judge for wake Message-ID: If anyone needs to hire a judge for wake, I'm available. I just need housing. Pay is negotiable. rebecca greene From ccrensh Wed Oct 13 11:25:51 1999 From: ccrensh (ccrensh) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 11:25:51 -0500 Subject: Alabama Crimson Classic Entries Message-ID: Dear Community, We are very much looking forward to seeing you this weekend at our tournament. Here are the entries FYI. Best, Carrie Open 36 Teams App State Will Effinger & Virginia Jordan Arkansas State Glenn Prince & Craig LaPointe Arkansas State Kris Willis & Nelson Ireson Arkansas State Robert Tankersly & Elizabeth Thompson Clemson Brandon Jordan & Joey Lark Clemson Dayna Baxley & Shannon Bailey Clemson Erika Hartwig & Nilanka Seneviratre Emory Art Broadwater & Anand Singh Emory Chris Murell & Jeff Stone Emory Chris Roddy & Ed Kowalis Emory Katie Cerniglia & Mike Garemko Emory Laura Weinstein & Jody Campbell Emory Scott Bridgford & Jason Gorezynski Florida Erica Byrnes & Adryan Wallace Florida Marlon Edwards & Neil Blackmon Georgia Jeff Ranew & Patricia Kelley Georgia Rakesh Parekh & Kate McCrath JMU Cate Morrison & Michelle Lancaster JMU Dan Blaueuer & John Willemin LSU Andrew Smith & Weston Harper Mercer Blake Abbott & Jamie Woodward Mercer Brian Drake & James Herndon Mercer Dawn Dykes & Elizabeth Thatcher Mercer Ebonie Batson & Megan Noel Mercer James Brock & Buddy Morrison Mercer Whit Whitmore & Ben Kenemer MTSU Bryan Gaston & Terrance Bond MTSU Matt Carter & Stacie Murphy SELA Angel Monistero & Zach Hyden SELA Celeste Sietze & Ahsley Smith South Carolina Anrit Patel & Jason Betnel South Carolina Erin Bailey & Maggie McAllister Tennessee Cliff Sands & ? Vanderbilt Adam Rosen & Lauren Buell Vanderbilt James Porter & Jason Manning Vanderbilt Leslie Jumper & Dan Eberhart Novice 9 Teams Clemson Angie Davis & Kristopher Phillips Emory Spencer Jones & Tania Flores Florida Pauldine Franca & Jim Aldridge MTSU Loreida Jennings & Meg Miedel Okaloosa Walton Padilla & Loder Okaloosa Walton Pittman & Hall SELA Carl Cauthier & Nathan Foster SELA Shannon O'Neal & Tanya Tampina Vanderbilt Jennifer Barughese & David Carrigan Carrie Crenshaw, Ph.D. Director of Debate and Associate Professor of Communcation Studies University of Alabama From woodss Wed Oct 13 11:43:00 1999 From: woodss (Woods, Steve) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 11:43:00 -0500 Subject: Challenge to the Midwest: Bring out your novices!!! Message-ID: Hey all, After attempting to take a novice team to two tournaments in the midwest, and there failing to be enough to make a division, I have to ask: where are the novice debaters in our region?? I thought people were all righteous about saving debate. What about the radical notion that debate is not "saved" but created. TEACH PEOPLE TO DEBATE, AND YOU WILL HAVE MORE DEBATERS! It is a real deterrent to our program in recruiting novices if no one else has them. We say that they will get to compete against others that have no experience, but we are now officially lying to them. There are no novice competitions. The University of Central Oklahoma tournament is a great opportunity to teach people debate and have your novices compete. You can get a team or two ready to debate in a month. So what up midwest? and other regions if relevant. Where are your novices? Do you teach debate or only manage those that already know how to do it. I refuse to vote on the "helps education" standard if we aren't about education, only facilitating those who already can. Any program with graduate assistants has a special obligation to teach novices. You are resource and personnel rich and have an obligation to the community, not just to focus on those who already know how to debate. We would like to take at least two novice teams to UCO. If it looks like there really will be a novice division we will try to bring more. Let's see what people believe in about building debate by their actions, not their words. Steve Dr. Steve Woods Assistant Professor Communication,Co-Director of Debate William Jewell College,Liberty, MO 64068 816.781.7700 x. 5478 >From Wed Oct 13 11:48:07 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 43657 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 12:46:06 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from Alpha.nlu.edu (alpha.nlu.edu [192.135.131.100]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA47864 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 12:45:59 -0400 Received: by alpha.nlu.edu (MX V5.1-X An7g) id 76; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 11:48:07 -1300 Message-ID: <009DF8F9.475DC690.76 at alpha.nlu.edu> Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 11:48:07 -1300 Reply-To: sphobbs at ALPHA.NLU.EDU To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Jodee Hobbs Subject: University of Louisiana - Monroe Bicker Debate entries From: SMTP%"sphobbs at alpha.nlu.edu" 13-OCT-1999 11:44:01.16 To: SMTP%"sphobbs at alpha.nlu.edu" CC: Subj: bicker entries so far Return-Path: Received: by alpha.nlu.edu (MX V5.1-X An7g) id 19; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 11:43:59 -1300 Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 11:43:59 -1300 From: sphobbs at alpha.nlu.edu To: sphobbs at alpha.nlu.edu Message-ID: <009DF8F8.B38B06EE.19 at alpha.nlu.edu> Subject: bicker entries so far Debate entries for Bicker Debates -University of Louisiana at Monroe Both open and novice CEDA will break to semi's. IPDA novice will break to semi's. IPDA open will break to quarters. Parliamentary will break to quarters. There are still a few more entries to come in - and there may be some changes as well. If you haven't entered, you still can. jodee director of forensics University of Louisiana - Monroe (318)342-3182 or (318)342-8133 (home) OPEN CEDA Abilene Christian University Alicia Phillips/Joshua McDonald Garyn Dunbar/Katie Richey Caleb Potter/Holly McCurdy(cameron) Cameron University Kirk Wilson/Jason Wilson Henderson State University Dallas Sosebee/Todd Robinson Sam Houston State University Jared Waters/Jason South University of Louisiana - Monroe Travis Kiger/Saul Simmons Rebekah Stiles/Kelvin Scott Novice CEDA Abilene Christian University Blan Chrane/Brantley Starr Allison Peveto/Katie Little Arkansas Tech Mark Adkison/Jennifer Anderson Justin Keller/Troy Whitlow Cameron University Gordon Dunham/Devon Murray Sam Houston State University Terri Easley/Monica Abrego University of Lousiana - Monroe Kayla Luffey/J Marston Benji Price/Alexia Holmes IPDA novice Abilene Christian University Amber Smith Arkansas Tech Melissa Brown Centenary College Ben Cunningham Louisiana College Anna Schrader Kristen Buchanan Lisa Morgan Louisiana State University - Shreveport Jamie Roberts Dena Wilson University of Arkansas - Monticello Daniel Sweeney Jessica Smith Kimberly Anderson University of Texas - Tyler Leslie Cunningham IPDA OPEN Abilene Christian Jill Tappe Laura Hurmence Henderson State University Jennifer Parker Louisiana State University - Shreveport A J Edwards Matt Faubion Matt Sego Keith Milstead University of Arkansas - Monticello Trey Gibson Amanda Andrews Kamecia Lambert Stuart Jones University of Texas - Tyler Amanda Chesshir Jillian Cocklin Jennifer Burford Jeremy VanHaselen Colin Gilbert Art Rennels Debbie Barrett Parliamentary Arkansas Tech Beck Roberts/Debra Hultquist Cameron University Jerrod Stevenson/Melvin Smith Darrell Brock/Laci Mace Centenary College Laci Adams/Britt Pitre Johnathan Clay/Thomas Avallone Harding University John Blevins/Jonah Shumate Dan Baird/Michael Moss Shane Randolph/Nick Mayle Henderson State University Stephen Peairson/Josh Barnett Nick Akins/Jack Newton Sabrina Sayre/Doris Hopkins Louisiana College Christy Goynes/Nakia Welch Tom Richey/Donald Zeigler McNeese State University Samantha Sides/Scott Alderson Crystal Segura/Jeff Soderstrom Mississippi College Sonya Dickens/Brett Harvey Gabe Coker/Natalie Hartley William Carey College Chris Smith/Melanie Grimes Jason Ruiz/Ron Drugin Mandy Trammell/Emily Strickland Mandy Mozingo/Jennifer Robinson Josh Vanderbrink/Dusty Little From mkrueger Wed Oct 13 12:06:09 1999 From: mkrueger (mkrueger) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 12:06:09 -0500 Subject: Challenge to the Midwest: Bring out your novices!!! Message-ID: I would also like to echo the sentiments of Steve. On the other hand, I would also challenge DOFs to make a decision about where they take their teams. There are excellent opportunities to travel outside the midwest region and take novices, and those opportunities are not that far. For example, we traveled to Northern Illinois this past weekend, which is not too far from Kansas City and other midwest schools. The novice division there made quarterfinals. We hosted a novice tournament, and again we are about the same distance as NIU from Kansas City. While we had 27 teams, I still broke to Octos so that more teams could get the chance to debate. Alabama is hosting a tournament this weekend. So is Louisiana-Monroe. The weekend of October 29-31, the Gateway is moving to Washington U. in St. Louis, and they will have a novice division. November 12-14 is the Vanderbilt tournament. I know that UCO is trying to get novice to make, but Vanderbilt usually goes to Octos in novice. Appalachian State is 2 hours or so from Wake and is hosting a novice tournament that usually is very good. In other words, if people in the midwest are not going to try and get novice tournaments going, the DOFs should take the novices to where they are. It might cost a little more. It might take a little more time. But aren't novices just as worthy? If you would take teams to Kentucky, South Carolina, West Georgia, Wake Forest, or Harvard... why not spend some cash on novices and take them to tournaments in another district where you KNOW that novices will have competition? I have used examples from my region and general geographic area. But, I know that novice debate thrives in the southeast and east. I know that there are some good novice tournaments in the west, too. So my challenge isn't just to try and take novices to UCO. It goes beyond that. My challenge is to prioritize novices and take them where the competition is, if you can't find it in your own backyard. Hoping that novices going to UCO get to debate too, Mike >===== Original Message From "Woods, Steve" ===== >Hey all, > >After attempting to take a novice team to two tournaments in the midwest, >and there failing to be enough to make a division, I have to ask: where are >the novice debaters in our region?? > >I thought people were all righteous about saving debate. What about the >radical notion that debate is not "saved" but created. TEACH PEOPLE TO >DEBATE, AND YOU WILL HAVE MORE DEBATERS! > >It is a real deterrent to our program in recruiting novices if no one else >has them. We say that they will get to compete against others that have no >experience, but we are now officially lying to them. There are no novice >competitions. > >The University of Central Oklahoma tournament is a great opportunity to >teach people debate and have your novices compete. You can get a team or >two ready to debate in a month. > >So what up midwest? and other regions if relevant. Where are your novices? >Do you teach debate or only manage those that already know how to do it. I >refuse to vote on the "helps education" standard if we aren't about >education, only facilitating those who already can. Any program with >graduate assistants has a special obligation to teach novices. You are >resource and personnel rich and have an obligation to the community, not >just to focus on those who already know how to debate. > >We would like to take at least two novice teams to UCO. If it looks like >there really will be a novice division we will try to bring more. > >Let's see what people believe in about building debate by their actions, not >their words. > >Steve >Dr. Steve Woods >Assistant Professor Communication,Co-Director of Debate >William Jewell College,Liberty, MO 64068 >816.781.7700 x. 5478 Michael A. Krueger Director of Debate Middle Tennessee State University Box 43 Murfreesboro, TN 37132 (615) 898-5607 http://www.mtsu.edu/~debate/ From rigdon Wed Oct 13 12:21:51 1999 From: rigdon (Jennifer L. Rigdon) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 12:21:51 -0500 Subject: Challenge to the Midwest: Bring out your novices!!! Message-ID: As Krueger (who is running the tab at Wash U) mentioned, Wash U St. Louis will be hosting a tournament offering all three divisions of CEDA - the school is 5 minutes from the airport, and St. Louis is a great city to visit (and even live in!) I hope many of you will be joining us - we are proud of the novice division originally developed by Dr. Preston when the policy portion was hosted by UMSL. So please MEET US IN ST. LOUIS! Oct. 29-31 We'll have a coaches lounge, lunch on Saturday, and a lovely city for you to vist! jen :) Jennifer L. Rigdon Director of Debate & Forensics Washington University-St. Louis 314-935-7199 ---------- > From: mkrueger > To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU > Subject: Re: Challenge to the Midwest: Bring out your novices!!! > Date: Wednesday, October 13, 1999 12:06 PM > > I would also like to echo the sentiments of Steve. > On the other hand, I would also challenge DOFs to make a decision about > where they take their teams. There are excellent opportunities to travel > outside the midwest region and take novices, and those opportunities are > not that far. > > For example, we traveled to Northern Illinois this past weekend, which is not > too far from Kansas City and other midwest schools. > > The novice division there made quarterfinals. > > We hosted a novice tournament, and again we are about the same distance as NIU > from Kansas City. While we had 27 teams, I still broke to Octos so that more > teams could get the chance to debate. > > Alabama is hosting a tournament this weekend. > > So is Louisiana-Monroe. > > The weekend of October 29-31, the Gateway is moving to Washington U. in St. > Louis, and they will have a novice division. > > November 12-14 is the Vanderbilt tournament. I know that UCO is trying to get > novice to make, but Vanderbilt usually goes to Octos in novice. > > Appalachian State is 2 hours or so from Wake and is hosting a novice > tournament that usually is very good. > > In other words, if people in the midwest are not going to try and get novice > tournaments going, the DOFs should take the novices to where they are. It > might cost a little more. It might take a little more time. > > But aren't novices just as worthy? > If you would take teams to Kentucky, South Carolina, West Georgia, Wake > Forest, or Harvard... why not spend some cash on novices and take them to > tournaments in another district where you KNOW that novices will have > competition? > > I have used examples from my region and general geographic area. But, I know > that novice debate thrives in the southeast and east. I know that there are > some good novice tournaments in the west, too. > > So my challenge isn't just to try and take novices to UCO. It goes beyond > that. > My challenge is to prioritize novices and take them where the competition is, > if you can't find it in your own backyard. > > Hoping that novices going to UCO get to debate too, > > Mike > > > >===== Original Message From "Woods, Steve" ===== > >Hey all, > > > >After attempting to take a novice team to two tournaments in the midwest, > >and there failing to be enough to make a division, I have to ask: where are > >the novice debaters in our region?? > > > >I thought people were all righteous about saving debate. What about the > >radical notion that debate is not "saved" but created. TEACH PEOPLE TO > >DEBATE, AND YOU WILL HAVE MORE DEBATERS! > > > >It is a real deterrent to our program in recruiting novices if no one else > >has them. We say that they will get to compete against others that have no > >experience, but we are now officially lying to them. There are no novice > >competitions. > > > >The University of Central Oklahoma tournament is a great opportunity to > >teach people debate and have your novices compete. You can get a team or > >two ready to debate in a month. > > > >So what up midwest? and other regions if relevant. Where are your novices? > >Do you teach debate or only manage those that already know how to do it. I > >refuse to vote on the "helps education" standard if we aren't about > >education, only facilitating those who already can. Any program with > >graduate assistants has a special obligation to teach novices. You are > >resource and personnel rich and have an obligation to the community, not > >just to focus on those who already know how to debate. > > > >We would like to take at least two novice teams to UCO. If it looks like > >there really will be a novice division we will try to bring more. > > > >Let's see what people believe in about building debate by their actions, not > >their words. > > > >Steve > >Dr. Steve Woods > >Assistant Professor Communication,Co-Director of Debate > >William Jewell College,Liberty, MO 64068 > >816.781.7700 x. 5478 > > Michael A. Krueger > Director of Debate > Middle Tennessee State University > Box 43 > Murfreesboro, TN 37132 > (615) 898-5607 > http://www.mtsu.edu/~debate/ From woodss Wed Oct 13 12:17:27 1999 From: woodss (Woods, Steve) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 12:17:27 -0500 Subject: Challenge to the Midwest: Bring out your novices!!! Message-ID: Mike's points are well taken. [Conspiracy warning: Mike and I were on the same squad as undergrads] If the midwest is inhospitable, people will have to go elsewhere. Or just stop debating. How many programs have we lost? I received a back channel from one program that has had to cash it in due to a lack of support, as well as the inability to find support in the community for a program that can only field inesperienced debaters. How many other programs from the area now do parli or NEDA instead? The value topic doesn't solve if we aren't adding numbers. Oh yeah, no value divisions have made in the midwest either this year! In our case our budget limits mean no "dual track" where we send one set of teams one place and another set of teams elsewhere. It just means we take our one van to a tournament. It just may end up not being a tournament in the midwest, so our open/JV teams won't be there either to add teams to make a division to go to octs or double octs. Later, Steve > I would also like to echo the sentiments of Steve. > On the other hand, I would also challenge DOFs to make a decision about > where they take their teams. There are excellent opportunities to travel > outside the midwest region and take novices, and those opportunities are > not that far. > > For example, we traveled to Northern Illinois this past weekend, which is > not > too far from Kansas City and other midwest schools. > > The novice division there made quarterfinals. > > We hosted a novice tournament, and again we are about the same distance as > NIU > from Kansas City. While we had 27 teams, I still broke to Octos so that > more > teams could get the chance to debate. > > Alabama is hosting a tournament this weekend. > > So is Louisiana-Monroe. > > The weekend of October 29-31, the Gateway is moving to Washington U. in > St. > Louis, and they will have a novice division. > > November 12-14 is the Vanderbilt tournament. I know that UCO is trying to > get > novice to make, but Vanderbilt usually goes to Octos in novice. > > Appalachian State is 2 hours or so from Wake and is hosting a novice > tournament that usually is very good. > > In other words, if people in the midwest are not going to try and get > novice > tournaments going, the DOFs should take the novices to where they are. It > might cost a little more. It might take a little more time. > > But aren't novices just as worthy? > If you would take teams to Kentucky, South Carolina, West Georgia, Wake > Forest, or Harvard... why not spend some cash on novices and take them to > tournaments in another district where you KNOW that novices will have > competition? > > I have used examples from my region and general geographic area. But, I > know > that novice debate thrives in the southeast and east. I know that there > are > some good novice tournaments in the west, too. > > So my challenge isn't just to try and take novices to UCO. It goes beyond > that. > My challenge is to prioritize novices and take them where the competition > is, > if you can't find it in your own backyard. > > Hoping that novices going to UCO get to debate too, > > Mike > > > From jeste001 Wed Oct 13 12:05:41 1999 From: jeste001 (jeste001) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 12:05:41 -0500 Subject: Simerly Message-ID: Could you backchannel me, I have a question! From ccrensh Wed Oct 13 12:08:12 1999 From: ccrensh (ccrensh) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 12:08:12 -0500 Subject: Need Hired Judges This Weekend Message-ID: Dear Community, I am very interested in hiring extra judges this weekend for our tournament at UA in Tuscaloosa. I can pay you $10.00 a round and put you up for free, treat you nicely and make sure you have a good time. Please contact me asap if you are interested. Best, Carrie Carrie Crenshaw, Ph.D. Director of Debate and Associate Professor of Communcation Studies University of Alabama From jwpatt00 Wed Oct 13 12:29:38 1999 From: jwpatt00 (J.W. Patterson) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 13:29:38 -0400 Subject: TOC: NEW TRIER QUALIFIERS Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 5533 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/19991013/36c8623c/attachment.bin From ifjxh Wed Oct 13 12:41:02 1999 From: ifjxh (Joshua Hoe) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 10:41:02 PDT Subject: Ethics Question Message-ID: Not meaning to get overly involved but this question seems really to ask about the internal link not ethics....For instance, if there is a reason that the constitution is seperate from its interpretation by the majority than you run the impact tied to that internal.....If there is no internal link argument you can run the advantage and look like a big dork when people question it. Josh >From: Andrew Kemp >Reply-To: Andrew Kemp >To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU >Subject: Re: Ethics Question >Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 05:43:20 -0500 > >No, I do not believe it would be unethical to use evidence like that >described below. This is one qualified person's opinion about X being >consititutional or unconstitutional. Constitutionality or >unconstitutionality is not really a matter of fact--just because the >Supreme Court rules it is, does not make it so. If that were true, then >definitively the death penalty would be acceptable and not unusual or >cruel, because a high court has ruled it so--but there is certainly no >consensus on that. > >You should only be careful to make sure you do not present the minority >opinion as though it were a majority opinion or the actual urrent standing >interpretation. > >Andrew Kemp >------------------ >PO Box 4308 >Concordia College >Moorhead, MN 56562 >------------------ >(218) 299-3970 >Livedalen Hall 111 >------------------ >"It's All Good!" > >On Tue, 12 Oct 1999 Lawrence.Wulkan at ASU.EDU wrote: > > > Here is an interesting question, can a debate team use the dissent of a > > Supreme Court decision claiming X action is unconstitutional, despite >the fact > > that the majority decision rules otherwise. Specifically, I am thinking >about > > cases over the last 30 years that hold that there is not a >constitutional > > right to education. Is it ethical to use the dissent and then claim a > > constitutionality advantage? > > > > Larry Wulkan > > ljw at asu.edu > > 602-392-0808 > > > ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From jef229f Wed Oct 13 12:50:18 1999 From: jef229f (John Fritch) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 12:50:18 -0500 Subject: Challenge to the Midwest: Bring out your novices!!! Message-ID: Partly related to this thread is my thinking on JV divisions. I have often been guilty of this, and still am in many cases, but it seems to me that we ought to work to enter more of our JV eligible debaters in the JV divisions. It would created a bigger and more competitive arena for the newcomers to college. I have been involved in the novice discussion before, and, to be frank, SMS will seldom have a large novice program. The reason is that most of the students on our campus that might be interested in debate have had the opportunity to debate in high school. LOTS of schools in our area have high school debate. Whenever someone says they are interested in debate and didn't debate in high school, my first question is "where did you go to high school?" because I am a bit surprised. However, our incoming frosh have not ever debated in any manner like college debate. And, when JV divisions are only 12-16 teams and many of the "model" young debaters are already in the open division, it creates a real challenge to develop young, inexperienced debaters. John Fritch SMS ---------- >From: Michael Bear Bryant >To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU >Subject: Re: Challenge to the Midwest: Bring out your novices!!! >Date: Wed, Oct 13, 1999, 12:38 PM > >I find it ironic that at the same time this thread is illuminating the need >for more novice policy debate, the parli list is aflame over a proposal to >remove novice points from their sweepstakes calculations. > >History just keeps on repeating itself, > >Bear, >Krueger wasn't also coached by Hemphill was he? ;-0 From tricejas Wed Oct 13 12:56:53 1999 From: tricejas (Jason Trice) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 13:56:53 -0400 Subject: Wayne State Tournament? Message-ID: Perhaps I missed the invitation... Could someone please send me a copy. Jason >From Wed Oct 13 13:31:44 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 45834 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 14:32:19 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from VIRGO.BSUVC.BSU.EDU (VIRGO.BSUVC.BSU.EDU [147.226.56.55]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA17972 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 14:32:15 -0400 Received: from BSUVC.bsu.edu by BSUVC.bsu.edu (PMDF V5.2-31 #35953) id <01JH35N0TM2U8X3YWK at BSUVC.bsu.edu> for edebate at list.uvm.edu; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 13:31:44 EST X-VMS-To: IN%"edebate at list.uvm.edu" MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Message-ID: <01JH35N0TM2W8X3YWK at BSUVC.bsu.edu> Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 13:31:44 -0500 Reply-To: 00MHBAUER at BSUVC.BSU.EDU To: Team Topic Debating in America From: mike Bauer <00mhbauer at BSUVC.BSU.EDU> Subject: my final post of nominations This will be my final post of this, unless there is a ground swell. These are the accepted nominations. 2nd vice president:Terry West, Sam Nelson, Shawn Whalen, Mike Bauer, Jeff Jarman. Topic Committee: Jason Stone, Mike Davis, Martin Harris, Stefan Bauschard, Michael Hester, Beth Skinner, Scott Harris. Regional Reps: East, Mid America: None East Central: Ben Voth Northwest: Kelly McDonald Rocky Mountain: Michael Bryant West: T.C. Winebrenner, Kristina Schriver Southeast: David Berube South Central: Jack Rogers North Central: John Butler, David Romanelli I'm still taking nominations, Thanks, Mike Bauer Ball State From KEL1773 Wed Oct 13 13:43:16 1999 From: KEL1773 (KEL1773) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 14:43:16 -0400 Subject: Any Northern Illinois U Debaters.... Message-ID: Please backchannel me.... I got a cite from one of your teams and am having some problems with it. Kelly Young JCU Debate From woodss Wed Oct 13 13:46:48 1999 From: woodss (Woods, Steve) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 13:46:48 -0500 Subject: Challenge to the Midwest: Bring out your novices!!! Message-ID: Hey all, John brings up a related and important point on JV. I also want to point out that the SMS tournament this past weekend tried VERY VERY hard to make novice happen. They were doing their part just by offering it. It is up to others to help out. Steve > ---------- > From: John Fritch > > Partly related to this thread is my thinking on JV divisions. I have > often > been guilty of this, and still am in many cases, but it seems to me that > we > ought to work to enter more of our JV eligible debaters in the JV > divisions. > It would created a bigger and more competitive arena for the newcomers to > college. > > I have been involved in the novice discussion before, and, to be frank, > SMS > will seldom have a large novice program. The reason is that most of the > students on our campus that might be interested in debate have had the > opportunity to debate in high school. LOTS of schools in our area have > high > school debate. Whenever someone says they are interested in debate and > didn't debate in high school, my first question is "where did you go to > high > school?" because I am a bit surprised. > > However, our incoming frosh have not ever debated in any manner like > college > debate. And, when JV divisions are only 12-16 teams and many of the > "model" > young debaters are already in the open division, it creates a real > challenge > to develop young, inexperienced debaters. > > >From Wed Oct 13 11:58:59 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 46312 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 15:00:32 -0400 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 OAA14750 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 14:59:33 -0400 Received: from general4.asu.edu (general4.asu.edu [129.219.10.154]) by asu.edu (PMDF V5.2-31 #31135) with ESMTP id <0FJK00CH9230J7 at asu.edu> for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 11:59:25 -0700 (MST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by general4.asu.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id LAA09350; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 11:59:05 -0700 (MST) X-Sender: mysore at general4.asu.edu MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Message-ID: Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 11:58:59 -0700 Reply-To: Jason.Jarvis at ASU.EDU To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Jason Jarvis Subject: Novice in the West? Comments: To: mkrueger In-Reply-To: <199910131706.MAA18092 at frank.mtsu.edu> > > I have used examples from my region and general geographic area. But, I know > that novice debate thrives in the southeast and east. I know that there are > some good novice tournaments in the west, too. > I have been trying to plan the spring travel schedule, and since mike mentioned it, I was curious, what Novice tournaments are there in the spring in the West? Aside from the christmas swing and fullerton/gsl there really isnt very much available that I can tell. Where do people take their younger teams in late january/february/march in the west? help and/or suggestions appreciated. Jason Jarvis Arizona State >From Wed Oct 13 15:07:19 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 46482 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 15:08:04 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo15.mx.aol.com (imo15.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.5]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA55598 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 15:08:03 -0400 Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo15.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id vLTa026723 (4365); Wed, 13 Oct 1999 15:07:19 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 26 Message-ID: <0.496d2eb5.25363267 at aol.com> Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 15:07:19 EDT Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Michael Bear Bryant Subject: Re: Novice in the West? Comments: To: Jason.Jarvis at asu.edu In a message dated 10/13/99 1:00:52 PM Mountain Daylight Time, Jason.Jarvis at ASU.EDU writes: > Where do people take their younger > teams in late january/february/march in the west? > > help and/or suggestions appreciated. > > Jason Jarvis > Arizona State As a 12 year veteran of "the West," let me congratulate you for hitting the nail exactly on the head. Hence, my disdain for attempts to "punish" the GSL for past sins. There just ain't much. Bear From miamidebate Wed Oct 13 14:21:39 1999 From: miamidebate (elizabeth dudash) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 12:21:39 -0700 Subject: rebakah from liberty and sarah holbrooke only!!! Message-ID: Hey, It's me Omar I am sorry I lost your e-mails? i was hoping u could e-mail me at Siddiqol at muohio.edu Later Omar ===== __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com From West Wed Oct 13 14:07:46 1999 From: West (Terry West) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 13:07:46 -0600 Subject: Who is competing at the Aztec in San Diego Message-ID: SUU will bring Kara Dillard and Heather Awsumb in open. No jr teams this time, but some IE. Terry West Southern Utah >>> Veronica Macias-Lucero 10/13/99 09:57AM >>> California state university Bakersfield will be attending. And bring 2 teams only this time. In a message dated 10/12/99 5:32:50 PM Pacific Daylight Time, debatenerd at HOTMAIL.COM writes: << Who is competing at the AZTEC in San Diego this weekend? Is there anybody putting together a teamlist or a caselist for it? If not I am willing to do so. Thanks Steve ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-yd03.mx.aol.com (rly-yd03.mail.aol.com [172.18.150.3]) by air-yd03.mail.aol.com (v62.10) with ESMTP; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 20:32:49 -0400 Received: from LIME.EASE.LSOFT.COM (lime.ease.lsoft.com [209.119.1.41]) by rly-yd03.mx.aol.com (v61.13) with ESMTP; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 20:32:34 -0400 >> From jmeany Wed Oct 13 14:12:46 1999 From: jmeany (John Meany) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 12:12:46 -0700 Subject: CP's and Opportunity Costs Message-ID: Not only did Bob Branham write several articles on opportunity costs, the counterplan, and the counter-counterplan (and include information re these issues in his textbook as well), Bates' debaters consistently used derived argument positions on the affirmative and negative in untold numbers of counterplan debates for many years, beginning in the late 1970s. The ideas were not pigeon-holed into an obscure or insular section of the debate community---they were consistently employed by many successful Bates teams, including a number of teams receiving first-round NDT bids. That "we are her again" may say more about repetition than innovation and adaptation (it may be flattering and strategically sound but may not qualify as "intellectual evolution")... As to other questions, serious work on issues of advocacy, intentionality, and decision-theory would be welcome additions to debate, as well as counterplan theory and practice. In the absence of that work, if people simply recognized the hypothetical nature of advanced arguments, at least some of these problems would be ameliorated. John Meany Claremont Colleges ---------- >From: Trond Jacobsen >To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU >Subject: CP's and Opportunity Costs >Date: Wed, Oct 13, 1999, 6:27 AM > >My hazy recollection is the late Mr. Branham at Bates wrote of CP's as >opportunity costs nigh on 20 years ago...and here we are again. Theory >is always older than we think, a natural process of intellectual >evolution, I suppose. > >One quick comment and a question...those who view their role as a judge >as voting for one or the other competing plans (when defense of SQ is >abadoned, and as opposed to voting for or against the affirmative) >surely apply the same standards and employ the same expectations and >impose the same burdens on negative advocacy as on affirmative >advocacy. Or no? I do not recall seeing this equivalence employed in >practice, though the theoretical grounding to this approach (vote for >one or the other plan) should fairly require such balance. > >Second, what happens, in the world where policies are adopted, that >Congress in our minds, when you vote "for a perm"? > > >Trond From edebate Wed Oct 13 14:26:48 1999 From: edebate (x x x) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 14:26:48 -0500 Subject: Vanderbilt Tournament Message-ID: Vanderbilt Tournament is November 12-14. The full invitation will be posted today. On Tue, 12 Oct 1999 16:59:11 -0500 Krueger writes: >so, uh, when are the dates of the tournament? >I -think- it is the 12-14 of November, but I am unsure. > >Thanks. > >Mike > >x x x wrote: > >> Here is the hotel information. Rooms and rates are being held >until >> October 29th. The invitation will be mailed and posted next week. >> >> Both are very close to campus. >> >> ClubHouse Inn 615-244-0150 Rate: $76 single/double $86 >quad/triple >> Group ID is Debate tournament >> This hotel has free "hot breakfast," a restaurant >that stays open >> until 10pm, exercise room, does not charge for local >calls, >> serves complimentary evening beverages, and provides >free >> coffee and tea 24 hrs. Also, the Downtown Trolley >stops at the hotel. >> >> Guest House Inn: 615-329-1000 or 1-800-777-4904 >> Rate: $63.95, Group ID is CGPVB >> >> ___________________________________________________________________ >> 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. > > > >-- >Michael Krueger >Director of Debate >Middle Tennessee State University >Box 43 >Murfreesboro, TN 37132 >(615) 898-5607 (office) >(615) 898-5826 (fax) >http://www.mtsu.edu/~debate/ >http://www.mtsu.edu/~debate/mdi.html >http://www.mtsu.edu/~mkrueger/ > > ___________________________________________________________________ Get 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 edebate Wed Oct 13 14:37:23 1999 From: edebate (x x x) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 14:37:23 -0500 Subject: Vanderbilt invitation Message-ID: October 1, 1999 Dear Colleagues, The Vanderbilt Debate Squad and the Department of Communication Studies and Theatre invite you and your teams to the Vanderbilt Invitational Tournament held the weekend of November 12-14, 1999. All schools are welcomed. The tournament will consist of four CEDA divisions: Open policy, Junior policy, Novice policy, and Open non-policy. We will use the CEDA definitions for all divisions. In each division, there will be six preliminary rounds of debate competition on the 1999-2000 CEDA resolutions. The appropriate number of elimination rounds will follow. Glenda Treadaway, Director of Debate at Appalachian State University, will run the tab room. As always, with Glenda in the tab room, you can be certain that the tournament will run smoothly and on time. All divisions will use the 9-3-6 format with eight minutes of preparation time. We will not break brackets for elimination rounds. Rounds I and II will be preset. We will have fewer available classrooms this year; and therefore, we will accept the entries in the order they arrive. Should anyone need airport transportation or any other help, please let us know and we will try to be of assistance. We hope to see you in November. Sincerely, M. L. Sandoz James Porter Director of Debate Student Tournament Coordinator (615) 322-3784 Office (615) 673-7340 Home (615) 343-7918 Fax vandy.debate at juno.com TOURNAMENT INFORMATION ENTRIES: Schools may enter any number of teams in any division. CEDA definitions for all divisions will be used. Any student can compete in Open Division. The JV division will be limited to students with two years or less college debate experience. Students with two semesters or less experience including high school (excluding Lincoln-Douglas Debate) are eligible for Novice Division. This is a sanctioned CEDA tournament. JUDGES: Schools must provide a qualified judge for every two teams or fraction thereof entered. There will be only a small number of judges available for hire. If you can provide qualified judges for hire, please let us know. All judges are obligated 1 round after their teams are eliminated. AWARDS: All teams reaching elimination rounds will receive awards. In addition, Speaker Awards will be given to the top 10 speakers in each division. Speaker Awards will be based on adjusted speaker points (dropping high and low), then total speaker points, then double adjusted speaker points, then team record, then ranks. Sweepstakes will be awarded to the three schools that accumulate the most overall points throughout the tournament. FORMAT: Six preliminary rounds and the appropriate number of elimination rounds will be offered in each division. The 1999-2000 CEDA resolutions (policy and non-policy) will be used with the 9-3-6 minute format. Preparation time will be limited to 8 minutes. Rounds I and II will be randomly paired. Rounds III and V will be paired high/high based on cumulative records. Rounds IV and VI will be paired high/low within brackets and side constraints. CEDA STATEMENT ON SEXUAL DISCRIMINATION: This tournament abides by the CEDA Statement on Sexual discrimination and encourages an inclusive atmosphere for all those participating. FEES: Entry fees of $85 per team and judging fees of $80 per each uncovered team will be collected at registration. All changes or drops at registration will result in a $15 fee. DEADLINE: All teams must be entered by 5:00 p.m. (CDT) on Monday, November 8, 1999. Call entries to (615) 322-3784 or fax to (615) 343-7918 (include phone number in case we need additional information). E-mail entries to vandy.debate at juno.com. Phone changes no later than 1:00 p.m. Thursday, November 11, 1999. NO ADDS AT REGISTRATION. TOURNAMENT SCHEDULE Friday, November 12, 1999 2:00-4:00 Registration 213 Calhoun Hall 4:30 Pairings Released Lobby of Stevenson Center (Math) 5:00 Round 1 7:15 Round 2 Saturday, November 13, 1999 8:00 a.m. Pairings released (Stevenson Center) 9:00-11:00 Round 3 11:30-1:30 Round 4 1:30-3:00 Lunch Break 3:00 Pairings released for round 5 3:30-5:00 Round 5 6:00-8:00 Round 6 9:30 Breaks posted at ClubHouse Inn and Guest House Inn Sunday, November 14, 1998 7:30 a.m. Pairings released for first elimination round 8:00-10:00 First elimination round 11:00 Awards ceremony (Wilson Hall) 12:00 Elimination rounds continue ENTRY FORM School: ________________________ Director: __________________________ Address: ________________________ Phone: __________________________ ________________________ Email: __________________________ ________________________ Team 1: _______________ and ________________Open JV Novice Non-policy Team 2: _______________ and ________________Open JV Novice Non-policy Team 3: _______________ and ________________Open JV Novice Non-policy Team 4: _______________ and ________________Open JV Novice Non-policy Team 5: _______________ and ________________Open JV Novice Non-policy Team 6: _______________ and ________________Open JV Novice Non-policy Willing to judge extra? Yes/ No Judge 1: _________________________/____ Restrictions: ________________ Judge 2: _________________________/____ Restrictions: ________________ Judge 3: _________________________/____ Restrictions: ________________ Tournament Fees Number of teams ________ X $85 = ________ Number of Uncovered Teams ________ X $80 = ________ Late Drop Fee ________ X $15 = ________ Total Fees Due = ________ GENERAL INFORMATION LODGING: Two hotels will be holding blocks of rooms. Both are close to campus. The ClubHouse Inn is provides a free "hot" breakfast buffet and has a restaurant that remains open until 10:00 p.m. Please make reservations early, there are several others events happening in Nashville that weekend (including a home football game). ClubHouse Inn: (615) 244-0150 Rate: $76 single/double $86 triple/quad (until November 1st) The group ID is Debate Tournament The address is 920 Broadway (the corner of Tenth and Broadway). The Downtown Trolley stops at the hotel. Hotel has an exercise room, does not charge for local calls, serves complimentary evening beverages, and provides free coffee and tea 24 hours. Guest House Inn: (615) 329-1000 or 1-800-777-4904 Rate: $63.95 (until October 29th) Group ID is CGPVB The address is 1909 Hayes Street. OTHER LODGING: Shoney's Inn (615) 255-9977 Holiday Inn (615) 327-4707 Hampton Inn (615) 329-1144 Howard Johnson (615) 352-7080 Marriott Courtyard 800-321-2211 ___________________________________________________________________ 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 Wed Oct 13 16:27:30 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 47834 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 16:28:06 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo23.mx.aol.com (imo23.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.67]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA49618 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 16:28:03 -0400 Received: from Lotzca at aol.com by imo23.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id nONUa17430 (3943) for ; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 16:27:31 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 14 Message-ID: <0.5300f065.25364532 at aol.com> Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 16:27:30 EDT Reply-To: Lotzca at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Chris Lotz Subject: Re: Ethics Question This is an issue of practicality, not ethics. There is nothing wrong with quoting a dissenting judicial opinion, as it may have persuasive, albeit not precedential value. The affirmative in this instance might argue that the Court should recognize a right to education. However, the fact that the majority has never recognized such a right would seem to undercut the validity of the advantage, so I fail to see how one could claim an advantage from a heretofore unrecognized Constitutional right, unless the resolution permits recognition of such a right and the plan fiats such a holding of the Court. - Chris Lotz Baylor Law School In a message dated 10/13/99 1:13:44 AM Central Daylight Time, Lawrence.Wulkan at ASU.EDU writes: > Here is an interesting question, can a debate team use the dissent of a > Supreme Court decision claiming X action is unconstitutional, despite the > fact > that the majority decision rules otherwise. Specifically, I am thinking > about > cases over the last 30 years that hold that there is not a constitutional > right to education. Is it ethical to use the dissent and then claim a > constitutionality advantage? > > Larry Wulkan > ljw at asu.edu > 602-392-0808 From ccrensh Wed Oct 13 15:16:56 1999 From: ccrensh (ccrensh) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 15:16:56 -0500 Subject: Alabama Crimson Classic Entries Update Message-ID: Dear Community, We are very much looking forward to seeing you this weekend at our tournament. Here are the entries FYI. Three more teams in open. Best, Carrie Open 39 Teams App State Will Effinger & Virginia Jordan Arkansas State Glenn Prince & Craig LaPointe Arkansas State Kris Willis & Nelson Ireson Arkansas State Robert Tankersly & Elizabeth Thompson Arkansas Tech Wayne Young & David Morris Clemson Brandon Jordan & Joey Lark Clemson Dayna Baxley & Shannon Bailey Clemson Erika Hartwig & Nilanka Seneviratre Emory Art Broadwater & Anand Singh Emory Chris Murell & Jeff Stone Emory Chris Roddy & Ed Kowalis Emory Katie Cerniglia & Mike Garemko Emory Laura Weinstein & Jody Campbell Emory Scott Bridgford & Jason Gorezynski Florida Erica Byrnes & Adryan Wallace Florida Marlon Edwards & Neil Blackmon Georgia Jeff Ranew & Patricia Kelley Georgia Rakesh Parekh & Kate McCrath Georgia State ? Georgia State ? JMU Cate Morrison & Michelle Lancaster JMU Dan Blaueuer & John Willemin LSU Andrew Smith & Weston Harper Mercer Blake Abbott & Jamie Woodward Mercer Brian Drake & James Herndon Mercer Dawn Dykes & Elizabeth Thatcher Mercer Ebonie Batson & Megan Noel Mercer James Brock & Buddy Morrison Mercer Whit Whitmore & Ben Kenemer MTSU Bryan Gaston & Terrance Bond MTSU Matt Carter & Stacie Murphy SELA Angel Monistero & Zach Hyden SELA Celeste Sietze & Ahsley Smith South Carolina Anrit Patel & Jason Betnel South Carolina Erin Bailey & Maggie McAllister Tennessee Cliff Sands & ? Vanderbilt Adam Rosen & Lauren Buell Vanderbilt James Porter & Jason Manning Vanderbilt Leslie Jumper & Dan Eberhart Novice 9 Teams Clemson Angie Davis & Kristopher Phillips Emory Spencer Jones & Tania Flores Florida Pauldine Franca & Jim Aldridge MTSU Loreida Jennings & Meg Miedel Okaloosa Walton Padilla & Loder Okaloosa Walton Pittman & Hall SELA Carl Cauthier & Nathan Foster SELA Shannon O'Neal & Tanya Tampina Vanderbilt Jennifer Barughese & David Carrigan Carrie Crenshaw, Ph.D. Director of Debate and Associate Professor of Communcation Studies University of Alabama Carrie Crenshaw, Ph.D. Director of Debate and Associate Professor of Communcation Studies University of Alabama From hcspc014 Wed Oct 13 15:35:12 1999 From: hcspc014 (william sheffield) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 13:35:12 -0700 Subject: Novice in the West? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Jason, PSCFA holds its Spring Championship tournament on Feb. 18-20. It has both a rookie and novice division. 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 Wed, 13 Oct 1999, Jason Jarvis wrote: > > > > I have used examples from my region and general geographic area. But, I know > > that novice debate thrives in the southeast and east. I know that there are > > some good novice tournaments in the west, too. > > > > > I have been trying to plan the spring travel schedule, and since mike > mentioned it, I was curious, what Novice tournaments are there in the spring > in the West? Aside from the christmas swing and fullerton/gsl there really > isnt very much available that I can tell. Where do people take their younger > teams in late january/february/march in the west? > > help and/or suggestions appreciated. > > Jason Jarvis > Arizona State > From Karla_Leeper Wed Oct 13 15:26:23 1999 From: Karla_Leeper (Karla Leeper) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 15:26:23 -0500 Subject: BAYLOR INVITE Message-ID: Dear Colleague: The debaters and coaches at Baylor University cordially invite you to attend the Glenn R. Capp Debates, to be held in the heart of Texas on the banks of the beautiful Brazos from Saturday, January 22 through Monday, January 24, 2000. We are pleased to continue the tradition established by Prof. Capp on this same weekend over fifty years ago. Last year?s tournament was attended by over 70 teams from a variety of states. In the 2000 Capp Debates there will be eight preliminary rounds clearing to double-octos using the CEDA/NDT cross-examination format (9-3-6) in two divisions, Open Debate and Junior Varsity Debate. Any team is eligible for the Open Division. The Junior Varsity Division is open to teams in their first or second year of debate. We will debate the joint CEDA-NDT topic. We aim to be hospitable. The tournament hotel provides an excellent continental breakfast. We will provide lunch on Saturday and lunch and dinner on Sunday. And for those lucky enough to have rounds off we will provide snacks and the big screen television. Professor Rich Edwards has once again agreed to be the director of the tabroom.. The Baylor Law School will also be retaining a suite during registration to interview applicants for the Leon Jaworski scholarship. The scholarship is a 3 year full ride award and available only to former college debaters. Recent recipients include Josh Zive, Chris Lavigne and Sean McCaffity. Interested students should contact Karla Leeper. Additional tournament information and entry blanks are enclosed. We hope that you and your teams will plan to join us in Waco for some traditional Texas hospitality. Sincerely, Dr. Karla Leeper Kelly Dunbar Director of Forensics Assistant Director of Forensics Capp Forum Capp Forum 2000 GLENN R. CAPP DEBATE TOURNAMENT Tournament Information Transportation: For teams flying, we urge you to continue to Waco rather than stop at DFW. American, Delta and Continental offer commuter flights into Waco. If you do continue to Waco, you may want to try to secure a rental van well in advance. We will provide shuttle service to and from Dallas or Austin at a cost of $15.00 per person. If you are flying into Waco and staying at the Clarion they have a shuttle that can pick you up from the airport and have asked that you simply call a day or two before you arrive. We will also be offering shuttle service to and from the tournament from the hotel. Entries: Two divisions of debate will be held (Open Debate and Junior Varsity Debate). Participants must be full time students enrolled at their respective schools. Both divisions will debate the joint CEDA-NDT topic on rogue nations. We could be persuaded to hold a novice division if there is sufficient interest. Awards: We will break to an appropriate number of elims. We will recognize those qualifying for elimination rounds and top speakers in each division. All Elimination rounds will be held on Monday at the tournament hotel. Debater of the Year: Once again, the Capp Forum will recognize an outstanding person on the national or district debate circuit as Debater of the Year. Last year?s recipient was Shanara Reid from Emory University. Fees: Entry fees are $80.00 per debate team. This will partially defray tournament expenses. Please make checks payable to the Glenn R. Capp Debate Forum. Judging: Each school is expected to provide one judge for each two teams. All judges are required to stay for the octafinal round and/or one round beyond the time their last team is eliminated. As there are not a large number of qualified judges wandering the Waco area, and we certainly don?t want to drag Polk and English into judging service, we STRONGLY encourage all able bodies to fulfill their commitments. If you cannot judge or have a special request, notify us in advance and we will attempt to cover your commitment at a rate of $80.00 per team. Housing: The tournament hotel will be the same hotel as last year. The Clarion offers easy access to food options and is a very nice facility. The flat rate is $60.00 a room for as many people as you care to cram into them. They can be reached at 254-757-2000. The official address is 801 So. 4th St. If you take the University Parks exit from I-35 and stay on the access road you?ll run right into it. Other hotel accommodations may be available if you are unable to get into the tournament hotel; we have not secured a room block with any of these establishments, but if you mention that you are attending a function at Baylor University you may get a reduced rate. The Lexington Inn is two blocks away from the Clarion and they have Nintendos in their rooms. Their phone number is 254-754-1266 or 1-800-92-SUITE. The Old Main Lodge is a block or two closer to campus. Phone number is 254-753-0316. The Holiday Inn has hosted the tournament before. Their number is 254-753-0261. Finally, the La Quinta is also close to campus. Call them at 1-800-687-6667 or 254-752-9741. Pairing Assumptions: Pending entries and Rich Edwards? input, rounds 1-4 will be preset. After that, even rounds will be paired high-low within brackets and odd rounds will be paired high-high. The mutual judge preference system will be in use for the power matched rounds. For elimination rounds we will not break brackets. We will also not use any form of side equalization. Registration: Will occur at the Clarion Inn on Friday from 7:00-9:00 p.m. If you have any other questions, please feel free to call on us! 2000 GLENN R. CAPP DEBATES ENTRY FORM School ____________________________________________________________ Address ___________________________________________________________ City ________________________ State _____________________ Zip ________ Director of Forensics/Debate __________________________________________ Office Phone ________________________ Home Phone ___________________ Email _____________________________________________________________ Judge/rds of commitment ___________________________ ________________________________ ___________________________ ________________________________ Teams Division ____________________________ &_________________________ ________ ____________________________ & _________________________ ________ ____________________________ & _________________________ _______ ____________________________ & _________________________ _______ ____________________________ & ________________________ ________ This registration should be returned to us by Tuesday, January 18, 2000. Please send your entry to Karla Leeper, Fax: 254-710-1563, email: Karla_Leeper at baylor.edu, ground: P.O. Box 97368, Waco, TX 76798. 2000 GLENN R. CAPP DEBATES TRANSPORTATION REQUEST Note: There will be a $15 per person charge for round trip pickup service to the Dallas or Austin Airports. If you fly into Waco the tournament hotel provides a shuttle from the airport. If you are staying elsewhere or have trouble with transportation please call us and we will provide in Waco transportation for free. Similarly, there will be no charge for local transportation between the tournament motel and the campus. School: ________________________________________________________ Number of Persons Needing Transportation: ___________________ >From which airport will you need round trip transportation? Circle One: Waco DFW (Dallas) Love Field (Dallas) Austin Arrival Flight Information: Day and Time: __________________________ Airline: __________________________ Flight Number: __________________________ From Where: __________________________ Departure Flight Information: Day and Time: __________________________ Airline: __________________________ Flight Number: __________________________ To Where: __________________________ Where in Waco will you be staying? ___________________________________ This registration should be returned to us by Tuesday, January 18, 2000. Please send your entry to Karla Leeper, Fax: 254-710-1563, email: Karla_Leeper at baylor.edu, ground: P.O. Box 97368, Waco, TX 76798. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/19991013/012c4830/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/quickmail Size: 9698 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/19991013/012c4830/attachment.bin From Karla_Leeper Wed Oct 13 15:30:24 1999 From: Karla_Leeper (Karla Leeper) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 15:30:24 -0500 Subject: No subject Message-ID: Baylor University is looking for students interested in pursuing a masters degree in communication studies who might also be interested in working with our debate program starting in the fall of 2000. The master's degree program in Communication Studies at Baylor allows students to emphasize rhetoric and argumentation, organizational communication, interpersonal communication, or telecommunication and new media technology. Our students have gone on to doctoral programs, consulting firms and other business opportunities, legal consulting firms and law schools, and all the major networks. Stipends offer a salary and tuition remission. The Glenn R. Capp Debate Forum at Baylor fields approximately 15 teams each year at all levels of experience. We travel extensively, attending tournaments at the regional and national level. We host a large college tournament, two small high school tournaments, a public debate series, and a summer debate workshop for high school students and teachers. Beginning in the fall of 1999 we will also participate in a program offering debate opportunities for junior high school students in Waco. If you are interested in teaching, coaching, and working with a program active at a variety of levels I would love to talk with you. Some of our current students or recent alumni could also tell you about our program. They include: Ryan Galloway, Kelly Dunbar, Matt Gerber,Christina Flora, Ron Stevenson, Chris Salinas, Bill Trapani, Josh Zive, Kelly Happe, and Doyle Srader. Please feel free to talk with them. I look forward to hearing from you. Dr. Karla Leeper Director Glenn R. Capp Debate Forum Baylor University Box 97368 Waco, TX 76798 (o)254-710-6919 (h)254-757-3295 email: Karla_Leeper at baylor.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/19991013/938337ce/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/quickmail Size: 2536 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/19991013/938337ce/attachment.bin From Karla_Leeper Wed Oct 13 15:21:43 1999 From: Karla_Leeper (Karla Leeper) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 15:21:43 -0500 Subject: FREE LAW SCHOOL Message-ID: Those of you who are interested in law school may be interested in this. Baylor Law School is pleased to request applications for the Leon Jaworski Law Scholarships for Outstanding Debaters. The scholarships are full tuition and may be renewed for the second and third years based on academic and advocacy performance. The primary factors considered for these scholarships are the applicant's record in advocacy exercises, undergraduate academic records, and the LSAT score. Recommendations from coaches are required but no more than three such letters should be submitted. The Law School will consult with the Baylor University debate faculty and other appropriate faculty members involved in advocacy exercises on award decisions. Baylor University School of law is well known for a broad and well developed curriculum. In addition, Baylor Law School offers students the opportunity to complete a concentrated course of study in one or more of seven areas of interest--General Civil Litigation, Business Litigation, Business Planning, Criminal Practice, Estate Planning, Health Care and Administrative Practice. For students who are interested in pursuing a career in business and in law, Baylor Law School, in conjunction with the hankamer School of Business offers a JD/MBA degree and a JD/MTAX degree. For students who are interested in governmental service at the federal, state or local level, Baylor Law School, in conjunction with the Political Science Department offers a joint JD/MPPA degree. The advocacy program at Baylor Law School is strong. A substantial part of the senior year for each student is spent in Practice Court, an extensive course of instruction in trial practice and procedure. Baylors Interscholastic teams won the following awards in 1996-97: Third in the nation at the National Mock Trial Competition Regional Champion in the American Trial Lawyers Mock Trial Competition Finals participant in the ABA National Appellate Advocacy Competition (with the first, second and sixth speakers) Regional Finalist in the ABA Negotiations Competition Third place in the ABA Client Counseling Competition The law school has also just broken ground on their new state of the art facility. It should be spectacular. Some recent alumni of the Baylor Law School include Marty Loeber, Lyn Robbins, Griffin Vincent, Cindy Leiferman, Erik Walker and Lance Harvey. Current students include Charles Blanchard, Sean McCaffity, Justin Shrader. Chris Lavigne and Josh Zive are currently enrolled as Jaworski scholars. If you are interested in further information about the Jaworski scholarship program or the Baylor Law School you can contact me Dr. Karla Leeper Glenn R. Capp Professor of Forensics Baylor University P.O. Box 97368 Waco, TX 76798 254-710-6919(o) 254-710-1563 (fax) Karla_Leeper at baylor.edu or you can contact the Admissions Director at the Law School Becky Beck Admissions Director and Scholarship Coordinator Baylor Law School P.O. Box 97288 Waco, TX 76798 254-710-1911 or 1(800) Baylor U (option 3) Becky_Beck at baylor.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/19991013/9d5019dc/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/quickmail Size: 3926 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/19991013/9d5019dc/attachment.bin From jared_1978 Wed Oct 13 15:53:37 1999 From: jared_1978 (Jared Waters) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 13:53:37 PDT Subject: Sam results, sorry they are so late! Message-ID: Hey ya'll we had a great tournament, and I apologize for getting these results out, so here they are. OPEN Speakers 5.Josh McDonald ACU 4.Carl Gauthier SELA 3.Courtney Wheeler SWT 2.Matt Holland McNeese 1.Jason Myers SWT OPEN Quarters SWT WW vs SEL MH..SWT WW UTD JK vs MCN HR..UTD JK UTD SF vs SWT SC..UTD SF SEL GS vs SWT ML..SEL GS OPEN Semis SWT WW vs UTD JK..UTD JK UTD SF vs SEL GS..UTD SF UTD closes out finals, congrats! NOVICE Speakers 5.Meyers UTD 4.Lay UTD 3.Burnside UTD 2.Abrego SAM 1.Easley SAM Novice Semis UTSA MG vs UTD WM..UTSA MG CAM DM vs SAM EA...CAM DM Novice Finals UTSA MG vs CAM DM...UTSA MG, congrats UTSA! thanks to all the schools for coming, we'll see ya'll later! jared sam houston state debate ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com >From Wed Oct 13 16:55:28 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 49621 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 16:56:17 -0400 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 QAA50808 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 16:56:08 -0400 Received: from AKing50 at aol.com by imo-d02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id vTUV01qUNX (3959); Wed, 13 Oct 1999 16:55:29 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 41 Message-ID: <0.1a464d59.25364bc0 at aol.com> Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 16:55:28 EDT Reply-To: AKing50 at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Tony King Subject: Re: Novice in the West? Comments: To: Jason.Jarvis at asu.edu Jason, and all others looking to the west, There are a few tournaments in Northern California to help with Novice travel. During that time there is Modesto, NCFA Spring Champs, and Cal Poly. While they don't have the fame and notoriety of Swings and Fullerton, they usually do have a big crop of Novices. Our region is having an upswing in novice recruiting right now (last tournament made quarters in novice, with only one team from out of region) and the emphasis on novice debaters seems to be increasing. While it is no USC or Fullerton, it is a region on the rise that isn't that far from you. And the tournament can do dual duty for coaches. There are some community colleges with pretty good recruits for universities, and the community colleges really can't afford to send the debaters to the big tournaments for all to see, but I can think of a few teams that might interest a few of the universities outside the area. Just some thoughts, back channel me if you want more info, Peace, tony king Los Rios Debate In a message dated 10/13/99 12:00:49 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Jason.Jarvis at ASU.EDU writes: << I have been trying to plan the spring travel schedule, and since mike mentioned it, I was curious, what Novice tournaments are there in the spring in the West? Aside from the christmas swing and fullerton/gsl there really isnt very much available that I can tell. Where do people take their younger teams in late january/february/march in the west? help and/or suggestions appreciated. Jason Jarvis Arizona State >> From jz9n Wed Oct 13 15:56:20 1999 From: jz9n (Scott Thomson) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 16:56:20 -0400 Subject: Tenure Track DOF at Marist Message-ID: See number two. Marist has been a good place to work. There is a lot of support for debate from the administration. The Hudson Valley is beautiful. COMMUNICATION Faculty (Internal & External) http://www.academic.marist.edu/commarts/ Marist College invites applications for six tenure-track or tenured faculty positions in the Communication and Media Arts Departments to begin September 2000. Communication is the largest major on campus. 1. Communication Department: General Communication (2 positions)- Includes teaching selected courses from: core communication courses (Communication Principles, Communication Research, Communication and Society, Communication Ethics, Public Presentations), and other courses in the candidate's area of expertise. 2. Communication Department: Debate Coach- Includes teaching: Argumentation and Debate, Public Presentations, and selected courses from core communication courses (see #1 above), and other courses in the candidate's area of expertise. Marist participates in team policy debate in the National Debate Tournament (NDT) format and in Cross Examination Debate Association (CEDA) policy oriented resolutions. This person will teach 2 courses each semester, direct the debate program, coach and travel with the team. 3. Communication Department: Public Relations/Organizational Communication- Includes teaching selected courses from: Public Opinion, Public Relations, Organizational Communication, Organizational Writing, PR Case Studies, Sports Communication, core communication courses (see # 1 above), and other courses in the candidate's area of expertise. 4. Communication Department: Sports Communication- Includes teaching selected courses from: Sports Reporting, Sports Case Studies, Sports Writing, Sports Broadcasting, core communication courses (see # 1 above), and other courses in the candidate's area of expertise. 5. Media Arts Department: Broadcasting- Includes teaching selected courses from: Writing for the Media, Broadcasting, TV News Production, Non-linear digital editing, Corporate Video, core communication courses (see # 1 above), and other courses in the candidate's area of expertise. Responsibilities include teaching 12 hours/semester (some teaching assignments will involve distance education via the Internet), student advising, scholarly activity commensurate with the teaching load, and institutional and professional service. Minimum qualifications include a terminal degree in Communication or a closely related field completed by Fall 2000, continued scholarly activity, a strong commitment to developing in students a sense of ethical responsibility in the practice of communication, a strong commitment to student-centered education, outstanding teaching skills, professional experience, and a strong interest and record in the pedagogical uses of technology. Familiarity with technology-based, Knowledge Management research and practice is highly desired. Marist College is a nationally recognized, independent, liberal arts institution known for its excellence in teaching and for its use of information technology. Located in Poughkeepsie, New York on the banks of the Hudson River, midway between Albany and New York City, the College enrolls 3,600 full-time undergraduate and 550 graduate students. Marist was recognized by CAUSE as one of the top four colleges and universities in the US for its innovative use of technology and excellence in campus networking. The College seeks to explore ways in which academic excellence may be enhanced by state-of-the-art information and communication technology. Review of applications will begin immediately and continue until the positions are filled. Please submit a letter of application, curriculum vitae, a statement of teaching philosophy, and the names, addresses and phone numbers of at least three professional references to: Dean Guy Lometti, MPO- 905, Marist College, Poughkeepsie, NY 12601. An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer. From closnega Wed Oct 13 16:11:50 1999 From: closnega (Chris Losnegard) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 14:11:50 -0700 Subject: paging Wake Forest Message-ID: Can somebody from Wake backchannel me with the cites you're using for the exclude export/import bank C/P? Thanks, Chris Losnegard Gonzaga >From Wed Oct 13 14:21:15 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 50556 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 17:21:38 -0400 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 RAA25078 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 17:21:32 -0400 Received: from general4.asu.edu (general4.asu.edu [129.219.10.154]) by asu.edu (PMDF V5.2-31 #31135) with ESMTP id <0FJK008OC8NI55 at asu.edu> for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 14:21:19 -0700 (MST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by general4.asu.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id OAA01902; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 14:21:18 -0700 (MST) X-Sender: mysore at general4.asu.edu MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Message-ID: Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 14:21:15 -0700 Reply-To: Jason.Jarvis at ASU.EDU To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Jason Jarvis Subject: Re: Who is competing at the Aztec in San Diego Comments: To: Terry West In-Reply-To: Arizona State will be bringing two open and one novice team. The same teams that were at SUU. regards, Jason ASU On Wed, 13 Oct 1999, Terry West wrote: > SUU will bring Kara Dillard and Heather Awsumb in open. No jr teams this time, but some IE. > > Terry West > Southern Utah > > >>> Veronica Macias-Lucero 10/13/99 09:57AM >>> > California state university Bakersfield will be attending. > > And bring 2 teams only this time. > > > > In a message dated 10/12/99 5:32:50 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > debatenerd at HOTMAIL.COM writes: > > << Who is competing at the AZTEC in San Diego this weekend? Is there anybody > putting together a teamlist or a caselist for it? If not I am willing to do > so. > > Thanks > Steve > > ______________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com > > > ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- > Return-Path: > Received: from rly-yd03.mx.aol.com (rly-yd03.mail.aol.com [172.18.150.3]) > by air-yd03.mail.aol.com (v62.10) with ESMTP; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 20:32:49 -0400 > Received: from LIME.EASE.LSOFT.COM (lime.ease.lsoft.com [209.119.1.41]) by > rly-yd03.mx.aol.com (v61.13) with ESMTP; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 20:32:34 -0400 >> > From swhalen Wed Oct 13 16:39:54 1999 From: swhalen (Shawn Whalen) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 14:39:54 -0700 Subject: Novice in the West? References: <0.496d2eb5.25363267@aol.com> Message-ID: The NCFA Championship and the Cal Poly SLO tournaments both offer excellent opportunities for novice debaters. Of course those aren't perfect for everyone and we can surely do better. Shawn Michael Bear Bryant wrote: > In a message dated 10/13/99 1:00:52 PM Mountain Daylight Time, > Jason.Jarvis at ASU.EDU writes: > > > Where do people take their younger > > teams in late january/february/march in the west? > > > > help and/or suggestions appreciated. > > > > Jason Jarvis > > Arizona State > > As a 12 year veteran of "the West," let me congratulate you for hitting the > nail exactly on the head. Hence, my disdain for attempts to "punish" the GSL > for past sins. > > There just ain't much. > > Bear >From Wed Oct 13 14:40:01 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 50888 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 17:40:42 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from goliath.apdfinancial.com (apd-db.dsl.clubnet.net [206.126.131.6]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA69746 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 17:40:38 -0400 Received: from taylorm (Administrators at localhost) by goliath.apdfinancial.com (8.8.8/8.8.7) with SMTP id OAA00488; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 14:40:01 -0700 (Pacific Daylight Time) X-Sender: taylorm at postman.csulb.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-ID: <199910132140.OAA00488 at goliath.apdfinancial.com> Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 14:40:01 -0700 Reply-To: taylorm at CSULB.EDU To: Team Topic Debating in America Comments: Resent-From: taylorm at csulb.edu Comments: Originally-From: Matt Taylor From: Matthew Taylor Subject: Re: Who is competing at the Aztec in San Diego Comments: To: Jason.Jarvis at ASU.EDU In-Reply-To: Long Beach will have one open, one junior, and one novice team. peace, Matt At 02:21 PM 10/13/1999 -0700, Jason Jarvis wrote: >Arizona State will be bringing two open and one novice team. The same teams >that were at SUU. > >regards, > >Jason >ASU > >On Wed, 13 Oct 1999, Terry West wrote: > >> SUU will bring Kara Dillard and Heather Awsumb in open. No jr teams this time, but some IE. >> >> Terry West >> Southern Utah >> >> >>> Veronica Macias-Lucero 10/13/99 09:57AM >>> >> California state university Bakersfield will be attending. >> >> And bring 2 teams only this time. >> >> >> >> In a message dated 10/12/99 5:32:50 PM Pacific Daylight Time, >> debatenerd at HOTMAIL.COM writes: >> >> << Who is competing at the AZTEC in San Diego this weekend? Is there anybody >> putting together a teamlist or a caselist for it? If not I am willing to do >> so. >> >> Thanks >> Steve >> >> ______________________________________________________ >> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com >> >> >> ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- >> Return-Path: >> Received: from rly-yd03.mx.aol.com (rly-yd03.mail.aol.com [172.18.150.3]) >> by air-yd03.mail.aol.com (v62.10) with ESMTP; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 20:32:49 -0400 >> Received: from LIME.EASE.LSOFT.COM (lime.ease.lsoft.com [209.119.1.41]) by >> rly-yd03.mx.aol.com (v61.13) with ESMTP; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 20:32:34 -0400 >> >> > > From deongarner Wed Oct 13 16:43:09 1999 From: deongarner (Deon Garner) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 14:43:09 PDT Subject: GA State & Bama Message-ID: Anyone from GA St. can get back with me. I'm trying to bum a ride to Alabama this weekend. Thanks, Deon ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From edebate Wed Oct 13 16:44:56 1999 From: edebate (x x x) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 16:44:56 -0500 Subject: partner needed for Bama Message-ID: The one Vanderbilt novice team traveling to Univ. of Alabama this weekend has just turned into one-half a team. Is there anyone who has an extra novice debater who needs a swing partner for the Bama tournament? M. L. Sandoz Director of Debate Vanderbilt University Office 615-322-3784 Home 615-673-7340 Fax 615-343-7918 vandy.debate at juno.com ___________________________________________________________________ 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 deongarner Wed Oct 13 17:05:56 1999 From: deongarner (Deon Garner) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 15:05:56 PDT Subject: Ride to Alabama Message-ID: Are there any schools in GA or surrounding areas (that are passing through Atlanta) attending the Crimson Classic. If so, does anyone have any travel room for an extra warm body. I want to judge this weekend, but I need a ride. If anyone can help, I would appreciate it! Thanks, Deon ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com >From Wed Oct 13 17:30:23 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 51507 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 18:30:38 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from viper.uni.edu (viper.uni.edu [134.161.1.16]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA62590 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 18:30:36 -0400 Received: from uni.edu ([134.161.229.154]) by uni.edu (PMDF V5.2-32 #40224) with ESMTP id <01JH3E9SUR848Y62RM at uni.edu> for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 17:30:27 CDT MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 (Macintosh; I; PPC) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Accept-Language: en Message-ID: <380507ED.3364916C at uni.edu> Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 17:30:23 -0500 Reply-To: Catherine.Palczewski at uni.edu To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Catherine Palczewski Organization: University of Northern Iowa Subject: Spring 2000 assistantship Greetings debate world, Just another message to remind people that the University of Northern Iowa has debate assistantships available starting Spring of 2000. (Given the number of debaters who take longer than 8 semesters to graduate, this seems like a good idea). Anyway, if you are interested in working on a masters degree in Communication Studies, and working with debate, you should contact me and I will get a packet of information off to you. As a bonus. . . I am teaching two courses that can count toward your graduate degree: 1) Freedom of Speech (in whish we will read the usual litany of Supreme Court cases, and then delve into Butler's _Excitable Speech_ and MacKinnon's _Only Words_ and Haiman's _Speech Acts_. 2) Performance and Rhetorical texts in Social Change -- this is a social movements course and the readings are composed of a series of articles I put into a packet. We cover general movement theory, from Griffin to counter-public sphere, and we also cover movements from LBGT liberation, Chicana Feminism, militia, civil rights, envrironmentalism, abortion and reproductive freedom, etc. Anyway, if there are any grad student wannabe's out there, let me know. Cate Palczewski University of Northern Iowa From rchurch Wed Oct 13 17:46:15 1999 From: rchurch (Russell Church) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 17:46:15 -0500 Subject: Fw: Lexis Access for CEDA Programs for a Discount Message-ID: I am placing this information for potential users once again. We have only a few days before the November 1 start date. We can extend this offer to other programs who are not in CEDA and we can also extend this program to high schools. There are three files attached; you really should be able to read one of them. But just in case -- here is the text. September 15, 1999 * Five month subscription, begins November 1, 1999, and expires March 31, 2000 * Academic version of full LEXIS-NEXIS Service * Discount applied based on number of ports committing by October 31, 1999 * Prepay for entire period upon subscribing * Teams joining prior to November 1 will pay a pro-rated amount for usage until November 1 in addition to the full contract amount. Teams joining as of November 1 or thereafter will pay full contract amount regardless of when a team joins. * Team may purchase one or more ports, to either Unrestricted hours or Restricted hours option. * Unrestricted, 24-hour access, or Restricted Hours access (No use 10 am - 6 pm, local time, Monday through Friday) * Telnet access using LEXIS-NEXIS Research Software * Individual IDs for each team member and coach * Printing via our print screen feature or download using Session Recording feature (screen capturing to disk or file) * Can begin use immediately upon subscribing * Telephonic training for one person per team; training literature also available at our Lexis-Nexis website DISCOUNT SCHEDULE FOR CEDA Discount Schedule Unrestricted Hours Restricted Hours % Discount List Price 0% $5,000 $2,750 2-50 ports - per port $4,750 $2,612 5% 51-100 ports - per port $4,500 $2.475 10% 101-150 ports - per port $4,250 $2,337 15% 151-200 ports - per port $4,000 $2,200 20% 201+ ports - per port $3,750 $2,062 25% Page 2 September 15, 1999 In order to obtain the appropriate discount, all of the schools wishing to subscribe via CEDA should use you or someone else appointed by CEDA as the contact person so the total numbers can be aggregated by November 1. We will need the following information for each team: Name of College or University Mailing Address, including Building or Street Address, City, State and ZIP Code Name of Contact Person for each team Phone Number for Contact Person for each team Fax Number for Contact Person for each team E-mail address for Contact Person for each team Number of Ports Unrestricted or Restricted Hours Option List of students and coaches for identification numbers -----Original Message----- From: Russell Church, Chair, Speech and Theatre, 898-2640 To: edebate Date: Wednesday, September 15, 1999 5:44 PM Subject: Lexis Access for CEDA Programs for a Discount > > > >I have arranged a group discount for all CEDA members to purchase a >subscription to Lexis-Nexis. I will serve as the consortium contact >person. > >This year we have arranged for a November 1 start date. In future >years, we will arrange to start on October 1. > >We can arrange for individual invoicing or invoicing through CEDA. >But the invoices must be paid in full in advance for the time period. > >I NEED ALL INTERESTED PROGRAMS TO CONTACT ME IMMEDIATELY ABOUT THEIR >POSSIBLE PARTICIPATION. > >I have attached plain text and Microsoft Word 97 files with the details. > >Regards, > > >Russell Church >Chair >Speech & Theatre >615-898-2640 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Lexis.wpd Type: application/wordperfect5.1 Size: 4289 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/19991013/293b79da/attachment.wp5 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: lexis.doc Type: application/msword Size: 32256 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/19991013/293b79da/attachment.doc -------------- next part -------------- September 15, 1999 * Five month subscription, begins November 1, 1999, and expires March 31, 2000 * Academic version of full LEXIS-NEXIS Service * Discount applied based on number of ports committing by October 31, 1999 * Prepay for entire period upon subscribing * Teams joining prior to November 1 will pay a pro-rated amount for usage until November 1 in addition to the full contract amount. Teams joining as of November 1 or thereafter will pay full contract amount regardless of when a team joins. * Team may purchase one or more ports, to either Unrestricted hours or Restricted hours option. * Unrestricted, 24-hour access, or Restricted Hours access (No use 10 am - 6 pm, local time, Monday through Friday) * Telnet access using LEXIS-NEXIS Research Software * Individual IDs for each team member and coach * Printing via our print screen feature or download using Session Recording feature (screen capturing to disk or file) * Can begin use immediately upon subscribing * Telephonic training for one person per team; training literature also available at our Lexis-Nexis website DISCOUNT SCHEDULE FOR CEDA Discount Schedule Unrestricted Hours Restricted Hours % Discount List Price 0% $5,000 $2,750 2-50 ports - per port $4,750 $2,612 5% 51-100 ports - per port $4,500 $2.475 10% 101-150 ports - per port $4,250 $2,337 15% 151-200 ports - per port $4,000 $2,200 20% 201+ ports - per port $3,750 $2,062 25% Page 2 September 15, 1999 In order to obtain the appropriate discount, all of the schools wishing to subscribe via CEDA should use you or someone else appointed by CEDA as the contact person so the total numbers can be aggregated by November 1. We will need the following information for each team: Name of College or University Mailing Address, including Building or Street Address, City, State and ZIP Code Name of Contact Person for each team Phone Number for Contact Person for each team Fax Number for Contact Person for each team E-mail address for Contact Person for each team Number of Ports Unrestricted or Restricted Hours Option List of students and coaches for identification numbers From gronjm02 Wed Oct 13 19:03:49 1999 From: gronjm02 (Jason Gronberg) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 20:03:49 -0400 Subject: New Web Resources Message-ID: Hey all, I am trying to create a web page that can serve as a link to debate related resources. If any one has any links that would be helpful, or would like your team's link added. back channel me and I will try to get them all up. Check it out, Jason Gronberg Wake Forest University http://www.wfu.edu/~gronjm02/DebatePage.htm From pccdebate Wed Oct 13 19:20:49 1999 From: pccdebate (Anthony Jones) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 17:20:49 PDT Subject: Who is competing at the Aztec in San Diego Message-ID: Cal State LA will be bringing one open team (Kitiimonthorn & Espinosa) and one junior team (Salazar and Nevala) >From: Matthew Taylor >Reply-To: taylorm at CSULB.EDU >To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU >Subject: Re: Who is competing at the Aztec in San Diego >Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 14:40:01 -0700 > >Long Beach will have one open, one junior, and one novice team. > >peace, >Matt > >At 02:21 PM 10/13/1999 -0700, Jason Jarvis wrote: > >Arizona State will be bringing two open and one novice team. The same >teams > >that were at SUU. > > > >regards, > > > >Jason > >ASU > > > >On Wed, 13 Oct 1999, Terry West wrote: > > > >> SUU will bring Kara Dillard and Heather Awsumb in open. No jr teams >this time, but some IE. > >> > >> Terry West > >> Southern Utah > >> > >> >>> Veronica Macias-Lucero 10/13/99 09:57AM >>> > >> California state university Bakersfield will be attending. > >> > >> And bring 2 teams only this time. > >> > >> > >> > >> In a message dated 10/12/99 5:32:50 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > >> debatenerd at HOTMAIL.COM writes: > >> > >> << Who is competing at the AZTEC in San Diego this weekend? Is there >anybody > >> putting together a teamlist or a caselist for it? If not I am willing >to do > >> so. > >> > >> Thanks > >> Steve > >> > >> ______________________________________________________ > >> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com > >> > >> > >> ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- > >> Return-Path: > >> Received: from rly-yd03.mx.aol.com (rly-yd03.mail.aol.com >[172.18.150.3]) > >> by air-yd03.mail.aol.com (v62.10) with ESMTP; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 20:32:49 >-0400 > >> Received: from LIME.EASE.LSOFT.COM (lime.ease.lsoft.com >[209.119.1.41]) by > >> rly-yd03.mx.aol.com (v61.13) with ESMTP; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 20:32:34 >-0400 >> > >> > > > > > ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From lacyjp Wed Oct 13 19:53:18 1999 From: lacyjp (JP Lacy) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 17:53:18 -0700 Subject: CP's and Opportunity Costs In-Reply-To: <380488B4.7336201A@wpl-law.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 13 Oct 1999, Trond Jacobsen wrote: > My hazy recollection is the late Mr. Branham at Bates wrote of CP's as > opportunity costs nigh on 20 years ago...and here we are again. Theory > is always older than we think, a natural process of intellectual > evolution, I suppose. > > One quick comment and a question...those who view their role as a judge > as voting for one or the other competing plans (when defense of SQ is > abadoned, and as opposed to voting for or against the affirmative) > surely apply the same standards and employ the same expectations and > impose the same burdens on negative advocacy as on affirmative > advocacy. Or no? I do not recall seeing this equivalence employed in > practice, though the theoretical grounding to this approach (vote for > one or the other plan) should fairly require such balance. > > Second, what happens, in the world where policies are adopted, that > Congress in our minds, when you vote "for a perm"? The same thing that happens when you vote "for a plan" > > > Trond > From db8coach Wed Oct 13 21:14:05 1999 From: db8coach (Bob Lechtreck) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 19:14:05 -0700 Subject: CP's and Opportunity Costs Message-ID: J.P. Lacy said: >>>>>>>>>> The same thing that happens when you vote "for a plan" >>>>>>>>>> This doesn't really answer either of the questions. Do you assign the same burdens to the neg as you do the aff (since you assume c/plans are advocated choices), and what do you vote for if you buy the perm? Also, what is the purpose of competition in your world? Peace, Bob Lechtreck Bakersfield College "Putting out fires, and damn good debaters". From lacyjp Wed Oct 13 21:40:34 1999 From: lacyjp (JP Lacy) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 19:40:34 -0700 Subject: CP's and Opportunity Costs In-Reply-To: <015101bf15e9$cd4b7160$f202a5d1@db8coach> Message-ID: On Wed, 13 Oct 1999, Bob Lechtreck wrote: > J.P. Lacy said: > > >>>>>>>>>> > The same thing that happens when you vote "for a plan" > >>>>>>>>>> > > This doesn't really answer either of the questions. Do you assign the same > burdens to > the neg as you do the aff (since you assume c/plans are advocated choices), > and what do you vote for if you buy the perm? The perm. > > Also, what is the purpose of competition in your world? Avoids making false choices. > > Peace, > > Bob Lechtreck > Bakersfield College > "Putting out fires, and damn good debaters". > > > From db8coach Wed Oct 13 22:12:20 1999 From: db8coach (Bob Lechtreck) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 20:12:20 -0700 Subject: CP's and Opportunity Costs Message-ID: >>>>>>>>>> > This doesn't really answer either of the questions. Do you assign the same > burdens to > the neg as you do the aff (since you assume c/plans are advocated choices), > and what do you vote for if you buy the perm? The perm. >>>>>>>>>> I am sure that you are a very busy man, but could you exound on your answers just a wee bit...... :-) Do you assign the same burdens to the neg as you do the aff? Whenyou buy the perm, are you voting for a combination of two advocated plans? And if so, why isn't that a shift of advocacy for the team which claims to get this combination? >>>>>>>>>> > Also, what is the purpose of competition in your world? Avoids making false choices. >>>>>>>>>> What false choice? According to you, the aff advocates one plan and the neg advocates another. Sounds like there are only two choices available. Why do they have to compete? Peace, Bob Lechtreck Bakersfield College "Putting out fires, and damn good debaters". >From Wed Oct 13 23:18:38 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 54373 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 23:19:19 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo29.mx.aol.com (imo29.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.73]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA51088 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 23:19:17 -0400 Received: from Bmprstkr at aol.com by imo29.