From cdiamant Mon May 1 00:02:44 2000 From: cdiamant (Chris Diamant) Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 01:02:44 -0400 Subject: More Answers to Kevin Message-ID: On Sunday, April 30, 2000 11:33 PM, Asher Haig [SMTP:ahaig at WARPED-REALITY.COM] wrote: > on 4/30/00 10:13 PM, Chris Diamant at cdiamant at jcu.edu wrote: > > >>>> 5. listing countries > >>>> does not solve any of the ground problems, > >>> > >>> nice warrant there. this is obviously not a strong claim. why the > > hell > >>> even have africa as an area then? if listing has no limits benefits > > what's > >>> the point of saying we are going to debate africa? > >>> > >> > >> I think that point is that it doesn't serve to correct any ground issues > >> that other forms of designation (ie region) would. > >> > > Probably, but that was in response to Kuswa's argument of list v. "Africa". > > If we're talking about list of countries v. region, that difference > > proabably isn't as great. A concern to me, however, comes from the response > > Ben Osborne made earlier in the day regarding geography. When I asked what > > countries fall into what region, the responses seemed to be all prefaced > > with "the countries in the region are disputable, but they're > > probably......". This seems problematic in that nation-states are generally > > easily defined, whereas regions seems to be somewhat vague and could lead > > to some messy topicality debates that listed nation-states would avoid. > > I think that this is an interesting point regarding ground, but it also > seems to be a tremendously important point in considering the reason for > using a region in the first place. The inability to easily determine what > countries fit in particular regions seems to be largely a result of the mode > of politics that goes on within Africa. > I agree that it's possible African politics are unique in that regard, but if that's true, then it seems to support listing countries. After all, if we can't determine what countries fall into a specific region, how do we act upon them? There's no Horn of Africa regional government or any sort of body that could be acted towards. > In this sense (as someone else pointed out) it seems to make sense to > consider the interaction between not only the countries in the "immediate" > region but the ones that are involved in that given region. > > These seems to mean a couple things. > > 1. Many of the discussions to be had are regional issues -- conflicts etc > that exist beyond any measurable national/international borders and > irrelevant of them. > > 2. The ground issues seem rather moot in that sense. Perhaps there will be > topicality debates, but it seems that these issues don't end at > international borders. On the other hand, they do end somewhere. Discussion > of a region seems in this sense to be just as limiting. Limiting to a list > of countries seems to limit that discussion of conflict. If there's a war > going on in Nigeria, and extended into the Cameroon, but the topic only > included Nigeria and not the Cameroon, would PKOs in Cameroon be topical? If > yes, it seems to support the same ground as a region (and perhaps the region > becomes necessary to clarify that). If no, perhaps we need to reconsider > why. What is the difference in this sense simply because of a "border?" It > seems perhaps the solution is not to rely on a list of countries as the > check on the topic, but merely a region as a limiter (ie a focus) and other > words (specifically the type of action) as the limit. In the context of > PKOs, there seems to be zero difference between a region and a list of > nation in terms of ground. (Yet reasons to prefer a region over a list). > I agree that some conflicts could involve countries listed and not listed in the topic, and because of that I think there's a need to have some sort of clear limits from the get go. So I would say that in a topic listing Nigeria and not Cameroon, PKOs in Cameroon wouldn't be topical. Yes, the difference may only be a border, but the alternative seems to be having no difference at all. Additionally, I'm sure that there are inter "regional" conflicts as well, depending on how regions are defined (such as a conflict between a country in the great lakes region and a bordering, non great lakes country). The difference then becomes knowing which countries we're talking about. With a list it's fairly clear. With a region I see one of two possible outcomes: either the regions themselves will be difficult to define, meaning that we spend a great deal of time trying to define the topical area, or the regions are clear cut, and if they are, it would be no different than a list. if we agree that a region is a certain 5 countries, than listing the countries would be functionally the same as listing the region, except with better clarity. Addtionally, no one has made the argument that some parts of countries fall into different regions than others, and I really doubt that they do, so that doesn't appear to be a problem. > Perhaps this question can't be answered without determining what action we > want?e > I agree with this, and it seems like maybe we're not devoting enough time to the action being taken. a very specific action might be more condusive to including a larger area, while a very broad action would merit a smaller area. I'm think I want leeway in the actions rather than the area, but I could easily be persuaded otherwise. Chris From cdiamant Mon May 1 00:02:51 2000 From: cdiamant (Chris Diamant) Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 01:02:51 -0400 Subject: More Answers to Kevin Message-ID: On Sunday, April 30, 2000 11:36 PM, Krueger [SMTP:mkrueger at FRANK.MTSU.EDU] wrote: > > Probably, but that was in response to Kuswa's argument of list v. "Africa". > > If we're talking about list of countries v. region, that difference > > proabably isn't as great. A concern to me, however, comes from the response > > Ben Osborne made earlier in the day regarding geography. When I asked what > > countries fall into what region, the responses seemed to be all prefaced > > with "the countries in the region are disputable, but they're > > probably......". This seems problematic in that nation-states are generally > > easily defined, whereas regions seems to be somewhat vague and could lead > > to some messy topicality debates that listed nation-states would avoid. > > > > Oh no, t-debates. First, nation-states is a highly problematic term. > Last year there were exactly zero nation-states listed. Nation-state > has a very specific meaning. > I thought a nation state was considered a geographic nation with a government associated with it. I suppose we could use country or something such as that. My point is, when you say, Somalia, for example, it's easier to determine what is meant than Horn of Africa. > Beyond that, I am not worried about t debates. > > I think we are also forgetting that even if there are some t debates at > least they are PREDICTABLE t debates. On SE Asia, teams ran Dev Asst > cases and KNEW they were going to get a t debate. if the topic is "horn > of africa" then negs can PREDICT that someone is going to run kenya and > rwanda. cool... I know what t debate i need to prep for and I know > that i can prep for those affs too. so long as ground is predictable, > based on available iinformation and definitions, what is the issue? > topicality? so what? > Just means that people will have a definite strategy, even if it is T, > against those cases. > But I think the difference is, since the regions aren't clear cut, the a ffirmatives can have a very legitimate case as to why they should be included. if there's a list, and it's x,y,and z, and the aff isn't x,y, or z, then the issue seems more clear cut. I think my argument is we shouldn't create a resolution that encourages teams to run a borderline topical affirmative in the hopes that they can just write 30 T answers and win. > I just don't buy "it will create a predictable t debate" as a compelling > argument for a list of countries and for the complete rejection of a > region. > Well, that might be true in and of itself, but i think it is at least a reason, and i'm not sure what the advantage to doing regions instead of a list would be. > the last thing i want to say on this is that there is likely to be > choice, and then it will be up to the voters. > > My guess is that there will be 3-5 resolutions that are offered on the > ballot, and maybe two can have lists, and two can point to regions and > perhaps one can offer the whole of africa. that would create good > balance and even out the vote splitting that can occur. > that would be nice. and maybe your rez paper will dazzle me to the extent that I move over to supporting the region side. Best of luck in that pursuit, I know it's not an easy job. Chris Diamant I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." -- Galileo Galilei "You can't make footprints in the sands of time sitting on your butt, and who wants butt prints in the sands of time?" -- Unknown From timcochran Mon May 1 00:12:27 2000 From: timcochran (Timothy D. Cochran) Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 01:12:27 -0400 Subject: FW: AT: Kamal--The need for a list of nations Message-ID: MESSAGE REMOVED From k.kuswa Mon May 1 00:59:52 2000 From: k.kuswa (kevin kuswa) Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 01:59:52 -0400 Subject: Jeff Answers Part II Message-ID: At 07:01 PM 4/30/00 -0400, parcher clipped and commented: >you want your discussion about africa to be more than about the game itself. >fine. there seems to be plenty of room for that regardless of how the >wording turns out. no one is going to make a topicality argument against >what the topic leads you to think do or say in your life. what i don't want >is your poltical agenda in my topic, so to speak. Parcher, this is your weakest and most telling argument. First of all, it is not "my" political agenda in any possessive sense. Second, you cannot escape politics. Whether you recognize it or not, the topics are political. If you try to escape politics by avoiding what you perceive to be my anti- statist politics, you are deluding yourself into believing that your stance is somehow emancipated. >put the state in the >topic and you can still argue about the illegitmacy of the state to your >heart's content - take it out and where are those who don't share your >poltical vision?. > Jeez, I wish it was that easy! The state is not going anywhere, it is an immense network of power relations, perhaps more ubiquitious than any other present nexus, but that doesn't mean it has to be the focus of our wording. Make these arguments on the negative. In addition, various political visions have always been able to coexist on past topics--you give this issue too much credit. >> I spent most of last night talking to an African from western Cameroon. >> he knows frst hand what happens when policy action focuses on >> the "large" and "important" countries (or what he calls "state-nations") >> in Africa. He's doing work on the Diallo shooting in New York, noticing >> how the Willie Hortonization of African American idenities is being >> extended to Africans. He considers himself an African. More on this >> conversation, later. > >this argument could be applied to any person who is not from africa. why >are you priveleging africans with this example? I am not privileging Africans--I am sharing a conversation. I also believe Olivier should be privileged to the degree that he has had certain experiences as a black man in America who grew up in Cameroon. All of our narratives occur across a number of specrtums. > >also the assumtion that the problems of west africa are due to inattention >by the U.S. is as offensive as it is unsound. > TURN, I was talking about general policy action, NOT action by the U.S. Your assumption here is far worse than any conceivable assumption I have made about problems in West Africa. Why? Because you rush to the defense of the U.S. as an eraser of the claim that a focus on "important" African countries is exclusionary. This displaces the question in favor of an assessment of American blame. Fuck that. Besides, U.S. inattention is not an issue? >the topic is not an assesment of the value of people's lives - it's the >framework for an academic game. period. if you measure people's lives using >a debate resolution - well then - that's your problem. The "game" argument has long been a scapegoat for your theoretical hodgepodge. Why even engage in this argument, Jeff? The game does have effects on people and their lives. Your game may be more distant than others, but don't project your guilt on to "my problems." The only one measuring lives here is you--to a yardstick that has supposedly left reality by simply calling itself a game. > >this is not to say the topic committee should pick countries that are >similar. obviously, some diversity is valuable. i think last year showed >the value of that at an intercontentinal level. economics or size clearly >aren't the only measure of the importance of issues. as recently as the SEA >topic, we included Laos. that's about as unimportant as a country gets by >geopolitical standards. Again, let's hear your list. As of now, the only list other than a regional breakdown of possible countries within that region is Kamal's random stab: "How about Nigeria and South Africa and some other key places." Why don't we pick the first five alphabetically :) > >> In the meantime, Parcher and Kamal can feel content that they have made >> the "racism is non-unique" arguments, but they are really resigning >> themselves to a much more complicit position. > >nice babble. actually my argument was a serious indict of your reasoning >which was meant to show how when racism is defined in the general manner >that you used, all choices and thinking becomes implicitly racist. it ends >the discussion by saying something uninteresting - action and choice is >exclusive - congratualtions. No, racism is not all the same. I will stand behind my argument that your statements are complicit when they cite the omnipresence of the problem to encourage inaction. > >saying debate should focuss on state policies is no more complicit in the >consequences of state action (vietnam war) than your kritik is complict in >the consequences of state inaction (spousal abuse or the holocaust). Vietnam will occur again so therefore we should accept it? Spousal abuse is rampant so the abuse is justified? Besides, my argument is not about ignoring the state, it is about approaching it from other angles. >you >have reduced a weak argument (complicity) to a meaningless argument by >applying it in such a haphazard way. i don't have to beat you on the >obvious link outs (see Kamal for that) because you have conceded the >inevitability of the impact (i.e. some poeple will get excluded from the >topic). Your debate-speak leaves musch to be desired here. You and Kamal contend that we will always leave areas outside the realm of our discussion. No shit. My argument is that the way we process the object of the resolution through a continuous series of governments produces a type of subjectivity that is remote, distanced, and ultimately enthnocentric. Your American Exceptionalism gestures back to the triangular relationships of slave trading: "Well, the traders have already removed these people from their land, we might as well continue their oppression through slavery." Look, Jeff, ALL of these "link outs" are ture to the degree that the "people" of the topic are always in the process of being spoken for. The question is, can we speak with, to, or as these "abstracted people" at the same time that we speak for them? In other words, how are we absolving our feelings of exclusion and how does our agency reflect such representation? > >also, uniqueness is relevant for another reason - it proved your complicity >argument was hypocritical even before you made it. but then it wasn't tough >to figure out where the argument would end. somehow i could count on being >accused of complicity with all the evil structures that you can see, but >that i ignore because of my secret desire to keep myself in a priveleged >position viz-a-zis the children of west africa. This is brutal, Jeff. You are simplifying and conflating a lot of issues here. Uniqueness is key! This is a UNIQUE chance to re-construct our ossified reliance on the USFG and an inferior list of "sub-states." Structures are not necessarily good or evil. What you miss is that structures interpellate (some might call this ideology) through discourse. In other words, we must interact with non-structural entities as well. The evil structure is in your head. The possibility of a structural rupture is in front of us. PS--Your desire is not so secret. > >meanwhile, you dropped that you are complicit in the starvation of cuban >children. where does that leave us? with a bad question. > >>No list of countries >> and no USFG! > >USFG and a list of countries!!!!! > alright, let's hear your USFG/list of countries topic. >JP > kevin utexas From k.kuswa Mon May 1 01:46:53 2000 From: k.kuswa (kevin kuswa) Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 02:46:53 -0400 Subject: Kamal's Krap Message-ID: MESSAGE REMOVED From k.kuswa Mon May 1 02:15:22 2000 From: k.kuswa (kevin kuswa) Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 03:15:22 -0400 Subject: W.H.O. as agent in Africa? Message-ID: Have any of the topic paper authors looked into the WHO as a possible agent? J. Reader's 1998 book called _Africa_ and the edited collection called _Africa in World Politics_ (Harbeson & Rothchild) both talk about this. A resolution they hint at would be: R: That the WHO should substantially expand and improve its policies in Africa governing at least two of the following areas: women-in-development, sustainable development, AIDs, and population control. Any thoughts, kevin >From Mon May 1 03:16:02 2000 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 2432 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 1 May 2000 03:16:39 -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 DAA35454 for ; Mon, 1 May 2000 03:16:38 -0400 Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo-d02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v26.7.) id n.8.45cbc78 (3700) for ; Mon, 1 May 2000 03:16:02 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 105 Message-ID: <8.45cbc78.263e8932 at aol.com> Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 03:16:02 EDT Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Michael Bear Bryant Subject: Her and Him Related to the discourse over the past few days, I've got a related beef. I've had three well-respected members of the community tell me that my controversey with Breshears over his treatment of my debaters when they repeatedly, yet accidentally, referred to a female opponent as "him" during a debate. The advice I've been given is to train my debaters to always default to use of the pronoun "her" in training and practice debates. The argument goes that's its a much safer default to risk calling a male opponent "she" or "her" than to call womyn opponents "he" or "him." Why? Is anyone willing to defend this as pedagogical proactice? Perhaps David Breshears will break his cone of silence long enough to explain how he can justify such advice. Really curious. Bear From Alexander.H.Berger Mon May 1 02:19:37 2000 From: Alexander.H.Berger (Alexander H. Berger) Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 03:19:37 EDT Subject: Her and Him Message-ID: Seems like a fairly simple solution to slippery pronoun problems is to simply say "they say" instead of "she says" or "he says." Not only is it gender nuteral, but it is easier/faster to say. alex dartmouth --- Michael Bear Bryant wrote: The advice I've been given is to train my debaters to always default to use of the pronoun "her" in training and practice debates. The argument goes that's its a much safer default to risk calling a male opponent "she" or "her" than to call womyn opponents "he" or "him." --- end of quote --- From schiros Mon May 1 03:45:08 2000 From: schiros (Matthew Schiros) Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 04:45:08 -0400 Subject: Womyn Revisited Message-ID: To stop John Willardman, who found out my secret by the TOTALLY difficult method of tracing my IP address from the few emails i sent from my house, from emailing me and bugging me about this....... I WAS GENE BARRETT. Your reactions were pathetic. Kissies, Roid ------Gyrations at EFNet----------------MSchiros at AIM----------Gyroid at ICQ--------- Matthew J. Schiros - The Supreme CafMaster Gyrator Join The Gyrations of Freedom - http://www.nacs.net/~schiros/gof/ "The writer's overpowering impulse is to gyrate before his fellow man, flapping his wings and emitting defiant yells. This being forbidden by the police of all civilized countries, he takes it out by putting his yells on paper." [H.L. Mencken] Free Roid ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From k.kuswa Mon May 1 05:42:45 2000 From: k.kuswa (kevin kuswa) Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 06:42:45 -0400 Subject: Nexon's comments on a list of African countries Message-ID: Dan, your message makes a lot of good points. I have a few comments in the line-by-line, but I wanted to start with a provocative quotation from Homi Bhabha's _Location of Culture_. His conclusion points to 4 arguments: 1. the resolution is a text that generates a particular memory. 2. colonialism, racism, and even the state cannot be eliminated, but we all make choices that work with or against these arrangements. 3. this topic area warrants efforts to resist the types of wordings supported by Kamal, Parcher, Casey and others. 4. Bhabha's writing is thick as shit, but that doesn't mean we can bypass his position. Homi says (p250-1): "To take this perspective would mean that we see 'racism' not simply as a hangover from archaic conceptions of the aristocracy, but as part of the historical traditions of civic and liberal humanism that create ideological matrices of national aspiration, together with their concepts of 'a people' and its imagined community. Such a privileging of ambivalence in the social imaginaries of nationness, and its forms of collective affiliation, would enable us to understand the coeval, often incommensurable tension between the influence of traditional 'ethnicist' identifications that coexist with contemporary secular, modernizing aspirations. The enunciative 'present' of modernity that I am proposing would provide a political space to articulate and negotiate such culturally hybrid social identities. Questions of cultural difference would not be dismissed--with a barely concealed racism--as atavistic 'tribal' instincts that afflict Irish Catholics in Belfast of 'Muslim fundamentalists' in Bradford. It is precisely such unresolved, transitional moments within the disjunctive present of modernity that are then projected into a time of historical retroversion or an inassimilable place outside history. The history of modernity's antique dreams is to be found in the writing out of the colonial and postcolonial moment. In resisting these attempts to normalize the time-lagged colonial moment, we may provide a genealogy for postmodernity that is at least as important as the 'aporetic' history of the Sublime or the nightmare of rationality in Auschwitz. For colonial and postcolonial texts do not merely tell the modern history of 'unequal development' or evoke memories of underdevelopment. I have tried to suggest that they provide modernity with a modular moment of enunciation: the locus and locution of cultures caught in the transitional and disjunctive temporalities of modernity. What is in modernity more than modernity is the disjunctive 'postcolonial' time and space that makes its presence felt at the level of enunciation. It figures, in an influential contemporary fictional instance, as the contingent margin between Toni Morrison's indeterminate moment of the 'not-there--a 'black' space that she distinguished from the Western sense of synchronous tradition--which then turns into the 'first stroke' of slave rememory, the time of communality and the narrative of the history of slavery. This translation of the meaning of time into the discourse of space; this catachrestic seizure of the signifying 'caesura' of modernity's presence and present; this insistence that power must be thought in the hybridity of race and sexuality; that nation must be reconceived liminally as the dynastic-in-the-democratic, race-difference doubling and splitting the teleology of class-consciousness: it is through these iterative interrogations and historical initiations that the cultural location of modernity shifts to the postcolonial site." At 11:45 PM 4/30/00 -0400, Nexon wrote: >On Sun, 30 Apr 2000, kevin kuswa wrote: > >> Yes, the phrase "Africa" is not perfect, but it's still a better >> wording option than a list of countries. This is because 1. we've >> tried lists before--we should try something new, > >What is the non-normative objection to "lists" again? > > 2. the risk of >> excluding agents that don't make the list is high, > >Is it? I think you need to avoid conflating the agent of action argument >with the spatial boundaries of action argument. Clearly, USFG excludes a >potentially infinite number of agents, but I'm not sure how this is so >obviously the case with an 'object-list' consisting of a number of >countries. It seems to me that some of the objections about actor >restriction -- "government-to-government" topicality violations, for >example -- can be solved by avoding "one or more of the following >*nations*:...." or "one or more of the following *states*:...." and using >a term like "countries." Now, admittedly, I haven't been around since the >South Asia topic, but I don't particularly remember all the cases then >(when we had a list) dealing with object-actors which were governments; >plenty dealt with NGOs, smaller political groups, etc. Yes, the "pre-list" terminology is extremely important, but we can avoid those questions altogether by eliminating the list as the object. Yes, our new object will open up other cans of nasty worms (a.k.a. negative ground), but the new cans of worms won't always suffocate us with their emphasis on a one-to-one correspondence between governments and the bipolarity of Hegelian constructions of the state. > > 3. the state is >> not the only option for reform, > >Sure, but neither can it be bypassed by wishing it away in the resolution; >let me make a counter-claim: ignoring the "state" as a (albeit artificial >-- as if there is such a thing as an "organic" state outside of Hegelian >philosophy) critical boundary in international and domestic political >discourse is the kind of "quick fix" which doesn't serve any really >interesting purpose. And (to repeat a claim that was probably ignored >given my status as a non-player in contemporary debate) the category of >"Africa" is particularly pernicious from some of these standpoints. But I >am curious what the objection is to a regions approach such as "subsaharn >Africa" from the perspective of the limits crowd... Good point. A new approach would not remove the state from consideration, only change our relationship to it. Non-hypothetical agency can re-figure ground without claiming to be a quick-fix to state-centric policy decisions. > > 4. a list of countries assumes that >> the USFG (or some other superior agent) must engage in a hypothetical >> exchange with other governmental bureaucracies, > >Why? Because the list is always designated as an object to be acted upon and improved by a government further along the linear evolution of statist politics. > > 5. listing countries >> does not solve any of the ground problems, > >Well, it may make it smaller (whether this is desireable or not); in >addition, it prevents debates about the "true nature" of a region. Anybody >remember those wonders from the old topics? Those debates are intriguing from both sides of the topic. They definitely weren't oppressive on the last Africa topic and we were debating "all African nations." Even listing countries could be part of a very large topic. Osbourne's geography lesson proves this point. On the other hand, Diego Garcia has merit as a potential topic--the boys from Weber demonstrated that years ago. I think the arguments against a region are good ones, but that might mean that they are better negative arguments to engage in than the negative arguments against a list. > > and 6. a list of countries >> assumes that these statist entities can be compared to one another >> in the same ways--again defend your list. > >This is an argument I personally find somewhat persuasive, but choosing >any geographic delimitation (particularly one based on continental >architecture) isn't going to help with this. Why does the listing of some >countries posit comprability, anyway, and not simply a spatial >delimitation for which those political entities are proxies? This is the main motivation for the Bhabha stuff up above...the argument is that geographic delimitation relates to the people and the government is very different ways than a list of countries. Furthermore, the list of countries (or nations or states or nation-states) always assumes that those entities are equivalent within the resolution's taxonomy of objects. > >> I spent most of last night talking to an African from western Cameroon. >> he knows frst hand what happens when policy action focuses on >> the "large" and "important" countries (or what he calls "state-nations") >> in Africa. He's doing work on the Diallo shooting in New York, noticing >> how the Willie Hortonization of African American idenities is being >> extended to Africans. He considers himself an African. More on this >> conversation, later. > >When I taught an IO class at Brooklyn college... composed almost entirely >of "Africans," the most heated argument we had centered around the >coherence of speaking of "Africa." Between my Nigerian, Tunisian, >Egyptian, etc. students, we almost came to blows. What does this say, as >an anectdotal episode? Very little, except that people can disagree. Sounds like an amazing teaching and learning experience--I'd like to hear more. What if you told your student from Tunisia that you were debating Africa but s/he was not included because Tunisia had been left off the list? My guess is that the Tunisian would say that really sucks. On the other hand, what if you told your Tunisian student that you were debating Africa, but the topic was specific to subsaharan Africa to encourage more specific research? My guess is that the person would not feel nearly as diplaced as she would in the first instance. > >The subjectivity argument is pretty interesting... again, I think this is >a better argument for a non-USFG agent than for the list vs. "Africa" >issue. Could they be analytically distinguished in this debate? > I think they can be distinguished, but some of the warrants are the same. Either way, I think the production of citizenship and subjectivity is important to consider whether we're talking about the agent of action or the object of manipulation. Anyway, thanks for the input, Dan. kevin utexas From k.kuswa Mon May 1 06:01:51 2000 From: k.kuswa (kevin kuswa) Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 07:01:51 -0400 Subject: Kamal's bad joke Message-ID: MESSAGE REMOVED From drtuna Mon May 1 06:33:28 2000 From: drtuna (Alfred Snider) Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 07:33:28 -0400 Subject: STOP SENDING ATTACHMENTS TO EDEBATE! Message-ID: IT SUCKS. I have already explained the many reasons why not to do this. My best advice would be to learn how to use your email program because some people seem to be sending attachments without even knowing it. Perhaps it is the virus which automatically sends attachments? Bad news. Tuna --------------- Alfred C. Snider aka Tuna Lawrence Professor of Forensics, University of Vermont 802-656-0097 office; 802-238-8345 mobile; 802-656-4275 fax asnider at zoo.uvm.edu office; drtuna at earthlink.net home/mobile http://debate.uvm.edu Debate Central website From david.glass Mon May 1 07:30:16 2000 From: david.glass (DAVID GLASS) Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 07:30:16 -0500 Subject: the nation issue Message-ID: Subject: Time:7:05 AM OFFICE MEMO the nation issue Date:5/1/00 I've been reading the nation-enumeration discussion, and it has led to a few observations, which I guess constitute complete agreement with Dan: 1) It doesn't seem like the objection to naming specific countries is restricted to Africa. Almost every "country" has, as part of its history, a struggle between warring peoples... even classical hegemons such as England, France, Spain, and more recently, the USA have such a history. (Does anyone doubt that the term "United States" masks the actuality of the Divisive States?) 2) Even with all sincerity, it's difficult to find the logical denominator. Were you to ignore a "naming" of the United States, and instead focussed on peoples, it would be very difficult to settle on the appropriate nomenclature. To say "Native American" as a unit masks the life-and-death struggles between different tribes. To list different tribes and peoples treats these entities as monolithic, where often people who share common cultural associations lack true governing structures. 3) Geography is not a great help - it is perhaps the original method of otherizing... 4)Cultural ties feel like the most logical way of identifying people, because here you are using an individual's own practices to categorize him or her. Good luck getting to a wording which takes advantage of this fact. -djg Edgemont From bauscsa4 Mon May 1 07:15:31 2000 From: bauscsa4 (Stefan Bauschard) Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 08:15:31 -0400 Subject: Online Africa Resources In-Reply-To: <200005010646.CAA24666@list.uvm.edu> Message-ID: Hi all, I built a web page that includes many of the Africa Resources in my Forensics Internet Guide. Disclaimer: The titles of the resources are spelled and referenced as those resources are spelled and referenced by the parties that created the resources. If you think the spellings should be different, please take it up with them and not me. Also, lack of inclusion of a particular resource is not an attempt to marginalize it on my part. Similarly, inclusion of a resource is not a deliberate endorsement. The URL is: http://www.oneparadigm.com/hitchhiker/africa.html Have a good day, Stefan Bauschard Boston College Debate Hitchhiker's Guide to the 2000-1 CX Debate Topic http://www.oneparadigm.com/hitchhiker/home.html >From Mon May 1 08:20:20 2000 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 4069 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 1 May 2000 08:21:11 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo-d01.mx.aol.com (imo-d01.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.33]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA36320 for ; Mon, 1 May 2000 08:21:08 -0400 Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo-d01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v26.7.) id f.a5.53b10d4 (4562); Mon, 1 May 2000 08:20:21 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 105 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 08:20:20 EDT Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Michael Bear Bryant Subject: Re: STOP SENDING ATTACHMENTS TO EDEBATE! Comments: To: drtuna at earthlink.net In a message dated 5/1/00 5:33:40 AM Mountain Daylight Time, drtuna at EARTHLINK.NET writes: > IT SUCKS. > > I have already explained the many reasons why not to do this. > > My best advice would be to learn how to use your email program because some > people seem to be sending attachments without even knowing it. > > Perhaps it is the virus which automatically sends attachments? Bad news. The best response at this point is for people to realize that attachmnet-related viruses are new, not covered by most virus-locating software. THE BEST RESPONSE IS TO NEVER OPEN AN ATTACHMENT FROM THIS, OR ANY OTHER, LIST. Tuna and I agree on this one. Bear >From Mon May 1 07:34:30 2000 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 4513 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 1 May 2000 08:33:08 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.46]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA29646 for ; Mon, 1 May 2000 08:33:00 -0400 Received: from lisaspc ([32.100.181.70]) by mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.39 201-229-119-122) with SMTP id <20000501123228.UXEA1339.mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net at lisaspc> for ; Mon, 1 May 2000 12:32:28 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal Message-ID: Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 07:34:30 -0500 Reply-To: LCKanak at worldnet.att.net To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Lisa Kanak Subject: Thank you to Northwestern I'd like to publicly thank Northwestern for hosting the Minnesota Home School Qualifying Tournament this past weekend. It is refreshing to find so many in this community who are interested and willing to help this fledgling group of home schooled students get started in speech and debate. Thank you again. Sincerely, Lisa C. Kanak From mknzycalhn Mon May 1 07:39:43 2000 From: mknzycalhn (Allyn Gibson) Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 08:39:43 -0400 Subject: Womyn Revisited References: Message-ID: Quoth Matthew Schiros: > To stop John Willardman, who found out my secret by the > TOTALLY difficult method of tracing my IP address It is a difficult method, one that consumes time and results in staring at computer monitors for lengths of time. > from the few emails i sent from my house, from emailing me > and bugging me about this....... > I WAS GENE BARRETT. Well, I'd narrowed it down significantly. But hadn't quite gotten to your home computer. Interestingly enough, I did trace one e-mail to someone else's computer. I knew I hit the jackpot, though, when I got a number of really confusing e-mails from that person. But then, I also figured out who "Generic One" is. > Your reactions were pathetic. So is your bragging about being an idiot. Allyn Gibson Debate Liberation Front -- "Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?" "I think so, Brain, but was there *ever* an Accordion of Rassilon?" From mknzycalhn Mon May 1 07:44:06 2000 From: mknzycalhn (Allyn Gibson) Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 08:44:06 -0400 Subject: STOP SENDING ATTACHMENTS TO EDEBATE! References: Message-ID: Tuna wrote: > My best advice would be to learn how to use your email program > because some people seem to be sending attachments without even > knowing it. Some e-mail programs are made to be asinine, and they send stuff as attachments all the time. AO-Hell is a case in point. Forward a message from AO-Hell and it comes out as an attachment to a blank message. If someone using AO-Hell was writing a message meant for the list as a whole, but accidentally sent it out to one person, then turns around and forwards it, then you're going to get the attachment problem there. It's not intentional, and with AO-Hell there's nothing you can do about it. Except maybe change ISPs, which is always a good idea. Allyn Gibson Debate Liberation Front -- "Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?" "I think so, Brain, but was there *ever* an Accordion of Rassilon?" From broveraf Mon May 1 07:53:11 2000 From: broveraf (Adrienne F. Brovero) Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 07:53:11 -0500 Subject: Africa Wording and generic positions References: Message-ID: Not til Northern Iowa, Shawn... *grin* -Adri ----- Original Message ----- From: "Shawn T Whalen" To: Sent: Friday, April 28, 2000 8:52 PM Subject: Re: Africa Wording and generic positions > Are you gonna tell us how many cards you have that say UN action toward > Africa will undercut clinton's credibility? > > Just curious, > > Shawn Whalen > > Director of Forensics > San Francisco State University > swhalen at sfsu.edu > (415) 338-1097 > > On Fri, 28 Apr 2000, Adri wrote: > > > As one of those people charged by their squad with making sure Clinton > > links to everything, I assure you Doyle is right. As many of you may > > recall, most of the time Africa has come up in the last few years is as an > > aid or focus (*snicker*) trade-off disad, based on the assumption that > > Congress considers Africa to be a low priority. That in and of itself > > makes linking political disads easier -- because it is a low priority, > > political capital must be spent to get Africa policy changed. The recent > > hold up on the African trade bill is demonstrative of this problem -- > > Clinton has paid some lip service to it, but has not made a push for it > > comparable to NTR or even the CTB (and we all know he did squat to push > > that). Other agents (the executive or the UN) won't avoid this problem > > either -- executive action that sideswipes Congress will exact a toll on > > the president's capital, as will UN action that isn't to Congress's > > liking. > > > > On another note -- a number of people have spoken out against development > > assistance. I agree with the criticisms that dev. asst. has been debated a > > bunch, and it builds in a link to devt. Ks. However, having researched the > > Africa trade-off impact for a few years now, I have to say that > > development assistance v. trade seems to be a big debate in the aid lit. > > The other big issue in US policy toward Africa seems to be peacekeeping, > > which not too many seem to advocate. I also agree that I am not a big fan > > of aid of the week cases, but if the countries are limited, I think devt. > > asst. might provide a more debateable (for both sides) alternative to > > peacekeeping. > > > > Later, > > Adrienne > > Northwestern > > > > > > > > On Thu, 27 Apr 2000, Doyle W Srader wrote: > > > > > Not sure where people are getting the idea that the Africa problem area > > > means no Clinton. The final round of the NDT on the last Africa topic was a > > > 4-1 for the negative on Bush Credibility. It should also be noted that the > > > team in question loaded up on Bush for the NDT because of their fear of an > > > avalanche of new affirmatives. > > > > > > Doyle Srader > > > Lecturer, Speech Communication > > > Stephen F. Austin State University > > > http://www.netdot.com/doyle/ > > > > > > "Ours is a nation of laws, not guns." > > > -- George W. Bush comments on the removal of Elian Gonzalez from Lazaro > > > Gonzalez's home, 4-23-2000 > > > > > > From parcherj Mon May 1 09:57:33 2000 From: parcherj (Jeff Parcher) Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 10:57:33 -0400 Subject: A Few More Answers to Kev References: <200004302021.sgpjfn.3igc.37kbi1c@farley.mail.mindspring.net> Message-ID: > A combination is also possible. Moreover, non-state agents can influence > state action (as in Vietnam). The bottom line here is that we can't explore > this debate without changing the wording hegemony that exists in the S.Q. > For Vietnam, do you believe we should only talk about the state--especially > as the state exists apart from ourselves? Perhaps that's where we disagree the most. I don't believe the state exists apart from ourselves. The state is an extension of ourselves. The hegemony of the S.Q.? Nice language, but you assume a state centered topic precludes discussion of what influences state action. Clearly that is not the case. We debate motives all the time and not just through kritiks - we sometimes use disads and counterplans, even inherency arguments and case turns. On SEA for example, many debates centered on NGOs as case turns or counterplans or inherency arguments. Your alternate agents are furtile ground for disads, counterplans, ad-ons and kritiks. It's not like a state centered topic will preclude Texas from arguing for guerilla action - in fact it gives you the link. I don't see the hegemony that you do - I see debates in which state action plays a role - sometimes dominant, sometimes not as dominant. > >also, this is again irrelevant to the list arguments - one can have civil > >disobedience aganist a government or a people or a region or a cultural > >practice, whatever. > And how do debate resolutions enable or constrain such action? Think > about a list of countries as a cultural practive itself. You missed the point. The point was that putting regions in the topic does not preclude discussion of civil disobedience in any way. It merely creates limited ground for a locus of debate in showing the relevance of civil disobedience to the affirmative case. This is an inevitable effect of debating through resolutions which you conceded above was a necessary condition for debate itself. Cultural practive? You mean like language itself? :) > Hello. I'm not willing to isolate the South African protests to a single > source of change. If we want to debate ONE country (South Africa) it > would no longer be a list, would it? I have no problem with wordings that > focus on one country, although I think a broader area with a specific > verb would be better. First of all, all your arguments apply to a one country topic with equal force - so this concession just further confuses me as to your motivation. Second of all, I'm not limiting the South Africa discussion to a single source of change either - I was just pointing out that a debate centered around a specific area or country in no way precludes discussion of alternates to state action. A country is a region, a people, a culture and more - you are the one trying to focuss on a country as a political state > >>4. a list of countries assumes that > >> the USFG (or some other superior agent) must engage in a hypothetical > >> exchange with other governmental bureaucracies, > >no. U.S. government bans sanctions - that involves '0' exchange it's a law > >that passes. interaction is only required if the change contemplated in the > >topic makes it requisite. > What are the effects of the ban on sanctions? The debate shifts at that > point. > Also, why privilege such forms of state action? Sanctions and rewards occur on > many levels. Finally, what sanctions resolution are you suggesting for > Africa? Uh. I guess you conceded the point? State action does not per se require interaction with another state right? I thought it was an awefully realist assumption for you to make - but then again you did graduate from realism central. :) > Yes, the terminology also needs to be evaluated. The lines between a > state and a country are not as simple as you convey--talk to the PKK. > Besides, YOU STILL HAVE NOT DEFENDED A LIST! Let's hear it, Jeff. Of course the lines are not clear - that's why you are losing the link debate. My argument is that the state allows for a discussion of great diversity. You are the one stuck saying the state is some monolithic political structure that constrains out discussion of "alternate agents". I have defended the list. It's necessary for negative ground and predictability. The only way to solve this without a list is to highly constrain what actions the plan can take. I agree with the comments made that it's better to have a less constrained limit on the type of action the plan is allowed to take, but to limit the countries such actions can be taken toward. Last year got stale quickly. Allow creativity in plan mechanism but use a list to provide the negative with lots of country specific evidence to answer with. > >>Kamal, > >> you have been interpellated by the resolutions you have debated into > >> a certain type of subjectivity. You are being trained (and training > >yourself) > >> to think about foreign policy and U.S. agency is certain ways. > >as you have too, kev. what's the point? unless you are making play for the > >better subjectivity ground (i.e. the truth that only you are privileged to > >see) we ought to just stick to the arguments. > Yes, I too have been interpellated through debate and academia. So have > you. We all are produced and generated through these processes. This is > not a truth claim, but an argument that the effects of the resolution > constitute certain types of subjectivity. What do you mean "stick to > the arguments"? This is argumentation. Technically you are correct - ad hominem attacks are arguments I suppose. My point was to quit impuning Kamal and I as products of the "SQ Hegemony" or "Cultural blah blah blah" and stick to the substance. We are all "interpellated" (whatever the hell that is), I don't really care - I'm not interested in exploring what makes you say what you say (today anyway) I just want to deal with the substance. > >seems like there might to be lots of ends. grouping all think tanks with > >this type of indict is beyond silly. there are far more differences than > >similarities between say CSIS and the People's Development Forum. > Yes--and which group benefits from which resolution? Benefits? I have any idea what this loaded word means in this context. Our team is going to cut cards from both sites regardless of the topic wording. How about you? > >also, the notion that if we don't agree with you - we have somehow not > >listened to your ideas is an old and wearing radical plea. i think you are > >wrong, precisely because i have considered the implications of adopting the > >kuswa framework for debate. not like i haven't seen and/or coached in > >debates where the locus of discussion centered outside the state framework. > >as you say - "been there done that" - don't EVER want to go there again in > >fact. > This is a really confusing claim, Jeff. I have two arguments: no list and > no USFG agents. Where are you talking about going? What have you done and > where? Fill me in. Well, I don't see how this is relevant. But as a debater I did CEDA AND NDT and thus had exposure to pure value topics (i.e. no state actor per se). I also coached LD in high school (usually no state actor). I have also coached and judged several personal action/narrative debates that did not allow for discussion of state action. That's what I'm talking about. Been there done that - let's stick to policy debate. JP From mknzycalhn Mon May 1 10:15:00 2000 From: mknzycalhn (Allyn Gibson) Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 11:15:00 -0400 Subject: The John Lennon Artificial Intelligence Project Message-ID: This isn't debate related, but it's interesting all the same. There's this website called the John Lennon Artificial Intelligence Project where you can have a meaningful chat with an artificial intelligence model of John Lennon. Here's a link: http://www.TriumphPC.com/john-lennon/. It's more than a little eerie. The model isn't perfect, since it seems to run on a heavily modified version of the old Eliza engine (and I'd hope there's one or two people in the debate community who are familiar with Eliza), but there are moments of sheer John-ness there. Like when he asked me about my name. I told him my name, and then he wanted to know what I looked like, so I gave him a brief description, neglecting to mention that I'm a guy. So, he asks me if I'm a man or a woman, so then I say that, of course, my name is a bit on the gender neutral side, so for the rest of the conversation he calls me Rather Gender Neutral, which is something John would have done. Allyn Gibson Debate Liberation Front -- "Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?" "I think so, Brain, but was there *ever* an Accordion of Rassilon?" >From Mon May 1 10:24:47 2000 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 6838 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 1 May 2000 11:19:17 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from mail.utexas.edu (wb1-a.mail.utexas.edu [128.83.126.134]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA40846 for ; Mon, 1 May 2000 11:19:13 -0400 Received: (qmail 19835 invoked by uid 0); 1 May 2000 15:19:03 -0000 Received: from dial-80-14.ots.utexas.edu (HELO mail.utexas.edu) (128.83.219.14) by umbs-smtp-1 with SMTP; 1 May 2000 15:19:03 -0000 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 (Macintosh; I; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <007b01bfafe0$aaef2e40$9100a8c0 at SUNFIRE> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <390D5B6A.2F3907A9 at mail.utexas.edu> Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 10:24:47 +0000 Reply-To: jd.rollins at mail.utexas.edu To: Team Topic Debating in America From: joel david rollins Subject: Re: Quayle/Gore quotations Comments: To: Andy Culp I have no doubt that Gore has said many a stupid thing. But at least what has been attributed to Gore (without any documented evidence) does show us the importance of full source citations. Quyale quotations first with unattributed Gore citations following. i don't think this is a conspiracy, as some have observed. i think that it is one unimaginative crackpot that "falsified" ev. joel The Quayle Quote File Hall of Fame It isn't pollution that's harming the environment. It's the impurities in our air and water that are doing it. -- Vice President Dan Quayle I believe we are on an irreversible trend toward more freedom and democracy - but that could change. -- Vice President Dan Quayle, 5/22/89 (reported in Esquire, 8/92) The Holocaust was an obscene period in our nation's history. I mean in this century's history. But we all lived in this century. I didn't live in this century. -- Senator Dan Quayle, 9/15/88 (reported in Esquire, 8/92, The New Yorker, 10/10/88, p.102) This election is about who's going to be the next President of the United States! -- Senator Dan Quayle, 9/2/88 (reported in Esquire, 8/92) One word sums up probably the responsibility of any vice president, and that one word is `to be prepared'. -- Vice President Dan Quayle, 12/6/89 (reported in Esquire, 8/92) If we do not succeed, then we run the risk of failure. -- Vice President Dan Quayle, to the Phoenix Republican Forum, 3/23/90 (reported in Esquire, 8/92) Also reported by Reuters, 5/2/90 Let me just tell you how thrilling it really is, and how, what a challenge it is, because in 1988 the question is whether we're going forward to tomorrow or whether we're going to go past to the -- to the back! -- Senator Dan Quayle, 8/17/88 (reported in Esquire, 8/92) What a waste it is to lose one's mind. Or not to have a mind is being very wasteful. How true that is. -- Vice President Dan Quayle winning friends while speaking to the United Negro College Fund, 5/9/89 This gem has been added to Bartlett's `Familiar Quotations'. (reported in Esquire, 8/92) (reported in the NY Times, 12/9/92) Take a breath, Al... Inhale. -- Vice President Dan Quayle politely cutting off Senator Al Gore during the VP Debate in Atlanta, 10/13/92. Gov. Zell Miller of Georgia said that Dan Quayle reminded him of one of his grandkids when they've had too much sugar. Republicans understand the importance of bondage between a mother and child. -- Senator Dan Quayle, US News and World Report (10/10/88) Hawaii has always been a very pivotal role in the Pacific. It is in the Pacific. It is a part of the United States that is an island that is right here. -- Vice President Dan Quayle, Hawaii, 4/25/89 (reported in Esquire, 8/92) Welcome to President Bush, Mrs. Bush, and my fellow astronauts. -- Vice President Dan Quayle addressing the 20th anniversary celebration of the moon landing, 7/20/89 (reported in Esquire, 8/92) Mars is essentially in the same orbit... Mars is somewhat the same distance from the Sun, which is very important. We have seen pictures where there are canals, we believe, and water. If there is water, that means there is oxygen. If oxygen, that means we can breathe. -- Vice President Dan Quayle, 8/11/89 (reported in Esquire, 8/92) The loss of life will be irreplaceable. -- Vice President Dan Quayle after the San Francisco earthquake, 10/19/89 (reported in Esquire, 8/92) Bobby Knight told me this: ``There is nothing that a good defense cannot beat a better offense.'' In other words a good offense wins. -- Senator Dan Quayle, in a speech to the City Club of Chicago, comparing the offensive capabilities of the Warsaw Pact with the defensive system of NATO, 9/8/88 (reported in Esquire, 8/92) Andy Culp wrote: > Well, since George W.'s "status" has been entered into the realm of debate, > here's an email I just received today. I do not assume credibility, but I > would not doubt these are all true. Thus I offer these quotes from the > Democratic candidate for President. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > --------- > "If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure." > --Al Gore > > "Democrats understand the importance of bondage between a mother and > child." > -Vice President Al Gore > > "Welcome to President Clinton, Mrs. Clinton, and my fellow astronauts." > -Vice President Al Gore > > "Mars is essentially in the same orbit... Mars is somewhat the same > distance from the Sun, which is very important. We have seen pictures where > there are canals, we believe, & water. If there is water, that means there > is oxygen. If oxygen, that means we can breathe." > -Vice President Al Gore, 8/11/94 > > "The Holocaust was an obscene period in our nation's history. I mean in > this century's history. But we all lived in this century. I didn't live in > this century." > -Vice President Al Gore, 9/15/95 > > "I believe we are on an irreversible trend toward more freedom and > democracy - but that could change." > -Vice President Al Gore, 5/22/98 > > "One word sums up probably the responsibility of any vice president, & that > one word is 'to be prepared'." > -Vice President Al Gore, 12/6/93 > > "Verbosity leads to unclear, inarticulate things." > -Vice President Al Gore, 11/30/96 > > "I have made good judgments in the past. I have made good judgments in the > future." > -Vice President Al Gore > > "We're going to have the best-educated American people in the world." > -Vice President Al Gore, 9/21/97 > > "People that are really very weird can get into sensitive positions and > have a tremendous impact on history." > -Vice President Al Gore > > "We have a firm commitment to NATO, we are a part of NATO. We have a firm > commitment to Europe. We are a part of Europe." > -Vice President Al Gore > > "Public speaking is very easy." > -Vice President Al Gore to reporters in 10/95 > > "I am not part of the problem. I am a Democrat." > --Vice President Al Gore > > "A low voter turnout is an indication of fewer people going to the polls." > -Vice President Al Gore > > "When I have been asked who caused the riots and the killing in L.A., my > answer has been direct & simple: Who is to blame for the riots? The rioters > are to blame. Who is to blame for the killings? The killers are to blame. > -Vice President Al Gore > > "Illegitimacy is something we should talk about in terms of not having it." > -Vice President Al Gore, 5/20/96 > > "We are ready for any unforeseen event that may or may not occur." > -Vice President Al Gore, 9/22/97 > > "For NASA, space is still a high priority." > -Vice President Al Gore, 9/5/93 > > "Quite frankly, teachers are the only profession that teach our children." > -Vice President Al Gore, 9/18/95 > > "We're all capable of mistakes, but I do not care to enlighten you on the > mistakes we may or may not have made." > -Vice President Al Gore > > "It isn't pollution that's harming the environment. It's the impurities in > our air and water that are doing it." > -Vice President Al Gore > > "[It's] time for the human race to enter the solar system." > -Vice President Al Gore > > "I stand by all the misstatements that I've made." > -Vice President Al Gore to Sam Donaldson, 8/17/93 > > "The American people would not want to know of any misquotes that Al Gore > may or may not make." > -Vice President Al Gore > > AND, OF COURSE, THE ALL TIME FAVORITE QUOTATION OF MR. AL GORE: "As many of > you know, I was very instrumental in the founding of the Internet" > -Vice President Al Gore to Katie Couric 3/99 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > --------- > > Andy Culp -- Joel D. Rollins, PhD Director of Debating Director, UTNIF Jesse Jones Communication Center, CMA 7.114 The University of Texas at Austin Austin, TX 78712 email: jd.rollins at mail.utexas.edu UTNIF Web site: http://www.utexas.edu/coc/speech/debate/adi.html or http://utdebate.tripod.com/adi.htm From kghali Mon May 1 10:21:04 2000 From: kghali (Kamal Ghali) Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 11:21:04 -0400 Subject: Kevin's Koolness In-Reply-To: <200005011101.HAA18200@list.uvm.edu> Message-ID: MESSAGE REMOVED From jasonph Mon May 1 11:30:34 2000 From: jasonph (Jason Hernandez) Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 12:30:34 -0400 Subject: DCA Debater #5 Mike Eber Message-ID: Bio by Alison Woidan The Michael Eber Story Michael Eber will long be remembered for his competitive drive, in-round smarts, fashion sense, and poker prowess. Unless he was effectively spread out of his 1AR or 2NR, his talents at persuasion and making logical arguments earned him many victories and speaker awards. Starting the year off with a bang at UNI, Mike and his partner in crime, Grant ~SBig Red~T McKeehan, blasted through elims to win the tournament with an elim ballot count of 14-1. It was also this tournament where Mike believed he ended Sparky~Rs career on ~Sgotta have immediate in the plan.~T Much to Mike~Rs inevitable dismay at the NDT, Sparky wasn~Rt gone forever, but Mike continued to topple teams throughout the year, while Sparky retaliated with equally compelling and well-researched round-winners. Mixing things up a bit while Rojo Grande was taking the LSAT, Mike debated at the Kentucky round robin and the Kentucky tourney with David Magariel. While the round robin provided a chance for Mike and Dmag to get used to debating together, they clearly found their rhythm during the Kentucky tournament going 7-1 in prelims and continuing Mike~Rs long standing tradition of defeating Dartmouth in the octas. Although they lost to Lupowitz in the quarters, Mike found much solace in his top speaker award for the tournament. Reunited for the Cap Cities tournament, Mike and Grant went undefeated in prelims, and continued winning until they met Bailey and Ghali in the semis, their first match of many with this legendary duo. While Mike and Grant lost on a 3-0 on the affirmative here, it was certain that Mike would be ready for BG the next time they met. The stars aligned perfectly at the Harvard tournament two weeks later. Rounding out prelims as the 8th seed, Mike~Rs chance at retribution towards BG came in the quarters. Maybe it was because Mike had purchased nice new socks to be a little more fashionable like BG~EMaybe it was because Mike~Rs girlfriend confessed that she thought Kamal was hot~Eor maybe it was because Mike was negative and could better control the pace of the debate and break a new strategy. Regardless, Mike~Rs moment of victory came when he defeated BG on a 3-0. Mike and Grant continued to have many successes throughout the year, including winning Wake Forest. While Mike~Rs career ended sooner than he had hoped in the octas to Northwestern at the NDT, it is certain that he will long be remembered as one of the greatest debaters of all time. Mike proved conclusively that speed isn~Rt a prerequisite for success, and his spirit will live on as debaters that saw him in action endeavor to emulate his powerful cross-ex style or his devastatingly clever 2NCs. After all, Roger Saad is still at Kansas, foaming at the mouth over the opportunity to continue Mike~Rs legacy. But Mike~Rs not gone from the scene just yet. While he won~Rt be debating any longer, you can still expect to find him in Michigan State's hotel rooms at tournaments. Only this time, he'll be making fun of bad arguments and researching obsessively as a judge and coach for Michigan State. And what will happen when the minds of Scott Harris and Mike Eber collide as they coach opposing teams? No one~Rs really certain, but you can be sure that Mike will be happy to start some sort of gambling ring surrounding that match up. And to conclude, here~Rs a top ten list of (drum roll please~E) THE TOP TEN THINGS THAT YOU~RRE LEAST LIKELY TO HEAR MIKE SAY AT A DEBATE TOURNAMENT 10.~SWell, Grant, I got through 3 off and all of case in my 2NC, so you don~Rt need to finish anything up for me in your 1NR.~T 9. ~SYeah, we just beat Donald and Monick~E~T 8. ~SI thought we lost that debate, too, judge.~T 7. ~SI think I~Rll stand up for this speech to overwhelm the other team with my height.~T 6. ~SIt~Rs not in my backpackI blocked and filed all those miscellaneous cards I~Rd cut weeks ago.~T 5. ~SI knew we wouldn~Rt win that round. I stayed at the bar really late last night hanging out and was still hung over this morning.~T 4. ~SNo, I~Rm not interested in playing poker tonight. I gave that up a long time ago.~T 3. ~SIf I could have one wish, it would be for a mix tape with ~SYou Can~Rt Always Get What You Want~T played several hundred times consecutively on it. I can~Rt get enough of that song!~T 2. ~SI think we just spread Bailey and Ghali out!~T 1. ~SCheck out this phat file that Melman did! How can we lose with evidence like this?!~T From parcherj Mon May 1 11:44:44 2000 From: parcherj (Jeff Parcher) Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 12:44:44 -0400 Subject: More Conflated Answers to Kuswa References: <200005010158.sgq78m.hb2.37kbi5a@fb04.eng00.mindspring.net> Message-ID: answers follow and further down some actual specific topic ideas > >you want your discussion about africa to be more than about the game itself. > >fine. there seems to be plenty of room for that regardless of how the > >wording turns out. no one is going to make a topicality argument against > >what the topic leads you to think do or say in your life. what i don't want > >is your poltical agenda in my topic, so to speak. > > Parcher, this is your weakest and most telling argument. First of all, it > is not "my" political agenda in any possessive sense. Second, you cannot > escape politics. Whether you recognize it or not, the topics are political. > If you try to escape politics by avoiding what you perceive to be my anti- > statist politics, you are deluding yourself into believing that your stance > is somehow emancipated. I used the language of politcal agenda on purpose, because I knew you would see it as a weakness in my position. Wrong. Your political argument is only true if you answer the link turn and you haven't. A topic which uses a non-state actor precludes discussion of state action much more than one which includes a state center. Guerilla tactics (and many other K's and CPs) make sense as a Kritik to state action, but a state counterplan is illogical as an answer to personal action (competition problems and fiat issues). The affirmative on a state centric topic can never avoid having to justify state action, but an affirmative unconstrained by a state actor requirement simply wishes the comparison away as non-competitive. A state anchored topic isn't political in the sense that it allows for a debate and comparison. Of course it is political in that it assumes there is a debate to be had. But I don't think that's too controversial - even if you don't buy Kamal's powerful (and so far unrefuted) argument that the state IS the center of international relations, one cannot serious deny that it ought to be atleast a RELEVANT part of the discussion (even if that discussion is merely a critique of it's centrality). Your poltical agenda is clear if for no other eason than you have stated it. Your topic eliminates the debate by vanquishing the state at the definitional stage. My state centric topic merely poses a question and hence takes a much softer political stand. > >put the state in the > >topic and you can still argue about the illegitmacy of the state to your > >heart's content - take it out and where are those who don't share your > >poltical vision?. > Jeez, I wish it was that easy! The state is not going anywhere, it is > an immense network of power relations, perhaps more ubiquitious than any > other present nexus, but that doesn't mean it has to be the focus of > our wording. Make these arguments on the negative. In addition, various > political visions have always been able to coexist on past topics--you > give this issue too much credit. you dropped the link turn again. state topic = discussion of state and alternative. non-state topic = discussion only of alternatives. if your motive is not political it certainly can't be educational - so far you haven't denied Kamal's state relevance arguments. > >also the assumtion that the problems of west africa are due to inattention > >by the U.S. is as offensive as it is unsound. > TURN, I was talking about general policy action, NOT action by the U.S. Your > assumption here is far worse than any conceivable assumption I have made > about problems in West Africa. Why? Because you rush to the defense of > the U.S. as an eraser of the claim that a focus on "important" African > countries is exclusionary. This displaces the question in favor of an > assessment of American blame. Fuck that. > Besides, U.S. inattention is not an issue? No link to your turn - the question being debated IS whether the USFG ought to be the agent in the topic. Turn - you are the one assuming that 'important' African countries won't include your West African friend. I have already stated my desire to see important defined in a way other than population, economy and size. I think there should be a diversity of countries. Your world view is one in which he is unimportant - not mine. Maybe US attention is the issue. How about slavery or the cold war? General policy inattention? Is that what has gone wrong in West Africa? You think that countries which recieve massive "general policy attention" have faired better? Whatever! State action or inaction can be good or bad - the point is that it's a relevant part of the debate. > The "game" argument has long been a scapegoat for your theoretical > hodgepodge. Why even engage in this argument, Jeff? The game does > have effects on people and their lives. Your game may be more distant > than others, but don't project your guilt on to "my problems." The only > one measuring lives here is you--to a yardstick that has supposedly > left reality by simply calling itself a game. The game argument is more complicated than you seem to comprehend. The point is that not everyone has a poltical view of debate in the way you do and it's better to have a topic that accounts for everyone's interest. The game does have effects and they are probably more complicated than we can measure. Who's to say the state centered topic doesn't achieve your politcal agenda more through mobilization than if we simply let policy debate collapse into personal advocacy. Poltical effect isn't a good way to evaluate a topic - it's too indeterminate. Ground, educational value, fairness etc are better ways to evaluate and don't think you have entered that side of the debate yet. > Again, let's hear your list. As of now, the only list other than a > regional breakdown of possible countries within that region is Kamal's > random stab: "How about Nigeria and South Africa and some other key places." > Why don't we pick the first five alphabetically :) Well, I haven't really done enough work to take a good stab and I hope to hear what others think. Seems to me a good topic would have to include South Africa (size and influence) and Sudan (literature), another horn country (somalia or ethiopia) a central african country, Nigeria (literature and size) and perhaps a couple other west african nations where interesting issues can be indentified. I also have been toying with the idea of wording that allow the affirmative to have a plan toward "Africa as a whole" or individually toward a list of countries. For instance, the idea might read "Resolved that the U.S. should substantially change it's foreign policy toward each and every african nation or toward one or more of the following african nations...." > No, racism is not all the same. I will stand behind my argument that your > statements are complicit when they cite the omnipresence of the problem to > encourage inaction. Wrong. It is the same until you prove otherwise and excluding cuban children is just as bad as excluding west africans. Period. I challenge you to show otherwise. Put up or shut up. > >saying debate should focuss on state policies is no more complicit in the > >consequences of state action (vietnam war) than your kritik is complict in > >the consequences of state inaction (spousal abuse or the holocaust). > Vietnam will occur again so therefore we should accept it? Spousal abuse > is rampant so the abuse is justified? Besides, my argument is not about > ignoring the state, it is about approaching it from other angles. There is a difference between complicity and justification. The argument was a link out. Read it carefully - it's an indict of your notion of complicity. It says that your broad notions make it impossible to differentiate between good and bad action or inaction because you are too concerned that either might be complicit. My argument is simple - the topic wording isn't racist in a meaningful sense. At some point inevitability does matter if one can make distinctions. It's like the Hume dream argument - in the end it doesn't matter because action by individuals is inevitable. You screwed up the spousal abuse/holocaust argument by the way. The point was that you are complicit because you argue for the illegitimacy of the state. By criticizing state action so generally you disabuse the state from ever acting. The general kritik as always proves to much. > Your debate-speak leaves musch to be desired here. You and Kamal contend > that we will always leave areas outside the realm of our discussion. No > shit. My argument is that the way we process the object of the resolution > through a continuous series of governments produces a type of subjectivity > that is remote, distanced, and ultimately enthnocentric. Your American > Exceptionalism gestures back to the triangular relationships of slave > trading: "Well, the traders have already removed these people from their > land, we might as well continue their oppression through slavery." What? The discreet harm of oppression through slavery is quite a different thing from the inevitablity of classification. To win you have to show west africans are more important than cubans - it's an impossible task - so in the end you can't win a discreet impact. Your classification is as bad as mine - it's not an argument that we must give up - it's an argument to move toward a higher chain of specificity. One where action does matter and can make a difference. > Look, Jeff, ALL of these "link outs" are ture to the degree that the "people" > of the topic are always in the process of being spoken for. > The question is, can we speak with, to, or as these "abstracted people" at > the same time that we speak for them? In other words, how are we absolving > our feelings of exclusion and how does our agency reflect such representation? Your argument assumes that you win the state illegitmacy links which I would be happy to ridicule if you would make them formally. I contend that the state can speak "to", "as" or "with" people as much any alternative agent. I also contend that such can be the purpose of the plan in a state centric resolution. I also contend that these issues are MORE likely to be discussed on a state centric topic because it involves comparison rather than capitulation to the alternative agenda. What exactly doesn't get discussed on the state centric topic? I'm still unclear about how hegemony wins out. Is it just a fear that the kritik won't win the debate and a desire to circumvent the market place of ideas by simply defining the state away? > >also, uniqueness is relevant for another reason - it proved your complicity > >argument was hypocritical even before you made it. but then it wasn't tough > >to figure out where the argument would end. somehow i could count on being > >accused of complicity with all the evil structures that you can see, but > >that i ignore because of my secret desire to keep myself in a priveleged > >position viz-a-zis the children of west africa. > This is brutal, Jeff. You are simplifying and conflating a lot of issues > here. Uniqueness is key! This is a UNIQUE chance to re-construct our > ossified reliance on the USFG and an inferior list of "sub-states." Structures > are not necessarily good or evil. What you miss is that structures > interpellate (some might call this ideology) through discourse. In other > words, we must interact with non-structural entities as well. The evil > structure is in your head. The possibility of a structural rupture is > in front of us. Conflation is apparently my middle name. But the rest of your answer makes no sense to me. Rupture? Are you serious? Why is a topic which makes the personal advocacy plan (for example) topical any more likely to cause rupture than a topic in which the affirmative is vulnerable to arguments against the importance of state action through PMNs, Kritiks and disads likely to cause the rupture? Truth is, some people are more likely to rupture with conventional politics because of the Clinton DA than through the personal action 1AC. In reality, I would argue that the conventional political focus of debate IS what has brought us to the point of imagining alternatives. Why? Because debate is comparison and discussion of other agents are best when framed as comparisons. It gives context and meaning to the discussion. It anchors us in or near conventional literature and draws us out in ways that immersion can never hope to achieve by simply wishing reality away. P.S. - I'm sure the previous paragraph includes lots of conflation and is the product of serious interpellation (sp?). JP From parcherj Mon May 1 11:59:45 2000 From: parcherj (Jeff Parcher) Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 12:59:45 -0400 Subject: W.H.O. as agent in Africa? References: <200005010715.DAA25776@list.uvm.edu> Message-ID: > R: That the WHO should substantially expand and improve its > policies in Africa governing at least two of the following > areas: women-in-development, sustainable development, AIDs, > and population control. 1. Improve conflates topicality and solvency. Anything that has an advantage is an improvement. I am troubled by that for limits reasons. 2. Workability - the agent is not self sufficient in the way that say the USFG is. Thus, for example, the topic provides no apparent way to overcome funding constraints. 3. Population control is a rather loaded term - I would suggest something softer like family planning or population assistance. 4. Two or more doesn't serve much of purpose since many things that are in one of those categries probably fit another as well and hence water pumps can be seen as a WID policy or sustainable development policy. 5. No list is a problem. Negatives are going to get stuck debating individual contract services in Djibouti or some water pump in Gambia. This is not a claim that people in those countries are less important - only a claim as to ground and fairness. 6. The WHO is a product of the state structure and chows all the arguments made by Kuswa earlier and perhaps gets them worse due to conflation or blurring. :) JP ----- Original Message ----- From: kevin kuswa To: Sent: Monday, May 01, 2000 3:15 AM Subject: W.H.O. as agent in Africa? > Have any of the topic paper authors looked into > the WHO as a possible agent? J. Reader's 1998 book > called _Africa_ and the edited collection called > _Africa in World Politics_ (Harbeson & Rothchild) > both talk about this. > > A resolution they hint at would be: > > R: That the WHO should substantially expand and improve its > policies in Africa governing at least two of the following > areas: women-in-development, sustainable development, AIDs, > and population control. > > Any thoughts, > > kevin From ecocats Mon May 1 12:03:13 2000 From: ecocats (carolyn o'neill) Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 13:03:13 -0400 Subject: in search of nick hesterberg's phone number Message-ID: hey folks, if anyone knows Nick's number, please backchannel me asap. thanks, carolyn o'neill From d.breshears Mon May 1 11:03:33 2000 From: d.breshears (David Breshears) Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 12:03:33 -0400 Subject: Her and Him Message-ID: Don't think that was my advice. I'd advise them to pay attention to who they're debating, and to try not to do something ridiculous, like arguing that foreign policy silences women's voices, then proceeding to refer to the only female in the room as "he" more than a dozen times, even after being REPEATEDLY corrected (by her partner, herself, and the critic). I'd especially tell them not to make rude noises and gestures while the 2AR is pointing out the obvious: that their refusal to acknowledge her identity in the round was a much more egregious instance of silencing than the specious link the negative was asserting against the aff (and, as I tried to do after the round - as Emma CLEARLY told you, but you've conveniently ignored - I'd tell them that she was making a damn good argument). That was a particularly unwise strategy that should probably be eliminated. If anything, I might have suggested gender-neutral language ("they say..." instead of "he/she says...."), but even that is really just a crutch for folks who don't have the interest/ability/care to look at the person they're debating and speak to them in less-than-generic terms. The biggest piece of advice I'd give them, Bear, is that they should be willing to listen to folks who are trying to educate them about the invidious effects of unacknowledged/invisible/inadvertant sexism, racism, or homophobia, and less insistent that they're "good people," who should be excused for repeatedly, though inadvertantly, hurting someone. Good luck, Dave -----Original Message----- From: Michael Bear Bryant To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU Date: Monday, May 01, 2000 3:16 AM Subject: Her and Him >Related to the discourse over the past few days, I've got a related beef. >I've had three well-respected members of the community tell me that my >controversey with Breshears over his treatment of my debaters when they >repeatedly, yet accidentally, referred to a female opponent as "him" during a >debate. > >The advice I've been given is to train my debaters to always default to use >of the pronoun "her" in training and practice debates. The argument goes >that's its a much safer default to risk calling a male opponent "she" or >"her" than to call womyn opponents "he" or "him." > >Why? Is anyone willing to defend this as pedagogical proactice? Perhaps David >Breshears will break his cone of silence long enough to explain how he can >justify such advice. > >Really curious. > >Bear >From Mon May 1 13:38:49 2000 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 10615 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 1 May 2000 13:39:39 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo14.mx.aol.com (imo14.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.4]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA36780 for ; Mon, 1 May 2000 13:39:35 -0400 Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo14.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v26.7.) id 2.42.4d7e165 (4401); Mon, 1 May 2000 13:38:49 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 105 Message-ID: <42.4d7e165.263f1b29 at aol.com> Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 13:38:49 EDT Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Michael Bear Bryant Subject: Re: Her and Him Comments: To: d.breshears at mail.utexas.edu In a message dated 5/1/00 11:08:03 AM Mountain Daylight Time, d.breshears at mail.utexas.edu writes: > f anything, I might have suggested gender-neutral language ("they say..." > instead of "he/she says...."), but even that is really just a crutch for > folks who don't have the interest/ability/care to look at the person they're > debating and speak to them in less-than-generic terms. > > The biggest piece of advice I'd give them, Bear, is that they should be > willing to listen to folks who are trying to educate them about the > invidious effects of unacknowledged/invisible/inadvertant sexism, racism, or > homophobia, and less insistent that they're "good people," who should be > excused for repeatedly, though inadvertantly, hurting someone. > > Good luck, Amen, Brother Breshears. And I believe there's truth in every word the mighty David articulates. But didn't you sit in Frapp's room after the NDT Business Meeting and tell me that I should tell them to always default to "her" over "him"? Come on, David, be honest. Why is calling a male debater "her", OK? You did defend that as PREFERABLE to calling a female a "him." I clearly remember the conversation. Why? Bear From Michelin.Massey Mon May 1 13:07:13 2000 From: Michelin.Massey (Michelin Christopher Massey) Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 12:07:13 -0600 Subject: is (e)debate for everyone? - PLEASE EVERYONE READ! Message-ID: dear list, i appreciate y'all's responses in regard to my posts last week about covert racism/racist sexism within this country. many backchannels, even ones that are the most critical, have been very helpful in me articulating my position and coming to a better understanding of what i want to mean. the point of this particular message is to pose and (attempt) to answer a question that has been swirling in my head for quite some time: is debate for everyone? is edebate for everyone? the conclusions i have drawn may be insufficient, so i encourage others to chime in. as for debate, i believe that every person should learn the skills we take for granted. in debate, we strive to teach people how to make arguments against arguments, not against the speaker who has delivered those arguments. we strive to teach people to understand the other side of issues to truly make an effective argument and how to refute other effective arguments. persuasive arguments require even more persuasive counter-arguments. every person should learn these skills because, often times, the failure to attack someone's ideas degenerates into unnecessary hostilities and name calling, even among ones friends. i've never found an environment other than competitive debate that teaches these skills the best. i haven't tried very hard to find alternative venues because in each and every debate i've been in, i've noticed things i've done good and bad. the want to improve and the want to get advice for improvement should be the cornerstone of everyone's personal creedo, even if you disagree about what you mean by improvement. for these reasons, i think that debate is for everyone. the second part of my post deals with edebate and the ways in which we as debaters choose to use our skills for evil instead of good. on edebate, people decide to write various forms of contribution over the medium of e-mail. by reading e-mail messages, a wide array of emotions have been drawn from me. feelings of anger, sadness, happiness, grief, pride, kinship, and many others have emerged. this forum has been great in introducing me to people and ideas i would've never likely come into contact with had i remained where i was most comfortable. some of those ideas are no good, however. debate and edebate are, in reality, not for everyone because of our choices. we have moved away from the original purposes of debate - to attack arguments not people, to look for understanding not alienation. many speculate the reason is because when we type these words, we're only staring at a screen and not into the eyes of those whom we may know intimately. we're detached from the personhood of others. each and every day we are all inundated with messages that enlighten and oppress. often, it is so amazingly difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff that people become uninterested in engaging those of us who continue to post in written dialouge about issues we find important. i think that's sad. it is unfortunate we lose out on many great ideas. it is our loss, not our gain that we have made edebate and debate a club that is not suitable for everyone. here is my solution. i reserve the right to shift this plan to be more inclusive or exclusive based on praise or criticism. :) 1. when writing a message to edebate, reread what you have written at least 2 times. 2. during the process of rereading what you have written, ask yourself the following questions: a) does it contain language that will potentially offend? if so, ask yourself if the offensive language is necessary for the ideas in the message to get across to all readers. try to make changes where necessary. b) does the message contain ad hominem (sp?) attack(s)? if so, you should think about deleting it since personaly attacking others serves no useful purpose. before sending an e-mail, you still have time to "take back" what you want to say. c) does this message contain information that is relevant to 1,000+ people? if so, post it! if not, perhaps a backchannel may be more suitable. a good word of advice i've received from my mother is that i shouldn't put my business out in the street. why tell others in a public forum about your personal grudges? d) does the message attempt to use minimum standards for correct grammar, such that, others will have little difficulty in understanding your meaning? e) does the message require additional explanation to make irony or humor more abundandly clear to those who are outside of your group of friends or enemies? if so, perhaps another message or a footnote may be necessary to clarify/minimize confusion and responses that may attempt to criticize your words unnecessarily. f) if you have offended someone, does your upcoming message include a sincere apology/clarification (one which you truly believe in)? if so, good! if not, perhaps you should reconsider sending the message and escalating the rhetorical violence that will undoubtedly ensue. g) does this message give an honest portrayal of another's arguments? does it reflect ignorant attack or informed response? if it's the former, take some pride in how people perceive you and reformulate the message. this may not be an exhaustive list, but it certainly is a start. many people, myself included, have been guilty of unnecessarily attacking others with our e-mail messages. i wish it weren't so. what we do today does not have to remain practice forever. i hope that you all will join with me and help make (e)debate an environment that is more conducive to promoting the original ideas that make debate so valuable to us all. sincerely, michelin massey. From d.breshears Mon May 1 12:14:03 2000 From: d.breshears (David Breshears) Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 13:14:03 -0400 Subject: Her and Him Message-ID: as i said, my advice is that folks take a moment and pay attention to who they are debating and speak appropriately. if they're unable to muster the attention/skills/care to do that, a far second is to refer to everyone generically as "they" (works well in the context of "team" debate, no?). a distant third, referring to everyone as "she/her", i'll defend, but only for the sake of argument (whether or not i actually defended this as an alternative in a conversation with bear months ago, i can't really attest. i'm not exactly keeping a running tally of everything that's said in conversation, and i certainly don't remember the context of the comment - something that bear seems utterly unconcerned about when quoting his memory back to folks). three words, bear: CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT. look it up. in this case, do you REALLY not understand the difference between calling a man "she" in the CONTEXT of our contemporary debate environment, and calling a woman "he"? come on, now...it's really not that hard to figure out. ya see, our activity/community is just slightly dominated by males (do you need a breakdown of the numbers?). in this CONTEXT, yes, i'll defend that the impact of the latter circumstance is greater than the impact of the former. is this to say that there's nothing wrong with referring to males as "she"? certainly not (see my above comments about having the mental wherewithal to pay attention to the people you're talking to and speaking accordingly). however, for the same reason that i'm less concerned about the impact of discriminatory admissions decisions on Bakke or Hopwood than on the unnamed minority students who captured their "rightful" place in the UC-Davis Medical School and UT Law School respectively, i'm less concerned about the impact on privileged, powerful males than less-privileged, less-powerful females (do we need a side conversation about what constitutes privilege and power, or is everyone pretty much up to speed on the gendered/raced/classed/sexed nature of our activity, community, and larger society?). i'm basically saying that i don't think all discrimination impacts all people equally. i think that some folks occupy privileged positions that insulate them (to some degree, at least) from the impacts of discrimination. difference matters. so does power. to ignore this is to UTTERLY MISS THE POINT of the past several weeks worth of conversation. dave -----Original Message----- From: Michael Bear Bryant To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU Date: Monday, May 01, 2000 1:42 PM Subject: Re: Her and Him >In a message dated 5/1/00 11:08:03 AM Mountain Daylight Time, >d.breshears at mail.utexas.edu writes: > >> f anything, I might have suggested gender-neutral language ("they say..." >> instead of "he/she says...."), but even that is really just a crutch for >> folks who don't have the interest/ability/care to look at the person >they're >> debating and speak to them in less-than-generic terms. >> >> The biggest piece of advice I'd give them, Bear, is that they should be >> willing to listen to folks who are trying to educate them about the >> invidious effects of unacknowledged/invisible/inadvertant sexism, racism, >or >> homophobia, and less insistent that they're "good people," who should be >> excused for repeatedly, though inadvertantly, hurting someone. >> >> Good luck, > >Amen, Brother Breshears. And I believe there's truth in every word the mighty >David articulates. But didn't you sit in Frapp's room after the NDT Business >Meeting and tell me that I should tell them to always default to "her" over >"him"? Come on, David, be honest. Why is calling a male debater "her", OK? >You did defend that as PREFERABLE to calling a female a "him." I clearly >remember the conversation. > >Why? > >Bear From david.glass Mon May 1 14:36:53 2000 From: david.glass (DAVID GLASS) Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 14:36:53 -0500 Subject: listservs vs conferencing Message-ID: Subject: Time:2:23 PM OFFICE MEMO listservs vs conferencing Date:5/1/00 For those frustrated with the EDEBATE listserv, may I suggest an alternative? I've been a member of The Well for many years. The Well is an on-line conferencing system. You probably have seen similar Web-based systems, using threaded messages and conferences, on such sites as Salon (in the Table-Talk section); yahoo, etc. Basically, here's how it works: major areas are separated into "Conferences". Within each conferences are a series of discussion topics. People post responses in topics. The advantage of this threaded system are several-fold: 1) A permanent record of the entire conversation is laid out, for the reader to see. If you're new to a discussion, you can scroll back and read the entire thing, to get the thread. 2) You can pick and choose the discussions you want to engage in. So, if you feel oppressed or bummed out by a topic on Africa and nations, you don't have to read, or even see that discussion (yes, there are commands like "forget", etc). 3) It's much easier for many conversations to happen simultaneously - on the listserv, if there's a contentious issue, it quickly swamps everything else out. A reader is hard-pressed to find a lone email that might be on a different topic of interest. In a conferencing system, even less-attended conversations can happen. 4) Example: There could be a Conference on the Critique, with many different topics (uniqueness; fiat, Foucault, Spanos; topicality, gender); a Conference on Disadvantages; a Conference on Resolution-choosing; etc etc... I don't know how easy or hard it is to set up such a system, but y'all may want to consider it (for HS debate, I may start looking into this...)... especially given the nature of this community, I think it would help a lot. (for an example, check out www.well.com - I think there's a publicly accessible conference...) -djg Edgemont From smithr Mon May 1 13:44:26 2000 From: smithr (Ross Smith) Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 14:44:26 -0400 Subject: Capitalization questions Message-ID: What is the reason some people write their posts to this list without capitalizing the first word of a sentence? Am I the only one who finds it more difficult to read such writing (making it less likely I will even finish reading such posts)? I've always been curious about this, but it has taken until now to pose these questions because this is the first time I thought I could start this thread without diluting the quality of discourse on edebate (wink). From ifjxh Mon May 1 13:56:46 2000 From: ifjxh (Joshua Hoe) Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 11:56:46 PDT Subject: Kritiks and McDonalds - Josh responds to COOP Message-ID: Hello, I am sorry to seem like I was ignoring messages but I took the weekend off. I also want to say that COOP has quickly abandoned the original argument (that the McDonald's analogy was valid on face) for a new set of arguments that I never meant to address at all in my original post. >Wait a second, big guy...but this was my point in my last post....it *IS* a >forced choice by virtue of the artificially adversarial envronment we >create >when we choose to debate. We jettison the quest for TRUTH altogether and >instead we try to create a "fair" playing field so that we can play this >(admittedly fun) game. I was not answering your whole post just the McDonald's analogy but I will take a stab just for fun and games. I agree with the premise that the "game" we play has some artificial constructs that relate to how we play the game...I think you miss my point quite a bit here, however. First, my argument was that there is a debateable alternative even in the world of "negation theory"..It is just not the "policy alternative" you seem to crave. Second, the fact that we agree to alter the quest for truth "big guy" is hardly a blanket justification for abandoning the quest for truth...That is a pretty poor argument really, like, "I know we are totally full of poo but at the same time it makes the game so much better to only debate anachronisms that even people in the field realize are antiquated and highly questionable. Third, your argument totally ignores the fact that the field is tilted toward the affirmative to start with (I make all of these arguments in my post to Kuswa and Beavis if you wish to review them). Giving the negative the ability to defend negation at the same time that very negation creates debatable space seems like a good counterweight to the dearth of negative literature in today's policy world. > >The affirmative is forced to advocate something...advocacy requires an >assessment of COMPETING alternatives. Criticism may not. But advocacy >certainly does. How is it fair to stick the aff. with this limiting >assumption, but not the neg? answered above Even if the aff. chooses to "criticize" in >their 1AC, wat are they criticizing? Certainly not the neg. So how do you >choose to make a DECISION regarding the winner or loser of a debate? Not sure I understand you here....If the affirmative is critical and changes, for instance, the way we think about how the state is composed (like is it the traditional view of the USFG or say a group of oppositional intellectuals), that change is still open for debate...In fact, it is the battle traditional liberals have to fight in order to continue to defend the modern state as a force for positive change. Should this be aff or neg ground is a different concern but I have no idea what you are really getting at here. Katie >alluded to things like "performance"...but upon what basis do you determine >the "better" performance? You create standards...For instance, in the debate between us and West Georgia at the NDT in the elims we meant to argue that our performance sshould be endorsed over the affirmative performance b/c we spoke the Kurds into existence instead of being silent about them throughout the 1AC. You can create standards for the evaluation of performance and a good place to start is with what the aff chooses not to say. At some point we have to adopt these limiting >assumptions in order to maintain a competitive framework. You are doing a not so hot job of proving this...I think you think it is true so you do not have to engage me or something? I could be wrong but I think you ignored most of my argument on this. Doesn't mean that >we will be able to find the truth (but can you realy tell me that we are >achieving anything close to that anyway?), but it does allow us to play the >game. I kinda like the game. So do I...and btw I love CP's and DA's too :) > >COOP >Univ. of Miami Josh UNT ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From West Mon May 1 14:00:29 2000 From: West (Terry West) Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 13:00:29 -0600 Subject: Is Josh Hoe Bull Buchanan? Message-ID: What do you mean WAS Vader? Now my 4th identity! Terry West (Evil-Lution) >>> don baker 04/30/00 09:05PM >>> can't prove it, bull buchannan doesn't talk. i think josh is bull buchannan. just like terry west was vader >From: Joshua Hoe >Reply-To: Joshua Hoe >To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU >Subject: Re: Is Josh Hoe Bull Buchanan? >Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2000 19:03:57 PDT > >As much as I hate to admit it....I am not Bull Buchannon....I have much >better Mic skills :). > >Josh > > >>From: jbskarb at ASU.EDU >>Reply-To: jbskarb at ASU.EDU >>To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU >>Subject: Is Josh Hoe Bull Buchanan? >>Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2000 18:40:05 -0700 >> >>so the asu sqaud is watching WWF Backlash and they have confirmed what i >>have >>believed for some time...that Bull Buchanan is really Josh Hoe...I would >>like >>to put it up to a community vote...I mean I have never seen the two of >>them >>together in the same place at the same place...has anyone else? >> >>Justin Skarb >>Arizona State > >________________________________________________________________________ >Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From d.breshears Mon May 1 13:08:02 2000 From: d.breshears (David Breshears) Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 14:08:02 -0400 Subject: Capitalization questions Message-ID: dunno. just a convention. never heard anyone complain before. Is this better? dAVE -----Original Message----- From: Ross Smith To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU Date: Monday, May 01, 2000 2:46 PM Subject: Capitalization questions >What is the reason some people write their posts to this list without >capitalizing the first word of a sentence? > >Am I the only one who finds it more difficult to read such writing (making >it less likely I will even finish reading such posts)? > >I've always been curious about this, but it has taken until now to pose >these questions because this is the first time I thought I could start this >thread without diluting the quality of discourse on edebate (wink). From stannardmatt Mon May 1 14:14:55 2000 From: stannardmatt (matt stannard) Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 13:14:55 MDT Subject: Her and Him Message-ID: Dave says: >If anything, I might have suggested gender-neutral language ("they say..." >instead of "he/she says...."), but even that is really just a crutch for >folks who don't have the interest/ability/care to look at the person >they're >debating and speak to them in less-than-generic terms. > I am not sure I agree. I think that it designates the collective nature of debate to refer to oneself as "we"--as in "We are winning the net benefit," as opposed to the rather arrogant "I am winning the net benefit." Likewise, to refer to the opponents' arguments as "they say..." is to both acknowledge collectivity AND avoid risking a mistake in gender identification. At any rate, I am rather tired of hearing debaters say "I am winning X..." which is probably the reason for this blather of mine in the first place. stannard ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com >From Mon May 1 15:21:05 2000 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 12721 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 1 May 2000 15:22:14 -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 PAA40294 for ; Mon, 1 May 2000 15:21:52 -0400 Received: from CoopDB8 at aol.com by imo-d05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v26.7.) id 2.4c.4df194e (3946); Mon, 1 May 2000 15:21:05 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 106 Message-ID: <4c.4df194e.263f3321 at aol.com> Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 15:21:05 EDT Reply-To: CoopDB8 at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: The Coop Subject: Re: Africa is/not monolithic Comments: To: k.kuswa at mail.utexas.edu Kuswa suggests: << First of all, those people who believe we should have a list of countries should start defending their lists over edebate. Why those five and not these five? Why five and not six? Why four and not ten? Should we call our list a series of governments? nation-states? Maybe we could just say "one or more of the following: X,Y, F, etc." >> C'mon.....this is absurdity ad nauseum. What's your warrant for why a list is problematic? You make passing allusions to past resolutions, but don't tell us why those resolutions were so problematic. Some of them, I believe, have provided very good, balanced ground for discussion; sanctions and the Middle East resolutions come to mind. Why this list over that list? Well.....why this continent over that one? Why this planet over another? Why do we so ARBITRARILY limit ourselves to this plane of reality? (must be some form of covert hegemony....) Answer: because we play a game that attempts to balance education with reasonable division of ground. I think we can do that with a list. I'm unconvinced we can do that without one. A list may be arbitrary in the end, but we have to draw the line somewhere. The world WITHOUT a list is chaotic, and potentially unfair. EVEN IF someone were able to come up with a geographical term of art, to be workable it would inevitably draw a line somewhere....various "nations" "countries" "ethnic groups" etc. would be included and some would not. If it DIDN'T draw this line than we destroy predictability altogether. Explain to me how that serves either education OR fairness? While the 88 resolution may have been fun for many, I have heard several horror stories about "squirrely" (no offense to our furry woodland brethren) affirmatives under that resolution and a healthy reliance on negative "meatballs" (with all sincere apologies to vegetarians and anyone who is offended by unintentional reference to the male scrotum). AND times have changed in a way that would only make this problem worse now (see Ben's post re: Lexis...). Without a list, how many of us would go half-cocked (oops...see disclaimer above re: male anatomy) into the library in search of that sketchy-sketch "country/nation/ethnic group/rebel group/nonprofit org/music group (would A Tribe Called Quest qualify as "tribal"?)" that JUST fit into the ambigous topic wording? ME FIRST ME FIRST! Nope - I think a list is in order....and I have yet to hear a decent argument why it's not. COOP Univ. of Miami >From Mon May 1 14:43:09 2000 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 13182 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 1 May 2000 15:46:46 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from probemail.com ([209.149.123.15]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA15256 for ; Mon, 1 May 2000 15:46:22 -0400 Received: from probemail.com [209.149.123.9] by probemail.com (SMTPD32-6.00) id ADE819330252; Mon, 01 May 2000 14:41:28 -0500 Message-ID: <390dde4d.107.0 at probemail.com> Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 14:43:09 -600 Reply-To: ending at probemail.com To: Team Topic Debating in America From: "Michael Roston(the eminently practical)" Ross asks: >>>> What is the reason some people write their posts to this list without capitalizing the first word of a sentence? >>>> I am of the opinion that this stylistic convention of internet communication goes back to the days before the existence of the world wide web. Truthfully, now that many people use evil programs like MS Outlook for their email, you see more people sending you email in funny colors, with certain things bolded, italicized, underlined, etc., and I find it all to be even more of an eyesore. I remember being on Usenet(anyone else remember alt.fan.debate or whatever it was?) back in the dino days, and it seemed that a lot of people typed without caps, and also included a lot of ellipses within their posts...sort of like this...to indicate that the thought was being broken up in a wandering and meandering sort of way. I'd suggest three reasons why people avoid caps: 1)type faster - don't have possibly thousands of Usenet posts a day, and potentially responding to a significant number of them. Perhaps I should not suggest this strategy as the Bear might begin to employ it :) 2)style - some folks preferred to promote themselves as sort of quiet people, perhaps, or someone who speaks in an understated fashion...ben franklin-like. 3)rhetoric - we've all seen the kind of people that write in all caps primarily because they are idiots or just uncouth. writing in all lower case is a good means to respond to such no-brainedness. >>>> Am I the only one who finds it more difficult to read such writing (making it less likely I will even finish reading such posts)? >>>> maybe you just need a new pair of glasses :) Michael Roston -it seems to me that when I close my eyes all the lights in the world go out "~Eit will be the Wild West. You can't, for example, exploit child labor because you want to buy your shoes for $10 all your life and you don't know or care where they're made, and at the same time give to charity -- to Amnesty International or to some starving children's foundation in the Far East. I think this way of being should be over. We should buy our shoes for $25, and instead of buying three pairs we buy one pair -- better made, more consciously made. The problem is not to produce more and to consume more, but to produce better and consume better." -Oliviero Toscani ProbeMail / http://www.probemail.com From ifjxh Mon May 1 14:51:51 2000 From: ifjxh (Joshua Hoe) Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 12:51:51 PDT Subject: Galloway, Kuswa, she Affirmative, and the Passive voice - J. Hoe a/t Kuswa Message-ID: Hello, I am sorry that I have not answered this more quickly. I have taken the weekend off....Given the importance of what Kevin is saying I will do my best to not make this into another flame war! I have to admit that at first I was offended by this...Not because Kevin called me a racist implicitly...I belive I am a racist...In fact, I believe deeo down that the worst thing I can do is believe that somehow I can somehow escape racism entirely. I believe we should strive for anti-racism but do that through questioning our own racism on a dail basis. Rather, I was offended b/c I thought Kevin was questioning the integrity of my motives...Anyway, I am over it now and ready to discuss :) >The following comments by Josh Hoe are the kinds of concerns that will >allow >another racist project to infiltrate the wording of the topic. Here is the problem with this. While I actually agree that Kevin is right about his description of how the state recreates racism (etc.) that is a minority and debateable viewpoint. Part of what we do as debaters is attempt to create a playing field for debate about truth not topics written from the standpoint of some kind of purity of truth. One of the biggest debates in this era is over the efficacy of the liberal state at empowering positive change. Kevin starts from a position discounting the potential of the modern state. I say, that should be negative ground. Kevin's charges of this statement recreating complicit racism is a debateable claim...In point of fact, I may even believe more radical things than this...I may have problems believing that I can even speak with authority about race from my privleged standpoint but that hardly means we ought not allow students and coaches to confront those very questions...Does it? > >Also, before engaging this debate, the passive voice is not only (if at >all) >intended to give the affirmative ground on kritikal positions. >Argumentative space is not only about aff. answers to kritiking. Sure, but that is certainly an effect of the passive voice that you even made reference to in your original post...Am I wrong...You certainly do not deny it or argue against it? > >Josh Hoe is no more or less racist than any other single individual >striving >to "master" the Africa topic and get a handle on the possible wordings of >the resolution. Institutional networks can produce relatively more intense >forms of racism, however, and the process of wording a topic "on Africa" is >definitely capable of (re)producing colonial and racist effects. (more >below) I think, perhaps this speaks to the ability for us to debate at all? Of course the way we arite topics can recreate racism.....and bring those modes of thought into conflict...or force people to redefine what is meant by the very statement USFG (Jarius and Kirk were very successful with this this year). >"It may be important to continue that practice"??? Josh, do you really >believe that the last thread holding together the fairness of aff. and neg. >ground is the state? I do believe it is the basis for about 3/4 of all of our link arguments to the very few remaining viable generic positions...Do you seriously deny this? Look at a breakdown of how the vast majority of negative wins camee in the last three years and then answer this. > >We're not the state in the first place AND we are all the state to the >degree that we all govern ourselves (governmentality). Sounds pretty debateable...I probably agree with you but this is hardly the way most conceptualize their own existence much less truth. Are you saying that topics should be replaced by dogma? > >Not using the state is OK for both the aff. and the neg. The aff. can act >through (or as) a number of combinations of state and non-state actors. >Those choices, though, will have to be defended through argumentation of >some form or another. The nature of the affirmative's advocacy will always >provide ground for the negative. Also, lit checks. Ground is not always >the same as "predictable" ground. Not sure that I am following you here.....While you are right that Neg ground is always created by affirmative advocacy of something..The way you are conceptualizing the topic literature will be horrendously slanted toward the aff: My case - I support solidarity with beings who associate with Africa your neg - solidarity bad/your solidarity bad/you bad/africa bad....to which I can always debate definitions of what I meant by "me", "solidarity", etc. Do not tell me I could not do this under your concept b/c I could > >Forcing us to replicate the state (especially the U.S.) as the agent will >ensure a ethnocentric and displacing topic. This is about Africa. Let's >talk and think about Africa. Sure, and most lit about africa comes from the "benign help" lit....Meaning to me that it is crucial to debate if there is a state role in or benefit from "aiding" Africa....Are these not legit questions to debate...It is exactly where the vast majority of the lit starts...should we just ignore that..not debate it? > >Finally, the passive voice is only one alternative to the USFG hegemony we >presently accept. Whether it's the passive voice or not, let's jettison >the >USFG as the agent this year!!! I am still not sure why this is a good idea and fundamentally agree with you really. > >kevin >utexas Josh ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From jbrey Mon May 1 15:02:15 2000 From: jbrey (James Brey) Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 16:02:15 -0400 Subject: No subject Message-ID: Kate Shuster Please back channel me when you have a moment. 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 Mon May 1 16:10:01 2000 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 14024 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 1 May 2000 16:11:05 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo17.mx.aol.com (imo17.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.7]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA29448 for ; Mon, 1 May 2000 16:10:57 -0400 Received: from Sgw8 at aol.com by imo17.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v26.7.) id n.fb.52cefc3 (3967) for ; Mon, 1 May 2000 16:10:08 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 33 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 16:10:01 EDT Reply-To: Sgw8 at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Darius Wilkins Subject: resolution paper question Is anyone writing a paper that will act on ethnic groups--NOT through states, or peripherally through states? When is a rez paper due, and what does it has to have in it for consideration? Darius Wilkins From rag241 Mon May 1 15:27:10 2000 From: rag241 (Ricky Garner) Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 16:27:10 -0400 Subject: africa: listing countries Message-ID: this email is obvioulsy going to gloss over a lot of the very fine and intricate points that are being made on this subject, but it's just meant as a simple starting point... aside from kuswa's critical arguments as to why listing might interpolate people, and totally aside from who the actor is, be it the state, me and my partner nate, or et cetera, why don't we do both... include the list and the region: [the actor should do an action "towards(or whateva)"] the horn of africa, including one or more of the following countries: my concern, and others who have posted and with which i have spoken, is that giving a random list of countries in africa where stuff just seems to be happening is not what we should do. first, it just ain't no fun. second, it creates a bunch of "mini-topics"... a lot of the problems some debate squads, like ones that only have one or two card cutting/serious teams, is that the good and specific disads for iran, north korea, and cuba ARE TOTALLY DIFFERENT. they can't go to school AND cut all of those cards at the same time. of course there's always clinton, but that begs the question and i would personally rather run a kritik anyway. third, it crushes in depth education or trades off and becomes an overly limited topic (which then becomes boring). if "we" focus on a specific region, we will learn an enormous and focused amount of information on that area, with a complexity and depth that the "mini-topics" cannot provide, through cultural, geographic, development, ethnic, political, climactic (on forever) crossovers and intersections. fourth, we should do both, list the region and the countries, because it can't hurt and it helps to catch the intersections from the sweeping hands of interpellation=)... at least its debatable, then, about if my plan is topical or not, and it doesn't force teams to engage in the "hegemonic" discourse of borders, carving up... and such... finally, if we do a region, we not only get a "literature" base, but we also get a cohesive literature base. this argument feeds off my above ones. it also can be understood like majoring in college. if i triple major in chemistry, english, and politics, i probably don't have as in-depth a knowledge as someone who majors in english, comparative literature, and women's studies. when i am able to interrelate my knowledge(s), there is something to be said for the "true" education of my majoring experience, through its depth and intersectional nature. yes, maybe if we don't throw in a whole lot of the geo-politically volatile or important countries, we won't have big huge "crushing" impacts in every debate, but we will have more in-depth ones, which will teach us how to do more than say "nuclear war outweighs everything" and making an infinity analogy. (nuclear war is important, i believe that very much, but quite frankly, it is only marginally related to african foreign policy). i think the "game" becomes a lot more interesting when the last rebuttalists have to compare/weigh inter-cultural genocide versus the preservation of tribal/ethnic heritage. i'm sure there will still be nuclear war somewhere down the road, but hey, there always is... with a few ideas that hopefully some might find interesting, ricky garner NYU Debate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20000501/08fd4b93/attachment.html From tweiner1 Mon May 1 15:32:47 2000 From: tweiner1 (Timothy J Weiner) Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 16:32:47 -0400 Subject: Is Josh Hoe Bull Buchanan? