From Patio11 Tue Jul 31 23:22:26 2001 From: Patio11 (Patio11 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 00:22:26 EDT Subject: Food for thought re: debate, capitalism, protest, etc Message-ID: <6e.dc64c2b.2898de02@aol.com> I took the liberty of highlighting the parts which I thought you'd find interesting. The first highlighted bit is roughly midway through the article. This article is lifted verbatim from National Review Online, by Peter Wood 7/25/01, available for your perusal at http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-woodprint072501.html Patrick McKenzie (This is not my usual email address, if you feel it necessary to reply please do so to pjm1 at cec.wustl.edu. Thank you) BEGIN SNIP >> Friday in the Piazza Alimonda in Genoa a policeman shot dead a murderous young thug named Carlo Giuliani. The Italian media have reported that Mr. Giuliani was a beggar with a criminal record, but that day he was a masked anarchist about to hurl a fire extinguisher at the head of a cop. Two days after his death the anti-globalization protesters proclaimed him a martyr to their cause, "a model of compassion and commitment." Carlo had become Jack the (would-be) Giant Killer crushed by the Global Giant. The New York Times, meanwhile, was puffing the softer side of anarchism. In an article by John Tagliabue, we learned that Atle Mikkola Kjosen, 25, and his companion, Siv Helen Hesjedal, 22, are Norwegians who are "tanned and blond, with attentive blue eyes," and a desire to "rid the world of capitalism because it unfairly divides the rich from the poor." Atle and Siv are majoring in development studies at the University of East Anglia in Britain, and are "determinedly pacifist and nonviolent." But they were among the protesters on the Piazza Alimonda mourning the compassionate and committed Carlo. Anti-globalization, animal rights, radical environmentalism: We live in an age of na?ve and futile but peculiarly destructive protest movements. Although their agendas appear in some ways quite disparate, their memberships and their occasions for protest overlap, and they share some deeper characteristics. They radiate a kind of cheerfulness while shrugging off any serious sense of responsibility for the nastiness they foment. And their roots are very clearly in the contemporary university. We don't need to go to the University of East Anglia to discover the streak of cheerful inconsequence displayed by Atle and Siv. It exists all around us in the little things that university leaders say and do. Consider this: the new president of Princeton University, Shirley Tilghman, who took office this month, declared, "I would like to think we could begin to attract students with green hair. We will take pink and blue and orange hair, too." President Tilghman's call for greater diversity of hair color among Princeton students may seem light-hearted to some, but she was of course speaking to the need for the Ivy League university to open itself up to the fun-loving spirit of alienation that manifests itself these days in parakeet-colored tresses. Presumably Princeton does not actually deter applicants who have green hair; it simply does not project the kind of image which makes the chartreuse-coifed comfortable. We tremble here on the brink of something, although I am not sure whether it is profound insight or the crater of the extinct volcano of sixties radicalism . Anyone who has tuned into the CNN pictures of the exuberant anarchists of Seattle, or Davos, or last week Genoa, knows that fashionable protest has a carnival-esque quality. Before the riot comes a riot of colors (competing with the ever-timely basic anarchist black), costumes louder than the ubiquitous bullhorns and tom-toms, and slogans boisterously rendered in a vivid palate on white sheets. The sober analysts who I hear commenting on these protesters always seem to miss the point. The analysts complain that the protesters have no clear message; that they claim to speak on behalf of the poor and oppressed in the Third World, yet offer proposals that would only extend poverty and deepen misery; and that the economic theories of the protesters are crudely irrational. I say, of course! Of course! These are, after all, our liberal-arts graduates. They have been taught to feel, not to think. They have learned from their teachers that "so-called" rational thought is just one of the masks worn by power. They believe that expressing one's solidarity with the victims of power requires action, not overly intellectualized theories. This is not to say that the inchoate armies of the Left cannot whomp up a theory when one is needed. Unabomber Ted Kaczynski, after all, offered a 35,000-word opus on the evils of modern technology, a work now admired and respected within the subculture of terror-symp radical environmentalists. The protest movements can and do spawn elaborate explanations of why it is a good thing to burn laboratories, destroy experimental crops, and occasionally kill people. But these theories have a fairy-tale quality to them. They are expressions of placid belief that the world is just so: Greedy capitalists, money-hungry corporations and their political stooges relentlessly driving down the poor, the weak, and the different. The tale is Marxist-sounding, but far more diffuse than earlier generations of Leftist mythology. The unifying theme of contemporary radical protest is flamboyant incoherence. Princeton could admit many green, pink, and blue-haired individuals without deeply altering the character of a Princeton education. The dining clubs would not collapse; the Firestone Library would remain a splendid underground catacomb of books. The real change was cultural and it occurred long before President Tilghman's call to admit the quick and the dyed. College was once the passage from the lingering enchantments of childhood to the harder mysteries of adult knowledge, but it has become more and more an extension of childhood, a period in which trivialities abound and the search for new enchantments proceeds. For some that search leads to the dusty hall of mirrors that is sixties revivalism. Last year when a flyer went up on my campus announcing a lecture by Noam Chomsky, I overheard the buzz of undergraduates excited by the prospect of seeing not one of the founding figures of modern linguistics, but the loony anti-American, anti-capitalist conspiracy theorist. Chomsky is held in reverential regard by one strain of the Seattle-cocci, along with a handful of other sixties relics, like the radical historian Howard Zinn. But the radical movements du jour ? anti-globalization, animal rights, and radical environmentalism--are more than Sixties' Kool-Aid in the Earth Friendly recyclable boxes of the Naughts or the Zippies. The participants in these movements see themselves as better informed about the way the world really works than any of their predecessors, and their source of this surpassing wisdom is not the campus radicals of the past but the students of those radicals who went on to make their own university careers. For example, Martha Ackelsberg, the Chair of the Department of Government at Smith College, received her Ph.D. from Princeton (where she "explored anarchist theories of justice in Godwin, Bakunin, and Kropotkin") and now is a leading figure in "anarcho-feminism." Her 1991 book, Free Women of Spain: Anarchism and the Struggle for the Emancipation of Women, is an anarchist discussion-group favorite. The participants in the radical movements of the moment also see themselves as taking unprecedented advantage of new information technologies to bypass old forms of organizing. January a year ago, a young man named Lance, still flush with the excitement of the Seattle protests, wrote to me about the possibility of his pursuing a Ph.D. in anthropology in my department. He had been impressed with the Direct Action Network's success in "creating a human chain around the meetings to block the delegates" and was fascinated with the activists' use of "informal lines of communication" and "their agenda against post-colonialism." He wrote to me because he saw a fit with my "interests in modernity and cultural change." Lance had ill luck, I suppose, in writing to an anthropologist who considers colonialism not an unmitigated evil but a mixed affair. But the fluidity with which Lance combined his sympathetic view of anti-globalist activism with ambitions for advanced academic study is a good illustration of the essential academic character of this movement. Anti-globalism, like our other contemporary radicalisms, is a welter of confused ideas the loci of which are not the factory floor, the tropical plantation, or the union hall, but the university classroom and the campus coffee shop. One of the foes conquered by the fairy-tale hero Jack The Giant Killer is a two-headed giant. Jack, who has hidden a pouch full of porridge inside his jacket, pretends to cut open his own stomach without suffering ill results. The giant says, "I can do that too," eviscerates himself and, of course, dies. In their dream world, the protesters retell this myth: the plucky young heroes will trick the evil old giant into destroying himself. But I have an illustrated edition from the 1870s that suggests the protesters may have mistaken their giant. He does not look much like the World Trade Organization, Globalization, the G-8 Summit, or even George Bush. Rather, standing in his frock coat, one head beaming with benevolence and hospitality, the other impatient to get to work with his cudgel, he looks an awful lot like the giant of the Left in his castle, the contemporary university. But I don't expect any help from Jack. His disrespect for the indigenous culture of giants and the disabled ? two-headed giants being unfairly stigmatized as evil and stupid ? has earned him exile from contemporary children's lit. In any case, Carlo Giuliani was neither a brave Jack nor a martyr to any meaningful cause. He was an aimless and ignorant young man enjoying the opportunity for lawless violence that the gentle idealists of the university had set in motion. From Kcmoattorney Tue Jul 31 23:16:08 2001 From: Kcmoattorney (Kcmoattorney at cs.com) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 00:16:08 EDT Subject: The Problem With Post-Marxist/Post Modern Criticisms Message-ID: <7c.19533f53.2898dc88@cs.com> Scott, FWIW, I agree with you. Among other problems, the kritik, along with the issues raised by Mr. Stroube, make a huge assumption that the audience believes that capitalism is evil and that more progressive (read: socialist) alternatives can miraculously overcome the perils of coercion and the innate drive of human nature to excel in order to achieve the a better society. In my opinion, this is the failing of the kritik, that while the arguments all play well in the ivory tower, they don't do much on the street, and little niceties like implementation get ignored in the analysis. I think Stroube's criticism of what he calls "professional dabaiting societies " fails to demonstrate that these societies are mutually exclusive with the debate he values, that being debate among workers in factories and in homes. What is it about the McLaughlin Report, for example, that causes workers in factories to eschew independent discourse about national issues? By my reading, Stroube's sources think the rank and file assign their positions and beliefs to popular advocates who debate for them. And, by that measure, what is it about collegiate debate, being as insular as it is, that stifles debate in factories and homes? And if one believes that the media cooptation of "debate" has put the brakes on these other forms of the activity, what, pray tell, does this have to do with the collegiate "game" of debate? The way I see it, the requirement that teams debate both sides of the resolution, and by operation, both sides of most issues raised, prevents these "professional dabaiters" unlike media figures, from becoming surrogate advocates for workers in factories and homes. In this way, the academic debate "game" can be separated from surrogate advocacy in the popular media. Like the missing impacts of capitalism, I see this as an unevidenced leap in the argument. Just my $.02 worth, your mileage may vary. Chris Cushman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010801/54293e19/attachment.htm From debate Tue Jul 10 12:58:19 2001 From: debate (Jason Stone) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 13:58:19 -0400 Subject: Soliciting Topic Area Experts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.20010710135819.00839e10@facstaff.richmond.edu> Clough was disregarded b/c the ballots were already distributed. He hit the literature nail on the head and his prescriptions plagued our debates all year long. A topic expert is essential. Please pursue this vigorously Shawn. However, I don't know of anyone that I would recommend. Respectfully, Jason Stone From warming_files Sun Jul 1 00:07:59 2001 From: warming_files (J T) Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2001 00:07:59 Subject: Straw poll results, Sat. @ 7pm central Message-ID: Thanks for everyone who quickly wrote in with their vote... With the limited results so far (8 schools), looks like this: 2 schools voted for Resolution #1 (federal recognition)(with two others saying it won't be ranked for them) 4 schools voted for Resolution #2 (appropriations) 2 schools voted for Resolution #3 ("control") (both of which ranked #2 as second, and no ranks for #1) More tomorrow.... JT _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From firemaple Sun Jul 1 01:48:05 2001 From: firemaple (Lorie Bonham) Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 23:48:05 -0700 Subject: High School debate web pages Message-ID: <003201c101f9$c7fe49a0$5a6ef018@hppav> Can someone give me list of national HS debate related web pages. Thanks Lorie Bonham- GSU "Attitudes are contagious. Mine might kill you." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010630/8f3951e3/attachment.htm From joule678 Sun Jul 1 00:35:26 2001 From: joule678 (Catherine L. Jones) Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2001 00:35:26 -0500 Subject: University of Texas Message-ID: <3B3EB69F.EA1B86CB@home.com> Could someone from the debate team of the University of Texas in Austin please backchannel me? Thanks, Cathy Jones NHS Debate From DaveAnt420 Sun Jul 1 13:04:36 2001 From: DaveAnt420 (DaveAnt420 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2001 14:04:36 EDT Subject: Business Proposal Message-ID: Did anyone else on the list receive this message, below, or am I the only one receiving email attempts to recruit Bill Balthrop into international banking fraud? This is actually a quite common type of fraud, I'm told by two Nigerian students, but why in the hell am I receiving it? I don't see any indications in the accompanying headers why this would arrive in my mailbox. Any computer gurus out there that can explain? Really weirded out, Bear In a message dated 6/30/01 3:03:22 PM Mountain Daylight Time, sulemaina at yahoo.com writes: > Subj: Business Proposal > Date: 6/30/01 3:03:22 PM Mountain Daylight Time > From: sulemaina at yahoo.com (dr. maina suleiman) > To: vwb at EMAIL.UNC.EDU > > Subject: Confidential Business Proposal > > Dear sir, > > My name is DR. SULE MAINA, a Branch Manager at one of > the commercial banks in Nigeria by name, Zenith > International Bank Plc., Lagos. It is my humble > pleasure to write you this letter irrespective of the > fact that you do not know me. However, I came to know > of you in my private search for a reliable and > trustworthy person that can handle a confidential > transaction on my behalf. The nature of the > transaction is as follows: - A foreigner who though is > late, by name Nicholas Owen, a Civil > Engineer/Contractor with the Federal Government of > Nigeria, until his death three years ago > in ghastly air crash, banked with us and had a closing > balance of USD$32.5M (Thirty-Two Million, Five Hundred > Thousand United States Dollars). > > During these past three years, every attempt by our > bank to locate his next of kin or any relation of his > proved abortive, as there were no available > information in this regard at our disposal before his > death. > > Due to this development, our bank is now contemplating > the idea of donating this fund to a discredited trust > fund for National arms and ammunition > procurement, which in all ramifications at the end > will not be to the positive benefits of any one. In > order to thwart this negative > intention and in the process avail our selves of this > fund since it is classified ?un-claimable by our bank? > I now seek your URGENT cooperation to refer > you as the surviving next of kin, related by blood > through his mother. I shall generate necessary related > documentation to support this claims, and thereafter > our bank shall proceed to release the fund and > transfer it into your nominated bank account. > > For your cooperation, when the fund gets into your > bank account, you > will retain 30% and release 60% to us, while the > balance of 10% will > be used to off-set related pre-remittance expenses. I > can assure you > that this arrangement is risk free, as we shall > proceed to retrieve all > related documentation and destroy them, and at the > same time erase > necessary > information from the central computer systems of our > bank after the > successful transfer of the fund into your bank > account. > > If this proposal is OK by you, then kindly get back to > me immediately, providing me with your bank account > coordinate where the fund can be transferred. You can > reach me for further information and clarification on > my private telephone number 234-1-7741584 or > fax 234-1-7594658 or E-mail address To ensure the > success of this transaction, I request that you should > treat it with all deserved honesty and > confidentiality. > > I respectfully await your urgent response. > > Best Regards, > > > DR. SULE MAINA > > > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail > http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ > > > ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- > Return-Path: > Received: from rly-yh01.mx.aol.com (rly-yh01.mail.aol.com [172.18.147.33]) > by air-yh04.mail.aol.com (v78_r3.8) with ESMTP; Sat, 30 Jun 2001 17:03:22 - > 0400 > Received: from web13704.mail.yahoo.com (web13704.mail.yahoo.com [216.136. > 175.137]) by rly-yh01.mx.aol.com (v79.20) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINYH16- > 0630170259; Sat, 30 Jun 2001 17:02:59 -0400 > Message-ID: <20010630210258.33097.qmail at web13704.mail.yahoo.com> > Received: from [63.227.235.63] by web13704.mail.yahoo.com; Sat, 30 Jun 2001 > 14:02:58 PDT > Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 14:02:58 -0700 (PDT) > From: "dr. maina suleiman" > Subject: Business Proposal > To: vwb at EMAIL.UNC.EDU > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > From elisiaco Sun Jul 1 13:48:28 2001 From: elisiaco (elisiaco) Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2001 11:48:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Business Proposal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: A professor at USC received a similar letter earlier this year as well. They may be looking for academics or using a similar list. I don't know anything about the header problem. On Sun, 1 Jul 2001 DaveAnt420 at aol.com wrote: > Did anyone else on the list receive this message, below, or am I the only one > receiving email attempts to recruit Bill Balthrop into international banking > fraud? > > This is actually a quite common type of fraud, I'm told by two Nigerian > students, but why in the hell am I receiving it? > > I don't see any indications in the accompanying headers why this would arrive > in my mailbox. Any computer gurus out there that can explain? > > Really weirded out, > > Bear > > In a message dated 6/30/01 3:03:22 PM Mountain Daylight Time, > sulemaina at yahoo.com writes: > > > Subj: Business Proposal > > Date: 6/30/01 3:03:22 PM Mountain Daylight Time > > From: sulemaina at yahoo.com (dr. maina suleiman) > > To: vwb at EMAIL.UNC.EDU > > > > Subject: Confidential Business Proposal > > > > Dear sir, > > > > My name is DR. SULE MAINA, a Branch Manager at one of > > the commercial banks in Nigeria by name, Zenith > > International Bank Plc., Lagos. It is my humble > > pleasure to write you this letter irrespective of the > > fact that you do not know me. However, I came to know > > of you in my private search for a reliable and > > trustworthy person that can handle a confidential > > transaction on my behalf. The nature of the > > transaction is as follows: - A foreigner who though is > > late, by name Nicholas Owen, a Civil > > Engineer/Contractor with the Federal Government of > > Nigeria, until his death three years ago > > in ghastly air crash, banked with us and had a closing > > balance of USD$32.5M (Thirty-Two Million, Five Hundred > > Thousand United States Dollars). > > > > During these past three years, every attempt by our > > bank to locate his next of kin or any relation of his > > proved abortive, as there were no available > > information in this regard at our disposal before his > > death. > > > > Due to this development, our bank is now contemplating > > the idea of donating this fund to a discredited trust > > fund for National arms and ammunition > > procurement, which in all ramifications at the end > > will not be to the positive benefits of any one. In > > order to thwart this negative > > intention and in the process avail our selves of this > > fund since it is classified ???un-claimable by our bank??? > > I now seek your URGENT cooperation to refer > > you as the surviving next of kin, related by blood > > through his mother. I shall generate necessary related > > documentation to support this claims, and thereafter > > our bank shall proceed to release the fund and > > transfer it into your nominated bank account. > > > > For your cooperation, when the fund gets into your > > bank account, you > > will retain 30% and release 60% to us, while the > > balance of 10% will > > be used to off-set related pre-remittance expenses. I > > can assure you > > that this arrangement is risk free, as we shall > > proceed to retrieve all > > related documentation and destroy them, and at the > > same time erase > > necessary > > information from the central computer systems of our > > bank after the > > successful transfer of the fund into your bank > > account. > > > > If this proposal is OK by you, then kindly get back to > > me immediately, providing me with your bank account > > coordinate where the fund can be transferred. You can > > reach me for further information and clarification on > > my private telephone number 234-1-7741584 or > > fax 234-1-7594658 or E-mail address To ensure the > > success of this transaction, I request that you should > > treat it with all deserved honesty and > > confidentiality. > > > > I respectfully await your urgent response. > > > > Best Regards, > > > > > > DR. SULE MAINA > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > > Do You Yahoo!? > > Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail > > http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ > > > > > > ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- > > Return-Path: > > Received: from rly-yh01.mx.aol.com (rly-yh01.mail.aol.com > [172.18.147.33]) > > by air-yh04.mail.aol.com (v78_r3.8) with ESMTP; Sat, 30 Jun 2001 17:03:22 - > > 0400 > > Received: from web13704.mail.yahoo.com (web13704.mail.yahoo.com [216.136. > > 175.137]) by rly-yh01.mx.aol.com (v79.20) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINYH16- > > 0630170259; Sat, 30 Jun 2001 17:02:59 -0400 > > Message-ID: <20010630210258.33097.qmail at web13704.mail.yahoo.com> > > Received: from [63.227.235.63] by web13704.mail.yahoo.com; Sat, 30 Jun > 2001 > > 14:02:58 PDT > > Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 14:02:58 -0700 (PDT) > > From: "dr. maina suleiman" > > Subject: Business Proposal > > To: vwb at EMAIL.UNC.EDU > > MIME-Version: 1.0 > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > > > From scottvarda Sun Jul 1 15:35:20 2001 From: scottvarda (scott varda) Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2001 16:35:20 -0400 Subject: If you're feeling Quixotic Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010701/ef8eba98/attachment.html From scott_j_king Sun Jul 1 15:41:13 2001 From: scott_j_king (Scott King) Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2001 13:41:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: If you're feeling Quixotic In-Reply-To: <200106302015547.SM00155@[209.39.34.30]> Message-ID: <20010701204113.17638.qmail@web9504.mail.yahoo.com> One thing that everyone needs to remember in this case is that the supreme courts 5-4 decision was to stop the recount while they mulled over what to do. They later allowed the recount to happen with less than one day to count the 60,000 votes. Why couldn't the supreme court allow the vote counting to continue while they decided upon further action? By overturning their earlier decision and allowing the recount to continue, so close to the deadline, puts this whole issue into question. Not that it was liberal v. conservative. By stopping the counting while bush was securely in the lead and finally allowing the counting to continue when it was certain it would be impossible to recount all the votes, it would appear that the court did have a somewhat political agenda. Granted there were political agenda's in the past, but none of those major political decisions happened in the past 2 years. None of those happened in the current political climate with current news reporting and the internet. Now the issue is: Because of current situations, looking at how the votes were stopped and restarted (while a court could have let them count the votes for the third time while making a decision) did they do something extremely grave or erroneous. If the Scalia 5 hadn't been worried about bush losing the third counting, why not let them continue to count? Why did they HAVE to stop the recount? Regardless of whether bush really won or not, can we now trust that a future 5-4 decision in the supreme court (scalia 5 v. conservative 4) be accurate and not politically based? If we can't trust that they will be objective, why not do something to try and help make sure of it? Even if they aren't removed from office the scare of having impeachment procedings ought to help shake things up a bit. Scott King Wyoming ===== Our Lives Begin To End The Day We Become Silent About Things That Matter. ~Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ From john.meany Sun Jul 1 16:44:53 2001 From: john.meany (Meany, John) Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2001 14:44:53 -0700 Subject: Job announcement (assistant), Claremont Colleges Debate Union Message-ID: Claremont McKenna College June 26, 2001 Assistant Director, Debate Union Claremont McKenna College is seeking an Assistant Director for the Debate Union. The position, beginning August 1, requires working with a large number of students in a competitive program, with an emphasis on policy debate, national and international parliamentary debate, and public debate. It is a ten-month, part-time position, requiring approximately 10 hours weekly. Weekly hours may vary. Pay is an hourly wage based on experience. Responsibilities The Assistant Director will assist coordination and administration of competitive debate programs, public debate and discussion projects, and educational outreach initiatives; communicate with and direct student intern staff; develop and implement debate training workshops and individual coaching plans; assist the production of topic-specific research; and fulfill other duties as assigned by the Director of Forensics. The Assistant Director is expected to travel to tournament and public debating events. Skills The Assistant Director position requires experience with and knowledge of academic policy and parliamentary debate (preferred debate coaching and judging experience in multiple debate formats); an ability to work in a collaborative environment as part of team-excellent human relations and interpersonal communication skills; an ability to effectively assume responsibility for duties and to implement them in a timely fashion; an ability to communicate clearly and concisely in both written and verbal contexts; and an ability to work professionally with students, faculty and staff, alumni, colleagues, and members of the community. Qualifications The position requires a Bachelor's degree and/or any combination of education and experience that provides the required knowledge, skills, and abilities. At least one year of intercollegiate debate coaching and judging in policy and parliamentary debate formats is preferred. Applications To apply, send a letter of application, resume, and letter of recommendation to Claremont McKenna College, Attn: Human Resources Department, 500 East Ninth Street, Lower Level, Room 104, Claremont, CA 91711-6400, (909) 607-1237 FAX, jobs at mckenna.edu. Please note the employment position number: M467. Claremont McKenna College hires and promotes individuals on the basis of their qualifications, consistent with applicable state and federal laws, without regard to race, color, religion, gender, pregnancy, national origin, ancestry, citizenship, age, marital status, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, or sexual orientation. Inquiries may be directed to the Director of Human Resources, 500 E. Ninth Street, Claremont, California 91711-6400, (909) 621-8490. Employment is contingent upon new employee providing documents verifying U.S. citizenship or, for aliens, documents verifying legal permission to work in the United States; applicants acceptability for positions requiring use of a college vehicle is contingent upon a driving record acceptable to the College's automobile liability insurance. Promotion from within is encouraged whenever qualified employees of Claremont McKenna College are available. Interested employees are urged to contact the Director of Human Resources if qualified for any of the above openings. Please do not contact departments directly. From doyle Sun Jul 1 17:56:47 2001 From: doyle (Doyle Srader) Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2001 17:56:47 -0500 Subject: One last note on Quixotism ... Message-ID: Pursuing Porter's crusade is a good thing if for no other reason than the pride you can take in the calibre of people you'll have for enemies. You should check out the petition, which is at ... http://www.petitiononline.com/impeach/petition.html ... look at the signatures to date, and check out the quality humor that people from FreeRepublic chose to share. Also get a load of how dependent they are on racial and anti-gay slurs for their humor. I guess when you're feeble-minded, you can't be funny unless you're showing your closet Nazi tendencies. Now, it never occurs to these Einsteins that if this picks up any momentum, part of the press coverage it gets will include those responses, which will just make them look semi-evolved, and likely throw undecided people Porter's way. That would require having enough cerebral mass to make a joke that didn't involve homoerotic imagery, a quality which seems to be in short supply among these Shi'ite Conservatives (a good Molly Ivins line that I can't help borrowing). And if nothing else, you might see where Schiros obviously gets some of his sense of "satire." Doyle Srader Lecturer, Speech Communication Stephen F Austin State University http://titan.sfasu.edu/~f_sraderdw/ From Stannard67 Sun Jul 1 18:37:08 2001 From: Stannard67 (Stannard67 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2001 19:37:08 EDT Subject: ballots and chads Message-ID: <42.16f04fce.28710e24@aol.com> check out: http://matt.jensen.tripod.com/chad.html From mss242 Sun Jul 1 21:11:27 2001 From: mss242 (Michael Sawyer) Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2001 21:11:27 -0500 Subject: If you're feeling Quixotic References: <200106302015547.SM00155@[209.39.34.30]> Message-ID: <00d701c1029c$4d78ca40$6600a8c0@rh.psu.edu> > Michael Sawyer wrote: > > > the question does not imply this; rather, it implies that the 4 liberal > > justices voted for gore in bush v gore simply because it gave gore a chance. > > You will never be able to prove that this is not the case, just as you can't > > prove that the conservative justices voted for bush for just that reason. > > You just can't think those are mirror image situations. You just can't. You > have enough brain cells to operate a computer. A paramecium could tell that > conservative justices voting as a bloc to put a conservative candidate in > the White House is not the same as a liberal bloc voting to allow the count > to continue. "Give a chance" is not the same as "elect." These aren't hard > concepts. Obviously, the effects of the votes are not the same, but i am not arguing that they are. Rather I am saying that the motives for voting are the same. You can't prove that they aren't. Furthermore, the only matter that is even slightly relevant to my original question is what the motives of the justices were. You were claiming that the 5 conservative justices made a nakedly political decision rather than one based on the constitution. My contention was that the 4 liberal justices made just as political a decision. Thus, there motives are the same!!!!! And guess what, this simple claim, that could be made by even a paramecium, has yet to be refuted, despite your wonderfully useful ad hominem attacks. If i shoot you to kill and miss but you shoot to kill me and hit, isn't what we did equally as bad, ethically speaking? > > the point of the question is to point out doyle's incredibly shoddy case for > > impeachment. the only proof he has that the 5 justices acted politically is > > that he considers them to to be conservative. > > Pretending I didn't make any other arguments doesn't mean they weren't made. > Others read them, even if you didn't bother. I said once the Court accepted > the case, they had to negotiate an outcome that would've gotten some > line-crossing support. Earl Warren understood this. Warren Burger understood > it in U.S. v. Nixon -- historical documents since then have suggested that > if one justice had dissented, Nixon would've refused to turn over the tapes. Dude, none of this is even slightly relevant to the matter at hand. the court hardly always generates decisions that get line crossing support > When the proper operation of the entire political system hangs in the > balance, there really ought to be perfect bipartisanship on the court before > things proceed, but that's in a perfect world. However, when the decision is > such a disruptive intervention, and it comes down along ideological lines, > it's just unacceptable. wait, didn't you just grant my argument? it's unacceptable for such a decision to come down along ideological lines, which means that the 4 liberals came down along ideological lines, right? Just because there are more "conservatives" than "liberals" doesn't make the ideolgical voting only wrong for conservatives. > And what's this about I "consider" them to be conservative? Are you really > making the claim that I'm the only one who think Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, > Kennedy and O'Connor are the Supreme Court's conservative bloc? That I'm > just making that up? Granted, the choice of words was poor, yet some may make the case that O'connor is not entirely conservative. they are certainly not conservative vis a vis hitler, but it doesn't really matter for this dispute. > > Even granting that gore did win florida and that he should be president now > > (both of which i happen to agree with) gives your case no more merit. The > > justices can still claim that they made their decision based on the merits of > > the bush side. > > They can't sustain that claim. They wrote an unsigned per curiam opinion > that made no danged sense, especially in light of the very votes those same > justices had been casting for the past several years. Making some attempt to > appear to follow precedent is one of the prerequisites for legitimacy. I don't see any proof of this claim anywhere in the past posts i have from you. Maybe i just deleted that email, but support other than your guarantee would be nice. If you can prove such an argument, then i will gladly shut up and hope for the impeachment to begin. > > this whole thing really does suck, mostly because bush is president and > > because he practically stole the presidency. But none of that changes the > > fact that neither you nor doyle nor this 80 year old lawyer can do shit > > about it. > No, YOU can't, and solely for the reason that you're certain you can't. I > feel differently, as do the Oregon Democratic Party and the National > Lawyers' Guild. And in a backchannel I got from Porter, he quoted Margaret > Mead: "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can > change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." If, at > whatever age you are, you've already decided that no guarantee of tangible > and complete success means there's no reason to try, then that's too bad. I'm not saying that individuals can't change the world. I was saying that absent proof of ideological based decision, you're fucked. I seriously hope you're not, but thats the way it looks now. > Doyle Srader > Lecturer, Speech Communication > Stephen F. Austin State University > http://www.netdot.com/doyle/ > > "Unless the highest court can be set in motion by the humblest individual, > justice is a mockery." -- George Bernard Shaw > > From stannardmatt Sun Jul 1 20:24:14 2001 From: stannardmatt (matt stannard) Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2001 19:24:14 -0600 Subject: WDC correction Message-ID: Left out some and included others I shouldn't have: Weber: Josh Eames only ENMU: John Hanson, in a coaching capacity Mercer: David Cisneros 42 students, 10 coaches. Please keep me updated and let me know if you have any questions. stannard _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From opiesql Sun Jul 1 21:09:15 2001 From: opiesql (Dan O'Malley) Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2001 21:09:15 -0500 Subject: Another rigged voting system from the Bush's Message-ID: Another one for you Doyle, I know that you are still pursuing truth and justice in the American voting system, so you may already be aware that the Seattle Mariners are completely toasting other baseball teams in the All Star Balloting. Now, we all know that the Mariners were held in check during the Clinton years despite having Randy Johnson, Ken Griffey Junior, Edgar Martinez and A-Rod - so it must be that the Bush administration is propping up the Seattle voting scheme. (Probably for drilling rights in the Pacific Northwest) Didn't I read an article about Cheney's former company doing a lot of business in Washington? Maybe it wasn't DC afterall. And to throw one more your way - The federal appeals court vacated the anti-Microsoft ruling at roughly the same time - which proves that the judiciary is also involved. In fact, isn't it peculiar how little Scalia and his followers talk about baseball in their decisions. But they can't hide it from us truthseekers. A link to an article is below. Dan O'Malley Miami University Alum, but don't blame Voth http://www.sportsline.com/b/page/pressbox/0,1328,4058737,00.html _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From phan Mon Jul 2 00:35:26 2001 From: phan (Chris Phan) Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2001 22:35:26 -0700 (PDT) Subject: If you're feeling Quixotic In-Reply-To: <00d701c1029c$4d78ca40$6600a8c0@rh.psu.edu> Message-ID: I am not really interested in getting involved in this argument over impeaching Supreme Court justices, but I thought you all might find this interesting. The Oregonian's conservative columnist wrote this piece about the Democratic Party of Oregon's plan. I disagree with his assessment of the petition as "cashier[ing] sitting justices en masse based on one decision that didn't break their way," (and just about *everything else* he has *ever* written). However, he did do some journalistic legwork by contacting Oregon's Democratic members of Congress (four out of our five Representatives and one of our Senators). Of the three who were willing to speak on the record, none of them seemed willing to pursue the petition. This just shows that the supporters of the petition have a lot of work to do. http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/david_reinhard/index.ssf?/news/oregonian/david_reinhard/ed_11dwr701.frame | Chris Phan | phan at lclark.edu | clipman at yahoo.com | http://www.lclark.edu/~phan/ | PGP Key ID: 0x8CD549EA From tgonos Mon Jul 2 11:02:29 2001 From: tgonos (Tracy Gonos) Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 12:02:29 -0400 Subject: If you're feeling Quixotic References: <20010629235719.71152.qmail@web10004.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I did not vote for Al Gore, am not an Al Gore supporter and don't really care to get involved in the "Bush v. Gore right or wrong" discussion, but Duane did make an erroneous comment below that warrants a response. He says the Florida Supreme Court ruled repeatedly in a matter where state courts have no relevance (or perhaps he meant jurisdiction). He supports this point by vague reference to numerous "tomes" published since the election. This claim, whether or not actually supported by numerous tomes, which I doubt, is completely inaccurate. State governments set election procedure for ALL elections - both federal and state. That is why even in federal elections procedures can vary vastly from state to state (and even from county to county assuming a given state does not set a uniform state procedure - e.g. Florida prior to recent reforms). Accordingly, when there are disputes about election procedures they always fall within state jurisdiction. It is actually the exception rather than the rule for federal courts to become involved in such disputes, even in federal elections. This "exception" kicks in whenever the election dispute implicates some constitutional issue - such as equal protection of the law under the fourteenth amendment. Even if an election dispute implicates a federal constitutional right, absent exigent circumstances, state courts generally get the first bite of the adjudication apple with the litigants having a right of appeal in the federal courts because of the existence of a federal constitutional question. I am just about to finish up a clerkship with a federal judge in the Court of Appeals. I am in the very unique position of having actually worked on an election dispute case (the case arose in Pennsylvania, not Florida though) and during the course of that work had to thoroughly research this issue. The biggest hurdle for the plaintiffs in that case was to get around all of the case law that said federal courts generally should not be involved in disputes over election procedures, regardless of whether they govern state or federal elections, unless there is a significant claim alleging a violation of the federal constitution THAT STATE COURTS REFUSED TO ADDRESS OR REMEDY. In fact, the plaintiffs lost the case I'm referring to precisely because they could not specificy a federal constitutional violation even though they were challenging the results of a FEDERAL election. Moreover, you can't have failed to notice that neither the federal Court of Appeals or the US Supreme Court so much as alluded to any impropriety in the Florida Supreme Court (or lower courts) exercising jurisdiction in these cases. That was not an oversight on their part. In fact, Bush's team initially tried to bypass the Florida state courts all together and filed a petition for relief in the Federal Court of Appeals in Atlanta. That Court declined to rule because issues of state law were still pending. It is undeniable that NO federal court took any action in the case until the Florida Courts had made final rulings on the various issues. The federal courts only became involved when it appeared (to those courts) that the Florida Supreme Court had taken a position that was inconsistent with a Constitutional mandate. As for the "tomes" published post election arguing that the Florida courts had no jurisdiction, relevance, business, or whatever being involved in settling the dispute, I would certainly be interested in reading them for humor value if for no other reason. Tracy Gonos Should we also impeach the Florida State Supreme Cout for its 7-0 and 4-3 to rulings in favor of Gore in a matter where a State Court has no relevance (in a State election they would, but in Federal Election they really don't as has been pointed out in the numerous tomes written since the election ended). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010702/0ee0faef/attachment.htm From tgonos Mon Jul 2 11:02:41 2001 From: tgonos (Tracy Gonos) Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 12:02:41 -0400 Subject: If you're feeling Quixotic References: <20010629235719.71152.qmail@web10004.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I did not vote for Al Gore, am not an Al Gore supporter and don't really care to get involved in the "Bush v. Gore right or wrong" discussion, but Duane did make an erroneous comment below that warrants a response. He says the Florida Supreme Court ruled repeatedly in a matter where state courts have no relevance (or perhaps he meant jurisdiction). He supports this point by vague reference to numerous "tomes" published since the election. This claim, whether or not actually supported by numerous tomes, which I doubt, is completely inaccurate. State governments set election procedure for ALL elections - both federal and state. That is why even in federal elections procedures can vary vastly from state to state (and even from county to county assuming a given state does not set a uniform state procedure - e.g. Florida prior to recent reforms). Accordingly, when there are disputes about election procedures they always fall within state jurisdiction. It is actually the exception rather than the rule for federal courts to become involved in such disputes, even in federal elections. This "exception" kicks in whenever the election dispute implicates some constitutional issue - such as equal protection of the law under the fourteenth amendment. Even if an election dispute implicates a federal constitutional right, absent exigent circumstances, state courts generally get the first bite of the adjudication apple with the litigants having a right of appeal in the federal courts because of the existence of a federal constitutional question. I am just about to finish up a clerkship with a federal judge in the Court of Appeals. I am in the very unique position of having actually worked on an election dispute case (the case arose in Pennsylvania, not Florida though) and during the course of that work had to thoroughly research this issue. The biggest hurdle for the plaintiffs in that case was to get around all of the case law that said federal courts generally should not be involved in disputes over election procedures, regardless of whether they govern state or federal elections, unless there is a significant claim alleging a violation of the federal constitution THAT STATE COURTS REFUSED TO ADDRESS OR REMEDY. In fact, the plaintiffs lost the case I'm referring to precisely because they could not specificy a federal constitutional violation even though they were challenging the results of a FEDERAL election. Moreover, you can't have failed to notice that neither the federal Court of Appeals or the US Supreme Court so much as alluded to any impropriety in the Florida Supreme Court (or lower courts) exercising jurisdiction in these cases. That was not an oversight on their part. In fact, Bush's team initially tried to bypass the Florida state courts all together and filed a petition for relief in the Federal Court of Appeals in Atlanta. That Court declined to rule because issues of state law were still pending. It is undeniable that NO federal court took any action in the case until the Florida Courts had made final rulings on the various issues. The federal courts only became involved when it appeared (to those courts) that the Florida Supreme Court had taken a position that was inconsistent with a Constitutional mandate. As for the "tomes" published post election arguing that the Florida courts had no jurisdiction, relevance, business, or whatever being involved in settling the dispute, I would certainly be interested in reading them for humor value if for no other reason. Tracy Gonos Should we also impeach the Florida State Supreme Cout for its 7-0 and 4-3 to rulings in favor of Gore in a matter where a State Court has no relevance (in a State election they would, but in Federal Election they really don't as has been pointed out in the numerous tomes written since the election ended). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010702/ec24d744/attachment.html From jwpatt00 Mon Jul 2 11:19:59 2001 From: jwpatt00 (J.W. Patterson) Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 12:19:59 -0400 Subject: Ky. Fellows First Demo Debate Message-ID: THE ROAD GOES ON FOREVER AND INSTITUTES NEVER END Lexington, KY, June 23, 2001 GOOD EVENING MR. AND MRS. NORTH AND SOUTH AMERICA AND ALL SHIPS AT SEA, LET'S GO TO PRESS. On Saturday June 23, 2001 Four Fellows in the Kentucky National Debate Institute staged the first policy demonstration debate.SPENCER JOHNSON of Valley HS(IOWA) and BRIAN SMITH, Pace Academy (Ga.)defended the affirmative against JOSH BRANSON of the St. Mark"s School of Texas and ELI KAPLAN Of the Georgetown Day School (DC) on the negative. Visiting Instructor JASON PATEL served as the critic. Following the debate, visiting instructor DAN SHALMON, UC Berkeley posted the following report: Demonstration Tutorial Debate, Josh 'My Life is Over If I Lose My Fellows Debate' Branson of the St. Mark's School of Texas and his partner Eli 'No I DON'T Shave my Monobrow' Kaplan of the Georgetown Day School faced off against the wiry duo of Spencer 'It takes Donoho-Lovin' to Look This Good' Johnson of Valley HS and Brian 'Fifteen Year Olds Don't Have Phone Sex' Smith of Pace Academy. Spencer and Brian defended a policy of increased intelligence sharing and transparency on issues of nuclear smuggling against an onslaught of negative arguments. They claimed that such a policy would reduce the risk of nuclear terrorism and proliferation. The debate was adjudicated by the ever-popular and objective Jason Patil, (JD Chicago, BA Stanford/Kentucky and Acolyte of the Century) and the ever-attentive and competent students of the Kentucky National Debate Institute. The 1AC started off at what can only be described as a blistering BSmithian pace. This however, soon changed, as Patil (whose ability to flow is, in a word, sub-par) repeatedly demanded that he back away from the swiftly approaching sound barrier and throttle down. In fairness to Patil's inability to comprehend fast debates, the students of the institute believed that a slower debate would be more educational and a better communicative experience for all concerned. Chastised, BSmith slowed his way to comprehensibility and finished the 1AC. After a bruising cross-examination that prominently featured a three and a half foot height difference, The Bransonian relented and allowed his partner to take the field. Eli delivered an astoundingly persuasive (and by persuasive I mean slow) first negative. They articulated the following arguments: A Topicality violation that demanded the affirmative create a new policy (rather than reaffirm an existing one). A second Topicality argument that argued topical affirmatives would directly (rather than effectually) limit the use of WMD. A North-South Relations DA that said that intelligence cooperation would foster the perception that Northern (developed) nations were ganging up on Southern (underdeveloped) nations and undermine inter-hemispheric cooperation resulting in world war. A Politics DA that said the plan would unify congress and allow President Bush to secure Trade Promotion Authority, which would create warring trade blocs and collapse the free trade regime with disastrous results. Finally, the negative presented a Kritik that attacked the discursive performance of danger/safety oppositions. It argued that the gaze of scholars dividing the world up into zones of insecurity and security is analogous to the performance of tourists mapping out their travelogues. These dichotomizing gazes, the negative claimed, justify genocidal political projects because they participate in a violence of representation. The case debate contained several logical arguments about the impossibility of containing nuclear leakage from the Former Soviet Union. Evidence from affirmative solvency authors was read in order to prove the inadequacy of intelligence sharing as a magic-bullet solution. The 1NC also read a three-card Israel Turn on the case that said that intelligence sharing would give Israel the information needed to prosecute aggressive counterterror missions - military crackdowns by Israel would trigger a regional war which the negative argued would cause more proliferation and terrorism. The 2AC responded to the multiplicity of negative arguments, most of which contained obscene references to Miriam Donoho and her? equipment (which Patil thought was funny, but stupid). The affirmative adopted a link turn strategy on the North-South DA (which Patil thought was stupid) and impact turned the TPA DA, arguing that fast track authority would increase US trade leadership. The Kritik was answered with several permutation/coalition building arguments (Patil thought the answers were almost as stupid as the Kritik). The Israel Turn was answered with a few 'cooperation now/Israel intelligence good now' cards and a few defensive link arguments. The negative block jettisoned the Kritik, (which Patil thought was poorly articulated), extended the Establish violation (the 'make firm' counterinterpretation was a source of much levity - for everyone except perhaps BSmith and a certain junior high student) and extended the North/South DA (which Patil thought was poorly articulated and stupid) reading a new internal link story that had an independent impact (which Patil thought was poorly articulated, stupid, AND incomprehensible). The new DA said that intelligence cooperation would allow India and Israel to cooperatively target and destroy Pakistan's nuclear weapons production facilities. The impact was India-Pakistan war. The 1NR extended the TPA DA. The 1AR refuted all of the negative arguments essentially based on the 2AC strategy with little variation. In addition to answering the new India Cooperation argument, the 1AR said that the permutation on the kritik was an independent reason to reject the negative. In spite of the 1AR's haphazard coverage of the Politics DA, the 2NR kicked out of it and went for the North-South DA, the Israel Turn and a series of theoretical arguments on the permutation. In a (rare) moment of strategic brilliance, the 2NR extended uniqueness arguments on the TPA DA to prove the existence of strong cooperative North-South relations. Spencer's brilliant 2AR skills were on full-bore as he shucked and jived his way around the skillful negative concessions by saying 'Well, that TPA card of ours? It really sucks? No really. It sucks a lot.' The students concluded on a 43-21 decision that the Affirmative's advantages outweighed the risk of the negative's offensive arguments. Patil agreed that since the negative failed to articulate a specific link to nuclear smuggling intelligence, the Israel and North/South DAs were not sufficient justifications for 'sticking with the status quo.' To the negative teams credit, this debate was very close and since the ever-chill Spencer's? altered? state prevented him from effectively refuting the theoretical arguments articulated by the 2NR. The overwhelming student ballot belies the razor-thin margin of victory in this debate: the Fellows voted for the negative by a margin of 6-2, and the majority of the staff claimed they would have voted negative as well. Miriam Donoho didn't vote but Spencer claims that, although her mouth dropped open in? surprise? she reacted to the decision quite? favorably. JW Patterson, INSTITUTE DUIRECTOR cx-l at debate.net cx-l at debate.net From jigiel Mon Jul 2 12:32:34 2001 From: jigiel (jigiel at gmu.edu) Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 13:32:34 -0400 Subject: If you're feeling Quixotic Message-ID: <32472a323cf9.323cf932472a@gmu.edu> I think that some very important history surrounding the SC decision is being left out of the discussion. Let us remember that the SC remanded the case back to the Fla SC with very specific instructions. The SC did not want to be the final voice but the Fla Sc left it no choice. The original problem with the Fla SC decision is that it was based on Fla Constitutional law which was not applicable or based on judicial interpretation without reliance on legislative history. The SC gave the Fla SC a very simple task on remand: Justify the decision based on legislative history. The Fla SC ignored the remand. No matter what party you are from this is clear. The Fla SC chief justice in his dissent noted that the court did not answer the questions that the SC laid before them and that the decision would be overuled. In oral arguements several justices asked where the Fla SC dealt with the issues in the remand. No justice nor Gore's attorney's were able to answe these questions. It is not because they lacked the skill or were unable to make the type of arguements the SC wanted from the Fla SC it was because the Fla SC did not answer the question. The SC latched on to the only place in the entire Fla SC decision where they talked about legislative intent. The safe harbour day and that became the basis of the decision. Instead of expressing anger at the SC, who had to resolve the matter, and who never take kindly to being ignored Gore supporters and Bush supporters alike should be appaled at the total disregard the Fla SC showed to the SC. If the Fla SC had answered the questions before them I truly believe the case would of turned out differently. Even if you want to critize the conservative triad O'Conner's questions clearly revolved around the lack of deference by the Fla SC and that was a deciding vote. The arrogance and unreasoned opinion by the liberal Fla SC decided the outcome of the case. PS. About three months ago there was a great article in the Washington Post talking about how the Fla SC had written its 7-0 opinion before oral arguements, how they dealt with the remand and how leaks in the Gore camp helped Bush plan his strategy. Great read and very enlighting about how the process "really" worked. Jay Igiel From bauscsa4 Mon Jul 2 12:33:42 2001 From: bauscsa4 (Stefan Bauschard) Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 13:33:42 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Hitchhiker Site Update In-Reply-To: Message-ID: The Hitchhiker Web Site, the web companion for the HITCHHIKER'S COMPANION TO THE 2000-2001 C-X DEBATE TOPIC, has been updated to include links to 25 new topic-specific documents and a few new think tanks. The URL for the site is: http://www.oneparadigm.com/research/hitchhiker/home.html A list of known institute affirmatives to date is available at http://www.oneparadigm.com/research/hitchhiker/institutecaselist.htm Don't forget to pickup a HITCHHIKER today. (If CX-L is up, and someone could forward this, it would be appreciated). From vashonjj Mon Jul 2 12:55:13 2001 From: vashonjj (Jennifer Johnson) Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 10:55:13 -0700 Subject: TOC/ NFL results sheets Message-ID: I'm working for the Bay Area Urban Debate League and am writing a report about the rise and demise of public school debate (secondary education) in the state of California. The purpose of the report is to attract donors so that the program can get the support it needs so that the public schools involved will be guaranteed debate programs for many years to come. The second rise of public school debate is heavily dependant on the success of UDL in both Northern and Southern California. What I need to assist in the process are results sheets from the TOC and NFL nationals that date back several years. I know that those records exist, and I was wondering if anyone could point me in the direction of those individuals who have immediate access to those records and would be willing to take the time to send that information to me. I could use Copeland's email address and whomever is working for J.W. Patterson. Thanks for your help. Jen JohnsonGet more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010702/9595b12e/attachment.htm From privethedge Mon Jul 2 12:43:26 2001 From: privethedge (Duane Hyland) Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 10:43:26 -0700 (PDT) Subject: If you're feeling Quixotic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20010702174326.79219.qmail@web10004.mail.yahoo.com> Hi, Yelp..that's why I;m not a lawyer. I was basing most of my argument on Oh, Waiter! One Order of Crow by Jeff Greenfield. In the book, a really good and quick read, very engrossing, he lays out what I was alluding to, that a the Florida State Supreme C ourt really screwed up when they simply blew off the SC's first ruling, and kept on trying to apply Florida State election law to a Federal Election. I'm at work right now so I don't have time to cite specific pages. When I get home tonight I'll send you the specific pages and quotes. Thanks for the guidance though, perhaps Greenfield is in error. I'll send the specifics later. Duane They'll come at me with Vegan Food and Pitchforks - President Josiah "Jed" Bartlett.... "Because it's North Dakota, Nobody Lives there, it's freezing cold, and they don't have a major league sports franchise..." White House Communications Director Toby Zigler "That's A Shock...Did you know the percentage is higher than that if you limit the sample to Bob Marley and the Wailers?" Dept. White House Chief of Staff Josh Lyman..re: Drug Legalization. --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010702/9e18646d/attachment.html From columbia-tournament Mon Jul 2 13:11:58 2001 From: columbia-tournament (Matt McMillan) Date: 2 Jul 2001 11:11:58 -0700 Subject: Unidentified subject! Message-ID: <20010702181158.21009.cpmta@c012.sfo.cp.net> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010702/deace9a5/attachment.pot From tgonos Mon Jul 2 13:19:53 2001 From: tgonos (Tracy Gonos) Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 14:19:53 -0400 Subject: If you're feeling Quixotic References: <32472a323cf9.323cf932472a@gmu.edu> Message-ID: It isn't really "news" that courts almost always make their decisions and have prepared draft opinions relating to those decisions prior to oral arguments. Debaters will be disappointed to learn that it is exceedingly exceedingly exceedingly rare for oral arguments to have any real impact on a given judicial decision. Decisions are made almost entirely on the merits of the arguments presented in the briefs submitted to the court beforehand. Only in cases where, for whatever reason, there is not time to present written arguments are oral arguments very important, and even then, you can bet that judges' law clerks burned the midnight oil doing their own research on the issues and that that research has more influence on the outcome than oral argument. If anything, this book reveals how the process "really" works almost all of the time, not how it worked in this one instance. Don't be fooled - the judicial process is not like a debate round. Judges don't show up claiming to be tabula rasa and ready to be "persuaded" by the best cards and the best oral advocate. They come in thoroughly researched and thoroughly prepared and with their minds pretty much made up. The side with the best cards and the best arguments doesn't win unless a given judge's own research (or her clerks' research) indicates that there is, in that judge's opinion, legal Truth to the arguments being advanced. Tracy Gonos ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, July 02, 2001 1:32 PM Subject: Re: If you're feeling Quixotic > I think that some very important history surrounding the SC decision is > being left out of the discussion. Let us remember that the SC remanded > the case back to the Fla SC with very specific instructions. The SC > did not want to be the final voice but the Fla Sc left it no choice. > The original problem with the Fla SC decision is that it was based on > Fla Constitutional law which was not applicable or based on judicial > interpretation without reliance on legislative history. The SC gave > the Fla SC a very simple task on remand: Justify the decision based on > legislative history. The Fla SC ignored the remand. No matter what > party you are from this is clear. The Fla SC chief justice in his > dissent noted that the court did not answer the questions that the SC > laid before them and that the decision would be overuled. In oral > arguements several justices asked where the Fla SC dealt with the > issues in the remand. No justice nor Gore's attorney's were able to > answe these questions. It is not because they lacked the skill or were > unable to make the type of arguements the SC wanted from the Fla SC it > was because the Fla SC did not answer the question. > > The SC latched on to the only place in the entire Fla SC decision where > they talked about legislative intent. The safe harbour day and that > became the basis of the decision. Instead of expressing anger at the > SC, who had to resolve the matter, and who never take kindly to being > ignored Gore supporters and Bush supporters alike should be appaled at > the total disregard the Fla SC showed to the SC. If the Fla SC had > answered the questions before them I truly believe the case would of > turned out differently. Even if you want to critize the conservative > triad O'Conner's questions clearly revolved around the lack of > deference by the Fla SC and that was a deciding vote. The arrogance and > unreasoned opinion by the liberal Fla SC decided the outcome of the > case. > > PS. About three months ago there was a great article in the Washington > Post talking about how the Fla SC had written its 7-0 opinion before > oral arguements, how they dealt with the remand and how leaks in the > Gore camp helped Bush plan his strategy. Great read and very > enlighting about how the process "really" worked. > > Jay Igiel > > From stannardmatt Mon Jul 2 13:41:41 2001 From: stannardmatt (matt stannard) Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 12:41:41 -0600 Subject: question to consider Message-ID: What if Andrea Yates were black and lived in Houston's inner city? Would the media be speculating on her mental health, shaking their heads, wondering how she could do it??? stannard _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From jigiel Mon Jul 2 13:49:16 2001 From: jigiel (jigiel at gmu.edu) Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 14:49:16 -0400 Subject: If you're feeling Quixotic Message-ID: <33154232a4e7.32a4e7331542@gmu.edu> I am more than well aware that most decisions are written before oral arguements but the washington post article is interesting because the bush campaign found out the vote, the decision, and the rational behind the vote. They then changed the oral arguements they made to set up the SC and federal appeals. It was really interesting how much inside information they had. And no it had nothing to do with Jeb. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tracy Gonos" Date: Monday, July 2, 2001 2:19 pm Subject: Re: If you're feeling Quixotic > It isn't really "news" that courts almost always make their > decisions and > have prepared draft opinions relating to those decisions prior to oral > arguments. Debaters will be disappointed to learn that it is > exceedinglyexceedingly exceedingly rare for oral arguments to have > any real impact on a > given judicial decision. Decisions are made almost entirely on > the merits > of the arguments presented in the briefs submitted to the court > beforehand.Only in cases where, for whatever reason, there is not > time to present > written arguments are oral arguments very important, and even > then, you can > bet that judges' law clerks burned the midnight oil doing their > own research > on the issues and that that research has more influence on the > outcome than > oral argument. > > If anything, this book reveals how the process "really" works > almost all of > the time, not how it worked in this one instance. > > Don't be fooled - the judicial process is not like a debate round. > Judges > don't show up claiming to be tabula rasa and ready to be > "persuaded" by the > best cards and the best oral advocate. They come in thoroughly > researchedand thoroughly prepared and with their minds pretty much > made up. The side > with the best cards and the best arguments doesn't win unless a given > judge's own research (or her clerks' research) indicates that > there is, in > that judge's opinion, legal Truth to the arguments being advanced. > > Tracy Gonos > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: > Sent: Monday, July 02, 2001 1:32 PM > Subject: Re: If you're feeling Quixotic > > > > I think that some very important history surrounding the SC > decision is > > being left out of the discussion. Let us remember that the SC > remanded> the case back to the Fla SC with very specific > instructions. The SC > > did not want to be the final voice but the Fla Sc left it no choice. > > The original problem with the Fla SC decision is that it was > based on > > Fla Constitutional law which was not applicable or based on judicial > > interpretation without reliance on legislative history. The SC gave > > the Fla SC a very simple task on remand: Justify the decision > based on > > legislative history. The Fla SC ignored the remand. No matter what > > party you are from this is clear. The Fla SC chief justice in his > > dissent noted that the court did not answer the questions that > the SC > > laid before them and that the decision would be overuled. In oral > > arguements several justices asked where the Fla SC dealt with the > > issues in the remand. No justice nor Gore's attorney's were > able to > > answe these questions. It is not because they lacked the skill > or were > > unable to make the type of arguements the SC wanted from the Fla > SC it > > was because the Fla SC did not answer the question. > > > > The SC latched on to the only place in the entire Fla SC > decision where > > they talked about legislative intent. The safe harbour day and that > > became the basis of the decision. Instead of expressing anger > at the > > SC, who had to resolve the matter, and who never take kindly to > being> ignored Gore supporters and Bush supporters alike should be > appaled at > > the total disregard the Fla SC showed to the SC. If the Fla SC had > > answered the questions before them I truly believe the case > would of > > turned out differently. Even if you want to critize the > conservative> triad O'Conner's questions clearly revolved around > the lack of > > deference by the Fla SC and that was a deciding vote. The > arrogance and > > unreasoned opinion by the liberal Fla SC decided the outcome of the > > case. > > > > PS. About three months ago there was a great article in the > Washington> Post talking about how the Fla SC had written its 7-0 > opinion before > > oral arguements, how they dealt with the remand and how leaks in the > > Gore camp helped Bush plan his strategy. Great read and very > > enlighting about how the process "really" worked. > > > > Jay Igiel > > > > > > > From diecapitalsm Mon Jul 2 14:08:02 2001 From: diecapitalsm (Aaron J. Lyttle) Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 12:08:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: question to consider In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20010702190802.51913.qmail@web13308.mail.yahoo.com> Uh oh. Schiros going to start screaming about the systemic oppression of white, heterosexual, rich, suburban, meat-eating, oil-drilling, dog-kicking, drunk, old-growth forest drilling, anti-welfare, book-burning, American males again. The "man" be gettin' him down. -Aaron J. Lyttle "Don't believe the hype!" -Public Enemy --- matt stannard wrote: > What if Andrea Yates were black and lived in > Houston's inner city? Would > the media be speculating on her mental health, > shaking their heads, > wondering how she could do it??? > > stannard > _________________________________________________________________ > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at > http://explorer.msn.com > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ From jigiel Mon Jul 2 14:43:21 2001 From: jigiel (jigiel at gmu.edu) Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 15:43:21 -0400 Subject: If you're feeling Quixotic Message-ID: <336c60332f40.332f40336c60@gmu.edu> You in no way antagonized me - believe me it is refreshing to see have (see) a conversation on edebate without name calling...sorry if that was the impression you got...my faultI tend to write with a harsh tone. The articles I am talking about are from a 5 or 6 part washington post series published around febuary the 1st. I am sure lexis and other sources have the series. One of the articles is entitled, "The Scramble Hitting the Ground in Florida Choosing Their Weapons Gore and Bush." Not only did Bush have the Fla SC decision but also internal memos from the Gore campaign. Very interesting reading. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tracy Gonos" Date: Monday, July 2, 2001 3:02 pm Subject: Re: If you're feeling Quixotic > Then what is interesting is not that it was all decided > beforehand, but that > it was all leaked by court personnel, most likely law clerks or > judges'secretaries. (I don't see how the gore camp could've known > and leaked the > vote and it's rationale.) If this is true I'm suprised there > wasn't a much > bigger bruhaha over the whole thing. There is no doubt in my mind > that if > my court had been working on that case and even a single detail > got out, > there would've been an internal investigation and someone would > have been > fired. > > Sorry if I anized ntagoyou, your tone seems to indicate that I > did. I was > only pointing out that the central point you raised, about the > decisionbeing written before oral arguments, wasn't really out of > the ordinary. I > apologize if I somehow missed your larger point. > > Tracy > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: Tracy Gonos > Cc: > Sent: Monday, July 02, 2001 2:49 PM > Subject: Re: If you're feeling Quixotic > > > > I am more than well aware that most decisions are written before > > oral arguements but the washington post article is interesting > because> the bush campaign found out the vote, the decision, and > the rational > > behind the vote. They then changed the oral arguements they > made to > > set up the SC and federal appeals. It was really interesting > how much > > inside information they had. And no it had nothing to do with Jeb. > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Tracy Gonos" > > Date: Monday, July 2, 2001 2:19 pm > > Subject: Re: If you're feeling Quixotic > > > > > It isn't really "news" that courts almost always make their > > > decisions and > > > have prepared draft opinions relating to those decisions prior > to oral > > > arguments. Debaters will be disappointed to learn that it is > > > exceedinglyexceedingly exceedingly rare for oral arguments to have > > > any real impact on a > > > given judicial decision. Decisions are made almost entirely on > > > the merits > > > of the arguments presented in the briefs submitted to the court > > > beforehand.Only in cases where, for whatever reason, there is not > > > time to present > > > written arguments are oral arguments very important, and even > > > then, you can > > > bet that judges' law clerks burned the midnight oil doing their > > > own research > > > on the issues and that that research has more influence on the > > > outcome than > > > oral argument. > > > > > > If anything, this book reveals how the process "really" works > > > almost all of > > > the time, not how it worked in this one instance. > > > > > > Don't be fooled - the judicial process is not like a debate round. > > > Judges > > > don't show up claiming to be tabula rasa and ready to be > > > "persuaded" by the > > > best cards and the best oral advocate. They come in thoroughly > > > researchedand thoroughly prepared and with their minds pretty much > > > made up. The side > > > with the best cards and the best arguments doesn't win unless > a given > > > judge's own research (or her clerks' research) indicates that > > > there is, in > > > that judge's opinion, legal Truth to the arguments being advanced. > > > > > > Tracy Gonos > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: > > > To: > > > Sent: Monday, July 02, 2001 1:32 PM > > > Subject: Re: If you're feeling Quixotic > > > > > > > > > > I think that some very important history surrounding the SC > > > decision is > > > > being left out of the discussion. Let us remember that the SC > > > remanded> the case back to the Fla SC with very specific > > > instructions. The SC > > > > did not want to be the final voice but the Fla Sc left it no > choice.> > > The original problem with the Fla SC decision is that > it was > > > based on > > > > Fla Constitutional law which was not applicable or based on > judicial> > > interpretation without reliance on legislative > history. The SC gave > > > > the Fla SC a very simple task on remand: Justify the decision > > > based on > > > > legislative history. The Fla SC ignored the remand. No > matter what > > > > party you are from this is clear. The Fla SC chief justice > in his > > > > dissent noted that the court did not answer the questions that > > > the SC > > > > laid before them and that the decision would be overuled. > In oral > > > > arguements several justices asked where the Fla SC dealt > with the > > > > issues in the remand. No justice nor Gore's attorney's were > > > able to > > > > answe these questions. It is not because they lacked the skill > > > or were > > > > unable to make the type of arguements the SC wanted from the Fla > > > SC it > > > > was because the Fla SC did not answer the question. > > > > > > > > The SC latched on to the only place in the entire Fla SC > > > decision where > > > > they talked about legislative intent. The safe harbour day > and that > > > > became the basis of the decision. Instead of expressing anger > > > at the > > > > SC, who had to resolve the matter, and who never take kindly to > > > being> ignored Gore supporters and Bush supporters alike > should be > > > appaled at > > > > the total disregard the Fla SC showed to the SC. If the Fla > SC had > > > > answered the questions before them I truly believe the case > > > would of > > > > turned out differently. Even if you want to critize the > > > conservative> triad O'Conner's questions clearly revolved around > > > the lack of > > > > deference by the Fla SC and that was a deciding vote. The > > > arrogance and > > > > unreasoned opinion by the liberal Fla SC decided the outcome > of the > > > > case. > > > > > > > > PS. About three months ago there was a great article in the > > > Washington> Post talking about how the Fla SC had written its > 7-0 > > > opinion before > > > > oral arguements, how they dealt with the remand and how > leaks in the > > > > Gore camp helped Bush plan his strategy. Great read and very > > > > enlighting about how the process "really" worked. > > > > > > > > Jay Igiel > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From stannardmatt Mon Jul 2 16:36:10 2001 From: stannardmatt (matt stannard) Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 15:36:10 -0600 Subject: WDC: Addition to Coaches' List Message-ID: The following colleagues will be attending all or part of the Wyoming Debate Cooperative, to give guest lectures and help with the work: Michael "Bear" Bryant, Weber State University Korry Harvey, alumnus of Weber State University Kevin Cummings, Regis University Terry West, Southern Utah University We are very excited at the caliber of all the coaches attending WDC, who are VOLUNTEERING their time to make the project work. stannard _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From warming_files Mon Jul 2 22:59:41 2001 From: warming_files (J T) Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 22:59:41 Subject: Straw poll results, Mon. @ 6 pm central Message-ID: only four more schools...would like to hear more from the "tradition NDT" schools... new totals: >5 schools voted for Resolution #1 (federal recognition)(with two others >saying it won't be ranked for them) > >5 schools voted for Resolution #2 (appropriations) (one with #1 ranked >second) > >2 schools voted for Resolution #3 ("control") (both of which ranked #2 as >second, and no ranks for #1) > > >More tomorrow.... > >JT >_________________________________________________________________ >Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From DaveAnt420 Mon Jul 2 18:48:08 2001 From: DaveAnt420 (DaveAnt420 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 19:48:08 EDT Subject: Straw poll results, Mon. @ 6 pm central Message-ID: <96.16724b9f.28726238@aol.com> In a message dated 7/2/01 5:00:57 PM Mountain Daylight Time, warming_files at hotmail.com writes: > new totals: > > >5 schools voted for Resolution #1 (federal recognition)(with two others > >saying it won't be ranked for them) > > > >5 schools voted for Resolution #2 (appropriations) (one with #1 ranked > >second) > > > >2 schools voted for Resolution #3 ("control") (both of which ranked #2 as > >second, and no ranks for #1) > > OK. Pull up your Saturday totals. all right, I'll do it for you: ____________________________________________________ Subj: Straw poll results, Sat. @ 7pm central Date: 6/30/01 6:23:02 PM Mountain Daylight Time From: warming_files at hotmail.com (J T) To: edebate at ndtceda.com Thanks for everyone who quickly wrote in with their vote... With the limited results so far (8 schools), looks like this: 2 schools voted for Resolution #1 (federal recognition)(with two others saying it won't be ranked for them) 4 schools voted for Resolution #2 (appropriations) 2 schools voted for Resolution #3 ("control") (both of which ranked #2 as second, and no ranks for #1) Now, JT, Pull up the vote I emailed you, later Saturday, which I now openly disclose: _____________________________________________________________ Subj: Re: Straw poll results, Sat. @ 7pm central Date: 6/30/01 11:35:41 PM Mountain Daylight Time From: DaveAnt420 To: warming_files at hotmail.com Weber State votes for Topic #2 first, then topic #3. We won't rank topic #1. Bear _____________________________________________________ Ever had a class in symbolic logic, JT? Do I need to draw Venn diagrams? What gives? Do we need to establish polling standards? Please don't take this as a personal assault. I just want to understand your mathematical worldview. Bear From gucoaches Mon Jul 2 20:17:53 2001 From: gucoaches (Glen) Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 20:17:53 -0500 Subject: 2001 Kentucky Tournament Dates? References: <20010702190802.51913.qmail@web13308.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <005b01c1035d$fca38020$72e085ce@ELNgucoaches> Will anyone who is aware of the dates for The Clay this year please let me know what they are. Thanks. Glen From gucoaches Mon Jul 2 21:14:17 2001 From: gucoaches (Glen) Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 21:14:17 -0500 Subject: Disregard request for Kentucky dates References: <32472a323cf9.323cf932472a@gmu.edu> Message-ID: <001701c10365$df235720$38e085ce@ELNgucoaches> I successfully navigated the archives and found the dates. Sorry for the clutter. glen From BobJordan Tue Jul 3 08:23:45 2001 From: BobJordan (Bob Jordan) Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2001 08:23:45 -0500 Subject: The Lighter Side of Foucault (and others) Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20010703082056.00a4c550@staff.smsu.edu> Philosopher Action Figures http://www.theory.org.uk/action.htm Philosopher Trading Cards http://www.theory.org.uk/cards/index.htm Philosopher Playmate Profiles http://www.mehead.com/ganglia/playmate.htm From veronica_m_barreto Tue Jul 3 11:22:22 2001 From: veronica_m_barreto (Veronica Barreto) Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2001 12:22:22 -0400 Subject: If you're going to rank rez #2 you should read Message-ID: Alright...I see a lot of y'all voting for the 2nd rez, perhaps some of you out there have done more research on these pieces of legislation than I have and have compelling reasons as to why this would provide good reasonable debates all season long. After some informal conversations, I've determined that there are two camps with different impressions on the resolution. Some people say this is a good resolution because it's limiting -- an affirmative is constrained to increasing funding to the acts listed. Even if this were the case, there are problems. As has been pointed out, a lot of these acts have serious problems that aren't necessarily a result of being underfunded. E.G. The Child Welfare Act: The intent was to limit the displacement of Indian children from their families to more "appropriate" (read: affluent white families)living situations. Unfortunately, since the implementation of the act, the removal of Indian children from their parents' custody has increased 20-30%. Mo' money, mo'money, mo'money...not the solution. You say: "Hey, wait the Indian _______ Act just needs more money. I've got a card that says so" I say: "Well, ummm...does that card even pretend to have a threshold? and HEY! if that's true how can I make any unique arguments, stop hoggin' my ground you...you...you big ground hog! How am I supposed to run disads to the status quo?!?" You say: "Duh, if I increase funding you can run disads on increasing funding" I say: "Ummm...maybe you overlooked the beginning of the resolution that says TRANSFER and before you even say it...NO, I can't run a trade off disad because the resolution allows you to topically specify the trade off so that I have no link and unless I counterplan that out, you'll claim all kinds of advantages and add-ons that stem from what you cut to fund the act of your choice (see my exchange with Hester last week --Rez 2 Errr...? Huh?)" Alright so the negative has politics...I'll give you that...woo woo! And then there's my favorite...the resolutional K...awwwwwwww yea. If I were still debating, this is not what I would want to do all year. Now the second camp...those who think this resolution is more interesting because it's broader and gives everybody more flexibility. These are the optimistic people who seem to think they can justify amendments to the listed acts. The problem is that the resolution *specifically says* appropriations and enforcement must be increased for the acts as PREVIOUSLY AMENDED. I'm positive the topic committee included it as a limiter to prevent an infinite number of amendments that would probably result in some bidirectionality, but in doing so, only created the uniqueness and solvency problems I discuss above. Also notable, Eric Mueller posted an explanation of how affirmatives could justify the creation of a program under any of the acts. I've never seen a resolution use the word "create" as the crux of the resolutional mandate in recent memory. In fact, if you look at the NDT resolutions since 1946 the only resolution that even uses the word "create" is the civil rights topic and the mandate of the resolution is to amend the CRA 1964 to create protections which were then modified by race and gender. And there's a freakin' good reason for the absence of the use of the word "create"-- "create" would leave us with absolutely NO predictable body of literature. You say: "The acts limit the areas were you could create policy" A few answers...1)even if that were true those acts encompass all of the areas in resolution #3 plus it adds civil rights, education, health care, self determination -- off hand, I can't imagine a program that wouldn't fit under the umbrella of the areas in the second resolution 2) Affs will create programs that are tangentially related to the legislation and pass it off as legit 3) even if the program doesn't belong under a particular legislation...so what? what's the impact to your argument? "create" means new. Ultimately, there will be those who say, listen Veronica, it's better than the other options. Actually, I think it's the worst of the three. If you think the first is totally boring, then you haven't read the advantage areas in the MSU topic paper. Sure it's very limiting but the idea that you can only throw more money at the same problem is even more so. And as for rez #3, Ross pointed out that the third resolution can be interpreted to be bidirectional but the create interp of resolution #2 would make it a wildly unmanageable type of bidirectionality. And the bidirectionality of #3 would mean that an affirmative would have to increase federal control by decreasing state control and that would walk you into a deep federalism debate. I'll admit that I function on the fringes of the activity these days, so I'm open to just being flat wrong, so if I am please enlighten me. peace y'all, Veronica PS- Do you really want to explain to novices how to counterplan out of the specification of funding that would result because of the use of the word "transfer"? I guess that just depends on your program. _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From kerpen Tue Jul 3 12:17:44 2001 From: kerpen (Phil Kerpen) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 13:17:44 -0400 Subject: hsdebate.com News: New Forums, Evidence Emporium, Site redesign Message-ID: I rarely post web site updates on the listservs, but a lot has changed recently at hsdebate.com. * New Forums - http://hsdebate.com/forum We've switched to ikonboard as our forum software. So far ikonboard has performed impressively, and has a number of excellent features, including integration with AIM and ICD and private messaging. * Private Forums. One neat thing about ikonboard is that I can easily create private forums that only members with permissions can see. It's an excellent way for coaches and debaters to communicate, especially if you want to include alums or former coaches that can't easily collaborate any other way. I'm willing to create a private forum for any *coach* that requests one. * Evidence Emporium - http://hsdebate.com/emporium For the first time, hsdebate.com is offering evidence for sale. Anyone can sell evidence through our site. Send your complete file or handbook that you wish to sell to kerpen at hsdebate.com. If I accept it for publication I'll market and sell your work through hsdebate.com, and share revenue 50/50. Kevin Kneupper's Cooperative Threat Reduction handbook is already available. * Evidence Exchange, Chat, Archives Of course, free evidence trading is still offered on the site for the many users that would rather trade than buy evidence. The exchange is growing quickly and is the most efficient way to trade evidence. And our chat room is a good place to talk about debate. Of course, the archives are still the centerpiece of hsdebate.com-- tournament results, invitations, theory and more stretching back over 5 years. * Redesign - http://hsdebate.com And, wow, I may have even succeeding in making the site not quite so ugly. (As long as you use Explorer.) Phil Kerpen 202.285.9714 Cell // 202.478.0343 Fax+Voicemail From coopdb8 Tue Jul 3 12:36:21 2001 From: coopdb8 (christopher cooper) Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2001 13:36:21 -0400 Subject: If you're going to rank rez #2 you should read Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010703/28809ca1/attachment.html From veronica_m_barreto Tue Jul 3 12:52:41 2001 From: veronica_m_barreto (Veronica Barreto) Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2001 13:52:41 -0400 Subject: If you're going to rank rez #2 you should read Message-ID: The old tag team together again???...we could trade in Miami for Michigan and Texas, respectively, but we still have that telepathic connection -- scary, very scary. The Goddess aka: Latina Flava' >From: "christopher cooper" >To: veronica_m_barreto at HOTMAIL.COM, edebate at ndtceda.com >Subject: Re: If you're going to rank rez #2 you should read >Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2001 13:36:21 -0400 > They say that old, married couples start to look alike after 20, 30 years of living together. Well...though I will never (despite all my best efforts) achieve the aesthetics of "the Goddess," it appears that 2-3 years of strategizing together has made Veronica and me of one mind. She's right...I can't understand the strategic logic behind the votes for resolution #2. Remember, the purpose of the resolution is to fairly divide ground. That's it...we do not debate its "truth," in fact, we rarely debate IT. Once the afirmative has parametricized (is that really a word?) the rez. the debate is about the plan...so the ONLY relevant question should be how the resolution divides ground. I won't repeat Vern's brilliant analysis...but I will add one thought... At the University of Miami's Hurricane Debate Institute, I gave a lecture on advanced topicality and remember pointing out to the kiddies that the Aff. response to extra-topicality that, "the negative can always CP out of the extra-topical provisions to check the aff. from claiming any advantages from them" really is an insufficient answer. Here, of course, the advantages that may stem from an affirmative specification of the funding transfer are not even "Extra" topical. Still, in theory, they become a moot point with the negative CP them out. My problem is that the ability to CP out of the funding specifications STILL enables the affirmative to spike out of the tade-off (and other budgetary) disads. even IF the negative can effectivelt moot-out any claimed advantages. As I told the HDI kiddies time and time again, AVOIDING A DISAD. *IS* AN ADVANTAGE. So...one more reason that Veronica's analysis is sound. Where does a negative go to find uniqueness for funding something that exists in the status quo? Where does a negative go to find solvency thresholds for funding increases? And where does the negative go to find disad. links that are not spiked out by the resolution wording? Vote for Rez. #3...the lesser of 3 evils. COOP UT-Dallas _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "christopher cooper" Subject: Re: If you're going to rank rez #2 you should read Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2001 13:36:21 -0400 Size: 2612 Url: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010703/84801d07/attachment.mht From coopdb8 Tue Jul 3 12:57:13 2001 From: coopdb8 (christopher cooper) Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2001 13:57:13 -0400 Subject: HS Debate Disclosure Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010703/5c683718/attachment.html From doyle Tue Jul 3 12:57:17 2001 From: doyle (Doyle W Srader) Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2001 12:57:17 -0500 Subject: If you ever thought judging debates sucked ... Message-ID: <200107031251891.SM00155@[209.39.34.25]> ... count your blessings. It could always be a lot worse. > BANGKOK (Reuters) - A veteran Thai kick-boxing trainer has come up with a > new twist on the sport -- blindfold boxing. > > Yodthong Sriwaralak, 64, told Reuters spectators were flocking to watch the > special bouts, in which boxers are blindfolded and wear a small bell around > their waist so they can locate each other. > > "This is a really fun show to watch, especially when the blindfolded boxers > mistakenly punch the referee in the ring," he said. Doyle Srader Lecturer, Speech Communication Stephen F. Austin State University http://www.netdot.com/doyle/ "Whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it." -- Mahatma Gandhi From dahst54+ Tue Jul 3 12:58:12 2001 From: dahst54+ (David Cram Helwich) Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2001 13:58:12 -0400 Subject: If you're going to rank rez #2 you should read References: Message-ID: <005d01c103e9$babe9500$97148e88@pitt.edu> Greetings... I share many of Veronica's concerns with the second resolution. Although I cannot honestly say how Pitt is going to vote (we do an internal team ballot), if I have my way (doubtful), we will vote for topic #3. Although the straw poll is hardly representative (and thank you to JT for conducting it), the lack of support for the third resolution is somewhat distressing. After many heated debates and a fair amount of research (some of it even about indigenous peoples ;), many of us here in the 'burgh (not Helen... and actually, these are just my thoughts) are convinced that "Control" makes for a good resolution. Why, you ask? Here are a few reasons. 1) Good Aff Ground: We have found at least two attractive cases for each of the subject areas, each of which has a _plan advocate._ We like a few of them a lot (and no, I won't divulge that information now... you can wait until UNI ;). As Ross and others have noted, the aff can increase federal control by limiting the activities of other agents, such as state and local governments and private corporations. The aff can also increase control by limiting the activites of indigenous governments. This functionally makes the topic multidirectional, which is not necessarily a bad thing. The "predictable negative ground" question (that phrase should be trademarked by Josh) is addressed below. From an affirmative perspective, there is a great deal of flexibility. The interactions between various levels/spheres of government leaves room for a multitude of potential plan tricks. The seven areas have decent internal links into a number of interesting impact areas (humyn rights, modeling, sovereignty, environment, resources, growth, etc). Affirmatives will have the choice of selecting large and small cases, especially considering the "rich" diversity of law review articles and policy papers on these areas. 2) Good Neg Ground: I can hear the chorus now: "But that much flexibility dooms us to 90% aff win percentages." I honestly do not think so. A few arguments for your consideration include: A. Trust Doctrine: "Control" means the aff has to defend it in some form. Interventions on behalf of indigenous peoples against states and other entities are still rooted in a trust relationship. Many authors [cites upon request] argue that congressional plenary power is evil. Many of these debates will center around whether incremental change within a flawed system is superior to radical rethinking. That may sound like old hat to many of you, but from our reading it seems to rest at the core of federal policy debates. The negative will have the option of kritiking, counterplanning sovereignty in the area of control, etc. Some people may argue that this means the aff will still be locked into defending uncomfortable hierarchies/institutions. This is true to a certain extent. However, affs can determine the level of association (link takeout), that is the cost of predictability (impact turn), and the other three resolutions are no better (uniqueness takeout) B. Federalism/States: Encroachments upon the states undermine the structure of the relationship between the federal government, the states, and indigenous governments. I am not excited by the prospect of Calebresi either, _but_ we have also found a number of different States/Indigenous cooperation counterplans that make comparisons between federal action and state action. This is pretty good ground for both disad links and counterplans. Remember, all those aff tricks made possible by the complicated governmental structure/relationships can also be used to craft counterplan strategies. C. Business/Economy: Affs going the route of limiting the power of oil companies, etc on indigenous land will also have a few issues to confront. Not only is the exploitation of indigenous peoples purportedly good for the economy (not my claim, but we have cards), but I have a sneaking suspicion that new regulations/controls would undermine business confidence... sounds like a disad debate. D. Kritik-al Ground: We have found some. You will too. Honest. E. Size/Direction of Action: Some people (Hester) have commented that the phrase "throughout Indian Country" leaves ground for exclusion counterplans. This is a a function of the affirmative being forced to defend policy changes of indeterminate size within a relatively large geographic area. The aff also (arguably) has to act counter to current policy direction (good-hearted but misguided self-determination efforts) by _on-face_ increasing federal control. This leaves good counterplan ground and helps magnify the size of disadvantage links on perception/politics/modeling... nothin' wrong with that. F. Case Debates: GM has told me that people used to read a lot of cards against the case. Although I do not understand why people would risk a tradeoff with their 5 off-case jurisdictionals (A-spec, F-spec, E-spec, T-substantial, T-resolved), rumor has it that people would like to see negatives refute the substantive claims of the 1AC. Based upon our (limited) reading, there is a _robust_, multi-sided debate in most of the seven sub-areas both on the existence of a substantive problem and whether particular proposals would address the issue. There are case cards! Wow! I think that the prospect of larger disad links, exclusion counterplans, and a plethora of agent-related (CP & disad) arguments will help limit the number of affirmative cases. I am also unconvinced that the seven sub-areas represent an unmanageable literature base---although the issues are complex (especially in gaming), the number of articles and books does not appear to be overwhelming. That's just my opinion. I could be wrong (shameless Dennis Miller allusion). I will admit that I am not particularly thrilled with any of the resolutions. However, I would like to caution folks against dismissing "Resolution the Third" out of hand. Once you do some research, it does not look quite so bad... David Cram Helwich Teaching Fellow and Asst. Debate Coach William Pitt Debating Union University of Pittsburgh From hormone68 Tue Jul 3 18:08:11 2001 From: hormone68 (james herndon) Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2001 18:08:11 Subject: If you're going to rank rez #2 you should read Message-ID: i just called my friends in utah, and no hell hasn't frozen over quite yet, which i can't believe given that i'm agreeing with both coop and veronica. I haven't heard a single person articulate a compelling reason why resolution 2 shouldn't be laughed at whole heartedly. HA HA HA HA HA i mock you resolution 2. So, instead of repeating coop and veronica's compelling and interesting arguments about why resolution 2 is ridiculous i will make a request. Could someone please, please, please, give me a reason to vote for or at least not doubt the sanity of the deate community if resolution 2 does win. PLEASE? who are you straw poll people. i urge anyone who has read the MSU topic paper, to give me a reason why rez # 1 isn't infinitely better. and anyone who can give a compelling reason for number 2 that doesn't apply equally to number 3. Resolution number 2 is like supporting george bush in the presidential election. Oh wait he actually won. I am now sobbing for america. i can't continue typing due to the tears that have short ciruited the limite keyboard technology we have here in macon, georgia. and yes, i was at a cock fight sunday. james herndon mercer debate _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "christopher cooper" Subject: Re: If you're going to rank rez #2 you should read Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2001 13:36:21 -0400 Size: 3472 Url: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010703/fba16429/attachment.mht From DaveAnt420 Tue Jul 3 13:56:49 2001 From: DaveAnt420 (DaveAnt420 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 14:56:49 EDT Subject: If you're going to rank rez #2 you should read Message-ID: In a message dated 07/03/2001 12:06:59 PM Mountain Daylight Time, dahst54+ at pitt.edu writes: << Although the straw poll is hardly representative (and thank you to JT for conducting it) >> And while I, too, thank JT, I'm still left wondering whether his mathematics is messed up or he just decided not to count my vote. I've posted the proof of the error. Maybe a response? Waiting, Bear From ewarner Tue Jul 3 14:06:45 2001 From: ewarner (Ede Warner Jr.) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 15:06:45 -0400 Subject: Rez #2 has the most negative ground Message-ID: The contradictions have begun...Rez #2 has no affirmatives since all the laws are terminally flawed, yet rez #2 provides no negative uniqueness ground. How about this? Negatives get to debate that the current laws are bad for a variety of reasons and the affirmative is stuck supporting a bad law with increased funding...For the affirmative is a reality that there are a host of Native American scholars/tribal authorities which in fact argue that lack of funding is exactly the problem with our current law. All talk and symbol with no financial teeth. That strikes me as a decent debate. While everyone continues to force-fit the artificial, contemporary constructs of what debate is (worrying about uniqueness to disads and the number of counterplans for example), gone ignored is the possibility for some of the most balanced case debate we've seen in a long time. The fact that a diverse literature exists on the changes needed to the laws seems to promote debate on the case proper, especially if uniqueness is hurt on spending/trade-off/politics disadvantages. If the law is bad for non-funding reasons and is underfunded now, then the case turn is unique by defintion. Also, seems that sovereignty disadvantages are unique if funding creates a greater relationship. I'll defend the possibility that rez #2 could produce some of the highest quality case debates we've seen. I'll defend that rez #1 is the most balanced from a competitive "debate game" aspect, but it may not directly debate the groups of Native Americans some want, although I think it captures all the key areas of interest. However, topic three has all the potential to suck. All the affirmatives will defacto increase soveignty in back-handed manners by increasing Federal control over states and/or corporations, negatives will find competitive ways to reduce Federal control and State/corporate control simultaneously, and affirmatives will be left on the defensive in most debates trying to justify the value of an increase in Federal control, power, etc. No literature supports the dynamics of how this particular debate-game created discussion goes down. In the few debates that are left, we will debate states. Ede Warner, Jr. Associate Professor/Director of Debate Department of Communication Website: http://communication.louisville.edu/faculty/warner.html office: 502-852-7126 fax 502-852-8166 UofL Debate Society Webpage: http://communication.louisville.edu/~debate Co-Founder, Black Radical Congress- Louisville Chapter, http://blackradicalcongress.com ?I?ve told how debating was a weekly event there, at the Norfolk prison colony. My reading had my mind like steam under pressure. Some way, I had to start telling the white man about himself to his face. I decided I could do this by putting my name down to debate Once my feet got wet, I was gone on debating. --Malcolm X, Autobiography of Malcolm X, 1964 From slusher Tue Jul 3 14:30:34 2001 From: slusher (Slusher, Eric) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 12:30:34 -0700 Subject: If you're going to rank rez #2 you should read Message-ID: I'm for Resolution #2 and I think these concerns are a bad reason to scuttle that rez. About this transfers/appropriations thing. The resolution is worded to be descriptive of normal means while at the same time giving the negative a specified action to get links from. Because of budget caps by law Congress cannot increase appropriations without transfers and trade-offs. Even if transfer wasn't in the res that would still be an argument the neg could deploy(budget trade-off disad). I suppose you could specify where the money for your aff comes from but why would you really want to? The neg could cp it away or decide to turn the advantage from the transfer. Seems to be more trouble than it's worth to avoid a budget trade-off disad. Most transfers are on-budget. When the appropriations committee debates the plan they would find money for the increased appropriation from the legislation and it's funding authorization they are concerning themselves with to do the plan. It would be very unlikely they would cut money for African peacekeeping efforts to increase the money for the Indian Health Care Act. A negative with cards that say it's "on the chopping block" won't cut it. The appropriations process itself is where the links will come from. For political disads and for budgeting disads. But, the idea that an aff would want to specify cuts in things like Palestinian Aid to pay for their plan seems really far-fetched to me. It will happen I suppose, but it ain't gonna win many rounds. Now, this whole thing about finding cards that say acts just need more money is also strange to me. Yes, some acts need a lot more than money. But the topic says you have to boost money for and enforcement of x. The increased spending is a minimal requirement for affirmative reform of an act which just lends itself to easier negative preperation. Also, keep in mind the topic says transfer resources by increasing appropriations. That to me says you can transfer personell, equipment, money, offices, etc. which require increased appropriations and in effect increase enforcement of a law. So, the topic requires spending money to make a law better but that is the minimal requirement - there's a bunch of other stuff you can do beyond that. I'm always for topics with predictable minimum aff action requirments which ensure at least some neg args and give the aff enough latitude to get creative above the floor requirements of the topic. slusher From amtauber Tue Jul 3 15:37:14 2001 From: amtauber (Alan Tauber) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 13:37:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: If you're going to rank rez #2 you should read Message-ID: <13580827.994192634538.JavaMail.imail@puffer> *SNIP* > Also, keep in mind the topic says transfer resources by increasing > appropriations. That to me says you can transfer personell, > equipment, money, offices, etc. which require increased > appropriations and in effect increase enforcement of a law. So, > the topic requires spending money to make a law better but that is > the minimal requirement - there's a bunch of other stuff you can do > beyond that. *SNIP* > > slusher > Slusher, I'm curious how the aff can do "a bunch of other stuff...beyond that" when as both Veronica and I have pointed out, the resolution specifically limits your actions with the words "as previously amended"? Doesn't this seem to say you have a minimum AND a maximum of action the Aff can take? Curious, Alan _______________________________________________________ Send a cool gift with your E-Card http://www.bluemountain.com/giftcenter/ From veronica_m_barreto Tue Jul 3 15:39:56 2001 From: veronica_m_barreto (Veronica Barreto) Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2001 16:39:56 -0400 Subject: Rez #2 has the most negative ground Message-ID: Ede sez: >The contradictions have begun...Rez #2 has no affirmatives since all the >laws are terminally flawed, yet rez #2 provides no negative uniqueness >ground. How about this? Negatives get to debate that the current laws >are >bad for a variety of reasons and the affirmative is stuck >supporting a bad >law with increased funding...For the affirmative is a >reality that there >are a host of Native American scholars/tribal >authorities which in fact >argue that lack of funding is exactly the >problem with our current law. >All talk and symbol with no financial >teeth. I'm going to have to disagree. I see no contradiction. You're right the law is flawed. This certainly sounds like a negative argument -- "plan can't solve," but the reality is that the affirmative could concede all your arguments, give you a round of applause for stumbling across the obvious, and then go on and on about having a comparative advantage over the status quo. Because the law sucks now, all your turns will only function as take outs. In fact, that will happen to all of your offense...can't win a debate without offense. They say: But wait, what if the negative counterplans to fix the problems. I say: Yea but the negative still doesn't get anywhere because those changes would be plan plus, that's not competitive, the affirmative would just perm. I've heard similar claims about finding evidence saying that funding is necessary to give the legislation teeth but I don't know that this evidence gives a threshold or even a warrant for why the increase should be X amount. Plus, the solvency evidence would have to say that funding alone could solve the problem without any structural legislative changes. To be perfectly honest, I never expected that your reaction to the second resolution would be such, especially after championing wholistic systemic changes on the Africa topic. Your gripe, as well as mine, as I understood it last year was that there was no point in layering more development assistance upon an already faulty foundation. Also, how would you address the difficulties novices would have with the very technical debates that would result from affirmatives getting able to claim their funding trade off as an advantage and do it legitimately? Negatives would have to cp out of the topical funding specification to hedge against the affirmative sandbagging those 2AC add-ons. As I mentioned in another post, it's a lot easier to tell novi read these two pages at some point in the 2AC than explaining how to counterplan out and then respond to the other teams' coaches' PIC blocks. I'm sympathetic to your argument about getting caught up in the debate parlance but ultimately these are the realities that the debaters are going to have face. In fact, my arguments against the second resolution are an effort to leave these logistical problems about generating uniqueness and having to PIC out of parts of the plan every round here and out of the debate rounds. peace out, Veronica _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From slusher Tue Jul 3 16:09:18 2001 From: slusher (Slusher, Eric) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 14:09:18 -0700 Subject: If you're going to rank rez #2 you should read Message-ID: Slusher, I'm curious how the aff can do "a bunch of other stuff...beyond that" when as both Veronica and I have pointed out, the resolution specifically limits your actions with the words "as previously amended"? Doesn't this seem to say you have a minimum AND a maximum of action the Aff can take? Curious, Alan ---------------------- As previously amended doesn't seem to limit the actions an affirmative can take to boost enforcement of the act(s). My understanding was that the committee desired to limit the affirmative to reform of current laws and as such chose actions like appropriations rather than new funding authorizations and previously amended rather than letting an affirmative "redefine" the nature of the act itself. My point was that affirmative action isn't limited to increasing funding only. There are other "resource" tansfers possible which are still topical because they won't change the nature of the act(s) but rather the scope and effectiveness. Examples include transfering personell, offices, equipment, etc. Those probably all could be defined as "resources". Increasing the money, people, equipment, etc. dedicated to a particular act doesn't violate the purpose that "previously amended" serves. That seems to constrain the aff from changing the purpose of the law through amendments. Increased resource allocation from Congress for an act doesn't neccessarily require amending the law. But, even if it did, "as previoulsy amended" doesn't mean the affirmative can't amend the law, as previously amended to increase appropriations for and enforcement of it. slusher From slusher Tue Jul 3 16:19:00 2001 From: slusher (Slusher, Eric) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 14:19:00 -0700 Subject: If you're going to rank rez #2 you should read Message-ID: Oh, something else I thought of. As previously amended probably also keeps the topic directional because it could be read to mean that affs can strike out amendments via new amendments in order to reduce federal involvement in the act's impact areas. slusher From veronica_m_barreto Tue Jul 3 16:22:58 2001 From: veronica_m_barreto (Veronica Barreto) Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2001 17:22:58 -0400 Subject: If you're going to rank rez #2 you should read Message-ID: Uh-oh somebody?s reality check just bounced... I?m with you when you?re talking about normal means. I agree. But then you lost me. What are you talking about? negative trade-off links? what? where? how? Remember the affirmative has already chosen their trade-off, with the hope of debating a team that doesn?t recognize the need to cp out of their funding and thinking that at worst they have solid link outs to any trade-off position. It?s not like affirmatives are going to choose to cut biodiversity programs ? no one is dumb enough to pick something turnable. More likely, they?ll cut a nasty program that exploits Indians (that?s the bidirectionality I was talking about before). Yes, you?re right the negative should cp out of this to prevent the affirmative from using their funding offensively, but as Coop said earlier this morning, to get out of the disad link is still using it offensively. You say it?s unlikely to happen, I say it?s happened under much less legitimate pretenses. I cut Plan Colombia last year to pay for Theatre for Development in Uganda. Sounds freaky, I know, but hey, they?re both in the Foreign Ops budget. ONCE only ONCE did someone think of counterplanning out the funding and I used it as great offense against agent cps. And if someone wanted to turn the impact, I was up for that debate, not that anyone was toting their Plan Colombia good files. I had frontlines to any disads, plus six independent add-ons. One night of work got me a long way. The legitimacy of the move was questionable but on rez #2 next year it would be totally legit, without question. If the word transfer would have been left out, the funding process wouldn?t be part of the resolutional mandate but it is and that changes things b/c specification is no longer extra topical. Sure, normal means would have functionally meant a trade-off but the affirmative would not have been able to specify topically. How can you say that someone cping out of such specification would dissuade people from doing it? It takes 5 secs to specify a trade-off in the plan text vs. 1:15 to answer a trade-off disad in the 2AC. Specification can?t hurt you on this topic, it?s not like you can lose on T. The other problem with your wily plan to turn the impact of the funding cut is that there is an infinite number of programs the affirmative could cut, they could switch every tournament, every round, it would be totally unpredictable b/c the resolution doesn?t specify where the transfer would come from only says where it would go to. At first, I saw the inclusion of increasing enforcement as promising because it would allow for some qualitative moves. PROBLEM: the phrase ?previously amended? -- no structural changes for you! You have to function with the law as is. I don?t seem to understand your argument about spending as a minimal requirement helping negative prep. That would only be true if I could PIC out the other unpredictable parts and claim disads to funding but I cover that above, the specification would mean that you don?t have a chance in hell of getting a trade-off link. A CP without a net benefit means an affirmative win, presumption shifts when the negative reads a cp, remember. You say that ?resources? means more than money. Could you explain to me how moving staplers and envelope stuffers from one office to another creates any negative ground? What exactly is that ?bunch of stuff? that affirmatives could do? More personnel, equipment, money, offices, etc. will not change the fact that the statutes under the Indian Child Welfare Act are written in a way that get interpreted in such a manner to increase the displacement of Indian children from their homes by 30% Maybe you have the answer, but I just don?t see it. Peace, Veronica >From: "Slusher, Eric" >To: "'edebate at ndtceda.com'" >Subject: RE: If you're going to rank rez #2 you should read >Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 12:30:34 -0700 > >I'm for Resolution #2 and I think these concerns are a bad reason to >scuttle >that rez. > >About this transfers/appropriations thing. The resolution is worded to be >descriptive of normal means while at the same time giving the negative a >specified action to get links from. Because of budget caps by law Congress >cannot increase appropriations without transfers and trade-offs. Even if >transfer wasn't in the res that would still be an argument the neg could >deploy(budget trade-off disad). I suppose you could specify where the >money >for your aff comes from but why would you really want to? The neg could cp >it away or decide to turn the advantage from the transfer. Seems to be >more >trouble than it's worth to avoid a budget trade-off disad. Most transfers >are on-budget. When the appropriations committee debates the plan they >would find money for the increased appropriation from the legislation and >it's funding authorization they are concerning themselves with to do the >plan. It would be very unlikely they would cut money for African >peacekeeping efforts to increase the money for the Indian Health Care Act. >A negative with cards that say it's "on the chopping block" won't cut it. >The appropriations process itself is where the links will come from. For >political disads and for budgeting disads. But, the idea that an aff would >want to specify cuts in things like Palestinian Aid to pay for their plan >seems really far-fetched to me. It will happen I suppose, but it ain't >gonna win many rounds. > >Now, this whole thing about finding cards that say acts just need more >money >is also strange to me. Yes, some acts need a lot more than money. But the >topic says you have to boost money for and enforcement of x. The increased >spending is a minimal requirement for affirmative reform of an act which >just lends itself to easier negative preperation. > >Also, keep in mind the topic says transfer resources by increasing >appropriations. That to me says you can transfer personell, equipment, >money, offices, etc. which require increased appropriations and in effect >increase enforcement of a law. So, the topic requires spending money to >make a law better but that is the minimal requirement - there's a bunch of >other stuff you can do beyond that. > >I'm always for topics with predictable minimum aff action requirments which >ensure at least some neg args and give the aff enough latitude to get >creative above the floor requirements of the topic. > >slusher > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From slusher Tue Jul 3 16:57:41 2001 From: slusher (Slusher, Eric) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 14:57:41 -0700 Subject: If you're going to rank rez #2 you should read Message-ID: Of course this contains a typo! I meant the aff CAN'T strike amendments with amendments to reduce federal involvment in enforcement of acts. The point remains - "previously amended" doesn't in any way mean the aff is limited to funding increases ONLY. That's why the topic says resource transfers via increased funding. Anything transfered requires spending of course...but affs can do more as long as they stay true to the nature of the law as it currently exists. -----Original Message----- From: Slusher, Eric To: 'edebate at ndtceda.com' Sent: 7/3/2001 2:19 PM Subject: RE: If you're going to rank rez #2 you should read Oh, something else I thought of. As previously amended probably also keeps the topic directional because it could be read to mean that affs can strike out amendments via new amendments in order to reduce federal involvement in the act's impact areas. slusher From slusher Tue Jul 3 17:36:37 2001 From: slusher (Slusher, Eric) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 15:36:37 -0700 Subject: If you're going to rank rez #2 you should read Message-ID: I don't know much about reality checks bouncing or cutting plan columbia to pay for theaters in Uganda or about teams not smart enough to realize what a load of crap that ways and cp it away or beat you on T - but what I do know is that these concerns seem really far-fetched and hardly a reason to not evaluate the relative merits of resolution #2. Without getting bogged down in the nit-picky specifics - I think I read this topic a little more wholistically. I think this is the best worded and most well thought out topic on the ballot because it uses language that descibes the normal process the federal congress would use to boost resource allocation to existing laws governing the federal-indian relationship. The "transfer resource" phrase is being read in two ways in this thread. I think the whole phrasing of the topic works together to form a cogent action required. I don't think that the "transfer resources" phrase is as simple as you make it out to be. It doesn't just mean cut some money over here in this budget and send it over here to this topical one. It means, boost resource allocation for a topic action by moving something from somewhere over. Resource transfer doesn't neccessarily REQUIRE cutting something from somewhere else. Hell, if your right about what the phrase means an aff could use surplus money from the social security trust fund to pay for their plan and avoid the budget trade-off issue alltogether. I just read this more straight-forward. The affirmative must increase the allocation of resources(money, people, equipment) via the Congressional appropriations process to boost the total amount of resources dedicated to the enforcement of existing federal laws. The federal appropriations process is sticky because of Grahm-Ruddman which means any fiscal year appropriations increases must be off-set. If "transfer" wasn't in the topic people would still read budget trade-off disads. I think we both agree on that point. If you wanted to specify what you cut I suppose you could argue that the topic allows it...but that's not neccessarily as straight-forward as it seems. That's not really how things work in real life. The topic in my opinion doesn't explicitly allow it. I almost think most negatives aren't gonna just allow that to occur. I think you'll need to have evidence for what should be cut to pay for the plan if cuts are really normal means. I think on budget trade off disads we tend to demand that the negative be able to define what the normal means of appropriations battles would be like in order to establish risk for trade-offs. I would hope negatives could hold the affirmative to a standard of evidence support for what should be cut to do their plan. The less likely that becomes the more vulnerable the affirmative is to cps and topicality arguments. In real life budget cap required off-sets are usually accomplished by spending reductions rather than wholesale cuts or the axing of "dead" budget items or even internal agency reprogramming of money. There isn't really ANY evidence to support an aff that cuts Plan Columbia to pay for increased spending on some native american laws. There's evidence supporting both but not at the same time. If you got rolled on that aff you probably deserved it. Look, I hear you...it is theoretically possible for an aff to try to be abusive by cutting something to acrue add-on advantages. It may even be more likely on this topic. But, it's just not really gonna be that strategic unless the aff utilizes an "on-budget" trade-off to get a topical advantage that isn't easily counterplaned away(I'm not sure what that would be yet, but I'll admit it's possible). It might even let the aff be bi-directional by reducing federal intrusions in one place - but they still gotta increase it elsewhere which is what predictable negative ground is all about. If there is evidence to support a specific trade-off then I say more power to the aff. I think that would be totally legit. Add-ons that are easily cp'd away is hardly a reason this topic should be over-looked. Affs will always try to get abusive no matter what the topic is. This issue is such a minimal danger though. slusher From j-paul2 Tue Jul 3 19:22:48 2001 From: j-paul2 (Jonathan Paul) Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2001 19:22:48 -0500 Subject: If we can't revote...... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20010703190233.00aaf200@lulu.it.northwestern.edu> then the federal recognition topic is the best available. I am pretty surprised with the amount of support given to some of the resolutions on the ballot. In my opinion, the federal recognition topic is the best topic that we have to choose from. I don't really have time to engage all of the arguments some people have made in favor of the other topics but I think there are great reasons to prefer the recognition topic. Case: Nearly every post about a topic is concerned about the dwindling number of case debates seen in recent years. How could one promote more and better case debates? By crafting a wording that requires a stable plan mechanism that addresses central issues in our Indian policy. The recognition topic is the only choice that does this. Everyone understands why predictable topics encourage more in depth case research, but some are concerned about the centrality of federal recognition to our Indian policy. This concern was answered by WRepko in a post from a while back. He used the example of casinos. The other topics, like federal control, could allow affs to take small actions that only tangentially affect our policy in a certain area. The recognition topic allows the negative to have unique case turn ground-i.e. casinos bad, other reasons why the trust doctrine is bad, etc. It seems like these are the concerns that we should be debating when talking about Indian policy. The other topics give the neg ground like "increased enforcement bad" which does not seem interesting or balanced. Think back to the sanctions topic. You probably saw a lot more case debates that year because it was predictable for the negative. Even though the actual issue of sanctions removal was extremely aff bias, smart negs could still win on case arguments because they knew what they were going to debate each round. Balance: The other two topics simply are not balanced. Federal control will court terrible debates because the predictable ground of "federal control bad" will be circumvented by smart affs who either: a) simply reduce state or corporate power or b) advocate such an insignificant control that the links to das/case turns/kritiks will not be strong enough to win a debate. As a result negatives will have to rely on politics DAs, normativity, generic counterplans, and ASPEC to win debates. My primary problem with the transfer resources topic is that the debate does not seem that interesting. Negs will rely on extremely generic arguments about why funding is bad for currently recognized tribes. These would be similar to the arguments on the Africa topic about how aid creates dependency etc-not winners. I am also a bit skeptical of voting for topic that was not backed up with a paper. Not because I dont trust the topic committee, but because it is impossible to gauge whether or not a certain wording could sustain a year of good debates. I have seen a few concerns raised about this topic, and while I agree with some of them, I dont think they are serious enough to warrant voting for another topic. -We dont debate about currently recognized tribes. I would probably have preferred to debate a balanced resolution that directly confronted our current Indian policy, but I dont think the other resolutions meet this criteria. This is probably because the other topics dont allow a comprehensive reform of the way the fg deals with tribes. Also, the situation facing these tribes will be extensively explored under the recognition topic. Teams that do not apply the experience of these tribes to debates that center around if the trust doctrine/limited sovereignty good or bad will do so at their own peril. -No Aff Flexibility. This is true. You probably wont see that many new plans throughout the year, but does that mean that affs wont innovate-of course not. Teams will explore different advantage areas and will get more in depth about their case. If you do not constantly research and modify your aff, you will lose. If you judge debates, is it that sweet to hear a innovative new case for 9 minutes only to spend the remaining 2 hours listening to a normativity debate? If you coach/participate in debates, is running that new aff really so much fun after you lose to another new aff that you could not have predicted in the next debate? jp Jonathan Paul Northwestern University, Evanston, IL. USA j-paul2 at northwestern.edu From DaveAnt420 Tue Jul 3 19:50:24 2001 From: DaveAnt420 (DaveAnt420 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 20:50:24 EDT Subject: If we can't revote...... Message-ID: <31.171f0bac.2873c250@aol.com> In a message dated 7/3/01 6:27:15 PM Mountain Daylight Time, j-paul2 at northwestern.edu writes: > By crafting a wording that requires a stable plan mechanism that > addresses > central issues in our Indian policy. The recognition topic is the only > choice that does > this. Everyone understands why predictable topics encourage more in depth > case > research, but some are concerned about the centrality of federal > recognition to our > Indian policy. Please. In twenty splinter groups? This DOES NOT address the vast number of critical issues, or even comprises a very significant issue at all, to most Native Americans. Simply announcing that it does is hardly persuasive. Please try again. Bear From epcole Tue Jul 3 20:28:15 2001 From: epcole (Eric Cole) Date: 4 Jul 2001 01:28:15 -0000 Subject: If we can't revote...... Message-ID: <20010704012815.30297.qmail@whitfield.chek.com> To all, I'm going to have to agree with Jonathon Paul and Repko on this one. I've been thinking about this for a while and, after some enlightening discussions with Will, (even though those discussions haven't continued for one reason or another...I'm hurt) I ha ve been converted into a supporter of the recognition topic. I think, in the end, the federal recognition topic provides the best area for debates to take place. When you look at the other two topics, there are serious problems that I can no longer overlook. For example, I believe the phrase that was previously used to describe the legislation in the appropriations topic was "terminally flawed". Plus, we encount er the serious problem of a severe inbalance in the debate rounds where affs will make insignificant changes in the status quo, claim that they are "substancial" and that they solve, and then get away with it because the neg ground isn't exactly great. I shudder to think of debating ASPEC or Normativity for an entire season. Thats just bad. And the control topic, the one I supported initially and I am now ashamed of that fact, has severe wording issues that could very easily result in a much more severe scenario as I outlined above. Are there problems with the first topic? Most definitely. JP did a very decent job of articulating them in his last post. However, I think, in the end, that the recognition topic is probably the best one for debate. I don't think that we'll see debate over the issues and concerns of specific tribes with the other two topics and that is probably what draws me to the first topic the most. Bear>> I think your concerns about dealing with the "vast number of critical issues" that all of the other recognized Native American tribes have to deal are very valid ones. However, I believe after much thought on the subject that if reforms are going to be made regarding these critical issues, we must first debate the question as to what tribes will be included in those reform discussions. I think its fair to at least make that determination before any other action is taken. Just my thoughts......... Eric Cole from Brunswick, GA Check out the new RNC site and BECOME AN ONLINE ACTIVIST! http://www.rnc.org/directory/contact.html Signup for your FREE Vote4GOP.org at http://www.vote4gop.org From ewarner Tue Jul 3 21:04:14 2001 From: ewarner (Ede Warner, Jr.) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 22:04:14 -0400 Subject: My Campaign is NO REZ #3 In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20010703190233.00aaf200@lulu.it.northwestern.edu> Message-ID: Let's be clear, the 2nd topic always has stable, predictable, negative ground- the negative can ALWAYS debate the existing law is bad for reasons beyond resources and enforcement. They can debate it straight up, they can counterplan away the law that the affirmative tries to change, or they can kritik it. Per Verronica's jab at my apparent inconsistency: For me systemic change STARTS with defining the relationship of the agent with the topic selected. Last year, I felt it was the African Trade Bill and other holistic legislation...This year, I feel it starts with ten laws that are the essence of our current relationship with Native Americans. Pretty consistent in my mind if not in yours. My point: There are plenty of ways to get "unique" negative debates which on this rez #2 that I believe are more likely to start because the ground is so fertile. All the appropriations tricks, are less likely choices for teams if there exists a better strategic option, which I believe exists on rez #2. Do you think a solid novice coach is going to spend a lot of time on funding/appropriations arguments when you could arm novices with a file on why each law is bad and give them either 1) a Soveignty DA which no one denies WOULD be unique; 2) a ban the law counterplan; or 3) A critical argument. I personally like those debates as a strategist and think others will as well. Moreover, I don't see HOW affirmatives can abandon defenses of the act. I sure many will try, but I question how often those strategies will win. Obviously, technically superior debaters could win A-spec, but that's another issue... Finally, I agree with Bear, Jonathan, Will, etc. about the debatability of rez#1 and would be FINE if it was the topic and will vote for it too. I'm not sold on it as equally direct at getting to the current laws/advantage areas with some help are good/bad debate which Louisville prefers. I envision a world where a lot of generic evidence is read on casinos when the effect of the plan addresses one casino and one tribe. The result: Feeble, indirect, murky attempts at broader debates. Will has convinced me it can be done, however, not without more steps. Without question, rez #3 has the most little thought regarding competitive equity, frankly because the language choices and the resulting bi-directionality come from a place not grounded in the literature (as a term of art). Consequently, those debates will be more about debatability and debate theory and less about the literature, which I personally detest. Ede Warner, Jr, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Communication/Director of Debate University of Louisville Phone: 502-852-6976 fax: 502-852-8166 UofL Debate Society Webpage: http://communication.louisville.edu/~debate/team.html Co-Founder, Black Radical Congress- Louisville Chapter, http://blackradicalcongress.com "I've told how debating was a weekly event there, at the Norfolk prison colony. My reading had my mind like steam under pressure. Some way, I had to start telling the white man about himself to his face. I decided I could do this by putting my name down to debate...Once my feet got wet, I was gone on debating. --Malcolm X, Autobiography of Malcolm X, 1964 -----Original Message----- From: Jonathan Paul [mailto:j-paul2 at northwestern.edu] Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2001 8:23 PM To: Edebate Subject: If we can't revote...... then the federal recognition topic is the best available. I am pretty surprised with the amount of support given to some of the resolutions on the ballot. In my opinion, the federal recognition topic is the best topic that we have to choose from. I don't really have time to engage all of the arguments some people have made in favor of the other topics but I think there are great reasons to prefer the recognition topic. Case: Nearly every post about a topic is concerned about the dwindling number of case debates seen in recent years. How could one promote more and better case debates? By crafting a wording that requires a stable plan mechanism that addresses central issues in our Indian policy. The recognition topic is the only choice that does this. Everyone understands why predictable topics encourage more in depth case research, but some are concerned about the centrality of federal recognition to our Indian policy. This concern was answered by WRepko in a post from a while back. He used the example of casinos. The other topics, like federal control, could allow affs to take small actions that only tangentially affect our policy in a certain area. The recognition topic allows the negative to have unique case turn ground-i.e. casinos bad, other reasons why the trust doctrine is bad, etc. It seems like these are the concerns that we should be debating when talking about Indian policy. The other topics give the neg ground like "increased enforcement bad" which does not seem interesting or balanced. Think back to the sanctions topic. You probably saw a lot more case debates that year because it was predictable for the negative. Even though the actual issue of sanctions removal was extremely aff bias, smart negs could still win on case arguments because they knew what they were going to debate each round. Balance: The other two topics simply are not balanced. Federal control will court terrible debates because the predictable ground of "federal control bad" will be circumvented by smart affs who either: a) simply reduce state or corporate power or b) advocate such an insignificant control that the links to das/case turns/kritiks will not be strong enough to win a debate. As a result negatives will have to rely on politics DAs, normativity, generic counterplans, and ASPEC to win debates. My primary problem with the transfer resources topic is that the debate does not seem that interesting. Negs will rely on extremely generic arguments about why funding is bad for currently recognized tribes. These would be similar to the arguments on the Africa topic about how aid creates dependency etc-not winners. I am also a bit skeptical of voting for topic that was not backed up with a paper. Not because I dont trust the topic committee, but because it is impossible to gauge whether or not a certain wording could sustain a year of good debates. I have seen a few concerns raised about this topic, and while I agree with some of them, I dont think they are serious enough to warrant voting for another topic. -We dont debate about currently recognized tribes. I would probably have preferred to debate a balanced resolution that directly confronted our current Indian policy, but I dont think the other resolutions meet this criteria. This is probably because the other topics dont allow a comprehensive reform of the way the fg deals with tribes. Also, the situation facing these tribes will be extensively explored under the recognition topic. Teams that do not apply the experience of these tribes to debates that center around if the trust doctrine/limited sovereignty good or bad will do so at their own peril. -No Aff Flexibility. This is true. You probably wont see that many new plans throughout the year, but does that mean that affs wont innovate-of course not. Teams will explore different advantage areas and will get more in depth about their case. If you do not constantly research and modify your aff, you will lose. If you judge debates, is it that sweet to hear a innovative new case for 9 minutes only to spend the remaining 2 hours listening to a normativity debate? If you coach/participate in debates, is running that new aff really so much fun after you lose to another new aff that you could not have predicted in the next debate? jp Jonathan Paul Northwestern University, Evanston, IL. USA j-paul2 at northwestern.edu From jlhedrick Tue Jul 3 21:23:45 2001 From: jlhedrick (Joshua Hedrick) Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2001 02:23:45 -0000 Subject: Neg Ground Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010704/ac934547/attachment.html From PWRFORWARD Tue Jul 3 21:55:34 2001 From: PWRFORWARD (PWRFORWARD at aol.com) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 22:55:34 EDT Subject: Business Proposal Message-ID: <71.f3eaa12.2873dfa6@aol.com> Um, sounds to me like whoever wrote this email is trying to get the guy's bank account and access number so he can steal his money. I doubt the whole fraud story is true. What would keep whoever was supposed to be "recruited" from keeping the money? I doubt the writer is that stupid. Just my thoughts. Matthew From epcole Tue Jul 3 21:55:53 2001 From: epcole (Eric Cole) Date: 4 Jul 2001 02:55:53 -0000 Subject: Neg Ground Message-ID: <20010704025553.31730.qmail@viebrock.chek.com> Do you actually want to go out of your way to debate federalism, the most non-unique argument on the face of the planet? My concern, and others agree with me, is that the control resolution has some serious problems with it. First, there is the problem of a serious aff bias if you look at the way the resolution is worded. An aff with half a brain will write an aff that wo n't make any significant steps in solving the problems that Native Americans while claiming that they "substancially" increase federal control in Indian country. The phrase "Indian country" brings about some more concerns but I'll move on because I don't want to just point out the obvious. Furthermore, I don't think that the case debate in the second resolution will be mirrored by the third resolution. Education isn't talked about directly in the third topic (although "child welfare" could be construed to include education I guess) and the re are a couple other specific issues that are not addressed in more than one of those two topics. Also, the second topic would include case debate about the legal and monetary questions surrounding the USFG's policy towards Native Americans while the th ird wouldn't have that focus. I'm still convinced that the first topic is the way to go. But thats just my point of view, so take it how you please. Just my thoughts........ Eric Cole from Brunswick, GA Check out the new RNC site and BECOME AN ONLINE ACTIVIST! http://www.rnc.org/directory/contact.html Signup for your FREE Vote4GOP.org at http://www.vote4gop.org From DaveAnt420 Tue Jul 3 22:16:12 2001 From: DaveAnt420 (DaveAnt420 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 23:16:12 EDT Subject: We Don't Need to ReVote... Message-ID: <97.17afe45a.2873e47c@aol.com> In a message dated 7/3/01 7:31:13 PM Mountain Daylight Time, epcole at vote4gop.org writes: > Bear>> I think your concerns about dealing with the "vast number of critical > issues" that all of the other recognized Native American tribes have to deal > are very valid ones. However, I believe after much thought on the subject > that if reforms are going to be made regarding these critical issues, we must > first debate the question as to what tribes will be included in those reform > discussions. I think its fair to at least make that determination before any > other action is taken. To be frank, I was hoping to recruit novices from our large on-campus Native American population. I don't think topic # 1 is very conducive. The tribes in the resolution have little to do with them and they see it as an irrelevant issue to them, since their tribes already are recognized. The issues for them revolve around policies which effect the entire, or at least significant parts of the, population of Native Americans, not small splinter groups, the individuals of which mostly qualify for existing programs through connections with already-existiing tribes. The issue of which tribes are recognized is not seen as the central issue they face or a prerequisite to reform of existing policies. Additionally, the "intricate case debate" so wonderfully trumpeted will probably not develop within a policy context. I don't think a season of intricate kritiks, kritik theory and counter-kritiks will be what I want to see, particularly for novices. If that's your cup of tea, I understand. Finally, I think the concept of "predictable ground" has been ridiculously elevated. When almost all the specific policy research can be done before the season, or when hard-working small school debaters lose the advantage of surprise granted by exploring the fringes of a resonably broad topic, debate has become a predictable exercise in rewarding large schools for the overwhelming depth they can accomplish in their research-dredging procedures. I think the title of the thread paints a telling narrative. I believe many folks, particularly some of the traditional NDT camp, believe Native Americans was a poor topic choice and really want something they believe will insure their traditional competitive advantages. That's not a conspiracy, just self-interest. Some of us would prefer a broader swath of policies to debate. Bear From DaveAnt420 Tue Jul 3 22:29:31 2001 From: DaveAnt420 (DaveAnt420 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 23:29:31 EDT Subject: Business Proposal Message-ID: <3e.dee6763.2873e79b@aol.com> In a message dated 7/3/01 8:55:34 PM Mountain Daylight Time, PWRFORWARD writes: > Um, sounds to me like whoever wrote this email is trying to get the guy's > bank account and access number so he can steal his money. I doubt the whole > fraud story is true. What would keep whoever was supposed to be "recruited" > from keeping the money? I doubt the writer is that stupid. Just my thoughts. > > Matthew My point was that the letter did seem incredibly stupid. Would you engage someone from another country wanting your banking account number for the explicit purpose of committing criminal international bank fraud?!? Read the original letter, dude. It is stupid. And the same letter has been sent to hundreds of academics across the country. Clearly attempted fraud, whether the intent of the author was to steal from the dead man's account or from the person stupid enough to respond to the request with their own bank account numbers. Either way, the author isn't too bright. Anyone falling for this has to be terminally-stupid. Bear From PWRFORWARD Tue Jul 3 22:35:21 2001 From: PWRFORWARD (PWRFORWARD at aol.com) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 23:35:21 EDT Subject: Business Proposal Message-ID: <116.12e0b99.2873e8f9@aol.com> Don't make me out to look like the idiot here, dude. Read what you originally wrote, it sure looks like you believed the email to me. And if it's apparantly stupid (which I agree it is), why are you cluttering all of our email boxes with it? "Did anyone else on the list receive this message, below, or am I the only one receiving email attempts to recruit Bill Balthrop into international banking fraud? This is actually a quite common type of fraud, I'm told by two Nigerian students, but why in the hell am I receiving it? I don't see any indications in the accompanying headers why this would arrive in my mailbox. Any computer gurus out there that can explain? Really weirded out" From lacyjp Tue Jul 3 23:43:46 2001 From: lacyjp (JP Lacy) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 21:43:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: We Don't Need to ReVote... In-Reply-To: <97.17afe45a.2873e47c@aol.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 3 Jul 2001 DaveAnt420 at aol.com wrote: > I don't think topic # 1 is very conducive. The tribes > in the resolution have little to do with them and they see it as an > irrelevant issue to them, since their tribes already are recognized. The > issues for them revolve around policies which effect the entire, or at least > significant parts of the, population of Native Americans, not small splinter > groups You are right that affirmative plans might deal directly with those issues if # 2 is selected. To me the real question is: What will debate rounds be about? The content of debate rounds is determined more by the quality of available negative options than it is determined by the subject of the plan. The more good negative arguments 'about Indians' (and I use the term as an amalgam, as would only make sense when discussing 'core issues') the more debates 'about Indians' we will have. The Title VII topic was more about 'legislation' than it was about race and gender discrimination. Similarly, resolution # 2 seems like it will be as much about appropriations and enforcement as it will be about transfering resources to tribes. The aff can try and be as obscure as they want, but negatives will probably respond with further nitpicking concerning those two words. I like debates about the appropriations process as much as the next person, but there are all kinds of quirky things negatives can do with that word, none of which have anything to do with Indians. As for enforcement, what are your new recruits going to say to the cp to do the plan but exclude federal enforcement with a sovereignty net benefit? I think the Acknowledgement topic is a better guarantee of debates 'about Indians' because all the good negative ground is 'about Indians.' Not just 'about Indians,' but really about the unique character of the relationship between the USFG and Indian Tribes. At least among the 3 topics, I think it has the best chance at getting at that relationship. > Finally, I think the concept of "predictable ground" has been ridiculously > elevated...small school debaters lose the advantage of surprise granted > by exploring the fringes of a resonably broad topic "Predictable negative ground" does cut both ways: there is also an advantage for the aff if it can predict the majority of negative arguments. Schools with more resources will always be better able to predict and exploit the fringes of the topic than those with less. --JP Lacy From epcole Tue Jul 3 23:41:15 2001 From: epcole (Eric Cole) Date: 4 Jul 2001 04:41:15 -0000 Subject: We Don't Need to ReVote... Message-ID: <20010704044115.9246.qmail@purina.chek.com> Bear, To begin, whatever recruiting effort you may have is really your business. I do realize the difficulties in trying to get people to join debate and I see a lot of value in getting Native Americans to participate in next year's debate topic. However, if that is one of your primary motivations for your topic selection, I must disagree with that logic. I think people would much rather debate a resolution that is balanced, well conceived, and debateable rather than debate a resolution that has no hope of d iscussing their specific tribal situation anyways except possibly in an abstract way that will ultimately get caught up in a flury of debates concerning the many different variations on the words and phrases in the resolution or a debate over whether or n ot grouping all Native Americans is culturally insensitive. See my point. Secondly, I don't think that your assumption that intricate case debates won't develop is, to be honest, wrong. I really feel that as the season goes on, cases will be fine tuned and new advantages will be explored and negs will adapt as they usually do. As for your comments regarding intricate kritiks and what not, while I am partial to such arguments, isn't the only thing on the negative that will develop. There will always be new variances on DAs, T, and case debates that novices will be able to gra sp quite well so again I'm failing to see how this concern warrants the rejection of the recognition topic. Finally, I think that, while you argument about large schools have been able to beat other smaller schools based on their resources is quite true, I think that if the ground is narrowed somewhat to just recognition, smaller schools will be able to be more competitive because not only is the literature base narrowed, but teams will be able to use skills more than resources in the debates. However, I do see your concerns, but I also think that, in the end, the other two topics will bring about the same "pr edictable exercise" just as much as the first. I don't think your analysis about this narrative created by the title of this thread is exactly correct. While I was also a supporter of broader topics like Election Reform and Immigration, I think that the idea of a revote is obsurd at this point in tim e. Right now, teams across the country are researching the Native Americans topic regardless of the actual topic wording at this point. To start over would just be a waste of time and effort. As for the competitive advantages argument, I think that the re is a decent amount of room to debate the traditional advantages along with some new stuff and I don't think that that is such a bad thing. Just my thoughts....... Eric Cole from Brunswick, GA Check out the new RNC site and BECOME AN ONLINE ACTIVIST! http://www.rnc.org/directory/contact.html Signup for your FREE Vote4GOP.org at http://www.vote4gop.org From veronica_m_barreto Tue Jul 3 23:53:54 2001 From: veronica_m_barreto (Veronica Barreto) Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2001 00:53:54 -0400 Subject: If you're going to rank rez #2 you should read Message-ID: We probably agree a lot more than we disagree. My reading of the phrase is a synergy of the two interpretations you mention. There is a transfer from and there is a transfer to. Things have to get from point A to point B. In the past the resolution has addressed the latter without the former, which is what made strategies that specified funding cuts (while normal means) susceptible to topicality debates. You make a very astute statement at the end of your post to the effect that there are affirmatives that will always attempt to be abusive. I wholeheartedly agree, but because debaters are going run with whatever they?re given, we have to watch what?s available. I am ALL about ingenuity and creative arguments but can recognize the need for some limits in order to create a fair division of ground. Here?s something else we can agree on...the cp solves for the add-ons. But the specification even if cp-ed away still creates an advantage for the affirmative by giving them a clean link out of trade-off disads, whether you specify a cut or use the social security surplus. That alone is enough of an incentive for aff?s to choose a trade-off that can?t be turned. Again I agree that the resolution provides one stable focus by ensuring that every single affirmative must at the very least increase funding for a particular act. Except I find it particularly problematic that there are no links to the one predictable fixture in the topic...don?t you? you call that nit picky? We?re also both down with the Grahm-Ruddman analysis. Yep, I agree discretionary spending is not normal means and that a trade-off is. The same was true of the Africa topic in the fall because it was so late in the FY2001 budgeting process but the specification of funding was extra topical. This wouldn?t be the case next year. So to recap specification would be legit and that is bad because affs get out of the link to the one guaranteed part of the resolution that you point as the source of predictable negative ground. Now you say that negatives will force affirmatives to provide trade-offs in the literature. I?ll tell you what would happen...they?ll find cards saying X should be cut/downsized/reprioritized and others that say this should be increased ? fairly simple. You seem to be under the impression that there is this ultra high standard for evidence. Have you read some of the shit that gets passed off for solvency? Plus I don?t think that the evidence should have to be contiguous. In Congress, when someone proposes to cut a program to fund another, the warrants aren?t necessarily interconnected it often doesn?t go much farther than X is a waste of money and we want to do Y. Why would things be any different in a rez that makes matters of funding transfers a resolutional concern as well as where the money should go? I?m not concerned with the add-ons, but programs that have proclaimed that they can?t run counterplans in their competitive circle should be, but that?s ultimately their decision. I?m much more worried with the problems of uniqueness and the ability to solve without being able to amend the listed legislations. You address this briefly by brandishing the increased enforcement and the word resources but don?t answer my original (less facetious) question -- what do staplers and envelope stuffers do for Indians? When the statute is screwy from the start, what then? Now some have construed this to mean there will be grrrrrrreat case debate, but that?s not true, because every freakin? 2AR will stand up screamin? comparative advantage over the status quo, none of your offense is unique cuz we fund it now. Now that?s some craptacular debate ? both sides leave hurting and the critic rolls the dice everytime. Call me fastidious, but I like things like uniqueness and affirmatives that solve the harm area. Those who can?t provide either next year shouldn?t rank me too high on their pref sheets. peace, Veronica >From: "Slusher, Eric" >To: "'edebate at ndtceda.com'" >Subject: RE: If you're going to rank rez #2 you should read >Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 15:36:37 -0700 > >I don't know much about reality checks bouncing or cutting plan columbia to >pay for theaters in Uganda or about teams not smart enough to realize what >a >load of crap that ways and cp it away or beat you on T - but what I do know >is that these concerns seem really far-fetched and hardly a reason to not >evaluate the relative merits of resolution #2. > >Without getting bogged down in the nit-picky specifics - I think I read >this >topic a little more wholistically. I think this is the best worded and >most >well thought out topic on the ballot because it uses language that descibes >the normal process the federal congress would use to boost resource >allocation to existing laws governing the federal-indian relationship. > >The "transfer resource" phrase is being read in two ways in this thread. I >think the whole phrasing of the topic works together to form a cogent >action >required. I don't think that the "transfer resources" phrase is as simple >as you make it out to be. It doesn't just mean cut some money over here in >this budget and send it over here to this topical one. It means, boost >resource allocation for a topic action by moving something from somewhere >over. Resource transfer doesn't neccessarily REQUIRE cutting something >from >somewhere else. Hell, if your right about what the phrase means an aff >could use surplus money from the social security trust fund to pay for >their >plan and avoid the budget trade-off issue alltogether. > >I just read this more straight-forward. The affirmative must increase the >allocation of resources(money, people, equipment) via the Congressional >appropriations process to boost the total amount of resources dedicated to >the enforcement of existing federal laws. > >The federal appropriations process is sticky because of Grahm-Ruddman which >means any fiscal year appropriations increases must be off-set. If >"transfer" wasn't in the topic people would still read budget trade-off >disads. I think we both agree on that point. If you wanted to specify >what >you cut I suppose you could argue that the topic allows it...but that's not >neccessarily as straight-forward as it seems. That's not really how things >work in real life. The topic in my opinion doesn't explicitly allow it. I >almost think most negatives aren't gonna just allow that to occur. I think >you'll need to have evidence for what should be cut to pay for the plan if >cuts are really normal means. I think on budget trade off disads we tend >to >demand that the negative be able to define what the normal means of >appropriations battles would be like in order to establish risk for >trade-offs. I would hope negatives could hold the affirmative to a >standard >of evidence support for what should be cut to do their plan. The less >likely that becomes the more vulnerable the affirmative is to cps and >topicality arguments. In real life budget cap required off-sets are >usually >accomplished by spending reductions rather than wholesale cuts or the axing >of "dead" budget items or even internal agency reprogramming of money. >There isn't really ANY evidence to support an aff that cuts Plan Columbia >to >pay for increased spending on some native american laws. There's evidence >supporting both but not at the same time. If you got rolled on that aff >you >probably deserved it. > >Look, I hear you...it is theoretically possible for an aff to try to be >abusive by cutting something to acrue add-on advantages. It may even be >more likely on this topic. But, it's just not really gonna be that >strategic unless the aff utilizes an "on-budget" trade-off to get a topical >advantage that isn't easily counterplaned away(I'm not sure what that would >be yet, but I'll admit it's possible). It might even let the aff be >bi-directional by reducing federal intrusions in one place - but they still >gotta increase it elsewhere which is what predictable negative ground is >all >about. If there is evidence to support a specific trade-off then I say >more >power to the aff. I think that would be totally legit. > >Add-ons that are easily cp'd away is hardly a reason this topic should be >over-looked. Affs will always try to get abusive no matter what the topic >is. This issue is such a minimal danger though. > >slusher > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From ewarner Wed Jul 4 00:47:54 2001 From: ewarner (Ede Warner, Jr.) Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 01:47:54 -0400 Subject: We Don't Need to ReVote... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I don't really disagree much with J.P., although I do think that Title VII was about whether legislation worked to achieve it's goals. While there were generic CLS debates, there were very good debates about whether or not Title VII was capable of increasing civil rights. Everyone needs to take a step back about this dialogue about novice-oriented strategies. Most novices prefer simple strategies, even on squads where the varsity runs more complex ones. And Bear is simply right: It is more likely that folks, especially advocates will begin their debate participation when the issue is directly related to their advocacy and they perceive it. Many of us in the activity only see "our" interest in the argument process and its benefits the primary recruitment tool. It is too bad that we continue to dismiss and ignore the reality that the topic selected (as well as the style, speed, form) may attract/deter new recruits. I would be an arrogant fool to say that the fact that the topic was Africa helped my recruitment of African American debaters. And yes, you can show a student that they can find "their" voice on any topic, but if that relationship is readily apparent to the student, recruitment is that much easier. Some have argued that there is little or no evidence to support this claim. I agree, but that simply is a reason to study it and make a sincere effort to understand the relationship, not to justify disregarding the possibility. Ede Warner, Jr, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Communication/Director of Debate University of Louisville Phone: 502-852-6976 fax: 502-852-8166 UofL Debate Society Webpage: http://communication.louisville.edu/~debate/team.html Co-Founder, Black Radical Congress- Louisville Chapter, http://blackradicalcongress.com "I've told how debating was a weekly event there, at the Norfolk prison colony. My reading had my mind like steam under pressure. Some way, I had to start telling the white man about himself to his face. I decided I could do this by putting my name down to debate...Once my feet got wet, I was gone on debating. --Malcolm X, Autobiography of Malcolm X, 1964 -----Original Message----- From: JP Lacy [mailto:lacyjp at whitman.edu] Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2001 12:44 AM To: DaveAnt420 at aol.com Cc: edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: Re: We Don't Need to ReVote... On Tue, 3 Jul 2001 DaveAnt420 at aol.com wrote: > I don't think topic # 1 is very conducive. The tribes > in the resolution have little to do with them and they see it as an > irrelevant issue to them, since their tribes already are recognized. The > issues for them revolve around policies which effect the entire, or at least > significant parts of the, population of Native Americans, not small splinter > groups You are right that affirmative plans might deal directly with those issues if # 2 is selected. To me the real question is: What will debate rounds be about? The content of debate rounds is determined more by the quality of available negative options than it is determined by the subject of the plan. The more good negative arguments 'about Indians' (and I use the term as an amalgam, as would only make sense when discussing 'core issues') the more debates 'about Indians' we will have. The Title VII topic was more about 'legislation' than it was about race and gender discrimination. Similarly, resolution # 2 seems like it will be as much about appropriations and enforcement as it will be about transfering resources to tribes. The aff can try and be as obscure as they want, but negatives will probably respond with further nitpicking concerning those two words. I like debates about the appropriations process as much as the next person, but there are all kinds of quirky things negatives can do with that word, none of which have anything to do with Indians. As for enforcement, what are your new recruits going to say to the cp to do the plan but exclude federal enforcement with a sovereignty net benefit? I think the Acknowledgement topic is a better guarantee of debates 'about Indians' because all the good negative ground is 'about Indians.' Not just 'about Indians,' but really about the unique character of the relationship between the USFG and Indian Tribes. At least among the 3 topics, I think it has the best chance at getting at that relationship. > Finally, I think the concept of "predictable ground" has been ridiculously > elevated...small school debaters lose the advantage of surprise granted > by exploring the fringes of a resonably broad topic "Predictable negative ground" does cut both ways: there is also an advantage for the aff if it can predict the majority of negative arguments. Schools with more resources will always be better able to predict and exploit the fringes of the topic than those with less. --JP Lacy From ewarner Wed Jul 4 00:57:44 2001 From: ewarner (Ede Warner, Jr.) Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 01:57:44 -0400 Subject: We Don't Need to ReVote... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: One other thing: If debate over legislation, ends up being over the legislation, who is to say that a debate which embraces an administrative/legilsative process won't also primarily focus on that process. Do we know enough about the Acknowledgement process to know that it would be uniquely different than debating funding/enforcement? Ede Warner, Jr, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Communication/Director of Debate University of Louisville Phone: 502-852-6976 fax: 502-852-8166 UofL Debate Society Webpage: http://communication.louisville.edu/~debate/team.html Co-Founder, Black Radical Congress- Louisville Chapter, http://blackradicalcongress.com "I've told how debating was a weekly event there, at the Norfolk prison colony. My reading had my mind like steam under pressure. Some way, I had to start telling the white man about himself to his face. I decided I could do this by putting my name down to debate...Once my feet got wet, I was gone on debating. --Malcolm X, Autobiography of Malcolm X, 1964 -----Original Message----- From: JP Lacy [mailto:lacyjp at whitman.edu] Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2001 12:44 AM To: DaveAnt420 at aol.com Cc: edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: Re: We Don't Need to ReVote... On Tue, 3 Jul 2001 DaveAnt420 at aol.com wrote: > I don't think topic # 1 is very conducive. The tribes > in the resolution have little to do with them and they see it as an > irrelevant issue to them, since their tribes already are recognized. The > issues for them revolve around policies which effect the entire, or at least > significant parts of the, population of Native Americans, not small splinter > groups You are right that affirmative plans might deal directly with those issues if # 2 is selected. To me the real question is: What will debate rounds be about? The content of debate rounds is determined more by the quality of available negative options than it is determined by the subject of the plan. The more good negative arguments 'about Indians' (and I use the term as an amalgam, as would only make sense when discussing 'core issues') the more debates 'about Indians' we will have. The Title VII topic was more about 'legislation' than it was about race and gender discrimination. Similarly, resolution # 2 seems like it will be as much about appropriations and enforcement as it will be about transfering resources to tribes. The aff can try and be as obscure as they want, but negatives will probably respond with further nitpicking concerning those two words. I like debates about the appropriations process as much as the next person, but there are all kinds of quirky things negatives can do with that word, none of which have anything to do with Indians. As for enforcement, what are your new recruits going to say to the cp to do the plan but exclude federal enforcement with a sovereignty net benefit? I think the Acknowledgement topic is a better guarantee of debates 'about Indians' because all the good negative ground is 'about Indians.' Not just 'about Indians,' but really about the unique character of the relationship between the USFG and Indian Tribes. At least among the 3 topics, I think it has the best chance at getting at that relationship. > Finally, I think the concept of "predictable ground" has been ridiculously > elevated...small school debaters lose the advantage of surprise granted > by exploring the fringes of a resonably broad topic "Predictable negative ground" does cut both ways: there is also an advantage for the aff if it can predict the majority of negative arguments. Schools with more resources will always be better able to predict and exploit the fringes of the topic than those with less. --JP Lacy From jlhedrick Wed Jul 4 03:11:52 2001 From: jlhedrick (Joshua Hedrick) Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2001 08:11:52 -0000 Subject: Neg Ground Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010704/dd3315ae/attachment.htm From epcole Wed Jul 4 04:54:33 2001 From: epcole (Eric Cole) Date: 4 Jul 2001 09:54:33 -0000 Subject: Neg Ground Message-ID: <20010704095433.32336.qmail@musone.chek.com> Josh, I'll do my best to explain myself to your liking. Sorry if I came across as abrasive, because that wasn't my intent at all. But anyways, on to the issue at hand. To begin with, my comments regarding Federalism were meant as a mere joke and not as some sort of argument against your position on this issue. I should have signified the joke with a smiley face or something to that effect, but its too late now. But(th ere's always a "but"), since you want to discuss it and I think it would be extremely healthy to discuss, I will anyways. You said in you response and I quote "if the Aff chooses to avoid the sov. debate by increasing federal control at the expense of sta te control, they are handing the neg a unique link to Fism." My "argument" initially was that the argument known as Federalism, is non-unique. What I was saying was that federal action occurs everyday and significant actions that could be perceived as o nes that severely hamper states' rights happen often (I honestly couldn't give an exact amount of time for these actions to occur, but just humor me). Therefore, I've explained why I think that Federalism, as an argument mind you, is the most non-unique argument on the face of the planet. However, you bring forth two extremely good points that I can fully agree with. If the affirmative on next years' topic were to increase federal control at the expense of state control, then they would be serving a un ique link to the neg on a silver platter or face the problem of inherency. I also agree with the idea that most affs will probably stick to just Native American-USFG interactions to avoid giving the negative that chance. However, in the end my idea that Federalism itself is non-unique isn't exactly just an off hand remark (even though that was its original intent) but rather just an observation of the fact that it is very very likely that federalism is either on the decline or possibly non-existent. Th e famous "Federalism is dead" cards come to mind and we could talk about whether or not the traditional idea of Federalism exists or not all day, but I grow tired so I'll move on. Your next point was in response to my concerns regarding the control topic. To begin with, your points are well taken. Secondly, I think your interpretation of fair ground and mine are different and maybe thats where you and I are having this disagreeme nt. I never gave my support to Resolution #2 to begin with and I'd like to throw that idea out of the way right now. Furthermore, I don't like having to pick the worse of two evils here and, to be honest, I haven't done very much research at all on the college topic being that I'm in high school, but I'll do my best to try and explain my thoughts on where the ground is for debate on Resolution 2. I think, to begin with, there is some room for debating Spending DA's. Now these DAs don't all have to be unfunded mandates lead to whatever. I think there is some decent room to debate whether or not increasing funding and/or enforcement will trade-off with other programs that deal with issues concerning Native Americans and that trade-off is disadvantegeou s. I also see the Politics DA with CP option as you so eloquently pointed out as an option. Then, since the research area is quite predictable on Resolution 2, the neg could point out terminal flaws in legislation that increased funding and enforcement won't fix. Furthermore, the neg could then run a CP that cancels new funding and enforcement to the aforementioned piece of legislation, fix the flaws that can be fixed through amendments or what not, and claim net-benefits off of a spending DA or someth ing to that effect. Furthermore, CLS and other "legal entrenchment" type kritiks could always be an option if thats how you wanted to debate. Other than that, I couldn't honestly give you an exact answer to your inquiry unless both I knew more about the subject matter and I knew which piece of legislation you wished to specifically discuss. Now, with that out of the way, I would like to address the third topic, the control topic, that you claim is superior to the second one. I must disagree with you o n this point. While I do think that both resolutions have their respective problems regarding balance, I think that Resolution 3 is worse. When I look at the control topic, I see that the aff couls so easily manipulate the terms in the resolution to fit almost any case that even remotely deals with "Indian Country" (a phrase I will deal with in a second). There, we have a topic explosion on our hands and the neg is sitting there with their trusty soveirgnty and/or federalism DA to win the good fight. At least the case area is more predictable on the second topic than it is on the third and that is where I see a strong aff bias. Your next point was in regards to my statement that affs will just take small (or insignificant as I put it) steps towards changing the USFG's policy towards Native Americans while claiming that the changes are "substancial". While your point is well tak en, I still must disagree. The incentive for affs to avoid bigger cases is simple: to make it hard for the neg to argue. We've all seen these squirrel cases or little stick cases or whatever you want to call them where the aff makes a small change but gets a big impact. That is what I was talking about. Or, if you want to argue that little cases won't get the big impacts on this topic, all the affs would have to do is put some critical argumentation in their affirmative. You know, they could argue t hat voting against them would be morally repugnant or would reject the rejection of an ideal that is bad. Thats what my statement was in reference to. And finally, your final point was in regards to my statement that was referencing the phrase "Indian Country" as a flaw, but I kinda glossed over it and for that I apologize, I just didn't feel like typing at that particular moment in time. My first conc ern is in regards to the term. Do you or anyone else out in Debate Land know if "Indian Country" is the term of art used? I know this is my ignorance showing through and I apologize for that as well. My second concern was with using the term "Indian" i n the phrase "Indian Country". Now I do realize that this type of critical argumentation has been thought of and prepared for, but how would an aff get out of the kritik/DA/arg at the link level without being declared untopical? I know that that contrad icts what I said in regards to aff ground before, but this is an exception and, more or less, a question I would like answered. Plus, I still think that it is a flaw in the third topic that I can't ignore. Is it debateable? Sure. Should it be debated e very round with the knowledge that the affirmative does link? I don't think so, but thats just me. In conclusion, I now realize that my first post wasn't written in a very clear or decisive manner at all and for that I'm sorry. You had just asked for thoughts and I guess I didn't "think" enough before I sent my post to edebate. But anyways, thanks fo r responding to my thoughts. I didn't realize that what I thought mattered, but I guess that that assumption was wrong, too(well, at least in some respects). I still maintain that the first topic is the better of the three. Thats my story and I'm stick ing to it. Just my thoughts...... Eric Cole from Brunswick, GA Check out the new RNC site and BECOME AN ONLINE ACTIVIST! http://www.rnc.org/directory/contact.html Signup for your FREE Vote4GOP.org at http://www.vote4gop.org From rajdebate Wed Jul 4 09:26:17 2001 From: rajdebate (Raja Gaddipati) Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2001 07:26:17 -0700 Subject: JP 1 Bear 0 Message-ID: j-paul2 at northwestern.edu writes: By crafting a wording that requires a stable plan mechanism that addresses central issues in our Indian policy. The recognition topic is the only choice that does this. "Bear" responds: Please. In twenty splinter groups? This DOES NOT address the vast number of critical issues, or even comprises a very significant issue at all, to most Native Americans. Simply announcing that it does is hardly persuasive. Please try again. My response: Federal acknowledgement is the enabling mechanism for a relationship between a Native American tribe and the USFG. Absent acknowledgement, there is no relationship whatsoever. As such, acknowledgement creates debates about the trust doctrine, the most fun damental policy defining the relationship between tribes and the USFG, and every other piece of legislation that the government has passed and applied to Indian Country. Once a tribe is recognized, all those laws in resolution number 2 would apply to the tribe in question. Essentially, resolution number 1 creates debates about every critical issue with regards to Native Americans on a smaller scale. But resolution number 1 creates these debates in a better way, in terms of ground, by specificy the mechan ism and object of the policy. Resolution #1 is essentially the best of both worlds, as it incorporates the breadth of Native American issues in a manageable way. Hey, you can even use this speech to make the sell to all the Native Americans you are recruiting to be on your debate team, when Resolution #1 wins. Raja Get 250 color business cards for FREE! http://businesscards.lycos.com/vp/fastpath/ From DaveAnt420 Wed Jul 4 10:16:19 2001 From: DaveAnt420 (DaveAnt420 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 11:16:19 EDT Subject: We Don't Need to ReVote... Message-ID: <128.f61b02.28748d43@aol.com> In a message dated 7/3/01 10:45:18 PM Mountain Daylight Time, lacyjp at whitman.edu writes: > "Predictable negative ground" does cut both ways: there is also an > advantage for the aff if it can predict the majority of negative > arguments. Schools with more resources will always be better able to > predict and exploit the fringes of the topic than those with less. > > --JP Lacy I disagree, JP. Creative minds are more critical than research dredge-machines when it comes to exploring topic fringes. When it comes to debating depth of "advantages/kritiks" research dredges are far, far more likely to come out on top. Predictability is the best friend of a research machine. I'm surprised, but not dismayed, that you can annouce otherwise. Bear From asnider Wed Jul 4 10:32:23 2001 From: asnider (Alfred C. Snider) Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 11:32:23 -0400 Subject: HS Topic: Dealerting websites Message-ID: Brought to you by the World Debate Institute, University of Vermont. http://debate.uvm.edu/wdi.html Our colleague and consultant, Steve Dolley of the Nuclear Control Institute http://www.nci.org/ who is a former WDI Faculty member, has collected these websites on dealerting. Visit the NCI site for more great stuff. We will be forwarding additional information from Steve and other consultants as time goes on. Enjoy _____________________ www.dealert.org http://www.prod.sandia.gov/cgi-bin/techlib/access-control.pl/2001/010835.pdf http://www.cdi.org/dm/2000/issue3/dealerting.html http://www.fcnl.org/issues/arm/sup/nuclear_weapons_overview.htm http://www.georgewbush.com/News.asp?FormMode=SP&id=2 http://www.lcnp.org/disarmament/dealerting.htm http://www.sciam.com/1197issue/1197vonhippel.html http://www.brook.edu/press/books/dealert.htm http://www.stimson.org/policy/prss-bb.htm http://www.csis.org/pubs/wr_vna.pdf (by Mike Mazarr, 1986 NDT final-round participant for Georgetown, now president of the Henry Stimson Center) http://www.usafa.af.mil/inss/ocp20.htm http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/01.01/ong_case_for_dealerting.html http://www.psr.org/de-alert.htm http://www.psr.org/de-alert-update499.htm http://www.sfu.ca/~dann/nn5-3_8.htm http://www.un.org/Depts/dda/speech/10Oct1998.htm http://www.fas.org/rlg/de-alerting.htm http://www.igc.org/disarm/T090498dealert.htm http://www.au.af.mil/au/database/projects/ay1999/saas/fortney.pdf http://www.umc-gbcs.org/csama99-2.htm http://www.psrus.org/de-alerting-issuebrief.htm http://www.clw.org/pub/clw/coalition/natdeb98.htm http://search.cetin.net.cn/internet/DSTI/FAS/cusp/alert/ http://search.cetin.net.cn/internet/DSTI/FAS/cusp/alert/war.htm (historical interest -- 1962 study by Morton Halperin on risk of accidental war; this study was instrumental in spurring the Kennedy Administration to begin developing PALS) http://search.cetin.net.cn/internet/DSTI/FAS/cusp/alert/control.htm http://search.cetin.net.cn/internet/DSTI/FAS/rlg/de-alerting.htm http://www.pcusa.org/wo/quarter/launch_on_warning.htm http://www.nyu.edu/globalbeat/syndicate/Krieger061200.html http://www.csmonitor.com/durable/1997/08/13/opin/opin.3.html http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/971229/29nuke.htm http://www.progressive.org/makhd899.htm http://www.ucsusa.org/security/russia.html http://www.csmonitor.com/durable/1998/02/20/us/us.1.html http://whyfiles.org/shorties/cold_war.html http://www.afsc.org/pwork/0104/010413.htm http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/russia/debate/ http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn24/nuclear.html http://www.cnie.org/nle/inter-64.html http://www.bits.de/public/pdf/rr97-1.pdf http://www.isn.ethz.ch/securityforum/Online_Publications/WS5/WS_5D/Rogov.htm http://www.penpress.org/_discussion/0000002d.htm http://www.psr.org/de-alerting-issuebrief.htm http://www.ucsusa.org/security/trigger.html http://www.nautilus.org/library/security/papers/Von_HippelISODARCO.PDF http://www.fas.org/news/russia/1997/068l-062297-idx.html http://www.cdi.org/adm/1316/transcript.html http://www.ucsusa.org/arms/primer.html http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1998/06/ground.zero/mishaps/ http://www.dodccrp.org/Proceedings/DOCS/wcd00000/wcd0006a.htm http://www.georgetown.edu/sfs/programs/nssp/nssq/Cimbala.pdf http://www.nuclearfiles.org/plrc/Project%20ELF.pdf (not dealert; interesting report on ELF) http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/arms/indian_nuclear_doctrine_assessment-e .pdf (India nukes, not dealert) http://www.mi.infn.it/~landnet/NSA/vol.pdf (almost 200 pages of India-Pakistan, not dealert) 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 2001 - make plans now - http://debate.uvm.edu/wdi.html Appointment calendar at http://debate.uvm.edu/tunacalendar.html From DaveAnt420 Wed Jul 4 10:33:01 2001 From: DaveAnt420 (DaveAnt420 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 11:33:01 EDT Subject: We Don't Need to ReVote... Message-ID: <12d.f3b487.2874912d@aol.com> In a message dated 7/3/01 10:46:53 PM Mountain Daylight Time, epcole at vote4gop.org writes: > Bear, > > To begin, whatever recruiting effort you may have is really your business. > I do realize the difficulties in trying to get people to join debate and I > see a lot of value in getting Native Americans to participate in next year's > debate topic. However, if that is one of your primary motivations for your > topic selection, I must disagree with that logic. I think people would much > rather debate a resolution that is balanced, well conceived, and debateable > rather than debate a resolution that has no hope of discussing their specific > tribal situation This is a direct turn. Applicability, not debateability, is the key to interest. "Debateability" and balance are amorphous terms with little to no meaning. And Rez #1 only applies to small, splinter groups, not the Ute and Navajo tribes. The Native Americans on my campus are not interested in recognition for twenty people in Virginia. The big response has been Repko's claim that narratives of recognized tribes will cross-apply? Right. The narratives of the Utes and Navajos aren't really that relevant unless we commit the essentializing fallacy of racism by buying into the claim that the narratives of all Indians are cross-applicable. Rez 1 offers little real hope of debates very relevant to their lives. Rez 2 or 3 allows Utes and Navajos to deal with policies that *include* (without excluding all others!) their own tribes directly. Their narratives actually apply without facilitating racist assumptions that even they are uncomfrtable with. With respect, Mr. Cole, try again. Bryant From dbteam Wed Jul 4 10:35:25 2001 From: dbteam (UWG Debate Team) Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 11:35:25 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Ground with #1 and #2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: based on my reading of the topics, rez #1 would not allow the aff plan to do anything morethan acknowledge. any attempt to 'acknowledge, then do particular programmatic initiatives' would not be topical. so the aff gets to acknowledge and then read solvency ev that says once acknowledgment occurs the group will be recipient of whatever normal means aid there is. rather than guaranteeing that unacknowledged tribes will now receive aid particular to their needs, the aff must rely on solvency ev about the normal means of the process of acknowledgment to simply make it to the level of SQ aid that already recognized tribes receive. for the critics of rez #2 who say that 'as previuosly amended' means plan can't alter aid policy, it seems rez #1 has the same 'flaw.' i'm not hearing the persuasive args as to how rez #1 creates in-depth debates about trust doctrine, etc. any search for articles/essays on Trust Doctrine will result in finding that 99% of the args in the lit are about either ways to alter the doctrine or why/if it helps curently recognized tribes, NOT whether it would help tribes not currently recognized. in fact, this is my main problem with rez #1: it just doesn't match the VAST MAJORITY of the 'native american literature.' i found 1116 books in the Ga State libray under the subject heading "AMerican Indian." of those, three dealt with tribes that are listed in rez #1. let me repeat - three out of 1116 books had evidence that mentioned one of rez #1 tribes. MENTIONED, not necesarily good ev, mind you, just lit that even 'acknowledged' (emphasize the pun) the tribes, and two of those were books that only had chapters on the Lumbee. the other ONE THOUSAND ONE-HUNDRED AND THIRTEEN books discussed issues that concerned tribes already recognized either explicitly (i.e., the args were framed in the context of how the navajo or cherokee or choctaw would/should be affected by US policy) or implicitly (i.e., reforms or justification of a particular SQ US policy toward NatAm was discussed). given my statement above concerning the aff plan's inability under rez #1 to even increase funding for current legislation once acknowledgment occurs, this latter category of lit is also off-topic. btw, the Ga State collection is representative of most libraries - i did on-line searches of emory and UGA and found the same striking disparity. i also did some journal searches. American Indian Quarterly and Native Americas:Hemispheric Journal of Indigenous Issues were two of the best i found (i'm also reading a couple of news papers, including Indian News Today). i've yet to find A SINGLE ARTICLE in these periodicals that yields viable evidence specific to rez #1. even if rez #1 is broader than i think, NONE of the literature i'm finding even mentions those tribes. it's gonna take debate style distortions to apply ev written about how ICRA affects the seminole nation to one of the unacknowledged tribes. for those who hope to avoid debates that 'devolve' into tricky CPs that focus on process, this lack of specificity in the lit seems to result in the same nightmare- the ev/args in the round don't match the topic focus. i do understand how rez #1 allows for in-depth debates about why a particular tribe that is currently not recognized should be so. but IMHO, that is a fairly shallow debate as far as policy analysis goes. as for rez #2, i believe that mueller, et al, have given examples of how some of the legislative acts are written broadly so that increases in approps and enf allow for plan to spend money on things that are not actually or explictly laid out in current legislation, i.e, the act authorizes a funding mechanism for future policies that the aff can then exploit to do something 'new.' in other words, rez #1 is much more narrow(and the literature very sparse) than it's being construed in these posts, while rez #2 is much broader. it's up to each school to decide whether they want broad or narrow. hester From veronica_m_barreto Wed Jul 4 10:37:27 2001 From: veronica_m_barreto (Veronica Barreto) Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2001 11:37:27 -0400 Subject: If you're going to rank rez #2 you should read Message-ID: Todd asks: >How was the specification of funding extra topical AT ALL last year? Or at >ANYTIME in debate? That's a fairly simple question. The violation goes something like this the resolution says you should increase development assistance, security assistance or whatever. The resolution is not about banning X program to fund Y. The first half of the appropriations process is not a resolutional mandate (well except under rez #2). There are a couple of reasons why that's bad: 1) "it's not what you do; it's what you justify": a. Nothing limits where the cut could come from which creates the potential for bidirectionality on any topic. Nothing stops you from cutting family planning to fund theatres in Uganda. What about banning SAP's? If you could ban/cut a program to create funding why couldn't you arbitrarily ban a host of other things? i. The impact to artificially constructed bidirectionality: BAD BAD BAD you strattle the resolution defending both sides and crowding the negative out of the debate. If I run a disad to increase you'll use your turns from the decrease part of your plan and if I run a disad to decrease you'll turn it the other way. ii. X/apply the pre-empt from below...even if you counterplan out of one direction to prevent me from claiming turns, that just means my turns aren't unique anymore not that they go away. You will still have clean link outs to all of my positions. b. If you specify your funding as part of your "normal means" clause in the plan, why couldn't a plan fiat that the entirety of Congress changes their mind and likes the plan so there is no need for the president to use political capital? or fiat that X member of Congress generates support for the plan? What's the difference between doing that and fiating that Congress cuts a program that's not on the chopping block. *Point of clarification: if your specification is descriptive of the squo, e.g. you have evidence that embassy security will be cut to fund the next initiative in Congress, then you could legitimately point to that as your source of funding or if Daschle has made your plan his personal jihad then you can make that answer on a political capital disad, but you can't topically change the conditions of the status quo. 2)OK, it's what you do too: a. You claim advantages from an action that isn't part of the resolution. You are here to defend the benefits of increasing security assistance why are you reading all these cards about cutting IMET? That's negative territory. b. You get out of all my disads to increase by offsetting the increase with a decrease, crippling predictable negative strategy. **Editor's note: the second is a particularly problematic effect of the second resolution because as Slusher pointed out increasing funding is the one guarantee on that rez. Every res has a least necessary minimum of change. In the past it's been set off by those including clauses. No matter what else an affirmative chooses to do, the affirmative MUST increase funding for these programs. By specifying the funding, the negative won't be able to run any spending or trade-off positions. 3)The pre-empts: a. plan severance is illegitimate: too little too late. The plan text must remain static because that's what the negative builds their 1NC strategy on. You can't be a little topical (just like you can't be a little pregnant, as the sages say) you broke the rules, you lose. b. A/T counterplan checks abuse: Even if I cp and you can't claim your advantages to your specification, you still have an advantage because you have a clean link out of my disads. CPs aren't always the great equalizer. That's why funding specification is illegitimate. peace, Veronica _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From DaveAnt420 Wed Jul 4 10:54:13 2001 From: DaveAnt420 (DaveAnt420 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 11:54:13 EDT Subject: This Isn't a Contest, Raj... Message-ID: In a message dated 7/4/01 8:28:12 AM Mountain Daylight Time, rajdebate at lycos.com writes: > Federal acknowledgement is the enabling mechanism for a relationship between > a Native American tribe and the USFG. Absent acknowledgement, there is no > relationship whatsoever. As such, acknowledgement creates debates about the > trust doctrine, the most fundamental policy defining the relationship between > tribes and the USFG, and every other piece of legislation that the government > has passed and applied to Indian Country. Once a tribe is recognized, all > those laws in resolution number 2 would apply to the tribe in question. > Essentially, resolution number 1 creates debates about every critical issue > with regards to Native Americans on a smaller scale. But resolution number 1 > creates these debates in a better way, in terms of ground, by specificy the > mechanism and object of the policy. Resolution #1 is essentially the best of > both worlds, as it incorporates the breadth of Native American issues in a > manageable way. > > Hey, you can even use this speech to make the sell to all the Native > Americans you are recruiting to be on your debate team, when Resolution #1 > wins. They don't buy it. Line up ten Native americans. Ask them what the most *fundamental* policy is and they won't say the trust doctrine. They may have in the early 1800's when the trust doctrine and tribal recognition were burning issues for Native Americans, but since 99% of them are now in recognized tribes, the trust doctrine is a foundation with as much saliency as the guarantee of life, liberty and happiness that are the foundation of the Constitution. Too vague and non-specific to matter to most of them. Taken for granted, perhaps, but no longer the key issue. The mechanism and object of policy specified in Rez one may be very "debateable" (also a vague and rather meaningless concept), but it's just not too critical, actual *legal foundation*, or not. I did list several other reasons which you now seem to ignore. And I don't need to manipulate a poll to prove my point... Bear From DaveAnt420 Wed Jul 4 10:58:11 2001 From: DaveAnt420 (DaveAnt420 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 11:58:11 EDT Subject: will the real Dave Arnett please stand up? Message-ID: <12a.f62a0d.28749713@aol.com> In a message dated 7/4/01 9:21:20 AM Mountain Daylight Time, jwpatt00 at pop.uky.edu writes: > Dave, > > Before sending you a confidential message, I want to make sure that I have > the right person. Please confirm. > > Happy 4th of July, > JWP JW, DaveAnt420 signs every post with the name "Bear". I am Mike Bryant. I keep the DaveAnt420 screenname to remind me of the lengths I had to go to be able to discourse on this list when it was being censored by Dr. Snider. It's "Mike Bryant", not "Mark Bryant" as you've called me for the last 20 years. Bear From veronica_m_barreto Wed Jul 4 11:06:05 2001 From: veronica_m_barreto (Veronica Barreto) Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2001 12:06:05 -0400 Subject: Ground with #1 and #2 Message-ID: right on....I'm in agreement. I'm very glad you resurrected certain aspects of the discussion that had fallen by the wayside. If you read my very first post about resolution #2 I discuss the interpretation of the phrase "previously amended" as divided into two camps -- one who loves the limits and the other that discusses the mad flexibility on the rez. Something to consider: Would what Mueller describes as the propensity to create new programs under the legislation necessarily be a good thing? Some might say that the areas create limits. BUT (1) there are several more areas under the 2nd rez than the 3rd AND (2) the affirmative will justify the creation of any program even tangentially related to the areas AND (3) even if the program isn't appropriate under a particular legislation, there's really no impact to that, after all the whole point of creation is to result in something new. I'm under the impression on this topic area, thus far, that there isn't much of a need for limits cuz "literature checks abuse" but I think what will happen under #2 (to continue in the tradition of pre-season psychic swami speculation)is that affs will feel too strapped by the acts and will attempt to create programs but not find the specific solvency evidence for the creation of a program under a particular legislation in a way that would patch up all the solvency problems associated with the act. The end result would be a pastiche for a solvency contention that has one card that says that changing the act is good, another that says increasing the funding for the act is good, and a third that says the miscellaneous program is good. SEA suffered from that same disjointed solvency problem. My guess, and this is just a speculative guess, that the third resolution would provide for more contiguous solvency evidence than the second. peace out, Veronica >From: UWG Debate Team >To: Raja Gaddipati >CC: edebate at ndtceda.com >Subject: Ground with #1 and #2 >Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 11:35:25 -0400 (EDT) > >based on my reading of the topics, rez #1 would not allow the aff plan to >do anything morethan acknowledge. any attempt to 'acknowledge, then do >particular programmatic initiatives' would not be topical. so the aff gets >to acknowledge and then read solvency ev that says once acknowledgment >occurs the group will be recipient of whatever normal means aid there is. >rather than guaranteeing that unacknowledged tribes will now receive aid >particular to their needs, the aff must rely on solvency ev about the >normal means of the process of acknowledgment to simply make it to the >level of SQ aid that already recognized tribes receive. > >for the critics of rez #2 who say that 'as previuosly amended' means plan >can't alter aid policy, it seems rez #1 has the same 'flaw.' i'm not >hearing the persuasive args as to how rez #1 creates in-depth debates >about trust doctrine, etc. any search for articles/essays on Trust >Doctrine will result in finding that 99% of the args in the lit are about >either ways to alter the doctrine or why/if it helps curently recognized >tribes, NOT whether it would help tribes not currently recognized. > > in fact, this is my main problem with rez #1: it just doesn't match the >VAST MAJORITY of the 'native american literature.' i found 1116 books in >the Ga State libray under the subject heading "AMerican Indian." of those, >three dealt with tribes that are listed in rez #1. let me repeat - three >out of 1116 books had evidence that mentioned one of rez #1 tribes. >MENTIONED, not necesarily good ev, mind you, just lit that even >'acknowledged' (emphasize the pun) the tribes, and two of those were books >that only had chapters on the Lumbee. the other ONE THOUSAND >ONE-HUNDRED AND THIRTEEN books discussed issues that concerned tribes >already recognized either explicitly (i.e., the args were framed in the >context of how the navajo or cherokee or choctaw would/should be affected >by US policy) or implicitly (i.e., reforms or justification of a >particular SQ US policy toward NatAm was discussed). given my statement >above concerning the aff plan's inability under rez #1 to even increase >funding for current legislation once acknowledgment occurs, this latter >category of lit is also off-topic. > >btw, the Ga State collection is representative of most libraries - i did >on-line searches of emory and UGA and found the same striking disparity. i >also did some journal searches. American Indian Quarterly and Native >Americas:Hemispheric Journal of Indigenous Issues were two of the best i >found (i'm also reading a couple of news papers, including Indian News >Today). i've yet to find A SINGLE ARTICLE in these periodicals that yields >viable evidence specific to rez #1. > >even if rez #1 is broader than i think, NONE of the literature i'm finding >even mentions those tribes. it's gonna take debate style distortions to >apply ev written about how ICRA affects the seminole nation to one of the >unacknowledged tribes. for those who hope to avoid debates that 'devolve' >into tricky CPs that focus on process, this lack of specificity in the lit >seems to result in the same nightmare- the ev/args in the round don't >match the topic focus. > >i do understand how rez #1 allows for in-depth >debates about why a particular tribe that is currently not recognized >should be so. but IMHO, that is a fairly shallow debate as far as policy >analysis goes. > >as for rez #2, i believe that mueller, et al, have given examples of how >some of the legislative acts are written broadly so that increases in >approps and enf allow for plan to spend money on things that are not >actually or explictly laid out in current legislation, i.e, the act >authorizes a funding mechanism for future policies that the aff can then >exploit to do something 'new.' > >in other words, rez #1 is much more narrow(and the literature very sparse) >than it's being construed in these posts, while rez #2 is much broader. >it's up to each school to decide whether they want broad or narrow. > > >hester > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From dahst54+ Wed Jul 4 11:13:12 2001 From: dahst54+ (David Cram Helwich) Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2001 12:13:12 -0400 Subject: Neg Ground (A2 Cole) Message-ID: <001901c104a4$72a13640$d0168e88@pitt.edu> Hello. There is some snippage. I am only really interested in the discussion concerning resolution #3. Cole Says: Therefore, I've explained why I think that Federalism, as an argument mind you, is the most non-unique argument on the face of the planet. However, you bring forth two extremely good points that I can fully agree with. If the affirmative on next years' topic were to increase federal control at the expense of state control, then they would be serving a unique link to the neg on a silver platter or face the problem of inherency. I also agree with the idea that most affs will probably stick to just Native American-USFG interactions to avoid giving the negative that chance. However, in the end my idea that Federalism itself is non-unique isn't exactly just an off hand remark (even though that was its original intent) but rather just an observation of the fact that it is very very likely that federalism is either on the decline or possibly non-existent. The famous "Federalism is dead" cards come to mind and we could talk about whether or not the traditional idea of Federalism exists or not all day, but I grow tired so I'll move on. DCH Says: 1) The modeling signal is likely unique. The GOP controls the White House and the House. Even if it is not, you can find cards. We have already ;) 2) There is still counterplan ground for interactions between states and indigenous governments 3) Virtually all disads are either empirically denied or non-unique at the link level. Do you think that negative strategies reflect some grounded reality? 4) There are still a number of _other_ arguments to run besides federalism if that is your preference. Cole Says: Now, with that out of the way, I would like to address the third topic, the control topic, that you cl! aim is superior to the second one. I must disagree with you on this point. While I do think that both resolutions have their respective problems regarding balance, I think that Resolution 3 is worse. When I look at the control topic, I see that the aff couls so easily manipulate the terms in the resolution to fit almost any case that even remotely deals with "Indian Country" (a phrase I will deal with in a second). There, we have a topic explosion on our hands and the neg is sitting there with their trusty soveirgnty and/or federalism DA to win the good fight. At least the case area is more predictable on the second topic than it is on the third and that is where I see a strong aff bias. DCH Says: 1) "Trust Doctrine Bad" is very good ground. It was actually the reason I initially thought that Rez #3 was a stinker. However, the aff will have options in dealing with it. 2) Affs are still locked into acting in one of seven areas. Further, the direction of plan action (more federal government) is predictable even if the effects of that action (decrease state/local/indigenous/corporate authority) are not. The need to justify federal action will check against tiny affirmatives/topic explosion. 3) The phrase "throughout" checks against micro-affs. 4) Case area on the second topic is _not_ more predictable. As Mueller and others have noted, the umbrella legislation listed in the resolution often establishes _goals_ for policies without mandating specific actions. Ugh. Cole Says: And finally, your final point was in regards to my statement that was referencing the phrase "Indian Country" as a flaw, but I kinda glossed over it and for that I apologize, I just didn't feel like typing at that particular moment in time. My first concern is in regards to the term. Do you or anyone else out in Debate Land know if "Indian Country" is the term of art used? I know this is my ignorance showing through and I apologize for that as well. My second concern was with using the term "Indian" in the phrase "Indian Country". Now I do realize that this type of critical argumentation has been thought of and prepared for, but how would an aff get out of the kritik/DA/arg at the link level without being declared untopical? I know that that contradicts what I said in regards to aff ground before, but this is an exception and, more or less, a question I would like answered. Plus, I still think that it is a flaw in the third topic that I can't ignore. Is it debateable! ? Sure. Should it be debated every round with the knowledge that the affirmative does link? I don't think so, but thats just me. DCH Says: 1) Although I understand how someone's initial reaction to the term "Indian Country" would be negative, there is evidence that counters your claim. For example, Prince in 1998 argues that: "As a legal term, "Indian country" is very evocative when compared with another obvious possibility, "Indian land." After all, "Indian land" closely parallels "federal land," and the statutes of the United States have repeated occasion to refer to "federal land(s)." <=9> n8 The phrase "Indian country," however, has remained in consistent use for two centuries. <=10> n9 Moreover, it remains a term of significant legal import, as a number of recent judicial decisions show. <=11> n10 While "country" is an ambiguous word, it is also very suggestive, as a glance at a dictionary shows: "The land of a person's origin, birth, residence, or citizenship: motherland or home region: ... a political state or nation: the territory of a usually independent nation that is distinct as to name and the characteristics or attributes of its people." <=12> n11 [*106] To speak of one's country is to speak of land not as private property, but as territory. Furthermore, speaking of one's country implicates the notion of sovereignty, the power to exert dominion over territory. <=13> n12 The connection between the words "Indian country" and the notion of sovereignty is firmly entrenched in legal discourse. For example, one court drew the explicit connection by saying, ""The phrase "Indian country' refers to the territory over which an Indian tribe exercises its sovereign powers; it is "those lands which Congress intended to reserve for a tribe and over which Congress intended primary jurisdiction to rest in the federal and tribal governments.'" <=14> n13 Indian country is the territory over which the First Nations have sovereignty, while sovereignty for the First Nations is autonomous power within and over that territory. The two terms mirror each other." I believe that answers both of your concerns 2) You have uniqueness problems on your concerns about the word "Indian..." If nothing else, it will be tough to fill a 1AC/1NC with evidence that avoids using the term 3) There is offense regarding the use of word. It's not like "Native American" or other, well-meaning-but-misguided-humynist-labels-designed-to-make-us-feel-good-about-ourselves are any better. Thank you for the dialogue... David Cram Helwich Teaching Fellow & Asst. Debate Coach William Pitt Debating Union University of Pittsburgh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010704/67043c6f/attachment.html From dahst54+ Wed Jul 4 11:35:19 2001 From: dahst54+ (David Cram Helwich) Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2001 12:35:19 -0400 Subject: My Campaign is NO REZ 3 (A2 Ede) Message-ID: <002401c104a7$510339e0$d0168e88@pitt.edu> Hello again. I rarely post to edebate, but this is an issue that I feel somewhat strongly about. I have snipped the part of Ede's post that deals with other resolutions. If this creates context problems, I apologize in advance. Ede Says: Without question, rez #3 has the most little thought regarding competitive equity, frankly because the language choices and the resulting bi-directionality come from a place not grounded in the literature (as a term of art). Consequently, those debates will be more about debatability and debate theory and less about the literature, which I personally detest. DCH Says: 1) I would appreciate a more detailed explanation about why you believe the terms "control" and "Indian country" are not terms of art. Thank you in advance. 2) The sacred "literature" (this is a feeble attempt at humor) on gaming, natural resources, child welfare, etc centers on who should control policy, either states, localities, indigenous governments, or the feds. The issue of control, for example, is at the heart of the IGRA. Taxation/collectance is a serious issue for many states and localities. Criminal jurisdiction is a multi-sided debate. 3) I understand your concerns about bidirectionality. However, I think that you actually answered this, in part, in a previous post (unintentionally, I am certain ;). A. The need to justify federal control helps ensure direction and checks against small/poorly supported cases. Affirmatives will have to justify increased federal control, not just decreased state/corporate control. B. The topic sub-areas as not that huge. The literature base is smaller than "development assistance" or "security assistance" etc (although it is much larger than "development assistance in the GHA" ;). Our library is fairly decent for this topic and we have found roughly a dozen or so "debate friendly" books per sub-category. The law review literature is extensive, but somewhat repetitive (how many different people can make the same argument that the IGRA is flawed?). C. The "multiple directions" that affs can take, even if true (which I doubt considering the need to justify "more USFG"), still leaves a lot of counterplan ground... negs can just utilize the options that affs choose to not defend. 4) Something Hester said in his last post really resonated with me... I would like to see debates about what the literature discusses. In all honesty, I think that a fundamental issue informing many debates on USFG interaction with indigenous peoples is which entity should control the policy. I am uncertain as to the level of our disagreement concerning the parameters of a good topic (it is probably rather small). I think it is likely that we have differing opinions about what debates/affs will look like under the third resolution. Thank you for reading, David Cram Helwich Teaching Fellow & Asst. Debate Coach William Pitt Debating Union University of Pittsburgh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010704/4c218619/attachment.htm From epcole Wed Jul 4 11:56:51 2001 From: epcole (Eric Cole) Date: 4 Jul 2001 16:56:51 -0000 Subject: Neg Ground (A2 Cole) Message-ID: <20010704165651.31067.qmail@fancyfeast.chek.com> David, Thanks for your responses. Man, I feel so special. Everyone's arguing with me. But anyways, on to answering your points. (Just so everyone knows, I have answered Bear, I just sent it to him and I forgot to send a copy to edebate...oops) Your first point is in regards to the whole Federalism debate. First, I never made the claim that ou couldn't find cards to contradict what I'm saying. All I'm saying is that I personally think that the argument known as Federalism could be perceived as "dead" or non-unique as I tried to put it. I was trying to imply that that negative would first have to prove that the federal government hadn't already infringed upon states' rights enough to cause the impacts (curse Calabresi!). However, I do see room for debate, especially on the indigeneous government-state government interaction CP ground. I do realize that virtually all DAs are either empirically denied or non-unique at the link level and I know for a fact that neg strategies aren't grounded in r eality. I'm just saying that Federalism is an exceptional example of this type of rationale. I wasn't making the assumption that Fism is the only arg, I was making some sort of a joke (although I've failed miserably in that attempt) in reference to some thing Josh said in his post. The next time I try to do something like that, someone please tell me to refrain from doing so. Your next point was in regards, basically, to Resolution 3. While I do agree that "Trust Doctrine Bad" does provide some ground for the affirmative, do you honestly want negs to say "trust doctrine bad" every round because the topic is so broad? I know I don't. Plus, I do agree that affs will have ways of dealing with this. Furthermore, just because affs are locked into those seven areas doesn't mean necessarily that the topic isn't overly broad. For example, at the high school level the privacy topi c had those four areas that we had to debate and there were dozens upon dozens of affs and negs couldn't keep up with them. Thank goodness for kritiks! Justifying federal action is easy so I still see a problem with topic explosion. Also, tiny (but "su bstancial") changes in the USFG's policy towards Indian Country can occur throughout Indian Country. Finally, I never really made the claim that Resolution 2 was a good idea to begin with. I'm just saying that, when in doubt, a negative could at least k now that those specific pieces of legislation will be discussed. Thats better than just knowing that one of a million things to do with the topic areas in Resolution 3 will be discussed. Now, your next point is in regards to the phrase "Indian Country" and I would like to thank you for your clarification. I was unsure as to whether or not "Indian Country" is the correct term of art and your response at least partially relieved that conce rn. I still think others will try to argue otherwise in-round, but that isn't such a bad thing. I still don't see how an affirmative would be able to get out of such a kritik at the link level and I would be greatly appreciative if you or anyone else fo r that matter could clarify this for me. However, I do see your point regarding the difficulty in finding evidence that doesn't contain that word "Indian", but I think a decent majority of the literature on the topic doesn't use the term (but yet again I may be wrong due to my ignorance on the subject). I do see offense regarding any of the terms, I just thought that the literature against using the term "Indian" in this context was particularly abrasive and possibly even harder to answer. Anyways, thanks for your responses. Its always nice to get input on my thoughts. Thats my story and I'm sticking to it. Just my thoughts........... Eric Cole from Brunswick, GA Check out the new RNC site and BECOME AN ONLINE ACTIVIST! http://www.rnc.org/directory/contact.html Signup for your FREE Vote4GOP.org at http://www.vote4gop.org From tejinder Wed Jul 4 12:06:07 2001 From: tejinder (Tejinder Singh) Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 10:06:07 -0700 Subject: Sorry for Clutter, looking for Shalmon Message-ID: <000c01c104ab$9e324d60$ba8dfa18@pinol1.sfba.home.com> If you are near a small, goofy, turtlenecked child named Dan Shalmon, please tell him that his owner is looking for him and that he should contact me ASAP because he owes me a lot of mo...wait, tell him that I have a nice present for him, like a candy cane or something...yeah, that's better. Sorry for the clutter but I think he's working at a debate institute somewhere and I have no clue how to get in touch with him. Tejinder Singh UC Berkeley -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010704/b50f39f2/attachment.html From DaveAnt420 Wed Jul 4 12:07:43 2001 From: DaveAnt420 (DaveAnt420 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 13:07:43 EDT Subject: We Don't Need to ReVote... Message-ID: In a message dated 7/4/01 10:20:23 AM Mountain Daylight Time, epcole at vote4gop.org writes: > In any case next year, either recognized tribes OR unrecognized tribes will > be excluded from the topic discussion (unless there are some loop-holes in > the last two topics that I have failed to observe). Therefore, I think that > first discussing the acknowledgement of these unrecognized tribes is the best > thing that needs to be done and then discussion of these generalized topic > discussions would be best served. You are assuming that because a splinter group isn't recognized that the the individuals are excluded from the scope of other policies defining relationships between the Federal Gov't and Native Americans. Without going into too much detail, that's a mistaken assumption. I also think that your assumption that normal mechanisms for establishing Indian policy are as essentializing as the notion that all tribal narratives are cross-applicable is wrong. But I see, and respect, these points that you make. I do not, however, extend as much respect for your dismissal of the importance of the criteria of novice recruitment. The last word is yours, Bear From coopdb8 Wed Jul 4 12:35:11 2001 From: coopdb8 (christopher cooper) Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2001 13:35:11 -0400 Subject: If you're going to rank rez #2 you should read Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010704/915f05e0/attachment.htm From hcspc014 Wed Jul 4 12:38:05 2001 From: hcspc014 (william sheffield) Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 10:38:05 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Subscribing and Unsubscribing Message-ID: Sorry for the bother, but could someone forward me the instructions for subscribing and unsubscribing to edebate. Thanks in advance. Bill Sheffield From dbteam Wed Jul 4 13:42:22 2001 From: dbteam (UWG Debate Team) Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 14:42:22 -0400 (EDT) Subject: a different take on theory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: over the past couple years, as i've seen CP ground expand and more and more big debates (not say every one, just more) come down to Conditionality bad this and PICs illegit that, i've been thinking of a way to address theory that balances strategy with ground. at this point, i sum up my conclusion with the following dichotomy: ground enlargement theory(GET) vs. ground restrictive theory(GRT) i beleive the former is uperior to the latter in most instances. an example of the two in action is a CP debate. ground restrictive theory is where the majority of AFF theory against CPs currently resides: PICs bad, INt'l fiat illegit, conditionality bad, etc. in all of these, the basic premise is "this CP hurts our ground/unfairly expands neg ground so it should not be allowed." the result is that the tenor of the af response is to constrict arguments, i.e., reduce the args/lit available to the neg. conversely, ground enlarging theory serves to increase the args/lit available for debate. examples include: "int'l fiat justifies intrinsicness answers to the net benefits"; "topical intrinsicness perms are legit"; "conditional CPs legitimize replanning or new plans in 2ac or severability via permutation". the difference is that GET argues for reciprocity via the "they get to run their PIC so we get X as an arg" as opposed to GRT which simply says "they can't run their PIC." i prefer GET b/c it increases the potential args available for strategic use. rather than thinking up reasons why they shouldn't have to answer an argument, the 2ac instead focuses on what becomes available to them as a acounter to the neg strategy. i admit, the result may be the same - e.g, "PICs illegit" may win the aff the round as might "PICs justify topical intrinsicness perms". it just seems to me that GET encourages both sides to make more args that are substantive rather than only theory - e.g., "PICS illegit" requires no ev while "PICs justify topical intrinsicness perms" would be followed by a perm that would be most succesful if it was accompanied by ev. GET increases research and argumentative creativity. GRT discourages at least research, and maybe both. what's the relevance to this thread? for me, i'm not so fearful of the 'specified $' monster cuz i don't see it as all that useful of an AF answer. it may reduce the link of a generic tradeoff DA, but only at the expense of providing the NEG with the following: *CP-out the spike (yes, it's just defense, but damn fine defense) *CP - use the AFF's funding for something else. Gtown under Ahilan used the "steal the aff $ for family planning" CP quite effectively. *DAs against the specified transfer. i believe Rod Phares while at KU got the goods against honey bee subsidies and the jayhawks kicked somebody to the curb. suer, the af can always suprise the neg with a 'new' transfer, but that only seems to diminish the likelihood of the aff of exploiting some 'silver bullet' honey pot from which to dip. this DA becomes a net benefit if the neg CP is do the plan but transfer resources from somewhere else. this is how good debate works in my mind. one team seeks to stake out 'new' or innovative ground. their opponent looks for the weakness in that new ground - i.e., what's wrong with that ground and/or what reciprocal ground do we get in return. for me, these types of evolutionary back-and-forth strategizing is what makes debate fun. i believe the worries over the 'transfer resources' section of rez #2 are unfounded. yes, it adds some ground to the debates. no, it does not add ground in a unbalanced way. hester On Wed, 4 Jul 2001, Veronica Barreto wrote: > Todd asks: > > >How was the specification of funding extra topical AT ALL last year? Or at > >ANYTIME in debate? > > That's a fairly simple question. The violation goes something like this the > resolution says you should increase development assistance, security > assistance or whatever. The resolution is not about banning X program to > fund Y. The first half of the appropriations process is not a resolutional > mandate (well except under rez #2). > > There are a couple of reasons why that's bad: > > 1) "it's not what you do; it's what you justify": > > a. Nothing limits where the cut could come from which creates the > potential for bidirectionality on any topic. Nothing stops you > from cutting family planning to fund theatres in Uganda. What > about banning SAP's? If you could ban/cut a program to create > funding why couldn't you arbitrarily ban a host of other > things? > > i. The impact to artificially constructed > bidirectionality: BAD BAD BAD you strattle the > resolution defending both sides and crowding the > negative out of the debate. If I run a disad to > increase you'll use your turns from the decrease part > of your plan and if I run a disad to decrease you'll > turn it the other way. > > ii. X/apply the pre-empt from below...even if you > counterplan out of one direction to prevent me from > claiming turns, that just means my turns aren't unique > anymore not that they go away. You will still have > clean link outs to all of my positions. > > b. If you specify your funding as part of your "normal means" > clause in the plan, why couldn't a plan fiat that the > entirety of Congress changes their mind and likes the plan so > there is no need for the president to use political capital? > or fiat that X member of Congress generates support for the > plan? What's the difference between doing that and fiating > that Congress cuts a program that's not on the chopping block. > > *Point of clarification: if your specification is descriptive of the squo, > e.g. you have evidence that embassy security will be cut to fund the next > initiative in Congress, then you could legitimately point to that as your > source of funding or if Daschle has made your plan his personal jihad then > you can make that answer on a political capital disad, but you can't > topically change the conditions of the status quo. > > 2)OK, it's what you do too: > > a. You claim advantages from an action that isn't part of the > resolution. You are here to defend the benefits of increasing > security assistance why are you reading all these cards about > cutting IMET? That's negative territory. > > b. You get out of all my disads to increase by offsetting the > increase with a decrease, crippling predictable negative > strategy. > > **Editor's note: the second is a particularly problematic effect of the > second resolution because as Slusher pointed out increasing funding is the > one guarantee on that rez. Every res has a least necessary minimum of > change. In the past it's been set off by those including clauses. No matter > what else an affirmative chooses to do, the affirmative MUST increase > funding for these programs. By specifying the funding, the negative won't > be able to run any spending or trade-off positions. > > 3)The pre-empts: > > a. plan severance is illegitimate: too little too late. The plan > text must remain static because that's what the negative > builds their 1NC strategy on. You can't be a little topical > (just like you can't be a little pregnant, as the sages say) > you broke the rules, you lose. > > b. A/T counterplan checks abuse: Even if I cp and > you can't claim your advantages to your specification, you > still have an advantage because you have a clean link out of > my disads. CPs aren't always the great equalizer. > > That's why funding specification is illegitimate. > > peace, > Veronica > > _________________________________________________________________ > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com > > From coopdb8 Wed Jul 4 13:59:21 2001 From: coopdb8 (christopher cooper) Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2001 14:59:21 -0400 Subject: We Don't Need to ReVote... Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010704/91840fc0/attachment.html From IKimbrell Wed Jul 4 17:10:56 2001 From: IKimbrell (Kimbrell, Ian) Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 18:10:56 -0400 Subject: Need copy of the topic wordings Message-ID: <81A3043681E6824EBE672F7421C30E7E0463BDE3@SRVTORONTO.RAND.COM> Sorry to clutter. Can someone forward me the wordings to date? Ian Kimbrell CWRU From lacyjp Wed Jul 4 18:21:56 2001 From: lacyjp (JP Lacy) Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 16:21:56 -0700 (PDT) Subject: We Don't Need to ReVote... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >From what little I know now, debate over the process of acknowledgement will obviously include bureacratic esoteria. At least that research will be related to Indians. I do know that the subject of appropriations, by contrast, is a huge topic all by itself, one that is much more difficult to get a handle on. In comparison to research about Acknowledegement, research about the appropriations process seems tedious and more difficult to teach. As for enforcement, I have heard that "implementation failure" used to be a big thing way back when, but it still seems like a needle in a haystack type thing to research. At least if #2 is chosen, spending backfiles will be of high quality for several years to come. --JP Lacy On Wed, 4 Jul 2001, Ede Warner, Jr. wrote: > One other thing: If debate over legislation, ends up being over the > legislation, who is to say that a debate which embraces an > administrative/legilsative process won't also primarily focus on that > process. Do we know enough about the Acknowledgement process to know that > it would be uniquely different than debating funding/enforcement? > > > > Ede Warner, Jr, Ph.D. > Associate Professor of Communication/Director of Debate > University of Louisville > Phone: 502-852-6976 > fax: 502-852-8166 > UofL Debate Society Webpage: > http://communication.louisville.edu/~debate/team.html > Co-Founder, Black Radical Congress- Louisville Chapter, > http://blackradicalcongress.com > > "I've told how debating was a weekly event there, at the Norfolk prison > colony. My reading had my mind like steam under pressure. Some way, I had > to start telling the white man about himself to his face. I decided I could > do this by putting my name down to debate...Once my feet got wet, I was gone > on debating. > --Malcolm X, Autobiography of Malcolm X, 1964 > > -----Original Message----- > From: JP Lacy [mailto:lacyjp at whitman.edu] > Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2001 12:44 AM > To: DaveAnt420 at aol.com > Cc: edebate at ndtceda.com > Subject: Re: We Don't Need to ReVote... > > On Tue, 3 Jul 2001 DaveAnt420 at aol.com wrote: > > I don't think topic # 1 is very conducive. The tribes > > in the resolution have little to do with them and they see it as an > > irrelevant issue to them, since their tribes already are recognized. The > > issues for them revolve around policies which effect the entire, or at > least > > significant parts of the, population of Native Americans, not small > splinter > > groups > > You are right that affirmative plans might deal directly with those issues > if # 2 is selected. > > To me the real question is: What will debate rounds be about? > > The content of debate rounds is determined more by the quality of > available negative options than it is determined by the subject of the > plan. The more good negative arguments 'about Indians' (and I use the > term as an amalgam, as would only make sense when discussing 'core > issues') the more debates 'about Indians' we will have. > > The Title VII topic was more about 'legislation' than it was about race > and gender discrimination. Similarly, resolution # 2 seems like it will be > as much about appropriations and enforcement as it will be about transfering > resources to tribes. The aff can try and be as obscure as they want, but > negatives will probably respond with further nitpicking concerning those > two words. > > I like debates about the appropriations process as much as the next > person, but there are all kinds of quirky things negatives can do with > that word, none of which have anything to do with Indians. As for > enforcement, what are your new recruits going to say to the cp to do the > plan but exclude federal enforcement with a sovereignty net benefit? > > I think the Acknowledgement topic is a better guarantee of debates 'about > Indians' because all the good negative ground is 'about Indians.' Not just > 'about Indians,' but really about the unique character of the relationship > between the USFG and Indian Tribes. At least among the 3 topics, I think > it has the best chance at getting at that relationship. > > > Finally, I think the concept of "predictable ground" has been ridiculously > > elevated...small school debaters lose the advantage of surprise granted > > by exploring the fringes of a resonably broad topic > > "Predictable negative ground" does cut both ways: there is also an > advantage for the aff if it can predict the majority of negative > arguments. Schools with more resources will always be better able to > predict and exploit the fringes of the topic than those with less. > > --JP Lacy > > > > From Pacedebate Wed Jul 4 19:56:44 2001 From: Pacedebate (Pacedebate at aol.com) Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 20:56:44 EDT Subject: We Don't Need to ReVote... Message-ID: <42.17146f17.2875154c@aol.com> In a message dated 7/4/01 2:00:40 PM Central Daylight Time, coopdb8 at hotmail.com writes: > Predictable ground is the boon of LARGE programs. My entire coaching career > to this point has relied on making "small" programs competitive by > exploiting the "fringes" (as you say) of the topic and coming up with wily > ways to "outsmart" squads that clearly had us outgunned. Starting to seem like a yearly ritual. COOP says big topics help small programs and I post just to disagree. I won't bore you with many of the details but I will say that my experience at Pace was the exact opposite of COOP's experience at Miami. The sanctions topic was the best topic for us. I've always felt like the aff flexibility COOP prefers meant too many debates at the NDT would come down to a coin flip. The only hope for a small program would be to win the flip and break their new case. Lose the flip and the small school's got no hope. If I were still coaching at Pace I'd be lobbying like crazy for the acknowledgement topic. Tim -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010704/75e05e68/attachment.htm From ifjxh Thu Jul 5 02:14:51 2001 From: ifjxh (Joshua Hoe) Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 02:14:51 Subject: We Don't Need to ReVote... Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010705/dc6b5ff3/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "christopher cooper" Subject: Re: We Don't Need to ReVote... Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2001 14:59:21 -0400 Size: 3180 Url: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010705/dc6b5ff3/attachment.mht From matt Wed Jul 4 22:56:06 2001 From: matt (Matt Schiros) Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 23:56:06 -0400 Subject: The Fourth of July and Blacks Message-ID: do you suppose it's disingenuous for blacks to celebrate the 4th of july since A.) it pays homage to a nation that enslaved their ancestors and B.) the mantle of white oppression has never been removed from blacks? That's basically the justification for not saying the pledge right? Roider --MSchiros at AIM------------------------------------------------------------ Matt Schiros The Supreme Cafmaster Gyrator "Actually, I don't dislike women, I merely mistrust them. The twinkle in the eye, the arsnic in the soup..." --The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes "For us to remain in one narrow groove while ranting about 'freedom' strikes me as an affront to those who endured and sacrificed to enable us to become better prepared for our continuing role in the struggle for freedom." --Ralph Ellison. Gyrations of Freedom: http://www.nacs.net/~schiros/gof/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- From elliottdarren Wed Jul 4 23:26:14 2001 From: elliottdarren (DARREN ELLIOTT) Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2001 23:26:14 -0500 Subject: The Fourth of July and Blacks Message-ID: >do you suppose it's disingenuous for blacks to celebrate the 4th of july >since >A.) it pays homage to a nation that enslaved their ancestors and No. The Fourth celebrates freedom over tyrannical rule of the Crown. Now for many citizens that rule was replaced by one even worse (in the case of slaves). But the Fourth has come to celebrate more than 1776. It pays homage to all US Veterans who gave their all for the country. Among those veterans were many black service men and womyn. The number of blacks who fought for independence of slaves during the Civil War is also extraordinary. As Martin Luther King noted, all of our freedoms are inextricably bound together. None of us can be free until we are all free. Many blacks have given their lives for that belief and they are celebrated on the Fourth as much as anyone. >B.) the mantle of white oppression has never been removed from blacks? > This is a non-argument in terms of the Fourth of July. And to some extent you are right-though thankfully a lot of strides have been made. To deny them the right to celebrate their country is to uphold the belief it isnt really "their" country. Brick by brick... Happy 4th to you all, CHIEF >That's basically the justification for not saying the pledge right? >Roider > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From 2WWQRXN36 Wed Jul 4 09:52:04 2001 From: 2WWQRXN36 (2WWQRXN36 at mindspring.com) Date: 04 Jul 01 9:52:04 PM Subject: (None) Message-ID: <0nxM9LUJ0O64> Finding that you're running out of steam with Microsoft Excel for managing your business and personal information? Afraid that Microsoft Access will make you feel like a dummy? How about database software that doesn't require programming and doesn't lock you into Microsoft for your data? Get a simple, easy to use solution for all your database projects! A powerful Windows database ideal for database management and rapid application development, one critically acclaimed by leading computer publications including PC Magazine, PC World, InfoWorld, Corporate PC and Computer Shopper. PC World describes the product as being a simple, powerful, and elegant relational database that is easier to use than Microsoft Access This software comes from a company that has been building database software for over 19 years and has over 1 million satisfied customers. FREE Trial Offer! Reply to software9988 at aol.com with the word TRIAL in the subject to receive your trial BONUS: 40 FREE Database Applications included! With this database you will easily solve problems like, Billing Invoicing Receivables Medical Records Customer Service Inventory Control Contact Management Non Profit Record Keeping Human Resource Information Church and School Membership Property Management and Maintenance Repair and Maintenance Records Insurance Claims and Records Project Management Referral Systems Point of Sale Scheduling Payables PLUS MUCH MORE!!! Reply to software9988 at aol.com with the word TRIAL in the subject to receive your trial. @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ This mailing is done by an independent marketing co. We apologize if this message has reached you in error. Save the Planet, Save the Trees! Advertise via Email. No wasted paper! Delete with one simple keystroke! Less refuse in our Dumps! This is the new way of the new millennium To be removed please email optmeoutnow at aol.com with the word "remove" in the subject line. @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ From coopdb8 Wed Jul 4 23:53:25 2001 From: coopdb8 (christopher cooper) Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 00:53:25 -0400 Subject: We Don't Need to ReVote... Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010705/f10e8531/attachment.html From tara_l_tate Thu Jul 5 08:38:45 2001 From: tara_l_tate (Tara Tate) Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 08:38:45 -0500 Subject: The Fourth of July and Blacks Message-ID: This is just an interesting aside, but Frederick Douglass gave an interesting, ironic 19th century speech on this very subject matter. Speaking on July 05 (the mis-date was not a coincidence), Douglass speaks to a primarily white audience on the meaning of the Fourth of July. At the beginning of his speech, he details how, on a shallow level, the Fourth was a celebration for whites only and their citizenship. However, Douglass offers a new interpretation of what it means to be an American citizen and to truly appreciate what the Fourth of July means. Because the white race was practicing the evils of slavery which was immoral, unconstitutional, and antithetical to the purported belief system that we were supposedly trying to free ourselves from the tyranny of England, the only race that should truly celebrate the Fourth of July were African-Americans. Douglass argued that it was hypocritical for the white race to celebrate a day of freedom from tyrannical rule when they were participating in a similar action (i.e. slavery)... It is a very interesting read. Just my 2 cents, Tara Tate Colleyville-Heritage High School >From: "DARREN ELLIOTT" >To: matt at schiros.net, edebate at ndtceda.com >Subject: Re: The Fourth of July and Blacks >Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2001 23:26:14 -0500 > > >>do you suppose it's disingenuous for blacks to celebrate the 4th of july >>since >>A.) it pays homage to a nation that enslaved their ancestors and > >No. The Fourth celebrates freedom over tyrannical rule of the Crown. Now >for many citizens that rule was replaced by one even worse (in the case of >slaves). But the Fourth has come to celebrate more than 1776. It pays >homage to all US Veterans who gave their all for the country. Among those >veterans were many black service men and womyn. The number of blacks who >fought for independence of slaves during the Civil War is also >extraordinary. As Martin Luther King noted, all of our freedoms are >inextricably bound together. None of us can be free until we are all free. >Many blacks have given their lives for that belief and they are celebrated >on the Fourth as much as anyone. > >>B.) the mantle of white oppression has never been removed from blacks? >> > >This is a non-argument in terms of the Fourth of July. And to some extent >you are right-though thankfully a lot of strides have been made. To deny >them the right to celebrate their country is to uphold the belief it isnt >really "their" country. Brick by brick... > >Happy 4th to you all, >CHIEF > >>That's basically the justification for not saying the pledge right? >>Roider >> >_________________________________________________________________ >Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From ifjxh Thu Jul 5 13:50:09 2001 From: ifjxh (Joshua Hoe) Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 13:50:09 Subject: We Don't Need to ReVote... Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010705/de8e2185/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "christopher cooper" Subject: Re: We Don't Need to ReVote... Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 00:53:25 -0400 Size: 2670 Url: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010705/de8e2185/attachment.mht From tgonos Thu Jul 5 08:48:52 2001 From: tgonos (Tracy Gonos) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 09:48:52 -0400 Subject: "as previously amended" References: Message-ID: I'm reticent to weigh in on edebate about topic specific issues these days since I don't follow these discussions very closely any more, but I have noticed this mini controversy about the meaning of "as previously amended" popping up several times. First a caveat - I have absolutely no idea why the topic committee chose to include "as previously amended" in the wording of topic 2. Not that I think it's a bad idea, but I just want to make it clear that their intentions in including it may not track the way it is used in legal parlance, which is what I discuss below. I'm a bit confused as to why anyone would think "as previously amended" serves as a limit on topical action. The phrase "as previously amended" is a legal catch phrase that is meant to be descriptive. It alerts the reader/listener to the fact that you are referring to a given statute AND any amendments made thereto. This is necessary because amendments generally aren't put directly into a given statute. E.g. Title VII was amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which is located in the codebooks in a totally different spot and is not literally part of Title VII. But, by telling someone, "title VII, as amended, allows for the recovery of punitive damages" I am alerting them to the fact that I am referring to all of Title VII, not just the original version of the statute, or the parts that are actually included under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in the codebooks (which don't allow for punitive damages). Thus, using the phrase, as amended or as previously amended clarifies that you are referring to the most current version of a given statute, which is the actual body of the statute (from the example above - Title VII) and any currently active amendments thereto (also from the example above - The Civil Rights Act of 1991). Also, saying "Title VII as previously amended" is a hell of a lot easier than saying "Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, The Civil Rights of 1991, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, etc, etc. etc." For those of you that remember the Title VII topic, the basic gist of my interpretation of "as previously amended" is that that phrase could have been added to the Title VII topic and it would have had absolutely no effect on the debates or topic interpretation whatsoever. Said another way, I think the phrase is essentially meaningless for debate purposes except insofar as it makes cases based on earlier versions of the statutes in question nontopical. I say it's meaningless because it is only lawyers, (and maybe debaters too) who are obsessed with precision, who think you need to say "as amended" to alert people to the fact that you are talking about the status quo incarnation of a given statute. Tracy ----- Original Message ----- From: Slusher, Eric To: Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2001 5:09 PM Subject: RE: If you're going to rank rez #2 you should read > Slusher, > > I'm curious how the aff can do "a bunch of other stuff...beyond that" > when > as both Veronica and I have pointed out, the resolution specifically > limits > your actions with the words "as previously amended"? Doesn't this seem > to > say you have a minimum AND a maximum of action the Aff can take? > > Curious, > > Alan > > ---------------------- > > As previously amended doesn't seem to limit the actions an affirmative can > take to boost enforcement of the act(s). My understanding was that the > committee desired to limit the affirmative to reform of current laws and as > such chose actions like appropriations rather than new funding > authorizations and previously amended rather than letting an affirmative > "redefine" the nature of the act itself. My point was that affirmative > action isn't limited to increasing funding only. There are other "resource" > tansfers possible which are still topical because they won't change the > nature of the act(s) but rather the scope and effectiveness. Examples > include transfering personell, offices, equipment, etc. Those probably all > could be defined as "resources". Increasing the money, people, equipment, > etc. dedicated to a particular act doesn't violate the purpose that > "previously amended" serves. That seems to constrain the aff from changing > the purpose of the law through amendments. Increased resource allocation > from Congress for an act doesn't neccessarily require amending the law. > But, even if it did, "as previoulsy amended" doesn't mean the affirmative > can't amend the law, as previously amended to increase appropriations for > and enforcement of it. > > slusher > From veronica_m_barreto Thu Jul 5 09:33:31 2001 From: veronica_m_barreto (Veronica Barreto) Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 10:33:31 -0400 Subject: "as previously amended" Message-ID: Tracy, Your input is appreciated as always. We could use some legal expertise, especially when considering topics such as this one. Your explanation of the phrase "as previously amended" makes a lot of sense. I've gotten the impression over the past few days from people who were present at the meeting that the topic committee wanted to prevent the affirmative from making any structural changes that couldn't be considered an increase in enforcement or appropriations. It seems you're saying that they weren's successful in their pursuit. So in your opinion, from a legal standpoint does the resolution (RE:That the USFG should transfer resources to currently Recognized tribes by substantially increasing appropriations for and enforcement of one or more of the following, as previously amended) allow for amendments to the legislation? Amending the act isn't a resolutional mandate but can the amending process be extrapolated from the resolution as written, without being extra topical? Thanks, Veronica >From: "Tracy Gonos" >To: "Slusher, Eric" >CC: >Subject: "as previously amended" >Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 09:48:52 -0400 > > > >I'm reticent to weigh in on edebate about topic specific issues these days >since I don't follow these discussions very closely any more, but I have >noticed this mini controversy about the meaning of "as previously amended" >popping up several times. > >First a caveat - I have absolutely no idea why the topic committee chose to >include "as previously amended" in the wording of topic 2. Not that I >think >it's a bad idea, but I just want to make it clear that their intentions in >including it may not track the way it is used in legal parlance, which is >what I discuss below. > >I'm a bit confused as to why anyone would think "as previously amended" >serves as a limit on topical action. The phrase "as previously amended" is >a legal catch phrase that is meant to be descriptive. It alerts the >reader/listener to the fact that you are referring to a given statute AND >any amendments made thereto. This is necessary because amendments >generally >aren't put directly into a given statute. E.g. Title VII was amended by >the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which is located in the codebooks in a >totally >different spot and is not literally part of Title VII. But, by telling >someone, "title VII, as amended, allows for the recovery of punitive >damages" I am alerting them to the fact that I am referring to all of >Title >VII, not just the original version of the statute, or the parts that are >actually included under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in the >codebooks (which don't allow for punitive damages). Thus, using the >phrase, >as amended or as previously amended clarifies that you are referring to the >most current version of a given statute, which is the actual body of the >statute (from the example above - Title VII) and any currently active >amendments thereto (also from the example above - The Civil Rights Act of >1991). Also, saying "Title VII as previously amended" is a hell of a lot >easier than saying "Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, The Civil >Rights of 1991, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, etc, etc. etc." > >For those of you that remember the Title VII topic, the basic gist of my >interpretation of "as previously amended" is that that phrase could have >been added to the Title VII topic and it would have had absolutely no >effect >on the debates or topic interpretation whatsoever. > >Said another way, I think the phrase is essentially meaningless for debate >purposes except insofar as it makes cases based on earlier versions of the >statutes in question nontopical. I say it's meaningless because it is only >lawyers, (and maybe debaters too) who are obsessed with precision, who >think >you need to say "as amended" to alert people to the fact that you are >talking about the status quo incarnation of a given statute. > >Tracy >----- Original Message ----- >From: Slusher, Eric >To: >Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2001 5:09 PM >Subject: RE: If you're going to rank rez #2 you should read > > > > Slusher, > > > > I'm curious how the aff can do "a bunch of other stuff...beyond that" > > when > > as both Veronica and I have pointed out, the resolution specifically > > limits > > your actions with the words "as previously amended"? Doesn't this seem > > to > > say you have a minimum AND a maximum of action the Aff can take? > > > > Curious, > > > > Alan > > > > ---------------------- > > > > As previously amended doesn't seem to limit the actions an affirmative >can > > take to boost enforcement of the act(s). My understanding was that the > > committee desired to limit the affirmative to reform of current laws and >as > > such chose actions like appropriations rather than new funding > > authorizations and previously amended rather than letting an affirmative > > "redefine" the nature of the act itself. My point was that affirmative > > action isn't limited to increasing funding only. There are other >"resource" > > tansfers possible which are still topical because they won't change the > > nature of the act(s) but rather the scope and effectiveness. Examples > > include transfering personell, offices, equipment, etc. Those probably >all > > could be defined as "resources". Increasing the money, people, >equipment, > > etc. dedicated to a particular act doesn't violate the purpose that > > "previously amended" serves. That seems to constrain the aff from >changing > > the purpose of the law through amendments. Increased resource >allocation > > from Congress for an act doesn't neccessarily require amending the law. > > But, even if it did, "as previoulsy amended" doesn't mean the >affirmative > > can't amend the law, as previously amended to increase appropriations >for > > and enforcement of it. > > > > slusher > > > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From db8coach Thu Jul 5 10:04:07 2001 From: db8coach (Bob Lechtreck) Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 08:04:07 -0700 Subject: "as previously amended" Message-ID: <002001c10563$bf65b720$0789ab40@Ramon> >>>>>>>>>> For those of you that remember the Title VII topic, the basic gist of my interpretation of "as previously amended" is that that phrase could have been added to the Title VII topic and it would have had absolutely no effect on the debates or topic interpretation whatsoever. >>>>>>>>>> I disagree about the effect it would have had then, and this may be why it was included this time. I heard (on more than one occasion), and we ran a topicality violation on the term 1964. Affs who only dealt with one of the amendments since 1964 (Pregnancy Discrim, 1991, etc.) were treated to this bizarre and cheesy (yet successful) violation. Had the phrase "as previously amended" been included, there would have been some clarification which did not exist. Peace, Bob Lechtreck Bakersfield College "Putting out fires, and damn good debaters." From tgonos Thu Jul 5 10:03:54 2001 From: tgonos (Tracy Gonos) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 11:03:54 -0400 Subject: "as previously amended" References: <002001c10563$bf65b720$0789ab40@Ramon> Message-ID: Hmmm, interesting. I guess it does serve some purpose then, but still not the purpose of limiting out structural changes. Tracy ----- Original Message ----- From: Bob Lechtreck To: Tracy Gonos Cc: edebate Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2001 11:04 AM Subject: Re: "as previously amended" > >>>>>>>>>> > For those of you that remember the Title VII topic, the basic gist of my > interpretation of "as previously amended" is that that phrase could have > been added to the Title VII topic and it would have had absolutely no effect > on the debates or topic interpretation whatsoever. > >>>>>>>>>> > > I disagree about the effect it would have had then, and this may be why it > was included this time. > > I heard (on more than one occasion), and we ran a topicality violation on > the term 1964. Affs who only dealt with one of the amendments since 1964 > (Pregnancy Discrim, 1991, etc.) were treated to this bizarre and cheesy (yet > successful) violation. > > Had the phrase "as previously amended" been included, there would have been > some clarification which did not exist. > > Peace, > > Bob Lechtreck > Bakersfield College > "Putting out fires, and damn good debaters." > > From swhalen Thu Jul 5 10:52:36 2001 From: swhalen (Shawn T Whalen) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 08:52:36 -0700 (PDT) Subject: The Fourth of July and Blacks In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Fredrick Douglas had an interesting perspective on this. He delivered a speech on July 5, 1852 in Rochester titled: What to the Slave is the Fourth of July? Shawn Whalen Director of Forensics San Francisco State University swhalen at sfsu.edu (415) 338-1097 On Wed, 4 Jul 2001, DARREN ELLIOTT wrote: > > >do you suppose it's disingenuous for blacks to celebrate the 4th of july > >since > >A.) it pays homage to a nation that enslaved their ancestors and > > No. The Fourth celebrates freedom over tyrannical rule of the Crown. Now > for many citizens that rule was replaced by one even worse (in the case of > slaves). But the Fourth has come to celebrate more than 1776. It pays > homage to all US Veterans who gave their all for the country. Among those > veterans were many black service men and womyn. The number of blacks who > fought for independence of slaves during the Civil War is also > extraordinary. As Martin Luther King noted, all of our freedoms are > inextricably bound together. None of us can be free until we are all free. > Many blacks have given their lives for that belief and they are celebrated > on the Fourth as much as anyone. > > >B.) the mantle of white oppression has never been removed from blacks? > > > > This is a non-argument in terms of the Fourth of July. And to some extent > you are right-though thankfully a lot of strides have been made. To deny > them the right to celebrate their country is to uphold the belief it isnt > really "their" country. Brick by brick... > > Happy 4th to you all, > CHIEF > > >That's basically the justification for not saying the pledge right? > >Roider > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com > > From jwpatt00 Thu Jul 5 12:29:42 2001 From: jwpatt00 (J.W. Patterson) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 13:29:42 -0400 Subject: Ky. Fellows 2nd Demo Debate Message-ID: THE ROAD GOES ON FOREVER AND INSTITUTES NEVER END Lexington, KY, June 23, 2001 GOOD EVENING MR. AND MRS. NORTH AND SOUTH AMERICA AND ALL SHIPS AT SEA, LET'S GO TO PRESS. On June 27, 2001 Four Fellows in the Kentucky National Debate Institute staged the second policy demonstration debate. EDWIN LIN of Leland H.S.(CA) and TIM WESTMYER of Damion (CA.) defended the affirmative against DAN DONOHO of College Prep (CA) and CASSANDRA MALIK of Glenbrook North (Il). on the negative. Instructors ARRON KALL and RACHEL SALOOM served as the critics. Following the debate, Professor Kall filed the following report.: "The debate began with a moving tribute to Miriam Donoho, especially from the Fellows cheering section, which had made posters for the occasion. Miriam has become the ?debate team mom? of the institute. The stellar opening Fellows debate was a hard act to follow, but Edwin Lin(Leland) and Tim Westmyer (Damien-also voted sexiest Fellow by the camp) affirmed the resolution, while Dan Donoho (College Prep) and Cassandra Malik (Glenbrook North) negated. The affirmative plan text increased funding to Russia to help them safely dispose of their chemical weapons. This aid was necessary for Russia to meet their Chemical Weapons Convention obligations. The advantage of the case centered on nuclear terrorism, proliferation, and U.S.-Russian relations, which became a bigger issue when it was finally impacted in the 2AC. The 1NC consisted of an establish topicality violation, which argued the Aff. plan could not be a modification of policy that already exists in the status quo. An effects topicality violation, which said the Aff. plan took multiple steps before limiting the use of weapons of mass destruction. A Bush bad disadvantage-the Aff. plan is a win for Bush and concession to Democrats, with a fast track bad impact scenario that resulted in decreased global free trade. A Russian aid corruption disadvantage, that argued the money given by the Aff. would be diverted by corrupt Russian domestic actors. Finally, a spending disadvantage, which said that new spending/fiscal irresponsibility would wreck the U.S. and world economy, triggering the Mead in 98 impact. The debate centered around the topicality violation and effects violation, as Cassandra?s speedy 1NC forced Tim to slightly undercover those two arguments. Dan?s 2NR was very persuasive and warned of likely new 2AR arguments on both violations. Tim stuck to his guns and Edwin?s 1AR extensions, but focused on the argument that topicality is not a voting issue because of prior disclosure, an adequate case debate, and a lack of in round abuse. In the end, the students were more persuaded by Dan?s 2NR. The student vote was approximately 41-27 for the negative." JW PATTERSON Director ________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From gragerts Thu Jul 5 13:33:33 2001 From: gragerts (gragerts at georgetown.edu) Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 14:33:33 -0400 Subject: Res 1: policy v. kritiks Message-ID: Bear made this comment earlier: >Additionally, the "intricate case debate" so wonderfully trumpeted >will probably not develop within a policy context. I don't think a >season of intricate kritiks, kritik theory and counter-kritiks will be >what I want to see, particularly for novices. If that's your cup of >tea, I understand. And I think he brings to light my ultimate concern about Resolution 1. The idea of acknowledging tribes seems to me to be overwhelmingly in the kritik realm of debate. It reminds me of the privacy high school topic; every round I judged the aff claimed a rights advantage or something fairly kritiky. It seems to me that nearly all advantages would stem around the idea of sovereignty, culture, etc. I am by no means saying that we should avoid all kritik debate, but I think its critical to balance kritik ground with policy ground because kritik debate isn't everyone's "cup of tea." People are so afraid of turning away potential novices, but I think the potential implications are worse than that. I think an extremely kritik friendly topic would deter CURRENT debaters from debating. I know that I am skeptical of my desire to continue debating if the first resolution is chosen. Less than a desire to argue against the first resolution, I'm just looking for someone who can maybe answer this concern of mine. Can anyone explain to me how the first resolution still preserves policy ground, how it can avoid being overrun by kritikal arguments? I would feel much better about the first resolution if someone could convincingly answer that question. Sarah Gragert Georgetown Univ. From DaveAnt420 Thu Jul 5 14:13:02 2001 From: DaveAnt420 (DaveAnt420 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 15:13:02 EDT Subject: The Fourth of July and Blacks Message-ID: Interesting fact: The Statue of Liberty is actually a monument to the freedom of slaves and was even based on the study of African models by the French designer. Wonder why those facts aren't widely propagated? Bear, Lady Liberty was even the symbol of the Emancipation Movement, forty years earlier... From randyluskey Thu Jul 5 14:16:40 2001 From: randyluskey (Randy Luskey) Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 19:16:40 -0000 Subject: Anyone at the Kentucky Institute. . . Message-ID: What's up, folks. Is there anyone working at the Kentucky Institute who could hook a brother up with the best five or six impact cites from the fast track bad disad. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Hope everything is under control over there in Lexington. . . - Luskey _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From dsrader Thu Jul 5 14:29:07 2001 From: dsrader (Doyle Srader) Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 14:29:07 -0500 Subject: The Fourth of July and Blacks Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20010705142601.00a75998@titan.sfasu.edu> Professor Bryant wrote: >Interesting fact: The Statue of Liberty is actually a monument to the freedom >of slaves and was even based on the study of African models by the French >designer. Wonder why those facts aren't widely propagated? Probably because they're wildly exaggerated. http://www.snopes2.com/spoons/fracture/liberty.htm http://urbanlegends.about.com/science/urbanlegends/library/weekly/aa020900b.htm Doyle Srader Lecturer, Speech Communication Stephen F Austin State University http://titan.sfasu.edu/~f_sraderdw/ "We're blessed with such values in America. And I?it's?I'm a proud man to be the nation based upon such wonderful values." -- George W. Bush From DaveAnt420 Thu Jul 5 15:25:09 2001 From: DaveAnt420 (DaveAnt420 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 16:25:09 EDT Subject: The Fourth of July and Blacks Message-ID: <5b.183e0d23.28762725@aol.com> In a message dated 7/5/01 1:30:05 PM Mountain Daylight Time, dsrader at sfasu.edu writes: > Professor Bryant wrote: > > >Interesting fact: The Statue of Liberty is actually a monument to the > freedom > >of slaves and was even based on the study of African models by the French > >designer. Wonder why those facts aren't widely propagated? > > Probably because they're wildly exaggerated. > > http://www.snopes2.com/spoons/fracture/liberty.htm > http://urbanlegends.about.com/science/urbanlegends/library/weekly/aa020900b. > htm > > Doyle Srader Prof Srader. I suggest you contact the Discovery.com to let them know that the info that's posted on their web page, and that was aired on yesterday's program about the Statue of Liberty is incorrect. Since their program included interviews with historians and experts on the statue, I'm still siding with them. They even included pictures of the locations in Ethiopia where the designer studied female models for the Statue, which was originally intended as a lighthouse at the mouth of the Suez Canal. Bear, some people are professional cynics... From tgonos Thu Jul 5 15:11:39 2001 From: tgonos (Tracy Gonos) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 16:11:39 -0400 Subject: The Fourth of July and Blacks References: <5.1.0.14.0.20010705142601.00a75998@titan.sfasu.edu> Message-ID: As someone interested in this topic I appreciate the links to the websites you provided. The urbanlegends page on about.com (the second of the two links you provide) acknowledges that the claims of some sort of linkage between the Statue and slavery is an open question. It even provides some good evidence to support the claim that there is such a link. Some of that evidence directly rebuts the claims of Barbara Mikkelsom who is the author of the information found on the first website, which is openly dismissive and derisive of the possibility of any such linkage. Further, I'm no historian, but I do have a blooming interest in history and have been reading a lot about American history of late. Some of what I have read flatly contradicts some of the statements made by Mikkelson (on that first website) regarding the role of African Americans in the Civil War and the general public and international community's awareness of that role. She does not provide any evidence at all for her assertions that the Statue has no relationship to slavery or american blacks. Basically, I'm saying that I find her webpage less than convincing because she does not provide evidence for many of her counter claims, my own knowledge draws several of her claims into question, and the second webpage references evidence that she claims does not exist (e.g. the terra cotta model holding broken chains in the Museum of the History of New York). I KNOW this exists because I've seen it. Finally, the following quote, from the first website you reference, is enough for me to AT LEAST acknowledge that this is an open question about which people can reasonably disagree as opposed to being a "wildly exagerrated" claim: "Richard Newman of Harvard's W.E.B. DuBois Institute for Afro-American Research says it's widely believed among academics that Laboulaye did intend for the statue to commemorate freed slaves and the Union victory in the war." Tracy ----- Original Message ----- From: Doyle Srader To: Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2001 3:29 PM Subject: Re: The Fourth of July and Blacks > Professor Bryant wrote: > > >Interesting fact: The Statue of Liberty is actually a monument to the freedom > >of slaves and was even based on the study of African models by the French > >designer. Wonder why those facts aren't widely propagated? > > Probably because they're wildly exaggerated. > > http://www.snopes2.com/spoons/fracture/liberty.htm > http://urbanlegends.about.com/science/urbanlegends/library/weekly/aa020900b. htm > > Doyle Srader > Lecturer, Speech Communication > Stephen F Austin State University > http://titan.sfasu.edu/~f_sraderdw/ > > "We're blessed with such values in America. And I-it's-I'm a proud man to > be the nation based upon such wonderful values." > -- George W. Bush > From doyle Thu Jul 5 15:31:50 2001 From: doyle (Doyle Srader) Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 15:31:50 -0500 Subject: The Fourth of July and Blacks In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Fair enough. I didn't say the claims were wrong. Professor Bryant threw them out in a single paragraph, with no disclaimer, as though there were no controversy to the matter. I said that was a wild exaggeration. The last quote in the about.com document says when the current research programme reaches its conclusions, both sides will have their positions shaken by the findings. Doyle Srader Lecturer, Speech Communication Stephen F Austin State University http://titan.sfasu.edu/~f_sraderdw/ > -----Original Message----- > From: Tracy Gonos [mailto:tgonos at hotmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2001 3:12 PM > To: Doyle Srader > Cc: eDebate at ndtceda.com; DaveAnt420 at aol.com > Subject: Re: The Fourth of July and Blacks > > > As someone interested in this topic I appreciate the links to > the websites > you provided. The urbanlegends page on about.com (the second of the two > links you provide) acknowledges that the claims of some sort of linkage > between the Statue and slavery is an open question. It even > provides some > good evidence to support the claim that there is such a link. > Some of that > evidence directly rebuts the claims of Barbara Mikkelsom who is > the author > of the information found on the first website, which is openly dismissive > and derisive of the possibility of any such linkage. Further, I'm no > historian, but I do have a blooming interest in history and have been > reading a lot about American history of late. Some of what I have read > flatly contradicts some of the statements made by Mikkelson (on > that first > website) regarding the role of African Americans in the Civil War and the > general public and international community's awareness of that > role. She > does not provide any evidence at all for her assertions that the > Statue has > no relationship to slavery or american blacks. > > Basically, I'm saying that I find her webpage less than > convincing because > she does not provide evidence for many of her counter claims, my own > knowledge draws several of her claims into question, and the > second webpage > references evidence that she claims does not exist (e.g. the terra cotta > model holding broken chains in the Museum of the History of New York). I > KNOW this exists because I've seen it. > > Finally, the following quote, from the first website you reference, is > enough for me to AT LEAST acknowledge that this is an open question about > which people can reasonably disagree as opposed to being a "wildly > exagerrated" claim: > > "Richard Newman of Harvard's W.E.B. DuBois Institute for Afro-American > Research says it's widely believed among academics that > Laboulaye did intend > for the statue to commemorate freed slaves and the Union victory in the > war." > > Tracy > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Doyle Srader > To: > Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2001 3:29 PM > Subject: Re: The Fourth of July and Blacks > > > > Professor Bryant wrote: > > > > >Interesting fact: The Statue of Liberty is actually a monument to the > freedom > > >of slaves and was even based on the study of African models > by the French > > >designer. Wonder why those facts aren't widely propagated? > > > > Probably because they're wildly exaggerated. > > > > http://www.snopes2.com/spoons/fracture/liberty.htm > > > http://urbanlegends.about.com/science/urbanlegends/library/weekly /aa020900b. htm > > Doyle Srader > Lecturer, Speech Communication > Stephen F Austin State University > http://titan.sfasu.edu/~f_sraderdw/ > > "We're blessed with such values in America. And I-it's-I'm a proud man to > be the nation based upon such wonderful values." > -- George W. Bush > From DaveAnt420 Thu Jul 5 15:52:20 2001 From: DaveAnt420 (DaveAnt420 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 16:52:20 EDT Subject: The Fourth of July and Blacks Message-ID: The documentary I watched, yesterday, also notes that there is proof of the link in the broken chains at the feet of Lady Liberty, the fact that Lady liberty was the symbol of the Emancipation Movement, and that Lady Liberty is holding what is known as an "emancipation tablet" that was the binding style of published emancipation tracts. The Statue was originally intended to be presented on the year of an anniversary of the end of slavery, but was six years late due to production problems. The History Channel web page also acknowledges that the designer admitted that the statue was derived from pictures of his mother and Egyptian models, though the in documentary I watched yesterday, in the Modern Marvel series, the Statue was designed primarily from the study of Abysinnian models. Bear, see the resistance... From travisneal Thu Jul 5 22:27:22 2001 From: travisneal (travis neal) Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 22:27:22 Subject: The Fourth of July and Blacks Message-ID: initially there were chains on her left arm. however, there was too much controversy so the chains were moved to her feet. too bad it is on a base so high, nobody ever sees the feet. Travis Neal U. North Texas >From: DaveAnt420 at aol.com >To: edebate at ndtceda.com >Subject: Re: The Fourth of July and Blacks >Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 15:13:02 EDT > >Interesting fact: The Statue of Liberty is actually a monument to the >freedom >of slaves and was even based on the study of African models by the French >designer. Wonder why those facts aren't widely propagated? > >Bear, >Lady Liberty was even the symbol of the Emancipation Movement, forty years >earlier... > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From jackattack7 Thu Jul 5 23:58:33 2001 From: jackattack7 (jack stroube) Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 23:58:33 Subject: grievance with UT debate Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010705/68b7078e/attachment.htm From jason Thu Jul 5 21:18:45 2001 From: jason (Jason Regnier) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 19:18:45 -0700 Subject: Res 1: policy v. kritiks References: Message-ID: <001e01c105c1$fc9dc6b0$517ff8c6@organizamdd9kl> Sarah says: > It seems to me that nearly all advantages > would stem around the idea of sovereignty, culture, etc. I am by no > means saying that we should avoid all kritik debate, but I think its > critical to balance kritik ground with policy ground because kritik > debate isn't everyone's "cup of tea." My lord. Can't we all just get al. . .er, I mean: Can't we get past this rediculously false dichotomy between policy and kritik debates. Sovereignty and culture *are* *policy* impacts just as much as they are "kritik" (whatever that is) impacts. The example of the privacy topic is even worse. "Rights" advantages are not policy? This presents an interesting dilemma. For a moment, I'll buy into the system. Suppose that policy debate is good because it is more relavent to debaters who want to become policymakers when they grow up. "Policy" debaters want to avoid debating kritiks. presumably this is true because they think that kritik debates are not relevant to becoming a policy maker. if the future policy makers (haha) of debate don't want to debate about rights because they aren't a policy discussion, then what does that say for the future of policy making in america? The argument that you make seems to suggest that congresspeople should not weight the impacts of rights when making policy decisions. This goes even further, "life" is a value statement. Value statements are *way* too kritiky. Perhaps we shouldn't talk about lost lives either. If you go the other way, that policymakers should talk about these things, then there is no warrant why we should minimize their role in debate simply "because we don't like them." The debate should find itself. Lets figure out where the best debate is on the topic and not categorize arguments so that we can assign a label that we dislike. jason From tgonos Thu Jul 5 19:14:50 2001 From: tgonos (Tracy L Gonos) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 20:14:50 -0400 (EDT) Subject: The Fourth of July and Blacks In-Reply-To: Message-ID: There is a very large model of the feet and chains in the museum below the actual statue. Unfortunately, however, as I told Bear in a backchannel, the written text that is displayed in accompaniment with this model attributes a very different symbolic interpretation to the chains, and presents that interpretation as fact. Nothing in the entire museum even hints at the history being discussed in this thread! Tracy On Thu, 5 Jul 2001, travis neal wrote: > initially there were chains on her left arm. however, there was too much > controversy so the chains were moved to her feet. too bad it is on a base > so high, nobody ever sees the feet. > > Travis Neal > U. North Texas > > > >From: DaveAnt420 at aol.com > >To: edebate at ndtceda.com > >Subject: Re: The Fourth of July and Blacks > >Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 15:13:02 EDT > > > >Interesting fact: The Statue of Liberty is actually a monument to the > >freedom > >of slaves and was even based on the study of African models by the French > >designer. Wonder why those facts aren't widely propagated? > > > >Bear, > >Lady Liberty was even the symbol of the Emancipation Movement, forty years > >earlier... > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com > From k.kuswa Thu Jul 5 21:21:28 2001 From: k.kuswa (kevin kuswa) Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 21:21:28 -0500 Subject: grievance with UT debate In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4.1.20010705211208.009f51a0@mail.utexas.edu> Dear Edebate, You should not have to read this message. It is inaccurate in all of its claims. This individual is extremely bitter over not being hired at the workshop and has been obsessing over it for some time now. If you have any questions, you are free to call UT or the debate team. This is not the first threatening email this person has sent out and it may not be the last. I assure you that the van accident and all pertinent hiring decisions have been thoroughly examined and approved by UT. thanks, kevin kuswa utexas From k.kuswa Thu Jul 5 21:33:47 2001 From: k.kuswa (kevin kuswa) Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 21:33:47 -0500 Subject: grievance with UT debate Message-ID: <4.1.20010705212441.009f3ce0@mail.utexas.edu> also, my thoughts (as well as michelle's) go out to the Wilson family, Megan O'Neill, and the other members of the UT squad. These lives and others are the ones that deserve compassion, not the vindictive complaints of a person who was never a contributing member of the squad. I wish edebate was not a forum for such personal attacks, but since it has that potential, I feel the need to respond. Again, I am sorry that this thread has landed in your in-box. sincerely, kevin kuswa From nihlpenguin Fri Jul 6 01:57:18 2001 From: nihlpenguin (Andy Ellis) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 23:57:18 -0700 Subject: csu hayward tournament? Message-ID: I see on one of the calendars a csu hayward tournmant jan 11-13 2002, could someone please point me to an invite? Andy Ellis Long beach From gragerts Fri Jul 6 09:33:48 2001 From: gragerts (gragerts at georgetown.edu) Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 09:33:48 -0500 Subject: Res 1: policy v. kritiks Message-ID: <8837730f.730f8837@georgetown.edu> > My lord. Can't we all just get al. . .er, I mean: Can't we get > past this > rediculously false dichotomy between policy and kritik debates. > Sovereigntyand culture *are* *policy* impacts just as much as they > are "kritik" > (whatever that is) impacts. The example of the privacy topic is > even worse. > "Rights" advantages are not policy? This presents an interesting > dilemma.For a moment, I'll buy into the system. Suppose that > policy debate is good > because it is more relavent to debaters who want to become > policymakers when > they grow up. "Policy" debaters want to avoid debating kritiks. > presumablythis is true because they think that kritik debates are > not relevant to > becoming a policy maker. if the future policy makers (haha) of > debate don't > want to debate about rights because they aren't a policy > discussion, then > what does that say for the future of policy making in america? > The argument > that you make seems to suggest that congresspeople should not > weight the > impacts of rights when making policy decisions. This goes even > further,"life" is a value statement. Value statements are *way* > too kritiky. > Perhaps we shouldn't talk about lost lives either. If you go the > other way, > that policymakers should talk about these things, then there is no > warrantwhy we should minimize their role in debate simply "because > we don't like > them." The debate should find itself. Lets figure out where the best > debate is on the topic and not categorize arguments so that we can > assign a > label that we dislike. > > jason > I find this reply exceptionally frustrating. I am NOT looking to repeat the Parcher/Evans kritik-policy debate. I am also NOT SAYING that I want to avoid kritik and value debate. I think they're educational debates. But I don't want to debate them all the time!! I find traditional policy debates more fun and would like to have the opportunity to debate them as well. Thus, similar to balancing negative and aff ground, I think its best to balance the kritik/value debate with policy debate. So I'm looking for someone who can explain to me how the first resolutoin would preserve that balance, not someone ONCE AGAIN calling me close-minded simply because I don't find those issues as interesting. I repeat: I AM NOT SAYING WE SHOULD AVOID KRITIK DEBATE. I am only saying we should have both. Sarah Gragert Gtown From jason Fri Jul 6 10:53:04 2001 From: jason (Jason Regnier) Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 10:53:04 -0500 Subject: Res 1: policy v. kritiks References: <8837730f.730f8837@georgetown.edu> Message-ID: <000d01c10633$bf61a1f0$3635a8c0@le04w4778gmxll> > I am only saying we should have both. > > Sarah Gragert > Gtown That is exactly the line I was arguing against. When you say you want to debate both, that presumes that they're discrete and dichotomous. Theyre not. They are inseparable. You seem to have missed the entire point of my post. I was not calling you closed minded. I was saying that viewing kritiks and policy in dichotomous terms is not only wrong, but dangerous. jason From kkauf Fri Jul 6 11:26:31 2001 From: kkauf (kkauf at macalester.edu) Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 11:26:31 -0500 Subject: Res 1: policy v. kritiks Message-ID: <40859829.3203407590@[141.140.3.56]> Sarah, Jason's comments are right -- I think it's hard to answer your question because I'm really not sure at all what it is you consider to be "kritik" ground and what you consider to be "policy" ground. The topic paper talks about - trade off disads (since funding acknowledgement means funding all of the social services that go along with being recognized, and lots of people say that's a bad idea because it just spreads the resources even thinner among tribes, but doesn't increase funding overall). - disads to the services being provided (say, that when you grant federal acknowledgement that means that people can build casinos and gambling is bad for some reason) -- there are a bunch of these, probably more than you're thinking - sovereignty/world modelling -- I don't know if you consider this to be a "kritik" or not (is democracy promotion a kritik?) but the topic paper discusses it in terms of how other countries look to the us to determine rights policies and those policies are critical to all sorts of things -- like maybe us leadership, or democracy or something. - politics/econ/ other disads that usually apply. I mean, if I thought about it, I could probably come up with more things, but you need to be more specific about what you're looking for -- I didn't know that "rights" were considered a kritik (is federalism a kritik? it's a rights based argument). I think you could probably look for relations arguments, maybe other cultural groups trade-off perception arguments, but I'm just thinking off the top of my head. Katie Macalester College Debate 2002 PS -- the only time I remember debating you was a kritik debate that YOU instigated. just thought I'd tell you. :) From jeffrey.jarman Fri Jul 6 01:14:51 2001 From: jeffrey.jarman (Jeffrey Jarman) Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 01:14:51 -0500 Subject: Exec Sect Report 1/4 Message-ID: 2001-2002 CROSS EXAMINATION DEBATE ASSOCIATION Executive Secretary Report July 5, 2001 Hello Everyone: This is the first report of my tenure as the Executive Secretary. Let me begin by thanking Greg Simerly for his help in making this a smooth transition. I trust he will continue to help me as I undertake the many tasks of this office. Let me also ask for your patience. I am excited about serving the organization in this capacity, but I understand that I may make mistakes along the way. I promise to provide prompt attention to all of the duties of the office and deal with any problems in a timely manner. Please, if you have any questions or concerns, just let me know so that they can be quickly resolved. There are several items to report at this time: Membership dues. I've included a dues form. In addition, you can access the information from the CEDA webpage http://cedadebate.org or from the American Forensics Association. Tournament Sanctioning Form. I?ve included the form. Please complete the information as soon as possible so that your tournament can be put on the calendar. I intend to send out a calendar in August, September, and December. Topic Ballot. Please complete the ballot and return it to me no later than Thursday, July 26. The constitution requires either fax or mail balloting. I will send an email confirmation for all ballots received. If you do not receive a confirmation email, please email me to ensure that I received your ballot. The new topic will be announced on Friday, July 27. Jeffrey Jarman Executive Secretary, Cross Examination Debate Association Elliott School of Communication 1845 Fairmount Wichita, KS 67260-0031 (O): 316 978-6075 (H): 316 686-6274 (F): 316 978-3006 Jeffrey.Jarman at wichita.edu Jeffrey.Jarman at esc.wichita.edu From jeffrey.jarman Fri Jul 6 01:19:56 2001 From: jeffrey.jarman (Jeffrey Jarman) Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 01:19:56 -0500 Subject: Exec Sect Report 2/4 Message-ID: 2001-2002 CROSS EXAMINATION DEBATE ASSOCIATION Annual Membership Dues Invoice Annual membership dues are now payable to the Cross Examination Debate Association for the July 1, 2001-2002 academic year. Payment of membership dues allows schools to participate in the topic selection process, election of officers, enter the national tournament, earn national sweepstakes points, and receive the association journal. Membership Categories (choose one) _____ Regular ($50): Schools that have been members of CEDA at any time during the past three years. _____ Affiliate ($40): Schools new to CEDA and schools that do not enter CEDA sanctioned tournaments. _____ Associate ($30): Individuals and organizations wishing to receive periodic reports and the journal. No voting privileges. Make checks payable to CEDA, and mail to: Jeffrey Jarman Executive Secretary, CEDA Elliott School of Communication 1845 Fairmount Wichita, KS 67260-0031 Federal ID number: 91-1376392 School: Director: Mailing Address: Office phone: Home phone (opt): Fax number: Email: Is this school a community college? Will this school compete in the CEDA Select Sweepstakes only (6 tournaments, plus nationals)? From asnider Fri Jul 6 12:33:07 2001 From: asnider (Alfred C. Snider) Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 13:33:07 -0400 Subject: World Debate Institute Announcement - Shuster Message-ID: Kate Shuster, former NDT champion for Emory University, outstanding coach at Georgia and Emory, outstanding public debater who served on the USA-Japan tour, now with the Seattle Debate Foundation and leading debate critical theorist will be at WDI 2001. Kate will be lecturing to the international, parliamentary and policy debate workshops. She will also be delivering the WDI Keynote Speech on August 8, 2001, which will be webcast. We hope to be able to be able to announce another faculty addition in a few days. There are still spots open in all programs. For information, please go to http://debate.uvm.edu/wdi.html. Contact me if you have questions. 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 2001 - make plans now - http://debate.uvm.edu/wdi.html Appointment calendar at http://debate.uvm.edu/tunacalendar.html From jeffrey.jarman Fri Jul 6 01:24:22 2001 From: jeffrey.jarman (Jeffrey Jarman) Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 01:24:22 -0500 Subject: Exec Sect Report 3/4 Message-ID: 2001-2002 CROSS EXAMINATION DEBATE ASSOCIATION Topic Ballot (ballots are due by noon, Central Time, Thursday, July 26, 2001) Schools that have paid CEDA membership dues for the 2000-01 and/or 2001-2002 academic year are eligible to vote. Rank your first choice 1, your second choice 2, etc. for the non-policy choices, and then rank your first choice 1, your second choice 2, etc. for the policy choices. You need not rank all topics. If you do not rank all of the topics, you may not ?skip? rankings (i.e., rank one topic 1 and another 3 without assigning a 2). Ballots filled out incorrectly will not be counted. All ballots will be confirmed via email by the end of the next business day. Contact me directly if you do not receive confirmation. The winning topic will be announced July 27, noon, Central time, on edebate. You may also call (316) 978-6075 after noon, Central time, for the winning topic. Director's Signature & School: Ballots are due by noon, Central time, Thursday, July 26, 2001. Fax to: Jeffrey Jarman, (316) 978-3006. Mail to: Jeffrey Jarman, Elliott School of Communication, 1845 Fairmount, Wichita, KS 67260-0031. Do NOT email ballots, as the CEDA Constitution prohibits email balloting. NON-POLICY _____ Resolved: That decreased Federal jurisdiction throughout Indian Country would be desirable. _____ Resolved: That tribal sovereignty for Native Americans in the United States is detrimental. _____ Resolved: That the elimination of the Native American symbol for sports teams' mascots in the United States would be desirable. _____ Resolved: That the United States Federal Government funding of reparations to Native Americans would be desirable. POLICY CHOICES _____ Resolved: That the United States Federal Government should grant Federal Acknowledgment to one or more of the following: Chickahominy Indian Tribe (VA) Eastern Chickahominy (VA) Golden Hill Paugussett Tribe (CT) Lumbee Regional Development Association/Lumbee Tribal Government Monacan Indian Nation (VA) Muwekma Indian Tribe (CA) Nansemond Indian Tribe Association (VA) Native Hawaiians (HI) Ramapough Mountain Indians, Inc. (NJ) Schaghticoke Indian Tribe (CT) Shinnecock Tribe (NY) Snohomish Tribe of Indians (WA) St. Francis/Sokoki Band of Abenakis (VT) United Houma Nation (LA) United Rappahannock Tribe (VA) Upper Mattaponi Tribe, Inc. (VA) _____ Resolved: That the United States Federal Government should transfer resources to currently Recognized tribes by substantially increasing appropriations for and enforcement of one or more of the following, as previously amended: Indian Child Protection and Family Violence Prevention Act Indian Child Welfare Act Indian Civil Rights Act Indian Education Act Indian Environmental General Assistance Program Act of 1992 Indian Financing Act of 1974 Indian Health Care Improvement Act Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act Indian Tribal Justice Act Tribal Self-Governance Act of 1994 _____ Resolved: That the United States Federal Government should substantially increase federal control throughout Indian Country in one or more of the following areas: child welfare, criminal justice, employment, environmental protection, gaming, resource management, taxation. From jeffrey.jarman Fri Jul 6 01:28:47 2001 From: jeffrey.jarman (Jeffrey Jarman) Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 01:28:47 -0500 Subject: Exec Sect Report 4/4 Message-ID: 2001-2002 CROSS EXAMINATION DEBATE ASSOCIATION Request for Tournament Sanctioning Calendars are distributed on August 1, September 1, and December 1. The CEDA Constitution, Bylaw V, requires that sanctioned tournaments be listed on the Calendar of CEDA Tournaments. Tournament directors agree to report results to the Executive Secretary within two weeks of the conclusion of the tournament and to follow CEDA?s divisional requirements (or stricter requirements). Tournament directors also agree to comply with the underlying principles of CEDA?s Statement on Sexual Harassment and Discrimination and the Statement of Ethical Principles (see Bylaws IV & V). Tournament invitations should reflect that commitment. Tournament dates Tournament name Host School City/State Number of preliminary rounds Divisions: Open Junior Novice LD Rookie Does the tournament offer other events you would like listed? IEs NPDA APDA Is the tournament open to all or members only? Tournament director/contact person Office phone Fax Email Has this tournament been held in the past two years? Send to: Jeffrey Jarman, Elliott School of Communication, Wichita, KS 67260-0031. Fax to: Jeffrey Jarman, (316) 978-3006. Email to: Jeffrey.Jarman at wichita.edu From jek21+ Fri Jul 6 13:43:38 2001 From: jek21+ (Joseph E Koehle) Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 14:43:38 -0400 (EDT) Subject: randy luskey Message-ID: randy, could you backchannel me when you get the chance? thanks, joe koehle university of pittsburgh From rick65 Fri Jul 6 21:02:11 2001 From: rick65 (rick65 at kukamail.com) Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 21:02:11 Subject: toner supplies Message-ID: <542.738739.380730@kukamail.com> PLEASE FORWARD TO THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR PURCHASING YOUR LASER PRINTER SUPPLIES **** VORTEX SUPPLIES **** LASER PRINTER TONER CARTRIDGES, COPIER AND FAX CARTRIDGES SAVE UP TO 30% FROM RETAIL ORDER BY PHONE:1-888-288-9043 ORDER BY FAX: 1-888-977-1577 CUSTOMER SERVICE: 1-888-248-2015 E-MAIL REMOVAL LINE: 1-888-248-4930 UNIVERSITY AND/OR SCHOOL PURCHASE ORDERS WELCOME. (NO CREDIT APPROVAL REQUIRED) ALL OTHER PURCHASE ORDER REQUESTS REQUIRE CREDIT APPROVAL. PAY BY CHECK (C.O.D), CREDIT CARD OR PURCHASE ORDER (NET 30 DAYS). IF YOUR ORDER IS BY CREDIT CARD PLEASE LEAVE YOUR CREDIT CARD # PLUS EXPIRATION DATE. IF YOUR ORDER IS BY PURCHASE ORDER LEAVE YOUR SHIPPING/BILLING ADDRESSES AND YOUR P.O. NUMBER FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO REQUIRE MORE INFORMATION ABOUT OUR COMPANY INCUDING FEDERAL TAX ID NUMBER, CLOSEST SHIPPING OR CORPORATE ADDRESS IN THE CONTINENTAL U.S. OR FOR CATALOG REQUESTS PLEASE CALL OUR CUSTOMER SERVICE LINE 1-888-248-2015 OUR NEW , LASER PRINTER TONER CARTRIDGE, PRICES ARE AS FOLLOWS: (PLEASE ORDER BY PAGE NUMBER AND/OR ITEM NUMBER) HEWLETT PACKARD: (ON PAGE 2) ITEM #1 LASERJET SERIES 4L,4P (74A)------------------------$44 ITEM #2 LASERJET SERIES 1100 (92A)-------------------------$44 ITEM #3 LASERJET SERIES 2 (95A)----------------------------$39 ITEM #4 LASERJET SERIES 2P (75A)---------------------------$54 ITEM #5 LASERJET SERIES 5P,6P,5MP, 6MP (3903A)---------- -$44 ITEM #6 LASERJET SERIES 5SI, 8000 (09A)--------------------$95 ITEM #7 LASERJET SERIES 2100 (96A)-------------------------$74 ITEM #8 LASERJET SERIES 8100 (82X)------------------------$145 ITEM #9 LASERJET SERIES 5L/6L (3906A)----------------------$35 ITEM #10 LASERJET SERIES 4V---------------------------------$95 ITEM #11 LASERJET SERIES 4000 (27X)--------------------------$72 ITEM #12 LASERJET SERIES 3SI/4SI (91A)-----------------------$54 ITEM #13 LASERJET SERIES 4, 4M, 5,5M-------------------------$49 ITEM #13A LASERJET SERIES 5000 (29X)-------------------------$95 HEWLETT PACKARD FAX (ON PAGE 2) ITEM #14 LASERFAX 500, 700 (FX1)----------$49 ITEM #15 LASERFAX 5000,7000 (FX2)--------$54 ITEM #16 LASERFAX (FX3)------------------$59 ITEM #17 LASERFAX (FX4)------------------$54 LEXMARK/IBM (ON PAGE 3) OPTRA 4019, 4029 HIGH YIELD---------------$89 OPTRA R, 4039, 4049 HIGH YIELD-----------$105 OPTRA E-----------------------------------$59 OPTRA N----------------------------------$115 OPTRA S----------------------------------$165 EPSON (ON PAGE 4) ACTION LASER 7000,7500,8000,9000----------$105 ACTION LASER 1000,1500--------------------$105 CANON PRINTERS (ON PAGE 5) PLEASE CALL FOR MODELS AND UPDATED PRICES FOR CANON PRINTER CARTRIDGES PANASONIC (0N PAGE 7) NEC SERIES 2 MODELS 90 AND 95----------$105 APPLE (0N PAGE 8) LASER WRITER PRO 600 or 16/600------------------$49 LASER WRITER SELECT 300,320,360-----------------$74 LASER WRITER 300 AND 320------------------------$54 LASER WRITER NT, 2NT----------------------------$54 LASER WRITER 12/640-----------------------------$79 CANON FAX (ON PAGE 9) LASERCLASS 4000 (FX3)---------------------------$59 LASERCLASS 5000,6000,7000 (FX2)-----------------$54 LASERFAX 5000,7000 (FX2)------------------------$54 LASERFAX 8500,9000 (FX4)------------------------$54 CANON COPIERS (PAGE 10) PC 3, 6RE, 7 AND 11 (A30)---------------------$69 PC 300,320,700,720 and 760 (E-40)-------------$89 IF YOUR CARTRIDGE IS NOT LISTED CALL CUSTOMER SERVICE AT 1-888-248-2015 90 DAY UNLIMITED WARRANTY INCLUDED ON ALL PRODUCTS. ALL TRADEMARKS AND BRAND NAMES LISTED ABOVE ARE PROPERTY OF THE RESPECTIVE HOLDERS AND USED FOR DESCRIPTIVE PURPOSES ONLY. From diecapitalsm Sat Jul 7 12:29:09 2001 From: diecapitalsm (Aaron J. Lyttle) Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2001 10:29:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: The Fourth of July and Blacks In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20010707172909.17659.qmail@web13306.mail.yahoo.com> Good grief. The fourth of July has less to do with "freedom over tyrannical rule of the Crown" than it is a statement of nationalist identity. The "revolution" was an attempt by white elites to put down lower class and slave unrest and to maintain their economic power by unifying the colonies' rebellious sentiments against Britain. Emancipation wasn't in the cards. Economic equality wasn't in the cards, either. It was an ingenious plan that maintained stability for Amerika's economic elite for a very long time. In the words of colonists angry at the notion that the lower class were forced to serve in the revolution, while those with money were exempt: "Tyranny is tyranny, let it come from whom it may." To say that Afro-Americans and other groups have the same oppurtunities or that this is "one nation" devoid of identity politics is to ignore the real, divided state of Amerikan politics. Simply asserting the hollow words of a politically inspired pledge does little to white wash the situations of single mothers in South Central LA who can't feed their kids or the family of Amadou Diallo (oh dear... was that a narrative?). -Aaron J. Lyttle "You're not hardcore cause you spike your hair." -DK --- DARREN ELLIOTT wrote: > > >do you suppose it's disingenuous for blacks to > celebrate the 4th of july > >since > >A.) it pays homage to a nation that enslaved their > ancestors and > > No. The Fourth celebrates freedom over tyrannical > rule of the Crown. Now > for many citizens that rule was replaced by one even > worse (in the case of > slaves). But the Fourth has come to celebrate more > than 1776. It pays > homage to all US Veterans who gave their all for the > country. Among those > veterans were many black service men and womyn. The > number of blacks who > fought for independence of slaves during the Civil > War is also > extraordinary. As Martin Luther King noted, all of > our freedoms are > inextricably bound together. None of us can be free > until we are all free. > Many blacks have given their lives for that belief > and they are celebrated > on the Fourth as much as anyone. > > >B.) the mantle of white oppression has never been > removed from blacks? > > > > This is a non-argument in terms of the Fourth of > July. And to some extent > you are right-though thankfully a lot of strides > have been made. To deny > them the right to celebrate their country is to > uphold the belief it isnt > really "their" country. Brick by brick... > > Happy 4th to you all, > CHIEF > > >That's basically the justification for not saying > the pledge right? > >Roider > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at > http://explorer.msn.com > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ From gleff Sat Jul 7 12:50:04 2001 From: gleff (Gary Leff) Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2001 13:50:04 -0400 Subject: The Fourth of July and Blacks (resp Aaron Lyttle) In-Reply-To: <20010707172909.17659.qmail@web13306.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Aaron, I'm no nationalist. I don't say the pledge of allegiance. Actually, the "pledge" always struck me as odd, even in grade school (I always wondered.. "Who is Richard Stands, and why are we pledging for him?") The 4th of July has become an exercise in nationalism. On that I agree with you. On the origins of the actual revolution, though, I think your class paradigm seeks to fit an explanation over a series of facts, and they don't fit very well. > The "revolution" > was an attempt by white elites to put down lower class > and slave unrest Huh? Certainly, the revolution was spearheaded by whites. Many were elites, many were not. Some of those who were not even _became_ elits under the new system. Moreover, many of the revolutionaries owned slaves. At the time it was accepted practice, but we can certainly critique them for that. However, it doesn't follow that the revolution existed as a means to perpetuate slavery. Jefferson, for one, for all critiques of him, proposed legislation EVERY SINGLE YEAR that he stood in the Virginia legislature which would have legalized voluntary manumission of slaves. In Virginia it was illegal -- the colonial government stood in the way of freeing slaves -- and Jefferson sought to make it more possible. Furthermore, though this came thirteen years later, the U.S. constitution provides a window into the sentiments of NORTHERN revolutionaries with respect to slavery. One of the most misunderstood clauses of the constitution is manifested in the "3/5ths compromise." Many folks point to this as evidence of racism. In fact, the 3/5th compromise (spelling out that slaves would count as 3/5ths of a person for purposes of apportioning congressional representation.. the argument for racism is that the constitution spells out that african americans were less than full people) was a tool to REDUCE the power of slaveowning whites. If slaves counted as full people for apportionment (but still couldn't vote) the power of slaveowners would have been greater because they would have had additional representatives in Congress. The framers sought to reduce the power of the slaveowning South. > and to maintain their economic power Most of the revolutionaries gave up their fortunes. Certainly rebelling against Britain was the ultimate form of jeopardizing existing wealth. Moreover, British life was a very class-based existence. It's hard to imagine British rule as a force for breaking down class barriers, and the need to revolt in order to maintain them. > In the > words of colonists angry at the notion that the lower > class were forced to serve in the revolution, while > those with money were exempt: "Tyranny is tyranny, let > it come from whom it may." What's the source on this? I'd be interested to read more about conscription (lower classes _forced_ to serve in the revolution) -- my historical impression was that the revolutionary army was predominantly volunteer, while Britain had conscription. I'm perfectly willing to be corrected on this -- I'd just like a source that I can read. > To say that Afro-Americans and other groups have the > same oppurtunities or that this is "one nation" devoid > of identity politics is to ignore the real, divided > state of Amerikan politics. I'm not making the argument here, I want to make clear, that equality exists, that race doesn't matter, etc. I just think the above post represents more class platitudes than a reflection of actual history. > Simply asserting the > hollow words of a politically inspired pledge does > little to white wash the situations of single mothers > in South Central LA who can't feed their kids or the > family of Amadou Diallo (oh dear... was that a > narrative?). Pledge is bad. See intro. Diallo case demonstrates the dangers and travesty of state power. Poverty in South Central (and elsewhere) reflects a failed welfare state. Real problems indeed, but hardly the fault of Madison, Jefferson, et al. Gary From blackmon47 Sat Jul 7 13:49:26 2001 From: blackmon47 (Neil Blackmon) Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2001 14:49:26 -0400 Subject: The Fourth of July and Blacks Message-ID: Aaron- Good grief indeed. At least when you plagiarize Zinn's People's History of the United States or Edmund Morgan you could be original in your phrasing.... like bash capitalism and talk about how all the factory workers and members of the lower class, not to mention slaves, indentured servants and Native Americans were universally enslaved to its monarchical appurtenances that spurred the need for the Declaration of Independance in the first place because they had to shape a nationalist ideology. Then call it pure bull shit. But it's entirely another thing to more or less plagiarize Zinn's exact writing and not credit the book. Neil Blackmon Florida >From: "Aaron J. Lyttle" >To: DARREN ELLIOTT , matt at schiros.net, >edebate at ndtceda.com >Subject: Re: The Fourth of July and Blacks >Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2001 10:29:09 -0700 (PDT) > >Good grief. The fourth of July has less to do with >"freedom over tyrannical rule of the Crown" than it is >a statement of nationalist identity. The "revolution" >was an attempt by white elites to put down lower class >and slave unrest and to maintain their economic power >by unifying the colonies' rebellious sentiments >against Britain. Emancipation wasn't in the cards. >Economic equality wasn't in the cards, either. It was >an ingenious plan that maintained stability for >Amerika's economic elite for a very long time. In the >words of colonists angry at the notion that the lower >class were forced to serve in the revolution, while >those with money were exempt: "Tyranny is tyranny, let >it come from whom it may." > >To say that Afro-Americans and other groups have the >same oppurtunities or that this is "one nation" devoid >of identity politics is to ignore the real, divided >state of Amerikan politics. Simply asserting the >hollow words of a politically inspired pledge does >little to white wash the situations of single mothers >in South Central LA who can't feed their kids or the >family of Amadou Diallo (oh dear... was that a >narrative?). > >-Aaron J. Lyttle > >"You're not hardcore cause you spike your hair." > >-DK > >--- DARREN ELLIOTT wrote: > > > > >do you suppose it's disingenuous for blacks to > > celebrate the 4th of july > > >since > > >A.) it pays homage to a nation that enslaved their > > ancestors and > > > > No. The Fourth celebrates freedom over tyrannical > > rule of the Crown. Now > > for many citizens that rule was replaced by one even > > worse (in the case of > > slaves). But the Fourth has come to celebrate more > > than 1776. It pays > > homage to all US Veterans who gave their all for the > > country. Among those > > veterans were many black service men and womyn. The > > number of blacks who > > fought for independence of slaves during the Civil > > War is also > > extraordinary. As Martin Luther King noted, all of > > our freedoms are > > inextricably bound together. None of us can be free > > until we are all free. > > Many blacks have given their lives for that belief > > and they are celebrated > > on the Fourth as much as anyone. > > > > >B.) the mantle of white oppression has never been > > removed from blacks? > > > > > > > This is a non-argument in terms of the Fourth of > > July. And to some extent > > you are right-though thankfully a lot of strides > > have been made. To deny > > them the right to celebrate their country is to > > uphold the belief it isnt > > really "their" country. Brick by brick... > > > > Happy 4th to you all, > > CHIEF > > > > >That's basically the justification for not saying > > the pledge right? > > >Roider > > > > > >_________________________________________________________________ > > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at > > http://explorer.msn.com > > > > >__________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail >http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From jackattack7 Sat Jul 7 19:16:20 2001 From: jackattack7 (jack stroube) Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2001 19:16:20 Subject: UT debate and official secrecy Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010707/b431dbd9/attachment.html From kyliejeanine Sun Jul 8 17:58:11 2001 From: kyliejeanine (kylie robertson) Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2001 15:58:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Congrats Jeremy and Becky Bowers! Message-ID: <20010708225811.3667.qmail@web12303.mail.yahoo.com> Congratulations to Jeremy and Becky Bowers! Your wedding was lovely and the reception fabulous...right here in hot hot Chico. Becky was radiant! I wish you every happiness as you enjoy life's adventures together! Kylie __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ From sharris Sun Jul 8 18:21:57 2001 From: sharris (Harris, Scott L) Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2001 18:21:57 -0500 Subject: JP 1 Bear 0 Message-ID: <5823BD992D67D3119F630008C7CF50FC0B8F4487@skylark.mail.ukans.edu> Raja says, "Federal acknowledgement is the enabling mechanism for a relationship between a Native American tribe and the USFG. Absent acknowledgement, there is no relationship whatsoever." Actually, this claim is incorrect. Under existing statutes many groups which are not acknowledged are eligible for assistance under federal statutes including many of those in resolution #2. Non-recognized, state recognized, and even terminated tribes can have and many do have relationships with the federal govt including eligibility for assistance programs. "As such, acknowledgement creates debates about the trust doctrine, the most fundamental policy defining the relationship between tribes and the USFG, and every other piece of legislation that the government has passed and applied to Indian Country. Once a tribe is recognized, all those laws in resolution number 2 would apply to the tribe in question. Essentially, resolution number 1 creates debates about every critical issue with regards to Native Americans on a smaller scale. But resolution number 1 creates these debates in a better way, in terms of ground, by specificy the mechanism and object of the policy. Resolution #1 is essentially the best of both worlds, as it incorporates the breadth of Native American issues in a manageable way." I do not believe this claim to be necessarily true either. This resolution is about whether or not these groups should receive federal acknowledgement not about specific benefits. It does not allow a debate over the merits of the trust doctrine or the legitimacy of these various laws. Those issues are all ancillary to the resolution. This resolution is not the functional equivelent of the sanctions topic. It asks a relatively simple question, should x tribe be granted acknowledgement status. It does not come close to creating debates about every critical issue related to native americans on a smaller scale. The fact that the Lumbee want to be acknowledged so they can build a casino does not mean that the casino debate will be debated in any meaningful way on this topic. The aff will not be able to defend the advantages of their having a casino because the neg could always grant them an exemption allowing a casino or give other forms of economic assistance without formal acknowledgement. This topic is entirely about the acknowlegment process and its relationship to these few tribes. To pretend it is about something else is a delusion. From sharris Sun Jul 8 18:45:22 2001 From: sharris (Harris, Scott L) Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2001 18:45:22 -0500 Subject: "as previously amended" Message-ID: <5823BD992D67D3119F630008C7CF50FC0B8F4488@skylark.mail.ukans.edu> Tracy has described nearly exactly how the phrase "as previously amended" was placed in the topic. Many of the specified acts have been amended by additional subsequent legislation. Rather than say as previously amended after each of the acts it seemed simpler to state it once prior to the colon. We also expected that its presence prior to the list of statutes might allow the negative to at least have an additional argument against affs who attempt to add deploying NMD to one of the statutes. I believe that members of the committee were probably split on what it might mean in debate rounds. Some thought it would function to limit affs to the laws as written some thought there might be room for affs to make some adjustments in the statutes. The wording was a compromise which would allow people to debate it out in rounds. Affs can argue the phrase functions to preserve elegance to merely note that the acts the resolution refers to are those listed statutes as previously amended, while negatives might argue it functions to prevent affs from making any changes in the law. Either interpretation is probably defendable. There is no framers intent to decide which interpretation is correct. I personally liked the phrase precisely because of its strategic ambiguity. My own thinking was that it might allow affs to tinker with laws but not allow them to make ridiculous amendments to laws which had little to do with the original law. Tinkerings which can be read as strengthening enforcement will probably be acceptable in most debates. I think the notion that this wording prohibits affs from making any alterations in these "fundamentally flawed" statutes will probably be unpersuasive in most debates. On the other hand it might serve to limit affs from amending laws to go in a fundamentally different direction. -----Original Message----- From: Tracy Gonos [mailto:tgonos at hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2001 8:49 AM To: Slusher, Eric Cc: eDebate at ndtceda.com Subject: "as previously amended" I'm reticent to weigh in on edebate about topic specific issues these days since I don't follow these discussions very closely any more, but I have noticed this mini controversy about the meaning of "as previously amended" popping up several times. First a caveat - I have absolutely no idea why the topic committee chose to include "as previously amended" in the wording of topic 2. Not that I think it's a bad idea, but I just want to make it clear that their intentions in including it may not track the way it is used in legal parlance, which is what I discuss below. I'm a bit confused as to why anyone would think "as previously amended" serves as a limit on topical action. The phrase "as previously amended" is a legal catch phrase that is meant to be descriptive. It alerts the reader/listener to the fact that you are referring to a given statute AND any amendments made thereto. This is necessary because amendments generally aren't put directly into a given statute. E.g. Title VII was amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which is located in the codebooks in a totally different spot and is not literally part of Title VII. But, by telling someone, "title VII, as amended, allows for the recovery of punitive damages" I am alerting them to the fact that I am referring to all of Title VII, not just the original version of the statute, or the parts that are actually included under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in the codebooks (which don't allow for punitive damages). Thus, using the phrase, as amended or as previously amended clarifies that you are referring to the most current version of a given statute, which is the actual body of the statute (from the example above - Title VII) and any currently active amendments thereto (also from the example above - The Civil Rights Act of 1991). Also, saying "Title VII as previously amended" is a hell of a lot easier than saying "Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, The Civil Rights of 1991, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, etc, etc. etc." For those of you that remember the Title VII topic, the basic gist of my interpretation of "as previously amended" is that that phrase could have been added to the Title VII topic and it would have had absolutely no effect on the debates or topic interpretation whatsoever. Said another way, I think the phrase is essentially meaningless for debate purposes except insofar as it makes cases based on earlier versions of the statutes in question nontopical. I say it's meaningless because it is only lawyers, (and maybe debaters too) who are obsessed with precision, who think you need to say "as amended" to alert people to the fact that you are talking about the status quo incarnation of a given statute. Tracy ----- Original Message ----- From: Slusher, Eric To: Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2001 5:09 PM Subject: RE: If you're going to rank rez #2 you should read > Slusher, > > I'm curious how the aff can do "a bunch of other stuff...beyond that" > when > as both Veronica and I have pointed out, the resolution specifically > limits > your actions with the words "as previously amended"? Doesn't this seem > to > say you have a minimum AND a maximum of action the Aff can take? > > Curious, > > Alan > > ---------------------- > > As previously amended doesn't seem to limit the actions an affirmative can > take to boost enforcement of the act(s). My understanding was that the > committee desired to limit the affirmative to reform of current laws and as > such chose actions like appropriations rather than new funding > authorizations and previously amended rather than letting an affirmative > "redefine" the nature of the act itself. My point was that affirmative > action isn't limited to increasing funding only. There are other "resource" > tansfers possible which are still topical because they won't change the > nature of the act(s) but rather the scope and effectiveness. Examples > include transfering personell, offices, equipment, etc. Those probably all > could be defined as "resources". Increasing the money, people, equipment, > etc. dedicated to a particular act doesn't violate the purpose that > "previously amended" serves. That seems to constrain the aff from changing > the purpose of the law through amendments. Increased resource allocation > from Congress for an act doesn't neccessarily require amending the law. > But, even if it did, "as previoulsy amended" doesn't mean the affirmative > can't amend the law, as previously amended to increase appropriations for > and enforcement of it. > > slusher > From DaveAnt420 Sun Jul 8 19:06:10 2001 From: DaveAnt420 (DaveAnt420 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2001 20:06:10 EDT Subject: Rez Two or Three? Message-ID: <120.15e95e6.287a4f72@aol.com> If we split on rez two and three, rez one will probably win. We really ought to attempt to achieve a consensus on the choice between two and three to prevent that from taking place. I was originally leaning toward rez # two, but think the defenses, over the past ten days, for rez # three have been more impressive. Thoughts? Anyone want to crystallize the reasons why rez #2 is better compared to # 3? Slusher? Ede? Bear From dbteam Sun Jul 8 20:05:34 2001 From: dbteam (UWG Debate Team) Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2001 21:05:34 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Rez Two or Three? In-Reply-To: <120.15e95e6.287a4f72@aol.com> Message-ID: i'll try. 1)scott's recent post, and tracy's post originally, about "as previoously amended" deals effectively with the notion that #2 is overly restricted by this phrase. and mueller's past post about GAP shows that there are definitely ways that rez #2 can be interpreted to allow aff to do more than just 'throw money at old programs.' (btw, scott's other post about the inability of #1 to create space for in depth discussions about trust doctrine or gambling or anything other than aknowledgment seems both consistent with my own reading of the topic and reinforces my earlier comments about the coverage of #1 in the literature) 2) the problems of #2 vis a vis #3 (there seem to be two basic ones outlined: a)its wordiness encourages too much PIC ground, and b)its narrow focus on F&E makes it too easy for neg to just say 'more money ain't enough'), IMHO, are not as bad as some contend (see scott's 'as previously amended' comments) and may not be as bad as the problems with #3. as i see it, the concern with #3 is that the vast majority of aff ground is not all that attractive to many (i.e., increase fed control over tribes). while gaming offers one type of controversy where the isue is fed control over states in the context of tribal relations, i haven't found that many other issues where the solution is to increase fed control over states. and where that is the case (crime and environment are two), it seems that #2 would allow more action over the harm area - rather than just increasing fed control, #2 might accomplish an increase in control with increased F&E that is less juridical in its result. while i'd prefer more efficiency in wording, i don't think #2 is doomed to be about nothing except process CPs. so far, of all the topics, i've found more solvency-type articles that fit as plans under #2 than the others, by far. while this may encourage the generic CP strategy, it also allows for aff to find plan actions which uniquley counter such moves to the generic. 3)this last comment is actually an independent warrant for #2. a cursory scanning of the libraries and online resources at my disposal leads me to conclude that #2 comes closest to broadly representing the literature. what i mean is that when doing searches for literature in the field of "american INdian Policy", most of the stuff i find can fit into a debate under #2. this is less true of #3 (although i'll concede that the historical theme of the power between USFG and tribes is strong, most of the lit i find on this question is a biographical/historical take on how USFG policy has worked in the past at particular times rather than a vibrant debate over contemporay policy direction), and radically less valid for #1. so my points on #2 can be summed up as *if you want a topic that has the most lit concerning potential plan actions that are advocated in depth, #2 is for you; *if you are the type to fret about predictable neg ground, then the nooks and crannies of #2 should ease your fears - T, PICs, and the old PMN of 'money ain't enough'(depending on what they run) plenty of aff and neg ground. well, that's a start. hester On Sun, 8 Jul 2001 DaveAnt420 at aol.com wrote: > If we split on rez two and three, rez one will probably win. We really ought > to attempt to achieve a consensus on the choice between two and three to > prevent that from taking place. I was originally leaning toward rez # two, > but think the defenses, over the past ten days, for rez # three have been > more impressive. > > Thoughts? Anyone want to crystallize the reasons why rez #2 is better > compared to # 3? Slusher? Ede? > > Bear > > From veronica_m_barreto Sun Jul 8 22:00:10 2001 From: veronica_m_barreto (Veronica Barreto) Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2001 23:00:10 -0400 Subject: Rez Two or Three? Message-ID: OK there's something I just don't get...perhaps the advocates of the second resolution should take a meeting. Some are real gung-ho about the affirmative being strapped to increasing the funding for crappy SQ programs (Ede and Slusher), others are standing behind Mueller and Tracy's post saying that the phrase (that some point to as the resolution's saving grace) does nothing to limit the topic, and still others say both is true. I'm not sure that you can have it both ways. Sure one could say "that's debatable" but certainly one side has to admit that one interpretation is more likely. Those voting for topics don't just have to consider which interpretation would suit their purposes best but also how their approach would be received by those who debate and those who adjudicate debates. The reality of it is that it's going to be those who want to assure that they can go for T and the reform PMN versus those who want the affirmative flexibility to amend legislation and NEITHER will get their way all of the time and perhaps not even most of the time. Can someone explain to me why y'all would vote for a resolution whose terms a lay person can't even define? The community seems unwilling to even arrive at a consensus about it so as not to isolate support for the resolution. Do you really want more debates getting whittled down to a crapshoot over semantics (well...more than usual anyways)? Hester explains that the problem with resolution #3 is it's undesirable directon, i.e. increase of federal control. The first posts after the release of the resolutions are quite telling. Ross Smith's first observation was that rez 3 was bidirectional. Dave Helwich Cram wrote an excellent post discussing the on balance benefits of rez #3's "multi-directionality" There are those who will say "woah, Nelly...did you say 'multi-directional'" Yes, but Dave also discusses the predictable negative ground against such moves. The nature of Congress's plenary power over Indian affairs creates a great area of debate. It's a question that plagued the Warren as well as the Rhenquist Court. Plus, if you believe in the ability to amend the legislation that means rez #2 is just as bidirectional. And to those of you who are uncomfortable about increasing federal control, how do you feel about increasing federal funding for legislation that at best does nothing to fix problems and at worst continues a legacy of manipulation and exploitation? I imagine the good solvency evidence people are discussing is under the interpretation that allows for tinkering with the legislation, because evidence that says the legislation only needs an increase in funding is harder to find and still even more difficult if you're looking for good evidence that provides a necessary threshold for solvency. What of the uniqueness problems? I'm also not a big fan of the "transfer" part of the resolution that allows for funding specification. Now, we've all resolved that counterplans can be used to prevent the affirmative from reading add-ons and turns but it's been FLAT CONCEDED by the advocates of #2 that it all amounts to MONDO link outs to all kinds of disads. As I think about it more, I realize it's not just trade-off/spending type of positions, but even politics. An affirmative can spin their specification as log rolling, explaining that the cut/trade-off/downsizing/budget reprioritization generates the political capital necessary for the passage of the plan and there are more of those cute spins yet to be thought of. Now, sure the aff can't claim the turns as advantages if the negative chooses to counterplan out of the funding specification but that take-out still screws the negative. Just some thoughts. Veronica >From: UWG Debate Team >To: >CC: >Subject: Re: Rez Two or Three? >Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2001 21:05:34 -0400 (EDT) > >i'll try. > >1)scott's recent post, and tracy's post originally, about "as >previoously amended" deals effectively with the notion that #2 is overly >restricted by this phrase. and mueller's past post about GAP shows that >there are definitely ways that rez #2 can be interpreted to allow aff to >do more than just 'throw money at old programs.' > >(btw, scott's other post about the inability of #1 to create space for in >depth discussions about trust doctrine or gambling or anything other than >aknowledgment seems both consistent with my own reading of the topic and >reinforces my earlier comments about the coverage of #1 in the literature) > >2) the problems of #2 vis a vis #3 (there seem to be two basic ones >outlined: a)its wordiness encourages too much PIC ground, and b)its narrow >focus on F&E makes it too easy for neg to just say 'more money ain't >enough'), IMHO, are not as bad as some contend (see scott's 'as previously >amended' comments) and may not be as bad as the problems with #3. as i see >it, the concern with #3 is that the vast majority of aff ground is not all >that attractive to many (i.e., increase fed control over tribes). while >gaming offers one type of controversy where the isue is fed control over >states in the context of tribal relations, i haven't found that many other >issues where the solution is to increase fed control over states. and >where that is the case (crime and environment are two), it seems that #2 >would allow more action over the harm area - rather than just increasing >fed control, #2 might accomplish an increase in control with increased F&E >that is less juridical in its result. > >while i'd prefer more efficiency in wording, i don't think #2 is doomed to >be about nothing except process CPs. so far, of all the topics, i've found >more solvency-type articles that fit as plans under #2 than the others, by >far. while this may encourage the generic CP strategy, it also allows for >aff to find plan actions which uniquley counter such moves to the generic. > >3)this last comment is actually an independent warrant for #2. a cursory >scanning of the libraries and online resources at my disposal leads me to >conclude that #2 comes closest to broadly representing the literature. >what i mean is that when doing searches for literature in the field of >"american INdian Policy", most of the stuff i find can fit into a debate >under #2. this is less true of #3 (although i'll concede that the >historical theme of the power between USFG and tribes is strong, most of >the lit i find on this question is a biographical/historical take on how >USFG policy has worked in the past at particular times rather than a >vibrant debate over contemporay policy direction), and radically less >valid for #1. > >so my points on #2 can be summed up as > >*if you want a topic that has the most lit concerning potential plan >actions that are advocated in depth, #2 is for you; > >*if you are the type to fret about predictable neg ground, then the nooks >and crannies of #2 should ease your fears - T, PICs, and the old PMN of >'money ain't enough'(depending on what they run) > >plenty of aff and neg ground. > > >well, that's a start. > >hester > >On Sun, 8 Jul 2001 DaveAnt420 at aol.com wrote: > > > If we split on rez two and three, rez one will probably win. We really >ought > > to attempt to achieve a consensus on the choice between two and three to > > prevent that from taking place. I was originally leaning toward rez # >two, > > but think the defenses, over the past ten days, for rez # three have >been > > more impressive. > > > > Thoughts? Anyone want to crystallize the reasons why rez #2 is better > > compared to # 3? Slusher? Ede? > > > > Bear > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From amtauber Mon Jul 9 01:01:46 2001 From: amtauber (Alan Tauber) Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2001 23:01:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Topic Musings: 1, 2 and 3 Message-ID: <29446837.994658506803.JavaMail.imail@puffer> I've been out of touch for the last five days, so this will be a summation of what I have seen in the 40 or so messages I've received over that period of time. Basically, I'm just going to run over the resolutions and state what I think of each. Some will be rehash, some will (hopefully) be original and mind provoking. If you read it, thanks, I hope it helps. If not, oh well. Also a quick caveat at the beginning. I support Res Three. That may color my look at the three resolutions, but I feel it only fair to state my bias up front so you can read this post with the proper mindset. On to the resolutions: Resolution 1: This topic is great if you currently go to, or plan to go to MSU. All the research is done. =0) Otherwise, from what I've seen (and has been unresponded to) there is not a lot of specific literature on this topic. If the UGA library is any indication, this topic touches barely at all on the main issues in Native American policy today. I would love to see great case debate, and I agree that narrow resolutions tend to encourage that. (See the sanctions topic) However, that only happens if there IS literature to debate. I remember the South East Asia topic, and frankly the security assistance literature was pretty slim. I don't know if I'd relish another year of this. Another thought, one I haven't seen voiced yet. If current interpretations are correct, that you can only grant acknowledgement without reforming the laws that then apply, ALL the harms of topic two become solvency turns or takeouts on topic one. After all, acknowledgement only means you can apply for help under the ITJA or ICWA or others. But if they don't work now (which is the premise of res two) then you don't get much solvency, except perhaps at a symbolic level. Now I don't know about anyone else, but the last time I weighed symbolic solvency vs. a politics/econ DA and CP, I lost. However, it is more limited, does provide for predictablity on the part of the aff. If you can find the literature, this topic could be very narrow, and hopefully, have specific case debate beyond the benefits/disads of acknowledgement in general. Resolution 2: This topic has been attacked by many (me included) as being simultaneously too large and too narrow. It is large in what programs it can effect, but also narrow in what it can do to those programs. I am afraid we will hear many debates over whether or not funding and enforcement is enough. (And I still haven't heard an answer to Veronica's question about what good are new staplers etc.) The use of the wording "as previously amended" has been hotly debated here on edebate, and I'm sure it will be throughout the year. But if Harris's post is any indication (they added it to prevent plans from adding NMD) then the language, at least in some people's eyes, is meant to limit tinkering with the laws in question. Next, no one has answered Veronica's other major concern, that funding spec. allows the Aff to link out of almost any spending disad. This is the one action we can count on the aff to do, and you can't get a unique link off of it. Furthermore, there are uniqueness problems for the Aff as well. How much funding/enforcement is enough to solve? Is any amount, with a fundamentally flawed law? And what about limits? If the GAP analysis is correct, ANY policy dealing with Native Americans could be covered in this resolution. If you are afraid of topic three because it seems large, what about a topic without any real topic areas? If GAP is as expansive as some make it out to be, what limits (other than Native Americans) really exist with this topic? Finally, people have expressed concerns that Topic three gives the Aff the uncomfortable ground of defending increased federal control. Doesn't this resolution also do this? Isn't increasing funding/enforcement of FEDERAL legislation an increase in federal control? If you can answer this, you may convert me. Resolution Three: I like this resolution because it gives definite neg ground (increased federal control bad) while still allowing the aff flexibility to deal with the tri-partite system of federalism we have in this country (that's right, I said tri-partite. Feds-States-Indians. We can examine the entire complex relationship). This resolution also offers the best hope for those (like me) who hoped to see a Supreme Court-as-the-actor topic. An increase in federal control can come from any of the three branches of government. As has been pointed out, this topic has a really good chance of addressing the core concerns of the literature (who should be in charge) as well as the areas that should be controlled (identity, land, resources, children, criminal justice, sovereignty). No other topic really addresses the land concern as far as I can see. The topic calls for big cases, reducing most squirrels (which may hurt the small schools looking to exploit the fringes of the res). The phrase "throughout Indian Country" demands that the Aff pass a law that affects all tribes/nations (though not necessarily treat them the same) just like the 10 pieces of legislation in topic two. Now some argue this makes the topic too broad. First, I would point out that it is no broader (and perhaps much less broad) than topic two. Secondly, that is not the end of the world. I debated the China topic in High School. (R: USFG should substantially change its foreign policy towards the PRC) and many current debaters debated the Russia topic (same topic except Russia instead of PRC) and they managed to survive. For the older members of the audience I might point to the Mexico topic (same year as HS China topic) and remind you that you all managed to survive. (Whether or not you enjoyed it is another matter. =0) Also, topic two supporters should feel free to cross apply this above). I just think that topic three covers a good portion of the literature, gives the neg predictable links, while allowing the aff to choose which bar of the federalism triangle they wish to tackle and deal with. Well, if you're still with me, thanks. I'll admit I didn't really harsh on topic three the same way I did topics one and two, but then, I warned you at the outset what my biases were. =) Just my musings, Alan Tauber currently unaffiliated _______________________________________________________ Send a cool gift with your E-Card http://www.bluemountain.com/giftcenter/ From k.kuswa Mon Jul 9 01:50:51 2001 From: k.kuswa (kevin kuswa) Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 01:50:51 -0500 Subject: UT debate and official secrecy Message-ID: <4.1.20010709014941.00a00510@mail.utexas.edu> To Edebate: I do not think Jack Stroube should be posting this stuff in this forum so you do not need to read further if you are trashing these. In my mind, Stroube has zero credibility (I think he's in need of some professional help), but you may give credibility to him without having any context so I've tried to say something about his post below.... At 07:16 PM 7/7/01 +0000, jack stroube wrote: > > Well, i guess Kuswa and Co. will continue to hide behind "University > approval" for the involuntary manslaughter of Justin Wilson and my firing. > This was preempted with the argument that University sponsored the cover up > of the drinking and driving to protect their image. What's your answer? > Also, unanswered is that the team placed a bureaucrat automoton priority on > University orders over honesty with the community at large. I think they > need to provide a credible counter-theory of what they call the "accident" > instead of characterizing my statements as "innacurrate threats". Of course, > I have said these things before and so far you have successfully dodged > answering any questions like a good White House PR frontman. Come on Kevin, > you were there. If there was no drinking and driving, then please narrate > your version of the events. Brian McBride admits that the coaches condoned > drinki! ng and driving. JV Reed knows that you condoned drinking and > driving. So does Kelly Congdon, Stapp Beeton, Eric Emerson. I encourage > people to talk with them to find out if Kuswa is LYING or not. Are they as > inaccurate as I? What do you say about that? Is he innacurrately > threatening you when he says that? Or are you just "infallible"? Did > Megan O'Neill give speeches at high schools on the dangers of drinking and > drinking or not? Your blanket dismissals are NOT sufficient. Please, answer > the specifics contentions being made instead of hiding behind bean counter > "University approval". Everyone who was at the Institute last year knows > that Kuswa and Co. claimed that I "threatened the Institute with legal > action". So far I have not seen anything close to a reasonable defense and > most likely I will not see one since they are too yellow belly to publicly > def! end their actions. Your lying is unsurpassed in all my days and waters > down your official condolences. Marc Wilson was pissed because everything I > said was inaccurate. Give me a break, bean counter. Please, be more > specific if you can. > > jack > > > ---------- > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at > http://explorer.msn.com I refuse to speak for any of the people Jack is referencing, but many of them are here in Austin and I'm sure that they would talk about whatever one might want to somewhere other than edebate. Thus, in fairness to the folks being injured by these incessant messages, here is a brief account of the UT Van accident in 95 from my perspective. The firing of Jack Stroube is not linked to this event. The reasons for his firing (I actually am not sure he was ever hired to begin with because we cannot promise anyone a workshop job until very late in the summer when our numbers clear up, but I'd have to check with Dave Breshears and Joel Rollins on this) are numerous and not appropriate for this forum. Feel free to back channel me for more on this if you really care about Jack Stroube's workshop job status. The accident, on the other hand, is an event that Jack has no right to throw around on edebate like some kind of leverage in a bad employment discrimination claim..... (the following is basically verbatim from statements made to UT on a number of occassions): ________ My second year as a graduate asst. under Dr. Rollins at the University of Texas was during the first security assistance topic in 94-95. In 1995 the UT squad decide to attend two tournaments at the same time. The better teams would go to Kentucky and the less experienced teams would go to Las Vegas. After a long drive out and the typical rigors of coaching and judging a tournament, we got in the van and headed back to Austin. It was late afternoon. The three coaches in the van were myself, Brian McBride, and James Martin. James Martin does not have a driver's license so the only coaches that were doing major driving were myself and Brian McBride. When I arrived at UT, the team had a practice of letting students drive and the team also had the practice of driving late into the night to save time and resources. McBride took over the first shift and drove until about 1:30 in the morning. At that point, I took over the wheel from Brian. There was no consumption of alcohol or anything else going on, there was no grand conspiracy being plotted, there wasn't even any conversation because everyone was asleep. I was basically fighting myself to stay awake on a dark highway with no traffic to keep me alert. Like most late night drives, I had to entertain myself enough to keep my eyes on the road. As my eyes started to droop (about 3:00 am), I pulled over to stretch and find some coffee. At the gas station I stopped at, no one in the van woke up except for two first years--Megan O'Neil and Michelle Gajda. Knowing that I was too tired to keep driving, but also knowing that the squad did not make it a practice to find hotels mid-trip, I asked Michelle if she would be willing to drive. It was a mistake in judgment on my part because I should not have asked a first year student to drive a 15 passenger van, let alone at 3:00 in the morning. Nevertheless, I passed over the keys to Michelle (who reluctantly accepted them) and we got back on the road. Within minutes I was asleep. Apparently 10 or 15 minutes after I fell asleep, Michelle dozed off at the wheel. The van rolled on to the median and began to lose traction as it skidded across the other side of the highway. I woke up very disoriented, saw what was happening to the van, figured that we were all about to die, and started screaming for my life and the lives of the other people in the van. The van hit an embankment on the far side of the road and began to flip over. As the van flipped over, I realized that I had not put on my seat belt (I was riding shotgun), just confirming my worst fears. Things get very unclear at that point, but what I recall is that when the van had stopped moving, I realized that I couldn't feel my legs and all I could hear were screams and cries of pain coming from all directions. I could not believe that I was alive, but my first thought was to get out of the van and fight through the dust to try to help whoever I could find. McBride, James, and Michelle were all in serious serious pain and I didn't know if they were going to live, but at least I could hear them and I knew they were alive. Then Matt and Mike came up to the van and said that they could not find Megan and Justin. The tears and the screams continued until a truck driver who had driven by stopped to help. Right after that moment, the ambulances and rescue vehicles arrived and I thanked our stars for the fast response of the trucker and his radio call for help. An officer came to the van and started asking me what happened. Not thinking too clearly at the time, I told the officer that I had been driving the van. Michelle was nearby and I told her what I had told the officer. At the time I somehow figured that it might have been better to claim that I was driving (knowing that I had asked Michelle to drive) although I really have no idea what was going on in my head. There was definitely not time (or a thought) to cover anything up or think about questions like alcohol or drugs--which were not present or a factor no matter what kinds of things might have been flying around Austin over the next few months. I knew at the time and I know now that the accident had nothing to do with drinking and driving--it was exclusively a case of everyone being too tired to drive. From that point on, we all had a long process of trying to understand what happened and trying to mourn and heal the best we could. We were taken to a bunch of different hospitals, and it took two or three days to figure out how everyone was doing and where everyone was. I remember McBride's wife (girl friend at the time), Michelle's Mom, my Dad, and later David Breshears coming to our hospital to see us. 4 or 5 of us were taken to a hospital in Las Cruces and we were there for many days. Back in Austin, the team was devastated to hear about the accident and Joel and everyone else tried to get in touch with us the best that they could. When we finally got back to Austin--a world that was very different from the one we left--I honestly didn't give it a second thought when some freaky guy on the team named Jack had left town. To be honest I don't even remember if he left town before or after we returned. All I know is that he was gone for years and I would occasionally hear about some bizarre expression of anger toward UT from him but that was it. At any rate, a couple of days after returning to Autin after the accident, I called UT and told them that I had been the one driving. I told them that I was willing to accept the consequences for lying about who was driving and that I would continue to cooperate with UT officials and lawyers in any way that I could. I also delivered a long note to the family of Justin Wilson (one the hardest things I have ever had to do) even though I knew that there was no way to ever adequately explain what had happened. I loved Justin when I coached him to UT, I loved Justin when I taught him at the Dartmouth workshop, I loved Justin when I stayed at his house in Atlanta while I was coaching his brother, and I love Justin and his memory today. He taught me a lot about life in the short time I knew him, and if I could have at the time I would have traded places with him. If you've read this far (I hope you're trashing this thread) here are some parting thoughts: 1. Set up some travel rules in advance. Since the accident, UT has decided not to drive much past midnight and to find the next hotel. 2. Have all the possible drivers take classes on safety and discuss procedures. 3. Recognize you are taking risks when you travel and safety comes first. Again, I'm sorry this is landing in your in-box and I hope it stops soon. sincerely, kevin kuswa proud asst. dir. of UT debate From jackattack7 Mon Jul 9 08:58:44 2001 From: jackattack7 (jack stroube) Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 08:58:44 Subject: UT debate and official secrecy Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010709/557d7249/attachment.htm From jackattack7 Mon Jul 9 09:38:39 2001 From: jackattack7 (jack stroube) Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 09:38:39 Subject: KUSWA&CONTROL STRATEGIES Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010709/026de863/attachment.html From jackattack7 Mon Jul 9 10:58:59 2001 From: jackattack7 (jack stroube) Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 10:58:59 Subject: OLE DOC KUSWA ON NARCISSISM Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010709/ae48aaba/attachment.htm From jackattack7 Mon Jul 9 12:46:27 2001 From: jackattack7 (jack stroube) Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 12:46:27 Subject: NAKED KUSWA Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010709/566bf5d6/attachment.html From gleff Mon Jul 9 07:57:03 2001 From: gleff (Gary Leff) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 08:57:03 -0400 Subject: The Fourth of July and Blacks (resp Aaron Lyttle) In-Reply-To: <20010708064244.40020.qmail@web13306.