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v22.4.) id nRJKa16653 (4011) for ; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 23:18:39 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 26 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 23:18:38 EDT Reply-To: Bmprstkr at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Bmprstkr at AOL.COM Subject: Looking for Rafael Bito at UofL If anyone has information about how to reach Rafael, please backchannel me. Thank you, Autumn Boylan SFSU debate From kenneth.delaughder Wed Oct 13 22:35:33 1999 From: kenneth.delaughder (Kenneth DeLaughder) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 21:35:33 -0600 Subject: stannard, glue, wyoming Message-ID: yeah I lost your phone numbers... can you tell me when youre arriving this week so we can make arrangements Ken 316-343-7081 From srobertson Wed Oct 13 22:56:04 1999 From: srobertson (Robertson, Steve) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 20:56:04 -0700 Subject: Who is competing at the Aztec in San Diego Message-ID: CSU-Fullerton will be bringing 2 open teams (same as UNI) and 4 novice teams. Plus some IE'ers. See ya in San D. --steve -----Original Message----- From: Matthew Taylor To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU Sent: 10/13/99 2:40 PM Subject: Re: Who is competing at the Aztec in San Diego Long Beach will have one open, one junior, and one novice team. peace, Matt At 02:21 PM 10/13/1999 -0700, Jason Jarvis wrote: >Arizona State will be bringing two open and one novice team. The same teams >that were at SUU. > >regards, > >Jason >ASU > >On Wed, 13 Oct 1999, Terry West wrote: > >> SUU will bring Kara Dillard and Heather Awsumb in open. No jr teams this time, but some IE. >> >> Terry West >> Southern Utah >> >> >>> Veronica Macias-Lucero 10/13/99 09:57AM >>> >> California state university Bakersfield will be attending. >> >> And bring 2 teams only this time. >> >> >> >> In a message dated 10/12/99 5:32:50 PM Pacific Daylight Time, >> debatenerd at HOTMAIL.COM writes: >> >> << Who is competing at the AZTEC in San Diego this weekend? Is there anybody >> putting together a teamlist or a caselist for it? If not I am willing to do >> so. >> >> Thanks >> Steve >> >> ______________________________________________________ >> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com >> >> >> ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- >> Return-Path: >> Received: from rly-yd03.mx.aol.com (rly-yd03.mail.aol.com [172.18.150.3]) >> by air-yd03.mail.aol.com (v62.10) with ESMTP; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 20:32:49 -0400 >> Received: from LIME.EASE.LSOFT.COM (lime.ease.lsoft.com [209.119.1.41]) by >> rly-yd03.mx.aol.com (v61.13) with ESMTP; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 20:32:34 -0400 >> >> > > From erm892f Wed Oct 13 23:04:04 1999 From: erm892f (Eric Morris) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 23:04:04 -0500 Subject: Damn Yankees Message-ID: Why bother buying the best players in baseball when you can get calls like that one? Eric Morris Asst. Debate Coach, SMSU - Dept. of Comm./Media, Craig 370 (H) (417) 863-9056 (O) (417) 836-6564 erm892f at mail.smsu.edu From jlupo Wed Oct 13 23:24:49 1999 From: jlupo (Jon paul Lupo) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 00:24:49 -0400 Subject: Damn Yankees In-Reply-To: <009b01bf15f9$2aaa3120$36120792@ermo---home> Message-ID: The Second base umpire didn't throw the pitch that wound up 415 ft from home plate over the center field fence. On Wed, 13 Oct 1999, Eric Morris wrote: > Why bother buying the best players in baseball when you can > get calls like that one? > > Eric Morris > Asst. Debate Coach, SMSU - Dept. of Comm./Media, Craig 370 > (H) (417) 863-9056 > (O) (417) 836-6564 > erm892f at mail.smsu.edu > ******************************************************************** 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 Thu Oct 14 00:27:27 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 53671 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 00:28:54 -0400 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 AAA50968 for ; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 00:28:39 -0400 Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo-d05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id oZYQPDGeg_ (3867); Thu, 14 Oct 1999 00:27:28 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 26 Message-ID: <0.1a4a4a47.2536b5af at aol.com> Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 00:27:27 EDT Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Michael Bear Bryant Subject: Re: CP's and Opportunity Costs Comments: To: db8coach at lightspeed.net In a message dated 10/13/99 9:11:48 PM Mountain Daylight Time, db8coach at LIGHTSPEED.NET writes: > > What false choice? According to you, the aff advocates one plan and the neg > advocates another. Sounds like there are only two choices available. Why do > they have to compete? > > Peace, > > Bob Lechtreck Just say no. Don't get sucked into a plan-plan debate with Bob. Anyone with enough energy to check the eDebate archives can see that this is a recurring metaphor for an argumentative "black hole." Counterplans without demonstration of forced choice independently demonstrate the inappropriateness of imprecise application of theories of opportunity cost. What Korcok called "opportunity cost" when he first thought of plan-plan isn't really a full consideration of what the concept truly represents. And, independent of theoretical semantics, this is one of those "community consensus" thangs, especially if you've ever had first-hand experience of how intellectually unstimulating such debates tend to be.... Give it up, Bob, we applaud your tenacity and endurance, but give it up. I know it's hard - I had to give up counterwarrants back in the 1970's, too. Desperately seeking to avoid witnessing another P2 debate, Bear From db8coach Wed Oct 13 23:41:34 1999 From: db8coach (Bob Lechtreck) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 21:41:34 -0700 Subject: CP's and Opportunity Costs Message-ID: >>>>>>>>>> Just say no. Don't get sucked into a plan-plan debate with Bob. >>>>>>>>>> Ah, but you haven't been reading, Bear. I am on the other side of the debate at this juncture. I am not trying to suck people into another P2 debate, but rather into admitting that c/plans (albeit traditional ones) are based in the opp cost theory. J.P. is arguing that they are advocated choices and my question to him is an attemp to show that if c/plans are NOT tests, then there is no need for competition (IE: you advocate one plan, I advocate another, no need to show a forced choice). >>>>>>>>>> Give it up, Bob, we applaud your tenacity and endurance, but give it up. I know it's hard - I had to give up counterwarrants back in the 1970's, too. >>>>>>>>>> I will never give up my beliefs (and I believe the theory is sound), but in THIS case, I am arguing on your side of the debate. I have given up the P2 defense (except backchannel when engaged), because there are none so blind as those who refuse to see........ :-) Peace, Bob Lechtreck Bakersfield College "Putting out fires, and damn good debaters". From db8coach Wed Oct 13 23:47:39 1999 From: db8coach (Bob Lechtreck) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 21:47:39 -0700 Subject: CP's and Opportunity Costs Message-ID: Oh yeah, one more tidbit. >>>>>>>>>> And, independent of theoretical semantics, this is one of those "community consensus" thangs, especially if you've ever had first-hand experience of how intellectually unstimulating such debates tend to be.... >>>>>>>>>> Mike Korcok can correct me if I am wrong, but I think that I judged either the first, or close to the first plan/plan debates (Jeff Woods at Long Beach). And for the record, I voted aff. :-) Peace, Bob Lechtreck Bakersfield College "Putting out fires, and damn good debaters". From West Thu Oct 14 00:08:06 1999 From: West (Terry West) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 23:08:06 -0600 Subject: non-debate; basketball only Message-ID: Arguments about who was the "best ever" don't make a whole lot of sense in sports that are more than about 20 years old because of any number of differences. But I feel safe in saying that I mourn the passing of a man who did some things that will likely never be equalled on a basketball court. Wilt Chamberlain, who died yesterday at age 63, did the following: --averaged over 50 points per game for an entire season --scored 100 points in a single game --took 55 rebounds in a single game---against Bill Russell --averaged over 48 minutes per game for an entire season--missed about 6 minutes of one game. --never fouled out of a game in his career--yet was known as a supreme defender and shot blocker. In fact, if shots blocked had been a kept stat when he played, he would have the record. --led the NBA in rebounding 11 times; had 7 straight scoring titles --led the league in assists in 1968--the only center ever to do so. --holds 25 individual regular season records --caused numerous rule changes (previous to Wilt, you could release the free throw from anywhere as long as you started behind the line. When Wilt took two short steps from the circle, leaped from behind the line, and dunked the freakin' free throw, they changed the rule. They also used to jump all jump-balls from the circle nearest to the stoppage. Wilt frequently scored by making the tip-off into his own basket. Changed the rule to "you must tip to a player." Widened the lane so he couldn't block ALL the shots. And there were never any "Chamberlain rules"--Wilt was routinely mugged by two or three players all nght long.) I got most of that stuff from an ESPN internet report by Dr. Jack Ramsay. But what I'll really remember about Wilt are 2 things: 1) supreme grace. This guy was an athlete. He ran the court. NBA teams tried to coax him out of retirement to help them out in the end of the season when he was in his 50s. And he was in shape to do it. He was a college track star. Even at over 7 feet tall and 300 pounds, he was agile and graceful. He's the only man I ever saw catch his own slam dunk. 2) the gentle giant. Wilt didn't engage in "trash talk." If a fight broke out on the court, Wilt was the one holding the two parties apart--and with his strength and huge wing span, I saw him do it several times single-handedly. I never saw Wilt throw an elbow. And I saw him let up on some dunks when a defender had his hand in the rim--so he didn't break every bone in the man's hand. Hey, if you read this, thanks for bearing with me. A legend is gone, but the memories remain. Terry SUU From gronjm02 Thu Oct 14 03:06:59 1999 From: gronjm02 (Jason Gronberg) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 04:06:59 -0400 Subject: Thanks to Richmond Message-ID: I know it's late, but i've had homeowrk to finish. I wanted to give a shout out to Jason Stone and the Richmond crew for hosting one of the best tournaments i've ever been to. The tournament ran on time, with little hassle, excellent hospitality, and a great time for all. I hope other schools will consider going in the future. keep in mind the last round on saturday ended by 7:30 and poker was up by 8:30. Seriously, Jason and the Richmondites did a marevlous job. They can not get enough praise. Especially an old freind running the Tab Desk. She did an outstanding job. The best I've seen. Jason Gronberg Wake Forest University From STRICKLG Thu Oct 14 07:32:19 1999 From: STRICKLG (Glen Strickland) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 07:32:19 -0500 Subject: Emporia Tournament Team List Message-ID: As of 7AM Thursday 45th NATIONAL PFLAUM DEBATES EMPORIA STATE UNIVERSITY TEAM/JUDGE LIST Augustana College (South Dakota) Dom Washington/Allison Proctor (JV) Judge: Heather Aldridge Concordia College Harry Niska/Andrew Kemp (Open) John Kelly/Chris Stinson/Sarah Topp (Open) Judge: Fred Sternhagen Eastern New Mexico State University Redhorse/Hanson (Open) Judges: Charles Waits & Katie Gilkinson Ft. Hays State University Andrew Halverson/Jason Regnier (Open) Joseph Ramsey/Brent Saindon (Open) Judge: Tony Penders George Mason University Jay Igiel/Frances Tufts (Open) Judge: Warren Decker Johnson County Community College Korryn Mozisek/Jessica Rowe (Open) Jeremy Hutchins Southwest Missouri State University Troy Payne/Matt Vega (Open) Shawn Bone/Chris Roberds (Open) Judge: Eric Morris Southwest Texas State University Jason Myres/Courtney Wheeler (Open) University of Central Oklahoma John Potts/Jamie Evans (Open) Chris Valencia/Steven Foster (Open) Paul Mooney/Jan Lehman (JV) Judges: Jan Hovden & Matt Moore University of Iowa Clay Cleveland/Amy Herrick (Open) Ted Moore/Daniel Prada (Open) Sherene Judeh/Tara Voss (Open) Sherwin Amiran/Jenny Wing (Open) Judges: Michele Choe & Jon Wiebel University of Kansas Nathan Rodriguez/Tom Seymour (Open) RJ Melman/David Magariel (Open) Judges: Jacob Thompson & Matt Gerber University of Michigan Dearborn Taimaa Hussein/Carlos Rangel (Open) Judge: Stacey Sowards University of Northern Iowa Adam Briddell/Jen Rawe (Open) Judge: Cate Palczewski University of North Texas Jason Sykes/John Hines (Open) Lauren Hildebrand/Holly Fortner (Open) Julian Gagnon/Scotty Gottbreht (Open) Matt Shaftstall/Sloan Callum (Open) Judges: Josh Hoe & Tara Tate University of Wyoming James Blevins/Steve Lunsford (Open) Trent Greene/Eli Crittinden (JV) Judge: John Foy Wayne State University Kristy Opalewski/Ben Hillard (Open) Wichita State University Shannon Holland/Tom O'Toole (Open) Brian Gough/Tony Nation (Open) Darah Fellows/Melissa Angle (JV) Judges: Darren Elliott & Ishak William Jewell College Mindy Baccus/Mike Girouard (Open) Tom Hershewe/James Lawson (Open) Judges: Gina Lane & Steve Woods From tjacobse Thu Oct 14 07:34:58 1999 From: tjacobse (Trond Jacobsen) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 08:34:58 -0400 Subject: CP's and Opportunity Costs References: Message-ID: JP Lacy wrote: > > On Wed, 13 Oct 1999, Trond Jacobsen wrote: > > > My hazy recollection is the late Mr. Branham at Bates wrote of CP's as > > opportunity costs nigh on 20 years ago...and here we are again. Theory > > is always older than we think, a natural process of intellectual > > evolution, I suppose. > > > > One quick comment and a question...those who view their role as a judge > > as voting for one or the other competing plans (when defense of SQ is > > abadoned, and as opposed to voting for or against the affirmative) > > surely apply the same standards and employ the same expectations and > > impose the same burdens on negative advocacy as on affirmative > > advocacy. Or no? I do not recall seeing this equivalence employed in > > practice, though the theoretical grounding to this approach (vote for > > one or the other plan) should fairly require such balance. > > > > Second, what happens, in the world where policies are adopted, that > > Congress in our minds, when you vote "for a perm"? > > The same thing that happens when you vote "for a plan" > I would guess you find replanning away DA links unacceptable. What about initiating a counterplan in your view makes justified 2AC replanning, a la advocacy of perm, and its endorsement by the critic? Does the perm have any of the burdens we generally impose on affirmatives, for example, that few affirmatives without solvency evidence win? Trond From woodss Thu Oct 14 09:06:57 1999 From: woodss (Woods, Steve) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 09:06:57 -0500 Subject: Novice issue isn't going away, only programs--who out there gives a damn? Message-ID: Hey all, While I didn't expect a wave of commitments to sweep the "e" after my post, I thought more people would be concerned with the lack of novice, and as John Fritch pointed out, even to some extent JV. Put your program resources where your mouth is. Saying you have concern for shrinking debate, and not fielding novices is duplicitous. I would like each of the schools in the midwest to comment on their efforts to promote debate with younger inexperienced debaters (even some of your border state schools in Texas, and Illinois, and Iowa, where are your novices? what tournaments do you take them to?) . Look, if we can find novices on our campus of 1150 people, SURELY there must be people interested on YOUR campus. It does take effort, but if this is about more than competition, it is the type of effort your university and community requires of you. We MUST have novice in the midwest. You disagree by your silence and inaction. I will indeed take it that way. Steve Dr. Steve Woods Assistant Professor Communication,Co-Director of Debate William Jewell College,Liberty, MO 64068 816.781.7700 x. 5478 >From Thu Oct 14 11:11:58 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 60363 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 11:12:50 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo11.mx.aol.com (imo11.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.1]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA17708 for ; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 11:12:46 -0400 Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo11.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id eDDWa13073 (4456); Thu, 14 Oct 1999 11:11:58 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 26 Message-ID: <0.cda400bb.25374cbe at aol.com> Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 11:11:58 EDT Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Michael Bear Bryant Subject: Re: Novice issue isn't going away, only programs--who out there g... Comments: To: woodss at william.jewell.edu In a message dated 10/14/99 8:09:24 AM Mountain Daylight Time, woodss at WILLIAM.JEWELL.EDU writes: > > We MUST have novice in the midwest. You disagree by your silence and > inaction. I will indeed take it that way. > > > Steve Calm down, Steve. No one is against novices. Some universities don't expect novice recruitment. Some universities are in areas where excellent amounts of HS debate exist. Some funnel raw novices through other aspects of the program, like IE's or parli. I support your intent 100%. Just not your implications regarding silence. Your point is well-taken, but you are not the judge. Understand? Bear From forensics Thu Oct 14 11:11:18 1999 From: forensics (Forensics) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 09:11:18 -0700 Subject: Is EDEBATE still online? Message-ID: I haven't received any posts from the list for 2 days. have I been unsubscribed? Ken Sherwood Co-Director of Forensics Los Angeles City College (323) 953-4453 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/19991014/d76e7fe4/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 5665 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/19991014/d76e7fe4/attachment.gif From woodss Thu Oct 14 12:03:21 1999 From: woodss (Woods, Steve) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 12:03:21 -0500 Subject: Novice issue isn't going away, only programs--who out there g ... Message-ID: > Hey all, > > When Bear has to urge me to be calm, my guess is that I better listen. > His point is well taken that I am not the sole evaluator and judge of > debate programs and their value. I guess my hyperbolic tone was to > provoke/promote discussion. However, I will admit frustration at not > being able to enter my novices in a true novice division so far in our > region. > > I also received a backchannel from Linda Collier at UMKC which was > insightful, and which rightfully suggested that a positive approach in > terms of discussing novice recruiting and most importantly RETENTION > techniques would serve the community well. Her point is well taken. > > As such, I think that Tuna Snider from Vermont is an excellent resource in > such matters, on campus recruiting is the ONLY way he gets debaters into > his program. Sam Nelson at Rochester has done a fantastic job as well. I > mention these persons only becuase I have seen from first hand experience > their success. Others that are out there with large and dynamic novice > elements please respond with strategies and techniques to help attract and > maintain your less experienced debaters. > > As for Jewell, I can say that we poster the campus twice a year to > publicize membership drives for the team to the campus at large. We also > attempt to commit to tournaments with novice divisions. Oh yeah, thats > where I came in. We can't get our novices out to tournaments. > > I hope others continue this thread. As per Bear's advice, I will cast > aside my judgmental tone, and listen and learn from others and their > advice. > > > Steve > > ---------- > From: Michael Bear Bryant > Reply To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM > Sent: Thursday, October 14, 1999 10:11 AM > To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU > Subject: Re: Novice issue isn't going away, only programs--who out > there g... > > > Calm down, Steve. No one is against novices. Some universities don't > expect > novice recruitment. Some universities are in areas where excellent amounts > of > HS debate exist. Some funnel raw novices through other aspects of the > program, like IE's or parli. > > I support your intent 100%. Just not your implications regarding silence. > Your point is well-taken, but you are not the judge. > > Understand? > > Bear > > From wkerman Thu Oct 14 12:07:38 1999 From: wkerman (Walter J. Kerman) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 12:07:38 -0500 Subject: Loyola Rambler Reminder In-Reply-To: <699F3A6D1BD1D011948400007786CA9202F70AAE@shaman.jewell.edu> Message-ID: The hotel is filling up these are the final days for a hotel room the number for the cass is 1800-227-7850 Walter Kerman Loyola University Chicago Debate Check out Loyola Debate http://www.luc.edu/depts/commun/debate/ From jordan440 Thu Oct 14 12:51:31 1999 From: jordan440 (Jason & Lisa) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 12:51:31 -0500 Subject: Novice issue isn't going away, only programs--who out there gives a damn? References: <699F3A6D1BD1D011948400007786CA9202F70AAE@shaman.jewell.edu> Message-ID: Well I guess we don't like to leave a challenge unanswered here at UTDallas. We've got more novices than varsity debaters and though we don't take them to the same tournaments as varsity debaters we do take them to as many (actually more this semester). Experience tells us that taking our novices to Heart is probably a big mistake, but at regional tournaments they can learn and build their skills. I've seen a lot of novice debaters out there on the regional circuit and they seem to be doing well and getting on top of the issues. Just because they don't go to the "power-house" tournaments or whatever doesn't meen they don't exist or that we don't do our damndest to promote their success. I'm looking, but I don't see the death of novice debate I just see schools with smaller budgets making intelligent choices -send novices to smaller local tournaments where they can learn and be successful before you send them out on an expensive blood bath. Just my two cents, (probably with inflation it ain't even worth what I paid for it so for you its free) Jason Jordan UTDallas Debate From girl-genius Thu Oct 14 13:31:06 1999 From: girl-genius (Shawnessy Scott) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 18:31:06 0000 Subject: Anyone up for email debate? Message-ID: A) Resolved: The Cross Examination Debate Association will amend its policies and practices to significantly change the style and structure of debate to a more inclusive one. B) Resolved: The Cross Examination Debate Association will amend its policies and/or practices to significantly increase its minority participation. Shall we debate the first or second resolution or both? If this is how we believe change takes place let's propose some policy options and evaluate them. Under Resolution B, the first affirmative plan is UDLs for all or most colleges and university programs. Wording? novice Shawnessy Angelfire for your free web-based e-mail. http://www.angelfire.com From lsd041 Thu Oct 14 13:49:11 1999 From: lsd041 (Scott Deatherage) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 13:49:11 -0500 Subject: Cap Cities Judge Needed Message-ID: I'm looking to hire three prelim rounds for Cap Cities. We pay well. Interested parties please backchannel. I'll check my e-mail after I teach, somewhere between 4:30 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. Central Time. SD From nuraido Thu Oct 14 14:02:17 1999 From: nuraido (Kellie Clancy) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 14:02:17 CDT Subject: save mumia's life Message-ID: This was posted by Matthew Singer to the kritik list serv. Please take 45 seconds to email Governor Ridge before this weekend to protest Abu-Jamal's death. The American Judicial System sickens me. Peace, Kellie Clancy Mumia Abu-Jamal had his death warrant signed earlier today by Gov. Tom Ridge of Pennsylvania (Republican). If you have no idea who Mumia is, he is a Pennsylvanian that is being wrongly held for murder. His story is given by www.j4mumia.org: Mumia Abu-Jamal was a radio journalist in Philadelphia, known as ~Sthe voice of the voiceless~T during the years of the infamous racist mayor, Frank Rizzo. Mumia won a Major Armstrong Award for radio journalism, and was named one of Philadelphia~Rs ~Speople to watch~T in 1981 by Philadelphia magazine. He was president of the Association of Black Journalists in Philadelphia, and he had no prior criminal record. In December of 1981, Mumia was shot by a Philadelphia cop when he intervened in a street incident where the cop was beating his brother with a flashlight. The police officer was also shot and killed, and witnesses saw other men run from the scene. Yet when police arrived, they beat the wounded Mumia before taking him to the hospital, and he was charged with murder. Mumia~Rs brother and another eyewitness who say Mumia is innocent were harassed by police and driven out of town. Other witnesses changed their stories to implicate Mumia and were rewarded. The dead officer was holding the driver~Rs license application of a third man. But it was Mumia that the cops wanted. Mumia had been a member of the Black Panther Party, and later a supporter of the MOVE organization. He was a vocal critic of police violence against the minority communities of Philadelphia, a city that was sued by the United States Department of Justice seeking to end the notorious brutality there. The FBI and Philadelphia police had hundreds of pages of surveillance files on Mumia, beginning when he was 15 years old, for his outspoken opposition to racism and police brutality. People began to question the charging of Mumia, so two months after the shooting incident the police suddenly put forward the phony claim that Mumia had ~Sconfessed~T in the hospital emergency room, but they had forgotten to mention it at the time or write it in their reports. The written reports and the emergency room doctor said Mumia made no statement. Mumia was then barred from most of his own trial for protesting an unprepared court-appointed attorney who was later disbarred. Eleven peremptory challenges were used to knock almost all Blacks off the jury. Vital evidence was withheld from the defense, and police were unable to establish that the fatal bullet came from Mumia~Rs gun. The politics behind the frame-up was made clear when the prosecutor argued for the death penalty by reading to the jury revolutionary quotations from a published interview with Mumia from ten years earlier. The jury was told this is a dangerous Black revolutionary. In the recent hearings for a new trial, a witness used against Mumia in his first trial came forward to say that she lied under police coercion. In retaliation, she was arrested in the courtroom as she stepped off the witness stand on an old warrant from another state. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court (5 of 7 justices endorsed for election by the Fraternal Order of Police) then ruled against a new trial. This takes place in the wake of massive police scandals in Philadelphia, where more than 300 sentences have now been reversed because they were originally obtained on the basis of police frame-ups. For the last 17 years Mumia has been locked alone in a cell 23 hours a day, denied contact visits with his family. His confidential legal mail has been opened and reproduced by prison authorities. He was put into punitive detention for writing a book Live From Death Row. Reporters are still prohibited from filming or recording interviews with him. As Jamal has put it, ~SThey don~Rt just want my death, they want my silence.~T Mumia~Rs case concentrates the political atmosphere of the criminalization of Black men, the expanded death penalty, the political persecution of revolutionaries, and the gutting of defendants~R rights. We must stop Mumia~Rs execution!" Now, I'm not usually one to take time out of my life for things like this (especially at 12:00 at night). However, someone here is getting the shaft big time, and so I'm asking you to protest Gov. Ridge's actions. Many anti-death penalty organizations are staging protests Thursday, Friday, and Saturday. You can e-mail Gov. Ridge here: http://www.state.pa.us/PA_Exec/Governor/govmail.html It doesn't take much time, and it is someone's life. Please, send this message on to others. peace, matthew singer ______________________________________________________ >Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com > > >______________________________________________________________________ >To unsubscribe, write to siriusforensiks-unsubscribe at listbot.com >Start Your Own FREE Email List at http://www.listbot.com/ > ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From d.breshears Thu Oct 14 10:50:52 1999 From: d.breshears (David Breshears) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 11:50:52 -0400 Subject: Novice issue isn't going away, only programs--who out there gives a damn? Message-ID: Okay. As one of those on the "border," I've got a question for Steve. At Texas, we've never really travelled "novices." You see, we have more than 24 "experienced" debaters, that's 12 teams, all vying for a chunk of a 40,000 travel budget. Now, at least 4 - and more like 7 or 8 - of those teams "deserve" to be travelling just about every weekend (if they wanted). Obviously, our budget doesn't come close to allowing that. We get to take 4 teams to most of the "biggies," and even had 8 out at SMS last weekend (and will have 8 again at UCO). So, my question is essentially this: WHICH OF THESE FOLKS SHOULD WE CUT OFF IN FAVOR OF NOVICES? I don't ask this question just to be a smart-ass. I let the original post slide without comment, but your latest post seems to beg a reply. What I'm suggesting is that other schools are in similar shape - that is, too many folks, too few resources. So, don't imply that those programs that don't travel novices don't "give a damn." If you'd like to funnel an extra $20k our way, I'll be happy to scour the campus for novices interested in travel. Now, this is what we do offer novices: we teach them the fundamentals of research - using a library/the web/lexis-nexis - producing blocks, watching practice debates in order to learn both how to debate and how to judge - something that allows them to become local high school critics, in many cases - and we promise them at least two tournaments a year (Baylor & SWTSU, both in the second semester, so they have time to get it together). All of these efforts will remain rather invisible to you and much of the rest of the community. They occur nonetheless. We even had one "novice" (read: no high school experience) debater at SMS, but he was with a more experienced first-year, and they refused even to do JV (they went 3-5 in open, btw). I say all of this not to be defensive, though I'm sure there's some of that going on. Instead, I'd just ask that folks quit berating their colleagues on this list for things that are either: a) beyond their control, or b) invisible to much of the community. Thanks, and sorry for ranting, Dave -----Original Message----- From: Woods, Steve To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU Date: Thursday, October 14, 1999 10:08 AM Subject: Novice issue isn't going away, only programs--who out there gives a damn? >Hey all, > >While I didn't expect a wave of commitments to sweep the "e" after my post, >I thought more people would be concerned with the lack of novice, and as >John Fritch pointed out, even to some extent JV. > >Put your program resources where your mouth is. Saying you have concern for >shrinking debate, and not fielding novices is duplicitous. I would like >each of the schools in the midwest to comment on their efforts to promote >debate with younger inexperienced debaters (even some of your border state >schools in Texas, and Illinois, and Iowa, where are your novices? what >tournaments do you take them to?) . > >Look, if we can find novices on our campus of 1150 people, SURELY there must >be people interested on YOUR campus. It does take effort, but if this is >about more than competition, it is the type of effort your university and >community requires of you. > >We MUST have novice in the midwest. You disagree by your silence and >inaction. I will indeed take it that way. > > >Steve >Dr. Steve Woods >Assistant Professor Communication,Co-Director of Debate >William Jewell College,Liberty, MO 64068 >816.781.7700 x. 5478 From jackhammer Thu Oct 14 15:10:20 1999 From: jackhammer (Jack Hammer) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 16:10:20 -0400 Subject: dispositionality and side bias Message-ID: On Tue, 12 Oct 1999 23:00:11 CDT, Aaron Klemz wrote: >You leave no space for critical arguments that do not defend policies, but >provide good reasons for rejecting them. I would gladly agree with your sentence if you had not said "good reasons." If policy arguments are necessarily comparative, then any good reason to reject one policy must necessarily be an argument to prefer some other policy. It is impossible to reject a policy without implicitly or explicitly accepting some alternative. >You leave no room for negative >arguments that reject the use of statist policy-making for controlling the >world. That position sounds like it would be fertile grounds for a number of negative arguments: solvency, denial of harms, disadvantages, counterplans. Lots of room. From jackhammer Thu Oct 14 15:34:31 1999 From: jackhammer (Jack Hammer) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 16:34:31 -0400 Subject: dispositionality and side bias Message-ID: >I haven't read the Branham article on opportunity >costs, so I don't necessarily have a problem with the general idea. But I >don't think the "general idea" supports some of the claims that have been >made in this thread using "opportunity cost" as support. > >I have also seen another Branham article footnoted, "Counterplan as >Disadvantage." >But if those articles say that a negative team doesn't stand anywhere, >doesn't believe anything, and exists only to "test" an affirmative team, I >will still disagree. They in fact do not seem to say that. Korcok says it, but without much of a justification once the "opportunity cost" trappings are cut away. In fact, he said that the opportunity cost literature does not necessarily refute him, not that it supports him: "grounding counterplans as opportunity costs of a plan obligates a negative to advocate them in no way that i am aware of." That calls into doubt some of the claims that have been made: "Voting negative means nothing more than non-acceptance of the plan. You don't vote FOR counterplans only against the plan.... You vote FOR teams not FOR counterplans." "This is why I have always believed that a c/plan is a TEST of the opportunity cost of the plan. It is NOT an advocated choice (more on this below). Neither is the perm advocated. All it is, is a TEST of the competitiveness of the c/plan." "And as a reason to reject the aff plan, the c/plan does NOT have to be an advocated choice, only a missed opportunity." "My understanding of the theory, both c/plans and permutations, does not allow for advocacy of the c/plan or the perm as policy options. I base this on the economic model of opportunity cost, from which I believe c/plans are taken." "The purpose of the c/plan is to show that by doing the aff plan, you must miss out on something better. So if the judge agrees that there is a better opportunity lost, s/he would reject the aff plan. In the example above, I never said that you SHOULD go to CEDA nats. I only said that doing the aff plan would lose a better opportunity. There may be even better choices than CEDA Nats (NDT perhaps). All we know is that Heart is NOT the best choice and should be rejected. This is what I mean about c/plans not being advocated. All they do is show that a better alternative must be forgone, NOT that the c/plan "should" be done." "If you read the theory of opportunity cost, it is even clearer." So why is it good to have multiple counterplans? conditional counterplans? counterplans that are not "advocated?" The answer cannot be found in the opportunity cost writings. It cannot be found in a claim that a counterplan is "just an argument." It cannot be found in the idea that a negative team just "tests" while the affirmative advocates. It surely cannot be found in any concept of educational benefit or balanced fairness. Maybe there just is no answer? From kyoung Thu Oct 14 15:35:06 1999 From: kyoung (kelly young) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 16:35:06 -0400 Subject: Need Tab Room on PC help--immediately Message-ID: Hey-- I have been trying to download Rich's program from his website all day without success (either by download as 2 disks or directly on my computer). Does anyone know where an older version of the software can be found? I tried Vermont's Emporium, but could not access the gopher there. Thanks, Kelly Young JCU DEBate From discordja Thu Oct 14 15:41:31 1999 From: discordja (Hail Eris, All Hail Discordia) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 13:41:31 PDT Subject: wake only Message-ID: can someone from wake forest backchannel me today...i.e. before cap city? thanks. steve ________________________________________________________________ Get FREE voicemail, fax and email at http://voicemail.excite.com Talk online at http://voicechat.excite.com From woodss Thu Oct 14 15:40:53 1999 From: woodss (Woods, Steve) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 15:40:53 -0500 Subject: Novice issue isn't going away, only programs--who out there g ives a damn? Message-ID: Ranting duly noted and accepted. I admit my tone was accusatory. I do owe an apology. I still think that we can do more to offer novice. I, at the suggestion of Bear, have tried to back off the judgmental tone. At this point, my response would not be to question the management of your program. In fact, I would like to acheive its level of success, so I can't really complain. The most positive thing to do here is to acknowledge that money is a real constraint. I never have understood that dynamic at your school, for your size you do seem incredibly under funded. What are solutions?, we obviously can't all grow our budgets. Some possibilities: 1.) Not charge entry fees for novice divsions 2.) allow undergrads to cover judging commitments in novice to defray judging expenses 3.) offer to house people, or joint housing in hotels to defray costs 4.) shorter novice tournaments so that travel expenses for food and hotel are limited I am sure others could contribute ideas as well. Your idea about concentrating on the second semester for novices is an interesting one as well. It does give them more time to prepare. However, we have some novices chomping at the bit now. I appreciate your response, and understand that individual programs are under real constraints that can't be wished away. I do hope that many in our community would take this opportunity to "rethink" the existing "institutional order" and attempt to creatively overcome obstacles. Steve ps-please beat A&M in football. > ---------- > From: David Breshears > Reply To: David Breshears > Sent: Thursday, October 14, 1999 10:50 AM > To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU > Subject: Re: Novice issue isn't going away, only programs--who out > there gives a damn? > > Okay. As one of those on the "border," I've got a question for Steve. > > At Texas, we've never really travelled "novices." You see, we have more > than 24 "experienced" debaters, that's 12 teams, all vying for a chunk of > a > 40,000 travel budget. Now, at least 4 - and more like 7 or 8 - of those > teams "deserve" to be travelling just about every weekend (if they > wanted). > Obviously, our budget doesn't come close to allowing that. We get to take > 4 > teams to most of the "biggies," and even had 8 out at SMS last weekend > (and > will have 8 again at UCO). So, my question is essentially this: WHICH > OF > THESE FOLKS SHOULD WE CUT OFF IN FAVOR OF NOVICES? > > I don't ask this question just to be a smart-ass. I let the original post > slide without comment, but your latest post seems to beg a reply. What > I'm > suggesting is that other schools are in similar shape - that is, too many > folks, too few resources. So, don't imply that those programs that don't > travel novices don't "give a damn." If you'd like to funnel an extra $20k > our way, I'll be happy to scour the campus for novices interested in > travel. > > Now, this is what we do offer novices: we teach them the fundamentals of > research - using a library/the web/lexis-nexis - producing blocks, > watching > practice debates in order to learn both how to debate and how to judge - > something that allows them to become local high school critics, in many > cases - and we promise them at least two tournaments a year (Baylor & > SWTSU, > both in the second semester, so they have time to get it together). All > of > these efforts will remain rather invisible to you and much of the rest of > the community. They occur nonetheless. We even had one "novice" (read: > no > high school experience) debater at SMS, but he was with a more experienced > first-year, and they refused even to do JV (they went 3-5 in open, btw). > > I say all of this not to be defensive, though I'm sure there's some of > that > going on. Instead, I'd just ask that folks quit berating their colleagues > on this list for things that are either: a) beyond their control, or b) > invisible to much of the community. > > Thanks, and sorry for ranting, > > Dave > From deloach Thu Oct 14 15:58:29 1999 From: deloach (MARK DELOACH) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 15:58:29 CST6CDT Subject: Lexis-Nexis offer for NDT subscribers Message-ID: 0{ }4 Greetings again from your NDT Board Chair, John Gossett. Recently, I received a note from Sue Myers at Lexis/Nexis offering NDT subscribers a discount on Lexis/Nexis service. A similar offer was recently made to CEDA subscribers. The NDT Board decided not to serve as the middle-person and act as everyone's agent. Instead, the Board agreed to disseminate the information and let individual directors of debate make choices directly with Lexis/Nexis. Please read this information and respond to Sue Myers (800) 227- 9597 ext. 6039 for more information. You can also reach her at . Good luck. I look forward to seeing you in Chicago (right after the Yankees win the World Series). Gossett September 15, 1999 NDT: We have recently extended the following discounted offering to the members of CEDA and wanted to extend the same offer to you and your members. Please feel free to contact me if you have questions or need additional information: Fivemonth subscription, begins November 1, 1999, and expires March 31, 2000 Academic version of full LEXIS-NEXIS Service Discountapplied based on number of ports committing by October 31, 1999 Prepayfor entire period upon subscribing Teamsjoining prior to November 1 will pay a pro-rated amount for usage until November 1 in addition to the full contract amount. Teams joining as of November 1 or thereafter will pay full contract amount regardless of when a team joins. Teammay purchase one or more ports, to either Unrestricted hours or Restricted hours option. Unrestricted,24-hour access, or Restricted Hours access (No use 10 am - 6 pm, local time, Monday through Friday) Telnetaccess using LEXIS-NEXIS Research Software IndividualIDs for each team member and coach Printingvia our print screen feature or download using Session Recording feature (screen capturing to disk or file) Canbegin use immediately upon subscribing Telephonictraining for one person per team; training literature also available at our Lexis-Nexis website DISCOUNT SCHEDULE FOR NDT Discount Schedule Unrestricted Hours Restricted Hours % Discount ListPrice $5,000 $2,750 0% 2-50ports - per port $4,750 $2,612 5% 51-100 ports - per port $4,500 $2.475 10% 101-150 ports - per port $4,250 $2,337 15% 151-200 ports - per port $4,000 $2,200 20% 201+ ports - per port $3,750 $2,062 25% Page 2 September 15, 1999 Please feel free to forward this note to your members. In order to obtain the appropriate discount, all of the schools wishing to subscribe via NDT should use you or someone else appointed by NDT as the contact person so the total numbers can be aggregated by November 1. You may have one contract between NDT and LEXIS-NEXIS or individual contracts for each school. We can accommodate either option. In either case, we will need the following information for each team: Name of College or University Mailing Address, including Building or Street Address, City, State and ZIP Code Name of Contact Person for each team Phone Number for Contact Person for each team Fax Number for Contact Person for each team E-mail address for Contact Person for each team Number of Ports Unrestricted or Restricted Hours Option List of students and coaches for identification numbers Of course, the other members of the sales team and I will be happy to assist you in whatever way we can to make this a smooth and organized process. For anyone wanting to contact us directly, please ask them to use our e-mail address as follows: academic.services at lexis-nexis.com and make sure they reference that they are members of NDT. Please don't hesitate to contact me and I look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Sue M. Myers, Account Executive Lexis-Nexis Academic and Library Services 800-227-9597, x6039 sue.myers at lexis-nexis.com =============================================== LEXIS SERVICES UNITED STATES Accounting - Accounting information materials include the complete financial statement portions of annual reports for more than 4,000 publicly-traded companies plus accounting literature. Admiralty - Case law, statutory and regulatory materials, and other resources pertaining to admiralty and maritime law. Banking - Case law, statutory and regulatory materials, and other resources pertaining to banks, bank holding companies, thrifts and credit unions. Bankruptcy - Case law filings, statutory and regulatory materials, and other resources pertaining to bankruptcy issues. Codes - Federal and state legislative material, in codified, slip law, and bill form, plus federal and state regulatory materials and a statutes archive. Copyright - Federal copyright case law, legislation and regulation. Leading intellectual property publications are also included. Corporate - State case law involving private, municipal and non- profit corporations as well as Delaware, federal, and state case law and topical business publications. Employment Law - State and federal case law, fair employment practices and individual employment rights decisions, wage and hour decisions, state and federal codes, state and public employee relations board decisions, and relevant topical publications. Energy - A collection of energy-related materials, including federal and state case law, federal and state statutes, related legal, legislative and regulatory materials and more than forty leading energy industry publications. Environmental Law, Regulation and Information - Federal and state case law, federal and state statutes, Environmental Protection Agency and state site records, the Federal Register, other legal and legislative materials and more than 70 leading industry publications. Federal Labor Law - Primary and secondary legal research materials that include case law, agency materials such as National Labor Relations Board decisions and Employee Retirement Income Security Act advisory opinions and information letters, and many other resources. Federal Public Contracts - Legal research materials including case law, agency decisions, Board of Contract Appeals materials, federal regulations, Department of Defense materials and a number of topically related publications. Federal