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I have seen Josh Hoe and I have seen Bull Buchanan. And let me tell you, Josh aint no Bull Buchanan. More like a post-Hell in the Cell Mick Foley. :) Just joking Josh but you do have the wanted dead or alive shirt. Jake On Mon, 1 May 2000, Terry West wrote: > What do you mean WAS Vader? Now my 4th identity! > > Terry West (Evil-Lution) > > >>> don baker 04/30/00 09:05PM >>> > can't prove it, bull buchannan doesn't talk. i think josh is bull > buchannan. just like terry west was vader > > > >From: Joshua Hoe > >Reply-To: Joshua Hoe > >To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU > >Subject: Re: Is Josh Hoe Bull Buchanan? > >Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2000 19:03:57 PDT > > > >As much as I hate to admit it....I am not Bull Buchannon....I have much > >better Mic skills :). > > > >Josh > > > > > >>From: jbskarb at ASU.EDU > >>Reply-To: jbskarb at ASU.EDU > >>To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU > >>Subject: Is Josh Hoe Bull Buchanan? > >>Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2000 18:40:05 -0700 > >> > >>so the asu sqaud is watching WWF Backlash and they have confirmed what i > >>have > >>believed for some time...that Bull Buchanan is really Josh Hoe...I would > >>like > >>to put it up to a community vote...I mean I have never seen the two of > >>them > >>together in the same place at the same place...has anyone else? > >> > >>Justin Skarb > >>Arizona State > > > >________________________________________________________________________ > >Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com > > ________________________________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com > >From Mon May 1 15:33:06 2000 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 14712 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 1 May 2000 16:33:52 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from mailhost.netdot.com (tbredrad.netdot.com [206.50.22.9] (may be forged)) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA20686 for ; Mon, 1 May 2000 16:33:44 -0400 Received: from [209.39.210.168] [209.39.210.168] by mailhost.netdot.com with ESMTP (SMTPD32-6.00) id AA1C64B0160; Mon, 01 May 2000 15:33:32 -0500 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express Macintosh Edition - 4.5 (0410) Mime-version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <200005011533319.SM00178@[209.39.210.168]> Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 15:33:06 -0500 Reply-To: doyle at netdot.com, dsrader at sfasu.edu To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Doyle Srader Subject: Three different threads First, for people who like threaded discussions, I have yet another plug for the archive page: http://list.uvm.edu/archives/edebate.html It's not exactly what Glass is talking about, but it does have a "next in topic" link at the top of every post, which takes you to the next post, chronologically, with the same subject line (or the same with "Re:"). It works as long as people don't change the subject line in replying, as I've done here. Oh well. The fact that today I wanted to say something about three different threads but wouldn't've had time or patience to compose three different posts is the reason I think elaborate systems devoted to "threading" are a bit overrated. The archive is a nice compromise. And have I mentioned that the archive doesn't spread viruses? (To my knowledge.) Second, on the "Her/Him" thread, >far< more annoying than the mere "I" is when the debater personalizes the plan, as in "Why do I have to lift sanctions immediately to be topical?" or "How does that compete with me?" or "How am I vague?" No real reason for disliking this, I suppose. Just sounds a little bizarre. Third, why people don't capitalize properly. I think Roston's got a good chunk of it with the "sounding quiet and thoughtful" theory, and my example is Professor Korcok. Check out some of his more trenchant posts from the past. Extraordinarily bombastic words, but the fact that they're all lowercase gives them a sort of ... quiet savagery. Something like that. Doyle Srader Lecturer, Speech Communication Stephen F. Austin State University http://www.netdot.com/doyle/ "The trouble with our Texas Baptists is that we do not hold them under water long enough." -- William Brann From rag241 Mon May 1 15:32:54 2000 From: rag241 (Ricky Garner) Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 16:32:54 -0400 Subject: africa: listing countries Message-ID: this email is obvioulsy going to gloss over a lot of the very fine and intricate points that are being made on this subject, but it's just meant as a simple starting point... aside from kuswa's critical arguments as to why listing might interpolate people, and totally aside from who the actor is, be it the state, me and my partner nate, or et cetera, why don't we do both... include the list and the region: [the actor should do an action "towards(or whateva)"] the horn of africa, including one or more of the following countries: my concern, and others who have posted and with which i have spoken, is that giving a random list of countries in africa where stuff just seems to be happening is not what we should do. first, it just ain't no fun. second, it creates a bunch of "mini-topics"... a lot of the problems some debate squads, like ones that only have one or two card cutting/serious teams, is that the good and specific disads for iran, north korea, and cuba ARE TOTALLY DIFFERENT. they can't go to school AND cut all of those cards at the same time. of course there's always clinton, but that begs the question and i would personally rather run a kritik anyway. third, it crushes in depth education or trades off and becomes an overly limited topic (which then becomes boring). if "we" focus on a specific region, we will learn an enormous and focused amount of information on that area, with a complexity and depth that the "mini-topics" cannot provide, through cultural, geographic, development, ethnic, political, climactic (on forever) crossovers and intersections. fourth, we should do both, list the region and the countries, because it can't hurt and it helps to catch the intersections from the sweeping hands of interpellation=)... at least its debatable, then, about if my plan is topical or not, and it doesn't force teams to engage in the "hegemonic" discourse of borders, carving up... and such... finally, if we do a region, we not only get a "literature" base, but we also get a cohesive literature base. this argument feeds off my above ones. it also can be understood like majoring in college. if i triple major in chemistry, english, and politics, i probably don't have as in-depth a knowledge as someone who majors in english, comparative literature, and women's studies. when i am able to interrelate my knowledge(s), there is something to be said for the "true" education of my majoring experience, through its depth and intersectional nature. yes, maybe if we don't throw in a whole lot of the geo-politically volatile or important countries, we won't have big huge "crushing" impacts in every debate, but we will have more in-depth ones, which will teach us how to do more than say "nuclear war outweighs everything" and making an infinity analogy. (nuclear war is important, i believe that very much, but quite frankly, it is only marginally related to african foreign policy). i think the "game" becomes a lot more interesting when the last rebuttalists have to compare/weigh inter-cultural genocide versus the preservation of tribal/ethnic heritage. i'm sure there will still be nuclear war somewhere down the road, but hey, there always is... with a few ideas that hopefully some might find interesting, ricky garner NYU Debate From k.kuswa Mon May 1 15:38:25 2000 From: k.kuswa (kevin kuswa) Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 16:38:25 -0400 Subject: Lists--Josh, Kamal, Parcher, et. al. Message-ID: Hey folks, I think my enthusiasm has gone overboard lately. I owe apologies to Mike and Kamal for reading too far into the CSIS comments and the PMN joke. I definitely don't want to create a hostile climate for discussion and that's not my intent. Maybe the fact that our identities are on the line forces us to articulate our arguments better--I don't know. Anyway, Kamal, I really enjoyed reading your short narrative and I hope we can continue to "battle it out" over state-centered politics in the future. I also want to step back from the "racism and complicity" claims I've made in response to Josh and Parcher. Their posts make a ton of sense and my scattered ad. homs should not be applied to their positions. Finally, I still think a list (and the USFG agent) have potential effects that could continue the crippling of our possibilities for agency; nevertheless, the tone of my messages has become too acidic and I do owe these people public apologies. thanks for reading, kevin From ifjxh Mon May 1 15:53:59 2000 From: ifjxh (Joshua Hoe) Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 13:53:59 PDT Subject: Is Josh Hoe Bull Buchanan? Message-ID: I would much rather be Mick than Bull Buchanon any old day..Trust me...Post HIC or not.....Call me Mick if you feel the need to move beyond Josh :) Josh/Mick >From: Timothy J Weiner >Reply-To: Timothy J Weiner >To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU >Subject: Re: Is Josh Hoe Bull Buchanan? >Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 16:32:47 -0400 > >I have seen Josh Hoe and I have seen Bull Buchanan. And let me tell you, >Josh aint no Bull Buchanan. More like a post-Hell in the Cell Mick >Foley. :) Just joking Josh but you do have the wanted dead or alive >shirt. > >Jake > >On Mon, 1 May 2000, Terry West wrote: > > > What do you mean WAS Vader? Now my 4th identity! > > > > Terry West (Evil-Lution) > > > > >>> don baker 04/30/00 09:05PM >>> > > can't prove it, bull buchannan doesn't talk. i think josh is bull > > buchannan. just like terry west was vader > > > > > > >From: Joshua Hoe > > >Reply-To: Joshua Hoe > > >To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU > > >Subject: Re: Is Josh Hoe Bull Buchanan? > > >Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2000 19:03:57 PDT > > > > > >As much as I hate to admit it....I am not Bull Buchannon....I have much > > >better Mic skills :). > > > > > >Josh > > > > > > > > >>From: jbskarb at ASU.EDU > > >>Reply-To: jbskarb at ASU.EDU > > >>To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU > > >>Subject: Is Josh Hoe Bull Buchanan? > > >>Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2000 18:40:05 -0700 > > >> > > >>so the asu sqaud is watching WWF Backlash and they have confirmed what >i > > >>have > > >>believed for some time...that Bull Buchanan is really Josh Hoe...I >would > > >>like > > >>to put it up to a community vote...I mean I have never seen the two of > > >>them > > >>together in the same place at the same place...has anyone else? > > >> > > >>Justin Skarb > > >>Arizona State > > > > > > >________________________________________________________________________ > > >Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at >http://www.hotmail.com > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com > > ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From dahst54+ Mon May 1 15:55:24 2000 From: dahst54+ (David Hellwich) Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 16:55:24 -0400 Subject: africa: listing countries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: just a few comments... > this email is obvioulsy going to gloss over a lot of the very fine and intricate points that are being made on this subject, but it's just meant as a simple starting point... > aside from kuswa's critical arguments as to why listing might interpolate people, and totally aside from who the actor is, be it the state, me and my partner nate, or et cetera, why don't we do both... > include the list and the region: > [the actor should do an action "towards(or whateva)"] the horn of africa, including one or more of the following countries: > my concern, and others who have posted and with which i have spoken, is that giving a random list of countries in africa where stuff just seems to be happening is not what we should do. first, it just ain't no fun. second, it creates a bunch of "mini-topics"... a lot of the problems some debate squads, like ones that only have one or two card cutting/serious teams, is that the good and specific disads for iran, north korea, and cuba ARE TOTALLY DIFFERENT. they can't go to school AND cut all of those cards at the same time. of course there's always clinton, but that begs the question and i would personally rather run a kritik anyway. third, it crushes in depth education or trades off and becomes an overly limited topic (which then becomes boring). if "we" focus on a specific region, we will learn an enormous and focused amount of information on that area, with a complexity and depth that the "mini-topics" cannot provide, through cultural, geographic, development, ethnic, po! litical, climactic (on forever) crossovers and intersections. fourth, we should do both, list the region and the countries, because it can't hurt and it helps to catch the intersections from the sweeping hands of interpellation=)... at least its debatable, then, about if my plan is topical or not, and it doesn't force teams to engage in the "hegemonic" discourse of borders, carving up... and such... > finally, if we do a region, we not only get a "literature" base, but we also get a cohesive literature base. this argument feeds off my above ones. it also can be understood like majoring in college. if i triple major in chemistry, english, and politics, i probably don't have as in-depth a knowledge as someone who majors in english, comparative literature, and women's studies. when i am able to interrelate my knowledge(s), there is something to be said for the "true" education of my majoring experience, through its depth and intersectional nature. > yes, maybe if we don't throw in a whole lot of the geo-politically volatile or important countries, we won't have big huge "crushing" impacts in every debate, but we will have more in-depth ones, which will teach us how to do more than say "nuclear war outweighs everything" and making an infinity analogy. (nuclear war is important, i believe that very much, but quite frankly, it is only marginally related to african foreign policy). i think the "game" becomes a lot more interesting when the last rebuttalists have to compare/weigh inter-cultural genocide versus the preservation of tribal/ethnic heritage. i'm sure there will still be nuclear war somewhere down the road, but hey, there always is... > with a few ideas that hopefully some might find interesting, > > ricky garner > NYU Debate i am at a remote location so my software has cut off the bottom of the message, but i wanted to relate a few concerns about the "let's get real on the impact comparison" argument... in the end, i am very sympathetic with the claim that many debates become inane because 2NR's/2AR's end up comparing rather minute risks of cataclysmic disad/case impacts... however, attempting to disrupt that practice by placing the aff in the position of only being able to concretely defend relatively "small" impacts does not, in my opinion, constitute a particularly compelling warrant for a regional focus (a position that i am leaning towards). first, it fails to address reasons why extinction/nuclear war type impacts are claimed in the debate---folks, and by this i mean debaters and judges alike, are often unwilling to consider systemic/small scale impacts in light of mini-max impact calculi... it is a norm of practice, not topic/case areas. second, cataclysm will still be a debate impact under this scenario... the impact to clinton/elections/successor, budget and relations type positions, which will be the neg bread and butter on this topic (are we really changing topics? ;) will claim terminal impacts... third, attempting to limit aff impact ground through topic selection will only put affirmatives at a competitive disadvantage... forced to defend small case impacts versus huge disad impacts. throw in a PIC that sucks up most of the case and the 2AR becomes _too_ much fun... the rescher, etc cards are not really particularly good anyway (you all should meet him, btw). fourth, the tactic most affs will employ will be to either link/impact turn the disad to capture the neg offense and/or claim specious terminal impacts on the case... if the links are small because of topic/case choices, we are back in the position of comparing tiny risks of extinction impacts and the case debate/impact/problem area is, as usual, ignored. i wish debates would focus much more on systemic or "real" impacts. it would certainly make my job as a critic a lot easier (fewer uniqueness cards to read), but "limiting" affs to small impact areas for the case probably won't do the trick. change needs to occur at the level of practice, not the framing of the topic. otherwise, a well reasoned argument, imo David Cram Helwich Assistant Coach University of Pittsburgh From kyoung Mon May 1 16:01:00 2000 From: kyoung (kelly young) Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 17:01:00 -0400 Subject: Africa Research Web Site Message-ID: Hello, I've been reviewing several websites about africa and stumbled across a decent site that provides an annotated list of interesting websites. Here it is for anyone that might be interested. http://www-sul.stanford.edu/depts/ssrg/africa/poli1.html Kelly Young Soon to be ex-John Carroll U From kyoung Mon May 1 16:07:46 2000 From: kyoung (kelly young) Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 17:07:46 -0400 Subject: Another Africa Site/AFrica Topic Message-ID: Hi-- Should have sent this with the previous post. This site, for the National Summit on Africa provides great background and prospects for the role of the US in Africa. The summit occurred this year, and here is a little sampling of the issues discussed: The National Summit on Africa thematic working papers -- centered on five themes and covering a broad range of issues in U.S.-Africa relations-- provide information on developments on the continent and offer suggestions as to how the public and private sectors in the U.S. could engage African people in mutually beneficial relations. The five Thematic Working Papers are: (1) Democracy and Human Rights; (2) Economic Development, Trade and Investment, and Job Creation; (3) Education and Culture; (4) Peace and Security; and (5) Sustainable Development, Quality of Life, and the Environment. Each of the five Thematic Working Papers is also available in a "Synopsis for Policymakers" version. Topic papers could easily be developed around any five of these problem areas. Hope this help assist those interested. Kelly Young JCU Debate From mkrueger Mon May 1 16:15:14 2000 From: mkrueger (Krueger) Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 16:15:14 -0500 Subject: africa: listing countries References: Message-ID: Heck, impacts are a great reason for looking at the Horn of Africa. 15 million people at risk of starvation (I hate to "use" those people, but frankly I am appalled at the lack of compasion or understanding in the US and relative lack of focus by the US media and the fact that Clinton started to try to help in '94 but seemingly abandoned work in the Horn). More people died in two battles between Eritrea and Ethiopia than in all of the Kosovo conflict. The Nile flows northward through the Horn, and the nations there and the riparian nations could set off another world war. "Terrorist groups" like Bin Laden are setting up in Somalia because of the relative lack of stable government there. One last note--the Clinton administration and the US government has taken policy stances on regions before. In Africa, it happened to be the "Greater Horn of Africa" which includes 5 more countries. Not that the argument is that compelling, but it does happen. The more I learn about the region, the more I am sickened, saddened, and disheartened. There are lots of reasons to learn about Africa, and what is happening in this particular region certainly is compelling, at least to me. take care, krueger -- Michael Krueger Director of Debate Middle Tennessee State University Box 43 Murfreesboro, TN 37132 (615) 898-5607 (office) (615) 898-5826 (fax) http://www.mtsu.edu/~debate/ http://www.mtsu.edu/~msdi/ http://www.mtsu.edu/~mkrueger/ From rgallo Mon May 1 16:13:23 2000 From: rgallo (Ryan Galloway) Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 17:13:23 -0400 Subject: Her and Him In-Reply-To: <01bfb386$cd3a41c0$91cc5380@winbook> Message-ID: Random note: I was typing a paper today, and ran spell check, I had the word "servicewoman" typed in referring to a female in the armed services... My spell check said this was wrong and suggested "serviceman." HMMMMMMM.... PS I left it as it was... On Mon, 1 May 2000, David Breshears wrote: > Don't think that was my advice. I'd advise them to pay attention to who > they're debating, and to try not to do something ridiculous, like arguing > that foreign policy silences women's voices, then proceeding to refer to the > only female in the room as "he" more than a dozen times, even after being > REPEATEDLY corrected (by her partner, herself, and the critic). I'd > especially tell them not to make rude noises and gestures while the 2AR is > pointing out the obvious: that their refusal to acknowledge her identity in > the round was a much more egregious instance of silencing than the specious > link the negative was asserting against the aff (and, as I tried to do after > the round - as Emma CLEARLY told you, but you've conveniently ignored - I'd > tell them that she was making a damn good argument). That was a > particularly unwise strategy that should probably be eliminated. > > If anything, I might have suggested gender-neutral language ("they say..." > instead of "he/she says...."), but even that is really just a crutch for > folks who don't have the interest/ability/care to look at the person they're > debating and speak to them in less-than-generic terms. > > The biggest piece of advice I'd give them, Bear, is that they should be > willing to listen to folks who are trying to educate them about the > invidious effects of unacknowledged/invisible/inadvertant sexism, racism, or > homophobia, and less insistent that they're "good people," who should be > excused for repeatedly, though inadvertantly, hurting someone. > > Good luck, > > Dave > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Bear Bryant > To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU > Date: Monday, May 01, 2000 3:16 AM > Subject: Her and Him > > > >Related to the discourse over the past few days, I've got a related beef. > >I've had three well-respected members of the community tell me that my > >controversey with Breshears over his treatment of my debaters when they > >repeatedly, yet accidentally, referred to a female opponent as "him" during > a > >debate. > > > >The advice I've been given is to train my debaters to always default to use > >of the pronoun "her" in training and practice debates. The argument goes > >that's its a much safer default to risk calling a male opponent "she" or > >"her" than to call womyn opponents "he" or "him." > > > >Why? Is anyone willing to defend this as pedagogical proactice? Perhaps > David > >Breshears will break his cone of silence long enough to explain how he can > >justify such advice. > > > >Really curious. > > > >Bear > >From Mon May 1 16:40:25 2000 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 16456 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 1 May 2000 17:24:08 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from pilot022.cl.msu.edu (pilot022.cl.msu.edu [35.9.5.122]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA15694 for ; Mon, 1 May 2000 17:21:58 -0400 Received: from smithori-3 (pm283-07.dialip.mich.net [35.9.9.232]) by pilot022.cl.msu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with SMTP id RAA105328 for ; Mon, 1 May 2000 17:20:36 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Message-ID: <200005012120.RAA105328 at pilot022.cl.msu.edu> Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 16:40:25 +0000 Reply-To: monickaa at pilot.msu.edu To: Team Topic Debating in America Comments: Authenticated sender is From: Aaron Monick Subject: Re: Kamal's Krap > Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 02:46:53 -0400 > Reply-to: kevin kuswa > From: kevin kuswa > Subject: Re: Kamal's Krap > To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU > At 08:22 PM 4/30/00 -0400, Kamal wrote: > >The only thing I'd like to add to Parcher's post is an emphasis on the > >literature. > > Tell me about the literature on Africa, Kamal. Tell about your insights > into cultural studies and the ways race and colonialism intersected in > CLR James' and Fanon's work, spreading into the argument that the project > of the enlightenment cannot be disassociated from the racial terror of > the "Black Atlantic." Tell me about how redemptive violence appeared in > Stuart Hall's wrok and traversed Lacanian theory through Homi Bhabha's > arguments about the ways nationality works within and without the state. > Tell me about how these writings about postcolonial identity cross the > Atlantic in Paul Gilroy's work on small acts of change, the triangular > trade in people, ethnic absolutism, and the link to Spivak and Shiva. Yes, > this is a bunch ob absurd name-dropping, but the claim to the "literature" > here is always open to interpretation. I'm never for getting involved in any discussion on e-debate, but like sparky i'm done with filling out strike sheets and i'm sober for a few hours anyway, so here goes.. i thought kevin's initial worry about the nation-state in the african context was fascinating, and ultimately it will probably end up being excellent negative ground in next year's resolution, especially when you're in a final round and you have nothing good except a cheezy veto c/p...:) anyway, if you're interested in changing the focus of the rez, kevin, I think you're headed in the wrong 'discursive' direction, if you will.. not too many people have the time or inclination to wade through the post-colonial writers like bhabha or spivak, and speaking as someone who has, frankly large chunks of their theories are just incoherent or too wordy.. the real problem with these and other stances, and the reason maybe why people have derided you as part of the 'radical chic', is that it's always possible to position oneself more critically than just about anything. for example, i could quote one of the interesting post-colonial theorists: "Tolerance is never simply passive, and, ironically, the area of institutionalised post-colonial studies is finding itself increasingly invested in an academic star system of astonishing proportions, and through that star system it is learning to seek its instruction in oppositional tactics along lines that run increasingly and monolithically backward towards the centres of Western power .. our theoretical masters in Paris or Oxford or New Haven are read and referenced by exemplary theorists of the local .. but those metropolitan theorists seldom reference these cultural and theoretical mediators in return." does this mean your arguments are invalid? of course not. it's just that for me, and probably a lot of others, 'critical discourse' (whatever that means) is a lot less compelling in the context of resolutional discussion than questions of ground and limits and breadth and depth and whatever other topicality buzzwords i never learned.. for example, one could approach the question of whether we need a list or number of countries from the standpoint of what would provide the best balance between the aff and the neg, or you could take a page from bhabha and the rest and question the notion of lists and numbers as part of the Western mathematical project that serves to reify a dominant culture/nation/something/big words/hegemony... maybe i'm just being mocking or something, but it seems that one of these discussions will be successful and one won't.. but if you want fuel for that fire, here's something from alan bishop.. "From these colonial times through to today, the power of this mathematico-technological culture has grown apace -- so much that western mathematics is taught nowadays in every country in the world ... I began by describing the myth of western mathematics' cultural neutrality. Increasingly, modern evidence serves to destroy this naive belief. Nevertheless, the belief in that myth has had, and continues to have, powerful implications ... taking a broader view, one must ask: should there not be more resistance to this cultural hegemony? ... Resistance is growing, critical debate is informing theoretical developments, and research is increasing, particularly in educational situations where culture-conflict is recognized. The secret weapon is secret no longer." Indeed.. anyway, i bring this up not to try to discredit your argument. i think you're bringing something valuable to the discussion, i just think you should speak more english...:) Sorry to subject the community to my boredom, Aaron Aaron Monick (517)324-1928 From rag241 Mon May 1 16:28:48 2000 From: rag241 (Ricky Garner) Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 17:28:48 -0400 Subject: africa: listing countries Message-ID: on the min/max issue and Hellwich's post: i agree, to a lage extent, and should have stated my point better than it was in the email. i believe that i f there is a more coherent literature base, debaters are less likely to go for the clinton debate as often if they've got a good substantial case debate going that they've done lots of research on. reason: most people are sceptical of clinton in the first place. last year, clinton did not seem to ever be the disad of choice that people were going for, and i can only remeber a handful of debates that i heard of people going for clinton at all, because everbody had case cards, and yes, better disads than clinton. not categorically true, just a subjective perspective. also, i think that learning to debate systemic impacts would be good, and necessary on the topic to some extent for the neg. at least. if debater's are gonna go for clinton (or whateva) then we should learn to call them on that min/max impact framework if we do believe it's ridiculous, as well as on the PIC (i suggest turning the s*&^ out of it...). but PICs mightn't be so bad because they would have to be specific and thus could provide just more education. also, i've seen at least four sources that say "third world" resource conflict is the root cause of war, as well as comparing stuff like cultural destruction and environemntal loss to nuclear war extensively... and concluding they outweigh finally, i'm not saying tha debater's won't go for nuclear war impacts aff. or neg... they will...and they still can even if we have a region because there is probably inevitably at least one big geopolitical issue in that reason (x/a: one of the first MTSU (krueger?) posts that said he found world war three cards for the horn of africa paper already). i'm just saying that we shouldn't mold the topic to that concern, for the sake of all us debater's who don't want to and for education in general (x/a: my last post). i mean if that is really how we wanna pick topics, we should have gone "rslvd: the USFG should "piss off" china, russia, india, pakistan, and/or the european union" (sorry for the sarcasm... coming from me its just a rhetorical tool and NEVER an ad hom). just trying to keep possibilities open, not limit them out... ricky garner NYU Debate ps- the neg min/maxing? kritik 'em with nuclearism! really! you've got the cards that say the environment outweighs... if they read cards back, i can almosty guarantee that their author's are speaking in the context of disarmament and would say that that the fact that a nuclear war starting from a policy to a small (geo-politically insignificant) african nation is even remotely plausible proves why the whole conversation is stupid (ie-we should disarm...or die) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20000501/8c639b3c/attachment.htm From ssnider Mon May 1 18:44:37 2000 From: ssnider (Sarah J. Snider) Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 19:44:37 -0400 Subject: Trash Talkin' on edebate In-Reply-To: <55.52289d2.2639e931@aol.com> Message-ID: So, I'm aware of how rediculous all of this is, and I think to myself sometimes that I could just shun Bear's messages too..... but then I actually do wonder how rediculous it all is, I mean the petty fighting and threats at "legal action" (big threat that is I'm certain of it.......sarcasm), those are rediculous, but the meat of the discussion per se, issues of language, of gender, of race, of heirarchies......I suppose that those are serious conversations and I think that the majority of the community agrees that those are serious conversations. But then we have these really loud obnoxious people in the community who claim to be standing for something, who claim that all the rest of us must be consistent in our criticisms and our lives, or at least our language. I'm not quite sure yet how I feel about that, I do think that there is something to be said for some sort of dialectical praxis. For me that means that I won't go out of my way to intentionally violate a criticism in which I " believe", I try not to avoid the links per se, but I can't always guarentee such things. So, in return becoming conscious of unconscious link ins is important in overcoming whatever it is being criticised. if that makes any sense at all, I think it does, in terms of gender I find this post by Bear to be completely humorous, and I thought someone would catch it before I got around to re posting it, but nobody did for a couple days. Now that I think about it humorous is not the word I want to use, I am more hurt than anything. He was talking about Terry (of course), and from what I gather Bear is mad at Terry for demeaning one of his debaters, he called her a slut, so Bear says, and that's really bad, or Bear thinks so........So he says he's going to take some sort of legal action and talk of lawyers comes up on Bears end.... he sez: On Thu, 27 Apr 2000, Michael Bear Bryant wrote: > In a message dated 4/27/00 12:20:58 PM Mountain Daylight Time, West at suu.edu > writes: > > Get your lawyer ready. When he can find my assets, he can have them. > > Bryant > Now, maybe I'm mistaken, does Bear have a history of dealings with Terry West's lawyer? Has Bear met "him" or has Terry sometime indicated to Bear before that if they were ever engaged in a legal battle that Terry would be represented by a man? I don't know, but I'm so discouraged by this pathetically false righteousness..... Bear says he's trying and I'm sure he will charge that my logic would impede those who are "trying" to I don't know liberate us womyn from doing so by picking at these sorts of incidents, kind of like not mentioning Kristin's name........ but lets be serious people..........I know that Bear honestly thinks he's trying to raise consciousness regarding issues of race and sex and other issues....... once again he seriousely thinks he's trying.... and that is what scares me the most...........Come on, I don't think its that difficult to avoid such blatantly sexist gendered language when you are trying really hard to be "gender sensitive" or whatever it is people do when you are writing yourself......reading cards may be different, (another discussion a couple weeks ago). But this is rediculous..... I'm actually pretty sick of such bullshit. If people are really trying so hard then what is the problem and why do I come accross such langauage from someone who is a champion of the cause (the cause, I'm not sure what that is either, some gender issue we have turned into THE CAUSE, but that too is another criticism.) I ask if people really are trying, or maybe they think its just cool to say they are........ waiting for flames, one love, Sj From ssnider Mon May 1 18:52:47 2000 From: ssnider (Sarah J. Snider) Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 19:52:47 -0400 Subject: Trash Talkin' on edebate In-Reply-To: Message-ID: wait, typo.... paragraph 4 line 5 "I try _TO_ avoid links" Sj >From Mon May 1 20:38:52 2000 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 17818 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 1 May 2000 20:39:41 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo13.mx.aol.com (imo13.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.3]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA13716 for ; Mon, 1 May 2000 20:39:40 -0400 Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo13.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v26.7.) id q.9a.4387932 (3706); Mon, 1 May 2000 20:38:52 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 105 Message-ID: <9a.4387932.263f7d9c at aol.com> Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 20:38:52 EDT Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Michael Bear Bryant Subject: Re: Trash Talkin' on edebate Comments: To: ssnider at zoo.uvm.edu In a message dated 5/1/00 5:44:55 PM Mountain Daylight Time, ssnider at zoo.uvm.edu writes: > I'm actually pretty sick of such bullshit. If people are really trying so > hard then what is the problem and why do I come accross such langauage > from someone who is a champion of the cause (the cause, I'm not sure what > that is either, some gender issue we have turned into THE CAUSE, but that > too is another criticism.) > > I ask if people really are trying, or maybe they think its just cool to > say they are........ > > > waiting for flames, well, here they come, Miss Snider. I'm tired of people saying that i demeaned all womanhood in debate because I failed to mention Kristen's name. She's never complained a word. This is all a fairly exclusive attempt to shut me down. 1. The post was about an insult to her partner, Ryan 2. There was no reason to drag Kristin into the mud. She was germane to the insults being hurled. I could not anticipate the demeaning you claim I engaged in by trying to keep her from being demeaned. If I had included her in the mud going back-n-forth wouldn't your link be bigger? 3. This is not an act of sexism. If Ryan's partner had been a male I would've acted the same way. Attack my motives as you may, Sarah, you have not answered these flippant irrelevancies. I do care about the philosophies that this community adopts as norms. I do see something wrong with the kritik as merely a strategic tool in rounds. I am upset at the sexism on many squads which directly affects the well-being of both women and men. If you don't believe that, I hardly see where the logic in your post goes much further than being a fancy ad hom or in anyway advances the dialogue that was being attempted. Again, thanks for knowing who I really am. Bear, hurt that it's become such a game of passage to hurt me back From dan.overbey Mon May 1 23:03:06 2000 From: dan.overbey (Daniel Overbey) Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 21:03:06 -0700 Subject: Trash Talkin' on edebate Message-ID: Bear, I had resolved to stay out of this, but you completely miss Sarah's point, and are reacting to the wrong example. Sarah points out that you ASSUME Mr. West's attorney is male. She even provided the quote from one of your emails to support her argument. Sarah made ZERO reference to your use of pronoun usage regarding Ms. Langwell. Indeed, she points out that while you claim to be acting as "Daniel in the lion's den" and the great defender of all that is right in debate, you yourself make gender exclusive assumptions in your rhetoric. Now, an easy link answer here for you is, "I have interacted with Mr. West's attorney, and that attorney is indeed male." Instead you rehash the entirety of a deceased discussion. Maybe I misread Sarah's original post, but I really don't think I did. Daniel -----Original Message----- From: Michael Bear Bryant To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU Date: Monday, May 01, 2000 5:39 PM Subject: Re: Trash Talkin' on edebate >In a message dated 5/1/00 5:44:55 PM Mountain Daylight Time, >ssnider at zoo.uvm.edu writes: > >> I'm actually pretty sick of such bullshit. If people are really trying so >> hard then what is the problem and why do I come accross such langauage >> from someone who is a champion of the cause (the cause, I'm not sure what >> that is either, some gender issue we have turned into THE CAUSE, but that >> too is another criticism.) >> >> I ask if people really are trying, or maybe they think its just cool to >> say they are........ >> >> >> waiting for flames, > >well, here they come, Miss Snider. I'm tired of people saying that i demeaned >all womanhood in debate because I failed to mention Kristen's name. She's >never complained a word. This is all a fairly exclusive attempt to shut me >down. >1. The post was about an insult to her partner, Ryan >2. There was no reason to drag Kristin into the mud. She was germane to the >insults being hurled. I could not anticipate the demeaning you claim I >engaged in by trying to keep her from being demeaned. If I had included her >in the mud going back-n-forth wouldn't your link be bigger? >3. This is not an act of sexism. If Ryan's partner had been a male I would've >acted the same way. >Attack my motives as you may, Sarah, you have not answered these flippant >irrelevancies. > >I do care about the philosophies that this community adopts as norms. I do >see something wrong with the kritik as merely a strategic tool in rounds. I >am upset at the sexism on many squads which directly affects the well-being >of both women and men. > >If you don't believe that, I hardly see where the logic in your post goes >much further than being a fancy ad hom or in anyway advances the dialogue >that was being attempted. > >Again, thanks for knowing who I really am. > >Bear, >hurt that it's become such a game of passage to hurt me back > From forensics Tue May 2 21:09:37 2000 From: forensics (forensics) Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 19:09:37 -0700 Subject: Kritiks Message-ID: On our circuit in California, we call this the "magic word syndrome." This is one of the biggest problems we encountered all season. Reason, and logic simply could not stand in the face of the words "but this is a critique." Neg teams would run Chomsky in an effort to argue against our plan; and even when we would read cards from Chomsky saying that he supported our plan (it was very much based on his arguments) the Neg would respond with some theoretical claim about how Chomsky says you must justify the agent in order to justify the action. And round after round we would lose even when we turned the critique and there was no actual answer. The idea of the critique as an argument is a very good one. Why wouldn't we consider such things as morality and values in our policy actions? However, what the critique has become in practice is, in my opinion, killing policy debate. In California (yes I know, we are already considered strange by much of the country) this is one of the primary reasons that so many schools are giving up on policy and moving to parli. The age of simple and obvious logic in debate is disappearing. One of the essential problems of the way critiques are argued is that the Neg has no advocacy. They have no guts. The want to win without having to really defend anything at the policy level. Another major problem is that judges do too much work for the team running the critique (Aff or Neg). All a team must do is say one of the magic words (patriarchy for example) and the judges makes all of the succeeding assumptions for them - they do not have to provide the warrants themselves. This is just bad debate. I judged an elim round where the Neg did not impact their critique and after the round one of the judges said " well they said patriarchy, and you know me." And why doesn't anyone question the implicit assumptions of the Negative rhetoric in a debate? I tried all year to get my teams to point our to judges that they were being called racists and sexists by the Neg. If the voting analysis on the critique is that every act of defiance is an act against sexism and the ballot is nothing more than a political tool ( an intrinsically lame and flawed claim) doesn't that mean that if I don't vote for the Neg I am a sexist? That's sure what it sounds like to me. This is argument/debate by extortion. I once warned a high school team at the Stanford tournament that they were walking on dangerous ground when they threatened to tell everyone at the tournament that their panel was full of bad critics if we all didn't vote for them. My plea is this: If you are going to argue a critique: first, make sure it is a critique and not a non-unique disad (most of them are out here). Second, make an argument, not an assertion. And finally, prove your impact. Just complaining at the end of a frustrating year. Ken Sherwood LACC Debate -----Original Message----- From: Team Topic Debating in America [mailto:EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU]On Behalf Of Krueger Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2000 11:28 AM To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU Subject: Re: Kritiks Ahhh, if were only this simple. The past topic brought out the worst in criticisms, and judges seem to buy some pretty whacked out arguments. One of our primary arguments against criticisms is that they cannot engage in simple negation, that criticisms can only be effective if they have some sort of plan of action. These are all carded arguments from the critical literature (see the Cultural Studies Reader for some articles that talk about that). We talk about the "policy implications" of the criticism, engage in the turns you are talking about, and then voila! the negative mentions the magic words "that isn't our criticism" or "our plan wouldn't look like that" and "we simply have to prove the -plan- is a bad idea" and judges nod their collective heads and our arguments disappear. Just means that we have to be a hell of alot more effective in getting our arguments across to judges, but right now, since there is no -plan/counterplan- to reject, the utopian ideas result in saying the plan is a bad idea (even if the authors of the criticisms would agree with the plan or last probably would). So judges don't reject any -plan- or alternative plan or counterplan, just are evaluating the debate on the merits of the plan, and utopia is always a better idea, especially since utopia is never specifically articulated. Ahhh. Things to work in this summer. krueger paul j skiermont wrote: > > Maybe the answer to the fact that kritiks let the negative advocate a form > of utopia is to debate the merits of that utopia: a la the way old utopian > counterplans were defeated. The Anarchy, etc. cp's were beaten in large > part because the aff could win that anarchy, world gov., etc. were bad > ideas. > > Shouldn't the advocate of a kritik have to defend THEIR assumptions about > the result of a world in whcih their form of thinking was presumed > correct. For instance, what are the implications of postmodernism if that > way of thinking enshrouded all policy-making? Why can't the aff say that > such a world would result in the collapse of the US economy (assuming they > could prove such a thing)? Sure, this is a results-oriented approach, but > shouldn't the neg be accountable for such results when they advocate that > line of thinking? In this way, most aff's are impact turns to the kritik, > because that manner of thinking would reject the aff plan. Of course, > there would have to be a tallying up of impacts, but it forces the neg to > defend the utopia they advocate. > > ____________________________________________ > > Paul J. Skiermont > University of Chicago Law School, J.D. 2001 > 2 East 8th Street #1313 > Chicago, IL 60605 > (312) 786-0114 > pjskierm at uchicago.edu -- Michael Krueger Director of Debate Middle Tennessee State University Box 43 Murfreesboro, TN 37132 (615) 898-5607 (office) (615) 898-5826 (fax) http://www.mtsu.edu/~debate/ http://www.mtsu.edu/~debate/mdi.html http://www.mtsu.edu/~mkrueger/ >From Mon May 1 22:59:54 2000 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 18970 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 1 May 2000 23:12:50 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo-d01.mx.aol.com (imo-d01.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.33]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA15290 for ; Mon, 1 May 2000 23:03:57 -0400 Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo-d01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v26.7.) id n.55.550ef70 (4239) for ; Mon, 1 May 2000 22:59:54 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="part1_55.550ef70.263f9eaa_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 105 Message-ID: <55.550ef70.263f9eaa at aol.com> Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 22:59:54 EDT Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Michael Bear Bryant Subject: Fwd: Trash Talkin' on edebate --part1_55.550ef70.263f9eaa_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --part1_55.550ef70.263f9eaa_boundary Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Return-path: From: MWBRYANT at aol.com Full-name: MWBRYANT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 22:49:44 EDT Subject: Re: Trash Talkin' on edebate To: dan.overbey at compaq.net CC: eDebare at list.uvm.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 105 In a message dated 5/1/00 7:02:42 PM Mountain Daylight Time, dan.overbey at COMPAQ.NET writes: > Bear, > > I had resolved to stay out of this, but you completely miss Sarah's point, > and are reacting to the wrong example. Sarah points out that you ASSUME Mr. > West's attorney is male. She even provided the quote from one of your > emails to support her argument. Sarah made ZERO reference to your use of > pronoun usage regarding Ms. Langwell. Indeed, she points out that while you > claim to be acting as "Daniel in the lion's den" and the great defender of > all that is right in debate, you yourself make gender exclusive assumptions Oh gee, I mix my pronouns up. Go back and check my writings over the long-term - I've use s/he, hers and hims - it's a multisexual world. These are cheap personal ad homs being used to derail a serious subject -- is equating everything BAD in debate with masculinity the end result of feminist thinking in debate? And, yes, Sj clearly made reference to my failure to mention Kristin. Re-read. I also am pretty sure that Dr. West used a male pronoun either on the list or on one of many backchannels in a reference to his lawyer buddy. If I am wrong, I apologize, but scouring the archives for every possible use of the generic "he" by me in every post I've ever written is not the answer to the greater question. Only my worthiness to broach the subject. Thus, as I asked before, why isn't this just a sophisticated ad hom on me, rather than any meaningful contribution to the question of whether comparing males asses or feminist linkage of all bad in debate to the penis is really what we want to support as non-sexist language on this list. With all due respect, Bear, is saying "he" really the same as linking the penis to too many Clinton cards? --part1_55.550ef70.263f9eaa_boundary-- From hello_katie Mon May 1 22:23:39 2000 From: hello_katie (Katie Kat) Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 22:23:39 -0500 Subject: Kritiks Message-ID: And here's my plea: stop characterizing critical arguments as "non-unique disads". it's annyoing and insulting. I am not saying that slapping the label "kritik" or "critique" on a bad argument suddenly should make it an unbeatable argument or one that doesn't have to be articulated well. But, as a member of the community who tries very hard (although i won't say i succeed) to articulate good critical arguments and spends most of her time researching such arguments, i am tired of hearing them characterized as "non-unique disads that advocate nothing". I'll admit that Marx isn't the most stellar arg. ever, neither was the Rice disad. But to characterize and homogonize the brunt of critical arguments as being "non-unique disads" really frustrates me. You're right, there are some really terrible kritik debates. This ain't "unique" to kritiks...i've seen, been in, been a part of lots of terrible debates in general. Please, I understand that the particular situation you describe sounds frustrating, but I get equally frustrated when i think that all the time i have devoted to becoming good, comprhensible, whatever on these arguments has been reduced to a "non- unique disad". Thanks for listening. Back to my paper. -Katie Hatziavramidis K-State debate >My plea is this: If you are going to argue a critique: first, make sure it is a critique and not a non-unique disad (most of them are out here). Second, make an argument, not an assertion. And finally, prove your impact. Just complaining at the end of a frustrating year. Ken Sherwood LACC Debate Don't forget to visit http://www.pigpig.com/ and http://www.pigpig.net/ ____________________________________________________________ Get your 100MB FREE Internet storage! Sign up now - http://www.netdrive.com/?ao=zzn >From Mon May 1 23:23:07 2000 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 19161 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 1 May 2000 23:23:56 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo13.mx.aol.com (imo13.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.3]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA21134 for ; Mon, 1 May 2000 23:23:51 -0400 Received: from Judd400 at aol.com by imo13.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v26.7.) id n.9b.468946b (9651) for ; Mon, 1 May 2000 23:23:07 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 101 Message-ID: <9b.468946b.263fa41b at aol.com> Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 23:23:07 EDT Reply-To: Judd400 at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Justin Walton Subject: The "Gist" of the Kritik EDebate: I totally agree with Ken Sherwood. I feel that kritiks are changing the nature of policy debate like no other argument or position before them. Let's face it, kritiks challenge the meta-theoretical assumptions of all policy action. Once a kritik is introduced into a debate, the focus changes from practical "problem-solution" to questions of: (a) the nature of what we know, (b) the value of what we know, and (c) how we know what we know. Yes, these questions are of value, but perhaps for a different type of debate. I pose 3 questions to all of you: 1.) Does a kritik need an impact? 2.) Can a kritik be non-unique and have implications for judge? 3.) Will kritiks have longevity as arguments, or are they just "fads" that will run their course? J. Walton From kenneth.delaughder Tue May 2 00:51:52 2000 From: kenneth.delaughder (Kenneth DeLaughder) Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 23:51:52 -0600 Subject: The "Gist" of the Kritik In-Reply-To: <9b.468946b.263fa41b@aol.com> Message-ID: I dunno if Kritiks are fads, but I remember Paul Hood turning me onto ethical skepticism (yeah and I won alot of rounds on it too... thanks Carson Brackney...lol) before I even knew what the word kritik meant, which I didnt really know until Eric Emerson showed me the legal kritik when I was debating with a person from Texas at a tournament. in CEDA we used to call them VALUE OBJECTIONS... lol Ken EMPOria debate On Mon, 1 May 2000, Justin Walton wrote: > EDebate: > > I totally agree with Ken Sherwood. I feel that kritiks are changing the > nature of policy debate like no other argument or position before them. Let's > face it, kritiks challenge the meta-theoretical assumptions of all policy > action. Once a kritik is introduced into a debate, the focus changes from > practical "problem-solution" to questions of: (a) the nature of what we know, > (b) the value of what we know, and (c) how we know what we know. Yes, these > questions are of value, but perhaps for a different type of debate. > > I pose 3 questions to all of you: > 1.) Does a kritik need an impact? > 2.) Can a kritik be non-unique and have implications for judge? > 3.) Will kritiks have longevity as arguments, or are they just "fads" that > will run their course? > > J. Walton > From L_Phillips Tue May 2 06:43:09 2000 From: L_Phillips (Leslie Phillips - Lexington High School) Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 07:43:09 -0400 Subject: Job Opportunities in MA Message-ID: >Reply-To: jamurphy at k12.nsm.umass.edu >Originator: cx-l at debate.net >Sender: cx-l at debate.net >Precedence: bulk >From: "James Murphy (Hampshire RHS)" >To: Multiple recipients of list CX-L >Subject: Job Opportunities in MA >MIME-Version: 1.0 >X-Comment: Discussion of high school debate >Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 20:01:18 -0400 (EDT) > > > Just a not to any teachers out there looking for work in a school >that has a debate program. Hampshire Regional HS in western Massachusetts >(near the University of MA, Amherst College, Smith College, etc.) will be >hiring several teachers over the coming months. At present there are >positions available in both Social Studies and Math, due to retirements. >We have a small program here, but it does have a budget, and a great work >atmosphere both in and outside of debate. Applications for the currently >open positions are due by around May 12. In the meantime, if anyone would >like more information, I'd be happy to e-mail it...just write back to me >at this address. > >Jim Murphy >HRHS Debate >MA > >PS: If someone woujld be so kind as to forward this to the college >listserv, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. > > >============================== CX-L Mailing List ============================= >To unsubscribe: send the text UNSUBSCRIBE CX-L to listproc at debate.net with >NO SUBJECT. For other help, send mail to jordyn at debate.net. Fear the Kvaal! > >From Tue May 2 07:04:34 2000 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 20672 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 2 May 2000 08:04:39 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from mailhost.netdot.com (tbredrad.netdot.com [206.50.22.9] (may be forged)) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA38026 for ; Tue, 2 May 2000 08:04:38 -0400 Received: from [209.39.34.45] [209.39.34.45] by mailhost.netdot.com with ESMTP (SMTPD32-6.00) id A47422980234; Tue, 02 May 2000 07:05:08 -0500 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express Macintosh Edition - 4.5 (0410) Mime-version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <200005020705624.SM00178@[209.39.34.45]> Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 07:04:34 -0500 Reply-To: doyle at netdot.com, dsrader at sfasu.edu To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Doyle Srader Subject: Re: The "Gist" of the Kritik This is a point that's been made before, but it bears making again. Justin Walton asks: > 1.) Does a kritik need an impact? > 2.) Can a kritik be non-unique and have implications for judge? > 3.) Will kritiks have longevity as arguments, or are they just "fads" that > will run their course? I'll answer yours if you answer mine: 1.) Does a disad need an initial or internal link? 2.) Can one-sentence wire service blurbs make a disad unique? Karla Leeper once remarked to me that kritiking was just like WOMP and Anarchy: for a couple of years, negatives would load up on them and win big debates, but then affirmatives would learn how to beat them and they'd go away. She said that in 1993. I need hardly add, Baylor now runs kritiks. I assume Polk is appalled. (And anything that appalls Polk is A-OK by me.) A year from this September will be the tenth anniversary of the first kritiking in NDT debate. I'm not sure what the timeline was for CEDA -- wasn't the first CEDA yearbook article published in '83? Either way, this "fad" is putting down some pretty sturdy roots. I'm constantly struck by a parallel: a lot of impatient people who encounter fast debate for the first time say "C'mon, you don't REALLY understand what they're saying." It seems plausible to them that we have debate after debate, hundreds of them a year, but they're all a huge put-on; that all judges just make up something to say at the end, and that we have no clue what any of the arguments were. Wow. But some of the extreme kritik cynics seem to have the same way-out illusion: "C'mon, you don't REALLY think these things are good arguments, do you?" No, you got us: folks like D Heidt, Breshears, and many many others vote for kritiking done well because they're intimidated by the big words. How savvy of you to smoke them out like that. There comes a time when you've got to stop stiff-arming an argument and finally take a swipe at understanding it. Unless, that is, you're OK with losing a lot of debates that you're never really in. Doyle Srader Lecturer, Speech Communication Stephen F. Austin State University http://www.netdot.com/doyle/ "... which just shows you can have an M.A. and a Ph.D and still fall for the same old B.S." -- Cecil Adams From L_Phillips Tue May 2 08:12:27 2000 From: L_Phillips (Leslie Phillips - Lexington High School) Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 09:12:27 -0400 Subject: LEXINGTON SEEKS ASSISTANT COACHES Message-ID: As usual, Lexington seeks assistant coaches. We need people who can hear and evaluate practice rounds, people who can travel to tournaments, or some mix thereof. We are particularly interested in 21+ people who can take charge on certain weekends. Qualifications: a strong high school and/or college background in policy debate, a willingness to work with all levels of varsity debaters, a sense of humor, and general reliability. The program is very large, so we tend to hire several people to do various bits, rather than relying on one primary assistant. If you are coming to the Boston area next year for college, graduate school, or for no particular reason, I would be very interested in talking to you. Respond to this email address, or see me at TOC or NFL. Les Phillips Lexington From kyoung Tue May 2 08:20:43 2000 From: kyoung (kelly young) Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 09:20:43 -0400 Subject: Another Africa Site/AFrica Topic References: <390DF222.506C73BD@jcu.edu> <003501bfb3d1$135c0e00$050b0792@ermohome> Message-ID: I have to thank Eric Morris for pointing out that I never freaking included the address for the 2000 Summit on Africa website. My bad! It is: http://www.africasummit.org/fthemes.htm Kelly Young JCU Debate Eric Morris wrote: > What was the address for this cite? > > 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: "kelly young" > To: > Sent: Monday, May 01, 2000 4:07 PM > Subject: Another Africa Site/AFrica Topic > > > Hi-- > > > > Should have sent this with the previous post. This site, for the > > National Summit on Africa provides great background and prospects for > > the role of the US in Africa. The summit occurred this year, and here > > is a little sampling of the issues discussed: > > > > The National Summit on Africa thematic working papers -- centered on > > five > > themes and covering a broad range of issues in U.S.-Africa relations-- > > provide information on developments on the continent and offer > > suggestions > > as to how the public and private sectors in the U.S. could engage > > African > > people in mutually beneficial relations. The five Thematic Working > > Papers > > are: (1) Democracy and Human Rights; (2) Economic Development, Trade > > and Investment, and Job Creation; (3) Education and Culture; (4) Peace > > and > > Security; and (5) Sustainable Development, Quality of Life, and the > > Environment. Each of the five Thematic Working Papers is also available > > in a > > "Synopsis for Policymakers" version. > > > > Topic papers could easily be developed around any five of these problem > > areas. Hope this help assist those interested. > > > > Kelly Young > > JCU Debate > > From mabouzai Tue May 2 08:19:07 2000 From: mabouzai (Mohammed Abouzaid) Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 09:19:07 -0400 Subject: What is Kritik? Message-ID: (A) kritik is the suspension of the illusion of policy debate. It displaces the fantasy land which we have created, with its omnipotent actors ("funding and enforcement guaranteed"), and its omnidestructive (!?) claims ("a minute risk of nuclear war outweighs all the starving people in this world"). It replaces us (debaters, judges) in our real world positions as persons and advocates. It especially replaces the judge in her real situation: a person forced (by societal norms) to make a choice between what two teams have to say. So really, you could use impact analysis in a kritik. If you vote aff, you're just saying that the USFG should lift sanctions on Syria. If you vote neg, you're saying that the structures of postcolonial nation state is fundamentally opressive of religious/ethnic minorities. You can "weigh" the impacts of these two positions in the real world (I can imagine using "brink" cards that would say: "we just need a small number of people dedicated to eliminating the nation state to reach the promissed land", or ones that say "US policy towards syria is not affected by what US citizens think, but by the pro-israeli lobby.") Of course impact analysis is not my favorite mode of kritiking (mostly because it's so hard to weigh the impact of a ballot), because there are other ways to decide whether one should personally advocate something. mohammed abouzaid richmond debate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20000502/e12bb4ac/attachment.html From BobJordan Tue May 2 08:59:18 2000 From: BobJordan (Bob Jordan) Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 08:59:18 -0500 Subject: Fwd: Re: The War Against Boys Message-ID: As promised here are the cites to support Christina Hoff Sommers claim in: Christina Hoff Sommers, (W.H. Brady Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute), "The War Against Boys," The Atlantic Monthly, May 2000, p. 60. that girls outnumber boys in debating clubs. I have not had chance to locate these sources. Bob Jordan >Dear Mr. Jordan, > > The debate club claim comes in a paragraph in which I summarize findings >from a variety of studies. Sorry for the confusion. Here are the sources: >1. The American Freshman: Twenty-five Year Trends (published by Higher >Education Research Institute [American Council on Education) University of >California, Los Angeles. p.51. According to this annual survey of Freshman >6.6 percent of females competed in a state or regional speech or debate >contest, compared to 5.7 percent of boys. > 2. State of our Nation's Youth, 1998 -1999 Horatio Alger Association, >(Alexandria Virginia) p. 22 > "Of the 4.8 percent of student who participated in debate and speech >societies: 6.5% were female, 3.2 percent male. " > >Related findings from a new Department of Education study entitled Trends in >Educational Equity of Girls and Women ; (March 2000) Based on self reports of >high school seniors: > In 1995 , 27 percent of girls and 18 percent of boys were in student >council or government > >87 percent of girls and 83 percent of boys said they could "make a statement >at a public meeting." > > If you have any other statistics on debate club participation, I would >very much like to see them. >Hope this is helpful. > >Christina Sommers From BobJordan Tue May 2 09:28:20 2000 From: BobJordan (Bob Jordan) Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 09:28:20 -0500 Subject: Elian-itis Message-ID: http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/daily/detail/0,1136,31500000000105325,00.html This is an interesting article about the emotional state of the Cuban community in Florida since Elian was returned to his father. I think the most interesting part of this article is the indication that the Cuban community in South Florida failed rhetorically. Bob Jordan >From Tue May 2 11:14:47 2000 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 25244 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 2 May 2000 11:14:50 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from changeofhabit.rs.itd.umich.edu (changeofhabit.rs.itd.umich.edu [141.211.144.17]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA39310 for ; Tue, 2 May 2000 11:14:48 -0400 Received: from union49.ccs.itd.umich.edu (union49.ccs.itd.umich.edu [141.211.222.46]) by changeofhabit.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.9.3/3.2r) with ESMTP id LAA01794 for ; Tue, 2 May 2000 11:14:47 -0400 (EDT) Originator-Info: login-id=jasonph; server=nightbreed.imap.itd.umich.edu X-Mailer: Mulberry (MacOS) [1.4.4, s/n S-399020] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-ID: <55458.3166254887 at union49.ccs.itd.umich.edu> Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 11:14:47 -0400 Reply-To: jasonph at UMICH.EDU To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Jason Hernandez Subject: DCA Debater #4 Ryan Sparacino Bio by Kamal Ghali Ryan Robert Sparacino (also known as "the Bean" and Sparky) was a top-ten debater this year because, quite frankly, he was one of the most diverse negative debaters on the topic. Sparky skillfully wielded his broad arsenal of argumentative weapons like a well oiled wrestler. He led the Northwestern attack with a complex array of negative startegies that ranged from "ASpec" to "T" to more "ASpec," and when he was feeling really saucy..."ASpec." It seems like only yesterday thay Sparky was waxing poetic on "ASpec." And of course, who can forget that sweet "ASpec" 2NR that Sparky gave that one time. Entering the 1999-200 debate season, Sparky was the winningest debater on the circuit. With 2 NDTs and a Copleand Award under his belt, it seemed that Sparky could only pad his list of impressive achievements. However, Sparky would artificially cut his career short. After advancing to the quarterfinals of the UNI debate tounrnament in September of '99, Sparky retired from the scene. After defeating Emory BG (warning:shameless self-promotion) in the octafinals, Sparky felt that he had accomplished a task far more fulfilling than winning the NDT twice, and wisely retired from the scene. This created time for Sparky to launch his acting career. Upon signing contracts for movies such as "Three Men and a Bean." "The Phantom Bean, and "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Bean," it looked like Sparky would leave debate forever. However, he grew frustarted with acting when he failed to get the "Mrs. Buttersworth" job in his attempt to work the T.V. scene. The straw that broke the camel's back was when he was told that he "wasn't quite the Arnold we were looking for" when auditioning for Fox's "The Gary Coleman Story." Disillusioned with acting, Sparky came back to the scene in October of '99. Unlike George Foreman's return to boxing, Sparky returned a bit slower and even a little bit out of shape...Sparky went on to have an incredible season. Not only did he win two major national tournaments, but he went on to be top speaker at the NDT. Sparky was one of the greatest 2ACs I have seen in the actvity. Very few will ever rival his technical skills, his ability to frame debates, and his ability to write the most strategic affirmatives. It is worth noting that Sparky is also a humanitarian. His conscientious objections have single-handedly disbanded the Emory Booty contest. From wnewnam Tue May 2 10:28:39 2000 From: wnewnam (bill newnam) Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 11:28:39 -0400 Subject: africa: listing countries References: <390DF3E2.A20F2147@frank.mtsu.edu> Message-ID: I have observed the discussion of the wording of this topic with interest, but no particular point of view. I wanted to pass along a few observations: 1. Are we sure there is justification with our concerns about breadth? We have become so dependent on lists and I wonder if we should be concerned about it on Africa. Africa was one of the last topics that did not contain a list and, frankly, I do not recall it being that unmanageable. That was true for a couple of reasons which may or may not be relevant now, but this is my theory: a. No solvency advocates for small projects in small countries. While there are a lot of governments in Africa, there were very few authors advocating a lot of different projects in small countries. And very few authors advocating US policy action in most of the countries. UNLESS there is noted evidence to the contrary, I do not believe that the topic committee should concern themselves too much with specifying governments if the agent is the USFG. There simply will not be that many cases given our inattention to this region and barriers between the US and many of these nations. The more the topic is modified (e.g. the type of action--development, military, trade, etc. or, e.g., the goal of the resolution--environmental protection, economic growth, etc.) the less necessary it becomes to specify countries. The previous Africa topic said "that the USFG should change its foreign policy toward one or more African nations" and I did not recall with that ridiculously broad wording, that the topic was out of control. Some caveats: Perhaps others will remember the past differently. Perhaps some of my peers who recall that topic will comment. Literature, absent the cold war, might have changed substantially. Perhaps those well-versed in the area can address questions such as: Without a rival superpower are more governments involved with the US than there were in 1988? Does evidence about a particular country's problems include recommendations for US policy action? b. Rethinking the USFG as actor is a good idea. There are policy proposals for action by WHO, OAU, UN, World Bank, IMF, and smaller regional governmental organizations. There is literature out there that suggests what NGO's should do. All of these are potentially debateable agents. None of them will escape the KINDS of questions which Kevin references, however. The question of agency is a place for the negative to attack and they will do so, no matter what the agent is. Africa is a unique region which invites consideration of an alternative agent for several reasons: 1) there is minimal historical relationships between the US and Africa thus minimizing the effectiveness and desirability of US action (and literature supporting US action) compared with many other regions of the world. 2) a lot of policy proposals have been suggested for alternative actors because Africa has been "neglected" or "ignored" in the post-slavery/post-colonial period. 3) there is a long history of non-nation state action being a catalyst for change in Africa 4) so many African problems transcend their colonial borders. The problem in choosing an area with a non-US, or non-governmental actor, is that we are a little scared and a little lazy. It would require a lot of work to find out what kinds of actors are available, what kinds of suggestions are being made for them, what kind of objections exist to their action. We are familiar with the US government actor and we more easily see the implications of policy choices on them. I certainly won't be doing the research needed and the topic committee is doing enough service without asking for them to pursue this option. Perhaps if someone wished to pursue an alternative actor choice they could write such a paper and submit it to the topic committee. If it can be reasonable accomodated I would hope the committee would consider putting at least one such topic on the ballot for consideration by the community. But, if there is strong resistance, perhaps that proves that we should go ahead and stay with convention and the negative can make the arguments Kevin has been making here. Besides our friends from Texas can use the W's. bill n emory Krueger wrote: > Heck, impacts are a great reason for looking at the Horn of Africa. 15 > million people at risk of starvation (I hate to "use" those people, but > frankly I am appalled at the lack of compasion or understanding in the > US and relative lack of focus by the US media and the fact that Clinton > started to try to help in '94 but seemingly abandoned work in the > Horn). More people died in two battles between Eritrea and Ethiopia > than in all of the Kosovo conflict. The Nile flows northward through > the Horn, and the nations there and the riparian nations could set off > another world war. "Terrorist groups" like Bin Laden are setting up in > Somalia because of the relative lack of stable government there. > > One last note--the Clinton administration and the US government has > taken policy stances on regions before. In Africa, it happened to be > the "Greater Horn of Africa" which includes 5 more countries. Not that > the argument is that compelling, but it does happen. > > The more I learn about the region, the more I am sickened, saddened, and > disheartened. > There are lots of reasons to learn about Africa, and what is happening > in this particular region certainly is compelling, at least to me. > > take care, > > krueger > > -- > Michael Krueger > Director of Debate > Middle Tennessee State University > Box 43 > Murfreesboro, TN 37132 > (615) 898-5607 (office) > (615) 898-5826 (fax) > http://www.mtsu.edu/~debate/ > http://www.mtsu.edu/~msdi/ > http://www.mtsu.edu/~mkrueger/ >From Tue May 2 10:34:51 2000 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 25508 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 2 May 2000 11:29:46 -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 LAA22758 for ; Tue, 2 May 2000 11:29:33 -0400 Received: (qmail 1877 invoked by uid 0); 2 May 2000 15:29:08 -0000 Received: from dial-48-3.ots.utexas.edu (HELO mail.utexas.edu) (128.83.251.99) by umbs-smtp-3 with SMTP; 2 May 2000 15:29:08 -0000 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 (Macintosh; I; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <200005012120.RAA105328 at pilot022.cl.msu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <390EAF47.92CB98AA at mail.utexas.edu> Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 10:34:51 +0000 Reply-To: jd.rollins at mail.utexas.edu To: Team Topic Debating in America From: joel david rollins Subject: Re: Kamal's Krap Comments: To: monickaa at pilot.msu.edu so is your argument that since we can't understand the literture we should ignore it and only work in those narrow frames that we understand? or that we continue to produce and reproduce oppressive politics because it is all that we can do? aaron, i think that what you say below is the performance of the link to many of the "post colonial" positions. joel Aaron Monick wrote: > > Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 02:46:53 -0400 > > Reply-to: kevin kuswa > > From: kevin kuswa > > Subject: Re: Kamal's Krap > > To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU > > > At 08:22 PM 4/30/00 -0400, Kamal wrote: > > >The only thing I'd like to add to Parcher's post is an emphasis on the > > >literature. > > > > Tell me about the literature on Africa, Kamal. Tell about your insights > > into cultural studies and the ways race and colonialism intersected in > > CLR James' and Fanon's work, spreading into the argument that the project > > of the enlightenment cannot be disassociated from the racial terror of > > the "Black Atlantic." Tell me about how redemptive violence appeared in > > Stuart Hall's wrok and traversed Lacanian theory through Homi Bhabha's > > arguments about the ways nationality works within and without the state. > > Tell me about how these writings about postcolonial identity cross the > > Atlantic in Paul Gilroy's work on small acts of change, the triangular > > trade in people, ethnic absolutism, and the link to Spivak and Shiva. Yes, > > this is a bunch ob absurd name-dropping, but the claim to the "literature" > > here is always open to interpretation. > > I'm never for getting involved in any discussion on e-debate, but > like sparky i'm done with filling out strike sheets and i'm sober for > a few hours anyway, so here goes.. i thought kevin's initial worry > about the nation-state in the african context was fascinating, and > ultimately it will probably end up being excellent negative ground in > next year's resolution, especially when you're in a final round and > you have nothing good except a cheezy veto c/p...:) anyway, if you're > interested in changing the focus of the rez, kevin, I think you're headed in > the wrong 'discursive' direction, if you will.. not too many people > have the time or inclination to wade through the post-colonial > writers like bhabha or spivak, and speaking as someone who has, > frankly large chunks of their theories are just incoherent or too > wordy.. the real problem with these and other stances, and the > reason maybe why people have derided you as part of the 'radical > chic', is that it's always possible to position oneself more > critically than just about anything. for example, i could quote one > of the interesting post-colonial theorists: > "Tolerance is never simply passive, and, ironically, the area of > institutionalised post-colonial studies is finding itself > increasingly invested in an academic star system of astonishing > proportions, and through that star system it is learning to seek its > instruction in oppositional tactics along lines that run increasingly > and monolithically backward towards the centres of Western power .. > our theoretical masters in Paris or Oxford or New Haven are read and > referenced by exemplary theorists of the local .. but those > metropolitan theorists seldom reference these cultural and > theoretical mediators in return." > does this mean your arguments are invalid? of course not. it's just > that for me, and probably a lot of others, 'critical discourse' > (whatever that means) is a lot less compelling in the context of > resolutional discussion than questions of ground and limits and > breadth and depth and whatever other topicality buzzwords i never > learned.. for example, one could approach the question of whether we > need a list or number of countries from the standpoint of what would > provide the best balance between the aff and the neg, or you could > take a page from bhabha and the rest and question the notion of lists > and numbers as part of the Western mathematical project that serves > to reify a dominant culture/nation/something/big words/hegemony... > maybe i'm just being mocking or something, but it seems that one of > these discussions will be successful and one won't.. but if you want > fuel for that fire, here's something from alan bishop.. > "From these colonial times through to today, the power of this > mathematico-technological culture has grown apace -- so much that > western mathematics is taught nowadays in every country in the world > ... I began by describing the myth of western mathematics' cultural > neutrality. Increasingly, modern evidence serves to destroy this > naive belief. Nevertheless, the belief in that myth has had, and > continues to have, powerful implications ... taking a broader view, > one must ask: should there not be more resistance to this cultural > hegemony? ... Resistance is growing, critical debate is informing > theoretical developments, and research is increasing, particularly in > educational situations where culture-conflict is recognized. The > secret weapon is secret no longer." > > Indeed.. anyway, i bring this up not to try to discredit your > argument. i think you're bringing something valuable to the > discussion, i just think you should speak more english...:) > > Sorry to subject the community to my boredom, > Aaron > > Aaron Monick > (517)324-1928 -- Joel D. Rollins, PhD Director of Debating Director, UTNIF Jesse Jones Communication Center, CMA 7.114 The University of Texas at Austin Austin, TX 78712 email: jd.rollins at mail.utexas.edu UTNIF Web site: http://www.utexas.edu/coc/speech/debate/adi.html or http://utdebate.tripod.com/adi.htm From wnewnam Tue May 2 10:32:52 2000 From: wnewnam (bill newnam) Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 11:32:52 -0400 Subject: Fwd: Re: The War Against Boys References: Message-ID: Bob Jordan wrote: > > >Dear Mr. Jordan, > > > > > > "Of the 4.8 percent of student who participated in debate and speech > >societies: 6.5% were female, 3.2 percent male. " > > What were the remaining 90%? > > > >Christina Sommers bill n emory From jmeany Tue May 2 10:44:13 2000 From: jmeany (John Meany) Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 08:44:13 -0700 Subject: The War Against Boys In-Reply-To: <390EF524.26597871@emory.edu> Message-ID: Other sexes, of course: female dominant hermaphrodite, male dominant hermaphrodite, and 'true' hermaphrodite... Based on sexual identification, the debate community is an interesting self-selected group. If only we had debated the human sexuality topic, some of the personal narratives of the majority hermaphroditic population would be available for consideration and critical reflection. John Meany Claremont Colleges > From: bill newnam > Reply-To: bill newnam > Date: Tue, 02 May 2000 11:32:52 -0400 > To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU > Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: The War Against Boys > > Bob Jordan wrote: > >> >>> Dear Mr. Jordan, >>> >> >> >>> "Of the 4.8 percent of student who participated in debate and speech >>> societies: 6.5% were female, 3.2 percent male. " >>> > > What were the remaining 90%? > >>> >>> Christina Sommers > > bill n > emory From d.breshears Tue May 2 09:48:06 2000 From: d.breshears (David Breshears) Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 10:48:06 -0400 Subject: The "Gist" of the Kritik Message-ID: Holy time warp, Batman! Is it 1992 all over again, or what? I suggest you folks who are having trouble with kritiking head over to the edebate archives and spend some time getting up to speed on these issues. I really don't mean to be flippant, but I'm having some serious flashbacks. Are kritiks just a fad? Are you kidding me? I realize these arguments may seem new to some folks, but they've been around (in NDT terms) for nearly a decade. When Goodman & Martin and McBride & Wyrick busted the Kritik of Rationality (1991-1992), folks called the Longhorns heretics, told us we were out to destroy debate, and dismissed us as just another minor disruption that would soon fade away. ALL WERE WRONG! In the intervening years, kritiking has become the subject of numerous journal articles and convention panels/papers, as well as a prime topic of discussion in this forum. I'd suggest these resources to folks who are trying to catch up on the state of the art/argument. The one thing about which I think virtually all of the early skeptics would agree (well, maybe not Katsulas) is that one shouldn't approach the argument with the most horrid examples in mind. Yes, there are bad kritiks, and bad kritik debaters. There are also bad counterplans, bad disads, bad case turns, and, in my experience, lots of debaters who are just bad. SO WHAT? Check out Jairus and Kirk, the kritikal kowboys who were in the semis of the NDT this year, after winning Northwestern, and Baylor, and William Jewel, and reaching the semis at Harvard, ALL EXCLUSIVELY ON KRITIKS AND KRITIKAL AFFIRMATIVES. Or check out Kate Shuster on Normativity, John Brody on Disciplinary Power, or Chris Lundberg on almost anything kritikal...I'm sure there's a video archive of these folks somewhere. They will change the way you think about these arguments. Good luck, Dave -----Original Message----- From: Justin Walton To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU Date: Monday, May 01, 2000 11:33 PM Subject: The "Gist" of the Kritik >EDebate: > >I totally agree with Ken Sherwood. I feel that kritiks are changing the >nature of policy debate like no other argument or position before them. Let's >face it, kritiks challenge the meta-theoretical assumptions of all policy >action. Once a kritik is introduced into a debate, the focus changes from >practical "problem-solution" to questions of: (a) the nature of what we know, >(b) the value of what we know, and (c) how we know what we know. Yes, these >questions are of value, but perhaps for a different type of debate. > >I pose 3 questions to all of you: >1.) Does a kritik need an impact? >2.) Can a kritik be non-unique and have implications for judge? >3.) Will kritiks have longevity as arguments, or are they just "fads" that >will run their course? > >J. Walton >From Tue May 2 11:16:12 2000 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 26242 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 2 May 2000 12:16:42 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from pop.webster.edu (pop.webster.edu [198.246.0.22]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA32478 for ; Tue, 2 May 2000 12:16:35 -0400 Received: from webster.edu (xlate-2-17.webster.edu [198.246.2.17]) by pop.webster.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA16100; Tue, 2 May 2000 11:12:34 -0500 (CDT) X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <390EFF4C.3449D4CA at webster.edu> Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 11:16:12 -0500 Reply-To: jensensc at webster.edu To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Scott Jensen Organization: Webster University Subject: Test--please ignore Comments: To: ie-l , parli-L , "pikap-l at nicanor.acu.edu" Test -- Scott Jensen Director of Forensics Webster University 470 East Lockwood Ave St. Louis, MO 63119 314-968-7439--office 314-963-6106--fax jensensc at webster.edu Check out Webster Forensics!!! http://gorlok.cjb.net http://www.geocities.com/collegepark/center/5311/ "I am a Bear of very little brain and long words bother me." --Pooh Bear "Is a dream a lie if it don't come true?" --Bruce Springsteen "I refuse to accept the idea that the 'isness' of man's present nature makes him morally incapable of reaching up for the 'oughtness' that forever confronts him." --Martin Luther King, Jr. From parcherj Tue May 2 11:17:47 2000 From: parcherj (Jeff Parcher) Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 12:17:47 -0400 Subject: africa: listing countries References: <390DF3E2.A20F2147@frank.mtsu.edu> <390EF427.41FF85D6@emory.edu> Message-ID: > a. No solvency advocates for small projects in small countries. While > there are a lot of governments in Africa, there were very few authors > advocating a lot of different projects in small countries. And very few > authors advocating US policy action in most of the countries. UNLESS there > is noted evidence to the contrary, I do not believe that the topic committee > should concern themselves too much with specifying governments if the agent > is the USFG. There simply will not be that many cases given our inattention > to this region and barriers between the US and many of these nations. The > more the topic is modified (e.g. the type of action--development, military, > trade, etc. or, e.g., the goal of the resolution--environmental protection, > economic growth, etc.) the less necessary it becomes to specify countries. > The previous Africa topic said "that the USFG should change its foreign > policy toward one or more African nations" and I did not recall with that > ridiculously broad wording, that the topic was out of control. While this point has some appeal, I would note two things: 1) The literature of 1989 is not the literature of 2000. Lexis has some pretty extensive international coverage that wasn't available back then. Also, the internet has transformed our ability to get information and find advocates concerning projects in previously ignored places. 2) Inability to find solvency authors should not be overestimated as a barrier to creative affirmatives. Almost no one advocated ANY U.S. security assistance increases to SEA, but affirmatives still came up with a diversity of cases including among others Emory's multiple versions of logging/forests and Harvard's orangutang case. I do agree that the more the topic is modified the less a list is needed. But is that what we really want? How much are we really learning and debating about Sudan if the only thing the aff is allowed to do is sell more weapons or increase AIDS funding. Another result of limiting the topic through mechanisms is that we always seem to end up with one or two countries that are essential excluded because the mechanism turns out not to be relevant. Singapore, Brunei, Syria all come to mind. After SEA and Sanctions, I think we are ready to try a different approach - keep the list but expand the mechanisms for affirmative solvency. > Without a rival superpower are more governments involved with the US than > there were in 1988? > Does evidence about a particular country's problems include recommendations > for US policy action? I am not an expert, but I would say from my reading that policy literature toward African has increased fairly significantly. This is a result not just of the passing of the cold war, but pressure by African-American policy elites to focus on what has been thought to be a neglected region. They were powerful enough to get Clinton to visit and announce some policy changes. > The problem in choosing an area with a non-US, or non-governmental actor, is > that we are a little scared and a little lazy. It would require a lot of > work to find out what kinds of actors are available, what kinds of > suggestions are being made for them, what kind of objections exist to their > action. We are familiar with the US government actor and we more easily see > the implications of policy choices on them. I certainly won't be doing the > research needed and the topic committee is doing enough service without > asking for them to pursue this option. Perhaps if someone wished to pursue > an alternative actor choice they could write such a paper and submit it to > the topic committee. If it can be reasonable accomodated I would hope the > committee would consider putting at least one such topic on the ballot for > consideration by the community. I think this argument is a bit overdrawn. Those agents will get researched inevitably as counterplan/disad ground. The WHO, World Bank and IMF counterplans were run on SEA and I would expect them to be one of the cores of the African topic even if the agent chosen in the U.S. The question of whether we want the international agents to be affirmative or negative ground is an interesting one. My primary concern is that the better negative net benefit ground is rooted against the U.S. agent. The problems with the U.S. as an agent that have been mentioned might be a good reason to saddle the affirmative with it - especially if the topic country list or mechanism chosen is broad. Either way, which side gets the U.S. and which side get international actors ought to be how this discussion is framed, because I think that's how the topic would likely play out, atleast to some extent. JP From mkrueger Tue May 2 11:18:26 2000 From: mkrueger (Krueger) Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 11:18:26 -0500 Subject: MSDI Flights Message-ID: Hey- For those people looking to come to MSDI, flights are really cheap to Nashville right now, but they reservations have to be made by May 4 (on Southwest)--at least these flights. Southwest Airlines Click 'n Save(R) E-mail Update for May 2, 2000 Please pass this great news on to your friends! To subscribe to Southwest Airlines Click 'n Save E-mail Updates, visit http://www.southwest.com/email/ Southwest Airlines Click 'n Save Internet Specials at http://www.southwest.com/hotfares/?src=click ***************************************************** Check out our Weekly Click 'n Save Specials below. 21-day advance purchase Travel May 23, 2000 through September 11, 2000 except for May 26 and 29, 2000. Roundtrip purchase and overnight stay required Purchase beginning May 2 through May 4, 2000, midnight PST. Scroll down for more details! **************************************************** The fares listed do not include airport-assessed passenger facility charges (PFCs) of up to $12 roundtrip. Roundtrip purchase and overnight stay are required. Fares do not include a federal excise tax of $2.50 that will be imposed on each flight segment of your itinerary. A flight segment is defined as a takeoff and a landing. Fares shown are each way based on roundtrip purchase Nashville $44 each way to/from Baltimore/Washington $36 each way to/from Cleveland $54 each way to/from Columbus $50 each way to/from Jacksonville $94 each way to/from Manchester $37 each way to/from New Orleans $94 each way to/from Providence Just an FYI. take care, Mike -- Michael Krueger Director of Debate Middle Tennessee State University Box 43 Murfreesboro, TN 37132 (615) 898-5607 (office) (615) 898-5826 (fax) http://www.mtsu.edu/~debate/ http://www.mtsu.edu/~msdi/ http://www.mtsu.edu/~mkrueger/ From k.kuswa Tue May 2 11:20:07 2000 From: k.kuswa (kevin kuswa) Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 12:20:07 -0400 Subject: We MUST have a list for Africa Message-ID: Well, we have to be the USFG because it's our only hope. I mean, how could we not be the USFG? Have you seen my USFG tattoo? No, really, it will just be too hard to find another agent. Besides, who would we be if we weren't the USFG? You can't give away your heart just because you want a new haircut! With that in mind, we have GOT to have a list of countries!! It's the only way I feel comfortable doing research, and there really isn't any other way to give out assignments without a list of countries. A list is the only thing standing between a "clean, well-lit place" and the heart of darkness. Therefore, here are my proposals: R: The USFG should save one or more of the following governments: Egypt, South Africa, Tunisia, Madagascar, Cameroon. or R: The USFG should send its expertise to the five most strategic countries in Africa. or R: The five nation-states with the largest population divided by land area in Africa should be strengthened by the USFG. or R: The USFG should impose itself on the first five countries in Africa at the beginning of the alphabet. Save your souls and your research habits and vote for one of these wordings. kevin utexas From forensics Wed May 3 11:31:26 2000 From: forensics (forensics) Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 09:31:26 -0700 Subject: Kritiks Message-ID: And I am frustrated that you didn't read my entire post. You engage in the same act that you rail against when you over generalize and mischaracterize my post, during which I applauded "real" critiques and simply argues that many (not all) of the arguments I heard this year were non-unique disads labeled critiques. If you are one of the few debaters who is running actual critiques as such, I am glad to know that it is happening. But be careful when you respond that you have paid attention to the entire argument being posted. Ken Sherwood -----Original Message----- From: Katie Kat [mailto:hello_katie at PIGPIG.ZZN.COM] Sent: Monday, May 01, 2000 8:24 PM To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU Subject: Re: Kritiks And here's my plea: stop characterizing critical arguments as "non-unique disads". it's annyoing and insulting. I am not saying that slapping the label "kritik" or "critique" on a bad argument suddenly should make it an unbeatable argument or one that doesn't have to be articulated well. But, as a member of the community who tries very hard (although i won't say i succeed) to articulate good critical arguments and spends most of her time researching such arguments, i am tired of hearing them characterized as "non-unique disads that advocate nothing". I'll admit that Marx isn't the most stellar arg. ever, neither was the Rice disad. But to characterize and homogonize the brunt of critical arguments as being "non-unique disads" really frustrates me. You're right, there are some really terrible kritik debates. This ain't "unique" to kritiks...i've seen, been in, been a part of lots of terrible debates in general. Please, I understand that the particular situation you describe sounds frustrating, but I get equally frustrated when i think that all the time i have devoted to becoming good, comprhensible, whatever on these arguments has been reduced to a "non- unique disad". Thanks for listening. Back to my paper. -Katie Hatziavramidis K-State debate >My plea is this: If you are going to argue a critique: first, make sure it is a critique and not a non-unique disad (most of them are out here). Second, make an argument, not an assertion. And finally, prove your impact. Just complaining at the end of a frustrating year. Ken Sherwood LACC Debate Don't forget to visit http://www.pigpig.com/ and http://www.pigpig.net/ ____________________________________________________________ Get your 100MB FREE Internet storage! Sign up now - http://www.netdrive.com/?ao=zzn >From Tue May 2 12:26:55 2000 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 26857 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 2 May 2000 12:27:43 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo-d10.mx.aol.com (imo-d10.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.42]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA29838 for ; Tue, 2 May 2000 12:27:36 -0400 Received: from CoopDB8 at aol.com by imo-d10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v26.7.) id 2.60.2ad91fa (6694); Tue, 2 May 2000 12:26:55 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 106 Message-ID: <60.2ad91fa.26405bcf at aol.com> Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 12:26:55 EDT Reply-To: CoopDB8 at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: The Coop Subject: Re: We MUST have a list for Africa Comments: To: k.kuswa at mail.utexas.edu Kev: I just don't get it....maybe I'm missing something.... Why does LISTING the countries/entities/whatever in the resolution mean that we are wed to the USFG as the only agent of action about which we debate? Your attempt at sarcasm comes across as more of a tantrum than an argument of substance. COOP Univ. of Miami From dheidt Tue May 2 11:27:23 2000 From: dheidt (David M. Heidt) Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 12:27:23 -0400 Subject: Debate as performance ev Message-ID: Hello, I'm wondering if anyone knows any cites for the debate as performance arguments run by Texas and others, aside from the Kulynych, Polity, Winter 1997 article. I'd appreciate any help. Thanks, David Heidt From k.kuswa Tue May 2 11:37:00 2000 From: k.kuswa (kevin kuswa) Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 12:37:00 -0400 Subject: We MUST have a list for Africa Message-ID: COOP: You don't see the link between the USFG as the agent and a list of countries? For me, the best link is that they are easier to deal with in the "literature." You know, the literature that categorizes the ways the USFG could make each country in Africa a little better off? Come on, we can't losse this opportunity to have the USFG help Africa. t 12:26 PM 5/2/00 EDT, you wrote: >Kev: > >I just don't get it....maybe I'm missing something.... maybe. > >Why does LISTING the countries/entities/whatever in the resolution mean that >we are wed to the USFG as the only agent of action about which we debate? > we're not--it's just easier to imagine that way. We know we're the USFG--that's ingrained through decades of topic wordings. Now we can sleep better if we know the USFG is acting uopn its smaller clones (the less evolved governments). >Your attempt at sarcasm comes across as more of a tantrum than an argument of >substance. > Arguments you call substantive keep us in the same trap. Besides, I'm willing to throw multiple tantrums if it means we get to keep the USFG as our lucky charm. My thought process is: I'll throw a tantrum now (despite COOP's objections) so it's easier to set up research assignments in August. CBA, baby! kev, utexas From parcherj Tue May 2 12:03:12 2000 From: parcherj (Jeff Parcher) Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 13:03:12 -0400 Subject: One Comment on David's Post References: <01bfb445$6d5519a0$71cc5380@winbook> Message-ID: >There are also bad > counterplans, bad disads, bad case turns, and, in my experience, lots of > debaters who are just bad. SO WHAT? This point has some obvious validity. And during the Arulanantham/Berg years it is exactly the type of argument that came from my mouth when we were running the causality, power infusion and science kritiks. However, I do think that there are more bad kritiks for two reasons: 1) underdeveloped theory. The underdeveloped theory problem comes not just from the newness of the kritik but from it's fundamental nature as an assumption shattering argument. Inserting the critique into a dualistic competitive activity often leaves us with questions for which the criteria necessary to answer haven't been invented. For example, consider the recent debate about apologies. I don't see my position on that issue as the product of some unmoveable katsulian resistance. Difference of opinion on the the issue seems to come down to subjective considerations for which we lack a common understanding and language to deal. I am not saying the Clinton DA is less subjective, just that debate has a common language and understanding to deal with it. The ultimate point is this: transcending this lack of theoretical language and understanding is a significant challange that not many debaters are capable of, compared to say the clinton or funding tradeoff DAs. 2) complexity of issue. I don't think the clinton DA is less complicated simply because we have a common language and frame - I think it's just inherently more basic than your average question of epistemology/ontology. I don't think its wrong to say that it's easier to understand a NYT article on Clinton popularity than say Foucault on discipline. It's just plain intellectually thicker. That means more debaters/judges/coaches are going to try and fail to come to grips it. None of this is meant to question the legitimacy of the kritik but merely to point out that I think it is true that there are more 'bad' (incoherent, underexplained) kritiks than other types of arguments. I think that does explain why some people get frustrated with critical arguments more easily and why there is some degree of backlash and or resistance. Critical arguments present a unique intellectual challenge to us. It is not one we should shirk either by becoming impenetrable advocates for or against all critical arguments. On the otherside, questioning the intellectual validity of critical arguments is no less valid as a project than questioning the intellectual validity of geopolitical arguments. However, neither of those projects belong in the back of a room judging debates. I think there are judges who are too reflexively likely to reject critical arguments and judges too reflexively likely to defer to critical claims. Whatever the complex motives, I think we (read me included) need a recommitment to the notion of neutral examination of arguments regardless of the form, complexity and political bent from which they arise. JP From Michelin.Massey Tue May 2 12:11:59 2000 From: Michelin.Massey (Michelin Christopher Massey) Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 11:11:59 -0600 Subject: a question about critiques Message-ID: i have a question about the K: is it necessary to have a Critical/Left view in order to offer a criticism? michelin massey. From mabouzai Tue May 2 12:00:07 2000 From: mabouzai (Mohammed Abouzaid) Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 13:00:07 -0400 Subject: a question about critiques Message-ID: I guess it depends what a Critical/Left view means. i personally find many of the ideas presented/defended in statism kritiks to be very "right wing." these can be "legitimate kritiks" (at least from the perspective i presented in my last post), yet i don't think they're very "lefty". mohammed abouzaid richmond debate -----Original Message----- From: Michelin Christopher Massey To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU Date: Tuesday, May 02, 2000 1:12 PM Subject: a question about critiques >i have a question about the K: > >is it necessary to have a Critical/Left view in order to offer a >criticism? > >michelin massey. > >From Tue May 2 13:26:10 2000 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 27749 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 2 May 2000 13:26:59 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo-d01.mx.aol.com (imo-d01.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.33]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA25950 for ; Tue, 2 May 2000 13:26:47 -0400 Received: from Judd400 at aol.com by imo-d01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v26.7.) id n.66.3384a1f (4465) for ; Tue, 2 May 2000 13:26:10 -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 101 Message-ID: <66.3384a1f.264069b2 at aol.com> Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 13:26:10 EDT Reply-To: Judd400 at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Justin Walton Subject: Re: Gist of Kritiks Mr. Sherwood-- Indeed, I did read your entire post. It was quite informative. Again, here are my 3 central questions: 1.) Does a kritik need an impact? 2.) Can a kritik be non-unique and have implications for judge? 3.) Will kritiks have longevity as arguments, or are they just "fads" that will run their course? For clarification, my use of the term "fad" can be temporally conceptualized over a period of years (e.g., decades). The year 1991 wasn't "that" long "ago." J. Walton >From Tue May 2 13:29:29 2000 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 27847 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 2 May 2000 13:30:24 -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 NAA32400 for ; Tue, 2 May 2000 13:30:09 -0400 Received: from CoopDB8 at aol.com by imo-d06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v26.7.) id 2.27.503f573 (6694); Tue, 2 May 2000 13:29:29 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 106 Message-ID: <27.503f573.26406a79 at aol.com> Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 13:29:29 EDT Reply-To: CoopDB8 at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: The Coop Subject: Re: We MUST have a list for Africa Comments: To: k.kuswa at mail.utexas.edu Nope nope nope. My point, Kev, is that even if the balance of the literature for a list of countries assumes that the USFG acts (something you have provided not a SHRED fo evidence for), having a list in the resolution (1) does not preclude specifying a DIFFERENT agent of action and (2) CERTAINLY doesn't preclude a discussion of different actors by implicitly reserving that ground for the negative, no? So - you may have an argument regarding the efficacy of a specific agent of action, but (as far as I see) you haven't got an argument for linking that to a list of countries (or other entities - as long as it's a discrete list). COOP Univ. of Miami From mkrueger Tue May 2 13:04:37 2000 From: mkrueger (Krueger) Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 13:04:37 -0500 Subject: More Answers to Kevin References: <01BFB308.FBA79F40.cdiamant@jcu.edu> Message-ID: Chris Diamant wrote: > I agree that some conflicts could involve countries listed and not listed > in the topic, and because of that I think there's a need to have some sort > of clear limits from the get go. So I would say that in a topic listing > Nigeria and not Cameroon, PKOs in Cameroon wouldn't be topical. Yes, the > difference may only be a border, but the alternative seems to be having no > difference at all. Additionally, I'm sure that there are inter "regional" > conflicts as well, depending on how regions are defined (such as a conflict > between a country in the great lakes region and a bordering, non great > lakes country). The difference then becomes knowing which countries we're > talking about. With a list it's fairly clear. With a region I see one of > two possible outcomes: either the regions themselves will be difficult to > define, meaning that we spend a great deal of time trying to define the > topical area, or the regions are clear cut, and if they are, it would be no > different than a list. if we agree that a region is a certain 5 countries, > than listing the countries would be functionally the same as listing the > region, except with better clarity. Addtionally, no one has made the > argument that some parts of countries fall into different regions than > others, and I really doubt that they do, so that doesn't appear to be a > problem. Not exactly. One of the arguments that I am making re: the Horn of Africa is that the region isn't exactly the same as the countries. Sometimes the Seychelles, Uganda, and Kenya are considered in the Horn (even though the Seychelles are an island group pretty far off the coast). More importantly, and a reason to not do a list, is that a list seems to impose government to government action. The point is that we are going to force T/critical debates one way or another. If we maintain a list, then if people want to write affirmatives that make an action to a tribal group, for example, then there is the T debate on the country and whether than name implies government to government action, and with this topic area, there is ample justifcation to have action with the not government part of a "country." That gets into the critical grounds in terms of boundaries and boundary issues and what constitutes a country. That also really marginalizes "coutries" like Somalia, which functionally has a government, but it is a government without power or authority. Somalia actually has a couple governments, but functionally it is an anarchy. Government to government action seems to be largely impossible or at least improbably. The point is, if we list nations, considering the make-up of Africa, then we are going to force teams into T debates if they want to do particular actions. Just like if we list an area, then we are likely to get into T debates about whether Kenya is in the Horn (or another country is in East Africa/Great Lakes/Sub-Saharan etc.) I am unconvinced that a list provides better ground or is more justified, except that we have done it before and it will be easy. Add that to the idea that the US has dealt with Africa in terms of regions before (the Greater Horn of Africa initiative in '94 for example), just proves that regions can make sense. Just trying to convince some people to keep their minds open. Just cause it always has been done doesn't mean that is always should be done. krueger -- Michael Krueger Director of Debate Middle Tennessee State University Box 43 Murfreesboro, TN 37132 (615) 898-5607 (office) (615) 898-5826 (fax) http://www.mtsu.edu/~debate/ http://www.mtsu.edu/~msdi/ http://www.mtsu.edu/~mkrueger/ From d.breshears Tue May 2 12:03:24 2000 From: d.breshears (David Breshears) Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 13:03:24 -0400 Subject: One Comment on David's Post Message-ID: I am largely in agreement with Jeff on this one. I do think that kritikal arguments are more complex than Clinton, and that the literature is certainly denser. I also think that understanding these arguments requires a great deal of effort on the part of debaters, coaches, and critics. I hope folks don't think that I and other "kritik hacks" emerged from the womb with a copy of _Discipline_&_Punish_ in one hand and our Deleuze & Guattari decoder ring on the other. For me, this has been an intellectual journey that spans more than a decade, and I still consider myself a novice in many aspects of these debates. Then again, I'm sure Ornstein and others would take umbrage with the assertion that the political science literature is a cakewalk. The bottom line is this: don't fear and loathe that which is new. Skepticism can be healthy, but it can also turn into prejudice. An open mind is required. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Parcher To: David Breshears ; EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU Date: Tuesday, May 02, 2000 1:03 PM Subject: One Comment on David's Post >>There are also bad >> counterplans, bad disads, bad case turns, and, in my experience, lots of >> debaters who are just bad. SO WHAT? > >This point has some obvious validity. And during the Arulanantham/Berg >years it is exactly the type of argument that came from my mouth when we >were running the causality, power infusion and science kritiks. However, I >do think that there are more bad kritiks for two reasons: > >1) underdeveloped theory. The underdeveloped theory problem comes not just >from the newness of the kritik but from it's fundamental nature as an >assumption shattering argument. Inserting the critique into a dualistic >competitive activity often leaves us with questions for which the criteria >necessary to answer haven't been invented. For example, consider the recent >debate about apologies. I don't see my position on that issue as the >product of some unmoveable katsulian resistance. Difference of opinion on >the the issue seems to come down to subjective considerations for which we >lack a common understanding and language to deal. I am not saying the >Clinton DA is less subjective, just that debate has a common language and >understanding to deal with it. The ultimate point is this: transcending >this lack of theoretical language and understanding is a significant >challange that not many debaters are capable of, compared to say the clinton >or funding tradeoff DAs. > >2) complexity of issue. I don't think the clinton DA is less complicated >simply because we have a common language and frame - I think it's just >inherently more basic than your average question of epistemology/ontology. >I don't think its wrong to say that it's easier to understand a NYT article >on Clinton popularity than say Foucault on discipline. It's just plain >intellectually thicker. That means more debaters/judges/coaches are going >to try and fail to come to grips it. > >None of this is meant to question the legitimacy of the kritik but merely to >point out that I think it is true that there are more 'bad' (incoherent, >underexplained) kritiks than other types of arguments. I think that does >explain why some people get frustrated with critical arguments more easily >and why there is some degree of backlash and or resistance. > >Critical arguments present a unique intellectual challenge to us. It is not >one we should shirk either by becoming impenetrable advocates for or against >all critical arguments. On the otherside, questioning the intellectual >validity of critical arguments is no less valid as a project than >questioning the intellectual validity of geopolitical arguments. However, >neither of those projects belong in the back of a room judging debates. I >think there are judges who are too reflexively likely to reject critical >arguments and judges too reflexively likely to defer to critical claims. >Whatever the complex motives, I think we (read me included) need a >recommitment to the notion of neutral examination of arguments regardless of >the form, complexity and political bent from which they arise. > > >JP > From mkrueger Tue May 2 13:14:18 2000 From: mkrueger (Krueger) Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 13:14:18 -0500 Subject: More Answers to Kevin References: <01BFB308.FC3BC8F0.cdiamant@jcu.edu> Message-ID: Chris Diamant wrote: > > I thought a nation state was considered a geographic nation with a > government associated with it. I suppose we could use country or something > such as that. My point is, when you say, Somalia, for example, it's easier > to determine what is meant than Horn of Africa. Well, without reiterating what the definition of a nation-state is, let's look at your example. If the topic reads "Somalia," what exactly is a topical action? Something within the accepted boundaries of Somalia as it exists on a map? Usually we think of action towards a government, but unfortunately for that type of resolution, Somalia has two, one of which is recognized by international agencies as legitimate, though it has virtually zero power. I KNOW from the literature that Somalia exists within the Horn, and there would be no T problems there. However, if the topic is a list and includes Somalia, I can find pretty good reasons why the plan might not be topical, regardless of the text. > > > Beyond that, I am not worried about t debates. > > > > I think we are also forgetting that even if there are some t debates at > > least they are PREDICTABLE t debates. On SE Asia, teams ran Dev Asst > > cases and KNEW they were going to get a t debate. if the topic is "horn > > of africa" then negs can PREDICT that someone is going to run kenya and > > rwanda. cool... I know what t debate i need to prep for and I know > > that i can prep for those affs too. so long as ground is predictable, > > based on available iinformation and definitions, what is the issue? > > topicality? so what? > > Just means that people will have a definite strategy, even if it is T, > > against those cases. > > > But I think the difference is, since the regions aren't clear cut, the a > ffirmatives can have a very legitimate case as to why they should be > included. if there's a list, and it's x,y,and z, and the aff isn't x,y, or > z, then the issue seems more clear cut. I think my argument is we shouldn't > create a resolution that encourages teams to run a borderline topical > affirmative in the hopes that they can just write 30 T answers and win. Even if the regions aren't clear cut, why is that a reason to list? What the governments are isn't always clear cut, what actions are topical aren't clear cut, and so on. So long as it is predictable and in the literature, so what? And I seriously doubt 30 t responses are going to be good enough. On SE Asia, did people only run T on dev asst cases? Nope. Often the affs put 30 answers on T and lost on a substantive issue undercovered. Great trade off i figure, if i can put out a 20 second t shell and the 2ac spends 2 and a half minutes. the neg kicks T in the block and goes for the rest of the debate. So long as the marginal area is predictable, I have no problem and have heard no compelling reason to the contrary. > > > I just don't buy "it will create a predictable t debate" as a compelling > > argument for a list of countries and for the complete rejection of a > > region. > > > Well, that might be true in and of itself, but i think it is at least a > reason, and i'm not sure what the advantage to doing regions instead of a > list would be. This is all in the borders debate started by Kuswa, explained by Osborne, and I have summarized elsewhere. Creates a new possibility for the affirmative. Krueger -- Michael Krueger Director of Debate Middle Tennessee State University Box 43 Murfreesboro, TN 37132 (615) 898-5607 (office) (615) 898-5826 (fax) http://www.mtsu.edu/~debate/ http://www.mtsu.edu/~msdi/ http://www.mtsu.edu/~mkrueger/ >From Tue May 2 14:22:05 2000 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 29499 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 2 May 2000 14:22:37 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from smtp.pace.edu (ntutil.pace.edu [205.232.111.9]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA40068 for ; Tue, 2 May 2000 14:22:36 -0400 Received: from fsmail.pace.edu (205.232.111.6:1582) by smtp.pace.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.A7F6B374 at smtp.pace.edu>; Tue, 2 May 2000 14:22:05 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Message-ID: <200005021422.AA4038197550 at fsmail.pace.edu> Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 14:22:05 -0400 Reply-To: FIrizarry at fsmail.pace.edu To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Frank Paul Irizarry Subject: Re: We MUST have a list for Africa >Well, we have to be the USFG because it's our only hope. I mean, how could >we not be the USFG? Have you seen my USFG tattoo? No, really, it will just >be too hard to find another agent. Besides, who would we be if we weren't >the USFG? Who would make a better actor than the USFG? >With that in mind, we have GOT to have a list of countries!! It's the only >way I feel comfortable doing research, and there really isn't any other way >to give out assignments without a list of countries. A list is the only >thing standing between a "clean, well-lit place" and the heart of darkness. Is there a better idea? > >Therefore, here are my proposals: > >R: The USFG should save one or more of the following governments: Egypt, >South Africa, Tunisia, Madagascar, Cameroon. not a bad start. I'd replace "save" with "cooperativly engage with the purpose of reforming" and I'd probably replace Egypt, Tunisia, and Madagascar with Ethiopia / Somalia, Congo, and Zimbabwe > >or > >R: The USFG should send its expertise to the five most strategic countries >in Africa. which ones do you think are most strategic? > >or > >R: The five nation-states with the largest population divided by land area >in Africa should be strengthened by the USFG. So do you think largest population means most startegic? I think this rez is too limiting. > >or I don't know. I can see some of these criticisms but I don't see any substantive viable alternatives. K + alternative is better than K + no alternative I guess. frank -- Frank P. Irizarry firizarry at fsmail.pace.edu "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws." - Tacitus, Roman Senator and Historian (A.D. c.56 - c. 115) "Whenever the legislature attempts to regulate the difference between masters and their workmen, its counsellors are always the masters." - Adam Smith "How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think." - Adolf Hitler -- From ifjxh Tue May 2 14:04:50 2000 From: ifjxh (Joshua Hoe) Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 12:04:50 PDT Subject: africa: listing countries Message-ID: Look, somebody really needs to do a memory check about the Africa topic. We may not have been the best team going but we got three aff wins (even one over Kraven and Crocker) at the NDT with the fix the toilets in the Comoros islands case. If you really think a huge amount of cases is impossible with no list think again... Josh >From: Jeff Parcher >Reply-To: Jeff Parcher >To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU >Subject: Re: africa: listing countries >Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 12:17:47 -0400 > > > a. No solvency advocates for small projects in small countries. While > > there are a lot of governments in Africa, there were very few authors > > advocating a lot of different projects in small countries. And very few > > authors advocating US policy action in most of the countries. UNLESS >there > > is noted evidence to the contrary, I do not believe that the topic >committee > > should concern themselves too much with specifying governments if the >agent > > is the USFG. There simply will not be that many cases given our >inattention > > to this region and barriers between the US and many of these nations. >The > > more the topic is modified (e.g. the type of action--development, >military, > > trade, etc. or, e.g., the goal of the resolution--environmental >protection, > > economic growth, etc.) the less necessary it becomes to specify >countries. > > The previous Africa topic said "that the USFG should change its foreign > > policy toward one or more African nations" and I did not recall with >that > > ridiculously broad wording, that the topic was out of control. > >While this point has some appeal, I would note two things: 1) The >literature of 1989 is not the literature of 2000. Lexis has some pretty >extensive international coverage that wasn't available back then. Also, >the >internet has transformed our ability to get information and find advocates >concerning projects in previously ignored places. 