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: > Aaron J. Lyttle replied: > Overview: Every opinion in this e-mail would > impossible if I had not read an infamous book by > Howard Zinn, several other history books, and law > review articles by critical scholars like Pongrace and > Delgado at some point in my life. All credit should be > given to them, and them alone. I am incapable of > forming opinions based on my reading... Note that the critique of not citing Zinn didn't come from me. I don't take issue with lack of citations. We all draw on outside sources that we've come across over time. Very rarely do posts to edebate include citations. I did ask for a _specific_ citation below because you made one claim that I believe to be incorrect (that the revolutionary army was made up in large part by conscripts). Actually, I'm quite certain that it is incorrect. However, I'm open to being corrected and was interested to know specifically where THAT claim came from. My overview, though... I take from your email address (diecapitalism at yahoo.com) that your overriding motive is ideological rather than inquisitive. That helps me understand why you're striving so hard to see an historical event through your ideological lense, whether or not the facts fit -- and it seems like in this case they do not. In this post I'm not critiquing your ideology (you haven't put forward precisely what it is, and I'd save that for a different thread anyway). I'm critiquing the facts that you offer, or rather the lack of facts. You offer unsupported generalities and platitudes to answer my specifics. > The majority of the leaders of the Amerikan colonial > war were in the upper-class. Define upper class, please. Delegates to the COntinental Congress were certainly landowning whites. Is that sufficient to qualify as upper class? How then would you compare them to the landed gentry of Britain, and especially those titled Brits. You never refute my position that the elites from Britain were the losers in the revolution. I've never claimed the war as a triumph of the proletariat overthrowing power structures -- but it's hard to claim the colonists revolted in order to MAINTAIN power structures as they were overthrowing those with even more power than they. > After the revolution, > they put themselves in power and designed a political > system that benefited their interests. Specifics rather than platitudes? The Articles of Confederation didn't provide for much taxation. There wasn't a system "put in place" which redistributed income up. The "power" given to the elites in early colonial America was significantly limited. There wasn't much in the way of government levers for them to exercise! > How many of the > leaders who formulated policy came from marginalized > backgrounds? I've argued this same point on many occasions. I've said in this forum that the constitution was agreed to by landowning whites, and that they had no authority to bind other non-consenting individuals to their arrangemnt -- and this means women, minorities, non-landowners, and EVEN FUTURE GENERATIONS of landowning whites. However, this has nothing whatsoever to do with bolstering your claim that the Revolution was about putting down an ascendant working class. There's NO SUGGESTION even in your posts that but-for the revolution there would be greater power among those you refer to as marginalized -- my point is that at worst they're in the same position, and more likely a better position because of the overthrown more restrictive British structures. > Regardless of the views of one man (who didn't seem to > mind owning his own slaves), I said myself that Jefferson owned slaves. I also said (and you didn't deny) that he introduced legislation every year in the Virginia legislature that would have moved to end slavery. There were laws dating to British rule that propped up slavery, and for all his flaws Jefferson sought to remove those laws. > the war did little to > remedy minority interests. Amerikan aristocracy felt > that their economic gains through Southern support > outweighed the needs of slaves. Conflicts against an > external enemy (Britain) can defuse conflict at home. THere's little evidence or even suggestion in your posts about those "conflicts at home." There's no suggestion in your posts about individuals (through their writings, speeches, etc.) that suggests they were trying to quell domestic discontent. MOreover, under British rule the British military would have put down that dissent -- if you theory has any merit whatsoever, you must explain why colonists would risk their own lives to put down dissent when it would have been done FOR them -- and even beyond that, why they would be trying to KILL the very people who would have PROTECTED them in your scenario. Your explanation is, I believe, incoherent. Separately, many of the Northern revolutionaries RECOGNIZED that slavery was a DRAIN on the economy rather than a boost to it (hence the South became relatively unindustrialized compared to the North, since most of their resources were in labor rather than in capital). Reference to the early views that preceded the Civil War is made in Jeffrey Rogers Hummel's book, _EMANCIPATING SLAVES, ENSLAVING FREE MEN_. > > Most of the revolutionaries gave up their fortunes. > > > > Certainly rebelling against Britain was the ultimate > > form of jeopardizing > > existing wealth. > > The colonial war made private wealth safe in Amerika. Jeff Jacoby wrote a pretty famous piece in the Boston Globe where he actually documented the legends that go around about how most of the revolutionaries lost their wealth and died penniless. How did the war make private wealth safe? The American government printed money at an extremely quick rate and caused massive inflation -- destroying stores of wealth. I'd like some sort of warrant for your claim? > Its ideological instigators sure didn't lose much. Warrant? > Here's an idea: the revolution wasn't _absolutely_ for > or against liberation of oppressed peoples. Agreed!! > I just see > folly in the claim that it was a purely noble > experiment in freedom. Where did I make that claim? I think you've seeing both the historical record and my post through ideological glasses that don't fit -- you need to put my responses into a box where they don't belong. > No one's arguing that Britain was egalitarian. Rather, > the war served to unite the citizenry against a common > enemy and to ensure a flow of trade favorable to the > colonial economic elite. Huh? Trade *suffered* in the post-Revolutionary War colonies.. British blockades and the like. Which 'colonial economic elites' made their fortunes by trade? Not Jefferson, Washington, etc. who made their living from plantations which didn't do much export business. Why weren't American Indians a sufficient enemy? Or, for that matter, the FRENCH? > The war, in and of itself, > served as, "safety valve for social disenchantment" > (Pongrace in '85, right?). No evidence in your posts of this disenchantment. No evidence why other conflicts would have been an insufficient safety valve. No explanation why (as I articulate above) colonial elites would attack their protectors. Throwing around a slogant like 'safety valve for social disenchantment' doesn't work if the facts don't fit and the questions go unanswered. > > > > > > > > it come from whom it may." > > > > What's the source on this? > > > > Sorry. As has been pointed out, I should have > acknowledged HOWARD ZINN as the source for this. I asked for the source on your earlier claim (which is quite false) that colonial armies depended on conscripts. I'm really curious about that one. Gary From jackattack7 Mon Jul 9 13:11:40 2001 From: jackattack7 (jack stroube) Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 13:11:40 Subject: NAKED KUSWA -- part 2 Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010709/0ebf9d3c/attachment.htm From tgonos Mon Jul 9 09:36:34 2001 From: tgonos (Tracy Gonos) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 10:36:34 -0400 Subject: The Fourth of July and Blacks (resp Aaron Lyttle) References: Message-ID: Hey there. I'm enjoying following this history discussion. I thought since one of the main themes of this thread is sources and historical accuracy I would point out that the Jacoby piece you mention in the excerpt below is generally considered to be mostly inaccurate. As is the Rush Limbaugh version that it is based on. In fact, Jacoby was suspended (and I think eventually fired) from the Globe as a result of "serious journalistic misconduct" in connection with this article. (See http://www.frontpagemag.com/frontlines/july00/jacoby07-10-00.htm ). For the purpose of presenting a counter perspective, however, the website address above is actually Jacoby's defense of the piece in question. I am having trouble locating it, but there is also a website that someone on edebate pointed me to last Fourth of July that examines and refutes most of the claims made in the article, including the claim that most of the signers gave up their fortunes and "died penniless." The truth is actually the opposite. Maybe it was Doyle that pointed out the website and could do so again??? Tracy ----- Original Message ----- From: Gary Leff To: Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 8:57 AM Subject: RE: The Fourth of July and Blacks (resp Aaron Lyttle) > > > Most of the revolutionaries gave up their fortunes. > > >Certainly rebelling against Britain was the ultimate > > > form of jeopardizing > > > existing wealth. > >The colonial war made private wealth safe in Amerika. > Jeff Jacoby wrote a pretty famous piece in the Boston Globe where he > actually documented the legends that go around about how most of the > revolutionaries lost their wealth and died penniless. From jd.rollins Tue Jul 10 09:55:34 2001 From: jd.rollins (Joel Rollins) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 09:55:34 -0500 Subject: UT van accident Message-ID: <3B4B1766.50E8533F@mail.utexas.edu> I am writing because Mr. Stroube?s attacks have inflicted true harm on people who were on the October 10, 1995 tragic van trip. The people I am talking about were on the trip and actually experienced the horror of that day. Let me make it perfectly clear, Mr. Stroube was not on that trip, was not there, and has no first hand knowledge of it. The same, I suspect, could be said of me. I was not there either, but I was fielding and making phone calls to hospitals, parents, law enforcement agencies, and my students. I do think that it is terribly sad that a person who was not there and had only a tangential relationship to the team could take this tragedy and attempt to make himself the center of it. I hesitate to write because this is an extraordinarily painful and personal memory to recall for many of us. Many hours have been spent in therapy to heal these wounds. Mr. Stroube?s accusations have served to reopen wounds that for many of us had begun healing long ago. I write because it is time for that healing to begin again. If after you read what I have to say you ever open another post from Mr. Stroube or give him aid or comfort in his attacks in any way, then I can only feel sorry for you. Mr. Stroube has threatened to "out" me to the administration if I dared to challenge his version of the events. I have already contacted them about his recent attacks. Moreover, I have never asked anyone to cover up the accident or threatened anyone in any way to keep their silence concerning the events of October 10, 1995. I will not attempt to answer Mr. Stroube?s line by line attack. I will contextualize the event and allow you to decide if Mr. Stroube?s version of the story is even possible. At 5:30 AM on October 10th, I received a phone call from Kelly Congdon?Kelly is frantic. He tells me that something bad has happened to Justin. I ask him what happened?he can only bring himself to say that something bad has happened. He gives me a number to call the New Mexico State police and a hospital. I call the hospital but have a very difficult time getting any information. I am given more numbers of other hospitals that our people have been taken to. I attempt to call all these number several times, perhaps 10-20 times a minute?but the lines are always busy. I finally get a return call from the hospital and am told that Brian McBride and Justin are dead. I call to get updates, to try to find where people are. The information changes radically with each call. Students begin to gather outside my front door. We wait for information. Team members gathered to find out who was alive and who was clinging to life, not to concoct "our story". Indeed, there was so little information that nothing amounting to a story could possibly have been forged. We were mourning for our friends and hoping that they were alive. Finally, I get calls from Matt Harris, Mike Erickson, and Michelle Gajda. Each of them had different versions of the events, each of them named different drivers of the van, and each of them named different people with different injuries. The only thing that was certain was that Justin died and that Brian, as of that moment, was still alive. The casualties and injuries changed with each report. One hospital had one report, another hospital another, the police yet another. The Albuquerque and Los Cruces papers also called with different reports. We still could not get information on the whereabouts of Kevin Kuswa, Megan O?Neil or Brian McBride. I only knew that helicopters had transported many of them to many different places, depending on their injuries. I am finally able to contact the New Mexico State Police at the scene of the accident. An officer there tells me that the accident happened on a very dark stretch of highway in the New Mexico desert very early in the morning when it was still pitch black outside. I was told that the driver of the van lost control and that several people were injured or killed as they were thrown from the van. The officer also told me that that there was no sign of alcohol or drugs at the scene. Finally I am able to talk to Mrs. O?Neil. She tells me that Megan will make it and that Kevin is okay and that Brian is touch and go. >From everything I heard I was able to piece together the following scene. Unfortunately, I have replayed this scene in my mind thousands of times. It is pitch black at 3:00 AM in the New Mexican desert?A van rolls over several times, several of your friends are thrown from the van and are injured both inside and outside the van. People are yelling and crying as they attempt to find one another in the dark. Justin is dead, Brian seems so because he can?t move, and Megan can?t be found. James Martin?s leg and shoulder have been crushed. Megan is finally found. Ambulances, Helicopters and the police begin to arrive on the scene. Think about the chaos here. How could anyone in the pitch black of the New Mexican desert "clean up" this site so pristinely? Your friends are hurt and injured; you have a huge bruise running across your chest. Your first thoughts are not to "clean up the site", and impossible task. How could they clean up beer cans, bags of marijuana, pipes and other paraphernalia in the dark when they couldn?t even find each other? And some think that the people in this van all got together and engineered a story? Not a possibility. Especially when the injured were taken, some quickly and some not, to 4 different hospitals in three different states? How could these people get their story straight? How could I engineer a cover-up when I can?t even get in contact with them? I couldn?t even talk to Megan or Brian for days and people were being moved from hospital to hospital. I could on occasion talk to Mrs. O?Neil or Mrs. McBride, but if you possibly think that a cover-up could have been engineered in such a context then no one can help you. It is true that Kevin did say that he was driving the van. However, as I explained before, several others said Michelle was driving, and another contended Brian was driving. I?m not sure how they were attempting to keep a mammoth cover-up going if they couldn?t even agree on the driver of the van. It was known early on that Michele was driving the van. The direction of the bruise on her chest matched the angle of the driver?s seat belt. A tox screen was done on both her urine and blood?there was no indication that drugs or alcohol were in her system. Seven sets of lawyers, several private investigators, the New Mexico State Police, insurance companies, the affiliates for CBS, NBC, ABC, and newspaper reporters at Las Cruces and Albuquerque thoroughly investigated this accident. All of these people, working independently and for different clients with different agendas, uncovered nothing to suggest that alcohol was involved in the accident. I will not talk about Mr. Stroube?s dismissal in an open forum, except to say that there is absolutely no link between his dismissal and the accident. He has since created the link, and only he knows for sure why. No one could have possibly engineered a cover-up. People were barely conscious, grasping to life as best they could. They were taken to different hospitals in different states, some weren?t conscious for days. Do not feed this conversation, let this go and let people heal. I ask you now to give your compassion and support to those who deserve it, to those who were in the van and suffered through the accident, to those who now have been made to relive this nightmare. From gleff Mon Jul 9 10:09:06 2001 From: gleff (Gary Leff) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 11:09:06 -0400 Subject: The Fourth of July and Blacks (resp Aaron Lyttle) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I hadn't known of the Limbaugh connection with the piece. I was well aware of the controversy -- and as the link points out, it was an issue of plagiarism (failing to note the source of the idea and structure of the column) rather than factual accuracy. I'd be very interested in cites that argue against the claims. (I actually don't know that it's "generally considered to be mostly inaccurate" - in fact I thought most of the coverage of the column actually said he went to great lengths to verify the claims, and I never saw any that said he didn't do so accurately.) Doyle? THanks, Gary > -----Original Message----- > From: Tracy Gonos [mailto:tgonos at hotmail.com] > Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 10:37 AM > To: gleff at gmu.edu > Cc: eDebate at ndtceda.com > Subject: Re: The Fourth of July and Blacks (resp Aaron Lyttle) > > > Hey there. I'm enjoying following this history discussion. I > thought since > one of the main themes of this thread is sources and historical accuracy I > would point out that the Jacoby piece you mention in the excerpt below is > generally considered to be mostly inaccurate. As is the Rush Limbaugh > version that it is based on. In fact, Jacoby was suspended (and I think > eventually fired) from the Globe as a result of "serious journalistic > misconduct" in connection with this article. (See > http://www.frontpagemag.com/frontlines/july00/jacoby07-10-00.htm > ). For the > purpose of presenting a counter perspective, however, the website address > above is actually Jacoby's defense of the piece in question. > > I am having trouble locating it, but there is also a website that > someone on > edebate pointed me to last Fourth of July that examines and > refutes most of > the claims made in the article, including the claim that most of > the signers > gave up their fortunes and "died penniless." The truth is actually the > opposite. Maybe it was Doyle that pointed out the website and could do so > again??? > > Tracy > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Gary Leff > To: > Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 8:57 AM > Subject: RE: The Fourth of July and Blacks (resp Aaron Lyttle) > > > > > > Most of the revolutionaries gave up their fortunes. > > > >Certainly rebelling against Britain was the ultimate > > > > form of jeopardizing > > > > existing wealth. > > >The colonial war made private wealth safe in Amerika. > > Jeff Jacoby wrote a pretty famous piece in the Boston Globe where he > > actually documented the legends that go around about how most of the > > revolutionaries lost their wealth and died penniless. > > From jd.rollins Tue Jul 10 10:28:00 2001 From: jd.rollins (Joel Rollins) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 10:28:00 -0500 Subject: ut van accident Message-ID: <3B49CD80.DD2A7E96@mail.utexas.edu> I am writing because Mr. Stroube?s attacks have inflicted true harm on people who were on the October 10, 1995 tragic van trip. The people I am talking about were on the trip and actually experienced the horror of that day. Let me make it perfectly clear, Mr. Stroube was not on that trip, was not there, and has no first hand knowledge of it. The same, I suspect, could be said of me. I was not there either, but I was fielding and making phone calls to hospitals, parents, law enforcement agencies, and my students. I do think that it is terribly sad that a person who was not there and had only a tangential relationship to the team could take this tragedy and attempt to make himself the center of it. I hesitate to write because this is an extraordinarily painful and personal memory to recall for many of us. Many hours have been spent in therapy to heal these wounds. Mr. Stroube?s accusations have served to reopen wounds that for many of us had begun healing long ago. I write because it is time for that healing to begin again. If after you read what I have to say you ever open another post from Mr. Stroube or give him aid or comfort in his attacks in any way, then I can only feel sorry for you. Mr. Stroube has threatened to "out" me to the administration if I dared to challenge his version of the events. I have already contacted them about his recent attacks. Moreover, I have never asked anyone to cover up the accident or threatened anyone in any way to keep their silence concerning the events of October 10, 1995. I will not attempt to answer Mr. Stroube?s line by line attack. I will contextualize the event and allow you to decide if Mr. Stroube?s version of the story is even possible. At 5:30 AM on October 10th, I received a phone call from Kelly Congdon?Kelly is frantic. He tells me that something bad has happened to Justin. I ask him what happened?he can only bring himself to say that something bad has happened. He gives me a number to call the New Mexico State police and a hospital. I call the hospital but have a very difficult time getting any information. I am given more numbers of other hospitals that our people have been taken to. I attempt to call all these number several times, perhaps 10-20 times a minute?but the lines are always busy. I finally get a return call from the hospital and am told that Brian McBride and Justin are dead. I call to get updates, to try to find where people are. The information changes radically with each call. Students begin to gather outside my front door. We wait for information. Team members gathered to find out who was alive and who was clinging to life, not to concoct "our story". Indeed, there was so little information that nothing amounting to a story could possibly have been forged. We were mourning for our friends and hoping that they were alive. Finally, I get calls from Matt Harris, Mike Erickson, and Michelle Gajda. Each of them had different versions of the events, each of them named different drivers of the van, and each of them named different people with different injuries. The only thing that was certain was that Justin died and that Brian, as of that moment, was still alive. The casualties and injuries changed with each report. One hospital had one report, another hospital another, the police yet another. The Albuquerque and Los Cruces papers also called with different reports. We still could not get information on the whereabouts of Kevin Kuswa, Megan O?Neil or Brian McBride. I only knew that helicopters had transported many of them to many different places, depending on their injuries. I am finally able to contact the New Mexico State Police at the scene of the accident. An officer there tells me that the accident happened on a very dark stretch of highway in the New Mexico desert very early in the morning when it was still pitch black outside. I was told that the driver of the van lost control and that several people were injured or killed as they were thrown from the van. The officer also told me that that there was no sign of alcohol or drugs at the scene. Finally I am able to talk to Mrs. O?Neil. She tells me that Megan will make it and that Kevin is okay and that Brian is touch and go. >From everything I heard I was able to piece together the following scene. Unfortunately, I have replayed this scene in my mind thousands of times. It is pitch black at 3:00 AM in the New Mexican desert?A van rolls over several times, several of your friends are thrown from the van and are injured both inside and outside the van. People are yelling and crying as they attempt to find one another in the dark. Justin is dead, Brian seems so because he can?t move, and Megan can?t be found. James Martin?s leg and shoulder have been crushed. Megan is finally found. Ambulances, Helicopters and the police begin to arrive on the scene. Think about the chaos here. How could anyone in the pitch black of the New Mexican desert "clean up" this site so pristinely? Your friends are hurt and injured; you have a huge bruise running across your chest. Your first thoughts are not to "clean up the site", and impossible task. How could they clean up beer cans, bags of marijuana, pipes and other paraphernalia in the dark when they couldn?t even find each other? And some think that the people in this van all got together and engineered a story? Not a possibility. Especially when the injured were taken, some quickly and some not, to 4 different hospitals in three different states? How could these people get their story straight? How could I engineer a cover-up when I can?t even get in contact with them? I couldn?t even talk to Megan or Brian for days and people were being moved from hospital to hospital. I could on occasion talk to Mrs. O?Neil or Mrs. McBride, but if you possibly think that a cover-up could have been engineered in such a context then no one can help you. It is true that Kevin did say that he was driving the van. However, as I explained before, several others said Michelle was driving, and another contended Brian was driving. I?m not sure how they were attempting to keep a mammoth cover-up going if they couldn?t even agree on the driver of the van. It was known early on that Michele was driving the van. The direction of the bruise on her chest matched the angle of the driver?s seat belt. A tox screen was done on both her urine and blood?there was no indication that drugs or alcohol were in her system. Seven sets of lawyers, several private investigators, the New Mexico State Police, insurance companies, the affiliates for CBS, NBC, ABC, and newspaper reporters at Las Cruces and Albuquerque thoroughly investigated this accident. All of these people, working independently and for different clients with different agendas, uncovered nothing to suggest that alcohol was involved in the accident. I will not talk about Mr. Stroube?s dismissal in an open forum, except to say that there is absolutely no link between his dismissal and the accident. He has since created the link, and only he knows for sure why. No one could have possibly engineered a cover-up. People were barely conscious, grasping to life as best they could. They were taken to different hospitals in different states, some weren?t conscious for days. I ask you now to give your compassion and support to those who deserve it, to those who were in the van and suffered through the accident, to those who now have been made to relive this nightmare. From gleff Mon Jul 9 10:58:10 2001 From: gleff (Gary Leff) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 11:58:10 -0400 Subject: ut van accident In-Reply-To: <3B49CD80.DD2A7E96@mail.utexas.edu> Message-ID: These posts are clearly hurtful to many people. Even for me -- whom most of you have never met. I certainly didn't know the people involved in the UT accident in 1995, because I quit the CEDA circuit after the Spring of 1993 after my own team (UCLA) had a fatal van accident on the way back from UNLV. There hasn't been any clear reason given why the "truth" of this painful event has anything at all to do with Stroube's firing. There are obviously sour grapes here, and he's lashing out. I have no knowlege about the veracity of his claims. His motives are clearly suspect. He doesn't seem to have standing to be making the charges now and in this forum. What does he hope to achieve, besides hurting people that he believes hurt him? I'm not even sure how much it matters, even if Stroube's version of events were correct. Nothing undoes the horrible tragedy. Everyone involved has suffered because of it. Hopefully the heartrendering narratives serve as a reminder to us all to be careful and not let it happen again. I only wish handwringing and charges/countercharges could bring back Amanda Gilbert and Aaron Lessor, my teammates who died in front of my eyes eight years ago. I miss them both every day. > -----Original Message----- > From: Joel Rollins [mailto:jd.rollins at mail.utexas.edu] > Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2001 11:28 AM > To: ndt > Subject: ut van accident > > > I am writing because Mr. Stroube?s attacks have inflicted true harm on > people who were on the October 10, 1995 tragic van trip. The people I > am talking about were on the trip and actually experienced the horror of > that day. Let me make it perfectly clear, Mr. Stroube was not on that > trip, was not there, and has no first hand knowledge of it. The same, I > suspect, could be said of me. I was not there either, but I was > fielding and making phone calls to hospitals, parents, law enforcement > agencies, and my students. I do think that it is terribly sad that a > person who was not there and had only a tangential relationship to the > team could take this tragedy and attempt to make himself the center of > it. > > I hesitate to write because this is an extraordinarily painful and > personal memory to recall for many of us. Many hours have been spent in > therapy to heal these wounds. Mr. Stroube?s accusations have served to > reopen wounds that for many of us had begun healing long ago. I write > because it is time for that healing to begin again. > > If after you read what I have to say you ever open another post from Mr. > Stroube or give him aid or comfort in his attacks in any way, then I can > only feel sorry for you. > > Mr. Stroube has threatened to "out" me to the administration if I dared > to challenge his version of the events. I have already contacted them > about his recent attacks. Moreover, I have never asked anyone to cover > up the accident or threatened anyone in any way to keep their silence > concerning the events of October 10, 1995. > > I will not attempt to answer Mr. Stroube?s line by line attack. I will > contextualize the event and allow you to decide if Mr. Stroube?s version > of the story is even possible. > > At 5:30 AM on October 10th, I received a phone call from Kelly > Congdon?Kelly is frantic. He tells me that something bad has happened > to Justin. I ask him what happened?he can only bring himself to say that > something bad has happened. He gives me a number to call the New Mexico > State police and a hospital. I call the hospital but have a very > difficult time getting any information. I am given more numbers of > other hospitals that our people have been taken to. I attempt to call > all these number several times, perhaps 10-20 times a minute?but the > lines are always busy. I finally get a return call from the hospital > and am told that Brian McBride and Justin are dead. I call to get > updates, to try to find where people are. The information changes > radically with each call. Students begin to gather outside my front > door. We wait for information. Team members gathered to find out who > was alive and who was clinging to life, not to concoct "our story". > Indeed, there was so little information that nothing amounting to a > story could possibly have been forged. We were mourning for our friends > and hoping that they were alive. Finally, I get calls from Matt Harris, > Mike Erickson, and Michelle Gajda. Each of them had different versions > of the events, each of them named different drivers of the van, and each > of them named different people with different injuries. The only thing > that was certain was that Justin died and that Brian, as of that moment, > was still alive. The casualties and injuries changed with each report. > One hospital had one report, another hospital another, the police yet > another. The Albuquerque and Los Cruces papers also called with > different reports. We still could not get information on the > whereabouts of Kevin Kuswa, Megan O?Neil or Brian McBride. I only knew > that helicopters had transported many of them to many different places, > depending on their injuries. > > I am finally able to contact the New Mexico State Police at the scene of > the accident. An officer there tells me that the accident happened on a > very dark stretch of highway in the New Mexico desert very early in the > morning when it was still pitch black outside. I was told that the > driver of the van lost control and that several people were injured or > killed as they were thrown from the van. The officer also told me that > that there was no sign of alcohol or drugs at the scene. > > Finally I am able to talk to Mrs. O?Neil. She tells me that Megan will > make it and that Kevin is okay and that Brian is touch and go. > > >From everything I heard I was able to piece together the following > scene. Unfortunately, I have replayed this scene in my mind thousands > of times. It is pitch black at 3:00 AM in the New Mexican desert?A van > rolls over several times, several of your friends are thrown from the > van and are injured both inside and outside the van. People are yelling > and crying as they attempt to find one another in the dark. Justin is > dead, Brian seems so because he can?t move, and Megan can?t be found. > James Martin?s leg and shoulder have been crushed. Megan is finally > found. Ambulances, Helicopters and the police begin to arrive on the > scene. > > Think about the chaos here. How could anyone in the pitch black of the > New Mexican desert "clean up" this site so pristinely? Your friends are > hurt and injured; you have a huge bruise running across your chest. > Your first thoughts are not to "clean up the site", and impossible > task. How could they clean up beer cans, bags of marijuana, pipes and > other paraphernalia in the dark when they couldn?t even find each > other? And some think that the people in this van all got together and > engineered a story? Not a possibility. Especially when the injured > were taken, some quickly and some not, to 4 different hospitals in three > different states? How could these people get their story straight? How > could I engineer a cover-up when I can?t even get in contact with them? > I couldn?t even talk to Megan or Brian for days and people were being > moved from hospital to hospital. I could on occasion talk to Mrs. > O?Neil or Mrs. McBride, but if you possibly think that a cover-up could > have been engineered in such a context then no one can help you. > > It is true that Kevin did say that he was driving the van. However, as > I explained before, several others said Michelle was driving, and > another contended Brian was driving. I?m not sure how they were > attempting to keep a mammoth cover-up going if they couldn?t even agree > on the driver of the van. > > It was known early on that Michele was driving the van. The direction > of the bruise on her chest matched the angle of the driver?s seat belt. > A tox screen was done on both her urine and blood?there was no > indication that drugs or alcohol were in her system. > > Seven sets of lawyers, several private investigators, the New Mexico > State Police, insurance companies, the affiliates for CBS, NBC, ABC, and > newspaper reporters at Las Cruces and Albuquerque thoroughly > investigated this accident. All of these people, working independently > and for different clients with different agendas, uncovered nothing to > suggest that alcohol was involved in the accident. > > I will not talk about Mr. Stroube?s dismissal in an open forum, except > to say that there is absolutely no link between his dismissal and the > accident. He has since created the link, and only he knows for sure > why. > > No one could have possibly engineered a cover-up. People were barely > conscious, grasping to life as best they could. They were taken to > different hospitals in different states, some weren?t conscious for > days. > > I ask you now to give your compassion and support to those who deserve > it, to those who were in the van and suffered through the accident, to > those who now have been made to relive this nightmare. > > > From dbteam Mon Jul 9 11:00:53 2001 From: dbteam (UWG Debate Team) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 12:00:53 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Rez Two or Three? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: i'll try to deal with the args line by line: i'll do mine in caps to distinguish them, not to yell. kudos to VB for getting the ball rolling on a 2 vs. 3 debate. On Sun, 8 Jul 2001, Veronica Barreto wrote: > > OK there's something I just don't get...perhaps the advocates of the second > resolution should take a meeting. Some are real gung-ho about the > affirmative being strapped to increasing the funding for crappy SQ programs > (Ede and Slusher), others are standing behind Mueller and Tracy's post > saying that the phrase (that some point to as the resolution's saving grace) > does nothing to limit the topic, and still others say both is true. I'm not > sure that you can have it both ways. I'M ALWAYS A BIG FAN OF DO BOTH. AND #2 DOES SEEM TO HAVE SOME GOOD FOR AFF (LOTS OF LIT IN WHICH TO FIND PLANS) AND NEG (PLENTY O' GENERIC NEG). > Sure one could say "that's debatable" but certainly one side has to admit > that one interpretation is more likely. Those voting for topics don't just > have to consider which interpretation would suit their purposes best but > also how their approach would be received by those who debate and those who > adjudicate debates. The reality of it is that it's going to be those who > want to assure that they can go for T and the reform PMN versus those who > want the affirmative flexibility to amend legislation and NEITHER will get > their way all of the time and perhaps not even most of the time. > > Can someone explain to me why y'all would vote for a resolution whose terms > a lay person can't even define? The community seems unwilling to even arrive > at a consensus about it so as not to isolate support for the resolution. Do > you really want more debates getting whittled down to a crapshoot over > semantics (well...more than usual anyways)? I DON'T THINK THE CHOICE IS BETWEEN 'WE DEFINITELY KNOW WHAT IT MEANS' OR 'SEMANTIC CRAPSHOOT'. IT HAS BEEN DEFINED BY TRACY G PRETTY CLEARLY. SCOTT'S COMMENTS ONLY NOTE THAT THERE MAY BE AN ATTEMPT BY DEBATERS TO DEBATE HOW IT AFFECTS PLAN GROUND. I'M ALL FOR DEBATERS DEBATING. THIS POSSIBILITY NEED NOT DEVOLVE (AND THERE'S NO WARRANT GIVEN AS TO WHY EVERY NEG WOULD WANT IT TO DEVOLVE) INTO SEMANTICS (I ASSUME THIS MEANS TOPICALITY) EVERY ROUND. GIVEN THE AMOUNT OF THINGS FOR THE NEG TO SAY, I WOULD THINK THE 'AS PREVIOUSLY AMENDED' T ARG WOULD NOT BE A HIGH PRIORITY EXCEPT IN THE CASE OF THE AFF WHO TRIES TO JETTISON THE ENTIRE TOPIC, AND THOSE WON'T FIND MUCH, IF ANY, JUDGE SYMPATHY. > Hester explains that the problem with resolution #3 is it's undesirable > directon, i.e. increase of federal control. The first posts after the > release of the resolutions are quite telling. Ross Smith's first > observation was that rez 3 was bidirectional. Dave Helwich Cram wrote an > excellent post discussing the on balance benefits of rez #3's > "multi-directionality" > > There are those who will say "woah, Nelly...did you say 'multi-directional'" > Yes, but Dave also discusses the predictable negative ground against such > moves. The nature of Congress's plenary power over Indian affairs creates a > great area of debate. It's a question that plagued the Warren as well as the > Rhenquist Court. > > Plus, if you believe in the ability to amend the legislation that means rez > #2 is just as bidirectional. MY PROBLEM ISN'T THAT #3 IS BI/MULTIDIRECTIONAL. INSTEAD, I HAVE ARGUED THAT SUCH A CLAIM IS MISLEADING SINCE, EVEN THOUGH THE TOPIC WORDING ALLOWS FOR SUCH INTERPS, THE LIT DOESN'T OFFER MANY (GAMING IS THE ONE MOST REFERNCED, BUT CRIME AND ENVIRONMENT MAY OFFER A COUPLE MORE) EXAMPLES OF GOOD AFF GROUND. AUTHORS WHO ADVOCATE ACTION DEEMED TOPICAL UNDER #3 ARE NOT IN ABUNDANCE. I DON'T THINK THIS CLAIM OF MINE HAS BEEN SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSED. YES, 'IN THEORY' THE TOPIC IS BIDIRECTIONAL. IN THE REALITY OF THE LIT, IT'S NOT ALL THAT JAZZY. > And to those of you who are uncomfortable about increasing federal control, > how do you feel about increasing federal funding for legislation that at > best does nothing to fix problems and at worst continues a legacy of > manipulation and exploitation? > > I imagine the good solvency evidence people are discussing is under the > interpretation that allows for tinkering with the legislation, because > evidence that says the legislation only needs an increase in funding is > harder to find and still even more difficult if you're looking for good > evidence that provides a necessary threshold for solvency. NOT EXACTLY. I'VE FOUND LITERALLY DOZENS OF AUTHORS ADVOCATING AN INCREASE IN REESOURCES. MANY OF THESE REJECT THE NOTION THAT USFG FUNDING IS "MANIPULATIVE" OR "EXPLOITATIVE" ON FACE, ARGUING INSTEAD THAT USFG $ IS THE BEST WAY FOR US TO OWN UP TO ITS COMMITMENT. YES, THERE IS STILL A DEBATE ABOUT PATERNALISM AND SUCH, BUT THIS SEEMS TO ME TO PROVIDE FAIR NEG GROUND. UNLIKE #3, WHERE THE AFF CAN ONLY INCREASE CONTROL - NOT HEARD THE REASON #3 ALLOWS AFF TO INCREASE RESOURCE TRANSFER TO TRIBES - AND NEG GETS TO ARGUE THAT PLAN IS ANOTHER ACT OF US IMPERIALISM CARTE BLANCHE, #2 CREATES A MUCH MORE INTERESTING DEBATE IMHO: AT WHAT POINT IS A TRANSFER OF RESOURCES ABSENT STRUCTURAL CHANGE IN RELATIONS JUST ANOTHER FORM OF US HEGEMONY? THIS QUESTION IS THE MOST COMMON ARGUMENT IN CONTEMPORARY LIT DISCUSSING NATAM/USFG RELATIONS. THERE ARE REFORMERS WHO ARGUE THAT THE BEST SOLUTION TO NATAM ILLS IS FOR RESOURCES TARGETED TO ADDRESS HARMS IN NATAM SOCIETY. THE MORE RADICAL (ALTHOUGH CERTAINLY NOT FRINGE IN NATAM POLITIX) CRITICS ARGUE THAT UNTIL THE RELATIONSHIP IS REDEFINED THERE CAN BE NO REAL SOLUTIONS. THIS IS THE CLASSIC REFORM VS. REVOLUTION DEBATE THAT MAKES FOR GREAT CLASH. AND YES, THER ARE SOME LEGISLATIONS (GAP ONLY DEALS WITH ENVIRONMENT) THAT ALLOW FOR INCREASED FUNDING FOR 'NEW' PROGRAMS. THIS ISN'T THE EQUIVALENT OF 'STRUCTURAL CHANGE'. THE PLAN CAN FUND NEW PROGRAMS, NOT ALTER THE TRUST DOCTRINE OR PLENARY POWER AS CURRENTLY DEFINED. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO IS MUCH LARGER THAN IS BEING PORTRAYED. AMNEDING ONE OF THE LAWS TO STRENGTHEN ENFORCEMENT IS NOT EVEN CLOSE TO AMENDING ONE LAW TO ABROGATE THE TRUST DOCTRINE. > What of the uniqueness problems? NOT SURE WHAT THIS REFERS TO, BUT I'LL ANSWER INHERENCY QUESTIONS. I'VE FOUND PLENTY OF FOLK WHO SAY CURRENT LAWS ARE UNDERFUNDED AND UN/MAL-ENFORCED. THE IDEA THAT THE AFF WILL HAVE A HARD TIME PROVING THAT NATAM PROGRAMS AREN'T IN NEED OF MORE RESOURCES IS A MISTAKEN NOTION NOT BASED ON ANY READING OF THE LIT I'VE SEEN THUS FAR. > I'm also not a big fan of the "transfer" part of the resolution that allows > for funding specification. Now, we've all resolved that counterplans can be > used to prevent the affirmative from reading add-ons and turns but it's been > FLAT CONCEDED by the advocates of #2 that it all amounts to MONDO link outs > to all kinds of disads. I'VE ANSWERED THIS BEFORE. AND, MORE IMPORTANTLY, I MENTIONED THAT SPECIFYING FUNDING CREATES MORE GROUND FOR THE NEG THAN FOR THE AFF (I POSTED LAST WEEK ABOUT THIS - SPECIFIED $ LEGITIMATES STEAL $ CP AND THE DISAD TO CUTTING FROM THE SPECIFIED LOCATION, IN ADDITION TO THE CUT $ CP). > As I think about it more, I realize it's not just trade-off/spending type of > positions, but even politics. An affirmative can spin their specification > as log rolling, explaining that the cut/trade-off/downsizing/budget > reprioritization generates the political capital necessary for the passage > of the plan and there are more of those cute spins yet to be thought of. > Now, sure the aff can't claim the turns as advantages if the negative > chooses to counterplan out of the funding specification but that take-out > still screws the negative. YEAH!!! IF #2 ALLOWS FOR ANYTHING MORE THAN THE TRITE 'WINNERS WIN' TURN, THEN I'M ALL FOR IT. THE ABOVE SCENARIO IS THE KIND OF POLITIX DEBATE I ACTUALLY ENJOY JUDGING - DEBATES ABOUT THE LINK RATHER THAN JUST A MOUND OF OTTAWA CITIZEN POSTDATES. CONSIDER THIS REASON #4 FOR VOTING FOR REZ #2! HESTER > > Just some thoughts. > > Veronica > > >From: UWG Debate Team > >To: > >CC: > >Subject: Re: Rez Two or Three? > >Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2001 21:05:34 -0400 (EDT) > > > >i'll try. > > > >1)scott's recent post, and tracy's post originally, about "as > >previoously amended" deals effectively with the notion that #2 is overly > >restricted by this phrase. and mueller's past post about GAP shows that > >there are definitely ways that rez #2 can be interpreted to allow aff to > >do more than just 'throw money at old programs.' > > > >(btw, scott's other post about the inability of #1 to create space for in > >depth discussions about trust doctrine or gambling or anything other than > >aknowledgment seems both consistent with my own reading of the topic and > >reinforces my earlier comments about the coverage of #1 in the literature) > > > >2) the problems of #2 vis a vis #3 (there seem to be two basic ones > >outlined: a)its wordiness encourages too much PIC ground, and b)its narrow > >focus on F&E makes it too easy for neg to just say 'more money ain't > >enough'), IMHO, are not as bad as some contend (see scott's 'as previously > >amended' comments) and may not be as bad as the problems with #3. as i see > >it, the concern with #3 is that the vast majority of aff ground is not all > >that attractive to many (i.e., increase fed control over tribes). while > >gaming offers one type of controversy where the isue is fed control over > >states in the context of tribal relations, i haven't found that many other > >issues where the solution is to increase fed control over states. and > >where that is the case (crime and environment are two), it seems that #2 > >would allow more action over the harm area - rather than just increasing > >fed control, #2 might accomplish an increase in control with increased F&E > >that is less juridical in its result. > > > >while i'd prefer more efficiency in wording, i don't think #2 is doomed to > >be about nothing except process CPs. so far, of all the topics, i've found > >more solvency-type articles that fit as plans under #2 than the others, by > >far. while this may encourage the generic CP strategy, it also allows for > >aff to find plan actions which uniquley counter such moves to the generic. > > > >3)this last comment is actually an independent warrant for #2. a cursory > >scanning of the libraries and online resources at my disposal leads me to > >conclude that #2 comes closest to broadly representing the literature. > >what i mean is that when doing searches for literature in the field of > >"american INdian Policy", most of the stuff i find can fit into a debate > >under #2. this is less true of #3 (although i'll concede that the > >historical theme of the power between USFG and tribes is strong, most of > >the lit i find on this question is a biographical/historical take on how > >USFG policy has worked in the past at particular times rather than a > >vibrant debate over contemporay policy direction), and radically less > >valid for #1. > > > >so my points on #2 can be summed up as > > > >*if you want a topic that has the most lit concerning potential plan > >actions that are advocated in depth, #2 is for you; > > > >*if you are the type to fret about predictable neg ground, then the nooks > >and crannies of #2 should ease your fears - T, PICs, and the old PMN of > >'money ain't enough'(depending on what they run) > > > >plenty of aff and neg ground. > > > > > >well, that's a start. > > > >hester > > > >On Sun, 8 Jul 2001 DaveAnt420 at aol.com wrote: > > > > > If we split on rez two and three, rez one will probably win. We really > >ought > > > to attempt to achieve a consensus on the choice between two and three to > > > prevent that from taking place. I was originally leaning toward rez # > >two, > > > but think the defenses, over the past ten days, for rez # three have > >been > > > more impressive. > > > > > > Thoughts? Anyone want to crystallize the reasons why rez #2 is better > > > compared to # 3? Slusher? Ede? > > > > > > Bear > > > > > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com > > From Rnasred Mon Jul 9 11:26:21 2001 From: Rnasred (Rnasred at aol.com) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 12:26:21 EDT Subject: Looking for Rashad Message-ID: <12b.124a88f.287b352d@aol.com> hey, does anyone know how I can get ahold of Rashad Evans? thanks rania nasreddine From tgonos Mon Jul 9 11:14:57 2001 From: tgonos (Tracy Gonos) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 12:14:57 -0400 Subject: The Fourth of July and Blacks (resp Aaron Lyttle) References: Message-ID: Responses below. ----- Original Message ----- From: Gary Leff To: Tracy Gonos Cc: Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 11:09 AM Subject: RE: The Fourth of July and Blacks (resp Aaron Lyttle) > I hadn't known of the Limbaugh connection with the piece. Limbaugh isn't the only ultraconservative associated with the piece in question. In fact, it seems to ONLY be ultra conservatives that continue to propogate the story. While there are many conservatives whose academic integrity I would not question, Limbaugh and sources such as "the New American" don't fit into that category. It is informative to me that other conservative historical organizations refute the validity of the information in question, including the Connecticut Society of the Sons of the American Revolution, whose website can be found linked to the website address I provide below. > I was well aware of the controversy -- and as the link points out, it was an > issue of plagiarism (failing to note the source of the idea and structure of > the column) rather than factual accuracy. You are correct of course. The Boston Globe suspension was due to failure to note his source. Although some say it was because they didn't like his conservatism and so was politically motivated. According to some journalists, he was their only conservative columnist at the time he was suspended and he did make efforts to verify some of the information.) > I'd be very interested in cites that argue against the claims. (I actually > don't know that it's "generally considered to be mostly inaccurate" - in > fact I thought most of the coverage of the column actually said he went to > great lengths to verify the claims, and I never saw any that said he didn't > do so accurately.) Jacoby did, apparently, ATTEMPT to verify the information contained in the article in question. Unfortunately for him, however, whatever sources he consulted for verification misled him. Check out http://home.nycap.rr.com/elbrecht/signers/signerindexhtml for a VERY thorough (even more thorough now than the first time I visited it) discussion of the many inaccuracies in the piece, which I believe was entitled "The Price they Paid". The author of this website painstakingly details how the secondary source materials that are cited in support of the claims made in the piece, actually fail to provide any citation to primary source materials that would support the claims. Additionally, if you're willing to keep reading, the website will point you toward primary and secondary source materials that do refute the claims made in the piece. It deals specifically with the claim that many signers "died penniless". As a side issue, this whole website is an interesting account of how myth can be perpetuated as authentic "history" even when people such a Jacoby attempt to verify the claims that are made - Jacoby found support in a couple of secondary source materials for the claims made in the piece. Understandably, it probably never really occurred to him to check out whether those materials provided accurate (or any) citations to primary sources for the claims that they made. I include excerpts below, but the website is much much much more thorough. > Doyle? Sorry, it wasn't Doyle. It was ex-debater extrodinaire Kieran Ringgenberg who originally provided me with the link and re-provided it a few minutes ago. In case anyone is interested, I have pasted in one version of the piece in question, as well as what I consider to be one of the best responses thereto... THE PRICE THEY PAID Have you ever wondered what happened to those men who signed the Declaration of Independence? Five signers were captured by the British as traitors, and tortured before they died. Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned. Two lost their sons in the Revolutionary Army, another had two sons captured. Nine of the 56 fought and died from wounds or the hardships of the Revolutionary War. What kind of men were they? Twenty-four were lawyers and jurists. Eleven were merchants, nine were farmers and large plantation owners, men of means, well educated. But they signed the Declaration of Independence knowing full well that the penalty would be death if they were captured. They signed and they pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor. Carter Braxton of Virginia, a wealthy planter and trader, saw his ships swept from the seas by the British navy. He sold his home and properties to pay his debts, and died in rags. Thomas McKeam was so hounded by the British that he was forced to move his family almost constantly. He served in the Congress without pay, and his family was kept in hiding. His possessions were taken from him, and poverty was his reward. Vandals or soldiers or both, looted the properties of Ellery, Clymer, Hall, Walton, Gwinnett, Heyward, Ruttledge, and Middleton. At the Battle of Yorktown, Thomas Nelson Jr., noted that the British General Cornwallis, had taken over the Nelson home for his headquarters. The owner quietly urged General George Washington to open fire, which was done. The home was destroyed, and Nelson died bankrupt. Francis Lewis had his home and properties destroyed. The enemy jailed his wife, and she died within a few months. John Hart was driven from his wife's bedside as she was dying. Their 13 children fled for their lives. His fields and his grist mill were laid waste. For more than a year he lived in forests and caves, returning home after the war to find his wife dead, his children vanished. A few weeks later he died from exhaustion and a broken heart. Norris and Livingston suffered similar fates. Such were the stories and sacrifices of the American Revolution. These were not wild-eyed, rabble-rousing ruffians. There were soft-spoken men of means and education. They had security, but they valued liberty more. Standing tall, straight, and unwavering, they pledged: "For the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of the Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other, our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor." They gave us an independent America. Can we keep it? ONE RESPONSE by Prof. Brooke Harlow (quals at end of response): On at least one website, Gary Hildreth, of Erie PA, is listed as the author of "The Price they Paid". Here is what I have been able to find based on a few hours in my university's limited library and the book, "The Signers of the Declaration of Independence", by Robert G. Ferris and Richard E. Morris of the U.S. National Park Service (Arlington, VA: Interpretive Publications, Inc., 1982). NO SIGNER WAS KILLED OUTRIGHT BY THE BRITISH. Lets examine some of the statements more closely. "Five signers were captured by the British as traitors and tortured before they died." This passage, to me at least, implies that the signer were captured under charges of treason and died under torture. Five signers were indeed captured by the British, but not necessarily as traitors. Richard Stockton (NJ) was the only one who was probably captured and imprisoned just for having signed the Declaration of Independence. Ferris and Morris also note that he was not well treated in captivity and was in ill health when released. He never completely recovered. He did not die in prison, however. George Walton (GA) commanded militia at the Battle of Savannah in December, 1778. He was wounded and captured at that time. Thus he would have been considered a prisoner of war, not a traitor. He was released within a year, which implies that his signature on the Declaration was not as important a factor in his captivity as his active military role in defending Savannah (prisoners of war were exchanged on a regular basis, a traitor would have been hanged). Walton lived to serve as Governor of Georgia and U.S. Senator, dying in 1804. Thomas Heyward, Jr., Arthur Middleton, and Edward Rutledge (SC) were all captured at the Siege of Charleston in 1780. They were held at St. Augustine (then under British control) until September 1781 with other Continentals. Two months after his release, Arthur Middleton returned to Philadelphia to resume his seat in the Continental Congress. Despite the destruction of his estate, he was able to rebuild it and live there until his death in 1787. Edward Rutledge sat in the State Legislature from 1782 to 1798. He was elected Governor of South Carolina but died before completing his term...in 1800. Ferris and Morris report that he died a very wealthy man. Thomas Heyward, Jr. served as a circuit court judge from 1782 to 1787. He served as a state legislator at the same time. Heyward lived well into the 19th century, dying in 1809. I checked about 8 general histories of the American War for Independence and one or two specialized works on the southern campaigns. None of them even mentioned that signers had been captured at Charleston or Savannah, let alone mention that any were singled out for harsh treatment. This seems to indicate that their capture was part of the "normal" course of war, not a special effort. After the British took Charleston, Gen. Sir Henry Clinton had men of military age left in the city rounded up. Most were released soon after, including most of the militia troops. He had originally allowed the officers to keep their swords, but changed his mind when they began to shout rebel slogans. Only the Continental troops were held for any length of time (Middlekauff, The Glorious Revolution) I found only one reference to the treatment of prisoners from the southern campaigns, in Lynn Montross, "Rag, Tag, and Bobtail". This work states that the continental troops from the siege of Charleston were held on prison ships. Conditions were poor and about a third of the prisoners died. If one takes the word "torture" to mean pain and suffering, then I suppose these men were tortured. To my mind, however, torture implies an intentional infliction on pain, usually either to extract information or to punish. I have found no evidence of the latter. Here is an interesting passage from Larry G. Bowman, North Texas St. Univ., on Prisoners of war: "Prisoners of war did suffer during the American Revolution. No other conclusion can be reached regarding the welfare of captives on both sides. Men were beaten, deprived of food by corrupt officials, denied bedding and clothing, and harassed in other ways but, fortunately, such incidents of outright cruelty were not routine events. Actually, most of the suffering of the men came from the more subtle torment usually brought on by neglect on the part of their captors. Neither the American nor the British authorities sought to induce suffering among the men in their prisons, yet men did want for basic services. The shortcomings on both sides of the conflict in providing for the captives was evident, but the motivations behind the failures were not evil or vindictive in their origination. Neither party entered a program of deliberately tormenting prisoners." Encyclopedia of the American Revolution, v. II, p. 1334 (New York: Garland Publishing, 1993). So, when Hildreth writes, "But they signed the Declaration of Independence, knowing full well that the penalty would be death if they were captured." The British undoubtedly put a price on the heads of rebel political officials (not just signers) and the signers no doubt feared that the British would make good on the threat. The reality is, however, that none were executed for their treason. Let's look at another assertion....Nine of the fifty-six fought and died from wounds or the hardship of the Revolutionary War. On my list two were wounded in action, but NONE DIED OF WOUNDS. My count shows 17--not 9--men who held commissions (or did medical duty) during the war. With the possible exception of Thomas Lynch, Jr. and Gwinnett, I would not say that any death here was attributable to the war with the British. Gwinnett's death, though, is hardly glorious: 1. Josiah Bartlett (NH) as surgeon with Gen. John Stark's troops at Bennington. Bartlett declined national offices (citing fatigue or ill health) but remained active in state affairs and died in 1794. 2. Button Gwinnett (GA) in a failed campaign to take St. Augustine. Killed in a duel precipitated partly by an argument over military strategy in 1777. 2a. George Clymer served with the Pennsylvania militia. Died in 1813. 3. Thomas Heyward, Jr. (SC). Wounded in 1779 near Port Royal Island, SC. Recovered and served in the siege of Charleston. Died 1809. 4. Thomas Lynch, Jr. (SC) Military career cut short by illness in 1775. He then was elected to the Continental Congress. In an attempt to restore his health, he left for the West Indies, but was shipwrecked and killed in 1779. 5. Arthur Middleton (SC) Captured at the siege of Charleston. See above. 6. Lewis Morris (NY) Brigadier General of Westchester Co. troops during the NY invasion. After the war, he served in state government and was active in public affairs. Died 1798. 7. Thomas Nelson, Jr. (VA) commanded the Virginia militia. Served in several campaigns in Virginia, including Yorktown. Nelson's retirement from public life was financially motivated. He died in 1789. 8. William Paca (MD) Served in the Maryland militia. After the war, he was active in MD. affairs and served as a Federal district judge after the Constitution was ratified. Died in 1799. 9. Caesar Rodney (DE). Brigadier General of militia. Active in campaigns against Loyalists in Delaware. Despite having advanced skin cancer, Rodney served as president of Delaware, and speaker of the state senate until his death in 1783. 10. Benjamin Rush (PA). Appointed surgeon general of the Middle Department of the Continental Army. Resigned after 8 months in a dispute over charges he made that the medical corps was not run properly. Extremely active in public affairs, both medical and governmental, Rush died in 1813. 11. Edward Rutledge (SC) Served at the battle of Port Royal Island (1779). Captured at the siege of Charleston. See above. 12. James Smith (PA) Brigadier General of militia. Practiced law until he retired at age 82 in 1801. He died in 1806. 13. George Walton (GA) Colonel of militia. Wounded at the Battle of Savannah, 1778. Died in 1804. 14. William Whipple (NH). Brigadier General of militia. Saw quite a bit of active service, including the Saratoga and Newport campaigns. Died, aged 55, in 1785. 15. William Williams (CT). Colonel of militia to 1776. Mostly active in state affairs, he died in 1811. 16. Oliver Wolcott (CT). Rose to Major General of militia. Wolcott served in the Saratoga campaign and the defense of Ct. against loyalist raids from NY. Lived to attend the Constitutional Convention and to serve as Governor of Ct. Died 1797. Some, like John Hart or Thomas Nelson, died of fatigue or exhaustion brought on by travel and active service. In that sense, the war may indeed have shortened their lives. Then again, how can we know in an age where illness was so commonplace. By the way, would we accept "fatigue" as a cause of death today? Or would we find some more precise explanation. In any case, I don't know if I would list this cause of death in the same sentence as a reference to battle service. Now....Let's look at some of the personal stories told....Carter Braxton of Virginia, wealthy planter and trader, saw his ships swept from the sea by the British navy. He sold his home and properties to pay his debts, and died in rags. Ferris and Morris tell a similar story, but watch the twist: "The War for Independence brought financial hardships to Braxton. At its beginning, he had invested heavily in shipping, but the British captured most of his vessels and ravaged some of his plantations and extensive landholdings. COMMERCIAL SETBACKS IN LATER YEARS RUINED HIM." (p. 42). If Braxton sold his home, he did not sell all of them. This entry also notes that Braxton was able to retain his family seat at Chericoke, and died in his Richmond townhouse. No doubt Braxton's fortunes were changed by the war, but can we say, truthfully, that his death in poverty was entirely due to the sacrifices of war??? Thomas McKeam was so hounded by the British that he was forced to move his family almost constantly. He served in Congress without pay, and his family was kept in hiding. His possessions were taken from him, and poverty was his reward. So far, this is correct. But Ferris and Morris state that McKean was able to rebuild his fortune" "McKean lived out his live quietly in Philadelphia. He died in 1817 at the age of 83, survived by his second wife and four of the 11 children from his marriages. He was buried in Laurel Hill Cemetery. HIS SUBSTANTIAL ESTATE CONSISTED OF STOCKS, BONDS, AND HUGE LAND TRACTS IN PENNSYLVANIA (p. 102). British soldiers looted the properties of Ellery, Clymer, Hall, Walton, Gwinnett, Heyward, Ruttledge and Middleton. Also William Floyd (NY), John Hart (NC), William Hooper (NC), Philip Livingston (NY), Lewis Morris (NY). Oddly, enough, however, the British had the opportunity to loot the homes of several very prominent signers and did not do so. Although the British evacuated Boston before the signing, why didn't the British vandalize the homes of well-known rebels such as Sam Adams and John Hancock during their occupation of Boston? The British occupied Philadelphia through the winter of 1777, yet the homes of Benjamin Franklin (who surely must have been public enemy #1), James Wilson, Benjamin Rush, Robert Morris. James Wilson's home was attacked by Americans, including militiamen, during food shortages in 1779 (does it count if the suffering was caused by your own side?). Thomas Jefferson was almost captured at Monticello. Why didn't the British burn the estate? At the battle of Yorktown, Thomas Nelson, Jr. noted that the British General Cornwallis had taken over the Nelson home for his headquarters. The owner quietly urged General George Washington to open fire, which was done. The home was destroyed, and Nelson died bankrupt. Ferris and Morris also repeat this story, although they qualify it as "family legend". Nelson was unable to rebuild his fortunes after the war and did indeed die in poverty. Francis Lewis had his home and properties destroyed. The British jailed his wife, and soon after she died. This is true. Although Lewis lived until 1802 (and was 89 when he died), he essentially retired from public life after his wife's death. John Hart was driven from his wife's bedside as she was dying. Their 13 children fled for their lives. His fields and his grist mill were laid waste. For more than a year he lived in forests and caves, returning home after the war to find his wife dead, his children vanished. A few weeks later he died from exhaustion and a broken heart. The story is essentially true, but Hart survived two years after his return from exile, not a few weeks. Morris and Livingston suffered similar fates Philip Livingston, a member of the extremely influential NY Livingston family, had several properties in New York and Brooklyn that were occupied by the British. He sold other properties to support the war effort before fleeing the British occupation of NY. He died, at the age of 62, in 1778. There were two signers of the Declaration surnamed Morris. LEWIS Morris of New York, had to flee his home, Morrisania, which was damaged in the British occupation. Ferris and Morris note that he was able to rebuild Morrisania. ROBERT Morris, of Pennsylvania may be even more intriguing. Generally recognized for his fundraising efforts during the war, he was later accused (though vindicated) by Thomas Paine of profiteering. As Superintendent of Finance (1781-1784) he was responsible for keeping the young country afloat financially. In 1789, he declined to serve as Secretary of the Treasury (Alexander Hamilton got the job), but served instead as a Senator from PA. Morris' own financial dealings were not as successful. He speculated on western lands on credit, lived extremely well, and embarked on an ambitious home building project. All of this led to personal bankruptcy and time in debtor's prison in 1798. His wife was granted a pension that sustained the family. Robert Morris died in 1806. So there you have it. A grain of truth in everything, but some broad wording that makes for a good story but an inaccurate portrayal of our founders. Brooke E. Brooke Harlowe Asst. Prof. and Coordinator, Intl Studies major/minor Dept. of Political Science Susquehanna University ----- All of this and more can be found at the website address above or by clicking one of the many links provided on the website. tracy From tgonos Mon Jul 9 11:19:47 2001 From: tgonos (Tracy Gonos) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 12:19:47 -0400 Subject: Rez Two or Three? References: Message-ID: > On Sun, 8 Jul 2001, Veronica Barreto wrote: > > > > > OK there's something I just don't get...perhaps the advocates of the second > > resolution should take a meeting. Some are real gung-ho about the > > affirmative being strapped to increasing the funding for crappy SQ programs > > (Ede and Slusher), others are standing behind Mueller and Tracy's post > > saying that the phrase (that some point to as the resolution's saving grace) > > does nothing to limit the topic, and still others say both is true. I'm not > > sure that you can have it both ways. Aaah, in debate you can always have it both ways. Having said that, one interpretation is supported by repeated contextual usage in the legal literature and another is supported only by the "intent" of a couple of the framers. I know which side of the debate I'd prefer to be on... From kjsn Mon Jul 9 12:16:30 2001 From: kjsn (Ken Johnson) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 13:16:30 -0400 Subject: Means, Churchill, COINTELPRO, and A.I.M In-Reply-To: <3B49CD80.DD2A7E96@mail.utexas.edu> Message-ID: I've been moving through some articles by Ward Churchill and noticed he is often qualified as the co-director of the denver AIM chapter. Looking to find more Churchill lit., I went to the rockymountian indy media page (http://rockymountian.indymedia.org) and searched for Churchill. Along with some interviews came up multiple threads about Churchill's rough history with AIM, accusations that he's a cop, that he supported the contras, that denver AIM has nothing to do with the national AIM, etc. Interested, I moved over to the AIM page (http://aimovement.org) and began looking though some recently relased FBI documents which seem to detail squables between Chruchill and AIM. There are also documents seeming to talk a bit o' smack about Russel Means. Most of this seems to be coming from Bellecourt who I belive is some type of authority in AIM. Does anybody have the scoop on these relationships? How would Churchill's relationship with AIM effect his credibility as an indigenous writer and activist? Curious, Ken Johnson Assistant to my boss U of Rochester From marc_debate Mon Jul 9 12:34:55 2001 From: marc_debate (Marc Wilson) Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 17:34:55 -0000 Subject: UT van accident Message-ID: Greetings All, It has been a long time since I checked out the listserv, but many folks I know have been sending me the messages recently posted by Jack Stroube, Kevin Kuswa, and Joel Rollins. Not suprisingly, I felt I needed to offer my thoughts. Frankly, I don't understand what the hell Stroube is trying to do. Talk about reopening wounds, this is ridiculous... Jack, I know full well what Kevin is like behind the wheel and in a position of "authority". He nearly killed the Dartmouth Debate team on numerous occassions. To this day I do not understand why he is even allowed to get near the UT debate team much less coach them. Perhaps the biggest tragedy since October 10, 1995 is that neither UT nor Joel Rollins has had the courage to do the right thing and get rid of Kevin. He has absolutely no business being in a position of authority/responsibility. That being said, what is the relevance to you even if your accusations about that day are true? I would not be shocked one bit if Kevin ran off after the accident to hide his pot, etc. What difference does it make? UT cannot be sued anymore for anything. Did you know that Megan's medical bills were not even covered by the school? Did you know that the State of Texas' "Sovereign Immunity" laws prevent any settlement greater than $500,000 PER INCIDENT (not person)? Perhaps the only result would be what should have happened in the first place, the firing of Kevin. I have no sympathy for Kevin's "difficulty" in writing a letter to my parents. For over two weeks my family was told by him and the police and the lawyers that he was the driver. To think of him as a molder of young minds is very very very scary. Virtually everything you have brought up has been known the parties that NEED TO KNOW IT. If the University of Texas administration continues to ignore reality, thats their business not yours (this is after all is a school that refused to refund my brother's tutition and still calls my parents monthly for donations to the alumni fund). In short, I don't like you or anyone else drudging up the details of my brother's death for the world to hear simply to satisfy your lust for open discourse. There is a limit and you have reached it. Marc Wilson _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From dbteam Mon Jul 9 13:55:46 2001 From: dbteam (UWG Debate Team) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 14:55:46 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Means, Churchill, COINTELPRO, and A.I.M In-Reply-To: Message-ID: my dissertation adviser has known the folks you mentioned for years. she told me of this story, in this context: yes, ward has been accused of being a 'secret agent'. these allegations come from people who were his allies at one time and who are now his adversaries. this conflict has as much to do with personal animus as it does with policy diferences. the cahrge leveled against him - that he's working for FBI cointelpro - is akin to potsmokers calling someone a 'narc.' it is the ultimate insult/attack on credibility. my adviser is friends with bellecourt and means, and made it clear she would not be visiting ward when he teaches this fall at gsu. but she also made it clear that she understands the accusations made against him in the context of the disagreement between the parties. she did not mention that anyone had any actual evidence of ward's affiliation. he did lots of research on FBI/cointelpro for his book about FBI war against black panthers and native activists. so it could be argued that a)he isn't an fbi agent. he clearly has opposed their work and his overall position has been both virulently anti-FBI as well as consistent for years with regards to indigenism OR b)his earlier work near FBi brought him into contact with govt folk who lured him to their side. this is the conundrum one faces when defending against such 'conspiracy' attacks. they are nearly impossible to answer. personally, i don't see the evidence. his stance has remained unchanged. and given that Red Power is on its death bed compared to the 1970's, it's unclear why the FBI would even need a secret agent to spy on native activists these days... hester On Mon, 9 Jul 2001, Ken Johnson wrote: > I've been moving through some articles by Ward Churchill and noticed he is > often qualified as the co-director of the denver AIM chapter. Looking to > find more Churchill lit., I went to the rockymountian indy media page > (http://rockymountian.indymedia.org) and searched for Churchill. Along > with some interviews came up multiple threads about Churchill's rough > history with AIM, accusations that he's a cop, that he supported the > contras, that denver AIM has nothing to do with the national AIM, etc. > > Interested, I moved over to the AIM page (http://aimovement.org) and began > looking though some recently relased FBI documents which seem to detail > squables between Chruchill and AIM. There are also documents seeming to > talk a bit o' smack about Russel Means. Most of this seems to be coming > from Bellecourt who I belive is some type of authority in AIM. > > Does anybody have the scoop on these relationships? How would Churchill's > relationship with AIM effect his credibility as an indigenous writer and > activist? > > Curious, > > Ken Johnson > Assistant to my boss > U of Rochester > > From Cleverprof Mon Jul 9 14:05:41 2001 From: Cleverprof (Cleverprof at aol.com) Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 15:05:41 EDT Subject: UT van accident Message-ID: <119.15f75e7.287b5a85@aol.com> I have been reading this thread with a modicum of interest, albeit dispassionately. I am left wondering one thing: Why did the driver of the van, I believe Kevin K., lie and continue to lie about who was behind the wheel? What lesson do our students learn when a person in a position of power tells and continues to tell a bald faced lie to police, administrators, family, students etc.? Finally, is there a reason why Kevin was not terminated based on what I think is absolutely egregious behavior? In my view, this is the type of situation that demands public discussion, even though it obviously reopens old wounds. M. J. Jones SFSU From dbteam Mon Jul 9 14:35:02 2001 From: dbteam (UWG Debate Team) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 15:35:02 -0400 (EDT) Subject: UT van accident In-Reply-To: <119.15f75e7.287b5a85@aol.com> Message-ID: i'll only address the last point about the need for discussion. at westga, we had a van accident with the cheerleaders. similar in loss of lives and injuries, as well as the way it happened. in both cases, there was considerable public talk. the debate community definitely took the issue of safety and discussed it amongst ourselves and with administration for awhile. many schools changed or established policies regarding driver safety. i'm not convinced that raking over these coals again on edebate is useful. for those sympathetic to stroube, he has given contact info for who you should be talking to. for those sypathetic to joel, kevin, michelle, etc., keep on keeping on. for those just thinking of the lost lives and injured persons, send a note or give a call to someone you love or care about. for all of who drive vans with lives on the line, may we always remember just how important that job is ... hester On Mon, 9 Jul 2001 Cleverprof at aol.com wrote: > I have been reading this thread with a modicum of interest, albeit dispassionately. > > I am left wondering one thing: Why did the driver of the van, I believe Kevin K., lie and continue to lie about who was behind the wheel? What lesson do our students learn when a person in a position of power tells and continues to tell a bald faced l ie to police, administrators, family, students etc.? > > Finally, is there a reason why Kevin was not terminated based on what I think is absolutely egregious behavior? > > In my view, this is the type of situation that demands public discussion, even though it obviously reopens old wounds. > > M. J. Jones > SFSU > > From montestevens02138 Mon Jul 9 14:42:43 2001 From: montestevens02138 (monte stevens) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 12:42:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: UT van accident In-Reply-To: <119.15f75e7.287b5a85@aol.com> Message-ID: <20010709194243.63260.qmail@web9403.mail.yahoo.com> someone wrote: > In my view, this is the type of situation that > demands public discussion, even though it obviously > reopens old wounds. > how wrong you are! why re-hash a 7 year old incident and make everyone re-live that horrible experience? no good can come from it, and quite frankly, it is none of our damn business. if you are in need of some drama in your life, i suggest a soap opera. ms > M. J. Jones > SFSU > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ From ifjxh Mon Jul 9 20:32:58 2001 From: ifjxh (Joshua Hoe) Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 20:32:58 Subject: UT van accident Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010709/cbc39a7e/attachment.html From diecapitalsm Mon Jul 9 16:21:22 2001 From: diecapitalsm (Aaron J. Lyttle) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 14:21:22 -0700 (PDT) Subject: The Fourth of July and Blacks (last word) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20010709212122.79608.qmail@web13308.mail.yahoo.com> I'm not interested in a drawn-out argument over this. This is probably the last thing I'll ever say about this issue for some time. --- Gary Leff wrote: > I did ask for a _specific_ citation below because > you made one claim that I > believe to be incorrect (that the revolutionary army > was made up in large > part by conscripts). Actually, I'm quite certain > that it is incorrect. > However, I'm open to being corrected and was > interested to know specifically > where THAT claim came from. Here's the actual cite (didn't have it with me last time I wrote): Howard Zinn, _A People's History of the United States: 1492-Present_, Revised and Updated Edition, HarperPerennial, 1995. On page 75, he writes, "Four days after the reading [of the Declaration of Independence], the Boston Committee of Correspondence ordered the townsmen to show up on the Common for a military draft. The rich, it turned out, could avoid the draft by paying for subsitutes; the poor had to serve. This led to rioting, and shouting: 'Tyranny is Tyranny let it come from whom it may.'" > > I take from your email address > (diecapitalism at yahoo.com) that your > overriding motive is ideological rather than > inquisitive. That helps me > understand why you're striving so hard to see an > historical event through > your ideological lense, whether or not the facts fit > -- and it seems like in > this case they do not. Actually, I got this e-mail address years ago so I could play chess with my debate partner. Now it's just a conveniant place to get edebate mail. Sorry, georgewill at yahoo.com was taken. I'd actually believed in the noble intentions of the revolution for some time. I would almost cheer when X talked about its bloody sacrifice. My reading has shaken that view, more than any "ideology" (whatever that means). Even so, I seriously doubt that any person can objectively interpret historical circumstances. Subjective ideology and basic emotive intuition are lenses through which we make all decisions. > Define upper class, please. Delegates to the > COntinental Congress were > certainly landowning whites. Is that sufficient to > qualify as upper class? > How then would you compare them to the landed gentry > of Britain, and > especially those titled Brits. You never refute my > position that the elites > from Britain were the losers in the revolution. > I've never claimed the war > as a triumph of the proletariat overthrowing power > structures -- but it's > hard to claim the colonists revolted in order to > MAINTAIN power structures > as they were overthrowing those with even more power > than they. In the context of colonial society, the land-owning whites were in the upper levels of the socio-economic spectrum. They had the most to gain from independence. By severing themselves from the British elite, they were able to assert their own control. Old power structures were overthrown to maintain the new ones that the colonies had been developing. After the revolution, these are the people who could make political and economic decisions, not the majority of the populace. > > > The Articles of Confederation didn't provide for > much taxation. There > wasn't a system "put in place" which redistributed > income up. The "power" > given to the elites in early colonial America was > significantly limited. > There wasn't much in the way of government levers > for them to exercise! Independence lowered taxes, easing unrestricted profit from trade. After the war, America saw no attempt to decrease social stratification. What political tools were available were extremely restricted (indirect Senate election and the GOP's favorite: the electoral college). These had the remarkable effect of appearing to give power to normal people, while making sure that they couldn't impliment systemic change. > I've said in this forum that the constitution was > agreed to by landowning > whites, and that they had no authority to bind other > non-consenting > individuals to their arrangemnt -- and this means > women, minorities, > non-landowners, and EVEN FUTURE GENERATIONS of > landowning whites. Are you saying that poor breadbasket farmers had a choice about the constitution? > > However, this has nothing whatsoever to do with > bolstering your claim that > the Revolution was about putting down an ascendant > working class. There's > NO SUGGESTION even in your posts that but-for the > revolution there would be > greater power among those you refer to as > marginalized -- my point is that > at worst they're in the same position, and more > likely a better position > because of the overthrown more restrictive British > structures. Unhappiness before the revolution created unrest among many colonists about their situations. Prewar colonial officials had to put up with numerous uprisings, slave revolts, and riots. I'm not saying that there would have been some mass proletarian overthrow of oppression (hahaha), but I am saying that these events scared colonial leaders and provided a reason to focus such sentiments against a foreign foe. > THere's little evidence or even suggestion in your > posts about those > "conflicts at home." There's no suggestion in your > posts about individuals > (through their writings, speeches, etc.) that > suggests they were trying to > quell domestic discontent. These conflicts are all in history books. Colonial ideologues overtly called out to the "lower class" to stop opposing the rich ("Are not the gentlemen made of the same materials as the lowest and poorest among you? . . . Listen to no doctrines which may tend to divide us, but let us go hand in hand, as brother...." Hamilton argued that the newly independent nation must "repress domestic faction and insurrection." Numerous documents indicate a fear of "popular government." > > MOreover, under British rule the British military > would have put down that > dissent -- if you theory has any merit whatsoever, > you must explain why > colonists would risk their own lives to put down > dissent when it would have > been done FOR them -- and even beyond that, why > they would be trying to > KILL the very people who would have PROTECTED them > in your scenario. Your > explanation is, I believe, incoherent. Many were compelled by conscription. People who didn't pay for a substitute and didn't show up were thrown in jail. Others were united by a political rhetoric that claimed to represent "life, liberty, and the pursuit of property/happiness." I never said Britain protected the working people or slaves of America. The Revolution was a matter of focusing energy against one elite to take it off of another. > > Separately, many of the Northern revolutionaries > RECOGNIZED that slavery was > a DRAIN on the economy rather than a boost to it > (hence the South became > relatively unindustrialized compared to the North, > since most of their > resources were in labor rather than in capital). > Reference to the early > views that preceded the Civil War is made in Jeffrey > Rogers Hummel's book, > _EMANCIPATING SLAVES, ENSLAVING FREE MEN_. Sure, some opposed slavery, but southern support was needed to win the war. Thus, personal gain in trade took precedence over life and liberty for Afro-Americans. This just indicates that the colonial war wasn't a real defense of human rights. > Jeff Jacoby wrote a pretty famous piece in the > Boston Globe where he > actually documented the legends that go around about > how most of the > revolutionaries lost their wealth and died > penniless. This refers to the people who signed the Declaration. The majority of white land owners made off pretty well. > > How did the war make private wealth safe? 1. It allowed the nation to trade on its own terms, without British intervention. 2. It quelled social unrest. 3. It allowed colonial leaders to be independent from British political decisions. Regardless of any inflationary mistakes, the colonial war was tied up with intentions of wealth acquisition and economic stability. In the long run, it worked pretty well. The populace was successfully united around feel-good images of gobs of cash and political freedom. America could be an independent actor (whether isolationist or imperialist) and a stabile economic and political environment. -Aaron "You gotta' run run run run run, Take a drag or two." -Velvet Underground __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ From k.kuswa Mon Jul 9 17:24:39 2001 From: k.kuswa (kevin kuswa) Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 17:24:39 -0500 Subject: ut accident Message-ID: <4.1.20010709171552.0092ff00@mail.utexas.edu> I have back channeled marc wilson. I definitely understand his sentiments and do not disagree with where he's coming from or his anger with UT. I do, however, always consider safety first when driving--especially since 1995. I now consider this thread closed on this forum and will no longer respond over edebate. love over vengeance, kevin kuswa From korry Mon Jul 9 18:04:09 2001 From: korry (Korry Harvey) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 17:04:09 -0600 Subject: will the real Dave Arnett please stand up? Message-ID: <000b01c108cb$763bd320$0902a8c0@thinslim.ln> Perhaps unlike many of you, I actually know who DaveAnt420 is, and Mark Bryant is a journeyman power forward in the NBA, currently with the Dallas Mavericks. My question is, who's this "Mike" Bryant fellow? Never heard of him before... ;-) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010709/4d67f014/attachment.htm From bauscsa4 Mon Jul 9 19:53:07 2001 From: bauscsa4 (Stefan Bauschard) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 20:53:07 -0400 (EDT) Subject: WMD Web Search of the Day In-Reply-To: <4.1.20010709171552.0092ff00@mail.utexas.edu> Message-ID: Type Defensive Last Resort into Google. The first return in the list is worth your time :) From elisiaco Mon Jul 9 20:29:23 2001 From: elisiaco (elisiaco) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 18:29:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Info. For Ph.D. Students In-Reply-To: <200107100030.f6A0UpP29809@host10.4ua.com> Message-ID: Hi, I just came back from an NCA doctoral honors seminar in Austin, TX at UT and thought that the program could use some PR in the debate community. I think the debate community has graduate students that do some exciting research that people don't know about. The NCA doctoral seminar is designed to let you meet other grad. students who are doing similar work. The seminar is hosted by a different school every year (last year Northwestern ran the show) and is designed to put graduate students in touch with other graduate students working in rhetoric, org. comm, interpersonal, and mass/mediated communication. A funny thing happened at the conference--- there were a lot of people at the conference who had at some time or another been involved in forensics. For example, David Schultz, who I met sometime when he was a coach at UNLV, was also there in rhetoric. I was reminded that last year at NCA a lot of PhD students who were debate assistants were discussing ways in which we could use existing debate networks to advance our scholarship. So, I thought that I would let everyone know what a great program this is so that you can have something to submit. The call for papers comes out in December or January's spectra. The application deadline this year was around March 1 (right before the NDT and CEDA nats...) 9 graduate students are selected in each area. You will need a recommendation letter, an original paper or dissertation prospectus, and a vitae. Three top scholars in each area then work with students over 3 days of the conference (usually in July) on their work geering towards 1) publication or 2) dissertation. Throughout the seminar there is also many many opportunities to meet people studying other areas and listen to panels of speakers with advice about advancing in academe. I was in a seminar with Dana Cloud, Kathryn Olsen and Steven O'Leary for rhetoric. It was wonderful. But, it was also great to be around people excited about work in political and health communication (my areas of interest) that crossed the "tracks" of study outlined in the conference. The program is in the summer (this year it was July 5-7th) overlapping many debate camps, but its a wonderful 3 day opportunity for you to try to take advantage of in future years. And, here's the best part for graduate students: travel and expenses are covered if you are accepted. Contact me if you want any more information. Elisia Cohen University of Southern California From aogletree Mon Jul 9 21:01:15 2001 From: aogletree (Aaron Ogletree) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 02:01:15 -0000 Subject: To Fourth of July and Blacks Criticism Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010710/147ce139/attachment.html From jbrey Tue Jul 10 03:12:01 2001 From: jbrey (James Brey) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 04:12:01 -0400 Subject: Varda Message-ID: <004901c10918$005acba0$8455ba80@fsu.edu> Call me. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010710/6a37ae63/attachment.htm From Jeffrey.Jarman Tue Jul 10 12:21:41 2001 From: Jeffrey.Jarman (Jeffrey Jarman) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 12:21:41 -0500 Subject: Ballot confirmation Message-ID: <002001c10964$c8f89b40$ab291e41@KSCABLE.com> Hi everyone: i'll be out of the office for the rest of the week. i'll send confirmations for ballots on monday once i'm back. Jeff -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010710/59538d88/attachment.html From coopdb8 Tue Jul 10 15:43:52 2001 From: coopdb8 (christopher cooper) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 16:43:52 -0400 Subject: Rez Two or Three? Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010710/c4f8c161/attachment.htm From jbruschke Tue Jul 10 16:12:41 2001 From: jbruschke (Bruschke, Jon) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 14:12:41 -0700 Subject: ADI deadline this Sunday... Message-ID: <878426F37FAED311890C009027CC8885074978CA@exch3.Fullerton.EDU> July 15 is the deadline to get the advance rate for the ADI; after the 15th the cost goes up from $629 to $679. Last year's evidence set cost $206, so the total cost of the institute should be less than $900, a very competitive summer institute cost. Think of it this way: ADI tuition.....$629 ADI evidence.....$206 2 weeks of McDonald's food....$143.25 Tape, scissors, and paper....$29.32 Watching Dave Hingstman cover Brittney Spears cover at the closing banquet....priceless. We're especially excited about the evidence this year; we have 12 first-round caliber research fellows who should add to the very large student research efforts to produce tons of quality stuff, both substantive and critical. As with last year, all proceeds will benefit the Southern California Urban Debate League. Registration and additional information is available on-line at: http://commfaculty.fullerton.edu/jbruschke/ADI.htm Hope to see you in Arizona! Jon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010710/acf82864/attachment.html From Enslen423 Tue Jul 10 16:27:13 2001 From: Enslen423 (Enslen423 at cs.com) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 17:27:13 EDT Subject: Anyone going to Alta Message-ID: <12e.1363d8b.287ccd31@cs.com> I am looking for someone who might need a roommate to cut expenses at the Alta conference in Utah. Preferably female. please let me know as soon as possible if you are interested. Thanks, Enslen Lamberth Graduate Student University of Alabama -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010710/9b1f9cb4/attachment.htm From smithr Tue Jul 10 16:48:14 2001 From: smithr (Ross Smith) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 17:48:14 -0400 Subject: K of ad Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20010710174744.00a435a0@pop.wfu.edu> Critique of this ad: It makes an artificial distinction between "substantive and critical." It is demeaning to say critical arguments lack substance. Impact: must reject. Brushke. Floating PIC will let you attend ADI without saying his ad was what attracted you. Send me a cut of these people's tuition, Jon, I rescued them from the terrible dilemna of either having to reject ADI outright or having attended ADI for the wrong reasons. At 02:12 PM 07/10/2001 -0700, you wrote: July 15 is the deadline to get the advance rate for the ADI; after the 15th the cost goes up from $629 to $679. Last year's evidence set cost $206, so the total cost of the institute should be less than $900, a very competitive summer institute cost. Think of it this way: ADI tuition.....$629 ADI evidence.....$206 2 weeks of McDonald's food....$143.25 Tape, scissors, and paper....$29.32 Watching Dave Hingstman cover Brittney Spears cover at the closing banquet....priceless. We're especially excited about the evidence this year; we have 12 first-round caliber research fellows who should add to the very large student research efforts to produce tons of quality stuff, both substantive and critical. As with last year, all proceeds will benefit the Southern California Urban Debate League. Registration and additional information is available on-line at: http://commfaculty.fullerton.edu/jbruschke/ADI.htm Hope to see you in Arizona! Jon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010710/f9b8b525/attachment.html From db8coach Tue Jul 10 17:32:57 2001 From: db8coach (Bob Lechtreck) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 15:32:57 -0700 Subject: Rez Two or Three? Message-ID: <010301c10990$658d8a80$5a89ab40@Ramon> >>>>>>>>>> Above all else.....JUST VOTE. Remember how we got to this topic in the first place. >>>>>>>>>> While I agree that everyone should vote, it should also be reminded OVER AND OVER, that every vote counts...... even your 2nd and 3rd choices. If memory serves, we are debating Indians this year because of a large number of 2nd and 3rd place votes not because the majority of people selected it as their top choice. If you feel strongly about NOT debating a particular resolution, do not rank it at all. Peace, Bob Lechtreck Bakersfield College "Putting out fires, and damn good debaters." From korry Tue Jul 10 19:43:58 2001 From: korry (Korry Harvey) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 18:43:58 -0600 Subject: Means, Churchill, COINTELPRO, and A.I.M Message-ID: <000901c109a2$92278520$0902a8c0@thinslim.ln> Howdy folks. While I certainly do not "have the scoop", I was asked to add my two cents on this subject, so... here's a buck and a quarter (in other words, I apologize in advance for the length of this post)-- It seems the main concerns posted are Churchill's affiliation with AIM, and conversely, the FBI, and how that would affect his credibility as an indigenous scholar/author/activist. In addition to these posted concerns is the ever-lingering and concomitant issue of his "real" ethnicity. While I would not claim to "know" the man, I have spent a little bit of time with him on a few different occassions (he smokes too much ;-), and enjoyed the opportunity to discuss with him some of these issues. To borrow and continue the analogy from Hester's post, I can tell you in my honest opinion that if Ward is a deep cover fed agent, then I myself am a narc! But rather than relying on my own persceptions of the man, I thought it perhaps more instructive to hear it directly from the source. The following comes from an interview with Ward Churchill conducted by David Barsamian 1995: The American Indian Movement was formed in 1968 and did much to promote the notion of Indian rights, Indian sovereignty and essentially pride in one's Indianness. What's the state of AIM today? "Your assessment of what AIM managed to accomplish in the 1970s is entirely correct. Even people who are hostile to the American Indian Movement concede that that is true. That was 20 years ago. Presently we have a group, including some bona fide founders of the American Indian Movement, in Minneapolis, Minnesota who have turned it into a corporation and this national liberation movement has been converted into a federally and corporately funded job training program, housing program, and counseling program. Essentially it's an appendage of the liberal aspects of the federal government of the U.S. It takes not only its funding but its authority from there and from the laws of the state of Minnesota through its incorporation. It has expelled the remainder of the movement from itself. A very similar sort of cooptive maneuver on the part of the feds to play upon the weaknesses and vulnerabilities of people who grew up poor and cause them to act in tangible ways directly against their own in this case perceived self-interest. The people who are doing this were functioning members, for the most part, of a national liberation movement with a consciousness of what national liberation movement meant ten to twenty years ago. That's changed on the basis of cash flow." You were the Colorado co-director of AIM, or were you the national? "Colorado AIM is a constituent element of what's called the Confederation of Autonomous Chapters. We do not have a national office, a national council, a central committee, a corporate structure. We have individuals who are committed to the principles that have always informed the American Indian Movement. That aspect of AIM still exists, too, but it's being sadly impaired in its ability to function by the confusion generated by this other group purporting to speak on behalf of everyone and to do so on the basis of a subsidy provided by the Honeywell Corporation by their own account to the tune of $3.3 million per year and by the federal government in excess of $4 million. Frankly the rest of us can't compete with that. We never really wanted to compete with it in that sense, but in this case, as in many others, it's what Bob Dylan said, "Money doesn't talk. It swears." ------------------------------------------------------ In any discussion of indigenous peoples, Native Americans, the question must be asked, Who is an Indian? "An Indian is who an indigenous community says is an Indian. An Indian is an abstract concept anyway. It's something that was created by Europeans to define a population that they were encountering. It's not, as is commonly assumed, that the first European adventurers to wash up on the beach in the Caribbean thought that they had encountered the peoples of India. India wasn't even called India at the time, it was called Hindustan. But if you follow the Italian, and Christopher Columbus was an Italian, presumably, recording things in Italian, they felt that they had encountered the in Dios people who were with or next to God. That generic term has been applied to all the indigenous peoples of the Americas essentially ever since." And how do you define yourself? "I define myself as an indigenous person or a person of indigenous descent. I'm of mixed heritage both racially and culturally, as are most people at this point. There's been quite a degree of hybridization. Indigenous peoples are nations defining their membership as any other nation. The practice was always that between nations, between, say the Mohawks and the Abenakis, in cases of marriage or adoption or whatever, that there could be a naturalization of citizenry. Indians naturalized citizens between groups, and once there were non-Indians, racially speaking, coming into the hemisphere, they began to naturalize representatives of these non-Indian races as being members of their polity. Those people who were naturalized became citizen members of those nations. Were they Indians or were they not? Are we using a racial definition here to describe a national polity, or do we use a political definition? I would argue that unless we are going to in turn mimic the Nazis or the South Africans and try to define a constituency in purely racial terms, we would have to acknowledge that there is not a strict biological or racial definition of Indianness. It's generally assumed that there will be some lineal descent. We count in terms of lineage. We count in terms of kinship. Kinship is not biology. If an American Indian women marries you and she is of a matrilineal society, your children will be American Indians, although racially they will only be half so. They will be full members of that society. That's the traditional way." "I also am part German. Funny thing nobody jumps up and gets all offended because I say I'm part German because I'm not a German citizen, you know. I am who I am, I say who I am and if they don't like it -- fuck 'em. Nice scholarly approach to it. That's what Phillip Deer [a well-respected Creek spiritual leader] told me a long time ago. I talked to the old people, it's what they told me. That's who I listened to." -------------------------------------------------- Well, I hope this has been helpful in some fashion. I did also want to reply to certain aspects of this thread which have been previously posted. Let me first note that I realize most of these issues/concerns are just being relayed from the material that has been read and may or may not reflect the author's own opinion: Ken Johnson Writes: >Most of this seems to be coming > from Bellecourt who I belive is some type of authority in AIM. My concern here would be with the use of the word "authority". As noted in Churchill's remarks above, AIM, as traditionally understood and in the capacity of a liberation movement, had little, if any, structured hierarchal "authority". Thus, Bellecourt may be a person of influence in the new "corporatized" AIM, he does sit on their "Grand Governing Council", but this does not give him all-knowing status. If, rather than as an appeal to said authority, this term is used to reference someone with scholarly or intimate knowledge of the subject, then it is probably accurate. However, given that context, Ward should likewise be considered an "authority" on AIM. Ken Johnson Writes: >he supported the contras That is not altogether an accurate assessment of the situation. Back in the early 80s when the Reagan Admin. was (illegally) using the CIA to support the contras in Nicaragua, there was a split in Indian activist circles regarding where their loyalties should lie. Bellecourt, et al, favored allying themselves with the Sandanista regime as it represented a "progressive alternative" to the typical western/capitalist government. Churchill, Means, Morris and others claimed that their first priority should be with the Moskito Suma & Rama Indian nations that the Sandanista were warring with. Their claim (Churchill et al) was that the Sandanista regime was as much a colonizing settler state as the US Federal Gov't. So, it is not really that he supported the CIA and the contras, but rather that he opposed alignment with an imperialist regime that was actively engaged in the denial of indigenous rights, and the outright taking of Indian lands through military force for simple political expediency. Ken Johnson Writes: >he was a cop Again, I think this may be a misreading of the literature. For a couple of years (late 60s or early 70s) Ward was teaching at a small school in South Dakota as a sort of adjunct faculty. Part of his assignment was to teach something like "Art Appreciation" to the local police department (it may have even been the S.D. Highway Patrol) as part of the department's required continuing education and certification process in the humanities. You see, he has a background (and I believe a degree) in art as well as communications. Because the cops were showing little interest in his art history lessons, he started talking to them about the American Indian Movement. Interestingly enough, he says they didn't like that eaither (S.D. law enforcement has a particularly keen distaste for Indian politics), but at least now they paid some attention. Anyway, this doesn't really make him a cop. If this mention is more acurrately related to the charges that Churchill is an agent of the Feds, then I think that has already been adequately covered in Hester's post as lacking any evidence, and likely being more of an act of mudslinging than anything else. While Bellecourt has claimed Churchill is a gov't agent, in addition to Churchill returning the insult, saying that he had always felt Bellecourt was a Fed, Churchill would also consider Bellecourt a "hang-around-the-fort" Indian, or a sell-out, or, in one of his more tasteful terminologies, an "ass-licker". Never let it be said that Ward Churchill was one to shy away from controversy. Ken Johnson Writes: >How would Churchill's > relationship with AIM effect his credibility as an indigenous writer and activist? As it has been noted above and elsewhere, this conflict is more a difference of opinion than anything else. Call it factionalization, partisanship, playful sparring, whatever. From "radical" opposition movements to mainstream political parties, things happen to cause division. Sometimes these are internal disagreements on fundamental issues, sometimes they result from simple personality clashes, and sometimes they are calculated attempts from the outside to "neutralize" the opposition. This situation may be a result of one, all, or none of these causes. Either way, Churchill's arguments should be critically evaluated as that-- arguments, standing on their own merit, and not to be discarded due to ad hom attacks. If his arguments hold validity when he is under the guise of an indigenous activist, they would still hold validity if he turned out to really be a deep cover guy. He may lose personal credibility, and his arguments may be tainted (because they were "his" arguments), but I would think that the claims themselves, should still retain much of the same validity. On the flip side, if Ward is correct and the "new" AIM is simply a sell-out organization (or at least somewhat), it may serve to increase his credibility as an indigenous activist (at least for the types of arguments he commonly makes). And, finally, Hester writes: >given that Red Power is on its death bed compared to the 1970's, it's >unclear why the FBI would even need a secret agent to spy on native >activists these days... Agreed that "Red Power" per se is not what it was in the 70s, with Wounded Knee II, Alcatraz, the BIA occupation, Trail of Broken Treaties, etc. However, I do not believe that the relative absense of "front-page" stories means that indigenous activism is dead. On the contrary, I believe that the sentiments embodied in the original efforts of AIM have taken on new roots in Indian communities all across the country. A groundswell of native voices are challenging the business-as-usual nature of Federal policy vis-a-vis native peoples, native legal activists have found new ways to use the colonizer's court system against itself, a new degree of international scrutiny is being applied to the government's dealings with native nations, a revitalization of traditional ideals and culture is being increasingly witnessed on the village level, and even non-native people are at last beginning to hear and see the native story in a new light. It is not the militant style of the early 70s, but it is there, and it is growing. In the hearts and minds of native and non-native people alike, it is there. I believe the "real answer" on Churchill's "true" identity, politics, heart/mind, objectives, etc., remain largely unknown to all but Churchill himself. However, in his own words he states-- "I am indigenist." Based on my admittedly limited interactions with him, and his writings and deeds over the years, I, for one, am willing to take him at his word. This does not mean that I would personally endorse all he says or does, it simply means that I believe that he fully believes and endorses what he says and does. But don't take my word for it, read his works and decide for yourself whether his claims are valid. If absolutley nothing else, they are worth the read. Again, sorry for the length, but it seems this is an issue that will probably receive a fair amount of discussion in the following year. I would hate to see debates about important Native American issues get bogged down in unnecessary and unsubstantiated attacks on personal credibility. I realize the significance of not appropriating the native voice, but I don't think that is what is at issue here. I certainly could be wrong. I hope that I am not. Sat Nam, Korry "Good words do not last long unless they amount to something" Chief Joseph (Nez Perce) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010710/34098b32/attachment.htm From jackattack7 Wed Jul 11 00:45:04 2001 From: jackattack7 (jack stroube) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 00:45:04 Subject: Dropped Arguments in the 2AR Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010711/a54c9535/attachment.html From korry Tue Jul 10 19:59:17 2001 From: korry (Korry Harvey) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 18:59:17 -0600 Subject: Means, Churchill, COINTELPRO, and A.I.M Message-ID: <000a01c109a4$b5e5b020$0902a8c0@thinslim.ln> An after thought.... I did not intend offense toward smokers with my comment in the previous post. It is sort of an inside joke-- Churchill would get really upset about the anti-smoking campaign, so it was a little inside jab. But then I realized that I may be the only one on the inside! Matt smokes too much, too! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010710/baa67cd5/attachment.htm From jackattack7 Wed Jul 11 01:11:37 2001 From: jackattack7 (jack stroube) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 01:11:37 Subject: LOVE UNDER THE WILL Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010711/866ccc44/attachment.html From tara_l_tate Tue Jul 10 20:12:46 2001 From: tara_l_tate (Tara Tate) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 20:12:46 -0500 Subject: Dropped Arguments in the 2AR Message-ID: I have not been reading these posts in detail because, even though I am an admitted gossip, I don't find these issues to be relevant to me nor fit for discussion over such a sterile forum as an email list serv. However, is anyone disturbed by the fact that debate lingo is now being utilized in discussions (see subject line of the original email) about individuals in this community that were killed or injured? Why should discussions about this matter be viewed as a debate sparring match back and forth? Maybe I am just punchy after a long day with high school kids to worry about something as minor as a subject line to an email post, but it just caught me off guard as a completely desensitizing move... Tara Tate Colleyville-Heritage HS >From: "jack stroube" >To: edebate at ndtceda.com >CC: jvreedmore at HOTMAIL.COM, kellycongdon at HOTMAIL.COM, >bdurham at mail.utexas.edu, lorendent at mail.utexas.edu, >stephen.stetson at mail.utexas.edu, eemerson at kinkaid.org, >disciplinary at HOTMAIL.COM, dfudge at nwu.edu, gordonm+ at pitt.edu, >maxwell.schnurer at marist.edu >Subject: Dropped Arguments in the 2AR >Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 00:45:04 > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "jack stroube" Subject: Dropped Arguments in the 2AR Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 00:45:04 Size: 6107 Url: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010710/50df7b74/attachment.mht From pear0007 Tue Jul 10 20:54:38 2001 From: pear0007 (Ryan Poirier) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 18:54:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: A quote. Message-ID: <20010711015438.36187.qmail@web14202.mail.yahoo.com> "Do what you know is true, not what you think or feel is right." Have you ever heard this quote before? As I was told this quote came from a wonderful debate coach in a little town of Maize, Kansas. It has helped me in many problems and continues to give direction to me today. Sorry, no real flaming post, just a mellow philosophy. (But, if you would like to argue the validity I am all ears. And if you have heard it before, tell me where!) ~Ryan Poirier __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ From sjonz78 Tue Jul 10 21:42:15 2001 From: sjonz78 (Scott Jones) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 22:42:15 -0400 Subject: novice success? Message-ID: After reading some postings about "kritiking" and "policy debate" there were some side discussions about novice debate, which brought a question to mind. If anyone has a bit of debate history knowledge- who could be considered successful varsity debaters that originally started out as novices in college debate? More specifically, has a debater who started out as a novice had a lot of success at the NDT or CEDA open nats? As a person who began as a novice a couple of years ago (on the sanctions topic), I have enjoyed debate and would like to hear some of those stories. So if you know of someone, or your that person, then e-mail me or post it on the list serve. I am sure other people who have began their debate careers like mine could appreciate and learn from you. Thanks, Scott Jones Liberty UniversityGet more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010710/d048dab7/attachment.html From dbteam Tue Jul 10 22:05:29 2001 From: dbteam (UWG Debate Team) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 23:05:29 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Rez Two or Three? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: once again, my answers below will be in CAPS to distinguish, not to yell. as a preface, i must say i thought i did a better job of defending #2 than coop has implied:) On Tue, 10 Jul 2001, christopher cooper wrote: > > Since most people are probably filling out their ballots right around > now, I thought I would provide a little summary overview/conclusion to > the discussion of the resolutions. First and foremost is answering the > last big post regarding resolution #2 by Hester. > > Hester responds to Veronica's objections thusly: > > < GOOD FOR AFF (LOTS OF LIT IN WHICH TO FIND PLANS) AND NEG (PLENTY O' > GENERIC NEG).>> > > First, this doesn't answer Veronica's objection at all. Some people have > posted that Rez. #2 limits the affirmative to F&E modifications within > the laws as they are currently structured. Others (Harris, et. al.) have > indicated that the intent was purposely left vague so that aff.'s have > the ability to "tinker" with current law. Veronica's point was that both > interpretations CAN NOT be true (the rez. can't both limit AND allow...). > > Now, the answer of course is that it all becomes debatable...but that was > precisely Veronica's point. *IF* the resolution allows affirmatives to > "tinker" with the law, where does one draw the line? Wily affs. will > ALWAYS try to get away with as much as they can. And if there is no good > brightline, allowing amendments to the current laws listed breaks the > door WIDE open on predictable ground. The only recourse that negs. have > left would be to argue for NO LIMIT. But...as we have seen even in the > edebate discussions, there is no definitive answer. That means that > debates come down to semantic interpretations and judge's subjective > interpretations as to whether the plan "tinkers" too much or just > enough. THOSE are the debates that Veronica says she wants to avoid (me > too). ACTUALLY, THIS IS MY RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE COMMENTS: THE CRITICISM OF #2 AS DELINEATED ABOVE MISTAKES #2 AS HOPELESSLY VAGUE. AS I MENTIONED IN MY FIRST REPLY, THERE ARE TWO WAYS BY WHICH #2 CAN BE JUSTIFIED: 1)IT HAS PLENTY OF LIT IN WHICH AUTHORS GO INTO GREAT DETAIL ADVOCATING WHAT WOULD BE TOPICAL ACTION ("SQ POLICY IS UNDERFUNDED/ENFORCED, AND INCREASING RESOURCES SOLVES X HARMS"). THIS MEANS IT'S GOOD FOR AFF B/C THERE'S LOTS OF GROUND; 2)THE WORDING OF THE TOPIC PROVIDES PREDICTABLE AND VARIABLE NEG GROUND - AT THIS POINT, MY ARG THAT THE 'TRANSFER RESOURCES' PORTION ACTUALLY CREATES MORE NEG THAN AFF GROUND APPLIES...IN ADDITION, MANY EXAMPLES OF NEG ARGS HAVE BEEN MENTIONED - THIS MEANS IT'S GOOD FOR NEG. I ANSWERED THE 'SPECIFIC' ALLEGATION OF AMBIGUITY CAUSING BAD DEBATE BY NOTING THAT IT'S NOT AS AMBIGUOUS AS HAS BEEN PORTRAYED. THERE HAS BEEN A LEAP IN LOGIC IN THE CLAIM THAT AFFS WILL BE ABLE TO DO ANYTHING THEY WANT TO NATAM POLICY BY ADDING IN NEW LAWS. WHAT HAS BEEN NOTED IS THAT NEW 'PROGRAMS' CAN BE FUNDED UNDER THE GAP LEGISLATION. THIS IS NOT THE EQUIVALENT TO STRUCTURALLY CHANGING THE TRUST DOCTRINE. YES, #2 IS MULTIDIRECTIONAL IN THAT SOME AFFS WILL TRY TO INTERPRET THE TOPIC TO ALLOW THEM TO FUND AND ENFORCE NEW PROGRAMS THAT FIT WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF PRIOR LEGISLATION. THIS DOES NOT MEAN IT'S BI-DIRECTIONAL (WHERE AFF CAN DEFEND INCREASE US INTERVENTION AND DECREASED INTERVENTION).NO, THIS FACT DOES NOT MEAN AFFS WILL BE ABLE TO FUND ANY OLD POLICY THEY CHOOSE AS A WAY TO JETTISON DEFENSE OF THE SQ 'INDIAN POLICY.' THE REALITY IS THAT IT IS POSIBLE TO DISTINGUISH 'TINKERINGS.' A PLAN THAT ADDS SELF-MONITORING - VIA AN INCREASE F&E - TO THE INDIAN FINANCE ACT IS A TINKER. A PLAN THAT ELIMINATES FEDERAL CONTROL OVER CRIMES COMMITTED ON RESERVATIONS IS NOT A 'TINKER.' BTW, THE ISSUE OF WHETHER #'3'S "THROUGHOUT INDIAN COUNTRY" MEANS AFF MUST IMPLEMENT A UNIFORM POLICY IS AS DAMAGING TO GOOD GROUND AND 'CASE DEBATES' AS THE CRITICISMS OF #2 BEING DEALT WITH HERE. ALL I'VE HEARD SO FAR IS THAT THE PLAN CAN AVOID UNNECESARY UNIFORMITY (WHICH IS A GIVEN SINCE EVERYONE MUST ADMIT THAT CHOCTAW SOLUTIONS ARE NOT CHEROKEE SOLUTIONS) BY SIMPLY MAKING THE 'OFFER' TO EVERY TRIBE, KNOWING THAT TRIBES FOR WHOM THE AFF POLICY DOESN'T APPLY COULD 'OPT OUT.' UNFORTUNATELY, THIS TYPE OF OPTION IS ONLY FEASIBLE WHEN THE REZ ACTION IS 'INCREASE MONEY'. IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE WHEN THE REZ ACTION IS "INCREASE FEDERAL CONTROL." TO GIVE TRIBES THE OPPORTUNITY TO 'OPT OUT' OF A PLAN THAT 'INCREASES FEDERAL CONTROL' IS NON-TOPICAL ON ITS FACE. THIS MEANS THAT THE NEG CAN CP EVERY ROUND WITH EXCLUDE TRIBE X. THIS SORT OF PIC ALSO ELIMINATES CASE DEBATE. ONE LAST COMMENT HERE. AS I'LL DEFEND FURTHER BELOW, THE LIT BASE ADVANTAGE OF #2 OVER #3 IS A NET BENEFIT. AND IT DIRECTLY AFFECTS THE IDEA OF A CASE DEBATE. B/C THERE ARE MORE PEOPLE WHO TALK ABOUT WHY AND HOW TO INCREASE F&E FOR PARTICULAR PROGRAMS THAN THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO ADVOCATE INCREASING FED CONTROL OVER PARTICULAR AREAS OF USFG/STATE/TRIBAL RELATIONS, THIS MEANS THERE IS MORE DEPTH TO THE SOLVENCY LITERATURE - BOTH FOR AFF AND NEG GROUND. > Hester responds: > > < OR 'SEMANTIC CRAPSHOOT'. IT HAS BEEN DEFINED BY TRACY G PRETTY CLEARLY. > SCOTT'S COMMENTS ONLY NOTE THAT THERE MAY BE AN ATTEMPT BY DEBATERS TO > DEBATE HOW IT AFFECTS PLAN GROUND. I'M ALL FOR DEBATERS DEBATING. THIS > POSSIBILITY NEED NOT DEVOLVE INTO SEMANTICS EVERY ROUND. GIVEN THE AMOUNT > OF THINGS FOR THE NEG TO SAY, I WOULD THINK THE 'AS PREVIOUSLY AMENDED' T > ARG WOULD NOT BE A HIGH PRIORITY EXCEPT IN THE CASE OF THE AFF WHO TRIES > TO JETTISON THE ENTIRE TOPIC, AND THOSE WON'T FIND MUCH, IF ANY, JUDGE > SYMPATHY.>> > > Okay..how is this response ANY DIFFERENT than what I just got finished > writing? Given enough slack, ticky affs. *will* jettison out of > everything that is predictable about the rest of the resolution. If I > can increase F&E over functionally a NEW law (that is, make reforms to > the current laws and THEN increase F&E) not only can I spike out of all > of your lovely case turns (who wanted the case debate again?), but I can, > if I so choose, focus my ENTIRE case on the AMENDED part of the law and > increasing F&E there instead of on anything previously existing. Why the > hell wouldn't I? "Hit 'em where they ain't" right? And the ONLY > recourse would be "judge sympathy," as you say. Hmmmm...how is that not > the same semantics/subjectivity that Veronica belies? (And as an aside, > how many of us judges eschew deciding rounds on Topicality?? That's an > uphill battle for the Neg.) THIS IS AN UNSUBSTANTIATED SCENARIO. GRANTED I HAVEN'T READ EVERY ARTICLE, BUT I'VE YET TO FIND A SINGLE AUTHOR WHO ADVOCATES ADDING SOMETHING COMPLETELY NEW TO ANY OF #2'S LEGISLATIONS...(WAIT, HERE COMES THE IMPORTANT QUALIFICATION)...IN THE CONTEXT OF 'TRANSFERRING RESOURCES BY SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASING APPROPRIATIONS FOR AND ENFORCEMENT OF' THE LEGISLATIONS IN #2. THE NIGHTMARE PAINTED BY COOP IS OF SOME MASTERMIND AFF DEBATING SOME DUMBASS NEG. THE PLAN SAYS "CEDE ALL NATIONAL PARKS TO NATIVE GROUPS...AND, OH YEAH, INCREASE F&E OF THE INDIAN SELF-DET AND EDUCATION ACT SO THAT THE TRANSFER OF LANDS IS DONE EFFICIENTLY AND WITH PRIOR WARNING TO THE TRIBES." THE NEG JUST DOESN'T KNOW HOW TO DEAL WITH THIS 'WILY' AFF WHO (GASP) HAS DEFINITIONS OF WORDS IN THE TOPIC THAT MAKE THIS SOUND LEGIT. THIS IS WHERE MY ARG THAT I 'LIKE DEBATERS DEBATING' COMES IN. THERE IS NO ONE WHO ADVOCATES THE ABOVE PLAN. MIGHT THERE BE SOME AF TEAM WHO TRIES TO DO SOMETHING LIKE THIS? PROBABLY - EVERY YEAR, THOUSANDS OF NOVI TRY WRITING THEIR VERY FIRST 1AC, ONLY TO DISCOVER THAT IT'S HARD TO WIN ROUNDS WHEN THERE'S NO SOLVENCY ADVOCATE FOR THEIR PLAN AND ALL THEY HAVE IS SOME OF THEIR OWN TWISTED LOGIC SCRIBBLED DOWN ON PAPER. A SMART NEG WILL KNOW THAT ANY ATTEMPT TO DO WHAT COOP HAS DESCRIBED WILL MAKE THE AFF EXTREMELY VULNERABLE TO: *TOPICALITY ARGS *SOLVENCY ARGS *CPs TO DO THE PLAN'S ACTION W/O DEFORMING THE POLICY TO MAKE IT MARGINALLY TOPICAL (WHICH IS WHAT THE AFF WILL HAVE NEEDED TO DO) AND CLAIM A NET BENEFIT B/C SOME PART OF THE TOPIC IS BAD (I'M GUESING THIS WILL BE SOMETHING THE NEG HAS IN THE EV BOX). THE TYPE OF AFF THAT COOP WARNS OF JUST ISN'T VIABLE ENOUGH FOR MANY, IF ANY, TEAMS TO SUCCEED WITH. > < THAT SUCH A CLAIM IS MISLEADING SINCE, EVEN THOUGH THE TOPIC WORDING > ALLOWS FOR SUCH INTERPS, THE LIT DOESN'T OFFER MANY (GAMING IS THE ONE > MOST REFERNCED, BUT CRIME AND ENVIRONMENT MAY OFFER A COUPLE MORE) > EXAMPLES OF GOOD AFF GROUND. >> > > Okay...so you have gaming, crime, and environment as portions of Rez. #3 > that are multi-directional? Sounds like a good debate to me. I would > also suggest that Hester is not looking at the same literature that I > am. > I'LL ADMIT I MAY BE LOOKING AT DIFFERENT LIT. BUT I NEED MORE THAN REASSSURANCES (AS PATRONIZING AS THEY MAY BE:) FROM COOP THAT THERE'S ALL THESE VARIOUS AUTHORS ADVOCATING INCREASED FED CONTROL OVER STATES IN ONE OF THE AREAS WITH AN ADVANTAGE TO SUCH ACTION. I'M DOING FAIRLY BROAD STROKED RESEARCH, AND I'M NOT FINDING ANY DEPTH IN LIT WITH ANYTHING OTHER THAN THE ISSUE OF GAMING. AND REMEMBER, MY ARG WAS THAT THIS WAS WHERE THE GROUND NEEDED TO BE, GIVEN THE LACK OF DECENT LIT SUPPORTING INCREASING FED CONTROL VIS-A-VIS TRIBAL JURISDICTION. SO EVEN IF COOP IS RIGHT THAT THERE IS MORE ROOM UNDER THE INCREASE-OVER-STATES THAN I'M FINDING, THERE'S STILL NOT ENOUGH B/C THE OTHER SIDE OF THE TOPIC (DECREASE TRIBAL CONTROL) IS SO HARD TO DEFEND - AS NOTED BY ITS LACK OF DEFENSE IN THE LIT. > More importantly, for purposes of choosing a resolution, as Veronica has > noted, Rez. #2 is functionally bi-directional by virtue of allowing > affirmatives to "tinker" with existing laws (see discussion of uniqueness > and turns below). So, *IF* there is an argument here, it cuts both > ways. I think, in fact, that the multi-directionality of Rez. #3 is > massively easier to handle than what would be allowed under #2. Dave > noted plenary power as predictable negative ground AND, as Hester notes, > the literature provides another check on the mulit-directionality of Rez. > #3 that just DOESN'T exist for #2. > I'LL JUST NOTE HERE THAT I'VE DEALT WITH WHAT I BELIEVE TO BE THE FALSE NOTION THAT #2 IS BIDIRECTIONAL ABOVE. THE 'TINKERING' CLAIM IS NOT THE MOUNTAIN COOP IS DESCRIBING, BUT MORE OF A MOLEHILL. > < REESOURCES. MANY OF THESE REJECT THE NOTION THAT USFG FUNDING IS > "MANIPULATIVE" OR "EXPLOITATIVE" ON FACE, ARGUING INSTEAD THAT USFG $ IS > THE BEST WAY FOR US TO OWN UP TO ITS COMMITMENT. YES, THERE IS STILL A > DEBATE ABOUT PATERNALISM AND SUCH, BUT THIS SEEMS TO ME TO PROVIDE FAIR > NEG GROUND.>> > > Sure. First, the scores of authors advocating a increase in $$$ do not > provide a threshold (equals decreased negative link ground). 'THRESHOLD' FOR HOW MUCH $ IS NEEDED IS NOT THE KEY TO NEG GROUND THAT COOP'S ARG ASSUMES. THE BEST POLITIX AND BUDGET DISAD ARE NO LONGER ABOUT HOW MUCH MONEY THE PLAN COSTS. IN FACT, I CAN'T REMEMBER THE LAST DEBATE I JUDGED WHERE THE AFF WON B/C THE NEG LINK EV SAID '$1OO MILLION' BUT THE AFF ONLY SPENT $90MILLION. THE DISTICNTION THAT COOP RELIES ON TO DAMN #2 JUST ISN'T GROUNDED IN CONTEMPORARY DEBATE. > Second, these authors can "reject" that USFG funding is "exploitative" > all they want, but I doubt they answer the theoretical objections raised > by the critical authors that strike at the assumptions behind funding. I GUESS THIS IS WHERE I GET TO MAKE A SMART ASS COMMENT ABOUT HOW LITTLE COOP HAS READ. THE ARGUMENT THAT "IT IS BETTER TO SPEND RESOURCES ON SQ PROGRAMS AS A WAY TO BETTER THE LIVES OF NATIVE AMERICANS - FIRST B/C IT IS THE MOST FEASIBLE ACTION TO TAKE RIGHT NOW AND SECOND B/C SURVIVABILITY MUST BY DEFINITION PRECEDE MOBILIZATION FOR STRUCTURAL CHANGE" IS A FREQENT ARG MADE IN THE LIT. IN FACT, AS I'VE ALREADY ARGUED, IT IS THIS CLASSICAL DEBATE (REFORM VS. REVOLUTION) WHICH MAKES THE CORE LIT OF #2 MUCH MORE INTERESTING FOR A YEAR LONG DEBATE THAN EITHER #1 OR #3 HAVE TO OFFER. AND DIVIDES GROUND FAIRLY CUZ THIS DEBATE IS ALL OVER THE LIT. YES, COOP, AUTHORS WHO ADVOCATE INCREASE F&E HAVE ACTUALLY CONSIDERED AND (OH MY LORD!) EVEN ANSWERED THE 'CRITICAL' AUTHORS YOU WARN OF (ONE OF THE GOOD THINGS ABOUT BEING MARGINALIZED AS A PEOPLE - IF THERE IS ANY GGOD THING - IS THAT 'MAINSTREAM' AND 'RADICAL' AUTHORS TEND TO KNOW EACH OTHER AND EACH ARE PRETTY MUCH IGNORED BY THE MAJORITY SOCIETY). > Third, however, even if criticisms of USFG funding, then, provides a > source of predictable negative ground, it is (a) not unique (we fund them > now...AND the whole threshold problem) and/or (b) not assuming the world > in which the affirmative "tinkers" with the existing law to give > themselves good offense versus your case turns/criticisms that assume > legislative or procedural stasis. 1)YOUR COMMENT ABOUT 'FUNDING NOW' IS FLAWED. YES, THERE IS SOME $, BUT IT'S NOT LIKE THE '95-96 MID EAST TOPIC THAT CALLED FOR 'INCREASE SEC ASS' WHEN THE US WAS ALREADY SPENDING BILLIONS UPON BILLIONS. THE SQ BUDGETS FOR THESE LEGISLATIONS IS MUCH, MUCH SMALLER. AND, I'VE ALREADY EXPLAINED WHY THE 'THRESHOLD' CONCERN IS INAPPLICABLE TO NEG GROUND AS IT CURRENTLY WORKS IN THE 21ST CENTURY. 2)I'M GONNA JUST REFER TO ABOVE WHENEVER I COME ACROSS THE 'TINKERING' ARGS. > > Ultimately, the problem is a catch-22: EITHER Rez. #2 locks the > affirmative into F&E of existing statutes which provides the negative > with some pretty STELLAR counterplan/critical ground (not going to give > away my tricks, but THINK about it...) but also screws them over with > regard to uniqueness -OR- it allows some "tinkering" (how much?) which > gives the aff. WAY to much maneuverability re: predictability and offense > versus the generic stuff which is supposed to check against weirdness in > the first place. > I'LL DEAL WITH THIS BELOW. > < REASON #3 ALLOWS AFF TO INCREASE RESOURCE TRANSFER TO TRIBES - AND NEG > GETS TO ARGUE THAT PLAN IS ANOTHER ACT OF US IMPERIALISM CARTE BLANCHE, > #2 CREATES A MUCH MORE INTERESTING DEBATE IMHO:>> > > First, the aff. is HARDLY locked into carte blanche US imperialism under > Rez. #3. As Veronica and others (and now Hester, above) have > indicated...Rez #3 allows for multi-directionality in places which gives > the affirmative some flexibility. That flexibility is balanced, then, by > the limited amount of literature. That seems like the FAIREST debate. THE PROBELM WITH THIS CLAIM IS THAT IT CONCEDES THAT ONE HALF OF THE TOPIC -WHERE CONTROL COMES AT THE EXPENSE OF THE TRIBE - RESULTS IN A CONCEDED LINK BY THE AFF - PLAN IS US IMPERIALISM. IN CONTRAST, #2 ALLOWS FOR THERE TO BE A DEBATE ABOUT WHETHER INCREASED F&E IS INHERENTLY PATERNALISTIC OR THE BEST WAY TO CREATE SELF-SUFFICIENCY. I ALMOST ALWAYS PREFER A DEBATE OVER LINKS THAN LINK-BY-FIAT. THE OTHER PROBLEM IS THAT IT EXAGGERATES HOW MUCH GROUND IS AVAILABLE FOR PLANS THAT INCREASE CONTROL AT THE EXPENSE OF THE STATES. SEE MY COMMENTS ABOVE. > Second, it may well be that Hester finds rez. #2 more interesting (yawn), > but (theoretically) we choose the TOPIC out of interest. We choose the > RESOLUTION to fairly divide ground (see the preface to my first post on > this thread last week). I SUPPOSE THIS WOULD BE CALLED A 'STRAWPERSON' ARGUMENT. MY WARRANTS FOR SUPPORTING #2 HAVE NEVER BEEN 'I THINK IT'S INTERESTING' ALTHOUGH THIS DOES ALLOW COOP THE CHANCE TO BE AT HIS CUTEST (YAWN). AS I BEGAN WITH, I FEEL THAT #2 DOES DIVIDE GROUND FAIRLY AND I'VE EXPLAINED HOW IN BOTH MY REPLIES. WHAT COOP DISMISSES AS 'INTEREST' IS WHAT I HAVE REFERRED TO AS "MORE COMPREHENSIVELY COVERED IN THE LITERATURE." THE QUESTION I NOTED IN MY FIRST REPLY - AT WHAT POINT IS A TRANSFER OF RESOURCES, ABSENT STRUCTURAL CHANGE, MERELY REINFORCING US IMPERIALISM? MAY BORE COOP, BUT THIS IS THE MOST COMMON ARGUMENT BEING DEBATED WITHIN THE NATIVE AMERICAN LITERATURE, AND #2 ALLOWS FOR THAT DEBATE TO BE EASILY DIVIDED BETWEEN AFF (RESOURCES NEEDED TO BUILD SELF-SUFFICIENCY) AND NEG(MAINTAINING CURENT RELATIONS DOOMS TRIBES, NO MATTER IF THERE ARE SHORT TERM GAINS). SO MY MAIN ARG FOR #2 IS THAT YOU GET BOTH A TOPIC THAT IS MOST REPRESENTATIVE OF THE LIT AND A TOPIC WITH FAIRLY DIVIDED GROUND. > Hester starts to get a little inconsistent: > > < THATALLOW FOR INCREASED FUNDING FOR 'NEW' PROGRAMS. THIS ISN'T THE > EQUIVALENT > OF 'STRUCTURAL CHANGE'. THE PLAN CAN FUND NEW PROGRAMS, NOT ALTER THE > TRUST DOCTRINE OR PLENARY POWER AS CURRENTLY DEFINED. THE DIFFERENCE > BETWEEN THE TWO IS MUCH LARGER THAN IS BEING PORTRAYED. AMNEDING ONE OF > THE LAWS TO STRENGTHEN ENFORCEMENT IS NOT EVEN CLOSE TO AMENDING ONE LAW > TO ABROGATE THE TRUST DOCTRINE.>> > > Well...first, if plenary power and the trust doctrine are good enough > generic negative ground for Rez. #2, why aren't they for Rez. #3?? I'M NOT SURE WHAT THIS MEANS. MY POINT WAS THAT THE WORRY THAT #2 ALLOWS AFF TO DO MAJOR OVERHAULS TO SQ POLICY - LIKE TRUST DOCTRINE -IS JUST WRONG. I AGREE THAT TRUST DOCTRINE BAD IS A POTENTIAL NEG ARG FOR BOTH #2 AND #3. IN FACT, I'VE NOTED THAT SINCE #3 DOESN'T ALLOW FOR INCREASED RESOURCES FOR TRIBES, THE ARG THAT SQ DESTROYS NATIVE AMERICA APPLIES MUCH MORE TO #3 THAN #2. AND I'VE ALREADY EXPLAINED WHY IT'S GOOD FOR AFF TO BE ABLE TO INCREASE F&E TO SOLVE/ALLEVIATE HARMS EXISTING NOW. > Second, there is still the problem of uniqueness (see below) > HEADED THERE NOW... > > I'm also not a big fan of the "transfer" part of the resolution that > allows > > for funding specification. Now, we've all resolved that counterplans > can be > > used to prevent the affirmative from reading add-ons and turns but it's > been > > FLAT CONCEDED by the advocates of #2 that it all amounts to MONDO link > outs > > to all kinds of disads. > > Third, given the flexibility to "tinker" with the law and focus the > increased F&E through that tinkering...there may very well be completely > legitimate ways to garber OFFENSE against the generic plenary power/trust > doctrine objections that constitute the only predictable negative ground > for the negative under Rez. #2. They don't have to ABROGATE the doctrine > to argue that (a) your criticism is not unique and (b) by the way...here > are about a gajillion turns to your criticism that stem from HOW we do > our F&E increase as a result of our "tinkering." > > Veronica asked (several times): > > > What of the uniqueness problems? > > To which Hester replies: > > < I'VE FOUND PLENTY OF FOLK WHO SAY CURRENT LAWS ARE UNDERFUNDED AND > UN/MAL-ENFORCED. THE IDEA THAT THE AFF WILL HAVE A HARD TIME PROVING THAT > NATAM PROGRAMS AREN'T IN NEED OF MORE RESOURCES IS A MISTAKEN NOTION NOT > BASED ON ANY READING OF THE LIT I'VE SEEN THUS FAR.>> > > Um...yeah. Those were not the droids she was looking for... > > By uniqueness problems, Veronica (and others) mean the strange position > in which the negative begins the debate defending a status quo that the > affirmative argues just needs MORE $$$. Unlike the "increase assistance" > resolutions of the past, the limitation to existing law (maybe...*IS* the > aff. limited?) means that plans become the functional equivalent of > "here's something kinda cool....let's throw another million or so at > it." Only, with rez. #2, the negative doesn't even have the predictable > ground of budgetary issues (re: "transfer"). And since the literature is > tres' vague regarding the thresholds of funding levels, there is very > little to stop the aff. from reprioritizing a handful of cash from one > BAD program to a fairly decent one and claiming all the literature that > talks about that current program being pretty sweet and voila...even > though it doesn't CHANGE much of anything...absent a unique disadvantage, > why not shuffle the NATAM budget in just that way? > SORRY, I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THE FIRST TIME. BUT ONCE AGAIN, IT'S ALLOWED COOP TO BE COOP, WHICH IS ALWAYS ENTERTAINING. I'VE NOW ANSWERED THIS. AS I SAY ABOVE, THE IDEA THAT PRECISE DOLLAR AMOUNTS ARE KEY TO GROUND IS A MYTH. CHECK YOUR NEG FILES FROM THE LAST 5 YEARS. HOW MANY OF YOUR LINKS FOR DISADS, CPs, OR Ks DEPENDED ON KNOWING EXACTLY HOW MUCH THE PLAN SPENT? (I SAY 'YOU' NOT AT COOP BUT TO THE GENRAL AUDIENCE. OBVIOUSLY, THE BUDGET TRADEOF DA HAS BEEN A STAPLE OF COOP'S PRE-ROUND COACHING ADVICE:). I THOUGHT SO. AS FOR THE OTHER ARG IN THIS PARAGRAPH - THAT AFFS MAY TRY TO SHIFT FUNDS - I SAY IF THEY CAN FIND A SLOVENCY ADVOCATE, HOORAY! IT SEEMS THAT THE AFFS ATTEMPT UNDER #3 TO 'INCREASE FED CNTROL' OVER STATES, RATHER THAN TRIBES, IS THE SAME SORT OF 'TRICKERY' THAT UPSETS COOP SO MUCH. W/O GIVING AWAY WESTGA'S STRATEGY VS. SUCH CASES, LET ME SAY THAT THERE ARE NEG ARGS (THINK PICs and K) WHICH CAN BE QUITE SUCCESFUL AGAINST TEAMS TRYING TO ROB SEMINOLE TO PAY NAVAJO. > Hester thinks this is an INTERSTING debate??, apparently, given this > response: > > < MENTIONED THAT SPECIFYING FUNDING CREATES MORE GROUND FOR THE NEG THAN > FOR THE AFF (I POSTED LAST WEEK ABOUT THIS - SPECIFIED $ LEGITIMATES > STEAL $ CP AND THE DISAD TO CUTTING FROM THE SPECIFIED LOCATION, IN > ADDITION TO THE CUT $ CP).