Securities - Federal case law, Securities and Exchange Commission materials, Commodities Futures Trading Commission materials and other legal and legislative materials relevant to the securities industry, as well as company information, news and analyses. Federal Tax - A comprehensive collection of tax-related materials, including case law, agency materials, legislative and regulatory materials, and publications providing tax news and analyses. Federal Trade Regulation - Federal and state case law focusing on trade regulations issues, as well as agency materials and secondary research materials focusing on antitrust, consumer protection, and unfair and deceptive trade practice matters. General and Federal Legal Materials - Federal legal materials, including case law, legislative and regulatory materials, administrative decisions, court rules, publications, and secondary sources including American Jurisprudence 2d. Insurance - Statutory, regulatory and case law materials that govern the insurance industry, along with authoritative insurance- related publications. International Trade Law - Materials related to the importing and exporting of goods and services, licensing of intellectual property, payment of taxes, or investment and banking at the international level. Law Reviews - This collection includes law reviews, American Bar Association publications, American Institute of Certified Public Accountants periodicals and other materials. The present focus concentrates on both state and national issues of legal significance. Legal News - General news information about the domestic legal industry and legal profession. Sources contained include legal newspapers, magazines, and newsletters from across the country. Legal Reference - This collection includes legal indexes, usage guides, legal directories and government information as well as abstracts from over 700 other sources that complement materials found in other specialized libraries. Medical materials - Full text medical journals and newsletters as well as information on drug interactions, cancer, poison, disease, trauma and medical administration. Medical Malpractice - Federal and state medical malpractice case law, as well as pertinent statutory materials and authoritative publications. Military Justice - Military justice, veterans, military contracts and defense publications. Mass Torts - Federal and state case law covering all issues related to mass torts, accidents, or disasters. Pertinent statutory, regulatory and administrative material, law reviews and other publications are also available. Patents - A collection of materials related to the practice of patent law. It includes the full text of U.S. patents from 1976 as well as patent related federal case law, code, legislation and administrative decisions. Also included are patent law periodicals and prior art research files. Pensions and Benefits - Employee Retirement Income Security Act materials, federal case law, federal agency materials, federal code and regulatory materials, health care materials and relevant topical publications, plus selected professional accounting materials. Product Liability - Product liability case law from all 50 states as well as federal case law and authoritative publications. Real Estate - Case law, statutes, federal agency material and other materials concerning real estate issues and the secondary mortgage market. State Legal Materials - Case law, code and agency materials form all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, including slip laws and pending legislation. State Securities - State case law, administrative decisions, orders, releases and no-action letters. State Tax - State tax materials which include case law, , pending legislation, administrative decisions and rulings, code material, property record information and daily news. Telecommunications - The Telecommunications Library contains federal and state materials relating to the telecommunications industry, including FCC decisions and reports; federal cases; 50-state Public Utilities Reports (PUR) cases and utility commission decisions; leading state PUC decisions; enacted and pending statutes and regulations, plus a wealth of industry news publications. Transportation - Federal transportation case law, statutes and agency decisions and news. Trademark and Unfair Competition - Trademark registrations, federal/state trademark and unfair competition case law and codes, federal trademark legislation, Patent and Trademark Office administrative decisions, as well as leading trademark publications. Uniform Commercial Code - Uniform Commercial Code materials include state and federal case law and statutes pertaining to the Uniform Commercial Code. British Commonwealth Commonwealth Cases - Case law from the Republic of Ireland and the British Commonwealth, including Australia, Canada, England, Northern Ireland, New Zealand & Scotland. European Community EC/EU legal and news materials - Legal materials include reported and unreported decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, Commission decisions relating to competition, European Community legislation, treaties, Commission proposals and Parliamentary resolutions. France French Private Cases - Case law from the Cour de Cassation, cases from the Cour d'Appel de Paris, and older cases from the Cours d'Appel de Bordeaux, Lyon and Montpellier. French Case Interpretations - Articles from French judicial periodicals, including the L'Actualite Juridique Droit administratif, Bulleton de la Chambre des Avoues pre la Cour d'Appel de Paris and La Semailne Sociale LAMY. French Laws and Regulations - Laws and regulations (Lois et Reglement) as published in the Official Journal of the French Republic (Journal Officiel), the 58 French Codes and the Official bulletins of the French ministries. ========================================== NEXIS SERVICES News and information Top News - Today's news today, with background data from the most recent two weeks. Information is compiled from wire services, broadcast transcripts and newspapers, including AP, The New York Times, Reuters and CNN. General News - A rich combination of news and information sources on all topics available in the LEXIS-NEXIS services. There are more than 7,000 English language newspapers, newsletters, magazines, trade journals, wire services, and transcripts included, along with premier news sources in the Dutch, French, Italian and German languages. Regional News - local and regional news from newspapers and wire service stones around the United States. The information is grouped by state, allowing customers the ability to narrow their research to a specific geographic area. Worldwide News and Information News, business analysis, business opportunities, country profiles and company reports covering companies, industries, conditions, events, and countries in Asia and the Pacific Rim, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, Canada, South and Central America. Selected sources available in Dutch, French, Italian and German. Business and Finance Accounting - Accounting information materials include the complete financial statement portions of annual reports for more than 4,000 publicly traded companies plus accounting literature. Banking - Information on the federal regulations of banks, bank holding companies, thrifts and credit unions, plus trade and industry news. Business and Finance Reports Business and finance news, business analyses and business opportunities. Business References - Company directories, biographical sources, quotations, statistics and other reference sources. Computer & Communications - Trade and industry news sources, financial analyst reports and general news stories relating to the impact of computers and communications. Company Information - Business and financial information taken from news wires, financial analysts, and from the companies themselves as provided in federal and state filings. Securities and Exchange Commission filings, corporate profiles, and business and financial news, including international business and investment opportunities. Energy - Collection of energy-related materials, including federal and state case law, federal and state statutes, related legal and legislative materials and more than forty leading energy industry publications. Entertainment - Trade and industry news, reviews of current books, movies, music and plays and celebrity biographies. Environmental Law, Regulation and Information - Federal and state case law, statutes, Environmental Protection Agency and state site records, the Federal Register, other legal and legislative materials and news and information from more than 70 leading industry publications. Insurance - Statutory, regulatory, and case law materials that govern the insurance industry, along with news and information from insurance industry publications. Marketing and Advertising - News stories, marketing studies and analytical reports about advertising, marketing, public relations, sales and selling, promotions, consumer attitudes and behavior, product announcements and product reviews. Medical Materials - Full text medical journals and newsletters as well as information on drug interactions, cancer, poison, disease, trauma, and medical administration. Patents - A collection of materials related to the practice of patent law. It includes the full text of U.S. patents from 1976 as well as patent related federal case law, code, legislation and administrative decisions. Also included are patent law periodicals and prior art research files. People - Biographical sources, people-related news sources and selected biographical stories, obituaries and business related stories covering company executives. Real Estate - Case law, statutes, federal agency material and other materials concerning real estate issues and the secondary mortgage market. Transportation - Trade and industry news, case law, regulatory news and information. U.S. Government and Politics Campaigns - Campaign news, candidate and incumbent profiles, campaign finance reports, district and state profiles, polls, election history, predictions, and campaign news stories from national and regional sources. Executive Branch - Regulatory information, White House, federal agency, national and regional news, government procurement, and presidential documents and budgets. Legislation - Full text of all federal and state bills. Plus, sources which help you monitor the progress of emerging federal and state legislation, review enacted legislation, obtain biographical, financial, voting, district, and campaign information about members of Congress, and review pertinent news, testimony and analyses. Mark DeLoach Associate Professor, Communication Studies University of North Texas Denton, TX 76203 (940) 565-2588 From kyoung Thu Oct 14 16:06:34 1999 From: kyoung (kelly young) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 17:06:34 -0400 Subject: Konrad Hack Only Message-ID: Hey-- got your email, but could not send an email back to your address for some reason. Could you please send the file to this address. Im on T1 now, will quickly transfere. Thanks alot. kelly >From Thu Oct 14 17:20:28 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 66212 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 17:21:22 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo23.mx.aol.com (imo23.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.67]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA47982 for ; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 17:21:17 -0400 Received: from Sgw8 at aol.com by imo23.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id nGQSa27079 (4227) for ; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 17:20:28 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 27 Message-ID: <0.166523d3.2537a31c at aol.com> Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 17:20:28 EDT Reply-To: Sgw8 at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Darius Wilkins Subject: for the court junkies With all this c/p stuff, has anyone correlated debate and legal attitudes on this type of issue? In a courtroom. a defense has no obligation to provide a c/p/alternative scenario, and when they do provide one, they are not obligated to the same standards of evidence as the prosecution. Also, a defense may put out as many c/p(alternative suspects/scenarios) as they want. When a jury aquits a suspect it is not convicting any others in the same breath. So is c/p theory modeled after legal theory? What is the legal theory modeled on--for this kind of stuff about criminal prosecution? Darius Wilkins >From Thu Oct 14 17:55:28 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 66602 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 17:57:21 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo15.mx.aol.com (imo15.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.5]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA30556 for ; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 17:57:19 -0400 Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo15.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id 5DLEa03805 (3874); Thu, 14 Oct 1999 17:55:29 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 26 Message-ID: <0.980295a4.2537ab50 at aol.com> Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 17:55:28 EDT Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Michael Bear Bryant Subject: Re: Is EDEBATE still online? Comments: To: forensics at citymail.lacc.cc.ca.us In a message dated 10/14/99 10:19:34 AM Mountain Daylight Time, forensics at CITYMAIL.LACC.CC.CA.US writes: > I haven't received any posts from the list for 2 days. have I been > unsubscribed? > > Ken Sherwood > Co-Director of Forensics > Los Angeles City College > (323) 953-4453 Pf. Sherwood, Why is there an attachment to every single one of your posts? Why? Attachments spread viruses. You never ever mention the content of your attachments in your posts. Are you just sending them for decoration? Dr. Snider has asked that attachments not be sent to the list. MW Bryant From smithr Thu Oct 14 16:59:18 1999 From: smithr (Ross Smith) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 17:59:18 -0400 Subject: cap city strike sheet Message-ID: Actually, it is an ordinally ranked preference sheet. Sorry to broadcast to the whole list, but a number of coaches have not sent one back yet. That's fine. Just know I will be out of e-mail touch beginning tomorrow morning. If you want a sheet but don't have one, e-mail me. From jackhammer Thu Oct 14 17:00:51 1999 From: jackhammer (Jack Hammer) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 18:00:51 -0400 Subject: for the court junkies Message-ID: On Thu, 14 Oct 1999 17:20:28 EDT, Darius Wilkins wrote: > With all this c/p stuff, has anyone correlated debate and legal >attitudes on this type of issue? In a courtroom. a defense has no obligation >to provide a c/p/alternative scenario, and when they do provide one, they are >not obligated to the same standards of evidence as the prosecution. If you ever talk to a lawyer who is not willing to ADVOCATE the outcome of "my client should be acquitted," my humble advice is DO NOT HIRE THEM. They may be willing to accept some alternative, such as "guilty of involuntary manslaughter but not guilty of first degree murder," but they still have a clear focus on a desired outcome. The defense is not just there to "test" the prosecution. It is looking for a particular outcome. From nkhwdebate Thu Oct 14 17:14:59 1999 From: nkhwdebate (Natalie's Debate) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 15:14:59 PDT Subject: Novice issue isn't going away, an IDEA Message-ID: It seems like there has been a lot of talk previously about debate on the internet or using other technology to allow for "electronic" debate. This form might be an interesting concept to examine in terms of novice debate. If the format and systems could all be worked out, it could allow for saving money by programs and could also allow for better judging. Something I have encountered when judging novice debates is that there is often a lot you as a judge and the debaters want to discuss after the round. Unfortunately, within the context of a structured tournament, often the discussion can not be completed because the next round is about to start, or team members are hungry, or it is late at night and everyone needs sleep. However, in an electronic forum, more time could be allowed for discussion after the round and it might also help coaches see what their debaters are up to. In a tournament setting, coaches are often prepping all their teams and then judging. If novice rounds were able to be set up individually and electronically, then coaches would be able to focus solely on that one novice team and give them the attention that is impossible to give when that coach is attempting to work with 3 or more other teams, and a coach could listen (or would that be watch?) the debate round and could work with the debaters on certain areas and acknowledge what they are doing right. It seems like many debaters who feel that varsity teams get all the coaches' attention and coaches who feel pressured by having a multiplicity of teams would enjoy being able to focus on the individual teams. I don't think this is a reason to never travel novices, as I agree that one of the perks of debating is travelling and building a sense of living community. However, it just seems like if we, as a community are examining electronic debate, then we might want to examine its potential applications to novice debate. Natalie MTSU >From: "Woods, Steve" >Reply-To: "Woods, Steve" >To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU >Subject: Re: Novice issue isn't going away, only programs--who >out there g ives a damn? >Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 15:40:53 -0500 > >Ranting duly noted and accepted. I admit my tone was accusatory. I do owe >an apology. I still think that we can do more to offer novice. I, at the >suggestion of Bear, have tried to back off the judgmental tone. > >At this point, my response would not be to question the management of your >program. In fact, I would like to acheive its level of success, so I can't >really complain. The most positive thing to do here is to acknowledge that >money is a real constraint. I never have understood that dynamic at your >school, for your size you do seem incredibly under funded. What are >solutions?, we obviously can't all grow our budgets. Some possibilities: > >1.) Not charge entry fees for novice divsions >2.) allow undergrads to cover judging commitments in novice to defray >judging expenses >3.) offer to house people, or joint housing in hotels to defray costs >4.) shorter novice tournaments so that travel expenses for food and hotel >are limited > >I am sure others could contribute ideas as well. > >Your idea about concentrating on the second semester for novices is an >interesting one as well. It does give them more time to prepare. However, >we have some novices chomping at the bit now. > >I appreciate your response, and understand that individual programs are >under real constraints that can't be wished away. I do hope that many in >our community would take this opportunity to "rethink" the existing >"institutional order" and attempt to creatively overcome obstacles. > >Steve > >ps-please beat A&M in football. > > > ---------- > > From: David Breshears > > Reply To: David Breshears > > Sent: Thursday, October 14, 1999 10:50 AM > > To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU > > Subject: Re: Novice issue isn't going away, only programs--who out > > there gives a damn? > > > > Okay. As one of those on the "border," I've got a question for Steve. > > > > At Texas, we've never really travelled "novices." You see, we have >more > > than 24 "experienced" debaters, that's 12 teams, all vying for a chunk >of > > a > > 40,000 travel budget. Now, at least 4 - and more like 7 or 8 - of those > > teams "deserve" to be travelling just about every weekend (if they > > wanted). > > Obviously, our budget doesn't come close to allowing that. We get to >take > > 4 > > teams to most of the "biggies," and even had 8 out at SMS last weekend > > (and > > will have 8 again at UCO). So, my question is essentially this: >WHICH > > OF > > THESE FOLKS SHOULD WE CUT OFF IN FAVOR OF NOVICES? > > > > I don't ask this question just to be a smart-ass. I let the original >post > > slide without comment, but your latest post seems to beg a reply. What > > I'm > > suggesting is that other schools are in similar shape - that is, too >many > > folks, too few resources. So, don't imply that those programs that >don't > > travel novices don't "give a damn." If you'd like to funnel an extra >$20k > > our way, I'll be happy to scour the campus for novices interested in > > travel. > > > > Now, this is what we do offer novices: we teach them the fundamentals >of > > research - using a library/the web/lexis-nexis - producing blocks, > > watching > > practice debates in order to learn both how to debate and how to judge - > > something that allows them to become local high school critics, in many > > cases - and we promise them at least two tournaments a year (Baylor & > > SWTSU, > > both in the second semester, so they have time to get it together). >All > > of > > these efforts will remain rather invisible to you and much of the rest >of > > the community. They occur nonetheless. We even had one "novice" (read: > > no > > high school experience) debater at SMS, but he was with a more >experienced > > first-year, and they refused even to do JV (they went 3-5 in open, btw). > > > > I say all of this not to be defensive, though I'm sure there's some of > > that > > going on. Instead, I'd just ask that folks quit berating their >colleagues > > on this list for things that are either: a) beyond their control, or b) > > invisible to much of the community. > > > > Thanks, and sorry for ranting, > > > > Dave > > ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From nhh Thu Oct 14 17:20:21 1999 From: nhh (Nicholas Hesterberg) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 15:20:21 -0700 Subject: seattle only Message-ID: Ken, Mark, Mick-- If any of you are out there, backchannel me. Nick Lewis & Clark From mk004g Thu Oct 14 17:40:15 1999 From: mk004g (Mark Joseph Kubaszewski) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 18:40:15 -0400 Subject: Anyone up for email debate? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: lovely, here's one: Plan Text: debate community will alter way it thinks about debate such as to get science majors. plan text: 1. approach topics which interest science majors. 2. openly advertise to science majors. 3. have workshops, need not be long, every tournament for brand new debaters to show them that debate is neither a boring activity (most people still think this way) nor unusuable in the non-debate community (some still this way). enforcement: couple of bags of bagels funding: nothing diversity can also be in thought. try that on. Mark On Thu, 14 Oct 1999, Shawnessy Scott wrote: > A) Resolved: The Cross Examination Debate Association > will amend its policies and practices to significantly > change the style and structure of debate to a more > inclusive one. > > B) Resolved: The Cross Examination Debate Association > will amend its policies and/or practices to > significantly increase its minority participation. > > Shall we debate the first or second resolution or > both? > > If this is how we believe change takes place let's > propose some policy options and evaluate them. > > Under Resolution B, the first affirmative plan is > UDLs for all or most colleges and university programs. > Wording? > > novice > Shawnessy > > > Angelfire for your free web-based e-mail. http://www.angelfire.com > >From Thu Oct 14 18:49:32 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 67407 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 18:49:56 -0400 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 SAA55596 for ; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 18:49:55 -0400 Received: from DavidCLang at aol.com by imo-d02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id nFRS0yyJt9 (4334) for ; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 18:49:32 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 41 Message-ID: <0.2d8fa764.2537b7fc at aol.com> Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 18:49:32 EDT Reply-To: DavidCLang at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: David Lang Subject: Re: Anyone up for email debate? In a message dated 10/14/99 2:35:24 PM Eastern Daylight Time, girl-genius at ANGELFIRE.COM writes: > A) Resolved: The Cross Examination Debate Association > will amend its policies and practices to significantly > change the style and structure of debate to a more > inclusive one. > > B) Resolved: The Cross Examination Debate Association > will amend its policies and/or practices to > significantly increase its minority participation. > > Shall we debate the first or second resolution or > both? > > If this is how we believe change takes place let's > propose some policy options and evaluate them. > > Under Resolution B, the first affirmative plan is > UDLs for all or most colleges and university programs. > Wording? Is the question really *WILL* these things happen, or *SHOULD* they happen... substitute the word "should" for "will" to get resolutions where you actually compare different policy options... David Lang NFA '99 / Pace '03 "Coke is it?" From kenneth.delaughder Thu Oct 14 18:14:34 1999 From: kenneth.delaughder (Kenneth DeLaughder) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 17:14:34 -0600 Subject: JV/Novice, a reply to Steve In-Reply-To: <699F3A6D1BD1D011948400007786CA9202F70AB2@shaman.jewell.edu> Message-ID: Ill preface this with these views are my own and do not officially reflect Emporia debate. Knowing steve to be committed to Midwest debate, as much as myself I will at least provide some perspective on why we dont have a novice division, last year at ENMU I brought novices and the Pflaum division was a round robin. So we made a budget/room conscious decision to not hold a novice division this year. THIs is not a permanent decision, if demand goes up we would love to have one of those divisions, I am all for it. But if you look at the tournament list we put out, we can't even get a JV division to make. Im not sure if we are collapsing but it look slikely (although IM sure we would give JV awards, to recogmnize the JV folks). Also if you look even closer, you'll note some absense of some regional schools. While Im sure they have their own reasons for not attending, it is indeed a comment about midwest debate. I remember when I debated at Emporia, the JV division was pretty darn strong, and Ive been bringing kids to it since I started coaching, and now it may be an endangered species. Having just come form a stint out West, whether you like him or not, Harken the Words of the Bear... If the Midwest can't get its JV divisions back in strength, we may start to slip away just like the west. Laugh now, I bet the West didn't think it would happen either. Washburn went parli a long time ago, Missouri Southern went parli, I dont see any Central Missouri teams anymore, Kansas isn't immune. Support your regions dammit...and your JV/Novice divisions. The megatournaments even effect here. Im starting on campus recruiting this week, Steve reminded me I hadnt gotten those flyers out yet, so thanks Steve. and we have a small coaching staff. Ken Hornet Debate and Pflaum supporter :) On Thu, 14 Oct 1999, Woods, Steve wrote: > > Hey all, > > > > When Bear has to urge me to be calm, my guess is that I better listen. > > His point is well taken that I am not the sole evaluator and judge of > > debate programs and their value. I guess my hyperbolic tone was to > > provoke/promote discussion. However, I will admit frustration at not > > being able to enter my novices in a true novice division so far in our > > region. > > > > I also received a backchannel from Linda Collier at UMKC which was > > insightful, and which rightfully suggested that a positive approach in > > terms of discussing novice recruiting and most importantly RETENTION > > techniques would serve the community well. Her point is well taken. > > > > As such, I think that Tuna Snider from Vermont is an excellent resource in > > such matters, on campus recruiting is the ONLY way he gets debaters into > > his program. Sam Nelson at Rochester has done a fantastic job as well. I > > mention these persons only becuase I have seen from first hand experience > > their success. Others that are out there with large and dynamic novice > > elements please respond with strategies and techniques to help attract and > > maintain your less experienced debaters. > > > > As for Jewell, I can say that we poster the campus twice a year to > > publicize membership drives for the team to the campus at large. We also > > attempt to commit to tournaments with novice divisions. Oh yeah, thats > > where I came in. We can't get our novices out to tournaments. > > > > I hope others continue this thread. As per Bear's advice, I will cast > > aside my judgmental tone, and listen and learn from others and their > > advice. > > > > > > Steve > > > > ---------- > > From: Michael Bear Bryant > > Reply To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM > > Sent: Thursday, October 14, 1999 10:11 AM > > To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU > > Subject: Re: Novice issue isn't going away, only programs--who out > > there g... > > > > > > Calm down, Steve. No one is against novices. Some universities don't > > expect > > novice recruitment. Some universities are in areas where excellent amounts > > of > > HS debate exist. Some funnel raw novices through other aspects of the > > program, like IE's or parli. > > > > I support your intent 100%. Just not your implications regarding silence. > > Your point is well-taken, but you are not the judge. > > > > Understand? > > > > Bear > > > > > From girl-genius Thu Oct 14 18:28:39 1999 From: girl-genius (Shawnessy Scott) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 23:28:39 0000 Subject: Anyone up for email debate? Message-ID: >lovely, here's one: >Plan Text: debate community will alter way it thinks about debate such as >to get science majors. >plan text: 1. approach topics which interest science majors. >2. openly advertise to science majors. >3. have workshops, need not be long, every tournament for brand new >debaters to show them that debate is neither a boring activity (most >people still think this way) nor unusuable in the non-debate community >(some still this way). > >enforcement: couple of bags of bagels >funding: nothing > >diversity can also be in thought. > >try that on. > >Mark Touche', man :) Actually I'm all about some thought diversity Exhibit A -> Novice is an Electrical and Computer Engineering major frustrated with the technologically challenged and those who take 12-14 hour classloads involving ZERO math and science. Amendment to plan (or should this be a PIC?) 4. Make tournaments shorter for the sake of people who have to miss tons of Friday classes (only business majors get that day off). Adv. 1 -Academics A) Students miss less (or no) class, leading to increased gpa and better rapport with professors. B) Coaches have to spend less time worrying about excuse letters and the grades of their debaters. C) Ending the ongoing Debate/Class conflict will lead to more administrative (and possibly monetary?)support for the program. Adv. 2 - Reform in Higher Education A positive result in increasing debate diversity of thought (among other things) will a) give debate new value and relevance b) serve as an example for colleges and universities to follow in making the format/structure etc. of their schools more inclusive Well how's that? novice Shawnessy Angelfire for your free web-based e-mail. http://www.angelfire.com From girl-genius Thu Oct 14 18:31:42 1999 From: girl-genius (Shawnessy Scott) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 23:31:42 0000 Subject: Anyone up for email debate? Message-ID: >Is the question really *WILL* these things happen, or *SHOULD* they happen... > substitute the word "should" for "will" to get resolutions where you >actually compare different policy options... > >David Lang >NFA '99 / Pace '03 > >"Coke is it?" Okie doke. >> A) Resolved: The Cross Examination Debate Association >> *SHOULD* amend its policies and practices to significantly >> change the style and structure of debate to a more >> inclusive one. >> >> B) Resolved: The Cross Examination Debate Association >>*SHOULD* amend its policies and/or practices to >> significantly increase its minority participation. Do we have any generic neg positions directly faulting the resolution(s)? novice Shawnessy Angelfire for your free web-based e-mail. http://www.angelfire.com From ifjxh Thu Oct 14 19:23:08 1999 From: ifjxh (Joshua Hoe) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 17:23:08 PDT Subject: JV/Novice, a reply to Steve Message-ID: I have to disagree with a few things here: 1. Most district/regional teams travel to all or nearly all district tournaments. For instance, in the three years I have been at UNT we have at least attended each of these tournaments: JCCC SWTSU SMS ESU UCO Baylor UMKC William Jewell at the same time we are probably one of the worst in attending every year because we have a very small squad and have had elligibility issues the last few years. Is your argument that we have an affirmative obligation to attend every district tournament every year? 2. And this one applies to Steve as well....Hypothetically, there are some holes in the argument that absent strong novice divisions debate dies out....For instance, I have been in this district almost all of my adult life and only in the very small period of time when CEDA sweepstakes depended on getting as many points in each division as possible has there ever been consistantly large Junior divisions much less Novice (and I would argue that there was some predatory practice that prevented that period from being pedagogically defensible in many instances).....Despite that we are still one of the largest districts in terms of teams participating. Why is this? I think, as Dr. Fritch pointed out earlier, it is because unlike some other parts of the country there is an overflow of high school debate in our region/district. For instance, just in the immediate neighborhood of UNT there are at least ten competitive high school debate programs. While there is value in recruiting and teaching novices (and before you start throwing stones - we will have one of our novices at the Emporia tournament - in Open division this weekend) it is less essential to the "survival of our program" so we tend to value recruiting high schools over recruiting on campus. I do not in any way disagree with the idea of recruiting novices.....I am just saying that the tone of some of this discussion is starting to sound more like ideology than discussion and encouragement. Josh ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From arao Thu Oct 14 21:12:36 1999 From: arao (Anand Rao) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 22:12:36 -0400 Subject: debate justification cite Message-ID: A while back, I heard someone discussing an article that supposedly found that an a varsity level policy debater can do as much work on a debate topic as a PhD student on their dissertation. Anyone recognize this and happen to have a cite? Know of anything similar? Much appreciated- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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 af7060 Thu Oct 14 21:22:24 1999 From: af7060 (Rod Phares) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 22:22:24 -0400 Subject: Wayne State Univ. Tournament Message-ID: A couple of people have requested a copy of the Wayne Invite. Here it is. If you are planning on attending, please drop me/us a note asap. Dont' need the full entry but would like to know if anyone will be here. So far we have one team. Rod >Dear Colleagues: > > We invite you to join us for the Motor City Debate Tournament >hosted by Wayne State University in Detroit, Michigan. This year's >tournament will be held on the weekend of October 23 - 25, 1999. >Registration will take place on Friday evening, October 22, 1999 at the >St. Regis Hotel, 3071 West Grand Boulevard, Detroit, Michigan 48202, phone >(313) 873-3000. We had the pleasure of hosting the National Debate >Tournament in March, and we look forward once again to welcoming many of >you to our Campus. We promise to do our best to make your visit to >Detroit a pleasant one. > > > Last year's tournament attracted debate teams from the northeast >and mid-west. This year's tournament, sanctioned for both NDT and CEDA >sweepstakes points, will consist of three competition divisions: varsity, >junior varsity, and novice. The varsity and junior varsity divisions will >offer eight preliminary rounds (4 on Saturday, 4 on Sunday) with all >elimination rounds in these divisions on Monday. > > > The novice division will consist of six preliminary rounds on >Saturday and Sunday with two elimination rounds Sunday afternoon. Novice >debaters are expected to debate both sides of the topic. According to the >CEDA Constitution, a novice is classified as a debater with less than two >semesters of debate experience. This definition will be strictly enforced >to ensure the integrity of the division. Further, to ease novice anxiety, >we are again asking that novice affirmative cases be identified on the >tournament entry form. > > > We hope that you will be able to visit us this fall. We will try >to provide an enjoyable time for you in Detroit along with excellent >rounds of debate. > > > Enclosed is a description of tournament procedures, our schedule, >fees and housing. If you have any questions, please call (313) 577-2950 >or (313) 577-2946 or EMail Rod Phares at AF7060 at Wayne.elu. > >Sincerely, > > > >George Ziegelmueller, Director, Forensics > > > > >WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY >MOTOR CITY INVITATIONAL >DEBATE TOURNAMENT >OCTOBER 23-25, 1999 > >ENTRIES: Schools may enter as many teams in each division as they >wish. Teams in all divisions will be expected to engage >in switch-side debating. > >FEES: Entry fees will cover awards, refreshments, room use, and >tournament administrative expenses. Fees are $60. for each team. > >TOPIC: This year's NDT/CEDA debate topic will be used in all >three divisions. > >JUDGING: Each school must supply four rounds of judging per >two-person team entered. Judging may be >hired for $60. for each uncovered novice >team and $75. for each uncovered varsity and junior varsity >team, but we need an early request for guest judges. All judges >must remain to judge one round beyond the elimination of their teams. > >HOUSING: A block of rooms has been reserved at the Hotel >St. Regis, 3071 W. Grand Blvd., (313) 873-3000) in >Detroit. A flat fee of $60. has been arranged provided >that your reservations are made before October 9. >This is a grey-brick hotel across from the G.M. Building and Fisher >Building, and just minutes from the University. Tax exemptions will >be made, however, you must bring your tax exempt number. Parking >is $7. overnight per car. Please ask for the WSU Debate Tournament >Reservation Card. > >DIRECTIONS/PARKING: Manoogian Hall is on the northeast corner of >Warren Avenue and the John C. Lodge Expressway(US 10). Use >the Forest exit from the Lodge Expressway; Warren Avenue is one >block north of Forest. (Follow signs from exits). > > To Hotel St. Regis: > From I-94, take the Lodge Freeway (#10) >North to W. Grand Blvd. and turn >right. The Hotel will be on your left >hand side (1-2 miles). > > From I-75 North, take the Lodge Freeway >(#10) North W.Grand Blvd., turn right. >The Hotel will be on your left hand side >(1-2 miles). > > From I-75 South, exit E. Grand Blvd., turn >right. The hotel will be on your right hand >side (1-2 miles). > >TRANSPORTATION: If you are coming by plane, we will be happy to meet you. >Please give us your Flight number. As Detroit is a hub city for >Northwest Airlines, there should be many excellent fares available. If >you desire local transportation, please notify us in advance. > >WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY >MOTOR CITY INVITATIONAL >DEBATE TOURNAMENT > >Friday, October 22 >8 a.m. - 11 p.m. Tournament Registration > Hotel St. Regis Lobby > If you are arriving Saturday morning, please confirm your >registration by calling W.S.U. (313) 577-2950 before 5 p.m. on Friday or >at (313)873-3000, St. Regis, (ask for WSU Debate) between 8 a.m. and 11 >p.m. > >Saturday, October 23 >8:30 a.m. Continental Breakfast > >9 a.m. Round I > >11 a.m. Round II > >1:30 p.m. Lunch (Tournament Paid) > >3 p.m. Round III > >5 p.m. Round IV > > >Sunday, October 24 >8:30 a.m. Continental Breakfast > >9 a.m. Round V > >11 a.m. Round VI > >1:30 p.m. Pizza Lunch, Room 91 > Coaches/Judges Luncheon/District 5 >meeting, Room 595 > >3 p.m. Round VII (Varsity and J.V.) > >3:30 p.m. Novice Elimination Rounds > >5 p.m. Short Break > >6 p.m. Round VIII (Varsity and J.V.) > >Monday, October 25 >8:30 a.m. Varsity and J.V. Elimination Rounds > Student Center > > > > >ENTRY FORM, MOTOR CITY DEBATE TOURNAMENT > >College/University: >_______________________________________________________ > >Mailing Address: _________________________________________________________ > >Director: ________________________________________________________________ > >Phone. Office: ________________________ Home: >____________________________ > > Please list first and last names. >Varsity Division: >Initial Code ____ Initial Code ____ > >Spkr. 1._____________________________ Spkr. 1. >____________________________ > >Spkr. 2._____________________________ Spkr. 2. >____________________________ > >Initial Code ____ Initial Code ____ > >Spkr. 1._____________________________ Spkr. 1. >____________________________ > >Spkr. 2._____________________________ Spkr. 2. >____________________________ > >JV Division: >Initial Code ____ Initial Code ____ > >Spkr. 1._____________________________ Spkr. 1. >____________________________ > >Spkr. 2._____________________________ Spkr. 2. >____________________________ > >Initial Code ____ Initial Code ____ > >Spkr. 1._____________________________ Spkr. 1. >____________________________ > >Spkr. 2._____________________________ Spkr. 2. >____________________________ > >Novice Division > (Please provide brief outline of each novice case on back of this page) >Initial Code ____ Topic ____ Initial Code ____ Topic >____ > >Spkr. 1._____________________________ Spkr. 2.____________________________ > >Spkr. 2._____________________________ Spkr. 2.____________________________ > >Initial Code ____ Topic ____ Initial Code ____ Topic >____ > >Spkr. 1._____________________________ Spkr. 2. ___________________________ > > > >Judges: > >1. __________________________________ 2. _______________________________ > >3. __________________________________ 4. _______________________________ > > > > > > > >Fees: > >____ # of teams X $60. = _____ > >_____ # of uncovered novice teams X $60. = _____ > >_____ # of uncovered varsity and JV teams X $75. = _____ > > Total = >_____ > > >Call entry to: George Zieglemueller, (313) 577-2950 > >EMail entry to: Rod Phares AF7060 at Wayne.elu > >Fax entry to: Rod Phares (313) 577-6300 > >From Thu Oct 14 22:57:53 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 68916 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 22:58:42 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo25.mx.aol.com (imo25.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.69]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA17926 for ; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 22:58:41 -0400 Received: from Sgw8 at aol.com by imo25.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id nYSIa08128 (4228) for ; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 22:57:54 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 27 Message-ID: <0.c8bbefd.2537f231 at aol.com> Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 22:57:53 EDT Reply-To: Sgw8 at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Darius Wilkins Subject: Re: for the court junkies In a message dated 10/14/99 10:06:55 PM Eastern Daylight Time, jackhammer at WRESTLINGFANZ.COM writes: << > With all this c/p stuff, has anyone correlated debate and legal >attitudes on this type of issue? In a courtroom. a defense has no obligation >to provide a c/p/alternative scenario, and when they do provide one, they are >not obligated to the same standards of evidence as the prosecution. If you ever talk to a lawyer who is not willing to ADVOCATE the outcome of "my client should be acquitted," my humble advice is DO NOT HIRE THEM. They may be willing to accept some alternative, such as "guilty of involuntary manslaughter but not guilty of first degree murder," but they still have a clear focus on a desired outcome. The defense is not just there to "test" the prosecution. It is looking for a particular outcome. >> I'm sorry, but I really meant c/p alternative scenarios in where the advocate points out other scenarios that leave his client innocent--like "my client was framed!" or "my client's best friend did it!" etc, etc Darius Wilkins From gronjm02 Thu Oct 14 22:06:56 1999 From: gronjm02 (Jason Gronberg) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 23:06:56 -0400 Subject: Lookin for Mike Toguchi and Angela Nelson Message-ID: hey guys back channel me if you would. i figured one o fyou would have to others. Jason From bretto55 Thu Oct 14 22:08:37 1999 From: bretto55 (Brett O'Donnell) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 23:08:37 EDT Subject: October 15 NDT Rankings Message-ID: 1999-2000 October 15 First NDT Electronic Rankings Report This message contains the first electronic ranking for National Debate Tournament Competition. As ranking director, I am charged with producing three hard copy reports (the first will be released November 15) and monthly reports beginning on October 15 over the course of the academic year. This report includes the results of seven tournaments with results received by October 13, 1999. To be included in an officially released ranking, tournament results must be received in my office by 10:00 am two days prior to their release. One new feature for NDT rankings: The rankings will be continuously available through the Liberty Debate Website (www.liberty.edu/debate) and hopefully, other debate webpages to be announced. This web site will be continuously updated with rankings being calculated to the site by 5:00 pm each Wednesday. You may document as official the rankings that appear on the site from Wednesday at 5:00 pm through Thursday at 5:00 pm. I am using a new and fairly sophisticated program to calculate and report the rankings through this web site. Please report errors directly to me and be patient as we work out the ~Sbugs~T in the system. Eventually I believe this will make future rankings directors~R lives (I have not accepted a lifetime appointment) easier and produce data that can be continuously available for use by individual debate programs or the entire community for PR. I appreciate all tournament directors who have been timely in providing me with reports of their results. Brett O'Donnell Liberty University 1971 University Blvd Lynchburg, VA 24502 804-582-2080 fax 804-582-2113 NDT Rankings Tournaments covered by this report Casper College King's College Lewis and Clark National Round Robin Debates-USC South Carolina Earlybird University of Northern Iowa University of Richmond Top Ten Teams Overall 1. Liberty University 168 2. Emory University 151 3. Catholic University 144 4. University of Pittsburgh 107 5. U. S. Naval Academy 101 6. West Virginia University 99 7. Wake Forest University 96 8. George Mason University 96 9. University of Southern California 85 10. Boston College 85 Varsity 1. Emory University 151 2. University of Pittsburgh 92 3. University of Southern California 85 4. Liberty University 85 5. University of Alabama 82 6. Catholic University 74 7. Michigan State University 72 8. Wake Forest University 63 9. University of Iowa 60 10. John Carroll University 60 Rankings Overall Rankings 1. Liberty University 168 2. Emory University 151 3. Catholic University 144 4. University of Pittsburgh 107 5. U. S. Naval Academy 101 6. West Virginia University 99 7. Wake Forest University 96 8. George Mason University 96 9. University of Southern California 85 10. Boston College 85 11. John Carroll University 83 12. University of Alabama 82 13. Cornell University 75 14. Michigan State University 72 15. University of Kansas 61 16. University of Iowa 60 17. Emporia University 59 18. University of Wyoming 59 19. Arizona State University 58 20. University of Vermont 57 21. Wayne State University 56 22. West Georgia College 55 23. University of Missouri-Kansas City 52 24. University of Michigan 51 25. Penn State University 48 26. Trinity University 47 27. Gonzaga University 46 28. Mercer University 46 29. University of Kentucky 45 30. Northwestern University 43 31. Binghamton University 43 32. University of Texas-Austin 42 33. University of Miami-FL 42 34. New York University 41 35. Georgetown University 39 36. Mary Washington College 39 37. University of Louisville 33 38. Baylor University 32 39. University of Georgia 32 40. Clarion University 31 41. King's College 31 42. Whitman College 30 43. Lewis & Clark College 30 44. James Madison University 29 45. Pace University 29 46. University of Eastern Utah 29 47. University of Southern Utah 29 48. University of Califorian-Berekley 28 49. University of Puget Sound 28 50. Augustana College, IL. 26 51. Western Washington University 25 52. Casper College 25 53. Macalaster College 25 54. Fort Hays State College 24 55. Concordia College 24 56. University of Rochester 24 57. U. S. Military Academy 24 58. Cal. State. Univ.