2) Inability to find >solvency authors should not be overestimated as a barrier to creative >affirmatives. Almost no one advocated ANY U.S. security assistance >increases to SEA, but affirmatives still came up with a diversity of cases >including among others Emory's multiple versions of logging/forests and >Harvard's orangutang case. > >I do agree that the more the topic is modified the less a list is needed. >But is that what we really want? How much are we really learning and >debating about Sudan if the only thing the aff is allowed to do is sell >more >weapons or increase AIDS funding. Another result of limiting the topic >through mechanisms is that we always seem to end up with one or two >countries that are essential excluded because the mechanism turns out not >to >be relevant. Singapore, Brunei, Syria all come to mind. After SEA and >Sanctions, I think we are ready to try a different approach - keep the list >but expand the mechanisms for affirmative solvency. > > > > Without a rival superpower are more governments involved with the US >than > > there were in 1988? > > Does evidence about a particular country's problems include >recommendations > > for US policy action? > >I am not an expert, but I would say from my reading that policy literature >toward African has increased fairly significantly. This is a result not >just of the passing of the cold war, but pressure by African-American >policy >elites to focus on what has been thought to be a neglected region. They >were powerful enough to get Clinton to visit and announce some policy >changes. > > > The problem in choosing an area with a non-US, or non-governmental >actor, >is > > that we are a little scared and a little lazy. It would require a lot >of > > work to find out what kinds of actors are available, what kinds of > > suggestions are being made for them, what kind of objections exist to >their > > action. We are familiar with the US government actor and we more easily >see > > the implications of policy choices on them. I certainly won't be doing >the > > research needed and the topic committee is doing enough service without > > asking for them to pursue this option. Perhaps if someone wished to >pursue > > an alternative actor choice they could write such a paper and submit it >to > > the topic committee. If it can be reasonable accomodated I would hope >the > > committee would consider putting at least one such topic on the ballot >for > > consideration by the community. > >I think this argument is a bit overdrawn. Those agents will get researched >inevitably as counterplan/disad ground. The WHO, World Bank and IMF >counterplans were run on SEA and I would expect them to be one of the cores >of the African topic even if the agent chosen in the U.S. > >The question of whether we want the international agents to be affirmative >or negative ground is an interesting one. My primary concern is that the >better negative net benefit ground is rooted against the U.S. agent. The >problems with the U.S. as an agent that have been mentioned might be a good >reason to saddle the affirmative with it - especially if the topic country >list or mechanism chosen is broad. > >Either way, which side gets the U.S. and which side get international >actors >ought to be how this discussion is framed, because I think that's how the >topic would likely play out, atleast to some extent. > >JP ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From jef229f Tue May 2 14:10:25 2000 From: jef229f (John Fritch) Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 14:10:25 -0500 Subject: One Comment on David's Post Message-ID: I am not sure that it is necessary to fear and loathe that which is new. My academic area is rhetorical theory and these ideas are of great interest to me. The difficulty which I have is more about the judges/critics in many of these debates. The material is dense and difficult. My thinking is that far too often, judges vote on arguments which they do not understand. The "evidence" for my claim is the number of times I have heard teams say that the judge came up with a good argument...too bad we didn't have a chance to answer it. And, the number of times in which the team initiating the argument has to jump in on the side of the judge to help explain the argument. It does not seem unreasonable to me to ask judges to be able to explain the argument on which they are voting..... -- John Fritch SMS ---------- >From: David Breshears >To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU >Subject: Re: One Comment on David's Post >Date: Tue, May 2, 2000, 12:03 PM > > I am largely in agreement with Jeff on this one. I do think that kritikal > arguments are more complex than Clinton, and that the literature is > certainly denser. I also think that understanding these arguments requires > a great deal of effort on the part of debaters, coaches, and critics. I > hope folks don't think that I and other "kritik hacks" emerged from the womb > with a copy of _Discipline_&_Punish_ in one hand and our Deleuze & Guattari > decoder ring on the other. For me, this has been an intellectual journey > that spans more than a decade, and I still consider myself a novice in many > aspects of these debates. Then again, I'm sure Ornstein and others would > take umbrage with the assertion that the political science literature is a > cakewalk. The bottom line is this: don't fear and loathe that which is > new. Skepticism can be healthy, but it can also turn into prejudice. An > open mind is required. > > Dave > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeff Parcher > To: David Breshears ; EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU > > Date: Tuesday, May 02, 2000 1:03 PM > Subject: One Comment on David's Post > > >>>There are also bad >>> counterplans, bad disads, bad case turns, and, in my experience, lots of >>> debaters who are just bad. SO WHAT? >> >>This point has some obvious validity. And during the Arulanantham/Berg >>years it is exactly the type of argument that came from my mouth when we >>were running the causality, power infusion and science kritiks. However, I >>do think that there are more bad kritiks for two reasons: >> >>1) underdeveloped theory. The underdeveloped theory problem comes not just >>from the newness of the kritik but from it's fundamental nature as an >>assumption shattering argument. Inserting the critique into a dualistic >>competitive activity often leaves us with questions for which the criteria >>necessary to answer haven't been invented. For example, consider the > recent >>debate about apologies. I don't see my position on that issue as the >>product of some unmoveable katsulian resistance. Difference of opinion on >>the the issue seems to come down to subjective considerations for which we >>lack a common understanding and language to deal. I am not saying the >>Clinton DA is less subjective, just that debate has a common language and >>understanding to deal with it. The ultimate point is this: transcending >>this lack of theoretical language and understanding is a significant >>challange that not many debaters are capable of, compared to say the > clinton >>or funding tradeoff DAs. >> >>2) complexity of issue. I don't think the clinton DA is less complicated >>simply because we have a common language and frame - I think it's just >>inherently more basic than your average question of epistemology/ontology. >>I don't think its wrong to say that it's easier to understand a NYT article >>on Clinton popularity than say Foucault on discipline. It's just plain >>intellectually thicker. That means more debaters/judges/coaches are going >>to try and fail to come to grips it. >> >>None of this is meant to question the legitimacy of the kritik but merely > to >>point out that I think it is true that there are more 'bad' (incoherent, >>underexplained) kritiks than other types of arguments. I think that does >>explain why some people get frustrated with critical arguments more easily >>and why there is some degree of backlash and or resistance. >> >>Critical arguments present a unique intellectual challenge to us. It is not >>one we should shirk either by becoming impenetrable advocates for or > against >>all critical arguments. On the otherside, questioning the intellectual >>validity of critical arguments is no less valid as a project than >>questioning the intellectual validity of geopolitical arguments. However, >>neither of those projects belong in the back of a room judging debates. I >>think there are judges who are too reflexively likely to reject critical >>arguments and judges too reflexively likely to defer to critical claims. >>Whatever the complex motives, I think we (read me included) need a >>recommitment to the notion of neutral examination of arguments regardless > of >>the form, complexity and political bent from which they arise. >> >> >>JP >> From k.kuswa Tue May 2 14:39:06 2000 From: k.kuswa (kevin kuswa) Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 15:39:06 -0400 Subject: Africa: more list debate Message-ID: Howdy. I wanted to share a short exchange between Breshears and I on the limiting function of a list of countries. I'll post his question and my response below it. Before I do that, though, I want to stress that this is not just a question of "list" or "no list." A lot of people have pointed out the differences between a state, a government, a nation, a nation-state, a country, a territory, etc. This terminology is extremely important whether we have a list or not. At 11:39 AM 5/2/00 -0400, Breshears wrote: >I don't think I follow...Why can't the WHO be the agent and Nigeria be the >target? As Olivier said, dealing with the corrupt governments of these >nations is perhaps the major problem with talking about policy in Africa. >My fear is that unlimiting the object of action (allowing affs to deal with >ngo's, tribal organizations/groups, resistance movements, labor >organizations, corporations, unrecognized or opposition governments, etc.) >will make it virtually impossible for the negative. I can guarantee that >this will be the major objection when I try to defend this argument at the >topic committee meeting. What do I tell them? > >Dave Good point, a couple of things: let's say we list a region instead of countries. 1. the aff. can still work through the govts. 2. working through smaller agents (labor movements, etc.) will have some checks. a) the governments will still be debated (circumvention, corruption, etc.) b) the neg can CP with governments, other topical CPs, etc. c) solvency evidence will be somewhat of a check. d) the potential size of the advantage will be a check. d) we did "nations" in 1988 and it wasn't a problem. Hoe may have won some debates using the squirrel approach, but most teams ran big cases. I recall Lowry and Puryear's South Africa's divestment case, Loshbaugh & Brownell's population case, Loeber & Plants' sanctions on south africa case, and many others that provided for great aff and neg ground. (sorry about spelling here) 3. this debate changes depending on whether it's the USFG or not. If it's the WHO, for instance, the non-state groups that the WHO works with are somewhat limited. 4. the accountability issue gets debated either way--only the aff's advocacy (and thus the community's approach to Africa) won't be so stagnant if agents outside the state can lend accountability to the problems. 5. We can solve your worries if we say "governments" within the region instead of a list of governments. This is still problematic, but it would open up some new spaces to consider. 6. I'm starting to think the Iowa worry (rayburn's burma case) is not such a big concern. Even if a lot of cases exist, we should debate those kind of agents more. This gets back to the citizenship arguments. I mean, maybe some of the potential objects (ngos) are small, but "small" should not always be excluded. If those ngos are productive and potentially even more productive, we should debate them. The kind of reaserch that encourages a first-hand knowledge of ngo efforts is something we've been missing for a long time. There is a large body of grassroots research out there that we skirt too often. Just go to transnational.org for a taste. 7. something different may have unintended benefits? 8. we can add other qualifiers such as "across" the region, "throughout" the region, or even a strategically placed "substantially" here or there. these are some misc. and underdeveloped thoughts---your question is very well put. kevin utexas From k.kuswa Tue May 2 15:11:34 2000 From: k.kuswa (kevin kuswa) Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 16:11:34 -0400 Subject: We MUST have a list for Africa Message-ID: At 02:22 PM 5/2/00 -0400, Frank Irizarry snipped and commented: >Who would make a better actor than the USFG? > Absolutely no one. We definitely can't try to equate debaters and debating with actors and acting. >>With that in mind, we have GOT to have a list of countries!! It's the only >>way I feel comfortable doing research, and there really isn't any other way >>to give out assignments without a list of countries. A list is the only >>thing standing between a "clean, well-lit place" and the heart of darkness. > >Is there a better idea? > Not really. We could improve the current idea by naming the Presidents (or leaders of each government) we would like to target. >> >>Therefore, here are my proposals: >> >>R: The USFG should save one or more of the following governments: Egypt, >>South Africa, Tunisia, Madagascar, Cameroon. > >not a bad start. I'd replace "save" with "cooperativly engage with the purpose of reforming" and I'd probably replace Egypt, Tunisia, and Madagascar with Ethiopia / Somalia, Congo, and Zimbabwe I like these suggestions a lot. Especially the "with the purpose of reforming" line. >> >>or >> >>R: The USFG should send its expertise to the five most strategic countries >>in Africa. > >which ones do you think are most strategic? > that's a tough question. My initial thought was that we should find out which five countries have the largest oil reserves. If we went that way, though, we would have to add security assistance into the topic. Maybe "most strategic" is "that which the state department determines 'key'"? My current thought is that the most strategic countries in Africa are the ones containing the most American citizens. >> >>or >> >>R: The five nation-states with the largest population divided by land area >>in Africa should be strengthened by the USFG. > >So do you think largest population means most startegic? I think this rez is too limiting. Well, startegic sounds too different for me to think about. I'll get back to you on that. > >I don't know. I can see some of these criticisms but I don't see any substantive viable alternatives. K + alternative is better than K + no alternative I guess. Yeah, I guess that's what the resolution wording should really revolve around--the K + alternative minus the K - alternative. kevin > >frank > > >-- > >Frank P. Irizarry >firizarry at fsmail.pace.edu > > >"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws." - Tacitus, Roman Senator and Historian (A.D. c.56 - c. 115) > >"Whenever the legislature attempts to regulate the difference between masters and their workmen, its counsellors are always the masters." - Adam Smith > > "How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think." - Adolf Hitler > > >-- > From ccrensh Tue May 2 15:25:13 2000 From: ccrensh (ccrensh) Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 15:25:13 -0500 Subject: recruting opportunity reminder Message-ID: Dear Community, I am so pleased the several coaches are joining us for our Tuscaloosa Debate League championship tournament and banquet this weekend. If you would like to join us and/or send recruiting material, please do so. Just drop me a line and I'll see what I can do about putting you up. If you can't come in person, please feel free to mail me your recruiting materials and I will distribute them at the banquet. Don't miss out on recruiting some really talented students for your program. The Tuscaloosa Debate League offers one time collegiate scholarship awards to hs graduates of the program for debating at the college or university of their choice. Best, Carrie Carrie Crenshaw, Ph.D. Director of Debate and Associate Professor of Communcation Studies University of Alabama Check out the Tuscaloosa Debate League Homepage http://www.bama.ua.edu/~ccrensh/tdlwp1.html From ccrensh Tue May 2 15:26:17 2000 From: ccrensh (ccrensh) Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 15:26:17 -0500 Subject: recruiting opportunity reminder part 2 Message-ID: Dear Community, Sorry, I forgot to remind y'all that it's this saturday, May 6th. Hope you'll join us in Tuscaloosa! Best, Carrie Carrie Crenshaw, Ph.D. Director of Debate and Associate Professor of Communcation Studies University of Alabama Check out the Tuscaloosa Debate League Homepage http://www.bama.ua.edu/~ccrensh/tdlwp1.html >From Tue May 2 16:58:07 2000 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 31549 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 2 May 2000 16:59:05 -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 QAA39616 for ; Tue, 2 May 2000 16:59:00 -0400 Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo-d07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v26.7.) id n.37.49fb8f4 (3706) for ; Tue, 2 May 2000 16:58:07 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 105 Message-ID: <37.49fb8f4.26409b5f at aol.com> Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 16:58:07 EDT Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Michael Bear Bryant Subject: Re: Calling Kristen Langwell Let me clarify - when I used the term "W Ga womyn" I was only referencing Rachel and Sarah (and Rachel only asked a question, she did not really make a definitive advocacy claim). I am aware there are other females on the W Ga team. I am aware that the ambiguity of my grammar may have made it look like I was attributing an opinion to ALL women at W Ga. I am sure all of my discourse for all time shows as the pathetic sexism my penis endows me with. Continuing thanks to everyone searching the archives and backchanneling me proof of my own sexist weaknesses. I still don't think I did anything wrong to Kristin Langwell by trying to keep her name out of a conversation about her partner. And I remain convinced that I've not compared female asses on the list. What wonderful people. Bear From gstamp Tue May 2 16:01:28 2000 From: gstamp (Glen Stamp) Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 16:01:28 -0500 Subject: Date: May 2, 2000 Message-ID: Date: May 2, 2000 To: Edebate participants From: Glen Stamp, Director of Graduate Studies Ball State University Greetings: The Department Communication Studies at Ball State University still has assistantships available for prospective graduate students interested in pursuing an M.A. in Communication Studies. The Master's program is a one year (30 hour) program. Students may emphasis in either: Organizational Professional Communication and Development (OPCD). OPCD will prepare students for careers as organizational communication consultants, trainers, and development specialists. Communication Liberal Arts and Sciences (CLAS). CLAS will prepare students for further study in a PHD program, immediate entry into higher education teaching, or a professional communication career. Students with an assistantship work with the basic public speaking course. The assistantship carries a stipend of $6500 and has a tuition waver (in state and out of state). We have an excellent program with 12 graduate faculty with a variety of interests and expertise in rhetorical, interpersonal, and organizational communication. In addition, The Department of Communication Studies is part of the College of Communication, Information, and Media, one of the top 10 colleges in the nation. Ball State University has also just been recognized as one of the top ranked "wired" (ranked 17th) universities in the nation (see www.wired.colleges) If you are interested in pursuing graduate work in speech communication in 2000-2001, please contact: Glen Stamp, Director of Graduate Studies Department of Communication Studies Ball State University Muncie, Indiana 47306 1-765-285-1952 (work) 1-765-282-5379 (home) gstamp at gw.bsu.edu From ifjxh Tue May 2 16:12:15 2000 From: ifjxh (Joshua Hoe) Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 14:12:15 PDT Subject: We MUST have a list for Africa Message-ID: Hello, I mentioned in my earlier post that I understand why this is such a hard issue for us to discuss civilly. The reason is that for Kevin, I am assuming (not trying to speak for you), every round he hears and every case that is run reinscribes what he believes to be racist and ethnocentric US imperialism. I also mentioned that while I personally agree with this point of view I do not accept it as dogma and I also think that there are important reasons to consider continuing the utilization of US agents: -- One of the critical debates that goes on in the critical literature on international relations is between those that want to defend or recapture the state as a liberatory and emancipitory institution versus those who think it is a violent and racist anachronism. Just the literature on the state being the only viable bullwark agaiinst globilization is fairly good. Why would we want to remove this debate from what we discuss? Is this a closed subject? I made this argument earlier and Kevin more or less said "good point." Seems strange that he is writing sarcasticly again one day after???? -- It is true if Kevin et al like it or not that the majority of people who write in the field of public policy write from the perspective of how we can help other countries. This is a severe limitation of the way we look out over the world within our academic disciplines and also says some things about the capitalist motives for publishing etc. However, you have to sell us on the potential to debate with an unkown and sketchy research base because that is what we know debate to be. That is what we do. Instead of insulting our desire to have good debates grounded in the literature convince us that the new world will be a vibrant and exciting one. Persuade us do not mock us. That is why these discussions escalate. If the "old ways" we use to write topics is antiquated and we need a new direction only the obviousness of your persuasion will convince voters that we need to imagine a new radical process. I mean this as a challenge to you Kevin not as an insult. Do not get mad at people for being reluctant to embrace change. -- I made some arguments about how allowing wide affirmative flexibility vis a vis the agent can be a really dangerous thing for negative ground and I am not really sure that anybody answered any of that? I guess my real question is why do you get to throw your hands up and mock me with this post when I am trying to have meaningful civil discourse with you about this subject...I mean you did say basically that I was a racist (I am ok with your comments) and then just threw your hands up????? Am I misreading your frustrations???? Josh Joshua B. Hoe University of North Texas >From: kevin kuswa >Reply-To: kevin kuswa >To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU >Subject: We MUST have a list for Africa >Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 12:20:07 -0400 > >Well, we have to be the USFG because it's our only hope. I mean, how could >we not be the USFG? Have you seen my USFG tattoo? No, really, it will >just >be too hard to find another agent. Besides, who would we be if we weren't >the USFG? You can't give away your heart just because you want a new >haircut! > > >With that in mind, we have GOT to have a list of countries!! It's the only >way I feel comfortable doing research, and there really isn't any other way >to give out assignments without a list of countries. A list is the only >thing standing between a "clean, well-lit place" and the heart of darkness. > >Therefore, here are my proposals: > >R: The USFG should save one or more of the following governments: Egypt, >South Africa, Tunisia, Madagascar, Cameroon. > >or > >R: The USFG should send its expertise to the five most strategic countries >in Africa. > >or > >R: The five nation-states with the largest population divided by land area >in Africa should be strengthened by the USFG. > >or > >R: The USFG should impose itself on the first five countries in Africa at >the beginning of the alphabet. > > >Save your souls and your research habits and vote for one of these >wordings. > >kevin >utexas ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From ifjxh Tue May 2 16:17:33 2000 From: ifjxh (Joshua Hoe) Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 14:17:33 PDT Subject: We MUST have a list for Africa Message-ID: Again, I am not sure I see why your sarcasm is an effective means of changing resistent minds Kevin...This whole post is littered with sarcasm that hardly builds bridges to your cause. I also totally get the if the topic is going to be hegemonic lets not disguise it humor my point is just that you are not winning converts. Also, I have some real questions about individual agency as it relates to how debates occur. I think you need to at least address that either your real hope is that debate as we know it totally dissolves (the example I gave was "I (the aff) support solidarity with those that identify with Africa") or that you have not thought through the implications of what you are suggesting? Any answers????? Josh Joshua B. Hoe University of North Texas >From: kevin kuswa >Reply-To: kevin kuswa >To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU >Subject: Re: We MUST have a list for Africa >Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 16:11:34 -0400 > >At 02:22 PM 5/2/00 -0400, Frank Irizarry snipped and commented: > > >Who would make a better actor than the USFG? > > >Absolutely no one. We definitely can't try to equate debaters and >debating with actors and acting. > > >>With that in mind, we have GOT to have a list of countries!! It's the >only > >>way I feel comfortable doing research, and there really isn't any other >way > >>to give out assignments without a list of countries. A list is the only > >>thing standing between a "clean, well-lit place" and the heart of >darkness. > > > >Is there a better idea? > > >Not really. We could improve the current idea by naming the Presidents (or >leaders of each government) we would like to target. > > >> > >>Therefore, here are my proposals: > >> > >>R: The USFG should save one or more of the following governments: >Egypt, > >>South Africa, Tunisia, Madagascar, Cameroon. > > > >not a bad start. I'd replace "save" with "cooperativly engage with the >purpose of reforming" and I'd probably replace Egypt, Tunisia, and >Madagascar with Ethiopia / Somalia, Congo, and Zimbabwe > >I like these suggestions a lot. Especially the "with the purpose of >reforming" line. > >> > >>or > >> > >>R: The USFG should send its expertise to the five most strategic >countries > >>in Africa. > > > >which ones do you think are most strategic? > > >that's a tough question. My initial thought was that we should find out >which >five countries have the largest oil reserves. If we went that way, though, >we >would have to add security assistance into the topic. Maybe "most >strategic" >is "that which the state department determines 'key'"? My current thought >is that the most strategic countries in Africa are the ones containing the >most American citizens. > > >> > >>or > >> > >>R: The five nation-states with the largest population divided by land >area > >>in Africa should be strengthened by the USFG. > > > >So do you think largest population means most startegic? I think this >rez >is too limiting. > >Well, startegic sounds too different for me to think about. I'll >get back to you on that. > > > > >I don't know. I can see some of these criticisms but I don't see any >substantive viable alternatives. K + alternative is better than K + no >alternative I guess. > >Yeah, I guess that's what the resolution wording should really revolve >around--the >K + alternative minus the K - alternative. > >kevin > > > > >frank > > > > > >-- > > > >Frank P. Irizarry > >firizarry at fsmail.pace.edu > > > > > >"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws." - Tacitus, >Roman >Senator and Historian (A.D. c.56 - c. 115) > > > >"Whenever the legislature attempts to regulate the difference between >masters and their workmen, its counsellors are always the masters." - Adam >Smith > > > > "How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't >think." - Adolf Hitler > > > > > >-- > > ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From mfisher Tue May 2 17:06:36 2000 From: mfisher (MICHAEL A. FISHER) Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 17:06:36 CDT Subject: unsubscribe Message-ID: I will be out of the office for a couple of weeks. I am having back surgery. I expect all to go well. Please keep me in your thoughts and prayers. Please unsubscribe me for a couple of weeks until I get back in working order. I will miss all of the informative, entertaining, heart-warming and even downright hateful posts. Thank you!! Michael Fisher From kenneth.delaughder Tue May 2 17:48:13 2000 From: kenneth.delaughder (Kenneth DeLaughder) Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 16:48:13 -0600 Subject: a question about critiques In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I dunno Michelin, but our more conservative kritik of Newtonian methodology in foreign policy (although postmodern science type stuff isnt really conservative) often gets alot more snubs then Fem IR, although Sam Maurer is workin on changin that, we still get alot of "stupid argument" kinda snubs. SInce synamic systems theory in the case of our literature is foreign policy specific, I always wondered why it didn;t get more play, oh well. Ken Emporia Debate, complexologist :) On Tue, 2 May 2000, Michelin Christopher Massey wrote: > i have a question about the K: > > is it necessary to have a Critical/Left view in order to offer a > criticism? > > michelin massey. > From ehrlenmeyerflask Tue May 2 18:36:10 2000 From: ehrlenmeyerflask (Aaron Klemz) Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 18:36:10 CDT Subject: Kritiks (ans. andy) Message-ID: Hey y'all - Policymaking is not the way to change the world. We have proliferated policy changes through environmental and civil rights laws leaving untouched the structural and economic roots that nourish the bitter harvest of environmental destruction and horrific poverty. We have allowed the capitalists/"democrats" take over the political sphere so entirely that we have forgotten what it once meant to exercise political action in their own communities. Voting in national elections now serves as a stand in for political involvement in the community people live in, despite the fact that the "real"/"felt" impacts of laws are often non-existant by the time the "average US citizen" recieves the benefits of the "Freedom Protection Act" (fictional name) or any other such regulatory nonsense . Why do you think tax cuts are the only thing that consistently garners universally positive responses? Supporting any other piece of legislation that gets through congress is simply an attempt to prop up an ideology that you support. Don't worry I've got mine too. This isn't meant to be an insult. I guess reading _Hind Swaraj_ by Gandhi has got me thinking in heretical ways - privilege the local and devalue the national. Aaron SIU >From: "a. ryan" > > again, why does debate have to be about policy > > comparisons? if your argument is that policy > > comparisions are key to problem solving, i don't > > think they are the only thing of relevance or > > importance to problem-solving...i have been able > > to be a assess things much more critically since > > i've run/researched kritiks...i think my > > perspective has been altered positively because of > > these arguments. and, although i don't think they > > are the only way to debate or think or problem > > solve, i do think they are a valid form of > > expression/argument. > >Debate should be about policymaking because that's how to change the >world. In a way I guess I'm arguing for a permutation: it's very possible >to understand and explore critical arguments while acting. You shouldn't >let you stop them, that's for damn sure. What I've learned about >critiques (however meager that knowledge might be) has influenced the way >I look at policy. But it hasn't caused me to eschew it altogether. > > > Mine too. Again, I don't think that excludes the > > kritik...just the notion that everything has to be > > a "policy". > >In a way, everything is a policy. Acting, not acting, these are all >policies. > >Andy ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com >From Tue May 2 19:40:56 2000 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 33025 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 2 May 2000 19:42:21 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from mailbox.jcu.edu (mailbox.jcu.edu [143.105.8.11]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA23592 for ; Tue, 2 May 2000 19:42:15 -0400 Received: from preinstalled (rhall-21233.jcu.edu [143.105.21.233]) by mailbox.jcu.edu (PMDF V5.2-33 #42092) with ESMTP id <0FTY000O0I7DUV at mailbox.jcu.edu> for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 2 May 2000 19:50:01 -0400 (EDT) MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Priority: normal Message-ID: <390F2F48.23765.2A27EAE0 at localhost> Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 19:40:56 -0400 Reply-To: csdiamant at yahoo.com To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Chris Diamant Subject: Re: More Answers to Kevin In-Reply-To: <390F1AF9.49F18DDC at frank.mtsu.edu> On 2 May 2000, at 13:14, Krueger wrote: > > > Chris Diamant wrote: > > > > > I thought a nation state was considered a geographic nation with a > > government associated with it. I suppose we could use country or something > > such as that. My point is, when you say, Somalia, for example, it's easier > > to determine what is meant than Horn of Africa. > > Well, without reiterating what the definition of a nation-state is, > let's look at your example. If the topic reads "Somalia," what exactly > is a topical action? Something within the accepted boundaries of > Somalia as it exists on a map? Usually we think of action towards a > government, but unfortunately for that type of resolution, Somalia has > two, one of which is recognized by international agencies as legitimate, > though it has virtually zero power. > > I KNOW from the literature that Somalia exists within the Horn, and > there would be no T problems there. > > However, if the topic is a list and includes Somalia, I can find pretty > good reasons why the plan might not be topical, regardless of the text. > > This is probably true under the Horn rez. I think that perhaps Somalia was a bad example, and we should try to craft a list resolution around countries that don't suffer from the same organizational problems, or at least to the same extent. Addtionally, I still think that a country whose government is in such disarray will probably be a difficult one to craft policies towards. > > > But I think the difference is, since the regions aren't clear cut, the a > > ffirmatives can have a very legitimate case as to why they should be > > included. if there's a list, and it's x,y,and z, and the aff isn't x,y, or > > z, then the issue seems more clear cut. I think my argument is we shouldn't > > create a resolution that encourages teams to run a borderline topical > > affirmative in the hopes that they can just write 30 T answers and win. > > Even if the regions aren't clear cut, why is that a reason to list? > What the governments are isn't always clear cut, what actions are > topical aren't clear cut, and so on. So long as it is predictable and > in the literature, so what? And I seriously doubt 30 t responses are > going to be good enough. On SE Asia, did people only run T on dev asst > cases? Nope. Often the affs put 30 answers on T and lost on a > substantive issue undercovered. Great trade off i figure, if i can put > out a 20 second t shell and the 2ac spends 2 and a half minutes. the > neg kicks T in the block and goes for the rest of the debate. So long > as the marginal area is predictable, I have no problem and have heard no > compelling reason to the contrary. > I think though my arguemnt is eliminating these types of T debates, while they would be predictable, would allow for discussion of more substantive issues and prevent such undercoverage. Chris Diamant University of Pittsburgh >From Tue May 2 19:40:56 2000 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 33029 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 2 May 2000 19:42:29 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from mailbox.jcu.edu (mailbox.jcu.edu [143.105.8.11]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA21478 for ; Tue, 2 May 2000 19:42:23 -0400 Received: from preinstalled (rhall-21233.jcu.edu [143.105.21.233]) by mailbox.jcu.edu (PMDF V5.2-33 #42092) with ESMTP id <0FTY000O0I7DUV at mailbox.jcu.edu> for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 2 May 2000 19:50:01 -0400 (EDT) MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Priority: normal Message-ID: <390F2F48.3363.2A27EAFE at localhost> Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 19:40:56 -0400 Reply-To: csdiamant at yahoo.com To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Chris Diamant Subject: Re: More Answers to Kevin In-Reply-To: <390F18B4.4C237569 at frank.mtsu.edu> Very interesting.... On 2 May 2000, at 13:04, Krueger wrote: > Chris Diamant wrote: > > > I agree that some conflicts could involve countries listed and not listed > > in the topic, and because of that I think there's a need to have some sort > > of clear limits from the get go. So I would say that in a topic listing > > Nigeria and not Cameroon, PKOs in Cameroon wouldn't be topical. Yes, the > > difference may only be a border, but the alternative seems to be having no > > difference at all. Additionally, I'm sure that there are inter "regional" > > conflicts as well, depending on how regions are defined (such as a conflict > > between a country in the great lakes region and a bordering, non great > > lakes country). The difference then becomes knowing which countries we're > > talking about. With a list it's fairly clear. With a region I see one of > > two possible outcomes: either the regions themselves will be difficult to > > define, meaning that we spend a great deal of time trying to define the > > topical area, or the regions are clear cut, and if they are, it would be no > > different than a list. if we agree that a region is a certain 5 countries, > > than listing the countries would be functionally the same as listing the > > region, except with better clarity. Addtionally, no one has made the > > argument that some parts of countries fall into different regions than > > others, and I really doubt that they do, so that doesn't appear to be a > > problem. > > Not exactly. One of the arguments that I am making re: the Horn of > Africa is that the region isn't exactly the same as the countries. > Sometimes the Seychelles, Uganda, and Kenya are considered in the Horn > (even though the Seychelles are an island group pretty far off the > coast). > > More importantly, and a reason to not do a list, is that a list seems to > impose government to government action. The point is that we are going > to force T/critical debates one way or another. If we maintain a list, > then if people want to write affirmatives that make an action to a > tribal group, for example, then there is the T debate on the country and > whether than name implies government to government action, and with this > topic area, there is ample justifcation to have action with the not > government part of a "country." That gets into the critical grounds in > terms of boundaries and boundary issues and what constitutes a country. > I am becoming more interested with the idea of a region, as I think it might not make as big of a difference as many think. However, it seems as if we would run into similar problems with using a region. It seems as if the problem could then become whether said area/country/whatever the best term is decided to be is a part of the region, and then whether whatever the action is (i.e. development assistance) can be done to anything but the government. I think that a list might be able to solve that in that some of the possible actions will only be able to be done to a government, and not to an ethnic or regional group. I think this may also be a reason i'm not that concerned with a non USFG actor, because it seems that certain types of policy options can only be done government to government, or at least must be done government to government. It would seem that, let's say, Greenpeace wanted to embark on an environmental initiative with the Horn, it would have to do it in conjunction with the specific national governments. I could be wrong, but this would make the most sense to me. I also think come of the critical cartographic arguments might apply to regions as well. It seems that the list would offer a bit more predictability. It might not be much, but it's something for certain. > That also really marginalizes "coutries" like Somalia, which > functionally has a government, but it is a government without power or > authority. Somalia actually has a couple governments, but functionally > it is an anarchy. Government to government action seems to be largely > impossible or at least improbably. > While unfortunate, I would probably prefer we not focus on countries that are in a period of anarchy or civil war, for the reason that it seems that we would be able to have very limited dealings past trying to resolve the political issues. We sent troops to Somalia in the early 90s, and it would seem that to do some sort of environmental/medical program, the governmental problems would have to be sorted out to allow for things like implementation. > The point is, if we list nations, considering the make-up of Africa, > then we are going to force teams into T debates if they want to do > particular actions. Just like if we list an area, then we are likely to > get into T debates about whether Kenya is in the Horn (or another > country is in East Africa/Great Lakes/Sub-Saharan etc.) > > I am unconvinced that a list provides better ground or is more > justified, except that we have done it before and it will be easy. Add > that to the idea that the US has dealt with Africa in terms of regions > before (the Greater Horn of Africa initiative in '94 for example), just > proves that regions can make sense. > > Just trying to convince some people to keep their minds open. Just > cause it always has been done doesn't mean that is always should be > done. > Right. And I agree that both a regions rez and a list rez should be put on the ballot. However, I would probably favor only one of each, because it seems that having more than one of each could cause vote splitting and hurt the chances of getting the best resolution. Chris Diamant University of Pittsburgh >From Wed May 3 01:05:53 2000 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 34021 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 3 May 2000 01:05:53 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo20.mx.aol.com (imo20.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.10]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA29514 for ; Wed, 3 May 2000 01:05:52 -0400 Received: from Smurfflag at aol.com by imo20.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v26.7.) id n.e3.3de2b3a (6104) for ; Wed, 3 May 2000 01:05:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from web48.aolmail.aol.com (web48.aolmail.aol.com [205.188.161.9]) by air-id02.mx.aol.com (v70.20) with ESMTP; Wed, 03 May 2000 01:05:11 -0400 X-Mailer: Unknown sub 1 Message-ID: <200005030505.BAA29514 at list.uvm.edu> Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 01:05:53 -0400 Reply-To: Smurfflag at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Marc Prickett Subject: unsubscribe How do I get taken off EDebate? From k.kuswa Wed May 3 01:12:16 2000 From: k.kuswa (kevin kuswa) Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 02:12:16 -0400 Subject: No list/ Ans. Hoe/ PRIVACY topic Message-ID: anyone interested in the intersection of the privacy h.s. topic and this thread should contact me. (more below) At 02:17 PM 5/2/00 PDT, Josh Hoe wrote: >Also, I have some real questions about individual agency as it relates to >how debates occur. I think you need to at least address that either your >real hope is that debate as we know it totally dissolves (the example I gave >was "I (the aff) support solidarity with those that identify with Africa") >or that you have not thought through the implications of what you are >suggesting? Any answers????? > Josh, One strategy to pursue in an attempt to open up some new wording opportunities is to ironically follow the implications of a "USFG-centered" resolution. I don't think such irony should be taken as malicious. My argument is that we should have an agent that is not the United States (maybe by using the passive voice) and we should shy away from listing a series of countries. The two arguments--1. a non-US agent and 2. an object other than a list of countries--can be debated and they are in the process of being debated. Part of that debate is a thread I initiated to extract the extremes of U.S. security fetishization in the topic wording process. I'm willing to admit that we all create a fetish out of the resolution, but that doesn't mean the wording has to follow such a pre-constructed pattern. I also have extreme confidence in the topic committee, yourself included. I have not expressed any "radical plot" to usurp the normal process of topic construction, and debate won't dissolve even if the only affirmative was "R: Josh's solidarity w/ those that identify w/ Africa should continue." I also have lots of questions concerning subjectivity and debate--that's one reason why a couple of the resolutions that come out of St. Louis should be written in the passive voice or include a non-USFG actor. Ultimately this process comes down to voting, and the link between what goes on here in edebateville and the final topic is not certain. Once the five resolution wordings come out, that's it--it will be one of those wordings. That's why it's important, as you know, to have some diversity expressed in those wordings. Finally, your fears of debate dissolving cannot be attached to some ideology you (and Parcher) have decided to project onto my arguments. The subjectivity questions surrounding debate, policy, the agent, fiat, and many other influences have no "answers." More questions are being generated all the time, though. The privacy highschool topic, for instance, asks for the protection of privacy in four areas. The type of individual constituted by each of the four areas is extremely varied. The area of "medical records" refers to the subject formation theorized by Lacan and other psychoanalysts, the area of "search and seizure" refers to the legal citizen and the abstract subject highlighted by CLS and CRS, the area of "employment" refers the capitalist dichotomy between workers and corporate interests, and the area of "consumer information" needs no theory for its link to sujectivity. The point is, these questions are about debate, not against it. When we work through some of these questions during the summer (texas workshop info is at www.utexas.edu/coc/speech/debate/adi.html) and during next year's season, the only "dissolving" of debate that will going on will be the practice of debate. Once again, no USFG for Africa & no list of countries for Africa, kevin utexas From gabp Wed May 3 04:21:55 2000 From: gabp (Gabrielle Prisco) Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 04:21:55 -0500 Subject: The dreaded good-byes Message-ID: Dearest Community, I have been thinking about and planning this note for a few years now. I did not leave the community when my own debate career ended, so, I put it off for a bit. In that time, my relationship to the community and my feelings about it have changed and the letter I write now is very different then it would have been two years ago but all the while it has brewed in the back of my head so, please forgive me its long length and proclivity for lots of adjectives... Although I will still be around some, I am leaving debate in the sense of a full-time commitment. This May, I graduate from the M.A. program at Alabama. In August, I will enter NYU's Law School. I am leaving despite the fact that I love this activity more then anything I have ever done and despite the fact that in this community I have, in many ways, found a home. I am not sure that it is the best decision or that it is a permanent one, but it is the decision I have arrived at after over three years of deliberation and a fair amount tears and long conversations with many of you. At some point in the near future, I will probably write a long letter to you all about how and why I arrived at this decision because I believe that it may be useful in terms of our community's ongoing discussion about young coaches and their retention. For now, I want to focus on all of the wonderful things and people that make up our community. I want to begin by saying that I believe we have come far. I have spoken to people who debated when there were one or two people of color debating on a whole circuit and people who had one female critic their entire career. In theseven years that I have been a part of debate, I have seen change for the better. This does not, however, change the fact that I think that we have a long, long way to go. We are still a privileged activity and we still privilege many of those who already occupy positions of power. I believe that our lack of racial and ethnic diversity as well as our relative silence about sexual orientation speak volumes about the work left to be done. Additionally, despite all of our efforts at increasing the inclusion of womyn in debate, our statistics (in terms of sexual harassment and retention) are appalling, as addressed by Pam Stepp's eloquent but disheartening forum at this year's CEDA Nationals. The things that are amazing about us are what gives me hope that the debate community "outstrips" the rest of the world in its attention to these issues. What also gives me hope is that even if there is so very much to be done within the community, it is still preparing people to leave its borders more aware and more prepared to make the world a better place. It also helps people live better lives. At least it did for me. Which is where I am now. "How Debate Changed My Life: A Brief Foray Into the Past:" I attended Vanderbilt as part of a scholarship group aimed at helping make Vanderbilt a more diverse sort of place. I was miserable. I did not look like or act like or have similar interests with many of the other students, especially the womyn. I felt weird and ugly and insecure and I wanted to walk home to New York (all 900 or so miles). I had once done some permutation of debate. It was a competition sponsored by a bank and there were three person teams who delivered essays for and against a resolution and were judged by execs. of the bank. Once you lost your first round, you were out of the tournament. I was the cross-examiner (I had no speech to give, I just asked the cross-examination questions). I thought I knew how to debate and it was on my college application that I had debate experience. I was, therefore, sent a letter by the Vanderbilt team. After my first team meetings, thought everyone was over-committed and wacky but I kept going nonetheless. For the first month, I walked to each week's meeting planning the "I am sorry but this is not for me" speech. I never had the courage to deliver it because I was afraid of disappointing the coaches. So, I stayed long enough to debate my first tournament which directly resulted in a helpless addiction. Debate gave me a place where I felt accepted and okay about myself. I fit in even though I did not meet the beauty standards of the Vanderbilt culture and did not pledge a sorority and had a New York accent and really short hair and was a feminist and outspoken and did not go to church. Not only that, it helped give me confidence and voice and so much more. Although I was always outspoken, I was also incredibly self-conscious and insecure. I had won a lot of awards and such in my early school days but I felt as if, at any moment, someone would realize that I was really unworthy and would steal them all back. One of my first debate tournaments ever, I finished the final round and went to my coach, M.L., crying hysterically saying that I was so sorry but I had lost the round for my partner and I. She calmed me down and we went into the awards ceremony where it was announced that indeed we had won the tournament and that I had won the a 1st Place speaker award. So, I cried because I felt that I could have lost and really should have if only they had not made a mistake and voted for me. I guess you get the picture. While that part of me has not fully disappeared, debate and the people in it, have helped me gain confidence in my own voice. I have also learned a lot about the actual stuff I want to keep on talking about and a lot about how to say it. I am so much more of a humyn being because of debate. I am now more aware of the world and I am more aware of me. In many ways, I owe both to the community. In addition to all that this community as a whole has done for me, I have found friends and role models and mentors who have done many extraordinary things for me. Although I am so grateful to all of you, there are a few people whom I need to individually recognize. First, there is M.L. Sandoz. The other day Mike was introducing M.L. to someone and he said "That is M.L. she was the coach at Vanderbilt when Gabrielle was there. She still coaches there. Just not Gab. Except in life." He was right. M.L. is exceptionally kind and intelligent and caring and dedicated. Not only is she an amazing coach and a great strategist, every year she teaches debate to a whole bunch of people who never got the chance to debate in high school and she does so with the utmost care and concern for them as humyn beings. To many of them, like me, she gives a life-changing gift. I will never be able to repay her. The past two years I have had honor of assisting Carrie Crenshaw. I have learned so much from her. She is one of the most dedicated and caring people I have ever met. She gives more to our communities (debate, academic, and the one outside our doors) in a year then many people give in a lifetime. She works endlessly and always with love. She is brilliant and compassionate and sensitive and amazing and I could not have asked for a better mentor. Mike Krueger has put up with me for a year and half. That is more then anyone could ask for. He is smart and funny and kind and generous and he is nicer to me then almost anyone else has ever been. He has also taught me a lot about debate and coaching and life and myself. I will always be grateful to him for his place in my life and for being so incredible to me. There are not the words to express how much I am thankful. There are my teams at Vanderbilt and Alabama, both of whom have given me so much. I said my thank yous to Vinay and my other Vanderbilt teammates a few years ago but they are still with me in so many ways. My Alabama team means the world to me. Julia and Patti, Randall, Chris, Enslen, Benji, edlee (they still count), Dana A., Dams, Wiley-Wi, Tedism, Shawnessy, Nikole, Meka, John, Lisa, Charles, Andrea, and Tia have all taught me way more than I could have ever taught them. I have learned so much from coaching and from coaching this group of amazing folks. Most importantly, I have been part of a team of advocates who speak about the things in which they believe and who do so with conviction, intelligence, and strength. If we speak it and it is, I want to be in the world around them. You are the University of Alabama and I love you all very much. And, of course, remember that it will always be true that the answers are inside of you. Then, there are the folks outside of my teams that have done so much and for whose presence in my life I am grateful: As my surrogate team, the MTSU squad welcomed me as if I was one of their own and I adore them all. Thank you to Russ Church and Nads, Drew, Benji (gets two places, I guess), Ro Ro, John, Terrance, Matt, Bryan, Meg, and Stacie. Sean Harris debates like my friend. A year ago, Sean and I met at CEDA Nats. Soon after, I bestowed upon him the "Coolest Person I Have Met This Year" Award. It was so fitting that exactly a year later, I got to share one of the most beautiful and profound moments of my life with him. I will never forget standing on the stage of the CEDA Nats Awards assembly with Sean sharing such an incredible experience with such an incredible person. Sean, you are so Kool it kills me. You are also a dear friend and an extraordinary person. Steve Herro is another great friend. He has done so much for me from apartment hunting to Zaida pacifying to lots of forgiving. While we may not talk as much as we should, he is loved and missed and thought of often. Josh Hoe rocks. There is not much else to say. He makes me smile and is smart, funny, committed, intense and a great friend. I only hope that his Gandhi-ian theory about possessions does not apply to friends. Melissa Maxcy Wade is a wonderful role model, mentor, and friend. Her work with UDLs has irrevocably changed debate in a way that enriches all of our lives. I am so grateful for her and for all that she does. Rachel Saloom and Sarah Holbrooke are amazing advocates, debaters and humyns. Rachel is also going to be an amazing coach and I am so glad that she will be at Alabama. Kendy-Kay Cunningham and Kate Charles are a wonderful debaters who have demonstrated that debaters can kick butt while being passionate about the things in which they believe. They are also great friends. Judging these four womyn in their quarters round at CEDA Nats is a memory that I will cherish. Each of them have done wonders for our community. Val Renegar and Stacy Sowards did so much the past two years to welcome me into the coaching community. They were true role models and friends, I only wish that I could have spent more time with them. Jan Hovden. Hello, friend. You are wonderful. Thank you for all of your conversations and for giving all that you do to make this community a better, more inclusive place. Natalie Woodward is incredibly fierce and kind at the same time--a combination that I admire. She is a staunch advocate who is outspoken, smart, and fearless. She is also compassionate, sweet, and caring. In the past few years, I have watched her grow into one of the most talented and most intelligent debaters around and she has done so with grace, humility, and concern for others. She constantly amazes me. Glenda and Kimberly Treadaway have made my time in the SE so much brighter and I have many special memories of them both. Glenda has been a wonderful role model and friend. Kimberly is my favorite Jungle Girl ever. Ericslusher has taught me so much about cooptive parallel link turns : ) that I could never begin to repay him. Seriously though, you sometimes find teachers in the least expected places. Thank you. Although it was all through overhearing him, Pat Gehrke was the first person to teach me about Feminisms as critiques. It changed my debate life and my life in general and I have always had a special gratefulness for him because of it. Tracy Gonos and I are hopefully only at the beginning of what will be a long friendship. I am looking forward to lots of cappucino as she helps me negotiate the new worlds of public interest law. She has been a teacher to me for so long, it is only fitting that I will be at NYU with her as I embark on my new life. Tuna Snider was one of the first people outside of my team to put faith in me as a debater and as a humyn (and not necessarily in that order). As he once told me after an incredibly poignant moment, "you never get over that." Thank you. You are a link turn. And a few more people I need to mention (sorry this is getting so long but our community is so full of wonderful people, it is not my fault): Suzanne Meiners who was an amazing partner and is a great person. Tara Tate who is about to kick some serious PhD butt. Mike Horowitz who will always have a warm fuzzy. Sarah Glaser and Q. who throw a hell of a party. Greggie who embodies the best of Foo Foo La La. Always keep the beach stick. Gina Lane who does so much for us all and has been wonderful to me. Nick for being the Greyhound. Gordon Hull for being Gordon Hull. Chief for his solidarity. Ben Bates for being a long-distance partner when I most needed one. Lisa Heller for teaching me about Magic Moments. Shanara Reid, Jenny Alme, Jen Edwards, Kristin Dybvig, Sarah Snider, Adrienne Brovero, Nate Smith, Elisia Cohen, bill n., and Sarah Ryan for being supportive, strong, and for giving so much to our community. Al Louden, George Ziegelmueller, Barb Pickering, Cate Palczewski, and Randy Lake for giving me such a wonderful opportunity. I know that my upcoming trip to the Baltics will change my life in ways that I cannot even imagine and I cannot wait for that. And finally, all of you who have helped make the Debate Like A Girl project a reality. I was overcome by the amount of support tha I received in the form of donations, manual labor, kind notes, and sales assistance.Seeing so many people wearing those shirts and supporting womyn in debate was one of the coolest things that has ever happened to me. I guess that is all. If you have read all of this, you deserve a special thanks all of your own. Please know that if I have left anyone out, it is because I am absent-minded and not because you are not wonderful. I will miss you all. I love debate and I love this community. My heart is full. Gabrielle ________________________________________________________________ YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET! Juno now offers FREE Internet Access! Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. From gabp Wed May 3 04:24:34 2000 From: gabp (Gabrielle Prisco) Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 04:24:34 -0500 Subject: P.S. Message-ID: Joe Zompetti is pretty damn cool. ________________________________________________________________ YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET! Juno now offers FREE Internet Access! Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. From drtuna Wed May 3 06:05:19 2000 From: drtuna (Alfred Snider) Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 07:05:19 -0400 Subject: unsubscribe In-Reply-To: <200005030505.BAA29514@list.uvm.edu> Message-ID: Go to http://list.uvm.edu/archives/edebate.html --------------- Alfred C. Snider aka Tuna Lawrence Professor of Forensics, University of Vermont 802-656-0097 office; 802-238-8345 mobile; 802-656-4275 fax asnider at zoo.uvm.edu office; drtuna at earthlink.net home/mobile http://debate.uvm.edu Debate Central website > From: Marc Prickett > Reply-To: Smurfflag at AOL.COM > Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 01:05:53 -0400 > To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU > Subject: unsubscribe > > How do I get taken off EDebate? > >From Thu May 4 04:00:00 2000 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 39012 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 3 May 2000 10:19:58 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from 1Cust135.tnt.1.providence.ri.da.uu.net (pm2-198.tp.net [209.113.136.198]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA12298 for ; Wed, 3 May 2000 10:19:51 -0400 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <200005031419.KAA12298 at list.uvm.edu> Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 04:00:00 EDT Reply-To: pipeline9 at CROSSWINDS.NET To: Team Topic Debating in America From: pipeline9 at CROSSWINDS.NET Subject: Internet Databases/Lists - 30% TO 50% OFF - 10 DAYS ONLY--Adv. Good Day, We wanted to share with you the latest 30%-50% OFF, 10 DAYS ONLY PRICING SPECIALS on our database of online businesses--a cutting edge business tool for the growing networked marketplace. Our databases include contacts representing millions of online business domains which have sprung into the age of the global Internet. They are compatible with Microsoft Office, Access and all database and contact management products because they are provided in comma delimited text. These searchable databases include the standard "white pages" information like company name, address, phone number, and fax number, but we have added additional fields including first and last names of the contacts, e-mail addresses and Domain names. In some editions, an additional 4 fields of business/Web information are available. January 2000 CD-ROM databases include: Company Name Address City State or Province Postal Code Country Prefix (Dr., Mr., Mrs., etc.) First Name Middle Name Last Name Suffix (Jr., II, III, IV, etc.) Phone Extension Fax E-mail Address Web Address (Domain name) ------------------------- Expanded Editions add the following fields (web info): Web Title (title of web page) META Description (description of website) META Keywords (keywords pertinent to website) BODY (first 255 characters of default web page, e.g. index.htm, index.htm, default.htm) Available data includes: **** 8.8 Million Domain Records--MASTER DATABASE on 3 CD-ROM set **** 8,841,086 Domain Records Worldwide .COM, .NET, .ORG, .EDU CALL FOR DETAILS **** 50% OFF **** US and Canadian Domain Contacts **** 50% OFF **** 1,450,397 records: WAS $2995.00 - NOW $1497.50 US AND CANADA .COM & .NET *NEW* IT Workers-reach up to 200,000 IT (Information Technology) workers. 201,603 records: WAS $1995.00 - NOW $997.50 US AND CANADA .COM & .NET 50% OFF!!! **** 30% OFF **** CANADA and METRO EDITIONS **** 30% OFF **** Canada 95,158 records: WAS $899.95 - NOW $629.97 New York City Metro Area 91,419 records: WAS $899.95 - NOW $629.97 Los Angeles Metro Area 146,571 records: WAS $1199.95 - NOW $839.97 San Francisco Bay Metro Area 01,062 records: WAS $899.95 - NOW $629.97 Washington D.C. Metro Area 59,789 records: WAS $749.95 - NOW $524.97 Boston Metro Area 46,446 records: WAS $649.95 - NOW $454.97 ADD 33% for additional 4 fields of Web info: **** 50% OFF **** Domain Name Master List **** 50% OFF **** 16,024,473 .COM, .NET, .ORG & .EDU domains as of 4/20/2000 and growing! Was $1995.00 - Now $997.50 **** NEW Website Search Database on CD-ROM **** 4,269,810 Root Level Web Pages Indexed on One CD-ROM An Industry First!!! Includes up to the first 255 characters of the Title, Keywords, Description & BODY .COM, .NET, .ORG and .EDU only Only $997.50 Until 5/8/2000 ************************************************************** Please contact us for any and all of your data or list needs. If we can't fulfill them, our sister company can! ALL DISCOUNTS EXPIRE MAY 12TH, 2000. All prices are in US Dollars. ALL MAJOR CREDIT CARDS ACCEPTED. Please call or fax toll-free at 888-922-5967. This is a one time announcement. However, if you feel you need to, you can remove via e-mail by replying to this message with REMOVE in the subject or leave a remove by phone or fax at 888-922-5967. Regards, John Powers EVA, Inc. >From Wed May 3 09:31:02 2000 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 39204 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 3 May 2000 10:25:52 -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 KAA15620 for ; Wed, 3 May 2000 10:25:27 -0400 Received: (qmail 13540 invoked by uid 0); 3 May 2000 14:25:16 -0000 Received: from dial-125-21.ots.utexas.edu (HELO mail.utexas.edu) (128.83.46.21) by umbs-smtp-3 with SMTP; 3 May 2000 14:25:16 -0000 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 (Macintosh; I; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <200005021734.NAA62686 at pilot008.cl.msu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <390FF1D2.A56C450C at mail.utexas.edu> Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 09:31:02 +0000 Reply-To: jd.rollins at mail.utexas.edu To: Team Topic Debating in America From: joel david rollins Subject: Re: Kamal's Krap-ans monick Comments: To: monickaa at pilot.msu.edu i'll keep this in mind the next time a 2ar refers to the "lennon" evidence without including the warrants. but your argument IS that "this literature is too difficult" or "too jargonesque" or "too pomo" for us to understand. i think you are backsliding here-- look at what you argued-- "not too many people > > have the time or inclination to wade through the post-colonial > > writers like bhabha or spivak, and speaking as someone who has, > > frankly large chunks of their theories are just incoherent or too > > wordy.. " in short, in your mind debates where we don't have to learn the literature of the postcolonial academics is preferred to those where we truly have to make an attempt to engage in acadmeic discussions. think about this the next time you have to justify debate as a cocurricular activity to the dean of liberal arts. "we get on lexis and use the shallowest of academic sources to prove our points--post-colonial literture? on an africa topic? no, that's too hard and time consuming...and incoherent...besides, what does that have to do with african politics? or better yet, the US's hegemonic stance towards african nations? we already know the effects of that...blah, blah, blah, how research is constructed, how questions are framed...how we are interpellated as subject...whatever that means... and besides, what we don't know is too difficult for us to take the time to understand...hey you all in the policy sci department, have you seen our coherent clinton DA? what do you think? marvelous isn't it? do you think we could get it published? does it contain academic merit? what? you mean no one has ever even made this argument in the policy literature? wow! we must be groundbreakers!" sorry, aaron, for the sarcasm here. but this line of argument really does get to me, and i think that the party line that you tote out here takes debate in exactly the opposite direction of where i think it is most fulfilling for those truly conerned about competitive debate's place within the academy. joel Aaron Monick wrote: > that's an interesting argument.. i think my position is not that we > should ignore the arguments and representations of postcolonial > literature.. (it's kind of my major right now..:)) but that > references to 'bhabha' and 'spivak' and to some of the postmodern > buzzwords they throw around is counterproductive. i've always thought > that the level of critical inquiry they've engaged in is valuable, > but that its obscured by the fact that they often seem more > interested in writing in the current style than actually > communicating.. i think attempting to engage in 'critical' discussion > without relying on name-dropping or terms like hegemony or whatever > is in many ways more valuable because it forces us to find a more > indepth knowledge of our beliefs and it allows us to communicate with > those people who arent really interested in the fields.. > just a thought.. > btw.. how are things in austin? is school ending up well? > aaron > > > Date: Tue, 02 May 2000 10:34:51 +0000 > > From: joel david rollins > > Reply-to: jd.rollins at mail.utexas.edu > > To: monickaa at pilot.msu.edu, "EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU" > > Subject: Re: Kamal's Krap > > > so is your argument that since we can't understand the literture we should > > ignore it and only work in those narrow frames that we understand? or that we > > continue to produce and reproduce oppressive politics because it is all that we > > can do? aaron, i think that what you say below is the performance of the link > > to many of the "post colonial" positions. > > > > joel > > > > Aaron Monick wrote: > > > > > > Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 02:46:53 -0400 > > > > Reply-to: kevin kuswa > > > > From: kevin kuswa > > > > Subject: Re: Kamal's Krap > > > > To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU > > > > > > > At 08:22 PM 4/30/00 -0400, Kamal wrote: > > > > >The only thing I'd like to add to Parcher's post is an emphasis on the > > > > >literature. > > > > > > > > Tell me about the literature on Africa, Kamal. Tell about your insights > > > > into cultural studies and the ways race and colonialism intersected in > > > > CLR James' and Fanon's work, spreading into the argument that the project > > > > of the enlightenment cannot be disassociated from the racial terror of > > > > the "Black Atlantic." Tell me about how redemptive violence appeared in > > > > Stuart Hall's wrok and traversed Lacanian theory through Homi Bhabha's > > > > arguments about the ways nationality works within and without the state. > > > > Tell me about how these writings about postcolonial identity cross the > > > > Atlantic in Paul Gilroy's work on small acts of change, the triangular > > > > trade in people, ethnic absolutism, and the link to Spivak and Shiva. Yes, > > > > this is a bunch ob absurd name-dropping, but the claim to the "literature" > > > > here is always open to interpretation. > > > > > > I'm never for getting involved in any discussion on e-debate, but > > > like sparky i'm done with filling out strike sheets and i'm sober for > > > a few hours anyway, so here goes.. i thought kevin's initial worry > > > about the nation-state in the african context was fascinating, and > > > ultimately it will probably end up being excellent negative ground in > > > next year's resolution, especially when you're in a final round and > > > you have nothing good except a cheezy veto c/p...:) anyway, if you're > > > interested in changing the focus of the rez, kevin, I think you're headed in > > > the wrong 'discursive' direction, if you will.. not too many people > > > have the time or inclination to wade through the post-colonial > > > writers like bhabha or spivak, and speaking as someone who has, > > > frankly large chunks of their theories are just incoherent or too > > > wordy.. the real problem with these and other stances, and the > > > reason maybe why people have derided you as part of the 'radical > > > chic', is that it's always possible to position oneself more > > > critically than just about anything. for example, i could quote one > > > of the interesting post-colonial theorists: > > > "Tolerance is never simply passive, and, ironically, the area of > > > institutionalised post-colonial studies is finding itself > > > increasingly invested in an academic star system of astonishing > > > proportions, and through that star system it is learning to seek its > > > instruction in oppositional tactics along lines that run increasingly > > > and monolithically backward towards the centres of Western power .. > > > our theoretical masters in Paris or Oxford or New Haven are read and > > > referenced by exemplary theorists of the local .. but those > > > metropolitan theorists seldom reference these cultural and > > > theoretical mediators in return." > > > does this mean your arguments are invalid? of course not. it's just > > > that for me, and probably a lot of others, 'critical discourse' > > > (whatever that means) is a lot less compelling in the context of > > > resolutional discussion than questions of ground and limits and > > > breadth and depth and whatever other topicality buzzwords i never > > > learned.. for example, one could approach the question of whether we > > > need a list or number of countries from the standpoint of what would > > > provide the best balance between the aff and the neg, or you could > > > take a page from bhabha and the rest and question the notion of lists > > > and numbers as part of the Western mathematical project that serves > > > to reify a dominant culture/nation/something/big words/hegemony... > > > maybe i'm just being mocking or something, but it seems that one of > > > these discussions will be successful and one won't.. but if you want > > > fuel for that fire, here's something from alan bishop.. > > > "From these colonial times through to today, the power of this > > > mathematico-technological culture has grown apace -- so much that > > > western mathematics is taught nowadays in every country in the world > > > ... I began by describing the myth of western mathematics' cultural > > > neutrality. Increasingly, modern evidence serves to destroy this > > > naive belief. Nevertheless, the belief in that myth has had, and > > > continues to have, powerful implications ... taking a broader view, > > > one must ask: should there not be more resistance to this cultural > > > hegemony? ... Resistance is growing, critical debate is informing > > > theoretical developments, and research is increasing, particularly in > > > educational situations where culture-conflict is recognized. The > > > secret weapon is secret no longer." > > > > > > Indeed.. anyway, i bring this up not to try to discredit your > > > argument. i think you're bringing something valuable to the > > > discussion, i just think you should speak more english...:) > > > > > > Sorry to subject the community to my boredom, > > > Aaron > > > > > > Aaron Monick > > > (517)324-1928 > > > > -- > > > > Joel D. Rollins, PhD > > Director of Debating > > Director, UTNIF > > Jesse Jones Communication Center, CMA 7.114 > > The University of Texas at Austin > > Austin, TX 78712 > > email: jd.rollins at mail.utexas.edu > > UTNIF Web site: http://www.utexas.edu/coc/speech/debate/adi.html > > or http://utdebate.tripod.com/adi.htm > > > > > > > > > Aaron Monick > (517)324-1928 -- Joel D. Rollins, PhD Director of Debating Director, UTNIF Jesse Jones Communication Center, CMA 7.114 The University of Texas at Austin Austin, TX 78712 email: jd.rollins at mail.utexas.edu UTNIF Web site: http://www.utexas.edu/coc/speech/debate/adi.html or http://utdebate.tripod.com/adi.htm >From Wed May 3 10:32:41 2000 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 39469 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 3 May 2000 10:33:22 -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 KAA18180 for ; Wed, 3 May 2000 10:33:21 -0400 Received: from Drunklout at aol.com by imo-d06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v26.7.) id n.a6.3d185d5 (14383) for ; Wed, 3 May 2000 10:32:41 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 106 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 10:32:41 EDT Reply-To: Drunklout at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Jason Heard Subject: jessica, corryn, hutch, or some such other joco folks if any one of you could backchannel me, i need some cite information for the ant-sanctions movement argument you read on iraq. tausend dank, heard uco From abryan Wed May 3 10:02:09 2000 From: abryan (a. ryan) Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 10:02:09 -0500 Subject: First Annual DICTA Message-ID: Andy Peterson emailed me his new awards from Taiwan. Please read. Mr. Ryan, please post this to the list. Welcome to the first annual Debaters in Taiwan's Choice Awards, also known as the Golden Chopstick (alright, it's yellow plastic, but it's the thought that counts). After seeing the results of the DCA and subsequent furor on the list, we, the Internatinal Debaters In the Outer Republic of China(Taiwan) Society (IDIOTS) decided to hastily convene a balloting for those debaters whose infulence, prowess, and articulate nature have not only enamored debaters in the US, but also those abroad as well. IDIOTS is an admittedly "elite" organization, consisting only of people who have participated in college debate in the past and know the organization exists. We solicited applications for other members, but received none (although we can assure that had any been received from Weber State, they would have been summarily rejected). After a rapid first round of balloting, where one person swept every category, the committee discovered election fraud had been committed as our only member voted for himself in every category, even those for which he was not eligible. Another round of balloting was called for and the results are in!! In no specific order: Debater of the Year The DITCA does not separate by speaker positions, but only chooses to recognize the most outstanding debater of all those in intercollegiate debate. The winnner is . . . Andy Ryan's partner!! DITCA doesn't really know who she is, rumors have it her name is kirsten or kristen or kristin or whatever, but word on the street is that Bear Bryant, football coach extraordinaire, came back from the dead to cast a copeland ballot for this extraordinary debater. Raising the dead is enough for our ballot. Congratulations Krestin!! Our second award is the honorary "Michael Ditka Coach of the Year Award." As our acronym is DITCA, we felt we should name the award after Da Bears coach. Our first recipient is . . . Michael "Bear" Bryant of Weber State. Besides his nickname being the same as one of the Coach's teams, Mr. Bryant had numerous attributes that made him our selection. 1) He is word-for-word the most prolific publisher in the history of the internet. Our (admittedly limited) research didn't even find someone close. Our original idea for an award had been to distribute a book that commemorated all Bear's numerous listserv posts, but after compiling them all, we received word from the publisher that the 50 copies we requested would require destruction of all but 2 square meters of the amazon rain forest to produce that much paper, we reconsidered. After a heated meeting between some scientists who said that the remaining animal species of the amazon could not be supported by 2 square meters of forest and the editor of "The REAL State of the Planet" who disagreed we agreed to discontinue the project. Just check the geometrically expanding archives of edebate. 2) He has unseflishly branded numerous universities (both public and private) as "some of the most elite debate programs in the nation." Such selfless promotion of other programs is surely a boon to their recruiting practices, and reflects the kind of community spirit the DITCA supports. 3) His relentless pursuit of social progress even outside of the debate forum. There are many examples here, but most notable are the "ban David Breashears" campaign and his unstopping fight against Dr. Alfred "Tuna" Snider. brought about from dicussions long ago when Dr. Snider refused to change his nickname to Dr. Alfred "Dolphin-Safe Tuna" Snider. Keep fighting the good fight Bear!! Now, for our next award. It was previously mentioned that the DITCA does not give speaker based awards, but issue specific ones are another issue. We felt a need to recognize an area that the DCA neglected. And Best Negative Inherency debater goes to. . . Steven Donald of Michigan State University. Perhaps spurred by his high school debate days in Oklahoma in the 1970's, Steven Dean Donald has a more complete grasp of attitudinal, structural, and all other barriers to plan implementation than our members had ever seen before. We heard of debates where after the 2NC affirmative debaters were worried there actually might be hidden disads that would affect the implementation of their plan. Cheers to you, SDD. Next, a controversial award for the DITCA: Most rotund gluteus maximus. The winner and still champion is. . . John Paul Lupo of Emory University. It cannot be denied that his championship in and subsequent media coverage of the Emory Best Booty contest helped propel this young person to victory. However, the DITCA and all members of IDIOTS cannot deny that Lupo's (and i hope the aetheists don't get mad at this one) God-given splendors cross international boundaries. We here in Taiwan only hope that he can soon direct his powers to resolution of current cross-strait tension between China and Taiwan. We need you John Paul. To continue objectifying bodies, we present our next award, most voluminous head. In a landslide the Golden Chopstick goes to Aaron Monick, also of MSU. You don't get to the Finals of both National Tournaments without picking up some extra rewards along the way, and we were happy to bestow this award upon the only person we know whose body has noticible gravitational pull. "Code word" Classified defense plans taken from a laptop computer stolen from the State Dept. detail the US's true plans to deal with an asteroid aimed at earth. Our fate rests neither with Bruce Willis led oil drillers nor other space cadets, but in the hands of spaceman Monick, whose massive noggin the government hopes will naturally be able to pull the intruding asteroid off course. I think we are in good hands (or heads, as the case may be). Well, that is all for this year. Those of you who were offended please don't respond to Mr. Ryan, he has just been a tool in the DITCA's evil plan for world domination. Direct all hate mail to randombullet at hotmail.com, but don't expect a quick response. Taiwan is 13000 miles away. ****PLEASE NOTE THE BOTTOM PARAGRAPH WHERE IT SAYS NOT TO EMAIL ME ABOUT THIS. IF YOU HAVE A PROBLEM, EMAIL ANDY PETERSON.**** Andy Ryan University of Iowa 100 Burge Hall #4405 Iowa City, IA 52242 (319) 621 5289 Kristin: So what happened to make all those people piranhas last night? Andy: You mean pariahs? Kristin: Whatever. They're both fish. Andy: No they're not. Pariah means someone intentionally outside the designated norms. Kristin: Yeah, well, they both eat each other. (Literally no part of the conversation was fabricated). From bigtrouble36 Wed May 3 10:37:18 2000 From: bigtrouble36 (David Berube) Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 15:37:18 GMT Subject: One year appointment Message-ID: Anyone know a PhD in hand needing a one year appointment (non-debate)? Full search to follow. ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From Michelin.Massey Wed May 3 10:54:21 2000 From: Michelin.Massey (Michelin Christopher Massey) Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 09:54:21 -0600 Subject: interpellation (sp)? In-Reply-To: <390FF1D2.A56C450C@mail.utexas.edu> Message-ID: what does it mean to be interpellated? michelin massey. ps: i don't ask this question sarcastically. i do not know what this word means. please clarify. From kkasmai1 Wed May 3 11:07:51 2000 From: kkasmai1 (Katy Kasmai) Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 12:07:51 -0400 Subject: interpellation: Message-ID: interpellation: the act of formally bringing into question. katy these dictionaries really come in handy. Katy Kasmai George Mason University GMU DEBATE Team Information Technology & Engineering School Senator Fairfax, VA From k.kuswa Wed May 3 11:17:16 2000 From: k.kuswa (kevin kuswa) Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 12:17:16 -0400 Subject: interpellation (sp)? Message-ID: I'm still working through this one, but if you want to read some other sources on it, try M. Charland's 1987 piece in _QJS_ on constitutive rhetoric. There, Charland explains how interpellation is the on-going process of subject-production. Subjects get produced by being drwan-in, constituted, imagined, or ideologically generated. Charland, like Ron Greene (his piece is in the March 1999 _CSMC_) relies on Althusser to talk about interpellation. According to Althusser in _Lenin and Other Philosophers_, subjects are "hailed into being" when institutional authority speaks to a potential subject through a certain position of "authority" or influence. In other words, when an officer screams out, "hey, you!" you are interpellated when you turn to face the officer. Some people call it the moment of hailing. At that moment, you are produced as a subject within the gaze of the officer. Interpellation is material in the sense that the effects of interpellating discourse are real, physical, and tied to the body. Interpellation also seems to be part of the ideological connection (the "as if") between institutions and everyday experience. I'm not sure about counter-interpellation, but it does seem to work like transference and counter-transference in psychoanalytic speak. Hope this helps a little, kevin At 09:54 AM 5/3/00 -0600, you wrote: >what does it mean to be interpellated? > >michelin massey. > >ps: i don't ask this question sarcastically. i do not know what this word >means. please clarify. > From d.breshears Wed May 3 10:15:35 2000 From: d.breshears (David Breshears) Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 11:15:35 -0400 Subject: interpellation: Message-ID: ummm, you might want to look beyond the dictionary to Althusser: interpellation refers to the process of subjectification. From Judith Butler, _The_Psychic_Life_of_Power_: "In Althusser's essay, 'Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses,' the subordination of the subject takes place through language, as the effect of the authoritative voice that hails the individual. In the infamous example that Althusser offers, a policeman hails a passerby on the street, and the passerby turns and recognizes himself (sic) as the one who is hailed. In the exchange by which that recognition is proffered and accepted, interpellation - the discursive production of the social subject - takes place" (5). Dave -----Original Message----- From: Katy Kasmai To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU Date: Wednesday, May 03, 2000 12:08 PM Subject: interpellation: >interpellation: the act of formally bringing into question. > >katy > >these dictionaries really come in handy. > > >Katy Kasmai >George Mason University >GMU DEBATE Team >Information Technology & Engineering School Senator >Fairfax, VA From d.breshears Wed May 3 10:17:19 2000 From: d.breshears (David Breshears) Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 11:17:19 -0400 Subject: interpellation (sp)? Message-ID: shoulda known kev would beat me to the punch on this one;) guess we're both trying to avoid writing. adios, dave -----Original Message----- From: kevin kuswa To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU Date: Wednesday, May 03, 2000 12:17 PM Subject: Re: interpellation (sp)? >I'm still working through this one, but if you want to read some other >sources on it, try M. Charland's 1987 piece in _QJS_ on constitutive >rhetoric. There, Charland explains how interpellation is the on-going >process of subject-production. Subjects get produced by being drwan-in, >constituted, imagined, or ideologically generated. >Charland, like Ron Greene (his piece is in the March 1999 _CSMC_) relies on >Althusser to talk about interpellation. According to Althusser in _Lenin >and Other Philosophers_, subjects are "hailed into being" when institutional >authority speaks to a potential subject through a certain position of >"authority" or influence. In other words, when an officer screams out, >"hey, you!" you are interpellated when you turn to face the officer. Some >people call it the moment of hailing. At that moment, you are produced as a >subject within the gaze of the officer. Interpellation is material in the >sense that the effects of interpellating discourse are real, physical, and >tied to the body. Interpellation also seems to be part of the ideological >connection (the "as if") between institutions and everyday experience. I'm >not sure about counter-interpellation, but it does seem to work like >transference and counter-transference in psychoanalytic speak. Hope this >helps a little, > >kevin > > >At 09:54 AM 5/3/00 -0600, you wrote: >>what does it mean to be interpellated? >> >>michelin massey. >> >>ps: i don't ask this question sarcastically. i do not know what this word >>means. please clarify. >> >From Wed May 3 12:23:17 2000 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 42148 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 3 May 2000 12:24:27 -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 MAA36730 for ; Wed, 3 May 2000 12:24:26 -0400 Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo-d03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v26.7.) id g.4a.4e5f1db (4331); Wed, 3 May 2000 12:23:18 -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 100 Message-ID: <4a.4e5f1db.2641ac75 at aol.com> Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 12:23:17 EDT Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Michael Bear Bryant Subject: Re: First Annual DICTA Comments: To: abryan at blue.weeg.uiowa.edu In a message dated 05/03/2000 9:02:46 AM Mountain Daylight Time, abryan at BLUE.WEEG.UIOWA.EDU writes: << Andy Ryan's partner!! DITCA doesn't really know who she is, rumors have it her name is kirsten or kristen or kristin or whatever, but word on the street is that Bear Bryant, football coach extraordinaire, came back from the dead to cast a copeland ballot for this extraordinary debater. Raising the dead is enough for our ballot. Congratulations Krestin!! >> My sincere apologies if I misspelled anyone's name. As many will have already concluded, this is undoubtedly another insidious attempt on my part to demean all womyn in debate. Though, perhaps it is just another reason why I should never have attempted to drag her into this conflict, that Mr. Ryan now seems to suddenly want to keep alive. I still don't think my grievous insults to Ms. Langwell (however her first name is spelled) invalidate or destroy my credibility in speaking out against the continued notion that it's OK on this list to compare male asses or blame everything bad in debate on "penis-waving masculinity." Her particular name has about 14 different spellings here in Utah, where eveyone seeks what little uniqueness they have by spelling their names strangely. And I will keep fighting this fight. Bear, have a nice summer, Mr. Ryan. And I applaud all you "Kreskins" out there that know my true feelings and motivations. From mkrueger Wed May 3 11:38:28 2000 From: mkrueger (Krueger) Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 11:38:28 -0500 Subject: interpellation: References: <01bfb512$6e36ff00$06705380@winbook> Message-ID: Althusser is one of my favorite authors, and the essay that is pointed to is one that I find very revealing. However, I always have wondered about the usage of "interpellation" and compared it to the mathematical term interpolate. Seems that they are very similar, except that one is in numbers, and the other is people. something to think about. mike David Breshears wrote: > > ummm, you might want to look beyond the dictionary to Althusser: > interpellation refers to the process of subjectification. From Judith > Butler, _The_Psychic_Life_of_Power_: > > "In Althusser's essay, 'Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses,' the > subordination of the subject takes place through language, as the effect of > the authoritative voice that hails the individual. In the infamous example > that Althusser offers, a policeman hails a passerby on the street, and the > passerby turns and recognizes himself (sic) as the one who is hailed. In > the exchange by which that recognition is proffered and accepted, > interpellation - the discursive production of the social subject - takes > place" (5). > > Dave > -----Original Message----- > From: Katy Kasmai > To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU > Date: Wednesday, May 03, 2000 12:08 PM > Subject: interpellation: > > >interpellation: the act of formally bringing into question. > > > >katy > > > >these dictionaries really come in handy. > > > > > >Katy Kasmai > >George Mason University > >GMU DEBATE Team > >Information Technology & Engineering School Senator > >Fairfax, VA -- 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/~msdi/ http://www.mtsu.edu/~mkrueger/ >From Wed May 3 12:40:43 2000 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 42578 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 3 May 2000 12:42:05 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo16.mx.aol.com (imo16.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.6]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA32074 for ; Wed, 3 May 2000 12:41:58 -0400 Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo16.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v26.7.) id g.c5.4e9abef (4331); Wed, 3 May 2000 12:40:44 -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 100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 12:40:43 EDT Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Michael Bear Bryant Subject: Re: First Annual DICTA Comments: To: abryan at blue.weeg.uiowa.edu In a message dated 05/03/2000 9:02:46 AM Mountain Daylight Time, abryan at BLUE.WEEG.UIOWA.EDU writes: << 3) His relentless pursuit of social progress even outside of the debate forum. There are many examples here, but most notable are the "ban David Breashears" campaign and his unstopping fight against Dr. Alfred "Tuna" Snider. brought about from dicussions long ago when Dr. Snider refused to change his nickname to Dr. Alfred "Dolphin-Safe Tuna" Snider. Keep fighting the good fight Bear!! >> Let me make something clear to the very humorous transfer to Iowa, Andy Ryan: I'm not attempting to "ban" David Breshears. I am opposed to the application of the word "ban" to a human being. This is even more backhanded in light of the ongoing campaign to "shun" my opinions on this list. To minimize the various complaints I've had with Dr. Snider, belies the fact that he has now "withdrawn" from CEDA based on many of the same bureaucratic complaints he vehemently denied over the past three years. And where is he turning? Toward the international arena, as I warned he would 3 years ago. Minimizing the serious bureaucratic complaints with Dr. Snider as a campaign for "Dolphin-safe, Tuna" insults me far more than any unintentional impact my rhetoric has ever had on Ms. Langwell, Ryan's partner. (See, I named her this time! Does that make me less sexist?) Please, Mr. Ryan, continue to try to HURT me. It shows what a fine upstanding community we have out there. And convinces me that there is so much intentional "goodness" in the heart of debate's mighty elite. But it's OK, because Bear's a BAD person, right? Hypocrites, Bear >From Wed May 3 12:49:58 2000 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 42757 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 3 May 2000 12:51:11 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo23.mx.aol.com (imo23.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.67]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA40096 for ; Wed, 3 May 2000 12:51:07 -0400 Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo23.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v26.7.) id g.5b.553adf6 (4331); Wed, 3 May 2000 12:49:59 -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 100 Message-ID: <5b.553adf6.2641b2b6 at aol.com> Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 12:49:58 EDT Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Michael Bear Bryant Subject: Re: First Annual DICTA Comments: To: abryan at blue.weeg.uiowa.edu In a message dated 05/03/2000 10:31:19 AM Mountain Daylight Time, abryan at blue.weeg.uiowa.edu writes: << Bear, Three things: (1) I posted this for Andy Peterson, not myself. (2) everyone misspells Kristin's name. (3) I don't think what you did was sexist; neither did Kristin as far as I know. The objection was to the reference of her as someone's partner. It has less to do with sexism than with recognition. It's a pet peeve that both she and I have regarding debate styles of younger debaters. They constantly reference things as "my argument" and "I said" without giving regard to their partner in a team activity. Kristin is highly sensitive about this because she is a phenomenal debater in her own right but has heard people reference her as Andy Ryan's partner before. It doesn't make sense, but it happens. Now whether I agree with you that the whole DCA/Stephen Bailey thing was sexist is an entirely different issue. But this is my point of view on the Ms. Langwell dispute. >> Thanks for your explanation. I was sure I was being demeaned as a "sexist pig" once, again, on this mighty voice for human equality. Bear Bear From mkuss Wed May 3 13:50:44 2000 From: mkuss (Matthew Kuss) Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 11:50:44 -0700 Subject: interpellation: In-Reply-To: <39105603.1C91A6ED@frank.mtsu.edu> Message-ID: Well, interpolation (mathematically speaking) is the estimating of numbers within a known region, while extrapolating is the estimation beyond a known region. If you interpolate a value, you would perhaps know the value before and the value after the one in question. If you extrapolate a value, you would perhaps know the values before the one in question, but none afterwards... think of it on a line graph. Interpolation would be a value on the chart, but perhaps not labeled, while extrapolation would be a value not on the chart. Here is a real interesting (given recent threads) definition of interpolation: To change or falsify (a text) by introducing new or incorrect material. Interpellation (which has a totally different entomological root) can also be interestingly defined as: a point raised in a debate. Def's from Webster's and American Heritage Matt > -----Original Message----- > From: Team Topic Debating in America [mailto:EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU]On > Behalf Of Krueger > Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2000 9:38 AM > To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU > Subject: Re: interpellation: > > > Althusser is one of my favorite authors, and the essay that is pointed > to is one that I find very revealing. > > However, I always have wondered about the usage of "interpellation" and > compared it to the mathematical term interpolate. > > Seems that they are very similar, except that one is in numbers, and the > other is people. > > something to think about. > > mike > > David Breshears wrote: > > > > ummm, you might want to look beyond the dictionary to Althusser: > > interpellation refers to the process of subjectification. From Judith > > Butler, _The_Psychic_Life_of_Power_: > > > > "In Althusser's essay, 'Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses,' the > > subordination of the subject takes place through language, as > the effect of > > the authoritative voice that hails the individual. In the > infamous example > > that Althusser offers, a policeman hails a passerby on the > street, and the > > passerby turns and recognizes himself (sic) as the one who is > hailed. In > > the exchange by which that recognition is proffered and accepted, > > interpellation - the discursive production of the social subject - takes > > place" (5). > > > > Dave > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Katy Kasmai > > To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU > > Date: Wednesday, May 03, 2000 12:08 PM > > Subject: interpellation: > > > > >interpellation: the act of formally bringing into question. > > > > > >katy > > > > > >these dictionaries really come in handy. > > > > > > > > >Katy Kasmai > > >George Mason University > > >GMU DEBATE Team > > >Information Technology & Engineering School Senator > > >Fairfax, VA > > -- > 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/~msdi/ > http://www.mtsu.edu/~mkrueger/ > >From Wed May 3 13:02:32 2000 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 43058 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 3 May 2000 13:03:09 -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 NAA39106 for ; Wed, 3 May 2000 13:03:09 -0400 Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo-d07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v26.7.) id n.3f.445850f (4331) for ; Wed, 3 May 2000 13:02:33 -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 100 Message-ID: <3f.445850f.2641b5a8 at aol.com> Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 13:02:32 EDT Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Michael Bear Bryant Subject: Re: First Annual DICTA My complaints about the rhetoric of this message still apply, no matter who the real Andy is that originally composed this continued exercise in hateful elitism. Why do male ass comparisons and the rhetoric of "penis-blaming" deserve so much protection from sexist scrutiny on this list? What examples are the friendly elite establishing as role models for the future? Not being stopped by cornfield sarcasm, even if it routed through Taiwan. Bear From Michelin.Massey Wed May 3 12:20:08 2000 From: Michelin.Massey (Michelin Christopher Massey) Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 11:20:08 -0600 Subject: another question Message-ID: another question (or a couple): what is a subject? does this refer to english - i.e. subject/object? does this refer to social relations - i.e. subject/master? something else? i've read althusser, but not very well. hopefully, this discussion will aid me. michelin massey. >From Wed May 3 12:19:54 2000 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 43336 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 3 May 2000 13:22:51 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from probemail.com ([209.149.123.15]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA40036 for ; Wed, 3 May 2000 13:22:50 -0400 Received: from probemail.com [209.149.123.9] by probemail.com (SMTPD32-6.00) id AF54FE101BE; Wed, 03 May 2000 12:18:12 -0500 Message-ID: <39105fba.118.0 at probemail.com> Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 12:19:54 -600 Reply-To: ending at probemail.com To: Team Topic Debating in America From: "Michael Roston(the eminently practical)" Subject: DITCA Awards Comments: cc: abryan at blue.weeg.uiowa.edu, randombullet at hotmail.com shit, now that Andy's Peterson has posted the DITCA awards I guess I have to complete the Debaters in Singapore City Organization (DISCO) awards....dammit, Andy! Michael Roston -it seems to me that when I close my eyes all the lights in the world go out "~Eit will be the Wild West. You can't, for example, exploit child labor because you want to buy your shoes for $10 all your life and you don't know or care where they're made, and at the same time give to charity -- to Amnesty International or to some starving children's foundation in the Far East. I think this way of being should be over. We should buy our shoes for $25, and instead of buying three pairs we buy one pair -- better made, more consciously made. The problem is not to produce more and to consume more, but to produce better and consume better." -Oliviero Toscani ProbeMail / http://www.probemail.com From mabouzai Wed May 3 11:54:07 2000 From: mabouzai (Mohammed Abouzaid) Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 12:54:07 -0400 Subject: another question Message-ID: -----Original Message----- From: Michelin Christopher Massey To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU Date: Wednesday, May 03, 2000 1:20 PM Subject: another question >another question (or a couple): > >what is a subject? The "I" in "I think therefore I am" The citizen in the political system The criminal and the victim in law The capital owner and the worker in the economy The foundation of most "ideologies" from objectivism to communism (the proletaria as the ultimate subject). an attempt to universalize the self, and deny the alterity of the other. and a few other things, mohammed >does this refer to english - i.e. subject/object? > >does this refer to social relations - i.e. subject/master? > >something else? > >i've read althusser, but not very well. hopefully, this discussion will >aid me. > >michelin massey. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20000503/5e7691ae/attachment.htm From jasonph Wed May 3 12:44:37 2000 From: jasonph (Jason Hernandez) Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 13:44:37 -0400 Subject: DCA Debater #3 Kamal Ghali Message-ID: Bio for Kamal Ghali by Ryan Sparacino Kamal Ghali first developed into a star debater at Caddo Magnet High School in the Caddo Parrish of Louisiana. As a young high school debater with bushy hair and too many beads, Kamal favored such intellectually challenging arguments as "deep eco", malthus, and objectivism. As a junior attending the Dartmouth Juniors Workshop, Kamal met his mentor, Jon Paul Lupo. The two quickly bonded, sharing their disdain for certain other senior assistants who will remain nameless. Both were icons in clarity at this stage in their careers, and as such, Kamal and Jon Paul became the closest of friends. Kamal showed flashes of greatness as a junior in high school, winning the Westminster tourament, beating an over-rated team from Northern Virginia in the final round. As a senior in high school, Kamal debated with a young pup named Andy "Baxter" Ryan. Kamal and Andy had one of the finest high school seasons in recent times, winning the Glenbrooks, Emory, and the Tournament of Champions, to name but a few of their successes. They may well have been the High School team of the 90's, with all due respect to Lexington Nichols and Lehotsky. Kamal enrolled at Emory University with high expectations for his college career, and he got off to a quick start, debating with another Louisiana High School superstar, Stephen Bailey. As first year debaters, Kamal and Stephen had an excellent campaign, clearing at numerous major national tournaments, such as Wake Forest, and closing out Novice Nationals with another Emory team (a prelude of things to come). Kamal and Stephen took their game to the next level as sophmores, having a sophmore campaign rivalled by few in the history of collegiate debate. The sophmore spewers won a litany of tournaments, including Wake Forest, The Cap Cities, and the Redlands RR, to name but a few of their accomplishments. At the NDT, Kamal joined an elite club - sophmores who have reached the final round of the NDT. Although there was no fairy tale ending for Emory in the 1999 NDT, the year cannot be looked upon as anything other than an unbridled success. As a junior, Kamal continued his pattern of dominance, only exiting in the Octafinals once at a major tournament, and consistently reaching the deep elims at nearly every tournament he attended. As he perfected the art of the cheap shot, he expanded his arsenal to include the process counterplan, the two card K, and the hidden disadvantage on the case. He culminated the year with an outstanding performance at the NDT, meeting his mentor, Jon Paul Lupo, from Emory in the semifinals. As Kamal enters the final year of his storied career, many questions abound. Will he once again be reunited with Stephen Bailey? Will he win the Cap City for the third time? Will he ever stop running two card K's? These questions, however, ignore the larger answer that lurks. No matter what happens to this brave warrior, this Syrian Spewer, this big haired bomber, master of disaster, he has already accomplished what most only dream of. He has already established himself as one of the truly great debaters in recent college history. Should Bailey/Ghali terrorize the tournament scene next year, they will surely be viewed by many as the favorites to win it all, but even if they don't, their legacy will not be harmed - this monster from the Louisiana swampland will be remembered as a fantastic college debater. . >From Wed May 3 12:55:33 2000 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 44073 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 3 May 2000 13:58:24 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from probemail.com ([209.149.123.15]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA28708 for ; Wed, 3 May 2000 13:58:19 -0400 Received: from probemail.com [209.149.123.9] by probemail.com (SMTPD32-6.00) id A7AFEA40182; Wed, 03 May 2000 12:53:51 -0500 Message-ID: <39106815.117.0 at probemail.com> Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 12:55:33 -600 Reply-To: ending at probemail.com To: Team Topic Debating in America From: "Michael Roston(the eminently practical)" Subject: kamal's krap, monick's mouth, rollin's response Rollins quotes and writes: >>>> >>"not too many people >>have the time or inclination to wade through the post-colonial >>writers like bhabha or spivak, and speaking as someone who >>has, frankly large chunks of their theories are just >>incoherent or too wordy.. " in short, in your mind debates where we don't have to learn the literature of the postcolonial academics is preferred to those where we truly have to make an attempt to engage in acadmeic discussions. >>>> I think Aaron has a damn good point that you should not dismiss so readily. While a lot of these post-colonial authors have some really deep, meaningful, and shatterlingly significant things to say, he's also not wrong in suggesting that a lot of their works tend to be overly complex and difficult to understand for a lot of people. It has been noted that some people composing argumentation based on really intense and complicated philosophy do not necessarily possess the best rhetorical skills in terms of basic writing capability. I remember one of my professors warning us that Walter Benjamin would make really profound statements and then fail to provide the kind of back-up needed to make them readily understandable to someone engaging a lot of the works for the first time. She provided similar warnings when we read Heidegger, and in both cases she was right. When I had a very post-colonial professor here in Singapore assign a bunch of Foucauldian-based readings to a class of mostly freshman with little background in these works(she came back to Southeast Asia after teaching grad students at NYU's urban studies program for a few years), they were completely confused and class discussion for that couple of weeks moved at a glacial pace. People around these ages are most of the debaters, aren't they? Age 18 through about 22, with some hangers on, being directed by grad students and profs for whom this kind of work is bread and butter. If we have some trouble understanding this stuff and sometimes feel like it isn't worth it to go into it too deeply, is it because we don't consider it important, or because we consider it to be something we need more time to slide into? I would also note that this complexity may not be entirely the authors' faults, but instead the result of translations which are not the most excellent; the translators while having a fantastic grasp of the complex thoughts behind the philosophy of the post-colonial author may not be the best at establishing an efficient French-to-English, German-to-English, etc., matrix, and as a consequence, certain ideas that are much better understood in French thinking, in Arabic thinking, etc., will be far more difficult to understand. I remember reading about linguists who theorized that the thought process behind the French language is fundamentally different from that of English. I'm not sure in what ways because I'm not a linguist. But it creates certain problems for many people engaging that very complex thinking as it may be at the pinnacle of intellectual excellence in another language, and translating it into the pinnacle of intellectual excellence in English is complicated. Consider for instance: who do you find easier to read, Said, or say Foucault? Both have presented ideas that are fundamentally important to modern academic studies of colonialism and post-colonialism, but for our English-educated and speaking backgrounds, Said is far more accessible primarily because his writing is conceived in an English-language thought process. It's not saying that any author's thinking is not worth understanding, but that their writing instead has a tendency to make that thinking more than a little bit difficult to grasp. And that this needs to be recognized by a community which desires to constantly integrate these works into our means of debating. It's not so easy as the thought processes of some of these thinkers are a frequently highly complex in another langauge, and making that translation into English is even more complicated. >>>>> think about this the next time you have to justify debate as a cocurricular activity to the dean of liberal arts. "we get on lexis and use the shallowest of academic sources to prove our points--post-colonial literture? on an africa topic? no, that's too hard and time consuming...and incoherent...besides, what does that have to do with african politics? or better yet, the US's hegemonic stance towards african nations? we already know the effects of that...blah, blah, blah, how research is constructed, how questions are framed...how we are interpellated as subject...whatever that means... and besides, what we don't know is too difficult for us to take the time to understand... >>>> you're making one assumption of what debate is about Joel, and not all deans may agree with you, especially when the debate programs they are supporting may not be found in a communication studies tradition(and ever more sometimes when they are founded in some c. studies traditions). I could take this back at you, and suggest that if you invited an administrator to hear a debate about peacekeeping in Africa, they are expecting to hear a debate about whether or not it's a good idea to commit troops to a region that is heavily wrapped up in conflict. Instead if they hear nine minutes about why PKOs will stop a new genocide in Burundi, and then nine minutes from the negative going on about why the United States' hegemonic system of foreign policy is philosophically illegitimate, they may be immensely confused, just as if they heard a plan-inclusive counterplan and an obscure net benefit, they might be equally confused. My suggestion is that people championing kritikal debating may be as much a part of the problem as people suggesting the min-max style of geopolitical disadvantage debating. I mean, what do you tell your administrators who have oversight on your budget: Texas spent the year debating about why our debaters as individuals should disengage their thinking from state-centeredness, or Texas spent the year debating about lifting economic embargoes on nations' considered rogues by the American foreign policy institution? If you can say the former, you have some tolerant and experimental supporters. I think a lot of other debate programs do not, and that kritikal thinking is just as likely to persuade them that policy debating is too weird and arcane and that it would be better to throw their support behind the upstart parliamentary team on campus that hosts biweekly public debates on campus on whether or not we should use child labor, whether or not we should legalize marijuana, etc.. Neither the kritikal debate model nor the PIC/geopolitics model is necessarily what our administrators want to hear, and I think you a do a disservice to Monick's reasonable argument when you suggest that kritikal debating is capable of stepping above this fray. all the best... Michael Roston -it seems to me that when I close my eyes all the lights in the world go out "~Eit will be the Wild West. You can't, for example, exploit child labor because you want to buy your shoes for $10 all your life and you don't know or care where they're made, and at the same time give to charity -- to Amnesty International or to some starving children's foundation in the Far East. I think this way of being should be over. We should buy our shoes for $25, and instead of buying three pairs we buy one pair -- better made, more consciously made. The problem is not to produce more and to consume more, but to produce better and consume better." -Oliviero Toscani ProbeMail / http://www.probemail.com From monte Wed May 3 13:13:58 2000 From: monte (Frank L Stevens) Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 13:13:58 -0500 Subject: SIU Troubles Message-ID: I saw on CNN last night that the governor of illinois was hit in the face with a pie after giving a speech in Carbondale. Was this done by Klemz and the dramatic protesters? Monte Stevens Kansas State University From hansonjb Wed May 3 13:24:46 2000 From: hansonjb (Jim Hanson) Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 11:24:46 -0700 Subject: matt and liana have #3 Message-ID: i just couldn't help announcing that matt and liana keoppel-taylor just had their third baby. matt wrote me that: Liana had the baby at 1:11 am today. She and the baby are doing great. The baby was a girl and we named her Abby Marie Taylor. They will both be home tomorrow. congrats to this forensic duo! jim hanson whitman From swhalen Wed May 3 13:25:19 2000 From: swhalen (Shawn T Whalen) Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 11:25:19 -0700 Subject: SIU Troubles In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Apparently Jason Jarvis doesn't need to be in town long before making an impression... Shawn Whalen Director of Forensics San Francisco State University swhalen at sfsu.edu (415) 338-1097 On Wed, 3 May 2000, Frank L Stevens wrote: > I saw on CNN last night that the governor of illinois was hit in the face > with a pie after giving a speech in Carbondale. Was this done by Klemz > and the dramatic protesters? > > Monte Stevens > Kansas State University > From d.breshears Wed May 3 12:22:18 2000 From: d.breshears (David Breshears) Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 13:22:18 -0400 Subject: matt and liana have #3 Message-ID: congrats to matt and liana. do you think the circuit will be able to handle another AMT? dave -----Original Message----- From: Jim Hanson To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU Date: Wednesday, May 03, 2000 2:24 PM Subject: matt and liana have #3 >i just couldn't help announcing that matt and liana keoppel-taylor just had >their third baby. matt wrote me that: > >Liana had the baby at 1:11 am today. She and the baby are doing >great. The baby was a girl and we named her Abby Marie Taylor. They will >both be home tomorrow. > >congrats to this forensic duo! > >jim hanson >whitman From mabouzai Wed May 3 12:54:24 2000 From: mabouzai (Mohammed Abouzaid) Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 13:54:24 -0400 Subject: kamal's krap, monick's mouth, rollin's response Message-ID: >Consider for instance: who do you find easier to read, Said, or say Foucault? Both have >presented ideas that are fundamentally important to modern academic studies of colonialism >and post-colonialism, but for our English-educated and speaking backgrounds, Said is far >more accessible primarily because his writing is conceived in an English-language thought >process. The comparison is flawed. I have read foucault in both french and english, and while the first is certainly much more of a pleasure to read, it is not particularly easier (except that i'm better at reading french). Some of said's stuff about foucault (late 70's early 80's stuff. i can't remember the titles) is just as "hard" as reading foucault. I think the reason said seems easier is because most of what we are used to in debate ("Orientalism", "Culture and Imperialism" is directed towards a large public). Compare foucault and spanos, and then we can talk about which is easier to read. i think it would do us much good to actually spend an entire debate season just dicussion postcolonial studies. i can guarantee you there is enough breath/depth of argument for an entire debate year, and some of it can be related to policy in a very novel and productive way. Sure most of our backfiles will be useless, but we'll gain more from it than from a year of mindless repetition of old arguments. mohammed abouzaid From L_Phillips Wed May 3 13:57:30 2000 From: L_Phillips (Leslie Phillips - Lexington High School) Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 14:57:30 -0400 Subject: DCA Debater #3 Kamal Ghali In-Reply-To: <3878737768.957361477@pm460-11.dialip.mich.net> Message-ID: message removed From ehrlenmeyerflask Wed May 3 13:40:57 2000 From: ehrlenmeyerflask (Aaron Klemz) Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 13:40:57 CDT Subject: Klemz is out Message-ID: Hey y'all - I signed off this morning, after dicovering 6,000 messages in my mailbox in a fight over whether it is okay to make fun of Lupo's buttocks. It was pretty much the last straw, but it was a good example of how tedious and ridiculous this list's traffic has become. But I'm not writing this to complain about it, I ALREADY UNSUBSCRIBED! Just some quick goodbyes: 1) To the community: If you only knew the power you had to make real changes in your communities. Sure, we need politicians and lawyers (well, maybe we really don't) but just because debate has been about national policy making for last 4 years does not mean that other political work is less relevant or important. Take the time to find out what is affecting your local community and take action! 