>> > > Only for the truly STUPID aff. who doesn't consider plan wording. GIVEN THE IGNORANCE ASSUMED OF THE NEG BY COOP'S PORTAYAL OF THE 'TINKER' SCENARIO, I FIGURED IT WAS OKAY TO DEPICT THE WORST CASE SCENARIO:) > First, I'm not sure that many other judges share Hester's enthusiasm for > the legitimacy of the "steal your funding" CP...even in the world where > the aff. specifies a funding mechanism. I'LL RESERVE COMMENTS COMPARING JUDGING PHILOSOPHIES AND WHOSE MIGHT BE MORE REPRESENTATIVE OF 'GOOD DEBATE.' SUFICE IT TO SAY I'M NOT THE ONLY ONE WHO'S EVER VOTED FOR THIS CP. > Second, any aff. with more than two brain cells (or a coherent coach) > will either write their plan vaguely enough to advocate a simple > "reprioritization" and then win the specificty of the cut in an evidence > war (for which they will undoubtedly be better prepared) in the 2AC > and/or will craft curiously-phrased contingencies in their plans to both > specify a source of funding AND specify that funding is "guarateed." > This is, in fact, how Daveed and I beat Wayne State in Quarters of Baylor > in 1996. CONGRATS ON THE GOOD WIN. WHEN I GAVE THE EXAMPLES OF HOW THE NEG GAINS GROUND, I TOO GAVE SPECIFIC INSTANCES WHERE SUCH A STRATEGY HAD BEEN USED. GTOWN WAS ABLE TO CONVINCE ALL SORTS OF JUDGES THAT PLAN SPECIFIED FUNDING LEGITIMIZED 'STEAL THE $ CP'. AS FOR WHICH TEAM WILL BE BETTER PREPARED, I BET THE TEAM GETTING FROM HONEY BEE SUBSIDIES FUNDING THOUGHT THEY WERE BETTER PREPARED THAN THE KANSAS TEAM THAT HAD THE GOODS ON THEM. PLUS, MORE IMPORTANTLY, WHAT YOU ARE DESCRIBING - AFF EXPLOITS TOPIC WITH A TRICK, A TRICK THAT REQUIRES EV NOT JUST FIAT MIND YOU, THEN FORCING NEG TO DO SOME SPECIFIC RESEARCH, WHICH LEADS TO COUNTER MOVES - IS WHAT I CONSIDER(AND YES, COOP, EVEN JUDGES NOT AS 'CRAZY' AS ME ALSO CONSIDER) THE HALLMARK OF GOOD DEBATE. > Third, this kind of mucky theory means a year of even worse > ("you-CP-justifies-my-intrinsicness-answer") technical debates that are > won or lost on > "you-dropped-the-#17-warrant-for-why-intrinsicness-was-a-voting issue" > blahblahyack! > I'M AFRAID PINNING THIS ON #2 IS NOT SO EASY. THIS KIND OF 'MUCKY' DEBATE HAS HAPPENED BEFORE, AND WILL HAPPEN AGAIN. WHILE THE DEBATES COOP JUDGED MAY HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO BE DECIDED WITHOUT SOMEBODY DROPPING SOMETHING, I WILL DEFEND THAT THERE CAN BE, AND I HAVE JUDGED SOME(EMORY BG ON CONDITIONALITY, IOWA LR AND PR ON PICs to name a couple) WHERE THE ARGUMENTS WERE DETAILED AND THE ROUND WAS WON WITH WARRANTS NOT JUST WARP SPEED. > Fourth, as Veronica has pointed out, even if this type of debate *IS* > legitimized, what does it do to novices who are just starting to learn > advanced theory? It's all fun and games for us theory knuckleheads...but > with THEM...someone could poke an eye out! > THIS IS WHERE I FEEL THE STRENGTH OF THE LIT FOR #2 MAY ALSO BE BENEFICIAL. IT WILL BE EASIER FOR BEGINNING RESEARCHERS TO FIND ARTICLES ADVOCATING TOPICAL ACTION. I MUST ALSO ACKNOWLEDGE MY OWN 'ELITISM' (OR WHAT I CALL INTEREST IN WHAT MAKES THE GAME MOST FUN FOR THE MOST ADVANCED). TO DUMB DOWN DEBATES SO THAT NOVI WON'T BE INTIMIDATED IS, FOR ME, LIKE TELLING RANDY JOHNSON NOT TO THROW HARD BECAUSE IT SCARES THE OPPOSING BATTERS. NOVI NEED TO LEARN, AND COPE WITH, THE REALITY THAT A)TALKING FAST IS PART OF THE GAME, B)IN- DEPTH RESEARCH IS PART OF THE GAME, AND C)'ADVANCED' THEORY, BOTH KNOWING IT AND USING IT, IS PART OF THE GAME. > To sum up: > > Rez. #2 suffers from a number of wording conundrums that make > predictability impossible, encourage mucky theory debates, and destroy > all hopes of a fair division of ground. > #2 IT'S MORE PREDICTABLE, LESS MUCKY, AND MORE FAIRLY DIVIDED THAN COOP THINKS. PLUS: IT MORE COMPREHENSIVELY COVERS THE MAIN POINTS OF CONFLICT IN THE LITERATURE AND THERE ARE MORE SOLVENCY ADVOCATES FOR #2 THAN #1 OR #3 (DON'T FORGET THE BOONDOGGLE THAT SEASIA SEC ASS WAS WHEN NOBODY ACTUALLY ADVOCATED TOPICAL ACTION - DAMMIT, DON'T FORCE WESTGA TO RUN LANDMINE DATABASE ... AGAIN:) > Rez. #1 (aside from being just BORING), is too limiting to be of any > utility to small programs that look for competitive success by > outsmarting opponents rather than outgunning them. There's no where to > go. I AM NOW FIRMLY CONVINCED THIS TOPIC CANNOT SUSTAIN A YEAR OF DEBATE. THERE'S JUST NOT ENOUGH LITERATURE. THOSE WHO THINK THIS LACK OF LIT SOMEHOW 'HELPS' "SMALL PROGRAMS" ARE SADLY MISTAKEN. WHAT WILL HAPPEN IS THAT "BIG TEAMS" WILL HAVE NO PROBLEM COVERING ALL THE LIT AND THEN THEY'LL MOVE ONTO THE TANGENTIAL LIT. SO THEY'LL ALWAYS BE READY ON THE NEG,AND THEY'LL HAVE MORE TO SAY IN THE 2AC AGAINST THE 'PREDICTABLE' NEG THAT SMALL TEAMS CAN ONLY RESEARCH. > Rez. #3 (while not perfect, by any stretch) provides enough aff. > flexibility while also ensuring the negative some predictable ground and > enough limits by virtue of both the available literature and the areas > listed. I AGREE FOR THE MOST PART. MY CONCERNS WITH #3 IS THAT THERE WON'T BE ENOUGH VIABLE AFF GROUND TO CREATE AN EVOLVING DEBATE. UNLIKE THE SANCTIONS TOPIC, WHERE PLAN GROUND WAS SMALL BUT THE LIT BASE WAS VERY VERY DEEP (E.G., CUBA), #3 MAY WELL END UP WITH PLAN GROUND A MILE WIDE AND 1/2 HALF INCH THICK. LOTS OF ACTIONS WILL BE TOPICAL, BUT VERY FEW WILL BE ADVOCATED IN DEPTH. THIS MEANS DEBATES WILL STAGNATE. HAVING SAID THAT, I ALSO THINK THERE WILL BE GOOD DEBATES ON #3. AND GROUND WILL BE PREDICTABLE. NO IT WOULDN'T KILL ME TO JUDGE DEBATES ON #3. I JUST THINK #2 IS BETTER. > > Above all else.....JUST VOTE. Remember how we got to this topic in the > first place. > > Hugz and kisses, > > COOP > > UT-Dallas AGREED. THANKS TO VB AND COOP FOR DEFENDING #3 SO THOROUGHLY. I'VE TRIED TO DO THE SAME WITH #2. ALWAYS ACCEPTING HUGZ AND KISSES FROM CUTE PEOPLE, HESTER > > > ________________________________________________________________________________ > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com > > > From dbteam Tue Jul 10 22:21:12 2001 From: dbteam (UWG Debate Team) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 23:21:12 -0400 (EDT) Subject: UNLESS MY MATH STINKS... In-Reply-To: <010301c10990$658d8a80$5a89ab40@Ramon> Message-ID: i can support fireman bob's plea with an example: asume that there are 81 schools that vote, and that there is an even split. now assume that those voting for #1 ranked it first, and nothing else. supporters of #2 and #3 decided to conspire, ranking their favoritre first, the other second(either #2 or #3) and didn't rank #1 at all. here's how the totals would look: #1 - 81 points (27 first place votes, no seconds or thirds) #2 - 135 points (27 first, and 27 seconds) #3 - 135 points (27 first, and 27 seconds) yes, there are at least two concerns. there will likely not be a perfect split. and there will not be a grand conspiracy between #2 and #3 supporters (just take a look at coop's criticism of my support for #2:). but what this does how is that not ranking what you don't want can easily keep it from winning. and it shows that it may be wise to think of which topic you'd rather debate, asuming your first choice doesn't win. it's not enough to just rank #1 if you also really don't want to debate #2. it would be in your interest to rank both #1 and #3, so as to maximize the differential in points (on your ballot at least) between what you may be willing to debate and what you really don't want to debate. hester (i figured enough folks had backchanneled me at this point telling me they were scared of split voting that is should make this math example public) On Tue, 10 Jul 2001, Bob Lechtreck wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> > Above all else.....JUST VOTE. Remember how we got to this topic in the > first place. > >>>>>>>>>> > > While I agree that everyone should vote, it should also be reminded OVER AND > OVER, that every vote counts...... even your 2nd and 3rd choices. If memory > serves, we are debating Indians this year because of a large number of 2nd > and 3rd place votes not because the majority of people selected it as their > top choice. > > If you feel strongly about NOT debating a particular resolution, do not rank > it at all. > > Peace, > > Bob Lechtreck > Bakersfield College > "Putting out fires, and damn good debaters." > > From quadrophonic Tue Jul 10 23:30:58 2001 From: quadrophonic (Dheeraj Chand) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 21:30:58 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Dropped Arguments in the 2AR In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20010711043058.7857.qmail@web11502.mail.yahoo.com> Dear Jack -I must say that it is quite refreshing to see someone else making a bloody fool of himself and offending people left and right on the list-serv besides me. :)You were a UT student, and debated under the guidance of Dr. Rollins, Breshears, and K uswa and yet you seem to have learned nothing from them...The University of Texas at Austin's debate program is housed in the College of Communications, correct? UT is famous for their historic ability to take massively revolutionary arguments and to pres ent them in such a fashion that they are undeniable, and that even those people who would wish to vote against them are left no loophole in which to escape...a recent example would be Matt Liebman's exploration of irony as a communicative tool. These cri tiques are not only meaningful because of their internal logic and content, but because of the fact that they are presented to the audience in such a fashion that would allow re-thinking to occur. When you posted your initial letter to the list-serv, I ha d privately emailed you explaining to you why I think that your means of expressing your ideas does nothing but alienate potential supporters from you. Your response was that you had tried everything else, and that posting to Edebate was all that was lef t to you. Well, Jack, for someone who drops trendy names left and right, I think that you could do with a re-reading of a little Habermas and John Austin. Given that you know the high regard with which the debate community at large holds Dr. Rollins, Kus wa and Breshears I think that you would realise that openly berating them in such a crude, crass fashion would only serve to make the community at large react in favour of them. For example, when I hear someone yell "clap-infested whore" at a friend of mi ne, my first thought is not to consider whether or not my friend does indeed have gonorrhea and sells sexual favours for money, but rather to go after the bastard who verbally assaulted him/her in that fashion. You have completely rendered your goal of c ommunication impossible by your crass ad hominem attacks, inability to command the English language in a written form, and the surreal references to high school debate tournaments of days past - not to mention the constant references to dropped arguments. **At this point, any critique that is going on is purely in your mind. It is failing to reach your intended audience.** To be honest, I don't think that you wanted to succeed in your stated goal of bringing to light the "negligence" of the UT staff. I t hink that you just wanted to berate these people in a public forum. If you were so against this "reckless endangerment of human life", where the hell were you in 1995 when this "cover-up" went down? Or did evil Joel Rollins force you to go along with a c over up then too? Ridiculous. For the record:Gandhi spoke of Ahisma , which is a rather old concept in Hinduism and Jainism. If anyone is curious about these ideas, please feel free to backchannel me. I am quite knowledge about the cultural and religious history of India, and am glad to discuss it with any who are interested. "Nothing is true; all is permissible." are the supposed last words of Hassan I Sabbah, one of the most famous heads of the Ishmaelian sect of Islam. To attribute that quote to Willia m S. Burroughs tends to delve a little too deeply into Robert-Anton-Wilson-land. :)You entitle your last posting: "Dropped arguments in the 2AR." I hope that this means an end to your abusive, unethical postings to the listserv.As always, to everyone on t he list: I am a sometime student of the University of Texas at Austin and should not be in any considered to be attached to the fine debate program's staff, members, their views, etc. I speak by and for myself only. In this case, I was rather sick of the stupidity being thrown against them and felt the need to respond. I guess I lack the class of Kuswa, Rollins, and Breshears. :)Best wishes, take care, and be well.regards,-dc --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010710/9404812a/attachment.htm From Damus Tue Jul 10 23:52:11 2001 From: Damus (Damus at aol.com) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 00:52:11 EDT Subject: LOVE UNDER THE WILL--STOP IT!!! Message-ID: <17.184a9707.287d357b@aol.com> This is completely out of control...why does the entire list need to be subject to this discussion...listen Jack...I find your post offensive and unprofessional. What do you really expect to gain from this public display of rage and absurdity...please take your angst off the list and direct it in the proper forum directly to those involved if you must vent. Enough is enough...grow up! David Damus USC...and an UNINTERESTED bystander -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010711/58f1adcc/attachment.html From pjm1 Wed Jul 11 00:08:12 2001 From: pjm1 (Patrick McKenzie) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 00:08:12 -0500 Subject: A quote. Message-ID: <000601c109c7$7d1ed8c0$9b68fc80@wuh.wustl.edu> Well, I looked for the quote in the various databases for about a quarter of an hour. Found a lot of nothing, or, if you are feeling philosophical about it (and why not?), a lot of things which were quite interesting but not specifically dealing with the subject at hand. Anyhow, I don't know if this counts as arguing or not, but here goes. If Truth with a capital T is objective than isn't what is True automatically right? Patrick McKenzie It is objectively true that my favorite philosopher is St. Thomas Aquinas. ;) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010711/b13977cc/attachment.htm From KrausAK Wed Jul 11 02:22:02 2001 From: KrausAK (Alyse Kraus) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 02:22:02 -0500 Subject: LOVE UNDER THE WILL References: Message-ID: So I backchanneled you about this Jack, asking you to not clutter my mailbox (and everyone else's for that matter) with these tactless personal attacks. I'm getting the idea that others have done the same, and a few have done so on edebate. Let's see... should we start a tally? When the number reaches 20 will you finally stop? Would a petition help? Just wondering.... Alyse Kraus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010711/dfee778f/attachment.html From jackattack7 Wed Jul 11 08:39:46 2001 From: jackattack7 (jack stroube) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 08:39:46 Subject: Dropped Arguments in the 2AR Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010711/96abb8b1/attachment.htm From jackattack7 Wed Jul 11 08:54:35 2001 From: jackattack7 (jack stroube) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 08:54:35 Subject: Dropped Arguments in the 2AR Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010711/77860975/attachment.html From quadrophonic Wed Jul 11 04:13:58 2001 From: quadrophonic (Dheeraj Chand) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 02:13:58 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Proposal Message-ID: <20010711091358.36355.qmail@web11502.mail.yahoo.com> Dear debate community - There has been a recent flood of anti-ideas and abuse clogging a forum that is supposed to be devoted to a discussion of a truth-seeking activity. No matter how many French names are invoked, I don't see what is occurring as being a meaningful critique. I therefore propose that those of us who wish to engage Stroube in a dialogue do so by means of backchanneled emails...I personally plan on doing so. This robs him of the attention that he wants, spares ppl from the high amount of traffic that they probably don't want, and also allows ppl to continue to discuss these issues with Jack. To all those at UT: I'm sorry that you have to deal with this, and you have my emotional support. Best wishes, take care, and be well. regards, -dc __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ From nategoralnik Wed Jul 11 05:00:46 2001 From: nategoralnik (Nate Goralnik) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 03:00:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: A quote. In-Reply-To: <000601c109c7$7d1ed8c0$9b68fc80@wuh.wustl.edu> Message-ID: <20010711100046.76941.qmail@web14904.mail.yahoo.com> Ryan I just have no idea how you can *do* something that is "true." Lay off your buddy from Texas A&M, by the way. I would contend that it's NOT true that what he says is "meaningless drivel." I'm glad you appreciated my Spanos paper; I'm still undecided as to whether I'm going to share my most recent one publicly. Double-spaced it's 20 pages long, I think. Cheers :) Nate Goralnik ===== "And in my darkest moment, fetal and weeping, The moon tells me a secret--my confidant: 'As full and bright as I am, this light is not my own. A million light reflections pass over me.' Its source is bright and endless; She resuscitates the hopeless. Without her we are lifeless satellites dreaming dreams." -Tool __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ From jackattack7 Wed Jul 11 10:15:13 2001 From: jackattack7 (jack stroube) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 10:15:13 Subject: COUNTERPROPOSAL: HIJACK EDEBATE Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010711/a2f218d8/attachment.htm From jmassey Wed Jul 11 07:30:32 2001 From: jmassey (Jackie Massey) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 08:30:32 -0400 Subject: novice success? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.20010711083032.0084ed30@pop.uvm.edu> Scott, I was honored to coach two debaters who did not have high school experience, started out as novices in college and made it to elimination rounds at the NDT. Helen Morgan and Sarah Snider. Helen was only in her fifth semester of debate. It is possible. Peace, massey At 10:42 PM 7/10/01 -0400, Scott Jones wrote: > Thanks, Scott Jones Liberty University > > >Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com > From tgonos Wed Jul 11 08:09:07 2001 From: tgonos (Tracy Gonos) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 09:09:07 -0400 Subject: Fw: novice success? Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: Tracy Gonos To: Scott Jones Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2001 9:08 AM Subject: Re: novice success? This discussion has occurred before, but I think it is excellent to remind others that true novices can and do suceed in college policy debate. Jethro Hayman and Ana Lei McGreevy, both of whom were true novices reached semifinals at CEDA nationals. Jan Hovden and Lea Farstveet, were formidable national circuit debaters, although I can't remember their nationals performances off the top of my head. I reached quarterfinals at CEDA nationals in my fourth semester of debate. Thanks to directors, coaches and fellow debaters who don't see expending resources on novices as a waste, I'm sure there are many others who have excelled as well. Tracy ----- Original Message ----- From: Scott Jones To: edebate at ndtceda.com Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2001 10:42 PM Subject: novice success? After reading some postings about "kritiking" and "policy debate" there were some side discussions about novice debate, which brought a question to mind. If anyone has a bit of debate history knowledge- who could be considered successful varsity debaters that originally started out as novices in college debate? More specifically, has a debater who started out as a novice had a lot of success at the NDT or CEDA open nats? As a person who began as a novice a couple of years ago (on the sanctions topic), I have enjoyed debate and would like to hear some of those stories. So if you know of someone, or your that person, then e-mail me or post it on the list serve. I am sure other people who have began their debate careers like mine could appreciate and learn from you. Thanks, Scott Jones Liberty University ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010711/4672bc49/attachment.html From eric_truett Wed Jul 11 08:41:34 2001 From: eric_truett (Eric Truett) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 08:41:34 -0500 Subject: COUNTERPROPOSAL: HIJACK EDEBATE Message-ID: here is my counter-counter proposal Forward every web page, every spam, and every group e-mail you get. Include large attachments as often as possible. Address it to Jackattack7 at hotmail.com because there are hundreds of us, and only one of him, if we all send him 5 large e-mails per day, his account will soon be overloaded. i just sent him the entire ESPN web site. ET _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "jack stroube" Subject: COUNTERPROPOSAL: HIJACK EDEBATE Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 10:15:13 Size: 6191 Url: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010711/fb443488/attachment.mht From eric_truett Wed Jul 11 08:45:01 2001 From: eric_truett (Eric Truett) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 08:45:01 -0500 Subject: COUNTERPROPOSAL: HIJACK EDEBATE Message-ID: one more thing--if the UTNIF is the devil incarnate, why do you so desperately want your job back there? how can it be unjust for you to be denied blood money from exploiting, hypocritical capitalist pigs? _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "jack stroube" Subject: COUNTERPROPOSAL: HIJACK EDEBATE Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 10:15:13 Size: 6191 Url: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010711/9d7aa989/attachment.mht From ewarner Wed Jul 11 08:55:28 2001 From: ewarner (Ede Warner Jr.) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 09:55:28 -0400 Subject: novice logic? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Kudos to every novice that has surpassed the norm in their careers. Given the hurdles, that is a remarkable achievement. However I want to remind our community that these are the EXCEPTIONS and not the rule. Overwhelmingly, most novices: 1) don't make it to Junior Varsity, and 2) those that do often have fulfilling careers based on criteria OTHER THAN competitive success. The community must one day acknowledge and accept that the entrance barriers are high enough to make it very difficult for those beginning in college to compete successfully against students with 3 or 4 years of intensive high school training and competition. Maybe that is as it should be-- espeically if the goal is creation of an activity that rewards excellence and defines that excellence as mastery of unique technical forms of discourse. Alas, if the goal is to reward the best critical thinkers/debaters, I'm not sure the entrance barriers as currently practice them truly reward the best. I realize that Mr. Jones was only asking about success stories, but if this young man is making decisions about how much time and effort he wants to put in making himself nationally-competititve, he should have some context when trying to reach such an important decision. Maybe he will be motivated to strive for excellence...Maybe he will decide to challenge those current barriers...Maybe he will walk away... [Ede Warner, Jr.] -----Original Message----- From: Tracy Gonos [mailto:tgonos at hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2001 9:09 AM To: eDebate at ndtceda.com Subject: Fw: novice success? ----- Original Message ----- From: Tracy Gonos To: Scott Jones Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2001 9:08 AM Subject: Re: novice success? This discussion has occurred before, but I think it is excellent to remind others that true novices can and do suceed in college policy debate. Jethro Hayman and Ana Lei McGreevy, both of whom were true novices reached semifinals at CEDA nationals. Jan Hovden and Lea Farstveet, were formidable national circuit debaters, although I can't remember their nationals performances off the top of my head. I reached quarterfinals at CEDA nationals in my fourth semester of debate. Thanks to directors, coaches and fellow debaters who don't see expending resources on novices as a waste, I'm sure there are many others who have excelled as well. Tracy ----- Original Message ----- From: Scott Jones To: edebate at ndtceda.com Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2001 10:42 PM Subject: novice success? After reading some postings about "kritiking" and "policy debate" there were some side discussions about novice debate, which brought a question to mind. If anyone has a bit of debate history knowledge- who could be considered successful varsity debaters that originally started out as novices in college debate? More specifically, has a debater who started out as a novice had a lot of success at the NDT or CEDA open nats? As a person who began as a novice a couple of years ago (on the sanctions topic), I have enjoyed debate and would like to hear some of those stories. So if you know of someone, or your that person, then e-mail me or post it on the list serve. I am sure other people who have began their debate careers like mine could appreciate and learn from you. Thanks, Scott Jones Liberty University ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010711/5b1352dc/attachment.htm From DaveAnt420 Wed Jul 11 09:01:51 2001 From: DaveAnt420 (DaveAnt420 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 10:01:51 EDT Subject: COUNTERPROPOSAL: HIJACK EDEBATE Message-ID: In a message dated 07/11/2001 7:43:40 AM Mountain Daylight Time, eric_truett at hotmail.com writes: << Forward every web page, every spam, and every group e-mail you get. Include large attachments as often as possible. Address it to Jackattack7 at hotmail.com because there are hundreds of us, and only one of him, if we all send him 5 large e-mails per day, his account will soon be overloaded. i just sent him the entire ESPN web site. >> This is called mailbombing and is against the law. Are you encouraging us to engage in illegal activities? I think what Stroube is doing is wrong, but should we be wrong to attempt to forcibly stop him? Bear, cc:Abuse at hotmail.com From lawrencegog Wed Jul 11 09:14:03 2001 From: lawrencegog (lawrence williams) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 09:14:03 -0500 Subject: you dont need to read this Message-ID: just trying to post _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From lawrencegog Wed Jul 11 09:33:28 2001 From: lawrencegog (lawrence williams) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 09:33:28 -0500 Subject: my concerns Message-ID: i often feel a strong bias in the debate community towards non-liberal activist or libertarians. i realize that i've only debated a year at sam houston state university, but my concern remains the same. i also have recently gotten into Ayn Rand, and those thoughts have often been rejected by my teammates. i realize that i was a freshman, but im also learning about many new things now that i've gotten away to college. i feel that debate should be a place where we can present many ideas and not need to be rejected by the masses. i was in a round last year where i ran objectivism, and i lost because the judge fell captive to the utilitarian ideals of the world, completely ignoring almost everything i said about why it affects everyone and how it destroys rights. im not trying to pass judgment on the judge and say he was wrong, but i feel that there is almost not room for my ideas of life in the realm of debate as of now. i also realize that there could have been other factors in his decision of that round, so please don't get me wrong here. i do hope that one day i will be able to successfully incorporate my thoughts, because otherwise i feel id be lying to myself... _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From BERCHNORTO Wed Jul 11 09:58:20 2001 From: BERCHNORTO (BERCHNORTO at aol.com) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 10:58:20 EDT Subject: novice logic? Message-ID: I had considered responding with a backchannel to Mr. Jones, but Ede Warner raises some important issues that need to be aired more generally. First of all, it should be noted that Mr. Jones and his partner (Steve Trask) have had great success in their c ollege debate careers. Together with another Liberty team and a couple of Catholic University teams, they dominated the JV division at tournaments in the East and Mid-Atlantic regions this past year. I have pondered the question that Mr. Jones asked, be cause I have two teams of walk-on novices who came in at the same time as Mr. Jones and have been a step or two behind him competitively. This past spring, I discussed their goals for the coming year with them. They informed me that they wished to be co mpetitive on the national circuit. I inquired at edebate, asking how much time competitive (but not dominant) national circuit teams spend on research each week. The modal answer was 25 hours per week. Knowing that none of ! my varsity debaters was willing to put in that much time every week, I also reminded them that this would mean they were doing as much research as people who still had years more debate experience than they did. While we try to emphasize quality of research rather than quantity, I told them that I thought the obstacles were too much to overcome. I don't think (except under the most unusual circumstances) that a team of walk-on novices can win an outround at NDT (please don't send me the names of the rare exceptions--the odds are just too great). I told my two teams (somewhat tongue-in-cheek) that from a competitive standpoint, sending them to tournaments was a waste of resources, but that I would do so, because: 1. their research will help our novice teams, and, 2. they've earned those resources with 3 years of hard work and team spirit. I told them that I would send them to the NDT district qualifier, but that I don't expect them to qualify--and that I will continue to tell them that until I put them on the plane to Springfield:) Realistically, they could qualify, but they have zero cha nce of clearing there. Realistically, Mr. Jones and Mr. Trask can hope to qualify and have a chance to clear. I think that's about the most that walk-on novices can hope for in virtually all cases. So, my advice to Mr. Jones is to enjoy his senior year, work hard, not let debate rule his life, and not measure his success in terms of competition, but rather in terms of what he learns about the topic, what he learns about leadership, and how he helps his team's novices. Of course, that only works if you create a debate program that is a community, because it depends upon a situation where newcomers achieve the most competitive success. It takes special students to accomplish that. It also takes alternative arrangements . Professor Warner again calls our attention to the retention problem, and I agree that having to face people with hundreds of rounds of extra experience is indeed a big part of the problem. One solution that we've employed at WVU is to offer some debat ers the opportunity to become novice coaches instead of proceeding blindly through the ranks when their interest has waned. I think it's a great way to go for at least some debaters. I also think that there's nothing wrong with not going any farther tha n novice (which is why I routinely recruit WVU seniors as walk-on novices). I believe Tuna Snider is correct when he points out that you get far more out of the first year of debate than you get out of each ensuing year. So,! I guess what I'm saying is that I, too, don't like the fact that the activity rewards technique and obsessive devotion to the activity far more than I would like it to (and often at the expense of critical thinking skills). I was particularly frustrated this year watching one of our J V teams with superb critical thinking skills drop a round to a team severely lacking in such skills simply because one of our debaters wasn't fast enough--even though she was far faster than she should have to be. Yes, this comes back to another issue th at Professor Warner has raised in several ways in the past). Unfortunately (I guess I'm more of a pessimist than Ede), I don't see that changing. What the vast majority in the activity needs to do is ignore the obsessed minority, and teach our students to get what they can out of the activity, lead balanced lives, and carry those skills out into the world when they graduate (or before). --Neil Berch West Virginia University From dhn2 Wed Jul 11 10:04:47 2001 From: dhn2 (Daniel Hugh Nexon) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 11:04:47 -0400 (EDT) Subject: my concerns In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 11 Jul 2001, lawrence williams wrote: Lawrence, My guess is that the per capita presence of objectivists and libertarian-leaning individuals is higher in the debate community than in the general population, while the per capita presence of conservatives is lower. In this context, you need to realize two things. 1. The "hostility" you refer to is almost invariably built upon principled, if not always clearly articulated, rejections of your views. You should no more expect individuals who profoundly disagree with you to approve of your beliefs than you approve of their's. 2. If my above speculation is true, you will find the debate community (at the very least) no worse than the general population with respect to acceptance of your views. Unless you want to shield yourself by associating with like-minded individuals, you will have to get used to your position as a holder of heterodox beliefs. When you get a chance, you should read Karl Polanyi's _The Great Transformation_, which is an important argument contrary to that found in Hayek, Misse, or Rand with respect to economic history and political philosophy. Regards, Dan | Columbia Political Science | www.columbia.edu/~dhn2 "Everyone who has had a referee get the argument of his or her paper directly backward has wondered about calling it 'peer' review." -- Arthur L. Stinchcombe. From llano Wed Jul 11 10:42:51 2001 From: llano (Stephen Llano) Date: 11 Jul 2001 08:42:51 -0700 Subject: Paging Brian Lennox Message-ID: <20010711154251.1595.cpmta@c014.sfo.cp.net> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010711/83c6db95/attachment.asc From jd.rollins Wed Jul 11 11:02:19 2001 From: jd.rollins (Joel Rollins) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 11:02:19 -0500 Subject: my concerns References: Message-ID: <3B4C788A.2860907B@mail.utexas.edu> there are many libertarians in the debate community, you should speak with the iowa coaching staff if you need confirmation. also, objectivism has been run very successfully by several debaters, such as jon brody at texas, john miller at redlands, and cyclone covey at wake forest. i personally think that objectivism is a bankrupt moral philosophy but i have voted for the argument on numerous occasions, despite my left of center political leanings. so part of it may be that you are not winning your argument. you perhaps believe in it too strongly to see the other side or the judges perspective. too strongly held opinions can cloud a person's perspective, regardless of where one sits on the political spectrum. joel lawrence williams wrote: > i often feel a strong bias in the debate community towards non-liberal > activist or libertarians. i realize that i've only debated a year at sam > houston state university, but my concern remains the same. i also have > recently gotten into Ayn Rand, and those thoughts have often been rejected > by my teammates. i realize that i was a freshman, but im also learning > about many new things now that i've gotten away to college. i feel that > debate should be a place where we can present many ideas and not need to be > rejected by the masses. i was in a round last year where i ran objectivism, > and i lost because the judge fell captive to the utilitarian ideals of the > world, completely ignoring almost everything i said about why it affects > everyone and how it destroys rights. im not trying to pass judgment on the > judge and say he was wrong, but i feel that there is almost not room for my > ideas of life in the realm of debate as of now. i also realize that there > could have been other factors in his decision of that round, so please don't > get me wrong here. i do hope that one day i will be able to successfully > incorporate my thoughts, because otherwise i feel id be lying to myself... > _________________________________________________________________ > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From jwpatt00 Wed Jul 11 12:58:57 2001 From: jwpatt00 (J.W. Patterson) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 13:58:57 -0400 Subject: Kentucky Invitation Message-ID: INVITATION UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY 31ST ANNUAL DEBATE TOURNAMENT October 6, 7, & 8 2001 (Saturday, Sunday, & Monday) SPECIAL AIR ARRANGEMENTS We have made special airline arrangements with Delta Airlines for the Kentucky Tournament. We are using Delta because it has almost as many flights in and out of Lexington each day as all other airlines combined. Details follow: Delta is offering a 5% discount off Delta's published round trip fares. By purchasing your ticket 60 or more days prior to your departure date, you can receive an additional 5% bonus discount. A 10% discount will be offered on Delta's domestic system for travel to the meeting based on the publishes unrestricted round-trip coach (Y06) rates. No advanced reservations or ticketing is required, but if you purchase your ticket 60 days or more prior to your departure date, you can receive and additional 5% bonus discount. No discounts apply on Delta Express flights. To take advantage of Delta's services call or have your travel agent call 1-800-241-6760 between 7:30am and 11:00 pm EST weekdays and between 8:30am and 11:00pmEST weekends. YOU MUST REFER TO FILE NUMBER: 169164A Dear Director of Forensics: This is your invitation to the 31ST Annual University of Kentucky Collegiate Debate Tournament on Saturday, Sunday, and Monday, October 6, 7, & 8, 2001. The Tournament will have one division: THE HENRY CLAY DEBATES (Varsity) plus "THE PRE-SEASON NOVICE NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP." DATES: Saturday, Sunday, and Monday, October 6, 7, & 8, 2001 FORMAT FOR THE HENRY CLAY DEBATES (VARSITY): The format will consist of eight preliminary rounds of switch-side, two-person teams debating the 2001-2002 topic. RESERVATIONS FOR EMMETT'S As many of you know, my daughter Elizabeth Patterson-Coons and her husband Joe have opened a restaurant in Lexington called " Emmett's." The restaurant is located in the suburbs of Lexington in Joe's boyhood farm house, and features both European and American cuisine. If you want to dine at "Emmett's" during the Kentucky Tournament, you should call immediately. The phone number is (859)-245-4444. The restaurant is located on the corner of Duvall and Tates Creek. THE RESTUARANT ALWAYS FILLS ON WEEKENDS SO PLEASE MAKE RESERVATIONS EARLY. RESERVATIONS FOR HOLLY HILL INN Ouita Papka and her husband Chris have opened a new restaurant in Midway, Kentucky. They are open Wednesday through Saturday evening and Sunday for brunch. The food is superb. Ouita changes the menu frequently with creative dishes. Call 859-846-4732 for reservations. Let them know you're with the debate tournament. SWEET SIXTEEN Should we have approximentally the same number of teams as last year, we will employ a special format to arrive at the "Sweet Sixteen." Teams 9-24(or a smaller number) may debate in a run-off on Monday morning to determine the magic number of sixteen. Obviously, 1-8 would sit out during this round. This format still enables us to have all "out" rounds at the Ramada Hotel Deluxe(formerly Harley Hotel). FORMAT FOR THE PRE-SEASON NOVICE NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP: This event will be an elimination bracket probably beginning at the quarter-final level, but could begin earlier or later depending on the number of entries. Even if we have a partial octofinal, we will work out a scheme in which novices who participate in Varsity octofinals but subsequently lose will be able to enter the elimination bracket at the quarterfinal level. "Novice" will be defined as students who are debating for the first time in college this year. To be eligible for this division, debaters must have first participated in the preliminary rounds of the Henry Clay Varsity Debates. TOURNAMENT PRACTICES: A. Rounds Per Day. There will be four rounds held on Saturday and Sunday, with elimination rounds on Monday. B. Procedure for Assigning Judges. Judges will be assigned on a selective procedure based on the input of the coaches. Random assignments will not be followed. C. Breaking Brackets. We will continue the practice of not breaking brackets in the elimination rounds. Thus, teams from the same school will meet if their numbers fall accordingly. JUDGES: Each school is expected to provide one judge per team. Accordingly, a coach with one team will be expected to judge four rounds; plus at least one additional round. A coach with two teams is expected to judge all eight rounds; plus at least one additional round. NOTE: In addition to his or her preliminary judging assignments, each judge is expected to stay one round past that in which their team is eliminated. Hence, each judge is expected to be available at least through quarter-finals. If available, judges may be hired at the cost of twenty dollars ($20.00) per round. Therefore, the maximum for hiring a judge per team, would be one-hundred dollars ($100.00). VERY, VERY FEW, IF ANY HIRED JUDGES WILL BE AVAILABLE. THUS, IT IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT YOU PROVIDE YOUR OWN JUDGES. REGISTRATION FEE: The registration for the Henry Clay Debates is one-hundred and fifteen dollars ($130) per team. A fifteen dollar($20) surcharge will be assessed to each novice team who wishes to be considered for the special elimination bracket in the competition for the title "PRE-SEASON NOVICE NATIONAL CHAMPIONS". The surcharge is to defray the cost of additional trophies. Fees include coaches parties each night plus one luncheon and continental breakfasts on Saturday and Sunday. If you pay by check, please make the check payable to UK Student Forum. TRANSPORTATION: Unfortunately, UK can no longer provide transportation to and from the airport or campus. FRIDAY REGISTRATION: All registration will take place Friday evening, October 5, 2001 in the Lexington Suite of the Ramada Hotel Deluxe (Formerly Harley Hotel) between 6:30 and 10:30. No registration will occur on Saturday. HOUSING: The Ramada Hotel Deluxe is the Tournament Hotel: (859) 299-1261. Each school must secure its own housing. Arrangements should be made immediately. Most motel managers say they will be completely filled by mid-September. We are competing with Thoroughbred racing at Keenland Race Course as well as UK football. PLEASE make your reservations immediately. SINCE ALL SOCIAL EVENTS AND ELIMINATION ROUNDS WILL BE HELD AT THE RAMADA HOTEL DELUXE, WE URGE YOU TO STAY THERE IF AT ALL POSSIBLE. Arrangements have been made with the Ramada Hotel Deluxe for a special rate or $89 plus tax per night. I am currently negotiating with them to get an even better rate. We will also use the Ramada Hotel Deluxe as our headquarters hotel. Our block of rooms will be held until September 15, 2001. We suggest that any reservations made after this date be called directly to the RAMADA HOTEL DELUXE SALES OFFICE, not Ramada Reservations. RAMADA HOTEL DELUXE (Formerly the HARLEY HOTEL (Convention Hotel): 100 rooms available Reservations held until Sept. 15. (859) 299-1261 $89+ tax (1-4 people) flat rate. Reservation Code: Kentucky Debates CAUTION IN THE USE OF RAMADA ROOMS: When you check out, the Ramada Hotel Deluxe will have a staff person check the room. If it is unduly dirty or trashed, the hotel will assess an additional $25 cleaning fee per room. If the carpet has to be shampooed, it will be an additional $50 per room. SUGGESTED OVER-FLOW HOTELS DAYS INN (1 Block from Ramada) (859) 299-1202 RED ROOF INN NORTH (1 block from Ramada) 859-293-2626 or 1-800-733-7663. IF THE ABOVE ARE FILLED TRY: HOLIDAY INN NORTH (1 mile from Ramada) (859) 232 - 0512 Bluegrass Budget Inn 232 New Circle Rd Lexington, KY 40505 (859) 299-1211 Springs Inn 2020 Harrodsburg Rd Lexington, Ky 40503 PLEASE REMEMBER THAT THE TOTAL TAX ON LEXINGTON LODGING IS 11.3 PERCENT. QUESTIONS OR LAST MINUTE CHANGES: If any questions arise, or of any last minute changes occur, please do not hesitate to contact me. My telephone numbers are: University Office: (859) 257-1665 Debate Office: (859) 257-6523 Home: (859) 272-4268 Fax: (859) 323-1995 Beeper: (859) 330-1529 E-Mail: jwpatt00 at pop.uky.edu If you need to reach me after 4:00pm, October 2, until the end of the tournament, you can contact me at the Ramada Hotel Deluxe, Lexington Suite, (859) 299-1261. I am looking forward to seeing you and your teams at the University of Kentucky's 2001 Debates. Sincerely, J.W. Patterson Director of Debate University of Kentucky HENRY CLAY DEBATES October 6, 7, & 8, 2001 (Saturday, Sunday, & Monday) ENTRY FORM NOTE: PLEASE PLACE AN ASTERISK BY NOVICE TEAMS WHO WISH TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE PRE-SEASON NOVICE NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP ELIMINATION BRACKET. PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT: SCHOOL _______________________________ ADDRESS _________________________________________ COACH _____________________________ OFFICE PHONE ______________________________________ HOME PHONE________________________________ FAX ________________ E-MAIL__________________ TEAM A _____________________________________ & ___________________________________________ Rank strength of this team A B C TEAM B _____________________________________ & ___________________________________________ Rank strength of this team A B C Please list additional teams on the other side. SCHOOL TEAMS IN OTHER DIVISIONS? YES / NO (PLEASE CIRCLE) JUDGING: (Please check appropriate blank) _____ We will provide the following person(s) to judge: _____ Hire a judge for us at $20 per round for ____ rounds. (NOTE: A school hiring a judge for all rounds will cost $100 per team.) FEES: (Fees may be paid on arrival in Lexington) REGISTRATION FEE is $130 per team $_____________ JUDGING FEE is $20 per round $______________ SURCHARGE for Novice Championship is $20 per team $______________ TOTAL FEES: $______________ RESERVATIONS: PLEASE RESERVE ____ FOR THE COACHES RECEPTIONS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (Coach's signature) (Date) THIS FORM SHOULD BE IN LEXINGTON BT SEPTEMBER 25, 2001 TO : J.W. PATTERSON, DIRECTOR OF DEBATE 205 FRAZEE HALL UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY LEXINGTON, KY 40506-0031 From mroston Wed Jul 11 13:23:08 2001 From: mroston (Michael Roston) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 13:23:08 -0500 Subject: joel rollins may be a genius... Message-ID: <4FE979B052D1D211BE940008C79F1E4D40C96F@SFDN01> >there are many libertarians in the debate community, you should speak with the >iowa coaching staff if you need confirmation. ...but this statement is absolutely puzzling. Should Iowa debaters and coaches take a cheap shot at Texas every chance they get, too? Increasin' the peace... Michael Roston Intern The Stanley Foundation 209 Iowa Avenue Muscatine, IA 52761 563-264-6886 Fax: 563-264-0864 www.stanleyfdn.org From jwpatt00 Wed Jul 11 13:19:17 2001 From: jwpatt00 (J.W. Patterson) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 14:19:17 -0400 Subject: LSAT and Kentucky Message-ID: KENTUCKY TOURNAMENT AND LSAT Earlier today, I sent an invitation for the Kentucky Henry Clay Debates on Saturday, Sunday, Monday, October 6, 7, and 8, 2001. I forgot to mention that debaters who need to take the LSAT that Saturday can take them in Lexington and still participate in the tournament. Any debaters taking the LSAT will miss the first two rounds. We will give a win and a loss and averaged points. J.W. Patterson Director of Debate University of Kentucky From Cleverprof Wed Jul 11 13:47:42 2001 From: Cleverprof (Cleverprof at aol.com) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 14:47:42 EDT Subject: UT Van/Disclaimer Message-ID: <39.176ac24c.287df94e@aol.com> Earlier I shared my opinion of the UT Van Accident. I think it is important to point out that it was my opinion and my opinion only. My thoughts in no way reflected any official opinion of San Francisco State. I did not consult with anyone concerning w hat I read and I trust that readers understand that just because one is affiliated with a particular school, it does not mean that s/he speaks for that institution. Having said that, I hope this discussion revitalizes the notion of travel safety in all of its manifestations. Mark J. Jones SFSU From dbteam Wed Jul 11 14:30:30 2001 From: dbteam (UWG Debate Team) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 15:30:30 -0400 (EDT) Subject: CPs on #3 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: just had a discussion over lunch about #3. thought i'd share it: under interps promoted in this thread, it has been posited that the aff plan may increase fed control over the states. in such a round where plan says "USFG will require states to do X throughout Inidan Country", how acceptable is the CP to have the states do X? it solves the case, with federalism and/or other coercion bad net benefits. and unlike previous years where the plan had the USFG do something, the CP had the states do it and the debate was over who does it best, this example would have the states taking action in both the plan and CP, with the only question being whether states should be 'forced' by FG to act. one response against such CPs in the past has been that it is illegit to fiat the 'object of the resolution.' only, under #3, 'the states' are not actually a resolutional term at all, so it isn't a CP that fiats the object (technically, the direct object is federal control, with the laundry list of areas being the indirect objects). is it illegit to fiat the 'object' of the plan? one person in our talk analogized it to counterplanning out a war advantage by having one side not fight. another said the distinction was that the CP in the war advantage was a) Int'l in nature, and b) of another level of fiat b/c the "states voluntary cp" was a fiat of the same order as plan(the FG forces states to do X, the CP has states do X) whereas the CP in the war scenario was of another order (the plan attempted to solve war via aid, etc. while the CP skipped to the impact level and fiated a cease-fire). i'm unsure about the legitimacy. but if this CP is viable, it seems like the half of the topic that has been so demonstrably touted in this thread is extremely vulnerable to a rather rock-solid strategy... i.e., the neg will have no problem winning these rounds b/c it's always easier to win voluntary action is better than coerced action. thoughts? hester From jkeeton Wed Jul 11 14:36:06 2001 From: jkeeton (jkeeton at richmond.edu) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 15:36:06 -0400 Subject: UN Assessment Project Survey Message-ID: I encourage you to complete this survey from The Heritage Foundation. It includes a question about reperations for slavery and will be shown the Congress and the media. http://surveys.heritage.org/showsurvey.cfm?sid=2&cid=1&rsrc=emaf From dhn2 Wed Jul 11 14:54:15 2001 From: dhn2 (Daniel Hugh Nexon) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 15:54:15 -0400 (EDT) Subject: CPs on #3 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 11 Jul 2001, UWG Debate Team wrote: > one response against such CPs in the past has been that it is illegit to > fiat the 'object of the resolution.' only, under #3, 'the states' are not > actually a resolutional term at all, so it isn't a CP that fiats the > object (technically, the direct object is federal control, with the > laundry list of areas being the indirect objects). > > is it illegit to fiat the 'object' of the plan? one person in our talk > analogized it to counterplanning out a war advantage by having one side > not fight. another said the distinction was that the CP in the war advantage > was a) Int'l in nature, and b) of another level of fiat b/c the "states > voluntary cp" was a fiat of the same order as plan(the FG forces states to > do X, the CP has states do X) whereas the CP in the war scenario was of > another order (the plan attempted to solve war via aid, etc. while the CP > skipped to the impact level and fiated a cease-fire). Having been out of the activity for a while let me say this... The legitimacy of the "states" counterplan as opposed to "international fiat" is purely conventional. Either the negative is resticted to the same agent as the resolution or it can do anything it damn well pleases with respect to other actors. Any other line-drawing is invariably ad hoc. Take the "impact level" claim. Impacts are just a place where one side ceases to evaluate a causal sequence, based on the normative presumption that the event in question is a 'bad' thing. If the negative can intervene by suggesting a _different_ causal chain or by intervening at a _different_ part of the causal chain (rather than give aid, we'll send troops in, or whatever), there's no reason they can't intervene at the place where the affirmative--for whatever reason--decided to "stop" the exploration of causal relations. Well, I guess this is what happens when I'm sitting at home trying to finish a dissertation on international political change and the emergence of state sovereignty, in which I've just written my section about the inability of the international/domestic dichotomy to deal with imperial and federative polities. Sorry :). Regards, Dan | Columbia Political Science | www.columbia.edu/~dhn2 "Everyone who has had a referee get the argument of his or her paper directly backward has wondered about calling it 'peer' review." -- Arthur L. Stinchcombe. From jlhedrick Wed Jul 11 15:01:37 2001 From: jlhedrick (Joshua Hedrick) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 20:01:37 -0000 Subject: CPs on #3 Message-ID: I have two points. 1. realize that the aff is going to have their choice of which area to increase federal control that means they are going to be able to pick an area where usfg corrects a problem created by states. It seems that the debate will be a lot about the nature of usfg-tribal relations and state-tribal relations. While such a state CP strategy would be wide spread, it certainly isn't impossible to beat. Also, many aff's will increase federal control in ways that states simply can't act. There should be interesting debate about why the USFG should act instead of the states. 2. I don't see why the aff would be reduced to advocating coerced action by the states. Some would advocate decreased state action, and some would advocate no change. the net benifits will center around federalism and politics. I think your point shows that there is plenty of neg ground on rez three. As I have mentioned earlier...rez 2 seems to be lacking in that sense. Vote Rez 3, Josh > >just had a discussion over lunch about #3. thought i'd share it: > >under interps promoted in this thread, it has been posited that the aff >plan may increase fed control over the states. in such a round where plan >says "USFG will require states to do X throughout Inidan Country", how >acceptable is the CP to have the states do X? it solves the case, with >federalism and/or other coercion bad net benefits. and unlike previous >years where the plan had the USFG do something, the CP had the states do >it and the debate was over who does it best, this example would have the >states taking action in both the plan and CP, with the only question >being whether states should be 'forced' by FG to act. > >one response against such CPs in the past has been that it is illegit to >fiat the 'object of the resolution.' only, under #3, 'the states' are not >actually a resolutional term at all, so it isn't a CP that fiats the >object (technically, the direct object is federal control, with the >laundry list of areas being the indirect objects). > >is it illegit to fiat the 'object' of the plan? one person in our talk >analogized it to counterplanning out a war advantage by having one side >not fight. another said the distinction was that the CP in the war >advantage >was a) Int'l in nature, and b) of another level of fiat b/c the "states >voluntary cp" was a fiat of the same order as plan(the FG forces states to >do X, the CP has states do X) whereas the CP in the war scenario was of >another order (the plan attempted to solve war via aid, etc. while the CP >skipped to the impact level and fiated a cease-fire). > >i'm unsure about the legitimacy. but if this CP is viable, it seems like >the half of the topic that has been so demonstrably touted in this thread >is extremely vulnerable to a rather rock-solid strategy... i.e., the neg >will have no problem winning these rounds b/c it's always easier to win >voluntary action is better than coerced action. > >thoughts? > >hester > > > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From mhaga3zg Wed Jul 11 15:15:42 2001 From: mhaga3zg (michael l. hagan) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 16:15:42 -0400 Subject: novice logic? Message-ID: I really don't like this whole line of thinking which says that novices should just give up on their debate careers because "the barriers are too high." I think that's bull and that anyone who believes it is just giving up on themselves and their own kid s. This is just like any other competitive sport where if you have technique and obsessive devotion, you get places and you break down these "barriers" that everybody keeps talking about. There's mention of people getting rewarded for this obsessive devotio n...they should be rewarded!! So what if the people you go against have hundreds of rounds of experience, I say...good for them, maybe they'll teach me something. You say that they might get creamed in varsity and that they won't learn anything. I say getting creamed is a part of debate, and that an additional part of debate is learning that the competitive nature of debate allows us and forces us to get up after that creaming and say..."this is what I did wrong, this is what I will fix and I WILL win my next round." This defeatist nature smacks of people who have no will in debate and are just willing to let people walk all over them, get up and fight for something for a change! For those of you sports minds out there, let me give you some comparisons of what this defeatist attitude is like: Not running through first base every single time. Not doing that fake pump after every running play in football. Giving up on your basketball team when they are down 3-1 against the lakers and Shaq. It literally hurts me to think that coaches out there are telling their people that they don't think they are going to qualify or that they shouldn't do this type of debate because it has too many boundaries. >>> 07/11/01 11:03 AM >>> I had considere responding with a backchannel to Mr. Jones, but Ede Warner raises some important issues that need to be aired more generally. First of all, it should be noted that Mr. Jones and his partner (Steve Trask) have had great success in their co llege debate careers. Together with another Liberty team and a couple of Catholic University teams, they dominated the JV division at tournaments in the East and Mid-Atlantic regions this past year. I have pondered the question that Mr. Jones asked, bec ause I have two teams of walk-on novices who came in at the same time as Mr. Jones and have been a step or two behind him competitively. This past spring, I discussed their goals for the coming year with them. They informed me that they wished to be com petitive on the national circuit. I inquired at edebate, asking how much time competitive (but not dominant) national circuit teams spend on research each week. The modal answer was 25 hours per week. Knowing that none o! f ! my varsity debaters was willing to put in that much time every week, I also reminded them that this would mean they were doing as much research as people who still had years more debate experience than they did. While we try to emphasize quality of research rather than quantity, I told them that I thought the obstacles were too much to overcome. I don't think (except under the most unusual circumstances) that a team of walk-on novices can win an outround at NDT (please don't send me the names of the rare exceptions--the odds are just too great). I told my two teams (somewhat tongue-in-cheek) that from a competitive standpoint, sending them to tournaments was a waste of resources, but that I would do so, because: 1. their research will help our novice teams, and, 2. they've earned those resources with 3 years of hard work and team spirit. I told them that I would send them to the NDT district qualifier, but that I don't expect them to qualify--and that I will continue to tell them that until I put them on the plane to Springfield:) Realitically, they could qualify, but they have zero chan ce of clearing there. Realistically, Mr. Jones and Mr. Trask can hope to qualify and have a chance to clear. I think that's about the most that walk-on novices can hope for in virtually all cases. So, my advice to Mr. Jones is to enjoy his senior year, work hard, not let debate rule his life, and not measure his success in terms of competition, but rather in terms of what he learns about the topic, what he learns about leadership, and how he helps his team's novices. Of course, that only works if you create a debate program that is a community, because it depends upon a situation where newcomers achieve the most competitive success. It takes special students to accomplish that. It also takes alternative arrangements . Professor Warner again calls our attention to the retention problem, and I agree that having to face people with hundreds of rounds of extra experience is indeed a big part of the problem. One solution that we've employed at WVU is to offer some debat ers the opportunity to become novice coaches instead of proceeding blindly through the ranks when their interest has waned. I think it's a great way to go for at least some debaters. I also think that there's nothing wrong with not going any farther tha n novice (which is why I routinely recruit WVU seniors as walk-on novices). I believe Tuna Snider is correct when he points out that you get far more out of the first year of debate than you get out of each ensuing year. S! o,! I guess what I'm saying is that I, too, don't like the fact that the activity rewards technique and obsessive devotion to the activity far more than I would like it to (and often at the expense of critical thinking skills). I was particularly frustrated this year watching one of our J V teams with superb critical thinking skills drop a round to a team severely lacking in such skills simply because one of our debaters wasn't fast enough--even though she was far faster than she should have to be. Yes, this comesback to another issue tha t Professor Warner has raised in several ways in the past). Unfortunately (I guess I'm more of a pessimist than Ede), I don't see that changing. What the vast majority in the activity needs to do is ignore the obsessed minority, and teach our students t o get what they can out of the activity, lead balanced lives, and carry those skills out into the world when they graduate (or before). --Neil Berch West Virginia University From bsumekpk Wed Jul 11 15:39:43 2001 From: bsumekpk (Pete Bsumek) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 16:39:43 -0400 Subject: CPs on #3 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: i think this scenario points to the importance of eliminating fiat altogether and refocusing the debate on "likely hood of sucessful adoption/implimentation." in other words, the "practicality" of the plan becomes a debatable net-benifit. in this case, the likelyhood of adoption would be weighed like any other argument. our plan might be slightly less benifical, but it is way more likely to actually come to fuition - we have a plan for sucess, they have an unattainable ideal -- sort of thing. this refocus might also encourage debates which pit the benefits of utopian discourse against the benefits of pragmatic discourse. i think i would rather listen to that debate than a debate about "the nature of fiat." haven't thought this all the way through yet, but am interested -- if anyone wants to play flint to my steel. cheers, pete >just had a discussion over lunch about #3. thought i'd share it: > >under interps promoted in this thread, it has been posited that the aff >plan may increase fed control over the states. in such a round where plan >says "USFG will require states to do X throughout Inidan Country", how >acceptable is the CP to have the states do X? it solves the case, with >federalism and/or other coercion bad net benefits. and unlike previous >years where the plan had the USFG do something, the CP had the states do >it and the debate was over who does it best, this example would have the >states taking action in both the plan and CP, with the only question >being whether states should be 'forced' by FG to act. > >one response against such CPs in the past has been that it is illegit to >fiat the 'object of the resolution.' only, under #3, 'the states' are not >actually a resolutional term at all, so it isn't a CP that fiats the >object (technically, the direct object is federal control, with the >laundry list of areas being the indirect objects). > >is it illegit to fiat the 'object' of the plan? one person in our talk >analogized it to counterplanning out a war advantage by having one side >not fight. another said the distinction was that the CP in the war advantage >was a) Int'l in nature, and b) of another level of fiat b/c the "states >voluntary cp" was a fiat of the same order as plan(the FG forces states to >do X, the CP has states do X) whereas the CP in the war scenario was of >another order (the plan attempted to solve war via aid, etc. while the CP >skipped to the impact level and fiated a cease-fire). > >i'm unsure about the legitimacy. but if this CP is viable, it seems like >the half of the topic that has been so demonstrably touted in this thread >is extremely vulnerable to a rather rock-solid strategy... i.e., the neg >will have no problem winning these rounds b/c it's always easier to win >voluntary action is better than coerced action. > >thoughts? > >hester _________________________________ Pete Bsumek Debate Coordinator MSC 2106 School of Communication Studies James Madison University Harrisonburg, VA 22807 (o) 540-568-3386 (f) 540-568-6059 From doyle Wed Jul 11 15:55:51 2001 From: doyle (Doyle Srader) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 15:55:51 -0500 Subject: novice success? Message-ID: Roderick Stanley Phares had two ROUNDS in high school (if I'm remembering right), turned in a couple of 0-8 performances as a first year, but, debating for Baylor, reached the elims of the NDT in 1991 and 1992, the second time on a first round bid. Doyle Srader Lecturer, Speech Communication Stephen F Austin State University http://titan.sfasu.edu/~f_sraderdw/ "If people could judge me by the company I keep, they would judge me for keeping really good company." -- George W. Bush, January 23, 2000 "National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice announced today the appointment of Elliott Abrams as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Democracy, Human Rights, and International Operations at the National Security Council, effective June 25, 2001." -- Office of the Press Secretary, June 28, 2001 From djc7 Wed Jul 11 16:36:57 2001 From: djc7 (Devin J. Chwastyk) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 17:36:57 -0400 Subject: Tate's "dropped arguments in the 2AR" response Message-ID: <636ae46339bc.6339bc636ae4@bulldog.georgetown.edu> Tara Tate writes: "is anyone disturbed by the fact that debate lingo is now being utilized in discussions (see subject line of the original email) about individuals in this community that were killed or injured? Why should discussions about this matter be viewed as a debate sparring match back and forth? . . . it just caught me off guard as a completely desensitizing move..." Like Tara, I don't give a fly about the dude who got fired or whatever, but I'm curious why debate lingo would be unsuitable in a conversation about debaters who were killed and injured, while it's "suitably" thrown about in "sparring match" after "sparring match" about wars, genocides, disenfranchised peoples, and what-not. maybe we should be questioning "the lingo" itself and whether its "desensitizing" effects are limited to this particular application. Devin Chwastyk corporate law . . . is . . . boring . . . From veronica_m_barreto Wed Jul 11 17:03:34 2001 From: veronica_m_barreto (Veronica Barreto) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 18:03:34 -0400 Subject: CPs on #3 Message-ID: Mmmm..kay, I just got in and read this post. I'm working off of pure instinct so I will neither be as brilliant nor as cute as Coop but y'all just have to bear with me anyways. I'll start off with why I don't think the cp is legit. It just sounds sketchy. I think I have an analogy that escapes the criticism Hester mentioned against the cping out of the war advantage. The states CP discussed is the equivalent of counterplanning that criminals will not commit capital crimes against an affirmative that bans the death penalty on a sentencing resolution. Sure murderers aren't the object of the resolution and wouldn't even be a resolutional term but just because that's true doesn't make it legitimate. As for the net benefits, the coercion bad position is an interesting one, but not entirely losing a battle. In addition to your stock answers, you can claim that your reduction of state coercion over Indian Country turns it and sure, that?s not a unique turn but it?s an argument. Not to mention, anyone who researches the process will come across the federalism turns, which would produce some rather in depth debates about the principle and how it operates. She who wins the turn, wins the debate..that?s how the game has always been played. There are also ways to ensure a CP solvency deficit e.g. if the USFG were to give resources whether financial or technical to states to fix bad programs, the counterplan would then have the burden of proving that all the states have the resources to do the plan and that just ain?t gonna happen. Just a couple of thoughts off the top of my head, I?m willing to bet that with a little more than five minutes of thought the strategy will reveal itself to not be so rock solid as you characterize it. veronica >From: UWG Debate Team >To: christopher cooper >CC: , >Subject: CPs on #3 >Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 15:30:30 -0400 (EDT) > >just had a discussion over lunch about #3. thought i'd share it: > >under interps promoted in this thread, it has been posited that the aff >plan may increase fed control over the states. in such a round where plan >says "USFG will require states to do X throughout Inidan Country", how >acceptable is the CP to have the states do X? it solves the case, with >federalism and/or other coercion bad net benefits. and unlike previous >years where the plan had the USFG do something, the CP had the states do >it and the debate was over who does it best, this example would have the >states taking action in both the plan and CP, with the only question >being whether states should be 'forced' by FG to act. > >one response against such CPs in the past has been that it is illegit to >fiat the 'object of the resolution.' only, under #3, 'the states' are not >actually a resolutional term at all, so it isn't a CP that fiats the >object (technically, the direct object is federal control, with the >laundry list of areas being the indirect objects). > >is it illegit to fiat the 'object' of the plan? one person in our talk >analogized it to counterplanning out a war advantage by having one side >not fight. another said the distinction was that the CP in the war >advantage >was a) Int'l in nature, and b) of another level of fiat b/c the "states >voluntary cp" was a fiat of the same order as plan(the FG forces states to >do X, the CP has states do X) whereas the CP in the war scenario was of >another order (the plan attempted to solve war via aid, etc. while the CP >skipped to the impact level and fiated a cease-fire). > >i'm unsure about the legitimacy. but if this CP is viable, it seems like >the half of the topic that has been so demonstrably touted in this thread >is extremely vulnerable to a rather rock-solid strategy... i.e., the neg >will have no problem winning these rounds b/c it's always easier to win >voluntary action is better than coerced action. > >thoughts? > >hester > > > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From FIrizarry Wed Jul 11 17:07:26 2001 From: FIrizarry (Frank Paul Irizarry) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 18:07:26 -0400 Subject: Josh Hoe please backchannel Message-ID: <200107111807.AA419824248@fsmail.pace.edu> Can u please backchannel Josh? Thanx. sorry for the clutter. frank gator debate ______________________________________________________________________ Sent via the Pace University Mail system at fsmail.pace.edu From BERCHNORTO Wed Jul 11 17:16:30 2001 From: BERCHNORTO (BERCHNORTO at aol.com) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 18:16:30 EDT Subject: novice logic? Message-ID: <28.17f8868c.287e2a3e@aol.com> In a message dated 07/11/2001 4:19:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time, mhaga3zg at mwc.edu writes: > I really don't like this whole line of thinking which says that novices > should just give up on their debate careers because "the barriers are too > high." I think that's bull and that anyone who believes it is just giving > up on themselves and their own kids. Nobody said that novices should give up on their debate careers, or anything resembling that. By the way, before anyone gets up a campaign to "Free the WVU 4," please note that they will claim about 30% of our team's travel budget this year (they are 20% of the squad) as they travel to Harvard, Wake, Cap Cities, the district qualifier, and (with the rest of the team) the Florida swing. > > This is just like any other competitive sport where if you have technique > and obsessive devotion, you get places and you break down these "barriers" > that everybody keeps talking about. There's mention of people getting > rewarded for this obsessive devotion...they should be rewarded!! So what > if the people you go against have hundreds of rounds of experience, I > say...good for them, maybe they'll teach me something. You say that they > might get creamed in varsity and that they won't learn anything. I say > getting creamed is a part of debate, and that an additional part of debate > is learning that the competitive nature of debate allows us and forces us > to get up after that creaming and say..."this is what I did wrong, this is > what I will fix and I WILL win my next round." This defeatist nature > smacks of people who have no will in debate and are just willing to let > people walk all over them, get up and fight for something for a change! > > For those of you sports minds out there, let me give you some comparisons > of what this defeatist attitude is like: > > Not running through first base every single time. > > Not doing that fake pump after every running play in football. > > Giving up on your basketball team when they are down 3-1 against the lakers > and Shaq. > > It literally hurts me to think that coaches out there are telling their > people that they don't think they are going to qualify or that they > shouldn't do this type of debate because it has too many boundaries. > > > I didn't say thay shouldn't do this type of debate. I did tell them that they're not likely to qualify. Our squad has virtually a 100% retention rate, because of outstanding students, and, to a lesser degree, because my students know they can count on me to be supportive but also honest. As for the rest of your diatribe: 1. The sports analogies are pretty useless. First of all, there is plenty wrong with intercollegiate sports. Second, there is an inherent tension between debate as a competitive activity (or sport, if you will), and debate as an educational activity. Those of us who direct programs, especially those who are faculty members, deal with that tension on a daily basis. That's why I am troubled by people who are obsessive about debate. I believe that up to a point debate enhances the college experience, but I also believe there is a point (different for different individuals) beyond which it detracts from that experience. Even the NCAA (to return to your sports analogy) limits the time that student-athletes can participate in their sport. Debate does not have such a limitation and it should (enforcement is the problem). That's also why responsible coaches have a grade point requirement for participation in debate. I know that Mary Washington does, and Tim O'Donnell has done an exceptional job of balancing the educational and competitive sides of debate. Indeed, Tim kicked some novice debaters up to JV this spring (don't remember for sure whether you were one of them) even though it may have cost your program some points. So, if debate were only a sport I might agree with you on some of this, but it's an educational activity, too, and I firmly believe that you get more out of the first year than out of successive years. 2. Your points about what might be best to do with advanced debaters would make more sense in a world of unlimited resources. Like all but a handful of directors, I must balance relatively scarce resources. Given that, as well as my belief that you get more educationally out of the first year than out of successive years, how would you have me distribute resources between varsity and other divisions? And if you believe it's a sport, then certainly we should play to win, which would also mean a focus on novice at the expense of (yes, there really are tradeoffs) varsity. These are complex issues, and being overly dramatic about me "hurting" you by being honest with my students doesn't get at the issues. Best wishes, Neil Berch -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010711/4530d673/attachment.htm From FIrizarry Wed Jul 11 19:23:43 2001 From: FIrizarry (Frank Paul Irizarry) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 20:23:43 -0400 Subject: Josh and Sara from FSU please backchannel! Message-ID: <200107112023.AA533463540@fsmail.pace.edu> the subject line says it all. sorry for the clutter. frank ______________________________________________________________________ Sent via the Pace University Mail system at fsmail.pace.edu From kenedebate Wed Jul 11 19:58:41 2001 From: kenedebate (Ken D) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 19:58:41 -0500 Subject: novice success? Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010711/b100eb37/attachment.html From dbteam Wed Jul 11 20:23:15 2001 From: dbteam (UWG Debate Team) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 21:23:15 -0400 (EDT) Subject: CPs on #3 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: sounds good, excpet for part about states not having resources. in both the plan and CP, the 'states act' to cary out either a mandate(plan) or merely an action. in order for your distinction to work, #3's 'increase federal control' must be interpreted to allow plan to provide resources as part of 'increasing control.' i'm not denying that such an interp is warranted. i just haven't heard the warants yet. is there an example of literature or quote from the field that contextualizes "increased resources" within the policy of "increase federal control?" is 'federal control' a jurisdictional issue (drawing boundaries) or an issue of intervention (usfg 'involvement') or some combo of the two (whereby plan must BOTH redraw boudaries to increase federal authority AND increase the federal presence in terms of human and/or other resources) ? if nothing else, these discussions are persuading me that the nooks and crannies of #3 are as ripe for debate as i had argued/and been told #2 was:) hester On Wed, 11 Jul 2001, Veronica Barreto wrote: > > Mmmm..kay, I just got in and read this post. I'm working off of pure > instinct so I will neither be as brilliant nor as cute as Coop but y'all > just have to bear with me anyways. > > I'll start off with why I don't think the cp is legit. It just sounds > sketchy. I think I have an analogy that escapes the criticism Hester > mentioned against the cping out of the war advantage. The states CP > discussed is the equivalent of counterplanning that criminals will not > commit capital crimes against an affirmative that bans the death penalty on > a sentencing resolution. Sure murderers aren't the object of the resolution > and wouldn't even be a resolutional term but just because that's true > doesn't make it legitimate. > > As for the net benefits, the coercion bad position is an interesting one, > but not entirely losing a battle. In addition to your stock answers, you can > claim that your reduction of state coercion over Indian Country turns it and > sure, that?s not a unique turn but it?s an argument. Not to mention, anyone > who researches the process will come across the federalism turns, which > would produce some rather in depth debates about the principle and how it > operates. She who wins the turn, wins the debate..that?s how the game has > always been played. > > There are also ways to ensure a CP solvency deficit e.g. if the USFG were to > give resources whether financial or technical to states to fix bad programs, > the counterplan would then have the burden of proving that all the states > have the resources to do the plan and that just ain?t gonna happen. > > Just a couple of thoughts off the top of my head, I?m willing to bet that > with a little more than five minutes of thought the strategy will reveal > itself to not be so rock solid as you characterize it. > > veronica > > > > >From: UWG Debate Team > >To: christopher cooper > >CC: , > >Subject: CPs on #3 > >Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 15:30:30 -0400 (EDT) > > > >just had a discussion over lunch about #3. thought i'd share it: > > > >under interps promoted in this thread, it has been posited that the aff > >plan may increase fed control over the states. in such a round where plan > >says "USFG will require states to do X throughout Inidan Country", how > >acceptable is the CP to have the states do X? it solves the case, with > >federalism and/or other coercion bad net benefits. and unlike previous > >years where the plan had the USFG do something, the CP had the states do > >it and the debate was over who does it best, this example would have the > >states taking action in both the plan and CP, with the only question > >being whether states should be 'forced' by FG to act. > > > >one response against such CPs in the past has been that it is illegit to > >fiat the 'object of the resolution.' only, under #3, 'the states' are not > >actually a resolutional term at all, so it isn't a CP that fiats the > >object (technically, the direct object is federal control, with the > >laundry list of areas being the indirect objects). > > > >is it illegit to fiat the 'object' of the plan? one person in our talk > >analogized it to counterplanning out a war advantage by having one side > >not fight. another said the distinction was that the CP in the war > >advantage > >was a) Int'l in nature, and b) of another level of fiat b/c the "states > >voluntary cp" was a fiat of the same order as plan(the FG forces states to > >do X, the CP has states do X) whereas the CP in the war scenario was of > >another order (the plan attempted to solve war via aid, etc. while the CP > >skipped to the impact level and fiated a cease-fire). > > > >i'm unsure about the legitimacy. but if this CP is viable, it seems like > >the half of the topic that has been so demonstrably touted in this thread > >is extremely vulnerable to a rather rock-solid strategy... i.e., the neg > >will have no problem winning these rounds b/c it's always easier to win > >voluntary action is better than coerced action. > > > >thoughts? > > > >hester > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com > > From vbrown4 Wed Jul 11 20:25:00 2001 From: vbrown4 (vbrown4 at gmu.edu) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 20:25:00 -0500 Subject: novice logic? Message-ID: <1c9f9f1c9bf3.1c9bf31c9f9f@gmu.edu> I'm willing to admit that i was frustrated by your list of JV debaters that "dominated" the mid-east region. but aside from my own ego being bruised, i think you make a very good point. Maybe we should define a rewarding debate career by something other than winning the NDT. The odds are so incredibly slim for anyone to reach the outrounds, even with a good amount of high school experience. I have this odd feeling that even making it to the NDT would be an amazing experience. I know it's something that i will work my ass off for this year. I dont think, however, it does much in the motivation department to tell someone at the beginning of the year they probably wont be debating psat March. An awesome of example of reaching for the heights is Heather Westrom of GMU. She was a true novice last year, and after winning ADA Novice Nats with Lynadria Ware(another true novice to watch out for), debated varsity this year. Heather and Bary qualified for the NDT against all odds. And i know they'll kick some major ass in Missouri when they qualify again. Overall, while I appreciate your honesty with your team, a dose of optimism can be inspiring along with your realism. Maybe tell them odds are against them, but that would make qualifying all the more awesome? Tory Brown -- GMU Something that should be noticed, Steve Trask had a good amount of success in high school, This is not a true novice team. But a very good team. ----- Original Message ----- From: BERCHNORTO at aol.com Date: Wednesday, July 11, 2001 9:58 am Subject: RE: novice logic? > I had considered responding with a backchannel to Mr. Jones, but > Ede Warner raises some important issues that need to be aired more > generally. First of all, it should be noted that Mr. Jones and > his partner (Steve Trask) have had great success in their college > debate careers. Together with another Liberty team and a couple > of Catholic University teams, they dominated the JV division at > tournaments in the East and Mid-Atlantic regions this past year. > I have pondered the question that Mr. Jones asked, because I have > two teams of walk-on novices who came in at the same time as Mr. > Jones and have been a step or two behind him competitively. This > past spring, I discussed their goals for the coming year with > them. They informed me that they wished to be competitive on the > national circuit. I inquired at edebate, asking how much time > competitive (but not dominant) national circuit teams spend on > research each week. The modal answer was 25 hours per week. > Knowing that none o! > f ! > my varsity debaters was willing > to put in that much time every week, I also reminded them that > this would mean they were doing as much research as people who > still had years more debate experience than they did. While we > try to emphasize quality of research rather than quantity, I told > them that I thought the obstacles were too much to overcome. I > don't think (except under the most unusual circumstances) that a > team of walk-on novices can win an outround at NDT (please don't > send me the names of the rare exceptions--the odds are just too > great). I told my two teams (somewhat tongue-in-cheek) that from > a competitive standpoint, sending them to tournaments was a waste > of resources, but that I would do so, because: > 1. their research will help our novice teams, and, > 2. they've earned those resources with 3 years of hard work and > team spirit. > I told them that I would send them to the NDT district qualifier, > but that I don't expect them to qualify--and that I will continue > to tell them that until I put them on the plane to Springfield:) > Realistically, they could qualify, but they have zero chance of > clearing there. Realistically, Mr. Jones and Mr. Trask can hope > to qualify and have a chance to clear. I think that's about the > most that walk-on novices can hope for in virtually all cases. > So, my advice to Mr. Jones is to enjoy his senior year, work hard, > not let debate rule his life, and not measure his success in terms > of competition, but rather in terms of what he learns about the > topic, what he learns about leadership, and how he helps his > team's novices. > Of course, that only works if you create a debate program that is > a community, because it depends upon a situation where newcomers > achieve the most competitive success. It takes special students > to accomplish that. It also takes alternative arrangements. > Professor Warner again calls our attention to the retention > problem, and I agree that having to face people with hundreds of > rounds of extra experience is indeed a big part of the problem. > One solution that we've employed at WVU is to offer some debaters > the opportunity to become novice coaches instead of proceeding > blindly through the ranks when their interest has waned. I think > it's a great way to go for at least some debaters. I also think > that there's nothing wrong with not going any farther than novice > (which is why I routinely recruit WVU seniors as walk-on novices). > I believe Tuna Snider is correct when he points out that you get > far more out of the first year of debate than you get out of each > ensuing year. S! > o,! > I guess what I'm saying is that > I, too, don't like the fact that the activity rewards technique > and obsessive devotion to the activity far more than I would like > it to (and often at the expense of critical thinking skills). I > was particularly frustrated this year watching one of our JV teams > with superb critical thinking skills drop a round to a team > severely lacking in such skills simply because one of our debaters > wasn't fast enough--even though she was far faster than she should > have to be. Yes, this comes back to another issue that Professor > Warner has raised in several ways in the past). Unfortunately (I > guess I'm more of a pessimist than Ede), I don't see that > changing. What the vast majority in the activity needs to do is > ignore the obsessed minority, and teach our students to get what > they can out of the activity, lead balanced lives, and carry those > skills out into the world when they graduate (or before). > --Neil Berch > West Virginia University > > From llano Wed Jul 11 21:53:24 2001 From: llano (Stephen Llano) Date: 11 Jul 2001 19:53:24 -0700 Subject: Texas A&M Debate delimma? catastrophe? You choose the adjective! Message-ID: <20010712025324.15759.cpmta@c014.sfo.cp.net> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010711/b2e7ac3d/attachment.pot From jackattack7 Thu Jul 12 04:43:46 2001 From: jackattack7 (jack stroube) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 04:43:46 Subject: Truett Round 1 Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010712/50e14073/attachment.html From jackattack7 Thu Jul 12 04:45:31 2001 From: jackattack7 (jack stroube) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 04:45:31 Subject: Truett Round 2 Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010712/c1e0faf8/attachment.htm From jackattack7 Thu Jul 12 04:49:10 2001 From: jackattack7 (jack stroube) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 04:49:10 Subject: Fwd: Page Title Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010712/3634d2ce/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: june98.30961DEFANGED-html Type: application/octet-stream Size: 84642 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010712/3634d2ce/attachment.obj From jackattack7 Thu Jul 12 04:49:56 2001 From: jackattack7 (jack stroube) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 04:49:56 Subject: Fwd: Page Title Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010712/85bfd71a/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: may98.4109DEFANGED-html Type: application/octet-stream Size: 89261 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010712/85bfd71a/attachment.obj From jackattack7 Thu Jul 12 04:50:52 2001 From: jackattack7 (jack stroube) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 04:50:52 Subject: Fwd: Page Title Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010712/bf6188df/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: june98.10297DEFANGED-html Type: application/octet-stream Size: 84642 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010712/bf6188df/attachment.obj From jackattack7 Thu Jul 12 05:10:03 2001 From: jackattack7 (jack stroube) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 05:10:03 Subject: Damus Reply Re: Dropped Arguments in the 2AR Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010712/1946aadc/attachment.html From jackattack7 Thu Jul 12 05:15:11 2001 From: jackattack7 (jack stroube) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 05:15:11 Subject: Tate's "dropped arguments in the 2AR" response Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010712/1c2a2ac6/attachment.htm From jackattack7 Thu Jul 12 05:24:01 2001 From: jackattack7 (jack stroube) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 05:24:01 Subject: Communication breakdown. Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010712/a253a295/attachment.html From kenedebate Thu Jul 12 01:11:35 2001 From: kenedebate (Ken D) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 01:11:35 -0500 Subject: CPs on #3 Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010712/523c341a/attachment.htm From kenedebate Thu Jul 12 01:11:50 2001 From: kenedebate (Ken D) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 01:11:50 -0500 Subject: CPs on #3 Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010712/c72f5961/attachment.html From DaveAnt420 Thu Jul 12 01:44:57 2001 From: DaveAnt420 (DaveAnt420 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 02:44:57 EDT Subject: Apologies in Advance Message-ID: <10e.26348f6.287ea169@aol.com> Some of you that know me, know I like to fight with racists and neo-Nazis in the Usenet newsgroups. Unfortunately several of them have found an old CEDA-L mailing list somewhere on the web and have announced plans to bombard some of you with lurid descriptions of me as a communist, child molester and race-mixer. They've already hit my administrators. I assume that all of you will have the intelligence to ignore these efforts, but if you'd send me copies of anything you receive, you might help me trace some of these bastards down. Thanks and my apologies for connecting any of you with these morons! Bear From cisneros_jd Thu Jul 12 09:50:54 2001 From: cisneros_jd (David Cisneros) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 10:50:54 -0400 Subject: novice logic? Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010712/7f07e8b6/attachment.htm From mrberry Thu Jul 12 10:16:30 2001 From: mrberry (Mike Berry) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 11:16:30 -0400 Subject: DATES FOR KING'S COLLEGE TOURNAMENT Message-ID: There is some misunderstanding about the dates of the King's College Debate tournament. The offical dates are September 21,22 and 23. Sorry for any confusion. Mike From eric_truett Thu Jul 12 10:55:29 2001 From: eric_truett (Eric Truett) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 10:55:29 -0500 Subject: Fwd: Page Title Message-ID: have you heard of math? there is no way you can keep up if someone chose to employ this strategy. are you going to spend all of your time forwarding mail to e-debate? we hit forward once, you hit forward 1000 times. if you have nothing better to do than try to "take down the list" then you are a sad revolutionary indeed. imagine if someone asked lenin or malcolm X what their primary goal was and they said "i'm going spend hours per day writing emails to shut down an esoteric activity that has virtually zero effect on the structures of power in our society" keep up the good work! _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010712/0f6e29c6/attachment.html From eric_truett Thu Jul 12 10:57:12 2001 From: eric_truett (Eric Truett) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 10:57:12 -0500 Subject: Truett Round 2 Message-ID: can i just point out that your argument has changed from justice to revolution in the past week. ignored by virtually everyone in the universe, you have now decided that you need to take them out. sounds like sour grapes to me. _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "jack stroube" Subject: Truett Round 2 Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 04:45:31 Size: 2245 Url: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010712/48205035/attachment.mht From amtauber Thu Jul 12 10:57:59 2001 From: amtauber (Alan Tauber) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 08:57:59 -0700 (PDT) Subject: CPs on #3 Message-ID: <15350720.994953479181.JavaMail.imail@puffer> Some thoughts in response to hester down below. On Wed, 11 Jul 2001 15:30:30 -0400 (EDT), UWG Debate Team wrote: > just had a discussion over lunch about #3. thought i'd share it: > > under interps promoted in this thread, it has been posited that the >aff plan may increase fed control over the states. in such a round >where plan says "USFG will require states to do X throughout Inidan >Country", how acceptable is the CP to have the states do X? Well first, I don't necessarily think that in order to increase federal control over the states you have to coerce them to do anything. Plan doesn't just have to be "USFG makes states do X throughout Indian Country." It could be "USFG PREEMPTS state action in area X throughout Indian Country" or "USFG BANS state action X throghout Indian Country" (yes, those are different). So on a starting level, the strategy goes away, because States CAN'T act if the Feds preempt or specifically forbid action. >it solves the case, with federalism and/or other coercion bad net >benefits. and unlike previous years where the plan had the USFG do >something, the CP had the states do it and the debate was over who >does it best, this example would have the states taking action in >both the plan and CP, with the only question being whether states >should be 'forced' by FG to act. > Well this is an interesting take. I'm willing to bet that some affs would go with one of the two interpretations I've given above and so we would see the "who's best" analysis. I guess it would come down to workability. (i.e. plan is probably not an unfunded mandate, and so it comes down to, does State X have the money/resources to do plan?) > one response against such CPs in the past has been that it is illegit to > fiat the 'object of the resolution.' only, under #3, 'the states' are not > actually a resolutional term at all, so it isn't a CP that fiats the > object (technically, the direct object is federal control, with the > laundry list of areas being the indirect objects). And this might be a good reason why the plan is either not topical or extra or effects. States are not USFG. (although it would seem the feds ARE increasing control, so maybe states have been backdoored into the res and ARE one object). > > is it illegit to fiat the 'object' of the plan? one person in our talk > analogized it to counterplanning out a war advantage by having one side > not fight. another said the distinction was that the CP in the war advantage > was a) Int'l in nature, and b) of another level of fiat b/c the "states > voluntary cp" was a fiat of the same order as plan(the FG forces states to > do X, the CP has states do X) whereas the CP in the war scenario was of > another order (the plan attempted to solve war via aid, etc. while the CP > skipped to the impact level and fiated a cease-fire). I think the answer is yes. If the plan says feds will increase control by limiting state regs on gambling because they restrict people from going, I don't think plan could say "citizens of states X, Y and Z will engage in massive civil disobedience by running to the local Indian Casino and emptying their savings" (a little extreme I know, but I can't come up with much better off the top of my head) =0) > > i'm unsure about the legitimacy. but if this CP is viable, it seems like > the half of the topic that has been so demonstrably touted in this thread > is extremely vulnerable to a rather rock-solid strategy... i.e., the neg > will have no problem winning these rounds b/c it's always easier to win > voluntary action is better than coerced action. As others have pointed out, this may not be that rock solid, and it certainly is not under my two interpretations. I also think workability does come into play at a certain level. Finally, a quick thought for the theory experts: Can you truly fiat "voluntary" action? Alan _______________________________________________________ Send a cool gift with your E-Card http://www.bluemountain.com/giftcenter/ From veronica_m_barreto Thu Jul 12 11:30:57 2001 From: veronica_m_barreto (Veronica Barreto) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 12:30:57 -0400 Subject: CPs on #3 and Federal Control Message-ID: Hester attempts to muddy up the term "federal control": >in order for your distinction to work, #3's 'increase federal control' >must be interpreted to allow plan to provide resources as part of >'increasing control V sez DON'T EVEN: Actually there isn't as much ambiguity as you seem to indicate. The process is very specific. The Unfunded Mandate Act of 1995 requires that the USFG provide funding for any state implemented mandate. So the solvency deficit scenario I describe is normal means -- I think that could be devastating to the cp. Plus there also arguments to be made against states working solo. Advocates say that some level of federal involvement is good because it promotes inter-state cooperation and info sharing which enhances solvency. There are also accountability turns that create more offense against the CP. I think Ken's modeling arguments are also good ones. I also like the possibility of the state politics positions. Joshua Sarnoff bolsters the theory args about changing the world view of the plan when he says: "Absent federal coercion, states may be unwilling to experiment. States also may be less able or less willing than the federal government to identify optimally set standards or to share information efficiently among jurisdictions" The plan functions in a world where states don't normally take the initiative and hence is the best policy option within given conditions. It's entirely unreasonable to expect the affirmative to defend the original plan text within all possible contexts -- there has to be some level statis. To give the negative the power to constantly shift and change global context creates an unfair division of ground. That would provide a pretty good warrant for a 2AC to get his/her groove on on the permuation debate. My advice to affirmatives in that postion...go on wit yo' bad self -- I'm talking severance, intrinsicness, it's yo thang - UH - do whatcha wanna do. EVEN IF "federal control" still seems ambiguous to you, the distinction between the two interpretations in NOTHING like the difference in interpretations of "previously amended." One is a footnote about process, but the semantics debate under #2 is about the fundamental action the plan takes -- homey don't play dat. peace :) V >From: UWG Debate Team >To: Veronica Barreto >CC: , >Subject: Re: CPs on #3 >Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 21:23:15 -0400 (EDT) > >sounds good, excpet for part about states not having resources. in both >the plan and CP, the 'states act' to cary out either a mandate(plan) or >merely an action. > >in order for your distinction to work, #3's 'increase federal control' >must be interpreted to allow plan to provide resources as part of >'increasing control.' > >i'm not denying that such an interp is warranted. i just haven't heard the >warants yet. is there an example of literature or quote from the field >that contextualizes "increased resources" within the policy of "increase >federal control?" > >is 'federal control' a jurisdictional issue (drawing boundaries) or an >issue of intervention (usfg 'involvement') or some combo of the two >(whereby plan must BOTH redraw boudaries to increase federal authority AND >increase the federal presence in terms of human and/or other resources) ? > >if nothing else, these discussions are persuading me that the nooks and >crannies of #3 are as ripe for debate as i had argued/and been told #2 >was:) > >hester > >On Wed, 11 Jul 2001, Veronica Barreto wrote: > > > > > Mmmm..kay, I just got in and read this post. I'm working off of pure > > instinct so I will neither be as brilliant nor as cute as Coop but y'all > > just have to bear with me anyways. > > > > I'll start off with why I don't think the cp is legit. It just sounds > > sketchy. I think I have an analogy that escapes the criticism Hester > > mentioned against the cping out of the war advantage. The states CP > > discussed is the equivalent of counterplanning that criminals will not > > commit capital crimes against an affirmative that bans the death penalty >on > > a sentencing resolution. Sure murderers aren't the object of the >resolution > > and wouldn't even be a resolutional term but just because that's true > > doesn't make it legitimate. > > > > As for the net benefits, the coercion bad position is an interesting >one, > > but not entirely losing a battle. In addition to your stock answers, you >can > > claim that your reduction of state coercion over Indian Country turns it >and > > sure, that?s not a unique turn but it?s an argument. Not to mention, >anyone > > who researches the process will come across the federalism turns, which > > would produce some rather in depth debates about the principle and how >it > > operates. She who wins the turn, wins the debate..that?s how the game >has > > always been played. > > > > There are also ways to ensure a CP solvency deficit e.g. if the USFG >were to > > give resources whether financial or technical to states to fix bad >programs, > > the counterplan would then have the burden of proving that all the >states > > have the resources to do the plan and that just ain?t gonna happen. > > > > Just a couple of thoughts off the top of my head, I?m willing to bet >that > > with a little more than five minutes of thought the strategy will reveal > > itself to not be so rock solid as you characterize it. > > > > veronica > > > > > > > > >From: UWG Debate Team > > >To: christopher cooper > > >CC: , > > >Subject: CPs on #3 > > >Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 15:30:30 -0400 (EDT) > > > > > >just had a discussion over lunch about #3. thought i'd share it: > > > > > >under interps promoted in this thread, it has been posited that the aff > > >plan may increase fed control over the states. in such a round where >plan > > >says "USFG will require states to do X throughout Inidan Country", how > > >acceptable is the CP to have the states do X? it solves the case, with > > >federalism and/or other coercion bad net benefits. and unlike previous > > >years where the plan had the USFG do something, the CP had the states >do > > >it and the debate was over who does it best, this example would have >the > > >states taking action in both the plan and CP, with the only question > > >being whether states should be 'forced' by FG to act. > > > > > >one response against such CPs in the past has been that it is illegit >to > > >fiat the 'object of the resolution.' only, under #3, 'the states' are >not > > >actually a resolutional term at all, so it isn't a CP that fiats the > > >object (technically, the direct object is federal control, with the > > >laundry list of areas being the indirect objects). > > > > > >is it illegit to fiat the 'object' of the plan? one person in our talk > > >analogized it to counterplanning out a war advantage by having one side > > >not fight. another said the distinction was that the CP in the war > > >advantage > > >was a) Int'l in nature, and b) of another level of fiat b/c the "states > > >voluntary cp" was a fiat of the same order as plan(the FG forces states >to > > >do X, the CP has states do X) whereas the CP in the war scenario was of > > >another order (the plan attempted to solve war via aid, etc. while the >CP > > >skipped to the impact level and fiated a cease-fire). > > > > > >i'm unsure about the legitimacy. but if this CP is viable, it seems >like > > >the half of the topic that has been so demonstrably touted in this >thread > > >is extremely vulnerable to a rather rock-solid strategy... i.e., the >neg > > >will have no problem winning these rounds b/c it's always easier to win > > >voluntary action is better than coerced action. > > > > > >thoughts? > > > > > >hester > > > > > > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From dbteam Thu Jul 12 12:29:21 2001 From: dbteam (UWG Debate Team) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 13:29:21 -0400 (EDT) Subject: CPs on #3 and Federal Control In-Reply-To: Message-ID: given the number of backchannels i've received discusing this matter, i think it's fair to say that the allegation that i'm attempting to 'muddy up the term' is hot air. i'm not the only one who sees some complexity in #3. and, unlike many of the folks defending #3, i'm saying that complexity can be good for debate. for example, all the args made in this post (and previous ones) about how the wise 2ac will have all these cool answers (add hip intros as per coop and "V") are potential ways to beat the CP, not actually reasons why it's illegit; these args against the state CP have been made before and i'm psyched to judge a big ol' debate on these. i agree with most of these as really good, and the unfunded mandate claim is certainly smart. the last part about "changing the world the aff works in" is an arg i've been pushing for years - all CPs are intrinsic args made by neg - but the problem is that the community doesn't judge like this. and i'd still like to hear more explanation of what "increase federal control" does mean. thanks for the quotes so far. hester On Thu, 12 Jul 2001, Veronica Barreto wrote: > Hester attempts to muddy up the term "federal control": > > >in order for your distinction to work, #3's 'increase federal control' > >must be interpreted to allow plan to provide resources as part of > >'increasing control > > V sez DON'T EVEN: > > Actually there isn't as much ambiguity as you seem to indicate. The process > is very specific. The Unfunded Mandate Act of 1995 requires that the USFG > provide funding for any state implemented mandate. So the solvency deficit > scenario I describe is normal means -- I think that could be devastating to > the cp. > > Plus there also arguments to be made against states working solo. Advocates > say that some level of federal involvement is good because it promotes > inter-state cooperation and info sharing which enhances solvency. There are > also accountability turns that create more offense against the CP. I think > Ken's modeling arguments are also good ones. I also like the possibility of > the state politics positions. > > Joshua Sarnoff bolsters the theory args about changing the world view of the > plan when he says: > > "Absent federal coercion, states may be unwilling to experiment. States also > may be less able or less willing than the federal government to identify > optimally set standards or to share information efficiently among > jurisdictions" > > The plan functions in a world where states don't normally take the > initiative and hence is the best policy option within given conditions. > It's entirely unreasonable to expect the affirmative to defend the original > plan text within all possible contexts -- there has to be some level statis. > To give the negative the power to constantly shift and change global > context creates an unfair division of ground. That would provide a pretty > good warrant for a 2AC to get his/her groove on on the permuation debate. My > advice to affirmatives in that postion...go on wit yo' bad self -- I'm > talking severance, intrinsicness, it's yo thang - UH - do whatcha wanna do. > > EVEN IF "federal control" still seems ambiguous to you, the distinction > between the two interpretations in NOTHING like the difference in > interpretations of "previously amended." One is a footnote about process, > but the semantics debate under #2 is about the fundamental action the plan > takes -- homey don't play dat. > > peace :) > V > > >From: UWG Debate Team > >To: Veronica Barreto > >CC: , > >Subject: Re: CPs on #3 > >Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 21:23:15 -0400 (EDT) > > > >sounds good, excpet for part about states not having resources. in both > >the plan and CP, the 'states act' to cary out either a mandate(plan) or > >merely an action. > > > >in order for your distinction to work, #3's 'increase federal control' > >must be interpreted to allow plan to provide resources as part of > >'increasing control.' > > > >i'm not denying that such an interp is warranted. i just haven't heard the > >warants yet. is there an example of literature or quote from the field > >that contextualizes "increased resources" within the policy of "increase > >federal control?" > > > >is 'federal control' a jurisdictional issue (drawing boundaries) or an > >issue of intervention (usfg 'involvement') or some combo of the two > >(whereby plan must BOTH redraw boudaries to increase federal authority AND > >increase the federal presence in terms of human and/or other resources) ? > > > >if nothing else, these discussions are persuading me that the nooks and > >crannies of #3 are as ripe for debate as i had argued/and been told #2 > >was:) > > > >hester > > > >On Wed, 11 Jul 2001, Veronica Barreto wrote: > > > > > > > > Mmmm..kay, I just got in and read this post. I'm working off of pure > > > instinct so I will neither be as brilliant nor as cute as Coop but y'all > > > just have to bear with me anyways. > > > > > > I'll start off with why I don't think the cp is legit. It just sounds > > > sketchy. I think I have an analogy that escapes the criticism Hester > > > mentioned against the cping out of the war advantage. The states CP > > > discussed is the equivalent of counterplanning that criminals will not > > > commit capital crimes against an affirmative that bans the death penalty > >on > > > a sentencing resolution. Sure murderers aren't the object of the > >resolution > > > and wouldn't even be a resolutional term but just because that's true > > > doesn't make it legitimate. > > > > > > As for the net benefits, the coercion bad position is an interesting > >one, > > > but not entirely losing a battle. In addition to your stock answers, you > >can > > > claim that your reduction of state coercion over Indian Country turns it > >and > > > sure, that?s not a unique turn but it?s an argument. Not to mention, > >anyone > > > who researches the process will come across the federalism turns, which > > > would produce some rather in depth debates about the principle and how > >it > > > operates. She who wins the turn, wins the debate..that?s how the game > >has > > > always been played. > > > > > > There are also ways to ensure a CP solvency deficit e.g. if the USFG > >were to > > > give resources whether financial or technical to states to fix bad > >programs, > > > the counterplan would then have the burden of proving that all the > >states > > > have the resources to do the plan and that just ain?t gonna happen. > > > > > > Just a couple of thoughts off the top of my head, I?m willing to bet > >that > > > with a little more than five minutes of thought the strategy will reveal > > > itself to not be so rock solid as you characterize it. > > > > > > veronica > > > > > > > > > > > > >From: UWG Debate Team > > > >To: christopher cooper > > > >CC: , > > > >Subject: CPs on #3 > > > >Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 15:30:30 -0400 (EDT) > > > > > > > >just had a discussion over lunch about #3. thought i'd share it: > > > > > > > >under interps promoted in this thread, it has been posited that the aff > > > >plan may increase fed control over the states. in such a round where > >plan > > > >says "USFG will require states to do X throughout Inidan Country", how > > > >acceptable is the CP to have the states do X? it solves the case, with > > > >federalism and/or other coercion bad net benefits. and unlike previous > > > >years where the plan had the USFG do something, the CP had the states > >do > > > >it and the debate was over who does it best, this example would have > >the > > > >states taking action in both the plan and CP, with the only question > > > >being whether states should be 'forced' by FG to act. > > > > > > > >one response against such CPs in the past has been that it is illegit > >to > > > >fiat the 'object of the resolution.' only, under #3, 'the states' are > >not > > > >actually a resolutional term at all, so it isn't a CP that fiats the > > > >object (technically, the direct object is federal control, with the > > > >laundry list of areas being the indirect objects). > > > > > > > >is it illegit to fiat the 'object' of the plan? one person in our talk > > > >analogized it to counterplanning out a war advantage by having one side > > > >not fight. another said the distinction was that the CP in the war > > > >advantage > > > >was a) Int'l in nature, and b) of another level of fiat b/c the "states > > > >voluntary cp" was a fiat of the same order as plan(the FG forces states > >to > > > >do X, the CP has states do X) whereas the CP in the war scenario was of > > > >another order (the plan attempted to solve war via aid, etc. while the > >CP > > > >skipped to the impact level and fiated a cease-fire). > > > > > > > >i'm unsure about the legitimacy. but if this CP is viable, it seems > >like > > > >the half of the topic that has been so demonstrably touted in this > >thread > > > >is extremely vulnerable to a rather rock-solid strategy... i.e., the > >neg > > > >will have no problem winning these rounds b/c it's always easier to win > > > >voluntary action is better than coerced action. > > > > > > > >thoughts? > > > > > > > >hester > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com > > > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com > > From veronica_m_barreto Thu Jul 12 12:58:41 2001 From: veronica_m_barreto (Veronica Barreto) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 13:58:41 -0400 Subject: CPs on #3 and Federal Control Message-ID: I'll agree that there are some complexities regarding "federal control" but that's why I make the "even if" analysis in the last post which makes a distinction between the differences in interpretation of the phrases in resolutions #2 and #3. The intricasies of the term "federal control" under #3 highlight other elements of the debate that make debaters dig deep for the win; whereas under #2 the dispute eclipses the core of the debate bouncing back and forth b/w framer's intent and the precision of legal jargon. So I'll say some complexity is good but I won't endorse it wholesale just as I'm sure you wouldn't either. veronica >From: UWG Debate Team >To: Veronica Barreto >CC: , >Subject: Re: CPs on #3 and Federal Control >Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 13:29:21 -0400 (EDT) > >given the number of backchannels i've received discusing this matter, >i think it's fair to say that the allegation that i'm attempting to 'muddy >up the term' is hot air. i'm not the only one who sees some complexity in >#3. and, unlike many of the folks defending #3, i'm saying that complexity >can be good for debate. for example, all the args made in this post (and >previous ones) about how the wise 2ac will have all these cool answers >(add hip intros as per coop and "V") are potential ways to beat the CP, >not actually reasons why it's illegit; these args against the state CP >have been made before and i'm psyched to judge a big ol' debate on these. >i agree with most of these as really good, and the unfunded mandate claim >is certainly smart. > >the last part about "changing the world the aff works in" is an arg i've >been pushing for years - all CPs are intrinsic args made by neg - but the >problem is that the community doesn't judge like this. > >and i'd still like to hear more explanation of what "increase federal >control" does mean. > >thanks for the quotes so far. >hester > >On Thu, 12 Jul 2001, Veronica Barreto wrote: > > > Hester attempts to muddy up the term "federal control": > > > > >in order for your distinction to work, #3's 'increase federal control' > > >must be interpreted to allow plan to provide resources as part of > > >'increasing control > > > > V sez DON'T EVEN: > > > > Actually there isn't as much ambiguity as you seem to indicate. The >process > > is very specific. The Unfunded Mandate Act of 1995 requires that the >USFG > > provide funding for any state implemented mandate. So the solvency >deficit > > scenario I describe is normal means -- I think that could be devastating >to > > the cp. > > > > Plus there also arguments to be made against states working solo. >Advocates > > say that some level of federal involvement is good because it promotes > > inter-state cooperation and info sharing which enhances solvency. There >are > > also accountability turns that create more offense against the CP. I >think > > Ken's modeling arguments are also good ones. I also like the possibility >of > > the state politics positions. > > > > Joshua Sarnoff bolsters the theory args about changing the world view of >the > > plan when he says: > > > > "Absent federal coercion, states may be unwilling to experiment. States >also > > may be less able or less willing than the federal government to identify > > optimally set standards or to share information efficiently among > > jurisdictions" > > > > The plan functions in a world where states don't normally take the > > initiative and hence is the best policy option within given conditions. > > It's entirely unreasonable to expect the affirmative to defend the >original > > plan text within all possible contexts -- there has to be some level >statis. > > To give the negative the power to constantly shift and change global > > context creates an unfair division of ground. That would provide a >pretty > > good warrant for a 2AC to get his/her groove on on the permuation >debate. My > > advice to affirmatives in that postion...go on wit yo' bad self -- I'm > > talking severance, intrinsicness, it's yo thang - UH - do whatcha wanna >do. > > > > EVEN IF "federal control" still seems ambiguous to you, the distinction > > between the two interpretations in NOTHING like the difference in > > interpretations of "previously amended." One is a footnote about >process, > > but the semantics debate under #2 is about the fundamental action the >plan > > takes -- homey don't play dat. > > > > peace :) > > V > > > > >From: UWG Debate Team > > >To: Veronica Barreto > > >CC: , > > >Subject: Re: CPs on #3 > > >Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 21:23:15 -0400 (EDT) > > > > > >sounds good, excpet for part about states not having resources. in both > > >the plan and CP, the 'states act' to cary out either a mandate(plan) or > > >merely an action. > > > > > >in order for your distinction to work, #3's 'increase federal control' > > >must be interpreted to allow plan to provide resources as part of > > >'increasing control.' > > > > > >i'm not denying that such an interp is warranted. i just haven't heard >the > > >warants yet. is there an example of literature or quote from the field > > >that contextualizes "increased resources" within the policy of >"increase > > >federal control?" > > > > > >is 'federal control' a jurisdictional issue (drawing boundaries) or an > > >issue of intervention (usfg 'involvement') or some combo of the two > > >(whereby plan must BOTH redraw boudaries to increase federal authority >AND > > >increase the federal presence in terms of human and/or other resources) >? > > > > > >if nothing else, these discussions are persuading me that the nooks and > > >crannies of #3 are as ripe for debate as i had argued/and been told #2 > > >was:) > > > > > >hester > > > > > >On Wed, 11 Jul 2001, Veronica Barreto wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Mmmm..kay, I just got in and read this post. I'm working off of pure > > > > instinct so I will neither be as brilliant nor as cute as Coop but >y'all > > > > just have to bear with me anyways. > > > > > > > > I'll start off with why I don't think the cp is legit. It just >sounds > > > > sketchy. I think I have an analogy that escapes the criticism >Hester > > > > mentioned against the cping out of the war advantage. The states CP > > > > discussed is the equivalent of counterplanning that criminals will >not > > > > commit capital crimes against an affirmative that bans the death >penalty > > >on > > > > a sentencing resolution. Sure murderers aren't the object of the > > >resolution > > > > and wouldn't even be a resolutional term but just because that's >true > > > > doesn't make it legitimate. > > > > > > > > As for the net benefits, the coercion bad position is an interesting > > >one, > > > > but not entirely losing a battle. In addition to your stock answers, >you > > >can > > > > claim that your reduction of state coercion over Indian Country >turns it > > >and > > > > sure, that?s not a unique turn but it?s an argument. Not to mention, > > >anyone > > > > who researches the process will come across the federalism turns, >which > > > > would produce some rather in depth debates about the principle and >how > > >it > > > > operates. She who wins the turn, wins the debate..that?s how the >game > > >has > > > > always been played. > > > > > > > > There are also ways to ensure a CP solvency deficit e.g. if the USFG > > >were to > > > > give resources whether financial or technical to states to fix bad > > >programs, > > > > the counterplan would then have the burden of proving that all the > > >states > > > > have the resources to do the plan and that just ain?t gonna happen. > > > > > > > > Just a couple of thoughts off the top of my head, I?m willing to bet > > >that > > > > with a little more than five minutes of thought the strategy will >reveal > > > > itself to not be so rock solid as you characterize it. > > > > > > > > veronica > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >From: UWG Debate Team > > > > >To: christopher cooper > > > > >CC: , > > > > >Subject: CPs on #3 > > > > >Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 15:30:30 -0400 (EDT) > > > > > > > > > >just had a discussion over lunch about #3. thought i'd share it: > > > > > > > > > >under interps promoted in this thread, it has been posited that the >aff > > > > >plan may increase fed control over the states. in such a round >where > > >plan > > > > >says "USFG will require states to do X throughout Inidan Country", >how > > > > >acceptable is the CP to have the states do X? it solves the case, >with > > > > >federalism and/or other coercion bad net benefits. and unlike >previous > > > > >years where the plan had the USFG do something, the CP had the >states > > >do > > > > >it and the debate was over who does it best, this example would >have > > >the > > > > >states taking action in both the plan and CP, with the only >question > > > > >being whether states should be 'forced' by FG to act. > > > > > > > > > >one response against such CPs in the past has been that it is >illegit > > >to > > > > >fiat the 'object of the resolution.' only, under #3, 'the states' >are > > >not > > > > >actually a resolutional term at all, so it isn't a CP that fiats >the > > > > >object (technically, the direct object is federal control, with the > > > > >laundry list of areas being the indirect objects). > > > > > > > > > >is it illegit to fiat the 'object' of the plan? one person in our >talk > > > > >analogized it to counterplanning out a war advantage by having one >side > > > > >not fight. another said the distinction was that the CP in the war > > > > >advantage > > > > >was a) Int'l in nature, and b) of another level of fiat b/c the >"states > > > > >voluntary cp" was a fiat of the same order as plan(the FG forces >states > > >to > > > > >do X, the CP has states do X) whereas the CP in the war scenario >was of > > > > >another order (the plan attempted to solve war via aid, etc. while >the > > >CP > > > > >skipped to the impact level and fiated a cease-fire). > > > > > > > > > >i'm unsure about the legitimacy. but if this CP is viable, it seems > > >like > > > > >the half of the topic that has been so demonstrably touted in this > > >thread > > > > >is extremely vulnerable to a rather rock-solid strategy... i.e., >the > > >neg > > > > >will have no problem winning these rounds b/c it's always easier to >win > > > > >voluntary action is better than coerced action. > > > > > > > > > >thoughts? > > > > > > > > > >hester > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > > > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From Jason.Jarvis Thu Jul 12 13:03:45 2001 From: Jason.Jarvis (Jason.Jarvis at asu.edu) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 11:03:45 -0700 (MST) Subject: novice success? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Tracy Gonos On Tue, 10 Jul 2001, Scott Jones wrote: > After reading some postings about "kritiking" and "policy debate" there were some side discussions about novice debate, which brought a question to mind. If anyone has a bit of debate history knowledge- who could be considered successful varsity debate rs that originally started out as novices in college debate? More specifically, has a debater who started out as a novice had a lot of success at the NDT or CEDA open nats? As a person who began as a novice a couple of years ago (on the sanctions topic) , I have enjoyed debate and would like to hear some of those stories. So if you know of someone, or your that person, then e-mail me or post it on the list serve. I am sure other people who have began their debate careers like mine could appreciate and learn from you. > > Thanks, > Scott Jones > Liberty UniversityGet more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com > From eric_truett Thu Jul 12 10:59:47 2001 From: eric_truett (Eric Truett) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 10:59:47 -0500 Subject: Truett Round 1 Message-ID: if the entire dorm computer system was down, that means that no one had the ability to type blocks. doesn't that privilege those with legible handwriting over those without? also, aren't you shutting down access to web sites that bring together radical groups and explain radical arguments for students? finally, shutting down lexis doesn't do anything to reduce arguments you don't like. people will just use older evidence or buy newspapers. your attempts at "terrorism" are pathetic and useless. _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "jack stroube" Subject: Truett Round 1 Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 04:43:46 Size: 3311 Url: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010712/81fb0832/attachment.mht From sbeltran Thu Jul 12 13:10:19 2001 From: sbeltran (Sylvia Beltran) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 11:10:19 -0700 Subject: Support the SCUDL and Attend the ADI! Message-ID: <000801c10afd$ea455320$3e909789@SPEECH8> Hello Everyone, I am writing to encourage people still looking at summer institutes to sign up for the ADI. Just like last year, all proceeds from the institute benefit the Southern California Urban Debate League. The endowment is a critical part of our sustainability strategy. So, if you are thinking about attending a college institute, think about the ADI! Sincerely, Sylvia Beltran Executive Director SCUDL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010712/409640d7/attachment.htm From Leslie.E.Phillips Thu Jul 12 18:49:51 2001 From: Leslie.E.Phillips (Leslie E. Phillips) Date: 12 Jul 2001 19:49:51 EDT Subject: MARTIN AND HANNAH Message-ID: <53556614@donner.Dartmouth.EDU> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010712/6f91970a/attachment.asc From k.kuswa Thu Jul 12 19:30:25 2001 From: k.kuswa (kevin kuswa) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 19:30:25 -0500 Subject: Former UT debater needs a Job!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4.1.20010712192901.00a165f0@mail.utexas.edu> At 02:20 PM 7/11/01 -0500, you wrote: >kev, could you forward this to the cx-l and edebate, please. > > > > Hi, my name is Matthew Liebman. I just graduated from UT after 4 years of >moderate debate success. I'm now looking for a coaching position on either >the high school or college level. (That philosophy degree just ain't >bringin' in the big bucks.) I would prefer something that I can do remotely, >cutting files and flying to tournaments. I am willing to consider moving, >though, depending on the place. I am currently planning on moving to Oregon >at the beginning of August. > I come highly recommended from all the gang at UT: Joel, Kev, Dave, Jairus >(once a longhorn...), and plenty others. I graduated with a 3.95 GPA and >highest honors from UT. As for debate qualities, I'm a very good worker, >I've taught lots of beginners, and I'm rather good at kritiks and funky affs >(irony). > Please contact me at mliebman17 at hotmail.com if you're interested and I'll >email you my resume and rec letters. >Thanks. >Matthew >_________________________________________________________________ >Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From thinktank8 Thu Jul 12 23:39:57 2001 From: thinktank8 (Jamie Wooddard) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 04:39:57 -0000 Subject: CP's on # 3 Message-ID: i've been following this thread with interest, and have a few points... Pete Bsumek writes: >i think this scenario points to the importance of eliminating fiat >altogether and refocusing the >debate on "likely hood of sucessful >adoption/implimentation." in other words, the "practicality" >of the plan >becomes a debatable net-benifit. in this case, the likelyhood of adoption >would be >weighed like any other argument. our plan might be slightly less >benifical, but it is way more >likely to actually come to fuition - we have >a plan for sucess, they have an unattainable ideal -- >sort of thing. i don't think that what you're talking about here really calls for "eliminating fiat." practicality of plan implementation has always been a debatable net-benefit - it's called solvency, at least i know i will/have/do vote on solvency net-benefits. likelihood of successful adoption is something i have mixed feelings about. on one hand, i share your sentiment that debate arguments should be more realistic/pragmatic in form and substance. however, i think fiat is a useful tool to the extent that it allows debates to focus on the substantive merits of a proposal in an attempt to answer the normative question - should we?, rather than getting bogged down on - would we? abandoning the "would we" question is good b/c: a. status quo political situations, which are impossible to really predict or monitor with any accuracy (witness the politix debate), shouldn't hold back forward thinking individuals from articulating policy ideals b. emphasizing "would we?" narrows the field by excluding almost anything outside the mainstream, i mean, come on...george w. bush, dick gephardt, trent lott, jesse helms...these are the kind of people that control what the usfg actually would do, i shudder to think what it would be like if we were limited to proposals that those folks would understand/support c. unattainable ideal now = hope for the future Alan Tauber writes: >Finally, a quick thought for the theory experts: Can you truly fiat >"voluntary" action? this is an excellent point. every law, rule, ordinance, standard, etc. links to coercion - which may be why i'm not so fond of coercion args but others are. you can say the cp is less coercive than the plan, but...is it that an appreciable difference? if coercion is really bad, then it's equally as bad when states pass laws as when the usfg passes a law requiring states to take action. i say turn, coercion good - a coercive legal framework is necessary to get important stuff done - i.e. saves lives, protects individual rights, maintains all of civilization, develop a workable and cohesive policy regarding native americans...stuff like that. what does federal control mean? i don't know, but i do have some thoughts... federal laws requiring states to take action may be unconstitutional. there are some cases under the 10th amendment that strike down federal laws which effectively "commandeer state governments." (sandra day o'connor coined this phrase). the idea is that the federal government cannot force state officials to execute federal laws...interestingly, its a kind of sovereignty issue. federal preemption is interesting...certainly, any state law which conflicted with/frustrated the purpose of a federal law that covered the same subject matter as the state law would be struck down in a heartbeat. but there's also an argument that federal law was meant by congress/the framers of the constitution to totally occupy the field with regard to regulation of native americans, so any state law in the field is automatically preempted under the supremacy clause of the constitution. also, increased federal control does not necessarily mean the usfg mandates that states will do "x." it could mean that the usfg just sets a general standard for states to follow or requires states to meet a certain level of achievement but doesn't tell them how they have to do it, which is good because it not only allows states do develop programs/standards that are individualized to the particular needs of native americans within their borders (the good thing about the cp) but also provides federal accountability for those programs (net-benefit to the plan). just some thoughts... jamie woodard mercer debate _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From kenedebate Fri Jul 13 03:49:11 2001 From: kenedebate (Ken D) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 03:49:11 -0500 Subject: Plane tickets Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010713/accf715d/attachment.htm From kenedebate Fri Jul 13 03:50:59 2001 From: kenedebate (Ken D) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 03:50:59 -0500 Subject: Paging Ricky and Nate from NYU (and/or) Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010713/b9de0eb2/attachment.html From baron Fri Jul 13 05:15:15 2001 From: baron (baron) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 04:15:15 -0600 Subject: Wyoming Debate Cooperative Ridesharing anyone? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Is there anyone interested in sharing a ride to the wonderful town of Laramie? I plan on driving as of now, and will be coming from Idaho Falls down to stop in Salt Lake on the way to Wyo. I would be happy to accept passengers or become a passenger with others to make the journey more exciting, cost efficient, and friendlier to our environment. Anyone who wishes to ride with me be forewarned that mine is a smoking car in the timeless tradition of roadtrips through wyoming. Baim "the revolution will not be televised" -gsh > -----Original Message----- > From: matt stannard [mailto:stannardmatt at hotmail.com] > Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 3:37 PM > To: edebate at ndtceda.com > Subject: Wyoming Debate Cooperative Enrollment > > > 43 students, 9 coaches. Please let me know if your name needs to > be on this > list. I will happily add people until about July 10. > --mjs > > Students: > > Thomas Howard, Seattle University > John Koch, Capital University > Althea Andrus, Idaho State University > Nick Napier, Idaho State University > Krista Blower, Idaho State University > John Rief, Regis University > Brian Schrader, Regis University > Marty Golando, University of Texas San Antonio > Michael Thornton, University of Texas San Antonio > Ben Warner, Southwest Missouri State University > Jeff Dazey, William Jewell College > Eric Baim, University of Utah > Angie Stine, Mansfield University > Dee Asencio, Miami University > George Mencia, Miami University > Kate Kauf, Macalester College > Wade Turley, Southern Utah University > Annie Nixon, Southern Utah University > Josh Eames, Weber State University > Ryan Roake, Weber State University > Mike Shackleford, Weber State University > Andrew Johnson, University of Missouri > Mike Cockrum, University of Missouri > Josh Hendrick, University of Missouri > Dana Randall, University of Florida > Jeff Spears, College of Eastern Utah > Jeremy Shufflebarger, University of Pittsburgh > Aaron Lyttle, University of Pittsburgh > Carol Barella, University of Wyoming > Blake Carothers, University of Wyoming > Seth Ellsworth, University of Wyoming > Richard Howell, University of Wyoming > Matt Logan, University of Wyoming > Lindsey Lowery, University of Wyoming > Scott King, University of Wyoming > Pete Schneider, University of Wyoming > Caroline Simpson, University of Wyoming > Walter Tanner, University of Wyoming > > +4 students from CSU-Sacramento > > Coaches: > > Dave Cram Helwich, University of Pittsburgh > Matt Stannard, University of Wyoming > Luke Stricker, University of Wyoming > Don Pogreba, University of Wyoming > Joe Carver, College of Eastern Utah > Joe Schatz, Binghamton University > Larry Watts, Mansfield University > Doug Dennis, Macalester College > Jay Clarkson, CSU-Sacramento > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com > > From asnider Fri Jul 13 08:04:30 2001 From: asnider (Alfred C. Snider) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 09:04:30 -0400 Subject: Fwd: events from Kazakhstan Message-ID: This is the kind of thing which is now taking place all over the world. I just wanted to forward this along because it indicates the ways in which debate is penetrating almost every nation in the world. A global debate community is emerging and I think the USA needs to get ready to join in with them for a brighter forensic future. See IDEA's website at http://idebate.org/ for more information, but that is only the beginning. Best, Alfred C. Snider AKA Tuna University of Vermont >X-Authentication-Warning: mailhost.soros.org: majordom set sender to >owner-debate-l at soros.org using -f >Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 16:00:11 +0700 >From: Max Lopatin >Reply-To: Max Lopatin >Organization: National Debate Center Kazakhstan >X-Priority: 3 (Normal) >To: debate-l at mailhost.soros.org >Subject: events from Kazakhstan >Sender: owner-debate-l at mailhost.soros.org >Status: > >Hi all, > >We are glad to tell about Our Summer Camp that have finished a week >ago. If you have any question about this fell free to ask us. > >Here we post a press release on this event: > > > The 5th Annual Summer Debate Camp was conducted from June 24 until 5 > > July in the "Tau-Samal" place near Almaty by the National Debate > > Center Public Foundation - Debate Association in Kazakhstan. > > > > Debate program exists in all 14 regions of Kazakhstan and > > traditionally the best representatives of regional programs, students, > > trainers, regional coordinators and also National Trainers Team meet in > > the Summer Camp. The total number of camp participants was 219 > > persons. Soros Foundation Kazakhstan sponsored the camp and > > participants; however, some of them paid their expenditures by > > themselves. > > > > This camp was dedicated to the 5th anniversary of "Debate" program in > > Kazakhstan and also to the 10 years of independence of the Republic of > > Kazakhstan. > > > > There were two tournaments: National and Mixed tournament, > > workshops, trainings, lectures, and consultations both on the debate > > theory and thematic issues. National Tournament was done on the > > resolution: "The introduction of juvenile courts in Kazakhstan is > > justified", and on the Tournament of Mixed teams: "UN should expand the > > protection of cultural rights." > > > > The introduction of juvenile courts is one of the actual issues, which > > is discussed all over post soviet expanse in the aspect of expanding > > the protection of child's rights. The discussion of this resolution > > develops student's rights realizing, promotes their formation as > > citizens of the Republic. The activity of UN in sphere of protection of > > cultural rights is an issue, which alarms global network in connection > > with the problems of globalization. Just the discussion of such > > actual themes gives a great opportunity for high school students to > > feel their implication into social processes occurring in native state > > and in the world generally, creates an open youth forum conducive to > > the processes of youth's self attribution in the modern world. > > > > The representatives of USAID, UNICEF and from the Center for Conflict > > Management were invited to the summer debate camp. They gave > > lectures, consultations and trainings to students and their trainers. > > > > The best three speakers were selected for the International Debate > > Camp. > >With best regards, > >Staff of the >Debate Center Kazakhstan >Public Foundation 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 2001 - make plans now - http://debate.uvm.edu/wdi.html Appointment calendar at http://debate.uvm.edu/tunacalendar.html From djc7 Fri Jul 13 08:57:25 2001 From: djc7 (Devin J. Chwastyk) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 09:57:25 -0400 Subject: TOPIC 1- Federal court upholds judicial review of tribal recognition decisions Message-ID: <692d9468f1bc.68f1bc692d94@bulldog.georgetown.edu> I'm not sure how groundbreaking this is, but the Seventh Circuit upheld judicial review of Interior's decision not to acknowledge an Indian tribe. The decision is by Judge Posner, and gives a good overview of Congress' power to recognize and the delegation of that power to the executive branch, and concludes that the decision to acknowledge or not is reviewable like any other administrative agency decision. Ahh, courts + bush= good, clean fun. Devin Chwastyk WESTLAW BULLETIN July 12, 2001 Native Americans: Courts could review Interior Department's tribal- recognition decision. The Seventh Circuit upheld a district court decision upholding a determination by the Department of the Interior that the Miami Nation of Indians of Indiana did not constitute an Indian tribe. The Nation included about 4,700 persons scattered across the United States, with one-third of them being resident but dispersed in five contiguous Indiana counties. The Nation's tribal council performed no meaningful government functions. Judicial review of the issue was not barred by the political-questions doctrine, since the tribal- recognition regulation issued by the Department established criteria that were "legal," in the sense of being the kind of criteria that courts are capable of applying. Miami Nation of Indians of Indiana, Inc. v. U.S. Dept. of the Interior 2001 WL 695039 (C.A.7 (Ind.)) From jwpatt00 Fri Jul 13 10:15:46 2001 From: jwpatt00 (J.W. Patterson) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 11:15:46 -0400 Subject: TOC: Qualifying Tournaments Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 3905 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010713/a7f23c14/attachment.bin From Ale4Philip Fri Jul 13 12:54:43 2001 From: Ale4Philip (Ale4Philip at aol.com) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 13:54:43 EDT Subject: Matt Plush Message-ID: <3c.e4e9e64.28808fe3@aol.com> Matt, please back-channel me. Philip De Hart From Kcmoattorney Fri Jul 13 13:14:36 2001 From: Kcmoattorney (Kcmoattorney at cs.com) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 14:14:36 EDT Subject: Lawrence's concerns... Message-ID: <3a.17ab8233.2880948c@cs.com> Lawrence writes about being a conservative in the debate community: >>i often feel a strong bias in the debate community towards non-liberal activist or libertarians<< I think it's been that way for a long time. IMO, it began in the late '80s as an affectation when it became "cool" to be a socialist intellectual (I know, that sounds like an oxymoron ), and give everyone the impression you were anti-establishment. Then a certain "look" became associated with it (you've probably seen it, the folks going barefoot took it a bit too far, though). Now, they've become the proverbial "sheep" and the few objectivists and conservatives are the ones bucking the system. IMO, this isn't confined to debate, it has pervaded all of academia, particularly the law schools. While I think a lot of "kritik" debating came from this trend, I think your experience with running objectivism was probably a fluke, and I wouldn't can the argument because of one judge. Just make sure you understand it inside and out and have the evidence to back it up (it IS out there). Chris Cushman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010713/f7ebd804/attachment.html From dave Fri Jul 13 13:21:50 2001 From: dave (David L. Steinberg) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 14:21:50 -0400 Subject: Publication Opportunity Message-ID: <3B4F3C3D.78B14FF7@miami.edu> As Review Editor for World Communication, I am receiving book reviews for publication. Reviews of books, software and electronic publications that relate to human communication are appropriate. Prompt submissions recieve timely consideration. If you have interest in reviewing a recent publication (2000+), and would like me to attempt secure a copy for you, please contact me. Books I currently have (and can send you in exchange for a prompt review) are: Mark J. Smith, Culture:Reinventing the Social Sciences Nancy Morris and Silvio Waisbord (Eds.), Media and Globalization: Why the State Matters Also, if there is a recent publication you are particularly interested in, please let me know and I will request it. Thanks to those who have already submitted reviews! Dave -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: dave.vcf Type: text/x-vcard Size: 335 bytes Desc: Card for David L. Steinberg Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010713/91f563c4/attachment.vcf From Leslie.E.Phillips Fri Jul 13 13:26:29 2001 From: Leslie.E.Phillips (Leslie E. Phillips) Date: 13 Jul 2001 14:26:29 EDT Subject: Lawrence's concerns... Message-ID: <53581274@donner.Dartmouth.EDU> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010713/7a3f7eef/attachment.asc From West Fri Jul 13 14:02:11 2001 From: West (Terry West) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 13:02:11 -0600 Subject: Lawrence's concerns... Message-ID: Mr. Cushman, You really shouldn't talk about things you seem to know so little about. "Objectivism," like socialism, was around (even on college campuses) well before the "late '80's." My first exposure to Rand was when I was in high school, and I graduated in '73. Rand was old news then. "Intellectual socialism" has been around in that language at least since Marx and Engles in the 19th century. Before you describe intellectual socialism as a "cool" "oxymoron," you might want to write something that even approac hes the type of thought these or other socialist philosophers use. And, pray tell us, what is your evidence that those who sincerely believe in socialist philosophy are "sheep"? It's ok to disagree with something, but you'd better have something to back up your claims if all you're going to do is name-calling. Terry West P.S.: if you think socialism is an anti-establishment "affectation," I trust that you have not partaken and will not partake of any of those evil socialist programs, such as minimum wage laws, federal grants or student loans, public education, child labo r laws, social security, medicare, . . . >>> 07/13/01 12:14PM >>> Lawrence writes about being a conservative in the debate community: >>i often feel a strong bias in the debate community towards non-liberal activist or libertarians<< I think it's been that way for a long time. IMO, it began in the late '80s as an affectation when it became "cool" to be a socialist intellectual (I know, that sounds like an oxymoron ), and give everyone the impression you were anti-establishment. Then a certain "look" became associated with it (you've probably seen it, the folks going barefoot took it a bit too far, though). Now, they've become the proverbial "sheep" and the few objectivists and conservatives are the ones bucking the system. IMO, this isn't confined to debate, it has pervaded all of academia, particularly the law schools. While I think a lot of "kritik" debating came from this trend, I think your experience with running objectivism was probably a fluke, and I wouldn't can the argument because of one judge. Just make sure you understand it inside and out and have the evidence to back it up (it IS out there). Chris Cushman From mhaga3zg Fri Jul 13 14:28:11 2001 From: mhaga3zg (michael l. hagan) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 15:28:11 -0400 Subject: Lawrence's concerns... Message-ID: Roark would not be happy if he heard that we were grouping him and conservatives together. Conservatives at the same time would be seething because they were grouped with Roark. Just a thought. Michael >>> "Terry West" 07/13/01 15:16 PM >>> Mr. Cushman, You really shouldn't talk about things you seem to know so little about. "Objectivism," like socialism, was around (even on college campuses) well before the "late '80's." My first exposure to Rand was when I was in high school, and I graduated in '73. Rand was old news then. "Intellectual socialism" has been around in that language at least since Marx and Engles in the 19th century. Before you describe intellectual socialism as a "cool" "oxymoron," you might want to write something that even approac hes the type of thought these or other socialist philosophers use. And, pray tell us, what is your evidence that those who sincerely believe in socialist philosophy are "sheep"? It's ok to disagree with something, but you'd better have something to back up your claims if all you're going to do is name-calling. Terry West P.S.: if you think socialism is an anti-establishment "affectation," I trust that you have not partaken and will not partake of any of those evil socialist programs, such as minimum wage laws, federal grants or student loans, public education, child labo r laws, social security, medicare, . . . >>> 07/13/01 12:14PM >>> Lawrence writes about being a conservative in the debate community: >>i often feel a strong bias in the debate community towards non-liberal activist or libertarians<< I think it's been that way for a long time. IMO, it began in the late '80s as an affectation when it became "cool" to be a socialist intellectual (I kow, that sounds like an oxymoron ), and give everyone the impression you were anti-establishment. Then a certain "look" became associated with it (you've probably seen it, the folks going barefoot took it a bit too far, though). Now, they've become the proverbial "sheep" and the few objectivists and conservatives are the ones bucking the system. IMO, this isn't confined to debate, it has pervaded all of academia, particularly the law schools. While I think a lot of "kritik" debating came from this trend, I think your experience with running objectivism was probably a fluke, and I wouldn't can the argument because of one judge. Just make sure you understand it inside and out and have the evidence to back it up (it IS out there). Chris Cushman From Leslie.E.Phillips Fri Jul 13 14:41:09 2001 From: Leslie.E.Phillips (Leslie E. Phillips) Date: 13 Jul 2001 15:41:09 EDT Subject: Lawrence's concerns... Message-ID: <53584659@donner.Dartmouth.EDU> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010713/67c98d59/attachment.pot From Kcmoattorney Fri Jul 13 15:16:49 2001 From: Kcmoattorney (Kcmoattorney at cs.com) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 16:16:49 EDT Subject: Lawrence's concerns... Message-ID: <10c.2a00bc9.2880b131@cs.com> In a message dated 7/13/01 2:02:52 PM Central Daylight Time, West at suu.edu writes: > You really shouldn't talk about things you seem to know so little about. > "Objectivism," like socialism, was around (even on college campuses) well > before the "late '80's." My first exposure to Rand was when I was in high > school, and I graduated in '73. Rand was old news then. "Intellectual > socialism" has been around in that language at least since Marx and Engles > in the 19th century. Mr. West, You've misinterpreted my comments, which were intended in a debate-subculture reply to an individual who feels unfairly isolated because of his idelogical beliefs within that subculture. I certainly wasn't suggesting that Rand or Marx were new to academia in the 1980s. I was pointing out from my experience in debate that there were lots of folks in the debate subculture who got "interested" in the theory in the late '80s to the point that they espoused the theory and the literature without a high level of understanding of it, and took on a certain "group identity" that seemed independent of the belief system (largely because serious leftist thinkers I knew did not belong to that particular group identity) >>And, pray tell us, what is your evidence that those who sincerely believe in socialist philosophy are "sheep"?<< See, you've hit the key point, the people who *sincerely* believe socialist philosophy are certainly not sheep., and that wasn't my contention. My point orignally was that the experience I had (others may well vary) was that the people *in the debate subculture* who walked the walk and talked the talk in the late '80s, by and large didn't understand and/or really believe "socialist philosophy." Eventually the general trend toward more liberal thinking in academia (it may well be good or bad,I don't know, but I don't think anyone seriously denies it exists), has crowded objectivists and social/political conservatives into being the anti-establishment, at least academically. From what I have observed, this has occurred in debate as well, and Lawrence's original post raised that concern. My point was to reinforce this fellow's self esteem and convictions, and point out that the positions he believes in do have a place in the debate community, despite his (and my) presence in the minority of academic thought on these issues. >>P.S.: if you think socialism is an anti-establishment "affectation," I trust that you have not partaken and will not partake of any of those evil socialist programs<< This is why I avoid arguing the substance of these positions with people. That is not what I said, and wasn't even what I was thinking. When people don't want to address the point someone is trying to make, they reforumlate the argument into something they know they can hammer (the classic "straw man"). We don't live in a world where *any* pure application of social theory wouild work. The best we have been able to find so far is one where we are free to pick and choose elements of those theories and comingle them to try to and find balance. For the record once again, I merely identified a group mentality based on my own experience and (admittedly biased) impressions that arose and existed 12-15 years ago in this community. From my experience, this group valued their associations and subculture more than the ideology they claimed to represent. This resulted in those with contrary positions being ignored, shouted down or ridiculed. That isn't right regardless of the ideology. I *seriously* doubt that if someone insulted social/political conservatism and it's adherents on this listserv, people would be this upset about it. Chris Cushman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010713/0e47187d/attachment.html From Leslie.E.Phillips Fri Jul 13 15:34:01 2001 From: Leslie.E.Phillips (Leslie E. Phillips) Date: 13 Jul 2001 16:34:01 EDT Subject: Lawrence's concerns... Message-ID: <53586756@donner.Dartmouth.EDU> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010713/e9a0d886/attachment.pot From jgoss5pc Fri Jul 13 15:34:26 2001 From: jgoss5pc (florence j goss) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 16:34:26 -0400 Subject: Fwd: URGENT ACTION--Tell the Vatican to Stand Up for Women on July 14th! Message-ID: I thought this message may be of interest to some of you in the community- maybe as a sidebar from all the topic, UT, and objectivism-related discussion. -Judy Goss Former Mary Washington College debater (graduation does have a way of forcing one into retirement) -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "Jennifer Schiske" Subject: URGENT ACTION--Tell the Vatican to Stand Up for Women on July 14th! Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 13:33:16 -0400 Size: 12014 Url: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010713/d37bdd4a/attachment.mht From korry Fri Jul 13 15:35:46 2001 From: korry (Korry Harvey) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 14:35:46 -0600 Subject: a lil' background on state action Message-ID: <001001c10bdb$65538400$0902a8c0@thinslim.ln> Regarding the much-discussed issue of state action (particularly in reference to Rez 3), I thought it may be helpful (and maybe not) to offer a little bit of history on State-Fed-Indian relations. Perhaps it will help add some additional perspective on possible directions of state-based strategies. This is primarily for informational purposes, is not really "geared" toward basic debate approaches or terminology, and is a bit lengthy. It discusses state jurisdiction in general, as well as an examination of the major instances of federally-approved extensions of state jurisdiction into Indian Country, and the legal tests which have evolved regarding application of state law in Indian Country. It is intended to provide a brief overview of the general status of state powers vis-a-vis Indian Country. The whole Fed-State-Indian relationship is rather complex, and can also be inconsistent (surprise, surprise). But I think it helps to have an understanding of the history behind this relationship-- how and why it came to be what it is. Obviously this post is not a full-fledged, nor authoritative in any way, accounting of the relationship or its historical development, but hopefully it may help those who may not have been aware of some of these issues. A disclaimer of sorts--- If my approach to the subject material appears a little biased at times, suffice it to say that... it is. Anyone who believes that the (re)telling of history is an objective endeavor is, IMHO, not listening with "both" ears. The story of the native people of this land serves as a prominent example that "history is written by the victors". One need only take a cursory look at/listen to the rising chorus of "alternative/unconventional" voices to realize that the history of Native America is far from simple, and anything but objective. For a great introduction to the inconsistencies of history as an academic/educational endeavor, I highly recommend James Loewen's book "Lies My Teacher Told Me". Anyhow, enough editorializing (for now ;-). Initially, state jurisdiction in Indian Country is of a rather limited scope and nature-- Stephen Pevar (Counsel for the ACLU's Indian Rigths Committee): "The power of Congress over Indian affairs is supreme. Federal Indian... statutes do not need state approval before becoming the supreme law of the land.... State laws are powerless in Indian Country, as a general rule..." However, Pevar continues, "Congress has passed several laws that confer state jurisdiction over particular tribes... [and] particular subjects [these would include health, sanitation & quarantine regulations; sale of alcohol; and a few other areas]. Thus, every state has some jurisdiction on Indian reservations. Few states, however, have much authority. This is particularly true in the critical areas of domestic relations (marriage, divorce, adoptions, child custody, etc.), commercial transactions, taxation, and zoning. On the whole, Congress has kept tribes free from state jurisdiction." Much of this is likely due to the general animosity which has historically framed state-Indian relations (as well as, ostensibly, a federal interest in maintaining "control" over Indian lands/resources). Congress can, and has, authorized state jurisdiction in Indian Country, and states have often pressured Congress to allow them to regulate reservation activities. Congress has, however, seldom bowed to such pressure and has rarely enacted law favoring state jurisdiction in Indian Country. This being said, three times the Congress has enacted laws which served to significantly increase state jurisdiction on Indian reservations. The first was the General Allotment Act of 1887 (aka the Dawes Act), which basically removed large tracts of "surplus" land (a continuation of the attitude that Indians never did know how to "properly" make use of their land) from Indian control and made them available to the steadily advancing non-Indian settlers. The act further included the authorization of allotting small parcels (usually around 20-25 acres) of land to individual Indians, thus introducing "private land ownership" to what traditionally had been communally-held lands. This not only opened the road for state taxation and regulation of these newly designated "private" lands (held both by Indians and non-Indians alike), but also put deeds to a (collectively) large amount of land in the hands of individual Indians, thus making the lands much more likely to be sold to non-Indians (especially given the introduction, and burden, of previously unknown taxes, and the general unfamiliarity with private property). By the time the act was repealed in the 1930s, native peoples had lost control (title) over nearly two thirds of the land they had held in 1887. These vast expanses of land were now within the regulatory boundary of state laws. This "legal" land grab not only represented a more sophisticated method of pushing Indian nations further into the "wastelands", but also had the effect of seriously disrupting Indian ways of life by severely altering traditional connections to the land. The second major extension of state jurisdiction into Indian Country involved the termination laws of the 50s and 60s, perhaps the most devestating Federal-Indian policy, other than outright warfare, to befall the indigenous people within the US landmass. Under the termination laws, between 1950 and 1968, Congress passed laws that simply "terminated" more than one hundred Indian nations. By federal decree, the nation in question simply ceased to exist. Basically, each law required the affected nation to disband its government and distribute property to its individual members, who themselves became fully subject to state law. As a result, "thousands of Indians, and millions of acres of land, came under state jurisdiction for the first time" (Pevar). The termination laws did with the stroke of a pen something that thousands upon thousands of U.S troops, forced relocation, both conscious/deliberate and unintended contamination with virulent disease, the starvation and famine resulting from intentional destruction of subsistence resources, re-education campaigns, countless missionary efforts, "official" theft of both children and land, the steady advance of "civilization", etc., etc., etc., could not-- finally eliminate (at least officially, and as a matter of policy) an entire nation of people from existence. As a part of the termination era, Congress tried to either eliminate a nation (through direct termination), force assimilation into the dominant culture (through various carrot-and-stick approaches), or drastically reduce the governement's assistance to these nations. It was under a combination of the second and third of these options that the USFG came up with what would be the third major extension of state jurisdiction-- Public Law 83-280. Enacted on August 15, 1953, it is "the only federal law that extends state jurisdiction to Indian reservations generally (Pevar)." The law was "officially" intended to help various Indian nations in controlling reservation crime (since Indians are deviant by nature). The law was (deliberately) crafted, however, so broadly that it set the stage for substantial reductions in federal expenditures toward Indian nations. It further promoted the assimilation of Indians into white society by giving states new powers on reservations. P.L. 280 is a rather complicated law. Under the statute, five states (CA, MN, NE, OR, WI, and later added in 1958, AK) were given complete criminal and some civil jurisdiction over reservations. These states were given no choice in the matter and are known as "mandatory" states. The law authorized the other 44 states to assume the same, or lesser, jurisdiction at their option, and are thus known as "option" states. The option states are further divided into two groups-- those who had a "disclaimer clause" in their constitutions disclaiming state jurisdiction in Indian Country, and those whithout such a clause. P.L. 280 authorized the disclaimer states to ammend their consitutions to remove the clause. Of the 44 option states, only 10 assumed any jurisdiction under the law (AZ, FL, ID, IA, MT, NV, ND, SD, UT, WA). Each of these states assumed various levels of jursidiction. Only Florida and South Dakota opted for the full jurisdiction available under the law, and SD's was later invalidated by a Federal court, and therefore maintains no P.L. 280 jurisdiction. Of interesting note, both Utah and North Dakota opted to accept jurisdiction upon the condition of tribal consent, none of which has been granted. Significantly, in response to strong opposition to P.L. 280 from within the reservations, Congress elected to amend the law in 1968. First, tribal consent became a requirement for further extensions of state jurisdiction. Second, the law was amended to "authorize" the USFG to accept a "retrocession" of that jurisdiction aquired by a state under the law. However, under the law, the USFG is not necessarily "required to accept" a state's offer to retrocede. The Indian nation, meanwhile, has no official say in this retrocession process. Over the years, several states have chosen to retrocede varying levels of jurisdiction over particular reservations within their state. In addition to these "major" extensions of state jurisdiction into Indian Country, Congress from time-to-time allows other state regulations to be deemed applicable and binding on Indian reservations, with the primary exception being those instances in which the state law is in conflict with federal law or interests (this "interest" presumably includes trust responsibilities to look out for the best "interests" of Indians). As stated earlier, however, it has been rare for such increases in state authority to be granted. Yet it is important to bear in mind that the states have "in every imaginable way, using every conceivable argument (Pevar)", attempted to extend their influence into Indian Country, even without official Congressional approval. However, most of these state efforts to enforce their laws or interests within Indian Country have been invalidated by the courts. Nonetheless, occasionally they get away with it. The Supreme Court has come up with a two-tier test for validating (or invalidating) state laws that attempt regulation/enforcement in Indian Country without Congress' okay-- the preemption test and the infringement test, both of which the state law must pass. As explained by Pevar, "state laws affecting reservation activities must be viewed against a 'backdrop' of tribal sovereignty, the inherent right of an Indian tribe to be self-governing. As the Court explained in 1980, 'the two barriers are independent because either, standing alone, can be a sufficient basis for holding state law inapplicable to activity undertaken on the reservation.' ... Thus a state's claim that it can regulate reservation Indians without congressional approval is inherently suspicious given Congress' overriding goal... of encouraging tribal self-sufficiency and economic development. Simply stated, a state law that is inconsistent with federal law violates the preemption test. ... In 1959 the Supreme Court held in Williams v. Lee that a state may not infringe 'on the right of reservation Indians to make their own laws and be ruled by them.' This principle has become known as the infringement test. It protects the inherent right of Indian tribes to be self-governing." Pevar goes on to note that, "Indeed thus far every effort by the states to regulate activity involving only reservation Indians has failed either the preemption or infringement test unless it was authorized by Congress. States have succeeded only when they have regulated non-Indian activities, because tribal interests often are not as significant in these situations. Yet even here, few laws have survived the preemption and infringement tests..." Hopefully this might in some way be helpful to those thinking about various strategies involving state action/authority. Good luck to all in their research and preparation efforts. Also, I would be remiss if I did not mention that I think it is a wonderful opportunity for the community to spend a year debating about, researching and learning about Native American issues. As an echo to the sentiment offered by others, hopefully it turns out to be a year of truly discussing "Indians" and matters of significant import to them (and really to everyone). If I had debated under a Native American topic I may have even actually cut some cards!! That's sort of an apology to all my previous teammates and coaches. However, I wouldn't change my experience for 10 tubs worth of ev! Thanks to all who made my experience what it was. Sat Nam, Korry "It does not require many words to speak the truth." Chief Joseph (Nez Perce) Yes, please feel free to judge the "truth" of my post based on its length! ;-) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010713/3724c908/attachment.htm From West Fri Jul 13 15:49:25 2001 From: West (Terry West) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 14:49:25 -0600 Subject: Lawrence's concerns... Message-ID: Mr. Cushman, Your basic positions seems to be "what I said wasn't really what I meant." In that case, we may or may not have an argument here. My offense was to your name-calling toward legitimate theories. I am no more a socialist than I am an objectivist, but I " object" nonetheless to such casual assertions as were in your original post. If you don't wish to defend them, that's fine, but let me point out below that my response was far from a "misinterpretation" of your comments: >Mr. West, You've misinterpreted my comments, which were intended in a debate-subculture reply to an individual who feels unfairly isolated because of his idelogical beliefs within that subculture. I certainly wasn't suggesting that Rand or Marx were new to academia in the 1980s. Answer: I quote directly from your previous post: "IMO it [bias against libertarian beliefs] began in the late '80s as an affectation when it became 'cool' to be a socialist intellectual. (I know, that sounds like an oxymoron ) and give everyone the impression you were anti-establishment. . . .IMO, this isn't confined to debate, it has pervaded all of academia, particularly the law schools." You may continue believing that socialism wasn't argued in academic debate before the late '80s. Say hello to Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy for me. I was pointing out from my experience in debate that there were lots of folks in the debate subculture who got "interested" in the theory in the late '80s to the point that they espoused the theory and the literature without a high level of understanding of it, and took on a certain "group identity" that seemed independent of the belief system (largely because serious leftist thinkers I knew did not belong to that particular group identity) Answer: I debated a lot of folks in the '70s who had a much higher understanding of socialist theory than you do, and were far from "sheep." Again, I quote directly from your earlier post: "Now, they've become the proverbial 'sheep' and the few objecti vists and conservatives are the ones bucking the system." Nowhere in this quotation or the one above do you qualify this as a minority view or even "lots of folks." You make the sweeping generalization. At the very least, you set up a "valiant few cons ervatives versus the pervading liberal 'sheep'" type of pseudo-argument that is exactly what set me off. >>And, pray tell us, what is your evidence that those who sincerely believe in socialist philosophy are "sheep"?<< See, you've hit the key point, the people who *sincerely* believe socialist philosophy are certainly not sheep., and that wasn't my contention. Answer: It certainly was; see your quotations above. You never made this "sincerely" qualification in your prior post. And you specifically insinuate below that none of these sincere people were in debate. My point orignally was that the experience I had (others may well vary) was that the people *in the debate subculture* who walked the walk and talked the talk in the late '80s, by and large didn't understand and/or really believe "socialist philosophy." Answer: To quote a well-known conservative: "Well, there you go again." You never qualified your original post as just pertaining to your personal experience. And if it is true that your personal experience in the "debate subculture" (whatever that is ) is that debaters in the late '80s who espoused socialist positions "by and large" didn't understand or believe socialist philosophy, then you didn't hear very many good debates or debaters. Either way, your generalizations falsely mark some really sinc ere views. Eventually the general trend toward more liberal thinking in academia (it may well be good or bad,I don't know, but I don't think anyone seriously denies it exists), has crowded objectivists and social/political conservatives into being the anti-establishment, at least academically. From what I have observed, this has occurred in debate as well, and Lawrence's original post raised that concern. My point was to reinforce this fellow's self esteem and convictions, and point out that the positions he believes in do have a place in the debate community, despite his (and my) presence in the minority of academic thought on these issues. Answer: I'm all for boosting the "fellow's" self-esteem. He should look at a fairly significant number of programs who have done quite well espousing Rand/Objectivism and other conservative philosophies. But trying to buttress him by telling him he's f ighting the "charge of the light brigade"-type battle against the evil liberal demons of academic debate isn't going to give him the grounding he needs to win these arguments. >>P.S.: if you think socialism is an anti-establishment "affectation," I trust that you have not partaken and will not partake of any of those evil socialist programs<< This is why I avoid arguing the substance of these positions with people. That is not what I said, and wasn't even what I was thinking. When people don't want to address the point someone is trying to make, they reforumlate the argument into something they know they can hammer (the classic "straw man"). Answer: Or, you claim you didn't really say what you said. See the direct quotations above. You refer to debaters espousing socialist postions as taking an "affectation" to seem "anti-establishment." By the way, we call it the "straw" or "strawfigure" argument these days, because women get to debate too. And I addressed your point directly; you are changing it in this post. We don't live in a world where *any* pure application of social theory wouild work. The best we have been able to find so far is one where we are free to pick and choose elements of those theories and comingle them to try to and find balance. For the record once again, I merely identified a group mentality based on my own experience and (admittedly biased) impressions that arose and existed 12-15 years ago in this community. From my experience, this group valued their associations and subculture more than the ideology they claimed to represent. This resulted in those with contrary positions being ignored, shouted down or ridiculed. That isn't right regardless of the ideology. I *seriously* doubt that if someone insulted social/political conservatism and it's adherents on this listserv, people would be this upset about it. Answer: If this had, indeed, been your original postion, I probably would have merely posted that my experiences were much different. And while I think there is much to insult about "social/political conservatism," I would object if those insults merely reflected the type of namecalling ("affectation," "sheep," "oxymoron") that were in your post. At least in terms of academic debate (if you just want a political squabble with me, let's just say that James Carville is a hero to me :-) ). I've voted on Rand. I've voted against it. Same with socialism. Bet I'm in the academic debate majority in that respect. Terry West Chris Cushman From Kcmoattorney Fri Jul 13 15:53:37 2001 From: Kcmoattorney (Kcmoattorney at cs.com) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 16:53:37 EDT Subject: Lawrence's concerns... Message-ID: <93.d264eb4.2880b9d1@cs.com> In a message dated 7/13/01 2:41:23 PM Central Daylight Time, Leslie.E.Phillips at Dartmouth.EDU writes: > >>>> What point am I supposed to draw from the following language, taken > verbatim from your first post? > > though). Now, they've become the proverbial "sheep" and the few > objectivists > and conservatives are the ones bucking the system. IMO, this isn't > confined > to debate, it has pervaded all of academia, particularly the law schools. > You know, I'm willing to be big enough to admit that the wording there was inartful, and I did not take into account the possibility that people would ascribe more meaning to those words that I had intended given the context. After pointing out my experience in the late '80s, I should have followed up by stating that there has been a probably unrelated but concurrent trend towards more liberal thought in academic institutions which has resulted in social/political conservatives being a distinct minority , much as socialists were when old-line academics were generally conservative. When socialism was anti-establishment (academically), it's practitioners considered mainstream academics "sheep." My point was that the tables have now turned, that mainstream academics "the sheep" are decidedly more liberal now, and social/political conservatives are now anti-establishment, and often, not taken seriously. I wasn't saying adherents of a particular idedology are sheep, merely that whatever group happens to be the "anti-establishment" tends to look on the majority-establishment as that. Although I suspect the original poster's politics and mine are somewhat similar, there was no intent in the original reply to make any sort of argument about the value of competing social theories. He appeared to feel isolated in this activity because of his perception of the overwhelming prevalence of liberal thinkers populating it. I merely threw out my $.02 worth on how I think that may have got started, tossed out a joke (note the ), and offered some encouragement. People make these kinds of side-jokes about conservatives all the time and nobody comes unhinged like this. I was warned when I started poking around in this activity again that people would jump on me if I revealed my disagreement with liberal social and political thought. They were correct. Chris Cushman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010713/ac131534/attachment.html From nathan_debate Fri Jul 13 16:00:09 2001 From: nathan_debate (nathan kets) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 14:00:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Former MTSU debater & Communication M.A. needs job... Message-ID: <20010713210009.34066.qmail@web12708.mail.yahoo.com> Hello, my name is Nathan Ketsdever and as of July 22nd I will possess my Masters in Communication from Ball State University. I am looking for a coaching position on the high school or college level. I did Lincoln-Douglas in HS and policy in college, so I?m versitile in that respect. I come highly recommended by Mike Bauer, Jason Stone, and others who know me on the circuit (Matt Stannard and Joe Carver among others). I?have enjoyed teaching in the college classroom as well as a year and half of coaching collegiate circuit debate successfully. Finally, I have experience teaching at high school camps, teaching novii/JV debaters as they branch out, and examining critical arguments. Please contact me at nathan_debate at yahoo.com if you are interested and I will promptly email you my resume and cover letter, as well as having recommendations sent to you. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ From korry Fri Jul 13 16:01:30 2001 From: korry (Korry Harvey) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 15:01:30 -0600 Subject: CP's on # 3/movements Message-ID: <001a01c10bde$ff552560$0902a8c0@thinslim.ln> Jamie Woodward writes: "Alan Tauber writes: >Finally, a quick thought for the theory experts: Can you truly fiat "voluntary" action? this is an excellent point." I agree, Alan's point is excellent. Where Jamie's comments/repsonse, as well as most others' on this subject, have dealt exclusively with state vs. fed, my question is one of movements. I have been primarily uninvolved with the activity for several years, and am curious as to how this plays itself out in today's debate world. I have been told that movements positions have somewhat fallen out of fashion. Is this because they are run poorly or because there is a general bias against the. And if so, why? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010713/bf7f1a19/attachment.htm From Kcmoattorney Fri Jul 13 16:03:04 2001 From: Kcmoattorney (Kcmoattorney at cs.com) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 17:03:04 EDT Subject: Lawrence's concerns... Message-ID: <94.16bd38ce.2880bc08@cs.com> In a message dated 7/13/01 1:26:56 PM Central Daylight Time, Leslie.E.Phillips at Dartmouth.EDU writes: > >>> Socialist intellectual cool has been around for as long as socialist > intellectuals have been around. But it's not very respectful of others' > beliefs > to assume that because they disagree with you, it's an "affectation." > > You're making that connection, not I. I said it was an "affectation" because many of the people *I* knew in the late '80s who appeared to be of that "persuasion" really weren't socialists at all, (and didn't even understand the theory), but rather wanted people to *think* they were. The serious socialists I did know didn't act or look like that, and I respect them despite my deep disagreement with them. >>>>"Objectivists and conservatives"? >> There is nothing "conservative" about objectivism, except a reverence for property rights. Agreed, but for the purposes of Lawrence's comments, the way people segregate themselves in academia (and in the debate community) puts objectivists and conservatives on the "other" side of the fence from socialists/liberals. Actually the term Lawrence used was "libertarians." >>While I think a lot of "kritik" debating came from this trend >>> You mean, simply from people wanting to be "cool"? Certainly, no young people ever started read Rand for that reason . . . . That sure is a simplistic response, and not to the point I was making. IMO, and experience, the people I referenced above *did* read the literature (which is certainly academically a good thing), and my pure speculation is that kritik got it's start with this kind of thing. Maybe it was just conincedental. I think it was more of a side effect ala "hey, this is cool, I bet I could use this in rounds..." FWIW, I agree that nobody ever started reading Rand because they wanted to be cool. I can't say that about Marx, however. Chris Cushman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010713/c9e8d8cb/attachment.html From Kcmoattorney Fri Jul 13 16:38:00 2001 From: Kcmoattorney (Kcmoattorney at cs.com) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 17:38:00 EDT Subject: Lawrence's concerns... Message-ID: <6a.10a127fa.2880c438@cs.com> Mr. West, I really don't think you and I have much of a disagreement. In another post, I freely admitted that my original post to Lawrence was probably not terribly artful in wording and was rather flip in getting from my initial observation (that many debaters I knew espoused socialism when they didn't really believe or understand it) to the second observation that there has been a role reversal in academia which has left social/political conservatives in the minority. The "sheep" comment merely reflected what "anti-establishment" views typically think of the establishment, and how interesting it is that the combatants have flip-flopped. >>You may continue believing that socialism wasn't argued in academic debate before the late '80s. Say hello to Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy for me.<< Of course these positions have been argued in debates since time immemorial. I just didn't see the "group identity" develop surounding that issue before then. >>: I'm all for boosting the "fellow's" self-esteem. He should look at a fairly significant number of programs who have done quite well espousing Rand/Objectivism and other conservative philosophies. But trying to buttress him by telling him he's fighting the "charge of the light brigade"-type battle against the evil liberal demons of academic debate isn't going to give him the grounding he needs to win these arguments. << That's why I pointed out that I thought his experience with one judge was a fluke, and if he wants to win with those arguments, he needs to make sure he fully understands the positions and has the evidence to back them up. In my experience most academic debate judging is *extremely* open minded and most judges can and have voted on both sides of just about everything (I know I have). I just don't think the guy should feel bad or isolated because he holds certain views. (regardless of what they are.) I made my comments to him in a quick way, with a bit of humor thrown in, and I admit those comments were probably best reserved for a private response instead of public posting. I'm not interested in defending the positions which have been ascribed to the original post and will not do so. Chris Cushman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010713/77599bb9/attachment.htm From coopdb8 Fri Jul 13 16:48:53 2001 From: coopdb8 (christopher cooper) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 17:48:53 -0400 Subject: CP's on # 3/movements Message-ID: Urgh...discussions on fiat always make me cringe because there is always some sort of "mystique" surrounding the concept...and the mistaken belief that it is a "thing" or a "power" and has discrete boundaries. Fiat, understood as merely the ability to imagine the world in which an action is taken by those empowered to do so, is limited only by our ability to imagine. Now, granted, we place limits on who can ADVOCATE a particular action because of a concern for fairness, but the idea itself is not limited. It seems perfectly plausible to "fiat" both voluntary action and/or action by movements. The question is whether such action fairly lies within the available actions that may be advocated by the negative. While I'll admit that the issue is open for debate, I tend to think that it is quite plausible for the negative to win that it is. COOP UT-Dallas _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From Kcmoattorney Fri Jul 13 16:53:44 2001 From: Kcmoattorney (Kcmoattorney at cs.com) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 17:53:44 EDT Subject: Lawrence's concerns... Message-ID: <94.16bd38d4.2880c7e8@cs.com> In a message dated 7/13/01 3:34:05 PM Central Daylight Time, Leslie.E.Phillips at Dartmouth.EDU writes: > This is why I avoid arguing the substance of these positions with people. > That is not what I said, and wasn't even what I was thinking. > > >> But it is what you were writing. I think you need to revisit your own > language, and perhaps write more clearly. Your post seems to me rather > worse > than insulting people's arguments -- it insults their character and bona > fides, > calls them hypocrites . . . . > Mr. Phillips, in a way, you're right. I was trying to give someone a pat on the back and tell them to hang in there, and share an experience. It was probably not best suited for public posting, and wasn't phrased well (part of the downside of the immediacy of electronic media, I'll admit). The original post, IMO, did not insult anyone's beliefs. It *did* insult some people, and call them hypocrites. I don't take that part back. I have the highest respect for people's sincere beliefs, even those I vehemently disagree with. I just learned that so many of the people within that "group" did not truly have the beliefs they espoused, and that irritated me. Chris Cushman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010713/099c86b9/attachment.html From pjm1 Fri Jul 13 21:48:33 2001 From: pjm1 (Patrick McKenzie) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 21:48:33 -0500 Subject: Fwd: URGENT ACTION--Tell the Vatican to Stand Up for Women on July 14th! Message-ID: <000601c10c0f$7a3019e0$9b68fc80@wuh.wustl.edu> I would not ordinarily respond to an "action alert", especially one which is off topic for the list it was posted on, but I will to this one. This being the debate community, we all agree that no argument should be accepted without examination and neither lies nor half-truths should be suffered in silence. The alert makes three primary claims for supporting a protest of the Vatican. #1 -- Sexual abuse of the women religious is endemic within the Catholic Church. #2 -- The Church is aware of such abuse and has done nothing to stop it. There is no convincing evidence to support the claims. Wait, doesn't the website refer to a high profile series of articles from the official sounding National Catholic Register? Well, it doesn't add up to all that much more than a hill of beans. I will now bring up an argument that many debate rounds could use: the source indict. The Catholics For Free Choice have an agenda which, expressed succintly, is to utterly annihilate the structure of the Catholic Church as it currently stands and replace it with one which is "reformed". The end goal is the support of abortion, among other things. Those history buffs out there may notice parallels with the Reformation. One of the major causes of the Reformation was the desire to limit the institutional power of the Catholic Church (and, by extension, redistribute that power to the German princes, English Crown, et al who supported it). To weaken the hold of the Church wild and spurrious accusations were made, and the way to most damage the Church was to accuse it of two of its highest sins -- unrestricted sexuality and hypocricy. Thus books with titles such as "Real Secrets of Nunneries Disclosed" were published*, and the publishers used the ensuing disgust to accomplish their goals. *It should be pointed out that those allegations, like the more recent ones, run the gamut from "exaggerated" to "fabricated wholesale". Credit Catholics for a Free Choice on this one, they have learned enough about spin control to not make the connection between "Church ignoring the suffering of women" and "Church doctrine goes against abortion" explicit in the email. A little deeper digging, however, reveals some interesting quotes from their website. >From the article "Learning to Love Patriarchy", by Joanna Manning >>The Catholic church continues to legitimize male dominance through internal sexist structures. Church teachings that women cannot be priests and cannot represent God justify subservient roles for women in the church and in society. Pope John Paul II has taught that female inferiority within the structures of the church is a matter of divine revelation, and that "secular" norms and practices of equal rights and status for women have no legitimacy within the church. Not only is this "orthodoxy" of male dominance preached at Mass, it is inculcated in good Catholic homes and in Catholic schools.>> To battle this "destructive patriarchy", the CFFC and similar organizations (See Change, etc) persue a variety of policy goals. I'll just hit the highlights. #1 -- Getting the Vatican bumped of the United Nations [pesky churchmen keep voting down abortion aid to Africa, imagine that...]. #2 -- Abolishing the traditional method of appointing bishops and replacing [pesky churchmen are too obstinate to realize that Truth only comes from the ballot box, not from God or reason]. #3 -- Showing the Church at every turn to be hopelessly out of touch with anything that could be considered a woman's issue. Number three is, in a nutshell, why you should ignore this controversy. Remember, it is founded completely on one series of reports in one magazine, which amount to a series of unsubstantiated (and, to be fair, impossible to prove or disprove -- handy, that) anecdotes. The National Catholic Register, by the by, describes itself as "providing an independent voice", which is much the same language as the CFFC and See Change use when they really mean "persuing an agenda divergent from yours". By the way, if you don't think that analysis is enough reason to discredit the endemic violence/passive Church thesis, think of the following parallel situations. #1 -- NRA states that guns are safe to own because of the experiences of six people who have successfully defended themselves with them, then says that "realiable statistics on how widespread unsuccessful defenses are are impossible to come by... but they have to be low". #2 -- ExxonValdez tells you that ITS environmental experts think that oil is healthy for the environment and makes an excellent seal shampoo. #3 -- The Republican Party releases its new report that there were no voting shennanigans in Florida this year and promptly calls for disbanding the Equal Rights Commission. If you wouldn't greet any of the above three examples with your unconditional support, then you should greet this action alert with the same skepticism. Patrick McKenzie -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010713/34a0c321/attachment.htm From epcole Fri Jul 13 21:51:18 2001 From: epcole (Eric Cole) Date: 14 Jul 2001 02:51:18 -0000 Subject: 2002 NDT Location Message-ID: <20010714025118.30029.qmail@ninelives.chek.com> Has the location of the 2002 NDT been determined yet? If so, could someone be ever so kind as to enlighten me as to its location? All help will be greatly appreciated. Eric Cole from Brunswick, GA Check out the new RNC site and BECOME AN ONLINE ACTIVIST! http://www.rnc.org/directory/contact.html Signup for your FREE Vote4GOP.org at http://www.vote4gop.org From jef229f Fri Jul 13 22:58:40 2001 From: jef229f (John Fritch) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 22:58:40 -0500 Subject: 2002 NDT Location Message-ID: <3B512577@caliber> Springfield, Missouri. We are making plans even today! John >===== Original Message From "Eric Cole" ===== >Has the location of the 2002 NDT been determined yet? If so, could someone be ever so kind as to enlighten me as to its location? All help will be greatly appreciated. > > >Eric Cole from Brunswick, GA > >Check out the new RNC site and BECOME AN ONLINE ACTIVIST! >http://www.rnc.org/directory/contact.html >Signup for your FREE Vote4GOP.org at http://www.vote4gop.org From veronica_m_barreto Fri Jul 13 23:10:43 2001 From: veronica_m_barreto (Veronica Barreto) Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 00:10:43 -0400 Subject: Fwd: URGENT ACTION--Tell the Vatican to Stand Up for Women on July 14th! Message-ID: The only thing that doesn't add up to much more than a hill of beans is your post. I don't know about the allegations and I have absolutely no experience with this organization and I'll agree with your general skeptical approach but you do nothing to discredit the CFC. So they have an agenda, so what? Here's a clue...EVERYone has an agenda. It's up to you to place a value judgement on that agenda. So you say the CFC spreads the word that the Catholic Church's structures are patriarchal GASP! No, you don't say! :o() A pro-choice organization - how dare they - making moves to depoliticize the Church - unheard of, the gall. As a Catholic, who sustained Catholic education for 13 years and read her lil' green Catholic catechism book from cover to cover, I'll say that the Catholic Church is at best antiquated. You say this organization supports a woman's right to choose "among other things." Other things like what? Like gender equity in our religious community allowing women to officiate ceremonies, like the ability to use birth control other than the oh so reliable rhythm method, like masturbation without the fear of eternal damnation in addition to blindness (next time you see Coop squinting, wonder no more ;). Pretty racy stuff huh. Yea, you're right, we should all watch our backs because next thing you know they may come up with the radical notion that the Church should emphasize sprirituality over guilt trips yo' momma can't match and once the world's moral fabric has unravelled in the absence of fire and brimstone homilies the CFC will make their move. Uh huh right. So why don't you come up with a reason as to why their agenda is evil. Peace be wit you brotha, Veronica >From: "Patrick McKenzie" >To: >Subject: Re: Fwd: URGENT ACTION--Tell the Vatican to Stand Up for Women on >July 14th! >Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 21:48:33 -0500 > >I would not ordinarily respond to an "action alert", especially one which >is off topic for the list it was posted on, but I will to this one. This >being the debate community, we all agree that no argument should be >accepted without examination and neither lies nor half-truths should be >suffered in silence. > >The alert makes three primary claims for supporting a protest of the >Vatican. > >#1 -- Sexual abuse of the women religious is endemic within the Catholic >Church. > >#2 -- The Church is aware of such abuse and has done nothing to stop it. > > >There is no convincing evidence to support the claims. Wait, doesn't the >website refer to a high profile series of articles from the official >sounding National Catholic Register? Well, it doesn't add up to all that >much more than a hill of beans. > >I will now bring up an argument that many debate rounds could use: the >source indict. The Catholics For Free Choice have an agenda which, >expressed succintly, is to utterly annihilate the structure of the Catholic >Church as it currently stands and replace it with one which is "reformed". >The end goal is the support of abortion, among other things. > >Those history buffs out there may notice parallels with the Reformation. >One of the major causes of the Reformation was the desire to limit the >institutional power of the Catholic Church (and, by extension, redistribute >that power to the German princes, English Crown, et al who supported it). >To weaken the hold of the Church wild and spurrious accusations were made, >and the way to most damage the Church was to accuse it of two of its >highest sins -- unrestricted sexuality and hypocricy. Thus books with >titles such as "Real Secrets of Nunneries Disclosed" were published*, and >the publishers used the ensuing disgust to accomplish their goals. > >*It should be pointed out that those allegations, like the more recent >ones, run the gamut from "exaggerated" to "fabricated wholesale". > >Credit Catholics for a Free Choice on this one, they have learned enough >about spin control to not make the connection between "Church ignoring the >suffering of women" and "Church doctrine goes against abortion" explicit in >the email. A little deeper digging, however, reveals some interesting >quotes from their website. > >From the article "Learning to Love Patriarchy", by Joanna Manning > > >>The Catholic church continues to legitimize male dominance through >internal sexist structures. Church teachings that women cannot be priests >and cannot represent God justify subservient roles for women in the church >and in society. Pope John Paul II has taught that female inferiority within >the structures of the church is a matter of divine revelation, and that >"secular" norms and practices of equal rights and status for women have no >legitimacy within the church. Not only is this "orthodoxy" of male >dominance preached at Mass, it is inculcated in good Catholic homes and in >Catholic schools.>> > >To battle this "destructive patriarchy", the CFFC and similar organizations >(See Change, etc) persue a variety of policy goals. I'll just hit the >highlights. > >#1 -- Getting the Vatican bumped of the United Nations [pesky churchmen >keep voting down abortion aid to Africa, imagine that...]. >#2 -- Abolishing the traditional method of appointing bishops and replacing >[pesky churchmen are too obstinate to realize that Truth only comes from >the ballot box, not from God or reason]. >#3 -- Showing the Church at every turn to be hopelessly out of touch with >anything that could be considered a woman's issue. > > >Number three is, in a nutshell, why you should ignore this controversy. >Remember, it is founded completely on one series of reports in one >magazine, which amount to a series of unsubstantiated (and, to be fair, >impossible to prove or disprove -- handy, that) anecdotes. The National >Catholic Register, by the by, describes itself as "providing an independent >voice", which is much the same language as the CFFC and See Change use when >they really mean "persuing an agenda divergent from yours". > >By the way, if you don't think that analysis is enough reason to discredit >the endemic violence/passive Church thesis, think of the following parallel >situations. > >#1 -- NRA states that guns are safe to own because of the experiences of >six people who have successfully defended themselves with them, then says >that "realiable statistics on how widespread unsuccessful defenses are are >impossible to come by... but they have to be low". > >#2 -- ExxonValdez tells you that ITS environmental experts think that oil >is healthy for the environment and makes an excellent seal shampoo. > >#3 -- The Republican Party releases its new report that there were no >voting shennanigans in Florida this year and promptly calls for disbanding >the Equal Rights Commission. > >If you wouldn't greet any of the above three examples with your >unconditional support, then you should greet this action alert with the >same skepticism. > >Patrick McKenzie _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From 11OGORMAN Sat Jul 14 00:59:19 2001 From: 11OGORMAN (11OGORMAN) Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 01:59:19 -0400 Subject: FWD: URGENT ACTION--Tell the Vatican to Stand Up for Women on July 14th! Message-ID: <3B3CBBCC@136.242.14.28> Ok gotta defend the faith for a second. First of all I don't think Pat even engaged the issue of wether freedom of choice is wrong, but more so saying that CFC is using the issue of abuse of Nun's not because that abuse is true and important, but because they disagree with the Church's position on choice. Hence their agenda is not necessarily evil, but the way they advance it (through unsubtantiated,exagerated, and perhaps even compeltely fabricated claims a point you don't contest) is. As to their agenda, and apparently a bit of yours, you really don't address any of the theology behind the Catholic Churchs' positions or provide any justification besides the advance of your agenda for the loss of Church social power. Not saying that you should believe the Catholic Church's theology but telling a religous organization to change because of secular trends sort of misses the point, Christian churches are based on interpretations of Christ's teachings and the recording of it in the Bible. If you think that the Church is wrong in its reading of Christ's teachings regarding a male priesthood, or mastrubation etc., then you should address the issue from that theological perspective. Also since when is guilt, accepting your not perfect and working on it with Christ, anti or even non spiritual And as to the Catholic Church being antiquated, I severely doubt a billion strong organization operating one of the worlds largest charitable organizations qualifies. But then I'm a conservative, and disagree with your agenda, so I must be antiquated. Tom O'Gorman >===== Original Message From Veronica Barreto ===== >The only thing that doesn't add up to much more than a hill of beans is your >post. > >I don't know about the allegations and I have absolutely no experience with >this organization and I'll agree with your general skeptical approach but >you do nothing to discredit the CFC. So they have an agenda, so what? >Here's a clue...EVERYone has an agenda. It's up to you to place a value >judgement on that agenda. > >So you say the CFC spreads the word that the Catholic Church's structures >are patriarchal GASP! No, you don't say! :o() A pro-choice organization - >how dare they - making moves to depoliticize the Church - unheard of, the >gall. > >As a Catholic, who sustained Catholic education for 13 years and read her >lil' green Catholic catechism book from cover to cover, I'll say that the >Catholic Church is at best antiquated. You say this organization supports a >woman's right to choose "among other things." Other things like what? Like >gender equity in our religious community allowing women to officiate >ceremonies, like the ability to use birth control other than the oh so >reliable rhythm method, like masturbation without the fear of eternal >damnation in addition to blindness (next time you see Coop squinting, wonder >no more ;). Pretty racy stuff huh. > >Yea, you're right, we should all watch our backs because next thing you know >they may come up with the radical notion that the Church should emphasize >sprirituality over guilt trips yo' momma can't match and once the world's >moral fabric has unravelled in the absence of fire and brimstone homilies >the CFC will make their move. > >Uh huh right. So why don't you come up with a reason as to why their agenda >is evil. > >Peace be wit you brotha, >Veronica > > >>From: "Patrick McKenzie" >>To: >>Subject: Re: Fwd: URGENT ACTION--Tell the Vatican to Stand Up for Women on >>July 14th! >>Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 21:48:33 -0500 >> >>I would not ordinarily respond to an "action alert", especially one which >>is off topic for the list it was posted on, but I will to this one. This >>being the debate community, we all agree that no argument should be >>accepted without examination and neither lies nor half-truths should be >>suffered in silence. >> >>The alert makes three primary claims for supporting a protest of the >>Vatican. >> >>#1 -- Sexual abuse of the women religious is endemic within the Catholic >>Church. >> >>#2 -- The Church is aware of such abuse and has done nothing to stop it. >> >> >>There is no convincing evidence to support the claims. Wait, doesn't the >>website refer to a high profile series of articles from the official >>sounding National Catholic Register? Well, it doesn't add up to all that >>much more than a hill of beans. >> >>I will now bring up an argument that many debate rounds could use: the >>source indict. The Catholics For Free Choice have an agenda which, >>expressed succintly, is to utterly annihilate the structure of the Catholic >>Church as it currently stands and replace it with one which is "reformed". >>The end goal is the support of abortion, among other things. >> >>Those history buffs out there may notice parallels with the Reformation. >>One of the major causes of the Reformation was the desire to limit the >>institutional power of the Catholic Church (and, by extension, redistribute >>that power to the German princes, English Crown, et al who supported it). >>To weaken the hold of the Church wild and spurrious accusations were made, >>and the way to most damage the Church was to accuse it of two of its >>highest sins -- unrestricted sexuality and hypocricy. Thus books with >>titles such as "Real Secrets of Nunneries Disclosed" were published*, and >>the publishers used the ensuing disgust to accomplish their goals. >> >>*It should be pointed out that those allegations, like the more recent >>ones, run the gamut from "exaggerated" to "fabricated wholesale". >> >>Credit Catholics for a Free Choice on this one, they have learned enough >>about spin control to not make the connection between "Church ignoring the >>suffering of women" and "Church doctrine goes against abortion" explicit in >>the email. A little deeper digging, however, reveals some interesting >>quotes from their website. >> >>From the article "Learning to Love Patriarchy", by Joanna Manning >> >> >>The Catholic church continues to legitimize male dominance through >>internal sexist structures. Church teachings that women cannot be priests >>and cannot represent God justify subservient roles for women in the church >>and in society. Pope John Paul II has taught that female inferiority within >>the structures of the church is a matter of divine revelation, and that >>"secular" norms and practices of equal rights and status for women have no >>legitimacy within the church. Not only is this "orthodoxy" of male >>dominance preached at Mass, it is inculcated in good Catholic homes and in >>Catholic schools.>> >> >>To battle this "destructive patriarchy", the CFFC and similar organizations >>(See Change, etc) persue a variety of policy goals. I'll just hit the >>highlights. >> >>#1 -- Getting the Vatican bumped of the United Nations [pesky churchmen >>keep voting down abortion aid to Africa, imagine that...]. >>#2 -- Abolishing the traditional method of appointing bishops and replacing >>[pesky churchmen are too obstinate to realize that Truth only comes from >>the ballot box, not from God or reason]. >>#3 -- Showing the Church at every turn to be hopelessly out of touch with >>anything that could be considered a woman's issue. >> >> >>Number three is, in a nutshell, why you should ignore this controversy. >>Remember, it is founded completely on one series of reports in one >>magazine, which amount to a series of unsubstantiated (and, to be fair, >>impossible to prove or disprove -- handy, that) anecdotes. The National >>Catholic Register, by the by, describes itself as "providing an independent >>voice", which is much the same language as the CFFC and See Change use when >>they really mean "persuing an agenda divergent from yours". >> >>By the way, if you don't think that analysis is enough reason to discredit >>the endemic violence/passive Church thesis, think of the following parallel >>situations. >> >>#1 -- NRA states that guns are safe to own because of the experiences of >>six people who have successfully defended themselves with them, then says >>that "realiable statistics on how widespread unsuccessful defenses are are >>impossible to come by... but they have to be low". >> >>#2 -- ExxonValdez tells you that ITS environmental experts think that oil >>is healthy for the environment and makes an excellent seal shampoo. >> >>#3 -- The Republican Party releases its new report that there were no >>voting shennanigans in Florida this year and promptly calls for disbanding >>the Equal Rights Commission. >> >>If you wouldn't greet any of the above three examples with your >>unconditional support, then you should greet this action alert with the >>same skepticism. >> >>Patrick McKenzie > >_________________________________________________________________ >Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From jmassey Sat Jul 14 07:17:01 2001 From: jmassey (Jackie Massey) Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 08:17:01 -0400 Subject: Lawrence's concerns... In-Reply-To: <3a.17ab8233.2880948c@cs.com> Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.20010714081701.00852100@pop.uvm.edu> Chris, I would have to say i disagree. I think it is because people finally decided to think for themselves, and the old way of thinking was(is) going to blow us up or char the planet. Peace, Massey At 02:14 PM 7/13/01 EDT, Kcmoattorney at cs.com wrote: >Lawrence writes about being a conservative in the debate community: >>>i often feel a strong bias in the debate community towards non-liberal ><< > > IMO, it began in the late '80s >as an affectation when it became "cool" to be a socialist intellectual (I ><>), and give everyone the impression you >were anti-establishment. Then a certain "look" became associated with it >(you've probably seen it, the folks going barefoot took it a bit too far, > Now, they've become the proverbial "sheep" and the few objectivists > IMO, this isn't confined >to debate, it has pervaded all of academia, particularly the law schools. > >While I think a lot of "kritik" debating came from this trend, I think your >experience with running objectivism was probably a fluke, and I wouldn't can > Just make sure you understand it inside >and out and have the evidence to back it up (it IS out there). > >Chris Cushman From dhn2 Sat Jul 14 09:12:15 2001 From: dhn2 (Daniel Hugh Nexon) Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 10:12:15 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Lawrence's concerns... In-Reply-To: <93.d264eb4.2880b9d1@cs.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 13 Jul 2001 Kcmoattorney at cs.com wrote: > After pointing out my experience in the late '80s, I should have followed up > by stating that there has been a probably unrelated but concurrent trend > towards more liberal thought in academic institutions which has resulted in > social/political conservatives being a distinct minority .... In the 'late 1980s?' What's your evidence/justification for your time line, and what do you mean by "liberal?" Regards, Dan | Columbia Political Science | www.columbia.edu/~dhn2 "Everyone who has had a referee get the argument of his or her paper directly backward has wondered about calling it 'peer' review." -- Arthur L. Stinchcombe. From veronica_m_barreto Sat Jul 14 09:35:39 2001 From: veronica_m_barreto (Veronica Barreto) Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 10:35:39 -0400 Subject: Catholicism and Politics Message-ID: You're right that IF the CFC makes exaggerated claims to hurt the Church's credibility to advance their own political agenda, that is wrong, but neither you nor Patrick in his original post attempt to do that. He chose to prove that the allegations weren't true by saying that the CFC is biased and is a bad organization. Yours and his posts combined create quite the tautological conundrum. Pat's argument was that the CFC is the second coming of the Protest Reformation apparently, the word "reform" alone sends shivers down his spine. Now you say you can excuse the Church's patriarchal leanings for theological reasons because the Church shouldn't kow tow to social trends...why does that make any sense? What if the USFG wouldn't have begun to cede to the tide of social change? Scary. You may say that that is different b/c the USFG is a social instituion with regulatory power but the Church isn't any different. From grade 1 I was told the Church is defined by its people, it follows necessarily that as its people change, the institution should change as well. But before you begin to invoke the word of God, let's address some things. First of all, the Bible is the word of God interpreted by people who lived more than a millenium and a half ago. There's no warrant why those words shouldn't be accomodated to modern standards. EG Commandment #9 Thou shall not covet thy neighbor's wife. Does that mean that I can covet my neighbor's husband, just because the Bible overlooked my gender as sexual beings? Does that mean that my husband can sleep with as many women as he wants as long as they're unmarried (i.e. not someone else's property by Biblical standards, which BTW is the reason that the commandment is worded as such)? The Bible is meant to be read, interpreted, and applied by each individual. You can't think that Luke had such great notation skills that he got every word down the way God intended. It's not like the Church has some great theological reasonings behind it's contraversial decisions. Women can't be priests solely because Jesus historically appointed Peter as the first pope (not even...he told the dude to be the rock of the Church and Peter got whatever he wanted from that statement) hence it should follow that Jesus did not want women to officiate in ceremonies. Even if that were true, Jesus was raised a Jew at a time when women weren't even allowed in the temple. Still Mary Magdalene preached of her conversion and if the story of the Pentacost isn't enough to convince you that women should be allowed to officiate, I don't know what is. A bunch of huddled apostles freaked by the threat of persecution and Mary walks up in there and tells them to pick themselves up by their bootstraps and get to going and in no time they were speakin' in tongues. Tons of women organized underground meetings during times of persecution which allowed the faith to survive. Nuns make the same sacrifices as priests yet they live the ascetic lifestyle of monks whereas priests get civilian privileges. Most Catholic scholars say that the Church is more likely to allow priests to marry before allowing women to become priests. Mind you, this is true in the face of dwindling numbers in the priesthood, when they could use some women. They are willing to risk the well being of the faith all because Jesus said hey Peter pass me that rock and he told everyone that Jesus told him to be the rock of the Church. Homosexuals are unnatural, masturbation is a waste of a man's seed, birth control prevents God's will, divorcee's can't take communion because they are soiled...stellar. Pat uses the example of corruption within the Protestant Reformation to prove that all types of reform are evil. Umm...let's talk about the Catholic Church for a minute -- the Crusades, selling of indulgences, a looong history of sexual abuse (including telling brides that the priest had to test for virginity -- uh huh yea and let's not forget the molestation of young altar and choir boys), it goes on and on. My argument has nothing to do with the reduction of social power of the Church (depoliticizing the structure is an entirely different internal type of endeavor) in fact a reformed more modern Church is likely to have a better following. Tons of members who are included in your "1 billion strong" are isolated by extremist teachings. Why don't you adjust that number for practicing Catholics that wholesale agree with what the Church offers. Find me 1 billion Catholics that believe the original premise that sex is SOLELY for procreative purpose and all the implications that follow, you're more likely to find people like me who have oriented themselves in their religion. My values may be Catholic but that doesn't mean that every one of my sentences has to end with eternal damnation. Kyrie Eleison, Veronica >From: 11OGORMAN <11OGORMAN at cua.edu> >To: edebate >Subject: RE: FWD: URGENT ACTION--Tell the Vatican to Stand Up for Women on >July 14th! >Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 01:59:19 -0400 > >Ok gotta defend the faith for a second. > >First of all I don't think Pat even engaged the issue of wether freedom of >choice is wrong, but more so saying that CFC is using the issue of abuse of >Nun's not because that abuse is true and important, but because they >disagree >with the Church's position on choice. Hence their agenda is not >necessarily >evil, but the way they advance it (through unsubtantiated,exagerated, and >perhaps even compeltely fabricated claims a point you don't contest) is. >As >to their agenda, and apparently a bit of yours, you really don't address >any >of the theology behind the Catholic Churchs' positions or provide any >justification besides the advance of your agenda for the loss of Church >social >power. Not saying that you should believe the Catholic Church's theology >but >telling a religous organization to change because of secular trends sort of >misses the point, Christian churches are based on interpretations of >Christ's >teachings and the recording of it in the Bible. If you think that the >Church >is wrong in its reading of Christ's teachings regarding a male priesthood, >or >mastrubation etc., then you should address the issue from that theological >perspective. Also since when is guilt, accepting your not perfect and >working >on it with Christ, anti or even non spiritual And as to the Catholic >Church >being antiquated, I severely doubt a billion strong organization operating >one >of the worlds largest charitable organizations qualifies. But then I'm a >conservative, and disagree with your agenda, so I must be antiquated. > >Tom O'Gorman > > >===== Original Message From Veronica Barreto > >===== > >The only thing that doesn't add up to much more than a hill of beans is >your > >post. > > > >I don't know about the allegations and I have absolutely no experience >with > >this organization and I'll agree with your general skeptical approach but > >you do nothing to discredit the CFC. So they have an agenda, so what? > >Here's a clue...EVERYone has an agenda. It's up to you to place a value > >judgement on that agenda. > > > >So you say the CFC spreads the word that the Catholic Church's structures > >are patriarchal GASP! No, you don't say! :o() A pro-choice organization - > >how dare they - making moves to depoliticize the Church - unheard of, the > >gall. > > > >As a Catholic, who sustained Catholic education for 13 years and read her > >lil' green Catholic catechism book from cover to cover, I'll say that the > >Catholic Church is at best antiquated. You say this organization supports >a > >woman's right to choose "among other things." Other things like what? >Like > >gender equity in our religious community allowing women to officiate > >ceremonies, like the ability to use birth control other than the oh so > >reliable rhythm method, like masturbation without the fear of eternal > >damnation in addition to blindness (next time you see Coop squinting, >wonder > >no more ;). Pretty racy stuff huh. > > > >Yea, you're right, we should all watch our backs because next thing you >know > >they may come up with the radical notion that the Church should emphasize > >sprirituality over guilt trips yo' momma can't match and once the world's > >moral fabric has unravelled in the absence of fire and brimstone homilies > >the CFC will make their move. > > > >Uh huh right. So why don't you come up with a reason as to why their >agenda > >is evil. > > > >Peace be wit you brotha, > >Veronica > > > > > >>From: "Patrick McKenzie" > >>To: > >>Subject: Re: Fwd: URGENT ACTION--Tell the Vatican to Stand Up for Women >on > >>July 14th! > >>Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 21:48:33 -0500 > >> > >>I would not ordinarily respond to an "action alert", especially one >which > >>is off topic for the list it was posted on, but I will to this one. >This > >>being the debate community, we all agree that no argument should be > >>accepted without examination and neither lies nor half-truths should be > >>suffered in silence. > >> > >>The alert makes three primary claims for supporting a protest of the > >>Vatican. > >> > >>#1 -- Sexual abuse of the women religious is endemic within the Catholic > >>Church. > >> > >>#2 -- The Church is aware of such abuse and has done nothing to stop it. > >> > >> > >>There is no convincing evidence to support the claims. Wait, doesn't >the > >>website refer to a high profile series of articles from the official > >>sounding National Catholic Register? Well, it doesn't add up to all >that > >>much more than a hill of beans. > >> > >>I will now bring up an argument that many debate rounds could use: the > >>source indict. The Catholics For Free Choice have an agenda which, > >>expressed succintly, is to utterly annihilate the structure of the >Catholic > >>Church as it currently stands and replace it with one which is >"reformed". > >>The end goal is the support of abortion, among other things. > >> > >>Those history buffs out there may notice parallels with the Reformation. > >>One of the major causes of the Reformation was the desire to limit the > >>institutional power of the Catholic Church (and, by extension, >redistribute > >>that power to the German princes, English Crown, et al who supported >it). > >>To weaken the hold of the Church wild and spurrious accusations were >made, > >>and the way to most damage the Church was to accuse it of two of its > >>highest sins -- unrestricted sexuality and hypocricy. Thus books with > >>titles such as "Real Secrets of Nunneries Disclosed" were published*, >and > >>the publishers used the ensuing disgust to accomplish their goals. > >> > >>*It should be pointed out that those allegations, like the more recent > >>ones, run the gamut from "exaggerated" to "fabricated wholesale". > >> > >>Credit Catholics for a Free Choice on this one, they have learned enough > >>about spin control to not make the connection between "Church ignoring >the > >>suffering of women" and "Church doctrine goes against abortion" explicit >in > >>the email. A little deeper digging, however, reveals some interesting > >>quotes from their website. > >> > >>From the article "Learning to Love Patriarchy", by Joanna Manning > >> > >> >>The Catholic church continues to legitimize male dominance through > >>internal sexist structures. Church teachings that women cannot be >priests > >>and cannot represent God justify subservient roles for women in the >church > >>and in society. Pope John Paul II has taught that female inferiority >within > >>the structures of the church is a matter of divine revelation, and that > >>"secular" norms and practices of equal rights and status for women have >no > >>legitimacy within the church. Not only is this "orthodoxy" of male > >>dominance preached at Mass, it is inculcated in good Catholic homes and >in > >>Catholic schools.>> > >> > >>To battle this "destructive patriarchy", the CFFC and similar >organizations > >>(See Change, etc) persue a variety of policy goals. I'll just hit the > >>highlights. > >> > >>#1 -- Getting the Vatican bumped of the United Nations [pesky churchmen > >>keep voting down abortion aid to Africa, imagine that...]. > >>#2 -- Abolishing the traditional method of appointing bishops and >replacing > >>[pesky churchmen are too obstinate to realize that Truth only comes from > >>the ballot box, not from God or reason]. > >>#3 -- Showing the Church at every turn to be hopelessly out of touch >with > >>anything that could be considered a woman's issue. > >> > >> > >>Number three is, in a nutshell, why you should ignore this controversy. > >>Remember, it is founded completely on one series of reports in one > >>magazine, which amount to a series of unsubstantiated (and, to be fair, > >>impossible to prove or disprove -- handy, that) anecdotes. The National > >>Catholic Register, by the by, describes itself as "providing an >independent > >>voice", which is much the same language as the CFFC and See Change use >when > >>they really mean "persuing an agenda divergent from yours". > >> > >>By the way, if you don't think that analysis is enough reason to >discredit > >>the endemic violence/passive Church thesis, think of the following >parallel > >>situations. > >> > >>#1 -- NRA states that guns are safe to own because of the experiences of > >>six people who have successfully defended themselves with them, then >says > >>that "realiable statistics on how widespread unsuccessful defenses are >are > >>impossible to come by... but they have to be low". > >> > >>#2 -- ExxonValdez tells you that ITS environmental experts think that >oil > >>is healthy for the environment and makes an excellent seal shampoo. > >> > >>#3 -- The Republican Party releases its new report that there were no > >>voting shennanigans in Florida this year and promptly calls for >disbanding > >>the Equal Rights Commission. > >> > >>If you wouldn't greet any of the above three examples with your > >>unconditional support, then you should greet this action alert with the > >>same skepticism. > >> > >>Patrick McKenzie > > > >_________________________________________________________________ > >Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com > > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From matt Sat Jul 14 10:38:38 2001 From: matt (Matt Schiros) Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 11:38:38 -0400 Subject: Larry's sorta right Message-ID: Sure conservatives get discriminated against in debate, but they just call you "racist" or "sexist" so they can get away with it and pat themselves on the back. Roider --MSchiros at AIM------------------------------------------------------------ Matt Schiros The Supreme Cafmaster Gyrator "Actually, I don't dislike women, I merely mistrust them. The twinkle in the eye, the arsenic in the soup..." --The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes "For us to remain in one narrow groove while ranting about 'freedom' strikes me as an affront to those who endured and sacrificed to enable us to become better prepared for our continuing role in the struggle for freedom." --Ralph Ellison. Gyrations of Freedom: http://www.nacs.net/~schiros/gof/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- From kerpen Sat Jul 14 10:49:09 2001 From: kerpen (Phil Kerpen) Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 11:49:09 -0400 Subject: hsdebate.com announces Nuclear Research Page Message-ID: All, I've set up what I think is a very good research page on nuclear weapons. It's at http://hsdebate.com/links/. The system is set up so that anyone can submit links which, one approved, are added to the site. With a collaborative effort, this site could become truly comprehensive. I also set up a search engine that only searches nuclear sites. A lot has changed at hsdebate.com recently. If you haven't seen it in awhile, check it out. Phil Kerpen 202.285.9714 Cell // 202.478.0343 Fax+Voicemail From Kcmoattorney Sat Jul 14 13:12:18 2001 From: Kcmoattorney (Kcmoattorney at cs.com) Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 14:12:18 EDT Subject: Lawrence's concerns... Message-ID: <109.2925117.2881e582@cs.com> > After pointing out my experience in the late '80s, I should have followed up > by stating that there has been a probably unrelated but concurrent trend > towards more liberal thought in academic institutions which has resulted in > social/political conservatives being a distinct minority .... >>In the 'late 1980s?' What's your evidence/justification for your >>time line, and what do you mean by "liberal?" Merely personal perception, nothing scientific. The trend toward more liberal thought in academic institutions obviously began in some parts of the country much, much earlier and didn't make it's way to others until much later. By "liberal" I am talking about the presence of more professors and thinkers who hold progressive or socialist views and how that presence began to reshape curricula. I was a hard sciences major as an undergrad, and really didn't see much of that first hand until I got to law school and really started looking at how the ABA and legal faculty had joined to develop new curricula which, IMO, were designed to indoctrinate the next generation of lawyers and judges into accepting the role of the judiciary as active makers of social policy. For example, the mission-type statements in my law school's literature were revised to emphasize the institution's commtment to teaching substantive due process, a concept over which there is a substantial disagreement as to whether it even exists. By my final year, the Federalist Society (strict constructioninsts/limited federal powers) had about six members, and the National Lawyer's Guild (kind of the opposite of the FS) had over one hundred. The numbers in the lawyers divisions of these organizations are much different, but they are experiencing similar changes. IMO, this is largely because there is NO positive portrayal of strict constructionism in the law schools. This obviously wasn't always the norm, and the trend is quite apparant to anyone who follows legal education. I don't care to debate the relative merits of these changes as my point was only to show that there has been a ideological shift in American acedemia, especially law schools. Chris Cushman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010714/6555c64a/attachment.html From davidheidt Sat Jul 14 13:13:25 2001 From: davidheidt (David Heidt) Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 14:13:25 -0400 Subject: Topic one Message-ID: Hello, I've entered the topic discussion late, and maybe what I have to say is just rehashing old arguments. But I've been reading through the archives and it seems that arguments supporting or attacking the recognition topic are few and far between, which seems very odd to me. Maybe I haven't been reading the right threads. Topic one seems by far to be the best topic. My first reaction to it was that it seemed too narrow, the literature base seemed too obscure, and that the negative would have no ground. Then I read the topic paper. This topic paper is the most well-reasoned and researched defense of a wording that I have seen. If the community is truly serious about topic reform, then it should require that wording papers of this quality are submitted prior to voting for a topic area. The only objections to this topic that I have seen in the archives are that it is too narrow and that it might allow for too much critique ground. Either people haven't read the topic paper or I am clearly missing something. Both of these arguments are more than adequately addressed in the paper. Please read the topic paper before you vote for the topic. It more than adequately outlines affirmative and negative ground, and gives cites for specific affirmatives and negative link arguments. You can find it here: http://www.msu.edu/~debate/topic/ I have serious reservations about topics 2 and 3. I am not looking forward to coaching the negative against a tiny aff based on a single law review that claims an uniqueness underview that describes a bunch of things bigger than the aff that were passed recently. The strength of topic 1 is that it forces the affirmative to defend a large change that the negative will always be able to predict and will have something to say against it. I believe that any topic that allows affirmatives to make minimal changes in existing policies will create poor debates. I apologize if what I've said is just merely repeating what others have said before I entered this discussion. But I do hope that everyone reads the topic paper before they vote--I fear that everyone might pass up what could be the greatest topic in a long time because their initial reaction to it might have been similar to mine. David Heidt _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From coopdb8 Sat Jul 14 13:45:49 2001 From: coopdb8 (christopher cooper) Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 14:45:49 -0400 Subject: FWD: URGENT ACTION--Tell the Vatican to Stand Up for Women on July 14th! Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010714/6c926633/attachment.htm From pjm1 Sat Jul 14 14:06:11 2001 From: pjm1 (Patrick McKenzie) Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 14:06:11 -0500 Subject: Catholicism and Politics Message-ID: <000a01c10c98$0d9c6480$9b68fc80@wuh.wustl.edu> >>You're right that IF the CFC makes exaggerated claims to hurt the Church's credibility to advance their own political agenda, that is wrong, but neither you nor Patrick in his original post attempt to do that. >> The CFFC is inferring an epidemic of sexual abuse and a conspiracy of silence based on anecdotal evidence. Serious statisticians cringe when they hear of people making decisions based on anecdotal evidence, because any conclusion you draw from it is inherently exaggerated (because the value of anecdotal evidence in demonstrating a trend is very ^nth degree limited -- approaching zero, or less, according to at least one of my teachers). >>He chose to prove that the allegations weren't true by saying that the CFC is biased and is a bad organization. Yours and his posts combined create quite the tautological conundrum. Pat's argument was that the CFC is the second coming of the Protest Reformation apparently, the word "reform" alone sends shivers down his spine. >> I was demonstrating how the word "reform" is often abused, especially in our college debate subculture. How many times have you heard a variant of the argument "Pass the plan because absolutely anything is better than the status quo"? I know that college students tend to be liberal, that we have an inherent bias towards wanting to go out and change the world, but there is no reason to participate in this real life kritik/protest of the Church because the harm that was cited does not exist. I mentioned the Protestant Reformation because history is a valuable teacher. We've all heard the old "The Catholic Church is a bunch of closet sex fiends" line before, multiple times, and it was, is, and will forever be false and used only for political advantage. There is no more reason to believe the lie this time. >> Now you say you can excuse the Church's patriarchal leanings for theological reasons because the Church shouldn't kow tow to social trends...why does that make any sense? What if the USFG wouldn't have begun to cede to the tide of social change? Scary. >> Both you and the CFFC/assorted groups make the same logical fallacy -- that the one and true good thing in the world is democracy. Frankly, it would be grossly out of character for the US government to not do what 60% of the population demanded, but it is equally out of character for the Catholic Church to do things just because they are the object of the temporary passions of the day. The Church functions in the same way against unrestricted democracy as it does against unrestricted capitalism or unrestricted sex -- as the world's conscience. And that is not and should never be subjected to a vote. >>You may say that that is different b/c the USFG is a social instituion with regulatory power but the Church isn't any different. From grade 1 I was told the Church is defined by its people, it follows necessarily that as its people change, the institution should change as well. >> Then you are conviniently forgetting the lessons you were taught about the Magesterium (for those of you who aren't Catholic, that would be the Church's privileged position in receiving Truth from God and its responsibility to teach said Truth no matter what everyone else has to say about it). I'd refer you back to your little-green catechism to the first of the spiritual acts of mercy ("admonish the sinner"). >>But before you begin to invoke the word of God, let's address some things. First of all, the Bible is the word of God interpreted by people who lived more than a millenium and a half ago. There's no warrant why those words shouldn't be accomodated to modern standards. EG Commandment #9 Thou shall not covet thy neighbor's wife. Does that mean that I can covet my neighbor's husband, just because the Bible overlooked my gender as sexual beings? Does that mean that my husband can sleep with as many women as he wants as long as they're unmarried (i.e. not someone else's property by Biblical standards, which BTW is the reason that the commandment is worded as such)? The Bible is meant to be read, interpreted, and applied by each individual. You can't think that Luke had such great notation skills that he got every word down the way God intended. >> First of all, despite what academic feminists have to say on the matter, it is not necessary in the English language or any other to use awkward "his/her/its" constructions when one wants to indicate the whole of the human population. But I digress. You're also forgetting that the Church, as opposed to some fundamentalist Protestant branches, doesn't interpret the Bible literally. >>It's not like the Church has some great theological reasonings behind it's contraversial decisions. Women can't be priests solely because Jesus historically appointed Peter as the first pope (not even...he told the dude to be the rock of the Church and Peter got whatever he wanted from that statement) hence it should follow that Jesus did not want women to officiate in ceremonies. Even if that were true, Jesus was raised a Jew at a time when women weren't even allowed in the temple. >> Quick question -- if you believe that the Church was founded on what is essentially a lie, then why bother calling yourself Catholic? And why bother caring what the evil men in Rome think? >>Most Catholic scholars say that the Church is more likely to allow priests to marry before allowing women to become priests. Mind you, this is true in the face of dwindling numbers in the priesthood, when they could use some women. They are willing to risk the well being of the faith all because Jesus said hey Peter pass me that rock and he told everyone that Jesus told him to be the rock of the Church. >> I won't dignify that with a response. >>Homosexuals are unnatural, masturbation is a waste of a man's seed, birth control prevents God's will, divorcee's can't take communion because they are soiled...stellar. >> What exactly are your objections to those positions, if I may ask? And do they extend to other positions the Church has held when they were unpopular, like for the humanity of the oppressed and against nuclear weapons/war? >>Pat uses the example of corruption within the Protestant Reformation to prove that all types of reform are evil. >> My, I think that is twisting my words just a tad, don't you? My point was that the word "reform" is employed by people who have an agenda to appear to be above all that partisanship that the other guy has. In Washington, my party always wants to reform while your party are the unchanging ideologues. That is a facil notion and not worthy of respect by educated adults. I personally have an agenda. I won't deny it, indeed, I'm proud of it. Cloaking one's agenda, and especially trying to advance it by deception (the essense of my source indict), is an act of extreme cowardice. >>My argument has nothing to do with the reduction of social power of the Church (depoliticizing the structure is an entirely different internal type of endeavor) in fact a reformed more modern Church is likely to have a better following.>> I can't resist the desire to throw in at least ONE Biblical quote into this discussion. "What profit is there for one to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul?" -- Mark 8:36-37. The Church could gain a larger following by doing a lot of things, like playing MTV at Masses -- that is not a compelling argument for doing so. See above about the Church not being a democracy. >> Tons of members who are included in your "1 billion strong" are isolated by extremist teachings. Why don't you adjust that number for practicing Catholics that wholesale agree with what the Church offers. Find me 1 billion Catholics that believe the original premise that sex is SOLELY for procreative purpose and all the implications that follow, you're more likely to find people like me who have oriented themselves in their religion. My values may be Catholic but that doesn't mean that every one of my sentences has to end with eternal damnation. >> I think you were pretty clear earlier that your values are your values, and that no one else has a right to tell you what to do. How Catholic, big c or small, are they? [Note to the peanut gallery: "catholic" means universal, "Catholic" refers to the Church] >>Kyrie Eleison, Veronica >> Respectfully, Patrick McKenzie -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010714/f95f3a08/attachment.html From vashonjj Sat Jul 14 17:33:41 2001 From: vashonjj (Jennifer Johnson) Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 15:33:41 -0700 Subject: Seeking Erin Kahl Message-ID: Dave Arnett told me to search for you to get access to TOC result sheets for a project that I am working on for UC Berkeley Urban debate league. The following explains the project. Any assistance you can provide is more than appreciated. I am working on behalf of the Bay Area Urban Debate League (BAUD) and am writing a report on the rise and demise of public school debate in the state of California. The purpose of this report is, ultimately, to make a case for receiving additional funding for the schools involved with BAUD, such that, they can continue debating for several more years to come. What is essential, on top of proving the importance of debate academically, is to show the decline in the numbers of public schools competing at renowned national tournaments. The TOC would be a perfect tournament to determine this decline. I know the TOC has kept records over the years about what schools were in attendance and/or results sheets. I was wondering if there would be a way to access those results sheets or any other records that might assist my research. The years that I am interested in are the following: 1975, 1978, 1979, 1985, 1990, 1995, 2000. I know that probably most of the records, if they are accessible where not on computers probably until the late 1980s. Consequently, if this seems to be too daunting of a task, but you still wish to be of assistance, please tell me what is acceptable. On behalf of BAUD, I would appreciate anything that you could do to assist me in this report. The future of public school debate in this area is heavily dependent on the report's success. Feel free to call me if it is more convenient: (510) 610-5890 Thank-you for your time. Sincerely, Jen Johnson Bay Area Urban Debate League University of California, BerkeleyGet more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010714/fa921c51/attachment.htm From dbteam Sat Jul 14 18:40:02 2001 From: dbteam (UWG Debate Team) Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 19:40:02 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Topic one In-Reply-To: Message-ID: i hear you on predictable aff and neg ground. i re-read the topic paper as per your request. here are the concerns i have with #1, that i need further persuasion (beyond what topic paper says and doesn't say): 1. literature base. the topic offers two 'searchable terms/phrases' by which field literature will be created - Federal acknowledgment and the list of tribes. a)the literature encompassing the list of tribes is too shallow. i've given examples of the UGA and GSU library. each has 1000+ books/gov't docs that are found under "American INdian" and less than 1% of those items deals with tribes on the list. b)there is a lot more lit on "acknowledgment". the caveat is that the issue is almost always discussed w/in the context of one of 556 tribes that have already been recognized. to make it fit #1, debaters must 'interpret' and extrapolate the ev speaking of navajo as if it is speaking of lumbee, et al. this sort of acrobatics, IMHO, results in the same sort of off-focus debate that has been mentioned as a concern of #2 and #3 (i.e., the ability of the 'one law review' 1ac to dominate. under the scenario i depict, the aff has only one law review specific to their tribe, with lots of other ev talking about one of the 556.) 