-Chico 24 59. Idaho State University 24 60. SW Missouri State University 23 61. Towson State University 23 62. Weber State University 23 63. Johnson C. Smith University 23 64. University of Oregon 23 65. Johnson County CC 22 66. Samford University 22 67. Allegheny College 22 68. Methodist College 22 69. Seattle University 22 70. Kansas State University 21 71. Illinois State University 21 72. University of Richmond 21 73. Mansfield University 21 74. Miami University, OH 21 75. Cal. State Unv. - Fullerton 20 76. University of Virginia 17 77. Georgia State University 16 78. Case Western Reserve U. 16 79. George Washington University 15 80. University of South Carolina 13 81. Cal. State Unv. - Bakerfield 12 82. Wichita State University 12 83. Santa Clara University 11 84. Northwest CC 11 85. William Jewell College 11 86. Columbia University 11 87. University of Chicago 10 88. University of Eastern New Mexico 9 89. Florida State Univerisity 9 90. University of Michigan-Dearborn 9 91. Middle Tennessee State University 9 92. Albertson College 9 93. Duquesne University 8 94. Marist College 8 Varsity Rankings 1. Emory University 151 2. University of Pittsburgh 92 3. University of Southern California 85 4. Liberty University 85 5. University of Alabama 82 6. Catholic University 74 7. Michigan State University 72 8. Wake Forest University 63 9. University of Iowa 60 10. John Carroll University 60 11. Arizona State University 58 12. University of Kansas 57 13. West Georgia College 55 14. University of Vermont 53 15. University of Michigan 51 16. U. S. Naval Academy 51 17. George Mason University 47 18. Gonzaga University 46 19. University of Kentucky 45 20. Northwestern University 43 21. University of Texas-Austin 42 22. University of Miami-FL 42 23. University of Missouri-Kansas City 40 24. University of Wyoming 36 25. Wayne State University 34 26. University of Louisville 33 27. Georgetown University 33 28. Baylor University 32 29. University of Georgia 32 30. Whitman College 30 31. Lewis & Clark College 30 32. Mercer University 30 33. James Madison University 29 34. Pace University 29 35. University of Eastern Utah 29 36. University of Southern Utah 29 37. University of Califorian-Berekley 28 38. University of Puget Sound 28 39. Augustana College, IL. 26 40. Penn State University 26 41. Western Washington University 25 42. Casper College 25 43. Macalaster College 25 44. Fort Hays State College 24 45. Cal. State. Univ.-Chico 24 46. Idaho State University 24 47. SW Missouri State University 23 48. Weber State University 23 49. University of Oregon 23 50. Samford University 22 51. Boston College 22 52. Seattle University 22 53. Kansas State University 21 54. Cal. State Unv. - Fullerton 20 55. U. S. Military Academy 20 56. Binghamton University 20 57. Mary Washington College 19 58. Trinity University 16 59. Georgia State University 16 60. Case Western Reserve U. 16 61. George Washington University 15 62. Cornell University 15 63. University of South Carolina 13 64. Cal. State Unv. - Bakerfield 12 65. Wichita State University 12 66. Towson State University 12 67. Santa Clara University 11 68. Northwest CC 11 69. Emporia University 11 70. William Jewell College 11 71. Johnson County CC 11 72. Concordia College 11 73. Illinois State University 11 74. Columbia University 11 75. Allegheny College 11 76. University of Chicago 10 77. Miami University, OH 10 78. University of Rochester 9 79. University of Eastern New Mexico 9 80. Florida State Univerisity 9 81. University of Michigan-Dearborn 9 82. Middle Tennessee State University 9 83. Albertson College 9 84. University of Richmond 0 85. Clarion University 0 86. King's College 0 87. Duquesne University 0 88. Mansfield University 0 89. Marist College 0 90. New York University 0 91. Methodist College 0 92. West Virginia University 0 93. Johnson C. Smith University 0 94. University of Virginia 0 Community College Rankings 1. Johnson County CC 22 2. Northwest CC 11 Overall Rankings by District District 1 1. University of Southern California 85 2. University of Califorian-Berekley 28 3. Cal. State. Univ.-Chico 24 4. Cal. State Unv. - Fullerton 20 5. Cal. State Unv. - Bakerfield 12 6. Santa Clara University 11 District 2 1. Gonzaga University 46 2. Whitman College 30 3. Lewis & Clark College 30 4. Western Washington University 25 5. Casper College 25 6. Northwest CC 11 District 3 1. University of Kansas 61 2. Emporia University 59 3. University of Missouri-Kansas City 52 4. Trinity University 47 5. University of Texas-Austin 42 6. Baylor University 32 7. Fort Hays State College 24 8. SW Missouri State University 23 9. Johnson County CC 22 10. Kansas State University 21 11. Wichita State University 12 12. William Jewell College 11 District 4 1. University of Iowa 60 2. Macalaster College 25 3. Concordia College 24 4. Idaho State University 24 District 5 1. John Carroll University 83 2. Michigan State University 72 3. Wayne State University 56 4. University of Michigan 51 5. Northwestern University 43 6. Augustana College, IL. 26 7. Illinois State University 21 8. Miami University, OH 21 9. Case Western Reserve U. 16 10. University of Chicago 10 11. University of Michigan-Dearborn 9 District 6 1. Emory University 151 2. Wake Forest University 96 3. University of Alabama 82 4. West Georgia College 55 5. Mercer University 46 6. University of Kentucky 45 7. University of Miami-FL 42 8. University of Louisville 33 9. University of Georgia 32 10. Johnson C. Smith University 23 11. Samford University 22 12. Methodist College 22 13. Georgia State University 16 14. University of South Carolina 13 15. Florida State Univerisity 9 16. Middle Tennessee State University 9 District 7 1. Liberty University 168 2. Catholic University 144 3. University of Pittsburgh 107 4. U. S. Naval Academy 101 5. West Virginia University 99 6. George Mason University 96 7. Penn State University 48 8. Georgetown University 39 9. Mary Washington College 39 10. Clarion University 31 11. King's College 31 12. James Madison University 29 13. Towson State University 23 14. Allegheny College 22 15. University of Richmond 21 16. Mansfield University 21 17. University of Virginia 17 18. George Washington University 15 19. Duquesne University 8 District 8 1. Boston College 85 2. Cornell University 75 3. University of Vermont 57 4. Binghamton University 43 5. New York University 41 6. Pace University 29 7. University of Rochester 24 8. U. S. Military Academy 24 9. Columbia University 11 10. Marist College 8 District 9 1. University of Wyoming 59 2. Arizona State University 58 3. University of Eastern Utah 29 4. University of Southern Utah 29 5. University of Puget Sound 28 6. Weber State University 23 7. University of Oregon 23 8. Seattle University 22 9. University of Eastern New Mexico 9 10. Albertson College 9 Points by Tournament Casper College Casper College - 25 / 25; Northwest CC - 11 / 11; University of Eastern Utah - 29 / 29; University of Southern Utah - 29 / 29; University of Wyoming - 36 / 36; 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 - 9 / 9; Cal. State Unv. - Bakerfield - 12 / 12; Cal. State. Univ.-Chico - 24 / 24; Gonzaga University - 30 / 30; Idaho State University - 24 / 24; Lewis & Clark College - 30 / 30; Santa Clara University - 11 / 11; Seattle University - 22 / 22; University of Miami-FL - 13 / 13; University of Oregon - 23 / 23; University of Puget Sound - 28 / 28; Weber State University - 23 / 23; Western Washington University - 25 / 25; Whitman College - 30 / 30; 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; 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; 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; 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 Califorian-Berekley - 28 / 28; University of Chicago - 10 / 10; University of Eastern New Mexico - 9 / 9; 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 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; ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From silverma Thu Oct 14 23:37:44 1999 From: silverma (andy silverman) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 21:37:44 -0700 Subject: kristen langwell or andy ryan or trevor foster Message-ID: hey- could one of you send me the cites for your iraqi aggression / wmd answers / add-on thanks a lot andy silverman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/19991014/49c9cd14/attachment.html From awhyte78 Thu Oct 14 23:50:11 1999 From: awhyte78 (adam whyte) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 21:50:11 PDT Subject: this is a message, the intent of this message is for kentucky to reply to it Message-ID: i talked to brian at kentucky...and i was wondering if i could capture the cites for the oil advantage to the iran case and anything else that would make my life easier. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com >From Fri Oct 15 01:05:23 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 67569 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 01:06:11 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo26.mx.aol.com (imo26.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.70]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA62656 for ; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 01:06:09 -0400 Received: from AKing50 at aol.com by imo26.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id nSLEa23737 (4405) for ; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 01:05:24 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 41 Message-ID: <0.3e2db7a7.25381013 at aol.com> Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 01:05:23 EDT Reply-To: AKing50 at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Tony King Subject: Re: JV/Novice, a reply to Steve In a message dated 10/14/99 7:24:26 PM Pacific Daylight Time, kenneth.delaughder at ENMU.EDU writes: << If the Midwest can't get its JV divisions back in strength, we may start to slip away just like the west. Laugh now, I bet the West didn't think it would happen either. >> >>>>>>>>> First, why the West was lost (in my humble view): 1) Traditionalists and the evolution of debate-- I was raised in So Cal in debate, and I remember being taught very traditionally, things like "we never run a counterplan, because you never want to give up presumption", "significance is a voting issue, one person is not worth a policy change," "we use cards, briefs just make you think less," "frontlines are for people who don't think in rounds, just get them off their blocks", etc. As debate has evolved to more of a counterplan/kritik (omg, i said the K word) debate, with more speed, more frontlines, inherency and significance mean less as voters or in terms of the round, nonunique and no link are not enough to beat a disad anymore, many of them have moved to parli. 2) Community Colleges-- Unlike many other regions of the country, california is reliant on the community colleges to maintain debate. There are enough schools in the state to run debate, but considering that it is separated by 6-9 hours of driving, that makes it difficult to combine them like other states. Also, many of the community colleges have had many of the traditional coaches, so they shifted. They made up most of the JV divisions, and much of the novice divisions. They also need full service tournaments for their IE'ers. 3) University needs-- Many Universities have to get out of region with their open teams to find better competition to prepare for nationals, as well as create relationships with critics in other regions for nationals. Since they need to do this, and budgets are limited (Other than USC, and Redlands, i don't know of anyone that can top that Texas budget i heard), that trades off with regional tournaments. Thus, some of the younger debaters don't see what the good open debaters do to be so good. That hurts novice and jv debaters skill development. 4) Nationals-Since this is such a big project that few are able to take on, I understand why this is so hard to cure. But when CEDA nats was in San Diego, I hear there were a lot of teams coming out to learn the regional critics, teams, etc. Since there have been no Nationals out here in years, or at least since the merger, there is little reason to come to the regional tournaments from out of region. UMKC used to come out once a year to work on adapting to the critics, since we do have a diverse judging pool, as far as views go, but have apparently they have found another tournament that is more economical. Second, what has been done to change things: 1) Community Colleges-- a few of the community colleges have been holding on and competing against the universities, and doing well (Diablo Valley College just won open at the last tournament) and the local Universities are recruiting some of the Community College debaters so that there is more incentive to teach the same game, not just traditional values. Also, the local Universities are helping the community colleges to keep up with the evidence burdens. With the traditionalists in place at some schools, I don't know what will get them back. 2) Regional Novice Camp-- our region puts on a novice workshop that runs Thursday through Sunday where they have lectures, case building, negative building and 4 rounds of debate. All of the camp coaches are volunteers, no one is paid, including Whalen, Boylan, Shriver, etc., and open debaters with experience are brought in to gain coaching experience for their novices. This camp is growing and is for novices only. This year, in region we had 32 novices, and it is paying off with the last tournament breaking to quarters, which is up from 2 yrs ago. 3) Recruiting-- many of our debaters come from the college campus itself. Few of the schools have any scholarship money to use for recruiting, so many of the regional debaters have little to no high school experience. Most of the recruiting is done by coaches in their argumentation or speech classes, and uses things like intermural tournaments to give them the "bug" for the activity. These tournaments are run in an LD format, but as policy debates, they can be and some are power matched, and gain a lot of university support (in the case of Chico). 4) Regional awareness-- many in the region have gained an awareness of what needs to be done. They have tried many things and are focused on novice policies. It is routine for me to give novices ideas, help, cites, information, long oral critiques (sorry tabroom), and even my email address for them to ask questions about the rounds later. And I know that some of that is done for my novices. Not just win or loss, but what they can do to improve. So it is a teaching tool to improve our novices, not a competition, though they probably see it as more competition. This is just what I have seen in the Northern California Region of the West, and I am sure there are other things I am forgetting. Southern California needs help too, but with a 6 hour drive between the two, I don't know how much help the North can give. But there is certainly some when budgets can afford it. Whalen would probably know more of the other things done here, but maybe some of those ideas can help other regions and maybe we can gain insights into the things that work in your region. Peace. Trying to keep the torch burning, Tony King Los Rios Debate From sgordon Fri Oct 15 01:14:25 1999 From: sgordon (Serena Gordon) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 23:14:25 -0700 Subject: Paging Emory Message-ID: Could someone at Emory please backchannel with the cites for the Israel DA? ~Serena Gordon Gonzaga U From elvisdebater Fri Oct 15 01:36:12 1999 From: elvisdebater (E. Clectic) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 23:36:12 -0700 Subject: Emory & Michigian - READ THIS Message-ID: Hello. I need some help pleeze. I have been given the asignment by my team to find some debate evidence upon the middle east. So could someone from Emorry please backchannel me with the cites they have for the negative on Iraq, Iram, and Syria. Oh, and if anyone from Michiagian is on this list, could they do the same? Thank you SYLU ===== __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com From sarah.chan Fri Oct 15 01:56:02 1999 From: sarah.chan (Sarah E. Chan) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 02:56:02 EDT Subject: Novice in the West? References: Message-ID: >I have been trying to plan the spring travel schedule, and since mike >mentioned it, I was curious, what Novice tournaments are there in the >spring in the West? Aside from the christmas swing and fullerton/gsl there >really isnt very much available that I can tell. Where do people take their >younger teams in late january/february/march in the west? Depending on your definition of west, there's a lot. California has a lot of tournaments in the spring, at least Nor Cal does, and about the only tournament that doesn't always have a novice division is Modesto since it's at the beginning of our semester. Modesto is typically the last weekend in Jan, NCFA Champs is the second weekend in Feb, I'm sure WSCA in Sacramento will be good, and Cal Poly in March is a blast. Oh, and Fresno City hosts a novice/rookie tournament with novice/rookie parli and novice policy the first weekend in December (same weekend as ASU). And yeah, I'm biased towards Nor Cal, but it's great friendly debate and the people are cool! (see y'all at gov's cup!) 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 bsiemers Fri Oct 15 01:58:48 1999 From: bsiemers (Brent Siemers) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 02:58:48 -0400 Subject: Kansas City Classic Invitation Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, We cordially invite you and your squad to attend the Kansas City Classic Debate Tournament January 4-6, 2000, hosted by the University of Missouri--Kansas City. The tournament is the first half of the Kansas City Swing with William Jewell College. The tournament will feature both Open and Junior Varsity competition on the 1999-2000 policy topic. Time limits will be 9-3-6 with 10 minutes of prep time. Judge preference sheets will be used. All of the tournament will be run on UMKC's campus at the corner of 52nd and Rockhill Road in Kansas City, Missouri. Lodging and transportation for the tournament: Harrah's Hotel and Casino is the primary tournament hotel. Mention UMKC/William Jewell Debate to get in on the block of rooms for $70.00. The phone number is 1-800-427-7247. Make reservations early to get in on the limited block of rooms. The Baymont Inn at I-35 and Armour Road is the overflow hotel. The phone number is 1-816-221-1200. Rooms are $52.95. The hotels are approximately twenty minutes south of the Kansas City International Airport. We will be happy to provide transportation for teams from airport to the tournament for $15 per debate team. In addition, we will be providing a shuttle service between Harrah's and the UMKC campus on all three days of our tournament. Get us your flight information early if you require transportation. Schedule: Registration will be held from 8:00-11:00 on the evening of January 3rd at Harrah's, and pairings for the first two rounds will be released at registration. Tuesday, January 4th Continental Breakfast 9:00-10:00 Round 1 10:00 Round 2 12:15 Lunch 2:30 Round 3 3:30 Round 4 5:45 Wednesday, January 5th Pairings 8:00 Continental Breakfast 8:00-9:00 Round 5 9:00 Round 6 12:00 Lunch 2:30 Round 7 3:30 Partial Doubles 7:00 Thursday, January 6th Pairings 8:00 Octofinals 9:00 Other elimination rounds to follow ASAP Fees: Entry fees will be $90 per debate team. These fees cover trophies, hospitality, and other tournament costs. Judging fees will be $95 per uncovered team. One judge covers two teams. Please bring judges. We will probably hire additional judges ($15 per round) that you bring beyond your judging requirement. Assumptions: All judges must decide that one team wins each round and one team loses each round. Judges must assess speaker points for each speaker. A judge who accompanies a team to the tournament and enters into the judging pool implicitly agrees to follow the rules of the tournament. If an alternate experience is desired, all five participants must agree to withdraw themselves from the tournament for the duration of that debate round. The tab room will accordingly award forfeits. Awards: Appropriate awards will be given to all debaters reaching elimination rounds, as well as the top speakers in each division of debate. Sweepstakes awards will also be given based on the school, which accumulates the most wins between all of the divisions. Entries: All entries must be in the hands of the tournament director no later than 2:00 p.m. Sunday, January 2nd. All changes must be made before noon on Monday, January 3. Fees will be calculated at that time. Call your entries in to Brent Siemers 816-235-1336. E-mail would be preferable, BSIEMERS at IDIR.NET. If you use email, include a phone number, or fax number where we can reach you for a confirmation (include weekend information). We will contact you ASAP. We look forward to seeing you in January, Linda M. Collier, Director of Debate Brent Siemers,Tournament Director Assistant Director of Debate--UMKC 816-235-1336 Linda M. Collier Chair, Communication Studies Department Associate Professor/Director of Debate phone: 816.235.1695 fax: 816.235.5519 Brent Siemers Assistant Director of Debate--UMKC 816-235-1336 >From Fri Oct 15 07:39:22 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 69910 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 07:40:00 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo22.mx.aol.com (imo22.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.66]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA46820 for ; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 07:39:58 -0400 Received: from DRTUNA at aol.com by imo22.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id eBYJa19964 (4256); Fri, 15 Oct 1999 07:39:22 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 56 Message-ID: <0.63ffc145.25386c6a at aol.com> Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 07:39:22 EDT Reply-To: DRTUNA at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: "A. Snider" Subject: The Shame of Novice Aversion Comments: To: woodss at william.jewell.edu Nice try, Steve Woods. I generally believe that if you want to make something real, you have to start by talking about it, get other people to talk about it, and then slowly but surely it can start to become real. However, getting people to recruit and coach novices may be another matter. You have to want to do it, you have to be willing to put time into it, and you have to be patient and not give up. West Virginia, Rochester, Catholic, and a few others are outstanding novice programs. It is because they want to do it, they plan to do it, they work at it, they stick to it.. Vermont has a bunch (try 20 teams) in training now and most of them are going to Rochester this weekend for their first tournament. It has been a struggle, but it has been very gratifying. Most debate programs want wins, not the joy of changing someone's lives forever through the magic of debate. Competition eclipses education and we become just another sport trying to chalk up wins. It's that damn game-thing again. I'll tell you about a meaningful win. When our novices grow up and win (in varsity prelims and elims) over programs that flaunt their rejection of novices and their focus only on those with high school experience, that's a win. We don't do a victory dance, but we feel good about what we are doing. It happens all the time and while we notice it we don't really flaunt it. How about creating an EMEMY'S LIST? A list of those schools which do not have novice debate? Lack of novices is killing policy debate. It kills small programs and it kills regional tournaments. Perhaps we need to start a list of who is doing the killing? That's a radical proposal, and I float it as a thought experiment as opposed to a real policy proposal. I do not want to start such a formal list, but we don't have to. We know who is on it. I excuse programs which are operating as competition-only programs at the direction of their school, administration, or funding source. If you are told to compete and not educate new debaters, I understand. We all have our missions. Some want to win, others want to educate. I want to do both. But a bunch of you are using inflated participation figures as if you were educating new students how to debate. Shame. Too often eDebate features all talk and no walk. Everyone in this thread needs to tell us how many novice teams they have. People say "ain't it a shame" and then they still don't have any novices. You aren't fooling anyone. Team lists are posted for just about every tournament. I'll tell you what, Steve, you keep recruiting and training novices, and I will as well. I am going to spend the day today trying to calm, and prepare, and cajole about 15 novice teams into going ahead and attending their first tournament this weekend. We know the nobility of what we do, and the students we do it for will know as well. And when our novices graduate and succeed and know from whence their successs comes and end up creating a new endowment for our debate program, I'll probably be in hell but I will be laughing my ass off. Impossible? We'll see. Novice debate doesn't exist in most of America because coaches and directors don't want it. All the debaters you need are already on your campus waiting for you. If anything is missing it is the desire of many coaches to do more than just win some cheap trophy. For all of you who are training new debaters, I salute you. I wish the rest of you good luck. Your choice isn't for me, and I understand that debate should be big enough for those with varied coaching motivations, but it still pains me. Thousands and thousands of people are wandering around college campuses all over America whose lives could be dramatically changed forever by the magical intellectual experience of debate. Very, very few of them will ever get a chance for that transformation. I am sad about that. All I can do is share my sadness and do my best to do what I think I should do. I want to give special thanks to everyone involved in the seven novice practice debates we had on our squad this week. Respect due. Tuna AKA Alfred C. Snider University of Vermont >From Fri Oct 15 07:48:48 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 70012 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 07:49:26 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo15.mx.aol.com (imo15.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.5]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA49540 for ; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 07:49:23 -0400 Received: from DRTUNA at aol.com by imo15.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id 2KMBa03806 (4256); Fri, 15 Oct 1999 07:48:48 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 56 Message-ID: <0.29054c7.25386ea0 at aol.com> Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 07:48:48 EDT Reply-To: DRTUNA at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: "A. Snider" Subject: Re: Novice issue isn't going away, only programs--who out there gives a damn? Comments: To: d.breshears at mail.utexas.edu I don't want to get into an argument about what you should do with your debate program, but since you asked... Perhaps your decision to send novices to only TWO tournaments while your other debaters go to a lot more says volumes. There may well be an equity issue here. Perhaps your varsity debaters should attend two fewer tournaments so that new people could have their lives changed by debate like everyone else on your squad. Why do they get so little? You don't have to kick people off the squad, just adjust travel. I am not sure what approach you take, but we consciously try to reduce expenses at every step (sleep on floors, beg for fee reduction, drive instead of fly) so that we can have a novice debate program. $40,000 and almost nothing for novices. OK, that's your approach. Tuna In a message dated 10/14/1999 4:01:32 PM, d.breshears at MAIL.UTEXAS.EDU writes: >Okay. As one of those on the "border," I've got a question for Steve. > > > >At Texas, we've never really travelled "novices." You see, we have more > >than 24 "experienced" debaters, that's 12 teams, all vying for a chunk >of a > >40,000 travel budget. Now, at least 4 - and more like 7 or 8 - of those > >teams "deserve" to be travelling just about every weekend (if they wanted). > >Obviously, our budget doesn't come close to allowing that. We get to take >4 > >teams to most of the "biggies," and even had 8 out at SMS last weekend >(and > >will have 8 again at UCO). So, my question is essentially this: WHICH >OF > >THESE FOLKS SHOULD WE CUT OFF IN FAVOR OF NOVICES? Cut all of them a little. > > > >I don't ask this question just to be a smart-ass. I let the original post > >slide without comment, but your latest post seems to beg a reply. What >I'm > >suggesting is that other schools are in similar shape - that is, too many > >folks, too few resources. So, don't imply that those programs that don't > >travel novices don't "give a damn." If you'd like to funnel an extra $20k > >our way, I'll be happy to scour the campus for novices interested in travel. > > > >Now, this is what we do offer novices: we teach them the fundamentals >of > >research - using a library/the web/lexis-nexis - producing blocks, watching > >practice debates in order to learn both how to debate and how to judge >- > >something that allows them to become local high school critics, in many > >cases - and we promise them at least two tournaments a year (Baylor & SWTSU, > >both in the second semester, so they have time to get it together). All >of > >these efforts will remain rather invisible to you and much of the rest >of > >the community. They occur nonetheless. We even had one "novice" (read: >no > >high school experience) debater at SMS, but he was with a more experienced > >first-year, and they refused even to do JV (they went 3-5 in open, btw). > > > >I say all of this not to be defensive, though I'm sure there's some of >that > >going on. Instead, I'd just ask that folks quit berating their colleagues > >on this list for things that are either: a) beyond their control, or b) > >invisible to much of the community. > > > >Thanks, and sorry for ranting, > > > >Dave > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Woods, Steve > >To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU > >Date: Thursday, October 14, 1999 10:08 AM > >Subject: Novice issue isn't going away, only programs--who out there gives >a > >damn? > > > > > >>Hey all, > >> > >>While I didn't expect a wave of commitments to sweep the "e" after my >post, > >>I thought more people would be concerned with the lack of novice, and >as > >>John Fritch pointed out, even to some extent JV. > >> > >>Put your program resources where your mouth is. Saying you have concern > >for > >>shrinking debate, and not fielding novices is duplicitous. I would like > >>each of the schools in the midwest to comment on their efforts to promote > >>debate with younger inexperienced debaters (even some of your border state > >>schools in Texas, and Illinois, and Iowa, where are your novices? what > >>tournaments do you take them to?) . > >> > >>Look, if we can find novices on our campus of 1150 people, SURELY there > >must > >>be people interested on YOUR campus. It does take effort, but if this >is > >>about more than competition, it is the type of effort your university >and > >>community requires of you. > >> > >>We MUST have novice in the midwest. You disagree by your silence and > >>inaction. I will indeed take it that way. > >> > >> > >>Steve > >>Dr. Steve Woods > >>Assistant Professor Communication,Co-Director of Debate > >>William Jewell College,Liberty, MO 64068 > >>816.781.7700 x. 5478 > > > >----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- >Return-Path: >Received: from rly-zd02.mx.aol.com (rly-zd02.mail.aol.com [172.31.33.226]) >by air-zd01.mail.aol.com (v62.10) with ESMTP; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 16:01:31 >-0400 >Received: from LIME.EASE.LSOFT.COM (lime.ease.lsoft.com [209.119.1.41]) >by rly-zd02.mx.aol.com (v61.13) with ESMTP; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 15:49:18 -0400 >Received: from PEAR.EASE.LSOFT.COM (209.119.0.19) by LIME.EASE.LSOFT.COM >(LSMTP for Digital Unix v1.1b) with SMTP id <8.00398D09 at LIME.EASE.LSOFT.COM>; >Thu, 14 Oct 1999 15:45:28 -0400 >Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) >with > spool id 64542 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 15:48:48 > -0400 >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 PAA44372 for > ; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 15:48:40 -0400 >Received: (qmail 22043 invoked by uid 0); 14 Oct 1999 19:48:38 -0000 >Received: from dial-20-16.ots.utexas.edu (HELO winbook) (128.83.128.96) >by > umbs-smtp-3 with SMTP; 14 Oct 1999 19:48:38 -0000 >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 4.71.1712.3 >X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 >Message-ID: <01bf165b$e4aad860$322e5380 at winbook> >Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 11:50:52 -0400 >Reply-To: David Breshears >Sender: Team Topic Debating in America >From: David Breshears >Subject: Re: Novice issue isn't going away, > only programs--who out there gives a damn? >Comments: To: "Woods, Steve" >To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU > > >From Fri Oct 15 07:52:13 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 70099 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 07:53:01 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo26.mx.aol.com (imo26.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.70]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA50970 for ; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 07:52:58 -0400 Received: from DRTUNA at aol.com by imo26.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id iQTEa21033 (4256); Fri, 15 Oct 1999 07:52:14 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 56 Message-ID: <0.2b2a69b3.25386f6d at aol.com> Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 07:52:13 EDT Reply-To: DRTUNA at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: "A. Snider" Subject: Re: Novice issue isn't going away, an IDEA Comments: To: nkhwdebate at hotmail.com In a message dated 10/14/1999 10:50:59 PM, nkhwdebate at HOTMAIL.COM writes: Very perceptive. After we demo internet video debating later this year (Vermont vs. Cornell) this will become an issue. The money arguments will become far less relevant. However, I want to demonstrate its technical feasibility before I start ranting about it. Stay tuned. Tuna >I don't think this is a reason to never travel novices, as I agree that >one >of the perks of debating is travelling and building a sense of living >community. However, it just seems like if we, as a community are examining >electronic debate, then we might want to examine its potential applications >to novice debate. > >From Fri Oct 15 08:28:05 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 70382 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 08:28:46 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo20.mx.aol.com (imo20.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.10]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA58960 for ; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 08:28:43 -0400 Received: from Sgw8 at aol.com by imo20.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id nWQHa14300 (4331) for ; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 08:28:05 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 27 Message-ID: <0.dada8ed6.253877d5 at aol.com> Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 08:28:05 EDT Reply-To: Sgw8 at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Darius Wilkins Subject: Impulsive question Has there been a decrease in the number of high school debaters willing to debate for college programs? Darius Wilkins From BobJordan Fri Oct 15 08:01:44 1999 From: BobJordan (Bob Jordan) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 08:01:44 -0500 Subject: debate justification cite In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19991014221236.008f4a70@mail.clarion.edu> References: <3.0.3.32.19991014221236.008f4a70@mail.clarion.edu> Message-ID: The article is: Zoe Ingalls, Resolved, that competition in college debate is as fierce as in a basketball playoff game, Chronicle of Higher Education, May 8, 1985, pp. 13-14. I quickly looked through my files last night, but I could not find the article. However, I am certain that it is quoting George Zeigemueller saying that the research done on a topic is equivalent to work on a master's thesis, not a doctoral dissertation. I would send you a copy, but our library does not have The Chronicle prior to September of 1985. However, SMSU folks might like to know that a complete set of volumes 1-30 is on order. Bob Jordan >A while back, I heard someone discussing an article that supposedly found >that an a varsity level policy debater can do as much work on a debate >topic as a PhD student on their dissertation. Anyone recognize this and >happen to have a cite? Know of anything similar? Much appreciated- ********************************************************************** Robert Jordan, Distributed User Support Specialist Duane G. Meyer Library Southwest Missouri State University 901 S. National Springfield, MO 65804 (417) 836-6318 (417) 836-4764 (fax) Work: BobJordan at mail.smsu.edu Home: BobJordan at aol.com ********************************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 1361 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/19991015/726a2329/attachment.bin From pls8 Fri Oct 15 07:59:51 1999 From: pls8 (Pamela Stepp) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 08:59:51 -0400 Subject: Assistant Director of Forensics Position Message-ID: ADVERTISING LANGUAGE CORNELL UNIVERSITY, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATION Lecturer/Assistant Director of Forensics, Nine-month, non-tenure track position. One-year probationary appointment followed by three-year renewable terms. Start Date: August 20, 2000 Responsibilities include teaching four sections of introductory speech communication each semester and assisting with coaching dynamic, national-caliber forensics program emphasizing Individual Events and CEDA Debate. Frequent tournament travel. Applicants should possess a Masters degree with a minimum of one year college-level teaching experience and college forensics coaching experience in CEDA or NDT Debate and/or Individual Events. Salary is competitive, commensurate with background and experience. Attractive fringe benefits package. Applicants should submit a letter of application, vita, academic transcripts, and the names, addresses and telephone numbers of three references to Dr. Ralph B. Thompson Lecturer Search Committee Department of Communication Cornell University 320 Kennedy Hall Ithaca, New York 14853-4203 Cornell University is an equal opportunity affirmative action employer. Women and Minorities are encouraged to apply. Dr. Pamela Stepp 310 Kennedy Hall Department of Communication Cornell University Ithaca, New York 14853 Phone 607-255-7819 Fax: 607-254-1322 >From Fri Oct 15 10:05:26 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 71868 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 10:06:08 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo28.mx.aol.com (imo28.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.72]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA47630 for ; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 10:06:06 -0400 Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo28.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id nAZAa19446 (3872); Fri, 15 Oct 1999 10:05:26 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 26 Message-ID: <0.2d95ca55.25388ea6 at aol.com> Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 10:05:26 EDT Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Michael Bear Bryant Subject: The Shame of Tuna's Judgementalism Comments: To: DRTUNA at aol.com In a message dated 10/15/99 5:40:09 AM Mountain Daylight Time, DRTUNA at AOL.COM writes: Well, as usual, first Tuna touts his own horn: > Vermont has a bunch (try 20 teams) in training now and > most of them are going to Rochester this weekend for their first tournament. > It has been a struggle, but it has been very gratifying. Then, Tuna goes on to get real JUDGEMENTAL: >How about creating an EMEMY'S LIST? A list of those schools which do not have >novice debate? Lack of novices is killing policy debate. It kills small >programs and it kills regional tournaments. Perhaps we need to start a list >of who is doing the killing? That's a radical proposal, and I float it as a >thought experiment as opposed to a real policy proposal. I do not want to >start such a formal list, but we don't have to. We know who is on it. Is sending twenty teams out to two tournaments a year and having less than 2% of them return the next year really novice recruitment? I judged two of your novice at CEDA Nats last year (in the round where William Jewell women accused me of sexual harrassment!) and they had no idea about the normal procedures of debate and just read their pre-prepared narratives. What percentage of your budget is actually spent on novice travel? Sure seems like you travel them only to those closest and cheapest tournaments. Be real and try to be honest. It sure seems like the vast majority of your budget is spent on traveling two people and your immense corp of coaches/judges. I don't say this to "disrespect" you. Believe it or not, I really do respect both you and the Vermont program. But anyone interested can check the archives and see that this silly feud between you and I started when you thought you could tell people to my face that I just didn't respect novice diversity. Remember, that's when I threatened to come over the table at the Thai restaurant in Burlington and show you my "committment." Frankly, I'd point to programs like SE Louisiana if you want to point to an excellent example of novice retention. Just how deep is your respect for a novice focus? What does your novice focus really mean, since the vast majority never return the next year? In the big picture, why don't we all quit preaching our particular platforms to the masses and just do what we think is best? Why must you take your truly noble actions and use them as a club to beat over the heads of the "heathens"? Why not be constructive, instead of being so judgemental? Tell us how you do it, o great one! Sorry, but this needed to be said, Bear, We don't need God, we got Tuna to judge us...Aren't we so-oo lucky? >From Fri Oct 15 10:15:30 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 72346 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 10:16:09 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo27.mx.aol.com (imo27.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.71]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA55758 for ; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 10:16:06 -0400 Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo27.