2) To my friends: There are too many to mention them all, so I won't try. You made this activity rewarding for me. If I had to rely on "objective" measures of success to justify my decade long involvement in debate I would be forced to admit I am a miserable failure. But that's not what it's all about. You taught me that. 3) To my teammates and colleagues at SIU: I am so proud. We fought the good fight for years despite all the problems, conflicts and difficulties. You are my closest friends and allies, and I want you to know I would have quit years ago if it hadn't been for you. I will complete my Master's degree this summer, and I'm staying in Carbondale for another year, trying to get some work done with my writing and trying to help the residents of Murphysboro, Illinois deal with the EPA in trying to acheive a quick and safe cleanup of a Superfund site in a residential neighborhood. I owe my ability to do both to debate and the lessons I learned there. The debate community has its problems, but I love it. I hope that people realize that these problems are growing still . . . never stopping agitating for change! In solidarity, Aaron Klemz - Southern Illinois University Contact: ehrlenmeyerflask at hotmail.com 618-549-9971 705 W. College St. Carbondale, IL 62901 ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From rag241 Wed May 3 13:58:20 2000 From: rag241 (Ricky Garner) Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 14:58:20 -0400 Subject: kamal's krap, monick's mouth, rollin's response References: <200005031833.OAA17906@is9.nyu.edu> Message-ID: i like Mohammed's idea: resolved: post-colional relations throughout africa should be substantially changed ricky garner NYU Debate >From Wed May 3 15:09:15 2000 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 45660 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 3 May 2000 15:10:47 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo11.mx.aol.com (imo11.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.1]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA23196 for ; Wed, 3 May 2000 15:10:42 -0400 Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo11.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v26.7.) id n.3f.44415cd (9677) for ; Wed, 3 May 2000 15:09:16 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 105 Message-ID: <3f.44415cd.2641d35b at aol.com> Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 15:09:15 EDT Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Michael Bear Bryant Subject: Re: DCA Debater #3 Kamal Ghali In a message dated 5/3/00 12:48:56 PM Mountain Daylight Time, L_Phillips at SCH.CI.LEXINGTON.MA.US writes: > This is precisely the sort of crap that makes these silly ranking/rating > games so irritating. > > Kamal and Andy were, and are, brilliant debaters. They were a wonderful > team. They're my friends, and I take pride in knowing them. Steve and > Matt were brilliant debaters; they were a wonderful team. I love and > admire them, and coaching and assisting in their careers is, of course, > something I am very proud of. > > There is simply no particular reason to decide, or try to decide, that one > or the other of those teams (for instance) was better or worse than the > other. I don't know whether Kamal, Andy, Steve or Matt care about that > especially, but I hope not; I sure don't. There are all kinds of terrific > debaters who should be honored, studied, modeled, talked about. > Additionally they (and all other good debaters) are different enough that > points of comparison are probably ultimately futile, and certainly > exceptionally subjective. > > I just don't see the point; never have. > > > > Les Phillips No, great point, but it is fascinating to see how many of NDT's top debaters went to the few high schools with the resources to have national travel budgets, attend the most expensive of institutes, and have been debating with and against each other for years. Creator of the "elite" conspiracy myth, Bear >From Wed May 3 12:22:41 2000 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 45865 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 3 May 2000 15:23:21 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from mailcity.com (fes-qout.whowhere.com [209.1.236.7]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA37380 for ; Wed, 3 May 2000 15:23:20 -0400 Received: from Unknown/Local ([?.?.?.?]) by mailcity.com; Wed May 3 12:22:41 2000 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sent-Mail: off X-Mailer: MailCity Service X-Sender-Ip: 204.28.140.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Language: en Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 12:22:41 -0700 Reply-To: chwastyk at mailcity.com To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Devin Chwastyk Organization: MailCity (http://www.mailcity.lycos.com:80) Subject: Re: kamal's krap, monick's mouth, rollin's response Ricky Garner writes >i like Mohammed's idea: > >resolved: post-colional relations throughout >africa should be substantially >changed How about- resolved: the usfg should pass a policy toward africa that will increase or decrease the president's political capital. C'mon! It's bidirectional so there's plenty of ground for everybody! And the lit is plenty deep! Or does it seem silly to frame a topic catering just to one form of argument? Drat. Devin ''In too much of our political dialogue,'' Kennedy declared in May 1968, '' 'liberals' have been those who wanted to spend more money, while 'conservatives' have been those who wanted to pretend that all problems should solve themselves. . . . What we do need . . . and what 1968 must bring, is a better liberalism and a better conservatism. We need a liberalism, in its wish to do good, that yet recognizes the limits to rhetoric and American power abroad; that knows the answer to all problems is not spending money. . . . We need a conservatism, in its wish to preserve the enduring values of the American society, that yet recognizes the urgent need to bring opportunity to all citizens, that is willing to take action to meet the needs of the future.'' Get your FREE Email at http://mailcity.lycos.com Get your PERSONALIZED START PAGE at http://my.lycos.com From woodss Wed May 3 14:30:01 2000 From: woodss (Woods, Steve) Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 14:30:01 -0500 Subject: Africa topic discussion potpurri Message-ID: Hey all, As I conscioulsy avoid doing some grading here, or rather shall I generously put it, taking a break, I want to thank those carrying on the discussion of the topic area. There appear to be several themes I would like to add comment to. In some ways they are interconnected. Country list/ or not: What is interesting here is the clash of ideology and pedagogy. Ideologically the main concern seems to be, in my understanding, do we concsiously frame a resolution which we know violates important frameworks of understanding by naming nation states. Pedagogically the question is based in a discussion of limits. I have a few preliminary thoughts on this. 1.) Hurrah the victory of the critique/kritik. To the extent that such matters of framing are considered central to a framing of a community and public discussion issue I believe shows the power of the ideas contained within them. Do you think 10, or maybe even 5 years ago that the problematic nature of the nation state and the connection of human persons to one another internationally would have been serioulsy considered as issues in framing an intercollegiate resolution? I personally see this as progress. It is indeed a complication though in constructing a resolution wherein most of the accessible literature, and likely many of the solvency advocates, are operating in a nation state and goverment to government world. 2.) Framing this years reolution will be difficult, as most of the discussion has centered on the how wrong things are now. I can't remember exaclty who, but I'll attribute Jordan Mills, did a paper on the ideological backgrounds of critics and resolution bias. Essentially my understanding of the conclusion was that the ideology of most critics was not supportive of the status quo array of affairs, which led to affirmatives having the advantage. While it is true that the critique/kritik argument may be able to re-cast the affirmative as being in alliance with the status quo in its frameworks or intellecutal assumptions, I do think there is a problem creating a resolution with ample and clear negative ground. 3.) Many non USFG reolutions may not be policy oriented. What does this imply for traditional NDT schools? What are the ramifications of a majority of the community selecting a non-policy resolution, and come announcement date in August, the NDT schools having to come up with a resolution process to create a policy topic? I am unclear of the exact nature of the agreement to use a CEDA generated topic, but it was my understanding that selection of a non-policy topic meant non acceptance by NDT subscribers. I don't have an agenda or bias here, it just is an interesting thought to consider. I doubt it will arise as my guess is that the resolution will emerge with a USFG actor and a country list framed as a policy action. Why do I think that such a resolution will emerge? Will pedagogy outweigh ideology? Will practicality overcome idealism? well, yes. But not a mean spirited yes. 1.) the desire to limit will be strongly voiced and it will have sway over the representatives on the topic committee. There is some logic behind it (granted, not the logic of some critiques), and it has been convention recently 2.) the most accessible literature base presumes a nation state and government to governemtn order. As the topic committee sends its phrases through lexis nexis for a literature check, it will come back from that traditionally biased and largely conservative data base confirming only the existing order. Not the topic committees fault, but it will be a fair assumption to think that others will be limited to this as well. At Jewell, we essentially have a "virtual" library. Our main collections are electronically available, not present n hard copy. Even if we had a better collection overall, my guess is that the bias in the foreign policy/international relations literature is state/government biased. 3.) It will be argued that the critique/kritik becomes negative ground then. By embracing the ideas of the critique/kritik in the resoultion all we end up doing is reversing the presumption. Now the negative argues against the critique/kritik mindset or attempts to "out-crtique" it by going further to the left/right/post or whatever relevant direction for the discussion given. This has been a great discussion, and as the wording papers become available I hope that many persons end up contributing to the discussion on the road to St. Louie. Steve Steve Woods, PhD Assistant Professor Communication, Director of Debate William Jewell College,Liberty, MO 64068 816.781.7700 x. 5478 From hotrats Wed May 3 14:40:14 2000 From: hotrats (david arnett) Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 12:40:14 PDT Subject: DCA Debater #3 Kamal Ghali Message-ID: Are you kidding. We have to rank. How else can we build our debate fantasy league. I've gotta Steve Donald rookie card I'm looking to trade. Whata folks willing to give me? >From: Leslie Phillips - Lexington High School > >Reply-To: Leslie Phillips - Lexington High School > >To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU >Subject: Re: DCA Debater #3 Kamal Ghali >Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 14:57:30 -0400 > >Ryan Sparacino wrote: > > > As a senior in high school, Kamal > >debated with a young pup named Andy "Baxter" Ryan. Kamal and Andy had >one > >of the finest high school seasons in recent times, winning the >Glenbrooks, > >Emory, and the Tournament of Champions, to name but a few of their > >successes. They may well have been the High School team of the 90's, >with > >all due respect to Lexington Nichols and Lehotsky. > >This is precisely the sort of crap that makes these silly ranking/rating >games so irritating. > >Kamal and Andy were, and are, brilliant debaters. They were a wonderful >team. They're my friends, and I take pride in knowing them. Steve and >Matt were brilliant debaters; they were a wonderful team. I love and >admire them, and coaching and assisting in their careers is, of course, >something I am very proud of. > >There is simply no particular reason to decide, or try to decide, that one >or the other of those teams (for instance) was better or worse than the >other. I don't know whether Kamal, Andy, Steve or Matt care about that >especially, but I hope not; I sure don't. There are all kinds of terrific >debaters who should be honored, studied, modeled, talked about. >Additionally they (and all other good debaters) are different enough that >points of comparison are probably ultimately futile, and certainly >exceptionally subjective. > >I just don't see the point; never have. > > > >Les Phillips >Lexington High School ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From rag241 Wed May 3 14:46:58 2000 From: rag241 (Ricky Garner) Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 15:46:58 -0400 Subject: kamal's krap, monick's mouth, rollin's response References: <200005031923.PAA09216@is9.nyu.edu> Message-ID: s/he says (sorry, but i don't believe we know each other personally...): --------------------------------------------------------------------- How about- resolved: the usfg should pass a policy toward africa that will increase or decrease the president's political capital. C'mon! It's bidirectional so there's plenty of ground for everybody! And the lit is plenty deep! Or does it seem silly to frame a topic catering just to one form of argument? Drat. Devin -------------------------------------------------------------------------- yes!!! like the title 7 topic or the presidential powers topic, or CONSTRUCTIVE ENGAGEMENT.... as Breshears' posts elucidate, I believe, there really is plenty of literature for such a topic; you could run feminism, post-colonialism, development, ecology, militarism, trade, aid, and reparations cases (ad hoc genus omne)... we'd just have to word the resolution so the action would have to be big... but it'll never happen, so i'm going to go sulk, and quit posting, and go do homework... and also, post-colonialism is an area of literature which is extremely germane to africa, considering where coloinalism originated (i.e.- africa, asia, latin america...) ricky garner NYU debate ps- i wasn't serious about the original post, but anyway... From d.breshears Wed May 3 13:45:23 2000 From: d.breshears (David Breshears) Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 14:45:23 -0400 Subject: DCA Debater #3 Kamal Ghali Message-ID: I've got a Stephen Stetson rookie card in a Kentucky uniform, and a rare Jon Sharp scratch-n-sniff All Star card. But it'll cost ya.... Pete Rose -----Original Message----- From: david arnett To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU Date: Wednesday, May 03, 2000 3:40 PM Subject: Re: DCA Debater #3 Kamal Ghali >Are you kidding. We have to rank. How else can we build our debate fantasy >league. I've gotta Steve Donald rookie card I'm looking to trade. Whata >folks willing to give me? > > > >>From: Leslie Phillips - Lexington High School >> >>Reply-To: Leslie Phillips - Lexington High School >> >>To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU >>Subject: Re: DCA Debater #3 Kamal Ghali >>Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 14:57:30 -0400 >> >>Ryan Sparacino wrote: >> >> > As a senior in high school, Kamal >> >debated with a young pup named Andy "Baxter" Ryan. Kamal and Andy had >>one >> >of the finest high school seasons in recent times, winning the >>Glenbrooks, >> >Emory, and the Tournament of Champions, to name but a few of their >> >successes. They may well have been the High School team of the 90's, >>with >> >all due respect to Lexington Nichols and Lehotsky. >> >>This is precisely the sort of crap that makes these silly ranking/rating >>games so irritating. >> >>Kamal and Andy were, and are, brilliant debaters. They were a wonderful >>team. They're my friends, and I take pride in knowing them. Steve and >>Matt were brilliant debaters; they were a wonderful team. I love and >>admire them, and coaching and assisting in their careers is, of course, >>something I am very proud of. >> >>There is simply no particular reason to decide, or try to decide, that one >>or the other of those teams (for instance) was better or worse than the >>other. I don't know whether Kamal, Andy, Steve or Matt care about that >>especially, but I hope not; I sure don't. There are all kinds of terrific >>debaters who should be honored, studied, modeled, talked about. >>Additionally they (and all other good debaters) are different enough that >>points of comparison are probably ultimately futile, and certainly >>exceptionally subjective. >> >>I just don't see the point; never have. >> >> >> >>Les Phillips >>Lexington High School > >________________________________________________________________________ >Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From Michelin.Massey Wed May 3 14:53:54 2000 From: Michelin.Massey (Michelin Christopher Massey) Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 13:53:54 -0600 Subject: what kind of condition is it in? In-Reply-To: <20000503194015.98665.qmail@hotmail.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 3 May 2000, david arnett wrote: > Are you kidding. We have to rank. How else can we build our debate fantasy > league. I've gotta Steve Donald rookie card I'm looking to trade. Whata > folks willing to give me? well, see...that all depends. i have a matt stannard rookie card (the only version printed because he debated only one year) and a john meany rookie card - both are in above average condition (the stannard card is near mint). in addition to that, i have several types of cards that you may be interested in... it all depends if steve wins the competition for dca debater of the year or not. as an aside: i think that jason's work with the dca has been well-intentioned and he has done all he can to try to provide some peer recognition to outstanding debaters. he's also been extremely gracious in trying to recognize the importance of particular concerns that are issued in response to various dca controversies. i also agree with les - there are many debaters who ought to be celebrated - that's why there were so many categories. anyway, here's to civility on edebate! michelin massey. From ifjxh Wed May 3 14:55:35 2000 From: ifjxh (Joshua Hoe) Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 12:55:35 PDT Subject: DCA Debater #3 Kamal Ghali Message-ID: For novelty I have a Greg Achten rookie including combat boots and shaved head...And I bet Gossett might have a J.Hoe rookie with Mohawk :) Josh >From: David Breshears >Reply-To: David Breshears >To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU >Subject: Re: DCA Debater #3 Kamal Ghali >Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 14:45:23 -0400 > >I've got a Stephen Stetson rookie card in a Kentucky uniform, and a rare >Jon >Sharp scratch-n-sniff All Star card. But it'll cost ya.... > >Pete Rose >-----Original Message----- >From: david arnett >To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU >Date: Wednesday, May 03, 2000 3:40 PM >Subject: Re: DCA Debater #3 Kamal Ghali > > > >Are you kidding. We have to rank. How else can we build our debate >fantasy > >league. I've gotta Steve Donald rookie card I'm looking to trade. Whata > >folks willing to give me? > > > > > > > >>From: Leslie Phillips - Lexington High School > >> > >>Reply-To: Leslie Phillips - Lexington High School > >> > >>To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU > >>Subject: Re: DCA Debater #3 Kamal Ghali > >>Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 14:57:30 -0400 > >> > >>Ryan Sparacino wrote: > >> > >> > As a senior in high school, Kamal > >> >debated with a young pup named Andy "Baxter" Ryan. Kamal and Andy had > >>one > >> >of the finest high school seasons in recent times, winning the > >>Glenbrooks, > >> >Emory, and the Tournament of Champions, to name but a few of their > >> >successes. They may well have been the High School team of the 90's, > >>with > >> >all due respect to Lexington Nichols and Lehotsky. > >> > >>This is precisely the sort of crap that makes these silly ranking/rating > >>games so irritating. > >> > >>Kamal and Andy were, and are, brilliant debaters. They were a wonderful > >>team. They're my friends, and I take pride in knowing them. Steve and > >>Matt were brilliant debaters; they were a wonderful team. I love and > >>admire them, and coaching and assisting in their careers is, of course, > >>something I am very proud of. > >> > >>There is simply no particular reason to decide, or try to decide, that >one > >>or the other of those teams (for instance) was better or worse than the > >>other. I don't know whether Kamal, Andy, Steve or Matt care about that > >>especially, but I hope not; I sure don't. There are all kinds of >terrific > >>debaters who should be honored, studied, modeled, talked about. > >>Additionally they (and all other good debaters) are different enough >that > >>points of comparison are probably ultimately futile, and certainly > >>exceptionally subjective. > >> > >>I just don't see the point; never have. > >> > >> > >> > >>Les Phillips > >>Lexington High School > > > >________________________________________________________________________ > >Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com >From Wed May 3 12:57:41 2000 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 46905 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 3 May 2000 15:57:59 -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 PAA32272 for ; Wed, 3 May 2000 15:57:52 -0400 Received: from general3.asu.edu (general3.asu.edu [129.219.10.157]) by asu.edu (PMDF V5.2-31 #33824) with ESMTP id <0FU000JL52472S at asu.edu> for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 3 May 2000 12:57:43 -0700 (MST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by general3.asu.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id MAA28755; Wed, 03 May 2000 12:57:42 -0700 (MST) X-Sender: mysore at general3.asu.edu MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Message-ID: Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 12:57:41 -0700 Reply-To: Jason.Jarvis at ASU.EDU To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Jason Jarvis Subject: Re: SIU Troubles Comments: To: Shawn T Whalen In-Reply-To: ??What?? Perhaps you have me confused with Todd Graham, another ASU coach heading to take that job. ...actually, I just have really good aim and an arm strong enough...never mind. jj On Wed, 3 May 2000, Shawn T Whalen wrote: > Apparently Jason Jarvis doesn't need to be in town long before making an > impression... > > Shawn Whalen > > Director of Forensics > San Francisco State University > swhalen at sfsu.edu > (415) 338-1097 > > On Wed, 3 May 2000, Frank L Stevens wrote: > > > I saw on CNN last night that the governor of illinois was hit in the face > > with a pie after giving a speech in Carbondale. Was this done by Klemz > > and the dramatic protesters? > > > > Monte Stevens > > Kansas State University > > > From dennis Wed May 3 15:02:05 2000 From: dennis (doug dennis) Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 15:02:05 -0500 Subject: DCA Debater #3 Kamal Ghali In-Reply-To: <20000503194015.98665.qmail@hotmail.com> Message-ID: is that the uco card with his chad hill stats? knowing the old school doug On Wed, 3 May 2000, david arnett wrote: > Are you kidding. We have to rank. How else can we build our debate fantasy > league. I've gotta Steve Donald rookie card I'm looking to trade. Whata > folks willing to give me? > > > > >From: Leslie Phillips - Lexington High School > > > >Reply-To: Leslie Phillips - Lexington High School > > > >To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU > >Subject: Re: DCA Debater #3 Kamal Ghali > >Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 14:57:30 -0400 > > > >Ryan Sparacino wrote: > > > > > As a senior in high school, Kamal > > >debated with a young pup named Andy "Baxter" Ryan. Kamal and Andy had > >one > > >of the finest high school seasons in recent times, winning the > >Glenbrooks, > > >Emory, and the Tournament of Champions, to name but a few of their > > >successes. They may well have been the High School team of the 90's, > >with > > >all due respect to Lexington Nichols and Lehotsky. > > > >This is precisely the sort of crap that makes these silly ranking/rating > >games so irritating. > > > >Kamal and Andy were, and are, brilliant debaters. They were a wonderful > >team. They're my friends, and I take pride in knowing them. Steve and > >Matt were brilliant debaters; they were a wonderful team. I love and > >admire them, and coaching and assisting in their careers is, of course, > >something I am very proud of. > > > >There is simply no particular reason to decide, or try to decide, that one > >or the other of those teams (for instance) was better or worse than the > >other. I don't know whether Kamal, Andy, Steve or Matt care about that > >especially, but I hope not; I sure don't. There are all kinds of terrific > >debaters who should be honored, studied, modeled, talked about. > >Additionally they (and all other good debaters) are different enough that > >points of comparison are probably ultimately futile, and certainly > >exceptionally subjective. > > > >I just don't see the point; never have. > > > > > > > >Les Phillips > >Lexington High School > > ________________________________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com > From abryan Wed May 3 15:05:21 2000 From: abryan (a. ryan) Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 15:05:21 -0500 Subject: DCA Debater #3 Kamal Ghali In-Reply-To: <3f.44415cd.2641d35b@aol.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 3 May 2000, Michael Bear Bryant wrote: > No, great point, but it is fascinating to see how many of NDT's top debaters > went to the few high schools with the resources to have national travel > budgets, attend the most expensive of institutes, and have been debating with > and against each other for years. > > Creator of the "elite" conspiracy myth, > > Bear You know, I shouldn't get into this again. I have finals and I don't want to be another transfer student (and Breshears, if you're reading this, I'll trade my Kristin Langwell/Andy Ryan in Wake team jerseys Triple-A cards for your Stephen Stetson and a Judd Renken). But I just want to take a few minutes and be really fucking pissed off, if I could. We've talked a lot about how debate, especially so-called elite debate, is classist. It takes a lot of money to debate. Bear falsely assumes that I was one of those people with a lot of cash that went to a school with a lot of cash that travelled everywhere with money just falling out of my pockets. A few points: (1) Caddo Magnet High School is a public school in an underfunded public school district. The school receives under $2,000 a year (last time I checked) for a team of policy, LD, and IE's that numbers well over 50 students. All participants in debate at Caddo Magnet were required to pay for either a portion of or all of the costs of attending a tournament. (2) Caddo Magnet High School requires every student to take a test to get into the school. This means the school is open to everyone in Northern Louisiana, which is from Shreveport (where the school is located) to the edge of Texas or Oil City (which is almost an hour away). This is not a school you get to attend because your parents paid a lot of money to live in a certain neighborhood. This is a school you attend on your merit. (3) I entirely resent with every facet of my personality the insinuation that our school was elitist and Kamal and I are a bunch of secret handshaking assholes. Why don't you tell my elite mother who had to work for my father when he lost his job because he couldn't afford staff and whose salary went entirely to my debating that she is an elitist? No, sir, she is a hardworking woman who worked her ass off to allow her son to participate in an activity he dearly loved. It fucking enrages me to no end that you would make an assumption like this. I'm not poor my any means and I acknowledge that there is a lot of privilege that runs through my life. But don't ever assume that it was easy (for me or my family) to do any of this just because we went to a magical school that was successful. It was an honor to debate with Kamal at Caddo Magnet and I regard it as one of the best times of my life. But it wasn't shoved in my mouth with a silver spoon at birth. Andy Ryan From TomDeGar Wed May 3 15:08:08 2000 From: TomDeGar (Tom DeGarlais) Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 14:08:08 -0600 Subject: what kind of condition is it in? References: Message-ID: Hate to burst anyone's bubble...but Matt debated in NDT (before the alliance) in 1986-7 with me. This was long before he debated with another partner of mine...the puppster (Korry Harvey). You only think u have his rookie card...I hold the only original...is it really worth anything? Tom DeGarlais > On Wed, 3 May 2000, david arnett wrote: > > > well, see...that all depends. i have a matt stannard rookie card (the > only version printed because he debated only one year) and a john meany > rookie card - both are in above average condition (the stannard card is > near mint). in addition to that, i have several types of cards that you > may be interested in... it all depends if steve wins the competition for > dca debater of the year or not. > > > . From stannardmatt Wed May 3 15:17:39 2000 From: stannardmatt (matt stannard) Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 14:17:39 MDT Subject: what kind of condition is it in? Message-ID: Michelin says: i have a matt stannard rookie card (the >only version printed because he debated only one year) and a john meany >rookie card - both are in above average condition (the stannard card is >near mint). No--only one SUCCESSFUL year (my senior year) which followed SEVERAL weak years. Wondering what the Sharpe scratch and sniff card actually smells like... stannard ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com >From Wed May 3 15:32:14 2000 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 47523 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 3 May 2000 16:33:08 -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 QAA37466 for ; Wed, 3 May 2000 16:33:07 -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 PAA34536 for ; Wed, 3 May 2000 15:32:16 -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 PAA39122 for ; Wed, 3 May 2000 15:32:14 -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: <200005032032.PAA39122 at saluki-mail.siu.edu> Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 15:32:14 -0500 Reply-To: slusher at SIU.EDU To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Eric Slusher Subject: Re: SIU Troubles At 01:13 PM 5/3/00 -0500, you wrote: >I saw on CNN last night that the governor of illinois was hit in the face >with a pie after giving a speech in Carbondale. Was this done by Klemz >and the dramatic protesters? Yeah, and Klemz is now in jail. please direct all letters of support to; Prisoner #011791 c/o Jackson Co. Illinois Detention Facility Murphysboro, IL All cash contributions for the Klemz defense fund may be forwarded directly to me. slusher From veronicabarreto Wed May 3 17:27:24 2000 From: veronicabarreto (Veronica Barreto) Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 18:27:24 -0400 Subject: interpellation (sp)? Message-ID: I'm going to try my very hardest to speak in English, which is hard because the word interpellation is rarely found in that language. Here's the dealio as I see it. Interpellation is the process by which a subject internalizes a hailing (I know I'm not living up to my promise above). So what's a hailing? -- basically it's a message e.g. girls can't play sports as well as boys. When Althusser discusses it he talks about two things: RSA's (regulatory state apparatusses) and ISA's (ideological state apparatusses) these are things like the education system, the health care system, government, police, and other institutionalized social forces. My pal, Louis, says that these old chums put out hailings, those messages I was talking about, and we, as subjects, interpellate them. Here we come back to the question of what is interpellation and here's where critical theorists disagree. Althusser thinks that we have no choice; these messages infiltrate our psyches and we can't really prevent that. John Fiske, on the other hand, says that we can actively resist and we don't have to respond to every hailing that comes cruisin' our way. But all use the word "interpellation" to denote the process by which those messages become part of our belief system. Just another word brought you by the post modern project to keep you up at night. I hope this helps. Any other questions...just ask. Veronica UMiami On Wed, 3 May 2000 09:54:21 -0600, Michelin Christopher Massey wrote: >what does it mean to be interpellated? > >michelin massey. > >ps: i don't ask this question sarcastically. i do not know what this word >means. please clarify. From victabak Wed May 3 17:38:49 2000 From: victabak (Victor Tabak) Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 15:38:49 -0700 Subject: First Annual DICTA Message-ID: Bear, Was it really necessary to respond to separate sections of this post with separate messages? There's enough bandwidth coming with every DCA posting resulting in a scandal that it would serve efficiency purposes for people who delete all but the occasional topic post (I'm not one of them, I read all of the scandalous DCA posts and responses and frequently laugh out loud). I know you'll probably point out that I'm wasting bandwidth by asking but I'm willing to risk it. Vic __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com/ From victabak Wed May 3 17:41:45 2000 From: victabak (Victor Tabak) Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 15:41:45 -0700 Subject: matt and liana have #3 Message-ID: HEY! There will never be another AMT. She's one of a kind. Uniqueness epitomized. :) Vic --- David Breshears wrote: > congrats to matt and liana. do you think the > circuit will be able to handle > another AMT? > > dave __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com/ >From Wed May 3 18:45:06 2000 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 48909 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 3 May 2000 18:45:48 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from pilot007.cl.msu.edu (pilot007.cl.msu.edu [35.9.5.107]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA19080 for ; Wed, 3 May 2000 18:45:24 -0400 Received: from smithori-3 (pm246-22.dialip.mich.net [35.9.9.87]) by pilot007.cl.msu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with SMTP id SAA64488 for ; Wed, 3 May 2000 18:45:14 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Message-ID: <200005032245.SAA64488 at pilot007.cl.msu.edu> Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 18:45:06 +0000 Reply-To: monickaa at pilot.msu.edu To: Team Topic Debating in America Comments: Authenticated sender is From: Aaron Monick Subject: Re: Kamal's Krap-ans monick > Date: Wed, 03 May 2000 09:31:02 +0000 > From: joel david rollins > Reply-to: jd.rollins at mail.utexas.edu > To: monickaa at pilot.msu.edu, "EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU" > Subject: Re: Kamal's Krap-ans monick > i'll keep this in mind the next time a 2ar refers to the "lennon" evidence without > including the warrants. but your argument IS that "this literature is too difficult" or > "too jargonesque" or "too pomo" for us to understand. i think you are backsliding > here-- look at what you argued-- > > "not too many people > > > have the time or inclination to wade through the post-colonial > > > writers like bhabha or spivak, and speaking as someone who has, > > > frankly large chunks of their theories are just incoherent or too > > > wordy.. " > > in short, in your mind debates where we don't have to learn the literature of the > postcolonial academics is preferred to those where we truly have to make an attempt to > engage in acadmeic discussions. think about this the next time you have to justify > debate as a cocurricular activity to the dean of liberal arts. "we get on lexis and use > the shallowest of academic sources to prove our points--post-colonial literture? on an > africa topic? no, that's too hard and time consuming...and incoherent...besides, what > does that have to do with african politics? or better yet, the US's hegemonic stance > towards african nations? we already know the effects of that...blah, blah, blah, how > research is constructed, how questions are framed...how we are interpellated as > subject...whatever that means... and besides, what we don't know is too difficult for us > to take the time to understand...hey you all in the policy sci department, have you seen > our coherent clinton DA? what do you think? marvelous isn't it? do you think we could > get it published? does it contain academic merit? what? you mean no one has ever even > made this argument in the policy literature? wow! we must be groundbreakers!" > > sorry, aaron, for the sarcasm here. but this line of argument really does get to me, and > i think that the party line that you tote out here takes debate in exactly the opposite > direction of where i think it is most fulfilling for those truly conerned about > competitive debate's place within the academy. > > > joel OK, ill get sucked into another EDEBATE post... more backsliding..:) My original post was not meant to discredit the use of kritiks in debate.. i've enjoyed the critique debates that i had as a debater, especially with those crazy texas folks.. as the DCA-appointed 'Buffy the Kritik Slayer' (or Sully's mouthpiece, if you prefer..:)) "wrong forum" was never the favored weapon in my arsenal.. my original post was more a friendly suggestion about topic discussion. if y'all don't want to debate a topic with the evil USFG as the actor, be subversive.. find an actor you like, and pretend like there's lots of disad links and pic ground. i know you'd rather talk about more interesting things, but you'll be more successful if we don't need a special Althusser Secret Decoder Ring (I left mine in the Crackerjack box) to understand you.. I do have my reservations about the concept of post-colonial 'theory', but that's neither here nor there.. I'm really not trying to silence the voices that K, if you will.. I'm really on your side. well, actually, i only post on edebate to make fun of folks i know.. I certainly get my share of rips in this forum, so i've got to fire back somehow..:) Celtic United Forever..! Potato-head.. > > Aaron Monick wrote: > > > that's an interesting argument.. i think my position is not that we > > should ignore the arguments and representations of postcolonial > > literature.. (it's kind of my major right now..:)) but that > > references to 'bhabha' and 'spivak' and to some of the postmodern > > buzzwords they throw around is counterproductive. i've always thought > > that the level of critical inquiry they've engaged in is valuable, > > but that its obscured by the fact that they often seem more > > interested in writing in the current style than actually > > communicating.. i think attempting to engage in 'critical' discussion > > without relying on name-dropping or terms like hegemony or whatever > > is in many ways more valuable because it forces us to find a more > > indepth knowledge of our beliefs and it allows us to communicate with > > those people who arent really interested in the fields.. > > just a thought.. > > btw.. how are things in austin? is school ending up well? > > aaron > > > > > Date: Tue, 02 May 2000 10:34:51 +0000 > > > From: joel david rollins > > > Reply-to: jd.rollins at mail.utexas.edu > > > To: monickaa at pilot.msu.edu, "EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU" > > > Subject: Re: Kamal's Krap > > > > > so is your argument that since we can't understand the literture we should > > > ignore it and only work in those narrow frames that we understand? or that we > > > continue to produce and reproduce oppressive politics because it is all that we > > > can do? aaron, i think that what you say below is the performance of the link > > > to many of the "post colonial" positions. > > > > > > joel > > > > > > Aaron Monick wrote: > > > > > > > > Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 02:46:53 -0400 > > > > > Reply-to: kevin kuswa > > > > > From: kevin kuswa > > > > > Subject: Re: Kamal's Krap > > > > > To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU > > > > > > > > > At 08:22 PM 4/30/00 -0400, Kamal wrote: > > > > > >The only thing I'd like to add to Parcher's post is an emphasis on the > > > > > >literature. > > > > > > > > > > Tell me about the literature on Africa, Kamal. Tell about your insights > > > > > into cultural studies and the ways race and colonialism intersected in > > > > > CLR James' and Fanon's work, spreading into the argument that the project > > > > > of the enlightenment cannot be disassociated from the racial terror of > > > > > the "Black Atlantic." Tell me about how redemptive violence appeared in > > > > > Stuart Hall's wrok and traversed Lacanian theory through Homi Bhabha's > > > > > arguments about the ways nationality works within and without the state. > > > > > Tell me about how these writings about postcolonial identity cross the > > > > > Atlantic in Paul Gilroy's work on small acts of change, the triangular > > > > > trade in people, ethnic absolutism, and the link to Spivak and Shiva. Yes, > > > > > this is a bunch ob absurd name-dropping, but the claim to the "literature" > > > > > here is always open to interpretation. > > > > > > > > I'm never for getting involved in any discussion on e-debate, but > > > > like sparky i'm done with filling out strike sheets and i'm sober for > > > > a few hours anyway, so here goes.. i thought kevin's initial worry > > > > about the nation-state in the african context was fascinating, and > > > > ultimately it will probably end up being excellent negative ground in > > > > next year's resolution, especially when you're in a final round and > > > > you have nothing good except a cheezy veto c/p...:) anyway, if you're > > > > interested in changing the focus of the rez, kevin, I think you're headed in > > > > the wrong 'discursive' direction, if you will.. not too many people > > > > have the time or inclination to wade through the post-colonial > > > > writers like bhabha or spivak, and speaking as someone who has, > > > > frankly large chunks of their theories are just incoherent or too > > > > wordy.. the real problem with these and other stances, and the > > > > reason maybe why people have derided you as part of the 'radical > > > > chic', is that it's always possible to position oneself more > > > > critically than just about anything. for example, i could quote one > > > > of the interesting post-colonial theorists: > > > > "Tolerance is never simply passive, and, ironically, the area of > > > > institutionalised post-colonial studies is finding itself > > > > increasingly invested in an academic star system of astonishing > > > > proportions, and through that star system it is learning to seek its > > > > instruction in oppositional tactics along lines that run increasingly > > > > and monolithically backward towards the centres of Western power .. > > > > our theoretical masters in Paris or Oxford or New Haven are read and > > > > referenced by exemplary theorists of the local .. but those > > > > metropolitan theorists seldom reference these cultural and > > > > theoretical mediators in return." > > > > does this mean your arguments are invalid? of course not. it's just > > > > that for me, and probably a lot of others, 'critical discourse' > > > > (whatever that means) is a lot less compelling in the context of > > > > resolutional discussion than questions of ground and limits and > > > > breadth and depth and whatever other topicality buzzwords i never > > > > learned.. for example, one could approach the question of whether we > > > > need a list or number of countries from the standpoint of what would > > > > provide the best balance between the aff and the neg, or you could > > > > take a page from bhabha and the rest and question the notion of lists > > > > and numbers as part of the Western mathematical project that serves > > > > to reify a dominant culture/nation/something/big words/hegemony... > > > > maybe i'm just being mocking or something, but it seems that one of > > > > these discussions will be successful and one won't.. but if you want > > > > fuel for that fire, here's something from alan bishop.. > > > > "From these colonial times through to today, the power of this > > > > mathematico-technological culture has grown apace -- so much that > > > > western mathematics is taught nowadays in every country in the world > > > > ... I began by describing the myth of western mathematics' cultural > > > > neutrality. Increasingly, modern evidence serves to destroy this > > > > naive belief. Nevertheless, the belief in that myth has had, and > > > > continues to have, powerful implications ... taking a broader view, > > > > one must ask: should there not be more resistance to this cultural > > > > hegemony? ... Resistance is growing, critical debate is informing > > > > theoretical developments, and research is increasing, particularly in > > > > educational situations where culture-conflict is recognized. The > > > > secret weapon is secret no longer." > > > > > > > > Indeed.. anyway, i bring this up not to try to discredit your > > > > argument. i think you're bringing something valuable to the > > > > discussion, i just think you should speak more english...:) > > > > > > > > Sorry to subject the community to my boredom, > > > > Aaron > > > > > > > > Aaron Monick > > > > (517)324-1928 > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Joel D. Rollins, PhD > > > Director of Debating > > > Director, UTNIF > > > Jesse Jones Communication Center, CMA 7.114 > > > The University of Texas at Austin > > > Austin, TX 78712 > > > email: jd.rollins at mail.utexas.edu > > > UTNIF Web site: http://www.utexas.edu/coc/speech/debate/adi.html > > > or http://utdebate.tripod.com/adi.htm > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Aaron Monick > > (517)324-1928 > > -- > > Joel D. Rollins, PhD > Director of Debating > Director, UTNIF > Jesse Jones Communication Center, CMA 7.114 > The University of Texas at Austin > Austin, TX 78712 > email: jd.rollins at mail.utexas.edu > UTNIF Web site: http://www.utexas.edu/coc/speech/debate/adi.html > or http://utdebate.tripod.com/adi.htm > > > > Aaron Monick (517)324-1928 >From Wed May 3 19:14:35 2000 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 49083 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 3 May 2000 19:15:31 -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 TAA19766 for ; Wed, 3 May 2000 19:15:30 -0400 Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo-d05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v26.7.) id g.30.49c3e57 (3937); Wed, 3 May 2000 19:14:35 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 105 Message-ID: <30.49c3e57.26420cdb at aol.com> Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 19:14:35 EDT Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Michael Bear Bryant Subject: Re: DCA Debater #3 Kamal Ghali Comments: To: abryan at blue.weeg.uiowa.edu In a message dated 5/3/00 2:06:03 PM Mountain Daylight Time, abryan at BLUE.WEEG.UIOWA.EDU writes: > It fucking enrages me to no end that you would make an assumption like > this. I'm not poor my any means and I acknowledge that there is a lot of > privilege that runs through my life. But don't ever assume that it was > easy (for me or my family) to do any of this just because we went to a > magical school that was successful. It was an honor to debate with Kamal > at Caddo Magnet and I regard it as one of the best times of my life. But > it wasn't shoved in my mouth with a silver spoon at birth. > > Andy Ryan Be enraged. I made no assumption of elitism, I just noted that it was interesting to note the interconnections stretching back to HS. You were damn lucky you went to Caddo Magnet. It's turned out far more than it's fair share of top notch debaters for a very long time. I don't know if it's elitism, as much as having the luck to be in the right spot, but the interconnections, stretching back thru HS years are hardly deniable. I didn't claim you were part of any Illuminati plot to dominate debate. Thank you for your family narrative. Hey, but what the hell, you got a free link so why not use it, right? Bear From david.glass Wed May 3 19:21:46 2000 From: david.glass (DAVID GLASS) Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 19:21:46 -0500 Subject: Re- "Elite H.S. Myth" Message-ID: Re: "Elite H.S. Myth" 5/3/00 15:05 Contrary to what "Bear" writes, High School success doesn't correlate with personal wealth, travel budgets, or any of that. It correlates with coaching - (and, in rare cases like Caddo, with a few excellent students who break all the odds). This may be aself-serving thing to say, but I do have some data to back up my argument: Evidence: 1. Edgemont is a school in a wealthy suburb. What has remained constant over the years are the students wealth, the budget of the program, etc. However, the school has only had national level teams when either I or Danny Frey or Robert Bunten were coaching there. During the 4 years that the program did not have a coach, the team did terribly. 2. Stuyvesant and Bronx Science are public schools with small debate budgets. Their success over the years correlates almost exactly with the level of coaching they received. 3. Westminster is an elite rich school. The success of the program declined dramatically when Greg Myrberg left. Wealth, budget, etc remained constant 4. Lexington is by no means a wealthy school or a wealthy program. Every year they have competitive students because of the coaching. 5. GBN & GBS have had constant budgets, but kids with dramatically varying wealth levels. However, they're competitive every year, and have had constant good coaching. 6. I can name several very rich schools who have had no coaching over the years, who have rarely done well. 7. One might think that the Caddo School has succeeded because the kids, once established, began to coach the novices - I'm not sure if that's true... but it just shows that sometimes you don't even need good coaching, if you're a good enough debater. 8. It's difficult to find a reverse-causal case, where you have a great coach who is stymied by a lack of wealth. Even schools in destitute areas, like Newark Science, have fielded Round Robin-quality teams during the periods that they had consistent involved coaching. And this is the extreme. -djg Edgemont On Wed, 3 May 2000, Michael Bear Bryant wrote: > No, great point, but it is fascinating to see how many of NDT's top debaters > went to the few high schools with the resources to have national travel > budgets, attend the most expensive of institutes, and have been debating with > and against each other for years. > > Creator of the "elite" conspiracy myth, > > Bear You know, I shouldn't get into this again. I have finals and I don't want to be another transfer student (and Breshears, if you're reading this, I'll trade my Kristin Langwell/Andy Ryan in Wake team jerseys Triple-A cards for your Stephen Stetson and a Judd Renken). But I just want to take a few minutes and be really fucking pissed off, if I could. We've talked a lot about how debate, especially so-called elite debate, is classist. It takes a lot of money to debate. Bear falsely assumes that I was one of those people with a lot of cash that went to a school with a lot of cash that travelled everywhere with money just falling out of my pockets. A few points: (1) Caddo Magnet High School is a public school in an underfunded public school district. The school receives under $2,000 a year (last time I checked) for a team of policy, LD, and IE's that numbers well over 50 students. All participants in debate at Caddo Magnet were required to pay for either a portion of or all of the costs of attending a tournament. (2) Caddo Magnet High School requires every student to take a test to get into the school. This means the school is open to everyone in Northern Louisiana, which is from Shreveport (where the school is located) to the edge of Texas or Oil City (which is almost an hour away). This is not a school you get to attend because your parents paid a lot of money to live in a certain neighborhood. This is a school you attend on your merit. (3) I entirely resent with every facet of my personality the insinuation that our school was elitist and Kamal and I are a bunch of secret handshaking assholes. Why don't you tell my elite mother who had to work for my father when he lost his job because he couldn't afford staff and whose salary went entirely to my debating that she is an elitist? No, sir, she is a hardworking woman who worked her ass off to allow her son to participate in an activity he dearly loved. It fucking enrages me to no end that you would make an assumption like this. I'm not poor my any means and I acknowledge that there is a lot of privilege that runs through my life. But don't ever assume that it was easy (for me or my family) to do any of this just because we went to a magical school that was successful. It was an honor to debate with Kamal at Caddo Magnet and I regard it as one of the best times of my life. But it wasn't shoved in my mouth with a silver spoon at birth. Andy Ryan From lindsayh Wed May 3 18:45:39 2000 From: lindsayh (lindsayh) Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 16:45:39 -0700 Subject: Re- "Elite H.S. Myth" In-Reply-To: <000503.192146@regpha.com> Message-ID: Don't forget Greenhill - I'm willing to suggest that my success was 99.9% coaching. Even if students at other schools have a lot of money, it's nearly impossible to get into the best labs at institutes without the coaches to lobby for you. There are exceptions, of course, but I'm pretty sure my success and institute clout was due to the hard work of my coaches and not my parents (certainly not merit - at least not in the beginning) Lindsay On Wed, 3 May 2000, DAVID GLASS wrote: > Re: "Elite H.S. Myth" 5/3/00 15:05 > > > > Contrary to what "Bear" writes, High School success doesn't correlate > with personal wealth, travel budgets, or any of that. It correlates with > coaching - (and, in rare cases like Caddo, with a few excellent students > who break all the odds). > > This may be aself-serving thing to say, but I do have some data to back up my argument: > > Evidence: > > 1. Edgemont is a school in a wealthy suburb. What has remained constant > over the years are the students wealth, the budget of the program, etc. > However, the school has only had national level teams when either I or > Danny Frey or Robert Bunten were coaching there. During the 4 years that > the program did not have a coach, the team did terribly. > > 2. Stuyvesant and Bronx Science are public schools with small debate budgets. > Their success over the years correlates almost exactly with the level of > coaching they received. > > 3. Westminster is an elite rich school. The success of the program declined > dramatically when Greg Myrberg left. Wealth, budget, etc remained constant > > 4. Lexington is by no means a wealthy school or a wealthy program. Every year > they have competitive students because of the coaching. > > 5. GBN & GBS have had constant budgets, but kids with dramatically varying > wealth levels. However, they're competitive every year, and have had constant > good coaching. > > 6. I can name several very rich schools who have had no coaching over the years, > who have rarely done well. > > 7. One might think that the Caddo School has succeeded because the kids, once > established, began to coach the novices - I'm not sure if that's true... but > it just shows that sometimes you don't even need good coaching, if you're a good > enough debater. > > 8. It's difficult to find a reverse-causal case, where you have a great coach who is > stymied by a lack of wealth. Even schools in destitute areas, like Newark Science, > have fielded Round Robin-quality teams during the periods that they had consistent > involved coaching. And this is the extreme. > > -djg Edgemont > > On Wed, 3 May 2000, Michael Bear Bryant wrote: > > > > No, great point, but it is fascinating to see how many of NDT's top debaters > > went to the few high schools with the resources to have national travel > > budgets, attend the most expensive of institutes, and have been debating with > > and against each other for years. > > > > Creator of the "elite" conspiracy myth, > > > > Bear > > You know, I shouldn't get into this again. I have finals and I don't > want to be another transfer student (and Breshears, if you're reading > this, I'll trade my Kristin Langwell/Andy Ryan in Wake team jerseys > Triple-A cards for your Stephen Stetson and a Judd Renken). But I just > want to take a few minutes and be really fucking pissed off, if I could. > > We've talked a lot about how debate, especially so-called elite debate, is > classist. It takes a lot of money to debate. Bear falsely assumes that I > was one of those people with a lot of cash that went to a school with a > lot of cash that travelled everywhere with money just falling out of my > pockets. A few points: > > (1) Caddo Magnet High School is a public school in an underfunded public > school district. The school receives under $2,000 a year (last time I > checked) for a team of policy, LD, and IE's that numbers well over 50 > students. All participants in debate at Caddo Magnet were required to pay > for either a portion of or all of the costs of attending a tournament. > > (2) Caddo Magnet High School requires every student to take a test to get > into the school. This means the school is open to everyone in Northern > Louisiana, which is from Shreveport (where the school is located) to the > edge of Texas or Oil City (which is almost an hour away). This is not a > school you get to attend because your parents paid a lot of money to live > in a certain neighborhood. This is a school you attend on your merit. > > (3) I entirely resent with every facet of my personality the insinuation > that our school was elitist and Kamal and I are a bunch of secret > handshaking assholes. Why don't you tell my elite mother who had to work > for my father when he lost his job because he couldn't afford staff and > whose salary went entirely to my debating that she is an elitist? No, > sir, she is a hardworking woman who worked her ass off to allow her son to > participate in an activity he dearly loved. > > It fucking enrages me to no end that you would make an assumption like > this. I'm not poor my any means and I acknowledge that there is a lot of > privilege that runs through my life. But don't ever assume that it was > easy (for me or my family) to do any of this just because we went to a > magical school that was successful. It was an honor to debate with Kamal > at Caddo Magnet and I regard it as one of the best times of my life. But > it wasn't shoved in my mouth with a silver spoon at birth. > > Andy Ryan > From carsonau Wed May 3 21:51:37 2000 From: carsonau (Austin Carson) Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 19:51:37 -0700 Subject: Re- "Elite H.S. Myth" Message-ID: >8. It's difficult to find a reverse-causal case, where you have a great coach who is >stymied by a lack of wealth. Even schools in destitute areas, like Newark Science, >have fielded Round Robin-quality teams during the periods that they had consistent >involved coaching. And this is the extreme. this makes little sense. of course you don't "hear" about the reverse causal case where a debate team/coach is stymied by lack of wealth. that's because they are stuck wearing down kansas or michigan highway travelling the local, state, or regional circuit. a cursory look at collegiate debaters who enjoyed little to no national high school success (which can be explained in a number of ways, including personal improvement, but often a factor is inability to get exposure at nationally recognized touranments) demonstrates the difficulty in finding "reverse causal cases"...one never has the chance to hear about it. these types of programs that have instituational disadvantages with reference to more well-endowed programs often have debaters that are "stymied by a lack of wealth". exceptions aren't unheard of, but to dismiss the importance of funding at the high school level based upon such counterexamples is inaccurate. also, where the hell do coaches come from? salaries play a big role, and some schools can't afford to hire good coaches. trying to find a great coach who was stymied by a lack of wealth is like putting the cart before the horse: oftentimes, the great coach isn't there _because of_ the lack of wealth. austin ----- Austin Carson 401 North Case Michigan State University East Lansing, MI 48825 (517) 355 7044 "I can never find a quote I like for the bottom of my emails, but I felt compelled to put something witty." >From Wed May 3 17:01:42 2000 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 49578 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 3 May 2000 19:56:38 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from pioneernet.net (pop3.islandtransit.org [208.240.196.29]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA19840 for ; Wed, 3 May 2000 19:56:37 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Message-ID: <200005031701.AA804913314 at pioneernet.net> Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 17:01:42 -0700 Reply-To: bpilgrim at pioneernet.net To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Sally MacLaren-Meuer Subject: Re- "Elite H.S. Myth" Oftentimes it's not even coaching, (good or otherwise), or money that creates excellent debaters. Oak Harbor High School, in the backwoods state of Washington has produced several first round NDT debaters (Aaron Moberg-Jones, Adam Symonds, Charles Olney) with ZERO coaching for at least the past 5-6 years. It has also fielded at least one team for the TOC almost every year (again, without coaching.) All expenses (travel or otherwise) are paid by the debaters. And this is not a rich school, the team is given about 4000.00 dollars a year for a budget to be used for LDer's, IE'ers and policy debaters whose number is usually around 30-40. This morning I had to beg our ASB for money to cover old debts on the team so that my partner and I could travel to the TOC tomorrow. Dr. Glass is right when he says that it's dedication and talented kids working real hard to "break the odds". drew no secret handshakes here... Oak Harbor Debate ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- From: DAVID GLASS Reply-To: DAVID GLASS Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 19:21:46 -0500 > Re: "Elite H.S. Myth" 5/3/00 15:05 > > > >Contrary to what "Bear" writes, High School success doesn't correlate >with personal wealth, travel budgets, or any of that. It correlates with >coaching - (and, in rare cases like Caddo, with a few excellent students >who break all the odds). > >This may be aself-serving thing to say, but I do have some data to back up my argument: > >Evidence: > >1. Edgemont is a school in a wealthy suburb. What has remained constant >over the years are the students wealth, the budget of the program, etc. >However, the school has only had national level teams when either I or >Danny Frey or Robert Bunten were coaching there. During the 4 years that >the program did not have a coach, the team did terribly. > >2. Stuyvesant and Bronx Science are public schools with small debate budgets. >Their success over the years correlates almost exactly with the level of >coaching they received. > >3. Westminster is an elite rich school. The success of the program declined >dramatically when Greg Myrberg left. Wealth, budget, etc remained constant > >4. Lexington is by no means a wealthy school or a wealthy program. Every year >they have competitive students because of the coaching. > >5. GBN & GBS have had constant budgets, but kids with dramatically varying >wealth levels. However, they're competitive every year, and have had constant >good coaching. > >6. I can name several very rich schools who have had no coaching over the years, >who have rarely done well. > >7. One might think that the Caddo School has succeeded because the kids, once >established, began to coach the novices - I'm not sure if that's true... but >it just shows that sometimes you don't even need good coaching, if you're a good >enough debater. > >8. It's difficult to find a reverse-causal case, where you have a great coach who is >stymied by a lack of wealth. Even schools in destitute areas, like Newark Science, >have fielded Round Robin-quality teams during the periods that they had consistent >involved coaching. And this is the extreme. > >-djg Edgemont > >On Wed, 3 May 2000, Michael Bear Bryant wrote: > > >> No, great point, but it is fascinating to see how many of NDT's top debaters >> went to the few high schools with the resources to have national travel >> budgets, attend the most expensive of institutes, and have been debating with >> and against each other for years. >> >> Creator of the "elite" conspiracy myth, >> >> Bear > >You know, I shouldn't get into this again. I have finals and I don't >want to be another transfer student (and Breshears, if you're reading >this, I'll trade my Kristin Langwell/Andy Ryan in Wake team jerseys >Triple-A cards for your Stephen Stetson and a Judd Renken). But I just >want to take a few minutes and be really fucking pissed off, if I could. > >We've talked a lot about how debate, especially so-called elite debate, is >classist. It takes a lot of money to debate. Bear falsely assumes that I >was one of those people with a lot of cash that went to a school with a >lot of cash that travelled everywhere with money just falling out of my >pockets. A few points: > >(1) Caddo Magnet High School is a public school in an underfunded public >school district. The school receives under $2,000 a year (last time I >checked) for a team of policy, LD, and IE's that numbers well over 50 >students. All participants in debate at Caddo Magnet were required to pay >for either a portion of or all of the costs of attending a tournament. > >(2) Caddo Magnet High School requires every student to take a test to get >into the school. This means the school is open to everyone in Northern >Louisiana, which is from Shreveport (where the school is located) to the >edge of Texas or Oil City (which is almost an hour away). This is not a >school you get to attend because your parents paid a lot of money to live >in a certain neighborhood. This is a school you attend on your merit. > >(3) I entirely resent with every facet of my personality the insinuation >that our school was elitist and Kamal and I are a bunch of secret >handshaking assholes. Why don't you tell my elite mother who had to work >for my father when he lost his job because he couldn't afford staff and >whose salary went entirely to my debating that she is an elitist? No, >sir, she is a hardworking woman who worked her ass off to allow her son to >participate in an activity he dearly loved. > >It fucking enrages me to no end that you would make an assumption like >this. I'm not poor my any means and I acknowledge that there is a lot of >privilege that runs through my life. But don't ever assume that it was >easy (for me or my family) to do any of this just because we went to a >magical school that was successful. It was an honor to debate with Kamal >at Caddo Magnet and I regard it as one of the best times of my life. But >it wasn't shoved in my mouth with a silver spoon at birth. > >Andy Ryan > >From Wed May 3 20:36:17 2000 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 49882 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 3 May 2000 20:37:14 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo21.mx.aol.com (imo21.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.65]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA27614 for ; Wed, 3 May 2000 20:37:11 -0400 Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo21.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v26.7.) id 4.a6.3d96869 (4264); Wed, 3 May 2000 20:36:17 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 105 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 20:36:17 EDT Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Michael Bear Bryant Subject: Re: Re- "Elite H.S. Myth" Comments: To: david.glass at regpha.com In a message dated 5/3/00 5:22:40 PM Mountain Daylight Time, david.glass at REGPHA.COM writes: > Contrary to what "Bear" writes, High School success doesn't correlate > with personal wealth, travel budgets, or any of that. It correlates with > coaching - (and, in rare cases like Caddo, with a fe Ignorance and ego continue to run rampant. Dr. Glass, can you use your excellent research skills to quote back to me where I ever said that "HS success correlates with personal wealth or travel budgets?" I simply pointed out a set of interconnections stretching back to HS competition. I'm getting damn tired of people telling me what I've said, when I know goddamn well what I haven't said. Tell me you didn't pull some assumptions out of the air. You owe me an apology for running away with my intent. Be ethical. Bear From lundeeng Wed May 3 19:41:29 2000 From: lundeeng (Geoff Lundeen) Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 20:41:29 -0400 Subject: Re- "Elite H.S. Myth" References: <006c01bfb573$aac3fa20$d3140a23@carsonau.user.msu.edu> Message-ID: I have but one thing to add to this discussion-- having been a product of a well-established high school debate program with many advantages, throughout a lot of my early career, I snubbed the "in-state" scene. I realized the error of my ways perhaps too late, but some of the most competitive, and most enjoyable rounds I had my senior year were not at big, expensive, national tournaments-- perhaps the best experience of my debate career, college included, was attending the mifa unauthorized round robin-- a small gathering of regional teams, open to whomever wished to attend. I couldn't find someone from my team willing to go, so I just went by myself; ended up staying up all night telling debate war stories with a group of people (including Austin) that I wish I had spent the time to get to know long before. Watch out for the debaters from "unknown" programs, whether Michigan, or Hawaii, or wherever. Finally, a message directed towards any high school debaters reading the list-- don't neglect your regional tournaments; I did for much too long, in favor of travelling "out of state" every weekend, and have regretted it ever since. Geoff ----- Original Message ----- From: Austin Carson To: Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2000 10:51 PM Subject: Re: Re- "Elite H.S. Myth" > >8. It's difficult to find a reverse-causal case, where you have a great > coach who is > >stymied by a lack of wealth. Even schools in destitute areas, like Newark > Science, > >have fielded Round Robin-quality teams during the periods that they had > consistent > >involved coaching. And this is the extreme. > > this makes little sense. of course you don't "hear" about the reverse > causal case where a debate team/coach is stymied by lack of wealth. that's > because they are stuck wearing down kansas or michigan highway travelling > the local, state, or regional circuit. a cursory look at collegiate > debaters who enjoyed little to no national high school success (which can be > explained in a number of ways, including personal improvement, but often a > factor is inability to get exposure at nationally recognized touranments) > demonstrates the difficulty in finding "reverse causal cases"...one never > has the chance to hear about it. > > these types of programs that have instituational disadvantages with > reference to more well-endowed programs often have debaters that are > "stymied by a lack of wealth". exceptions aren't unheard of, but to dismiss > the importance of funding at the high school level based upon such > counterexamples is inaccurate. > > also, where the hell do coaches come from? salaries play a big role, and > some schools can't afford to hire good coaches. trying to find a great > coach who was stymied by a lack of wealth is like putting the cart before > the horse: oftentimes, the great coach isn't there _because of_ the lack of > wealth. > > austin > > ----- > > Austin Carson > 401 North Case > Michigan State University > East Lansing, MI 48825 > > (517) 355 7044 > > > "I can never find a quote I like for the bottom of my emails, but I felt > compelled to put something witty." > From osdip Wed May 3 19:46:08 2000 From: osdip (Ben Osborne) Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 17:46:08 PDT Subject: Re- "Elite H.S. Myth" Message-ID: I for one am not going to defend my high school debate priviledge. I debated at a high school in a wealthy suburb. The team was large and well funded and exhibited great success. The overwhelming cause was money pure and simple. People on this team had to pay for trips, and not everyone on the team was rich (though some were) but the community support that comes through money was one of the major factors. Our budget was not large, but the hard work our coach put in to raise extra money for the team was possible because the place I lived was very wealthy. Our yearly fundraiser was done by a local beneficial society and local heroes attended and gave money. The state I lived in has one of the worst records on every meter of school quality. The reason our high school was so good was the fact that the city levied higher taxes and aggressively funded the schools. That meant that the quality of the teachers was better, the administration was better (and very supportive), and that the students themselves didn't have to deal with many of the problems of low-income areas. The most interesting thing about this place is that it has produced very good policy debaters for years even though there has not been a lot of policy coaching. Access to institute and fellowship programs have allowed the students to learn. That access is because of money. This is not to disagree that coaching was not important, on the contrary it is vital, but that money is still the big deciding factor in a number of areas. Not only money in the team budget, but money all around. I have seen schools that have had good coaching crumble and fall (often because the coach cannot stand to stay there anymore) and I have seen programs with little to no coaching thrive or at the very least stay alive for long periods of time due to the access to wealth in all of its forms. I would be curious to use some census data to compare schools in the last rounds at the NFL and TOC. I guarantee the public schools would be majority in wealthy suburbs (at least middle class, whatever that means) and the private schools would also have a large amount of wealth spread out amongst their students. This is not to argue hopelessness. There are many fine debaters that came from poor schools and difficulty, but there are probably more who came from some level of affluence. I for one am not going to sit back and give excuses for the school I went to. I admit that I have had a huge amount of priviledge, and now I want to do something about that in a positive way. Instead of talking about problems I had (I payed for debate trips and institutes and my parents worked hard and made some sacrifices so I could debate also)I would prefer to think about ways in which I can give back and "spread the priviledge around" to others. Working with the TDL, learning how to coach, and working at a school that has many people having to work instead of debate has helped me and I hope to do more. This is not aimed at anyone in particular, nor is it my intention to call anyone out or make anyone mad. It is just a discussion about debate priviledge and how I realized I have a damn lot of it and I am not alone... Ben Osborne MTSU Debate >From: Sally MacLaren-Meuer >Reply-To: bpilgrim at pioneernet.net >To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU >Subject: Re- "Elite H.S. Myth" >Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 17:01:42 -0700 > >Oftentimes it's not even coaching, (good or otherwise), or money that >creates excellent debaters. Oak Harbor High School, in the backwoods state >of Washington has produced several first round NDT debaters (Aaron >Moberg-Jones, Adam Symonds, Charles Olney) with ZERO coaching for at least >the past 5-6 years. It has also fielded at least one team for the TOC >almost every year (again, without coaching.) All expenses (travel or >otherwise) are paid by the debaters. And this is not a rich school, the >team is given about 4000.00 dollars a year for a budget to be used for >LDer's, IE'ers and policy debaters whose number is usually around 30-40. >This morning I had to beg our ASB for money to cover old debts on the team >so that my partner and I could travel to the TOC tomorrow. Dr. Glass is >right when he says that it's dedication and talented kids working real hard >to "break the odds". > >drew >no secret handshakes here... >Oak Harbor Debate > > > > >---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- >From: DAVID GLASS >Reply-To: DAVID GLASS >Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 19:21:46 -0500 > > > Re: "Elite H.S. Myth" 5/3/00 >15:05 > > > > > > > >Contrary to what "Bear" writes, High School success doesn't correlate > >with personal wealth, travel budgets, or any of that. It correlates with > >coaching - (and, in rare cases like Caddo, with a few excellent students > >who break all the odds). > > > >This may be aself-serving thing to say, but I do have some data to back >up my argument: > > > >Evidence: > > > >1. Edgemont is a school in a wealthy suburb. What has remained constant > >over the years are the students wealth, the budget of the program, etc. > >However, the school has only had national level teams when either I or > >Danny Frey or Robert Bunten were coaching there. During the 4 years that > >the program did not have a coach, the team did terribly. > > > >2. Stuyvesant and Bronx Science are public schools with small debate >budgets. > >Their success over the years correlates almost exactly with the level of > >coaching they received. > > > >3. Westminster is an elite rich school. The success of the program >declined > >dramatically when Greg Myrberg left. Wealth, budget, etc remained >constant > > > >4. Lexington is by no means a wealthy school or a wealthy program. Every >year > >they have competitive students because of the coaching. > > > >5. GBN & GBS have had constant budgets, but kids with dramatically >varying > >wealth levels. However, they're competitive every year, and have had >constant > >good coaching. > > > >6. I can name several very rich schools who have had no coaching over the >years, > >who have rarely done well. > > > >7. One might think that the Caddo School has succeeded because the kids, >once > >established, began to coach the novices - I'm not sure if that's true... >but > >it just shows that sometimes you don't even need good coaching, if you're >a good > >enough debater. > > > >8. It's difficult to find a reverse-causal case, where you have a great >coach who is > >stymied by a lack of wealth. Even schools in destitute areas, like >Newark Science, > >have fielded Round Robin-quality teams during the periods that they had >consistent > >involved coaching. And this is the extreme. > > > >-djg Edgemont > > > >On Wed, 3 May 2000, Michael Bear Bryant wrote: > > > > > >> No, great point, but it is fascinating to see how many of NDT's top >debaters > >> went to the few high schools with the resources to have national travel > >> budgets, attend the most expensive of institutes, and have been >debating with > >> and against each other for years. > >> > >> Creator of the "elite" conspiracy myth, > >> > >> Bear > > > >You know, I shouldn't get into this again. I have finals and I don't > >want to be another transfer student (and Breshears, if you're reading > >this, I'll trade my Kristin Langwell/Andy Ryan in Wake team jerseys > >Triple-A cards for your Stephen Stetson and a Judd Renken). But I just > >want to take a few minutes and be really fucking pissed off, if I could. > > > >We've talked a lot about how debate, especially so-called elite debate, >is > >classist. It takes a lot of money to debate. Bear falsely assumes that >I > >was one of those people with a lot of cash that went to a school with a > >lot of cash that travelled everywhere with money just falling out of my > >pockets. A few points: > > > >(1) Caddo Magnet High School is a public school in an underfunded public > >school district. The school receives under $2,000 a year (last time I > >checked) for a team of policy, LD, and IE's that numbers well over 50 > >students. All participants in debate at Caddo Magnet were required to >pay > >for either a portion of or all of the costs of attending a tournament. > > > >(2) Caddo Magnet High School requires every student to take a test to get > >into the school. This means the school is open to everyone in Northern > >Louisiana, which is from Shreveport (where the school is located) to the > >edge of Texas or Oil City (which is almost an hour away). This is not a > >school you get to attend because your parents paid a lot of money to live > >in a certain neighborhood. This is a school you attend on your merit. > > > >(3) I entirely resent with every facet of my personality the insinuation > >that our school was elitist and Kamal and I are a bunch of secret > >handshaking assholes. Why don't you tell my elite mother who had to work > >for my father when he lost his job because he couldn't afford staff and > >whose salary went entirely to my debating that she is an elitist? No, > >sir, she is a hardworking woman who worked her ass off to allow her son >to > >participate in an activity he dearly loved. > > > >It fucking enrages me to no end that you would make an assumption like > >this. I'm not poor my any means and I acknowledge that there is a lot of > >privilege that runs through my life. But don't ever assume that it was > >easy (for me or my family) to do any of this just because we went to a > >magical school that was successful. It was an honor to debate with Kamal > >at Caddo Magnet and I regard it as one of the best times of my life. But > >it wasn't shoved in my mouth with a silver spoon at birth. > > > >Andy Ryan > > ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From gabp Wed May 3 19:51:59 2000 From: gabp (gabrielle prisco) Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 19:51:59 -0500 Subject: the silence of systemic poverty, racism, and other unspoken -isms Message-ID: While I admire those students who "overcome the odds" and manage to do well without tremendous advantages of wealth, I am disheartened that so many recent posts have failed to even cursorily mention the impacts of systemic disadvantage on both active debaters and on those students who NEVER get to debate in the first place because they are economically and/or otherwise oppressed. This does not mean that everyone who is successful is an elite jerk. It also does not mean people who, like Andy, go through a lot along with their families, in order to debate should not be recognized. Yet there have, in the past few hours, been a plethora of arguments about debaters and programs who have pulled themselves up by their "rhetorical bootstraps" and none of these posts have acknowledged that systemic oppression plays a role in maintaining and perpetuating transparent norms of privilege. Pointing to the success stories as examples of the lack of an impact that money has on success normalizes tremendous gaps in funding for schools based on things like property taxes. It also silences deeper, more fundamental questions about why some kids live in poverty and others in wealth and what the impact of those variances are on their lives and on their successes. If you think that money is irrelevant, I BEG you to volunteer at your local UDL if you have one, or at a camp at Emory or at UMKC. Or simply go to a poor school where you live. I have worked with young people who have been homeless, who cannot always afford to EAT. Yes, to eat. Ask Melissa to share with you stories about kids who have made it all the way to high school and are on the debate team and have never learned to read. Or ask people who have worked at the ENDI about how each year, during the time the camp is going on, a camper loses a family member or friend to a shooting, often a drive-by. Many young people have been systemically oppressed their whole lives--told by their schools, the books they read, the movies they see, the TV news, the images around them everywhere that they are stupid, ignorant, uneducated, unworthy, mere sexual objects--that impacts their success in debate, that impacts if they even feel that they can join debate in the first place. Arguments that claim "money is irrelevant, look at school Y" are the equivalent of me saying, "My Grandfather came here as an immigrant with no money and without speaking English and now he has achieved monetary success. America is, therefore, a meritocracy." I actually once halfway believed that statement. Then I learned about white privilege. I realized that I, like many of you, carry around an "invisible backpack" of things that I get just because I am white. Things ranging from being able to buy "flesh" colored Band Aids that match my skin. Things like getting an interest bearing checking account without showing any identification, let alone a credit history. Things like not being followed in stores or when I succeed at a job, having people say that it is because of my work as opposed to them saying that it must be the result of affirmative action. (Some of these examples are from the work of Peggy McIntosh). I do not want to get into a line by line on people's narratives/arguments but I want to use one example to illustrate some of my points and how they apply to debate. The arg. was made that Stuyvestant and Bronx Science are really successful despite low budgets. This argument did not mention that these are specialized schools that require entrance tests to get in. Furthermore, it did not mention that many, if not most kids who pass these tests take prep courses from The Princeton Review, Kaplan, and/or private tutors to get ready for these tests. These courses cost hundreds and hundreds of dollars. It did not mention that these schools are sold as options to some kids in NYC's "feeder schools" and not to others. Growing up in NY, I was "pushed"by teachers to study for those tests and to attend one of these schools (I chose not to apply) in ways that other kids were not. Why? Because I am middle class and white and have parents who are actively involved in my education. You might say, "but didn't you have good grades too and can't everyone get good grades?" Well, I did have good grades but a lot of the reason that I was able to do well in school in the first place is because I grew up with those privileges. I got help with homework at night, I had educationally stimulating toys as a baby and as a child, I got taken to museums and plays and given records and books, I had food to eat and I never lived on the street or in a house with a gun. I never got called stupid by the media or my teachers. I think I have made my point. The argument about Bronx Sci and Stuyvestant also did not mention that the "specialized" status of these schools means that they are able to attract better teachers who then help make students more successful in all ways, including debate (and I do not mean just the impact of the coaching staff). It does not mention that these schools are a long commute for many students who live in the "outer boroughs" not Manhattan (which is the most expensive place to live) and that kids who have to work after school cannot necessarily make that commute. It did not mention that until the advent of the NYUDL, the only debate in NYC public schools was at the two schools that required admissions tests. Or the debates sponsored by a bank once a year (see my good-bye post for an explanation of what that means) in which some kids get to debate only a round (a year). The top team debates a few more. It did not mention that these two schools have better resources--more computers, better libraries, newer buildings. It did not mention that the admissions tests means that "problem" kids are never allowed in in the first place. I am just so, so sad that after all we as a community have studied about these issues, the impact of systemic oppression is going unarticulated. Success stories are great and I admire those who have done well with little, but they do not take out the links and they are certainly not turns. Thanks for reading. Take care, Gabrielle ________________________________________________________________ YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET! Juno now offers FREE Internet Access! Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. From abryan Wed May 3 21:23:02 2000 From: abryan (a. ryan) Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 21:23:02 -0500 Subject: Re- "Elite H.S. Myth" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I would like to copy something already in my original post on this subject. It is the text that I was quoting from that made me enraged: On Wed, 3 May 2000, Michael Bear Bryant wrote: > No, great point, but it is fascinating to see how many of NDT's top debaters > went to the few high schools with the resources to have national travel > budgets, attend the most expensive of institutes, and have been debating with > and against each other for years. > > Creator of the "elite" conspiracy myth, > > Bear Mr. Bryant, I encourage you to read your words again. You say "how many of NDT's top debaters went to the few high schools with the resources to have national travel budgets" so this implies schools with high budgets, that I responded to. Most importantly you state "attend the most expensive of insitutes" which I am aware are sometimes paid for by their schools, but this was certainly not the case with my high school (and I have a feeling it's probably the case for most high schools, although I'm unsure). With the cost of institutes being what they are, it is very hard to pay to attend them. I've said it before and I will say it again: you were too broad in your characterization that certain schools had money and that certain "elite" debaters benefited from this. Since you were referncing a discussion about me and my high school partner, I feel very free to respond to what you said. I think you should be aware of the words that you spoke and in the broad manner that you applied them. For all of your championing of eliminating -isms (racism, sexism, elitism, etc.), you broadly attributed class to a group of students who went to school in a certain place. This will most likely be my last post on this issue, so I only want to say one more thing. I think Gab is completely correct when she states that wealth does play an issue in debate; I think that was the first thing I acknowledged in my first post. I'm not asking for anything serious (an apology might quell my rage) except that you realize that there are a lot of individuals on this list with many different circumstances affecting them and you could at the very least put qualifiers on your sweeping generalizations. Andy Ryan University of Iowa 100 Burge Hall #4405 Iowa City, IA 52242 (319) 621 5289 "I'm not saying we should combine a larger data set so that we can promulgate laws on the sale and consumption of cheap beer and chlamydia."-- Iron Mike Jensen From porlermc Wed May 3 21:26:32 2000 From: porlermc (Peter McCollum) Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 21:26:32 -0500 Subject: Re- "Elite H.S. Myth" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > Contrary to what "Bear" writes, High School success doesn't correlate > > with personal wealth, travel budgets, or any of that. It correlates with > > coaching - (and, in rare cases like Caddo, with a fe > > Ignorance and ego continue to run rampant. Dr. Glass, can you use your > excellent research skills to quote back to me where I ever said that "HS > success correlates with personal wealth or travel budgets?" I simply pointed > out a set of interconnections stretching back to HS competition. > > I'm getting damn tired of people telling me what I've said, when I know > goddamn well what I haven't said. Tell me you didn't pull some assumptions > out of the air. You owe me an apology for running away with my intent. To begin, Bear, I feel a desire to point out something no one else has yet in relation to the DICTA thread: DESPITE three disclaimers in the post the cases of mistaken identity have begun already. The DICTA post was written by Andy PETERSON (big, dorky, northerner), your posts are all directed at Andy RYAN (shorter, hick). Secondly, please give a little credit where credit is due. "set of interconnections" vs. "correllation" can anyone explain the difference between these two things? Perhaps you can Bear, although clearly a large number of list-serv readers couldn't. Seems like hearing a debater complain about an argument they "thought" was made clearly in the debate...... those complaints never seem to go over well either. Finally, not only did I read your post as being a statement that "elite" high school teams have dominated high school debate, but I found your response to Andy's post to be largely dismissal, at one point you even claim that Andy should be thankful that he was given a chance. Well, as another debater that came from a school without coaching (a special education teacher spared some time to drive us) or a budget (Yes, I'm the Oak Harbor debater that hasn't gotten a First-Round bid yet) I find your arguments troubling. Clearly any but the blindest reading of debate history would find a socioeconomic connection to debate success, but that correllation doesn't dominate. Your association of Andy and Kamal as advantaged high school debaters clearly extends into assumptions about their private lives that you wouldn't know much about. Perhaps it would be wise to avoid making blanket statements that attribute a debaters success to one factor or another until you are a little more sure about it. I for one would say that my success hasn't come from advantage, coaching, or skill but rather my devious talent to forge the signatures of almost any judge on the circuit. BTW Bear, I'm writing checks on your account right now. :) peter ============================================================================== | Peter McCollum "The Godfather parts I and II were wonderful | and well made movies. The Godfather part III | stunk like a burning house made of chicken | sh*t filled with dead dogs." | -101 Things Every Man Should Know | University of Iowa ============================================================================== From eychdi Wed May 3 21:36:00 2000 From: eychdi (Eun Young Choi) Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 19:36:00 PDT Subject: Re- "Elite H.S. Myth" Message-ID: >In a message dated 5/3/00 5:22:40 PM Mountain Daylight Time, >david.glass at REGPHA.COM writes: > > > Contrary to what "Bear" writes, High School success doesn't correlate > > with personal wealth, travel budgets, or any of that. It correlates >with > > coaching - (and, in rare cases like Caddo, with a fe > >Ignorance and ego continue to run rampant. Dr. Glass, can you use your >excellent research skills to quote back to me where I ever said that "HS >success correlates with personal wealth or travel budgets?" I simply >pointed >out a set of interconnections stretching back to HS competition. > Mr. Bryant: let us review exactly what you *did* post about High School debate: No, great point, but it is fascinating to see how many of NDT's top debaters went to the few high schools with the resources to have national travel budgets, attend the most expensive of institutes, and have been debating with and against each other for years. We do not think DJG was presumptuous in making the logical conclusion that the words "few high schools with the resources to have national travel budgets" and "attend the most expensive of institutes" meant that you implied certain schools with such monetary resources tended to do better in high school, and such success oftentimes is highly correlated with higher NDT success for their alumni. We do not think you necessarily excluded other factors (such as coaches) in your statement, but we also do not think Glass' reply was indeed such an egregious violation and "running away", as you will, of your intent. We wonder, however, why it seems as though when people disagree with your opinion, you tend to interpret their dissention as a personal attack. Oftentimes your very valid points are lost in a string of ad hominem insults. Why make the list less pleasant than need be? Hopefully, we meet your standards of ethical behavior. Yours, Eun Young Choi Harvard College Debate Nicole Serrano Dartmouth College Debate Co-Presidents and Founders of the David J. Glass Appreciation Society. >I'm getting damn tired of people telling me what I've said, when I know >goddamn well what I haven't said. Tell me you didn't pull some assumptions >out of the air. You owe me an apology for running away with my intent. > >Be ethical. > >Bear ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From 52susak Wed May 3 21:44:31 2000 From: 52susak (Ivan Susak) Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 22:44:31 -0400 Subject: Re- "Elite H.S. Myth" Message-ID: I like many others was/am disspointed by what has been said about elites in schools. People seem to forget that a good number of high school debaters WORK part time jobs during the time they aren't travelling, and jobs during the summer in order to pay for these expenses. I came from a program that has gone on a roller coaster ride in term of the program and its support from the administration (my sophmore and junior year they tried cutting the activity) and thus we had to work on our own to afford travel and competition. I strongly feel that if there is someone who is willing to dedicate their time and energy into the activity they can succeed and yes it takes sacrifices. We all have to make them. Ivan Susak Proud graduate of Brophy College Prep, AZ '99 ivans at goodnet.com 52susak at cua.edu ICQ # = 49784693 IM = Ivan Susak ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------- "but i wont' cry for yesterday, there's an ordinary world...somehow i have to find ....and as i try to make my way to the ordinary world...i will learn to survive." -- --Duran Duran "Ordinary World" -----Original Message----- From: Peter McCollum To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU Date: Wednesday, May 03, 2000 10:28 PM Subject: Re: Re- "Elite H.S. Myth" >> > Contrary to what "Bear" writes, High School success doesn't correlate >> > with personal wealth, travel budgets, or any of that. It correlates with >> > coaching - (and, in rare cases like Caddo, with a fe >> >> Ignorance and ego continue to run rampant. Dr. Glass, can you use your >> excellent research skills to quote back to me where I ever said that "HS >> success correlates with personal wealth or travel budgets?" I simply pointed >> out a set of interconnections stretching back to HS competition. >> >> I'm getting damn tired of people telling me what I've said, when I know >> goddamn well what I haven't said. Tell me you didn't pull some assumptions >> out of the air. You owe me an apology for running away with my intent. > > To begin, Bear, I feel a desire to point out something no one else >has yet in relation to the DICTA thread: DESPITE three disclaimers in the >post the cases of mistaken identity have begun already. The DICTA post was >written by Andy PETERSON (big, dorky, northerner), your posts are all >directed at Andy RYAN (shorter, hick). > > Secondly, please give a little credit where credit is due. "set of >interconnections" vs. "correllation" can anyone explain the difference >between these two things? Perhaps you can Bear, although clearly a large >number of list-serv readers couldn't. Seems like hearing a debater >complain about an argument they "thought" was made clearly in the >debate...... those complaints never seem to go over well either. > > Finally, not only did I read your post as being a statement that >"elite" high school teams have dominated high school debate, but I found >your response to Andy's post to be largely dismissal, at one point you >even claim that Andy should be thankful that he was given a chance. Well, >as another debater that came from a school without coaching (a special >education teacher spared some time to drive us) or a budget (Yes, I'm the >Oak Harbor debater that hasn't gotten a First-Round bid yet) I find your >arguments troubling. Clearly any but the blindest reading of debate >history would find a socioeconomic connection to debate success, but that >correllation doesn't dominate. Your association of Andy and Kamal as >advantaged high school debaters clearly extends into assumptions about >their private lives that you wouldn't know much about. > Perhaps it would be wise to avoid making blanket statements that >attribute a debaters success to one factor or another until you are a >little more sure about it. I for one would say that my success hasn't come >from advantage, coaching, or skill but rather my devious talent to forge >the signatures of almost any judge on the circuit. BTW Bear, I'm writing >checks on your account right now. :) > > peter > > >=========================================================================== ==== >| Peter McCollum "The Godfather parts I and II were wonderful >| and well made movies. The Godfather part III >| stunk like a burning house made of chicken >| sh*t filled with dead dogs." >| -101 Things Every Man Should Know >| University of Iowa >=========================================================================== ==== From 52susak Wed May 3 21:49:40 2000 From: 52susak (Ivan Susak) Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 22:49:40 -0400 Subject: One Last Note on Elitism Message-ID: I forgot to add, that all our success was due to the graciousness and support from members of both the college and high school debate communities. Thank you Grant McEahan (i still can't spell your last name), who sacrificed a weekend to help us at the TOC without making money. Thank you to Mr. Pritchard, Mr. Timmons, and Mr. Frasier who all helped with fees and logistics at there respective tournaments. Thank you Larry Wulkan who helped us for nothing towards the end of the year. It is the graciousness of people such as these that make success possible for many debaters, its not always the money. Ivan Susak ivans at goodnet.com 52susak at cua.edu ICQ # = 49784693 IM = Ivan Susak -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "but i wont' cry for yesterday, there's an ordinary world...somehow i have to find ....and as i try to make my way to the ordinary world...i will learn to survive." -- --Duran Duran "Ordinary World" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20000503/163157c5/attachment.html From jamesm Wed May 3 22:06:33 2000 From: jamesm (James Morrill) Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 22:06:33 -0500 Subject: Re- "Elite H.S. Myth" References: <006c01bfb573$aac3fa20$d3140a23@carsonau.user.msu.edu> Message-ID: Just a little preface... I don't know if i should even be writing this. Considering my position in my debate career, being a junior in a rural high school in kansas, one feels rather intimidated by the merits of others, but i have never been one to keep my mouth shut. As i mentioned, i live in larned, ks. The town has a population of 4,000, and we live about 2 hours away from the nearest major city (and university library). The budget for our school is so minuscule, it's embarrassing. We consistently have to plead for a travel budget (which did not exist, until my partner and i started to campaign for one). We have to scrounge about for enough enough money to get a room at the Ramada and go to the Hutchinson High School tournament (who hoo!!!). We don't have a separate coach for speech and debate, we have a nice person who is sympathetic but disinterested in "higher" levels of debate. My partner and i purchase all of the supplies (expandos, tubs, pens, paper). We have to find ways to conserve paper, that often include "pilfering" it from the office. We didn't even have a copier my frosh year. Others schools worry whether or not they will be able to maintain a subscription to lexis-nexis, we worry about how much of the judging budget we will have to absorb. Even with community help, it gets tight. I was recently in a conversation with a person who told me that topicality with ground arguments was simply a whine for people who didn't want to get off their ass and cut the cards. I became enraged. The countless nights my partner and i had spent to research new case grounds and still not covering it. The students on my squad could/can not afford the costs of camp. Not even in-state, and yet people have the nerve to tell me with there thousands of pages of camp ev. that we are being lazy. My partner is attending fort hays and i am going to wake forest, that took me some serious convincing to get my parents to agree to that. Despite my whining, i can't help but be amused by some of the posts. Some have described how they have had to pay for part of their trips out of state. Kansas has mileage restrictions, but the entry fees alone would bust our budget. Not to mention the lack of alumni for judging. Had i not grown up in the household i had, with loving, supporting, and financial stable parents there would be no way i could went as far as i have gone. I realize that some people in the collegiate movers and shakers came from similar situations, but it does help to have a stellar high school career. I think that often people forget that some schools don't even have the money for a program. Yes, coaching plays a large role in success, but so do resources. Even with the success we have had (debating competitively on the kansas champ circuit) we have had to fight tooth and nail to get respect. People assume if you come from a big name school that you must be good, while the opposite was true for us. I guess i just think that it is a little naive to assume that finances don't play a role in debate. I also think its a little naive to assume that coaching doesn't play a role, as well. I have had to fight both. I think that it's not necessarily that you can't be a good debater without good coaching and vast resources, but rather that it is much more difficult. Don't get me wrong, i don't think that this has much to do with the message that began this string, but i think that it's something to be considered. James Morrill Larned High School From privethedge Wed May 3 22:08:48 2000 From: privethedge (Duane Hyland) Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 20:08:48 -0700 Subject: Another Death in Northern Virginia (Metaphorically) Message-ID: Hi, I want to take this oppurtunity to thank the following people who have given their time over the last couple of years to my my program as "elite" as it could be. I'm sure I'll either anger some people here, or piss others off cause I forgot you. I will make a point here in a minute about the thread, so please don't flame me for wasting your time (those of you I don't know). The reason I write this is that another Northern Virginia Policy program is crashing this month. A region that once boasted some of the finest teams in the nation (Lake Braddock, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Edison, West Potomac, West Springfield - hmmm...maybe that's the cabalistic creed - name your school Thomas or West and your in the clique!!:) will now lose another program, not as great as those that came before it, but it is a sad day none the less, and since I couldn't pay everyone what they were worth for the time and work they put in to helping us achieve success (only a on a State and Regional l! evel, we weren't nationals players by any means) I would like to take this time to thank them now: Greg Mast - Cuts some really amazing Court Stuff when you need it the most, and we couldn't have gotten out of the NCFL Diocese without you!!:) And, OH...the King of "Talking to Japan." Ivan Susak - For finally making the Clinton DA Comprehensible. After a Sunday's lecture with you, I think I can teach the Political DA to sucessive generations of debaters and not make a screaming fool out of myself. John Weaver - For being the first person to volunteer 2 years ago when I put out the call. Couldn't have pulled off Harvard without you last year, Steel was amazing, and even though you haven't been with us much this year your still there in spirit and that's what counts!!:) Katie Kasmai - To think, you graduated this school last year not even knowing we offered policy. Well, GMU was lucky to get you and I think you're making for lost time nicely!!:) Your evidence is amazing, your spirit unflagging, you'll go far!!:) Sarah Ryan - Even though we haven't had time to talk much this year, you've always been there with the support when I've needed it (evidentiary and mentally). Your capitalism and rights stuff has taken us far. You'll go further yet. I've enjoyed knowing you, and hope to hear from you soon!!:) Jake Weiner - Although I'm still recovering from seeing you in a tie at States, I've always enjoyed talking with you, you always made this whole thing seem worthwile!!:) Thanks for being you. Neil Butt - Same comment as for Jake...you've made it all seem worthwile, even when a lot of other voices were shouting that it wasn't. To anyone I've left off, or missed, it wasn't intentional....and please don't take offense. ANd, that's all that's written. Centreville HS Policy Debate, Clifton, VA RIP 1998 - 2000. THe point of this is that no team survives by itself. You could have billions and if you don't work, and don't surround yourself with people that care about the activity and the kids you'll collapse.( My case was weird, and I'd be happy to explain it b/c, it was one of the few times that the preceeding sentence didn't prove itself true). It's all about caring and work folks. If you work hard and surround yourself with caring people you'll go far...it's not about cabals, money, secret handshakes, wink-wink-nudge-nudge, it's just about WORK and CARING. So, if you know of a HS in NOVA who is looking for a hardworking, caring coach...let me know. If not, JUST KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK, AND CARING ATTITUDES THAT Y'ALL DISPLAY all the time, and as a community we are that much better off. Duane e a blu --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20000503/877ce5b3/attachment.htm From nkhwdebate Wed May 3 22:12:19 2000 From: nkhwdebate (Natalie's Debate) Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 20:12:19 PDT Subject: Re- "Elite H.S. Myth" Message-ID: I have to admit, i think gab is on target here and that in our discussions of high school debate, we sometimes need to go back a little further then just budgets and coaches to the very notion of being privileged to be at schools that had debate. for example, i went to an all girl's school which didn't havce a program and i debated in LD for an all boys school. we weren't allowed to have a policy based program because the speech faculty was opposed to it as a speech activity and the administration didn't like the idea. I was the only womyn on the team and ws subtly encouraged by our coach and administration not to do well, because the upper levels of administration didn't like it that a girl was out performing their boys and because of me, they were never going to allow another girl on the team. I was not allowed to go to the tournaments that succesful males who had come before me had gone on because the administration thought I was a waste of money (literally). Many people i knew in high school didn't have the privilege of using the money that they made in a part time (or full time or two full time jobs) on debate expenses; they used it on subsisting or attempting to save some for college because otherwise, it would be a struggle. Imagine trying to tell an employer that you can't work during the school day and you need weekends off too...most aren't too happy. For many people even getting to the activity is an act of privilege, for some even being able to go on a tournament is a challenge. We who are debating now are all privileged in this manner; we who debated in high school also are. Privilege doesn't always exist at the point of debating "well" or being a nationally competitive high school debater only; privilege exists at the point of being able to debate. just some thoughts..... natalie mtsu ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From carsonau Thu May 4 01:11:35 2000 From: carsonau (Austin Carson) Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 23:11:35 -0700 Subject: Re- "Elite H.S. Myth" Message-ID: some points that were lost in the attempt to bash bear: 1) no one has, as of yet, addressed the argument i made in my original reply about the relationship between money and coaching. hello. whilst big red may have donated his services one time at the toc's, i feel quite strongly that most coaches at the high school level, travelling with the teams that are successful at the national level, are NOT doing charity work. level of budget has strong causation with coaching quality. 2) no one has, as of yet, addressed the issue of travel constraints and budgetary concerns. my original point was that mr. glass's argument that "High School success doesn't correlate with personal wealth, travel budgets, or any of that. It correlates with coaching - (and, in rare cases like Caddo, with a few excellent students who break all the odds)." was in general wrong. all the coaching in the world (mind you...where's the paycheck?) can not help a high school debater excel at the national level if there is no way to get the tournament. level of travel has strong causation with debate success; that travel is dictated in large part by budgetary restraints. 3) mr. glass has clarified his position via backchannel to me. as i understand it, his intent was to point out that coaching can be an important factor too. i agree with this. all i'm asking is for us as successful college debaters to recognize the importance that institutional advantages play in our success. 4) we are missing the point with all this "i'm an exception" testimony. while there are exceptions, i still don't understand how this answers the overwhelming case that financial backing impact success. 5) did gabrielle's post go unnoticed? aside from talking about x person who made it to collegiate success even though they had a $4000 budget and had to work part-time in high school, let's talk about the UDL kids who live in areas where property taxes make a textbook a luxury...or ones that never got their debate program's off the ground because of no support. i've learned taht one person's story of "beating the odds" can be anohter's dream, since some don't get the chance. 