2. plan limitations. the 'acknowledgment' process puts issues like TRust Doctrine in play, but aff would not have control over the direction. I'll use the quote from Wood used in section V to explain: the quote from wood shows how tribes have used trust doctrine before. the plan can topically create a world where the Chickahominy can appeal to Trust doctrine post-acknowledgment. BUt aff can't fiat how the USFG will respond to such appeals. to say that acknowledgment will help tribe X b/c they'll get benefits from new status w/ regards to TD requires the aff read evidence that post-acknowledgment, tribe X will benefit. NEg can read what amounts to 'circumvention' ev that says current political reality makes increased resources or better court decisions unlikely. what has traditionally been an arg that aff could avoid with fiat (folks in USFG won't carry out the plan) now comes into play (fiat guarantees TRibe X will be qualified to fight for benefits promised under TD, not that such attempts will be successful). for example, 1ac claims that acknowledgment provides critical access to health resources. but plan can't fiat that SQ funding will be increased to accomodate the addition of ackowledged tribes. so aff must read solvency ev that says newly recognized tribe will be taken care in next year's appropriation process, rather than guaranteeing funding for health programs for tribe X. and neg can read ev saying things like NMD, or tax cuts,etc. will mean no extra money is available. the best debates w/in the lit on mini-topics like TD or assimilation wouldn't be debate ev b/c they cover the why's and how's of reforming TD or programmatically addressing dependency, things that #1 don't allow plan to do. and the kicker is that the lack of a literature base of any depth means that the aff will have difficulty locating more than one law review article which defends how the normal means of acknowledgment process will work for each of the tribes on the list. 3)the most in-depth arguments in the literature (Sovereignty/self sufficiency vs. dependency/assimilation/cultural appropriation/etc) are debated is the specific context of and with examples from the 500+ already recognized tribes. unlike the argument made earlier in the spring about #1 'not covering enough people', what i'm arguing here is that to choose #1 is to lose access to the best literature. my first claim was that the shallow lit base would hurt reseacrh for ground sake. my claim here is that the shallow lit base hurts education. the major works of DeLoria, Jr., Means, Churchill, Peltier, LaDuke, - and the others who comprise the most prolific authors/advocates of the field of Native American literature - would not be part of our research b/c they simply aren't talking about whether the UNited RAppahannock should be recognized. yes, there are phrases scattered here and there throughout some of the major works that may be applicable, but take away the debater's instinct to find evidence in any text, and it's necessary to conclude that 95% of the lit base is not in the context of topic #1. this means that a full year of debating #1 will be a lost opportunity to really investigate the bulk of the published works on NAtive America. the claim that #2 and #3 will result in shallow debates b/c there's too much room for aff and neg to maneuver is telling. yes, there is a risk that teams may run for the fringes. but the solution offered to this risk (not all will be afraid to shot down the middle) by preferring #1 is to cut out more than 90% of the library and force the plan to one thing (acknowledgment) and one thing only. nose and face. baby and bathwater. choose your analogy. i'd rather risk having a 'runaway' topic and make sure folks are at least reading, if not debating, the big authors than clamp down on the topic and end up reading only the very few articles in newspapers or tribally produced websites about why the issue of acknowledgment is so important to the United Houma Nation. hester From lawrencegog Sat Jul 14 20:49:41 2001 From: lawrencegog (lawrence williams) Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 20:49:41 -0500 Subject: Lawerence's Concerns Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010714/514adc11/attachment.html From dreymann Sun Jul 15 02:44:29 2001 From: dreymann (David Reymann) Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 01:44:29 -0600 Subject: UT debate and official secrecy Message-ID: <001301c10d01$fb61bee0$e20bbed8@awesome> Jack, I have been following this thread by word of mouth. I don't really follow the discussions on this board. As a friend of Justin and his brother Marc, I find it particularly distasteful that you are using Justin's tragic death as what seems to be a political tool in your entirely unrelated dispute with the University of Texas Debate Institute. Even if what you are saying has merit, and I believe parts of your story do, the context of your allegations is shameful. If you have any respect for Justin and his family, you'll resolve your dispute with the institute on its own terms, and not by making sensational allegations in public just to raise the profile of your own petty disagreement. David Reymann -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010715/64308072/attachment.htm From davidheidt Sun Jul 15 10:13:09 2001 From: davidheidt (David Heidt) Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 11:13:09 -0400 Subject: Topic one Message-ID: I acknowledge from the very limited amount of work I've done that the literature base for each tribe is very shallow. However, I'm not sure this negatively impacts ground in this particular situation. Even if the aff pieces together a 1ac with a single solvency advocate, the negative will always be prepared; forcing the aff to advocate a specific plan mechanism guarantees predictability in every debate. As for the education argument, it is true that topic 2 (and 3) does address the core of literature about currently recognized tribes more directly (although much of the same literature will be read for topic 1, since TD issues will probably be negative arguments). I guess I think that predictability and a fair division of ground are more important than the goal of getting people to read more books. The argument that the community will have sacrificed an opportunity to debate the core issues of Native American policy isn't very persuasive to me if that opportunity involves debating on an unbalanced topic where everyone has a huge strategic advantage if they run to the fringes. However, I'm sure that there is little I can say to persuade people that believe the opposite, as this seems to be a philosophical difference in approach to debate altogether. On the other hand, I might be persuaded that topic 2 was a good topic if someone would provide a satisfactory defense of why its fair for the negative. Most of the discussion I've read (and I'll admit I could easily be missing something) only describes why its better than topic 3, which doesn't provide much reassurance. I wish that the wordings for resolutions were available prior to the topic area vote. If only three topic areas went on the ballot, but each had 3 separate wording papers, it seems like it would give the community a much better idea of what it was getting into when it votes for a particular area. Or maybe the community could have voted for 2 or 3 areas in May and then written wording paper defenses after that. I wonder how many people would have voted for the Indians topic if they knew in advance it would have to involve one of these resolutions. Maybe it wouldn't have made a difference; I don't know. >From: UWG Debate Team >To: David Heidt >CC: >Subject: Re: Topic one >Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 19:40:02 -0400 (EDT) > >i hear you on predictable aff and neg ground. > >i re-read the topic paper as per your request. > >here are the concerns i have with #1, that i need further persuasion >(beyond what topic paper says and doesn't say): > >1. literature base. the topic offers two 'searchable terms/phrases' by >which field literature will be created - Federal acknowledgment and the >list of tribes. > a)the literature encompassing the list of tribes is too shallow. > i've given examples of the UGA and GSU library. each has 1000+ > books/gov't docs that are found under "American INdian" and less > than 1% of those items deals with tribes on the list. > > b)there is a lot more lit on "acknowledgment". the caveat is that > the issue is almost always discussed w/in the context of one of > 556 tribes that have already been recognized. to make it fit #1, > debaters must 'interpret' and extrapolate the ev speaking of > navajo as if it is speaking of lumbee, et al. this sort of > acrobatics, IMHO, results in the same sort of off-focus debate > that has been mentioned as a concern of #2 and #3 (i.e., the > ability of the 'one law review' 1ac to dominate. under the > scenario i depict, the aff has only one law review specific to > their tribe, with lots of other ev talking about one of the > 556.) > >2. plan limitations. the 'acknowledgment' process puts issues like TRust >Doctrine in play, but aff would not have control over the direction. I'll >use the quote from Wood used in section V to explain: > > the quote from wood shows how tribes have used trust doctrine > before. the plan can topically create a world where the > Chickahominy can appeal to Trust doctrine post-acknowledgment. > BUt aff can't fiat how the USFG will respond to such appeals. > to say that acknowledgment will help tribe X b/c they'll get > benefits from new status w/ regards to TD requires the aff read > evidence that post-acknowledgment, tribe X will benefit. NEg > can read what amounts to 'circumvention' ev that says current > political reality makes increased resources or better court > decisions unlikely. what has traditionally been an arg that > aff could avoid with fiat (folks in USFG won't carry out the > plan) now comes into play (fiat guarantees TRibe X will be > qualified to fight for benefits promised under TD, not that > such attempts will be successful). for example, 1ac claims that > acknowledgment provides critical access to health resources. > but plan can't fiat that SQ funding will be increased to > accomodate the addition of ackowledged tribes. so aff must read > solvency ev that says newly recognized tribe will be taken care > in next year's appropriation process, rather than guaranteeing > funding for health programs for tribe X. and neg can read ev > saying things like NMD, or tax cuts,etc. will mean no extra money > is available. > >the best debates w/in the lit on mini-topics like TD or assimilation >wouldn't be debate ev b/c they cover the why's and how's of reforming TD >or programmatically addressing dependency, things that #1 don't allow >plan to do. > >and the kicker is that the lack of a literature base of any depth means >that the aff will have difficulty locating more than one law review >article which defends how the normal means of acknowledgment process will >work for each of the tribes on the list. > >3)the most in-depth arguments in the literature (Sovereignty/self >sufficiency vs. dependency/assimilation/cultural appropriation/etc) are >debated is the specific context of and with examples from the 500+ already >recognized tribes. unlike the argument made earlier in the spring about >#1 'not covering enough people', what i'm arguing here is that to choose >#1 is to lose access to the best literature. my first claim was that the >shallow lit base would hurt reseacrh for ground sake. my claim here is >that the shallow lit base hurts education. the major works of DeLoria, >Jr., Means, Churchill, Peltier, LaDuke, - and the others who comprise the >most prolific authors/advocates of the field of Native American literature >- would not be part of our research b/c they simply aren't talking about >whether the UNited RAppahannock should be recognized. yes, there are >phrases scattered here and there throughout some of the major works that >may be applicable, but take away the debater's instinct to find evidence >in any text, and it's necessary to conclude that 95% of the lit base is >not in the context of topic #1. this means that a full year of debating #1 >will be a lost opportunity to really investigate the bulk of the >published works on NAtive America. > >the claim that #2 and #3 will result in shallow debates b/c there's too >much room for aff and neg to maneuver is telling. yes, there is a risk >that teams may run for the fringes. but the solution offered to this risk >(not all will be afraid to shot down the middle) by preferring #1 is to >cut out more than 90% of the library and force the plan to one thing >(acknowledgment) and one thing only. nose and face. baby and bathwater. >choose your analogy. i'd rather risk having a 'runaway' topic and make >sure folks are at least reading, if not debating, the big authors than >clamp down on the topic and end up reading only the very few articles in >newspapers or tribally produced websites about why the issue of >acknowledgment is so important to the United Houma Nation. > >hester > > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From amtauber Sun Jul 15 12:38:45 2001 From: amtauber (Alan Tauber) Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 10:38:45 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Topic one Message-ID: <21853233.995218725548.JavaMail.imail@puffer> David, While I am a Topic Three advocate, I will attempt to answer your questions vis-a-vis topic two. If a topic two advocate would like to add to what I've written here, please feel free. On Sun, 15 Jul 2001 11:13:09 -0400, David Heidt wrote: >Even if the aff > pieces together a 1ac with a single solvency advocate, the negative will > always be prepared; forcing the aff to advocate a specific plan mechanism > guarantees predictability in every debate. You get the same predictability under Topic Two. You know the Aff will be increasing funding/enforcement. That's a specific plan mechanism, so this is a non-unique benefit to topic one. > > As for the education argument, it is true that topic 2 (and 3) does address > the core of literature about currently recognized tribes more directly > (although much of the same literature will be read for topic 1, since TD > issues will probably be negative arguments). Well this is a pretty much conceeded benefit to topic 2 (and 3). Now you have the specific plan mechanism you're advocating, AND the broad literature base that topic one is lacking/ignores. As for the Trust Doctrine literature, there are plenty of good arguments made by others, as to why one tribe's/nation's experience shouldn't/can't be extrapolated to apply to others. Furthermore, I believe people will be too busy scrambling to find topic specific ev to have time to read the broad literature. I guess I think that > predictability and a fair division of ground are more important than the > goal of getting people to read more books. The argument that the community > will have sacrificed an opportunity to debate the core issues of Native > American policy isn't very persuasive to me if that opportunity involves > debating on an unbalanced topic where everyone has a huge strategic > advantage if they run to the fringes. I don't think that Topics 2 or 3 are any broader than last years topic or any other broad topic. I think you have great predictablity and fair ground under Topics 2 and 3. > On the other hand, I might be persuaded that topic 2 was a good topic if > someone would provide a satisfactory defense of why its fair for the > negative. Most of the discussion I've read (and I'll admit I could easily > be missing something) only describes why its better than topic 3, which > doesn't provide much reassurance. Well this is my attempt to do that. =0) > > I wish that the wordings for resolutions were available prior to the topic > area vote. If only three topic areas went on the ballot, but each had 3 > separate wording papers, it seems like it would give the community a much > better idea of what it was getting into when it votes for a particular area. > Or maybe the community could have voted for 2 or 3 areas in May and then > written wording paper defenses after that. I wonder how many people would > have voted for the Indians topic if they knew in advance it would have to > involve one of these resolutions. Maybe it wouldn't have made a difference; > I don't know. > That does sound like a great idea. I wish I had the time to write a wording paper in favor of a Supreme Court topic. So here's the summary: Topic two has a specifically mandated plan action (the problems with this has been adequately debated elsewhere), AND it gives you direct access to the major literature on this topic. At best, topic 1 only allows you to get this lit. in the back door. Now I will happily acknowledge that MSU did a great job with their topic paper. And I'm glad they have provided links to the relevant literature. But do we really want to debate a toic where ALL the links to ALL the relevant literature can be fit into a topic wording paper? (yes, it's probably hyperbole, but I'd bet not by much). As someone interested in the situation of Native Americans living in this nation, I dread a topic one debate, merely because it DOES NOT focus on the major issues of Native Americans. I wish those 15 tribes the best of luck (though recognition can be a double-edged sword) I just think the year can be better spent learning about the broader issues that effect the millions of Native Americans living in the U.S. Just my 2 cents, Alan _______________________________________________________ Send a cool gift with your E-Card http://www.bluemountain.com/giftcenter/ From kevin_kneupper Sun Jul 15 21:52:54 2001 From: kevin_kneupper (Kevin Kneupper) Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 21:52:54 Subject: Res 2 : Is the IHCIA still topical? Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010715/e4a57d6f/attachment.html From DaveAnt420 Sun Jul 15 19:43:53 2001 From: DaveAnt420 (DaveAnt420 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 20:43:53 EDT Subject: Res 2 : Is the IHCIA still topical? Message-ID: <16.f523dc7.288392c9@aol.com> In a message dated 7/15/01 3:55:52 PM Mountain Daylight Time, kevin_kneupper at hotmail.com writes: > Does anyone know about the current status of the Indian Health Care > Improvement Act? The law expired in 2000 and from what I can tell it has not > been reauthorized (there is a bill pending but a similar effort failed in the > last congress). I am concerned about whether this entire section of the > resolution will be rendered non-topical given the "as previously amended" > phrase. Since the previously amended status of the Act included the > termination clause, any new funding or action would require new amendment of > the act to extend its lifetime. It seems like any Affirmative case using this > act would necessarily HAVE to take nontopical action. There are AP releases from last week explaining how Indian groups are testifying before Congress in an attempt to explain the need for new funding and the impact it has in just one disease area - diabetes. Additional funding through existing structures seems to be at the heart of topic #2. Bear From coopdb8 Sun Jul 15 19:48:03 2001 From: coopdb8 (christopher cooper) Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 20:48:03 -0400 Subject: Res 2 : Is the IHCIA still topical? Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010715/7ffd307c/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "Kevin Kneupper" Subject: Res 2 : Is the IHCIA still topical? Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 21:52:54 Size: 3054 Url: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010715/7ffd307c/attachment.mht From epcole Sun Jul 15 21:57:18 2001 From: epcole (Eric Cole) Date: 16 Jul 2001 02:57:18 -0000 Subject: Kirk Evans please Message-ID: <20010716025718.10606.qmail@meowmix.chek.com> I'm writing this on behalf of Nate Pearman. Could you, Kirk, backchannel him at this address: UGANatedogY2J at aol.com Thanks Check out the new RNC site and BECOME AN ONLINE ACTIVIST! http://www.rnc.org/directory/contact.html Signup for your FREE Vote4GOP.org at http://www.vote4gop.org From elliottdarren Mon Jul 16 00:42:24 2001 From: elliottdarren (DARREN ELLIOTT) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 00:42:24 -0500 Subject: Michelin Massey Message-ID: Michelin Massey, could you please backchannel me? If you know his email could you shoot it my way? Thanks, Darren "CHIEF" Elliott Debate Coach Emporia High _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From govnt_man Mon Jul 16 08:17:57 2001 From: govnt_man (The Drake) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 09:17:57 -0400 Subject: Larry's sorta right Message-ID: Mr. Schiros, There are times when someone needs to be called out on their views. A proper defense of your views is then justified and needed to further discourse. I can only assume that your post references your past attempts to enrage list members of this list-serve with comments of a derogatory nature. To call your comments on that issue a defense of your views is laughable. If someone thinks that your comments are racist and/or sexist (why you put those words in quotes is interesting), then that person feels a personal obligation to let you know. This response is not an effort for that person to "pat themselves on the back." That is an effort to educate your ignorant ass. Brian Drake Georgetown Univ. Security Studies Program ----Original Message Follows---- From: "Matt Schiros" To: Subject: Larry's sorta right Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 11:38:38 -0400 Sure conservatives get discriminated against in debate, but they just call you "racist" or "sexist" so they can get away with it and pat themselves on the back. Roider --MSchiros at AIM------------------------------------------------------------ Matt Schiros The Supreme Cafmaster Gyrator "Actually, I don't dislike women, I merely mistrust them. The twinkle in the eye, the arsenic in the soup..." --The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes "For us to remain in one narrow groove while ranting about 'freedom' strikes me as an affront to those who endured and sacrificed to enable us to become better prepared for our continuing role in the struggle for freedom." --Ralph Ellison. Gyrations of Freedom: http://www.nacs.net/~schiros/gof/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From tgonos Mon Jul 16 08:39:13 2001 From: tgonos (Tracy Gonos) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 09:39:13 -0400 Subject: Lawrence's concerns... References: <109.2925117.2881e582@cs.com> Message-ID: Well, I hate to pile on, but I feel compelled to point out that you are now making sweeping generalizations about trends in legal academia based (aparently) solely on what occurred in your law school. I attended University of Michigan and I believe we spent about three days total in my con law class discussing substantive due process and even then it was mainly to emphasize that it was essentially a DEAD doctrine. Strict constructionism recieved more, and more positive coverage, than issues like gay rights and women's rights. Those of us interested in those issues had to take "special" classes such a "sex discrimination law" or "race and the law." The Federalist Society was and is one of the largest "clubs" there and continues to thrive, while the NLG is relatively small and inactive. As one of the few liberal/progressive thinkers I felt constantly under siege from both professors and fellow classmates. I also take issue with your statement that the ABA and legal faculty have pushed for a more progressive curriculum. I can believe that the ABA would like some changes and maybe has even suggested a few, but based on my attendence at a law school and my job as an administrator at another law school, and my participation in a project sponsored by the American Association of Law Schools that studied and compared law school curricula in order to recommend more progressive change, I have encountered nothing like you describe in your post. Quite frankly, your reference to the numbers of lawyer members of the FLS and NLG highlights a bit of ignorance on your part, up until about two years ago the National Lawyer's Guild's lawyer division was largely defunct. It has begun to increase its numbers a bit since then due largely to the commitment and efforts of one Georgetown law professor who has undertaken serious revitalization efforts. I have a larger purpose in making this post than just attacking Mr. Cushman's assertions about lefty law school curricula - obviously lots of debaters go on to law school and I think they should know what they are getting into. I was shocked at the hostility to progressive idealogies throughout my law school experience. I never got used to it. I told everyone that I talked to about law school that "liberal law school" was an oxymoron. My experiences still bear that out. Tracy ----- Original Message ----- From: Kcmoattorney at cs.com To: edebate at ndtceda.com Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2001 2:12 PM Subject: Re: Lawrence's concerns... > After pointing out my experience in the late '80s, I should have followed up > by stating that there has been a probably unrelated but concurrent trend > towards more liberal thought in academic institutions which has resulted in > social/political conservatives being a distinct minority .... >>In the 'late 1980s?' What's your evidence/justification for your >>time line, and what do you mean by "liberal?" Merely personal perception, nothing scientific. The trend toward more liberal thought in academic institutions obviously began in some parts of the country much, much earlier and didn't make it's way to others until much later. By "liberal" I am talking about the presence of more professors and thinkers who hold progressive or socialist views and how that presence began to reshape curricula. I was a hard sciences major as an undergrad, and really didn't see much of that first hand until I got to law school and really started looking at how the ABA and legal faculty had joined to develop new curricula which, IMO, were designed to indoctrinate the next generation of lawyers and judges into accepting the role of the judiciary as active makers of social policy. For example, the mission-type statements in my law school's literature were revised to emphasize the institution's commtment to teaching substantive due process, a concept over which there is a substantial disagreement as to whether it even exists. By my final year, the Federalist Society (strict constructioninsts/limited federal powers) had about six members, and the National Lawyer's Guild (kind of the opposite of the FS) had over one hundred. The numbers in the lawyers divisions of these organizations are much different, but they are experiencing similar changes. IMO, this is largely because there is NO positive portrayal of strict constructionism in the law schools. This obviously wasn't always the norm, and the trend is quite apparant to anyone who follows legal education. I don't care to debate the relative merits of these changes as my point was only to show that there has been a ideological shift in American acedemia, especially law schools. Chris Cushman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010716/00c354af/attachment.htm From kevin_kneupper Mon Jul 16 15:42:01 2001 From: kevin_kneupper (Kevin Kneupper) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 15:42:01 Subject: Res 2 : Is the IHCIA still topical? Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010716/a05bc77f/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010716/a05bc77f/attachment.htm From DaveAnt420 Mon Jul 16 10:56:56 2001 From: DaveAnt420 (DaveAnt420 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 11:56:56 EDT Subject: Res 2 : Is the IHCIA still topical? Message-ID: <9c.10c8c28b.288468c8@aol.com> In a message dated 07/16/2001 9:45:02 AM Mountain Daylight Time, kevin_kneupper at hotmail.com writes: << While I think that if this were a question of whether a plan to fund something under the IHCIA could LEGALLY be done you would be right, my concern is whether it can be topically done. Your claim seems to just create further problems for the affirmative rather than solving any. If Congress is still providing funds under the IHCIA even though the act's provisions require it to be terminated in 2000, that means that the act isn't being enforced in the status quo. The Aff is put in a situation that makes it impossible to topically do anything regarding the IHCIA : If they choose to enforce the Act, the only way to do so would be to decrease the current funding under the act, thus making them nontopical. >> Whatever. Others have explained why this is arguably topical. Frankly, T seems to be a function of what the community determines is fair. If the topic is construed in too narrow a fashion, the community generally cuts some slack on T. The act needs more resources. Providing them seems topical. Bear From Kcmoattorney Mon Jul 16 11:14:27 2001 From: Kcmoattorney (Kcmoattorney at cs.com) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 12:14:27 EDT Subject: Lawrence's concerns... Message-ID: <67.16dd80f7.28846ce3@cs.com> Ms. Gonos, Sure, my experience at my particular law school has colored my perceptions somewhat and I gather from your post yours has as well. Like you, however, I was also part of an effort to study these trends. I was on the editorial staff of an ABA law review type publication, The Urban Lawyer . During my second year, I assisted a couple of third years who were working on a study of the curricula at more than 50 law schools and the perceptions held by students and faculty at those schools. The following year, I moved on to a senior editorial position and lost track of the project, but the data I reviewed (from the 1991-92 and 92-93 academic years) showed fairly clearly that: (1) Law schools run the gamut between very liberal and very conservative. (2) The most liberal and most conservative schools showed the least amount of curriculum change over time. (3) Several schools moved to decidedly more liberal curricula, but none became more conservative. (4) Among schools which became more liberal, faculty often cited the ABA's role in assisting in the development of curricula, coupled with the accreditation and review process as part of the reason. >>Quite frankly, your reference to the numbers of lawyer members of the FLS and NLG highlights a bit of ignorance on your part, up until about two years ago the National Lawyer's Guild's lawyer division was largely defunct I think you and I are saying the same thing here. I stated that the numbers in the lawyers divisions of these organizations are much different (than in law schools). Given that the NLG lawyers division was pretty much (but not quite) deceased, and that there has been a recent surge in the organization, I contend my original statement was pretty much right on target. The Federalist Society *is* experiencing declining numbers and NLG *is* experiencing increasing numbers. I agree that many debaters choose law school after undergrad. A little over half of the debaters I was closely associated with did exactly that. I also echo your concern about students needing to educate themselves a little about law school curricula and do some research (and hopefully visit) before deciding on a school. Making the wrong decision can lead to people winding up in instutituions where they feel isolated and unable to rise to their potential. This is true regardless of one's political or ideological beliefs, as I think both you and I have seen. Chris Cushman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010716/b02eee89/attachment.html From jbrey Mon Jul 16 12:35:03 2001 From: jbrey (James Brey) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 13:35:03 -0400 Subject: No subject Message-ID: <002b01c10e1d$a58b6120$5055ba80@comm.ad.fsu.edu> When does the topic come out??? James Brey 356 Diffenbaugh Florida State University Tallahassee, Fl 32306 850-644-3165 ACADEMIC: www.comm.fsu.edu/courses/ DEBATE: www.comm.fsu.edu/debate/ "Come the millennium, month 12, In the home of greatest power, The village idiot will come forth To be acclaimed the leader." -- Nostradamus, 1555 From jeffrey.jarman Mon Jul 16 12:55:39 2001 From: jeffrey.jarman (Jeffrey Jarman) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 12:55:39 -0500 Subject: topic release In-Reply-To: <002b01c10e1d$a58b6120$5055ba80@comm.ad.fsu.edu> Message-ID: Friday, July 27th. Noon, central time. -----Original Message----- From: James Brey [mailto:jbrey at garnet.acns.fsu.edu] Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 12:35 PM To: edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: When does the topic come out??? James Brey 356 Diffenbaugh Florida State University Tallahassee, Fl 32306 850-644-3165 ACADEMIC: www.comm.fsu.edu/courses/ DEBATE: www.comm.fsu.edu/debate/ "Come the millennium, month 12, In the home of greatest power, The village idiot will come forth To be acclaimed the leader." -- Nostradamus, 1555 From coopdb8 Mon Jul 16 13:13:17 2001 From: coopdb8 (christopher cooper) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 14:13:17 -0400 Subject: Res 2 : Is the IHCIA still topical? Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010716/77421026/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010716/77421026/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010716/77421026/attachment-0001.htm From delliott Mon Jul 16 13:14:58 2001 From: delliott (Darren Elliott) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 13:14:58 -0500 Subject: Topic Release Message-ID: <200107161817.NAA25388@mail.usd253.org> ---------- >From: "James Brey" >To: >Subject: >Date: Mon, Jul 16, 2001, 12:35 PM > > When does the topic come out??? > Non-Policy Resolved: That rescinding recognition of the Florida State University Seminoles as a Division 1 school would be desirable. Policy Resolved: The USFG should increase control over the Florida State University Seminoles in one or more of the following areas: alumni donations, scholarships, recruitment, coaching. CHIEF From mss242 Mon Jul 16 16:45:31 2001 From: mss242 (Michael Sawyer) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 16:45:31 -0500 Subject: Lawrence's concerns... In-Reply-To: <67.16dd80f7.28846ce3@cs.com> Message-ID: Throughout all these posts about the recent liberal bias of academia and debate not one person has even mentioned John Rawls, the father of liberalism. His philosophy did not begin to gain widespread acceptance until the late 1970's; this fact only supports Cushman's assertion that academia has recently become more liberal. I don't think that chris is saying that this shift is necessarily a bad thing, rather he is contending that the "pot-smoking, tree-huggin', electric car driving, minority supporting, anti-corporate, liberal bastards" are now in the majority in certain spheres, debate being one of them. This contention is very well supported by the recent academic acceptance of Rawls' works on justice. -----Original Message----- From: Kcmoattorney at cs.com [mailto:Kcmoattorney at cs.com] Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 11:14 AM To: tgonos at hotmail.com; edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: Re: Lawrence's concerns... Ms. Gonos, Sure, my experience at my particular law school has colored my perceptions somewhat and I gather from your post yours has as well. Like you, however, I was also part of an effort to study these trends. I was on the editorial staff of an ABA law review type publication, The Urban Lawyer . During my second year, I assisted a couple of third years who were working on a study of the curricula at more than 50 law schools and the perceptions held by students and faculty at those schools. The following year, I moved on to a senior editorial position and lost track of the project, but the data I reviewed (from the 1991-92 and 92-93 academic years) showed fairly clearly that: (1) Law schools run the gamut between very liberal and very conservative. (2) The most liberal and most conservative schools showed the least amount of curriculum change over time. (3) Several schools moved to decidedly more liberal curricula, but none became more conservative. (4) Among schools which became more liberal, faculty often cited the ABA's role in assisting in the development of curricula, coupled with the accreditation and review process as part of the reason. >>Quite frankly, your reference to the numbers of lawyer members of the FLS and NLG highlights a bit of ignorance on your part, up until about two years ago the National Lawyer's Guild's lawyer division was largely defunct I think you and I are saying the same thing here. I stated that the numbers in the lawyers divisions of these organizations are much different (than in law schools). Given that the NLG lawyers division was pretty much (but not quite) deceased, and that there has been a recent surge in the organization, I contend my original statement was pretty much right on target. The Federalist Society *is* experiencing declining numbers and NLG *is* experiencing increasing numbers. I agree that many debaters choose law school after undergrad. A little over half of the debaters I was closely associated with did exactly that. I also echo your concern about students needing to educate themselves a little about law school curricula and do some research (and hopefully visit) before deciding on a school. Making the wrong decision can lead to people winding up in instutituions where they feel isolated and unable to rise to their potential. This is true regardless of one's political or ideological beliefs, as I think both you and I have seen. Chris Cushman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010716/e1025af6/attachment.html From Leslie.E.Phillips Mon Jul 16 17:04:24 2001 From: Leslie.E.Phillips (Leslie E. Phillips) Date: 16 Jul 2001 18:04:24 EDT Subject: Lawrence's concerns... Message-ID: <53640235@donner.Dartmouth.EDU> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010716/dc61c280/attachment.pot From korry Mon Jul 16 18:08:51 2001 From: korry (Korry Harvey) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 17:08:51 -0600 Subject: CP's on # 3/movements Message-ID: <00af01c10e4c$46e990e0$0902a8c0@thinslim.ln> For some reason my first effort to reply doesn't seem to have gone through, so if this message shows up twice--- sorry! Thanks for your response, Coop (and those that offered opinions via backchanneling me). I agree with your assessment of fiat being an imagining of possible ideas/actions, and that it often takes on additional baggage. However, I am not really so concerned about the issue of "fiating" the action of a movement, as much as I am wondering why movements positions in general are not looked favorably upon. If this is not the case, then I haven't received an entirely clear picture. Perhaps the assumed lack of support is due to the very issue of fiating voluntary action, but I was under the assumption that the concerns were based more on the issue of a movement's ability to solve the case harms. This would seem especially true since you can't really fiat solvency. Is there a bias against movements positions because they are assumed to lack sufficient solvency power, or does it stem from the "fiating of individual voluntary action"? Or, does a bias against movements positions really exist? It seems that there has always been objections to "utopian" movements positions, but is that simply because their method of solvency is usually on the lean side, or is it because of an inability (or unwillingness) to "imagine" such an alternative? Is it because they are not solidly based in the "policy" world, nor solidly based in the "kritical" world? I guess I'm just looking for some of the concrete reasons that movements positions may be objectionable to some. If this is simply not the case, then I apologize for wasting time on the issue. Sat Nam, Korry "We are all poor because we are all honest." Red Dog (Oglala Sioux) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010716/460a1ad0/attachment.html From scottvarda Mon Jul 16 18:32:54 2001 From: scottvarda (scott varda) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 19:32:54 -0400 Subject: CP's on # 3/movements Message-ID: Korry writes: >It seems that there has always been objections to "utopian" movements >positions, but is that simply because their method of solvency is usually >on the lean side, or is it because of an inability (or unwillingness) to >"imagine" such an alternative? Is it because they are not solidly based in >the "policy" world, nor solidly based in the "kritical" world? I guess I'm >just looking for some of the concrete reasons that movements positions may >be objectionable to some. If this is simply not the case, then I apologize >for wasting time on the issue. varda writes: I don't know if there are any inherent "objections" to "movements" positions. I have never seen evidence of them. What I have seen, is some pretty good arguments about the probablistic nature of the "solvency" claims of "movements" authors. It isn't that people object to them, or even don't like them, it is simply that the history of "movements" in the US and around the world finds a high ration of "failed" movements for every "successful" movement. In addition, in the US especially, at some point in the "success" portion of any "movement's" progression, the established order generally does a pretty good job of co-opting the movement, and diluting its original ideology. In short, it is rare to find a movement capable of seriously challenging an existing order, especially when the economy is good, and some illusion of reform (as the populace perceives it) exists. varda FSU _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From asnider Mon Jul 16 19:00:38 2001 From: asnider (Alfred C. Snider) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 20:00:38 -0400 Subject: Policy Debate Instruction Webcasts Message-ID: The National High School Policy Debate Workshop is now underway at the University of Vermont. Lectures occur at 9 AM Intermediate, 1 PM Beginner, and 7 PM Advanced. About 85 students are here. The webcast is at http://www.uvm.edu/debate_theater/, or fire up your QuickTime player and open this URL with it rtsp://quicktime.uvm.edu:1554/debate/debate_theater The schedule for the next two weeks can be found at http://debate.uvm.edu/wdicalendar.html 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 2001 - make plans now - http://debate.uvm.edu/wdi.html Appointment calendar at http://debate.uvm.edu/tunacalendar.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 931 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010716/e7f8ccaa/attachment.bin From blackmon47 Mon Jul 16 19:35:56 2001 From: blackmon47 (Neil Blackmon) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 20:35:56 -0400 Subject: CP's on # 3/movements Message-ID: >From: "scott varda" >To: korry at tsn2000.com, edebate at ndtceda.com >Subject: Re: CP's on # 3/movements >Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 19:32:54 -0400 > > > In short, it is rare to find a movement capable of seriously challenging >an existing order, especially when the economy is good, and some illusion >of >reform (as the populace perceives it) exists. > >varda >FSU And of course- a reexamination of this argument helps understand the dominance of the Yankees, or the Florida State Seminoles football team, given the existing order, and the illusion of reform exists. ((luxury tax revenue sharing... The revised BCS (miami-oklahoma) as the populace perceives it)) Neil Blackmon Florida " I talk to their mommy's and ensure discipline. Then, I talk to their Daddies... if they got a Daddy. Most my boys don't." -- Bobby Bowden, on recruiting black football players >_________________________________________________________________ >Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From pjm1 Mon Jul 16 20:09:50 2001 From: pjm1 (Patrick McKenzie) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 20:09:50 -0500 Subject: Even Schiros Can Be Right Occasionally Message-ID: <000601c10e5d$3051d020$9b68fc80@wuh.wustl.edu> While Mr. Schiros is not the best example for someone suffering discrimination for his principled views, it does happen to conservatives in debate all the time. * A judge actually laughed out loud during the 1AC in a Parli round I was in once when I said that "Welfare has the effect of encouraging negative behaviors e.g. unwed childbearing and failure to find work". The RFD on the ballot indicated I had lost the round BEFORE the first negative speaker spoke. (P.S. The judge's philosophy was theoretically "tabula rasa"). * Ever tried to debate affirmative action? On the con side? Its nigh on impossible in this community. Judges are scornful of any argument or evidence which challenges it and nod along thoughtfully when the other guys say that your advocacy leads to genocide. * Have you ever been docked speaker points in a round for making a Bush joke? Of course not. Ever seen someone get docked speaker points in a round for "failing to use inclusive language"? It happens with disturbing regularity. (And the standard for that violation can be as broad as "use of the word 'he'") Patrick McKenzie >> Mr. Schiros, There are times when someone needs to be called out on their views. A proper defense of your views is then justified and needed to further discourse. I can only assume that your post references your past attempts to enrage list members of this list-serve with comments of a derogatory nature. To call your comments on that issue a defense of your views is laughable. If someone thinks that your comments are racist and/or sexist (why you put those words in quotes is interesting), then that person feels a personal obligation to let you know. This response is not an effort for that person to "pat themselves on the back." That is an effort to educate your ignorant ass. Brian Drake Georgetown Univ. >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010716/119b776f/attachment.html From mss242 Mon Jul 16 21:15:57 2001 From: mss242 (Michael Sawyer) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 21:15:57 -0500 Subject: Lawrence's concerns... In-Reply-To: <53640235@donner.Dartmouth.EDU> Message-ID: I am sorry for my poor choice of wording; when using the term liberal, I really meant moreso welfare liberal, which I consider Rawls to be the undisputed "father" (not sure why it is now in quotes) of. If he isn't, then he and Dworkin together wrote the major foundation for this philosophy. I only used this term because the older form of liberalism, now considered conservative liberalism, is really far more centrist than anything. The primary distinction to me is the acceptance of the free market with the latter, whereas the former requires regulation of the free market to ensure some equality in opportunity. Throughout political discussions, particularly in North America, the term liberal has become synonymous with welfare liberal. My contention is that welfare liberalism, along with A Theory of Justice, gained widespread acceptance throughout academia beginning in the 70s. As I am not a debate historian, I will not attempt to mark the political shifts of the debate world; however, I think it is rather unrefutable that debate is now very heavily liberal leaning. As for the tree-hugging and pot-smoking, that was my sad attempt to mimic an earlier post on Edebate, by Aaron Lyttle: Uh oh. Schiros going to start screaming about the systemic oppression of white, heterosexual, rich, suburban, meat-eating, oil-drilling, dog-kicking, drunk, old-growth forest drilling, anti-welfare, book-burning, American males again. The "man" be gettin' him down. -Aaron J. Lyttle Either you didn't read that post, or I should really stick to my day job. Lastly, I am not implying that conservative doctrines ruled academia. I only meant to imply that academia, particularly in the "west", has recently experienced an overall shift to the "left". Moreover, I am contending that debate and other spheres of academe are becoming an environment in which liberals are the majority. Objectivists, Nazis, and evil corporate scoundrels are minorities within such communities. The evidence I offer to support the assertion, is the timeframe of Rawls and Dworkin, who "fathered" welfare liberalism. I hope to have cleared up some confusion. Michael Sawyer -- Les Phillips wrote: John Rawls is the "father" of liberalism? Liberalism was "fathered" in the 1970s? What do we call the widely accepted doctrines attached to that word before Rawls published A THEORY OF JUSTICE? What does Professor Rawls have to do with the inception of tree hugging and pot smoking, which were certainly quite widespread before his work became prominent? Are you implying that conservative doctrines ruled academe until Rawls came along? Most confusing. Les Phillips --- Michael Sawyer wrote: Throughout all these posts about the recent liberal bias of academia and debate not one person has even mentioned John Rawls, the father of liberalism. His philosophy did not begin to gain widespread acceptance until the late 1970's; this fact only supports Cushman's assertion that academia has recently become more liberal. I don't think that chris is saying that this shift is necessarily a bad thing, rather he is contending that the "pot-smoking, tree-huggin', electric car driving, minority supporting, anti-corporate, liberal bastards" are now in the majority in certain spheres, debate being one of them. This contention is very well supported by the recent academic acceptance of Rawls' works on justice. --- end of quote --- From Leslie.E.Phillips Mon Jul 16 20:39:29 2001 From: Leslie.E.Phillips (Leslie E. Phillips) Date: 16 Jul 2001 21:39:29 EDT Subject: Lawrence's concerns... Message-ID: <53643549@donner.Dartmouth.EDU> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010716/238a4bb8/attachment.pot From stannardmatt Mon Jul 16 20:58:08 2001 From: stannardmatt (matt stannard) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 19:58:08 -0600 Subject: CP's on # 3/movements Message-ID: >varda writes: > I don't know if there are any inherent "objections" to "movements" >positions. I have never seen evidence of them. What I have seen, is some >pretty good arguments about the probablistic nature of the "solvency" >claims >of "movements" authors. It isn't that people object to them, or even don't >like them, it is simply that the history of "movements" in the US and >around >the world finds a high ration of "failed" movements for every "successful" >movement. I would imagine the success/failure ratio would be about the same with "top-down" action. The difference for debate is that advocates of particular government reforms write more specific solvency evidence. Rather than attributing the skepticism to some general consensus among the debate community regarding the history of movements, to me, the question is solely one of literature. One could, of course, do an interesting rhetorical study of the "solvency" claims of movements... Varda: > In addition, in the US especially, at some point in the "success" >portion >of any "movement's" progression, the established order generally does a >pretty good job of co-opting the movement, and diluting its original >ideology. Aside from the fact that this would seem an issue that ought to be debated through, we should note the possible equivocation of the term "co-opt," since the concept is really rather complicated; the membrane between a movement "selling out" and actually spurring progressive reform is pretty thin. Moreover, like policy actions, the consequences of movements' actions are unpredictable, and the current bias in policy debate towards quick time frames often obfuscates the long-term historical consequences of both popular and governmental action. But as I said, the consequences of a government's attempt to contain, silence, or co-opt (meaning steal the persuasive force and moral high ground of) a movement is a fruitful area of debate. > In short, it is rare to find a movement capable of seriously challenging >an existing order, especially when the economy is good, and some illusion >of >reform (as the populace perceives it) exists. I have a few hundred citations in my thesis bibliography that suggest otherwise. What I think you really mean (otherwise I disagree with you) is that it is hard to find documentation of a movement capable of serious short-term reconfiguration of the political order. Also, many successful movements have arisen (and achieved some success, co-optation or not) in times of relative prosperity, including anti-war, desegregation, women's and gay rights, environmental and EVEN anti-poverty movements. Finally, focusing on the response of national governments like the united states, or movements mobilizing mainly on domestic fronts seems to ignore the international scope and strategy of many movements, including the anti-globalization and world indigenous movements whose literature is sophisticated, specific, and readily available on the internet, in decent university libraries, and through contacting representatives directly. Perhaps reading current movement literature, both theoretical (about movements) and concrete (by movements) would freshen up your perspective on their goals and criteria for success. At any rate, I welcome this conversation and hope that it can remain open-ended vis. issues like time frame, fiat, and literature bias. stannard _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From davidheidt Mon Jul 16 21:24:58 2001 From: davidheidt (David Heidt) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 22:24:58 -0400 Subject: Topic one Message-ID: Alan, Education is a conceded net benefit but the impact to it in my mind is outweighed substantially by the unbounded nature of topic 2 (and its not like topic 1 doesn't involve education--its just about a different area with some overlap). If I thought that topic 2 had a stable plan mechanism that could provide predictability, then I might agree that it was a better topic. A funding and enforcement requirement isn't exactly what I would describe a stable plan mechanism, however. Enforcement is broad and depends upon the context of the 1ac; it's predictability probably is governed by the predictability of each individual affirmative case. Funding might provide some predictable ground but the quality of that ground is not very high; it does not compare to the ground offered by the recognition topic. The only thing that really concerns me about topic one is the lack of literature depth on individual tribes. Mike Hester backchanneled me (or maybe he sent it to everyone; I don't know) a good point that probably the best literature isn't available at a lot of universities, and probably is with the tribes themselves. This may be a serious disadvantage to topic one, but one that I still think is worth the risk given the alternatives. >From: Alan Tauber >To: David Heidt , edebate at ndtceda.com >Subject: Re: Topic one >Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 10:38:45 -0700 (PDT) > >David, > >While I am a Topic Three advocate, I will attempt to answer your questions >vis-a-vis topic two. If a topic two advocate would like to add to what >I've >written here, please feel free. > >On Sun, 15 Jul 2001 11:13:09 -0400, David Heidt wrote: > > >Even if the aff > > pieces together a 1ac with a single solvency advocate, the negative >will > > always be prepared; forcing the aff to advocate a specific plan >mechanism > > > guarantees predictability in every debate. > > >You get the same predictability under Topic Two. You know the Aff will be >increasing funding/enforcement. That's a specific plan mechanism, so this >is a non-unique benefit to topic one. > > > > > > As for the education argument, it is true that topic 2 (and 3) does >address > > the core of literature about currently recognized tribes more directly > > (although much of the same literature will be read for topic 1, since >TD > > issues will probably be negative arguments). > >Well this is a pretty much conceeded benefit to topic 2 (and 3). Now you >have the specific plan mechanism you're advocating, AND the broad >literature >base that topic one is lacking/ignores. > >As for the Trust Doctrine literature, there are plenty of good arguments >made by others, as to why one tribe's/nation's experience shouldn't/can't >be >extrapolated to apply to others. > >Furthermore, I believe people will be too busy scrambling to find topic >specific ev to have time to read the broad literature. > > > >I guess I think that > > predictability and a fair division of ground are more important than >the > > goal of getting people to read more books. The argument that the >community > > will have sacrificed an opportunity to debate the core issues of Native > > American policy isn't very persuasive to me if that opportunity >involves > > debating on an unbalanced topic where everyone has a huge strategic > > advantage if they run to the fringes. > >I don't think that Topics 2 or 3 are any broader than last years topic or >any other broad topic. I think you have great predictablity and fair >ground >under Topics 2 and 3. > > > > > On the other hand, I might be persuaded that topic 2 was a good topic >if > > someone would provide a satisfactory defense of why its fair for the > > negative. Most of the discussion I've read (and I'll admit I could >easily > > be missing something) only describes why its better than topic 3, which > > doesn't provide much reassurance. > > >Well this is my attempt to do that. =0) > > > > I wish that the wordings for resolutions were available prior to the >topic > > area vote. If only three topic areas went on the ballot, but each had >3 > > separate wording papers, it seems like it would give the community a >much > > > better idea of what it was getting into when it votes for a particular >area. > > Or maybe the community could have voted for 2 or 3 areas in May and >then > > written wording paper defenses after that. I wonder how many people >would > > have voted for the Indians topic if they knew in advance it would have >to > > > involve one of these resolutions. Maybe it wouldn't have made a >difference; > > I don't know. > > > >That does sound like a great idea. I wish I had the time to write a >wording >paper in favor of a Supreme Court topic. > >So here's the summary: > >Topic two has a specifically mandated plan action (the problems with this >has been adequately debated elsewhere), AND it gives you direct access to >the major literature on this topic. At best, topic 1 only allows you to >get >this lit. in the back door. > >Now I will happily acknowledge that MSU did a great job with their topic >paper. And I'm glad they have provided links to the relevant literature. >But do we really want to debate a toic where ALL the links to ALL the >relevant literature can be fit into a topic wording paper? (yes, it's >probably hyperbole, but I'd bet not by much). > >As someone interested in the situation of Native Americans living in this >nation, I dread a topic one debate, merely because it DOES NOT focus on the >major issues of Native Americans. I wish those 15 tribes the best of luck >(though recognition can be a double-edged sword) I just think the year can >be better spent learning about the broader issues that effect the millions >of Native Americans living in the U.S. > >Just my 2 cents, > >Alan > > > > > >_______________________________________________________ >Send a cool gift with your E-Card >http://www.bluemountain.com/giftcenter/ > > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From Kcmoattorney Mon Jul 16 22:12:15 2001 From: Kcmoattorney (Kcmoattorney at cs.com) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 23:12:15 EDT Subject: P. McKenzie's comments on language Message-ID: <65.1742efad.2885070f@cs.com> Mr. McKenzie, >>Have you ever been docked speaker points in a round for making a Bush = joke? Of course not. Ever seen someone get docked speaker points in a = round for "failing to use inclusive language"? It happens with = disturbing regularity. (And the standard for that violation can be as = broad as "use of the word 'he'")<< I've seen people lose more than speaker points over it, with debaters arguing for, and getting decisions because of it. This was another thing that was starting to poke it's ugly head up in CEDA about the time I last debated (89-90) and the next year that I coached. It was my only modification to a generally "tabula rasa" judging philosophy. Now if someone is needlessly profane or generally obnoxious, I think that's the time to whack some speaker points, but IMO, that's my job as a critic, not the debaters job to raise it as an issue in the round. I think this kind of *(!& is bad for discourse, bad for the activity and I won't vote on it under any circumstances. I mean, what's the limit to this? At what point does a legitimate argument in a round go from being just an argument to '"non-inclusive speech?" This kind of presupposes that the critic has decided in advance that "inclusion is always good" for the purposes of any particular argument or round. How are the debaters supposed to know this? As you can tell, this pushes my irritant buttons because the implication is that the very act of discourse about certain things is intrinsically bad. If the position is all that formidable and well established, winning the point by open discourse and argument shouldn't be a problem. IMO, "artifically" attempting to shut off discourse on certain subjects or positions without arguing the merits shows a weakness in the position (otherwise, why are the proponents so scared to argue the merits if it's so clear?) Frankly, I was surprised you weren't flamed for daring to discuss this issue here. (Or perhaps that comment is premature ) Chris Cushman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010716/cc409a09/attachment.html From mss242 Tue Jul 17 00:46:17 2001 From: mss242 (Michael Sawyer) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 00:46:17 -0500 Subject: Lawrence's concerns... In-Reply-To: <53643549@donner.Dartmouth.EDU> Message-ID: --- Michael Sawyer wrote: I am sorry for my poor choice of wording; when using the term liberal, I really meant more so welfare liberal, which I consider Rawls to be the undisputed "father" (not sure why it is now in quotes) of. If he isn't, then he and Dworkin together wrote the major foundation for this philosophy. >>> What happened to the vast library of democratic socialist and welfare state theory which predates the early 1970s? To what specifically are you referring? I am not aware of a comprehensive body of work predating Rawls. >>>Are you seriously suggesting that "liberals," prior to Rawls, did not advocate "regulation of the free market to ensure some equality in opportunity"? I am not suggesting that the idea for regulation never came up, rather I am claiming that Rawls and Dworkin were the first to publish a comprehensive foundation for welfare liberalism. >>>Who uses the term "conservative liberalism"? Many philosophers, political and otherwise, use the term "conservative liberalism". I also use this term. If it makes you uncomfortable, we can substitute libertarian or even classical liberalism for future discussions. In Europe, liberal is generally considered to be synonymous with conservative liberalism. >>>Who are/were its proponents? Its modern proponents include Hayek and Nozick. >>>Why is it "centrist"? It is not necessarily centrist, rather it is more centrist on my political spectrum than welfare liberalism. >>>What does "acceptance" of the free market mean, and how does it exclude "regulation" of the free market? Acceptance of the free market in many ways is just acknowledgment that it must exist and that is the best alternative to socialism or other economic systems. The answer to the second part of your question is obvious. >>>What twentieth century liberals have rejected "regulation" of the free market? Hayek and Nozick to start with. Julian Heicklin is another. Harry Browne and just about any other crackpot libertarian have rejected regulation of the free market. >>>I really don't understand. Yes, I know. I hope this has cleared it up for you. Throughout political discussions, particularly in North America, the term liberal has become synonymous with welfare liberal. >>> That's news to me. Well, you learn something new everyday. >>> Les Phillips Mike Sawyer From stannardmatt Tue Jul 17 00:07:53 2001 From: stannardmatt (matt stannard) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 23:07:53 -0600 Subject: P. McKenzie's comments on language Message-ID: >I've seen people lose more than speaker points over it, with debaters >arguing >for, and getting decisions because of it. Seems to me that arguing it out and being willing to debate it is a good thing, not a bad thing, regardless of your personal views on the issue. > >This was another thing that was starting to poke it's ugly head up in CEDA >about the time I last debated (89-90) Been a while, huh? >Now if someone is needlessly profane or generally obnoxious, I think that's >the time to whack some speaker points, but IMO, that's my job as a critic, >not the debaters job to raise it as an issue in the round. I think this >kind >of *(!& is bad for discourse, bad for the activity and I won't vote on it >under any circumstances. Funny how you feel very comfortable with your standard of what constitutes acceptable and unacceptable discourse--comfortable enough to "whack speaker points" over a cuss word rather than sexist language. I ain't criticizing you for that--that's your call. But what's the difference between your call and someone else's call? This >kind of presupposes that the critic has decided in advance that "inclusion >is >always good" for the purposes of any particular argument or round. How are >the debaters supposed to know this? Judging philosophies? Or how about they get in the habit of using inclusive language? As you can tell, this pushes my irritant >buttons because the implication is that the very act of discourse about >certain things is intrinsically bad. I am not sure what you mean. I didn't think it was a question of subject matter, but rather a question of language choice. Again, I don't see why your condemnation (with accompanying point reduction) of a debater saying "their arguments are fucking bullshit" is any less an enforcement of "political correctness" than a different critic's objection to the use of the word "mankind" to describe humankind. Care to explain why it's okay for you to dock points under these circumstances? If the position is all that formidable >and well established, winning the point by open discourse and argument >shouldn't be a problem. IMO, "artifically" attempting to shut off >discourse >on certain subjects or positions without arguing the merits shows a >weakness >in the position (otherwise, why are the proponents so scared to argue the >merits if it's so clear?) Okay, fine. Let's see if you feel the same way about the posts which will inevitably follow yours. > >Frankly, I was surprised you weren't flamed for daring to discuss this >issue >here. (Or perhaps that comment is premature ) > Ah...I already see indications that your judgment of this "liberally biased" community leads you to pre-judge our responses. Sigh. stannard PS--the debate community is FAR too conservative. _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From pjm1 Tue Jul 17 02:01:45 2001 From: pjm1 (Patrick McKenzie) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 02:01:45 -0500 Subject: P. McKenzie's comments on language Message-ID: <000e01c10e95$319a5b40$9b68fc80@wuh.wustl.edu> >>Seems to me that arguing it out and being willing to debate it is a good thing, not a bad thing, regardless of your personal views on the issue. >> The thing is, though, it doesn't get argued. It is an accepted fact of life in the debate world that saying "The next President of the United States should take care to make his cabinet diverse" is sexist and ipso facto a reason to reject any other arguments that are made during that round. If the other team cares to make an issue out of it, they will win if they are halfway competant -- despite the LEGIONS of good arguments you can/do make against it. Even if they don't make an argument out of it, the judge might for them. >>But what's the difference between your call and someone else's call? >> The difference is that he is right, of course ;). Where is it written that we must all be moral relativists? >>Judging philosophies? Or how about they get in the habit of using inclusive language? >> I was told by my debate coach before the year started that I was to self-censor when debating. She made it pretty clear what the judges would expect, and threw in the incidental comment that she would flunk me in her class (Gender and Communication) if I used non-inclusive language. Does this strike anyone else as sad? Debate, the activity where you can make any defensible argument, where all arguments are treated equally -- except the ones that are more equal than others? >>I am not sure what you mean. I didn't think it was a question of subject matter, but rather a question of language choice. Again, I don't see why your condemnation (with accompanying point reduction) of a debater saying "their arguments are fucking bullshit" is any less an enforcement of "political correctness" than a different critic's objection to the use of the word "mankind" to describe humankind. Care to explain why it's okay for you to dock points under these circumstances? >> Well, for one, cursing is politics neutral in a debate round (most of the time). Conservatives can curse, liberals can curse, etc. Both sides can just as easily be offended by it. On the other hand, being un-PC is decidedly a sin by conservatives, against liberals. Self-censoring by conservatives, the only way to avoid dropping ballots they would otherwise have won, concedes ground needlessly to liberals, slanting the entire activity in their favor. Or, to put it another way, how do you expect me to win a debate about abortion with a feminist (my value is human life, her's is rights of women) when we have already established that the word "chairman" is a denial of the existence of half the planet? I shouldn't be forced into making that concession. >>h...I already see indications that your judgment of this "liberally biased" community leads you to pre-judge our responses. Sigh. >> Prejudice is highly underrated sometime. Would calling it "predictive thinking" make it seem a little less controversial? You know, they taught me predictive thinking back in third grade in English class. Given that a book includes a hero and a dragon, I predict based on reasonable experience that the hero will kill the dragon at the end of it. Now, given that debate is a liberal activity made up of a liberal population to begin with (college students), I'm going to predict that there will be a little open hostility by the end of this discussion. >>stannard PS--the debate community is FAR too conservative. >> There would be an empirical way to evaluate that claim, actually. At the next tournament, take a formal census of the population and ask a simple question "How many of you voted for Dubya/Gore/Nader/other in 2000?" My money would be on Nader beating Dubya. [You know, I think I might actually DO this just for the heck of it] Patrick McKenzie Anyone who spells "through" thru or "women" with one or more y's should be given remedial kidnergarten English classes. Including all of those darn English professors. While we're at it, infinitives should not be split and the suffix -ize does NOT make nouns into verbs. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010717/53845f09/attachment.htm From Leslie.E.Phillips Tue Jul 17 06:48:55 2001 From: Leslie.E.Phillips (Leslie E. Phillips) Date: 17 Jul 2001 07:48:55 EDT Subject: Lawrence's concerns... Message-ID: <53649330@donner.Dartmouth.EDU> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010717/a8847225/attachment.asc From govnt_man Tue Jul 17 08:10:27 2001 From: govnt_man (The Drake) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 09:10:27 -0400 Subject: Even Schiros Can Be Right Occasionally Message-ID: Pat M. writes: >While Mr. Schiros is not the best example for someone suffering > >discrimination for his principled views, it does happen to >conservatives >in debate all the time. Drake writes: Yeah, it happens all the time to everyone. Ask anyone who has poured their heart into an argument like A-Life and watch their reaction when they get laughed out of the round because of the link story. Pat M. writes: >* A judge actually laughed out loud during the 1AC in a Parli round >I was >in once when I said that "Welfare has the effect of encouraging >negative >behaviors e.g. unwed childbearing and failure to find work". >The RFD on >the ballot indicated I had lost the round BEFORE the first >negative >speaker spoke. (P.S. The judge's philosophy was >theoretically "tabula >rasa"). Drake writes: I won't make excuses for that person. Pat M. writes: >* Ever tried to debate affirmative action? On the con side? Its >nigh on >impossible in this community. Judges are scornful of any >argument or >evidence which challenges it and nod along thoughtfully >when the other >guys say that your advocacy leads to genocide. Drake writes: Yes, I have. I'll even do you one better. I debated Class Based Affirmative Action on the Aff for about half the Title 7 topic. We had about a 80% win record. I think your perception is that judges are scornful because you have made an assumption about their political ideology. You will find that every person's ideology lies on a spectrum. Like many people our ideologies are driven by issues, not a prescribed framework. Pat M. writes: >* Have you ever been docked speaker points in a round for making a >Bush >joke? Of course not. Ever seen someone get docked speaker >points in a >round for "failing to use inclusive language"? It >happens with disturbing >regularity. (And the standard for that >violation can be as broad as "use >of the word 'he'") Drake writes: Adaptation is the name of the game. You want to make a Clinton joke? Go ahead. As long as its tasteful and funny, then you'll get points from me. Yes, I have been the recipient of "docked" points and it was an educational experience for me. In the future, I used that knowledge to my advantage. I think it is interesting that this thread focuses on "conservative discrimination" but fails to consider that this activity is by and large political. It is, however, an activity that encourages dynamic political change. I personnally believe that there are a few conservative arguments with merit on any given issue. Your "debate on affirmative action" example has plenty of people arguing against it without sounding like bigots. I can easily see a team winning a debate by arguing that affirmative action continues discrimination by making the oppressed the oppressors. You have got to find an angle that will win over your audience. Without the learned element of persuasion, debate would be meaningless. Yours, Brian D. _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From dhn2 Tue Jul 17 07:44:07 2001 From: dhn2 (Daniel Hugh Nexon) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 08:44:07 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Lawrence's concerns... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 17 Jul 2001, Michael Sawyer wrote: > --- Michael Sawyer wrote: > > I am sorry for my poor choice of wording; when using the term liberal, I > really meant more so welfare liberal, which I consider Rawls to be the > undisputed "father" (not sure why it is now in quotes) of. If he isn't, > then he and Dworkin together wrote the major foundation for this philosophy. > > >>> What happened to the vast library of democratic socialist and welfare > state > theory which predates the early 1970s? > > To what specifically are you referring? I am not aware of a comprehensive > body of work predating Rawls. I've already posted a reference to Karl Polanyi's _The Great Transformation_, which is a comprehensive defense of what we would probably now call "political liberalism." John Stuart Mill also defended economic regulations at various stages of his thought, as did a number of so-called "New English Liberals" (IIRC). There's also the long debate in the "behaviorist" political science literature about social welfare and liberal democracy. I think you're confusing a few different issues. Rawls' work was a milestone for a couple of reasons. For one, it helped reclaim the legitimacy of _political philosophy_ within the field of (Anglo-American) philosophy--a field almost completely dominated in the previous decades by linguistic philosophy. Keep in mind that scholars outside of political philosophy, in fields such as political theory, had never abandoned the study of institutional design and legitimate authority. For another, Rawls' argument was a powerful attempt to rethink liberal ideas in a way that provided some philosophical sense for contemporary American liberalism. I'm not sure, however, that Rawls' brought a lot of people 'suddenly' over to liberalism and is a causal factor in the spread of liberalism in academia. I think it would be difficult to support the argument, but I don't know very much about law schools so I can't comment about them specifcally. It might be more accurate to say that Rawls restarted a series of debates that had been confined to economics, social theory, and political theory and had an important influence on the terms of those debates. > >>>Are you seriously suggesting that "liberals," prior to Rawls, did not > advocate "regulation of the free market to > ensure some equality in opportunity"? > > I am not suggesting that the idea for regulation never came up, rather I am > claiming that Rawls and Dworkin were the first to publish a comprehensive > foundation for welfare liberalism. You're on somewhat more solid ground here (at least with Rawls), but it depends on what you mean by "comprehensive." For certain communities, this is correct. For other communities, it isn't. > >>>Who uses the term "conservative liberalism"? > > Many philosophers, political and otherwise, use the term "conservative > liberalism". I have hardly EVER seen the term "conservative liberalism" in serious discussions of political theory and philosophy and I have two advanced degrees in political science in which my second field is political theory. I think you mean what you write below: "classical liberalism" although this term covers a fairly large swath of theorists with differing positions. Personally, I find it more useful to seperate liberalism into "economic" and "political" variants when dealing with theorists in the 19th and 20th centuries, although such distinctions are misleading when you get into the real foundations of liberal thought in the seventeenth century. > >>>Who are/were its proponents? > > Its modern proponents include Hayek and Nozick. Neither Hayek nor Nozick are genuine "classical liberals." Hayek's position does fit well within the domain of "economic liberalism" that I disucss above. I think you'd probably be clearer if you called them libertarians, with the caveat that you are talking about Nozik circa _Anarchy, State and Utopia_. > >>>What does "acceptance" of the free market mean, and how > does it exclude "regulation" of the free market? > > Acceptance of the free market in many ways is just acknowledgment that it > must exist and that is the best alternative to socialism or other economic > systems. The answer to the second part of your question is obvious. Actually, it isn't obvious. I refer you to debates about the necessity of state regulation in constituting "free markets." > Throughout political discussions, > particularly in North America, the term liberal has become synonymous with > welfare liberal. In North America, yes. Elsewhere, no. But I believe your own comments support that. Regards, Dan | Columbia Political Science | www.columbia.edu/~dhn2 "Everyone who has had a referee get the argument of his or her paper directly backward has wondered about calling it 'peer' review." -- Arthur L. Stinchcombe. From amtauber Tue Jul 17 08:55:00 2001 From: amtauber (Alan Tauber) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 06:55:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Topic one Message-ID: <22875675.995378100536.JavaMail.imail@puffer> David, Thanks for the response. Hopefully this discussion has a broader utility for the list as a whole. Now stepping away from topic two, I'd like to argue topic three, my preferred choice. Hopefully someone from the topic two camp will step up to rebut your arguments there. I personally like topic three because it gives the broadest possible ground and access to the literature (it allows for the Supreme Court as an actor) while providing the most stable neg ground, with the broadest lit on this side as well (i.e. increased federal control bad, in all its forms, be it vis-a-vis tribes/nations or vis-a-vis states). That seems to be a pretty good plan mechanism to start writing disads to. You could start today and have plenty of links to ANY plan under topic three. (And believe it or not folks, Calabresi is NOT the only federalism impact author! *swoon* =) ) This provides a readily predictable neg ground. A good chunk of the literature written by Native Americans deals specifically with what role the Federal Government should take. (But god forbid we debate the topic! I wish I had some good cards from Iraqis back on the sanctions topic). That is the beauty of this topic. We actually have a broad base of literature from the very subjects of the resolution, telling us what they think should be done. And it runs both ways, ESPECIALLY, under topic three. The literature is still my biggest concern on topic one. Not living on the east coast (yet. 1 month to go) I have no access to the tribal library of the Shinnecock Nation et al. And unless I'm terribly mistaken ALL the tribes/nations in question are east of the Mississippi (though there may be one in the NW, can't remember off the top of my head). The point being, it's rather hard for most of the nation to get access to these publications. Inter-library loan just doesn't stretch that far, and even if it did, the limited amount of copies in each tribe's/nation's library would prove to be a problem. Now with education as the conceeded net benefit I can see no choice but a vote against Topic One. =0) Thoughts? Alan On Mon, 16 Jul 2001 22:24:58 -0400, David Heidt wrote: > Alan, > > Education is a conceded net benefit but the impact to it in my mind is > outweighed substantially by the unbounded nature of topic 2 (and its not > like topic 1 doesn't involve education--its just about a different area with > some overlap). If I thought that topic 2 had a stable plan mechanism that > could provide predictability, then I might agree that it was a better topic. > A funding and enforcement requirement isn't exactly what I would describe > a stable plan mechanism, however. Enforcement is broad and depends upon the > context of the 1ac; it's predictability probably is governed by the > predictability of each individual affirmative case. Funding might provide > some predictable ground but the quality of that ground is not very high; it > does not compare to the ground offered by the recognition topic. > > The only thing that really concerns me about topic one is the lack of > literature depth on individual tribes. Mike Hester backchanneled me (or > maybe he sent it to everyone; I don't know) a good point that probably the > best literature isn't available at a lot of universities, and probably is > with the tribes themselves. This may be a serious disadvantage to topic > one, but one that I still think is worth the risk given the alternatives. > _______________________________________________________ Send a cool gift with your E-Card http://www.bluemountain.com/giftcenter/ From mss242 Tue Jul 17 10:17:38 2001 From: mss242 (Michael Sawyer) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 10:17:38 -0500 Subject: Lawrence's concerns... In-Reply-To: <53649330@donner.Dartmouth.EDU> Message-ID: --Les Phillips Wrote: OK: There's nineteenth century classical liberalism - government restraint toward both the market and individual autonomy - and there's twentieth century welfare state liberalism. Your statement seems to be that in academic "political thought" circles, the term "liberal" was only used to mean welfare state liberalism after Rawls and Dworkin became recognized figures? 1) I studied political thought and "had conversations" before A THEORY OF JUSTICE was published, and I don't recall "liberal" being used as a synonym for Hayek. ~I'm not saying that liberal was formerly used to describe the philosophy of Hayek and such. Liberalism used to mean and still can mean a wide variety of political philosophies. In its earliest and purest form, liberalism was simply a reaction to state-mandated religions (along with other state-mandated social practices). It was a philosophy which sought a certain neutrality so that people with differing views could peacefully coexist. Now liberalism has obviously been refined and changed since that time. I am claiming that there are two divergent forms of liberalism: classical and welfare. Liberal was not previously a synonym for classical liberal; rather it meant a wide variety of philosophies. 2) I don't know how you exclude Fabian socialism, Progressivism, social democrats like Daniel Bell, the economists who inspired the New Deal, or any number of other thinkers who "accept" the market [either as an inevitability or as something to be preferred over a command economy] but still believe it should be controlled to a significant degree -- unless you think those folks are out of bounds of this discussion for being insufficiently "systematic" or philosophical. ~All of this is well and good, but it still is mostly irrelevant. None of these groups offered a comprehensive social and political philosophy such as Rawls and Dworkin. Obviously certain individuals believed that autonomy was paramount before Kant did, but who do we give credit to? [My "acceptance" of something means that it is not open to modification?] ~You accuse me of being semantic, and then argue over my use of the word acceptance? Acceptance of the free market, by classical liberals, is rejection of the regulation of the free market, as they recognize that such modification would be worse than the free market alone. I guess my point distills to this: Your claims require such a peculiar semantic interpretation that they're misleading. The common understanding of the term "liberal" had been revised when John Rawls was a mere gleam in Mother Rawls's eye. ~This is basically answered above. The distillation of liberal into welfare liberal only truly occured with the advent of Rawls. I am also uncertain how you arrive at broad generalizations concerning how terms are interpreted by large groups of people on various continents. ~I arrive at such generalizations based on what I have been taught and what I have read. Whenever I read contemporary European political philosophy, they will use the term liberal when they clearly mean libertarian. If you don't agree with me, I don't care. Michael Sawyer From woodss Tue Jul 17 09:28:21 2001 From: woodss (Woods, Steve) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 09:28:21 -0500 Subject: CP's on # 3/movements Message-ID: <553F6980EF1BD511955B00104B2EB9072F5F2E@shaman.jewell.edu> Hey all, I think the key element to a successful movements position is the threshold evidence stating that in lieu of government action, or even better, because of the lack of government action, that people are organizing to solve the issue. Often the evidence that is theoretical in nature as to the "best" solution, grassroots-ground up v. top down gives the edge to the g-roots. But that presumes the movement will occur. The problem goes back to the issue of confidence in a movement emerging to address the problem with strong evidence in comparison to the fiat ability of affirmative solvency. A movements DA does not fiat the movement, it only states that government action would kill the emergence or success of some pre-existing movement to solve the problem better. That is why timeframe and threshold become such absolute take outs of the position so easily. It is tough to find a powerful, widespread, and successful g-roots movement in the US that is able to address the types of harms that often get argued over in debate rounds. It is also problematic that the large well organized movements often focus on changing public policy through the current legislative/legal frameworks. So the answer by the affirmative of why wait 20 years for the movement to push for policy reform when we can get it today tends to be pretty persuasive. Steve > ---------- > From: Korry Harvey > Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 6:08 PM > To: edebate at ndtceda.com > Subject: Re: CP's on # 3/movements > > For some reason my first effort to reply doesn't seem to have gone > through, so if this message shows up twice--- sorry! > ? > Thanks for your response, Coop (and those that offered opinions via > backchanneling me).?I agree with your assessment of fiat being an > imagining of possible ideas/actions, and that it often takes on additional > baggage.?However, I am not really so concerned about the issue of > "fiating" the action of a movement, as much as I am wondering why > movements positions in general are not looked favorably upon. If this is > not the case, then I haven't received an entirely clear picture. Perhaps > the assumed lack of support?is due to the very issue of fiating voluntary > action, but I was under the assumption that the concerns were based more > on the issue of a movement's ability to solve the case harms. This would > seem especially true since you can't really fiat solvency. Is there a bias > against movements positions because they?are assumed to lack sufficient > solvency power, or?does it stem from the "fiating of individual voluntary > action"? Or, does a bias against movements positions really exist?? > ? > It seems that there has always been objections to "utopian" movements > positions, but is that simply because their method of solvency is usually > on the lean side, or is it because of an inability (or unwillingness) to > "imagine" such an alternative? Is it because they are not solidly based in > the "policy" world, nor solidly based in the "kritical" world? I guess I'm > just looking for some of the concrete reasons that movements positions may > be objectionable to some. If this is simply not the case, then I apologize > for wasting time on the issue.??? > ? > Sat Nam, > ? > Korry > ? > "We are all poor because we are all honest." > Red Dog (Oglala Sioux) > From cisneros_jd Tue Jul 17 09:28:30 2001 From: cisneros_jd (David Cisneros) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 10:28:30 -0400 Subject: P. McKenzie's comments on language Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010717/f2d146ce/attachment.htm From woodss Tue Jul 17 09:38:18 2001 From: woodss (Woods, Steve) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 09:38:18 -0500 Subject: Balloting/Resolution questions Message-ID: <553F6980EF1BD511955B00104B2EB9072F5F2F@shaman.jewell.edu> Hey all, I know I posted earlier in this forum about voting for the value topic but debating policy. I am not recanting that position, but my friend David Berube sent along a note: "Have you seen the ballot?" which makes a good point. It seems that we must vote for an example of both. I guess I knew that, but it leads to the following question. My question is, when did the idea that there would be five resolutions, which would be a mix of both policy ahd value, get changed to seperate categories for each, and you vote for each? Was that a procedure that was voted on by the membership or the result of topic committee fiat? I know it has been like that previously, but I didn't really think about the change until this year when the value resolutions are so clearly superior to the policy ones. As it is, it is quite tempting as the host of a tournament to possibly only offer the value topic division to force the issue. Also I think it is terribly unfortunate to have deemed the value topics "non-policy" in name. This type of labeling tends to dictate the acceptable arguments under the resolution somewhat unfairly. Just some more ramblings on the issue, but it would be interesting to see if any other tournament hosts are considering only offering the value resolution as the official topic. What would be the fallout, would some schools refuse to attend? Will only a gaurantee of the policy resolution ensure a large turnout? Do I automatically lose a debate if I run a plan with a topic officially labeled "non-policy"? If I don't run arguments on the policy resolution that haven't been pre-approved on edbate before the topic is even selected will I lose rounds? Random thoughts indeed. Oh well, thanks for reading, Steve From mss242 Tue Jul 17 10:37:41 2001 From: mss242 (Michael Sawyer) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 10:37:41 -0500 Subject: Lawrence's concerns... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 17 Jul 2001, Michael Sawyer wrote: > --- Michael Sawyer wrote: > > I am sorry for my poor choice of wording; when using the term liberal, I > really meant more so welfare liberal, which I consider Rawls to be the > undisputed "father" (not sure why it is now in quotes) of. If he isn't, > then he and Dworkin together wrote the major foundation for this philosophy. > > >>> What happened to the vast library of democratic socialist and welfare > state > theory which predates the early 1970s? > > To what specifically are you referring? I am not aware of a comprehensive > body of work predating Rawls. I've already posted a reference to Karl Polanyi's _The Great Transformation_, which is a comprehensive defense of what we would probably now call "political liberalism." John Stuart Mill also defended economic regulations at various stages of his thought, as did a number of so-called "New English Liberals" (IIRC). There's also the long debate in the "behaviorist" political science literature about social welfare and liberal democracy. ~ The primary difference between Rawls and Mill is that Rawls is definately not a utilitarian. Mill may have proposed economic regulation, but he didn't believe in welfare liberalism (I guess a better term for this specific dispute is liberal egalitarianism). Mill was utilitarian and would have thus allowed racism and sexism and such if it increased overall happiness. I think you're confusing a few different issues. Rawls' work was a milestone for a couple of reasons. For one, it helped reclaim the legitimacy of _political philosophy_ within the field of (Anglo-American) philosophy--a field almost completely dominated in the previous decades by linguistic philosophy. Keep in mind that scholars outside of political philosophy, in fields such as political theory, had never abandoned the study of institutional design and legitimate authority. For another, Rawls' argument was a powerful attempt to rethink liberal ideas in a way that provided some philosophical sense for contemporary American liberalism. I'm not sure, however, that Rawls' brought a lot of people 'suddenly' over to liberalism and is a causal factor in the spread of liberalism in academia. I think it would be difficult to support the argument, but I don't know very much about law schools so I can't comment about them specifcally. It might be more accurate to say that Rawls restarted a series of debates that had been confined to economics, social theory, and political theory and had an important influence on the terms of those debates. ~All of these things are essentially true, but they do not rule out Rawls' work being important for other reasons as well. I would still ask that someone point me to a body of philosophical work in which the tenants for liberal egalitarianism are outlined that predates Rawls. > >>>Are you seriously suggesting that "liberals," prior to Rawls, did not > advocate "regulation of the free market to > ensure some equality in opportunity"? > > I am not suggesting that the idea for regulation never came up, rather I am > claiming that Rawls and Dworkin were the first to publish a comprehensive > foundation for welfare liberalism. You're on somewhat more solid ground here (at least with Rawls), but it depends on what you mean by "comprehensive." For certain communities, this is correct. For other communities, it isn't. ~for which communities is it not? > >>>Who uses the term "conservative liberalism"? > > Many philosophers, political and otherwise, use the term "conservative > liberalism". I have hardly EVER seen the term "conservative liberalism" in serious discussions of political theory and philosophy and I have two advanced degrees in political science in which my second field is political theory. I think you mean what you write below: "classical liberalism" although this term covers a fairly large swath of theorists with differing positions. Personally, I find it more useful to seperate liberalism into "economic" and "political" variants when dealing with theorists in the 19th and 20th centuries, although such distinctions are misleading when you get into the real foundations of liberal thought in the seventeenth century. ~I probably read a crackpot who used the term conservative liberalism; i apologize for the mass confusion. Essentially the two sides here are libertarian party V. green party (not perfect, but much easier to understand for some). > >>>Who are/were its proponents? > > Its modern proponents include Hayek and Nozick. Neither Hayek nor Nozick are genuine "classical liberals." Hayek's position does fit well within the domain of "economic liberalism" that I disucss above. I think you'd probably be clearer if you called them libertarians, with the caveat that you are talking about Nozik circa _Anarchy, State and Utopia_. ~fine, to me classical liberals and libertarians are basically synonymous. > >>>What does "acceptance" of the free market mean, and how > does it exclude "regulation" of the free market? > > Acceptance of the free market in many ways is just acknowledgment that it > must exist and that is the best alternative to socialism or other economic > systems. The answer to the second part of your question is obvious. Actually, it isn't obvious. I refer you to debates about the necessity of state regulation in constituting "free markets." ~Actually it is obvious; if a given philosophy recognizes that the best possible economic system is the free market (as does libertarianism) then this philosophy would necessarily reject government regulation of the free market. > Throughout political discussions, > particularly in North America, the term liberal has become synonymous with > welfare liberal. In North America, yes. Elsewhere, no. But I believe your own comments support that. Regards, Dan | Columbia Political Science | www.columbia.edu/~dhn2 "Everyone who has had a referee get the argument of his or her paper directly backward has wondered about calling it 'peer' review." -- Arthur L. Stinchcombe. From Jason.Jarvis Tue Jul 17 09:51:29 2001 From: Jason.Jarvis (Jason.Jarvis at asu.edu) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 07:51:29 -0700 (MST) Subject: Topic one In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > The only thing that really concerns me about topic one is the lack of > literature depth on individual tribes. Mike Hester backchanneled me (or > maybe he sent it to everyone; I don't know) a good point that probably the > best literature isn't available at a lot of universities, and probably is > with the tribes themselves. This may be a serious disadvantage to topic > one, but one that I still think is worth the risk given the alternatives. > > I wonder why this seems to be worth the risk to you? If our topic excludes some of the primary voices in the literature (Leonard Peltier for example) then WHY would we want to debate this topic area? It seems to me that the educational value of this topic will be sacrificed in the name of competitive predictability. I think that this is a poor trade off. The literature itself will provide some checks on the topical affirmatives for either #2 or #3. I am also concerned that real competitive equity will be crushed when students attempt to find literature on the topic and run into the problems that Hester discussed in doing research. The risk of ignoring the majority of the literature on problems facing Native Americans seems far to high to justify a ballot for the recognition topic. .02, Jason From dhn2 Tue Jul 17 09:55:57 2001 From: dhn2 (Daniel Hugh Nexon) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 10:55:57 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Lawrence's concerns... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 17 Jul 2001, Michael Sawyer wrote: > ~I'm not saying that liberal was formerly used to describe the philosophy of > Hayek and such. Liberalism used to mean and still can mean a wide variety > of political philosophies. In its earliest and purest form, liberalism was > simply a reaction to state-mandated religions (along with other > state-mandated social practices). It was a philosophy which sought a > certain neutrality so that people with differing views could peacefully > coexist. Now liberalism has obviously been refined and changed since that > time. I am claiming that there are two divergent forms of liberalism: > classical and welfare. Liberal was not previously a synonym for classical > liberal; rather it meant a wide variety of philosophies. In its earliest and "purest" form, liberalism was a term of denigration used against those who advocated the basic equality of human beings before God and polity, and generally supported contractarian notions of government. That's why "liberal" applied equally to Thomas Hobbes (no opponent of state mandated religion) and John Locke (who eventually advocated a qualified tolerance of religious differences). In the radical writings of seventeenth century England, these views came into alignment with theories of resistence against governments (particularly monarchies) that had developed in the sixteenth century in France and diffused throough the Netherlands into Britain. It also, in some hands, took on a radical anti-establishmentarianist position that came to equate the institutions of the high church with the authority of the state itself. The picture is extremely complicated--too complicated to discuss here but not reducible to the idea that the earliest and purist form of liberalism was simply the toleration of religious differences. > ~This is basically answered above. The distillation of liberal into welfare > liberal only truly occured with the advent of Rawls. Even if this is true--and there is a decent case for you being right, at least in terms of the recognition of such a "distillation" in certain circles--you have yet to demonstrate the _causal_ connection between this and the rise of "academic liberalism." As Les makes a strong (and true) case for, liberalism had already expanded to include welfare policies by the 1940s. Were Rawls' ideas so powerful that they not only radically altered the terms of debate, but led to a broad 'conversion' of academics? That's the critical issue. > ~I arrive at such generalizations based on what I have been taught and what > I have read. Whenever I read contemporary European political philosophy, > they will use the term liberal when they clearly mean libertarian. If you > don't agree with me, I don't care. I'm not sure they "clearly mean libertarian." Liberal is frequently used as interchangebale with what I have called "economic liberalism," but once we raise the term "libertarian" we invoke a whole set of other questions (free will, radical anti-statism, minarchism, and so forth) that I don't think are generally what European political theorists mean when they speak of liberalism. Regards, Dan | Columbia Political Science | www.columbia.edu/~dhn2 "Everyone who has had a referee get the argument of his or her paper directly backward has wondered about calling it 'peer' review." -- Arthur L. Stinchcombe. From amtauber Tue Jul 17 09:56:23 2001 From: amtauber (Alan Tauber) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 07:56:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: P. McKenzie's comments on language Message-ID: <14439322.995381783301.JavaMail.imail@puffer> For once I have to disagree with my good friend Matt Stannard. While I understand the problems of patriarchy in our society (or at least I try to) I feel uncomfortable rejecting any person or their ideas, based simply on their wordchoice. To do so would lead to ludicrous results. For instance, I'm sure somewhere in his writings Einstein reffered to "mankind." Is this a reason to reject what he says? Does E no longer equal MC squared because he said it? Of course not. But often times, this is what I'm being asked to vote on when people critique the language choice of others. Just because someone refers to woMAN or perSON (don't want to priviledge the male descendent) doesn't mean that what they have to say is valueless. ((HUGE DISCLAIMER: I am NOT saying this is Matt's argument. I'm saying that those who utilize the same line of thinking as Matt have made this argument.)) I especially love it when it is suggested that a team should lose because their AUTHORS use gendered language. I don't see it as my place to alter what someone else said if I'm representing it as their work (which every debater does when they give a cite). And if we were to reject people for their use of gendered language, then we'd have to start with Matt. Look at this snippet from his last post: On Mon, 16 Jul 2001 23:07:53 -0600, matt stannard wrote: > > As you can tell, this pushes my irritant > >buttons because the implication is that the very act of discourse about > >certain things is intrinsically bad. > > I am not sure what you mean. I didn't think it was a question of subject > matter, but rather a question of language choice. Again, I don't see why > your condemnation (with accompanying point reduction) of a debater saying > "their arguments are fucking bullshit" is any less an enforcement of > "political correctness" than a different critic's objection to the use of > the word "mankind" to describe humankind. Care to explain why it's okay for > you to dock points under these circumstances? > Specifically, he uses humankind. huMANkind. That's just as gendered, it would seem. Rejecting someone because of their language choices (or non-choices as the case may be, I think most folks don't consciously use gendered langauage. It's just years of habit) is the same as saying "I won' vote on political disads" or "I don't vote on kritiks". It's just plain wrong to exclude any discourse. I'm with Voltaire on this one: "I may disagree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." Peace, Alan P.S. Matt, your still the man. =0) _______________________________________________________ Send a cool gift with your E-Card http://www.bluemountain.com/giftcenter/ From DaveAnt420 Tue Jul 17 09:56:43 2001 From: DaveAnt420 (DaveAnt420 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 10:56:43 EDT Subject: Balloting/Resolution questions Message-ID: <8f.d574cef.2885ac2b@aol.com> In a message dated 07/17/2001 8:42:09 AM Mountain Daylight Time, woodss at william.jewell.edu writes: << My question is, when did the idea that there would be five resolutions, which would be a mix of both policy ahd value, get changed to seperate categories for each, and you vote for each? Was that a procedure that was voted on by the membership or the result of topic committee fiat? I know it has been like that previously, but I didn't really think about the change until this year when the value resolutions are so clearly superior to the policy ones. >> Voting for five, which were to be a mix of value and policy, was a CEDA thang. Giving that up was the only thing CEDA gave up when it had the topic merger with NDT. NDT said they'd let the CEDA machinery choose the topic, as long as it wasn't a value topic. That's how Tuna explained it at the CEDA Nats Business meeting where we voted to share a topic with NDT and effectively eliminate value topics. Bear From dhn2 Tue Jul 17 10:07:32 2001 From: dhn2 (Daniel Hugh Nexon) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 11:07:32 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Lawrence's concerns... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 17 Jul 2001, Michael Sawyer wrote: > ~fine, to me classical liberals and libertarians are basically synonymous. This is a common rhetorical trope among libertarians. I don't think its particularly accurate, largely because libertarian conceptions of liberty and autonomy are generally more expansive than those held by many (but not all) "classical liberals." Libertarianism is _one_ descendent of classical liberalism, but so is what you call "welfare liberalism." One other point: while you're description of Mill is somewhat accurate, you've described his views on utilitarianism in a manner more fitting of Bentham than of Mill. > ~Actually it is obvious; if a given philosophy recognizes that the best > possible economic system is the free market (as does libertarianism) then > this philosophy would necessarily reject government regulation of the free > market. This question is complicated by the role of the government in establishing the conditions for the "free market" in the first place. See Polanyi's critique of the ideal of the self-regulating market, for instance. Regards, Dan | Columbia Political Science | www.columbia.edu/~dhn2 "Everyone who has had a referee get the argument of his or her paper directly backward has wondered about calling it 'peer' review." -- Arthur L. Stinchcombe. From cisneros_jd Tue Jul 17 10:18:46 2001 From: cisneros_jd (David Cisneros) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 11:18:46 -0400 Subject: P. McKenzie's comments on language Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010717/10676ff0/attachment.html From stannardmatt Tue Jul 17 10:37:24 2001 From: stannardmatt (matt stannard) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 09:37:24 -0600 Subject: P. McKenzie's comments on language Message-ID: Nobody, including my endearing little brother Alan, is answering the central question of my (reluctant) post from last night. There is no difference between punishing a team for saying "Their arguments are fucking bullshit" and punishing a team for using gender-specific language that conflates "man" and the rest of humanity (or humynity if you prefer). Just because Patrick can't tell me the difference doesn't make me a relativist (Patrick's arguments are about as sophisticated as the behavior patterns of Luke Stricker's dog Haley--I am getting a headache trying to find the actual substance of his or ANYONE'S arguments on this thread). Frankly, I am perfectly content to let the conservatives blow off a little steam on the listserve if it keeps them from peeking into my living room. What Alan misses and Patrick just drools on ignoring is that I don't personally advocate punishing a team for language choices or errors. I just wanted to know why our friend the attorney thinks it's acceptable to punish teams for language that offends HIM, while others cannot do the same thing. Personally I like inclusive language and think it's important, but I don't pretend to have the last word on the matter. Y'all keep forgetting that I am an economic determinist, not a discursive determinist. ;) stannard _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From kel1773 Tue Jul 17 11:24:24 2001 From: kel1773 (kel1773) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 11:24:24 -0500 Subject: CP's on # 3/movements References: <00af01c10e4c$46e990e0$0902a8c0@thinslim.ln> Message-ID: <005301c10edc$f2e87880$95d3e641@oemcomputer> Part of the problem historically with movement arguments as disadvantages is the structure of the argument. I was on a Central States Communication Association panel with Martin Harris a couple of years ago where he addressed this issue (and hope he might expand his arguments here). Basically, he argues that even when in disad form, the argument takes on counterplan-like burdens that the judge perceives. Essentially, the link acts as the Competitiveness and the Impacts act as solvency. This places a fairly high burden of proof on the negative team running this disad, which doesn't exist necessarily with other disads. Plus, the points brought up by Coop and Varda illustrate the difficulty in proving "solvency" for the disad. An additional problem with movement arguments is that to gain better solvency than the affirmative or to gain an impact that is larger than the affirmative, the negative must win that other movements are merging and that the particular movement you are debating is critical to the success of the coalescence. That is a tough debate to win. It is also the part of the debate that is largely ignored in most modern movement disad/c. plan debates. I agree with everyone else that there doesn't seem to be a bias against the argument, but any movement debate brings a host of burdens and unique issues that make it a tough position to win. Kelly Young Thanks for your response, Coop (and those that offered opinions via backchanneling me). I agree with your assessment of fiat being an imagining of possible ideas/actions, and that it often takes on additional baggage. However, I am not really so concerned about the issue of "fiating" the action of a movement, as much as I am wondering why movements positions in general are not looked favorably upon. If this is not the case, then I haven't received an entirely clear picture. Perhaps the assumed lack of support is due to the very issue of fiating voluntary action, but I was under the assumption that the concerns were based more on the issue of a movement's ability to solve the case harms. This would seem especially true since you can't really fiat solvency. Is there a bias against movements positions because they are assumed to lack sufficient solvency power, or does it stem from the "fiating of individual voluntary action"? Or, does a bias against movements positions really exist? It seems that there has always been objections to "utopian" movements positions, but is that simply because their method of solvency is usually on the lean side, or is it because of an inability (or unwillingness) to "imagine" such an alternative? Is it because they are not solidly based in the "policy" world, nor solidly based in the "kritical" world? I guess I'm just looking for some of the concrete reasons that movements positions may be objectionable to some. If this is simply not the case, then I apologize for wasting time on the issue. Sat Nam, Korry "We are all poor because we are all honest." Red Dog (Oglala Sioux) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010717/fae80251/attachment.htm From Kcmoattorney Tue Jul 17 11:50:56 2001 From: Kcmoattorney (Kcmoattorney at cs.com) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 12:50:56 EDT Subject: P. McKenzie's comments on language Message-ID: <11c.1c69146.2885c6f0@cs.com> In a message dated 7/17/01 12:08:03 AM Central Daylight Time, stannardmatt at hotmail.com writes: > >I've seen people lose more than speaker points over it, with debaters > >arguing > >for, and getting decisions because of it. > > Seems to me that arguing it out and being willing to debate it is a good > thing, not a bad thing, regardless of your personal views on the issue. > > That kind of depends on what you mean by "it." What I don't like to see, and what I complained about in my post was rounds where one side totally leaves the topic debate and the arguments in the round and asserts decision criteria which revolve around the *manner* in which their opponents made their arguments instead of the substance of the arguments. Sure, debates break down all the time into ideological clashes, and that's great. Arguing that you should win a round notwithstanding the fact you're getting your butt kicked on the merits, because one of the opposing speakers mistakenly called you a "he" a few times or advanced a position that you take to be racist is what I have a problem with. >>This was another thing that was starting to poke it's ugly head up in CEDA >about the time I last debated (89-90) Been a while, huh? << Yeah, a bit, but I've been "around" the activity in the interim as a coach and occasional critic. >>Funny how you feel very comfortable with your standard of what constitutes acceptable and unacceptable discourse--comfortable enough to "whack speaker points" over a cuss word rather than sexist language. I ain't criticizing you for that--that's your call. But what's the difference between your call and someone else's call?>> Note I said "needlessly profane." I was no saint when I did this, and am not one now. "Fucking bullshit" will not get your points whacked on my ballot. Calling your opponents "Fucking idiots" probably will. IMO, points are the exclusive province of the critic, and you're right, everyone has different standards and idiosyncracies. Some judges I know *will* drop you for saying "fucking" anything. >>How are >the debaters supposed to know this? Judging philosophies? Or how about they get in the habit of using inclusive language? In my experience, I saw plenty of judges say they did or didn't buy various theory arguments or T or whatever, but didn't see much or any "I won't vote on affirmative action turns" or "I'll dock your speaker points if you use masculine pronouns." Every critic has the right to have their own opinions and judge persona. I wholeheartedly agree with you that judging philosophies *should* put people on notice of these things. >>Ah...I already see indications that your judgment of this "liberally biased" community leads you to pre-judge our responses. Sigh. I haven't been on this listserv that long, but it seems some people here have a very short fuse on these issues. I also know that I have received probably 20+ emails in support of my raising the issues in these posts. Every person to take issue with me has cc'd eDebate, nobody on the "other side" did. All, completely, FWIW, and not intended as a generalization. Chris Cushman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010717/19ab3ab5/attachment.html From stannardmatt Tue Jul 17 12:06:21 2001 From: stannardmatt (matt stannard) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 11:06:21 -0600 Subject: P. McKenzie's comments on language Message-ID: Chris's last post was very reasonable. He recognizes that one's linguistic preferences regarding speaker point penalization are the province of the judge in question, and that it's desirable that these preferences (and the consequences of violating them) be made known to the debaters beforehand. I still don't see why it's acceptable to reduce speaker points for calling opponents "fucking idiots" but not for other violations of (all essentially subjective) linguistic ethics. But I am glad this discussion moved beyond the "vast left wing conspiracy" tone of earlier posts. stannard PS--the reason Ayn Rand isn't popular is that her work sucks. Duh. _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From nkhwdebate Tue Jul 17 17:06:50 2001 From: nkhwdebate (Natalie's Debate) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 17:06:50 Subject: P. McKenzie's comments on language Message-ID: maybe its me, but I am not quite sure of the harm differentials between calling an opponent a "fucking idiot" and calling a female opponent "he" or utilizing "mankind" for a description of all persons. In the first one, I'm acknowledged to at least be part of the debate round, in the second example, linguistically I am not. Wouldn't Mr. Cushner's justification for automatically dropping a team based upon a comment that could be personally insulting also be a justification for dropping a team based on a comment.....that could be personally insulting? :) Natalie Vandy Debate >From: Kcmoattorney at cs.com >To: stannardmatt at HOTMAIL.COM, edebate at ndtceda.com >Subject: Re: P. McKenzie's comments on language >Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 12:50:56 EDT > >In a message dated 7/17/01 12:08:03 AM Central Daylight Time, >stannardmatt at hotmail.com writes: > > > > >I've seen people lose more than speaker points over it, with debaters > > >arguing > > >for, and getting decisions because of it. > > > > Seems to me that arguing it out and being willing to debate it is a good > > thing, not a bad thing, regardless of your personal views on the issue. > > > > > >That kind of depends on what you mean by "it." What I don't like to see, >and >what I complained about in my post was rounds where one side totally leaves >the topic debate and the arguments in the round and asserts decision >criteria >which revolve around the *manner* in which their opponents made their >arguments instead of the substance of the arguments. Sure, debates break >down all the time into ideological clashes, and that's great. Arguing that >you should win a round notwithstanding the fact you're getting your butt >kicked on the merits, because one of the opposing speakers mistakenly >called >you a "he" a few times or advanced a position that you take to be racist is >what I have a problem with. > > >>This was another thing that was starting to poke it's ugly head up in >CEDA > >about the time I last debated (89-90) > >Been a while, huh? ><< > >Yeah, a bit, but I've been "around" the activity in the interim as a coach >and occasional critic. > > > >>Funny how you feel very comfortable with your standard of what >constitutes >acceptable and unacceptable discourse--comfortable enough to "whack speaker >points" over a cuss word rather than sexist language. I ain't criticizing >you for that--that's your call. But what's the difference between your >call >and someone else's call?