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id nUDRa23354 (3872); Fri, 15 Oct 1999 10:15:31 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 26 Message-ID: <0.db7af5a.25389102 at aol.com> Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 10:15:30 EDT Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Michael Bear Bryant Subject: Re: Novice issue isn't going away, only programs--who out there g... Comments: To: DRTUNA at aol.com In a message dated 10/15/99 5:49:35 AM Mountain Daylight Time, DRTUNA at AOL.COM writes, in reference to the Texas program: > > Perhaps your decision to send novices to only TWO tournaments while your > other debaters go to a lot more says volumes. There may well be an equity > issue here. > Damn, put on your big hypocrisy boots, folks. Big T, why don't you give us breakdown of how much of your budget is spent on one or two varsity teams (including your own daughter) versus the amount your program truly spends on novice travel. Knowing this opportunity would someday arise, I've got a Vermont tournament list, if you need it.... Right. Travel your novices, travel your one varsity team. Travel your herd of coaches/judges. Just stop the hypocritical and preachy judgementalism. Because, deep down, I know you have the capacity to be a real nice guy. Just try to remember.... Bear From lesjober Fri Oct 15 09:56:05 1999 From: lesjober (The Eternal Flame) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 09:56:05 -0500 Subject: The Shame of Novice Aversion In-Reply-To: <0.63ffc145.25386c6a@aol.com> Message-ID: Not having a coaching staff, and having next to nop budget, some serious consideration almost went into the idea of not recruiting or working with true novices here. The reasons for us included fears about our teaching capability, fear that we cou;dn't keep a capable varsity team with the time expended that it takes to coach noivces, etc. Then it occured to us that all that bullshit e believe about the value of policy debate isn't really true unless we're willing to share it. So, though we doubted our own ability to handle it, we have four novice teams this year. I think, honesty, they've gotten more "coaching" attention from us then most novice teams get, and, thus far, they are doing pretty well competitively. ITs definitely hard to meet all of the needs of a debate team at vearious levwels, and would certainly be easier with a bigger budget and more organized system of coaching, but it hasn't killed our varsity competition either (while our novice teams were both going 3-3, two of our varsity teams broke) . . . . . I guess what I''m saying is its really worthwhile to recruit novices, so do!its rewarding, and cool to teach them, and if we can do it, anyone can! LAura U Chicago On Fri, 15 Oct 1999, A. Snider wrote: > Nice try, Steve Woods. > > I generally believe that if you want to make something real, you have to > start by talking about it, get other people to talk about it, and then slowly > but surely it can start to become real. > > However, getting people to recruit and coach novices may be another matter. > You have to want to do it, you have to be willing to put time into it, and > you have to be patient and not give up. > > West Virginia, Rochester, Catholic, and a few others are outstanding novice > programs. It is because they want to do it, they plan to do it, they work at > it, they stick to it.. Vermont has a bunch (try 20 teams) in training now and > most of them are going to Rochester this weekend for their first tournament. > It has been a struggle, but it has been very gratifying. > > Most debate programs want wins, not the joy of changing someone's lives > forever through the magic of debate. Competition eclipses education and we > become just another sport trying to chalk up wins. It's that damn game-thing > again. > > I'll tell you about a meaningful win. When our novices grow up and win (in > varsity prelims and elims) over programs that flaunt their rejection of > novices and their focus only on those with high school experience, that's a > win. We don't do a victory dance, but we feel good about what we are doing. > It happens all the time and while we notice it we don't really flaunt it. > > How about creating an EMEMY'S LIST? A list of those schools which do not have > novice debate? Lack of novices is killing policy debate. It kills small > programs and it kills regional tournaments. Perhaps we need to start a list > of who is doing the killing? That's a radical proposal, and I float it as a > thought experiment as opposed to a real policy proposal. I do not want to > start such a formal list, but we don't have to. We know who is on it. > > I excuse programs which are operating as competition-only programs at the > direction of their school, administration, or funding source. If you are told > to compete and not educate new debaters, I understand. We all have our > missions. Some want to win, others want to educate. I want to do both. But a > bunch of you are using inflated participation figures as if you were > educating new students how to debate. Shame. > > Too often eDebate features all talk and no walk. Everyone in this thread > needs to tell us how many novice teams they have. People say "ain't it a > shame" and then they still don't have any novices. You aren't fooling anyone. > Team lists are posted for just about every tournament. > > I'll tell you what, Steve, you keep recruiting and training novices, and I > will as well. I am going to spend the day today trying to calm, and prepare, > and cajole about 15 novice teams into going ahead and attending their first > tournament this weekend. We know the nobility of what we do, and the students > we do it for will know as well. > > And when our novices graduate and succeed and know from whence their successs > comes and end up creating a new endowment for our debate program, I'll > probably be in hell but I will be laughing my ass off. Impossible? We'll see. > > Novice debate doesn't exist in most of America because coaches and directors > don't want it. All the debaters you need are already on your campus waiting > for you. If anything is missing it is the desire of many coaches to do more > than just win some cheap trophy. > > For all of you who are training new debaters, I salute you. I wish the rest > of you good luck. Your choice isn't for me, and I understand that debate > should be big enough for those with varied coaching motivations, but it still > pains me. > > Thousands and thousands of people are wandering around college campuses all > over America whose lives could be dramatically changed forever by the magical > intellectual experience of debate. Very, very few of them will ever get a > chance for that transformation. I am sad about that. All I can do is share my > sadness and do my best to do what I think I should do. > > I want to give special thanks to everyone involved in the seven novice > practice debates we had on our squad this week. Respect due. > > Tuna AKA Alfred C. Snider > University of Vermont > >From Fri Oct 15 11:03:50 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 73593 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 11:04:29 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo15.mx.aol.com (imo15.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.5]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA62594 for ; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 11:04:28 -0400 Received: from DRTUNA at aol.com by imo15.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id nGBFa26723 (4330); Fri, 15 Oct 1999 11:03:50 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 56 Message-ID: <0.9cb06580.25389c56 at aol.com> Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 11:03:50 EDT Reply-To: DRTUNA at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: "A. Snider" Subject: Re: The Shame of Tuna's Judgementalism Comments: To: MWBRYANT at aol.com Hi Mike! We have a lot of novice teams and they aren't always excellent. I think everyone deserves a chance to debate. I know you didn't like the way my novice senior from Bosnia debated last year when you heard narratives from him. Sorry about that. How about my other novice team who went 3-5. We have room for all of them. I am not going to make a budget disclosure to you. Sorry. I would but it would take me too much time to figure it out and frankly, pal, your request doesn't seem that important to me. Most of our novices start as juniors and seniors. Thus, they don't stay around for four years. I had ten seniors graduate last year and I am damn proud of every one of them. Our novices travel to five or six tournaments a year. But since you ask, I will keep track of how many rounds we debate in different divisions and will let you know as the season goes on. I respect SELa as well. Perhaps people like Maxwell Schnurer, Lisa Heller, Jethro Hayman, Gordie Miller and many others can answer your questions about our novice commitment in a way you might believe. You never seem to believe me about anything, which is why I so rarely communicate with you about anything. I've got to leave the keyboard to run an 11 AM novice meeting and get ready for us all to leave at 4:30 PM. I wish you the best although I suspect that no matter what I do or what I say you will be reading my ulterior motives and accusing me of being a hypocrite. eDebate is all talk and very little walk. I'm gonna take a walk. Tuna From mkrueger Fri Oct 15 10:05:09 1999 From: mkrueger (mkrueger) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 10:05:09 -0500 Subject: The Shame of Novice Aversion Message-ID: There have been a couple posts in here asking questions about how to get novices and to keep them. Well, once I get them to a tournament, I have them. I rarely lose them once the tournament "hooks" them. My trouble the past two years is recruiting them from campus. We try damn hard at MTSU to recruit novices, and three years ago, we had a bonanza, and they are currently my varsity squad. So, here is what my squad does to recruit: I send out letters to presidential scholars. We plaster the campus with flyers in the beginning (first week) of the year. We promote debate with our webpage. We send notices to professors. We publish our meeting times in our newspapers. We promote by word of mouth. We distribute literature and talk to people at the organization fair. I guarantee that people know about us. However, we don't have many novices. why? 1. students work. students can get off for the weekends, or afford to. this is the number one reason why I don't have more novices. It is a shame that they have to work, but it is realistic. I have lost almost every novice the past two years for this reason. 2. debate isn't what they thought. (they imagined debate to be like parli frankly). They didn't want to do research, they didn't want to learn about subjects that were un-interesting (yes, even last year on the civil rights topic), and so on. 3. time committment. Ok, we require novices to work about 5 hours per week at the beginning. We set up times to work with them in small groups. yet this is too much time. It would take away from their other activities. These are the three primary reasons. If people have ideas about how to get around them or to preach the reasons to debate which go beyond the norm, I would appreciate it. We don't have scholarships to give to MBA students (like they would come to MTSU), so we basically live and die with our novice recruitment and training. And, if we have trouble hooking people, then i can see the problem that other schools would have. I ask for help, and help those who don't have novices or know how to attract them. thanks. mike >===== Original Message From DRTUNA at AOL.COM ===== >Nice try, Steve Woods. > >I generally believe that if you want to make something real, you have to >start by talking about it, get other people to talk about it, and then slowly >but surely it can start to become real. > >However, getting people to recruit and coach novices may be another matter. >You have to want to do it, you have to be willing to put time into it, and >you have to be patient and not give up. > >West Virginia, Rochester, Catholic, and a few others are outstanding novice >programs. It is because they want to do it, they plan to do it, they work at >it, they stick to it.. Vermont has a bunch (try 20 teams) in training now and >most of them are going to Rochester this weekend for their first tournament. >It has been a struggle, but it has been very gratifying. > >Most debate programs want wins, not the joy of changing someone's lives >forever through the magic of debate. Competition eclipses education and we >become just another sport trying to chalk up wins. It's that damn game-thing >again. > >I'll tell you about a meaningful win. When our novices grow up and win (in >varsity prelims and elims) over programs that flaunt their rejection of >novices and their focus only on those with high school experience, that's a >win. We don't do a victory dance, but we feel good about what we are doing. >It happens all the time and while we notice it we don't really flaunt it. > >How about creating an EMEMY'S LIST? A list of those schools which do not have >novice debate? Lack of novices is killing policy debate. It kills small >programs and it kills regional tournaments. Perhaps we need to start a list >of who is doing the killing? That's a radical proposal, and I float it as a >thought experiment as opposed to a real policy proposal. I do not want to >start such a formal list, but we don't have to. We know who is on it. > >I excuse programs which are operating as competition-only programs at the >direction of their school, administration, or funding source. If you are told >to compete and not educate new debaters, I understand. We all have our >missions. Some want to win, others want to educate. I want to do both. But a >bunch of you are using inflated participation figures as if you were >educating new students how to debate. Shame. > >Too often eDebate features all talk and no walk. Everyone in this thread >needs to tell us how many novice teams they have. People say "ain't it a >shame" and then they still don't have any novices. You aren't fooling anyone. >Team lists are posted for just about every tournament. > >I'll tell you what, Steve, you keep recruiting and training novices, and I >will as well. I am going to spend the day today trying to calm, and prepare, >and cajole about 15 novice teams into going ahead and attending their first >tournament this weekend. We know the nobility of what we do, and the students >we do it for will know as well. > >And when our novices graduate and succeed and know from whence their successs >comes and end up creating a new endowment for our debate program, I'll >probably be in hell but I will be laughing my ass off. Impossible? We'll see. > >Novice debate doesn't exist in most of America because coaches and directors >don't want it. All the debaters you need are already on your campus waiting >for you. If anything is missing it is the desire of many coaches to do more >than just win some cheap trophy. > >For all of you who are training new debaters, I salute you. I wish the rest >of you good luck. Your choice isn't for me, and I understand that debate >should be big enough for those with varied coaching motivations, but it still >pains me. > >Thousands and thousands of people are wandering around college campuses all >over America whose lives could be dramatically changed forever by the magical >intellectual experience of debate. Very, very few of them will ever get a >chance for that transformation. I am sad about that. All I can do is share my >sadness and do my best to do what I think I should do. > >I want to give special thanks to everyone involved in the seven novice >practice debates we had on our squad this week. Respect due. > >Tuna AKA Alfred C. Snider >University of Vermont Michael A. Krueger Director of Debate Middle Tennessee State University Box 43 Murfreesboro, TN 37132 (615) 898-5607 http://www.mtsu.edu/~debate/ From mkrueger Fri Oct 15 10:08:25 1999 From: mkrueger (mkrueger) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 10:08:25 -0500 Subject: The Shame of Novice Aversion Message-ID: YOu and your aounterparts at UChicago are awesome Laura. One thing youi might learn, you learn more when you teach. You might find yourself to be a better debater BECAUSE you have novices. take care, mike >===== Original Message From The Eternal Flame ===== >Not having a coaching staff, and having next to nop budget, some serious >consideration almost went into the idea of not recruiting or working with >true novices here. The reasons for us included fears about our teaching >capability, fear that we cou;dn't keep a capable varsity team with the >time expended that it takes to coach noivces, etc. Then it occured to us >that all that bullshit e believe about the value of policy debate isn't >really true unless we're willing to share it. So, though we doubted our >own ability to handle it, we have four novice teams this year. I think, >honesty, they've gotten more "coaching" attention from us then most novice >teams get, and, thus far, they are doing pretty well competitively. ITs >definitely hard to meet all of the needs of a debate team at vearious >levwels, and would certainly be easier with a bigger budget and more >organized system of coaching, but it hasn't killed our varsity competition >either (while our novice teams were both going 3-3, two of our varsity >teams broke) . . . . . I guess what I''m saying is its really worthwhile >to recruit novices, so do!its rewarding, and cool to teach them, and if we >can do it, anyone can! > >LAura >U Chicago > >On Fri, 15 Oct 1999, A. Snider wrote: > >> Nice try, Steve Woods. >> >> I generally believe that if you want to make something real, you have to >> start by talking about it, get other people to talk about it, and then slowly >> but surely it can start to become real. >> >> However, getting people to recruit and coach novices may be another matter. >> You have to want to do it, you have to be willing to put time into it, and >> you have to be patient and not give up. >> >> West Virginia, Rochester, Catholic, and a few others are outstanding novice >> programs. It is because they want to do it, they plan to do it, they work at >> it, they stick to it.. Vermont has a bunch (try 20 teams) in training now and >> most of them are going to Rochester this weekend for their first tournament. >> It has been a struggle, but it has been very gratifying. >> >> Most debate programs want wins, not the joy of changing someone's lives >> forever through the magic of debate. Competition eclipses education and we >> become just another sport trying to chalk up wins. It's that damn game-thing >> again. >> >> I'll tell you about a meaningful win. When our novices grow up and win (in >> varsity prelims and elims) over programs that flaunt their rejection of >> novices and their focus only on those with high school experience, that's a >> win. We don't do a victory dance, but we feel good about what we are doing. >> It happens all the time and while we notice it we don't really flaunt it. >> >> How about creating an EMEMY'S LIST? A list of those schools which do not have >> novice debate? Lack of novices is killing policy debate. It kills small >> programs and it kills regional tournaments. Perhaps we need to start a list >> of who is doing the killing? That's a radical proposal, and I float it as a >> thought experiment as opposed to a real policy proposal. I do not want to >> start such a formal list, but we don't have to. We know who is on it. >> >> I excuse programs which are operating as competition-only programs at the >> direction of their school, administration, or funding source. If you are told >> to compete and not educate new debaters, I understand. We all have our >> missions. Some want to win, others want to educate. I want to do both. But a >> bunch of you are using inflated participation figures as if you were >> educating new students how to debate. Shame. >> >> Too often eDebate features all talk and no walk. Everyone in this thread >> needs to tell us how many novice teams they have. People say "ain't it a >> shame" and then they still don't have any novices. You aren't fooling anyone. >> Team lists are posted for just about every tournament. >> >> I'll tell you what, Steve, you keep recruiting and training novices, and I >> will as well. I am going to spend the day today trying to calm, and prepare, >> and cajole about 15 novice teams into going ahead and attending their first >> tournament this weekend. We know the nobility of what we do, and the students >> we do it for will know as well. >> >> And when our novices graduate and succeed and know from whence their successs >> comes and end up creating a new endowment for our debate program, I'll >> probably be in hell but I will be laughing my ass off. Impossible? We'll see. >> >> Novice debate doesn't exist in most of America because coaches and directors >> don't want it. All the debaters you need are already on your campus waiting >> for you. If anything is missing it is the desire of many coaches to do more >> than just win some cheap trophy. >> >> For all of you who are training new debaters, I salute you. I wish the rest >> of you good luck. Your choice isn't for me, and I understand that debate >> should be big enough for those with varied coaching motivations, but it still >> pains me. >> >> Thousands and thousands of people are wandering around college campuses all >> over America whose lives could be dramatically changed forever by the magical >> intellectual experience of debate. Very, very few of them will ever get a >> chance for that transformation. I am sad about that. All I can do is share my >> sadness and do my best to do what I think I should do. >> >> I want to give special thanks to everyone involved in the seven novice >> practice debates we had on our squad this week. Respect due. >> >> Tuna AKA Alfred C. Snider >> University of Vermont >> Michael A. Krueger Director of Debate Middle Tennessee State University Box 43 Murfreesboro, TN 37132 (615) 898-5607 http://www.mtsu.edu/~debate/ >From Fri Oct 15 11:22:43 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 73980 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 11:23:18 -0400 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 LAA23566 for ; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 11:23:17 -0400 Received: from MattHRice at aol.com by imo-d07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id nYCBxLbpT_ (4404) for ; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 11:22:43 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 41 Message-ID: <0.205e1525.2538a0c3 at aol.com> Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 11:22:43 EDT Reply-To: MattHRice at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Matt Rice Subject: Cap Cities Hotel? Does anyone know what the tournament hotel for the capital cities tournament is? Matt >From Fri Oct 15 11:35:57 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 74190 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 11:37:02 -0400 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 LAA36140 for ; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 11:36:43 -0400 Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo-d04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id nFOO07PiIH (3872); Fri, 15 Oct 1999 11:35:57 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 26 Message-ID: <0.531483c5.2538a3dd at aol.com> Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 11:35:57 EDT Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Michael Bear Bryant Subject: Re: The Shame of Tuna's Judgementalism Comments: To: DRTUNA at aol.com In a message dated 10/15/99 9:03:50 AM Mountain Daylight Time, DRTUNA writes: > Hi Mike! > Well, Hi Alfred! If you can mandate that I not call you "the Man," can I at least request that you not call me Mike? No one calls me that. Not even my mother. > We have a lot of novice teams and they aren't always excellent. I think > everyone deserves a chance to debate. I know you didn't like the way my > novice senior from Bosnia debated last year when you heard narratives from > him. Sorry about that. How about my other novice team who went 3-5. We have > room for all of them. > This is simply a non-response. How much of your budget really goes to novices? Is there a language that I can translate this question into so as to facilitate an actual answer? > I am not going to make a budget disclosure to you. Sorry. I would but it > would take me too much time to figure it out and frankly, pal, your request > doesn't seem that important to me. I didn't figure anything I ever say is too imnportant to you. But, if you're going to lash out at budget inequities in other programs (e.g., the Univ of Texas) and not perform a similar analysis of your own spending, maybe some other folks will finally see through the "cloud" of your hypocrisy. I think you spend more on your daughter than you do on all of your novices combined. For shame, sir! > > Most of our novices start as juniors and seniors. Thus, they don't stay > around for four years. I had ten seniors graduate last year and I am damn > proud of every one of them. > Evasion at it's best. What percentage of your novices ever return? Aren't most of them doing this for a grade in an argumentation class? Is this a mandatory grade? Please share your recruiting techniques, o great one! > Our novices travel to five or six tournaments a year. But since you ask, I > will keep track of how many rounds we debate in different divisions and will > let you know as the season goes on. > Well, how about an analysis of, say, last year, Alfie? If you're too busy, I've got the figures... Been patiently waiting to dump these stats for months... > I respect SELa as well. > Gee, that's not what you and Berube indicated to me last time I was in Burlington. Remember what you said about the director of that program? Do you remember evaluating recent CEDA officers in your living room? > Perhaps people like Maxwell Schnurer, Lisa Heller, Jethro Hayman, Gordie > Miller and many others can answer your questions about our novice commitment > in a way you might believe. You never seem to believe me about anything, > which is why I so rarely communicate with you about anything. Bull and a lie. You don't communicate with me because it troubles you. I've kept the backchannels from your own squad about your problems. You don't communicate because I challenge you to tell the truth about what transpired in Burlington three summers ago, and your ego won't allow you to do that. Since you would rather attempt to convince people that you shouldn't have to respond to "crazed and violent" individuals, I no longer rely upon your communications. That's really ashame, too, because they once meant a lot to me, at least in your PJ (pre-judgementalism) period. > > I've got to leave the keyboard to run an 11 AM novice meeting and get ready > for us all to leave at 4:30 PM. I wish you the best although I suspect that > no matter what I do or what I say you will be reading my ulterior motives and > accusing me of being a hypocrite. > This is an easy one. Prove me wrong. List what percentage of your budget went to traveling novices and what percentage was spent on your one or two varsity teams. You've gone so far as to suggest an ENEMIES LIST. How Nixonian of you! Time to walk the walk, big guy. Because from this angle, you're talkin' is clearly much deeper than your walkin'. > eDebate is all talk and very little walk. I'm gonna take a walk. > > Tuna Tuna, have you ever heard of self-reflection? Personally, I think you might want to start walking before choosing to talk, yourself. I applaud your work with novices. It would mean such more if you could somehow not choose to use that work as a weapon to judge others with. Thanks, once again, for not responding to a single point I raised. Debate must've been very different back in 1973. Bear From mmk1913 Fri Oct 15 10:39:57 1999 From: mmk1913 (Mike Korcok) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 11:39:57 -0400 Subject: theory comments Message-ID: heya all. just a couple of things. 1) plan-plan was not and is not based on any concept of opportunity cost. quite the opposite. it was and is an alternative to counterplan debate: if the idea of opportunity cost and thus of counterplans is too cumbersome or too difficult or ultimately incoherent, then plan-focus debate becomes untenable. plan-plan was and is presented as an alternative. 2) the Branham article on counterplans and opportunity cost is a must read for anyone enjoining the theory discussion. i wrote a piece about the Branham article which can be found several places on the net. also the new piece "The Decision-maker " addresses some of these issues. recent "hand-waving" about "problems with opportunity cost" is hardly a response to any of that discussion. 3) testing is separable from conditionality. there is nothing about the concept of opportunity cost and thus nothing about the idea of the counterplan as a test of the advisability of the plan which requires conditionality. one can "test" without "conditionality". conditionality requires testing, i think, but testing does not require conditionality. one may, for example, argue that the negative properly gets only 1 "test" of the plan per round. 4) conditionality has, to my mind, 2 inter-related sources of justification. the first is what i have called the "core parametric agreement": the affirmative gets to choose the substantive focus of the debate (the plan) and the negative gets no burden to advocate an alternative. conditionality merely describes the absence of a negative advocacy burden. it is an open question whether this agreement is good for debate in general or good for debate on a particular resolution or good for debate in a particular debate round. but if not this agreement, then which one? should the affirmative default on their part of this agreement (by not advocating or by attempting to stick an advocacy burden on the negative) a negative has the option, in my mind, of arguing alternatives to it. plan-plan is an alternative agreement in which the teams share substantive focus, for example. the second is the set of considerations which justify the core parametric agreement. a) for typical resolutions, there are 100s or even 1000s of different affirmative plans. the aff gets to survey the entire set and choose their favorite one : that choice is unlikely to be done with an eye to being "fair" to potential negatives. b) the aff devotes many hours researching, constructing, analyzing, and practicing their affirmaitve before the 1AC. that is substantial preparation which the negative rarely if ever has. c) the aff has about 1/2 their rounds on the affirmative plan. if the negative team debates the particular issues involved in any given aff 1 in 5 debates, they are very fortunate or the resolution is very friendly to negatives. d) halfway through the 1AC the negative finds out the particulars of the affirmative plan and arguments. these are all well known to the affirmative for all of the above reasons. the above are reasons why the negative ought not to be stuck with an advocacy burden (why counterplans ought to be conditional) and serve to justify the core parametric agreement. they list the advantages the affirmative obtains from being able to choose the substantive focus of the debate (the plan) and counterpoise conditionality as that which the negative obtains in return. on some resolutions and for some affirmatives the above arguments might not be compelling. conditionality has problems of its own, including the logical-pragmatic difficulties of "testing" with positions that contradict or have frictions with each other. sometimes the problems with conditionality will overcome the reasons for conditionality. thanks for reading Michael Korcok -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/19991015/51faf088/attachment.html From d.breshears Fri Oct 15 11:02:14 1999 From: d.breshears (David Breshears) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 12:02:14 -0400 Subject: Novice issue isn't going away, only programs--who out there gives a damn? Message-ID: Tuna writes: >I don't want to get into an argument about what you should do with your >debate program, but since you asked... > Too bad. Your self-righteous indignation earns you an argument, to say the least. It also earns you a few less grams of respect from me. Don't know if that's a concern, given your over-inflated sense of self, but it's true... Now, on to the substance of Tuna's non-argument: >Perhaps your decision to send novices to only TWO tournaments while your >other debaters go to a lot more says volumes. There may well be an equity >issue here. Okay, smart guy. Answer me this: Texas is one of the few squads in the country that makes even a pretense of being largely run by its students. The coaching staff (no tenured DOF, you understand, just a full-time lecturer in the Dept of Comm Studies, and two full-time graduate assistants taking full loads, plus a couple of volunteers who are also full-time grad students) does NOT determine: partnerships, assignments, the travel schedule, and most importantly WHO TRAVELS TO TOURNAMENTS. The SQUAD has identified competitive success as both an individual and collective goal. There are folks who have scraped their way up from the bottom, attending one or two tournaments their first year, then a few more in their second and third. Now, as seniors, they'd like an opportunity to travel a full season. For our folks, that's approximately 8 tournaments. We don't have the luxury of travelling UMKC's 20 tournaments a semester (that's an exxageration and an inside joke, don't get your shorts in a knot), so, in effect, you'd like to chop it down to 6. For novices, that's great. But for folks who are pouring their heart and soul into the research, that doesn't really seem worth the effort, does it? So, Tuna, what would you have me tell these folks? Remember, we've got twelve teams, and at most tournaments we can take four. Our travel schedule includes UNI, Kentucky, SMS, Wichita, Harvard, UCO, Wake, UMKC, William Jewel, West Georgia, Baylor, Northwestern, and SWTSU. After that, we're down to barely enough money to make it to districts and the NDT, and we've still got to scrape money together to get folks to CEDA nationals. This does not include the West Coast Swing, Heart, Novice Nationals, and many other tournaments that we'd like to attend. You do the math: to service these 12 experienced teams, allow our "first-round" contenders a schedule that is both competitive against other bid applicants and concomitant to their work efforts, AND take on additional folks... Well, whaddaya think? Seems kinda zero sum to me, big guy. And remember this as well: Joel teaches two classes, and Eric and I are heavily involved in grad school. We don't have the option of just going to more local tournaments. We can only miss so much school, and we don't have the luxury of ANY coaches who are not in this situation (read: full-time card cutters/travellers). Mo' Tuna: >Perhaps your varsity debaters should attend two fewer tournaments so that new >people could have their lives changed by debate like everyone else on your >squad. Why do they get so little? You don't have to kick people off the >squad, just adjust travel. Well, largely because the SQUAD as a majority (we used to say consensus, but let's face it: there are few truly mutually consensual agreements, especially when zero sum trade-offs are involved) decided that competitive success, including the attainment of two first-rounds and three invites to the NDT, are its top priority. These novices get so little because we have so little. It'd be nice to spend equitably among all, but that's just not possible. Have you been to Texas? It's a big fucking state, and unlike Vermont, we can't drive for twenty minutes in any direction and cross three state lines. "Local" travel is not truly local, and for us even to make it to some district tournaments (SMS, for example) is a thirteen hour van ride. In other words, it costs us disproportionately MORE to travel novices, given the small number of novice tournaments in our area. It's COST-PROHIBITIVE to take them back East, where you enjoy the luxury of many LOCAL travel opportunities for novices. Bear asked that you provide a breakdown of the money you spend on your competitive teams vs. novice. I'd ask that you include mileage travelled in that breakdown. There's more at issue here than your self-righteous indignation allows, eh? As for travelling less, you must remember the equation above: 12 teams, 4 slots, 13 tournaments, and 7-8 teams competing internally for three privileged slots to the NDT. Remember, before you get all huffy about the evils of competition, these are THEIR goals, as much as ours. It's real convenient to sit back thirty years later and espouse your wisdom, but that doesn't do us a whole lotta good, and it certainly doesn't make you right, oh brilliant one. >I am not sure what approach you take, but we consciously try to reduce >expenses at every step (sleep on floors, beg for fee reduction, drive instead >of fly) so that we can have a novice debate program. No, Texas doesn't drive much. We like to stay one or two to a room at most, and the reason you don't often see us at the tournament hotel is because we prefer the posher, more upscale alternatives. Hell, we'll probably fly to Baylor, since Joel's ass gets hard after more than 10 minutes in the van. And we're always buying out of our judging commitment. I mean, when was the last time a Texas judge heard all eight debates, then judged elims right up until the moment the van (sorry, limousine) had to pull out for the airport to catch the Concorde home? Your tips are well taken, though. We certainly hadn't thought of that... > >$40,000 and almost nothing for novices. OK, that's your approach. > >Tuna Alright, smart ass. What's your budget breakdown? And how many high school students with debate experience show up at your first meeting of the year? We had more than 30, and many decided not to try debating in college because they want to be competitive, but can't justify spending as much time doing debate work as is necessary, given the small number of travel opportunities during the first couple of years. Remember, these are the same folks you want me to take to two less tournaments. Up until this post, Tuna, I've had enormous amounts of respect for you and your program. Honestly, though, you have NO FUCKING IDEA what you're talking about in this case. And yes, I do take this personally. Adios, Dave > > >In a message dated 10/14/1999 4:01:32 PM, d.breshears at MAIL.UTEXAS.EDU writes: > >>Okay. As one of those on the "border," I've got a question for Steve. >> >> >> >>At Texas, we've never really travelled "novices." You see, we have more >> >>than 24 "experienced" debaters, that's 12 teams, all vying for a chunk >>of a >> >>40,000 travel budget. Now, at least 4 - and more like 7 or 8 - of those >> >>teams "deserve" to be travelling just about every weekend (if they wanted). >> >>Obviously, our budget doesn't come close to allowing that. We get to take >>4 >> >>teams to most of the "biggies," and even had 8 out at SMS last weekend >>(and >> >>will have 8 again at UCO). So, my question is essentially this: WHICH >>OF >> >>THESE FOLKS SHOULD WE CUT OFF IN FAVOR OF NOVICES? > >Cut all of them a little. > >> >> >> >>I don't ask this question just to be a smart-ass. I let the original post >> >>slide without comment, but your latest post seems to beg a reply. What >>I'm >> >>suggesting is that other schools are in similar shape - that is, too many >> >>folks, too few resources. So, don't imply that those programs that don't >> >>travel novices don't "give a damn." If you'd like to funnel an extra $20k >> >>our way, I'll be happy to scour the campus for novices interested in travel. >> >> >> >>Now, this is what we do offer novices: we teach them the fundamentals >>of >> >>research - using a library/the web/lexis-nexis - producing blocks, watching >> >>practice debates in order to learn both how to debate and how to judge >>- >> >>something that allows them to become local high school critics, in many >> >>cases - and we promise them at least two tournaments a year (Baylor & SWTSU, >> >>both in the second semester, so they have time to get it together). All >>of >> >>these efforts will remain rather invisible to you and much of the rest >>of >> >>the community. They occur nonetheless. We even had one "novice" (read: >>no >> >>high school experience) debater at SMS, but he was with a more experienced >> >>first-year, and they refused even to do JV (they went 3-5 in open, btw). >> >> >> >>I say all of this not to be defensive, though I'm sure there's some of >>that >> >>going on. Instead, I'd just ask that folks quit berating their colleagues >> >>on this list for things that are either: a) beyond their control, or b) >> >>invisible to much of the community. >> >> >> >>Thanks, and sorry for ranting, >> >> >> >>Dave >> >>-----Original Message----- >> >>From: Woods, Steve >> >>To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU >> >>Date: Thursday, October 14, 1999 10:08 AM >> >>Subject: Novice issue isn't going away, only programs--who out there gives >>a >> >>damn? >> >> >> >> >> >>>Hey all, >> >>> >> >>>While I didn't expect a wave of commitments to sweep the "e" after my >>post, >> >>>I thought more people would be concerned with the lack of novice, and >>as >> >>>John Fritch pointed out, even to some extent JV. >> >>> >> >>>Put your program resources where your mouth is. Saying you have concern >> >>for >> >>>shrinking debate, and not fielding novices is duplicitous. I would like >> >>>each of the schools in the midwest to comment on their efforts to promote >> >>>debate with younger inexperienced debaters (even some of your border state >> >>>schools in Texas, and Illinois, and Iowa, where are your novices? what >> >>>tournaments do you take them to?) . >> >>> >> >>>Look, if we can find novices on our campus of 1150 people, SURELY there >> >>must >> >>>be people interested on YOUR campus. It does take effort, but if this >>is >> >>>about more than competition, it is the type of effort your university >>and >> >>>community requires of you. >> >>> >> >>>We MUST have novice in the midwest. You disagree by your silence and >> >>>inaction. I will indeed take it that way. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>>Steve >> >>>Dr. Steve Woods >> >>>Assistant Professor Communication,Co-Director of Debate >> >>>William Jewell College,Liberty, MO 64068 >> >>>816.781.7700 x. 5478 >> >> >> >>----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- >>Return-Path: >>Received: from rly-zd02.mx.aol.com (rly-zd02.mail.aol.com [172.31.33.226]) >>by air-zd01.mail.aol.com (v62.10) with ESMTP; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 16:01:31 >>-0400 >>Received: from LIME.EASE.LSOFT.COM (lime.ease.lsoft.com [209.119.1.41]) >>by rly-zd02.mx.aol.com (v61.13) with ESMTP; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 15:49:18 -0400 >>Received: from PEAR.EASE.LSOFT.COM (209.119.0.19) by LIME.EASE.LSOFT.COM >>(LSMTP for Digital Unix v1.1b) with SMTP id <8.00398D09 at LIME.EASE.LSOFT.COM>; >>Thu, 14 Oct 1999 15:45:28 -0400 >>Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) >>with >> spool id 64542 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 15:48:48 >> -0400 >>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 PAA44372 for >> ; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 15:48:40 -0400 >>Received: (qmail 22043 invoked by uid 0); 14 Oct 1999 19:48:38 -0000 >>Received: from dial-20-16.ots.utexas.edu (HELO winbook) (128.83.128.96) >>by >> umbs-smtp-3 with SMTP; 14 Oct 1999 19:48:38 -0000 >>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 4.71.1712.3 >>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 >>Message-ID: <01bf165b$e4aad860$322e5380 at winbook> >>Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 11:50:52 -0400 >>Reply-To: David Breshears >>Sender: Team Topic Debating in America >>From: David Breshears >>Subject: Re: Novice issue isn't going away, >> only programs--who out there gives a damn? >>Comments: To: "Woods, Steve" >>To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU >> >> From ssnider Fri Oct 15 13:03:41 1999 From: ssnider (Sarah J. Snider) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 14:03:41 -0400 Subject: When will I ever learn? In-Reply-To: <0.44d15a94.2538b0e8@aol.com> Message-ID: Vermont Had novice teams in competition at the following tournaments during the 1998-99 season, note at William Jewell and UMKC our novices debated in JV as there was no novice division oferred and two of our novice teams debated open at CEDA nationals. Also note that we have close to 10 returning novices this year that began either as walk ons or through the course we offer in the fall, as result our squad is closely approaching 50 members. We might not have the best retention in the world,but it sure is better than none. Maybe we should just quit recruiting novices because they don't ALL come back, only some of them do. ALL KINDS OF DEBATE ARE IMPORTANT, IT IS IMPORTANT FOR NOVICES JUST AS IT IS IMPORTANT FOR THOSE WHO DID DEBATE IN HIGH SCHOOL. IT IS REDICULOUS FOR SOME TO BE PRIORITIZED OVER OTHERS. I PREFER TO TRY AND MAKE DEBATE AVAILABLE TO THOSE WHO ARE INTERESTED REGARDLESS OF EXPERIENCE. Kings College West Point Marist Binghampton UMKC William Jewell University of Rochester Cornell University of Vermont Towson CEDA NATIONALS Peace all Sj On Fri, 15 Oct 1999, Michael Bear Bryant wrote: > In a message dated 10/15/99 10:10:50 AM Mountain Daylight Time, > DRTUNA at AOL.COM writes: > > > Novice debate is important to me and to our activity. I don't want a > > discussion of it to become my engaging in a defense against endless > attacks. > > Every once in a great while I decide to engage Bear in a discussion. Every > > time I do I wish I hadn't. > > > > So, after his indictment of my ten graduating seniors (all started as > > novices) and the way I spend my budget and my daughter I'll just say this. > > > > Anyone who wants to believe Bear can do so. I'm not trying to win any > > popularity contests. We've got an evil and elite squad here at Vermont, > > steeped in exclusionary tactics and false claims ... if you want to believe > > that, fine. > > > > I'll go back into my bear-avoidance hibernation and load my 14 novice teams > > into our bus. I will be glad to talk about novice recruitment and retention > > in a response next week to Mike Krueger, who cares very deeply about novice > > debate and has done a good job with them. > > > > Sorry I bothered to speak to you. I wonder if I'll ever learn. > > > > Tuna > > > > I never called Vermont elitist and exclusionary. It's ashame that Dr. Snider > feels he has to resort to such tactics. I think a disclosure of how much was > actually spent on those ten graduating novices would end this argument. > > All I meant to do was ask Dr. Snider to reflect a little before castigating > other programs. Notice that he still won't disclose what percentage of his > budget is actually dedicated to novices. I have never questioned his > committment to novice recruitment, only the consistency of his "inequity" > attacks on other programs. He knows, as he knows what he said three years > ago, that spending on his daughter far outstrips what he spends on novices. > > Dr. Snider, feel free to return to the safety of your hibernation. But > instead of focusing your dialogue on those successful with novice > recruitment, don't you think a sincere committment to novice recruitment > would compel you to explain to us "heathens" what we need to do to pull > ourselves out of the pit of your disdain? Krueger's disclosures of how he > recruits novices were interesting. As was his explanations of why he doesn't > end up with many novices. Can't you can the judgementalism for even a few > seconds? This is my third request for replacement of judgementalism with > constructive suggestions. > > Life isn't easy. It gets harder when you find that you have to isolate > yourself to keep from making unintended disclosures. > > How about just listing the tournaments that you sent novices to last year? > > Is this too much to ask from an individual using an ENEMIES LIST as a > "thought experiment?" > > G'Day, Alfred! > > Bear > >From Fri Oct 15 14:34:16 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 76560 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 14:35:04 -0400 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 OAA36242 for ; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 14:35:03 -0400 Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo-d10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id qKXHpaVPs_ (3872); Fri, 15 Oct 1999 14:34:16 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 26 Message-ID: <0.d7711c0b.2538cda8 at aol.com> Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 14:34:16 EDT Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Michael Bear Bryant Subject: Re: When will I ever learn? Comments: To: ssnider at zoo.uvm.edu Ms. Snider, I'm sorry that you, once again, feel the need to respond to correspondence that your father feels is beneath him. If his ego hadn't gotten in the way, it certainly seems that he could've exerted the same effort. I certainly agree with both of you that novice debate is important. My quarrel is with the mindset that embraces an ENEMIES LIST and degrades other novice recruitment efforts as "numbers inflation." My problem is with the consistent efforts on the part of your father to hold his own strengths up as the criteria by which he should evaluate other programs and other members of this community. Let him run the Vermont program and let others run their programs. At a minimum, where are his constructive suggestions? I am happy you chose to defend the Vermont program. It was not my intent to degrade it in anyway. I actually wish you, specifically, tremendous success in your final year of competition. My purpose, as I have clearly stated, was to show your father that despite his recognized efforts at novice recruitment, he is not immune to possible "inflation" criticisms. I am still willing to suggest that more will be spent traveling you and your partner than will be spent getting all of Vermont's novices out to tournaments. Your father clearly side-stepped answering that question. Will you? What percentage of Vermont novices stick around to ever participate in a JV round? Now, how many ever get to varsity? You know you are an exception to the norm in Burlington. I certainly wish you all the success I know you deserve. I am delighted that you have chosen to drop your father's habit of direct castigation of anyone not embracing his own strengths. I certainly hope that you recognize that I have tremendous personal respect for your father, even if correspondence with me is a waste of his valuable time. It's kind of like when your father takes credit for saving debate in the East. Have you counted the number of programs in that part of the country, lately? Finally, would you mind assigning the number of novice teams sent to each of the tournaments in your list? Bear In a message dated 10/15/99 12:04:00 PM Mountain Daylight Time, ssnider at ZOO.UVM.EDU writes: > Vermont Had novice teams in competition at the following tournaments > during the 1998-99 season, note at William Jewell and UMKC our novices > debated in JV as there was no novice division oferred and two of our > novice teams debated open at CEDA nationals. Also note that we have close > to 10 returning novices this year that began either as walk ons or through > the course we offer in the fall, as result our squad is closely > approaching 50 members. We might not have the best retention in the > world,but it sure is better than none. Maybe we should just quit > recruiting novices because they don't ALL come back, only some of them do. > > ALL KINDS OF DEBATE ARE IMPORTANT, IT IS IMPORTANT FOR NOVICES JUST AS IT > IS IMPORTANT FOR THOSE WHO DID DEBATE IN HIGH SCHOOL. IT IS REDICULOUS FOR > SOME TO BE PRIORITIZED OVER OTHERS. I PREFER TO TRY AND MAKE DEBATE > AVAILABLE TO THOSE WHO ARE INTERESTED REGARDLESS OF EXPERIENCE. > > Kings College > West Point > Marist > Binghampton > UMKC > William Jewell > University of Rochester > Cornell > University of Vermont > Towson > CEDA NATIONALS > > Peace all > Sj > >From Fri Oct 15 14:41:50 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 76693 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 14:42:38 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo16.mx.aol.com (imo16.