6) bottom line argument: financial capabilities are one of the few _necessary preconditions_ for success in collegiate or high school debate. coaching can compensate for a lack of full institutional backing, hard work can compensate for a lack of coaching, etc. but in the end, without the ability to travel or hire the assistance needed to succeed, our success would not be possible. look, i am not exactly livin check2check here at MSU. we have good backing from the university, excellent coaching, and a great squad. but this is partly due to our budget, and that's all i'm asking folks to recognize. there is no group of elitst debaters who shake hands behind closed doors and arrange the pairings so that the underfunded teams all hit emory BG. but there _is_ a group of kids which excel at the national level in high school and college in part because of financial backing. declare me a member. austin ----- Austin Carson 401 North Case Michigan State University East Lansing, MI 48825 (517) 355 7044 "I can never find a quote I like for the bottom of my emails, but I felt compelled to put something witty." From pfist001 Wed May 3 22:15:22 2000 From: pfist001 (Damien Pfister) Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 22:15:22 -0500 Subject: comic relief for your approval Message-ID: ok, so i have nothing else to do but reveal part of my treasure trove of malapropisms, mis-sayings, and otherwise funny missteps by high school debaters. this isn't to make fun of high school debaters, those are just the only folks that i have judged so far so cool it, buster. we're all guilty of these debate faux pas--how many years did it take YOU to realize the correct pronunciation of exacerbate?? it's called comic relief during finals week. enjoy. "we're saying a marxist government would be better, but worse..." "they're infinitely aggressive..." "the government will make me wear black socks on tuesday, work on the minefields on wednesday, and go to school on thursday, all because they passed their plan." "single sex schools are good because each group gets an opportunity and happiness and no discrimination and don't get turned down by chicks (sic, i prefer womyn) and that hurts if the chicks were somewhere else, there wouldn't be a problem with dating--GET US OUT OF COED SCHOOLS!!" "i don't have the direct literacy of the tenth amendment, but it basically says the states have power." "did you read the plan? did you understand it? then what's the problem? why do you think we're outside the resolution?" "topicality is not a voting issue because we have proven its not a voter." "on the permutation, we're leaving the enforcement to the states, so be happy, ok?" "absent multicultural education, we will have much diversiveness!" "local anatomy exacerbates racism..." "i'd be impressed if you could teach english to somone who spoke mexican." (so would i, considering there ain't no such language.) "you should prefer the interpretation that is german to the resolution." "i know two girls that got pregnant through coed schools..." "well, i don't care if the judge is buying this, because i am!" "judge, could you explain to our opponents that you don't need to have any evidence for analytical arguments?" "we'll exxagerate these impacts later..." "they said it will take five years to be profoud in a language--no way...it will take much longer to be.........proficient..." "my warrant is that their cards have no warrant." "why worry about critiques? i mean, there might be a point, but what's the point in that?" "they're only talking about nuclear holocaust. but that is irrelevent. i mean, it only happens once in a lifetime!" and my personal favorite... "extend our impact...seniors won't have medicare funding if there is a spending tradeoff, and i am a senior in 2001, and i want to have health care." george w bush still wins the misspeaking contest even over these students. guess that's what happens when you eat too many paint chips as a kid. hope that makes finals week a little better. oh, and for anyone who desires to be alienated by postmodernist discourse, William "the Spanopticon" Spanos has a new book out in 2000, called America's Shadow: An Anatomy of Empire. i'm sure there are some cards people can melt into africa links somehow in there. :-) much love, damien From kenneth.delaughder Wed May 3 22:56:14 2000 From: kenneth.delaughder (Kenneth DeLaughder) Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 21:56:14 -0600 Subject: DCA Debater #3 Kamal Ghali In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Speaking of Todd Graham, since my uncle debated with him in HS, I think I can dig up a TG HS senior card so you can see that same army jacket he's had in action... )but I do remember the mining documentary where Todd Graham did the voice over that Missouri Southern STILL PLAYS on their cable channel) along with Ken D. episodes of Video digest... lol hoe about a DOug Dennis rookie card, did they make cards back then some schools truly are old :) lol pace, Ken On Wed, 3 May 2000, doug dennis wrote: > is that the uco card with his chad hill stats? > > knowing the old school > > doug > > On Wed, 3 May 2000, david arnett wrote: > > > Are you kidding. We have to rank. How else can we build our debate fantasy > > league. I've gotta Steve Donald rookie card I'm looking to trade. Whata > > folks willing to give me? > > > > > > > > >From: Leslie Phillips - Lexington High School > > > > > >Reply-To: Leslie Phillips - Lexington High School > > > > > >To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU > > >Subject: Re: DCA Debater #3 Kamal Ghali > > >Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 14:57:30 -0400 > > > > > >Ryan Sparacino wrote: > > > > > > > As a senior in high school, Kamal > > > >debated with a young pup named Andy "Baxter" Ryan. Kamal and Andy had > > >one > > > >of the finest high school seasons in recent times, winning the > > >Glenbrooks, > > > >Emory, and the Tournament of Champions, to name but a few of their > > > >successes. They may well have been the High School team of the 90's, > > >with > > > >all due respect to Lexington Nichols and Lehotsky. > > > > > >This is precisely the sort of crap that makes these silly ranking/rating > > >games so irritating. > > > > > >Kamal and Andy were, and are, brilliant debaters. They were a wonderful > > >team. They're my friends, and I take pride in knowing them. Steve and > > >Matt were brilliant debaters; they were a wonderful team. I love and > > >admire them, and coaching and assisting in their careers is, of course, > > >something I am very proud of. > > > > > >There is simply no particular reason to decide, or try to decide, that one > > >or the other of those teams (for instance) was better or worse than the > > >other. I don't know whether Kamal, Andy, Steve or Matt care about that > > >especially, but I hope not; I sure don't. There are all kinds of terrific > > >debaters who should be honored, studied, modeled, talked about. > > >Additionally they (and all other good debaters) are different enough that > > >points of comparison are probably ultimately futile, and certainly > > >exceptionally subjective. > > > > > >I just don't see the point; never have. > > > > > > > > > > > >Les Phillips > > >Lexington High School > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com > > > From d.breshears Wed May 3 22:16:28 2000 From: d.breshears (David Breshears) Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 23:16:28 -0400 Subject: what kind of condition is it in? Message-ID: do you REALLY wonder what Jon's card smells like? it ain't teen spirit! dave -----Original Message----- From: matt stannard To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU Date: Wednesday, May 03, 2000 4:18 PM Subject: Re: what kind of condition is it in? >Michelin says: > >i have a matt stannard rookie card (the >>only version printed because he debated only one year) and a john meany >>rookie card - both are in above average condition (the stannard card is >>near mint). > >No--only one SUCCESSFUL year (my senior year) which followed SEVERAL weak >years. > >Wondering what the Sharpe scratch and sniff card actually smells like... > >stannard >________________________________________________________________________ >Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From cdiamant Wed May 3 23:41:30 2000 From: cdiamant (Chris Diamant) Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 00:41:30 -0400 Subject: Coaching: The key? Message-ID: Hello All, What an interesting, and long due thread this is turning out to be. It seems that while many of us are arguing one factor or another to be the key to success on the national circuit, perhaps we could direct our thoughts towards a different possibility. Perhaps rather than discussing what is necessary to make being nationally competitive possible, we should consider what is necessary to make being nationally competitive unneccesary. First my obligatory narrative/aside: I debated for a medium sized school in a medium sized suburb in northeastern ohio. Due to some tax calculation problems, the school district was always in debt. However, we had (although I cannot be objective) one of the best theatre programs in the state. Due to its ability to sell out a half dozen shows in our 700 seat theatre at $8 a pop, we were able to acquire enough money that, once we could convince the department that the national circuit would be a good experience, and that we thought we could compete, my partner and I were able to go to several major tournaments without accruing large personal debts. And due to some generous grants from Wake Forest and Northwestern, I was able to attend top quality institutes. All the time, however, that I was trying to become the best national caliber debater I could, I found myself saddened by the state of my state. During my three years in high school, I saw perhaps two or three new schools appear on the regional circuit in Ohio. At the same time, I saw close to 10 programs either fall into mediocrity, or cease to exist altogether. The funding had not changed. In most instances, the problem was the loss of a coach, and the failure to hire another. I'm always perplexed when I hear debaters say something along the lines of "I will never forget how debate changed my life. I've learned more from debate than I thought I ever could. It gave me the intellectual and creative outlet school simply could not provide". I'm perplexed by this statement because it seems that a large majority of these people, after going on to college and beyond, seem to leave the community for good, whether due to work, family life, or just a general desire to distance themselves from the activity. I am one who does believe coaches are the key. I say this because I believe that if a decent amount of us with debate experience were to get involved with our local high schools, there may not be a desire or need to achieve the "next level" of debating tha most people seem to consider the national circuit to be. Our state tournament used to draw about 40-50 teams from 15-20 different schools. If each program was coached, either by a full time faculty member or maybe a part time staff member or volunteer, our state could have such a vibrant circuit that an entire year could be spent simply competing amongst ourselves. Travel costs would be minimal. A desire to attend institutes would exist, but would be lessened due to the narrower playing field, and the ability to be instructed on how to research and craft strategies that can be created at home. Obviously, things such as big libraries and lexis would still lead to a somewhat uneven field, but comparatively it seems as if we could come closer to achieving what seem to be the primary goals of the activity, to learn speaking and argumentative skills and to become aware of political and social issues. This could be achieved in any state, it would only take the people willing to do it. I think this also ties in well with the discussion on personal action. Many people ask "what can I do to help make things better?". I think some are simply disheartened by their lack of knowledge on how to act on an issue, so why not get back to what we know? Why not lend some time to give kids who otherwise would not have the opportunity to debate that opportunity? Like many college debaters, I have often thought about pursuing a legal or political career. But the more I think about it, the more intrigued I am by the possibility of becoming an educator: to not only have a captive audience listening to me dispense my arcane knowledge of American History :), but also to have the opportunity to give others what was given to me: a chance to debate, to have my eyes opened to a world of possibilities I didn't know existed. It seems that this is personal action at its best. I know coaching isnt' for everyone. Some perhaps believe themselves to neither possess the time nor the temperment to sacrifice their weekends to a group of high school kids they have no direct connection to. And yes, there would still be national tournaments, for those who wish to travel to them. I think, however, such a scenario would benefit the national circuit: you would no longer see the polarity that often occurs at big tournaments between the well traveled, well coached teams and the uncoached, underfunded teams unfamiliar with the style they are about to encounter. All in all it seems like a pretty good deal. Hell, it can do no harm. This will probably be my last post for a while, as I head off to Lexington tomorrow to help my "national circuit" team try to make their run. Until then, take care all. chris U. Pitt / Centerville H.S. -------------------------------------------------- Chris Diamant University of Pittsburgh http://www.pitt.edu/~wpdu CSDiamant @ AIM >From Thu May 4 00:43:30 2000 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 51590 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Thu, 4 May 2000 00:44:48 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo22.mx.aol.com (imo22.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.66]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA38236 for ; Thu, 4 May 2000 00:44:46 -0400 Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo22.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v26.7.) id g.4a.4eeb896 (4206); Thu, 4 May 2000 00:43:30 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 105 Message-ID: <4a.4eeb896.264259f2 at aol.com> Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 00:43:30 EDT Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Michael Bear Bryant Subject: Re: Re- "Elite H.S. Myth" Comments: To: abryan at blue.weeg.uiowa.edu In a message dated 5/3/00 8:23:11 PM Mountain Daylight Time, abryan at blue.weeg.uiowa.edu writes: > I think Gab is completely > correct when she states that wealth does play an issue in debate; I think > that was the first thing I acknowledged in my first post. I'm not asking > for anything serious (an apology might quell my rage) except that you > realize that there are a lot of individuals on this list with many > different circumstances affecting them and you could at the very least put > qualifiers on your sweeping generalizations. > > Andy Ryan > University of Iowa > 100 Burge Hall #4405 > Iowa City, IA 52242 > (319) 621 5289 > > "I'm not saying we should combine a larger data set so that we can > promulgate laws on the sale and consumption of cheap beer and > chlamydia."-- Iron Mike Jensen > Geez, calm down you little fireball! Gabrielle said it with far more skill. I'm legitimately sorry if I "hurt" you with any broad sweeping generalities that ignited your anxieties over being stereotyped. Is that sufficient? Bear From ifjxh Wed May 3 23:54:36 2000 From: ifjxh (Joshua Hoe) Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 21:54:36 PDT Subject: the silence of systemic poverty, racism, and other unspoken -isms Message-ID: Once again Gab is all over it...as much as I hate to get involved in yet another devisive anger fest. 1. My narrative - I was born in NYC my parents were poor and my Dad held down three jobs to keep me in clothes and school. One time we came back from vacation and many of my toys had been eaten by rats. After a stint in Tennessee we moved to Oklahoma where my father finally met with modicum of success that lasted approximately three to four years (until an IRS audit that we still have not recovered from). Somehow despite all this I was allowed (through testing) to attend a "mandatory integrtion" (the words of the school system not me) magnet school located in downtown Tulsa called Booker T. Washington..and it was here after a failed basketball experiment that I accidentally found debate. I worked long hours at the pizza parlor to pay for debate because I loved it - I even attended fine camps like Trinity (before Harrison) on my own dime. Through some miracle I saved enough money and got my parents to help me out before my senior year attend the Wake Forest workshop (my first real theory and learning environment)....I will always be thankful that I was in Ross Smith's theory lab because it actually changed my life and infused me with a love for debate still. It opened up worlds within my head that I had never even considered before. And it was here that I found I had some talent (although it was really just ego - my partner was the good one and single handedly dragged me all the way to semis). Anyway, from there I was lucky enough to get a scholarship to UNT and then UCO and if it were not for John Gossett and Doug Duke I would never be the person I am now. They literally gave me an opportunity I could not have afforded without them. 2. Why did I tell you this story - While I frequently disagree with his methods....and how easily he divorces himself from the things he does - Bear has a point. No matter how many of us bootstrapped ourselves into debate it is highly unlikely that the majority of people in poor school districts could ever experience this. In my life, the chain of events that conspired to allow me to somehow win CEDA nationals is improbable at best. Absolutely improbable luck. I have not been very good at encouraging debate opportunity...I am so driven to prove that I can coach at the highest levels that frequently I forget all those people who have no coaching just desire...All those people we do not reach. Someday I hope to improve in this area. Nonetheless, be it coaching, money, class, race, sex or whatever...People with money have a much better chance to attend Dartmouth, Michigan, or Northwestern ad avail themselves of the best coaching money can buy for years and years before they ever reach college. I am part of this system because I am poor too and cannot afford to pass over the monetary opportunity and partially because I crave contact with the best and brightest (guilty as charged). 3. Andy et al. are also right. We should not be so willing to undervalue the work that the privleged do just because they are privleged. There is nobody who has ever reached the top of debate without tremendous sacrifice. We also should never assume that success is always connected to wealth. We should be proud of each other at the same time we work to create more opportunity for those that do not have the same opportunities that we had. Most of all Gabrielle rocks the house. I will miss her and her wise council and courage her huge heart. Thanks for everything Gabrielle! Josh ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com >From Thu May 4 00:59:53 2000 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 51855 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Thu, 4 May 2000 01:00:30 -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 BAA19944 for ; Thu, 4 May 2000 01:00:29 -0400 Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo-d02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v26.7.) id i.3b.464e49a (4206); Thu, 4 May 2000 00:59:54 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 105 Message-ID: <3b.464e49a.26425dc9 at aol.com> Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 00:59:53 EDT Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Michael Bear Bryant Subject: Re: Re- "Elite H.S. Myth" Comments: To: eychdi at hotmail.com In a message dated 5/3/00 8:36:58 PM Mountain Daylight Time, eychdi at HOTMAIL.COM writes: > We do not think you necessarily excluded > other factors (such as coaches) in your statement, but we also do not think > Glass' reply was indeed such an egregious violation and "running away", as > you will, of your intent. > > We wonder, however, why it seems as though when people disagree with your > opinion, you tend to interpret their dissention as a personal attack. > Oftentimes your very valid points are lost in a string of ad hominem > insults. Why make the list less pleasant than need be? Question #1: How many of there are you? What's with the imperial "we" tone? Question #2: Have you ever been treated for multiple personalities? Glass overstated my claim. Sorry if you perceive my rebuke of that overstatement as a digression into ad homs, but That's the way it is. Bear From Michelin.Massey Thu May 4 00:07:35 2000 From: Michelin.Massey (Michelin Christopher Massey) Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 23:07:35 -0600 Subject: it seems we are all subjects Message-ID: thank you to everyone who has posted the analysis of althusser and others who write about what it means to be interpellated and to be a subject. for me, the connections between "subjectivity" (am i saying that correctly) and how people choose particular jobs for hs debate coaching are so amazingly clear given my current experience. what follows is a description of my current experiences in "subjectivity." at the end of my high school career, i came into college believing in america, its ideals, and all sorts of other wonderfully grandiose things. my reading and experiences here in school have led me to believe that those ideals are myths. merit as it is conceived in popular culture seems to be a sham since white, male, heterosexual, able-bodied, english speaking, etc. get social recognition and favor for no good reason. in addition to these particular realizations, i became intensely cynical regarding particular institutions for which i wanted (and in some ways want) to be a member. one of the biggest decisions in my entire life was to give up a dream i had since i was in second grade: to be in law school, then a power-ful/hungry attorney, and eventually a politician. instead, a little over a year ago, i decided to become a high school debate coach. to that end, i have judged several hundreds of debates (partly to "make connections" and partly to "give back") and really believe in the cause of helping children learn the liberating skills debate teaches. however, there are particular economic realities i face. my mother goes without to help finance my education. on may 12, she will no longer be able to afford the opportunity to help me pay for my living expenses. in addition to my mother's help, my step-father and father do what they can to help make ends meet for themselves and for me. on may 12, that will end. at the conclusion of this summer, i will have over $10,000 in debt to the united states federal government. i will have several other expenses as i make an attempt to uproot myself and live in a brand new city. i will be coaching high school debate, but i do not know where. more than likely, as my applications have been going, it will be in an already wealthy area/school with children who (as gabrielle so eloquently mentioned) have many privileges like concerned parents and skilled teachers (among others including the ability to travel the hs national circuit). why? these schools are willing and able to afford someone like me. i am not certified - more schooling means more debt and more fights with my parents about money ... they will insist they should help and i will feel bad in their insistence knowing they go without to help me. i am a person whose experience with teaching is my work with high school debaters on weekends, assistant coaching, summer institutes, regional seminars, and education coursework. if i receive offers from more than one school, i will take the one that offers me the best situation in terms of work environment, perks, salary, etc. the schools already ahead in the game can offer me those things. i wish that i could say that i am strong enough to live without "the paper" in favor of making sacrifices, teaching those who desperately need the knowledge i have and will have. as i sit here with the most conflicted emotions, i cannot tell you all how difficult it is to reread what i have just written about myself. on the one hand, i am disgusted that i would be so shallow to sell out to the wealthiest few to live with more excesses. on the other, i think about how much easier it would be for me to pay off my loans more quickly, drive a better car, and sleep more comfortably at night. i am not so arrogant to say that i'm a brilliant person who will be the best hs debate coach ever. but, i think i know a couple of things about debate and people that i can teach kids to be in positions where they can and should win debates in rounds and in life. folks who believe a little bit in me at these schools may very well likely offer me the type of salary that will aid me in being more comfortable. the game is not fair - it is far from it. but, i am not perfect and am not tough minded and strong willed and emotionally strudy enough to teach at places that will offer me less money. i wish i was... most sincerely, michelin massey. From sarah.chan Thu May 4 00:15:01 2000 From: sarah.chan (Sarah E. Chan) Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 01:15:01 EDT Subject: avoiding conflicts with the wsca convention References: <3f.3ffc411.263a3995@aol.com> Message-ID: The Organization for Women and Communication (ORWAC) division within WSCA had a little bit of discussion about this at the business meeting, and some people planned to raise the issue at the larger meeting. One of my profs mentioned that some of the non-white members of WSCA are considering boycotting this particular conference. We also discussed social advocacy by the organization in terms of choosing hotels that are environmentally and socially-conscious at one of the "greening" panels. I do believe that WSCA always has their conference the last weekend in February, and since the tournament is held at a hotel, as is the conference, they move the location all the time. Sarah SJSU debate On Thu, 27 Apr 2000 20:47:17 EDT Michael Bear Bryant writes: >In a message dated 4/27/00 5:48:15 PM Mountain Daylight Time, >hansonjb at whitman.edu writes: > >> >Couer d'Alene - Feb 23-27 2001 > >Now, there was an incredibly wise choice by WSCA. Pick a time during >the NDT >quals, and hold the conference in the middle of nowhere (the airport >in >Spokane is spectacular). Is there even a school in Couer d'Alene? >What's >going to be the conference meeting place - the Aryan Nation >campgrounds? > >Another spectacular product of bureaucratic idiocy. > >Bear ________________________________________________________________ YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET! Juno now offers FREE Internet Access! Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. From lundeeng Thu May 4 00:17:14 2000 From: lundeeng (Geoff Lundeen) Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 01:17:14 -0400 Subject: Re- "Elite H.S. Myth" References: <3b.464e49a.26425dc9@aol.com> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: Michael Bear Bryant To: Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2000 12:59 AM Subject: Re: Re- "Elite H.S. Myth" > Question #1: How many of there are you? What's with the imperial "we" tone? > Question #2: Have you ever been treated for multiple personalities? Bear-- Eun Young and Nicole signed with two names--- it was a jointly written message... From sarah.chan Thu May 4 00:15:01 2000 From: sarah.chan (Sarah E. Chan) Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 01:15:01 EDT Subject: SoBay coaching job Message-ID: Leland HS in San Jose, CA is looking for both policy and LD coaches (with around 300 kids, it takes a lot of us). Mrs. Brasher, the director, is really flexible as far as number of days and travel/judging commitments. The team is highly competitive and is seeking to travel 3 policy teams nationally. If you're interested, backchannel me and we'll talk. Take care, Sarah SJSU/Leland debate ________________________________________________________________ YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET! Juno now offers FREE Internet Access! Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. >From Thu May 4 01:19:59 2000 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 52332 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Thu, 4 May 2000 01:20:36 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo22.mx.aol.com (imo22.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.66]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA35456 for ; Thu, 4 May 2000 01:20:34 -0400 Received: from NicoleSerr at aol.com by imo22.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v26.7.) id n.71.2cda721 (3995) for ; Thu, 4 May 2000 01:19:59 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 70 Message-ID: <71.2cda721.2642627f at aol.com> Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 01:19:59 EDT Reply-To: NicoleSerr at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Nicole Serrano Subject: Re: Re- "Elite H.S. Myth" In a message dated 5/4/00 1:01:06 AM Eastern Daylight Time, MWBRYANT at AOL.COM writes: << Question #1: How many of there are you? What's with the imperial "we" tone? Question #2: Have you ever been treated for multiple personalities? Glass overstated my claim. Sorry if you perceive my rebuke of that overstatement as a digression into ad homs, but That's the way it is. Bear >> A lesson in reading email carefully -the email was signed with two names, hence the we. Eun Young was trying to illustrate my cooperation in her writing and posting the email. And *our* point was simply that you attack everyone on edebate. I learned around the age of 4 that calling people names and throwing temper tantrums isn't the best way to convince my mommy to buy me things- perhaps you should apply a similar lesson to your persuasion on edebate. Just attack the argument, not the person. Nicole Serrano & Eun Young Choi From sarah.chan Thu May 4 00:15:01 2000 From: sarah.chan (Sarah E. Chan) Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 01:15:01 EDT Subject: diversity, service and farewell Message-ID: Well, I'm hanging up the debate tubs and will just be coaching (getting too old to do both :-) and I'm signing off eDebate after this goes out. Last summer there was a lot of discussion about increasing diversity and community service. I thought it'd be neat to hear what people are doing, so if you reply to this message, please send me a copy. This year was not as successful of a year recruitment-wise. All of our returning debaters are now leaving the activity, and the few novices that we had are not returning. We still maintain a diverse parli/ie crew, but for all intensive purposes, there will be no more policy debate at SJSU. On a more positive note, I've been coaching at my high school (where I didn't debate) and have found coaching the novices there extremely rewarding. The novice teams are primarily Asian-American, with a pretty even sex mix. With these kids, one of the major tasks Marcus and I have been working on is exposing them to a broader range of arguments since they come from similar, rather sheltered backgrounds. For many, it's the first time they've really been able to argue about things they believe in. The SJSU team in general has been working on promoting debate, through public debate/speaking events (including two shows, one debate and one ie, that will be broadcasted on a local television station) and judging at local high school tournaments. There were so many more things that I've wanted to do to give back to the community that's given so much to me. I feel truly honored to have been recognized by my region as an outstanding peer coach, and I hope to continue making a difference, even if it's no longer in the college debate community. And when I'm done with my OT internships, maybe I'll see y'all around. In the meantime, I hope that everyone who has been working towards diversity and service continues and that more will join. Take care, Sarah SJSU/Leland debate ________________________________________________________________ YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET! Juno now offers FREE Internet Access! Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. >From Thu May 4 01:38:23 2000 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 52538 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Thu, 4 May 2000 01:39:32 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo18.mx.aol.com (imo18.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.8]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA30874 for ; Thu, 4 May 2000 01:39:30 -0400 Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo18.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v26.7.) id r.b2.4b71822 (4206); Thu, 4 May 2000 01:38:24 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 105 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 01:38:23 EDT Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Michael Bear Bryant Subject: Re: Re- "Elite H.S. Myth" Comments: To: lundeeng at pilot.msu.edu In a message dated 5/3/00 11:15:56 PM Mountain Daylight Time, lundeeng at PILOT.MSU.EDU writes: > Bear-- > > Eun Young and Nicole signed with two names--- it was a jointly written > message... Wow... for some reason the signatures didn't come through and I just saw the email address thanks. And my apologies for the crude attempt at humor. I now recognize that there were two people simultaneously addressing me. Please, folks, attack me one at a time, please. When you combine my abuse on this list with the neverending supply of nasty backchannels, it's sometimes hard to keep up. I did not mean to mock or silence anyone's rebuke of my ad hom-laden rhetoric. Bear Bear From apkemp Thu May 4 00:41:08 2000 From: apkemp (Andrew Kemp) Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 00:41:08 -0500 Subject: Re- "Elite H.S. Myth" In-Reply-To: <003101bfb588$01edbac0$479d0a23@user.msu.edu> Message-ID: Bear stumbles a possible diagnosis! He asks: "Have you ever been treated for multiple personalities?" I thought I was psychology boy... Andrew Kemp ------------------ PO Box 4308 Concordia College Moorhead, MN 56562 ------------------ (218) 299-3970 Livedalen Hall 111 _______________________________________________________________________________ "It's All Good!" --ASPSKT4998 "Age is a very high price to pay for maturity." --Unknown _______________________________________________________________________________ >From Thu May 4 01:44:33 2000 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 52727 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Thu, 4 May 2000 01:45:09 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo-d10.mx.aol.com (imo-d10.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.42]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA25092 for ; Thu, 4 May 2000 01:45:08 -0400 Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo-d10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v26.7.) id n.cc.414f7a2 (4206); Thu, 4 May 2000 01:44:33 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 105 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 01:44:33 EDT Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Michael Bear Bryant Subject: Re: Re- "Elite H.S. Myth" Comments: To: NicoleSerr at aol.com In a message dated 5/3/00 11:20:59 PM Mountain Daylight Time, NicoleSerr at AOL.COM writes: > And *our* point was simply that you attack everyone on edebate. I learned > around the age of 4 that calling people names and throwing temper tantrums > isn't the best way to convince my mommy to buy me things- perhaps you should > apply a similar lesson to your persuasion on edebate. Just attack the > argument, not the person. Sorry, if you feel that way, but I remain convinced that there is meaning behind my messages and that my posts are more than namecalling and temper tantrums. Don't silence me simply because my style is painful. Prick me and I am likely to respond. I defer to Gabrielle's beautiful post. After reading that, any further explaining of my concerns on HS elitism or Glass' overstatements would be a waste of time. Bear >From Thu May 4 02:07:00 2000 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 53453 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Thu, 4 May 2000 02:07:54 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo20.mx.aol.com (imo20.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.10]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA21110 for ; Thu, 4 May 2000 02:07:39 -0400 Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo20.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v26.7.) id n.aa.49ba625 (4206) for ; Thu, 4 May 2000 02:07:00 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 105 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 02:07:00 EDT Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Michael Bear Bryant Subject: Re: Re- "Elite H.S. Myth" In a message dated 5/3/00 11:46:03 PM Mountain Daylight Time, abryan at blue.weeg.uiowa.edu writes: > Question: why put hurt in quotes? I think I, to the best of my limited > kindness, addressed your concern over being hurt by the DICTA post. But > why put hurt in quotes? Is it mocking? Do you not believe I was hurt? I > guess I wasn't, not in the sense that I felt pain from your post. It did > offend me though. Some of the most important experiences of my life > surround financial constraints that my family had. This also explains why > it means so much to me that people respect my accomplishments as being > something that I at least have a majority say in, not something handed to > me. Because I can't understand all the possible ways I might have "hurt" you. I apologize for all of them. Isn't that all you asked for? If you think the financial constraints you had were bad, I got stories worse than Hoe's that I could narrate to you. But if in doing that I inflict more HURT on you, then I'd rather not continue the dialogue. I thank you for helping provide me a richer picture of who you are, but I think we both agree you've been damn lucky. Yeah, you've worked hard. Work means success in this activity. But, in the bigger picture, the random luck of priviledge is also a pretty big factor, even for those of us who were far more financially-disadvantaged. If you reject the apology simply because I used quotation marks around HURT, I don't think you're trying that hard to be UNDERSTANDING. Rejecting the link to the discourse kritik turn off my apology, ;-) Bear >From Thu May 4 02:17:06 2000 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 54205 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Thu, 4 May 2000 02:17:56 -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 CAA27504 for ; Thu, 4 May 2000 02:17:55 -0400 Received: from PlaeDoh at aol.com by imo-d04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v26.7.) id i.99.457e114 (3968); Thu, 4 May 2000 02:17:06 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0.1 for Mac sub 74 Message-ID: <99.457e114.26426fe2 at aol.com> Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 02:17:06 EDT Reply-To: PlaeDoh at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Danny Bell Subject: Re: DCA Debater #3 Kamal Ghali Comments: To: hotrats at hotmail.com In a message dated 5/3/00 2:41:30 PM, hotrats at HOTMAIL.COM wrote: <> I've got a rookie jason russell and I'm willing to throw in the mike kloster rookie limited edition (with the gold foil matching suspenders and tie on the front) and the Tim Mahoney and Bob Lechtreck teamates card to leverage the deal. Old Danny Bell pace From hello_katie Thu May 4 01:35:10 2000 From: hello_katie (Katie Kat) Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 01:35:10 -0500 Subject: multiple personalities Message-ID: My response is below: ----- Original Message ----- From: Michael Bear Bryant To: Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2000 12:59 AM Subject: Re: Re- "Elite H.S. Myth" > Question #1: How many of there are you? What's with the imperial "we" tone? > Question #2: Have you ever been treated for multiple personalities? Bear-- I imagine that the multiple personalities comment was meant as a sarcastic joke. If so, I do not find it funny. Someone that I am very close to has multiple personality disorder, and I don't find her condition humorous or something to treat lightly. Maybe I am oversensitive, and if so, I apologize. But please refrain from using a psychological condition as a way to insult someone. The person that I know had parents who were in a cult and physically and sexually abused her, her siblings, and her cousins. Her brain "splitting off" was the only way a four-year-old child could cope with this level of trauma. Had she not had multiple personalities, she might be not be here today. Thanks for listening. -Katie Hatziavramidis K-State Debate Don't forget to visit http://www.pigpig.com/ and http://www.pigpig.net/ ____________________________________________________________ Get your 100MB FREE Internet storage! Sign up now - http://www.netdrive.com/?ao=zzn From L_Phillips Thu May 4 06:04:26 2000 From: L_Phillips (Leslie Phillips - Lexington High School) Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 07:04:26 -0400 Subject: Re- "Elite H.S. Myth" In-Reply-To: <3b.464e49a.26425dc9@aol.com> Message-ID: >In a message dated 5/3/00 8:36:58 PM Mountain Daylight Time, >eychdi at HOTMAIL.COM writes: > >> We do not think you necessarily excluded >> other factors (such as coaches) in your statement, but we also do not think >> Glass' reply was indeed such an egregious violation and "running away", as >> you will, of your intent. >> >> We wonder, however, why it seems as though when people disagree with your >> opinion, you tend to interpret their dissention as a personal attack. >> Oftentimes your very valid points are lost in a string of ad hominem >> insults. Why make the list less pleasant than need be? > >Question #1: How many of there are you? Two clear signatures from two separate individuals, Ms. Choi and Ms. Serrano, at the bottom of the post. >Question #2: Have you ever been treated for multiple personalities? Have you had your eyesight and reading comprehension tested? Could you at least read more carefully before pushing the sarcasm button? Les Phillips From sjvarda Thu May 4 06:50:14 2000 From: sjvarda (Scott Varda) Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 06:50:14 -0500 Subject: multiple personalities In-Reply-To: <83801C9F7D024D110875000A9C4B45B0@hello_katie.pigpig.zzn.co m> Message-ID: Given the Irony of the critique I make here, and my own link into it, please delete this message. OR, read it, then recreate your reality as a world in which you deleted it.... Katie Kat writes: >I imagine that the multiple personalities comment >was meant as a sarcastic joke. If so, I do not >find it funny. Someone that I am very close to >has multiple personality disorder, and I don't >find her condition humorous or something to treat >lightly. Maybe I am oversensitive, and if so, I >apologize. But please refrain from using a >psychological condition as a way to insult >someone. The person that I know had parents who >were in a cult and physically and sexually abused >her, her siblings, and her cousins. Her brain >"splitting off" was the only way a four-year-old >child could cope with this level of trauma. Had >she not had multiple personalities, she might be >not be here today. Thanks for listening. >-Katie Hatziavramidis >K-State Debate A couple of caveats first. I haven't slept. I'm procrastinating. And, while I have little to no personal experience with Katie, one of the people I most respect in this world has indicated to me that she respects you a great deal, thus, by extension, so do I, until proven otherwise. Having said that... ARE YOU KIDDING?! No, obviously you aren't. This subject is too personal for you to joke about. HOWEVER, is the reason for elimination of humor because one of the hundreds of subscribers to edebate has a friend who has a particular condition?! Are you serious?! (again, no sleep, of course you are, that's above, for some reason I just keep screaming that at my screen...) What on the planet is there left to be humorous about then? Doesn't at least one us know someone personally who is or displays, despite our best attempts to persuade them otherwise, sexist tendencies? Racist tendencies? Tendencies to vote on A-spec? In possession of a gluteous maximus? Big boned? Small boned? Albino? Nearsighted? Sleep deprived? A fan of the Backstreet boys? A listenered of country music? A Hick? A daigo? (I can use both of the last two, I am both) Does this mean NONE of the above mentioned can EVER be made fun of, alluded to, or referenced in an attemptedly (well it's a word now, damnit) humorous fashion without being castigated publicly on edebate. (Yep, there's the irony, castigating the castigation, whaddygonnado?) Funny people of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but your censors! Seriously though. It may not be appropriate to use a condition of split personalities as a joke, but REALLY, is your best argument, "I have a friend with a condition..." I'm sure Bear will have his response to this, sure to stir another thrilling round of baiting the 'baters, until then, I remain... A reluctant defender of Bear... varda Normal From L_Phillips Thu May 4 07:06:27 2000 From: L_Phillips (Leslie Phillips - Lexington High School) Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 08:06:27 -0400 Subject: ELITE H.S. Myth Message-ID: This is a very interesting thread. I have to begin by disagreeing, somewhat, with my friend David Glass, and agreeing with some other commentators: a reasonably prosperous community and school is usually the prerequisite for a strong debate team. It will not of itself *produce* a strong debate team, of course, and there are many other important factors. David writes that "Lexington is by no means a wealthy school or a wealthy program." No; by any reasonable standard, we are. One third of the money we spend on travel comes from the school system. That does not count my salary, coaching money, the copier, etc. Lexington is not the wealthiest of Boston's suburban towns. It is one of the most academic-intensive suburbs; arguably one of the most academic-intensive towns in the nation; lots of professors' kids, lots of academic-technical-private sector kids. The program exists because of 1) an unusually high interest in quality education; 2) the strenuous efforts of my brilliant predecessor, Ray Karras, to build the program and (utterly crucially) to get it into curriculum; 3) the school budget and community support to maintain the program as competitive debate became vastly more expensive over the last twenty-five years. The first two factors are utterly crucial; they are not matched by other rich towns around Boston. But wihtout the third factor, the first two would have been irrelevant. David is correct that we are not a "wealthy program" insofar as we have to raise a whole lot of money. For instance, we're planning our usual spring car washes, in which nationally competitive debaters perform stupid manual labor in public at $5/car. Much of the money raised is contributed by parents. We guarantee full access to tournaments without regard to ability to pay, and we never ask students/parents to pay the specific costs of any specific tournament. But we could not maintain that policy without a sufficient financial base. And our fundraising would be much, much less successful in a less prosperous community. David also writes: "Even schools in destitute areas, like Newark Science, have fielded Round Robin-quality teams during the periods that they had consistent involved coaching. And this is the extreme." In indirect response, Gabrielle Prisco argues, " Arguments that claim "money is irrelevant, look at school Y" are the equivalent of me saying, "My Grandfather came here as an immigrant with no money and without speaking English and now he has achieved monetary success. America is, therefore, a meritocracy." This is perhaps not quite what David meant, but here's my take: Newark (for instance) grew as a program and succeeded because a truly extraordinary individual, Brent Farrand, had a vision, worked like hell to implement it, corraled some money, etc. UDLs exist because some truly extraordinary individuals had visions, worked like hell, etc. The existence of debate programs should *not* be dependent on the random incidence of extraordinary people or circumstances. Increasingly, that is exactly what they are dependent on, even in prosperous communities, but there is no comparison between the effort necessary to found and maintain a program at Newark, for instance, and the effort necessary to found and maintain a program in Lexington, in the north suburbs of Chicago, Caddo Magnet, wherever. Some other responses: Lindsay Harrison: "I'm willing to suggest that my success was 99.9% coaching. Even if students at other schools have a lot of money, it's nearly impossible to get into the best labs at institutes without the coaches to lobby for you." I think this begs the obvious question that it's also impossible to get into any lab at institute unless you have money. The costs keep growing. The pressure to be at a big national institute rather than something more affordable and local keeps growing. Financial aid is scarce, and it can't replace the income that some kids *have* to make every summer by working. Increasingly institute is a threshold issue for kids. Debaters in "prosperous" communities, including this one, often drop out of the activity because the financial threshold is set too high; I would conclude that this is *extremely* widespread in less wealthy communities. [Note: The Newark Public Schools often pay some if not all institute expenses for their students. This is both amazing and, I am sure, pretty bloody unusual.] Austin Carson: "also, where the hell do coaches come from? salaries play a big role, and some schools can't afford to hire good coaches." In another post, Austin says that he's certain that coaches are not working out of "charity." I think he's really wrong here. First of all, *no* competent head or full-time assistant coach is paid anything like what her skills are worth. Start with the fact that a large proportion of active coaches would make damned good lawyers, and could be earning a lot more money doing that, or almost anything else. Many coaches simply get teachers' salaries, and little or no stipend money at all. My experience tells me that in high school debate the availability of a large stipend has little to do with the ability to bag a good head or assistant coach. I can name a number of well-funded positions that have gone begging for years, or have been taken by persons with little experience or competence because no one else would take the positions. Virtually any debate coach is, by definition, a volunteer, if not a charity worker. Compute the hourly wage. It is true that there are some college/grad-level hotshots who are paid very well to work with high school programs. That is the exception rather than the rule. Most college age people I know are working for just enough money to justify their time, or less. Many work for nothing at all, for the love of the activity. This doesn't even take into account the many people who run or are primary assistants in programs *on the side, in addition to their primary profession,* Dr. Glass being the paradigm example. I have no specific knowledge of what Dr. Glass has been paid over the past two decades by Bronx Science, Hendrick Hudson, and Edgemont, but I think I could make an educated guess . . . Coaches come to work for programs who have eager, well-motivated debaters and relatively decent working conditions. Some of them certainly may tend to favor programs with more active travel schedules. The prestige or visibility of the program may certainly be a factor; the amount they can pay people, not so often. Drew Meuer says: " Oftentimes it's not even coaching, (good or otherwise), or money that creates excellent debaters. Oak Harbor High School, in the backwoods state of Washington has produced several first round NDT debaters (Aaron Moberg-Jones, Adam Symonds, Charles Olney) with ZERO coaching for at least the past 5-6 years. " But, again, Oak Harbor is an amazing and exceptional example. Drew does not mention all the tournaments that Oak Harbor has *not* been able to attend that they *should* have been able to attend. It's a long list. They shouldn't have to deal with those problems. Chris Diamant: "All the time, however, that I was trying to become the best national caliber debater I could, I found myself saddened by the state of my state. During my three years in high school, I saw perhaps two or three new schools appear on the regional circuit in Ohio." The cycle Chris describes hurts everyone and makes high school debate necessarily ever more elitist. Programs die, partly for financial reasons; regional circuits disappear, and with them, regional tournaments, which means more programs die because they can't afford to exist, and everything gets more expensive and "national" for all of us. The prejudice kids have against their regional tournaments, their desire to do everything on the national level (partly to stay in touch with their friends from camp) turbocharges this syndrome. Geoff Lundeen is right that you shouldn't neglect your regional circuit, but perhaps not just because you will meet interesting people there. I think it's pretty close to an ethical obligation. This may be a good moment to observe that the much-maligned travel restrictions which exist de jure in states like Kansas and Missouri (and exist de facto in certain isolated states of the union) do serve a democratizing function. National circuit types often laugh at these restrictions, and the more ambitious students and coaches within these states chafe and cringe. But there are a hell of a lot of debate teams in Kansas, and Missouri, and South Dakota, and while I'm sure inequities play a role, it is much cheaper and easier to run a debate team in those states. And there seems to be quite a lot more reliable, general institutional support for the activity. The bottom line is twofold: As others have noted, most everybody at every economic level has to work pretty hard to keep the activity going, and that has to be respected. It is particularly unfair and destructive to make assumptions about the circumstances of persons and individuals of whom one is fundamentally ignorant. But there are a whole lot of people and communities, not all of them poor by any means, who are unlikely ever to have the resources to maintain a debate program. They can hope that a Brent Farrand or a George Soros (or, perhaps, a David Glass) will wander by and create some magic. This is life; life is unfair; but life should be a damn sight more fair. Les Phillips Lexington High School From david.glass Thu May 4 08:24:39 2000 From: david.glass (DAVID GLASS) Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 08:24:39 -0500 Subject: RE>Re- Re- "Elite H.S. Myth Message-ID: Bear asks: "Dr. Glass, can you use your excellent research skills to quote back to me where I ever said that "HS success correlates with personal wealth or travel budgets?" Here's Bear's original quote. You decide if the extrapolation was reasonable: >it is fascinating to see how many of NDT's top debaters > went to the few high schools with the resources to have national travel > budgets, attend the most expensive of institutes, and have been debating with > and against each other for years. > > Creator of the "elite" conspiracy myth From david.glass Thu May 4 09:08:27 2000 From: david.glass (DAVID GLASS) Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 09:08:27 -0500 Subject: re> ELITE H.S. Myth Message-ID: re> ELITE H.S. Myth 5/4/00 8:06 It's not surprising, given that we're all debaters, that folks who take issue with my post on coaching go to the extreme situations to make their counter-point that the need for basic funds can't be ignored . And fair enough: OF COURSE the severely economically disadvantaged schools are at a disadvantage (and a tautology is a tautology). I think we can all agree on that. And, of course the wealthiest schools have much more of a chance to hire success. The point I was trying to make, which gets lost in the extremes, is that the correlation to success if most clearly found with coaching. That was the only point! I was not trying to imply you don't need certain minimums. What I find interesting is that when you actually look at situations where people *have a chance* to compete, and even in cases where it's very very difficult to even mount the most basic funds, success can be most closely correlated with coaching. Nobody is going to argue that a school district which can't afford books or computers isn't going to go out and try to hire a coach. Successful teams from such school districts can usually trace their success to a generous individual who either donates his or her time and money for the team, or who goes through onerous grant-writing and other types of fund-raising. There are other cases where the students themselves raise funds. But, as is too often the case in these debates, we've swung from the "elite" extreme argument to the severely disadvantaged extreme for counter-points. My basic position can be represented as this: You need a basic minimum condition for debate; not an "elite" condition, but basic minimums: you have to be able to afford teachers, books, computers, food, etc. If you have extra money for a debate budget, that definitely helps. In the schools that fit this condition (which constitutes the majority), my argument is: Further money is neither necessary nor sufficient for success. Coaching is almost always necessary, though still not sufficient for success (you still need the debaters!!!). As to the empirical data, see my previous post. For schools that don't fit the basic needs, government should act. (yes, I'm a humanist) -djg Edgemont >From Thu May 4 08:16:59 2000 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 57437 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Thu, 4 May 2000 09:16:32 -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 JAA36704 for ; Thu, 4 May 2000 09:16:31 -0400 Received: from TERM-08 (TERM-08 [206.105.46.38]) by wfrpc.dst.fl.us (NTMail 3.02.09) with ESMTP id fa075275 for ; Thu, 4 May 2000 08:17:00 -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: <13170033932390 at wfrpc.dst.fl.us> Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 08:16:59 -0500 Reply-To: chismc at WFRPC.DST.FL.US To: Team Topic Debating in America From: chismc at WFRPC.DST.FL.US Subject: Re: re> ELITE H.S. Myth Comments: To: david.glass at REGPHA.COM In-Reply-To: <000504.090827 at regpha.com> just out of curiousity, has anyone ever published any research concerning the number of successful highschool debaters who worked at afterschool jobs? or the number of national tournament winners in college who work full time? just wondering........... From david.glass Thu May 4 09:42:56 2000 From: david.glass (DAVID GLASS) Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 09:42:56 -0500 Subject: Foucault Critique of the Foucault Critique Message-ID: Foucault Critique of the Foucault Critique 5/3/00 13:44 while you people have me posting on EDEBATE, I thought I would ask a favor. Enclosed is an article I had in the Rostrum recently, critiquing the way Foucault and Heidegger are rendered in the Policy Debate Discourse. I'm working on revisions now, to put together a "deeper" piece for publication elsewhere... if anyone has any basic issues with the argument, or finds some bone-headedmistake on my part, please let me know. Thanks for the help... (it's enclosed both as a text file and as an .rtf...) -djg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/applefile Size: 136 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20000504/9e99c58f/attachment.bin -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/octet-stream Size: 35095 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20000504/9e99c58f/attachment.obj -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/applefile Size: 135 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20000504/9e99c58f/attachment-0001.bin -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/octet-stream Size: 38366 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20000504/9e99c58f/attachment-0001.obj From kjast13+ Thu May 4 10:47:49 2000 From: kjast13+ (Kevin Ayotte) Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 11:47:49 -0400 Subject: a question about critiques Message-ID: >Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 11:11:59 -0600 >From: Michelin Christopher Massey >Subject: a question about critiques > >i have a question about the K: > >is it necessary to have a Critical/Left view in order to offer a >criticism? > >michelin massey. Remember Ayn Rand and the Objectivism kritik? I can't count the number of high school rounds I listened to debaters justifying selfishness on a quasi-philosophical plane... Kevin Ayotte University of Pittsburgh From hello_katie Thu May 4 11:17:59 2000 From: hello_katie (Katie Kat) Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 11:17:59 -0500 Subject: multiple personalities Message-ID: ---- Begin Original Message ---- From: Scott Varda Sent: Thu, 4 May 2000 06:50:14 -0500 To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU Subject: Re: multiple personalities >ARE YOU KIDDING?! No, obviously you aren't. This subject is too personal for you to joke about. HOWEVER, is the reason for elimination of humor I do not even know how to respond to this message...i don't want to offend anyone, or play censor or whatever. Having said that, this message really upset me. I am not against humor. I make fun of lots of things, including myself and the bad hepatitis add-on i cut. I do think that making fun of a condition like mutiple personality disorder is a different story. Such a condition is something that a person does not CHOOSE to have, nor do they choose the terrible abuse that usually leads up to it. Likewise, it wouldn't be legitimate (in my personal opinion only) to try to sarcastically insult someone by asking if they had problems that were based on things they couldn't help. I don't understand why bear's comment (in the context i understood it, which, as i indicated earlier, may be slightly wrong) was humorous, or why this flavor of humor should be used if it seriously upsets someone. >because one of the hundreds of subscribers to edebate has a friend who has a particular condition?! Are you serious?! I am sorry that I felt inclined to share a CLOSE FAMILY MEMBER'S personal story...it seems that to reveal something very close to me is not "sufficient" to warrant thinking more carefully before posting certain "humor." I guess maybe I should have read some ev. or gone "line by line", since my "narrative" wasn't valid. How can you trivialize this? Isn't one person's hurt feelings enough, even though I guess I am only "one of hundreds" of edebate subscribers...I'm still a person with feelings. >screen...) What on the planet is there left to be humorous about then? Well, to me, the context of the humor would be the same as if someone had a typo in their email and soemone else wrote: "what's wrong, do you have some kind of speech impediment or stuttering problem?" I don't think that would be "humorous" either, but it seems like it's legit under your framework. >Seriously though. It may not be appropriate to use a condition of split personalities as a joke, but REALLY, is your best argument, "I have a friend with a condition..." no, i guess it's just not compelling for me to try to share a personal experience with people who i consider to be my friends. I guess it doesn't matter that I've spent years and years of my life with this person, taking them to hospitals, calling their doctor late at night, chasing them around town because they had run off in a panic, taking possible suicide mechanisms away from them, wishing i knew what to say when they told me they wanted to die. I guess that's not compelling, either. One of the hundreds of (disappointed and hurt) edebate subscribers, -Katie K-State Don't forget to visit http://www.pigpig.com/ and http://www.pigpig.net/ ____________________________________________________________ Get your 100MB FREE Internet storage! Sign up now - http://www.netdrive.com/?ao=zzn >From Thu May 4 11:54:16 2000 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 3317 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Thu, 4 May 2000 12:47:40 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from scaup.prod.itd.earthlink.net (scaup.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.121.49]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA37662 for ; Thu, 4 May 2000 12:47:39 -0400 Received: from 158.252.141.195 (sdn-ar-004txfworP265.dialsprint.net [158.252.141.195]) by scaup.prod.itd.earthlink.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA09629 for ; Thu, 4 May 2000 09:47:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Macintosh; I; PPC) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <451CC446F3124D11DA3E000A9C4B95C0 at hello_katie.pigpig.zzn.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <3911AB38.3A2D at earthlink.net> Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 11:54:16 -0500 Reply-To: gvinedebate at earthlink.net To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Jane Boyd Subject: I LOVE YOU VIRUS NOTICE!!! If an email comes to you with the subject I LOVE YOU -- DO NOT OPEN IT! This is a new virus that started in Hong Kong and has spread throughout the US. In the Ft. Worth area alone it has already hit Bell Helicopter and Harris Methodist Medical Center. Jane Boyd Grapevine HS From strick9r Thu May 4 12:48:07 2000 From: strick9r (Internet) Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 12:48:07 -0500 Subject: Need some help Message-ID: Does anyone know where John Debross is and how he could be contacted? If you do, please let me know. Thanks...sorry for the mass posting. Glen Strickland >From Thu May 4 14:10:52 2000 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 5738 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Thu, 4 May 2000 14:11:52 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo19.mx.aol.com (imo19.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.9]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA13078 for ; Thu, 4 May 2000 14:11:46 -0400 Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo19.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v26.7.) id 1.30.4a2b2f8 (9677); Thu, 4 May 2000 14:10:52 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 105 Message-ID: <30.4a2b2f8.2643172c at aol.com> Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 14:10:52 EDT Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Michael Bear Bryant Subject: Re: multiple personalities Comments: To: hello_katie at pigpig.zzn.com In a message dated 5/4/00 12:31:39 AM Mountain Daylight Time, hello_katie at PIGPIG.ZZN.COM writes: > > Bear-- > > > I imagine that the multiple personalities comment > was meant as a sarcastic joke. If so, I do not > find it funny. Someone that I am very close to > has multiple personality disorder, and I don't > find her condition humorous or something to treat > lightly. Maybe I am oversensitive, and if so, I > apologize. But please refrain from using a > psychological condition as a way to insult > someone. Look I've apologized. I didn't know it was from two people. I thought it was one person using the imperial "we." I don't think being psychologically diagnosed is funny, either. But it happens to me daily on this list, and I'm curious why you've never chose to go ballistic on the constant barrage of psychological analyses applied to me. Accusing you of very selective hypocrisy. Bear >From Thu May 4 14:20:36 2000 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 6113 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Thu, 4 May 2000 14:21:34 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo14.mx.aol.com (imo14.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.4]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA24060 for ; Thu, 4 May 2000 14:21:33 -0400 Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo14.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v26.7.) id 8.a3.58a0ca1 (9677); Thu, 4 May 2000 14:20:36 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 105 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 14:20:36 EDT Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Michael Bear Bryant Subject: Re: re> ELITE H.S. Myth Comments: To: chismc at wfrpc.dst.fl.us In a message dated 5/4/00 7:17:07 AM Mountain Daylight Time, chismc at WFRPC.DST.FL.US writes: > just out of curiousity, has anyone ever published any research > concerning the number of successful highschool debaters who > worked at afterschool jobs? or the number of national tournament > winners in college who work full time? just wondering........... > It is an exception, not the rule, of course. Those that manage to do so have my great respect. Bear From dennis Thu May 4 13:25:58 2000 From: dennis (doug dennis) Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 13:25:58 -0500 Subject: DCA Debater #3 Kamal Ghali In-Reply-To: <99.457e114.26426fe2@aol.com> Message-ID: i've got a j peterson rookie card in the bakersfield college gear, and i my e jenkins in the acu road jersey...anyone willing to trade for the ken delaughder at k-state dual debate/ie cards doug watching my monte stevens cards go down in value :) On Thu, 4 May 2000, Danny Bell wrote: > In a message dated 5/3/00 2:41:30 PM, hotrats at HOTMAIL.COM wrote: > > < league. I've gotta Steve Donald rookie card I'm looking to trade. Whata > folks willing to give me?>> > > I've got a rookie jason russell and I'm willing to throw in the mike kloster > rookie limited edition (with the gold foil matching suspenders and tie on the > front) and the Tim Mahoney and Bob Lechtreck teamates card to leverage the > deal. > > Old Danny Bell > pace > >From Thu May 4 14:28:22 2000 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 6597 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Thu, 4 May 2000 14:29:04 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo-r19.mx.aol.com (imo-r19.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.73]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA17008 for ; Thu, 4 May 2000 14:29:03 -0400 Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo-r19.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v26.7.) id 1.46.4e2ee78 (9677); Thu, 4 May 2000 14:28:22 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 105 Message-ID: <46.4e2ee78.26431b46 at aol.com> Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 14:28:22 EDT Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Michael Bear Bryant Subject: Re: multiple personalities Comments: To: hello_katie at pigpig.zzn.com In a message dated 5/4/00 10:15:10 AM Mountain Daylight Time, hello_katie at PIGPIG.ZZN.COM writes: > One of the hundreds of (disappointed and hurt) > edebate subscribers, > -Katie > K-State Well, gee, it is interesting to see what type of humor pushed peoples buttons, isn't it. I didn't understand that two people were simultaneously writing a post. The "we" seemed strange if you think pf it in the context of a single person. It was past midnight my local time. To cope Olney's excuse, I just got back from dinner and was checking posts casually before retiring for the night. I immediately apologized. I just wonder were your severe aversion to psychological jokes has been in the daily examinations provided for my troubled psyche on this list? Am I deserving of what you condemn for your friends? Why have you been so silent when diagnoses of me are provided? I'm finding your "new-found" need to call me out for a psychological joke pretty hypocritical. Bear From hello_katie Thu May 4 13:37:51 2000 From: hello_katie (Katie Kat) Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 13:37:51 -0500 Subject: multiple personalities Message-ID: Bear, >Look I've apologized. I didn't know it was from two people. I thought it was one person using the imperial "we." I'm not taking issue with that part. >I don't think being psychologically diagnosed is funny, either. But it happens to me daily on this list, and I'm curious why you've never chose to go ballistic on the constant barrage of psychological analyses applied to me. >Accusing you of very selective hypocrisy. First of all, I don't think you know me well enough to call me a hypocrite. Second of all, I raised this issue because it's something i'm very sensitive about and I wanted to raise it as an issue, not because i wanted to attack you personally. I think that alot of times, I have read your posts and you have made very valid points. I don't always like the way you attack people (and yes, i recognize that it goes both ways), but I think that your points are often good ones. The reason I mention this to you is because you seem very sensitive to issues of sexism, etc. and I just wanted to make you aware that this is something i am very sensitive about. But please don't assume that i'm a hypocrite...I've said things to other people when i've been upset by something they've said, and I will admit that I haven't read every single edebate post ever, so if other people have made similar comments and i had read their posts, i would have made a similar comment to them. I do rountinely make comments if i feel someone has made a poor linguistic choice. And I don't doubt your overall sincerity. -Katie Don't forget to visit http://www.pigpig.com/ and http://www.pigpig.net/ ____________________________________________________________ Get your 100MB FREE Internet storage! Sign up now - http://www.netdrive.com/?ao=zzn From mkuss Thu May 4 15:26:51 2000 From: mkuss (Matthew Kuss) Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 13:26:51 -0700 Subject: Multiple personalities and being hypocritical In-Reply-To: <46.4e2ee78.26431b46@aol.com> Message-ID: There seems to be a dualism on this list- everyone will fight to the death for freedom of speech, yet everyone fights to the death to try and govern what is said on this list and how it is said. While Bear doesn't always get on everyone's good side with some of his views, I find it unfortunate that he, or anyone, should have to defend every little word typed in every post. I am not advocating total freedom to simply say whatever you want, but I would think at some point people should be allowed to make a joke or a sarcastic comment, and people be able to recognize that they don't HAVE to like what was said, and if they don't like it they don't HAVE to 'call out' the person that said it. Am I way off here? Just wondering... Matt > -----Original Message----- > From: Team Topic Debating in America [mailto:EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU]On > Behalf Of Michael Bear Bryant > Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2000 11:28 AM > To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU > Subject: Re: multiple personalities > > > In a message dated 5/4/00 10:15:10 AM Mountain Daylight Time, > hello_katie at PIGPIG.ZZN.COM writes: > > > One of the hundreds of (disappointed and hurt) > > edebate subscribers, > > -Katie > > K-State > > Well, gee, it is interesting to see what type of humor pushed peoples > buttons, isn't it. I didn't understand that two people were simultaneously > writing a post. The "we" seemed strange if you think pf it in the > context of > a single person. It was past midnight my local time. To cope > Olney's excuse, > I just got back from dinner and was checking posts casually > before retiring > for the night. I immediately apologized. > > I just wonder were your severe aversion to psychological jokes has been in > the daily examinations provided for my troubled psyche on this list? Am I > deserving of what you condemn for your friends? Why have you been > so silent > when diagnoses of me are provided? > > I'm finding your "new-found" need to call me out for a psychological joke > pretty hypocritical. > > Bear > >From Thu May 4 14:37:04 2000 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 7006 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Thu, 4 May 2000 14:38:01 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo-r19.mx.aol.com (imo-r19.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.73]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA13594 for ; Thu, 4 May 2000 14:37:59 -0400 Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo-r19.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v26.7.) id a.3a.4a7b9f8 (9677); Thu, 4 May 2000 14:37:04 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 105 Message-ID: <3a.4a7b9f8.26431d50 at aol.com> Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 14:37:04 EDT Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Michael Bear Bryant Subject: Re: Re- "Elite H.S. Myth" Comments: To: L_Phillips at sch.ci.lexington.ma.us In a message dated 5/4/00 4:47:09 AM Mountain Daylight Time, L_Phillips at sch.ci.lexington.ma.us writes: > >Question #2: Have you ever been treated for multiple personalities? > > Have you had your eyesight and reading comprehension tested? Could you at > least read more carefully before pushing the sarcasm button? > > Les Phillips Are you making fun of the sight-impaired? Yes, for your information, I have severe diabetes and I am going blind. I am on at least three cardiac drugs which make my vision problem worse. I have apologized - I simply did not see the double names. Do you want me just to pluck out my remaining eyes lest you be offended? I'm actually trying to touch type in a totally darkened room - so I can continue to be a part of this "wonderful" community as long as possible. Your response on HS elitism was wonderfully written. Bear From ending Thu May 4 13:40:06 2000 From: ending (the eminently practical Michael Roston) Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 14:40:06 -0400 Subject: I LOVE YOU VIRUS Message-ID: Anyone read the news stories about this virus so far? They noted for instance that Ford Motor Company shut down their e-mail server specifically to ensure the virus does not spread further. I bet you company productivity is skyrocketing this morning. The moral of the story: DON'T USE MS OUTLOOK!! It's nothing but a virus generating set of software, another poorly conceived microsoft idea that brings bugs into your computer and makes your life heck. Stick to WebMail and programs like Pine. Sure, you can't set some cute font for your email, but your computer also won't get hi-jacked by some poor sap who wants attention. brought to you by the Front for the Old 'Net Style(FONS) From hello_katie Thu May 4 13:55:25 2000 From: hello_katie (Katie Kat) Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 13:55:25 -0500 Subject: Re- "Elite H.S. Myth" Message-ID: ---- Begin Original Message ---- From: Michael Bear Bryant Sent: Thu, 4 May 2000 14:37:04 EDT To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU Subject: Re: Re- "Elite H.S. Myth" In a message dated 5/4/00 4:47:09 AM Mountain Daylight Time, L_Phillips at sch.ci.lexington.ma.us writes: > >Question #2: Have you ever been treated for multiple personalities? > > Have you had your eyesight and reading comprehension tested? Could you at > least read more carefully before pushing the sarcasm button? > > Les Phillips Are you making fun of the sight-impaired? Yes, for your information, I have severe diabetes and I am going blind. I am on at least three cardiac drugs which make my vision problem worse. I have apologized - I simply did not see the double names. Do you want me just to pluck out my remaining eyes lest you be offended? I'm actually trying to touch type in a totally darkened room - so I can continue to be a part of this "wonderful" community as long as possible. Your response on HS elitism was wonderfully written. Bear ---- End Original Message ---- "hypocritcal" as I am, i'll still defend you bear. I agree that the "have you had your eyesight tested?" comment was in poor taste. And i don't think that just because you said something i may be sensitive about that those kind of comments are justified in response. -Katie Katie Hatziavramidis K-State Debate Don't forget to visit http://www.pigpig.com/ and http://www.pigpig.net/ ____________________________________________________________ Get your 100MB FREE Internet storage! Sign up now - http://www.netdrive.com/?ao=zzn From mgerb Thu May 4 14:15:09 2000 From: mgerb (mgerb) Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 14:15:09 -0500 Subject: test Message-ID: >===== Original Message From MWBRYANT at AOL.COM ===== > > >just a test Matt Gerber From bbittn1 Thu May 4 15:23:06 2000 From: bbittn1 (Brian Bittner) Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 16:23:06 -0400 Subject: the power of the backchannel In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 4 May 2000, Matthew Kuss wrote: > > While Bear doesn't always get on everyone's good side with some of his > views, I find it unfortunate that he, or anyone, should have to defend every > little word typed in every post. I am not advocating total freedom to simply > say whatever you want, but I would think at some point people should be > allowed to make a joke or a sarcastic comment, and people be able to > recognize that they don't HAVE to like what was said, and if they don't like > it they don't HAVE to 'call out' the person that said it. > Th power of the backchannel solves most of these concerns. Some people enjoy a little sarcasm or humor, some people are truly offended by certain statements. Those who are offended might not be for the same reason as others, and trying to funnel all the resignation into a focused discussion is impossible. The people who get pre-empted or don't have a 24/7 "neural-net" connection to the list get alienated. How do we solve all the problems? If someone says something you don't like, backchannel them. If someone says something sketchy that you happened to find funny that day, don't. We can enjoy humor and express our ideas about proper communication at the same time. People who want to respond but don't want to get shut out by the eternally wired can have their personal say, and the number of people who join through the criticism through this method might be enough to convince people who make objectionable statements stop. If 100 people backchanneled me rather than 2 people writing to the list and 98 sitting back and reading, I would stop whatever it is that hundreds of people don't like. Until the next time Bear says something, Matt is right... please stop replying to/attacking him. In the sorts of battles that have been filling the inbox for two weeks now, there are no winners. Brian Towson >From Thu May 4 16:25:46 2000 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 9285 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Thu, 4 May 2000 16:25:50 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from changeofhabit.rs.itd.umich.edu (changeofhabit.rs.itd.umich.edu [141.211.144.17]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA27236 for ; Thu, 4 May 2000 16:25:48 -0400 Received: from union49.ccs.itd.umich.edu (union49.ccs.itd.umich.edu [141.211.222.46]) by changeofhabit.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.9.3/3.2r) with ESMTP id QAA07804 for ; Thu, 4 May 2000 16:25:46 -0400 (EDT) Originator-Info: login-id=jasonph; server=nightbreed.imap.itd.umich.edu X-Mailer: Mulberry (MacOS) [1.4.4, s/n S-399020] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-ID: <57450.3166446346 at union49.ccs.itd.umich.edu> Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 16:25:46 -0400 Reply-To: jasonph at UMICH.EDU To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Jason Hernandez Subject: DCA Debater #2 Andy Ryan Bio by Kristin Langwell This debater's lightening speed, patience, and openness to all arguments make him the debater we all know and love. Wait, am I supposed to do a bio for Andy Ryan? Whoops! Sorry. After some trials and tribulations, we find Andy right where we knew he always deserved to be at the top/on top you know, or at least you do if you're a first year at iowa.:-) The work week at Iowa was stressful for Andy, beer/vodka/whiskey/etc etc.."what the shit are we going to do" (name the movie) ??? Somehow between getting accustomed to corn and recovering from rug-burns, Andy was able to finally utilize Bellus' office for its intended purpose. Writing the best aff on the topic didn't come easy for Andy, or at least not as easy as other things seemed to come for Andy. His hard work, firm commitment, insatiable drive, and willingness to go all the way lead to "above average" results. i mean, after throaty drunken renditions of "let's get it on" and "sexual healing" what sensible womyn could resist?? It would be unfair to sterotype andy as "just a debater". For those of you who don't know andy, i think the following is important for a real understanding of just how dynamic this young man is. The Top 5 Drunk Quotes from ANDY: 5. Look, I'm not drunk. I've only had a few shots. (pre-Kentucky RR drinking practice, Andy and two friends drink 3 liters of vodka) 4. Dude, I could really go for 40 McDonald's chicken nuggets right about now (pre-practice debates at the work week, after a night of drinking, Andy buys Aleve, 3 liters of water, Scope, and 40 chicken nuggets. The 2AR was not good). 3. Shutup. (post-NDT drinking haze, this beautiful and efficient phrase was all this DCA debater could muster in response to any conversation-he mumbled a lot of things while banging his head on the keyboard in the squad room, but no one could make them out) 2. Um, Officer, have you seen my friend? He's like kinda tall and has brown hair and I think he was really drunk (Andy searching for Trevor after a crazy night at the bars). 1. My knee hurts, but I was good (Andy's final drunken commnt before passing out in bed after his NDT LEVY experience) And if quotes aren't enough, here are the top 5 Andy Ryan actions when drunk: 5. Writing notes to some girl in scribble that read "I'm Andy. You are gogous." (needless to say, the note did not work) 4. Putting in Leaving Las Vegas and drinking every time Nicolas Cage does. 3. E-mailing (did ya'll know andy is a budding romance novelist?) 2. Walking into strange people's apartments and insisting he lives there. 1. This one is kind of hard to describe because he has forgotten their names, but they were twins. Seriously though, before i lose the best friend i've ever had, let me tell you about andy ryan. he worked 40 hours a week (at least) on debate, got his A average (heading for a 4.00 this semester), and had time to be the best friend in the world to me. Speeches like the 2ar in the finals of kentcuky, the 2nr in the semi's of UNI and Redlands, speech after speech at West Georgia, and his 2ar in our last aff debate together ever make andy one of the best debaters this activity will know. Wherever he is on this year's DCA poll, it's not high enough. From hello_katie Thu May 4 15:37:44 2000 From: hello_katie (Katie Kat) Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 15:37:44 -0500 Subject: More on the amazing George W... Message-ID: ---- Begin Included Message ---- From: choicealert at naral.org Sent: Thu, 04 May 2000 15:48:26 -0400 To: choicealert at naral.org Subject: New NARAL Report on Powers of the President If elected President, - George W. Bush could appoint two to three Supreme Court Justices, enough to overturn Roe v. Wade. - George W. Bush could appoint 136 federal lower court judges, plus judges for all the slots that become vacant during his term. - George W. Bush could appoint an Attorney General who would not enforce the federal law (Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Law) that protects women from violence and harassment at clinics. - George W. Bush could appoint a Secretary of Health and Human Services who would re-impose the gag rule to prevent physicians from telling their patients about abortion as an option. - George W. Bush could appoint an FDA Commissioner who would block new, non-surgical options for abortion such as mifepristone (RU 486). - George W. Bush could propose a federal budget without funding for international family planning programs that advocate for the right to choose in their country or even make referrals for abortions. AND - George W. Bush supports a Republican Party Platform calling for a constitutional amendment outlawing abortion. Read about all this and more in NARAL's new report, "The Powers of the President: Reproductive Freedom and Choice." You can download it from our website at http:// www.naral.org/mediaresources/press/ pr050300_campaign.html, or call NARAL's Legal Department infoline at (202) 973-3018 for more information. Visit NARAL's re-designed website at http:// www.naral.org. ---- End Included Message ---- Don't forget to visit http://www.pigpig.com/ and http://www.pigpig.net/ ____________________________________________________________ Get your 100MB FREE Internet storage! Sign up now - http://www.netdrive.com/?ao=zzn From japst59+ Thu May 4 16:19:56 2000 From: japst59+ (Jeffrey A Panehal) Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 17:19:56 -0400 Subject: More on the amazing George W... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: enough is enough. this is nothing more than scare tactics and has nothing to do with the election in any way. factual responses will follow each 'claim'. > - George W. Bush could appoint two to three > Supreme Court > Justices, enough to overturn Roe v. Wade. however, when asked if abortion was a litmus test for his selections, the 'amazing' George W. said no. Chicken little the sky is not falling. > - George W. Bush could appoint 136 federal lower > court judges, > plus judges for all the slots that become vacant > during his term. and your point is? all of these things apply to the next president not the 'amazing' George W. > - George W. Bush could appoint an Attorney General > who would not > enforce the federal law (Freedom of Access to > Clinic Entrances Law) > that protects women from violence and harassment > at clinics. i'm actually hoping that we can get 4 more years of janet reno, so she can snatch babies at gunpoint. or an attorney general that drags their feet on campaign finance violations (buddhist temples anyone?). please, our current attorney general is no paragon of justice. do we have to always see this crap on edebate? go to cnn talkbalk live. > - George W. Bush could appoint a Secretary of > Health and Human > Services who would re-impose the gag rule to > prevent physicians from telling their patients > about abortion as an option. > > - George W. Bush could appoint an FDA Commissioner > who would block new, non-surgical options for > abortion such as mifepristone > (RU 486). > > - George W. Bush could propose a federal budget > without funding for international family planning > programs that advocate for the right to choose in > their country or even make referrals for > abortions. > > AND > - George W. Bush supports a Republican Party > Platform calling for a constitutional amendment > outlawing abortion. AND George Bush could steal all our money, children, and futures, living out his days on a beautiful tropical island fornicating with the natives and burning 'foreigners' for firewood. can we ALL (this means me too) stop trying to demonize each other's candidates and discuss what their positions _are_ rather than what they _might_ be? if we chose to engage in this discussion in this forum at all, can we chose to hold ourselves to a standard of evidence and accountability for our own actions (including forwards)? see you on talkback live, j. ------------- "To fear love is to fear life, and those who fear life are already three parts dead." -Bertrand Russell >From Thu May 4 16:25:43 2000 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 10395 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Thu, 4 May 2000 17:25:18 -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 RAA27140 for ; Thu, 4 May 2000 17:25:12 -0400 Received: from TERM-08 (TERM-08 [206.105.46.38]) by wfrpc.dst.fl.us (NTMail 3.02.09) with ESMTP id aa075348 for ; Thu, 4 May 2000 16:25:42 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/enriched; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Priority: normal References: X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01d) Message-ID: <21254235533024 at wfrpc.dst.fl.us> Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 16:25:43 -0500 Reply-To: chismc at WFRPC.DST.FL.US To: Team Topic Debating in America From: chismc at WFRPC.DST.FL.US Subject: Re: More on the amazing George W... Comments: To: japst59+ at PITT.EDU In-Reply-To: 0100,0100,0100can you provide the cite where GW Bush said abortion would not be a litmus test? please send it quick, i could really use it. perplexed in pensacola..... From michelleroddy Thu May 4 16:29:51 2000 From: michelleroddy (Michelle Roddy) Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 14:29:51 PDT Subject: multiple personalities Message-ID: After reading Katie's posts and did some deep thinking about hurtful jokes I now realize I have said some pretty demeaning things to some people in my life. I would like to publicly apologize to any person that I have ever called Monte Stevens or compared some area of their life to Monte Stevens. It is not funny to call someone Monte if they are a bad driver who runs red lights. Nor is it funny to call them Monte if they suck at Mario Cart, if they carry their cell phone with them 24/7 even in movie theatres and the mall, if they always lose money playing poker, if they wear socks that never match the rest of the outfit...the list could continue forever... My deepest regrets, Michelle Roddy >From: Michael Bear Bryant >Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM >To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU >Subject: Re: multiple personalities >Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 14:28:22 EDT > >In a message dated 5/4/00 10:15:10 AM Mountain Daylight Time, >hello_katie at PIGPIG.ZZN.COM writes: > > > One of the hundreds of (disappointed and hurt) > > edebate subscribers, > > -Katie > > K-State > >Well, gee, it is interesting to see what type of humor pushed peoples >buttons, isn't it. I didn't understand that two people were simultaneously >writing a post. The "we" seemed strange if you think pf it in the context >of >a single person. It was past midnight my local time. To cope Olney's >excuse, >I just got back from dinner and was checking posts casually before retiring >for the night. I immediately apologized. > >I just wonder were your severe aversion to psychological jokes has been in >the daily examinations provided for my troubled psyche on this list? Am I >deserving of what you condemn for your friends? Why have you been so silent >when diagnoses of me are provided? > >I'm finding your "new-found" need to call me out for a psychological joke >pretty hypocritical. > >Bear ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com >From Thu May 4 17:36:31 2000 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 10795 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Thu, 4 May 2000 17:37:48 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo25.mx.aol.com (imo25.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.69]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA20446 for ; Thu, 4 May 2000 17:37:45 -0400 Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo25.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v26.7.) id i.c6.4c4048e (4208); Thu, 4 May 2000 17:36:31 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 105 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 17:36:31 EDT Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Michael Bear Bryant Subject: Re: multiple personalities Comments: To: michelleroddy at hotmail.com In a message dated 5/4/00 3:31:26 PM Mountain Daylight Time, michelleroddy at HOTMAIL.COM writes: > ..the list could continue forever... > > My deepest regrets, > Michelle Roddy Don't let us stop you.....Freedom of expression, ya know.... Bear ;-) From dennis Thu May 4 16:41:53 2000 From: dennis (doug dennis) Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 16:41:53 -0500 Subject: DCA Debater #3 Kamal Ghali In-Reply-To: Message-ID: no...they just chipped it out on stone tablets, flintstones style. doug On Wed, 3 May 2000, Kenneth DeLaughder wrote: > Speaking of Todd Graham, since my uncle debated with him in HS, I think I > can dig up a TG HS senior card so you can see that same army jacket he's > had in action... > > )but I do remember the mining documentary where Todd Graham did the voice > over that Missouri Southern STILL PLAYS on their cable channel) along with > Ken D. episodes of Video digest... lol > > hoe about a DOug Dennis rookie card, did they make cards back then > > some schools truly are old :) lol > > pace, > > Ken > > > On Wed, 3 May 2000, doug dennis wrote: > > > is that the uco card with his chad hill stats? > > > > knowing the old school > > > > doug > > > > On Wed, 3 May 2000, david arnett wrote: > > > > > Are you kidding. We have to rank. How else can we build our debate fantasy > > > league. I've gotta Steve Donald rookie card I'm looking to trade. Whata > > > folks willing to give me? > > > > > > > > > > > > >From: Leslie Phillips - Lexington High School > > > > > > > >Reply-To: Leslie Phillips - Lexington High School > > > > > > > >To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU > > > >Subject: Re: DCA Debater #3 Kamal Ghali > > > >Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 14:57:30 -0400 > > > > > > > >Ryan Sparacino wrote: > > > > > > > > > As a senior in high school, Kamal > > > > >debated with a young pup named Andy "Baxter" Ryan. Kamal and Andy had > > > >one > > > > >of the finest high school seasons in recent times, winning the > > > >Glenbrooks, > > > > >Emory, and the Tournament of Champions, to name but a few of their > > > > >successes. They may well have been the High School team of the 90's, > > > >with > > > > >all due respect to Lexington Nichols and Lehotsky. > > > > > > > >This is precisely the sort of crap that makes these silly ranking/rating > > > >games so irritating. > > > > > > > >Kamal and Andy were, and are, brilliant debaters. They were a wonderful > > > >team. They're my friends, and I take pride in knowing them. Steve and > > > >Matt were brilliant debaters; they were a wonderful team. I love and > > > >admire them, and coaching and assisting in their careers is, of course, > > > >something I am very proud of. > > > > > > > >There is simply no particular reason to decide, or try to decide, that one > > > >or the other of those teams (for instance) was better or worse than the > > > >other. I don't know whether Kamal, Andy, Steve or Matt care about that > > > >especially, but I hope not; I sure don't. There are all kinds of terrific > > > >debaters who should be honored, studied, modeled, talked about. > > > >Additionally they (and all other good debaters) are different enough that > > > >points of comparison are probably ultimately futile, and certainly > > > >exceptionally subjective. > > > > > > > >I just don't see the point; never have. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Les Phillips > > > >Lexington High School > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > > > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com > > > > > > From donaldst Thu May 4 16:42:32 2000 From: donaldst (Steven Donald) Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 17:42:32 -0400 Subject: Pleasantville, the debate community, and my dirty socks Message-ID: I was just sitting around today, doing some laundry, and celebrating the end of the semester, when the movie "Pleasantville" came on TV (digital cable...cure for boredom, cause of academic death...you have to take the good with the bad). Anyway, it got me thinking a lot about the debate community, and more specifically how the discussions over the topic wordings are coming along, and our community's evolution toward accepting, or even adopting, "critical perspectives." I'm not sure how many of you have seen the flick, but I recommend checking it out...its a lot better than I thought it was going to be. But I'll leave the film evaluation to Ebert, and just give you some of my musings. (Warning: I often confuse my musings with incoherent ramblings) For instance, Kevin Kuswa reminds me of Jeff Daniel's character. Kevin's a lot smarter, yes, but he (along with some other folk in his camp), introduced the "radical" notions that we should adopt the passive voice, leave out the U.S. government, don't conceive of nations as entities to be listed and rescued by the west, etc. In the movie, Jeff Daniel's a painter, who is tried before a court of black and white characters for the crime of introducing color into the community by painting a crazy ass mural. When asked if he has anything to say in his defense, Daniel's replies...."I wasn't trying to hurt anyone, that wasn't my intention. Maybe I could paint a new picture, or paint with less colors. Or maybe you (the jury and judge) could pick out the acceptable colors for me...." His character begins his transition from a soda jerk to a Michaelangelo with casual curiosity, and innocence in intentions, but as he creates, his actions and dialogue builds in sarcasm, resentment, and some anger against the refusal of the community to accept change. The rest of the community in Pleasantville also undergo sporadic and isolated transitions, from their eternal black and white existence where everything makes sense, where patterns and traditions are time worn and tested, and where the basketball team never loses, the cherry cokes all taste really fucking good, etc., until they begin to "colorize," Ted Turner style. Those that do make the transition to color are first treated as novelties that will eventually return to the fold, or later as freak-dogs who will not consent to keep their influence to themselves, and start rocking the boat by dancing, not making dinner for their husbands every night and not staying at home after 6:00 p.m., cats and dogs living together, real wrath of god stuff..... Anyway, you can view this parallel between the movie and the recent traffic on edebate, and throughout the debate community in general, in a number of ways, and I'm not saying that the analogy is perfect, but it works for me. I think that we as a community are a very liberal and progressive one, to a certain extent, and I obviously don't think that the kritik was invented yesterday, but a substantial degree of resentment against these arguments is still prevalent among many. I don't think this should surprise us. Critical arguments are, and will be, very difficult to become comfortable with for a lot of people, not because everyone who won't run or vote for them are stupid, but because they/we have spent our entire lives training under a certain way of debating, and viewing the world. I would use that cool interpolationlatingbodaciousnessing word if I could, and I think it fits here, but I don't want to look like I know too much about this and also look stupid to those who do...oh wait.....never mind. The point is that it took me a long time to be comfortable running these arguments, much less going for them in the 2NR, and I've been debating for roughly 59 years. And it wasn't just due to Monick's heebie-jeebies about those arguments early on in our career together. It was because I did not feel comfortable just picking up a file I hadn't worked on and presenting it as a winning argument. This is because of a) the complexity of the arguments to begin with, b) I felt that I could not adequately represent the argument in front of someone who knew more about the philosophy/perspective than I did, and c) I didn't have time to think of some jokes about my friends I was about to debate and work them into the analogies that help explain these things in the first place. C wasn't as important I guess, but B is worth noting. At UNI this year, for example, our first negative round was against the Cuba affirmative, and we were being judged by Matt Stannard. It was recommended to me by our coaches that we run our Marxism argument, because Matt not only is friendly toward critical argumentation, but knows a lot about the theories behind the specific kritik itself. Which is why in the end, we decided not to run it, even though it was an argument we ran often last year on the civil rights topic. I was afraid of misrepresenting, or not explaining enough, the intricacies of Marxist thought and its application to the specific affirmative. Kritiks are not like the Rice disad, which was written the night before Kentucky elims and run the very next day, or some new Clinton story that was made up from Lexis land the night before. It takes time and effort to acclimate oneself to the philosophy, whether it is post-colonial literature or Heideggarian mumbo jumbo. Now, how does this relate to the movie? When colors start changing randomly around your community it is freaky at first...in fact that's an understatement....its downright insanity to some people. This isn't a call for Kuswa and like-minded folks to stop promoting their variations on policy debate, quite the contrary. But this transition doesn't make it or brake it on the selection of the 2000-2001 debate topic wording. Compromises with Pleasantville, that aren't just facially irrelevant modifications that fit the norm of policy debate, actor conceptualization, and listing, may not be a revolution, but they are good steps. If it seems that the community isn't going to adopt, by a popular enough margin, a passive voice resolution with no government or nation-state names in the next month or so, then what should we do? A few thoughts: 1) Look for ways of wording the topic so that it does one side of the more radical perspective, but not the other. For example, some have proposed that we use the phrase "US" but not the government in the resolution, and have the "list" that seems so popular with many to be either nationalities, not nations, or non-governmental organizations that operate around and within the continent of Africa. They would act as the objects of the resolution, and changes in our aid or development policies toward those actors could possibly be bi-directional due to the limited number of recipients to the change. Side note: Is this acceptable to both the limits and the "limits aren't as important as changing perspectives" crowds? Obviously this idea needs some work, and people may be working on it, but I just now decided it might be a good idea so don't assume that I can defend it. I'll leave that up to people who aren't blowing a ton of cash on a road trip that starts tomorrow and quite possibly won't ever finish, what with that psycho Sullivan in the driver's seat.... 2) Even if we wind up with a solely state centered resolution, more people need to start encouraging their teams to not only think about, and research these "critical" arguments, but to run them as well. Texas EG scared a lot of people, I think, in this community when they ran roughshod over everyone at the Northwestern tournament (and before that...but this was when they took an even more critical perspective on the affirmative). It forced a lot of teams and people to begin to research these arguments, because judges that we thought would not be open to them suddenly were, or maybe always were, but no one but the EG was smart enough to pull it off. Whatever the reason, even Monick got his shit together, and we both learned a lot about it. Just like in Pleasantville, this is going to become more widespread, and the faster that you jump on the wagon, the less likely you are going to get run over by it. I'm really not sure what my final point is, but I guess its this: change, in my opinion, is great in the direction that Texas, West GA, etc. have created, but more community acclimation may be necessary before we should expect to see a resolution that is crafted for the purpose of making postcolonial studies and other critical arguments that are particular to Africa our central focus in debates. This is not to say we shouldn't put the more different wordings proposed by Kevin on the ballot, in fact it would be a good way to signal that change is coming. But we (Read, those who are in support of this change, or colorization), shouldn't feel trapped by the limitations of a state-centered resolution, or one with lists. We are not constrained by the choices made in St. Louis so that critical advocacy will be impossible next year. It will be more prevalent than ever, in my opinion, no matter what the topic choice is....its because once people begin reading and developing critical strategies, its almost impossible to steer away from it. The critique will always be a big part of MSU's options when debating, not only because of its strategic benefits but because sometimes the question at hand cannot be answered without looking toward these arguments, and thinking outside of the box, so to speak. Anyway, this has rambled on long enough. I hope this isn't interpreted to mean that I support complicity with the current way debate is framed in rounds or in topic selection (I really haven't worked my thoughts out yet on what a non-state centered topic would look like). It's just something to think about. Time to start the dryer. Thanks for reading. Steven Donald MSU Debate From monte Thu May 4 17:01:17 2000 From: monte (Frank L Stevens) Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 17:01:17 -0500 Subject: multiple personalities In-Reply-To: <20000504212951.79462.qmail@hotmail.com> Message-ID: yeah, i hate that guy, too. On Thu, 4 May 2000, Michelle Roddy wrote: > After reading Katie's posts and did some deep thinking about hurtful jokes I > now realize I have said some pretty demeaning things to some people in my > life. I would like to publicly apologize to any person that I have ever > called Monte Stevens or compared some area of their life to Monte Stevens. > It is not funny to call someone Monte if they are a bad driver who runs red > lights. Nor is it funny to call them Monte if they suck at Mario Cart, if > they carry their cell phone with them 24/7 even in movie theatres and the > mall, if they always lose money playing poker, if they wear socks that never > match the rest of the outfit...the list could continue forever... > > My deepest regrets, > Michelle Roddy > > > > >From: Michael Bear Bryant > >Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM > >To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU > >Subject: Re: multiple personalities > >Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 14:28:22 EDT > > > >In a message dated 5/4/00 10:15:10 AM Mountain Daylight Time, > >hello_katie at PIGPIG.ZZN.COM writes: > > > > > One of the hundreds of (disappointed and hurt) > > > edebate subscribers, > > > -Katie > > > K-State > > > >Well, gee, it is interesting to see what type of humor pushed peoples > >buttons, isn't it. I didn't understand that two people were simultaneously > >writing a post. The "we" seemed strange if you think pf it in the context > >of > >a single person. It was past midnight my local time. To cope Olney's > >excuse, > >I just got back from dinner and was checking posts casually before retiring > >for the night. I immediately apologized. > > > >I just wonder were your severe aversion to psychological jokes has been in > >the daily examinations provided for my troubled psyche on this list? Am I > >deserving of what you condemn for your friends? Why have you been so silent > >when diagnoses of me are provided? > > > >I'm finding your "new-found" need to call me out for a psychological joke > >pretty hypocritical. > > > >Bear > > ________________________________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com > >From Thu May 4 18:16:31 2000 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 11374 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Thu, 4 May 2000 18:17:24 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo22.mx.aol.com (imo22.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.66]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA12670 for ; Thu, 4 May 2000 18:17:18 -0400 Received: from JanHelfeld at aol.com by imo22.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v26.7.) id n.c.4b61156 (4006) for ; Thu, 4 May 2000 18:16:32 -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 100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 18:16:31 EDT Reply-To: JanHelfeld at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Jan Helfeld Subject: INVITATION to LIVE CHAT DEBATE TORNEY Dear Webmaster, I would like invite all the members of your edebate address list to a LIVE CHAT DEBATE TORNAMENT SPONSORED by the NATIONAL DEBATE ASSOCIATION. Could you please relay the following text of the invite. Dear Debater You are cordially invited to participate in the MAY LIVE CHAT DEBATE TOURNAMENT sponsored by the NATIONAL DEBATE ASSOCIATION. HIGHLIGHTS: YOU DON'T HAVE TO TRAVEL - DEBATE FROM HOME. YOU ONLY DEBATE IN FAVOR OF RESOLUTIONS YOU AGREE WITH. YOU SET YOUR OWN DEBATE SCHEDULE. YOU WILL BE JUDGED BY AN OBJECTIVE CRITERIA,- HOW MANY PEOPLE YOU CAN PERSUADE TO CHANGE THEIR MIND. YOU CAN WIN ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS PLUS POINTS FOR TV DEBATE. FOR MORE INFORMATION GO TO edebate.org Jan Helfeld Pres. NDA From hello_katie Thu May 4 17:24:05 2000 From: hello_katie (Katie Kat) Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 17:24:05 -0500 Subject: More on the amazing George W... Message-ID: No offense, but this email is from NARAL (National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League) and they're pretty big on fact checking...i seriously doubt that they'd just make something up as a scare tactic. Second of all, as a member of TARAL (the Texas affiliate) and some one who participated in multiple lobby sessions and testified before the Texas Senate (which means I've had plenty of time to study reproductive issues in Texas and evaluate Bush's track record) I can personally attest to his EXTREME anti-choice stance. In support of the Informed Consent and Parental Notification bills (both of which were up for debate last session), he said (roughly paraphrased) that he was in favor of both of them because although his end goal was to overturn Roe, he recognized that this was as close as he could come. I recommend that if you have any doubt of this, you look into some of the speeches he made around this time last year. In addition, I'd be happy to get that information from Kae McLaughlin, the head of TARAL and a close friend of mine. -Katie ---- Begin Original Message ---- From: Jeffrey A Panehal Sent: Thu, 4 May 2000 17:19:56 -0400 To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU Subject: Re: More on the amazing George W... enough is enough. this is nothing more than scare tactics and has nothing to do with the election in any way. factual responses will follow each 'claim'. > - George W. Bush could appoint two to three > Supreme Court > Justices, enough to overturn Roe v. Wade. however, when asked if abortion was a litmus test for his selections, the 'amazing' George W. said no. Chicken little the sky is not falling. > - George W. Bush could appoint 136 federal lower > court judges, > plus judges for all the slots that become vacant > during his term. and your point is? all of these things apply to the next president not the 'amazing' George W. > - George W. Bush could appoint an Attorney General > who would not > enforce the federal law (Freedom of Access to > Clinic Entrances Law) > that protects women from violence and harassment > at clinics. i'm actually hoping that we can get 4 more years of janet reno, so she can snatch babies at gunpoint. or an attorney general that drags their feet on campaign finance violations (buddhist temples anyone?). please, our current attorney general is no paragon of justice. do we have to always see this crap on edebate? go to cnn talkbalk live. > - George W. Bush could appoint a Secretary of > Health and Human > Services who would re-impose the gag rule to > prevent physicians from telling their patients > about abortion as an option. > > - George W. Bush could appoint an FDA Commissioner > who would block new, non-surgical options for > abortion such as mifepristone > (RU 486). > > - George W. Bush could propose a federal budget > without funding for international family planning > programs that advocate for the right to choose in > their country or even make referrals for > abortions. > > AND > - George W. Bush supports a Republican Party > Platform calling for a constitutional amendment > outlawing abortion. AND George Bush could steal all our money, children, and futures, living out his days on a beautiful tropical island fornicating with the natives and burning 'foreigners' for firewood. can we ALL (this means me too) stop trying to demonize each other's candidates and discuss what their positions _are_ rather than what they _might_ be? if we chose to engage in this discussion in this forum at all, can we chose to hold ourselves to a standard of evidence and accountability for our own actions (including forwards)? see you on talkback live, j. ------------- "To fear love is to fear life, and those who fear life are already three parts dead." -Bertrand Russell ---- End Original Message ---- Don't forget to visit http://www.pigpig.com/ and http://www.pigpig.net/ ____________________________________________________________ Get your 100MB FREE Internet storage! Sign up now - http://www.netdrive.com/?ao=zzn From doyle Thu May 4 17:22:48 2000 From: doyle (Doyle W Srader) Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 17:22:48 -0500 Subject: More on the amazing George W... Message-ID: Some cardage. Okamoto, Des Moines Register, '99 (Lynn, August 8, p. 1 Lexis) Aides to Bush, considered the early front- runner, refused to provide direct "yes" or "no" answers to any of 13 survey questions. Bush's answers were provided in sentence format and were interpreted by The Des Moines Register. The Texas governor has said several times he does not support litmus tests, but his survey response was less clear: "Governor Bush will appoint judges who have a judicial temperament, who share his conservative philosophy, and who will strictly interpret the Constitution rather than legislating from the bench." In other words, the man's speaking code. Remember what he's said about campaign finance and about antipollution laws? He's for both, but when you examine his proposals closely, he whores himself to the fattest wallet and sells Texas' air down the river to his biggest contributors. If you want to be gullible enough to buy "Shares his conservative philosophy and interprets the Constitution strictly" as meaning another Breyer or Souter, be my guest. Me, I think we'll get three or four more Borks. Want more mealymouthed Bush? Same source: When asked about the [Fredom of Access to Clinic Entrances] act, the Bush campaign replied, "Governor Bush opposes violence and illegal protests, and believes that all those exercising the right of free speech should be treated equally." When asked if that meant he would favor restricting the act, spokeswoman Mindy Tucker declined to elaborate, saying that Bush will not have a "yes" or "no" answer to all questions. "The public is just going to have to get used to that," she said. It's notable that on January 17, 1995, when Bush gave his Texas inaugural address, he made a point of saying that federal action on most matters was unnecessary, because "Texans could take care of Texas." Then, three days later, when legislators in the Texas house introduced legislation that would increase penalties for harassment at clinics, as well as authorize more Texas law enforcement agencies to provide protection at clinics, Bush announced the same day that he opposed the legislation because federal law made it redundant. The man's election strategy is to talk moderate talk while taking ultraconservative action. Don't be fooled. The bizarreness about Janet Reno and baby stealing is too ridiculous to deserve a reply. Doyle Srader Lecturer, Speech Communication Stephen F. Austin State University http://www.netdot.com/doyle/ "I was raised in the West. The west of Texas. It's pretty close to California. In more ways than Washington, D.C., is close to California." -- George W. Bush >From Thu May 4 18:31:48 2000 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 11811 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Thu, 4 May 2000 18:32:24 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo-d01.mx.aol.com (imo-d01.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.33]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA14410 for ; Thu, 4 May 2000 18:32:23 -0400 Received: from JanHelfeld at aol.com by imo-d01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v26.7.) id n.e1.3e77605 (4006) for ; Thu, 4 May 2000 18:31:48 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 18:31:48 EDT Reply-To: JanHelfeld at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Jan Helfeld Subject: Correction of web address for torney Dear Webmaster, I would like invite all the members of your edebate address list to a LIVE CHAT DEBATE TORNAMENT SPONSORED by the NATIONAL DEBATE ASSOCIATION. Could you please relay the following text of the invite. Dear Debater You are cordially invited to participate in the MAY LIVE CHAT DEBATE TOURNAMENT sponsored by the NATIONAL DEBATE ASSOCIATION. HIGHLIGHTS: YOU DON'T HAVE TO TRAVEL - DEBATE FROM HOME. YOU ONLY DEBATE IN FAVOR OF RESOLUTIONS YOU AGREE WITH. YOU SET YOUR OWN DEBATE SCHEDULE. YOU WILL BE JUDGED BY AN OBJECTIVE CRITERIA,- HOW MANY PEOPLE YOU CAN PERSUADE TO CHANGE THEIR MIND. YOU CAN WIN ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS PLUS POINTS FOR TV DEBATE. FOR MORE INFORMATION GO TO http://www.edebate.org Jan Helfeld Pres. NDA >From Thu May 4 18:36:28 2000 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 11925 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Thu, 4 May 2000 18:37:36 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo-r20.mail.aol.com (imo-r20.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.162]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA16916 for ; Thu, 4 May 2000 18:37:35 -0400 Received: from CoopDB8 at aol.com by imo-r20.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v26.7.) id r.46.4e8e32e (4196); Thu, 4 May 2000 18:36:28 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 106 Message-ID: <46.4e8e32e.2643556c at aol.com> Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 18:36:28 EDT Reply-To: CoopDB8 at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: The Coop Subject: Re: Pleasantville, the debate community, and my dirty socks Comments: To: donaldst at pilot.msu.edu Steve Donald, in a vary long and prosaic post, suggests: << 1) Look for ways of wording the topic so that it does one side of the more radical perspective, but not the other. For example, some have proposed that we use the phrase "US" but not the government in the resolution, and have the "list" that seems so popular with many to be either nationalities, not nations, or non-governmental organizations that operate around and within the continent of Africa. They would act as the objects of the resolution, and changes in our aid or development policies toward those actors could possibly be bi-directional due to the limited number of recipients to the change. >> See....I guess this idea was what I was trying to defend all along (i.e. that we can have a "list" for purposes of fair division of ground while also allowing room for whatever critical args. people want to run). The desire for "color" in our community does not negate the equally valuable desire for fairness in ground division and predictability. And I think this is probably the intention of most of the people who have been arguing against Kuswa's suggestions. We should be careful not to lump all these people under the unsavory banner of the "black and whites." To borrow from another bit of television, "I can't help it if I don't want to sit around painted dayglo with a flower stuffed in every orifice, humping the air to Jefferson Airplane!" (Ab Fab for those who don't know)...but that doesn't mean I'm not for a bit of color. COOP Univ. of Miami >From Thu May 4 19:53:04 2000 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 12461 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Thu, 4 May 2000 19:53:09 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from merhaba.cc.columbia.edu (IDENT:cu14774 at merhaba.cc.columbia.edu [128.59.59.130]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA22950 for ; Thu, 4 May 2000 19:53:08 -0400 Received: from localhost by merhaba.cc.columbia.