>> > >Note I said "needlessly profane." I was no saint when I did this, and am >not >one now. "Fucking bullshit" will not get your points whacked on my ballot. >Calling your opponents "Fucking idiots" probably will. IMO, points are the >exclusive province of the critic, and you're right, everyone has different >standards and idiosyncracies. Some judges I know *will* drop you for >saying >"fucking" anything. > > >>How are > >the debaters supposed to know this? >Judging philosophies? Or how about they get in the habit of using >inclusive >language? > >In my experience, I saw plenty of judges say they did or didn't buy >various >theory arguments or T or whatever, but didn't see much or any "I won't vote >on affirmative action turns" or "I'll dock your speaker points if you use >masculine pronouns." > Every critic has the right to have their own opinions and judge persona. >I >wholeheartedly agree with you that judging philosophies *should* put people >on notice of these things. > > > >>Ah...I already see indications that your judgment of this "liberally >biased" >community leads you to pre-judge our responses. Sigh. > >I haven't been on this listserv that long, but it seems some people here >have >a very short fuse on these issues. I also know that I have received >probably >20+ emails in support of my raising the issues in these posts. Every >person >to take issue with me has cc'd eDebate, nobody on the "other side" did. >All, >completely, FWIW, and not intended as a generalization. > >Chris Cushman _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From veronica_m_barreto Tue Jul 17 12:12:55 2001 From: veronica_m_barreto (Veronica Barreto) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 13:12:55 -0400 Subject: P. McKenzie's comments on language Message-ID: >That kind of depends on what you mean by "it." What I don't like to see, >and >what I complained about in my post was rounds where one side totally leaves >the topic debate and the arguments in the round and asserts decision >criteria >which revolve around the *manner* in which their opponents made their >arguments instead of the substance of the arguments. Sure, debates break >down all the time into ideological clashes, and that's great. Arguing that >you should win a round notwithstanding the fact you're getting your butt >kicked on the merits, because one of the opposing speakers mistakenly >called >you a "he" a few times or advanced a position that you take to be racist is >what I have a problem with. > OH! as opposed to glorified A-Spec, and T "substantially" debates. I personally never ran a linguisitic criticism during my debate career, but when I saw teams win with it (consistently) it was because the argument was well structured and researched. It was never a merely I got called a "he" so they should lose, but rather your author invokes the generic "he" and then employ other specific evidenced indicts against the author to prove that his/hers patriarchal worldview affects her/his conclusions. That type of debate is just as legitimate as any other well substantiated attack on evidence. I don't think it ignores the substance of the debate...it is the substance. As a result of the PIC revolution, nobody debates the topic anymore anyways, people debate what they want to debate, as it should be. I also disagree with the sentiment that there is a presumption towards these arguments. Check the archives -- there are very long intense threads on the concept of "mea culpa" and linguistic criticism. Can someone stand up and say "my bad"? I don't think that debate is anywhere near being settled. There are also coercion turns to linguistic criticisms as well as take outs to the indict argument. If you're not sorry, don't apologize but at the very least explain why it shouldn't impact the debate. Just like in life, ignoring arguments don't make them go away. Veronica _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From Kcmoattorney Tue Jul 17 12:59:02 2001 From: Kcmoattorney (Kcmoattorney at cs.com) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 13:59:02 EDT Subject: P. McKenzie's comments on language Message-ID: <11a.1bb71a5.2885d6e6@cs.com> In a message dated 7/17/01 12:07:11 PM Central Daylight Time, nkhwdebate at hotmail.com writes: > Wouldn't Mr. Cushner's justification for > automatically dropping a team based upon a comment that could be personally > insulting also be a justification for dropping a team based on a > comment.....that could be personally insulting? > > Actually, I would never *drop* a team for insulting comments, and that was part of my original point. The issue there was what I would and would not dock speaker points for. I suppose this, as everything ultimately is, a matter of individual judge persona. I understand that anything can and will insult and infuriate at least somebody sometime. I concede that somebody may be as offended by being mistakenly called "he" as by being called a "fucking idiot" but the percentages have got to be pretty slim. The mistaken use of the wrong pronoun is almost always accidental or inadvertent, especially at the high rates of speed common to debate rounds, while the "fucking idiot" comment is always intentional and malicious. That is the difference as far as I am concerned. BTW, I'm not interested in a flame war on this argument, but just a thought to throw out: Far from denying a woman's existence, wouldn't the mistaken use of the masculine pronoun give the inference that the offending debater sees the female opponent as gender-neutral, just another opponent? (Which is probably what she wants anyway - to be considered a "competitior" *without* regard to her gender?) Chris Cushman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010717/ee98d047/attachment.htm From Mikedavis13 Tue Jul 17 13:04:40 2001 From: Mikedavis13 (Mikedavis13 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 14:04:40 EDT Subject: P. McKenzie's comments on language Message-ID: <125.1c841c1.2885d838@aol.com> I'm just curious about why gender exclusive language arguments are liberal arguments. I am not sure what part of a conservative political ideology would say that we should use inaccurate terms to describe individuals. I think one of the largest problems with Mr. McKenzie's post is that it assumes that those who use gender exclusive language are all conservatives. Voted for Bush last year and also voted on gender exclusive language (am I conservative or liberal), Mike "Baseball isn't just in the stats. As much as anything else, baseball is the style of a Willie Mays, or the determination of a Hank Aaron, or the endurance of a Mickey Mantle, the discipline of Carl Yastrzemski, the drive of Eddie Mathews, the reliability of a (Al) Kaline or a (Joe) Morgan, the grace of a DiMaggio, the kindness of a Harmon Killebrew, and the class of Stan Musial, the courage of a Jackie Robinson, or the heroism of Lou Gehrig. My hope for the game is that these qualities will never be lost. Whatever else changes, even if the same nine innings run longer and the fly balls farther, those values are still what make the boys and girls into fans, and players into legends." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010717/4eed7a60/attachment.html From Kcmoattorney Tue Jul 17 13:08:04 2001 From: Kcmoattorney (Kcmoattorney at cs.com) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 14:08:04 EDT Subject: P. McKenzie's comments on language Message-ID: <92.178453c7.2885d904@cs.com> In a message dated 7/17/01 12:13:16 PM Central Daylight Time, veronica_m_barreto at hotmail.com writes: > It was never a merely I got called a "he" > so they should lose, but rather your author invokes the generic "he" and > then employ other specific evidenced indicts against the author to prove > that his/hers patriarchal worldview affects her/his conclusions I think we're on the same page here. If someone argues *with appropriate support* that a particular author's conclusions are suspect due to his/her particular use of the language and worldview, that *is* an appropriate source critique, IMO, and coupled with evidence on the contrary position, would be a strong reason to believe one source over another. That kind of thing is well within what I would consider a debate on the merits. However, I think the comments here are bearing out that debates *are* occasionally won and lost on extrinsic language criticisms. That's what bothers me. Chris Cushman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010717/7abf9d5d/attachment.htm From tgonos Tue Jul 17 13:01:25 2001 From: tgonos (Tracy Gonos) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 14:01:25 -0400 Subject: P. McKenzie's comments on language Message-ID: Veronica has covered most of what I would add to this thread. One additional point, however. Chris says: >>what I complained about in my post was rounds where one side totally >>leaves the topic debate and the arguments in the round and asserts >> decision >>criteria which revolve around the *manner* in which their opponents made >>their arguments instead of the substance of the arguments. I would respond that when the most talented debaters choose to do what Chris describes here they always provide an argumentative justification for doing so. (e.g. fiat is illusory, the author's worldview undermines her/his credibility, etc.) As Veronica says, an opposing debater must deal with the subtance of that argumentative justification; s/he cannot simply ignore it or complain that it just isn't fair without providing some argumentative justification of their own. Further, as every debate coach drills into their debaters, it is imperative to make strategic choices if one expects to win a debate. In a sexist language debate it may be necessary to abandon all other arguments and just go for the language kritik if one expects to actually win on that argument. This is no different than many other arguments. I was taught that if you are going for topicality you should almost always abandon all your other arguments and go only for topicality in the 2NR. I see no reason why it should be objectionable to do so in a sexist language debate, but not in a topicality debate. On a final note, I sense that many of those posting on the "discourse kritiks" bad side of this discussion tend to believe that the "liberal" debate critics are mindless automatons who check all their knowledge of argumentation and academic policy debate at the door and instead cast knee-jerk ballots for whichever team gives their political idealogy the best stroking. I can think of no other interpretation to put on that Bush joke v. calling the president a "he" nonsense. Other examples given were that it was impossible to win affirmative action bad, and another example given was abortion bad. Personally, I fundamentally disagree with these positions, yet I have voted for such arguments in debate rounds on numerous occasions. Conversely, I have heard sexist language kritiks argued many times and have voted for that argument exactly once - and I am an ardent feminist who believes so strongly in women's rights and inclusion that I have made it my career. I suggest that those coaches and debaters who find these sorts of argument so objectionable simply learn how to defeat them on the merits. Afterall, if these arguments are as awful as some are making them out to be shouldn't any "halfway competent" debater be able to beat them head on? Tracy > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Veronica Barreto > To: ; ; > Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2001 1:12 PM > Subject: Re: P. McKenzie's comments on language > > > > > > >That kind of depends on what you mean by "it." What I don't like to see, > > >and > > >what I complained about in my post was rounds where one side totally > leaves > > >the topic debate and the arguments in the round and asserts decision > > >criteria > > >which revolve around the *manner* in which their opponents made their > > >arguments instead of the substance of the arguments. Sure, debates break > > >down all the time into ideological clashes, and that's great. Arguing > that > > >you should win a round notwithstanding the fact you're getting your butt > > >kicked on the merits, because one of the opposing speakers mistakenly > > >called > > >you a "he" a few times or advanced a position that you take to be racist > is > > >what I have a problem with. > > > > > > > OH! as opposed to glorified A-Spec, and T "substantially" debates. > > > > I personally never ran a linguisitic criticism during my debate career, > but > > when I saw teams win with it (consistently) it was because the argument > was > > well structured and researched. It was never a merely I got called a "he" > > so they should lose, but rather your author invokes the generic "he" and > > then employ other specific evidenced indicts against the author to prove > > that his/hers patriarchal worldview affects her/his conclusions. That type > > of debate is just as legitimate as any other well substantiated attack on > > evidence. I don't think it ignores the substance of the debate...it is the > > substance. As a result of the PIC revolution, nobody debates the topic > > anymore anyways, people debate what they want to debate, as it should be. > > > > I also disagree with the sentiment that there is a presumption towards > these > > arguments. Check the archives -- there are very long intense threads on > the > > concept of "mea culpa" and linguistic criticism. Can someone stand up and > > say "my bad"? I don't think that debate is anywhere near being settled. > > There are also coercion turns to linguistic criticisms as well as take > outs > > to the indict argument. If you're not sorry, don't apologize but at the > > very least explain why it shouldn't impact the debate. Just like in life, > > ignoring arguments don't make them go away. > > > > Veronica > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com > > > > > From veronica_m_barreto Tue Jul 17 13:23:27 2001 From: veronica_m_barreto (Veronica Barreto) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 14:23:27 -0400 Subject: P. McKenzie's comments on language Message-ID: Chris offers: >wouldn't the mistaken use of the masculine pronoun give the inference >that >the offending debater sees the female opponent as gender-neutral, >just >another opponent? No. I used to think along such dangerous lines until one particular experience I had. I had a 1AR keep referring to all of my argumentation as "he/his" Now I had enough problems flowing then to start yelling at people during their speeches too. I thought it was forgiveable given that I was debating with a male and that the 1AR could easily confuse the division of the block. I figured I would just spend some time disparaging his observation skills jokingly during prep time and that would be the end of it, but my partner insisted on yelling "she" whenever the 1AR used a mistaken pronoun. I have to say I neither appreciated my partner's paternalistic yelling for me after I asked him to stop nor did I appreciate what became intentional exclusionary language. Once his 1AR ended, the debater looked me up and down from head to toe like a cow hanging from a meat hook and said "Sorry couldn't tell" and continued to make other remarks about my appearance which made little sense. Was it my breasts or waist long hair or dress, heels and stockings or long manicured nails that confused him? I'll never know, but even if I was flat chested and my hair close cropped and I asked to be called Bob, if I identify myself as a woman, such subject positioning should be respected. In the end, his remarks did nothing but enrage me and resulted in a 2NR on T that made his 2AR wish he'd never been born. I no longer assume that use of the ?generic? "he" is ever innocent, unintentional or gender-neutral, for one reason and one reason only...because IT ISN'T. Veronica >From: Kcmoattorney at cs.com >To: nkhwdebate at HOTMAIL.COM, edebate at ndtceda.com >Subject: Re: P. McKenzie's comments on language >Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 13:59:02 EDT > >In a message dated 7/17/01 12:07:11 PM Central Daylight Time, >nkhwdebate at hotmail.com writes: > > > > Wouldn't Mr. Cushner's justification for > > automatically dropping a team based upon a comment that could be >personally > > insulting also be a justification for dropping a team based on a > > comment.....that could be personally insulting? > > > > > >Actually, I would never *drop* a team for insulting comments, and that was >part of my original point. The issue there was what I would and would not >dock speaker points for. I suppose this, as everything ultimately is, a >matter of individual judge persona. I understand that anything can and >will >insult and infuriate at least somebody sometime. I concede that somebody >may >be as offended by being mistakenly called "he" as by being called a >"fucking >idiot" but the percentages have got to be pretty slim. The mistaken use of >the wrong pronoun is almost always accidental or inadvertent, especially at >the high rates of speed common to debate rounds, while the "fucking idiot" >comment is always intentional and malicious. That is the difference as far >as I am concerned. > >BTW, I'm not interested in a flame war on this argument, but just a thought >to throw out: Far from denying a woman's existence, wouldn't the mistaken >use of the masculine pronoun give the inference that the offending debater >sees the female opponent as gender-neutral, just another opponent? (Which >is >probably what she wants anyway - to be considered a "competitior" *without* >regard to her gender?) > >Chris Cushman _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From tgonos Tue Jul 17 13:32:29 2001 From: tgonos (Tracy Gonos) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 14:32:29 -0400 Subject: P. McKenzie's comments on language Message-ID: I really hate to pick on a fellow 'roo, but ... I'm not sure you and Veronica are on exactly the same page. You don't respond to her rather obvious (which is why it is so good) point that debates are frequently not about the substance of the arguments - do you object to debates being decided only by topicality arguments, fiat abuse arguments, or other purely theoretical arguments? If not, why are you so bothered by debates being about language choice instead of the substantive arguments that the debate began with? Is it not ok for debates to be won or lost on "extrinsic language criticisms" but ok for them to be won or lost on "extrinsic" t debates, fiat debates, etc.? Additionally, if you think "he" is so generic, try using "she" as your preferred "generic" pronoun and see how freaked out all the men (and sometimes women too) involved in the discussion get. See if they become any more accepting of your decision to use "she" as your generic pronoun once you explain to them that you really do mean to include them when you say "she." It's quite a fun experiment. I've done it several times at institutes and in my classroom teaching and it's always been an incredibly useful starting point for discussions about gender exclusive language. Tracy ----- Original Message ----- From: Kcmoattorney at cs.com To: veronica_m_barreto at HOTMAIL.COM ; edebate at ndtceda.com Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2001 2:08 PM Subject: Re: P. McKenzie's comments on language In a message dated 7/17/01 12:13:16 PM Central Daylight Time, veronica_m_barreto at hotmail.com writes: It was never a merely I got called a "he" so they should lose, but rather your author invokes the generic "he" and then employ other specific evidenced indicts against the author to prove that his/hers patriarchal worldview affects her/his conclusions I think we're on the same page here. If someone argues *with appropriate support* that a particular author's conclusions are suspect due to his/her particular use of the language and worldview, that *is* an appropriate source critique, IMO, and coupled with evidence on the contrary position, would be a strong reason to believe one source over another. That kind of thing is well within what I would consider a debate on the merits. However, I think the comments here are bearing out that debates *are* occasionally won and lost on extrinsic language criticisms. That's what bothers me. Chris Cushman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010717/2e97d55d/attachment.html From swhalen Tue Jul 17 13:50:06 2001 From: swhalen (Shawn T Whalen) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 11:50:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Balloting/Resolution questions In-Reply-To: <8f.d574cef.2885ac2b@aol.com> Message-ID: I'm not sure when the last "value" topic appeared intermingled with policy topics, but I suspect that the division reflected in the current ballot was the result of by-law amendments that created the "non-policy" division at CEDA Nationals. Shawn Whalen Director of Forensics San Francisco State University swhalen at sfsu.edu (415) 338-1097 On Tue, 17 Jul 2001 DaveAnt420 at aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 07/17/2001 8:42:09 AM Mountain Daylight Time, > woodss at william.jewell.edu writes: > > << My question is, when did the idea that there would be five resolutions, > which would be a mix of both policy ahd value, get changed to seperate > categories for each, and you vote for each? Was that a procedure that was > voted on by the membership or the result of topic committee fiat? I know it > has been like that previously, but I didn't really think about the change > until this year when the value resolutions are so clearly superior to the > policy ones. > >> > > Voting for five, which were to be a mix of value and policy, was a CEDA > thang. Giving that up was the only thing CEDA gave up when it had the topic > merger with NDT. NDT said they'd let the CEDA machinery choose the topic, as > long as it wasn't a value topic. That's how Tuna explained it at the CEDA > Nats Business meeting where we voted to share a topic with NDT and > effectively eliminate value topics. > > Bear > > From DaveAnt420 Tue Jul 17 14:12:04 2001 From: DaveAnt420 (DaveAnt420 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 15:12:04 EDT Subject: P. McKenzie's comments on language Message-ID: In a message dated 7/17/01 12:25:10 PM Mountain Daylight Time, veronica_m_barreto at hotmail.com writes: > I no longer > assume that use of the ?generic? "he" is ever innocent, unintentional or > gender-neutral, for one reason and one reason only...because IT ISN'T. > > Veronica On the other hand, I've heard very respected coaches and critics suggest that one NEVER use the pronoun "HE" in a debate, due to the risk of unintentional application and the severe penalties now common to it's missapplied use. Why is this a preferable course of action? Aren't we just replacing one form of prejudice for another? Curious, Bear, promising to be as receptive to misapplied "her"'s as well as "he"'s... From Kcmoattorney Tue Jul 17 14:26:43 2001 From: Kcmoattorney (Kcmoattorney at cs.com) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 15:26:43 EDT Subject: language and debates Message-ID: <45.9395739.2885eb73@cs.com> In a message dated 7/17/01 2:09:18 PM Central Daylight Time, MAILER-DAEMON at aol.com writes: > veronica_m_barreto at hotmail.com writes: > > > >> I no longer >> assume that use of the ?generic? "he" is ever innocent, unintentional or >> gender-neutral, for one reason and one reason only...because IT ISN'T. >> >> > > There are going to be some oafs in any endeavor. I, for what it's worth, > have called a male debater "she" in the same scenario (mixed team arguing > the > block). Everyone had a good laugh afterwards and went about their > business. > After a couple of reminders, if the person is still doing it, then you're > right, it has crossed the line into being intentional, and thump him if you > feel like it. I wouldn't drop a team over your scenario, but maybe the 15 > points or so he got would make him think about it next time. > > Chris Cushman > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010717/c92cb4e1/attachment.htm From veronica_m_barreto Tue Jul 17 14:30:09 2001 From: veronica_m_barreto (Veronica Barreto) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 15:30:09 -0400 Subject: P. McKenzie's comments on language Message-ID: Bear mentions: >On the other hand, I've heard very respected coaches and critics suggest >that one NEVER use the pronoun "HE" in a debate, due to the risk of >unintentional application and the severe penalties now common to it's >missapplied use. Why is this a preferable course of action? Aren't we just >replacing one form of prejudice for another? > >Curious, > >Bear, >promising to be as receptive to misapplied "her"'s as well as "he"'s... I remember this coming up on the list a while back and I do happen to recall those who came out saying that they had coached their debaters to use the generic "she" and I vividly recall your response, with which I agree. The proposition of generic gendered pronouns is ridiculous. Once you acknowlege that neither of the terminology is generic, then it follows that it is unacceptable to misapply either. As a debater, I always spoke to my opponents directly saying "your argument" which is no less word economical and easier than remembering who took what in the block. I won't say that blunders won't happen or that I never made them but there are multiple ways to rectify that and that is definitely up for debate -- immediate change of pronoun use, the apology, the points, the loss. This is where Tracy's earlier post applies. It's just like any other impact debate -- the critic's discretion is up for grabs and it's up to the debaters to persuade her/him to ajudicate the debate the way in which they would prefer. Regardless, I think it's at least noteworthy to acknowlege both sides of "generic" pronoun misplacement. Veronica Bear's ex-Japan-labee exactly 4 years ago :) _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From diecapitalsm Tue Jul 17 14:49:09 2001 From: diecapitalsm (Aaron J. Lyttle) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 12:49:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: P. McKenzie's comments on language In-Reply-To: <11a.1bb71a5.2885d6e6@cs.com> Message-ID: <20010717194909.61337.qmail@web13304.mail.yahoo.com> --- Kcmoattorney at cs.com wrote: > BTW, I'm not interested in a flame war on this > argument, but just a thought > to throw out: Far from denying a woman's existence, > wouldn't the mistaken > use of the masculine pronoun give the inference that > the offending debater > sees the female opponent as gender-neutral, just > another opponent? (Which is > probably what she wants anyway - to be considered a > "competitior" *without* > regard to her gender?) > > Chris Cushman > It's somewhat funny when people who claim to be "colorblind" and "gender neutral" assume that the subordinated Other should just become more like white men. "Now everyone is a man, so we're all equal!" Calling everyone a "he" doesn't quite get us to gender neutrality (as if such a concept were even possible). Maybe English needs better neuter pronouns... -AJL "Smokin' so many MCs, Somebody pass me the Nicorette." -The Arsonists __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ From Kcmoattorney Tue Jul 17 14:50:56 2001 From: Kcmoattorney (Kcmoattorney at cs.com) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 15:50:56 EDT Subject: P. McKenzie's comments on language Message-ID: In a message dated 7/17/01 1:45:07 PM Central Daylight Time, tgonos at hotmail.com writes: > do you object to debates being decided only by topicality arguments, fiat > abuse arguments, or other purely theoretical arguments? That's admittedly a good point. In my mind, however, things like T, fiat abuse and theory are all reasons why one would want to vote against the Aff as presented in the 1AC vis a vis the resolution. The mistaken pronoun sysdrome is not. One of the previous posters on this topic had a good observation that perhaps the best way to raise these issues in a round is via source critiques, provided you have the evidence to back it up. That, along with some counter evidence could be part of a good reason to vote against the Aff as presented, and not just vote against the individuals. Re: use of "she" as a generic pronoun I know a couple of people who do precisely that. It is a bit unnerving, and I'm not sure why. I think perhaps it's because it sounds contrived and artifically designed to make a point beyond what is being said. I don't think the converse is true. When people mistakenly use "he" or intentionally use words like "mankind," in the vast majority of scenarios, there is no ulterior point being made. Remember that these are deeply entrenched patterns of speech that have evolved over more than a thousand years. Is it fair to expect people to change these patterns because of what has occurred over the most recent, say 20 years? Off on a tangent, we are lucky to have a somewhat gender-uncomplicated language. What are speakers of say, German (because I'm familiar with it) supposed to do with a language in which the "gender" of nouns permeates all forms of speech, articles (a, an, the) declension of adjectives, etc? I mean, occupation titles are even different for men and women (Arbeiter - male worker; Arbeiterin, female worker, etc.) If I was one to be concerned about the social implications of semantics (which I'm not), I'd be really concerned about how the 80% or so (wild guess) of the world that doesn't speak English is going to comply with this mandate to change the language to make it more gender-neutral. Chris Cushman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010717/24bc2096/attachment.html From STVherro Tue Jul 17 15:29:27 2001 From: STVherro (STVherro at aol.com) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 16:29:27 EDT Subject: P. McKenzie's comments on language Message-ID: <12.fa52c0a.2885fa2c@aol.com> In a message dated Tue, 17 Jul 2001 3:53:55 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Kcmoattorney at cs.com writes: > Remember that these are deeply entrenched > patterns of speech that have evolved over more than a thousand years. Is it > fair to expect people to change these patterns because of what has occurred > over the most recent, say 20 years? Yes it is. Steve Herro Not a debate coach, but still lurking From cisneros_jd Tue Jul 17 15:38:29 2001 From: cisneros_jd (David Cisneros) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 16:38:29 -0400 Subject: P. McKenzie's comments on language Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010717/36ab7d3d/attachment.htm From Leslie.E.Phillips Tue Jul 17 15:40:06 2001 From: Leslie.E.Phillips (Leslie E. Phillips) Date: 17 Jul 2001 16:40:06 EDT Subject: Liberalism, Sawyer, Nexon, et al. Message-ID: <53673812@donner.Dartmouth.EDU> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010717/b16297dd/attachment.asc From Kcmoattorney Tue Jul 17 16:01:24 2001 From: Kcmoattorney (Kcmoattorney at cs.com) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 17:01:24 EDT Subject: P. McKenzie's comments on language Message-ID: In a message dated 7/17/01 3:29:32 PM Central Daylight Time, STVherro at aol.com writes: > Is it > > fair to expect people to change these patterns because of what has > occurred > > over the most recent, say 20 years? > > > Yes it is. > Ok, but I think most people would agree that this needs to be done in a manner whereby the public at large *wants* to make the change, not because they're made to or are fearful of retribution if they do not. That kind of coersion will only breed contempt and run the risk of polarizing people against the kind of ideas that you are trying to promote. On a second level, I don't think this society has figured out where it is going with gender issues yet. Are we the same or are we different? Are some "traditionally accepted" gender roles still acceptable, or are we trashing them all and starting over with a clean slate? I would think these language issues will have to become much more important to the *public* in general and women in particular than they are now before we can start reasonably *expecting* people to change long entrenched aspects of the language. (especially outside academia). Chris Cushman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010717/d52fae10/attachment.htm From mss242 Tue Jul 17 17:08:24 2001 From: mss242 (Michael Sawyer) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 17:08:24 -0500 Subject: Liberalism, Sawyer, Nexon, et al. In-Reply-To: <53673812@donner.Dartmouth.EDU> Message-ID: I think that this discussion has overstepped its initial bounds, which is all well and good, but I have a presentation and paper on my mathematics research due in two weeks. Therefore, I must withdraw from this thread prematurely. I apologize to those still wishing to exchange. As usual, Dan has added immensely to the discussion with his learning and clarity, and I endorse everything he wrote (also as usual) but I have a few additional comments . . . Michael Sawyer wrote: >>I'm not saying that liberal was formerly used to describe the philosophy of Hayek and such. Liberalism used to mean and still can mean a wide variety of political philosophies. In its earliest and purest form, liberalism was simply a reaction to state-mandated religions (along with other state-mandated social practices). It was a philosophy which sought a certain neutrality so that people with differing views could peacefully coexist. Now liberalism has obviously been refined and changed since that time. I am claiming that there are two divergent forms of liberalism: classical and welfare. Liberal was not previously a synonym for classical liberal; rather it meant a wide variety of philosophies. I agree that it can mean a wide range of theories. What then is the usefulness of claiming that there are two forms, and citing Rawls as the beginning of the Great Divide? Sawyer continues: >>All of this is well and good, but it still is mostly irrelevant. None of these groups offered a comprehensive social and political philosophy such as Rawls and Dworkin. This depends on what you mean by a "comprehensive social and political philosophy" -- what is lacking in the comprehensiveness of the fabian Socialists, the Progressives, or Polanyi? As Dan indicated, I think your statement is that for much of the century academic philosophers didn't write about these problems much, but fortunately departments of philosophy don't have a monopoly on "political thought." Sawyer continues: >>You accuse me of being semantic, and then argue over my use of the word acceptance? Acceptance of the free market, by classical liberals, is rejection of the regulation of the free market, as they recognize that such modification would be worse than the free market alone This seems like a gross oversimplification. Even in the early nineteenth century, an intelligent classical liberal would concede that certain types of regulation might be necessary. Even 150 years ago, this was not a cut and dried either/or position, and it certainly isn't today. Sawyer writes: Mill was utilitarian and would have thus allowed racism and sexism and such if it increased overall happiness. >> I don't know how you can read Mill's utilitarianism that way at all. (Utilitarianism also comes in many varieties.) Mill preached utility within a context; he took certain human rights as givens. And your comment about his sexism would come as a hell of a surprise to his wife, Harriet Taylor -- have you read their coauthored works on the status of women? >> I would still ask that someone point me to a body of philosophical work in which the tenants [sic] for liberal egalitarianism are outlined that predates Rawls. For works on tenancy and egalitarianism, see Henry George. For the tenets of liberal egalitarianism, Dan and I have made numerous suggestions. Les Phillips From West Tue Jul 17 16:17:04 2001 From: West (Terry West) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 15:17:04 -0600 Subject: P. McKenzie's comments on language Message-ID: Mr. Cushman, You again make the mistake of assuming that the world began with your own experience and knowledge. You write: >>> 07/17/01 01:50PM >>> When people mistakenly use "he" or intentionally use words like "mankind," in the vast majority of scenarios, there is no ulterior point being made. Remember that these are deeply entrenched patterns of speech that have evolved over more than a thousand years. Is it fair to expect people to change these patterns because of what has occurred over the most recent, say 20 years? Chris Cushman Of course, here is what scholarly research reveals: 1) The use of male-gendered pronouns in the English language is hardly "deeply entrenched. . .over more than a thousand years." In fact, Bodine (1975) writes: "prior to the nineteenth century singular 'they' was widely used. . . . This usage met with n o opposition." [ellipses in original]. Bodine continues to trace the change to proscription against plurality disagreement, and found male grammarians of the time advocating the use of male pronouns because "The Masculine gender is more worthy than the F eminine. . .the worthier is preferred and set before. As a man is sette [sic] before a woman." [ellipses in original]. Miller and Swift (1988) concur with Bodine that the use of male referents never was a reflection of any belief that they were inclusi ve, but was a standard of asserted male superiority. 2) Male generics are harmful. The distort our perception, particularly limiting our view of the appropriate role of women in society. Martyna (1978), Bem and Bem (1973), Schneider and Hacker (1973), MacKay and Fulkerson (1979), Harrison (1975) and Har rison and Passero (1975), Kramarae (1981) and Gastil (1990) report numerous studies confirming a deterministic affect from male generic usages. Cameron (1985) and Randall (1985) share the view that since the change in the language itself was based on sex ist intent, feminists MUST fight male generic usage to overcome patriarchal oppression. Bottom line: research can be good. Suggested readings: Bodine, A. (1975). Androcentrism in Prescriptive Grammar: Singular "they," sex-indefinite "he," and "he or she." Language in Society, 4, 129-146. Cameron, D. (1985). Feminism and Linguistic Theory. London: The MacMillan Press, Ltd. Gastil, J. (1990). Generic pronouns and sexist language: The oxymoronic character of masculine generics. Sex Roles, 23, 629--643, Kramarae, C. (1981). Women and Men Speaking. Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers, Inc. And once you're through with them, here are short cites on some of the others: MacKay and Fulkerson are in the Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, volume 18, pp. 661-673, 1979. Martyna is in Journal of Communication volume 28, 1978, pp. 131-138. Harrison is in a 1975 Science Teacher, volume 42, pages 8-11. Harrison and Passero are in Science and Children, 1975, volume 12, pp. 22--25. Bem and Bem are in Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 3, 6-18 in 1973. Terry West SUU Wish I could find the source citation; will keep trying, but I loved one author's point, paraphrased thus: Those who believe "man" or "mankind" or generic prounouns include everyone should try this sentence: "From the beginning of time, man has breastfe d his children." From PWRFORWARD Tue Jul 17 17:38:56 2001 From: PWRFORWARD (PWRFORWARD at aol.com) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 18:38:56 EDT Subject: PMcK: Perhaps you're too worried about "he". Message-ID: <65.17477874.28861880@aol.com> 1.)Before you read my response against the notion that "man" and "he" are negative, please note that I do not think it is okay to call a woman a "he" or a man a "she". My post is in reference to when you need a pronoun for an indefinite subject or all-ecompassing one such as the human race. So, while it's not okay to call a female professor a "He", it is okay to say "Mankind has progressed over the past decade". 2.)Victoria, that is an upsetting story and whoever the 1AR was, he sure was an ass. 3.) I do believe there are serious issues, like how women are portrayed in commercials, degraded in some songs, etc... but I don't believe the use of "man" is one we have to worry about. 4.) I hope I never win because someone calls me a "fucking idiot" in the round. I only want to win because my arguments on the case, disads and cp's are better. Likewise, I hope I never lose because I use the word "he", but it's a cynical world and I'm sure I will. ON TO MY POST: Terry, Just wondering, would you argue and research so fervently if we were in a matriarchal society? If everyone used "she" instead of "he", would you still argue that we need to switch to gender-neutral langauge? And while Cushman may have been somewhat hasty in claiming that the masculine pronoun usage has been around for thousands of years, it is true that all of us were raised on it, and it is also true that many of us not only mean no harm by it, but also realize the importance and equality of women. I use "he" all of the time, and I consider myself a feminist; I'm going to keep using it in debate rounds too, so if you hit me you better get your language kritik ready. Oftentimes I think one of our biggest problems with becomming accepting of other sexes and races is that we're too damn worried about being politically correct. (And I'm not saying any of you arent accepting, but some people aren't). I guess finally, would you mind telling me how masculine pronouns "distort our perception, particularly limiting our view of the appropriate role of women in society"? I'm sorry, but almost all of us use them, and I'd also wager that most of us realize women's equality. Also, if you're going to argue language ussage, look at your sentence: "the appropriate role of women in society"?? The whole idea of equality is that there is no prediscribed, or "appropriate", role for anyone. If you ask me that's a lot more descriminitory than saying "he" instead of "he or she". And you know what the funniest thing is? When you say, "From the beginning of time, man has breastfed his children," that sounds perfectly fine to me. Maybe I'm the only one, but man and mankind really does mean women and men to me. I assume in that sentence that "man" means "humans". Wait, maybe we should start using "huwomans"... I bet someone made it "humans" to perpetually enslave women. Do you ever stop to wonder "if the word 'he' really effects women so badly, why have they been able to make such leaps and bounds towards equality over the last 100 years even though it's still commonly used even by women?"? And I noticed all of your listed works support your opinion, which is fine, but I hope you've read authors supporting the opposite of your viewpoint before you've made your convictions. Matthew -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010717/21a7cd38/attachment.html From Kcmoattorney Tue Jul 17 17:56:35 2001 From: Kcmoattorney (Kcmoattorney at cs.com) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 18:56:35 EDT Subject: P. McKenzie's comments on language Message-ID: <98.17bf7778.28861ca3@cs.com> Mr. West, I think you would agree that the language has been evolving for over one thousand years. As your well-researched reply points out, the use of masculine pronouns evolved over time from the previous use of plural generic forms (used pre-1800 according to your sources). I also have no doubt that these newer forms became established over the last 200 years due in part to actions of male grammarians with a world view most would now find repugnant, but I would also suggest that the use of plural generics pre-1800 was not intended to be inclusive either (i.e. all men are created equal... they didn't really mean *all* men, but they definitely meant "men."). I don't believe that too many people around today (perhaps maybe language historians, or persons like yourself who have done the research on the matter), remember that this was the reason for the shift from plural to singluar masculine for generic pronouns. (I certainly didn't) >>You again make the mistake of assuming that the world began with your own experience and knowledge<< I assume you are referring to my question as to whether it is fair to expect people to change prevailing English usage that has been evolving for centuries when the push to do so has been going on for only the last 20 years... I think your sources support the loose factual proposition at the end of my statement. Of the studies you cite, many pre-1980 works showed the link for the "deterministic effect" of male generics, but you only cited two 1985 studies for the proposition that to counter oppression, the language has to change. I continue to maintain that nobody was calling for revision of the language much before 1980, and I would suggest that it hasn't received attention in non-academic fora until much later than that. Yes, these are my personal impressions and while I've read a few of your sources, you are obviously better read on the subject, and if you can show that there was a pre-1980 push to change the language, I'll accept that. That's why, even if the time period is 200 years, getting people convinced to change their usage (especially when the effort is so-far confined largely to academia) is a difficult proposition. Note I wasn't saying it's a bad proposition, just a difficult one. It's also a proposition that IMO has to be advanced carefully to avoid deleterious side effects from coersion which could undermine the underlying principles being advanced. >>Wish I could find the source citation; will keep trying, but I loved one author's point, paraphrased thus: Those who believe "man" or "mankind" or generic prounouns include everyone should try this sentence: "From the beginning of time, man has breastfed his children."<< That's great... it's that kind of example that will make usage change easier for people at large to understand and digest. What is your solution to this problem (or maybe, what is the solution proposed by the authors you cite?) Are people supposed to adopt the short "s/he" or a more formalistic "he or she, him or her" or go back to the plural generic "they" How far do we reach into the language to revise? Some words, like "mankind" etc. are easy to spot and agree on, others like "perSON, huMAN"are much less so. What do we do with other languages displaying much more grammatical connection and involvement with gender? Chris Cushman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010717/93768770/attachment.htm From West Tue Jul 17 18:11:01 2001 From: West (Terry West) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 17:11:01 -0600 Subject: PMcK: Perhaps you're too worried about "he". Message-ID: Since most of this seems directed to my post, happy to respond: >>> 07/17/01 04:38PM >>> writes: 1.)Before you read my response against the notion that "man" and "he" are negative, please note that I do not think it is okay to call a woman a "he" or a man a "she". My post is in reference to when you need a pronoun for an indefinite subject or all-ecompassing one such as the human race. So, while it's not okay to call a female professor a "He", it is okay to say "Mankind has progressed over the past decade". Answer: Why? Why not pluralize pronomial use; ie., "debaters are beginning to change their habits regarding sexist language," rather than "In general, the debaters has begun to change his habits. . ."? Why not say "people"? Your pseudo-justification f or sexist language is the result of two-dimensional thinking (we must choose a gender, therefore. . .). And of course, you choose male. Why choose at all? What is the justification for male useage? 2.)Victoria, that is an upsetting story and whoever the 1AR was, he sure was an ass. Answer: And Victoria's story does not exist in a vacuum. It is a result of the patriarchal system which is at least partially propped up by the language. You do not answer my previous post in this regard. 3.) I do believe there are serious issues, like how women are portrayed in commercials, degraded in some songs, etc... but I don't believe the use of "man" is one we have to worry about. Answer: Well, I don't know how to answer that, other than to point out that we have your "belief" versus evidence I cited on the harms of masculine generics. 4.) I hope I never win because someone calls me a "fucking idiot" in the round. I only want to win because my arguments on the case, disads and cp's are better. Likewise, I hope I never lose because I use the word "he", but it's a cynical world and I'm sure I will. Answer: I don't necessarily advocate voting against accidental use of masculine referents. I think a reminder and then a change of behavior is sufficient. I prefer non-coercive methods. I'm divided on the issue of whether changing words in cards in ne cessary. I have nothing against it, but a blanket [sic] at the top of the speech is enough for me. I consider referring to a female partner, colleague, judge, or observer as "he" repugnant, and in need of apology and sincere, immediate behavioral change . But none of this justifies male generics. ON TO MY POST: Terry, Just wondering, would you argue and research so fervently if we were in a matriarchal society? If everyone used "she" instead of "he", would you still argue that we need to switch to gender-neutral langauge? Answer: What point are you trying to make here? This sounds like a simple ad hom attempt. Are you assuming I am a woman, and that you've "got me"? Sorry; thanks for the compliment, but I'm a male feminist. Yes, I oppose the use of "she" instead of "h e." There are adequate gender-neutral alternatives (see my above example on plurality) for those of us with a decent command of the language. And while Cushman may have been somewhat hasty in claiming that the masculine pronoun usage has been around for thousands of years, it is true that all of us were raised on it, and it is also true that many of us not only mean no harm by it, but also realize the importance and equality of women. I use "he" all of the time, and I consider myself a feminist; I'm going to keep using it in debate rounds too, so if you hit me you better get your language kritik ready. Answer: I have no intention of "hitting" you. I stopped competing in intercollegiate debate in 1977. Ok, some of my coaches might have argued that I stopped competing before that, but. . . . Anyway, "all of us were raised on it" seems an odd argument for an intercollegiate debater to make. You like speculation? Try this: Take out the words "masculine pronoun usage" from your paragraph, and put "Jim Crow laws" in its place. Pretend it's 1960. You ok with refusing to debate African-Americans? You commit the fallacy of argument from tradition; not all tradition is good. You say you recognize the "importance and equality of women." Given that research indicates sexist language colors perceptions and limits perceptions of women's roles in general s ociety, how do you think most women in debate regard your kindness in recognizing them? Mighty big of the patriarchy to grant women this favor. Oftentimes I think one of our biggest problems with becomming accepting of other sexes and races is that we're too damn worried about being politically correct. (And I'm not saying any of you arent accepting, but some people aren't). Answer: I just love the old "pc" demon. That's the one lots of people use when they're losing the argument; they just refer to the other side as "politically correct." Well, everything's political. I quoted Bodine, indicating clearly that the choice o f masculine referents was political and sexist. So we have a choice; we can be politically correct, or we can be politically incorrect--in this instance, sexist. Given the reasonable alternatives to sexist language, and the harm it causes, you're right- -I'm pretty damn worried about being politically correct. I guess finally, would you mind telling me how masculine pronouns "distort our perception, particularly limiting our view of the appropriate role of women in society"? I'm sorry, but almost all of us use them, and I'd also wager that most of us realize women's equality. Also, if you're going to argue language ussage, look at your sentence: "the appropriate role of women in society"?? The whole idea of equality is that there is no prediscribed, or "appropriate", role for anyone. If you ask me that's a lot more descriminitory than saying "he" instead of "he or she". Answer: You are distorting my sentence out of context. The appropriate role of women is clearly equal to that of men in my argument. You are using only a sentence fragment; not the sentence I wrote. Shame on you. How do masculine pronouns harm women? I cited several sources; can't reproduce all of them here. Most are studies that indicate that when various groups of people (from kindergardeners to college students) are confronted with male pronomial referents, they tend to assume male antecedents. Implication: men are included; women are not. One study cited children who were told to draw pictures of a "fireman," a "policeman," and a "mailman." Almost all of the children dutifully drew men in the respective uniforms. Other groups, given the ta sk of drawing pictures of a "firefighter," "police officer," and "mail carrier," (ironically, the real job titles), drew about as many pictures of women in these roles as they did men. A number of other studies I cited examined workplace and professional attitudes and found language influences to be detrimental to women due to generic masculine useages. Read the research and respond to it if you want. And you know what the funniest thing is? When you say, "From the beginning of time, man has breastfed his children," that sounds perfectly fine to me. Answer: My classes always roll in the aisles at it. Maybe I'm the only one, but man and mankind really does mean women and men to me. I assume in that sentence that "man" means "humans". Wait, maybe we should start using "huwomans"... I bet someone made it "humans" to perpetually enslave women. Answer: Your flippance toward sexist language and its effects on women, your refusal to acknowledge research, and your deliberate distortion of one of my sentences above lead me to believe you are not the feminist you claim to be. Do you ever stop to wonder "if the word 'he' really effects women so badly, why have they been able to make such leaps and bounds towards equality over the last 100 years even though it's still commonly used even by women?"? Answer: That's a non-sequiter fallacy. It's like arguing that we should not continue to fight religious, racial, or other discrimination because all of those groups have made strides. And I noticed all of your listed works support your opinion, which is fine, but I hope you've read authors supporting the opposite of your viewpoint before you've made your convictions. Answer: And who would these authors be? And are they merely opinions, or are they based on empirical research? Many of the authors I cited did lit reviews and found that most of the support for sexist usage merely cited the same people who argued for u se of the male referent because men were superior [sic]. Come on, put up or shut up; let's hear your sources. Terry Matthew From West Tue Jul 17 18:20:35 2001 From: West (Terry West) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 17:20:35 -0600 Subject: P. McKenzie's comments on language Message-ID: Most of my argument is conceded below, but I want to respond on the issues of "what do we do about sexist language"? My opinions have been formed on the basis of what I have looked at in research, and what seems to work best in my experience as an educator. My preference on pronomial use is that people recast their sentences toward plurality. In other words, we need n ot say "the best debater should read his cards accurately" when we can say "the best debaters should read their cards accurately." See? The plurality agreement issue is met, and we don't exclude about 3 ? billion people. I prefer avoiding "mankind" or "humankind" altogether. Just recast the sentence, or say "people." I think the stickiest issues are words such as "human" or "women." I have mixed emotions. I don't think "womyn" cuts it for me, because it just takes the same word and spells it differently. Why not change the "wo-" half as well? But I wouldn't mark a student's paper wrong for using it. I've heard tell of literature that indicates the word "man" itself may have originally had a generic and nonsexist root. Maybe we should publicize that more (if true) and teach it. I think the ultimate solution is education. That's why I don't advocate automatic losses on inadvertant sexist usage. Teach first. Punish only upon flagrant and repeated offenses. I'm also real big into calling people what they wish to be called. So if they want to be womyn, that's ok as far as I'm concerned; not up to me to tell anyone what they can call themselves. It's what you call others that will become a concern for me as a debate judge. Terry >>> 07/17/01 04:56PM >>> Mr. West, I think you would agree that the language has been evolving for over one thousand years. As your well-researched reply points out, the use of masculine pronouns evolved over time from the previous use of plural generic forms (used pre-1800 according to your sources). I also have no doubt that these newer forms became established over the last 200 years due in part to actions of male grammarians with a world view most would now find repugnant, but I would also suggest that the use of plural generics pre-1800 was not intended to be inclusive either (i.e. all men are created equal... they didn't really mean *all* men, but they definitely meant "men."). I don't believe that too many people around today (perhaps maybe language historians, or persons like yourself who have done the research on the matter), remember that this was the reason for the shift from plural to singluar masculine for generic pronouns. (I certainly didn't) >>You again make the mistake of assuming that the world began with your own experience and knowledge<< I assume you are referring to my question as to whether it is fair to expect people to change prevailing English usage that has been evolving for centuries when the push to do so has been going on for only the last 20 years... I think your sources support the loose factual proposition at the end of my statement. Of the studies you cite, many pre-1980 works showed the link for the "deterministic effect" of male generics, but you only cited two 1985 studies for the proposition that to counter oppression, the language has to change. I continue to maintain that nobody was calling for revision of the language much before 1980, and I would suggest that it hasn't received attention in non-academic fora until much later than that. Yes, these are my personal impressions and while I've read a few of your sources, you are obviously better read on the subject, and if you can show that there was a pre-1980 push to change the language, I'll accept that. That's why, even if the time period is 200 years, getting people convinced to change their usage (especially when the effort is so-far confined largely to academia) is a difficult proposition. Note I wasn't saying it's a bad proposition, just a difficult one. It's also a proposition that IMO has to be advanced carefully to avoid deleterious side effects from coersion which could undermine the underlying principles being advanced. >>Wish I could find the source citation; will keep trying, but I loved one author's point, paraphrased thus: Those who believe "man" or "mankind" or generic prounouns include everyone should try this sentence: "From the beginning of time, man has breastfed his children."<< That's great... it's that kind of example that will make usage change easier for people at large to understand and digest. What is your solution to this problem (or maybe, what is the solution proposed by the authors you cite?) Are people supposed to adopt the short "s/he" or a more formalistic "he or she, him or her" or go back to the plural generic "they" How far do we reach into the language to revise? Some words, like "mankind" etc. are easy to spot and agree on, others like "perSON, huMAN"are much less so. What do we do with other languages displaying much more grammatical connection and involvement with gender? Chris Cushman From pjm1 Tue Jul 17 19:24:49 2001 From: pjm1 (Patrick McKenzie) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 19:24:49 -0500 Subject: P. McKenzie's comments on language Message-ID: <000c01c10f20$0ef82c80$9b68fc80@wuh.wustl.edu> >> snip of the scholarly research re: the harms of the generic male pronoun >> See, THIS is the kind of argumentation I would like to have heard in the debates before I was dropped. I could have responded to it, had it not just been assumed by the critic. Heck, I'll do it now just for fun: 1) Solvency inherently denied. Languages without manditorily used masculine/feminine structures do NOT correspond to cultures which have a "progressive" view of male/female relations. Empirical example: Japanese. You have to actually go out of your way to put a gendered connotation into "they", "theirs", and the most commonly used personal honorifics (the equivalent being the Mr/Mrs/Miss series in English) are gender neutral. The words "he" and "she" are superflous in the language and not often employed in polite speech (compared to English). Now, does Japan have a society vastly superior to ours in gender relations? NO. [P.S. Believe it or not, I am actually an East Asian Studies major, so I almost know about what I am talking about for a change] 2) Ah, some other day when I have time to write it out. Patrick McKenzie -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010717/16344ccc/attachment.html From stannardmatt Tue Jul 17 19:37:21 2001 From: stannardmatt (matt stannard) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 18:37:21 -0600 Subject: P. McKenzie's comments on language Message-ID: Mr. McKenzie, by all accounts, the reasons you lost those and other rounds had far less to do with the political biases of judges than you think. There is a long list of conservative-minded folk who have done very well in NDT and CEDA debate, and keep in mind that the charge of "left bias" has existed in NDT and CEDA debate for a long, long time. Regardless of political affiliation, people win when they work hard, receive good coaching, turn their early losses into opportunities for growth, etc. And isn't this exactly what conservatives argue? That if you work hard enough, you'll rise above your circumstances? stannard >From: "Patrick McKenzie" >To: >Subject: Re: P. McKenzie's comments on language >Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 19:24:49 -0500 > > >> >snip of the scholarly research re: the harms of the generic male pronoun > >> > >See, THIS is the kind of argumentation I would like to have heard in the >debates before I was dropped. I could have responded to it, had it not >just been assumed by the critic. Heck, I'll do it now just for fun: > >1) Solvency inherently denied. Languages without manditorily used >masculine/feminine structures do NOT correspond to cultures which have a >"progressive" view of male/female relations. Empirical example: Japanese. >You have to actually go out of your way to put a gendered connotation into >"they", "theirs", and the most commonly used personal honorifics (the >equivalent being the Mr/Mrs/Miss series in English) are gender neutral. >The words "he" and "she" are superflous in the language and not often >employed in polite speech (compared to English). Now, does Japan have a >society vastly superior to ours in gender relations? NO. > >[P.S. Believe it or not, I am actually an East Asian Studies major, so I >almost know about what I am talking about for a change] > >2) Ah, some other day when I have time to write it out. > >Patrick McKenzie _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From PWRFORWARD Tue Jul 17 20:10:56 2001 From: PWRFORWARD (PWRFORWARD at aol.com) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 21:10:56 EDT Subject: PMcK: Perhaps you're too worried about "he". Message-ID: <9a.17253764.28863c20@aol.com> To Terry and all that are interested, My responses. * = already said MATT'S ANSWER = my answer * 1.)Before you read my response against the notion that "man" and "he" are > negative, please note that I do not think it is okay to call a woman a "he" > or a man a "she". My post is in reference to when you need a pronoun for an > indefinite subject or all-ecompassing one such as the human race. So, while > it's not okay to call a female professor a "He", it is okay to say "Mankind > has progressed over the past decade". > > * Answer: Why? Why not pluralize pronomial use; ie., "debaters are > beginning to change their habits regarding sexist language," rather than > "In general, the debaters has begun to change his habits. . ."? Why not > say "people"? Your pseudo-justification for sexist language is the result > of two-dimensional thinking (we must choose a gender, therefore. . .). And > of course, you choose male. Why choose at all? What is the justification > for male useage? > > MATT'S ANSWER: Yes, I often say "people" or "they", I'm just qualifying my > distinction between okay usage of "he" and "mankind", etc... The point is > that if I wanted to say "mankind", I could because I mean women and men, > not just men. Just because "man" is in it doesn't mean I'm using it > patriarchally. > 2.)Victoria, that is an upsetting story and whoever the 1AR was, he sure > was > an ass. > > * Answer: And Victoria's story does not exist in a vacuum. It is a result > of the patriarchal system which is at least partially propped up by the > language. You do not answer my previous post in this regard. > > MATT'S ANSWER: I never claimed it was a unique incodence. However, it is > not propped up by saying "he" as a pronoun, and not in the place of a > specific person. I'm sorry, but you aren't going to be able to convince me > that most guys would call a specific woman "he". > *3.) I do believe there are serious issues, like how women are portrayed in > commercials, degraded in some songs, etc... but I don't believe the use of > "man" is one we have to worry about. > > *Answer: Well, I don't know how to answer that, other than to point out > that we have your "belief" versus evidence I cited on the harms of > masculine generics. > > MATT'S ANSWER: I'm not sure why you're arguing with me here. You claim to > be pro-feminine rights, and yet when I say larger harms to equality are bad > you try to refute me. > *4.) I hope I never win because someone calls me a "fucking idiot" in the > round. I only want to win because my arguments on the case, disads and cp's > are better. Likewise, I hope I never lose because I use the word "he", but > it's a cynical world and I'm sure I will. > > *Answer: I don't necessarily advocate voting against accidental use of > masculine referents. I think a reminder and then a change of behavior is > sufficient. I prefer non-coercive methods. I'm divided on the issue of > whether changing words in cards in necessary. I have nothing against it, > but a blanket [sic] at the top of the speech is enough for me. I consider > referring to a female partner, colleague, judge, or observer as "he" > repugnant, and in need of apology and sincere, immediate behavioral change. > But none of this justifies male generics. > MATT'S ANSWER: I replied because I don't believe there is any harm in saying "he" or "mankind" in a general form. I also don't think there'd be anything wrong with making it gender neutral, I just don't see the need or harm you supposively find in it. And I certainly don't think that anyone should be penalized for something that innocent. Also, I find calling a specific woman a "he" repugnant too. I preempted that in #1. However, nobody should be voted against for using the "he" or "mankind" pronoun. > ON TO MY POST: > > *Terry, > > *Just wondering, would you argue and research so fervently if we were in a > matriarchal society? If everyone used "she" instead of "he", would you > still > argue that we need to switch to gender-neutral langauge? > > *Answer: What point are you trying to make here? This sounds like a > simple ad hom attempt. Are you assuming I am a woman, and that you've "got > me"? Sorry; thanks for the compliment, but I'm a male feminist. Yes, I > oppose the use of "she" instead of "he." There are adequate gender-neutral > alternatives (see my above example on plurality) for those of us with a > decent command of the language. > > MATT'S ANSWER: My intent was not to say you are a woman. I knew you were a > man. I was simply making the point that, even though you claim otherwise, I > > And while Cushman may have been somewhat hasty in claiming that the > masculine > pronoun usage has been around for thousands of years, it is true that all > of > us were raised on it, and it is also true that many of us not only mean no > harm by it, but also realize the importance and equality of women. I use > "he" > all of the time, and I consider myself a feminist; I'm going to keep using > it > in debate rounds too, so if you hit me you better get your language kritik > ready. > > *Answer: I have no intention of "hitting" you. I stopped competing in > intercollegiate debate in 1977. Ok, some of my coaches might have argued > that I stopped competing before that, but. . . . Anyway, "all of us were > raised on it" seems an odd argument for an intercollegiate debater to make. > You like speculation? Try this: Take out the words "masculine pronoun > usage" from your paragraph, and put "Jim Crow laws" in its place. Pretend > it's 1960. You ok with refusing to debate African-Americans? You commit > the fallacy of argument from tradition; not all tradition is good. You say > you recognize the "importance and equality of women." Given that research > indicates sexist language colors perceptions and limits perceptions of > women's roles in general society, how do you think most women in debate > regard your kindness in recognizing them? Mighty big of the patriarchy to > grant women this favor. > > MATT'S ANSWER: Okay, first of all I never said growing up on the masculine > pronouns was good. Therefore, no, I do not bite the "fallacy of argument > from tradition". My point, rather, was that we don't use it because we want > to put down women, we use it simply from habbit. And, you're not going to > convince me that most people didn't grow up hearing "he" and "mankind". > It's in a lot of literature, and schoolbooks even if they didn't hear it in > speech from their parents and peers. Secondly, there is quite a difference between saying "he" and the Jim Crowe Laws, which had tangible and large scale negative effects. You're going to argue that "he" does too, but despite whatever you quote I still claim that the women's sufferage movement and increase in corporate positions and education empirically proves that "he" is not a large impediment towards their equality. Use some common sense Terry. Moreover, I don't appreciate you making me out to be racist. One of the things I'm looking forward to most about college is meeting people from all over the country and world, and I'm very far from racist. Watch what you say because you can be quite offensive. Thirdly, by saying we recognize the importance and equality of women I mean that we don't descriminate against them in any way. I have no qualms about a woman being my boss, or my coach, or teacher, or superior. If you think that's funny or wrong, then maybe you need to ask who is the "patriarchy". And, if you think that recognizing equality is bad then what the hell are you looking for? > Oftentimes I think one of our biggest problems with becomming accepting of > other sexes and races is that we're too damn worried about being > politically > correct. (And I'm not saying any of you arent accepting, but some people > aren't). > > *Answer: I just love the old "pc" demon. That's the one lots of people > use when they're losing the argument; they just refer to the other side as > "politically correct." Well, everything's political. I quoted Bodine, > indicating clearly that the choice of masculine referents was political and > sexist. So we have a choice; we can be politically correct, or we can be > politically incorrect--in this instance, sexist. Given the reasonable > alternatives to sexist language, and the harm it causes, you're right--I'm > pretty damn worried about being politically correct. > > MATT'S ANSWER: There is no tangible harm to saying "he" and "mankind". > Although you cite several authors you never say what the harm is, just that > some studies show that there is a detrimental effect. What I'm saying is > that if you worry so much over what pronoun you use, instead of the > important things like getting women the same pay as men and stopping them > from being used as sex objects to sell stuff, then you're doing them more > harm than good. It's not a cop out, it's the truth. You can't have > meaningful discourse to equalize the sexes if you're too damn worried about > every little thing you say. > > *I guess finally, would you mind telling me how masculine pronouns "distort > our perception, particularly limiting our view of the appropriate role of > women in society"? I'm sorry, but almost all of us use them, and I'd also > wager that most of us realize women's equality. Also, if you're going to > argue language ussage, look at your sentence: "the appropriate role of > women > in society"?? The whole idea of equality is that there is no prediscribed, > or > "appropriate", role for anyone. If you ask me that's a lot more > descriminitory than saying "he" instead of "he or she". > > *Answer: You are distorting my sentence out of context. The appropriate > role of women is clearly equal to that of men in my argument. You are > using only a sentence fragment; not the sentence I wrote. Shame on you. > How do masculine pronouns harm women? I cited several sources; can't > reproduce all of them here. Most are studies that indicate that when > various groups of people (from kindergardeners to college students) are > confronted with male pronomial referents, they tend to assume male > antecedents. Implication: men are included; women are not. One study > cited children who were told to draw pictures of a "fireman," a > "policeman," and a "mailman." Almost all of the children dutifully drew > men in the respective uniforms. Other groups, given the task of drawing > pictures of a "firefighter," "police officer," and "mail carrier," > (ironically, the real job titles), drew about as many pictures of women in > these roles as they did men. A number of other studies I cited examined > workplace and professional attitudes and found language influences to be > detrimental to women due to generic masculine useages. Read the research > and respond to it if you want. > > MATT'S ANSWER: There was no context to your sentence. You blurted it out > and then cited several authors names who supposively agree. The only thing > I left out of your sentence was the word "they" at the beginning, check it. MATT'S ANSWER: On your example... First there are no implications to kids drawing men most often when they hear "firemen" and "mailmen". How can we know this? Because many many women ARE firemen and mailmen and that was when the idea that these were male jobs was more ingraned than now. They're just kids, if we focus on actual equality instead of saying "he" or not, when they grow up they'll know that these positions are for everyone. Further, if we focus on getting women the ability to do these vocations, instead of worrying about saying "he", kids will realize that nurses can be men, doctors can be women, and so on even though they still use "mankind". The problem is the commercials and TV, etc, reinforcing the idea of these jobs being men, not the wording. And, if you could please point me to that specific article I'd like to look at it because statistics can VERY easily be manipulated to support your claim, and I'd be willing to bet that's what happened here, because most kids know that "firefighter" and "fireman" are the same thing. > > *And you know what the funniest thing is? When you say, "From the beginning > of > time, man has breastfed his children," that sounds perfectly fine to me. > > *Answer: My classes always roll in the aisles at it. > MATT'S ANSWER: How cute. You avoid my point that although literally "man" > means a male, when you use it in a general context people take it to mean > women and men, not just men. > > *Maybe I'm the only one, but man and mankind really does mean women and men > to me. I assume in that sentence that "man" means "humans". Wait, maybe we > should start using "huwomans"... I bet someone made it "humans" to > perpetually enslave women. > > *Answer: Your flippance toward sexist language and its effects on women, > your refusal to acknowledge research, and your deliberate distortion of one > of my sentences above lead me to believe you are not the feminist you claim > to be. > MATT'S ANSWER: First: No, you're wrong. I simply think you dwell on very inconsequential aspects of the fight for women equality. It is actual discourse that matters in this fight, not whether people use masculine grammar. Women protesting for their right to vote... gaining the ability to have the same wage as men, these are tangible positive results that happened within the "he" / "mankind" framework. If people like you devoted their time to teaching children that "firemen" are men and women, instead of worrying whether to call them "firemen" or "fire police", then you would not only have women firemen drawn, but you would teach the girls that they, too can be a fire fighter whereas using "fire police" doesn't positively enforce that at all. MATT'S ANSWER: Secondly: I am against sexist language, however because we use "he" and "mankind" in a manner meaning "man or woman" and "men and women", I do not believe these pronouns to be sexist. Language like "men are faster than women" or "women are smarter than men" is sexist, and I am against it. I am also strongly against sexual descrimination and sexual harrassment. These are the things we have to work on, not saying "he". Cmon Terry. > > *Do you ever stop to wonder "if the word 'he' really effects women so > badly, > why have they been able to make such leaps and bounds towards equality over > the last 100 years even though it's still commonly used even by women?"? > > *Answer: That's a non-sequiter fallacy. It's like arguing that we should > not continue to fight religious, racial, or other discrimination because > all of those groups have made strides. > MATT'S ANSWER: No, it isn't. That argument is there to prove that your focus is flawed. We should continue to fight for women rights in important areas and through conventional means instead of wasting our time making everyone use "he or she". Similarly, since certain religious, racial, and other anti-discrimination methods are working, we should keep them up and not divert our attention to trivial matters. > > *And I noticed all of your listed works support your opinion, which is > fine, > but I hope you've read authors supporting the opposite of your viewpoint > before you've made your convictions. > > *Answer: And who would these authors be? And are they merely opinions, or > are they based on empirical research? Many of the authors I cited did lit > reviews and found that most of the support for sexist usage merely cited > the same people who argued for use of the male referent because men were > superior [sic]. Come on, put up or shut up; let's hear your sources. > > MATT'S ANSWER: I am not well read on this topic. I am clearly using my own > rhetoric, and I even said that it is good you have support for your view. > But it is also true that there will be support for the other side (you CAN > find support for anything, from hitler to killing immigrants to nuclear > war, but I'm not saying I agree with it). I'm simply saying that after > reading all of that, you're going to be full of all of this > pro-gender-neutral opinion and lacking the other side of the argument. That > makes it a hell of a lot harder to even consider any other claims because > they have no competition (if you've only read one side of an argument). If > you HAVE read books saying that using "he" is okay, then more power to you. > ) MATT'S ANSWER: When you get right down to it, I'm simply saying that throwing a fit over someone innocently saying "mankind" is stupid. If someone calls a girl a "he" or a man a "she", that's a different story. Focus your time and efforts on more important parts of the feminist fight, not "he" and "mankind". Matthew -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010717/75bb8380/attachment.htm From coopdb8 Tue Jul 17 20:24:39 2001 From: coopdb8 (christopher cooper) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 21:24:39 -0400 Subject: PMcK: Perhaps you're too worried about "he". Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010717/6decf755/attachment.html From pjm1 Tue Jul 17 19:55:36 2001 From: pjm1 (Patrick McKenzie) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 19:55:36 -0500 Subject: PMcK: Perhaps you're too worried about "he". Message-ID: <001401c10f24$5bca2be0$9b68fc80@wuh.wustl.edu> If I may be so bold as to make a few comments, >> Answer: Why? Why not pluralize pronomial use; ie., "debaters are beginning to change their habits regarding sexist language," rather than "In general, the debaters has begun to change his habits. . ."? Why not say "people"? Your pseudo-justification for sexist language is the result of two-dimensional thinking (we must choose a gender, therefore. . .). And of course, you choose male. Why choose at all? What is the justification for male useage? >> I'm sorry if this sounds trite or completely obvious. Bearing that apology in mind: plurality implies two or more, and is thus not an acceptable option in all circumstances. "The next President of the United States will be very loved by their party" should make good writers cringe (the ones with "a decent command of the language", as you so aptly put it). >>2.)Victoria, that is an upsetting story and whoever the 1AR was, he sure was an []. Answer: And Victoria's story does not exist in a vacuum. It is a result of the patriarchal system which is at least partially propped up by the language. You do not answer my previous post in this regard. >> Why excuse the moral failing of the opponent by saying that he is merely evidence of a societal disease? 100% of the responsibility for that incident comes from the person that disregarded civilized conduct. >> 3.) I do believe there are serious issues, like how women are portrayed in commercials, degraded in some songs, etc... but I don't believe the use of "man" is one we have to worry about. Answer: Well, I don't know how to answer that, other than to point out that we have your "belief" versus evidence I cited on the harms of masculine generics. >> I'd just like to point you to the email I wrote in response to the main thread re: gender neutrality in Japanese. No reason why all the evidence has to point one way, after all ;) >>Answer: I have no intention of "hitting" you. I stopped competing in intercollegiate debate in 1977. Ok, some of my coaches might have argued that I stopped competing before that, but. . . . Anyway, "all of us were raised on it" seems an odd argument for an intercollegiate debater to make. You like speculation? Try this: Take out the words "masculine pronoun usage" from your paragraph, and put "Jim Crow laws" in its place. Pretend it's 1960. You ok with refusing to debate African-Americans? You commit the fallacy of argument from tradition; not all tradition is good. You say you recognize the "importance and equality of women." Given that research indicates sexist language colors perceptions and limits perceptions of women's roles in general society, how do you think most women in debate regard your kindness in recognizing them? Mighty big of the patriarchy to grant women this favor.>> Ah, the tradition fallacy. I can't decide whether I love this argument or hate it. That being said, as a friendly bit of advice, quoting the tradition fallacy at someone after quoting academic evidence is a recipe for getting bruised. He could just as easily argue you bite into the tradition fallacy by assuming the feminist language critics are in a privileged position to speak on the issue by dint of their status as tenured professors. That, in a nutshell, explains why I don't like the "tradition fallacy bad" argument [it always seems to have this nasty way of regressing infinitely]. And, as long as we are on the subject of fallacies, equating "refusal to correct 'exclusive' language" with "refusal to associate with African Americans" is a false analogy. For starters, it compares failing to change a rhetorical choice versus actively discriminating via positive action. >>And who would these authors be? And are they merely opinions, or are they based on empirical research? Many of the authors I cited did lit reviews and found that most of the support for sexist usage merely cited the same people who argued for use of the male referent because men were superior [sic]. Come on, put up or shut up; let's hear your sources. >> Pardon me for showing a little bit of engineer's contempt for most of the things that happen over in Arts & Sciences (where people get paid for writing things that will never lead to another gizmo -- what an amazingly quaint idea! *grin*), but first off... 1) Lingustic criticism is a province of the academic left and, as barriers to entry to the academy are high, a mere unwillingness to hear contrary points of view can easily chill the research or publication of the contrary arguments you wish to hear. If you do not believe this phenomena exists, I direct you to the excellent "Shadow University" by Alan Kors and a coauthor who escapes my memory. 2) Having not seen the studies (my home doesn't exactly qualify as a research library), I'm not on 100% solid ground to mention this, but it strikes me that the authors probably were able, if they were so inclined, to slant the collection and interpretation of the data in such a manner as to get to the results they had in mind. Patrick McKenzie -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010717/ff5989c3/attachment.htm From michelinmassey Tue Jul 17 20:39:14 2001 From: michelinmassey (Michelin C. Massey) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 18:39:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: P. McKenzie's comments on language In-Reply-To: <000c01c10f20$0ef82c80$9b68fc80@wuh.wustl.edu> Message-ID: <20010718013914.16381.qmail@web14603.mail.yahoo.com> your use of japanese doesn't help to prove your point at all. "proper" japanese uses gendered phrases all of the time. having 12 years of japanese training and hundreds of opportunities when my incorrect use of a phrase or an inflection that is generally not reserved for men, i can assure you that japanese men and women basically speak different languages. my point: japanese cares about gender roles and norms and happens to look down on men who use feminine phrases. japanese culture also is one of the most culturally sexist left on the planet. the evidence citations dr. west posts are pretty helpful in indicating that there is more than just a correlation. michelin massey. --- Patrick McKenzie wrote: > 1) Solvency inherently denied. Languages without > manditorily used masculine/feminine structures do > NOT correspond to cultures which have a > "progressive" view of male/female relations. > Empirical example: Japanese. You have to actually > go out of your way to put a gendered connotation > into "they", "theirs", and the most commonly used > personal honorifics (the equivalent being the > Mr/Mrs/Miss series in English) are gender neutral. > The words "he" and "she" are superflous in the > language and not often employed in polite speech > (compared to English). Now, does Japan have a > society vastly superior to ours in gender relations? > NO. > > [P.S. Believe it or not, I am actually an East Asian > Studies major, so I almost know about what I am > talking about for a change] __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ From veronica_m_barreto Tue Jul 17 20:56:53 2001 From: veronica_m_barreto (Veronica Barreto) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 21:56:53 -0400 Subject: P. McKenzie's comments on language Message-ID: More pearls of wisdom from Mr.McKenzie: <> Stannard is 100% right. Even if I concede that critic?s have liberal leanings, if you go to the list serve?s archives over the past couple of years there have been massive debates about how the critic should resolve argumentation. In my estimation, most critics don?t want to drop teams for language choices, they would just rather those choices be corrected. You?re losing to the argument probably has more to do with what appears to be your being intimidated by the line of argumentation and your paranoia regarding the liberal agenda. You answer it like any other argument. You can either deny the link, turn the position, or answer the impact. Someone on the list spoke of the coercive nature of asking for the ballot when a debater misspeaks and the negative impact that has on the original cause ? this is an argument. You can apologize for it, explain you didn?t mean to be exclusionary you have just made a mistake ? this is a link out. You can say alright I did it, so dock my points, or critique me on the ballot, but don?t drop me for it; the punishment doesn?t fit the crime ? this is an impact out. <<1) Solvency inherently denied. Languages without manditorily used masculine/feminine structures do NOT correspond to cultures which have a "progressive" view of male/female relations. Empirical example: Japanese. You have to actually go out of your way to put a gendered connotation into "they", "theirs", and the most commonly used personal honorifics (the equivalent being the Mr/Mrs/Miss series in English) are gender neutral. The words "he" and "she" are superflous in the language and not often employed in polite speech (compared to English). Now, does Japan have a society vastly superior to ours in gender relations? NO. >> 1. Wrong. Solvency is empirically true. In fact your paranoia proves that when people lose, it sticks in their mind, it challenges their thinking even if they?re reluctant to change. Most people just change their language to prevent the debate all together. The language choice is damaging in and of itself, they don?t need to ?solve? for world wide patriarchy 2. Your argument makes no sense whatsoever. No one EVER said that linguistic choices are the linch pin of patriarchy. Just because the Japanese culture doesn?t use gendered pronouns doesn?t make it a feminist utopia; conversely, American sexist language doesn?t make it the worst of all worlds either. Rampant rape and lack of accountability in South Africa, the Taliban in Afghanistan, these are certainly worse examples. Revolutionizing sexist language is admittedly a piecemeal effort, but that isn?t a reason to dismiss it. I never even defended a linguistic criticism in four years of college debate, but even I can tell you that it isn?t any critic?s agenda but rather the lackluster quality of your argumentation that is costing you debates. <<[P.S. Believe it or not, I am actually an East Asian Studies major, so I almost know about what I am talking about for a change]>> You really shouldn?t raise people?s hopes like that only to dash them away with your argumentation. Honestly, Veronica _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From coopdb8 Tue Jul 17 21:09:24 2001 From: coopdb8 (christopher cooper) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 22:09:24 -0400 Subject: PMcK: Perhaps you're too worried about "he". Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010717/65577012/attachment.html From mss242 Tue Jul 17 22:38:54 2001 From: mss242 (Michael Sawyer) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 22:38:54 -0500 Subject: Gender Neutral Pronoun Message-ID: Why doesn't the debate community take real initiative and create a gender neutral singular pronoun. Instead of using the terms he or she, why not use the term ze (pronounced zee). Instead of his or her we can use zis. Finally instead of him or her, we can use zer. This is really the only way to avoid offending everyone, as using the "he or she" singular option in one's rhetoric ultimately just otherizes the transgendered. Instead of man we can also use the term zan. I think this option should satisfy any debater and zis personal philosophy. Just think, we could change the english language for all of huzanity. Mike Sawyer From Leslie.E.Phillips Tue Jul 17 22:07:45 2001 From: Leslie.E.Phillips (Leslie E. Phillips) Date: 17 Jul 2001 23:07:45 EDT Subject: Gender Neutral Pronoun Message-ID: <53681090@donner.Dartmouth.EDU> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010717/0078095a/attachment.pot From pjm1 Tue Jul 17 22:00:12 2001 From: pjm1 (Patrick McKenzie) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 22:00:12 -0500 Subject: Gender Neutral Pronoun Message-ID: <002e01c10f39$a2f67d60$9b68fc80@wuh.wustl.edu> While we're at it, I have always thought that the term CONservative unfairly maligns those rightists amoung us. It defines the philosophy as destructive and domineering (witness CONvict, CONtraceptive, CONtrarian, CONtrol, CONgress, Iran-CONtra, etc). We deserve better than that. I propose that we instead refer to the political spectrum as liberals and PROservatives, to boost the shattered self-esteem of us compassionate proservatives everywhere. Proservatives, unite! We have nothing to lose but our multinational corporations! Brick by brick, stone by stone, we shall destroy the hegemonic discourse of political correctness! Remember, do YOUR part to protect free speech -- vote down anyone that uses that vile ephitet! Patrick McKenzie Babies also taste best stewed, by the way. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010717/2d677b20/attachment.html From pjm1 Tue Jul 17 22:23:50 2001 From: pjm1 (Patrick McKenzie) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 22:23:50 -0500 Subject: P. McKenzie's comments on language Message-ID: <002f01c10f39$a3cf2a20$9b68fc80@wuh.wustl.edu> To Ms. Baretto and Mr. Stannard: >> Stannard is 100% right. Even if I concede that critic's have liberal leanings, if you go to the list serve's archives over the past couple of years there have been massive debates about how the critic should resolve argumentation. In my estimation, most critics don't want to drop teams for language choices, they would just rather those choices be corrected. You're losing to the argument probably has more to do with what appears to be your being intimidated by the line of argumentation and your paranoia regarding the liberal agenda. >> Perhaps I was not clear in my anecdote. The round we lost to the "inclusive language" kritik is distinct from the round we lost regarding welfare (we'll talk about that one another time). Here are *all* the arguments which were mentioned by both sides during the debate: topicality, value choices (I think it was innovation versus economic growth), criteria (cost benefit analysis vs. "reasonably convinced"), and the stock issues. Here are all the arguments mentioned by the judge in the RFB : exclusive language Here is the intersection of the arguments actually made in the round and the arguments on the ballot : [this space intentionally left blank] Now, while I may be a jittery, high strung individual, even *I* don't get "intimidated by the line of argument" when it occurs via telepathy. HAD THE ARGUMENT BEEN MADE, I would have denied the link, harms, and impact. Given that the argument WAS NOT MADE, I had a few difficulties of a practical matter in doing so. The chief ones being that I am incapable of mindreading and time travel. >>You really shouldn't raise people's hopes like that only to dash them away with your argumentation. >> You wound me deeply. To Mr. Massey: >>your use of japanese doesn't help to prove your point at all. "proper" japanese uses gendered phrases all of the time. having 12 years of japanese training and hundreds of opportunities when my incorrect use of a phrase or an inflection that is generally not reserved for men, i can assure you that japanese men and women basically speak different languages. >> Would you believe me if I said we are both correct? I don't have my textbook on me (loaned it to a friend), but I remember a line in it which reads to the effect of "It is a common misconception that the Japanese language includes many specificly gendered forms. Rather, it is Japanese cultural practice which is associated with gender identity, rather than vocabulary choice or grammatical usages". I never said that Japanese *culture* was gender neutral (in fact, I implied quite the opposite -- it isn't, nor is any other). However, the Japanese language DOES have alternatives to the he/she conundrum -- or rather, the he/she conundrum is an alternative to the most commonly used Japanese expressions. Now, given that the kritik of "exclusive language" has such wonderful solvency advocates, could you please point out the empirical effects of not using it? Patrick McKenzie -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010717/db3d91db/attachment.htm From KrausAK Tue Jul 17 23:54:56 2001 From: KrausAK (Alyse Kraus) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 23:54:56 -0500 Subject: P. McKenzie's comments on language References: <98.17bf7778.28861ca3@cs.com> Message-ID: To add my two cents to this, I'd just like to say that I, for the most part, agree with Mr. Cushman. There has not been much push outside of certain sects of academia and the debate community to change the linguistic appropriateness of gendered pronouns. For example, take the sentence: Each student should open their book. Were I to write that sentence, my 11th grade english teacher would most likely start to look like something out of The Exorcist and threaten my life. She pointed out to me several times that it should be "each student should open his book" and that "his or her" is grammatically/stylistically incorrect. I had several papers covered in red ink over such things. So Mr. Cushman is correct in saying that this change cannot be expected to occur overnight when the majority of society sees nothing wrong with use of gendered pronouns. In fact, the majority of society also doesn't make gendered pronouns into tools of oppression. People don't refer to "mankind" because they are trying to be sexist jerks, it's simply the way we are accustomed to speaking. So while I'm not saying this is right, I'm just saying some leeway should be given due to that fact that all people are fallible and apt to make a mistake or two every so often. I have been referred to as "he" in many rounds, and I've been apologized to. While I've never had an experience like Veronica's, I've seen the reverse side be just as ugly. This year at a tournament I watched a friend of mine and his partner debate a male/female team in outrounds. My friend's partner (using his normal mode of speech) said to the girl in cross-ex, "dude, that's not my argument." The girl then said "did you just call me dude?" He said yes and apologized profusely but she would have none of it and read 3 minutes of a "he/man rhetoric" kritik. Two of the judges bought it and the other judge agreed with my sentiment that she was being ridiculous and jumping on his case for a slip-up. So he says "dude" a lot, I do too. Those types of critical arguments are good, but I have seen them abused as well. I guess what I'm trying to say is that some patience will have to be exhibited as we wait for society and mainstream language to catch up. To cram change down people's throats is rarely effective. Just my thoughts... Alyse Kraus Liberty University "Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind" - Ralph Waldo Emerson "Mental reflection is so much more interesting than TV it's a shame more people don't switch over to it. They probably think what they hear is unimportant but it never is." - Robert M Pirsig ----- Original Message ----- From: Kcmoattorney at cs.com To: West at suu.edu ; edebate at ndtceda.com Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2001 5:56 PM Subject: Re: P. McKenzie's comments on language Mr. West, I think you would agree that the language has been evolving for over one thousand years. As your well-researched reply points out, the use of masculine pronouns evolved over time from the previous use of plural generic forms (used pre-1800 according to your sources). I also have no doubt that these newer forms became established over the last 200 years due in part to actions of male grammarians with a world view most would now find repugnant, but I would also suggest that the use of plural generics pre-1800 was not intended to be inclusive either (i.e. all men are created equal... they didn't really mean *all* men, but they definitely meant "men."). I don't believe that too many people around today (perhaps maybe language historians, or persons like yourself who have done the research on the matter), remember that this was the reason for the shift from plural to singluar masculine for generic pronouns. (I certainly didn't) >>You again make the mistake of assuming that the world began with your own experience and knowledge<< I assume you are referring to my question as to whether it is fair to expect people to change prevailing English usage that has been evolving for centuries when the push to do so has been going on for only the last 20 years... I think your sources support the loose factual proposition at the end of my statement. Of the studies you cite, many pre-1980 works showed the link for the "deterministic effect" of male generics, but you only cited two 1985 studies for the proposition that to counter oppression, the language has to change. I continue to maintain that nobody was calling for revision of the language much before 1980, and I would suggest that it hasn't received attention in non-academic fora until much later than that. Yes, these are my personal impressions and while I've read a few of your sources, you are obviously better read on the subject, and if you can show that there was a pre-1980 push to change the language, I'll accept that. That's why, even if the time period is 200 years, getting people convinced to change their usage (especially when the effort is so-far confined largely to academia) is a difficult proposition. Note I wasn't saying it's a bad proposition, just a difficult one. It's also a proposition that IMO has to be advanced carefully to avoid deleterious side effects from coersion which could undermine the underlying principles being advanced. >>Wish I could find the source citation; will keep trying, but I loved one author's point, paraphrased thus: Those who believe "man" or "mankind" or generic prounouns include everyone should try this sentence: "From the beginning of time, man has breastfed his children."<< That's great... it's that kind of example that will make usage change easier for people at large to understand and digest. What is your solution to this problem (or maybe, what is the solution proposed by the authors you cite?) Are people supposed to adopt the short "s/he" or a more formalistic "he or she, him or her" or go back to the plural generic "they" How far do we reach into the language to revise? Some words, like "mankind" etc. are easy to spot and agree on, others like "perSON, huMAN"are much less so. What do we do with other languages displaying much more grammatical connection and involvement with gender? Chris Cushman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010717/848e66ac/attachment.html From epcole Wed Jul 18 01:14:45 2001 From: epcole (Eric Cole) Date: 18 Jul 2001 06:14:45 -0000 Subject: The Debate Novel Message-ID: <20010718061445.19196.qmail@purina.chek.com> To all who care, Several friends of mine along with myself were reading the online excerpts from "The Debate Novel" and I was just curious if anyone knew if and/or how I could get a full length copy of it? I'm not even sure that its available but if anyone knows for sure I would be extremely appreciative. Thanks in advance headgop Check out the new RNC site and BECOME AN ONLINE ACTIVIST! http://www.rnc.org/directory/contact.html Signup for your FREE Vote4GOP.org at http://www.vote4gop.org From dbteam Wed Jul 18 07:34:06 2001 From: dbteam (UWG Debate Team) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 08:34:06 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Gender Neutral Pronoun In-Reply-To: Message-ID: actually, there are already alternatives that have been introduced to the debate community. on the Title VII topic, westga ran an aff that discussed the use of em, eir, ey as alternatives. the cite escapes me right now, but i believe one of the articles was from the chicago tribune. btw, i just use the plural they/their all the time. it simultaneously avoids sexism while pissing off the grammar police and reinforcing the stereotype of the southerner who don't talk good:) hester On Tue, 17 Jul 2001, Michael Sawyer wrote: > Why doesn't the debate community take real initiative and create a gender > neutral singular pronoun. Instead of using the terms he or she, why not use > the term ze (pronounced zee). Instead of his or her we can use zis. > Finally instead of him or her, we can use zer. This is really the only way > to avoid offending everyone, as using the "he or she" singular option in > one's rhetoric ultimately just otherizes the transgendered. Instead of man > we can also use the term zan. I think this option should satisfy any > debater and zis personal philosophy. Just think, we could change the > english language for all of huzanity. > > Mike Sawyer > > From veronica_m_barreto Wed Jul 18 07:58:09 2001 From: veronica_m_barreto (Veronica Barreto) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 08:58:09 -0400 Subject: P. McKenzie's comments on language Message-ID: McKenzie: >Here are *all* the arguments which were mentioned by both sides during >the >debate: >topicality, value choices (I think it was innovation versus economic > >growth), criteria (cost benefit analysis vs. "reasonably convinced"), > >and the stock issues. > >Here are all the arguments mentioned by the judge in the RFB : >exclusive >language > >Here is the intersection of the arguments actually made in the round >and >the arguments on the ballot : [this space intentionally left blank] A couple things: 1. Perhaps it was in the debate and you missed it. This could potentially be the problem. 2. Even if you are right, weren't you the one who discussed how staticians cringed when anecdotal evidence was construed by people to create sweeping claims? 3. Most likely...Judging solely from the issues you discuss and your language above, I'm going to guess this was a novice debate, or at least not one in open. I haven't heard CBA in a looooong time. It could be that your critic's head was up his/her ass. This happens in novice and is something I've spoken out about a bunch of other times on the list. There is this misimpression at tournaments that the clueless judges should all be placed in novice so as not to skew varsity results. My problem with that is 1) critics with no experience begin to explain debate(rather incorrectly) to impressionable minds who, for the most part, can't tell the difference between right and wrong foundational theory AND 2) at least debaters in open have had experience adapting to whacked people, novices are just trying to keep the speech order straight sometimes and can't adapt as well. So you may very well be right about what happened in your debate, but that is the novice division's dirty lil' secret. Not all, but some tournaments, will purposely place the much less experienced judges in the novice pool. That will not be the last time you get a decision that makes absolutely no sense. That's one of the reasons why it's advantageous for novices to move up in division as soon as they have the confidence to, even if they get face crushed every debate, as long as their egos can take it. The judging in open isn't always stellar, but it's better. Just don't make blanket assertions about the judging pool, especially if you haven't been exposed to a large sample across regions and over several years. Believe me, the jury is still out on how to deal with exclusionary language, but NO reputable critic would EVER drop a team without the argument being made. Veronica _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From tgonos Wed Jul 18 08:21:42 2001 From: tgonos (Tracy Gonos) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 09:21:42 -0400 Subject: P. McKenzie's comments on language Message-ID: Your position makes some sense to me in light of the examples I used, but I still disagree. Many fiat arguments (e.g. debates over the validity of fiating multiple actors), or as another example, debate about what constitutes "normal means", are not tied to the resolution. Even if such arguments are tied to the resolution, however, I see them as simply arguments designed to determine the parameters within which debates should occur. Or, stated another way, they are all arguments over the rules of engagement - from this viewpoint discourse kritiks are simply arguments about how the debate competitors should address one another within the framework of debate rounds to allow for the most fruitful debates. Ultimately all debate theory is grounded in notions of what will allow for competitors to have the most fruitful debates (that is what all the talk about ground is about afterall), therefore I don't see discourse kritiks as being any more or less legitimate than these arguments simply because they aren't "substantive" arguments. Terry West addresses your point about the use of generic he vs. she. I generally don't use any pronoun in the generic, but I know people who have chosen to adopt "she" as their generic pronoun. When I have asked about this choice, I have been told that it simply serves to remind THEM that women are also authors, professors, debaters, etc. To me, it sounds totally natural. Your statement that you find it unnerving to hear "she" used as a generic pronoun simply proves my point. I bet you find it about as unnerving to hear "she" in the generic, as I do to hear "he" in the generic. And, certainly, if there is some kind of larger political agenda behind using "she" how can their not be an agenda (intentional or otherwise) behind using "he" in the same manner. And, with all due respect, I don't think I really need to address the argument that it's ok to use "he" becuase that's "tradition" or "history". As a personal example, however, I learned about the concept of non-inclusive language when I was 20 years old. I did not find it very difficult to modify my speech patterns. With respect to your point about other languages, I'm at a loss on that one. I'm currently working on my spanish language skills and the same issue arises in that language. I would love to hear what a native speaker of a foreign language that is heavily "genderized" has to say on the subject. On an unrelated note, I have enjoyed this discussion with you. It has been a treat to engage in a civil and reasoned discussion even though we clearly disagree. Such is not always the case on edebate. I would suggest that even though you may find that the majority of the community does not share your (apparently) conservative idealogy, that they will be receptive to your ideas because you have proven yourself to be a reasonable, thoughtful and civil participant of the listserv. Tracy ----- Original Message ----- From: Kcmoattorney at cs.com To: tgonos at hotmail.com ; edebate at ndtceda.com Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2001 3:50 PM Subject: Re: P. McKenzie's comments on language In a message dated 7/17/01 1:45:07 PM Central Daylight Time, tgonos at hotmail.com writes: do you object to debates being decided only by topicality arguments, fiat abuse arguments, or other purely theoretical arguments? That's admittedly a good point. In my mind, however, things like T, fiat abuse and theory are all reasons why one would want to vote against the Aff as presented in the 1AC vis a vis the resolution. The mistaken pronoun sysdrome is not. One of the previous posters on this topic had a good observation that perhaps the best way to raise these issues in a round is via source critiques, provided you have the evidence to back it up. That, along with some counter evidence could be part of a good reason to vote against the Aff as presented, and not just vote against the individuals. Re: use of "she" as a generic pronoun I know a couple of people who do precisely that. It is a bit unnerving, and I'm not sure why. I think perhaps it's because it sounds contrived and artifically designed to make a point beyond what is being said. I don't think the converse is true. When people mistakenly use "he" or intentionally use words like "mankind," in the vast majority of scenarios, there is no ulterior point being made. Remember that these are deeply entrenched patterns of speech that have evolved over more than a thousand years. Is it fair to expect people to change these patterns because of what has occurred over the most recent, say 20 years? Off on a tangent, we are lucky to have a somewhat gender-uncomplicated language. What are speakers of say, German (because I'm familiar with it) supposed to do with a language in which the "gender" of nouns permeates all forms of speech, articles (a, an, the) declension of adjectives, etc? I mean, occupation titles are even different for men and women (Arbeiter - male worker; Arbeiterin, female worker, etc.) If I was one to be concerned about the social implications of semantics (which I'm not), I'd be really concerned about how the 80% or so (wild guess) of the world that doesn't speak English is going to comply with this mandate to change the language to make it more gender-neutral. Chris Cushman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010718/93b8b61d/attachment.htm From STVherro Wed Jul 18 08:50:40 2001 From: STVherro (STVherro at aol.com) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 09:50:40 EDT Subject: P. McKenzie's comments on language Message-ID: your english teacher was wrong Steve Herro From tgonos Wed Jul 18 08:45:33 2001 From: tgonos (Tracy Gonos) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 09:45:33 -0400 Subject: "unintentional" harm and "he" References: <65.17477874.28861880@aol.com> Message-ID: I have heard several people suggest that it is ok to use the generic "he" because people who use it "mean no harm". In all seriousness, is it ok to do things that other people experience as harmful simply because one didn't intend to cause harm? Further, if I come to you and tell you, as Veronica's post did (and the posts of other women on the listserv through the years have done), that I experience such language as harmful, how can it then be unintentional if you continue to do it? Is it that you dismiss the claims of women who say they find it hurtful as invalid or hysterical or unworthy somehow? Even if you disagree with these women, once you know they experience such language as hurtful, why wouldn't basic politeness dictate that you try not to offend? My parents raised my to be attentive to others' feelings even when I disagree with those feelings. I was taught that if someone tells you that it hurts their feelings when you say or do a certain thing, that you should generally try to avoid doing or saying that thing unless it is simply impossible. Tracy ----- Original Message ----- From: PWRFORWARD at aol.com To: West at suu.edu ; Kcmoattorney at cs.com ; tgonos at hotmail.com ; edebate at ndtceda.com Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2001 6:38 PM Subject: Re: PMcK: Perhaps you're too worried about "he". 1.)Before you read my response against the notion that "man" and "he" are negative, please note that I do not think it is okay to call a woman a "he" or a man a "she". My post is in reference to when you need a pronoun for an indefinite subject or all-ecompassing one such as the human race. So, while it's not okay to call a female professor a "He", it is okay to say "Mankind has progressed over the past decade". 2.)Victoria, that is an upsetting story and whoever the 1AR was, he sure was an ass. 3.) I do believe there are serious issues, like how women are portrayed in commercials, degraded in some songs, etc... but I don't believe the use of "man" is one we have to worry about. 4.) I hope I never win because someone calls me a "fucking idiot" in the round. I only want to win because my arguments on the case, disads and cp's are better. Likewise, I hope I never lose because I use the word "he", but it's a cynical world and I'm sure I will. ON TO MY POST: Terry, Just wondering, would you argue and research so fervently if we were in a matriarchal society? If everyone used "she" instead of "he", would you still argue that we need to switch to gender-neutral langauge? And while Cushman may have been somewhat hasty in claiming that the masculine pronoun usage has been around for thousands of years, it is true that all of us were raised on it, and it is also true that many of us not only mean no harm by it, but also realize the importance and equality of women. I use "he" all of the time, and I consider myself a feminist; I'm going to keep using it in debate rounds too, so if you hit me you better get your language kritik ready. Oftentimes I think one of our biggest problems with becomming accepting of other sexes and races is that we're too damn worried about being politically correct. (And I'm not saying any of you arent accepting, but some people aren't). I guess finally, would you mind telling me how masculine pronouns "distort our perception, particularly limiting our view of the appropriate role of women in society"? I'm sorry, but almost all of us use them, and I'd also wager that most of us realize women's equality. Also, if you're going to argue language ussage, look at your sentence: "the appropriate role of women in society"?? The whole idea of equality is that there is no prediscribed, or "appropriate", role for anyone. If you ask me that's a lot more descriminitory than saying "he" instead of "he or she". And you know what the funniest thing is? When you say, "From the beginning of time, man has breastfed his children," that sounds perfectly fine to me. Maybe I'm the only one, but man and mankind really does mean women and men to me. I assume in that sentence that "man" means "humans". Wait, maybe we should start using "huwomans"... I bet someone made it "humans" to perpetually enslave women. Do you ever stop to wonder "if the word 'he' really effects women so badly, why have they been able to make such leaps and bounds towards equality over the last 100 years even though it's still commonly used even by women?"? And I noticed all of your listed works support your opinion, which is fine, but I hope you've read authors supporting the opposite of your viewpoint before you've made your convictions. Matthew -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20010718/2391d35f/attachment.html From STVherro Wed Jul 18 09:12:09 2001 From: STVherro (STVherro at aol.com) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 10:12:09 EDT Subject: "unintentional" harm and "he" Message-ID: I agree with what Tracy has been writing, and I have an additional question for those "unsymapthetic" to the arguments against "sexist language" use: What do you gain from writing using "sexist language" that outweighs even the RISK that such language might be harmful? Steve Herro In a message dated Wed, 18 Jul 2001 10:02:50 AM Eastern Daylight Time, "Tracy Gonos" writes: I have heard several people suggest that it is ok to use the generic "he" because people who use it "mean no harm". In all seriousness, is it ok to do things that other people experience as harmful simply because one didn't intend to cause harm ? Further, if I come to you and tell you, as Veronica's post did (and the posts of other women on the listserv through the years have done), that I experience such language as harmful, how can it then be unintentional if you continue to do it? I s it that you dismiss the claims of women who say they find it hurtful as invalid or hysterical or unworthy somehow? Even if you disagree with these women, once you know they experience such language as hurtful, why wouldn't basic politeness dictate that you try not to offend? My parents raised my to be attentive to others' feelings even when I disagree with those feelings. I was taught that if someone tells you that it hurts their feelings when you say or do a cer! tain thing, that you should ge nerally try to avoid doing or saying that thing unless it is simply impossible. Tracy ----- Original Message ----- From: PWRFORWARD at aol.com To: West at suu.edu ; Kcmoattorney at cs.com ; tgonos at hotmail.com ; edebate at ndtceda.com Sent: Tue sday, July 17, 2001 6:38 PM Subject: Re: PMcK: Perhaps you're too worried about "he". > 1.)Before you read my response against the notion that "man" and "he" are > negative, please note that I do not think it is okay to call a woman a "he" > or a man a "she". My post is in reference to when you need a pronoun for an > indefinite subject or all-ecompassing one such as the human race. So, while > it's not okay to call a female professor a "He", it is okay to say "Mankind > has progressed over the past decade". > > 2.)Victoria, that is an upsetting story and whoever the 1AR was, he sure was > an ass. > > 3.) I do believe there are serious issues, like how women are portrayed in > commercials, degraded in some songs, etc... but I don't believe the use of > "man" is one we have to worry about. > > 4.) I hope I never win because someone calls me a "fucking idiot" in the > round. I only want to win because my arguments on the case, disads and cp's > are better. Likewise, I hope I never lose because I use the word "he", but > it's a cynical world and I'm sure I will. > > ON TO MY POST: > > Terry, > > Just wondering, would you argue and research so fervently if we were in a > matriarchal society? If everyone used "she" instead of "he", would you still > argue that we need to switch to gender-neutral langauge? > > And while Cushman may have been somewhat hasty in claiming that the masculine > pronoun usage has been around for thousands of years, it is true that all of > us were raised on it, and it is also true that many of us not only mean no > harm by it, but also realize the importance and equality of women. I use "he" > all of the time, and I consider myself a feminist; I'm going to keep using it > in debate rounds too, so if you hit me you better get your language kritik > ready. > > Oftentimes I think one of our biggest problems with becomming accepting of > other sexes and races is that we're too damn worried about being politically > correct. (And I'm not saying any of you arent accepting, but some people > aren't). > > I guess finally, would you mind telling me how masculine pronouns "distort > our perception, particularly limiting our view of the appropriate role of > women in society"? I'm sorry, but almost all of us use them, and I'd also > wager that most of us realize women's equality. Also, if you're going to > argue language ussage, look at your sentence: "the appropriate role of women > in society"?? The whole idea of equality is that there is no prediscribed, or > "appropriate", role for anyone. If you ask me that's a lot more > descriminitory than saying "he" instead of "he or she". > > And you know what the funniest thing is? When you say, "From the beginning of > time, man has breastfed his children," that sounds perfectly fine to me. > Maybe I'm the only one, but man and mankind really does mean women and men to > me. I assume in that sentence that "man" means "humans". Wait, maybe we > should start using "huwomans"... I bet someone made it "humans" to > perpetually enslave women. > > Do you ever stop to wonder "if the word 'he' really effects women so badly, > why have they been able to make such leaps and bounds towards equality over > the last 100 years even though it's still commonly used even by women?"? > > And I noticed all of your listed works support your opinion, which is fine, > but I hope you've read authors supporting the opposite of your viewpoint > before you've made your convictions. > > Matthew From veronica_m_barreto Wed Jul 18 09:14:52 2001 From: veronica_m_barreto (Veronica Barreto) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 10:14:52 -0400 Subject: Foreign language and gender Message-ID: >With respect to your point about other languages, I'm at a loss on that > >one. I'm currently working on my spanish language skills and the same > >issue arises in that language. I would love to hear what a native > >speaker of a foreign language that is heavily "genderized" has to say >on >the subject. I spoke Spanish fluently before I even learned English so I'll jump into this discussion. It's actually an interesting question. Alyse Krause's mention of the rigidity of English grammar in the educational system and Tracy's discussion of when she first addressed exclusionary language, prompted me to pipe in. For me it was outside of debate and actually in a Spanish class. My profesor's emails began with "Querid at s tod at s:" For quite some time I assumed he had a freaky email program that randomly placed @'s everywhere, until it was explained that it is the Spanish equivalent for "Queridos/as todos/as:" Classmates from 300 through graduate level classes were consistently corrected for not using paranthetic inclusionary language e.g. El(la) to make el/ella or lector(a) or lector/a, since the word reader "lector" is gendered as well. At U Miami I was under the impression that anyone under the age of 45 or so in Spanish academia makes a very conscious effort to use inclusionary language in their writing and speech. Spanish speakers can't use the "they/their" escape route because those pronouns are also gendered ellos/ellas so they must always take the male/female option, but the potential for t