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.6]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA14750 for ; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 14:42:37 -0400 Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo16.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id qHBRa12223 (3872); Fri, 15 Oct 1999 14:41:51 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 26 Message-ID: <0.b36c6dcd.2538cf6e at aol.com> Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 14:41:50 EDT Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Michael Bear Bryant Subject: Re: When will I ever learn? Comments: To: ssnider at zoo.uvm.edu It is also ridiculous for a senior at the Univ of Vermont to spell the word as "rediculous." Sounds like Massey. ;-) > IT IS REDICULOUS FOR > SOME TO BE PRIORITIZED OVER OTHERS. I PREFER TO TRY AND MAKE > DEBATE > AVAILABLE TO THOSE WHO ARE INTERESTED REGARDLESS OF > EXPERIENCE. From sarah.chan Fri Oct 15 14:06:51 1999 From: sarah.chan (Sarah E. Chan) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 15:06:51 EDT Subject: novices Message-ID: SJSU is a small school, small budget, mostly regional travel. We've got a full team of ie'rs, parli people, and policy people each trying to get some of the pie. Here's how we recruit debaters: 1. Heavy campaigning on campus... we have brochures and fliers all over the place the first few weeks of each semester. 2. Recruiting in public speaking classes... we go to all of the public speaking and argumentation classes (the ones required for general ed oral comm) and hype the program. 3. We talk to anyone and everyone who will listen for a minute or two. :-) We're a commuter school, most people working full-time and going to school full-time, many with families, the average age of our students is 27. Every year we usually manage to recruit one or two novice policy debaters and a crop of parli debaters. The policy people are usually as a result of our recruiting in classes, the parli people usually come from the debate class. I do a lot of one-on-one work with my debaters (usually at the sacrifice of doing my own research or practice debates). If I don't go to a tournament, I make sure that I call them or talk to them the day they get back to see how they're doing. Our goal is to create a friendly, supportive environment, and the one debater that has graduated since I've been coaching still keeps in touch. I've had two debaters stop debating due to time constraints, the remaining six are still around. When I first started coaching after a semester in novice (and a great Vermont summer with Bear., Bill Sheffield, and Steve Woods as my lab leaders), it was just me. We're now a team of seven policy people. The major thing for me is that I find coaching rewarding. I'm an occupational therapy major, I work, and I debate, and I let a little bit go on each of those things so that I can coach. Below is an email I posted last November about novice retention. I hope that those who are interested will comment and add their advice. Take care, Sarah SJSU debate >From last November.... I'm hoping to get an exchange of ideas about what has and hasn't worked when coaching with novices so I'll start. Things that have worked: 1. Have each debater make a list of what they're comfortable with and what they're not. Not only does this give me an idea about what to work on, I can have them explain things they are comfortable with to those who aren't. I just started doing this with my debaters and am trying to figure out how to do some sort of progress sheet. I may just show all the things everyone is comfortable with and add to it as the year progresses. 2. 2AC/neg block/1AR analysis - We took the positions they've been running, then they brainstormed 2AC answers, then figured out 2-3 answers to those, and then chose the 2-3 answers they would go for as the 1AR and answered the neg's arguments. This worked well since they had all told me they didn't feel comfortable answering the other teams arguments. Since we did it without evidence, it really helped us see that they could come up with good analytical answers that we could supplement with cards. After we were done, I had them flow each position and the answers as though it were a real debate. Something we're working on: Research - I had them each choose something they were interested in to research before our next tournament. They're supposed to bring the evidence with brackets, but not cut, so we can discuss it before they actually do any briefing. What hasn't worked: 1. Independently working on their affirmatives and frontlines - A lot of it is due to everyone's busy schedules with work and school. I'm finding that it's difficult for them to get together and actually get things done. They're doing better at finding the evidence they need, it just takes a long time. 2. Practice rounds - Because there are only four of them and teams have been changed due to availability for different tournaments, it's been difficult to form any kind of cohesion. Also, it seems like we keep repeating a lot of the same things. They have had a lot of practice rounds, but they haven't seemed particularly effective. While I am able to pinpoint a lot of areas for improvement and am having them only work on one thing at a time, it still seems like there's a lot of room for improvement. Any advice here would be much appreciated. There's a lot more I'd like to talk about, but I'll stop for now. :-) Sarah SJSU debater and coach "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 drwiese Fri Oct 15 14:25:32 1999 From: drwiese (Danielle Wiese) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 14:25:32 -0500 Subject: Illinois State University Tournament Announcement Message-ID: Please join us in Normal as Illinois State University hosts the REDBIRD CLASSIC DEBATE TOURNAMENT. The tournament will be held November 12 - 14, 1999 (Friday - Sunday). We apologize for the short notice. However, it appears that there are few tournaments in November this year and we hope to accommodate a number of schools who have voiced their desire for more rounds . Molly Munson, Director of Debate Danielle Wiese, Graduate Assistant Rob McDade, Assistant Coach Format: Six preliminary rounds on Friday and Saturday and an appropriate number of elimination rounds on Sunday . NDT/CEDA topic. 9-3-6 format for all divisions. 10 minutes prep. Divisions: We will offer three divisions: Varsity, Junior Varsity and Novice. Novice debaters will debate both sides of the topic. Novices must have less than two semesters of debate experience. Registration/ Tab Room: Will take place Friday, November 12th from 2- 3 pm in the Fell Hall lobby. We are pleased to have Cate Palczewski on University of Northern Iowa running the tab room. Fees: $60 per team. This price will include continental breakfasts on both days of the tournament as well as lunch on Saturday. Judging: Please supply three rounds of judging per two-person team entered. Judges will also be required to judge at a minimum one elimination round. Judges may be hired for $75 per uncovered team. However, we urge you to bring an ample commitment, if possible. Housing: Due to prior commitments, no one hotel in the area could provide a sufficient number of rooms. Therefore, we have reserved blocks of rooms in a number of hotels / motels in Bloomington-Normal. Please see the list attached at the end of this announcement. Directions: Fell Hall will be Tournament Central. All debates will be held in Fell and Stevenson Hall, which is directly across the ISU Quad. Directions to campus: From the north on I55- continue south on I55 to the Main Street/Business 51 exit. Make a left at the end of the exit ramp. Continue on Main Street for approx. 2 miles to College. Make a left onto College Avenue. Continue to University Street (one block). Go right. Fell Hall will be located on the left hand side. It is a red brick building. From the west on I74- Continue to I55 north to Chicago. Take this exit and follow until you see Main Street/Business 51 south. Take this exit, make a right onto Main Street. Follow the directions from above once you reach college. From the north on I39: Take the Bloomington-Normal, Business 51 exit. Follow College and the directions above. From the south on I55- Continue on 55, circling the city until you hit Main Street/ Business 51. Take this exit and make a right onto Main Street. Follow the directions from Main Street above. From the east on I74- Continue to I55 north. Take I55 North all the way around the city to Main Street/Business 51. Make a right off of the exit and follow the directions above from Main Street. Parking: The best place to park on Friday is behind the Bone Student Center lot. This is located behind the Bone Student Center which is at the corner of College and University Streets. Parking is $.50 an hour. Parking is free on Saturday and Sunday so long as you park in a lot with green or red stickers. You may not park in reserved spaces on these days. There is a lot to the south of Fell Hall off of University Street which is relatively close to each building. ISU is located in Bloomington-Normal, Illinois. Bloomington-Normal is conveniently located at the intersection of Interstate Highways 39, 55 and 74 in the Heart of Illinois. Transportation: Bloomington International Airport (BMI) has a surprising number of direct flights for anyone interested in flying. Direct flights from/to: Chicago, St. Louis, Minneapolis, Detroit, Atlanta, Omaha and Denver. Connecting flights from/to pretty much anywhere through those hubs. Airlines include: American, Northwest, TWA and AirTrans. Schedule Friday, November 12th 2-3:00 Registration 4:00 Round 1 (preset) 6:00 Round 2 (preset) Saturday, November 13th 8:00 Round 3 (powered off of 1 and 2) 10:00 Round 4 (powered off of 1 and 2) 12:00 Lunch 2:00 Round 5 (powered off of 1-4) 5:00 Round 6 (powered off of 1-6) Sunday, November 14th 8:00 First Elimination Round 11:00 Awards 12:00 Second / Any Subsequent Elimination Rounds Entry Form: College: Mailing Address: Director: Office Phone: Home Phone: Email: Teams:) Varsity: 1.. _________________________________________ 2.. _________________________________________ 3.. _________________________________________ 4.. _________________________________________ Junior Varsity: 1.. __________________________________________ 2.. __________________________________________ 3.. __________________________________________ 4.. __________________________________________ Novice: 1.. __________________________________________ 2.. __________________________________________ 3.. __________________________________________ 4.. __________________________________________ For each team: Division: Initials: Speaker 1: Speaker 2: Judges: Fees: ______ teams x $60 = $ _____ ______ judges x $75 = $ _____ Total $ _____ Send Entries by 5:00 November 10th To: Molly Munson, Director of Debate Phone: (309) 438-8062 Fax: (309) 438-3048 e-mail: mlmunso at ilstu.edu Hotel Information Blocks of rooms listed under "Illinois State University Debate Tournament" have been reserved at the following hotels. Please call for reservations ASAP. We have booked all of the remaining rooms in town. The hotels listed first, have the most rooms available. Holiday Inn Express (309) 862-1600 (confirm by 10/29) 1715 Parkway Plaza, Normal, IL 61761 5 minute drive to campus $79 for up to four Ask for group code ISD Fairfield Inn (309) 454-6600 (Confirm by 11/3) 202 Landmark Drive, Normal, IL 61761 5 minute drive to campus $76 for up to four Super 8 (309) 663-2388 (Confirm by 11/5) 818 IAA Drive, Bloomington 5 minute drive to campus $59.99 for up to four Super 8 (309) 454-5858 (Confirm by 11/1) 2 Trader?s Circle, Normal 2 minutes drive to campus $69.88 for up to four Comfort Inn Suites (309) 452-8588 (Conf. By Nov. 1) 310 Greenbiar Drive, Normal 5 minutes drive to campus $69.95 for up to four Best Western Univ. Inn (309) 454-4070 (Conf. By Oct. 29) 6 Trader?s Circle, Normal 2 minutes drive to campus $59 Ramada Inn (309) 662-5311 (Conf. Oct. 29th) 1219 Holiday Drive, Bloomington 8 minutes drive to campus $49 Signature Inn (309) 454-4044 (Conf. By Oct. 29) 101 S. Veterans Parkway, Normal 5 minutes drive to campus $75 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/19991015/bb877e14/attachment.htm From asnider Fri Oct 15 14:47:00 1999 From: asnider (Alfred C. Snider) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 15:47:00 -0400 Subject: Noivice Training - Resources Message-ID: You might be interested. The first three steps in our novice debate program are all now available as RealVideos, located at http://debate.uvm.edu/broadcast.html. We plan on 12 more installments as the year goes on. Mike Krueger had a good list of outreach methods. In terms of retantion, I think that the communication environment you create on your debate team and for novices is essential. I have tried to describe how to get and keep novices in my WDI Lecture "Debate Evangelism" available at the same spot. I have a presentation by Jethro Hayman of Cornell Those really interested can also receive our packet of coaching materials which we freely distributed. Emory has an AWESOME booklet of basic debate training materials [Emory National Debate Institute Policy Debate Guide] which I copy for our new debaters. Big props to Emory. We can send you a single copy if you are interested. We hope soon to be distributing CD-ROMs with sample debates and many, many hours of instructional videos, but will probably have to charge for that. I think the CEDA Program Development Guide is a great resource, produced by Glenda Treadaway and available at http://debate.uvm.edu/ceda.html. If you have materials, ideas or videotapes please send them to me and I will try and circulate them or, in the case of videos, encode them for the web. OK, time to load the buss. Alfie 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 TM0JRB1 Fri Oct 15 15:45:07 1999 From: TM0JRB1 (John Butler) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 15:45:07 -0500 Subject: NOVICE DEBATE Message-ID: Colleagues: Here are some considerations specific to Northern Illinois University. Perhaps these onservations will assist those similarly situated, or who may wish to be. I continue to learn from others how we can make this program stronger as a program that provides opportinities for debaters at all levels of development. This is long, so print it up and read it during some down time, if you have any. At NIU, for many years, the program has thrived as a student organization, funded by student fees (that are allocated by a cautious, anti-administration/faculty student governemnt), devoted to teaching students how to debate. I am speaking here only of the part of the program devoted to competitive debate, as we have a three-tiered forensics program (competitive debate, individual events, and on-campus public debate). The program has as its central goal the training of students for advocacy efforts. We are especially popular amongst students who wish to become lawyers, representative governement leaders, political advisor/staff assistants, and teachers. Very few of our debaters go on to coach debate, or strive to become competitive with the top-ranked teams in the nation. Each year we work with two to three varsity teams that want intense coaching and are willing to engage in the kind of research necessary for victory at large tournaments. These students work primarily with their favorite coach in a relationship that is custom-designed for them, with their particular goals in mind. While the goals of our varsity are assessed and addressed, our entire staff directs its attention to a recruitment effort that begins in the beginning of the year with an organizational meeting that is highly publicized and pitched at the beginning of every undergraduate Poltical Science course that meets the day before and the day of the meeting. The meeting is at 8:45 PM so that all students can attend, regardless of night classes. It is in a large fancy room that we do not have to pay for since we are a student organization. The use of political science courses is always welcomed (with a few exceptions that we never let bother us). The Poltical Science Department chair is approached each year and we explain how many of their graduates have experienced debate as part of their studies at NIU. Who could reasonalbly disagree that debate on U.S. foreign policy toward five rogue states would not be worth promoting in the first five minutes of class! Most of the students who come to the meeting to learn about debate saw one of our members or coaches in their Political Science class. Additionally colleages in the Department of Communication make announcements as well. Each year as many as 60-80 people come to learn about forensics. Students meet the student officers and coaches, and are provided a schedule of orientation meetings that they will attend within the next two or three days (don't wait to get them in to see you). At that point our goal is to get them to Wheaton's rookie division at the end of September (this year it was the 24-25). Then they are hooked. (Each region should have a rookie division; if Wheaton didn't do it, NIU would. It is essential for novice recruitment, and Wheaton should be continuously commended for their efforts in this regard. If you are anywhere near Illinois, and want to give brand new people an opportunity to debate, bring them to Wheaton next year.) Then we prepare for our own tounnament at NIU in October (As Mike Krueger noted, we broke novice to quarters at NIU. Much of the success of this division results from NIU debaters continuing after their Wheaton debut.) Throughout the year we keep our doors open, offering the resources to the program to anyon who even breathes a word about wanting to debate. I have learned that this is a program that students know about all through college, but many do not realize how important it is until later in their undergraduate exerience. So we have many people joining us in their junior or senior year, some even in their last semester of college. Last year we has a senior who already had his law school applications mailed and wanted to just get a couple tournaments in before graduating. After taking second at his first tournament at Wheaton's Spring tournament, I actually had to talk him out of postponing graduation and law school so he could debate another semester. That's what does it for me, as a debate coach. As the director of Forensics at NIU I consider our numbers to include anyone who received coaching, or otherwise benefited from the resources of NIU Forensics. This allows me to claim that NIU Forensics touches the lives of many students, including those who participate in public debates and forums sponsored by our program. For those of you who are interested in more specific numbers: - This year we started with five returning competitive debate teams. - Of the 60 plus attendees at the organizational meeting, about 25 attended one of two orientation meetings that follow the organizational meeting. These students heared a one-hour lecture on the basics of debate (the affirmative and negative is explained, the present system, advantages and disadvantages, very basic) and the second hour is a discussion about the proposition. We use this time to get an idea about the skill levels of the new arrivals and to get them into a loosely constructed debate. Then we end the meeting by assigning each to return in 4-5 days with one plan and a reason why it should be enacted. Just one, using whatever material they can find. - Of the 25, about 18 returned to what was by then becomoming a single meeting time. This is a grulling time for the coaches because we don't want to let poeple go because they all can't meet at the same time. So, we set up several meetings for the same purpose and work with mini-groups, as our schedules allow. Now the fun begins, they present their arguments and we encourage the otehrs to respond in what we call "4-minute clashes." Some are already getting hooked. - Next we surveyed the novices and found out which ones could go to Wheaton College. With some encouragement we were able to get 4 teams ready for Wheaton, brand new debaters. - Two weeks later we added another novice team and lost one, but continue to be working with about 4 people who say they want to debate at our next tournament. At this time, guidlines are becomeing more important and more casual students are learning that they have to be more concerned with time commitments, etc. - At present we have 5 novice teams and 4 varsity, two graduate assistant coaches. Additionally the Forensics team has an individual events component that also has several members and two graduate assistant coaches. We have the ability to disseminate, in halves or full, up to seven full tuition waivers and have a travel budget of $25,000, that can only be used for travel expenses. Our I.E. teams travel to twice as many tournaments and spend half as much as we do. This is due to the length of travel and our three-day tournaments. All remaining expenses are covered by the department (printing, mail, etc.) or by students themselves. I am joined by two assistant directors, also faculty members in the department. Hope this helps. John Butler Director of Forensics Northern Illinois University From silverma Fri Oct 15 19:41:44 1999 From: silverma (andy silverman) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 17:41:44 -0700 Subject: BRIAN RAY OR PAUL FROM KENTUCKY Message-ID: hey can you guys send me the cites for your rollback disad (the uniqueness, internal link and impact cards) thanks guys, andy silverman usc debate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/19991015/a56ff292/attachment.html From silverma Fri Oct 15 19:42:22 1999 From: silverma (andy silverman) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 17:42:22 -0700 Subject: JOHN RAINS Message-ID: can john rains back channel me, or someone who has john's email address andrew silverman usc debate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/19991015/57fbdffc/attachment.htm From nbutt Sat Oct 16 10:56:29 1999 From: nbutt (Neil S Butt) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 11:56:29 -0400 Subject: debate justification cite In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I would like to add thanks for posting this cite - it helps a project I'm working on as well. (And it's a good read! I'm glad you didn't reply via backchannel! :) ) One minor correction - while George Ziegelmueller is quoted several times in the article, it actually attributes the masters thesis quote to David Zarefsky: "In intensity, it's analogous to working on a master's thesis." Thanks again - this cite is a great help! On Fri, 15 Oct 1999, Bob Jordan wrote: > The article is: > > Zoe Ingalls, Resolved, that competition in college debate is as > fierce as in a basketball playoff game, Chronicle of Higher > Education, May 8, 1985, pp. 13-14. > > I quickly looked through my files last night, but I could not find > the article. However, I am certain that it is quoting George > Zeigemueller saying that the research done on a topic is equivalent > to work on a master's thesis, not a doctoral dissertation. > -Neil Butt Communication Dept. George Mason University "I can't complain, but sometimes I still do... Life's been good to me so far..." -Joe Walsh From lindsayh Sat Oct 16 21:50:56 1999 From: lindsayh (lindsayh) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 19:50:56 -0700 Subject: searching out kris bonilla Message-ID: I'd appreciate it if anyone with information on the whereabouts of Kris Bonilla could get back with me a.s.a.p. Thanks, Lindsay Harrison From chappy27 Sun Oct 17 15:20:17 1999 From: chappy27 (Sean Chapman) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 13:20:17 PDT Subject: AZTEC 99 Quarters Message-ID: Aztec 99 Results Open Teams Clearing CSU-Fullerton NW Loyola MB USC-HM USC-VT Pepperdine-ZM USC-KB ASU-MT Quarters CSU Fullerton NW(neg) defeated ASU MT 2-1 Achten *Opsata Johnson, K USC KB(neg) defeated Loyola MB 3-0 Rodriguez Jarvis Brushke Pepperdine ZM(neg) defeated CSUF BN 2-1 *Cohen Guevara Mills USC HM advances over USC VT Sems USC HM & CSUF NW Pepperdine ZM(AFF) & USC KB Speaker Awards 1. Chris McFarland- USC 2. Mary Salazar- CSULA 3. Eric Holland- USC 4. Adam Cosper-CSUB 5. Cindy Morgan- Loyola 6. Aaron Brock- Loyola 7. Corey Turoff- USC 8. Kristine Clancy- CSULB 9. Bill Neesen- CSUF 10. Turley- ASU Novice debate Teams advancing South Orange County TR ASU FM CSUF DZ SOC LT SEMS SOC TR(NEG) defeated ASU FM 3-0 Robertson Waryas Whitworth CSUF DZ(AFF) defeated SOC LT 2-1 Mills Klinger *Jones Final CSUF DZ & SOC TR Nov Speaks 1.Franco Tenerelli- SOC 2.Sang Le- SOC 3.McLemore- ASU 4.Ben Elliot- Pepperdine 5.Amy Demptster- CSUF ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From chappy27 Sun Oct 17 16:34:37 1999 From: chappy27 (Sean Chapman) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 14:34:37 PDT Subject: 1999 AZTEC FInal Results Message-ID: Aztec 99 Results Open Teams Clearing CSU-Fullerton NW Loyola MB USC-HM USC-VT Pepperdine-ZM USC-KB ASU-MT Quarters CSU Fullerton NW(neg) defeated ASU MT 2-1 Achten *Opsata Johnson, K USC KB(neg) defeated Loyola MB 3-0 Rodriguez Jarvis Brushke Pepperdine ZM(neg) defeated CSUF BN 2-1 *Cohen Guevara Mills USC HM advances over USC VT Sems USC HM(neg) over CSUF NW 2-1 Achten *Hill Mills USC-KB over Pepperdine ZM 2-1 Bruschke * Robertson Alimohamed No Final round- 1999 Aztec invitational Champs USC-HM USC-KB Speaker Awards 1. Chris McFarland- USC 2. Mary Salazar- CSULA 3. Eric Holland- USC 4. Adam Cosper-CSUB 5. Cindy Morgan- Loyola 6. Aaron Brock- Loyola 7. Corey Turoff- USC 8. Kristine Clancy- CSULB 9. Bill Neesen- CSUF 10. Turley- ASU Novice debate Teams advancing South Orange County TR ASU FM CSUF DZ SOC LT SEMS SOC TR(NEG) defeated ASU FM 3-0 Robertson Waryas Whitworth CSUF DZ(AFF) defeated SOC LT 2-1 Mills Klinger *Jones Final CSUF DZ(aff) over SOC TR 3-0 Cohen Minenime Opsata Nov Speaks 1.Franco Tenerelli- SOC 2.Sang Le- SOC 3.McLemore- ASU 4.Ben Elliot- Pepperdine 5.Amy Demptster- CSUF ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From joshcoffman99 Sun Oct 17 20:03:23 1999 From: joshcoffman99 (josh coffman) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 20:03:23 CDT Subject: EMORY Cite Request Message-ID: Looking for the impact evidence (ev that makes the argument that a lack of good relations causes others to attack Israel) you read on your US-Israel Relations DA. Its the one that has "Deter Version" marked at the top. Thanks Josh UMKC ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From kschrive Sun Oct 17 22:17:42 1999 From: kschrive (Kristina Schriver) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 23:17:42 -0400 Subject: NOVICE DEBATE In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Save for two students, all of the CSU-Chico debaters started as novices and were recruited from our campus. How did we do it? We host an on-campus rookie tournament every semester. The students from the public speaking class compete against each other in persuasive speaking, informative, and impromptu. The three sections of the argumentation and debate compete each each other in a four round tournament. We give the students extra credit in our class AND they can receive an additional unit of credit for signing up for the tournament. It's been an enormous success. This semester we have 251 students signed up for the rookie! Our department loves the rookie tournament because it generates much FTE. And, the students who do well, win hardware (even some who don't), end up traveling with the team. This last year we had a master's student who put together the Rookie Tournament Handbook. If you are interested in starting a tourney at your school and would like this resource, let me know. Kristina Schriver, Ph.D. Director of Forensics California State University-Chico From shorty140 Sun Oct 17 23:34:34 1999 From: shorty140 (Jeff) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 00:34:34 -0400 Subject: LSU-Baton Rouge Team List Message-ID: I was wondering who the teams at the LSU tournament would be. Also the breakdown of varsity, junior varsity, and novice teams. If this information, could be forwarded to me ASAP it would be greatly appreciated. From strick9r Sun Oct 17 23:29:04 1999 From: strick9r (Internet) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 23:29:04 -0500 Subject: Pflaum Octafinal results Message-ID: Octafinal results from 45th National Pflaum--Emporia Wichita State HO (aff) 3-0 over FHSU RS WJC HL (neg) 2-1 over North Texas FH Kansas MM (neg) 3-0 over Wyoming BL George Mason IT (aff) 3-0 over Wayne State HO North Texas HS (neg) 3-0 over Iowa MP SMSU PV (neg) 3-0 over Concordia KN UNI BR (aff) 3-0 over SWTSU MW Kansas RS (neg) 3-0 over North texas GG From bg20351 Mon Oct 18 01:49:53 1999 From: bg20351 (Siejen Yin) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 02:49:53 -0400 Subject: REMINDER: BINGHAMTON DEBATE TOURNAMENT BLOCK AT THE HOLIDAY INN & REGISTRATION INFO Message-ID: To Friends of the Debate Community: For those of you planning on attending the Southern Tier Forensics Festival at Binghamton University in Binghamton, NY (Saturday, November 6-Sunday, November 7, 1999), this is just a reminder that the 40 Rooms Blocked at the Tournament Hotel-Holiday Inn will be held till this Saturday October 23, 1999. Forty Rooms have been blocked off at a special rate of $69.00 per night for both Friday and Saturday of the Tournament. The phone number of the Holiday Inn-University in Vestal, NY is (607) 729-6371. When placing reservations, please inform them that you are participating in the "Binghamton Debate Tournament" and are reserving rooms blocked under this event. We will be accepting entries by phone, mail, fax, or e-mail until 8PM Wednesday, November 3, 1999. After this time, teams will be charged additonal fees. DO NOT consider your registration complete until you have received an official confirmation via E-mail from me. An Official Team List will be disclosed on Thursday, November 4, 1999 over E-Debate. Registration of the tournament will be at 7:30am on Saturday November 6, 1999. For those of you who may will be coming up early and may be interested in taking part in the excitement, Binghamton has been selected as one of the 20 campuses to be included on the MTV Campus Invasion Tour. On Friday, November 5, festivites will take place under tents throughout campus ending the night with a concert by Garbage. Should any schools need a copy of the Binghamton Tournament Invite or encounter any problems or have any additional questions or concerns regarding the tournament and/or registration, please feel free to contact me directly at (607)777-3969. Hope to see you all here in Binghamton in a few weeks! Sincerely, Siejen Yin President/Co-Tournament Director Binghamton University 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 dbteam Mon Oct 18 07:37:37 1999 From: dbteam (UWG Debate Team) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 08:37:37 -0400 Subject: searching out kris bonilla In-Reply-To: Message-ID: he's been in c'ton since oct 15. he went to cap city to help westga. who knows if he'll come back. i'll let him know you're lookin'. hester On Sat, 16 Oct 1999, lindsayh wrote: > I'd appreciate it if anyone with information on the whereabouts of Kris > Bonilla could get back with me a.s.a.p. > > Thanks, > Lindsay Harrison > From dbteam Mon Oct 18 09:04:07 1999 From: dbteam (UWG Debate Team) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 10:04:07 -0400 Subject: WestGa Asst Debate Coach Position Message-ID: The State University of West Georgia invites applications for appointment as Assistant Director of Debate in the Dept of Mass Communications. Description: Debate Assistant. Only responsiblity is debate. NO TEACHING LOAD REQUIRED. Main responsiblities would be research and travel. The position would also include responsibilities of helping direct the high school and college tournaments. Those with at least an MA would have the option of teaching public speaking as well. This would increase the salary. Minimum Qualifications: Strong foundation in debate. An undergradute degree is preferred, but not required. Prior coaching experience is a plus. Ability and willingness to do extensive research is a must. Salary and Benefits: $19,000-21,000. This amount would be increased for those interested in teaching. As an employee, individual would be eligible for all state benefits. Application Materials: Applicantions should include (1) a letter of application, (2) two letters of recommendation, and (3) evidence of debate experience. Please direct applications to: Chester Gibson, Chair Dept. of Mass Comm SUWG Carrollton, GA, 30118 fax: 770-830-2322 Application Deadline: January 23, 2000 If you have any questions, please contact Michael Hester at mhester at westga.edu or 770-836-4565. The State University of West Georgia is and equal opportunity employer and does not discriminate on the basis of age, race, color, ethnic origin, hair color, gender, sexual affinity, rleigion, revolutionary ideas, disabilty, or creed. >From Mon Oct 18 11:46:18 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 41102 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 11:46:40 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from mail3.wayne.edu (mail3.wayne.edu [141.217.1.81]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA59116 for ; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 11:46:32 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail3.wayne.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA14068 for ; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 11:46:18 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Message-ID: Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 11:46:18 -0400 Reply-To: af7060 at WAYNE.EDU To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Rod Phares Subject: Re: Wayne Entries Very few responses so far. Please let me know immediately if you are planning on attending. Again, I don't need the full entry. So far... 2 Michigan (1 open, 1 jv) 1 Ill State (open) 2 Aug Ill (both open) 2 Mich State (?) 6-8 Mich Dearborn (?) Rod From lluscri Mon Oct 18 11:14:19 1999 From: lluscri (II Luscri) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 11:14:19 -0500 Subject: Novice Swing Partner Needed for Wichita Message-ID: Alert- Sorry for the late notice. Anyone going to Wichita this weekend who has an extra novice willing to debate as well please backchannel me - lluscri at artsci.wustl.edu - or Scott Jensen - coach4n6 at aol.com - as soon as possible. We have a novice debater who really wants to debate but doesn't have a partner. Thanks a lot- II Webster Deate From langwka5 Mon Oct 18 11:56:01 1999 From: langwka5 (Kristin A Langwell) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 12:56:01 -0400 Subject: CAP CITIES ARGS.. In-Reply-To: <19991018010323.94427.qmail@hotmail.com> Message-ID: would anyone who is/was at cap cities be able to shed some light on a few things.. what clinton arguements (impacts specifically) were being run what aff did redlands end up running and any cites/plan for that. thanks for your help kristin iowa 2000 From gp3 Mon Oct 18 13:03:45 1999 From: gp3 (glenn prince) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 18:03:45 GMT Subject: Said and Terror Talk cites Message-ID: I need the cites for Said indicts, orientalism answers, and answers to terror talk. If anyone has them, I would be most appreciative! Glenn Prince Arkansas State ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com >From Mon Oct 18 15:17:25 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 44193 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 15:18:03 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo28.mx.aol.com (imo28.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.72]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA14700 for ; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 15:18:01 -0400 Received: from DRTUNA at aol.com by imo28.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id nWMAa18036 (3967); Mon, 18 Oct 1999 15:17:25 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 56 Message-ID: <0.44e43214.253ccc45 at aol.com> Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 15:17:25 EDT Reply-To: DRTUNA at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: "A. Snider" Subject: Re: Scholarship Info? Comments: To: Ross0 at aol.com In a message dated 10/15/99 8:49:52 PM, Ross0 at AOL.COM writes: << I was just wondering If anyone has information about debate scholarships or knows where I can find some Info on colleges that offer scholarships I'd appreciate it. Jason >> Try: http://debate.uvm.edu/udl/udlcollege.html >From Mon Oct 18 14:53:37 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 44856 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 15:54:20 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from gate002.ocs.lsu.edu (gate002.ocs.lsu.edu [130.39.75.29]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA67858 for ; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 15:54:03 -0400 Received: by gate002.ocs.lsu.edu(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.3 (733.2 10-16-1998)) id 8625680E.006DE56E ; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 15:00:21 -0500 X-Lotus-FromDomain: LSU Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Message-ID: <8625680E.006DE4CD.00 at gate002.ocs.lsu.edu> Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 14:53:37 -0500 Reply-To: dgoins at LSU.EDU To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Darren Goins Subject: Hybrid Partner for JV Division of The Capitol City/Cajun Country Swing I am posting this for Stephanie Thompson, the volunteer director at Xavier in New Orleans. She needs a hybrid partner for one JV debater. If you can be of assistance please e-mail her at: Stephanie.Thompson at usm.edu. She also needs to know if anyone has extra room for this debater in one of their hotel rooms. Please let her know asap. Sincerely, Darren C. Goins Director of Forensics The Mixon Lyceum of LSU From jlupo Mon Oct 18 14:55:25 1999 From: jlupo (Jon paul Lupo) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 15:55:25 -0400 Subject: Cap Cities Message-ID: Any results from the tournament? ******************************************************************** 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 Mon Oct 18 16:29:03 1999 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 45947 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 16:30:03 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo28.mx.aol.com (imo28.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.72]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA42566 for ; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 16:29:44 -0400 Received: from DRTUNA at aol.com by imo28.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id 2JNPa18036 (3967); Mon, 18 Oct 1999 16:29:05 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 56 Message-ID: <0.3e434bde.253cdd0f at aol.com> Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 16:29:03 EDT Reply-To: DRTUNA at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: "A. Snider" Subject: Response to Breshears on novice debate Comments: To: d.breshears at mail.utexas.edu Disagreement is fine with me. I would be suspicious of any debate community which did not have disagreements. David Breshears seems very upset that when he asked what Texas should do about novices I actually made suggestions. David, if you didn't want suggestions you shouldn't have asked. It doesn't seem like it is possible to suggest other ways of doing things without being branded as self-righteous. You asked what you should do, and I am not sure the best response to those who make suggestions is to write, "you have NO FUCKING IDEA what you're talking about." I am not sure what justifies the use of words like: "over-inflated sense of self," "smart guy," "oh brilliant one," "smart ass". Obviously, "And yes, I do take this personally." Please don't take it that way. If we are going to say too much monety is being spent on too few students the Texas program is not the place to start. 1. Is it any surprise that when you ask a group of experienced debaters who the money should be spent on that they point to themselves? It is not evil, just expressed self-interest. The novices you don't have will never be there to vote. You have to speak for them. 2. I am hesitant to answer your questions because you will not like my answers, and probably think of new names to call me, but I'll go ahead anyway. "So, Tuna, what would you have me tell these folks? " I would have you tell tham the your debate squad also serves those who have never debated and that resources should be extended to them as well. Is it worth it to sacrifice one first-round bid to the NDT in order to get 6-10 (whatever the number) new people involved in debate? Is it worth it to have 4 experienced debaters quit because they can't travel "enough" so that perhaps more than 4 can become debaters? These are tough questions without easy answers. However, I applaud Texas' squad democracy. 3. I hear you say that you believe that first round at-large bids to the NDT are more important than training new debaters. Am I correct? It is not the "math" that excludes them, but he way you do it, perhaps. 4. All of the Texas coaches do more work than they should, give it their all, and deserve lots of kudos. I respect you for how hard you work. No offense is given or intended. 5. Your "ironic" answer to the idea of saving money on trips is not very informative. It isn't an answer. Travel cheaper means travel more and more resources. I don't know why this suggestion makes you start talking about the "concorde." I'll just assume that you are doing all you can to make the money stretch and go on. 6. I understand Texas is a big state. However, I also know that there are a number of good Texas tournaments. Sure, Vermont is a small state. What is this argument about, anyway? I'd suggest you send novice debaters to more Texas tournaments, but I guess that would be some sort of self-righteous indignation. 7. We need more programs, we need to keep programs alive, we need to keep regional tournaments alive. That means we need novice debate. The specifics of your program and choices do not allow you to help solve the above mentioned problems through contributing to the novice debate population. Very well, but perhaps others may be able to. I do know that the Texas program is a fantastic opportunity for students at UT and I admire your teams and I also tend to admire your arguments. I just want to urge you to join in the novice solution for a better debate community. 8. The last time I brought up the "when do people get the most out of debate" issue, there seemed to be some agreement that they get the most out of their first two years. Programmatic decisions which exclude novices may not take advantage of this opportunity to get high impact out of small expenditures. You once told me how much you respcted Cleopatra Jones and Annalei McGreevy as a debate team. They could not have debated at Texas, because they didn't debate in high school. 9. This last weekend I took 13 novice teams on an 8.5 hour bus trip to a debate tournament. 10 of them cleared. We have the largest novice debate program, or so it seems, in America. Thus, I'm not going to give you a budget breakdown because I don't think it is necessary. I will say that we spent about 10% of our budget on this trip, and students were in over 100 debates. That's sign evidence enough, I think. I'm not going to waste an hour or so preparing a budget breakdown for you or others. 