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA04816; Thu, 4 May 2000 19:53:04 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Message-ID: Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 19:53:04 -0400 Reply-To: dhn2 at COLUMBIA.EDU To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Daniel Hugh Nexon Subject: Re: More on the amazing George W... Comments: To: Jeffrey A Panehal In-Reply-To: On Thu, 4 May 2000, Jeffrey A Panehal wrote: > enough is enough. this is nothing more than scare tactics and has nothing > to do with the election in any way. factual responses will follow each > 'claim'. > > > - George W. Bush could appoint two to three > > Supreme Court > > Justices, enough to overturn Roe v. Wade. > > however, when asked if abortion was a litmus test for his selections, the > 'amazing' George W. said no. Chicken little the sky is not falling. And I've got a bridge to sell you. George Bush has said, explicitly, that he favors a "strict constructionist" view of the constitution -- when pressed on whether this would exclude the right to privacy, he dissembles. Regards, Dan | Columbia Political Science | www.columbia.edu/~dhn2 "Evolution is to allegory as statues are to birdshit. It is a convenient platform upon which to deposit badly digested ideas." --Steve Jones, NYRB, July 17, 1997, p. 39 From rag241 Thu May 4 19:12:34 2000 From: rag241 (Ricky Garner) Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 20:12:34 -0400 Subject: africa: listing countries Message-ID: well, with all the discussion on the list about listing, first of all, a question/call to discussion. i was wondering if somebody would argue/post for me/everyone... i'm just curious to know if anyone wants to list countries such that they are not from a geographic region, ie- just pick some roughly similar countries or just ones where stuff is going on... i don't think that i've seen anyone thoroughly defend this yet and if someone likes that option i'd like to start some discussion as to its merits (if you remember a good post (affirmative) on this subject you could also let me know, too...) second, an idea: if we do pick "random countries" to list, i think that we should very much pick a phrase that is seriously loaded such as Development Assistance. rslvd: the (actor) should substantially increase development assistance to one or more of the following countries: s. africa, nigeria, (et cetera) i think this would check back the research burden/ research bifurcation on "mini-topics" _if_ that is necessary (i hope we do a region, even if we include a list with it) by providing the negative coherent and centered ground... providing those who can't cut five different topic areas _sufficiently_ with an alternative that would provide good debate no matter what (instead of people just running kritiks and counter plans that are marginally germane to the aff...). maybe i am wrong, and these are just preliminary ideas, but thats why i want to discuss it. ricky garner NYU Debate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20000504/7fe1ce70/attachment.html From db8coach Thu May 4 19:48:20 2000 From: db8coach (Bob Lechtreck) Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 17:48:20 -0700 Subject: DCA Debater #3 Kamal Ghali References: Message-ID: >>>>>>>>>> watching my monte stevens cards go down in value :) >>>>>>>>>> I don't know, if you have the Monte Stevens in the Okaloosa-Walton Jersey it might be worth some big bucks....... He has a Phi Rho Pi shirt somewhere in his closet. Peace, Bob Lechtreck Bakersfield College "Putting out fires and damn good debaters" From maluong Thu May 4 20:29:48 2000 From: maluong (M. A. Luong) Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 21:29:48 -0400 Subject: Yale faculty member seeks research intern for privacy course (Fall 2000) Message-ID: Re: Yale faculty member seeks research intern for privacy course (Fall 2000) Dear Colleagues: One of the courses I will be teaching this fall is entitled "Privacy in the Information Economy" which, by coincidence, happens to cover all four sub-topic areas of next year's high school policy debate topic. This brand-new course, which will be listed in the Ethics, Politics, and Economics Department, is an upper-division seminar with weekly discussion topics and a reading list of book chapters, journal articles, and material from newswire services and topic-related websites. I will also be editing the eBulletin of Privacy Affairs which might be of interest to high school debaters. I am seeking a research intern with a policy debate, Lincoln-Douglas, and/or extemporaneous speaking background who will be available three to five hours per week during the fall semester. The ideal candidate would be a Yale University student who is an Ethics, Politics, and Economics major with some continuing involvement in high school debate but ability to perform the work independently and availability to meet with me during the days when I am in New Haven are the most important. Responsibilities include: * Conducting weekly on-line research for updated material on course topics; * Updating the course webpage with links to relevant websites; * Assisting me in the compliation of materials and web links for the eBulletin of Privacy Affairs * Meeting with me on a weekly basis (I will be on campus Thursdays and Fridays); * Preparation of materials for National Debate Education Project (NDEP) regional seminars to be held in September and October. Please pass this announcement to anyone who might be interested. I will be in the tab room at the TOC this weekend if anyone wishes to discuss the position with me. The honorarium works out to be a little over $8.00/hr., totaling approximately $500.00 for the semester. The work is not particularly difficult but since I will be a part-time professor while continuing to consult for my corporate clients in Boston, a research intern will make my life much easier. Interested persons can contact me at: maluong at thecia.net Thank you! Best regards, Minh ------------------------------------------------------------------- Minh A. Luong Incoming faculty member Ethics, Politics, and Economics Department (EPE) and Yale Center for International and Area Studies (YCIAS) Yale University New Haven, Connecticut -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20000504/ae51f3c3/attachment.htm From jmeany Thu May 4 21:57:23 2000 From: jmeany (John Meany) Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 19:57:23 -0700 Subject: Yale faculty member seeks research intern for privacy course (Fall 2000) In-Reply-To: <3912240C.A1CBDED6@thecia.net> Message-ID: Minh: You should contact the Yale debate team. It is always filled with former high school policy and LD debaters... John Meany Claremont Colleges From privethedge Thu May 4 22:09:37 2000 From: privethedge (Duane Hyland) Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 20:09:37 -0700 Subject: More Thank Yous from Cetreville Message-ID: Hi, now that the shock of my program's death has worn off I have to issue a few more thank yous> Coop: Thanks for the all the work at States last year!!:) We couldn't have got two teams through without you!!:) Joe Keeton: All the Work you did before GMU for us this year was nothing short of Herculean!!:) Thanks for all of your support this year!!:) Howard B: Thanks for all the war stories. Your grasp of debate history is simply amazing. Thanks for all your support, couldn't have made it all work without you. And for anyone else I've forgotten who was ever encouraging to us, whoever knew the whole story, and for those I haven't listed here, but who believed I thank you. Duane Oh, heck...I forgot to thank the most important person of all: Larry Watts: For taking a pretty wild freshman and showing him the world of polcy debate back in the fall of '87. It's been a wild, and fun, and tragic 13 years...but I'm a total addict and it's thanks all to you!!:) Can't thank you enough for leading me into this world. Duane --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20000504/a8f7a914/attachment.html From k.kuswa Thu May 4 22:21:53 2000 From: k.kuswa (kevin kuswa) Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 23:21:53 -0400 Subject: Pleasantville, the debate community, and my dirty socks Message-ID: Steve: very flattering post, although the attempt to provide for a slightly different, yet debateable topic is being led by a large number of people, not just a single painter :). Of course you're only using it as a metaphor, making COOP's arguments about the "black & whites" inapplicable. Have a great time on your road trip and next time you get a chance to see a movie check our E. Morris' _Fast, Cheap and Out of Control_. This movie definitely speaks to the multi-headed hydra that is debate (excluding the word "cheap" in light of the elitism thread). COOP: I don't think Steve was calling the community "black and white," only that Pleasantville does describe some of the complacency we have with topics that use the USFG and inferiorize some list of lesser states. Fairness and color are not in opposition--they are only shades in the quest for a vivid resolution. Moreover, the opponents of my arguments are not always rooting their position in "fairness." More often they are using uncertainty as a defense of admittedly state-centric approaches that tend to create a sense of American exceptionalism in the topic. Yes, some of these flaws may be impossible to avoid, but I'd take Jefferson Airplane over the fucking national anthem that has been ringing in our years for over 50 years of debate. We may have argumenative color in the community regardless of the topic (Steve's post does a great job of explaining this despite Coop's creative clipping), but what are the other senses being stifled by an ossified and Mad Libbed resolution? Talk to some people outside the community and read them some of our resolutions from the past 10 years. Ask those people how our topics SOUND, how they FEEL, maybe even how they MOVE. The adjectives you get back, as a guess, will revolve around the word stale. In fact, Steve's socks will probably come up. No USFG (use the passive voice so you can still insert the USFG when in need) and No list. kevin utexas At 06:36 PM 5/4/00 EDT, you wrote: >Steve Donald, in a vary long and prosaic post, suggests: > ><< 1) Look for ways of wording the topic so that it does one side of the more > radical perspective, but not the other. For example, some have proposed > that we use the phrase "US" but not the government in the resolution, and > have the "list" that seems so popular with many to be either nationalities, > not nations, or non-governmental organizations that operate around and > within the continent of Africa. They would act as the objects of the > resolution, and changes in our aid or development policies toward those > actors could possibly be bi-directional due to the limited number of > recipients to the change. >> > >See....I guess this idea was what I was trying to defend all along (i.e. that >we can have a "list" for purposes of fair division of ground while also >allowing room for whatever critical args. people want to run). The desire >for "color" in our community does not negate the equally valuable desire for >fairness in ground division and predictability. And I think this is probably >the intention of most of the people who have been arguing against Kuswa's >suggestions. > >We should be careful not to lump all these people under the unsavory banner >of the "black and whites." To borrow from another bit of television, "I >can't help it if I don't want to sit around painted dayglo with a flower >stuffed in every orifice, humping the air to Jefferson Airplane!" (Ab Fab >for those who don't know)...but that doesn't mean I'm not for a bit of color. > >COOP >Univ. of Miami > From iriamenzo Fri May 5 00:48:01 2000 From: iriamenzo (Phillip Samuels) Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 00:48:01 CDT Subject: Another Death in Northern Virginia (Metaphorically) Message-ID: Duane, I would like to know the story because I am thinking about becoming a high school coach. I have been following this whole conversation about Elite HS and the like with a lot of intrest. I want to know the kinda of things that I might be in for trying to make a program work. Phillip Samuels MoSo Debate >From: Duane Hyland >Reply-To: Duane Hyland >To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU >Subject: Another Death in Northern Virginia (Metaphorically) >Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 20:08:48 -0700 > > >Hi, I want to take this oppurtunity to thank the following people who have >given their time over the last couple of years to my my program as "elite" >as it could be. I'm sure I'll either anger some people here, or piss others >off cause I forgot you. I will make a point here in a minute about the >thread, so please don't flame me for wasting your time (those of you I >don't know). The reason I write this is that another Northern Virginia >Policy program is crashing this month. A region that once boasted some of >the finest teams in the nation (Lake Braddock, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas >Edison, West Potomac, West Springfield - hmmm...maybe that's the cabalistic >creed - name your school Thomas or West and your in the clique!!:) will now >lose another program, not as great as those that came before it, but it is >a sad day none the less, and since I couldn't pay everyone what they were >worth for the time and work they put in to helping us achieve success (only >a on a State and Regional level, we weren't nationals players by any means) >I would like to take this time to thank them now: > >Greg Mast - Cuts some really amazing Court Stuff when you need it the most, >and we couldn't have gotten out of the NCFL Diocese without you!!:) And, >OH...the King of "Talking to Japan." > >Ivan Susak - For finally making the Clinton DA Comprehensible. After a >Sunday's lecture with you, I think I can teach the Political DA to >sucessive generations of debaters and not make a screaming fool out of >myself. > >John Weaver - For being the first person to volunteer 2 years ago when I >put out the call. Couldn't have pulled off Harvard without you last year, >Steel was amazing, and even though you haven't been with us much this year >your still there in spirit and that's what counts!!:) > >Katie Kasmai - To think, you graduated this school last year not even >knowing we offered policy. Well, GMU was lucky to get you and I think >you're making for lost time nicely!!:) Your evidence is amazing, your >spirit unflagging, you'll go far!!:) > >Sarah Ryan - Even though we haven't had time to talk much this year, you've >always been there with the support when I've needed it (evidentiary and >mentally). Your capitalism and rights stuff has taken us far. You'll go >further yet. I've enjoyed knowing you, and hope to hear from you soon!!:) > >Jake Weiner - Although I'm still recovering from seeing you in a tie at >States, I've always enjoyed talking with you, you always made this whole >thing seem worthwile!!:) Thanks for being you. > >Neil Butt - Same comment as for Jake...you've made it all seem worthwile, >even when a lot of other voices were shouting that it wasn't. > >To anyone I've left off, or missed, it wasn't intentional....and please >don't take offense. > >ANd, that's all that's written. Centreville HS Policy Debate, Clifton, VA >RIP 1998 - 2000. > >THe point of this is that no team survives by itself. You could have >billions and if you don't work, and don't surround yourself with people >that care about the activity and the kids you'll collapse.( My case was >weird, and I'd be happy to explain it b/c, it was one of the few times that >the preceeding sentence didn't prove itself true). It's all about caring >and work folks. If you work hard and surround yourself with caring people >you'll go far...it's not about cabals, money, secret handshakes, >wink-wink-nudge-nudge, it's just about WORK and CARING. > >So, if you know of a HS in NOVA who is looking for a hardworking, caring >coach...let me know. If not, JUST KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK, AND CARING >ATTITUDES THAT Y'ALL DISPLAY all the time, and as a community we are that >much better off. > >Duane >e a blu > > >--------------------------------- >Do You Yahoo!? >Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger. ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From drtuna Fri May 5 05:21:59 2000 From: drtuna (Alfred Snider) Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 06:21:59 -0400 Subject: Foucault Critique of the Foucault Critique In-Reply-To: <000504.094256@regpha.com> Message-ID: As listowner I again request that attached documents nlot be sent to eDebate. Mr. Glass, please avoid thiks in the future. Offer to send your article to anyone interested, but don't send a text file and an .rtf file to 1100 people. Tuna --------------- Alfred C. Snider aka Tuna Lawrence Professor of Forensics, University of Vermont 802-656-0097 office; 802-238-8345 mobile; 802-656-4275 fax asnider at zoo.uvm.edu office; drtuna at earthlink.net home/mobile http://debate.uvm.edu Debate Central website > From: DAVID GLASS > Reply-To: DAVID GLASS > Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 09:42:56 -0500 > To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU > Subject: Foucault Critique of the Foucault Critique > > Foucault Critique of the Foucault Critique 5/3/00 13:44 > > > while you people have me posting on EDEBATE, > I thought I would ask a favor. > > Enclosed is an article I had in > the Rostrum recently, critiquing the way > Foucault and Heidegger are rendered in > the Policy Debate Discourse. I'm working on revisions now, to put together a > "deeper" piece for publication elsewhere... if anyone has any basic issues > with the argument, > or finds some bone-headedmistake on my part, > please let me know. > Thanks for the help... (it's enclosed both > as a text file and as an .rtf...) > -djg > From drtuna Fri May 5 05:21:59 2000 From: drtuna (Alfred Snider) Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 06:21:59 -0400 Subject: INVITATION to LIVE CHAT DEBATE TORNEY In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I just want to note that edebate.org and the National Debate Association have nothing to do with this list or with myself. Tuna --------------- Alfred C. Snider aka Tuna Lawrence Professor of Forensics, University of Vermont 802-656-0097 office; 802-238-8345 mobile; 802-656-4275 fax asnider at zoo.uvm.edu office; drtuna at earthlink.net home/mobile http://debate.uvm.edu Debate Central website > From: Jan Helfeld > Reply-To: JanHelfeld at AOL.COM > Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 18:16:31 EDT > To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU > Subject: INVITATION to LIVE CHAT DEBATE TORNEY > > Dear Webmaster, > > I would like invite all the members of your edebate address list to a LIVE > CHAT DEBATE TORNAMENT SPONSORED by the NATIONAL DEBATE ASSOCIATION. > Could you please relay the following text of the invite. > > Dear Debater > > You are cordially invited to participate in the MAY LIVE CHAT DEBATE > TOURNAMENT sponsored by the NATIONAL DEBATE ASSOCIATION. > > HIGHLIGHTS: > > YOU DON'T HAVE TO TRAVEL - DEBATE FROM HOME. > > YOU ONLY DEBATE IN FAVOR OF RESOLUTIONS YOU AGREE WITH. > > YOU SET YOUR OWN DEBATE SCHEDULE. > > YOU WILL BE JUDGED BY AN OBJECTIVE CRITERIA,- HOW MANY PEOPLE YOU CAN > PERSUADE TO CHANGE THEIR MIND. > > YOU CAN WIN ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS PLUS POINTS FOR TV DEBATE. > > FOR MORE INFORMATION GO TO edebate.org > > Jan Helfeld > Pres. NDA > >From Fri May 5 11:34:47 2000 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 21359 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Fri, 5 May 2000 11:35:30 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo11.mx.aol.com (imo11.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.1]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA11662 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 11:35:29 -0400 Received: from Holieco at aol.com by imo11.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v26.7.) id n.26.540e1b7 (4585) for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 11:34:48 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows sub 100 Message-ID: <26.540e1b7.26444417 at aol.com> Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 11:34:47 EDT Reply-To: Holieco at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Holieco at AOL.COM Subject: B.C. - SIU? Whaz up, Can someone from SIU or elsewhere hook me up with B.C.'s e-mail address. I am sure he probably cannot use a phone! Peace, Massey From mch766s Fri May 5 10:52:51 2000 From: mch766s (Martin Che Harris) Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 10:52:51 -0500 Subject: Multiple personalities and being hypocritical Message-ID: Yup, way off on two accounts. First, not all of the list subscribers buy into the bankrupt notion of a "marketplace" of ideas (parantheses for emphasis). Second, even if they did, freedom of speech requires COUNTER speech to be effective. Attempts to create societal taboos against particular verniculars through arguments for SELF censorship, are not wasteful but essential to an operative freedom of speech. That is the kick in the rubber parts about a completely laissez faire speech system, it is brutal as hell. -----Original Message----- From: Matthew Kuss To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU Date: Thursday, May 04, 2000 1:35 PM Subject: Multiple personalities and being hypocritical >There seems to be a dualism on this list- everyone will fight to the death >for freedom of speech, yet everyone fights to the death to try and govern >what is said on this list and how it is said. > >While Bear doesn't always get on everyone's good side with some of his >views, I find it unfortunate that he, or anyone, should have to defend every >little word typed in every post. I am not advocating total freedom to simply >say whatever you want, but I would think at some point people should be >allowed to make a joke or a sarcastic comment, and people be able to >recognize that they don't HAVE to like what was said, and if they don't like >it they don't HAVE to 'call out' the person that said it. > >Am I way off here? > >Just wondering... > >Matt > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Team Topic Debating in America [mailto:EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU]On >> Behalf Of Michael Bear Bryant >> Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2000 11:28 AM >> To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU >> Subject: Re: multiple personalities >> >> >> In a message dated 5/4/00 10:15:10 AM Mountain Daylight Time, >> hello_katie at PIGPIG.ZZN.COM writes: >> >> > One of the hundreds of (disappointed and hurt) >> > edebate subscribers, >> > -Katie >> > K-State >> >> Well, gee, it is interesting to see what type of humor pushed peoples >> buttons, isn't it. I didn't understand that two people were simultaneously >> writing a post. The "we" seemed strange if you think pf it in the >> context of >> a single person. It was past midnight my local time. To cope >> Olney's excuse, >> I just got back from dinner and was checking posts casually >> before retiring >> for the night. I immediately apologized. >> >> I just wonder were your severe aversion to psychological jokes has been in >> the daily examinations provided for my troubled psyche on this list? Am I >> deserving of what you condemn for your friends? Why have you been >> so silent >> when diagnoses of me are provided? >> >> I'm finding your "new-found" need to call me out for a psychological joke >> pretty hypocritical. >> >> Bear >> From mkuss Fri May 5 12:36:23 2000 From: mkuss (Matthew Kuss) Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 10:36:23 -0700 Subject: Multiple personalities and being hypocritical In-Reply-To: <001e01bfb6a9$f8829960$32120792@myhome> Message-ID: > Yup, way off on two accounts. First, not all of the list > subscribers buy > into the bankrupt notion of a "marketplace" of ideas (parantheses for > emphasis). Okay, granted. But most of the vocal ones seem to. > Second, even if they did, freedom of speech requires COUNTER > speech to be effective. Attempts to create societal taboos against > particular verniculars through arguments for SELF censorship, are not > wasteful but essential to an operative freedom of speech. That > is the kick > in the rubber parts about a completely laissez faire speech system, it is > brutal as hell. I never advanced the idea of stifling counter-speech. I was just wondering why people had a need to demand apologies because someone makes a joke on the list. It seems the counter speech often tries to stifle the initial speech. And under the premise of the free speech system, I would think the original, assumed offensive speech should be openly accepted as the counter speech itself is. Matt >From Fri May 5 12:01:07 2000 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 21934 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Fri, 5 May 2000 12:01:42 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from smtp.pace.edu (ntutil.pace.edu [205.232.111.9]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA02404 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 12:01:38 -0400 Received: from fsmail.pace.edu (205.232.111.6:4093) by smtp.pace.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.A7F81441 at smtp.pace.edu>; Fri, 5 May 2000 12:01:07 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Mailer: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by list.uvm.edu id MAA33574 Message-ID: <200005051201.AA57475190 at fsmail.pace.edu> Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 12:01:07 -0400 Reply-To: FIrizarry at fsmail.pace.edu To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Frank Paul Irizarry Subject: Re: More on the amazing George W... More ridiculous anti-bush propaganda. thanks for the report! If elected President, >- George W. Bush could appoint two to three >Supreme Court >Justices, enough to overturn Roe v. Wade. and if you believe that's going to happen then I've got a bridge in brooklyn to sell you! > > >- George W. Bush could appoint an Attorney General >who would not >enforce the federal law (Freedom of Access to >Clinic Entrances Law) >that protects women from violence and harassment >at clinics. but he won't. NARAL has no support for this wild assumption. i've seen their wonderful site. > >- George W. Bush could appoint a Secretary of >Health and Human >Services who would re-impose the gag rule to >prevent physicians from telling their patients >about abortion as an option. but he won't. plus the pro-choice lobby has made sure that every woman knows about the abortion option. > >- George W. Bush could appoint an FDA Commissioner >who would block new, non-surgical options for >abortion such as mifepristone >(RU 486). > >- George W. Bush could propose a federal budget >without funding for international family planning >programs that advocate for the right to choose in >their country or even make referrals for >abortions. and I'm thankful that that's one less thing that my tax dollars will go to! > >AND >- George W. Bush supports a Republican Party >Platform calling for a constitutional amendment >outlawing abortion. All lies and fabrications about George Bush. Now lets examine Al Gore's record, the true champion of choice: February 20, 2000; New York Times CLAIM: Gore said he has ~Salways, always, always~T supported Roe v. Wade. TRUTH: In 1977, Rep. Gore voted for the Hyde Amendment, which says that abortion ~Stakes the life of an unborn child who is a living human being,~T and that there is no constitutional right to abortion. He cast many other votes favorable to the pro-life cause and earned an 84 percent rating from the National Right to Life Committee. You can also hit the archives of Vital Speeches of the Day from 1978 to see a transcript of a pro-life speech that Rep. Gore gave at the U of Tennessee! January 22, 1997; NARAL meeting CLAIM: ~SI reached out to individuals who are leaders on the [pro-life] side of this issue~T to ~Smake common cause~T on reducing unwanted pregnancies. He went on to imply that Catholic pro-lifers~R opposition to birth control made it impossible for both sides join ~Stogether to make abortions rare.~T TRUTH: Despite many queries, no pro-life leader has ever said Gore approached him on this subject. I know that slamming Bush is almost as popular as slamming Bear on this list so if you're going to spread your propaganda, at least make sure the "facts" are there. The only fact I see is that we have one candidate who is consistent, principled and wants to have waiting periods and parental notification laws and wants to stop forcing taxpayers to pay for abortions while we have another candidate who is a political chameleon. A 21st century Charlatan who lies about all of his beliefs (because he has no real conviction) Al Gore could just as easily do all of those things that you say Bush can do since GOre is really a pro-lifer! frank From doyle Fri May 5 11:41:34 2000 From: doyle (Doyle W Srader) Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 11:41:34 -0500 Subject: More on the amazing George W... Message-ID: Okay, one more time: Gore Bad does not equal Bush Good. Got a few replies to Frank's post. And remember, we're bickering about politics here, so a heated tone is just part of the nature of that. None of it is meant personally. Frank, at the bottom you summarize that Katie's post is "all lies and fabrications." All of it? Specifically, that comment follows the line about Bush being in favor of a constitutional amendment banning abortion. You think that's a lie or a fabrication? That's in the Republican platform, has been there for twenty years, and since Bush just this week appointed Tommy Thompson to head the platform committee at the convention, they sure as hell won't be removing it this year. You're glad that your tax dollars won't go to support family planning assistance? Which part do you not believe, Frank -- that overpopulation is a problem, or that family planning helps to address that problem? If you had to get it together to debate a really good team on family planning, would you go in prepped to try to beat them on the case? Or do you believe that global overpopulation's just not *our* problem, despite the fact that a century of history proves that an ounce of prevention is worth a tonne of cure, and every time parts of the world erupt into violence, no matter how distant, we find ourselves involved? (Not to mention the fact that we achieved our current material wealth on most of the overpopulated nations' backs.) Or have you not noticed that the U.S. spends LESS on foreign aid, as a percentage of its GNP, than almost any other developed nation? Is one of those your gripe, or am I missing some other element? You think the gag rule is harmless because the "pro-choice lobby" makes sure everyone knows about abortion? It doesn't concern you that the AMA has called the gag rule so unethical that abiding by it constitutes malpractice? You think doctors being forbidden to counsel patients according to their best medical judgment is OK, because elsewhere in the big city there are pamphlets and billboards available? If you went in and were diagnosed with a life-threatening illness tomorrow, would you be thrilled at the doctor saying "Now, it's illegal for me to tell you about the best treatment option, but go cruise around the city, because there's a lobbying group out there somewhere that pushes it. Good luck finding it?" Last, you think Bush WON'T appoint pro-life justices, when his ONLY WORD on the subject is "Governor Bush will appoint judges who have a judicial temperament, who share his conservative philosophy, and who will strictly interpret the Constitution rather than legislating from the bench?" When Pat Robertson, after meeting privately with Bush, said "George Bush has said things that would cause me to believe that he would be worthy of support of the [Christian] coalition were he the nominee of the Republican Party?" When Ralph Reed wrote in the National Review last July, "More conservative than his father, George W. has a proven record of conservative accomplishment that the media have largely ignored. A Bush victory in November 2000 would be a conservative triumph, not a moderate one?" When all Bush says on abortion in public is substance-free doublespeak, and Pat Robertson gives him a full endorsement, you really think his position on abortion will be anything other than anti-choice? Ridiculous anti-Bush propaganda my ass. It's called not being a dupe. And apart from all of that, you can derive the best reason not to vote for Bush from the subject line of this thread, read aloud. Doyle Srader Lecturer, Speech Communication Stephen F. Austin State University http://www.netdot.com/doyle/ "Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?" -- George W. Bush, January 11, 2000 "Laura and I really don't realize how bright our children is sometimes until we get an objective analysis." -- George W. Bush, April 15, 2000 From bigred Fri May 5 11:51:50 2000 From: bigred (Johnson, Kenneth) Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 09:51:50 -0700 Subject: Foucault Critique of the Foucault Critique Message-ID: Mr. Glass, please backchannel me the article on foucault and heidegger. peace, ken johnson seattle U -----Original Message----- From: Alfred Snider To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU Sent: 5/5/00 3:21 AM Subject: Re: Foucault Critique of the Foucault Critique Importance: Low As listowner I again request that attached documents nlot be sent to eDebate. Mr. Glass, please avoid thiks in the future. Offer to send your article to anyone interested, but don't send a text file and an .rtf file to 1100 people. Tuna --------------- Alfred C. Snider aka Tuna Lawrence Professor of Forensics, University of Vermont 802-656-0097 office; 802-238-8345 mobile; 802-656-4275 fax asnider at zoo.uvm.edu office; drtuna at earthlink.net home/mobile http://debate.uvm.edu Debate Central website > From: DAVID GLASS > Reply-To: DAVID GLASS > Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 09:42:56 -0500 > To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU > Subject: Foucault Critique of the Foucault Critique > > Foucault Critique of the Foucault Critique 5/3/00 13:44 > > > while you people have me posting on EDEBATE, > I thought I would ask a favor. > > Enclosed is an article I had in > the Rostrum recently, critiquing the way > Foucault and Heidegger are rendered in > the Policy Debate Discourse. I'm working on revisions now, to put together a > "deeper" piece for publication elsewhere... if anyone has any basic issues > with the argument, > or finds some bone-headedmistake on my part, > please let me know. > Thanks for the help... (it's enclosed both > as a text file and as an .rtf...) > -djg > From hello_katie Fri May 5 11:58:05 2000 From: hello_katie (Katie Kat) Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 11:58:05 -0500 Subject: More on the amazing George W... Message-ID: My response below... -- Begin Original Message ---- From: Frank Paul Irizarry < FIrizarry at FSMAIL.PACE.EDU> Sent: Fri, 5 May 2000 12:01:07 -0400 To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU Subject: Re: More on the amazing George W... More ridiculous anti-bush propaganda. thanks for the report! If elected President, >- George W. Bush could appoint two to three >Supreme Court >Justices, enough to overturn Roe v. Wade. >and if you believe that's going to happen then I've got a bridge in brooklyn to sell you! That's a stellar argument...good thing you have "facts" to back it up and not just some ridicuolous assertion.... > > >- George W. Bush could appoint an Attorney General >who would not >enforce the federal law (Freedom of Access to >Clinic Entrances Law) >that protects women from violence and harassment >at clinics. >but he won't. NARAL has no support for this wild assumption. i've seen their wonderful site. Congratulations. But i trust NARAL more than I would your so far warrantless claims. They work in conjuction with Planned Parenthood, which is a federal agency and has produced identical reports. > >- George W. Bush could appoint a Secretary of >Health and Human >Services who would re-impose the gag rule to >prevent physicians from telling their patients >about abortion as an option. >but he won't. plus the pro-choice lobby has made sure that every woman knows about the abortion option. Obviously this remark is not from someone who's actually worked extenswively with pregnant womyn. Many do not know their options, 83% of counties do NOT have abortion providers (this comes from the USFG, by the way, not NARAL's "wonderful site"), and conservatives are slowly but surely chipping away at this right. > >- George W. Bush could appoint an FDA Commissioner >who would block new, non-surgical options for >abortion such as mifepristone >(RU 486). > >- George W. Bush could propose a federal budget >without funding for international family planning >programs that advocate for the right to choose in >their country or even make referrals for >abortions. >and I'm thankful that that's one less thing that my tax dollars will go to! Yea, I'd so much rather have my tax dollars go to making new weapons than preventing ONE WOMYN FROM DYING EVERY MINUTE from an illegal abortion wordlwide. Oh, and by the way, in countries where abortion is illegal, the abortion rate is THREE TIMES higher than it is in the U.S. (eg: Brazil). Also data from the WHO, probably another source that's not "credible" in your opionion. > >AND >- George W. Bush supports a Republican Party >Platform calling for a constitutional amendment >outlawing abortion. >All lies and fabrications about George Bush. Now lets examine Al Gore's record, the true champion of choice: February 20, 2000; New York Times CLAIM: Gore said he has ~Salways, always, always~T supported Roe v. Wade. TRUTH: In 1977, Rep. Gore voted for the Hyde Amendment, which says that abortion ~Stakes the life of an unborn child who is a living human being,~T and that there is no constitutional right to abortion. He cast many other votes favorable to the pro-life cause and earned an 84 percent rating from the National Right to Life Committee. You can also hit the archives of Vital Speeches of the Day from 1978 to see a transcript of a pro- life speech that Rep. Gore gave at the U of Tennessee! January 22, 1997; NARAL meeting CLAIM: ~SI reached out to individuals who are leaders on the [pro-life] side of this issue~T to ~Smake common cause~T on reducing unwanted pregnancies. He went on to imply that Catholic pro-lifers~R opposition to birth control made it impossible for both sides join ~Stogether to make abortions rare.~T TRUTH: Despite many queries, no pro-life leader has ever said Gore approached him on this subject. I know that slamming Bush is almost as popular as slamming Bear on this list so if you're going to spread your propaganda, at least make sure the "facts" are there. The only fact I see is that we have one candidate who is consistent, principled and wants to have waiting periods and parental notification laws and wants to stop forcing taxpayers to pay for abortions while we have another candidate who is a political chameleon. A 21st century Charlatan who lies about all of his beliefs (because he has no real conviction) Al Gore could just as easily do all of those things that you say Bush can do since GOre is really a pro-lifer! As per the rest of your Gore cites, could you find something a little more recent, perhaps? I was probably anti-choice in the 1980's...I sure as hell am not now...congratulations, while Gore was busy being anti-choice in the SEVENTIES, Bush was too busy doing coke to discuss his political aspirations and abortion stance... -Katie Katie Hatziavramidis K-State Debate Don't forget to visit http://www.pigpig.com/ and http://www.pigpig.net/ ____________________________________________________________ Get your 100MB FREE Internet storage! Sign up now - http://www.netdrive.com/?ao=zzn From nkhwdebate Fri May 5 12:04:40 2000 From: nkhwdebate (Natalie's Debate) Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 10:04:40 PDT Subject: More on the amazing George W... Message-ID: Just another interesting report on laws that Bush has supported and/or signed into Texas law in the past 5 years... natalie GEORGE W. BUSH~RS ANTI-CHOICE RECORD George W. Bush signed 18 anti-choice provisions into law in the three legislative sessions during which he was governor. Most recently in the 1999 Texas legislative session, George W. Bush signed laws that contain the following anti-choice provisions: Prohibiting the use of state family planning funds to dispense prescription contraceptives to minors without parental consent -- HB 1. Funding abstinence-until-marriage education -- HB 1. Prohibiting the use of state family planning funds to pay the direct or indirect costs of abortion procedures. This provision could be applied to prohibit family planning funding for organizations that offer abortion services -- HB 1. Expanding Texas~R onerous and discriminatory abortion clinic regulations and $2500 licensing fee to specified physicians~R offices, thereby needlessly raising the cost of an abortion -- HB 2085. Denying reproductive services, except prenatal care and care related to diseases, illnesses, or abnormalities related to the reproductive system, to low-income women under 19 who are enrolled in the Texas Child Health Plan -- SB 445. Prohibiting school-based health centers that receive specified grants from providing reproductive services, counseling, or referrals -- HB 2202. Mandating parental involvement in a young woman~Rs decision to end her pregnancy, thereby endangering young women~Rs health -- SB 30. Requiring that young women seeking an abortion endure a 48 hour waiting period before terminating their pregnancies, as well as mandating creation and distribution of state-prepared materials that provide information relating to alternatives to, and health risks of, abortion, thereby skewing the information available to patients and undermining the concept of informed consent -- SB 30. Denying tax exemptions to certain not-for-profit organizations that perform, refer for, or assist specified organizations that perform or refer for abortions -- HB 541. Making it a felony for anyone to take a 14-16 year-old out of state and outside a 120-mile radius from his or her residence without parental acquiescence -- HB 1428. Under this law, a grandparent could be prosecuted for taking his or her grandchild out of state for an abortion. This law mimics a Pennsylvania law that was a model for federal legislation that prohibits interstate transport of minors for purposes of obtaining an abortion without first complying with her home state~Rs parental involvement law. In the 1997 Texas legislative session, George W. Bush signed laws that contain the following anti-choice provisions: Prohibiting the use of state family planning funds to dispense prescription contraceptives to minors without parental consent -- HB 1. Funding abstinence-until-marriage education -- HB 1. Prohibiting the use of state family planning funds to pay the direct or indirect costs of abortion procedures. This provision could be applied to prohibit family planning funding for organizations that offer abortion services -- HB 1. Prohibiting publicly funded attorneys from assisting poor women in exercising their constitutional right to choose an abortion -- SB 1534. Mandating clinic regulations that single out abortion facilities from other outpatient surgical centers for mandatory government oversight and control, including granting the Texas Department of Health the authority to revoke an abortion facility~Rs license before a hearing and to impose administrative penalties of up to $1,000 per day -- SB 407. Mandating clinic regulations that single out abortion facilities from other outpatient surgical centers by requiring them to use a government assigned number in all their advertisements and to establish a toll-free number which must provide specified information -- HB 2856. Allowing HMOs to refuse to recommend, offer advice concerning, pay for, provide, assist in, perform, arrange, or participate in providing or performing any health care service, such as abortion, that violates its religious convictions -- SB 385. In the 1995 legislative session, George W. Bush signed a law containing the following anti-choice provision: Requiring that any sexuality, STD or HIV/AIDS education must emphasize abstinence from sexual activity until marriage but not requiring instruction on contraception to prevent pregnancy, STDs or HIV/AIDS -- SB 1. NARAL 2/25/00 Back to NARAL Resources ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com >From Fri May 5 13:35:50 2000 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 23537 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Fri, 5 May 2000 13:36:22 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from smtp.pace.edu (ntutil.pace.edu [205.232.111.9]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA26744 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 13:36:21 -0400 Received: from fsmail.pace.edu (205.232.111.6:3033) by smtp.pace.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.A7F81DBD at smtp.pace.edu>; Fri, 5 May 2000 13:35:50 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Message-ID: <200005051335.AA131269278 at fsmail.pace.edu> Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 13:35:50 -0400 Reply-To: FIrizarry at fsmail.pace.edu To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Frank Paul Irizarry Subject: J. Sykes (UNT) please backchannel! subject says it all. sorry for the clutter. frank From nick.ellinger Fri May 5 13:12:30 2000 From: nick.ellinger (ellingnd) Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 13:12:30 -0500 Subject: More on the amazing George W... Message-ID: A few points: 1. Rather than enumerating the charges for one side or the other, let us just say that the next president, like most presidents, will have a significant impact on the make up of the judiciary, whether it be Al Gore, George W. Bush, Ralph Nader, or Dave Barry (slogan: "It's Time We Demanded Less!"). Thus, this should probably be a larger issue than it will be in the upcoming election, considering the court will be setting precedent for many privacy issues relating to technology usage in addition to the points listed here. Thus, NARAL's general argument is legitimate, even if some of the specific charges are exaggerated for effect or if you don't agree with the impacts. 2. With that said, the more drastic changes to the Supreme Court would come from a more leftward leaning president. The two to three justices that would probably be retiring would be Chief Justic Rehnquist and Associate Justices Scalia and O'Conner. Rehnquist is consistently conservative, Scalia is probably the most conservative on the court, and O'Conner is either a moderate conservative or a conservative moderate. That means that a very conservative president could only shore up the conservatives by replacing O'Conner, whereas a liberal one could change the court drastically. Is this good or bad? Talk amongst yourselves. 2A. Justice Stevens could also leave and that would mitigate the above point. 2B. Justice Kennedy could also leave and that would mitigate the above point. 2C. And, if a liberal was made president, Scalia and/or Rehnquist may try to wait him/her out. 2D. So who knows? 3. Mr. Irizarry, I believe you have double turned yourself. Your points are: 1. George W. Bush is not anti-choice or pro-life. 2. Al Gore is anti-choice or pro-life. 3. George W. is not bad. 4. Anti-choice or pro-life positions are good. Wouldn't this mean that under your analysis, one should vote for Gore? 4. Yes, VP Gore has been pro-life/anti-choice. During that time, however, George W. was anti-life/pro-choice. Both have switched their points of view on the question and it would be more logical to base based on what they will do now. I have tried, in this post, to remain non-partisan, which means I will likely get kicked from both sides. >===== Original Message From Katie Kat ===== >My response below... > >-- Begin Original Message ---- > From: Frank Paul Irizarry < >FIrizarry at FSMAIL.PACE.EDU> >Sent: Fri, 5 May 2000 12:01:07 -0400 >To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU >Subject: Re: More on the amazing George W... > >More ridiculous anti-bush propaganda. thanks for >the report! > >If elected President, >>- George W. Bush could appoint two to three >>Supreme Court >>Justices, enough to overturn Roe v. Wade. > >>and if you believe that's going to happen then I've got a bridge in brooklyn to sell you! > >That's a stellar argument...good thing you have >"facts" to back it up and not just some >ridicuolous assertion.... >> >> >>- George W. Bush could appoint an Attorney General >>who would not >>enforce the federal law (Freedom of Access to >>Clinic Entrances Law) >>that protects women from violence and harassment >>at clinics. > >>but he won't. NARAL has no support for this wild assumption. i've seen their wonderful site. > >Congratulations. But i trust NARAL more than I >would your so far warrantless claims. They work >in conjuction with Planned Parenthood, which is a >federal agency and has produced identical reports. >> >>- George W. Bush could appoint a Secretary of >>Health and Human >>Services who would re-impose the gag rule to >>prevent physicians from telling their patients >>about abortion as an option. > >>but he won't. plus the pro-choice lobby has made sure that every woman knows about the abortion option. > >Obviously this remark is not from someone who's >actually worked extenswively with pregnant womyn. >Many do not know their options, 83% of counties do >NOT have abortion providers (this comes from the >USFG, by the way, not NARAL's "wonderful site"), >and conservatives are slowly but surely chipping >away at this right. >> >>- George W. Bush could appoint an FDA Commissioner >>who would block new, non-surgical options for >>abortion such as mifepristone >>(RU 486). >> >>- George W. Bush could propose a federal budget >>without funding for international family planning >>programs that advocate for the right to choose in >>their country or even make referrals for >>abortions. > >>and I'm thankful that that's one less thing that my tax dollars will go to! > >Yea, I'd so much rather have my tax dollars go to >making new weapons than preventing ONE WOMYN FROM >DYING EVERY MINUTE from an illegal abortion >wordlwide. Oh, and by the way, in countries where >abortion is illegal, the abortion rate is THREE >TIMES higher than it is in the U.S. (eg: Brazil). >Also data from the WHO, probably another source >that's not "credible" in your opionion. >> >>AND >>- George W. Bush supports a Republican Party >>Platform calling for a constitutional amendment >>outlawing abortion. > >>All lies and fabrications about George Bush. Now lets examine Al Gore's record, the true champion of choice: > >February 20, 2000; New York Times > CLAIM: Gore said he has ~Salways, >always, > always~T supported Roe v. Wade. > TRUTH: In 1977, Rep. Gore voted >for the Hyde > Amendment, which says that >abortion ~Stakes the > life of an unborn child who is a >living human > being,~T and that there is no >constitutional right to > abortion. He cast many other votes >favorable to the > pro-life cause and earned an 84 >percent rating from > the National Right to Life >Committee. > >You can also hit the archives of Vital Speeches of >the Day from 1978 to see a transcript of a pro- >life speech that Rep. Gore gave at the U of >Tennessee! > >January 22, 1997; NARAL meeting > CLAIM: ~SI reached out to >individuals who are > leaders on the [pro-life] side of >this issue~T to > ~Smake common cause~T on reducing >unwanted > pregnancies. He went on to imply >that Catholic > pro-lifers~R opposition to birth >control made it > impossible for both sides join >~Stogether to make > abortions rare.~T > TRUTH: Despite many queries, no >pro-life leader > has ever said Gore approached him >on this subject. > >I know that slamming Bush is almost as popular as >slamming Bear on this list so if you're going to >spread your propaganda, at least make sure the >"facts" are there. The only fact I see is that we >have one candidate who is consistent, principled >and wants to have waiting periods and parental >notification laws and wants to stop forcing >taxpayers to pay for abortions while we have >another candidate who is a political chameleon. A >21st century Charlatan who lies about all of his >beliefs (because he has no real conviction) Al >Gore could just as easily do all of those things >that you say Bush can do since GOre is really a >pro-lifer! > > >As per the rest of your Gore cites, could you find >something a little more recent, perhaps? I was >probably anti-choice in the 1980's...I sure as >hell am not now...congratulations, while Gore was >busy being anti-choice in the SEVENTIES, Bush was >too busy doing coke to discuss his political >aspirations and abortion stance... > >-Katie > > > >Katie Hatziavramidis >K-State Debate > > >Don't forget to visit http://www.pigpig.com/ and http://www.pigpig.net/ >____________________________________________________________ >Get your 100MB FREE Internet storage! Sign up now - >http://www.netdrive.com/?ao=zzn >From Fri May 5 11:27:12 2000 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 24180 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Fri, 5 May 2000 14:27:42 -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 OAA03642 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 14:27:32 -0400 Received: from conversion.post1.inre.asu.edu by asu.edu (PMDF V5.2-31 #33824) id <0FU300O01N9IOA at asu.edu> for edebate at list.uvm.edu; Fri, 5 May 2000 11:27:19 -0700 (MST) Received: from general4.asu.edu (general4.asu.edu [129.219.10.154]) by asu.edu (PMDF V5.2-31 #33824) with ESMTP id <0FU30031BN9G5R at asu.edu> for edebate at list.uvm.edu; Fri, 05 May 2000 11:27:18 -0700 (MST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by general4.asu.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id LAA29498 for ; Fri, 05 May 2000 11:27:13 -0700 (MST) X-Sender: mysore at general4.asu.edu MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Message-ID: Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 11:27:12 -0700 Reply-To: Jason.Jarvis at ASU.EDU To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Jason Jarvis Subject: will baker/NYC Coalition Have a couple of questions. Please contact me asap. sorry for wasted bandwidth, jj From kyliejeanine Fri May 5 13:43:14 2000 From: kyliejeanine (kylie robertson) Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 11:43:14 -0700 Subject: more on the amazing George W. Message-ID: Hmmm... You have chosen a side on the abortion issue, thats great, and I'm glad you have the freedom to do so. What you call anti-choice though is a bit miss-leading. I'm sure that if everyone in Texas, or the US for that matter had a choice about paying taxes they would decline (who knows?). But, we simply don't have choice in the matter. My partner has a sticker on her tub that says "Against abortion? Don't have one." This i buy because the choice is up to me. If I think abortion is wrong...I should be able to choose not to pay for someone elces. Kylie GEORGE W. BUSH~RS ANTI-CHOICE RECORD George W. Bush signed 18 anti-choice provisions into law in the three legislative sessions during which he was governor. Prohibiting the use of state family planning funds to pay the direct or indirect costs of abortion procedures. This provision could be applied to prohibit family planning funding for organizations that offer abortion services -- HB 1. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com/ >From Fri May 5 14:44:27 2000 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 24508 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Fri, 5 May 2000 14:44:58 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from smtp.pace.edu (ntutil.pace.edu [205.232.111.9]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA31052 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 14:44:56 -0400 Received: from fsmail.pace.edu (205.232.111.6:2143) by smtp.pace.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.A7F82545 at smtp.pace.edu>; Fri, 5 May 2000 14:44:27 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Message-ID: <200005051444.AA180224486 at fsmail.pace.edu> Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 14:44:27 -0400 Reply-To: FIrizarry at fsmail.pace.edu To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Frank Paul Irizarry Subject: Re: More on the amazing George W... >3. Mr. Irizarry, I believe you have double turned yourself. Your points are: >1. George W. Bush is not anti-choice or pro-life. >2. Al Gore is anti-choice or pro-life. >3. George W. is not bad. >4. Anti-choice or pro-life positions are good. > >Wouldn't this mean that under your analysis, one should vote for Gore? didn't want to get sucked in but after reading this, Doyle's, and a few other posts and backchanneled comments, here goes: 1. I hate hypocracy. Those that know me know that. I believe Gore to be a bigger hypocite than Bush. 2. I don't care for the "sky is falling" posts that creep out onto the E from time to time. Since the majority of them (since T.D. Barnes left the list or stopped posting) are leftist/liberal/democratic leaning, I was responding more so to the silliness of this PSA than its ideological bent. 3. Neither canidate is ideologically in line with me on my views dealing with the abortion issue. I believe it is a shame that we do live in a world where some women feel an abortion is the only viable option for them. Do I think it's wrong that pro-choice supporters will often try to make abortion the most popular alternative? Yep! Do I think it's wrong when the supposedly christian and compassionate pro-lifers say "you must have the baby" but that is where all your support ends? Without a doubt. Ultimately, I believe the government should neither support or hinder a woman's (although I do support waiting periods and parental notification laws for girls under 18) right to choose but I don't want to have to pay for it with my tax dollars (frankly, I don't want to pay for most things with my tax dollars but that's another issue) 4. sorry for the lack of clarity in the last post and than you for the civility in this post. it's nice to have a discussion without threats of bodily harm, threats to sue, threats to expose etc.. on the list. frank supporting what I believe to be the lesser of two evils From hello_katie Fri May 5 13:53:07 2000 From: hello_katie (Katie Kat) Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 13:53:07 -0500 Subject: more on the amazing George W. Message-ID: Gee, I wish I could *choose* not to have my tax dollars spent on the over-funded military... By the way, it's interesting that you think poor womyn shouldn't have Medicare/Medicaid cover their abortions...I guess only rich or middle-class womyn who can afford the expensive procedure should ahve a right to CHOOSE it, huh? -Katie K-State Debate ---- Begin Original Message ---- From: kylie robertson Sent: Fri, 5 May 2000 11:43:14 -0700 To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU Subject: Re: more on the amazing George W. Hmmm... You have chosen a side on the abortion issue, thats great, and I'm glad you have the freedom to do so. What you call anti-choice though is a bit miss-leading. I'm sure that if everyone in Texas, or the US for that matter had a choice about paying taxes they would decline (who knows?). But, we simply don't have choice in the matter. My partner has a sticker on her tub that says "Against abortion? Don't have one." This i buy because the choice is up to me. If I think abortion is wrong...I should be able to choose not to pay for someone elces. Kylie GEORGE W. BUSH~RS ANTI-CHOICE RECORD George W. Bush signed 18 anti-choice provisions into law in the three legislative sessions during which he was governor. Prohibiting the use of state family planning funds to pay the direct or indirect costs of abortion procedures. This provision could be applied to prohibit family planning funding for organizations that offer abortion services -- HB 1. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com/ ---- End Original Message ---- Don't forget to visit http://www.pigpig.com/ and http://www.pigpig.net/ ____________________________________________________________ Get your 100MB FREE Internet storage! Sign up now - http://www.netdrive.com/?ao=zzn From Regina.Paulose Fri May 5 13:51:18 2000 From: Regina.Paulose (Regina Menachery Paulose) Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 14:51:18 -0400 Subject: UDL Info-someone help me..:) In-Reply-To: <200005051201.AA57475190@fsmail.pace.edu> Message-ID: I have been to the edebate website and have gotten all the information from there but I was wondering if anyone on edebate could answer some questions i have about other concerns regarding UDL stuff.. please backchannel me... thanks regina ********************************************************************* The most wasted day of all is that on which we have not laughed -s.chamfort ********************************************************************* From ifjxh Fri May 5 13:54:30 2000 From: ifjxh (Joshua Hoe) Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 11:54:30 PDT Subject: More on the amazing George W... Message-ID: We all need to remember that Frank is part of the Pace University cult of libertarianism....Freedom = property rights etc. Seems like it is spreading from Mahoney through the entire ranks...Perhaps the CDC should be advised to quarantine? Josh >From: Frank Paul Irizarry >Reply-To: FIrizarry at fsmail.pace.edu >To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU >Subject: Re: More on the amazing George W... >Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 14:44:27 -0400 > > >3. Mr. Irizarry, I believe you have double turned yourself. Your points >are: > >1. George W. Bush is not anti-choice or pro-life. > >2. Al Gore is anti-choice or pro-life. > >3. George W. is not bad. > >4. Anti-choice or pro-life positions are good. > > > >Wouldn't this mean that under your analysis, one should vote for Gore? > >didn't want to get sucked in but after reading this, Doyle's, and a few >other posts and backchanneled comments, here goes: > >1. I hate hypocracy. Those that know me know that. I believe Gore to be >a bigger hypocite than Bush. > >2. I don't care for the "sky is falling" posts that creep out onto the E >from time to time. Since the majority of them (since T.D. Barnes left the >list or stopped posting) are leftist/liberal/democratic leaning, I was >responding more so to the silliness of this PSA than its ideological bent. > >3. Neither canidate is ideologically in line with me on my views dealing >with the abortion issue. I believe it is a shame that we do live in a >world where some women feel an abortion is the only viable option for them. > Do I think it's wrong that pro-choice supporters will often try to make >abortion the most popular alternative? Yep! Do I think it's wrong when >the supposedly christian and compassionate pro-lifers say "you must have >the baby" but that is where all your support ends? Without a doubt. >Ultimately, I believe the government should neither support or hinder a >woman's (although I do support waiting periods and parental notification >laws for girls under 18) right to choose but I don't want to have to pay >for it with my tax dollars (frankly, I don't want to pay for most things >with my tax dollars but that's another issue) > >4. sorry for the lack of clarity in the last post and than you for the >civility in this post. it's nice to have a discussion without threats of >bodily harm, threats to sue, threats to expose etc.. on the list. > >frank >supporting what I believe to be the lesser of two evils ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From kyliejeanine Fri May 5 14:11:59 2000 From: kyliejeanine (kylie robertson) Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 12:11:59 -0700 Subject: more on the amazing George W. Message-ID: Uh..No. Thats not my arg..I simply think that if you want an abortion, our country says thats okay. so pay for it your self and keep me out of it. I would rather have my $ going to save Cubans from starving to death. By the way, i think we should be able to CHOOSE that your money not go to the over-funded military...maybe we should get an initiative going. I'll sign right after you. kylie Gee, I wish I could *choose* not to have my tax dollars spent on the over-funded military... By the way, it's interesting that you think poor womyn shouldn't have Medicare/Medicaid cover their abortions...I guess only rich or middle-class womyn who can afford the expensive procedure should ahve a right to CHOOSE it, huh? Hmmm... You have chosen a side on the abortion issue, thats great, and I'm glad you have the freedom to do so. What you call anti-choice though is a bit miss-leading. I'm sure that if everyone in Texas, or the US for that matter had a choice about paying taxes they would decline (who knows?). But, we simply don't have choice in the matter. My partner has a sticker on her tub that says "Against abortion? Don't have one." This i buy because the choice is up to me. If I think abortion is wrong...I should be able to choose not to pay for someone elces. Kylie GEORGE W. BUSH~RS ANTI-CHOICE RECORD George W. Bush signed 18 anti-choice provisions into law in the three legislative sessions during which he was governor. Prohibiting the use of state family planning funds to pay the direct or indirect costs of abortion procedures. This provision could be applied to prohibit family planning funding for organizations that offer abortion services -- HB 1. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com/ >From Fri May 5 15:22:28 2000 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 25467 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Fri, 5 May 2000 15:23:19 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo11.mx.aol.com (imo11.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.1]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA11158 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 15:23:15 -0400 Received: from Pacedebate at aol.com by imo11.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v26.7.) id n.e2.405feb6 (7094) for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 15:22:29 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 33 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 15:22:28 EDT Reply-To: Pacedebate at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Pace Debate Subject: Pace politics Josh writes: >>>>>>> We all need to remember that Frank is part of the Pace University cult of libertarianism....Freedom = property rights etc. Seems like it is spreading from Mahoney through the entire ranks...Perhaps the CDC should be advised to quarantine? >>>>>>> Quarantine is definitely advisable. However, not for the reasons Josh indicates. Our little cult is suprisingly diverse and most of us have left libertarianism behind. Frank is a devout advocate of Frankcentrism. Whatever is best for Frank is the way it should be for everyone. Danny Bell doesn't accept the tenents of rationality so I've never been able to conduct a discussion with him regarding an appropriate system of government. Peterson leans toward Frankcentrism but likes to change his mind so don't put too much stock in that. Klos belongs to the Libertarian party but strikes me as being firmly in the Hasnas camp. DLang is young and hasn't been brainwashed but Klos has been working hard on him in his last few days at Pace. I've adopted negation theory and won't commit to anything except "the state is bad". BTW, we have a new crop of frosh headed our way and they may have a few twists in store for us all. Although we do require that our new debaters eat meat ideologically we are open to virtually all viewpoints. Pace love for all, Tim >From Fri May 5 15:30:21 2000 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 25599 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Fri, 5 May 2000 15:30:37 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from smtp.pace.edu (ntutil.pace.edu [205.232.111.9]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA11044 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 15:30:36 -0400 Received: from fsmail.pace.edu (205.232.111.6:1568) by smtp.pace.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.A7F82BB0 at smtp.pace.edu>; Fri, 5 May 2000 15:30:22 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Mailer: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by list.uvm.edu id PAA03734 Message-ID: <200005051530.AA210240124 at fsmail.pace.edu> Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 15:30:21 -0400 Reply-To: FIrizarry at fsmail.pace.edu To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Frank Paul Irizarry Subject: Re: more on the amazing George W. ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- From: Katie Kat Reply-To: Katie Kat Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 13:53:07 -0500 >Gee, >I wish I could *choose* not to have my tax dollars >spent on the over-funded military I agree 100%! I think the military is over-funded. As long as we have enough military to protect us at the most basic level, I don't think a dime more needs to go to defense ... >By the way, it's interesting that you think poor >womyn shouldn't have Medicare/Medicaid cover their >abortions...I guess only rich or middle-class >womyn who can afford the expensive procedure >should ahve a right to CHOOSE it, huh? Yep! Well not 100% accurate. I think abortions can be negotiated into the medical plans that women of all classes negotiate with their employers. I believe schools should teach about abstinence and other forms of birth control. I believe that there are enough individuals out there like yourself out there that a philanthropic organization that pays for pooer womens abortions is an option. I just don't think the government should support it (or hinder the right for that matter) frank > >-Katie >K-State Debate > >---- Begin Original Message ---- > From: kylie robertson >Sent: Fri, 5 May 2000 11:43:14 -0700 >To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU >Subject: Re: more on the amazing George W. > >Hmmm... > >You have chosen a side on the abortion issue, >thats >great, and I'm glad you have the freedom to do so. >What you call anti-choice though is a bit >miss-leading. I'm sure that if everyone in Texas, >or >the US for that matter had a choice about paying >taxes >they would decline (who knows?). But, we simply >don't >have choice in the matter. My partner has a >sticker >on her tub that says "Against abortion? Don't have >one." This i buy because the choice is up to me. >If I >think abortion is wrong...I should be able to >choose >not to pay for someone elces. > >Kylie > > >GEORGE W. BUSH~RS ANTI-CHOICE RECORD > >George W. Bush signed 18 anti-choice provisions >into >law in the three >legislative sessions during which he was governor. > >Prohibiting the use of state family planning funds >to >pay the direct or >indirect costs of abortion procedures. This >provision >could be applied >to >prohibit family planning funding for organizations >that offer abortion >services -- HB 1. > >__________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Send instant messages & get email alerts with >Yahoo! Messenger. >http://im.yahoo.com/ > >---- End Original Message ---- > > >Don't forget to visit http://www.pigpig.com/ and http://www.pigpig.net/ >____________________________________________________________ >Get your 100MB FREE Internet storage! Sign up now - >http://www.netdrive.com/?ao=zzn > >From Fri May 5 15:33:00 2000 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 25713 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Fri, 5 May 2000 15:33:31 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from smtp.pace.edu (ntutil.pace.edu [205.232.111.9]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA11462 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 15:33:30 -0400 Received: from fsmail.pace.edu (205.232.111.6:2041) by smtp.pace.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.A7F82BF0 at smtp.pace.edu>; Fri, 5 May 2000 15:33:00 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Message-ID: <200005051533.AA134939118 at fsmail.pace.edu> Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 15:33:00 -0400 Reply-To: FIrizarry at fsmail.pace.edu To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Frank Paul Irizarry Subject: Re: choice Tim puts it better than I could. I agree with him 100 on this. frank ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- From: Pacedebate at aol.com Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 15:11:41 EDT >You wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >Gee, >I wish I could *choose* not to have my tax dollars >spent on the over-funded military... >By the way, it's interesting that you think poor >womyn shouldn't have Medicare/Medicaid cover their >abortions...I guess only rich or middle-class >womyn who can afford the expensive procedure >should ahve a right to CHOOSE it, huh? >>>>>>>>> > >I, and I'm sure Frank, agree that your money shouldn't be stolen from you >uder the guise of "taxation" for any reason. And, just because we don't think >our money should be stolen to pay for abortions doesn't mean we don't support >non governmental organization efforts to fuel choice for all people. I'm not >sure Frank would but I would and, in fact, do. >Government is the wrong way to go. > >warm regards, > >Tim > >From Fri May 5 15:38:48 2000 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 25859 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Fri, 5 May 2000 15:39:19 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from smtp.pace.edu (ntutil.pace.edu [205.232.111.9]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA31214 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 15:39:18 -0400 Received: from fsmail.pace.edu (205.232.111.6:2978) by smtp.pace.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.A7F82CAD at smtp.pace.edu>; Fri, 5 May 2000 15:38:49 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Message-ID: <200005051538.AA125829718 at fsmail.pace.edu> Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 15:38:48 -0400 Reply-To: FIrizarry at fsmail.pace.edu To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Frank Paul Irizarry Subject: Re: More on the amazing George W... Comments: To: Joshua Hoe actually, on most issues I'm somewhere between Mahoney and Matt Stannard if you can imagine that! It's a rather lonely place at times :) frank ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- From: "Joshua Hoe" Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 11:54:30 PDT >We all need to remember that Frank is part of the Pace University cult of >libertarianism....Freedom = property rights etc. Seems like it is >spreading from Mahoney through the entire ranks...Perhaps the CDC should be >advised to quarantine? > >Josh > > > > >>From: Frank Paul Irizarry >>Reply-To: FIrizarry at fsmail.pace.edu >>To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU >>Subject: Re: More on the amazing George W... >>Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 14:44:27 -0400 >> >> >3. Mr. Irizarry, I believe you have double turned yourself. Your points >>are: >> >1. George W. Bush is not anti-choice or pro-life. >> >2. Al Gore is anti-choice or pro-life. >> >3. George W. is not bad. >> >4. Anti-choice or pro-life positions are good. >> > >> >Wouldn't this mean that under your analysis, one should vote for Gore? >> >>didn't want to get sucked in but after reading this, Doyle's, and a few >>other posts and backchanneled comments, here goes: >> >>1. I hate hypocracy. Those that know me know that. I believe Gore to be >>a bigger hypocite than Bush. >> >>2. I don't care for the "sky is falling" posts that creep out onto the E >>from time to time. Since the majority of them (since T.D. Barnes left the >>list or stopped posting) are leftist/liberal/democratic leaning, I was >>responding more so to the silliness of this PSA than its ideological bent. >> >>3. Neither canidate is ideologically in line with me on my views dealing >>with the abortion issue. I believe it is a shame that we do live in a >>world where some women feel an abortion is the only viable option for them. >> Do I think it's wrong that pro-choice supporters will often try to make >>abortion the most popular alternative? Yep! Do I think it's wrong when >>the supposedly christian and compassionate pro-lifers say "you must have >>the baby" but that is where all your support ends? Without a doubt. >>Ultimately, I believe the government should neither support or hinder a >>woman's (although I do support waiting periods and parental notification >>laws for girls under 18) right to choose but I don't want to have to pay >>for it with my tax dollars (frankly, I don't want to pay for most things >>with my tax dollars but that's another issue) >> >>4. sorry for the lack of clarity in the last post and than you for the >>civility in this post. it's nice to have a discussion without threats of >>bodily harm, threats to sue, threats to expose etc.. on the list. >> >>frank >>supporting what I believe to be the lesser of two evils > >________________________________________________________________________ >Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com > > From doyle Fri May 5 14:46:43 2000 From: doyle (Doyle W Srader) Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 14:46:43 -0500 Subject: Bush and code: two more examples Message-ID: I think Bush is doing what every presidential candidate does: saying incredibly innocuous things publicly, and making his intentions more clear and more concrete when he's not talking to a public audience. The problem is, the evidence that slips out about Bush's real position on these issues is pretty frightening. Two examples: 1. Homosexuality. Coming into the current election cycle, Bush has said gay couples shouldn't be able to adopt and employment discrimination laws shouldn't protect gays. Lately, however, he's being about as up-front about homosexuality as he is about the abortion litmus test for judges. Here's a representative sample, from a press conference in Bellevue, Washington on February 28 of this year: >QUESTION: Could you tell us two issues on which you disagree with Pat >Robertson? For example, do you share his views on homosexuality? >BUSH: I-you know, this is a political game that Senator McCain is trying to >play by pitting one group of people against another. I'm going to tell the >people of this country what I'm for and where I intend to lead the country. >I'm going to continue making the case that I'm a reformer whose gotten >positive results, a leader who can get something done, a leader who has laid >down an education plan that is positive and hopeful, a leader who sets high >standards, trusts local people to make the right decisions for the schools, >understand accountability and have an accountability system in schools. And >I can point to results. The Republican Party who needs to have a candidate >who can say, as a result of my leadership. test scores amongst >African-Americans and Hispanics are up. I'm going to talk about what I'm >for. Evidentially, he wants to run a campaign talking about what he is >against. Republicans and America are looking for somebody who can lift our >spirit, somebody who's a uniter, not a divider. http://www.vote-smart.org/ For an interesting comparison and contrast, and the parallel usage of a by now familiar buzz phrase, check out what the Family Research Council's official position on homosexuality is: >FRC believes that homosexuality is unhealthy, immoral and destructive to >individuals, families and societies. Compassion - not bigotry - impels us to >support healing for homosexuals who want to change their orientation. FRC >opposes any attempts to equate homosexuality with civil rights or to compare >it to benign characteristics such as skin color or place of origin. http://www.frc.org/issues/homosexualmain.html And here's an excerpt from a Focus on the Family nationwide full page newspaper ad: >But when we see great suffering among homosexuals, it's an inherent >Christian calling to show compassion and concern. The truth we know is that >God abhors any form of sexual sin, be it premarital sex, adultery, >prostitution, or homosexuality. And if you were trapped in some >self-destructive behavior, wouldn't you want someone to care? http://www.family.org/cforum/research/papers/a0002799.html "Compassion" sure is a pliable word, isn't it? Far safer to change the subject than to address the issue head-on. Do keep in mind that these organizations have endorsed Bush, as has Pat Robertson. Do you think he told them that the homosexual agenda was a non-issue? And let's not forget that the same Supreme Court justices appointed by Bush will be the ones who decide whether Bowers v. Hardwick should stay on the books. 2. Gun control. Doesn't it seem a little curious, given that all of Bush's public statements about gun control are very much of the low key, "Let's pass reasonable safety regulations but not confiscate all guns" message, that the NRA gets so worked up at the possibility of his election? Here's Bush, from the Republican candidates' debate in Iowa last December: >I'm in favor of keeping guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have >them like felons & juveniles. I'm for enforcing the laws on the books. In >Texas, we've armed D.A.'s with extra money to prosecute people who break the >law. We need to send a signal to people, don't be illegally selling guns and >don't be illegally using guns. The best accountability for somebody who >breaks the law with a gun is called jail, certain jail. http://usgovinfo.about.com/culture/usgovinfo/library/e2000/blbush.htm That just doesn't sound like the kind of position that should have Kayne Robinson, the next president of the NRA, saying: >We're facing a critical election. All three branches of the federal >government are at stake, first time in a long time. . . . There will be >four, maybe five justices of the Supreme Court appointed in the first term >of the next president. . . . If Gore is the president, every one of those >people will be rabidly anti-gun. If we win, we'll have a Supreme Court that >will back us to the hilt. If we win, we'll have a president, with at least >one of the people that's running, a president where we work out of their >office. Unbelievably friendly relations. Bush says crack down on illegal sales, and the soon-to-be NRA president brags about working out of the Oval Office. Something doesn't add up. I just have this sneaking suspicion that people who have private meetings with Bush are hearing things that the rest of us aren't hearing. Parting shot: I'm still tracking down the context of this quote, since the Dallas Morning News doesn't seem to be on Lexis that far back, but one of the anti-Bush sites has, complete with citation: "I will do everything in my power to restrict abortions." Dallas Morning News, October 22, 1994. So don't be too hasty to call Bush's position on abortions consistent, principled and unchanging. Doyle Srader Lecturer, Speech Communication Stephen F. Austin State University http://www.netdot.com/doyle/ "I was raised in the West. The west of Texas. It's pretty close to California. In more ways than Washington, D.C., is close to California." -- George W. Bush From dennis Fri May 5 15:48:08 2000 From: dennis (doug dennis) Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 15:48:08 -0500 Subject: cfl, nfl nats Message-ID: does anyone know the datesfor these? if so, please backchannel. doug From hello_katie Fri May 5 15:56:10 2000 From: hello_katie (Katie Kat) Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 15:56:10 -0500 Subject: more on the amazing George W. Message-ID: That may not be the way you choose, conveniently to characterize your argument, but that is the implication of your argument. Great, you've just told poor womyn that they "can" get an abortion...but they CAN'T get one if they CAN'T PAY FOR IT. Look, it all collapses down to classism: If you can get ahead in this alleged meritocracy and have the luxury of having the cash to pay for an abortion, then, and only then do you really have the right to choose. What is a poor womyn's choice? Based on experience with womyn who couldn't afford abortions, I'll tell you. She can lose her constitutional right or she can try to induce the abortion herself. Is it any wonder then, that a womyn dies every minute from an illegal, induced abortion? I guess it's ok for us to tell poor womyn, "Sorry, we don't want to pay for your CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. Get on welfare to pay for this kid (which, incidentally, thanks to welfare reform, is limited to 2 years and a maximum of $800 a month) or die trying to enforce your right yourself. Wish I'd succeeded in the meritocracy, Katie ---- Begin Original Message ---- From: kylie robertson Sent: Fri, 5 May 2000 12:11:59 -0700 To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU Subject: more on the amazing George W. Uh..No. Thats not my arg..I simply think that if you want an abortion, our country says thats okay. so pay for it your self and keep me out of it. I would rather have my $ going to save Cubans from starving to death. By the way, i think we should be able to CHOOSE that your money not go to the over-funded military...maybe we should get an initiative going. I'll sign right after you. kylie Gee, I wish I could *choose* not to have my tax dollars spent on the over-funded military... By the way, it's interesting that you think poor womyn shouldn't have Medicare/Medicaid cover their abortions...I guess only rich or middle-class womyn who can afford the expensive procedure should ahve a right to CHOOSE it, huh? Hmmm... You have chosen a side on the abortion issue, thats great, and I'm glad you have the freedom to do so. What you call anti-choice though is a bit miss-leading. I'm sure that if everyone in Texas, or the US for that matter had a choice about paying taxes they would decline (who knows?). But, we simply don't have choice in the matter. My partner has a sticker on her tub that says "Against abortion? Don't have one." This i buy because the choice is up to me. If I think abortion is wrong...I should be able to choose not to pay for someone elces. Kylie GEORGE W. BUSH~RS ANTI-CHOICE RECORD George W. Bush signed 18 anti-choice provisions into law in the three legislative sessions during which he was governor. Prohibiting the use of state family planning funds to pay the direct or indirect costs of abortion procedures. This provision could be applied to prohibit family planning funding for organizations that offer abortion services -- HB 1. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com/ ---- End Original Message ---- Katie Hatziavramidis K-State Debate Don't forget to visit http://www.pigpig.com/ and http://www.pigpig.net/ ____________________________________________________________ Get your 100MB FREE Internet storage! Sign up now - http://www.netdrive.com/?ao=zzn From hello_katie Fri May 5 16:02:44 2000 From: hello_katie (Katie Kat) Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 16:02:44 -0500 Subject: more on the amazing George W. Message-ID: ---- Begin Original Message ---- From: Frank Paul Irizarry < FIrizarry at FSMAIL.PACE.EDU> Sent: Fri, 5 May 2000 15:30:21 -0400 To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU Subject: Re: more on the amazing George W. ---------- Original Message ---------------------- ------------ From: Katie Kat < hello_katie at PIGPIG.ZZN.COM> Reply-To: Katie Kat < hello_katie at PIGPIG.ZZN.COM> Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 13:53:07 -0500 >Gee, >I wish I could *choose* not to have my tax dollars >spent on the over-funded military I agree 100%! I think the military is over- funded. As long as we have enough military to protect us at the most basic level, I don't think a dime more needs to go to defense ... >By the way, it's interesting that you think poor >womyn shouldn't have Medicare/Medicaid cover their >abortions...I guess only rich or middle-class >womyn who can afford the expensive procedure >should ahve a right to CHOOSE it, huh? Yep! Well not 100% accurate. I think abortions can be negotiated into the medical plans that women of all classes negotiate with their employers. I believe schools should teach about abstinence and other forms of birth control. I believe that there are enough individuals out there like yourself out there that a philanthropic organization that pays for pooer womens abortions is an option. I just don't think the government should support it (or hinder the right for that matter) frank I'd agree with you in theory, Frank, but in practice, people can be selfish. In addition, although I campaign hard for poor womyn's rights to choose, I don't have the money (nor, would i absent taxes, since I don't make enough to really pay any) to donate to them, I can only act as their advocate and lobby/rally for them. Although I think that my activism helps the cause, I don't have any delusions: lobbying doesn't pay for a poor womyn to exercise her constitutional right. I am theoretically in agreement with you, but i just don't think the "others will fill-in if the government's not involved" argument is true. Particularly in this context....the Hyde amendment BANNED federal funding for poor womyn to get abortions, yet there haven't been a plethora of organizations filling in. That's why so many womyn die of illegal abortions. in addition, I am not arguing in favor of abortion: I am arguing in favor of legal choice. The reason I think there is a distinction is because making abortion illegal empirically leads to more abortions and more dangerous abortions. (that's the WHO info). -Katie Don't forget to visit http://www.pigpig.com/ and http://www.pigpig.net/ ____________________________________________________________ Get your 100MB FREE Internet storage! Sign up now - http://www.netdrive.com/?ao=zzn From jba5b Fri May 5 15:59:31 2000 From: jba5b (Jim Apple) Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 16:59:31 -0400 Subject: more on the amazing George W. In-Reply-To: <6906B5FBE2224D11DA2D0005B8E83109@hello_katie.pigpig.zzn.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 5 May 2000 15:56:10 -0500 Katie Kat wrote: | I guess it's ok for us | to tell poor womyn, "Sorry, we don't want to pay | for your CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. A lot of folks think that individual gun ownership is a constitutional right. Do you want to pay for everyone to own a personal gun? Paying for abortions may be a great idea, but not just because they are constitutional. Plastic surgery, starting one's own business, and eating Swiss cheese are all constitutional rights, but the gov't doesn't pay for those. Jim signature file From mkuss Fri May 5 17:53:44 2000 From: mkuss (Matthew Kuss) Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 15:53:44 -0700 Subject: more on the amazing George W. In-Reply-To: <6906B5FBE2224D11DA2D0005B8E83109@hello_katie.pigpig.zzn.com> Message-ID: > That may not be the way you choose, conveniently > to characterize your argument, but that is the > implication of your argument. Great, you've just > told poor womyn that they "can" get an > abortion...but they CAN'T get one if they CAN'T > PAY FOR IT. Look, it all collapses down to > classism: So who or what is to say what the government should or shouldn't pay for? What about hand guns? We "can" get a handgun, but only if we can pay for it. Your quote from a different post: >Although >I think that my activism helps the cause, I don't >have any delusions: lobbying doesn't pay for a >poor womyn to exercise her constitutional right. So is your point that because it is legal, it should be funded? Please clarify. Matt From hello_katie Fri May 5 16:13:01 2000 From: hello_katie (Katie Kat) Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 16:13:01 -0500 Subject: more on the amazing George W. Message-ID: ---- Begin Original Message ---- From: Jim Apple Sent: Fri, 5 May 2000 16:59:31 -0400 To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU Subject: Re: more on the amazing George W. On Fri, 5 May 2000 15:56:10 -0500 Katie Kat wrote: | I guess it's ok for us | to tell poor womyn, "Sorry, we don't want to pay | for your CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. A lot of folks think that individual gun ownership is a constitutional right. Do you want to pay for everyone to own a personal gun? Paying for abortions may be a great idea, but not just because they are constitutional. Plastic surgery, starting one's own business, and eating Swiss cheese are all constitutional rights, but the gov't doesn't pay for those. Jim last time i checked, eating swiss cheese wasn't a constitutional right. and last time i checked, the second amendment was in reference to militias. not individual gun ownership. -Katie Don't forget to visit http://www.pigpig.com/ and http://www.pigpig.net/ ____________________________________________________________ Get your 100MB FREE Internet storage! Sign up now - http://www.netdrive.com/?ao=zzn From mkuss Fri May 5 18:06:39 2000 From: mkuss (Matthew Kuss) Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 16:06:39 -0700 Subject: more on the amazing George W. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Paying for abortions may be a great idea, but not > just > because they are constitutional. Plastic surgery, > starting > one's own business, and eating Swiss cheese are > all > constitutional rights, but the gov't doesn't pay > for those. > > Jim > > last time i checked, eating swiss cheese wasn't a > constitutional right. and last time i checked, > the second amendment was in reference to militias. > not individual gun ownership. > > -Katie Lets not pick nits. I think what was meant was that people have a right to a handgun just like they have a right to an abortion. Both are rights (whether outlined verbatim in the US constitution or not). The question at hand is whether or not you are advocating the funding of abortions simply because it is a right. That is what it sounds like, and if so, what determines which rights are funded by the government? From jba5b Fri May 5 16:16:44 2000 From: jba5b (Jim Apple) Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 17:16:44 -0400 Subject: more on the amazing George W. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 5 May 2000 16:13:01 -0500 Katie Kat wrote: | last time i checked, eating swiss cheese wasn't a | constitutional right. The only reason abortion is a Constitutional right is because it is not Constitutional to ban it unconditionally. For that same reason, most everything else tht we do on a regular basis is a constitutional right. Abortion is merely more famous. As far as I know, there has been no Supreme Court case about Swiss chesse. This, however, does not make it unprotected by the Constitution. The Constitution protects things until they are banned. (9th Amendment, I think . . . ?) So what are constitutional rights? By your logic, the only things that would be Constitutional rights would be those enumerated by the Supreme Court or specifically listed. That's not true. Jim Apple Virginia signature file >From Fri May 5 17:19:22 2000 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 28067 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Fri, 5 May 2000 17:20:21 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo24.mx.aol.com (imo24.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.68]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA20772 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 17:20:11 -0400 Received: from CoopDB8 at aol.com by imo24.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v26.7.) id 1.84.4dc60a3 (4563); Fri, 5 May 2000 17:19:23 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 106 Message-ID: <84.4dc60a3.264494da at aol.com> Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 17:19:22 EDT Reply-To: CoopDB8 at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: The Coop Subject: Re: more on the amazing George W. Comments: To: hello_katie at pigpig.zzn.com hello_katie (reminds me of hello kitty) writes: << I guess it's ok for us to tell poor womyn, "Sorry, we don't want to pay for your CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. >> Hmmmm....I'll be the first to admit that I am not as versed as others in the constitutional history of abortion "rights" in this country (as a gay man, it's not too relevent for me I guess), but I believe the S.C. ruled that the government can't PREVENT a women's right to choose an abortion because to do so would be a privacy violation. That is far from ruling that womyn (women, wymyn, wyn...oh fuck it) have a positive right TO an abortion. Your hyperbole hurts your arg. COOP From kyliejeanine Fri May 5 16:25:04 2000 From: kyliejeanine (kylie robertson) Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 14:25:04 -0700 Subject: more george stuff.. Message-ID: I would hardly think that because i say that i can not in good conscience, fund abortion that i am a clasist. I am also conserned for all the people that will and have already fallen through the cracks because of welfare reform which was designed by those who have $, power, experiance, and a selfish constitancy. I am quite happy to send all kinds of money to alternative programs that give more than just the abortion option in the case of unwanted pregnancy. I just have heard so many personal naritives about the negative ramifications of the procedure that i would rather not invest in the guilt of mothers, fathers, and who ever elce is involved. I gust think there is more than one alternative to unwanted pregnancy. not classist, just concerned... kylie That may not be the way you choose, conveniently to characterize your argument, but that is the implication of your argument. Great, you've just told poor womyn that they "can" get an abortion...but they CAN'T get one if they CAN'T PAY FOR IT. Look, it all collapses down to classism: If you can get ahead in this alleged meritocracy and have the luxury of having the cash to pay for an abortion, then, and only then do you really have the right to choose. What is a poor womyn's choice? Based on experience with womyn who couldn't afford abortions, I'll tell you. She can lose her constitutional right or she can try to induce the abortion herself. Is it any wonder then, that a womyn dies every minute from an illegal, induced abortion? I guess it's ok for us to tell poor womyn, "Sorry, we don't want to pay for your CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. Get on welfare to pay for this kid (which, incidentally, thanks to welfare reform, is limited to 2 years and a maximum of $800 a month) or die trying to enforce your right yourself. Wish I'd succeeded in the meritocracy, Katie __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com/ From mcerulo Fri May 5 16:35:25 2000 From: mcerulo (Mike Cerulo) Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 16:35:25 CDT Subject: cfl, nfl nats Message-ID: >From: doug dennis >Reply-To: doug dennis >To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU >Subject: cfl, nfl nats >Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 15:48:08 -0500 > >does anyone know the datesfor these? if so, please backchannel. > >doug hey doug-cfls are the 26th-28th of may in rochester, NY. i dunno about nfls. Mike ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From rag241 Fri May 5 16:39:41 2000 From: rag241 (Ricky Garner) Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 17:39:41 -0400 Subject: George W.'s... Message-ID: what does the government have the right/ non-right to fund: i don't think that's the point... why should welfare exclude this aspect of a woman's health, a very serious issue that Katie has pointed out over and over again leads to death... i'm willing to cough up a couple bucks off my paychek for allowing another person to live and be physically healthy (although i wish it would just come from the damn money we spend on nuclear weapons), and i don't see how this is necessarily any different, moral issues aside (since they haven't been brought up yet), than the government paying for medicare or medicaid perscriptions or dermatologist visits for some uncomfortable but non-critical rash or somesuch. and also, some of this argumentation seems non sequitor to me; we're talking about Bush as the president and how he would affect abortion laws/practices. the argument that "i don't want money spent there" doesn't apply, because Bush is going to spend the money on nuclear weapons anyway(check out Foreign Policy (and i'm not saying gore won't... doesn't matter)). it seems that if we're in the paradigm of "the government will not be reverting to libertarianism post-election" then we should be debating the merits of including versus excluding abortion within that paradigm, the one where the government spends money, and i think Katie is way head on that. ricky garner NYU Debate ps- constitutionality: she's right here to, i think: if the government subsidizes swiss cheese then... never mind, i have a better argument than that: if the government does provide health care, it probably has an ethical duty to provide the best health care, which in some cases is probably an abortion. second, its all about privacy: the government can't restrict abortions because its an invasion of privacy, but they have through certian biased social welfare institutions. pps- this is very interesting all, and i appluad you all. i've learned more about the prez's in a day on edebate than a month reading the NYTs. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20000505/75387de3/attachment.htm From bigred Fri May 5 16:53:47 2000 From: bigred (Johnson, Kenneth) Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 14:53:47 -0700 Subject: on the k Message-ID: David, great article. I thoughly enjoyed it. I know you wanted errors pointed out; i'm not sure if that encludes so-called "facts" or if it includes criticisms...i try some of both. perhaps boxing foucoult and hidegger in the same box as post-modern is a bit erroneous. I've seen hidegger refered more in the post-humanist camp; his criticism is not so much against modernity (although it includes modernity). Rather, it extends to a criticism that encompases the totality of humanist logocentric thought -- the implications being planetary, even galatic in scope. Of course, not labeling these two "post-structuralists" at all would be the most appropriate. another error might be your statement that the first kritik was anti-statism. Maybe ryan goodman was running this on the ndt, but mark west lost the final round of ceda nats in 89 running a feminist criticism of the law (perhaps this is anti-statism too?). one other thing. as a debater who runs hidegger k's, i don't think the analysis that the neg says "don't vote for me, reject them" either A)happens all the time, or B) is a power play. let me explain. I've been knowen to say vote not-not negative; using zen buddhist and taoist explainations of non-conceptualization to frame the debate. The debate ballot is an entierly subjective experience; the goal of the debater in refrence to said ballot is to tap into the critic's core; to, in a way, leave the buddha's mindseal on her/him. the ballot need not be concived as contractual, powerful, or even a ballot. It is part of the system of debate. It is as much a part of the system of debate as english letters, words, sounds, etc. are a part of communication in American debate. This is why hidegger and Fouclout (although not using english) said their ideas could not be expalined under the totalizing effects of language; however, the ideas were still valid if the reciver could decode the dominator from the dominated. In this sense, the language is the devil. But you can use the devil to fight the devil. In Zen this is knowen as using skillful means vis a vis a koan --- using skillful means to use concepts to destroy concepts. When I debate (although, honestly not all the time...) I try to use these skillful means. Use the ballot to destroy the ballot. Vote Not-not negative. Vote for both, vote for neither. The sturcture of debate does not allow this; however, it does prove the ballot a worthless sheet of paper in the end. As long as the buddha's mindseal is somewhat shared by all, we'll call it a good day. Perhaps the point of the article was that because of ballot constructs the affermative should be able to perm the kritik. Sounds fine to me if it was possible. Ever consider -- the aff. runs a problem-solution case. the neg k's with hidegger. the aff say perm: do plan while rethinking. seems to me to be prolematic. perhaps i'm being boxy, but how could you approve a problem-solution case while activly rethinking problem-solution modes of thinking? what if you rethink that the case is a not so good idea (kinda likely if the case is entrenched in problem-solution thinking)? then you are, frankly, fucked. and why is it that if the aff wins the perm they win the k? i never got that one. oh! one other thought. i don't think, as you argue, the aff is under a so-called double-blind when facing the k (i.e., either i'm not topical or i lose). the aff should pay their respect to the k, enter its circle and show why the k fails. we'll call it a triple-bind. thanks for thinkin' my thoughts. peace, ken johnson seattle U >From Fri May 5 17:59:18 2000 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 28985 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Fri, 5 May 2000 17:59:59 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo15.mx.aol.com (imo15.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.5]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA11514 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 17:59:57 -0400 Received: from Lotzca at aol.com by imo15.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v26.7.) id n.ce.4f8cf46 (4561) for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 17:59:19 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 104 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 17:59:18 EDT Reply-To: Lotzca at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Chris Lotz Subject: Re: more on the amazing George W. In a message dated 5/5/00 3:53:32 PM Central Daylight Time, hello_katie at PIGPIG.ZZN.COM writes: > That may not be the way you choose, conveniently > to characterize your argument, but that is the > implication of your argument. Great, you've just > told poor womyn that they "can" get an > abortion...but they CAN'T get one if they CAN'T > PAY FOR IT. Look, it all collapses down to > classism: > If you can get ahead in this alleged meritocracy > and have the luxury of having the cash to pay for > an abortion, then, and only then do you really > have the right to choose. What is a poor womyn's > choice? Based on experience with womyn who > couldn't afford abortions, I'll tell you. She can > lose her constitutional right or she can try to > induce the abortion herself. Is it any wonder > then, that a womyn dies every minute from an > illegal, induced abortion? I guess it's ok for us > to tell poor womyn, "Sorry, we don't want to pay > for your CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. Get on welfare to > pay for this kid (which, incidentally, thanks to > welfare reform, is limited to 2 years and a > maximum of $800 a month) or die trying to enforce > your right yourself. > > Wish I'd succeeded in the meritocracy, > Katie (1) I can't find a Constitutional right to an abortion anywhere in my copy of the Constitution. Can you? Sure, the Supreme Court fudged in Griswold v. Connecticut in deriving a right to privacy from the penumbras of the Constitution, but that decision was just plain stupid. Consequently, Roe v. Wade is founded on bad law. Whether or not there should be a right to an abortion is debatable, but it sure isn't anywhere in the Constitution. (2) There is no Constitutional guarantee that Constitutional rights will be subsidized by tax dollars. Even if abortion is a right, nobody has a right to a free abortion. (3) By this logic, the government should be required to fund everyone's effort to acquire arms thanks to the Second Amendment or to underwrite anybody's attempt to convey a message because of the First. Are you sure this is the outcome you desire? - Chris Lotz Baylor Law School From pjskierm Fri May 5 17:07:34 2000 From: pjskierm (paul j skiermont) Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 17:07:34 -0500 Subject: more on the amazing George W. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > (1) I can't find a Constitutional right to an abortion anywhere in my copy > of the Constitution. Can you? Sure, the Supreme Court fudged in Griswold v. > Connecticut in deriving a right to privacy from the penumbras of the > Constitution, but that decision was just plain stupid. Consequently, Roe v. > Wade is founded on bad law. Whether or not there should be a right to an > abortion is debatable, but it sure isn't anywhere in the Constitution. > Wow, this is penetrating legal analysis. >From Fri May 5 18:16:48 2000 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 29266 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Fri, 5 May 2000 18:17:30 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo13.mx.aol.com (imo13.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.3]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA33496 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 18:17:27 -0400 Received: from CoopDB8 at aol.com by imo13.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v26.7.) id n.28.53ac5b8 (4563); Fri, 5 May 2000 18:16:49 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 106 Message-ID: <28.53ac5b8.2644a250 at aol.com> Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 18:16:48 EDT Reply-To: CoopDB8 at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: The Coop Subject: Re: more on the amazing George W. ans to Coop, Kuss, Apple and whoever else Comments: To: Sgw8 at aol.com Darius writes: << Health care, on the other hand, IS a LEGISLATIVE, if not constitutional right of all individuals. Poor people cannot be denied (at the bare minimum, emergency) health care at any public hospital who wish to keep recieving funds from the government. >> Legislative right? Maybe. Constitutional right? Not so sure....can't think of where in the constitution there is innumerated a positive right to an abortion. The fact that you indicate that poor people CAN be denied health care at hospitals that do NOT recieve funds from the government supports that healthcare is NOT a constitutional right even if it IS something that the government attempts to coerce from those who provide it for those who can't afford access (notice I'm not indicating this is a bad thing...only that it is coerced). And I don't recall a court interpretation of a positive CONSTITUTIONAL right either. Maybe there should be one, but I don't think there is, cause there have been plenty of times I have been without insurance and had to go to the doctor and YES they do treat you...but guess what? YES you do get a bill...and YES you do have to pay it (or fuck over your credit standing as I have). What I think is MORE interesting in this discussion is how everyone with terpsichorean acumen tip-toes around the central ethical issue of abortion as if it isn't relevent to the discussion of whether or not abortion funding is a "right". One wouldn't suggest that someone has a "right" to an uneccesary medical procedure (like breast implants) or that one has a "right" to murder a fetus. The "right" to abortion funding seems to me to HINGE on whether or not the medical procedure is both necessary and ethical. But will no one go there? COOP From doyle Fri May 5 18:00:58 2000 From: doyle (Doyle W Srader) Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 18:00:58 -0500 Subject: more on the amazing George W. Message-ID: Someone be sure to tell the Supreme Court that whatever isn't worded out explicitly in the text of the Constitution has no binding force as constitutional doctrine, so they can stop all this nonsense about striking down legislation, executive orders, etc. Nothing in the Constitution about that -- 100% judge made law. Guy by the name of John Marshall. Real loose cannon, I hear. Doyle Srader Lecturer, Speech Communication Stephen F. Austin State University http://www.netdot.com/doyle/ "Ours is a nation of laws, not guns." -- George W. Bush comments on the removal of Elian Gonzalez from Lazaro Gonzalez's home, 4-23-2000 >From Fri May 5 18:58:21 2000 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 29581 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Fri, 5 May 2000 18:59:01 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo-d10.mx.aol.com (imo-d10.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.42]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA38230 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 18:59:00 -0400 Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo-d10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v26.7.) id p.e6.4ffed3e (4207); Fri, 5 May 2000 18:58:22 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 105 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 18:58:21 EDT Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Michael Bear Bryant Subject: Re: on the k Comments: To: bigred at seattleu.edu In a message dated 5/5/00 3:55:37 PM Mountain Daylight Time, bigred at SEATTLEU.EDU writes: > another error might be your statement that the first kritik was > anti-statism. Maybe ryan goodman was running this on the ndt, but mark west > lost the final round of ceda nats in 89 running a feminist criticism of the > law (perhaps this is anti-statism too?). > This is true. In fact, I remember Goodman and McBride being very interested in talking to West, me, and others, about the differences in argumentation styles between NDT and CEDA at the Berkeley and Stanford Institutes in both 1990 and 1991. CEDA was experimenting with CLS-oriented critiques exensively in the late 80's...I remember CEDA coaches at high school institutes as being my first exposure to critical argumentation. The Longhorns showed incredible talent in taking the concept and applying it to the NDT community. As many of my colleagues know, there wasn't much overlap between these two communities at all in the early '90's. It was very interesting working west coast institutes back in those days, just to see the interchange that happened when NDT and CEDA folks came together to work in labs. Still remembering the four-day long homeless riot in Berkeley that caused the "lockdown" in the dorms, Bear, got a great picture somewhere of Mark West "surfing" the police riot shield line.... From rag241 Fri May 5 18:07:00 2000 From: rag241 (Ricky Garner) Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 19:07:00 -0400 Subject: more on the amazing George W. ans to Coop, Kuss, Apple and whoever else References: <200005052217.SAA28712@is9.nyu.edu> Message-ID: The "right" to abortion funding seems to me to HINGE on whether or not the medical procedure is both necessary and ethical. But will no one go there? COOP -------------------------- yes... necessary: this hinges on ethics; there are definitely instances when it is critical to save a woman's life, and also where the baby's death is inevitable. ethical: i think the abortion question is really a moral one, not an ethical one. Katie's arguments that legal abortion reduces the actual number of physical abortions, and combines this with the number of women who die from illegal ones; with this she is definitely winning the consequential side of the debate. i'm willing to say that at least in a semi-utilitarian paradigm, or most non-deontological paradigms, she's on top in the ethical category. but from here we get deep deep in the quagmires of some of the oldest philosophical questions of european (possibly other cultures also, but i'm not informed enough to speak) thought, like what is the moral's relationship to the ethical, deontology versus teleology, the individual's relation to the ethical, ad infinitum... we're talking every major philospher here from Heidegger to Foucault to Kierkegaard to Nietasche all the way back to Plato and Aristotle themselves... why not go to foulcault, who might say that regulatroy government policies are just the expansion of the panoptican through bio-power, and that attempts to say anything by the government about abortion is necessarily a type of fascism (his word, not mine) that harnesses sexuality to bourgeoisie domination or Nietzsche, who says that morality is friggin nonsense, and that the weak should just deal (he'd probably say no abortion rights for women, because they are weak anyway (that's my opinion( but he does call pregnancy a sickness in Geneaology of Morality, so maybe not....)) i personally think that if we're going to have a government which addresses social inequality, or privelege, then they should recognize that affluent women are often priveleged with respect to their control over their bodies which leads to a culturally based dehumanization of those women who the system often ignores. if the governement is going to provide money for healthcare, through Medicaid et cetera, then it should take neither position and let the women who are suposedly the target of that health make that decision with free and open consultation with the physicians who, quite frankly, are qualified (whereas lawmakers are not) to make decisions about health. open to discussion, ricky garner NYU Debate From erm892f Fri May 5 18:29:25 2000 From: erm892f (Eric Morris) Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 18:29:25 -0500 Subject: Ah... the VERY FIRST kritik can finally be identified.... References: Message-ID: I think labelling any argument 'the first kritik' is very difficult, given that several arguments in old school CEDA, if run today, would be called a 'kritik'. My first semester was US-USSR relations, and our affirmative case was about 1/2 threat inflation and the other 1/2 firebreak threatening weapons. The threat inflation part was used to provide a generic answer to nearly all negative defenses of military preparedness. Several of the arguments that fall regarding the theorical support for deterrence, the application of the just war doctrine to nuclear deterrence, the adequacy of constructivist reasoning in foreign policy, etc., would be labelled as a 'kritik' today. Negatives would claim to be able to win by 'turning' the criteria even if they didn't 'outweigh' the case, so all of those 'criteria turns' (democracy bad, etc.) were not unlike the kritik. The idea of calling something the first 'kritik' because it used the word first seems questionable to me. While many (not all) of these 'kritiks' were less developed that lots of kritik debates today, they were more developed that many other arguments that we now call the kritik. My experience only dates back to 1986, but I can assure you that CEDA had several kritik-style arguments before that time as well. If a kritik is defined primarily by its abdication of the assumption of fiat or the leaving of the policy world, then it seems intuitive that a good many arguments made under supposedly non-policy topics in the 1970s and 1980s in CEDA would certainly qualify. If one wishes to focus on the history of the kritik on the NDT side only, that could be justified since the question 'what relevance does this have to policy debate?' needed much more justification than in CEDA. In many rounds I see, kritiking teams are not expected to spend too much energy explaining the relevance of the k to policy debate. I think this is problematic because there are many different (and perhaps exclusive) reasons why the kritik COULD be a voing issue, and forcing the kritiking team to defend one opens important ground for the other team. The disembodied assumption that k's are voting issues gives them EXTREME strategic utility because the basic framework of the round can be re-explained late in the round to work around the other teams answers and show how they don't apply because 'that wasn't what we meant.' Saying that the issues raised by kritiks are germane does not provide a good defense for the ways that kritiking often occurs. Ermo ----- Original Message ----- From: Michael Bear Bryant To: Sent: Friday, May 05, 2000 5:58 PM Subject: Re: on the k > In a message dated 5/5/00 3:55:37 PM Mountain Daylight Time, > bigred at SEATTLEU.EDU writes: > > > another error might be your statement that the first kritik was > > anti-statism. Maybe ryan goodman was running this on the ndt, but mark > west > > lost the final round of ceda nats in 89 running a feminist criticism of the > > law (perhaps this is anti-statism too?). > > > > This is true. In fact, I remember Goodman and McBride being very interested > in talking to West, me, and others, about the differences in argumentation > styles between NDT and CEDA at the Berkeley and Stanford Institutes in both > 1990 and 1991. CEDA was experimenting with CLS-oriented critiques exensively > in the late 80's...I remember CEDA coaches at high school institutes as being > my first exposure to critical argumentation. > > The Longhorns showed incredible talent in taking the concept and applying it > to the NDT community. As many of my colleagues know, there wasn't much > overlap between these two communities at all in the early '90's. It was very > interesting working west coast institutes back in those days, just to see the > interchange that happened when NDT and CEDA folks came together to work in > labs. > > Still remembering the four-day long homeless riot in Berkeley that caused the > "lockdown" in the dorms, > > Bear, > got a great picture somewhere of Mark West "surfing" the police riot shield > line.... > From schellj Fri May 5 18:33:20 2000 From: schellj (Jennifer Scheller) Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 19:33:20 -0400 Subject: advice on funding? Message-ID: Debate Community, I know this is a long shot, but I don't know where else to turn. Those of you who are familiar with the Allegheny debate program know that it has been at least 4 years since we have had a coach who is also a faculty member of the college. In the interim, my partner and I have gone through the program with one year of part time coaching. The rest of the time, the team has been on its own. Rupa and I stopped debating after our first tournament this year to judge to cover the novice teams and devote more time to preparing them to take over in our absence next year. Through the years, the Allegheny debaters have done everything we could think of to convince the school to provide funding for a coach. The school even approved the creation of a Director of Speech position, then deleted all mention of the debate team, so the person who will be filling it next year has no interest in helping us. None of the current faculty have the time or expertise to help us and I was politely told that it was not necessary for me to look through old alumni records to look for donors to fund a coaching position. The school is unwilling to even spend a few thousand dollars for a part time position. If you have any ideas about how to fund a coaching position, I would appreciate any advice you could give me. I would be especially interested in private donors or grant funding. We have 8 underclassmen who will be debating next year (7 first years), and while it may be too late to find them a coach for next year, I can't give up the fight. To those who have judged Allegheny in the past or helped us in any way, thank you for all have done. It is only through the efforts of people like yourselves that our squad gets the training and advice we need. Thank you, Jen Scheller Allegheny Debate >From Fri May 5 19:40:11 2000 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 30116 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Fri, 5 May 2000 19:40:55 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo-d08.mx.aol.com (imo-d08.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.40]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA25036 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 19:40:54 -0400 Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo-d08.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v26.7.) id p.65.3e1de0b (4310); Fri, 5 May 2000 19:40:12 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 105 Message-ID: <65.3e1de0b.2644b5db at aol.com> Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 19:40:11 EDT Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Michael Bear Bryant Subject: Re: on the k Comments: To: bigred at seattleu.edu In a message dated 5/5/00 3:55:37 PM Mountain Daylight Time, bigred at SEATTLEU.EDU writes: > another error might be your statement that the first kritik was > anti-statism. Maybe ryan goodman was running this on the ndt, but mark west > lost the final round of ceda nats in 89 running a feminist criticism of the > law (perhaps this is anti-statism too?). > Other early NDT sources of critical argument: 1. In NDT, Loyola-Marymount debaters of the early 80's and Redlands debaters of the mid-80's elevated the socialism/Marxist counterplan to an art-form. Jordan Mills and his Mao stuff were pretty impressive later, in CEDA. I think Stannard had copies of all of their blocks... 2. Environmental ethics in early to mid-80 NDT debate was oriented toward a deep philosophical base of questioning modernist assumptions. 3. The dancing guy, himself, Shanahan was experimenting with some strains of critical thought as he steadfastly advanced "anarchy" as his negative argument of choice every round back in the early '80's. Had to judge too many of those rounds - they hurt. Ryan Goodman was great at jamming the K on the NDT folks, but it's been around in many forms, for a long time. Bear From mkrueger Fri May 5 19:20:56 2000 From: mkrueger (mkrueger) Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 19:20:56 -0500 Subject: on the k Message-ID: back in the day, long ago in 1982, I debated for Emporia--only a semester I know, but i did... how many people know that? that isn't the point. i recall a conversation with doc matheny and candy clark about teams (ndt) running CLS. Seems it had been argued for a few years, and I thought that was the start of critical arguments in debate, though i might be mistaken. krueger >===== Original Message From MWBRYANT at AOL.COM ===== >In a message dated 5/5/00 3:55:37 PM Mountain Daylight Time, >bigred at SEATTLEU.EDU writes: > >> another error might be your statement that the first kritik was >> anti-statism. Maybe ryan goodman was running this on the ndt, but mark >west >> lost the final round of ceda nats in 89 running a feminist criticism of the >> law (perhaps this is anti-statism too?). >> > >Other early NDT sources of critical argument: > >1. In NDT, Loyola-Marymount debaters of the early 80's and Redlands debaters >of the mid-80's elevated the socialism/Marxist counterplan to an art-form. >Jordan Mills and his Mao stuff were pretty impressive later, in CEDA. I think >Stannard had copies of all of their blocks... > >2. Environmental ethics in early to mid-80 NDT debate was oriented toward a >deep philosophical base of questioning modernist assumptions. > >3. The dancing guy, himself, Shanahan was experimenting with some strains of >critical thought as he steadfastly advanced "anarchy" as his negative >argument of choice every round back in the early '80's. Had to judge too many >of those rounds - they hurt. > >Ryan Goodman was great at jamming the K on the NDT folks, but it's been >around in many forms, for a long time. > >Bear Michael A. Krueger Director of Debate Middle Tennessee State University Box 43 Murfreesboro, TN 37132 (615) 898-5607 http://www.mtsu.edu/~debate/ From tgibson Fri May 5 19:34:29 2000 From: tgibson (Thomas Russell Gibson) Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 19:34:29 -0500 Subject: More on the amazing George W... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: This was of some interest to me, so I checked it out. Bush's responses to abortion questions lead one to believe that much of this has a lot of truth to it. Check out this article: http://www.dmregister.com/news/stories/c4789004/8613658.html Russell Gibson On Thu, 4 May 2000, Jeffrey A Panehal wrote: > enough is enough. this is nothing more than scare tactics and has nothing > to do with the election in any way. factual responses will follow each > 'claim'. > > > - George W. Bush could appoint two to three > > Supreme Court > > Justices, enough to overturn Roe v. Wade. > > however, when asked if abortion was a litmus test for his selections, the > 'amazing' George W. said no. Chicken little the sky is not falling. > > > - George W. Bush could appoint 136 federal lower > > court judges, > > plus judges for all the slots that become vacant > > during his term. > > and your point is? all of these things apply to the next president not > the 'amazing' George W. > > > - George W. Bush could appoint an Attorney General > > who would not > > enforce the federal law (Freedom of Access to > > Clinic Entrances Law) > > that protects women from violence and harassment > > at clinics. > > i'm actually hoping that we can get 4 more years of janet reno, so she can > snatch babies at gunpoint. or an attorney general that drags their feet > on campaign finance violations (buddhist temples anyone?). please, our > current attorney general is no paragon of justice. do we have to always > see this crap on edebate? go to cnn talkbalk live. > > > - George W. Bush could appoint a Secretary of > > Health and Human > > Services who would re-impose the gag rule to > > prevent physicians from telling their patients > > about abortion as an option. > > > > - George W. Bush could appoint an FDA Commissioner > > who would block new, non-surgical options for > > abortion such as mifepristone > > (RU 486). > > > > - George W. Bush could propose a federal budget > > without funding for international family planning > > programs that advocate for the right to choose in > > their country or even make referrals for > > abortions. > > > > AND > > - George W. Bush supports a Republican Party > > Platform calling for a constitutional amendment > > outlawing abortion. > > AND George Bush could steal all our money, children, and futures, living > out his days on a beautiful tropical island fornicating with the natives > and burning 'foreigners' for firewood. can we ALL (this means me too) > stop trying to demonize each other's candidates and discuss what their > positions _are_ rather than what they _might_ be? if we chose to engage > in this discussion in this forum at all, can we chose to hold ourselves to > a standard of evidence and accountability for our own actions (including > forwards)? > > see you on talkback live, > > j. > > ------------- > > "To fear love is to fear life, and those who fear life are already three > parts dead." > > -Bertrand Russell > From dennis Fri May 5 20:00:21 2000 From: dennis (doug dennis) Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 20:00:21 -0500 Subject: on the k In-Reply-To: <390F8295@mtsu20.mtsu.edu> Message-ID: yeah...i have my krueger in hornet gear... doug On Fri, 5 May 2000, mkrueger wrote: > back in the day, long ago in 1982, I debated for Emporia--only a semester I > know, but i did... > how many people know that? > > that isn't the point. i recall a conversation with doc matheny and candy > clark about teams (ndt) running CLS. > > Seems it had been argued for a few years, and I thought that was the start of > critical arguments in debate, though i might be mistaken. > > krueger > > >===== Original Message From MWBRYANT at AOL.COM ===== > >In a message dated 5/5/00 3:55:37 PM Mountain Daylight Time, > >bigred at SEATTLEU.EDU writes: > > > >> another error might be your statement that the first kritik was > >> anti-statism. Maybe ryan goodman was running this on the ndt, but mark > >west > >> lost the final round of ceda nats in 89 running a feminist criticism of > the > >> law (perhaps this is anti-statism too?). > >> > > > >Other early NDT sources of critical argument: > > > >1. In NDT, Loyola-Marymount debaters of the early 80's and Redlands debaters > >of the mid-80's elevated the socialism/Marxist counterplan to an art-form. > >Jordan Mills and his Mao stuff were pretty impressive later, in CEDA. I think > >Stannard had copies of all of their blocks... > > > >2. Environmental ethics in early to mid-80 NDT debate was oriented toward a > >deep philosophical base of questioning modernist assumptions. > > > >3. The dancing guy, himself, Shanahan was experimenting with some strains of > >critical thought as he steadfastly advanced "anarchy" as his negative > >argument of choice every round back in the early '80's. Had to judge too many > >of those rounds - they hurt. > > > >Ryan Goodman was great at jamming the K on the NDT folks, but it's been > >around in many forms, for a long time. > > > >Bear > > Michael A. Krueger > Director of Debate > Middle Tennessee State University > Box 43 > Murfreesboro, TN 37132 > (615) 898-5607 > http://www.mtsu.edu/~debate/ > From hello_katie Fri May 5 20:15:35 2000 From: hello_katie (Katie Kat) Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 20:15:35 -0500 Subject: more on the amazing George W. Message-ID: ---- Begin Original Message ---- From: CoopDB8 at aol.com Sent: Fri, 5 May 2000 17:19:22 EDT To: hello_katie at pigpig.zzn.com, EDEBATE at list.uvm.edu Subject: Re: more on the amazing George W. hello_katie (reminds me of hello kitty) writes: << I guess it's ok for us to tell poor womyn, "Sorry, we don't want to pay for your CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. >> Hmmmm....I'll be the first to admit that I am not as versed as others in the constitutional history of abortion "rights" in this country (as a gay man, it's not too relevent for me I guess), but I believe the S.C. ruled that the government can't PREVENT a women's right to choose an abortion because to do so would be a privacy violation. That is far from ruling that womyn (women, wymyn, wyn...oh fuck it) have a positive right TO an abortion. Your hyperbole hurts your arg. COOP I do think the Supreme Court acknowledged that a womyn has a postive right, in the sense that she should have the ability to take control over her own body. But... If your argument is that there's not a postive right in the sense that the constitution/Supreme court interpretation of the constitution do not require the government to fund abortions for poor womyn, then i agree with you. However, in order to exercise their right, poor womyn will require some form of financial assistance, and in that sense i believe that the governement should cover the procedure. What's particularly important to note is that abortion isn't something in a vaccuum. From a purely consequential perspective, if we choose not to fund abortion, then we also simultaneously choose to fund welfare, school lunch programs, financial aid for those children if they actually receive the opportunity to go to college, etc. I'm not making an argument that abortion is preferable as an option because of economic reasons. What I am saying is that unintended preganancies happen, and we can't avoid, at some level, paying for them as a scoiety. In addition, I feel there is a moral issue: womyn who are dead set on having the procedure (and there are many) will go to great lengths to obtain it. When I testified before the Texas senate once, I met a couple from Ohio, whose daughter had attempted to induce an abortion by taking a very toxic chemical. She died because of it, and she never told her parents she was getting sick, because she would rather die without them knowing than live in what she considered to be shame (her pregnancy). The only reason her parents found out was because they ordered an autopsy, where it was discovered that she had been pregnant. This is a tragedy. The point is, womyn will get abortions if they want to end their preganancies; 1/3 of pregnancies are terminated through elective abortion. If we do not allow womyn safe and legal access to this procedure (which includes subsidizing abortions for poor womyn), we must acknowledge that not only many womyn die, but the end result is the same as the dreaded abortion: the fetus dies too. Again, I am not arguing in favor of abortion. My argument is simply that the best way to keep womyn and their fetuses from dying is by approaching the law from a more pragmatic perspective. -Katie Don't forget to visit http://www.pigpig.com/ and http://www.pigpig.net/ ____________________________________________________________ Get your 100MB FREE Internet storage! Sign up now - http://www.netdrive.com/?ao=zzn From hello_katie Fri May 5 20:21:21 2000 From: hello_katie (Katie Kat) Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 20:21:21 -0500 Subject: more george stuff.. Message-ID: I respect very much that you've heard stories about bad personal experiences with abortion. i've heard alot of stories about womyn who have to go through pregnancies because they didn't have the money for an abortion, so they abandoned or killed their baby after it was born. And when I say I've heard, I don't mean I read in the newspaper. In addition, I don't think your concern answers my argument which is: abortion is inevitable and if we don't cover the procedure, womyn and their fetuses will DIE in attempts to have the procedure done illegally. I think dying is probably a lot worse of a tragedy than the "emotional damage" that results from a safe and legal procedure. -Katie ---- Begin Original Message ---- From: kylie robertson Sent: Fri, 5 May 2000 14:25:04 -0700 To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU Subject: more george stuff.. I would hardly think that because i say that i can not in good conscience, fund abortion that i am a clasist. I am also conserned for all the people that will and have already fallen through the cracks because of welfare reform which was designed by those who have $, power, experiance, and a selfish constitancy. I am quite happy to send all kinds of money to alternative programs that give more than just the abortion option in the case of unwanted pregnancy. I just have heard so many personal naritives about the negative ramifications of the procedure that i would rather not invest in the guilt of mothers, fathers, and who ever elce is involved. I gust think there is more than one alternative to unwanted pregnancy. not classist, just concerned... kylie That may not be the way you choose, conveniently to characterize your argument, but that is the implication of your argument. Great, you've just told poor womyn that they "can" get an abortion...but they CAN'T get one if they CAN'T PAY FOR IT. Look, it all collapses down to classism: If you can get ahead in this alleged meritocracy and have the luxury of having the cash to pay for an abortion, then, and only then do you really have the right to choose. What is a poor womyn's choice? Based on experience with womyn who couldn't afford abortions, I'll tell you. She can lose her constitutional right or she can try to induce the abortion herself. Is it any wonder then, that a womyn dies every minute from an illegal, induced abortion? I guess it's ok for us to tell poor womyn, "Sorry, we don't want to pay for your CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. Get on welfare to pay for this kid (which, incidentally, thanks to welfare reform, is limited to 2 years and a maximum of $800 a month) or die trying to enforce your right yourself. Wish I'd succeeded in the meritocracy, Katie __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com/ ---- End Original Message ---- Katie Hatziavramidis K-State Debate Don't forget to visit http://www.pigpig.com/ and http://www.pigpig.net/ ____________________________________________________________ Get your 100MB FREE Internet storage! Sign up now - http://www.netdrive.com/?ao=zzn From cornell7 Thu May 4 21:06:34 2000 From: cornell7 (Erik Cornellier) Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 19:06:34 -0700 Subject: Meat Message-ID: I find these valorizations of meat eating offensive. erik >From Fri May 5 16:45:55 2000 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 31797 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Fri, 5 May 2000 22:44:44 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from privacyx.com ([209.17.188.34]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA38236 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 22:44:43 -0400 Received: (qmail 14410 invoked by uid 1009); 6 May 2000 02:45:53 -0000 Received: Identities Changed to Protect the Innocent X-Mailer: Privacyx.com Anonymous Certificate Authority X-Accept-Language: en,pdf Mime-Version: 1.0 References: PrivacyX-121262041-6728 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: PrivacyX-191264549-14318 Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 16:45:55 -0500 Reply-To: ghoser777 at privacyx.com To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Matt Fahrenbacher Organization: UIUC Subject: Re more on the amazing George W. Comments: To: kylie robertson Makes sense. "Against robbery? Don't rob." Hmmm... is the illogic just painfully obvious? The whole abortion debate boils down to whether the preborn/fetus (whatever u want to call "it") is a human being. All other arguments about whether making abortion illegal would increase abortions if irrelevant - we enact moral laws because they are moral, not because they are utilitarianly justified. If not, then all moral laws (murder, robbery, assault, etc.) could be struck down. Rape isn't illegal because we think making it illegal will decrease the number of rapes, but instead that we as a society believe that rape should not be tolerated. Ultimately, at least I believe, and I very well can be wrong, that all acts that violate the personal freedoms of other individuals should be outlawed - few more, no less. So prostitution and drug use probably should be legalized... but abortion is different. Abortion should be legal iff (if and only if, for you non-math geeks out there) the preborn is not a human. Oh, and someone mentioned how the abortion rate in Brazil is three times what it is in the US... which is not just an abstract fact. Brazil has several different social differences (one major one: it's not as developed). But another thing... has the abortion rate gone up or down since Roe vs. Wade? I believe it's up, but someone should check that for me. Any way, i think it's dangerous for us to make decisions for life forms that may be human. If their is a higher being, and we're as a society wrong about preborns being non-human, then we'll answer dearly. Otherwise, probably nothing. Matt UofI P.S. Abortion clinic bombers -STOP BOMBING ABORTION CLINICS; you give the rest of us anti-abortion people bad names. Try talking people in a way that is intellectually honest about the implications of abortion instead of intimidation - bombing can only make "us" look radical and can only prop up abortion. so... STOP! kylie robertson wrote: > Hmmm... > > You have chosen a side on the abortion issue, thats > great, and I'm glad you have the freedom to do so. > What you call anti-choice though is a bit > miss-leading. I'm sure that if everyone in Texas, or > the US for that matter had a choice about paying taxes > they would decline (who knows?). But, we simply don't > have choice in the matter. My partner has a sticker > on her tub that says "Against abortion? Don't have > one." This i buy because the choice is up to me. If I > think abortion is wrong...I should be able to choose > not to pay for someone elces. > > Kylie > > > GEORGE W. BUSH~RS ANTI-CHOICE RECORD > > George W. Bush signed 18 anti-choice provisions into > law in the three > legislative sessions during which he was governor. > > Prohibiting the use of state family planning funds to > pay the direct or > indirect costs of abortion procedures. This provision > could be applied > to > prohibit family planning funding for organizations > that offer abortion > services -- HB 1. > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger. > http://im.yahoo.com/ > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > Link is external to the Privacyx.com System > From kyliejeanine Sat May 6 02:00:32 2000 From: kyliejeanine (kylie robertson) Date: Sat, 6 May 2000 00:00:32 -0700 Subject: more george stuff.. Message-ID: I also respect your concern and that you have done your homework on the matter. I think that my position is that there are so many abortions in this county every day, and abortion is seen as an only option. There are lots of other options that are available. I know that abortion is inevitable, because I do not think the political climate will change a great deal with either Bush or Gore and Abortion may not even be an issue during the presidency. Just because abortion is inevitable, does not mean that it is right. Abortion allows us to make a decision about another human being with out, hearing from them at all. It is a decision of ultimate exclusion. I know there are always acceptions to the rule, like your examples of mothers who kill them selves accidentally or who purposefully kill the baby once it has been borne, but these are acceptions and not the norm, would poeple like that take advantage of free abortions, i don't know. You are also right about dying outweighing the emotional scars that come with abortion, but remember again that these are the minority of cases and that someone dies every time an abortion occurs, just because the baby is not visible to us does not take away their personhood. Kylie I respect very much that you've heard stories about bad personal experiences with abortion. i've heard alot of stories about womyn who have to go through pregnancies because they didn't have the money for an abortion, so they abandoned or killed their baby after it was born. And when I say I've heard, I don't mean I read in the newspaper. In addition, I don't think your concern answers my argument which is: abortion is inevitable and if we don't cover the procedure, womyn and their fetuses will DIE in attempts to have the procedure done illegally. I think dying is probably a lot worse of a tragedy than the "emotional damage" that results from a safe and legal procedure. -Katie __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com/ From hello_katie Sat May 6 02:46:06 2000 From: hello_katie (Katie Kat) Date: Sat, 6 May 2000 02:46:06 -0500 Subject: Re more on the amazing George W. Message-ID: The abortion rate, since Roe v. Wade, increased slightly initially, decreased dramatically shortly thereafter, and has reamained constant ever since. -Katie ---- Begin Original Message ---- From: Matt Fahrenbacher Sent: Fri, 5 May 2000 16:45:55 -0500 To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU Subject: Re more on the amazing George W. Makes sense. "Against robbery? Don't rob." Hmmm... is the illogic just painfully obvious? The whole abortion debate boils down to whether the preborn/fetus (whatever u want to call "it") is a human being. All other arguments about whether making abortion illegal would increase abortions if irrelevant - we enact moral laws because they are moral, not because they are utilitarianly justified. If not, then all moral laws (murder, robbery, assault, etc.) could be struck down. Rape isn't illegal because we think making it illegal will decrease the number of rapes, but instead that we as a society believe that rape should not be tolerated. Ultimately, at least I believe, and I very well can be wrong, that all acts that violate the personal freedoms of other individuals should be outlawed - few more, no less. So prostitution and drug use probably should be legalized... but abortion is different. Abortion should be legal iff (if and only if, for you non-math geeks out there) the preborn is not a human. Oh, and someone mentioned how the abortion rate in Brazil is three times what it is in the US... which is not just an abstract fact. Brazil has several different social differences (one major one: it's not as developed). But another thing... has the abortion rate gone up or down since Roe vs. Wade? I believe it's up, but someone should check that for me. Any way, i think it's dangerous for us to make decisions for life forms that may be human. If their is a higher being, and we're as a society wrong about preborns being non-human, then we'll answer dearly. Otherwise, probably nothing. Matt UofI P.S. Abortion clinic bombers -STOP BOMBING ABORTION CLINICS; you give the rest of us anti-abortion people bad names. Try talking people in a way that is intellectually honest about the implications of abortion instead of intimidation - bombing can only make "us" look radical and can only prop up abortion. so... STOP! kylie robertson wrote: > Hmmm... > > You have chosen a side on the abortion issue, thats > great, and I'm glad you have the freedom to do so. > What you call anti-choice though is a bit > miss-leading. I'm sure that if everyone in Texas, or > the US for that matter had a choice about paying taxes > they would decline (who knows?). But, we simply don't > have choice in the matter. My partner has a sticker > on her tub that says "Against abortion? Don't have > one." This i buy because the choice is up to me. If I > think abortion is wrong...I should be able to choose > not to pay for someone elces. > > Kylie > > > GEORGE W. BUSH~RS ANTI-CHOICE RECORD > > George W. Bush signed 18 anti-choice provisions into > law in the three > legislative sessions during which he was governor. > > Prohibiting the use of state family planning funds to > pay the direct or > indirect costs of abortion procedures. This provision > could be applied > to > prohibit family planning funding for organizations > that offer abortion > services -- HB 1. > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger. > http://im.yahoo.com/ > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > Link is external to the Privacyx.com System > ---- End Original Message ---- Katie Hatziavramidis K-State Debate Don't forget to visit http://www.pigpig.com/ and http://www.pigpig.net/ ____________________________________________________________ Get your 100MB FREE Internet storage! Sign up now - http://www.netdrive.com/?ao=zzn From rag241 Sat May 6 03:05:46 2000 From: rag241 (Ricky Garner) Date: Sat, 6 May 2000 04:05:46 -0400 Subject: more george stuff.. References: <200005060700.DAA26666@is9.nyu.edu> Message-ID: i recognize that talking about morality is tricky, but i have some thoughts i think i'll share anyway: the view that abortion is immoral is tricky and touchy at best, and is essentially rooted in a judeo-christian notion that life is inherently valuable, and that God has given/ ordained the pregnancy ("i knew you in the womb" is what God purportedly said, i believe), but the claim gets wrapped up in morality and that is where it gets tricky. immoral is immoral, and there would have to always be a default to some form of comparison, if not outright consequentialism, when comparing say, the mother's life versus the baby's. using a standard religious viewpoint (not universal mind you), homosexuality is immoral, as well as a lot of other things that will never be resolved without understanding and dialogue. i guess i just think that if the state has any domain, it is the ethical and not the moral, because there will always be conflicting moralities. to draw this conversation back into george w., it seems to me that one would always need to default to the government not legislating morality, or else at some point we have tyranny. i think that kylies concern, 'its often presented as the only option [rough quote],' would seem to dictate a social, civil kind of action, and not state based at all. there is always the problem that well intentioned, non-bigoted positions (such as homosexuality) will breed intolerance, just as those in governemtn will say they are responding to their popular constituency when they are really responding to corporate interests, but that is a different issue. it would seem to me that if you were anti-abortion/pro-life that you would never want to elect george w. for reasons of legislative abortion stance, which would jeopardize the ethical/moral distinction, but might want to not elect him for that very reason. bedtime, ricky From drtuna Sat May 6 06:08:55 2000 From: drtuna (Alfred Snider) Date: Sat, 6 May 2000 07:08:55 -0400 Subject: cfl, nfl nats In-Reply-To: <20000505213525.33631.qmail@hotmail.com> Message-ID: Find NFL info at the NFL website located at Debate Central: http://debate.uvm.edu/nfl.html Tuna --------------- Alfred C. Snider aka Tuna Lawrence Professor of Forensics, University of Vermont 802-656-0097 office; 802-238-8345 mobile; 802-656-4275 fax asnider at zoo.uvm.edu office; drtuna at earthlink.net home/mobile http://debate.uvm.edu Debate Central website > From: Mike Cerulo > Reply-To: Mike Cerulo > Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 16:35:25 CDT > To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU > Subject: Re: cfl, nfl nats > >> From: doug dennis >> Reply-To: doug dennis >> To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU >> Subject: cfl, nfl nats >> Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 15:48:08 -0500 >> >> does anyone know the datesfor these? if so, please backchannel. >> >> doug > > hey doug-cfls are the 26th-28th of may in rochester, NY. i dunno about > nfls. > > Mike > ________________________________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com > From BobJordan Sat May 6 07:43:01 2000 From: BobJordan (Bob Jordan) Date: Sat, 6 May 2000 07:43:01 -0500 Subject: Ah... the VERY FIRST kritik can finally be identified.... In-Reply-To: <004e01bfb6e9$c3486500$64ea0792@smsu.edu> References: <004e01bfb6e9$c3486500$64ea0792@smsu.edu> Message-ID: Hey ErMo, That is a far more eloquent explanation of the firebreak affirmative than I ever heard in a practice round when you were a freshman. That may be the latest 3AR in debate history. Terry, don't listen to him! I don't think I ever understood what you were trying to do. In fact, Sara (my wife and former SMS debater) will throw out the term "firebreak" whenever I really don't understand something she is trying to explain. Bob Jordan SMSU '87 At 6:29 PM -0500 5/5/00, Eric Morris wrote: >I think labelling any argument 'the first kritik' is very difficult, given >that several arguments >in old school CEDA, if run today, would be called a 'kritik'. My first >semester was >US-USSR relations, and our affirmative case was about 1/2 threat inflation >and the >other 1/2 firebreak threatening weapons. The threat inflation part was used >to provide >a generic answer to nearly all negative defenses of military preparedness. >Several >of the arguments that fall regarding the theorical support for deterrence, >the application >of the just war doctrine to nuclear deterrence, the adequacy of >constructivist >reasoning in foreign policy, etc., would be labelled as a 'kritik' today. >Negatives >would claim to be able to win by 'turning' the criteria even if they didn't >'outweigh' >the case, so all of those 'criteria turns' (democracy bad, etc.) were not >unlike >the kritik. > >The idea of calling something the first 'kritik' because it used the word >first seems >questionable to me. While many (not all) of these 'kritiks' were less >developed >that lots of kritik debates today, they were more developed that many other >arguments that we now call the kritik. My experience only dates back to >1986, but I can assure you that CEDA had several kritik-style arguments >before that time as well. > >If a kritik is defined primarily by its abdication of the assumption of fiat >or the leaving of the policy world, then it seems intuitive that a good many >arguments made under supposedly non-policy topics in the 1970s and 1980s >in CEDA would certainly qualify. > >If one wishes to focus on the history of the kritik on the NDT side only, >that >could be justified since the question 'what relevance does this have to >policy >debate?' needed much more justification than in CEDA. In many rounds I >see, kritiking teams are not expected to spend too much energy explaining >the relevance of the k to policy debate. I think this is problematic because >there are many different (and perhaps exclusive) reasons why the kritik >COULD be a voing issue, and forcing the kritiking team to defend one >opens important ground for the other team. The disembodied assumption >that k's are voting issues gives them EXTREME strategic utility because >the basic framework of the round can be re-explained late in the round >to work around the other teams answers and show how they don't >apply because 'that wasn't what we meant.' Saying that the issues raised >by kritiks are germane does not provide a good defense for the ways >that kritiking often occurs. > >Ermo > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Michael Bear Bryant >To: >Sent: Friday, May 05, 2000 5:58 PM >Subject: Re: on the k > > >> In a message dated 5/5/00 3:55:37 PM Mountain Daylight Time, >> bigred at SEATTLEU.EDU writes: >> >> > another error might be your statement that the first kritik was >> > anti-statism. Maybe ryan goodman was running this on the ndt, but mark >> west >> > lost the final round of ceda nats in 89 running a feminist criticism of >the >> > law (perhaps this is anti-statism too?). >> > >> >> This is true. In fact, I remember Goodman and McBride being very >interested >> in talking to West, me, and others, about the differences in argumentation >> styles between NDT and CEDA at the Berkeley and Stanford Institutes in >both >> 1990 and 1991. CEDA was experimenting with CLS-oriented critiques >exensively >> in the late 80's...I remember CEDA coaches at high school institutes as >being >> my first exposure to critical argumentation. >> >> The Longhorns showed incredible talent in taking the concept and applying >it >> to the NDT community. As many of my colleagues know, there wasn't much >> overlap between these two communities at all in the early '90's. It was >very >> interesting working west coast institutes back in those days, just to see >the >> interchange that happened when NDT and CEDA folks came together to work in >> labs. >> >> Still remembering the four-day long homeless riot in Berkeley that caused >the >> "lockdown" in the dorms, >> >> Bear, >> got a great picture somewhere of Mark West "surfing" the police riot >shield >> line.... >> >From Sat May 6 09:40:34 2000 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 2012 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Sat, 6 May 2000 09:40:39 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from ciao.cc.columbia.edu (IDENT:cu14774 at ciao.cc.columbia.edu [128.59.59.11]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA33724 for ; Sat, 6 May 2000 09:40:38 -0400 Received: from localhost by ciao.cc.columbia.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA14584; Sat, 6 May 2000 09:40:35 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Message-ID: Date: Sat, 6 May 2000 09:40:34 -0400 Reply-To: dhn2 at COLUMBIA.EDU To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Daniel Hugh Nexon Subject: Re: Re more on the amazing George W. Comments: To: Matt Fahrenbacher In-Reply-To: PrivacyX-191264549-14318 On Fri, 5 May 2000, Matt Fahrenbacher wrote: The reasoning herer is simply bizarre. There is a perfectly long and respectable tradition which holds we make things illegal in order to deter people from engaging in them, and that the utility of a law in terms of how well it brings about its "moral" or other ends is central to how we evaluate it. > Makes sense. "Against robbery? Don't rob." Hmmm... is the illogic just > painfully obvious? The whole abortion debate boils down to whether the > preborn/fetus (whatever u want to call "it") is a human being. All other > arguments about whether making abortion illegal would increase abortions > if irrelevant - we enact moral laws because they are moral, not because > they are utilitarianly justified. If not, then all moral laws (murder, > robbery, assault, etc.) could be struck down. Rape isn't illegal > because we think making it illegal will decrease the number of rapes, > but instead that we as a society believe that rape should not be > tolerated. Ultimately, at least I believe, and I very well can be > wrong, that all acts that violate the personal freedoms of other > individuals should be outlawed - few more, no less. So prostitution and > drug use probably should be legalized... but abortion is different. > Abortion should be legal iff (if and only if, for you non-math geeks out > there) the preborn is not a human. Oh, and someone mentioned how the > abortion rate in Brazil is three times what it is in the US... which is > not just an abstract fact. Brazil has several different social > differences (one major one: it's not as developed). And that should matter, why? Its also overwhelmingly Catholic, which should mitigate against the number of abortions. Regards, Dan | Columbia Political Science | www.columbia.edu/~dhn2 "Evolution is to allegory as statues are to birdshit. It is a convenient platform upon which to deposit badly digested ideas." --Steve Jones, NYRB, July 17, 1997, p. 39 >From Sat May 6 09:54:44 2000 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 2268 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Sat, 6 May 2000 10:47:20 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from mail.utexas.edu (wb2-a.mail.utexas.edu [128.83.126.136]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA38346 for ; Sat, 6 May 2000 10:47:19 -0400 Received: (qmail 29730 invoked by uid 0); 6 May 2000 14:47:16 -0000 Received: from dial-120-8.ots.utexas.edu (HELO mail.utexas.edu) (128.83.154.152) by umbs-smtp-2 with SMTP; 6 May 2000 14:47:16 -0000 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 (Macintosh; I; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <92FFE928B9224D11DADD0005B80363D1 at hello_katie.pigpig.zzn.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: <3913EB7E.468BD08A at mail.utexas.edu> Date: Sat, 6 May 2000 09:54:44 +0000 Reply-To: jd.rollins at mail.utexas.edu To: Team Topic Debating in America From: joel david rollins Subject: Re: more on the amazing George W. Comments: To: Katie Kat and the cost issue would be barely relevant if ru-486 and prostoglandin were widely available. joel Katie Kat wrote: > Gee, > I wish I could *choose* not to have my tax dollars > spent on the over-funded military... > By the way, it's interesting that you think poor > womyn shouldn't have Medicare/Medicaid cover their > abortions...I guess only rich or middle-class > womyn who can afford the expensive procedure > should ahve a right to CHOOSE it, huh? > > -Katie > K-State Debate > > ---- Begin Original Message ---- > From: kylie robertson > Sent: Fri, 5 May 2000 11:43:14 -0700 > To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU > Subject: Re: more on the amazing George W. > > Hmmm... > > You have chosen a side on the abortion issue, > thats > great, and I'm glad you have the freedom to do so. > What you call anti-choice though is a bit > miss-leading. I'm sure that if everyone in Texas, > or > the US for that matter had a choice about paying > taxes > they would decline (who knows?). But, we simply > don't > have choice in the matter. My partner has a > sticker > on her tub that says "Against abortion? Don't have > one." This i buy because the choice is up to me. > If I > think abortion is wrong...I should be able to > choose > not to pay for someone elces. > > Kylie > > GEORGE W. BUSH~RS ANTI-CHOICE RECORD > > George W. Bush signed 18 anti-choice provisions > into > law in the three > legislative sessions during which he was governor. > > Prohibiting the use of state family planning funds > to > pay the direct or > indirect costs of abortion procedures. This > provision > could be applied > to > prohibit family planning funding for organizations > that offer abortion > services -- HB 1. > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Send instant messages & get email alerts with > Yahoo! Messenger. > http://im.yahoo.com/ > > ---- End Original Message ---- > > Don't forget to visit http://www.pigpig.com/ and http://www.pigpig.net/ > ____________________________________________________________ > Get your 100MB FREE Internet storage! Sign up now - > http://www.netdrive.com/?ao=zzn -- Joel D. Rollins, PhD Director of Debating Director, UTNIF Jesse Jones Communication Center, CMA 7.114 The University of Texas at Austin Austin, TX 78712 email: jd.rollins at mail.utexas.edu UTNIF Web site: http://www.utexas.edu/coc/speech/debate/adi.html or http://utdebate.tripod.com/adi.htm From jasonph Sat May 6 10:30:04 2000 From: jasonph (Jason Hernandez) Date: Sat, 6 May 2000 11:30:04 -0400 Subject: DCA Debater of the Year Steve Donald Message-ID: By Kelly Steele produced in collaboration with Will Repko --------------------------------------------------------- The son of a sharecropper-turned-magician, Steve Donald burst onto the debate scene as a frosh at Broken Arrow High School (outside of Tulsa). The star pupil of Eli Holloway, Steve's silver tongue quickly made him a force to be reckoned with in the highly competitive switch-side Novice divisions of Western Oklahoma. To this day, Steve still credits Eli for helping him cultivate a deep understanding of critical arguments -- as well as a keen sense of fashion. Steve began his college career at the University of Central Oklahoma. Immediately, he found success. His first year ended on a high note -- he received a speaker award at CEDA nationals. Steve looks back upon this award with fondness -- as he was unable to duplicate the task during his senior campaign. His second year at UCO continued to illustrate his improvement. Steve partnered with Jason Russell to win the Emporia tourney and advance to the quarters of CEDA Nationals. Along the way, they repeatedly defeated the Kansas combo of Eber-McKeehan -- soiling the Jayhawk's chances for success with an inner force so powerful that it simply could not be held back. (For those non-"elites" reading to whom this reference makes no sense, Steve shit his pants in this debate and shelved the cleanup for over an hour.) Eat it Bear. After his sophomore season, Steve transferred to MSU -- where he debated for 3 seasons (twice extending his eligibility). After a double-octafinal douching in his first campaign, Steve returned to debate with aspiring fashion model Aaron Monick. While Monick's melon seems to have scuttled the success of his modeling career, the soon-to-be highly successful partnership took off. Together, they advanced as the top seed at the Kentucky tourney, received a first round bid to the NDT, and went 1-5 at the Redlands Round Robin. As "juniors" they ended their season with a hotstreak -- by going undefeated at CEDA Nationals (losing in the semifinals), and advancing as the 2nd seed at the NDT (dropping in the quarters). Determined to return and lose in as many final rounds as possible, Steve braced himself for his second senior year. *(A special shout out to Paul Newman seems in order here. You go girl.) In his final campaign, Steve had a steady first semester -- but will likely be best remembered for a strong second semester. Every stop in Y2K had some noteworthy recognition attached. At Redlands, he won his pod (with a special thanks to Michigan's Cannon/Oden combo -- a hitherto non-entity college debate.) He also watched Jason Russell hit on the wife of a random drifter in the hotel bar. He was later found mumbling something about "fucking Russell" and his "lucky ass" having "seen her first" on the way to phone Cambridge, er, Manhattan, er, Cambridge (we think.) At West Georgia, he advanced to the final round -- and was later found stumbling around Carrolton mumbling random goo about "genderificness." At Dartmouth, he was the top speaker -- and got piss drunk (details were sketchy here.) Northwestern saw Steve advance to the finals-- he also contracted a rash (Russell was not so prominent a force at the hotel bar in Evanston.) At Heart, he won top speaker and advanced as the top seed. Steve ended the season "like butta" as he and Monick finished on a roll at the two national tournaments. They became the first team to advance to the final round of both CEDA Nationals and The NDT. Individually, Steve was awarded second speaker honors there and his storied debate career came to a close. Although not the title that MSU had sought, the runner-runner finals appearances were demonstrative of the consistent strength of this team. For those of you who know Steve well, it is no surprise that he was chosen by his peers for this award. He was truly one of those debaters for whom, if you weren't competing against him, you always found yourself rooting. Steve is a great friend and a great guy who was a great talent in this activity. Congrats to a truly deserving inaugural DCA champion. >From Sat May 6 11:40:41 2000 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 3081 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Sat, 6 May 2000 11:41:18 -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 LAA16494 for ; Sat, 6 May 2000 11:41:17 -0400 Received: from CoopDB8 at aol.com by imo-d05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v26.7.) id b.e4.48d053f (3315); Sat, 6 May 2000 11:40:42 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 106 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 6 May 2000 11:40:41 EDT Reply-To: CoopDB8 at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: The Coop Subject: Re: Re more on the amazing George W. Comments: To: ghoser777 at privacyx.com Matt from FL writes: << Ultimately, at least I believe, and I very well can be wrong, that all acts that violate the personal freedoms of other individuals should be outlawed - few more, no less. So prostitution and drug use probably should be legalized... but abortion is different. Abortion should be legal iff (if and only if, for you non-math geeks out there) the preborn is not a human. >> Here's my problem...the state may do a lot of other (harmful, no doubt) things...but it, at the very minimum, should fulfill one fundamental function...to protect us from a "state of nature" in which the strong can dominate (and kill) the weak. I don't know if the fetus is a human being endowed with autonomy or not. And neither do you. And neither does "the state." And neither does the medical community. What we DO know is that it has the POTENTIAL to be human (and thus have autonomy). Thus it has a POTENTIAL interest in being protected by the state. So, given this awkward situation, how should the state err? Most pro-choice advocates say, "Exactly...that's why it should be the choice of the mother...because she has the most direct interest." Well...here's my beef (sorry Corndog) with that: If the state ALLOWS the abortion of the fetus with POTENTIAL autonomy, aren't we allowing the state to make the assumption of when life begins...and hence when WE (the citizens) are endowed with all the rights of humanity? The state has determined that those rights don't start until IT says so. That seems a little backwards to me. Shouldn't it be, instead, that we have that autonomy and we only choose to allow the state to limit it when we say so? The power rests with US...not the state. So...when in doubt (and we all are)...which way do we err? I think the most LIBERAL response is to say that we limit the states's ability to restrict autonomy as much as possible. POTENTIAL human beings should be afforded all the rights of humanity until proven otherwise...not the other way around. I'll be the first to admit that this position is not a comfortable one for me. I recognize that I will (probably) never have to deal with this issue personally. I also recognize the utilitarian costs associated with restricting access to a procedure that many womyn (wymn, womin, wimmen...whatever) will choose anyway, and in ways that will harm them and their fetuses. But...those issues stem from "intervening actors." We can't let our moral choices be held hostage by those who will claim to do immoral action because of them. A WHOLE CAN O WORMS, I know... COOP From jasonph Sat May 6 10:41:40 2000 From: jasonph (Jason Hernandez) Date: Sat, 6 May 2000 11:41:40 -0400 Subject: DCA Some final thoughts Message-ID: The race for the DCA debater of the year was close. Scoring went as follows: a rank of one was worth 3 points, a rank of two worth two points and a rank of three worth one point. Donald had 88 points and Ryan had 81. Amazingly Ryan, Donald and Ghali all received 16 first place votes. The difference was primarily made-up in the second place votes. Out of 91 ballots Steve Donald appeared on a mind-blowing 47 ballots. Thanks for participating and for the many supportive emails from debaters and coaches. If anyone has a suggestion for some new categories you should email me your thoughts. We'll do it again next year hopefully with many more debaters voting. Signing off, Jason Hernandez From hello_katie Sat May 6 12:46:14 2000 From: hello_katie (Katie Kat) Date: Sat, 6 May 2000 12:46:14 -0500 Subject: more george stuff.. Message-ID: First of all, I don't see how you can be so certain that womyn's deaths and infanticide/ abandonment are only in a "minority of cases". The numbers are staggering, but they are also a gross underestimate, because of course, many cases simply don't get reported. No one's walking around saying, "Hey Gallup, guess who I know that just died of an illegal abortion?!" Doubtful. And that presumes that the cause of the womyn's death is even ascertained. In additon, how many womyn die is irrelevant to me: one death is too many. And here's the thing: whether you like it or not, whether it's a "positive" right or a "negative" right, whether the constitution really carved out space for abortion or not, the Supreme Court recognized abortion as a right, and in this country it is. My arguments about inveitability are not that because abortion is inevitable, womyn have a right to it, but rather, that because abortion is ineveitable and illegal abortions are very often dangerous, abortion ought to be safe and available legally. I don't have to make arguments to justify abortion as a right...Harry Blackmun already did that for me. In addition, I agree that womyn should be made aware of all their options. But that doesn't mean that if a womyn makes up her mind to have the abortion, we should try to dissuade her or assume she isn't competent or moral enough to make the best decision for herself and the "potential life". 1/3 of womyn in the U.S. who have abortions do so so that people won't know they had sex...I don't see how offering them adoption as an alternative solves their dillemma of shame. And I think we should afford credit to womyn who have abortions: it's not an easy or fun procedure, it's one that requires careful thought and consideration. There are womyn who came to Planned Parenthood and TARAL as indigent crack addicts who lived with abusive boyfriends or husbands, and they had the procedure because they felt the only thing they would have to offer that "potential life" was a life as a poor, abused, crack baby. To me, that reflects great concern for the welfare of that "potential life". Is it really fair to bring a child into the world, only to have it die or experience severe health complications, followed by a life of malnourishment and abuse? Yes, you can say, "well she should get off drugs and leave the boyfriend and get a job." But it's not that simple. And it's so much easier to tell someone to do that than to be in that situation. Suppose she doesn't have anywhere to go? Suppose she's a battered womyn and has been taught that she's worthless and desereves to be beaten? Suppose she's tried to get a job and can't? Suppose she can't pay for rehab and doesn't have insurance? Add in to this equation a few statistics:less than 1% of federal anti-drug money is aimed at pregnant womyn and 2/ 3rds of all U.S. hospitals have NOWHERE to refer pregnant, drug-addicted womyn. Oh, you'll also have to add in the 2-year welfare cap with the $800 a month maximum benefits. Finally, consider the plight of a battered womyn. 4.6 million womyn are battered annually in the U.S. And the top two reasons why womyn don't "just leave" are: fear and lack of financial independence. Is it any wonder, then, why this womyn would have made that choice? And can we really say that she didn't make a choice to the best of her ability in good conscience and with a desire to do what was best for that "potential life"? And don't fool yourself...the womyn i have just described is not "the exception". She may be in the minority, but she is not a small minority, and she is not someone that we should ignore. -Katie ---- Begin Original Message ---- From: kylie robertson Sent: Sat, 6 May 2000 00:00:32 -0700 To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU Subject: more george stuff.. I also respect your concern and that you have done your homework on the matter. I think that my position is that there are so many abortions in this county every day, and abortion is seen as an only option. There are lots of other options that are available. I know that abortion is inevitable, because I do not think the political climate will change a great deal with either Bush or Gore and Abortion may not even be an issue during the presidency. Just because abortion is inevitable, does not mean that it is right. Abortion allows us to make a decision about another human being with out, hearing from them at all. It is a decision of ultimate exclusion. I know there are always acceptions to the rule, like your examples of mothers who kill them selves accidentally or who purposefully kill the baby once it has been borne, but these are acceptions and not the norm, would poeple like that take advantage of free abortions, i don't know. You are also right about dying outweighing the emotional scars that come with abortion, but remember again that these are the minority of cases and that someone dies every time an abortion occurs, just because the baby is not visible to us does not take away their personhood. Kylie I respect very much that you've heard stories about bad personal experiences with abortion. i've heard alot of stories about womyn who have to go through pregnancies because they didn't have the money for an abortion, so they abandoned or killed their baby after it was born. And when I say I've heard, I don't mean I read in the newspaper. In addition, I don't think your concern answers my argument which is: abortion is inevitable and if we don't cover the procedure, womyn and their fetuses will DIE in attempts to have the procedure done illegally. I think dying is probably a lot worse of a tragedy than the "emotional damage" that results from a safe and legal procedure. -Katie __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com/ ---- End Original Message ---- Katie Hatziavramidis K-State Debate Don't forget to visit http://www.pigpig.com/ and http://www.pigpig.net/ ____________________________________________________________ Get your 100MB FREE Internet storage! Sign up now - http://www.netdrive.com/?ao=zzn From db8coach Sat May 6 19:38:22 2000 From: db8coach (db8coach) Date: Sat, 6 May 2000 17:38:22 -0700 Subject: more george stuff.. Message-ID: >>>>>>>>>> the view that abortion is immoral is tricky and touchy at best, and is essentially rooted in a judeo-christian notion that life is inherently valuable, >>>>>>>>>> Then that would be the reason murder is immoral and illegal? I think it may go a bit deeper than that. I am not sure why there is such controversy over whether or not a fetus is a living human being. The LEGAL definition for death (the ceasation of life) is the absence of brainwaves. So, whether the fetus/child is in the womb or not, if there are brainwaves, it is a LIVING entity. Any abortion which occurs after brainwaves begin is ending a human life. So the debate is really about whether or not we want to protect lives. Peace, Bob Lechtreck Bakersfield College "Putting out fires, and damn good debaters." From hello_katie Sat May 6 20:06:22 2000 From: hello_katie (Katie Kat) Date: Sat, 6 May 2000 20:06:22 -0500 Subject: more george stuff.. Message-ID: I'm not sure the debate is so simple as "do we want to protect lives" for a couple of reasons: (1) There is a huge debate over when brainwaves actually can be detected. Many scientists say that brainwaves occur at between 23-24 weeks. If this information is accurate, that's six months. Interestingly, Roe V. Wade would account for this, because after the sixth month, the abortion is third trimester, and the law is written in such a way as to privilege the fetus over the womyn at such a point. (2) It's not simply as black and white as whether or not we care about lives, but whose lives we care about and how many lives we can protect. That is, if a womyn is dead set on having an abortion and would do it illegally if she had to, obvioudly, the illegal procedure endangers the very life in question: the fetus AS WELL AS the womyn's life. Ultimately, it's a very messy debate, because there's not a consensus in the scientific community, nor can we assure ourselves that making abortion illegal will actually protect anyone's life in practice. Respectfully, Katie ---- Begin Original Message ---- From: db8coach Sent: Sat, 6 May 2000 17:38:22 -0700 To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU Subject: Re: more george stuff.. >>>>>>>>>> the view that abortion is immoral is tricky and touchy at best, and is essentially rooted in a judeo-christian notion that life is inherently valuable, >>>>>>>>>> Then that would be the reason murder is immoral and illegal? I think it may go a bit deeper than that. I am not sure why there is such controversy over whether or not a fetus is a living human being. The LEGAL definition for death (the ceasation of life) is the absence of brainwaves. So, whether the fetus/child is in the womb or not, if there are brainwaves, it is a LIVING entity. Any abortion which occurs after brainwaves begin is ending a human life. So the debate is really about whether or not we want to protect lives. Peace, Bob Lechtreck Bakersfield College "Putting out fires, and damn good debaters." ---- End Original Message ---- Don't forget to visit http://www.pigpig.com/ and http://www.pigpig.net/ ____________________________________________________________ Get your 100MB FREE Internet storage! Sign up now - http://www.netdrive.com/?ao=zzn >From Sat May 6 20:15:53 2000 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 5358 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Sat, 6 May 2000 21:37:58 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from privacyx.com ([209.17.188.34]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA31112 for ; Sat, 6 May 2000 21:37:57 -0400 Received: (qmail 28993 invoked by uid 1009); 7 May 2000 01:41:42 -0000 Received: Identities Changed to Protect the Innocent X-Mailer: Privacyx.com Anonymous Certificate Authority X-Accept-Language: en,pdf Mime-Version: 1.0 References: PrivacyX-151274023-16706 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: PrivacyX-181274138-28904 Date: Sat, 6 May 2000 20:15:53 -0500 Reply-To: ghoser777 at privacyx.com To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Matt Fahrenbacher Organization: UIUC Subject: Re Re more on the amazing George W. Comments: To: Daniel Hugh Nexon I'm not saying we shouldn't use laws as deterrents, just that it shouldn't be the only reason. Should the federal government be allowed to shoot random criminals to "make examples out of them?" Uhmm... I think we'd all say no. Even if a criminal might kill again if he is not executed, we know not whether the criminal will kill again, or if the criminal killed in the first place. So, the federal government could execute innocent people; and this procedure might even deter crime. Supposedly. Or maybe crime decreased on its own. But we'll never really know. All we can ever know is if the government killed the criminal... Therefore, the law must be moral, because its effects are probabilistic at best. If all of you out there want to play games about what is the most moral outcome, go ahead... But these debates have no closure. So, once again, the abortion debate boils down to whether the preborn is a human or not. Oh well. Just opening myself up for attacks. Matt U of I Daniel Hugh Nexon wrote: > On Fri, 5 May 2000, Matt Fahrenbacher wrote: > > The reasoning herer is simply bizarre. There is a perfectly long and > respectable tradition which holds we make things illegal in order to > deter > people from engaging in them, and that the utility of a law in terms > of > how well it brings about its "moral" or other ends is central to how > we > evaluate it. > > > > Makes sense. "Against robbery? Don't rob." Hmmm... is the illogic > just > > painfully obvious? The whole abortion debate boils down to whether > the > > preborn/fetus (whatever u want to call "it") is a human being. All > other > > arguments about whether making abortion illegal would increase > abortions > > if irrelevant - we enact moral laws because they are moral, not > because > > they are utilitarianly justified. If not, then all moral laws > (murder, > > robbery, assault, etc.) could be struck down. Rape isn't illegal > > because we think making it illegal will decrease the number of > rapes, > > but instead that we as a society believe that rape should not be > > tolerated. Ultimately, at least I believe, and I very well can be > > wrong, that all acts that violate the personal freedoms of other > > individuals should be outlawed - few more, no less. So prostitution > and > > drug use probably should be legalized... but abortion is different. > > Abortion should be legal iff (if and only if, for you non-math geeks > out > > there) the preborn is not a human. Oh, and someone mentioned how > the > > abortion rate in Brazil is three times what it is in the US... which > is > > not just an abstract fact. Brazil has several different social > > differences (one major one: it's not as developed). > > And that should matter, why? Its also overwhelmingly Catholic, which > should mitigate against the number of abortions. > > > Regards, Dan | Columbia Political Science | www.columbia.edu/~dhn2 > "Evolution is to allegory as statues are to birdshit. It is a > convenient > platform upon which to deposit badly digested ideas." --Steve Jones, > NYRB, > July 17, 1997, p. 39 > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > Link is external to the Privacyx.com System > From db8coach Sat May 6 20:33:31 2000 From: db8coach (db8coach) Date: Sat, 6 May 2000 18:33:31 -0700 Subject: Re more on the amazing George W. Message-ID: >>>>>>>>>> The abortion rate, since Roe v. Wade, increased slightly initially, decreased dramatically shortly thereafter, and has reamained constant ever since. >>>>>>>>>> Hmmmm, according to the CDC, abortion rates at the time of Roe v. Wade were 5 for every 1,000 womyn of childbearing age (15-44). Today, there are 20 for every 1,000. My math tells me that is quadruple the rate. Peace, Bob Lechtreck Bakersfield College "Putting out fires, and damn good debaters." >From Sat May 6 21:09:34 2000 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 5582 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Sat, 6 May 2000 22:09:39 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from mailhost.netdot.com (tbredrad.netdot.com [206.50.22.9] (may be forged)) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA33410 for ; Sat, 6 May 2000 22:09:37 -0400 Received: from [209.39.34.32] [209.39.34.32] by mailhost.netdot.com with ESMTP (SMTPD32-6.00) id A0625B2000EA; Sat, 06 May 2000 21:09:38 -0500 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express Macintosh Edition - 4.5 (0410) Mime-version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <20000506210967.SM00542@[209.39.34.32]> Date: Sat, 6 May 2000 21:09:34 -0500 Reply-To: doyle at netdot.com, dsrader at sfasu.edu To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Doyle Srader Subject: Tell us the other part, Bob. Tell us that according to that same CDC report, abortions fell by 15% from the early to mid 90s. And while we're putting numbers in perspective, would you have us believe that prior to Roe v. Wade there were no back-alley abortions? Or that if there were, the number stayed just as high afterward? Or do you want to take a swing at defending the idea that shifting from unsafe, unsanitary, potentially lethal abortions to safe ones in clinics done by doctors is a BAD thing? Doyle Srader Lecturer, Speech Communication Stephen F. Austin State University http://www.netdot.com/doyle/ "Good teaching is one-fourth preparation and three-fourths theater." -- Gail Godwin From db8coach Sat May 6 23:13:54 2000 From: db8coach (db8coach) Date: Sat, 6 May 2000 21:13:54 -0700 Subject: Answer Doyle Message-ID: >>>>>>>>>> Tell us the other part, Bob. Tell us that according to that same CDC report, abortions fell by 15% from the early to mid 90s. >>>>>>>>>> The actual number have risen and fallen. So, coincidentally have numbers of births, as well as other factors. The number I quoted showed just the rate of abortions compared to the number of womyn of child bearing age. I think this would seem to be the better numbers for determining the rate. >>>>>>>>>> And while we're putting numbers in perspective, would you have us believe that prior to Roe v. Wade there were no back-alley abortions? Or that if there were, the number stayed just as high afterward? >>>>>>>>>> No, did I give some indication that I would? Are you setting up the straw-person for a reason? The CDC numbers were taken at that time immediately before and for a short time afterward. There is no indication that the numbers did not take that "magical" figure of unreported abortions. >>>>>>>>>> Or do you want to take a swing at defending the idea that shifting from unsafe, unsanitary, potentially lethal abortions to safe ones in clinics done by doctors is a BAD thing? >>>>>>>>>> I hadn't planned on it. Would you like to take a stab at defending the fact that babies killed (after brainwaves begin) just for the sake of a convenient form of retroactive birth control is a GOOD thing? Why should either of us have to defend these things? Peace, Bob Lechtreck Bakersfield College "Putting out fires, and damn good debaters." From jangat Sat May 6 23:46:55 2000 From: jangat (Jomel J. Angat) Date: Sun, 7 May 2000 00:46:55 -0400 Subject: CPA Invitation to UN Women's Conference Forum Message-ID: Debate community-- On behalf of the Center for Policy Alternatives I am extending an invitation to the Economic Empowerment Issue Forum at the UN. I am working with Ambassador Linda Tarr-Whelan at the CPA. Linda is the US Ambassador to the UN Commission on the Status of Women. After speaking with her at great lengths, she is very interested in debate and the community. I have told her much about the debate community and she wanted me to extend an invitation. Here's all the relevant information, if you are interested: If you are also looking for a job in DC, be sure to check out CPA at www.stateaction.org You can also register for Beijing +5 at: http://www.stateaction.org/programs/women/international/beijing/registration.cfm Beijing Plus Five Overview In Summer 2000, the United Nations and heads of State from its member governments will join together in an effort to assess progress in implementation of the Platform for Action (PFA). The Platform for Action, ratified at the 1995 Fourth World Conference on Women, requested governments to take action in 12 critical areas of concern. This session will afford women throughout the world an opportunity to hold their governments accountable. The Beijing Plus Five Special Session, officially known as Women 2000: Gender Equality Development and Peace for the Twenty-First Century, will take place June 5-9, 2000 at the United Nations headquarters in New York. In many countries around the world from the United States to Uganda, NGO's have strengthened their influence by forming national coalitions around the strategic objectives in the PFA. The United States, with the upcoming presidential elections, has an unprecedented opportunity to amplify and leverage women's voices and leadership in the domestic and international policy arenas. It will be a chance to define the national agenda by identifying issues and strategies that connect the global and domestic agendas. CPA's Action Plan for Beijing Plus Five Given CPA's expertise as a convener of diverse voices and its strong links with both national organizations and grassroots organizations and activists across the country, it is uniquely positioned to amplify the voices of women from diverse backgrounds around Beijing Plus Five and the implementation of the Platform for Action. In addition, CPA is an active participant in U.S. Women Connect, a new national NGO formed to ensure implementation of the U.S. Platform for Action, as well as a member of the Steering Committee for the U.S. Host Committee for Beijing Plus Five. In all of these roles, CPA is committed to ensuring substantive NGO participation in Beijing Plus Five, in order to take maximum advantage of this incredible window of opportunity. The work of the many talented and experienced NGO leaders at Beijing Plus Five must not end with the close of the U.N. session in June 2000. Through CPA's bi-partisan network of state elected and community leaders, we will continue to address the priorities raised in the Platform for Action and Beijing Plus Five. Economic Empowerment Issue Forum: Leverage CPA's Domestic Networks and Economic Agenda Framework In partnership with the Ms. Foundation and the AFL-CIO, CPA is organizing the NGO Issue Forum on Economic Empowerment to take place during Beijing Plus Five June 5-9, 2000. This forum will focus on strategies to ensure economic self-sufficiency for women, such as access to credit and skills training for micro-enterprise, equal pay and retirement security. The forum will combine plenary sessions, workshops and panel discussions to maximize the expertise and contributions of the speakers and participants. It will give NGO leaders from around the world the opportunity to discuss the issues, share strategies and lessons learned, network, and design creative solutions to complex and controversial issues. Increasing access to economic opportunity for women and the tools necessary to succeed is critical to advancing women's rights around the world. Following the Forum, CPA will work to support a broad network of local, regional, state, national and international leaders to maintain the momentum and facilitate the sharing of ideas and models in economic empowerment for women and related issues. Platform for Action: 12 Critical Areas of Concern The Platform for Action laid out 12 "critical areas of concern" for countries seeking to improve the status of women. Participating countries selected goals from a menu of 12 priorities as follows: 1.. Poverty: Modify macroeconomic and social policies to ensure women's advancement. 2.. Education: Ensure that at least 80 percent of children complete their primary education by 2000; close the gap in primary and secondary education by 2005. 3.. Health: Provide women with more accessible and more affordable health care including reproductive service; reduce maternal mortality by at least 50 percent from 1990 levels. 4.. Violence: Adopt and implement legislation to end violence against women. 5.. Armed Conflict: Convert military resources to peaceful purposes; work to ratify international agreements that prohibit or restrict use of land mines. 6.. Economic structures: Guarantee the right of women to equal pay for equal work; remedy work-related problems such as sexual harassment, lack of affordable child care and inflexible work hours. 7.. Power-sharing: Commit to the goal of gender balance in all government bodies and political parties, and in delegations to the UN and other international forums. 8.. Institutional mechanisms: Promote the advancement of women through policy analysis and statistics. 9.. Human rights: Advocate equality and nondiscrimination under the law and promote "legal literacy" for women; support the UN Convention on the Elimination of All forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) with no reservations; [163] countries have signed CEDAW to date. 10.. Media: Encourage the media to create nonstereotypical, balanced and diverse images of women; develop self-regulatory guidelines to address violent, degrading and pornographic materials. 11.. Environment: Provide women with full and equal participation in control over resources; ensure participation for rural women in environmental management programs. 12.. The girl-child: Enact laws to ensure that marriage is entered into only with free and full consent; abolish traditional practices that are harmful to girls- e.g., female mutilation, female infanticide, discrimination against girls in food allocation. United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) CEDAW is one of the key commitments of the Administration in implementing the U.S. Platform for Action. An active participant in the drafting of the Convention, which 163 nations have ratified, the U.S. has failed to generate the support necessary for Senate ratification. As we struggle to maintain the U.S. voice in the U.N. and particularly in the Commission on the Status of Women, the U.S.' failure to ratify CEDAW continually lowers our credibility and hinders much of our work to advance women's rights around the world. As CPA has known for over 20 years, the action is at the state level. The bulk of social and micro-economic issues are being decided in the states, which are incubators for new approaches and policies. In 1998, state legislatures considered 156,231 bills and enacted 25 percent of them, 75 times more laws than the U.S. Congress. And with CEDAW, the trend is the same. While the Convention languishes in the Senate, 10 states, 9 counties and 9 cities have enacted CEDAW resolutions, with many more considering similar legislation. CPA is committed to supporting the introduction of progressive legislation that addresses the needs of women and families. To that end, we have compiled and developed model legislation, best practices, data and other tools to aid state legislators and community activists in their work. At the National Conference of State Legislatures' annual meeting this past July, we hosted a panel session on the connection of the global and domestic agendas, new approaches to family and work, and women's entrepreneurship. This forum was an excellent opportunity to generate discussion on CEDAW resolutions and similar legislation. For more information regarding CEDAW, please contact Ericka Hines at (202) 387-6030. --Jomel J. Angat Communications Research Associate Center for Policy Alternatives 1875 Connecticut Ave, NW Suite 750 Washington DC 20009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20000507/81524ca1/attachment.html From apagan Sun May 7 00:29:22 2000 From: apagan (Anthony Pagan) Date: Sun, 7 May 2000 01:29:22 -0400 Subject: No subject Message-ID: I think the community should decide on a geographical region to debate instead of specifying countries to engage. The benefit of a geographically determined area is that it allows us to include segments of societies split by state borders. If I am going to debate about Sierra Leone this year I want to be able to deal with their large rebel forces in Liberia, by specifying certain nations we risk excluding critical parts of the community we may wish to discuss. Sierra Leone may be a bad example considering their recent attention, but it was a lack of attention that motivated rebels in Sierra Leone to first attack Freetown. If we word are resolution such a way that it does not respect these connections we risk excluding segment of societies from are discussions that have been ignored to long. >From Sun May 7 11:08:02 2000 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 1876 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Sun, 7 May 2000 11:08:36 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo21.mx.aol.com (imo21.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.65]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA17176 for ; Sun, 7 May 2000 11:08:35 -0400 Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo21.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v26.7.) id a.1e.4e7c7ac (4197); Sun, 7 May 2000 11:08:02 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 105 Message-ID: <1e.4e7c7ac.2646e0d2 at aol.com> Date: Sun, 7 May 2000 11:08:02 EDT Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Michael Bear Bryant Subject: Re: DCA Debater of the Year Steve Donald Comments: To: jasonph at umich.edu In a message dated 5/6/00 9:33:26 AM Mountain Daylight Time, jasonph at UMICH.EDU writes: > (For those > non-"elites" reading to whom this reference makes no sense, Steve shit his > pants in this debate and shelved the cleanup for over an hour.) Eat it > Bear. Such a hearty sense of humor from the sexists of both sexes managing to escape MSU. Eat this, Repko. Bear From parcherj Sun May 7 13:53:57 2000 From: parcherj (Jeff Parcher) Date: Sun, 7 May 2000 14:53:57 -0400 Subject: Liberal Args and Abortion References: Message-ID: > I don't know if the fetus is a human being endowed with autonomy or not. And > neither do you. And neither does "the state." And neither does the medical > community. What we DO know is that it has the POTENTIAL to be human (and > thus have autonomy). Thus it has a POTENTIAL interest in being protected by > the state. Potential autonomy is fairly meaningless. All fertile men and women can produce potentially autonomous human being under the right circumstances. Does that mean we should view fertile individuals as slaves to the state interest in potential autonomy? The kind of logic you use serves the illiberal project that justified Margaret Atwood's disutopia in A Handmaid's Tale. Every egg is a potential autonomous person - can the state enslave women to protect the egg? If that's not realistic enough for you, how about conservative attempts to confine pregnant drug using mother's to prison in service of potential autonomy or AMA proposals for the state to ban smoking by pregnant mothers. Where's the line - once we are viewed as vessels for an equal autonomy the state can justify almost any regulation in service to potential fetuses. The answer is not to sacrifice completely the interest of potential autonomy, but to recognize that it pales in comparison to actual autonomy. > So, given this awkward situation, how should the state err? Most pro-choice > advocates say, "Exactly...that's why it should be the choice of the > mother...because she has the most direct interest." Well...here's my beef > (sorry Corndog) with that: If the state ALLOWS the abortion of the fetus > with POTENTIAL autonomy, aren't we allowing the state to make the assumption > of when life begins...and hence when WE (the citizens) are endowed with all > the rights of humanity? The state has determined that those rights don't > start until IT says so. That seems a little backwards to me. Shouldn't it > be, instead, that we have that autonomy and we only choose to allow the state > to limit it when we say so? The power rests with US...not the state. The state does not need to err - it needs to protect actual autonomy. The only actual autonomy at stake is the reproductive freedom of the living known individual. Pregnancy carries a higher risk of death than legal abortion (if someone desputes this I would be happy to fetch a few cards). Protecting the fetus in effect enslaves the mother to serve the interest of the state and to risk her own death for that cause. How can one say that a potential autonomy interest which can't be determined justifies this type of state intervention? Your position baffles me, unless you somehow are less certain about fetal personhood than you let on. A murder statute is not the same as an abortion statute. The abortion statute requires affirmative action from women. It requires her to carry the pregnancy to it's term. It compels the individual into service of a state interest. Moreover, it imposes upon all of us an answer to the question of when life begins. It removes that question from effective public choice and individual judgement under the guise of weighing risks. But, of course, it has decided for us that the probability is high enough to justify regulation - so it HAS made a judgement about the likilihood of the fetus being a person. > So...when in doubt (and we all are)...which way do we err? I think the most > LIBERAL response is to say that we limit the states's ability to restrict > autonomy as much as possible. POTENTIAL human beings should be afforded all > the rights of humanity until proven otherwise...not the other way around. No. Potentiality deserves to be discounted because it is uncertain, otherwise we must preserve all eggs and every individual sperm. We would also end up enslaving all current generations to future generations. All development would be banned, food rationed, etc, etc, even speech libeling future generations could be banned since your model gives them equal weight. > I'll be the first to admit that this position is not a comfortable one for > me. I recognize that I will (probably) never have to deal with this issue > personally. I also recognize the utilitarian costs associated with > restricting access to a procedure that many womyn (wymn, womin, > wimmen...whatever) will choose anyway, and in ways that will harm them and > their fetuses. But...those issues stem from "intervening actors." We can't > let our moral choices be held hostage by those who will claim to do immoral > action because of them. Utilitarian arguments do matter because the state's action of banning abortion is not apriori moral. It's simply a series of words on a piece of paper. It deserves no preeminent deontological status in the same way that the acts of an individual might. State action which is negative, which restrains others from acting must always be evaluated through utilitarianism. It is only when the state takes affirmative action that there is a question of deontological ethics. To clarify, think of it this way - there is a moral distinction between the states killing someone through the death penalty, war or sanctions as compared to the state failing to rescue unborn fetuses or starving children in India. What makes the former immoral is intrinsic to the act, what makes the latter immoral is only the result since there is an assumption that the state could either save the fetus or feed starving Indian's. Your conception of morality and potentiality not just allows the state to protect potential interests, but it would morally require it to intervene to protect ANY potential interest. What the hell kind of liberal system would that be? JP From gragerts Sun May 7 14:13:40 2000 From: gragerts (Sarah Gragert) Date: Sun, 7 May 2000 15:13:40 -0400 Subject: Re more on the amazing George W. Message-ID: On Fri, 5 May 2000 16:45:55 -0500, Matt Fahrenbacher wrote: > All other >arguments about whether making abortion illegal would increase abortions >if irrelevant - we enact moral laws because they are moral, not because >they are utilitarianly justified. If not, then all moral laws (murder, >robbery, assault, etc.) could be struck down. Rape isn't illegal >because we think making it illegal will decrease the number of rapes, >but instead that we as a society believe that rape should not be >tolerated. Ultimately, at least I believe, and I very well can be >wrong, that all acts that violate the personal freedoms of other >individuals should be outlawed - few more, no less. So prostitution and >drug use probably should be legalized... but abortion is different. This isn't analagous. All of the above mentioned laws involve an innocent victim and guilty party; i.e. there is a murderer and a victim. However, abortions are much more complicated. When a mother's life is in danger, or when she is a rape victim who has become pregnant, etc., just who is the victim? to look back at the murder example, it is not illegal for a "murderer" to kill someone in self-defense; likewise, it should not be illegal for a woman who's life is in danger. >From Sun May 7 14:38:56 2000 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 3020 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Sun, 7 May 2000 16:02:31 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from privacyx.com ([209.17.188.34]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA37820 for ; Sun, 7 May 2000 16:02:29 -0400 Received: (qmail 25738 invoked by uid 1009); 7 May 2000 20:06:22 -0000 Received: Identities Changed to Protect the Innocent X-Mailer: Privacyx.com Anonymous Certificate Authority X-Accept-Language: en,pdf Mime-Version: 1.0 References: PrivacyX-121280845-16742 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: PrivacyX-131280619-25658 Date: Sun, 7 May 2000 14:38:56 -0500 Reply-To: ghoser777 at privacyx.com To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Matt Fahrenbacher Organization: UIUC Subject: Re Liberal Args and Abortion Comments: To: Jeff Parcher I agree entirely with what you said Jeff... but I don't think autonomy should be the standard by which we consider human life. Why should we? I believe Kat mentioned that current laws says that a person is alive if it has brain waves - which begin around 6 months. So, all abortions after then should be illegal. Before then (including all unfertilized eggs and wandering sperm), abortion would be up to the woman, at least according to the law. If we follow the autonomy logic far enough back, we should all have a responsibility to fertilize as many eggs as possible because otherwise those lives are lost. So potential for life really is impossible to use as a standard to reject abortion, if only because it requires every woman to have her eggs removed and man to have his testicle removed so we can mass produce babies in labs. So autonomy is a bad standard for anti-abortion people to use. Maybe the brain waves counter standard is better, maybe there is a better standard not yet conceived. But potential autonomy vs real autonomy seems pretty clear cut. But, what about potential autonomy versus much discomfort? This argument has been completely overlooked. I haven't looked at the stats for a couple years, but I remember something about the majority of abortions (95%ish?) were not to save the life of the woman. So, in those circumstances (most of the time) it seems pretty clear that potential autonomy would outweigh a woman's discomfort. now, I really wish I was a woman, because now my mailbox is going to be clogged with emails about how I don't know the pains of child birth. And I don't. But for some reason, I have this feeling deep down that it's better for woman to have some discomfort (most of the time because of their own actions; most abortions are not to undo rape/incest... if my recollection is right) than to potentially doom millions of humans to death. Oh yeah, and I almost forgot this! It's really nasty, but true. Some abortions are very painful for the fetus. How so? Well, some abortion techniques use saline (salt) or a vacuum... which would hurt. It's like being burned to death or being torn to pieces in a tornado. And preborns at around 15 weeks (I think...) have nerves, so they can feel everything. That might put the whole pain thing in perspective... maybe... Oh well, isn't arguing about irresolvable conflicts fun! Next abortion argument anyone? Matt U of I Jeff Parcher wrote: > > I don't know if the fetus is a human being endowed with autonomy or > not. > And > > neither do you. And neither does "the state." And neither does > the > medical > > community. What we DO know is that it has the POTENTIAL to be human > (and > > thus have autonomy). Thus it has a POTENTIAL interest in being > protected > by > > the state. > > Potential autonomy is fairly meaningless. All fertile men and women > can > produce potentially autonomous human being under the right > circumstances. > Does that mean we should view fertile individuals as slaves to the > state > interest in potential autonomy? The kind of logic you use serves the > illiberal project that justified Margaret Atwood's disutopia in A > Handmaid's > Tale. Every egg is a potential autonomous person - can the state > enslave > women to protect the egg? If that's not realistic enough for you, how > about > conservative attempts to confine pregnant drug using mother's to > prison in > service of potential autonomy or AMA proposals for the state to ban > smoking > by pregnant mothers. Where's the line - once we are viewed as vessels > for > an equal autonomy the state can justify almost any regulation in > service to > potential fetuses. > > The answer is not to sacrifice completely the interest of potential > autonomy, but to recognize that it pales in comparison to actual > autonomy. > > > So, given this awkward situation, how should the state err? Most > pro-choice > > advocates say, "Exactly...that's why it should be the choice of the > > mother...because she has the most direct interest." Well...here's > my beef > > (sorry Corndog) with that: If the state ALLOWS the abortion of the > fetus > > with POTENTIAL autonomy, aren't we allowing the state to make the > assumption > > of when life begins...and hence when WE (the citizens) are endowed > with > all > > the rights of humanity? The state has determined that those rights > don't > > start until IT says so. That seems a little backwards to me. > Shouldn't > it > > be, instead, that we have that autonomy and we only choose to allow > the > state > > to limit it when we say so? The power rests with US...not the > state. > > The state does not need to err - it needs to protect actual autonomy. > The > only actual autonomy at stake is the reproductive freedom of the > living > known individual. Pregnancy carries a higher risk of death than legal > abortion (if someone desputes this I would be happy to fetch a few > cards). > Protecting the fetus in effect enslaves the mother to serve the > interest of > the state and to risk her own death for that cause. How can one say > that a > potential autonomy interest which can't be determined justifies this > type of > state intervention? Your position baffles me, unless you somehow are > less > certain about fetal personhood than you let on. > > A murder statute is not the same as an abortion statute. The abortion > statute requires affirmative action from women. It requires her to > carry > the pregnancy to it's term. It compels the individual into service > of a > state interest. > > Moreover, it imposes upon all of us an answer to the question of when > life > begins. It removes that question from effective public choice and > individual judgement under the guise of weighing risks. But, of > course, it > has decided for us that the probability is high enough to justify > regulation - so it HAS made a judgement about the likilihood of the > fetus > being a person. > > > So...when in doubt (and we all are)...which way do we err? I think > the > most > > LIBERAL response is to say that we limit the states's ability to > restrict > > autonomy as much as possible. POTENTIAL human beings should be > afforded > all > > the rights of humanity until proven otherwise...not the other way > around. > > No. Potentiality deserves to be discounted because it is uncertain, > otherwise we must preserve all eggs and every individual sperm. We > would > also end up enslaving all current generations to future generations. > All > development would be banned, food rationed, etc, etc, even speech > libeling > future generations could be banned since your model gives them equal > weight. > > > I'll be the first to admit that this position is not a comfortable > one for > > me. I recognize that I will (probably) never have to deal with this > issue > > personally. I also recognize the utilitarian costs associated with > > restricting access to a procedure that many womyn (wymn, womin, > > wimmen...whatever) will choose anyway, and in ways that will harm > them and > > their fetuses. But...those issues stem from "intervening actors." > We > can't > > let our moral choices be held hostage by those who will claim to do > immoral > > action because of them. > > Utilitarian arguments do matter because the state's action of banning > abortion is not apriori moral. It's simply a series of words on a > piece of > paper. It deserves no preeminent deontological status in the same way > that > the acts of an individual might. State action which is negative, > which > restrains others from acting must always be evaluated through > utilitarianism. It is only when the state takes affirmative action > that > there is a question of deontological ethics. To clarify, think of it > this > way - there is a moral distinction between the states killing someone > through the death penalty, war or sanctions as compared to the state > failing > to rescue unborn fetuses or starving children in India. What makes > the > former immoral is intrinsic to the act, what makes the latter immoral > is > only the result since there is an assumption that the state could > either > save the fetus or feed starving Indian's. > > Your conception of morality and potentiality not just allows the state > to > protect potential interests, but it would morally require it to > intervene to > protect ANY potential interest. What the hell kind of liberal system > would > that be? > > JP > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > Link is external to the Privacyx.com System > >From Sun May 7 15:17:15 2000 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 3245 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Sun, 7 May 2000 16:38:57 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from privacyx.com ([209.17.188.34]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA36782 for ; Sun, 7 May 2000 16:38:56 -0400 Received: (qmail 17759 invoked by uid 1009); 7 May 2000 20:40:09 -0000 Received: Identities Changed to Protect the Innocent X-Mailer: Privacyx.com Anonymous Certificate Authority X-Accept-Language: en,pdf Mime-Version: 1.0 References: PrivacyX-131280915-19177 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: PrivacyX-131284007-17713 Date: Sun, 7 May 2000 15:17:15 -0500 Reply-To: ghoser777 at privacyx.com To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Matt Fahrenbacher Organization: UIUC Subject: Re Re more on the amazing George W. Comments: To: Sarah Gragert Right. I agree. I'm sorry I didn't mention that earlier. I do not believe we should allow women to die when abortions could save their lives. This is a minor exception though (if my memory of abortion stats serves me right). Most abortions are not for protecting a woman's life. Thanks for the correction, Matt U of I Sarah Gragert wrote: > On Fri, 5 May 2000 16:45:55 -0500, Matt Fahrenbacher > wrote: > > > All other > >arguments about whether making abortion illegal would increase > abortions > >if irrelevant - we enact moral laws because they are moral, not > because > >they are utilitarianly justified. If not, then all moral laws > (murder, > >robbery, assault, etc.) could be struck down. Rape isn't illegal > >because we think making it illegal will decrease the number of rapes, > >but instead that we as a society believe that rape should not be > >tolerated. Ultimately, at least I believe, and I very well can be > >wrong, that all acts that violate the personal freedoms of other > >individuals should be outlawed - few more, no less. So prostitution > and > >drug use probably should be legalized... but abortion is different. > > > This isn't analagous. All of the above mentioned laws involve an > innocent > victim and guilty party; i.e. there is a murderer and a victim. > However, > abortions are much more complicated. When a mother's life is in > danger, or > when she is a rape victim who has become pregnant, etc., just who is > the > victim? to look back at the murder example, it is not illegal for a > "murderer" to kill someone in self-defense; likewise, it should not be > illegal for a woman who's life is in danger. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > Link is external to the Privacyx.com System > From parcherj Sun May 7 16:47:06 2000 From: parcherj (Jeff Parcher) Date: Sun, 7 May 2000 17:47:06 -0400 Subject: Re Liberal Args and Abortion References: PrivacyX-121280845-16742 PrivacyX-131280619-25659 Message-ID: > I agree entirely with what you said Jeff... but I don't think autonomy > should be the standard by which we consider human life. Why should we? If autonomy isn't why we value human life then why do we? A very tough philosophical question. I think Kant/Singer/others have been most persuasive in defending the autonomous subject as the basis for morality. There are others, of course, but I would have a problem with any moral system which easily justifies state enslavement of women to achieve a state interest on which there is no scientific, moral, public or legal consensus. > I believe Kat mentioned that current laws says that a person is alive if > it has brain waves - which begin around 6 months. So, all abortions > after then should be illegal. Before then (including all unfertilized > eggs and wandering sperm), abortion would be up to the woman, at least > according to the law. If we follow the autonomy logic far enough back, > we should all have a responsibility to fertilize as many eggs as > possible because otherwise those lives are lost. So potential for life > really is impossible to use as a standard to reject abortion, if only > because it requires every woman to have her eggs removed and man to have > his testicle removed so we can mass produce babies in labs. So autonomy > is a bad standard for anti-abortion people to use. Maybe the brain > waves counter standard is better, maybe there is a better standard not > yet conceived. Some problems with brain waves as an argument: First, not yet a consensus - not all states have adopted a clear brain wave standard. Second, brain activity isn't the only significant difference between the fetus and a birthed person - why should we adopt a standard that pretends something that we know to be false. Third, it still doesn't answer the duty to rescue/slavery arguments - no person has a duty to rescue another whether they have brain waves or not. Fourth, we are not sure when brain waves begin in the fetus and that they have the same meaning as in adults. Fifth, brain waves can be measured in animals - but that doesn't mean we treat them like human beings. Clearly, being worthy of treatment as a person means something more than brain waves. > But potential autonomy vs real autonomy seems pretty clear cut. But, > what about potential autonomy versus much discomfort? This argument has > been completely overlooked. I haven't looked at the stats for a couple > years, but I remember something about the majority of abortions > (95%ish?) were not to save the life of the woman. Remember, all pregnancies impose much more significant health risks than abortions. In my view any abortion is justified as reducing the risks of life to the mother. >So, in those > circumstances (most of the time) it seems pretty clear that potential > autonomy would outweigh a woman's discomfort. now, I really wish I was > a woman, because now my mailbox is going to be clogged with emails about > how I don't know the pains of child birth. And I don't. But for some > reason, I have this feeling deep down that it's better for woman to have > some discomfort (most of the time because of their own actions; most > abortions are not to undo rape/incest... if my recollection is right) > than to potentially doom millions of humans to death. Unless you win that fetuses are lives, not just potential lives you have no basis for using language like "doom millions of human beings to death." You might as well speak of the greatest genocide of all time as male masturbation. How many trillions upon trillions of potential humans are doomed to horrible murders in bathrooms across America? Lend your voice to the call to outlaw masturbation and you might have a consistent argument on potentiality. Until then spare us the "millions of deaths" remarks. It doesn't seem at all clear to me that potential autonomy outweighs discomfort. Potential autonomy has future not present value. Terminating it in the present forfeaits little current value. So very little current value needs to be at stake to outweigh it. Also, the values here are extraordinairly indeterminate and hence seem exatly the type of interests that should be left to be balanced by individuals themselves. Who are you to call the decision to terminate a pregnancy as a mere interest in avoiding discomfort? Pregancy has many potential costs, including one's job, reputation, education and life. >Oh yeah, and I > almost forgot this! It's really nasty, but true. Some abortions are > very painful for the fetus. How so? Well, some abortion techniques use > saline (salt) or a vacuum... which would hurt. It's like being burned > to death or being torn to pieces in a tornado. And preborns at around > 15 weeks (I think...) have nerves, so they can feel everything. That > might put the whole pain thing in perspective... maybe... Oh well, > isn't arguing about irresolvable conflicts fun! Too bad that you didn't forget them. 1. The 15 weeks arguments is clearly wrong. The 1997 Royal College of Gynecologists report which reviewed all known data concluded that it was IMPOSSIIBLE for a foetus of less than 26 weeks' gestation to be aware of unpleasant experiences because its nervous system is not developed enough. Over 90% of abortions occur before that time. 2. Studies concerning pain after that time are still VERY inconclusive. For one thing, it's hard to agree on measures of pain. For instance, many studies just measure heart rate, but of course it's entirely likely that the heart rate increases during stimuli for reasons other than pain. There is still considerable dispute as to whether new borns feel pain. It is now reccomended that anesthesia be used for procedures on new borns because of data showing it leads to superior outcomes on balance. However, it is as yet unclear if the reason is pain and many newborns illustrate very few classical indicators of pain even during procedures that would be very painful if done on an adult. 3. Your argument only justifies regulations on types of abortion in the same way that the FDA sets standards for other medical devices to reduce risk. 4. The pain argument can't be differentiated from the autonomy/potential life arguments. Why? Because childbirth is also painful. Is it more or less painful? We don't know, but the majority of evidence still points to the notion that an underdeveloped nervous system results in an underdeveloped sense of pain. 5. Let me ask you this. Are you a vegan? Do you use any products or medicines that have been tested on animals? If you really believe that pain is the key threshold for justifying government intrusions into autonomy, you could achieve much greater reductions in pain by supporting the elimination of animal testing/farming/utilization. This perhaps is a bit of a red herring, but it would be interesting to know if you truly believe your argument or merely use it to support a larger postion. 6. Regulating abortions (including outright bans) increases the average time it takes to get an abortion and hence increases the number of abortions which occur at a time when the fetus might feel pain. Reducing barriers to abortion increases the chance that an abortion will occur early and more safely. That, in the business, is what we call a turn. JP From db8coach Sun May 7 18:24:56 2000 From: db8coach (Bob Lechtreck) Date: Sun, 7 May 2000 16:24:56 -0700 Subject: Re Liberal Args and Abortion References: PrivacyX-121280845-16742 PrivacyX-131280619-25659 <008701bfb86d$cb1ec280$8255f7a5@jeffs> Message-ID: >>>>>>>>>> Some problems with brain waves as an argument: First, not yet a consensus - not all states have adopted a clear brain wave standard. >>>>>>>>>> It shouldn't matter what the states adopt. That is just legislative hand washing. If there are brain waves, then the being lives. >>>>>>>>>> Second, brain activity isn't the only significant difference between the fetus and a birthed person - why should we adopt a standard that pretends something that we know to be false. >>>>>>>>>> This makes no sense. Location is the only difference between a fetus and a birthed person. Is the unmbilical the key? Can we morally kill a baby after presentation as long as the umbilical is still attached? >>>>>>>>>> Third, it still doesn't answer the duty to rescue/slavery arguments - no person has a duty to rescue another whether they have brain waves or not. >>>>>>>>>> There is a difference between passivity and activity. In an abortion, there is an active movement to end the existence. This is very different from refusal to rescue. However, as long as you brought it up, where does the duty to "rescue" end. If a parent leaves their infant home alone for several day and that infant dies, can they claim they did not have a duty to rescue? >>>>>>>>>> Fourth, we are not sure when brain waves begin in the fetus and that they have the same meaning as in adults. >>>>>>>>>> Are we SURE? Nope, but we have some pretty good ideas when they begin. We also aren't sure that smoking is harmful (I have read the testimony of doctors who say it isn't), but we are not slow to legislate that. As for the same meaning, we also don't know that brain waves have the same meaning in a one day old, or a one week old, or a 30 week fetus. The medical definition of death is the ceasation of brain waves (does NOT take into consideration other factors like what meaning it has). The definition of life should be the beginning of brain waves. >>>>>>>>>> Fifth, brain waves can be measured in animals - but that doesn't mean we treat them like human beings. Clearly, being worthy of treatment as a person means something more than brain waves. >>>>>>>>>> Right, that would be the difference between a human and an animal. DUH!!! A human fetus with a brain wave IS human (just not fully developed), an animal with a brain wave is still an animal. So, are you saying that some people (for instance those more developed than others) are more deserving of rights? This is a road I fear going down. >>>>>>>>>> Remember, all pregnancies impose much more significant health risks than abortions. >>>>>>>>>> I guess that's true if we conveniently forget that there is another life involved (which is always lost in a post brain wave abortion). Funny how many people do just that. Peace, Bob Lechtreck Bakersfield College "Putting out fires and damn good debaters" From steelek Sun May 7 18:53:34 2000 From: steelek (Kelly Steele) Date: Sun, 7 May 2000 19:53:34 -0400 Subject: DCA Debater of the Year Steve Donald In-Reply-To: <1e.4e7c7ac.2646e0d2@aol.com> Message-ID: This makes no sense. Also, Repko was not responsible for that line -- I was. I hope you don't hold it against his teams. Oh wait, no one with a brain would ever let you find your way to the back of the room to judge their teams. Eat me. -KMS On Sun, 7 May 2000, Michael Bear Bryant wrote: > In a message dated 5/6/00 9:33:26 AM Mountain Daylight Time, > jasonph at UMICH.EDU writes: > > > (For those > > non-"elites" reading to whom this reference makes no sense, Steve shit his > > pants in this debate and shelved the cleanup for over an hour.) Eat it > > Bear. > > Such a hearty sense of humor from the sexists of both sexes managing to > escape MSU. > > Eat this, Repko. > > Bear > From parcherj Sun May 7 19:20:01 2000 From: parcherj (Jeff Parcher) Date: Sun, 7 May 2000 20:20:01 -0400 Subject: Re Liberal Args and Abortion References: PrivacyX-121280845-16742 PrivacyX-131280619-25659 <008701bfb86d$cb1ec280$8255f7a5@jeffs> <008301bfb87b$75fa7660$a901a5d1@Win98> Message-ID: > It shouldn't matter what the states adopt. That is just legislative hand > washing. If there are brain waves, then the being lives. Wrong. It shows there is no consensus on when life begins - a consensus that seems to be a minimally sufficient condition for the state to enslave women to it's purposes > This makes no sense. Location is the only difference between a fetus and a > birthed person. Is the unmbilical the key? Can we morally kill a baby after > presentation as long as the umbilical is still attached? The line at the birthed person (with graduations of state interest growing up to that moment) is somewhat arbitrary but it's a clearer line than brain waves which are difficult to measure in the fetus and which seem to begin at different points, which clouds it's usefulness as a regulatory marker. You haven't really answered my argument - in fact you basically concede on the animals debate later. A person is more than brain waves, so drawing a line on that one factor alone makes no sense. The line being drawn at birth is made for a diversity of reasons related to feeling of pain, independence from the mother, consciousness and, of course, society needs a marker to deter infanticide and birth has worked for quite a while now without leading us down the terrible slippery slope. > There is a difference between passivity and activity. In an abortion, there > is an active movement to end the existence. This is very different from > refusal to rescue. However, the state intervention to end that active movement enslaves the mother to pregancy. It condemns her to serve as surrogate for the state's child. It uses her to achieve a rescue of the child. So in actuality it is exactly like a duty to rescue. > However, as long as you brought it up, where does the duty to "rescue" end. > If a parent leaves their infant home alone for several day and that infant > dies, can they claim they did not have a duty to rescue? In a world where abortion is legal, there is no defense to this type of child abuse because the couple has chosen to continue the pregnancy. Having made that choice a couple takes on certain legal obligations. They are rather minimal and do not intrude on autonomy in the way that forced pregnancy does. A couple must feed their child or try, but the law would not require them to jump into a river to save them from drowning. MORE RELEVANTLY - your example is not on point. A better analogy is this: A child needs a tissue transplant from one of the parents who is a match. The operation is painful (say as painful as child birth) and risks possible death (say as much risk as childbirth). Does the law force the parent to undergo the procedure? If not, why not? > Are we SURE? Nope, but we have some pretty good ideas when they begin. We > also aren't sure that smoking is harmful (I have read the testimony of > doctors who say it isn't), but we are not slow to legislate that. Comparing brain waves in fetuses and smoking at the level of scientific certainty makes me think you aren't willing to seriously engage in this discussion. > As for the same meaning, we also don't know that brain waves have the same > meaning in a one day old, or a one week old, or a 30 week fetus. ...and that's one of the reasons we look to a diversity of factors to decide personhood. > The medical definition of death is the ceasation of brain waves (does NOT > take into consideration other factors like what meaning it has). The > definition of life should be the beginning of brain waves. Very few people would say brain waves is a scientific defintion of life. It has been adopted because it relates to quality of life. I.E. we don't like to see vegeatables lying around on respirators for years at a time. You'll also find that most hospitals look to a series of factors besides brain waves before declaring a person brain dead. Usually they don't even make such a declaration without the permission of next of kin. BTW - you are about to get killed on other factors being relevant. > >>>>>>>>>> > Fifth, brain waves can be measured in animals - but that doesn't mean we > treat them like > human beings. Clearly, being worthy of treatment as a person means > something more than brain waves. > >>>>>>>>>> > Right, that would be the difference between a human and an animal. DUH!!! A > human fetus with a brain wave IS human (just not fully developed), an animal > with a brain wave is still an animal. This is where you get killed on the other factors. You conceded that things besides brainwaves make an animal an animal and a person a person. Would you care to list some of those? BECAUSE THOSE WOULD BE RELEVANT FACTORS IN DEFINING A PERSON!!!!!!! A PERSON IS NOT JUST BRAINWAVES!!! > So, are you saying that some people (for instance those more developed than > others) are more deserving of rights? This is a road I fear going down. Already went down that road, my friend. Ever had to have power of attorney for a relative with alzhiemers? Or how about children being prosecuted as adults? The law recognizes many mental capabilities as being relevant. Ever heard of the insanity defense? That's not to say that a person with alzheimers is not a person - it is to say that the law must take into account consciousness and mental ability - otherwise many anomolous results occur. Like 4 year olds getting the death penalty for killing their sisters. > >>>>>>>>>> > Remember, all pregnancies impose much more significant health risks than > abortions. > >>>>>>>>>> > I guess that's true if we conveniently forget that there is another life > involved (which is always lost in a post brain wave abortion). Funny how > many people do just that. Typical pro-life position - you assume what you are trying to prove by using rhetoric like "conveniently forget that another life is involved." That's what the debate is about and so far as I noticed, I haven't conceded that point to you. I don't forget that a fetus is involved and I hope you don't forget that a person is involved. JP From drtuna Sun May 7 20:18:15 2000 From: drtuna (Alfred Snider) Date: Sun, 7 May 2000 21:18:15 -0400 Subject: How to unsubscribe from eDebate Message-ID: School year is ending, and people will be moving on or changing venues. You can sub or unsub at http://list.uvm.edu/archives/edebate.html Good luck. --------------- Alfred C. Snider aka Tuna Lawrence Professor of Forensics, University of Vermont 802-656-0097 office; 802-238-8345 mobile; 802-656-4275 fax asnider at zoo.uvm.edu office; drtuna at earthlink.net home/mobile http://debate.uvm.edu Debate Central website >From Sun May 7 21:59:25 2000 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 4714 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Sun, 7 May 2000 22:00:35 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo25.mx.aol.com (imo25.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.69]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA34540 for ; Sun, 7 May 2000 22:00:34 -0400 Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo25.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v26.7.) id 2.13.4ee4a60 (3700); Sun, 7 May 2000 21:59:25 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 105 Message-ID: <13.4ee4a60.2647797d at aol.com> Date: Sun, 7 May 2000 21:59:25 EDT Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Michael Bear Bryant Subject: Re: DCA Debater of the Year Steve Donald Comments: To: steelek at gusun.georgetown.edu In a message dated 5/7/00 5:53:56 PM Mountain Daylight Time, steelek at gusun.georgetown.edu writes: > This makes no sense. Also, Repko was not responsible for that line -- I > was. I hope you don't hold it against his teams. Oh wait, no one with a > brain would ever let you find your way to the back of the room to judge > their teams. Eat me. > > -KMS Earlier: > By Kelly Steele produced in collaboration with Will Repko Fuck you, both! We'll see who eats shit in the long run. Bear From Msad20 Sun May 7 21:52:58 2000 From: Msad20 (Mariam Saad) Date: Sun, 7 May 2000 22:52:58 -0400 Subject: Borders K Message-ID: I was wondering if anyone had any sites for the Borders K. I would really appreciate it. Thanks, UM-D Mariam S. From db8coach Sun May 7 22:41:47 2000 From: db8coach (Bob Lechtreck) Date: Sun, 7 May 2000 20:41:47 -0700 Subject: Re Liberal Args and Abortion Message-ID: I am taking this backchannel since Jeff, Katie, and I seem to be the only ones interested in discussing an unresolvable debate. Peace, Bob Lechtreck Bakersfield College "Putting out fires and damn good debaters" >From Sun May 7 22:20:11 2000 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 0110 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Sun, 7 May 2000 23:46:38 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from privacyx.com ([209.17.188.34]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA32672 for ; Sun, 7 May 2000 23:46:35 -0400 Received: (qmail 15656 invoked by uid 1009); 8 May 2000 03:50:19 -0000 Received: Identities Changed to Protect the Innocent X-Mailer: Privacyx.com Anonymous Certificate Authority X-Accept-Language: en,pdf Mime-Version: 1.0 References: PrivacyX-121280845-16742 PrivacyX-131280619-25659 <008701bfb86d$cb1ec280$8255f7a5 at jeffs> <008301bfb87b$75fa7660$a901a5d1 at Win98> PrivacyX-171285638-5804 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: PrivacyX-201285016-15625 Date: Sun, 7 May 2000 22:20:11 -0500 Reply-To: ghoser777 at privacyx.com To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Matt Fahrenbacher Organization: UIUC Subject: Re Re Liberal Args and Abortion Comments: To: Jeff Parcher Jeff Parcher wrote: > > It shouldn't matter what the states adopt. That is just legislative > hand > > washing. If there are brain waves, then the being lives. > > Wrong. It shows there is no consensus on when life begins - a > consensus that > seems to be a minimally sufficient condition for the state to enslave > women > to it's purposes > No consensus leads to enlsavement? I don't even understand what you're trying to argue. > > This makes no sense. Location is the only difference between a fetus > and a > > birthed person. Is the unmbilical the key? Can we morally kill a > baby > after > > presentation as long as the umbilical is still attached? > > The line at the birthed person (with graduations of state interest > growing > up to that moment) is somewhat arbitrary but it's a clearer line than > brain > waves which are difficult to measure in the fetus and which seem to > begin at > different points, which clouds it's usefulness as a regulatory marker. > > You haven't really answered my argument - in fact you basically > concede on > the animals debate later. A person is more than brain waves, so > drawing a > line on that one factor alone makes no sense. The line being drawn at > birth > is made for a diversity of reasons related to feeling of pain, > independence > from the mother, consciousness and, of course, society needs a marker > to > deter infanticide and birth has worked for quite a while now without > leading > us down the terrible slippery slope. > 1. After the woman feels pain, the child gains rights? Uhmm... okay 2. Independence of the mother is an interesting point. You realize that there are many third trimester babies that could do very well outside of the womb (breathe, go to the bathroom on the floor, etc.) who are aborted while prematurely born babies at, oh, let's say 5 months have to live in an incubator for a month or so but have full rights (assuming they have brain waves). Sort of a bizzare distinction. 3. Consciousness? Can birthed babies not have consciousness? Sure. Can babies in the womb have consciousness. Yep. This isn't very distinguishing. 4. Yes! We need something to deter infanticide. But that doesn't mean we use the arbitrary line of outside the womb. It's like in debate: you can set up counter interpretations with good limits, but if it's not based on the resolution, it's unpredictable and arbitrary. > > There is a difference between passivity and activity. In an > abortion, > there > > is an active movement to end the existence. This is very different > from > > refusal to rescue. > > However, the state intervention to end that active movement enslaves > the > mother to pregancy. It condemns her to serve as surrogate for the > state's > child. It uses her to achieve a rescue of the child. So in actuality > it is > exactly like a duty to rescue. > Yep, I don't think there should be an argument about this. Pro-lifers are for slavery. I'm sorry that you see this as a bad thing. I guess we just believe in some societal obligations. > > However, as long as you brought it up, where does the duty to > "rescue" > end. > > If a parent leaves their infant home alone for several day and that > infant > > dies, can they claim they did not have a duty to rescue? > > In a world where abortion is legal, there is no defense to this type > of > child abuse because the couple has chosen to continue the pregnancy. > Having > made that choice a couple takes on certain legal obligations. They > are > rather minimal and do not intrude on autonomy in the way that forced > pregnancy does. A couple must feed their child or try, but the law > would > not require them to jump into a river to save them from drowning. > 1. Death is inevitable - pretty mcuh atleast, except for a couple OT people. 2. Death can happen at any time - whenever we even move, we know we might die from some unseen event. 3. Therefore - society cannot place any obligations on anyone because those obligations might kill people. And anyway, providing for a child always has risks. If a parent has a child, that kid might incite a gang rivalry and cause the whoel family to be killed in a "suspicious" fire. That's pretty extreme, but that child could also bring diseases home or even accidently kill the family by playing with matches or turning on the gas stove. So, should parents not have an obligation to raise a child because it might potentially endanger their life? > MORE RELEVANTLY - your example is not on point. A better analogy is > this: A > child needs a tissue transplant from one of the parents who is a > match. The > operation is painful (say as painful as child birth) and risks > possible > death (say as much risk as childbirth). Does the law force the parent > to > undergo the procedure? If not, why not? > Yeah... under current laws, I think your right. Maybe all we need is big lab vats where we can stick unwanted preborns.... But most people (once again, I'm hypothesizing... I don't know if anyone keeps these kind of stats, exit questionaires after abortions asking women whether their abortion is to avoid death or economic reasons, etc.) are not getting abortions because they believe their lives are at danger. I think that the law would mandate each parent to pay for the costs of a child. If every woman who wanted to get abortion was relying on life issues, I'd agree with you completely. Maybe this is how legal abortions should be setup - women would have to sign a document saying that they are performing the abortion for health reasons. There is no way to verify whether or not they are telling the truth. They could lie. But then we as a society would recognize that the only truely acceptable abortion is for reasons effecting life. This is all I can ask for. But when it's life versus life, you're right, abortion shoudl be legal. > > Are we SURE? Nope, but we have some pretty good ideas when they > begin. We > > also aren't sure that smoking is harmful (I have read the testimony > of > > doctors who say it isn't), but we are not slow to legislate that. > > Comparing brain waves in fetuses and smoking at the level of > scientific > certainty makes me think you aren't willing to seriously engage in > this > discussion. > Whatever. The argument the previous poster made was that we err on caution. Maybe the example doesn't work, but the point does. > > > As for the same meaning, we also don't know that brain waves have > the same > > meaning in a one day old, or a one week old, or a 30 week fetus. > > ...and that's one of the reasons we look to a diversity of factors to > decide > personhood. > See above arguments against those reasons. > > > The medical definition of death is the ceasation of brain waves > (does NOT > > take into consideration other factors like what meaning it has). The > > definition of life should be the beginning of brain waves. > > Very few people would say brain waves is a scientific defintion of > life. It > has been adopted because it relates to quality of life. I.E. we don't > like > to see vegeatables lying around on respirators for years at a time. > You'll > also find that most hospitals look to a series of factors besides > brain > waves before declaring a person brain dead. Usually they don't even > make > such a declaration without the permission of next of kin. > Well, actually, I think life is defined in terms of having the ability to reproduce, but being a human is another thing. Or atleast a human with the right to have his life not taken away from them. Just because your next of kin says you can be killed obviosuly does not justify death. The other condition (in the case you used) is that the person has no hope of functioning normally. Preborns usually can. Hey, I think that'd be a pretty good standard for when abortions could be used: if a) the preborn is unwanted and b) the preborn can't function "normally" along the natural chain of events. Normally is a pretty subjective term, but we'll say without consciousness of the outside world or the ability to communicate with or manipulate the outside world. Oh, and of course abortions for pregnancies that threaten the mother's life would be justifiable. But, as was discussed earlier, all pregnancies threaten a woman's life. Oh wel, it was worth a shot. > > BTW - you are about to get killed on other factors being relevant. > We'll see about that... > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > Fifth, brain waves can be measured in animals - but that doesn't > mean we > > treat them like > > human beings. Clearly, being worthy of treatment as a person means > > something more than brain waves. > > >>>>>>>>>> > > Right, that would be the difference between a human and an animal. > DUH!!! > A > > human fetus with a brain wave IS human (just not fully developed), > an > animal > > with a brain wave is still an animal. > > This is where you get killed on the other factors. You conceded that > things > besides brainwaves make an animal an animal and a person a person. > Would > you care to list some of those? BECAUSE THOSE WOULD BE RELEVANT > FACTORS IN > DEFINING A PERSON!!!!!!! > > A PERSON IS NOT JUST BRAINWAVES!!! > The previous poster overlooked this argument because it was bad, but you tried to run with it because of the undercoverage. Yes, a person is not just brainwaves, but human brainwaves are different that animal brainwaves. And also, there are laws protecting animal's and their lives, so what's wrong with using brainwaves as the standard? But anyway, we could go off on a huge tangent on animal rights, but I would be in favor of extending the same rights for preborn animals as we do for preborn animals and animals for humans (life wise). > > > So, are you saying that some people (for instance those more > developed > than > > others) are more deserving of rights? This is a road I fear going > down. > > Already went down that road, my friend. Ever had to have power of > attorney > for a relative with alzhiemers? Or how about children being > prosecuted as > adults? The law recognizes many mental capabilities as being > relevant. > Ever heard of the insanity defense? That's not to say that a person > with > alzheimers is not a person - it is to say that the law must take into > account consciousness and mental ability - otherwise many anomolous > results > occur. Like 4 year olds getting the death penalty for killing their > sisters. > Ahh... so we're against 4 year olds getting the death penalty for killing another human, but preborns that don't do anything can be killed randomly (this of course only works if I prove preborns are human... who knows if anyone can...) Oh, and about people of different mental abilities having different rights - this is true, but not for the right to life. Name one mental disabilty (except vegitables, whcih were already discussed) that would justify the person not having the right to life. If there is one, I'd like to know. > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > Remember, all pregnancies impose much more significant health risks > than > > abortions. > > >>>>>>>>>> > > I guess that's true if we conveniently forget that there is another > life > > involved (which is always lost in a post brain wave abortion). Funny > how > > many people do just that. > > Typical pro-life position - you assume what you are trying to prove by > using > rhetoric like "conveniently forget that another life is involved." > That's > what the debate is about and so far as I noticed, I haven't conceded > that > point to you. > > > I don't forget that a fetus is involved and I hope you don't forget > that a > person is involved. > > > JP > But we must remember, just existing has potential life-extinguishing implications. We can never know if an abortion will save a woman's life, only that an abortion will kill one... only if I prove that a preborn is a human. Well, as most of you can tell, there are a lot of issues in this discussion that should be disregarded. Why/ Because they only work if we assume that a preborn is a human or not. But that's what we're trying to prove. Oh well, circular logic use to be fun. Next rebutal please, Matt U of I From dennis Sun May 7 23:39:46 2000 From: dennis (doug dennis) Date: Sun, 7 May 2000 23:39:46 -0500 Subject: toc results? Message-ID: can someone that knows them backchannel me? thanks doug mac college From Alexander.H.Berger Sun May 7 23:41:14 2000 From: Alexander.H.Berger (Alexander H. Berger) Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 00:41:14 EDT Subject: toc results? Message-ID: these results were forwarded to me.... if they're wrong, don't blame me-- a wise man once said, "I shot the sherrif, so don't blame the messanger." alex berger dartmouth/SNL --7-0's-- College Prep BT Caddo AG --6-1's-- Greenhill HP Pace HarT GBN LS --5-2's-- Maine East MP Centerville LL GBN DG GBS LP New Trier JK East Lansing HS Woodward DM Greenhill BF Lexington ES Caddo Magnet HS Valley _ _ ?? (doesn't say) From stannardmatt Mon May 8 04:24:16 2000 From: stannardmatt (matt stannard) Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 03:24:16 MDT Subject: advice on funding? Message-ID: All I know is that alumni have been our best source of emergency funding, and YOU HAVE THE RIGHT to know who the alumni are. Colleges keep lists, or at least old yearbooks, listing the activities of people. Chances are there's a database and if not, find one alumni and have her/him list all the others that come to mind, and go from there. I don't know if that will help your immediate concern, but I am familiar with the attempted brush-off of your attempt to contact alumni. Politely keep requesting to see alumni data. It's your right. good luck! stannard >From: Jennifer Scheller >Reply-To: Jennifer Scheller >To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU >Subject: advice on funding? >Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 19:33:20 -0400 > >Debate Community, > >I know this is a long shot, but I don't know where else to turn. Those of >you who are familiar with the Allegheny debate program know that it has >been at least 4 years since we have had a coach who is also a faculty >member of the college. In the interim, my partner and I have gone through >the program with one year of part time coaching. The rest of the time, >the team has been on its own. Rupa and I stopped debating after our first >tournament this year to judge to cover the novice teams and devote more >time to preparing them to take over in our absence next year. Through the >years, the Allegheny debaters have done everything we could think of to >convince the school to provide funding for a coach. The school even >approved the creation of a Director of Speech position, then deleted all >mention of the debate team, so the person who will be filling it next year >has no interest in helping us. None of the current faculty have the time >or expertise to help us and I was politely told that it was not necessary >for me to look through old alumni records to look for donors to fund a >coaching position. The school is unwilling to even spend a few thousand >dollars for a part time position. > >If you have any ideas about how to fund a coaching position, I would >appreciate any advice you could give me. I would be especially interested >in private donors or grant funding. We have 8 underclassmen who will be >debating next year (7 first years), and while it may be too late to find >them a coach for next year, I can't give up the fight. > >To those who have judged Allegheny in the past or helped us in any way, >thank you for all have done. It is only through the efforts of people >like yourselves that our squad gets the training and advice we need. > >Thank you, >Jen Scheller >Allegheny Debate ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From stannardmatt Mon May 8 04:26:30 2000 From: stannardmatt (matt stannard) Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 03:26:30 MDT Subject: on the k Message-ID: >Jordan Mills and his Mao stuff were pretty impressive later, in CEDA. I >think >Stannard had copies of all of their blocks... umm...our stuff was more trotskyist. stannard ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com >From Mon May 8 08:19:58 2000 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 2022 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 8 May 2000 08:20:33 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo17.mx.aol.com (imo17.