10. I am far more interested in whether I respect myself than whether you respect me, but the judgment of others is important to me. If I lose your respect for having made suggestions you asked for, then I wonder what your respect is really worth. I respect you enough to tell you what I think. I try to be civil and direct. You quash alternative voices when you respond to them with insults. Hear my ideas, don't get in a frenzy because they do not agree with your current policies. Best of luck to you and the entire Texas program. I salute that Texas has 12 teams on $40,000, at about $3,333 per team. You are getting a lot out of your budget. That isn't the point. The point is that more novice debate can reverse the decline in policy debate and change the lives of many young people with the intellectual magic of debate all at the same time. Those are my issues here. It is a community wide issue. Why if every squad had a system like Texas it might not serve the needs of novices but we would have a heck of a lot healthier debate community. Tuna In a message dated 10/15/99 1:05:32 PM, d.breshears at mail.utexas.edu writes: << Tuna writes: >I don't want to get into an argument about what you should do with your >debate program, but since you asked... > Too bad. Your self-righteous indignation earns you an argument, to say the least. It also earns you a few less grams of respect from me. Don't know if that's a concern, given your over-inflated sense of self, but it's true... Now, on to the substance of Tuna's non-argument: >Perhaps your decision to send novices to only TWO tournaments while your >other debaters go to a lot more says volumes. There may well be an equity >issue here. Okay, smart guy. Answer me this: Texas is one of the few squads in the country that makes even a pretense of being largely run by its students. The coaching staff (no tenured DOF, you understand, just a full-time lecturer in the Dept of Comm Studies, and two full-time graduate assistants taking full loads, plus a couple of volunteers who are also full-time grad students) does NOT determine: partnerships, assignments, the travel schedule, and most importantly WHO TRAVELS TO TOURNAMENTS. The SQUAD has identified competitive success as both an individual and collective goal. There are folks who have scraped their way up from the bottom, attending one or two tournaments their first year, then a few more in their second and third. Now, as seniors, they'd like an opportunity to travel a full season. For our folks, that's approximately 8 tournaments. We don't have the luxury of travelling UMKC's 20 tournaments a semester (that's an exxageration and an inside joke, don't get your shorts in a knot), so, in effect, you'd like to chop it down to 6. For novices, that's great. But for folks who are pouring their heart and soul into the research, that doesn't really seem worth the effort, does it? So, Tuna, what would you have me tell these folks? Remember, we've got twelve teams, and at most tournaments we can take four. Our travel schedule includes UNI, Kentucky, SMS, Wichita, Harvard, UCO, Wake, UMKC, William Jewel, West Georgia, Baylor, Northwestern, and SWTSU. After that, we're down to barely enough money to make it to districts and the NDT, and we've still got to scrape money together to get folks to CEDA nationals. This does not include the West Coast Swing, Heart, Novice Nationals, and many other tournaments that we'd like to attend. You do the math: to service these 12 experienced teams, allow our "first-round" contenders a schedule that is both competitive against other bid applicants and concomitant to their work efforts, AND take on additional folks... Well, whaddaya think? Seems kinda zero sum to me, big guy. And remember this as well: Joel teaches two classes, and Eric and I are heavily involved in grad school. We don't have the option of just going to more local tournaments. We can only miss so much school, and we don't have the luxury of ANY coaches who are not in this situation (read: full-time card cutters/travellers). Mo' Tuna: >Perhaps your varsity debaters should attend two fewer tournaments so that new >people could have their lives changed by debate like everyone else on your >squad. Why do they get so little? You don't have to kick people off the >squad, just adjust travel. Well, largely because the SQUAD as a majority (we used to say consensus, but let's face it: there are few truly mutually consensual agreements, especially when zero sum trade-offs are involved) decided that competitive success, including the attainment of two first-rounds and three invites to the NDT, are its top priority. These novices get so little because we have so little. It'd be nice to spend equitably among all, but that's just not possible. Have you been to Texas? It's a big fucking state, and unlike Vermont, we can't drive for twenty minutes in any direction and cross three state lines. "Local" travel is not truly local, and for us even to make it to some district tournaments (SMS, for example) is a thirteen hour van ride. In other words, it costs us disproportionately MORE to travel novices, given the small number of novice tournaments in our area. It's COST-PROHIBITIVE to take them back East, where you enjoy the luxury of many LOCAL travel opportunities for novices. Bear asked that you provide a breakdown of the money you spend on your competitive teams vs. novice. I'd ask that you include mileage travelled in that breakdown. There's more at issue here than your self-righteous indignation allows, eh? As for travelling less, you must remember the equation above: 12 teams, 4 slots, 13 tournaments, and 7-8 teams competing internally for three privileged slots to the NDT. Remember, before you get all huffy about the evils of competition, these are THEIR goals, as much as ours. It's real convenient to sit back thirty years later and espouse your wisdom, but that doesn't do us a whole lotta good, and it certainly doesn't make you right, oh brilliant one. >I am not sure what approach you take, but we consciously try to reduce >expenses at every step (sleep on floors, beg for fee reduction, drive instead >of fly) so that we can have a novice debate program. No, Texas doesn't drive much. We like to stay one or two to a room at most, and the reason you don't often see us at the tournament hotel is because we prefer the posher, more upscale alternatives. Hell, we'll probably fly to Baylor, since Joel's ass gets hard after more than 10 minutes in the van. And we're always buying out of our judging commitment. I mean, when was the last time a Texas judge heard all eight debates, then judged elims right up until the moment the van (sorry, limousine) had to pull out for the airport to catch the Concorde home? Your tips are well taken, though. We certainly hadn't thought of that... > >$40,000 and almost nothing for novices. OK, that's your approach. > >Tuna Alright, smart ass. What's your budget breakdown? And how many high school students with debate experience show up at your first meeting of the year? We had more than 30, and many decided not to try debating in college because they want to be competitive, but can't justify spending as much time doing debate work as is necessary, given the small number of travel opportunities during the first couple of years. Remember, these are the same folks you want me to take to two less tournaments. Up until this post, Tuna, I've had enormous amounts of respect for you and your program. Honestly, though, you have NO FUCKING IDEA what you're talking about in this case. And yes, I do take this personally. Adios, Dave > > >In a message dated 10/14/1999 4:01:32 PM, d.breshears at MAIL.UTEXAS.EDU writes: > >>Okay. As one of those on the "border," I've got a question for Steve. >> >> >> >>At Texas, we've never really travelled "novices." You see, we have more >> >>than 24 "experienced" debaters, that's 12 teams, all vying for a chunk >>of a >> >>40,000 travel budget. Now, at least 4 - and more like 7 or 8 - of those >> >>teams "deserve" to be travelling just about every weekend (if they wanted). >> >>Obviously, our budget doesn't come close to allowing that. We get to take >>4 >> >>teams to most of the "biggies," and even had 8 out at SMS last weekend >>(and >> >>will have 8 again at UCO). So, my question is essentially this: WHICH >>OF >> >>THESE FOLKS SHOULD WE CUT OFF IN FAVOR OF NOVICES? > >Cut all of them a little. > >> >> >> >>I don't ask this question just to be a smart-ass. I let the original post >> >>slide without comment, but your latest post seems to beg a reply. What >>I'm >> >>suggesting is that other schools are in similar shape - that is, too many >> >>folks, too few resources. So, don't imply that those programs that don't >> >>travel novices don't "give a damn." If you'd like to funnel an extra $20k >> >>our way, I'll be happy to scour the campus for novices interested in travel. >> >> >> >>Now, this is what we do offer novices: we teach them the fundamentals >>of >> >>research - using a library/the web/lexis-nexis - producing blocks, watching >> >>practice debates in order to learn both how to debate and how to judge >>- >> >>something that allows them to become local high school critics, in many >> >>cases - and we promise them at least two tournaments a year (Baylor & SWTSU, >> >>both in the second semester, so they have time to get it together). All >>of >> >>these efforts will remain rather invisible to you and much of the rest >>of >> >>the community. They occur nonetheless. We even had one "novice" (read: >>no >> >>high school experience) debater at SMS, but he was with a more experienced >> >>first-year, and they refused even to do JV (they went 3-5 in open, btw). >> >> >> >>I say all of this not to be defensive, though I'm sure there's some of >>that >> >>going on. Instead, I'd just ask that folks quit berating their colleagues >> >>on this list for things that are either: a) beyond their control, or b) >> >>invisible to much of the community. >> >> >> >>Thanks, and sorry for ranting, >> >> >> >>Dave >> >>-----Original Message----- >> >>From: Woods, Steve >> >>To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU >> >>Date: Thursday, October 14, 1999 10:08 AM >> >>Subject: Novice issue isn't going away, only programs--who out there gives >>a >> >>damn? >> >> >> >> >> >>>Hey all, >> >>> >> >>>While I didn't expect a wave of commitments to sweep the "e" after my >>post, >> >>>I thought more people would be concerned with the lack of novice, and >>as >> >>>John Fritch pointed out, even to some extent JV. >> >>> >> >>>Put your program resources where your mouth is. Saying you have concern >> >>for >> >>>shrinking debate, and not fielding novices is duplicitous. I would like >> >>>each of the schools in the midwest to comment on their efforts to promote >> >>>debate with younger inexperienced debaters (even some of your border state >> >>>schools in Texas, and Illinois, and Iowa, where are your novices? what >> >>>tournaments do you take them to?) . >> >>> >> >>>Look, if we can find novices on our campus of 1150 people, SURELY there >> >>must >> >>>be people interested on YOUR campus. It does take effort, but if this >>is >> >>>about more than competition, it is the type of effort your university >>and >> >>>community requires of you. >> >>> >> >>>We MUST have novice in the midwest. You disagree by your silence and >> >>>inaction. I will indeed take it that way. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>>Steve >> >>>Dr. Steve Woods >> >>>Assistant Professor Communication,Co-Director of Debate >> >>>William Jewell College,Liberty, MO 64068 >> >>>816.781.7700 x. 5478 >> >> >> >>----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- >>Return-Path: >>Received: from rly-zd02.mx.aol.com (rly-zd02.mail.aol.com [172.31.33.226]) >>by air-zd01.mail.aol.com (v62.10) with ESMTP; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 16:01:31 >>-0400 >>Received: from LIME.EASE.LSOFT.COM (lime.ease.lsoft.com [209.119.1.41]) >>by rly-zd02.mx.aol.com (v61.13) with ESMTP; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 15:49:18 -0400 >>Received: from PEAR.EASE.LSOFT.COM (209.119.0.19) by LIME.EASE.LSOFT.COM >>(LSMTP for Digital Unix v1.1b) with SMTP id <8.00398D09 at LIME.EASE.LSOFT.COM>; >>Thu, 14 Oct 1999 15:45:28 -0400 >>Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) >>with >> spool id 64542 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 15:48:48 >> -0400 >>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 PAA44372 for >> ; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 15:48:40 -0400 >>Received: (qmail 22043 invoked by uid 0); 14 Oct 1999 19:48:38 -0000 >>Received: from dial-20-16.ots.utexas.edu (HELO winbook) (128.83.128.96) >>by >> umbs-smtp-3 with SMTP; 14 Oct 1999 19:48:38 -0000 >>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 4.71.1712.3 >>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 >>Message-ID: <01bf165b$e4aad860$322e5380 at winbook> >>Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 11:50:52 -0400 >>Reply-To: David Breshears >>Sender: Team Topic Debating in America >>From: David Breshears >>Subject: Re: Novice issue isn't going away, >> only programs--who out there gives a damn? >>Comments: To: "Woods, Steve" >>To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU >> >> ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-zc04.mx.aol.com (rly-zc04.mail.aol.com [172.31.33.4]) by air-zc02.mail.aol.com (v62.10) with ESMTP; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 13:05:32 -0400 Received: from mail.utexas.edu (wb1-a.mail.utexas.edu [128.83.126.134]) by rly-zc04.mx.aol.com (v61.13) with ESMTP; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 13:05:23 2000 Received: (qmail 26639 invoked from network); 15 Oct 1999 17:03:32 -0000 Received: from dial-15-5.ots.utexas.edu (HELO winbook) (128.83.128.5) by umbs-smtp-1 with SMTP; 15 Oct 1999 17:03:32 -0000 From: "David Breshears" To: , Subject: Re: Re: Novice issue isn't going away, only programs--who out there gives a damn? Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 12:02:14 -0400 Message-ID: <01bf1726$a5b8a1c0$05805380 at winbook> 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 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 >> From hager Mon Oct 18 15:56:14 1999 From: hager (Jared Hager) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 13:56:14 -0700 Subject: Gonzaga - Message-ID: Hey could Frapp CornDog, or Casey or MoJo backchannel me regarding some cites- Much appreciated, Jared LC DEBATE From strick9r Mon Oct 18 16:08:51 1999 From: strick9r (Internet) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 16:08:51 -0500 Subject: No subject Message-ID: Final Round In progress at 45th National Pflaum Debates Kansas MM (aff) vs. North Texas HS (neg) Panel: Elliott (WSU), DeLaughder (ESU), Bowser (Emporia) Semi-Final Results from 45th National Pflaum Debates North Texas HS (aff) 2-1 over Kansas RS Kansas MM (aff) 3-0 over Wichita State HO Quarter Final Results from 45th National Pflaum Debates KansasMM (aff) 3-0 over WJCHL Wichita State HO (neg) 2-1 over George Mason IT North Texas HS (aff) 3-0 over SMS PV Kansas RS (neg) 3-0 over UNI BR Octafinal results from 45th National Pflaum--Emporia Wichita State HO (aff) 3-0 over FHSU RS WJC HL (neg) 2-1 over North Texas FH Kansas MM (neg) 3-0 over Wyoming BL George Mason IT (aff) 3-0 over Wayne State HO North Texas HS (neg) 3-0 over Iowa MP SMSU PV (neg) 3-0 over Concordia KN UNI BR (aff) 3-0 over SWTSU MW Kansas RS (neg) 3-0 over North texas GG From debate Mon Oct 18 16:28:42 1999 From: debate (Gusta Elfving) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 17:28:42 -0400 Subject: The Capitol Classic Invite Message-ID: The Capitol Classic Invitations are ready! If you need a hard copy, back-channel me. See you in December! Colleagues and Friends, It is my distinct pleasure to invite you to The Capitol Classic-An American Holiday to be hosted by American University in Washington, DC on December 3-5, 1999. Our first Capitol Classic tournament will afford everyone a chance to enjoy competition in the Nation's Capitol. The holidays exemplify what is best about America, we welcome you to enjoy them with us. The theme for this year's Classic is "An American Holiday" because we are celebrating rebirth of our program and ask you to join in our celebration of the holidays and forensics. This tournament marks the re-emergence of forensics at American University and our commitment to a comprehensive forensics experience. With all this in mind, the tournament will feature competition in all AFA sanctioned Individual Events and multiple Debate formats including CEDA, NPDA, and NFA-LD. Sweepstake Awards will be given to the top 5 schools overall and the top school in each of the four divisions of competition. In addition, two special Tournament Director's Awards will be given: The Long-Haul Award and The Director's Cut Award. We will also be giving "The Omnibus Award" to the top 5 individuals participating in both Debate and Individual Events. Individual Events awards will be presented to all finalists and the top non- advancing novice in each event. Debate awards will be presented to elimination round participants and the top non-advancing novice team in each format. Speaking Awards will also be given to the top 5 speakers in each debate format. There are plenty of awards for everyone. Early December is a wonderful time to visit the Nation's Capitol. To help you better enjoy the holidays and your trip to Washington, we have coordinated what we feel will to be an excellent tournament experience. Highlights include a schedule that allows for sightseeing, an extremely good rate at the tournament hotel, a comprehensive events offering and the possibility of swings in some platforms (details to follow). I hope all of these features and more will make The Capitol Classic a truly special American holiday." Once Again, I personally welcome you and look forward to seeing each of you in December. Sincerely, Gusta Elfving Student Director of Forensics Tournament Information-Schedule Friday, December 3, 1999 11:00-12:00 CEDA Registration, NPDA & IE Pre-Registration (Mary Graydon Center Main Desk) 12:00-2:00 CEDA Debate, Round I 2:00-4:00 CEDA Debate, Round II 4:00-6:00 CEDA Debate, Round III 6:00-7:00 Dinner 7:00-9:00 CEDA Debate, Round VI Saturday, December 4, 1999 8:00-9:00 Continental Breakfast & NPDA Registration (MGC Main Desk) 9:00-11:00 CEDA Debate, Round V 9:00-10:00 NPDA and NFA-LD Debate, Round I 10:00-11:00 NPDA and NFA-LD Debate, Round II 11:00-1:00 CEDA Debate, Round VI 12:00-1:00 NPDA and NFA-LD Debate, Round III 1:00-2:00 NPDA and NFA-LD Debate, Round VI 1:00-2:00 CEDA Lunch 2:00-3:00 NPDA Lunch 2:00-4:00 CEDA Debate, Quarter-Finals 3:00-4:00 NPDA and NFA-LD Debate, Round V 4:00-5:00 NPDA and NFA-LD Debate, Round VI 4:00-6:00 CEDA Debate, Semi-Finals 5:00-6:00 IE Registration (MGC Main Desk) 5:30 Extemp Draw 6:00-7:30 IE Group A, Round I 7:00-9:00 CEDA Debate, Final 7:30-9:00 IE Group B, Round I Sunday, December 5, 1999 9:00-10:00 NPDA and NFA-LD Debate, Quarter-Finals 9:30 Extemp Draw 10:00-11:30 IE Group A Events, Round II 11:30-1:00 IE Group B Events, Round II 1:00-2:00 Lunch, NPDA and NFA-LD Debate, Semi-Finals 1:30 Extemp Draw 2:00-3:30 IE Group A Events, Finals 3:30-5:00 IE Group B Events, Finals 5:00-6:00 NPDA and NFA-LD Debate, Finals 6:00 Awards (Ward 1) Additional Tournament Administration Notes Group A Events will consist of the following events: Extemporaneous Speaking, Dramatic Duo Interpretation, Persuasive Speaking, After-Dinner Speaking, Prose Interpretation. Group B Events will consist of the following events: Impromptu Speaking, Dramatic Interpretation, Informative Speaking, Poetry Interpretation, Communication Analysis, Program Oral Interpretation. All contestants are limited to entering three Individual Events per group in both groups. All contestants are limited to participation in one debate format. All contestants will be allowed and are encouraged to participate in both Individual Events and Debate. Eligibility for the "The Omnibus Award" will require participation in one Debate format and at least three Individual Events. However, only the competitor's top three individual events will count towards calculations for the award(s). For Debate, a competitor is considered a Novice if they have competed in less than five inter-collegiate tournaments. Please indicate Novice competitors upon entry. For Individual Events, a competitor is considered a Novice if they are in their first year of collegiate competition. Please indicate Novice competitors upon entry. "The Director's Cut Award" will be awarded to the top Community or Junior College, Student-Run Program, or new program in their first year of competition. Eligible schools should indicate desire to be considered upon entry. Tabulation for "The Director's Cut Award" will be the same as the Overall Sweepstakes tabulation. To qualify for an Overall Sweepstakes Award, a school must enter in more than one division. All NPDA Debate resolutions will include the phrase "This House believes..." Use of resource materials during NPDA preparation time are strongly discouraged, as is coach-competitor consultation. All NPDA rounds begin when the topic is read at the designated round start time. The campus is relatively small and no "travel time" will be allotted. Rounds must start on time. In all debate divisions, both oral critiques and disclosure are neither discouraged nor encouraged, but should be initiated at the judge's discretion, except in post-preliminary rounds when they are expected. In all debate divisions, post-preliminary rounds will be based on entry size. In all debate divisions, post-preliminary round decisions will be announced immediately after the completion of the round. Competitors competing in both Individual Events and NFA-LD or NPDA are responsible for getting to their rounds on time. They should excuse themselves after performing in individual events to await postings. This will help alleviate needless tournament delays. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: The Capitol Classic Cover Letter.wpd Type: application/wordperfect5.1 Size: 5040 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/19991018/06758012/attachment.wp5 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: The Capitol Classic Schedule-FINAL.wpd Type: application/wordperfect5.1 Size: 16630 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/19991018/06758012/attachment-0001.wp5 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: The Capitol Classic-Tournament Information.wpd Type: application/wordperfect5.1 Size: 6900 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/19991018/06758012/attachment-0002.wp5 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: The Capitol Classic-Travel Info.wpd Type: application/wordperfect5.1 Size: 5044 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/19991018/06758012/attachment-0003.wp5 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: The Capitol Classic-Entry Form.wpd Type: application/wordperfect5.1 Size: 12494 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/19991018/06758012/attachment-0004.wp5 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: The Capitol Classic-Event Information.wpd Type: application/wordperfect5.1 Size: 9161 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/19991018/06758012/attachment-0005.wp5 From doyle Mon Oct 18 17:05:28 1999 From: doyle (Doyle Srader) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 17:05:28 -0500 Subject: Washington Post style contest winner Message-ID: You'll appreciate this. > The Washington Post's Style Invitational asked readers to take any word from > the dictionary, alter it by adding, subtracting or changing one letter, and > supply a new definition. > One of the recent winners: > Dopeler effect: The tendency of stupid ideas to seem smarter when they come at > you rapidly. 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 glinski Mon Oct 18 17:38:45 1999 From: glinski (R Glinski) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 15:38:45 PDT Subject: paging emory-nato DA sites Message-ID: hello, an emory team ran a nato DA on us at SMS, and I was wondering if someone could send me the sites. Thanks in advance, Ryan Glinski UT ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From doverbey Mon Oct 18 17:57:38 1999 From: doverbey (Daniel Overbey) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 18:57:38 -0400 Subject: SAMBA Results/Novice Thread Message-ID: While I am looking for results from the SAMBA classic at Rochester, I also wanted to say a big thanks to a bunch of people. While there has been much debate over Vermont's commitment to Novice debate, one thing they did recently sticks out in my mind. By providing a virtual plethora of good judging (to cover their huge commitment) Vermont helped many teams this weekend. We, at WVU, received a TON of great feedback directed particularly at our Novice teams. I don't want to single people out, because I would invariably overlook someone, but thank you for taking the time after debates to make our novices better debaters. At 8pm on Sunday you could have rendered a decision and left the room, but taking the time to give advice on argumentation was much appreciated, by both of our debaters and myself. I am not talking about explaining a decision, I am talking about a real attempt to help novice debaters have a better grasp of what debate is and should be. I think this kind of behavior of a coaching staff is a far better judge of commitment to novice debate than the budget expenditures toward novices. Maybe I am misguided, but I often am. Just some rambling Daniel Overbey Assistant Debate Coach West Virginia University From gachten Mon Oct 18 18:10:23 1999 From: gachten (Achten, Greg) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 16:10:23 -0700 Subject: Pepperdine Entries as of Monday Message-ID: Here is a complete list of entries to our tournament that I have right now. I expect some teams will drop but many more will enter. My expectation is that we will have Octafinals in Open and quaters in JV and Novice. Please keep entries coming. Here are the entries I have. . Open Entries (20 so far) Arizona State Takis Makridis/Justin Skarb John Kircher/Aaron Walker Berkeley randy luskey/nathan haratani peter shorett/condy creek matt macdonald/jen johnson ivo keller/tejinder singh Biola Jeff Leary/Sara Patterson Cal-Poly SLO Jared Anderson and Jim Zhang College of Eastern Utah Mark Scherrer and Breanne Tusi CSU Bakersfield David Wells/ Jeremy Peterson Adam Cosper/ Veronica Macias-Lucero William Mord/ Leah Clark Gonzaga Aaron Moburg-Jones/Casey Kelly Iowa Kristin Langwell/Andy Ryan Middle Tennessee State University Matt Carter/Stacie Murphy San Diego State Sean Chapman & Brody Smith Open Policy San Francisco State University Autumn Boylan/Christy Warda Sueann McNeil/Dewitt Lacy Trinity University Casey Low/Andrew Payne Weber Mike Zahller/Zach Westerfield JV Entries (12 so far) Arizona State Breena Meng/Serena Turley Briana Rogers/Eric Forslund Biola Daniel Millard/Bryan Ziegler Cal Poly SLO Shannon Coleman/ Nate Dunn Jen Knowles/Lucas Pierce College of Eastern Utah Josh Eames and Melissa Weiner Ben Warner and Bekah Jeffries Josh Bentley and Desi Brown Idaho State Brad Cole & Tyler Thornton Another JV Team San Diego State One JV team Trinity University Joe Calaway/Howard Wilen Novice Entries (13 so far) Cal Poly SLO Andi Derrick/Kevin Moore CSU Bakersfield One Novice Team Morehouse Dash Cooper/Howard Franklin Sacramento State Ron Simmons/Katrina Ross-Scott Artemio Pimental/Lyndsey Westerman Jen Gregory/Kelly Lyons Kami Taylor/Leslie McDaniels Dan Mosier/April Cilione Chriss Williams/Will Cannady San Francisco State University Arti Kuthiala/Jeffrey Grubler Kevin Rinker/Chris Rogers UTSA Marty Golando and Anne McDonald Anie Somaiya and Jarrad Thierath From gachten Mon Oct 18 18:31:16 1999 From: gachten (Achten, Greg) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 16:31:16 -0700 Subject: Schools that have told me they are coming but have yet to enter Message-ID: USC Pace CSU Long Beach Redlands CSU Chico Palomar CSU LA CSU Fresno CSU Fullerton Undoubtedly there are others. If you think you have entered but are not listed in the offficial entries email, then I need you to resend information. If you are listed as entered, but are not coming email me. If you have a team listed that has no names I need them. Greg Achten From brian Mon Oct 18 19:08:26 1999 From: brian (Brian Wassom) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 20:08:26 -0400 Subject: void for vagueness Message-ID: A former debater named Jan who's now trying to help her son with high school debate has contacted me, looking for a copy of someone's old, generic "Void for Vagueness" DA files. If anyone can help, please write her at CactusLoon at aol.com. Thanks. ************************************************** Brian D. Wassom, Esq. Law Clerk, Hon. Alice M. Batchelder U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Medina, OH home: 330.721.8202 / brian at wassom.com office: 330.764.6030 / bwassom at ck6.uscourts.gov fax: 330.725.7760 web: http://wassom.com/ AOL IM: Wassdoggg ICQ: 21897455 "He who gets wisdom loves his own soul; he who cherishes understanding prospers." Proverbs 19:8 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/19991018/2344ebdf/attachment.html From strick9r Mon Oct 18 19:10:34 1999 From: strick9r (Internet) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 19:10:34 -0500 Subject: Pflaum Debates Final Round result Message-ID: KansasMM (aff) 3-0) over North TexasHS (Finals) Congrats to the Jayhawks and to the Mean Green Our thanks to all who attended the 45th National Pflaum Debates. Glen Strickland Director of Debate Emporia State University From gabriels Mon Oct 18 22:12:28 1999 From: gabriels (Gabe S.) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 23:12:28 -0400 Subject: Schools that have told me they are coming but have yet to enter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: El Fisto State will be bringing one team in JV El Fisto Bennet/Jar-Jar Just talked to Jim today...he still knows I'm gay. From gabriels Mon Oct 18 22:14:12 1999 From: gabriels (Gabe S.) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 23:14:12 -0400 Subject: Previous message not for edebate/for Greg only. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Whoops...lab humor on a large scale. From gp3 Mon Oct 18 22:45:17 1999 From: gp3 (glenn prince) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 03:45:17 GMT Subject: Toby Arquette Message-ID: Could Toby please backchannel me. Glenn Prince Arkansas State "My only goal is just to be..." ---Jonathan Larson, RENT ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From wnewnam Tue Oct 19 09:05:16 1999 From: wnewnam (Bill Newnam) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 10:05:16 -0400 Subject: paging emory sites References: <19991018223846.92480.qmail@hotmail.com> Message-ID: Dear community, I have some suggestions about attempting to track down emory citations which I would recommend. This is not to criticize anyone for attempting to gather cites, but rather some suggestions for making the process more fruitful. The problem. In an organization this size it is easy to avoid taking responsibility. Thus, when someone posts a general note suggesting they need cites from someone at Emory, it is UNLIKELY that you will receive a response. The solution. Make your post to a specific person. If you remember who you debated and make your post directly to that team or individual, you will have a much better chance of getting a response. I have attempted to forward the messages I have noticed to appropriate individuals, but it would be far better if you made a more direct appeal to a specific individual. It will be more fruitful and more efficient. bill n emory From bietz Tue Oct 19 09:26:14 1999 From: bietz (Mike Bietz) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 09:26:14 -0500 Subject: Looking for Message-ID: Could someone please backchannel me Greg Myrberg and Wayne Tang's email addresses? (i'm not subscribed to the list) thanks. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/19991019/32be7bf9/attachment.htm From rschwart Tue Oct 19 09:27:09 1999 From: rschwart (Rae L. Schwartz) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 10:27:09 -0400 Subject: Will Baker In-Reply-To: <380C7A9C.9BE91277@emory.edu> Message-ID: will I know I should ahve your email address but I can not seem to find it and want to talk to you about a few things, if you could backchannel me at rlaschwartz at aol.com that would be great so we can talk peace rae lynn From ewgrano Tue Oct 19 09:46:04 1999 From: ewgrano (Evan W. Granowitz) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 10:46:04 -0400 Subject: cap cities results? Message-ID: any cap cities results ??? Evan Granowitz ewgrano at emory.edu 1203 Briarvista Way (404)486-0209 Atlanta, GA 30329 cell--(678) 427-8596 From d.breshears Tue Oct 19 09:37:45 1999 From: d.breshears (David Breshears) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 10:37:45 -0400 Subject: Response to Breshears on novice debate Message-ID: Y'know, I sometimes have a tendency to go off full throttle when I really ought to hold back a little. THIS WASN'T ONE OF THOSE TIMES. I went back and read Tuna's original response to Steve (an ENEMIES LIST, for chrissake!) and to me (it oozes condescension). I'm willing to stand by the tone and content of my response to Tuna. This latest post from Tuna makes more of an attempt to constructively engage the issues, which I applaud. However, Tuna, you did NOT merely offer constructive criticism in the post to which I replied. You JUDGED, and beyond that, you labeled us an ENEMY. What response would you have expected/preferred? If willing to dish, be prepared to take, mon frere. With that said, I'm willing to listen to your legitimate suggestions, and even engage in a discussion of some alternatives, but NOT in the voice with which you originally delivered your message. now, for the rest of ya'll, feel free to tune out. i've got a couple of comments for tuna, below, but it may not be of much interest to everyone else (i'll keep it brief). >Disagreement is fine with me. I would be suspicious of any debate community >which did not have disagreements. Personally, I'm suspicious of folks who throw around jokes (God, I hope it was a joke) about "enemy" lists. > >David Breshears seems very upset that when he asked what Texas should do >about novices I actually made suggestions. Ahem. "Suggestions," eh? Funny, but some of your suggestions come across like, "I suggest you pull your head out of your ass." Here's a suggestion from me: the next time you feel like suggesting something to me, don't say it in a condemnatory voice, and certainly don't make that suggestion/condemnation a public flogging. Otherwise, the response will be pretty much the same (in-kind, I'm suggesting). > >David, if you didn't want suggestions you shouldn't have asked. It doesn't >seem like it is possible to suggest other ways of doing things without being >branded as self-righteous. You asked what you should do, and I am not sure >the best response to those who make suggestions is to write, "you have NO >FUCKING IDEA what you're talking about." > >I am not sure what justifies the use of words like: "over-inflated sense of >self," "smart guy," "oh brilliant one," "smart ass". Obviously, "And yes, I >do take this personally." Please don't take it that way. If we are going to >say too much monety is being spent on too few students the Texas program is >not the place to start. Apologies if I went a bit far, but this WAS an attack on UT (multiple backchannels supporting my launch confirm that I'm not being paranoid - well, not any more than usual - about this). If my French offended anyone, pardonez mois! > >1. Is it any surprise that when you ask a group of experienced debaters who >the money should be spent on that they point to themselves? It is not evil, >just expressed self-interest. The novices you don't have will never be there >to vote. You have to speak for them. I'll think about this. I'm not sure I agree, and I'm not sure how this would trump the collective goal of competitive success (remember, the debaters generate that goal - I just happen to agree with it, in most instances, because I remember working my ass off for it when I was in their shoes. I'd be hypocritical if I now told them, "Hindsight bein' what it is, yer out of it.") > >2. I am hesitant to answer your questions because you will not like my >answers, and probably think of new names to call me, but I'll go ahead >anyway. "So, Tuna, what would you have me tell these folks? " I would have >you tell tham the your debate squad also serves those who have never debated >and that resources should be extended to them as well. Is it worth it to >sacrifice one first-round bid to the NDT in order to get 6-10 (whatever the >number) new people involved in debate? Is it worth it to have 4 experienced >debaters quit because they can't travel "enough" so that perhaps more than 4 >can become debaters? These are tough questions without easy answers. However, >I applaud Texas' squad democracy. Thanks. This will be a matter of future squad discussions. >3. I hear you say that you believe that first round at-large bids to the NDT >are more important than training new debaters. Am I correct? It is not the >"math" that excludes them, but he way you do it, perhaps. That's the problem with zero-sum games, man. You're right, someone inevitably gets screwed. I'm just not sure your "novice-at-all-cost" logic is the grail truth. here, we will simply differ, I'm sure. > >4. All of the Texas coaches do more work than they should, give it their all, >and deserve lots of kudos. I respect you for how hard you work. No offense is >given or intended. gracias > >5. Your "ironic" answer to the idea of saving money on trips is not very >informative. It isn't an answer. Travel cheaper means travel more and more >resources. I don't know why this suggestion makes you start talking about the >"concorde." I'll just assume that you are doing all you can to make the money >stretch and go on. the ironic answer was part of the motivation for saying that you have "NO ******* IDEA" about the Texas squad. You see, we're not exactly extravagant travellers. But that's cool... > >6. I understand Texas is a big state. However, I also know that there are a >number of good Texas tournaments. Sure, Vermont is a small state. What is >this argument about, anyway? I'd suggest you send novice debaters to more >Texas tournaments, but I guess that would be some sort of self-righteous >indignation. Well, now we're back to the real logistical problems. I can count the number of novice tournaments in Texas on one hand. Now, the tournaments that don't fall on a weekend that we already travel, and I've got a couple of spare fingers left over. Remember, we don't have spare coaches lying around, itching to get out of town for ANOTHER weekend. The option of "more Texas tournaments" truly ISN'T an option. The Vermont argument is there because of the high number of novice tournaments in the northeast. That luxury does not exist in our region. It was a point about recognizing one's privilege before one condemns. Guess that part was missed. > >7. We need more programs, we need to keep programs alive, we need to keep >regional tournaments alive. That means we need novice debate. The specifics >of your program and choices do not allow you to help solve the above >mentioned problems through contributing to the novice debate population. Very >well, but perhaps others may be able to. I do know that the Texas program is >a fantastic opportunity for students at UT and I admire your teams and I also >tend to admire your arguments. I just want to urge you to join in the novice >solution for a better debate community. Agreed. > >8. The last time I brought up the "when do people get the most out of debate" >issue, there seemed to be some agreement that they get the most out of their >first two years. Programmatic decisions which exclude novices may not take >advantage of this opportunity to get high impact out of small expenditures. >You once told me how much you respcted Cleopatra Jones and Annalei McGreevy >as a debate team. They could not have debated at Texas, because they didn't >debate in high school. They could have debated, they just would've had to start at home. They'd have gotten a couple of tournaments the first year. A few more in the second. We don't exclude novices - we just require that they tough it out if they want to compete (again, that nasty goal of competition is not really up for grabs, unless the squad decides so). > >9. This last weekend I took 13 novice teams on an 8.5 hour bus trip to a >debate tournament. 10 of them cleared. We have the largest novice debate >program, or so it seems, in America. Thus, I'm not going to give you a budget >breakdown because I don't think it is necessary. I will say that we spent >about 10% of our budget on this trip, and students were in over 100 debates. >That's sign evidence enough, I think. I'm not going to waste an hour or so >preparing a budget breakdown for you or others. no breakdown necessary. i certainly applaud your efforts. > >10. I am far more interested in whether I respect myself than whether you >respect me, but the judgment of others is important to me. If I lose your >respect for having made suggestions you asked for, then I wonder what your >respect is really worth. I respect you enough to tell you what I think. I try >to be civil and direct. You quash alternative voices when you respond to them >with insults. Hear my ideas, don't get in a frenzy because they do not agree >with your current policies. > go back and read the original posts, Tuna. your tone was hostile in places, condemnatory in others. any loss of respect is due to flippant comments about "enemies lists" and other such nonsense. i respect your ideas, and will consider them in the future. >Best of luck to you and the entire Texas program. I salute that Texas has 12 >teams on $40,000, at about $3,333 per team. You are getting a lot out of your >budget. That isn't the point. The point is that more novice debate can >reverse the decline in policy debate and change the lives of many young >people with the intellectual magic of debate all at the same time. Those are >my issues here. It is a community wide issue. Why if every squad had a system >like Texas it might not serve the needs of novices but we would have a heck >of a lot healthier debate community. > >Tuna adios, dave > > > >In a message dated 10/15/99 1:05:32 PM, d.breshears at mail.utexas.edu writes: > ><< Tuna writes: > > >>I don't want to get into an argument about what you should do with your > >>debate program, but since you asked... > >> > > >Too bad. Your self-righteous indignation earns you an argument, to say the > >least. It also earns you a few less grams of respect from me. Don't know > >if that's a concern, given your over-inflated sense of self, but it's > >true... > > >Now, on to the substance of Tuna's non-argument: > > >>Perhaps your decision to send novices to only TWO tournaments while your > >>other debaters go to a lot more says volumes. There may well be an equity > >>issue here. > > >Okay, smart guy. Answer me this: Texas is one of the few squads in the > >country that makes even a pretense of being largely run by its students. > >The coaching staff (no tenured DOF, you understand, just a full-time > >lecturer in the Dept of Comm Studies, and two full-time graduate assistants > >taking full loads, plus a couple of volunteers who are also full-time grad > >students) does NOT determine: partnerships, assignments, the travel > >schedule, and most importantly WHO TRAVELS TO TOURNAMENTS. The SQUAD has > >identified competitive success as both an individual and collective goal. > >There are folks who have scraped their way up from the bottom, attending one > >or two tournaments their first year, then a few more in their second and > >third. Now, as seniors, they'd like an opportunity to travel a full season. > >For our folks, that's approximately 8 tournaments. We don't have the luxury > >of travelling UMKC's 20 tournaments a semester (that's an exxageration and > >an inside joke, don't get your shorts in a knot), so, in effect, you'd like > >to chop it down to 6. For novices, that's great. But for folks who are > >pouring their heart and soul into the research, that doesn't really seem > >worth the effort, does it? So, Tuna, what would you have me tell these > >folks? Remember, we've got twelve teams, and at most tournaments we can > >take four. Our travel schedule includes UNI, Kentucky, SMS, Wichita, > >Harvard, UCO, Wake, UMKC, William Jewel, West Georgia, Baylor, Northwestern, > >and SWTSU. After that, we're down to barely enough money to make it to > >districts and the NDT, and we've still got to scrape money together to get > >folks to CEDA nationals. This does not include the West Coast Swing, > >Heart, Novice Nationals, and many other tournaments that we'd like to > >attend. You do the math: to service these 12 experienced teams, allow our > >"first-round" contenders a schedule that is both competitive against other > >bid applicants and concomitant to their work efforts, AND take on additional > >folks... Well, whaddaya think? Seems kinda zero sum to me, big guy. > > >And remember this as well: Joel teaches two classes, and Eric and I are > >heavily involved in grad school. We don't have the option of just going to > >more local tournaments. We can only miss so much school, and we don't have > >the luxury of ANY coaches who are not in this situation (read: full-time > >card cutters/travellers). > > >Mo' Tuna: > > >>Perhaps your varsity debaters should attend two fewer tournaments so that > >new > >>people could have their lives changed by debate like everyone else on your > >>squad. Why do they get so little? You don't have to kick people off the > >>squad, just adjust travel. > > >Well, largely because the SQUAD as a majority (we used to say consensus, but > >let's face it: there are few truly mutually consensual agreements, > >especially when zero sum trade-offs are involved) decided that competitive > >success, including the attainment of two first-rounds and three invites to > >the NDT, are its top priority. > > >These novices get so little because we have so little. It'd be nice to > >spend equitably among all, but that's just not possible. Have you been to > >Texas? It's a big fucking state, and unlike Vermont, we can't drive for > >twenty minutes in any direction and cross three state lines. "Local" travel > >is not truly local, and for us even to make it to some district tournaments > >(SMS, for example) is a thirteen hour van ride. In other words, it costs us > >disproportionately MORE to travel novices, given the small number of novice > >tournaments in our area. It's COST-PROHIBITIVE to take them back East, > >where you enjoy the luxury of many LOCAL travel opportunities for novices. > >Bear asked that you provide a breakdown of the money you spend on your > >competitive teams vs. novice. I'd ask that you include mileage travelled in > >that breakdown. There's more at issue here than your self-righteous > >indignation allows, eh? > > >As for travelling less, you must remember the equation above: 12 teams, 4 > >slots, 13 tournaments, and 7-8 teams competing internally for three > >privileged slots to the NDT. Remember, before you get all huffy about the > >evils of competition, these are THEIR goals, as much as ours. It's real > >convenient to sit back thirty years later and espouse your wisdom, but that > >doesn't do us a whole lotta good, and it certainly doesn't make you right, > >oh brilliant one. > > >>I am not sure what approach you take, but we consciously try to reduce > >>expenses at every step (sleep on floors, beg for fee reduction, drive > >instead > >>of fly) so that we can have a novice debate program. > > >No, Texas doesn't drive much. We like to stay one or two to a room at most, > >and the reason you don't often see us at the tournament hotel is because we > >prefer the posher, more upscale alternatives. Hell, we'll probably fly to > >Baylor, since Joel's ass gets hard after mo