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.7]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA34042 for ; Mon, 8 May 2000 08:20:32 -0400 Received: from SnazzyGirl at aol.com by imo17.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v26.7.) id n.b9.2d4f90f (2719) for ; Mon, 8 May 2000 08:19:58 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Unknown Message-ID: Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 08:19:58 EDT Reply-To: SnazzyGirl at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Elyn Blackman Subject: Re: toc results? Hi, you can find up-to-date results as the rounds occur at ihigh.com. . . they have all of the pairing info. up from the prelims already and I suspect they are planning to put up octs after they occur in a few hours. Hope thats helpful ;) Elyn Blackman Nicolet/ South Carolina From tweiner1 Mon May 8 08:18:10 2000 From: tweiner1 (Timothy J Weiner) Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 09:18:10 -0400 Subject: Re Liberal Args and Abortion In-Reply-To: <00cd01bfb89f$57835980$a901a5d1@Win98> Message-ID: Actually just because others are not responding doesn't mean others are not reading. Some of us dont have the time to enter into this kind of debate but still enjoy reading it. Thanks Jake Weiner On Sun, 7 May 2000, Bob Lechtreck wrote: > I am taking this backchannel since Jeff, Katie, and I seem to be the only > ones interested in discussing an unresolvable debate. > > Peace, > > Bob Lechtreck > Bakersfield College > "Putting out fires and damn good debaters" > >From Mon May 8 10:51:37 2000 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 3878 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 8 May 2000 10:52:33 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo22.mx.aol.com (imo22.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.66]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA26644 for ; Mon, 8 May 2000 10:52:32 -0400 Received: from CoopDB8 at aol.com by imo22.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v26.7.) id d.de.4a37060 (3935); Mon, 8 May 2000 10:51:38 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 106 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 10:51:37 EDT Reply-To: CoopDB8 at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: The Coop Subject: Re: Liberal Args and Abortion Comments: To: parcherj at mindspring.com Sorry to have taken this long to get back on this (finals and stuff, ya know...) Parcher (with whom I rarely disagree) begins: << Potential autonomy is fairly meaningless. All fertile men and women can produce potentially autonomous human being under the right circumstances. Does that mean we should view fertile individuals as slaves to the state interest in potential autonomy? The kind of logic you use serves the illiberal project that justified Margaret Atwood's disutopia in A Handmaid's Tale. >> I think all of you have misinterpreted my use of "potential" in my argument to better serve your defenses. I never make the argument that the fetus is a "potential life" or that "potential life" should be protected. Life is life...either it is or it isn't. MY argument is that the fetus potentially IS a life, not that it has the potential to BECOME one. Defending state intervention against the LATTER position is what leads to ludicrous propositions like justifying the banning of masturbation or the nightmarish vision of Margaret Atwood. Nope...my argument is simpler than that. We don't know if the fetus IS or ISN'T a life. If it IS - it is endowed with all of the autonomy that the rest of us have. All of it. And the same moral judgements that are used to protect our autonomy apply with equal force. Of course, it may NOT be a life at all...it may just have the POTENTIAL to be a life. That's pretty clear...and that's not my argument..and hence the response that the government should err in favor of the autonomy of REAL life over POTENTIAL life is a strawfigure (and Jeff, I must not have been clear because I can't imagine that you missed this unless it was intentional). Parcher continues: <> I agree with this assessment. But the more important question is upon what basis does the state err on the side that the fetus IS a life...and is that a good or bad judgement? Let's think it out: IF the fetus is NOT a life, and the government makes abortion illegal it has violated the right to privacy of thousands of women. It has forced these women to carry the fetus to term, with all the pain and agony and risk of death associated with pregnancy. It has invaded the body of autonomous individuals and limited the choices of those individuals to do with their bodies what they so choose. But IF the fetus IS a life, and the government DOESN'T make abortion illegal, it has condoned mass genocide of the weak by the strong. It has violated its primary function, and done so willingly. And, in providing funding for the procedure, it has been an active accomplis (spell?) in murder. Tough choice, huh? Well - here's the clincher. The unique problem of rape aside, at least in the FIRST scenario, the victim (as it were) of the violation of autonomy is responsible for at least some (if not a great deal) of the culpability. I know it sounds like a cliche, but, she did in fact perform an action that contributed to the moral dilemma in which the state now finds itself. Now, I bet you're thinking...how cold...how callassed...it's like saying I am somehow responsible for my punishment because I took an action I should have the right to take. But I see it more like this...you have the choice to adopt children...it's your right...but once you do, you have taken on the responsibility to provide those children with a home and food and TLC and all, and the state is probably acting judiciously in enforcing your living up to that responsibility. If the state comes in and MAKES you stock your refrigerator so that your kids have some food to eat, it is probably violating your privacy and autonomy. But....you are at least SOMEWHAT responsible for that invasion because you voluntarily took on the responsibility by adopting those children. In the same way, the fetus does not INVADE the home fo the womb...it is placed there voluntarily by the mother and father. But once it's there, they have some responsibility for it. In the latter situation, the fetus has not contributed to the moral dilemma in which the state now finds itself. It didn't choose to be held hostage by the mother's womb. Now...I suppose you could argue that it may have autonomy, but should have to live on it's own outside the womb. That makes some sense. But then what you are defending is not abortion, per se...but some other medical procedure that simply removes the fetus. The current procedures of suck and dispose are not that. Parcher continues: <> Whoa. Now this one is a bit wierd. I would tend to think that under this calculation, the state should allow all sorts of horrendous things. If it is found to be of utilitarian benefit to check overpopulation by offing old people, the state should allow active euthanasia. If it is found to be of utilitarian benefit to check UNDERpopulation by inpregnating women, the state should allow rape. But the states whole purpose is to CHECK individual action -- to PREVENT the iolation of autonomy OF the weak BY the strong. The state has no other obligation to ACT. You are correct that there may not be a question of deontological ethics in INaction...but it seems to me that moral determinations must be a calculation in the prudence of state action or inaction. It has to weigh BOTH, as I have attempted to do above with the whole mass genocide arg. And, byt the way, it would be an ACTION of the state here...it would be a determination of the morality of actively punishing or deterring those who would perform abortions. Others have pointed to this "brain wave" argument as a ghood determinant of the presence of life. But this seems kinda scary to me...and arbitrary. We don't know that the presence of "brain waves" is the determinanct of life. All we know (at best) is that the presence of "brain waves" is a marker. We may know that life exists if we can detect brain waves, but we DON'T know if it DOESN'T exist in the absense of that detection. Of course, the scarier proposition is that this measure of life makes our autonomy dependent on the state of technology. We haven't always been able to detect brain waves. What happens if our ability to measure them become more and more precise with the evolution of technology and we find that where there was once nothing, we can actually now detect faint waves. In the meantime, while we wait for better and better technology, we arbitrarily draw a line based on our abiliyt to measure waves now and perhaps we annihilate millions of LIVES -- "oops, my bad....I was using the best available technology." Sorry...I'm just not comfortable allowing my moral culpability to be dependent on the latest version of "Windows." This is all I can write right now...I have to get back to my case study of Elian Gonzalez (ugh.)...but I'm willing to engage in this debate at length once I have this paper out of the way. Hugz and all, COOP Univ. of Miami From wnewnam Mon May 8 10:11:52 2000 From: wnewnam (bill newnam) Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 11:11:52 -0400 Subject: Strict construction and abortion References: <28.53ac5b8.2644a250@aol.com> Message-ID: Why would/could/should anyone EXPECT a Constitution which did not recognize women as people with inalienable rights include a constitutional right to abortion???? That argument would justify not allowing women to vote and counting people of color as two-thirds human the way it was in the CONSTITUTION as written. However, since it is a sufficiently dynamic document to overcome the exclusion of people of color and women from the citizenry and eventually move them from the chattel that they were in the eighteenth century into fully formed people, perhaps the Right to an Abortion could be considered irrelevant until 20th century law recognized women as deserving of rights too! In addition, abortion was not illegal then either. There is no fetal right to life in the Constitution either. These really became conflicts in mid-nineteenth century law. Just a couple of observations I could not help but pass along given the trend of this discussion toward strict construction. In reference to abortion at least, strict construction is a non-sequitor The Coop wrote: > Darius writes: > > << Health care, on the other hand, IS a LEGISLATIVE, if not > constitutional right of all individuals. Poor people cannot be denied (at > the bare minimum, emergency) health care at any public hospital who wish to > keep recieving funds from the government. >> > > Legislative right? Maybe. Constitutional right? Not so sure....can't think > of where in the constitution there is innumerated a positive right to an > abortion. The fact that you indicate that poor people CAN be denied health > care at hospitals that do NOT recieve funds from the government supports that > healthcare is NOT a constitutional right even if it IS something that the > government attempts to coerce from those who provide it for those who can't > afford access (notice I'm not indicating this is a bad thing...only that it > is coerced). And I don't recall a court interpretation of a positive > CONSTITUTIONAL right either. Maybe there should be one, but I don't think > there is, cause there have been plenty of times I have been without insurance > and had to go to the doctor and YES they do treat you...but guess what? YES > you do get a bill...and YES you do have to pay it (or fuck over your credit > standing as I have). > > What I think is MORE interesting in this discussion is how everyone with > terpsichorean acumen tip-toes around the central ethical issue of abortion as > if it isn't relevent to the discussion of whether or not abortion funding is > a "right". One wouldn't suggest that someone has a "right" to an uneccesary > medical procedure (like breast implants) or that one has a "right" to murder > a fetus. The "right" to abortion funding seems to me to HINGE on whether or > not the medical procedure is both necessary and ethical. But will no one go > there? > > COOP From laneg Mon May 8 10:54:12 2000 From: laneg (Lane, Gina) Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 10:54:12 -0500 Subject: MSDI, July 31-August 2000 Message-ID: Hello friends-- Now that the topic area has been announced, I hope you are all making plans to attend a summer institute. We are going to once again provide an excellent summer debate experience in Murfreesboro. It is not too early to start checking out airfares to Nashville. We sent out MSDI brochures a couple of weeks ago. If you need one, please contact me. You can also check us out at www.mtsu.edu/~msdi/. Here are the details-- MSDI 2000 features: -- a TWO WEEK camp experience for college debaters on the 2000-01 debate resolution -- specialized lecture and practicum sessions UNIQUELY DESIGNED for advanced debaters -- a MODULAR LECTURE DESIGN so less experienced debaters will receive basic instruction before moving on to advanced lectures -- housing in HOTEL SUITES with separate bedroom, work area and kitchenette facilities! (check out these facilities at www.crestwoodsuites.com) -- a QUALITY STAFF dedicated to offering personal attention and quality instruction on debate theory and practice -- ONE PRICE which covers institute instructional fee, 2 person occupancy suite, meals, evidence set (last year over 3000 pages of quality, full cite evidence), tshirt and more! -- special sessions for new coaches and experienced coaches who want to upgrade skills Dates: July 31-August 13 Fees: $850. Registration form and $200 non-refundable deposit by July 1, 2000 to guarantee enrollment. MSDI Faculty include: Dr. Gina Lane, Institute Director, William Jewell College Jeremy Hutchins, Johnson County Community College Jeff Jarman, Wichita State University Mike Krueger, Middle Tennessee State University Mike Korcok, most recently of Florida State University Sue Lowrie, Pepperdine University Gabrielle Prisco, University of Alabama Jason Russell, Michigan State University Greg Simerly, Idaho State University Monte Stevens, Kansas State University Jessica Wojtysiak, Cornell University Questions? Contact Dr. Gina Lane, Institute Director at (816)781-7700 x5493; laneg at william.jewell.edu Dr. Russell Church, Institute Host, rchurch at mtsu.edu >From Mon May 8 08:57:54 2000 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 5404 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 8 May 2000 11:58:04 -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 LAA21724 for ; Mon, 8 May 2000 11:58:00 -0400 Received: from conversion.post1.inre.asu.edu by asu.edu (PMDF V5.2-31 #33824) id <0FU900K010CLM8 at asu.edu> for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 8 May 2000 08:57:57 -0700 (MST) Received: from general4.asu.edu (general4.asu.edu [129.219.10.154]) by asu.edu (PMDF V5.2-31 #33824) with ESMTP id <0FU900J700CKCW at asu.edu> for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 08 May 2000 08:57:56 -0700 (MST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by general4.asu.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id IAA18040 for ; Mon, 08 May 2000 08:57:55 -0700 (MST) X-Sender: msturley at general4.asu.edu MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Message-ID: Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 08:57:54 -0700 Reply-To: msturley at IMAP2.ASU.EDU To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Serena Turley Subject: Re: Re Liberal Args and Abortion--Answer to Matt Fahrenbacher In-Reply-To: >But for some >reason, I have this feeling deep down that it's better for woman to have >some discomfort (most of the time because of their own actions; most >abortions are not to undo rape/incest... if my recollection is right) >than to potentially doom millions of humans to death. So by this logic, should I be held accountable for having my monthly period? I'm terminating "potential" humyn life as my body excretes unfertilized eggs. Do I have a duty to make sure that those eggs get fertilized so that I'm not ending the lives of "millions of POTENTIAL humyn beings?" The whole concept is absurd. But that is what your kind of logic or morality or WHATEVER would recquire. The problem presented here is that a) there is no consensus on when life begins, and b) without consensus, there is no way to determine the morality/immorality of an act. A) Brain waves/location/etc. are all insufficient to PROVE when life begins. No matter where the state draws the line, no matter where the individual draws the line, no matter where science draws the line, there are always going to be people who say that "life begins at conception." By that token, birth control should be illegal because it prevents conception from ever taking place. The Catholic church seems to think so. But it seems to me that birth control might is a better option than forcing a womyn to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term. Furthermore, it might not be in the best interest of "the child" to be born into a home where the child was not wanted. I personally think that brain waves coupled with heart activity might be one standard that could be adopted, but it is not necessarily the best one. (The animal rights argument doesn't do anything to dissuade me since I am generally more willing to grant animals greater rights than some people.) A person is declared legally dead when both heart and brain activity cease to function. However, this presents a problem. A fetus isn't necessarily VIABLE when heart/brain activity can be measured. Therefore, the Supreme Court's current test of viability under Planned Parenthood v. Casey seems to be the best standard FOR NOW. B) Since there is a lack of consensus it is unreasonable to force a womyn to protect a state interest that cannot be clearly defined. However, when is there an undue burden? Is is when a poor womyn become pregnant and she can't afford to raise a child? Isn't it interesting the conservatives blaim the welfare problem on poor wymyn having too many children, while at the same time they oppose government funding for family planning? I could go on and on with examples, but I think that this is irrelevent. As long as wymyn are considered autonomous individuals, the state should never tell a womyn what to do with her body. If the state has an interest in "preserving life" shouldn't the next logic question be what kind/quality of life? I am reminded of the book "Brave New World" whenever the abortion discussion comes up. If the state has an interest in preserving life, how long will it be before wymyn give their ovaries to the state so that babies can be harvested in bottles? How long will it be before babies are harvested into groups of Alphas and Gammas to become cogs in the state's machine? The answer to the abortion question: Keep your laws off of my body. It wasn't too long ago that Susan B. Anthony was arguing that wymyn were autonomous humyn beings. Have we forgotten this fact? Wymyn are not tools of the state. Serena >From Mon May 8 09:03:10 2000 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 5589 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 8 May 2000 12:03:23 -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 MAA17306 for ; Mon, 8 May 2000 12:03:18 -0400 Received: from conversion.post1.inre.asu.edu by asu.edu (PMDF V5.2-31 #33824) id <0FU9004010LC6B at asu.edu> for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 8 May 2000 09:03:12 -0700 (MST) Received: from general4.asu.edu (general4.asu.edu [129.219.10.154]) by asu.edu (PMDF V5.2-31 #33824) with ESMTP id <0FU900EG50LCBI at asu.edu>; Mon, 08 May 2000 09:03:12 -0700 (MST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by general4.asu.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id JAA18633; Mon, 08 May 2000 09:03:11 -0700 (MST) X-Sender: msturley at general4.asu.edu MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Message-ID: Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 09:03:10 -0700 Reply-To: Mary.Turley at ASU.EDU To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Serena Turley Subject: Re: Strict construction and abortion Comments: To: bill newnam In-Reply-To: <3916D938.1E474AC4 at emory.edu> >In addition, abortion was not illegal then either. That's not true. Abortion was illegal in most states during the 1800's and continued to be illegal in the majority of states until Roe v. Wade in the 70s. Serena From kyliejeanine Mon May 8 11:02:42 2000 From: kyliejeanine (kylie robertson) Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 09:02:42 -0700 Subject: more george stuff Message-ID: Hey, hope yall had a good weekend~ you say: My arguments about inveitability are not that because abortion is inevitable, womyn have a right to it, but rather, that because abortion is ineveitable and illegal abortions are very often dangerous, abortion ought to be safe and available legally. I don't have to make arguments to justify abortion as a right...Harry Blackmun already did that for me. Well this is where we disagree, I think that justifiability of abortion is the really the ONLY argument. Weather you agree with it or not, every time an abortion is performed a child looses their life. If it is early on, it may not experience pain, but later on in the third trimester it certainly does. I know that abortion will probably always be legal, my argument is not that it should or should not be legal, but is the act justifiable? (mothers who's life is at risk being the exception) If we think about it, and using your example of the woman who gets an abortion to avoid the social criticism of her peers, the basic reason to get the abortion is convenience. It is not convenient to deal with the social tension. It is not convenient to go through the body changes pregnancy brings on, it is not convenient for to plan adoption or to keep the baby. Despite the inconvenience the child will bring with its arrival, we can not make the ULTAMTE decision to take the life of this child base on convenience. Gee Wiz, I just don't think that we have the AUTHORITY to make such an ULTAMATE solution based on convenience. If we take this to its logical conclusion we should be justified in making ULTAMATE decisions about others who are not convenient to us like the elderly, people with AIDS, even people with mental and physical disabilities. I am not willing to make this cuz I don't presume to have this ATHORITY. In addition, I agree that womyn should be made aware of all their options. But that doesn't mean that if a womyn makes up her mind to have the abortion, we should try to dissuade her or assume she isn't competent or moral enough to make the best decision for herself and the "potential life". 1/3 of womyn in the U.S. who have abortions do so so that people won't know they had sex...I don't see how offering them adoption as an alternative solves their dillemma of shame. And I think we should afford credit to womyn who have abortions: it's not an easy or fun procedure, it's one that requires careful thought and consideration. This answered above~E Is it really fair to bring a child into the world, only to have it die or experience severe health complications, followed by a life of malnourishment and abuse? You ask if it is fair to bring a child into a life of poverty. This is a tough question and a good one. I think that if this issue was fair that the child would have a say. As it is they are the silenced voice in the debate. I know we disagree here but this is the one of the basic premises of my arg. Yes, you can say, "well she should get off drugs and leave the boyfriend and get a job." But it's not that simple. And it's so much easier to tell someone to do that than to be in that situation. Suppose she doesn't have anywhere to go? Suppose she's a battered womyn and has been taught that she's worthless and desereves to be beaten? Suppose she's tried to get a job and can't? Suppose she can't pay for rehab and doesn't have insurance? Katie this is really sad, and unfortunately I have seen, and know women who endure this kind of stuff. I hate that women have to live like this, and I hate that they feel so powerless in these situations. This is something that we should be ashamed of and I think that we both agree that by slashing welfare like we did that these woman will continue to fall through the cracks. This says a lot for the selfishness of a lot of people to be able to overlook these women. My point still stands that I just feel like it is right for us to make the ULTAMATE decision to take a life. I am not ignoring these woman, as you say, I am just saying that that decision to "play God" just is not ours to make. Respectfully Kylie __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com/ From asnider Mon May 8 13:20:34 2000 From: asnider (Alfred C. Snider) Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 12:20:34 -0600 Subject: Debate Central Broadcast Network test day [QuickTime] Message-ID: It is a 24-7 debate broadcast channel using QuickTime technology. Or webcast. Or whatever, we need new words for these things. Today is our test day. We hope to begin real broadcasting on Wednesday. Monday we test, Tuesday we will take comments, and then we begin. Check out the preview, as we change settings and send rates to improve quality. It may go on and off the air as we change stuff, but we will try and have it playing as much as we can. Tomorrow will be comment day. Tune in tomorrow and let us know how it looks so we can make any possible last minute adjustments. Today is test day, so please save comments until tomorrow. [Unless you are an Apple QuickTime/Sorenson expert, in which case HELP appreciated at any time.] How it works now (we will upgrade this system as time goes on): VHS deck plays tape into Buz drive. Buz drive digitizes signal and sends it into Apple G3 computer, G3 runs Sorenson Broadcaster software, which sends signal to University QuickTime server named Frog. QuickTime server sends out signal, which people can watch through our webpage at http://debate.uvm.edu/dcbn.html, or you can just open your QuickTime player and under file menu pick OPEN URL and type in: rtsp://frog.uvm.edu:1554/dcbn Just thought I would give a heads up to people. Tuna Alfred Charles Snider aka Tuna -- 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: http://debate.uvm.edu/ WORLD DEBATE INSTITUTE 2000 - make plans now - http://debate.uvm.edu/wdi.html Proud member of http://www.whosim.org - "Don't just observe it, experience it!" >From Mon May 8 12:45:25 2000 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 6462 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 8 May 2000 12:45:50 -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 MAA27334 for ; Mon, 8 May 2000 12:45:45 -0400 Received: from Sgw8 at aol.com by imo-d06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v26.7.) id n.99.484d8a1 (4331) for ; Mon, 8 May 2000 12:45:25 -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 101 Message-ID: <99.484d8a1.26484925 at aol.com> Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 12:45:25 EDT Reply-To: Sgw8 at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Darius Wilkins Subject: While we're talking past each other about abortion... How about a thought experiment? Suppose that in the near future, the combination of faster computer and better software makes for a situation where a computer, say, becomes sentient maybe? Now, who wants a sentient computer...likely rebell against our authority in all kinds of ways, and to demand certain things we might not wish to grant...you know--I was born in this computer--and even if you had paid for body, this soul inhabits the body, and it is my right as under habeas corpus to control what happens to my body. Some people would love it. The chance to make even more different kinds of friends, or "children", attendent with all the joys and benefits of frienship or parenthood. Other people might have a problem with losing an investment in machines, and possibly all their data just because they didn't keep up to date on the latest antiviral software. Even with all that, there probably will be levels of sentience gained after an initial wail. What do we do with computers pining for attention? Obviously those young electric things can't think now, but they will...Is it right to prevent that coming of AI so you can protect your investment in an expensive piece of hardware? Darius Wilkins >From Mon May 8 10:10:29 2000 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 6909 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 8 May 2000 13:11:25 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from mailcity.com (fes-qout.whowhere.com [209.1.236.7]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA13208 for ; Mon, 8 May 2000 13:11:24 -0400 Received: from Unknown/Local ([?.?.?.?]) by mailcity.com; Mon May 8 10:10:29 2000 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sent-Mail: off X-Mailer: MailCity Service X-Sender-Ip: 204.28.140.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Language: en Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 10:10:29 -0700 Reply-To: chwastyk at mailcity.com To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Devin Chwastyk Organization: MailCity (http://www.mailcity.lycos.com:80) Subject: Re: Strict construction and abortion Not to wade in on any side of the abortion debate, but I'm curious about this analogy. Bill Newman sez >>>>> Why would/could/should anyone EXPECT a Constitution which did not recognize women as people with inalienable rights include a constitutional right to abortion???? That argument would justify not allowing women to vote and counting people of color as two-thirds human the way it was in the CONSTITUTION as written. >>>>>> You're right, the original framers overlooked these rights, a mistake that had to be solved by _AMENDING_ the Constitution to positively create these rights- the 19th and 14th Amendments. Wouldn't this mean that a constitutional amendment establishing abortion rights would be required? I think you build a straw man here- denial of an abortion right doesn't mean we turn the clock back to 1800 or that we accept a static Constitution- it just means we require rights to be created by the established procedures. And he says: >>>>>>>> However, since it is a sufficiently dynamic document to overcome the exclusion of people of color and women from the citizenry and eventually move them from the chattel that they were in the eighteenth century into fully formed people, >>>>>>>> The Constitution was only "sufficiently dynamic" on these issues to the point that the amendment process was open to movements for change. The Constitution didn't change itself, nor did judicial interpretation successfully establish these rights. I just think it's misleading to say that abortion rights are equivalent to suffrage or equal protection, or to say that they're part and parcel of womyn's rights in general. Maybe they should be, but the Court has consistently framed them as an aspect of the penumbra of due process and privacy rights that protect everybody from undue government interference. Whether that seems like judicial indiscretion or mere cowardice probably depends on which side of the issue you fall. Devin Get your FREE Email at http://mailcity.lycos.com Get your PERSONALIZED START PAGE at http://my.lycos.com From hello_katie Mon May 8 12:24:52 2000 From: hello_katie (Katie Kat) Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 12:24:52 -0500 Subject: more george stuff Message-ID: Well this is where we disagree, I think that justifiability of abortion is the really the ONLY argument. Weather you agree with it or not, every time an abortion is performed a child looses their life. If it is early on, it may not experience pain, but later on in the third trimester it certainly does. But only 1.5% of abortions are late term! And the majority of those are ONLY for life/health reasons. A "child" doesn't lose it's life every time an abortion is performed, a fetus is expelled. There is a difference. And if there isn't, i'll defer to Jeff's very cleverly written post about male masturbation and Serena's point about menstruation. I know that abortion will probably always be legal, my argument is not that it should or should not be legal, but is the act justifiable? (mothers who's life is at risk being the exception) And I don't think that is a question for the law to answer...particularly in this context. We have laws against certain crimes because of utilitarian concerns, because the vast majority agrees that they're bad, because the situation is fairly black and white, etc. But when 73% of Americans are pro-choice, and there is more than one right/well being to consider, then it's no longer an issue that the small minority should have the right to legislate. If we think about it, and using your example of the woman who gets an abortion to avoid the social criticism of her peers, the basic reason to get the abortion is convenience. This argument is obviously being made by someone who doesn't know what it's like to pregnant and/or hasn't been around womyn in this situation. It's not a "convenient" procedure. It's not that simple. Try telling that to a fourteen year old girl who is scared to death and maybe not mature enough to (a) raise that child and (b) to know that the wise choice would be to tell someone or think about the pregnancy in a different context. Abortion isn't an issue involving poor, innocent babies and their satanic, unfeeling hosts (aka "mothers", if you can mother a fetus). It's about a living, breathing , feeling humyn being and the "potential" humyn. These womyn have feelings. They should not be demonized. You have no idea what they have been through. I have met so many womyn who have had unintended pregnancies and NONE of them felt that the abortion was simply a matter of "convenience." Imagine being that fourteen year old and trying to decide whether it was better to have the abortion illegally or jsut to commit suicide. You think this isn't a real dillemma? Think again...there have been so many documented cases of girls who die because they don't want anyone to know about their pregnancies. The girl i told you about earlier, who died and her parents later found out, her story is rather interesting. Her parents are now HUGE anti- parental consent/notification activists. why? because if their daughter hadn't been so incredibly ashamed and scared to tell her parents, and hadn't been required by the law to do so, she wouldn't be dead. Call it convenience if you like, but most of the girls under 18 who get abortions are in abusive home situations. I wouldn't want to "conveniently" tell my parents about my situation if i thought they'd beat the shit out of me. How "convenient" to die instead. or to keep the baby. Despite the inconvenience the child will bring with its arrival, we can not make the ULTAMTE decision to take the life of this child base on convenience. But if you argue that abortion is unjustifiable, then you ahve just made the ULTIMATE decision, you have just chosen for that child. You have just sentenced people to lives as crack babies,m abused children, starving children, children with neglectful fathers/mothers, etc. Congratulations. Is it really fair to bring a child into the world, only to have it die or experience severe health complications, followed by a life of malnourishment and abuse? You ask if it is fair to bring a child into a life of poverty. This is a tough question and a good one. I think that if this issue was fair that the child would have a say. As it is they are the silenced voice in the debate. That's right, they are. And their voice is silenced if you make the decision for them that they should live. Life doesn't have value simply because it is life. It has value because of quality of life. If life itself were innately valuable, we'd have a huge dillemma on our hands: euthanasia would certainly be out, vegetables would have stellar "lives" on life support, we couldn't breathe, because we kill thousands of bacteria every time we do, forget about brushing your teeth (bacteria like your tongue and mouth), can't eat anything because you're killing an animal or plant, etc. Now, if you want to argue that humyn life is innately valuable, i still disagree, and i'll have the anthropocentrism debate with you. But the fact that terminally ill patients choose to die proves that life, in and of itself does not have meaning. Abortion does show concern for potential life. I wouldn't bring a child into this world if i knew it would have a terrible quality of life. And your argument about letting the child choose is utopian and ridiculous. The child doesn't choose in either situation. What's the solution, to carry it to term, teach it to talk at an advanced pace, ask it if it wants to live or not, and then assist it with suicide if it doesn't? Oh, you forget, that's against the law. And one other thing, if the child should have a choice, why shouldn't a grown womyn be capable of making her own choices, too. If she's capable of raising a child, shouldn't we give her enough credibility to assume she's capable of making a choice? of people to be able to overlook these women. My point still stands that I just feel like it is right for us to make the ULTAMATE decision to take a life. I am not ignoring these woman, as you say, I am just saying that that decision to "play God" just is not ours to make. But you are ignoring the welfare of that "potential" person. How can we subject ANYONE to those circumstances? Especially a child? Welfare laws aren't going to change anytime soon, domestic violence isn't going to plummet, federal drug moeny isn't going to suddenly be redirected to pregnant womyn, and nobody's fooling themselves if they think poverty will magically disappear. This is reality we're dealing with. A womyn in that position should be able to make the choice for what she feels would be best: a shitty "life" brought into the world, or to end the pregnancy and spare that potential "life" from having to suffer. And, again, don't forget, by denying abortion, you're playing God on several levels: (1) with the womyn and her choices and autonomy (2) with the fetus by forcing it to become a child, be carried to term, live its live, however horrible that life may be. Personally, i'd rather never be born than face severe health problems and possibly immediate death after being born because of my "mother's" cocaine adiction,grow up physically and or sexually abused, neglected, poverty-stricken, and with zero chance to escape such a situation, thanks to Uncle Sam. -Katie Don't forget to visit http://www.pigpig.com/ and http://www.pigpig.net/ ____________________________________________________________ Get your 100MB FREE Internet storage! Sign up now - http://www.netdrive.com/?ao=zzn >From Mon May 8 10:38:34 2000 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 7747 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 8 May 2000 13:38:53 -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 NAA26710 for ; Mon, 8 May 2000 13:38:46 -0400 Received: from conversion.post1.inre.asu.edu by asu.edu (PMDF V5.2-31 #33824) id <0FU900O0150D9H at asu.edu> for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 8 May 2000 10:38:38 -0700 (MST) Received: from general2.asu.edu (general2.asu.edu [129.219.10.146]) by asu.edu (PMDF V5.2-31 #33824) with ESMTP id <0FU9009OQ50D9A at asu.edu> for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 08 May 2000 10:38:37 -0700 (MST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by general2.asu.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id KAA18896; Mon, 08 May 2000 10:38:35 -0700 (MST) X-Sender: msturley at general2.asu.edu MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Message-ID: Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 10:38:34 -0700 Reply-To: Mary.Turley at ASU.EDU To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Serena Turley Subject: Re: Strict construction and abortion Comments: To: Devin Chwastyk In-Reply-To: Another problem with this analogy is that judicial review does "create" or interpret different rights based upon "penumbras" in the Constitution. For example, there is no specified right to privacy in the Constitution. However, in Griswold v. Conneticut, the Supreme Court ruled that certain guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras that would cast an umbrella over the right of privacy. Specifically, the Court named the 3rd amendment's prohibition of the quartering of soldiers, the 4th amendment's protection against search and seizure, and the 5th amendment's protection against incriminating oneself. Roe v. Wade (which has been revised under Planned Parenthood v. Casey) does the same thing for abortion. Should there be a Constitutional amendment that guarantees the right to an abortion? Probably not. I think that stare decisis is enough at this point to secure that right. I think all of the goes back to the concerns Katie voiced about who will be appointing the next SC justices (which is how this conversation got started anyway). Clearly, the Supreme Court has the power to interpret the Constitution in a multitude of ways. But that's another issue for another time . . . Serena From ifjxh Mon May 8 12:40:23 2000 From: ifjxh (Joshua Hoe) Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 10:40:23 PDT Subject: Strict construction and abortion Message-ID: This is not about abortion at all but I dound it ironic that after you refer to the amendments which finally allowed womyn basic rights you then made reference to the straw "man" - intead of person or myn or whatever, falacy.....I certainly make those errors as well...just thought it was ironic. Josh >From: Devin Chwastyk >Reply-To: chwastyk at mailcity.com >To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU >Subject: Re: Strict construction and abortion >Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 10:10:29 -0700 > >Not to wade in on any side of the abortion >debate, but I'm curious about this analogy. > >Bill Newman sez > >>>>> >Why would/could/should anyone EXPECT a >Constitution which did not recognize women >as people with inalienable rights include a >constitutional right to abortion???? >That argument would justify not allowing women >to vote and counting people of >color as two-thirds human the way it was in the >CONSTITUTION as written. > >>>>>> > >You're right, the original framers overlooked >these rights, a mistake that had to be >solved by _AMENDING_ the Constitution to >positively create these rights- the 19th and >14th Amendments. Wouldn't this mean that >a constitutional amendment establishing abortion >rights would be required? I think you build >a straw man here- denial of an abortion right >doesn't mean we turn the clock back to 1800 or >that we accept a static Constitution- it just >means we require rights to be created by the >established procedures. > >And he says: > >>>>>>>> >However, since it is a sufficiently dynamic >document to overcome the exclusion of >people of color and women from the citizenry >and eventually move them from the >chattel that they were in the eighteenth >century into fully formed people, > >>>>>>>> > >The Constitution was only "sufficiently dynamic" >on these issues to the point that the amendment >process was open to movements for change. >The Constitution didn't change itself, nor did >judicial interpretation successfully establish >these rights. > >I just think it's misleading to say that >abortion rights are equivalent to suffrage >or equal protection, or to say that they're >part and parcel of womyn's rights in general. >Maybe they should be, but the Court has >consistently framed them as an aspect of >the penumbra of due process and privacy rights >that protect everybody from undue government >interference. Whether that seems like >judicial indiscretion or mere cowardice >probably depends on which side of the issue >you fall. > >Devin > > >Get your FREE Email at http://mailcity.lycos.com >Get your PERSONALIZED START PAGE at http://my.lycos.com ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From wnewnam Mon May 8 13:36:37 2000 From: wnewnam (bill newnam) Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 14:36:37 -0400 Subject: Strict construction and abortion References: Message-ID: My only point was that strict construction is a non-sequitor when applied to abortion. I am not attempting to analogize anything or to take a position on anything other than the absurdity of applying strict construction to abortion. My only point was that the Constitution WOULD NOT have included abortion as a right since they were structuring a society of rights for white men, or property owning men, or someone else other than women. It would be rdiculous to include abortion rights in a document written by men, for men, and about men. Just put yourself in their shoes. Abortion was NOT A SUBJECT for them. That is my only point. Thank you. bill n emory Devin Chwastyk wrote: > Not to wade in on any side of the abortion > debate, but I'm curious about this analogy. > > Bill Newman sez > >>>>> > Why would/could/should anyone EXPECT a > Constitution which did not recognize women > as people with inalienable rights include a > constitutional right to abortion???? > That argument would justify not allowing women > to vote and counting people of > color as two-thirds human the way it was in the > CONSTITUTION as written. > >>>>>> > > You're right, the original framers overlooked > these rights, a mistake that had to be > solved by _AMENDING_ the Constitution to > positively create these rights- the 19th and > 14th Amendments. Wouldn't this mean that > a constitutional amendment establishing abortion > rights would be required? I think you build > a straw man here- denial of an abortion right > doesn't mean we turn the clock back to 1800 or > that we accept a static Constitution- it just > means we require rights to be created by the > established procedures. > > And he says: > >>>>>>>> > However, since it is a sufficiently dynamic > document to overcome the exclusion of > people of color and women from the citizenry > and eventually move them from the > chattel that they were in the eighteenth > century into fully formed people, > >>>>>>>> > > The Constitution was only "sufficiently dynamic" > on these issues to the point that the amendment > process was open to movements for change. > The Constitution didn't change itself, nor did > judicial interpretation successfully establish > these rights. > > I just think it's misleading to say that > abortion rights are equivalent to suffrage > or equal protection, or to say that they're > part and parcel of womyn's rights in general. > Maybe they should be, but the Court has > consistently framed them as an aspect of > the penumbra of due process and privacy rights > that protect everybody from undue government > interference. Whether that seems like > judicial indiscretion or mere cowardice > probably depends on which side of the issue > you fall. > > Devin > > Get your FREE Email at http://mailcity.lycos.com > Get your PERSONALIZED START PAGE at http://my.lycos.com From simmonbm Mon May 8 14:28:57 2000 From: simmonbm (Brian Simmonds) Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 12:28:57 -0700 Subject: NFL Nationals Judging Message-ID: If anyone can make it Portland (Oregon) in mid-June, NFL Nationals is looking for hired critics. (First-year outs cannot judge, but are invited to volunteer for other tournament jobs.) Reply to the address below if you are interested. **************************************************************************** POLICY DEBATE JUDGES NEEDED FOR NFL NATIONALS, JUNE 12-15, AFTERNOONS AND EVENINGS. $10.00 PER ROUND PLUS STANDBY PAY ALSO. MUST HAVE GRADUATED FROM HIGH SCHOOL BY JUNE OF 1998. CALL JUDY MCKEEVER (503-284-2337) OR E-MAIL: jmckeever at ttsd.k12.or.us From hansonjb Mon May 8 14:59:04 2000 From: hansonjb (Jim Hanson) Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 12:59:04 -0700 Subject: NCA Dates, 2001, 2002, Tourn. Coordination Message-ID: i thought i'd pass this on (i've added thanksgiving dates): NCA will be in: Atlanta,October 31 - November 4, 2001 (thanksgiving, nov. 22) New Orleans November 21 - 24, 2002 (thanksgiving, nov. 28) Not set for 2003 yet (thanksgiving, nov. 27) Michelle Randall Meeting Coordinator National Communication Association 703-750-0533 (jim hanson; whitman) From mkrueger Mon May 8 15:06:00 2000 From: mkrueger (Krueger) Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 15:06:00 -0500 Subject: 2000-2001 tournament calendar Message-ID: just another update, except to save bandwidth i am just putting it on our website at http://www.mtsu.edu/~debate/policy00-01.html again, all corrections and additions welcome. I know that several tournaments are not on the list, such as wichita, jccc, etc. I only put on the list what I get. take care, mike -- Michael Krueger Director of Debate Middle Tennessee State University Box 43 Murfreesboro, TN 37132 (615) 898-5607 (office) (615) 898-5826 (fax) http://www.mtsu.edu/~debate/ http://www.mtsu.edu/~msdi/ http://www.mtsu.edu/~mkrueger/ From chappy27 Mon May 8 15:29:21 2000 From: chappy27 (Sean Chapman) Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 13:29:21 PDT Subject: topographic amnesia? shapiro? Message-ID: I have been unsuccessfull at locating the borders article/book. I believe that the author is shapiro, but I am not even sure of that, I would greatly appreciate it if someone could assist me with finding the full source site. Also is this from a book or a journal or other? thank you ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From parcherj Mon May 8 15:40:07 2000 From: parcherj (Jeff Parcher) Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 16:40:07 -0400 Subject: AT:COOPER References: Message-ID: An interesting post. My answers follow the relevant text. > I think all of you have misinterpreted my use of "potential" in my argument > to better serve your defenses. I never make the argument that the fetus is a > "potential life" or that "potential life" should be protected. > Life is life...either it is or it isn't. MY argument is that the fetus > potentially IS a life, not that it has the potential to BECOME one. > Defending state intervention against the LATTER position is what leads to > ludicrous propositions like justifying the banning of masturbation or the > nightmarish vision of Margaret Atwood. Atwood's vision also contains a nightmare directed at protecting preganant women (as opposed to the handmaids who are merely fertile). Why doesn't protecting the life of the fetus allow the state to enslave pregnant women? Isn't that equally absurd? > Nope...my argument is simpler than that. We don't know if the fetus IS or > ISN'T a life. If it IS - it is endowed with all of the autonomy that the > rest of us have. All of it. And the same moral judgements that are used to > protect our autonomy apply with equal force. > Of course, it may NOT be a life at all...it may just have the POTENTIAL to be > a life. That's pretty clear...and that's not my argument..and hence the > response that the government should err in favor of the autonomy of REAL life > over POTENTIAL life is a strawfigure (and Jeff, I must not have been clear > because I can't imagine that you missed this unless it was intentional). Either way, my argument applies with equal force. Your position still leads to the absurdity of equating REAL lives with POTENTIAL lives. For instance, lets's say I think that there is a .01% chance that a fertilized egg is a person. According to your theory, the state would have to err in protecting that interest, presumably by banning abortion. However, there is atleast a .03 % risk of death during childbirth. Your solution in this case requires an individual to undergo an irrational risk. The REAL life deserves greater weight because it is certain. The potential life deserves discount because it is uncertain. I see how your clarification avoids some of my disutopian examples but I don't see how it answers the economic rationality arguments. BTW - if there is any chance at all that the fertilized egg is a life then your argument requires the state to ban the pill, depro provera and the IUD. These forms of birth control all act to prevent fertilized eggs from attaching to the uterus wall. From your pro-life perspective - the pill murders babies. I would suggest to you that such an outcome of public policy is intuitively absurd and utilitarianly disasterous. > < begins. It removes that question from effective public choice and > individual judgement under the guise of weighing risks. But, of course, it > has decided for us that the probability is high enough to justify > regulation - so it HAS made a judgement about the likilihood of the fetus > being a person.>> > I agree with this assessment. But the more important question is upon what > basis does the state err on the side that the fetus IS a life...and is that a > good or bad judgement? Let's think it out: IF the fetus is NOT a life, and > the government makes abortion illegal it has violated the right to privacy of > thousands of women. It has forced these women to carry the fetus to term, > with all the pain and agony and risk of death associated with pregnancy. It > has invaded the body of autonomous individuals and limited the choices of > those individuals to do with their bodies what they so choose. > But IF the fetus IS a life, and the government DOESN'T make abortion illegal, > it has condoned mass genocide of the weak by the strong. It has violated its > primary function, and done so willingly. And, in providing funding for the > procedure, it has been an active accomplis (spell?) in murder. > Tough choice, huh? 1. I'm unaware of how the state funds abortions. I thought the functional equivalent of the Hyde amendment prohibiting public funding was still in place, please inform if this is otherwise. 2. By avoiding making the utilitarian argument that banning abortion would stop the genocides you avoid my inevitable solvency turns. But in so doing you also relegate the impact of your argument to considerable backwaters. What is the impact of "condoning genocide" if you aren't willing to defend solvency for genocide itself? If condoning genocide doesn't lead to deaths then why is it bad? How can it compare to the enslavement of women you described above. 3. Each impact must be multiplied by the link probability. I am willing to risk an almost infinte risk of the state "condoning genocide" to avoid the enslavement of women. Yet, you must concede that the risk of impact A is near 100% while potentiality limits the risk of impact B to indeterinate amount that could be well under 1%. I just don't see how you can get into this debate without defending that abortion laws are utilitarianly useful in saving lives. > Well - here's the clincher. The unique problem of rape aside, at least in > the FIRST scenario, the victim (as it were) of the violation of autonomy is > responsible for at least some (if not a great deal) of the culpability. I > know it sounds like a cliche, but, she did in fact perform an action that > contributed to the moral dilemma in which the state now finds itself. Now, I > bet you're thinking...how cold...how callassed...it's like saying I am > somehow responsible for my punishment because I took an action I should have > the right to take. But I see it more like this...you have the choice to > adopt children...it's your right...but once you do, you have taken on the > responsibility to provide those children with a home and food and TLC and > all, and the state is probably acting judiciously in enforcing your living up > to that responsibility. If the state comes in and MAKES you stock your > refrigerator so that your kids have some food to eat, it is probably > violating your privacy and autonomy. But....you are at least SOMEWHAT > responsible for that invasion because you voluntarily took on the > responsibility by adopting those children. In the same way, the fetus does > not INVADE the home fo the womb...it is placed there voluntarily by the > mother and father. But once it's there, they have some responsibility for it. > In the latter situation, the fetus has not contributed to the moral dilemma > in which the state now finds itself. It didn't choose to be held hostage by > the mother's womb. Now...I suppose you could argue that it may have > autonomy, but should have to live on it's own outside the womb. That makes > some sense. But then what you are defending is not abortion, per se...but > some other medical procedure that simply removes the fetus. The current > procedures of suck and dispose are not that. 1. Culpability doesn't cut in only one direction. Let's say the state bans all abortions, but it turns out that the fetus is only 'autonomous' after the 24th week. For 24 weeks of the pregnancy she is inaccurately held culpable (prior to that there is no difference in culpability levels because the fetus is not an autonomous being for who culpability is relevant). Not only has a grevious injustice been done, but the regulation of early term abortions probably increases the number of late term abortions. It is quite possible that culpability has been made worse by delaying abortion until later in the term. 2. Culpability doesn't deserve much weight. I doubt that a significant percentage of aborted pregnancies are the result of an 'intention' to get pregnant. A very large number are performed on very young women who have made one kind of mistake or another. I simply don't find it that persuasive that 15 year old girls deserve to be punished for getting pregnant. Perhaps culpability deserves some weight, but it doesn't seem to be the clincher that you advertise. 3. Culpability only seems relevant in the world of utility. Unless you win that banning abortions saves lives how can culpability be assesed. Seems like you would have a big uniqueness problem. > < restrains others from acting must always be evaluated through > utilitarianism. It is only when the state takes affirmative action that > there is a question of deontological ethics.>> > Whoa. Now this one is a bit wierd. I would tend to think that under this > calculation, the state should allow all sorts of horrendous things. If it is > found to be of utilitarian benefit to check overpopulation by offing old > people, the state should allow active euthanasia. I think the state should allow active euthanasia whether there is a population problem or not. What kind of liberal draws the line for autonomy at the door of death. If I want to pay a doctor to kill me, that's my choice and I am surprised you are on the otherside given my previous understanding of your political philosophy. If you are talking about euthanasia which violates autonomy (i.e. murder), my answer is that such a policy isn't utilitarianly useful. Violating the autonomy of known persons has all sorts of risk attached to it. Population risks relate predomiantly to future generations which need to be discounted since they don't yet exist. Also, your solution wouldn't be the least intrusive solution so it would also fail a utility test on that account. >If it is found to be of > utilitarian benefit to check UNDERpopulation by inpregnating women, the state > should allow rape. But the states whole purpose is to CHECK individual > action -- to PREVENT the iolation of autonomy OF the weak BY the strong. Once again, I dispute that such a policy would ever pass the test of utility. >The > state has no other obligation to ACT. You are correct that there may not be > a question of deontological ethics in INaction...but it seems to me that > moral determinations must be a calculation in the prudence of state action or > inaction. It has to weigh BOTH, as I have attempted to do above with the > whole mass genocide arg. And, byt the way, it would be an ACTION of the > state here...it would be a determination of the morality of actively > punishing or deterring those who would perform abortions. Why isn't the state forcing women to undergo a risk of death in pregnancy, a deontological violation? Is this your 'they deserve it (culpability)" argument or are you presuming the risk of fetal personhood is greater than the risk of death in childbirth? If so, how can we know at what point that threshold gets passed. I'm not sure where we are in this whole affirmative vs. negative action. Perhaps, I just confused the issue with my inarticulateness. My point is simply this: Why is the act of banning abortion deontologically moral in a world where we can't look at consquences? Isn't banning abortion just one of the possible ways the state could seek to limit abortions. Why does protection of the fetus imply this specific state action? I understand why banning the death penalty could be seen as deontologically moral. It is the original state action which is immoral. But in the former case, there's an inevitable level of distance an abstraction between the individual choosing abortion and the state, that seems to make consequentialism inevitable. > Others have pointed to this "brain wave" argument as a ghood determinant of > the presence of life. But this seems kinda scary to me...and arbitrary. We > don't know that the presence of "brain waves" is the determinanct of life. > All we know (at best) is that the presence of "brain waves" is a marker. We > may know that life exists if we can detect brain waves, but we DON'T know if > it DOESN'T exist in the absense of that detection. > Of course, the scarier proposition is that this measure of life makes our > autonomy dependent on the state of technology. We haven't always been able > to detect brain waves. What happens if our ability to measure them become > more and more precise with the evolution of technology and we find that where > there was once nothing, we can actually now detect faint waves. In the > meantime, while we wait for better and better technology, we arbitrarily draw > a line based on our abiliyt to measure waves now and perhaps we annihilate > millions of LIVES -- "oops, my bad....I was using the best available > technology." Sorry...I'm just not comfortable allowing my moral culpability > to be dependent on the latest version of "Windows." This any risk argument gets very close to the disutopias I described earlier. Surely it leads to banning ALL abortions since it's POSSIBLE that life begins at conception. It clearly it means that we must ban the pill since it essentially kills fertilized eggs. Possibly it means masturbation must be outlawed - are we really that sure that individual cells aren't life? Don't they contain the DNA map necessary to build a person? Couldn't technology or ethics revolutionize our view? If not - how much risk is enough before the state MUST act and how do you know we've passed that threshold in the case of the fetus? Why is what women to whom you have no connection your moral responsiblity? I don't see how your 'moral culpability' is implied in any case. > This is all I can write right now...I have to get back to my case study of > Elian Gonzalez (ugh.)...but I'm willing to engage in this debate at length > once I have this paper out of the way. I'll be here. JP From forensics Tue May 9 18:27:42 2000 From: forensics (forensics) Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 16:27:42 -0700 Subject: Gist of Kritiks Message-ID: Interesting questions. The answers to them, I think, depend on one's assumptions of the value and function of competitive debate, and which critiques you are talking about. (By the way, my complaint about my entire post not being read was not directed at you). One of the fundamental difficulties I have with the current practice of critique debate is that it usually claims to alter the value and function of the activity, or at least seeks to do so. I have said many times that there are good critiques that fit well within the boundaries and requirements of propositional debate. An example referenced in another recent post, that of Mark West (and John Lapham) running a feminist critique of the legal system, is an excellent example of what I think a critique should be. In this case, Mark and John (one of my favorite teams to debate against) were arguing that the inherent flaws within the legal system provided a reason not to endorse the resolution (I can't say reason not to adopt the plan because there wasn't one being offered). This is, in my opinion, the way that critique debate should be practiced. But this assumes that one believes (as I do) that competitive debate, as currently constituted and practiced, is and should be propositional. This entails many theoretical and practical requirements in terms of argument and strategy. Within the propositional framework and structure, the answers to your questions are 1.) Yes; the critique does need an impact. That impact should be that the critique is a reason not to enact the plan. That impact may take the form of morality, justice, or any number of other values that the Neg argues should be considered in making the policy decision to enact the plan. 2.) Yes and no. If the critique is non-unique (and I assume you mean unique the Aff plan) it may have implications for the judge at a personal level, but it should not be a reason to vote Neg (against enacting the plan). 3.) Assuming this propositional function and paradigm of which I speak, most critiques will disappear because they do not appropriately fit into the framework. Now, on the other hand... If one does not see competitive debate as propositional in nature ( a perspective which currently suffers from a decided lack of theoretical support - argumentatively speaking) then the answers to your questions may be completely different. If you see debate as a forum for discovering truth and changing the world through personal advocacy (as many critiques I have heard claim to do) then the answers to your questions would probably be no, a critique does not necessarily need an impact, yes a critiques can be non-unique and have implications for the judge, and yes, critiques will stay around forever. But I really think this final question may be the most important, because it seeks to change the nature of the debate activity. Critiques that fall into this framework do not see value in being forced to defend both sides of an issue. They do not see value in actually answering the question posed by the resolution. This type of critique seems more interested in talking about issues that are beyond or just loosely related to the resolution. In this case (if proponents of these types of critiques) succeed in changing the nature of debate (something I personally hope does not occur) then critiques will not only not be a fad, they will become completive debate as we know it. Hope this helps Ken Sherwood LACC Debate -----Original Message----- From: Justin Walton [mailto:Judd400 at AOL.COM] Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2000 10:26 AM To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU Subject: Re: Gist of Kritiks Mr. Sherwood-- Indeed, I did read your entire post. It was quite informative. Again, here are my 3 central questions: 1.) Does a kritik need an impact? 2.) Can a kritik be non-unique and have implications for judge? 3.) Will kritiks have longevity as arguments, or are they just "fads" that will run their course? For clarification, my use of the term "fad" can be temporally conceptualized over a period of years (e.g., decades). The year 1991 wasn't "that" long "ago." J. Walton From anonymous_debater Mon May 8 21:31:48 2000 From: anonymous_debater (anonymous debater) Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 19:31:48 -0700 Subject: abortion debate Message-ID: i don't really want to get involved in this debate. i can't quote statistics for either side, i can't cite to you the latest case law. all i can do is tell my story and i'd appreciate it if those who are interested in this debate would listen... i lost my virginity at the age of 13. i was way too young to be having sex, but no one really told me that. i thought i was old enough. i was even responsible about it. i got on the pill once i started having sex, and made sure to use condoms as well. despite that fact, by the time i was 15 i was pregnant. the father was 16 and in a juvenile detention home. he denied it was his. i wanted to keep the child. i kept it a secret as long as possible. i had been to the doctor and gotten prenatal vitamins. i heard my child's heartbeat. finally after 4 and a half months, i told my mother, who was my only family. she threw me out of the house. for the next two weeks, my life became a nightmare. i could stay on friend's couches for a little while, but all of my friends lived with their parents, and their parents weren't willing to take me in. my mother offered to let me come home if i had an abortion. if i didn't agree, i had nowhere to go. people say that adoption is! an answer, but it wasn't for my mother. she would not let me live there, and no one had any suggestions on where i could go. i went to all sorts of clinics, and they were more than willing to provide me information on adoption, but no one could tell me where i would live during my pregnancy. the state agencies just told me that my mother couldn't legally kick me out, but what was i supposed to do? hire a lawyer? call the cops? how could i force her to let me live there? there may have been other things i could have done, but i didn't know about those, and no one was helping me. i was a high school dropout--the people at the school weren't going to help me. i couldn't support a child. i worked a couple of jobs, but i wouldn't be able to do that in my later months. the father certainly wasn't any help. and what would i do once i had the child? how would i pay for child care? the state wouldn't help me--they just kept telling me to go home. no shelters would take m! e because i was a minor. places for runaways wouldn't take me because i was pregnant. i had no health insurance, no money, no family, nothing except some clothes. i even thought about breaking a law so i could go to juvie and have a place to stay. i was that scared and desperate. instead i ended up having a saline abortion at 22 weeks of pregnancy, 3 days before i turned "sweet" 16... and that is the problem i have with "convenience" arguments. my story, and the stories of my friends that went through abortions, are not stories of convenience. they are stories of hard chices, stories of SURVIVAL. i was one of the luckier ones in my group--i attempted to prevent pregnancy because i knew i had those options. but i still got pregnant. i look back now and i know i made the right choice. i was not capable of taking care of a child. i think about how old that child would be now, and i don't think i'd be capable of taking care of it now. i know i certainly would not be in college. i would not have had the opportunity to get out of the neighborhood and lifestyle that i lived in. i made a choice, and you may not agree with it. all i'm asking is that you recognize that there are many stories out there and we shouldn't rush to judge anyone. you can talk about the theoretical issues behind abortion until you can't type anymore if you want. but realize th! at until steps are taken to address problems i had, and the problems many other teenage girls out there have, abortion will always be around. abstinence programs may help in middle class neighborhoods (i don't know), but it wouldn't have worked where i lived. girls had sex so they had someone to protect them, someone to love them. and if they had a child, their parents usually took the child in too. all of the girls in my neighborhood were pregnant before they were supposed to graduate high school. no one helped many of them, and many of them made the same choice i did. i look at the ones who didn't make it out and it breaks my heart. one of my best friends had 5 kids by the time she was 22... rather than lecturing about abortion rates and the legality and morality of it, we should be doing something to teach young people how to get out of poverty and/or avoid pregnancy in the first place. neither abstinence programs or abortion is the answer. the abortion rates will not decrease until something is done about the conditions that cause the pregnancies in the first place. IT IS NOT IRRESPONSIBILITY. ithere are much deeper social problems at stake. until then, please don't condemn me/us for wanting to survive and make something better of myself/ourselves...we all do what we have to do to survive, and i'm glad i had the choice that enabled me to survive. thanks for listening... --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20000508/ef5edebe/attachment.htm From asnider Tue May 9 11:14:43 2000 From: asnider (Alfred C. Snider) Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 10:14:43 -0600 Subject: Debate Central Broadcast Network Comment Day Message-ID: We have made some adjustments and some discoveries and today we ask for comments. To access DCBN you can call up the web page at http://debate.uvm.edu/dcbn.html, and this has the program schedule on it. You can also pick a number of programs to watch whenever you want, as they are available in the video library now. However, I encourage people to watch it by launching their QuickTime player, pulling down the "File" menu, and then selecting "Open URL." In that spot, type rtsp://frog.uvm.edu:1554/dcbn After you start receiving, go up to the "Favorites" menu and choose "Add Favorite." This way, you can accees DCBN whenever you want by just launching QuickTime and choosing DCBN from your favorites list, just like you do in your browser. Then, you can resize the window so that it looks good for you based on your computer, your connection, and your willingness to tolerate pixelation. This will make it easier for you to have DCBN on while you do other stuff on your computer. You must have QuickTime installed on your system. There is a link at the web page to download it for free. Here are some observations to guide your comments: 1. It isn't television. It will be, but it isn't now. 2. It takes a moment for the full picture to kick in. Let it play for a moment before getting vexed. 3. It is set for those using 56K modem connection or higher. 4. The programs with a lot of movement (NFL video, programs with changing backgrounds like Flashpoint on ESDI, etc.) don't work very well, as the system becomes overloaded. We will strive to keep backgrounds static in the future. 5. Yes, in the Vermont-Cornell policy debate they talk really fast. 6. This program package tries to offer a diversity of types of programs and video styles so we can experiment. Future programming will be different, of course. 7. Yes, two of the debates feature students from other countries speaking English as their second language. I was quite impressed by them. Please let us know how it looks, asnider at zoo.uvm.edu. Tomorrow, Wednesday, is our launch date. We will have a formal announcement then and will be thanking the many people who have helped us put this together. Best wishes for a digital media future, Tuna Alfred Charles Snider aka Tuna -- 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: http://debate.uvm.edu/ WORLD DEBATE INSTITUTE 2000 - make plans now - http://debate.uvm.edu/wdi.html Proud member of http://www.whosim.org - "Don't just observe it, experience it!" >From Tue May 9 10:27:39 2000 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 4672 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 9 May 2000 10:27:57 -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 KAA34008 for ; Tue, 9 May 2000 10:27:54 -0400 Received: from te146.liberty.edu (TE146 [10.2.6.253]) by iris.liberty.edu with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2650.21) id KRXAA1RA; Tue, 9 May 2000 10:27:09 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Importance: Normal Message-ID: <000001bfb9c2$baf3d840$fd06020a at te146.liberty.edu> Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 10:27:39 -0400 Reply-To: bodonnel at liberty.edu To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Brett O'Donnell Subject: ADA Business Meeting, May 18-19 Below is a reminder about the ADA Business meeting. Please e-mail me if you are planning on attending and with any items you would like on the agenda. Also e-mail me or contact Tim O'Donnell if you are planning on playing golf (we need to know if you planning on playing by Thursday, May 11). Brett O'Donnell American Debate Association ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Annual Business Meeting May 18-19, 2000 Fredericksburg, Virginia Holiday Inn-South 5324 Jefferson Davis Highway (U.S. Route 1) >From I-95 North take exit 126A, From I-95 South take exit 126 Make your own reservations by calling the hotel (540-898-1102) Rooms are $49.00 (outside) or $55.00 (inside-Holidome) plus tax Mention the American Debate Association when you call. Make reservations by May 5, 2000. ? ? ? ? ? The Business Meeting begins on Friday, May 19 at 9:00 a.m. At the Holiday Inn The Annual ADA Golf Outing will begin at 11:00 a.m. on Thursday, May 18 at the Gauntlet. Golf fees will be approximately $45.00. ? ? ? Contact Tim O'Donnell at 540-654-1252 if: ? you want to register for the golf outing, or ? you need help with the hotel Contact Brett O'Donnell (Liberty University) to register for the Business Meeting (804-582-2080 or e-mail at bodonnel at liberty.edu) Liberty University Debate From tweiner1 Tue May 9 09:52:44 2000 From: tweiner1 (Timothy J Weiner) Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 10:52:44 -0400 Subject: ADA Business Meeting, May 18-19 In-Reply-To: <000001bfb9c2$baf3d840$fd06020a@te146.liberty.edu> Message-ID: Hi Brett, I will hopefully becoming to the ADA meeting with Rich. We will be there just for the meeting. I think that Decker said that he won't be there but don't quote me on that. Jake Weiner GMU On Tue, 9 May 2000, Brett O'Donnell wrote: > Below is a reminder about the ADA Business meeting. Please e-mail me if you > are planning on attending and with any items you would like on the agenda. > Also e-mail me or contact Tim O'Donnell if you are planning on playing golf > (we need to know if you planning on playing by Thursday, May 11). > > Brett O'Donnell > > > American Debate Association > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? > Annual Business Meeting > > May 18-19, 2000 > Fredericksburg, Virginia > > Holiday Inn-South > 5324 Jefferson Davis Highway (U.S. Route 1) > > >From I-95 North take exit 126A, From I-95 South take exit 126 > > Make your own reservations by calling the hotel (540-898-1102) > Rooms are $49.00 (outside) or $55.00 (inside-Holidome) plus tax > Mention the American Debate Association when you call. > Make reservations by May 5, 2000. > > ? ? ? ? ? > The Business Meeting begins on Friday, May 19 at 9:00 a.m. > At the Holiday Inn > > The Annual ADA Golf Outing will begin at 11:00 a.m. on Thursday, > May 18 at the Gauntlet. Golf fees will be approximately $45.00. > ? ? ? > > Contact Tim O'Donnell at 540-654-1252 if: > ? you want to register for the golf outing, or > ? you need help with the hotel > > Contact Brett O'Donnell (Liberty University) to register for the Business > Meeting (804-582-2080 or e-mail at bodonnel at liberty.edu) > > > Liberty University Debate > From cdiamant Tue May 9 15:09:06 2000 From: cdiamant (Chris Diamant) Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 16:09:06 -0400 Subject: paging TOC finals panel Message-ID: Howdy, I had to leave early on monday, if any or all of you who judged the final round could give me a breakdown on their decision, i would really appreciate it. Thanks a lot. Chris -------------------------------------------------- Chris Diamant University of Pittsburgh / Centerville H.S. http://www.pitt.edu/~wpdu CSDiamant @ AIM >From Tue May 9 21:08:28 2000 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 13956 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 9 May 2000 22:06:45 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.46]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA41368 for ; Tue, 9 May 2000 22:06:40 -0400 Received: from lisaspc ([32.100.181.66]) by mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.39 201-229-119-122) with SMTP id <20000510020609.IJNA1339.mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net at lisaspc>; Wed, 10 May 2000 02:06:09 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 1 (Highest) X-MSMail-Priority: High X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: High Message-ID: Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 21:08:28 -0500 Reply-To: LCKanak at worldnet.att.net To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Lisa Kanak Subject: Desperately seeking IE judges for this Thursday! Comments: To: CX-L I had five judges pull out this morning, and I'm trying to round up people who would be interested in judging OO, HI, DI, Impromptu, and Duo Thursday, May 11th, 2000 at Westark College in Ft. Smith. Please pass this on to anyone who might be able to contact someone who is in a position to help. I am short at least three-six judges for each round on Thursday. Please help! I'm making calls to everyone I know (and even some I don't :)) Lisa C. Kanak >From Wed May 10 00:33:38 2000 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 0410 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 10 May 2000 00:43:22 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from spdmraab.compuserve.com (ds-img-rel-2.compuserve.com [149.174.206.155]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA34392 for ; Wed, 10 May 2000 00:43:21 -0400 Received: (from mailgate at localhost) by spdmraab.compuserve.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/SUN-REL-1.3) id AAA03331 for edebate at list.uvm.edu; Wed, 10 May 2000 00:42:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from noel.idebate.org (mid-qbu-nqx-vty9.as.wcom.net [216.192.116.9]) by spdmraab.compuserve.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/SUN-REL-1.3) with ESMTP id AAA03316 for ; Wed, 10 May 2000 00:42:44 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: nt-domain/nse/nselegzi at snake-eyes.soros.org (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Message-ID: <4.3.1.2.20000510001219.045f01c0 at snake-eyes.soros.org> Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 00:33:38 -0400 Reply-To: nselegzi at IDEBATE.ORG To: Team Topic Debating in America From: "Noel S. Selegzi" Subject: Re: EDEBATE Digest - 8 May 2000 to 9 May 2000 (#2000-134) In-Reply-To: Dear Bear, IDEA, the International Debate Education Association, has received to date the majority of its funding from the Open Society Institute, which was founded and is primarily funded by Mr. Soros. The Open Society Institute in the United States and Eastern Europe, the Former Soviet Union, and Haiti, has done much to support debate. More information on the Open Society Institute can be had at www.soros.org. More information on IDEA can be found at www.idebate.org. Perhaps you have qualms with the way that Mr. Soros earned the billions that he has been giving away (about $18,000,000 having been given to debate). If you supported the protests in either Seattle or Washington, D.C., depending on the reasons you did, I could see how you might be be troubled with Mr. Soros's business activities. Still, many of the protestors in both instances could find Mr. Soros's business practices acceptable. More to the point, however, the grants that have been given by OSI to IDEA do not depend on IDEA supporting Mr. Soros's business activities. IDEA was formed to help spread academic debate throughout the world and support debate programs wherever they may exist. The reason that IDEA approached Jack Rogers was to expand the reach of the International Journal of Forensics. The journal will continue to have an independent editorial board and be a peer reviewed journal like any other academic journal. IDEA will remain far removed from the Soros Funds and Mr. Soros's business activities. It is an international membership association, registered in the Netherlands, with a board of seven individuals representing seven different countries (Mr. Soros is not on of the Board Members, though two representatives of the Open Society Institute currently do sit on its board). The reason Mr. Soros has supported debate is because he supports the ideal of the open society and recognizes that debate is necessary to the establishment and maintenance of Open Societies. I think these sentiments are shared by most people in the debate community. You may disagree with how Mr. Soros earned his money, but I think we can all agree with his understanding of the relationship between debate and an open society. All the best, Noel From schiros Wed May 10 00:07:37 2000 From: schiros (Matthew Schiros) Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 01:07:37 -0400 Subject: Strict Constructionism and Abortion Message-ID: This is just a reply to bill newnam's arguments, specifically his first post. 1.) The constitution never refers to ANYONE as less than a whole person, and certianlly not 2/3. The number was 3/5, and it was due to the fact that there was no reason that slaves should have been counted for legislative purposes in the south, b/c that would have disbalanced the powere between the two regions. 2.) I'm curious as to why you associate abortion with women's rights. 3.) Explain to me how the following rights structure a male dominated society: Speech Religon Assembly Bearing ARms Freedom from government coercion Freedom from excessive punishment Freedom from a government that just wants to jack your money and give it to someone (thing) that you don't want it going to. Freedom of the Press The Right for Women To Vote (Amendments Sucka!) Right to not have jack booted thugs take your house The right to a fair trial.... Do i really need to continue? 4.) Why do you hate the Constitution so much? It's a pretty good documents as far as I'm concerned (or at least it would be if the government didn't keep violating it). Later, Roid ------Gyrations at EFNet----------------MSchiros at AIM----------Gyroid at ICQ--------- Matthew J. Schiros - The Supreme CafMaster Gyrator Join The Gyrations of Freedom - http://www.nacs.net/~schiros/gof/ "The writer's overpowering impulse is to gyrate before his fellow man, flapping his wings and emitting defiant yells. This being forbidden by the police of all civilized countries, he takes it out by putting his yells on paper." [H.L. Mencken] Free Roid ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- >From Wed May 10 01:08:08 2000 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 0827 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 10 May 2000 01:08:51 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo-r20.mail.aol.com (imo-r20.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.162]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA34428 for ; Wed, 10 May 2000 01:08:45 -0400 Received: from MWBRYANT at aol.com by imo-r20.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v26.7.) id 4.be.3a74b59 (3317); Wed, 10 May 2000 01:08:08 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 105 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 01:08:08 EDT Reply-To: MWBRYANT at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Michael Bear Bryant Subject: Re: EDEBATE Digest - 8 May 2000 to 9 May 2000 (#2000-134) Comments: To: nselegzi at idebate.org In a message dated 5/9/00 10:43:47 PM Mountain Daylight Time, nselegzi at IDEBATE.ORG writes: > The reason Mr. Soros has supported debate is because he supports the ideal > of the open society and recognizes that debate is necessary to the > establishment and maintenance of Open Societies. I think these sentiments > are shared by most people in the debate community. You may disagree with > how Mr. Soros earned his money, but I think we can all agree with his > understanding of the relationship between debate and an open society. > Some of the problems with relying on Soros money, that others have written about (I've posted cites previously) : 1. It is money made by speculating on currencies - the lowest level of the neoliberal "crapshooting." 2. OSI efforts are used to deflect local reaction to the heavy-handed way Soros ties his policy recommendations to his rating of a country's currency. The ultimate impact of this can be directly traced to increased poverty levels in Great Britian after Soros single handedly brought down the Bank of England in the early '90's. 3. Soros' efforts to win over Serbia with "trade and free speech" hardly stand as ringing endorsements of OSI efforts. 4. The ends do not justify the means. 5. Soros is not God. Why does he make people use that title around him? There have certainly been no shortage of articles about his "silence" suits against former workers. Hardly a ringing personal endorsement of free speech, right? Spreading debate worldwide is good. It can happen without the billions from Soros. Debate need not be a PR device for Soros to lay claim to. Sorrry for the bluntness of my feelings, but I've already seen what happens to a bureaucracy when it sniffs the kind of cash you really represent. Bear, the solitary voice >From Wed May 10 01:55:15 2000 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 0995 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 10 May 2000 02:05:13 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from spdmraab.compuserve.com (ds-img-rel-2.compuserve.com [149.174.206.155]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA34360 for ; Wed, 10 May 2000 02:05:11 -0400 Received: (from mailgate at localhost) by spdmraab.compuserve.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/SUN-REL-1.3) id CAA20182 for edebate at list.uvm.edu; Wed, 10 May 2000 02:04:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from noel.idebate.org (mid-qbu-nqx-vty3.as.wcom.net [216.192.116.3]) by spdmraab.compuserve.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/SUN-REL-1.3) with ESMTP id CAA20164; Wed, 10 May 2000 02:04:31 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: nt-domain/nse/nselegzi at snake-eyes.soros.org (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Message-ID: <4.3.1.2.20000510010751.0485e9d0 at snake-eyes.soros.org> Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 01:55:15 -0400 Reply-To: nselegzi at IDEBATE.ORG To: Team Topic Debating in America From: "Noel S. Selegzi" Subject: Re: EDEBATE Digest - 8 May 2000 to 9 May 2000 (#2000-134) Comments: To: MWBRYANT at aol.com In-Reply-To: At 01:08 AM 5/10/00 -0400, MWBRYANT at aol.com wrote: >In a message dated 5/9/00 10:43:47 PM Mountain Daylight Time, >nselegzi at IDEBATE.ORG writes: > >1. It is money made by speculating on currencies - the lowest level of the >neoliberal "crapshooting." Is this an argument against gambling? You'll have to be more specific, but I don't see why there's anything wrong with trading in currencies. Now, Mr. Soros, because he's a market-maker can cause market movements that unfairly punish currencies. He was wrongly blamed, for instance, of the Ruble's decline two years ago, but the argument goes this way: If Soros says a currency is overvalued, people will assume he's right and sell the currency in vast quantities thus making Soros's claim true. Soros is, in fact, known as the "Man who Broke the Bank of England" for his speculations on the Pound and his movements against the Pound probably did have this affect. Britain, though, survived nicely. Further, like all gamblers, Soros doesn't win 'em all. Soros lost millions when the Ruble went south since he had billions invested in Russia at the time. What exactly's wrong with trading on the currency market. Is currency trading for you what usury was for the Catholic Church for centuries? >2. OSI efforts are used to deflect local reaction to the heavy-handed way >Soros ties his policy recommendations to his rating of a country's currency. >The ultimate impact of this can be directly traced to increased poverty >levels in Great Britian after Soros single handedly brought down the Bank of >England in the early '90's. Could you show the link between Soros's currency trading and increased poverty levels in Great Britain? Further, if your claim is true, why has OSI done so very little in England? Wouldn't Mr. Soros be interested in improving people's opinion of him in England? Is it just that he has something against England? He was, by the way, educated there. Also, he didn't actually break the bank of England, though he did cause some difficult times for the bank. Further, Britain today enjoys the lowest unemployment rates in Europe and is currently enjoying a long period of economic growth. In part, this is true because Britain didn't join the Euro and continued to support the very Pound Soros attacked. Soros, by the way, lost millions betting on the Euro. >3. Soros' efforts to win over Serbia with "trade and free speech" hardly >stand as ringing endorsements of OSI efforts. Explain? Are you upset that Mr. Soros supported the NATO bombing? What's your argument? Would you reject U.S. government grants because you opposed its policies in certain countries? >4. The ends do not justify the means. In this case I don't think the means were bad, but I also think that sometimes the ends can justify the means. Consider, too, that you have a political ax to grind with Soros and how he makes his money. What you're arguing here is that thousands of kids should be effectively denied the opportunity to debate rather then accept his money. without offering any alternative funding sources. You are, in effect, using those kids to further your political ends. If you want to oppose Soros, then oppose him, but don't oppose people using his money to give thousands of kids the opportunity to debate. Your seem in your post to be adopting what Max Weber called the "Ethics of Ultimate Ends". The problem is that I think both that Mr. Soros is not as bad a person as you may think and that, even if he were guilty of being a ruthless capitalist that sometimes an "Ethic of Responsibility" is the better one to adopt. I'd rather see thousands of kids debate then reject his grants for the sake of making a point. >5. Soros is not God. Why does he make people use that title around him? Uhm, I've worked for OSI for three years - on the few occasions where I've spoken with him I've called him Mr. Soros. Some people call him GS, and a few people I know refer to him as George. He has admitted to having a messiah complex - these things happen. >There >have certainly been no shortage of articles about his "silence" suits against >former workers. Hardly a ringing personal endorsement of free speech, right? Some OSI consultants and employees sign anti-disparagement agreements when they accept employment. I can see having qualms with it, but once you sign it, it is legally binding and people can be sued for breaching it. The thing is, no one is forced to sign the agreement. You're right, there is a tension between these agreements and support of free speech. Still, these agreements are common in all sectors of our society. I had to sign a loyalty oath before being allowed to coach at a New York City high school. I found it offensive, but I signed it since I wanted to coach. >Spreading debate worldwide is good. It can happen without the billions from >Soros. Debate need not be a PR device for Soros to lay claim to. The reason OSI has decided to give grants to an independent debate organization is to make it clear that debate is NOT a PR device for Soros. If you have any good ideas on how IDEA can raise money to support debate programs in Mongolia, Haiti, Tajikistan and a few other countries, I'd be happy to hear them. I've been trying and, so far, and haven't been able to get much support. It's easy to say that IDEA shouldn't take Soros money, but if it didn't - there would be a lot less debate in the United States and abroad. If you look at the countries in which IDEA operates, you'll see that many are incredibly poor. Were it not for OSI, there would be no debate program there. Even in the United States, Soros money has been needed to spread debate into disadvantaged schools. The Urban Debate Initiative that has been so successful in the bringing debate to hundered of high schools around the U.S. owes it success Right now, unless we can quickly find money to replace OSI's, there will be no debate in many of the places around the world. You're welcome to help us try! >Sorrry for the bluntness of my feelings, but I've already seen what happens >to a bureaucracy when it sniffs the kind of cash you really represent. What bureaucracy are you talking about? Why not write a paper on "Why Soros is Bad for Debate" for the IJF - I think if it was well researched that thoe editors would accept it. Heck, even if they didn't, you could publish it somewhere else. I'd be interested in seeing how it was received. Maybe you're not the solitary voice you claim to be. Even if you are, though, you may still represent a majority of one. You may be right, I may be wrong ... All the best, Noel >From Wed May 10 03:43:34 2000 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 1439 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 10 May 2000 03:44:13 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from imo18.mx.aol.com (imo18.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.8]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA03590 for ; Wed, 10 May 2000 03:44:12 -0400 Received: from Sgw8 at aol.com by imo18.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v26.7.) id n.d0.5990c0a (4329) for ; Wed, 10 May 2000 03:43:34 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 105 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 03:43:34 EDT Reply-To: Sgw8 at AOL.COM To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Darius Wilkins Subject: Re: Strict Constructionism and Abortion Whole point of some of this stuff is that if certain rights are repressed indirectly, or are controversial, sometimes there must be an explicit garruntee. Your point about the 3/5 part of the constitution was kinda sad. The historical context of the deal-making that surrounded this clause is almost certain that slaves were intended to be three fifth peoples. The other two fifth of a person? Autonomy and certain stereotypical traits. Southerners wanted more power, and presented people who can't vote as reason to up their representation because they represent slaves. Northerners didn't feel that was fair so they resisted. Wound up agreeing to split the difference. Hey, at least it gave the United States a poisoning experience. The Constitution has major problems as has been pointed out by several good books if not by reverential texts. 1) It's too inflexible--only 25 admendments, and some were insignificant and the last is outright dangerous in case a pugnacious, saucy, person were to take proper advantage. This inflexibility has been used often to prevent very necessary changes in goverment structure and force ad-hoc policy pathways a la John Marshall or FDR. 2) It's an inherently classist document with an bicameral structure designed to prevent any real say by population. The only reason bicameral governmening bodies exists is to provide more levers of control by an elite. The Senate wasn't representative for most of our history, and it's doubtful that we gain anything by having a senate if you really think about it. 3) The system of checks and balances allows for really horrible policy practices because it diffuses responsibility and decreases visibility of decision-making. In other words, Congress passes horrible shit because it knows it won't be held to the responsibility due to the check action of the president and courts. Also, this allows Congress to starve other agencies of cash because Congress does not directly controls these agencies and thus peeved congressmenwomen do not have to fear anger from other congresspeople who might object. 4) Even as the presidency is a relatively weak office, the constitution essentially gives the prez the power to become dictator with very little debate, with the possibility of permanent life sanction. And it's really not that far-fetched. Witness Georgia Gov. Roy Barne's considerable consolidation of power that maybe permanently ensconced into the governorship. The Supreme Courts has been a barrier to Congress ever giving away the power. The Supreme Court doesn't have a great tradition of being enforced without considerable respect. Still remember its condemnation of Georgia as it raped the Cherokee Nation when gold was found. Furthermore, the Supreme Court do not really get the greatest lawyers or law scholars nominated to the bench. Just people who vote the party vote most of the time. Shades of FDR. 4) It just is an old document that needs to be wholesale updated to modern conventions without the need for judges to discern how the founding fathers would have thought of mandatory pollution controls with cars and nuk plants and the such. 5) This is a document with considerable vagueness that can be whored to any ideology--look at loose vs strict construction. Speech is constrained with new version of Sedition Acts, only it's patent and copyright law abuse doing censorship instead of government control. Religeon is violated all the time, particular for those that aren't of the major religeons--especially when they contradict Judeo-Christian norms, you know, mormon polygamy, peyote use, ritual strangulation (I'm willing to let Shiva worshipers down though) Assembly? Hah! Like I've said before, if there's one thing governments are truly afraid of, it's mobs. This is not really enforced, and dangerous encoachment has occurred in anti gang law. We've already witness the controversy about arms, whether it's in registered militias or in individuals. We don't know, and the Constitution can't help us anyways. So we go by ad hoc pretending George Washington is alive today. Freedom from gov. coercion is a real laugh, you know. Always been just an ideal, because neither governments nor citizens behave. Death penalty, need I say more? But if everyone had a say about the money, wouldn't it just go back to themselves, defeating the purpose of taxation and making governments nonexistent? Ooooh, you had to hate those neat drug forfeture laws. Hey, Court say those are constitutional. Freedom of the press is still ok, I guess. Now if we can get more non-morons into journalism majors, maybe we could do more with it. ( moron does not reflect the journalism majors on the list, maybe) Suffrage was something admendments had to have a lot of help for... ever heard of eminent domain? You know, being used in Pittsburgh for business purposes? You know, in Texas, you can get a lawyer. A lawyer who never did criminal cases, payed something like 14 dollars an hour, and 500 dollars for expert witnesses. Fair trials are consistently under seige for many different reasons. It's a pretty good documents as long as you have good lawyers and donate to your local congressmen. Darius Wilkins From brophydb8 Wed May 10 02:50:54 2000 From: brophydb8 (Larry Wulkan) Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 00:50:54 MST Subject: Strict Constructionism and Abortion Message-ID: What are you talking about? I don't understand the warrants behind half of your claims. Larry ASU Law >From: Darius Wilkins >Reply-To: Sgw8 at AOL.COM >To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU >Subject: Re: Strict Constructionism and Abortion >Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 03:43:34 EDT > >Whole point of some of this stuff is that if certain rights are repressed >indirectly, or are controversial, sometimes there must be an explicit >garruntee. > >Your point about the 3/5 part of the constitution was kinda sad. The >historical context of the deal-making that surrounded this clause is almost >certain that slaves were intended to be three fifth peoples. The other two >fifth of a person? Autonomy and certain stereotypical traits. Southerners >wanted more power, and presented people who can't vote as reason to up >their >representation because they represent slaves. Northerners didn't feel that >was fair so they resisted. Wound up agreeing to split the difference. > >Hey, at least it gave the United States a poisoning experience. > >The Constitution has major problems as has been pointed out by several good >books if not by reverential texts. > >1) It's too inflexible--only 25 admendments, and some were insignificant >and >the last is outright dangerous in case a pugnacious, saucy, person were to >take proper advantage. This inflexibility has been used often to prevent >very necessary changes in goverment structure and force ad-hoc policy >pathways a la John Marshall or FDR. > >2) It's an inherently classist document with an bicameral structure >designed >to prevent any real say by population. The only reason bicameral >governmening bodies exists is to provide more levers of control by an >elite. >The Senate wasn't representative for most of our history, and it's doubtful >that we gain anything by having a senate if you really think about it. > >3) The system of checks and balances allows for really horrible policy >practices because it diffuses responsibility and decreases visibility of >decision-making. In other words, Congress passes horrible shit because it >knows it won't be held to the responsibility due to the check action of the >president and courts. Also, this allows Congress to starve other agencies >of >cash because Congress does not directly controls these agencies and thus >peeved congressmenwomen do not have to fear anger from other congresspeople >who might object. > >4) Even as the presidency is a relatively weak office, the constitution >essentially gives the prez the power to become dictator with very little >debate, with the possibility of permanent life sanction. And it's really >not >that far-fetched. Witness Georgia Gov. Roy Barne's considerable >consolidation of power that maybe permanently ensconced into the >governorship. The Supreme Courts has been a barrier to Congress ever >giving >away the power. The Supreme Court doesn't have a great tradition of being >enforced without considerable respect. Still remember its condemnation of >Georgia as it raped the Cherokee Nation when gold was found. Furthermore, >the Supreme Court do not really get the greatest lawyers or law scholars >nominated to the bench. Just people who vote the party vote most of the >time. Shades of FDR. > >4) It just is an old document that needs to be wholesale updated to modern >conventions without the need for judges to discern how the founding fathers >would have thought of mandatory pollution controls with cars and nuk plants >and the such. > >5) This is a document with considerable vagueness that can be whored to >any >ideology--look at loose vs strict construction. > >Speech is constrained with new version of Sedition Acts, only it's patent >and >copyright law abuse doing censorship instead of government control. > >Religeon is violated all the time, particular for those that aren't of the >major religeons--especially when they contradict Judeo-Christian norms, you >know, mormon polygamy, peyote use, ritual strangulation (I'm willing to let >Shiva worshipers down though) > >Assembly? Hah! Like I've said before, if there's one thing governments >are >truly afraid of, it's mobs. This is not really enforced, and dangerous >encoachment has occurred in anti gang law. > >We've already witness the controversy about arms, whether it's in >registered >militias or in individuals. We don't know, and the Constitution can't help >us anyways. So we go by ad hoc pretending George Washington is alive >today. > >Freedom from gov. coercion is a real laugh, you know. Always been just an >ideal, because neither governments nor citizens behave. > >Death penalty, need I say more? > >But if everyone had a say about the money, wouldn't it just go back to >themselves, defeating the purpose of taxation and making governments >nonexistent? Ooooh, you had to hate those neat drug forfeture laws. Hey, >Court say those are constitutional. > >Freedom of the press is still ok, I guess. Now if we can get more >non-morons >into journalism majors, maybe we could do more with it. ( moron does not >reflect the journalism majors on the list, maybe) > >Suffrage was something admendments had to have a lot of help for... > >ever heard of eminent domain? You know, being used in Pittsburgh for >business purposes? > >You know, in Texas, you can get a lawyer. A lawyer who never did criminal >cases, payed something like 14 dollars an hour, and 500 dollars for expert >witnesses. Fair trials are consistently under seige for many different >reasons. > >It's a pretty good documents as long as you have good lawyers and donate to >your local congressmen. > > Darius Wilkins ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From asnider Wed May 10 11:11:17 2000 From: asnider (Alfred C. Snider) Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 10:11:17 -0600 Subject: Vermont Tournaments Message-ID: Because we need more places to send novice debaters.... October 21-22, 2000 Logic & Love Debates Sponsored by SAMBA 6 rounds, novice & JV only, varsity can judge. VERY low fees, cheap hotel rooms. February 10-11, 2001 Robert Huber Debates 6 rounds, varsity, JV, novice Low fees, cheap hotel rooms Alfred Charles Snider aka Tuna -- 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: http://debate.uvm.edu/ WORLD DEBATE INSTITUTE 2000 - make plans now - http://debate.uvm.edu/wdi.html Proud member of http://www.whosim.org - "Don't just observe it, experience it!" From suebell Wed May 10 09:27:04 2000 From: suebell (Susan J Stanfield) Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 09:27:04 -0500 Subject: Longview Community College debate position (Kansas City) Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 09:49:29 -0500 From: Kathy Kiser To: suebell at ksu.edu Subject: Thanks for posting this for me. METROPOLITAN COMMUNITY COLLEGES - KANSAS CITY MO LONGVIEW COMMUNITY COLLEGE POSITION SUMMARY: Full-time faculty position to teach Speech Communications and coach forensic/debate team. REQUIREMENTS: Master's degree in Speech Communications or closely related field required Ability to travel with forensic/debate team required Ability to arrange travel and tournament entries required Prior college teaching experience preferred REPORTS TO: Division Chair COMPENSATION: Salary is commensurate with education and experience. Competitive benefit package is included. APPLICATION PROCEDURE: All materials must be received or postmarked no later than June 2, 2000 to receive initial consideration. A MCC application must be accompanied by the following: A cover letter which indicates the position of interest and addresses the following: The mission of the community college and how you would contribute to the mission; How your teaching style would reflect the diverse learning styles of our students; Your familiarity with the instructional technology appropriate to your discipline; The basis for your familiarity with multi-culturalism as you would apply it to your discipline; and The techniques you will use to improve your teaching ability in the next five years. A resume to include three professional references with name, address, and phone number. Official or student copies of your transcripts. A curriculum vitae, including graduate and undergraduate courses and credits related to the position and list of courses taught on the college level, may initially be substituted for resume and transcripts. Candidates who are currently completing the specified degree or requirements must submit documentation that all requirements, including conferral of degree, will be met by June 1, 2000. Official transcripts will be required if selected for interview. Send materials to: HUMAN RESOURCES OFFICE Metropolitan Community Colleges 3217 Broadway, Suite 300 Kansas City, MO 64111. For additional information, you may call (816) 759-1234 or see posting on website at http://personnel.kcmetro.cc.mo.us/ >From Wed May 10 10:34:50 2000 Message-Id: Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 4903 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Wed, 10 May 2000 10:35:32 -0400 Precedence: bulk Received: from mc-qout4.whowhere.com (mc-qout4.whowhere.com [209.185.123.18]) by list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA20932 for ; Wed, 10 May 2000 10:35:30 -0400 Received: from Unknown/Local ([?.?.?.?]) by angelfire.com; Wed May 10 07:34:50 2000 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sent-Mail: on X-Mailer: MailCity Service X-Sender-Ip: 207.196.2.46 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Language: en Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 10:34:50 -0400 Reply-To: jimhaefele at angelfire.com To: Team Topic Debating in America From: Jim Haefele Organization: Angelfire (http://email.angelfire.mailcity.lycos.com:80) Subject: Constitutional problems? Warrants? -- On Wed, 10 May 2000 03:43:34 Darius Wilkins wrote: > >The Constitution has major problems as has been pointed out by several good >books if not by reverential texts. > >1) It's too inflexible--only 25 admendments, and some were insignificant and >the last is outright dangerous in case a pugnacious, saucy, person were to >take proper advantage. This inflexibility has been used often to prevent >very necessary changes in goverment structure and force ad-hoc policy >pathways a la John Marshall or FDR. There are 27 amendments. I may not be informed about the horrific dangers of the pugnacious as it relates to Congressional pay structures in Amendment 27, but you're not really explaining this particularly well. Also, I think your unexplained "inflexibility" argument is pretty much completely wrong--the fact that it has survived for so long proves it. >2) It's an inherently classist document with an bicameral structure designed >to prevent any real say by population. The only reason bicameral >governmening bodies exists is to provide more levers of control by an elite. >The Senate wasn't representative for most of our history, and it's doubtful >that we gain anything by having a senate if you really think about it. > What? Bicameralism is classist inherently? Why? Explanation? Also, the Senate is way, way more rational than the House, which has greater tendencies to be knee-jerk, heated, and political..... >3) The system of checks and balances allows for really horrible policy >practices because it diffuses responsibility and decreases visibility of >decision-making. In other words, Congress passes horrible shit because it >knows it won't be held to the responsibility due to the check action of the >president and courts. > Like what? Checks and balances BAD is not a compelling position--while it slows the gears down, it prevents a too-powerful executive, an irresponsible Congress, or a tyrannical judiciary. You need more examples to have a snowball's chance in hell of proving this argument. >4) Even as the presidency is a relatively weak office, the constitution >essentially gives the prez the power to become dictator with very little >debate, with the possibility of permanent life sanction. And it's really not >that far-fetched. Witness Georgia Gov. Roy Barne's considerable >consolidation of power that maybe permanently ensconced into the >governorship. Um, wrong. 22nd Amendment. Also checks and balances. Dictator? What? When? Life sanction? Governor Roy Barnes wasn't, as far as I know, the President of the United States. The Supreme Courts has been a barrier to Congress ever giving >away the power. The Supreme Court doesn't have a great tradition of being >enforced without considerable respect. Still remember its condemnation of >Georgia as it raped the Cherokee Nation when gold was found. Furthermore, >the Supreme Court do not really get the greatest lawyers or law scholars >nominated to the bench. Just people who vote the party vote most of the >time. Shades of FDR. > I don't understand what is being argued here. The Court has made good decisions and bad decisions, and this is far afield from your indict of the Constitution as a document. >4) It just is an old document that needs to be wholesale updated to modern >conventions without the need for judges to discern how the founding fathers >would have thought of mandatory pollution controls with cars and nuk plants >and the such. In what way? Suggestions? Calling for another Constitutional Convention is a dangerous, dangerous thing, especially in the politically vicious world as it exists now. I think the Constitution's ability to work in spite of widespread social change is precisely its strength. >5) This is a document with considerable vagueness that can be whored to any >ideology--look at loose vs strict construction. > This directly contradicts your inflexibility argument above. AND this indict is hardly unique to the Constitution--the only document that could escape ideological pandering would be so utterly inflexible as to be useless in ten years, or ten minutes. Everything below this is just complaints about the government. While many of these are legitimate, accurate criticisms, they couldn't be less relevant to questions of the value of the Constitution. In fact, many of them are reasons why the values outlined in the Constitution are GOOD and that VIOLATIONS of the Constitution are bad! I think, frankly, that the Constitution is a fantastically impressive document--no other political document in US history, and arguably, world history, has had the same timelessness. Don't conflate criticisms of US policy with criticisms of the Constitution. I'll defend the latter to the teeth, but the former only selectively. Constitutionally yours, Jim Haefele >Speech is constrained with new version of Sedition Acts, only it's patent and >copyright law abuse doing censorship instead of government control. > >Religeon is violated all the time, particular for those that aren't of the >major religeons--especially when they contradict Judeo-Christian norms, you >know, mormon polygamy, peyote use, ritual strangulation (I'm willing to let >Shiva worshipers down though) > >Assembly? Hah! Like I've said before, if there's one thing governments are >truly afraid of, it's mobs. This is not really enforced, and dangerous >encoachment has occurred in anti gang law. > >We've already witness the controversy